Water Laboratory Alliance Coordination and Water Laboratory Alliance Response Plan

1. Water Laboratory Alliance Coordination and Water Laboratory Alliance Response Plan Adrian Hanley, US EPAJennifer Scheller, CSC Water Laboratory Alliance Security Summit March 22, 2012

2. Overview • Purpose of the Water Laboratory Alliance (WLA) • History and development of the WLA Response Plan (WLA-RP) • Key characteristics of the WLA-RP • Highlights of the WLA-RP • Full-Scale Exercises to test the WLA-RP

3. Purpose of the WLA • Provide the Water Sector with an integrated nationwide network of laboratories • Analytical capabilities and capacity to support monitoring, surveillance, response and remediation of natural, intentional and unintentional water contamination incidents • For chemical, biological and radiochemical contaminants • The WLA is the water component of the EPA Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN)

4. Laboratory Black Box Often during emergency response, laboratories are treated as a black box for data generation: Samples go in and data comes out.

5. Need for a Laboratory Response Plan • The incidents of 9/11 and natural disasters, like hurricane Katrina, highlighted the need for better laboratory coordination to water contamination incidents • These types of larger incidents often require support from multiple laboratories • This need was initially met by developing Regional Laboratory Response Plans (RLRPs) to coordinate laboratory response activities within an EPA Region

6. Water utility laboratories EPA and state drinking water programs EPA On-Scene Coordinators Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Guard Civil Support Teams (CSTs) Contributors to RLRP Development • EPA Water Security Division • EPA Office of Emergency Management • EPA Regional laboratories • State environmental laboratories • State public health laboratories

7. Laboratory Response:Next Steps Regional Laboratory Response Plans (11) Water Laboratory Alliance – Response Plan (1) Full-Scale Exercises to Test WLA-RP ERLN Response Plan (ERP)

8. Purpose of the WLA-RP • Establishes a comprehensive, national approach to laboratory response to intentional or unintentional water contamination incidents • Can be used to coordinate laboratory response for multi-regional and smaller scale incidents • Provides guidance on communication, sample analyses, and data reporting issues

9. Highlights of the WLA-RP

10. Scope of Laboratory Support Types of Laboratory Support • Analytical support • Sharing of resources (staff, reagents, etc.) • Rapid, on-site training of staff • Data review • Sample storage • Consulting

11. Roles and Responsibilities Analytical Service Requester (ASR) • Primary point of contact who requests analytical assistance • Primary decision maker regarding analyses needed, data turnaround times, etc. Primary Responding Laboratory (PRL) • Initial laboratory contacted by the ASR • Help coordinate activities of other support laboratories Mutual Support Laboratory (MSL) • Additional laboratory engaged by ASR or PRL to provide resources to meet the analytical needs of an incident

12. Laboratory Coordination Expanded Coordination Structure Laboratory coordination within the Incident Command System (ICS) Incident Commander (IC) Initial Coordination Structure Operations Logistics Planning Finance ASR Environmental Unit Transfer of Coordination PRL MSL MSL MSL MSL

13. Laboratory Communication • Lines of communication and information flow should be established at the beginning of the response: Example: ASR  PRL  MSL • PRL and MSLs should set up a command center • Dedicated phone line; someone to answer phone at all times • Computer access • Fax machine • Document communications • Use forms in the WLA-RP • Follow-up conversations with emails

14. Sample Shipping and Tracking Laboratories should be trained in shipping and receipt of hazardous materials The ASR and PRL/MSL should agree on chain-of-custody (COC) requirements • Example COC and list of minimum data elements (Appendices G & H) • Additional guidance on criminal investigation samples (Appendix I) If sample integrity is compromised during shipping (e.g., holding time or sample temperature exceeded), laboratories should decide in consultation with ASR whether to receive and analyze samples

15. Analytical Methods and QC Analytical Methods • Provides guidance on Basic Field/Safety Screening, Rapid Analysis, Confirmatory Methods • Suggests selection of methods is based on monitoring needs, including data turnaround times • Provides preferred sources for confirmatory methods Quality Control (QC) • Emphasizes setting quality assurance (QA)/QC requirements based on monitoring needs • Establishes a minimum set of QC that should be performed for all analyses

16. Data Review and Data Reporting Data Review • The plan provides guidance for internal review of data • Any data released prior to completion of internal data review should be labeled “Preliminary Data Pending Confirmation” Data Reporting • Submit data in an electronic spreadsheet following the Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) format • EDD provides consistent format for data reporting • Facilitates data validation and compilation of data from multiple laboratories

