Getting Your Workforce Right: A New and Improved Guide to Estimating Staffing at Northeast Wastewater Treatment Plants

Transcription

1 Getting Your Workforce Right: A New and Improved Guide to Estimating Staffing at Northeast Wastewater Treatment Plants John Murphy, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) 1* jmurphy@neiwpcc.org Thomas Groves, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) 2 KEYWORDS: Estimating Staffing, Utility Management, Asset Management ABSTRACT (150 words max.): The wastewater field has long had a need for a systematic approach to determining staffing levels at treatment plants, a need that for many years was addressed by an EPA guide. Widespread changes in the field led to demand for a new, up-to-date, and enhanced guide that would provide an accurate, user-friendly, and cost-effective means of estimating the number of staff needed to operate and maintain a modern treatment facility. In November 2008, following an extensive development process, the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) published The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants. The guide contains charts that yield staffing estimates for facilities of all sizes and complexity. It should be particularly helpful to those planning a new facility, upgrading current operations, or reviewing treatment plant options, such as adding new operations or reducing staff. INTRODUCTION Since the passage of the original Clean Water Act in 1972, the federal government has invested more than $72 billion in building more than 16,000 municipal wastewater treatment facilities nationwide. To make the most of that investment, the facilities must employ capable operators, who ensure plants are run safely, efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with permit requirements. Ideally, a plant must also employ the exact amount of operators it needs no less and no more. This is especially important in the current economic environment, when budget restrictions are commonplace; it is also challenging, given the multitude of tasks at a plant and their complexity. Too often, wastewater plants are inadequately staffed, with the result being permit non-compliance and a deterioration of the investment in a facility. Among those connected in any way to wastewater treatment from consultants and contract operations firms to regulators and technical assistance providers a strong desire exists for a systematic approach to determining staffing levels at wastewater treatment plants. In 1973, U.S. EPA addressed this need by publishing the widely referenced guide entitled Estimated Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Over the years, however, changes in the wastewater industry diminished the guide s usefulness. Using the 1973 EPA guide as a model, NEIWPCC developed The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants. 1743

2 METHODOLOGY To assist in the development of the guide, NEIWPCC formed an advisory committee of regional 104(g) members (technical assistance regulators from the Northeast), state regulators, wastewater treatment plant managers and superintendents, staff from contract operations firms, and local wastewater experts with experience in staffing wastewater treatment plants. Working with the committee, NEIWPCC developed a survey that was sent to 50 plants in New England and New York State. The survey provided an initial look into who was controlling staffing, how it was being handled, whether plants felt they were over- or understaffed, and what documents were being used to estimate staffing. One clear conclusion emerged: while the 1973 EPA guide was still being used at some plants, no specific document or practice was being widely referenced to estimate staffing. This underscored the need for a new, up-to-date resource. The advisory committee decided the best method to develop staffing estimates would be a series of charts, which would allow users to calculate the number of staff hours that needed to be devoted each year to completing a wide variety of tasks in plants of various flow rates. Given the guide was to be targeted primarily for use in the Northeast, the committee emphasized that the charts include all processes and units employed by facilities in the region. With input from the committee, NEIWPCC developed the first draft of the charts, which were then subject to an intensive review process. This review included a pilot study in which staff from NEIWPCC and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection visited 25 plants in New England with flows ranging from 0.25 million gallons a day up to 56 mgd, and with varying processes and staffing practices. The staff toured municipal plants, contract operation plants, plants with outsourced departments, and plants with additional responsibilities, such as operating and maintaining collection systems and pump stations, other wastewater and drinking water facilities, landfills, and composting systems. At each facility visited during the pilot study, the plant s managers and operators provided feedback on the accuracy of the chart estimates. The feedback from plants with detailed computer maintenance records proved to be particularly helpful. After the pilot study, NEIWPCC staff compared the actual staff numbers at each pilot study facility to the staffing estimates for each facility derived by using the charts. The advisory committee reviewed the results of this exercise as well as the entirety of the feedback received during the pilot study. This review led to a series of adjustments to the charts, which improved their accuracy. As a final step in the review process, NEIWPCC sent the revised charts to managers at three wastewater treatment plants, who determined the charts yielded accurate results in all cases. The final charts are very detailed and cover most all wastewater activities and processes conducted at a modern wastewater treatment plant in the Northeast. However, since the field of wastewater treatment is always evolving, the guide was designed so it can be easily updated to reflect future changes in the field. Another important feature of the guide is that, in addition to printed charts that users fill out by hand, it includes a CD containing the charts in an interactive Microsoft Excel version. The Excel charts allow users to fill in the fields using a computer, and to let the spreadsheet automatically make the necessary mathematical calculations. 1744

