Home

Prioritization Tool User Manual - D&D KM-IT

1. Chart Sheet Sheet 2 Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria The second sheet Pair Wise Comparisons Risk Criteria is used to calculate the weight of importance of the risk criteria and its sub criteria The results will be used in the evaluation of the facilities in sheet 5 The sheet contains three sets of tables and a comparison scale The first table contains at the top a 9 point comparison scale to be used in the pair wise comparison Figure 3 l Pair Wise Comparison Scale 2 1 if two criteria are EQUALLY IMPORTANT 3 3 if Criterion on row is SLIGHTLY MORE important than criterion on column 113 if Criterion on row is SLIGHTLY LESS important than criterion on column 4 5 if Criterion on row is MODERATELY MORE important than criterion on column 1 5 if Criterion on row is MODERATELY LESS important than criterion on column 5 7 if Criterion on row is STRONGLY MORE important than criterion on column 17 if Criterion on row is STRONGLY LESS important than criterion on column 6 9 if Criterion on row is EXTREMELY MORE important than criterion on column 119 if Criterion on row is EXTREMELY LESS important than criterion on column 7 4 6 Intermediate values 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 Intermediate values Figure 3 Pair Wise Comparison Scale In the second table Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria Figure 4 the risk criteria from worksheet one are evaluated relative each other Pair Wise Comparison of Ris
2. and re evaluate the numbers you entered For a detailed explanation of the formulas read Appendix B 5 Review the final scores in the Normalized Weight column these numbers were normalized to add up to 1 The S amp M criteria with the highest weight should represent the criteria with the highest importance air wise comparison of S amp M performed to facilities awaiting D amp D P of SEAT 0 Activities 1i S amp M Activities k Contamination Roof Repair Safety Basis Surveillance entilation 10 5 0 3 0 5 0 3 0 4 0 7 0 4 0 Figure 8 Pair Wise Comparison of S amp M Criteria Sheet 4 Facility Evaluation Scale The fourth sheet Facility Evaluation Scale contains a scale from 1 5 to evaluate each facility against all of the risk criteria developed in tab one and evaluated in tab 2 Each criterion has a specific definition for each scale number Figure 9 If additional risk criteria are added in the Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria tab then the Facility Evaluation Scale also needs to be updated using the 5 point scale provided For each new criterion provide a brief description of the characteristics of a facility under each scale number Begin with 5 very high risk 4 high risk 3 moderate risk 2 low risk and 0 no risk The characteristics may be qualitative or quantitative 10 Criteria Radiologi
3. comparison with low CR value 5 Review the final scores in the Normalized Weight column these numbers were normalized to add up to 1 The risk criteria with the highest weight should represent the criteria with the highest importance The last two tables on this sheet are the sub criteria of Extent of Contamination and EH amp S Follow the same steps mentioned previously to do the pair wise comparison of these sub criteria Figure 7 Pair Wise Comparison of Sub Criteria For Extent of Contamination a Enter Number of Sub criteria under Extend of 33 Contamination 2 Chemical 3s Extent of Contamination Contamination Contamination 41 Lambda maz 2 00 42 Ci 0 00 43 RI 0 00 Pair Wise Comparison of Sub Criteria For ES amp H Enter Number of Sub criteria 48 under 49 50 ES amp H 1 Environment 52 Safety 3 Health 54 sum 55 56 Consistency Check 57 Lambda maz 3 00 58 cl 0 00 59 RI 058 Figure 7 Pair Wise Comparison of Sub Criteria Sheet 3 Pair Wise Comparison of S amp M Activities This sheet is used to calculate the weight of importance of the S amp M activities The results will be used in the sixth sheet when the S amp M requirements for each facility are identified This sheet also contains at the top a 9 point scale to be used in the pair wise comparison The criteria in the column are compared against the criteria on the row following the same steps
