Upload
trinhtram
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
217217217
200200200
255255255
000
163163163
131132122
2396553
110135120
1129256
62102130
1025648
130120111
237237237
8011927
252174.59
Kari L. Meier, Ph.D. Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise (EM CX) 20 July 2017
RISK METHODOLOGY FOR FUDS (AKA RAO SPEEDWAGON) Assessing Risk and Defining the Remedial Objectives for Munitions Response Sites
1
EPA RI/FS GUIDANCE
“The objective of the RI/FS process is not the unobtainable goal of removing all uncertainty, but rather to gather information sufficient to support an informed risk management decision regarding which remedy appears to be most appropriate for a given site.”1
1 Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, U.S. EPA, October 1988
Note that the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) share the same objective.
2
AGENDA
§ Important Factors in the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) § New FUDS Risk Management Process
§ Developing the Remedial Action Objective (RAO) § Post-Remedy Data Assessments
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Depth(in
ches)
75MMFuzes/BoostersMD20MMLowOrderHEParHalHEProjecHlePDElement
RI CHARACTERIZATION: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Depth(in
ches)
75MMFuzes/BoostersMD20MMLowOrderHEParHalHEProjecHlePDElement
Depth of Contamination
Land Use Depth
RI 8
HOW DO WE USE IT?
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Where are the munitions?
#md #mec
RI 9
ß Verified Detection
Depth
USING VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION
0 100%
What’s the Detection Limit? What Does It Mean?
High Confidence
Reduction in Confidence
Increased Possibility of False
Negatives ?
Surface
10
ß Detection Depth
0 100%
What’s the Detection Limit? What Does It Mean?
High Confidence
Reduction in Confidence
Increased Possibility of False
Negatives ?
Verification Seeds: Throughout Fieldwork
System Test Seeds
Surface
PERFORMANCE TESTING 11
Surface
Land Use Depth =
VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION
ß Detection Depth
Number of items [x]
Confidence à
Confidence à ß Detection Depth
ß Detection Depth
Uncertainty à
0
FS 12
CSM SUMMARY
Historically, RI’s focus on horizontal distribution only -Depth of detection was not typically QC’d
adequately, so communication of confidence in data was inadequate. There are 3 critical vertical values to define in the RI
-verified detection depth from instrument -land use depth -vertical distribution depth of data
13
BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
Purpose is to evaluate potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action.
– Toxicity and concentration of contaminants – Fate and transport of contaminants – Current and anticipated future land use – Current and potential receptors (human and ecological)
15
FRAME OF REFERENCE 16
Assess Risk & Develop Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs)
PA
SI
RI
FS
PP/DD
Implement Remedy
Emphasis on Site Specific Data Here
MEC HA Supports Alternatives Analysis; (Not a Risk Assessment)
MRSPP (Throughout Project, until RC)
We Are Here
THINK AHEAD: PLAN FOR RAO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with 40 CFR Part 300.430(e)(i), the Lead Agency shall “Establish Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs)
specifying contaminants and media of concern, potential exposure pathways, and
remediation goals”.
17
NOTICE!
An acceptable remediation goal cannot be defined for an unknown or undefined risk!!
Two choices:
1. RI is incomplete, need more data 2. No evidence, No risk, RC
18
MATRIX RELATIONSHIPS
Designed to simplify relationships between:
– Quantity – Accessibility – Severity – Sensitivity of Munitions – Site Activities
19
Matrix 1: Frequency of Encounter
Matrix 2: Frequency with Severity of an incident
Matrix 4: Brings together all that is known about UXO or DMM that may remain
Matrix 3: Sensitivity of items with consideration of Site Activities
LikelihoodofEncounter,Matrix1:AmountofMECvs.AccessCondi=ons
MRS Frequency of Use (Access)Regular(e.g., daily use, open access)
ONen(e.g.,lessregularorperiodicuse,someaccess)
IntermiQent(e.g.,someirregularuse,oraccesslimited)
Rare(e.g.,verylimiteduse,accessprevented)
Am
ount
of M
EC
• MECisvisibleonthesurfaceanddetectedinthesubsurface. Frequent Frequent Likely Occasional
• InvesHgaHonoftheMRScharacterizedtheareaasaConcentratedMuniHonsUseArea(CMUA)whereMECisknownorsuspected(e.g.,MDindicaHveofMEC)isidenHfied).
Frequent Likely Occasional Seldom
• MECpresencebasedonphysicalevidenceonly(e.g.,MDindicaHveofMEC),althoughtheareaisnotaCMUA,or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan1.0/acreat95%confidence).
