Post on 04-Jan-2016
Oak Ridge Prioritization Project CRESP
David Kosson, Vanderbilt UniversityCharles W. Powers, Vanderbilt UniversityJoanna Burger, Rutgers UniversityJames Clarke, Vanderbilt University Steven L. Krahn, Vanderbilt UniversityMichael Gochfeld, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolHenry Mayer, Rutgers UniversityKevin Brown, Vanderbilt University
04/20/23 1DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Risk
Prio
ritiza
tion
Que
stion
s
3
Hazard
Consequence
Consequence
Hazard
Consequence
Urgency
Pathways
UrgencyUrgency
Hazard
Occupational
Public
Cost
Timeneeded to complete
Urgency
Project Sequencing
Project number
4
3
5
a
Likelihood, vital, importance, priority, significant,
eco
Conceptual RiskModel
The Evolution of Needed Concepts
A32
4
3
3
a
Cost
Timeneeded to complete
Urgency
Project Sequencing
Hazard
Cons
eque
nce
A32
4
2
3
bA21
1
1
3
a
C15
2
1
4
d
E08
3
2
3
c
Project number
Hazard ConsequencesConsequences
Hazard
Urgency
Pathways
UrgencyUrgency
Hazard
Occupational
Public
Cost
Timeneeded to complete
Urgency
Project Sequencing
Project number
4
3
5
a
Likelihood, vital, importance, priority, significant,
ECO
Consequences
Fundamental Risk Evaluation
=
Building a Risk Prioritization Tool and Process
04/20/23 3DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Project Description
1. Project title and ID 2. Point of contact 3. Project location 4. Current state and risk overview (1 paragraph narrative description) 5. Mitigation strategy (1 paragraph narrative description) 6. Mapping/GIS linkage 7. References of supporting documentation
Risk Prioritization Questions
Hazard1
1. What are the primary constituents of concern (e.g., identify specific isotopes and/or chemicals)? 2. What is the approximate quantity present of each of the primary constituents of concern (e.g.,
decade quantification of curies or kg; unknown, 10, 100, 1000, etc)? 3. What is the primary media in which the primary constituents of concern are present? (stored in
durable containers, stored in leaking or vulnerable containers, in building piping and materials, debris in buildings, debris in glove boxes, debris in hot cells, soils, sediments, groundwater, landfill)?
4. What is the approximate quantity of the primary media in which the primary constituents of concern are present? (unknown, cubic meters)
Consequences2
1. Who are the primary people at risk? (in-facility workers, on-site workers, off-site inhabitants) 2. What are the approximate numbers of people in each population indicated above? 3. Are any of the primary people at risk currently being exposed to the primary constituents of
concern? 4. Which environmental resources are currently contaminated above regulatory thresholds as a
direct part of the project? (soil, groundwater, sediment, biota) 5. What are the approximate quantities of the environmental resources currently contaminated?
(cubic meters or acres or waterway kilometers) 6. Which environmental resources are at risk if the project is not complete or other risk mitigation
measures are not taken? (soil, groundwater, sediment, biota, endangered species) 7. What are the approximate quantities of each environmental resource at risk if the project is not
completed or other risk mitigation measures are not taken? (cubic meters or acres)
1 The overall hazard would be a calculated value (order of magnitude) based on the quantity of the primary constituent of concern and the relative toxicity of the constituent; this value may be modified based on the media in which it is contained. 2 The “risk” metric would be determined based on an algorithm (TBD) that integrates results from Hazard, Consequences and Pathways.
Questions asked of every project
Can you standardize/simplify the answers to the Risk Questions?
Pathways
1. What are the primary barriers to human exposure or environmental dispersal of the primary constituents of concern? (engineered containment systems (describe – containers, glove boxes, hot cells, tanks, engineered waste forms, lined landfill), building or process structures, transport through environmental media (soil, vadose zone, groundwater, atmospheric dispersal)
2. What is the integrity of the primary barriers? (failed/leaking, likely to fail within 5 years, likely to fail within 10-20 years, Likely to fail in >20 years; failure indicates loss of containment)
3. What are the secondary barriers to human exposure or environmental dispersal? (describe – containers, glove boxes, hot cells, tanks, engineered waste forms, lined landfill), building or process structures, transport through environmental media (soil, vadose zone, groundwater, atmospheric dispersal)
4. What is the integrity of the secondary barriers? (unknown, failed/leaking, likely to fail within 5 years, likely to fail within 10-20 years, Likely to fail in >20 years; failure indicates loss of containment)
5. What is the estimated time from time of failure of the primary barriers to human exposure? (immediate, <1 year, 1-5 years, 5-10 years, >10 years)
6. What is the estimated time from time of failure of the primary barriers to further environmental degradation? (immediate, <1 year, 1-5 years, 5-10 years, >10 years)
7. What is the estimated rate of increasing amounts of contaminated environmental resources if primary barriers fail? (unknown, <20% per year, 20-50% per year, 50-100% per year, >100% per year)
Project Efficiency
1. What are the programmatic drivers for project completion? (worker safety, mitigate contamination of environmental resources, make land or facilities available for alternate uses, reduction in hotel costs)
2. What is the approximate hotel cost of the project until remediation/mitigation is initiated (e.g., security, maintenance, etc.)?
