UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
SOUTHERN DIVISION, SUITE 276
I 375 PEACHTREE STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O3O9
REGIONAL OFFICE:
EARI.E CABELL BLDG , RM 2F5O
DALLAS. TX 75242
-------
REPORT ON INTERIM AUDIT OF
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT'S
ADMINISTRATION OF ITS SUPERFUND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WITH EPA UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980
GRANT NUMBER V004485-85-5
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 27, 1985 TO JUNE 30, 1987
BRANDON, SMITH AND JONES
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
-------
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 27, 1985 TO JUNE 30, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Background 1
Auditor's Report on Cost Incurred , 2
Exhibit A - Summary of Costs Incurred, Accepted,
Questioned and/or Set-Aside 3-5
Auditor's Report on Compliance 6
Auditor's Report on Internal Controls 7-8
Grantee1 s Comments 9-14
Auditors' Response to the Grantee's Comments 15-17
Appendix A - Grantee's Comments on Work Time Units
-------
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
BACKGROUND
On December 1), 1980, Public Law 96-510, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted by Congress.
CERCLA, commonly known as "Superfund," was passed to protect public health
and the environment from hazardous substances by authorizing Federal action
to respond to the release, or threatened release, from any source, including
abandoned hazardous waste sites, into any part of the environment. A Trust
Fund was established for Federal and State governments to respond directly
to any problems at uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal sites, not only
in emergency situations, but also at sites where longer term permanent re-
medies are required.
The blueprint for the Superfund program under CERCLA is the National Con-
tingency Plan (NCP), first published in 1968, as part of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Plan. The NCP laid out three types of responses for in-
cidents involving hazardous wastes which are: immediate removal, planned
removal, and remedial response. The first two types of responses were
modifications of an earlier program under the Clean Water Act. Remedial
response was intended to deal with the longer term problem of abandoned or
uncontrolled sites. NCP changes effective February 18, 1986, established
one broad categroy of removals, thus eliminating the distinction between
immediate and planned removals.
CERCLA provides for compiling a National Priority List (NPL) of hazardous
waste sites for remedial action. In October 1981, EPA compiled an interim
priorities list of 115 hazardous waste sites. The sites were nominated by
the EPA Regional Offices and the States, primarily on the basis of poten-
tial threat to the public health. Also, the threat to the environment was
considered. In September 1983, EPA published the first NPL, which con-
sisted of 406 sites.
CERCLA Section 104(c)(3) provides that no remedial actions shall be taken
unless the State in which the release occurs first enters into a contract
or cooperative agreement with EPA, with assurance of payment of 10 or 50
percent of remedial costs. The State must agree to a cost-share of 10
percent if the site was privately owned. At publicly owned sites (one
owned by the State or a political subdivision thereof), the State is re-
quired to pay 50 percent of all remedial action costs. Cooperative
agreements for remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and remedial
designs can be funded up to 100 percent by EPA.
TDHES had the responsibility of identifying and ranking sites which posed
a risk to the public or the environment and performance of remedial in-
vestigation, design and cleanup at hazardous waste sites. During the
audit, TDHES was actively involved with the Cooperative Agreement with
EPA for remedial activities.
-------
BRANDON, SMITH AND JONES
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
SlTTE 1210
100 NORTH MAIS- BCILOINC
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103-5066
QTHA L BRANDON. S« . CPA I1921-198OI I9°" 526-5956
HARVEY V. SMITH. CPA
ESNESt JONES. JR.. CPA
Mrs. Kathryn Kuhl-Inclan
EPA Office of Inspector General
Audits and Investigations
Southern Division - Suite 276
1375 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mrs, Inclan:
We have examined the costs incurred by the Tennessee Department of Health
and Environmental Services (TDHES) Division of Solid Waste Management re-
lated to the Cooperative Agreement Grant Number VQ04485-85-5 for the period
March 29, 1985 through June 30, 1987 as detailed in Exhibit A. Our ex-
amination was performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards and the Standards for Audit of Governmenta 1 0rganiza.tion s, P r o-
grams, Activities, and Functions (1981 revision). Accordingly, our exami-
nation includes such tests of the accounting records and such other
auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
As part of our examination, we determined the allowability of costs claimed
under the project in accordance with the provisions of the cooperative
agreements and applicable Federal regulations. Exhibit A sets forth the
costs which we questioned and/or set aside in this regard and includes an
explanation of the reasons such costs were questioned and/or set aside.
In our opinion, subject to the effects of EPA's ultimate resolution of
the questioned and/or set aside costs referred to in the preceding para-
graphs, Exhibit A presents fairly the costs incurred by the Tennessee
Department of Health and Environmental Services Division of Solid Waste
Management under the cooperative agreements with EPA on the basis de-
scribed above.
The summary of costs incurred, accepted, questioned and/or set-aside
(Exhibit A) was prepared on the basis of regulations and criteria estab-
lished by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency relating to Superfund
Cooperative Agreements pursuant to Public Law 96-510. Accordingly, Exhi-
bit A is not intended to present fairly the financial position and results
of operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
This report is intended for use in connection with the cooperative agree-
ments to which is refers and should not be used for any other purpose.
January 21, 1988
-2-
-------
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 3
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY OF COSTS INCURRED, ACCEPTED, QUESTIONED AND/OR SET-ASIDE
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 27, 1985 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1987
GRANT NUMBER V004485-85-5
Incurred* Accepted Quest ioned Set-Aside Notes
Personnel
Fringe benefits
Travel
Equipment
Supplies
Contractual
Indirect charges
Others
$ 387,896
89,015
3,279
3,566
12,691
156,525
60,094
47,139
$ 293,351
69,334
2,082
3,566
12,691
30,900
34,791
45,659
$ 94,345 $
19,681
1,197
-
-
125,625
25,303
1,480
1
1
2
3
4
5
TOTAL
492,574
$125.625
Less: EPA payments
made through June 25,
1987
770,221
Balance Due EPA
-The amount incurred represent expenditures reported through June 30, 1987.
-3-
-------
EXHIBITA
Page 2 of 3
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY OF COSTS INCURRED, ACCEPTED, QUESTIONED AND/OR SET-ASIDE
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 27, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1987
GRANT NUMBER V004485-85-5
NOTES TO THE STATEMENTS
Note 1 - Personnel andFringe Benefits
We have questioned $94,345 of personnel cost which consist of the f-^1 lowing:
A. A portion of the director's salary was charged to the
grant, $29,568. We believe that the director is an
overhead type employee and the salary should be charged
accordingly. Also, we noted that the project was being
maintained by the project manager which administered
the entire grant. $ 29,568
B. Cost charged for a Chemist 2 which was not approved by
EPA. 4,035
C. Cost claimed for an Environmental Specialist 2 sub-
sequent to this person being transferred out of this
program (June I, 1985). 17,923
D. Cost charged for a Chemist 2 ($37,905) and secretary
($4,914) which was not associated with the Superfund
Program. 42,819
TOTAL PERSONNEL COST QUESTIONED $ 94.345
We have also questioned the fringe benefits related to the
personnel costs questioned. $ 19.681
Note 2 - Travel
We have questioned $1,197 in travel costs because $625 was charged for the
director and the State was unable to document $572.
Note 3 - Professional Services
We have set-aside $125,625 in professional services incurred. This amount
represents laboratory services performed by the State utilizing the time
unit value method. We were unable to express an opinion on the time and
motion study which was used in allocating this costs. Therefore, we have
set-aside the $125,625 pending a technical review by EPA as to the reason-
ableness of the cost.
Note 4 - Indirect Charges
We have questioned $25,303 of indirect costs incurred. A total of $7,291
was related to questioned cost in Notes 1, 2, 3, and 5 during the fiscal
years of June 30, 1985 and 1986. The difference or $18,012 was incurred
during fiscal year June 30, 1987. We have questioned this amount because
the indirect costs were not based upon final approved rates during this
period as required by OMB Circular A-87.
-------
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 3
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY OF COSTS INCURRED, ACCEPTED, QUESTIONED AND/OR SET-ASIDE
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 27, 1985 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1987
GRANT NUMBER V004485-85-5
NOTES TO THE STATEMENTS
Note 5 - Others
We questioned $1,480 of other costs incurred during the project period.
The State claimed $51 for printing, $754 for rent and $675 for grants and
subsidies. The State was unable to provide documentation (invoices, can-
celled checks, etc.) to substantiate printing and grants/subsidies costs.
OMB A-87 states that all costs charged to a grant must be adequately docu-
mented. We have questioned 26 days of rent costs charged to the grant
for March 1985 or $754 because the effective date of the grant was
March 27, 1985.
