CC will start at the 1:48:53 mark
We are coming back to our scheduled start time.
I wanted to let the audience know we have a quick we dropped in the
bottom left corner of your screen asking your direct
experience level with rmm, if you haven't sent in the response, feel
free to click on the circle to the left of the answer that most closely
aligns with your direct experience level with
rmm. It will pep our presentersed in the skill set of our audience
joining today. Since we reached the scheduled time to resume the
broadcasts I want to check with Jeff to see if he is
on the line and ready to get started.
>> I'm back on the line. I got kicked off again. I'm going to work on
this real quick. We have audio so we
can proceed on.
>> It looks like half of our audience has
direct experience. [Captioners transitioning]
>> I will call up the next arrangements in the webinar
and introduce your next speaker when you are ready.
>>> Hi, folks. Our next presenter is going to be
Victoria from a com. I'm sorry, I'm having technical
difficulties and can bring up in about a
split second here.
I'm back up. We have our
next presentation,
sf application. Victoria.
>> Good afternoon. I'm Victoria Kantsios. I have
been with ae com for 17 years working as senior project manager/program
manager in the Arlington, Virginia office. I am going to talk
about how we use the rmm on a project site for
both the remedial n investigation and the feasibility study. I'm the
presentation that everybody referenced earlier today about how to do this.
How to use the tools for a feasibility study.
The project site is a army national
guard nonoperational defense site located in the state of
Wyoming, it's north of Guernsey and plat and the
site is bisected by an interstate highway. The figures are a little
small.
I don't think my cursor is working. Here is
the interstate highway. State highway 270. bisects
the site. The mrs was 8000-acre. It's primarily used for
ranching and grazing. There is another mrs this the middle of
this mrs, that's 372 acres, the northeast
training area, excluded from this project site.
We used, we did the traditional approach on
this site. Using v S&P to design
our site characterization, collecting d GM and analog data.
The site is relatively flat, there are out croppings with elevation
that required us to use analog. We excluded,
like I mentioned before, we
excluded the northeast training area, we
also excluded areas which are, it's hard to see in the graphics,
there are houses because most of this is private land, there
are residences and other populated areas. We excluded those.
Those were noted here as well as major utility alliance running
through the project site. We excluded those areas in order
to minimize the interference to
the em61. After we collected
the analog data, we placed our grids using the
estimator within v S&P to dig anomalys to determine
nature and extent of the site. We
had 20 grids, 24 analog grids, feed irons in each
grid and extracted or excavated 100% of the anomalies
in each of the grids to determine the nature and extent.
We dug 469 anomalies. We
did not encounter uxo on the site but did previous studies
on this particular site did encounter uxo. As you can
see, all of the missions related debris that we
found were isolated in this little ice cream cone that you
can see right in here.
Because the decision was made to use the
risk method methodology midway through the field work, we had to look at
the vertical c FM to determine, to help facilitate the development
of our rao going forward and feasibility study. One of the
things we had to do because the decision had been made to use the
risk management methodology As part of the process, we
had to chase the plume, I think I talked about this
as one of our challenges. We found evidence of munitions use
further east than we anticipated. We had delineated
and it's difficult to see on the
slide, we thought the the end of target area was to the west of these
little stars that you see on the line. Because
we kept finding munitions debris as we kept digging our grids,
we had to chase the plume to help facilitate and ensure we
had enough data to take forward
to the tdt and stakeholders, specifically the
private landowners to let them know what we were finding on
their project site.
So we used the risk management methodology on
the ri and we only scored the high use area.
As you can see from this
map most of the -- this map in particular, most of
the site was denine other than in this little ice cream cone right
here. This area is the focus of the risk
management methodology. We determined there was no risk because we found
no evidence of munitions debris in this green
area.
The risk management outputs that we scored
with the ri, matrix 1. the likelihood
of encounter. Pdt agreed that
it was occasional in the often category because we
actually had found, I think I mentioned earlier,
the mdm indicative of mic drove that decision. In our
case, in this particular site in that concentration was below the
threshold we set
for v S&P. Because we found such all of our digs in the high
density area were munitions related debris, we scored the site for likelihood
of encounter to be occasional and often
because this is private land and there were still regular access
to the property.