4. se eaae natin EE A A A E trees 4 Excel Template for the Decision Support Tool sssesseseseseeseesrrsrierersersrrsressressrseresressrsee 4 Sheet 1 Criteria Chart sisscecniiicinoriiisiersecieinisasiiiiri siisi ai siae Ee pr e Ea aE ieni 5 Sheet 2 Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria eesseseeseeseeesesreesresrrrrreserserrresreserseresee 6 Sheet 3 Pair Wise Comparison of S amp M Activities eesesseeeeeseeseesrrerrerersersrerreesresseseresee 9 Sheet 4 Facility Evaluation Scale seeeeeeseeeesseeeseesessreeresrersersresressteserrreseesrsrresresseser 10 Sheet 5 Facility Evalu ti H ssssssiianesdsien orisii re siii ereas 12 Sheet 6 S amp M Final Prioritization siccin aai ia 13 Sheet 7 S amp M Final Prioritization Chart eseeeeseseeseeeeeesesrresessserrresresrrsrreseesseseresressreerss 15 Sheet 8 amp 9 Risk Criteria and S amp M Criteria Definitions cc ecececcccceceeseeeseeseeeseees 15 Sheet 10 Random Index Chart RU woo ccccccsccsccccceceesessnececececeesessnseaeeeeeceesesensaseeeeeeens 18 SUDO STONY ccc ed sac dao cccteccestes oncesten sad nactees ERa aa A EE Aera E aaa E EE 19 Appendix A Pair Wise Comparison Formulas cesceesseceseeeseeeeseeceeceaeenseeeeneeenaeees 20 Appendix B Consistency Ratio acssgcccecctastccdceccaccahetacedcesiewicdaseiacbce saccadic eelccacescarecdaseledondea 21 Figures Figure 1 Relationship between green tabs cc iscccccdesssccesivececesasnes acensndesusessecca
5. 0 1 5 Transition Implementation Guide maintenance budgets are drastically reduced This is justified by the desire to not spend money on a building that is being torn down The objective of this tool is to provide the U S Department of Energy DOE Environmental Management EM federal project directors and their contractors with a decision support tool to aid in prioritizing S amp M investment across a site s excess facilities so that the limited budget available can be used most effectively The analytical hierarchy process AHP a multi criteria decision making method developed by Dr Thomas Saaty in the 1970 s was used to derive the weight of importance of a defined list of risk based criteria and typical S amp M activities The tool allows users to select the evaluation criteria most important to them and then allows them to evaluate those criteria to determine an overall score for each facility A pair wise comparison technique is used to evaluate the criteria defined by the user and 5 point scale is used to evaluate the facilities against the criteria Excel Template for the Prioritization Tool An excel template was developed with the purpose of facilitating the implementation of the AHP methodology to prioritize S amp M investment The excel template contains the following ten sheets 1 Criteria Chart 2 Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria 3 Pair Wise Comparison of S amp M Criteria 4 Facility Evaluation Scale 5 Facilit
6. Chart 2 Pair Wise Comp RiskCriteria 3 Pair Wise Comp S amp MCriteria 4 Facility Eval Scale 5 Facility Evaluation 6 S amp MFinalPrioritization 7 S amp MFinalPrior Desde PA LRA Tene Figure 10 Facility Evaluation Sheet Steps to evaluate the facilities against the risk criteria 1 Enter the names of the facilities in the Facility column For each facility enter the number that best describes the facility under each criterion 3 The total score and the rank of each facility are automatically calculated in the last two columns of this table this number will determine the importance of each facility based on risk For example figure 10 shows that after entering all the scores for each facility facility 3026C D ranked number 1 followed by 3517 and 2000 in third place 12 Sheet 6 S amp M Final Prioritization This worksheet contains three tables The first table is the S amp M Checklist Figure 11 This S amp M Checklist is used to identify and prioritize the S amp M actions required by each facility The S amp M Check List table displays in the gray column the names of the facilities entered in the Facility Evaluation sheet and in the blue row the S amp M criteria ranked according to the results from tab 3 The facility names are automatically displayed in the order in which you entered them u14 x S
7. M criteria are a list of general S amp M activities performed to excess facilities The S amp M criteria were included in this decision tool because it would not only consider how risky the facility is currently but also how important are the specific maintenance it requires This method will avoid overspending too much money on higher risk facilities non critical maintenance and will pay attention to those facilities of less risk but with maintenance that is critical for preventing it of becoming higher risk in the future The criteria developed by the subject 5 matter experts are used in the following two sheets to determine their weight of importance Prioritization Tool for Surveillance and Maintenance S amp M Investment in Excess Facilites 1 2 3 1 Risk Criteria This criteria is used to prioritize the facilities based on risk A pair wise comparison of these criteria is performed on Sheet 2 and a full i definition for each criterion is provided in the sheet X it 8 Risk Criteria n T l 1 iS Time Until 2 Extent of Facility Nucisar ES8H Accumulated Time Since Status of Legacy i E ee al ra a 28 z cema mem 30 Comaminaton 2 S amp M Criteria This criteria defines a set of S amp M activities performed on excess facilities A pair wise comparison of these erlteria is performed on gg Sheet 3 and a full definition for each criterion is provided in sheet X Figure 2 Criteria
