A Harvard study reveals that only one in three organizations, including critical water utilities, are prepared for a widespread swine flu outbreak, which could lead to significant absenteeism. With projections of 30% to 50% of the population potentially contracting the virus, experts emphasize the need for utilities to integrate pandemic planning into their existing emergency response plans. To mitigate risks, utilities should involve staff in planning, track attendance closely, and ensure the availability of essential supplies and backup strategies.

1. Perhaps it’s because of the relatively
mild nature of the virus so far. Or
maybe it is memories of the bird flu
scare that came and went 3 years ago
with little impact. Whatever the reason,
only one in three organizations is cur-
rently prepared to deal with a wide-
spread swine flu outbreak, according
to a study by the Harvard School of
Public Health (Boston) released in early
September.
This includes water and wastewater
utilities, which have been designated
by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security as critical to the nation’s securi-
ty and economic vitality. According to the
Harvard study, these “critical” businesses
are no more likely to have a pandemic
plan in place than nonessential ones.
And that’s a concern, emergency
planning experts say.
“We don’t want people to be
alarmed, but we do want them to be
prepared,” said Michael Zanker, direc-
tor of health security coordination for
the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security’s Office of Health Affairs.
A White House report has projected
a big influx of swine flu — formally
known as the H1N1 virus — in the
coming months, with anywhere from
30% to 50% of the population poten-
tially contracting the virus.
“Based on our modeling, that
means utilities should prepare to have
as many as 40% of their employees
absent during the pandemic, either
because they have the H1N1 virus
themselves or they are caring for
someone who has it,” Zanker said.
Because the virus is highly transmis-
sible, a utility could experience absen-
teeism in waves as it sweeps through
individual departments, Zanker added.
Worker shortages could potentially
stretch out beyond a few days if the
pandemic grows and schools or day-
care centers are closed.
November/December 2009 Volume 12 | Number 6
Have you ever given a team an
assignment, only to have it fail to
achieve the results you were seeking?
I have. I have witnessed teams that
seemed doomed from inception, while
others blew the doors off of expecta-
tions. Why don’t some teams ever get
off the ground?
Some teams fail even if they are
composed of smart people and
appear to have done everything right.
Recently, a colleague asked me for
help with a team he was working with
at a major utility. The senior managers
had selected team members who rep-
resented a cross section of the utility.
They gave them specific assignments
and provided them with time away
from their regularly assigned duties so
they could meet. They required routine
progress reports and swore commit-
ment to support them. So why were
these teams struggling?
Creating High-Performing Teams
Why some teams fail to get off the ground, and what you can do to prevent that from happening
David M. Mason
continued on p. 3
continued on p. 2
The H1N1 Challenge:
Is your utility prepared for a swine flu outbreak?
inside this issue
utility
executive
Improve OM Efficiency 5
WWTPs Convert to
Solar Power for Energy
and Cost Savings
9
Determining Service
Levels Using Reliability-
Centered Maintenance
12
Briefs 15

2. 2
Utility Executive
Editor: LaShell Stratton-Childers
Contributing Editors: Mary Bufe and Allison
Torres Burtka
Editorial Assistant: Margaret Richards
Editorial Director: Melissa H. Jackson
Production Director: Laura Leslie
Production Assistant: Jessica Rozek
Production Artist: Jeff Frederick
Publisher: William J. Bertera
Copyediting provided by Fox River
Communications
Editorial Advisory Board:
Chair: Diane Taniguchi-Dennis;
City of Albany, Albany, Ore.
John B. Cook; Advanced Data Mining
International, Greenville, S.C.
Dominick DiGangi; First Taxing District
Water Department, Norwalk, Conn.
Kathi Mestayer; KMA Consulting,
Williamsburg, Va.
Karen Pallansch; Alexandria Sanitation
Authority, Alexandria, Va.
The Editorial Advisory Board does not
necessarily approve, disapprove, or
endorse the contents of Utility Executive.
Editorial Offices:
Water Environment Federation
601 Wythe St.
Alexandria, VA 22314-1994
Telephone 1-703-684-2400
Fax 1-703-684-2492
Water Environment Federation Officers
President: Paul Freedman
President-Elect: Jeanette Brown
Vice President: Matt Bond
Treasurer: Chris Browning
Past President: Rebecca West
Executive Director and Secretary:
William J. Bertera
Utility Executive (E-ISSN: 1944-6616) is published 6
times/yr © 2009 by the Water Environment Federation,
601 Wythe St., Alexandria, VA 22314 USA; (703) 684-
2400.
Subscriptions are $129/yr ($89: WEF members). Single
copy price is $22 ($18: WEF members). Editorial
correspondence should be sent to the editor. Send
changes of address (8 weeks advance notice) and
claims for missing issues to pubs@wef.org.
Bulk reprinting of articles is prohibited.
The Water Environment Federation assumes no
responsibility for opinions or statements of fact
expressed by contributors or staff, and articles do not
necessarily represent official organization policy.
utility
executive “You may have cases where staff
must stay home and care for their chil-
dren — even if no one is ill,” Zanker said.
Absenteeism also could affect a util-
ity’s supply chain, including chemical
suppliers and power companies. Utilities
must think beyond their work force and
anticipate that up to 40% of their sup-
pliers’ work forces could be affected as
well, Zanker said.
And what if they don’t? Utilities that
don’t have contingency plans in place
may find themselves short-staffed and
lacking the chemicals and other supplies
they need to treat wastewater or provide
safe drinking water.
How To Prepare
Pandemic planning should be inte-
grated into a utility’s existing business
continuity and emergency response
plans, according to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency guidance documents
on the subject.
This is the approach that the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(WRA) is taking, said Marcis Kempe,
WRA’s director of operations support.
“A swine flu outbreak isn’t a prob-
lem that a utility can plan its way out
of,” Kempe said. “But developing an
approach makes the problem more
manageable.”
For WRA, that approach included
defining critical services and functions,
then creating contingency plans in the
event that staff or outside vendors are
unavailable to perform them.
The process began with internal dis-
cussions last spring after the first cases
of swine flu emerged in Mexico. Working
initially from its 2006 bird flu pandemic
plan, WRA leaders met with unit manag-
ers to make sure they understood their
roles in a pandemic.
“Our discussions weren’t only about
providing water and sewer service,”
Kempe explained. “We also talked
about being able to make payroll and
pay our bills.”
“We didn’t solve every potential
problem in our planning,” Kempe said,
“but we identified certain triggers and
the approaches we would take should
they occur.”
Those triggers centered on both the
number of suspected H1N1 cases as
well as their severity.
In anticipation of an outbreak, WRA
has begun tracking attendance daily,
rather than waiting for employees to turn
in weekly time sheets.
“If we notice a department that is
taking a hit, we want as early notifi-
cation as possible so we can fill the
gaps,” Kempe said.
How will those gaps be filled?
“We have critical infrastructure to
operate, and we need a work force
to help us do that,” Kempe said.
“Employees who don’t have a critical
function must be on reserve to staff one
when needed.”
“Business will be normal until it can’t
be,” Kempe said. “If a staff person is
out for 2 days with swine flu and then is
right back, it’s not a big concern,” said
Kempe. “But if the virus would somehow
change and we see mortality rates are
on the rise nationally, that would trigger
a different, more aggressive response.”
That response might include more
on-the-job training for persons required
to cover an unfamiliar role or even lend a
hand to other utilities in need.
“We’re a wholesaler, so we serve
smaller cities and towns with their own
work forces,” Kempe said. “When winter
comes, they may be asking us for help,
and we’d like to be able to provide it.”
To ensure that the necessary supplies
are on hand in the event of an outbreak,
WRA has begun topping off chemical
tanks more frequently and identifying
backup suppliers. In some cases, ven-
dors are being asked to provide copies of
their own pandemic plans. If necessary, it
may become more aggressive in ordering
and stockpiling chemicals.
“We have our shopping lists ready,”
Kempe said.
Communication Is Key
The key lesson to be learned from this
and other emergency planning efforts is
to involve the people who perform essen-
The H1N1 Challenge continued from p. 1