Matrix 2. the likelihood of encounter for
the severity was catastrophic. Occasional because
it was limited access to that particular site. For
the likelihood of that nation, it was moderate or it was high because
we had found previous, we had previous -- previous
studies found uxo on the site. We saw a number
of fuses on the site there have our conclusions for
this particular high use area was unacceptable.
As I mentioned earlier, this shaded area
is the low use area, we found no area of
munitions use. The high use area right here was
deemed unacceptable risk. The conclusions of the ri was to
create two mrs', one reducing the number of
acres from the 88.000. to 969. the red area and
then we have a new mrs for the 7300-acres.
With the recommendation of no further action. Moving forward
to the feasibility study, we analyzed
969 acres, four are landowners, three are private
and bureau of land management. 93% belongs to the private
land owners. They use their land for residential and agriculture
purposes to include livestock grazing. Our remedial
action objective was to reduce the unacceptable risk due to the preps
of our -- specifically 76-millimeter, 81-millimeter.
Projectiles from the surface and sub surface.
If you remember republican the vertical csm, we had found items
to be approximately a foot below ground surface. We looked
at four alternatives. One being
no action. One being specifically land use control and
construction support. Alternative 3. surface removal, altern
4 surface and sub surface removal with the goal
of achieving new unlimited use unlimited exposure.
The private landowners could do what they needed to do
on their land without any limitations.
When we went through the
alternative screening process, we had to consider landowners being
able to use their land as in tended. The documentation
that accompanys the
risk management matrixes -- alternative to help move your
cursor to the right and help you get to that acceptable risk.
The implementation of land use control on private land doesn't
change the likelihood of encounters.
The only way to really make that change and make that move to the
right is to physically remove the explosive hazards. I use the
example when I give the preppation, when you have shiny
objects on the surface,
remove the shiny objects, that helps remove the likelihood of encounter
and force you in to a more acceptable situation.
In the feasibility study for matrix one, we look at the four alternatives,
they are highlighted in different colors. The red is
no change. Doing absolutely nothing on the site which matches what was
found in the remedial investigation.
Alternative 2. was to implement strictly land use controls
and construction support. Again, because you are not doing a
physical removal of the hazards on the site, the likelihood of
encounter remains exactly the same.
By removing that shiny objects on the surface, you are minimizing
the risk and so then you move to the seldom. By
doing surface and sub surface you eliminate the risk and go to unlikely
and you are green.
Looking at matrix 2. 2. 3. 4. there is a similar mind set behind
each of them.
For the severity, of this particular mrs,
doing nothing or implementing land use control with construction support,
this is pretty much no change because you are
not removing any of the hazards from the site. Therefore
you are the likelihood of exposure is occasional
and by removing the surface, you move to -- surface
and sub surface, you go to unlikely.
The likelihood of destination for the same logic kind, object
applys, you have a high likelihood if you don't remove the
explosive hazards and then you have consequential likelihood
if you remove it. When you come down to looking
at the summary in matrix 4. alternative to 1 and 2.
retain unacceptable risk, alternatives 3 and 4 give you an acceptable risk.
These are noted by the colors red, orange, yellow and green.
Do you think the risk management methodology
during the ri -- this allows you to
be used whether a fuds trial but the army national guard wanted
to try this out and so we did. It worked. It worked just fine.
The decision to make to use the risk management methodology
after the field work made things a little more difficult we needed
to ensure we collected enough data to support the r mm scoring. We
had to adjust dqqs a little bit but didn't affect our schedule or
budget as well. It was great. It was fine. We did need
to chase the plume to delineate that high
use boundary to answer the extent question. That additional data helps
support the risk management methodology results and it was really easy to
communicate to the stakeholders because being able to walk through
the matrixes and supporting documentation that
we used to ri, it was telling a story
and everybody could follow the story and even meeting with the landowners
and the town there, everybody could follow what we had done and
the decisions that drew us to the conclusion with the risk levels
in the end. One of the difficulties we did have using it
was trying to score the mrs that is as large, this was
an 8000-acre site and non homogeneous. Had we not
been able to breakdown, had we not had clear lines of delineation
between no evidence of munitions use and high evidence of munitions
use, if you have the tweener areas, it would have been more difficult
because trying to break an mrs in to three
pieces versus 2 -- may not have been as easy.
>> Then, should the mrs be defined
based on the risk management
results, going through and evaluating
risk, should that drive -- should the risk outputs drive
what moves forward -- -- we
ended up costing all four
alternatives and writing descriptions
for each of them. Since two
of them retained their
unacceptable risk and really should
have focused on the two. I think as this matures, I think there could
be a move to go that direction if your pdps like it. We
weren't that lucky.
