Conference Papers

There is a biosolids crisis occurring in New England, and one method for mitigating the effects of the crisis is to form an alliance to develop a regional biosolids solution. Such a solution is in progress amongst three utilities in New England who have committed to a study that evaluates the feasibility of a regional solution. The Study is especially timely, as the recent 2023 NACWA PFAS study on biosolids costs indicated: proactive biosolids management solutions lead to a more manageable cost when compared to a reactive approach to find a solution after regulatory drivers mandate action. These utilities seek to uphold their fiduciary responsibility to their customers and each bring distinct drivers to the New England Regional Biosolids Study (the Study). While one utility may be motivated purely by the economics, others may be driven based on Renewable Energy production goals that have been implemented by their State government. These drivers have an influence on how these analyses are framed and which data are most appealing for other stakeholders whose approval is essential for the Study to come to fruition as built infrastructure. The process for the Study includes activities such as a regulatory investigation, baseline costs, market and value chain study, siting alternatives, technology operating scenarios, cost evaluation, and non-financial evaluation. With this largely quantitative approach, the project team has grappled with the question of how to navigate through the complexities of different organizations that cross State lines to arrive at an agreeable solution that considers the quantitative and qualitative factors that drive this decision. Regulatory issues have become an increasingly difficult aspect of biosolids management in New England due the dynamic landscape. Many practitioners within this space around New England are aware of Maine's ban on biosolids application via LD1911 and proposed legislation in other states such as H.130 in Vermont which would place restrictions on biosolids end use due to microplastics pollution. This limits potential outlets and end uses for the processed biosolids product. This Study evaluated regulatory considerations not only in New England, but also neighboring territories such as Montreal who also imposed a ban on importing US-generated biosolids during the course of this project. Critical rules such as this further push utilities to find a solution, as they impose increased management costs for biosolids and residuals due to further restrictions on already strained outlets. With an understanding of the current state of regulatory issues documented, the team sought to establish baseline cases for each of the four facilities included within the Study. This task collected sludge loading for calendar years 2017 through 2021 to establish the current year, and projected expected sludge loading through year 2028 to determine future year conditions. The findings indicate the average and maximum month sludge loading are estimated to be 440,000 and 530,000 dry pounds per day, respectively. After the baseline costs were established, the project team completed a series of screening activities to evolve from the world of biosolids technology options to three proposed operating scenarios. The three operating scenarios that were proposed include the following technologies: THP, anaerobic digestion, incineration, and direct drying. Preliminary sizing was developed for the proposed operating scenarios to determine equipment sizing. From the equipment sizing, the preliminary site layouts and costs were established. The methodology and conclusions from this quantitative analysis will be shared during the presentation. The qualitative portion of the Study included non-financial evaluation of social, environmental, and technical aspects of the project. The decision criteria considered and debated amongst the project team which included the utilities, technical advisory committee, and consultants. The methodology for arriving at the final ranking included pair-wise ranking of the criteria as a group and ranking the criteria in order of importance by each utility. The pair-wise and order of importance rankings were averaged to arrive at an overall rankings that were used for developing scores for each alternative in an effort to quantify which operating scenarios allowed the utilities to satisfy more of the drivers that inspired the Study. The process utilized for this Study invited greater collaboration and allowed for consideration of all important aspects of the project, both financial and non-financial. Additionally, it covers not only the technical aspects of this Study, but also the qualitative criteria. This well-rounded approach provided learning opportunities about how consensus and collaboration were pivotal to progressing this project to the next phase. This presentation will cover the main milestones and deliberation amongst the project team to arrive at the recommendation for the main question: is regionalization the solution for biosolids in this area?

Like many agencies, DC Water is committed to further operationalizing and elevating equity in its capital investments. Some stakeholders have asked for a 'spending per neighborhood' analysis to verify that equity is being considered. While this is an important checkpoint to show the benefits of utility investments throughout the service area, it's also an opportunity to dive deeper. Complex interconnected infrastructure of varying ages and risks requires a more nuanced analysis to provide affordable rates and inter-generational equity in customer experiences, supporting the needs of customers not only in the 20-year planning horizon but over the next 100 years. To support inter-generational equity, DC Water is using an analytical approach in an 'Equity in CIP Planning' tool that goes far beyond a simplistic evaluation of spending per neighborhood to dive into the details of customer experiences, connect those experiences with needed capital investments and operational improvements, and tie the work together with asset management to reduce risks and manage costs equitably and efficiently. DC Water's Equity in CIP Planning tool also creates a two-way communication link between operations customer requests and further engagement opportunities for customers to understand and give input in utility priorities. This paper details the analysis tools and methods DC Water has developed to provide a more in-depth analytical approach for equitable outcomes as well as the outreach and engagement tools for building community trust in the