3. 3
November | December 2009
The process of creating teams may not
be as intuitive as it may seem at first. I’ve
learned some tough lessons from some
very unpleasant experiences that I’ve had
the misfortune of creating. I’ve learned
that several steps that make teams suc-
cessful also can lead them to failure if not
handled properly. They include
defining the objective;■■
setting realistic expectations;■■
identifying the teams’ and members’■■
roles, responsibilities, and decision-
making authority;
identifying the right composition of■■
the team;
communicating what’s going on to oth-■■
ers throughout the organization; and
choosing the right place to start the■■
work.
Framing the Objective
Before you can select team members,
you must know specifically what you
want the team to do. Most teams fail to
get anything done because their mem-
bers are not aligned with the purpose at
hand and don’t understand what they
are — and are not — supposed to do.
Linda and Ron Turner have stated that a
“fuzzy purpose statement leads to fuzzy
results” and that “mission creep occurs
when a team charter is too vague.” [See
Linda Turner and Ron Turner, “Creating
a Team Charter,” How to Grow Effective
Teams and Run Meetings That Aren’t a
Waste of Time (The Ends of the Earth
Learning Group 1998).]
Teams often are formed in haste
under a heightened sense of urgency
and without clearly defining their objec-
tive. The desire to get something done
quickly leads to teams being formed
prematurely. In the absence of clear
direction, they create their own purpose.
The manager who created the team
Creating High-Performing Teams continued from p. 1
More Things Utilities Should Know About Swine Flu
Does working for a water or wastewater utility put you at risk
in a swine flu outbreak? Only if your co-workers are showing
symptoms, experts said.
People don’t catch the flu from drinking water, said Michael
Zanker of the U.S. Office of Homeland Security. “THE H1N1
virus is a respiratory virus,” he noted. “It is typically transmitted
by coughing and sneezing.”
Similarly, while H1N1, like other viruses, may find its way
into wastewater, it requires no special handling procedures
beyond those already in place. “Contact with wastewater is
always to be avoided,” Zanker said. “Workers who follow stan-
dard safety procedures are [at] no greater risk if this virus is
added to the mix.”
Want to learn more? Additional information about the H1N1
flu pandemic and how your utility can prepare for it is available
at several Web sites:
Flu.gov
www.flu.gov
This is the U.S. federal government’s clearinghouse for
flu-related information.
Pandemic Influenza Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery Guide for Critical Infrastructure
and Key Resources
http://www.avianflu.gov/professional/pdf/
cikrpandemicinfluenzaguide.pdf
This is a publication from the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security’s Office of Infrastructure Protection.
Pandemic Flu Planning for the Water Sector
http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/pandemicflu.cfm
This is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web page
offering free tools and guidance materials to help utilities
develop plans to prepare for and respond to pandemic influ-
enza outbreaks.
National Rural Water Association
www.nrwa.org
This is the National Rural Water Association (Duncan, Okla.)
Web site, where smaller utilities can find a pandemic influenza
checklist specifically for smaller systems and utilities.
tial functions in the planning process.
“They know better than anyone what
must be done,” Kempe said.
Once planning is complete, utilities
should develop internal and external
communications strategies and work
with community pandemic planners to
minimize an outbreak’s impact.
Internally, this includes everything
from promoting good handwashing
practices to sending employees home
at the first sign of flu symptoms. It
also means making sure that employ-
ees are educated on the H1N1 virus
and its transmission, particularly as it
relates to water and wastewater (see
sidebar, below).
What if your utility isn’t as prepared
as it should be?
“It is never too late to plan,” said
Robert Davis, director of external affairs
for the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security’s Office of Health Affairs. “There
are numerous pandemic flu documents
and readiness materials available online
to help. Utilities that have not yet done
so should start today.”
— Mary Bufe, UE

4. 4
Utility Executive
often assumes that the objective is self-
evident and understood by all stakehold-
ers without the need for a structured
chartering process. Herein lies one of the
biggest mistakes leaders make and one
of the principal causes of failure. To avoid
common pitfalls, you must follow a formal
chartering process. But even that doesn’t
ensure success. It is as important to
define clearly what you do not want the
team to do as it is to define what the
team should do. You should frame the
objective in terms of “is” and “is not.”
Several years ago, in a presentation
to a group of key managers and supervi-
sors at a planning meeting of a Fortune
500 company, Ron Moore, managing
partner of The RM Group (Knoxville,
Tenn.) said, “Empowerment without
training leads to dumb decisions faster!”
That quote has stuck with me.
As you are defining the team’s objec-
tive, it is important to consider the level
of decision-making authority the team
will have and to make certain that the
team members understand it. Too often,
teams are led to believe that they are
going to make decisions when they are
merely being asked to provide input
about a decision.
Teams are rarely, if ever, asked to cre-
ate policy. Creating policy is an executive
management responsibility. However,
teams should be asked to provide input
on the policy, particularly on how the pol-
icy should be deployed. The team mem-
bers need to know from the start whether
they are providing input, conducting an
investigation, stating the findings of an
investigation, making recommendations
for further action, or providing recom-
mendations for implementation. You must
communicate clearly to the team in the
chartering process not only what they are
expected to do but also what they are
not expected to do.
Selecting Team Members
After clearly defining the objective
and delegating a level of decision-
making authority to the team, you are
ready to begin the process of populat-
ing the team. Time and time again, this
has proved more difficult than expected
and not nearly as intuitive. Too often,
in an attempt to foster engagement,
managers simply select employees to
represent each department or division.
Instead, team members should be
selected based on the knowledge they
can bring to the team.
Creating high-performing teams
involves more than assembling a group
of smart people and giving them an
assignment. You must think about who
might be the right people to accomplish
a specific, well-defined task. Then, you
must ask whether resolving the issue is
within their decision-making capability
and authority.
One way to make this process easier
is to develop selection criteria. Criteria
for potential team members might
include
being viewed as credible, so that oth-■■
ers will believe what they say;
being viewed as leaders, so others■■
will accept their decisions;
being technically knowledgeable —■■
not necessarily the most skilled or
educated, but knowledgeable about
how work is performed;
possessing the power to make■■
decisions;
being change agents or anti-status■■
quo, so that they are interested in
finding better ways to do things and
improve, rather than rationalizing
things as they are;
having the ability to communicate■■
effectively with peers and with people
who report to them; and
being consensus builders.■■
This is not a definitive list of selection
criteria; others might be more appropri-
ate in your situation. But the process of
establishing criteria is important. Teams
created without selection criteria often
fail, not because the team did not put
forth the necessary effort, the objec-
tives were not well enough defined, or
the team was not chartered, but rather
because it was simply made up of the
wrong people.
Different people have different needs
for information and widely divergent
styles. People are naturally originators or
implementers, analyzers or initiators, or
varying shades in between. Some people
are analytic, while others prefer quick,
immediate action. Some think that talking
about a topic is action, whereas others
assume nothing can be accomplished
without a flurry of activity. Some people
are planners and process thinkers; every
idea has a beginning, middle, and end.
Others can come up with new ideas
and change direction smoothly, moving
seamlessly from one topic to another.
The fact is that every team needs
diversity in styles, behaviors, and think-
ing processes. Too little diversity can
lead to problems. For example, if every-
one on a team were focused on quick
action, they would take action without
sufficient thought. Conversely, we are all
familiar with “paralysis through analysis,”
where nothing gets done. Several psy-
chometric tools can help assess peo-
ple’s styles, including the Myers–Briggs
Type Indicator, the Benziger Thinking
Styles Assessment, and other tests that
characterize people as one of six hats,
various colors, or compass quadrants.
Deciding Where To Start
The next decision that should be
made before work begins is the right
place to start working — but this is
not as easy as it might seem. Creating
selection criteria for where to start can
help you design a proof of concept and
give you some direction. Experience
has shown that creating a proof of con-
cept is more effective than wholesale
change. Some government agencies
select their best-performing department
to begin a project, anticipating a strong
likelihood of success. Others choose
their worst-performing areas, so they
can demonstrate the full potential of
the opportunity, and yet others begin
with their core services. But no mat-
ter where you decide to begin, taking
the time to create selection criteria
and then make a deliberate decision
based on those criteria is proven to
accomplish the most effective results.
For example, managers could select an
area that
has high external customer visibility;■■
is big and complex enough to dem-■■
onstrate that the effort is worthwhile;
has a strong likelihood of success;■■
can provide experience and lessons■■

