Innovative Internal Camera Inspection nnovative Internal Camera Inspection 

and Data Management for Effective Condition nd Data Management for Effective Condition 

Assessment of Collection Systems ssessment of Collection Systems

EPA/600/R-10/082 | April 2010 | www.epa.gov /nrmrl

Office of Research and Development

National Risk Management Research Laboratory - Water Supply and Water Resources Division
 

Innovative Internal Camera Inspection and Data Management for 

Effective Condition Assessment of Collection Systems 

by 

Kathy Martel, P.E., and Mary Ellen Tuccillo, Ph.D. 

The Cadmus Group, Inc. 

Reggie Rowe 

Independent Consultant 

Christopher S. Feeney, Samantha Hogan and Gary DeBlois 

The Louis Berger Group 

Scott Thayer, Brian Bannon and Mark Ross 

RedZone Robotics 

Kevin Enfinger, P.E. 

ADS Environmental Services, LLC 

In Support of: 

 

Contract No. EP-C-05-058 

Task Order No. 59 

Task Order Manager 

Dr. Fu-hsiung (Dennis) Lai, P.E. 

Water Supply and Water Resources Division 

Urban Watershed Management Branch 

2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Edison, NJ 08837 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cincinnati, OH 45268
ii

Disclaimer 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development, funded, 

managed and collaborated in the research described herein. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer 

and administrative review and has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in this report 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency; therefore, no official 

endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use. 
iii

Foreword

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s 

land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to 

formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability 

of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is 

providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science 

knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect 

our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for investigation 

of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that 

threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s research program is on 

methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and 

subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated 

sites, sediments, and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of 

ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that 

reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides 

solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve 

the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy 

decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of 

environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. It is 

published and made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the user 

community and to link researchers with their clients. 

 

 Sally Gutierrez, Director 

 National Risk Management Research Laboratory 
iv

Contents 

Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................ ii

Contents ............................................................................................................................................iv

Figures ............................................................................................................................................vi

Tables .......................................................................................................................................... vii

Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................... viii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................ix

Chapter 1. Introduction to Condition Assessment ........................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Steps to Developing a Condition Assessment Program........................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Step 1 - Identify Program Objectives................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.2 Step 2 - Evaluate Costs and Benefits of Condition Assessment.......................................... 1-4

1.2.3 Step 3 - Develop Asset Inventory Database ........................................................................ 1-5

Chapter 2. Overview of CCTV and Related Inspection Technologies ........................................ 2-8

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2-8

2.2 Conventional CCTV Inspection ............................................................................................... 2-9

2.3 Zoom Camera Inspection ....................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.1 Zoom Camera Models........................................................................................................ 2-11

2.3.2 Examples of Utility Experience ......................................................................................... 2-12

2.4 Digital Scanning..................................................................................................................... 2-14

2.4.1 Envirosight - DigiSewer .................................................................................................... 2-16

2.4.2 RapidView– IBAK, USA – PANORAMO........................................................................ 2-16

2.4.3 CleanFlow/Fly Eye System................................................................................................ 2-17

2.4.4 Example of Utility Experience........................................................................................... 2-17

2.5 Camera Deployment............................................................................................................... 2-18

2.5.1 Push Cams.......................................................................................................................... 2-19

2.5.2 Tractors/Crawlers............................................................................................................... 2-19

2.5.3 Segmented Robots ............................................................................................................. 2-21

2.5.4 Emerging Technologies..................................................................................................... 2-21

2.6 Camera Selection Issues......................................................................................................... 2-22

Chapter 3. Overview of CCTV Inspection Data Analysis........................................................... 3-24

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3-24

3.2 Methods for Inspection Prioritization .................................................................................... 3-24

3.2.1 Selection of Assets for Inspection...................................................................................... 3-24

3.2.2 Prioritization of Assets....................................................................................................... 3-25
v

3.2.3 Asset Inspection ................................................................................................................. 3-26

3.3 Defect Coding ........................................................................................................................ 3-27

3.3.1 Code Design and Format ................................................................................................... 3-27

3.3.2 Code Systems..................................................................................................................... 3-28

3.4 Data Handling and Analysis................................................................................................... 3-30

3.4.1 Spreadsheet Software......................................................................................................... 3-31

3.4.2 Condition Assessment/Asset Management Software ........................................................ 3-31

3.4.3 General Database Management Software.......................................................................... 3-32

3.4.4 Pipe Rating and Scoring Methods...................................................................................... 3-34

3.5 Role of CCTV Data in Asset Management Decision Making ............................................... 3-35

3.5.1 CCTV Data Used in Condition-Based Prioritization Decisions........................................ 3-36

3.5.2 CCTV Used in Risk-Based Prioritization Decisions......................................................... 3-37

References ...................................................................................................................................... R-40

Appendix A. Utility Case Studies..................................................................................................... A-43

Case Study on Implementation of New Data Management System – City of Fort Worth Water 

Dept., Fort Worth, Texas.................................................................................................................... A-44

Case Study on Using a Risk Assessment Approach for a Sewer Pipe Inspection Program – 

Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Wash................................................................................................ A-50

Data Management Case Study – Huntsville, Ala............................................................................... A-55

Case Study on Comparison of In-House vs. Commercial Data Management System – 

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County – Metro Water Services .................. A-58

Case Study on Use of Digital Scanning and Zoom Camera Technology – City of Hamilton, 

Ontario, Canada.................................................................................................................................. A-66

Case Study on Application of Truck-Mounted Zoom Cameras – Hillsborough County Water 

Resource Services, Florida ................................................................................................................. A-71

Data Management Case Study – Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 ................................ A-78

Appendix B. Defect Code Systems....................................................................................................B-87

PACP Defect Codes............................................................................................................................B-88

SCREAMTM Defect Codes..................................................................................................................B-93

Appendix C. Technology Vendors.................................................................................................. C-97

Appendix D. Example Inspection Report – Fort Worth, Texas ................................................. D-102
vi

Figures 

Figure 1-1. Condition assessment steps.................................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 1-2. Example of a GIS system....................................................................................................... 1-6

Figure 2-1. Illumi-Zoom camera. ............................................................................................................. 2-8

Figure 2-2. Example of infiltration........................................................................................................... 2-9

Figure 2-3. CCTV image of roots in lateral.............................................................................................. 2-9

Figure 2-4. Pole-mounted zoom camera................................................................................................. 2-10

Figure 2-5. CUES-IMX truck-mounted zoom camera ........................................................................... 2-11

Figure 2-6. PortaZoom camera ............................................................................................................... 2-12

Figure 2-7. Aqua Zoom camera.............................................................................................................. 2-12

Figure 2-8. Comparison of CCTV and zoom camera inspections.......................................................... 2-14

Figure 2-9. DigiSewer digital scanning camera deployed in pipe.......................................................... 2-15

Figure 2-10. Virtual pan & tilt and unfolded pipeline view from RapidView IBAK PANORAMO 

system ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-15

Figure 2-11. DigiSewer digital scanning camera ................................................................................... 2-16

Figure 2-12. RapidView IBAK PANORAMO system........................................................................... 2-17

Figure 2-13. Mobile robot inspection system......................................................................................... 2-18

Figure 2-14. CUES camera float ............................................................................................................ 2-18

Figure 2-15. Crystal Cam – push camera.. ............................................................................................. 2-19

Figure 2-16 (a) and (b). Examples of pipe inspection crawlers.............................................................. 2-20

Figure 2-17. PipeEye pipe inspection robot ........................................................................................... 2-22

Figure 3-1. Example CUES Granite XP pipe inspection map with camera image ................................ 3-32

Figure 3-2. The Northern Kentucky Sanitary District No. 1’s example integration of general 

database and condition assessment software.. ......................................................................................... 3-33

Figure 3-3. Typical steps from defect identification through prioritization of pipe rehabilitation 

projects..................................................................................................................................................... 3-34

Figure 3-4. Two optional condition-based decision approaches. ........................................................... 3-36

Figure 3-5. Example risk-based prioritization decision framework for multiple internal condition 

rating input sources.................................................................................................................................. 3-38

Figure 3-6. Example long-term risk-based prioritization decision framework. ..................................... 3-39

Figure A-1. Predictive failure curve for vitrified clay pipe ................................................................... A-52

Figure A-2. Comparison of failure curves for vitrified clay and concrete pipe .................................... A-54

Figure A-3. Sample inspection report for in-house data management system. ..................................... A-62

Figure A-4. Sample inspection report created using GraniteXP software............................................. A-63

Figure A-5. Comparison of CCTV and zoom camera inspections........................................................ A-69

Figure A-6. Pipe defect location............................................................................................................ A-70

Figure A-7. Truck-mounted zoom camera. ........................................................................................... A-73

Figure A-8. CUES-IMX optical zoom camera. ..................................................................................... A-73

Figure A-9. Examples of pipe defects identified with zoom camera technology.................................. A-74

Figure A-10. Sanitation District No. 1’s service area............................................................................ A-79

Figure A-11. Example District projection of the CCTV and zoom camera needs through 2017.......... A-81

Figure A-12. District 3’s CSAP Data Flow Chart. ................................................................................ A-83

Figure A-13. Example SCREAMTM scoring displayed in gbaMS. ....................................................... A-85

Figure B-1. Example of PACP coding methodology for 8 in. VCP, Huntsville, Ala. ...........................B-91

Figure B-2. Example of SCREAMTM coding methodology for 8 in. VCP, Huntsville, Ala. .................B-95
vii

Tables 

Table 2-1. Inspection technology overview.............................................................................................. 2-8

Table 2-2. Zoom camera inspection summary ....................................................................................... 2-11

Table 2-3. Digital scanning inspection summary ................................................................................... 2-16

Table 2-4. Push cam product comparison............................................................................................... 2-19

Table 2-5. Lateral launcher product comparison.................................................................................... 2-20

Table 2-6. Small-diameter tractor product comparison.......................................................................... 2-20

Table 2-7. Long-range tractor product comparison................................................................................ 2-21

Table 3-1. Survey results of inspection frequency for conveyance systems.......................................... 3-24

Table 3-2. Partial listing of defect codes for City of Fort Worth Water Department............................. 3-27

Table 3-3. Example PACP structural defect codes and descriptions...................................................... 3-28

Table 3-4. Advantages and disadvantages of the NASSCO PACP defect code system ........................ 3-29

Table 3-5. Advantages and disadvantages of the SCREAMTM defect code system............................... 3-30

Table A-1. Summary of Fort Worth defect codes ................................................................................. A-47

Table A-2. Summary of pipe inspections conducted 2004-2008 .......................................................... A-49

Table A-3. Factors that increase consequences and costs of pipe failure.............................................. A-51

Table A-4. Asset life information for SPU sewer pipe.......................................................................... A-52

Table A-5. Sewer system inventory....................................................................................................... A-58

Table A-6. PACP defect grades............................................................................................................. A-64

Table A-7. Comparison of traditional CCTV with zoom camera technology....................................... A-68
viii

Acronyms 

AMWA Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 

CAMS Comprehensive Asset Management System 

CCTV Closed-circuit television 

CIP Capital Improvement Program 

CIS Customer Information System 

CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System 

CMOM Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance 

CSAP Continuous Sewer Assessment Program 

CUPSS Checkup Program for Small Systems 

DMS Data Management System 

DVD Digital Video Disk 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIS Financial Information System 

FWWD Fort Worth Water Department 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HDPE High-density polyethylene 

HID High-intensity discharge 

I/I Infiltration and inflow 

LCD liquid crystal display 

LED Light-emitting diode 

LSCCR Large Sewer Condition Coding and Rating 

MACP Manhole Assessment Certification Program 

MGNDC Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County 

MWS Metro Water Services 

NAAPI North American Association of Pipe Inspectors 

NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies 

NRC-IRC National Research Council of Canada Institute for Research in Construction 

O&M Operations and maintenance 

PACP Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program 

PTZ Pan-tilt-zoom 

PVC Polyvinyl chloride 

QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control 

SCRAPS Sewer Cataloging, Retrieval and Prioritization System 

SCREAMTM System Condition & Risk Enhanced Assessment Model 

SPU Seattle Public Utilities 

SQL Structured Query Language 

SSET Sewer Scanning Evaluation Technology 
ix

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflows 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

VCP Vitrified clay pipe 

WEF Water Environment Federation 

WERF Water Environment Research Foundation 

WRc Water Research Centre 

WRS Water Resources Services 

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
viii

Acknowledgments 

The following individuals contributed their time and technical expertise to the development of utility case 

studies that document specific innovative applications of CCTV technology and data management 

practices: 

Darrell Gadberry, City of Fort Worth, Texas 

Terry Martin, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Wash. 

Mark Huber, City of Huntsville, Ala. 

Kevin McCullough, Nashville and Davidson County, Nashville, Tenn. 

Kevin Bainbridge, City of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 

Richard Kirby, Hillsborough County Water Resource Services, Tampa, Fla. 

Brandon Vatter, Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1, Fort Wright, Ky. 
ix

Executive Summary 

The primary objective of this guidance document is to identify and evaluate innovative closed-circuit 

television (CCTV) and related technologies currently used by more advanced wastewater utilities to 

conduct condition assessment programs. The document is intended to facilitate the transfer of these 

innovative technologies to utilities at large. The steps in developing and implementing a condition 

assessment program are presented along with related practical guidelines. Technology applications and 

lessons learned from seven utility case studies are summarized and used to illustrate specific concepts. 

Detailed case study reports are presented in Appendix A. 

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to condition assessment, which is a major component of an asset 

management program. Condition assessment provides the critical information needed to assess the 

physical condition, remaining useful service life, and long-term performance of each asset. The 

recommended approach for developing and implementing a condition assessment program is presented. 

It consists of six steps: 

• Step 1. Identify program objectives. 

• Step 2. Evaluate costs and benefits of condition assessment. 

• Step 3. Develop asset inventory database. 

• Step 4. Inspect assets. 

• Step 5. Analyze data. 

• Step 6. Make decisions based on condition assessment data. 

Steps 1 through 3 are discussed in Chapter 1, using examples from the utility case studies to illustrate key 

points. Step 4 is discussed in Chapter 2, and Steps 5 and 6 in Chapter 3. 

For Step 1, it is important to outline the utility-specific objectives as the initial step in program 

development. Example objectives from the utility case studies include determining pipe condition, 

planning maintenance strategies, addressing aging infrastructure, and addressing public scrutiny of rate 

increases. 

In Step 2, utilities may need to justify the costs and benefits of the condition assessment program to 

obtain the approval of their governing board. Typical costs include direct costs of pipe inspection; labor 

costs associated with program planning, data analysis and reporting; and cost of service disruptions due to 

inspection work. Typical benefits of condition assessment include avoided costs for emergency repairs, 

environmental damage, and premature replacement of pipe and improved customer service and service 

reliability. 

In Step 3, the utility develops an asset inventory database and compiles historical system data such as pipe 

diameter, length, and installation dates; system map; and inspection and maintenance records for the 

collection system. The utility should understand the content and form of existing data and should identify 

data gaps and data quality issues. Some utilities have linked their asset inventory database with a 

geographic information system. The City of Huntsville, Ala., has learned that it is important not only to 

link CCTV data to a map, but also to integrate it with other inspection and repair data. When viewed 

together, the various data help “tell the story” of an asset and its condition over time. The asset inventory 

database is useful for other applications. For example, the Seattle Public Utilities uses the asset data as 

input for a sewer pipe risk model. 

Step 4 (inspect assets) is typically accomplished using conventional CCTV inspection. CCTV is a costeffective technology providing the broadest base level of data used in condition assessment. Since the 
x

late 1990s, many utilities have replaced analog video cameras with digital video cameras and have 

identified a number of benefits. The emergence of other camera-based technologies such as zoom 

cameras and digital scanning offers new options for inspection. 

Zoom camera technology captures still images or recorded videos similar to traditional CCTV, but uses a 

stationary camera mount. The camera is lowered into a manhole and the camera “zooms” down each pipe 

entering or exiting the manhole. Utilities that have adopted zoom camera technology have realized 

benefits in the speed and cost of inspections compared to inspection programs that use only conventional 

CCTV. Disadvantages of zoom camera technology include the lack of pan and tilt viewing and the 

inability to accurately measure and locate defects. Also, zoom cameras cannot see around horizontal 

bends in pipes. Some utilities use zoom camera technology for system-wide screening to identify critical 

pipes that need immediate maintenance or more detailed CCTV inspection. 

Digital scanning provides a more consistent and complete assessment of pipe condition than CCTV, and 

data can be assessed independent of the real-time sewer inspection. Digital scanning uses self-propelled 

crawlers to transport digital cameras through sewer lines. Unlike conventional CCTV, digital scanning 

uses high-resolution digital cameras equipped with wide-angle (fisheye) lenses, which allow the 

generation of unfolded views of the sides of the pipes. This provides an excellent view of pipe conditions 

and permits computer-aided measurement of defects and objects. Digital scanning has been used in 

Europe and Asia for several years, but it has a limited history in North America. The City of Hamilton in 

Ontario, Canada, is one North American utility that has begun to use digital scanning. 

Innovations in CCTV camera deployment include extra-long-range tractors/floats, smaller 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. 

Some of the issues to consider in selecting a camera include the goals of the inspection program, the pipe 

diameter and material, anticipated pipe conditions, the importance of the camera’s production rate, the 

level of detail required in the inspection data, and whether the utility plans to purchase equipment or use 

vendors. 

Step 5 (analyze data) involves the coding of pipe defects observed during inspection, the conversion of 

defect codes to a pipe condition rating and the prioritization of pipes based on condition scores or riskbased scores. Chapter 3 discusses the design and format of defect codes and industry standard code 

systems such as those produced by the Water Research Centre (WrC), the National Association of Sewer 

Water Agencies’ (NASSCO’s) Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) and the System 

Condition & Risk Enhanced Assessment Model (SCREAMTM). Some utilities, such as Fort Worth, 

Texas, have developed their own coding system to better serve their needs. The selection of a data 

management system such as spreadsheets, condition assessment software and other database software is 

discussed. 

Step 6 (make decisions), the final step in the condition assessment process, uses CCTV data to prioritize 

assets for various corrective actions including maintenance, further inspection and total pipe replacement. 

Two primary approaches for decision making are condition-based and risk-based. Because systems 

typically have more assets that need improvements than available resources, risk-based decision making 

is generally a good approach. However, whenever the general condition of the asset or asset group is 

problematic, then a condition-based decision is appropriate. The major difference between the two 

approaches is the timing for performing corrective action. 
1-1

Chapter 1. Introduction to Condition Assessment 

This report presents practical guidelines on internal camera inspection technology applications and data 

management practices with a focus on identifying and promoting more innovative technologies and 

practices. Technology applications and lessons learned from seven utility case studies are used as 

practical examples in the main body of the report; detailed case study reports are provided in Appendix A. 

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to condition assessment and presents a six-step approach for 

developing and implementing a condition assessment program. This chapter also discusses the first three 

program steps. 

1.1 Background 

Condition assessment is an important component of an asset management program, along with the 

identification and location of assets. For more information on developing an asset management program, 

see EPA’s Checkup Program for Small Systems (CUPSS), which includes a free and easy-to-use tool for 

developing a tailored asset management plan (http://www.epa.gov/cupss/ ). 

Condition assessment is one of the core components of an asset management program. It provides the 

critical information needed to assess the condition, remaining useful life and long-term performance of a 

piping system. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines “condition assessment” as 

the collection of data and information through direct inspection, observation and investigation, indirect 

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). 

After the field inspection, pipe defects are classified using a standard coding system. Pipe condition is 

assessed using a systematic method based in part on the defects discovered during the inspection in order 

to produce consistent, useful information. Condition assessment information is used to evaluate/model 

pipe deterioration and estimate the pipe’s remaining useful life. It is also used to make decisions 

regarding pipe rehabilitation, pipe replacement, or further inspections. 

Condition assessment has gained considerable attention in recent years among municipalities and utility 

districts as a major component of an asset management program. Condition assessment can be used to 

prioritize infrastructure projects based on the likelihood of pipe failure, thereby easing the financial 

burden on wastewater utilities and their customers. As Thomson et al. (2004) note, “An estimated $4.5 

billion is expended every year on the rehabilitation and replacement of pipes for wastewater collection in 

the U.S.” Local and state governments are required to tabulate the value of their assets (i.e., buildings, 

roads, utilities, etc.) to support the development of a unified cost accounting system, according to Bulletin 

34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. 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 CMOM (Capacity, 

Management, Operation and Maintenance) 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 halt or mitigate 

the impacts of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). 
1-2

1.2 Steps to Developing a Condition Assessment Program 

Various approaches, ranging from simple to complex, have been developed for performing condition 

assessment of piping systems. A typical approach follows these steps: 

1. Identify program objectives. 

2. Evaluate costs and benefits of condition assessment. 

3. Develop asset inventory database. 

4. Inspect assets. 

5. Analyze data. 

6. Make decisions based on condition assessment data. 

Steps 1, 2 and 3 are discussed in this chapter. Step 4 is discussed in Chapter 2 and Step 5 and Step 6 in 

Chapter 3. 

Figure 1-1 presents an approach for condition assessment that recognizes its iterative nature. In this 

example, the assets are first identified and an inventory database is established. Next, the impact 

assessment is conducted to inspect assets and determine their physical conditions. The next step involves 

setting priorities or rankings, from low to high priority, for different pipes in the system. This step helps 

the utility determine how often each pipe should be inspected and maintained. As the utility completes 

additional inspections and maintenance, the priority ranking changes and the utility focuses on the new 

highest priority pipe. The ever-changing or iterative nature of the condition assessment process justifies 

investments in asset inventory databases and data management software so that the highest quality 

information is used to make decisions on asset management. 

1.2.1 Step 1 - Identify Program Objectives 

The utility may need to justify development of a condition assessment program to its governing board, its 

customers, or its staff. Therefore, it is important to outline and communicate the drivers or reasons for 

implementing the program. The program objectives may include the following: 

• Comply with federal or state regulations. 

• Collect pipe condition information needed for asset management program. 

• Collect information on the pipes’ service performance. 

• Investigate and eliminate sources of infiltration and inflow (I/I) to increase available system 

capacity. 

• Extend asset life by conducting maintenance prior to asset failure. 

• Improve performance of sanitary sewer systems. 

• Improve operation and maintenance efficiency. 

• Identify and improve management of high-risk pipes. 

• Reduce service disruptions due to pipe failure. 

• Reduce environmental damage due to pipe failure. 

• Reduce maintenance costs by reducing inspection frequency of low-risk pipes. 

• Improve budget forecasting through expanded knowledge of pipe condition and maintenance 

needs. 
1-3

Inventory database 

Impact assessment 

Prioritization 

Frequency of 

next inspection Inspection 

Rehabilitation Condition 

Assessmen

t 

Decision- making 

on rehabilitation 

actions 

Figure 1-1. Condition assessment steps. Source: McDonald and Zhao (2001). 

In a survey of its membership, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (now called the 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA) found that most utilities (70 of 75 survey 

respondents) conduct regular programs to physically inspect or evaluate their sewer systems using 

techniques such as visual inspections, CCTV, and Sewer Scanning Evaluation Technology (SSET) 

(AMSA, 2003). Also, 36 of 75 survey respondents primarily inspect the system to determine its 

condition. 

The City of Fort Worth, Texas has historically used CCTV inspections for a variety of purposes such as 

evaluating the effectiveness of its cleaning program, documenting pipe condition following pipe 

rehabilitation and new construction, and finding customer service lateral tap locations (see case study in 

Appendix A). 

The Seattle Public Utilities developed an asset management program in 2001 to address several concerns 

including aging infrastructure, a lack of information on pipe condition, a trend of stricter environmental 

regulations, and public scrutiny of recent rate increases. The immediate goal of the asset management 

program for sewer assets was to minimize risk of infrastructure failure. 
1-4

1.2.2 Step 2 - Evaluate Costs and Benefits of Condition Assessment 

To justify the development and implementation of a condition assessment program, the program’s costs 

must be documented and compared to the anticipated benefits. The costs are typically easier to quantify 

and should include both the direct costs of inspection and the indirect costs to the utility and other parties 

of carrying out the inspection and then collecting and analyzing the data. More specifically, the costs of 

condition assessment include: 

• Equipment and labor costs to conduct field inspections including excavation, traffic control, road 

surface restoration, monitoring and data collection. 

• Labor costs before and after fieldwork for planning, data analysis and reporting. 

• Cost of service disruptions due to inspection work. 

Aside from the costs associated with a specific technology, certain characteristics of a system or specific 

pipe segments will influence inspection costs. Site location, site setup and the environment all affect 

deployment costs. For example, difficult site access, high flows, large amounts of debris, and unusually 

large or small pipes can lead to higher costs. Sewer cleaning alone can double or triple inspection costs. 

Inspection costs will also vary depending on what specific work is completed as part of the inspection and 

how the work is accomplished (contractors vs. the utility’s equipment and manpower). When comparing 

inspections costs for two different studies or systems, it is important to understand the work completed 

and total costs for each case. 

The benefits of a condition assessment program are more difficult to quantify and derive. The benefits 

are mainly associated with the reduction in the risk of failure (likelihood and consequences of failure) and 

the knowledge that allows maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement to be carried out on the most cost 

effective schedule. Specific benefits of a condition assessment program may include: 

• Reduced sources of I/I. 

• Avoided emergency repair costs. 

• Avoided costs of extended service disruptions due to a catastrophic failure. 

• Avoided restoration costs due to environmental and property damage from a catastrophic failure. 

• Avoided public health costs (i.e., injury, death, disease transmission) from catastrophic failure. 

• Improved planning and prioritization of rehabilitation and replacement projects due to condition 

assessment information and improved estimates of service life. 

• Avoided costs of premature pipe replacement or rehabilitation. 

• Improved customer satisfaction and fewer complaints. 

• Improved service reliability. 

Comparing the costs to benefits for inspection of gravity sewers and force mains, Thomson (2008) reports 

that: 

• 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 the sewer. 

• The benefits from inspection of gravity sewers are likely to exceed costs for all but small 

diameter sewers at shallow depths. 

• The cost of inspection of force mains is high, with direct costs (temporary flow bypass, accessing 

the line, etc.) often exceeding the costs of physical inspection. 

• 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 
1-5

environmentally sensitive areas. The benefits increase greatly for larger diameter force mains and 

urban areas due to the increased risk of major consequences. 

Contrary to Thomson’s (2008) findings, some utilities have found that it is not cost-effective to inspect all 

pipes, and a few have used a formal risk assessment procedure to identify and prioritize pipes that present 

comparatively greater risks to public health and the environment. For example, Seattle Public Utilities 

(SPU) determined that there was a critical need for risk assessment when a collection sewer pipe 

collapsed and caused a sewage backup at a city hospital (refer to the detailed case study report in 

Appendix A). At the time, all system pipes were scheduled for inspection on a 30-year cycle, and the lack 

of current pipe condition information created a reactive mode of operation. A sewer pipe risk model, 

originally developed by Hunter Water Australia (http://www.hwa.com.au/ ), was adapted and applied to 

SPU’s sewer network to calculate the cost of failure for individual pipe segments and the total annualized 

cost to the utility over the period between CCTV inspections (Martin, 2004). To estimate the likelihood 

of pipe failure, the model initially used predictive failure curves generated using a normalized Weibulltype distribution and based on pipe age and material. SPU used the risk assessment and its benefit-cost 

ratio to help select pipes for inspection and maintenance. Risk modeling conducted in 2004 showed that 

the cost of conducting CCTV inspections of low-risk pipes exceeded the benefit gained by performing 

condition assessment (Martin, 2004). Based on these findings, SPU decided to perform CCTV inspection 

only on high-risk pipes (15% of total pipe length) using a 5-year inspection frequency. In 2007, SPU 

improved the sewer pipe risk model by applying utility-specific condition information to improve the 

model’s initial estimates of the likelihood of failure (Martin, Johnson and Anschell, 2007). New pipe 

condition curves were customized for SPU based on actual sewer pipe failure data and CCTV inspection 

data. An on-going EPA-ORD project, Condition Assessment of Water Transmission and Distribution 

Systems (Contract No. EP-C-05-057), is currently researching pipe condition curves 

(http://www.epa.gov/awi/projects/). More information on Weibull distributions can be found at 

http://www.weibull.com/. 

1.2.3 Step 3 - Develop Asset Inventory Database 

When performing condition assessment, it is essential to compile an inventory of assets and existing 

system data. For each pipe segment the following information should be included in the database: 

• Unique identification number or code. 

• Geographic information (e.g., elevation, latitude, longitude). 

• Pipe material. 

• Pipe geometry (i.e., diameter (if round), wall thickness). 

• Depth. 

• Slope. 

• Year of installation. 

• Soil type, bedding, backfill type. 

• Failure history data. 

• Maintenance history. 

• Inspection records (e.g., smoke testing, dye tracer studies, camera inspections). 

• Typical flow conditions. 

System maps and geographic information system (GIS) databases (e.g., Figure 1-2) are good information 

sources for the asset inventory database. Inspection and testing records may include I/I studies: flow data, 

smoke testing, flow isolation studies, or dye tracer studies. Failure data from the system or research on 

similar conditions (e.g., soil bedding type, material, age) in utility districts can be used to define the 

likelihood of failure (Martin, 2004). The linking of the asset inventory database combined with 
1-6

maintenance records to a GIS system is a powerful planning tool. It provides a strong platform to present 

the data geospatially. 

The asset inventory database can be useful for many applications. The City of Fort Worth, TX has 

developed an asset inventory database and demonstrated its value in reviewing multiple inspection 

records for a single pipe segment over an extended period of time (refer to case study in Appendix A). 

SPU uses its asset inventory database as input to a sewer pipe risk model. The model extracts GIS 

attributes for each pipe (i.e., elevation, installation 

date, material of construction, and proximity to 

geologic or structural features) and uses this 

information to calculate financial, social, and 

environmental costs of pipe failure. For example, if 

the sewer pipe is located underneath a building, a 

multiplier is automatically applied to the cost formula 

due to the added repair cost. 

The utility should understand the content and form of 

existing data in the asset inventory database, and 

should identify data gaps and data quality issues. 

When SPU used its GIS data as input to the sewer risk 

pipe model, some incorrect data were found. For 

example, pipe elevation data were suspect in about 

20% of pipes. With Seattle’s hilly terrain, pipe 

elevation and slope are critical parameters. Data corrections were made in the sewer pipe risk model. 

Flow monitoring data should be included in the asset inventory database as the data are useful for 

prioritizing which part of a system to inspect. Most systems conduct flow monitoring and store historical 

flow monitoring data, but much of the information is not used. Flow monitoring data are traditionally 

used to generate hydrographs, which provide information about flow conditions upstream of the meter. 

Scattergraphs (displays of paired depth and velocity readings that look like a normal pipe curve under 

normal flow conditions) are constructed to evaluate downstream flow conditions. The use of 

scattergraphs can give more insight into the decision process and can be used to verify other inspection 

data and to help calibrate models. Further background information on constructing and applying 

scattergraphs is provided by ADS (2010). 

The City of Huntsville, AL has taken an important step by incorporating CCTV inspection data and 

digital video files into a GIS-based software application that allows managers and engineers to quickly 

review CCTV inspections in context with other inspection and repair data (refer to case study in 

Appendix A). Now, CCTV inspection data and video are easier to access, examine, and compare, 

allowing managers and engineers to better understand the condition of a system and better plan and 

manage operation and maintenance (O&M) and rehabilitation programs. The city has learned that it is 

important not only to link CCTV data to a map, but also to integrate it with other inspection and repair 

data. When viewed together, the various data help “tell the story” of an asset and its condition over time. 

Huntsville found and resolved many discrepancies in existing GIS and condition assessment records. The 

end result was a more accurate and accessible database of historical system conditions. Huntsville 

recommends that, prior to implementing a similar program, utilities review the type of data needed for the 

asset management program, including CCTV inspection data, to make sure that the historical asset 

records are consistent with available GIS data. 

Nashville, TN also learned that it is important to integrate GIS data with CCTV, asset, and maintenance 

management data (refer to case study in Appendix A). The maintenance management system provides a 

Figure 1-2. Example of a GIS system. Source: 

Black and Veatch Corp. (2004). Reprinted with 

permission.
1-7

wastewater network browser that stores information and allows it to link together items such as 

maintenance records, complaints, work orders, and inspection reports. The data integration capability 

permits users to view all related inspection records for a particular asset. A work order is generated and 

required resources are selected (labor, equipment, materials). The GIS information is queried and the 

inspection can proceed. 
2-8

Chapter 2. Overview of CCTV and Related Inspection Technologies 

2.1 Introduction 

The term “inspection technology” refers to the various methods used for detecting pipe defects, structural 

and operational conditions and environmental conditions that could potentially affect pipe condition. 