-5-
-------
OTHA1- BRANDON. SR. CPA (1921-19801
HARVEY L SMITH, CPA
ERNEST JONES. JR . CPA
BRANDON, SMITH AND JONES
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
SUITE 1210
100 NORTH MAIN BUILDING
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103-5066
March 22, 1988
AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE
[SOU S2S-S9S6
Mrs. Kathryn Kuhl-Inclan
EPA Office of Inspector General
Audits and Investigations
Southern Division - Suite 276
1375 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
We have examined the summary of costs incurred, accepted, questioned and/or
set-aside of Tennessee Department of Health and Environmental Services
(TDHES) Division of Solid Waste Management under Grant Number V004485-85-5
for the period March 27, 1985 through June 30, 1987, and have issued our
report dated January 21, 1988. Our examination was made in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests
of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.
In our opinion, the tested transactions of TDHES complied with the material
terms and conditions of the grant award and the tested grant financial re-
ports were accurate and complete insofar as it was reasonable and practical
to determine, except as noted in the following paragraphs. Further, nothing
additional came to our attention as a result of the foregoing procedures to
indicate that TDHES had not complied with the material terms and conditions
referred to above, and that the grant financial reports were not accurate
and complete within reasonable and practicable limitations for those trans-
actions not selected for testing.
Letter of Credits
During our review, we noted the drawdowns on the letter of credit are based
on estimating the expenditures in lieu of actual costs incurred. The
Letter of Credit-Treasury Financial Communication System Recipients Manual
states in part that the organization should request funds based on immediate
disbursement needs whenever possible and disburse funds as soon as possible
to minimize the Federal cash on hand.
Recommendation
We recommend that all drawdowns should be based on actual expenditures.
The final determination regarding allowability or unallowability of costs
as a result of our examination will be made by EPA.
Sincerely
-6-
-------
BRANDON, SMITH AND JONES
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
SUITE 1210
100 NORTH MAIS BUILDING
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103-5066
OTHAL BRANDON. SR . CPA i'92I I98OI March 22 1988 I9OII SS6-S9S6
HARVEY L SMITH. CPA ' '
EflNEST JONES. JH . CPA
AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS
Mrs. Kathryn Kuhl-Inclan
EPA Office of Inspector General
Audits and Investigations
Southern Division - Sutie 276
1375 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
We have examined the summary of costs incurred, accepted, questioned and/or
set-aside of Tennessee Department of Health and Environmental Services
(TDHES) Division of Solid Waste Management under Grant Number V004485-85-5
for the period March 27, 1985 to June 30, 1987 and have issued our report
thereon. As a part of our examination, we made a study and evaluation of
TDHES system of internal accounting control to the extent we considered
necessary to evaluate the system as required by generally accepted govern-
ment auditing standards. The purpose of our study and evaluation was to
determine the nature, timing, and extent of the auditing procedures neces-
sary for expressing an opinion on the financial statements. Our study and
evaluation was more limited than would be necessary to express an opinion
on the system of internal accounting control taken as a whole or on any
of the categories of controls identified below.
Internal accounting controls surrounding the following significant classes
of transaction activities were found in TDHES:
1. Disbursements
2. Payroll
3. Contractual Procurement
4. Cash Management (Letter of Credit System)
5. Property and Equipment
All of the above controls were studied and evaluated.
TDHES is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal
accounting control. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and
judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and re-
lated costs of control procedures. The objectives of a system are to pro-
vide the governing board with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that
assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition,
and that transactions are executed in accordance with the governing board's
authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
-7-
-------
Ms. Kathryn Kuhl-Inclan
EPA Office of Inspector General
Page 2
March 22, 1988
AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS
(Continued)
Because of inherent limitations in any system of internal accounting con-
trol, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected.
Also, projection of any evaluation of the system to future periods is
subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the procedures
may deteriorate.
Our study and evaluation made for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph would not necessarily disclose all material weaknesses in the
system. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the system of internal
accounting control of TDHES taken as a whole or on any of the categories of
controls identified above. However, our study and evaluation disclosed con-
ditions that we believe to be material weaknesses.
Personnel
During our review of personnel costs, we found and observed the following:
1. TDHES requested reimbursements for overhead type payroll cost
as a direct expense. We believe that the cost incurred for
the Director is an overhead cost pool item and should not
have been claimed as a direct expense.
2. TDHES claimed costs for position that had not been approved by
EPA.
3. Further, we noted that salaries were claimed for individuals that
had been transferred to another division which were not grant re-
lated.
Recommendation
We recommend that:
1. All cost claimed for director be classified and included in the
overhead cost pool.
2. All personnel positions be approved by EPA before these expendi-
tures are claimed.
3. TDHES assures EPA that all personnel cost be directly grant re-
lated.
-8-
-------
STATE OF TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
CORDELL HULL BUILDING
NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 37219-5402
JAMES E. WORD
COMMISSIONER
June 8, 1988
Ms. Kathryn M. Kuhl-Inclan
United States Environnental Protection
Agency
Office of Inspector General
Southern Division, Suite 276
1375 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
RE: Draft Audit Report
TN Cooperative Agreement
V004485-85
Dear Ms. Kuhl-Inclan:
In response to your letter and findings regarding the above referenced draft
audit report, please find attached our response. During your review, please
feel free to call Ms. Donna Dickens at (615) 741-3321 if you have any
questions or if we can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
"
MES E. WORD
Commissioner
JEW/ A1018159
-9-
-------
GRANTEE'S COMMENTS
COMMENTS REGARDING COSTS INCURRED, ACCEPTED, QUESTIONED
AND/OR SET-ASIDE
1. Personneland Fringe Benefits
Salaries totalling $94,345 and fringe benefits amounting to $19,681 have
been questioned. After a review of these questioned costs by staff, we
concur that the federal grant was charged in error for salaries amounting
to $56,440 and benefits amounting to $12,782. The difference of $37,905
in salaries and $6,899 in benefits represents the personnel expenses of
the Chemist 2 identified in "Note 1, Item D." It is our contention that
although the person identified and charged directly to the grant
(Mitchell) did not spend 100% of her time on this project, an equivalent
amount of time vas spent by other lab personnel to more than justify this
charge. Documentation supporting this contention is available for review
and discussion.
2. Travel
Of the $1,197 in travel costs that have been questioned, $625 was for the
director. Since we have concurred that the director's salary should not
have been charged to the grant, we also concur that this expense should
not have been charged. Of the remaining $572, documentation for $516
has been located and is available for review. The documentation for the
remaining $56 has apparently been archived and not available.
Professional Services
Information and documentation supporting the $125,625 in charges for
laboratory services has been previously provided to your staff. Since it
is our contention that these are justifiable charges, we shall await your
review of this information.
4. Indirect Costs
Indirect costs totalling $25,303 have been questioned. Of this amount
$18,012 was incurred during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987 and were
questioned because they were not based on the final approved indirect
cost rate. In absence of an approved rate we were drawing down on the
basis of an interim rate. Now that we have an approved rate it is our
intention to make appropriate adjustments.
The remaining $7,291 that was questioned related to certain Personnel,
Travel-, Professional Services and Other Costs that likewise were
questioned. It is our intent to make appropriate adjustments to this
amount pending a final decision by the EPA to both the findings of the
auditors and our comments/rebuttals to those findings.
5. Other Costs
Documentation for $726 of other costs questioned by the auditors has
apparently been archived and is not available. The remaining $754 for
-------
GRANTEE'S COMMENTS
rent costs was inadvertently charged to this federal grant instead of
the previous grant. In that the old grant has been closed, we would need
to adjust the expenditure in the current year if so requested. It is our
contention however that this is a justifiable charge to the EPA.
Additional Allowable Costs
As a re---.lt of the audit process, we discovered that allowable motor pool
charges counting to $51,322 had not been charged to the grant. Consequently,
we respectfully request that this amount be used to offset any of the
previously identified unallowable costs. Please find attached an analysis of
these charges. Further documentation is available upon request.
-11-
-------
GRANTEE'S COMMENTS
AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE
Letter of Credit Drawdowns
During the past several months the State of Tennessee has been implementing a
new statewide accounting system^ Due to this, we have sometimes experienced
delays in receiving actual expenditure data in order to make our scheduled
drawdowns. Instead/we have estimated these expenditures based on reliable
information with the intent of adjusting future drawdowns once the actual
expenditures were received'.•> The reports that are now being generated by this
new accounting system are" providing us with needed information in a timely
manner and will, therefore, enable us to make future draws based on actual
expenditures. We shall also do a reconciliation between past drawdowns and
actual needs in order to make appropriate adjustments.
-12-
-------
GRANTEE'S COMMENTS
AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS
Comments Regarding Internal Controls
Staff of the Superfund Program are reviewing positions approved by EPA in
order to insure that no federal funds are used for unauthorized positions.
Assurance is given that in the future only those expenses that are authorized
and approved shall be charged to the grant.
A1028159
-13-
-------
- h/1 ' J ».»