approach. As part of recent Linear Sewer Facilities Plans for Water Distribution and Sewer Collection Systems, DC Water sought to develop a tool to analyze and connect how customer needs relate to investments in the interconnected sewer and water systems. Equitable investments for sewer and water are not as simple as directing resources to a particular vulnerable neighborhood. Sewers serve watersheds and sewersheds, and water infrastructure is connected in pressure zones. Large diameter sewers and water mains as well as treatment facilities, pump stations and green infrastructure serve large areas of customers. Additionally, customers are not static. They may live in one area of the District of Columbia (District) and work or attend school in another area, meaning the customer experience of sewer and water services goes beyond a single service connection. Many investments in the sewer and water systems also benefit customers throughout multiple neighborhoods and wards of the District. How to reflect this complexity in our analysis and engage stakeholders in evaluating the results in a meaningful way is a question worth considering. In support of serving this complex interconnected system, asset management principles integrated into the Equity in CIP Planning tool allow the District to prioritize equitable outcomes while simultaneously supporting efficient investments to reduce risk where the infrastructure needs are highest. A key element is to ensure that customer experiences are sought out and included in Operations data in a way that can be analyzed and systematically included in CIP planning along with data on system condition and risk. This requires quality checking and geo-locating past customer concerns previously recorded in text fields and updating Operations approaches to data gathering for the future to use data more analytically. DC Water identified and is now working to implement a 'sweet spot' of infrastructure rehabilitation level to best support inter-generational equity. This will result in a six-fold increase in capital investments in the linear sewer facilities in the next 10 years, ramping up from approximately $160 Million invested in the last 10 years to over $1 Billion invested in the next 10 years. This increased investment is a catalytical opportunity to engage with stakeholders in relationship and trust-building that DC Water is spending ratepayer dollars in an equitable way to improve their quality of life. In order to further embed equitable infrastructure decision-making into its capital programs and operations, DC Water is focusing on analyzing and identifying potential inequities in customer experiences and evaluating those within the context of social and environmental vulnerabilities. The focus of this work is to protect the needs of the most vulnerable communities from impacts such as flooding and sewage overflows, transportation and daily life disruptions from emergency repairs, and water pressure and water quality that doesn't meet established levels of service. This work supports DC Water's BluePrint 2.0 Strategic Plan imperatives of Equity, Resiliency, and Reliability. DC Water also developed a pilot to provide a scoring 'boost' for local sewer and water rehabilitation and other projects addressing vulnerable customer needs using the Centers for Disease Control and US EPA Environmental Justice Index. As part of a commitment to ongoing learning and adaptive management, DC Water then performed an analysis of the need and benefit of the pilot boost approach for project prioritization on improving customer outcomes and experiences in higher vulnerability communities. By plotting and analyzing key performance metrics such as sewer line breaks and water line breaks per mile in each neighborhood ward and each vulnerability index area, DC Water mathematically evaluated if there are inequities in customer experiences that require using a boost to the prioritization score in certain areas. During the ongoing implementation of the Linear Sewer Facilities Plans for Water Distribution and Sewer Collection Systems, DC Water is using an expanded customer engagement process that utilizes the Equity in CIP tool to tell visual stories that connect between customer experiences and utility investments. The tool brings together Key Performance Indicators and planned capital projects as well as information for customers about how to have problems addressed. The goal is to build trust and two-way communication between customers and the utility so that the intergenerational equity investments meet customer needs and provide community uplift.

In modern water management, integrating system performance needs with stakeholder input is essential for effective capital planning. Parker Water & Sanitation District (PWSD) is completing a long-term water supply planning process. This presentation outlines the technical aspects of PWSD's approach, which integrated stakeholder input, water supply models, and a decision-support tool for capital planning. The process began with stakeholder workshops to establish objectives, assess system performance gaps, and define alternatives. Multi-criteria decision analysis was employed, allowing input from multiple stakeholders on evaluation criteria and capital plan alternatives that supported increasing water supply or decreasing demands through water efficiency measures. A non-proprietary tool, developed using the Microsoft Power Platform, enabled stakeholders to view how each capital plan variation met system performance metrics, organizational objectives, and budget constraints. Through a consensus-building process, commonalities across the alternative plans were identified, leading to a capital improvement plan that met system performance needs, diverse goals, and budget constraints. Unlike traditional methods that debate a single plan's merits, this approach allowed each stakeholder's perspective to be considered, resulting in improved buy-in, and a plan that is robust and defensible. The decision-support tool clearly demonstrated how each plan addressed needs and goals through embedded visualizations about system performance metrics. This data-driven approach has broad applicability and can serve as a model for other utilities undertaking similar capital planning efforts. PWSD's process represents a significant advancement in capital planning, emphasizing the importance of stakeholder involvement, technological integration, and a methodical approach. It provides a practical roadmap for other utilities, highlighting the role of digital technologies in modern capital planning for water management.

