Results

WSSC WATER will commission the Bio-Energy project in Q1 2024. The Bio-Energy project will centralize WSSC Water's biosolids processing at the Piscataway WRRF, including thermal hydrolysis pretreatment (THP) and mesophilic anaerobic digestion to provide the necessary stabilization to meet regulatory requirements for a Class A biosolids product as well as produce valuable digester gas, which is converted to renewable natural gas (RNG) suitable for pipeline injection. See Figure 1 for an overall process schematic. The Bio-Energy project has fundamentally changed how WSSC WATER manages biosolids, allowing a focus on long-term sustainable end products with a Class A dewatered cake biosolids, and RNG suitable for pipeline injection and use as vehicle fuel. The project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and result in significant operational cost savings. But with these benefits comes one of the biggest challenges of the Bio-Energy Project - to treat the additional nutrient recycle loads that will be generated from sludge imported from the other WRFs and increased even more by THP and anaerobic digestion. Total nitrogen recycle loads from the Bio-Energy Project must be limited to ensure the Piscataway WRRF can maintain compliance with effluent discharge limits. Two ANITA Mox (TM) sidestream treatment reactors are undergoing startup concurrent with the digestion process to treat high ammonia filtrate from the Bio-Energy dewatering process. Managing nutrient recycle from filtrate generation in coordination with startup of both the Digester and Sidestream processes is essential to maintaining permit compliance at the Piscataway WRRF. Figures 2 and 3 present digester and sidestream treatment startup graphs. This presentation discusses the early challenges, successes, and lessons learned during concurrent biological startups of the anaerobic digestion and sidestream deammonification processes, as well as a reflective assessment of integrated startup plan assumptions and approaches presented during the 2023 WEF RBC. Phase 1 -Preparation and Seeding Commissioning begins with preparation and biological seeding of one digester and one sidestream reactor. Preparation of Digester 1 for liquid seed sludge import from the DC Water Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWWTP)(thermally hydrolyzed Class A). Lessons learned include: o Planning for and executing successful delivery of seed sludge during winter conditions. o Pre-heating digester to mesophilic temperature range. o Maintaining a Class A digester in preparation for seed sludge. Preparation of Sidestream Reactor 1 for seeded media from an operating ANITATM Mox process. Lessons learned include: o Delivery of annamox seeded media sludge during winter conditions o Conditioning of virgin media o Pre-heating reactor to annamox temperature range Phase 2 - Digester Ramp Up to Piscataway Load During initial digester ramp up, only Piscataway sludge is processed through the Bio-Energy process. Indigenous sludge from the Piscataway WRRF is thickened, screened and dewatered prior to THP. THP throughput is increased from 4 dry tons/day (dtpd) up to the full Piscataway load, approximately 16 dtpd, over 30 days. Lessons learned include: - Managing indigenous sludge management between THP and current pathway, while limiting increase in feed and overall organic loading. - Building volume in Digester 1 while maintaining conditions conducive to THP mesophilic community. Phase 3 - Sidestream Reactor 1 Startup and Initial Acclimation During Phase 3, THP throughput and digester feed is constant at the Piscataway WRRF load (16 dtpd). This period is used to build the volume under digestion, establish robust microbial communities in both digesters, and fine-tune operations prior to introduction of imported sludges. Digester withdrawal also begins during Phase 3 to generate filtrate to be used in the sidestream deammonification reactors biological startup. Lessons learned include: - Splitting contents between Digester 1 and Digester 2. -Dewatering optimization for thermally hydrolyzed digestate - Balancing digester filtrate generation with sidestream reactor capacity - Sidestream acclimation of annamox community in moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) mode Phase 4 - Sidestream Reactor 1 Acclimation and Reactor 2 Preparation Digester 1 and 2 continue building the volume under digestion, digester microbial communities, and fine-tuning operations during the 16 dtpd hold period. Sidestream reactor 1 influent ammonia concentration and load gradually increased, RAS recycle is initiated, and process is converted from MBBR to integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) mode. Sidestream Reactor 2 prepared for startup. Lessons learned include: - Managing Filtrate EQ Basin for nutrient load equalization and solids capture prior to introduction to sidestream reactors. - Sampling campaign to target biological startup concentrations and mass loading conditions. - Dilution water adjustments to meet competing biological needs. - Maintaining bypass flexibility and nitrogen recycle limitations to plant headworks. Phase 5 - Increased Digester Loadings, Sidestream Reactor 1 Fast Acclimation and Reactor 2 Initial Acclimation After the digester 16 dtpd hold period, sludge import from the four remote WSSC Water WRRFs was initiated to increase sludge to the Bio-Energy process. Both digesters reach normal operating level, and digester withdrawal is carefully managed to ensure filtrate does not overwhelm the sidestream reactor treatment capacity or exceed total allowable Bio-Energy recycle limits. Lessons learned include: - Growing sidestream treatment capacity to meet full load from digesters. - Impacts to filtrate quality and sidestream treatment during digester upsets or dewatering issues. Phase 6 Steady State Digestion and Sidestream Deammonification Phase 6 begins as the Bio-Energy process reaches full loading, with all indigenous and remote sludge being treated through THP and digestion. Both digesters will be in steady state operation. As Sidestream Reactors 1 and 2 complete ramp up to full treatment capacity; startup will be complete, sidestream will be in steady state, and final operation and performance testing will commence. Lessons learned and a high level assessment of integrated startup plan assumptions and approaches presented during the 2023 WEF RBC include: o Digester in-tank characteristics o Volatile Solids Loading Rate vs. Hydraulic Loading Rate for feed control o Volatile Solids Reduction o Nitrogen recycle o Biogas production o Sidestream removal efficiency o What went right and what would we do differently next time? o Recommendations moving forward. Conclusion Sidestream deammonification is critical to the successful implementation of WSSC Water's Bio-Energy Project, mitigating the impacts of increased nutrient recycle from THP and digestion and imported sludge from WSSC Water's remote WRRFs. The stability of the concurrent biological startups of sidestream treatment and digestion are critical to meeting nutrient recycle targets and ultimately effluent discharge limits, all while maintaining an advantageous startup and commissioning schedule. This presentation will share practical 'how to' lessons learned from the startup as well as a review of theoretical assumptions made during the planning phase vs. observed results to help inform future work.