Understanding the land use --
Your connection is now in listen only mode.
>> Willingness to participate in the final study and allow us to
share with you the results of our project today.
>> Jeff, I think that's it.
>> We got questions for you.
First question, why was the access limited to the site? Just because
it was private property?
>> Yes. That was the decision from the tdt.
>> Okay, next question.
How many of the targets were md and why was
access considered limited?
>> How many of the targets were md?
All of them.
>> I'm sorry. That's right. I'm sorry, go
ahead.
>> Everything we dug, everything we dug was
eventually deemed md or mpph
and it was all munitions related debris, everything that we dug.
Yes, because it's private land and because it's the
wild, wild west, you can't really trespass on private land.
You are putting your life at risk out there. That's why
we deemed the access to be limited.
>> Okay.
Next question, alternative 3. sub surface
clearance produced acceptable risk initially, how long will the risk
be acceptable based on soil erosion, et cetera.
>> That's something we are waiting to talk to
everybody about at the next meeting.
That's the $10 million
question. We haven't really -- well, we haven't discussed which alternative
we want to take forward for the proposed plan. That type
of discussion needs to be had before app alternative
is selected.
>> Okay. Looks like one more.
>> I just, I mean,
it's just understanding your project site location and
understanding what can happen with the freeze thaw
cycle and the land heating, understanding that munitions can be uncovered
on an annual basis,
it makes it difficult to, you are still removing and going forward
and removing that knowing that the shiny object could reappear later
in a different location. That's part of the whole process is
having the landowner understand their, the
training occurred on their land.
Now I will be quiet.
>> One more question. To use r mm and fs, do
you need to making a cementable conditions matrix going back to
reos that were shown in slide number 8. this case study for applying
in the fs did not show that part.
>> I don't remember Kari Meier's slide number
8. Do you remember slide number 8?
>> Kari Meier is there but maybe muted out.
>> I was. What was the question, I'm sorry.
>> Let me reread the question. To use rmm in the fs, do you
need to make the acceptable conditions
matrix reos shown in carry's slide number 8.
>> So that
slide showed the -- the table that had the d2s and the d3s
that were acceptable conditions that could be achievable through
feasibility study alternatives and Victoria's slide
did show that, she used the red,
orange, yellow green color coding to show those conditions and where
they ended up on that acceptable,
that final 4 matrix 4. Yes, it was just a different
way in showing that potential, ultimately the screening
using the matrixs is a way of evaluating overall protectiveness.
This is a guide, it is a tool in the pocket for the pa temperatures
not in it happenedded to make the decision for you but it is in tended
to help the project team rationize and show
the decision logic for whether or not a particular action is safe.
I'm hoping that helps.
>> All right. We need to move onto the
next presentation. Our next presentation is using the
rmm growth and differences from previous tools. James Salisbury
from parsons. Are you on the line?
>> I am. Okay. Assume you can hear me okay. My name is James Salisbury.
I have worked for parsons for longer than I like to say
out loud. I have been involved in munitions response for
25 years. That's included since met cars, I have been involved in
work on risk assessments using the rmm. With that said, we will move
on with the slides. The presentation I'm going give is a little bit of
a change from the others in that I'm not presenting a case study
per se. I'm going to be talking about the
similarities and the differences between rmm and met
car which I'm assuming a number of people on
the car will have familiarity with.
I'm going to be covering an overview just to maybe
bring us up top speed on that. Then be covering the similarities and
differences between the two methods and the last thingly do is going
to be like a case study but completely made up. An example that
uses both of the methods to go through the process, side-by-side,
mainly to do that, to highlight some
of those similarities and differences between the two ways
of evaluating this.
The methodology was developed -- recommended for
a two year trial period by the department of the army in January of 2009.
That 2-year trial period went on a bit
of a bit
like the Gilligans tour that it went on for 8 years or so.
It was primarily for
design to port remedy selection in
the fs or -- it considers the
severity accessibility and sensitivity and it generates
as an output, a met car score and a level. It also
comes with a handy excel work book that allows you to
basically put your various inputs in and score
your baseline and remedial alternatives that you score. You can see a copy
of one of the pages of the excel work book here on the
slide.