5. 5
November | December 2009
learned that can be leveraged in the
future; or
is small enough that it can be con-■■
trolled, catastrophic failure is unlikely,
or failure — such as a service interrup-
tion — can be mitigated.
Again, there is no definitive list of
selection criteria. The real value comes
from the process of deliberating about
pertinent selection criteria.
Communication Planning
Communicating up front what the
team is doing can avoid a project being
derailed down the road. Managers com-
monly overlook the need for developing
a communication plan. Communication
planning begins with chartering the team.
The team will begin to understand
its responsibilities,■■
what decisions it can make,■■
to whom it reports,■■
what lies beyond its boundaries,■■
the roles of people on the team,■■
when it will be evaluated, and■■
when its work is completed.■■
However, it’s also important to com-
municate to others in the organization
what the team is doing. In the absence
of information, people will naturally make
things up, and you can expect that
what is made up can be worse than the
actual situation. Creating a communica-
tion plan can help avoid problems later
in the process.
Some questions you might consider
when developing a communication plan
include the following:
Who are the potential interested■■
parties?
What questions will they have, and■■
what will they want to know?
What is the message?■■
How will the message be crafted to■■
communicate it effectively to different
interested parties and stakeholders?
When will they want to know, and■■
what information will be available?
How will each of the parties be■■
informed?
Who should deliver the message?■■
Internal staff will be inquisitive about
what’s going on when they become aware
of the effort. The public and other external
parties can be influenced significantly not
only by the message but also by when,
how, and from whom they hear it.
Some messages can be simple
take-back messages that team members
can deliver to the workplace. Developing
take-back messages following each ses-
sion or workshop will ensure that all
team members tell the same story. Other
communications might include public
outreach and education programs, adver-
tisements, public service announcements,
newsletters, a city manager’s hotline,
billing stuffers, or public-access televi-
sion or public-radio talk shows. The team
members can develop the communica-
tion plan, or you may decide to charter a
separate communications team.
The team’s work often results in noise
of one sort or another and disruption
of business as usual. You can bet that
some affected parties will be reticent
about the work being performed. An
effective communication plan can pre-
pare the executive management team
and other affected stakeholders to
anticipate and deal with noise. I’ve seen
effective communication plans help pre-
pare managers and elected officials by
increasing their threshold for dealing with
the pain and disruption and by increasing
their resolve to see things through.
You should begin communication
planning before the team begins work,
rather than waiting for noise to develop.
Forewarned is forearmed. In some situa-
tions, noise caused too much pain, and
management decided that the desired
outcomes were not worth the disruption.
In many cases of failure, managers
could have taken steps to improve the
team’s likelihood of success. Clearly
defining the work to be done, picking the
right people and the right place to start,
and developing an effective communica-
tion plan would have made the differ-
ence. All these steps can enhance the
team’s effectiveness and ensure that the
project’s full benefits are achieved and
communicated.
David M. Mason is director of Utility
Services at Infrastructure Management
Group Inc. (Bethesda, Md.).
Looking Past the Low-Hanging Fruit
Using asset management techniques to find the best and most proficient way to improve
OM efficiency
Steve McNicol, Dan Stark, and Cal Leckington
Operations and maintenance (OM)
efficiency in a wastewater facility is
often defined in terms of labor hours
and the variable costs of chemicals,
energy, and solids disposal. Reducing
the time and–or cost of these factors
is generally considered the measure-
ment of efficiency. We also recognize
that meeting service levels for health
and safety targets and responsiveness
to our customers, as well as meeting
regulatory requirements and other simi-
lar measurements, are all part of OM
efficiency.
But how do managers determine
which areas within the organization need
improvement? And when improvements
are made, how is the apparent success
or failure of these efforts measured?
Changes in expenditures or in key per-
formance indicator data are some ways
to measure success, but when faced with
many possible options for improvement,
how does a manager know which option
will have the greatest impact on the
organization? In a time of financial stress,
how can an organization focus its limited

6. expenditures on the areas that will ben-
efit it the most?
Some managers make the right
improvements due to instinct, experi-
ence, or just common sense. But with-
out a rigorous method for prioritizing
options and measuring results, there is
no way to verify that a more urgent task
is being left undone. To take the guess-
work out of improving OM efficiency,
we can simply borrow the methodology
generally used for managing the physical
assets in our public works organizations.
Asset Conditions and
Consequences of Failure
A typical risk-based asset manage-
ment methodology for a wastewater
treatment plant starts with identifying
the major assets of the organization.
The next step is to determine the
consequence to the organization if an
individual asset fails. Based on the
organization’s prioritized categories
of risk (for example, “Are health and
safety concerns more important than
financial concerns?”), the list of assets
can be ordered by their impact to the
organization.
Starting with the asset whose fail-
ure would cause the greatest negative
consequence to the organization, we
determine the likelihood of that asset
failing mostly by evaluating its physical
condition. The combination of an asset’s
consequence of failure and the likelihood
that the asset will fail is the asset’s risk
to the organization. Obviously, assets
that are in poor condition but which
pose no real consequence to the organi-
zation will have a lower risk than assets
that could cause death or other signifi-
cant consequences if they failed.
What makes this process significant
is the repeatable and quantitative sys-
tem used to measure both consequence
and likelihood for each asset. Poor-
quality asset management practices
use a subjective evaluation method.
The asset is ranked as “good,” “fair,” or
“poor” or is evaluated by some similar
arbitrary method that will vary according
to who is doing the evaluation. A rigor-
ous method uses documented questions
for such assets as pumps, pipes, com-
pressors, and blowers, with a scale of
responses, each having a value. In this
way, two different people can evaluate
the same asset, and their results can be
compared to measure a decline in the
asset’s condition.
Borrowing from this rigorous method,
we identify each work process in a facil-
ity as an asset. Just as with our physical
assets, we need to determine what con-
sequences would occur if a particular
work process asset failed. This is done
through a discussion among the most
knowledgeable staff involved with the
work process.
A typical discussion would begin
with a question such as, “What would
6
Utility Executive
Figure 1. Consequence of Failure Matrix
Consequence
category
Weight Negligible = 1 Low = 4 Moderate = 7 Critical = 10
Health and safety of
employees and public
1.0
No injuries or adverse
health effects
No lost-time injuries
or medical attention is
necessary
Lost-time injury or general
injuries require medical
attention
Long-term disability
or death
Compliance with
regulations and
permits
0.9
No violations of permits
or regulations and no
environmental or public
health impact
Technical violation occurs
but no enforcement
action taken and no
environmental or public
health impact
Violation of secondary
MCL occurs with possible
short-term impact and
possible public health
impact
• Violation of primary MCL
occurs and enforcement
action is likely
• Long-term environmental
impact and public health
impact likely
Service reliability 0.8
No facility or process
interruptions
Internal process
interruptions occur
that require operator
intervention and correction
over an extended period
of time
Substantial process–
system upset occurs that
requires expenditure of
unplanned resources and
long-term corrections
Major process failure
and facility upset occurs
requiring notification of the
public and major labor and
material expenditures
Disruption to the
community and public
image
0.7
• No social or economic
impact on businesses
or community
• No disruption to the
community
• No media coverage
• No social or economic
impact on businesses
or community
• Minor disruption to the
community
• No media coverage
• Short-term economic
impact on customers
and–or a few
businesses
• Minor disruption to the
community
• Local media coverage
• Long-term or areawide
economic impact on
numerous businesses
or any high-priority
customers
• Major disruption to the
community
• National media coverage
Ability to return asset
to service
0.7
Service restored in less
than 4 hours
Service restored in
4 to 12 hours
Service restored in
12 to 24 hours
Not able to restore service
for more than 24 hours
Financial impact on
utility
0.7 Less than $5000 $5000 to $25,000 $25,000 to $150,000 More than $150,000
MCL = maximum contaminant levels.

