1 FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch Presented by: Don Wilson Division of Safety...

1

FY02 ASA Presentation

Environmental Protection Branch

Presented by:

Don Wilson

Division of SafetyNational Institutes of Health

18 November 2002

2

Table of Contents

Main PresentationASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….4Customer Perspective……………………….………………………….…5-6

Customer Segmentation …………………….………………………………...7-11Customer Satisfaction……………………….………………………………..12-19

Internal Business Process Perspective……………………………………20Service Group Block Diagram……………………………………………………21Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts………….…….22Process Measures………………………………………………………….…23-38

Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………….39Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data……...40Analysis of Readiness Conclusions……………………………………………..41

Financial Perspective………………………………………………………..42Unit Cost……………………………………………………………..…………43-48Asset Utilization……………………………………………………………………49

Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………….50Conclusions from FY02 ASA..………………………………………..………51-52Recommendations…………………………………………………………………53

3

Table of Contents

AppendicesPage 2-3 of your ASA Template

Customer satisfaction graphs

Block diagram

Process maps

Learning and Growth graphs

Analysis of Readiness Information

4

Team Members

Chuck Carroll, Dave Crook, Paul Durand, Charlyn Lee, Janie Lee, David Mohammadi

Contribute to safe and clean working conditions by providing cost-effective, timely, and efficient waste and recycling services in accordance with applicable regulations.

DS1: Collect and Dispose of Recyclables

DS2: Remove and Dispose of Solid Waste

DS4: Collect and Dispose of Medical/Pathological Waste

Product Leadership Harvest

Donald M. Wilson

Operational Excellence Growth

Service Strategy

ASA Template - 2002

Customer Value Proposition

Team Leader

Provide Waste Management

Discrete Services

Service Group

DS3: Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste

Customer Intimacy Sustain

X

5

Customer Perspective

6

Customer PerspectiveEPB WMS Services Overview

Recycling, solid and medical waste services provided under one Performance Based Contract. Contract services from Bldg 25 operations center with approximately 30 contractor employees.

Hazardous waste services provided under Chem/Rad Contact. Services provided from Bldg 21 and 26T operations center with 23 contractor employees on-site.

All operations must comply with applicable license, permits and regulations.

7

Customer Segmentation

Chemical Waste

Medical/

Pathological Waste

Recycling

Solid Waste

Environmental Protection BranchWaste Management Section

8

Customer Segmentation – DS1,2,4

• Customer Segmentation Charts are same for Discrete Services 1 (Recycling), 2 (Solid Waste), and 4 (Medical Waste).

• These 3 services are performed by collecting waste or recyclables from either loading docks, cold boxes,or containers in corridors or at outside locations.

• Segmentation based on assigned Institute square footage within on-site buildings.

• Largest Customers: ORS (18%), CC (17%), NCI (10%), NLM (8%)

9

ORS18.25%

NIDDK4.22%

NIAID4.73%

CC17.68%

NCMHD, NIDA, NIEHS, NIBIB, NCRR, NINR,

NIAAA, NCCAM, NIH_RENO, NIDCD,

NIA, CINIH, FIC, OD/OA, NIGMS, HHMI

5.48%NA

1.05%DIR RES

1.11%

NIAMS1.16%

NHGRI1.58%

NIDCR2.16%

CIT2.19%

NIMH2.68%NEI

2.79%OD3.03%

CBER3.19%

NICHD3.22%NINDS

3.45%NHLBI3.65%

NLM8.11%

NCI10.29%

749,530 ft 2

232,153 ft 2

44,344 ft 246,930 ft 2

49,113 ft 2

66,873 ft 2

91,705 ft 2

92,977 ft 2

773,749 ft 2

113,467 ft 2

118,251 ft 2

128,227 ft 2

154,559 ft 2

146,113 ft 2

178,711 ft 2

136,629 ft 2135,190 ft 2

200,313 ft 2

343,735 ft 2

436,060 ft 2

DS 1, DS 2, DS 4 - Customer SegmentationNIH Campus Institutes Serviced in Square Footage

