Abstract:
A method of reducing rainwater and/or groundwater inflow and infiltration into a wastewater treatment collection grid. The method preferably involves the steps of (a) dividing the grid into a plurality of major subsystems, (b) determining flow depth levels in each major subsystem under dry and wet conditions, (c) using these wet weather and dry weather flow depth measurements to determine a volume flow ratio for wet versus dry conditions, (d) using these flow ratios to identify the particular major subsystem(s) in which the greatest amount of inflow or infiltration is occurring, and then (e) further dividing the highest ranking major subsystem(s) into smaller subsystems in which the same dry and wet weather level measurement and ranking analysis is preferably conducted to further isolate problem locations for surveillance, maintenance, and/or repair.

Description:
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/251,004, filed on Oct. 13, 2009, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set out at this point. 
    
    
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates to methods of wastewater flow measurement, system analysis, and improvement. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     From 2004 to 2009, the average U.S. national wastewater treatment rate increased by 28%. There are approximately 18,500 municipalities in the United States producing 40 billion gallons of wastewater per day at a taxpayer cost of $150,000,000 or $55 billion dollars annually. A study by the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies indicates that 25% of this 40 billion gallons per day, or $14 billion annually, is due to inflow and infiltration of ground and storm water, the cause of which is directly linked to an aging and faulty sewer infrastructure. 
     For calculation of flow in an open channel that is gravity fed, a well established method is used. This method, known as the Mannings equation, allows a flow value to be derived by first knowing certain conditional parameters of the application. One of the parameters is the roughness of the channel material usually obtained by an empirically derived table of constants. Another parameter is the slope of the channel specified in percentage of horizontal length to vertical drop. These parameters may be difficult to obtain with any certainty or may require stopping flow, which may not be practical for meter site installation. 
     The base Circular Mannings equation is in the form of: 
             Q   =       1.49   *   A   *     R     2   /   3       *     S     1   /   2         n           
Where A is the area of flow, R is the hydraulic radius, S is the slope of the pipe and n is the roughness coefficient of the pipe. Unfortunately, heretofore during meter installation, it has typically been required to go into a confined space area to get measurements required for accurate flow calculation. This created a potential safety risk and required special equipment and permits.
 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     We have developed and invented a breakthrough technology that now makes it economically feasible for every municipality in the country to cost effectively reduce its wastewater treatment charges. In one aspect, the invention provides an advanced mapping technology which provides the ability to determine volumetric differences in wastewater flows between dry and wet days, except without the requirement for ascertaining pipe slopes and coefficients of roughness. 
     The inventive method paves the way for municipalities to begin the process of realizing substantial decreases in their wastewater treatment charges at a fraction of the cost of conventional methods. One major economic advantage of the invention lies in its ability to detect and locate at a minimal cost millions of additional gallons of ground and storm water that enter the collection system due to inflow and infiltration. This unique ability for locating inflow and infiltration identifies and facilitates improvements and repairs for reducing a municipality&#39;s treatment costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
     We have discovered that volumetric differences in wastewater flows between periods of dry and wet weather can be determined and that those differences are identical to the ones calculated by the globally accepted Manning&#39;s Equation, except without the requirement for confined space entry in order to ascertain pipe slopes and coefficients of roughness. Thus, an entirely new methodology for reducing wastewater treatment costs has been developed. 
     In one aspect, there is provided a method of reducing rainwater and/or ground water inflow and/or infiltration into a wastewater collection grid having collection pipes or other channels. The method preferably comprises the steps of: (a) dividing the wastewater collection grid into a plurality of major subsystems; (b) determining for each of the major subsystems a dry weather piping flow depth level (Dd) for flow during dry weather conditions; (c) determining for each of the major subsystems a wet weather flow depth level (Dw) for flow during wet weather conditions or during a combination of wet weather and dry weather condition; (d) determining for each of the major subsystems, based upon the dry weather flow depth (Dd), a dry weather cross-sectional area of flow (Ad); (e) determining for each of the major subsystems, based upon the wet weather flow depth (Dw), a wet weather cross-sectional area of flow (A w ); (f) determining for each of the major subsystems a ratio (ΔQ) of wet weather volume flow rate to dry weather volume flow rate according to the formula: 
               Δ   ⁢           ⁢   Q     =         A   ⁢           ⁢   w       A   ⁢           ⁢   d       *       (       R   ⁢           ⁢   w       R   ⁢           ⁢   d       )       2   /   3               
wherein Rw is a wet weather hydraulic flow radius based upon Aw, and Rd is a dry weather hydraulic flow radius based upon Ad; and (g) using the ΔQ ratios for the major subsystems to at least identify which one of the major subsystems ranks highest in contributing to the wastewater collection grid a greater volume amount and/or cost amount of the rainwater and/or ground water.
 
