using gis to estimate waste from a wide area contamination incident · 2016-07-25 · office of...

Office of Research and DevelopmentNational Homeland Security Research Center

USING GIS TO ESTIMATE WASTE FROM A WIDE AREA

CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

Timothy Boe, Paul LemieuxUS EPA, Office of Research and Development

Dan Schultheisz, Tom PeakeUS EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air

Colin HayesEastern Research Group

Morrisville, NC

ESRI User ConferenceSan Diego, CA

June 27 – July 1, 2016


Scope: WARRP Scenario

The Wide Area Recovery and Resiliency Program (WARRP) radiological scenario involved a terrorist detonating a RDD outside the U.S. Mint in downtown Denver. The hypothetical RDD contained 2,300 curies of cesium-137 (CsCl) and was dispersed over

approximately 100 square kilometers via a 1,360 kilogram truck bomb.

WARRP 3D flyover will go here… [video too large to attach]


Radiological Incidents: Important Considerations for Recovery

• No “one size fits all” solution• Governance, resources, and capabilities vary widely

• Cost of recovery• Resource availability and demand, economic, social impacts, and duration of recovery

• Onsite treatment options• Soil and aqueous waste have shown to contribute overwhelmingly to the total waste stream, regardless of the urban/suburban landscape


Radiological Incidents: Important Considerations for Recovery

• Use of a “system-of-systems”• Recovery a function of decontamination and waste management strategies, policies, timelines, available resources, and public sentiment

• Site specific• Must account for the topography, infrastructure, and occupancy features of the impacted area

• Infrastructure density, construction materials, and abundance of vegetation can vary greatly by location

• Transport, staging, and storage of waste• The transportation of, construction of storage sites for, and management of waste may eclipse decon costs


Location, location, location

• Decon approach should consider the distribution of infrastructure (e.g., schools or residences) and surface media

• Roughly half of infrastructure within the WARRP scenario consisted of schools and residences

• In addition to outdoor, it is important to consider underground and indoor environments as well


WEST Description• GIS-based tool that can assist in planning/preparedness

activities at all levels of government–Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) waste management issues

linked with decontamination and recovery timeline–Waste management decisions need to be made early

• Waste Estimation Support Tool (WEST) Facilitates–First-order estimate of waste quantity and activity–Pre-selection of disposal options–ID of potential triage/staging/storage within each zone or

surrounding area–Assessment of impact of decontamination strategies on waste

generation–Assessment of impact of waste management strategies on

decontamination decisions–Identify starting points for policy discussions


WEST MethodologyG

eosp

atia

l

Spre

adsh

eet


WEST Data FlowScenario Management Workflow ProcessingGIS Tools

Scenario Parameters

•Incident Boundaries•Affected Infrastructure•Ground Surfaces

Time Elapsed/Radionuclide Activity

Decontamination Strategy

Partitioning & Remaining Activity

Decon/Demo ParametersWaste Results


Adjustable Parameters

• Demolition/decontamination decisions–Default % for all buildings within each zone–Custom based on 28 user specific occupancy types (e.g.,

single family homes, industrial buildings, etc.)• % Distribution of decontamination technologies (includes solid/aqueous waste, removed material per unit area)–Water Washing–Abrasive removal–Strippable coatings–2 optional “generic” decontamination technologies–“No decontamination” option


