EFFECTIVE DEBRIS MANAGEMENT FOR A RESILIENT COMMUNITY

Transcription

1 EFFECTIVE DEBRIS MANAGEMENT FOR A RESILIENT COMMUNITY JOOHO KIM 1, ABHIJEET DESHMUKH 1 and MAKARAND HASTAK 2 1 Hampton of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, United States. 2 Division of Construction Engineering and Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, United States. This paper presents a framework for effectively removing debris from a community after a natural disaster for expediting the community recovery. Natural disasters have a very high physical impact on communities that generate a huge volume of debris. The amount of debris is almost five to ten times higher than the annual solid waste volume in a community, and causes considerable debris removal challenges. Also, slow debris removal hinders both an emergency response and a recovery process. This framework for an effective debris management system is based on the interrelationship between critical infrastructure systems (i.e. civil, civic and social) and capacity that would enable a community to effectively remove debris in a post-disaster situation. This research focuses on the impact of the three infrastructure systems on debris management with respect to general debris removal procedure: generation, collection, transportation, process and disposal. A debris manager would benefit from this research for analyzing the existing debris management system in a community and capacities required to improve the resilience of a community with respect to debris management. This evaluation also suggests that infrastructure capacity needs to amplify the performance of debris management in a community. Keywords: Debris, Disaster, Resilience, Infrastructure, Capacity, Productivity. 1. Background and Needs Recent research shows that the world is becoming vulnerable to extreme natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods and fires. These disasters damage physical assets that generate a huge amount of debris, causing considerable disposal challenges for national and local public officials. In the past, debris generated by hazards was simply buried or burned (EPA, 1995). However, previous management systems such as incineration of hazardous waste, dumping of chemically and biologically active waste have resulted in long-term impacts such as overuse of incineration, the smoke from which can have negative health impacts. Currently, the volume of debris generated by natural disasters is five to ten times of the annual waste generation rate of a community (see Table 1). Thus, an effective debris management system is required to handle the overwhelming amount of debris generated. The delay hinders emergency response as well as the post-disaster recovery process. For example, ten-million m 3 of debris was generated by the earthquake in Haiti in IHRC (2010) reported that the debris, the partial destruction of the main port of Port-au-Prince, and blockage of roads hampered emergency response and recovery for many months after the earthquake. Even nine months after the earthquake, the destruction continued to disrupt the lives of many Haitians. For twelve months, only two-million m 3 debris (3 10% of total debris) was removed even though the government of Haiti had identified debris removal and management as a one of the top priorities for the recovery process (UN, 2011). This is because poor or impaired infrastructure system and insufficient capacity did not support debris management system. Thus, developing and maintaining infrastructure system and its capacity are very critical part in debris management system. New Developments in Structural Engineering and Construction Edited by Siamak Yazdani and Amarjit Singh Copyright c 2013 by Research Publishing Services :: ISBN: :: doi: / RADM

2 2 Siamak Yazdani and Amarjit Singh (Eds.) Table 1. Historical debris volume. Volume Year Event (million m3) Data 2010 Earthquake Haiti Booth Hurricane Katrina, 76 Luther USA Indian Tsunami 10 Bjerregaard Objective This research suggests a framework for effective debris management. The specific objectives are: Establish interrelationship between infrastructure and different debris removal phases. Analyze debris removal phases with respect to interrelationship of infrastructure. Evaluate resilience of a community by the productivity of each debris removal phase. Allocate resources to increase productivity. 3. Literature Review 3.1. Debris management in disaster management Debris removal is a major component of every disaster recovery process. Pelling et al. (2002) emphasize that a major potential loss due to a disaster is physical damage, including destruction of buildings and infrastructure, creating enourmous amount of building waste. Brown and Milke (2009) suggested that generally debris management is described in 2 or 3 phrases (see Figure 1). However, there is a trade-off between speed of clean-up, degree of diversion, recycling of debris, treatment, and disposal options (Brown and Milke, 2009). Overall period of debris removal depends on the option selected. Currently, the role of temporary disposal and storage reduction (TDSR) facilities becomes very important Fig. 1. Three phases of debris management. part because it satisfies both speed of debris removal and degree of diversion. In 2007, the U.S. FEMA released a new pilot program that provides incentives for communities to recycle by allowing them to retain revenue from the sale of disaster debris. This groundbreaking policy offers significant financial benefits for communities seeking to cleanup in an environmentally responsible way. Fetter and Rakes (2012) presented a decision model with recycling incentives for locating TDSR facilities in support of disaster debris cleanup operations Debris components Baycan (2004) classified debris components in a comprehensive manner: recyclable materials, non-recyclable materials, and hazardous waste. EPA (2005) also organized debris to five major categories; damaged buildings, sediments, green waste, personal property, and ash and charred wood Critical infrastructure for resilience enhancement Tierney and Bruneau (2007) emphasized that critical infrastructure including transportation and utility lifeline systems is essential to enhance resilience in a community by four determinants: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness and rapidity. Also, Deshmukh and Hastak (2012) referred that an impact of natural disasters is further escalated by failures of critical