These technologies have varying abilities to detect and quantify specific types of pipe defects. A specific 

inspection technology may have limited application depending on pipe material 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. 

Camera-based inspection technologies (e.g., Figure 2-1) and their use in condition assessment for 

wastewater collection systems are presented in this chapter. The chapter is organized into the following 

sections: 

• Conventional CCTV inspection. 

• Zoom camera inspection. 

• Digital scanning. 

• Camera deployment. 

• Camera selection issues. 

Each technology is briefly described, and commercially available 

and emerging products using the technology are discussed. Table 2-

1 provides a summary of typical applications for each technology. 

Pushrod camera (also known as “push cam”) technology, designed 

for laterals and small diameter force main applications, is discussed 

in Section 2.5.1. 

Table 2-1. Inspection technology overview 

Sewer type

al

er

Defects detected

Technology

Gravity

Force main

Lateral

Pipe materi

Pipe diamet

Internal 

condition

Pipe wall

Leakage

Pipe support

Camera

Conventional CCTV • Any >8 in. • • •

Digital scanning • Any 6 in.-72 in. • • •

Zoom camera • Any >6 in. • • •

Figure 2-1. Illumi-Zoom 

camera. Image courtesy of 

Aries Industries.

Figure 2-1. Illumi-Zoom 

camera. Image courtesy of 

Aries Industries.
2-9

2.2 Conventional CCTV Inspection 

CCTV inspection is a very effective method of evaluating and creating a permanent video record of 

on of sanitary sewer lines enables a CCTV operator to 

 to the infiltration of groundwater into the collection 

underground pipe conditions. The visual inspecti

locate and identify specific defects that contribute

system (Figure 2.2) and exfiltration of sewage into the 

substrate. 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 

of the technology are that a CCTV inspection only provides a 

view of the pipe surface above the waterline and does not 

provide any structural data on 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 vary 

significantly based on the diameter of the line being inspected. In general, CCTV technology uses a 

video camera with lighting to provide a visual record of the inside condition of a pipeline. The means to 

convey the camera through the pipeline vary in complexity from simple pushrod cameras (push cams) 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 selecting sewer 

inspection technology because it allows the operator to gain a full circumferential view of the pipe. 

Data obtained from CCTV inspection include: 

• Evidence of sediment, debris, roots, etc. 

• Evidence of pipe sags and deflections. 

• Offset joints. 

• Pipe cracks. 

• Leaks. 

• Location and condition of service connections. 

Figure 2-3 provides an example of a CCTV image that 

documents root intrusion. As noted above, CCTV technology 

has limitations because it can only provide a visual 

representation of the inside surface of a pipe above the 

waterline. Furthermore, 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. 

Although other technologies can assess the structural condition of the pipe wall (e.g., electro-scanning, 

acoustic monitoring systems), or the condition of the soil surrounding the pipe (e.g., infrared 

thermography, ground-penetrating radar), these methods do not provide visual data on leaks, location of 

service laterals or sediment/debris levels and location. Therefore, CCTV will remain an important 

inspection tool in condition assessment programs. 

Figure 2-2. Example of infiltration. Image 

courtesy of RedZone Robotics, Inc. 

Figure 2-3. CCTV image of roots in 

lateral. Image courtesy of RedZone 

Robotics, Inc.
2-10

Sections 2.3 – 2.5 present innovative technologies related to CCTV and their use in condition assessment 

for wastewater collection systems. The following technologies will be described, noting manufacturers or 

providers and typical applications: 

• Zoom camera inspection. 

• Digital scanning. 

• Camera deployment. 

2.3 Zoom Camera Inspection 

Historically, zoom cameras have been used to perform manhole 

inspections and to inspect down the pipe in the vicinity of the 

manhole using a camera mounted on the end of a telescopic pole. 

Like traditional CCTV inspection, zoom camera inspection 

involves the generation of still images or recorded video imagery 

of a pipe of any material. The key difference is that the zoom 

camera is stationary mounted on a truck, crane, pole (Figure 2-4) 

or tripod positioned at a manhole and does not pass though the pipe

segment being inspected. The equipment is lowered into the 

manhole to perform the inspection, and the camera “zooms” down 

any pipe entering or exiting the manhole, capturing images of pipe 

condition. Newer cameras can pan 360°. 

Zoom cameras are not designed to replace conventional CCTV 

systems, but rather to screen and prioritize pipes that need cleaning

or a more detailed inspection with the conventional CCTV camera.

Because the sewer pipe does not need to be cleaned before the 

zoom camera inspection is conducted, the inspection crew can move quickly through a service area and 

highlight pipe segments that require more detailed inspection. Further, the zoom camera inspection is not 

subject to delays caused by obstructions in the pipe as often occurs with a crawler-mounted CCTV 

camera. For these reasons, zoom camera inspection offers an increased production rate compared to 

CCTV inspection. 

Zoom camera performance is often measured in terms of the sight distance (i.e., how far down the pipe 

the camera can capture an image), and the reader is urged to verify with field data the sight distance 

claims by camera vendors. In general, sight distance varies with pipe diameter and lighting conditions 

within the pipe and is limited by pipe conditions such as horizontal bends, deflections, blockages and 

protruding services (where a building lateral extends into a main sewer line). Limitations on sight 

distance also mean that defects in the middle of the pipe segment may not be detected; however, a large 

percentage of defects are often found relatively close to the manholes. Possible reasons for this include 

vibrations of the manhole due to surface traffic, development of soil voids around a pipeline due to 

infiltration in and around a manhole, and vertical movement of manholes due to cold weather (Joseph and 

DiTullio, 2003). 

Although zoom camera inspection is a very efficient, cost-effective inspection method, there are some 

drawbacks. Like all camera technologies, it is only useful for inspecting gravity sewers because force 

mains and service laterals do not have manholes for access. Zoom camera inspection has the same 

limitation as traditional CCTV pipe inspection in that the camera cannot see the pipe below the water 

surface. Also, if the pipe deviates from a straight line due to sagging or deficient installation, the zoom 

camera will not “see” the hidden defects. The zoom camera does not provide the same detailed visual 

evaluation as conventional CCTV. Some zoom cameras lack pan and tilt viewing and cannot accurately 

 

Figure 2-4. Pole-mounted zoom 

camera. Image courtesy of 

Envirosight, LLC.
2-11

measure and locate defects. Limitations in image resolution, lighting and optical zoom also pose 

challenges. 

Several commercially available zoom camera models are described in the next section. The reader is 

advised to contact the camera manufacturers directly for additional product information and new product 

developments such as improved optical and digital zoom capabilities. Vendor contact information is 

provided in Appendix C. 

Table 2-2. 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 

Current application Typically used to screen and prioritize pipes for more detailed CCTV 

inspection and/or cleaning.

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 

2.3.1 Zoom Camera Models 

The CUES-IMX truck-mounted zoom camera (Figure 2-5) has a total effective zoom ratio of 300:1 

including a 25:1 optical zoom range. The camera is stabilized and remotely controlled by a telescopic 

boom. It is equipped with high-intensity lights. 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 system can be mounted within an inspection van, all-terrain 

vehicle or trailer. The camera housing is a damage-resistant, 

waterproof enclosure 7 in. in diameter and 16 in. in length. The 

CUES-IMX zoom camera system is equipped with data collection 

software, GIS software and global positioning system (GPS) 

equipment. The GIS software and GPS equipment are used to create 

sewer maps in the field and to 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 are georeferenced to the field-collected GPS coordinates. This is common 

in the industry and the subject of further discussion in Chapter 3. 

GE Technologies offers a truck-mounted pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) 

camera, the Everest Ca-Zoom 6.2 that has three interchangeable 

camera heads. The PTZ 140 camera head has a 432:1 zoom 

capability (36:1 optical zoom range) and is equipped with highpowered halogen lighting. It can be deployed through 140-mm (5.5-

in.) openings. The PTZ100 and the PTZ270 have 40:1 zoom 

capability (10:1 optical zoom range) and high-powered LED lighting. 

mm (4-in.) opening; the PTZ270 fits through a 76-mm (3-in.) opening. 

The PTZ100 fits through a 100-

Figure 2-5. CUES-IMX truckmounted zoom camera. Source: 

CUES, Inc. (2009). Reprinted 

with permission.
2-12

CTZoom Technologies manufactures and distributes the PortaZoom 

camera (Figure 2-6). Key features of the PortaZoom camera 

include its compact housing (6 in. in diameter), its 312:1 zoom 

capability (26:1 optical zoom range) and its ability to pan 360°. 

The camera has full-circumference integrated lighting including 

peripheral lighting to reduce shadows. The PortaZoom camera can 

be controlled by a commercially available joystick or by a standard 

computer keyboard and compatible computer. It can be either 

truck- or pole-mounted. 

Aries Industries offers the HC3000 pole-mounted zoom camera, which has a 432:1 zoom ratio (36:1 

optical zoom range). The camera has high-intensity detachable LED lights and can transmit images with 

wireless technology. A small portable monitor is also available for viewing camera images during the 

inspection. 

AquaData Inc. manufactures the Aqua Zoom system (Figure 2-7). 

Although not commercially available, it is used by company 

professionals for consulting services. It is normally mounted on 

either a truck or tripod, which is claimed to provide better stability 

compared to pole-mounted devices. It uses a built-in control center 

and video-recording equipment to perform pipe inspections. 

Envirosight, LLC’s smaller pole-mounted camera, QuickView, has a 

total zoom capability of 432:1 (18:1 optical zoom range). The 

manufacturer reports the camera has a sight distance of 50 to 250 ft 

in pipe diameters of 6 in. to 60 in. The reader is advised to confirm 

manufacturer’s claims with actual field data. 

2.3.2 Examples of Utility Experience 

The City of Hamilton, Ontario; Hillsborough County (Florida) Water Resources Services (WRS) and the 

Town of Auburn, Mass., have all implemented zoom camera screening programs to fulfill a variety of 

objectives. Hillsborough’s goal was to conduct an asset inventory and assessment to accomplish the 

following: 

• Locate manholes and cleanouts. 

• Inspect manholes and pipelines. 

• Establish the condition of manholes and pipelines. 

• Identify immediate maintenance and structural needs. 

Hamilton uses zoom camera technology to inspect their entire system and prioritize pipes for further 

inspection using in-line CCTV and other, more advanced methods. Auburn incorporated zoom camera 

technology (along with CCTV, dye testing, smoke testing, building inspections, and manhole inspections) 

into their plan to locate and reduce sources of I/I (Rinner and Pryputniewicz., N.D.). Auburn found an 

added benefit in using the zoom camera inspection data to assign structural codes and O&M service 

codes. 

Utilities that have adopted zoom camera technology as part of their sewer inspection strategy have 

realized benefits in speed of inspection and cost compared to an inspection program using only 

conventional CCTV. The speed of inspection for zoom cameras is consistently higher than for traditional 

CCTV. Also, because the equipment is only in the road for about 15 – 20 minutes, zoom camera 

Figure 2-6. PortaZoom camera. 

Source: CTZoom Technologies, Inc. 

(2006). Reprinted with permission. 

Figure 2-7. Aqua Zoom camera. 

Image courtesy of AquaData, 

Inc. Aqua Zoom is a trademark 

of AquaData, Inc.
2-13

inspection is less disruptive to traffic. Inspection rates reported in case studies are approximately 1 mile 

per day. Hamilton reported 6,152 ft/day. An inspection of storm sewers in Fairfax County, Va., is 

reported to have averaged 6,250 ft/day (Batman et al., 2008). Auburn reported that a 2-person crew can 

inspect about 5,000 ft of pipe per day, including 25 manholes, or 10,000 ft without manholes. These rates 

are roughly one-third to one-quarter of the time needed to inspect pipes using traditional in-line CCTV. 

The cost of zoom camera inspection is reported to be one-half to two-thirds less than the cost of cleaning 

and conventional CCTV inspection, based on case study reports. Auburn’s program cost approximately 

$1.00 per ft (with manhole inspection). Zoom camera inspection in Hamilton costs approximately $1.00 

(Canadian) per ft, compared to $5.74 (Canadian) for CCTV. Hillsborough saved $11.4 million by using a 

combined zoom camera and in-line CCTV program and recommended budgeting $1.00 – $2.00 per ft for 

a system-wide zoom camera assessment. Fairfax County’s costs averaged $3.30 per ft for its combined 

zoom/CCTV program, and $4.90 per ft when only in-line CCTV was used. 

Use of zoom camera technology has enabled utilities to limit and target the amount of pipe requiring more 

detailed attention. By using a combined zoom and in-line CCTV approach, Fairfax County found that 

only 66% of its pipe footage needed to be inspected by CCTV (including sections that could not be 

accessed with a zoom camera). Of the pipe screened with zoom camera, only 36% required subsequent 

in-line inspection. Auburn’s zoom inspection program resulted in plans to clean and perform CCTV 

inspections on 15,000 ft out of approximately 60,000 ft of pipe. Dallas, Texas, performed a pilot project 

using AquaZoom and found that 70% of its pipes did not need cleaning, CCTV inspection, or other 

attention (Renfro et al., 2005). Thus, unnecessary sewer cleaning was avoided, reducing overall program 

costs. 

Zoom camera accuracy compared to CCTV is an important criterion to consider. Utilities need to know 

how much accuracy will be sacrificed by using zoom camera technology for its expected savings in time 

and cost. The experience of one utility (Hamilton) provides a useful example. Hamilton compared the 

results of pipe inspections using both CCTV and zoom camera, as illustrated in Figure 2-8 (Bainbridge 

and Krinas, 2008). The graph compares how often the pipe condition ratings determined by CCTV and 

zoom camera inspection are the same (shown as 0 on the x-axis) or different up to four condition ratings 

(-4 and +4 on the x-axis). These results show that zoom camera and CCTV inspections resulted in the 

same condition rating approximately 48% of the time. Further, the two technologies differed by one 

condition rating about 31% of the time. 
2-14

Figure 2-8. Comparison of CCTV and zoom camera inspections. 

Source: Bainbridge and Krinas (2008). Reprinted with permission. 

Utility experiences with camera sight distance were reported. It is important to note that sight distance or 

estimates of pipe length that can be inspected vary depending on the camera model, pipe diameter, and 

other pipe characteristics. Rinner and Pryputniewicz (undated) noted that zoom cameras can typically 

inspect 40 ft to 60 ft in each direction in an 8-in. diameter pipe. Bainbridge and Krinas (2008) noted an 

average zoom camera inspection distance of about 100 ft (30 m) based on inspection of 23,566 manholes 

and associated piping in Hamilton, Ontario (camera model and pipe diameters unspecified). The 

variability in these estimates may partially reflect the effects of pipe diameter and lighting on the ability 

of the camera to see long distances into the pipe. In a larger pipe, for example, the sight distance may be 

greater and more defects would be detected. 

Bainbridge and Krinas (2008) used Hamilton’s CCTV data to address questions about whether a zoom 

camera’s sight distance may cause a significant number of defects to be missed. Approximately 59% of 

the defects identified by CCTV were located within 65 ft (20 m) of manholes, and 76% were within 100 

ft (30 m) of manholes. Joseph and DiTullio (2003) estimated that “about 80% of defects . . . are usually 

located within the first 15 to 20 m [49 to 66 ft] from the manhole.” Although the estimates in these two 

studies differ, both suggest that a large percentage of defects will be detected by zoom camera because a 

high concentration of defects is located within the commonly referenced zoom camera sight distances. In 

the case of Hamilton, a zoom camera with an inspection distance of approximately 100 ft might be able to 

detect 76% of the pipe’s defects. 

2.4 Digital Scanning 

Digital scanning is a state-of-the-art camera inspection technology. Like conventional CCTV, digital 

cameras are transported through sewer lines using self-propelled crawlers (Figure 2-9). Unlike 

conventional CCTV systems, digital scanning uses high-resolution digital cameras equipped with wideangle lenses that allow the generation of two types of images: unfolded views of the sides of the pipes and 
2-15

circular views down the pipe (similar to CCTV) (Figure 2-10). The “unfolded” view of the inner pipe 

surface provides an excellent view of pipe conditions. This permits computer-aided measurement of 

defects and objects. Because digital scanning combines a large number of still digital images, it produces 

a sharper image than video (Knight et al., 2009). Digital scanning provides a more consistent and 

complete assessment of pipe condition than CCTV. 

During the digital scanning process, data are transmitted to a 

surface station for real-time viewing and recording for later 

evaluation. With the defect coding occurring later in the office, 

digital scanning can progress rapidly in the field. By comparison, 

conventional CCTV relies on a camera operator in real-time to pan, 

tilt and zoom the camera into critical areas to collect and store 

images. 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 

independent of the camera operator. This allows the individual 

reviewing the recording to control the direction of the PTZ features 

and to stop the image at any point to capture video clips and 

images. It provides a second level of quality control in the review 

process and allows other individual(s) 

involved in the process (e.g., designers, 

rehabilitation contractors, and utility 

owners) to gain insight into the pipe 

condition. Digital scanning technology 

is primarily used for gravity lines and 

can be used with any pipe material. The 

maximum pipe diameter that can be 

inspected with digital scanning depends 

on the specific equipment used, but one 

manufacturer states that its product can 

be used in pipes up to 72 in. in diameter. 

Minimum pipe size is generally about 6 

in. Its applicability for inspecting sewer 

laterals is limited because laterals are 

typically less than 6 in. in diameter and 

access is generally through a small 

diameter cleanout. Digital scanning has 

limited application in 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. Also, access to force mains typically restricts the use 

of digital and CCTV technology because force mains are pressurized and do not have access manholes 

required for the insertion of inspection equipment. 

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 is no 

longer manufactured or supported, although utilities and contractors that have invested in the equipment 

continue to use it. SSET uses a fisheye lens that captures a hemispherical front view. The annular part of 

the image gets digitally scanned and is used to produce the flattened side view of the pipe (Karasaki et al., 

2001). White LEDs provide cool, energy-efficient lighting. The unit also contains an inclinometer and 

Figure 2-9. DigiSewer digital 

scanning camera deployed in pipe. 

Image courtesy of Envirosight, LLC.

Figure 2-10. Virtual pan & tilt and unfolded pipeline view 

from RapidView IBAK PANORAMO system. Source: 

RapidView (2009b). Reprinted with permission.
2-16

gyroscope to provide information on location in the pipe. SSET can be used in pipes ranging from 8 in. 

to 36 in. in diameter, operating at a rate of approximately 13 ft per minute. 

Table 2-3. Digital scanning inspection summary 

SUMMARY 

Sewer type Gravity sewers, limited applicability for force mains and service laterals. 

Material Any. 

Pipe size 6 to 72 in. (depending on model and conditions). 

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 

imagery; able to make digital measurements 

one inspection to the next. 

personnel 

of defects; 

able 

can 

to review/control data 

compare data directly from 

Disadvantages More costly and lower production rate than CCTV; only works above water line. 

Three digital scanning camera systems marketed in North America are designed for the investigation of 

water, storm drain, and sewer pipelines. These products are described in the following sections; vendor 

contact information is provided in Appendix C. 

2.4.1 Envirosight - DigiSewer 

The DigiSewer system is essentially a new-generation SSET system. It 

was originally developed by DigiSewer and manufactured by IPEK 

(provider of crawlers and cameras to Envirosight). DigiSewer was 

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 2007. 

DigiSewer uses one high-resolution photo camera with a 180° wide-angle 

fisheye lens integrated into the front of the rover crawler (Figure 2-11). 

According to the vendor, DigiSewer can scan 6-in. to 32-in. diameter pipes 

at a scan speed of 70 ft per minute and can scan pipes approximately 650 ft 

in length. 

2.4.2 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. 

Figure 2-11. DigiSewer digital 

scanning camera. Image 

courtesy of Envirosight, LLC.

Figure 2-11. DigiSewer digital 

scanning camera. Image 

courtesy of Envirosight, LLC.
2-17

The PANORAMO system (Figure 2-12) uses two high-resolution 

digital photo cameras with 186° wide-angle lenses fit into the front 

and rear sections 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. PANORAMO can scan pipes at a speed of 

up to 70 ft per minute in forward or reverse. According to the 

manufacturer, this camera system can be used for pipes ranging from 

8 in. to 72 in. in diameter. 

During the PANORAMO scanning process, the data are transmitted 

digitally to the inspection vehicle for later retrieval and analysis. 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 DVDs. 

2.4.3 CleanFlow/Fly Eye System 

The CleanFlow system is a multi-sensor technology developed in New Zealand and distributed in the U.S. 

by Cues, Inc. It includes laser, sonar and high-definition imaging. The sensors are typically mounted on 

a float system; however, in low-flow conditions, the laser and high-definition camera are deployed using 

a skid mount. The system is typically deployed in pipes with diameters of 24 in. to 66 in. 

2.4.4 Example of Utility Experience 

Digital scanning has been used in Europe and Asia for several years, but it has a limited history in North 

America. The City of Hamilton is one example of a North American utility that has begun to use digital 

scanning. In 2006, Hamilton conducted a pilot test using SSET for sewer pipes and was pleased with the 

superior level of detail provided by this technology, which permits more defects to be coded than with 

CCTV. Hamilton also benefited from a better understanding of the significance of a defect, as opposed to 

CCTV results, which only document a defect’s existence. The primary drawback with the SSET 

equipment for Hamilton was the size of the pipe for which it was effective. It was found to work best in 

smaller pipes (< 36 in. pipe diameter), but the extra expense of highly detailed inspections for the smaller 

pipes was not justified. Smaller pipes carry lower risk due to the less severe consequences in the event of 

failure. In larger, more critical pipes, a greater level of detail is needed, but the SSET was not as 

effective. 

Based on recent communication with Hamilton’s contractor, pipes up to nearly 5 ft in diameter are now 

being inspected with digital side scanning. Hamilton also noted that the overall cost for SSET inspection 

was initially higher than for CCTV despite the greater speed of inspection; coding in the office increased 

total labor costs. However, Hamilton’s contractor has indicated that SSET inspection may now have a 

cost comparable to CCTV. Hamilton’s experience underscores the fluid nature of new technologies, both 

with respect to technical capabilities and to cost. 

As a relatively new technology, digital scanning can be expected to undergo continuing development to 

increase its capabilities. Similar to most camera technologies, one of the limiting factors for digital 

scanning performance is camera resolution. In general, resolution for digital scanning decreases with 

larger pipe size. However, better lighting can help offset this limitation. SSET was originally designed 

for pipes 8 in. to 12 in. in diameter, but the manufacturer worked to increase this range in response to 

customer needs. With further development, optical and digital capabilities may continue to improve. 

Current research is also focused on software enhancements for defect recognition and digital defect 

measurements. Utilities may wish to keep abreast of developments in this technology as changes in 

Figure 2-12. RapidView IBAK 

PANORAMO system. Source: 

RapidView (2009b). Reprinted 

with permission.
2-18

performance and cost may make digital scanning a cost-effective option for pipes where a high level of 

detail is needed. 

2.5 Camera Deployment 

In CCTV inspection, cameras are deployed into pipelines in 

a variety of ways. Mobile robots called crawlers or tractors 

(e.g., Figure 2-13) are available in a variety of sizes and 

configurations, enabling their use in various pipes sizes. 

These robots are typically introduced into the sewer via a 

manhole. Cameras can also be mounted on float rigs (Figure 

2-14) for inspecting large-diameter pipes that are 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. 

The combination and integration of two or more inspection technologies onto a robotic platform in order 

to detect different types of defects and to address the disadvantages of a single inspection technology has 

been proposed by several researchers. These multi-sensor inspection robots have been commercialized in 

various forms in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia. The commercial versions include critical 

sensors (e.g., CCTV, sonar and laser scanners); however, some of the more innovative sensors (e.g., 

infrared sensors, radioactive sensors and impact-echo hammers) have, for the most part, not been 

deployed on commercial robots. The robotic platforms using the multi-sensor approach for the 

assessment of wastewater collection systems include SAM (Sewer Assessment with Multi-Sensors) and 

PIRAT (Pipeline Inspection Real-time Assessment Technique). 

A variety of innovations have been applied to the tractors or crawlers that carry CCTV cameras. These 

innovations include extra long-range tractors/floats, smaller than typical tractors that can be used for 

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. 

Different camera tractor innovations are available from a 

variety of vendors. Several commercial applications are 

designed for the investigation of water, storm drain, and sewer 

pipelines. Push cams 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). 

Figure 2-13. Mobile robot inspection 

system. Source: iPEK International 

GmbH (2009). Reprinted with 

permission.

Figure 2-13. iPEK ROVVER CCTV 

Figure 2 13. Mobile robot inspection 

Figure 2-14. CUES camera float. Source: 

CUES, Inc. (2009). Reprinted with 

permission.
2-19

2.5.1 Push Cams 

Pushrod camera, or push cam, technology involves the inspection 

of pipelines with a small-diameter camera mounted to a pushrod 

and reel setup that provides video of the pipeline (e.g., Figure 2-

15). This technology is primarily designed for laterals and smalldiameter force main applications. Conventional push cams use 

straight view cameras capable of inspecting pipes 2-in. or more in 

diameter. Advancements include push cams capable of inspecting 

pipes smaller than 2-in. as well as steerable and pan/tilt push cams. 

Push cams are typically used in environments that are too small for 

crawlers/robotic camera vehicles in small-diameter water and 

sewer pipes. Conventional push cam systems consist 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 the inability to move past obstructions. Table 

2-4 summarizes a variety of commercially available push cams. 

Table 2-4. Push cam product comparison 

Product Pipe Inspection 

(Vendor) Diameter Length Notes

CrystalCam 

(Inuktun)

Push Camera >2 in. Not specified High-resolution low-light camera. Can be 

tractor-mounted, can be used as a reverse 

camera.

Flexiprobe 1 to 8 in. 500 ft Interchangeable camera options with bright 

(Pearpoint) white LED lighting.

Hydrus >2 in. Not specified Straight view camera only.

(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)

Orion >4 in. Not specified Pan and tilt functions.

(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)

Orion L

(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)

>4 in. Not specified Pan and tilt, 

device to be 

includes “steer 

steered around 

stick” 

bends 

allowing 

or turns.

Push Camera 1 to 12 in. 300 ft Uses Clearview line of camera heads; large 

(Insight Vision) 10.4-in. LCD monitor.

2.5.2 Tractors/Crawlers 

Tractors and crawlers are mobile robots used to deploy CCTV through a pipeline (Figure 2-16). Most are 

wheeled or tracked and tethered by a cable to a controller unit located near the point of entry to the sewer 

system. Conventional CCTV inspection tractors are larger vehicles that cannot be deployed in smaller 

pipes or laterals. Many of the tractors cannot be steered and can only inspect pipe runs of 300 to 500 ft. 

Advancements in technology now include lateral launchers that are able to deploy smaller diameter push 

cams 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 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 summarize a 

selection of commercially available innovative tractor and crawler technologies. 

Figure 2-15. Crystal Cam – push 

camera. Image courtesy of Inuktun 

Services, Ltd.
2-20

IBAK LISY 150M 

Figure 2-16(a). Source: RapidView 

(2009a). Reprinted with permission.

CUES LAMP lateral inspection crawler 

Figure 2-16(b). Source: CUES, Inc. (2009). 

Reprinted with permission.

Figure 2-16 (a) and (b). Examples of pipe inspection crawlers. 

Table 2-5. Lateral launcher product comparison 

Product

(Vendor)

Mainline Lateral

Pipe Notes

Diameter

Inspection 

Length

Pipe 

Diameter

Inspection 

Length

IBAK LISY 150-M >6 in. Not N/A N/A Tungsten carbide wheel 

(RapidView-IBAK, USA) specified for grip.

LAMP 6 to 30 in. 1,000 ft 2 to 6 in. <80 ft Optional sonde and 

 (CUES) camera locating receiver.

LAMP II 

(CUES)

6 to 15 in. 1,000 ft 3 to 8 in. 80 ft Lateral camera has builtin sonde for locating 

laterals.

Lateral Evaluation >8 in. 800 ft 3 to 6 in. >150 ft Lateral camera has builtTelevision System in sonde for locating 

(ARIES Industries) laterals.

Lateral Inspection System 8 to 24 in. 1,000 ft 4 to 8 in. <100 ft Picture-in-picture format 

(RS Technical Services) allows simultaneous 

viewing of main line and 

lateral inspections.

Table 2-6. Small-diameter tractor product comparison 

Product Pipe Inspection 

(Vendor) Diameter Length Notes

ELK T100 Mini 4 to 10 in. 500 ft Wheeled tractor

(Pearpoint)

KRA 65 >4 in. Not specified Steerable wheeled camera tractor with 

(RapidView – IBAK, USA) electronic stabilizing function

MightyMini Transporter 4 to 12 in. 500 ft 4-wheel drive crawler with adjustable 

(RS Technical Services) cantilevered camera mount
2-21

Product

(Vendor)

Pipe 

Diameter

Inspection 

Length Notes

ROVVER 100

(Envirosight-IPEK)

4 to 12 in. 660 ft Steerable, 

traction

PVC wheel with titanium spikes for 

Versatrax 100 4 to 24 in. 600 ft Tracked crawler

(Inuktun)

Xpress Silver-Bullet 

Crawler

4 to 15 in. 600 ft 4-wheel drive crawler

(Insight Vision)

Table 2-7. Long-range tractor product comparison 

Product Pipe Inspection 

(Vendor) Diameter Length Notes

Versatrax 300 VLR >12 in. 6,000 ft Modular construction for onsite customization, 

(Inuktun) optional reverse camera can be mounted on crawler.

Responder >36 in. 5,280 ft Skid steer enabled tractor, Kevlar reinforced 

(RedZone) buoyant cable, submersible to 500 ft.

2.5.3 Segmented Robots 

Electromechanica, Inc. designs custom inspection robotics and other applications. For example, a client 

may have a specific type of small-diameter pipe system containing tees, wyes, or other angles that a 

typical tractor or crawler cannot 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. It uses pneumatic cylinders to provide force to move itself through the 

pipe. The robot can be outfitted with cameras, sensors or tools to accomplish many different types of 

tasks in pipe inspection. As noted above, this is not a commercial product, but one that must be custom 

ordered for a client’s specialized needs. 

2.5.4 Emerging Technologies 

• 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. 

• 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 has designed a 

robot that constantly monitors the diameter of the pipe as the robot moves through the pipe. 

Infrared sensors atop the vehicle sense when the distance to the roof of the pipe alters radically; 

this is interpreted as a manhole. The vehicle may be programmed to stop at the first manhole it 

encounters, or it may stop after encountering some specified number of manholes. Autonomous 

crawlers are beginning to enter the marketplace. 

• Autonomous Floaters - Automatika, Inc. is developing the prototype of an un-tethered pipe 

inspection robot called PipeEye (Figure 2-17). 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 
2-22

ultrasonic transducers will operate below the waterline. The 

PipeEye system is derived from an oil/gas pipeline 

inspection module co-developed by Automatika and Shell 

Oil. The system does not yet have a product status. 

2.6 Camera Selection Issues 

Although conventional CCTV will continue to be an important part 

of a sewer assessment program, the emergence of other camerabased technologies such as zoom cameras and digital scanning offers 

new options for inspection strategies. Selection of camera-based 

technologies will depend on a number of factors, and it may be 

advantageous to combine one of these newer methods with 

traditional in-line CCTV. 

A utility investigating new camera technologies or implementing changes to its pipe inspection program 

may benefit from performing a trial run or pilot project to ensure that proper test procedures are in place 

and that inspection crews are properly trained. Hillsborough County, Fla., for example, benefited from a 

pilot program, as described in a case study in Appendix A. 

Some of the issues to consider in making camera selection decisions are described below. 

• Reason for inspection. A utility needs to consider whether its goal is to conduct a system-wide 

inventory and general inspection or to target known problem areas. For a comprehensive 

inventory of a system, especially one in which it is anticipated that many pipes are in good 

condition, a zoom camera may be a good choice. For pipe segments where problems are 

anticipated, proceeding directly to CCTV or an advanced inspection method may be warranted. 

• Time frame. If information is needed quickly or traffic control is a concern, the speed of 

inspection may be an important consideration. 

• Level of detail required. For critical pipes, a high level of detail may be needed, and utilities 

may decide that a zoom camera will not be appropriate. In this case, a utility may select 

traditional in-line CCTV or may opt for the greater detail provided by digital scanning, especially 

if a goal is to track specific defects over time. For pipes of lower criticality (consequence of 

failure), a zoom camera may be adequate and may be a less-expensive alternative. 

