research report

EPA/600/R-05/083 October 2005 Workshop on Decontamination, Cleanup, and Associated Issues for Sites Contaminated With Chemical, Biological, or Radiological Materials

by Sarah Dun Eastern Research Group, Inc. Lexington, MA 02421

Joseph Wood U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Homeland Security Research Center Decontamination and Consequence Management Division Research Triangle Park, NC 27511

Blair Martin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, NC 27511

Contract No. EP-C-04-056 Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268

ii NHSRC Note

The majority of this report was prepared by Sarah Dun of Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor, as a general record of discussion for the “Workshop on Decontamination, Cleanup, and Associated Issues for Sites Contaminated With Chemical, Biological, or Radiological Agents.” Joseph Wood was coauthor and editor of technical content. This report captures the main points of scheduled presentations and summarizes discussions among the workshop panelists, but it does not contain a verbatim transcript of all issues discussed. The production of this document has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. EP- C-04-056 to ERG.

Decontamination Workshop iii Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... vi Executive Summary ...... viii Introduction ...... xvii 1. Opening Remarks ...... 1 2. Presentations and Associated Question and Answer Periods ...... 3 DHS S&T Biological and Chemical Restoration Programs ...... 3 Crime Scene Management and WMD Terrorism ...... 5 CDC/NIOSH and Health Response to Biothreat Agents: Environmental Monitoring ...... 6 Ranking Threats for Decontamination Research ...... 7 OPP Sterilant Registration Project: Improving the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Sporicidal Activity Test and the Evaluation of Quantitative Methods ...... 9 Crisis Exemptions for Products Intended to Inactivate Bacillus anthracis ...... 10 Sampling and Clearance Lessons Learned ...... 12 The Use of the Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer (TAGA) to Qualitatively and Quantitatively Monitor Ambient Air for Chemical Warfare Agents (CWAs) and Decontamination Agents in Real Time at Parts per Trillion by Volume Levels or Below ...... 14 Insurance and Indemnity Issues ...... 15 The Role of the On-Scene Coordinator in the Process ...... 16 Introduction to the Government Decontamination Services ...... 17 Laboratory Capacity Issues ...... 18 Chlorine Dioxide Fumigation and Liquid Chlorine Dioxide ...... 20 STERIS Chem-Bio Decontamination ...... 22 Vaporous Hydrogen Peroxide (VHP) for Room/Building Decontamination Following Chemical or Biological Agent Attack: Overview of Efficacy and Practical Issues ...... 23 Whole-Structure Decontamination of Bacterial Spores by Methyl Bromide Fumigation ...... 24 DF-200 Decontamination of CBW Agents, Other Biological Pathogens, and Toxic Industrial Chemicals ...... 25 Capitol Hill Ricin Incident: Decontamination Dilemmas ...... 26 Restoration from Decontamination: USPS Experience ...... 28

iv NHSRC Another Look at Chlorine Dioxide Fumigation: Concentration-Times, Efficacy Tests, and Biological Indicators ...... 30 Innovative and Emerging Decontamination Technologies ...... 31 Systematic Decontamination Project: Homeland Security Verification of Chemical and Biological Decontamination Technologies ...... 33 Use of HVAC Systems in Building Decontamination...... 33 Building Disinfection Byproducts: Experimental Evaluation and Decision Tool ...... 35 Evaluation of Two Biological Decontamination Methods in a Room-Sized Test Chamber ...... 36 Verification of Commercial Decontamination Technologies in Bench-Scale Studies Using B. anthracis Spores ...... 37 Technical Support Working Group Decontamination Research and Development Activities ...... 39 “Dirty Bombs” (Radiological Dispersion Devices [RDDs]) and Cleanup ...... 41 Radiological and Nuclear Terror: Technical Aspects and Implications for Decontamination and Site Cleanup ...... 42 UK Approach to RDD Cleanup ...... 44 3. Panel Discussion—Lessons Learned ...... 47 Information Sharing and Agency Coordination ...... 47 Preparedness ...... 48 Sampling and Analytical Issues ...... 49 Decontamination Process ...... 49 4. Panel Discussion—Research and Development Needs...... 51 5. Appendices ...... 55 Appendix A: Agenda ...... 55 Appendix B: List of Participants ...... 58 Appendix C: Presentation Slides ...... 62