7. 7
November | December 2009
happen if … ?” followed by alternative
hypothetical situations if the asset failed
to varying degrees. For example, acti-
vated sludge operating procedures are
considered an asset. The total failure of
this asset means that the procedures
do not exist. A partial failure might
mean the procedures are not updated
regularly or are not easily accessible.
We consider what might happen if
these procedures do not exist. Safety
procedures make up a portion of this
asset, so with no safety procedures, a
person could be injured severely or die.
Therefore, a total failure of this asset
would receive a high criticality rating.
No procedures could also result in a
process upset, leading to compliance
failure. This also would add to its criti-
cal rating.
Prior to rating its assets, the organiza-
tion must create a structure of risk cat-
egories that include areas such as health
and safety, and regulatory compliance.
Within each category, the organization
gives a numerical rating with four to six
levels and a general description of what
each level means. For example, Level 1 in
the regulator compliance category might
mean “no effect,” and Level 6 might
mean a major permit violation. The result-
ing matrix allows staff to describe and
measure exactly how serious each asset
failure might be (see Figure 1, p. 6).
If activated sludge operating proce-
dures are a critical asset, how do we
assess its condition to know if it is likely to
fail? For each asset type (in this case, writ-
ten procedures and documentation), we
need to create a series of questions (four
to six is average) about the asset that indi-
cates its quality, completeness, or status
(see sample questions in Figure 2, right).
Condition assessment questions must
be specific to the asset type in order to
reflect the actual status or quality of the
asset. They also must be as quantifiable
as possible to reduce the subjectivity
of the person making the assessment.
Responses of “good,” “fair,” or “poor”
cannot be quantified. While they repre-
sent the opinion of the person making
the judgment, such tools have little value
in measuring the condition of a physical
or work process asset. Answers should
be given in ranges that measure com-
pleteness. While answer ranges may
be somewhat arbitrary, using the same
answer ranges from one assessment to
the next will measure change in the qual-
ity of the asset.
Assigning values to each potential
answer is the last step in creating a
condition assessment system. With
poor condition answers getting high
numbers, and good conditions given
low numbers, assets in the worst con-
dition will have the highest combined
number values. A consistent range of
values should be used (for example,
value ranges of 1 through 5), but the
weighting of questions can be changed
to stress specific parameters if they
are more important. The emphasis is
to achieve a combined condition score
for each asset which represents that
asset’s current physical status.
The Risk Equation
In general, “risk” can be defined as
Consequence of Failure x Likelihood
of Failure. Of course, there are many
variations on this fundamental equation,
since it is used in almost every business
enterprise. Because our goal is to iden-
tify the OM assets that are the greatest
risk to our facility, a simple calculation
can be used to produce a risk value that
is relative:
Total Risk to the Organization =
Asset Consequence of Failure Rating x
Likelihood of Failure
So, for each asset, Risk =
Consequence Rating x Condition Score.
Once set by the organization, conse-
quence ratings generally do not change.
What does change is the condition of the
asset over time.
For physical assets, such as pumps,
the constant use of the equipment
causes wear and tear, and the condition
of the asset will show a steady deteriora-
tion over the years. Graphing the condi-
tion score of a physical asset produces a
“condition decay curve” that can predict
when the asset will require major rehabili-
tation or replacement (see Figure 3, p. 8).
Soft assets, such as work processes,
often require periodic investment by the
organization so their effectiveness is
maintained. This is the same as perform-
ing routine maintenance on a pump. In
some cases, soft assets may need sig-
nificant investment to improve the asset
from a long-term poor condition to an
acceptable one. Rewriting a facility OM
manual that has not been updated for
Figure 2. Condition Assessment Questions
Condition questions Response Score
Are the procedures written?
yes 1
no 5
How often are the procedures updated?
monthly 0
quarterly 2
semiannually 3
annually 4
never 5
Where are the procedures located?
in office only 5
local within process 3
local/mobile 1
Are the procedures accurate?
= 20% accurate 5
20 – 50% accurate 3
50 – 80% accurate 1
80% accurate 0

8. 8
Utility Executive
decades is an example. Larger invest-
ments typically are needed to correct
long-term neglect and can be equated
with rehabilitating a pump that has not
been maintained over the years. As with
a pump, the investments made in our soft
assets improve their condition and, there-
fore, reduce their risk to the organization.
A total risk score is created for each
asset by combining the asset’s conse-
quence value from the consequence
matrix with its likelihood score from the
condition assessment. Sorting our list of
assets by this total risk score provides
us with a prioritized list of the work pro-
cesses within our facility. The highest on
the list could cause the greatest damage
to the organization in the case of failure
and, therefore, demands attention first.
If you look at this list and do not
clearly understand why certain work pro-
cesses demand high priority, you should
review how you rated each for conse-
quence and how the condition questions
were answered. In most cases, the logic
will become apparent, though it also may
be surprising. But in a few cases, you
may want to readjust your consequence
or likelihood–condition scoring.
Developing a Solution
After developing a total risk score for
each identified work process, we can
use the list as a tool for targeting invest-
ments to improve OM efficiency. Based
on total risk scores, we know that failure
of the assets at the top of the list could
have the greatest negative effect on the
organization and should be targeted
for priority investment. We then must
determine the specific tasks and costs
required to improve each asset. The best
way to accomplish this is to re-examine
the condition assessment questions
for that asset, if the condition score is
high, or the reasoning behind the conse-
quence score, or both. Development of
the solution will be unique to each asset,
but the direction should be obvious.
In our previous example, if there are
no written procedures for the activated
sludge process, high condition and
consequence scores are likely. The task
is to lower these scores and thereby
to reduce the risk to the organization.
We simply must identify and budget for
the creation of the necessary process,
safety, and other procedures that will
mitigate expected problems. It is not
hard to see how this change will increase
OM efficiency. In other cases, the tasks
required may not be as apparent. But if
the consequence and condition scores
are realistic, improving these work pro-
cesses will increase OM efficiency, for
example, by reducing accidents, improv-
ing process performance, and increasing
staff knowledge.
Estimating the cost of tasks and
projects to improve work processes
may require compromises, and using a
risk-based approach to improve OM
efficiency still requires good management
judgment. While the cost to correct an
asset problem completely might be more
than the average OM budget can sup-
port, a smaller task that makes progress
will reduce that asset’s risk somewhat
and leave money to reduce risk in other
areas. The risk-based system is a tool
that helps identify and rank problems.
Resolving those problems will always be
a management task.
Reassessment: A Repeatable
Measure
The primary strength of the risk-based
methodology for managing assets is
its repeatable and measureable struc-
ture. When assets are reassessed in 1
to 3 years, the condition of a particular
asset can be compared to its previous
assessed value, even if the assess-
ments are performed by different staff.
Comparing condition ratings from one
evaluation to the next provides a realistic
trend of the asset’s condition. A subjec-
tive “good,” “fair,” or “poor” technique
would not provide the same type of reli-
able data.
For soft assets, such as work pro-
cesses, the condition assessment struc-
ture provides an additional and critical
Conditionscore
Assessment year
Influent pump #1
Condition decay curve
No data
Minimum acceptable service level
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
x
Figure 3. Condition Decay Curve