• Anticipated pipe conditions. The pipe characteristics and condition may make certain 

technologies more feasible than others. For example, extensive debris may hinder movement of 

deployment devices such as push cams. A large number of bends in the pipe may limit the use of 

a zoom camera. The size of manhole required for easy entry into pipes should also be considered. 

Flow conditions are another important consideration. For example, low-flow conditions are 

preferred when using technologies that inspect only the dry portions of a pipe. 

• Types and sizes of pipes. The types of pipes will, to some degree, dictate the choice of camera. 

For laterals, push cams are generally needed. For larger pipes (> 8 in.), CCTV may be used. For 

gravity sewers of all sizes, CCTV, zoom cameras, and digital scanning may all be options. Large 

diameter pipes can pose a challenge for camera-based inspection technologies. The maximum 

diameter pipe for which a method is effective depends upon the capabilities of the specific model. 

Lighting is an important consideration, as is the resolution of the camera. Strong lighting is 

Figure 2-17. PipeEye pipe 

inspection robot. Source: Schempf 

(2000). Reprinted with permission.
2-23

needed to provide enough illumination for larger pipes. Utilities needing to inspect large 

diameter pipes should consult with manufacturers and contractors to get further information. 

• Purchasing vs. contracting. When considering a new technology, a utility will need to decide 

whether to invest in the inspection equipment or to use a contractor. The utility should consider 

whether the long-term need for the technology is sufficient to justify the expenditure to purchase 

the equipment and software and to train staff. If several technologies are selected for a 

comprehensive inspection and prioritization process, subcontracting at least some of the work 

may be more economical. 
3-24

Chapter 3. Overview of CCTV Inspection Data Analysis 

3.1 Introduction 

Sewer condition assessment is performed to evaluate sewer performance status or to prioritize sewer 

rehabilitation activities. CCTV is an important inspection technique in the condition assessment stage of 

asset management. It is a traditional technique that relies on the operator’s interpretation of visual images 

to convert the defect image into data for use in corrective action decisions. 

This chapter discusses CCTV inspection data for linear assets such as pipes with open channel flow and 

how these data are analyzed and manipulated in the corrective action process. CCTV can also be used in 

vertical assets such as manholes. Because all pipes were originally designed to perform at a specified 

hydraulic performance level under specific conditions, CCTV inspections help reveal whether pipes are 

performing as designed and, if not, to what extent the design performance is affected and what corrective 

actions are appropriate. 

3.2 Methods for Inspection Prioritization 

One of the first decisions in the CCTV inspection process is to identify priority assets for inspection. 

Ideally, an inspection would occur prior to a performance exception or problem (WEF, 2006). 

3.2.1 Selection of Assets for Inspection 

A well-developed inspection plan will consider how the data will be used in subsequent asset 

management steps. The goal is to maximize the value of the inspection while minimizing inspection 

costs. The plan should focus on program objectives, keeping in mind what data needs are driving the 

inspections and subsequent decision making. In comparing the costs and benefits of inspection, utilities 

should consider the value of data as an added benefit. Both the Fort Worth Water Department (FWWD) 

and Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 stress the importance of weighing the benefits of the 

data relative to the overall asset management objectives (see the detailed case studies, Appendix A). 

In a survey of its membership, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (now called the 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA) gathered information on inspection frequency, 

as detailed in Table 3-1 (AMSA, 2003). These survey results show that approximately half of survey 

respondents inspect less than 10% of their systems each year, resulting in a 10-year or longer inspection 

period for those systems. 

Table 3-1. Survey results of inspection frequency for conveyance systems 

Percent of Sewer Pipes Inspected % (Number) of Survey Respondents

<1% per year 3% (2 of 75)

1% – <3% per year 8% (6 of 75)

3% – <5% per year 15% (11 of 75)

5% – <10% per year 25% (19 of 75)

10% – <20% per year 27% (20 of 75)

20% – <50% per year 4% (3 of 75)
3-25

Percent of Sewer Pipes Inspected % (Number) of Survey Respondents

>50% per year 1% (1 of 75)

No Answer 17% (13 of 75)

Source: AMSA (2003). 

Use of an infrequent inspection rate requires prudence to identify critical assets that need more frequent 

inspection. For example, the FWWD has a goal of inspecting its entire system within an eight-year 

period. However, the more critical pipes are inspected at least every four years (see case study in 

Appendix A). Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 uses the results of its CCTV scoring and trend 

analysis to automatically schedule future CCTV inspections (see case study in Appendix A). 

The condition assessment process does not rely solely on data from CCTV inspections because gathering 

the data would take years. Therefore, condition assessment programs generally use a priority risk 

approach based on probabilistic methods to select assets for inspection. Decisions about which assets to 

inspect should be related to the utility’s program objectives and the assets that pose the most threat in the 

event of a performance problem. For example, if SSOs pose a significant threat, the utility may want to 

focus on assets that present the greatest SSO risk. 

3.2.2 Prioritization of Assets 

Approaches for selecting which assets to inspect can vary from basic methods based on inspection history 

or performance measures to more sophisticated methods that use predictive modeling and risk assessment. 

The FWWD, for example, uses the following performance measures to help prioritize sewer inspections: 

• SSOs per 100 miles. 

• Stoppages/blockages per 100 miles. 

• Customer complaints per 100 miles. 

Software applications can be retrospective or predictive and rely on the integration of computerized 

maintenance management systems (CMMS), GIS, customer information systems (CIS) or financial 

information systems (FIS) (AMWA et al., 2007). 

Three approaches described below can be used by almost any size utility to prioritize assets: 

• The Canadian National Research Council’s approach (McDonald and Zhao, 2001) uses an 

“impact assessment” to prioritize assets for inspection. Impact assessment is a weighted average 

of six impact factors: location, soil support, size, depth, sewer function and a seismic factor. 

This method allows the uniform calculation of the impacts of failure or performance problems. 

• The Sewer Cataloging, Retrieval, and Prioritization System (SCRAPS) is based on the general 

approach of defining risk factors based on consequences and likelihood of failure using Bayesian 

probability logic (Merrill et al., 2004). It is a tool that can be used when limited condition 

information is available or retrievable. 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 damage to the 

environment. The same terminology can be applied to the decision-making process used in 

applying condition assessment to asset management. The impact of a failure must be understood 
3-26

and quantifiable. If the costs can be quantified, this impact can be compared to both the cost of 

condition assessment and the cost of replacement or rehabilitation. 

• NACWA, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), and the Water 

Environment Federation (WEF) produced a publication titled “Implementing Asset Management: 

A Practical Guide in 2007” (AMWA et al., 2007) that uses a top-down approach to prioritization. 

The top-down approach uses risk factors similar to SCRAPS. However, this process is based on 

assigning risk scores to an asset group or set of assets at a system or facility level through 

spreadsheet matrices. Level of service values and weights are used to produce a numeric 

consequence of failure score. The likelihood of failure matrix includes physical condition and 

functional performance criteria that influence the remaining life of the asset. Institutional 

knowledge and professional judgment are the primary sources of this information. The 

consequence of failure score is multiplied by the likelihood of failure score, resulting in a risk 

score used to prioritize the asset groups. 

Section 3.5 further discusses risk-based prioritization but with more emphasis on its application to 

selecting appropriate corrective actions such as pipe repairs, rehabilitation or replacement. 

3.2.3 Asset Inspection 

The type of inspection performed depends on the objective of the condition assessment program. The 

climatologic and hydrologic differences across North America will influence the assessment objectives. 

For example, in coastal areas with high annual rainfall, inspection may focus on pipe capacity. In dry and 

seasonably warm regions, the assessment may focus on structural condition and service life. Program 

objectives are discussed in more detail in Chapter 1. 

The selected inspection technique needs to be appropriate for the type of asset, and it must provide the 

data needed to make decisions. CCTV is the most commonly used method of inspecting sewers and 

locating structural and maintenance defects. It is not a reliable method of locating I/I defects because of 

difficulties in correlating ground water elevation and movement relative to the asset. The zoom camera is 

a good, cost-effective method for screening pipes for more comprehensive CCTV inspection, as 

illustrated in the Hillsborough County case study (see Appendix A). 

A detailed work plan that integrates inspection procedures and data management protocols should be 

established to produce consistent and reproducible inspection results. These documents ideally will 

outline and address key assessment questions such as the following: 

• Which assets are high priorities for inspection? 

• How often are lower priority assets inspected? 

• How will the CCTV data be used to make assessment decisions? 

• What software tools are used for analyzing the CCTV data and planning maintenance work? 

• What quality control checks will be performed and by whom? 

• How are the CCTV data stored and managed? 

• What resources are needed to support the data collection and analysis activities? 
3-27

3.3 Defect Coding 

3.3.1 Code Design and Format 

Defect codes classify defects by category, defect type and severity. This helps the utility owner determine 

the overall physical condition of a pipe and its priority for further inspections and maintenance. Defect 

codes serve multiple functions in the CCTV inspection and data analysis process: 

• Codes serve as unique defect identifiers for operators to link an image from a pipe inspection to a 

specific pipe defect. 

• Standard codes provide a means to reduce operator subjectivity. 

• Codes enable different industry coding systems to be “mapped” to each other. 

Defect codes can be designed in various ways (e.g., one character or a string of characters). Their design 

is largely influenced by the code system and CCTV software features. The most traditional design is an 

acronym consisting of a string of letters or numbers that link to words describing the defect. For 

example, the acronym BP might represent “broken pipe.” The acronym BP3 would provide more 

descriptive information if “3” represented major severity on a scale of 1 to 3. Similar examples are 

illustrated in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. Table 3-2 shows some defect codes used by the City of Fort Worth, and 

Table 3-3 lists some structural defect codes from the NASSCO Pipeline Assessment and Certification 

Program (PACP) defect coding system. A complete list of defect codes used by Fort Worth is included in 

its case study in Appendix A; PACP codes are provided in NASSCO (2001). 

Table 3-2. Partial listing of defect codes for City of Fort Worth Water Department 

Code Severity Ranking Code Description 1 2 3 4 5

Less than 10% to 20% 20% to 30% More than 

G Grease N/A 10% of pipe of pipe of pipe 30% of pipe 

diameter diameter diameter diameter

Less than 10% to 20% 20% to 30% 30% to 40% More than 

R Roots 10% of pipe of pipe of pipe of pipe 40% of pipe 

diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter

Less than 10% to 20% 20% to 30% 30% to 40% More than 

OB Obstruction 10% of pipe of pipe of pipe of pipe 40% of pipe 

diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter

Less than 10% to 20% 20% to 30% 30% to 40% More than 

DE Debris 10% of pipe of pipe of pipe of pipe 40% of pipe 

diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter

Crack, CC Hairline Minor Moderate Major Severe Circumferential

Crack, CL Hairline Minor Moderate Major Severe Longitudinal

B Pipe Broken Hairline Minor Moderate Major Severe
3-28

Table 3-3. Example PACP structural defect codes 

and descriptions 

PACP Code Description

B Broken

BSV Broken soil visible

BVV Broken void visible

CC Crack circumferential

CL Crack longitudinal

CM Crack multiple

CS Crack spiral

D Deformed

FC Fracture circumferential

FL Fracture longitudinal

FM Fracture multiple

FS Fracture spiral

H Hole

HSV Hole soil visible

HVV Hole void visible

XB Collapsed brick sewer

XP Collapsed pipe

Source: NASSCO (2001). Used with permission. 

3.3.2 Code Systems 

A number of code systems have been developed to classify pipe defects. These systems are described 

below. In general, the code systems differ in their design and in the degree of detail with which the defect 

is described. A desirable feature is a defect dictionary that fully describes the defect with a narrative and 

example photos. 

WRc and NASSCO Defect Code Systems 

The Water Research Centre (WRc), a water, wastewater and environmental research-based consultancy 

group in the United Kingdom, developed a set of codes to rank the severity of pipe defects. European 

authorities adopted the WRc system as their benchmark pipe defect coding standard. The WRc defect 

coding system is described in the Manual of Sewer Condition Classification – 4th Edition (WRc, 2004), 

which can be purchased from NASSCO (http://www.nassco.org/). 

In 2001, NASSCO developed a Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) with associated 

defect codes (http://www.nassco.org/training_edu/te_pacp.html) based on the WRc system (NASSCO, 

2001). The PACP defect codes present several advantages and disadvantages, as listed in Table 3-4. 

NASSCO has also developed the Manhole Assessment Certification Program (MACP), with associated 

defect codes, and has initiated development of a similar code system for service laterals. 
3-29

Table 3-4. Advantages and disadvantages of the NASSCO PACP defect code system 

Advantages Disadvantages

•

•

•

•

Broad and well-established coding process 

and training system across North America.

Readily available standardized coding and 

data recording software.

Good defect code classification system.

Simple and intuitive defect grading scale for 

operators.

•

•

•

•

•

Standardized codes limit the degree of code 

customization and adaptations/improvements 

to coding system as technology evolves.

Three separate rating processes provide 

different condition interpretations for five 

coding families (see details in Appendix B).

Simplistic grading hinders definitive analysis 

cut-off points or sorting ranges when there 

are a large number of assets.

Scoring process is not integrated with other 

field inspection techniques.

No built-in or automated process that verifies 

the correct code was entered. Verification 

must be accomplished by a subsequent 

quality control review.

An example utility application of the PACP coding system is provided by Metro Water Services (MWS) 

in Nashville, Tenn. (see detailed case study in Appendix A). MWS replaced its in-house data 

management and defect code system, and initially found that using the PACP coding system decreased 

the department’s productivity. As the staff adjusted to the new system, productivity and efficiency 

increased. Inspection data are now quickly uploaded and available to all MWS employees within 24 

hours of inspection. As a result, duplicative inspection efforts are avoided. Inspection results have been 

much more consistent with the PACP coding system. The utility found that one disadvantage of PACP 

coding is that it can be too detailed, making it difficult to get complete information when querying for 

problems. For example, PACP coding has several observation codes for roots in the pipe. When 

identifying a root problem, different personnel may use different codes. The use of different PACP codes 

by operators may then cause difficulties when querying for root problems. If the user does not construct 

the query using the same multiple observation codes that were used to code the defects, the user will not 

find all instances of root problems. 

SCREAMTM Defect Code System 

SCREAMTM was developed by CH2M HILL to provide an alternate approach for rating the overall 

condition of a pipe. It has been integrated into vendor software such as CUES Granite XP software and 

Wallingford Software’s InfoNet program. The SCREAMTM code system is somewhat similar to PACP 

but includes a more comprehensive list of codes. Manhole and lateral codes were also developed. The 

SCREAMTM coding process presents several advantages and disadvantages, as summarized in Table 3-5.
3-30

Table 3-5. Advantages and disadvantages of the SCREAMTM defect code system 

Advantages Disadvantages

• Flexible code customization to match • Access limited through software vendors and 

historical or unique local nomenclature. consultants; proprietary software.

• Defect codes have a base and maximum • Comprehensive code list mandates operator 

score between which the defect is scaled training.

based on extent.

• Training and certification materials need 

• Code scores are specific to most popular pipe more defect photo documentation.

materials.

• No built-in or automated process to verify 

• Rating process produces one condition score that the correct code was entered. 

for each of four coding groups (see Appendix Verification must be accomplished by a 

B). subsequent quality control review.

• Code system integrates with other inspection • System is not widely used.

techniques.

Appendix B provides more detailed descriptions of the PACP and SCREAMTM code systems, as well as 

examples to illustrate the coding process. 

Alternative Defect Code Systems 

The Large Sewer Condition Coding and Rating (LSCCR) system was developed by Canada’s National 

Research Council Institute for Research in Construction (NRC-IRC) based on condition assessment 

procedures used by WRc and the cities of Edmonton and Phoenix. The LSCCR system is described in 

Guidelines for Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation of Large Sewers (Zhao et al., 2001), which can 

be downloaded at http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc45130.pdf.

Another option for utilities is to develop their own defect code system. Using a so-called “homegrown” 

defect code system allows the utility to standardize the condition assessment process at the utility level 

while being tailored to meet system-specific needs. These defect code systems often mirror some features 

of commercial software and typically offer a more basic coding method. Their simplicity may be 

desirable for reducing operator errors and other reasons, but may limit the robustness of the data for use in 

asset management decision making. 

FWWD created its own defect code system (see partial listing in Table 3-2) based on feedback from 

operators and technicians that the PACP system with 200 codes is too rigid, too complex and too 

cumbersome. Operators tended to memorize a handful of defect codes and rarely used the others. In 

some cases, the PACP codes were not specific enough for operator needs/requirements. FWWD’s code 

system is similar to the PACP system, but has fewer codes (75 vs. 200). Some utilities prefer this simpler 

approach because there is less dependence on the operator’s memory to recall an acronym when using 

software drop-down lists and short-cut keyboard features in CCTV software interface screens. 

3.4 Data Handling and Analysis 

Data handling, including collection, storage, retrieval, analysis, and reporting, is an important yet often 

overlooked component of a condition assessment program. Important questions to consider when 

selecting a data management system include: 

• Who needs access to what data? 
3-31

• What data do I need to review for short-term and long-term decision making? 

• What reports will I generate from the data management system? 

• How much training is needed to manipulate software or to view data? 

• What is my budget for software and training? 

• Are there licensing fees and other system maintenance costs? 

• Do I want to integrate CCTV data with other historical data? 

• Is my staff willing to change to a new, more complex system? 

• Is my data transferable to another system if I decide to change vendors? 

• Is my software open source or proprietary? 

Since the late 1990s, many utilities have replaced analog CCTV cameras with digital models, and have 

identified a number of benefits. For example, SPU has found that digital information has a long storage 

life and requires little space. Data retrieval from analog videotapes is difficult, and the tapes degrade after 

approximately 7 to 10 years (see case studies in Appendix A). Digital storage media (e.g., CDs and 

DVDs) do have a finite storage life, so data may need to be transferred to other media as the technology 

evolves. Furthermore, digital inspection data can be easily accessible to a greater number of utility 

personnel via links from the GIS and computerized maintenance management system. 

Utility owners have experienced some initial productivity loss and reluctance from the CCTV operators 

when implementing the new data formats, and some have found a need for increased resources. The 

FWWD, for example, found that more information technology support was needed to maintain its 

software and additional training was required for CCTV operators (see Appendix A). Nashville MWS 

and Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 also needed additional operator training and budgeting 

support with the new CCTV software management system. The FWWD recommends that utilities select 

CCTV inspection software that is non-proprietary, open architecture based and not developed by the 

CCTV camera manufacturers. 

There are three general approaches to data management software, with varying costs and degrees of 

complexity: 

1. Spreadsheet software. 

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

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

3.4.1 Spreadsheet Software 

Spreadsheet software offers the least costly option for data management and is the most familiar to utility 

staff. Microsoft Excel and IBM’s Lotus 1-2-3 are examples of popular spreadsheets. Most utilities are 

likely to already have such software. A basic yet effective data management system can be designed; 

however, as the database expands, the spreadsheets and data links can become overly cumbersome and 

require a more advanced user to leverage the software. The Seattle Public Utilities used an Excel 

spreadsheet to apply its pipe risk model (see Appendix A). 

3.4.2 Condition Assessment/Asset Management Software 

There are numerous commercially available data management programs for CCTV-generated data, 

ranging in complexity and cost. Examples include Canalis (Aqua Data Inc.); CapPlan Sewer (MWH 

Soft); Cass Works (RJN Group Inc.); CityWorks (Azteca Systems, Inc.); CTSpec (CTZoom Technologies 

Inc.); gbaMS (GBA Master Series, Inc.); Granite XP (CUES); Hansen (INfOR); InfoNet (Wallingford 

Software); Maximo® (IBM); and SEWERview (Cartêgraph, Inc.). USEPA provides free asset 

management software (Check Up Program for Small Systems, CUPSS) on its Web site 
3-32

(http://www.epa.gov/cupss/ ). Figure 3-1 is an example of a 

screen shot of a CUES Granite XP pipe inspection map and 

camera image. The publication “Implementing Asset 

Management: A Practical Guide” (AMWA et al., 2007) 

discusses some of the currently available software 

applications. Contact information for software vendors is 

provided in Appendix C. 

Commercially available software designed for condition 

assessment offers various functions including: 

• Document status of pipe being inspected. 

• Provide access to text data, video and still photos. 

• Code defects in different forms (i.e., acronym, bar 

codes, touch screen images). 

• Customize defect codes to capture local terminology

match historical records and/or support specific local

policies/regulations. 

• Store defect codes on pipe segments both spatially and temporally. 

• Sort and categorize defects by location, type, severity, score, etc. 

• Compile defect data into a searchable database. 

• Incorporate cost accounting. 

• Develop work orders for maintenance calls and ordering spare parts. 

• Incorporate GIS functionality into the system. 

The utility should identify software that can provide the desired functions. It should also confirm that the 

software developer can provide training and technical support services as needed to ensure successful 

implementation. 

3.4.3 General Database Management Software 

An alternative to commercially available software or a standard spreadsheet is a database designed 

specifically for a utility’s needs. This approach may offer advantages in data processing and analysis 

time because the database is system-specific. However, it may involve additional up-front costs and 

require additional technical expertise. Other costs include software licensing fees and staff training. 

Database management software systems can be divided into two groups: desktop databases and server 

databases. Commercially available desktop products include Microsoft Access, FileMaker Pro, Alpha 

Five, Paradox and Lotus Approach. Desktop products provide the user with significant flexibility to 

modify and customize analysis and reporting functions. Server databases, such as Microsoft SQL Server, 

Oracle and IBM DB2, allow the efficient management of large amounts of data. Web-based applications 

can be developed using either desktop products such as Microsoft Access or server databases. 

Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 (developed its own database system and integrated it with 

commercially available asset management software (see case study in Appendix A). District personnel 

found that the process takes time to develop, but provides the flexibility to design engineering analysis 

and generate reporting queries and work orders at substantial cost savings compared to the prior data 

management practices. The district also uses condition assessment software discussed in Section 3.4.2 

and integrates the software platforms, as illustrated in Figure 3-2.

, 

Figure 3-1. Example CUES Granite XP 

pipe inspection map with camera image. 

Source: CUES, Inc. (2009). Reprinted 

with permission.
3-33

Figure 3-2. The Northern Kentucky Sanitary District No. 1’s example integration of general database and 

condition assessment software. Image courtesy of Northern Kentucky Sanitary District No. 1.
3-34

3.4.4 Pipe Rating and Scoring Methods 

CCTV data analysis is an important step in condition assessment of pipelines because the results 

influence the overall pipe condition rating and risk scoring. The approach to CCTV data analysis depends 

on several factors including: 

• The type of asset inspected (e.g., pipe, manhole, service lateral). 

• The camera technology used for pipe inspection (e.g., digital CCTV camera, zoom camera, digital 

scanning). 

• The method used to convert pipe defect codes to overall pipe rating and risk ranking. 

Figure 3-3 shows the typical steps that occur from the first identification of a pipe defect to establishing 

the pipe’s priority ranking for pipe rehabilitation or replacement. 

Figure 3-3. Typical steps from defect identification through prioritization of pipe rehabilitation projects. 

Source: Kathula and Rowe (2004). Reprinted with permission. 

Two pipe rating analysis methods are discussed below: PACP and SCREAMTM. Details and examples 

are provided in Appendix B. 

PACP Rating Analysis System for Pipes 

The PACP uses a numerical grading system to rate the severity of each pipe defect and calculate overall 

pipe ratings based on grades for individual pipe segments. NASSCO (2001) describes the basis and 

assumptions used in establishing this grading system: 

“The PACP Condition Grading System only considers internal pipe conditions obtained 

from TV inspection. While other factors such as pipe material, depth, soils, and surface 

conditions also affect pipe survivability, those factors have not been included in this 

version of the PACP Condition Grading System. The PACP Condition Grading System 

should be used as a tool for screening pipe segments, allowing the User to quickly 

determine which pipe segments have significant defects. It is expected that as the PACP 

further develops the PACP Condition Grading System will expand to include other 

factors.” 

The defect grading system uses a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing a minimal defect and 5 representing 

the worst defect. Structural and O&M defects are graded separately based on the likelihood of further 
3-35

deterioration or failure. The PACP system uses several terms for expressing pipe condition (NASSCO, 

2001): 

• Segment Grade Scores: Each pipe segment (manhole-to-manhole pipe run) receives five 

Segment Grade Scores, one for each of the five grades. The score equals the number of defects 

multiplied by the grade number. For example, a pipe segment with six Grade 5 defects has a 

Segment Grade 5 Score of 30 (6 defects multiplied by a grade of 5). If a pipe segment has no 

defects for a particular grade, the Segment Grade Score for that grade is 0. 

• Overall Pipe Rating: The sum of five Segment Grade Scores. 

• Structural Pipe Rating: The sum of five Segment Grade Scores considering only structural 

defects. 

• Overall Pipe Rating Index: An expression of the average defect severity found in the pipe 

segment. The index is calculated by dividing the Overall Pipe Rating by the number of defects. 

• Structural Pipe Rating Index: The average severity of structural defects in the pipe segment. The 

index is calculated by dividing the Structural Pipe Rating by the number of defects. 

• O&M Pipe Rating Index: The average severity of O&M defects in the pipe segment. The index is 

calculated by dividing the O&M Pipe Rating by the number of defects. 

SCREAMTM Rating Analysis System for Pipes 

The SCREAMTM rating analysis system includes coding individual defects, scoring the overall pipe 

condition and scoring the structural, maintenance and I/I group defects. The coding of individual defects 

includes calculation of a base score and a maximum score; the base score represents minor defects (e.g., a 

point defect or a defect that affects 1 ft or less of pipe length) and the maximum score represents major 

defects (e.g., a defect that affects the entire pipe segment). For both defect coding and pipe condition 

scoring, a scoring scale of 1 to 100 is applied with 1 representing a very minor defect and 100 

representing the most severe defect (e.g., a collapsed pipe). 

The SCREAMTM methodology includes computation of an Overall Pipe Score for the aggregated defects 

found in the pipe. It also computes a separate score for the structural, maintenance and I/I groups of 

defects. These scores are calculated using a multiple attribute method that involves advanced rootsquare-mean mathematical principles. One key principle is to identify and build upon the highest scored 

defect value found in the inspection (Kathula, 2004). 

3.5 Role of CCTV Data in Asset Management Decision Making 

The purpose of this section is to highlight and summarize the role of CCTV data in asset prioritization 

decisions, the final step in the condition assessment process. There are two ways of making decisions, 

one based on pipe condition information and the second using a risk assessment approach. A risk-based 

approach is the only way to prioritize for renewal assets that are in the same condition and display the 

same deterioration rate. A strict condition-based approach is tenable only when resources are available to 

renew all assets that are worse than a given threshold condition. 
3-36

3.5.1 CCTV Data Used in Condition-Based Prioritization Decisions 

A utility may decide to proceed with work on a particular asset or group of assets because it has a historic 

record of problematic performance or it meets certain performance measure criteria (see Section 3.2.2). 

CCTV data are then used to help make a condition-based decision on what action should be used to 

correct the asset and the priority given to this corrective action. There may be numerous locations and 

assets that fall into this category and require a relatively short-term fix, for instance within a 1- to-5-year 

period. However, even within this period, the asset corrective actions need to be prioritized. 

The condition-based decision approach has two common decision sequences, which differ primarily on 

when the cost of the corrective action is considered and what role it has in the prioritization. Figure 3-4 

shows the two options. 

In Option 1, CCTV inspection analysis leads to an internal condition rating, a prioritization decision, and 

then a type of corrective action. In this option, the cost of the corrective action can be considered in the 

selection of the corrective action or after the correction action is selected. 

Option 2 is similar to Option 1 except that the corrective action decision is made immediately after the 

internal condition rating. Generally, the cost of the corrective action is considered when the corrective 

action decision is made and the cost influences the prioritization decision. 

Figure 3-4. Two optional condition-based decision approaches. 

Utilities typically use less costly inspection methods for initial evaluations, then progress to more 

comprehensive and more costly techniques as warranted. For example, utilities may initially inspect 

manholes and connecting pipes with zoom cameras if the manholes are readily accessible by field crews. 

Zoom cameras enable utilities to screen the pipes and reduce the number of pipes that require CCTV 

inspection to only those needing the more detailed investigation. 

Utilities that use the PACP rating system need to decide which of the three PACP scoring methods is 

preferred. A popular method is the Pipe Rating Index method previously discussed. Pipes rated as Grade 

4 or 5, for instance, would be evaluated more closely or acted upon first compared to pipes with a of 

Grade 1 – 3. The grading system screens the assets for further evaluation of replacement or rehabilitation 

issues and development of a cost estimate for establishing a priority and schedule. 

Utilities that use the SCREAMTM rating process prioritize corrective actions based on the single 

numerical defect score. Usually the utility establishes a range of score values to determine the urgency of 

a specific corrective action. For instance, Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 uses a structural 
3-37

score range of 81– 100 to trigger rehabilitation or replacement in its large inceptors, and a range of 61 – 

80 triggers future inspections. 

3.5.2 CCTV Used in Risk-Based Prioritization Decisions 

Because of limited resources, most utilities must prioritize assets for inspection. Therefore, the condition 

assessment process does not rely solely on CCTV data because it could take many years to complete a 

system-wide inspection program (Rowe, 2009). The challenge is to understand the possible risks posed 

by an asset failure and determine at what point to intervene to avoid a failed condition with an 

unacceptable cost or consequence. 

Risk is quantified by the combination of both the likelihood of failure and consequence of failure. CCTV 

inspection provides data to improve the integrity of the likelihood of failure score. The mathematical 

expression of risk is (AMWA et al., 2007): 

Risk = [(Consequence of failure) x (Likelihood of failure)] 

Various risk-based decision models have been developed for sewer assets. Because CCTV data are not 

always available for every asset, predictive modeling is often used to determine the likelihood of pipe 

failure until the asset can be directly inspected. For example, SPU uses a predictive model based on pipe 

material decay curves to estimate the likelihood of failure (see the detailed case study in Appendix A). 

Figure 3-5 presents an example of a risk-based approach to determine the priority assets for more 

comprehensive inspections or other corrective actions. The “Likelihood of Failure” and “Consequence of 

Failure” terms in the risk calculation are usually developed by constructing a matrix that lists the 

important criteria or service level factors and the associated score (AMWA et al. 2007). The “Likelihood 

of Failure” term considers both current internal condition information and time-based information (e.g., 

historical work order records). The “Consequence of Failure” term represents time-based information 

since it considers future events related to pipe failures. Figure 3-5 shows how CCTV data can be 

incorporated into the prioritization process. If the condition rating of an asset was initially determined by 

a predictive approach and the asset is then inspected using CCTV, its risk rating should be recalculated 

and its action reprioritized. 

Figure 3-6 is another example of a risk-based prioritization decision framework where the internal 

condition ratings are all based on CCTV data. Asset prioritization and corrective action Options 1 and 2 

are the same as discussed above under Section 3.5.1, Condition-Based Prioritization Decisions. 

In conclusions, the primary objective of this guidance document is to identify and evaluate innovative 

CCTV and related technologies currently used by more advanced wastewater utilities to conduct 

condition assessment programs. The document is intended to facilitate the transfer of these innovative 

technologies to utilities at large. The steps in developing and implementing a condition assessment 

program are presented along with related practical guidelines. Technology applications and lessons 

learned from seven utility case studies are summarized and used to illustrate specific concepts. Detailed 

case study reports are presented in Appendix A. 
3-38

Figure 3-5. Example risk-based prioritization decision framework for multiple internal condition rating 

input sources. 
3-39

Figure 3-6. Example long-term risk-based prioritization decision framework. 
R-40

References 

ADS. (2010). Scattergraph Principles and Practice. Available on the internet at 

http://www.adsenv.com/scattergraph. Accessed 2.22.10. 

AMWA, NACWA and WEF. 2007. Implementing Asset Management: A Practical Guide. Alexandria, 

VA: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies, Water Environment Foundation. 

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) – currently National Association of Clean 

Water Agencies). 2003. Wet Weather Survey-Final Report. Washington, D.C. 

Bainbridge, K., and Krinas, H. 2008. Efficient condition management of sewer systems using both zoom 

camera technology and “traditional CCTV.” In Proc. Of the NASTT No-Dig Conference. 

Batman, P.J., Ramamurthy, A., and Shelton, J. 2008. Blending Zoom Technology with Traditional CCTV 

in a Condition Assessment Program. In Proc. Of the NASTT No-Dig Conference. 

Black and Veatch Corporation. 2004. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Solutions: Guidance Manual. ASCE/EPA 

Cooperative Agreement CP-828955-01-0. Washington, D.C.: USEPA Office of Wastewater 

Management. 

