Date post: | 01-Apr-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | bennett-clayborne |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
1
Responding to the Unexpected
Earthquake Case Investigation
2/27/2002
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
2
Panel members
Howard Shrobe Art Lerner-Lam
Fred Krimgold Charles Scawthorn Frieder Seible Laura Steinberg
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
3
Issues
Identifying inadequacies– Preparation– Response and rehabilitation– Mitigation and preparation: identification of threat
environment Cross-cutting themes
– Human resources– IT environment– Policy and legal environment– Cultural– Science and engineering research
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
4
Themes
Policy, regulation, and jurisdiction Prior knowledge base, RT data collection IT infrastructure Human assistance and performance Organizational models (virtual, ad hoc, etc) Security Integration and transfer
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
5
Major questions
Identifying inadequacies Overcoming inadequacies Identifying “unexpectedness”: transition from
routine to unexpected Security and open access to data Integration of RT data Role of standards Role of monitoring and surveillance
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
6
Definition of unexpectedness
Uncertainty trajectories before, during, and after event– “non-linearity” and “discontinuity”, sensitivity
Cascading effects (include. Social) Response
– Impacts not known until after– Incorporation of information in real time: modifying
assessments– Common processes generic to all events that can trigger
action “orgware” et al. as technologies to improve
communication
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
7
Technological challenges on execution– E.g. dynamic integration of information
Dealing with unexpected in absence of planning– Dealing without planning– Search and rescue precedents– “sensory alertness”
Capacity for rapid, flexible response– Not overdefining, but generalizing capabilities
Dealing with unexpected losses of capability Existence of generic processes speed
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
8
Research in public choice and modifying behavior– Anticipate public choice arena– Decision making and drivers– Investment incentives
Reducing the envelope Systematic investigation of eq impacts and experience Reaction in real time, impact on choice, social science research NTSB approach Extreme pressure from public Returning the system to normalcy
– Never the same– Process of recovery lengthy– Expectations are very high
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
9
Providing research in problem formulation Case studies Examples of success
– WTC: understood vulnerability, if not specifics– CA in ‘89 and ‘94
Highway rebuilds OEM learning curve by ‘94
Bringing different organizations together– Orgware– Administrative structures for decision making and response– Adjustable autonomy.
Models and prioritization of efforts to minimize risk, harm, etc Where are there vulnerabilities?
– Eq experience useful: land use and fault maps Resources and characterization of hazards
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
10
Flexibility of response– Composing capabilities out of combinations
Speed of response Robustness of response Scenarios and training Info overload Redundancy of capability, but not complete distribution First response heterogeneity Interoperability Societal issues as well as technological Robustness design of infrastructure couples to robust
response.
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
11
Characteristic design elements of infrastructure to improve robustness– Analogs in cs– Interoperation– Standards, common data elements– Cultural changes in the tech community
Information survivability Redundancy not subject to common-mode failure
– Engineering for variability– Meaningful fault models– Threat models ?
Adaptive vs. dumb threats
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
12
Swiren
unfamiliar hazards in unexpected places (eq in NYC)
Calibration of HAZUS: modification of default database (NY study)
Need more, better modeling e.g. hurricanes (coming out)– Educate decision makers, public
Correlating eq loss to other hazard loss: more “economical” solution
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
13
David
Better modelsExisting databaseAbility to get and incorporate new informationNot coming close to timeline in events
Traffic mgmtBuilding floorplansDeep infrastructureCollapse/ building damage data
Losing communicationsDatabases don’t exist or are not robust enough(fast, redundant)
NYC data lost, new setup.
Eq are good project because of complexity, spatial extentEvaluation for habitabilityDebris management and taskingGaps in regional operations coordination (Northridge had 60 jurisdictions)Field checking before FEMA assistance/ dataConnection between loss estimation and govt assistanceDemographic dataOverwhelming dispatch centers (unanswered 911 calls in CA)Quick environmental evaluationProcesses in response environment (generic; analysis of timelines and meet them technologically)Monitoring systems not in placeValidating and verifying socio-economic data, data integration issuesEnd-user systems have to be simple: stress = stupidity
Ubiquitous sensoring Scale, granularity, can change in time Process
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
14
Data issues
New information vs. recasting of existing info Process context should drive database research Integration of different data formats Recast software discussion in terms of characteristics of
response processes Problem solved for inter-company integration: what’sspecial
about unexpected events? Undesired linking / security and access management Micro-metadata. Reliabiltiy, calibration of sensor nets Common datga elements Connecting operational data with incoming data, and modeling
data Information integration
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
15
If we had the data and could provid info:
What would they do differently? For an unexpected event.
