1) look at all key aspects of the recovery process, “leaving no stone unturned” so to speak;
2) identify major gaps in the process that significantly impede the overall recovery effort; and,
3) analyze the impact of various gap solutions on the overall recovery effort with an eye on identifying so-called “quick wins.”
The study is a blend of both qualitative and quantitative analyses in order to develop the most accurate picture of CBR recovery. The qualitative component of the study has involved hosting a number of workshops where local, state and federal stakeholders brought their expertise to the recovery problem and focused on identifying key process gaps. For the quantitative analysis, a Sandia-developed analysis tool known as PATH-AWARE, essentially a CBR-specific project management tool, is being used to run a series of calculations of recovery timelines and costs using our collective national best estimates of available recovery resources such as environmental screening/sampling, laboratory analysis, and decontamination technology capacities. These cost and timeline estimates have served to corroborate and augment many of the gaps identified in workshops with useful facts and figures.
Workshops produced a list of over 80 gaps that have been further consolidated down to about 20 key gaps and that are further sorted into three tiers based on their degree of impact on the overall recovery process, as illustrated in Figure 1. Gaps included in these tiers cover many aspects of recovery including strategic plans (e.g. the overall recovery strategy); tactical operations (e.g. the “how to do it” details of recovery); and, the public health dimension (e.g. screening and tracking thousands of people with potential exposure to low-level radiation).
A PATH-AWARE analysis of a downtown Denver radiological scenario, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 reveals the significance of the recovery challenge. Impacted areas that require some level of radiological screening and/or decontamination are in excess of 20 square miles and conservative estimates of recovery timelines are in the range of decades with moderate recovery resources allocated to the problem. Various process excursions from this baseline scenario can result in significant reductions in recovery timelines, in many cases significantly reducing the overall timeline, as recovery resources are significantly scaled up and some strategic compromises are made in cleanup efficiency. The necessity for being able to conduct recovery strategy trade-off analysis in these large scale scenarios is apparent.
