1	"James H" James H. Clarke, Vanderbilt University Kevin M. Kostelnik, Idaho National Laboratory
2	Conceptual Model
3	Selected Case Studies Anaconda/Old Works Superfund Site, MT Love Canal Disposal Facility, NY Maxey Flats LLW Disposal Facility, KY Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO Spring Valley/American University, DC Burrell UMTRCA Disposal Cell, PA Canonsburg UMTRCA Disposal Cell, PA
4	Love Canal
5	Maxey Flats LLW Disposal Site
6	Case Study Observations Cases illustrate various isolation configurations Sacrifice Zones – e.g.,Maxey Flats, Love Canal Reuse Zones - Anaconda 13 types of contaminant isolation controls 9-12 per site; average of 10 Information Management, Stakeholder Awareness, Ordinances, and Physical Site Security at all sites Not all controls performing as expected Potential errors involved Institution Controls and Maintenance Stakeholder Awareness, Information Management
7	Failure of Contaminant Isolation Facility Controls
8	Information Management Errors
9	Analysis Results Master Logic Diagrams graphically show “how” errors and failures can occur Individual controls were found to contain many single-point errors (i.e., non-robust) Control errors can be viewed as precursors to failure Inadequate Information management, stakeholder awareness and maintenance resources are key Initiating events Facility failure requires both engineered barrier and institutional control errors Maintenance is a critical “Institutional Responsibility”
10	Institutional Responsibilities are site specific and should include an active Maintenance program
11
12
13
14