Percent of Each Customer to

Total Campus Area = 4,238,629 ft 2

Total Area in Ft. 2 per Institute

ORS18.25%

NIDDK4.22%

NIAID4.73%

CC17.68%

NCMHD, NIDA, NIEHS, NIBIB, NCRR, NINR,

NIAAA, NCCAM, NIH_RENO, NIDCD, NIA,

CINIH, FIC, OD/OA, NIGMS, HHMI5.48%

NA1.05%

DIR RES1.11%

NIAMS1.16%

NHGRI1.58%

NIDCR2.16%

CIT2.19%

NIMH2.68%

NEI2.79%OD

3.03%

CBER3.19%

NICHD3.22%NINDS

3.45%NHLBI3.65%

NLM8.11%

NCI10.29%

749,530 ft 2

232,153 ft 2

44,344 ft 246,930 ft 2

49,113 ft 2

66,873 ft 2

91,705 ft 2

92,977 ft 2

773,749 ft 2

113,467 ft 2

118,251 ft 2

128,227 ft 2

154,559 ft 2

146,113 ft 2

178,711 ft 2

136,629 ft 2135,190 ft 2

200,313 ft 2

343,735 ft 2

436,060 ft 2

% #

10

Customer Segmentation – DS3

• The Customer Segmentation Chart for DS3, Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste, was created based on a list of customers from the Hazardous Waste Customer Database.

• There are a total of 984 customer groups in the database.

• A customer is not a single person, but a laboratory group that works together under the same lab chief or PI.

• Largest Customers: NCI (162), NIDDK (102), NIAID (100), NHLBI (80)

11

IC's that are Less than 1%7.62%

NIDDK10.98%

NIN1.63%

NIA2.44%

NIAMS2.64%

NIAID10.16%

NHLBI8.13%

NIMH5.69%

NICHD5.69%

NINDS5.08%

CC4.47%

CBER5.08%

NEI3.56%NCI

15.45%

NIDCR3.15%

NHGRI3.46%

ORS4.78%

DS 3 – Customer SegmentationCollect and Dispose of Hazardous Materials

152

108

100

80 56

56

50

44

50

35

47

3431

262416

75

Percent of Each Customer to Total Customer Base = 984

Number of Customers per Institute#%

12

FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual Self Assessments

Service Group 18:

Provide Waste Management DS3 - Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste

16 October 2002

Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)

13

Survey Distribution

Number of Surveys Distributed

Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories

and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 30

Number of Surveys Returned Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories


Response Rate 43%

14

Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction Ratings

Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding. Refer to the Data Analysis and Graphing training for advice on interpreting these results.

ORS Index = 8.278.27

8.40

8.28

8.48

7.42

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability

Data based on 436 respondents

Service Group Index = 9.949.94

10.00

10.00

10.00

9.801.00

4.00

7.00

10.00

Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


15

Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings


ORS Index = 8.558.55

8.60

8.58 8.54

8.518.51

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00

Availability

Responsiveness

ConvenienceCompetence

Handling ofProblems


Service Group Index = 9.97 9.97

10.0010.00

9.8510.00

10.00

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00

Availability

Responsiveness


Handling ofProblems


16

Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings: A Closer Look

Note: A smaller portion of the chart is shown so that the individual data points can be labeled.

7.00

7.20

7.40

7.60

7.80

8.00

8.20

8.40

8.60

8.80

9.00

9.20

9.40

9.60

9.80

10.00

7.00 7.20 7.40 7.60 7.80 8.00 8.20 8.40 8.60 8.80 9.00 9.20 9.40 9.60 9.80 10.00

Satisfaction

Imp

ort

an

ce

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

Cost

Convenience

ResponsivenessAvailability

Handling of ProblemsCompetence

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


17

Scorecard Comments for - What was done particularly well?

• We appreciate the prompt pickup of old full containers and the delivery of new empty ones.

• Handling of problems.• They are prompt and courteous.• Gentlemen know what assigned task was, performed

politely and efficiently• Promptness is very important. The chemical waste

was picked up within the 24 hour call.• Polite customer service contact by phone. Picked up

waste the next morning. Very efficient.• Response time very good. Very friendly pick up

people.• Always prompt, polite.• I am very impressed with the next day service.

18

Scorecard Comments for – What needs to be improved?

• We have never had a problem.• Nothing.

19

Feedback to Scorecard Responders

• Provide email back to all responders. Email thanks them for participating and gives a summary of the results of the surveys. The email expresses our commitment to providing the highest quality of service and continuing to support the NIH mission of biomedical research.

