Collaboratives
A Guide for Water
Utilities
Q y
• - j
0
-------
EPA/625/R-05/002
May 2005
Security Information
Collaboratives
A Guide for Water Utilities
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that contains •
minimum of 50% postconsumer fiber content processed
chlorine-free.
-------
The development of this guide was managed by Scott Minamyer, with die U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Homeland Security Research
Center. While developing the publication, EPA sought the input of many
individuals. We would like to thank the following people for their contributions:
Jonathan Herrmann, EPA National Homeland Security Research Center,
Cincinnati, OH
Susan Ruggles, EPA Water Security Division, Washington, DC
Bay Area Security Information Collaborative Case Study
Clifford Boweii, California Department of Health Services, Berkeley, CA
Steve Dennis, Alameda County Water District, Fremont, CA
Jason Freed, Federal Bureau of Investigation, San Francisco, CA
Diana Gaines, Zone 7 Water Agency, Pleasantoii, CA
Bruce Macler, EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA
John Rodgers, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, CA
Ray Yep, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, CA
Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Water Advisory Council Case Study
Paul Biedrzycki, City of Milwaukee Health Department, WI
Larry Laiidsness, Department of Natural Resources, Milwaukee, WI
Carrie Lewis, Milwaukee Waterworks, WI
Newport News Waterworks Collaborative Case Study
Tom Kahler, Newport News Waterworks, VA
Captain Frank Grotty, York County Sheriff's Department, VA
Captain joe Moore, Newport News Police Department, VA
Cadmus Group Support
Richard Krop was the project manager.
Vanessa Leiby was die technical lead.
Chile Hidalgo provided graphics support.
Joseph Milbury and Shreedhar Kanetkar assisted with research.
-------
Contents
Introduction 1
What is a Security-Information Collaborative? 1
What are the Benefits of a Security- Information Collaborative? 2
How to Use this Guide 3
Chapter 1. Seven Steps to Forming a Security-Information Collaborative 5
Step 1: Evaluate your utility's current situation to determine whether a collaborative
is necessary 5
Step 2: Identify organizations that should be part of the collaborative 7
Step 3: Obtain upper management support and keep them informed 8
Step 4: Invite potential members of the collaborative to meet and discuss
its formation 9
Step 5: Establish a meeting schedule andlocation 9
Step 6: Agree on how the collaborative will be run 10
Step 7: Establish goals and specific steps for achieving them 11
Chapter 2. Operating and Maintaining a Security-Information Collaborative 13
Chapter 3. Benefits of a Security-Information Collaborative 15
Bay Area Security Information Collaborative (BASIC): 15
The Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Health Water Advisory Council: 16
Newport News Waterworks: 16
Chapter 4. Three Case Studies 17
BASIC, a Utility-to-Utility Collaborative 17
The Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Water Advisory Council, a Utility-to-
Public-Health Collaborative 20
Newport News Waterworks, a Utility-to-Law-Enforcement Collaborative 23
What Makes a Collaborative Successful? 25
Conclusion 26
Appendix A. Sample Resource Documents 27
-------
-------
Water infrastructure-related emergencies can vary greatly in their severity and extent.
They can run the gamut from waterbome disease outbreaks and vandalism to terrorist
threats and actions suddenly made conceivable by the events of September 11,2001.
Drinking water and wastewater utilities have been working harder than ever to improve
or maintain security. Information about potential threats to these systems—and the
appropriate responses to those threats—is essential to the success of any security
improvements. Drinking water and wastewater utilities can work with each other, state
primacy agencies, the public health community, and law enforcement and other first
responders to collect and share pertinent information. This guide offers suggestions
on how to establish a successful security-information collaborative. In preparing the
guide, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drew on the experiences of
established security-information collaboratives across the country.
is a
A security-information collaborative is a group of organizations and agencies formed to
share information and address common issues regarding security—in the case of this
guide, water security. These collaboratives can take many forms, from ad hoc groups
that meet only as needed to formal organizations complete with charters, mission
statements, operating budgets, and regularly scheduled meetings.
This guide describes three types of security-information collaboratives: utility to utility,
utility to public health, and utility to law enforcement. Its step-by-step approach will
help individual utilities identify and create security-information collaboratives that best
meet the needs of their particular situations. Its case studies will show how utilities can
enhance their security by working more closely with other entities.
1: of for
Communication
among parties
as needed
Informal
Regular calls
to other key
players
Subgroup of other
interagency groups
with informal
cooperation agreement
Formal
Chartered
interagency
organization
-------
are the of a
The principal benefit of a collaborative is enhanced drinking water and wastewater
security and public health protection. Among the many other benefits a collaborative
provides is the opportunity for utility officials to develop working relationships with the
people on whom they will rely during an emergency. Another benefit cited by members
of the collaboratives profiled in this guide is the opportunity to share information from
a variety of sources. For example, the water utility may subscribe to die Water
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterlSAC), from which it receives early
warnings of potential physical, contamination, and cyber threats, as well as information
about security. State primacy agencies can provide expertise, resources, and information.
Local law enforcement officials obtain updates from the Department of Homeland
Security and regional offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Public health
agencies receive information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
and are part of new disease surveillance programs being implemented around the
country. Although the information can sometimes be redundant, a focused effort to
share it can ensure that utilities have a more comprehensive picture of the current security
condition. Other benefits of collaboratives include:
Improved detection of, response to, and recovery from security crisis events
Enhanced working knowledge and understanding of different professional
disciplines
More effective use of different skills and resources
Increased effectiveness in educating consumers and responding to questions
from the media and public
Improved intergovernmental communication
Better understanding of various organizational perspectives and enhanced ability
to resolve conflicts in a non-crisis environment
Heightened sense of trust and community among organizations
Identification and elimination of obstacles that prevent full cooperation
joint project development
Increased efficiency through resource and information sharing
Multiple communication links
Enhanced problem-solving and team-building capabilities
Identification and coordination of inter-organizational dependencies
-------
How to Use this Guide
EPA has developed this guide to inform drinking water and wastewater utilities, and
others, about the benefits of establishing collaboratives to share information 011 water
security. The guide provides step-by-step suggestions for establishing a collaborative.
