1 st & 9 th Area Medical Laboratories Idaho National Laboratory Interagency Exercise September 2008

Agenda History AML Team Building Exercise Goals BROOM System Workflow Results Review

Interagency Players JPEO-CBD EPA DHS DoD NGB CSTs & HAZMAT teams Also involved in workgroup: - FBI - CDC - NIST

Area Medical Laboratory INL-1 (‘07) – Five personnel, 9 th AML, 4 th squad INL-2 (‘08) – 14 personnel – 9 th AML 4 th squad – lead – 9 th AML 3 rd squad – 1 st AML 4 th squad – 1 st AML 3 rd squad

Problem “How to prove that a room isn’t contaminated?” GAO Report – post attack analysis, GAO T cited lack of validated sampling plans Evaluation of sampling techniques and their efficacy in an operational environment

Test Plan Based on INL-1 small scale study – sampling strategies, efficiency of sampling methods, testing methods & validation of dispersal and sampling models – 5 test events Operational evaluation Reduce sample numbers without losing robustness Factors affecting detection minimums

Test Plan (cont.) Event 1 – ORI – Characterization & Clearance Event 2 – Characterization & Clearance Event 3 – Characterization & Clearance Event 4 – Characterization & Clearance Event 5 – Characterization & Clearance

Test Facility

Laboratory Set-up 4 section TEMPR Grey zone 3-1 ISO Shelter Entry Storage Power Autoclaves

Sample Collection Wipes Swabs Vacuum socks DFUs RMCs

Sample Receipt Logged into laboratory with the BROOM system

Building Restoration Operations Optimization Model - BROOM A decision support tool to collect, manage, and analyze sample data –Secure SQL Server database –GIS mapping & 3D visualization –Geostatistical analysis tools –Uncertainty analysis –Interfaces with VSP for statistical sampling design Data collection –Hand-held wireless PDAs with barcode readers and laser rangefinders –GPS for outdoors –Camera for photo documentation –Paperless data transfer –Secure transmission of data –Chain of custody report WITS – Where Is That Sample?

Extraction & Testing Samples extracted with PBST Filter plating Spiral plating Q-count RV-PCR (random 10%)

Results - Characterization

Results - Clearance Event SwabSock VacuumWipeAll Methods JPJPJPJP ORI 0/2 0/110/570/110/550/240/114 Test 2 0/2 0/110/590/80/580/210/119 Test 3 NA0/40/140/640/190/530/330/121 Test 4 0/2 0/230/600/90/570/340/119 Test 5 NA0/40/320/620/130/530/450/119 Event Confidence that at least 98% of the Floor is “Clean” Based on Probabilistic Samples Alone Based on Hybrid Strategy ORI91.5%95% Test 292.5%95% Test 393%96.5% Test 492.5%96% Test 592.5%97%

Results – RV PCR

Results Wipe sampling is statistically more effective than vacuum or swab No statistical difference in effectiveness of recovery between sampling strategies in characterization RV-PCR vs. culture may be affected by repeat testing Onsite testing provided rapid feedback to incident commander

Last-Minute RV-PCR Run

AAR AML successfully deployed/redeployed a tailored team of personnel and equipment Conducted ISO-9000 equivalent survey of operations Demonstrated laboratory contamination risk in operational situation Accurately tracked & reported 99.97% of ~3,000 samples

Review Reasons for INL-1 & 2 events Interagency operation 1 st & 9 th AML participation Processes Results

Acknowledgements MAJ Brian Walker & SFC Christian Lowry – 9 th AML Dr. Michael Walter – JPEO-CBD Dr. Robert Knowlton & Mr. Brad Melton – Sandia National Laboratory Ms. Molly Isbell – Signature Science

Questions???