3 New Developments in Structural Engineering and Construction 3 infrastructure in a community and such failures are significantly related to the conditions of critical infrastructure Civil infrastructure Civil infrastructure in debris management consists of transportation and utility systems. It is directly related to debris removal performance. For instance, Guerrero et al. (2012) indicated that the quality of a road, the amount, and suitable equipment and collection time are important factors for solid waste collection and debris transportation Civic infrastructure Civic infrastructure entails government support. EPA (1995) referred that Governmental agencies, Army, Environmental agencies, State & local government and community support debris management. FEMA (2011) emphasized that all officials need to monitor collecting sites because most of the excessive costs in debris removal are the results of overstated volumes of collected debris. For example, FEMA estimated that they might have overpaid $20 million for debris removal and disposal because qualified monitors were not present at key times and debris load volumes were consequently overestimated in an after-action report for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. Also, FEMA mentioned that an overestimated volume generally would be 20% or more. In addition, Guerrero et al. (2012) mentioned that awareness and knowledge of municipal leaders are the most important factors for solid waste management Social infrastructure Social infrastructure entails either a Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) or a Non-Profit Organization (NPO) including churches and community centers. As time goes by, a capacity of social infrastructure becomes significant available for disaster recovery. In 1992, there was an estimated 4,000 NGOs assisting up to 100 million people in the world (Edwards and Hulme, 1992). It is also recognized that governments alone cannot achieve significant, sustainable hazard risk reduction and that greater emphasis must be placed upon local-level and community-based approaches, as well as indigenous knowledge and coping strategies supported by NGOs (IDNDR, 1994). 4. A Framework for Effective Debris Management System To understand and enhance debris management system, a decision maker needs to recognize the relation between debris removal phases and critical infrastructure (see Figure 2). Consequently, the first step is data collection. A debris assessment tool, Hazus-MH, provides an amount and location of debris based on building density and hazard severity. Also, both interviews and surveys provide information on the interrelationship between critical infrastructure and debris removal phases. Fig. 2. A framework for effective debris management.

4 4 Siamak Yazdani and Amarjit Singh (Eds.) Table2. Listofattributes. Table 3. List of attributes for productivity. List Attributes Type (C) Hurricane (category 4) Population (P) 5000 (3persons/house) H P/3 Commercial density (B) 1.3 (Heavy) Vegetation (V) 1.5 (Heavy) Precipitation (S) 1.3 (Medium to heavy) 5. System Dynamic Model For a simulation, we might assume a certain state to estimate debris quantities and productivities Debris estimation USACE formula (FEMA 2007) for debris quantities is applied (see Eq. (1)). Debris quantity = H(C)(V)(B)(S) (1) This paper assumed certain attributes to simulate (see Table 2) Productivity estimation Eq. (2) shows a basic formula to calculate the productivity of each debris removal phase (Schaufelberger, 1999). Efficiency Capacity Productivity = (2) Cycle time In this simulation, the capacity represented by Eq. (2) is a truck capacity to List Attributes Equipment capacity 25 CY/each Equipment speed 25 mph Process capacity 4500 CY/day (1500CY/day * 3EA) Process facility distance (10, 20, 15) Miles (Min, Max, Mean) Collection capacity CY/day Collection facility distance (5, 10, 7) Miles (Min, Max, Mean) Disposal capacity CY Disposal facility distance (20,40,25) Miles (Min, Max, Mean) Transportation damage 65% Electric facility damage 50% Civil monitoring Good Schaufelberger (1999) Job condition Fair to Good Schaufelberger (1999) deliver debris from the previous to the next location. Cycle time is variable based on distance. Efficiency is considered for job and management conditions. Table 3 describes the basic attributes needed to calculate productivity Simulation results The System Dynamic model is described at Figure 3. Figure 4 shows that the total debris removal time from the original locations to a temporary debris collection site Fig. 3. System dynamic model for debris management system.

