CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COUNCIL

WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION WORKING GROUP

RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

PROPOSED STRATEGIC PLAN

WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION PRIORITIES 

FINAL REPORT 

AUGUST 2008 

Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council 

Water Sector Decontamination Working Group 

June 30, 2008 

Members of the Water Sector Coordinating Council and Government Coordinating Council: 

On behalf of the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working Group, we are pleased to submit the 

results of the group’s deliberations: Recommendations and Proposed Strategic Plan: Water Sector 

Decontamination Priorities to the members of the Water Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) and 

Government Coordinating Council (GCC). This letter serves as our official transmittal of the Work 

Group’s final product. As the Co-Chairs representing the GCC and SCC on this working group, we would 

like to thank you for the opportunity to serve as leaders of this esteemed group of professionals. 

The attached recommendations and proposed plan are the result of 6 months of structured, facilitated 

discussions among the Working Group members representing the GCC and SCC, aided by subject matter 

experts, EPA staff, and a facilitation team. These discussions—and the resulting report—were conducted 

in compliance with the Working Group’s charter, as approved by the GCC and SCC. 

As indicated in the report, the Working Group identified and prioritized key issues for the water sector in 

addressing the decontamination of water systems, and provided recommendations to address these issues. 

These recommendations serve as the backbone of the strategic plan embedded in the report. The Working 

Group believes that implementation of these recommendations will improve the water sector’s ability to 

meet decontamination challenges. 

As specified in the approved charter, the Working Group proposed lead organizations to take action on 

each recommendation and proposed a time frame for completion based on relative priority and 

complexity of the effort. These proposed organizations, in particular, are intended for consideration by the 

GCC and SCC, and should not be considered to be inflexible. Similarly, the issues and recommendations 

documented by the Working Group should not be viewed as exhaustive; they reflect those that the 

Working Group believed were the most pressing for the Water Sector. It should be noted that asset and 

financial resources necessary to carry out these recommendations were not addressed by this Working 

Group. No assumption should be made that the suggested coordinating organizations have the people or 

funding to implement the Working Group’s recommended actions. 

As the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working Group Co-Chairs, we would like to recognize all 

of the Working Group members for their hard work and thoughtful perspectives throughout the 6 months 

of deliberations. Looking forward, we greatly appreciate the efforts of the organizations that will embrace 

the challenge of taking action on these recommendations, which we consider critical to improving water 

sector decontamination and recovery capabilities. 

 Patricia Tidwell-Shelton , MBA Don Broussard, P.E. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lafayette Utilities System 

GCC Co-Chair SCC Co-Chair 

DISCLAIMER 

This document is a report recommending the water sector’s proposed decontamination strategy. This is 

not a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report. The recommendations and views expressed do 

not necessarily reflect those of the EPA. This report does not establish EPA policy and does not obligate 

the federal government to take any actions. 

Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................iii

MEMBERS OF THE CIPAC WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION WORKING GROUP.........xiii

LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................... xv

DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................................................xix

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives and Scope .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Working Group Deliberative Process...................................................................................................... 2

2 PRIORITY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES ......................................................... 5

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES .............................. 11

3.1 Recommendations for the Key Decontamination Issues....................................................................... 11

3.2 Recommendations by Functional Categories and Their Relationships................................................. 24

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES........... 31

4.1 Proposed Decontamination Strategic Plan ............................................................................................ 31

4.2 Short Term Actions............................................................................................................................... 33

4.3 Mid Term Actions................................................................................................................................. 44

4.4 Long Term Actions ............................................................................................................................... 50

5 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................................. 59

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX A.........................................................................SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................IDENTIFIED DATA GAPS

APPENDIX C.........................INITIAL INCIDENT RESPONSE - CONTAINMENT OR PURGING 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page ii 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the recommendations of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council 

(CIPAC) Water Sector Decontamination Working Group. This Working Group was convened by the 

Water Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) and Government Coordinating Council (GCC) to develop a 

strategy and plan that supports priorities for water sector decontamination and recovery for the purpose of 

water security. The Working Group was composed of seven SCC representatives and seven GCC 

representatives. Five subject matter experts and eight representatives of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) also supported the Working Group in their discussions, but were not involved 

in decision making. 

The Working Group’s charter established seven objectives to meet this goal: 

 Identify decontamination issues and needs to support drinking water and wastewater utilities and 

other stakeholders 

 Prioritize the decontamination issues and needs, as related to water security 

 Provide recommendations to address the identified needs 

 Identify appropriate parties to implement these recommendations 

 Provide recommendations for EPA priorities in water sector decontamination and recovery 

 Identify data gaps related to decontamination of drinking water and wastewater systems needed to 

help restore systems to service 

 Develop a strategy for water sector decontamination that identifies directions and plans for the next 3 

to 5 years 

The Working Group identified 16 decontamination issue categories, and ranked these issue categories in 

order of priority, as related to water security. The results of this process are shown in Table E-1 below. 

Table E-1: Prioritized List of Decontamination Issue Categories Identified by the Working Group 

Priority Issue Categories Raised by CIPAC Working Group

1 Containing and/or disposing of large amounts of contaminated water 

2 Near-term practical solutions 

3 Decontamination procedures for infrastructure in treatment plants 

4 Decision-making frameworks for decontamination 

5 Decontamination procedures for distribution and collection systems 

6 Outreach and training to utilities, partners, and stakeholders 

7 Utility communications to public officials, responders, the public and others on decontamination 

8 Cleanup levels 

9 Treatment procedures for contaminated drinking water and wastewater 

10 Agent fate and transport 

11 Clarifying roles and responsibilities for decontamination and treatment 

12 Process for regulatory waivers/suspensions 

13 Resources and assets for decontamination and treatment 

14 Laboratory analysis 

15 Health and safety assessment for drinking water and wastewater treatment plant and field staff 

16 Overarching decontamination needs 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page iv 

The Working Group deliberated over all of these issue categories except one to provide recommendations 

and a strategy. In their discussions, the Working Group acknowledged that the “overarching 

decontamination needs” issue category contained overall needs to be considered when addressing other 

issue categories and recommendations. 

After prioritizing the issue categories, the Working Group developed recommendations on how to address 

water sector needs in each category. These recommendations were not only intended to respond to the 

issues that were identified, but also to fill existing data gaps that prevent the water sector decontamination 

needs from being met. A total of 35 recommendations were identified across the 15 issue categories; these 

recommendations fell into four general functional categories: 

 Recommendations on supporting information and capabilities 

 Recommendations on decontamination and treatment methods and technologies 

 Recommendations on policy decisions 

 Recommendations on outreach and communications 

There are substantial interrelationships and linkages among the identified recommendations. Some 

recommendations were necessary precursors to others; some address policy aspects of issues that other 

recommendations address through additional research; and some recommendations are for near-term 

measures to enhance decontamination capabilities while other, longer term recommendations are fulfilled. 

These recommendations, organized by the issues they address, are presented in Figure E-1. This figure 

also summarizes aspects of the proposed decontamination strategic plan developed by the Working 

Group. 

Using the recommendations, the Working Group developed a proposed water sector decontamination 

strategic plan for the next 5 years. The Working Group’s deliberations on this planning aspect yielded the 

following for each recommendation: 

 Specific information that the group believed should be considered when taking action on the 

recommendation and addressing the data gaps identified by the Working Group 

 Prospective identification of the coordinating organizations that the group believed were the most 

appropriate to address the recommendation based on the Working Group’s understanding of the roles, 

mission and capabilities of the identified organizations 

 Prospective supporting organizations that the group believed should support the implementation of 

the recommendation 

 The time frame the Working Group believed was appropriate for fully addressing the 

recommendation – Short term projects can be completed in 1 year, mid term in 3 years, and long term 

in 5 years 

The issues, recommendations, and proposed decontamination strategic plan resulting from the CIPAC 

Water Sector Decontamination Working Group, and documented in this report, are intended for 

consideration by the members of the SCC and GCC. The recommendations on decontamination and 

treatment methods and technologies, in particular, are also intended for consideration by research 

organizations to further the state of the science in decontamination. It is the Working Group’s intention 

that these recommendations be used as a guide to help focus the efforts of the water sector in addressing 

decontamination needs. It is important to note that asset and financial resource needs necessary to 

implement the proposed decontamination strategic plan recommendations were not taken into 

consideration by this Working Group. Also, when implementing the recommendations, the coordinating 

agencies may identify additional supporting organizations not identified by the Working Group. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page v 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page vi LONG TERM TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION* PRIORITY ISSUE COORDINATING ORGANIZATION* RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS ISSUE EPA ORD (NHSRC) 1. Identify existing decontamination techniques (or develop new procedures) for CBR agents in treatment plant infrastructure 1. Develop a decision-making framework for the decontamination of CBR agents in water systems specifically to be used by utilities, responders, and other decision makers 1. Identify existing decontamination techniques, and/or develop new procedures for CBR agents in utility distribution and collection systems 2. Identify existing decontamination techniques and/or develop new decontamination methods for CBR agents in private plumbing EPA and DHS EPA ORD (NHSRC) EPA ORD (NHSRC) SHORT TERM LONG TERM MID TERM TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION* PRIORITY ISSUE COORDINATING ORGANIZATION* RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE 3 Decontamination Procedures for Infrastructure in Treatment Plants PRIORITY ISSUE 4 Decision-Making Frameworks for Decontamination TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION* PRIORITY ISSUE COORDINATING ORGANIZATION* RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE 5 Decontamination Procedures for Distribution and Collection Systems Figure E-1: Prioritized Decontamination Issues, Recommendations, Appropriate Parties and Time Frame for Completion, cont. CBR – Chemical, biological, and radiological; DHS – Department of Homeland Security * The proposed coordinating organizations and time frames assigned for each recommendation acknowledge practical considerations necessary to complete the associated activities, but do not consider the availability of resources needed to address the recommendation in the associated time frame.
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page vii 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page viii 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page ix 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page x 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xi LONG TERM TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION* PRIORITY ISSUE COORDINATING ORGANIZATION* RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS ISSUE EPA 1. Provide surface (in situ) and water analysis methods specific for CBR agents to be used during decontamination and clearance steps through existing efforts 1. Develop detailed, risk-based frameworks for health assessments of drinking water and wastewater treatment plant and field staff that are consistent in approach across all EPA regions and states OSHA and CDC MID TERM TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION* PRIORITY ISSUE COORDINATING ORGANIZATION* RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE 14 Laboratory Analysis PRIORITY ISSUE 15 Health and Safety Assessment for Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant and Field Staff SHORT TERM EPA OW (WSD) 2. Leverage existing efforts to identify laboratory capabilities and laboratory capacities specific to CBR agent decontamination needs Not Addressed NA NA TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION* PRIORITY ISSUE COORDINATING ORGANIZATION* RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE 16 Overarching Decontamination Needs Figure E-1: Prioritized Decontamination Issues, Recommendations, Appropriate Parties and Time Frame for Completion, cont. CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration * The proposed coordinating organizations and time frames assigned for each recommendation acknowledge practical considerations necessary to complete the associated activities, but do not consider the availability of resources needed to address the recommendation in the associated time frame.
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xii 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xiii 

MEMBERS OF THE CIPAC WATER 

SECTOR DECONTAMINATION 

WORKING GROUP 

MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP

Patricia Tidwell-Shelton, MBA, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Co-Chair 

Matthew Arduino, M.S., Dr. P.H., Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention 

David Bankard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Lance Brooks, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Science and Technology 

Joseph Crisologo, P.E., R.E.A., California Department of 

Public Health, Southern California Drinking Water Field 

Operations Branch 

Kim Fox, P.E., DEE, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development 

Darrell C. Osterhoudt, Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators, Regulatory Affairs

Don Broussard, P.E., Lafayette Utilities System, 

Co-Chair 

Zia Bukhari, Ph.D., American Water 

Ryan James, Ph.D., Battelle Memorial Institute 

(Representing the American Water Works Association) 

Patricia Lamb, CUSA, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities 

Steve Rhode, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 

Greg Welter, P.E., DEE, O’Brien & Gere (Representing 

the American Water Works Association Research 

Foundation) 

Paul Whittam, Erie County Water Authority

ALTERNATES 

Scott Minamyer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Research and Development 

Mel Tesema, P.E., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Representing David Bankard, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers) 

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS 

Greg Grover, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6 

Art Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1 

Paul Kudarauskas, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Richard Weisman, P.E., U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water 

Anthony Zimmer, Ph.D., P.E., C.I.H., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PERSONNEL SUPPORTING THE WORKING GROUP 

Lori Apodaca, Ph.D., Office of Water 

Lindsey Bender, Office of Water 

Steve Clark, Office of Water 

Michael Finn, P.E., Office of Water 

Matthew Magnuson, Ph.D., Office of Research and 

Development 

Tanya Mottley, Office of Water 

Cayce Parrish, Office of Homeland Security 

Brian Pickard, P.E., DEE, RS, Office of Water 

Betsy Valente, Office of Water 

James Wheeler, P.E., DEE, Office of Water 

COORDINATION AND FACILITATION TEAM 

Shalini Jayasundera, Ph.D., Computer Sciences 

Corporation, Lead

David Gnugnoli, Computer Sciences Corporation, 

Analysis /Technical

Molly Wenner, Computer Sciences Corporation, Support 

Allison Bridges, Computer Sciences Corporation, 

Support

Kevin Connell, Computer Sciences Corporation, 

Facilitator 

Laura Jones, Computer Sciences Corporation, 

Analysis/Technical 

Kathryn Levitt, Computer Sciences Corporation, Support

Kristin Leinberger, Computer Sciences Corporation, 

Support
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xiv 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xv 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACEIH American Council of Education on Industrial Hygiene 

AMWA Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 

ASIWPCA Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

AWWA American Water Works Association 

AwwaRF American Water Works Association Research Foundation 

CBR Chemical, Biological and Radiological 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CIPAC Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council 

CMPG Consequence Management Plan Guidance 

COG Council of Governments 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOE Department of Energy 

ECC Environmental Clearance Committee 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERLN Environmental Response Laboratory Network 

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FERN Food Emergency Response Network 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

GCC Government Coordinating Council 

HA Health Advisory 

HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 

HSIN Homeland Security Information Network 

ICLN Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks 

ICS Incident Command System 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

LRN Laboratory Response Network 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 

MOP Manual of Practice 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xvi 

NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

NAWC National Association of Water Companies 

NDT National Decontamination Team 

NEMI-CBR National Environmental Methods Index for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological 

Methods 

NHSRC National Homeland Security Research Center 

NIMS National Incident Management System 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

NRF National Response Framework 

NRWA National Rural Water Association 

NSF NSF International (formerly National Sanitation Foundation) 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OEM Office of Emergency Management 

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 

OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

OW Office of Water 

OWM Office of Wastewater Management 

PHG Public Health Goal 

PPE Personal Protective Equipment 

QSAR Quantitative Structure and Activity Relationships 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RED Registration Eligibility Decision 

RPTB Response Protocol Toolbox 

R/R Remediation and Recovery 

SAM Standardized Analytical Methods for Environmental Restoration following Homeland 

Security Events 

SCC Sector Coordinating Council 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

S.O.K. State of Knowledge 

TCAD Threat and Consequence Analysis Division 

TLV Threshold Limit Value 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xvii 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

WARN Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network 

WaterISAC Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center 

WCIT Water Contaminant Information Tool 

WEF Water Environment Federation 

WERF Water Environment Research Foundation 

WLA Water Laboratory Alliance 

WSD Water Security Division 

WSI Water Security Initiative 

WWRPTB Wastewater RPTB 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xviii 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xix 

DEFINITIONS 

CBR agents – All chemical, biological and radiological agents that may contaminate a drinking water or 

wastewater system including but not limited to weaponized agents 

Decontamination – Within the scope of this report, decontamination means the reduction or removal of 

contaminants from surfaces by physical means, chemical neutralization, detoxification, disinfection, or 

sterilization (versus treatment of contaminated water or wastewater) 

Decontamination assets – Any equipment, personnel, technique, and chemical used for decontamination 

during a contamination event 

Decontamination financial resources – The financial means to fund the necessary work to complete 

decontamination activities 

Drinking water system – A utility, its components, personnel, and assets that are involved in providing 

drinking water to its customers 

Partners – Agencies, associations, or entities that are involved in the development or implementation of 

the efforts outlined in this report 

Platform – A means to disseminate information 

Private plumbing – The plumbing and water infrastructure of all customers of a utility that are not the 

responsibility of the utility 

Re-evaluate – Used in this document to describe the review of available information pertinent to a 

recommendation 

SCC Associations – The associations that serve as a policy, strategy, coordination mechanism and 

recommend actions to reduce and eliminate significant homeland security vulnerabilities to the water 

sector through interactions with the federal government and other critical infrastructure. These 

associations include: 

 AWWA – America Water Works Association 

 AwwaRF – American Water Works Association Research Foundation 

 AMWA – Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 

 NACWA – National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

 NAWC – National Association of Water Companies 

 NRWA – National Rural Water Association 

 WEF – Water Environment Federation 

 WERF – Water Environment Research Foundation 

Stakeholders – Utilities, responders, agencies, associations, or entities that may be the end users of a 

product or have an interest in the event and its outcome 

Transparent – Easily seen through; evident; obvious; easily understood 

Treatment – Within the scope of this report, treatment means the removal of contaminants from water or 

wastewater (versus decontamination of contaminated surfaces) 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page xx 

Wastewater system – A utility, its components, personnel, and assets that are involved in the handling, 

collecting and treating of wastewater

Wastewater treatment system – A treatment system that may consist of physical, biological, chemical, 

and mechanical processes for the purpose of removing and/or reducing contaminants in the wastewater 

Water distribution system – System consisting of pipe, pumps, control valves and storage facilities 

designed to provide potable drinking water to homes, businesses, hospitals, government facilities, etc. 

Water sector – Critical infrastructure sector identified by the federal government for protection that 

provides drinking water and wastewater treatment through approximately 170,000 public water systems. 

These systems depend on reservoirs, dams, wells, treatment facilities, pumping stations, and transmission 

lines. 

Weaponized agent – An agent designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 1 

1.1 Purpose 

The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) Water Sector Decontamination 

Working Group was convened in 2007 by the Water Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) and Government 

Coordinating Council (GCC) to develop a strategy and plan that supports priorities for water sector 

decontamination and recovery for the purpose of water security. The water sector lacks adequate 

information and guidance on the decontamination of water facilities, especially if they were contaminated 

with chemical, biological and radiological (CBR) agents through an accidental, intentional, or natural 

event. As part of the process of developing a proposed strategy, the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination 

Working Group was charged to identify and prioritize decontamination and recovery issues and needs, 

encompassing an all-hazards approach, for returning both the drinking water and wastewater systems to 

service after a contamination event. With this report, the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working 

Group communicates to the Councils its issues, priorities and recommendations for a water sector 

decontamination strategy. This report describes a list of priority water sector decontamination issue 

categories identified by the Working Group (Chapter 2), recommendations to address these 

decontamination issues (Chapter 3), and a proposed strategic plan to address the key water sector 

decontamination issues (Chapter 4). This report is the result of a 6-month deliberation period and does not 

contain an exhaustive list of all recommendations for water sector decontamination needs. Some of the 

identified recommendations include data gaps that need to be addressed. 