Kl —, u» f~
1
H
PI
P5
CO
O
O
H
cn
-14-
-------
T33ESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISIOM OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 27, 1985 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1987
AUDITORS' RESPONSE TO THE GRAT TIDE'S COMMENTS
Our response below is presented in the same order as the notes in the
audit report on pages 3, 4, and 5.
EXHIBIT A
:3ote 1 - Personnel and Fringe Benefits
In Note 1 of the audit, report (page 4), we questioned $94,345 of personnel
costs and $19,681 of fringe benefits costs. The grantee concurred with
$56,440 of personnel and $12,782 of fringe benefits costs questioned. The
grantee stated that the difference of $37,905 in salaries and $6,899 in
benefits represented personnel expenses of a Chanist 2. They concurred
that the person identified and charged directly to the grant did not spend
100% of her time to the project; however, the grantee contends that an
equivalent amount of time was spent by other lab personnel to more than
justify the charges. There was no position for the Chemist 2 in the
application nor in the grant agreement/amendment. Therefore, we believe
the total cost should remain questioned.
Mote 2 -Travel
We questioned $1,197 in travel costs because $625 was charged for the
director and the State was unable to document $572. The grantee concurred
with $625 being questioned. The Grantee stated that the difference -r
$572 represents $56 unsupported costs and $516 which documents had been
located to support. However, we were provided no additional documentation.
Therefore, we reconmend that the total cost remain questioned.
3NJote 3 - Professional Services
We set-aside $125,625 in professional charges incurred for laboratory
services. These costs were set-aside because the grantee was unable to
provide the basis for the time units used to determine the amount to bill
to the agreement. The grantee stated that time and motion studies had been
performed and that a report resulted from these studies. This grantee
stated that th^ would submit a copy of this report to us prior to the
rqport date. The grantee subsequently submitted seme data (See Appendix
A); however, they stated that the original documentation was "lost or
destroyed". Since we were unable to make a determination of the basis of
the work tiine units used, we have set them aside pending a technical review
by the Region.
-15-
-------
TENNESSEE DEPARTf-E-.T OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF SOLID IvASTE MANAGEMENT
FOR 'THE PERIOD MARCH 27, 1985 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1987
AUDITORS' RESPONSE TO 'THE: GRANTEE'S COMMENTS
Note 4 - Indirect Charges
In the audit report, we questioned $25,303 ($7,291 - in relation to Xotes
1, 2, 3, and 5 and $18,012 - unapproved rates) in indirect costs. We
reviewed the grantee's cements on Page 10. Since we recommend that the
costs in Notes 1, 2, 3, and 5 remain questioned, we believe that the
$7,291 of indirect costs relating to these costs should also remain
questioned.
A '-otal of $18,012 was questioned because there was no approved indirect
cost rate. Subsequently, the grantee stated that the indirect cost rate
plan has been approved. However, the grantee did not provide us with a
final approved indirect cost rate plan. Therefore, we are recommending
that the $18,012 remains questioned until review by EPA.
Note 5 - Others
We questioned $1,480 because $726 was undocumented and $754 rent was for
the previous grant period. The grantee stated that the $726 was apparently
in archived and is not available for review and the $754 for rent was
inadvertently charged to this grant. Since the grantee was unable to
document the $726 and $754 for rent was inadvertently charged to this
grant, we recoranend that the cost remain questioned.
Additional Allowable Costs
The grantee stated that they discovered additional allowable motor pool
charges amounting to $51,322 that had not been charged to the grant.
However, the grantee did not provide us with documentation to substantiate
the charges. We recommend that this cost not be included until it has
been reviewed.
-------
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 27, 1985 TO JUNE 30, 1987
AUDITORS' RESPONSE TO THE GRANTEE'S COMMENTS
AUDITORS' RESPONSE ON COMPLIANCE
Letter o£ Credit Drawdown
Our review disclosed chat drawdowns on the letter of credit are based on esti-
mating the expenditures in lieu of actual costs in -rred.
The grantee stated that a new accounting system has been implemented which
should correct this deficiency of drawdowns on the letter of credit in the
future.
-17-
-------
Aooenclix A
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 2, 1988
Donna Dickens
Don Brown
Recent EPA Audit of Federal Superfund
As you know, at the exit conference for the recent EPA sponsored audit
of the Federal Superfund Program, documentation for the Work Time Unit
(WTU) values used in billing the cost of laboratory testing to the
Superfund Program was requested. In requesting this information, the
auditors stated that we would probably need to furnish this information
lirectly to EPA rather than to the audit firm in Memphis. The purpose
of this memorandum is to assist you is responding to that request.
Attached you will find excerpts from the Work Time Unit Catalogue from
CDC (Center for Disease Control) dated January, 1986. While this
catalogue, and its predecessors, deals primarily with microbiological
testing, portions of it deal with environmental testing which are the
excerpts attached. The work time unit values in this catalogue
represent the basis for many of the work time unit values used by this
laboratory in assigning time values to tests performed. This
information is then supplied to your office periodically for use in
allocating the costs of operating the Environmental Laboratory to the
various Environmental Programs which we support.
For those tests performed by this laboratory which are not included in
the CDC catalogue, average times were determined by best estimation,
usually by the chemists performing the tests. This process initially
occurred under the oversight of a select coraittee, but the original
docuaentation has since been lost or destroyed. In addition, we have
informally attempted to keep the work time unit values for tests
updated through the years to account for changes in technology.
Attached also is a current listing of the work time unit values
associated with all of our environmental testing.
It should be pointed out that we are, at this time, in the midst of a
formal time study to determine up-to-date work time unit values for all
tests performed by our Environmental Laboratory. This time study is
being conducted in conformance with the CDC guideline entitled
"Analytical Methods in Laboratory Administration, Part I Measurement of
Productivity, Time Studies" (copy attached) and is being done in
cooperation with the Association of State and Territorial Public Health
Laboratory Directors and with CDC. This information, when complete,
will be maintained as documentation for any future audits.
DB/B0028060
-------
WORK TIME UNITS
CATALOGUE
JANUARY 1986
A Collaboration of the Association
of State and Territorial Public Health
Laboratory Directors and the
Centers for Disease Control
Management and Information Systems Committee.
Henry Bradford, Ph.D., Chairman (Louisiana)
Roger H. Carlson, Ph.D. (Kansas)
Harry J. Colvin, Ph.D. (Alaska)
Loris W. Hughes, Ph.D. (New Mexico)
Arthur F. DiSalvo, M.D. (So. Carolina)
Michael W. Kimberly, Ph D. (Tennessee)
George R. Anderson, D.V.M (Michigan)
G. Wolfgang Fuhs, Dr. sci. nat. (California)
Mahadeo P. Verma, Ph.D. (Delav;are)
David T. Pegg, Advisor & Catalogue Editor (C.D.C.)
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Centers lor Disease Control
Laboratory Program Office
Division of Management Development and Consultation
AUanta, Georgia 30333
-------
INTRODUCTION
State and territorial public health laboratories analyze approximately
22.5 million specimens a year, performing an estimated 247 million
procedures. The Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory
Directors (ASTPHLD) reports that these laboratories employ approximately 5,600
persons, and spend over $200 million annually. In addition, approximately
250 city, county, and city-county public health laboratories contribute
significantly to the identification and reporting of disease entities
important to public health in the United States.
With demands for laboratory services constantly increasing and resources
becoming more difficult to secure, public health laboratories need effective
management tools that will: (1) adequately measure workloads, (2) properly
affix costs per unit of work, (3) relate effectiveness and effort in the
various sections of the laboratories, and (4) accumulate data for use in
presenting and defending their efforts to their administrative superiors,
their own staffs, Legislative committees, and their client groups.
In Hay 1970, a Task Force was formed to study this problem and to develop 8
methodology by which public health laboratory directors could quantitatively
equate resource input to reported output. The Task Force recognized that each
public health laboratory employed valuable and scarce resources, such as
personnel, money, equipment, and facilities (input), to derive useful
laboratory data (output). The common need was for a management tool that
would quantitatively relate cost and workload efficiency to the use of
resources and the production of test results. The results of this Task Force
effort. Diagnostic Workload Measurement: A Relative Value Structure for
Public Health Laboratories, were published in September 1973.
In April 1977, a second Task Force was formed to evaluate the workload
measurement system developed in 1973. Definitions, skill factors, and times
by batch size were checked, and, if necessary, reevaluated. In addition to
the five state laboratories represented by Task Force members, 23 other state
public health laboratories were asked either to contribute additional data or
to check existing data. This Task Force made a major change from the concepts
of the 1973 publication in which time, skill factor, and frequency were
combined to form "relative values." They proposed that time alone should be
used to measure work, hence the term "work time unit." The results of the
Task Force effort, Work Time Units: A Diagnostic Workload Measurement
Structure for Public Health Laboratories, were published In April, 1979.
Approximately 600 procedures, normally performed in a public health
laboratory, were listed in this publication.