8. Prioritization Tool for Surveillance and Maintenance Investment in Excess Facilities User s Manual Principal Investigators Leydi Y Velez FIU Intern Student Florida International University Thomas B Conley Mentor Oak Ridge National Laboratory Florida International University Collaborators Leonel Lagos Ph D PMP Prepared for U S Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management Office of Science and Technology under Grant No DE FG01 05EW07033 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof nor any of their employees nor any of its contractors subcontractors nor their employees makes any warranty express or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy completeness or usefulness of any information apparatus product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name trademark manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement recommendation or favoring by the United States government or any other agency thereof The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof Contents EOE
9. The Score Board Table below the S amp M Check List Figure 12 calculates the final score of the S amp M activities by adding the product of the final score of the facility times the weight of importance of the S amp M activity it requires Facility S amp M Criteria with the highest values are the highest priority sites 13 The numbers in the yellow row are the weight of importance of the S amp M activity calculated in the pair wise comparison in sheet 3 The score numbers in red are the score the facilities received in the Facility Evaluation sheet The calculations are automatically entered in each cell and the table provides the final score used to prioritize the S amp M actions across all of the facilities Score Board 3517___ 1 40957 0 51665 0 36742 0 33149 0 0 27343 Re nore o 0 0 23421 o 22998 0 0 06288 0 03205 ase 3026C 0_ 1 41814 0 51979 7 0 36865 o losal o o 0 18245 0 12018 eaaa ee 4501 4505 O0 0 41222 0 29315 o o o21817 o o o09531 ooses o CA ae Sasa a 0 03349 0 01707 Figure 2 Score Table Finally the S amp M Actions Ranked table at the bottom of this sheet Figure 13 shows the rank number for all of the S amp M actions required by the facilities based on the score calculated on the Score Table This sheet is populated automatically when you complete the S amp M Check List 109 110 111 S amp M Actions Ranked Facilities Fi
10. bles provided include IF statements to calculate normalized weight with the purpose of avoiding error messages whenever a cell is left blank Figure 18 For simplification purposes an example of the formula used is provided below Extent of Radiological Chemical Contamination Contamination Contamination 1 D14 C17 C1 eae 7 D19 0 2 ae oo 17 _ SEE S E E Figure 19 Normalized Weight Formula in Excel 16 Radiological Bri Contamination Chemical Contamination 18 19 20 The Pair Wise Comparison Table of the Risk Criteria has three more spaces to add more criteria however if more than 3 criteria need to be added simply use the formula shown above in Cell E17 of Figure 19 20 Appendix B Consistency Ratio The consistency ratio CR value at the bottom of each pair wise comparison table measures the consistency of the pair wise assessment Thomas L Saaty the creator of the analytical hierarchy process gave a measure of consistency called consistency index CI as deviation or degree of consistency using the following formula cI Amar n m 1 Where n number of facilities and Lambda max the summation of products between the normalized weights times the sum of the columns The consistency ratio is a comparison between the consistency index and the random consistency index as shown in the following formula cr 7 RI Where RI is the Random Consist
