1. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS MEC Hazard Assessment Former Kirtland Precision Bombing Range Albuquerque, NM Erin Caruso, P.E.

2. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS Simplified Risk Assessment Limitations  Not an absolute value of risk  Risk reduction may not be clearly measured  May not evaluate details of risk variables  Perceived as subjective Benefits Baseline & residual risk Communicate about risks Organize, understand & combine multiple risk variables Will define data necessary to support decisions Quantitative & Qualitative Inputs – Qualitative Output Provide a general (Qualitative) understanding of risk No existing widely accepted, tested and applied methodology

8. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS OERIA Input Factors  Ordnance Factors (Type, Sensitivity, Density, and Depth)  Site Factors (Access and Stability)  Human Factors (Activity and Population)

12. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS OERIA Pros and Cons  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

13. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS Ordnance Factors  OE Type  OE Sensitivity  OE Density  OE Depth

14. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS Site Factors  OE Site Access Levels  OE Site Stability Risk Levels

15. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS Human Factors  Activities OE Contact Probability  Population

16. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS OE Risk Impact Assessment

17. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS EE/CA OE Risk Impact Assessment OOU Overall EvaluationDescription OOU-1ModerateModerate Density, Significant Population OOU-2ModerateHigh Density, Low Population OOU-3ModerateHigh Density, Low Population OOU-4HighHigh Density, Moderate Population (250 lb HE bombs) OOU-5ModerateHigh Density, Moderate Population OOU-6HighModerate Density, Moderate Population, Some Residential OOU-7ModerateLow Density, Moderate Population (intact spotting charge) OOU-8LowLow Density, Low to Moderate Population OOU-9ModerateInsufficient Data, Low Population All sites suspected to contain 100 lb practice bombs with spotting charges

18. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS Fort Ord OE Risk Assessment Protocol  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 Developed by partnering between DoD, State, and Federal Regulators Quantitative & Qualitative Inputs – Qualitative Output Provide a Qualitative understanding of risk

19. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS Fort Ord OE Risk Protocol Steps Determine Accessibility Factor Score Have a UXO-Trained Team Member determine OE Type Score Include Overall OE Risk score and Narrative into Feasibility Study Determine Exposure Factor Score Choose Applicable Receptors and Proposed Reuse for the Site Determine Overall OE Risk Score

20. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS Overall Risk Score of A to E (Lowest Risk to Highest Risk) OE TypeAccessibility Exposure 1. Least Potential for Exposure 2. Not Likely to be Exposed 3. May be Exposed 4. Likely to be Exposed 5. Greatest Potential for Exposure 0. Inert OE 1. Least Potential for AccessibilityAAAAA 2. Not Likely to be AccessibleAAAAA 3. May be AccessibleAAAAA 4. Likely to be AccessibleAAAAA 5. Greatest Potential for AccessibilityAAAAA 1. OE that will cause an injury 1. Least Potential for AccessibilityAAABB 2. Not Likely to be AccessibleABBBB 3. May be AccessibleABBCC 4. Likely to be AccessibleBBCDD 5. Greatest Potential for AccessibilityBCDDD 2. OE that will cause a major injury 1. Least Potential for AccessibilityAABBB 2. Not Likely to be AccessibleABBCC 3. May be AccessibleABCDD 4. Likely to be AccessibleBCDDE 5. Greatest Potential for AccessibilityBCDEE

21. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 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. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS USEPA’s MEC HA Overview 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 Weighting, Scoring, and Combining of Factors

23. INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS MEC HA Input Factors and Scores Explosive Hazard ComponentInput Factor Maximum ScoresWeights Severity Energetic Material Type10010% Location of Additional Human Receptors303% Component total13013% Accessibility Site Accessibility808% Total Contact Hours12012% Amount of MEC18018% Minimum MEC Depth/Maximum Intrusive Depth24024% Migration Potential303% Component total65065% Sensitivity MEC Classification18018% MEC Size404% Component total22022% Total Score1,000100%