What have we learned from the past that helps us deeal with data integration
Different groups operating in pararllel with different tasks, with operational integration
Tension arising from information overload Active real time data integration, decided by
ebd-users: not just passive.
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
16
Try to formalize exchange between practitioners and research
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
17
Concept of triage in information management
Info overload Training to improve dialog
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
18
Feds don’t understand state and local aresponse
How do state and local governments respond to disasters?
How do policies and info get down to local level
Heterogeneous local response
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
19
Military AI model
Decisions in high-risk environments Stand-off decision making / robotics/ stand-off
sensors/ AI
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
20
NSF and practitioner interactions
Applications and bridging culture Mel: what is the form of the research?
– Pilots, test beds, scenario– Mission agencies– Private sector
Program structure is a challenge
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
21
Case study
Observer participants in response
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
22
Recent experience
Use certain examples to bring IT and social science community together– Airline security, communicalbe diseases– Half-life lessons, learn from experience, but take
advantage of timing
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
23
Tech transfer access to practitioners
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
24
Flexibility
Improve interagency organization and coordination Multiple agencies wil always be involved Some organization streuctgure better than others Best interagency structures Improving adaptive behavior: analogy to war games
and simulation tools Factor in heterogeniety of population: need to be
sensitive to feedback related to heterogeneity
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
25
Drawing in practitioners
“clinical” track Working with regional govt agencies Formal and informal Tech partnerships Testbeds with locals and regionals Get some data from them, some infromation Professional organizations Effort to get eq simulation of Kobe (whole sim city)
challenge posed as a competition “rescue simulation” robocup.org
Simulations should be used to generate unexpected event
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
26
Classified material
Data may not be available: dilemma Access to infrasystems may be denied “sanitized” data, abstracted form Reduced precision, dithering Policies on what can be shared govt: no risk approach CoE invnetory
of dams off the web Infrastructure security Security clearance situaion has changed Civilian classification systems Privacy-preserving data mining Study implications of classifying data on ability to respond to
unexpected. Time varying need to know and thus time-varying classification Dithering context specific
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
27
Modality issues
Classification of data Structure of reserasch program Issues of transition
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
28
Cahan
9/11 Research issues– Redundancy, mutual-aid, drills, pulling the trigger
on contacts and technology– Management logistics and communications
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
29
Case study
Spirit of Pier 92: 9/11 case study Folios for each specialty
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
30
Documentary of behind the scenes
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
31
Companion website to feature lessons and clips
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
32
I-Teams Implementation strategy: OMB geospatial initiative: state
plans.
