best practice protocols for response and recovery operations in contaminated water systems

Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In

Contaminated Water Systems

Center for Water Resource StudiesWestern Kentucky University

Kentucky Water Resources Research InstituteUniversity of Kentucky

Center for Infrastructure ResearchUniversity of Louisville

Water Resources Research CenterUniversity 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

National

Extrapolated impact and exposure

Policy support

Multi-Faceted

Fact Sheets

Scale relevance

Expert System

Rules-based

Graphical DSS

Distribution system

Training Materials

Web-delivered

2. Project Organization

Principle InvestigatorAndrew ErnestWKU/CWRS

Project CoordinatorJana Fattic

WKU/CWRS

Hydraulic SystemsLindell Ormsbee

UK/KWRRI

Stakeholder EngagementThomas Rockaway

UofL/CIR

Background ResearchThomas Clevenger

UofM/WRRC

Utility OperationsRobert Reed

UofM/WRRC

3. Technical Review / Project Content

3. Technical - Project Components

DecisionSupport

Tool

BackgroundResearch

StakeholderEngagement

DecontaminationNetwork

Model

Rules-BasedDecisionSupport

Tool

TrainingEducationGuidance

3. Technical - Stakeholder Engagement

Technology Review

Gap assessment

Tabletop Exercises

Decontamination scenarios

Technology Deployment

Training

Technology validation

DHS

Utilities

Bio/Chemical specialists

USEPA

CDC

DHHS

State Health Departments

End users

NIMS

ICS

3. Technical - Prioritized List of Decontamination Issue Categories*

1. Large volumes

2. Practical solutions

3. Treatment works

4. Decision-making frameworks

5. Distribution and collection systems

6. Outreach and training

7. Utility communications

8. Cleanup levels

9. Treatment procedures

10.Agent fate and transport

11.Roles and responsibilities

12.Waivers or suspensions

13.Resources and assets

14.Laboratory analysis

15.Operator health and safety

16.Overarching

*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 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?

GIS Datasets

GIS Datasets

DecontaminationNetwork

Model (DNM)

DecontaminationNetwork

Model (DNM)

3. Technical – Export to KYPIPE (existing technology) for addressing additional questions

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?

KYPIPEKYPIPE

DecontaminationNetwork

Model (DNM)

DecontaminationNetwork

Model (DNM)

R

3. Technical - Rules-Based Decision Support Tool

Who should be notified? How? When?

What are the potential health impacts? Immediate? Short-term?

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?

Fact Base(Working Memory)

Rule Base(Knowledge Base)

Explanation System

Knowledge BaseEditor

USER

INTERFACE

Inference Engine(Rule Engine)

Expert System Shell

3. Technical - Decision Support Tool

notify? flush?

isolate?

disposal?

where?

volume?

when?what else?

health impacts?

environmental?

3. Technical - Training, Education, and Guidance

Guidance Documents

Technology DeploymentWorkshops

Online Training and Professional Networking

4. Landscape Assessment

4. Landscape - Related Work Prioritized list of decontamination issue categories

CIPAC 2008 Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, Water Sector Decontamination Working Group Final Report (August 2008)

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

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-817-D-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.open-environment.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.WREAssociate Dean, Ogden College of Science and EngineeringDirector, Center for Water Resource StudiesWestern Kentucky UniversityAndrew.Ernest@WKU.edu+1 (270) 745-2761

Jana R. Fattic, RSAssociate Director, Center for Water Resource StudiesWestern Kentucky UniversityJana.Fattic@WKU.edu+1 (270) 745-8706

8. Contact - University of Kentucky

Lindell E. Ormsbee, Ph.D., P.E., P.H., D.WRE, F.ASCEDirector, Kentucky Water Resource Research InstituteUniversity of KentuckyLOrmsbee@engr.UKy.edu+1 (859) 257-6329

8. Contact - University of Louisville

Thomas D. Rockaway, Ph.D., P.E.Director, Center for Infrastructure ResearchUniversity of LouisvilleTom.Rockaway@louisville.edu+1 (502) 582-3272

8. Contact - University of Missouri

Thomas E. Clevenger, Ph.D.Director, Missouri Water Resources Research CenterUniversity of MissouriClevengerT@missouri.edu+1 (573) 882-7564

Robert E. Reed, Ph.D., P.E.Research Associate ProfessorUniversity of MissouriReedRE@missouri.edu+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