CTZoom Technologies, Inc. 2006. PortaZoom Camera. Quebec, Canada: CTZoom Technologies, Inc. 

Available on the internet at http://www.ctzoom.com/PortaZoom-camera.asp. 

CUES, Inc. 2009. Products. Available on the internet at http://www.cuesinc.com/Products.html. 

iPEK International GmbH. 2009. iPEK: ROVVER. Available on the internet at 

http://www.ipek.at/index.php?id=24&L=ypfawcmpsneig. 

Joseph, S., and DiTullio, W., 2003. Evaluation of Collection Systems Using the Aqua Zoom Camera. 

New Pipeline Technologies, Security, and Safety. In Proc. of International Conference on 

Pipeline Engineering and Construction. 

Karasaki, K., Shima, H., and Iseley, T. 2001. The coming of age of advanced digital optical scanning 

technology for pipeline assessment. Available on the internet at 

http://www.nastt.org/store/technical_papersPDF/85.pdf. 

Kathula, V. S. and Rowe, R. 2004. Application of New Sewer Condition Assessment Methodology 

Measures the Relative Conveyance Performance and Risk Impacts of FOG and Other Pipe 

Defects. In Proc. of the Water Environment Federation Specialty Conference Collection Systems. 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

Knight, M., Younis, R., Barrall, B., Russin, J., and Manners, C. 2009. Advances in Pipeline Asset 

Management Using Digital Side Scanning Evaluation Technology. In Proc. Of the NASTT NoDig Conference. 

Martin, T. 2004. Seattle Public Utilities Asset Management Sewer Pipe Risk Model. Presented at 

Leading Edge Asset Management Conference, San Francisco, CA, July 27, 2004. 
R-41

Martin, T., Johnson, D., and S. Anschell. 2007. Using Historical Repair Data to Create Customized 

Predictive Failure Curves for Sewer Pipe Risk Modeling. In Proc.of LESAM 2007 2nd Leading 

Edge Conference on Strategic Asset Management. London, UK: IWA Publishing. 

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 (NASSCO). 2001. Pipeline Assessment and 

Certification Program (PACP) Reference Manual. Available by contacting NASSCO at 

http://www.nassco.org. 

RapidView. 2009a. Inspection Tractors. Available on the internet at http://rapidview.com/tractors.htm. 

RapidView. 2009b. Panoramo 3D Optical Scanner. Available on the internet at 

http://rapidview.com/panoramo.htm. 

Renfro, J.A., Kaakaty, C., DiTullio, W., and Renfro, M.A. 2005. Dallas project uses new inspection 

technology. Texas H2O. Official Newsletter of the Texas Section AWWA, June/July 2005. 

Rinner, J. and Pryputniewicz, S., N.d. To Zoom or Not to Zoom. 2009. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from 

http://www.inframetrix.com/images/NEWEAPaper%209-08Westfordfinal.doc. 

Rowe, R., Loechle, J., Kathula, V., Gray, J., Muller, J. 2009. Louisville MSD Integrates Sewer Pipe 

Probability of Failure and Consequence of Failure to Guide Their Continuing Sewer System 

Assessment Program. In Proc.of the Water Environment Federation Collection System Specialty 

Conference; Louisville, Kentucky. 

Schempf, H. 2000. PipeEye. Automatika, Inc., QinetiQ North America. Available on the internet at 

http://www.uvs-info.com/pdf/ugvspec/Automatika_USA_PipeEye.pdf. 

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., and Kopchynski, 

R.K. 2004. An Examination of Innovative Methods used in the Inspection of Wastewater Systems. 

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

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, D.C. 

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, D.C. 

Water Environment Federation (WEF). 2006. Guide to Managing Peak Wet Weather Flows in Municipal 

Wastewater Systems. WEF, Alexandria, Virginia. 
R-42

Zhao, J.Q., McDonald, S.E., and Kleiner, Y. 2001. Guidelines for Condition Assessment and 

Rehabilitation of Large Sewers. Available on the internet at http://www.nrccnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/ nrcc45130.pdf. 
A-43

Appendix A. Utility Case Studies 
A-44

Case Study on Implementation of New Data Management System – City of Fort Worth Water 

Dept., Fort Worth, Texas 

This case study discusses the experience of the City of Fort Worth, Texas, in transitioning to a new 

standardized coding system and data management software. 

Lessons Learned 

The City of Fort Worth Water Department (FWWD) has been very satisfied with the implementation of 

its new standardized coding system adapted from PACP, digital video inspections and data management 

software. Advantages of the new system include: 

• 100% digital videos and photos and improved querying. Prior to the new system, staff had to 

manually search for VHS tapes on a shelf and fast forward through the tape to find points of 

interest. FWWD is now able to easily search for any inspection and quickly access all 

information. 

• Historic records. It is advantageous to have access to data from multiple inspections of a single 

pipe segment and inspections performed over an extended period of time. These data can be used 

to compare the results of past inspections to the results of current inspections as part of condition 

assessment. 

• Exporting of records. The new software has made it much easier to export inspection records 

and recordings for review by developers and engineers. 

• Standardized defect coding. The implementation of a standardized defect coding system has 

greatly improved the consistency of inspection data. This has led to more efficient cleaning and 

maintenance procedures. 

One drawback is a need to routinely replace electronics in the inspection vehicles due to the harsh 

conditions to which equipment is exposed. FWWD has also needed increased resources to provide more 

information technology support to maintain the software and to provide additional training for CCTV 

operators. 

FWWD recommends that utilities select CCTV inspection software that is non-proprietary, open 

architecture based and not developed by the CCTV camera manufacturers. 

FWWD also recommends that if a small or medium-sized community plans to have more than one 

inspection vehicle, it should plan to standardize the electrical components. CCTV vehicles are a harsh 

environment for electronics, and FWWD has noticed hardware (motherboards, fans, video capture cards, 

etc.) failures occurring more frequently than anticipated. The solution has been to purchase the 

components, build the computers and replace the existing computers once every two years regardless of 

their condition. 

With respect to personnel training, FWWD realized that more IT support was needed within the 

department to help with troubleshooting and maintenance of the software. The change in procedure also 

necessitated training for CCTV operators in the use of the new computer-intensive techniques. Also, the 

expense of purchasing licenses, maintaining a dedicated server, and training personnel is greater than the 

cost of FWWD’s previous system. Utilities will need to weigh the benefits of improved data management 

against additional expenses. 
A-45

Background 

FWWD provides drinking water and wastewater services for the community of Fort Worth, Texas, and 21 

surrounding communities. The FWWD sewer collection system serves a population of approximately 

660,000 people with approximately 208,000 service connections. 

Initial construction of FWWD’s collection system began in 1906 with multiple brick sewers. A large 

expansion of the collection system took place in the 1940s with the installation of primarily vitrified clay 

pipe. Throughout the following 60 years, pipelines were added to the collection system as the local 

population grew. In 1962, FWWD constructed a 96-in. diameter sewer main, which is still the largest 

pipe in the system. The current collection system spans a total of approximately 3,000 miles and has an 

average age of 29 years. The collection system is a completely separate system with an average daily 

flow of 120 million gallons per day (MGD). The collection system consists of eight major drainage 

basins each of which is divided into 66 sub-basins averaging 237,000 linear ft of pipe. These sub-basins 

are further divided into 325 sub-areas with an average 44,000 linear ft of pipe. 

Historical CCTV Inspections and Defect Coding 

FWWD initially instituted its CCTV program in the mid 1990s with the objective of inspecting the entire 

system once every eight years. Historically, CCTV inspection was used for a variety of purposes such as 

determining pipe condition, aiding in planning maintenance strategies, evaluating the effectiveness of its 

cleaning program, performing post SSO evaluations, performing inspection of new construction and 

finding customer service lateral tap locations. 

FWWD personnel perform all inspections of pipes with diameters of less than 20in. For pipes with 

diameters greater than 20 in., FWWD relies on contractors to perform CCTV, sonar and laser inspections. 

Initially, FWWD made no allowances for CCTV software. When purchasing CCTV vehicles, the utility 

did not specify any options so the vendors made equipment decisions. Inspection records were not saved, 

and the analog VHS tapes were simply indexed and manually filed. To find a specific CCTV inspection, 

office personnel would search for a tape and then fast forward and rewind through the footage. This 

process resulted in shelves overfilled with inspection videos and no efficient method for retrieving 

historical inspection records. At times, FWWD personnel found it easier to just re-inspect the pipe 

segment. 

Current CCTV and Defect Coding 

In fall 2003, FWWD changed from analog video to digital video, implemented a new standardized coding 

system and installed new data management software. An internal defect coding system was created based 

on a 1 to 5 rating system for multiple pipe defects. Prior to this, the utility had not used a defect coding 

system. 

FWWD did not select a PACP-certified defect coding system because it was believed that the system is 

too rigid, too complex and too cumbersome. There was concern that the PACP ratings would not be 

consistently produced by their operators. Darrell Gadberry of FWWD said the following in an e-mail 

message: 

“I have talked to a lot of operators, technicians and managers regarding PACP. Managers 

love it because they think they have a standardized CCTV program in place. Operators 

hate it due to the extremely large amount of defect observation codes and rating 

variables. Therefore they [operators] memorized a handful and rarely use the others. In 
A-46

some cases, the observation codes are not specific enough for their needs/requirements. 

Since there is no consistency between each inspection and/or operator, there is very little 

benefit for the technicians” (Gadberry, 2009). 

For example, PACP coding has several different observation codes for roots in the pipe. When 

identifying a root problem, different personnel may use different codes. The use of different PACP codes 

by operators may then cause difficulties when querying for root problems. If the user does not construct 

the query using the same multiple observation codes that were used to code the defects, the user will not 

find all instances of root problems. 

The internal defect coding system that FWWD created and implemented uses coding similar to PACP, 

but the coding system is more streamlined and better tailored to FWWD’s needs. For example, the 

coding system uses 75 codes compared to 200 codes for the PACP coding system. The coding system 

assigns ratings from 1 to 5 for each section of pipe inspected, with a rating of 1 representing the best 

condition and a rating of 5 signifying the worst. The 1 to 5 rating can be given for each observation 

within a pipe segment. Each observation is assigned a code, which is simply an abbreviation. The 

observations are broken down into six categories: common text, operation and maintenance (O&M) 

issues, pipe defects, tap connections, service lateral, and grade/alignment. Table A-1 gives a list of 

observation codes used by FWWD along with specific code descriptions and ratings (FWWD, 2007). 

Even with this standardized coding system, FWWD management has noticed some inconsistencies among 

operators. In an attempt to alleviate these inconsistencies, FWWD now employs two technicians who are 

strictly dedicated to CCTV inspection review and assessment. 
A-47

Table A-1. Summary of Fort Worth defect codes 

Code Code 

Description

Severity Ranking

1 2 3 4 5

G Grease N/A

Less than 10% 

of pipe 

diameter

10% to 20% of 

pipe diameter

20% to 30% of 

pipe diameter

More than 30% 

of pipe diameter

R Roots

Less than 10% 

of pipe 

diameter

10% to 20% of 

pipe diameter

20% to 30% of 

pipe diameter

30% to 40% of 

pipe diameter

More than 40% 

of pipe diameter

OB Obstruction

Less than 10% 

of pipe 

diameter

10% to 20% of 

pipe diameter

20% to 30% of 

pipe diameter

30% to 40% of 

pipe diameter

More than 40% 

of pipe diameter

DE Debris

Less than 10% 

of pipe 

diameter

10% to 20% of 

pipe diameter

20% to 30% of 

pipe diameter

30% to 40% of 

pipe diameter

More than 40% 

of pipe diameter

CC Crack, 

Circumferential Hairline Minor Moderate Major Severe

CL Crack, 

Longitudinal Hairline Minor Moderate Major Severe

B Pipe Broken Hairline Minor Moderate Major Severe

H Hole in Pipe Less than 1⁄2 in. 1⁄2 in. to 1 in. 

diameter

1 in. to 2 in. 

diameter

2 in. to 3 in. 

diameter

More than 3 in. 

diameter

X Collapse N/A N/A N/A N/A Complete failure 

imminent

I Infiltration/ 

Inflow N/A N/A Dripping Running/steady stream Gushing/pouring

J Joint 

Offset/Separated N/A N/A Minor Moderate Severe

SW Surface 

Deterioration N/A N/A N/A

Heavy 

deterioration, 

major aggregate 

projection.

Heavy 

deterioration, 

major aggregate 

projection is 

beyond repair

E Encrustation N/A Minor Moderate Major Severe

D Pipe Deformed N/A

Minor bumps, 

folds and 

wrinkles on the 

pipe walls

Moderate 

bumps, folds 

and wrinkles on 

the pipe walls

Major bumps, 

folds and 

wrinkles on the 

pipe walls

Major bumps, 

folds and 

wrinkles on the 

pipe, could be 

damaged during 

cleaning

Source: FWWD, 2007

Note: Other codes include break-in tap connection (TB), factory tap connection (TF), service lateral defective (SLD), pipe 

material change (MC), diameter change (DC), camera underwater (CU), camera emerged (CE), upward change in gradient 

(LU), downward change in gradient (LD), line bends left (LL), and line bends right (LR).
A-48

Data Management and Inspection Strategy

FFWD selected its data management software (Inspect IT by Infrastructure Technologies) for several 

reasons: 

• The ability of Structured Query Language (SQL) to manage, standardize, and query data; manage 

reports; and link to CMMS or GIS. 

• The ability to store multiple inspections of the same pipe segment over an extended period of 

time. 

• The ability to use the software in lieu of CMMS. 

• The ability to coordinate the software with ESRI GIS software. 

• The ability to have all data maintained on a single dedicated server. 

CCTV, sonar, and laser inspections are captured digitally and stored on a dedicated SQL server. FWWD 

maintains an extensive archive of over 19,000 digital videos and 27,000 digital photos on its server. In 

total, its digital library holds approximately 3.4 terabytes of data. 

FWWD also uses ESRI’s ArcView software and IBM’s Maximo asset management software for its GIS 

and CMMS, respectively. FWWD is able to link inspection records to ArcView to create asset-based 

datasets for all pipe segments within the collection system. The GIS datasets also include record 

drawings and construction information. This has allowed FWWD to monitor pipe age and type when 

conducting and scheduling inspections. The Maximo software is used to coordinate sewer inspections 

and maintenance with other City of Fort Worth departments. 

FWWD now prioritizes inspections to focus budgeted resources according to need. FWWD calculates the 

following performance indicators for each sub-area of the collection system on an annual basis: 

• SSOs per 100 miles. 

• Stoppages/blockages per 100 miles. 

• Customer complaints per 100 miles. 

Using this process each year, FWWD selects approximately 285 miles of sanitary sewer for cleaning, 

television inspection and condition assessment. Each sub-area is identified in the FWWD GIS dataset, 

which is used to create work orders in FWWD’s CMMS. Each cleaning and inspection work order is 

specific to one sewer segment. 

Inspection frequency is based on the known sewer condition. A 4-year frequency is used for sub-areas in 

the worst condition; a 4-to 6-year frequency is used for average condition; and an 8-year frequency is 

used for the best condition. This method also minimizes the possibility of unnecessary inspections 

damaging old clay pipes, especially those of small diameter. Table A-2 summarizes inspections 

conducted from 2004 to 2008. 

 
A-49

Table A-2. Summary of pipe inspections conducted 2004-2008

Inspection 

Pipe Material Pipe Size (in.) Length (miles)

Cast Iron 6 to 18 6.27

Concrete 6 to 72 369.15

Cured in Place, Lined, high-density polyethylene (HDPE), etc. 6 to 42 14.66

Ductile Iron 6 to 42 38.16

Polyvinyl Chloride 6 to 36 395.41

Vitrified Clay 6 to 27 167.38

All inspection records associated with the project are exported and linked to the original GIS dataset. A 

visual observation of all O&M, structural and capacity recommendations is performed to determine the 

project’s effectiveness. 

At the completion of the project, a standardized two-page summary is prepared along with associated 

tables and maps documenting all system deficiencies and recommendations. All O&M recommendations 

are addressed by FWWD. The structural and capacity recommendations are included in the FWWD’s 

Capital Improvement Program (CIP). An example of a sub-area summary report can be found in 

Appendix D. 

References 

Gadberry, Darrell. (2009). E-mail Interview. 

Fort Worth, Texas Water Department (FWWD). (2007). City of Fort Worth Water Department CCTV 

Inspection and Defect Coding Program. 

Contact: Darrell Gadberry, Water Systems Superintendent 

 1608 11th Avenue 

 Fort Worth, TX 76102-4397

 Phone: 817-999-7907
A-50

Case Study on Using a Risk Assessment Approach for a Sewer Pipe Inspection Program – 

Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Wash. 

This case study discusses development and implementation of a sewer pipe risk model to analyze costs 

and benefits of CCTV inspection. 

Lessons Learned 

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has found the application of a sewer pipe risk model to be a worthy 

investment. SPU determined that there was a critical need for risk assessment when a collection sewer 

pipe collapsed and caused a sewage backup at a city hospital. At the time, all system pipes were 

scheduled for inspection on a 30-year cycle, and the lack of current pipe condition information created a 

reactive mode of operation. 

The main benefits of the risk model are the information gained from risk assessment and the automation 

of the decision process. Some utilities have found that it is not cost-effective to inspect all pipes. Risk 

assessment can be used to identify and prioritize pipes that present comparatively greater risks to public 

health and the environment. The automation of this risk assessment process is necessary for any system 

with a complex network of pipes. 

Application of SPU’s risk model has resulted in unforeseen benefits. Modeling results helped SPU 

realize that some model input data were incorrect. For example, GIS attributes including pipe elevation 

data were suspect in about 20% of pipes. With Seattle’s hilly terrain, pipe elevation and slope are critical 

parameters. Since GIS data are also used for SPU’s hydraulic model, data corrections made as a result of 

the sewer pipe risk modeling project also helped to improve the accuracy of hydraulic model output. 

Background 

SPU is a municipal utility owned by the City of Seattle. It provides retail water, wastewater and drainage 

and solid waste services to approximately 700,000 Seattle residents. Approximately 112 to 115 MGD of 

wastewater is collected from the SPU system and treated at King County’s West Point treatment facility. 

SPU has more than 2,000 miles of pipe with an average age of almost 75 years. Approximately one-third 

of the system has combined sewers and two-thirds consist of separate sanitary sewers. Wastewater 

collection pipe ranges in diameter from 6 in. to 12 ft. Prior to 1950, sewers were primarily constructed 

with vitrified clay, whereas concrete has been the predominant material of construction since 1950. The 

sewer pipe infrastructure has a net worth of approximately $2.5 billion (2007 dollars). 

SPU started performing CCTV inspection of sewer pipes in the late 1960s. Today, inspections are 

conducted using in-line digital cameras, other equipment, and trucks—all owned by the utility. SPU also 

owns one zoom camera and uses its inspection results (e.g., presence of tree roots inside pipe) to adjust 

pipe maintenance schedules as warranted. It has not developed a unit cost comparison of the different 

camera technologies the utility has used. SPU can store information from the digital CCTV cameras 

much longer and in a much smaller space than it could information from the older, analog cameras, and 

the analog videotapes degraded after 7 to 10 years. The digital inspection data are easily accessed by more 

utility staff members via links from the GIS and computerized maintenance management system. SPU 

uses a PACP-certified method for coding pipe defects with Granite XP asset inspection and decision 

support software (http://www.cuesinc.com/). 

Since the inception of the CCTV inspection program, all sewer pipes have been inspected on a 30-year 

cycle regardless of age, condition, material of construction, location or diameter. This approach to 
A-51

assessing pipe condition has two major flaws (Martin, 2004). First, the infrequent CCTV inspections 

seldom identify potential pipe failures, and second, inadequate resources are allocated to high-risk pipes 

(pipes that have the potential for high financial, environmental and social failure costs to the utility and 

the greater community). 

In 2001, SPU developed an asset management program to address several concerns including aging 

infrastructure, a lack of information on pipe condition, stricter environmental regulations and public 

scrutiny of recent rate increases. For sewer assets, the immediate goal of the asset management program 

was to minimize risk of infrastructure failure. The initial steps in implementing this program included 

establishing an inventory of pipe infrastructure and developing a modeling tool to support a risk-based 

pipe replacement and rehabilitation program. 

Sewer Pipe Risk Model 

In 2003, a sewer pipe risk model originally developed by Hunter Water Australia 

(http://www.hwa.com.au) was adapted and applied to SPU’s sewer network in order to calculate the risk 

cost of failure for individual pipe segments and to calculate the total annualized cost to the utility over the 

period between CCTV inspections. The risk cost of failure is determined by multiplying the estimated 

consequences of failure by the estimated likelihood of failure. SPU uses the risk assessment and its 

benefit-cost ratio to help select pipes for inspection and maintenance. 

To estimate the consequences of pipe failure, the model extracts GIS attributes for each pipe (i.e., 

elevation, installation date, material of construction and proximity to geologic or structural features) and 

uses this information to calculate the financial, social and environmental costs such as the factors listed in 

Table A-3. For example, if the sewer pipe is located underneath a building, a multiplier is automatically 

applied to the cost formula due to the added repair cost. 

Table A-3. Factors that increase consequences and costs of pipe failure 

Location-Specific 

Increase the Cost of 

Factors 

a Sewer 

That 

Failure

Baseline Generic 

Financial Costs for 

Repairing Sewer 

Failure

Financial Factors Environmental 

Factors

Social Factors

Labor Under a body of water Property damage Unfavorable publicity

Equipment Under railroad tracks Regulatory noncomplianceSocial disruption

Material Under a building Environmental damage Damage to public health

Shoring Within a known slide area Regulatory non-compliance

Dewatering Within a wetland area

Bypass pumping On a steep slope

Administration High-capacity sewage pipe

In dense urban area

Source: Martin, 2004 

To estimate the likelihood of pipe failure, the model uses predictive failure curves that are specific to each 

pipe based on age and material. This method assumes that pipe failure is due to material deterioration and 
A-52

does not occur before the pipe is 20 years old. Model inputs are summarized in Table A-4. An example 

predictive failure curve for vitrified clay pipe is shown in Figure A-1. These failure curves are generated 

using a normalized Weibull-type distribution. More information on Weibull distributions and curves can 

be found at http://www.weibull.com/. SPU received “off-the-shelf” sewer pipe curves from Hunter Water 

Australia. 

Table A-4. Asset life information for SPU sewer pipe 

Material of Construction 1 First Failure

(Years)

Remaining Life

(Years)

Total Life

(Years)

Vitrified clay 20 100 120

Concrete 20 60 80

Pipe relining 20 30 50

Polyvinyl chloride 20 80 100

Asphaltic concrete 20 60 80

Brick 20 60 80

Ductile iron 20 60 80

Cast iron 20 60 80

Corrugated metal pipe 20 40 60 1

 Assumes that pipe failure 

Source: Martin, 2004 

is due to material deterioration and does not occur before the pipe is 20 years old. 

Figure A-1. Predictive failure curve for vitrified clay pipe. Source: Martin et al. (2007). Reprinted with 

permission. 

The risk model, developed using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, is based on system-specific attributes and 

causative factors. What causes pipe failure in one system may not be a critical factor in other systems. 

For example, steep slopes are a major factor in Seattle, while a city on the Great Plains may have other, 

more critical factors. Therefore, it is important that the model developer is familiar with the system 

design and operating parameters. 

Risk modeling conducted in 2004 showed that the cost of conducting CCTV inspection on low-risk pipes 

exceeded the benefit gained by performing condition assessment, preventing a point failure (Martin, 

2004). Therefore, SPU decided to perform CCTV inspection only on high-risk pipe (15% of total pipe) 

using a 5-year inspection frequency. Low-risk pipe was allowed to run to failure without CCTV 

inspection and repaired reactively. It is important to note that SPU’s decision to run pipes to failure is not 

a universal recommendation but a utility-specific decision. Utilities that are operating under a consent 
A-53

order are not allowed to run pipe to failure. The following example illustrates the 2004 modeling results 

(Martin, 2004). 

In 2007, SPU conducted an analysis to verify the accuracy of the existing predictive failure curves using 

actual sewer pipe failure and repair records (Martin et al., 2007). Based on anecdotal field reporting, 

CCTV inspection data and the number of scheduled and emergency repairs, the existing curves were 

suspected of over-predicting failure of most pipes and of poorly characterizing the failure modes of 

different pipe materials. The 2007 analysis included a review of 15 years of point repair data (1989 – 

2004) for vitrified clay and concrete pipes, which represent more than 90% of SPU’s sewer pipes. Study 

results indicate that vitrified clay pipes and concrete pipes incurred point failures at much lower rates than 

predicted by the existing failure curves. In the early 2000s, pipe failures due to material deterioration 

triggered about 150 annual repairs, compared to 800 annual repairs estimated by the predictive failure 

curves to be needed. 

The 2007 analysis also found a statistically significant correlation between certain local conditions (steep 

slopes, clay soils and fill soils) and increased potential for pipe failure (Martin et al., 2007). For example, 

86 actual pipe failures have been identified via inspection in 164,308 ft of clay pipe that is located on 

steep slopes. Based on pipe age, the existing predictive failure curves estimated that 50 failures would 

occur in these pipes. The observed failures exceeded the 95% confidence level of the prediction, 

therefore the model was judged inadequate. 

As a result of this analysis, SPU identified the following action steps (Martin et al., 2007): 

• Pipes on steep slopes, in clay or in fill should be assigned higher likelihood of failure multipliers 

in the risk model, resulting in higher risk scores and more frequent inspections in the future. 

• Concrete pipes should be assigned a conservatively high predicted failure rate in the model in 

order to accelerate the inspection frequency because the predominant failure mode is expected to 

shift to structural failure in the near future. 

• SPU will continue to conduct strength testing of existing sewer pipe segments to provide 

information on structural degradation trends of the sewer pipe network. 

New failure curves were customized for SPU based on actual sewer pipe failure data and CCTV 

inspection data (Martin et al., 2007). Inspected pipes were first categorized according to their failure 

history. For Type 1 failures (pipes that failed prior to their first inspection date), the pipe’s service life is 

not known exactly but can be estimated based on known dates for pipe installation and inspection. For 

Example of Risk Modeling by SPU (Martin, 2004) 

• 87-year-old pipe at 12-ft depth. 

• Point repair costs predicted by model: $36,000. 

• Probability of failure in the next 5 years: 5.9%. 

• Risk cost of repair in the next 5 years: $36,000 x 5.9% = $2,100. 

• Estimated life cycle cost of CCTV inspection assuming a 5-year frequency: $600. 

• Risk cost > CCTV inspection cost (by a factor of 3.5). 

• SPU’s conclusion: Based on cost-benefit analysis, this pipe is high risk and should 

be inspected. 
A-54

Type 2 failures (pipes that failed during the period between the first and second inspections), the pipe’s 

service life can be estimated based on known dates for the two inspections, a narrower window than Type 

1 failures. Pipes were then analyzed using a statistical parameter estimation method known as Maximum 

Likelihood Estimation to generate the new curves. This method finds the most likely failure curve for a 

dataset. The new failure curves are shown in Figure A-2 as a comparison to the existing curves. 

 

Figure A-2. Comparison of failure curves for vitrified clay and concrete pipe. Source: Martin et al. (2007). 

Reprinted with permission.

Recently, EPA conducted a system audit and determined that SPU should conduct CCTV inspections of 

all collection system piping within the next 6 to 7 years. To meet EPA requirements, SPU will conduct 

these system-wide CCTV inspections using the risk model to establish a risk-based inspection schedule. 

SPU will continue to improve the inspection program, balancing the need to maximize ratepayer value 

while meeting EPA requirements. 

References 

Martin, T. (2004). Seattle Public Utilities Asset Management Sewer Pipe Risk Model. Presented at 

Leading Edge Asset Management Conference, San Francisco, and CA. July 27, 2004. 

Martin, T., Johnson, D., and S. Anschell. (2007). Using Historical Repair Data to Create Customized 

Predictive Failure Curves for Sewer Pipe Risk Modeling. In Proceedings of LESAM 2007 2nd

Leading Edge Conference on Strategic Asset Management. London, UK: IWA Publishing. 

Contact: Terry Martin, Acting Director of Asset Management and Economic Services 

 Phone: (206) 615-1744

 E-mail: terry.martin@seattle.gov 
A-55

Data Management Case Study – Huntsville, Ala. 

Lessons Learned 

Prior to applying an advanced asset management software tool, the City of Huntsville had no direct link 

between CCTV data and GIS data, which made locating and evaluating inspection data a difficult task. 

Huntsville has learned that it is important not only to link CCTV data to a map, but to also to integrate 

CCTV data with other inspection and repair data. When viewed together, the various data help “tell the 

story” of an asset and its condition over time. 

While implementing this software tool, the city found many discrepancies in existing GIS and condition 

assessment records. These discrepancies were readily identified when GIS records and condition 

assessment records were compared. At first, this comparison created additional work to resolve 

discrepancies in existing records. However, the end result was a more accurate and accessible database of 

historical system conditions. Prior to implementing a similar program, other utilities should review the 

type of data needed for their asset management programs, including CCTV inspection data, and make 

sure that the asset numbers used are consistent with available GIS data. 

Although the city has not yet achieved reductions in the cost of CCTV inspections or improved 

performance of CCTV crews as a result of implementing the new data management software, the city 

expects to realize cost reductions in the future as staff members become more proficient at data analysis 

and decision making related to prioritizing sewer lines for inspection. The new software has improved 

the accessibility to and dissemination of inspection data among city staff. 

The city has also found that data management objectives change and expectations increase as staff 

members become familiar with the new software product and as initial objectives and expectations are 

met. The key is finding a solution flexible enough to change direction with the city’s evolving needs. 

Background 

The City of Huntsville provides sewer service to a total population of 170,000 within the city limits. It 

also serves the City of Triana and a small portion of the City of Madison. The average daily flow is about 

22.7 MGD and is distributed to five wastewater treatment plants. 

The first significant parts of the collection system were built in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Currently, 

the collection system includes over 1,250 miles of sanitary sewers, with an average age of 28 years. The 

system does not include any combined sewers. Sewers are constructed of a variety of materials, including 

vitrified clay, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ductile iron, cast iron and concrete. Sewers range in diameter 

from 6 to 60 in. 

Huntsville conducts CCTV inspections using two in-house crews. The inspections cost $0.95 per foot of 

pipe. A local contractor has also been retained for on-call work, and other contractors are used 

periodically as needed. The city does not use outside contractors frequently enough to establish typical 

unit costs. The city has conducted CCTV inspections for many years and continues these activities as an 

integral part of its asset management program. The average inspection frequency for sanitary sewers is 

about seven years. 

CCTV inspections are conducted for a variety reasons, including acceptance of new sewers, O&M, and 

condition assessment. New sewers are inspected prior to acceptance and prior to the expiration of their 

warranty period. Existing sewers are inspected to investigate blockages and overflows, identify sources 
A-56

of I/I and facilitate repairs within the system. Sewers are also inspected in conjunction with other public 

works activities, such as road resurfacing projects. 

CCTV inspections are conducted using analog-type cameras. Video images are recorded in a digital 

format on the CCTV trucks. The city has no digital or zoom cameras; however, it has taken an important 

step by incorporating CCTV inspection data and digital video files into a GIS-based application which 

allows managers and engineers to quickly review CCTV inspections in context with other inspection and 

repair data. Now, CCTV inspection data and video are easier to access, examine and compare with 

related data. This allows managers and engineers to better understand the condition of the system and 

plan and manage O&M and rehabilitation programs. 

Summary of Data Management System 

Pipe defects are coded in accordance with the PACP-certified inspection protocol. This provides data 

reliability. A second level of data reliability is the ability to validate that the CCTV data matches GIS 

data. CCTV inspection data are imported into a commercially available GIS-based asset management 

software application named InfoNet, developed by Wallingford Software 

(http://www.wallingfordsoftware.com/products/infonet/). Data are imported into InfoNet by city 

personnel via a PACP-compliant database. The import process uses several data queries to assess data 

quality and identify inconsistencies with existing GIS data. InfoNet is also used to import GIS data from 

the city’s GIS Department and other inspection data and repair records from internal and external sources. 

The city began using InfoNet in 2006, and it was first used to maintain and evaluate manhole inspection 

and smoke testing data from an outside contractor. Supporting CCTV inspection data from in-house 

crews were then added to develop a more complete condition assessment of the inspected areas. Since 

then, the use of InfoNet continues to expand. 