Case studies of three types of collaboratives are included to show how utilities can
coordinate with various key water security partners. These three case studies are:
The San Francisco Bay Area Security Information Collaborative (BASIC), a
utility-to-utility collaborative
The Milwaukee, WI, Inter-Agency Clean Water Advisory Council, a utility-to-
public-health collaborative
The Newport News, VA Waterworks, a utility-to-law-enforcement collaborative
While these three collaboratives are certainly not the only types pos sible, they do indicate
the variety of opportunities available to help identify threats, reduce vulnerabilities, detect
potential contamination, and respond quickly to terrorist threats or attacks. Chapter 1
provides suggestions for starting a security-information collaborative. Operational
guidelines are offered in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 discusses some of the benefits of a
collaborative. Chapter 4 describes the case studies in detail. Appendix A gives sample
documents. How an individual utility might proceed will be based on the local issues
identified and agreed upon by the potential participants in a security-information
collaborative. Therefore, the composition of collaboratives across the country and their
operation will vary.
-------
-------
1. to a
Security-information collaboratives can be a useful way to continually collect and share
important information about water security. This chapter presents seven steps you can
take to form a collaborative. The process begins with basic questions about your utility
and circumstances to help you decide whether a collaborative is necessary. It then takes
you through the steps needed to create a collaborative.
Stepl
to a
Is
A collaborative can help ensure access to information today and over the long term. To
decide if a collaborative would be worth pursuing, you should answer several basic
questions about your utility, your potential partners, and the environment in which you
operate.
In many areas of many states, more than one utility provides drinking water and
wastewater services. These utilities often share resources, such as drinking water supplies,
and may face common problems. What do you know about your neighboring water
utilities? Do you know whether they conducted vulnerability assessments, and if so,
what they found? What do you know about their emergency response plans? Do you
know if they ever conduct security exercises and, if they do, what they are learning from
those exercises? Do you know whether other utilities have access to information that you
do not have? What do they know about your utility and what would you like for them
to know? Are opportunities for regular interactions with these utilities already available?
You may need to coordinate your security plans with local law enforcement agencies and
other first respoiiders, as well as the public health community. Do you regularly interact
with these groups? Do you know whom to contact in case of an emergency? If your
utility serves more than one jurisdiction, do you know whom to contact in each
jurisdiction? And if your utility serves more than one jurisdiction, is it clear who will
respond if an emergency arises? Are you familiar with any safety and security guidelines
issued by your local police or fire department? Are the police, fire fighters, and other
emergency personnel familiar with your facilities and their operation? Do they know
where your utility's critical assets are? Do they know where you store potentially
dangerous materials?
-------
Remember, your utility's operating environment may be constantly changing. Your
answers to the questions above might be different today than they would have been 3 or
4 years ago—and they may be different 3 or 4 years from now. The potential threats to
your system are also evolving, as are your potential responses. Positions in
organizations—and the responsibilities associated with them—may change with time.
The individuals who fill these positions may retire or move on to other opportunities.
Does your utility have good working relationships with other utilities, police and
emergency responders, and public health officials, or do you need to cultivate long-term
relationships with them? Are you able to keep current with changes in these
organizations? Can you ensure that you and your counterparts in other organizations
will continue to have access to up-to-date information?
If you do not have regular contact with neighboring utilities, the police and fire
departments, and the public health community and you are unfamiliar with their security
and emergency response plans, a security-information collaborative can help. A
collaborative can help you share information with other utilities in your region on an on-
going basis. It can help you coordinate your plans over the long-term with law-
enforcement, fire departments, and public health officials and keep you up-to-date on
water securityissues in your region.
A successful collaborative often begins with one person who has the vision and drive to
bring together different groups for a common purpose. In each of the case studies
presented in Chapter 4, the person who organized the collaborative had the authority to
make key decisions. That authority either was already a part of that person's position in
the utility or was delegated to him or her by senior management. So before you begin,
you need to ensure that you have individuals who possess the skills and drive to bring
the collaborative together and the support of senior management to form the
collaborative.
-------
Step 2
be of
Collaboratives tend to work best when their member organizations share mutual goals
or values and are similar in character. Organizations you include in your collaborative will
depend on the information you need. For example, if you need to know the emergency
response plans of other water utilities in your region, you should focus on a utility-to-
utility collaborative. If threat and countermeasure information is needed, law
enforcement should be brought in. If you need to coordinate with the public health
community, its representatives should be part of the collaborative. Regardless of the
type of collaborative you form, it is important to identify the agencies and organizations
that share common concerns and can bring additional information and knowledge to
your utility and to the collaborative's other members.
Organizations you should consider include, but are not limited to:
Water utilities in the region that share similar security conceals or issues
The state primacy agency
The state or local health department
The regional FBI office
Local police, fire fighters, and other first responders
Local Emergency Planning Committees
The Regional EPA Office
Local Joint Terrorism Task Forces
Laboratories
Universities
Military Installations
the
A driving force behind the formation of BASIC was the need to coordinate
emergency planning and responses among many of the large urban water utilities
in the San Francisco Bay Area. BASIC is one of many regional organizations in
the Bay Area, which includes several large cities and water utilities. Its original
members were in contact with each other through the California-Federal Bay-Delta
program (CALFED), a consortium of state and federal agencies that addresses
issues regarding the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary.
BASIC'S original members met in response to 9/11 and agreed to form BASIC to
help coordinate their responses to security issues.
-------
A collaborative needs to be big enough to ensure there are enough people to do its work,
but it should not be so big that its meetings become unwieldy and unproductive.
Experience shows that collaboratives of 8 to 12 persons work very well. Other
individuals can be added as needed or participate in specialized subcommittees or
workgroups. Subcommittees typically report directly to the collaborative but do not
participate in its regular deliberations. Larger groups may be necessary sometimes and
should not be ruled out, but larger collaboratives can be more difficult to operate than
smaller ones.
Before forming your own collaborative, it is important to identify any that may already
exist. A group established to address uon-security-related issues might form the basis of
your security-information collaborative. Your utility may be able to join an existing
collaborative or form a subgroup or working group within one. At the very least, you
should be able to identify the key players in the established collaboratives and ask them
whether they would be interested in joining a new one dedicated to water security
information. Most likely, you will have to show them that the benefits of forming a
collaborative will outweigh the costs and time commitment of doing so.
The level of participation by individual members tends to be directly related to the stake
their organizations have in the collaborative. Although ex-officio-type members may be
appropriate, for the most part each member should feel he or she has an equal stake in
the collaborative.
