D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mcllc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 03.10.2010 2:36



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Str eet P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

# A D D I T I O N A L 

# O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

# & T H R E A T S



# B Y 

# T H E 

# N E W 

# N O R T H 

# S H O R E 

# M A R I N E 

# T R A N S F E R 

# S T A T I O N



# @ L A 

# G U A R D I A 

# A I R P O R T



# , N E W 

# Y O R K



# , N Y

– 

# U S A

A R I S K 

# M A N A G E M E N T 

# B A S E D 

# A P P R O A C H

[Author’s picture]



# Risk Management Report

Version R18_E18, 09/30/2010

; Active copy

Control of documents by ISO 9001:2008, Chapter 4.2.3

See Document Control Appendix 5

Copies to authorized recipients

– 

## See Appendix 4

Info copy only

No control of documents by ISO 9001:2008, Chapter 4.2.3

Copies: Separate list [o/R, by REvalT PM’s decision]

Location: New York, NY

– 

## USA

Date: 09/30/2010

Signature:

Alfred Moergeli

Certificated Swiss Civil Eng., EUR ING, Swiss Safety & Health Eng. EigV / BSV

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 2 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 0 Table of Contents

0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................. .......................... 2

1 OVERVIEW OF FIGURES ............................... ......................... 4

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................. ......................... 5

3 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................. ......................... 10

3.1 C ONTRACT



## .................................................. ............................................... 10

3.2 T ASKS



## .................................................. ................................................... .. 10



## 4 FACTS & BASELINES ................................. .......................... 11

5 RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH .......................... ............. 11

5.1 M ETHODOLOGY



## .................................................. ........................................ 11

5.2 T EAM 

## A PPROACH



## .................................................. ..................................... 11

5.3 R ISK 

## M ANAGEMENT 

## W ORKSHOPS



## .................................................. ............. 11

5.4 P ROCEDURES



## .................................................. ........................................... 12

5.4.1 R ISK 

## M ANAGEMENT 

## P LAN



## .................................................. ......................... 12

5.4.2 G ENERAL 

## S YSTEM 

## L IMITS



## .................................................. ......................... 12

5.4.3 P RELIMINARY 

## H AZARD 

## A NALYSIS



## .................................................. .............. 12

5.5 D OCUMENTATION



## .................................................. ..................................... 12



## 6 RESULTS ........................................... .................................... 13

6.1 P RELIMINARY 

## H AZARD 

## A NALYSIS



## .................................................. .............. 13

6.2 R ESIDUAL 

## R ISK 

## R EGISTER



## .................................................. ........................ 14

6.3 D ISCUSSION



## .................................................. ............................................. 16

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 3 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.3.1 FAA S YSTEM 

## S AFETY 

## A PPROACH



## .................................................. ............. 16

6.3.2 J OINT 

## FAA / USDA R EPORT



## .................................................. .................... 18

6.3.2.1 FAA’s “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation ” ...................... 20

6.3.2.2 Transport .........................................

................................................... .... 21

6.3.2.3 Site Security .....................................

................................................... ... 22

6.3.2.4 Human Factors .....................................

.................................................. 24

6.3.3 I NTERPRETATION



## .................................................. ...................................... 25

6.3.3.1 Benefits Versus Costs ............................. .............................................. 25

6.3.3.2 Further Work Required ............................. ............................................. 26

6.3.3.3 Apply Best Risk Management Practices .............. ................................ 27



## 7 OUTLOOK ........................................... ................................... 29

7.1 W HAT REMAINS TO BE DONE 

## ? ................................................. ..................... 29



## 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................. .................... 30

9 DISCLAIMER ........................................ ................................. 31

10 APPENDIX .......................................... ................................... 33

10.1 A PPENDIX 

## 1: T ERMS 

## & A BBREVIATIONS



## .................................................. ...... 33

10.2 A PPENDIX 

## 2: N ORMATIVE 

## R EFERENCES



## .................................................. ..... 37

10.3 A PPENDIX 

## 3: R EFERENCES



## ................................................... ....................... 38

10.4 A PPENDIX 

## 4: C OPIES TO 

## A UTHORIZED 

## R ECIPIENTS 

## ....................................... 40

10.5 A PPENDIX 

## 5: D OCUMENT 

## C ONTROL



## .................................................. ........... 41

10.6 A PPENDIX 

## 6: S EPARATE 

## D OCUMENTS



## .................................................. ........ 42

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 4 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 1 Overview of Figures

Figure 1 Location of the new NS MTS opposite RWY 13 /31 of LGA ..................... 5

Figure 2 Risk Summary Graph (Preliminary Hazard Ana lysis) ............................. 7

Figure 3 Risk Summary Graph (Preliminary Hazard Ana lysis) ........................... 13

Figure 4 Residual Risks remaining in the red zone . ............................................ 14

Figure 5 “... graphic representation of the risk asse ssment conducted ...” (1) 19

Figure 6 Unrestricted access ...Site with unprotected waste container ... ........ 22

Figure 7 Parked compactors in front of the garage ... ......................................... 22

Figure 8 No comment ...

.................................................. ....................................... 22

Figure 9 Small cause, huge impact - How long will w e have to wait ... ?........... 23

Figure 10 Potential directions of (temporarily) dis persed birds & RWY 13/31 .. 28

Figure 11 What remains to be done? ................

................................................... . 29

Figure 12 Terms and abbreviations .................

................................................... ... 33

Figure 13 Normative References ....................

................................................... .... 37

Figure 14 References ..............................

................................................... ............. 38

Figure 15 Copies to authorized recipients .........

................................................... 40

Figure 16 Document control ........................

................................................... ........ 41

Figure 17 Separate documents ......................

................................................... ..... 42

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 5 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 2 Executive Summary 1



## The Department of Sanitation of the City of New Yor k (DSNY) issued a

Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) to address the long-term

exportation and disposal of municipal solid waste ( MSW) from metropolitan New York

City. This plan proposed refurbishing four closed m arine transfer stations (MTS)

previously operated by DSNY for the purpose of barg ing MSW out of NYC and

reducing the associated truck traffic, which is est imated to be millions of miles per

year. One of the four proposed facilities, the Nort h Shore Marine Transfer Station

(NS MTS), would be located at College Point in Quee ns, New York, about 2,200 feet

southeast from the threshold of Runway 31 at LaGuar dia Airport (LGA) (1).

Figure 1 Location of the new NS MTS opposite RWY 13 /31 of LGA

[Picture, courtesy of DeTect/RM]

Once the plan to locate a transfer station so close to a major airport became public,

there was great concern regarding the rationality o f placing an attractant to birds in

the flight path of one of the world’s busiest airpo rts. To allay these fears, the FAA

assembled a panel of USDA and FAA experts, as well as others, to analyze the

potential risk this facility posed. The initial rep ort was distributed to the public for

comment in April of 2010 (1).

1 

### Please see our Disclaimer – Thank you.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 6 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## Contracted and retained by Ken Paskar per 06/30/201 0, the author (mcllc/am) was

asked to perform an independent risk evaluation as a response to the joint FAA /

USDA report’s (1) risk assessment findings, in orde r to investigate potential

additional opportunities versus threats of the new North Shore Marine Transfer

Station at LaGuardia Airport (NS MTS @ LGA).

Specifically, the FAA/USDA’s report (1) provided a risk assessment matrix that

showed that the airport would actually be safer fro m birds with the construction of the

transfer station provided the proper wildlife mitig ation was in place than if no such

facility were constructed.

Mr. Paskar found these results to be counterintuiti ve as did many other writers who

responded to the USDA/FAA report during the comment period, including the Airline

Pilots Association (ALPA) (1).

In addition, the report left many unanswered questi ons on critical issues.

As an example:

• What mitigation techniques should be employed?

• Who would review these mitigation measures?

• What are the contingencies if mitigation is unsucc essful?

• What assurances is there that monitoring and compl iance will be enforced by

regulatory agencies?

In order to properly assess the risks associated wi th the new NS MTS, Mr. Paskar

assembled a team of industry experts from a variety of backgrounds to discuss this

facility and develop an independent report based on the facts.

The Team was assigned several topics to assess:

• Wildlife/bird attraction and potential mitigation at the MTS,

• Transport & access of delivering vehicles to the n ew NS MTS,

• Human behavior/failure in the implementation of a mitigation plan,

• Overall impact of the NS MTS on LaGuardia operatio ns,

• Risk/Benefit analysis of the MTS goals

within a risk management context.

Based on facts & baselines (see Appendix 3 References ), internationally

acknowledged risk management standards and best pra ctices (see Appendix 2

Normative References ), a qualitative risk evaluation was performed with participation

of a team of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) through a series of Risk Management

Workshops (RMWS) between July and August 2010.

The Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) used a Risk Item Shortlist (RISL) that was

subsequently developed into a Preliminary Hazard An alysis (PHA, see Appendix 6c)

by the author.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 7 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## Figure 2 Risk Summary Graph (Preliminary Hazard Ana lysis)

The REvalT’s findings are explained in this Risk Ma nagement Report (RMR).

They demonstrate that while the new North Shore Mar ine Transfer Station at

LaGuardia Airport (NSMTS @ LGA) might create relati vely minor benefits through

reducing truck traffic within New York City, it wil l also create major risks to local

aviation along with long term impacts to the functi onality of LaGuardia Airport (LGA).

Specifically, this Risk Management Report (RMR) con cludes that the new NS MTS

will result in:

• Increasing the risk of Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) and therefore

decreasing aviation safety,

• Decreasing potential future access into Runway 31 @ LGA and therefore

decreasing LGA’s future capacity,

• Removing 100 trucks per day from local highways.

However, this will reduce heavy truck traffic by a fraction and that will be

imperceptible.

• Increasing packer mileage by about 35,000 miles pe r month mostly on local

streets through central Queens.

On the basis of LGA’s known and undisputed, extraor dinary exposure to previous

BASH (see e.g. US Airways Flight 1549 on January 15 , 2009) (16), the results of this

risk based approach raise the question if the poten tial additional benefits of the new

NS MTS really have the potential to outweigh the ad ditional threats.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 8 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## “Given that aircraft pass 300’ above the top of the building and approximately 400’

above the water, pilots would not have adequate alt itude and time to successfully

mitigate a bird strike event similar to that of US Airways Flight 1549” (15).

Risk Management (RM) is supposed to provide alterna tives and options for sound

and informed, preferably pro-active decision-making

. The FAA / USDA report’s (1) risk assessment summary violates acknowledged

industry standards and best risk management practic es.

Members of the REvalT have extensive knowledge of m itigation techniques typical to

those that would be employed at the NS MTS.

Their experience shows that mitigation techniques b ecome less effective over time

as birds learn to adapt to the techniques being use d to discourage them.

Additionally, the timeline over which the study was completed was not sufficient by

FAA standards.

The overriding sentiment of the REvalT is that natu re is not a force to be controlled

and, with the acknowledgement of the USDA/FAA panel , that the new NS MTS is a

hazard to aviation, why would anyone think it is pr udent to create a hazard and then

attempt to mitigate it?

Best practices, both for (aviation) safety as well as for managing risks, dictate to stay

on the safe, conservative side as long as there rem ains the slightest reasonable

doubt that the new NS MTS will increase the risk of bird strikes.