Likely Occasional Seldom Unlikely
• MECpresenceisbasedonisolatedhistoricaldiscoveries(e.g.,EODreport),or
• AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoremoveMECandknownorsuspectedhazardremainstosupportthisselecHon,(e.g.,surfaceremovalwheresubsurfacenotaddressed)or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan0.5/acreat95%confidence).
Occasional Seldom Unlikely Unlikely
• MECpresenceissuspectedbasedonhistoricalevidenceofmuniHonsuseonly,or
• AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoremovesurfaceandsubsurfaceMEC(UU/UEnotachieved),or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan0.25/acreat95%confidence).
Seldom Seldom Unlikely Unlikely
• InvesHgaHonoftheMRSdidnotidenHfyevidenceofMECpresence,or
• AresponseacHonconductedtoachieveUU/UE.Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
20
ß Derived from MEC HA à
SeverityofIncident,Matrix2:
Severityvs.LikelihoodofEncounter
LikelihoodofMECEncounter
Frequent
Likely
Occasional
Seldom
Unlikely
SeverityofIn
cide
ntAssociatedwith
Spe
cific
Hazards
Catastrophic/Cri=cal:Mayresultin1ormoredeathorpermanenttotaldisability
A
A
B
B
D
Modest:Mayresultin1ormoreinjuryresulHnginemergencymedicaltreatment,withouthospitalizaHon.
B
B
B
C
D
Minor:Mayresultin1ormoreinjuriesrequiringfirstaidormedicaltreatment
B
C
C
C
D
Improbable:NoinjuryisanHcipated
D
D
D
D
D
21
ß D
efin
ed in
DA
Pam
385
-30à
22
LikelihoodofDetona>on,Matrix3:
Muni>onsSensi>vityvs.LikelihoodofEnergytobeImparted
SpecificLandUse:LikelihoodtoImpartEnergy
High e.g., areas planned for development
Moderatee.g., undeveloped, wildlife refuge, parks
NotLikelye.g., not anticipated, prevented, mitigated
Sensi=vity: Suscep=
bilitytoDeton
a=on
HighSensi>vity 1 1 3
ModerateSensi>vityHighExplosive(HE)(used,unused,orDamaged);orPyrotechnic(usedorDamaged)
1 2 3
LowSensi>vityPropellant;BulkSecondaryHE,PyrotechnicsorPropellant;Pyrotechnic(notusedordamaged)
1 3 3
Notsensi>ve 2 3 3
ß G
roup
ed fr
om M
RS
PPà
23
ACCEPTABLE VS. UNACCEPTABLE
Acceptable andUnacceptable SiteConditions
ResultFromMatrix2A B C D
Resultfrom
Matrix
3
1 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
2 Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable
3 Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
DEFINING REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES Decision Logic for Developing Acceptable End States for a Munitions Response Site
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Depth(in
ches)
75MMFuzes/BoostersMD20MMLowOrderHEParHalHEProjecHlePDElement
Depth of Contamination
Land Use Depth
RI 25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Depth(in
ches)
75MMFuzes/BoostersMD20MMLowOrderHEParHalHEProjecHlePDElement
Depth of Contamination
Land Use Depth
THE REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVE (RAO) IS:
“…to reduce the unacceptable risk due to the presence of [name specific munitions] within [horizontal boundary] and [depth] to address exposure to [receptors] via [pathway] such that an acceptable scenario, defined by Matrix 4, is achieved.”
FS 26
EXAMPLE M-1
27
Activities / Use Evidence of Hazard Present
• 1870 Acres • RI Results
• 13 76mm APHE • 2.36-inch Rockets • 105mm Smoke Canister • 155mm HE
Clearly Defined PRESENCE
• on surface • likely subsurface
• 10,000 people per year • Full Accessibility • Recreational (i.e., camping,
hunting, hiking, lake access) Defined Exposure Pathway
Potential for Encounter is Likely Unacceptable Risk
LikelihoodofEncounter,Matrix1:AmountofMECvs.AccessCondi=ons
MRS Frequency of Use (Access)Regular(e.g., daily use, open access)
ONen(e.g.,lessregularorperiodicuse,someaccess)
IntermiQent(e.g.,someirregularuse,oraccesslimited)
Rare(e.g.,verylimiteduse,accessprevented)
Am
ount
of M
EC
• MECisvisibleonthesurfaceanddetectedinthesubsurface. Frequent Frequent Likely Occasional
• InvesHgaHonoftheMRScharacterizedtheareaasaConcentratedMuniHonsUseArea(CMUA)whereMECisknownorsuspected(e.g.,MDindicaHveofMEC)isidenHfied).
Frequent Likely Occasional Seldom
• MECpresencebasedonphysicalevidenceonly(e.g.,MDindicaHveofMEC),althoughtheareaisnotaCMUA,or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan1.0/acreat95%confidence).