3. What is the estimated complete project cost and what is the cost basis? 4. What is the estimated complete project time to complete? 5. How will project delay increase execution and completion complexity? 6. How will project delay increase cost? (percent cost increase per 5 years of delay)
Subcomponent Factors for Project Implementation ($10-$50M pieces of overall project) 1. What are the primary project subcomponents? (e.g., characterization, debris removal,
demolition, source removal, remedial design, remediation process construction, monitoring) 2. What are the approximate costs for each of the primary project subcomponents? 3. How much time will be required to complete each of the primary project subcomponents? 4. Which project subcomponents must be carried out sequentially vs. in parallel? (provide work
flow diagram; templates for D&D, SNM, environmental media remediation can be provided) 5. What is the anticipated risk reduction to be achieved by each project subcomponent? [none
(necessary step to enable needed work), provides containment/barrier to further spread of constituents of concern, removes X% of source, etc.]
Capacity, Efficiency and Sequencing to Implement Project?
5
Preliminary Projects for CRESP consideration: Decontamination and Decommissioning:
o K-25, o K-27 o Alpha 4 o Beta 4 o Central Campus Building D&D Preparation
Environmental Media: o Hg flux reduction project activities at Y-12 – for example
WEMA Storm Sewer Outfall 163 Area Hg Flux Control [Appendix C?] 81-10 Principal Threat Source Soil Excavation UEFPC Streambed Flow Augmentation Relocation [non CERCLA I presume]
o Groundwater Contamination at Bethel Valley West BV Final RI/FS
o Groundwater Contamination at Melton Valley MV Off-site Monitoring MV On-site RI Phase I
o Bear Creek Valley Disposal Areas NT-8 Contaminant Flux Control BC Burial Grounds S-3 Ponds Pathways 1-3
Waste Management: o U-233 o TRU Waste o Beta 4 Legacy Material Disposition o MSRE Fuel Salts
+ ETT
P G
WTr
eata
bilit
yS
tudy
VH M H VH VH
H L M H/VH* VH
Consequence M L M M M/H**
L L L L L
L M H VH
Pathway
Oak Ridge Prioritization – Integration of Hazard, Pathway and Consequence ratings
There really are a modest number of real possibilities and they can be linkedto a series of clarifying questions for every OR EM project type
*VH if Hazard=VH**H if Hazard=VH
DRAFT – 11/29/2011 Pathways: VH: Pathway complete – leading to imminent consequences; probable episodic event (tie to safety thresholds for earthquake or tornado, etc.) H: Pathway substantially complete in less than 5 years; plausible episodic event (tie to safety thresholds for earthquake or tornado, etc.) M: Pathway likely to be substantially complete in 5-10 years L: Pathway likely to be substantially complete in > 10 years
Consequences: VH: Injuries to people with voluntary or involuntary risk will occur; damages to endangered species will occur H: Injuries to people with voluntary risk or involuntary risk likely; long-term damages to large quantity of natural resources M: Injuries to people with involuntary risk reasonably possible but not likely; long-term damages to medium quantity of natural resources L: Injuries to people not likely; damages to limited quantity or rapidly recoverable natural resources
Problem / Project Definition(s)
Narrative Project Summary
Very High (VH) M H VH VH
High (H) L M H/VH VH
Medium (M) L M M M/H
Low (L) L L L L
ConsequencePathway
Low(L)
Medium(M)
High(H)
Very High(VH)
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Risk Rating Bins for Problems / Projects
Risk Rating
04/20/23 7DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Risk ReductionEffectiveness =
Sequencing& Efficiency
RiskMgmt
=
8
Risk=
Risk Reduction
Effectiveness
Capacity
Efficiency &Sequencing
Availability
of
•Disposition Options
•Workforce
Wha
t risk
redu
ctio
n
can
be
achi
eved
?