3 RESULTS NEIWPCC published The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants in November It includes sections explaining the development process and the different philosophies and practices on staffing wastewater treatment facilities. But the centerpiece is the charts, of which there are seven Basic and Advanced Operations and Processes, Biosolids/Sludge Handling, Laboratory Operations, Yardwork, Maintenance, Automation/SCADA, and Considerations for Additional Plant Staffing in each of three shift categories. These categories are necessary to accommodate for the fact that wastewater treatment plants differ in the number of personnel shifts per day. It is imperative that the user fill out the charts tailored to the staffing schedule utilized by his or her facility. The categories are: One Shift Plant: A facility that has one shift a day, five days a week. 24/7 Plant: A facility that is staffed seven days a week, 24 hours per day. One-Plus Shift Plant: Any facility with a staffing schedule that does not fit into the previous two categories. These plants may have one shift a day, seven days a week; or perhaps one shift a day, five days a week, with a reduced number of hours on weekends The charts are designed for publicly and privately owned wastewater treatment plants in New England and New York State with flows ranging from 0.25 million gallons a day to greater than 20 mgd. The EPA estimate of 1,500 hours was used regarding the number of hours worked by a typical employee per year. This estimate assumes a five-day work week; 6.5 hours of productive work per day; and an average of 29 days for holidays, vacations, and sick leave. Where conditions at a plant are significantly different from these assumptions, it may be necessary to use a figure other than 1,500 hours when dividing the total hours derived from the charts to determine staffing needs. It should be noted that two charts do not provide specific annual hourly estimates. Chart 6 (Automation/SCADA) and Chart 7 (Additional Considerations) are checklists that allow the user to evaluate distinctive features of a facility that preclude numerical estimation but should nonetheless be taken into consideration when determining staffing needs. The Automation/SCADA chart allows the user to identify and assess the level of automation employed by a facility; as the level of automation increases at a plant, the need for a more technically trained staff rises concurrently. The inclusion of the Additional Considerations chart reflects a key observation made during the pilot study that is, that each plant is unique in the responsibilities placed upon its staff, which can include snow removal, road repair, collection systems operation and maintenance, assistance with town composting/recycling, and involvement in other municipal projects. In Chart 7, users utilize their own professional judgment to determine the impact of these additional responsibilities on staffing. 1745

4 DISCUSSION While the charts were meticulously developed to provide an accurate estimate on staffing publicly and privately owned wastewater treatment plants, they are designed to be a guide and not the sole factor in determining the number of staff needed to operate a plant. Estimating is not an exact science. The staffing total derived from the charts should be viewed as a starting point for further discussion on final staffing levels. There is no hard-and-fast rule on what jobs there should be at any one treatment plant, and each plant s administration should not feel restricted to a specific selection of job titles or shift staffing. The staffing at a plant must be designed to meet the facility s specific requirements, and the final decision on staffing is the province of each municipality and other stakeholders in a facility. This does not, however, diminish the importance of the guide. It provides a much-needed and upto-date systematic approach to staffing at wastewater facilities. Furthermore, the possible absence in the future of large federal funding sources suggests that state and local governments will have to carry the burden of upgrading and repairing facilities increasing the importance of proper staffing decisions. Amid stringent discharge limits, tight budgets, and rising chemical, energy, and fuel costs, the staffing estimates provided by the guide come in handy for those in charge of wastewater facilities, where employees tend to have a broad range of job responsibilities both within the facility as well as outside the plant. CONCLUSIONS The NEIWPCC guide provides a quick, easy, and cost-effective way for municipal officials, plant superintendents, engineers, regulators, operators, contract operation firms, permittees, and other parties to estimate the staffing needs of publicly and privately owned wastewater treatment plants in the northeast United States. It should be particularly helpful to those in the process of planning a new facility, upgrading current operations, or reviewing treatment plant options, such as the addition of new operations, solids handling, or a reduction of staff. Since the guide s publication, the charts have been effectively used by communities who are under increased scrutiny in these challenging economic times. Managers at a plant in Concord, Mass., for example, used the charts to estimate their staffing needs as the plant undergoes the process of upgrading to tertiary treatment. The charts allowed the managers to evaluate the different staffing scenarios they will be facing in the future, and to present a plan to town officials on the staffing impact of the treatment upgrade. The experience in Concord illustrates the guide s versatility. In addition to helping municipal managers, consultants, contract service providers, and others determine staffing needs at a facility, the results generated by the charts can be used to support budget allocations, identify performance-limiting factors, inform composite correction plans, and evaluate proposals for contract services. Furthermore, the guide can be used as a mechanism to educate facility managers and community officials about the importance of using adequately trained and licensed personnel at wastewater treatment plants. 1746

5 To ensure that the publication is available to all who wish to use it, NEIWPCC has made the entire guide, including the Excel version of the charts, available as a free download from its website. (Printed versions are available for a moderate charge.) NEIWPCC is also spreading the word about the guide s availability by delivering presentations on it at various conferences, including the Annual NEWEA Conference (January 2009), the Spring NEWEA Conference (June 2009), the National 104(g) Meeting (June 2009), and at many state programs in New England. NEIWPCC has also set up training sessions to inform municipalities and plants of the proper methods for filling out the charts and the multiple uses of the guide. On the NEIWPCC website, a forum is being developed that will allow users to provide comments on the charts that will be extremely helpful in keeping the guide up-to-date and accurate. While the guide was designed with the staffing needs of plants in the northeast United States in mind, it may be used as a guide for plants in other regions. The development of an official national version is under consideration; NEIWPCC is requesting that EPA fund an expanded edition of the guide expressly designed for guiding staffing decisions at facilities throughout the country. REFERENCES Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers, Health Education Services Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. Connecticut DEP. March The Cost of Clean Water, A Sewer User Charge Rate Survey and Guidance Manual. New Hampshire DES, Division of Water Quality. March New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules. Chapter Env-Wq 700 Standards of Design and Construction for Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. U.S. EPA. Operation and Maintenance Program. March Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. September Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems. U.S. EPA, Program of Quality Assurance. March Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Water Environment Research Foundation Benchmarking Wastewater Operations Collection, Treatment, and Biosolids Management. 1747