Water Laboratory Alliance Coordination and Water Laboratory Alliance Response Plan
description
Transcript of Water Laboratory Alliance Coordination and Water Laboratory Alliance Response Plan
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: [email protected]
29