1.2 Objectives and Scope 

The CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working Group identified and prioritized water sector 

decontamination issues and needs, as related to water security, and provided recommendations to address 

these needs. The Working Group’s charter established seven objectives to meet this goal: 

 Identify decontamination issues and needs to support drinking water and wastewater utilities and other 

stakeholders 

 Prioritize the decontamination issues and needs, as related to water security 

 Provide recommendations to address the identified needs 

 Identify the appropriate parties to implement these recommendations 

 Provide recommendations for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) priorities in water sector 

decontamination and recovery 

 Identify data gaps related to decontamination of drinking water and wastewater systems needed to help 

restore systems to service 

 Develop a strategy for water sector decontamination that identifies directions and plans for the next 3 

to 5 years 

In accordance with its charter, the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working Group focused on how 

to address decontamination and recovery issues concerning activities needed to return a drinking water or 

wastewater system to service following a contamination incident. An all-hazards approach for drinking 

water and wastewater systems was examined to cover CBR agents of concern to water systems. In the 

context of this report, CBR agents include all chemical, biological, and radiological agents that may 

1 INTRODUCTION 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 2 

1 INTRODUCTION 

contaminate a drinking water or wastewater system and are not exclusive to weaponized agents. The scope 

of Working Group’s activities included the examination of treatment plant contamination, finished water 

storage tank contamination, water distribution system contamination, and residential and non-residential 

property water system contamination events along with wastewater utility components such as collection 

systems and treatment plant contamination. Existing information and ongoing activities on water sector 

decontamination were reviewed, but the Working Group did not re-analyze the efficacy of existing, 

established decontamination and treatment procedures. Decontamination and treatment topics within the 

context of other national “products” such as National Response Framework (NRF), National Infrastructure 

Protection Plan (NIPP), National Preparedness Goal (NPG), and applicable Homeland Security 

Presidential Directives (HSPDs) were also examined. 

The Working Group focused primarily on decontamination and treatment activities during the recovery 

phase, while identifying links to the consequence management phase of a response to avoid gaps. In 

addition, the Working Group looked at critical interdependencies between decontamination and other 

phases of response and recovery. To this end, aspects of the initial response (prior to decontamination) 

were considered only when the Working Group believed that these aspects had a significant effect on 

decontamination and treatment activities. 

1.3 Working Group Deliberative Process 

The charter for the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working Group was established by the CoChairs, approved by the SCC and GCC, and reviewed by the Working Group members during the first 

meeting in August 2007. The charter governed group activities, including the following: 

 How the membership was to be constructed 

 The activities of the subject matter experts 

 The activities of the facilitation team 

 Operating procedures and ground rules 

 The objectives of the Working Group 

 The scope of the effort 

 The schedule and duration of the Working Group 

A schedule was also approved during the first meeting. The Working Group deliberated periodically over 6 

months, with an effective stop date of February 28, 2008. The schedule of Working Group meetings is 

provided in Table 1-1. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 3 

1 INTRODUCTION 

Table 1-1: CIPAC Decontamination Working Group Schedule 

Meeting Date and Location Meeting Topic 

Face-to-Face 

Meeting 

August 13–14, 2007 

(Alexandria, VA) 

• Identify decontamination issues and needs to support drinking 

water and wastewater utilities and other stakeholders 

• Prioritize decontamination issues and needs as related to water 

security 

• Provide recommendations to address identified issues and needs 

related to: 

- Containing and/or disposing of large amounts of contaminated 

water 

- Near-term practical solutions 

Conference 

Call/Webcast September 5, 2007 

• Provide recommendations to address identified issues and needs 

related to: 

- Decision-making frameworks for decontamination 

- Process for regulatory waivers/suspensions 

- Health and safety assessment for drinking water and 

wastewater treatment plant staff 

Conference 

Call/Webcast September 26, 2007 

• Provide recommendations to address identified issues and needs 

related to: 

- Outreach and training to utilities, partners, and stakeholders 

- Clarifying roles and responsibilities for decontamination and 

treatment 

- Utility communications to public officials, responders, the public, 

and others on decontamination 

Conference 

Call/Webcast October 18, 2007 

• Provide recommendations to address identified issues and needs 

related to: 

- Resources and assets for decontamination and treatment 

- Laboratory analysis 

Conference 

Call/Webcast November 14, 2007 

• Provide recommendations to address identified issues and needs 

related to: 

- Decontamination procedures for infrastructure in treatment 

plants 

- Decontamination procedures for distribution and collection 

systems 

- Cleanup levels 

Conference 

Call/Webcast December 5, 2007 

• Provide recommendations to address identified issues and needs 

related to: 

- Agent fate and transport 

Conference 

Call/Webcast January 9, 2008 • Identify data gaps related to decontamination of drinking water and 

wastewater systems needed to help restore systems to service 

Face-to-Face 

Meeting 

February 6–7, 2008 

(Lafayette, LA) 

• Identify appropriate parties to implement recommendations 

• Provide recommendations for EPA priorities in water sector 

decontamination and recovery 

• Address issues unresolved during conference calls 

To share information among members, a Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) portal was 

established and used by the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working Group. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 4 

1 INTRODUCTION 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 5 

2 PRIORITY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

By identifying and prioritizing decontamination and recovery issues, the water sector can begin to address 

those most critical to water security. After a review of existing information and ongoing activities on 

water sector decontamination, the Working Group identified and prioritized 16 key decontamination 

issues and needs into categories across the following areas of potential contamination: 

 Water treatment plant contamination 

 Finished water storage tank contamination 

 Water distribution system contamination including pumps, boosters and other infrastructure used to 

distribute water throughout the system 

 Residential and non-residential property water system contamination 

 Collection system contamination 

 Wastewater treatment plant contamination 

The prioritized list is presented in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1: Prioritized List of Water Sector Decontamination Issues and Needs 

Priority Issue Categories Raised by CIPAC Working Group

1 Containing and/or disposing of large amounts of contaminated water 

2 Near-term practical solutions* 

3 Decontamination procedures for infrastructure in treatment plants 

4 Decision-making frameworks for decontamination 

5 Decontamination procedures for distribution and collection systems 

6 Outreach and training to utilities, partners, and stakeholders 

7 Utility communications to public officials, responders, the public and others on decontamination 

8 Cleanup levels 

9 Treatment procedures for contaminated drinking water and wastewater 

10 Agent fate and transport 

11 Clarifying roles and responsibilities for decontamination and treatment 

12 Process for regulatory waivers/suspensions 

13 Resources and assets for decontamination and treatment 

14 Laboratory analysis 

15 Health and safety assessment for drinking water and wastewater treatment plant staff 

16 Overarching decontamination needs** 

* Near-term practical solutions are currently available procedures and techniques whose efficacy needs to be 

proven in the decontamination of CBR agents 

** Issue 16 contains overarching needs that were identified by the Working Group but not included in 

recommendations because these were seen to affect and be part of other issues 

The prioritized list shown is meant to be used as a guide and not a definitive analysis of the importance of 

each issue category. Many of the issue categories were viewed as having similar priority or to be 

addressed through other efforts and the prioritization system is to be used for clarity when addressing 

and/or assigning a topic and to show its importance to the water sector. 

A brief discussion on the rationale on each issue identified by the Working Group is provided below. 

Section 3 discusses the specific recommendations the Working Group proposed to address each issue; 

2 PRIORITY WATER SECTOR 

DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 6 

2 PRIORITY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Section 4 presents the strategic plan that the Working Group proposed for acting on these 

recommendations. 

ISSUE 1: CONTAINING AND/OR DISPOSING OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF CONTAMINATED WATER 

The water sector lacks clear guidance on containing and/or disposing of large amounts of water 

contaminated with CBR agents. The Working Group cited the following factors in identifying this as an 

issue to resolve in support of water sector decontamination: 

 The decision to contain or immediately discharge contaminated water affects subsequent 

decontamination efforts. Moreover, the decision to contain or immediately discharge contaminated 

water raises significant public health concerns and environmental impact issues. The water sector 

lacks clear guidance for effectively navigating these issues. 

 Environmentally sound procedures for the containment and disposal of both the liquid and the 

associated solid waste from a water system contamination incident are not available. 

 Existing guidance regarding containing and then disposing of contaminated water is inconsistent. 

ISSUE 2: NEAR-TERM PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS 

The water sector has an immediate need for information on available methods to decontaminate drinking 

water and wastewater systems and treat contaminated drinking water and wastewater. More specifically, 

drinking water and wastewater systems require available techniques for treating CBR agents and 

information on the efficacy of those techniques, such as ozonation and hyper-chlorination. 

ISSUE 3: DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IN TREATMENT PLANTS 

Water and wastewater treatment plant infrastructure, including pumps, valves, filters, sediment basins, 

holding tanks, and pipes, present challenges during decontamination and recovery. The water sector needs 

procedures and guidance for decontaminating different types of infrastructure for CBR agents. If utilities 

are unable to decontaminate treatment plant infrastructure, they may be forced to abandon and seal in 

place at a high cost and with unknown impacts to the environment and the availability of water service to 

customers. 

ISSUE 4: DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORKS FOR DECONTAMINATION 

In the event of CBR contamination at a water or wastewater system, many responders and decision 

makers lack guidance on making well-informed decisions on how to decontaminate and recover from the 

incident. The Working Group cited the following reasons for raising this as an issue: 

 Current guidance does not provide the water sector with adequate information or decision-making 

tools to address regulatory requirements, balancing risks, determining whether decontamination is 

necessary, and selecting proper methodologies for measurements and treatment. 

 Determining how to apply federal, state, and local regulations during discharge/disposal, 

decontamination/treatment, and return to service after a contamination incident may be confusing 

because the relevant issues are spread over different areas of the regulatory code and may vary from 

state to state. 

 Neither the water sector nor responders nor other decision makers have guidance to make timely, 

effective, and targeted decisions on whether and how to decontaminate and recover from a CBR 

contamination. 

 It is not clear whether analysis of pipe surfaces or water will be needed to demonstrate contaminant 

removal and clear a utility to resume service. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 7 

2 PRIORITY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Decontamination and recovery decisions may have a significant effect on public health and/or the 

environment, and these repercussions need to be included into guidance on the subject. 

ISSUE 5: DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES FOR DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS 

Distribution and collection systems offer the most direct link between a utility and its customers. Previous 

analysis and evaluations by different agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and 

EPA, have raised concerns that the distribution systems are the most vulnerable part of a water system 

because of the many potential locations of contaminant introduction. Contamination incidents that affect a 

distribution or collection system can pose a significant threat to human health and be difficult to 

remediate due to the following: 

 Adherence of agents to pipe walls or pipe encrustations 

 Formation of biofilms 

 Reaction of agents with pipe walls or corrosion products 

 Permeation through pipe walls 

 Inaccessibility of infrastructure for physical cleaning and/or replacement 

The Working Group cited the following in determining why it was essential to address this issue to 

support water sector decontamination activities: 

 Lack of information on CBR agent decontamination, including the effects of both CBR contaminants 

and the efforts to decontaminate them on a distribution or collection system and associated private 

customer plumbing 

 Lack of information on the impact that decontamination efforts may have on a distribution system or 

private plumbing 

ISSUE 6: OUTREACH AND TRAINING TO UTILITIES, PARTNERS, AND STAKEHOLDERS 

Without access to information on decontamination of CBR agents as well as the fate and transport of 

CBR agents, additional research and guidance will not benefit the water sector. This limitation is 

compounded by the relatively limited state of the knowledge in the area of water sector decontamination. 

Efforts to aggregate existing information and convey new information to the water sector through 

outreach and training is needed.

ISSUE 7: UTILITY COMMUNICATIONS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS, RESPONDERS, THE PUBLIC AND 

OTHERS ON DECONTAMINATION 

During decontamination, and prior to resumption of full service, drinking water and wastewater utilities 

need to be able to effectively communicate to the public, public officials and response agencies regarding 

status and limitations of use, in order to avoid confusion and further protect public health or minimize 

economic impacts. The water sector needs guidance on how to educate public officials and responders on 

decontamination issues prior to an incident to avoid decision-making delays and ineffective actions. In 

addition, the water sector also needs guidance on crisis communication and risk communication to meet 

this need; in particular, the water sector needs guidance on how to communicate to the public regarding 

decontamination if CBR agents are involved. 

ISSUE 8: CLEANUP LEVELS 

The ultimate goal of decontamination activities at a drinking water or wastewater system is to return the 

system to service. To achieve this goal, decision makers must verify that the water and infrastructure in a 

system are clear to return to service. This requires comparing contaminant levels in the system to 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 8 

2 PRIORITY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

acceptable contaminant levels. For traditional contaminants, there are Maximum Contaminant Levels 

(MCLs) for contaminants regulated in water or Health Advisories (HAs), which are non-regulatory 

advisory values determined by EPA. Additionally, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and 

Public Health Goals (PHGs) may be used for determining appropriate cleanup levels. However, for most 

CBR contaminants, these levels do not exist. 

ISSUE 9: TREATMENT PROCEDURES FOR CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER AND 

WASTEWATER 

In addition to decontaminating physical infrastructure, drinking water and wastewater utilities need to 

address how to treat contaminated drinking water and wastewater after CBR contamination. Utilities 

currently have limited information on drinking water and wastewater treatment techniques for CBR 

agents. Because system flushing may be an option, the water sector also needs information on compliance 

with the various regulatory requirements that may be imposed on a utility if this option is considered. 

Further, dialogue needs to be established among regulatory agencies and bodies on how to handle such 

waste, should flushing be necessary under these life or death situations. Understanding of the priorities 

should be emphasized to protect life, then property, then the environment. Also, consideration should be 

made on remediation and technologies to deal with any resulting releases. 

ISSUE 10: AGENT FATE AND TRANSPORT 

A thorough understanding of the fate and transport of both CBR agents and decontamination agents is 

necessary for drinking water and wastewater utilities to better prepare for, and limit the impacts of, 

contamination and subsequent recovery, in terms of public safety and environmental impacts. 

Understanding the potential of an agent to persist in a system or in the environment and what agent 

properties may dictate whether the contaminated water or wastewater is discharged or contained after a 

contamination incident are needed. Specifically at issue is whether some contaminants that can represent 

an inhalation risk under some circumstances, most notably anthrax, would represent a realistic threat as a 

“wetted” aerosol. This information would be needed to assess potential risk to wastewater utility workers 

and to firefighters, relative to the competing risk if the contaminant is not purged from the water system. 

Further, it should be examined how a contaminant should be remediated if released into the environment. 

ISSUE 11: CLARIFYING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DECONTAMINATION AND 

TREATMENT 

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is the national guidance for the prevention, 

preparation, response, recovery and mitigation of incidents regardless of size, location or complexity. 

NIMS coordinates emergency preparedness, response and incident management among various federal, 

state, and local agencies. A component of NIMS is the Incident Command System (ICS), which is a 

standardized, flexible, and scalable response organization structure that aids cooperation and decisionmaking processes during an emergency. Although utilities are aware of NIMS and ICS, and have 

implemented many of the preliminary steps to prepare for emergency management, considerable 

confusion remains on how the chain of command and decision-making authority changes as 

decontamination and recovery activities progress. In addition, confusion exists in the water sector 

regarding which agencies can provide guidance, response, and support during a contamination event (for 

instance, the National Decontamination Team). Building upon NIMS is the National Response 

Framework (NRF). The NRF is a guide on how an all-hazards response is to be handled at the national 

level. 

ISSUE 12: PROCESS FOR REGULATORY WAIVERS/SUSPENSIONS 

Water and wastewater utilities are responsible for following federal and state guidelines and regulations 

during regular operations and contamination events. In the event of a contamination incident involving a 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 9 

2 PRIORITY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

CBR agent that poses substantial public health risk, both states and utilities need quick access to 

information on the regulatory waiver and suspension process, and need to understand what flexibility 

exists for various regulations. There needs to be clear dialogue with the regulatory agencies on this topic 

and on the solutions identified. 

 

ISSUE 13: RESOURCES AND ASSETS FOR DECONTAMINATION AND TREATMENT 

Recovery from CBR contamination may require deployment of resources and assets including specialized 

decontamination agent(s), equipment, and personnel. Drinking water and wastewater utilities need to be 

aware of the resources and assets that exist and how they may be accessed. In addition, drinking water 

and wastewater utilities need guidance on what consideration should be given to decontamination factors 

when making decisions on capital improvement projects to reduce consequences and improve 

decontamination and recovery efforts. 

ISSUE 14: LABORATORY ANALYSIS 

Laboratory analysis is a critical element during all phases of decontamination and recovery. Laboratories 

involved in decontamination and recovery analyses require methods for a variety of contaminants and 

measurement techniques. An evaluation of laboratory capabilities and capacities (i.e., techniques and 

methods the laboratories can execute and how many samples can be processed) could help the water 

sector address any gaps in laboratory preparedness. Existing methods may not include both in situ and 

water analyses for CBR agents. The Working Group considered this to be a critical issue for 

decontamination, but the group’s acknowledgement that current efforts in the EPA Office of Water (OW), 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), and Office of Research and Development 

(ORD) were addressing these needs, and so ranked this issue lower than other issues that required action. 

Its ranking does not indicate a lack of importance to the Working Group; rather, it is an indication that 

significant activities are currently underway to address this issue. Further, it was recognized that the 

laboratory community was aware of this need to address surge capacity and indeed that some states and 

EPA were forming mutual assistance groups or networks such as the Water Laboratory Alliance (WLA) 

and the Standardized Analytical Methods for Environmental Restoration following Homeland Security 

Events (SAM) Work Group. 

ISSUE 15: HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER 

TREATMENT PLANT AND FIELD STAFF 

The health and safety of drinking water and wastewater plant and field staff are of critical concern during 

decontamination and recovery. To ensure health and safety before, during, and after decontamination, the 

risks of exposure to workers must first be evaluated. Without an accurate assessment of the risks 

involved, it is difficult to institute preventative safety measures, adjust plant operations, and/or create 

timelines for when it is safe for operators to work. 

ISSUE 16: OVERARCHING DECONTAMINATION NEEDS 

Several overarching decontamination and recovery needs were identified by the Working Group. While 

these needs were acknowledged in discussions, the group did not provide specific recommendations 

because these needs span multiple other issues. These needs included the following: 

 Address the needs of drinking water and wastewater utilities of all sizes 

 Leverage existing efforts 

 Broaden assessment to international efforts 

 Leverage Department of Homeland Security (DHS) national planning scenarios, where applicable
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 10 

2 PRIORITY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 11 

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES

Following the identification and prioritization of water sector decontamination issues, the Working Group 

provided recommendations on how to address the key issues. Each recommendation is intended to define 

the needs of one or more of the key issue categories and may be related to other recommendations as a 

supporting, preceding, or follow-on action. The recommendations were organized within the following 

four functional categories: 

 Supporting Information and Capabilities 

 Decontamination and Treatment Methods and Technologies 

 Policy Decisions 

 Outreach and Communications 

The recommendations within the four functional categories were viewed as being supportive of either 

water sector planning and preparedness needs or four key decontamination and recovery activity stages: 

1. Response 

2. Characterization 

3. Remediation and Cleanup 

4. Clearance and Return to Service 

Section 3.1 describes the Working Group’s recommendations to address each priority issue with a brief 

summary of the background and rationale for each, while Section 3.2 describes the relationships between 

the Working Group’s recommendations and further delineates them into functional categories. These 

deliberations include identifying specific data gaps, which, in large part, actually form the basis of the 

recommendation. These data gaps, along with the associated recommendation, are summarized in 

Appendix B and are reflected in the discussion of each recommendation below. 

