1 / 34

Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems

Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems.

kenyon
Download Presentation

Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems Center for Water Resource StudiesWestern Kentucky UniversityKentucky Water Resources Research InstituteUniversity of KentuckyCenter for Infrastructure ResearchUniversity of LouisvilleWater Resources Research CenterUniversity of MissouriKYPipe LLC

  2. 2. Problem Statement

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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 Background Research Thomas Clevenger UofM/WRRC Utility Operations Robert Reed UofM/WRRC

  6. 3. Technical Review / Project Content

  7. 3. Technical - Project Components Decision Support Tool Background Research Stakeholder Engagement Decontamination Network Model Rules-Based Decision Support Tool Training Education Guidance

  8. 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

  9. 3. Technical - Prioritized List of Decontamination Issue Categories* Large volumes Practical solutions Treatment works Decision-making frameworks Distribution and collection systems Outreach and training Utility communications Cleanup levels Treatment procedures Agent fate and transport Roles and responsibilities Waivers or suspensions Resources and assets Laboratory analysis Operator health and safety Overarching *2007 Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), Water Sector Decontamination Working Group, Water Sector Coordinating Council (SCC), and Government Coordinating Council (GCC)

  10. 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? Decontamination Network Model (DNM) GIS Datasets

  11. 3. Technical – Export to KYPIPE (existing technology) for addressing additional questions R • 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? Decontamination Network Model (DNM) KYPIPE

  12. 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) Explanation System U S E R I N T E R F A C E Inference Engine (Rule Engine) Rule Base (Knowledge Base) Knowledge Base Editor Expert System Shell

  13. 3. Technical - Decision Support Tool disposal? notify? flush? isolate? when? what else? where? health impacts? environmental? volume?

  14. 3. Technical - Training, Education, and Guidance Guidance Documents Online Training and Professional Networking Technology Deployment Workshops

  15. 4. Landscape Assessment

  16. 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.

  17. 5. Collaborative Opportunities

  18. 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)

  19. 6. Commercialization Progress

  20. 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)

  21. 7. Summary and Conclusions

  22. 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

  23. 8. Contact Information

  24. 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 Andrew.Ernest@WKU.edu +1 (270) 745-2761 Jana R. Fattic, RS Associate Director, Center for Water Resource Studies Western Kentucky University Jana.Fattic@WKU.edu +1 (270) 745-8706

  25. 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 LOrmsbee@engr.UKy.edu +1 (859) 257-6329

  26. 8. Contact - University of Louisville Thomas D. Rockaway, Ph.D., P.E. Director, Center for Infrastructure Research University of Louisville Tom.Rockaway@louisville.edu +1 (502) 582-3272

  27. 8. Contact - University of Missouri Thomas E. Clevenger, Ph.D. Director, Missouri Water Resources Research Center University of Missouri ClevengerT@missouri.edu +1 (573) 882-7564 Robert E. Reed, Ph.D., P.E. Research Associate Professor University of Missouri ReedRE@missouri.edu +1 (573) 882-6162

  28. 9. Project Timelines

  29. 10. Budget Information

  30. 10. Budget - Financial Status Contract date: March 31, 2010 Contract length: 24 months Budget amount total: $1,546,264 Amount spent to date: $0

  31. 11. IP Status

  32. 11. Prior IP Project commercialization partner KYPIPE, Pipe2008 Water distribution analysis software Graphical user interface GUI simplification

  33. 11. IP - Project Not Ready for Disclosure

More Related