This paper and presentation will survey and analyze the latest lawsuits and regulatory developments affecting the beneficial use of biosolids to provide wastewater and residuals professionals current information that will help inform their decisions on risk, liability, management, and planning. Slaughter and Silton regularly defend land application in litigation, and they are currently working on behalf of a major land application contractor-and its farm partners-to challenge a Pennsylvania locality's attempt to restrict land application. The speakers will discuss the challenges posed by local ordinances, tort litigation, and the ongoing campaign to regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This talk will outline potential risks, while also highlighting potential strategies for managing land application and discouraging attacks on beneficial use in the face of a changing legal environment and local communities that may be hostile to land application. Slaughter and Silton will first address the interplay between state and local regulation by exploring several case studies involving local attempts to restrict or ban land application. Their discussion will cover California, where decade-long litigation over a local biosolids ban resulted in a trial and settlement striking down the ban. City of Los Angeles v. Kern County, 2017 WL 1292822 (Tulare Co. Super. Ct. Mar. 14, 2017). Among other things, the Kern trial resulted in findings that land application poses few risks after hearing evidence concerning minimal concentrations of PFAS in soil and groundwater beneath a farm where biosolids had been land applied for decades. The speakers will also address recent developments in other states, including Pennsylvania, where the speakers are currently challenging application of a local waste ordinance to land application. Second, the speakers will survey risks to land application posed by tort law suits. Cases in which plaintiffs' lawyers have alleged nuisance conditions caused by land application will be discussed, including the important decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Gilbert v. Synagro Central, LLC, 131 A.3d 1, which ruled that farming with biosolids is a normal agricultural operation entitled to protection under Pennsylvania's Right to Farm Act. The speakers will also discuss a case brought in Maine, Stoneridge Farms v. 3M, in which a dairy farmer alleges that land application resulted PFAS contaminating his land, groundwater, and dairy cows. This case was voluntarily dismissed but portends a new generation of tort litigation seeking to challenge land application. Third, the talk will assess the regulatory landscape for land application. Legislators and regulators, at the behest of many advocacy groups, have turned their focus to trace chemicals that may be found in biosolids, including PFAS. These efforts have included stepped-up efforts to designated PFAS as a hazardous substance for the purposes of the federal Superfund statute, a regulatory change that could pose risks to land appliers and POTWs. Silton and Slaughter will highlight recently regulatory developments and their implications for POTWs, biosolids service providers, and farmers. The presentation will conclude with how stakeholders in land application-POTWs, contractors, and farmers-can collaborate to reduce their risks and navigate a challenging, dynamic legal and regulatory landscape.

Water utilities across the nation are facing the challenge of doing much more with fewer resources. Face it, our industry attempts to recover mostly fixed costs from a mostly variable revenue source, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so, especially when you factor in affordability concerns. This is why it is so important for utilities to examine their other sources of revenue. System development charges (SDCs), or impact fees, are a common source of non-rate revenues for funding system expansions and/or improvements required to serve new users. An SDC is a one-time charge assessed to new development to pay for the capacity in the system required to serve them. They can also be assessed to existing customers requiring an increase in capacity. AWWA's M1 Manual, Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, 7th Edition (M1), provides a high-level discussion of SDCs in Chapter VII.2. To address the increasing interest in an expanded discussion of SDCs, AWWA plans to develop a new manual focused on SDCs and with sufficient detail to be truly helpful to a utility without experience implementing or updating SDCs. SDC BASICS Specifically designed to recover an equitable share of the cost of system infrastructure from growth, SDCs provide a source of capital funding along with user rates, debt financing, and up-front reimbursements from developers. SDCs assign the capacity cost of growth to those causing the growth rather than existing ratepayers. In addition, SDCs can recover a portion of the cost of improvements to the existing system if there is existing capacity available to serve new customers. Infrastructure commonly financed with SDCs include water rights, source of supply, treatment plant facilities, pumping, and transmission lines, sometimes collectively referred to as 'backbone' facilities. Water distribution mains are typically constructed by developers and therefore not usually included. A rational nexus must exist between the SDC amount and the costs associated with serving new users, whether or not the system needs to be expanded to serve them. According to the M1 manual, there are three basic methods for calculating SDCs: (1) the buy-in method, (2) the incremental cost method, and (3) the combined approach. Depending on the utility's goals, objectives, legal constraints, and financial circumstances, one method may be more appropriate than another. KEY TOPICS TO EXPAND ON The SDC chapter in M1 addresses several key topics, including the basic approaches to calculating SDCs and methods of fairly administering SDCs to customers with varying capacity requirements, at a very high level. A manual devoted entirely to SDCs will be able to expand on these topics, as well as many others, to give readers the additional detail they need to develop fair and equitable SDCs to enhance their revenue stream. The SDC manual will include additional examples to help readers understand the calculations for all components of the SDC. The new manual will explore eligible costs related to growth or capacity-related improvements to include as part of the capital improvements plan. Such topics as raw water supply capacity costs, regional transmission costs, interest or financing costs of eligible improvements, and debt service costs related to growth/capacity infrastructure for purchased water treatment services will be explored in greater detail. One key topic that the SDC manual will expand upon is the methods of assessing SDCs to different types of customers, particularly the advantages and disadvantages of each method to help a utility determine which method is appropriate for their service area. With development trends evolving to include accessory dwelling units, mixed-use (e.g. apartments above ground-level retail shops), single-resident occupancy units, and green/low-impact development, there is growing interest in standards for assigning equivalent units to these types of properties to ensure that they pay their fair share of system costs. Another key topic to be expanded upon in the new SDC manual will be defining system capacity. Because system capacity is not available in the same proportions throughout the various functional components of the water system (source of supply, treatment, pumping, storage, etc.) care must be taken to calculate the SDC component cost by functional cost component. This allows the utility to recognize variations in system capacity, system value, and customer capacity needs by functional area. The fundamental formula for calculating an SDC is: (System Value/System Capacity) X New customer capacity demands = SDC Summing the SDC functional component costs yields the water system SDC. The new SDC manual will examine some of the ways a utility can accomplish this task. NEW TOPICS TO INCLUDE The new SDC manual will include the following topics: (1) a summary of legislation by state, which varies widely; (2) guidance for SDCs regarding potential challenges and/or litigation; (3) administrative procedures and accounting requirements for SDCs; (4) land use assumption plans; (5) utilization of potential demand (capacity-based) versus estimated/actual demand (usage-based); and (6) incorporating major changes such as SDC process changes and definitions of Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). In addition, the new SDC manual will contain more step-by-step examples for the reader. OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION The presentation will provide a summary of SDC basics, including uses and methodologies for calculating them, as well as explaining the drivers behind development of the new manual. The presentation will provide examples of expanded and new topics and introduce the proposed timeline for developing and publishing of the SDC manual.