Facility Overview: South Platte Renew holds the distinction of being the third-largest Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) in the state of Colorado. Serving as a vital lifeline, it caters to the needs of over 300,000 residents and consistently processes an average of 20 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater. SPR's asset registry is a testament to its complexity and scale, comprising nearly 6,000 assets across multiple disciplines, encompassing mechanical, electrical, instrumentation and controls, structural, and fleet components. The diversity within this asset portfolio is further underscored by the wide-ranging age of these components, stemming from the original plant construction in the 1970s, complemented by significant upgrades undertaken during the 1990s and the early 2000s. This intricate blend of assets has introduced a formidable challenge for SPR, as it endeavors to strike a balance between the renewal needs of variable aging infrastructure with other process and regulatory capital improvement needs. Asset Management Background: While SPR has been performing certain asset management activities since its original construction, SPR's formal programmatic asset management journey started in 2008 with the acquisition of an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system. Since then, SPR has advanced its asset management program by launching a series of initiatives designed to enhance overall asset lifecycle health. These initiatives encompass recurring asset-focused programs, such as equipment rebuilds, tank cleaning, HVAC maintenance, valve exercises, and concrete repair and rehabilitation projects. In addition, SPR has integrated asset management principles into its capital projects through standard development and data utilization. This ongoing commitment to enhancing asset management practices reflects SPR's dedication to continually evolve and improve its approach to ensure the sustained health and efficiency of its vital infrastructure. The Challenge: SPR has diligently worked across various departments to develop data management and maintenance strategies to support the ongoing advancement of its asset management program. However, one thing that became evident to SPR was the lack of a cohesive and organization-wide strategy amid the ongoing tactical endeavors. The lack of understanding and inconsistencies in asset management practices among SPR staff posed a notable challenge. It was not well understood among SPR staff what asset management meant and what the overall goals and objectives of the program were. It was also evident that there were inconsistencies in how asset management practices were being performed. The Solution: To address the challenges faced, SPR embarked on the development of a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) which had a dual purpose. Firstly, it formalized asset management strategies and policies. Secondly, it actively engaged key stakeholders and nurtured an asset management culture within the organization. The SAMP encompassed critical components such as: Identifying and recruiting key asset management stakeholders across operations, maintenance, engineering, data analysis, and senior leadership staff Developing a clear vision, goals, objectives, and policies around SPR's asset management program Establishing programmatic governance, roles, and responsibilities Defining levels of service and key performance indicators Implementing risk-based renewal planning methodologies in consideration of an asset's condition, criticality, and redundancy Optimizing maintenance strategies Benefits Realized: SPR has already realized several benefits from the development and implementation of the SAMP. There is overall a greater sense of understanding of asset management among staff, there is excitement and the realization of value from asset management activities, and there is consistency and clarification on many procedures and activities. Through the implementation of a SAMP, SPR will also gain an increased resiliency in financial planning through transparent and accurate reporting, as well as operations and maintenance practices, allowing SPR to better maintain high water quality and maximize value to customers. Lessons Learned: SPR's asset management journey offered valuable lessons, including the importance of starting with simplicity and gradually building complexity, eliminating silos, and the foundational importance of thoughtful and strategic data management. The SAMP emerged as a concise, repeatable document that can guide any utility in creating an asset management framework. Key Value Points for UMC Attendees: This presentation by SPR staff and its external consultant will provide attendees with insights into SPR's asset management journey, including: Step-by-step guidance for creating a SAMP and its associated benefits Strategies to avoid single points of failure by sharing institutional knowledge The significance of fostering an asset management culture across an organization Transitioning from fragmented and inconsistent initiatives to a formalized organizational strategy The advantages of self-performing SAMP development in collaboration with external consultants The importance of building upon past successes and discarding outdated approaches to meet current and future programmatic needs. SPR's asset management story serves as a valuable case study, offering practical guidance and inspiration for utilities seeking to enhance their asset management practices.

1. Context The recent focus for improving Anaerobic Digestion (AD) has been on the acceleration or preparation of sludges to improve gas yields through the process. In this context, Severn Trent developed its interest in Orege's application, SLG-F advanced sludge thickening / sludge conditioning technology for boosting AD performance. Severn Trent and Orege agreed to a 4-month, 2-stage trial over the spring and summer of 2023 at Worcester (Severn Trent Water) STW to better understand the application of the technology at a commercial scale in the UK. This paper presents the experience of STW including installation & commissioning, process performance data across the whole wastewater treatment plant and the increase in biogas production and CHP output recorded during the trial period. The innovative sludge thickening / conditioning package plant incorporates the SLGTM (Solid-Liquid-Gas) process developed by Orege and has already been installed as plug-and play containerised systems in the UK either to replace existing sludge thickening assets or where no mechanical sludge thickening was carried out. 2. Introduction Anaerobic digestion is a process commonly used on sewage treatment works throughout water and sewage companies (WASCs) in the UK. Many of these digesters were built in the 1960's. Since then, population increase means that many of these AD plants are now at maximum design capacity. There is a reluctance to build additional digesters to deal with future growth as technology progresses, therefore new solutions must be trialled. Worcester STW is a prime example of this; the site was expected to reach its built capacity by 2028, with new permits