11. cal 5 Very High Facility has known or suspected radiological contamination to the degree that significant contamination control efforts must be considered during S amp M Contamination Chemical Contamination Facility has known or suspected chemical contamination to the degree that significant contamination control must be considered during S amp M Facility Nuclear categorization Environmental Extensive contamination or facility deterioration could cause a very high negative impact on the environment Extensive facility deterioration with very high potential impact on the safety of personnel Extensive contamination with very high potential impact on the health of workers and or general population 4 High Facility has known or suspected radiological contamination to the degree that moderate contamination control efforts must be considered during S amp M Facility has known or suspected chemical contamination to the degree that moderate contamination control efforts must be considered during S amp M or is subject to site specific regulatory agreement due to presence of chemical contamination Extensive contamination or facility deterioration could cause a moderate to high negative impact on the environment Extensive facility deterioration with moderate to high potential impact on the safety of personnel Extensive contamination with moderate to high potential impact on the health of workers an
12. d or general population 3 Moderate Facility has a limited extent of known radiological contamination or there is reason to suspect the presence of radiological contamination based on known building processes e g spill records or building postings indicate isolated portions of the facility would require special measures due to radiological contamination during S amp M or known building processes included some minor wet chemistry functions Moderate to low contamination control efforts must be considered during S amp M Facility has a limited extent of known chemical contamination or there is reason to suspect the presence of chemical contamination based on known building processes e g spill records or building postings indicate isolated portions of the facility would require special measures due to chemical contamination during S amp M or known building processes included some minor wet chemistry functions Radiological High Risk Limited contamination or facility deterioration that could cause a moderate impact on the environment Limited facility deterioration with some moderate potential impact on the safety of personnel Limited contamination with moderate potential impact on the health of workers and or general population 2 Low Facility has no known radiological contamination based on building history Facility has not been characterized but has no known chemical contamination based on buildin
13. e A B c D E F G H l J K L M N o P a R T 1 Instructions The Facility names will automatically appear in the gray column after you enter them in the previous sheet For each facility mark the cells to the right with an x to indicate the 2 S amp M it requires 3 S amp M Check List d K e N y E G gS Ss g 2 ia os g lt y G x fd RE 2 f Loo E SE LAE KE LF LS z d A lt oy D S A F e e 4e AN lt a S T Ca 4 A Z S Q Vv C y i 5 2 x x x x x x x x 6 x x x x x x x x 7 x x x x x x 8 x x x x x 9 7710 x x x x 10 2000 x x x x x x 1 __3550_ x x x 2 p m x 13 x 3 ew pees soa 16 E 17 SS 13 a 20 tame 2 ey 2 as z2 E 24 ey 25 2 as M 4p h 1 CriteriaChart 2 Pair Wise Comp RiskCriteria 3 Pair Wise Comp S amp MCriteria 4 Facility Eval Scale 5 Facility Evaluation 6 S amp MFinalPrioritization 7 S amp MFinalPrio Ready PEE Figure 11 S amp M Check List Follow these steps to complete the S amp M Check List Read the name of the first facility in the Facility Column 2 Mark the empty cells to the right with an X to identify each S amp M activity the facility requires For example facility 3517 requires safety basis surveillance ventilation maintenance contamination control steam repair fire system maintenance liquid waste systems maintenance legacy waste removal HVAC maintenance and grounds keeping Figure 11
14. e related to structural repairs Not including the roof amaira O Efforts associated with the disposition of legacy waste in anticipation of D amp D activities Includes those items that are easily removed or require Legacy Waste Removal minimal effort to disconnect Maintenance of piping sumps and associated equipment designed to Liquid Waste Systems remove liquid waste from a facility Figure 16 S amp M Criteria Definitions 17 Sheet 10 Random Index Chart RI This sheet contains a random consistency index chart which is used in the calculation of the Consistency Index used in tabs 2 and 3 to determine the internal consistency of comparisons of the criteria ranking for both risk and S amp M Figure 17 Table 8 Random Consistency Index RI 7 7 2 3 7 4 5 7 9 OT w e fle ffi Ro of o0 058 09 112 124 132 145 149 151 148 156 157 159 INDD A wW w Figure 17 Random Consistency Index Chart This chart was provided by Dr T Saaty where n equals the number of criteria For a detailed explanation of the Consistency Index see Appendix B 18 Bibliography Hobbs B F 2000 Energy Decisions and the Environment A Guide to the Use of Multicriteria Methods Boston Kluwer Academic Publishers 6 8 T L Saaty Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 234 281 1977 Triantaphyllou E 2000 Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods A Comparative Study The Netherlands Kluwer Acad