17. Full-Scale Exercises to test the WLA-RP

18. Full Scale Exercises • Three Full-Scale Exercises (FSEs) have been conducted • 2009 – EPA Regions 1 & 2 (Northeastern US) • 2010 – EPA Regions 9 & 10 (Western US) • 2011 – EPA Regions 7 & 8 (Mountain and Central US) • Coordination of laboratory response to a combined public health and environmental emergency • Included both chemical and biological scenarios • The 2011 exercise involved three laboratory networks • ERLN/WLA • Laboratory Response Network (LRN) • Food Emergency Response Network (FERN)

19. Goals of the Region 7 & 8 FSE • Practice the procedures of multi-regional WLA-RP • Evaluate the response of multiple national laboratory networks to a public health and environmental emergency • Practice integration of laboratory efforts with ICS structure • Assess the practical use of the EPA field-portable ultrafiltration (UF) device • Utilize the recently validated EPA non-typhoidalSalmonella protocol

20. Chemical Scenario • Contamination of a remote water storage tank with a sump pump truck full of contaminant dissolved in water • Environmental: Drinking water samples to assess effectiveness of flushing and soil samples from near the storage tank • Clinical: Urine samples from potentially exposed patients • Food: Root beer samples manufactured using potentially contaminated water

21. Biological Salmonella Scenario • Agricultural flooding results in contamination of a distribution system and in-ground finished reservoir • Environmental: Source water and drinking water • Food: Powdered milk from a local elementary school where many students were sick • Used a newly validated protocol for analysis of non-thyphoidalSalmonella in water

22. Biological Select-Agent Scenario • Intentional introduction of a select agent into a drinking water distribution system which primarily impacts a local elementary school • Environmental: water samples were analyzed using CDC’s UF device and select agent screening protocol • Sample collection using the EPA field-portable UF device

23. Region 7 and 8 FSE by the Numbers 1 WLA-RP evaluated by testing collective laboratory capabilities 14 States >140 Number of “injects” to exercise made to keep the scenarios moving 4 Federal Agencies: CDC, EPA, FDA, and FBI WLA ERLN LRN FERN 3 EPA laboratories >1000 Multi-media samples spiked with chemical and biological contaminants 19 State and county environmental and public health laboratories 3 Concurrent scenarios: Chemistry, Select Agent, and Non-Select Agent 1 Mobile Laboratory 4 Commercial Laboratories 4 Drinking Water Laboratories

24. Things That Worked • Laboratories were able to successfully analyze their assigned samples • Fast turnaround for chemical samples • New Salmonella protocol worked well for a variety of water matrices • Existing relationships facilitated a coordinated response • Regional EPA coordinators managed communications with laboratories in their regions • The EPA field-portable UF device was easy to use in the field • Establishing a “war room” with dedicated phone line noted as a best practice

25. Lessons Learned • Develop a cadre of individuals to support the EU for major incidents • Use tools to facilitate communications • Help Sheet for Requesting Analytical Support (Appendix C) • Regular conference calls with laboratories • Email groups to facilitate messaging • Data submission needs improvement • More training and drills on use of Web-based Electronic Data Review (WebEDR) and LRN Results Messenger • Project specific template for WebEDR

26. Next Steps • Complete After-Action Reports • Continue collaboration with ERLN to create a unified ERLN/WLA Response Plan • Coordinate with regions, ERLN/WLA, LRN, FERN and other laboratory networks for the next FSE

27. The Next FSE • Anticipate inclusion of EPA Regions 4, 5 & 6 • Tentatively scheduled for November 2012 • May expand scope to test the ability of laboratories to support multiple laboratory networks during the same response • ERLN/WLA, LRN and FERN will fully participate in both the chemical and biological scenarios

28. How can you get involved? • Participate in the next FSE • Participate in WLA-RP Table Top Exercise (TTX) webcasts • Who can Participate? • EPA Regions • Laboratories • Mobile laboratories/civil support teams • State water programs • Utilities • FBI/law enforcement • Public Information Officers

29. Contact Information For more information on the WLA-RP or Full-Scale Exercises, please contact: • Adrian Hanley, US EPAOffice of Ground Water and Drinking WaterPhone: 202-564-1564E-Mail: adrian.hanley@epa.gov