     In the inventive method just described, step (g) preferably involves using the ΔQ ratios for the major subsystems to identify a subset of highest ranking major subsystems. The highest ranking major subsystems falling within this subset are preferably those which (1) rank highest in contributing to the wastewater collection grid greater volume amounts and/or cost amounts of the rainwater and/or ground water and (2) together account for from about 50% to about 80% of a total volume amount and/or cost amount of the rainwater and/or groundwater received by the wastewater collection grid. 
     It is also preferred that, for each of the major subsystems, the dry weather flow depth level (Dd) and the wet weather flow depth level (Dw) be determined in steps (b) and (c) using a flow depth level detector installed via a manhole at a base outlet end of the major subsystem. Further, it is preferred that step (g) of the method described above include the steps of: (i) determining from survey data an estimated number of residents served by each of the major subsystems; (ii) determining for each of the major subsystems an estimated dry weather wastewater volume flow rate (Qd) based upon the estimated number of residents served by the major subsystem; and (iii) determining for each of the major subsystems a wet weather volume flow rate (Qw) by multiplying the estimated dry weather wastewater flow rate (Qd) for the major subsystem by the ΔQ ratio determined for the major subsystem in step (f). 
     It is also preferred that step (g) further comprise the step of determining for each of the major subsystems a volume amount of rainwater and/or ground water contributed by the major subsystem to the wastewater collection grid by subtracting the estimated dry weather wastewater volume flow rate (Qd) for the major subsystem from the wet weather flow rate (Qw) for the major subsystem. 
     In addition to steps (a) through (g) described above, it is also preferred that the above-described method of reducing rainwater and/or ground water inflow and/or infiltration into a wastewater piping grid further comprise the steps of: (h) dividing the highest ranking major subsystem, or dividing each major subsystem included in a subset of highest ranking major subsystems, into a plurality of smaller subsystems; (i) determining for each of the smaller subsystems a dry weather flow depth level (SDd) for flow during dry weather conditions; (j) determining for each of the smaller subsystems a wet weather flow depth level (SDw) for flow during wet weather conditions or during a combination of wet weather and dry weather conditions; (k) determining for each of the smaller subsystems, based upon the dry weather flow depth (SDd), a dry weather cross-sectional area of flow (SAd); (1) determining for each of the smaller subsystems, based upon the wet weather flow depth (SDw), a wet weather cross-sectional area of flow (SAw); (m) determining for each of the smaller subsystems a ratio (ΔSQ) of wet weather volume flow rate to dry weather volume flow rate according to the formula: 
               Δ   ⁢           ⁢   S   ⁢           ⁢   Q     =         S   ⁢           ⁢   A   ⁢           ⁢   w       S   ⁢           ⁢   A   ⁢           ⁢   d       *       (       S   ⁢           ⁢   R   ⁢           ⁢   w       S   ⁢           ⁢   R   ⁢           ⁢   d       )       2   /   3               
wherein SRw is a wet weather hydraulic flow radius based upon SAw, and SRd is a dry weather hydraulic flow radius based upon SAd; and (n) using the ΔSQ ratios for the smaller subsystems to at least identify which smaller subsystem in each of the one or more major subsystems in question ranks highest in contributing a greater volume amount and/or cost amount of rain and/or ground water.
 