“A key element of risk decision-making is determin ing if the risk is justified” (6).

This report provides evidence that the risk cannot be justified.

Based on the

• Risk Evaluation Team’s (REvalT) findings,

• Author’s investigation,

the residual risks 2 

## cannot be tolerated.

In the interests of political goals, DSNY appears w illing to put the safety of the flying

public as a secondary concern.

The REvalT concludes that as a minimum measure, the ongoing construction of the

new NS MTS should be suspended until such time that a properly conducted and

independent Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) has be en completed and a new risk

assessment evaluated. Once the new NS MTS is actual ly built, its $200M price tag

will only increase if it has to be subsequently dem olished.

2 Residual Risks = Risks remaining after mitigation has been implemented

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 9 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## Performing a new, comprehensive System Management S afety [7] approach, a

complete risk assessment [3, 8], may lead to new ch ances in meeting DSNY’s needs

without compromising aviation safety and public int erests.

“The REvalT panel determined that this issue is far more complicated than the

relatively brief study performed by the USDA/FAA pa nel as an emollient to concerned

politicians and local opposition. It is not enough to “believe” that one is correct when

dealing with human lives and attempting to control nature in its natural habitat.

The FAA has established Risk Management Procedures that seem not to be

employed in this study.

There are prescribed measures for performing a Wild life Assessment that were not

followed in the USDA/FAA study (1).

Based on Best Management Practices and well acknowl edged industry standards for

risk management there is just only one acceptable s olution for now:

Suspend the construction until there is more solid evidence to support its

continuation!

This would allow all stakeholders a fair opportunit y to (re-)evaluate and review the

new, updated information in the context of a state- of-the-art risk management

process.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 10 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 3 Scope of Services

3.1 Contract

Contracted by Aviation Team USA / Ken Paskar, retai ned per 06/30/2010.

3.2 Tasks

Perform an independent, risk based, qualitative eva luation of additional opportunities

and threats by the operation of the new North Shore Marine Transfer Station at

LaGuardia Airport, NY – NY (NS MTS @ LGA).

Moderate

• An interdisciplinary team of Subject Matter Expert s (SMEs),

• A series of Risk Management (RM) Workshops (WS) be tween July and August

2010.

Develop a risk evaluation based on a qualitative Pr eliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA).

Explain, present and document key results.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 11 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 4 Facts & Baselines

The independent, risk based investigation to evalua te additional opportunities and

threats by the new North Shore Marine Transfer Stat ion at LaGuardia Airport, NY –

NY (NS MTS @ LGA) and this report are based on fact s and baselines

(see Appendix 3 References ).



## 5 Risk Management Approach

5.1 Methodology

Based on internationally recognized standards (see Appendix 2 Normative

References ), tried-and-true Risk Management Methodology has b een used.

A qualitative evaluation of additional opportunitie s and threats by the new North

Shore Marine Transfer Station @ LaGuardia Airport, NY – NY (NS MTS @ LGA) has

been investigated in a moderated, interdisciplinary team of Subject Matter Experts

(SME’s), using a Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA).

A complete Risk Assessment may be performed in orde r to recess the PHA’s results.

5.2 Team Approach

An interdisciplinary team of Subject Matter Experts

(SMEs see General System Limits, GSL, Appendix 6 Separate Documents ),

moderated by the author,

developed, reviewed and updated the

• Risk Management Plan (RMP, see Appendix 6-A),

• General System Limits (GSL, see Appendix 6-B),

• Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA, see Appendix 6-C ),

(see Appendix 6 Separate Documents ).

5.3 Risk Management Workshops

Three Risk Management Workshops (RM WS)

• 1st RM WS: 07/14/2010 @ Gilbert, AZ,

• 2nd RM WS: 08/20/2010, NY Conference Call,

• 3rd RM WS: 08/30 – 09/01/2010 @ NY, NY,

were performed with participation of a team of Subj ect Matter Experts (SMEs).

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 12 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 5.4 Procedures

5.4.1 Risk Management Plan

The Risk Management Plan (RMP) sets the stage for t he Risk Management Process

and demonstrates how major risks 3 

## should be identified and how they could be

mitigated. The RMP defines personnel roles and resp onsibilities, documentation, risk

management activities, schedules and timing, and ri sk management techniques

(see Appendix 6 Separate Documents ).

5.4.2 General System Limits

The General System Limits (GSL) Definition defines the boundaries (the context) of

the risk management system (see Appendix 6 Separate Documents ).

.

5.4.3 Preliminary Hazard Analysis

A Risk Item Shortlist (RISL) has been developed and updated during interdisciplinary Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) workshop s, moderated by the Risk

Manager, and then developed by the author into a Pr eliminary Hazard Analysis

(PHA, see Appendix 6 Separate Documents ).

.

5.5 Documentation

All results of the independent, risk based approach to evaluate additional

opportunities and threats by the new North Shore Ma rine Transfer Station at

LaGuardia Airport, NY (NS MTS @ LGA) are documented in this Risk Management

Report (RMR), including

• Risk Management Plan (RMP) in Appendix 6-A,

• General System Limits (GSL) in Appendix 6-B,

• Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) in Appendix 6-C,

(see Appendix 6 Separate Documents ).

3 Risks = Opportunities or threats, evaluated agains t potential impact and probability of occurrence

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 13 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6 Results

6.1 Preliminary Hazard Analysis

Under three different scenarios

1. Transport and access to the new NS MTS,

2. Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH),

3. Potential future access to LaGuardia Airport (LG A),

a total number of 13 opportunities or hazards have been

• Investigated,

• Assessed,

• Mitigated,

• Re-assessed (assessed again, after mitigation => r esidual risks),

through a series of moderated workshops.

See Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA, Appendix 6-C, see Appendix 6 Separate

Documents ).

Figure 3 Risk Summary Graph (Preliminary Hazard Ana lysis)

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 14 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.2 Residual Risk Register

Residual risks are, by definition, risks that remai n after mitigation has been

implemented in the red zone and are therefore not t o be tolerated.

After extensive evaluation, the Risk Evaluation Tea m determined that some residual

risks could not be mitigated to a tolerable level.

Figure 4 Residual Risks remaining in the red zone

Risk Risk Description Residual Risk

ID - S P Why ...?

8. 

## New North Shore Marine

Transfer Station (New NS MTS)

Risk:

New NS MTS will attract additional

bird activities

Additional bird activities will

increase the risk for additional Bird

Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) H M There is no way to provide

hard evidence

• Of the effectiveness

and/or limits of known

wildlife control strategies

and measures,

• Until the new NS MTS

will be operative ... and

then it will be (probably

too/very) late to go with a

“build elsewhere”

alternative

Expected secondary

(substitution) risks as a

result of known, (in)effective

wildlife control strategies

and measures (vicious

circle)

10. 

## New North Shore Marine

Transfer Station (New NS MTS)

Risk:

Integrated Wildlife Hazard

Management Plan (IWHMP) not

executed as required

(using incomplete or insufficient

data, not executed according to

industry standards and/or Best

Management Practices) H M Human behavior-oriented

(“administrative controls”)

only

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 15 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## Risk Risk Description Residual Risk

ID - S P Why ...?

11. New North Shore Marine

Transfer Station (New NS MTS)

Risk:

Building Maintenance is a reactive

not pro-active program as required

by DSNY Part 360 Building

Application H M No mitigation planned

12. New North Shore Marine

Transfer Station (New NS MTS)

Risk:

Birds will flock more together, stay

more grounded, and move inland

from coastal areas in inclement

weather

(that might favor LGA’s RWY 31)

and will therefore increase the risk

of BASH at low altitudes H M Human behavior-oriented

(“administrative controls”)

only

13. New North Shore Marine

Transfer Station (New NS MTS)

Risk:

• Height of new NS MTS might

prevent a future Precision

Instrument Approach Procedure

(IAP) into LGA’s RWY 31

• Failure to implement a future

Precision Approach into LGA’s

RWY 31 may prevent LGA from

fully achieving its maximum

landing capability

• The new NS MTS might

become located inside the

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

for a future Precision Approach

into LGA’s RWY 31 H M No mitigation known and

available other than the “no

build” (or “build elsewhere”)

alternative

A complete list of all evaluated risks assessed by the team can be found in the

preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA, (see Appendix 6-C

, Appendix 6 Separate

Documents ).

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 16 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.3 Discussion

6.3.1 FAA System Safety Approach

Best Management Practices (BMP) in risk management always prefers value by

avoiding a hazard in the first place rather than mi tigate it later on.

The FAA has initiated a

• Safety Risk Management (SRM, by Order 8040.4, 06/2 6/1998), and

• Safety Management System (SMS, by Order VS 8000.35 6, 05/14/2008),

... “in order to use a formal, disciplined and docume nted decision-making process to

address safety risks in relation to high-consequenc e decisions impacting the

complete product life cycle” (Order 8040) [7].

While there might be slight differences between bot h Orders and generic risk

management approaches, both Orders require a compre hensive analysis of the new

NS MTS with regard to future aviation safety.

Although formally (legally) outside LGA’s airport p roperty, the new NS MTS fulfills the

minimum set of criteria for application of a FAA Sa fety Risk Management approach

(high consequence decision, substantial economic im pacts).

Although the new NS MTS may currently be located (j ust marginally) outside the

Runway Protection Zone (PRZ) of Runway (RWY) 31, bi rds do not know that ... and

they might not care. Just a few hundred feet is not hing to birds in terms of their

habitats, behavior and known activities.

Based on the Risk Evaluation Team’s findings and th e author’s investigation top

questions are

1. Is there a measurable benefit to the City from t he NS MTS?

Can it be quantified in terms suitable for comparis on against the risks associated

with the NS MTS?

2. Are there other impacts from the NS MTS that are not being considered?

Runway 31 has no precision approach.

Will the NS MTS preclude a future precision approac h?

3. When and how were the FAA’s Risk Management proc edures and processes

applied to the new NS MTS as this is a new facility relevant for future aviation

safety (see e.g. Chapter 12 of the FAA’s System Saf ety Handbook

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/risk_ma nagement/ss_handbook/medi

a/Chap12_1200.pdf , especially chapter 12.2.2 Site Selection etc.) [7 ]?

4. How has the FAA Risk Management procedures and p rocesses prioritized

System / Strategy / Substitution (1 st 

## priority) oriented mitigation over Engineering

Controls (2 nd 

## priority)?

And how has the FAA’s Risk Management procedures an d processes prioritized

Engineering Controls (2 nd 

## priority) over Administrative Controls (3 rd 

## priority)?

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 17 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 5. What approach was taken to control human behavio r – and therefore frequent

human errors (incomplete and/or failing Operational Risk Management during

O&M of the new NS MTS)?

6. What approach was taken to verify and validate t he FAA’s Risk Management

procedure & process results?

7. What approach was taken to guarantee (and enhanc e) the effectiveness and

efficiency of the implementation of suggested mitig ation?

8. How was the “no build” (or “build elsewhere”) al ternative assessed?

9. How were secondary risks (“substituting risks”, i. e. new risks that materialize due

to mitigation of identified risks) identified and c ontrolled?

10. How has the FAA’s Risk Management approach been kept ongoing and

periodically updated to include latest knowledge?

11. Why build a new facility and therefore create a dditional threats to the public and

NY area taxpayers that might outweigh potential ben efits?