Step 3
Upper management support is critical to the formation and maintenance of security-
information collaboratives. Financial support is often in the form of in-kind services,
and members must take time from other duties and responsibilities to attend meetings
of the collaborative. Upper management support not only ensures that the necessary
resources are available for the collaborative to function, it also validates the effort. The
need to report to management on its activities also forces the group to move forward on
projects and other efforts.
in the
It is essential that the right people from each organization participate in the
collaborative. The NewportNews Waterworks determined early in the process thatit
needed the participation of the uniformed patrol commanders from each precinct.
The commanders would oversee any response to an event, and they needed
information about the Waterworks' assets in their jurisdictions. The support of the
police chief was important, but the participation of these commanders was essential.
-------
Step 4
of the
to its
formation
The group's initial meeting is an excellent time to explore die benefits of working
together and to understand what each member organization can contribute. At this
meeting, it is important to identify the areas of common concern and, perhaps, develop a
mission statement or set of goals for the collaborative. The personalities of its members
have much to do with whether a group functions well. Try to identify people who are
not only in the right positions in their organizations, but who are also able to work
cooperatively. When reaching out to other organizations, contacting upper management
first may be necessary, but be clear that the participating members should be the persons
who will do the collaborative's work.
Do not be discouraged if the first meeting does not go as well as you had hoped. Often,
this initial meeting may be the first time that some of the group's potential members
have had a chance to sit and talk. There may be differences in philosophy, terminology,
and approaches that need to be understood. Group dynamics and individual
personalities will have a significant impact on the meeting's outcome.
The formation of a group or the conduct of a meeting generally follows a well-
documented pattern: form, storm, norm, and perform. The group is brought together
(form). Its members each express their views and state their positions and expectations
(storm). Eventually, the group "normalizes" as its members decide that there is value in
working together and seek areas of agreement (norm). Last, the group agrees on future
joint actions (perform).
Steps
a
location
Most successful collaboratives meet regularly. Face-to-face meetings are best, especially at
the beginning of the process. These meetings provide the best opportunity for
members to get to know each other prior to an emergency. How often the collaborative
meets can vary. It often depends on the amount of work to be done, availability of
members, and security conditions. At first, the group should meet at least once a
month, preferably at a set day and time (e.g., the third Thursday of each month from
2:00 to 5:00 p.m.). Meetings can be held at the same location or rotated among the
member organizations. Rotating the meeting locations means each organization shares
in the cost of meeting rooms and refreshments; it also helps each member feel that his
or her organization is a full member of the group.
-------
Step 6
on
be run
As previously s tated, there is no single type of collaborative. Some are formal
organizations with written charters and formal positions. Others are loose, open
organizations with no formal positions whose membership may change over time. You
will need to decide how formal or informal your collaborative will be. Some questions to
consider include:
Is a formal charter or memorandum of understanding necessary for the
collaborative?
Will the collaborative have a chairperson who develops the agenda, facilitates the
meetings, and prepares notes or follow-up action items?
How will the chairperson be selected?
Will the chairmanship rotate among all collaborative members or stay with one
organization?
Will the collaborative have a budget and, if so, how will die budget be handled?
Will the collaborative be supported only by staff from member organizations or
will the collaborative hire staff to manage its work?
How will the collaborative members communicate between meetings?
How your collaborative answers these questions will depend on individual personalities,
the requirements of die member organizations, and circumstances. Collaboratives
appear to work best, at least initially, when die workload is shared by its members. This
sharing encourages full participation and greatiy reduces the costs borne by anyone
member organization.
An important issue to decide is whether die collaborative will prepare a budget and
develop a mechanism to spend funds on contract services or odier products. Experience
shows tiiat collaboratives work best when resource issues do not distract members from
the group's activities. Settling questions about budgets and disbursing funds up front
allows the collaborative to focus on substantive issues. Appendix A provides some
example documents, such as a charter article, that could be used to define the
collaborative.
-------
How the collaborative will resolve issues arid conflicts must be determined. Will votes be
taken? Is consensus necessary to move forward on an identified activity or project? More
formal entities may be able to operate by majority rule, but collaboratives are most often
voluntary organizations, so consensus maybe necessary for the collaborative to act as a
group.
Sensitive security information will undoubtedly be part of the group's deliberations from
time to time. An agreement to keep discussion details in the meeting room may help
members speak freely about sensitive issues or raise important concerns that may run
counter to the opinions of a majority of the collaborative's members. (The
collaborative's members should check with the appropriate authorities regarding
obligations to make their deliberations part of the public record.)
Step?
for
Although everyone is busy, people will take time out for a meeting if they see a benefit.
The collaborative should establish some short-term and long-term goals and, perhaps,
identify some projects that will benefit die member organizations. Doing so will ensure
that die work of the collaborative stays "fresh" and evolves with the changing nature of
security concerns. For example, utilities that initially were concerned about completing
their vulnerability assessments are now developing or finalizing their emergency response
plans. These plans need to be tested and exercised and the lessons learned should be
shared with the collaborative members. By sharing experiences and working together,
members of the collaborative can increase efficiency and reduce redundancy related to
water security at their respective organizations.
The Milwaukee collaborative produced several documents concerning a response
protocol for detecting Cryptosporidium or Giardia in finished water. It took die
collaborative more time to produce these documents than a single agency would
have required; however, by working together, the collaborative's members were able
to ensure that the documents were reviewed thoroughly by experts in botii the
water works and public health departments. In fact, the members believe the
collaborative produced more robust, higher quality documents than would have
been produced by die individual agencies.
Membership in die collaborative may change over time as die issues tiiat confront the
collaborative evolve. The collaborative should have a mechanism for periodically
reviewing its charter and working documents and reconfirming the interest and
membership in die group.
-------
-------
2.
a
This chapter provides some tips learned from the case studies described in Chapter 4 to
help me collaborative run smoothly. Just as there is more than one type of collaborative,
there is more than one way to make a collaborative successful. How well you do will
depend on your group's needs, circumstances, and dynamics.
Remain flexible. The goal of the collaborative is to collect and share information over
die long run. As circumstances change, your collaborative must adapt. For example, die
Milwaukee collaborative was formed in response to an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in
1993. The collaborative added heightened security and bioterrorism to its agenda
following die 9/11 attacks, and these remain integral parts of its work.
Meet as often as necessary. Not every collaborative holds regular group meetings.
How often a collaborative meets depends on its requirements, die workload of its
participants outside die group, and its current circumstances. As noted in Chapter 1,
some collaboratives are informal, and the initiating water utility may meet regularly with
individual members, rather than bringing the entire group together. Otiier collaboratives
may be more formal, but still not meet every month. Once the collaborative has been
es tablished, it may reduce its meeting schedule to every other month or even every
quarter, or decide to meet more often as circumstances dictate. Members may rely on e-
mail and telephone calls to keep current between meetings.
