Results

Are we There Yet? - Performance Measurement through Process Optimization, Collaboration, & Technology Integration Primary Author and Presenter: Jeanetta Williams, GISP, PMP, MPA — Prince William County Service Authority Co-Authors: Aniruddha Guha, GISP — Prince William County Service Authority Irma Houck — Prince William County Service Authority Jillian Rosche — Prince William County Service Authority Aditya Ramamurthy, PE, PMP, PMI-ACP — Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Janice Sloan — Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Aligning with an enterprise data management program demonstrates Prince William County Service Authority's (SA) commitment to its established mission of a continually changing and evolving organization. Importantly, the heart of the organization is the group of dedicated staff who have committed to a course of action and a specific set of activities that all add up to the daily conduct of the mission and ultimately, toward the achievement of the organization's vision. The SA has developed and adopted a robust and cohesive enterprise data management implementation strategy. To develop a best-in-class data management program that responds to the business needs of both the SA and its key stakeholders, active engagement and participation of staff is key. The SA is committed to providing advanced and accessible technology throughout the organization to build an adaptable, data-driven, and cost-efficient enterprise. The SA's investments in integrated technology provide users access to real-time information in a fast, simple way, which drives the SA to new levels of efficiency and value. The SA has adopted the Malcolm Baldrige Performance Excellence Framework and constantly seeks ways to enhance its services to its customers as well as continuously improve as an organization. To track organizational performance, the SA established the Performance Benchmarking Accountability Committee (PBAC). PBAC established 50 key performance indicators across several organizational 'Areas of Excellence' including Customer Satisfaction, Workforce Excellence, Sustainable Operations, Financial Viability and Advanced Accessible Technology. Over the past 3 years, the SA has developed, defined, tracked, and reported on each of these 50 performance indicators leading to organization-wide performance excellence. Additionally, the SA is not only in the process of actively analyzing a variety of data (operational, meteorological, employee health, contaminant warning system datasets) but also working to integrate datasets from several enterprise systems (GIS (ESRI), maintenance management system (Cityworks), financial system (JD Edwards), CRM (Cayenta), vehicle tracking software, VA 811) into a more stable and reliable SQL server database that is then mapped to the integrated business intelligence solution that serve as the end-user interface for business decision making. This presentation will provide a broad overview and share success stories and lessons learned over the past 3 years related to: - Benchmarking and Performance Measurement at the SA using the PBAC 50 Metrics - Business Process Optimization related to data collection, management, and reporting - Effective communication of the PBAC 50 metrics to the SA Executive leadership using on-demand performance reporting dashboards (SA uses Tableau) - Change management strategies related to data collection - On-going data analysis and integration efforts and next steps Through efforts such as these, the SA was recognized and awarded the Virginia Senate Productivity and Quality Award (SPQA) Achievement Award from the US Senate SPQA Program. This presentation is applicable to a broad range of conference attendees including Utility Managers, Utility Leaders, Board Members, Data Management Professionals, Business Process Optimization staff, and consultants.

Like many communities across the nation, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas (UG) has an aging wastewater and stormwater system that requires continuous maintenance. Partially precipitated by years of inadequate asset maintenance, the UG is also under a Federal Consent Decree to renew wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, address sewer system overflows and achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). This led the UG's Water Pollution Control (WPC) Division to initiate an asset management program to drive continuous improvement across the organization. This presentation will describe the potential breadth of an asset management program, the drivers to prioritize certain aspects of the program, early accomplishments, and short-term next steps. Although after three years the program is still considered to be in its infancy, the roadmap followed, challenges experienced, and lessons learned to date will benefit other wastewater and stormwater utilities that want to initiate their own, or expand the breadth of their existing, asset management program. In 2019, the WPC Division initiated an asset management program with the following mission: - Collaboratively develop and document plans and processes to identify, prioritize, and address short- and long-term system-wide asset needs in a consistent, timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner to continuously improve utility operations, reduce system risk, meet community level of service goals, and minimize system failures and emergencies. To date, the program has achieved numerous accomplishments as a result of considerable effort and intense collaboration. Below we have highlighted many of these accomplishments along with continued efforts that we believe have improved the operation of our utility and our ability to achieve our Public Works Mission. Early program accomplishments resulted in the development of preliminary Level of Service goals and performance metric targets along with digital dashboards to monitor achievement of the goals and targets. Also, working with maintenance staff, numerous modifications were made to Lucity templates, dashboards, and forms to improve functionality and ease-of-use. After setting preliminary program outcome goals, early efforts focused on pump station assets due to their system criticality. This early focus resulted in numerous accomplishments, including: - Input/updated several thousand pump station asset records in Lucity (including facility basis of design information, asset attributes, photographs, and manufacturer O&M manuals) - Performed critical pump station asset condition assessment - Prepared flood pump station operation and maintenance manuals - Performed annual flood pump station operation and maintenance training These efforts have significantly increased pump station preventive maintenance efforts (thereby reducing corrective maintenance needs) and reduced risk associated with very infrequent operation of the flood pump stations. Our recent efforts have focused on improving facility asset maintenance, which has included valuable boots-on-the-ground input, a significant Lucity asset records update, and more efficient maintenance processes and documentation. These efforts have resulted in: - Reduced emergency repairs resulting in reduced staff overtime - Reduced corrective maintenance needs by increasing preventive maintenance - Improved staff understanding of facility operations and asset management principles resulting in improved staff pride in their work - Developed performance metric dashboard to track progress, identify improvement opportunities, and highlight individual assets of concern - Increased maintenance supervisor and worker accountability by revising the work order creation procedure to require work orders to be assigned to individual crews Affectionately referred to as the 'Easy Button', preliminary standard decision-making processes/logic to determine next actions for pipe and manhole assets based on specific condition findings and overall risk have been developed. The results from these risk/decision models are exported to Lucity to support system renewal and risk evaluation efforts. Continued refinement and expansion of the Easy Button will improve identification of assets needing repair and improve the timeliness of repairing these assets due to improved efficiencies and documentation. Beyond continuing and improving our previous efforts, primary focus areas in 2023 will include Business Risk Exposure (BRE) development and asset onboarding. Critical to the program success, we will develop the BRE methodology that will be applied to assets. Using Likelihood and Consequence of Failure risk categories and factors along with a confidence tier approach, the BRE will drive our future asset decisions. Asset onboarding includes the process of inputting assets along with their attributes, preventive maintenance tasks, photographs, record drawings, and manufacturer O&M manuals into Lucity and programming the preventive maintenance task work orders to generate at the appropriate time and frequency. An asset onboarding standard operating procedures document is being developed. This document may be used by other divisions and departments that utilize Lucity and includes the following: - Process workflows for new/replacement facilities, rehabilitated facilities, and single replacement assets - Detailed Lucity asset record instructions - Standard consultant scope tasks detailing the design consultant's responsibilities in the onboarding process - Standard construction specifications detailing the contractor and equipment suppliers' responsibilities in the onboarding process Other key efforts that will continue to build and enhance our asset management program in 2023 include: - Development of asset condition assessment protocols and continued pump station and WWTP asset condition assessment to provide the data necessary for BRE calculation and smart investment - Development of standardized contracts for preventive maintenance tasks that are more efficiently performed by outside vendors to allow better tracking of these efforts and more consistent contract terms - Improve access to operation and maintenance data, including dashboards and SCADA-Lucity integration, to enable better informed, data-driven decision making within our division.