introduced by the Environment Agency additional dosing needed to be included producing additional sludge, this meant the digesters would be at full loading by 2025. Worcester is a sewage treatment facility just outside the city of Worcester; it serves a population circa 100k. It is also a reception centre for sludge imports from satellite sites in the local area. All imports are accepted into three reception tanks and manually transferred to a pre-digestion tank. All primary sludges are thickened in the primary sediment tanks (PSTs). Surplus activated sludge (SAS) is thickened using two gravity belt thickeners. All sludges are pumped into the mixed, pre-digestion tank, before being fed to the digesters. The digestion for the site consists of two conventional digesters, each 2900m3 in volume. They are operated following the site HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) plan in order to ensure compliant cake for land application. The two CCPs for this HACCP plan are a minimum temperature of 34oC and a maximum feed volume of 161m3 per digester per day. As per Severn Trent standard, the digesters are mixed using biogas. 3. Methodology All onsite thickening during both phases of the trial was carried out by Orege SLG-Flosep technology (see figure6). SLGTM (Solid Liquid Gas) is a technology that has been developed and patented by Orege and is a sludge pre-treatment system which, using only air and polyelectrolyte, dramatically increases solid and water separation. The patented process is cost-effective and simple to operate. The Flosep is an optimised liquid/solids separation device that takes advantage of the unique characteristics of SLG conditioned sludge. Four thickening units were used onsite. Two of these units thickening a mixture of primary sludge and imported sludge. The other two units replaced the two belt thickeners that were being used for SAS thickening. All thickened sludge was pumped from these units into the pre-digestion tank before being fed to the digesters. Phase 1 consisted of analysing the impact of solely running SLG-F thickening units. Phase 2 consisted of phase 1, with the additional use of SLG-AD on the thickened SAS. SLG-AD consisted of an additional tank that recirculated the thickened SAS whilst injecting compressed air through two SLG units. The SLG conditioned sludge was then pumped into the pre-digestion tank. 4. Results & Discussion The impact of increased dry solids (%DS) on the digesters was analysed daily over the duration of phase 1. The analysis of the digesters can be separated into different blocks: digester control, biogas production and yield, and digester health. All results discussed are from phase 1 only. 4.1. Digester Control 4.1.1 TDS/day and OLR The %DS of the digester feed increased from 4.9% to 5.6% during phase 1. In the HACCP plan for Worcester, it states that the maximum feed volume is 161m3/day, the decision was made to continue to feed this volume despite the change in dry solids. This meant that the tonnes of dry solids (TDS) being fed increased. This took the TDS from 7.1TDS/d to 7.8TDS. (see figure 1) In parallel of the TDS, the Organic Loading rate was calculated and studied. The OLR baseline was 2.46kgVS/m3/d, this average increased to 2.78kgVS/m3/d. This increase is also due to the maintained volume feeding the digester at a higher DS%. Moreover, on some days the OLR was consistently above 3. With conventional digestion, the standard maximum OLR is 3kgVS/m3/d, as it was shown that a higher OLR can cause stress to the methanogens and therefore volatile solids destruction struggles to be done effectively. 4.1.2. Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) As mentioned, the maximum feed per digester at Worcester is 161m3, which is an HRT of 16 days. As the volume remained the same the HRT was kept consistent at 16 days. 4.1.4 Temperature and other parameters A temperature increase in both digesters was observed over phase 1. Temperature went from 36.1oC to 38.3oC; or 6% increase (see figure 3). This is partially due to the increase in %DS. Less heat energy is required to heat sludge compared to water. This increase in temperature was also sustained, and the site was able to turn off the diesel-powered boiler and solely rely on heat from the CHP. Other parameters such as pH, alkalinity and Volatile Fatty Acids were monitored and showed a healthy digester. 4.2. Biogas Production and Yield 4.2.1. Biogas Production An increase in biogas produced was observed from 4760m3/day to 6586m3/day, corresponding to +38%. In addition, when stable and consistent feed volumes of 161m3 per day were achieved the biogas production increased to 7048m3/day over a two-week period - an increase of over 48% compared to the baseline (See figure 4). This increase was due to two reasons. The first, is the increase in OLR. The second, can be believed to be due to the use of SLG-F for thickening. The biogas yield increased from 338.8m3biogas/TDS to 404.3m3biogas/TDS. If the increase in biogas produced was solely down to the increase in OLR, the amount of biogas produced per TDS would have stayed approximately the same. This suggests that there has been a change in the sludge characteristics. Sludge could have changed due to the sludge ratio. However, even with an increase in sludge volumes, the mass ratio still stayed around 60:40, Primary:SAS. 4.2.2. Methane Content There was no difference in the percentage of methane content in the biogas. It can be difficult to obtain an increase in methane production as it depends on the colonies of methanogens. 4.2.3. CHP Output During Phase 1 the CHP output increased by over 34% from a baseline of 9.9MWh to 13.3MWh. The MWh/TDS produced increased from 0.73MWh/TDS to 0.92MWh/TDS during phase one. The data used for phase 1 however, does not include any flare data so this figure is likely to increase. 5.0 Conclusions Phase one of the trial was very successful. The use of SLG-F for all thickening onsite increased the overall digester feed %DS by 0.6%. This increase in the dry solids allowed greater utilisation of the digester capacity, but also a greater overall plant capacity and the daily import for the site was almost doubled. The OLR increase and the thickened sludge characteristic change correlated with an increase in biogas production of 38%. Another benefit was the reduction in the need to run the diesel boiler; this had a significant cost saving. 6.0 Phase 2 The aim of phase two was to determine if the addition of SLG-AD, which consisted of recirculating the thickened SAS to two SLG units, would increase the biogas yield further. Unfortunately, in the early stages of this phase, both digesters experienced blocking and spills due to RAG. These blockages meant that the digester feeds continuously stop-started. The data collected from this phase of the trial was inconclusive. However, the biogas yield showed a positive difference compared to baseline (see table 1). 6.1. Phase 2 at Monkmoor STW Phase two of the trial is due to be replicated at Monkmoor STW, Shrewsbury later this year. Key words:, Thickening, Biosolids, Innovative, Anaerobic Digestion, Biogas, Methane, Sludge, CHP, Package Plant, Severn Trent, Orege, SLG, SLG-F.