Software/Hardware Requirements 

Windows 2000 or XP is required to run InfoNet. Ten gigabytes of local free disk space are recommended 

for optimal use. The InfoNet master database is often maintained on a server and accessed by multiple 

users. Huntsville has not encountered any data storage limitations to date. 

Software training is recommended for all new users, and further training is recommended for more 

advanced users. Annual software support includes software updates, as well as telephone and Web-based 

support provided by technical services representatives based in Fort Worth, Texas. 

Costs 

InfoNet user and viewer licenses are available, and the unit cost varies with the number of licenses that 

are purchased. Huntsville currently owns one user license and four viewer licenses. The user license was 

purchased in 2006 for about $15,000, and the annual support fee is about $2,500. The viewer licenses 

were purchased for about $6,000 each, and the annual support fee is about $900 per viewer license. 

Advantages: 

• “Off-the-shelf” software application. 

• View CCTV inspection data in GIS-based environment. 

• View CCTV inspection data in context with data from other sources. 

• Powerful structured query language functionality to analyze data. 
A-57

Disadvantages:

• Requires more proactive attention to maintain integrity of GIS data. 

• May require minor modifications to existing data gathering procedures. 

• May overwhelm new users until training is completed. 

The InfoNet software application is now used by the Huntsville to maintain all CCTV inspection data and 

actively manage its in-house pipe cleaning program. With the addition of inputting sewer pipe cleaning 

records into InfoNet, the utility expects that this information will soon begin to drive CCTV inspection 

work. The application also serves as a repository for other inspection and repair data, including: 

• Manhole inspection. 

• Smoke testing. 

• Sewer cleaning. 

• Root control. 

• Repair/rehabilitation. 

• Customer complaints. 

• SSOs. 

CCTV data are used to help direct grease management and root control efforts, as well as on-going I/I 

reduction programs. CCTV data are also used to plan pipe replacement, pipe bursting and cured-in-place 

lining projects. 

Contact: Mark Huber, Collection System Manager 

City of Huntsville 

Phone: (256) 883-3767

E-mail: Mark.huber@hsvcity.com 
A-58

Case Study on Comparison of In-House vs. Commercial Data Management System – 

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County – Metro Water Services 

This case study discusses the experience of Metro Water Services (MWS) (Nashville, Tenn.) in changing 

from an in-house data management and defect coding system to a PACP-certified commercial software 

product. 

Lessons Learned 

The change from an in-house data management and coding system to a commercial system and 

standardized coding has yielded several benefits. Under the new system, inspection data are now quickly 

uploaded and available to all MWS employees within 24 hours of inspection and hence duplicative 

inspection efforts are avoided. The Granite XP software allows MWS schedulers to know daily exactly 

which sewer lines have been inspected, and it eliminates the need to request hard copies of inspection data 

and manually update paper maps. Inspection results have been much more consistent with the addition of 

PACP coding. Initially, use of the PACP coding system decreased the department’s productivity due to 

the staff’s lack of familiarity with the system. As the staff has adjusted to the new system, productivity 

and efficiency have increased. The one disadvantage noted is that the PACP coding can be too detailed, 

making it difficult to get complete information when querying for problems. 

Introduction and Background 

Sewer construction in Nashville began in 1823 with the installation of brick and clay pipes to convey both 

storm water and sanitary sewerage to the Cumberland River. In 1884, a cholera epidemic precipitated the 

mass construction of sewers in Nashville. As Nashville and Davidson County’s population grew, so did 

the sanitary sewer system. By 1950, the system had grown to nearly 400 miles of sanitary sewer serving 

a population in excess of 300,000. During the 1980s, Davidson County began an aggressive sewer 

expansion program to provide sanitary sewer service for the more densely populated areas of the county. 

MWS is a department of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (MGNDC), 

which provides drinking water, wastewater and storm water services. Today, MWS’s sewer system 

serves an area of approximately 739 square miles. The system has approximately 2,740 miles of gravity 

sewer lines and 150 miles of force main. The gravity sewer lines range between 6 in. and 16 ft in 

diameter, with the majority of pipes having a diameter of 36 in. or less. The force mains range from 6 in. 

to 36 in. in diameter. A summary of pipe size and corresponding mileage is shown in Table A-5 

(MGNDC, 2006). 

Table A-5. Sewer system inventory 

Pipeline Length (miles)

Type of Pipeline <8 in. 10 in. to 24 in. > 24 in. Total

Gravity Sewer 2,150 450 140 2,740

Force Main 60 60 30 150

MWS’s collection system uses many types of pipe including vitrified clay, brick, PVC, concrete, cast iron 

and ductile iron. The system serves approximately 172,000 residential, commercial and industrial 

customer connections and a total population of 660,000. Approximately 92% of service connections are 
A-59

residential. The remaining 8% are commercial and industrial. There are also approximately 22,000 

customer accounts in satellite municipalities or utility districts (MGNDC, 2006). Counties, municipalities 

and entities served by MWS include Davidson, Madison, Goodlettsville, Nolensville/College Grove and 

Lakewood. 

MWS maintains and operates three wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs): Central WWTP, Dry Creek 

WWTP, and Whites Creek WWTP. The average daily flow of wastewater transmitted to the three 

wastewater treatment plants from August 2005 to July 2006 was 120.7 MGD (MGNDC, 2006). 

Estimated average daily flow for 2009 was 129.3 MGD. A large majority (93%) of MWS’s sewer system 

is solely dedicated to sanitary sewerage, with a small amount (7%) of combined sewers located in 

downtown Nashville. 

History of CCTV Use by MWS 

MWS began using CCTV in the late 1960s to inspect gravity sewers. The utility first used a trailermounted CCTV unit that employed a manually operated winch to move the camera between manholes. 

MWS uses CCTV inspection for many reasons, including: 

• Locate defects contributing to leaks during wet weather. 

• Identify rehabilitation needs. 

• Inspect after clearing line blockage. 

• Identify restrictions and other causes of SSOs. 

• Identify service locations. 

• Investigate customer complaints. 

• Conduct routine maintenance. 

Currently, Nashville has six cameras with pan and tilt features and two zoom cameras. The city is in the 

process of replacing one camera that is 10 to 15 years old. MWS currently has a fleet of six CCTV truck 

units, which is maintained and operated by in-house staff. All inspection personnel have received full 

PACP Condition Grading System certification in order to ensure that standards are maintained. MWS 

uses outside contractors to inspect collection sewers larger than 60 in. in diameter. 

Data Management 

Inspection data were formerly documented using a labor-intensive process employing VHS tapes and 

handwritten inspection forms. The information was then coded in a separate step, which subjected the 

data to potential transcription errors. There was no ability to query historic VHS tapes to compare 

historic inspections of pipe segments or possibly compare inspections of similar pipe materials. 

The department’s first CMMS consisted of a Microsoft Access database, which allowed users to input, 

view, organize and code inspection data. MWS incorporated an internal (non-standardized) defect coding 

system with the database. The internal coding consisted of a 1 to 5 ranking system, with the number 1 

meaning “like new condition” and the number 5 signifying “emergency repair needed.” In addition, 

MWS scanned hand-written CCTV reports for inclusion in the database. Other information tracked in the 

CMMS includes date, time and location of routine cleaning activities; specific lines cleaned; equipment 

used; identity of cleaning crew; presence of roots, grease or debris; any specific problems; size, material 

and length of pipe; and manhole status. 

The data management and coding system was designed in-house in the 1990s, based on industry 

standards at the time. The system served MWS well, but did not optimize the possibilities available with 

the current state of the technology. MWS recognized the need to expand its database management to aid 
A-60

in condition assessment. In 2006, MWS completed a CMOM report, allowing MWS to evaluate its 

internal processes and programs. MWS recognized that its current system had several problems: 

• The internal defect coding lacked consistency; a segment of pipe inspected by several employees 

could be given different ratings by each person. 

• Data could not be easily viewed by all personnel; most MWS personnel had to file a request to 

obtain any information from the database. 

• MWS was not able to use digital video technology that was available; instead, it was limited to 

scanned still photographs. 

The CMOM report included the following recommendations regarding CCTV inspections, data 

management and defect coding: 

• Develop and implement standard line condition codes (1 to 5) for use when televising sewer lines. 

These codes will be manually recorded on TV Inspection Reports. 

• Evaluate the software available for entering standard defect codes from guidelines into CMMS. 

• Develop a written standard method of prioritization of all assessment practices. 

• Evaluate ways to prioritize the frequency of CCTV inspection for various sewer categories. For 

example, new PVC sewers may be inspected less often than old clay and brick sewers. 

• Purchase software for TV units that will allow priorities to be entered into the CMMS. 

MWS has made major changes to its sewer inspection program in the past three years. MWS replaced its 

in-house data management software and inspection coding system with the commercial Granite XP 

software (from CUES) and a Hansen-based CMMS, using PACP criteria that provide a standardized 

method for defect coding. The new platform provides MWS with the ability to conduct queries such as 

comparing multiple inspection results of a particular pipe within the past five years. Query results are 

available very quickly and can help MWS determine the root cause of a pipe defect (e.g., pipe material, 

pipe age, installation conditions). 

Granite XP is a flexible and customizable data collection and management software platform that 

integrates CCTV data with MWS’s asset and maintenance management data (Hansen software) and GIS 

data (ESRI’s ArcGIS software). Hansen provides a wastewater network browser, which stores 

information and allows it to link items such as maintenance records, complaints, work orders and 

inspection reports. The combination of Granite XP and Hansen software permits users to navigate 

particular assets and view all inspections. A work order is generated in Hanson and required resources 

are selected (labor, equipment, materials). The GIS information is queried and the inspection can 

proceed. The data are saved and coded directly into the system. This automates the entry information 

and provides the utility with the information needed for decision making. Granite XP has a business 

licensing agreement with Hanson and ESRI to work directly with both software platforms. 

GraniteXP has many features that MWS considered substantial improvements over its previous system, 

including the ability to: 

• Import ESRI asset data into Granite XP from a master GIS database. 

• Create custom reports that can be saved in PDF, HTML or ASCII file format. 

• Search using keyword and filtering capabilities by projects, assets, inspections and observations. 

• View video and still images simultaneously. 

• Select an observation on a pipe graph and instantly access that point in a video. 
A-61

Granite XP has four editions available to meet the needs of the individual users. A brief description of 

each edition is given below (further information can be found on the Internet at 

http://www.cuesinc.com/Granite-XP.html):

• The Inspection Edition is designed for field use and is often integrated with camera systems to 

capture, assess and store inspection data. MWS has five Inspection Edition licenses, allowing the 

CCTV crews to upload and submit each day’s inspection data on a flash drive. 

• The Enterprise Edition allows users to manage inspection information and create customized 

reports, videos, still pictures and database files. It can be useful for preparing data for 

applications such as GIS and PACP coding. MWS has one Enterprise Edition license, allowing a 

staff member to maintain, update and manage the system. 

• The Engineering Edition allows users to modify and review data, synchronize inspections, 

capture images from playback and generate reports. MWS’s three Engineering Edition licenses 

allow selected personnel to input daily CCTV data obtained by the inspection crews. 

• The Viewer Edition allows users to review and share field data and generate reports. MWS has 

licensing for over 50 Viewer Editions. 

MWS has found its licensing to be sufficient to meet the department’s needs. Every MWS employee has 

instant access to view anything within Granite XP. Although Granite XP allows for internet transmission 

of data through a wireless server, MWS has chosen to use flash drives instead. 

Figures A-3 and A-4 are examples of reports prepared using the in-house system and Granite XP, 

respectively. Compared with the older handwritten version, the Granite XP report presents inspection 

data in a concise, consistent, easy-to-read format. The report can be quickly viewed by the reader for the 

most crucial information, improving efficiency. 
A-62

Figure A-3. Sample inspection report for in-house data management system. Image courtesy of Nashville 

MWS. 
A-63

Figure A-4. Sample inspection report created using GraniteXP software. Image courtesy of Nashville MWS. 
A-64

The PACP, developed by NASSCO, provides a mechanism for creating reliable descriptions of pipe 

conditions. The goal of PACP is to provide the ability to quantitatively measure the difference in pipe 

condition between one inspection and subsequent inspections, and to prioritize among different pipe 

segments. PACP uses a basic coding method based on a grade of 1 to 5. A grade of 1 is assigned to pipes 

with only minor defects, and a grade of 5 is assigned to pipelines with defects needing immediate 

attention. Table A-6 gives the grades and corresponding descriptions within the PACP system. 

Table A-6. PACP defect grades 

5 Immediate Attention Defects requiring immediate attention.

4 Poor Severe defects that 

foreseeable future.

will become grade 5 defects within the 

3 Fair Moderate defects that will continue to deteriorate.

2 Good Defects that have not begun to deteriorate.

1 Excellent Minor defects.

MWS is currently on schedule to inspect all of their sewers within an 8-year period. Due to the recent 

deployment of Granite XP software and implementation of PACP coding, MWS has not finished the first 

full round of inspections. 

MWS has historically used a comparison of identified defects with the cost/difficulty of the anticipated 

rehabilitation. For example, when a single pipeline defect is identified, MWS will call for a point repair 

to physically correct the defect. Utility staff will typically do two point repairs on a line segment, but 

once three or more defects are noted, MWS moves towards rehabilitation of the entire line. Entire 

pipeline rehabilitation is typically done with cured in-place liners, although other methods have been used 

in the past. The service line from the mainline sewer to the property or easement line is rehabilitated at 

the same time. MWS has occasionally rehabilitated a line with only one or two defects if the line is under 

a busy roadway where the dig and repair methodology is costly and has a high impact on the public. The 

new software and coding system has not changed MWS’s approach to rehabilitation, but it has facilitated 

the process. The Granite XP software has made it easier to search for pipes that are in need of repair. 

The use of a standardized defect coding system such as PACP coding allows MWS staff, consultants and 

other external data users to easily compare MWS with other systems data without need to learn their 

particular defect coding system. 

Since the conversion to Granite XP and PACP coding, MWS has noticed a substantial increase in 

consistency and efficiency. Listed below are several reasons for the noted increase. 

• Improved turnaround time on data: Inspection crews bring in their flash drives at the end of 

each business day and upload data to the system. This allows all videos, still photographs and 

condition reports to be available to all MWS personnel within 24 hours of an inspection. 

• More efficient inspection scheduling: The Granite XP software allows MWS schedulers to 

know exactly which sewer lines have been inspected on a day-to-day basis. Inspection crews no 

longer double up on inspections because of the time delay of inputting data and using it for daily 

operations. Under the previous system, a paper map was used to track completed inspections. 

Sewer lines not marked on the map were considered available for inspection. In some instances, 
A-65

maps were not kept current with inspections, resulting in the re-inspection of sewer lines that had 

been recently inspected. 

• Instant access of database: All MWS personnel now have instant access to all information 

within the database from their computer. In the past, MWS personnel had to request database 

information and wait for it to be printed and distributed. 

• Standardized coding: The PACP coding and the corresponding personnel certification have 

greatly improved the consistency of the CCTV inspection reports. 

As part of its Corrosion and Odor Control Program, MWS uses its CCTV inspection program to monitor 

pipe corrosion from industrial entities. MWS compares CCTV data from previous inspections to locate 

areas experiencing unusual levels of corrosion. In addition, MWS is attempting to track the origin of 

corrosive damage within the sewer collection system and is working on a program that will ensure the 

accountability and responsibility of industrial entities that may be damaging the system. 

Considerations for New Users 

MWS cautions potential new users to expect a significant drop in productivity when first implementing a 

new CMMS and defect coding system. Although MWS staff is highly experienced, the change of both a 

new software package and a new coding system initially caused confusion. Employees would need to 

reference software and PACP manuals in order to complete tasks that had previously been completed in 

moments. MWS noted that productivity increased relative to the old system once its personnel adjusted. 

MWS would also advise any utility interested in implementing a new data management system to provide 

software training to multiple employees. MWS initially assigned one staff member to be solely 

responsible for managing the entire database. MWS has since realized that this was a mistake and has 

begun training several other staff members. 

The only disadvantage to the new system of data management noted by MWS is that the system can be 

too detailed. Within the PACP system are multiple levels of coding for defects such as roots, cracks, and 

breaks. This has created complications in querying for problems. For example, if the user performs a 

search for “roots,” only a small portion of the actual root problems within the collection system may be 

identified. The others defects may be categorized as “root balls,” “root clusters,” or another detailed 

name that describes the same problem. MWS is currently working to adjust its queries accordingly. 

References 

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (MGNDC). (2006). EPA 

CMOM Self-Assessment Report.

Contact: Kevin McCullough 

 1616 3rd Avenue North 

 Nashville, TN 37208 

 Phone: (615) 862-4840

Email : Kevin.Mccullough@nashville.gov 
A-66

Case Study on Use of Digital Scanning and Zoom Camera Technology – City of Hamilton, 

Ontario, Canada 

This case study discusses the experience of the City of Hamilton in using digital scanning and zoom 

camera in its sewer condition assessments. 

Lessons Learned 

The City of Hamilton makes strategic use of a variety of sewer inspection methods to provide information 

for making decisions on infrastructure management. Zoom cameras are used for system-wide inspections 

and are useful for selecting pipes that need more detailed inspection. Although a zoom camera provides 

less detail than CCTV, it is an acceptable tradeoff for its lower cost and faster inspection time. For pipes 

requiring additional inspection, an array of methods is available, including digital scanning. The level of 

detail acquired by scanning is superior to CCTV. However, Hamilton has only used digital scanning to a 

limited degree because of the cost and pipe size limitations. Hamilton recently received indications that 

its contractors may now be able to scan larger pipes, and may also be able to offer costs comparable to 

CCTV. This may increase the role that digital scanning plays in Hamilton’s inspection strategy. 

Hamilton’s experience shows the value of selecting methods with different costs and different levels of 

detail according to need. The city’s ongoing experience also illustrates that newer technologies such as 

digital scanning will continue to evolve, and the costs of such technologies may become competitive with 

traditional CCTV. 

Background 

The City of Hamilton’s Water and Wastewater division provides drinking water and wastewater services 

to a population of 520,000 in Hamilton, Ontario. The system handles, on average, 111 MGD, with a 

maximum peak flow of about 159 MGD. The system has a total of 2,700 km (1,678 miles) of sanitary, 

combined and storm sewers. The 21% of the system (580 km or 360 miles) is combined; 41% (1,100 km 

or 684 miles) is sanitary sewer and 38% (1,020 km or 634 miles) is storm sewer. The system also has 45 

km (28 miles) of force mains. The system dates back to 1850; its average pipe age is approximately 59 

years. The system has many deep, critical sewers of large diameter. Pipe materials include clay, 

concrete, reinforced concrete and brick. Pipe diameters range from 200 mm (8 in.) to 2,500 mm (100 in.). 

Overall Inspection Strategy 

Zoom camera technology is used to scan the entire system, and inspection results are then used along with 

Hamilton’s risk-based decision management strategy to prioritize pipes for further inspection. The 

selection of additional inspection technologies depends on the level of accuracy and detail needed for the 

particular pipe under consideration. A number of additional technologies are used after the completion of 

baseline zoom camera inspections: CCTV, sonar, laser and digital scanning (limited application). New 

technologies applicable to wastewater applications are actively investigated and their limitations 

considered. Several inspection methods may be needed in order to achieve the desired level of accuracy 

for assessing the condition of critical pipes. The use of advanced technologies such as sonar and laser can 

be expensive ($15 – $30 per meter or $4.57 – $9.14 per foot, in Canadian currency). 

Experience with Digital Scanning 

In 2006, Hamilton participated in a pilot test of digital scanning using the SSET system manufactured by 

Blackhawk-PAS. This product is no longer available commercially, and technical support is no longer 

available. At the time of the pilot test, SSET was the only available digital scanning system. New 
A-67

products have since emerged in North America (PANORAMO, Digisewer). Since performing the pilot 

test, Hamilton has used digital scanning twice on critical pipes (15 in. (375 mm) clay pipe and 24 in. (600 

mm) concrete pipe) and has been very satisfied with the results. The digital scanning inspection was 

performed by a contractor. Pipe defects observed during the inspection are coded using the WRc third 

edition defect coding standard. Data are stored and maintained in a CMMS. Staff training is the same as 

for CCTV; inspectors must be NAAPI (North American Association of Pipeline Inspectors) certified, 

which entails training in defect coding in much the same way as PACP. 

SSET uses a fisheye lens mounted on the front of a crawler or tractor unit. The annular segment around 

the edges is scanned and used to produce an unfolded view of the pipe. The unit travels through pipe at a 

constant speed of about 13 ft per minute (additional information can be found on the Internet at 

http://www.hydromaxusa.com/sset.html). White LEDs are used for a light source, providing a bright 

light that is close to natural light (Karasaki et al., 2001). The unit also includes an inclinometer and a 

gyroscope, which permit recording of vertical and horizontal movements, helping to accurately locate the 

unit within the pipe (Knight et al., 2009). This facilitates tracking of defects through time. Digital 

scanning produces a high level of imaging, picking up more detail than CCTV. It permits the reviewer to 

code defects that might not be visible with CCTV. This greater detail also allows a better understanding 

of the significance of a defect, rather than only documenting its existence. 

The primary drawback with the SSET equipment has been that its effectiveness is limited to small pipes. 

Hamilton has only successfully inspected pipes up to 600 mm (24 in.) in diameter. Although the SSET 

system has been most effective in small pipes, highly detailed inspections are not needed for the smaller 

pipes because their cost of failure is lower than that of larger diameter pipe. The additional cost of 

performing digital scanning has not been justifiable. In larger, more critical pipes, a greater level of detail 

is needed, but SSET is not effective in these larger pipes due to problems with focal length. Based on 

communications with Hamilton’s contractor, digital scanning is now being used for pipes up to 5 ft in 

diameter. One issue remains: SSET has problems with pipes that are not circular, and many of 

Hamilton’s larger, critical pipes are oval in shape. 

Cost has driven Hamilton’s decisions regarding the use of digital scanning rather than CCTV. In its 

experience, the field costs are not greatly different than for CCTV because the digital scanner moves 

more quickly through the pipe. However, the net cost was greater due to the data processing conducted in 

the office. With CCTV, defects are observed and coded in the field. With digital scanning, images are 

reviewed and coded in the office, increasing the overall time and labor cost associated with this 

technology. Utilities considering digital scanning are encouraged to compare the costs of digital scanning 

versus CCTV and make sure that any potential added costs can be rationalized. The cost of inspection 

should be weighed against the cost of pipe failure. If net costs are as low as for CCTV, then digital 

scanning would be the method of choice due to its superior level of detail. Hamilton’s contractor recently 

indicated that digital scanning may now have a cost comparable to CCTV. The improved cost, along with 

an improved ability to inspect larger pipes, may enable Hamilton to use digital scanning in more of its 

system. Hamilton will be exploring this possibility. 

Experience with Zoom Camera Technology and Comparison to CCTV 

Based on 10 years of experience, Hamilton has found zoom cameras to be a very effective and 

economical inspection method and uses the results to decide where to employ CCTV and other advanced 

inspection methods. As of May 2008, zoom camera inspections had been completed on 1,441 km (about 

895 miles) of main pipelines (about 55% of the network) (Bainbridge and Krinas, 2008). Although zoom 

camera technology provides a lower level of detail than CCTV, Hamilton has found that it identifies 

enough pipe defects to provide a basis for focusing CCTV and other inspection work. 
A-68

Unlike CCTV, a zoom camera does not move through the sewer system. It is lowered into a manhole 

chamber, where it remains stationary, rotating 360° along its vertical axis. It is used to inspect all the 

sewers that enter the manhole chamber. Each pipe segment gets viewed twice, once from the manhole at 

each end, resulting in two ratings for each pipe segment. As with CCTV, Hamilton’s zoom camera defect 

coding is completed using the WRc third edition. 

The viewing distance depends on such factors as pipe deflection, debris, and other obstructions. Based on 

zoom camera inspection of 23,566 manholes and associated piping in Hamilton, Bainbridge and Krinas 

(2008) found the average inspection distance was 30 m (98 ft); the associated range of pipe sizes was not 

provided. The zoom camera cannot see around horizontal deflections (i.e., bends) in pipes; therefore, if 

there are a significant number of bends without access points, the utility of the zoom camera may be 

limited. Sewers do not need to be cleaned in advance of a zoom camera inspection. 

Table A-7 compares the average price and other parameters for CCTV vs. zoom cameras. The zoom 

camera technology is several times cheaper than CCTV, and it can inspect pipes much faster. Using a 

zoom camera, Hamilton’s system can be surveyed in less than half the time that would be required for 

traditional CCTV. 

Table A-7. Comparison of traditional CCTV with zoom camera technology 

Technology Adjusted Average Funding Average Time Required 

Inventory, Price/m Requirements Production Rate to Inspect 100% 

m (miles) (Canadian (Canadian (Meters/day/crew) of Sanitary 

dollars) dollars) Sewers (years)a

Traditional 2,566,000 $5.74 $14,728,840 700 m (2,297 ft) 10.0

CCTV (1,594 miles)

Zoom 2,566,000 $0.977 $2,506,982 1,875 m (6,152 ft) 3.8

Camera (1,594 miles)

Source: adapted from Bainbridge and Krinas, 2008, and used with permission a

 Based on 365 work days per year. 

Hamilton has been able to compare the results of inspections in pipes that have undergone both CCTV 

and zoom camera inspection. This analysis provides some understanding of how the two methods differ. 

Figure A-5 shows the results of a statistical analysis of condition ratings from CCTV and zoom camera 

inspections. It was found that zoom camera and CCTV inspections resulted in the same ratings (zero on 

the X axis in Figure A-5) approximately 48% of the time. The assessments differed by a condition rating 

of 1 about 31% of the time. 
A-69

Source: Bainbridge and Krinas (2008). Reprinted with permission. 

Figure A-5. Comparison of CCTV and zoom camera inspections. 

As another means to assess the accuracy of zoom camera technology, CCTV data were used as a basis to 

determine how many defects were located within the zoom camera’s functional range. Figure A-6 

(Bainbridge and Krinas, 2008) shows the percentages of defects located within 20 m (66 ft) (purple bars) 

and 30 m (98 ft) (green lines) of manholes. The x-axis indicates the defect type. About 59% of defects 

were found within 20 m (66 ft) of manholes and 76% were within 30 m (98 ft). This analysis provides 

some indication of the percentage of defects that are likely to be detected because of their proximity to the 

camera. 

Bainbridge and Krinas’ (2008) analysis suggests that zoom camera technology may not be as accurate as 

CCTV. However, Hamilton has found the level of accuracy sufficient for its sewer management strategy. 

Hamilton’s zoom camera inspection program has resulted in more than 5,000 work orders and beneficial 

economic and social impacts. 
A-70

Source: Bainbridge and Krinas (2008). Reprinted with permission. 

Figure A-6. Pipe defect location. 

References 

Bainbridge, K., and Krinas, H. (2008). Efficient condition management of sewer systems using both 

zoom camera technology and “traditional CCTV”. North American Society for Trenchless 

Technology 2008 No-Dig Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, April 27-May 2, 2008. 

Karasaki, K., Shima, H., and Iseley, T. (2001). The coming of age of advanced digital optical scanning 

technology for pipeline assessment. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.nastt.org/store/technical_papersPDF/85.pdf. 

Knight, M., Younis, R., Barrall, B., Russin, J., and Manners, C. (2009). Advances in Pipeline Asset 

Management Using Digital Side Scanning Evaluation Technology. North American Society 

(NASTT) and the International Society for Trenchless Technology (ISTT) International No-Dig 

Show 2009. Toronto, Ontario Canada March 29-April 3, 2009. 

Contact: Kevin Bainbridge, Senior Project Manager, Subsurface Infrastructure 

 77 James St. North, Suite 320 

 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 

 Phone: 905-546-2424, Ext. 5677 

 E-mail: Kevin.bainbridge@hamilton.ca 
A-71

Case Study on Application of Truck-Mounted Zoom Cameras – Hillsborough County Water 

Resource Services, Florida 

This case study focuses on the experience of Hillsborough County Water Resources Services (WRS) in 

using a truck-mounted zoom camera along with in-line CCTV as part of a two-year comprehensive 

manhole and gravity sewer inventory and condition assessment project. 

Lessons Learned 

WRS has gained valuable experience from its successful condition assessment project. Lessons learned 

include the following: 

• If a large-scale project assessment is proposed, a pilot project demonstration of the field and 

office procedures should be conducted to ensure that proper procedures and appropriate quality 

assurance and quality control data protocols are in place. 

• Using zoom camera technology as the first step in field review has proven to be effective, both 

for acquiring technical data in a timely manner and for maximizing cost benefits.

• Regular communication with customers is critical for large-scale field-intensive projects. It is 

important to clearly define the authority the contractors have in the field in dealing with 

customers. 

Utility Background 

WRS provides water, wastewater, and reclaimed water services to approximately 483,000 customers in 

unincorporated Hillsborough County, Fla., with minor overlap areas with the cities of Tampa and Temple 

Terrace. Located northeast of Tampa Bay on the central Gulf Coast of Florida, WRS was formed in the 

1970s by purchasing and centralizing many small franchise utilities. In the early 1980s, WRS undertook 

a major construction program to regionalize the system into two service areas, eliminating many 

franchises. At the time the project was initiated, the county was growing at an annual rate of 3 to 4 %. 

WRS currently manages infrastructure worth more than $1.2 billion. 

The county’s wastewater systems consist of one secondary wastewater treatment plant and six advanced 

wastewater treatment plants with more than 692 pumping or lift stations. The annual average daily flow 

is 36.4 MGD. The collection system includes 655 miles of force mains and approximately 1,268 miles of 

gravity sewer pipelines ranging from 4 to 42 in. in diameter. The sanitary system is 100% separate from 

the storm water system. Although parts of the system are very old, the average age of the entire system is 

close to 25 years, with a remaining useful life of 15 to 20 years. Eighty percent of the gravity sewers are 

constructed of PVC and 20% are vitrified clay pipe (VCP). The system also includes approximately 

31,045 manholes constructed of pre-cast concrete (88.3%) and brick (10.2%) (Kirby et al., 2008). The 

PVC pipe has an average age of approximately 20 years and an estimated remaining useful life of 40 to 

50 years. The average age of the VCP pipe is approximately 40 years. 

In 1998, WRS decided to change from a reactive run-to-failure management approach to a proactive 

approach. A 20-year capital improvement program was established through rate increases and 

refinancing plans in order to rehabilitate, repair or replace assets known to be at imminent risk of failure. 

In 2003, WRS began development of a Comprehensive Asset Management System (CAMS) program to 

address its aging infrastructure, to develop a proactive maintenance program and to address the problem 

of having a wide assortment of software systems that did not communicate with each other. A CMMS 

was selected as the backbone of the CAMS. In order to populate the CMMS with accurate and 

comprehensive data, inventory and assessments of all WRS assets were undertaken. The evaluation was 
A-72

broken down into two parts: above-ground assets at plant or pump station sites, and linear assets of the 

collection and distribution system. The assets were further broken down into manholes and gravity pipes; 

hydrants, valves and large meters; plant and pump station equipment; and pressure pipes. 

Project Objectives 

In May 2006, the utility began a two-year comprehensive manhole and gravity sewer inventory and 

condition assessment project. The principal objectives of the project were to: 

• Locate all manholes (on road, off road, and in easements) and cleanouts with survey-grade GPS 

coordinates. 

• Inspect all manholes and pipelines. 

• Find the immediate maintenance and structural needs. 

• Clean and obtain detailed information about structural defects in manholes and pipelines 

requiring attention in the short term. 

• Establish the maintenance and structural condition of each asset. 

• Provide GIS and CAMS attributes in a format easily integrated into the existing software 

databases. 

Project Approach and Planning Steps 

Knowing that the collection system was relatively new and constructed mostly of PVC pipe, WRS 

anticipated that its gravity sewer system was generally in good condition. Based on CCTV inspections 

conducted from 1973 to 1998 using analog cameras, WRS estimated that only about 20% of the gravity 

sewer system would require maintenance or structural improvement. 

An investigation of new inspection technologies was conducted to see if costs and time could be saved by 

employing new technologies or condition assessment processes. WRS chose to use a combination of 

zoom camera and in-line CCTV inspection technology and to use a third-party inspection company, 

InfraMetrix LLC of Tampa, to locate immediate maintenance and structural defects and to document with 

video the maintenance needs and structural condition of manholes and pipelines. According to 

InfraMetrix, inspection with zoom camera technology was four times faster than conventional in-line 

CCTV and was less expensive. Conventional in-line CCTV was used to inspect only pipelines that had 

failed or where failure was imminent and to provide important condition information for future 

maintenance and capital planning. 