     Further, the method preferably comprises the step of (o) conducting camera surveillance within the one or more smaller subsystems identified in step (n) to discover locations of inflow and/or infiltration of rainwater and/or groundwater. 
     More preferably, step (n) described above will be conducted such that the ΔSQ ratios are used to identify within each of the one or more highest ranking major systems a subset of smaller subsystems which (i) rank highest in contributing a greater volume amount and/or cost amount of rainwater and/or groundwater to the major subsystem and (ii) together account for from about 50% to about 80% of a total volume amount and/or cost amount of rainwater and/or groundwater received by the major subsystem. 
     In order to determine the dry weather flow vertical depth level (SDd) and the wet weather flow vertical depth level (SDw) for any given smaller subsystem identified in the inventive method, a depth level detector will preferably be installed via a manhole at an outlet end of the smaller subsystem. In the same manner as described above for the major subsystems, it is also preferred that the estimated dry weather wastewater volume flow rates and wet weather volume flow rates for any given smaller subsystem be determined based upon (1) the ΔSQ ratio for the smaller subsystem in question and (2) an estimated dry weather wastewater volume flow rate for the smaller subsystem derived from survey data providing an estimated number of residents served by the smaller subsystem. 
     Further aspects, features, and advantages of the present invention will be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art upon examining the accompanying drawings and upon reading the following detailed description of the preferred embodiments. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIGS. 1A and 1B  schematically illustrate an embodiment of the inventive method involving a survey and analysis of major sub systems within a collection grid followed by a more detailed manhole survey and analysis of the particular subsystems ranking highest for inflow and infiltration. 
         FIG. 2  is a cross-sectional view of a horizontal or near horizontal wastewater grid pipe showing known geometric and flow parameters wherein wastewater is flowing through the pipe at a depth level which is less than the interior radius (r) of the pipe (i.e., the depth of flow is at a level such that the pipe is less than half full). 
         FIG. 3  is a cross-sectional view of a horizontal or near horizontal wastewater grid pipe showing known geometric and flow parameters wherein wastewater is flowing through the pipe at a depth level which is more than the interior radius (r) of the pipe (i.e., the depth of flow is at a level such that the pipe is more than half full). 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
     The inventive method provides municipalities with a clear picture of exactly what is transpiring within their wastewater infrastructure grids. The inventive method can:
         Locate and report areas of inflow and infiltration by volume.   Break down costs associated with inflow and infiltration.   Locate and report illegal sump pump and roof drain connections.   Provide data for infrastructure cost/benefit studies.   Locate and report areas of highest inflow and infiltration for efficient use of camera surveillance.   Identify and report pipe capacity and maintenance issues.       

     In accordance with the suggestions of both the EPA and American Water Works Association, the inventive method also preferably uses a “systems approach” for locating major sources of inflow and infiltration. As illustrated in  FIG. 1 , wastewater collection systems selected for investigation are initially divided into separate major subsystems (major basins) and then again into smaller subsystems (mini-systems) in order to cost effectively ascertain the most prevalent areas of unwanted ingress. 
     Inflow and infiltration detection monitors are preferably strategically placed within designated manholes of each subsystem (major basin) comprising the overall collection system. An onboard data logger preferably records the differences in wastewater depth levels between specified periods of (a) dry weather and (b) combined dry and wet weather. An internal flash card or other medium within each detection monitor preferably stores the pertinent information for easy transfer to a personal computer or other system having analysis software stored thereon. The software program preferably initiates both a volumetric and cost analysis report of the effects of any extraneous flows that have entered the subsystem during the designated monitoring period. Once the subsystems contributing the highest rate of inflow and infiltration are revealed, the detection monitors are preferably removed and repositioned (again without the need for confined space entry) in order to detect and locate those segments within each subsystem contributing the majority of unwanted ground and storm water. 
     Extensive international studies of inflow and infiltration have proven in case after case that the 80/20 principle usually applies (approximately 20% of the wastewater infrastructure network contributes 80% of the inflow and infiltration). These extensive studies only confirm the economic value of implementing our structured performance mapping approach. Using the inventive method, municipal managers can pinpoint the probable 20% of the collection grid contributing the major portions of inflow and infiltration. 
     Initially, a portable detection monitor is preferably placed at the base of each major subsystem within the overall collection grid. The detection monitor monitors and records flow level depth preferably for a period of days (most preferably at least five consecutive days) in order to establish a “dry weather” baseline for calculating a pattern of diurnal flows completely absent of inflow and infiltration. The identical procedure is then repeated preferably for a period of weeks (most preferably at least three consecutive months) of combined dry and wet weather. Once the collected data is gathered and transferred, i.e., using flash card technology, other media, or by electronic, radio or other data transmission, to the analysis program, the volume and cost of the extent of inflow and infiltration affecting each major subsystem is determined and categorized. 
     In contrast to prior techniques, the inventive method is preferably based on the determination and analysis of flow ratios derived in accordance with the formula: 
               Δ   ⁢           ⁢   Q     =         Q   ⁢           ⁢   w       Q   ⁢           ⁢   d       =         A   ⁢           ⁢   w       A   ⁢           ⁢   d       *       (       R   ⁢           ⁢   w       R   ⁢           ⁢   d       )       2   /   3                 
wherein: ΔQ is a ratio of wet weather volume flow rate to dry weather volume flow rate; Qw is the wet weather flow rate; Qd is the dry weather volume flow rate; Aw is the wet weather flow area (i.e., cross-sectional area of the flow in the pipe or channel); Ad is the dry weather flow area; Rw is the wet weather flow hydraulic radius; and Rd is the dry weather flow hydraulic radius.
 