9. 9
November | December 2009
Awastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
considers many things before
investing in new technology: cost-
effectiveness, system requirements,
and state and federal regulations, to
name a few. But when they invest in a
renewable energy such as solar power,
saving energy and improving their envi-
ronmental footprint are usually the two
biggest reasons given for the techno-
logical shift.
Atlantic County (N.J.) Utilities
Authority (ACUA) had these consider-
ations when it decided to install 2700
photovoltaic panels in 2006 at five
locations around its WWTP in Atlantic
City. The solar arrays provide 500 kW,
or roughly 3%, of the facility’s annual
energy consumption, said Kate Vesey,
comptroller and director of research
and development at ACUA. Much of
the other power is provided by wind
turbines around the plant. “Wind power
accounts for 56% of our energy,”
Vesey said.
ACUA hired WorldWater and Power
Corp. (now Entech Solar in Fort
Worth, Texas) and SunDurance Energy
(Plainfield, N.J.) to design and build
its $3.25 million project, which was
funded through a Customer Onsite
Renewable Credit Rebate from the New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities Clean
Energy Program and a low-interest loan
from the New Jersey Environmental
Infrastructure Trust Program.
The project was completed in two
phases in 1 year, Vesey said. ACUA now
has one ground-mounted array, two
roof-mounted arrays, and a 3-m (10-ft)
canopy array over the employee parking
lot near the plant. As an added bonus,
the canopy also “provides shade for the
employees’ cars and protects them from
the elements of the beach,” Vesey said.
element: metrics. After you decide to
invest in a work process, how can you
tell if you have succeeded? How do you
measure your return on investment?
The answer is to re-evaluate the asset.
To gauge whether your investment has
achieved its desired effect, you reas-
sess the asset using the same condi-
tion questions. The resulting condition
score will be lower if your investments
have made a difference. The improve-
ment may be slight or significant, but
the rating will measure what you have
achieved in very practical terms that
can be shared with upper management
and other stakeholders.
What if the condition does not
improve or even declines after an invest-
ment? In most cases, this means the
tasks developed to improve the asset’s
condition either were not executed fully
or were inappropriate for the mission.
No matter the cause, both the condition
and the tasks used to improve it should
be reviewed and additional steps taken.
This process is the tool by which we
can prioritize our investments to improve
OM efficiency, then measure the results
and continue improvements. Fortunately,
most improvements are successful. The
question is, does the improved condi-
tion remove that asset from its high-risk
position, or is more effort needed?
Conclusion
In most wastewater facilities, improv-
ing OM efficiency is accomplished by
applying the available funds, which are
usually inadequate, to the most obvious
or glaring issues. Reducing the impact
of major problem areas by addressing
these “low-hanging fruits” does result
in improvement, but the unorganized
approach does not always lead to sys-
temwide improvements.
To have a better chance at success,
an organization must do the following:
It should have a rigorous, measur-■■
able, and repeatable system that
1) identifies the work processes
presenting the greatest risk to the
efficiency of the organization, and
2) measures the condition of each
process, which is invaluable for long-
term improvements.
It must identify each work process■■
in the facility and establish how each
would affect the organization if it failed.
This is the foundation of understanding
how your organization actually works.
It should create a system to evalu-■■
ate routinely the condition of each
physical asset or work process. This
determines whether it is likely to fail
in the near future and sets a standard
for future comparisons.
It must create an investment strategy■■
based on the risk and condition of its
work process assets, which estab-
lishes the improvement plan.
It should re-evaluate the condition■■
of each asset on an annual basis to
measure the success of the invest-
ments made and to support modifying
its investment strategy for the next
fiscal cycle.
It must create and maintain a struc-■■
tured, measurable process for
managing investments that improve
OM efficiency. This demonstrates
to upper management and custom-
ers that your organization is carefully
expending their scarce resources and
that each investment is justified.
Steve McNicol is senior director of
technical services at CH2M Hill OMI
world headquarters in Denver; Dan
Stark is regional director of technical
services at CH2M Hill in Naples, Fla.;
and Cal Leckington is vice president,
OM Business Group, at CH2M Hill in
Corvallis, Ore.
Utilities See the Light
WWTPs that convert to solar power find energy and cost savings and, in some cases, fast
return on investment

10. 10
Utility Executive
The solar panels require little main-
tenance, and even though the project is
only 3 years old, ACUA has already got-
ten a return on its investment, Vesey said.
ACUA is now considering plans to
erect solar arrays along some of its
pump stations and on the unused 6
ha (15 ac) near its solid waste facility.
“We could then sell the energy to our
neighbors,” Vesey said.
The success of the solar project has
made ACUA a big believer in solar ener-
gy. “From our experience, it does work,”
Vesey said. “The solar system compa-
nies are pretty proven.”
Vesey said she would encourage other
wastewater utilities to consider solar
power. “The best time to do it would defi-
nitely be now,” she said. “It offsets our
peak electricity, and the federal govern-
ment is offering a lot of incentives.”
Trading Diesel for Solar in Hawaii
Real estate developer Dowling Co.
Inc. (Wailuku, Hawaii) also considered
environmental stewardship when it
hired Hoku Solar (Honolulu) to install
In December 2008, Lake County Sanitation District (LACOSAN) completed the installation of 6.1 ha (15.5 ac) of solar panels
that provide 2169 kW, or 91% of the electricity load, for two wastewater treatment plants and one correctional facility. Here
is a photo of the solar panels installed near LACOSAN’s Northwest Wastewater Plant.
LakeCountySanitationDistrict

11. 11
November | December 2009
549 195-W solar panels on the roof of
its 2800-m3
/d (750,000-gal/d) Makena
Wastewater Reclamation Plant and two
pump stations.
The reclamation plant serves
Dowling’s 730-ha (1800-ac) Makena
Resort in Maui, which includes the
beachfront Maui Prince Hotel and two
18-hole golf courses.
In Hawaii, energy is a limited resource
with high costs, explained Jennifer
Stites, green development manager at
Dowling. “In Maui, we pay 30 cents a
kilowatt hour,” she said. “Over 90% of
our energy we receive is through burn-
ing diesel. Boats have to bring it in, and
needless to say, this is not the best
thing to do environmentally.”
The solar panels, installed in May,
have proven to be a more ecofriendly
alternative to diesel by supplying
150,000 kWh annually, or roughly 75%
of the energy needed to operate the
reclamation plant. The facility is also on
a net metering system, so only enough
energy needed to sustain the plant
is produced. The net metering also
serves as a no-cost way of banking
excess electricity production for future
retail credit.
“For us, net metering was the most
cost-effective,” Stites said.
Dowling spent $1 million on its solar
project but received rebates in the form
of federal tax (30% of total cost) and
state tax credits (35% of total cost) to
help fund the project. Stites said the
return on investment for the solar power
project with tax credits will be approxi-
mately 7 years.
The first phase is complete. The sec-
ond phase will entail the installation of
498 additional panels, thereby increas-
ing the total system size from 107 kW to
204 kW. This phase will be done in 2 to
3 years “after we build up the rest of the
resort,” Stites said. Also, the hope is to
one day make the entire resort a zero-en-
ergy community through a roof-mounted
photovoltaic solar farm, she said.
The Biggest in the West
Like Dowling, Lake County (Calif.)
Sanitation District also has entered
the solar energy arena in a big way. In
December 2008, it completed installa-
tion of 6.1 ha (15.5 ac) of solar panels
that provide 2169 kW, or 91% of the
electricity load, for two wastewater
treatment facilities — the Northwest
Wastewater Plant and the Southeast
Wastewater Plant — and one correc-
tional facility. The project has been cited
as the biggest local public agency instal-
lation in the western United States, said
Mark Dellinger, special districts adminis-
trator for Lake County.
Dellinger said the solar panel instal-
lation is an extension of the county’s
belief in energy efficiency and sustain-
ability that began with its participation in
the Southeast Geysers Effluent Pipeline
Project, which pumps treated waste-
water 50 km (30 mi) through pipelines
to recharge geysers. The project also
serves as a source for geothermal ener-
gy for the region.
Thanks to both the geysers and solar
power projects, “our entire county has
a net surplus of renewable energy,”
Dellinger said.
Lake County’s solar energy project
was 4 years in the making, though the
sanitation district did not first consider
solar energy when it was seeking a
viable, cost-effective renewable energy
source. The district had hoped to install
a microturbine along the geyser recharge
pipeline, but a feasibility study showed
that it would take too long to get a return
on investment, Dellinger said.
The county also considered wind
energy but discounted it because there
was not good wind potential at any of
the prospective locations, and the dis-
trict administrators did not like the visual
impact of wind turbines, Dellinger said.
Lake County finally decided to use solar
power after visiting several solar power
installations in California.
Along the way, the Lake County
Correctional Facility joined the project
because it had similar energy needs.
“Of all the agencies in Lake County, we
have the highest electricity bills because
of the amount of water we pump daily,”
Dellinger said. “When we told the [board
of supervisors] about our project idea,
they suggested including the jails,
because they have high electricity bills
too.” However, the jails did not have
enough land for solar arrays. “But luckily
they were next door to one of our facili-
ties, so they could just use the energy
from the arrays near one of our plants,”
Dellinger explained.
Dellinger said the sanitation district
went through a competitive selection
process and decided to give the con-
tract to SunPower Corp. (San Jose,
Calif.), which agreed to own, operate,
and maintain the solar arrays but sell
the electricity to the sanitation district
and the correctional facility. “We felt
that because neither our agency nor
the sheriff’s office had large capital,
we should go with a purchasing agree-
ment,” he explained.
The installation took 6 months to
complete and only had a few small con-
struction complications, such as under-
ground utilities that had to be relocated
and high clay content in some of the soil
that required special handling and exca-
vation, Dellinger said. In the end, 9430
panels were installed.
“These solar panels … track the sun
on a daily basis, which I heard increases
their output of energy between 20% to
30% more than a fixed array,” Dellinger
said. “You can hear and see them slowly
moving when you go out there.”
Dellinger estimates that the two
WWTPs are saving annually between
$20,000 and $30,000, because they
are buying electricity from SunPower
instead of the local utility company. He
also said that though SunPower receives
the renewable energy credits and tax
breaks, “there will be times when there
is [an electricity] surplus, and it can go
back to the utility power grid. Through a
net metering agreement, the sanitation
district receives credit for it through a
‘true-up process’ that is accessed at the
end of the year.”
Dellinger said the sanitation district is
evaluating the possibility of adding more
solar capacity to its Middletown waste-
water facility in conjunction with plant
upgrades. “Though we may have to fund
that through another purchasing agree-
ment,” he said.
– LaShell Stratton–Childers, UE