The extant Work Time Units Catalogue maintains the time unit concept developed
in the 1979 publication and follows the same format with the addition of a
date for the time standard and a code number for each test or procedure. The
Catalogue has been put on the computer and every effort will be made to
provide current descriptions and standards to meet the dynamic needs of the
Catalogue holder through the periodic issuance of Catalogue updates, training
in Catalogue use, coordinated standard determination, and electronic data
exchange.
-------
In this Catalogue, tests and procedures are grouped within an alphabetical
listing of functional categories and subcategories In the format of Code
Number/Date of Standard, Procedure Name, Skill Factor, Time by Batch Size, and
Definition. The derivation of the procedure or test names depends, for the
most part, on the category under which they are listed. There is a wide
variety of scientific disciplines shown in this Catalogue, each with its own
methodology and manner of description. Some procedure names are derived from
the name or title of the bench work, others according to the analyte, and
still others according to the substance or medium being used. This lack of
consistency is regretted by the editors but perhaps forgivable by the user.
We hope the consistency will improve as the newer disciplines become better
defined.
The definitions are simply short descriptions of the work being done. They
are not meant as protocols for the procedure. It is hoped that each
definition is clear enough to distinguish each procedure from the others.
Five levels are used to span-the skill factor range. The level shown by each
procedure is the skill factor of the person the Task Force felt would probably
perform that procedure in a public health laboratory. The five levels and the
criteria for choosing or assigning one of the levels are shown below. If a
procedure were being considered for a skill factor level, it might be derived
in two ways. First, if it were decided that the procedure was not routine and
that its protocol required much decision, then the level D would be chosen
(criterion 1). Second, if it were decided that the procedure was performed
and interpreted by someone with a master's degree or the equivalent in
experience or training, then a level D would be chosen (criterion 2). The
utilization of these skill factors will be developed further under "Numbers
and Skill Levels of Personnel."
SKILL FACTOR
LEVEL
CRITERION 1
CRITERION 2
Extremely routine, no
decision
High school degree
or equivalent
Routine, some
decision
One or two years of college
or specialized training
Nonroutlne , some
decision
Bachelor's degree and/or
license or certification
Nonroutine, much
decision
Master's degree and/or
license or certification
All decision
Doctor's degree and/or
license or certification
-------
The standard time, or Work Time Unit (WTU), for each test or procedure is
shown by normal batch size. Recognizing that efficiencies of production are
operative, the WTU's per specimen generally decrease as batch size increases.
An "X" has been placed where a time standard is not available for a particular
batch size. An "*" following a time shows it is different from the previous
publication or update. The "*" will be dropped and the Date of Standard will
be updated when this new time is accepted as the standard. When "*'s" follow
all the times for a procedure, they show that it is a newly added procedure
for which standards have not been accepted. Likewise, they will be dropped
and the Date of Standard updated when the times are accepted as standards.
The Work Time Units shown in this Catalogue are intended to measure only the
analytical time to accomplish the tests and procedures as described in the
definitions. They do not normally include the non-analytical time required
for (1) preparing standard solutions and reagents, (2) pouring and sterilizing
media for microbiological studies, (3) collecting specimens, (4) logging in
and labeling specimens, (5) instrument operating or performing a step in a
procedure being automatically processed (incubating time, etc.) while the
laboratorian is employed on other duties, and (6) clerical work involved in
reporting results after they are first recorded.
This does not mean that the non-analytical times will be ignored. Indeed,
they represent a significant amount of each laboratory's work. The treatment
of non-analytical time depends on the organizational level of the unit In
which the work occurs and is developed further under "Test Costs."
To make this document easier to use, certain tests (for example, direct
fluorescent antibody (FA) staining] have been listed under more than one
technical heading. Many quality control, standard, repeat, and duplicate
tests should be considered additional procedures and assigned the same WTU as
the procedures performed on the specimen. If a definition for a procedure'
states that quality control, standard, repeat, and duplicate tests have been
included in the WTU, these tests should not be counted a second time.
Whether a procedure is automated or manual is of utmost importance. This
distinction is shown either in the definition or by listing the procedure
under a heading indicating that it is automated.
Since their inception, Work Time Units have assisted many public health
laboratories, as well as private and hospital laboratories, to develop the
quantitative data necessary to accurately estimate test cost, calculate
productivity, support personnel needs, and forecast budget, personnel, and
space requirements.
Four examples illustrating the use of Work Tim<> Units follow. The first
illustrates their use in estimating test cost using standard cost accounting
techniques; the second, In calculating workload efficiency; the third, in
estimating the numbers and skill levels of personnel needed; and the fourth,
in forecasting workload.
-------
o
u
3
3
S ?2
li
o
f
4*
2
a
•s
2
X
X
X
O
CF P
X
IX
fi^aB §
]Sg
1
"8
S
rH
8
•&
1
a>
a
X vC
.X
CO
X
colo
13
§
X
XXX
o
"S
HHI St »-*
-------
I
3
a
8
Wi
o
a
(A
C ^3
"I) OT
2 u
6 B -
•H
-------
tion
5s
8
i-4
M
s
I
•p
O n
all
ontent determined lod
autonatic titrator oe
X
a
-q 01
W U
E B e
ao 3
•rt D
g|*
O *H
•rt r-J 60
l-l »-< -H
u -H in
2 S S
X
X
X
DC)
M -»
o
LJ
C
or utilizing said pri
ction.
cy a*
o r^
D ^»
M ST
o
u
§
ple
ing sai
r u
rat
X
co
1
O
4-1
ple
said pri
humidity.
utilizing
relative
fc.
8.
X
X
X
X
-------
1-1
8
<4-i
o
<*-!
O
g
u
6
u
a
SP
•a
4-1 f—I
Is
-
y
U
tu
4) T3
••g
i
1-1
•a
D *^
2 S
t-i -H
5 -a
•5 1
(U
I—I
o.
(U
«-H
o.
•8
j?
ca fcj
e §
U >H
ii
M R
1-1
o
M-l
O
1
I
.fe
X
8
I
X
X
X
fOJ
I
X
X
^
si
,3£
-* »-(-*
-------
DefiMdo
o
t-«
(3
t
&
J
X
8
2
!
B
><:
OO
o
H
3
U
u
t
u
I
J3
5
8
O '
••-<
X X
in
W
H
X X
CJ
1
s .
"U T3
I
8
i?
w
1.
ll
f~t
S
u
5
f
ted
ber
ai
I S§
i
ml
|^
M -H
o m
lor
1 I
ai
-H
Q
O
on,
ate
sli
o
it at
er
t nd
rs/field
-8
• Q -H
EJL, Q U4
X
X
X
u
s is §9 ili e
-------
*-*
I
CM
H
j9
u
u
1
.a
cu
O
•
B
fr
1
9 g 1
•* 6
*J O
& 'd
n)
8
T3
M
O
3 $ £ TJ 3 S
••rt Q
rji .a
SS t
•H Cy
(y 0 ?•
50 H O
^1
1
-S
^o
a
rj
1
i— ( r-H
3 a
^
a
u
0)
u
O
M
j
O
tJ
I ^
0 -fj
I &
t 1
*
U CO
v
a "
60
--i X -J
O3
O
*q r-4
a
a Q ^ M ^
si is Is
d
3
3
u
I
-
S
3
-------
*-*
3
a
s
10
o
v ai
!'
to
o
%*<
a*W
q ° S
5 g'd
8H -
*rj re
3 11
o a o
111
Qj gj m
tf
"*!
i § 4
IP
•H nj
3 U
c 03 "^ ^^
-) M
•a T>
3 c
8 •:
.2
X X X X X
X X
m m
R)
O
S? 51 38- S
X
X
g
CJ^ K-* O-> t-4 (T* M O"1-
•o
8
s
i-i er.
-------
a
-
Tj
I
8
r
o
4-4
I
"ft fc
O d
6
u
Ifl
g*
X
X
w aJ J-
oo q So Q
T3 23 *o ftj
-U
ul
g
s
W w
1 1
«
•
e
s
ns
u
n
g
•H
t) 8
•s I
ai •a
1-4
*J • tJ *T^
a-p O J-»
*-* nj
O VH 0
3 "S §• "d • "§
< (3 R r3 W (3
a-
1
1
c
.0
X X
U U U
u o- o
r-
C^ ^> O^
4-1
&
0)
u
I
4J
1
£
I
8
X X X X X
O 00 00
rl X t-1 ^H X
-i
-------
8
*
fl
1
O P. U
6 It
3 I
S
a
•3
S
J
n
8
tion
Defi
d
G
a.
as
U g
•do
20
er
a
talvltie
nt, absor
s-a -p s
C -H Do)
u a) aj C
S P I W
•a C L aj
o
t
b. Col
tnolybda
ly
S-
C -H
S*
£« 1
wT » 85
!e
C O
8 •»•)
ff. |J
*0 y
iJ r
en M
£ SB
S3 3
B *
a .
vTS
4) r-j
4-1 -rl
i-t U-i
•H
>4H P-,
iE
tion
c a
at
Acid digestion,
and record.
tion
c a
i i
at
Acid digesti
and record.
te
th
trat
si
tion, atomi
d di
ord.