3.1 Recommendations for the Key Decontamination Issues 

In this report, the Working Group provides 35 recommendations for addressing 15 of the 16 key issues 

that were identified. Issue 16 contains overarching considerations that were not addressed individually by 

the Working Group. Multiple recommendations are provided to address the needs within most of the issue 

categories. The Working Group noted that these recommendations do not necessarily represent the 

universe of all recommendations needed to address each issue. Instead, the recommendations represent 

the Working Group’s deliberations on these issues during the 6-month period the group convened. 

ISSUE 1: CONTAINING AND/OR DISPOSING OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF CONTAMINATED WATER 

To respond to the lack of clear guidance on containing and/or disposing of large amounts of water 

contaminated with CBR agents, the Working Group provided two recommendations. Recommendation 1 

focuses on the immediate response to a contamination event, specifically on decisions to contain or 

immediately discharge contaminated water. Recommendation 2 addresses the need for consistent 

guidance on disposal of contaminated drinking water and wastewater. 

Recommendation 1: Develop a decision-making framework regarding containing or purging 

contaminated water. When responding to a water contamination incident, the primary objective of water 

utilities and public health authorities is to ensure the safety of the public served by the water system and 

prevent exposure to the contaminant, particularly through ingestion. Current public notification systems 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS 

KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 12 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

designed to warn the public of a health risk in the water supply may not reach all customers in a timely 

manner, increasing the potential risk if contaminated water is not purged from the system immediately. 

To this end, the decision on whether to immediately discharge should be made quickly, but with careful 

understanding of the relative risks between potential exposure of the population via the water system (if 

the water is contained) versus impact on the wastewater system or receiving water body (if the water is 

immediately discharged) or potential downstream exposure to the public from discharged contaminated 

water. To increase the protection of the public, it may also be necessary to improve the communication 

aspect within the decision-making framework to ensure that any warnings against water consumption are 

made quickly enough, widely enough, and clearly enough to result in successful receipt and 

understanding of the message by the public. 

This recommendation is linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 1, Recommendation 2: Revise existing guidance or develop new guidance for containment and 

disposal of decontamination waste including large amounts of water and associated solid wastes 

 Issue 6, Recommendation 2: Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport 

information 

 Issue 12, Recommendation 1: Provide guidance on regulatory waiver process for discharge/disposal, 

decontamination/treatment, and return to service activities during CBR incidents 

Recommendation 2: Revise existing guidance or develop new guidance for containment and 

disposal of decontamination waste including large amounts of water and associated solid wastes.

While Recommendation 1 called for a new framework to help decide whether to contain or immediately 

discharge contaminated water, the goal of this recommendation is to consolidate existing guidance 

documents and information on the disposal and handling of decontamination waste including any waste 

generated by the decontamination agents themselves. 

Current guidance on the containment and disposal of decontamination waste recommends retention and 

treatment before disposal. For example, EPA’s Response Protocol Toolbox (RPTB) (particularly Modules 

2 [EPA 817-D-03-002], and 6 [EPA 817-D-03-006]), the most current and directly applicable guidance on 

initial incident response, implies that discharge of the contaminated water to wastewater systems or to the 

environment, via storm sewers, is not a viable option. Further, the RPTB indicates that, until 

arrangements for pretreatment can be made, the contaminated water should remain in the water system, 

with reliance on public notification to avoid dangers to the consumers. These materials do not provide 

adequate guidance to the utilities. 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 1, Recommendation 1: Develop a decision-making framework regarding containing or purging 

contaminated water 

 Issue 12, Recommendation 1: Provide guidance on regulatory waiver process for discharge/disposal, 

decontamination/treatment, and return to service activities during CBR incidents 

ISSUE 2: NEAR-TERM PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS 

Pending the outcome of research into new decontamination technologies, the Working Group provided 

recommendations on near-term practical solutions based on currently available decontamination methods. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 13 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Recommendation 1: Provide information on using traditional techniques (i.e., those in routine use 

by utilities) for non-traditional contaminants. Treatment techniques already in routine use by drinking 

water and wastewater utilities may be effective in treating non-traditional contaminants. These techniques 

include chlorination and ozonation. Utility personnel will have familiarity and experience with these 

traditional techniques and assets required, thereby limiting the need for new training and assets to 

implement new techniques. The Working Group recommended that current information on the efficacy of 

these traditional techniques on CBR agents be compiled for use by the water sector. Published literature 

may provide insight into the basic science of using traditional techniques for some biological agents and 

aid in the selection of these techniques for decontamination. 

This recommendation is closely linked to another recommendation identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-2): 

 Issue 2, Recommendation 4: Use existing information services and Web-based databases to 

disseminate near-term practical decontamination solutions to utilities 

Recommendation 2: Provide information on the efficacy of pipe cleaning aids, such as NSF-60-

certified products, on the decontamination of infrastructure. Several research agencies and 

organizations (including EPA’s National Homeland Security Research Center, the American Water 

Works Association Research Foundation [AwwaRF], U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, 

and Battelle Memorial Institute) have conducted (or are conducting) research on infrastructure 

decontamination. Most experiments have focused on the effectiveness of chemicals to either neutralize or 

remove target contaminants that were shown to adhere to the interior of water pipe surfaces. 

Commercial products that are already certified as safe for use in potable water systems as “pipe cleaning 

aids” under NSF International (formerly National Sanitation Foundation) (NSF)/American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 60 have not yet been adequately tested for their ability to neutralize 

or remove target contaminants from infrastructure. Use of these chemicals for decontamination in the 

near-term may have an advantage over other chemicals undergoing research for three reasons: (1) the 

manufacturers would have documented procedures for the application of the chemical to water 

infrastructure, (2) the chemicals themselves have been tested and certified against a health effects 

standard recognized by EPA and nearly all state regulatory agencies, and (3) the system operators may 

have familiarity with the chemicals. For these reasons, the Working Group recommended that these 

certified commercial products be prioritized for decontamination efficacy evaluations. 

This recommendation is closely linked to another recommendation identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-2): 

 Issue 2, Recommendation 4: Use existing information services and Web-based databases to 

disseminate near-term practical decontamination solutions to utilities 

 

Recommendation 3: Provide operational steps to minimize impact of decontamination. In addition to 

treatment techniques and decontamination agents, the Working Group recommended that efforts be 

expended to document the effectiveness of operational steps as immediately implementable, cost effective 

techniques for decontamination. This recommendation includes the assessment and dissemination of 

current operational procedures that may minimize the impact of decontamination. 

Recommendation 4: Use existing information services and Web-based databases to disseminate 

near-term practical decontamination solutions to utilities. Although the Working Group identified the 

need for a dedicated portal or clearinghouse for decontamination information (see Issue 6, 

Recommendation 3), the Working Group recommended that existing vehicles be used now to quickly 

disseminate near-term practical decontamination solutions to the water sector. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 14 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-2): 

 Issue 2, Recommendation 1: Provide information on using traditional techniques (i.e., those in routine 

use by utilities) for non-traditional contaminants 

 Issue 2, Recommendation 2: Provide information on the efficacy of pipe cleaning aids, such as NSF60-certified products, on the decontamination of infrastructure 

 Issue 3, Recommendation 1: Identify existing decontamination techniques (or develop new 

procedures) for CBR agents in treatment plant infrastructure 

 Issue 5, Recommendation 1: Identify existing decontamination techniques, and/or develop new 

procedures for CBR agents in utility distribution and collection systems 

 Issue 5, Recommendation 2: Identify existing decontamination techniques and/or develop new 

decontamination methods for CBR agents in private plumbing 

 Issue 9, Recommendation 1: Provide information on the treatment of drinking water and wastewater 

contaminated with CBR agents 

ISSUE 3: DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IN TREATMENT PLANTS 

The Working Group identified one recommendation to address the need of decontamination procedures 

for infrastructure in treatment plants. 

Recommendation 1: Identify existing decontamination techniques (or develop new procedures) for 

CBR agents in treatment plant infrastructure. The differences in equipment and fixed infrastructure in 

drinking water and wastewater utility treatment plants require the identification or development of in situ 

techniques. In situ techniques will allow utilities to decontaminate the affected equipment and 

infrastructure in place without the need to abandon or seal in place. Abandonment and seal-in-place 

measures were not seen as feasible because of the cost to replace infrastructure. 

Opportunities exist to leverage information available to other critical sectors on decontaminating CBR 

agents. For example, information on the decontamination of radiologicals from infrastructure could be 

leveraged from the nuclear sector. Recommendations examining the decontamination of distribution and 

collection systems (Issue 5) and the treatment of drinking water and wastewater (Issue 9) may also be 

leveraged. 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-2): 

 Issue 2, Recommendation 4: Use existing information services and Web-based databases to 

disseminate near-term practical decontamination solutions to utilities 

 Issue 5, Recommendation 1: Identify existing decontamination techniques, and/or develop new 

procedures for CBR agents in utility distribution and collection systems 

 Issue 5, Recommendation 2: Identify existing decontamination techniques and/or develop new 

decontamination methods for CBR agents in private plumbing 

ISSUE 4: DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORKS FOR DECONTAMINATION 

The Working Group identified one recommendation to address the need for a decision-making framework 

for decontamination. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 15 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Recommendation 1: Develop a decision-making framework for the decontamination of CBR agents 

in water systems specifically to be used by utilities, responders, and other decision makers. Detailed 

risk-informed decision-making frameworks with corresponding flowcharts will provide utilities, 

responders, and other decision makers critical information needed to guide decontamination decisions: 

1. Addressing regulatory requirements 

2. Balancing public safety with decontamination goals 

3. Determining whether to use surface measurements or water analyses or both 

4. Determining whether to treat the water and/or decontaminate the infrastructure 

5. Determining whether to replace or decontaminate the infrastructure 

6. Determining whether to seal and abandon in-place or remove the infrastructure 

7. Determining acceptable limits for alternate use of contaminated water such as for firefighting 

ISSUE 5: DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES FOR DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS 

While there is information on the disinfection of plant infrastructure and utility distribution and collection 

systems, such as those developed by AWWA, there is only limited information on the decontamination of 

CBR agents in distribution systems. Some published literature may provide insight into the basic science 

and aid in the selection of decontamination methods for biological agents in distribution systems. To 

account for the variations between utility distribution and collection systems and private plumbing, the 

Working Group identified two separate recommendations to address the two major system types, utilityowned and private. Additionally, considerable crossover effects may occur between utility-owned and 

privately owned systems due to decontamination or lack of decontamination activities. 

Recommendation 1: Identify existing decontamination techniques, and/or develop new procedures 

for CBR agents in utility distribution and collection systems. Distribution and collection systems 

consist of variable designs and material compositions. Separate areas of the same system can be made of 

completely different materials and utilize different pumping and collection systems. Information on how 

specific system variables impact the decontamination of CBR agents and what decontamination 

techniques in distribution and collection systems are available to mitigate these impacts should be 

leveraged from other sectors or by conducting new research. 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-2): 

 Issue 2, Recommendation 4: Use existing information services and Web-based databases to 

disseminate near-term practical decontamination solutions to utilities 

 Issue 3, Recommendation 1: Identify existing decontamination techniques (or develop new 

procedures) for CBR agents in treatment plant infrastructure

 Issue 5, Recommendation 2: Identify existing decontamination techniques, and/or develop new 

decontamination methods for CBR agents in private plumbing 

Recommendation 2: Identify existing decontamination techniques and/or develop new 

decontamination methods for CBR agents in private plumbing. A CBR agent incident in a utility’s 

distribution or collection system could impact and contaminate the private plumbing of the end users. 

Therefore, decontamination procedures that adequately address the variability and unique considerations 

in private plumbing need to be identified and/or developed to aid the water sector in responding to a 

contamination event. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 16 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

The recommendation will have significant crossover in both research and technology development with 

Issue 5, Recommendation 1. This recommendation is also closely linked to several other 

recommendations identified by the Working Group (Figure 3-2): 

 Issue 2, Recommendation 4: Use existing information services and Web-based databases to 

disseminate near-term practical decontamination solutions to utilities 

 Issue 3, Recommendation 1: Identify existing decontamination techniques (or develop new 

procedures) for CBR agents in treatment plant infrastructure 

 Issue 5, Recommendation 1: Identify existing decontamination techniques, and/or develop new 

procedures for CBR agents in utility distribution and collection systems 

ISSUE 6: OUTREACH AND TRAINING TO UTILITIES, PARTNERS, AND STAKEHOLDERS 

The Working Group provided four recommendations to address key water sector outreach and training 

needs to better prepare utilities and response agencies. 

Recommendation 1: Identify the current state of decontamination and recovery knowledge for 

CBR agents and develop a preferred/vetted guidance to reconcile any conflicting information. This 

involves evaluating current information on CBR agent decontamination and identifying the current state 

of knowledge on water sector decontamination. This will provide the water sector with information on the 

most up to date tools, techniques and information needed to respond to a contamination event. The 

sources for existing and emerging knowledge and the possible mechanisms to update this knowledge 

should be explored. 

Recommendation 2: Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport 

information. The Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT) contains information on the fate and 

transport of some contaminants, but the tool should be updated to include the following: 

 Fate and transport of CBR agents, residuals, and decontamination agents in the environment 

 Fate and transport of CBR agents, residuals, and decontamination agents in chlorinated drinking 

water and wastewater systems 

 Empirical data for current expert judgments in WCIT on fate and transport 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 1, Recommendation 1: Develop a decision-making framework regarding containing or purging 

contaminated water 

 Issue 10, Recommendation 2: Determine the persistence and interaction of CBR agents in drinking 

water and wastewater and on pipe materials, and how chlorination affects contaminant persistence 

and interaction 

 Issue 10, Recommendation 4: Determine the fate and transport of decontamination agents in drinking 

water and wastewater systems and persistence in pipe materials 

 Issue 10, Recommendation 5: Determine fate and transport of CBR agents, residuals, 

decontamination agents and solid discharge in the environment including if discharged to water body 

or after wastewater treatment (fertilizer or the sludge application to agricultural land, landfill, etc.) 

 Issue 10, Recommendation 6: Assess the aerosolization or volatilization of contaminants released 

from drinking water and wastewater systems 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 17 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Issue 10, Recommendation 7: Determine the risk that an aerosolized attack of CBR agents will result 

in concentrations of concern to drinking water or wastewater systems 

Recommendation 3: Develop a Web-based information clearinghouse to share and disseminate 

decontamination and recovery information specific to the water sector. Currently, information related 

to decontamination in drinking water and wastewater is limited and spread out through many different 

sources. Drinking water and wastewater utilities require practical and useful information, not necessarily 

research publications. Small utilities, in particular, do not have access to decontamination information due 

to technical limitations and minimal staffing. A central repository to identify up-to-date and 

comprehensive decontamination information, developed and maintained through a Web-based 

information clearinghouse, will provide the water sector an avenue for obtaining current decontamination 

information. 

Recommendation 4: Develop and provide two types, one each for drinking water and wastewater, 

of facility-based, decontamination training programs from the “ground up” for water sector 

stakeholders and national response teams. Training and exercises play an important role in preparing 

utilities and water sector stakeholders for incidents. It is also critical for utilities to understand the 

coordination among agencies such as national and regional response teams during a CBR incident. Since 

much of the decontamination information is new to utilities, training will help the water sector and local 

emergency responders understand and apply decontamination and recovery information in a practical 

manner. Training for decontamination can take several forms and should support current decontamination 

guidance, including advising utilities on the availability of resources and how best to access those 

resources. 

ISSUE 7: UTILITY COMMUNICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS, RESPONDERS, THE PUBLIC 

AND OTHERS ON DECONTAMINATION 

Two recommendations were identified to address the needs of utilities for guidance on communications. 

Recommendation 1 calls for guidance on how to effectively educate public officials and decision makers 

on decontamination issues. Recommendation 2 calls for guidelines on how to implement decontamination 

and recovery-specific provisions into a utility’s risk and crisis communication plans. 

Recommendation 1: Develop guidance to help utilities prepare outreach materials to educate utility 

personnel, lawmakers, and response agencies on decontamination and recovery processes before an 

incident. The focus of this recommendation is on the preemptive education of lawmakers, response 

agencies, and the utility’s own personnel on decontamination activities. This guidance should help 

utilities prepare the necessary officials and agencies for the activities during decontamination and how to 

service the community that may be impacted during the decontamination process until the system is 

restored. 

Recommendation 2: Develop guidelines for risk communication activities during decontamination 

and recovery phases. Risk communication plans are already used by utilities to prepare for a 

contamination incident. However, these plans often do not address the decontamination and recovery 

phases of a contamination incident. Guidance is needed to help utilities adapt their current risk 

communication plans to include information on decontamination and recovery. These guidelines should 

show utilities how to implement the necessary amendments to their plans before a contamination incident 

occurs. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 18 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

ISSUE 8: CLEANUP LEVELS 

To address the need for cleanup levels for CBR agents, the Working Group identified three 

recommendations. Each of these recommendations is closely related and will leverage each other for 

information. 

Recommendation 1: Develop transparent process for establishing target cleanup levels that can be 

used on an incident-specific basis. Cleanup levels do not currently exist for most CBR agents; 

moreover, incident-specific factors will likely influence the determination of cleanup levels during 

decontamination. In the absence of pre-established levels (which should be developed, as noted in 

Recommendation 2), and in recognition of the incident-specific nature of decontamination, the Working 

Group recommended that a standard process be developed to establish these levels. Developing a standard 

process beforehand will result in more informed, consistent decision making when levels need to be 

established. The group further recommended that this process feature transparency, so the parties 

involved in decontamination understand how the cleanup level was determined. 

This recommendation is closely linked to another recommendation identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-3): 

 Issue 8, Recommendation 2: Pre-establish information needs to determine target cleanup levels for 

contaminants that address multiple water uses 

Recommendation 2: Pre-establish information needs to determine target cleanup levels for 

contaminants that address multiple water uses. Cleanup levels are needed to determine 

decontamination and clearance goals. Ideally, cleanup levels for CBR agents would be pre-established, 

similar to maximum contaminant levels in drinking water regulations or to Health Advisory levels. Where 

levels do exist for drinking water, the levels apply only to consumption, not to other, non-potable water 

uses. Efforts should be made to establish information needs to determine multiple cleanup levels for 

different water uses. Utilities already have provisions for issuing advisories on water that may be used by 

customers. “Do not drink,” “boil first,” and “not fit for any use” are just some of the possibilities. 

