FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch

1. FY02 ASA Presentation Environmental Protection Branch Presented by: Don Wilson Division of Safety National Institutes of Health 18 November 2002

2. Table of Contents Main Presentation ASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….4 Customer Perspective……………………….………………………….…5-6 Customer Segmentation …………………….………………………………...7-11 Customer Satisfaction……………………….………………………………..12-19 Internal Business Process Perspective……………………………………20 Service Group Block Diagram……………………………………………………21 Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts………….…….22 Process Measures………………………………………………………….…23-38 Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………….39 Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data……...40 Analysis of Readiness Conclusions……………………………………………..41 Financial Perspective………………………………………………………..42 Unit Cost……………………………………………………………..…………43-48 Asset Utilization……………………………………………………………………49 Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………….50 Conclusions from FY02 ASA..………………………………………..………51-52 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………53

3. Table of Contents Appendices Page 2-3 of your ASA Template Customer satisfaction graphs Block diagram Process maps Learning and Growth graphs Analysis of Readiness Information

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 Environmental Protection Branch Waste Management Section • Chemical Waste • Recycling • Medical/ Pathological Waste • Solid Waste

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. DS 1, DS 2, DS 4 - Customer Segmentation NIH 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 #

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. DS 3 – Customer Segmentation Collect and Dispose of Hazardous Materials 16 24 26 31 75 34 47 152 35 50 44 108 50 100 56 80 56 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 and Provide Empty Containers as Needed 13 Response Rate 43%

14. Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction Ratings Service Group Index = 9.94 ORS Index = 8.27 Cost 10.00 Cost 7.42 10.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 4.00 Reliability Reliability Quality 1.00 Quality 1.00 10.00 8.48 9.80 8.40 10.00 Timeliness Timeliness 8.28 Data based on 13 respondents Data based on 436 respondents 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.

15. Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings Service Group Index = 9.97 ORS Index = 8.55 Availability 8.60 Availability 10.00 10.00 10.00 7.00 Handling of Responsiveness 7.00 Handling of Responsiveness Problems 8.51 Problems 4.00 10.00 4.00 8.51 10.00 1.00 1.00 Competence Convenience Competence Convenience 8.54 8.58 9.85 10.00 Data based on 13 respondents Data based on 436 respondents 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.

16. Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings: A Closer Look 10.00 Competence Reliability 9.80 Handling of Problems Responsiveness Availability 9.60 Convenience 9.40 Timeliness 9.20 9.00 8.80 Quality 8.60 Importance 8.40 8.20 8.00 7.80 Cost 7.60 7.40 SATISFIED, IMPORTANT 7.20 7.00 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 Data based on 13 respondents Note: A smaller portion of the chart is shown so that the individual data points can be labeled.

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

22. Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts • 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

23. Performance Measures DS1: 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. Performance Measures • DS 1 - Compliance with 24 hour Recycling Pick Up Requests – 40 week measurement

25. Performance Measures 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

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

28. Performance Measures • DS 2 - Compliance with Timeliness and Effectiveness of Emptying Dumpsters to Prevent Overfilling – 40 week measurement

29. Performance Measures 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

31. Performance Measures 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

33. Performance Measures DS3: Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste • 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. DS 3 - Hazardous Waste Survey Survey of Customer Satisfaction with 24 hour Request for Pick Up Requirement

35. Performance Measures DS3: Collection and Disposal of Hazardous Waste • 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. DS 3 - Effectiveness of Utilizing Recycling Options as Compared to Destruction or Disposal

37. Performance Measures 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-sitewithin 3 hours of being set-out by generator. • Results: AQL measured for 40 weeks. Met AQL in 40 of 40 weeks = 100% Compliance

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

39. FY02 Learning and Growth (L&G) Data for the Annual Self Assessments Service Group 18: Provide Waste Management 26 September 2002 Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management

40. Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data No significant conclusions can be drawn from the data

41. Analysis of Readiness Conclusions • 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.

42. Financial Perspective

43. UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR

44. UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR

45. UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR

46. UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR

47. UNIT COST MEASURED BY COST OF METRIC TON PER YEAR

48. Unit Cost Measure Conclusions • EPB provides top quality waste services to the NIH without significant costs increases from year to year

49. Asset Utilization Measures • 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.

50. Conclusions and Recommendations