15. ed Maintenance Estimates Time since declared excess Status of Legacy Materials Cleanout Addresses extent of radiological contamination of facility and its impact on S amp M Includes the existence of facility specific regulatory agreements related to radiological contamination Addresses extent of chemical contamination of facility and its impact on S amp M Includes measure for facility specific environmental regulatory agreements or requirements Addresses Nuclear Categorization of Facility with assumption that impact of problems at nuclear facilities create greater potential for risk Addresses the likelihood of and the extent damage possible to the environment in the event of a release of contamination because of inadequate S amp M Examples of factors to be taken into consideration include contamination of soil groundwater streams or other natural resources as well as airborne contamination Addresses the physical safety impacts on personnel created by the failure of the facility structure or infrastructure due to the lack of performance of S amp M activities These impacts are to be focused around facility personnel and those in the area and could consider materials of construction and failures of systems such as ventilation and fire detection suppression Addresses the impact on the health of workers and or the general population when considering the facility location proximity to other operating facilities and general populatio
16. emic Publishers U S Department of Energy Retrieved August 01 2008 from http www doe gov environment index htm 19 Appendix A Pair Wise Comparison Formulas The following section provides a detailed explanation of the formulas in the pair wise comparison tables 9 10 Enter Number of Criteria Extent of Facility Nuclear Delayed Time Since Status of Leg 12 Risk Criteria Boa ES amp H Time Until pap Maintenance Declared Excess Mat Clenaout ka Extent of Contamination 1 0 7 0 0 1 8 0 P 9 0 b 8 0 FA 1 C 10 IF C 12 0 C13 C 23 IF SD 12 0 01 SISD 23 IF E 12 0 E13 SES23 a 3 IF SF 12 0 F 13 SF 23 IF G 12 0 G13 G 23 IF SHS12 0 H13 SHS23 IF 14 _ Facility Nuclear Categorization o1 10 04 9 0 9 0 2 0 S1S12 0 113 S1S23 IF J 12 0 J13 S J 23 IF SKS12 0 K13 SKS23 IF SL 12 0 L43 L 23 15 ES amp H 7 0 7 0 41 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 i ae ial IF logical_test value if true value if false 16 Time Until D amp D 01 01 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 vure 17 Delayed Maintenance 01 0 1 Bea es 41 0 0 3 0 1 0 029 18 Time since neciareaExcess MAMEN i re ee ee 01 oos 1o status or eg mat Censout_ aE os or o o o 1 0 0 2 Maa T ee es z es 2 CO TO ee ee ee ee 23 sum 90 158 373 143 oo Joo oo 10 Figure 18 Current formula used in pair wise comparison tables The formulas used in the ta
17. ency Index provided in tab 10 Consistency Check Lambda max 16 81 Cl 0 58 RI 1 51 Consistency Ratio Figure 20 Consistency Ratio CR Value According to Saaty a score less than 0 3 is acceptable and any CR score of more than 0 3 indicates that the pair wise comparison must be re evaluated for consistency 21
18. essesreeseesessreerrsressessresrerseerreestestrsreeseeseesreesee 17 Figure 17 Random Consistency Index Ciatt cxsssjacessscecsestcesessvstinesstoetrnseeeeeecemieceeeas 18 Figure 18 Current formula used in pair wise comparison tables eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeene 20 Figure 19 Normalized Weight Formula in Excel eseseeeseeessessesreseerersrrsereresrrsseeeresre 20 Figure 20 Consistency Ratio CR Value eeseseseeseseseereesersrrsrreserserrersresrereesesseereesee 21 Introduction The Department of Energy DOE currently faces a difficult task in the disposition of the numerous excess or to be excessed facilities owned by the Department Many of these facilities are in various physical conditions and contain potentially hazardous nuclear chemical radiological or industrial materials left behind as a byproduct of nuclear weapons production nuclear powered naval vessels and commercial nuclear energy production During the last period of a facility s life cycle it is important that surveillance and maintenance S amp M be adequate to maintain the facility within an appropriate safety envelope Inadequate investment in maintenance can cause facilities to deteriorate to the point they are unsafe for human entry Too often this can mean tremendous increases to cost during deactivation and decommissioning D amp D However experiences often show that once buildings have been declared excess and enter the transition phase as defined in DOE G 43