You can see the slide. There it is, right
there, thank you. The second slide covers the different parts. You
can see it's broke down in to three major parts. One dealing
with severity and another dealing with the accessibility
and then the last dealing with
the sensitivity that might be present at the site. Each one of those components
I'm not going to go through them one by one. Each one of
the components depending on the inputs, generate
a score, you can see the ranges of those scores there for
each of those components and that goes down in to the total on
the score at the bottom which will come out to
12 5-1000 then the hazard level associated with those scores is
ranged from 1 to 4. The one thingly draw your attention to is this one
here, let me grab the pointer, I call that the interaction
zone because what it is called in met car is minimum relative to
maximum receptor, intrusive, which is a mouthful and hard to fit in
the box on that table. I will be referring to
it. It's basically interactions seems to describe it pretty well
to me. That's what I will be referring to it as moving forward when we
talk, when we talk about that. The scores you
get a prepreclean up score and post clean up scores for
the different remedial alternatives and allows you to compare the
scores to support the fs and ditch remedial alternatives they
will change those scores. Despite having scores, this is important,
because I think some people forget
this. It's still qualitative method just because
it has a score doesn't mean
it is a quantitative method. They are dependant on the team and what
the team thinks. It does not
allow quantitative comparison between sites and doesn't answer the question
how clean is clean. The guidance is clear on this. For
example, low met car score, has a level of 4. doesn't mean you
have an acceptable risk at the site. That's an important thing
to bare in mind. It's somewhat hard to mod it will effect of
non structural loops. The site accessibility can be changed
by a structural loop such as a fence.
It can be hard to model the affect of things such
as public education and such like the best way to do that is by playing
around with the potential contact, again, it doesn't
necessarily make it easy to do that.
Now I will go over some general comparison
between the two. Between met car and risk
management method. As they are
both qualitative methods. Although as
we said before, generate a score, rmm does not. They both
provide a framework for substitution and concurrence
among the project team. I would say they both require discussion
and concurrence for the team. You basically want to make sure eastbound
on the team will including stakeholders aclued with the various
in puts that you put in to this.
The team has to use ate as a frame who if reaching
a group cop conclusion about
a site. Historic use only. Basically the way you generate
the amount of -- look at the former use of the site. For
example former target area scored one way. For
rmm, the amount of of in put factor based on historic information and
on the results of the ri. You can link your results
from the ri as in we did x many acres and dug up
these thingses you can link that to the amount of mic
in put factor.
Est in put factors are relatively clearly defined
but open to some interpretation but relatively clearly defined.
It's not a huge amount of advanced discussion needna Eded
about trying to who out what the different factors mean p
Maybe this is my personal opinion. That's what I
would say. For rmm, I would say in put factors are
less clearly defined. More subject to the team
working out are we medium or high and various you
have seen the vase inputs. Advanced discussion for a number of them
especially the amount of mic input is important to
have that discussion before you do the ri and write that
in to the data
quality objectives. The next is it doesn't link to
the rio, rmm does link directly to the raos as we seen in maybe
one of the previous sets of slides you may
reaches you could set an rao up to accept
acceptable risk conditions.
Hazard level of 4 doesn't mean that the site is clean or that you've
got rid of the risk. Finally, this is somewhat
linked to that, it doesn't express a threshold for action or how clean
is clean, rmm it does establish a threshold for action. I should
say it establishes threshold for action.
It's not something that just spits out an answer. You have to discuss
and agree on the inputs. It allows you to reach that cop conclusion
or whether or not you have an acceptable or unacceptable risk.
This is another way of taking a look at it, to look at
the process flow. Recaps some of the things
I said. You used because of what I said before, the
risk management method that would be part of
the development process moreso than met car, you gather your data for
the site and develop a baseline met car or risk
assessment using rmm, then you might develop your raos. Net
car doesn't allow you or not be suitable
for generating raos. Then, next, you could do your fs
alternatives comparison.
Victoria touched on this in her slides before
this. It is more really what you are doing in the
fs with rmm, if you are doing an alternative screening. That
would be a difference there. I don't think anybody talked about this,
probably because I don't think many projects reached this state yet
but possible to use rmm to do a
post remediation data assessment and it's not really
possible to do that with met car.
This slide look as mess but what I tried to do was
put the summary of met car here and then link it up. You could
see which of the input factors linked to which of the inputs for rmm.