12. Why build a new MTS and therefore create additi onal threats to the public and

NY area taxpayers if the best mitigation might be t he “no build” (or “build

elsewhere”) alternative?

As long as no substantial answers to the above ques tions are available for

systematic public review, sound risk management bes t practices will dictate to stay

on the conservative, safe side.

Comprehensive answers to the above questions might clear the way to a new,

unbiased evaluation of additional opportunities ver sus additional threats by the new

NS MTS.

“A key element of risk decision-making is determini ng if the risk is justified” (6).

This report provides evidence that the risk is not justified.

Residual risks 4 

## cannot be tolerated.

4 Residual Risks = Risks remaining after mitigation has been implemented

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 18 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.3.2 Joint FAA / USDA Report

The joint FAA USDA report (1) demonstrates at least a misperception with regard to

• Risk Assessments ...

... Chapter “3.6 Risk Assessments” neither describes a Risk Assessment (RA)

nor summarizes one.

• Figure 3.9 is neither a Risk Matrix nor a valid co mparison of alternatives.

According to its inherent logic, any airport might only be safe if a Transfer Station

near-by allows for additional BASH mitigation ...

• Comprehensive hazard identification and risk evalu ation ...

... are two different, however consecutive steps.

• Only a risk evaluation before and after mitigation (= residual risk evaluation)

provides auditable evidence of the effectiveness of suggested and planned risk

mitigation.

• The character and role of recommendations ...

... Recommendations never ever change reality by them selves. In order to have

an effective impact, all sorts of studies, findings , recommendations etc. need to

be transferred into action-plan items based on a sy stematic safety system

approach. Compliance must be continuously monitored and enforced.

• Barge traffic that will disturb natural currents a nd water surfaces is a bird

attractant. And there is currently no known mitigat ion available.

The report explicitly rejects to address this hazar d.

• The currently ongoing construction is already a po tential bird attractant.

And the author could not detect any wildlife mitiga tion implemented on his site

check (per 09/07/2010).

• Building a new MTS is not a required prerequisite for effective additional BASH

mitigation.

If the empty site is identified as a potential bird attractant (certainly for good

reasons, see e.g. current operational procedures at the nearby DSNY garage),

any state-of-the-art wildlife hazard management can and must be implemented,

independent of any new facility or other site devel opments.

What is an Integrated

Wildlife Hazard Management Plan versus a Wildlife Hazard

Management Plan (WHMP) as defined by AC 150/5200-33 B?

Do administrative controls, human behavior-oriented measures, subjected to human

beings’ known high failure rate, become any more re liable just because they are now

somehow “... integrated ...” (whatever “ integrated ” should stand for ([Italics by the

author])?

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 19 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## Figure 5 “... graphic representation of the risk asse ssment conducted ...” (1)

“If the panel's diagram is simply a visual aid to s upplement the text as suggested, it is

extremely confusing and cannot be interpreted as pr esented. As presented, if one

uses column 1 (no facility) for example, as the haz ardous bird activity level rises in

the Y axis, the risk level (not appropriately repre sented in the X axis) also rises from

low, to medium, to high. But as the same hazardous bird activity rises in column 3

(MTS with mitigation) the risk levels remains low. This makes absolutely no sense. If

the hazardous bird activity level increases, in all cases the risk must also necessarily

increase. Which block(s) of the model represent the anticipated conditions as

determined by the panel? This diagram should have b een replaced or discarded as it

offers no interpretable information as presented” ( 17).

Risk Management (RM) is supposed to provide alterna tives and options for sound

and informed, preferably pro-active decision-making

. The joint FAA / USDA report’s (1) risk assessment s ummary violates acknowledged

industry standards and best risk management practic es.

How reliably will recommended risk mitigation plans be implemented in today’s real

world if they are based on incomplete, un-scientifi c and subjective decision-making

as demonstrated by the joint FAA USDA report’s (1) approach?

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 20 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## “In conclusion, it is apparent that we have simply reached a point of professional

disagreement on this issue. I stand by my previous assessments and do not believe

that building this facility is worth the potential risks. The panel did agree that should

this project go forward, monitoring and regulatory compliance with the

recommendations as specified in the conditions of t he operating permit are required.

I believe such provisions are essential to minimize potential risks, but still would

rather see this facility sited in a safer location outside the standard separation criteria

used by FAA for other incompatible land uses” (17).

6.3.2.1 FAA’s “Determination of No Hazard to Air Na vigation”

“FAA’s “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigatio n”’ (10) related to the new NS

MTS appears to have expired on 19 March 2010.

The determination addresses obstruction hazards and their marking only.

The “Determination” (10) does not appear to address birds and other wildlife

activities. In the initial sentence of the “Determi nation” (10)’, the 49 USC Section

44718 reference addresses bird hazards only at airp orts where smaller (less than 60

passenger) aircraft operate, and that have received grants under Chapter 471. Does

that not exempt LaGuardia from application of the a bove mentioned section? It also

refers to birds being more of a hazard to smaller a ircraft ...

The “Determination” (10) notes that any building he ight exceeding 100’ will result in a

substantial adverse effect and would warrant a “Det ermination of Hazard to Air

Navigation”.

Does the new NS MTS therefore not produce a signifi cant adverse effect at 100 feet

but might become a hazard to aviation at 101 feet?

When the building is at the hazard limit without co nsidering the bird hazard, adding

even a limited bird hazard seems inevitably to tip the scale toward the determination

of a hazard. Yet there is no apparent consideration for the cumulative impact of these

two potential hazards in the FAA’s determination.

The new NS MTS is identified by the FAA as an obstr uction under Part 77 Standards.

It will penetrate the Section 77.25 (d) (Approach s urface by 39 feet). Why is this not

determined as a hazard?

The “no hazard” conclusion refers only to the prese nt situation and does not address

the limitations that would be placed on attempts to install a precision approach”

(Courtesy of HALL/KJ, reformatted by the author).

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 21 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.3.2.2 Transport

It is DSNY’s stated position that the ultimate goal of the NS MTS is to reduce truck

traffic.

This is the benefit that must be weighed against th e additional risks associated with

the construction of the new North Shore Marine Tran sfer Station (NS MTS) within the

flight path of LaGuardia.

The new NS MTS will receive a daily average of abou t 2,200 tons of Municipal Solid

Waste (MSW). To move the equivalent tonnage by truc k would require about 100

trucks per day carrying the legal limit of 22 tons per truck.

Currently, these trucks originate from three differ ent facilities, two in Jamaica,

Queens and one in Flushing, Queens.

The impact of these about 100 trailer trips per day over a 24 hour period should be

assessed against the thousands of vehicles travelli ng along the same routes every

day. The overall impact of these trailer trips is i nfinitesimal when compared to the

overall traffic within the area.

Currently, waste compactors travel to several priva te transfer stations to drop off their

loads from various community districts throughout Q ueens. The new NS MTS will

process waste from all New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) waste

compactors, collecting Queens Districts 7 through 14. This will increase the number

of miles travelled by DNSY collections vehicles by approximately 35,000 miles per

month, based on TechniQuest’s analysis (14).

The proposed barge operation scheme will eliminate outgoing trailer trips but will

increase the truck-miles traveled associated with D SNY waste collection due to the

re-routing of waste compactors through Queens.

The advantage gained by the elimination of the trai ler trips will be reduced by the

addition of collection vehicle miles.

In addition, outgoing trailer trips made in the cur rent situation frequently serve a dual

purpose. Trailers transport raw materials such as g ravel and other commodities back

to New York City on the return trip from the landfi lls. This advantage will be

eliminated because additional truck trips into New York City would be required to

supply these materials (14).

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 22 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.3.2.3 Site Security

Unrestricted, uncontrolled access to the future new NS MTS will create as much an

additional security risk to aviation and the public ’s safety as the current lack of

construction site security does during the ongoing construction process.

Figure 6 Unrestricted access ... Site with unprotected waste container ...

[Author’s picture]

At the time the author checked the construction sit e (09/07/2010) and the nearby

garage, anyone could have accessed the construction site, and/or apprehended one

or more of the parked, open and unsecured compactor trucks ... and/or littered

anywhere and therefore, intentionally or not, attra cted (additional) birds.

Figure 7 Parked compactors in front of the garage ... Figure 8 No comment ...

[Author’s pictures]

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 23 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## It is the author’s best current understanding, that these facts

• Constitute a documented violation of the FAA / USD A report’s (1)

recommendations and attached confirmations by the F AA (1, Appendix D) and

DSNY (1, Appendix E), both literally as per the rec ommendations’ intentions,

• Demonstrate a sobering lack of awareness of the co nsequences of human failure,

• Illustrate a careless and reckless attitude toward s aviation and public safety.

Figure 9 Small cause, huge impact - How long will w e have to wait ... ?

[Picture courtesy of DeTect/RM]

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 24 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.3.2.4 Human Factors

According to the

• Report on Human Factors by Roger Hughes (12),

• Risk Evaluation Team’s (REvalT) findings,

• Author’s investigation,

the recommendations for mitigation of the Bird Airc raft Strike Hazard (BASH) by the

joint FAA / USDA risk assessment conclusions (1) re ly heavily on administrative

controls (ST OP ), human behavior only (e.g. an Integrated Wildlife Hazard

Management Plan, IWHMP, wildlife biologist’s backgr ound, training and activities,

operational procedures, etc.).

The only engineering controls mentioned / planned a re (certain) design changes and

installation of additional anti-perching devices.

The most effective system / strategy / substitution solution, as a “build elsewhere”

alternative, combined with an effective wildlife co ntrol on site, is not even mentioned.

The joint FAA / USDA risk assessment (1) demonstrat es a misunderstanding of the

• Effectiveness and efficiency of human-behavior ori ented mitigation.

• Proven high failure rate of human behavior oriente d measures alone (e.g.

Operations & Maintenance Plans, Contingency Plans, see (9)),

• Requirement to address risk mitigation by a Safety System (e.g. by “TEAM” and /

or “STOP”) in order to target System Safety,

• Requirement to prioritize System / Strategy / Subs titution focused mitigation in the

first place (i.e. go with the “build elsewhere” alt ernative) over engineering controls

(anti-perching design & devices) second over admini strative controls

(assessments, Integrated Wildlife Hazard Management Plans & Programs,

procedures and processes, manuals, instructions, au dits etc.) in the third place.

• Need to balance the high human failure rate (in th e range of about 10exp-2 to

10exp-3) with initial and periodically updated / re current awareness training.

A (i.e. “one”) wildlife biologist, expected to insp ect the new NS MTS on a weekly

basis just for the first two years of operation, th en only performing a yearly check

illustrates a drastic underestimation of the need f or implementation of thorough plans,

procedures and protocols. This is a proven recipe f or failure.

Risk mitigation, based mainly on human behavior, is in violation of Best Risk

Management Practices if there is an imminent threat to human lives or system

integrity (see US MIL-STD 882D [8], Appendix A, I, explicitly stating “Do not use

warning, caution, or other written advisory as the only risk reduction method for

hazards assigned to catastrophic or critical mishap severity categories”).

And risk mitigation, based mainly on human behavior , will - sooner or later - fail.

Unfortunately, there is no doubt about that. The on ly question that remains is ...

when ...