SUMMARY Using smart technology to improve asset management has become an essential part of managing wastewater collection systems, especially for aging systems with little to no historical data. As an Investor-Owned Utility (IOU), New Jersey American Water has a mixture of wastewater systems with different topographies, sewer pipe ages, and other physical challenges. Performance data is critical to understanding both the (daily) operational and longer-term investment needs for the collection systems. New Jersey American Water started its first (pilot) deployment of sewer monitoring technology in Lakewood in June 2020, using SmartCover© satellite-based sensors. The pilot was successful in reducing the number of annual SSO events from 12 to zero, and the monitoring platform provided valuable data for estimating levels of inflow and infiltration (I&I). The sewer monitoring program was expanded over the following 2 years, and there are now over 160 units deployed across 7 wastewater systems. New Jersey American Water uses the SmartCover© monitoring platform to accelerate the evaluation of new acquisitions, including rapid identification of critical I&I targets. INTRODUCTION — A GROWING NETWORK OF WASTEWATER SYSTEMS New Jersey American Water is the largest water service provider in the state of New Jersey, serving approximately 2.8 million people in 190 communities. New Jersey American Water currently owns and/or operates 30 wastewater systems with 21 wastewater treatment plants, 85 lift stations, and over 500 miles of pipe. Over the last five years, New Jersey American Water has invested over $105 million into wastewater system assets, including wastewater mains, treatment plants and lift stations, to continue to provide reliable and environmentally sound service that complies with federal and state wastewater environmental regulations. THE CHALLENGE — IMPROVING WASTEWATER SYSTEM INTELLIGENCE In efforts to minimize health and environmental challenges, New Jersey American Water works to identify and eliminate potential weaknesses in each collection system: -Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) -Inflow (stormwater) that rapidly flows into sewer mains due to faulty drains, connections, and manhole covers -Infiltration (groundwater) that seeps into the sewer system due to aging pipelines -Aging pipelines that are blocked, cracked, or broken -Potential system power failures -Insufficient system capacity -Blockages caused by customer usage While New Jersey is the 5th smallest state, it contains 4 different physiographic regions that includes coastal plains, mountains, and regions of dense forests and small rivers. This creates a set of challenges that differ across the following 7 wastewater systems owned by New Jersey American Water: 1.Bound Brook: Total lack of historic records 2.Egg Harbor City: Older system, with flat topography with pump stations and tidal influences (high ground water table) 3.Haddonfield: Major I&I issues, suburb of an older major NJ City (Camden) 4.Lakewood: First site to deploy sewer monitoring, system suffers from high population and undersized pipes 5.Long Hill Township: Hilly terrain, no additional connections permitted (self-imposed sewer bans), and wet weather flows increase treatment needs from 1 to 4 MGD. 6.Ocean City: Older system, surrounded by water, and prone to flooding (tidal) 7.Somerville: A recent acquisition with known SSO issues and a wet weather facility being built downstream by the County THE SOLUTION: SMART SEWER MONITORING TECHNOLOGY New Jersey American Water's operations and engineering teams work collaboratively to develop comprehensive capital investment plans and preventive maintenance processes. The utility's Comprehensive Planning (CP) process is used for both new acquisitions and existing systems. The team was searching for a technology to enable targeted analysis on their sewer mains, providing real-time data and alarming to avert sanitary sewer overflows, backups, and subsequent cleanup. The technology also needed to provide valuable data for I&I analysis to make quicker, informed capital investment decisions. New Jersey American Water chose the SmartCover© platform for a pilot in its Lakewood NJ system in 2020. The monitoring units provide real-time, low-cost level/flow data, and provide real-time alarms to dispatch crews before overflows occur. This eliminates both the environmental and community impacts associated with SSOs. The technology also incorporates both National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather (doppler radar) as well as United States Geological Survey (USGS) river/stream and ocean gauges. The platform enabled New Jersey American Water to understand the impact of extreme weather events across the entire Lakewood sewer shed, enabling more efficient use of capital by focusing on high-impact I&I areas as well as undersized pipe bottlenecks. THE PROOF: PINPOINTING HOTSPOTS LEADS TO IMMEDIATE ROI Large amounts of data are collected and analyzed daily, helping New Jersey American Water pinpoint problem areas in its 7 largest sewer systems. Critical repairs and targeted investigations, e.g., smoke/dye testing, are driven by SmartCover©. The sensors are now integrated with American Water's MapCall system, enabling operations team members an easy path to alarm management and work order management for field issues. In addition to preventing SSO events and identifying problematic areas in their sewer systems, the smart sewer technology has allowed the utility to better allocate resources for system maintenance, including: -Improved visibility allows site cleaning to be performed based on real-time trends -Personnel and equipment redirected to other projects delivers gains in productivity -Continuous monitoring between cleanings enables SSO protection and risk reduction -Less time in roadways results in crew safety -Fewer cleanings reduce pipe and structural wear to extend asset life The sewer technology has allowed New Jersey American Water to perform targeted analysis on their sewers, providing real-time data and alarming to avert sanitary sewer overflows, backups, and subsequent cleanup. Most important, the units are providing valuable data for I&I analysis to make quicker, informed capital investment decisions. It is a key tool in the utility's toolkit for collection system maintenance and replacements.