There are a few gaps on both. There are things that don't
really go between the two. Or that aren't matched
between the two. The next couple of slides will
be focusing in on matrix 1 through 4 and drawing the parallel as little
bit more. The big one is down here, met car score is not
equivalent to the output for matrix 4. they are not the same thing.
If there is nothing else you take away from the slides, that would
be the most important thing. We go on to likelihood of
encounter first. There are similarities, what rmm
does, it combines two of these factors.
Accessibility and impact contact hours in met car. These are
combined under rmm, that can cause a little bit of confusion in what
we are asking, ow the access conditions and how often the people
there and boiling that down in to one answer. Some of the previous
presenters may have touched on that.
There is no clear -- the amount of mics we did
talk about the amount from met car is based
on historic use.
There are no clear equivalence to the interaction zone or migration
potential factors that are presented in met car.
The next we will look at the severity,
energy material type corresponds directly with the severity
associated with specific munitions items here. The like whether
Ihood of encounter, that came from the previous
matrix. There is no parallel or we dealt with that one. There is
no real equivalent for relocation of human
receptors. What this is asking if someone interacts with a mic item,
are there places nearby where other people might be present
to maybe in advertently caught in the blast radius. There
is no equivalent to that in rmm.
Then the next one is likelihood of detonation.
We have direct comparison between that classification
and the suspectability to detonation in rmm.
Next slides, a generally related to how easy it is to pick items
up. There is no direct equivalent to that. I don't
think there is a direct equivalent to the likelihood to impart energy
on the item that could be the interaction zone we discussed, that
doesn't consider the amount of energy, I guess and how the difference
between somebody sticking a stake in the ground and somebody plowing
an area.
There is no clear equivalent there.
Last but certainly not least, we have the output, the score and
hazard level. It's the single biggest
difference between the two methods. Rmm
establishes threshold for action.
Also as we said, for that
reason, the rmm allows you to determine an adequate rao
for the site. The language is longer than the same things
I have here. Rao to implement remedial
actions to achieve acceptable site conditions based on the output
of the rmm evaluation.
The score does show, can show reduction in the score but that doesn't mean
that you will necessarily achieving acceptable
conditions at the site. It's useful for comparing
alternatives in the fs.
The quote unquote case study portion of this, what I figured I
would do to show the differences or under line the differences between
the two, I thought it would be useful to look
at a hypothetical site that was on the edge maybe between acceptable
and unacceptable risk conditions.
I tried to pick something that might fall in that gap and then
see how it would work its way through both met
car and rmm. This is hypothetical. In a
way it's a little bit unfair, since the met car score doesn't
mean that you've achieved acceptable risk conditions, really
doing this is you would not typically do this
for a job but again, sit it is a
way to show where the differences occur. The background of this
made up site is a former maneuver training area, intermittent
use, current park land which is accessible to the public, flairs
and training munitions with spotting charges and very small
amounts of md found but -- historically we found
a couple of unexpended flairs. To look at
how these might be scored, we got the met car and rmm.
We would have open park land, no access restrictions, that would
be full accessibility. The park expects thousands uses a week
and make assumptions on hours for that, that would form in a few hours
range. The area was previously used as a --
maneuver area. The interaction zone would be we found md on
the surface and the sub surface.
Surface and sub surface which gets the maximum score
of 240. Erosion and frost is possible, that would get a score of 30.
For the rmm, we would say, based on the land use we
called that often and then the amount of mic we would maybe, again,
obviously discussed by the team, we would pitch that around
the 4th row of the table. That would get us an output of seldom.
For the next part, we say the potential items found
at the site include
flairs and training munitions. Spotting
charges are lower on the score. The highest one would
be the pyrotechnics which would be the flairs and they score 60.
human receptors, yes there are picnic areas and pavilions located in the
park, they are in the -- that would score a 30.
For the rmm, we would say we would take seldom from the previous
and then we would be, because of the flairs and I realize we
all discussed previously about the variance in terms of how you choose
the best row on the table, because of the items we think might
be present we would say potentially the second row on the table which
is modest, that would give us an output of c.
The likely head of
detonation, we have the net classification,
uxo, mic size small. Pyrotechnics and flairs or
flairs found considered uxo.
The small size allows basically allows people to
come up easily, same thing with the spotting charges. You would
choose smallful small. Risk management
method, likelihood to impart energy on the item. Modest and then
again we got moderate, he
or pyrotechnics. We got output of 2.