Aci
and
extraction,
fy
49
rption
ai in c
g*O *H
*J «
•a w -a
M dj fc ^
^1 -a **
8 S T3"S
f-i ex «c tn in tn O CO %A
8
s
on
cr\
8
§- s
R
-------
ion
8
O
.a
«3
fe * 8
a^ s
>, M a
**?.
W5 e «
o C3 w
Of G
&) >-H -H
J5 Q. U
•sit
111
f2!
i-i • 3
*j in -H
*'*"
sub
potas
record
rds of
enced
ity,
ed s
s.
a
XI
3
S •
*1
•33
water to poin
is
d
er
od
ho
•as ^
•S6 S
luted
ution,
d H
«
1
tivity
1
3
» g
W Q
Sec
to
-a
X
u u «
C/l
-------
u
I
8
01 4>
w
3
LJ
2
•r
•u J
9
X
8
u
1
g
1
u
*»H
X-l
u
£
B
00
B-
g
3
(U
X
X
oo
M
I
X
u
•8 8
u O
O.
g
s
"8
X
CO
X
I
t
£
•H
t
X
-------
V*
5
I
8
s
*
iS in
01 OJ
•5 *
'•M
fi
UJ
I
perfo
O tfl
t: 3
3 ^
at o
Vi
IS
OT
X
8
in
a
u u
titrat
g
£
U
O
i_)
O
I-l
IT
ra
en
de
i § 2
•H *J
U^ "Tj -r-j
I f • I
u 4J 01
B U
g -5
w in
OQ t~<
u
u
^-1 CM
o a> o
kU
8
o.
u
II -H
3 C
u -q
ei
i 'd
§ ^
i—*
4J -H
•O J
g'd
-*-< 3
1J ^
dj 2^
as
XXX
00 X
0 rj
X
O O^
o.
g
•H
u
fr
3
J?
3
1!
8
t
"8 B
u 0
I|
aS §
(U
4J
a
X X
u
Q.
$ .
"T3
4J
5?
* R
-------
Dafinltlo
S
I
8
S
(S
op
(SI
8
#1
g a
« £
m 4J
i ^5
O *H
u U
*0 cd
5^
I a
I i c
B) 5)
03 5p
oo ff
•H aj
"O W
a
O
Li
?J
§ 2
.M «
tl t/5
^^
W
tj o;
C M
W ^
S TJ
-3 g-
u
o
i/
fi
op
c
•^
0 S
W U-l
in -o
>^
o *J
«) -rt
•H ll
X
CM
U
lj
a
g
a
8
3
ysis
I
g
o
a
3
If
N
i!
2 g
H
s-x
U
R
for
vater
Auto-i
o
-------
ANALYTICAL METHODS
IN LABORATORY ADMINISTRATION
PART I
MEASUREMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY
TIME STUDIES
by: Cecil S. R. Duncan, M.P.H.
Laboratory Management Consultation Office
Bureau of Laboratories
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND VYELf ARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTE" FOR DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303)1
-------
TIME STUDIES
This session has two objectives: (1) to show the difficulty in making
accurate time studies; and (2) to describe basic procedures for those who must
determine a time unit for a test not Included in established systems*>2,3 or
for a test which listed time units are erroneous due to unusual conditions in
the work setting. The intent is not to encourage indiscriminate or unnecessary
time studies because: (1) the process is tirae-consuraing, (2) it is more diffi-
cult than it appears, (3) individual time standards make comparisons or dis-
cussions difficult if not impossible, and (4) human relations must be carefully
attended to; otherwise fear or dissatisfaction will occur among the staff.
One author defines the time study as ".... a procedure used to measure
the time required by a qualified operator working at the normal performance
level to perform a given task in accordance with a specified method."^
The methodology for time studies dates from about the beginning of this
century. Frederick Taylor,^ known as "the father of scientific management"
is given credit for the development. Time studies are part of a larger field
of Industrial engineering which includes the study of methods and motion.
However, this session will concentrate only on the time element.
Time studies consist of the following five basic activities:^
1. Recording the method. Each step of the procedure is outlined in detail.
Each step roust have identifiable beginning and ending points. The sum of
the steps must equal the total cycle of the process. (Nothing should be
left out.)
2. Timing the steps. Each step is timed by an observer with a stopwatch.
Multiple timing is necessary for accuracy.
3. Rating the effort. While timing the steps, the effort level of the worker
is assessed, to indicate the relationship of the work being timed with the
work effort judged by the observer as "normal." This effort level may be
judged on a step basis or on the basis of the entire procedure. Rating is
normally expressed as percent.
4. Calculating normal time. Normal time for each repetitive observation of
a step is calculated as the product of the observed time and the rated
effort. The normal time for the entire procedure ia then the sum of the
normal times for the steps. If the effort was rated only on the entire
procedure, then the elapsed step times are added and the sum is multiplied
by the rated effort to obtain normal time for the entire procedure.
5. Establishing standard time. Allowances may be made to normal time due to
unavoidable delays or other legitimate causes not under the control of the
worker. The standard time is established by adjusting (usually increasing)
the normal time or the average normal time from several observations to
accommodate the allowances. Allowances are usually expressed as percent.
-------
The reader should be aware tliat where steps can be broken down to minute
motions, such ae hand motions of grasping an object, lifting, transporting, and
releasing, tables of predetermined standard times exist for such movements. It
Is beyond the scope here, however, to deal with time studies in that detail.
Also, predetermined standard times do not exist for all motions, and other
elements such as delays would have to be timed by stopwatch anyway.
Although it would seem that a stopwatch time study is completely objective
and Irrefutable, in fact there are large subjective elements with which the
observer must deal. One must realize that "work" is related to the energy
required to perform the task. The relationship can be expressed in equation
form as:
WORK - EFFORT X TIME
Therefore the work involved in performing a laboratory procedure is the effort
multiplied by the time required, and both must be considered by the observer.
It should be obvious that when one is performing a time study properly, it Is
work, rather than time alone, which Is being measured. The work content of
a task Is represented by normal time, which is the product of effort and time
required. The calculated normal time is therefore the time required to perform
the complete procedure by a qualified person working at a normal level of
effort.
If all workers were equally qualified and performed always at an optimal
level of effort, then rating of effort would be unnecessary. Workers vary,
however, in skill level, from day-to-day, within-day, and in other ways. The
fact that the worker is being observed and timed can have an effect on effort.
Skill in the rating of effort requires training and experience; in the meantime
multiple measurements of different workers at different times of day can
provide some compensation for a beginner's lack of skill.
To overcome difficulties in time measurement, one must realize that the
work system is dynamic, changing or varying over a period of tine. Standard
times which are used to forecast or evaluate future performance must include
analysis of variation and change and their causes. Time study is therefore
essentially a sampling procedure. This fact often leads to problems when the
period of time studies is too short or for other reasons is not representative
of normal conditions.'
Sampling is a feature of the CAP1 and the Canadian^ system of work units.
The public health-' system suffers, in its first edition, from inadequate
sampling, particularly in the rare and esoteric tests performed by few labora-
tories. It is assumed that progress will enable the public health system to
improve accuracy in future editions just as did the other systems which had the
advantage of a head start.
The CAP system achieves sampling by inviting a minimum of 10 laboratories
to engage in a time study on a single procedure as it IB done by a single
methodology.8 According to the package of instructions provided, each parti-
cipant is requested to time the steps "at least three or four times" using
technologists and on different days. There is no provision for
-------
racing of effort in the instructions. The result is a set of standard times
which, although lacking in rating of effort by skilled observers, consists of
a sample size of at least 30 and possibly 40 or more observations for each
procedure listed. When invited to participate in such a study, It is important
to follow the instructions exactly, and to disregard conflicting or additional
instructions from others. Information about work measurement is provided by
the College of American Pathologists to those who participate in the develop-
ment of work units listed in their publication. ^ If questions arise, the
instructional materials usually give a name and telephone number to contact.
>
It is hoped that, by this time, the reader understands the problems in
making a time study and the advantages of using appropriate established lists
of standard times, or time units, whenever possible. In light of the fact,
however, that no list is 100 percent complete, the basic steps in making a
time study will be outlined. Readers are encouraged to use the industrial or
systems engineer in their hospital or a consulting industrial engineer if
possible, because those professionals are trained in the required skills. In
such case, knowledge of the procedures outlined here will aid in understanding
of the process and may reduce the time required for the study. If professional
skills are not available, the basic process described here may not be enough,
and one may wish to consult additional references. »^
Also, ignoring the human relations factor In time studies can lead toward
serious labor problems. Workers must understand and agree with the objectives
of the study. Fear of punitive action can lead toward activity which appears
Irrational to management but perfectly rational to the workers. Good manage-
ment with a participative leadership style can lay the groundwork to allay
fears. This article does not cover the human relations aspect of time studies,
but the reader is cautioned that attention must be given to that factor if the
outcome of the time study is to be successful.
