Abstract
One of the lessons that the Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources (GCDWR) GCDWR has learned is that clear communication is paramount in the effective operation of a utility. Field Operations must talk to Facility Operations, the field crews must talk to the engineers, and administration needs to stay in contact with the regulators. Further, messages needs to be clear and consistent among all of these parties to make sure that the utility moves forward efficiently in its maintenance and operations.GCDWR credits the performance of the utility today on a variety of programs that have been implemented over the years. This is not an overnight success story, and it has not occurred without its share of missteps. GCDWR has developed many programs over time, and those that were found to be beneficial to the County have been documented to assure that they can be continued efficiently into the future and provide a basis for continuing improvements. Those programs that did not work well were modified or eliminated.GCDWR had been performing many of the well-recognized aspects of asset management long before the term was being applied to these principles. The utility has been mapping the location of its structures and inspecting the condition of pipes since the 1990s. Preventive maintenance has been added in more recent years. However, the activities of different groups within GCDWR were not always well coordinated and the responsibility for programs often shifted, reducing the efficiency of those operations in the process. It became obvious that to maintain clarity in the operation and management of the utility’s assets, the processes for assessment, maintenance and operation should be well documented and responsibilities should be clearly defined. Following the explosive growth of the County in the 1980’s and 1990’s, this need became clearer, and the utility launched an aggressive program to develop a well-defined and documented asset management program in the early 2000s.GCDWR set up a workgroup dedicated to bringing asset management to the utility. This group was charged with investigating effective techniques, determining which of those methods were appropriate to the system, and then incorporating them into the County’s operations. One of the earliest efforts along this path was the development of a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP). It was a good introduction to asset management for the utility and showed how this holistic management philosophy could benefit operations. The SAMP answered several of the basic questions that the administration of the utility needed to understand and set the foundations for a more detailed program. The SAMP included a summary inventory of assets and set levels of service. It also provided the utility with a common language for different groups to communicate effectively and find more efficient ways of working together to protect and extend the useful life of assets. In other words, it was a good start.Gwinnett County entered into a voluntary Consent Agreement with EPD in 2003 with the intent of maintaining clear communication and a positive, cooperative working arrangement. As part of that agreement, GCDWR developed a Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) program that outlined collection system maintenance activities. The CMOM covers all of the aspects of the collection system including staffing, organization, design standards, capacity analysis, existing inventory, funding, overflow response, routine inspection, preventive maintenance, and repairs. The CMOM documented many activities and programs that were already underway and created others that added value. The development of this program and the documentation of on-going processes forced GCDWR to perform a critical examination of how the utility operates and what could be done better. The CMOM also includes an auditing process that requires the utility to review and reassess activities annually to avoid falling into complacency and assure regular contact with EPD.In 2011, GCDWR decided that although the SAMP provided an excellent introduction to the concepts of asset management, it did not provide sufficient detail for implementation of many of the concepts it contained. To advance this strategic plan into an implementable field program, GCDWR initiated a new division called Operations Technical Services (OTS). This group was comprised of analysts and engineers who were charged with developing a more detailed plan for applying asset management techniques to Field Operations, which is the group responsible for the maintenance and repair of all of the water, sewer and stormwater pipes and appurtenances in the County. Once again the utility discovered the necessity for open lines of communication.During the development of the Tactical Asset Management Plan (TAMP) the OTS group found that there was ample opportunity for the different groups with GCDWR to come together and create more effective and efficient processes. Engineers and field crews were pulled into the same meetings and each group was given the chance to add their experience and training to the discussions. In this manner, programs were created combining good engineering judgment and sound planning with the practicality of field implementation. OTS was also able to find better ways to use the data contained in the County’s Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) to drive programs and inspections. Although “collecting data is not enough” may sound obvious, it describes a trap that many utilities will fall into. DWR was not immune. During the review of the utility’s programs it was found that a tremendous amount of assessment data was being collected, but that data was not always being effectively used to enhance inspection and maintenance programs.One example of how operations were improved through data analysis is the refinement of the sewer cleaning or hydrojetting program. Originally, the SAMP set a goal to clean 400-miles of gravity sewer pipes every year. This goal was set based on an arbitrary percentage of the system length of fifteen percent. Further, it did not outline how to identify which pipes should be cleaned or how such cleaning