Share the work. Consider rotating die meetings among the collaborative's participating
organizations. This helps spread die cost of the collaborative—primarily conference
rooms, refreshments, and travel—among die members. Of course, if one participating
organization is centrally located or able to provide conference space at little or no cost,
holding every meeting at its site may be worthwhile.
Also, consider rotating die chairmanship of die collaborative regularly to help spread die
burden of die work and avoid burnout. The chair rotates among BASIC'S members
every six meetings. Rotating die chair is not always necessary or feasible, however. As the
central players in their collaboratives, die water works in Milwaukee and Newport News
always chair their respective meetings.
Establish an agenda for each meeting. Having an agenda helps to focus and manage
die discussion. The Milwaukee collaborative's agenda is set and does not vary much
from meeting to meeting. Participants know what to expect and are prepared. Being far
less formal, Newport News does not have regular group meetings, but its meetings witii
law enforcement officials follow a set plan. The BASIC chair prepares a loose agenda for
each meeting, but members may introduce additional topics for discussion.
-------
Decide whether to keep formal minutes. Minutes provide a consistent record and can
be especially useful to anyone who misses a meeting. On the other hand, some
participants may be reluctant to speak openly if minutes are taken. In fact, the rule that
"what is said in the
room stays m the Perhaps the most important benefit of
room piove ep ^ security information collaborative is
tor each collaborative J . ,
studied. This can be ™e opportunity for utility officials to
especially important for develop working relationships with the
any statements and people on whom they will rely during
information of a ,-*.."'
• r . Tr an emergency before a crisis occurs.
sensitive nature. If &
minutes are not kept,
individual members may decide to take their own notes. Be sure to follow up 011 all
decisions, especially if there are no formal minutes.
Find ways to communicate between regular meetings. E-mail is an effective way for
die members of the case study collaborative s to relay alerts and other information from
outside sources and otherwise stay in touch between meetings. Regular telephone calls,
list servers, and one-on-one meetings also help members maintain contact, especially
when groups meet less often than once a month.
Commit staff time to water security. In the post-9/11 world, water security is an
integral part of providing safe drinking water. For that reason alone, utilities should
have staff members whose responsibilities include water security and who can take the
lead when working with law enforcement, other utilities, or public health officials. These
persons should play a leading role in the work of the security-information collaborative.
Involve senior management. Senior managers must support the process by giving
their staff the resources, time, and authority to participate fully in the collaborative. In
turn, the collaborative must keep senior management informed of its activities.
Make the best use of your resources. Most of the collaborative's activities will be
carried out by the people who belong to the group. The primary activity likely will be die
regular periodic meetings, whose costs will be borne by the member organizations. The
collaborative may also decide to sponsor other activities or programs. The individual
organizations involved may pay for some of these programs as part of their regular
operations. For example, Newport News Waterworks gave tours of its facilities and
provided geographic information system (GIS) maps to law enforcement officials.
BASIC created an emergency planning exercise paid for by the member utilities that chose
to participate in the exercise. In other cases, the collaborative may want to finance an
activity directly. Although they have not used it to date, BASIC has a mechanism to
manage financial contributions and contract for outside services. The approach your
collaborative takes will depend on local circumstances, including the financial resources of
the participating organizations.
-------
3. of a
As the three case studies in the next chapter show, security-information collaboratives can
accomplish a great deal. In all cases, the benefits not only met, but exceeded the
participants' expectations. BASIC'S members said they cannot overstate the dividends
from communication and information sharing. The Milwaukee collaborative plays a
critical role in maintaining contacts among its members, who said they hear about things
they would not hear about otherwise. The Newport News collaborative has proven to be
an excellent source of information about the water system for law enforcement in
communities throughout the region.
In addition to these general benefits, the collaboratives studied have several concrete
accomplishments. Examples of what a successful collaborative can achieve include the
following.
(BASIC);
1. Jointly developed a Threat Condition Response Plan for the Homeland Security
Advisory System in an effort to ensure a consistent response by Bay Area water
utilities following the events of 9/11. The joint plan specifies a consistent
approach across BASIC utilities under various threat conditions, ensures that
each utility is adequately protected, and improves confidence that the utilities are
fully engaged in security activities by providing information to the public on
these matters.
2. Conducted a joint security tabletop exercise. This exercise brought together local
police, fire, FBI, and hazardous materials (HazMat) agencies to discuss coordina-
tion during a terrorist event involving a water system.
3. Established a secure communication network among its members consisting of
e-mails, pagers, and LAN-link communications.
4. Developed PowerPoint presentations on the formation and nature of BASIC,
which members present to help other utilities form collaboratives.
5. Created a mutual aid resource list that enables members to share equipment and
expertise.
6. Is developing a set of generic tabletop exercises to share among the member
organizations and other utilities.
7. Is working to generate an emergency notification tree.
8. Is developing a generic guide for water system response to emergencies.
-------
The Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Health
Water Advisory Council:
1. Published a "Response Protocol in the Event Cryptosporidium/Giardia is
Detected in Finished Water."
2. Is developing a "Matrix of Risk of Cryptosporidiosis to People Who Drink
Milwaukee Water."
3. Is developing a cost/benefit model to explain the risks identified in the Matrix.
4. Is generating an emergency notification protocol.
Newport News Waterworks:
1. Identified all counties, cities, and police departments with jurisdiction in areas
where Waterworks assets are located.
2. Met with uniformed patrol commanders, made presentations about the assets
of the Waterworks, and provided GIS maps showing the location of critical
infrastructure.
3. Has provided facility tours to all local police departments to inform officers
about the chemicals stored at the utility and about the nature and function of
the utility's critical assets.
4. Met with die local FBI Field Office to discuss protocols and steps that would be
taken should the water utility be threatened or an event occur.
5. Regularly meets with or communicates with local law enforcement through e-
mail and telephone calls to share threat information and discuss other potential
issues of concern.
System Teamwork
When a staff member noticed an individual photographing one of its reservoirs, a
water utility alerted the other utilities that belong to its collaborative about the
incident. These utilities determined that die same individual was also taking pictures
of their systems. They informed the police, who apprehended die individual.