20

Internal Business Process Perspective

21

RecyclablesCollection and

Disposal

Solid WasteCollection and

Disposal

HazardousWaste

Collection andDisposal

MedicalPathological

WasteCollection and

Disposal

Block Diagram of Service Group:Provide Waste Management

22

• Our Service Group completed 4 deployment flowcharts for 4 discrete services

• The flowcharts show EPB waste services are potentially impacted by other parties. Other parties include:- Housekeeping staff that load and operate trash

compactors- MPW generators or CC Housekeeping Staff who

package MPW for disposal- Vehicles parked illegally that prevent emptying or

pulling of trash dumpsters

Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts

23

Performance MeasuresDS1: Collection and Processing of Recyclable

Materials

• Time between customer collection request and delivery of service (PBSC Measure)

• Contract Performance Standard: Receive service request calls for recycling collection from Project Officer or customers by phone or electronic means, document electronically and respond within 24 hours.

• AQL = 100% of all service request calls serviced within 24 hours

• Results: AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in 39 of 40 weeks = 97.5% Compliance

24

DS 1 - Compliance with 24 hour Recycling Pick Up Requests – 40 week measurement

Performance Measures

Internal Business Process PerspectiveCompliance History for 24 hour Recycling Pick-up Requests - FY 02

40 Week Measurement - Monitored Weekly

2.50% Percent Non-

Compliant

97.5% Percent

Compliant

25


DS1: Collection and Processing of Recyclable Materials

• Timeliness and effectiveness of recyclable collections (PBSC Measure)

• Contract Performance Standard: Timely and efficient collection of recyclable materials from interior and exterior containers and liners replaced as required in the SOW

• AQL = No more than 10% of a representative sample of all containers in use greater than 50% full as measured within 4 hours of scheduled service.

• Results: AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in 40 of 40 weeks = 100% Compliance

26

Performance Measures DS 1 - Compliance with Timeliness and Effectiveness of Emptying Recycling Containers Campus Wide – 40 week measurement

100.00%

0.00%

Internal Business Process Perspective40 Week Measurement - Monitored Weekly

Non-Compliance

Timeliness & Effectiveness

Dec 01 Jan 02 Feb 02 Apr 02 June 02May 02Mar 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02

40 Weeks

27


DS2: Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste

• Timely and effective emptying of exterior trash dumpsters to prevent overfilling and loading dock backups (PBSC Measure)

• Contract Performance Standard: Empty containers on schedules that allows continuous loading from the dock.

• AQL = No more than 10% of containers full and unable to receive additional trash on main campus during core hours.


28

DS 2 - Compliance with Timeliness and Effectiveness of Emptying Dumpsters to Prevent Overfilling – 40 week measurement


100.00%

0.00%


Non-Compliance


Dec 01 Jan 02 Feb 02 Apr 02 June 02May 02Mar 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02

40 Weeks

29


DS2: Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste

• Effectiveness of waste reduction efforts accomplished through the recycling program

• The effectiveness was determined by taking the amounts recycled divided by amounts of solid waste plus amounts recycled. This provides a percentage of solid waste reduction achieved through recycling.

• Results: Achieve an average recycling rate of 25% for FY2002

30

Performance Measures DS 2 – Effectiveness of Waste Reduction FY 02 In Tonnage and Percentile

Internal Business Process Perspective

25

.41

%

22

.16

%

27

.80

%

28

.84

%

25

.34

%

26

.41

%

24

.74

%

25

.41

%

27

.55

% Average % Recycled FY 02 =

25.49%26

.99

%

21

.19

%

24

.00

%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200O

ct-0

1

No

v-0

1

De

c-0

1

Jan

-02

Fe

b-0

2

Ma

r-0

2

Ap

r-0

2

Ma

y-0

2

Jun

-02

Jul-

02

Au

g-0

2

Se

p-0

2

Month

To

ns

Total Recycled Tons

Net Trash Tons

% Total SW StreamRecycledTotal Tonnage Tons

31


DS3: Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste

• Effectiveness of hazardous waste regulatory compliance as measured by regulatory violations

• The effectiveness was determined by evaluating the results of all regulatory inspections performed during FY02. One 2-day regulatory inspection was performed by the Maryland Department of the Environment.

• Results: No regulatory violations were discovered as a result of this inspection = 100% compliance

32

Performance Measures DS 3 – Effectiveness of Hazardous Waste Regulatory Compliance FY 02

100.00%

0.00%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%

FY 02

Internal Business Process PerspectiveOne Regulatory Inspection - No Violations

Violations

Regulatory Compliance

33



• Time between customer collection request and delivery of service

• The effectiveness was determined by using the ORS Customer Scorecard. We added an extra question on the Scorecard to measure whether the customers felt that contract requirement for providing waste collection services within 24 hours of request was being met.

