MEC Hazard Assessment

1. MEC Hazard Assessment Former Kirtland Precision Bombing Range Albuquerque, NM Erin Caruso, P.E.

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Limitations 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

8. MEC Hazard Assessment Tools • 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

9. Agreement Between Methods • 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

10. Areas of Concern • 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

11. OERIA Input Factors • Ordnance Factors (Type, Sensitivity, Density, and Depth) • Site Factors (Access and Stability) • Human Factors (Activity and Population)

12. Pros 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

13. Ordnance Factors • OE Type • OE Sensitivity • OE Density • OE Depth

14. Site Factors • OE Site Access Levels • OE Site Stability Risk Levels

15. Human Factors • Activities OE Contact Probability • Population

16. OE Risk Impact Assessment

17. EE/CA OE Risk Impact Assessment All sites suspected to contain 100 lb practice bombs with spotting charges

18. Benefits 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

19. Choose Applicable Receptors and Proposed Reuse for the Site 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

20. Overall Risk Score of A to E (Lowest Risk to Highest Risk)

21. USEPA’s MEC Hazard Assessment Methodology • 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.

22. Hazard Components 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

23. MEC HA Input Factors and Scores