Abstract A novel acid-phase anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR), inspired by the stomach of ruminant animals, was operated to achieve efficient hydrolysis at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 12 h with minimal membrane fouling. This rumen-mimicking AnDMBR achieved volatile fatty acid (VFA) yields of 0.4 ± 0.2 g VFA/g volatile solids (VS) fed over three years of continuous operation with both mono-digestion of food waste and co-digestion of food waste and wastewater sludge. The bioreactor retained core rumen-associated microbes, such as Prevotella, Prevotella_7, and Bifidobacterium, supporting its adaptability across different feedstocks. These results highlight the rumen-AnDMBR as a robust option for producing VFAs from diverse organic waste streams, suitable for downstream methane or medium chain fatty acid production. Introduction Anaerobic digestion (AD) is widely used to convert organic wastes into renewable bioenergy and nutrient-rich digestate but faces challenges like long retention times. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs) have been employed for high-rate anaerobic treatment, retaining biomass and enabling operation at high solids retention time (SRT). However, AnMBRs are challenged by membrane fouling, particularly with high-solids waste streams, which reduces flux and increases maintenance costs (Osman et al., 2023). AnDMBRs offer a cost-effective alternative by using low-cost materials to replace conventional membranes and employing energy-efficient fouling mitigation strategies, such as backwashing and relaxation (Hu et al., 2018). We developed a novel AnDMBR that simulates the rumen environment and rumination processes, such as regurgitation and mastication (Fonoll et al., 2024). In this system, the hydraulic retention time (HRT) is decoupled from the SRT by forming a dynamic membrane on a mesh that supports the growth of microbes enhancing hydrolysis and fermentation (Mason and Stuckey, 2016). By periodically breaking the biofilm, similar to regurgitation and mastication in ruminants, the system reduces the inhibitory effects of high volatile fatty acids (VFA) concentrations, creating a favorable environment for microbial activity and enhancing hydrolysis. The rumen-AnDMBR successfully produced an average VFA yield of 0.55 ± 0.12 g of VFA/g of VS during mono-digestion of food waste (FW) at an OLR of 18 ± 2 g VS/Lreactor/d (Fonoll et al., 2024). In comparison, conventional AD systems that operate acid-phase treatment of FW typically produce around 0.3--0.4 g VFA/ g VS at an organic loading rate (OLR) below 11 g VS/Lreactor/d (Jiang et al., 2013; Lim et al., 2008). FW typically has high compositional variability compared to feedstocks like animal manure or wastewater sludge leading to challenges such as poor hydrolysis and VFA accumulation in mono-digestion systems (Dalke et al., 2021). Co-digestion of FW with organic wastes such as animal manure, lignocellulosic waste, and sludge can mitigate these issues by providing alkalinity, supplemental nutrients, and diverse microbial communities (Karki et al., 2021). However, FW generally offers a higher methane yield than other organic wastes, which can decrease with co-digestion due to dilution effects (Li et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2024). Co-digestion of FW with sludge has not been previously explored in rumen-mimicking AD systems. The lack of co-digestion studies with rumen-mimicking systems motivated us to study co-digestion of FW and sludge in a rumen-inspired AnDMBR. We demonstrated the long-term (over three years) stability of the rumen-AnDMBR process under FW mono-digestion and FW and sludge co-digestion. The hydrolysis performance data were complemented with 16S rRNA gene sequencing data to understand changes in a few key rumen microbial populations in response to operational changes. Materials and Methods Liquid and solid rumen contents collected from a fistulated cow at the Michigan State University dairy farm (East Lansing, MI, USA) and first-phase digestate obtained from the Flint Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) (Flint, MI, USA) were used to inoculate the rumen-AnDMBR. FW was collected from two dining halls at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI). A blend of 60% primary and 40% thickened waste activated sludge, referred to as wastewater sludge in this study, was collected from the holding tank at the Ann Arbor WRRF (Ann Arbor, MI, USA). A 6.2 L AnDMBR was operated to mimic rumen conditions (Fig. 1) where a dynamic membrane containing a cake layer of biofilm and solids was formed, broken, and reformed on a 147 µm pore size mesh support during a 21 h period each day. The pH in the rumen-AnDMBR was maintained between 6.2--6.3 by automatically dosing 2.5 N NaOH. The operating conditions for the rumen-AnDMBR at different periods are summarized in Table 1. The FW, wastewater sludge, bulk digestate, and permeate samples were collected twice a week for chemical analyses. Total and suspended solids concentrations (APHA, 2012) were measured to adjust SRT; while COD concentrations (Hach, Loveland, CO, USA), and VFAs (Fonoll et al., 2024) were analyzed to determine the hydrolysis rate and VFA yield observed under different operating conditions. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed on the digestate samples to evaluate the microbial community structure and identify key microbes responsible for hydrolysis function. DNA extraction, amplification, and sequencing procedures have been detailed in Fonoll et al. (2024). The DNA sequences were analyzed using DADA2 (Callahan et al., 2016). The hydrolysis rate constant (d-1) was calculated using a steady-state particulate COD mass-balance approach in a continuously stirred tank reactor: khyd =[(Qin x Cin) - (Qdig x Cdig + Qperm x Cperm)]/ Cdig x V , where Qin, Qdig, and Qperm represent the flow rates of feed, wasted digestate, and permeate in the rumen bioreactor, respectively. Cin, Cdig, and Cperm represent the particulate COD concentrations of feed, digestate, and permeate, respectively. V is the volume of the bioreactor. The net VFA yields, reported in this study in terms of COD, are values calculated after subtracting the concentration of the respective VFAs in the feed. Results and Discussion Rumen-AnDMBR achieved high VFA yields and microbial adaptability under varied feedstock conditions The hydrolysis rate constants were consistently maintained across both mono- and co-digestion periods, highlighting the rumen-AnDMBR's adaptability to varied feedstocks, even with the dilution effect introduced by sludge (Fig. 2). The average net VFA yields in the rumen-AnDMBR was 0.42 ± 0.18 g VFA/g VS for FW mono-digestion and 0.35 ± 0.18 g VFA/g VS for co-digestion, reaching the upper limits of the typical range. This sustained VFA yield demonstrates the rumen-AnDMBR's robustness in maintaining hydrolysis and fermentation efficiency at a higher loading rate, even when feedstock characteristics vary, positioning it as a resilient alternative to conventional systems. The relative abundance of select genera was investigated to understand the retention of known hydrolytic rumen microbial populations, originating from the rumen inoculum, in the rumen-AnDMBR (Fig. 3). The genera Prevotella, Ruminococcus, Bifidobacterium, and Fibrobacter, typically present in the rumen microbiome, are highly efficient in cellulose and hemicellulose degradation, which are critical for VFA production (Mizrahi et al., 2021). Prevotella and Bifidobacterium maintained their abundance across mono- and co-digestion periods. Prevotella, which peaked during the mono-digestion period, was replaced by Prevotella_7 as a dominant genus in the co-digestion period, reflecting the system's ability to adapt to changing feedstock conditions. The fiber-degrading genera Ruminococcus and Fibrobacter exhibited relatively low abundances, likely attributed to the low fiber content of the feedstock. However, the increase in the relative abundance of Ruminococcus during the co-digestion period indicates some potential for fiber degradation. With steady hydrolysis rates, high VFA yields at high OLRs, and adaptable microbial dynamics, the rumen-AnDMBR demonstrates strong potential as a scalable, resilient solution for sustainable waste processing across diverse waste streams. Acknowledgements We thank Steve Donajkowski, Ethan Kennedy, and Tom Yavaraski for technical assistance. Thanks also to the staff at Michigan State University dairy farm, Flint and Ann Arbor WRRFs, and the University of Michigan dining halls. We also thank Yuang Guo, Victor Luk, Jenna Kutscher, Evan Zalek, Brianna Jimenez, Olivia Sherman, Sofia Martinez Cantu, and Alisson Villarreal Hurtado for their contributions to this work. This work was funded by the Department of Energy (DE-FOA-0002203_FY20_BETO_Multi-Topic).

Nearly 20 years ago, RedZone Robotics pioneered multi-sensor inspection (MSI) technology for assessment of large diameter gravity sewers. For the first time ever, commercial tools were available to finally overcome many of the obstacles that were previously encountered inspecting large diameter interceptors. There are countless combinations of collection system materials, sizes, shapes, and conditions that require innovative inspection technologies. Continually, more engineers and utility owners are utilizing these technologies to make more informed, cost-effective rehabilitation decisions. While inspection costs are a fraction of rehabilitation costs, the condition assessment provides invaluable information in the design process. However, different rehabilitation methods require different types of data to make informed design decisions. At the advent of MSI, the technology included closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and a variety of sensors for above-water and below-water data collection. When all of these data sensors are contained on a single platform, inspections can be economically performed in a single inspection run. Now, MSI has taken on different meanings depending on the application and context. It is important to ask some key questions before embarking on MSI assessment, such as: What sensors do I need? What is the difference between traditional CCTV and HD CCTV? Do I need 2D or 3D laser data? What are the different types of sonar technologies? Do I need to measure gases and temperature in the pipe? What does an IMU or inclinometer tell me? What are MSI deliverables? There is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to multi-sensor inspection technologies, so it's important to understand the basic mechanics of different sensors and how the collected information will benefit the design engineer. Sensors that were once considered advanced are now becoming commodities. Apple includes a LiDAR sensor on the latest iPhone. Now you can buy a GoPro camera with 4K resolution for $500. When it comes to MSI, the focus should be on sensor fusion and output of the technology. With modern advances in imaging technology, highly accurate photogrammetric models can be produced with only cameras. Continuous scanning 3D LiDAR sensors can produce digital twins from a floating platform. Are electromagnetic or ultrasonic sensors the next wave of MSI bolt-on technologies? This presentation, though actual case studies, will demystify MSI assessment and answer the following questions: - What is MSI assessment? - What sensors make up an MSI platform? - What updates have been made to MSI reports and deliverables? - How can MSI assessment benefit me? With all the new innovative sensors and technologies in the market today, it's important to understand the benefits, not necessarily the features, of MSI assessment.

A Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) is an essential part of a utility's ability to manage, maintain, and operate its facilities, assets, and equipment. For Maintenance, an effective CMMS tracks the work necessary to re-establish a system's designed reliability as well as to maintain and document the required processes and procedures to do so. For Operations, an effective CMMS informs equipment availability and compliance challenges. Also known as Enterprise Asset Management Systems (EAMS), an effective CMMS enables asset managers and financial planners to make planning and budgeting decisions. Unfortunately, over half of new CMMS implementations fail. Even worse, industry research has shown that most organizations use only a small portion of their CMMS capabilities. The good news, if there is a silver lining, is that water and wastewater utilities are not isolated in their CMMS shortcomings. This engaging session will be presented from the perspective of a seasoned CMMS consultant turned local government Town Manager. The session will be primarily from the vantage of the 8-year story of assessment to implementation through several years of use will highlight both the positives and negatives as well as the expected outcomes and surprises. The CMMS lessons learned from other utilities, from large to small, will be used to highlight commonalities and differences with the case example. A CMMS can be ineffective or underutilized for many reasons. Gulati (2012) describes eight reasons that CMMS projects fail to reach their potential. Benson and Solomon (2017) cite 11 primary reasons for CMMS shortfalls: 1.Incorrect/Incomplete/Inappropriate requirements assessment 2. Lack of management support 3.Failure to limit vendor participation 4.Developing an in-house custom system 5.Inadequate vendor research 6.Inadequate pilot testing 7.Poor implementation planning 8.Insufficient training/documentation 9.Underestimating data collection effort 10.Poorly defined maintenance work processes 11.Failure to prioritize, optimize, and limit maintenance tasks Oldach, Solomon, and Benson (2016) have shown that these reasons are often made worse when multiple departments use the same CMMS or when a centralized department (such as Finance or Information Technology) dominates over front-line operating divisions. In the case example, the water and wastewater utility led the successful Town-wide implementation and ultimately served as the key link to restoration when the CMMS fell on tough times. Seven key observations from the case example will be provided in the session: 1.Do a formal Needs Assessment 2.Pause to make sure you have the needed Organizational Capacity 3.Do a formal Implementation Program 4.Find your CMMS champion(s) 5.Success must be driven from the top 6.The system should be integrated with Finance, Purchasing, and Customer Service 7.An organization will not be effective until all operating divisions participate The scope of the functionalities of the CMMS in the case example will also be compared to other utilities. Leading CMMS software applications allow labor and expenses to be tracked at the asset level or the functional location. Ultimately any CMMS can provide computerized tracking and reporting related to asset inventory, physical condition, maintenance activity, replacement asset value, failure codes, and link to accounting and insurance systems. One fundamental question that should be simply 'just because it can do it, should we try to do it?' Scope and context also have much to do with the effective utilization of a CMMS. The learning objectives of the session are: 1. Understand how and why a CMMS fails or is underutilized 2. Apply practical lessons learned from case example to attendee's utility 3. Appreciate the dynamic nature of any CMMS in the context of organizational changes 4. Understand the importance of formal Needs Assessments and Implementation Programs. 5. Apply different organizational perspectives to communication at home utility The session is unique in that there are limited examples of a CMMS consultant eventually serving as the ultimate end user of a CMMS that he helped select and implement. It is also unique from the perspective of being able to provide a practical, 'does it work' perspective over a full timeline of use. The session will be presented at the beginner/intermediate level, with the primary underlying assumption that attendees have a general awareness of a CMMS/EAMS. The session applies to a full range of UMC attendees.

The purpose of this presentation is to provide guidance for designing and constructing utility improvements in heavily urbanized areas. Working in urban areas has a unique set of challenges that should be considered during design and construction. If these items are left unchecked, project schedules, budgets and the overall project success can be impacted. This presentation will identify real-world issues and how various issues were or were not addressed. The City of Columbus signed two consent Decrees with Ohio EPA to address SSOs and CSOs in 2002 and 2004, respectively. The City of Columbus is the 14th most populous city in the United States, with a population of 900,000 people. The collection system consists of 6% combined sewers and 94% separated sewers. The majority of the combined sewers are located in the downtown area and the separated sewers extend into the suburbs. During the last 15-years, the City of Columbus has aggressively constructed projects to reduce CSOs and SSOs. These projects consisted of CSO modifications, private property work, green infrastructure projects, and pipe rehabilitation projects in some of the most populated areas of the city. The presenters have a combined experience of more than 30 years working on City of Columbus projects in urbanized areas. We will discuss procedures to implement in design and construction to mitigate issues throughout the project. The designer of urban projects must be aware of the current activities in the project area such as bus and garbage routes, corporate events and schedules, access points for vital businesses like hospitals and fire departments, business concerns, and the health and safety of residents working and living near the proposed construction sites. Communication and an active public outreach program are essential tasks during design phase of the project. The designer should be calling government agencies, schools, hospitals, and businesses in the project area to discuss the project objectives and the potential impacts to businesses or residents. The design phase is also the most cost-effective time to develop a plan to address local concerns/requirements. Delaying the coordination until construction will lead to more complaints, change orders and increased costs. During these discussions the designer should consider noise and odor impacts, access issues, security issues, site specific limitations, and traffic patterns. In construction, communication becomes even more relevant than the activities during design. Residents and businesses 'live' the construction activity on a daily basis and become immediately aware of the factors that impact their daily routine. The myriad of issues the design phase tries to anticipate will be minimized but a few others may grow in perception and yet other items not anticipated must be dealt with. A good rapport and continuous communication with those impacted residents will itself mitigate and minimize many of these unforeseen situations. A reminder that the public works being performed is for the betterment of the local project area, including themselves, which also hopefully engage their communal good will and public spiritedness. Most people do not like change or seek out disruptions to their daily routines, but consistent public outreach during the construction phase now engages the local residents and business owners as they travel along on the construction process journey. This engagement can go just as far, and sometimes further, than possible design changes or field adjustments for changed conditions to a project's overall success. In summary, the presentation will use real-world examples from the last 15-years of design and construction projects within the City of Columbus to demonstrate the need to coordinate, communicate and have an outreach program to address public comments and concerns. We will show examples of solutions that were effective in addressing business and resident concerns.

