Mec hazard assessment
Download
1 / 23

MEC Hazard Assessment - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 217 Views
  • Updated On :

MEC Hazard Assessment . Former Kirtland Precision Bombing Range Albuquerque, NM Erin Caruso, P.E. Purpose. Compare chemical risk and MEC hazard assessment Discuss the current state of MEC hazard assessment and methods previously developed

Related searches for MEC Hazard Assessment

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'MEC Hazard Assessment' - xiang


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Mec hazard assessment l.jpg

MEC Hazard Assessment

Former Kirtland Precision Bombing Range

Albuquerque, NM

Erin Caruso, P.E.


Purpose l.jpg
Purpose

  • Compare chemical risk and MEC hazard assessment

  • Discuss the current state of MEC hazard assessment and methods previously developed

  • Present the hazard assessment previously prepared for OOUs 1 through 9

  • Present the MEC hazard assessment method developed by the Fort Ord project team and the EPA’s MEC Hazard Assessment


Cercla requirements l.jpg
CERCLA Requirements

  • National Contingency Plan

    • Generally requires a Baseline Risk Assessment to help determine if an action is necessary

    • Design of Baseline Risk Assessment appropriate to the needs of the site

    • Focus on baseline risk for current and potential future uses

    • Will help establish acceptable exposure levels for use in the Feasibility Study


Risk assessment for munitions constituents l.jpg
Risk Assessment for Munitions Constituents

  • Quantitative estimation process

  • Looks at long-term chronic risks from exposure

  • Risk range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6

  • Hazard Index Goal of 1.0

  • Cumulative risks evaluated

  • Risk reduction quantified


What s different about mec l.jpg
What’s Different About MEC?

  • Quantitative and qualitative evaluations

  • No threshold for safe exposure

  • No existing MEC hazard assessment methodology has been widely accepted, tested, and fully implemented

  • More emphasis on nature of explosive hazard, less on probability of occurrence (assume probability = 1.0)

  • Discrete events, no cumulative effects

  • Risk reduction approach


Mec hazard assessment similarities to chemical risk assessment l.jpg
MEC Hazard Assessment Similarities to Chemical Risk Assessment

  • Must still answer the basic questions for site management:

    • Presence or absence of hazards

    • Nature of hazards - explosive severity

    • Ordnance accessibility; potential pathways of exposure

    • Likelihood of exposure given site-specific conditions and current and future land use


Simplified risk assessment l.jpg

Limitations Assessment

Not an absolute value of risk

Risk reduction may not be clearly measured

May not evaluate details of risk variables

Perceived as subjective

Simplified Risk Assessment

  • Quantitative & Qualitative Inputs – Qualitative Output

  • Provide a general (Qualitative) understanding of risk

  • No existing widely accepted, tested and applied methodology

  • Benefits

  • Baseline & residual risk

  • Communicate about risks

  • Organize, understand & combine multiple risk variables

  • Will define data necessary to support decisions


Mec hazard assessment tools l.jpg
MEC Hazard Assessment Tools Assessment

  • OE Cost Estimating Risk Tool (OECert) - 1994

  • NAVEODTECHDIV Methodology - 1996

  • Fort Meade Risk Assessment Methodology - 1996

  • Risk Assessment Code – 1999 (original version)

  • Kaho’olawe Hazard Assessment Methodology - 1998

  • Interim Range Rule Risk Methodology (R3M) – 2000

  • Adak Island Explosive Safety Hazard Assessment (ESHA) - 2000

  • OE Risk Impact Analysis (OE RIA) - 2001

  • Fort Ord OE Risk Assessment Protocol - 2002

  • MEC Hazard Assessment Methodology – in progress


Agreement between methods l.jpg
Agreement Between Methods Assessment

  • Combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis

  • Three Important Aspects of Hazard:

    • Human Factors – Activity and Population

    • Site Factors– Access and Stability

    • Ordnance Factors – Type, Sensitivity, Density, Depth


Areas of concern l.jpg
Areas of Concern Assessment

  • Coupling of risk and hazards into one score

  • Calculation and use of MEC density

  • Determination of acceptable risk/hazard

  • Sufficiency of data for no action decision

  • Assuming homogeneous distribution of MEC

  • Errors in software code

  • Quantification of human behavior


Oeria input factors l.jpg
OERIA Input Factors Assessment

  • Ordnance Factors (Type, Sensitivity, Density, and Depth)

  • Site Factors (Access and Stability)

  • Human Factors (Activity and Population)


Oeria pros and cons l.jpg

Pros Assessment

Simple matrix approach

Flexible

Easy to explain

Can compare response actions

Cons

No numbers

Could be perceived as subjective

Scoring relies heavily on best professional judgment

OERIA Pros and Cons


Ordnance factors l.jpg
Ordnance Factors Assessment

  • OE Type

  • OE Sensitivity

  • OE Density

  • OE Depth


Site factors l.jpg
Site Factors Assessment

  • OE Site Access Levels

  • OE Site Stability Risk Levels


Human factors l.jpg
Human Factors Assessment

  • Activities OE Contact Probability

  • Population



Ee ca oe risk impact assessment l.jpg
EE/CA OE Risk Impact Assessment Assessment

All sites suspected to contain 100 lb practice bombs with spotting charges


Fort ord oe risk assessment protocol l.jpg

Benefits Assessment

Baseline & residual risk

Communicate about risks

Organize, understand & combine multiple risk variables

Will define data necessary to support decisions

Limitations

Not an absolute value of risk

Risk reduction may not be clearly measured

May not evaluate details of risk variables

Perceived as subjective

Fort Ord OE Risk Assessment Protocol

  • Developed by partnering between DoD, State, and Federal Regulators

  • Quantitative & Qualitative Inputs – Qualitative Output

  • Provide a Qualitative understanding of risk


Fort ord oe risk protocol steps l.jpg

Choose Applicable Receptors and Proposed Reuse for the Site Assessment

Fort Ord OE Risk Protocol Steps

Determine Overall OE Risk Score

Determine Accessibility Factor Score

Determine Exposure Factor Score

Have a UXO-Trained Team Member determine OE Type Score

Include Overall OE Risk score and Narrative into Feasibility Study


Overall risk l.jpg
Overall Risk Assessment

Score of A to E (Lowest Risk to Highest Risk)


Usepa s mec hazard assessment methodology l.jpg
USEPA’s MEC Hazard Assessment Methodology Assessment

  • Currently in public release draft form (November 2005)

  • Developed by USEPA with assistance from

    • Department of Defense,

    • Department of Interior,

    • Association of State and Tribal Solid Waste Management Officials,

    • Tribal Association for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

  • Major purpose is to assist in the evaluation and selection of remedial and removal alternatives and the evaluation of current and future land use activities at munitions response sites.


Usepa s mec ha overview l.jpg

Hazard Components Assessment

Severity – level of damage or mortality

Accessibility – receptor’s ability to contact MEC item

Sensitivity – receptor’s ability to interact with MEC such that it would detonate

Output Categories

Category 1 – highest potential for explosive incident under current use

Category 2 –potential for explosive incident under current use

Category 3 – lowest potential for explosive incident under current use

Category 4 – lowest potential for explosive incident under current and reasonably anticipated future use

USEPA’s MEC HA Overview

Weighting, Scoring, and Combining of Factors



ad