• No results found

• Provide overview of Water Research Foundation Project 3104 research objectives and research methodology employed by the Black & Veatch research team to satisfy those objectives.

• Brief utility representatives on findings and conclusions from analysis of Questionnaire responses.

• Use breakout session format to evaluate and clarify gaps in questionnaire data relative to project objectives.

• Identify candidates to participate in Case Studies.

OVERVIEW OF PHASE I WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

The research team provided an overview of the findings and conclusions from each of the 10 sections that comprised the Questionnaire. Each workshop participant was also provided a copy of the Questionnaire Preliminary Findings Report prepared by the research team. Based on a discussion of the preliminary findings, the research team developed four breakout sessions to further investigate the preliminary findings. During the breakout sessions the research team and water utility representatives discussed and analyzed the following aspects of safety management:

• Safety Program Metrics.

• The Role of Cost Benefit Analysis in Water Utility Safety.

• Safety Initiatives – What Works and What Doesn’t.

• Water Utility Vision for Project – Format for Presentation of Best Practices.

Breakout Sessions

The utility participants were broken into four groups that stayed together for each of the four breakout sessions. The research team selected members of each group to assure that each group generally represented a cross section of water utilities based on geography, representative status (utility representatives included engineers, safety professionals, administrators, etc). Representatives of the research team circulated among the groups to facilitate discussion and answer questions. The duration of each breakout session was approximately 90 minutes.

The following provides an overview each breakout session:

Breakout Session 1: Safety Program Metrics

The session focused on evaluation of the methods used to gather injury/illness information and how the information is reported internally and externally. Each group was also asked to evaluate safety program activities that may be used to generate metrics that measure indicators of effective safety programs. Each group was asked to discuss and to provide answers to the following:

• Summarize methods used to collect injury/illness information and who is typically responsible for incident investigation and reporting.

10 | Water Utility Safety and Health: Review of Best Practices

• Identify breakpoint for injury/illness recording and reporting.

• What seems to work- what doesn’t?

• Identify safety activities that can be effectively measured.

• Rank those activities in terms of potential to drive change.

• Provide comments for consideration when evaluating metrics.

Breakout Session 2: The Role of Cost Benefit Analysis in Water Utility Safety

Responses to the Questionnaire did not indicate a significant role for cost benefit analysis in water utility safety and provided very little information regarding actual costs related to incidents (injury/illness/property damage). This session focused on evaluation of the methods used to gather information related to the direct and indirect costs of incidents and the use of that information in the executing cost benefit (C/B) analysis for safety programs, installation of safety related fixtures or equipment, etc. Each group was asked to discuss and to provide answers to the following:

• Is there a C/B Model that will work for water utility industry.

• Is it needed (i.e. will it drive management behaviors)?

Breakout Session 3: Safety Initiatives – What Works and What Doesn’t

This session focused on evaluation of the various safety initiatives implemented by the participating utilities to identify those that proved to be most and least effective. Each group was asked to discuss and to provide answers to the following:

• Regarding safety initiatives – list program initiatives that have and have not worked

• For those safety initiatives that are effective, rank them in order of effectiveness

• Identify initiatives that you are considering implementing, and those that you would like additional information on.

Breakout Session 4: Water Utility Vision for Project – Format for Presentation of Best Practices

During this session, participants were asked to discuss format for the presentation of best practices in water utility design. This discussion led to the presentation of findings in the final report.

Based on the conversations over the course of the workshop, it is apparent that significant gaps exist in the coordination of safety with in-house and contract engineers when considering a new or retrofit facility. This finding became a focal point for further analysis during the case studies in Phase II.

SELECTION OF CASE STUDY CANDIDATES

Over the course of the analyzing the Questionnaire and based on observations noted during Phase 1 workshop discussions, the research team identified five water utilities that demonstrate some of the characteristics of best-in-industry organizations. The research team’s

observations and conversations with representatives from the selected water utilities during the Phase 1 Workshop indicated advanced understanding of safety system development, implementation and management. In selecting the case study candidates, the research team was careful to select utilities that are diverse in terms of size, representation, geography, and scope (conveyance, treatment, and distribution). The following were selected by the research team for case studies:

1. Tualatin Valley Water District, Oregon: Medium size, non-union, distribution based

utility.

2. Beaufort – Jasper Water/Sewer Authority, South Carolina: Medium size utility,

non-union, with water conveyance, treatment, and distribution processes.

3. City of Oklahoma City Water and Wastewater Utilities Department: Medium/large

size utility, union, with water conveyance, treatment, and distribution processes.

4. Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia: Large size utility, union

represented, with water conveyance, treatment, and distribution processes.

5. Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles, California: Large size utility, union

represented, with water conveyance and treatment.

Related documents