Developing information needed to determine cleanup levels to address multiple uses recognizes the use of 

water for firefighting during decontamination, for example, or allow for drinking the water after boiling. 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-3): 

 Issue 8, Recommendation 1: Develop transparent process for establishing target cleanup levels that 

can be used on an incident-specific basis 

 Issue 8, Recommendation 3: Establish measurement process for cleanup and clearance that addresses 

extent of sampling 

 Issue 14, Recommendation 1: Provide surface (in situ) and water analysis methods specific for CBR 

agents to be used during decontamination and clearance steps through existing efforts 

Recommendation 3: Establish measurement process for cleanup and clearance that addresses 

extent of sampling. To determine whether cleanup levels for CBR agents have been met during 

decontamination, extensive sampling and analysis needs to be conducted. Guidance is needed for 

developing a statistically valid sampling approach for decontamination purposes that considers sampling 

locations and frequency. Developing guidance for sampling beforehand will result in more informed, 

consistent, and effective sampling plans. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 19 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-3): 

 Issue 8, Recommendation 2: Pre-establish information needs to determine target cleanup levels for 

contaminants that address multiple water uses 

 Issue 14, Recommendation 1: Provide surface (in situ) and water analysis methods specific for CBR 

agents to be used during decontamination and clearance steps through existing efforts 

ISSUE 9: TREATMENT PROCEDURES FOR CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER AND 

WASTEWATER 

Current information on water treatment techniques is mostly limited to the use of traditional techniques 

for traditional contaminants. These techniques have not been approved for the treatment of CBR agents. 

To address this gap in knowledge, the Working Group recommended specifically addressing treatment 

procedures for CBR agents. 

Recommendation 1: Provide information on the treatment of drinking water and wastewater 

contaminated with CBR agents. The overall goal when treating contaminated water is to contain the 

spread of any contamination while minimizing the threat to human health and the environment. Options 

for addressing this recommendation include the development of treatment techniques, including 

leveraging currently used techniques, developing new techniques effective against CBR agents or using 

natural treatment methods (releasing to the environment) if the situation can be safely mitigated without 

the use of decontamination agents. 

This recommendation is closely linked to another recommendation identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-2): 

 Issue 2, Recommendation 4: Use existing information services and Web-based databases to 

disseminate near-term practical decontamination solutions to utilities 

ISSUE 10: AGENT FATE AND TRANSPORT 

Understanding the fate and transport of CBR agents is a critical component during the decontamination 

and recovery process after a drinking water or wastewater utility incident. The persistence of an agent can 

determine whether it is immediately discharged or contained after a contamination incident. 

Current information on fate and transport needs to be leveraged and expanded to include specific 

information on CBR agents and decontamination residuals, a process to estimate fate and transport in the 

absence of contaminant-specific information, integration of hydraulic models, and aerosolization risks 

involved with discharge and direct attack on water infrastructure. The Working Group identified seven 

recommendations to address the need for information and tools to understand the fate and transport of 

CBR agents. 

Recommendation 1: Create a transparent and scientifically defensible process for estimating the 

fate and transport of CBR agents in drinking water and wastewater utilities, in the absence of 

information on a specific contaminant. In the absence of empirical data, a process is needed to estimate 

the fate and transport of CBR. This process for estimation should be transparent to the users of the 

resulting information. 

Recommendation 2: Determine the persistence and interaction of CBR agents in drinking water 

and wastewater and on pipe materials, and how chlorination affects persistence and interaction.

Knowledge of the behavior of specific contaminants will affect sample collection and analysis during 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 20 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

decontamination and verification. For example, contaminants known to interact with specific pipe 

material or biofilm will not be found dissolved in water at levels of fully soluble contaminants. The 

resulting models from this recommendation should allow for customized decontamination and 

verification plans, based on facility infrastructure. A utility’s ability to assess the fate and transport of 

agents when in contact with pipes and other infrastructure materials will result in a more effective and 

focused decontamination strategy. 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 6, Recommendation 2: Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport 

information 

 Issue 13, Recommendation 2: Provide utilities with information on decontamination factors to be 

considered when making capital improvement decisions through best practices development 

organizations advising the water sector 

Recommendation 3: Integrate fate and transport information into hydraulic models. The fate and 

transport of CBR agents have different persistence and interaction properties. As a result, the fate 

information should be incorporated into hydraulic models used when determining the transport of CBR 

agents within a distribution system. 

Recommendation 4: Determine the fate and transport of decontamination agents in drinking water 

and wastewater utilities and persistence in pipe materials. In addition to the lack of information on 

CBR agent fate and transport, there is a similar lack of data on the fate and transport of decontamination 

agents that may be introduced into a drinking water or wastewater system. Removal of decontamination 

agents from the system may be required before restoration of service. Assessment of fate and transport of 

decontamination agents in drinking water and wastewater systems, including contact with pipe and other 

infrastructure materials, will aid in the selection of a decontamination strategy. 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 6, Recommendation 2: Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport 

information

 Issue 13, Recommendation 2: Provide utilities with information on decontamination factors to be 

considered when making capital improvement decisions through best practices development 

organizations advising the water sector 

Recommendation 5: Determine fate and transport of CBR agents, residuals, decontamination 

agents and solid discharge in the environment including if discharged to water body or after 

wastewater treatment (fertilizer or the sludge application to agricultural land, landfill, etc.). By 

understanding the impact (persistence and potential spread) of discharging decontamination waste into the 

environment, the water sector can maximize public safety by balancing the exposure risks associated with 

the discharged decontamination products with the risks associated with containing and further treating the 

contaminated materials. 

This recommendation is closely linked to another recommendation identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 6, Recommendation 2: Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport 

information 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 21 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Recommendation 6: Assess the aerosolization or volatilization of contaminants released from 

drinking water and wastewater systems. Guidance on the management of intentionally contaminated 

water has sometimes included cautionary advice that such water should not be used for firefighting or 

discharged to wastewater systems. This advice has been based on conjecture that the contaminant may be 

hazardous as an aerosol, and therefore, pose a substantial health risk to firefighters and wastewater utility 

workers. A notable example of this conjecture is anthrax, which is known to be hazardous in some forms 

through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. When anthrax is “weaponized,” it is specially prepared 

to give it highly dispersive characteristics when airborne. However, when agents have been weaponized 

to maximize inhalational exposure, special preparation techniques are needed. The concern by the 

Working Group is that limitations on handling of the contaminated water may be needlessly restrictive 

and might interfere with emergency operations to remove the hazard from the water utility or to use the 

water for emergency fire suppression operations. The objectives of this recommendation are: 

 Identify which suspected contaminants would, indeed, constitute an aerosol inhalation hazard once 

introduced into water 

 Determine whether there would be safety measures that could be employed to effectively mitigate the 

risk to wastewater utility workers and firefighters 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 6, Recommendation 2: Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport 

information 

 Issue 15, Recommendation 1: Develop detailed, risk-based frameworks for health and safety 

assessments of drinking water and wastewater treatment plant and field staff that are consistent in 

approach across all EPA regions and states. 

Recommendation 7: Determine the risk that an aerosolized attack of CBR agents will result in 

concentrations of concern to water or wastewater systems. Information is needed on the potential 

result of an aerosolized attack upon a water system. Although aerosolized particles (e.g., anthrax) can be 

prepared in size ranges optimal for suspending in an aerosol cloud, the risks of these particles being 

introduced to water and resulting in concentrations of concern in drinking water systems and wastewater 

systems need to be determined. 

This recommendation is closely linked to another recommendation identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 6, Recommendation 2: Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport 

information 

ISSUE 11: CLARIFYING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DECONTAMINATION AND 

TREATMENT 

The Working Group made one recommendation to clarify the roles and responsibilities for 

decontamination. 

Recommendation 1: Develop a flowchart to show progression of roles and decision-making 

authority to be used by the utilities and responding/coordinating agencies during decontamination, 

treatment, and recovery. The Working Group believed that there was uncertainty within the water sector 

on how roles and decision-making authority would progress during a contamination event. Of particular 

concern was how the federal, state, and local regulations could impact these roles. It is critical that 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 22 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

drinking water and wastewater utilities understand the progression of a utility’s role and responsibilities, 

but also how the roles and decision-making authority progress in other response agencies and 

organizations that are involved in the effort. A flowchart was identified as the best way to ensure a clear 

understanding of this matter. 

ISSUE 12: PROCESS FOR REGULATORY WAIVERS/SUSPENSION 

To address the issue of regulatory compliance during a water contamination incident, the Working Group 

recommended that guidance be developed to assist utilities with the regulatory waivers or suspension 

process. 

Recommendation 1: Provide guidance on regulatory waiver process for discharge/disposal, 

decontamination/treatment and return to service activities during CBR incidents. When responding 

to a water contamination incident, water utilities may face challenges regarding compliance with state and 

federal regulations. At times, the need to respond quickly to an incident and take actions to minimize the 

impact on public health and the disruption of water service may conflict with regulatory requirements. 

Guidance needs to be provided to the water utilities on the availability of regulatory waivers and 

suspensions, and on the process to receive them. During decontamination activities, utilities need to know 

what flexibility exists regarding regulatory compliance to assist them in making response decisions. The 

guidance needs to be set in advance of a contamination incident so utilities are informed of: 

 The explicit steps required to initiate a waiver or suspension process 

 The role of disaster declaration 

 Any regulatory status changes due to population served 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 1, Recommendation 1: Develop a decision-making framework regarding containing or purging 

contaminated water 

 Issue 1, Recommendation 2: Revise existing guidance or develop new guidance for containment and 

disposal of decontamination waste including large amounts of water and associated solid wastes 

ISSUE 13: RESOURCES AND ASSETS FOR DECONTAMINATION AND TREATMENT 

The Working Group provided three recommendations to address the issue that utilities may not have all 

the required resources and assets readily available to deal with a contamination incident. The first 

recommendation focuses on the development of guidelines for the allocation and acquisition of resources 

for decontamination and treatment. The second recommendation deals with identification of 

decontamination factors that should be taken into consideration when utilities make capital 

improvements. The third recommendation involves informing utilities of the availability of critical assets 

to aid decontamination and recovery of water systems from CBR incidents. 

Recommendation 1: Develop information guidelines for utilities on allocating and acquiring 

decontamination and treatment financial resources. Water utilities may not be aware of the financial 

resources needed for response and recovery from a water contamination incident. Existing information on 

the acquisition and allocation of decontamination and treatment financial resources should be leveraged to 

assist utilities in quickly identifying potential financial resources to be used during an incident. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 23 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Recommendation 2: Provide utilities with information on decontamination factors to be considered 

when making capital improvement decisions through best practices development organizations 

advising the water sector. Decisions made regarding capital improvement should take into consideration 

how any change may affect the risk associated with a contamination incident and the level of difficulty 

associated with decontamination and recovery efforts. Capital improvements should be made in a way 

that minimizes the risk associated with contamination and facilitates decontamination and recovery 

efforts. 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 10, Recommendation 2: Determine the persistence and interaction of CBR agents in drinking 

water and wastewater and on pipe materials, and how chlorination affects persistence and interaction 

 Issue 10, Recommendation 4: Determine the fate and transport of decontamination agents in drinking 

water and wastewater utilities and persistence in pipe materials 

Recommendation 3: Inform utilities of the critical assets available to the water sector to aid 

decontamination, treatment and recovery from CBR contamination. Water utilities may not have 

access to all the assets they need for response and recovery from a water contamination incident. 

However, these critical assets, which may include treatment chemicals, adsorbents, equipment, materials 

and personnel, may be available from other utilities, agencies, etc. Utilities will need to be able to quickly 

access information regarding the availability of critical assets in order to effectively respond to CBR 

agents. 

ISSUE 14: LABORATORY ANALYSIS 

The Working Group made two recommendations on how to address the need for laboratory analyses to 

support water sector decontamination. The group also acknowledged that the efforts already underway in 

EPA to expand laboratory capability and capacity influenced how they ranked the priority of this issue, 

but stressed the need for the specific laboratory support articulated in the recommendations below. 

Recommendation 1: Provide surface (in situ) and water analysis methods specific for CBR agents to 

be used during decontamination and clearance steps through existing efforts. Although analytical 

methods for water analysis are available for regulated contaminants, reliable methods are not available for 

analysis of many CBR agents in water. Methods for the detection of CBR agents in water need to be 

developed to support decontamination efforts. If laboratory analysis of bulk water samples is not adequate 

to detect CBR agents during decontamination, surface (in situ) methods for both regulated contaminants 

and CBR agents may be needed for analysis of infrastructure surfaces. Research should be undertaken to 

assess whether direct surface measurement is needed to support decontamination efforts and, if so, 

whether such methods could be applied to relatively inaccessible surfaces such as the interior of buried 

pipe. 

This recommendation is closely linked to several other recommendations identified by the Working 

Group (Figure 3-3): 

 Issue 8, Recommendation 2: Pre-establish information needs to determine target cleanup levels for 

contaminants that address multiple water uses 

 Issue 8, Recommendation 3: Establish measurement process for cleanup and clearance that addresses 

extent of sampling 

 Issue 14, Recommendation 2: Leverage existing efforts to identify laboratory capabilities and 

laboratory capacities specific to CBR agent decontamination needs 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 24 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Recommendation 2: Leverage existing efforts to identify laboratory capabilities and laboratory 

capacities specific to CBR agent decontamination needs. Information is needed on the ability of the 

available laboratories to aid in the response to a contamination event. Utility laboratories will most likely 

not have the equipment or expertise required to analyze for CBR agents. Efforts such as the Water 

Laboratory Alliance and Environmental Response Laboratory Network should be leveraged in responding 

to this recommendation. 

This recommendation is closely linked to another recommendation identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 14, Recommendation 1: Provide surface (in situ) and water analysis methods specific for CBR 

agents to be used during decontamination and clearance steps through existing efforts 

ISSUE 15: HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER 

TREATMENT PLANT AND FIELD STAFF 

To address the health and safety risks that workers may be exposed to during a water contamination 

incident, the Working Group recommended that a risk-based framework be developed to assess the health 

and safety risks posed to personnel responding to an incident. 

Recommendation 1: Develop detailed, risk-based frameworks for health and safety assessments of 

drinking water and wastewater treatment plant and field staff that are consistent in approach 

across all EPA regions and states. The health and safety of utility personnel—drinking water and 

wastewater plant and field staff—is of critical concern during decontamination and recovery. This 

recommendation will evaluate the health risks for plant and field staff, particularly identifying specific 

risks that can be mitigated by changing operating procedures. Without an accurate assessment of risks 

involved, it would be difficult to institute preventative safety measures, adjust procedural plant operations 

and/or create timelines for when it is considered safe for operators and field staff to work. 

This recommendation is closely linked to another recommendation identified by the Working Group 

(Figure 3-1): 

 Issue 10, Recommendation 6: Assess the aerosolization or volatilization of contaminants released 

from drinking water and wastewater systems 

3.2 Recommendations by Functional Categories and Their 

Relationships 

The 35 recommendations to address priority issues were organized within the following four color-coded 

functional categories (Table 3-1): 

 Supporting Information and Capabilities – Blue 

 Policy Decisions – Purple 

 Decontamination and Treatment Technologies and Procedures – Green 

 Outreach and Communications – Peach 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 25 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Table 3-1: Working Group Recommendations Grouped by Functional Categories 

Develop a decision-making framework for the decontamination of CBR agents in water systems 

specifically to be used by utilities, responders, and other decision makers (ISSUE 4, REC 1) 

Create transparent and scientifically defensible process for estimating the fate and transport of 

contaminants in drinking water and wastewater systems in the absence of information on a 

specific contaminant (ISSUE 10, REC 1) 

Determine the persistence and interaction of CBR agents in drinking water and wastewater and 

on pipe materials, and how chlorination affects contaminant persistence and interaction (ISSUE 

10, REC 2) 

Determine fate and transport of decontamination agents in drinking water and wastewater 

systems and persistence in pipe materials (ISSUE 10, REC 4) 

Determine fate and transport of CBR agents, residuals, decontamination agents and solid 

discharge in the environment including if discharged to water body or after wastewater treatment 

(fertilizer or the sludge application to agricultural land, landfill, etc.) (ISSUE 10, REC 5) 

Assess the aerosolization or volatilization of contaminants released from drinking water and 

wastewater systems (ISSUE 10, REC 6) 

Determine the risk that an aerosolized attack of CBR agents will result in concentrations of 

concern to drinking water and wastewater systems (ISSUE 10, REC 7) 

Develop flowchart to show progression of roles and decision-making authority to be used by the 

utilities and responding/coordinating agencies during decontamination, treatment, and recovery 

(ISSUE 11, REC 1) 

Develop information guidelines for utilities on allocating and acquiring decontamination and 

treatment financial resources (ISSUE 13, REC 1) 

Provide utilities with information on decontamination factors to be considered when making capital 

improvement decisions through best practices development organizations advising the water 

sector (ISSUE 13, REC 2) 

Inform utilities of the critical assets available to the water sector to aid decontamination, treatment, 

and recovery from CBR contamination (ISSUE 13, REC 3) 

Provide surface (in situ) and water analysis methods specific for CBR agents to be used during 

decontamination and clearance steps through existing efforts (ISSUE 14, REC 1) 

Leverage existing efforts to identify laboratory capabilities and laboratory capacities specific to 

CBR agent decontamination needs (ISSUE 14, REC 2) 

Supporting Information and Capabilities 

Develop detailed, risk-based frameworks for health and safety assessments of drinking water and 

wastewater treatment plant and field staff that are consistent in approach across all EPA regions 

and states (ISSUE 15, REC 1) 

Develop a decision-making framework regarding containing or purging contaminated water 

(ISSUE 1, REC 1) 

Revise existing guidance or develop new guidance for containment and disposal of 

decontamination waste including large amounts of water and associated solid wastes 

(ISSUE 1, REC 2) 

Develop transparent process for establishing target cleanup levels that can be used on an 

incident-specific basis (ISSUE 8, REC 1) 

Pre-establish information needs to determine target cleanup levels for contaminants that address 

multiple water uses (ISSUE 8, REC 2) 

Policy

Provide guidance on regulatory waiver process for discharge/disposal, 

decontamination/treatment, and return to service activities during CBR incidents 

(ISSUE 12, REC 1) 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 26 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Table 3-1: Working Group Recommendations Grouped by Functional Categories, cont. 