Decontamination Workshop  List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANL Argonne National Laboratory ARL Army Research Laboratory ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BASIS Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information System °C degrees Celsius CARC chemical agent resistant coatings Ci curie CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cm2 square centimeter CWA chemical warfare agent DCMD Decontamination and Consequence Management Division DDAP Domestic Demonstration and Application Program DEFRA Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs DHS Department of Homeland Security DIMP diisopropyl methylphosphonate DoD Department of Defense DoE Department of Energy ECBC Edgewood Chemical Biological Center eLRN Environmental Laboratory Response Network EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETV Environmental Technology Verification °F degrees Fahrenheit FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ft2 square foot ft3 cubic foot g gram GC gas chromatograph GDS Government Decontamination Service HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory kg kilogram L liter LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LRN Laboratory Response Network m3 cubic meter min minute mg milligram mrem millirem mVHP modified vaporous hydrogen peroxide

vi NHSRC NAS National Academy of Science NHSRC National Homeland Security Research Center NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NMRC Naval Medical Research Center NRT National Response Team OPCW Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons OPP Office of Pesticide Programs ORD Office of Research and Development OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSC on-scene coordinator PCR polymerase chain reaction PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PROTECT Program for Response Options and Technology Enhancements for Chemical/Biological Terrorism PVC polyvinyl chloride RDD radiological dispersion device RIMNET Radiation Incident Monitoring Network RVTP Rapid viability test protocol Sabre Sabre Technical Services SAFTEY Act Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 SNL Sandia National Laboratory STERIS STERIS Corporation TAGA Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer TSM Three-Step Method TSWG Technical Support Working Group UK United Kingdom USAMRIID U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases USAR Urban Search and Rescue USCG U.S. Coast Guard USPS U.S. Postal Service UV ultraviolet VERIFIN Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention VHP vaporous hydrogen peroxide

