Development of a New Facility Classification Model Kalpna Solanki Chief Executive Officer Environmental Operators Certification Program

Facility/System Classification Based on an assessment of population size, operational complexity, infrastructure components, and operating attributes. Sometimes, the ‘right answer’ is not that obvious! Classification system was developed more than 20 years ago with only minor changes between then and now – meanwhile technology has changed, regulations have changed, operator qualifications have changed

Is There A Problem? Current system: Has a strong emphasis on population Is vulnerable to personal bias Is not transparent Does not reflect current technologies Does not consider the full scope of Operator responsibilities When reviewing classifications done by different assessors, notice inconsistencies. Goal is to make both the classification model and the related business processes more open and transparent, and consistent in application. Consider the full scope of watershed to tap, and drain to watershed

What Is The Solution? Develop a system that: Makes the classification process open and transparent Encourages comparison between similar facilities Provides a mechanism for appealing/disputing results Provides a mechanism for modifying the models due to errors/omissions, changes in technology, or changes in legislation Engages stakeholders in the details of the classification process You can check on which facilities got what results You can appeal results When technology or legislation changes occur, the model can easily be updated Numerous Chief Operators have been involved in the review process, and we are reaching out to additional groups to get feedback on these models

The EOCP’s New Models Four new classification models: Water Treatment Water Distribution Wastewater Collection Wastewater Treatment Involved engineers from Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment, EOCP staff, and SMEs who work in the water and wastewater industry.

Purpose Of The New Models To measure the operational complexity of a facility or system Each model considers: Infrastructure Influencers Infrastructure: the ‘as-built’ structures, components, and processes that comprise the facility or system Influencers: other factors such as staffing, schedules, inputs variability, etc. that could contribute to the operational complexity

At The Core Of Each Model A consistent and transparent approach to the development of the ‘points score’ for each classification factor, including: Operational Complexity Operational Sensitivity Operator Attention and Maintenance Consequence of Failure Impact to Water/Effluent Quality Operational Complexity – how complex is the component? Operational Sensitivity – how sensitive is the equipment or process to operator input or changes, and is advanced operator knowledge required? Operator Attention and Maintenance – how often is operator attention required to keep the component operating and maintained adequately? Consequence of Failure – what are the consequences of failure to worker, public health, and the environment? How complex is emergency management and/or for bringing the component back on line? Impact to Water/Effluent Quality – does the component impact physical, chemical, or biological properties of the water or effluent? How critical is component to the plant’s water or effluent quality?

Ranking Of Infrastructure Factors Weight Operational Complexity 7 Operational Sensitivity 5 Operator Attention and Maintenance 3 Consequence of Failure 10 Impact to Water/Effluent Quality 8 Each infrastructure factor used in the models is ranked or its contribution to operational complexity on each of these five dimensions, and the rankings are weighted and consolidated into a single score on a 1-10 scale. The weights assigned to the infrastructure factors are consistent throughout the models. Influencer factors are also assigned point scores, using the same five variables, but each influencer has been weighted individually based on the strength of its influence on operational complexity.

The Back-End Let’s see the back-end of the model that was developed in collaboration with engineers, staff, and SMEs

Seeing It In Practice… Let’s run through the water treatment classification model – any volunteers?!

From Theory To Application Initially, using hypothetical models ranging from very simple to very complex Influencer values selected to represent combinations that would typically be found together Field testing against ‘real’ facilities then followed by calibration as necessary Starting with Class I systems and then moving up Cominbations such as a simple package plant run by a part-time operator, all lab work outsourced, etc. Developed with feedback from experts from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment, and subject matter experts - Operators who work at facilities. When field-tested using actual facilities and systems, the models produced classifications that were quite different from those already in place. This would have made the new models very difficult to implement given the potential impact on Chief Operator requirements, Operator experience, and DRC hours, etc. Accordingly, each of the models has been recalibrated with the objective of obtaining an overall neutral result when compared with current classification levels (though the classification of an individual facility or system could still increase or decrease from its existing value).

Field Testing Results   Classification Change Under New Models Type -2 -1 1 2 n/a Grand Total WD Total 10 16 WT Total 8 3 9 23 WWC Total 6 11 WWT Total 4 14 Grand Total 32 64 If the models produced classifications which were quite different from those already in place, it would make the new models very difficult to implement, given the potential impact on chief Operator requirements, Operator experience, DRC hours, etc. Accordingly, each of the models has been or is being recalibrated with the objective of obtaining an overall neutral result when compared with current classifications (though the classification of an individual facility or system could still increase or decrease from its existing value). In general, the Wastewater Collection model appears to have a downward bias, which may in fact be a desirable outcome of de-emphasizing population as a classification factor. The Water Treatment model has a slight upward bias based on the portion of test facilities classified,

Why These Models Are Better Audit trail exists Consistent process Defensible outputs All the intermediate rankings and calculations are retained and made available in the model, providing an ‘audit trail’ in support of the final point scores The consistent process facilities comparison among factors, making model evaluation and maintenance relatively straightforward The outputs are more objective and defensible than currently used simple checklists

Implementation Considerations Costs and benefits associated with changes in classification Need a robust verification and appeal process Need a transition process to manage negatives impacts on Operators or owners An increase in the classification increases the ‘value’ of the experience being earned by operators, in that they are eligible for higher levels of certification. In the short term however, the increase in classification may render the chief operator underqualified for their position. An increase in classification may also result in a higher cost for owners. To deal with these issues we would have a robust verification and appeal process, supported by a transition process that helps to manage negatives impacts on Operators or owners.

Business Process considerations Online application system The application would then be reviewed with the facility/system owner to confirm the details and the result. If a controversial result were to be produced with the new classification model, a phase-in process would be considered

What’s next Presentation of the new classification models for review and discussion at conferences across BC and Yukon developed Errors and omissions in the classification models will be identified, and corrections will be made – especially in the period immediately after widespread adoption. The classification models will be reviewed every five years to consider changes in technology, etc.

Kalpna Solanki ksolanki@eocp.ca