Likely Occasional Seldom Unlikely
• MECpresenceisbasedonisolatedhistoricaldiscoveries(e.g.,EODreport),or
• AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoremoveMECandknownorsuspectedhazardremainstosupportthisselecHon,(e.g.,surfaceremovalwheresubsurfacenotaddressed)or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan0.5/acreat95%confidence).
Occasional Seldom Unlikely Unlikely
• MECpresenceissuspectedbasedonhistoricalevidenceofmuniHonsuseonly,or
• AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoremovesurfaceandsubsurfaceMEC(UU/UEnotachieved),or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan0.25/acreat95%confidence).
Seldom Seldom Unlikely Unlikely
• InvesHgaHonoftheMRSdidnotidenHfyevidenceofMECpresence,or
• AresponseacHonconductedtoachieveUU/UE.Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
28
SeverityofIncident,Matrix2:
Severityvs.LikelihoodofEncounter
LikelihoodofMECEncounter
Frequent
Likely
Occasional
Seldom
Unlikely
SeverityofIn
cide
ntAssociatedwith
Spe
cific
Hazards
Catastrophic/Cri=cal:Mayresultin1ormoredeathorpermanenttotaldisability
A
A
B
B
D
Modest:Mayresultin1ormoreinjuryresulHnginemergencymedicaltreatment,withouthospitalizaHon.
B
B
B
C
D
Minor:Mayresultin1ormoreinjuriesrequiringfirstaidormedicaltreatment
B
C
C
C
D
Improbable:NoinjuryisanHcipated
D
D
D
D
D
29
MECSensiHvity
Matrix:LikelihoodofDetonaHon
SpecificLandUseSiteAc=vi=es:Rela=veEnergyImpartedtoMuni=onsDuringEncounter
High e.g., areas planned for development
Moderatee.g., undeveloped, wildlife refuge, parks
NotLikelye.g., not anticipated, prevented, mitigated
Sensi=vity: Suscep=
bilitytoDeton
a=on
Sensi>ve 1 1 3
HighExplosive(HE)(used,unused,orDamaged);orPyrotechnic(usedorDamaged)
1 2 3
Propellant;BulkSecondaryHE,PyrotechnicsorPropellant;Pyrotechnic(notusedordamaged)
1 3 3
Prac>ceorRiotControl 2 3 3
MATRIX 3:
30
AcceptableandUnacceptableSiteCondi>ons
SeverityCategoryFromMatrix2
A B C D
SensiHvityCategory
from
Matrix3
1 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
2 Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable
3 Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Matrix4:DefiningUnacceptableSiteCondiHons
31
AcceptableandUnacceptableSiteCondi>ons
SeverityCategoryFromMatrix2
A B C D
SensiHvityCategory
from
Matrix3
1 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
2 Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable
3 Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Matrix4:DefiningUnacceptableSiteCondiHons
32
MECSensiHvity
Matrix:LikelihoodofDetonaHon
SpecificLandUseSiteAc=vi=es:Rela=veEnergyImpartedtoMuni=onsDuringEncounterHigh
e.g., areas planned for development
Moderatee.g., undeveloped, wildlife refuge, parks
NotLikelye.g., not anticipated, prevented, mitigated
Sensi=vity: Suscep=
bilitytoDeton
a=on
Sensi>ve 1 1 3
HighExplosive(HE)(used,unused,orDamaged);orPyrotechnic(usedorDamaged)
1 2 3
Propellant;BulkSecondaryHE,PyrotechnicsorPropellant;Pyrotechnic(notusedordamaged)
1 3 3
Prac>ceorRiotControl 2 3 3
MATRIX 3:
33
AcceptableandUnacceptableSiteCondi>ons
SeverityCategoryFromMatrix2
A B C D
SensiHvityCategory
from
Matrix3
1 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
2 Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable
3 Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
AlternaHve1:EducaHonOnly,whereLikelihoodofEncounterwithsomethingCatastrophicis“Frequent”
34
AccessibilityMatrix:
LikelihoodofEncounter
MRSAccessCondi=onsRegular(e.g., daily use, open access)
ONen(e.g.,lessregularorperiodicuse,someaccess)
IntermiQent(e.g.,someirregularuse,oraccesslimited)
Rare(e.g.,verylimiteduse,accessprevented)
Amou
ntofM
EC
• MECisvisibleonthesurfaceanddetectedinthesubsurface.
Frequent Frequent Likely Occasional
• InvesHgaHonoftheMRScharacterizedtheareaasaConcentratedMuniHonsUseArea(CMUA)whereMECissuspected.