Provide information on using traditional techniques (i.e., those in routine use by utilities) for nontraditional contaminants (ISSUE 2, REC 1) 

Provide information on the efficacy of pipe cleaning aids, such as NSF-60-certified products, on 

the decontamination of infrastructure (ISSUE 2, REC 2) 

Provide operational steps to minimize impact of decontamination (ISSUE 2, REC 3) 

Identify existing decontamination techniques (or develop new procedures) for CBR agents in 

treatment plant infrastructure (ISSUE 3, REC 1) 

Identify existing decontamination techniques, and/or develop new procedures for CBR agents in 

utility distribution and collection systems (ISSUE 5, REC 1) 

Identify existing decontamination techniques and/or develop new decontamination methods for 

CBR agents in private plumbing (ISSUE 5, REC 2) 

Establish measurement process for cleanup and clearance that addresses extent of sampling 

(ISSUE 8, REC 3) 

Provide information on the treatment of drinking water and wastewater contaminated with CBR 

agents (ISSUE 9, REC 1) 

Decontamination Technologies and Procedures 

Integrate fate and transport information into hydraulic models (ISSUE 10, REC 3) 

Use existing information services and Web-based databases to disseminate near-term practical 

decontamination solutions to utilities (ISSUE 2, REC 4) 

Identify the current state of decontamination and recovery knowledge for CBR agents and 

develop a preferred/vetted guidance to reconcile any conflicting information (ISSUE 6, REC 1) 

Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport information (ISSUE 6, REC 2) 

Develop a Web-based information clearinghouse to share and disseminate decontamination and 

recovery information specific to the water sector (ISSUE 6, REC 3) 

Develop and provide two types, one each for drinking water and wastewater, of facility-based, 

decontamination training programs from "ground up" for water sector stakeholders and national 

response teams (ISSUE 6, REC 4) 

Develop guidance to help utilities to prepare outreach materials to educate utility personnel, 

lawmakers, and response agencies on decontamination and recovery processes before an 

Outreach and Communications 

incident (ISSUE 7, REC 1) 

Develop guidelines for risk communication activities during decontamination and recovery phases 

(ISSUE 7, REC 2) 

The recommendations were also viewed within the different decontamination and recovery stages (i.e., 

Response, Decontamination and Cleanup, Clearance, and Return to Service) to ensure that the Working 

Group’s recommendations formed a tight continuum from initial response to decontamination and 

recovery activities without overlap. A single recommendation under Issue Category 1 “Develop a 

decision framework regarding containing or purging contaminated water,” which would traditionally fall 

under the initial response phase of a contamination incident, was recommended by the Working Group 

due to its impact on decontamination activities. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 27 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

The Working Group also recognized that each recommendation, although introduced within a specific 

issue category, was intended to address the needs of one or more of the key issue categories. Figures 3.1 -

3.3 provide relationship diagrams showing those recommendations within issue categories that are related 

to each other as predecessors, dependents or linkages.
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 28 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

ISSUE 6 ISSUE 10 ISSUE 13 ISSUE 15 Determine the persistence and interaction of CBR agents in drinking water and wastewater and on pipe materials, and how chlorination affects contaminant persistence and interaction (ISSUE 10, REC 2) Determine fate and transport of decontamination agents in drinking water and wastewater systems and persistence in pipe materials (ISSUE 10, REC 4) Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport information (ISSUE 6, REC 2)

Develop a decision-making framework 

regarding containing or purging contaminated 

water (ISSUE 1, REC 1)

Provide utilities with information on 

decontamination factors to be considered when 

making capital improvement decisions through 

best practices development organizations 

advising the water sector (ISSUE 13, REC 2)

Determine the risk that an 

aerosolized attack of CBR agents 

will result in concentrations of 

concern to drinking water or 

wastewater systems 

(ISSUE 10, REC 7)

Determine fate and transport of 

CBR agents, residuals, 

decontamination agents and solid 

discharge in the environment 

including if discharged to water 

body or after wastewater 

treatment (ISSUE 10, REC 5) 

ISSUE 12 ISSUE 1 Provide guidance on regulatory waiver process for discharge/disposal, decontamination/ treatment, and return to service activities during CBR incidents (ISSUE 12, REC 1)

Figure 3-1: Fate and Transport/ Discharge and Disposal 

Assess the aerosolization or 

volitization risk of contaminants 

released from drinking water and 

wastewater systems 

(ISSUE 10, REC 6)

Revise existing guidance or develop new 

guidance for containment and disposal of 

decontamination waste including large amounts 

of water and associated solid wastes 

(ISSUE 1, REC 2) 

Develop detailed, risk-based frameworks for 

health assessments of drinking water and 

wastewater treatment plant and field staff that are 

consistent in approach across all EPA regions 

and states (ISSUE 15, REC 1)
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 29 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Figure 3-2: Decontamination and Treatment Technologies and Procedures ISSUE 5 ISSUE 3 ISSUE 2

Provide information on using traditional 

techniques (i.e., those in routine use by 

utilities) for non-traditional 

contaminants (ISSUE 2, REC 1)

Use existing information services and 

Web-based databases to disseminate 

near-term practical decontamination 

solutions to utilities (ISSUE 2, REC 4)

Provide information on the efficacy of 

pipe cleaning aides, such as NSF-60-

certified products, on the 

decontamination of infrastructure

(ISSUE 2, REC 2)

Identify existing decontamination 

techniques, and/or develop new 

procedures for CBR agents in utility 

distribution and collection systems 

(ISSUE 5, REC 1)

Identify existing decontamination 

techniques, and/or develop new 

decontamination methods for CBR 

agents in private plumbing 

(ISSUE 5, REC 2)

Identify existing decontamination 

techniques (or develop new 

procedures) for CBR agents in 

treatment plant infrastructure

 (ISSUE 3, REC 1)

ISSUE 9

Provide information on the treatment of 

drinking water and wastewater 

contaminated with CBR agents

(ISSUE 9, REC 1)

 

Figure 3-3: Cleanup and Clearance ISSUE 8 ISSUE 14

Develop transparent process for 

establishing target cleanup levels that 

can be used on an incident-specific 

basis (ISSUE 8, REC 1)

Pre-establish information needs to 

determine target cleanup levels for 

contaminants that address multiple 

water uses (ISSUE 8, REC 2)

Establish measurement process for 

cleanup and clearance that addresses 

extent of sampling (ISSUE 8, REC 3)

Leverage existing efforts to identify 

laboratory capabilities and laboratory 

capacities specific to CBR agent 

decontamination needs 

(ISSUE 14, REC 2)

Provide surface (in situ) and water 

analysis methods specific for CBR 

agents to be used during 

decontamination and clearance steps 

through existing efforts 

(ISSUE 14, REC 1)
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 30 

3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS KEY DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 31 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

This section presents the proposed strategic plan to address key water sector decontamination issues 

including which organization the Working Group proposes as lead for coordinating each recommendation 

and the factors these organizations should consider when pursuing these actions. Recommendations 

assume that sufficient funding and other resources are provided to complete the work and that the 

management of the lead coordinating organization approves associated projects. 

4.1 Proposed Decontamination Strategic Plan 

The recommendations needed to address the prioritized issues are grouped in this section based on their 

time frame for completion. The proposed time frames acknowledge the practical considerations necessary 

to complete the associated activities, but do not consider whether the identified organizations have the 

resources available to address the Working Group’s recommendations in the time frames proposed. 

Time frames for addressing recommendations include the following: 

 Short term (within 1 year) – 14 recommendations were identified as short term actions 

 Mid term (within 3 years) – 8 recommendations were identified as mid term actions 

 Long term (within 5 years) – 13 recommendations were identified as long term actions 

Although the Working Group identified completion timelines for each recommendation, these time 

frames do not dictate the priority in which the recommendations should be completed. It is the 

recommendation of the Working Group that these activities be completed in tandem. The short term, mid 

term, and long term action categorization merely represent the perceived time required to complete the 

action or actions. It may be helpful to the water sector to view short term actions as “low hanging fruit” 

and achievement of these actions could help maintain a positive momentum. 

The Working Group identified organizations based on the recommendation, the steps or considerations to 

be taken when implementing the recommendation, and the gaps associated with each recommendation. 

The Working Group proposed “supporting organizations” for some recommendations where there were 

obvious benefits from related efforts by these organizations whose unique capabilities and roles were 

critical to successfully address the recommendation. As the recommendations are implemented, the 

coordinating agencies may also identify additional supporting organizations, such as the State Primacy 

Agencies, that were not identified by the Working Group. 

Roles and responsibilities for organizations proposed to take the lead on each recommendation, based on 

the Working Group’s understanding of the mandated roles, mission, and capabilities of the respective 

organizations, include the following: 

 Conducting kickoff meetings with the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working Group 

members to gain a full understanding of the recommendations and related issues 

 Leveraging related work conducted by other parties 

 Forming/involving recommendation-specific working groups as appropriate 

 Coordinating with other organizations performing related work 

 Compiling current information and releasing to the user community as appropriate 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER 

SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 32 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

The Working Group stressed that representatives from utilities need to be consulted at key stages during 

implementation of recommendations. This collaboration will enhance the likelihood that implementation 

outputs meet the needs of the end users. In addition, coordination across the sectors will leverage ongoing 

efforts in other sectors that may be related to efforts in the water sector (e.g., radiological 

decontamination in the energy sector). Non-federal parties assigned to recommendations involving CBR 

agents will need to coordinate activities with the federal government when dealing with specific 

contaminants or contaminant classes. There is an established process for joint ownership of certain issues 

between DHS and EPA; the Working Group used this precedent for the multiple co-leads in the 

assignment of responsible parties below. 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 33 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

4.2 Short Term Actions 

Revise existing guidance documents or consolidate and 

update information on the disposal of decontamination waste 

to provide consistent, clear guidance for the water sector to 

use when handling a contamination incident. Regardless of 

the approach, the updated guidance should take into account 

the regulatory requirements for containing, handling, and 

disposing of contaminated water, wastewater, and solid 

waste resulting from decontamination efforts. This may 

require the review of several different areas of the regulatory 

code, and the regulations may vary from state to state. It is 

important that the implementers of this recommendation 

create guidance that will be usable across different states and 

take into account the minor differences that may be found. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing guidance for the containment 

and disposal of decontamination wastes: 

 Identify existing guidance and existing efforts, including ongoing research efforts on the containment 

and disposal of decontamination waste including large amounts of water and associated solid wastes 

 Re-evaluate existing guidance on the containment and disposal of decontamination waste 

 Rectify conflicting guidance 

 Examine the potential use of underground injection control (UIC) 

Assess and disseminate to utilities currently available 

information on operational steps that would minimize the 

impact of decontamination. Separate documents to identify 

current methods should be developed for: 

 Drinking water systems identifying techniques and 

stages 

 Wastewater systems identifying techniques and stages 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when providing operational steps to minimize 

impact of decontamination: 

 Conduct review of existing guidance, techniques and 

literature on pre-scripted decontamination steps and their 

impact on a water system 

 Conduct additional research on pre-scripted decontamination steps and their impact on a water system 

in areas not currently addressed by available information 

− Consider expanding existing EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) National 

Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) projects identified by the Working Group 

 Identify and leverage useful information from existing sources and ongoing efforts including: 

− RPTB/RPTB reference sources/RPTB Working Group 

Revise existing guidance or 

develop new guidance for 

containment and disposal of 

decontamination waste 

including large amounts of 

water and associated solid 

wastes 

(ISSUE 1, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

EPA OW (WSD); 

NACWA AND WEF 

Provide operational steps to 

minimize impact of 

decontamination 

(ISSUE 2, REC 3) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

AWWA (DRINKING WATER); 

NACWA AND WEF (WASTEWATER) 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS: 

SCC ORGANIZATIONS’ RESEARCH 

ARMS 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 34 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

− AWWA standards/Manuals of Practice (MOPs) 

− Water Environment Federation (WEF) MOPs 

− EPA ORD (NHSRC) ongoing research 

− EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) Wastewater RPTB (WWRPTB) 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Create a temporary repository of information using existing 

information services that utilities may use to retrieve 

decontamination and treatment information while 

customized information platforms are developed. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing information services and 

Web-based databases to disseminate information: 

 Identify and leverage existing information services such 

as WCIT and Water Information Sharing and Analysis 

Center (WaterISAC) for methods to disseminate nearterm practical solution information 

 Identify and implement the steps needed to maintain classification protection while providing 

information to those that need it 

 Some information may be sensitive and will have to remain protected under a “need to know” basis 

 Utilities will need this information quickly during a contamination incident so the created services 

must be easily accessed and used by the appropriate parties 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Develop an overarching risk informed decision-making 

framework that can be used by utilities, responders, and 

other decision makers to support decontamination decisions 

by including detailed modules for: 

 Addressing regulatory requirements 

 Balancing public safety with decontamination goals 

 Determining whether to use surface measurements or 

water analyses to verify that cleanup levels have been 

met 

 Determining whether to treat water and/or 

decontaminate infrastructure 

 Determining whether to replace or decontaminate 

infrastructure 

 Determining whether to seal and abandon in place or remove infrastructure 

 Determining acceptable limits for alternate use of contaminated water such as firefighting 

Use existing information 

services and Web-based 

databases to disseminate nearterm practical decontamination 

solutions to utilities 

(ISSUE 2, REC 4) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA 

Develop a decision-making 

framework for the 

decontamination of CBR agents 

in water systems specifically to 

be used by utilities, responders, 

and other decision makers 

(ISSUE 4, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

EPA AND DHS 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION:

EPA ORD (NHSRC)

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 35 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

The Working Group identified the following for consideration when developing the decision-making 

framework: 

 Establishment of a working group consisting of stakeholders, partners, and members of the scientific 

community to advise in the development of frameworks for decision making 

 Leverage existing cleanup decision-making frameworks for biological and chemical agents, such as 

the Chemical and Biological Incident Response and Decision Process for Civilian Facilities by the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

 Create a decision tree/flowchart for each decontamination decision area based on current level of 

knowledge and with flexibility to revise as new information becomes available. Each of these 

decision trees or flowcharts should include: 

− Walking the user through the process 

− Supplemental/backup documentation and/or guidance 

− Acknowledgement of likely and “best case” decision versus the practicality of implementing the 

decision 

 Draft frameworks should be vetted through local and state health departments and agencies, 

emergency personnel and utility personnel, to ensure that the frameworks are practical in the steps 

they recommend 

In addition to the overall considerations, each of the specific decision-making flowcharts should include 

or take into consideration the following: 

 Considerations for addressing regulatory requirements 

− The applicability of federal, state and local regulations during decontamination, discharge, or 

disposal, and return to service 

− To address the variability of regulations among states and among local jurisdictions, a method to 

walk responders and decision makers through the regulations applicable to each situation and 

location needs to be created 

− Regulations are fluid; therefore, the decision-making frameworks must be updated periodically 

 Considerations for balancing decontamination goals with other aspects of public safety 

− Identify who will be involved in the decision-making process and what situational information is 

needed before a strategic approach can be established 

− Identify the public health, safety, and environmental risks posed by a decontamination process 

and/or the contaminant 

− The level of coordination needed with local health care organizations, local public health, and 

emergency management and responders 

 Considerations for determining whether to use surface measurements or water analyses or both 

− Identify the information needed to decide between surface measurements and/or water analysis 

− The decision tree or flowchart should consider contaminant or contaminant class-specific 

information to guide utilities 

 Considerations for determining whether to treat the drinking water/wastewater and/or decontaminate 

infrastructure 

− Identify appropriate treatment and decontamination procedures 

− Provide information on treating or decontaminating contaminant classes instead of specific 

contaminants 

− Examine the effect of the proposed treatment or decontamination procedures on the water 

 Considerations for determining whether to replace or decontaminate infrastructure 

− Develop cost-effective modeling 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 36 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

− Consider time frames 

− Weigh associated risks of each option 

 Considerations for determining whether to abandon in place or remove infrastructure 

− Cost effectiveness of decisions needs to be included 

− Relative time frames for each option 

− Risks of each option 

 Considerations for determining acceptable limits for alternate use of contaminated water, such as 

firefighting 

− Identify what potential alternative use classifications exist—leverage previous experiences where 

alternative use classifications have been used 

− Identify the health risks for alternative uses 

− Any regulatory requirements that will need to be addressed 

Evaluate the current state of decontamination knowledge and 

identify the key categories of information needed for CBR 

agents, the knowledge available for each information 

category and the sources of existing and emerging 

knowledge. In addition, develop guidance for reconciling 

any conflicting decontamination information or guidance 

when identifying the most reliable and current 

decontamination information. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when identifying the current state of 

decontamination knowledge for CBR agents and developing 

preferred/vetted guidance to reconcile any conflicting 

information: 

 Existing information and ongoing research efforts on the decontamination of CBR agents 

 Ongoing efforts of EPA Office of Water (OW) Water Security Division (WSD) and EPA ORD 

NHSRC to collect decontamination information sources 

 The need for public vetting of any guidance developed for reconciliation of conflicting 

information/guidance on decontamination 

 The need for proper distribution of decontamination knowledge to make the information readily 

available to the water sector 

Identify the current state of 

decontamination and recovery 

knowledge for CBR agents and 

develop preferred/vetted 

guidance to reconcile any 

conflicting information 

(ISSUE 6, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 37 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

The Working Group recommends developing guidance for 

utilities to educate those agencies, responders and decision 

makers involved in the response to a contamination incident 

and help facilitate decision making related to subsequent 

decontamination. When developing this guidance, the 

coordinating agency needs to consider the intended audience 

of the communications, and ensure that adequate information 

is provided to the appropriate parties. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing utility guidance: 

 Identify steps needed to be taken when educating public 

officials on decontamination issues 

− Incorporate stages of resumption of service to address different uses 

− Educate utility personnel on how to communicate with public officials and which officials are to 

be involved during a contamination 

− Develop relationships with public officials prior to an incident to deal with the political pressures 

on the utility manager during a contamination incident 

− Provide awareness to law enforcement of the potential conflict between decontamination needs 

versus preservation of evidence 

 Identify steps that should be taken when educating response agencies on decontamination issues 

− Consider how specific CBR agents may require different communications 

− Provide maps and specific directions to the utility and protocol for entrance to the site 

− Education should be provided so that response agencies have the information in advance of an 

incident so they may respond correctly to specific decontamination scenarios 

− Education should include what decontamination resources and assets will be needed by response 

agencies so that a utility may incorporate them into the utility response plans 

− Identify contaminants, such as radiological agents, that could trigger a national response 

− Provide utility incident command structure 

 Expectations on the time frame for decontamination and recovery processes 

 Develop a feedback mechanism to assess the usability and effectiveness of communication 

 Leverage existing guidance on drafting public announcements and other communications 

 Examine the effectiveness, usability, and role of message mapping 

The Working Group recommends developing guidelines 

utilities can use to develop and implement risk and crisis 

communication plans that encompass decontamination and 

recovery. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing guidelines for risk and crisis 

communications plans: 

 Identify existing information and guidance on drafting 

communication plans: 

Develop guidance to help 

utilities to prepare outreach 

materials to educate utility 

personnel, lawmakers, and 

response agencies on 

decontamination and recovery 

processes before an incident 

(ISSUE 7, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS:

SCC ORGANIZATIONS 

Develop guidelines for risk 

communication activities 

during decontamination and 

recovery phases 

(ISSUE 7, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS:

SCC ORGANIZATIONS 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 38 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

− Water Security Initiative (WSI) Consequence Management Plan and forthcoming guidance 

− WSI Risk and Crisis Communication Plans 

 Identify any conflicting information 

 Consider that crisis communication may be ongoing during decontamination if the lack of water 

disrupts the economy and infrastructure 

 Risk communication considerations: 

− How to convey to the public the risks associated with exposure during the decontamination effort 

− How to convey to the consumer that decontamination has been effective, and in the case of 

drinking water, water is safe to drink, and in the case of wastewater, the utility will resume 

discharging to the receiving water body 

− The threat to public health is not eliminated if water is not being consumed; customers may use 

water in other ways (bathing, washing dishes, etc.) that can also pose a threat to the public 

− Recognize the difference between water system decontamination and building decontamination 

− Use of message mapping 

Develop a standard process to establish cleanup levels on an 

incident-specific basis. This process should feature 

transparency, so that all parties involved in decontamination 

understand how the cleanup level was determined by the 

appropriate party. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing a transparent process for 

establishing cleanup levels for decontamination: 

 Coordinate with the interagency (EPA, DHS, and 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) 

efforts under the leadership of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), within the Executive Office of the President, on cleanup decision making 

 Existing processes for determining contaminant levels and other sources available for leveraging 

information: 

− OSTP 

− Water regulations 

− Health Advisories 

− WCIT 

− Washington area Council of Governments (COG) research 

− EPA ORD NHSRC’s Threat and Consequence Analysis Division (TCAD) efforts 

 Determining which aspects can be applied to time-sensitive decision making on an incident-specific 

basis; adapting the results into flexible guidance or framework 

 Incorporating guidance to pre-identify critical operations and users dependent on water and 

determining how different users may be able to use water at various cleanup levels. Key water users 

include: 