Decontamination Workshop vii Executive Summary

The Decontamination and Consequence Management as DDAP, i.e., Domestic Demonstration and Applications Division (DCMD) of EPA’s National Homeland Security Programs). He discussed some of the projects under way Research Center (NHSRC) held its first “Workshop or being planned, most of which focus on transportation on Decontamination, Cleanup, and Associated Issues systems and wide urban areas. These projects involve for Sites Contaminated With Chemical, Biological, (or will involve) technology demonstrations, tabletop or Radiological Materials” at the International Trade exercises, and the development of template response plans Center Building in Washington, D.C., February and protocols for particular scenarios, all designed to 23–25, 2005. The workshop opened with a plenary reduce the time to get critical facilities or areas restored session. The subsequent 31 presentations addressed 5 and operational. One completed project discussed was topics: the decontamination process, decontamination the Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information System technologies, research and development, lessons (BASIS), a precursor to the Biowatch program, which is a learned, and radiological contamination. The speakers network of monitors (with subsequent laboratory analysis) represented national laboratories and federal agencies set up in major urban areas as an early warning system to such as EPA, the Department of Homeland Security, detect aerosolized biological agents. the Postal Service, the Department of Defense, the The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) faces Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the many challenges with forensics sampling and crime FBI; academia; and key companies conducting research scene management following an incident involving or providing decontamination technologies and services. chemical, biological, or radiological weapons, according Representatives from Great Britain provided the United to Benjamin Garrett of the FBI. These challenges include Kingdom perspective on decontamination issues. determining that a deliberate release (as opposed to a natural event) has occurred, knowing where to sample, Plenary Session and conducting analyses of evidence without harming Blair Martin, of EPA’s National Risk Management the investigator or damaging the evidence. The primary Research Laboratory, moderated the workshop and gave purpose of sampling by the FBI is to gather evidence. the opening remarks. Martin participated in most of the By contrast, EPA conducts sampling to characterize the decontamination activities for the buildings that were extent of contamination and determine the effectiveness of contaminated with B. anthracis spores sent through the decontamination. The FBI should share its data with other mail in the fall of 2001. These bioterrorist events were agencies such as EPA and the Centers for Desease Control the primary impetus for forming EPA’s NHSRC, and and Prevention (CDC), but the involved parties need to the majority of discussion at the workshop was related to devise a process for doing so without harming the FBI’s building decontamination. All of the affected buildings investigation. have now been successfully decontaminated. Martin Session 1: The Decontamination Process discussed the elements of a decontamination event and noted that the actual destruction of spores (accomplished Nancy Adams, Director of the DCMD/NHSRC, mostly via fumigation) represents only a small portion noted that her division conducts research and develops of the overall time and cost of a decontamination event. technologies related to incidents involving biological, The elements of building decontamination also include chemical, and radiological agents. Efforts focus on establishing a decision-making process; characterization, decontamination science and technology, sampling sampling, and monitoring of contaminants and methods, contaminant containment, tracking decontamination chemical levels; building preparation; contaminant movement, and disposal. Adams’s the decontamination; materials disposal plan; and overall presentation detailed the methods used by NHSRC to communications rank threats. These involve the identification and ranking Lance Brooks discussed the Department of Homeland of high-priority agents, identification and ranking of likely Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate’s terrorist targets, and identification of terrorist goals (e.g., biological and chemical restoration programs (referred to loss of life, economic damage, and inducing fear). These viii NHSRC components are combined to couple threat agents with according to Jeffrey Kempter of EPA’s OPP. When the target facilities and to develop likely terrorist scenarios. She anthrax attacks occurred in September and October 2001, compared the DCMD threat-ranking approach to those no products were registered for use against B. anthracis. developed by other agencies and noted that NHSRC uses Accordingly, crisis exemptions had to be issued for each the ranking results primarily to guide decontamination decontamination chemical for use at each contaminated research efforts. site. Crisis exemption requests had to include remediation The CDC’s Kenneth Martinez explained that action plans, sampling and analysis plans, and ambient although the primary purpose for environmental air monitoring plans. OPP granted crisis exemptions sampling is to address public health concerns, sample for four liquid B. anthracis sporicides for use on hard, collection and analytical methods are similar regardless of nonporous surfaces only: aqueous chlorine dioxide, whether the data will be used for public health decisions, hydrogen peroxide/peracetic acid, sodium hypochlorite, scene characterization, or crime scene investigation. and hydrogen peroxide/quarternary ammonium foam. Environmental sampling may identify agent sources, Five gases have received crisis exemptions: gaseous chlorine assess the nature and extent of contamination, support dioxide (for buildings), vaporized hydrogen peroxide risk assessment and public health decisions, identify (for buildings), paraformaldehyde (for equipment in people needing medical treatment, and guide reoccupancy tented enclosures), methyl bromide (for laboratory and decisions. The three sampling phases in a response are field study), and ethylene oxide (for specialized off-site screening, characterization, and restoration. The CDC treatment of specific items). Although no chemicals have has developed a sampling protocol for B. anthracis spores yet been registered for B. anthracis decontamination, OPP and is investigating and validating sampling and analytical is moving toward that goal. methods for bio-contaminants, focusing in particular Mark Durno and Tony Intrepido gave a joint on surface sample collection efficiencies, air sampling, presentation on building sampling and clearance issues. A methods comparison, and variability issues. technical assistance document prepared by EPA’s National Steve Tomasino described EPA’s Office of Pesticide Response Team details a sampling approach for any Programs (OPP) research and development of biological biological incident. Other agencies are conducting studies agent analysis methods, in particular OPP’s evaluation related to sampling approaches and analytical techniques. of laboratory sporicidal efficacy test methods. EPA For collecting field data, there are several methods, regulations require the Association of Official Analytical including hand-held assays, infrared sensors, and rapid Chemists (AOAC) sporicidal activity test to register polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. Verification and approve the use of a chemical to be used as a sampling (following decontamination, to determine decontaminant for a particular microorganism such as efficacy and to allow for reoccupation of the building) B. anthracis. This test has a number of limitations, for typically has been exhaustive, but as research advances example, the results are qualitative, the test requires 21 and laboratory techniques become more relevant to field days for incubation, and the test lacks standardization. applications, this process will become more efficient. OPP has identified potential modifications to the existing Dave Mickunas, of EPA’s Environmental Response AOAC method and two new promising methods that they Team, discussed the Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer are currently testing with surrogates: one developed by (TAGA) for real-time monitoring of chemical warfare the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) agents (CWAs) and fumigants (such as chlorine dioxide) and one referred to as the three-step method (TSM). OPP in ambient air. EPA’s TAGA consists of an Atmospheric submitted the study results to an expert panel, which Pressure Chemical Ionization (APCI) source coupled selected TSM as the preferred method. As part of ongoing to a three-quadrupole mass spectrometer. Mickunas is efforts, OPP will conduct additional surrogate studies with developing CWA spectra and calibration curves and TSM beginning in April 2005. The TSM will undergo a conducting other analyses, such as verifying detection multi-laboratory validation study in September 2005, and limits, determining the dynamic linear range, establishing a summary report of findings is due in December 2005. surrogates, and identifying interferences. The TAGA is Registration of bio-decontamination chemicals situated in a mobile unit (a van) and has been successfully requires test data regarding product chemistry, product used at B. anthracis decontamination events to detect toxicity, and product efficacy using the AOAC test, fumigant leaks.

