1. Dana Engineering, Inc., PSC UMCDF OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW
Umatilla Chemical Disposal Facility
(509)
By: William Dana, P.E.

2. 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
(509)

3. 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
(509)

4. 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.)
(509)

5. 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”
(509)

6. 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
(509)

7. 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”
(509)

8. 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.”
(509)

9. 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
(509)

10. 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
(509)

11. 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
(509)

12. 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
(509)

13. 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.