Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment (MEC HA) Initiative. Joint Services Environmental Management Conference March 23, 2006

Transcription

1 Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment (MEC HA) Initiative Joint Services Environmental Management Conference March 23, 2006

2 Purpose of this Briefing Overview Why a MEC HA? Discuss the participants, progress, and guidance status Discuss what the MEC HA will provide Structure overview Scoring example Discuss next steps and outreach Issues for guidance document

3 Why a MEC HA? CERCLA & NCP require risk assessment Traditional risk assessment methods not applicable to MEC hazards Need for consistent method under CERCLA for MEC response actions Emphasis for EE/CA, RI/FS analysis to support site-specific remedy selection

4 MEC HA Work Group Participants EPA DOD DOI ASTSWMO TASWER

5 Work Group Progress Issue Papers Framework Papers Outreach Plan Pilot Tests Stakeholder Workshop Informational Briefings Draft Guidance

6 Status of MEC HA Guidance Reminder joint effort to develop consistent methodology for assessing MEC explosive hazards to humans Designed to compliment MRSPP efforts Follows CERCLA

7 Status of MEC HA Guidance Qualitative & quantitative inputs Scoring Range of Qualitative outputs four categories

8 Status of MEC HA Guidance Preliminary draft out for review to: DoD EPA States Federal land managers Tribes Stakeholder group NAOC

9 Status of MEC HA Guidance 60 Day Review period: January 17 to March Seeking feedback on how to improve the document

10 MEC HA Does Promote consistency Helps to focus resources Promote communication through transparency Support evaluation of removal and remedial alternatives Support CERCLA process Give credit for taking action

11 MEC HA Does Not. Determine How clean is clean? Set Data Quality Objectives Make the cleanup decision

12 MEC HA Structure Includes scoring, weighting, and combining input factors Will use a relative numeric approach, similar to the approach used in the EHE module of the MRSPP The organization of the structure will follow the severity, accessibility and sensitivity components.

13 MEC HA Structure The functional relationships addressed in the MEC HA are: Severity: The potential severity of the result should an MEC item function. Accessibility: The likelihood that a receptor will be able to interact with an MEC item. Sensitivity: The likelihood that an MEC item will function should a receptor interact with it.

14 MEC HA Structure Severity: Input Factors Filler Type Distance to Additional Receptors Proximity of Critical Infrastructure Proximity of Cultural Resources Proximity of Ecological Resources

15 MEC HA Structure Accessibility: Input Factors Site Accessibility Potential Contact Hours Amount of MEC MEC Depth Relative to Intrusive Depth Migration Potential

16 MEC HA Structure Sensitivity: Input Factors MEC Category MEC Size

17 MEC HA Outputs The Output Categories for the MEC HA are based on relative numeric scores Score Range is from 125 to 1000 Score Range is broad enough to differentiate between hazard categories Uses a different range than the MRSPP

18 MEC HA Outputs The Output Categories Scores for the MEC HA are: Category 1: Category 2: Category 3: Category 4:

19 MEC HA Outputs The Output Categories for the MEC HA are: Category 1: Sites with the highest hazard potential under current use conditions. Category 2: Sites with a hazard potential under current use conditions. Category 3: Sites compatible with current uses, not with more intrusive future uses. Category 4: Sites compatible with current or future uses.

20 Scoring Example: 2.36 Rocket Impact Area Input Factor Type of Filler Distance between additional receptors and explosive hazard Site Accessibility Potential Contact Hours Amount of MEC Minimum MEC Depth/ Maximum Intrusive Depth Migration Potential MEC Category MEC Size Total Scores Current Conditions Input Factor Category High Explosive Outside of the hazardous distance Full accessibility Few Hours Target area MEC located on surface Unlikely UXO, Special Case Small Output Category Score

21 Remedial Alternatives for Scoring Example Impact Area No Action Land Use Activity Change Surface Treatment Surface Treatment and Land Use Activity Change Subsurface Treatment

22 Remedial Alternatives Outputs for 2.36 Rocket Impact Area No Action Category 1 Land Use Activity Change Category 2 Surface Treatment Category 2 Surface Treatment and Land Use Activity Change Category 3 Subsurface Treatment Category 4

23 No Action Activity Change Surface Surface & Activity Change Subsurface MEC HA Scores

24 Outreach Plan The Outreach Plan includes: Munitions Response Committee involvement Pilot Tests Opportunities for Stakeholder involvement. Schedule for informational briefings. Use of outlets such as websites, fact sheets, and mailing lists.

25 Next Steps Preliminary draft review Jan 17 to March 17, 2006 Public Review in May 2006 Final Guidance Fall 2006 Implementation and Training

26 Issues for Guidance Document Emphasis on collaborative decisionmaking Clear instructions on use of MEC HA needed Sufficiency & quality of data Documentation of scoring & weighting Activity (intrusiveness) has greater emphasis than land use category

27 Issues for Guidance Document Should Construction Support be included in MEC HA scoring? Scores are relative Greater scoring reduction for clearance than for activity or access changes Output category descriptions qualitative Use of MEC HA to support NOFA

28 Questions? Kevin Oates