Decontamination Workshop ix In the decontamination of postal facilities, the matrices. Revisions to these standard analytical methods United States Postal Service (USPS) accepted full liability are scheduled for June 2005. They will include updates to and assigned broad indemnity to the decontamination existing methods and will add new methods for analysis contractors, according to Jerry Robinson, an attorney for of drinking water, CWA degradation products, and four the USPS. To minimize their risk, the USPS then obtained radiological agents. Laboratories must have the capacity a $100 million insurance policy, which cost $4 million. to handle thousands of samples collected over the course However, in a future incident, most government agencies of a response, from initial identification of the threat will not be able to indemnify decontamination vendors agent to cleanup, clearance, and surveillance. Most of because these agencies are not allowed to enter into the the samples will be taken in the first few months, but open-ended contracts required for indemnification. some sampling will be conducted years after the event. Decontamination contractors should obtain a SAFETY To address capacity concerns, EPA is working with the Act designation and certification for their technologies, CDC to develop a three-tiered Environmental Laboratory which would allow them to be immediately available Reference Network (eLRN), similar to CDC’s existing to perform decontamination services. To be certified, LRN. The network would include screening or sentinel however, vendors must purchase insurance. labs, confirmatory labs, and reference labs. Marty Powell explained that an EPA on-scene coordinator (OSC) has two primary responsibilities: Session 2: Decontamination Technologies to determine whether the contaminant poses a threat John Mason gave an overview of his company’s to the public or environment and to ensure that the technology. Sabre Technical Services (Sabre) has experience threat is mitigated. Oddly enough, “on-scene” indicates with B. anthracis decontamination, using chlorine dioxide involvement in an event without requiring a physical fumigation at the AMI building in Boca Raton, Florida; presence. The OSCs are coordinators, not commanders; on contaminated containers in Newark Harbor; and at they direct federal response assets. OSCs draw from a large a facility in Utica, New York, where tenting was used to tool box of resources (e.g., contractor support, scientific seal the building. With the Sabre technology, sodium support, special units, and public relations support teams) hypochlorite is reacted with HCl to produce chlorine and provide these resources to local and state agencies. gas; the chlorine gas is then reacted with sodium chlorite The OSCs ensure that the remediation work at a site solution to produce aqueous ClO2, which is then stripped is completed properly. They have the ability to make to the air. At AMI, Sabre used the building’s HVAC decisions at a site without obtaining a permit. system to distribute the fumigant in order to achieve a Robert Bettley-Smith, of the UK Department concentration of 750 parts per million (ppm) for a 12- for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), hour period. Approximately 200 biological indicator described his country’s Government Decontamination test strips were placed throughout the building, and in Service (GDS). The GDS will be a DEFRA agency and post-treatment sampling, all strips indicated no growth. will be formally established in summer 2005. The GDS Tracking sample locations and communicating results will provide guidance and identify resources, such as were two concerns when dealing with hundreds of information about vendors, their capabilities, and their samples. Sabre has developed software that produces technologies. In the UK, authorities at the county level are a three-dimensional sampling map to address these responsible for hazardous events and have experience with concerns. chemical transport and releases, but they lack experience Most of STERIS Corporation’s decontamination with biological events. Therefore, GDS will focus its experience involves using vaporous hydrogen peroxide efforts on such events and develop a response plan. The (VHP) for bio-decontamination in pharmaceutical and agency is considering establishing a centralized data system clean room applications, according to Iain McVey. Because to facilitate the sharing of knowledge across nations and to of this, his company was selected to fumigate two B. prevent research overlap. anthracis-contaminated government buildings. STERIS Rob Rothman, of EPA/NHSRC, addressed the is currently collaborating with the DoD to demonstrate development of standard analytical methods and decontamination of chemical agents, using “modified laboratory capacity issues. EPA has identified 109 VHP,” and to develop a mobile VHP generating system. A priority agents and specific analytical methods for various

