London Olympics 2012 ERW Risk Management

Transcription

1 London Olympics 2012 ERW Risk Management Page 1 This presentation Based on a risk assessment carried out by British Aerospace for the 2012 Olympic Authority Released under a freedom of information (FoI) request Presented as it relates to the MORE approach to ERW risk management Page 2 1

2 Risk management cycle 3 Page 3 Context Location Activity Contamination Information sources Page 4 2

3 Context - location Page 5 Context - Activities Page 6 3

4 Context - Activities Site investigation Surface preparations Demolition of existing structures Main soil disturbance Dredging of watercourses Major public events Page 7 Context - contamination HE bombs most common today numbers dropped and ability to penetrate ground Incendiary bombs thin walled construction mostly broke up on impact Cluster munitions little penetration potential Flying bombs and rockets thin walled, mostly broke up on impact Page 8 4

5 Context - contamination Page 9 Context - information BAe Systems Environmental records MoD and central government records National archives National monuments record Page 10 5

6 Identifying risk Health and safety of workers and the public: Detonation of ERW Toxic residues Delays Financial implications Political/reputational consequences Page 11 Risk analysis 1 record in abandoned bomb register night of 10 November 1941; rechecked in boreholes to 7m, nothing found, recommended it be abandoned No apparent gaps in bomb lines from records Bomb cemetery explosives usually steamed possible contaminated ground Blitz rubble disposal of rubble in landfill sites AA rounds from defensive forces some likelihood Page 12 6

7 Risk analysis Experience shows remote chance of detonation Mostly because when bomb failed to function it failed permanently Decay usually results in device becoming less susceptible Piling and percussive drilling pose greater risk than excavation In the UK there has been no initiation of German UXB by construction activities since the 1940s There have been incidents in German and elsewhere in Europe: 20 times more bombs in Germany than UK Use of mechanical as opposed to electrical and other fuzes Good fortune Page 13 Risk evaluation Unacceptable region Action definitely required ALARP Region Risk Tolerable only if risk reduction is impracticable or if cost is grossly disproportionate to improvement gained Tolerable if cost of reduction would exceed improvement gained Broadly acceptable region No need for action 14 Page 14 7

8 Risk evaluation Bomb damage Geology Ground cover Frequency of access Likelihood of detection during WWII Likelihood of UXO remaining after WWII Zone of potential buried UXO Bomb type Post-war earthworks Failure rate Size and orientation of bomb Bombing intensity Probability of encountering UXO Degree of soil disturbance during project Page 15 Risk evaluation Bomb damage Geology Ground cover Frequency of access Likelihood of detection during WWII Likelihood of UXO remaining after WWII Zone of potential buried UXO Bomb type Post-war earthworks Failure rate Size and orientation of bomb Bombing intensity Probability of encountering UXO Degree of soil disturbance during project Page 16 8

9 Risk evaluation Aspect Site-specific UXO evidence Likelihood of UXO remaining after WWII Intrusive activity within potential buried UXO zone Probability of encountering UXO during the project Relative probability compared to other BAE Systems project assessment Findings Potential abandoned bomb Statistical certainty most likely 3 UXO 28% 84% High Page 17 Risk treatment Ordnance awareness briefings Explosives safety supervision (on-call) Limited surface geophysics in areas where penetration depths make it appropriate Down-hole geophysics Residual risk is ALARP Page 18 9

10 Risk review 1 bomb was discovered during the work All work was completed on time The 2012 Olympics were regarded as a great success Page 19 Questions? Page 20 10