Hazmat response

Hazardous-material response technology should increase the amount of useful information the team can collect while decreasing unnecessary responder exposure. Detection instruments, chemical databases, weather data, plume models, UAS and ground robots can support reconnaissance and decision-making, but none eliminates the need to understand the limitations of the instrument or model.

What technology needs to solve

We commit people to characterize the hazard
Entry teams may be exposed simply to identify the product, locate the release, read an instrument or obtain visual information that could potentially be gathered from a safer position.
Response robots · UAS · Remote cameras · Remote gas detection · Thermal imaging · Radiation and chemical sensing payloads
We have data, but still need to understand what it means
A meter reading, container marking, shipping document, weather observation and plume model each describe part of the incident. The challenge is turning those pieces into an actionable understanding of the hazard.
Chemical identification databases · CAMEO Chemicals · ERG integration · Plume modeling · GIS · Instrument data integration
The hazard changes while we are operating
Wind, release rate, product behavior, fire involvement, container condition and responder actions may all change the operational picture. Monitoring must continue after the initial characterization.
Remote monitoring · Weather stations · Continuous gas monitoring · ALOHA modeling · UAS reassessment · GIS threat-zone updates · Plume modeling and monitoring

What good should look like

Technology reduces unnecessary entry into the hazard area.
Meter and sensor limitations are understood.
Remote information supplements rather than replaces confirmation.
Models clearly display assumptions and uncertainty.
Weather inputs can be updated.
Instrument readings can be documented and compared over time.
Teams maintain alternate methods when a platform or sensor fails.
Equipment can be decontaminated or appropriately managed following exposure.

Still in development

Innovation Lab

Maturity: Research / Beta

Autonomous and semi-autonomous response robotics

Remote-operated response robots are already used in some public-safety missions. The emerging question is how much navigation, mapping, object recognition and task execution can safely be automated in complex, changing emergency environments.

Why it matters

Greater autonomy could reduce operator workload and allow robots to work in environments that are difficult to navigate manually. Emergency scenes are also unpredictable, communications are unreliable and errors can have serious consequences. The useful questions are what the machine does when it loses its link, how it behaves when its map no longer matches the building, and who is accountable for what it does next.

NIST response robot programs, university research, early vendor work

Peer experience

Mutual Aid

Drone platform for hazmat monitoring — what are people flying?

Need something that can carry a four-gas meter and survive decon. Our current airframe is not rated for it. What sensor are you carrying, and has it been validated in that configuration rather than on a bench? How are readings transmitted, and at what stand-off distance? How does decon affect the aircraft, and is the platform treated as disposable once it is contaminated? What is your plan if communications fail while it is over the release?

Example — the forum is not open yet

Recommended research

Government, standards and peer-reviewed sources on this problem. Every address here was checked before it was published.

Hub guidePublic Safety Technology Hub

UAS Basics for Public Safety

Related guide on the Hub.

Hub guidePublic Safety Technology Hub

UAS and robotics

Related guide on the Hub.

How these sources are labeled

Hub guide: Written by the Hub.

Nothing here is paid placement. Links are chosen because they are the clearest explanation we could find, and labeled so you know who wrote them.