Background In the Kansas City region, over the last 20 years stormwater best management practices and green infrastructure have been designed based on criteria developed in the early 2000's. However, communities are having trouble successfully building (and maintaining) green infrastructure. Why? Here in the Kansas City metro, we have regional design criteria for stormwater infrastructure. We're no stranger to understanding the importance of 'stormwater knows no jurisdictional boundaries', as our region lays at the confluence of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers. Though we may not experience the water scarcity issues faced by other communities, we see the need for stormwater quantity and quality measures. The Kansas City Metropolitan Chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA) periodically updates the regional design criteria for stormwater infrastructure, commonly referred to as APWA 5600. In cooperation with the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), APWA published this region's first Manual of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Quality in 2003, commonly referred to as the BMP Manual. In 2006, APWA 5600 was updated, referencing the BMP Manual, but not requiring management of smaller storms with green infrastructure. In 2011, APWA 5600 was updated , defining 'Comprehensive Control' as the default strategy for stormwater management, which requires control of the water quality event. However, the updated design criteria neglected to state how the water quality event should be 'controlled', only referencing the BMP Manual. Then, in October 2012, MARC and APWA released the latest BMP Manual. What are the problems? Implementation ' Some communities have adopted outdated version of APWA 5600, the BMP Manual, or both. Some communities have adopted APWA 5600 or the BMP Manual, but not both. Some communities have adopted other requirements that are barriers to implementing green infrastructure (e.g. Landscaping and screening requirements for the area between back of curb and sidewalk to be turf). Design ' Outdated design criteria for green infrastructure. The BMP Manual was last updated in 2012. A lot has been learned about green infrastructure, specifically designing with constructability and maintenance in mind. Ever-changing nomenclature for various types and components of green infrastructure has led to confusion on how green infrastructure should be designed. Construction ' Historically, construction of green infrastructure has been difficult due to lack of experienced contractors, available products, and materials. With the continued design and construction of green infrastructure over the past decade, resumes of local contractors have grown; however, inconsistency in details and specifications have left contractors confused on the 'right' way to build green infrastructure. Maintenance ' Just like sewer pipes, pumps, and treatment plants need maintenance, so does green infrastructure. Many of these sustainable systems are most susceptible to failure immediately following construction before vegetation has established. Without thoughtful maintenance procedures in places, green infrastructure is prone to failure before reaching its optimal performance. Monitoring ' The functional components for many types of green infrastructure are below grade out of sight, out of mind. Whether it be vegetated green infrastructure such as rain gardens or bioretention that rely on infiltration and evapotranspiration to function properly, or underground storage systems and pretreatment devices whose components are only accessible through lids and hatches, it's difficult to 'see' that green infrastructure is performing as designed. How can we fix it? Implementation ' Local communities are (or need to be) playing catch-up in terms of adopting the latest stormwater design criteria and BMP Manual for design of green infrastructure. Design ' Green infrastructure design criteria need to be updated to reflect technological advancements, constructability, maintenance needs, and an improved understanding of performance in the last decade. Additional detail and specification resources can help streamline design of green infrastructure, allowing design professionals to focus on creatively meeting project objectives rather than drafting aesthetics on plan sets, and syntax and diction of technical specifications. Construction ' Better construction resources should be available to green infrastructure contractors. Terminology clarifications and standardization of components and technical specifications can help produce clear drawings and specifications for contractors to build this infrastructure. Specifications should include experience requirements for integral components of green infrastructure, such as landscaping, that are not only critical to performance, but also perception of project success. As the resumes of local contractors increase with additional green infrastructure being constructed, resident project representatives knowledgeable on green infrastructure should observe construction activities to increase the likelihood that the infrastructure is built as designed. Maintenance ' Maintenance is most crucial during the establishment period for vegetated green infrastructure. Frequent weeding is important to landscaping components achieving their full potential as they grow in the first 3 years. Other components, such as pretreatment devices should be regularly maintained to remove sediment and other debris before it reaches more sensitive components of green infrastructure. A maintenance plan that considers the green infrastructure component and age of the facility should be developed to define frequency of maintenance activities and be implemented after components are installed, NOT AFTER PROJECT CLOSEOUT. Monitoring ' Not only is designing with maintenance access in mind important, design professionals should also factor in ways to monitor green infrastructure performance. Owners need to have a plan in place to actively monitor green infrastructure performance. Owners should plan for frequent monitoring and/or inspection of green infrastructure in the first 1- to 3-years as vegetation begins to establish and less frequently throughout the life of the infrastructure. Periodic monitoring can educate proactive maintenance to extend the life of green infrastructure. Be part of the solution. KC Water's Smart Sewer Program has taken major strides towards improving green infrastructure resources for designers and contractors. The following items have been developed and will be explained in the presentation so that others can improve their green infrastructure performance. Criteria Updates ' Strategically sized green infrastructure for rainfall events that are most likely occur, optimizing storage in a way that doesn't drown nor parch vegetation. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Manual ' Designing with construction, maintenance, and monitoring in mind. Clarification of green infrastructure terminology Design considerations for where/when to use various green infrastructure practices Guidance on sizing calculations for evaluating desired achievement Detail and specification templates to streamline design and provide consistency for contractors Site activity plan for proactive thinking on how to protect green infrastructure components from internal site erosion and sediment during construction Definition of Service Level Standards, identifying when maintenance activities should be performed Guidance for types and frequencies of maintenance activities National Green Infrastructure Certification Program (NGICP) ' Contractor education Selection Criteria ' Experienced based qualifications for the construction of green infrastructure (especially landscaping components) Maintenance Plan ' Plan for cleaning and repairing various components of green infrastructure. Monitoring Plan ' Plan for which green infrastructure need to be monitored when, what metrics are being measured, and how those metrics are going to educate maintenance operations. Adapt! Make changes if something isn't working. Green infrastructure is sustainable and resilient. These natural systems have the ability to adapt to changing climates. Policies and procedures for implementing green infrastructure need to be able to adapt too.