The basic tools required are a good stopwatch, a clipboard (preferably one
which has an elbow cut-out and stopwatch holder) and a form for recording data.
Although a good time study observer can obtain adequate results with a
wristwatch and using the back of an old envelope for recording data, proper
tools are relatively inexpensive.
There are several kinds of stopwatches. Some are mechanical (resembling
a pocketwatch) and others are electronic. The electronic watches are becoming
cheaper to buy but require battery replacement periodically. The hands on the
mechanical watch are equivalent to the decimal counters on the electronic
watch. Reference will be made to the "hands" of the watch, which should be
translated to "decimal counter" for the electronic watches.
There are three further classifications of stopwatches which are
important. Type L is the decimal-minute stopwatch. This watch records time
In minutes and hundredths of a minute (not seconds). Therefore, this watch
provides data to two decimal places. The maximum continuous time for recording
by most of these watches is 30 minutes. Type 2 la the decimal-hour stopwatch
which records time in 0.0001 hour increments, or four decimal places. Type 3
Is the split-hand stopwatch which, in the mechanical version, has two large
hands. The observer can start both hands, atop both, and return both to zero
-------
simultaneously. In addition, the operator can stop one hand while allowing
the other to continue, and later can cause the stopped hand to "catch up" and
continue with the first hand. There are also variations of type I and type 3
watches which record time in minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second.
These variations are found in some brands of electronic stopwatches.
There is more than one type of watch because there is more than one way
to time work. One way is called the "snap-back" method, where at the end of
timing the first step of the procedure the watch hand is returned to zero and
the ttme is restarted for the second step. There are three disadvantages to
the "snap-back" method. One is that time is lost while returning the hands to
zero and restarting the watch. A second disadvantage may be more Important in
timing laboratory procedures: If the time is restarted at each step, delays
and interruptions are not noted in the data, and later analysis may not Include
such Information, which is useful in establishing allowances. The third
disadvantage is that the sequence of the data Is lost, and if a step is done
out of sequence, then it is difficult to note.
Either of the first two types of watches is suitable for snap-back timing,
but the first, the decimal-minute stopwatch Is probably better for timing
laboratory work with the snap-back method because fewer errors will be made In
recording 2-place decimal data than In recording 4-place decimal data or data
which is read in terms of minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second.
A better way to time work Is called the "continuous" method. Here, the
watch Is started at the beginning of step one of the procedure and continues
throughout the entire cycle of the procedure. Step endings and delays are
noted as they occur. The split-hand watch was designed for this method and
provides a way of stopping one hand to read the time without interrupting the
continuation of the other hand. Practice in using the stopwatch and operating
its switches will aid the observer so that full attention can be given to the
work being timed.
Once the tools are assembled and practicing is complete, the next step is
to study the procedure to be timed. We will assume here that no improvements
in the procedure need to be done because we are concentrating only on the tim-
ing of the work. It is still Important, however, to check that the procedure
to be tinted is the desired methodology. The worker may have developed some
unauthorized short-cuts of which management is unaware.
The procedure must be broken down into logical steps, each with
Identifiable beginning and ending points. The observer must be able to
recognize the beginning and ending points to record data.
Steps which do not require worker involvement should not be timed because
the worker can be doing something else. In cases where that time is very
short, the observer will have to judge whether the worker can or cannot perform
useful work in the interval. When a specimen is in the centrifuge for five
minutes or incubating overnight, there la no question that other work can be
performed. However, the steps of placing material In the centrifuge and
turning it on as well as removing the material from the centrifuge should be
included.
-------
The next step is to select the worker to be timed. It is best to select
a person who Is trained and produces at a normal effort level. It is also
helpful to select a worker who is agreeable to the process of being timed.
A suspicious worker may try to bias the result. Even after selection of an
agreeable worker, it Is important to describe the objectives and plan to the
point that the worker understands what is going on and why.
The next step, just prior to actual timing, is to record certain data
which will be useful later: name of observer, name of worker, time of day,
room, name of procedure, unit of count, date, equipment used, availability of
material, batch size, and special conditions such as the centrifuge being
locate^ in another room. It is also necessary to note whether the specimen is
an unknown, standard, quality control, repeat, or blank. Sometimes a sketch
of the layout of the work station is useful to show any unusual locations of
equipment or materials. Also,- if the beginning or ending of a step in the
procedure is obscure, a note stating what constitutes the beginning or ending
point Is helpful. The data should be complete enough so that another observer
would time exactly the same events under conditions as similar as possible.
Also, the recorded data can be useful at a later time because when conditions
change, such as room layout, the time o£ the procedure cycle will change.
Figure 1 shows a suggested format for the time study. Other forms are
shown In the references.^»" Figure 1 is designed for observation of a single
worker performing a single procedure. Figure 2 is provided to summarize
multiple observations. When participating in studies for the CAP or others, a
format is provided by the sponsor.
Figure 1 provides space to record pertinent data as well as information
about the steps being timed and the timing results. The column headed Begin/
End Time has a slash which enables recording the beginning time above the slash
and the ending time below the slash. This format is particularly useful for
snap-back timing. In continuous timing, however, the end of one step is the
beginning of the next unless extended interruption occurs. Therefore, if one
is using continuous timing, it is not necessary to record the beginning time of
a step unless an interruption for a non-involved time (such as incubation) has
occurred between timed steps or when a step Is performed out of sequence.
It Is necessary to record the number of units processed (No. Proc.) at
each step* As an example, a single sample may be processed through most steps
but when centrifuging is done, a batch of six specimens will be centrlfuged at
once. Although the time involved while the centrifuge is spinning Is not
included (because It is non-involved time for the worker), the steps of placing
the specimens in the centrifuge and taking them out are Included. In that
case, the elapsed time for placing all the specimens (e.g. 6) In the centrifuge
la divided by the number of specimens (e.g. 6) processed at that step to obtain
the elapsed time for one specimen at that step. Also, there are elements in
procedures which are performed only once per day or only once for every "x"
number of specimens. Examples of such elements include equipment calibration
and various quality control checks which do not constitute whole procedures.
In such case, these intermittent elements should be included in the steps and
timed. The elapsed time for such elements which should be a part of each
normal time is found by dividing the average number of specimens normally
-------
processed between such Intermittent elements Into the measured time for the
element. As an example, If an instrument must be calibrated at the beginning
of a shift, and on an average shift 100 specimens are processed, then the
measured time for calibration can be divided by 100 and added to the elapsed
time for one specimen. It is inappropriate, however, to treat standards,
repeats, and other such elements In this manner if they receive whole
procedures, because they are normally counted and credited to workload in
addition to the unknown specimens.
Although specimens are often processed through a given step in a procedure
aa a batch, some procedures in some laboratories are normally applied to large
batches of specimens. For a procedure to be "batched," a group of specimens is
processed in parallel (simultaneously) through each step of the procedure. For
example, all specimens receive step I before any receive step 2. The fact that
intermediate or final results'are read individually does not change the fact
that a batch is processed. However, it is not a batch if one specimen is given
step 1 while another is in a waiting period (e.g., shaking or centrifuging) at
a later step.
Batched specimens may be timed as a group, and later the elapsed time for
one specimen can be calculated by dividing the batch time by the number of
specimens in the batch.
Consideration of batch times is importa-nt in a high-volume laboratory
because economy of scale can affect Individual specimen time. The observer
should not time a batch, however, unless the procedure is normally done on
batches of specimens. In such case, a batch size as close to normal as
possible should be selected for timing.
Figure 2 is provided to summarize the elapsed times recorded for multiple
observations and timed by the same observer. When multiple observations are
timed under these conditions, the allowance and standard time calculations are
not made on Figure 1. Rating and normal time are calculated on Figure 1,
however, because different workers and different times of day may be used in
the multiple observations. Separate copies of Figure 1 are used for each
observation. In such case, each observation results in a rating and a normal
time on Figure 1; Figure 2 is then used to calculate the average normal time
for all observations and to provide for allowance to obtain standard time.
Rating is a subjective and difficult step. Figure 1 provides scales from
"1" to "10" for the observer to rate the worker on both skill and effort. If
preferred, one can replace this continuous scale with a discrete scale of poor-
fair-average-good-excellent-excessive. Regardless of the scale used, the obser-
ver must Judge the worker in terras of his or her concept of what is "normal"
skill and effort. It helps to remember what has been said before, that the
time study Is ".... a procedure used to measure the time required by a
qualified operator working at the norma1 performance level to perform a given
task in accordance with a specified method."'' (emphasis added).