     Using this approach allows the ratio wet to dry volume flow rates (ΔQ) to be calculated without actually knowing the absolute flow rate in either of the dry or wet cases. This allows a flow ratio metric value to be obtained without the need to measure the slope variable or the need to input the channel material roughness. The flow ratio can be implemented in the inventive water cost analysis program allowing improvements in proper water treatment by showing increases in flow rates during environmental events such as rainfall or improper infiltration. Additional benefits are eliminating the need for slope or roughness measurement during installation. The inventive method also allows an accurate comparative analysis to be performed at several sites without the need of a confined space entry. 
     As is readily understood, once the vertical depth level (d) of wastewater flowing through a horizontal or near horizontal pipe has been determined, the flow area Aw or Ad and the corresponding hydraulic flow radius Rw or Rd can be readily determined using well known geometric and flow parameters and formulas. In the case of a pipe having an interior radius (r) wherein wastewater is flowing at a depth of less than half full as illustrated in  FIG. 2 , the relevant flow parameters as depicted in  FIG. 2  are determined in accordance with the following well known formulas:
 
circular segment height  h =flow depth  d  
 
central angle θ=2 arc cos [( r−h )/ r] 
 
circular segment area  K=r   2 (θ−sin θ)/2
 
arc length  s=r×θ 
 
flow area  A=K  
 
wetted perimeter  P   w   =S  
 
hydraulic Radius  R   h   =A/P   w  
 
     If, in the other hand, the pipe is more than half full as illustrated in  FIG. 3 , the relevant formulas are:
 
Circular segment height  h= 2 r−d  
 
Central angle θ=2 arc cos [( r−h )/ r] 
 
Circular segment area  K=r   2 (θ−sin θ)/2
 
Arc length  s=r×θ 
 
Flow area  A=πr   2   −K  
 
Wetted perimeter  Pw= 2 πr−s  
 
Hydraulic radius  R   h   =A/P   w  
 
     EXAMPLE I 
     
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 1 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Report 1 
               
               
                 Inflow and Infiltration (I&amp;I) Contribution Analysis 
               
             
          
           
               
                 DELTA Q 
                 SUBSYSTEM 1-8 
                 (APR. 1-JUN. 30) 
               
             
          
           
               
                 CALCULATION 
                   
                 Av. Dry  
                 Avg. Dry +  
                 Δ Q Avg.  
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Sewer  
                 Pipe  
                 Day level  
                 Wet Day  
                 Change in 
               
               
                 Sub- 
                 Length 
                 Diameter  
                 (% Full  
                 Level (% 
                 Volume  
               
               
                 system 
                 (Ft.) 
                 (In.) 
                 Pipe) 
                 Full Pipe)  
                 Due to I&amp;I 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 1 
                 20,000 
                 12 
                 25% 
                 33% 
                 1.67 
               
               
                 2 
                 19,000 
                 10 
                 25% 
                 31% 
                 1.52 
               
               
                 3 
                 22,000 
                 8 
                 25% 
                 27% 
                 1.21 
               
               
                 4 
                 21,000 
                 12 
                 25% 
                 27% 
                 1.14 
               
               
                 5 
                 20,000 
                 15 
                 27% 
                 29% 
                 1.15 
               
               
                 6 
                 24,000 
                 18 
                 28% 
                 30% 
                 1.16 
               
               
                 7 
                 18,000 
                 10 
                 30% 
                 43% 
                 1.95 
               
               
                 8 
                 20,000 
                 8 
                 25% 
                 26% 
                 1.10 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
     As can be ascertained from Report 1, 50% of the total inflow and infiltration is contributed by subsystems 1 and 7. 
     
