Quantcast Table 2 - Determination of Facility Coverage Priority Ranking

 

Click here to make tpub.com your Home Page

Page Title: Table 2 - Determination of Facility Coverage Priority Ranking
Back | Up | Next

Click here for thousands of PDF manuals

Google


Web
www.tpub.com

Home

   
Information Categories
.... Administration
Advancement
Aerographer
Automotive
Aviation
Construction
Diving
Draftsman
Engineering
Electronics
Food and Cooking
Logistics
Math
Medical
Music
Nuclear Fundamentals
Photography
Religion
   
   

 

Share on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Stumble Upon
Back
Table 1 Facility H azard Value
Up
Facility Representatives - index
Next
Table 3 - Determination of Facility Representative Coverage


DOE-STD-1063-2006
Appendix C
Table 2 - Determination of Facility Coverage Priority Ranking
(Facility 1, 2, and 3 are provided as examples)
Facility or
Facility Hazard
Coverage
Facility
Material
Operations
Programmatic
Operational
Group of
Value
Priority
Size
Condition
Complexity
Importance
Rigor
Facilities
(From Table 1)
Ranking*
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
Facility 1
21
1.25
1
1.25
1
1
33
Facility 2
10
1
1
1
1
1.25
13
Facility 3
15
0.75
0.75
1
1.25
1
11
* Facility Representative coverage is optional for non -nuclear facilities with a Coverage Priority Ranking below 15.
Procedure to Complete Table 2 Determination of Facility Coverage Priority Ranking
The Coverage Priority Ranking is an adjustment to the Facility Hazard Value based on factors such as facility size,
material condition, operations complexity, programmatic importance, and operational rigor. The Coverage Priority
Ranking is calculated by multiplying facility hazard value by the modifying factors (h=b*c*d*e*f*g). Other factors
appropriate for a particular site or facility may also be used. The Coverage Priority Ranking determines the priority of
assigning Facility Representatives to a facility or group of facilities based on the hazards present as modified by these
factors. Sort facilities by Coverage Priority Ranking from highest to lowest. The modifying factors are defined as
follows:
Facility Size (c):
0.75 Operations areas less than 10,000 square feet
1.00 Operations areas between 10,000 square feet and 100,000 square feet
1.25 Operations areas greater than 100,000 square feet
Material
Condition (d):
0.75 Configuration management program is mature, as -built drawings are reasonably accurate, materi al
management/pedigree programs are in place, replacement parts for safety systems are available,
safety systems are reliable, condition similar to what one would expect for a new or well maintained
facility
1.00 Between .75 and 1.25
1.25 As -built drawings are unavailable or very out-of-date, replacement parts for safety systems are hard
to get or unavailable, safety system reliability is degraded, condition similar to what one would
expect for an old or poorly maintained facility
Operations
Complexity (e):
0.75 Majority of the following conditions are present: One primary program/function, less than 250
employees, single chain-of-command, modest level of expertise and training required to operate
1.00 Between .75 and 1.25
1.25 Majority of the following conditions are present: Multiple distinct programs/functions, many different
activities/disciplines, many different tenants or chains -of-command, greater than 500 employees,
high level of expertise and training required to operate
Programmatic
Importance (f):
0.75 Unplanned outages for up to 30 days will not negatively affect DOE Strategic Plan deliverables or
objectives
1.00 Limited impact on the DOE Strategic Plan deliverables or objectives as a result of unplanned
outages for up to 30 days
1.25 Significant impact on DOE Strategic Plan deliverables or objectives as a result of unplanned
outages exceeding 30 days
Operational
Rigor (g):
0.75 Well implemented Conduct of Operations Programs. Within the last year, zero of the following
significant events/accidents: radiation over-exposures or uptakes, injuries requiring hospitalization,
lockout/tagout violations, or environmental releases. Within the last year, zero TSR/AB violations.
Contractor integrated managem ent systems are verified mature.
1.00 Between .75 and 1.25
1.25 Conduct of Operations is poorly implemented. Within the last year, two or more of the following
significant events/accidents: radiation over-exposures or uptakes, injuries requiring hospitalization,
lockout/tagout violations, or environmental releases. Within the last year, more than three AB/TSR
violations. Contractor integrated management systems not mature.
C-3


Privacy Statement - Press Release - Copyright Information. - Contact Us

Integrated Publishing, Inc.