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 25 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.3.3 Interpretation

6.3.3.1 Benefits Versus Costs

A comprehensive system risk assessment should consi der cost versus benefit (risk

versus reward) including risk of serious injury and property damage on the cost side,

as well as the higher risk associated with a precis ion versus a non-precision

approach to LGA 31 and the inability to maximize th e navigation benefits of full airspace re-design and Next-Gen navigation; the cost o f reduced LGA capacity and

reductions in potential, local employment and econo mic gain from future LGA

development, as well as the impact upon air traffic across the country resulting from

limits on the growth in efficiency and capacity of LGA.

The cost to the DSNY can be measured in constructio n and operational dollars. The

NS MTS is the first of its kind to be constructed a t a cost approaching $ 200 M. Once

complete, industry experts estimate that the cost t o operate this facility and dispose

of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) via barge could incr ease the City’s current cost of

disposal by as much as 75%. While private disposal costs to the City have decreased

in recent years, the long term plan will guarantee an increased cost to the City for the

next 20 years. So there is no economic incentive fo r the City to proceed with the

construction of the NS MTS versus the risk associat ed with it.

The risk associated with the construction of the NS MTS must be measured against

the net gain in truck traffic in and around Queens. As stated previously, while the

development of the NS MTS does eliminate truck trai ler miles out of the City (about

70,000 per month), it also simultaneously increases the miles travelled by compactor

trucks by about over 35,000 miles per month. The ne t gain on the face of this

analysis is about 35,000 miles per month. This is j ust a fraction of the millions of

miles previously estimated by DSNY.

A future precision approach might provide a higher degree of safety as well as

increased accessibility to the airport.

At LGA, poor weather requires planes to be re-route d to use alternate runways.

This reduces the efficiency of the airport; it caus es a back up in the system that might

potentially affect the entire airspace of the NY ar ea, if not the country.

The new NS MTS is being constructed to remove a tot al of about 100 (one hundred)

trucks from the road daily.

There are over 170,000 flights into LGA annually, o r roughly 465 flights a day.

The NYDS is spending USD 200 M to construct a new f acility when a fraction of that

amount may be used to eliminate existing obstructio ns.

Cost does not support benefit.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 26 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## The author’s understanding is that the FAA has a St andard Operating Procedure

(SOP) in place and normally performs a Cost to Bene fit Analysis (CBA), at least

above a certain project threshold USD amount.

Has the FAA (or any other potentially involved stak eholder) already executed a CBA

for the new NS MTS?

Can the USDA/FAA or NYDS justify the benefit receiv ed from the NS MTS over the

documented risks associated with its construction?

6.3.3.2 Further Work Required

The USDA/FAA has completed its initial report (1) a nd consolidated its findings.

However, this report is far from a final solution t o the issue that the USDA/FAA

concludes itself. The NS MTS as currently proposed is a wildlife hazard for planes

arriving and departing from LaGuardia.

The FAA/USDA report (1) states that the transfer st ation is a hazard unless mitigation

measures are put into play.

However, it does not outline

1. What these measures should be,

2. How they are to be implemented,

3. How or if they are going to be enforced,

4. How effective they can or will be over time.

Risks associated with the new NS MTS should be dete rmined through a comparison

of build versus a no-build scenario.

Is it within the USDA’s scope to make subjective ju dgments regarding mitigation

measures?

Does the USDA / FAA have jurisdiction to study and recommend risk mitigation?

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 27 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 6.3.3.3 Apply Best Risk Management Practices

Industry-wide acknowledged, undisputed Best Risk Ma nagement Practices require all

stakeholders to stay on the safe, conservative side as long as there is no proven

evidence beyond any reasonable doubt and public’s s afety is at risk.

It is certainly fair to state, that any good common sense will not prioritize a “green”

waste treatment/disposal solution over aviation and public safety?

Are the avoided outbound trailer-miles worth the ad ditional risk of losing an airliner?

If such an undesired event materializes in the futu re, will anyone then still stand up

and defend the decision to build the new NS MTS at the currently proposed location?

Do not gamble with safety!

Just because the previous MTS might not have result ed in additional BASH (do we

really have hard facts to underline such an underst anding ... ?), just because it might

not have happened so far, there is no basis that wi ll preclude it from happening

tomorrow. Or at any time in the future (the new NS MTS has an expected design life

of 50 years).

If physics allow for it to happen, then one thing i s for sure – it will happen. This is not

a matter of if, just a matter of when – and to whom !

Already ongoing construction violates, if not liter ally, so at least in spirit and stated

intention, of some recommended mitigation by the FA A / USDA report (1).

How much can the public rely on the full and compre hensive implementation of so

many human behavior-oriented mitigation measures, i f the very basic steps are

addressed at the very beginning (e.g. author’s pict ures site of his recent site visit:

complete lack of security, unrestricted access, com pactors acting as active bird

attractions in front of the nearby garage etc.)?

How reliable are promises to shut down the new NS M TS if in violation of the

(amended) permit as per the

• Ongoing construction is not shut down due to obvio us violations?

• Known background of NY’s bottleneck with waste dis posal?

The new NS MTS is not on airport property and may b e located currently just outside

the RPZ.

However, birds do not know this ...

Birds are not talking or listening to ATC.

Birds are neither reading, nor understanding or com plying with legal qualifications

and aviation airspace. Some hundred feet of (legal, formal) distance do not matter to

potentially hazardous bird activities!

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 28 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## Figure 10 Potential directions of (temporarily) dis persed birds & RWY 13/31

[Picture, courtesy of DeTect/RM]

Based on Best Management Practices and well acknowl edged industry standards for

risk management there is just one acceptable soluti on for now:

Stop the ongoing construction - immediately!

Therefore, give all stakeholders a fair opportunity to (re-)evaluate and review the

new, updated information in the context of a state of the art risk management

process.

Why not apply FAA’s Risk Management procedures and processes (e.g. as per

Chapter 12 of the FAA’s System Safety Handbook

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/risk_ma nagement/ss_handbook/media/C

hap12_1200.pdf ) to the new NS MTS in a new, joint activity bringi ng all stakeholders

around the same table at the same time?

In order to create a window of opportunity for a (u pdated) comprehensive Wildlife

Hazard Assessment (WHA) and a new, joint risk manag ement approach, there is just

the one and only solution for the time being ...

... Stop the ongoing construction for the new NS MTS – Now!

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 29 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 7 Outlook

7.1 What remains to be done?

Figure 11 What remains to be done?

# Task I/C Target ok [ ≡ done + effective]?

[Date] [Date] [Sign /Initials 5 

## ]

1. Review FAA’s / USDA’s

final report REvalT asap ... ...

2. Review FAA’s NS MTS

System Risk

Management Results REvalT asap ... ...

3. Review FAA’s NS MTS

Cost to Benefit Analysis

(CBA) REvalT asap ... ...

4. Address investigation’s

results to all

stakeholders PM In due time ... ...

5. Perform additional Risk

Assessment REvalT o/R ... ...

5 Without signature for digital transmissions.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 30 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 8 Acknowledgements

The author thanks and acknowledges the mandate and kind confidence in our

performance by

• Mr. Ken Paskar,

• Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT).

The author thanks and acknowledges the very compete nt support, professional

feedback, kind provision of product information, pl ans, schemes and/or pictures by

• Mr. Ken Paskar,

• Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT),

• Mrs. Susi Tschupp for her always competent proof-r eading,

• Many others not expressly stated.

Without their big help this investigation and docum ent would not have been possible.

The author’s apologies go to all readers for any in convenience dealing with overseen

mistakes and original names, terms, abbreviations, expressions and quotations not

always (fully/correctly) included.

As always, any feedback is highly appreciated at an y time.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 31 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 9 Disclaimer

1. The material presented in this report has been p repared in accordance with

generally recognized engineering principles and pra ctices, and is intended for

background information only.

2. The contents of this report are not intended for use as a reference in purchase

specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, o r any other legal document or to

interfere with any legal or regulatory procedure, p rocess or activity.

3. All statements and comments in this report are b ased on the author’s personal

investigation and best understanding of what he was told at the time of this

investigation.

Wherever possible the author double-checked verbal information against existing

original documents/sources. However, some substanti al information could not be

independently verified in an economic way.

4. The author makes no representation or warranty o f any kind, whether express or

implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, sui tability, or utility of any

information, apparatus, product, or process discuss ed in this report, and assumes

no liability therefore.

Anyone utilizing this information assumes all liabi lity arising from such use,

including but not limited to infringement of any pa tent or patents.

5. Substantial new information might request adequa te updates. This report is a

living document.

6. All rights reserved. The material presented abov e and the author’s data,

documents, contents and/or referred materials (excl uding links) are part of the

author’s intellectual property. However, every auth orized recipient may print out,

copy and/or use exclusively for him/herself and his /her organization the above

presented material at his/her full own risk any tim e.

7. Every copy, duplication, distribution and/or han dout (including of parts, and in

whatever format) to organizations and/or persons ot her than to authorized

recipients is prohibited. Every sale and/or resale (including of parts, and in

whatever format) of the material presented above an d the author’s data,

documents, contents and/or referred materials (excl uding links) is prohibited.

8. Any data, documents, contents and/or referred ma terials (excluding links)

presented are processed with best care and attentio n.

All data, documents, contents and/or referred mater ials (excluding links) are

checked at the time they are created with the lates t available version of the

author’s security protection software and are recog nized and available as virusfree. However, the author is never and in no context responsible and/or liable f or

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 32 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## any damage resulting from the download and/or use o f the data, documents,

contents and/or referred materials (including links ) made available by the material

presented.

9. In the case of any wording of our data, document s, contents and/or referred

materials (for whatever reason) being partly contra dictory, not applicable and/or

invalid, the rest of the author’s data, documents, contents and/or referred

materials would remain in any case applicable and v alid.

The part of the author’s data, documents, contents and/or referred materials

which could possibly be regarded as contradictory a nd/or not applicable and/or

invalid, would be replaced in any case by a new, un -contradicted, applicable, valid

wording based on the applicable law and according t o the author’s true intentions.

10. In any case and always, only and exclusively US Lou isiana Law applies.

11. Place of jurisdiction is in any case and always onl y and exclusively

St. Francisville, LA 70775 – USA.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 33 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 10 Appendix

10.1 Appendix1: Terms & Abbreviations

Figure 12 Terms and abbreviations

# Term /Abbreviation Definition/Explanation

1. # Number [NR or No]

2. $ US Dollar [USD]

3. % Percent

4.