-------
The three case studies in this chapter show how utilities can work with member
organizations to collect and share information. Each case study describes the
collaborative's:
History, including how it was formed
Mission and goals
Structure (e.g., formal organization with a charter or informal group)
Meetings and the means its members use to communicate with each other
Benefits and accomplishments
Future activities
History and "Background
The San Francisco Bay Area is served by a number of water agencies. Six large agencies
that use water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Fie tch Hetchy reservoir in
Yosemite National Park started BASIC. All are involved with CALFED, a consortium of
state and federal government agencies that addresses issues concerning the Bay and the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Prior to forming BASIC, the board members
and general managers of these water
agencies kept in touch through CALFED
,^'^[ ^ xr, "- , and other forums. In April 1999, the
' ('« ^ „ general managers of several Bay Area
V ;,"; > {' ' utilities realized that they needed to
cooperate more formally and consistently.
, x" \ f, That realization led to the creation of the
,»^'H -,,', Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition, which
' -,' -v"1 made such cooperation easier.
s s s s s
After the events of 9/11, six members of
the coalition formed BASIC to share
security-related information. BASIC first met in October 2001. Two private utilities
joined later. EPA became involved with BASIC after the passage of the Bioterrorism
Act. The California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Operations
Branch (state primacy agency) has been actively involved with BASIC. The FBI is also
involved as time permits.
-------
Mission and Goals
One gpal of BASIC is to provide its members with new information about what other
utilities are doing to enhance their security. Another objective is to speak with a unified
voice to the local media. Many members interviewed for this guide indicated that they
needed to standardize their security practices and keep all members informed of
technological developments. As stated in its charter, BASIC'S mission is to support the
development of security practices among Bay Area water utilities, the discussion of
appropriate common securitypractic.es, and the creation of practical work products
designed to facilitate a common level of security among member utilities.
Structure
BASIC is comprised of eight member utilities. Its formal charter provides a mission
statement, establishes meeting protocols, and discusses financial arrangements. BASIC
has no paid employees. While its charter allows BASIC to contract for services, it has not
yet done so.
BASIC deliberately limits the size of its meetings. In the beginning, about 25 persons,
two or three from each member utility, attended each meeting. Such a large group proved
to be unwieldy. Eventually, members found that working with eight to ten persons
fos tered productive decision making. Now, with fewer participants, the meetings are
more efficient and decisions are made more swiftly.
BASIC occasionally will have joint projects in addition to its regular meetings.
Participation in the collaborative's projects is voluntary. To share in the results of these
projects, however, members must participate in the project. One or two member
organizations may fund a project in whole or in part, and other members may provide
other services.
Meetings and Communications
At its first meeting, the group decided to meet on the fourth Thursday of each month.
After an initial round of meetings, the group agreed to meet every other month.
Members exchanged contact information and selected a chair, with the understanding
that a new chair would be named by the collaborative each year.
Each meeting is hosted by a different member utility, which is responsible for providing
meeting space and refreshments. Adhering to an informal agreement, whatever is
discussed at each meeting does not leave the room. For the first several meetings, no
formal meeting notes were taken. The group sometimes has used "non-disclosure"
letters to track hard copies of sensitive information. Members treat all confidential
information as if it came from their own organizations.
-------
The loose meeting format can change slightly whenever a new person begins chairing the
group, based on the preferences of the new chairperson. Members prefer an open
discussion only loosely guided by an agenda. This format allows new ideas to come up
and opinions to be thoroughly explored.
EPA Region 9 and the California Department of Health Services attend and participate
regularly. Representatives of the FBI and other non-utility agencies occasionally attend
the meetings to get to know local utility personnel. Several times in BASIC'S existence,
members have contacted the FBI to dispel rumors. Members have also received
information from the FBI.
The members of BASIC remain in contact between meetings by e-mail. Another
mechanism that has proven effective for the collaborative is the use of working groups
made up of some of the collaborative's members. One working group, for example, has
drafted guidelines for conducting tabletop exercises that all eight utilities can use to
organize their own exercises.
Benefits and Accomplishments
BASIC members highly value the ability to compare and contrast security practices and
share information with other Bay Area water utilities and feel that participation in the
collaborative has strengthened their water security programs. Members can find out
quickly what is going on in the other organizations because they remain in
communication through the collaborative.
Among its specific accomplishments, the collaborative has developed threat response
procedures very useful to members. The procedures help the utilities decide what to do
when the National Homeland Security- Advisory System status changes; for example,
from yellow to orange. Member utilities find that having a list of options is useful, even
if 110 specific threat to the water sector is identified when the national alert status is raised.
In 2003, BASIC conducted a tabletop exercise whose scenario involved the intentional
contamination of pipelines throughout the Bay Area. The BASIC members sponsored
the event in conjunction with the California Department of Flealth Services and Alameda
County- Office of Emergency Services, which made available free meeting space.
Approximately 80 agencies participated, including the FBI, California state and local
public health agencies, other public water agencies, FlazMat agencies, and fire and police
departments.
Future Activities
Some smaller utilities have expressed interest in joining BASIC, and the group does not
rule out future expansion. However, members believe the collaborative's current size and
structure can be maintained indefinitely. The persons responsible for taking BASIC into
the future face the challenge of deciding whether to take on even larger projects.
-------
a
Collaboratiwe
History and Background
The Milwaukee Water Works provides water to the city of Milwaukee, WI and 14
surrounding suburbs. The collaboration between Milwaukee Water Works and the
Milwaukee Health Department began after
an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in April
1993. (The outbreak was described by one
long-term member as "a wake-up call.")
The collaborative grew out of a mayoral
directive to formally bring together officials
from the water utility, the public works
department, and the health department, as
well as representatives of local and state
government agencies. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (the
state's water quality regulatory agency) and local sewerage districts are involved. City
officials recognized that routine communication between the water utility and public
health department would be essential to ensure that waterbome outbreaks of this
magnitude be prevented in the future.
Mission and Goals
The collaborative's goal is to promote the regular exchange of information about water
quality and public health-related science. It also helps manage the city's response to water-
related crises through a multi-agency team approach. It seeks to foster communication
among the several public agencies responsible for source water, treatment plants, and
community health and safety. Its goal is to share technical information regarding the
measurement of contaminants and their removal from drinking water, emerging
technologies, barriers to protect the public from potential contaminants, environmental
influences to source water quality, and trends in disease surveillance and select pathogen
incidence.
