Skip to main content


Buy Article:

$9.50 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Or sign up for a free trial

While many sewer collection systems owners have invested millions of dollars in sanitary sewer rehabilitation in the last twenty-five years, few have gone back to the rehabilitated areas to identify which techniques worked and which did not. This paper presents the results of one area where the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, returned to an area that was rehabilitated ten years earlier to determine what worked, what failed, and what events occurred in that time period to cause additional failures in the collection system.

Spurred by a 1989 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrative Order (AO), Fayetteville initiated a sanitary sewer rehabilitation program to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The focus was on the hundreds of wet weather SSOs the City experienced each year. Concentrating on wet weather SSOs, in 1991, the City completed a thorough Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study (SSES) and initiated several construction projects. The first all encompassing sewer rehabilitation project was constructed in 1993. The project had incorporated numerous lessons learned through several earlier SSES efforts and several smaller rehabilitation construction projects, and employed the latest standards and techniques available at the time. These lessons and standards applied to the SSES, collection system analysis, design, construction, construction inspection, and post-rehabilitation evaluation.

Ten years later, the City returned to this area to reevaluate the results of that sewer rehabilitation project. All of the sewer lines in the basin were smoke tested, and the defects were evaluated to determine if the defect was related to the earlier rehabilitation work. If it was not, then we strove to determine what action occurred in the last ten years to cause the defect. Since few defects were found on pipe segments that had been repaired in the earlier rehabilitation project, the results were very satisfying. There are, however, some major lessons to be learned from the evaluation. This paper identifies these lessons learned, and describes those techniques that were most successful in the rehabilitation process.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Data/Media
No Metrics

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: 2003-01-01

More about this publication?
  • Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation is an archive of papers published in the proceedings of the annual Water Environment Federation® Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC® ) and specialty conferences held since the year 2000. These proceedings are not peer reviewed.

    A subscription to the Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation includes access to most papers presented at the annual WEF Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) and other conferences held since 2000. Subscription access begins 12 months after the event and is valid for 12 months from month of purchase. A subscription to the Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation is included in Water Environment Federation (WEF) membership.

    WEF Members: Sign in (right panel) with your IngentaConnect user name and password to receive complimentary access. Access begins 12 months after the conference or event
  • Subscribe to this Title
  • Membership Information
  • About WEF Proceedings
  • WEFTEC Conference Information
  • Learn about the many other WEF member benefits and join today
  • Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more