risk methodology for fuds - clu-in · environmental and munitions center of expertise (em cx) 20...

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

CSM DEVELOPMENT What we need to know to make decisions…

4

TYPICAL CHARACTERIZATION: FOCUS ON HORIZONTAL DISTRIBUTION

25

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)


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

RAO TOOL

14

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


Occasional Seldom Unlikely Unlikely

•  MECpresenceissuspectedbasedonhistoricalevidenceofmuniHonsuseonly,or

•  AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoremovesurfaceandsubsurfaceMEC(UU/UEnotachieved),or


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)



Land Use Depth

RI 25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Depth(in

ches)



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)




Am

ount

of M

EC

•  MECisvisibleonthesurfaceanddetectedinthesubsurface. Frequent Frequent Likely Occasional

•  InvesHgaHonoftheMRScharacterizedtheareaasaConcentratedMuniHonsUseArea(CMUA)whereMECisknownorsuspected(e.g.,MDindicaHveofMEC)isidenHfied).


•  MECpresencebasedonphysicalevidenceonly(e.g.,MDindicaHveofMEC),althoughtheareaisnotaCMUA,or








•  AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoremovesurfaceandsubsurfaceMEC(UU/UEnotachieved),or





28

SeverityofIncident,Matrix2:

Severityvs.LikelihoodofEncounter


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


D

D

D

D

D

29

MECSensiHvity

Matrix:LikelihoodofDetonaHon

SpecificLandUseSiteAc=vi=es:Rela=veEnergyImpartedtoMuni=onsDuringEncounter

High e.g., areas planned for development



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




Matrix4:DefiningUnacceptableSiteCondiHons

31



A B C D

SensiHvityCategory

from

Matrix3




Matrix4:DefiningUnacceptableSiteCondiHons

32

MECSensiHvity

Matrix:LikelihoodofDetonaHon

SpecificLandUseSiteAc=vi=es:Rela=veEnergyImpartedtoMuni=onsDuringEncounterHigh

e.g., areas planned for development



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



A B C D

SensiHvityCategory

from

Matrix3




AlternaHve1:EducaHonOnly,whereLikelihoodofEncounterwithsomethingCatastrophicis“Frequent”

34

AccessibilityMatrix:

LikelihoodofEncounter

MRSAccessCondi=onsRegular(e.g., daily use, open access)




Amou

ntofM

EC

•  MECisvisibleonthesurfaceanddetectedinthesubsurface.

Frequent Frequent Likely Occasional

•  InvesHgaHonoftheMRScharacterizedtheareaasaConcentratedMuniHonsUseArea(CMUA)whereMECissuspected.


•  InvesHgaHonsupportsMECpresencebasedonphysicalevidenceonly(e.g.,MDindicaHveofMEC),althoughtheareaisnotaCMUA,or








•  AresponseacHonhasbeenconductedtoclearsurfaceandsubsurfaceMEC(UU/UEnotachieved),or





MATRIX 1:

35

MECSeverity


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


D

D

D

D

D

MATRIX 2: 36



A B C D

SensiHvityCategory

from

Matrix3




AlternaHve2:SurfaceClearanceOnly,whereLikelihoodofEncounterwithsomethingCatastrophicis“Frequent”

37



A B C D

SensiHvityCategory

from

Matrix3




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

THANK YOU

[email protected]

45

risk methodology for fuds - clu-in · environmental and munitions center of expertise (em cx) 20...

Documents