Structure
There are two parts to the collaborative. The Inter-Agency Clean Water Advisory Council
(IACWAC) was formed by the Milwaukee Common Council in 1994 and charged with
the overall coordination of all water quality issues facing die community. It brings
together the heads of the water, health, and engineering departments, and representatives
of state regulatory agencies and the local sewerage districts. The IACWAC reviews,
develops, and implements policy. The second component is the Water/Health Technical
Subcommittee, which brings together staff with expertise in epidemiology,
-------
environmental science, laboratory management, water treatment processes and system
operations, and public health to exchange information, foster communication, and
discuss water quality issues.
The subcommittee presents
anyproposals or
recommendations it develops ,-,,, << « • * «
to the IACWAC. The Water The
Works Superintendent and the City's response to CfisCS
Health Department Manager thfOUffh a multi-agency
for Disease Control and ~
Prevention are members of approactl.
bo tii the IACWAC and the
Water/Health Technical
Subcommittee.
Meetings and Communications
The IACWAC meets quarterly. It reviews developments in the community and directs
the work of the Water/Health Technical Subcommittee. The collaborative's technical
work is done by the Water/Health Technical Subcommittee, which meets once a month.
(If an incident, event, concern, or issue needs immediate attention, members are
prepared to meet within 1 hour after notification.) Meetings are held at the same location
each month. The water and public health agencies communicate regularly and share
information through the subcommittee.
The agenda typically is the same for every scheduled meeting of the Water/Health
Technical Subcommittee. It includes an update on water quality, reports on other water
treatment projects (such as the status of capital improvement construction projects),
updates on drinking water treatment plant status and sewage treatment, and an update
from the health department. The health department update covers disease occurrence
trends, laboratory capacity", and environmental matters such as watershed influences,
source water quality, and surface water testing and monitoring.
The subcommittee takes no formal votes; all matters are decided by consensus.
Attendance is required by the relevant department heads. The subcommittee reports on
its activities at the IACWAC quarterly meetings.
The Water/Health Technical Subcommittee does not take notes or compile formal
minutes. The advantage of the current arrangement is that members may be more
willing to share their views than they would be if formal notes were taken. The
disadvantage is that some material may need to be repeated at meetings for those who
missed a previous meeting, and some of the detail and nuance of complex issues may be
lost. Because the subcommittee submits a report to the IACWAC, the substance of the
group's meetings enters the documentary record.
-------
Benefits and Accomplishments
Members identified many benefits to the collaborative. Its meetings help build
professional rapport and understanding between the water utility and the health
department, which have different organizational cultures. The meetings also help
representatives of each organization develop insight regarding the challenges faced by
their counterparts in the other organizations. The scientific bases for various activities are
shared and understood, and new developments in the various professional disciplines
are reviewed. Members find that the collaborative helps promote problem solving and
team building by bringing together professionals who have different qualifications and
perspectives.
The Water/Health Technical Subcommittee provides a forum that lets its members work
out problems methodically and creatively. Its discussions help to ensure that all sides
thoroughly understand all aspects of an issue before moving forward. Sometimes the
discussions are long, but participants agree that this is necessary for all aspects of safe
drinking water to be discussed.
Specific accomplishments include the development of procedures to notify the public in
the event of a contamination or disease outbreak. The collaborative also recently updated
its emergency response plan and is now working on a risk-assessment matrix for selected
pathogens.
Future Activities
Group members are satisfied with the collaborative and have 110 immediate plans to
make changes. However, the collaborative's members recognize that they need to avoid
complacency and work to sustain its efforts. The representatives of each organization
will continue to bring topics and projects of mutual interest to the collaborative. Likely
topics include water security, new laboratory methods to improve health risk assessment,
disinfection by-products, and early warning and detection technologies. The collaborative
members believe that this will ensure that the collaborative will continue to provide
benefits to its participants into the future.
-------
a
History and Background
Newport News Waterworks (NNW)
provides water to Newport News,
VA, as well as Hampton, Poquoson,
and portions of York and James
City Counties. It is surrounded by
military installations: two army
bases, one air force base, and one
shipyard where nuclear carriers and
submarines are built. The Norfolk
naval base, to the south of Newport News, is among the largest in the world. About
nine miles to the west of Newport News is the Surrey nuclear power plant. In view of
its geography and location, as well as the nature of the communities it serves, NNW
takes security very seriously. The collaborative began immediately following 9/11 with
informal discussions among the heads of local law enforcement departments and the
Waterworks. The collaborative's status was recognized more formally after a
reorganization at NNW, which created a full-time security/compliance manager who
began working with local law enforcement. This manager went to the local authorities to
provide them as much information as possible and establish working relationships.
Mission and Goals
The NNW collaborative was started to strengthen ties with local law enforcement. The
utility uses the collaborative as a way to provide information about the Waterworks to
law enforcement in a consistent and timely manner. The collaborative also works to
coordinate emergency response plans between the Waterworks and law enforcement.
Structure
An operations support manager fills the full-time water security position at NNW
NNW also has nine other water system employees from various disciplines who are part
of a security advisory team. The collaborative itself is informal. The system owns
property in five law enforcement jurisdictions and two counties. NNW meets and works
with officers from all jurisdictions to remain aware of security threats in the area. The
Waterworks has informal agreements with some jurisdictions, but none in writing.
Under the current agreement with the Newport News Police Department, if the
Homeland Security Advisory System alert level rises to orange, the police will step up
vigilance. If the alert level rises to red, both the York County Sheriff's Department and
the Newport News Police Department will provide additional personnel to guard assets.
These assets include the city's two surface water treatment plants and large watershed
property, which includes a public park.
-------
NNW works with each law enforcement jurisdiction individually. Its security manager
has visited each jurisdiction several times and maintains regular contact with each. NNW
also works closely with the military installations in the area. It communicates with agents
in the Office of Special Investigations at Langley Air Force Base and has contacted Fort
Eustis and the Navy Head of Public Works. In addition, it has approached local fire
departments, SWAT teams, and HazMat teams. NNW has also made contact with
bomb squads and specialists in explosive ordnance disposal at local military installations.
Meetings and Communications
NNW prepares and outlines important information about its infrastructure and
operations for law enforcement officials. It maintains contact with uniformed patrol
commanders, who are able to understand the threats and are in a position to assign
personnel to guard infrastructure. NNW meets with law enforcement officials when
necessary, and remains in regular contact by telephone and e-mail. Formal notes are not
taken at meetings.