• Results: Of the 12 responders that answered the question, all 12 gave a perfect score of 10 = 100% compliance

34

ORS Scorecards No

Response Given

8%

ORS Scorecards Favorable Response

92%

12 Customers120 out of 120 Points Received

1 Customer

Total Customer Base Surveyed = 13

DS 3 - Hazardous Waste Survey Survey of Customer Satisfaction with 24 hour Request for Pick Up

Requirement

35



• Effectiveness of using recycling options as compared to destruction or disposal

• The effectiveness was determined by calculating the total weight of hazardous waste recovered for reuse divided by the the total weight disposed plus weight recovered for reuse. This provides a percentage of hazardous waste that was effectively recovered for reuse.

• Results: Achieve an average recycling rate of 18% for FY2002. This is a very good recycling rate due to the light weight of many recyclable waste streams.

36

Total Recyled, FY 2002

Total Disposed,

Treated, and Recycled FY2002

17.85%

DS 3 - Effectiveness of Utilizing Recycling Optionsas Compared to Destruction or Disposal

37


DS4: Collection and Disposal of Medical Pathological Waste

• Time between MPW boxes placed in storage areas by customer and removed by Contractor (PBSC Measure)

• Contract Performance Standard: Timely and efficient collection of MPW containers from building interiors and loading docks

• AQL = 90% of all MPW containers collected on-site within 3 hours of being set-out by generator.


38

Performance Measures DS 4 – Timeliness and Effectiveness of Pick Ups of MPW Boxes within 3 hours of Being Placed Out by Client

40 Weeks

100.00%

0.00%


Non-Compliance


Jan 02 Apr 02Feb 02Dec 02 Mar 02 May 02 June 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02

40 Weeks

39

FY02 Learning and Growth (L&G) Data for the Annual Self Assessments

Service Group 18:


26 September 2002

Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management

40

No significant conclusions can be drawn from the data

Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data

41

• One employee to staff proposed Twinbrook Research Complex, scheduled to open 2004.

• Additional human resources for service demands created by completion and occupancy of new CRC , Twinbrook Research Campus, and new NRC Building.

Analysis of Readiness Conclusions

42

Financial Perspective

43

UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR

$11,

757.

96

$12,

481.

15

$9,8

95.8

7

$12,

105.

77

$1,7

13.5

7

$1,6

06.6

4

$1,4

59.3

9

$1,3

53.9

4

$380

.44

$369

.55

$397

.20

$319

.90$1

45.3

7

$152

.28

$127

.90

$132

.90 $1.00

$100.00

$10,000.00

$1,000,000.00

Yearly Cost per Metric

TonWaste Management

Stream in Unit Cost Per Metric Ton

Logarithmic Overview of Unit Cost in Metric Tons Measured Over Time in Years

44


$132.90 $127.90

$152.28 $145.37

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

$180.00

Cost per Metric Ton

FY 01Actual

FY 02Actual

FY 03Forecast

FY 04Forecast

Solid Waste

45


$319.90

$397.20$369.55 $380.44

$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

$450.00

Cost per Metric Ton

FY 01Actual

FY 02Actual

FY 03Forecast

FY 04Forecast

Recyclables

46


$1,353.94$1,459.39

$1,606.64$1,713.57

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

$1,400.00

$1,600.00

$1,800.00

Cost per Metric Ton

FY 01Actual

FY 02Actual

FY 03Forecast

FY 04Forecast

Medical / Pathological Waste

47


$12,105.77

$9,895.87

$12,481.15$11,757.96

$0.00

$2,000.00

$4,000.00

$6,000.00

$8,000.00

$10,000.00

$12,000.00

$14,000.00

Cost per Metric Ton

FY 01Actual

FY 02Actual

FY 03Forecast

FY 04Forecast

Hazardous Waste

48

• EPB provides top quality waste services to the NIH without significant costs increases from year to year

Unit Cost Measure Conclusions

49

• EPB staff are assigned to manage the recycling services and hazardous, medical, and solid waste services.

• High amount of direct staff involvement required due to complex technical and regulatory nature of work. Work writing permits, reviewing regulatory shipping documents, new building plans impacting our services, and Contractor prepared regulatory reports.

• Because the staff does not perform repetitive quantifiable tasks, an asset utilization measure of EPB human resources was not practical.

