4. Allow owners and…

4. Allow owners and operating authorities to temporarily employ certain knowledgeable, experienced, but non-certified personnel to operate a drinking water subsystem to help ensure its continuity of operations in emergency situations/4. Allow owners to temporarily employ certain knowledgeable, experienced but non-licensed personnel to operate a wastewater facility to help ensure its continuity of operations in emergency situations.

The types of professional expertise required to meet conditions for using uncertified operators is generous (P.Eng., retired operators (within 5 years), C.Tech./C.E.T., uncertified managers with 5 years experience, and maintenance/tech trades with 5 years experience) but not particularly helpful to Niagara Region since majority of the staff that would be filling would still need to perform their regular duties to support our operations.

If a situation arose where operator seats needed to be filled, some municipalities would be better off deploying some staff (that are not currently included within the MECP proposal) and rely on oversight and guidance by certified staff through remote operation, 360 views, and other internal resources. In our opinion, it is easier to operate remotely with a less experienced person at the plant than it is to remotely guide an inexperienced person through a maintenance or technical trade task.

The ministry is correct in limiting the types of experience required for certified operator duties without seeking additional approval. We do not suggest alteration to the requirement list, however, Niagara Region would most likely seek relief based on our unique situation as described above.
5. Provide flexibility in terms of when wastewater operators need to complete training to meet their annual training requirements.

Allowing 120 training hours to be completed over three calendar years. This is a step in the right direction but it isn’t ideal—it would be better to align with water training and follow the individual’s renewal cycle for training. In addition, the water specific training related extensions identified in Proposed Emergency-Related Amendments, statement 3, should apply to wastewater as well.

1. Are there any other types of issues or challenges faced by owners or operators of wastewater facilities related to emergencies, or the aftermath of emergencies, that you would also want to be addressed through the proposed amendments? If so, please explain the issues and ideas for addressing them, if the proposed amendments would not do so/1. Are there any other types of issues or challenges faced by owners, operating authorities or operators of drinking water systems related to emergencies, or the aftermath of emergencies, that you would also want to be addressed through the proposed amendments? If so, please explain the issues and ideas for addressing them, if the proposed amendments would not do so.

 Back-log of required training hours following the emergency. While the emergency staffing provisions may be implemented during the emergency, the training considerations need to extend beyond resolution of the emergency. It looks like this is going to be considered for water certification under item 3(b) of the proposed emergency related amendments for water in relation to temporary certificates; however, item 3 listed under the proposed emergency related amendments for wastewater doesn’t seem to take this into account.
o The water posting is clear in stating: “In an emergency or its aftermath, an operator or water quality analyst may need more time than usual to complete training needed to meet certificate renewal requirements” in regard to extending certificates. This option should clearly be stated for wastewater licences as well.

 Delays in certification may be an issue; especially during prolonged emergencies. Permitting OIT exams to be proctored onsite would be beneficial during the emergency to ensure that those staff who wish to become certified have a chance to do so, thus reducing the need for uncertified staff during an emergency.

2. Are there any other types of exceptional situations that should trigger the use of the proposed emergency related provisions by the ministry director, or by the owner of a facility?/2. Are there any other types of exceptional situations that should trigger the use of the proposed emergency related provisions by the ministry director, or by the owner or operating authority of a subsystem?

 Inclement weather events that may not trigger an emergency declaration (ability for staff to report to work locations, availability of staff to address issues (e.g. frozen services), etc.)
 Suspected terrorism (ability for staff to report to work locations, operational considerations for ensuring the safety of staff)