≈ About, circa

5. ≡ Identical [or] defined

6. ≠ Unequal, conflict, not identical

7. Σ Sum

8. (...) Option or issue date

9. / Or

10. [...] Dimension and/or directions/instructions

11. + And

12. & And

13. => [Consequence/goal/target]

14. @ At

15. AC Advisory Circular

16. AHJ Authority Having Jurisdiction

17. ALARP As low as reasonably possible

18. am Alfred Moergeli, Author

19. AOA Air Operations Area

20. asap As soon as possible

21. ATC Air Traffic Control

22. BASH Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard

23. BMP Best Management Practices

24. CAN Canada/Canadian

25. CBA Cost to Benefit Analysis

26. CC Code Compliance

27. CFR Code of Federal Regulations ( www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/ )

28. CIP Continuous Improvement Process / of Performance

29. Controlled Managed/guided/secure & safe/monitored

30. Controlling Management/monitoring/ensuring/guidance

31. Doc(u) Document

32. DOT Department of Transportation ( www.dot.gov )

33. DSNY New York City Department of Department of Sani tation

( www.nyc.gov/sanitation )

34. E Emergency

35. e.g. For example [Latin: exempli gratia]

36. excl Exclusive/excluded

37. FAA Federal Aviation Administration ( www.faa.gov )

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 34 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## # Term /Abbreviation Definition/Explanation

38. FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

39. GSL General System Limits (“Define the context”)

40. H High

41. i.e. That is [Latin: id est]

42. I/C In charge, responsible staff for a task/activit y

43. IAP Instrument Approach Procedure

44. IBR Program Level Integrated Baseline Review

45. ID Identification/Identity

46. IMS Integrated Management System

47. incl inclusive/included

48. Info Information

49. IS Industry Standards

50. ISO International Standardization Organization ( www.iso.org )

51. IT Information Technology

52. IWHA Integrated Wildlife Hazard Assessment

53. IWHM Integrated Wildlife Hazard Management

54. IWHMP Integrated Wildlife Hazard Management Plan

55. L Low

56. LC Legal Compliance

57. LGA LaGuardia Airport

( http://www.panynj.gov/airports/laguardia.html )

58. LL Lessons Learned

59. Loc Location

60. LOI Letter of Intent

61. lt Latin

62. LT Local Time (always, if not noted otherwise)

63. M Maintenance

64. M Medium/moderate

65. M Million

66. Manual User Instructions

67. MB Megabyte

68. mcllc moergeli consulting, l.l.c. ( www.moergeli.com )

69. Mgt Management

70. MIL Military

71. MOA Memorandum of Agreement

72. MS Management System

73. MSW Municipal Solid Waste

74. MTS Marine Transfer Station

75. N Normal Operations

76. N/A Not applicable

77. Next-Gen Next Generation

78. Nil None/zero [intentionally left blank]

79. NJ New Jersey

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 35 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## # Term /Abbreviation Definition/Explanation

80. NR Number [also # or No]

81. NS North Shore

82. NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

( http://www.ntsb.gov/ )

83. NY New York

84. NYC New York City

85. O&M Operations & Maintenance

86. o/R On request

87. ORM Operational Risk Management

88. P Probability

89. PANYNJ Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

( www.panynj.gov )

90. PDCA Plan – Do – Check – Act

91. PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis

92. PIA Precision Instrument Approach

93. PM Project Manager

94. PMIS Project Management Information System

95. PO Purchase Order

96. PQM Project-specific Quality Management

97. PQM Plan Project-specific Quality Management Plan

98. Pr Defined, documented, completed & maintained proc ess

99. PRM Project Risk Management

100. PRMB Project Risk Management Binder

101. PRMPr Project Risk Management Process

102. PRMT Project Risk Management Team

103. QM Quality Management

104. RA Risk Assessment

105. resp Respective, respectively

106. REvalT Risk Evaluation Team

107. RISL Risk Item Shortlist

108. RM Risk Management/Risk Manager

109. RMP Risk Management Plan

110. RMR Risk Management Report

111. RMS Risk Management System

112. RO Risk Owner

113. ROW Right of Way

114. RPZ Runway Protection Zone

115. RR Residual Risk

116. RR Risk Register

117. RRA Risk Response Audit

118. RRP Risk Response Plan

119. RRR Residual Risk Register

120. RWY Runway

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 36 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## # Term /Abbreviation Definition/Explanation

121. S Severity

122. S Special Operations

123. S&H Safety & Health

124. SEP Surveillance Evaluation Program

125. SMART Specific – Measurable – Attainable – Realisti c – Timely

126. SME Subject Matter Expert

127. SMS Safety Management System

( http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/safety_m anag

ement_systems/ )

128. SOP Standard Operating Procedure

129. SRM Safety Risk Management

( http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/risk_ma nage

ment/ )

130. SSH System Safety Handbook

( http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/risk_ma nage

ment/ss_handbook/ )

131. STD Standard

132. STOP System/Strategy/Substitution – Technology –

Organization – Personel/Personal compliance

[Risk Mitigation Strategy]

133. SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan

134. TEAM Transfer – Eliminate – Accept – Mitigate

[Risk Mitigation Strategy]

135. TM Task Manager

136. TSB Transportation Safety Board ( http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/ )

137. US United States

138. USD US Dollar [or $]

139. USDA US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection ( www.aphis.usda.gov )

140. USDA WL US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Pl ant Health

Inspection, Wildlife Services

( http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/index.sht ml )

141. VH Very high

142. VL Very low

143. vs Versus

144. WAC Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. ( www.wacaz.com )

145. WBS Work Breakdown Structure

146. WiP Work in Progress

147. WS Workshop

All enlisted terms, abbreviations and acronyms may be used in singular or plural, with

or without capital letters and with or without a pe riod when abbreviated. Similar

terms, abbreviations and acronyms are self-explaini ng in the context. All terms,

abbreviations and acronyms are explained in the tex t upon first use.

Author’s last check of Internet links per 09/07/201 0.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 37 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 10.2 Appendix 2: Normative References

Figure 13 Normative References

# Normative Reference s

1. ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Systems – Requirem ents ( www.iso.org )

2. ISO 9000:2005 Quality Management Systems – Fundamen tals and

Vocabulary

3. ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Principles and Gui delines

4. ISO 31010:2009 Risk Management – Risk Assessment Te chniques

5. ISO Guide 73:2009 Risk Management – Vocabulary

6. Risk Management Handbook, FAA-H-8083-22009

www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/media/FAA-H-80 83-2.pdf [about 13 MB]

7. System Safety Handbook, FAA, on-line,

www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/risk_managemen t/ss_handbook/

8. US Mil-STD Military 882D, February 2000

www.everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD+(0800+-+0899)/MIL _STD_882D_934/

All normative references are marked and numbered wh en used in the text and

documents, e.g. [3].

Author’s last check of Internet links per 09/07/201 0.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 38 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 10.3 Appendix 3: References

Figure 14 References

# Reference s

1. EVALUATION OF THE NORTH SHORE MARINE TRANSFER STATI ON AND

ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO BIRD STRIKE AND S AFE AIR

OPERATIONS AT LAGUARDIA AIRPORT, August 2010, US DO T, FAA,

USDA & WLS

2. Preliminary Assessment and Recommendations Regardin g Potential Bird

Hazards to Aviation from the Proposed North Shore M arine Transfer Station,

Queens, New York, May 14, 2010, Russell P. DeFusco, PhD, USAF (ret), Vice

President, BASH Incorporated

3. Supplemental Report on the Proposed North Shore Mar ine Transfer Station,

Queens, New York, July 30, 2010, Russell P. DeFusco , PhD, USAF (ret), Vice

President, BASH Incorporated

4. Risk Assessment Of The Proposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station

Summary Report of Findings, July 15, 2010, Williams Aviation Consultants,

Inc. ( www.wacaz.com )

5. Evaluation of Trash-Transfer Facilities as Bird Att ractants,

DOT/FAA/AR-09/62, February 2010

6. Proposed North Shore Marine Transfer Station Adjace nt to La Guardia Airport

Is a Wildlife Attractant And a Bird Magnet That Wil l Substantially Add to BirdRelated Hazards & Risks at the Airport, March 11, 2 009,

Steven D. Garber, PhD, Worldwide Ecology

7. RESPONSE TO:

Evaluation Of The North Shore Marine Transfer Stati on And Its Compatibility

With Respect To Bird Strikes And Safe Air Operation s At LaGuardia Airport

(Draft), April 2010 Report, Kenneth D. Paskar, New York, NY,

May 24, 2010

8. Wildlife Hazard Assessment La Guardia Airport, USDA & WLS, 2000

9. NYC DOS Final Part 360 Permit Application, January 30, 2007

10. DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION,

FAA, 09/19/2008

11. Report on Bird Strike Hazards Associated with the P roposed North

Shore Marine Transfer Station, Queens, New York, 08 /02/2010, Ronald L.

Merritt, DeTect Inc. ( www.detect-inc.com )

12. Report on Human Factors, July 30, 2010, Roger Hughe s, Human Factors

Practitioner, President, Decoding Human Factors, In c.

13. MY POSITION ON THE NSMTS REPORT,

Joseph P. Brady, 2010

14. Comparison of Build and No Build Conditions for Nor th Shore Marine Transfer

Station – Analysis of Impact on Local Traffic,

TechniQuest Corporation, 08/30/2010,

TechniQuest Corporation, Consulting Engineers, Plan ners and Construction

Inspectors, NJ ( www.tquestsystems.com )

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 39 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## # Reference s

15. Letter to Mr. Warren D. Kroeppel, General Manager L aGuardia Airport, The

Port Authority of NY & NJ, by Airline Pilots Associ ation, International, April 17,

2009

16. Federal panel OKs trash site by LaGuardia, USA Toda y, 08/09/201, Page 3

( http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-09-08-b irds08_ST_N.htm )

17. Evaluation of the Final FAA/USDA Report on the Prop osed North Shore

Marine Transfer Station, September 8, 2010, Russell P. DeFusco, PhD, USAF

(ret), Vice President, BASH Incorporated

All references are marked and numbered when used in the text & documents, e.g.

(3).

Author’s last check of Internet links per 09/07/201 0.

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 40 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 10.4 Appendix 4: Copies to Authorized Recipients

Figure 15 Copies to authorized recipients

# Copies # Format Remarks

1. Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) 1 Original &

pdf Nil

2. All stakeholders ... pdf only o/R, by REvalT

PM’s decision

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 41 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 10.5 Appendix 5: Document Control

All future changes/updates of the Final Report are marked with a black line along the

right page margin for a fast overview and better un derstanding.

Exceptions could e.g. be

• Headers and footers, document name, release/versio n ID

• Pure layout-, language-changes/corrections

• Tables/brand names/hyperlinks

• Index/directories/definitions/abbreviations

• Figures.

Figure 16 Document control

# Versio n Release Status

1. R01_E01 - Draft – Internal use only

2. R02_E02 - Draft – Internal use only

3. R03_E03 - Draft – Internal use only

4. R04_E04 - Draft – Internal use only

5. R05_E05 - Draft – Internal use only

6. R06_E06 - Draft – Internal use only

7. R07_E07 - Draft – Internal use only

8. R08_E08 08/31/2010 Draft – Internal use only

9. R09_E09 09/07/2010 Preliminary Report

10. R10_E10 09/08/2010 Updated Preliminary Report

11. R11_E11 09/12/2010 Updated Preliminary Report

12. R12_E12 09/16/2010 Updated Preliminary Report

13. R13_E13 09/18/2010 Updated Preliminary Report

14. R14_E14 09/19/2010 Updated Preliminary Report

15. R15_R15 09/22/2010 Updated Preliminary Report

16. R16_R16 09/23/2010 Updated Preliminary Report

17. R17_R17 09/26/2010 Final Report

18. R18_R18 09/30/2010 Updated Final Report

Page 7 Additional argument/bullet point

Page 9 Quote (1) deleted

Page 18 Quote (17) deleted

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H 

## Page 42 of 42

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mc llc_R18_E18_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 5:58



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

## 10.6 Appendix 6: Separate Documents

Figure 17 Separate documents

# Separate Document s Appendi x

1. Risk Management Plan (RMP) Appendix 6-A

2. General System Limits (GSL) Appendix 6-B

3. Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) Appendix 6-C

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mcllc_R17_E17_20100926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:57



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Str eet P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

# Appendix 6-A

Risk Management Plan (RMP)

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 1 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

### Risk Management Plan (RMP)



# 1 Scope

This document describes the Risk Management Plan (R MP) and demonstrates how major

risks 1 

### are identified and mitigated based on a qualitativ e risk management process

(comparable to FAA’s Safety Management System, SMS [7], approach). The RMP defines

personnel roles and responsibilities, documentation , risk management activities, schedules

and timing, and risk management techniques.