Prior to initiating fieldwork, InfraMetrix developed an implementation plan that included descriptions of 

the project procedures and protocols. The plan was submitted for county approval. The implementation 

plan was tested on a pilot scale to demonstrate the efficacy of the field and office procedures and to allow 

the WRS to modify the plan before a significant amount of data were collected. The pilot program began 

in September 2006 and involved inspections of 1,000 manholes and connecting pipelines. 

One of the greatest challenges of the project was to develop and implement an efficient and effective 

strategy for data management. During the pilot project, daily procedures and software applications were 

developed to manage collected survey, inspection and condition assessment data. To ensure compliance 

with existing county systems, InfraMetrix conducted a number of data source reviews and process design 

sessions with WRS and its program manager. Using input from these sessions, procedures were 

developed to manage data for the duration of the project (Kirby et al., 2007). Quality assurance/quality 

control (QA/QC) protocols were applied to the survey-grade GPS coordinates, and in-house QA/QC 

procedures were performed to check the quality of physical characteristic, inventory, and condition of the 
A-73

data. Based on the results of the pilot project, minor refinements were made to customize the field and 

office procedures to best fit the county’s needs (Kirby et al., 2007). 

Inspection Program 

The assessment portion of the project included inspection of gravity sewers with zoom camera and 

standard in-line CCTV inspection technology, where warranted, to collect physical attribute and condition 

data. The initial inspections were conducted using zoom camera technology from street level. Manholes 

and pipelines located within the right-of-way and within 400 ft of the right-of-way were inspected using 

truck-mounted zoom camera inspection equipment (see Figure A-7). Manholes and pipelines located 

more than 400 ft beyond the right-of-way were inspected using a tripod mounting for the zoom camera 

instead of the truck-mounted boom and mast. 

 

The CUES-IMX camera (Figure A-8) has a 25:1 optical zoom lens that is stabilized and remotely 

controlled by a telescopic boom. 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 CUES-IMX system 

includes the camera, high-intensity discharge (HID) lighting heads, mast system and controller. 

According to vendor literature, the CUES-IMX camera can view up to 75 ft of 6-in. diameter pipe 

segments; however, the reader is advised to verify such claims with field data. More information on the 

technology can be found on the Internet at http://www.inframetrix.com and http://www.cuesinc.com. 

Figure A-9 shows how the zoom camera is inserted in the manhole and the types of pipe defects that can 

be identified. 

Source: CUES, Inc. (2009). Reprinted with 

permission.

Figure A-8. CUES-IMX optical zoom camera. 

Source: CUES, Inc. (2009). 

Reprinted with permission.

Figure A-7. Truck-mounted zoom 

camera. 
A-74

Source: InfraMetrix LLC (2008). Reprinted with permission. 

Figure A-9. Examples of pipe defects identified with zoom camera technology. 

The software and GPS equipment in the zoom camera truck are used to create sewer maps in the field, 

locate defects, and capture video and photographic documentation of the condition of the sewer system. 

Inspection data are geo-referenced to GPS coordinates collected in the field. Video records of manholes 

or other vertical structures and pipelines are provided on graphically indexed CD-ROMs, DVDs, or hard 

drives linked to the GIS maps. 

According to the vendor, the cost to inspect manholes or other buried structures starts at $45 per structure. 

Prices vary based on location, depth, and required deliverables. Because zoom camera inspections do not 

require confined space entry or pipe cleaning prior to inspection, more pipe footage can be inspected for 

less money than by using other inspection methods. The vendor claims that pipeline inspection with 

zoom camera technology can be performed for about one-third of the cost of in-line CCTV. A utility 

should budget $1.00 to $2.00 per linear ft for a system-wide gravity sewer assessment. This cost will 

cover collecting GPS coordinates for manholes, mapping, inspection of manholes and pipelines by zoom 

camera, data management (creating/updating GIS and work order management databases to include 

physical characteristic data and condition data), cleaning and performing in-line CCTV inspection of 

pipelines that require immediate attention and prioritizing future inspection, maintenance, and 

repair/rehabilitation activities. 

Following completion of the pilot-scale program, the countywide program was initiated in January 2007, 

beginning in the northern- and southern-most extremities of the county and moving toward the center. 

Five work crews inspecting an average of 30 manholes and connecting pipelines per day per crew were 

needed to complete the project in the two-year timeframe. According to InfraMetrix, a two-man crew can 

inspect approximately one mile of pipe per day with manholes and about two miles of pipe per day 

without manholes. A typical manhole and pipeline inspection can be performed in 15 to 20 minutes, 

according to the company. 

To determine the internal condition grade for each pipeline, a team of PACP-certified viewers reviewed 

the manhole and pipeline videos produced from both zoom and in-line CCTV cameras. The viewers 
A-75

considered safety issues, structural defects, evidence of previous I/I, active infiltration sources, and debris 

accumulation recorded by the video cameras to determine an internal condition grade for the manholes 

and pipelines. This assessment was done in accordance with the defect codes for a modified MACP for 

manholes and PACP for pipelines developed by NASSCO. Each manhole and pipeline was given an 

internal structural condition grade and an O&M and construction condition grade. Data were stored using 

SPL Enterprise Asset Management Software. 

An external condition grade was assigned to each manhole and pipeline considering soil conditions, 

evidence of surcharging, depth to water table, evidence of previous failure, pipe slope and depth, evidence 

of subsidence, evidence of corrosion, location (e.g., grass, pavement, near wetlands), evidence of surface 

depression, and difficulty to access. 

All pipelines determined to have a PACP condition grade of 3 or higher were recommended for cleaning 

and further inspection with conventional inline CCTV equipment. These recommendations were 

submitted monthly to the county’s program manager for review and approval of the work. These 

pipelines were cleaned and inspected during the project, resulting in no pipelines with an O&M grade 

equal to or greater than 3 at the completion of the project. Approximately 1,500 manholes were 

scheduled for rehabilitation. 

The sewer system was found to be in better condition than expected. This resulted in significant savings, 

which allowed InfraMetrix to provide additional support including: 

• Developing a standardized manual that includes procedures for data collection, cleaning and 

CCTV, and emergency responses. 

• Providing recommendations for job codes for generating work orders from the MACP and PACP 

defects. 

• Developing a methodology for prioritizing future maintenance and capital improvements. 

• Determining useful life and remaining life for the manholes and pipelines. 

• Providing manhole and pipeline improvement recommendations. 

• Presenting the findings and conclusions in a report on maintenance and capital planning. 

The project was completed approximately $1 million under budget. These funds were set aside to pay for 

the rehabilitation of manholes and pipelines assigned a structural condition grade of 4 or 5. WRS 

estimated that it saved approximately $11.4 million and 3,200 crew days with the inspection approach 

combining zoom camera technology and in-line CCTV.

The video information and physical characteristics captured in the inspection data were used to develop 

proactive O&M and capital improvement programs for pipe renewal and replacement and to improve the 

accuracy of hydraulic models. As an added bonus, the video inspection files provide an accurate visual 

condition assessment that can be used in case a hurricane leads to debris accumulation or structural 

damage in the sewer system. The information can be used when applying for Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) disaster reimbursement. 

The schedule and inspection frequency of future manhole and pipeline inspections are based on the risk of 

failure. This risk evaluation is based in part on a risk score, calculated by multiplying the condition grade 

by a criticality factor. The criticality factor ranges from 1 to 9 and indicates the severity of the 

consequence of failure. It takes into account a variety of factors such as depth of the pipe, the overlying 

street and traffic conditions and the type of service (e.g., hospital, school). The system also has a built-in 

“fudge factor” in case there is a compelling reason to change the criticality that is not already included in 

the criticality factor. Once the risk score is calculated, it is used along with other information such as pipe 

age and material to prioritize and schedule inspections as well as O&M and capital needs for the future. 
A-76

Problems Encountered and Resolved 

During this two-year comprehensive manhole and gravity sewer inventory and condition assessment 

project, several problems occurred in gaining access to private property and locating buried manholes. 

County staffers were brought in to assist in gaining access; multiple attempts to contact residents were 

needed in some cases. Specific problems encountered and recommended actions are listed below. 

• Cleaning operations may result in customer claims – must be responsive to customer concerns. 

• High flows may limit inspection – must anticipate working at night when flows are low. 

• Private pumping stations connected to public sewers produce unexpected flows at unexpected 

times – must be patient and plan ahead. 

• Manholes may be located under sheds, fences and pool decks within backyard easements and 

buried under pavement – allow enough time to locate and uncover manholes. 

WRS also found grease to be an ongoing problem. Pipelines that had to be cleaned due to grease build up 

were likely to need cleaning in a relatively short time to prevent blockage. Some areas were more prone 

to this buildup than others. 

Considerations for New Users 

WRS recommends that utilities define project objectives as early as possible. Establishing a thorough 

scope and standards in the planning stages will minimize changes through the life of the project. WRS 

did make some relatively minor changes to the scope of contractor duties after the start of the project. 

These included taking still photos of defects to assist line maintenance staff in repairs; defining effort and 

time for difficult to locate assets needing extraordinary effort; developing a method to add newly 

completed assets to the scope during the process; and making minor improvements to customer 

notification. These minor scope changes could have been included in the original project scope. 

With dollars being limited for most utilities, a utility might choose to survey representative areas for 

analysis and develop predictive methodologies based on information gathered. However, in the long 

term, it is recommended that all assets be inspected. When the county initiated this program, minimal 

data were available from similar projects. As more utilities pursue this type of system analysis, more 

information is becoming available to help in the planning. 

Conclusion 

According to WRS staff, the main project objectives were met. WRS developed an inventory of system 

assets including their location and physical condition. The county now has good asset data that can be 

used to prioritize current capital and operational needs and to plan for future maintenance and capital 

needs. 

References 

InfraMetrix LLC. (2008). Gravity Sewer Assessment Using Zoom Camera Technology. InfraMetrix 

LLC, Tampa, Fla.. 

Kirby, Richard, Richard Cummings, and William DiTullio. (2007). Asset Management in Practice: 

Lessons Learned from Hillsborough County. Underground Infrastructure Management, 

September/October. 
A-77

Kirby, Richard, William DiTullio, and Ron Thompson. (2008). Hillsborough County Fla.’s Sewer Asset 

Management Program Pays Immediate Dividends. Underground Infrastructure Management, 

November/December. 

Contact: Richard Kirby, Chief, Utility Technical Design Team 

Hillsborough County Water Resource Service

 Tampa, Fla. 

Phone: (813) 272-5977 Ext. 43332 

E-mail: kirbyr@hillsboroughcounty.org
A-78

Data Management Case Study – Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 

This case study describes the enhancements to the District’s data management system and the 

improvements implemented in data flow from field collection through analysis. 

Lessons Learned 

Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 (District) was eager to show progress in making collection 

system improvements to support their CMOM program. In 2006, the District accelerated the pace of field 

evaluations and system improvements. At the same time, planning was initiated and improvements were 

made to the data management system (DMS). The District realized that large amounts of valuable data 

were being collected, but data analysis and identification of correction actions were not being performed 

in an efficient manner. The District also realized that field tasks were being duplicated in the office, 

which was both frustrating and costly. 

The lesson that became evident was the value the DMS provided in the execution of fundamental work. 

DMS improvements were given a higher priority and specific data flow logic was carefully reviewed in 

order to: 

• Ensure that the correct data were being captured in the field. 

• Understand what short-term and long-term decisions the data would support. 

• Ensure that data were properly stored so that future retrieval would be easy and convenient. 

Background 

The District’s sewer system covers approximately 200 square miles over 33 communities in three 

counties (Boone, Kenton and Campbell), and serves approximately 98,000 customer accounts and 

245,000 customers. The collection and treatment system service area (Figure A-10) is composed of 

approximately: 

• 49,586 manholes. 

• 3,769 catch basins in the combined sewer system. 

• 1,665 miles of sewer lines (10% combined and 90% separate sewers). 

• 141 pump stations. 

• 15 flood pump stations. 

• Two regional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and eight small WWTPs with a total 

average daily flow of 36 MGD and a maximum flow exceeding 55 MGD. 

The majority of the collection system is 50 to 100 years old, with diameters ranging from 8 in. to 120 in. 

The common pipe materials are concrete and clay for smaller sewers, and brick and rock for sewers over 

48 in. Since the 1970s, PVC has been used for new sewers 4 to 18 in. in diameter. PVC constitutes 

approximately 25% of the current system. 
A-79

SourceS

Source: Image courtesy of Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1.

Data Management for an Asset Management-Based Approach to Corrective Action Prioritization 

Sewer System Assessment Program: During its CMOM development, the District decided to develop a 

more proactive collection system inspection, cleaning, and rehabilitation/replacement program. The 

District also established a coordinated approach to address both the Nine Minimum Control requirements 

for the combined sewer system and the CMOM requirements for the sanitary sewer system. In concert 

with the CMOM self-assessment and the Nine Minimum Control activities, the District began a holistic 

Continuous Sewer Assessment Program (CSAP) in 2007. This formalized CSAP guides the District’s 

assessment and rehabilitation/replacement work, and many collection system data management activities. 

An objective of the CSAP is to take a proactive and coordinated asset management-based approach to 

assess the infrastructure’s condition and manage corrective actions. Through the CSAP, the District can 

more effectively prioritize and implement system inspection, cleaning, and rehabilitation/replacement. 

This will enable the identification of wet weather I/I sources, ensure sufficient capacity in both dry and 

wet weather, and reduce SSOs. 

Figure A-10. Sanitation District No. 1’s service area. 
A-80

The CSAP is a high-level program consisting of several specific CMOM activities supporting the 

collection system. Six O&M programs are incorporated into the larger scale CSAP: 

• Trouble call. 

• Preventative O&M. 

• Sonar. 

• Sanitary sewer evaluation survey. 

• Large diameter sewer assessment. 

• Manhole inspection. 

Assessment Prioritization Approach: A key component of the CSAP is the prioritization of assets for 

assessment and subsequent rehabilitation or replacement. Typically, the basin areas where problems are 

known to exist or where there is a high likelihood of problems should receive the most immediate 

attention and inspection. Other factors, such as consequence of failure (criticality), also play a key role in 

prioritization. The CSAP data management system enables basin prioritization to be completed using a 

comprehensive and easily retrievable dataset. This is preferable to the more traditional pipe age and 

material projection methods used when data are limited or are not supported by a sophisticated data 

management system. 

The following data categories were selected for each basin to produce a basin score and corresponding 

basin rank: 

• Service performance priority (measures risks of blockages). 

• Structural performance priority (measures risks of collapse). 

• Work order history priority (used to estimate frequency of problem occurring). 

Although these criteria will dictate most of the sewer and manhole inspections, there are certain assets or 

groups of assets which require priority inspection, regardless of basin priority: 

• All major sewer interceptors and large combined sewers inspected with zoom camera and sonar 

techniques. 

• All sewers within 50 ft of major creeks. 

• All sewers downstream of SSOs. 

• All sewers in basins that have I/I percentages greater than 10%. 

The District is allocating resources in the most cost-effective manner by performing earlier initial 

inspections and more frequent re-inspection of high priority areas. It is estimated that the entire collection 

system (approximately 7.9 million ft) will be inspected via CCTV within 10 years, with re-inspection of 

critical assets occurring throughout the 10-year cycle. 

The lower priority sewers and newer sewers are inspected after year five of the program. The CSAP 

provides the data needed to focus cleaning, rehabilitation and replacement on the sewers with the greatest 

need. The re-inspection process informs cleaning or rehabilitation decisions, resulting in a more costeffective program. This approach reduces the risk of service-related overflows compared to a linear 

inspection and cleaning approach (start at the top of the system and progress downward). An example 

projection of CCTV and zoom camera needs through the year 2017 is shown in Figure A-11 (2008 

CMOM self-assessment report). 
A-81

Source: Image courtesy of Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1. 

Figure A-11. Example District projection of the CCTV and zoom camera needs through 2017. 

Zoom Camera 

Basin inspections are divided into three phases based on their priority scores: 

• Phase 1 comprises all basins with priority SSOs and other basins with known problems. Priority 

SSOs have been identified as part of the watershed plans development. 

• Phase 2 comprises all other basins with listed SSOs under the consent order with the state and 

federal regulatory agencies and other basins with problems that are not as concentrated as Phase 1 

basins. 

• Phase 3 comprises newer basins where available data show few structural or service related 

problems. 

CSAP Data Collection and Management: Each of the six CSAP programs listed above includes an 

assessment phase using appropriate inspection technologies such as CCTV, zoom camera, smoke & dye 

testing, sonar, and visual inspection. This is followed by an action phase such as cleaning and 

rehabilitation/replacement. Data for each of these programs are integrated and designed to support the 

correction actions. 

Collection System Inspection Approach: The primary data used by the District engineering staff for 

condition assessment are obtained by CCTV and zoom camera inspections. The District operates a fleet 

of five CCTV inspection vehicles (from a variety of manufacturers), which are fully equipped with 

cameras, control units, rods, and other items necessary to perform CCTV inspections. This technology 

enables surveying of pipes ranging from 6 to 48 in. in diameter. CCTV technology also enables District 

crews to record audio information and observations while observing pipes in the field. Once the video is 

captured and the data uploaded on the server, the data are converted to a condition score. The resulting 

score and additional analysis determine whether the asset needs to be placed in the preventive 

maintenance work program, or if it requires rehabilitation or replacement. District crews use the 

SCREAMTM defect coding system developed by CH2M HILL. SCREAMTM is not a specific software 

package, but a condition assessment protocol that allows inspection and testing results to be converted to 

a numerical score that “ranks” each asset according to structural, O&M, and I/I concerns. 
A-82

In addition to the CCTV work performed by District crews, large diameter and some smaller diameter 

sewer lines in the collection system are inspected by contractors using zoom camera screening 

technology. A zoom camera is a high-powered, high-optical zoom video camera that provides a rapid 

evaluation of a collection system. The results of the zoom camera screening inspection are used to 

identify where cleaning or detailed CCTV inspections are needed to further assess defects. In some cases, 

however, the zoom camera inspection provides sufficient condition information to move forward with 

rehabilitation/replacement planning, and further CCTV inspection is not necessary. 

Engineers use the zoom camera and CCTV results, combined with other information such as the sewer’s 

location, slope, depth and complexity of construction, to decide whether the work will be done with inhouse staff or contractors. To help expedite decision making, the District developed an automated 

corrective action process that models the staff’s decision logic for high priority assets. The decision 

model is a SCREAMTM module that evaluates the type and grouping of defects and identifies initial 

corrective action decisions. It overlays these suggested corrective actions with the asset’s physical 

condition information in order to produce a more definitive corrective action (e.g., repair, rehabilitation, 

replacement, or further investigation). Costs are also assigned, which helps the engineering staff prepare 

capital investment program (CIP), maintenance budgets, and schedules. 

Data Collection and Management: gbaMS (GBA Master Series) is central to many daily functions. 

Therefore, one of the goals of CSAP is to use gbaMS as the primary tool for data collection and 

automation, with much of the key data integrated with the GIS. The integration of the data with the GIS 

allows personnel from many different disciplines and backgrounds to view data in the same way, 

facilitating a standard decision-making process. 

Prior to implementation of the CSAP, field data were either collected directly within gbaMS mobile 

master or were entered on hard copies in the field and then entered into gbaMS by office staff. In the 

early planning stages of the CSAP, the District recognized the need to improve this data handling process 

by integrating and automating the movement of field data into gbaMS. Automated future actions and 

work orders would also need to be generated within gbaMS. The District selected CH2M HILL’s 

SCREAMTM inspection analysis methodology and SQL database integration logic because they allow the 

results of single or multiple inspection technologies (e.g., smoke testing and CCTV performed on the 

same asset) to be scored and compared to other assets. The SCREAMTM CCTV and manhole inspection 

analysis is based on a comprehensive multi-attribute method using logarithmic functions to aggregate and 

score the array of multiple defects that can occur on a single asset. For Northern Kentucky, CH2M HILL 

coordinated the SCREAMTM system within the agency’s existing use of the gbaMS software. 

The SCREAMTM methodology and logic also allow existing CCTV and sonar pipe inspections performed 

using the NASSCO’s PACP CCTV codes to be mapped to the SCREAMTM codes for standardized 

SCREAMTM scoring. This information can be exported to gbaMS for additional analysis and 

determination of next actions. An example of how the data are linked among the various applications is 

shown in Figure A-12.
A-83

Source: Image courtesy of Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1. 

Figure A-12. District 3’s CSAP Data Flow Chart. 
A-84

Data Software/Hardware: The district uses gbaMS as its CMMS. As noted above, gbaMS is central to 

the district’s daily functions and the district aims to use gbaMS as the primary tool for data collection and 

automation. 

The District uses numerous gbaMS software products for management and maintenance of infrastructure 

assets. The module-based, customizable applications promote effective data management practices. 

Other gbaMS modules used include: GIS Master, Sewer Master, Work Master, and Equipment Master. 

The gbaMS software generates an extensive variety of reports and can export data into spreadsheets. 

Each of the gbaMS modules provides a wide range of data and work management functions that are 

completely integrated to assist the district in establishing a maintenance plan, setting priorities, providing 

timetables, tracking system rehabilitations, and giving direction on effectively maintaining the system. A 

large number of pre-defined reports are contained within gbaMS and can be modified, or additional 

reports can be created using Crystal Reports, which is a software application used to design and generate 

reports. Detailed and summary reports compile the results and are accessed in three ways: through the 

gbaMS application, the CSAP administrative interface, or reports created with SQL Server Reporting 

Services and made available through the District’s portal ftp site. 

For sewer condition assessment, the district uses SCREAMTM software, which provides a standardized 

defect coding system and a definitive scoring and ranking process, eliminating subjectivity by the 

operator. Each defect is coded so that it has a category, type and severity associated with the code. The 

scores for each pipe segment are based on a scale of 1 to 100 for structural, maintenance, and I/I 

conditions. This allows for a better understanding in assigning relative risks posed by the asset and what 

corrective actions are needed. The gbaMS and SCREAMTM data reside in SQL 2005 in their own 

databases, which can share data with each other. 

An additional database, CSAP (Figure A-13), was created and serves as a hub, pulling data from gbaMS, 

SCREAMTM pipe, manhole defect coding databases, and template databases. The template databases are 

used for storing and reviewing the quality of contractor data collected with NASSCO’s PACP system. 

The CSAP database is used for data compilation, pipe scoring based on the defects within the inspection 

report, and application of the next action decision-making logic as outlined by the CSAP Process 

Diagram. The predetermined procedures stored in the SQL server apply the logic and generate the next 

action to take. Actions might be a list of prioritized pipes and manholes needing immediate rehabilitation 

or replacement, future sonar and CCTV pipe re-inspections, future cleaning activities at differing intervals 

or prioritized groups of pipes and manholes that require rehabilitation/replacement as part of a larger scale 

basin-wide project. An administrative interface allows modification of CSAP logic as needed. 
A-85

Source: Image courtesy of Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1. 

Once the list of prioritized assets is created, the work orders are scheduled from the CSAP database logic 

for future inspection and cleaning activities. The following information is taken into account in 

scheduling the work: 

• SCREAMTM scores. 

• Number of pipes needing inspection or O&M that month. 

• Location of assets (basin, street, and x/y coordinates). 

• Amount of footage to be inspected per year. 

• Number of crews available. 

The gbaMS and GIS database(s) were analyzed for relationships and data commonalities. As a result, a 

data and process flow model was developed to represent the CSAP and GIS data integration. 

Based on the initial inspection results, the following actions are taken: 

• Sewers with high maintenance scores in need of cleaning are cleaned and scheduled for reinspection in approximately six months to one year. 

• Sewers in good condition with no need for cleaning or repair are scheduled for re-inspection in 

one, three, or five years depending on the inspection scores for the pipes. 

• Sewers with high structural scores in need of repair are brought into the 

rehabilitation/replacement program to be properly addressed. 

• Sewers are scheduled to be rehabilitated or replaced either immediately (collapsed pipe) or as part 

of a basin-wide rehabilitation/replacement project. These sewers are also coordinated with the 

District’s watershed plans to ensure that watershed plan projects are properly incorporated into 

the sewers’ overall solution. 

Utility Comments on Implementing New Databases and New Defect Coding System 

Figure A-13. Example SCREAMTM scoring displayed in gbaMS. 
A-86

The district experienced initial challenges in implementing a new process such as the SCREAMTM codes. 

Some of the field staff was initially reluctant to make the change. District management resolved this by 

ensuring that the field staff clearly understood the purpose and benefits of these changes, listening to their 

responses, and promptly responding to their legitimate concerns. For instance, the engineering staff made 

every effort to clarify how the field data were converted into usable information to make key decisions on 

spending the District’s limited resources more efficiently. 

The District has stressed the importance of leveraging the value of accurate and representative field data 

throughout the decision-making process. For instance, the CCTV data and analysis process was reviewed 

and modified to capture data to support specific district policies. An example is the terminology of 

CCTV codes for the various methods by which service laterals are connected to the mainline sewer pipe. 

By coding with nomenclature familiar to the field crews, the engineering staff was more assured that 

CCTV reports would be reliable when deciding how to resolve service lateral issues. At the same time, 

the crews became engaged in the process by recommending a number of new codes that could be used 

instead of taking the time to write comments on the inspection form. 

The District built automatic and manual quality control checks into the data management process to 

improve data reliability. As part of the SCREAMTM data handling process, an interim database template 

included queries that identified data gaps or anomalies for the field crew to resolve prior to uploading the 

data. This prevented data problems from slowing subsequent engineering decisions. Also, district staff 

reviews approximately 10% of a contractor’s CCTV videotapes to determine whether all the defects are 

being captured and captured accurately. The district developed a missed-data scoring sensitivity 

calculator that will predict the impact on the asset’s score if a particular defect is not included in the score. 

Rules were established regarding acceptable missed data, enabling the staff to know when the data 

scoring would be compromised, and how to provide feedback to the CCTV contractor to minimize future 

missed data. 

Collection of field data is not an activity unto itself, and the district has designed the data collection in 

stages to be integrated into progress decisions. The District is already leveraging the data management 

process to make more and better decisions with the same or proportionate less resources and staff. 

References 

Sanitation District No. 1 Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) SelfAssessment, March 8, 2008. 

Contact: Brandon Vatter, Program Manager 

 Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 

 Fort Wright, Ky. 

Phone: (859) 578-7450

E-mail: bvatter@sd1.org
B-87

Appendix B. Defect Code Systems 
B-88

Appendix B presents a detailed discussion of PACP and SCREAMTM defect codes. The process of defect 

coding summarizes observations of pipe defects from CCTV inspections in the form of pipe scores or 

grades. The defect code systems record defect locations as a function of their distance from a starting 

manhole, and defect codes are used to represent a variety of CCTV inspection observations. 

PACP Defect Codes 

The PACP code system organizes defects into five “families”: continuous defects, structural, O&M, 

defects related to construction features and other miscellaneous observations (NASSCO, 2001). A defect 

“family” is further divided into defect groups that are assigned a combination of capital letters to form a 

descriptive acronym and a grade number to indicate the severity of the defect. For example, “FL” 

signifies a longitudinal fracture. The code families are further described below: 

• Continuous defect coding: Continuous defect coding consists of two sub-classifications. 

“Truly” continuous defects extend along the sewer for a minimum distance of 3 ft. These defects 

include longitudinal fractures and cracks. “Repeated” continuous defects occur at regular 

intervals along the pipe, usually at pipe joints, and include encrustation, open joints, and 

circumferential fractures. Continuous defect coding can be used in conjunction with other codes. 

• Structural defect coding: Structural defect coding consists of a number of classifications related 

to structural degradation of the pipe: 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 brickwork (B). With each of these designations, additional letters further describe the 

defect. For example: HSV indicates a hole with soil visible. 

• Operational and maintenance defect coding: This family codes defects that are related to lack 

of maintenance in the pipe system. The O&M defect code groups are deposits (D), roots (R), 

infiltration (I), obstacles (OB) and vermin (V). Additional letters further describe the defect. For 

example, VR indicates that there are vermin, specifically rats, in the pipe. 

• Construction features coding: This family of codes describes defects related to construction 

features located in or around the pipe system. Code groups are tap (T), intruding seal material 

(IS), line (L) and access point (A). As with the other families, additional letters further define the 

defect. For example, AMH indicates that there is an access point in the line that is a manhole. 

• Other coding: This coding family comprises miscellaneous observations about the pipe system 

that are of interest. It uses the code letter “M,” plus additional letters to further define the 

observation. For example, MCU designates that the camera is under water. 

The PACP code system is used to describe different characteristics of each observed defect including its 

classification, severity, size, proximity to joints, circumferential location (clock location), image/video 

reference number, and comments. Defect codes are recorded on a standardized form; an example is 

illustrated in Figure B-1. The PACP code system uses numerical grading on a scale of 1 to 5 to define the 

severity of each pipe defect, with 1 representing a minimal defect and 5 representing the most severe 

defect. 

The PACP codes for individual defects are used to determine several overall scores for the pipe segment 

(manhole-to-manhole pipe run). Structural and O&M defects are graded separately based on the risk of 

further deterioration or failure. These terms for expressing pipe condition are outlined below: 
B-89

• Segment Grade Scores: A scoring assigned to individual pipe segments based on the number 

and severity of the defects. Each segment receives five Segment Grade Scores, one for each of 

the five grades. The score equals the number of defects multiplied by the grade number. For 

example, a pipe segment with six Grade 5 defects has a Segment Grade 5 Score of 30 (6 defects 

multiplied by a grade of 5). If a pipe segment has no defects for a particular grade, the Segment 

Grade Score for that grade is 0. 

• Overall Pipe Rating: The sum of five Segment Grade Scores. 

• Structural Pipe Rating: The sum of five Segment Grade Scores considering only structural 

defects. 

• O&M Pipe Rating: The sum of five Segment Grade Scores considering only O&M defects. 

• Quick Rating: A rapid method for summarizing the number and severity of the two most severe 

defects in a pipe segment. The Quick Rating is a four-character score: 

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 Quick Rating of “3224” is deciphered as follows: the highest severity defect on 

this pipe segment is a grade 3; the pipe segment has 2 defects with a grade 3; the next highest 

severity defect is a grade 2; there are 4 defects with a grade 2. This pipe segment has no grade 4 

or 5 defects. 

• Overall Pipe Rating Index: An expression of the average defect severity found in the pipe 

segment. The index is calculated by dividing the Overall Pipe Rating by the number of defects. 

PACP provides general guidelines for assessing the Pipe Rating Index score with the following 

stipulation: “The mechanisms and rates of pipeline deterioration are highly dependent on local 

conditions. However the following general guidelines are provided to estimate the amount of 

time before the defect causes complete line failure. These guidelines should be verified by actual 

research under prevailing local conditions.” (NASSCO, 2001) 

• Pipe Rating Index = 5: Pipe segment has failed or will likely fail within the next 5 years. 

Pipe segment requires immediate attention. 

• Pipe Rating Index = 4: Pipe segment has severe defects with failure likely within the 

next 5 to 10 years. 

• Pipe Rating Index = 3: Pipe segment has moderate defects. Deterioration may continue, 

but failure is not likely for 10 to 20 years. 

• Pipe Rating Index = 2: Pipe segment has minor defects. Pipe is unlikely to fail for at 

least 20 years. 

• Pipe Rating Index = 1: Pipe segment has minor defects. Failure is unlikely in the 

foreseeable future. 

• Structural Pipe Rating Index: The average severity of structural defects in the pipe segment. 

The index is calculated by dividing the Structural Pipe Rating by the number of defects. 
B-90

• O&M Pipe Rating Index: The average severity of O&M defects in the pipe segment. The index 

is calculated by dividing the O&M Pipe Rating by the number of defects. 

The Quick Rating and Ratings Index scores are the methods most commonly used to assess the general 

condition of a pipe from CCTV inspection data. 

Example of PACP Coding Methodology 

This example uses CCTV inspection data from an 8-in. diameter VCP located in Huntsville, Ala., to 

demonstrate the use of the PACP coding methodology. Figure B-1 summarizes the information gathered 

for each defect using the PACP defect code system. The level of detail required depends on the particular 

defect code used and observations within the pipe. Distance measurements are provided for each defect 

and are measured from the starting manhole. Defect codes are then provided and may include group, 

descriptor, modifier, and severity codes. The start and end distances of any continuous defects are noted, 

and additional information related to each defect may be provided. 
B-91

Notes for Figure B-1 

1. In Column 1, distance is measured in ft. 

2. In column 2, defect codes are described using the following group/descriptors: AMH = access 

manhole, CC = circumferential crack, H = hole, MWL = miscellaneous water level, OBI = object 

intruding through wall, RF = roots fine, TB = tap break in and TF = tap factory. 