Meetings are not scheduled regularly. While some law enforcement officials feel regular
meetings could be worthwhile, they agree that the current approach works well. It
responds flexibly to the varying in tensity of security concerns and, when there is 110
urgent issue, there is no need to meet.
Benefits and Accomplishments
NNWhas successfully built a network of contacts within the law enforcement
community in Newport News and surrounding areas. The members of the collaborative
know each other, and they know who to contact when crises arise. During a recent
incident in which a man was reported missing, a search of the Waterworks' property was
quickly organized with just a few phone calls. Local police officers were able to gain access
to every building on die property, die Department of Inland Fisheries used their boats
to troll die reservoir in case he had drowned, and the Virginia State Police used an
airplane to search from die sky. Otiier agencies were also quickly involved in assembling a
search party with diverse skills.
NNW has also developed an emergency response plan and provided information on
potential water-related security threats to the local police. NNW also allows local SWAT
teams to train on its property. At each organization it visited, NNW made presentations
and provided GIS maps of critical assets located within that organization's jurisdiction.
Law enforcement officials were given tours of NNW facilities. NNW provides
information to HazMat teams about the location of chemicals to assist in any emergency
response. It also established e-mail distribution lists covering all five law enforcement
jurisdictions. The uniformed patrol commanders agree NNW often gets them
information faster than their other sources. They add that the high quality of
communication with NNW helps them ensure there are 110 inconsistencies between
emergency response plans developed by the police department and by NNW'!
-------
Future Activities
The future of die NNW collaborative depends on the continuity of personnel. The
collaborative has been successful because of the efforts of the people involved and the
personal relationships they have developed. The challenge they face is to institutionalize
these relationships. Although 110 formal succession plan has been developed, all
participants are aware of the issue, and there is general recognition of the importance of
continual participation by each agency.
a
The three cases presented here are all successful collaboratives. While each has different
needs and circumstances, they share some characteristics that contribute to their success,
and they all provide useful lessons for utilities interested in starting their own
collaboratives.
External events played a large role in each case. The terrorist attacks of 9/11, for example,
resulted in a heightened focus by the utilities on security and inter-organizational
cooperation. Natural disasters—such as Milwaukee's cryptosporidiosis outbreak and
hurricanes in the Southeast—also focused attention on the need for on-going
cooperation. Crises not only highlighted the utilities' water security vulnerabilities, they
made clear the need for cooperation in collectinginformation and communicating with
each other and the public.
Two factors played central roles in the successful formation and continued operation of
the collaboratives. First, the people involved in each collaborative are committed to its
mission and work very hard to ensure success. They put considerable time and effort
into its formation and take their commitment to the collaborative very seriously. Second,
senior management fully supports the process. In each case, it is clear to the members of
the collaborative that their management expects them to participate in its activities. It
also is clear that management will provide the time and resources necessary for the
collaborative's success. In addition, management provides the members of the
collaborative the authority they need to make decisions and take action.
The size of the collaborative also plays a role in its success. In each case, the number of
participants is limited by design. Meetings are cumbersome if too many people are at the
table, and the discussions can become less frank and open. There is no magic number
that will make or break a collaborative; rather, the size that works best will depend on the
people and organizations involved and the format of the meetings. Neither is there one
format or structure that works best. The Milwaukee collaborative is a relatively formal
organization, with a charter from the mayor, a set agenda for the meetings, and a
relatively fixed number of participants. Newport News, on the other hand, takes a very
open approach, with one-on-one meetings that occur regularly, but not on a set schedule.
BASIC developed its own charter and allows for some flexibility in its scheduled
meetings and its members' participation. Each collaborative settled on an approach that
met its circumstances audits immediate needs.
-------
A challenge for any cooperative effort is to overcome personality differences.
Collaboratives can bring together people from diverse backgrounds and disciplines with
very different views on how to organize and proceed. BASIC is successful, in part,
because its members share a common background and culture. On the other hand,
Milwaukee brought epidemiologists and health care professionals together with water
system operators and engineers. Despite differences, this collaborative is successful
because its regular meetings help build mutual trust and respect. In the end, members
saw their differences as contributing to betterways to help solve problems when they
worked together as a team.
As time passes, the urgency generated by the 9/11 attacks diminishes. The groups
recognize the need to stay focused on the security concerns they face. Utilities will
continue to participate actively in a collaborative that addresses issues that are immediate
and important. Therefore, a collaborative needs a specific focus, agreed on by the
members, at all times. The focus can change, however, as circumstances change and as
old problems get solved and new ones arise.
Conclusion
The three case studies demonstrate many of the advantages and benefits of security-
information collaboratives. While die collaboratives require the commitment and
dedication of its members, they do not pose a large burden to their members. In each
case, the collaborative proved to be an efficient way for water systems to communicate
regularly and share information on an on-going basis with other utilities, the public
health community, and first-responders. The collaboratives help water systems stay
current.
-------
A.
This chapter includes examples of charters and working guidelines for security-
information collaboratives. Formal names for organizations are not shown; instead,
the type of organization is shown in brackets in place of the name. Also included is
a sample agenda of a collaborative meeting.
I. Charter Article
CHARTER ARTICLE REGARDING FORMATION OF THE
[Name of Collaborative]
WHEREAS, the undersigned indicate their desire to support the common goal
of developing security practices among water utilities, the creation of practical
work products designed to facilitate a common level of security among the
member utilities, and discussion of appropriate common security practices; and
WHEREAS, operations and emergency response managers of the Signatory
agencies recognize the need for coordination and mutual support in planning for
water system security in the [region] and have been meeting for this purpose on
an ad hoc basis since [date]; and
WHEREAS, the operations and emergency response managers of the Signatory
agencies also recognize the need to leverage their resources to respond to real and
perceived water system security breaches in the [region];
THEREFORE, the undersigned agencies collectively have agreed to informally
establish this [name of collaborative] and will work in accordance with the
followingprocedures:
1. The purpose of [Name of Collaborative] is to:
• Prepare realistic definitions of credible threats to the systems within the
region
• Discuss and identify common vulnerability assessment processes
• Develop common response protocols
• Identify access to a secure central store of materials for response to, and
treatment of, water contaminated with noiitraditional materials
• Conduct workshops (on water quality monitoring, response protocols,
vulnerability assessment formats, etc.)
