Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW Umatilla Chemical Disposal Facility www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126 By: William Dana, P.E.

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW Dept of Army, Policy Statement # 28 “Preoperational Surveys and Operational Readiness Evaluations (ORE’s)” AMENDED POLICY More Active Contractor Role in Certifying the Facility Contractor Develop the Acceptance Criteria More Continuous Process over Time (ORR followed by RA’s) Government in “Oversight Role” Relative to the Contractor defined process www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW Policy Statement #28 Government Responsibilities Director, U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) Approval Authority for Initial Operations CMA Staff Offices- Provide Oversight Site Field Office- “ORR Oversight Plan” >90 Days, the Risk Management Directorate (RMD) Verifies System Readiness Prior to Restart www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW Policy Statement #28 New Contractor Responsibilities The Contractor develops ORR Plan ORR Board Chairman is a contractor employee Contractor Conducts Tests and Demonstrations Contractor Certifies Readiness (not D.O.D.) www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW Policy Statement #28 ORR Board Members: -Sys. Contractor -Regulatory Field Office -Stakeholders - and - Consultants Determine Schedule of Startup Activities (not PM) Approve Objectives and Criteria Formal Board Meetings & Documented Decisions Board certifies Readiness To: Program Mgr for Elimination of Chemical Weapons PM-ECW Findings Categorized: as 1,2,3,or 4 of significance “Senior” ORR Board Members can “Rock the Boat” www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW Policy Statement #28 (ORR Plans) The System Contractor Prepares: ORR Program Plan (069) ORR Campaign Plans (Operations) (068) Objectives and Criteria Readiness Assessment Plans (RA) – which enhance the ORR Campaign Plan(s) Readiness Assessment Checklists (RACK) Integrated Operations Demonstrations (IOD’s) – system desk instruction, checklists & report forms www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW D.O.D. ORR BOARD MEMBERS QUOTES: UMCDF ORR Process was a “Breath of Fresh Air” “No Substitute for a ORR Readiness Manager who is: Aware of Status at all times (good tracking systems) “Stick to the Process” & “Do it Right” Excellent Readiness Manager is absolutely essential Readiness Manager must report to God (Plant Manager) & NOT to other Lower Managers or Vice Presidents Get to the Bottom of the Issues (especially if somebody has “bad breath”) The Emphasis is on “Personal Accountability” www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW D.O.D. ORR BOARD MEMBERS QUOTES: D.O.D. ORR is “big picture” organizational review D.O.D. Readiness Assessments done on individual evolutions Objectives and Criteria must be: Consistent & Not Redundant (avoidance of “Motherhood” criteria like in 425.1) D.O.D. ORR Process was single level (“neat, clean, simple”) [as contrasted to (Contractor + D.O.E.) double ORR’s. The D.O.D-ORR is done by the the System Contractor & “Oversight” done by Regulatory Authority] Biggest Criticism: “In a double layered process the Contractor spends too much Time & Money, so they “don’t get second guessed by D.O.E.” www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW D.O.D. ORR BOARD MEMBERS QUOTES: “Good oversight by D.O.E. should give D.O.E. the assurance that the Contractor’s ORR process will prevent D.O.E. from finding significant issues”. “The D.O.D. ORR process eliminates the need for a secondary government ORR” “D.O.D. ORR demands performance from the Contractor”. “Trust the Contractor” and make him Accountable www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW UMCDF ORR PROGRAM PLAN DIFFERENCES NOTE: Similarities include CRADS, Findings, Affidavits D.O.D. Criteria basis: Lessons learned, Other sites, Pol. 28 D.O.D. ORR’s- broad functional areas & processes D.O.D. Readiness Assessments (RA) for critical systems ORR also Re-visits RA identified weaknesses Readiness Assessment Checklist (RACK) for low risk systems readiness reviews (formal ORR or RA not required) D.O.D. Objectives and criteria are specific to the facility The Contractor declares readiness & prepares the report. The Regulator authorizes Startup www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW UMCDF ORR CAMPAIGN PLAN DIFFERENCES 5 Phases of ORR were developed in the ORR Campaign Plan to coincide with an aggressive achievable schedule Mini-reports were prepared at the end of each phase www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW SUMMARY OF D.O.D. MAJOR DIFFERENCES D.O.D. ORR a Continuous Process A D.O.D. Contractor “Quality” ORR till it is right No redundant D.O.D. ORR (Oversight only) Readiness Manager reports to God ORR Board is firmly in control of the processes Readiness Assessment Checklists (RACK) for low-risk systems Emphasis on department managers personal accountability D.O.D. ORR is “Big Picture” plus: RA’s are done on “Systems” Affidavit criteria is targeted to the Facility Phased mini-ORR’s follow Facility Organizational Maturity www.DanaEngineering.com (509) 582-0126

Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW Umatilla Chemical Disposal Facility Construction Photo Dana Engineering, Inc. is an independent and highly experienced Engineering and Operational Readiness Review Professional Service Corporation. We also specialize in Root Cause Analysis investigations and organizational Value Mapping processes. www.DanaEngineering.com