Since 2001, the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) has focused on water supply, wastewater, and watershed planning through an integrated Water Resources Management Plan (Plan) for the 15 counties and 95 cities that make up the Metro Atlanta Region. As part of the watershed planning efforts, the District has coordinated strategies to protect watershed conditions and manage stormwater in conjunction with existing regulatory requirements. However, despite these efforts, urban stormwater runoff remains a leading cause of nonpoint source pollution and flooding in the District, leaving watershed managers with ongoing challenges related to water quality, streambank erosion, and nuisance flooding. Historically, managers have focused on strategies to address water quality rather than water quantity, even though they are fundamentally linked. For these reasons, the District has developed a novel water quantity-based indicator, called the Stormwater Forecast (Forecast), as part of the integrated 2022 Water Resources Management Plan. The Forecast is a planning-level estimate of the total potential runoff management volume from development, calculated at the basin scale using site-scale post-construction stormwater performance standards. The calculation estimates runoff volume in cubic feet for three post-construction stormwater performance standards used in the District: Water Quality Volume (1.2-inch storm event), Channel Protection Volume (1-year, 24-hour storm event) and Overbank Flood Protection Volume (25-year, 24-hour storm event). The Forecast provides a planning-level estimate of runoff volume from all historical and existing development through 2019 (using the most recent USGS land cover data) and calculates future runoff volume through 2040.With this approach, the Forecast represents total potential runoff management volume from development with the potential to be managed by Stormwater Control Measures (e.g., stormwater ponds or bioretention basins) if current post-construction stormwater management standards were fully in place. The goals of the Forecast are to provide additional information for improved decision making at both the site-scale and basin-scale, to support a better understanding of overall needs, and to help generate new solutions and policies that address ongoing stormwater management challenges. Future use of the Forecast is intended to complement and support the implementation of existing water quality and flood reduction goals in the District. This presentation will focus on the basic framework of the Stormwater Forecast as well as an overview of the technical approach and future implementation.

Responding to the closure of the Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant in Saint Paul, Minnesota, the Capitol Region Watershed District and the City of Saint Paul, with the assistance of Barr Engineering Co., developed a sustainable stormwater feasibility plan for redeveloping the 122-acre property (the development is now known as Highland Bridge) along the Mississippi River. Prior to development in the 1920s, the site contained an intermittent stream, Hidden Falls Creek, that fed a waterfall (of the same name), which was buried in a pipe to facilitate the construction of the assembly plant. The study developed master plan concepts for managing stormwater. A decision support framework was developed to help the compare two stormwater management options for the site-a conventional approach with distributed underground infrastructure and a district approach incorporating a green infrastructure corridor. Each option was evaluated against the city's goals for stormwater management, sustainability, redevelopment, creek restoration, and place-making. In addition to a traditional cost-benefit analysis, the study involved a life-cycle cost and impact assessment that monetized socioeconomic benefits. The team assessed factors such as water quality and quantity; flood risk reduction; recreation and property values; and water, carbon, and energy footprints, which revealed that a green infrastructure corridor more than doubled the value of the conventional approach. In 2018, the property was sold to a local developer, Ryan Companies, and work began to design and construct the district stormwater vision. The BMPs are connected as a district system treating public and private stormwater, placed in publicly- and privately-owned park spaces or right-of-way throughout the site to expand the public realm. The final BMPs include 5 large biofiltration basins, 5 underground storage and filtration systems, 2 large rate control ponds, and a re-imagined Hidden Falls Creek. The project reduces total suspended solids by 94%, total phosphorus by 75%, and peak discharges to the downstream waterfall and stream channel by 98% in the 2-year event. The project will also include pedestrian connections that provide continuous access approximately ½ mile through the site along the stormwater features to the existing waterfall, ultimately providing connections to the Mississippi River. Construction of the stormwater infrastructure was completed in 2020-2021. The innovative project approach came to fruition through years of collaboration of public & private partners.