19. g history Radiological Low Risk Some contamination or facility deterioration with low potential impact on environment Some facility deterioration with limited potential impact on the safety of personnel Some contamination with limited potential impact on the health of workers and or general population 1 None Facility characterization confidence is high that no radiological contamination is present Facility characterization confidence is high that no chemical contamination is present This Facility is not RAD facility No unusual environmental concerns No unusual safety concerns No unusual health concerns Time Until D amp D 16 years or more 11 15 years 6 10 years 2 5 years lt 1 year ADME gt 1 5M Accumulated Delayed Maintenance Estimates ADME 1M lt ADME lt 1 5M 500 K lt ADME lt 1 M 100 K lt ADME lt 500K ADME lt 100 K Time Since Declared Excess 16 years or more Large inventory of legacy waste with significant effort required to remove Status of Legacy Materials Cleanout 11 15 years Large inventory of legacy waste with moderate effort required to remove Medium to low inventory of legacy waste with moderate effort required to remove Figure 9 Facility Evaluation Scale Small inventory of legacy waste with little effort required to remove lt 1 year or has not been declared excess There is cur
20. gure 13 S amp M Actions Ranked For example Figure 13 shows that the safety basis surveillance in facilities 3026C D 3517 and 2026 are the top three priorities 14 Sheet 7 S amp M Final Prioritization Chart The final sheet in the Excel template displays S amp M activities prioritized across all the facilities based on the risk of the facilities and the weight of importance of the S amp M they require As shown in Figure 14 the top three priorities are safety basis surveillance in ORNL facilities 3026C D 3517 and 2026 Prioritization of S amp M Activities Across the Facilities 16 E Safety Basis Survellaince E Ventilation E Contamination Control Score E Steam Repair m Roof Repair m Fire System Maintenance m Liquid Waste Systems E Structural Repair Legacy Waste Removal m HVAC H Grounds Keeping Facilities Figure 14 Final Ranked S amp M Activities Sheet 8 amp 9 Risk Criteria and S amp M Criteria Definitions These sheets contain the definitions for the criteria in order to help you evaluate them according to a standard definition The definitions were obtained from a group of subject matter experts at ORNL Figures 15 and 16 15 Risk Criteria Definitions Sub criteria i efinition OO O Extent of Contamination Radiological Contamination Chemical Contamination Facility Nuclear Categorization Environmental Time Until D amp D Accumulated Delay
21. ies Evaluation 6 S amp M Final Prioritization 7 S amp M Final Prioritization Chart 8 Risk Criteria Definitions 9 S amp M Criteria Definitions 10 Consistency Ratio Chart Tabs Color Coding Green Tabs Sheets which require input from the user Red Tabs Sheets which contain information and do not require input from the user Figure 1 Relationship between green tabs The relationship between the green tabs is shown in Figure 1 The normalized weight calculated in the pair wise comparison of the risk criteria are used in the Facility Evaluation tab The normalized weights of the S amp M criteria are used in the final S amp M prioritization along with the results from the Facility Evaluation tab Tables Color Coding Gray Cells Cells in the tables which contain formulas are protected and DO NOT require input from the user White Cells Cells in the tables require input from the user Protected Sheets Sheets containing formulas were protected to prevent changes which can affect the results of the calculations If the tables need to be updated then unprotect the sheet using the password fiuarc2009 The sheets may be locked again after the necessary changes are made Sheet 1 Criteria Chart The first sheet in the excel template displays the risk criteria and the S amp M criteria Figure 2 These criteria were identified by a group of subject matter experts The risk criteria are used to prioritize the facilities based on risk The S amp
22. k Criteria 10 Enter Number of Criteria d 1 Delayed Time Since Risk Criteria inati izati i il Maintenance Declared Excess 9 0 8 0 9 0 9 0 4 4 h 1 CriteriaChart_ 2 Pair Wise Comp RiskCriteria 3 Paif Wise Comp S amp MCriteria 4 Facility Eval Scale 5 Facility Evaluation 6 S amp MFinalPrioritization 7 S amp Figure 4 Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria Refer to Sheet 8 for a definition of each criterion and follow these steps to complete the Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria table 1 Determine the risk criteria to be used in the evaluation The model defaults to the risk criteria developed in the first tab but users may add or delete criteria as needed If more than ten criteria are needed some adjustments to the formulas may be needed Refer to Appendix A for a detailed explanation of the formulas In addition the Facility Evaluation Scale needs to be updated every time you add or delete criteria Refer to Sheet 4 Facility Evaluation Scale 2 Check the number of criteria shown in red at the top of the pair wise comparison table Figure 5 and make sure it is the right number of criteria in the table This number is updated every time a criterion is added or deleted The reason for this is that the number is included in the formula to calculate the normalized weight Als 4 gs extent or contamination ee VO R c D E F G H a K L M N o Pair Wise Compa
