oak ridge prioritization project

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

04/21/23 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


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


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


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


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

04/21/23 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


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)

CapacityEfficiency(Modifiers +/−)

+⁞−

+⁞−

0+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

-1+⁞−

Risk Management - Step 2

12Risk ReductionEffectiveness =


RiskMgmt

=

Risk Reduction

Effectiveness

capacity


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High(VH)


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High(VH)

Multiple Project Optionfor Risk Mitigation

Evaluation of RiskMitigation Options


Risk Management

Risk Management – Step 1


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 ?


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)

Sequencing Project ElementsImpedes Risk Mitigation



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


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)

Project Elementsfor Risk Mitigation



Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)


+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

Tri-Party Prioritization

(DOE-TDEC-EPA)

Exogenous

FactorsRisk and Risk Management

Risk Management



RiskMgmt

=

Risk Reduction

Effectiveness

Capacity


Stakeholders and Tribes04/21/23 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


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)


Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)

Project Elementsfor Risk Mitigation



Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

Very High (VH)


+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

+⁞−

Tri-Party Prioritization

(DOE-TDEC-EPA)

Exogenous

FactorsRisk and Risk Management

Risk Management



RiskMgmt

=

Risk Reduction

Effectiveness

Capacity


Stakeholders and Tribes04/21/23 15DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Mercury at Oak Ridge

Redbreast Sunfish


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


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


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


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


oak ridge prioritization project

Documents

draft draft draft draft

draft draft questions

draft draft option

risk questions

risk management step

risk managementrisk

risk prioritization

riskinformed judgment