FEATURE
Operatlng envlronrnental laboratories John E. Regnier Alabama Department of Public Health Montgomery, Ala. 36 104
TABLE 1 .
States replying t o the survey State
DeDartmentk)
Alabama
Department of Public Health Montgomery, Ala. 36104 Department of HeaIt h Los Angeles, Calif. 90026 Department of Natural Resources Atlanta, Ga. 30334 Department of Hea Ith Honolulu, HGwaii 96801 University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Department of Health and Environment Topeka, Kansas 66612 Department of Natural Resources Frankfort, Ky. 40601 Department of Natural Resources Jefferson City, Mo. 65101 Division of Health Jefferson City, Mo. 65101 Department of Health Lincoln, Neb. 68502 Department of Environmental Control Lincoln, Neb. 68503 Department of Natural and Economic Resources Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Department of Environmental Control Portland, Ore. 97225 Department of Health and Environmental Control Columbus, S.C. 29201 Department of Public Health Nashville, Tenn. 37219 Department of Ecology Olympia, Wash. 98504
California Georgia Hawaii Iowa Kansas Kentucky Missouri Missouri Nebraska Nebraska North Carolina Oregon South Carolina Tennessee Washington
For about two years, the Alabama Department of Public Health has been involved in developing a consolidated environmental laboratory capability. Prior to this time, a variety of environmental samples were being collected and analyzed, but not in an organized fashion. It soon became apparent that budget justifications, facility planning, personnel recruitment and other actions would have been facilitated if data had been available on the operating experience of similar environmental laboratories. Although data on public health laboratory operating experience have been collected and published for years under the auspices of the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors and the U.S. Public Health Service, there is a paucity of readily obtainable information for environmental laboratories, particularly a source of information oriented around the physical and chemical analysis of samples required by environmental control programs. In an attempt to obtain such information, a survey of environmental laboratories throughout the US. was conducted, and information on selected operating and management parameters was solicited. The survey was directed primarily to state environmental laboratories, but potentially included Federal, local, and private laboratories.
Approach The survey was conducted by written questionnaire. In order to reach pertinent organizations in each state, the Surveillance and Analysis Division of each of the EPA’s ten Regional Offices was requested to distribute the questionnaire to appropriate organizations in their respective regions. Also, they were requested to provide any information they might have on their own or other environmental laboratories. Questions posed dealt primarily with four general laboratory operating parameters: workload; staffing; budget; and facilities. Also requested were the name and address of the laboratory, name and title of the director, whether state or federal: and for state laboratories, whether located in the health department or elsewhere. In anticipation that it might be desirable to identify data with specific laboratories, respondents were also asked if they would object to such reference. Specific questions regarding each of the above parameters were designed to quantify various ratios related to laboratory operation. For example, if values of ratios such as cost per determination, workload per man-year, and square footage per person varied only within reasonably narrow ranges these ratios could be used in planning and in evaluation of environmental sample analysis functions. Results The number of questionnaires returned was not large considering the potential number of environmental laboratories throughout the nation. However, inasmuch as this investiga-
28
Environmental Science & Technology
FlGURE L
Laboratory workloads Samples receivediyear 10 M" ,Y,W"
DRiNKlNG WATER
6 O m .
COMBINED
A first survey of 1973-1975 experiences serves to stimulate the undertaking of other studies and to refine the planning and evaluation of analytical laboratories
20,000 ~
1 o.m __
tion was conducted on an individual basis with no organizational sponsorship or time and resources for follow-up, the number of responses was encouraging. Twenty-seven replies representing 17 states and 3 federal laboratories were received. Of the 27. three indicated that for various reasons their organization could not provide the information requested. The majority expressed no objection to data being referenced to their particular laboratory, but it was decided that source identification was not pertinent to analysis of the results. However, the states providing positive replies and the responsible departments are listed in Table 1. Data from federal laboratories were insufficient in number and detail for valid comparisons, and only results from state laboratories are included in this paper. These state laboratories were about evenly affiliated with health departments and environmental agencies. For data analysis, the laboratories were classified in four categories: air, wastewater, drinking water, and combined. The latter category was used to classify questionnaire information identifiable only with a combination of functions. For example, several laboratories provided only total budgets for a combination of air, wastewater, and drinking water sample analyses. "Combined' does not necessarily imply that the laboratories are organizationally or operationally combined. Within each category the data were analyzed according to workload, staffing, budget, and facilities. The ratios of operating characteristics are presented as bar charts showing the value of the ratio for each laboratory and, where appropriate, the average value (represented by broken bars) for each of the four classifications of laboratories. Averages are not given in all cases because of insufficient or widely varying data. The averages shown for drinking water laboratories are subject to question because of the limited number of laboratories reporting this category. Each laboratory is identified by a letter on the charts so that a particular laboratory's performance can be followed from chart to chart. Where no bar appears for a laboratory, the value for that parameter was zero except for a few cases labeled "no data" for which insufficient information was available to calculate the value of that parameter.
