Final Infrastructure Interdependencies Research Approach

1. Final Infrastructure Interdependencies Research Approach Dana Brechwald, Earthquake and Hazards Specialist Lifeline Committee Meeting October 25, 2012

2. Review of Comments • The goal of the project should not just be to understand if infrastructure systems are adequate, but to make judgments and recommendations based on our findings. • The report should be useable to take back to airport managers to use to take action to improve the performance of airports in recovery. • Vendor services/supply chains should be added to the proposed scope, as well as employees and people. • We should be explicit that our scope only covers land transportation. • We should consider whether the scope of the project includes air traffic control facilities as well as airports. • Jeanne Perkins has plans to update case studies from 2000’s Don’t Wing It report as well as research new case studies. We should coordinate case studies for this study with her. • We should consider multiple earthquake scenarios within our research. • We need to consider the burden we place on providers in answering our study questions and balance that with our desire for a complete and thorough report, so we should be very explicit about what information we are after prior to speaking with providers. It may be helpful to ask providers what earthquake scenarios they have already looked at.

3. Describing Characteristics of Interdependent Failures (Chang et al 2006) • What is the initiating event? • What is the spatial extent? • What is the duration of the failure? • What are the impacted systems and subsystems? • Is the interdependency expected (linear) or unplanned/unexpected (complex)? • Is there feedback from the secondary system back to the initial system? • What was the operational state of the system before it failed? • What is the adaptive capacity of the system(s)? • What is the restoration time?

4. Characteristics of Interdependencies Consequences (Chang et al 2006) • What is the severity of the consequence? • What type of consequence is it? Economic, public health and safety, social, environmental, etc • What is the spatial extent of the consequence? • How many people are impacted? • What is the duration of the consequences?

5. Objectives for Our Study • Goal: Understand performance of infrastructure systems serving airports to better understand performance of airports and to make actionable recommendations to improve airport performance • Objectives • Identify interdependencies • Qualify interdependencies • Understand vulnerabilities due to interdependencies • Find “choke points” • Find redundancies and “islands” • Project consequences • Identify and prioritize key mitigation strategies • Facilitate conversation among key stakeholders • Better understand how consequences will affect restoration and recovery • Make specific actionable recommendations

6. Scope of Our Study • Systems • Power • Water and Wastewater • Communications • Transportation (land transportation only) • Jet Fuel • Supply Chain • Employees/People • Air Traffic Control • Size • Region – high level • Airport-specific – more detail

7. Case Studies • Don’t Wing It updated + new case studies • 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake • 1994 Northridge Earthquake • 2001 Seattle Earthquake • 2005 Hurricane Katrina • 2010 Haiti Earthquake • 2011 Christchurch Earthquake • 2011 Japan

8. Qualitative Approaches • Rely on empirical observation, expert interviews • Typically use a damage scenario • Examine whole systems, not just nodes • Look at multi-sectoral societal impacts • Wide variety of outputs

9. Our Approach

11. Preliminary Hierarchy – High Level

12. Preliminary Hierarchy – Detail

13. Anticipated Products

14. Anticipated Products

15. Anticipated Products

18. Next Steps • Write Implementation Plan - 1/31/13 • Begin to develop scenario – Jan 2013 • Study will run Jan 2012 – June 2014