Document bBBjne0G95kjVnRom9BExe1Dg

PARIC CORPORATION 689 CRAIG ROAD P.O. BOX 419081 ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI 63141-7124 314-432-4320 FAX 314-432-4578 AGENDA Solutia/Gateway Workshop December 22, 1997 1. Introduction of all Team Members and Roles 2. The Process 3. Open Issues 4. Phase 1- Information phase 5. Phase 2-Speculative or creative phase 6. Phase 3-Evaluation or analytical phase 7. Phase 4-Investigative phase 8. Recommendations DSW 134454 STLCOPCB4034412 Phase 1 - Information Phase Goals of the Workshop > Solutia, Gateway, Contracting, Engineering, Operator > Showcase operation > Cost savings project, life cycle costs > Schedule is critical Collect all facts, opinions, and data. Ask: > What are assumptions? > Which may be masquerading as knowledge? > Do not begin suggestion of alternatives. > What is the history of this project? Questions & Answer Session > Design loads > Design constraints > Use of existing facilities > State regulatory input (i.e., MDNR) > Federal regulatory input (i.e., FEMA) > Local regulatory input (i.e., city, fire marshal, etc.) > Acceptable equipment > Detailed cost estimate > Environmental, survey, Soils report > Alternatives evaluated in design process > Equipment designed around > Power requirements > How will various processes be controlled? > Capital versus maintenance cost > Any DBO review constraints? Review of Gateway Design Basis > How was design basis developed? > What are the constraints? - IEPA - Actual data > Any DBO review constraints? Financial and Legal constraints OSW 134455 STLCOPCB4034413 Phase 2 - Speculative Or Creative Phase (Brainstorming) Site Selection > environmental > utilities and infrastructure > operations > financial, legal > future constraints Building > Criteria for design Process > Process equipment > Piping > redundant systems > water treatment > oil storage > gas supply reservation > saturated vs. superheated steam Create extensive list of alternatives. Ways to perform essential functions found during information gathering. Key-delay any critical judgments. Thought provoking questions: > What is the input? > What is the output? > What should go in between? > Could this be done automatically? > Is all of the known information available to me? > What emotions or attitudes are we dealing with? > Are specifications tight or loose? > Could this be done somewhere else? > What would happen if this weren't done at all? > Could this be done mechanically? Electrically? By hand? > Could you re-orient present structures to improve them? > What other facilities have this kind of problem? > How much of this is a result of custom? Tradition? Opinion? > What else could this be made to do? DSW i3V5& STLCOPCB4034414 > How could this be done piecemeal? Phased over time? > How else could the basic function be accomplished? > Where is our greatest economic effort expended? > Why hasn't anyone done this before? > How would postponement of this objective affect the project? > Can better use be made of existing facilities? > Are the "ground rules" real or imaginary? > What can be combined? > What should be divided? > Why are the present limits adopted? > How can this be made more compact? > What other layout might be better? > Can it be made safer? > What other materials would do this job? > If all specifications could be forgotten, how else could the basic function be accomplished? > Could these means be made to meet specifications? Record ideas immediately. No such thing as foolish speculation. Persistent how and why questions. DSW 134457 STLCOPCB4034415 Phase 3 - Evaluation or Analytical Phase Consider feasibility of speculative or creative phase items. Look positively for ways to make idea work, rather than critically for an excuse for rejection. Preliminary cost estimate may be required to narrow down the field. Develop list of special requirements, if any, for items (special labor skills, high/low O&M, repair costs, labor market constraints). Screening criteria: > Are the performance requirements met? > Does the alternative meet the quality requirements? > Are the reliability requirements met? > Are the original reliability requirements unreasonably high? > Will the system accept the alternative without excessive redesign in other areas? > Is there an improvement, or at least no loss, in the maintainability of the system? Identify advantages and disadvantages. Discuss relative merits. Assign numerical hierarchical rating. May need to return to previous phase for additional development. Select best ideas for further investigation. DSW 134458 STLCOPCB4034416 Phase 4 - Tnvestiga tion Phase Investigate most feasible alternatives further. Develop implementation costs: > Redesign > Discard, remove, modify existing facilities > Collateral advantages to the owner, i.e., by product value > Confirm assumed costs > Develop O&M costs > Contact manufacturers > Document costs > Life cycle costs Develop factors other than cost: > Improved performance > Improved reliability > Improved flexibility Recommendations/Approach DBO Workshop Report Schedule of Implementation (Design & Construction) DSW 134459 STLCOPCB4034417