− Hospitals and healthcare facilities 

− Dialysis clinics 

− Daycare in schools 

− Other critical sectors (e.g., power, agriculture, nuclear) 

Develop transparent process 

for establishing target cleanup 

levels that can be used on an 

incident-specific basis 

(ISSUE 8, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 39 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Identifying a “critical reference list” for quickly accessing the toxicity and infectivity information 

needed to feed into this process to establish cleanup levels. The list should include: 

− WCIT 

− CDC, Coordinating Center for Environmental Health and Injury Prevention (CCEHIP) (Note: the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] is now a Center level functional 

group within the CCEHIP) 

− CDC, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases 

− Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 

− Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents 

− EPA ORD (NHSRC) TCAD for determining health risk levels 

 Identifying who will have decision making authority during an incident for establishing cleanup 

levels 

− Examine roles and responsibilities under NIMS, ICS and the Environmental Clearance 

Committee (ECC) 

 Encouraging communication and cross-training among agencies regarding the intended meaning and 

implications associated with different uses and cleanup levels (e.g., “do not use” vs. “do not drink”) 

 Circulating draft process to water sector for review prior to finalization and making the process 

available to water sector to maximize transparency 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Develop an approach to designing statistically valid 

sampling plans to monitor decontamination efforts and 

support decisions to resume drinking water or wastewater 

service. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing a measurement process for 

cleanup after a contamination event:

 Identify system variables that will need to be considered 

when developing sampling plan to support 

decontamination monitoring 

 Identify potential sampling locations and the limitations of certain measurement types and locations 

 Identify practical limitations for measuring pipe surfaces 

 Consider increasing sampling frequencies over and above what the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) require 

 Address unregulated contaminants differently than regulated ones, due to lack of applicability of 

SDWA/NPDWR 

 Consider persistence in infrastructure and biofilms; contaminant may be present even after sampling 

of water shows no contamination, and leaching from these sources may affect sampling duration and 

frequency 

 Identify contaminant class characteristics that will need to be considered when developing sampling 

plan 

Establish measurement 

process for cleanup and 

clearance that addresses extent 

of sampling 

(ISSUE 8, REC 3) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 40 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Identify statistical considerations—and associated sampling and analysis uncertainties—that will need 

to be considered when developing sampling plan 

 Determine how each clearance aspect should be addressed in an effective sampling plan, and develop 

this into a flexible guidance or framework 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

The objective of this recommendation is the development of 

a flowchart to show the progression of roles and decisionmaking authority that includes the drinking water and 

wastewater utility and the other organizations involved in 

decontamination and clearance. The flowchart should not 

only account for changes in the roles and decision-making 

authority of personnel as the scope and circumstances of 

contamination incident vary but also how variability in state 

and federal regulations may impact these roles. The 

flowchart should answer the following questions: 

 For the utility: 

− Who would the utility be dealing with in different 

situations? 

− When would responders/others be helping? 

− When would responders/others be overseeing? 

− When would responders/others take over? 

− What are the financial obligations of utilities in 

various scenarios? 

− What administrative responsibilities are required in these various scenarios? 

− Who is available to help determine how to proceed? 

− Is a plan needed and, if so, who approves it? 

 For the responding and coordinating agencies at the local, state, and federal levels: 

− Who makes decontamination versus evidence preservation decisions? 

− How do decisions get made? 

− How are decisions communicated? 

− How does responsibility change depending on what type of CBR contaminant or contaminant 

class is involved? 

− Who is the ultimate decision maker? 

The Working Group identified the following for consideration when developing a flowchart to show the 

progression of roles and decision-making authority during decontamination and recovery: 

 Identify existing guidance on roles and responsibilities of utility personnel and support agencies 

during decontamination and recovery activities in response to CBR agent contamination: 

− Under national guidance plans (e.g., NIMS, the National Response Framework [NRF]) 

− Under state and federal regulations 

− At the utility level (case studies of response plans) 

 Provide links to preceding activities during the initial response phase 

 Develop protocols for evidence preservation versus decontamination 

 Identify any exemptions related to CBR agents 

Develop flowchart to show 

progression of roles and 

decision-making authority to be 

used by the utilities and 

responding/coordinating 

agencies during 

decontamination, treatment, 

and recovery 

(ISSUE 11, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

DHS AND EPA 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS:

SCC ORGANIZATIONS 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 41 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Create a flowchart/decision tree that categorizes specific situations and indicates who would be 

responsible for each category: 

− Must recognize differences between public and private utilities 

− Account for the differences between a national level incident and an isolated local incident 

− Most of this information is available, but utilities may need clarification on NIMS procedures and 

on how the roles and decision-making authority evolves 

Develop guidance in advance of a contamination incident 

that will provide the process to receive regulatory waivers 

and suspensions consistent in approach across all EPA 

regions and all states. Utilities need to be informed on what 

waivers and suspensions are available and how to receive 

them. The guidance should take into account potential 

regulatory issues that may apply to discharge/disposal, 

decontamination, treatment, and return to service. Waivers 

and variances should be pre-identified so that they can be 

built into the regulatory process for CBR agents. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing guidance on the regulatory 

waiver process: 

 Leverage the lessons learned from the Hurricane Katrina aftermath including the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) law suspension 

 Leverage lessons learned from the 2001 anthrax attacks including the acquisition of crisis exemptions 

 Reference the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web page for waiver 

examples 

 Determine who will be the decision makers at the local, state, and federal levels and how this may 

change depending on the circumstances and if there is a federal declaration issued 

 Determine how changes in populations served (increases or decreases) related to a national level 

incident impacts the regulatory waiver and suspension process taken by a utility 

Develop guidance to assist utilities in the allocation and 

acquisition of financial resources for decontamination and 

treatment. Utilities may need guidance regarding how to 

allocate their available financial resources to prepare for and 

respond to contamination incidents. Utilities may not have 

sufficient financial resources of their own to address 

decontamination and treatment needs. Therefore, utilities 

may need assistance in identifying additional financial 

resources to meet these needs. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing the guidance for allocating 

and acquiring decontamination and treatment financial 

resources: 

Provide guidance on regulatory 

waiver process for 

discharge/disposal, 

decontamination/treatment, and 

return to service activities 

during CBR incidents 

(ISSUE 12, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS:

ASDWA, ASIWPCA, AND EPA 

Develop information guidelines 

for utilities on allocating and 

acquiring decontamination and 

treatment financial resources 

(ISSUE 13, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

AWWA (DRINKING WATER) 

NACWA AND WEF (WASTEWATER) 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 42 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Survey other organizations and large utilities to evaluate decontamination preparedness: 

− Look specifically to lessons learned from large utilities and their organization/efforts to prepare 

for decontamination (e.g., Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities decontamination task force) 

 Create guidelines for utilities to plan and prepare for decontamination, including: 

− How to prioritize resources/funding and planning activities for decontamination 

− How to determine resources for supporting decontamination 

− How to acquire resources from state and federal agencies 

− How to leverage aid (e.g., Water/Wastewater Agency Response Networks [WARNs]) 

− How to acquire resources for decontamination at the utility level (e.g., revolving fund-type 

initiative, self insurance, regional pooling, stratification of funding based on risk) 

Provide utilities with a resource to help identify asset 

availability and capability during the pre-incident planning 

process. During a decontamination and recovery process, 

following a CBR incident, a drinking water or wastewater 

utility will require assets, including specially trained 

personnel to effectively complete the recovery activities in a 

safe and timely fashion. The pre-identification of asset 

availability and capability are critical information needed by 

utilities during the pre-incident planning process. A 

platform, or means to disseminate information, is needed to 

inform water utilities of the availability of critical assets to 

aid in decontamination and recovery from CBR agents. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing guidance for the water sector 

on critical assets available to aid decontamination, treatment, and recovery: 

 Identify critical asset categories for decontamination of drinking water and wastewater systems 

 Identify resource typing databases for critical decontamination assets through existing efforts and 

provide information to utilities 

− AWWA Resource Typing Initiative 

− National Integration Center’s Resource Typing Initiative 

− WARN efforts 

Provide utilities with information on the capabilities and 

capacities of laboratories that may be called upon during a 

contamination event. If necessary, expand laboratory 

capabilities (to accommodate water samples for analysis of 

CBR agents) and expand laboratory capacities (to support 

the high sample analysis demand that would be needed to 

support decontamination efforts and final clearance 

decisions). 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when identifying laboratory capabilities and 

capacities for decontamination sample analysis:

Inform utilities of the critical 

assets available to the water 

sector to aid decontamination, 

treatment, and recovery from 

CBR contamination 

(ISSUE 13, REC 3) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

EPA (DEVELOP) AND 

SCC ORGANIZATIONS 

(DISTRIBUTE) 

Leverage existing efforts to 

identify laboratory capabilities 

and laboratory capacities 

specific to CBR agent 

decontamination needs 

(ISSUE 14, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION: 

EPA OW (WSD) 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 43 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Identify what laboratory capabilities and capacities are needed specifically for CBR agent 

decontamination 

 Leverage the following, existing efforts to expand laboratory capabilities and capacity: 

− Water Laboratory Alliance (WLA) 

− Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN), particularly the ERLN’s role in 

supporting environmental decontamination efforts 

− Other laboratory network members of DHS’s Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks 

(ICLN) such as CDC’s Laboratory Response Network, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Emergency Response Network 

(FERN), and the “emerging” members of the ICLN 

 

Short Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 44 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

4.3 Mid Term Actions 

Develop a decision-making framework to help determine 

whether to contain or immediately discharge contaminated 

water in the immediate aftermath of a confirmed detection of 

a contaminant that poses a public health threat. The 

framework should weigh the adverse effects of containing 

contaminated water in a water system versus purging it and 

address any regulatory requirements, highlighting 

differences between drinking water and wastewater systems. 

The limitations of current emergency notification 

technologies should be considered as well. For example, it 

would not be safe to assume that all potentially impacted 

persons receive a reverse-911 message instructing people not 

to use the water. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing a decision framework 

regarding containing or purging contaminated water: 

 Re-evaluate existing guidance on treating and discharging contaminated drinking water/wastewater 

based on: 

− Public safety risks associated with exposure to contaminated water remaining in the distribution 

system versus environmental exposure if purged 

− New research indicating an increase in decontamination difficulty due to increased retention 

times of contaminated water 

 Identify existing guidance or efforts, including ongoing research on treating and discharging 

contaminated drinking water and wastewater 

 Identify regulatory restrictions and allowances for the discharge of contaminated water 

 Identify key steps and participants in the decision-making process when deciding to contain or purge 

a contaminated drinking water or wastewater system 

 The different disposal and notification requirements for drinking water and wastewater utilities 

 The limitations of current emergency notification systems designed to warn the public of a health risk 

in a timely manner 

 Review of the issue paper written by Working Group member Greg Welter (Appendix C) – Note this 

paper is not the opinion of the entire Working Group but that of one member who has conducted 

related research separate from the rest of the Working Group 

Develop a decision-making 

framework regarding containing 

or purging contaminated water

(ISSUE 1, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

EPA OW AND ASDWA 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS:

CDC, EPA ORD (NHSRC), AND 

STATE-LEVEL ORGANIZATIONS OF 

ASDWA AND ASIWPCA 

Mid Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 45 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Assess the use of traditional treatment techniques, such as 

hyper-chlorination and ozonation for the decontamination of 

non-traditional contaminants. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when assessing the use of traditional 

techniques for non-traditional contaminants: 

 Identify published literature that may provide insight 

into the basic science of using traditional techniques 

 Identify and leverage existing efforts on the 

effectiveness of traditional techniques on non-traditional 

contaminants 

 Conduct additional research on the effectiveness of traditional techniques on non-traditional 

contaminants for use in the: 

− Treatment of drinking water and wastewater 

− Decontamination of drinking water and wastewater system infrastructure 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Identify or develop decontamination procedures for private 

plumbing to aid a utility in responding to a contamination 

event. The difference in private plumbing systems and their 

components necessitates the need for research to identify the 

impacts diverging system variables have on each other and 

decontamination activities. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing new decontamination 

methods for CBR agents: 

 Existing efforts and information on decontamination 

procedures for private plumbing systems should be 

leveraged and identified, including completed and ongoing research efforts by: 

− EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

− U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

− AwwaRF 

 Conducting additional research on the decontamination of private plumbing systems contaminated by 

CBR agents may be necessary in areas not currently addressed by available information, including 

answers to: 

− How parallel does decontamination in private plumbing need to be to decontamination activities 

in a distribution or collection system? 

− Is dilution an effective means of decontamination? 

− What components of a private plumbing system are most susceptible to failures from the 

decontamination process? 

− How does the difference between private plumbing and distribution and collection systems 

impact decontamination activities? [Private plumbing systems may differ by being smaller or 

Provide information on using 

traditional techniques (i.e., 

those in routine use by utilities) 

for non-traditional 

contaminants 

(ISSUE 2, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS:

EPA ORD (NHSRC) (RESEARCH) 

AND EPA OW (WSD) (OUTREACH) 

Identify existing 

decontamination techniques 

and/or develop new 

decontamination methods for 

CBR agents in private plumbing 

(ISSUE 5, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION: 

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

Mid Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 46 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

have more bends, appliances (e.g., water heater, washing machine, dishwasher), and more 

variability in materials (e.g., galvanized steel).] 

− What effect would the incorrect or incomplete decontamination of private plumbing have on a 

drinking water and/or wastewater system? 

− How do cross connections between private and public plumbing impact decontamination 

activities? 

 Using sprinkler systems as a flushing or decontamination technique may not be possible due to 

potential spreading of contaminants through the entire building 

In addition to the research components necessary to complete this recommendation, several outreach and 

development considerations should be taken into account as well: 

 Addressing safety concerns during decontamination of private plumbing is necessary due to the 

proximity and likelihood of customer contact 

 Gaining permission to access a customer’s private plumbing system needs to be considered 

 Ensuring that customers understand or perform the required functions (i.e., flushing) to assist with 

decontamination may be difficult to accomplish: 

− How does a utility determine if homeowner performed decontamination? 

− When is a utility or other response agency responsible for performing decontamination (e.g., 

contaminant specific)? 

− Would a customer be able to handle contaminated waste (e.g., scale in water heater)? 

− How does a utility provide outreach to and educate the affected residences? 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Develop from the “ground up” two types of facility-based 

training programs for drinking water and wastewater 

systems. The training should: 

 Include the most current and reliable 

information/guidance for decontamination of water 

systems 

 Address both contaminated material (water and solid) 

and decontaminated wastes resulting from the 

decontamination process 

 Include the management and disposal of waste created 

by the decontamination of infrastructure and from 

flushing activities 

 Include discussions on clearance, wastewater issues, and 

coordination with other agencies 

 Include NIMS/ICS guidance 

The Working Group identified the following for consideration when developing and providing facilitybased decontamination training from the “ground up”: 

 Identify the types of training and exercises needed for the water sector 

 Leverage previously developed training models from other sectors (e.g., airport preparedness training 

model) 

Develop and provide two types, 

one each for drinking water and 

wastewater, of facility-based, 

decontamination training 

programs from "ground up" for 

water sector stakeholders and 

national response teams 

(ISSUE 6, REC 4) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS:

EPA (DEVELOP) AND 

ASSOCIATIONS (DISTRIBUTE) 

Mid Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 47 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Leverage relevant ongoing research outcomes 

 Leverage existing disposal and decontamination guidance including: 

− RPTB Module 6 

− The WSI Remediation and Recovery (R/R) Plan within the Consequence Management Plan 

Guidance (CMPG) 

− A Disposal Decision Support Tool for Disposal of Contaminated Building Water System 

− NACWA Planning for Decontamination of Wastewater: A Guide for Utilities 

 Specific training exercises to be provided for water sector stakeholders and national response teams 

Develop a model or models for estimating the fate and 

transport of CBR agents in drinking water and wastewater 

systems for which specific empirical data is not available. 

These models need to be evident, obvious, and easily 

understood so they can be applied in response to a water 

contamination incident where there is incomplete knowledge 

of the fate and transport properties of the contaminants. This 

project requires the integration of general knowledge about 

transport and fate of both chemicals and microorganisms in 

water, especially drinking water and wastewater. 

Mathematical simulation models of fate and transport of 

chemicals have been identified by researchers and regulators 

as potentially valuable tools for improving the understanding 

of the environmental behavior of chemicals, which may be 

released to the environment as a consequence of routine (i.e., 

normal manufacturing, use, disposal) and non-routine (e.g., 

accidental spillage) events. Such simulation could rely on 

Quantitative Structure and Activity Relationships 

(commonly known by the acronym QSAR). EPA has 

developed some QSARs for specific applications such as environmental exposure to and removal of 

pesticides. However, these models need to be modified, or new models created, to apply to the agents of 

concern, along with the specific conditions found in drinking water and wastewater systems. Specifically, 

new hypotheses and measurement strategies have to be developed to evaluate and quantify biological, 

chemical and physical factors relating to the interaction of contaminants with water, disinfection 

residuals, biofilms, clean and tuberculated surfaces, sediments and suspended solids, and other specific 

components and conditions found in drinking water and wastewater system. Still, the models need to be 

simple enough to rapidly provide solutions to the questions that arise during a contamination incident. 

The models must be reviewed by appropriate scientists inside and outside the water sector so they are 

accepted by both the water sector and other interested parties. 