Then when we put that all together, we have various outputs
here and they would tote up to 745. a
level of 2. Then with the rmm, output we had a
c and a 2. which puts us at
acceptable risk. Rmm output indicating a possible acceptable risk. A
high hazard level. We ask why that might
be. Hazard level from the met car does not relate to the
actual risk or in terms of whether or not
the risk is accessible or not. This is the kind of thing that
might be a challenge to talk to people
about that maybe more familiar with met car if they want you to run
both and so, let's see, that could, the reason for this high
score, it could be because the amount of
mic is overestimated. Ro results would lied
lead us to running a more accurate assessment opposed
to picking a standard number. Maybe because
of the other input numbers are in flexible.
That would be the purpose of that was just to highlight some of the
differences between these two, these two methods.
Both the rmm and met car provide a frame work for
discussion for the rmm, I think the biggest difference is rmm provide
a threshold for action. It's useful for sites where nfa might
be something that all of the stakeholders would accept
because it supports the discussion of reaching that conclusion.
I think potentially reflects the impacts, loops many
r than met car does. You can't compare fs
alternatives with each other except in the initial screening where you
would be saying are they protective or not. With met car,
it's better for fs alternatives comparison than rmm.
I think that's it unless we have questions.
>> I appreciate it. That's a great presentation. I would like to say
folks, we had a record breaking attendance today. It's
been higher than the past two years.
Thank you very much for attending.
This question goes to all presenters.
What would be the primary drivers that would
make rmm more expensive or time consuming than previous
methods? This goes to any of the presenters.
>> I will go first.
Because I'm sure people are not sick of hearing my voice yet. I
think for the ri, I don't think there would be
any significant cost difference.
I would say based on my limited experience so far, I would think
there is the potential for it to be a little bit
more time consuming.
It makes it easier to have the met car spread sheet. You have
the inputs and you put in your assumptions.
Victoria's presentation showed, I think, there is maybe a
little bit more analysis and discussion that goes in to evaluating
the remedial alternatives in evaluating rmm and
fs.
>> This is Victoria.
I think it's a little bit more time consuming in the fs. I
will let you know after the next meeting next month.
I still think it's a little bit easier and tells
a better story but I had a fairly benign site to use
it on as well. The cost implications,
none in the ri. It's easier to use in the ri. Maybe a little bit more
in the fs.
Nothing of significance to report yet.
>> This is Ron,
Jeff. If you were applying the meca over the past
few years at an installation and pdt members had
gotten accustomed to it and kind of knew it and the you bring in
the rmm for a more recent project, there is a learning
curve there. It may take little more effort or resources to bring
the team up to speed and get them comfortable
that the rmm will give reasonable results as
maybe the meca did or didn't. It's
a matter of familiarity and make take a little effort at the transition.
>> Okay. We need to press on. If you have
further questions for any of the instructors, present them.
Put the presenters names so we know who to address it to
in your questions. I'm going to turn it over to Kari Meier for the
summary and answer any remaining questions that you have. I will
turn this over to Kari Meier.
>> I'm looking at John's line because mine
haven't switched over yet.
>> My slides aren't showing up.
>> They are live for the rest of the attenDees. I pulled
up the summary slide.
>> Now it's working. Okay.
In summary, this group has been working together
probably the last 5 or 6 months comparing notes and experiences
using the rmm tool on their projects and these 5 case
studies were selected for presentation, we got a lot of other
information and data that we pulled together as well. I wanted to
go through the collective -- it's asking
me to recover my web page, jean. The positives
we have collected from the experiences, the number one
factors it promotes discussion.
All of these teams have been able to follow the story
and that decision logic clearly and communicate
it. The regulators have been involved and able to follow along and contribute
to that communication that decision logic. On the front end
when you are in tending to use this tool at the end of your
remedial investigation, it's helping project teams understand what types
of data and how much data they need to make the decisions. We had a
couple of the presentations today that went back and tried
to retrofit the data and admittedly for the cases where there
was an obvious hazard present it made it easier to fall in the
that decision logic because there was
clearly unacceptable risk. The borderline, the gray area
you are not sure, we are encouraging that decision and discussion to
help project teams be conservative and understanding and supporting
that decision logic. We are pushing forward and promoting
data quality objectives and quality control processes and qa
processes that help establish those amount of mic and the types ofceps
at this times and severities that are present on the sites to
help make the decisions.