3. In column 3, the following modifiers are used to indicate defect severity: D = defective, L = lateral and 

A = active. 

4. Column 4 is used to provide information on continuous defects. For this example, no continuous 

defects were observed. 

5. Columns 5, 6, 7 and 8 denote additional specific values for some defect codes. For example, a value of 

“4” in column 6 indicates that all lateral tap connections observed in this pipe have a diameter of 4 in. 

6. Column 9 is used to classify defects located near a pipe joint. A “J” indicates that the observed defect 

is located within 8 in. of a pipe joint. 

7. Columns 10 and 11 describe the circumferential location of certain defects as a clock position or a 

starting and ending clock position. For example, “2” refers to the 2:00 o’clock position. 

The raw data shown in Figure B-1 and structural grades from PACP Reference Manual (NASSCO, 2001) 

are used to calculate the pipe rating scores. These scores are computed separately for Structural, O&M, 

and Overall categories, as described below. 

Structural Rating: In Figure B-1, the following structural defects were included in the calculation of the 

Structural Rating: the H defects located at a distance of 235.2 ft and a circumferential location of 3:00 and 

10:00; and the CC defect located at a distance of 352.5 ft and a circumferential location from 9:00 to 

11:00. The defects were assigned a structural grade based on the designated PACP code and their clock 

position using a reference table in NASSCO’s PACP Reference Manual (NASSCO, 2001): the two H 

defects were both assigned a structural grade 4, and the CC defect was assigned a structural grade 1. 

Therefore, the Structural Rating = (2 defects × grade 4) + (1 defect × grade 1) = 9. 

Figure B-1. Example of PACP coding methodology for 8 in. VCP, Huntsville, Ala.
B-92

O&M Rating: In Figure B-1, the following defects were used to calculate the O&M Rating: the TFD 

defect located at a distance of 73.4 ft, and the RFL, OBI and TFD defects located at a distance of 262.9 ft. 

The two TFD defects were assigned an O&M Grade of 2, the RF defect was assigned an O&M Grade of 1 

and the OBI defect was assigned an O&M Grade of 2. Therefore, the O&M Rating = (3 defects × grade 

2) + (1 defect × grade 1) = 7. 

Overall Rating: The Overall Rating is calculated based on the structural and O&M Ratings. Therefore, 

the Overall Rating = 9 + 7 = 16. 

The Quick Ratings are based on the two most severe grades and the number of defects observed in a pipe. 

The three quick ratings are determined as follows: 

Structural Quick Rating: In the example shown in Figure B-1, the most severe grade was a “4” and was 

assigned to two defects; the second most severe grade was a “1” and was assigned to 1 defect. Therefore, 

the Structural Quick Rating is “4211.” 

O&M Quick Rating: The most severe O&M grade was a “2” and was assigned to 3 defects; the second 

most severe O&M grade was a “1” and was assigned to 1 defect. Therefore, the O&M Quick Rating is 

“2311.” 

 

Overall Quick Rating: Considering both structural and O&M categories, the most severe grade used in 

this pipe segment was a “4” and was assigned to 2 defects. The second most severe grade was a “2” and 

was assigned to 3 defects. Therefore, the Overall Quick Rating is “4223.” 

The Structural, O&M and Overall Ratings Indices are calculated by dividing the Structural Rating, the 

O&M Rating and Overall Rating by the number of respective defects in each category. These indices 

represent the average pipe condition on a five-point scale. The indices are calculated as follows: 

Structural Ratings Index = 9 ÷ 3 = 3.0. 

O&M Ratings Index = 7 ÷ 4 = 1.8. 

Overall Ratings Index = 16 ÷ 7 = 2.3. 

In summary, the PACP scores for the example in Figure B-1 are provided below: 

Structural Rating 9 

Structural Quick Rating 4211

Structural Ratings Index 3.0 

O&M Rating 7 

O&M Quick Rating 2311

O&M Ratings Index 1.8 

Overall Rating 16

Overall Quick Rating 4223

Overall Ratings Index 2.3 
B-93

SCREAMTM Defect Codes 

The SCREAMTM defect code system has six defect categories: Access (A), Connecting Pipe (C), Fitting 

(F), Joint (J), Lateral Connection (L) and Pipe (P). Categories generally reflect a location relative to when 

and where along the pipe the CCTV operator is considering entering a code. The six categories are 

further described below: 

• Access: These codes generally describe where the inspection was launched (e.g., a manhole, a 

cleanout, etc.). All access codes are in the Inventory Group and are not scored but provide 

information. 

• Connecting Pipe: Defects within the connecting pipe defect category are located in the interface 

area of a connecting pipe with the sewer or storm sewer pipe that contains the CCTV camera and 

do not represent the connecting pipe itself. Connecting pipes are sewer pipes serving a much 

larger service area than laterals or pipes that service a high-flow industry and bring flow to the 

sewer or storm sewer pipe. Connecting pipes (also known as “blind connections”) are typically ≥

8 in. in diameter. 

• Fitting: These codes are for factory-manufactured fittings such a 45- or 90-degree bend when the 

camera is in a lateral. Fittings do not include the lateral tees or wyes, which are included under 

Lateral Connection. 

• Joint: These codes are for the sewer pipe, fitting or lateral junction points of two pipe segments; 

a fitting and pipe or a fitting and lateral.

• Lateral Connection: These codes are for the factory-manufactured tee or wye and include field 

installed cored, saddle and hammer-tap connections that connect a lateral to the pipe. A lateral 

connection includes the interface area of the service lateral with the sewer pipe. Laterals bring 

flow from a residence or commercial building to the pipe and are typically 4 to 6 in. in diameter. 

• Pipe: These codes refer to the sewer or storm sewer pipe and the interior space within the 

confines of the pipe barrel. Pipe codes are also applicable to the pipeline system components 

when considering continuous type defects such as grease, sediment, lining and coating defects. 

Within each of these categories, the SCREAMTM defect code system establishes four defect coding 

groups: Inventory, Structural, Maintenance and I/I. Inventory codes do not influence the score. 

SCREAMTM defect codes are also classified by type of defect (e.g., roots, pipe collapse, and turbulence) 

and defect severity (e.g., minimum, moderate, major). 

SCREAMTM Defect Scoring Approach 

The SCREAMTM rating analysis system includes assigning a score to individual defects, groups of defects 

(e.g., structural, maintenance, I/I) and the overall pipe condition. 

For each defect type, SCREAMTM calculates a minimum or base defect score and a maximum defect 

score. The base defect score represents the score of a single defect of that defect type that has the 

minimum possible extent or the minimum length observed for defects of this type (e.g., < 1 ft). The 

maximum defect score represents the score for defects of that defect type that have the maximum 

cumulative extent over the pipe segment (e.g., multiple occurrences of the same defect or defect that 
B-94

extends the entire length of the pipe). The actual score assigned to a specific occurrence of a defect is 

determined based on the defect’s size or extent in the pipe segment (e.g., < 1 ft, occurs over 50% of pipe 

length) and has a value between the minimum and maximum defect scores. If the defect affects < 1 ft of 

the pipe segment (a point defect), the score would be equal to the minimum or base defect score; defects 

which affect the entire pipe segment would be assigned a value close to the maximum value for that 

defect type. Using this approach, the SCREAMTM scoring methodology considers the relative criticality 

of specific defect types and the extent of their occurrence in the pipe segment. As a result, the occurrence 

of a major defect in one limited area can be scored higher than multiple occurrences of minor defects. 

For both defect coding and pipe condition scoring, a scoring scale of 1 to 100 is applied with 1 

representing a very minor defect and 100 representing the most severe defect (e.g., a collapsed pipe). For 

easier visual display of pipe condition, a simpler scoring scale of Grades 1 to 5 may also be used. For 

example, Grade 1 may represent pipe scores of 1 to 25; Grade 2 represents pipe scores of 26 to 40; and so 

forth. It is not necessary to use a linear relationship to define Grades 1 to 5 in terms of the pipe scores. 

For each pipe segment, the pipe score value using the 1-to-100 scale is retained for subsequent 

prioritization or corrective action decisions. 

The SCREAMTM methodology includes computation of an Overall Pipe Score for the aggregated defects 

found in the pipe. It also computes a separate score for the structural, maintenance and I/I groups of 

defects. These scores are calculated using a multiple attribute method that involves advanced rootsquare-mean mathematical principles. One key principle is to identify and build upon the highest scored 

defect value found in the inspection (Kathula, 2004). 

Each defect code is pre-assigned a minimum base score from 1 to 100, and the score for the defect is 

increased depending on its extent along the pipe. A score of 1 represents a nearly new pipe, and a score 

of 100 represents immediate urgency such as a pipe collapse. SCREAMTM’s mathematical algorithm uses 

a scoring system that automatically selects the highest defect score value in the pipe segment. The worst 

defect score becomes the beginning point for aggregating all additional asset defect scores.

Example of SCREAMTM Coding Methodology 

This example uses CCTV inspection data from an 8-in. diameter VCP located in Huntsville, Ala., to 

demonstrate use of the SCREAMTM coding methodology. Figure B-2 summarizes inspection distance (ft 

from manhole) and describes the type and severity of pipe defects observed. In contrast to PACP, 

SCREAMTM defect codes contain all relevant information within each defect code, and no additional 

supporting information is required to further describe the defect. Once the defect code is provided, the 

defect category, defect family, defect type, defect severity and defect group are all known by definition. 
B-95

Figure B-2. Example of SCREAMTM coding methodology for 8 in. VCP, Huntsville, Ala. 

Notes for Figure B-2 

1. In Column 1, distance is measured in ft. 

2. Acronyms used in Column 2 are defined as follows: AMH = access manhole, FSAD = factory 

saddle, JCRKMUL2 = joint crack multiple moderate, LDIS3 = lateral connection displaced 

major, LLOC = lateral connection location, LRF1 = lateral connection roots minor, LROJ1 = 

lateral connection roots & open joint minor, LRU1 = lateral connection roots up lateral minor, 

PFLWLEV2 = pipe flow level moderate, POB1 = pipe obstacle minor and PBROPE3 = pipe 

broken pieces major. The numbers 1, 2 and 3 represent defect severity in terms of minor, 

moderate and major, respectively. 

3. Column 6 provides additional details on defect severity using the same severity terms introduced 

in column 2 (minor, moderate, major). For example, in row 2, the defect code indicates a 

moderate severity for pipe flow level; column 6 indicates that the flow level is <25%. 

The SCREAMTM scores for the example in Figure B-2 are provided below: 

Structural Score 93.6 100-point scale 

Maintenance Score 5.1 100-point scale 

Total Score 93.9 100-point scale 

Total Grade 5 5-point scale 

SCREAMTM also has a feature that maps PACP defect codes to related SCREAMTM defect codes, to 

allow the use of the SCREAMTM scoring and grading system with PACP defect codes. The SCREAMTM 

scores for the example in Figure B-1 are provided below. 
B-96

Structural Score 96.7 100-point scale 

Maintenance Score 32.0 100-point scale 

Total Score 96.9 100-point scale 

Total Grade 5 5-point scale 

Note that the structural and total scores are quite similar when the SCREAMTM scoring algorithm is used 

with SCREAMTM defect codes or with PACP defect codes. A more significant difference between the 

maintenance scores is observed. However, the total grade computed by the SCREAMTM algorithm using 

either SCREAMTM defect codes or PACP defect codes is the same in both cases. 
C-97

Appendix C. Technology Vendors
C-98

Digital Scanning 

Product(s) Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

DigiSewer Envirosight, LLC

111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869

Tel: (866) 936-8476

Fax: (973) 252-1176

E-mail: through Web site

URL: http://www.envirosight.com

Panoramo Rapidview-IBAK USA

1828 West Olson Road

Rochester, IN 46975

Tel: (800) 656-4225

Fax: (574) 224-5426

E-mail: info@rapidview.com

URL: http://www.rapidview.com

Cleanflow/Fly Eye CUES Inc.

3600 Rio Vista Ave.

Orlando, FL 32805

Tel: (800) 327-7791

Fax: (407) 425-1569

E-mail: salesinfo@cuesinc.com

URL: http://www.cuesinc.com

Zoom Cameras 

Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

Aqua Zoom AquaData, Inc.95 

Pincourt, Quebec

Canada J7V 5K8

5th Avenue Tel: (800) 567-9003

Fax: (514) 425-3506

E-mail: info@aquadata.com

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

E-mail: through Web site

URL: http://www.ariesind.com

QuickView Envirosight, LLC

111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869

Tel: (866) 936-8476

Fax: (973) 252-1176

E-mail: through Web site

URL: http://www.envirosight.com

Everest Ca-Zoom PTZ GE Sensing & Inspection 

Technologies

721 Visions Drive

Skaneateles, NY 13152

Tel: (888) 332-3848

Fax: (866) 899-4184

E-mail: through Web site

URL: 

http://www.geinspectiontechnologies.com

CUES IMX TruckMounted Zoom 

Camera

CUES IMX Corporate 

3600 Rio Vista Ave.

Orlando, FL 32805

Office Tel: (800) 327-7791

Fax: (407) 425-1569

E-mail: salesinfo@cuesinc.com

URL: http://www.cuesinc.com

PortaZoom CTZoom Technologies

2500 Boul. Des Enteprises 

Terrebonne, Quebec

Canada J6X 4J8

#104

Tel: (888) 965-8987

Fax: (450) 965-8987

E-mail: info@ctzoom.com

URL: http://www.ctzoom.com

Push Cameras 

Product(s) Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

Insight Vision 

Camera

Push Insight Vision

600 Dekora Woods Boulevard

Tel: 

Fax: 

(800) 

(262) 

488-8177

268-9952
C-99

Saukville, WI 53080 URL: http://insightvisioncameras.com

CrystalCam 

Camera

Push Inuktun Services Ltd.

2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C

Nanaimo, British Columbia

Canada V9T 3M4

Tel: (877) 468-5886

Fax: (250) 729-8080

E-mail: sales@inuktun.com

URL: http://www.inuktun.com/headoffice.htm

Flexiprobe Pearpoint/RADIODETECTION

154 Portland Road

Bridgton, ME 04000

Tel: (877) 247-3797

Fax: (207) 647-9495

E-mail: rd.sales.us@spx.com

URL: http://www.pearpoint.com

Hydrus, 

Orion L

Orion, Rapidview-IBAK USA

1828 West Olson Road

Rochester, IN 46975

Tel: (800) 656-4225

Fax: (574) 224-5426

E-mail: info@rapidview.com

URL: http://www.rapidview.com

Lateral Launchers 

Product(s) Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

LAMP CUES Inc. Tel: (800) 327-7791

3600 Rio Vista Ave. Fax: (407) 425-1569

Orlando, FL 32805 E-mail: salesinfo@cuesinc.com

URL: www.cuesinc.com

Lateral Evaluation Aries Industries Tel: (800) 234-7205

Television System 550 Elizabeth St. Fax: (262) 896-7099

Waukesha, WI 53186 URL: http://www.ariesind.com

Lateral Inspection RS Technical Services Tel: (800) 767-1974

System 1327 Clegg St. Fax: (707) 778-1974

Petaluma, CA 94954 URL: http://www.rstechserv.com

IBAK LISY 150-M Rapidview-IBAK USA Tel: (800) 656-4225

1828 West Olson Road Fax: (574) 224-5426

Rochester, IN 46975 E-mail: info@rapidview.com

URL: http://www.rapidview.com

Small Diameter Tractors 

Product(s) Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

ELKT100 Mini Pearpoint/RADIODETECTION Tel: (877) 247-3797

154 Portland Road Fax: (207) 647-9495

Bridgton, ME 04000 E-mail: rd.sales.us@spx.com

URL: http://www.pearpoint.com

KRA 65 Rapidview-IBAK USA Tel: (800) 656-4225

1828 West Olson Road Fax: (574) 224-5426

Rochester, IN 46975 E-mail: info@rapidview.com

URL: http://www.rapidview.com

Mighty Mini RS Technical Services Tel: (800) 767-1974

Transporter 1327 Clegg St. Fax: (707) 778-1974

Petaluma, CA 94954 URL: http://www.rstechserv.com
C-100

Product(s) Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

ROVVER 100 Envirosight Tel: (866) 936-8476

111 Canfield Ave. Fax: (973) 252-1176

Randolph, NJ 07869 E-mail: through Web site

URL: http://www.envirosight.com

Versatrax 100 Inuktun Services Ltd. Tel: (877) 468-5886

2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C Fax: (250) 729-8080

Nanaimo, British Columbia E-mail: sales@inuktun.com

Canada, V9T 3M4 URL: http://www.inuktun.com/headoffice.htm

Xpress Silver-Bullet Insight Vision Tel: (800) 488-8177

Crawler 600 Dekora Woods Boulevard Fax: (262) 268-9952

Saukville, WI 53080 URL: http://insightvisioncameras.com

Long-Range Tractors 

Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

Versatrax 300 VLR Inuktun Services Ltd.

2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C

Nanaimo, British Columbia

Tel: (877) 468-5886

Fax: (250) 729-8080

E-mail: sales@inuktun.com

Canada V9T 3M4 URL: http://www.inuktun.com/headoffice.htm

Responder RedZone Robotics

43rd 91 St., Ste.250

Pittsburgh, PA 15201

Fax: (412) 476-8981

E-mail: through Web site

URL: http://www.redzone.com

Condition Assessment Software 

Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

TM Canalis part of Aqua Data Inc. Tel: (514) 425-1010 

Aqua CAD® suite 95 5th Avenue

Pincourt, Quebec 

Canada, J7V 5K8

Toll Free: 1-800-567-9003 

Fax: (514) 425-3506

E-Mail: info@aquadata.com

URL: http://www.aquadata.com 

CapPlan Sewer MWH Soft

618 Michillinda Avenue, 

Suite 200

Arcadia, CA 91007 USA

Tel: (626) 568-6868

Fax: (626) 568-6870

E-mail:sales@mwhsoft.com

CASS WORKS® RJN Group Inc.

200 West Front Street

Wheaton, IL 60187

Tel: (630) 682- 4700

Fax: (630) 682- 4754

E-mail: slaitas@rjn.com

URL: http://www.rjn.com/

CityWorks Azteca Systems, Inc.

11075 South State St., Ste. 

Sandy, UT 84070 USA

24 

Tel: (801) 523-2751

Fax: (801) 523-3734

URL: http://www.azteca.com/

CTSpec CTZoom Technologies, Inc. 

2500 Boul. des Entreprises 

#104

Terrebonne, Quebec 

Canada J6X 4J8

Tel: (450) 965-8987

Toll free: 1-888-965-8987

Fax: (450) 965-6622

E-mail: info@ctzoom.com

URL: http://www.ctzoom.com
C-101

Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/E-mail/URL

Granite XP CUES Corporate Office

3600 Rio Vista Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32805

Tel: 800-327-7791

Fax: (407) 425-1569

E-mail: salesinfo@cuesinc.com

URL: http://www.cuesinc.com/

GBA Master 

or gbaMS

Series ® GBA Master Series, Inc.

10561 Barkley, Suite 500

Overland Park, KS 66212

Tel: (800) 492-2468 or (913) 341-3105

Fax: (913) 341-3128

E-mail: info@gbams.com

URL: http://www.gbams.com/contact.htm

Hansen Asset INfOR Tel: (866) 244-5479

Management 13560 Morris Road

Suite 4100

Fax: (678) 319-8682

URL: www.infor365.com 

Alpharetta, GA 30004

InfoNetTM Wallingford 

6015 Harris 

Suite 120

Fort Worth, 

Software Inc.

Parkway

TX 76132

Tel: (817) 370-2425

Toll Free: 1-888-520-2224

Fax: (817) 370-1981

Sales E-mail: 

sales@wallingfordsoftware.com 

Support E-mail: 

support@wallingfordsoftware.com

URL: http://www.wallingfordsoftware.com

Maximo® Asset IBM Corporation Tel: (877) 426-6006

Management 1 New Orchard Road

Armonk, New York 10504

Fax: (800) 314-1092

URL: http://www01.ibm.com/software/tivoli/solutions/assetmanagement/

SEWERview CartêGraph

3600 Digital 

Dubuque, IA 

Drive

52003

Tel: (563) 556-8120

Fax: (563) 556-8149

E-mail: info@cartegraph.com
D-102

Appendix D. Example Inspection Report – Fort Worth, Texas 
D-103

Example Inspection Report: Fort Worth, Texas1

Project Background 

In fiscal year 2006-2007, SC03_05 Sub Drainage Basin Area was selected for cleaning and CCTV 

inspection. The cleaning activities were conducted from April 2007 through July 2007. CCTV 

inspection was also conducted between May 2007 and July 2007. The SC03_05 Sub Drainage Basin 

Area is part of the Sycamore Creek Major Drainage Basin located in the south portion of Fort Worth. The 

SC03_05 Sub Drainage Basin Area bounded on the north by MARION ST., the west by LOUSE ST., the 

east by MISSISSIPPI AVE. and the south by BERRY ST. The drainage basin is comprised of 

approximately 40,148 linear feet (LF) of sanitary sewer ranging in size from 6-inch to 12-inch in 

diameter. 

Cleaning and CCTV Inspection 

A total of 39,778 LF of the collection system was cleaned representing 99% of the SC03_05 Sub 

Drainage Basin Area. A total of 35,966 LF of the system was inspected representing 89.6% of the 

SC03_05 Sub Drainage Basin Area. The purpose of the TV inspection was to evaluate for quality control 

of the cleaning operations and pipe condition. 

Analysis and Recommendation 

Fifteen segments were selected for open cut and/or trenchless point repairs. Table D-1 contains four 

segments identified for open-cut method. Table D-2 contains eleven segments identified for trenchless 

method. Table D-3 represents a total of 6,805 LF of pipe (19 segments) identified for complete 

replacement. Table D-4 represents a total of 6,935 LF (17.3%) of pipe was added to Field Operations 

root control program. 

A complete list of all lines within the SC03_05 Sub Drainage Basin Area along with a detailed summary 

of all related activities associated with this report is given in Table D-5 and shown on the subsequent 

project maps. 

Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this report, please do not hesitate 

to contact me. 

Kirit Patel, Graduate Engineer 

Field Operations, Water Department 

City Of Fort Worth 

1 Note: This report is presented in its original form as provided by The City of Fort Worth. 
D-104

Table D-1. Open cut point repairs 

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendatio

n

1143251 L02057 008+65 003+07 6 Vitrified 

Clay Roots removed. 

Line is in fair condition w/ some minor 

cracking and root intrusion. Section of 

is broken badly around taps @ 151' 

US. 

Root Program Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 

1143243 L03553 005+35 071+32 6 Concrete 

CANT PUSH 

ROCK 

ANYMORE DO 

RSU. 

Fair condition pipe until CCTV 

blocked (same as 2005 inspection) by 

offset, bend, grade & material change 

@ 114' DS (spot of previous repair). 

This time debris also involved. RSU 

doesn't make it out of the DSMHOperator says he's blocked in MH but 

doesn't say by what. 

None at this time Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 

1143218 L04167 011+00 004+27 6 Concrete 

LINE VERY 

POOR 

BLOCKED BY 

GREASE 575 

FT 

Line is in fair/poor condition. Much 

cracking & broken pipe, especially in 

upper portion. Bad pipe @ 326' US" 

being repaired. Grease @ 575' US 

blocks Jeteye, survey abandoned. No 

RSU attempted." 

None at this time Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 

483782 M00017 090+09 090+03 8 Concrete NO U/S M/H; 4' 

DEEP M/H D/S 

Line is in good condition. 

EOL is missing w/ a void 

recent cleaning. 

Cap on 

created 

the 

from None at this time Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 
D-105

Table D-2. Trenchless point repairs 

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

569985 L01394 003+15 013+98 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line is in fair condition aside from 

large void in the pipe @ 8' US fro 

DSMH (same as in 2005). 

a 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

1143247 L02914 004+63 088+30 6 Concrete U/S M/H 

UNMAPPED 

Line is in fair condition. Pipe coated 

w/ a layer of glue which is heavy in 

spots & threatens to clog main. Large 

hole w/ void in pipe @ 203' DS 

(across from tap). 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

596003 L03390 001+61 001+46 6 Concrete None 

Line is in fair condition w/ minor 

deterioration & encrustation @ joints 

noted. Holes in pipe @ 19' & 73' DS. 

6" CO line slips into 8" line approx. 2' 

US from DSMH. " 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

567864 L04167 024+73 021+82 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition. 

Light to moderate encrustation @

joints (mostly in lower portion of 

segment). Infiltration (runner) @ 116' 

US. Previous repair w/ VCP/PVC @ 

125' US noted. 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

569071 L04168 012+53 010+50 6 Concrete LINE IS POOR 

Line is in fair to poor condition. 40' 

section, from approx. 115' DS to 165' 

DS, is cracked & broken and in need 

of repair or fortification. Remainder 

of pipe is fair w/ only minor cracks 

noted. 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

1143229 L04168 006+00 003+11 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition w/ 

minor deterioration & root intrusion 

noted. Pipe more notably 

cracked/broken around 200' to 220' 

US. 

Root Program Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

584210 L04828 004+14 024+73 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair 

except for broken pipe @ 

US (fairly severe). 

condition 

approx. 60' None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 
D-106

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143228 L05012 006+50 001+27 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair/poor 

condition w/ some minor cracking 

noted (slightly more severe around 

130' US). 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

1143160 L05248 005+83 050+80 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition 

except for a section of broken pipe 

around 45' US. 

@ None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

1143226 L05740 005+03 000+71 6 Concrete 

Crew says 

collapse @ 137' 

DS, I disagree. 

See Jeteye 

footage 

Line is in fair condition until CCTV 

encounters a heavily used tap 

(laundromat & cleaners) @ 137' DS 

and gets obstructed for unknown 

reason (can't see for the soap suds) but 

flow appears fine. RSU-Line appears 

to be in fair condition except for 

severely broken pipe somewhere 

around the 270' US mark. Footage and 

video skip around" make it hard to 

pinpoint." 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

483785 M00017 086+86 085+00 8 Vitrified 

Clay None Fair condition glue caked" broken pipe @ 14' DS." 

line w/ None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

Table D-3. Replacements 

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143157 L00385 018+00 013+50 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

DSMH 6' 

DEEP; VERY 

POOR OLD 

CLAY PIPE 

Limited quality video shows poor 

condition VCP w/ much cracked & 

broken pipe. Roots intrude @ many 

taps, joints, & defects. Video cuts out 

@ 386' US, although report says 

CCTV made it to the USMH.- See 

2005 video also. 

Root Program Replace 
D-107

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143146 L00385 008+00 004+97 8 Vitrified 

Clay poor line 

Pipe is in fair up to 103' from U/S 

MH, after that it is in poor condition 

with multiple cracks, broken pipe 

throughout the lower 210' of this 

segment. 

None at this time Replace 

1143252 L01113R 013+20 007+78 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

DO RSU 

BLOCK BY 

ENCRUSTATION 

CAN'T PASS 

Poor condition line, CCTV blocked 

@ 50' US by what appears to be a 

large root mass growing in the flow 

line, survey abandoned. RSU-Poor 

condition pipe in surveyable portion. 

CCTV blocked @ 101' DS by broken 

& collapsing pipe. Only able to 

inspect 151' of this 542' segment. 

Root Program Replace 

1143151 L01328 015+33 008+48 6 Concrete DSMH 

deep. 

is 5' 

Poor condition line w/ deterioration & 

broken pipe throughout surveyed 

portion. Line collapsing (as it was 

back in 2005 survey) @ 142' US, now 

collecting debris & clogging main

line. 

None at this time Replace 

1143221 L01381 013+98 008+00 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

45 ' SHORT OF 

M/H 

COMPLETESEE RSU. 

Line is in fair/poor condition. 

Multiple cracks & defective joints w/ 

root intrusion (minor/moderate) 

throughout. Pipe & taps from 400' DS 

on are in poor shape. Intruding tap @ 

554' DS blocks camera. RSU- Line is 

fair to 31' US where a (12 o'clock) tap 

is intruding and blocks camera. 

Root Program Replace 

1143211 L01381 008+00 003+60 6 Concrete LINE VERY 

POOR 

Line is in poor condition w/ cracked, 

eroded, brittle, & broken pipe & roots 

intruding throughout. Jeteye blocked 

by broken pipe somewhere around 

465' DS. See next inspection for RSU. 

RSU-More poor condition broken up 

CO pipe.

Root Program Replace 

569980 L01381 003+60 002+80 6 Concrete LINE 

POOR 

VERY 

Line is in poor condition w/ cracked, 

eroded, brittle, & broken pipe & roots 

intruding throughout. Jeteye blocked 

by broken pipe somewhere around 

465' DS. See next inspection for RSU. 

Root Program Replace 
D-108

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

RSU-More 

CO pipe. 

poor condition broken up 

569981 L01381 002+80 046+50 6 Concrete LINE IS POOR 

Line is in poor condition. Cracked, 

broken, & deteriorated pipe w/ heavy 

roots intruding throughout. Additional 

cleaning or root cutting could be 

detrimental and cause premature 

collapse. 

Root Program Replace 

1143223 L01389 007+38 003+15 6 Concrete LINE IS POOR 

Line is in fair to poor condition. CO 

pipe is cracked throughout w/ roots 

intruding, more severely broken in 

spots. 1 previous repair w/ PVC & 2 

offset joints noted. 

None at this time Replace 

1143129 L02506 005+05 008+00 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

LINE 

POOR

IS VERY 

Line is fair to poor w/ moderate to 

heavy cracks/broken pipe in areas. 

Line is currently serviceable but could 

fail at any time, especially from 275' 

to 375' US. Pipe collapsing @ 450' 

US. 

None at this time Replace 

1143242 L02612 003+04 073+00 6 Concrete None 

Line is in fair/poor condition. 2 recent 

repairs were done (92' and 126' US) 

in order to reach EOL. Pipe is 

currently serviceable, but it has many 

cracks and is especially poor around 

the taps. 

None at this time Replace 

1143246 L02759 004+75 086+86 6 Concrete None 

Fair/poor condition CO line w/ 

several areas of broken/missing pipe. 

Pipe is totally collapsed @ 441' US 

(possibility of no services beyond this 

point). Video skips from 325' to 416' 

US. 

None at this time Replace 

1143213 L03674 002+05 046+50 6 Concrete 

Need to do temp 

open cut point 

repair to 

improve flow. 

Line is in poor condition. Multiple 

cracks, voids, previous point repairs 

and collapsed pipe at 101' D/D. 

Replace this line - RSU done. 

None at this time Replace 

567871 L04167 014+10 011+00 6 Concrete 

VERY POOR; 

LIKE 12 FT TO 

DN ST STA 

Line is fair from USMH to 235' 

w/ only minor encrustation & 

moderate roots inside taps. Pipe 

DS 

goes 

Root Program Replace 
D-109

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

011+00 poor @ 235' DS w/ moderate/major 

cracking throughout remainder until 

blocked by debris @ 300' DS. 

603291 M00017 081+88 079+46 8 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Line is in fair/poor condition. Fine 

roots noted in spots. Section of pipe 

broken (69' to 79' DS). Pipe becomes 

poor & broken starting @ 193' DS. 

CCTV submerged & blocked by 

unknown @ 224' DS. No RSU. 

Root Program Replace 

1143240 M00017 079+46 076+23 8 Vitrified 

Clay 

THIS LINE 

SHOULD NOT 

BE RETVED 

Poor condition VCP line w/ cracked 

& broken pipe throughout. Pipe is 

severely broken and threatening total 

collapse from 220' DS on to where it 

IS COLLAPSING @ 262' DS, survey 

abandoned. 

None at this time Replace 

1143241 M00017 076+23 073+00 8 Vitrified 

Clay None

Surveyed portion of line (60' of 322') 

is in poor condition. Pipe is severely 

cracked & broken throughout. 

Camera remains near total 

submergence for entire inspection 

until being obstructed @ 60' DS.

None at this time Replace

1143244 M00017 073+00 071+32 8 Vitrified 

Clay

Videoed 

reverse

in 

Fair/poor condition line w/ some 

cracking & broken pipe detectable 

(video was shot while in reverse

due to high amount of flow, yet 

camera still remains submerged for 

most of the inspection.

None at this time Replace

572405 M00017 046+50 042+65 12 HDPE

RECORDING 

COMMING 

BACK...due

to high flow

Fair condition HDPE from DSMH 

309' US then turns to POOR 

condition, replace VCP for the

remaining 62' (from USMH to 62' 

DS).

to 

None at this time Replace
D-110

Table D-4. Root abatement 

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

603292 L00385 020+50E 018+00 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

POOR OLD 

CLAY PIPE-see 

also 2005 

inspection 

Fair/poor condition VCP has much 

broken pipe (at least 12 separate 

spots) w/ minor/moderate roots 

intruding joints & cracks throughout. 