Water infrastructure Asset Management (AM) is recognized as a long-game focused on realizing value over the entire life cycle of facilities. This presentation will showcase recent advancements for one utility in leveraging asset management activities to address long-range strategic goals, implement their 'work plan', manage workload and resources, and use simple dashboards to 'move the needle' toward achieving agency goals. King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) provides regional wastewater conveyance and treatment services to 1.9 million people over a 424-square-mile service area in Washington state. WTD's wastewater system includes over $4 billion of conveyance and treatment infrastructure assets. As with most utilities, WTD is challenged by aging assets, including: Treatment and pumping facilities largely built in the 1960s, consisting of over 55,000 pieces of equipment, instruments, and control devices as well as land and buildings. A system of nearly 400 miles of conveyance pipelines, some of which are over 100 years old. Aging infrastructure is a major driver for capital spending and Operations & Maintenance priorities, and WTD has had a formal strategic asset management plan (SAMP) in place for almost 20 years. Updated every five years, the SAMP includes strategies, objectives, and a Work Plan for achieving related goals. WTD updated its SAMP and its Work Plan in early 2019 and implemented an 'Asset Management Work Plan Dashboard' to help guide programmatic activities related to asset management. As with other utilities, WTD faces challenges moving asset management programs toward success, such as: People: Overcoming lack of resources Gaining trust and support from all levels of the organization Breaking down barriers and cultural resistance to change Making everyone feel invested and valued as an integral part of the AM program. Processes: Defining and standardizing business processes Identifying and implementing industry best practices Assessing strengths and weaknesses and leveraging failures as learning opportunities Developing a plan to execute based on findings. Data: Establishing line-of-sight from tactical action plans all the way through to strategic goals and level of service objectives. Creating progress and performance metrics for the asset management program and holding AM and other staff accountable for reaching targets. Transitioning from traditional work planning to data driven prioritizations. 2023 WTD Initiatives Asset management is best accomplished as an enterprise-wide effort that engages resources and business processes from multiple workgroups in an organization. It also produces the best results as a continuous improvement process in making thoughtful and purposeful stepwise competency and performance advancements, as illustrated in Figure 1. As part of the WTD approach, several new initiatives were prioritized in 2023 following the dashboard-based approach. The initiatives are reflective of similar high-priority asset management needs at other utilities, and include: Condition Assessment Key Performance Indicators and Level of Service Reporting Risk Assessment and Replacement Costs Technology Planning and Implementation Spare Parts Management. The presentation will detail how several of these initiatives are being implemented, challenges that are being addressed, and progress to date. Figure 1 King County's continuous improvement process, leveraging the asset management work plan dashboard. Dashboard Management Approach WTD has used a dashboard management approach to guide and manage asset management activities following the release of their 2018 SAMP Update to advance the WTD Asset Management Program. The 2018 SAMP identified over 200 discrete initiatives including near-, medium-, and long-term activities. The dashboard approach has allowed WTD to identify priorities, assign resources, manage task interdependencies, and forecast work products. The presentation will outline how WTD uses and updates the dashboard for the Asset Management Program. Figure 2 The Asset Management Work Plan Dashboard gives asset managers, supervisors, and leadership insight into the performance of the asset management program, and resource needs and availability. Condition Assessment Consistent with work plan priorities, advancing condition assessment programs was identified as a key element for WTD's Asset Management Program. A current focus is to develop a Condition Assessment Manual to coordinate condition assessment programs used by WTD and the workflow and decision-making processes. Specific condition assessment programs WTD relies on include: Critical Asset Condition Assessment oCondition / Performance Monitoring for Target Assets Life Cycle Programs oAge-Based System Replacement for Identified Assets and Systems Engineering Project-Based Condition Assessment oProcess/Facility-Based Comprehensive Team Evaluations Resulting in Project Definitions oCoating / Corrosion Assessment oRoofing Assessment Linear Asset Condition Assessment oVisual Inspection and Criticality Informed The primary feature of the Condition Assessment Manual is a workflow that identifies the data sources, condition rating approaches, and organizational responsibilities related to the various condition assessment programs. Aggregating and prioritizing the results of the coordinated condition assessment programs allows WTD to accurately characterize risk and facility rehabilitation and replacement activities to reduce risk to the utility. The manual also allows WTD to measure and track risk to manage programmatic asset management progress and communicate priorities and progress to the WTD workgroups. The condition assessment initiative also leverages the significant utility effort to implement a new Maximo Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) across the utility. The transition has included substantial technical and logistical challenges, but also provides the opportunity for data management changes. WTD is using this opportunity to look broadly at the data life cycle (Figure 3) and to take full advantage of the benefits of Maximo's new technology capabilities, including tracking condition data in work orders to support decision-making. Figure 3 Leveraging information across the data life cycle The presentation will review the technical and resource requirements for the aggregate condition assessment program and outline data collection, decision-making, and coordination between the various contributing condition assessment efforts. This presentation will allow asset management professionals to gain insights from WTD's successful Strategic Asset Management Plan. The intended audience includes: Utility leadership interested in improving level of service delivery and determining the best way to 'move the needle' through smart allocation of limited resources and competing priorities. Asset Managers looking for innovative ways to advance asset management initiatives and to communicate effectively with leadership and staff. Financial Managers seeking alternative methods for developing financial strategies and plans. Supervisors, operators, and engineers in charge of day-to-day activities that support asset management, looking for ideas on how to overcome common obstacles to implementing key asset management initiatives such as condition assessment. Participants will come away better equipped to develop tactical, actionable initiatives and tasks that will help advance a successful asset management program through a continuous improvement process.

