This question is frequently asked by first responders. Its useful to step back and consider why civilian response agencies contemplate plume modeling. The obvious answer should be when making risk based assessments for protecting civilian populations (including especially vulnerable populations). As such, responders need to consider liability and litigation issues when making these decisions. Using government published, peer reviewed methodologies that have standing in a court of law (inevitably where liability and litigation issues are resolved) are important factors. Where this data exists and has been published, at Alluviam we strive to conscientiously implement this guidance. Where data has not been openly published, but analytical approaches exist that are supported by subject matter experts within the community and government, Alluviam has made significant investments in implementing algorithms whose results parallel the analytical results used by these subject matter experts.
Inevitably, responders will ask us about 3rd party proprietary plume models that claim to estimate exclusion zones for chemical releases that are smaller than US Government published models. The motivation is that smaller exclusion areas imply less economic impact. ALOHA and the DOT's Emergency Response Guide (ERG) are frequently mentioned, along with several other US DOD models. The real problem with these 3rd party proprietary models becomes evident when considering liability and litigation after people have been injured, or worse. In these instances, one of the primary considerations becomes whether or not recommendations made by responders were based on guidance that has standing in a court of law and is backstopped by the US Government. Today in the US, in civilian courts, only EPA's ALOHA and the DOT's ERG have standing. Neither the DOD models nor other third-party models have standing in a court of law. When making decisions on plume modeling, these are important considerations. HazMasterG3 is the only mobile CBRNE/HME decision support system that has earned US DHS Certification as an Approved Product for Homeland Security.
Latest Research on Catastrophic Releases of Chlorine
The Jack Rabbit II Project’s Impacts on Emergency Responders [Final Report]
Catastrophic Releases of Liquefied Compressed Chlorine 2015 – 2016
At U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground, Utah
September 30, 2017
Accuracy of the Current ERG Protective Zone Distances (see page 13 of the final report)
Downwind guidance found in the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) was found to be reliable and accurate to 11 km. See Table 1. Variations in concentrations from detector to detector at 11 km is attributed to the naturally occurring turbulent boundaries of the plume and a characteristic non-uniform concentration of outdoor plumes due to air mixing and distance from the source.
(Continued on page 15 of the final report)
At first glance this data would lead you to believe that the ERG is too conservative in the upwind environment. In defense of the ERG, Dr. Brown makes the point that due to so many unpredictable variables including terrain, direction of the jet release and potential channeling effects, “conservative isolation and protective action distances are intentional to protect vulnerable populations” (Personal Communication, August 7, 2017). The UVU Team supports the approach and the upwind distances that are found in the current ERG regarding rail tank car releases of chlorine.