Previous repair from 75' to 95' sits 

lower than rest of line. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143157 L00385 018+00 013+50 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

DSMH 6' DEEP; 

VERY POOR 

OLD CLAY PIPE 

Limited quality video shows poor 

condition VCP w/ much cracked & 

broken pipe. Roots intrude @ many 

taps, joints, & defects. Video cuts out 

@ 386' US, although report says 

CCTV made it to the USMH.- See 

2005 video also. 

Root Program Replace 

1143145 L00385 000+01 008+00 8 Vitrified 

Clay POOR 

Reviewable portion of segment 

(video skips from 7' US to 202' US) 

is in fair condition w/ only minor 

cracks noted. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143252 L01113R 013+20 007+78 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

DO RSU BLOCK 

BY 

ENCRUSTATION 

CAN'T PASS 

Poor condition line, CCTV blocked 

@ 50' US by what appears to be a 

large root mass growing in the flow 

line, survey abandoned. RSU-Poor 

condition pipe in surveyable portion. 

CCTV blocked @ 101' DS by broken 

& collapsing pipe. Only able to 

inspect 151' of this 542' segment. 

Root Program Replace 

1143148 L01113R 007+78 004+08 6 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Line appears to be in fair condition. 

Much footage is either submerged or 

blurry. A few cracks and some roots 

in taps were noted. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143154 L01328 003+80 001+80 6 Concrete DO RSU...when? 

Fair/poor condition CO line w/ minor 

cracks & broken pipe throughout 

(structurally adequate). Roots 

(minor) intrude joints & defects 

throughout. CCTV blocked @ 368' 

US by debris in flowline. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143220 L01381 021+30 013+98 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears to be in fair condition Root Program None at this time 
D-111

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

w/ minor to moderate roots intruding 

joints & taps and some minor cracks 

noted. Moderate (flow friendly) 

offset joint @ 14' US (previous 

repair w/ VCP). 

1143221 L01381 013+98 008+00 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

45 ' SHORT OF 

M/H 

COMPLETE-SEE 

RSU. 

Line is in fair/poor condition. 

Multiple cracks & defective joints w/ 

root intrusion (minor/moderate) 

throughout. Pipe & taps from 400' 

DS on are in poor shape. Intruding 

tap @ 554' DS blocks camera. RSULine is fair to 31' US where a (12 

o'clock) tap is intruding and blocks 

camera. 

Root Program Replace 

1143211 L01381 008+00 002+80 6 Concrete LINE 

POOR 

VERY 

Line is in poor condition w/ cracked, 

eroded, brittle, & broken pipe & 

roots intruding throughout. Jeteye 

blocked by broken pipe somewhere 

around 465' DS. See next inspection 

for RSU. RSU-More poor condition 

broken up CO pipe.

Root Program Replace 

569981 L01381 002+80 046+50 6 Concrete LINE IS POOR 

Line is in poor condition. Cracked, 

broken, & deteriorated pipe w/ heavy 

roots intruding throughout. 

Additonal cleaning or root cutting 

could be detrimental and cause 

premature collapse. 

Root Program Replace 

569938 L01389 007+97 007+38 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition. 

Some moderate cracking w/ roots 

intruding in spots. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143251 L02057 008+65 003+07 6 Vitrified 

Clay Roots removed. 

Line is in fair condition w/ some 

minor cracking and root intrusion. 

Section of is broken badly around 

taps @ 151' US. 

Root Program Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 
D-112

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

596059 L02057 003+07 007+78 6 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Surveyed portion of line (181' of 

307') is fair/poor w/ defective joints, 

minor cracks, & roots throughout. 

CCTV blocked by root mass/ grease/ 

grade change @ 181' DS. RSUCCTV blocked by same root mass @ 

116' US. 

Root Program None at this time 

567871 L04167 014+10 011+00 6 Concrete 

VERY POOR; 

LIKE 12 FT TO 

DN ST STA 

011+00 

Line is fair from USMH to 235' DS 

w/ only minor encrustation & 

moderate roots inside taps. Pipe goes 

poor @ 235' DS w/ moderate/major 

cracking throughout remainder until 

blocked by debris @ 300' DS. 

Root Program Replace 

569072 L04168 013+78 012+53 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition 

w/ minor encrustation @ joints. Root 

mass intrudes from 10 o'clock tap @ 

104' US (945 E Berry). 

Root Program None at this time 

1143229 L04168 006+00 003+11 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition 

w/ minor deterioration & root 

intrusion noted. Pipe more notably 

cracked/broken around 200' to 220' 

US. 

Root Program Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

594772 L04602 009+07 006+00 6 Concrete BLOCKED 

225 

AT 

Line appears to be in fair condition 

until Jeteye gets blocked by a buildup of unknown origin (looks like 

grease) @ around 225' US. RSUSurveyed portion of line (116' of 

302') in fair condition w/ 

light/moderate roots intruding taps & 

joints. CCTV blocked @ 68' DS by 

encrustation (concrete swag buildup) near tap. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143159 L04602 006+00 050+80 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair/poor 

condition w/ moderate cracks noted 

(mostly around taps in upper 1/2 of 

segment) and fine/moderate root 

intrusion (mostly through joints/taps 

in lower 1/2 of segment). 

Root Program None at this time 
D-113

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe 

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

Line is in fair/poor condition. Fine 

roots noted in spots. Section of pipe 

603291 M00017 081+88 079+46 8 Vitrified 

Clay None broken (69' to 79' DS). Pipe becomes poor & broken starting @ 193' DS. Root Program Replace 

CCTV submerged & blocked by 

unknown @ 224' DS. 

Table D-5. Summary 

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

603292 L00385 020+50E 018+00 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

POOR OLD 

CLAY PIPE-see 

also 2005 

inspection 

Fair/poor condition VCP has much 

broken pipe (at least 12 separate 

spots) w/ minor/moderate roots 

intruding joints & cracks 

throughout. Previous repair from 

75' to 95' sits lower than rest of 

line. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143157 L00385 018+00 013+50 6 Vitrified

Clay 

DSMH 6' DEEP; 

VERY POOR 

OLD CLAY PIPE 

Limited quality video shows poor 

condition VCP w/ much cracked & 

broken pipe. Roots intrude @ many 

taps, joints, & defects. Video cuts 

out @ 386' US, although report 

says CCTV made it to the USMH.-

See 2005 video also. 

Root Program Replace 

1143144 L00385 013+50 000+01 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

Videoed upper 

portion in reverse 

after cleaning lens 

@ DSMH. 

Line is in fair condition w/ 

minor/moderate cracks and 

point repairs noted. 

several 

2 old None at this time None at this time 
D-114

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143146 L00385 008+00 004+97 8 Vitrified 

Clay poor line 

Pipe is in fair up to 103' from U/S 

MH, after that it is in poor 

condition with multiple cracks, 

broken pipe throughout the lower 

210' of this segment. 

None at this time Replace 

1143155 L00385 004+85 001+80 8 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Fair condition VCP w/ only a few 

minor cracks noted. Offset joint @ 

314' DS (just US from DSMH 

where VCP meets PVC inflow stub 

portion). 

None at this time None at this time 

1143156 L00385 001+80 054+86 6 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Line appears to 

condition. Very 

for a 6 pipe." 

be in fair 

high flow amount None at this time None at this time 

1143145 L00385 000+01 008+00 8 Vitrified 

Clay POOR 

Reviewable portion of segment 

(video skips from 7' US to 202' 

US) is in fair condition w/ only 

minor cracks noted. 

Root Program None at this time 

587036 L00863 013+19 008+54 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride 

PIPE 

PVC" 

GOOD 8 Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

1143158 L00863 008+54 004+35 8 Polyvinyl 

Chlorid 

GOOD PIPE 

PCV&DIP 

Line is in 

1st 60' DS 

good 

then 

condition. DIP for 

PVC for the rest. None at this time None at this time 

587039 L00863 004+35 002+50 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride 

GOOD 

PVC 

PIPE 8' 

Line is in good condition. Video 

skips from 54' to 65' DS and then 

again from 150' to 154' DS near 

where taps are located (according 

to previous inspection). 

None at this time None at this time 

587040 L00863 002+50 000+01 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride 

GOOD 

8";No" 

PIPE PVC Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

1143239 L00940 083+40 079+46 6 Concrete 

8 ' DEEP M/H 

D/S; NO U/S 

FOUND-nor does 

it ping in GIS. 

Condition 

blocked by 

No USMH 

unknown. Camera gets 

bend in line @ 2' US. 

for RSU. 

None at this time None at this time 

478443 L00943 005+94 002+90 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None 

Line is in good condition. Do not 

rely on distances as crew forgot to 

reset counter at the DSMH. 

None at this time None at this time 
D-115

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

478444 L00943 002+90 085+00 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None 

Line is in good condition. Minor 

compression deformities noted, but 

none are severe. 

None at this time None at this time 

1143248 L01113 022+00 005+35 6 Vitrified 

Clay LINE IS FAIR Line appears to be in w/ only minor cracks 

fair condition 

noted. None at this time None at this time 

1143252 L01113R 013+20 007+78 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

DO RSU BLOCK 

BY 

ENCRUSTATION 

CAN'T PASS 

Poor condition line, CCTV 

blocked @ 50' US by what appears 

to be a large root mass growing in 

the flow line, survey abandoned. 

RSU-Poor condition pipe in 

surveyable portion. CCTV blocked 

@ 101' DS by broken & collapsing 

pipe. Only able to inspect 151' of 

this 542' segment. 

Root Program Replace 

1143148 L01113R 007+78 004+08 6 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Line appears to be in fair 

condition. Much footage is either 

submerged or blurry. A few cracks 

and some roots in taps were noted. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143147 L01113R 004+08 004+85 8 Vitrified 

Clay 

See also 2005 

inspection from 

USMH...it's 

clearer. 

Fair condition VCP aside from 2 

spots w/ broken pipe (146' US @ 

joint of a previous repair & 363' 

US). Heavy roots inside service 

line @ 196' US (10 o'clock tap 

serves 945 E Morningside Dr.). 

None at this time None at this time 

1143151 L01328 015+33 008+48 6 Concrete DSMH is 5' deep. 

Poor condition line w/ 

deterioration & broken pipe 

throughout surveyed portion. Line 

collapsing (as it was back in 2005 

survey) @ 142' US, now collecting 

debris & clogging main line. 

None at this time Replace 

1143152 L01328 008+48 003+80 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

1/2 

CO 

VCP and 1/2 

Line is in fair/poor condition w/ 

several cracks (minor/moderate) 

noted throughout (especially in CO 

portions), however none are 

currently severe enough to warrant 

immediate repairs. 

None at this time None at this time 

1143154 L01328 003+80 001+80 6 Concrete DO RSU... when? Fair/poor condition CO line 

minor cracks & broken pipe 

w/ Root Program None at this time 
D-116

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

throughout (structurally adequate). 

Roots (minor) intrude joints & 

defects throughout. CCTV blocked 

@ 368' US by debris in flowline. 

601588 L01380 009+05 005+00 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride 

GOOD LINE... 

bad inspection! 

Line is 

missing 

in good condition. Video 

from 338' to 400' US. None at this time None at this time 

601590 L01380 005+00 001+80 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride GOOD 

Line is in good condition. Video 

skips (115' to 122' US & 214' to 

220' US). 

None at this time None at this time 

1143220 L01381 021+30 013+98 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition

w/ minor to moderate roots 

intruding joints & taps and some 

minor cracks noted. Moderate 

(flow friendly) offset joint @ 14' 

US (previous repair w/ VCP). 

Root Program None at this time 

1143221 L01381 013+98 008+00 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

45 ' 

M/H 

SEE 

SHORT OF 

COMPLETERSU. 

Line is in fair/poor condition. 

Multiple cracks & defective joints 

w/ root intrusion (minor/moderate) 

throughout. Pipe & taps from 400' 

DS on are in poor shape. Intruding 

tap @ 554' DS blocks camera. 

RSU- Line is fair to 31' US where a 

(12 o'clock) tap is intruding and 

blocks camera. 

Root Program Replace 
D-117

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143211 L01381 008+00 002+80 6 Concrete LINE 

POOR 

VERY 

Line is in poor condition w/ 

cracked, eroded, brittle, & broken 

pipe & roots intruding throughout. 

Jeteye blocked by broken pipe 

somewhere around 465' DS. See 

next inspection for RSU. RSUMore poor condition broken up CO 

pipe. 

Root Program Replace 

569981 L01381 002+80 046+50 6 Concrete LINE IS POOR 

Line is in poor condition. Cracked, 

broken, & deteriorated pipe w/ 

heavy roots intruding throughout. 

Additional cleaning or root cutting 

could be detrimental and cause 

premature collapse. 

Root Program Replace 

569938 L01389 007+97 007+38 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair 

condition. Some moderate cracking 

w/ roots intruding in spots. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143223 L01389 007+38 003+15 6 Concrete LINE IS POOR 

Line is in fair to poor condition. 

CO pipe is cracked throughout w/ 

roots intruding, more severely 

broken in spots. 1 previous repair 

w/ PVC & 2 offset joints noted. 

None at this time Replace 

1143224 L01389 003+15 003+15 6 Concrete FAIR Line is in fair condition. None at this time None at this time 

1143222 L01394 008+40 003+15 6 Concrete BLOCK 

DO RSU 

DEBIS 

Surveyed portion of line (185' of 

525') is in fair to poor condition w/ 

deterioration, cracks, & broken

pipe throughout. 2 previous repairs 

noted. CCTV blocked by debris 

(rocks) in flowline @ 185' DS. 

RSU w/ Jeteye-Line is in fair/poor 

condition. CO pipe is cracked & 

broken in many places, yet still 

structurally adequate. 2 previous 

PVC repairs noted. Blocked @ 

264ish' US by rock, see RSU. 

None at this time None at this time 
D-118

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

569985 L01394 003+15 013+98 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line is in fair condition aside from 

a large void in the pipe @ 8' US fro 

DSMH (same as in 2005). 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

1143135 L01701 009+02 005+34 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears 

condition, for 

to be in 

its age. 

fair None at this time None at this time 

1143128 L01701 005+34 004+85 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition 

w/ only a few minor cracks 

notable. Fine roots intrude joints in 

lower portion of segment (30' to 40' 

of VCP from DSMH). 

None at this time None at this time 

586621 L01704R* 003+40 076+23 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None 

Line is in good condition w/some 

debris present (small rocks pushed 

by camera). 

None at this time None at this time 

572466 L01705 008+20 002+27 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride 

STAT #'S

MATCH 

DONT Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

572467 L01705 002+27 073+00 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

569986 L01707R 008+68 006+50 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

569987 L01707R 006+50 002+50 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

569929 L01707R 002+50 076+23 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

596115 L01743 003+55 003+08 6 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Line is in fair condition. See 

Jeteye inspection from lower 

segment on this line. He shot 

to this EOL and it is fair. 

thru None at this time None at this time 

1143130 L01743 003+08 000+01 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

CO line is in fair condition w/ 

some minor/moderate deterioration 

& cracks noted. 2 old point repairs 

w/ PVC also noted. 

None at this time None at this time 

596048 L02057 017+28E 014+50 6 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

596049 L02057 014+50 008+47 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 
D-119

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143251 L02057 008+65 003+07 6 Vitrified 

Clay Roots removed. 

Line is in fair condition w/ some 

minor cracking and root intrusion. 

Section of is broken badly around 

taps @ 151' US. 

Root Program Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 

596059 L02057 003+07 007+78 6 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Surveyed portion of line (181' of 

307') is fair/poor w/ defective 

joints, minor cracks, & roots 

throughout. CCTV blocked by root 

mass/grease/grade change @ 181' 

DS. RSU-CCTV blocked by same 

root mass @ 116' US. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143245 L02235 005+78 081+88 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in 

condition. 1 previous 

@ 240' US. 

fair 

repair noted None at this time None at this time 

478892 L02303 012+35 010+82 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None 

Line is in good 

lateral, entering 

the west suffers 

condition. Other 

same DSMH from 

infiltration. 

None at this time None at this time 

478891 L02303 010+82 006+71 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None 

Line is in fair condition. Tap @ 

344' DS has exposed gasket. Minor 

offset joint @ 352' DS. 

None at this time None at this time 

478889 L02303 006+71 003+36 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None 

Line is in good condition. Flatness 

causes slight debris build-up in 

flowline, not severe. 

None at this time None at this time 

478890 L02303 003+36 085+00 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

479319 L02303A 001+76 010+82 6 Vitrified 

Clay

Line runs under 

building (2933 

Bryan). No MH @ 

EOL. 

Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

1143129 L02506 005+05 008+00 6 Vitrified 

Clay 

LINE 

POOR 

IS VERY 

Line is fair to poor w/ moderate to 

heavy cracks/broken pipe in areas. 

Line is currently serviceable but 

could fail at any time, especially 

from 275' to 375' US. Pipe 

collapsing @ 450' US. 

None at this time Replace 
D-120

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143242 L02612 003+04 073+00 6 Concrete None 

Line is in fair/poor condition. 2 

recent repairs were done (92' and 

126' US) in order to reach EOL. 

Pipe is currently serviceable, but it 

has many cracks and is especially 

poor around the taps. 

None at this time Replace 

1143246 L02759 004+75 086+86 6 Concrete None 

Fair/poor condition CO line w/ 

several areas of broken/missing 

pipe. Pipe is totally collapsed @ 

441' US (possibility of no services 

beyond this point). Video skips 

from 325' to 416' US. 

None at this time Replace 

479302 L02914 005+03 004+77 6 Concrete NO U/S 

EOL. 

M/H @ Line in fair condition w/minor 

deterioration noted. Moderate 

encrustation in top of 2nd US joint. 

None at this time None at this time 

1155541 L02914 004+77 004+64 6 Concrete None Line in fair condition. Large 

of debris pushed to DSMH. 

chunk None at this time None at this time 

1143247 L02914 004+63 088+30 6 Concrete U/S M/H 

UNMAPPED 

Line is in fair condition. Pipe 

coated w/ a layer of glue which is 

heavy in spots & threatens to clog 

main. Large hole w/ void in pipe @ 

203' DS (across from tap). 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

479303 L02914A 000+34 004+77 6 Concrete NO U/S M/H 

Condition unknown. Camera 

enters the line (just a manhole 

inspect). Report claims only 

encrustation. 

never 

None at this time None at this time 

596013 L02981 006+16 001+46 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

596012 L02981 001+46 063+19 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride GOOD Line skips 

is in good condition. Video 

from USMH to 35' DS. None at this time None at this time 

596003 L03390 001+61 001+46 6 Concrete None 

Line is in fair condition w/ minor 

deterioration & encrustation @ 

joints noted. Holes in pipe @ 19' & 

73' DS. 6" CO line slips into 8" line 

approx. 2' US from DSMH. " 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 
D-121

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143250 L03553 007+19 005+35 6 Concrete None 

Line is in fair condition. Section of 

VCP (old spot repair) from 155' to 

160' US is slightly displaced, 

nothing severe. 

None at this time None at this time 

1143243 L03553 005+35 071+32 6 Concrete 

CANT PUSH 

ROCK 

ANYMORE DO 

RSU 

Fair condition pipe until CCTV 

blocked (same as 2005 inspection) 

by offset, bend, grade & material 

change @ 114' DS (spot of 

previous repair). This time debris 

also involved. RSU doesn't make it

out of the DSMH-Operator says 

he's blocked in MH but doesn't say 

by what. 

None at this time Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 

596002 L03553R 008+47 007+19 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride 

BIG BEND INTO 

M/H D/S 

COMPLETE 

Line is in fair condition, flat in 

spots. Severe bend in line leading 

into DSMH causes restriction of 

flow, submerging camera for the 

final 10' to 15'. 

None at this time None at this time 

1155542 L03674 002+60 002+05 6 Concrete 

CHANGED STA. 

NUMBERS & 

W/O # 

Line is in fair condition. Some 

deterioration but overall OK None at this time None at this time 

1143213 L03674 002+05 046+50 6 Concrete 

Need to 

open cut 

repair to 

flow. 

do temp 

point 

improve 

Line is in poor condition. Multiple 

cracks, voids, previous point 

repairs and collapsed pipe at 101' 

D/D. Replace this line - RSU done. 

None at this time Replace 

1143227 L04167 030+47 024+73 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in 

condition. 2 previous 

PVC noted @ 140' & 

fair 

repairs w/ 

210' US. 

None at this time None at this time 

567864 L04167 024+73 021+82 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair 

condition. Light to moderate 

encrustation @ joints (mostly in 

lower portion of segment). 

Infiltration (runner) @ 116' US. 

Previous repair w/ VCP/PVC @ 

125' US noted. 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 
D-122

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

567865 L04167 021+82 017+00 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair 

condition. Reported infiltration is 

only dripper when Jeteye isn't on. 

None at this time None at this time 

1143219 L04167 017+00 014+10 6 Concrete LINE IS GOOD Line appears 

condition. 

to be in fair None at this time None at this time 

567871 L04167 014+10 011+00 6 Concrete 

VERY POOR; 

LIKE 12 FT TO 

DN ST STA 

011+00 

Line is fair from USMH to 235' 

DS w/ only minor encrustation & 

moderate roots inside taps. Pipe 

goes poor @ 235' DS w/ 

moderate/major cracking 

throughout remainder until blocked 

by debris @ 300' DS. 

Root Program Replace 

1143218 L04167 011+00 004+27 6 Concrete 

LINE VERY 

POOR BLOCKED 

BY GREASE 575 

FT 

Line is in fair/poor condition. 

Much cracking & broken pipe,

especially in upper portion. Bad 

pipe @ 326' US" being repaired. 

Grease @ 575' US blocks Jeteye, 

survey abandoned. No RSU 

attempted." 

None at this time Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 

567877 L04167* 004+27 001+27 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride LINE IS GOOD Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

567878 L04167* 001+27 038+58 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride LINE IS GOOD Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

569072 L04168 013+78 012+53 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair condition 

w/ minor encrustation @ joints. 

Root mass intrudes from 10 o'clock 

tap @ 104' US (945 E Berry). 

Root Program None at this time 

569071 L04168 012+53 010+50 6 Concrete LINE IS POOR 

Line is in fair to poor condition. 

40' section, from approx. 115' DS 

to 165' DS, is cracked & broken 

and in need of repair or 

fortification. Remainder of pipe is 

fair w/ only minor cracks noted. 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

569070 L04168 010+50 006+00 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears 

w/ only a few 

to be in fair condition 

minor cracks noted. None at this time None at this time 

1143229 L04168 006+00 003+11 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears to be in fair condition 

w/ minor deterioration & rooty 

Root Program Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 
D-123

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

intrusion noted. 

cracked/broken 

US. 

Pipe more notably 

around 200' to 220' 

584201 L04168* 003+11 004+27 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride LINE IS GOOD Line appears condition. 

to be in good None at this time None at this time 

594772 L04602 009+07 006+00 6 Concrete BLOCKED 

225 

AT 

Line appears to be in fair condition 

until Jeteye gets blocked by a 

build-up of unknown origin (looks 

like grease) @ around 225' US. 

RSU-Surveyed portion of line (116' 

of 302') in fair condition w/ 

light/moderate roots intruding taps 

& joints. CCTV blocked @ 68' DS 

by encrustation (concrete swag 

build-up) near tap. 

Root Program None at this time 

1143159 L04602 006+00 050+80 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair/poor 

condition w/ moderate cracks noted 

(mostly around taps in upper 1/2 of 

segment) and fine/moderate root 

intrusion (mostly through 

joints/taps in lower 1/2 of 

segment). 

Root Program None at this time 

584193 L04828 004+50 004+14 6 Concrete LINE IS GOOD Line appears 

condition. 

to be in good None at this time None at this time 

584210 L04828 004+14 024+73 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair 

except for broken pipe @ 

60' US (fairly severe). 

condition 

approx. None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

1143217 L05012 010+10 006+50 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears 

condition. 

to be in fair None at this time None at this time 

1143228 L05012 006+50 001+27 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair/poor 

condition w/ some minor cracking 

noted (slightly more severe around 

130' US). 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

1143160 L05248 005+83 050+80 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be 

except for a section

@ around 45' US. 

in fair condition 

of broken pipe None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

567827 L05469 015+31 014+27 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears to be in fair None at this time None at this time 
D-124

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

condition. 

567826 L05469 014+27 012+26 6 Concrete LINE IS 

FAIR............is it? 

Line reported to be fair by Jeteye 

crew. Overall condition is 

uncertain due to video being 

blurred by full-on Jeteye spray for 

nearly the whole segment & no 

reverse footage. 

None at this time None at this time 

1143214 L05469 012+26 006+50 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears 

condition. 

to be in fair None at this time None at this time 

1143215 L05469 006+50 045+28 6 Concrete None 

Line appears to be in 

w/ some minor cracks

(mostly near break-in 

around a few joints). 

fair condition 

 noted 

taps and None at this time None at this time 

1143225 L05740 008+09 005+03 6 Concrete LINE IS GOOD Line appears 

condition. 

to be in fair None at this time None at this time 

1143226 L05740 005+03 000+71 6 Concrete 

Crew says 

collapse @ 137' 

DS, I disagree. See 

Jeteye footage 

Line is in fair condition until 

CCTV encounters a heavily used 

tap (Laundromat & cleaners) @ 

137' DS and gets obstructed for 

unknown reason (can't see for the 

soap suds) but flow appears fine. 

RSU-Line appears to be in fair 

condition except for severely 

broken pipe somewhere around the 

270' US mark. Footage and video 

skip around" make it hard to 

pinpoint." 

None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 

567814 L05740 000+71 021+82 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears to be in fair 

condition. Encrustation @ joints 

and 1 previous repair w/ VCP 

noted. 

None at this time None at this time 

567790 L06409 016+57 012+50 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears 

condition. 

to be in fair None at this time None at this time 

1143216 L06409 012+50 006+00 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR 

Line appears 

w/ only a few 

previous repair

to be in fair condition 

minor cracks and 1 

 noted. 

None at this time None at this time 

1143230 L06409 006+00 040+48 6 Concrete LINE IS FAIR Line appears to be in fair None at this time None at this time 
D-125

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

condition. Video is too blurry to 

accurately review but Jeteye travels 

MH to MH and crew reports line in 

fair condition. 

584216 L08450* 000+58 003+11 8 Polyvinyl 

Chloride LINE IS GOOD Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

584221 L09113* 000+74 004+14 6 Vitrified 

Clay LINE IS GOOD Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

483782 M00017 090+09 090+03 8 Concrete NO U/S M/H; 4 

DEEP M/H D/S 

' Line is in good condition. Cap 

the EOL is missing w/ a void 

created from recent cleaning. 

on 

None at this time Open Cut 

Repair 

Point 

483783 M00017 090+03 088+30 8 Concrete None 

Line is 

wear & 

noted. 

in fair 

minor 

condition w/ slight 

crack @ 6' DS None at this time None at this time 

483784 M00017 088+30 086+86 8 Vitrified 

Clay 

BLKED BY 

GLUE FROM U/S 

PLANT; see next 

inspection for RSU 

Surveyed portion of line (34' of 

139') in fair condition except for 

the fact that glue from the factory 

US is collecting on the walls of the 

main line. CCTV blocked by glue 

build up @ 34' DS. RSU-Video 

skips from 2.7' to 90.3' US then 

videos in reverse thru fair condition 

glue caked" pipe." 

None at this time None at this time 

483785 M00017 086+86 085+00 8 Vitrified 

Clay None Fair condition broken pipe @ 

glue caked" 

14' DS." 

line w/ None at this time Trenchless 

Repair 

Point 
D-126

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

603291 M00017 081+88 079+46 8 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Line is in fair/poor condition. Fine 

roots noted in spots. Section of 

pipe broken (69' to 79' DS). Pipe 

becomes poor & broken starting @ 

193' DS. CCTV submerged & 

blocked by unknown @ 224' DS. 

No RSU.

Root Program Replace 

1143240 M00017 079+46 076+23 8 Vitrified 

Clay 

THIS LINE 

SHOULD NOT 

BE RETVED 

Poor condition VCP line w/ 

cracked & broken pipe throughout. 

Pipe is severely broken and

threatening total collapse from 220' 

DS on to where it IS 

COLLAPSING @ 262' DS, survey 

abandoned.

None at this time Replace 

1143241 M00017 076+23 073+00 8 Vitrified 

Clay None 

Surveyed portion of line (60' of 

322') is in poor condition. Pipe is 

severely cracked & broken 

throughout. Camera remains near 

total submergence for entire 

inspection until being obstructed @ 

60' DS

None at this time Replace 

1143244 M00017 073+00 071+32 8 Vitrified 

Clay 

Videoed 

reverse 

in 

Fair/poor condition line w/ some 

cracking & broken pipe detectable 

(video was shot while in reverse 

due to high amount of flow, yet 

camera still remains submerged for 

most of the inspection. 

None at this time Replace 

603280 M00017 068+82 068+29 10 Concrete 

CAM . UNDER 

WATER ALL 

THE WAY / REC 

COMMING 

BACK , NO USE

Line is fair. Camera, although 

submerged all the way, travels 

to MH. 

MH None at this time None at this time 

589069 M00017 068+29 068+10 10 Concrete None 

Line is in fair condition w/ a 

capped hole @ 9' DS. Hole does 

not threaten failure to pipe anytime 

soon. 

None at this time None at this time 
D-127

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

1143161 M00017 052+83 050+80 12 HDPE None 

Line is in fair condition w/ slightly 

intruding tap @ 168' DS, no cause 

for concern. 

None at this time None at this time 

1143212 M00017 050+80 046+50 12 HDPE None 

Line is in good condition w/ the 

exception of a minor offset joint 

218' DS from USMH. See RSU. 

@ None at this time None at this time 

572405 M00017 046+50 042+65 12 HDPE 

RECORDING 

COMING 

BACK...due to 

high flow 

Fair condition HDPE from DSMH 

to 309' US then turns to POOR 

condition, replace VCP for the 

remaining 62' (from USMH to 62' 

DS). 

None at this time Replace 

572403 M00017 045+28 043+64 10 Vitrified 

Clay 2005 inspection Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

572402 M00017 043+64 041+99 10 Vitrified 

Clay None Line flow. 

is in fair condition. High None at this time None at this time 

572404 M00017 042+65 045+28 10 Vitrified 

Clay None Line flow. 

is in fair condition. High None at this time None at this time 

569066 M00017 041+99 040+48 12 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

569065 M00017 040+48 038+58 12 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in fair condition. None at this time None at this time 

572401 M00017 038+58 033+74 12 Vitrified 

Clay 

D/S M/H IN 

CREEK BED 

Camera totally submerged & 

obscured by flow & suds. Appears 

to be flowing well. 

None at this time None at this time 

483786 M00017R 085+00 081+88 10 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None 

Line is in good but somewhat glue 

caked" condition. Video is almost 

totally from submerged viewpoint." 

None at this time None at this time 

591073 M00017R 073+75 071+06 10 Ductile 

Iron UNDER I -35 

Line is in fair condition w/ a 

moderate deterioration zone from 

32' to 38' DS. Pipe here has some 

wear & small holes w/ sharp edges, 

none threaten the pipes current 

structural capabilities. 

None at this time None at this time 
D-128

Object ID Lateral/ 

Main USID DSID Pipe Size

Pipe

Material

Additional 

Review/ 

Comment

CCTV review Comments O & M 

Recommendation

Structural 

Recommendation

603281 M00017R 071+32 073+75 10 Ductile 

Iron 

M/H 071+32 

=075+97 BK 

Line is in fair condition, making a 

couple of fairly dramatic bends in 

the 1st 40' DS from USMH. 

None at this time None at this time 

603282 M00017R 071+06 068+82 10 Ductile 

Iron None Line flow. 

is in fair condition. High None at this time None at this time 

589070 M00017R 068+10 065+70 10 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

589071 M00017R 065+70 063+19 10 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

589072 M00017R 063+19 058+95 10 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None Line is in good condition. None at this time None at this time 

589073 M00017R 058+95 054+86 10 Polyvinyl 

Chloride None 

Line is in good condition. Final 50' 

of video is obstructed by soap suds, 

line flowing well. 

None at this time None at this time 

589074 M00017R 054+86 052+83 10 Polyvinyl 

Chloride 

RECORDED 

COMMING 

BACK 

Line appears to be in fair 

condition. High flow results 

mostly submerged video.

in None at this time None at this time 
D-129