Example Input: Decon/ Demolition Parameters


Example Scenarios


Estimated Building Distribution Based on Building Count

WEST Building

Type

Denver Philadelphia

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

Agricultural 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0% 0% 0.003%

Multi Family 29.4% 7.4% 1.7% 8.2% 1.3% 1.0%

Medical 11.3% 1.6% 0.1% 3.4% 0.2% 0.1%

Entertainment 22.7% 6.7% 1.0% 7.3% 1.0% 0.6%

Parking 0.8% 0.1% 0.01% 0% 0% 0.003%

Educational 0.3% 0% 0.02% 0% 0% 0.01%

Emergency 0.5% 0.1% 0.01% 0.9% 0.1% 0.02%

Industrial 4.9% 1.8% 0.6% 1.5% 0.3% 0.4%

Single Family 15.7% 74.9% 92.9% 67.7% 94.8% 95.8%

Multi Use 13.9% 7.3% 3.5% 11.0% 2.3% 2.1%


Extensive Decontamination Approach Parameters

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

Buildings90 % demolition 0 % demolition 0 % demolition

10 % decontamination 100 % decontamination 100 % decontamination

Asphalt2.5 cm removal – 50% 2.5 cm removal – 50 % 2.5 cm removal – 25 %

Wash – 50 % Wash – 50 % Wash – 75 %

Concrete2.5 cm removal – 50% 2.5 cm removal – 50 % 2.5 cm removal – 25 %

Wash – 50 % Wash – 50 % Wash – 75 %

Soil 15 cm removal – 100 % 15 cm removal – 100 % 15 cm removal – 100 %

External Walls Wash – 100 % Wash – 100 % Wash – 100 %

Roofs Wash – 100 % Wash – 100 % Wash – 100 %

Interior Walls Strippable Coating– 100 %

Washing – 50 %Washing – 100 %Strippable Coating – 50

%

Floors Material Removal – 100 %

Material Removal – 100 %Mop – 100 %

Mop – 100 %


Example of Demolition and Decon Waste

2.27E+05

0.00E+00 0.00E+00

3.17E+04

0.00E+00 0.00E+000.00E+00

5.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.50E+05

2.00E+05

2.50E+05


Vol

ume,

Cub

ic M

eter

s

Denver Philadelphia

Dem

o W

aste

Dec

on W

aste

2.80E+04

1.66E+05

8.82E+06

6.83E+03

9.43E+04

6.01E+05

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07


log(

Vol

ume,

Cub

ic M

eter

s)

Denver Philadelphia


Distribution of Total Solid Waste between Denver and Philadelphia

Den

ver

Phila

delp

hia

2%

36%

10%24%

28%

Excluding Soil & Aqueous Waste

Coating Waste

Asphalt

Concrete

Interior FloorMaterials

0%

22%

6%

9%63%

Excluding Soil & Aqueous Waste

Coating Waste

Asphalt

Concrete

Interior FloorMaterials

96.1%

3.9%

Total Distribution

Soil Everything Else

84%

16%

Total Distribution

Soil Everything Else


Total Waste Generated per Unit Affected Area (m3/m2)

0.311

0.223

0.121

0.271

0.157

0.226

0.153

0.228

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

Denver Phildelphia

Total W

aste Volum

e (m

3 )/Total Surface Area (m

2 )

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total Affected Area


A Perspective

How much is 29 million cubic meters of waste?

3.48E+06

3.48E+05

2.09E+05

2.09E+03Barge

Rail car

Semi-trailer truck

Dump truck

Estimated capacities: dump truck: 8.5 m3; semi‐trailer truck: 85 m3; rail car: 142 m3; and barge: 14158 m3


Why GIS?

• GIS helps us understand and visualize data • System of systems of approach is layer centric• Like disasters, geography is unique• Geography fuses and codifies data• Capable of predicting logistics and identifying staging, and storage areas

• Gives spatial context to waste results


Implications Identified by the Tool• Decontamination of ground surfaces by excavation of soil

contributes overwhelmingly to the total solid waste stream–Soil is prime candidate for on-site treatment and waste

minimization activities–Advantages of on-site treatment to reduce waste

• Aqueous waste may also constitute a large fraction of the overall waste generated

• Correlation exists between surface area and waste volume• Building surface area does vary by city and may correlate

with the volume of waste generated per unit of affected area• Identifies starting point for policy discussions

–Use of conventional or haz. waste landfills for minimally-contaminated materials

–Use of low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity for materials contaminated at higher levels


Status and Future Plans• Current Version = WEST 3.0.1 (October‘15)

–Mapping feature: view results in Arc GIS or Google Earth–Reporting feature: generate customized reports–Updated GIS tool: faster and easier to use–Compatibility confirmed with Hazus (2.2 SP1)– Installer updates–Added support for ArcGIS 10.2.2 “Standard”

• Future Plans–Update backend–Estimation of required resources (beginnings of cost estimation)–Biological scenario support–Additional waste factors–Logistics support


DisclaimerThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development (ORD) funded and managed the research described here under Contract EP-D-11-006 to Eastern Research Group (ERG). It has been subjected to the Agency’s review and has been approved for publication and distribution. Note that approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation.

The Waste Estimation Support Tool (WEST) Version 3.0 was created by the EPA, through ORD’s National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC). This presentation and the first-order estimate of the waste and debris generated from the event described herein were generated using WEST Version 3.0. As of the release date of WEST Version 3.0, the EPA has not validated WEST against any real-world radiological contamination scenarios.


Thank You

• Contact Info:

Timothy [email protected]‐541‐2617

Paul [email protected]‐541‐0962

using gis to estimate waste from a wide area contamination incident · 2016-07-25 · office of...

Documents