The rating is a method by which the observer can increase or decrease the
observed (elapsed) time as a result of judgment about the skill and effort of
Che worker. The amount of the rating is intended to increase or decrease the
-------
time such that It reflects what a qualified operator would do when performing
normally. Lf, for example, the observer feels that the worker is working 10
percent slower than whatever the observer Judged to be "normal", then the
elapsed time must be decreased by 10 percent. In that case, the rating percent
would be - 10%. The elapsed time would thereby be multiplied by 0.90 to obtain
normal time. If the worker was 10 percent faster than normal, the rating
percent would be +10% and the elapsed time would be multiplied by 1.10 (one
whole elapsed time plus 10 percent) to obtain normal time. This process of
rating elapsed time to obtain normal time is also called "leveling."
The need for rating is particularly significant when the sample is
smaller. Large sampling, as done by the CAP, reduces the requirement for
rating because the data includes many laboratories and many workers.
Once normal time is calculated, an additional adjustment is needed to
obtain a standard time. This adjustment, which is similar to the rating, or
leveling, process is called "allowance." Unavoidable delays, which are delays
not under the control of the worker, occur. These must be considered In
setting a fair standard time. Unavoidable delays include supervisory interrup-
tions; waiting for, or going to get, material; equipment adjustment or repair;
or anything else that, not by the worker's choice, prevents him or her from
producing. It is important that all delays be included in the timing, and
analysis of the results in which the time for unavoidable delays is noted will
aid in establishing allowances. Of course, delays on the time study sheet
should be classified as avoidable or unavoidable to aid in this analysis.
Delays will sometimes be missed by the observer when using snap-back timing;
whereas continuous timing establishes a complete record of all delays.
The percentage for allowance is treated in the same way as the percentage
for rating of skill and effort. The allowance is simply another adjustment
aimed at establishing the end product, which is standard time. Normally, the
allowance adds time. If it is judged that the allowance is 10% of the normal
time, then the normal time is multiplied by 1.10 (one whole normal time plus 10
percent).
Figure 3 is an illustration of the use of continuous timing of a
urinalysis. The format Figure 3, sheet 1 is the same as that given in Figure
1. Figure 3, sheet 2 ie also a duplicate of Figure 1 because the procedure
required more steps than could be shown on one form. Neither the procedural
steps nor the times are recommendations or factual. The steps were chosen to
Illustrate elements and the times were chosen as numbers easy to grasp.
It Is assumed that the worker lias been selected and oriented prior to this
point. The information at the right of the form is filled in (to the extent
possible prior to the observation). Step numbers and step descriptions also
are recorded and checked to see that the beginning and ending of each step is
apparent to the observer. The illustration is based on the use of continuous
timing with a type 3 stopwatch calibrated in minutes and hundredths of a
minute.
At 8:05 a.m., the stopwatch is set to "0" and timing begins. The observer
notes the type of specimen (unknown, in this case) and that six specimens are
-------
handled simultaneously at this step. The end point, when the specimen Is on
the bench, materials arranged, and John Doe has picked up the first request
form, Is noted on the stopwatch as 1.20 minutes. The beginning time Is
understood to be "0" and Is therefore not recorded. Elapsed j: line Is not
calculated while timing by the continuoustiming methodbecause It will occupy
the observer, causing missed data. Note also that six specimens were processed
at this step, an Important point used later when calculating elapsed time.
With continuous timing, the end time of the first step is automatically
the beginning time of the second step. If a delay occurs between steps, It is
credited to one of the adjacent steps. The second step is the same unknown
and, at the end of this step, the watch indicates "1.45" minuLes. The end time
could be recorded as "1.45", but normally the whole minutes are left out until
the next higher minute arrive? (See step 6).
The timing continues as described through step 7, In which the worker
is not involved while the centrifuge Is spinning (In this example for five
minutes). The observer could have reset the watch to "0" and started a new
sequence of time for step 9. In this case, the non-involved time was rela-
tively short and the watch was left running. However, a lengthy non-Involved
step, such as incubation, could exceed the capacity of the watch. In such case,
restarting at "0" for the next step would be required.
At step 12, a delay occurred. John Doe, the worker, discovered he did not
have a slide available for the microscopic examination. At the beginning of
the step (time 10.45) he had to reach Into a drawer, grasp a box of slides,
remove them, and open the sealed box. Ordinarily, the box would have been
ready at the end of Step 1, so this time is a delay. In some opinions, this is
an avoidable delay, but the fact Is that.lt does happen, regardless of the care
taken by the worker, and is therefore classified as an unavoidable delay.
Workers must be judged as human beings when dealing with delays which are used
later to establish allowances.
The delay began at the beginning of the step (time: 10.45 minutes into
the cycle) and continued until 10.80 minutes. The delay, which was not a
planned step and is therefore not accommodated in the center of the form, is
recorded at the bottom right-hand corner of the sheet. Again, the elapsed time
is not calculated until later.
Once the delay was over (at 10.80 minutes), it required until 12.30
minutes to complete step 12. Later, when calculating elapsed time, the
observer can calculate that 1.85 minutes was required for step 12 with the
delay (12.30 - 10.45) and 0.35 minutes was required for the delay (10.80 -
10.45) therefore the elapsed time was 1.50 minutes for step 12.
Another delay (1.00 minute) occurred at step 15; however, this was an
avoidable delay because the worker stopped to chat with a friend. Although the
delay is recorded, it is not considered when, at a later date, the observer
estimates allowances. Sometimes it is difficult to Judge whether a delay is
avoidable or not, and continuous timing has the advantage that all delays are
recorded; judgment can be applied later. With snap-back timing, judgment may
be made on the spot and later regretted, but data may be lost by that time.
-------
At the end of the steps, step 1 is recorded (as step IA) again. The
purpose is to record any unavoidable delays between cycles which must be
realistically added to the last step of the cycle. In the case of this
example, there was no such delay.
Once the data is recorded, elaspsed time is calculated for each step by
subtracting the ending time from the beginning time and subtracting out delays.
In step 1, six specimens were processed simultaneously; since the unit for
count is specimen, the elapsed time (1.20 minutes) for the six specimens is
divided by 6 to obtain the elapsed time (0.20) for one specimen. The same type
of division is made at steps 7, 8, and 9. In the case of step 8 (centrifug-
Ing), there is five minutes of non-involved time; therefore no elapsed time is
recorded.
The time for steps 12 and 15 are the ending times minus the beginning
times minus the elapsed times for the delays. Total elapsed time is the sum
of the individual step times, and does not include any delays or non-involved
time.
The observer must next estimate a fair rating based on the workers skill
and effort. John Doe's skill was Judged average for this particular procedure,
but due to the fact that he starts work at 7:00 a.m., he seemed to be a little
faster and smoother than the observer believes would be normal. In this case,
the observer judges that John Doe Is working about 10 percent faster than the
normal employee. (John must be judged against the normal employee, not himself
at another time.) The observer therefore establishes a rating of 1.10 which is
equivalent to 110% of normal speed, thereby requiring a leveling of +10% of the
elapsed time to establish normal time. Had John Doe worked 10% slower than
normal, the rating would have been 0.90 (90% of normal).
The rating is multiplied times the total elapsed time and the result is
recorded on the form as normal time. If multiple observations were made, the
form illustrated in Figure 2 would be used for all subsequent calculations;
however, in this case, only a single observation is Illustrated.
To estimate the allowance, one notes the unavoidable delays. In this
case, in step 12, there was an unavoidable delay of 0.35 minutes. This delay
is approximately 5% of the normal time (actually 4.48% but rounded upward
because of estimating difficulties). The allowance is therefore established at
1.05 (equivalent to 105%) and multiplied times the normal time. The result,
standard time, Is recorded on the form and is the final product.
It ia hoped, as a result of this session, that the reader understands the
difficulties as well as the process of making a time study. The end objective
is to arrive at a fair estimate of the time required by a qualified operator
working at a normal pace which will not induce fatigue to perform the work over
and over.
-------
10
REFERENCES
1. The Laboratory Management and Planning Committee. Laboratory Workload
Recording Meth. College of American Pathologists, 7400 Skokie Boulevard,
Skokie, Illinois 60076, U.S.A.
2. Canadian Schedule of Unit Values for Clinical Laboratory Procedures.
Hospitals Section, Health Division, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A
OT6. Canada.
3. Work Time Unltst A DlagnoBtic Workload Measurement Structure for Public
Health Laboratories. Center for Disease Control, U.S. Public Health
Service, U.S. D.H.E.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
4. Antis, William. Stopwatch Time Study. Chapter 2 in Industrial Engineering
Handbook, Maynard, H.B. ed. Third edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York. 1971. pp. 3-12 - 3-27.
5. Taylor, Frederick W. The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper and
Brothers. New York. 1911.