The City of Cumberland, Maryland is a city resting in the Appalachian Mountains on the western side of the state. The City operates the Cumberland Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), an advanced wastewater treatment facility with an annual average design capacity of 15 MGD to meet the needs of its ~20,000 residents. In 2008, the City started the solicitation process for a Heat Drying Facility (HDF) that would process all of the biosolids generated at the WWTP into a Class A EQ product for beneficial reuse. The treatment process at the time included Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) that was being upgraded to an Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) process, along with an Anaerobic Digester and Lime Stabilization process to treat their biosolids. NEFCO began operations of the HDF in late 2010 and operations went smoothly. In 2013, the City informed NEFCO that there would be an extended shutdown of the Anaerobic Digester for maintenance work. During most of 2013 and 2014, NEFCO processed undigested sludge from the WWTP through the HDF. It is no secret in the biosolids industry that the treatment of undigested biosolids comes with a long list of associated issues. Undigested sludge leads to highly variable feedstock quality that will impact both processing capabilities and product marketing options. The Primary Sludge will be more odorous, will contain a large amount of grit and trash, and has a fibrous nature that will significantly impact the quality of the dried biosolids. Facilities processing undigested will experience finished product with less size uniformity, low product densities caused by high fiber content, stronger odors from both dewatered sludge cake and finished dried product, and higher generation of dust. The undigested sludge will also increase wear on major pieces of equipment and limit throughput of the facility during periods of low density. These issues also coincided with an increased demand on the HDF, as there was no longer any solids destruction from the Digester. This led to a very challenging time for operations with a longer processing schedule, increased staffing, and frequent unplanned shutdowns. The NEFCO team developed approaches to handle these challenges, made it through these issues, and got back to regular operations once the Digester came back online in 2014. In 2020, the City again announced plans to shut down the Digester. However, this time it appeared that it may be a permanent shutdown as the City was struggling with the financial case to repair the Digester for reliable operation. Being a smaller facility, the savings from utilizing the biogas produced by the Digester was not enough to make for an attractive return on investment. Realizing that the approaches used in 2013/14 would not be sustainable for long term operations, NEFCO developed a plan to optimize the drying process to mitigate the issues brought on by an undigested feedstock. The team started by reviewing the data available from the 2013/2014 Digester shutdown and summarizing the processing issues from that period and what was done to address them. The team also consulted with staff in NEFCO's Detroit facility, which also processes undigested sludge, to prepare some lessons learned from their operations that could help with the adjustments in Cumberland. A plan was then developed which focused on a combination of operations and process equipment adjustments, evaluating the major solids handling systems that are part of the drying process and looking for ways to adjust their operation to address the bottlenecks. This included the centrifuge dewatering system, pugmill mixer, product screener, and crusher mill. For each piece of equipment, the team consulted vendors and reviewed O&M manuals from manufacturers to come up with a list of action items to be taken. This list of action items was then assigned to team members and ranked in priority to produce an overall action register to guide the efforts. By far the most important process-related task was to address the issues with the sludge feed to the centrifuge. The shutdown of the Digester had led to excessive amounts of trash being present in the sludge, which was frequently plugging the feed line to the centrifuge. NEFCO worked with their Corporate Leadership to expedite the procurement and installation of a grinder system to deal with this trash problem, which led to a significant improvement in plant operations. One of the greatest benefits of a biosolids drying facility is the final pelletized product, which has significant fertilizer and alternative fuel beneficial uses. There were still several product-related issues, dealing mostly with the poor size distribution and low density of the product. The team continued to work its way through the action register, making incremental changes that eventually began to show improvements. Some of the changes were counter intuitive to what might be expected, such as adjustments to the crusher mill. The crusher is meant to take the oversized portion of the product from the screener and bring them back down in size so that they can be recycled to the front of the process as part of the pugmill mix. The issue that came up in Cumberland was that after the Digester was shut off, the product became more pliable and would get flattened by the crusher instead of breaking apart. These flattened pieces would not mix well or be broken up in the pugmill, leading to an accumulation of them in the recycle bin that would then cause issues for the operators trying to control the level in the bin. The answer here came from the advice from the Detroit facility, which had experienced this in the past. They had increased the gap between the rolls in the crusher to reduce the number of pellets being flattened. It was initially thought that this would cause more issues, allowing larger pellets to make it to the recycle bin untouched. However, this change did have a positive impact on the product being sent to the recycle bin and helped the operators maintain their bin levels. This is just one example of a meticulous process to improve the plant's operations and quality of the final biosolids product. Similar efforts were put into reviewing the operation of the pugmill mixer and screener to try and stop pellets from getting too big in the first place. Figures 1 & 2 below show the significance of these changes, measured by performing a sieve analysis on the product stream before being screened. Throughout the process of working on these tasks, the operators of the plants diligently ran sieve tests on a regular basis, on top of their normal lab work, to understand how the changes they were making were impacting the product quality. The reduction in the amount of material on the #4 and #5 Tyler mesh screens was a major goal of the project that was able to be reached by the hard work of the team. A final achievement of the team was the increased throughput of the facility. Much of the equipment works more efficiently and effectively when operated at its design throughput, so through all the work put in to address the issues from the change to an undigested feedstock the processing capacity of the plant was pushed to a higher level than it ever had been. This has led to much more efficient utilities usage rates and other consumables on a per ton processed basis. The plant also now operates on a similar schedule to when it was processing digested sludge, a welcome relief to the dedicated operating staff at the HDF. The effort to address the change in the sludge in Cumberland has turned into a Continuous Improvement activity for the plant, and the team still regularly meets to work on improving operations at the facility. €ƒ Figure 1: Pellet Size Distribution from before Improvements, shown in % by weight retained on sieve screens measured in Tyler Mesh # Figure 2: Pellet Size Distribution (based on Tyler Mesh #) from after Improvements, shown in % by weight retained on sieve screens measured in Tyler Mesh #

Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the status of the City of Omaha's CSO program implementation and the development of their 2021 LTCP Update, providing information on the approaches and tools used to more efficiently comply with the EPA CSO Control Policy, thereby resulting in a reduction in the estimated cost of the LTCP. Background The City has recently completed and received approval from the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE) of its 2021 update to the original LTCP. In March 2021, the LTCP Update was submitted to NDEE, followed by approval on August 11, 2021. This latest LTCP Update includes changes to several of the previously planned CSO projects, which reduced the estimated total cost of the program. This reduction is in part the result of the City's 2018 modifications made to the Consent Order that provided until 2037 to complete implementation as well as clearly noted that the intent of the City's LTCP is to achieve 85% wet weather volume capture, providing a level of certainty. Current Program Status The presentation will discuss how the program has adapted. Implementation of the combined sewer overflow (CSO) controls in the 2009 LTCP started in the summer of 2009 and is continuing. The 2009 LTCP was updated in 2014, and more recently in 2021. The 2021 Update focuses solely on 85% volume capture to meet the EPA CSO Control Policy. This resulted in the 2021 Update approach being more cost effective and has been backed up by recent water quality modeling results. The 2014 LTCP Update included various types of controls including: - Targeted Sewer Separation - Underground Storage Tanks - Green Infrastructure - High-Rate Treatment Facilities - WRRF Plant and Conveyance Improvements - Deep Tunnel System The presentation will note that significant progress has been made in implementation of the LTCP with currently over 26 projects completed, 7 projects under design and 8 projects under construction. The City has spent approximately $775 million on the program through June 2021. This has resulted in modeled Wet Weather Volume Captures of: - 56% current wet weather volume capture in the Missouri River Watershed (71% capture after completion of projects that are currently underway) - 84% current wet weather volume capture in the Papillion Creek Watershed In addition, an approximate 50% reduction in the E. coli loading to the Missouri River from the CSOs has been accomplished through the completion of projects in the Missouri River Watershed. 2021 LTCP Update The presentation will detail how the modifications to the City's consent order in 2018provided the City with the regulatory certainty which resulted in the ability of the City to significantly reduce potential costs. The object of the evaluations performed were to comply with the EPA CSO Control Policy Presumption Approach, achieve ≥ 85% wet weather volume capture, meet water quality standards in the Missouri River, not preclude achievement in the Papillion Creek watershed, and document extensive evaluations to progress from current volume capture to 85% capture as required in the EPA CSO Control Policy. In addition, the presentation will describe the integration of the City's other significant infrastructure needs of the wastewater treatment facilities and collection system into the LTCP schedule in addition to incorporating the additional 10 years provided by Consent Order Amendment. The presentation will also describe the extensive Optimization Process that was undertaken to determine the appropriate controls to include the in the Updated LTCP. The process was based on a multistep process as noted in Figure 1. The evaluation was based on previous work, and involved a large effort using state of the art modeling tools such as Optimizer and InfoWorks ICM. In evaluation of the alternatives, one of the major elements was to choose an alternative that would not operate during river flooding but could help to reduce the effects of flooding. The outcome of the process is an alternative for the Missouri River watershed which replaces the originally planned Deep Tunnel System with other technologies including high-rate treatment, storage basin and active controls. In addition, the City performed evaluations which resulted in the demonstration that some planned projects were not necessary. Also, an innovation program to address infiltration and inflow in the combined system was developed which allows flexibility to the City to deal with issues that may remain after sewer separation. These will be described in the presentation. A description of the City's water quality modeling efforts will be presented. The City developed a water quality model based on the InfoWorks ICM water quality module. This model shows that the Missouri River will meet the water quality standard for E. coli in the Missouri River after implementation of the LTCP. The result of these efforts and other adaptive management measures has been a reduction in the potential costs of the Program from $2.4 billion to about $2 billion. Overall, the current estimated cost of the Program is actually less than what was originally predicted in 2009. Lessons Learned and Conclusion: The City of Omaha is committed to the implementation of the CSO LTCP. A tremendous amount of progress has been made, and many challenges have been successfully met. The presentation will explain how over the last couple of years, the City has performed evaluations and modified their LTCP in a manner that resulted in a reduction in the potential costs allowing the City to make necessary improvements to other infrastructure areas (wastewater treatment and collection system.)

The Multnomah County Drainage District (MCDD) is a small public agency that focuses on flood risk management and drainage within its service area along the Columbia River in the north Portland metro area. Like many special districts and utilities, it does not have law enforcement or social services staff that larger cities or counties employ. Furthermore, more than half of the stormwater pump stations and nearly all of the levee systems that MCDD manages resides on property owned by others. These limitations hindered its ability to initially address the increasing density and locations of houseless encampments that formed at the beginning of the COVID pandemic. MCDD had no choice but to employ a new suite of tools to continue its services while working with the houseless community. Prior to the pandemic, the Portland area was home to many houseless individuals, similar to many large metropolitan areas. A variety of factors within the City of Portland lead to situations where more people find themselves living in their vehicle or in outdoor camps. Most of the district's assets are located away from residential properties and, in some cases, businesses as well. Several of these sites became convenient places to reside for some houseless individuals who wanted to be left alone. As the density of houseless communities increased, MCDD staff lost access to several assets it normally maintains frequently (e.g., twice a week). At its peak, the district lost access to its largest pump station for approximately 6 months. It only re-gained access with the help of agency partners and contractors after a large rain event flooded upstream properties within the drainage area of this facility. Another large houseless encampment established itself along the riverward side of the primary levee along the Columbia River. MCDD staff knew that pockets of excavation and removal of vegetation and topsoil that occurred among these camps significantly increased the risk of the levee to not perform as designed if the river levels reached major flood stages. The challenges of the houseless issues also had a significant impact on the mental health of MCDD's field staff, its Operations team. As the district's 'front lines' to provide services to its customers, these employees placed themselves in uncomfortable situations on many occasions. These included walking near rows of derelict vehicles to gain access to some sites, conversing with folks who are mentally ill or experiencing anguish due to life circumstances, or running for cover into a pump station following gunshots in the vicinity. MCDD examined multiple elements of its employee support programs and other business processes to implement additional resources to supplement its existing tool set. A series of listening sessions between the Operations team and senior leadership provided a forum for staff to voice individual concerns and offer solutions. These new resources involved the following: Contract with mental health specialists to conduct education and outreach to houseless individuals. Expanded safety program that led to new PPE and security consultant recommendations. New staff training that covered impacts to employee's mental health, the challenges the houseless population face, and advanced first aid methods. Employee benefits related to life insurance. District's annual security budget ($7,500 to $200,000) Board-approved ordinance to clarify district's legal tools available to deal with obstructions. This presentation summarizes MCDD's 3-year journey through this challenge from the start of the COVID pandemic, the present, and beyond. Topics and associated lessons learned include: Developing a proactive outreach program and coordinated response for houseless camps and vehicles. Engaging with property owners private and public to help re-establish access to assets that the district manages. Supporting Operations staff that dealt with deteriorating workplace safety and negative effects on mental health. Efforts to apply diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles to help the district navigate this journey to the benefit of both staff and the houseless population. While there is still work to be done, MCDD made great strides to enact a support system for its staff to perform the district's services in a safe work environment, while continuing to effectively engage with the houseless population as empathetically as possible.