Create transparent and 

scientifically defensible 

process for estimating the fate 

and transport of contaminants 

in drinking water and 

wastewater systems in the 

absence of information on a 

specific contaminant 

(ISSUE 10, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION: 

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION:

DHS

Mid Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 48 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Leverage available information and conduct additional 

research to assess the fate and transport of decontamination 

agents in drinking water and wastewater and when in contact 

with pipe materials. The Working Group identified the 

following for consideration when addressing this 

recommendation:

 Identify data gaps on fate and transport knowledge of 

decontamination agents in chlorinated water and 

wastewater in existing sources 

 Identify and leverage existing efforts and information on 

the fate of decontamination agents in drinking water and 

wastewater including ongoing research 

 Conduct research to fill data gaps on fate and transport knowledge for decontamination agents in 

water 

 Identify and leverage existing efforts and information on the persistence of decontamination agents 

interacting with pipe materials, including ongoing research 

 Conduct additional research on the persistence and interaction of decontamination agents on pipe 

materials in areas not currently addressed by available information 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B 

Identify decontamination factors that should be considered 

when making capital improvements to reduce the risks and 

mitigate the consequences through effective decontamination 

and recovery processes. Decisions regarding 

decontamination factors when making capital improvements 

could include the type of pipe materials, type of disinfection, 

ability for physical decontamination and discharge, 

containment, and pretreatment. When identifying optimum 

solutions for capital improvements: cost, implementation 

time, and available technologies must be considered. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing the guidance for factors to 

consider when making capital improvements: 

 Identify key decontamination factors through materials 

and technique research and best practices for 

consideration in improvements to infrastructure and 

practices 

 Define the difference between resources and assets 

 Consider decontamination within all-hazards preparedness activities 

Provide utilities with 

information on decontamination 

factors to be considered when 

making capital improvement 

decisions through best 

practices development 

organizations advising the 

water sector 

(ISSUE 13, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS:

AWWA (DRINKING WATER), 

NACWA AND WEF (WASTEWATER) 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION: 

USACE 

Determine fate and transport of 

decontamination agents in 

drinking water and wastewater 

systems and persistence in 

pipe materials 

(ISSUE 10, REC 4) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS:

EPA ORD (NHSRC) AND USACE 

Mid Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 49 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Evaluate the health risks for plant and field staff, particularly 

identify specific risks that can be mitigated by changing 

operating procedures. Leverage existing information to 

assess contaminant-specific health risks, medical 

surveillance, procedural and plant operations, and 

coordination with upstream and or downstream systems. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing risk-based frameworks for 

health assessments of utility personnel: 

 Leverage existing information and/or efforts concerning 

current practices and protections for drinking water and 

wastewater treatment plant staff and field staff, including 

those making repairs 

 Address the following in a risk-based framework: 

− Contaminant-specific health risks 

− Baseline medical surveillance information, if available 

− Risk of exposure to treatment plant staff 

− Relative risks of activities and criticality of these actions on plant operations 

− Timelines for when it is safe for operators to return to work 

− Impact of actions on treatment system itself 

− Procedural and plant operations and adjustments 

Develop detailed, risk-based 

frameworks for health 

assessments of drinking water 

and wastewater treatment plant 

and field staff that are 

consistent in approach across 

all EPA regions and states 

(ISSUE 15, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

OSHA AND CDC 

Mid Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 50 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

4.4 Long Term Actions 

Assess the effectiveness of commercial products that are 

certified as safe for use in potable water systems such as 

“pipe cleaning aids” certified under NSF/ANSI Standard 60 

to either neutralize or remove target contaminants that are 

known to adhere to the interior of water pipe surfaces of 

infrastructure. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when providing information on the efficacy of 

pipe cleaning aids: 

 Identify and leverage existing efforts including ongoing 

research on the efficacy of NSF-60-certified Pipe 

Cleaning Aids for use in drinking water and wastewater 

systems: 

− The current listing of certified chemicals can be viewed at the NSF Web site 

(http://www.nsf.org/Certified/PwsChemicals/) 

 Conduct additional research on the efficacy of NSF-60-certified Pipe Cleaning Aids for use in 

drinking water and wastewater systems in areas not currently addressed by available information 

 Review manufacturers’ available documented methods for application of the chemicals to water 

works infrastructure, in particular the information on testing and certification against a health effects 

standard recognized by EPA and nearly all state regulatory agencies 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Identify and/or establish in situ decontamination techniques 

for the large range of equipment types and fixed 

infrastructure that may be found in the treatment plants for 

drinking water and wastewater. This may require the 

creation of guidance, frameworks or information packets to 

educate the utilities. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing decontamination techniques 

for treatment plants: 

 Leveraging existing knowledge to identify 

decontamination methods that effectively contain and 

prevent a contamination from spreading through the 

treatment plant infrastructure and minimizing residual impact from efforts involving: 

− Military experience 

− Decontamination advances for outdoor structures 

− CDC 

− EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

− Other critical infrastructure sectors (e.g., nuclear sector for the decontamination of radiological 

agents from pumps) 

Provide information on the 

efficacy of pipe cleaning aides, 

such as NSF-60-certified 

products, on the 

decontamination of 

infrastructure 

(ISSUE 2, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION: 

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

Identify existing 

decontamination techniques (or 

develop new procedures) for 

CBR agents in treatment plant 

infrastructure 

(ISSUE 3, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION: 

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

Long Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 51 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Conducting additional research to determine in situ decontamination procedures for treatment plants 

for different contaminant classes: 

− A detailed comparison of contaminant classes, equipment type, and decontamination techniques 

applicable to decontamination of treatment plant infrastructure may provide the best information 

on how system variables impact decontamination. 

 Educating water suppliers on current treatment techniques available and the development of new 

techniques currently being researched 

 Adapting decontamination procedures to specific components of a treatment plant (e.g., filters, 

pumps, and sediment basins) 

 Identifying the range of equipment types found in a treatment plant and noting how this may vary 

between drinking water and wastewater plants: 

− Both the inside and outside of equipment should be considered during decontamination. 

 Potential difficulties in decontaminating large pieces of equipment 

 Identifying the impacts CBR agents may have on the multiple treatment stages in a plant 

 Addressing the massive size and scale of a plant 

 Understanding the issues related to adhered contaminants on hard surfaces including: 

− Does it leach into the water long after contamination? 

− Are there adherence variations between contaminants? 

− How often is testing needed to verify that contaminants no longer slough off? 

− Will there be long-term impacts due to delayed slough? 

− Should public health surveillance be used as a monitoring tool? 

 Identifying how to treat contaminated water before it leaves the plant 

 Applying removal procedures for fixed structures (e.g., concrete) 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Identify and develop decontamination procedures for 

distribution and collection systems to aid a utility in 

responding to CBR agent events. The approach should 

include researching: 

 The effectiveness of available and emerging 

decontamination methods, including chlorination, 

surfactants, and enzymatic treatment 

 System variables that may impact distribution and 

collection system decontamination. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing procedures for CBR agents 

in distribution and collection systems: 

 Understanding and accounting for the public perception of a contamination event in a utility 

distribution system 

 Identifying published literature that may provide insight into the basic science and aid in the selection 

of decontamination methods in distribution systems 

Identify existing 

decontamination techniques, 

and/or develop new procedures 

for CBR agents in utility 

distribution and collection

systems 

(ISSUE 5, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

Long Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 52 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 Identifying and leveraging existing efforts on decontamination procedures for distribution and 

collection systems, including research efforts ongoing and completed by: 

− EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

− AwwaRF 

− Other sectors (e.g., lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina) 

 Conducting additional research on the decontamination of distribution and collection systems 

contaminated by CBR agents in areas not currently addressed by available information. Specifically: 

− Examining the efficacy of existing decontamination procedures on CBR agents (e.g., efficacy of 

hyper-chlorination against non-traditional contaminants) 

− Examining the effect of identified or developed procedures on the private plumbing of a system 

− Developing procedures to avoid generating a residual that is itself problematic 

 Accounting for all areas that may need to be decontaminated (e.g., inside and outside of pumps) 

 Providing guidance on decontamination procedures for distribution and collection systems and private 

plumbing which needs to address the impact of system variables and contaminant type on procedure 

used 

 Identifying techniques that account for access and difficulty of implementation considerations. For 

example: 

− Most areas of the distribution system will have limited or no access to workers 

− Cleaning through some valves (e.g., butterfly valves) is difficult 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Update the Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT) to 

include the fate and transport information of CBR agents, 

residuals, and decontamination agents in the environment 

and in chlorinated drinking water and wastewater systems. 

Current WCIT contaminants containing expert judgments on 

fate and transport information should also be updated with 

empirical data. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when populating and updating WCIT to 

include fate and transport information: 

 Leverage the fate and transport efforts recommended in Issue 10 to populate and update the 

information in WCIT 

 Update WCIT fate and transport information as it pertains to decontamination and recovery 

Populate and update WCIT to 

include additional fate and 

transport information 

(ISSUE 6, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION: 

EPA OW (WSD)

Long Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 53 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Develop and maintain a Web-based distribution platform to 

centralize and disseminate decontamination information and 

to provide the water sector with a tool to access the most upto-date comprehensive decontamination information. This 

tool should be user friendly and secure. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing a Web-based information 

clearinghouse to share and disseminate decontamination and 

recovery information specific to the water sector: 

 Leverage the functionalities of existing sources when 

developing a tool: 

− WaterISAC – contains links to external databases but has limited accessibility 

− WCIT – contains information on water contaminants (Issue 2, Recommendation 4) 

− National Decontamination Team (NDT) Emergency Management Portal – includes matrices other 

than water and currently not available to the water sector 

 Determine a process for the distribution of decontamination information including different access 

levels to ensure the confidentiality of secure data 

Develop information needed to characterize public health 

risks posed by CBR contamination events and inform 

decision making to support decontamination and clearance 

goals of contaminated drinking water and wastewater 

systems, on an incident specific basis. The coordinating 

organization should develop data and necessary tools to 

support the determination of multiple cleanup levels for a 

given contaminant or contaminant class. The Working 

Group identified several factors that may present a need for 

pre-establishing information needs that address multiple 

cleanup levels: 

 Potential uses (e.g., drinking, showering, firefighting) 

 Intended population, including special populations (e.g., hospital, elderly, immunocompromised) 

 Process for measuring levels to capture all areas of potential contamination (e.g., locations within the 

distribution system or infrastructure) 

 Drinking water versus wastewater systems (could higher levels be accommodated for discharge of 

contaminated wastewater to the environment than for water consumption) 

The Working Group identified the following for consideration when pre-establishing information needs to 

determine target cleanup levels for contaminants that address multiple water uses: 

 Coordinate with the interagency (EPA, DHS, and CDC) efforts under the leadership of OSTP (within 

the Executive Office of the President) 

 Consult with government agencies and stakeholders to prioritize contaminants of concern for which 

cleanup levels are needed 

 Determine range of water use categories and identify specific uses: 

Develop a Web-based 

information clearinghouse to 

share and disseminate 

decontamination and recovery 

information specific to the 

water sector 

(ISSUE 6, REC 3) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA 

Long Term Actions

Pre-establish information needs 

to determine target cleanup 

levels for contaminants that 

address multiple water uses 

(ISSUE 8, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION: 

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 54 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

− Residential uses (e.g., toilet, washing, showering, cooling, pet consumption, cooking) 

− Business uses (e.g., with and without specific personal protective equipment [PPE], cooling, food 

production, secondary problems created by the use of contaminated water to meet primary need) 

− Other uses (e.g., firefighting, healthcare services) 

 Identify factors for mapping cleanup levels to water uses including: 

− Type of contaminant (i.e., biological versus chemical) 

− Contaminant exposure duration (e.g., 1-year, 5-year) 

− Known contaminant toxicology data 

− Different levels for drinking water and wastewater systems 

− Worker exposure levels from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) [which set the threshold 

limit value (TLV) for worker exposure], American Council of Education on Industrial Hygiene 

(ACEIH), or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

− Regulatory considerations for establishing multiple cleanup levels 

− Provide sufficient level of detail on specific uses in public notifications 

− Give precedence to and anticipate water needed to handle life threatening situations (e.g., 

firefighting use even if contamination exists) 

− Agencies that may be required to act in the response to a contamination event 

− Leveraging examples of multiple level use in the past 

 Determine appropriate value type for each use category (e.g., Life-time value? Reference dose? Longterm value?) 

 Use process established to meet Recommendation 1 in order to develop information needs to 

determine target cleanup levels for each contaminant and use. Process should consider existing 

MCLs for water use and existing EPA Health Advisory values. 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

To respond to this recommendation, the coordinating 

organization should identify or develop appropriate water 

treatment techniques to be used on CBR agents. Related 

regulatory requirements, which must be followed when 

treating the water in water or wastewater utility, should be 

identified and highlighted. The final output should provide 

utilities with information and possibly guidance on the 

treatment techniques available to utilities, and should include 

discussions to aid utilities in remaining compliant with the 

federal, state, and local regulations. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing water treatment techniques: 

 Identifying and leveraging existing efforts and information on treatment procedures for contaminated 

drinking water and wastewater. These efforts include: 

− Who is qualified to handle the cleanup work, based on contaminant type and training/capabilities 

of responders 

− Processes to reduce water or wastewater volume prior to treatment 

− Whether and when water can be discharged to the environment for natural attenuation, depending 

on contaminant type 

Provide information on the 

treatment of drinking water and 

wastewater contaminated with 

CBR agents 

(ISSUE 9, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS:

WERF AND CDC

Long Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 55 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

− Environmental fate of associated discharge materials 

− How to deal with the ultimate fate of contaminants and treatment agents 

− Impact of treatment techniques on wastewater treatment plant infrastructure 

− Potential operational adjustments to limit exposure and optimize water treatment (e.g., additional 

treatment steps, retrofitting, and package plants) 

− Impact of using existing water treatment procedures and adapting to use against CBR agents 

− Universal methods to treat all contaminants or contaminant classes 

− Impact of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) and other triggered regulations on treatment procedures including, 

obtaining crisis exemptions, compliance and “cradle-to-grave” ownership concerns, specifically 

on responsibility and liability for the contaminated material and treatment residuals 

− Disposal concerns, including sludge and filter element disposal, and physical challenges to 

moving and disposing 

− Public notification considerations, such as contact with public, message mapping, crisis and risk 

management, and restoring public confidence 

− Safety considerations, such as safety and health issues of the utility personnel that may be 

exposed to treatment processes down stream from the treatment 

 Conducting research on treatment in areas not currently addressed by available information: 

− Examine the current ongoing efforts of EPA ORD (NHSRC), AwwaRF, Water Environment 

Research Foundation (WERF), and other research organizations to avoid duplication of effort 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Leverage available information and conduct additional 

research to assess the fate and transport of CBR agents in 

drinking water and wastewater and when in contact with 

pipe and other infrastructure materials. The Working Group 

identified the following for consideration when addressing 

this recommendation: 

 Identify data gaps on fate and transport knowledge of 

CBR agents in chlorinated water 

 Identify and leverage existing efforts and information on 

the persistence of CBR agents in drinking water and 

wastewater including ongoing research 

 Conduct research to fill data gaps on fate and transport 

knowledge for CBR agents in water 

 Identify and leverage existing efforts and information on 

the persistence of CBR agents interacting with pipe 

materials, including ongoing research 

 Conduct additional research on the persistence and interaction of CBR agents on pipe materials in 

areas not currently addressed by available information 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Determine the persistence and 

interaction of CBR agents in 

drinking water and wastewater 

and on pipe materials, and how 

chlorination affects 

contaminant persistence and 

interaction 

(ISSUE 10, REC 2) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION: 

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION:

CDC

Long Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 56 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Use existing information to enhance hydraulic models with 

fate and transport characteristics of CBR agents, residuals, 

and decontamination agents in water infrastructure. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when integrating fate and transport 

information into hydraulic models: 

 Identify available models and systems to study and 

describe the hydraulic properties of drinking water and 

wastewater utilities 

 Leverage previous fate and transport efforts to accumulate data necessary to use in integration of fate 

and transport studies into hydraulic models 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Evaluate the persistence of CBR agents, residuals, and 

decontamination agents in water or solid waste when 

discharged into the environment.

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when evaluating persistence of CBR agents, 

residuals, and decontamination agents:

 Identify data gaps on fate and transport knowledge of 

CBR agents in water in existing sources such as WCIT 

 Identify and leverage existing efforts and information on 

the fate and transport of these agents in the environment 

and after treatment in a wastewater utility, including any 

ongoing research 

 Conduct additional research on CBR agents, 

decontamination agents, and residual transport in the 

environment and after treatment in areas not currently 

addressed by available information 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in 

Appendix B

Determine fate and transport of 

CBR agents, residuals, 

decontamination agents and 

solid discharge in the 

environment including if 

discharged to water body or 

after wastewater treatment 

(fertilizer or the sludge 

application to agricultural land, 

landfill, etc.) 

(ISSUE 10, REC 5) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS:

AwwaRF AND WERF

Long Term Actions

Integrate fate and transport 

information into hydraulic 

models 

(ISSUE 10, REC 3) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA ORD (NHSRC)
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 57 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Identify which suspected contaminants would constitute an 

aerosol once they have been introduced into water. 

Determine whether there are safety measures that could be 

employed to effectively mitigate the risk to wastewater 

utility workers and to firefighters. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when developing information on 

aerosolization or volatilization risk: 

 Identify and leverage existing efforts and information, 

including any ongoing research, on aerosolization 

potential of CBR agents and residuals in the conveyance, 

treatment and collection systems of wastewater and drinking water systems 

 Conduct additional research on CBR agent and residual transport in the environment and after 

treatment in areas not currently addressed by available information 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Assess the likelihood that an aerosolized attack would 

ultimately lead to contamination of water systems and 

subsequent public safety risks. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when addressing this recommendation:

 Ongoing, collaborative efforts by the EPA and National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to 

model dispersion forecasts 

 Identify routes that the residuals of an aerosolized CBR 

agent attack would take to be transported and 

concentrated to drinking water and wastewater utilities 

(e.g., runoff into drinking water source water) 

 Identify what concentrations of CBR agents are of concern in a water or wastewater utility 

 Leverage fate and transport information and hydraulic modeling to determine how contaminant 

concentrations may increase in drinking water and wastewater utilities after an aerosolized attack 

 Gaps identified by the Working Group provided in Appendix B

Determine the risk that an 

aerosolized attack of CBR 

agents will result in 

concentrations of concern to 

drinking water and wastewater 

systems 

(ISSUE 10, REC 7) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS: 

DHS AND EPA 

Assess the aerosolization or 

volatilization of contaminants 

released from drinking water 

and wastewater systems 

(ISSUE 10, REC 6) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA ORD (NHSRC) 

Long Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 58 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Leverage surface (in situ) and water analysis methods 

specific to decontamination of infrastructure and provide to 

the water sector. In situ and water analysis methods may not 

be available for all CBR agents. In addition, research is 

needed to determine whether water analysis methods are 

appropriate for determining the effectiveness of 

decontamination efforts or if in situ methods are required. 

The Working Group identified the following for 

consideration when assessing this recommendation:

 Identify in situ and water analysis methods available and 

those being researched/tested specific for water 

infrastructure decontamination 

 Leverage existing efforts to provide analytical methods 

specific to water infrastructure decontamination through 

the following efforts: 

− Standardized Analytical Methods for Environmental Restoration following Homeland Security 

Events (SAM) 

− EPA Office of Water (OW) Water Security Division (WSD) method development 

− National Environmental Methods Index for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Contaminants 

(NEMI-CBR) 

Provide surface (in situ) and 

water analysis methods specific 

for CBR agents to be used 

during decontamination and 

clearance steps through 

existing efforts 

(ISSUE 14, REC 1) 

COORDINATING ORGANIZATION:

EPA 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION:

CDC

Long Term Actions
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 59 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

The CIPAC Decontamination Working Group will present these recommendations and proposed strategic 

plan for responding to water sector decontamination needs to the SCC and GCC in May 2008. The 

councils will review these recommendations to plan for and consider specific initiatives in response to 

these needs. The Working Group envisions that these initiatives may include collaborative efforts among 

water sector organizations, specific reprioritization of organization budgets and projects to take action on 

the recommendations, and grant actions to promote additional research. 

In addition, these recommendations and the proposed strategic plan are intended for consideration by the 

larger research community. Given the critical role that decontamination research plays in water sector 

preparedness, it is the Working Group’s intent that actions by research organizations will be influenced by 

this report, resulting in further progress on meeting water sector decontamination needs. 

5 NEXT STEPS 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 60 

5 NEXT STEPS 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 61 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

American Water Works Association (AWWA), 2008. Water and Wastewater Mutual Aid and Assistance 

Resource Typing Manual. April 2008. 

American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF). Standard Operating Procedures for 

Decontamination of Distribution Systems (in progress). 

Bristow, E., and K. Brumblelow, 2005. Delay between Sensing and Response in Water Contamination 

Events, World Water Congress 2005: Impacts of Global Climate Change. Raymond Walton - Editor, May 

15–19, 2005, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. 

