Figure 2 - uploaded by Geoff Carton
Content may be subject to copyright.
Side-scan sonar coverage of the cable route and 2 x 2 km survey box collected on 10 April 2017. Field area and survey boxes from the 2016 field campaign are illustrated.
Source publication
This report summarizes the in-field testing and methodology verification associated with investigating,
verifying, and recommending methodologies to identify munitions and explosives of concern (MEC), including unexploded ordnance (UXO), specific to conditions found in renewable energy lease and planning areas along the Atlantic Outer Continental S...
Similar publications
The need of slowing down the global temperature increase due to climate change, has resulted in the search of new strategies to capture energy with low greenhouse gas emissions. In this line, ocean energy can both contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and foster economic growth in coastal areas (Magagna and Uihlein, 2015).
While...
Citations
... Given the potential for interactions with MEC, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) requires offshore wind energy developers to evaluate and mitigate the risks MEC poses to their offshore wind energy generation and transmission projects. As part of a BOEM-led and funded project (Carton et al., 2017), a multistep, comprehensive risk management framework was developed to assist offshore wind energy developers conduct the required MEC risk assessment, validation, and mitigation. This article describes the framework in detail. ...
... MEC risk assessment provides for improved situational awareness that strengthens the ability to implement timely, efficient, and effective protective mitigation measures. Recognizing this, BOEM proposed a four-step framework for MEC risk management (Carton et al., 2017) for offshore wind energy development projects. Although the framework has similarities to guidelines developed for Europe (CIRIA, 2015), there are a number of differences in the individual steps and in the terminology. ...
... The severity grades and a brief description of the types of impacts are presented in Table 4. A detailed description of the severity grades can be found in Carton et al. (2017). ...
Munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) in U.S. waters can present a risk to the development and operation of offshore wind energy resources. Therefore, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management requires offshore wind energy developers to evaluate the risk MEC poses to the development, operation, and maintenance of offshore wind energy generation and transmission systems. This article describes an MEC risk management framework consisting of the following steps: (1)MEC hazard assessment, (2) MEC risk assessment, (3) MEC risk validation, and (4) MEC risk mitigation. The MEC hazard assessment involves historical research to identify MEC potentially present in the development area. The MEC risk assessment evaluates the development activities and provides a relative MEC risk ranking for those activities. The developer determines the acceptability of these risks, and any potentially unacceptable MEC risks undergo risk validation through field surveys. The developer then considers the tolerability of the validated risks and develops and implements an appropriate MEC risk mitigation strategy based on actual site conditions. A risk framework provides a structured method to plan and operationalize the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of MEC risk throughout the development, operation, and maintenance life cycle of an offshore wind energy generation and transmission project.
This article presents risk factors that are associated with the handling of unexploded ordnance (UXO) during explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) operations in German waters. The construction of offshore wind parks and the German immediate action program are expected to increase the number of EOD operations. Existing literature and guidelines do not offer a structured and reproducible framework for assessing EOD risk. To fill this gap, a network of EOD risk factors was developed by means of a literature review and validation via expert consultation. The study was scoped to “personnel and equipment at the EOD location” as the risk receptor and “undesired detonation” as the undesired event under investigation. Factors are subdivided into UXO factors that depend on the object that should be handled and factors that describe the object's surrounding environment. While the former can be researched by an EOD expert, the latter must be measured on site or acquired from a model. Each of these factors contributes to risk, some directly and others indirectly via other factors. The complexity of the resulting network, with its 33 factors, demonstrates the need for a reliable and reproducible model to quantify EOD risk. Its purpose is not to replace EOD experts but to aid them in their decision‐making process. Such a tool can provide valuable support for the high‐cost and high‐risk EOD operations.