In one of the largest sewage cases in U.S. history, the Department of Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Monica Bay keeper and a coalition of Los Angeles community groups reached a $2 billion settlement with the City of Los Angeles over years of sewage spills. This settlement was a groundbreaking effort to address all causes of sewage spills and odors in the city of Los Angeles. The terms of the settlement required a proactive approach designed to prevent problems from developing in the city's system. The City of Los Angeles was required to undertake more aggressive maintenance practices and advanced planning to identify problem sewers before they spill. With approximately 6,500 miles of sanitary sewer lines serving almost 4 million residents, the city operates the largest sewage collection system in the country, the city had experienced over 4,500 sewage spills. The City of Los Angeles Wastewater Collections Division found that Aggressive cleaning methods to remove obstructions, roots, grease, protruding service laterals, calcified grease, and mineral deposits in conjunction with the EPA CMOM Program would ensure the long-term performance of the system. Part of the backbone of the aggressive cleaning campaign was an ongoing benchmarking program to evaluate sewer cleaning tools to ensure that the sewer cleaning crews could effectively return the sewer pipes to 95% of operational capacity as part of a new Standard Operating Procedure SOP for sewer cleaning Unfortunately, the sewer tool industry was not manufacturing sewer tooling aggressive enough to clean to the new standards adopted by the City's WCSD so the vacuum was filled by the invention and in house manufacturing of innovative and ground breaking tooling by the city's skilled tradesmen. These innovative tools are still being used today. The implementation of innovative tooling, SOPs, CMOM, and aggressive cleaning teqniques led to a 93% reduction in SSO's. This attendee interactive PowerPoint presentation will combine great videos of sewer pipe and cleaning tools in action, diagrams / illustrations of pipe materials, SSO reducing cleaning techniques, and discuss what was learned from the EPA Consent Decree regarding: 1.A proactive and predictive CMOM approach to sewer maintenance by implementing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). An SOP that includes aggressive cleaning extends the service life of the entire system while reducing Sanitary Sewer Overflows (S. 2.Now, in the 21st century, the use of high-pressure hydro-jetting trucks and nozzles demand sewer pipe materials tough enough to withstand the constantly evolving societal demands and technological changes in tools and equipment. 3.the appropriate tool/ method for removal of obstructions, roots, grease, protruding service laterals, calcified grease and mineral deposits. It will also detail the variations of mechanical cleaning methods such as rodding machines, bucketing, hydro-jet methods including static vs rotating nozzles, jet angles (high clean/ low thrust; low clean/ high thrust), jet pressures, and the importance of matching tools and methods to specific pipe materials.

Issue: While managing solids is integral to all Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs), evaluating whole facilities and systems from a mass balance perspective is often challenging. All WRRFs must manage their biosolids whether it be for treatment or processing/handling at the end of the treatment process. To understand the quantity of biosolids that must be managed, utilities need a proper biosolids inventory. To further enhance the understanding of a biosolids inventory, a biosolids mass balance tool can be developed and applied to monitor performance. However, quality biosolids data is often not available at utilities through all process points, rendering a mass balance tool difficult to develop and calibrate. Objectives: This presentation will provide an approach to developing a biosolids mass balance tool to identify potential process limitations, support solids processing optimization and capital planning, and to evaluate data improvements. This approach will be demonstrated with a case study of a biosolids mass balance tool that was developed for the Philadelphia Water Department's (PWD's) three WRRFs and centralized biosolids processing facility. Utilization of PWD and its facilities within this case study provides a unique opportunity to address not only the benefits, but the challenges that present when constructing a biosolids mass balance tool for a large, public utility. Lessons learned throughout the process will be included for application to any utility seeking to develop a similar tool. Approach for Developing a Biosolids Mass Balance Tool: The development of an informative solids mass balance requires data gathering, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of data, and annotation of assumptions. First a request for information is generated based on the unit processes utilized at the facilities of interest. Primary and secondary treatment data is gathered and reviewed by plant staff and engineers. This request is prioritized by grouping parameters into categories (e.g., 'must have', 'nice to have', etc.). QA/QC of the data is done by evaluating historic data trends to identify outliers or possible analytical errors. Following the initial data screening, a mass balance is built for each process based on the data received. When the mass balances around a process do not close (i.e., solids in does not equal solids out), further investigation is required to identify potential reason(s) for the error. Reasons may include metering errors, analytical errors, an indication of process inefficiency, etc. Assumptions must be made using engineering judgment and industry standards to calibrate the model based on observed data, fill in knowledge gaps, or resolve issues discovered during data analysis. Assumptions must be well documented to inform the mass balance user for current and future applications as more data/information becomes available. Once the mass balance is developed, key process metrics of the unit processes of interest can be compared to industry standards to determine process capacity/limitations. The mass balance can also be used to evaluate optimization/upgrade alternatives for planning purposes in a timely manner. Case Study: PWD, established in 1801, is a public water utility, providing integrated drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services to the City of Philadelphia and several neighboring communities. PWD owns and operates three WRRFs with a combined permitted maximum daily average flow capacity of 783 MGD. Biosolids from PWD's WRRFs are anaerobically digested and sent to a central biosolids recycling center (BRC). The BRC is located on PWD property but operated by an outside entity. The BRC produces Class A pellets that are land applied throughout the east coast. To better characterize PWD's biosolids handling, understand system limitations, and support planning efforts, PWD collaborated with consulting teams HDR and AECOM on the development of a biosolids mass balance tool. The tool was developed to assess the individual WRRFs as well as the overall solids strategy among the three WRRFs and the BRC. Figure 1 presents a process flow diagram of the three WRRFs and the solids flows among facilities. As shown, this system is complex with respect to solids processing in that one of the three plants sends their sludges to another plant for processing, and the third plant conveys solids via barge to the processing facility. Like other utilities of its age and size, PWD faces the challenges of aging infrastructure and a changing regulatory environment that drives optimization of existing processes and adoption of new processes. These forces, coupled with the ever-present requirement of meeting NPDES permits, can make the prioritization of biosolids data collection and system optimization difficult. PWD and HDR employed creative collaboration strategies to secure the support and cooperation of PWD stakeholders as well as the data required to develop the biosolids mass balance tool. Within Figure 2 is the preliminary output from the mass balance tool calibration that tracks solids production, transport, and destruction across PWD WRRFs. During calibration, several processes were identified for further evaluation due to the mass balance not closing. Further investigation of these processes may lead to important improvements in process performance or process monitoring. Observed key process parameters were also compared to industry standards to identify system limitations and identify optimization opportunities. In doing this, potential inefficiencies were identified such as anaerobic digesters being organically underloaded but hydraulically limited, indicating potential improvement in performance and energy efficiency through further digester feed thickening. This presentation will discuss a process for developing and utilizing a biosolids mass balance to evaluate WRRF biosolids management, as well as present lessons learned from PWD's biosolids mass balance development and evaluation.