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 2 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Report 2 
               
               
                 Inflow and Infiltration (I&amp;I) Contribution Analysis 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 SUBSYSTEM 1-8 
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 VOLUME &amp;  
                 Av. Esti- 
                 Av. Dry + 
                 (APR. 1-JUN. 30) 
               
             
          
           
               
                 COST  
                 mated Dry  
                 Wet Day  
                 Avg.  
                 Avg.  
               
               
                 CALCULATION 
                 Day Volume  
                 Volume (Qw =  
                 Cost/Day 
                 Cost/Year 
               
             
          
           
               
                 Sub- 
                 Residents  
                 (Qd) (Gal- 
                 Qd * ΔQ) 
                 Due to  
                 Due to  
               
               
                 system 
                 Served 1    
                 lons/Day) 
                 (Gallons/Day) 
                 I&amp;I ($) 2   
                 I&amp;I ($) 2   
               
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 1 
                 1120 
                 78,800 
                 131,000 
                 $202 
                 $74,000 
               
               
                 2 
                 1050 
                 73,000 
                 110,000 
                 $144 
                 $53,000 
               
               
                 3 
                 910 
                 64,000 
                 77,000 
                  $50 
                 $18,000 
               
               
                 4 
                 1121 
                 83,000 
                 95,000 
                  $46 
                 $17,000 
               
               
                 5 
                 1400 
                 98,000 
                 113,000 
                  $58 
                 $21,000 
               
               
                 6 
                 1680 
                 118,000 
                 136,000 
                  $70 
                 $26,000 
               
               
                 7 
                 980 
                 68,000 
                 133,000 
                 $252 
                 $92,000 
               
               
                 8 
                 840 
                 59,000 
                 65,000 
                  $23 
                  $8,000 
               
               
                   
               
               
                   1 Using survey data from local records and the EPA, USGS and the AWWA, one can quickly ascertain the number of homes being serviced by each subsystem, the average number of individuals per household within that subsystem, the daily water usuage per average household (the EPA, USGS and AWWA have all confirmed that average daily water usage by an individual in the United States is 70 Gal/Day) and the municipality&#39;s wastewater treatment rate per 1000 gallons. These figures are imported into the the method to determine the average estimated dry volume flow rate (Qd) for each subsystem and to preferably generate reports describing each subsystem by actual increases in volume and cost due to inflow and infiltration. 
               
               
                   2 Average National Wastewater Treatment Rate (2007); $3.88/1000 Gal. (NUS Consulting Group) 
               
             
          
         
       
     
     If only 50% of the inflow and infiltration discovered in subsystems 1 and 7 is eliminated, a municipality will realize annual savings of $83,000 (or $830,000 over a ten year period). By eliminating the same percentage of inflow and infiltration generated by all 8 subsystems, taxpayers will see a decrease in their wastewater treatment charges of $1,545,000 over the same ten year period. 
     
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Report 3 
               
               
                 Inflow and Infiltration (I&amp;I) Contribution Analysis 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 MINI-SYSTEMS A-F 
                 (OCT. 1-DEC. 31) 
               
             
          
           
               
                 VOLUME &amp; COST  
                 Av. Estimated  
                 Av. Dry + Wet Day 
                 Avg.  
                 Avg.  
               
               
                 CALCULATION 
                 Dry Day 
                 Volume (SQw =  
                 Cost/Day 
                 Cost/Year 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Residents 
                 Volume (SQd) 
                 SQd * ΔSQ) 
                 Due to  
                 Due to 
               
               
                 Mini-System 
                 Served 3   
                 (Gallons/Day) 
                 (Gallons/Day) 
                 I&amp;I ($) 4   
                 I&amp;I ($) 4   
               
               
                   
               
               
                 A (MH 1-10) 
                 187 
                 13,090 
                 16,088 
                 $11.60 
                  $4,234 
               
               
                 B (MH 10-20) 
                 192 
                 13,440 
                 15,435 
                  $7.75 
                  $2,829 
               
               
                 C (MH 20-30) 
                 182 
                 12,740 
                 14,751 
                  $7.80 
                  $2,847 
               
               
                 D (MH 30-40) 
                 178 
                 12,460 
                 34,458 
                 $85.35 
                 $31,152 
               