 NHSRC benefit of VHP is that it decomposes to water and oxygen presented a report on the testing of a decontamination so residual contamination is not a concern. However, the formulation (DF-200) for CWAs, toxic industrial rapid decay of VHP also means that repeated injections chemicals, and biological agents and for combating are needed to ensure that the proper concentration is aerosolized chemical and biological agent clouds. DF- reached. Multiple injection points may be the best option 200 is an aqueous-phase formula that has been used for optimal distribution. successfully by the military. The commercial product Mike Herd, of BIOQUELL, Inc., discussed his is a mixture of surfactant, hydrogen peroxide solution, company’s hydrogen peroxide vapor technology for room and a novel activator. After mixing on site, the final and building decontamination. The technology works hydrogen peroxide concentration is about 3.5 percent. by flash evaporating a 30 percent to 35 percent aqueous DF-200 is less corrosive than bleach and other available hydrogen peroxide solution until a micro-condensate decontamination materials. SNL tested DF-200 with forms on surfaces within the treatment area. Data showed GD (soman), HD (mustard gas), and the nerve agent that the micro-condensate greatly improves the kinetics VX in stirred reactor studies and achieved 100 percent of decontamination. The system is designed to apply decontamination of live agents after a 60-minute exposure to buildings of any size and consists of self-sufficient period. In other studies, DF-200 rapidly (within a units that can be chained together. Hydrogen peroxide 15-minute exposure period) neutralized nerve agents, vapor tends to form strong hydrogen bonds between sodium cyanide, phosgene, and carbon disulfide, as well the molecules, which limits its movement in air, so as biologicals (B. anthracis and Y. pestis). Mustard agents the BIOQUELL system uses a rotating nozzle system required more time (a 30-minute exposure period) because that distributes the vapor dynamically. BIOQUELL of mustard’s low solubility. The DF-200 residue in indoor participated in tests by EPA’s Environmental Technology areas can be removed using a wet-dry vacuum. Verification (ETV) program to determine its technology’s According to Jack Kelly, of EPA, ricin is a white effectiveness in destroyingB. anthracis spores on seven powder that can be made fairly easily from the proteins different building materials. Herd discussed several case of castor plant beans. Ricin is considered extremely toxic studies to illustrate the application and effectiveness of the by any exposure route, and no vaccines or antidotes are technology. available. On February 2, 2004, ricin was found in the Methyl bromide is commonly used for termite control mail room attached to a United States senator’s office. and for fumigation of imported produce, according EPA et al. had collected at least 670 samples from three to Rudolf Scheffrahn of the University of Florida. In affected rooms and identified 19 positive results, all from conjunction with EPA, he has conducted laboratory and one room. EPA removed and stored personal and office field studies to assess methyl bromide as a fumigant forB. items from the affected room. Large hard-surface items anthracis. In the 2004 field study, a 30,000-ft3 home was were left in place and decontaminated with a sodium first sealed using tenting, as is commonly done for termite hypochlorite solution. Post-treatment testing found no treatments in Florida. Gaseous methyl bromide was ricin activity. Clothing and office materials, along with generated by passing the liquid through a heat exchanger. indicator vials of crude and pure ricin, underwent heat Better destruction efficiency with methyl bromide is treatment, which resulted in 100 percent deactivation of achieved with higher temperatures, so fans and heaters 13 of the 14 purified ricin vials and 94.4 percent to 99.7 maintained a target temperature of about 35° C within percent deactivation for 14 of the 28 crude ricin vials. the house. After fumigation for two days, essentially all Another set of office materials underwent a single heat 50 spore strips placed throughout the house indicated no treatment and/or ethylene oxide treatment. Results from growth. No damage to electronic equipment was observed. test vials undergoing ethylene oxide treatment alone or Schaffrahn opined that the advantages to methyl bromide heat followed by ethylene oxide treatment indicated that are that it diffuses readily; is very stable, easily detected, the combined treatment was most effective. and low in cost; can be used with any humidity level; has Richard Orlusky highlighted the USPS’s experiences already been approved to treat some bacteria; and treats in restoring the Trenton mail facility after completing porous and other types of materials with minimal damage. decontamination. Although B. anthracis contamination A disadvantage is that it depletes stratospheric ozone. of the Trenton facility occurred in 2001, the building Rita Betty of Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) was not reopened until March 2005. Fumigation with