Manatee County Utilities (MCU) recently completed a strategic enhancement to their decades long commitment to be a good neighbor to those in close proximity to wastewater collection system lift stations and treatment facilities. Historically a variety of liquid and vapor phase treatment approaches were utilized to prevent nuisance odor complaints. In 2018, MCU embarked on implementation of an enhancement to their successful odor control program that targeted reducing the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) related corrosive conditions in much of their collection system. As MCU operates an expansive collection system involving an extensive (over 700) lift station (LS) network with many long retention time force mains, achieving significantly lower H2S in the head spaces within lift stations and gravity sectors downstream of force main discharges was a major challenge. This paper provides further perspective gained with longer term operating experience and full system implementation. The collection system conveys 22 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) of flow across three service areas to a corresponding wastewater reclamation facility for each service area. The North Service Area (NSA), Southeast Service Area (SESA), and Southwest Service Area (SWSA) are comprised of many outlying lift stations (LS) with manifolded force main networks that feed re-pump stations. Some re-lift stations are known as master lift stations (MLS), which receive wastewater that in some cases is repumped four times; such as MLS 1M. Figures 1 and 2 provide perspective on the geographic expanse and force main network complexity. As MCU was experiencing significant corrosion of concrete and metallic components of the gravity system upstream of the MLSs and in the MLS wet wells while successfully preventing public odor complaints with a combination of chemical liquid phase treatment applied at key upstream LSs and biological vapor phase treatment with biofilters an enhancement to H2S treatment goals began in 2018. To significantly reduce corrosive conditions MCU set a target MLS atmospheric H2S control objective of 20 ppm average and 50 ppm peak. In most cases historical levels were five to twenty times these target values, so accomplishing these odor and corrosion (O&C) control targets required incorporating new treatment and operational strategies. By targeting such lower MLS H2S levels it was expected that corrosive conditions in upstream re-pump stations/gravity sectors and related downstream WWRF headworks would also be reduced. Based on a 2017 engineering study report, one key new liquid phase treatment approach implemented was to raise the wastewater pH from the typical 6.8-7.4 range into the 8.0-8.5 range. This was done in order to significantly increase the percentage of dissolved sulfide (DS) in the nonvolatile HS- and S2- forms rather than volatile H2S. Due to extremely long retention times generating very high DS levels (10-40 mg/L) in some force main networks upstream of most MLSs it was anticipated a combination of chemical treatments targeting pH elevation along with DS reduction could achieve MLS H2S control objective at many locations without a major increase in historical H2S treatment expense. Implementation started in the NSA, then moved to the SWSA, and finally the SESA. Continuous H2S monitoring of the MLS wet wells, provided by MCU's vapor phase treatment provider, was critical to evaluating impacts of introducing upstream magnesium (mag) hydroxide chemical treatment to raise the wastewater pH and optimize dose requirement of calcium nitrate at higher pH conditions. Ability to access web-based data on nearly a real time basis facilitated a highly data driven implementation approach on a MLS by MLS basin basis. Figure 3 shows an example of post implementation online H2S data for Heritage Harbour MLS, which is the result of two upstream mag dose locations to raise wastewater pH, two upstream nitrate dose locations to reduce DS, raised MLS wet well level to reduce turbulence, and MLS wet well ventilation to historical onsite biofilter. The technical paper will summarize significant H2S performance improvement achieved and enumerate lessons learned from the implementation periods and subsequent ongoing operation timeframes across sixteen MLS basins. While utilization of pH elevation was generally effective in reducing H2S release from wastewater received by the MLSs, practical limitations experienced due to the complex upstream manifolded force main networks, significant DS levels, and degree of wastewater turbulence will be covered. Ultimately a blend of wastewater pH elevation, DS reduction and turbulence reduction along with MLS biofilter ventilation adjustments unique to each MLS basin has resulted in dramatic reduction in H2S induced corrosive conditions within MLS wet wells, upstream LSs and gravity systems. Adjusting chemical dosing to reflect individual MLS basin sulfide generation dynamics related to seasonal flow/wastewater temperature changes, significant storm events, addition of new LS & MLSs, altering existing LS force mains, and collection system maintenance activity is an ongoing operational goal/challenge for MCU staff, their consultants, and O&C service providers. Tools and processes developed to facilitate ongoing optimization of the O&C program will also be presented.

The Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works (AACo) owns and operates seven (7) Water Reclamation Facilities (WRF): Annapolis Water Reclamation Facility (AWRF), Broadneck Water Reclamation Facility (BNWRF), Broadwater Water Reclamation Facility (BWWRF), Cox Creek Water Reclamation Facility (CCWRF), Maryland City Water Reclamation Facility (MCWRF), Patuxent Water Reclamation Facility (PWRF), and Piney Orchard Water Reclamation Facility (POWRF). The plants are distributed throughout Anne Arundel County, as shown in Figure 1, and range in size from approximately 1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 15 mgd. AACo maintains a contract with a single full-service provider (FSP) since the early 1990's who manages the entirety of the county's biosolids output. The FSP is responsible for operating the dewatering and Class B alkaline stabilization at AWRF, BNWRF, BWWRF, MCWRF, and PWRF; transporting liquid, unstabilized solids from POWRF to the PWRF; and processing a minimum of 25% of the total volume of unstabilized cake to meet Class A/EQ standards. The Class A/EQ requirement is being met by processing all the solids generated at CCWRF to meet Class A/EQ standards. Class B alkaline-stabilized biosolids are transported to a long-term storage lagoon or to permitted land application sites in Maryland, Virginia, or Pennsylvania. AACo maintains no on-site storage for dewatered cake, requiring off-site transport to storage, beneficial use, or disposal each day dewatering processes operate. To meet the Class A/EQ requirement, unstabilized solids are transported by the FSP to the FSP's Watershed Resource Center for processing via alkaline addition and pasteurization. In the face of current regulatory trends, diminishing end-use outlets, and emerging biosolids treatment technologies a new, holistic approach to managing the County's biosolids is being developed in collaboration between County staff and Hazen and Sawyer. The intent of this project is to develop a long-term biosolids management plan that will address these challenges, and was approached through four unique phases: initiate phase, comprehend phase, explore phase, and converge phase, as shown on Figure 2. 1 - Initiate phase: the project team investigated all of AACo facilities and operational data to understand the existing conditions of each WRF and their operational metrics. Then an end-use market study and regulatory assessment was conducted to build a comprehensive market assessment that would inform the next phase. 