The RMP has been reviewed and updated by the Risk E valuation Team (REvalT).

Risks are tracked by developing, maintaining, and u pdating the following items:

§ General System Limits (GSL)

§ Risk Item Shortlist (RISL) / Preliminary Hazard An alysis (PHA),

§ Risk Register (RR),

§ Risk Assessments (RA),

§ Risk Mitigation (RMit) trough Risk Response Plans (RRP),

§ Risk Control & Monitoring with Response Audits (RR A),

§ Continuous Improvement Process (CIP) based on Less ons Learned (LL).

Objectives of the Risk Management Plan include:

§ Promote Safety & Health Management during construc tion,

§ Identify major risks ahead of time to better mitig ate impacts to cost, schedule, quality,

safety, environment,

§ Provide a framework for making risk focused decisi ons and lessons learned,

§ Allocate project reserves in order to control risk s,

§ Maintain public trust in a highly visible project with federal funding,

§ Facilitate effective communication, thereby reduci ng response time,

§ Promote teamwork while maintaining personnel respo nsibility,

§ Provide strategic reporting.

Through pro-active and systematic risk management p ractices, these objectives will be

attained. Risk Management is a primary integral par t of project management, a Standard

Operating Procedure (SOP).

On the next two pages,

- Figure 1 – Project Risk Management Process, and

- Figure 2 – Risk Management (= Steps No. 10 & 11 o f Project Risk Management Process)

explain the workflow of this risk management approa ch.

1 

### Risks = Opportunities or threats, evaluated agains t potential impact and probability of occurrence

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 2 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

# 2 Risk Management Procedure & Process

2.1 Overview of Project Risk Management Process

Figure 1 Project Risk Management Process

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 3 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

### 2.2 Process Steps No. 10 & 11 of Project Risk Manag ement Process (see Figure 1)

Figure 2 Risk Management Process = Risk Assessment & Risk Mi tigation

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 4 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

### 2.3 Risk Management Modules

2.3.1 General System Limits

The General System Limits (GSL) define the boundari es (the context) of the risk

management system by describing

1. Task(s)

2. Client(s)

3. Stakeholders

4. Deliverables of the Risk Manager and the team

5. Deliverables of the Client(s)

6. Project boundaries (spatial limits)

7. Project schedules (time limits)

8. Methods

9. Team(s)

10. Intended Use

11. Reasonably foreseeable end user(s)

12. Reasonably foreseeable impacts

13. Reasonably foreseeable unintended use

14. Reasonably foreseeable involved third parties

15. Exclusions

16. Mode of Operations.

2.3.2 Risk Item Shortlist / Preliminary Hazard Anal ysis

A Risk Item Shortlist (RISL), applied and updated d uring inter-disciplinary Risk Evaluation

Team (REvalT) workshops, moderated and developed in to a Preliminary Hazard Analysis

(PHA) by the Risk Manager, serves as a preparation for a Risk Register (RR).

Figure 3 Formats, terminology & definitions used for the Ris k Item Shortlist / Preliminary Hazard Analysis



### No. Identified Risk Items (1) 

### Risk (1) 

### Risk Mitigation ( 2 ) 

### RR ( 3 )



### S ( 4 ) 

### P ( 5 ) 

### S P

# Description of unmitigated

opportunity / threat (risk) VL / L / M /

H / VH De scription of mitigation

measures VL / L / M

/ H / VH

(1) Identified, unmitigated Risk (1); (2) Risk Miti gation;

(3) Residual Risk (= Remaining risk after mitigatio n); (4) Severity; (5) Probability;

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 5 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 Figure 4 Formats, terminology & definitions used for the Ri sk Matrix



### 2.3.3 Risk Register

The Risk Register (RR) is the primary risk manageme nt tool to identify, mitigate, and track

all major project risks throughout the project’s li fe. The RR helps the project’s key

participants to make informed and risk based decisi ons well ahead of time.

For all high risk items identified, the RR serves a s an identification and transfer tool. All

high risks go into Risk Assessments (RA).

2.3.4 Risk Assessments

In order to focus the limited resources on the crit ical success factors (“Key Issues”) of the

project, Risk Assessments (RA) are performed for ri sks identified as high risks prior to

mitigation.

Qualitative Risk Assessments (RA) are based on:

§ ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Principles and Gu idelines

§ ISO 31010:2009 Risk Management – Risk Assessment T echniques

§ ISO Guide 73:2009 Risk Management – Vocabulary

§ US Mil-STD Military 882D, February 2000

Risk Assessments are performed in an inter-discipli nary and inter-hierarchical team

comprised of the key individuals involved in the de sign / construction / manufacturing /

implementation process. The Project Risk Management Team (PRMT) will be moderated

by the Risk Manager.

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 6 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

### Interviewing techniques with technical experts will be used to determine the probability of

occurrence and the impact of the assessed risk item on the project and introduce state of

the art in risk mitigation, design, and/or construc tion technology.

Risk Assessments are based on a qualitative approac h. Whenever high probability of

occurrence and/or a potentially severe impact of an identified risk require (red zone), and

availability of sound quantitative data allows for, quantitative risk assessment techniques

may be used additionally.

2.3.5 Risk Mitigation

Systematic Risk Mitigation (RMit) follows one of th e following strategies :

Use a “ TEAM” strategy by

1. T ransfer ( T )

2. E liminate ( E )

3. A ccept ( A )

4. M itigate ( M ) to reduce all risks (as low as reasonably possible, ALARP)

and / or a Safety System (“ STOP ”) by

1. S ystem / S trategy / S ubstitution ( S )

2. T echnology (engineering controls) ( T )

3. O rganization / Instructions (behavior oriented, admi nistrative controls) ( O )

4. P ersonal compliance (behavior oriented, administrati ve controls) ( P )

to reach System Safety ( SS ).

2.3.6 Risk Response Plans

Risks will be assigned to individual team members t o own. All risks that are identified as

“high” (red zone) will have a response plan prepare d by the respective Risk Owners (RO).

All Risk Response Plans (RRP) identify the conditio ns that may lead to the risk, the impact

if it occurs, contain recommended actions that will reduce either the probability of the risk

materializing into a problem and/or the severity of the exposure if it does (as low as

reasonable possible, ALARP), or justification for a ccepting the risk. The Risk Manager will

disseminate Risk Response Plans for identified Risk Owners to substantiate.

Risk Response Plans are reviewed for completeness. Information from the Risk Response

Plans will be used to update the Risk Register (RR) . The individual Risk Response Plans

are to be kept in the Project Risk Management Binde r (PRMB).

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 7 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

### Each Risk Owner takes responsibility for executing all necessary activities to manage

(control) the risk assigned to him. Any risk for wh ich response actions are not being

effectively carried out, or whose exposure rating i s increasing, shall be escalated to

appropriate management levels for action.

2.3.7 Residual Risk Register

Residual Risk Registers will summarize all risks re maining in the “high risk” (red zone) zone

after risk mitigation has been implemented. A compr ehensive explanation, as to why no

further action may be feasible / required and why t he risk may be tolerated, is delivered.

The Residual Risk Register shall be signed off by e veryone sharing responsibility within the

project.

2.3.8 Allocation of Project Reserves

Project reserves may be allocated in accordance wit h the qualitative and quantitative risk

assessments and the Residual Risk Register. Require d cost buffers and schedule

contingencies will be forecasted.

2.3.9 Risk Response Audits

Project Risk Response Audits (RRA) will be performe d periodically during the project’s

execution to examine and document the effectiveness of the risk responses chosen and the

Risk Owner’s effectiveness.

2.3.10 Lessons Learned

Upon the resolution of a risk, a review of the item shall be performed addressing the

planned versus actual of any measurable impacts, no n-identified triggers, etc. The review

shall be submitted to the Risk Manager and filed in the Risk Management Binder (RMB).

Presentations will be held periodically to discuss Lessons Learned (LL) with the risk

management team members present.

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 8 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

### 2.3.11 Continuous Improvement Process

Risk Management provides a continuous learning envi ronment for all personnel involved in

the project and sets the stage for a systematic and documented learning process as a joint

team in order to deliver a successful project.

2.3.12 Periodic Updates

The RMP and its elements are living documents; upda tes are required periodically for:

§ Final Design and Construction (as approved Risk Ma nagement Plan, if applicable), and

§ Throughout the project until final handover to the Owner, whenever

§ New risks materialize, and/or

§ Existing risks may be re-classified, and/or

§ Risk Mitigation needs additional inputs or correct ions, and/or

§ Undesired events occur (critical incidents, accide nts), and/or

§ Lessons Learned suggest so.

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 9 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

# 3 Compliance

3.1 Legal and Code Compliance

The Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) is fully committe d to maintain Legal Compliance (LC)

with all relevant laws, ordinances, regulations and codes through all stages of the project.

A Legal Compliance (LC) and Code Compliance (CC) Pr ocedure is implemented and

maintained to achieve and provide auditable evidenc e of legal and code compliance.

Figure 5 Legal Compliance Process

### R I S K 

### E V A L U A T I O N 

### T E A M 

### ( R E V A L 

### T ) R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### P L A N 

### ( R M P )

A D D I T I O N A L 

### O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

### & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

### N E W 

### N O R T H 

### S H O R E 

### M A R I N E 

### T R A N S F E R



### S T A T I O N 

### @ L A 

### G U A R D I A 

### A I R P O R T



### , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A

A R I S K 

### M A N A G E M E N T 

### B A S E D 

### A P P R O A C H



### A P P E N D I X 

### 6

- A O F 

### R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

### R E P O R T 

### ( R M R ) Page 10 of 10

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMP\NSMTS@LGA_RMP_mc llc_R12_E12_2010926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:26 AM



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

# 4 Tasks & Responsibilities

4.1 Project Manager

The Project Manager (PM) is the owner of the Projec t Risk Management (PRM). The

Project Manager and other members of the Project Ri sk Management Team (PRMT) will

meet periodically to review the status of risk resp onse efforts, review exposure to any new

risk items, re-assess the project's risks and keep adequate records for documentation.

4.2 Risk Manager

The Risk Manager (RM) will:

§ Be the owner of the Project Risk Management Plan ( RMP),

§ Moderate all Risk Identification (RI),

§ Maintain the project’s list of identified risks, t he project’s Risk Register (RR),

§ Moderate Risk Assessments (RA) when and where requ ired,

§ Set up and disseminate the Risk Response Plans (RR P) to the Risk Owners (RO),

§ Perform all Risk Monitoring and Control (RM&C) by Risk Response Audits (RRA),

§ Report on the risk management process to the Proje ct Manager (PM),

§ Accumulate and present Lessons Learned in the area of risk management.

