Benchmarking Sanitary Sewer
Maintenance Programs
Benchmarking is … “the practice of
being humble enough to admit
someone is better than you at
something and then being wise
enough to learn to match and even
surpass them at it.” (Harmon, 1992)
A Benchmarking Program Will Provide
Multiple Benefits to System Operators and
Managers
 Defines performance and cost indicators by which a
program can be compared to similar utilities and
industry standards
 Helps identify and examine areas within a program
where changes may improve performance such as
staffing, equipment, organization, and efficiency.
 Illustrates improvement potential and provides
standards on which to base performance goals
 Provides a basis to track improvements in performance
over time and document the benefits of changes
The Benchmarking Process is a Cycle of
Continuous Evaluation and Improvement
Implement Change
Evaluate
Goals
Identify
Areas for
Improvement
Collect Data
Consider
Explanatory
Factors
Document
Success
YES
Goals
Met?
NO
Benchmarking Improves the Effectiveness of a
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Program to Meet
Community Objectives

Protect public from exposure
to disease-causing organisms

Protect property and homes
against damage

Protect environment and
water quality


Protect public’s large capital
investment in the sanitary
sewer system
Protect utility from regulatory
actions
Survey Data Related to a Wide Range of
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Issues
 General System Information
– length of sewers, number of pump stations
 Equipment and Labor Indicators
– numbers and types of equipment
– number of collection system staff
 Budget Indicators
– preventive vs. emergency maintenance
 Performance Indicators
– stoppages per year
– overflows per year
– odor complaints per year
The Top 8 Performers (Based on Low Cost and
Low Stoppages) Were Used for Comparisons
Low Cost
High Cost
Top 8 Performers
Low
Stoppages
High
Stoppages
System Characteristics Should Mimic the
System Being Benchmarked as Closely as
Possible
24.3
Average Age
(years)
39.3
33.1
Minimum
Maximum
Average
450
Total Length
(miles)
2,445
1,100
72,000
Population
458,400
200,000
0%
50%
100%
150%
Percent of Average Value
200%
250%
Budget Indicators Can Be Difficult to Compare
Between Systems, But Are Helpful as Relative
Guides
$9.20
$27.09
Sewer Bill $/mo.
$15.83
34%
PM/Total
Maintenance, %
90%
55%
$1,473/mile
O&M
Budget/mile
$4,107/mile
$3,070/mile
$6.25
$7.37
$6.90
Labor I, $/hr
0%
50%
100%
150%
Percent of Average Value
Minimum
Maximum
Average
200%
Staffing and Equipment Indicators Are Useful
for Preparing and Defending Annual O&M
Budgets
30%
Equip. System
Clean Capacity
52%
42%
0.00
3.40
FMs/100 miles
1.4
0.91
Pipe Emp./100
miles of sewer
4.07
3.1
0.06
Pipe Emp./1000
Pop.
0.27
0.17
Minimum
Maximum
Average
0.08
0.22
Employees/PS
0.16
0%
50%
100%
150%
Percent of Average Value
200%
250%
The Top 8 Benchmarking Performers Are
Approaching Private Preventive
Maintenance Budget Percentages
Private
Avg.
Public Avg.
Emergency
Preventive
Top 8
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Cost/mile/year
The Least-Cost Maintenance Program
Contains a Mix of Preventive and Emergency
Maintenance Approaches
Total
Maintenance
Emergency
Maintenance
Preventive
Maintenance
Overflows or Stoppages/mile of sewer/year
Converting to a Preventive Maintenance
Program May Take Several Years Before Total
Maintenance Budget Decreases
Cost/mile/year
Total
Maintenance
Preventive
Maintenance
Emergency
Maintenance
Time, years
The Percentage of Maximum Cleaning Capacity
Achieved Provided an Indication of the
Efficiency of Crews


Cleaning efficiency equals percent of
system cleaned divided by maximum
cleaning capacity
Max cleaning capacity determined
by standard cleaning rates:
–
hydraulic = 2,000 ft/day
% of Max Cleaning
Capacity
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
–
power rod = 1,800 ft/day
20%
–
manual rod = 900 ft/day
0%
Min
Max
Avg
Performance Indicators Show the Overall
Effectiveness of a Sewer Maintenance
Program
3.0
Odor Comp./100
miles
9.9
5.2
Minimum
Maximum
Average
0.02
MH OFs/mile of
sewer
0.25
0.10
0.03
Blockages per
mile of sewer
0.42
0.23
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
Percent of Average Value
250%
300%
Cost-Effective Performance Was Determined
by a Combination of Cost and Performance
Indicators
38
Overflows/mi * $
O&M/mi
378
229
Minimum
Maximum
Average
64
Stoppages/mi * $
O&M/mi
1,300
621
0%
50%
100%
150%
Percent of Average Value
200%
250%
A Range of Beneficial Conclusions or
Recommendations May Result from a
Benchmarking Study
 Changes in staffing or equipment needs to improve
efficiency and meet performance goals
 Changes in department policies or practices:
– appraisal practices, pay scales, partnering, employee
utilization, outsourcing
– root and grease control programs
 Establishment of performance goals
– percentage of system cleaned per year
– percentage of system rehabilitated per year
– reductions in overflows and stoppages
A Benchmarking Program Provides a Basis
for Tracking Cost & Performance to Show the
Benefits of Improvements
 Performance and cost indicators are defined
 Staffing, equipment, organizational factors may be
identified and examined to improve performance and
efficiency
 Comparisons to other similar systems and good
performers identifies areas of potential improvement
 Performance goals are tracked over time to show
improvements from implemented changes