Asset Utilization Measures

50

Conclusions and Recommendations

51

Conclusions from FY02 ASA

• Major findings from the FY02 ASA

• ORS Scorecard showed customer satisfaction at an extremely high level

52

Conclusions from FY02 ASA

• Other Comments Concerning ASA Process

• WMS expended approximately 480 total man-hours

• Too much specialized training required• ASA demands reduced staff ability to provide

services at highest level• ASA process needs streamlining to allow

standardized inputs from Service Groups after which final report is self-generated

53

• Award a new 5 year Chemical and Radioactive Waste Contract in FY03 with performance based elements.

• Work to improve performance in areas identified by process maps

• Implement customer recommendations from scorecard where possible

Recommendations

54

Appendices

55

DS2: Effectiveness of waste reduction efforts accomplished through the recycling program

DS3: Effectiveness of using recycling options as compared to destruction or disposalDS3: Effectiveness of hazardous waste regulatory compliance as measured by regulatory violations

DS3: Time between customer collection request and delivery of service

Customer PerspectivePerformance Measure

Customer satisfaction ratings from the ORS Customer Scorecard for each Discrete Service

DS4: Time between MPW boxes placed in storage areas by customer and removed by contractor (PBSC Measure)

Turnover

Customer segmentation of Discrete Services

Analysis of Readiness Index

Performance Objective

Awards/Recognition

Contacts/Complaints with EEO/ER/ADR

Sick Leave Usage

Performance Measure


Increase understanding of customer base

Increase customer satisfaction


Service Group:

DS2: Timely and effective emptying of exterior trash dumpsters to prevent overfilling and loading dock backups (PBSC Measure)

Performance MeasureInternal Business Process Perspective

Complete process maps of Service Group/Discrete Services

DS1: Time between customer collection request and delivery of service (PBSC Measure)DS1: Tiimeliness and effectiveness of recyclable collections (PBSC Measure)

Increase understanding of processes.

Enhance quality of work life for employees in ORS.

Identify methods to measure processes.

Learning and Growth Perspective

Maintain & enhance competencies for the future organization.

ASA Template - 2002 (Continued)

56

ASA Template - 2002 (Continued)

Actual assets utilized/planned asset utilization for each Discrete Service

Maximize quality of contract services Incentives paid or penalties levied under PBSC

Maximize utilization of assets.

Change in Unit Cost for each Discrete ServiceMinimize unit cost at a defined service level.

Performance Objective Performance Measure

Financial Perspective

57

FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual Self Assessments

Service Group 18:

Provide Waste Management DS3 - Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste

16 October 2002

Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)

58

Survey Distribution

Number of Surveys Distributed

Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories


Number of Surveys Returned Collect Chemical Wastes from Laboratories


Response Rate 43%

59

Survey RespondentsFY02 Respondents by IC

6

1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

NCI

NIDDK

NICHHD

NINDS

NIAID

NIDCR

CBERNIM

H

NIDCD

Other

ORSCC OD

NHLBI

NEINIA

NHGRI

NIAM

S

NIAAA

CSRNID

A

NCCAMNCRR

NINR

NLM CIT

JEFIC

NIBIB

NIEHS

NIGM

S

NCMHD

NIH IC

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


Note: One respondent did not answer question.

60

Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by Location

13

0 0 00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

On-Campus Off-Campus Both No Response

Location

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


61

Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction Ratings


ORS Index = 8.27

8.40

8.28

8.48

7.42

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


Service Group Index = 9.94 10.00

10.00

10.00

9.80

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


62

Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings


ORS Index = 8.55

8.60

8.58 8.54

8.518.51

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Availability

Responsiveness


Handling ofProblems


Service Group Index = 9.97

10.0010.00

9.8510.00

10.00

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Availability

Responsiveness


Handling ofProblems


63

Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings

Note: The Importance rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unimportant and “10” represents Important. The Satisfaction rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding.

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Satisfaction

Imp

ort

ance

NOT SATISFIED, IMPORTANT

NOT SATISIFIED, NOT IMPORTANT

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

SATISFIED, NOT IMPORTANT


64

Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings: A Closer Look

Note: A smaller portion of the chart is shown so that the individual data points can be labeled.

7.00

7.20

7.40

7.60

7.80

8.00

8.20

8.40

8.60

8.80

9.00

9.20

9.40

9.60

9.80

10.00

7.00 7.20 7.40 7.60 7.80 8.00 8.20 8.40 8.60 8.80 9.00 9.20 9.40 9.60 9.80 10.00

Satisfaction

Imp

ort

an

ce

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

Cost

Convenience

ResponsivenessAvailability

Handling of Problems

Competence

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


65

Scorecard CommentsWhat was done particularly well?

• We appreciate the prompt pickup of old full containers and the delivery of new empty ones.