23. mple if you entered 7 in the comparison between Extent of Contamination vs Facility Nuclear Categorization then 1 7 is automatically calculated in the cell comparing Facility Nuclear Categorization vs Extent of Contamination Continue with the next criteria in the blue column until all of the criteria have been compared 4 After completing the pair wise comparison check your consistency by reading the consistency ratio and making sure the number is not greater than 0 3 if a larger number is obtained you must go back to the pair wise comparison table and re evaluate the numbers you entered For a detailed explanation of the formulas read Appendix B For example the pair wise comparison shown below in Figure 6 received a CR value of 0 4 which means it must be re evaluated To do so go back and re evaluate the comparisons In this case ES amp H received the highest scores when compared to the rest however it has a 1 when compared to Time Until D amp D The inconsistency here is that Time Until D amp D is less important than the rest of the criteria xtent o facility Nuclear Delayed ime Since tatus of Leg Risk Criteria Contamination Categorization ES amp H Time Until D amp D Maintenance Declared Excess Mat Clenaout Extent of Contamination 0 1 8 0 9 0 Facility Nuclear Categorization j 1 0 0 1 3 0 7 0 eee Cs Delayed Maintenance lt lt lt stowsotteg mat ciena os o o so Figure 6 Example of pair wise
24. n centers due to the lack of proper S amp M The considerations here are to be focused more on the body s physiological responses to exposure to the hazards rather than the more physical damage aspects to be considered in Safety Addresses time between S amp M and D amp D at the time of the prioritization Like the other criteria discussed this criteria will change from year to year Estimates the total cost of all facility maintenance that has been delayed unperformed since facility became non operational Addresses the time since the facility has been declared excess Addresses the extent of the efforts to remove legacy materials in preparation for either facility transfer to EM the start of D amp D or both Figure 15 Risk Criteria Definitions 16 S amp M Criteria Definitions Actions required to prevent the spread of contamination It includes rs ee and contamination fixing efforts Maintenance and repair of the roof pootmepar S The surveillances required by documented safety analysis or equivalent Maintenance of systems designed to maintain air flow to prevent the uncontrolled release of contamination This will include duct work filters Maintenance of systems designed to mitigate a fire event E Maintenance of heating ventilation and air conditioning mc Maintenance of systems designed to move and control steam through out Mowing grass filling in animal holes controlling weeds and other Any maintenanc
25. previously mentioned for the comparison of the risk criteria Reefer to sheet 9 for a definition of each S amp M criterion and follow these steps to complete the pair wise comparison table 1 Determine the S amp M criteria to be used in the evaluation The model defaults to the S amp M criteria developed in the first tab but users may add or delete criteria as needed Refer to Appendix A for a detailed explanation of the formulas 2 Check the number of criteria shown in red at the top of the pair wise comparison table and make sure it is the right number of criteria in the table This number is updated every time a criterion is added or deleted The reason for this is that the number is included in the formula to calculate the normalized weight 3 Determine the relative importance of each criterion vs the others Begin by comparing the first criterion in the blue row versus all of the criteria in the blue column For example if you entered 3 in the comparison between Contamination Control vs Roof Repair then the reciprocal of 3 is automatically calculated in the cell comparing Roof Repair vs Contamination Control Continue with the next criteria in the blue column until all of the criteria have been compared 4 After completing the pair wise comparison check your consistency by reading the consistency ratio and making sure the number is not greater than 0 3 if a larger number is obtained you must go back to the pair wise comparison table