Decontamination Workshop xi chlorine dioxide gas did not occur until October 2003, but is insufficient for treating biological agents. Decon- and restoration activities began in February 2004. The Green is an environmentally friendly decontaminant based USPS kept the HVAC systems running after closing on commercial chemicals and is designed to replace DS2 the building, but over time, components of the system and DF-200 in military use. Studies have proven Decon- failed, resulting in interior temperatures reaching 100°F. Green to be effective against chemical and biological Restoring environmental controls is key to creating a agents, but it is disruptive to surfaces. Surface coatings are comfortable work environment (repairs were conducted being developed to either resist or react with and destroy by workers wearing personal protective equipment) and chemical or biological agents. Enzymes to decontaminate to minimizing equipment and building degradation. If nerve agents, sulfur mustard, and biological agents and fumigation is the selected decontamination method, then toxins are being investigated. Supercritical carbon dioxide surface cleaning with a bleach agent should be conducted is an effective cleaning and sterilizing agent and is being sparingly, since it is highly damaging to many materials. investigated as a decontamination technology. Additional chlorine dioxide research may show effective Phil Koga, of ECBC, discussed a systematic decontamination at lower concentrations and reduced decontamination study funded by EPA. This study will contact times, which may reduce damage caused by the assess the impact of fumigant (chlorine dioxide and fumigant itself. hydrogen peroxide vapor) concentration, exposure time, Paula Krauter, of Lawrence Livermore National building material (porous and nonporous), temperature, Laboratory (LLNL), presented research on developing a and relative humidity on destruction of different rapid viability test protocol (RVTP), which is a 15-hour microorganisms (e.g., avirulent and virulent B. anthracis method for processing biological indicator strips using spores and surrogates). In addition, testing seeks to provide real-time PCR. They compared the RVTP against the information about the effects of six different building standard culture method, which requires 7 days for results. materials on the decay of fumigant concentration in test Testing involved exposing more than 1,000 biological chambers (e.g., velocity deposition will be quantified) and indicator strips to 750 ppm of chlorine dioxide for up to the effects of the fumigants on the integrity of the building 12 hours (a number of these strips were exposed for less materials. than 12 hours). Half of the strips were analyzed by RVTP Tina Carlsen, of LLNL, discussed research on and half by the standard culture technique. In general, examining both decontamination of HVAC systems using no significant difference in results provided by the two hydrogen peroxide vapor and the use of HVAC systems in methods was identified. The standard culture method the fumigation process. Tests with VHP in a medium-scale reported a 1.5 percent false positive rate. No false negatives HVAC system indicated that galvanized steel reduced the or positives were observed for RVTP. Tests to compare hydrogen peroxide concentration, whereas PVC had less stainless steel and paper strip biological indicators were of an effect. In another test, using 90 feet of galvanized also conducted. At non-lethal doses of chlorine dioxide, steel ductwork with sensors located throughout, the LLNL found a significantly higher number of positive hydrogen peroxide concentration decreased as a function results for the paper strips, i.e., better kill was indicated of distance traveled along the ductwork, and VHP with the stainless steel disks. decreased with increasing temperature and decreasing flow rate. Ongoing research will include biological indicator Session 3: Decontamination Research and tests within the ductwork to characterize kill rates and Development optimize VHP efficacy as well as characterization tests Mark Brickhouse, of the U.S. Army’s Edgewood Chemical with alternate ductwork materials. and Biological Center (ECBC), described the work Research at the University of Texas is focusing on with public- and private-sector researchers to evaluate building material impacts on fumigant levels and gaseous a number of emerging decontamination technologies. byproduct production, in a project lead by Rich Corsi. These include modified VHP, which contains ammonia Corsi stated that the research includes an evaluation of as an activator for both chemical and biological the chemical interactions of ozone, chlorine dioxide, decontamination. “Forced hot air” acts to accelerate methyl bromide, and hydrogen peroxide vapor with 24 weathering and increases off-gassing for chemical agents common building materials; quantification of deposition velocities; identification of building decontamination xii NHSRC byproducts; and incorporation of the results into a novel homeland security related technologies would no longer software application. Results show significant differences be verified under ETV but would be tested under a new among disinfectants. Byproduct persistence was also likely, EPA NHSRC program called the Technology Testing and as indicated by 5-day and 1-year tests of off-gassing. For Evaluation Program (TTEP). most materials, with the exception of ceiling tiles and According to Rebecca Blackmon, the Technical HVAC system components, ozone was more reactive than Support Working Group (TSWG) is an independent chlorine dioxide. federal agency, with oversight from DoD and the Mark Buttner discussed the research at the University Department of State, that does rapid R&D and of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) to test the efficacy of prototyping to support federal agency requirements. The two decontamination products (DF-100 and chlorine Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) dioxide gas); compare surface sampling methods (swipe, subgroup focuses on agent detection, decontamination, heavy wipe, and swab sample processing kit); and protection, and information collection, with ongoing compare analytical techniques for biological agents, projects. The biological background in critical facilities is using cultures, quantitative polymerase chain reactions being investigated, since it may interfere with detection (PCRs), and hand-held assays. Other experimental of actual bio-agents. A statistical design tool for sampling parameters included the effects of building material contaminated buildings is under development. In and environmental background (e.g., dust) on the conjunction with others, TSWG is developing a real- decontamination method. Each of the three sampling time, portable sensor system to monitor CWAs and methods demonstrated comparable spore collection toxic industrial chemicals. Another sensor web is being efficiencies. After decontamination with DF-100, post- developed to monitor and control building temperature, decontamination samples found no culturable spores humidity, light intensity, and decontaminant agent although the quantitative PCR analysis indicated that concentrations for a facility undergoing decontamination. spore DNA remained. Similarly, after decontamination Decontamination technologies using plasma and with chlorine dioxide, post-decontamination samples electrostatics are being developed. Other technologies are found no culturable spores in 24 of 27 samples, but being developed to mitigate the spread of radiological quantitative PCR analysis indicated that spore DNA releases and remove radiological contaminants from remained. The hand-held assay results were positive for all building materials. samples. Neither decontamination method was affected by environmental background, although the quantitative Session 4: Lessons Learned and Research and PCR analysis method was inhibited by the dust. Development Needs An overview of EPA’s Environmental Technology Panelists and other participants at the workshop Verification (ETV) program for decontamination provided numerous examples of lessons learned from the technologies was presented by Mike Taylor of Battelle decontamination activities that took place following the B. Memorial Institute. Three decontamination technologies anthracis incidents in 2001. These are summarized below (all fumigants) have been verified so far: BIOQUELL, in four main categories. During this discussion, several Inc.’s hydrogen peroxide gas; Certek, Inc.’s formaldehyde participants also noted research that is needed; a summary gas, and CDG Research, Inc.’s chlorine dioxide gas. of these items follows. The verification procedure consisted of connecting the decontamination technology to the test chamber, Interagency coordination and information/data inoculating test material coupons (representing seven sharing Workshop participants emphasized the different materials) with 108 spores ofB. anthracis or importance of information/data sharing and coordination surrogates, placing the coupons in the test chamber, not only during a response action, but also during implementing the decontamination technology, removing ongoing research. They provided examples of information the test material coupons, and analyzing the coupons. sharing and coordination efforts, suggested tools to Decontamination efficacy was quantified by calculating improve these efforts, highlighted the benefits of sharing the log reduction in viable spores on the test materials and information while addressing research needs, and by identifying positive or negative bacterial growth on the noted security concerns to consider. Several workshop biological indicators and spore strips. It was noted that participants (primarily OSCs) emphasized the need for