               
                 E (MH 40-50) 
                 199 
                 13,930 
                 31,924 
                 $69.80 
                 $25,477 
               
               
                 F (MH 50-60) 
                 188 
                 13,160 
                 18,158 
                 $19.40 
                  $7,081 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
     Further isolation of inflow and infiltration on, for example, a 10 mini-system basis is now separately conducted for each of the major subsystems (1&amp;7) having contributed the highest percentages of extraneous flow as identified by Reports 1 &amp; 2. Repeating the identical procedure as previously employed within each major subsystem, the monitors continuously monitor both dry and dry/wet day wastewater levels within each 10 manhole (MH) mini-system. Since the goal has been to initially eliminate 50% of the total inflow and infiltration within subsystem 1 (50% of $74,000), then according to Report 3, the volume in question is located somewhere between manhole  30  and  50  (mini-systems D&amp;E). Prior to instituting camera surveillance equipment, the investigation can now be narrowed down even further by repeating the above process for mini-systems D&amp;E. Subsequently, the sources of inflow and infiltration are addressed and repaired. 
     EXAMPLE II 
     
       
         
               
             
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 4 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS SHOWING  
               
               
                 PROJECTED COSTS OF THE INVENTIVE FLOW STUDY  
               
               
                 METHOD VERSUS THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD 
               
             
          
           
               
                 Inventive Flow  
                 Conventional Flow Study  
               
               
                 Study Method 
                 (Doppler Portable Meters) 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 Five I &amp; I Detection  
                 $13,500 
                 Five Portable Flow  
                 $22,500 
               
               
                 Modules w/Flow  
                   
                 Meters w/Flow  
                   
               
               
                 Analysis Software  
                   
                 Analysis Software 
                   
               
               
                 Installation (5 units) 
                   $750 
                 Installation (5 units) 
                  $5,000 
               
               
                 Non-Confined Space 
                   
                 Confined Space Entry 
                   
               
               
                 Yearly Maintenance  
                    $0 
                 Yearly Maintenance 
                 $48,000 
               
               
                 Contract (5 Units) 
                   
                 ($800/Unit/Month) 
                   
               
               
                 TOTAL COST 
                 $14,250 
                 TOTAL COST 
                 $75,000 
               
             
          
           
               
                 TOTAL FIRST YEAR SAVINGS 
                 $61,250 
               
               
                 TOTAL SAVINGS PER YEAR GOING FORWARD 
                 $52,250 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
     The unique ability of the inventive method for cost-effectively locating inflow and infiltration creates the potential for ultimately reducing a municipality&#39;s wastewater treatment charges by hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
     EXAMPLE III 
     
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 5 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS FOR REHABILITATION OF HIGHEST RANK GRID  
               
               
                 SEGMENTS 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Segment 
                   
                   
                   
                 50% 
                   
               
               
                   
                 (manhole 
                 Sewer 
                 Pipe 
                   
                 Removable 
                 Cost 
               
               
                   
                 to 
                 Length 
                 Diam. 
                   
                 I&amp;I (Avg. 
                 Savings 
               
               
                 Ranking 
                 manhole) 
                 (Ft.) 
                 (In.) 
                 Delta Q 5   
                 Gal/Day) 
                 Per Year 6   
               
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 1 
                 13-15 
                 1,000 
                 12 
                 1.82 
                 20,000 
                 $28,324 
               
               
                 2 
                 17-20 
                 1,150 
                 12 
                 1.54 
                 14,000 
                 $19,826 
               
               
                 3 
                 5-7 
                 1,100 
                 12 
                 1.12 
                 8,000 
                 $11,329 
               
               
                 4 
                 28-30 
                 950 
                 10 
                 1.07 
                 5,100 
                  $7,420 
               
             
          
           
               
                 POTENTIAL TOTAL COST SAVINGS OVER 10 YEARS (10 × $66,900) $669,000 
               
               
                   
               
               
                   5 Delta Q represents the average change in wastewater volume due to the effects of inflow and infiltration. 
               
               
                   6 Cost Savings Per year is based upon a wastewater treatment rate of $3.88/1000 Gallons. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
     Thus, the present invention is well adapted to carry out the objectives and attain the ends and advantages mentioned above as well as those inherent therein. While presently preferred embodiments have been described for purposes of this disclosure, numerous changes and modifications will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. Such changes and modifications are encompassed within this invention as defined by the claims.