• Handling of problems.• They are prompt and courteous.• Gentlemen know what assigned task was, performed

politely and efficiently• Promptness is very important. The chemical waste

was picked up within the 24 hour call.• Polite customer service contact by phone. Picked up

waste the next morning. Very efficient.• Response time very good. Very friendly pick up

people.• Always prompt, polite.• I am very impressed with the next day service.

66

What needs to be improved?

• We have never had a problem.• Nothing.

67

Other Comments

• Task assignment from EPB needs refinement. 1. Chemical waste tags need to be redesigned to include DATE you delivered containers and instructions that containers must be removed within 60 days. 2. You should notify all users by WRITTEN MAIL or E-MAIL of this new 60 day rule.

• Very good.• There should be some kind of a clear window on

the red cans so the investigator will know when it is full.

• This is a wonderful service.

68

Customer Scorecard Summary

• Conclusions based on graphs and comments– Our customers rate the quality of this service

very highly– This service excels in all measured areas

• Potential actions based on what you have learned from the data– Revise the Chemical Waste Tag as suggested– Provide NIH wide email notification concerning

removal of containers within 60 days

69

Summarizing Your Customer Scorecard Data (cont.)

• Does the customer satisfaction data, when compared to data in other perspectives, show potential relationships?• Answer: None that could be observed

• From reviewing your data, what could be done to improve your customers’ satisfaction?• Answer: Very little based on the data. We will

consider customer suggestions concerning the Chemical Waste Tag and the collection containers.

70

Feedback to Scorecard Responders

• Will provide email back to all responders. Email will thank them for participating and give a summary of the results of the surveys. The email will express our commitment to providing the highest quality of service and continuing to support the NIH mission of biomedical research.

71

RecyclablesCollection and

Disposal

Solid WasteCollection and

Disposal

HazardousWaste

Collection andDisposal

MedicalPathological

WasteCollection and

Disposal

Block Diagram of Service Group:Provide Waste Management

72

Process Flow Charts

73

DevelopContract

ContractorProvidesExterior

collectioncontainers at

required locations

Contractorprovides

vehicles anddrivers

TentativeDaily

SchedulesDeveloped

Front EndContainers

Roll-OffContainers

ContainersFilled by

HousekeepingStaff

EmptyContainers asper Schedule

Modify Scheduleif Project OfficerRequests Basedon Emergency

Need

When Full Deliverto Transfer

Station

Rad Screening atTransfer Station

Dump at transferstation

Receive scaleticket for the load

Container Filledby Housekeeping

Staff

Turn Unit on withKey and Active the

Compactor arm

Call EPB for PullWhen 80% Light

Activities

No

SOLID WASTEEPB Gov’t Waste Contractor Waste Generator Off-Site

Facilities

A

Is the ContainerBlocked by Illegally

Parked Cars?

Call Policeand Remove

Vehicle

Yes

Is the CompactorDamaged due to

Improper Operation

No

PerformRequired

RepairYes

74

Collect and Dispose of Recycables

ReceiveCustomerRequest

BeginWork

ReceiveCustomer

Request or DoScheduledCollections

Collectrecyclables

Deliver toConsolidation

Area

Deliver toRecycling falciity

Receive amdProvide Weight

Ticket

Scape MetalContaminated

No

EPB Gov’t Recycling Contractor Off-Site

Recycling Facilities

Ensure ContractVehicle is in

Place

ProcessRecyclable

Material

Transfer to Off-Site Facility

ProcessRecyclable

Material

Yes

Process ifNeeded

75

Mentor/SupportContract

Provide ITSupport

ProvideTechnical

Support to WasteGenerators

Procure Gov’tProvided

Equipment

CoordinateFacility

Maintenance andRepairs

Prepare ServiceAgreements for

FacilityEquipment

Prepare andReview Permits

Interact withRegulatoryAgencies

Oversee ContractPerformance for

RegulatoryComplianceProcedures

Develop WasteManagementGuidelines

Mange andCoordinateWaste Mgt

Activities andOff-Site Facilities

Review Invoices

Prepare SOPs

Provide Training

Oversee Collecting,preparing, storing,packing incoming,categorize waste

Contract isAwarded

Receive ServiceRequest

Enter Name,Location, Service

Type, Phone #,and other

Required Factsplus Schedule SR

Perform ServicesDeliver Empty

Containers (withtags & barcodes)Supplies and/orCollect Waste

Is the WasteAvailable &

Acceptable forCollection

Leave Notice

ConductFollow-up

NO

Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste

EPB NIH Waste Contractor

Develop Contract

A

YES

76

Deliver Collected toNIH WMF and

Assign Barcodewith Facility Receipt

Date on theBarcode

Update SR andComplete ElectronicReceiving to WMTIS

by InputtingConstituent Data,Barcode Data, and

Other Required Fields

Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste EPB NIH Waste Contractor A