Decontamination Workshop xiii information (e.g., on decontamination methods) when itself is only a small portion of the overall decontamination responding to an event. Several participants suggested the timeline. Sealing a building can be costly and time- development of databases or repositories of information consuming, but tenting is an effective technique. on technologies, agents, available laboratories, test Preserving sensitive and valuable materials should be methods, technical experts, etc. Others noted that this considered when one is selecting a decontamination workshop was a great way for information exchange and technology. Leave as much material as possible inside a that this type of workshop should be continued. building for fumigation to alleviate disposal concerns. Agencies working with an OSC need to understand the Preparedness Workshop participants all agreed that command structure at a decontamination event. An planning and preparing for the aftermath of a terrorist environmental clearance committee supports local agency event is critical to responding quickly and appropriately. decisions about when it is safe to reoccupy a building They suggested a number of ways facilities and agencies by providing information and credibility. The clearance could prepare. Workshop participants repeatedly suggested committee itself does not make decisions. To support an exercises (especially tabletop) as a means of identifying OSC, however, technical working groups should consist possible threat scenarios, developing response plans, and of people who are authorized to make decisions for their pinpointing data gaps. They suggested interagency panels agencies. and peer reviews for these exercises. The focus of such The following is a compilation of suggested research exercises typically becomes the technical aspect of the and development needs, as discussed during the R&D response plan, but in a real-world situation, the technical panel discussion, as well as during the Lessons Learned side of a response may be easy compared with regulatory discussion. Nancy Adams noted that some of the or communication issues. Examples of materials that suggested research items are currently being investigated or would help prepare agencies and facilities include a matrix are already planned for future investigation. to link threat agents with appropriate decontamination methods and site conditions, template response plans, and Decontamination standards/protocols (e.g., for sampling). • Real-time monitoring of fumigants • Tenting as a means of sealing a building Sampling issues Workshop participants expressed • Cost analysis of an overall decontamination event, diverse views regarding sampling issues. Some suggested including the disposal and restoration minimizing sampling requirements to streamline a • The chemical interactions and reaction products decontamination event because it consumes much of the between decontaminants, threat agents, background overall response time. Others believed that eliminating (e.g., dust, organic material), and materials one or more of the sampling phases (characterization, (common building materials but also sensitive/ verification, or clearance) would be detrimental to the valuable equipment) process. Participants also voiced differences of opinion • Risk and exposure assessment of biological agents to over the utility of biological indicators in assessing establish safe levels for reoccupation environmental contamination. Decontamination events rely on biological indicators (e.g., spore strips), but results Sampling and Analysis from these tests may not correlate well with environmental • Correlating environmental samples to biological conditions (i.e., actual levels of spores). One participant indicators; understanding the basic science of noted that no positive environmental samples were biological indicators (BIs); developing new BIs found in the B. anthracis decontamination when the using more common materials such as carpet, or biological indicators were negative and desired fumigant worse-case materials, in lieu of typical BI materials concentration had been achieved. such as paper or steel • Real-time monitoring technology (e.g., developing The decontamination process A number of buildings faster, cheaper, and better technologies) for all types have now been bio-decontaminated, and participants of agents noted many specific lessons learned. When fumigation • Background levels of live bio-agents is the selected decontamination method, the fumigation