Workload Figure 1 depicts workload in terms of sampleslyear. determinationslsample and determinationslman-year. The numbers of samples received annually ranged from slightly over 1000 to as many as 70,000. Generally. wastewater sample loads were the smallest and drinking water loads the largest. The two largest workloads under combined laboratories include drinking water samples in excess of 40,000lyear. Numbers of determinations per sample are more reflective of actual workload and it can be seen that the above trend is
Determinationslsampie
12
II
IWASTEWATER
IIndlVidUaI laboratorier
--
Average
COMBiNED
L -
0
_.
Laboratories
Determinations1man-war DRlNKiNG
FlGURE 2
Staffing: support requirements personnel Support positionslprofessionaiman-year
05 DRINKING 'WATER
0.4
reversed. That is, wastewater samples require significantly more analyses per sample than other types. This finding is not surprising in view of the complexity and variability of industrial and other waste discharges. From Figure 1 one might expect that, on the average, wastewater samples will require six to eight determinations and other types two to four determinations per sample. Laboratory output as measured by detetil.llasul,o,manyear varied rather widely from category to category and between individual laboratories of a given category. However, from Fiaure - 1 it is clear that fewer wastewater determinations can be performed per man-year than for G U W M t q o r i e s
COMBINED
Laboratories
FIGURE 3
Laboratory operating costs..
.
Total costldetermination
Personnelcostldetermination $16.03
w.ia
$21.00
lndividvil COMBiNEO
a b c d e l g
Laboratories
h i i k l m
Laboratories
Total costlman-vear
Personnelcostimanyear
W,WQ Individual Ihborrtoiisr
Ilndividml laboralarier
-- Awrage
COMBINED WASTEWATER
a b c d e i g
b i j k l m
Laboratories
I--
q r r l t l r r i
Laboratories
n a p
q r r t ~ i w x
or three times greater. The data indicate that approximately 2000-3000 determinationslmanyear might be expected for wastewater, twice that for air and three or more times as many for drinking water. anmg an0 I Staff level! lely from as few as two to as many as 44 per laborarory wirh the average being 14. Surprisingly, with few exceptions, thb..rend to employ more professionals than technicians. In 16 of 24 laboratories, three or more professionals for every technician were employed, and lrn the remainder the highest technicianlprofessional ratio
found was 2.0 (one IaLuImLyIy,_ This situatiu,, ID pruuably more a reflection of historical hiring practices than the difficulty of the analyses being performed. Therefore, it would seem that with the majority of analyses being rather routine and well-established, technicians could be used to better advantage. Also, clerical ana 0th inical support varied considerably (Figure 2). Generally. m e ratio ranged between 0.1 and 0.3 positionslprofessional man-year with a reasonable average being in the neighborhood of 0.2. In other words, one might expect that about one support position would be required for every five professionals.
I
I.
