Transcript Default
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems Center for Water Resource Studies Western Kentucky University Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute University of Kentucky Center for Infrastructure Research University of Louisville Water Resources Research Center University of Missouri KYPipe LLC 2. Problem Statement 2. Problem Statement Decision-Support Tool to Guide Response & Recovery Operations DHS - 2008-002-Water: “Decontamination Research” Pre-event – Post-event planning robustness Decontamination options Flush - No-Flush? Response command structure regulatory stakeholders, local government, law enforcement, environmental concerns, etc. Factors affecting approach selection NIMS & ICS compatibility 2. Project Focus Multi-Scale Local and Regional Resiliency data Decision support Multi-Faceted National Extrapolated impact and exposure Fact Sheets Expert System Rules-based Graphical DSS Policy support Scale relevance Distribution system Training Materials Web-delivered 2. Project Organization Principle Investigator Andrew Ernest WKU/CWRS Project Coordinator Jana Fattic WKU/CWRS Hydraulic Systems Lindell Ormsbee UK/KWRRI Stakeholder Engagement Thomas Rockaway UofL/CIR Utility Operations Robert Reed UofM/WRRC Background Research Thomas Clevenger UofM/WRRC 3. Technical Review / Project Content 3. Technical - Project Components Decision Support Tool Background Research Stakeholder Engagement Decontamination Network Model Training Education Guidance Rules-Based Decision Support Tool 3. Technical - Stakeholder Engagement Technology Review Tabletop Exercises Gap assessment Decontamination scenarios Technology Deployment DHS Utilities Bio/Chemical specialists USEPA CDC DHHS State Health Departments Training End users Technology validation NIMS ICS 3. Technical - Prioritized List of Decontamination Issue Categories* 1. Large volumes 9. Treatment procedures 2. Practical solutions 10.Agent fate and transport 3. Treatment works 11.Roles and responsibilities 4. Decision-making frameworks 12.Waivers or suspensions 5. Distribution and collection systems 13.Resources and assets 6. Outreach and training 7. Utility communications 14.Laboratory analysis 15.Operator health and safety 16.Overarching 8. Cleanup levels *2007 Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), Water Sector Decontamination Working Group, Water Sector Coordinating Council (SCC), and Government Coordinating Council (GCC) 3. Technical - Decontamination Network Model Decontamination Network Model (DNM) GIS Datasets If the system should be flushed, using what hydrant(s)? What will be the final disposition of the flushed water? Where will the water flow? If the system should be flushed, can the “upstream” part of the system be used or does the system need to be isolated and flushing water pumped through a hydrant? If so, which hydrant? If the system needs to be isolated, using what valve(s)? What is the associated volume of water that will be isolated? 3. Technical – Export to KYPIPE R (existing technology) for addressing additional questions Decontamination Network Model (DNM) KYPIPE What additional system components (e.g. pumps, tanks) need to be changed in support of system flushing or isolation? How can water be provided to those denied service due to the isolation? What is the operational impact associated with the rest of the system? What operational steps need to be taken to maintain normal conditions until decontamination is complete? 3. Technical - Rules-Based Decision Support Tool Fact Base (Working Memory) Explanation System U S E R Inference Engine (Rule Engine) Rule Base (Knowledge Base) Knowledge Base Editor I N T E R F A C E Expert System Shell Who should be notified? How? When? What are the potential health impacts? Immediate? Shortterm? What are the environmental concerns? When should decontamination be implemented? What decontamination strategy should be taken? What post event information needs to be provided to decision makers, utility customers, and the general public? 3. Technical - Decision Support Tool notify? what else? where? health impacts? environmental? volume? flush? disposal? isolate? when? 3. Technical - Training, Education, and Guidance Guidance Documents Online Training and Professional Networking Technology Deployment Workshops 4. Landscape Assessment 4. Landscape - Related Work Prioritized list of decontamination issue categories Possible contaminants Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2003. Emergency Preparedness & Response. Atlanta, Georgia: Center for Disease Control. States, S., et al. 2003. Utility-based Analytical Methods to Ensure Public Water Supply Security. Journal American Water Works Association 95(4): 103-115. Use of traditional treatment techniques for treating non-traditional contaminants CIPAC 2008 Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, Water Sector Decontamination Working Group Final Report (August 2008) Fox 2004 Water Treatment and Equipment Decontamination Techniques Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education Issue 129, Pages 18-21 2004 Planning, evaluating and implementing responses U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003 Overview of the Response Protocol Toolbox. EPA-817D-03-007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008 Decontamination and Recovery Planning, Water and Wastewater Utility Case Study EPA-817-F-08-004 Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection, Agency, Office of Water. 5. Collaborative Opportunities 5. Collaborative Opportunities U.S. EPA National Homeland Security Research Center American Water Works Association Research Foundation U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center Battelle Memorial Institute State regulatory agencies (e.g. Kentucky Division of Water, Kentucky Division of Waste Management) State emergency response agencies (e.g. Kentucky Division of Emergency Response) Others (water utility representatives) 6. Commercialization Progress 6. Commercialization Plan Decontamination Network Model Traditional licensing Product-based deliverables - commercialization KYPIPE LLC (www.kypipe.com) – project commercialization partner Rules-Based Decision Support Tool Spin-off company to market deliverables Subscription-based business model Open environment, PLLC (www.openenvironment.com) 7. Summary and Conclusions 7. Summary and Conclusions Project Start Date: March 31, 2010 • Project plan is complete with timelines and milestones • Team is in place • Roles and responsibilities are defined • Work has started 8. Contact Information 8. Contact - Western Kentucky University Andrew N.S. Ernest, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE, D.WRE Associate Dean, Ogden College of Science and Engineering Director, Center for Water Resource Studies Western Kentucky University [email protected] +1 (270) 745-2761 Jana R. Fattic, RS Associate Director, Center for Water Resource Studies Western Kentucky University [email protected] +1 (270) 745-8706 8. Contact - University of Kentucky Lindell E. Ormsbee, Ph.D., P.E., P.H., D.WRE, F.ASCE Director, Kentucky Water Resource Research Institute University of Kentucky [email protected] +1 (859) 257-6329 8. Contact - University of Louisville Thomas D. Rockaway, Ph.D., P.E. Director, Center for Infrastructure Research University of Louisville [email protected] +1 (502) 582-3272 8. Contact - University of Missouri Thomas E. Clevenger, Ph.D. Director, Missouri Water Resources Research Center University of Missouri [email protected] +1 (573) 882-7564 Robert E. Reed, Ph.D., P.E. Research Associate Professor University of Missouri [email protected] +1 (573) 882-6162 9. Project Timelines 10. Budget Information 10. Budget - Financial Status Contract date: March 31, 2010 Contract length: 24 months Budget amount total: $1,546,264 Amount spent to date: $0 11. IP Status 11. Prior IP Project commercialization partner KYPIPE, Pipe2008 Water distribution analysis software Graphical user interface GUI simplification 11. IP - Project Not Ready for Disclosure