6. Smalley, Harold E. and John R. Freeman. Hospital Industrial Engineering.
Relnhold Publishing Corp. New York. 1966.
7. Wertlake, Paul T. "The Performance Critique Team: Maximizing Lab
Efficiency." Laboratory Management. September, 1974. pp. 49-50.
8. Slnton, Eleanor B. "Workload Recording: Now You Need It More Than Ever."
Medical Laboratory Observer. May, 1976. pp. 127-137.
9. Production Handbook. 3rd edition. Carson, Gordon B., Harold A. Bolz, and
Hewitt H. Young, editors. Ronald Press Co. New York. 1972. Section 12,
pp 1-104.
-------
u_
O
UJ
UJ
to
UJ
o t-
2
<£
UJ
*
OL
O
5
o
•o
JO
O
>,
1
en
W
O
<
QZ
Ul
CO
m
O
>
Q
to
Ul
S
z
o
ui u
I
2 2
i I
UJ
N
S
r
L)
O
UJ
O
O
c
2
i-
O
z
Q
Z
U)
5§> «
ISSN'S
2 « Z 5 k- o
« O Z 4 r UJ °
u. ^ o u J_ * >:
u, o$ I ^3 <
O < O ° u. tt Z
Z -I J ui < Q O
O
uj
en
O
ec
UJ
»
a
O
N
OT
I
U
2 "
O !«
o r
i i-
z
z
5
u
to
c
o
r
o
O
z
o.
o
. z
ui — 1:
j -I
< 1
D- t-
o o
k- k-
s
o:
o
Z
(-
Q
I
s
Z
<«
in
005
HJZ-
muiH
UJ
a.—
o.
UJ
t;
z
o
oc
(J
UJ
a
O
t-
>
ec
UJ
M
OB
o
a.
ui
z
O
ZQ
o.
in
UJ
UJ_.
-lui
.
"a
< UJ
II
E
II
2
DO
O
tn
v>
c
o
u
3
EC
CE
-------
u.
O
Ul
I
<
o
O
ri
IT
uJ
•o
UJ
UJ
t/>
O
>
EC
UJ
V)
m
O
UJ
5
N-
Z
D
O
O
I
o
u.
t-
2
UJ
5
a.
D
O
u
UJ
Si
UJ
>
cc -
8 5
O O
O I
UJ
N
vt
X
!J
I-
<
X
3
a
UJ
U
o
«- « 5
«S§5.,SS
g tt to z 5 (- £
* O 2 < r UJ °
u. L. 0 U ^ ^
- 3 F d t;" y
ul O «t "* uj S
^ >- o u. *^
O
5S
llg J
^ v«
yj rg
u, ?
(V
2
O
e/i
•t
UJ
tC
Q
UJ
to
<
_J
Ul
ZQ
0
X
X
!
X
UJ
UJ
UJ~
"a]
_IUI
< I
ZW
Ol-
t?
Q-l
02
<0
ul _l
SJ
!§
D<
ul >
C«
5S
ujf
jJS
< w
H
X
-------
Q
ex
u.
O
UJ
I
?
^.1
I
u
o
c
i p
3^
_ c
Ul
UJ
V)
O
E
U >- U)
2 i S
i
u
t-
<
m
_i
<
^ O
t- z
UJ
5
a.
a
ui
UJ
N
<
_ m
O <5
o r
it t-
E
a
u>
u
O 0
UJ (E
C a.
I
t-
fti
_ ~ »' ^.
O K « z 5
= o z < p
*- > U S u. <
o < o 55 u- tc z
Z -J -I i/i < O O
2
O
o
3
Q
UJ
<
H
<
Q
- O
OC
Ul
U)
CO
o
Ul
S
o
UJ
s/>
Qb UJ
£H
JgS
Ul
O. —
a.
UJ
a.
O
Z
g
a.
E
u
M
UJ
Q
NO.
RVAT
m
O
VO
Q
•S
I
rO
0
V
O
0
M)
VD
O
vS
o
Z
O
UJ
a.
rv
6
K
7 V
§ 3
Q Q
* Ul
,§5
O
0
fO
V
S
E
v- X
0 ^
* U)
O x
0
O
S
TOTAL ELAPSED TIME (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS
IF NECESSARY AND TOTAL ON LAST SHEET.)
11
I*
V>
1
c
o
o
g
o
-------
Inorganic Section
Test W 1 ij
Apparent Color 2
True Color 2
Turbidity >f
Settleable Residue 2
Suspended Residue 9
Total Residue 10
Dissolved Residue 10
Volatile Residue )
Fluoride k
Total I iardness <\
Calcium Hardness >i
Dissolved Oxygen 5
BOD 20
MDAS 20
Total Organic Carbon 22
Phenol 20
Cyanide 20
Oil & Grease 30
Tannin and Li^nin 10
Silica 10
Boron 20
Cr Chromium-Hex 10
Sulfate 2
Sulfide 25
Cr Chromium-Tri 1
EPToxicity
Ignitability 60
EP Toxicity Cyanide 50
Fish Extract 30
Chlorine Residual 5
Acidity Total 30
Alkalinity Net 30
Alkalinity Total '»
Alkalinity Plienolplitlialein it
Acidity (»
Chloride fj
Specific Conductance 3
pH 2
Flame A. A. 3
Furnace A. A. 20
Cold Vapor A.A. (Water & Soil) 12
Cold Vapor A.A. (Fish) 30
Flame A.A. (Fish) 60
Hydride A.A. (Fish) 60
TKN 20
Total Phosphorous 15
Nitrate and Nitrite 10
-------
Inorganic Section
Test WTU
Ammonia 10
COD 10
Nitrite JO
Organic Nitrogen I
Sulfur 120
Precipitation 3
Weight 1
Nitrate N 1
Air Pollution:
Metals, Prepared ^2
Metals, Run ' 3
TSP, Exposed 15
TSP, Unexposed 5
Gas Chromatograpli 120
Silt 20
Asbestos (Ashing) 12
Stack Stampling:
Tilters 20
Acetone Wash 15
Front Glass Wash 15
Itnpinger, Ele. Temp. 1 5
Impinger, Chloroform 35
Documentation 6
Mercury '40
Formaklehyde 60
Fluoride (Dental) <»
Fluoride (Other) <4
502 3°
Coal:
% Moisture 15
96 Ash 15
% Sulfur 120
DTU 120
Bulk Density 15
Saroad 3
High Volume Microscopic '»5
Asbestos (school) 35
Asbestos (other, microscopic) 15
Radiation alert filter study 3
-------
inorganic Section
Test WTU
Radiological Chemistry Section
Gross Alpha-Beta; soil, water 60
Gross Alpha-Beta; air filters 5
Gross lieta; vegetation 60
Specified Alpha; soil 720
Gamma Analysis 60
Iodine - 131 by ppt 210
Plutonium; water 2^0
Radium 226, 228 <*20
Strontium 89, 90 300
Total Thorium 300
Total Uranium " 300
Tritium (Liquids) 30
Uranium <5c Thorium Isotopic 5'*0
Leak Test: (Alpha-beta) 60
Scintillation vials 30
ERAMS: Air Filter Study 8
Precipitation Study 5
Organic Section
Test
Purgeable Halocarbons
Purgeable Aromatics '*20
Acrolein Acrylonitrile 120
Phenols 120
Denzidines 120
Phthalate Esters 120
Nitrosoamines 120
OrganocMorine Pesticides & PCtt's 120
Nitroaromatics & Isophorone 120
Polynuclear Aromatics 120
Haloethers 120
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 120
Herbicides 17<*
Petroleum Products 120
Water Extraction:
Base Neutral 60
Acid 60
Sediment Extraction 510
Tissue Extraction 330
GC/MS 480
TOG 22.2
Polyurethane Foam Plugs 420
Nitrobodies 90
Cotton Swab Extracts 2<*0
Pul Extraction 120
-------
Aquatic Biology Section
Test WTU
Bacteriological Analyses
Sewage Treatment Effluent 20
Streams 20
Special (Wells, etc.) 20
Biological Samples Collected
Qualitative Fish Samples 90
Fish Samples for Toxics 90
Fish Population Studies 1800
3 sq. ft. Surber 90
Selected Pickings . 90
Dendy (ayt. substrate) 90
Periphy toineters 180
4 L. Plankton 90
Chlorophyll 90
Chemical - (Routine - Ambient) 90
Biological Samples Analyses
Surber 900
Selected Pickings 720
Dendy 900
Periphy ton Biomass 600
Periphy ton (Taxonomy) 600
Plankton 600
Chlorophyll 90
Bioassays
Flow Through 3540
Definitive 1300
Static 90
Chronic-Ceriodaphmia 3540
Chronic-Fish 3540
Chemical Analyses Performed by Biologists 1 5
Plant Visits 150
Training 050
208 Reviews l'(40
404 Reviews 660
AGPT 080
Algal Toxicity 480
Proj27
------- |