should be prioritized. Over time Field Operations staff made a list of pipes in the system that had previously had at least one overflow or backup. This list contained 70 pipes and was kept on a simple spreadsheet, but it was skewed by the perception of the field crews. OTS started with this list, but then researched the work order history of the sewer cleaning crews. It was found that there were actually over 400 pipes in the system that required regular cleaning, but often the pipes were cleaned by different crews, so they were not perceived as problems and had not made it on the list. These pipes were each analyzed individually to determine the historic frequency of back-ups, then repeating work orders were set in the CMMS to clean them before that frequency. Pipes were also evaluated using CCTV to ensure they did not have defects which could cost-effectively be eliminated.Although this list of recurring work orders provides a level of protection against recurring back-ups, it does not extend protection to other pipes. Therefore, a similar analysis was performed using the historic reports of back-ups and sewer overflows since 2008. Engineers and field crew leaders working together determined that a large number of these events could be tied to certain conditions. For instance it was found that 60% of the overflows and back-ups occurred on two pipe materials, vitrified clay and reinforced plastic mortar, which comprise only 25% of the system. Further, a spatial analysis identified a few geographic locations in the County that showed a higher rate of occurrence. As such, GCDWR has begun a new cleaning program that concentrates cleaning efforts on these two pipe materials — starting in the areas of highest historic overflows. This level of cooperation between the field and technical staff is vital to developing programs that are well-planned and actionable.The development of the TAMP also provided the opportunity to review other programs such as CCTV inspections, critical crossing inspections, and air release valve maintenance. In each case it was found that there were efficiencies that could be made and opportunities for improvements. By working with diverse groups and documenting these reviews, GCDWR was able to justify and gain support for changes to the programs. For instance, break history analyses and condition assessment scoring for the sewer mains led to a better understanding of useful service life expectations and also highlighted areas that should be addressed by capital improvement projects. Further, scoring based on the inspection program provided a qualitative basis for prioritization of the projects once they were developed. Similarly, following a complete inventory effort for critical creek crossings, OTS was able to prioritize locations based on their condition, and adjust their inspection schedule accordingly. Several capital improvement projects have been identified based on these crossing inspections prior to a spill occurring.During the development of the TAMP, it was also found that the inspection and maintenance of the force main air release valves was less organized than originally believed. Some ARVs were getting frequent maintenance even though they showed little deterioration, while others were found to be completely blocked with grease due to inadequate service. By using planner / schedulers to lay out more efficient service routes, DWR has developed a program for one crew to address all 660 valves at least annually.Finally, one of the more critical aspects of keeping a utility out of trouble is communication with the residents and customers in the utility’s service area. GCDWR has developed an aggressive Fats Oils and Grease (FOG) program with a dedicated staff. One of the primary goals of this program is to reduce the amount of clogging materials released into the collection system. The program combines ordinances and education to achieve this goal. GCDWR’s ordinances include requirements for properly installed and maintained grease traps and industrial pretreatment. Currently restaurant grease traps are inspected twice annually. However, the reduction of FOG from residential customers has to be achieved primarily through education. GCDWR recognized that few of the customers served by the utility understand the impact that they can have on operations and subsequently on the environment. Several staff are tasked with the preparation and presentation of information specifically targeted toward educating the public on these important issues. GCDWR has also recently added flushable wipes to the information provided by this group. GCDWR regularly attends school events, HOA meetings, and business gatherings to present information on how customers can reduce their impacts to the utility’s system and how these changes to their behavior can benefit them and the environment.To avoid a Consent Order, effective asset management must be implemented in the field. This can only be achieved through proper resources and effective communication. This communication must be both internal, between field staff, data analysis staff and engineers, and external, to customers and regulators. Diverse teams must be involved to develop assessment and maintenance programs based on the information collected in the field. Field crews must be informed of the importance of the data they collect and the work that they do and reminded that they are protecting public health. Programs, processes, and lines of responsibility must be documented to ensure efficiency and consistency. Staff and management must be aware of this information and be able to find it when needed. Customers must be educated to improve their understanding of how they can reduce impacts to the collection system. And finally, when working with regulators, staff must be open and transparent.
One of the lessons that the Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources (GCDWR) GCDWR has learned is that clear communication is paramount in the effective operation of a utility. Field Operations must talk to Facility Operations, the field crews must talk to the engineers, and administration needs to stay in contact with the regulators. Further, messages needs to be clear and consistent among...