Laboratory operating costs Travel costldetermination
lupply costldetermination 8 50
1 COMBINED
DRINKING
s b r d e f e
h i i k l m
Laboratories
Laboratories costldetermination
Travel cost1professional
$SOW
m
WASTEWATER
COMBINED
-1 DRiNKlNG WATER
q
l b c d i f g
h i j k l m
Laboratories
"
O
l
Laboratories
n a p
q r r t u v * i r
All but five of the 24 reporting I budgets on an annual basis, the fi nial. and all but five had their budgi propriation. Annual amounts ranged from a low of $27.450 to a high of $670,000. Air and drinking water laboratorv budaets were considerably lower than the othc?rswith respective averages of $101,000 and $78,000 CORipared to a wastewater average of $250,000 and $280,000 for the combined category. Figure 3 depicts ratios of operating costs to determinations or man-years for each laboratory. It can be seen that total cost per determination is directly dependent on the type of sample: drinking water analyses were the least expensive at about $l.OOIdetermin,ation. air analyses were higher at about 54.001determination. and wastewater and other samples were the highest at frcnn $7-10 per determination. This clearly reflects the comple xity of wastewater determinations c o r n pared to other types. r t n r n rnlltivnl" rnnctnnt tot21 S V P I l n C Figure 3 also indic&.-1_ cost of about $15,000-17,0001man-year for all types of analysis except drinking water. Assuming it is a valid number, the lower figure of about $10,000 per man-year for drinking water (and the associated lower costldetermination) is probably a reflection of the tendency to utilize more technicians to perform bacteriological analyses that comprise a large portion of the drinking water analytical load. The personnel, supply, equipment, and travel costs that account for the majority of the total expenditures are also presented in Figure 3. As can be seen, most of these parameters vary rather widely with the exception of personnel costlman-year. In fact, equipment and travel costs per determination were so scattered it did not seem justified to report average values. With the exception of drinking water laboratories, which were again consistently lower, personnel costs ranged from about $3-4 per determination, supply costs around $0.50 or less per determination, equipment from $0.50 or slightly less to $1.00 or moreldetermination and travel from about $0.10$0.30ldetermination. On a man-year basis personnel costs fluctuated around 510.000lman-year and travel around $500lprofessional man-year. Other costs (utilities and printing) were not reported consistently enough to present graphically, but for a majority of those laboratories reporting, values were in the range of $0.10-$0.201determination.
.
-
I
Facil"ies Space requirements (Figure 4) ranged from a few hundred square feet to LI high of 9000 ft2 for one laboratory and averaged about 27130 ftZ for all laboratories. Space per person W",,lrl 9nem to be a logical parameter, and except for drinking water (140 ft2)averaged between about 200 and 400 with an overall average for all laboratoriesof 260 ft21person. All but five laboratories reported using automated equip ment. but no relation between space required and automation was apparent. However, as one would expect, greater output in terms of determinationslman-year was generally associated with laboratories using automated equipment. For example, only two laboratories not using automation exceeded 4000 determinationslman-year whereas seven using it exceeded this value. Also, although averages in this case are probably of dubious value, the average output of all non-automated laboratories was 3,745 determinationslman-yearcompared to 4.169 determinationslman-yearfor automated laboratories.
__
Summing up The resuns of this survey indicate the potential for development of useful parameters for planning and evaluating evironmental laboratories by careful analysis of operating experience of existing laboratories. Unfortunately, the response to this survey was not sufficient to provide a very high level of confidence in the accuracy of specific parameters in most or perhaps all cases. Nonetheless, averages and ranges of these parameters are useful approximations and have been used in obtaining suggested nominal values given in Table 2
TABLE 2.
Suggested nominal values for environmental operating parameters Type laboratory
Parameter
Air
Determinations/Sample ' 1 to 3 3,000-5,000 DeterminationsjMan-year 0.1-0.2 Support Professional positionr/Man-year $3.00-$5.00 CortlDetermination $15.000-$16.000 Total Cost/Man-year $10.000-$12.000 Personnel CostIMan-year Personnel CostIDetermination $2.00-$4.00 $0.25-$0.75 Supply CostjDetermination $0.30-$0.50 Equipment CostIDetermination $0.05-$0.10 Travel Cost/Determination $500-$1,000 Travel Cost/Professional Space/Person 200-300
32 Environmental Science 8 Technology
wartewater
6 t o 10 2,000-3,000 0.1-0.2 $6.00-$8.00 $15,000-$17,000 $10,000-$13,000 $4.00-$6.00 $0.50-$0.75 $0.50-$1 .OO $0.10-$0.20 $300-$500 200-300
Drinking water
1 to 2 6,000-8.000 0.1-0.2
$1.00-$2.00 $8,000-$10,000 $6,000-$8,000 $0.50-$1.00 $0.10-$0.20