12. 12
Utility Executive
Things break. It’s a fact of life that
every utility must reckon with.
In recent decades, utilities have
applied a variety of maintenance strate-
gies to keep both failures and their asso-
ciated costs to a minimum. Following
the lead of private industry, some have
used preventive maintenance approaches
that call for routine checks and equip-
ment overhauls on a preset schedule. If a
device can be repaired just before it fails,
they reason, they can minimize the risk
and cost of failure.
Others say that maintenance is about
managing the way things fail. Rather
than overhauling equipment when it
may still have useful life, these organi-
zations have developed maintenance
approaches that require people to
monitor the condition of each system
component to determine when a repair
is necessary and then take the proper
actions to maintain it.
This reliability-centered approach to
maintenance requires a formal process
to determine a maintenance strategy
for every asset. But as the Metropolitan
Sewer District (MSD) of Greater Cincinnati
recently discovered, such an approach
has other applications as well.
Specifically, MSD chose to apply
a reliability-centered maintenance
approach to determine the service
levels called for in its asset-manage-
ment-centric strategic plan. The plan
attempts to align the utilities’ many
departments — from engineering and
operations to human resources and
maintenance — with its mission, vision,
and values. MSD then manages its
operations using the principles of asset
management.
The Link Between Service
Levels and Reliability-Centered
Maintenance
If reliability-centered maintenance is
about managing the way a system fails,
then service levels could be about man-
aging the way those systems are intended
to perform, the leaders of MSD reasoned.
A utility, the thinking went, is really
a collection of processes that can be
grouped together as a system. Assets
within this system include not only
equipment but also employees, orga-
nizational knowledge, and business
processes — each of which requires
a strategy for effective implementation
and usage.
Service levels define what a utility’s
customers and other stakeholders should
be able to expect of these assets in
terms of quality and quantity of service,
reliability, responsiveness, environmental
acceptability, and cost. Those expecta-
tions must be defined in clear and mea-
surable terms that actual performance
can be measured against — just as main-
tenance needs should be defined in clear
and measurable terms that staff can use
to determine repair needs.
At least that was MSD’s reason-
ing. The utility’s goal was to develop a
straightforward process for determining
service levels that would be consistent
with the underlying assumptions of its
strategic plan.
The assignment of defining these
service levels was handed to a diverse
group of employees representing a range
of skills and backgrounds. Candidates
were selected based on defined core
competencies to ensure that the team
had the necessary technical and non-
technical skills for success. While each
candidate did not necessarily possess
all the identified core competencies, the
final team balanced creative, free-thinking
people with more-organized, methodical,
and facilitator types.
After defining its objective, reviewing
level-of-service theory, and studying how
others had tackled similar assignments,
the team still struggled with the age-old
question, “Where do we go from here?”
Their first job was to reach consensus on
some key points:
Customers would have to be involved■■
in setting the service levels. Surveys,
focus groups, and willingness-to-pay
studies all would help capture what
customers are thinking. MSD’s chal-
lenge was to ensure that customers
also understood the costs associated
with meeting these expectations. The
service-level team agreed to collect
and report service-level data regularly
to customers, boards, elected officials,
regulators, and other stakeholders.
Service levels would have to be■■
expressed in clear, measurable, and
auditable terms and delivered consis-
tently across the utility’s entire cus-
tomer base.
Service levels would have to be■■
consistent with customer expecta-
tions, as well as legal and regulatory
requirements. They would have to
reflect customer priorities, address
levels of customer satisfaction, and
be linked to performance manage-
ment while also aligning with the
utility’s strategic plan, budget, and
capital improvement projects.
Service levels eventually will be used■■
to educate customers, develop ser-
vice-level delivery strategies, identify
the costs and benefits of the services
offered, and enable customers to
assess the suitability, affordability, and
equitable delivery of services.
This is not to say that members of
the service-level team were in com-
plete agreement throughout the pro-
cess. Before the reliability-centered
maintenance approach was adopted,
the team renamed itself for a time as
the Level of Service Team or L.O.S.T.
— a reflection of the confusion and
discomfort they felt undertaking a proj-
ect that seemed foreign to them and
for purposes that did not always seem
clear. The reliability-centered approach
provided the focus and organization
they needed.
Determining Service Levels Using Reliability-
Centered Maintenance
Scott Maring, Dan Siler, and Scott Haskins