Er we roo using this -- we are using this
as a standard process and come to the same cop conclusions within
different project team members.
We are using more clearly the amount and
the results from the remedial investigation data and that's a
positive. Previously decisions were made on the type of sites or understanding
that the site used to be used for or may have been used
for and this tool allows the real data from the remedial investigation
to be used.
That discussion helps project teams differentiate between
acceptable and non acceptable end state for that site and by doing
so and being able to defind that boundary of what is acceptable and
unacceptable b the teams are falling in to a deafation of what
a remedial objective will be.
All of the teams that have shown their work today, reported
minimal to no delta in their cost. Of course moving
forward the app dissipation is because there is more discussion
and more decision logic presented in their stories that discussion
of course it documenting the discussions and that decision logic may increase
the cost this the feasibility study.
We will see. The big thing is that we don't move
in to a decision logic for a site expecting
that we will never get an acceptable risk or never get to
an nfa. It force as project team to leave the option of no further
action on the table and it also encourages the justification for
that selection.
The challenges that we have come to with all of
these collected data, terminology, testimonynology
like what constitutes indicative of mic,
what constitutes differentiating between certain selection factors
and the amount of mic, we in tend to present a
little more clearly and upcoming changes or modifications and guidance
we are planning within the next year. The tool has been extended
for the trial period extended for another year. We will be addressing
some of these concerns.
Consistency by that guidance
would address standardization. There is a lot of
discussion back and forth between different team members
or each between different teams.
We want to provide some guidance to how the selection factors are
made. We recognize that one benefit of this tool is the flexibility
in allowing project teams to really discuss and justify their
selections, while providing guidance and structures we want to allow
thats inability and discussion for site specific considerations.
We want to be able to talk about how projects, Victoria may have
brought this up with larger site ves us how you are focusing and
emphasizing areasel we want to talk about how delineation may play this
to how projects move forward. We can provide guidance
to that as well.
The cop sis tensey with the type and amount of selection factors
in the bullets, we will try to modify those definitions
to be able to be a little more clear in the future. Ultimately we
want to provide guidance on how different remedial
alternatives may claim success for action in the feasibility study.
One question that comes up often is how are
lands use controls considered. I talked to several state regulators
about this as well. One thing we want to make sure that when
you are presenting those feasible alternatives, you are clearly
identifying what, you can't blanketly say land use control. What types
of controls are being in place, what factor within
the risk matrix are being affected by that particular action. If
it's education awareness, what is that doing, preventing imparting
of energy on an item or preventing access? There is
a discussion and a longic that has to
occur for those different claims of success to be successfully recorded.
That is to come. Guidance to be developed
and we are looking for any other experiences. If you would
like to chat with us or share your experience, we are definitely here
for any of that.
>> We have extended mandatory use for feds project. It is still voluntary
use for other programs. We had ore programs that were willing to present
their experiences today and we encourage that for the future. We will be
working to develop that guidance and address those challenges. If
you have other challenges, please contact us. We
will be happy to work with you.
I'm going open it up for questions.
>> We have a few questions. We have a few minutes. The first question,
does the risk management method include descriptions, examples on
how or why we categorize the various
munition items sensitivity and severity for
consistency. It is obvious what happened when an --
item detonates, same -- the middle categories, moderate
low and modest, minor aren't very clear and can be subjective.
>> I think that is certainly
consistent with other questions we have gotten within project teams.
We plan on helping project teams with structure to that
decision logic. We do want to, while providing that flame work,
we don't want to prevent the discussion.
>> Okay.
Next question, can terms regular, often,
occasional, seldom, unlikely, be quantified. Is regular used once
year for 10 years or 10 times for one year.
>> That's a question that gets asked a lot.
One of our
risk assessors asked that very question. It was
ultimately those words came out of an army regulation for risk management.
We decided to stick with that. It's intend today be
a gradient. We want to have the highest and lowest. We don't have
a current standard for making it numeric. That's not intended.
I have seen project teams develop their decision logic
numerically for how often, how many hours of access and frequency of
use. It is something that gets asked and
we will look at it as we are developing the guidance. There
are factors we may
consider as factors to that input component.
>> Are there plans in place to make some type of automated work book
for the rmm?
>> No. Not currently. That is a great question.
The seed is planted.