5 New Developments in Structural Engineering and Construction 5 addition, this simulation result shows that enhancing productivity 2 and productivity 3upto25dayscoulddecreasethewhole debris removal time. Fig. 4. Total debris removal time. 6. Expected Results 6.1. Evaluation of debris management system This framework evaluates the current debris management system in a community. For example, it indicates critical infrastructure and resources in a community. It also provides a productivity of each debris removal phase. Lastly, it shows the impact degree on critical infrastructure and resources for each productivity of a debris removal phases. Fig. 5. Productivity status. is 140 days. Total debris disposal time from the original locations to the final destinations is 165 days. To increase resilience in a community, decision makers should recognize the productivity of each of the debris removal phases to appropriately distribute resources and investments. Thus, this model is designed to indicate a daily productivity (see Figure 5). In Figure 5, productivity 1 randomly drops to zero after working 65 days. This is because of either limits of collection capacity, a destination site of productivity 1, or productivity 2, following process of productivity 1, at each time. However, productivity 3 supports productivity 2 by handling all debris to its final destinations sufficiently. It obviously shows that decision makers should distribute a community s resources and funds to productivity 2 or focus their effort to increase the collection capacity. It enables the next process, reconstruction or restoring lifeline, to start earlier. In 6.2. Resilience assessment Analysis by the simulation model provides both current debris removal capacity and debris removal productivity. Based on those indicators, resilience in a community is measured by the quantity of debris, speed of debris handling and productivity. So, a municipal officer recognizes current resilience for a debris removal in a community Effective resource allocation To enhance resilience after severe disasters, enough resources need to be provided from internal and external sources. Because time and funds are limited, allocating needed resource to each phase is critical. By enhancing debris removal productivity (see Figure 5), a decision maker allocates resources to balance the productivity of each debris removal phase and maintain serviceability of critical infrastructure. References Baycan, F., Emergency planning for disaster waste: A proposal based on the experience of the Marmara earthquake in Turkey, International

6 6 Siamak Yazdani and Amarjit Singh (Eds.) Conference and Student Competition on postdisaster reconstruction, Planning for reconstruction, Coventry, UK, April, 22 23, Baycan, F. and Petersen, M., Disaster waste management C&D waste, Annual Conference of the International Solid Waste Association, Benson, C., Twigg, J. and Myers, M., NGO initiatives in risk reduction: An overview, Disasters, 25(3), Bjerregaard, M., MSB/UNDP debris management guidelines, Disaster Waste Recovery, Booth, W., Haiti faces colossal and costly cleanup before it can rebuild, The Washington Post, 17 March, Brown, C. and Milke, M., Planning for Disaster Debris Management, (University of Canterbury, Department of Civl & Natural Resources Engineering), 1 9, Brown, C. and Milke, M., Disaster waste management : A review article, 31, , Waste Management, Deshmukh, A. and Hastak, M., A Framework for Enhancing Resilience of Community by Expediting Post Disaster Recovery, Edwards, M. and Hulme, D., Scaling-Up the Developmental Impact of NGOs: Concepts and Experiences, In M. Edwards and D. Hulme eds. Making a Difference, NGOs and Development in a Changing World, Save the Children Fund/Earthscan, London, EPA, Planning for disaster debris, EPA530-K USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Dec., EPA, Planning for natural disaster debris, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of Solid Waste, FEMA, FEMA s oversight and management of debris removal operations, Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security, Fetter, G. and Rakes, T., Incorporating recycling into post-disaster debris disposal, Socio- Economic Planning Sciences, 46(1), 14 22, doi: /j.seps Guerrero, L. A., Maas, G. and Hogland W., Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries, Waste Management, IDNDR, Yokohama strategy and plan of action for a safer world, International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction Secretariat, Geneva, Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), Interim Haiti Recovery Commission Web site, accessed 21 July, Kobayashi, Y., Disasters and the Problems of Wastes, In: IETC, ed. International Symposium on Earthquake Waste, June, 1995 Osaka, Shiga: UNEP, 6 13, LDEQ, Comprehensive plan for disaster clean-up and debris management, Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana, Leavitt, W. and Kiefer, J., Infrastructure interdependency and the creation of a normal disaster: The case of hurricane katrina and the city of new orleans, Public Works Management Policy 2006, 10, , Luther, L., Disaster Debris Removal After Hurricane Katrina: Status and Associated Issues, Congressional Research Service, Schaufelberger, J., Construction Equipment Management, 99 Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc., Tierney, K. and Bruneau, M., Conceptualizing and Measuring Resilience: A Key to Disaster Loss Reduction, TR News May June, 14 17, UN, Fast Facts Debris: Time for Recovery, United Nations in Haiti, 2011.