3. Questions on Proposed Emergency Related Amendment 4, i.e. Allowing substitute personnel to temporarily operate a facility/3. Questions on Proposed Emergency Related Amendment 4, i.e. Allowing substitute personnel to temporarily operate a subsystem:
a) Yes, Niagara is in support of allowing knowledgeable, non-certified personnel to temporarily operate provided adequate oversight is in place by the municipality.
b) Yes. Also consider allowing the municipality to justify other technical roles responsible for the following: laboratory services, quality management, process optimization, compliance, flow monitoring, project management, etc. based on the needs of its operation.
c) Niagara doesn’t feel that the 3 years experience is necessary.
 Clarification is needed for what constitutes 3 years experience.
 If staff are already employed in water-wastewater, and familiar with operations, and also have the technical aptitude to obtain their C.E.T. or C.Tech., the 3 years shouldn’t be required. Many of these staff would write OIT exams, however, once written they can’t upgrade unless they have operations experience.
d) Yes and no. If this was truly an emergency, we would need our more experienced maintainers available to respond to equipment failure and it would be in our best interest to have the less experienced maintainers set up to train to operate with oversight.
e) Current collective agreement provisions are suitable if Niagara is pulling unionized staff but does not allow non-union staff to fill the gap. This may be problematic when unionized technical staff need to be redeployed before non-union certified staff.
There could be an issue with utilizing non-licensed/certified staff. O.Reg. 75/20 had additional wording “for greater certainty, the Agency or the owner may implement redeployment plans without complying with provisions of a collective agreement, including lay-off, seniority/service or bumping provisions”. This language would be necessary unless an alternative agreement was made with the Union.
f) Many municipalities do not have the staff compliment to support emergency operations as proposed. In addition to the pre-defined list of suitable experience, allow municipalities to seek relief, where required, through the submission of a plan similar to the strike/lock-out plan. It is understood that this recommendation would be better suited for regional or local emergencies so the ministry can manage the review and acceptance of the plans.
Other relevant points:

Technical support positions, such as quality and compliance staff (process optimization, quality management, compliance), frequently provide direction, train operators, and are considered subject matter experts. Even with this expertise, staff who hold technical positions related to water/wastewater treatment and distribution/collection are in some cases unable to upgrade or have difficulty renewing existing certificates/licences. By allowing personnel to gain experience towards upgrading licenses we gain more trained, and advanced operations staff which would assist in times of emergency.

For those who have already completed one year of operations experience and have successfully obtained at least a Class I certificate/licence, the ministry should clarify the process for allowing the abovementioned technical work to count towards the upgrade of a certificate/licence. It is understood that the MECP guides already include case-by-case consideration for these situations, however, additional clarification is requested for what experience would be acceptable when additional OIC or ORO time is not achievable due to collective agreement or other restrictions.

In terms of contingency planning, some staff in technical roles that support and direct operations may consider writing OIT exams. The issue that arises with this is that once written, they cannot progress and the certification expires. It is recommended that the ministry consider supporting staff in these roles by including associated tasks as relevant experience to obtain and maintain certification. The MECP operator experience guides should be updated to address these situations in greater detail.

In addition, less prescriptive maintenance based operating experience would assist SCADA, instrumentation, and electrical staff as many of their regular duties do not overlap with the majority of maintenance based operating experience examples making it impossible for them to pursue higher levels of certification/licence despite having an intimate knowledge of plant processes and equipment. By allowing personnel to gain experience towards upgrading certificates/licences we gain more trained, and “advanced” operations staff which would assist in times of emergency.

4. Questions on temporary substitute personnel in relation to drinking water testing. Please refer to Proposed Emergency Related Amendment 4 above and Schedules 7 and 8 of O. Reg. 170/03 for context:

a) Substitute personnel should be able to act temporarily in the place of certified operators when it comes to drinking water testing provided there is oversight by certified staff (current or within last 5 years), experienced management staff, or staff with laboratory experience (Chartered Chemist, lab technician, etc.). A designation, such as P.Eng., does not guarantee laboratory experience and other roles within a municipality’s staff compliment may be a more suitable choice for supervision of drinking water testing.
Water quality management systems include requirements for documenting sampling, testing, and monitoring activities and responses when quality targets aren’t met. Water systems already have good documentation in place to assist substitute personnel, therefore, any trained substitute personnel should suffice provided adequate oversight is in place.
b) Niagara agrees with training and working under supervision. See above as well. We feel that an immediate notification to the supervising certified operator would only be required if quality targets are not met or if specific adjustments need to be made.

4. Do you agree that the 14-day deadline for the initial submission of the strike-plan is reasonable? If not, should the proposed number of days be increased or decreased?

14 days is reasonable given that the MECP will require time to review and may require changes.

Other Comments:
- Harmonize water and wastewater training requirements as mentioned in previous comments. Have training hours follow licence/certification renewal timeline, ensure owners make training available, and put the onus on the operator to ensure they get their hours.
- Any operating experience gained by non-certified/licenced staff when operating during the emergency or strike/lock-out should be accepted as operational experience if those staff successfully obtain OITs during or within a certain amount of time after the emergency.
- The ministry should clarify that certified/licenced staff, that do not hold a regular operator position, will receive 100% of the emergency or strike/lock out operating hours towards upgrading certification/licence. This will avoid confusion when, at time of upgrade, a job description is supplied but does not include all of the performed operator duties.