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
33
Consensus portal elements (life-cycle of 9/11 has not eneded)
Team lists Calendar Authoritites GIS Security Public comments
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
34
Joe Picciano FEMA Reg 2
Need to consider worst-case scenario: out of box, not capable of predicting
Federal partnership Initial priorities
– Life-saving support– Mobilization centers– Infrastructure– Devbris assessment
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
35
Effort coordination: existing capabilities (7000 people)
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
36
Driven by IT
Wireless Dfo setup Coordnation with major providers Portable satellites
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
37
Possibilites
National all-response information management system for local and state governmentsResource links
Existing databases
Critical first response availability
Mainatined by public-private consortium
R&D for high-rise and dirty fires
Enhanced personal communications for first responders
Real time computer simulation for first responders
Review of crisis managmenet educatgional programs
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
38
48-72 hours to set up: critical need for local and stgate first response
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
39
Federal response plan
Interagency
WMD and terrorism
Earthquaes
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
40
Transportations
Lead agency DoTFAA closed down airspaceDistribution of emergency supplies and officialsDevelopment of standards and models for catastrophic
events in urban environmentsPre-identification of critical routesEvacuation alternatives and event-dependence (NYC and
hurricanse)Cricitacl asset transprotation planningLinkages to regional planning for wide-=spread events
Enhanced Remote sensing systems for evac and id of critical assset requirements
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
41
Communications
NeedsStadards
Protocols
Modernization
training
Develop a national emergency managmenenmt communications systems with applications at state and local levels
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
42
Public works and engineering (ACOE)
Debris managmgnetNew technologies for sseparation and managmenet
Study on existing infrastufcture load impact and project life
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
43
Firefighting
Incident managmenet teams
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
44
Information and planning
FEMA lead on infomration
Decision support
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
45
GIS
Hot spots
Site hazard analysis
Estimate total debris
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
46
possibilities
National response information managmenet system
Enhanced urban infrrastrucgure database (911, hazus, etc) and loss modeling
More use of remote sensing
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
47
Resource support
GSA
Development of immediate resource requirment list linked to national data base
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
48
Health and medical
Us public health service
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
49
Urban search and rescue
Nre first responder strategies
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
50
Hazmat (EPA
New strategies for:Health registries
Indoor and outdoor residential hazards
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
51
Food
Disaster food stamp program
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
52
Energy
Con ed coordination
Radiation monitoring
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
53
DOD
Colocate with defense coordinator
Trained FDNY teams on specialized demolition equipeRobotics teams
New technology
Med assistance
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
54
Public assistance
First funding
Debris removal ($4B)
Remibursement for OT
Replacement of equip
Cost estimating tames
Review infrastructure recovery as it relates to insurance industryImpact of future coverfage
Improved methodoloies in gov and industry coordinatio
Insurance risk and its relationship to future urban development
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
55
Mitigation
5% added to mitigation fundNYC metro area projects
Mitigation models forf WMD loss prevention
Building performance standards for post 911 env
Urban strategies for mitigation in high density communities
The establishment of mitigation banks
Insuracne cost incentives for mitigation beyond floodplain management
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
56
Public affiars
Info vs perceived risks
Media strategies
Terrorism thrives on media impact and message
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
57
Long trem recovery
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
58
Missing response links
Workable expedient housing program
Enhanced management systems for domestic distribution of life sustaining goods
Critical examiniation of urban risk in post 911 env.
Enhanced corporate planningAccess control and identification standardization
Multi-organizational planning and shared resource
Enhanced utilization of encrypted Web resources and portals
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
59
Response initiatives
Fire support branch
Forward coordinating teams
External logistics: supporting state and local govt capabiliteies (NYClost its teams)
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
60
Alan Leidner
Oem had no operating GIS system on 911Standing start on 911“Orgware” technology: learned how to interact and work togetherLocals had more accurate basemap, feds had better technologyLocal didn’t know about existing technologyNeed to be ahead of technology, particularly sensors
Needed thermal sensors
Ability to deploy immediately: need to know what’s availableAsset databased and queries neededBreakdowns
Effect of smoke and ash on health : no knowledge, no env mechanisms and testing, no trust, community panic
Anthrax panic: threat not defined, procedures not definedHow to work with neighborhoods and ocmmunity groups to make local leaders collaborators to calm
panic, identifiy vulnerability. Local networks not developed.
Need better ORGWARE to synch communications and agendas, and public communication
OGC permanent NYC testbed
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
61
Edward Hammer (energy)Con Ed
Used to Focus on just power. And customer
Not appropriate way to respondObstructions and obstacles arisign from coordination
Incident command system: ICS very effective in field.
Become part of team
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
62
Fred Krimgold
Analogies to 911Eqs are localized so expected to some extent, but unexpected somewhatInsurance has decided main terrorist threat in five cities NY, DC, LA, SF, ChicagoVulnerability due to land use, interdependent urban systemsStandards sometimes wrongCascading failuresQuestions
Wha happened: how big and extent of impactsWhat has to be sentInitial reconnaissance: examples, but not a solved problemSearch and rescue implementationTime as critical factor in response: shorten and focus on critical locationsThink about designing for failure: think about how to take them apart, how to protect
occupants, removalSimulation and public awarenessMitigation / deflectionUnexpected by whom?
2/27-28/2002 NSF Workshop: Responding to Unexpected
63
Denton
Aspects of TMI