Question: In your opinion, what does OWASA do exceptionally well? Answer: 'Allows users to track water usage and see what they're being charged for; service is top-notch. You can always reach someone at the office if you need to. Even emergencies seem to be handled well (ie water main break a couple years back).' Answer: 'Community service. I love how easy it is to include a monthly contribution with my water bill and help out others.' Answer: 'I appreciate OWASA's communication. They communicate very clearly when bills are due (and exactly when they'll be paid if using autodraft). Recently they were testing systems in my neighborhood with smoke and gave lots of notice, including diagrams about what they were doing.' In 2021, having accomplished much of what was included in its most recent strategic plan, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) began a comprehensive process to update its plan for the next five to six years. OWASA has a 35 square-mile service area in Carrboro and Chapel Hill in North Carolina and provides water and sewer service for 22,000 accounts. Guiding principles for the strategic plan update included actively seeking to engage the Board, staff, the community, and other stakeholders, including proactive outreach to gather feedback to include and consider diverse perspectives. This engagement included an intensive environmental and organizational scan, with activities such as stakeholder work sessions, departmental strategic priority setting, peer reviews, industry publication reviews, and four separate surveys, which collectively garnered thousands of responses. While the overarching process of updating the strategic plan is still underway, considerable data analysis of the community survey has been completed and will be the subject of this presentation. Stakeholder input is invaluable in gauging the community's perception of the utility, as well as the community's priorities and preferences. To gather community feedback, and to be sensitive to COVID restrictions, OWASA created a tailored, 16-question online survey, available in both English and Spanish. The survey was hosted on the Zoho platform and was extensively promoted using a series of outreach strategies, including a direct email to all OWASA customers (for whom OWASA had email addresses), bus advertisements, tabling at the library, neighborhood kiosk flyers, and repeated social media posts on Twitter, Facebook, and Nextdoor. Respondents were asked what words come to mind when they think of OWASA ('water,' 'sewer,' 'clean,' 'reliable,' and 'expensive' were top choices) and to rate their satisfaction with OWASA's performance in a number of different areas. The highest levels of satisfaction were in drinking water quality, service reliability, and communications, while satisfaction levels were lower in cost of service. A significant percentage of respondents (more than 35% in each category) indicated that they didn't know how satisfied they were with regard to OWASA's environmental protection efforts, commitment to sustainability, and water/wastewater infrastructure construction, which suggests that there are areas where additional communication may be helpful. One of the other survey questions that will be invaluable for the organization as it works to clarify its priorities for the next five to six years was around responsibilities. OWASA asked, in addition to remaining committed to providing safe drinking water, protecting the environment through wastewater treatment, and meeting state and federal regulatory requirements, what responsibilities customers believed were most important for the utility to focus on. The most common responses included adapting to the effects of climate change, enhancing efforts to protect regional water quality, and preparing for emergencies and cyber threats. Most notably, when asked if respondents would be willing to pay more to address those responsibilities, more than two thirds of respondents indicated that they definitely or probably would be willing to pay more. This information, along with other community, stakeholder, and employee input will provide essential context for OWASA's Board and staff as they continue to work to update the strategic plan. As of the writing of this abstract, OWASA is still in the first phase of our strategic planning effort: the organizational and environmental scan. In addition to sharing the findings of the survey, our presentation will include what staff and Board did with that information in the development of the strategic plan.

This paper is intended for a broad audience interested in sub-watershed level master planning. According to the Community Rating System (CRS) data released in April 2021 by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), 89.5% (1544 out of 1725) of all eligible CRS communities in the United States have a current CRS class of 5 or higher. Many of these communities have not improved their rating beyond Class 5 mainly due to the perceived limitation associated with the watershed master plan (WMP) credit. To address this barrier, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM), and Florida Atlantic University's Center for Water Resiliency and Risk Reduction (FAU CWR3) embarked on a project to create a framework and guidance for a standardized template for watershed master planning along with a web-based clearinghouse to assist in master planning at the sub-watershed level. The project developed two prototype WMPs (one coastal and one inland) which were reviewed by a CRS review team and determined to be creditable under the CRS 2021 addendum. These plans included detailed approaches to watershed characterization, policy frameworks, model ordinances, and collection of comprehensive curated data sets needed for modeling of Hydrologic Unit Code-12 (HUC-12) sub-watersheds (i.e. topographic data, groundwater/surface water/tides/sea level rise, soils data, land use/land cover, precipitation record, open space/impervious areas/waterbodies/wetlands, locations of stormwater infrastructure, natural resources, and demographics). In addition, FAU CWR3 developed a screening framework for open-source hydrologic modeling to estimate probability of inundation taking into account king tides, future land use changes, sea level rise, and various design storms. The inundation probabilities were then incorporated into an artificial intelligence tiered prioritization tool for implementation of mitigation strategies. This tool utilizes US Department of Revenue codes at the parcel level, potential economic loss, and repetitive loss properties. This paper will introduce readers to the resources and tools developed to make the watershed master planning process more streamlined and accessible to more communities. Furthermore, FDEM is planning to offer an incentive grant program in 2022 to stimulate more adoption of these plans in Florida to improve flood insurance discounts, and the authors will present more details about this program.