The designated Risk Manager for the Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) is:

Alfred Moergeli,

Certificated Swiss Civil Engineer FH, Risk Manager,

alfred.moergeli@moergeli.com

, Tel. +41-55-282-50-01 (Office);

Tel. +41-79-635-27-40 (Cell)

4.3 Risk Owners

Each risk will be associated with one individual, p referably a competent and experienced

project risk management team member. Risk Owners (R O) assess the impact and

probability of their risks, and report the results of that analysis to the Risk Manager (RM).

Risk Owners are responsible for setting up and impl ementing individual Risk Response

Plans (RRP) and reporting progress to the RM as dic tated by the risk needs.

4.4 Task Managers

Specific risks might be mitigated by a (group of) c ompetent and experienced Task

Manager(s, TM), assisting and reporting to the Risk Owner (RO).

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mcllc_R17_E17_20100926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:57



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Str eet P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

# Appendix 6-B

General System Limits (GSL)

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) G E N E R A L S Y S T E M 

## L I M I T S 

## (

„ D E F I N E T H E C O N T E X T 

## “ )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H



## A P P E N D I X 

## 6

- B O F 

## R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R ) Page 1 of 3

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\GSL\NSMTS@LGA_GSL_mcllc_R14_E14_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 6:21 

# General System Limits (GSL, “Context”)

Task Evaluation of additional opportuniti es and threats by the new North

Shore Marine Transfer Stati on at LaGuardia Airport, NY

(NSMTS@LGA)

Client Aviation Team USA/Kenneth D. Paskar

Stakeholders • Department of Sanitation New York (DSNY)

• Port Authority of New York & Ne w Jersey (LaGuardia Airport, LGA,

Operator)

• LGA Authorities

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

• Airlines, passengers & other LGA users

Deliverables of

Risk

Evaluation

Team (REvalT) Risk Management Report (RMR) with

• Risk Management Plan (RMP, Appendix 6-A of RMR)

• General System Limits (GSL, Appendix 6-B of RMR)

• Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA, Appendix 6-C of RMR)

Deliverables of

Client • Project Management

• Select, assign & support the Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT)

Project

Boundaries

(Spatial Limits) • <= 5 statute miles horizontal range from LGA’s Air Operations Area

(based on Advisory Circular, AC 150/5200-33B)

• <= 1,000 feet Above Ground Level (ft AGL) vertically

[Picture courtesy of WAC/JK]

Project

Schedules

(Time Limits) • July 2010 - ... [ongoing]

• <= System Life Cycle Time of 50 years (Part 360 Permit Application

– Volume 1) (9)

Methodology Risk Management, based on

• ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Pr inciples and Guidelines

• ISO 31010:2009 Risk Management – Risk Assessment Techniques

• ISO Guide 73:2009 Risk Management – Vocabulary

• US Mil-STD Military 882D, February 2000

moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) G E N E R A L S Y S T E M 

## L I M I T S 

## (

„ D E F I N E T H E C O N T E X T 

## “ )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H



## A P P E N D I X 

## 6

- B O F 

## R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R ) Page 2 of 3

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\GSL\NSMTS@LGA_GSL_mcllc_R14_E14_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 6:21



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740



## Risk

Evaluation

Core Team ; Ken PASKAR, Aviation Team USA AT/KP

; Barry YURTIS, Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. WAC/BY

; Jeremy KNAGGS, Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. WAC/JK

; Joe BRADY, Retired – Previously “FAA Program

Manager” JB

; Ron L. MERRITT, DeTect, Inc. DT/RM

; Roger HUGHES, Decoding Hum an Factors, Inc., Aviation

Consulting Firm DHF/RH

; Russell P. DEFUSCO, PhD ., USAF (retired), Vice

President, BASH Inc. BASH/RD

; Jim HALL, Hall & Associates, LLC – Previously US NTSB HALL/JH

; Ken JOHNSON, Hall & Associ ates, LLC/ – Previously

CAN TSB HALL/KJ

; Alfred MOERGELI, moergeli consulting, l.l.c. mcllc/am

Intended use of client’s

deliverables • Prevent a decrease in aviation safety @ LGA

• Prevent decrease of future access to LGA

Reasonably foreseeable

end user of client’s

deliverables All Stakeholders

Reasonably foreseeable

other impacts New inputs for a thorough (re -)evaluation of additional

opportunities and threats by the new NSMTS@LGA

through a System Safety / Risk Management approach

Reasonably foreseeable

unintended use of client’s

deliverables None foreseeable at this time

Reasonably foreseeable

involved third parties • Adjacent property owners

• Adjacent businesses

• Other third parties

• Public (using LGA or relyi ng on effective/efficient LGA

use)

What is excluded so far? Force Majeure (e.g. Hurricanes , major fires, earthquakes,

flooding, etc.)

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) G E N E R A L S Y S T E M 

## L I M I T S 

## (

„ D E F I N E T H E C O N T E X T 

## “ )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H



## A P P E N D I X 

## 6

- B O F 

## R I S K M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R ) Page 3 of 3

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\GSL\NSMTS@LGA_GSL_mcllc_R14_E14_20100930.doc; 01.10.2010 6:21



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. (mcllc) 11921 Ferdinand Street P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740



## Mode of operations 1 

## Definition Comment

N ormal Operations

( N ) System is working as

intended and free of trouble Standard crew (incl. supervision,

visitors, etc.)

Safety features are

operative

S pecial Operations

( S ) System is working as

intended but not free of

trouble Standard crew (incl. supervision,

visitors, etc.)

Erection & commissioning, trouble

shooting, teaching, training, etc. Safety features are partly or

totally inoperative

M aintenance

( M ) System does not work Specialized maintenance crew

(incl. supervision, visitors, etc.) Safety features are partly or

totally inoperative

E mergency

( E ) Substantial threat to system

and/or people’s life requires

immediate response.

System operates outside

intended use Standard or specialized

maintenance crew (incl.

supervision, visitors, etc.)

May occur out of any (previous,

other) mode of operations at any

time

1 

### To be covered by Risk Management (RM)

## R I S K 

## E V A L U A T I O N 

## T E A M 

## ( R E V A L 

## T ) R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## R E P O R T 

## ( R M R )

A D D I T I O N A L 

## O P P O R T U N I T I E S 

## & T H R E A T S B Y T H E 

## N E W 

## N O R T H 

## S H O R E 

## M A R I N E 

## T R A N S F E R



## S T A T I O N 

## @ L A 

## G U A R D I A 

## A I R P O R T



## , N Y ( N S M T S @ L G A )

A R I S K 

## M A N A G E M E N T 

## B A S E D 

## A P P R O A C H

D:\Kopie_i\Kunden\NSMTS@LGA\RM\RMR\NSMTS@LGA_RMR_mcllc_R17_E17_20100926.doc; 26.09.2010 11:57



### moergeli consulting, l.l.c. 11921 Ferdinand Str eet P.O. Box 2852 St. Francisville LA 70775, USA

website: http://www.moergeli.com mailto:info@moergeli.com Cell Phone + 41 79 635 2740 

# Appendix 6-C

Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)1stRM WS Introduction, Start General System Limits (GSL) & Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)07/14/2010 10:00 AM – 06:00 PM MST2ndRM WS Update / review GSL, PHA08/20/2010 12:00 PM – 01:45 PM EDT3rdRM WS Review & finalize Risk Management approach08/31 – 09/01/2010 09:00 AM – 05:00 PM EDTParticipants / Core Team First Name FamilyNameFunction / TaskAffiliation InitialsKen PASKARProject Manager Aviation Team USAAT/KPBarry YURTISREvalT Member WilliamsAviation Consultants, Inc.WAC/BYJeremy KNAGGSREvalT Member Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc.WAC/JKJoe BRADYREvalT Member Retired – Previously “FAA Program Manager”JBRon L. MERRITTREvalT Member DeTect, Inc.DT/RMRoger HUGHESREvalT Member Decoding Human Factors, Inc., Aviation Consulting Firm DHF/RHRussell P. DEFUSCOREvalT Member PhD., USAF (retired), Vice President, BASH Inc.BASH/RDJim HALLREvalT Member Hall & Associates, LLC – Previously US NTSBHALL/JHKen JOHNSONREvalT Member Hall & Associates, LLC – Previously CAN TSBHALL/KJAlfred MOERGELIRisk Manager moergeli consulting, l.l.c.mcllc/amR I S K M A T R I XDefinitionsProbability (P)Severity (S)1VHVeryHighLikely to occuroften(to be expected)VHVeryHighDeath/ system loss / severe environmental damage /severe delay (> 12 months) / severe financial loss (>$ 50 M)HHighSeveral timesin thesystem’s life cycleHHighIrrecoverable severeinjury / irrecoverable illness / major system damage / major environmental damage /major delay (> 6 months, <= 12 months) / major financial loss (>$ 10 M, $ <= 50 M)MMedium /ModerateAt least oncein thesystem’s life cycleMMedium /ModerateIrrecoverable lightinjury / irrecoverable light illness / irrecoverable light system damage / irrecoverable lightenvironmental damage /irrecoverable light delay (> 3 months, <= 6 months) / irrecoverable light financial loss ($ > 1 M, <= $ 10 M)LLowUnlikely butmaypossibly occurLLowRecoverable lightinjury / recoverable light illness / recoverable light system damage / recoverable lightenvironmental damage /recoverable light delay (> 1 month, <= 3 months) / recoverable light financial loss ($ > 0.25 M, <= 1 M)VLVeryLowPractically impossible(not to be expected)VLVeryLowWillnotresult in injury / illness / irrelevant system damage / irrelevant environmental damage /irrelevant delay (<= 1 month) / irrelevant financial loss ($ <= 0.25 M)Red:Unacceptable => Must be reducedYellow:Reduce if feasible, proceed with care (ALARP2)Green:Good to go for the time being, keep monitoring1For opportunities use upside risk / positive definition respectively2ALARP=AsLowAsReasonablyPossiblyNSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 1/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comRisk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Risk Summary Graph (Preliminary Hazard Analysis)NSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 2/10 09/26/2010