2 - Comprehend phase: a set of screening criteria and associated weights were developed, in a collaborative process with all project stakeholders, through a series of stakeholder engagement workshops. The weighted criteria would be subsequently utilized to rank and score biosolids management options against one another. 3 & Explore phase: An evaluation of regionalized and/or centralized location for the biosolids processing alternative. 4 & Converge phase: To maximize flexibility for the County, a trigger-based roadmap was developed that outlined the best possible biosolids management track should one of several no-go criteria be satisfied. To this end, the Masterplan was structured in such a way that a maximum of capital dedicated to a previous management track be shunted to the new, alternate track, that would circumvent (subvert?) the no-go trigger. Hazen and AACo worked and is working collaboratively through the project to develop a long-term solution for AACo. Some of the major challenges AACo faces include: - Large distances between WRFs, as well as locations of WRFs in relation to residential areas limiting the location for a Centralized/regional facility. - Potential long-term unsustainability of land application related to current and future regulatory trends. - Land-application Issues in MD/Chesapeake Bay. The world of options of potential biosolids management alternatives which will be evaluated as part of the project include: Gasification/ pyrolysis, Anaerobic digestion, advanced anaerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion coupled with thermal drying, third-party, composting, and thermal drying. In order to score and rank the alternatives against one another a set of criteria were developed which include: Technical, Economic, Environmental, and Social. A weight is assigned, as determined by AACo, to each criteria to allow for scoring and ranking. To address regionalization, a multi-facility tool has been developed. The tool is capable of tracking solids from various plants to singular or multiple outlets while also varying the type of treatment alternatives. The tool also tracks green house gas emissions and costs, providing a user-friendly dashboard of the findings. Additionally, a tool is being developed which will serve as a digital twin of the selected alternative. The digital twin will be capable of tracking energy and solids through a user-friendly dashboard. The project will be complete by the time of the presentation and will be presented by both AACo and Hazen. The presentation will provide a clear, concise path for master planning for utilities with multiple facilities.

Collection systems and treatment facilities serve as an important environmental line of defense against wastewater contamination of groundwater and coastal embayments. With more intense and frequent storm events and rising sea levels, many communities are facing an increased risk to critical wastewater infrastructure from flooding and storm damage affecting critical wastewater infrastructure (Figure 1). This presentation will use case studies for collection system infrastructure along multiple types of waterbodies to discuss flood resilience measures being evaluated and implemented in Southeastern Massachusetts. The case studies discuss collection system infrastructure along:
Complex coastal estuarine shorelines
Open ocean
Tidally influenced coastal ponds
Inland river flood plains
The presentation will also focus on how these communities are incorporating accommodations for projected changes in storm intensity and frequency into flood resilience evaluation, design and construction. A brief description of each case study is summarized below. Town of Wareham (complex coastal estuarine shorelines) - The Town of Wareham is a coastal community with over 54 miles of coastline. Hydraulic constrictions caused by the complex coastal estuarine system results in high anticipated flood levels, up to 21 feet above mean sea level. The Town recently completed a 'Risk and Vulnerability Assessment', which provided them with a valuable tool to quantify the anticipated costs borne to the Town and its citizens if any vulnerable pump station failed during a 100-year storm event. The assessment allowed the Town to prioritize which of its many competing coastal resilience wastewater infrastructure needs to address first. Building on the findings of the Assessment, the Town is proceeding with the design of coastal resilience mitigation measures for three pump stations which were among the highest priority stations because they serve critical infrastructure (a hospital, fire department and police department). Coastal resilience measures incorporated into the design include the use of flood planks, structural reinforcement of existing structures (Figure 2), sealing potential water entry points and installation of emergency bypass connections (Figure 3). Additionally, following multiple Nor'easter storms in 2018 that exceeded the regional 40-year flood stage record, the Town conducted an evaluation of the impact of anticipated increased rainfall from more frequent and intense storms on the infiltration/inflow entering its collection system. The repetitive, consecutive nature of the 2018 storms elevated the groundwater table, producing more head pressure in the gravity collection system and dramatically increasing infiltration rates entering the collection system and being conveyed to the Wareham Water Pollution Control Facility. The Town is currently completing final design of retrofit measures recommended by the I/I projections evaluation (Figure 4). Town of Oak Bluffs (infrastructure exposed to the open ocean) -The Town of Oak Bluffs is a coastal community on the island of Martha's Vineyard. Its three vulnerable stations serve over 90% of the Town's sewered population, including many residences and the Town's primary commercial district (Figure 5). The Town recently completed the construction of mitigation measures to increase the coastal resilience of the stations through installation of a new emergency generator on a raised platform (Figure 6) and relocation of critical pump station equipment outside of the flood zone. Town of Chatham (tidally influenced coastal pond) - The Town of Chatham is a coastal community on Cape Cod. One of the Town's wet pit/dry pit pumping stations (Mill Pond) is located at the base of a tidally influenced coastal pond; updated FEMA flood maps show that the location is vulnerable to storm surges and flood events. During the Mill Pond Pumping Station Upgrade design, multiple flood protection measures were incorporated to increase the coastal resilience of the station. These measures include the establishment of a design flood elevation for the project which incorporates anticipated effects of sea level rise, installation of hydrophilic water stops and a flood proof entry door with stop blocks to provide flood mitigation measures (Figure 7). Town of Uxbridge (inland river flood plain). The Town of Uxbridge is an inland community in Central Massachusetts. Since construction of its centralized collection system the Blackstone River flood plain maps have changed and recent storm events have indicated that one of the Town's major pump stations is now vulnerable to the 100 year flood storm. During one storm event water was observed entering the station's wet well through conduits and rising within a couple inches of the top of the entrance tube (Figure 8). Additionally, the existing generator room was flooded, rendering equipment in the room inoperable during the storm event. The Town is currently constructing mitigation measures to increase the flood resilience of this equipment, including raising vulnerable infrastructure above flood levels.