Summary This paper will present the results of collaborative inter-agency feasibility assessment for a regional program to manage residuals and biosolids for several public sector utilities in the South Carolina Low Country. The collaboration has been completed in multiple phases. The first phase (Phase I) involved six (6) public service agencies and covered ten (10) treatment plants representing the largest utility service providers in the South Carolina Low Country. The second phase (Phase II) involved four (4) agencies and six (6) treatment plants after two of the agencies exercised an 'off-ramp' option. The third phase (Phase III) involved three (3) agencies forming a new public agency authority the Charleston Regional Resource Recovery Authority (CRRRA) to manage a regional composting facility to be delivered under a progressive design-build-operate model. Background Most major wastewater treatment service providers in the Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester (CBD) counties currently dewater unstabilized wastewater treatment residuals and send the dewatered cake to either the Waste Management Oakridge Landfill or Berkeley County Landfill. Prior to the current practice of landfill disposal, many of these utilities had relied upon third-party end-users, such as GenEarth and Williamsburg Composting, to receive and process their solids. However, due to odor and operational concerns, these third-party operated facilities were unexpectedly decommissioned, leaving the utilities dependent upon the landfills for disposal of their solids. Recent landfill slope stability failures at landfill facilities in Georgia, believed to be caused by receipt and handling of excessive wet waste (e.g, dewatered sewage sludges), have caused regional landfill operators in both Georgia and the Carolinas to examine the ratio of wet waste (WW) to municipal solids waste (MSW) and explore options to reduce the WW:MSW ratio. As a result, the Oakridge and Berkeley County landfills have assessed utilities sending wet waste increased tipping fees for additional material handling and management costs at the landfill facilities. These increasing tipping fees, combined with other operational considerations, have been a primary driver for utilities to seek alternative residuals management approaches. As a result of the uncertainty the future might hold the utilities in the CBD region, representing six (6) organizational entities and ten (10) treatment facilities, formed a consortium to collaborate and explore regional alternatives for a collaborative biosolids management program: Phase I Initial Planning Assessment The Phase I feasibility assessment consisted primarily of the following major activities: -Estimates of Current (CY2020) and Future (CY 2050) Flows, Loads and Solids Quantity Estimates -Characterization and Quality of Dewatered Sludge Quality Factors -Regulatory Review and Benchmarking Assessment -Market Assessment for Residual and Biosolids Products in South Carolina -Alternative Development and Assessment Of particular interest in Phase I is the 'Alternative Development and Assessment' work where the following major approaches were assessed: -Thermal Hydrolysis and Mesophilic Digestion (THP+MAD) Class A Dewatered Cake End Product -THP+MAD with Thermal Drying Class A Dried Product -Fluid Bed Thermal Oxidation Ash End Product Preliminary system sizing was completed for each of the three alternatives examined and an AACE Class 5 level cost estimate developed for capital cost (CAPEX) for each facility. Operating costs were developed for each alternative and utilized, in combination with project flow loading rates, to develop lifecycle operating costs (OPEX) on a 20-year basis. Total lifecycle costs (TLCC), a combination of the CAPEX and OPEX, were developed for each alternative. Based on TLCC each of the alternatives had a similar expected cost with trade-off between higher CAPEX to achieve lower OPEX. Given similarity in TLCC for the alternatives the team used a multi-criteria assessment tool (CONVERGE) to assess both the cost and non-cost factors such as: -CAPEX -OPEX -Operability and Complexity -Maintainability and Complexity -Regulatory Compatibility -Environmental Stewardship -Long-Term Sustainability -Final Product Marketability The multi-criteria decision-making process from Phase I will be described in the results presented in the paper and presentation. Phase II Continuing Collaboration Development After the completion of the Phase I Feasibility Assessment, four (4) of the six (6) utilities in the consortium decided to continue efforts to further define a regional solution and develop a consortium-owned facility master plan. The Phase II efforts consisted of the following major activities: -Update the mass balance for the Phase I selected management alternatives for the reduced loading from the four (4) remaining utilities -Develop revised conceptual layout and process flow diagrams -Develop updated CAPEX, and OPEX cost estimates -Consider site location requirements for property assessment and acquisition -Consider the potential for addition of gasification or pyrolysis (post-dryer) for PFAS destruction -Develop a phased approach to facility build-out incorporating thermal drying as the first phase -Solicit interest of third-party owned and operated contract service providers to provide residuals management services via a public-private partnership (P3). This portion of the paper and presentation will describe the updated management approaches and the results of the solicitation of third-party owned and operated approaches for residuals management. As a result of this solicitation the utility partners decided to further consider development of a public-private partnership in the Phase III work. Phase III Formation of a Joint Authority and Solicitation for Facility Design-Construction-Operation Following completion of the Phase II work one utility partner withdrew from the collaborative and the three (3) remaining utility partners progressed into Phase III. Phase III included further evaluation of the third-party management approaches solicited in the Phase II work and consideration of composting as a viable management approach to produce a Class A stabilized material that would not have to be routed to a landfill for management. Phase III also included the formation of a separate legal entity, the Charleston Regional Resource Recovery Authority (CRRRA), that is jointly controlled by the three remaining utility agencies. The purpose of the CRRRA is to provide an entity to develop and operate a regional residuals management facility that will utilize Class A biosolids composting to stabilize and treat dewatered residuals from each of the agencies treatment facilities. Currently CRRRA is in the process of submitting proposals from entities that would be able to deliver under a progressive-design build-operate model a regional composting facility with a processing capacity of 100,000 tons per year. The facility will be owned by the CRRRA following the design-build phase work and will have an ongoing operating services contract for the receipt and processing of dewater residuals. Proposals are due in the middle of December 2022 with plans to evaluate and award in the first quarter of 2023. This portion of the paper and presentation will share the background behind the formation of the CRRRA including discussion of the legal formation of the authority and the governance structure of the jointly controlled agency. This portion of the paper will also share the process utilized for the solicitation of proposals from interested parties for the design-build-operate Class A composting facility including scoring and evaluation criteria utilized in the selection.