13. 13
November | December 2009
Adapting the Reliability-Centered
Maintenance Process
A classic reliability-centered mainte-
nance process begins with the project
team defining the systems and pro-
cesses to be assessed. Seven questions
typically are asked about each one:
What are its functions and the asso-■■
ciated asset performance standards
in its present operating condition?
In what ways might it fail to fulfill its■■
functions?
What causes each functional failure?■■
What happens when each failure■■
occurs?
In what way does each failure matter?■■
What can be done to predict or pre-■■
vent each failure?
What should be done if a suitable■■
proactive task cannot be found?
While the process begins by look-
ing at the system level for functions and
functional failures, it quickly digs down
to the component level to find failure
modes and eventually the appropriate
maintenance strategy.
In MSD’s case, the team used these
questions as a starting point, developing
a 10-step process for defining service
levels for each of the utility’s assets:
Step 1 — Define the business pro-
cess. This first step was to define the
services the utility organization per-
formed and convert them into “process
maps,” or high-level representations that
clearly label each system component,
any inputs and outputs associated with
it, as well as flow direction. The inputs at
a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP),
for example, are combined and sanitary
wastewater. The outputs include air and
water streams.
Step 2 — Establish system boundary.
The process map then was reviewed
to ensure that the utility’s key business
concerns were represented. For exam-
ple, consider the outputs of a WWTP.
While air and water are certainly dis-
charged from the plant, another “output”
is odor — something that is of special
concern to customers and should be
considered in establishing service levels.
Step 3 — Begin at the end. In defining
service levels for each component, the
team began with the end goal in mind
and then defined the necessary inputs
and outputs that make each component
successful.
Step 4 — Develop functional state-
ments. Next, the project team developed
functional statements that described
each component’s function. These typi-
cally mentioned the inputs and outputs
— particularly in early drafts — to help
ensure that all components’ functions
were understood. For a WWTP, a func-
tional statement might read something
like this: “MSD shall protect public air
and water streams by processing com-
bined and sanitary wastewater, allow-
ing byproducts to be disposed of in
accordance with all stakeholder require-
ments.”
Step 5 — Define functional failures.
Next, the project team described all the
ways a component function might fail.
For example, see how a component’s
function and failure are described in
the table “The Relationship Between
Component Function and Failure” below.
Step 6 — Convert functional failures
into service-level statements. Functional
failure statements were converted into
service-level statements that described
how the utility protects against those
functional failures. For a functional fail-
ure such as “WWTP does not protect
the public air stream,” a correspond-
ing service-level statement might be
“WWTP protects the public air stream in
accordance with air permits.” In another
example where the functional failure is
“WWTP does not dispose of byproducts
in accordance with stakeholder require-
ments,” the service-level statement
would be, “WWTP disposes of byprod-
ucts to support the treatment process.”
Step 7 — Define performance mea-
sures for service-level statements. The
team next defined how MSD would
measure each service-level statement so
the agency later could assess progress
and discuss potential improvements. For
example, a statement such as “WWTP
protects the public air stream in accor-
dance with air permits,” the performance
measure would be the percentage of
time used to accomplish that goal.
Step 8 — Define targets for service-
level performance measures. MSD
now knew how it was going to mea-
sure performance. The question then
became what targets it should expect
to hit. For example, what percent-
The Relationship Between Component Function and Failure
Component Component function Functional failure
WWTP MSD shall protect the public air and water streams by
accepting, treating, and discharging combined and sanitary
wastewater, allowing the byproducts to be disposed of in
accordance with all stakeholder requirements.
MSD does not protect the public air stream.
MSD does not protect the public water stream.
MSD does not accept combined wastewater.
MSD does not treat combined wastewater.
MSD does not discharge combined wastewater.
MSD does not accept sanitary wastewater.
MSD does not treat sanitary wastewater.
MSD does not discharge sanitary wastewater.
MSD does not dispose of byproducts in accordance with
stakeholder requirements.
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.
MSD = Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati.

14. 14
Utility Executive
age of the time should a WWTP be
expected to protect the public water
stream in accordance with discharge
permits? The service-level target MSD
chose was 100% permit compliance.
Targets like this can be developed in
many ways. They can be borrowed
from other utilities or based on regula-
tor or stakeholder input, taking finan-
cial, social, and environmental costs
into consideration.
Step 9 — Repeat the process for the
next system component. The process
for the first system component was now
complete. The team returned to Step
3 and repeated the same exercise for
each system component until each one
had been analyzed.
Step 10 — Verify, review, and align
service levels with your organization.
Once the process was complete, the
team doubled back to make sure the
service-level statements fit the utility’s
mission, vision, and values and aligned
with its strategic plan. Since the service-
level process was born out of the stra-
tegic plan, all should be in alignment.
Nonetheless, it was helpful to perform a
check at the end to be sure.
Not all items developed from this
process were necessarily service levels.
In some cases, the outcome of the pro-
cess was an organizational performance
measure, rather than a service level.
For example, the team developed one
statement that said, “WWTP disposes
of byproducts to support the treatment
process.” This is an important perfor-
mance measure for MSD as a whole but
plays only a supporting role for service
levels related to air and water permit
compliance.
Benefits of a Reliability-Centered
Maintenance Approach
In the end, a process to establish
service levels is a discussion of asset
failures and performance, work pro-
cesses, measures, and targets, all of
which relate ultimately to customers,
their expectations, the cost of service,
and the acceptable level of risk to be
assumed. This is information that a util-
ity can use in many ways and for differ-
ent purposes.
On an organizational system level,
this reliability-centered approach can be
used to develop a service-level frame-
work; on an asset level, it can be used
to develop a maintenance strategy.
This structured process also can
be used as a tool for change manage-
ment. If change is a utility’s goal, then
team involvement is especially vital for
success. Without input from a diverse
group, the results may be skewed
toward a particular ideology or point
of view that has not been subjected
to necessary analysis, discussion, and
debate.
By drawing from a wide range of
perspectives and opinions, the outcome
can more closely reflect the overall best
interests of the utility and its customers.
This team approach leads to long-term
ownership of the results and process. It
also creates champions within an orga-
nization to communicate direction and
rationale, and helps facilitate an under-
standing of major asset management
activities and strategic plan goals.
By applying this structured
approach, Cincinnati MSD found that
the journey to the final outcome is well
documented and defensible to stake-
holders. The structured approach also
kept the group focused on the task at
hand, reducing the tendency to chase
issues down to a low level when team
members should stay focused at a
higher strategic level.
Not only did the process streamline
the development of the utility’s first
service-level framework, it also allows
for continuous improvement by setting
the stage for the orderly review of ser-
vice levels in the future. A review team
can verify systems, inputs, outputs,
boundaries, and historical stakeholder
input to ensure the service levels still
hold true.
Service-Level Applications
Once the service-level framework was
complete, MSD’s Wastewater Treatment
Division began the process of tying its
firm sustainable-capacity service level to
its ongoing operation and maintenance
activities.
In this case, “firm sustainable
capacity” means that only one major
piece of equipment or tank can be out
of service for a particular process at a
particular time. For example, a primary
treatment process with eight identically
sized primary settling tanks would have
a firm sustainable capacity of seven
primary settling tanks.
MSD applied this service-level
measure and target at its Mill Creek
WWTP, one of the utility’s seven
WWTPs. The Mill Creek plant previ-
ously had used an equipment-avail-
ability measure based on the amount
of equipment available. While it is
important to have sufficient equip-
ment available, the measure did not
reflect whether the “right” equipment
was available. A spreadsheet was
developed to capture the raw data
for available equipment and convert
it into available capacity. By analyz-
ing capacity, the plant could focus on
the maintenance activities and capital
expenditures needed to ensure firm
capacity is met.
Data then were entered into a data-
base to track the percent of time firm
capacity is available through primary
and secondary treatment, as well as
during wet weather flows. Now that the
process to track this service level has
been developed and implemented suc-
cessfully, it will be rolled out to the six
remaining MSD WWTPs.
Meanwhile, a service-level frame-
work has been developed for the entire
organization. Service levels have been
prioritized, and small, focused teams
are working on measures and targets.
In coming months, these teams will
present and implement their find-
ings with the goal of identifying other
areas of MSD that will benefit from this
approach. Ultimately, the process is
making us a more asset-management-
centric organization.
Scott Maring and Dan Siler are
assistant superintendents of wastewater
treatment at the Metropolitan Sewer
District of Greater Cincinnati. Scott
Haskins is a vice president at CH2M Hill
(Englewood, Colo.).

