Water Laboratory Alliance Coordination and

Water Laboratory Alliance Response Plan

Adrian Hanley, US EPAJennifer Scheller, CSC

Water Laboratory Alliance Security SummitMarch 22, 2012 1

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

2

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)

3

Laboratory Black Box

Often during emergency response, laboratories are treated as a black box for data generation:

Samples go in and data comes out.

4

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

5

Contributors to RLRP Development

• EPA Water Security Division• EPA Office of Emergency

Management• EPA Regional laboratories• State environmental laboratories• State public health laboratories

• Water utility laboratories

• EPA and state drinking water programs

• EPA On-Scene Coordinators

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

• National Guard Civil Support Teams (CSTs)

6

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)7

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

8

Highlights of the WLA-RP

9

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

10

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

11

Laboratory Coordination

Laboratory coordination within the Incident Command System (ICS)

Operations Logistics Planning Finance

MSL MSL

Environmental Unit

Incident Commander (IC)

MSL MSL

PRL

ASR

Transfer of Coordination

Initial CoordinationStructure

Expanded Coordination Structure

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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 16

Full-Scale Exercises to test the WLA-RP

17

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)

18

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-typhoidal Salmonella protocol

19

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 20

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-thyphoidal Salmonella in water

21

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

22

WLAERLNLRN

FERN

Region 7 and 8 FSE by the Numbers

1 WLA-RP evaluated

by testing collective laboratory capabilities

14 States4

Federal Agencies: CDC, EPA, FDA,

and FBI

19State and county

environmental and public health

laboratories

4Commercial Laboratories

3EPA laboratories

3Concurrent scenarios:

Chemistry, Select Agent, and Non-Select

Agent

>1000Multi-media

samples spiked with chemical and

biological contaminants

>140Number of “injects” to exercise made to keep the scenarios moving

4 Drinking Water

Laboratories

1Mobile

Laboratory

23

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 practice24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

29