1 / 70

Practical Use of Asset Management and Structured Decision Making

Practical Use of Asset Management and Structured Decision Making. Case Study: Seattle Public Utilities Solid Waste Facilities Master Plan Presented by: Jenny Bagby Principal Economist Seattle Public Utilities May 2, 2006. Outline of Presentation.

muhammad
Download Presentation

Practical Use of Asset Management and Structured Decision Making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Practical Use of Asset Management and Structured Decision Making Case Study: Seattle Public Utilities Solid Waste Facilities Master Plan Presented by:Jenny Bagby Principal Economist Seattle Public UtilitiesMay 2, 2006

  2. Outline of Presentation • Overview of Seattle’s waste management system • Description of problem of planning for new facilities • Use of three types of analysis to help choose among options • Benefit cost analysis • Value modeling • Decision analysis for modeling risk and uncertainty • Conclusion

  3. What is Seattle Public Utilities? • City Department (our director reports to Mayor) 1200 employees including office professional folks as well as field staff • Solid Waste • Wastewater • Drinking Water • Surface Water (Drainage)

  4. Project Background • Long-range planning (30 + years) • Involves collection, transfer, and disposal of municipal solid waste - Garbage, Yardwaste and Recyclables • Primary customers affected are the self-haul customers at the recycling and disposal stations (RDS) and adjacent neighbors

  5. The Problem • The City’s two transfer stations are old and outdated • Transfer station reliability decreasing • Transfer system inefficiencies • Quality of customer service is decreasing • Existing facilities lack flexibility

  6. Many Existing Problems • Safety concerns • Old wiring • Seismic retrofit needed • High Maintenance (floors, compactor) • Too many “band-aid” fixes

  7. System OverviewFacilities • Two city-owned transfer stations • Two privately-owned transfer stations • Two intermodal rail yards • Two private processing facilities for recyclables • Private processing facility for organics composting • Private landfills

  8. Current Waste Flow Diagram Municipal Garbage Organics Recyclables C R SH LT C R SH SH R NRDS SRDS Private Transfer IM Organics Processing Recycle Processing Landfill

  9. System OverviewMaterials flow • City-contracted collection and transfer of residential Garbage, Yardwaste and Recyclables • City-contracted collection and transfer of commercial Garbage and organics • Private collection of commercial recyclables • Individual business and residential self-haul

  10. Solid Waste Facilities

  11. Rail Landfill Connection • Two Railroad Companies Serve Seattle • Most Large Regional Landfills are Linked by Rail • Access to more than one rail line opens access to different landfills creating more competition

  12. Rabanco - Burlington Northern/Santa Fe - Roosevelt Landfill

  13. Waste Management Inc. - Union Pacific - Columbia Ridge Landfill

  14. Understanding the System • Public & private facilities work in conjunction with each other • Waste flows to different facilities can change over time • A flow change to one facility affects the others

  15. Vertical Integration of Solid Waste Business • Industry consolidation (fewer solid waste service companies than before) • Companies strive to control all aspects of the market (collection, transfer, long-haul, and disposal) • An integrated company can reduce operation costs, but may also reduce competition

  16. Project Objectives • Improve transfer efficiency of solid waste and recyclables • Improve self-haul customer service • Minimize neighborhood impacts from transfer stations • Increase reuse and recycling opportunities • Provide long-term system flexibility

  17. Primary Questions • What is the appropriate mix of public and private facilities? • Remodel or rebuild city stations? • Do we need additional property at the city stations? • Does a city-owned intermodal transfer station make economic sense?

  18. Initial Assessment • A city-owned facility is needed in north and south Seattle • Siting options are limited; no substantially better sites were found for the City stations • A third City-owned intermodal transfer facility needs to be evaluated

  19. Enter Asset Management • AKA Full Employment for Economists • C/B Analysis on all decisions (especially ones this large) • Emphasis on quantifying in $ terms everything we possibly can • Challenging! • CH2MHill to the rescue - Value Model and Decision Framework

  20. Required Elements of an Effective Decision Framework Develop Value Modeland FormulateAlternatives CollectMeaningful,Reliable Data • Solve the right problem • Put interests & values first • Avoid advocacy & positions • Avoid useless data • Find lowest cost solution • Manage risk and liability • Track progress Develop Ensure Leadership andCommitment Implementation Plan EvaluateAlternativesand MakeDecision Frame the Problem Organizational Analytical

  21. The OptionsKey elements • No action (required for EIS) - maintain operation and legal compliance • Modifications to RDS - retain tipping sheds • Total rebuild of RDS - including additional reuse and recycling facilities • Add property to NRDS and/or SRDS • Develop a City-owned transfer/intermodal facility

  22. Options Assessment Steps • Develop options • Identify Quality of Service goals & criteria • Prepare conceptual layout designs for preferred options • Model Costs, Risk and Quality of Service performance for preferred options • Revise options based on results

  23. Intermodal Site

  24. South Recycling and Disposal Station Option 11

  25. Asset Management • We developed a cost model to quantify in dollars everything we could • Goal was to compare each of the options using benefit-cost analysis • What we couldn’t quantify we put into a value model to help display the other benefits or values of each option

  26. System Cost Model Cost model calculates total system NET cost over 30 years of: • Transfer • Rail loading and hauling • Processing • Disposal • Collection (IF option results in changes to collection costs)

  27. System Cost Model • Costs include: • Property Purchase/Lease • Construction Costs • Equipment Capital • Labor and Other O&M • Contractor payments such as Disposal, Private Transfer, Processing • Long term competitive benefits of partnering • Revenues from partner tons

  28. Example Labor and Equipment CostModel Inputs

  29. Cost Results Option 4: Cost by Function $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $- 2004 2006 2010 2014 2018 2020 2022 2026 2030 2036 2008 2012 2016 2024 2028 2032 2034

  30. Cost Results

  31. Quality of ServiceAssessment Primary Services Provided • Waste reduction & recycling • Customer service • Work environment • Built environment (community) impacts • Natural environment impacts

  32. Natural and Built Environment Impacts are broken out by facility (NRDS, SRDS, Intermodal). Shaded criteria/ sub-criteria receive performance scales, weights, and option scores.

  33. Importance of Value Model • Facilitated process • Way to get all issues and concerns identified • Moved discussion from a high level where things are hard to evaluate • Began discussing what everyone really meant/valued when they held a certain position

  34. Performance Value Criterion Measure Rate x Weight = Score A 3 20 60 B 4 45 180 C 1 10 10 D 2 25 50 Total Score 300 Quantified Evaluation Approach: Multi-Attribute Utility Theory

  35. Quality of ServiceAssessment • Non-monetizable Quality of Service benefits were quantified in a variety of ways such as • Length of time queuing • Square feet of space available for operations • 1-5 scale - best professional judgement • etc.

  36. SPU Solid Waste Facility Masterplan Contributions by Criteria - Total Quality of Service Score Note: Option 5 and 11 score highest on waste reduction. This is the differentiating for its leading score. Used Criterium Decision Plus Software

  37. Overall Results Quality of Service vs. Cost 1 Insert Cost Risk Profile Graph and Tornado diagram 0.8 Option 5 Option 7 Option 4B Option Score Option 2A Option 3 0.6 Option 6 Option 4A Option 2B 0.4 Option 1 Option 0 0.2 0 480 516 552 588 624 660 Cost ($M)

More Related