Conduct FacilityInspections Segregate Waste

by ChemicalCompatibility andPlace in Interim

Storage Location

Is the WasteTreatable on

Site?Consolidate Itemand Perform On-site Treatment

Update On-siteTreatment and

Tracking inWTMIS

ResidueGenerated

Requires FurtherTreatment?

DischargeTreated Wasteand Enter Date

in WTMIS

Can Waste beConsolidated into LargeContainers with Other

Compatible Waste

Package Wasteinto Lab pack

Bulk Waste intoLarger Containersand Enter Date intoWTMIS for On-site

Tracking

Take Sample, DoAnalysis, and

Enter Date intoWTMIS

C

YES

NO

NO

YES

NO

DB

ReviewAnalytical

Data

77

Review andApproveWaste

Profiles

Review andCorrect all

Documentation for WasteShipments

ConductTSDF Audits

Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Waste EPB NIH Waste Contractor

C

Is There anProfile for the

Container

D

Create InventoryContainer in

WTMIS

Place Residue inContainer

Prepare Bulk CCSheet,

ElectronicallyPack Container in

WTMIS

YES

Create NewProfile

NO

Prepare ContentsSheet and

ElectronicallyPack Container in

WTMIS

Produce Manifestfor LDR, ShippingDocuments etc.

Ship Waste Off Site forTreatment, Recycling,Storage, or Disposal

B

78

ContractorProvides

Vehicles, Trailers,and Drivers

TentativeCollectionSchedulesDeveloped

MPW Box isPrepared andSealed-InnerBags Sealed

Bldg 10Collected byContractor in

Building

Delivered toRefrigerated

Truck at B2 Dock

Transferred toBldg 25

Rad screening atBldg 25

Transferred toBldg 25 by

Reefer Truck

ContractorCollects at

Dock

All Bldg sExcept 10:

Delivered toLoading Dock

RSB Cold Box at25 Yes

NO

A

Ensure Contractis in Place

EPB Gov’t Waste Contractor Waste Generator Off-Site Facilities

MEDICAL WASTE

79

Deliver FullContainer to Off-Site Treatment

Facility

Treat MPW

Yes

Medical Waste - Page 2

Open Box,Remove and

Label Bag, andLoad Bag intoBOP Container

Label Box andLoad into BOP

Container

PathologicalWaste

YesNO

A

EPB Gov’t Waste Contractor Waste Generator Off-Site Facilities

Provide WeightTicket and Certificate

of Destruction

Are the BagsTied

Tie the Bags

No

80

Collect and Dispose of Recycables

ReceiveCustomerRequest

BeginWork

ReceiveCustomer

Request or DoScheduledCollections

Collectrecyclables

Deliver toConsolidation

Area

Deliver toRecycling falciity

Receive amdProvide Weight

Ticket

Scape MetalContaminated

No

EPB Gov’t Recycling Contractor Off-Site

Recycling Facilities

Ensure ContractVehicle is in

Place

ProcessRecyclable

Material

Transfer to Off-Site Facility

ProcessRecyclable

Material

Yes

Process ifNeeded

81

FY02 Learning and Growth (L&G) Data for the Annual Self Assessments

Service Group 18:


26 September 2002

Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management

82

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

12 16 21 30 27 20 42 13 41 3 24 23 7 18 1 2 10 11 17 31 26 25 40 28 37 29 33 39 5 32 36 38 4 8 9 14 15 19 34 35 43

Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June 2002)

Service Group Number

Tu

rno

ve

r R

ate

83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

14 3 9 31 8 17 43 38 36 33 41 12 30 32 28 18 29 21 39 20 16 24 27 40 35 5 23 42 19 4 34 15 37 25 26 1 2 10 11 13 7

Average Hours of Sick Leave Used(Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Av

era

ge

Ho

urs

84

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

9 43 1 2 10 11 40 42 7 41 12 4 5 28 39 35 32 33 8 15 36 38 34 37 29 17 14 31 16 30 19 18 13 20 21 3 24 26 25 23 27

Average Number of Awards Received(Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Av

era

ge

nu

mb

er

85

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

20 8 33 34 7 31 26 25 38 36 32 5 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 35 37 39 40 41 42 43

Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 - June 2002)


A

ve

rag

e N

um

be

r

86

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

7 23 16 3 31 13 9 20 25 26 17 36 38 37 29 32 39 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 14 15 18 19 21 27 28 30 33 34 35 40 41 42 43

Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Av

era

ge

Nu

mb

er

87

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

7 9 30 24 33 34 3 23 26 25 5 20 21 31 29 39 28 32 36 16 38 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 27 35 37 40 41 42 43

Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)


Av

era

ge

Nu

mb

er

88

Learning and Growth Data Table

About 1 week sick leave per employee

About 1 award for every 2 employees

10% employee turnover

Pop

ulat

ion

Est

imat

e

No.

of S

epar

atio

ns

Turn

over

Rat

eTo

tal H

ours

of S

ick

Leav

e U

sed

Ave

rage

Hou

rs o

f

Sic

k Le

ave

Use

d

Num

ber o

f Aw

ards

Rec

eive

dA

vera

ge N

umbe

r of

Aw

ards

Rec

eive

d

Num

ber o

f EE

O

Com

plai

nts

Ave

rage

Num

ber o

f

EE

O C

ompl

aint

s

Num

ber o

f ER

Cas

es

Ave

rage

Num

ber o

f

ER

Cas

esN

umbe

r of A

DR

C

ases

Ave

rage

Num

ber o

f

AD

R C

ases

5343 11 1 0.09 386 36 6 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Service Group

18 Total11 1 0.09 386 36 6 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

No EEO complaints or ER/ADR cases

89

Summary of Service Group 18Learning and Growth Data

• Ten percent employee turnover• About 1 week sick leave used per employee• About one award for every 2 employees• No EEO, ER, or ADR issues

90

No significant conclusions can be drawn from the data

Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data

91

• 1. What are the right mix of skills and abilities needed to carry out the mission of this service group?

Recycling: Understanding of industry equipment, operations and work practices, basic PC skills, contract management skills, communication skills, a full understanding of applicable regulations and required reports, good people skills and customer service skills

Solid Waste: Understanding of industry equipment operations and work practices, basic PC skills, contract management skills, communication skills, a full understanding of applicable regulations and required reports, good people skills and customer service skills

Answers to Readiness Questions

92

Hazardous Waste: Understanding of hazardous waste regulations and their application at the NIH, ability to interpret new regulations and permit conditions knowledge of the industry (transportation, treatment, and disposal), good college science background in chemistry, biology, and physics, good PC skills for data tracking and document preparation, contract management skills, communication skills, good people skills and customer service skills

Medical Waste: Understanding of industry operations and work practices, college background in biology and general sciences, understanding of state and DOT medical waste regulations, basic PC skills, contract management skills, communication skills, good people skills and customer service skills

Answers to Readiness Questions (Cont.)

93

• 2. Will the service group have sufficient numbers of people, with the right skills and abilities to carry out its

mission in the next three years?

In 2004, an additional EPB staff member will be required to manage proposed Twinbrook Research Complex Waste Facility.

Additional staff resources also required 2004-2006 to support increased service demands created by occupancy phases of following new buildings: CRC, NRC and

Twinbrook Research Complex.


94

• 3. What are going to be the training needs of the employees and contractors employed in this service group in the next two to three years?

Will continue our existing training track including: regulatory and industry specific training, customer relations and leadership skills training, on-site training required by permits, and IT training related to data tracking and contract management. A stronger emphasis will be placed on IT training related to data management and on leadership/management skills.


95

• 4. What will be the right tools or materials (e.g., information, software applications, hardware, specialized equipment) needed to carry out the mission of this service group in the next three years?

Industrial waste handling equipment, hazardous waste analytical equipment, replacement computers, hazardous waste tracking software, and data tracking software. On-site staging area for dumpsters with suspected hazardous material contamination.


96

• 5. Does the service group have the right quantity of tools or materials needed to carry out its mission in the next three years?

• Mainly need to continue existing hazardous waste tracking software enhancements for more detailed data tracking.

• 6. What are the anticipated implications of not obtaining the right mix of skills and abilities, or tools and materials (e.g., service disruption, inefficiencies, increased turnover of key personnel) in meeting service or mission expectations?

• Greater difficulties in tracking and retrieving critical hazardous waste data and reduced work efficiency by contractor staff.


1 FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch Presented by: Don Wilson Division of Safety...

Documents

Transcript of 1 FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch Presented by: Don Wilson Division of Safety...