The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water) is repairing 6,200 linear feet of clay sewers constructed more than a century ago. The project is in Soapstone Valley, part of Rock Creek Park. The sewer system will be rehabilitated using hot water curing and a styrene-free resin. In July of 2021, DC Water proactively issued a Supplementary Standard Specification for CIPP adding requirements for air emissions. In June of 2022, during the construction phase, local elected officials passed a resolution urging the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) to require DC Water to obtain an Air Quality Permit for the CIPP work. DOEE required DC Water to submit an Air Quality Monitoring and Testing Plan (AQMP). A third-party contractor via the Water Research Foundation (WRF) will implement the Air Quality Monitoring Plan during CIPP installation. This study addresses worker safety, community safety, and the potential for air emissions during CIPP. According to the Safety Data Sheets (SDS), the resin material contains no Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). However, based on the review of the activator SDS, cumene and acetophenone are anticipated. Baseline samples will be collected. The research team will document the field conditions during air monitoring daily activities, site maps, corrective actions taken, and unusual field situations which may impact samples or sampling. An Action Level Response Plan was prepared, including clear protocols in the event concentrations in the ambient air or lateral sewers exceed acceptable levels. Daily results will be reported to DOEE and shared with the community. The final report of air quality monitoring will be used to inform future construction approaches and data gathering efforts. Eventually, the project will generate data for DOEE to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures in the District. With the implementation of the AQMP, DC Water hopes to ensure the Project is carried out in accordance with best practices aimed at mitigating environmental risks. Ultimately, the results of the study will provide broad value to utilities across the USA. This paper and presentation will focus on the regulatory framework that led to the AQMP and the air quality results.

The City of Austin has regularly tracked odor complaints within its major interceptor systems and has sought ways to reduce complaints. In order to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of head space air extraction for odor control within four of its large diameter interceptors, the City initiated a comprehensive fan test in early 2021. Large-scale tests of the impact of air extraction were performed in areas served by the City's Walnut Creek Interceptor (WCI), Little Walnut Creek Interceptor (LWCI), and Williamson Creek Interceptors (WICI) and the Crosstown Tunnel / (CTI), and Onion Creek Interceptor (OCI) systems. All are large diameter pipeline systems (diameters up to 96-inch) with headspace restrictions at downstream ends. Fan testing and monitoring was performed on five different combinations of extraction points and associated monitoring locations. For each extraction point, The City of Austin and its consultants selected a combination of upstream and downstream monitoring manholes to provide an indication of the zone of influence of the air extraction. The testing area included 34 separate monitoring locations along approximately 50 miles of interceptor. The purpose of the fan test monitoring was to provide data on headspace pressurization and hydrogen sulfide concentrations, and the variability of each over time, both under existing conditions and with air extracted from the sewer headspace. Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. (now Mead & Hunt) served as the prime contractor for the testing events, placing and maintaining equipment within the manholes for monitoring hydrogen sulfide and differential pressure, monitoring results during testing, and transmitting results to the project team on a daily basis. V&A Consulting Engineers, Inc. providing equipment, ducting, and personnel for fan operation during the tests. Differential pressure and hydrogen sulfide loggers were installed two days prior to starting the fan test at each location to establish baseline sewer pressure and hydrogen sulfide conditions. The loggers continued to monitor differential pressure and hydrogen sulfide during the two-day fan test, with most loggers transmitting data continuously during the test. Loggers were left in place at least six hours after each test was completed to ensure the system had reverted to normal conditions. During the two-day fan test, the fans were run over a range of airflows to provide a more accurate picture of the zone of influence potentially available within each interceptor. Two fan test locations were tested on the WCI: one at Balcones Park, and the other at Loyola Lane, located upstream of Balcones Park. The Loyola Lane test showed a zone of influence of at least 0.05 in-w.c. 16,000 ft upstream and 8,500 ft downstream of the extraction point. The Balcones Park test had a zone of influence 24,000 ft upstream. The LWCI test showed a zone of influence of 15,000 ft upstream. Testing on the CTI siphon Produced a zone of influence 75,000 ft upstream in certain areas. Testing on the WICI showed a zone of influence of 20,000 ft downstream on the OCI and only 10,000 ft upstream. This paper presentation the test methodology and results, and presents lessons learned and considerations that should be incorporated when choosing fan test extraction and monitoring points for testing. Extreme weather conditions were presented during part of the testing by Winter Storm Uri. The experience of running the test and having instruments in place through the extreme weather event will also be discussed.