Project Sequencing
Project Cost
Mortgage Reduction
Cost of Delay
Linking Risk Evaluation with Risk Management to Inform Prioritization
04/20/23 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Risk- Rated Problems / Projects
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Multiple Project Option for Risk Mitigation
Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Options
Risk ReductionEffectiveness
Risk Management – Step 1
Risk Management
04/20/23 9DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Risk ReductionEffectiveness
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
CapacityEfficiency(Modifiers +/−)
+⁞−
+⁞−
0+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
-1+⁞−
Risk Management - Step 2
12Risk ReductionEffectiveness =
Sequencing& Efficiency
RiskMgmt
=
Risk Reduction
Effectiveness
capacity
Efficiency &Sequencing
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High(VH)
Risk- Rated Problems / Projects
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High(VH)
Multiple Project Optionfor Risk Mitigation
Evaluation of RiskMitigation Options
Risk ReductionEffectiveness
Risk Management
Risk Management – Step 1
04/20/23 10DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Option: Low Medium High Very High
Option’s Risk Importance Rank
Option’s RiskReduction Rank
Option’s Capacity, Efficiency, &/or Sequencing Implement ability
Risk-Informed Priority Summary
How do you “combine” the results to prepare to make a risk-informed judgment ?
04/20/23 11DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Risk- Rated Problems / Projects
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Sequencing Project ElementsImpedes Risk Mitigation
Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Options
Risk ReductionEffectiveness
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
CapacityEfficiency/Sequencing(Modifiers +/−)
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
Risk ManagementIts complexities
Risk Management Mercury at EFPC
Y-12 D&D (e.g., Beta 4)
81-10 Soils?
Flow Augmentation
Option: Low Medium High Very High
Option’s Risk Importance Rank
Option’s RiskReduction Rank
Option’s Capacity, Efficiency, &/or Sequencing Implement ability
Risk-Informed Priority
Y-12
81-10
Flow
X
Y-12
81-10
Flow
04/20/23 12DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Risk- Rated Problems / Projects
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Project Elementsfor Risk Mitigation
Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Options
Risk ReductionEffectiveness
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
CapacityEfficiency(Modifiers +/−)
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
Tri-Party Prioritization
(DOE-TDEC-EPA)
Exogenous
FactorsRisk and Risk Management
Risk Management
Risk ReductionEffectiveness =
Sequencing& Efficiency
RiskMgmt
=
Risk Reduction
Effectiveness
Capacity
Efficiency &Sequencing
Stakeholders and Tribes04/20/23 13DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Unknown unknowns- e.g., Characterization studies
The concept of set-asides to reduce uncertaintywhen risks may or may not be High but evaluation impossibledue to data gaps / or that the situation may be evolving – and in either case there is a sound “method” or activity
that reduces the uncertainty. How should the tool address these cases?
Mitigation OptionEffectiveness - e.g., treatability studies
04/20/23 14DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Risk- Rated Problems / Projects
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Project Elementsfor Risk Mitigation
Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Options
Risk ReductionEffectiveness
Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
CapacityEfficiency(Modifiers +/−)
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
+⁞−
Tri-Party Prioritization
(DOE-TDEC-EPA)
Exogenous
FactorsRisk and Risk Management
Risk Management
Risk ReductionEffectiveness =
Sequencing& Efficiency
RiskMgmt
=
Risk Reduction
Effectiveness
Capacity
Efficiency &Sequencing
Stakeholders and Tribes04/20/23 15DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
Mercury at Oak Ridge
Redbreast Sunfish
Mercury at Oak Ridge
Mercury at Oak Ridge
Mercury at Oak Ridge
Y-12Buildings
51,000 lbs to air
NPDES
Leaks and spills
428,000 lbs to soil/rocks
East Fork Poplar Creek
240,000 lbsto creek
EPA freshwater criterion of 0.3 ppm in fish
Total Inventory to Oak Ridge = 24,000,000 lbsNot accounted for = 1,300,000 lbsThey account for = 2,034,000 lbs
Mercury at Oak Ridge
HAZARD - MERCURY 600,000+ pounds under & in Y-12
PATHWAY - Complete to eco-receptors top trophic –level fish fish consumers
Complete on & off-site
CONSEQUENCES – Neurological and other
Interdiction ProjectsCapacity & WorkforceSequencing, costs
Total Source ReductionY-12 Building Removals & Soil Remediation
High
Vary by Risk Reduction Effectiveness
$52M
Several Yearsat $1.8B
Project Element CostRisk Reduction Effectiveness
Capacity & Efficiency
Overall Risk Mgmt Rating
WEMA Storm Sewer: cleaning and re-lining of the West End Mercury Area
$16M High +1 Very High
163 Area Hg flux control: Installation of water treatment system
$8M High +1 Very High
81-10 Principal Threat Source Soil Excavation: Exposure unit 9 of the Y-12 facility
$15M Low 0 Low
UEFPC Streambed: excavation, dewatering and disposal of mercury
$10M High +1 Very High
Flow Augmentation Relocation: establish control systems to enable management of the flow volume introduced to UEFPC to minimize transport of sediment bound mercury
$3M Medium +1 High
Mercury at Oak Ridge