26. rently no legacy waste in the facility 11 Sheet 5 Facility Evaluation The Facility Evaluation Table is used to evaluate the facilities against the risk criteria and to calculate a score to rank them The table is set up to evaluate a total of 50 facilities By placing your mouse over each number in the scale above the red line you will see a box with the same definition provided on the previous sheet The weight shown on the yellow row are the results obtained from the pair wise comparison on sheet 2 The weight shown under the sub criteria Radiological Chemical Environmental Health and Safety is calculated by multiplying the Normalized weight of the sub criterion times the normalized weight of its parent criterion Figure 10 To add more than 50 facilities simply select and drag the formula in the score and rank column down i 10 score will not be calculated without a Facility name 11 5 3 5 5 3 3 5 4 5 3 89 2 12 5 3 4 4 2 3 3 2 1 5 3 33 4 13 5 3 3 4 5 3 2 3 4 5 2 92 4 14 4 5 3 4 2 3 5 3 1 3 3 11 5 15 3 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 2 78 8 16 2000 4 5 2 5 5 5 2 5 3 1 3 83 3 17 3550 3 4 rd 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 249 7 18 2011 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 66 9 19 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 28 10 20 4 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 2 2 78 6 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Woe h 1 Criteria
27. rison Scale if two criteria are EQUALLY IMPORTANT 1 2 3 if Criterion on column is SLIGHTLY MORE important than criterion on row 113 if Criterion on column is SLIGHTLY LESS important than criterion on row 4 if Criterion on column is MODERATELY MORE important than criterion on row 115 if Criterion on column is MODERATELY LESS important than criterion on row 5 if Criterion on column is STRONGLY MORE important than criterion on row 17 if Criterion on column is STRONGLY LESS important than criterion on row 6 if Criterion on column is EXTREMELY MORE important than criterion on row 119 if Criterion on column is EXTREMELY LESS important than criterion on row 7 Intermediate values 12 114 116 1 8 Intermediate values Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria 8 atus of Leg Mat Clenaout ime Since Time Until D amp D Declared Excess 8 0 8 0 2 0 Figure 5 Number of Criteria 3 Determine the relative importance of each criterion vs the others Begin by comparing the first criterion in the blue row versus all of the criteria in the blue column For example if Extent of Contamination is strongly more important than the Facility Nuclear Categorization then enter 7 in the empty cell that connects these two criteria The gray section in the pair wise comparison table contains formulas that automatically calculate the reciprocal of the values entered in the white section For exa
28. stveidecvsivedeessued 5 Figure 2 Criteria Chart Sheet esciseesseciesiririrn ia ai R EE E aE 6 Figure 3 Pair Wise Comparison Scale eeseseeeeeeseeseesrseresreesttsrerrreserseesrresresrrseresresseseees 6 Figure 4 Pair Wise Comparison of Risk Criteria ee eeeseeseeeseeceseceseeeseeeeaeesnaeenseeees 7 Figure 5 Number of Crit ri eissii egiin onone teaa i ea i a ai aaa aaae ei 7 Figure 6 Example of pair wise comparison with low CR vyalue eeeeeeesrerereee 8 Figure 7 Pair Wise Comparison of Sub Criteria eeseeseseeseesreesieeesrrsrerresressrseresressesere 9 Figure 8 Pair Wise Comparison of S amp M Criteria eseseesesesesesseeseerssrsrrsrssreresrrsrreesses 10 Figure 9 Facility Evaluation Scale ssns A a 11 Figure 10 Facility Evaluation Sheet eeseseseeeeeseeeeesesssesresseesrsressersserrersresrerreseeseesreesee 12 Fig re 11 S amp M Che ck LiSt ssissssiesuosssgieseiss esi ais enra enea aeaeaei ia 13 Fig re 12 Score Table agi eseedatccesiceceacsdesdertsteddpbadinaecedaieckpce Headesdeadpaeoesasaducsdadeacelndeeiecaas 14 Figure 13 S amp M Actions Ranked esseeseseseesesseeeeesessesressessrsrtrssersterreesrestrseresresseseeesee 14 Figure 14 Final Ranked S amp M Activities eseeseseeeesessseereeseesrrsrresersserreesresrrsereseeseeseresre 15 Figure 15 Risk Criteria Definitions esseseeseeseseseesesstseresressetsrerresserseerreesresrsrenseeseeseeesee 16 Figure 16 S amp M Criteria Definitions sesese

Prioritization Tool User Manual - D&D KM-IT

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents

Prioritization Tool User Manual - D&amp;D KM-IT

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents

Prioritization Tool User Manual - D&D KM-IT