Oak Ridge Prioritization Project CRESP David Kosson, Vanderbilt University Charles W. Powers, Vanderbilt University Joanna Burger, Rutgers University James Clarke, Vanderbilt University Steven L. Krahn, Vanderbilt University Michael Gochfeld, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Henry Mayer, Rutgers University Kevin Brown, Vanderbilt University 11/13/20151 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

The Evolution of Needed Concepts

Hazard Consequences Hazard Urgency Pathways Urgency Hazard Occupational Public Cost Time needed to complete Urgency Project Sequencing Project number a Likelihood, vital, importance, priority, significant, ECOECO Consequences Fundamental Risk Evaluation = Building a Risk Prioritization Tool and Process 11/13/20153DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Questions asked of every project Can you standardize/simplify the answers to the Risk Questions?

5 + ETTP GW Treatability Study

VHMH HLMH/VH*VH ConsequenceMLMMM/H** LLLLL LMHVH Pathway Oak Ridge Prioritization – Integration of Hazard, Pathway and Consequence ratings There really are a modest number of real possibilities and they can be linked to a series of clarifying questions for every OR EM project type *VH if Hazard=VH **H if Hazard=VH

Problem / Project Definition(s) Narrative Project Summary Very High (VH) MHVH High (H) LMH/VHVH Medium (M) LMMM/H Low (L) LLLL Consequence Pathway 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 11/13/20157DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

8 Risk Reduction Effectiveness Capacity Efficiency & Sequencing Availability of Disposition Options Workforce What risk reduction can be achieved? Project Sequencing Project Cost Mortgage Reduction Cost of Delay Linking Risk Evaluation with Risk Management to Inform Prioritization 11/13/2015DRAFT - 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 Reduction Effectiveness Risk Management – Step 1 Risk Management 11/13/20159DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Low (L) Medium (M) High (H) Very High (VH) Risk Reduction Effectiveness Low (L) Medium (M) High (H) Very High (VH) Capacity Efficiency (Modifiers +/−) +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− 0 +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− Capacity Efficiency Risk Management - Step /13/201510DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Option: Low Medium High Very High Option’s Risk Importance Rank Option’s Risk Reduction 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 ? 11/13/201511DRAFT - 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 Elements Impedes Risk Mitigation Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Options Risk Reduction Effectiveness Low (L) Medium (M) High (H) Very High (VH) Capacity Efficiency/Sequencing (Modifiers +/−) +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− Capacity Efficiency Risk Management Its complexities Risk Management Mercury at EFPC Y-12 D&D (e.g., Beta 4) Soils? Flow Augmentation Y Flow X Y Flow 11/13/201512DRAFT - 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 Elements for Risk Mitigation Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Options Risk Reduction Effectiveness Low (L) Medium (M) High (H) Very High (VH) Capacity Efficiency (Modifiers +/−) +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− Capacity Efficiency Tri-Party Prioritization (DOE-TDEC-EPA) Exogenous Factors Risk and Risk Management Risk Management Stakeholders and Tribes 11/13/201513DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Unknown unknowns - e.g., Characterization studies The concept of set-asides to reduce uncertainty when risks may or may not be High but evaluation impossible due 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 Option Effectiveness - e.g., treatability studies 11/13/201514DRAFT - 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 Elements for Risk Mitigation Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Options Risk Reduction Effectiveness Low (L) Medium (M) High (H) Very High (VH) Capacity Efficiency (Modifiers +/−) +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− +⁞−+⁞− Capacity Efficiency Tri-Party Prioritization (DOE-TDEC-EPA) Exogenous Factors Risk and Risk Management Risk Management Stakeholders and Tribes 11/13/201515DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Mercury at Oak Ridge Redbreast Sunfish

Mercury at Oak Ridge

Y-12 Buildings 51,000 lbs to air NPDES Leaks and spills 428,000 lbs to soil/rocks East Fork Poplar Creek 240,000 lbs to creek EPA freshwater criterion of 0.3 ppm in fish Total Inventory to Oak Ridge = 24,000,000 lbs Not accounted for = 1,300,000 lbs They 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 Projects Capacity & Workforce Sequencing, costs Total Source Reduction Y-12 Building Removals & Soil Remediation High Vary by Risk Reduction Effectiveness $52M Several Years at $1.8B

Project ElementCost Risk Reduction Effectiveness Capacity & Efficiency Overall Risk Mgmt Rating WEMA Storm Sewer: cleaning and re-lining of the West End Mercury Area $16MHigh+1Very High 163 Area Hg flux control: Installation of water treatment system $8MHigh+1Very High Principal Threat Source Soil Excavation: Exposure unit 9 of the Y-12 facility $15MLow0 UEFPC Streambed: excavation, dewatering and disposal of mercury $10MHigh+1Very High Flow Augmentation Relocation: establish control systems to enable management of the flow volume introduced to UEFPC to minimize transport of sediment bound mercury $3MMedium+1High Mercury at Oak Ridge