Communities have been using FEMA's flood risk analyses and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for flood risk identification and floodplain management for decades. While FEMA continues to produce these products for flood risk communication and mitigation, the approach and methodology for flood hazard identification has been evolving with changing technology. Two-Dimensional (2D) modeling has become more common practice in hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. Consequently, FEMA has also begun shifting their flood studies from a stream reach-based approach to a watershed wide approach. Watershed wide studies allow floodplain managers to see the flood related issues within their community holistically. With Flood Insurance Rate Maps published in 2009, utilizing data from even further back than that, Johnson County, Kansas has partnered with FEMA to develop 2D watershed models to update their flood risk information. The intent is to not only update their Flood Insurance Rate Maps, but to also develop secondary information, on a watershed level, that can be used with their Risk Priority Matrix to identify and prioritize flood mitigation and infrastructure projects. This presentation will cover the technical approach of analysis, model outputs beyond floodplain boundaries, such as depth grids and velocity grids, and their potential use for identifying flood risk and flood hazard management beyond the base flood and flood insurance. The goal of the presentation is to provide attendees insight on Johnson County's watershed study approach and demonstrate how these models and products can be used beyond flood insurance so communities can then provide their valuable input to FEMA on the future of flood risk data. Presenter Bios: Sarah Smith, PE, is the Lead Program Engineer Engineer for the Johnson County Stormwater Management Program. Before coming to the county nine years ago, Sarah worked for a mid-size private engineering firm in the KC metro area primarily doing stormwater design work. Sarah earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Architectural Engineering and a Master's degree in Civil Engineering with an emphasis in Water Resources, both from the University of Kansas. In her spare time Sarah enjoys spending time with her husband and four kids and tending to her exorbitant number of houseplants. Tom Morey's career has spanned 29 years with a focus on education and protecting people and communities from physical and environmental risks. Tom has spent the last 17 years working in floodplain management for Stantec and the Kansas Department of Agriculture as the State NFIP Coordinator for the State of Kansas. In his role with Stantec, Tom is responsible for coordinating with federal agencies, states, and local communities as well as private clients on the development of Flood Insurance Rate Map Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs), Conditional LOMRs, floodplain development permits and no-rise certifications. He spends his spare time trying to keep up with his kids and barely maintaining his small farmlette in Rural Leavenworth County.

Wastewater surveillance (WWS) emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic as a powerful new public health tool to monitor the burden of COVID across communities. Unlike clinical test-based strategies, wastewater-based estimates of COVID-19 prevalence are not biased by individual testing practices and care-seeking behaviors. Further, changes in disease burden may be captured more rapidly using WWS than other surveillance systems. During the early months of the COVID pandemic, a large range of utilities, laboratories, and public health entities began monitoring wastewater for SARS-CoV-2 in Colorado. Collaboration between many of these early-adopters of WWS resulted in the formation of the Wastewater Collaborative, a group of wastewater utilities, public universities, private laboratories, and local and state public health entities intended to develop WWS for SARS-COV-2. he goal is to improve public health understanding and response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapid development of the Wastewater Collaborative necessitated an equally rapid development of data structures to support needs of the constituent organizations. The Phase One data system achieved this goal by leveraging existing relationships within the Colorado university system (Figure 1). Wastewater samples were primarily tested by university labs, analyzed, and compiled using university data resources. COVID-19 case and testing data was sent to the university data partners by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to contextualize wastewater analysis. The results of these analyses were displayed on a password-protected university-run dashboard. Time-delayed results were also published on a second, public dashboard run by CDPHE using data from the university dashboard. However, as WWS in Colorado matured, important limitations of the Phase 1 data system became evident. These limitations included the difficulty of adding additional utility and laboratory partners, the necessity of aggregating and de-identifying other surveillance data prior to sending it to external data systems, challenges in integrating additional types of data (including mutation and sequencing analysis), and connecting to internal and external data clients (including the CDC's National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS)). Because of CDPHE's role in funding and facilitating WWS in Colorado, CDPHE undertook the process of creating and implementing a Phase Two data system, which would achieve the following goals: Support multiple testing laboratories, including public, private, and university laboratories. Support multiple types of sample analysis, including viral RNA quantification, specific mutation quantification, and viral genome sequencing. Support analysis using granular individual-level case, testing, and hospitalization data. Facilitate timely reporting and integration of sample metadata and testing data. Creation of a single data visualization and export platform for internal partners. Expansion of the existing public data visualization platform to accommodate new utilities. Development of data analytic methodologies, including implementation of methodologies developed by NWSS and elsewhere. Support timely dissemination of data and analytics to both CDPHE leadership, local public health agencies, and other local and state policymakers. Facilitate integration of Colorado data with national datasets via NWSS. The Phase Two data system achieved these goals by utilizing CDPHE's pre-existing technology resources and open source data tools (Figure 2). External testing partners are able to input data directly into a shared Google Drive folder in a format of their choosing, and this data is automatically downloaded, parsed, and compiled alongside any CDPHE testing data using a purpose-written script in R-studio. Internal data from CDPHE's other surveillance systems (including individual-level testing, case, and hospitalization data) can be analyzed alongside wastewater testing data (including viral RNA concentration, mutation data, and sequencing data). Data is immediately available for view and download after import on a new private dashboard developed in R-shiny. After a 24-hour viewing period for utilities and local public health agencies, data is also available for view and download on a pre-existing public facing dashboard and uploaded to NWSS. Ultimately, the Phase Two data system has been a significant improvement over the Phase One system, with superior data precision, flexibility in adding new metrics and sites, and the ability to integrate with NWSS and other external data systems. Further, many of the key strengths of the Phase One system are maintained, including data timeliness, fidelity, and visualization tools (Table 1). This data evolution achieved our goals of ensuring the stability and sustainability of WWS for COVID to continue to support the pandemic response.