15. 15
November | December 2009
in briefin brief
U.S. EPA Announces Plan to
Revamp Clean Water Enforcement
Program
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson
announced on Oct.15 during a U.S.
House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee hearing that the agency is
increasing its Clean Water Act enforce-
ment efforts.
The Clean Water Action Enforcement
Plan is a first step in revamping the
compliance and enforcement program.
It seeks to improve the protection of our
U.S.’s water quality, raise the bar in fed-
eral and state performance, and enhance
public transparency. The plan outlines
how the agency will strengthen how it
addresses the water pollution challenges
of this century. These challenges include
pollution caused by numerous dispersed
sources, such as concentrated animal
feeding operations, wastewater over-
flows, construction sites, some industrial
facilities and runoff from urban streets.
The goals of the plan are to target
enforcement to the most significant pol-
lution problems; to improve transparency
and accountability by providing the public
access to better data about water quality
in their communities; and to strengthen
enforcement performance at the state
and federal levels. Elements of the plan
include the following:
Develop more comprehensive
approaches to ensure enforcement is tar-
geted to the most serious violations and
the most significant sources of pollution.
Work with states to ensure greater
consistency throughout the country with
respect to compliance and water quali-
ty. Ensure that states are issuing protective
permits and taking appropriate enforce-
ment to achieve compliance, and removing
economic incentives to violate the law.
Use 21st-century information tech-
nology to collect, analyze and use data
more efficiently and to make it readily
accessible to the public. Better tools will
help federal and state regulators identify
serious compliance problems quickly and
take prompt actions to correct them.
A copy of the action plan can be
found at www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/
cwa/cwaenfplan.html.
Bill Seeks More Enforcement
of States Failing To Reduce
Chesapeake Bay Pollution
Sen. Ben Cardin (D–Md.) introduced
on Oct. 19 the Chesapeake Clean Water
and Ecosystem Act, a measure that
would make the six states sharing the
Chesapeake Bay watershed face federal
enforcement action if their efforts to reduce
pollution entering the ecosystem fall short.
The bill, H.R. 3852, would codify and
replace Sec. 117 of the Clean Water
Act, which governs the Chesapeake Bay
program. The bill also would codify U.S.
President Barack Obama’s May 12 exec-
utive order requiring other federal agen-
cies to work with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
annual action plans for restoring the bay.
A copy of the bill can be found at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_
billsdocid=f:h3852ih.txt.pdf.
The bill requires a 2025 deadline for
the six states to have in place all the
pollution reduction efforts considered
necessary for the ecosystem’s recovery.
The bill also would establish in federal
law a series of deadlines meant to ensure
that each state makes steady progress
toward the restoration goal and retains
the program. EPA and the states would
be required to perform a series of actions
to improve water quality in the bay.
For example, the legislation would
require creation of an interstate nutri-
ent trading program by 2015. Also, the
measure would make legally binding a
Chesapeake Bay Program plan for EPA
and the states that would finalize a baywide
total maximum daily load (TMDL) for pollut-
ants by Dec. 31, 2010, followed by estab-
lishment of consistent local TMDLs. The
bill specifically prohibits any net increase in
pollutant loading from impervious surfaces,
combined animal feeding operations, trans-
portation systems, and septic tanks.
Each of the bay states would have to
develop and implement a series of pro-
grams to reduce pollution to TMDL levels
by 2025, such as
watershed implementation plans
for each of their tidal water segments,
including enforceable pollution reduc-
tion targets and schedules that apply to
upstream and tidal point sources, septic
systems, agricultural runoff, and nonpoint
stormwater runoff;
TMDL-compliant, enforceable pollution
permits for each pollution source with
state law requiring pollution reductions
for agricultural and other lands outside
EPA jurisdiction; and
submission of progress reports to EPA
every 2 years beginning in 2014, with
states obligated to be either on track to
meet their local TMDLs by 2025, or ready
to implement an alternative plan.
The bill also would create a new
stormwater permitting program, under
which developers, beginning Jan. 1,
2013, would be compelled to replicate
the natural hydrology of the land and
compensate for any unavoidable impacts.
Only projects resulting in more than an
EPA-specified amount of impervious sur-
face would be regulated.
The legislation also would authorize a
new $1.5 billion federal grant program to
help states, localities, and farmers pay
for projects that reduce the amount of
urban and suburban stormwater enter-
ing the watershed’s rivers and streams.
Also, bay states would have to ban
phosphates in detergents within 3 years
of the bill’s enactment.
U.S. House Committee Approves
Chemical and Water Security Bills
The U.S. House Energy and
Commerce Committee approved two bills
on Oct. 21 that would extend and expand
the authority of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to regulate the
security of chemical plants and give the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) authority to regulate drinking water
and wastewater treatment plant security.
The bills — the Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868) and

16. 16
Utility Executive
the Drinking Water System Security Act of
2009 (H.R. 3258) — both require inher-
ently safer technology (IST) or methods to
reduce the consequences of a chemical
release from an intentional act. Majority of
the revisions were made to H.R. 2868.
House Democrats voted down
Republican-sponsored amendments to
eliminate requirements for plants and
water systems to use safer chemicals
and processes and eliminate provisions
that would allow states to enact stricter
security laws.
Under the latest version of H.R. 2868,
DHS would have to increase the number
of chemical facility inspectors by at least
100 in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. The
bill also would limit the number of facilities
placed by DHS in the highest two risk tiers
that are designated for facilities that pose
a risk of releasing a “chemical substance
of concern.” The compromise version
approved by the subcommittee would not
include those facilities that pose a risk of
theft of a substance of concern.
H.R. 2868 also eliminates the ability of
citizens to sue companies that fall under
the purview of this bill. Instead, it would
enable people with concerns to petition
DHS to look into problems at neighboring
chemical plants.
H.R. 3258 would give EPA the authority
to implement chemical security antiter-
rorism standards for community-based
drinking water and wastewater systems.
The compromise version approved by the
committee includes a provision that would
require the state or EPA to provide a water
system with an opportunity for appeal if it
disagrees with a determination that an IST
was implemented. EPA also would have
to provide guidance to water systems in
the lower risk tiers to streamline the IST
assessment process for these systems.
The text of H.R. 2868 can be found
at www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.
xpd?bill=h111-2868. The text of H.R.
3258 can be found www.govtrack.us/
congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3258.
Climate Legislation Seeks Deeper
Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D–Calif.) and
John Kerry (D–Mass.) of the Environment
and Public Works Committee introduced
climate legislation on Sept. 30 that would
require deeper cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions than a similar bill introduced
in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Senate bill also would protect U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
authority over emissions from coal-fired
power plants. The legislation would require
greenhouse gas emissions to be cut 20%
by 2020 from 2005 levels. (At press time,
no bill number had been assigned.)
Unlike the House bill, the Boxer–Kerry
Clean Energy Jobs and American Power
Act would not block EPA from exerting
much of its Clean Air Act authority —
including new source review provisions
— over greenhouse gases at coal-fired
power plants.
The 20% by 2020 cut drew fire later
in the day from several coal state and
Midwestern Democrats, including Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller
IV (D–W.Va.), Senate Budget Committee
Chairman Kent Conrad (D–N.D.), and
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D–N.D.), who have
said cuts of that magnitude will hurt the
coal industry and leave consumers with
higher energy bills.
The Boxer–Kerry bill also differs from
the House bill on carbon offsets: Projects
that reduce emissions at a low cost,
such as tree plantings and could be
used by power plants and other opera-
tions to meet their mandated emissions
reductions. In the House bill, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, rather than
EPA, would oversee the offsets program,
a compromise that brought support from
rural Democrats but angered environmen-
tal groups who want assurances of more
vigorous oversight. The Senate bill would
leave that decision up to the president. It
also would establish a new independent
Offsets Integrity Advisory Board to help
the president determine what projects
should be eligible and assure that they
represent “verifiable, additional, and per-
manent” reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. The House bill would establish
a similar advisory panel but would put it
under EPA. The Senate bill would estab-
lish another offsets oversight panel not
mentioned in the House bill — an Office
of Offsets Integrity — that would be
placed in the U.S. Department of Justice.
Access the bill at http://kerry.senate.
gov/cleanenergyjobsandamericanpower/
intro.cfm.
Join fellow water and wastewater professionals in San Francisco to hear the latest
in approaches, practices, processes, techniques, case studies, and research,
covering the entire spectrum of utility management.
Stay at the InterContinental San Francisco and receive a discounted room rate, only
available for a limited time. Be sure to mention the Water Environment Federation.
www.wef.org/UtilityManagement
or visit by clicking this ad
Jointly sponsored by the American
Water Works Association and the Water
Environment Federation.
The Utility Management Conference 2010
February 21 – 24, 2010 | InterContinental San Francisco Hotel
San Francisco, California