• Conduct region-wide exercises
-------
2. The functions of [Name of Collaborative] shall be to:
Act as liaisons between technical experts and [the various collaborative members]
Coordinate development of security related procedures among water utilities
Advise on developing security policy, recommendations and suggestions
promoted by regulators
Provide leadership on issues related to state or federal regulation
Coordinate information on security preparations, training and response
Identify new areas of cooperation among the [members]
Explore financing and organizational alternatives as needed
3. Chair—A chairperson shall be elected by the participating agencies. The Chair shall
rotate among the members every 6 months. The Chair is responsible for handling
coordination and administrative functions of the group. This includes, but is not
limited to, record keeping, preparation of minutes, mailings, scheduling meetings,
clerical assistance, agenda preparation, and follow-up on assignments and coordina-
tion. Each utility will identify a key water security staff member who will serve as the
primary representative for the utility.
4. Meetings— Monthly meetings of [name of collaborative] shall beheld. Thelocation
shall rotate between the members.
5. Contracting and Financial - [Name of water system] shall be the initial lead agency
to manage financial contributions and to contract for outside services. The lead
agency shall rotate among the members approximately every 6 months, or as deemed
appropriate by members. For each work activity, a scope of work will be prepared and
a task leader identified. Each member will determine its own level of interest and
participation for each work activity. The hiring of consultants will comply with the
procurement policies of the lead agency. The lead agency will provide a monthly
report of financial and contracting status.
6. Resolution of Conflicts - In the event of conflicts, [name of collaborative]
members shall meet and seek to resolve issues through consensus. As needed,
conflicts can be elevated to the member agencies' general manager for resolution.
7. Term of Agreement - This Charter shall be in effect for one (1) calendar year from
the effective date. The Charter can be terminated or extended upon the agreement of
the member utilities.
8. Other Participants —The U.S. EPA and [State health services] are welcome to assign
representatives and be active participants in [name of collaborative]. Participation by
other water utilities in the [region] will be reviewed by the member agencies, as
appropriate.
9. Sensitive Information — Sensitive information shall not be shared with outside
parties without the consent of the contributing member and the consensus of the
members.
-------
II. A City Charter Establishing a Collaborative
Resolution establishing a Clean Water Advisory Council
Whereas, The [Fact Finding Committee] found that the numerous
governmental agencies which are involved in surface water health and quality
issues have not always communicated well with each other; and
Whereas, The City's response to the water crises are managed through a multi-
agency team approach which made participating agencies more sensitive to the
importance of inter-agency communications; and
Whereas, the creation of an [Advisory Council] composed of representatives of
agencies concerned with water quality issues would continue the team approach
to solvingwater concerns and would improve communication with all
communities that are served by the [water utility]; and
Whereas, [Fact Finding Committee] recommended creation of an [Advisory
Council] that meets on a regular basis; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, Council of the [Name of City], that an [Advisory Council] is
established, consisting of representatives of the Department of Public Works
(DPW) administration, [water utility], DPW engineers division, the [regulatory
agency], the [local wastewater treatment plant], a representative from the affected
communities that are [water utility] customers, and [all other involved parties];
and, be it
Further resolved, that the chair of the [Advisory Council] shall be the
representative of the DPW Administration and the council shall be staffed by
the DPW administrative staff; and be it
Further resolved, that the [Advisory Council] shall make semi-annual reports to
die Council, the Mayor, and the governments of each of the communities that
are also [water utility] service customers; and, be it
Further resolved, that the Council strongly recommends that the [Advisory
Council] meet on a regular basis to facilitate a multi-disciplinary response to
water quality issues.
-------
III. Working Guidelines
1. INTRODUCTION
The Committee was formed as an interdisciplinary working group of professionals to
provide technical support, expertise and recommendations to the water quality work
group in die areas of:
• Water treatment process and, system operation.
• Source water impact and influences.
• Health impact and influences.
• Emerging research are as.
The Committee is composed of representatives from diverse affiliations who meet
regularly to exchange information, foster communication, discuss water quality issues
and evaluate impacts to die public served by die water system. The Committee
members are listed in Attachment A.
2. WORKING GUIDELINES FOR CONVENING
The Committee has been established and meets regularly to prepare members to
make sound professional judgments in die most informed and expeditious manner
when called upon to do so. Convening the committee can be based on varied
activities, which may have die potential to affect water quality, including, but not
limited to:
• Water Treatment Process event - Failure or interruption in key water treatment
processes) or violation of established water quality standards.
• Distribution System event — Failure of a major pumping station, or large feeder
main break which may result in negative pressure in portions of system or
contamination of system.
• Water Detection event - Evidence of die presence of patiiogeiis or microbials in
treated water effluent or distribution system. The Committee has established a
Response Protocol which will be used in die event Cryptosporidium or Giardia
is detected in die treated water effluent/finished water.
• Environmental events — Meteorological events, excessive rainfall, sewer treatment
plant bypass or discharge, outfall discharge of collection sewer system, or evidence
of a major water system cross connection or contamination of die watershed.
• Community Disease — Evidence of disease outbreak in die community where
available data suggests drinking water as a potential source of infection.
• Natural disaster — Event wThich may adversely affect water quality including
flooding, tornado or power loss.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
COMMITTEE MEMBER LISTING
CHAIR
Administration and Projects Manager, Waterworks
WATERWORKS
Superintendent
Water Quality Manager
Acting Water Plants Manager
Water Plants Manager
Chief Design Engineer
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Storm Water Manager
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Director of Laboratories
Chief Microbiologist
Chief Virologist
Epidemiologist
Environmental Hygienist
Nursing Coordinator
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
Microbiologist
REGULATORY AGENCY
Bureau of Drinking Water-Public Water Systems
Water Supply Engineer
-------
IV. Example of a Meeting Agenda
1. Current Events
2. Water Quality Update
Protozoa
Lab Services
3. Health Update
Lab Report
Surveillance Security Monitoring
Environmental
4. Plant Updates
Water Treatment Plant 1
Water Treatment Plant 2
5. Sewerage District Update
6. Regulatory Agency Update
7. Concerns/ General Comments
8. Note of Next Meeting
V. Example of a Meeting Agenda
1. Welcome
2. Introductions
3. Request to review and approve minutes from last meeting
4. Telephone list checked and updated (passed around)
5. Meeting schedule confirmed
6. On-going business
7. New business
8. Roundtable - general discussion (additional items for this meeting)
9. Future items for next meeting
10. Confirm date and location for next meeting
11. Adjourn
-------
Ill .
Additional information may be obtained through the
National Homeland Security Research Center's Web site:
www.epa.gov/nhsrc
------- |