Proposal to Move IME

1
Proposal to Move IMEs Risk Modeling Initiative
Forward
2
SAFER V2.1 Obtained

• V3.0 due out soon
• Hypothetical situations modeled

3
Potential Uses for Model

• Efficient allocation of resources
• Compliance
• ATF support variance requests
• DOT temporary storage
• OSHA PSM
• MSHA storage on mine sites
• NRCan bulk loading in urban areas
• Limit liability
• Inevitable involuntary application

4
Welcome to XanaX Explosives, Yudduc, USA
Magazines and Manufacturing
Main Office
5
When Things Were Good
Storage
1.1 Manufacturing
6
Then Things Went Bad
The New Airport
Hanger
Highways
Terminal
Storage
1.1 Manufacturing
7
SAFERCO Saved the Day

• Risk was within tolerable limits
• 1.1 manufacturing building
• Barricaded IBD Q/D 865 ft
• Distance to terminal 557 ft
• Barricaded High volume PTR Q/D 645 ft
• Distance to service road 514 ft
• Magazine
• Barricaded IBD Q/D 1,815 ft
• Distance to terminal 589 ft
• Barricaded High volume PTR Q/D 1,368 ft
• Distance to access road 610 ft

8
APT Proposal

• Build from SAFER 3.0
• 4M DoD investment to date
• APT primary contractor for SAFER
• 2-yr project
• EOY1 prototype evaluated
• EOY2 GUI program
• Long-term partnership w/APT
• Cost to IME

9
Potential Explosives Events

• SAFER
• Demil
• Decommiss
• Testing
• Manufacturing
• Handling
• Load/Unload
• In-transit storage
• Temp. storage
• Deep storage

• SAFERCO
• Mfgr 1.1
• Mfgr 1.5
• Gun assembly
• AN storage
• Bulk load/unload

10
Potential Explosion Sites

• SAFER
• Open
• Earth-covered mag
• PEMB
• Hollow Clay Tile
• Aircraft Shelter
• Brick structure
• Operating building
• Ship

• SAFERCO
• ATF mags
• Bulk truck
• Gun shop
• 1.1 and 1.5 mfgr
• AN silo, bin, shed
• Commercial conveyances

11
Exposed Sites

• SAFER
• Open
• Reinforced Concrete
• Reinforced Masonry
• Unreinforced Brick/Masonry
• Metal Wall
• Stud Wall
• Modular/Trailer
• Automobile

• SAFERCO
• Mining machines
• Oil rigs
• Barricades

12
Member Commitments

• All IME members must contribute to data gathering
  
• Probabilities of events P(e)
• Physical description of
• potential explosion sites PES
• exposed sites ES

13
Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase I Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II Phase II
Task Task Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Team Support
2 Draft SW requirements document
2 Finalize SW requirements document
2 Draft SW design document
2 Develop prototype model
2 Develop prototype SAFERCO model
2 Develop SW test plan
2 Test SAFERCO model
2 Run sensitivity studies
2 Deliver SAFERCO model
3 Develop P(e) by activity
3 Gather P(e) data
3 Finalize P(e)
4 Develop initial PES models
4 Run PES model sensitivity studies
4 Develop final PES models
5 Develop initial ES models
5 Run ES model sensitivity studies
5 Develop final ES models
6 Consensus Building Activities
Kickoff Mtg.
Requirements document
Prototype Model
SAFERCO Model
As needed
Travel Phase I 2 trips to DC Phase I 2 trips
to DC
14
Technical Advisory Team

• 5-6 IME reps
• 5-6 Agency reps
• ATF Shatzer
• DOT Reeves
• OSHA Hagemann
• MSHA Getto
• NRCan Bruszard
• DDESB Cotton
• 7 meetings

15
Business Plan

• ABP 750 250 maint. 1K per license
• 50 IME member discount on software 625 per
  license
• Revenue split 50/50 w/APT
• IME sale to IME 95/5
• IME to non-IME 65/35
• APT sale 50/50
• Maint. 10/90

16
400 copies sold

• 160 to IME members
• 130 Non-IME ATF licensees (1 of population)
• 30 US regulators (1 of population)
• 30 Canadian entities (1 of population)
• 50 Other foreign entities (0.25 of population)
• 160K return to IME 240K net cost to IME
  6K/member

17
Sharing Expense and Revenue

• Divided evenly
• Pro-rated on dues
• Sell shares
• 4K minimum 100 shares
• Must own at least one share to receive member
  discount
• Dues discounted based on ratio of shares owned to
  SAFERCO revenue
• Quarterly billing must be paid on time
• Consider reinvestment

18
Do We Need Agencies?
No Agency Reps Agency Reps
Advantages Complete IME Control. No showing dirty laundry. Agencies needs considered. More likely agency buy-in. Credibility increased .  Liability decreased. Better P(e) data. Agency support for testing. Free high quality brains.
Disadvantages Agencies must take it or leave it.  Industry alone educate agencies. fox guarding the chicken coop effects on credibility and liability. P(e) data less credible. credibility of model will suffer No agency support for testing. APT may walk away. IME must respect agencies opinions. (This should be a non-factor since the design goal will be a best-estimate, with a slight degree of conservatism where known uncertainties exist.) Dirty laundry might be revealed or discussion might be encumbered.
19
Without the ATD explosives which are essential
to the progress of the nation in peace time would
become a hazard of moment to all concerned and
the benefits from their use abnormally
restricted

• Ralph Assheton,
• History of Explosions 1930

20
Would Assheton Approve?

• Assheton wanted to address railroads, but had no
  data
• He used 60 of IBD distance
• Railcars smaller than buildings
• Railcars stronger than buildings
• Presence of railcar is temporary