Everyone has to do it. Few talk about it. It's one of those things you do the same way you did it last year, the year before, and the year before. Open last year's CCR, update the figures, send to your subject matter experts for a quality check and it's off to the printer and mail house. Your job is done, and you've complied with EPA Regulations. A couple weeks later, a customer opens their mailbox to find an oftentimes visually bland and unappealing letter from their water provider. If U.S. Postal Service statistics are correct, it's competing with nearly 500 other marketing pieces and catalogs that customer will get that year. If they even open it — and that's a big if — they'll notice from the first sentence that the language is overly technical, uses confusing industry jargon, and reads like a legal document. If you're lucky, they might scan the dense tables of figures, still without absorbing a single concept, and then give up. The next stop is the recycling bin. Utilities can do better. Many years ago, Charlotte Water's Public Affairs Division recognized that their CCR provided a rare opportunity to communicate with customers, enhance their brand, build relationships, and make human connections. Their annual Water Quality Report (WQR) was born. In 2021, Charlotte Water partnered with Raftelis to create a WQR that stands out among its competitors in the mailbox. Their piece focuses on two key factors that influence whether the report gets read or quickly recycled: design and accessibility. It's these same two factors that Raftelis focused on to create the winning entry to the Environmental Policy Innovation Center's Water Data Prize Competition last year. Both Charlotte Water and the Raftelis team saw the CCR not for what it is, but for the opportunity it delivers — a rare and critical moment to connect customers to the one thing they can't go without. This session will provide participants with ideas, insights, and guidance that can be scaled for use by the smallest utility with minimal resources to the largest utilities with maximum resources. Attendees will come away with a fresh eye on the old CCR, and the inspiration to turn this mandated report into a masterpiece.

This paper and presentation provides an overview and analysis of the interesting findings from the WEF MS4 survey, conducted over the past 3 years on a bi-annual basis. The survey has received a statistically significant level of response for each of the three years, and provides valuable insight to the challenges, successes and needs of MS4 stormwater NPDES Permit holders. The paper and presentation will provide an assessment of the data compiled through 2023. The nature of the questions included in the survey paralleled the six identified Stormwater Institute (SWI) objectives to ensure that information received can best enable efforts to meet the WEF SWI future of stormwater vision. Specifically, the survey included the following topic areas: 1.Drivers for MS4 Planning and Investment Decisions 2.Challenges for MS4 Programs 3.Information and Resource Needs for MS4 Programs 4.Preferred Information Sources 5.Annual Program Budgets and Budget Needs Some topic areas in the survey were covered in greater detail than other areas. For instance, the questions addressing item 3 above (Information and Resources Needs for MS4 Programs) covers a majority of the six SWI objectives associated with the Rainfall to Results vision, which requires a significant amount of questions compared with other sections of the survey. Also, it should be noted that the questions under item 5 (Annual Program Budget and Budget Needs) not only provides information on one key SWI objective (Close the Funding Gap), but also supports WEF's ongoing effort to enable the category of stormwater in the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Infrastructure Report Card©. An important first step in a maturing infrastructure sector is to better understand the fundamental challenges and needs. This survey and analysis represent this first major step in the stormwater sector, which is a field that is notoriously data-poor. By collecting metadata on the sector, this effort places a mirror up to the MS4 sector to identify the priorities that need to be addressed in the near term while allowing for planning for coverage of other areas in a long-term strategic fashion. Results in many areas confirm expectations, such as the strong motivation for investments in stormwater infrastructure associated with regulatory compliance, localized flooding impacts, and the restoration of water quality and habitat, as these are fundamental aspects of many stormwater programs. It is also not surprising that most MS4s (being caretakers of separate storm sewer systems) are not highly motivated by wastewater-oriented runoff-driven impacts. These results suggest a continued focus on regulations impacting the MS4 sector as well as addressing both water quality and quantity issues associated with separate storm sewer systems. A perhaps unexpected finding is the lack of priority noted by respondents regarding climate change dynamics that point to the need to highlight how changing precipitation patterns will impacts MS4s in the future. These education opportunities may be rooted in highlighting the impacts of recent episodic flood events, such as Hurricane Harvey in Houston and the occurrence of two 1000-year-plus storm events in a three period in Ellicott City, Maryland. Future water quality impacts are also evident, as recent studies show that the current approach to stormwater management infrastructure, which has been designed based upon an assumption of climatological stationarity, will become increasingly inadequate to address urban runoff volumes, rates, and associated pollutant loads in the face of climate change. The challenges for MS4s align more closely with expectations, as the survey respondents identified the need for funding, an evolving regulatory landscape, and aging infrastructure as high-priority concerns in stormwater programs. There is a clear thread that ties these topics together, as evolving regulations drive needs to replace aging and failing infrastructure as well as implement additional measures to address continued degradation attributed to runoff that is seen in many urban waters across the U.S. today. And these needs demand higher volumes of funding, which is a challenge in an infrastructure sector where an estimated 1/3 or less of all regulated entities have any dedicated source of revenue, regardless of the level of revenue generated compared with the identified current and anticipated future needs. A positive first step towards addressing the funding challenge is the formation by EPA of a Stormwater Funding Task Force, which is a result of early efforts by the WEF SWI and associated groups to advocate for greater focus in the area of inadequate funding in the MS4 sector. It is clear that continued efforts to address these top challenges are needed.