Department of Homeland Security – Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

2008. Water Systems at Risk to Deliberate Contamination. March 2008. 

Dreazen, Y.J., 2001. Officials Fear Terrorists Could Use ‘Backflow’ To Push Toxins Into WaterDistribution Grids. Wall Street Journal, December 27th, 2001. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2007. National Incident Management System Draft. National 

Integration Center (NIC) Incident Management Systems Division, August 2007. 

http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/

National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), 2005. Planning for Decontamination 

Wastewater: A Guide for Utilities. 

http://www.nacwa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=532&Itemid=533

National Environmental Methods Index for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Methods (NEMICBR). http://www.nemi.gov/

National Response Team, 2005. Technical Assistance for Anthrax Response – Interim-Final Draft, July 

2005. http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/NRTWeb.nsf/PagesByLevelCat/Level2TA?Opendocument

NSF/ANSI Standard 60: Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects. 

http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/standards.asp?program=WaterDistributionSys

Raber, E., J.M. Hirabayashi, S.P. Mancieri, A.L. Jin, K.J. Folks, T.M. Carlsen, and P. Estacio, 2002. 

Chemical and Biological Agent Incident Response and Decision Process for Civilian and Public Sector 

Facilities. Risk Analysis. Vol. 22, No. 2. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2006. National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007. Municipal Water Distribution System Security Study: 

Recommendations for Science and Technology Investments. Science and Technology Directorate, 

Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Water: Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Resources Sector-Specific Plan as Input to the National Infrastructure Protection 

Plan. May 2007. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for and Responding 

to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents, Module 6: Remediation and Recovery Guide. 

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 62 

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Office of Water, Interim Final, April 2004. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/pubs/guide_response_module6.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Water Sector Security Workshops. Office of Research and 

Development, National Homeland Security Research Center, June 2006. 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20060914-2006-P-00033.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT). Office of 

Water. http://www.epa.gov/wcit/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Lessons Learned: EPA’s Response to Hurricane Katrina. 

Office of Inspector General, September 2006. 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20060914-2006-P-00033.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Effective Risk and Crisis Communication during Water 

Security Emergencies. Office of Research and Development, National Homeland Security Research 

Center, March 2007. www.epa.gov/NHSRC/pubs/reportCrisisCom040207.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. A Disposal Decision Support Tool for Disposal of 

Contaminated Building and Water System Materials, Version 4.2. Office of Research and Development, 

National Homeland Security Research Center, September 2007. 

http://www2.ergweb.com/bdrtool/login.asp

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Water Security Initiative: Interim Guidance on Developing 

a Consequence Management Plan. Office of Water, Water Security Division, September 2007. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Standard Analytical Methods for Environmental 

Restoration following Homeland Security Events, Revision 3.1. Office of Research and Development, 

National Homeland Security Research Center, November 2007. 

www.epa.gov/nhsrc/pubs/reportSAM030107.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director Natural Resources 

and Environment, 2004. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, 

Committee on Energy and Commence, House of Representatives – Drinking Water – Experts’ Views on 

How Federal Funding Can Best Be Spent to Improve Security. 

Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterISAC). Water Security Network. 

http://www.waterisac.org/
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 63 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

 

APPENDIX A Response Characterization Remediation/ Cleanup Clearance/ Return to Service Develop a flowchart to show progression of roles and decision- making authority to be used by the utilities and responding/coordinating agencies during decontamination, treatment, and recovery (Issue 11 Rec 1) Develop information guidelines for utilities on allocating and acquiring decontamination and treatment resources (Issue 13 Rec 1) Develop detailed, risk-based frameworks for health and safety assessments of drinking water and wastewater treatment plant and field staff that are consistent in approach across all EPA regions and states 

(Issue 15 Rec 1)

Provide utilities with information on decontamination factors to be considered when making capital improvement decisions through best practices development organizations advising the water sector(Issue 13 Rec 2)

Create a transparent and scientifically defensible process for estimating the fate and transport of CBR agents in drinking water and wastewater utilities, in the absence of information on a specific contaminant(Issue 10 Rec 1)

Inform utilities of the critical assets available to the water sector to aid decontamination, treatment and recovery from CBR contamination (Issue 13 Rec 3)

Determine the fate and transport of decontamination agents in drinking water and wastewater utilities and persistence in pipe materials(Issue 10 Rec 4)

Leverage existing efforts to identify laboratory capabilities and laboratory capacities specific to CBR agent decontamination needs (Issue 14 Rec 2)

Determine the persistence and interaction of CBR agents in drinking water and wastewater and on pipe materials, and how chlorination affects persistence and interaction (Issue 10 Rec 2)Determine fate and transport of CBR agents, residuals, decontamination agents and solid discharge in the environment including if discharged to water body or after wastewater treatment (fertilizer or the sludge application to agricultural land, landfill, etc.)(Issue 10 Rec 5) 

Figure A-1: Summary of Recommendations by Decontamination and Recovery Stage and Functional Category

Key Decontamination Activity Stage Planning/

Preparedness

Develop a decision-making framework for the decontamination of CBR agents in water systems specifically to be used by utilities, responders, and other decision makers (Issue 4 Rec 1 )

Category

Supporting Information and Capabilities
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 64 

APPENDIX A 

Response Characterization Remediation/ Cleanup Clearance/ Return to Service

Assess the aerosolization or volatilization of contaminants released from drinking water and wastewater systems (Issue 10 Rec 6)Determine the risk that an aerosolized attack of CBR agents will result in concentrations of concern to water or wastewater systems (Issue 10 Rec 7)

Develop a decision-making framework regarding containing or purging contaminated water (Issue 1 Rec 1)

Revise existing guidance or develop new guidance for containment and disposal of decontamination waste including large amounts of water and associated solid wastes (Issue 1 Rec 2)Provide information on using traditional techniques (i.e., those in routine use by utilities) for nontraditional contaminants(Issue 2 Rec 1)Provide information on the efficacy of pipe cleaning aids, such as NSF-60-certified products, on the decontamination of infrastructure (Issue 2 Rec 2)

Figure A-1: Summary of Recommendations by Decontamination and Recovery Stage and Functional Category, cont.

Key Decontamination Activity Stage Planning/

Preparedness Category

Supporting Information and 

Capabilities

Provide surface (in situ) and water analysis methods specific for CBR agents to be used during decontamination and clearance steps through existing efforts (Issue 14 Rec 1)Identify existing decontamination techniques (or develop new procedures) for CBR agents in treatment plant infrastructure (Issue 3 Rec 1)

Provide operational steps to minimize impact of decontamination (Issue 2 Rec 3)

Policy Decontamination Technologies 

and Procedures

Provide guidance on regulatory waiver process for discharge/disposal, decontamination/treatment, and return to service activities during CBR incidents (Issue 12 Rec 1)

Pre-establish information needs to determine target cleanup levels for contaminants that address multiple water uses (Issue 8 Rec 2)Develop transparent process for establishing target cleanup levels that can be used on an incident-specific basis (Issue 8 Rec 1)
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 65 

APPENDIX A 

Response Characterization Remediation/ Cleanup Clearance/ Return to Service

Identify existing decontamination techniques, and/or develop new procedures for CBR agents in utility distribution and collection systems (Issue 5 Rec 1)Identify existing decontamination techniques and/or develop new decontamination methods for CBR agents in private plumbing (Issue 5 Rec 2)Provide information on the treatment of drinking water and wastewater contaminated with CBR agents (Issue 9 Rec 1)

Identify the current state of decontamination and recovery knowledge for CBR agents and develop a preferred/vetted guidance to reconcile any conflicting information(Issue 6 Rec 1)Develop guidance to help utilities prepare outreach materials to educate utility personnel, lawmakers, and response agencies on decontamination and recovery processes before an incident(Issue 7 Rec 1)

Use existing information services and Web-based databases to disseminate near-term practical decontamination solutions to utilities (Issue 2 Rec 4)

Develop guidelines for risk communication activities during decontamination and recovery phases (Issue 7 Rec 2)

Figure A-1: Summary of Recommendations by Decontamination and Recovery Stage and Functional Category, cont.

Key Decontamination Activity Stage Planning/

Preparedness Category

Integrate fate and transport information into hydraulic models (Issue 10 Rec 3)

Establish measurement process for cleanup and clearance that addresses extent of sampling (Issue 8 Rec 3) 

Decontamination Technologies and 

Procedures

Populate and update WCIT to include additional fate and transport information (Issue 6 Rec 2)

Develop and provide two types, one each for drinking water and wastewater, of facility-based, decontamination training programs from "ground up" for water sector stakeholders and national response teams (Issue 6 Rec 4) 

Develop a Web-based information clearinghouse to share and disseminate decontamination and recovery information specific to the water sector sector (Issue 6 Rec 3)

Outreach and Communications
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 66 

APPENDIX A 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 67 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

The Working Group identified the following data gaps in the current state of knowledge of 

decontamination in the water sector. The gaps have been linked to Working Group recommendations 

under the appropriate priority issue. 

Table B-2: Data Gaps Identified by the CIPAC Water Sector Decontamination Working Group 

Recommendations Data Gaps 

Issue 2: Near-term practical solutions

Provide information on using traditional Data on the effectiveness of traditional treatment techniques for CBR agents 

techniques (i.e., those in routine use by 

utilities) for non-traditional 

contaminants 

(Issue 2, Rec 1) Data on the effect that system variables have on the effectiveness of 

traditional treatment techniques on non-traditional contaminants 

Provide information on the efficacy of Data on the efficacy of NSF-60 certified products 

pipe cleaning aids, such as NSF-60-

certified products, on the 

decontamination of infrastructure 

(Issue 2, Rec 2) Data on the effect of biofilms on decontamination procedures 

Data on the effect that system operations have on the effectiveness of 

traditional treatment techniques on non-traditional contaminants 

Data on effect of operational steps to minimize the impact of CBR agents 

Data on the effect that system variables have on these operational steps 

when used for decontamination 

Provide operational steps to minimize 

impact of decontamination 

(Issue 2, Rec 3) 

Distribution system models for contaminant transport 

Mechanisms to disseminate information to utilities and stakeholders; 

transferring to utility community the knowledge maintained in sensitive or 

classified or other documents 

Use existing information services and 

Web-based databases to disseminate 

near-term practical decontamination 

solutions to utilities 

(Issue 2, Rec 4) 

Outreach mechanisms to disseminate information to utilities and 

stakeholders 

Issue 3: Decontamination procedures for infrastructure in treatment plants

Data on the effectiveness of in situ processes for decontamination of 

different equipment in drinking water for CBR agents 

Identify existing decontamination 

techniques (or develop new procedures) 

for CBR agents in treatment plant 

infrastructure 

(Issue 3, Rec 1) Data on the effectiveness of in situ processes for decontamination of 

different equipment in wastewater for CBR agents 

APPENDIX B 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 68 

APPENDIX B 

Recommendations Data Gaps 

Outreach mechanisms to disseminate information to utilities and 

stakeholders 

Assessment of the aerosol risk of contaminated water introduced into 

wastewater conveyance or treatment systems 

Determination of whether there are likely to be concentrations of concern 

from an aerosolized, wide-area attack or a direct injection into the 

distribution or collection system 

Issue 5: Decontamination procedures for distribution and collection systems

Additional data on the effectiveness of chlorine, chloramines, and enzymes 

for decontamination of the distribution system for CBR agents 

Data on the effectiveness of surfactants, co-solvents, organic acids and 

chelating agents for decontamination of the distribution system for CBR 

agents 

Data on the effect that system variables have on the effectiveness of 

treatment techniques for distribution systems 

Identify existing decontamination 

techniques, and/or develop new 

procedures for CBR agents in utility 

distribution and collection systems 

(Issue 5, Rec 1) 

Data on the effect that operational variables have on the effectiveness of 

treatment techniques for distribution systems 

Information on techniques that can be used for decontamination of private 

plumbing for CBR agents Identify existing decontamination 

techniques and/or develop new 

decontamination methods for CBR 

agents in private plumbing 

(Issue 5, Rec 2) 

Outreach mechanisms to disseminate information to utilities and other 

applicable personnel 

Issue 8: Cleanup levels

Outreach mechanisms to disseminate information to utilities and 

stakeholders 

More detailed guidance on the process for authorized decision makers to 

use for decision making to establish cleanup levels for biologicals and 

chemicals in drinking and wastewater systems 

Guidance on process for authorized decision makers to establish cleanup 

levels for the following in water for radiological contaminants and biotoxins 

Guidance on how contaminant levels should be measured in a system to 

determine extent of contamination and to assess effectiveness of 

decontamination steps 

Develop transparent process for 

establishing target cleanup levels that 

can be used on an incident-specific 

basis 

(Issue 8, Rec 1)

Guidance needs to address the different types/scales of contamination: 

• Vandalism/tampering (isolated, limited) 

• System-wide 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 69 

APPENDIX B 

Recommendations Data Gaps 

Processes needs to be publicly vetted before finalization of levels for CBR 

agents in drinking water and wastewater systems 

Availability of cleanup levels for the following in drinking water and 

wastewater systems for CBR agents Pre-establish information needs to 

determine target cleanup levels for 

contaminants that address multiple 

water uses 

(Issue 8, Rec 2) Availability of multiple cleanup levels for each contaminant to accommodate 

different uses 

Data on effect of measuring water/wastewater versus pipe surface for CBR 

Establish measurement process for agents 

cleanup and clearance that addresses 

extent of sampling 

(Issue 8, Rec 3) Determination of whether surface measurement methods are needed to 

assess infrastructure contamination levels (and cleanup adequacy) 

Issue 9: Treatment procedures for contaminated drinking water and wastewater

Data on effective techniques to decontaminate drinking water and 

wastewater for CBR agents 

Data on the effect that system variables have on decontamination of 

drinking water and wastewater 

Data on the effect that system operations have on decontamination of 

drinking water and wastewater 

Data on drinking water and wastewater matrices that impact effectiveness of 

decontamination 

Provide information on the treatment of 

drinking water and wastewater 

contaminated with CBR agents 

(Issue 9, Rec 1) 

Outreach mechanisms to disseminate information to utilities and other 

applicable personnel 

Issue 10: Agent fate and transport

Create transparent and scientifically 

defensible process for estimating the 

fate and transport of contaminants in 

drinking water and wastewater systems 

in the absence of information on a 

specific contaminant 

(Issue 10, Rec 1)

Transparent process to estimate the fate and transport of contaminants in 

drinking and wastewater systems 

Information on the effect of system characteristics on the fate and transport 

of CBR contaminants and decontamination agents 

Determine the persistence and 

interaction of CBR agents in drinking 

water and wastewater and on pipe 

materials, and how chlorination affects 

contaminant persistence and interaction 

(Issue 10, Rec 2) Information on the effect of operational variables on the fate and transport of 

CBR contaminants and decontamination agents 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 70 

APPENDIX B 

Recommendations Data Gaps 

Data on agent fate and transport in wastewater systems 

Additional data on fate and transport for contaminants in drinking water 

systems still needed (and empirical data to update expert judgment values) 

Integrate fate and transport information 

into hydraulic models 

(Issue 10, Rec 3)

Information on the effect of operational variables on the fate and transport of 

CBR contaminants and decontamination agents 

Information on the effect of operational variables on the fate and transport of 

CBR contaminants and decontamination agents Determine the fate and transport of 

decontamination agents in drinking 

water and wastewater systems and 

persistence in pipe materials 

(Issue 10, Rec 4) Information on the effect of operational variables on the fate and transport of 

CBR contaminants and decontamination agents 

Determine fate and transport of CBR 

agents, residuals, decontamination 

agents and solid discharge in the 

environment including if discharged to 

water body or after wastewater 

treatment (fertilizer or the sludge 

application to agricultural land, landfill, 

etc.) 

(Issue 10, Rec 5) 

Data on agent fate and transport after removal from the system 

Assess the aerosolization or 

volatilization of contaminants released 

from drinking water and wastewater 

systems 

(Issue 10, Rec 6)

Data on agent fate and transport after removal from the system 
Water Sector Decontamination Priorities Page 71 

4 STRATEGIC PLAN TO MEET KEY WATER SECTOR DECONTAMINATION ISSUES 

Issue Paper - Initial Incident Response - Containment or Purging? 

Note this paper is not the opinion of the entire Working Group but that of one member who has conducted related 

research separate from the rest of the Working Group. 

Recommendation:

The primary objective of water utilities and public health authorities in a contamination incident, is the safety of the 

public served by the water system and the prevention of exposure to the contaminant, particularly through 

ingestion. To this end, federal guidance should recommend consideration of expedited purging of the contaminated 

water from the system. The decision to implement such purging operations should be made quickly, but with 

appropriate consultation with and notification of public health and regulatory agencies and potentially affected 

agencies, particularly wastewater utilities. 

Background and Rationale:

The EPA Response Protocol Toolbox, particularly modules 2 and 6, is the most current and directly applicable 

guidance source on initial incident response. This guidance discusses "containment" (which appears to be intended 

as isolation of the affected area of the system) and suggests that "if there are consumers within the isolated area, it 

will likely be necessary to notify them of any restrictions regarding use of the water (i.e., public notification) and 

possibly provide them with an alternate supply of drinking water." This and guidance that has been issued by other 

agencies implies that discharge of the contaminated water to wastewater systems or to the environment, via storm 

sewers, is a paramount consideration and that until arrangements for pretreatment can be made the contaminated 

water should remain in the water system, with reliance on public notification to avoid dangers to the consumers. 

This reliance on "public notification" to be an effective and timely protective measure is problematic for a number 

of reasons: 

1. The decision to issue a public notification of this type is not likely to be timely. Utility and public agencies are 

understandably reluctant to issue such public warnings, and historically have done so only after an extended 

effort to confirm the existence of the problem. (A 2007 paper by Bristow and Brumbelow on the "Delay 

between Sensing and Response in Water Contamination Events" reviewed the responses to 13 water 

contamination incidents and found an average of 2.35 days elapsed before decisions to issue public warnings 

were made.) On the other hand, a decision to initiate an operational response in the system (i.e., purging the 

suspect water) is much more easily made and is typically done in water works practice at the first indication of 

a problem. 

2. Even once the decision to notify the public is made, there are not technologies widely implemented that can 

reliably and timely get the word out. The most promising of the mass notification tools would be the "reverse 

911" telephone services that can be commercially subscribed to by public agencies or utilities. However, the 

advocacy organizations "Partnership for Public Warning" and "National Emergency Number Association" 

have noted that most of the population is not served by such capability. (NENA in 2004 estimated that only 

25% of the population was in areas served by some type of emergency notification system.) Also, systems that 

would attempt to flood a specific geographic area with an alert could run into constraints of network 

congestion in which "All Circuits are Busy" (Paul Erling, Enera Communications, personal communication, 

9/6/07). 

A secondary, but still important, reason for an expedited purging 

of the contaminated water from the system is provided by recent 

research conducted for the AWWA Research Foundation 

(AwwaRF Project 2981) which indicates that extended residence 

of the contaminant in the system would lead to more substantial 

adherence of the contaminant to the infrastructure (i.e., pipe) 

surfaces. This would result in a more extensive decontamination 

effort before the system could be restored. 

Author: Greg Welter Date: 10/24/07

APPENDIX C 

Mass attachment over time

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1-Hour 24-Hour 7-Day

Attached mass (mg)

Chlordane

p-DCB