Probability (P)Risk MatrixBeforeMitigation Probability (P)Risk MatrixAfterMitigationVHVHH5 63 91 2 4 810 12HOn behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comM11 137M5 61 2 3 498 1011 1213LL7VLVLVLLMHVHVLLMHVHSeverity (S)Severity (S)13 Risks before mitigation11 Risks reduced by mitigation11Red Zone Risks5Red Zone Risks2Yellow Zone Risks8Yellow Zone Risks0Green Zone Risks0Green Zone RisksRisk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Scenario 1 – Transport & Access to the new NS MTSNSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 3/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comNo.Identified Risk3ItemsRisk4Risk Mitigation5– Apply a Safety System (“STOP6” / “TEAM7”) to target System Safety(First selection of known, true & tried mitigation => Assign to competent & experienced Task Managers)RR8S9P10SP1.No operational MTS(as current status)Risk:Might increase local truck traffic on busyNY streetsHHAdditional management inputs required bySpecific / updated Traffic Management Plan (STOP5) to manage•Traffic congestion•Emissions (noise, exhausts etc.)•Undesired events (critical incidents, accidents)MM2.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Centralization of Transfer StationlocationOpportunity:Will reduce hazards due to less trucktransportation (barges replace outboundtrailer trucks, may therefore reduceabout 70,000 truck miles per month)HHAdditional management inputs required bySpecific / updated Traffic Management Plan (STOP5) to manage•Traffic congestion•Emissions (noise, exhausts etc.)•Undesired events (critical incidents, accidents)MM3Risks=Opportunities or threats, evaluated against potential impact and probability of occurrence4Riskbeforemitigation5Risk Mitigation = Opportunity exploitation or threat control6STOP=System/Strategy/Substitution –Technology –Organization/Personal compliance7TEAM=Transfer –Eliminate –Accept –Mitigate8ResidualRisk = By definition riskafter risk mitigation has been implemented9Severity of potential impact – Moderated team evaluation and decision, based on qualitativeRisk Matrix(seepage 1)10Probability/Frequency of occurrence – Moderated team evaluation and decision, based on qualitativeRisk Matrix(seepage 1)Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Scenario 1 – Transport & Access to the new NS MTSNSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 4/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comNo. Identified Risk3ItemsRisk4Risk Mitigation5– Apply a Safety System (“STOP6” / “TEAM7”) to target System Safety(First selection of known, true & tried mitigation => Assign to competent & experienced Task Managers)RR8S9P10S P3.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Change in curbside pickup routingRisk:Will increase local truck traffic on busyNY streetsMHAdditional management inputs required bySpecific / updated Traffic Management Plan (STOP5) to manage•Traffic congestion•Emissions (noise, exhausts etc.)•Undesired events (critical incidents, accidents)MM4.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Centralization of Transfer StationlocationRisk:Will increase numberof truck miles byabout 25,000 per month (14)HHAdditional management inputs required bySpecific / updated Traffic Management Plan (STOP5) to manage•Emissions (noise, exhausts etc.)•Undesired events (critical incidents, accidents)MM5.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Centralization of Transfer StationlocationRisk:Will increase number of trucks having towait / hold (up to at least 20 trucks at thesame time, (9)) before being processedLHAdditional management inputs required bySpecific / updated NSMTS Operations Plan (STOP5) to manage•Emissions (noise, exhausts etc.)•Undesired events (critical incidents, accidents)•Attracting birds (seeScenario 2)LMRisk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Scenario 1 – Transport & Access to the new NS MTSNSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 5/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comNo. Identified Risk3ItemsRisk4Risk Mitigation5– Apply a Safety System (“STOP6” / “TEAM7”) to target System Safety(First selection of known, true & tried mitigation => Assign to competent & experienced Task Managers)RR8S9P10S P6.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Risk:Centralization of Transfer StationlocationWill lead to barges having to wait / holdbefore being processedLHAdditional management inputs required bySpecific / updated NSMTS Operations Plan (STOP5) to manage•Emissions (noise, exhausts etc.)•Undesired events (critical incidents, accidents)•Barge traffic that will disturbnatural currents and water surfaces is a bird attractant (seeScenario 2) and there is currently no known mitigation available.The FAA / USDA report (1) explicitly rejects to address this hazardLM7.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Risk:Security – Unauthorized accessVHMAdditional management inputs required bySpecific / updated NSMTS Operations & Maintenance Plan (STOP5) to manage unauthorizedaccess at all times that might lead to•Unauthorized waste disposal, attracting additional bird activities (seeScenario 2)•Terrorists targeting departing / approachingairplanes to Runway (RWY) 31 @ LaGuardiaAirport (LGA)•Terrorists sabotaging the NS MTS facilities.VHLRisk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Scenario 2 – Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)NSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 6/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comNo.Identified Risk3ItemsRisk4Risk Mitigation5– Apply a Safety System (“STOP6” / “TEAM7”) to target System Safety(First selection of known, true & tried mitigation => Assign to competent & experienced Task Managers)RR8S9P10SP8.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Risk:New NS MTS will attract additional birdactivitiesAdditional bird activities will increase therisk for additional Bird Aircraft StrikeHazard (BASH)HHRisk Mitigation according to (1)•Develop an Integrated Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (IWHMP) (STOP5)•Eliminate ledges and other perching sites (STOP5)•Install anti-perching devices on roof, pilings and other surfaces where birds might perch(STOP5)•Strict enforcement of a “no feedingwildlife or feral animals” policy” (STOP5)•Ensure landscaping plants and materials are selected to be non-attractive to wildlife(STOP5)•Implement an Integrated Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Program (STOP5)•Provide a11dedicated (i.e. only duties) wildlife control professional trained and equippedto mitigate bird use of the MTS as issues develop (i.e., pro-active approach) (STOP5)•Monitor trash containers to ensure no trash isextruding from them prior to leaving theMTS building (STOP5)•Monitor barge activity for birds that might be attracted to them (due to water disturbanceand/or the refuse containers)and mitigate accordingly (STOP5)See comparable other facilitiesfor Lessons Learned / Validation (STOP5)However, every Transfer Station will have to be specifically investigatedas small architectural/ design / operational differences might create different attractions for birdsThere is no to way to provide hard evidence•Of the effectiveness and/or limits of known wildlife control strategies and measures, untilthe new NS MTS will be operative ... and then it will be (probably too/very) late to go witha “build elsewhere” alternative (STOP5)Expected secondary (Substitution)risks as a result of known,(in)effective wildlife controlstrategies and measures (vicious circle)HM11= “... a ...” = One = 1... (24/7 for 365 days/year ...?)Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Scenario 2 – Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)NSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 7/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comNo. Identified Risk3ItemsRisk4Risk Mitigation5– Apply a Safety System (“STOP6” / “TEAM7”) to target System Safety(First selection of known, true & tried mitigation => Assign to competent & experienced Task Managers)RR8S9P10S P9.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Risks:•Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA)has not been performed as required(using incomplete or insufficientdata, covered some – winter -months only)•Last known, completed WildlifeHazard Assessment for LGA datesback to 2000 and did not cover NSMTS•Future aviation safety for about fiftyyears (= Expected life cycle time ofthe new NS MTS) will be based on aoutdated and/or incomplete WHAthat did not address NS MTSMHStart with a new Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) (STOP5)•To be performed over at least a one-year-period initially•To be periodically updated•Include LGA’s wildlife monitoring data accordinglyStop temporarily (at least for the duration thata new WHA requires) the ongoing constructionof the NS MTS (STOP5)MMRisk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Scenario 2 – Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)NSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 8/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comNo. Identified Risk3ItemsRisk4Risk Mitigation5– Apply a Safety Syty(First selection of known, true & tried mitiManagers)RRstem (“STOP6” / “TEAM7”) to target System Safegation => Assign to competent & experienced Task8S9P10S P10.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Risk:Integrated Wildlife Hazard ManagementPlan (IWHMP) not executed as required(using incomplete or insufficient data,not executed according to industrystandards and/or Best ManagementPractices)HHWill increase risk of additional BASH•Parts of existing bird population @ LGA might be temporarily dispersed / diverted(STOP5)=> However, this may slow down LGA performance (as due to prior coordinationrequirements with ATC)=> Will increase risk of additional BASH if dispersed birds cross AOA (again) – both ontheir way out ... as on their way back ...•Human behavior-oriented (“Administrative Controls”) only(see US MIL-STD 882D [8], Appendix A, I, explicitly stating “Do not use warning, caution,or other written advisory as the only riskreduction method for hazards assigned toCatastrophic or Critical mishap severity categories”) (STOP5)•Missing Human Factors Awareness Training for all employees (STOP5)•Absence of a robust Continual Analysis andSurveillance Audit Program in NYC DOS Part360 Building Application (Paragraph 3.91. “Record Keeping” indicates that inspection ofthe NS MTS will occur on a routine basis only) (STOP5)HM11.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Risk:Building Maintenance is a reactive notpro-active program as required byDSNY Part 360 Building ApplicationHMWill increase risk of additional BASH•There is no mention of apreventative maintenance program or building maintenancetechnicians present on-site on a 24/7 basis to address mechanical and electricalbreakdowns immediately (STOP5)•There is no time to wait for the Bureau of Building Maintenance (BBM) technician’s arrivalto resolve a quick roll up entry or exit dooranomaly which is designed to prevent birdsfrom accessing portions of thewaste transfer operation (STOP5)HMRisk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Scenario 2 – Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)NSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 9/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comNo. Identified Risk3ItemsRisk4Risk Mitigation5– Apply a Safety Syty(First selection of known, true & tried mitiManagers)RRstem (“STOP6” / “TEAM7”) to target System Safegation => Assign to competent & experienced Task8S9P10S P12.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Risk:Birds will flock more together, stay moregrounded, and move inland from coastalareas in inclement weather(that might favor LGA’s RWY 31) andwill therefore increase the risk of BASHat low altitudesHHWill increase risk of additional BASH•Parts of existing bird population @ LGA might be temporarily dispersed / diverted(STOP5)=> However, this may slow down LGA performance (as due to prior coordinationrequirements with ATC)=> Will increase risk of additional BASH if dispersed birds cross AOA (again) – both ontheir way out ... as on their way back ...•Human behavior-oriented (“Administrative Controls”) only(see US MIL-STD 882D [8], Appendix A, I, explicitly stating “Do not use warning, caution,or other written advisory as the only riskreduction method for hazards assigned toCatastrophic or Critical mishap severity categories”) (STOP5)•Missing Human Factors Awareness Training for all employees (STOP5)•Absence of a robust Continual Analysis andSurveillance Audit Program in NYC DOS Part360 Building Application (Paragraph 3.91. “Record Keeping” indicates that inspection ofthe NS MTS will occur on a routine basis only) (STOP5)HMRisk Evaluation Team (REvalT)Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)Additional Opportunities and Threats by theNew North Shore Marine Transfer Stationat LaGuardia Airport, NY (NSMTS@LGA)A Risk Management Based ApproachAPPENDIX6-COFRISKMANAGEMENTREPORT(RMR)Scenario 3 – Potential Future Access to LGANSMTS@LGA_PHA_mcllc_R18_E18_20100926.docPage 10/10 09/26/2010On behalf of Risk Evaluation Team (REvalT) m o e r g eli c o n s u l t i n g, l.l.c. (mcllc)Alfred Moergelimailto:info@moergeli.comwww.moergeli.comNo.Identified Risk2ItemsRisk3Risk Mitigation4– Apply a Safety System (“STOP5” / “TEAM6”) to target System Safety(First selection of known, true & tried mitigation => Assign to competent & experienced Task Managers)RR7S8P9SP13.New North Shore Marine TransferStation(New NS MTS)Risk:•Height of new NS MTS mightprevent a future Precision InstrumentApproach Procedure (IAP) intoLGA’s RWY 31•Failure to implement a futurePrecision Approach into LGA’s RWY31 may prevent LGA from fullyachieving its maximum landingcapability•The new NS MTS might becomelocated inside the Runway ProtectionZone (RPZ) for a future PrecisionApproach into LGA’s RWY 31HMLower and/or displace existing obstructions potentially interfering with a future PrecisionInstrument Approach Procedure (IAP) into LGA’sRWY 31 (mitigation plan is currently work inprogress)There is currently no mitigation available ... otherthan the “no build” (or “build elsewhere”)alternativeHM