Frequent Likely Occasional Seldom
• InvesHgaHonsupportsMECpresencebasedonphysicalevidenceonly(e.g.,MDindicaHveofMEC),althoughtheareaisnotaCMUA,or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan1.0/acreat95%confidence).
Likely Occasional Seldom Unlikely
• MECpresenceisbasedonisolatedhistoricaldiscoveries(e.g.,EODreport),or
• AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoremoveMECandknownorsuspectedhazardremainstosupportthisselecHon,(e.g.,surfaceremovalwheresubsurfacenotaddressed)or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan0.5/acreat95%confidence).
Occasional Seldom Unlikely Unlikely
• MECpresenceissuspectedbasedonhistoricalevidenceofmuniHonsuseonly,or
• AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoclearsurfaceandsubsurfaceMEC(UU/UEnotachieved),or
• TheMECconcentraHonisbelowaproject-specificthresholdtosupportthisselecHon(e.g.,lessthan0.25/acreat95%confidence).
Seldom Seldom Unlikely Unlikely
• InvesHgaHonoftheMRSdidnotidenHfyevidenceofMECpresence,or
• AresponseacHonconductedtoachieveUU/UE.Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
MATRIX 1:
35
MECSeverity
LikelihoodofMECEncounter
Frequent
Likely
Occasional
Seldom
Unlikely
SeverityofIn
cide
ntAssociatedwith
Spe
cificM
EC
items
Catastrophic:MECthatmayresultin1ormoredeathorpermanenttotaldisability
A
A
B
B
D
Modest:MECthatmayresultin1ormoreinjuryresulHnginemergencymedicaltreatment,withouthospitalizaHon.
B
B
B
C
D
Minor:MECthatmayresultin1ormoreinjuriesrequiringfirstaidormedicaltreatment
B
C
C
C
D
Improbable:NoinjuryisanHcipated
D
D
D
D
D
MATRIX 2: 36
AcceptableandUnacceptableSiteCondi>ons
SeverityCategoryFromMatrix2
A B C D
SensiHvityCategory
from
Matrix3
1 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
2 Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable
3 Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
AlternaHve2:SurfaceClearanceOnly,whereLikelihoodofEncounterwithsomethingCatastrophicis“Frequent”
37
AcceptableandUnacceptableSiteCondi>ons
SeverityCategoryFromMatrix2
A B C D
SensiHvityCategory
from
Matrix3
1 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
2 Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable
3 Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
AlternaHve3:SurfaceClearanceandEducaHon,
whereLikelihoodofEncounterwithsomethingCatastrophicis“Frequent”
38
Surface
Land Use Depth = Action Limit
POST REMEDY DATA ASSESSMENT
Number of items [x]
Confidence à ß Verified
Detection Depth
0
Did we meet the RAO?
REMEDIAL ACTION
39
ßdetection ß detection
Surface
LU-Depth = Action Limit (AL) ?
UNDERSTAND THE VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION
ß Confidence à
40
POST REMEDY DATA ASSESSMENT
Didthephysicalremedysupportan
acceptableendstate?(meettheRAO?)
Yes(AddiHonal
ResponseAcHonisNOTRequired)
Willinclusionof
LUCssupportanacceptableend
state?
YesImplementLUCs
UU/UEnotsupported,5YRsarerequiredResponseComplete
No(AddiHonal
ResponseAcHonisRequired)
IsUU/UESupported?
NoMustconsideraddiHonal
ResponseAcHon
Yes5YRsareNOT
requiredResponseComplete
No5YRsarerequired
ResponseComplete
REMEDIAL ACTION
41
HOW DO WE GET BETTER? CHARACTERIZATION!
– Better Characterization Data • Specify and Track Location & Depth (Model the CSM) • Report Types with Nomenclature (know sensitivity and severity)
– Establish QC and QA Criteria with Appropriate Documentation for the Data (not just a safety QC)
– Understand and Discuss Land Use Scenarios • Depth of Use • Detection Depths • Land Use Depths • Other Site Depth (e.g. to bedrock, etc.)
42
HOW DO WE GET BETTER? PLAN FOR A POST REMEDY ASSESSMENT
– Better Tracking of Remediation Data • Specify and Track Location & Depth • Types with Nomenclature
– Establish QC and QA Criteria with Appropriate Documentation for the Data (not just a safety QC)
– Determine how the Achievement of the Remedial Action will be measured against the RAO to establish the “Acceptable End State”.
43
BOTTOM LINE: TECHNOLOGY IS CATCHING UP!
We can No Longer Say (before data):
“We CAN’T get it all” or
“We’ll NEVER get UU/UE” or
“We’ll NEVER get buy-in from the Regulator”
44