We can think about that for sure.
>> Next question, the case studies present focused
on physical U.S. l et cetera, were risk needed
for residual nitroglycerin or
lead, residual chemicals of concern drive risk evaluations.
>> Yeah. The chemical components are assessed with a
chemical risk assessment. This tool is only intended for explosive
hazards. It does not address the chemical components.
>> How do the new definitions
impact this rmm. Mb indicative of mic, how we know this
early in the process before field operations.
>> One more time.
>> How do the new definitions of mic, mpph impact
this rmm. Md and indicative of mic, how do we know this early
before field operations.
>> I guess I'm confused on the last part. How would we know
this early before field operations?
>> Maybe they are
talking about during
si.
>> Once we identified if
an item is considered munitions debris -- I'm
going to back up, we use multiple lines of evidence to conclude whether
or not there is evidence of an explosive hazard on the property. There is
a difference between having a has hard, explosive hazard and the
understanding of the risk of an incident to occur. Once we
identified a hazard present, it has to go through that process
of encounter and incident in order to be equated to a risk.
The munitions
debris itself may result in conclusion there is evidence of an
explosive hazard. Even though it is considered md or follows
through that mppeh process to become -- that
is a separate process but the md itself if it
represents an explosive
component being presents on a site, that would be evidence there
is an explosive hazard present. On the flipside
of the coin, some munitions debris maybe practice only, not fused,
not have a propellant or filler that would be
an explosive hazard. That investigation may conclude there is no evidence
of an explosive component. I think that would be
it.
>> Two real quick questions. Where do we find rmm method
to use it?
>> Well currently it is
reported as a fuds only trial period and issued as a
trial memorandum from our headquarters environmental
group. We can certainly make that available on
the clue in page there and it is available at
m R&D supports other programs for use and of course we would expect
to see that experience reported back to us. We are
looking for ways to get better.
>> Final last question, do we know when the guidance for
rm might be available?
>> Well, we have been given the one year trial
period extension. We asked for two years to get the guidance out. We
have been told to put it on fast track. We are working on it. Hopefully
in the next year.
>> Okay. That was our last and final question. We are running
on time. I appreciate everybody attending and I definitely appreciate
our presenters today. We had a record breaking day.
If you missed any of our presentation or want to sea the previous presentations,
you can go to www.clue in.org/live/archive
and pull up the old webinars we have done. Coming up
September 18th, 2019. cdm response by naoc. I will
send out notifications as soon as possible when that's out for registration.
Keep your eyes open. That's all I have. I will turn this over to
jean.
>> Thank you very much. I want to Eco your thanks for the audience
that joined us today and presenters that took time to participate
in today's session.
Before we leave everyone today.
The first thing I want to remind the audience if you are interested
we have a monthly news letter we send out, tech direct on the
first of each month. Clue in and sign up to add your name to the
list to find out about other webinars like this when we have them available.
If you are looking for copies, those are currently posted on the seminar
home page under the resources page.
If you welcome on the middle right of your screen under
related url pod, click the link to the seminar resources and press
the browse button and open it up.
If you are replaying the recorded version of the webinar, the links
on the middle right will still work. You need to click the
link, press the brows button and open it up. If somebody happened
to feel like webinar disappeared and there is a web page opening
up in front of you, that's a demonstration of the power that our presenters
have when we open up web page s it opens up for the rest of us,
too in the webinar. If it looks like you lost the webinar, it's
there in the background, you might have to move a couple of windows
around. Contact information is available on the home page. We
have a feedback formally ask you to take a moment to fill
out. One of the most questions if we offer ce user -- we
can give you a participation certificate after you submit feedback for
the broadcast. Following under related url, the link toto
the feedback form, complete the form, completely fill it out with
your correct email address, and then check the box at the bottom
of the form certifying you were here for the
whole thing or replayed the archive, you will have access to a certificate
you can download or print out for your records. If you participate
in a large group, each person can fill out that feedback form even
if you didn't register individually as long as the pen that registered
shares the link to the feedback form you can each fill out the form
and get your own certificate to save for your own records. The hubs,
looks like we had large groups in California and Florida today. That
might be of note to groups of participants. Today's session
was recorded you will receive an email as soon as the archive session
is available for on demand play back. Thank you for joining uss
we hope to have you on with our next mtft seminar later
on this year. That's the formal conclusion for today's live broadcast.