xiv NHSRC • Comparison of surface sampling methods for bio- Session 5: Radiological Dispersion Device agents Cleanup • Using statistics for sampling design and standards Fred Holbrook and John MacKinney, from EPA’s • New analytical techniques, such as rapid testing NHSRC, each presented information related to protocols radiological dispersal devices (RDDs). RDDs use • Methods for sampling irreplaceable items (e.g., conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. paintings or historical documents) It is expected that these devices would cause low-level • Identification of better surrogates radiological contamination and cause psychological and Other threat agents economic harm but that fatalities would be low. Among • Interactions of chemical and radiological agents the radiological agents that are potential components of with various materials RDDs, cesium fluoride is of particular concern because it • Applicability of chelaters, HEPA filters, and other is a fine, talclike powder, which is easily dispersed over a decontamination technologies to radiological agents broad area. Most of the information presented during the Worldwide control of radiological materials is a workshop applied to B. anthracis. A number of workshop problem, as evidenced by the large amounts of missing participants mentioned the need to expand research and unaccounted-for radioactive material. Because of this, related to the decontamination of other chemical, most experts believe an RDD event is the most probable biological, and radiological threat agents. Agents homeland security threat. Tests are being conducted to specifically mentioned included ricin. examine whether a radiological agent will aerosolize and how the shape of the charge may affect dispersion; models Containment are being developed to predict possible dispersion patterns. • Aerosolization, dispersion, and resuspension of Studies of particle dispersion have shown that indoor biological and radiological agents particulate concentrations following an event may be high. • Surface coatings and building materials that serve as Using threat scenarios, we can create standard response biocides or limit chemical infiltration and mitigation procedures, plan possible cleanup actions, • Smart building systems, e.g., specially designed and evaluate existing technologies. DHS is assessing HVAC systems to limit agent spread possible optimized approaches to decontamination General and restoration after an RDD release and considering • Research is needed to address decontamination of cleanup criteria based on societal needs, expected land wide, outdoor areas, including agricultural product uses, and decontamination technologies. Radiological decontamination and disposal, and multiple agent decontamination techniques are based on mechanical, attack events. chemical, or biological removal; some chemical methods • Identifying dual-use technologies would help us include the use of acids, chelants, foams, gels, oxidizers, prepare by allowing us to develop technologies and polymers. and manufacture equipment before the next event According to Malcolm Wakerley, after the Chernobyl occurs. nuclear incident, the UK created the Radiation Incident • Biotechnology-based decontamination approaches Monitoring Network (RIMNET). This system consists of (bacteria, enzymes) are needed. 92 gamma detectors (located approximately 30 kilometers • A panel of experts distant from ongoing apart) that supply data to a group of laboratories. decontamination discussions and research should Information from these sensors helped the UK identify be convened to independently review the collective areas of contamination after the Chernobyl accident. The research efforts ongoing at various agencies and RIMNET system includes a modeling component that facilities. can assess short-, medium-,and long-range impacts and is linked with meteorological data to backtrack from an alarmed detector to a radiation source. Additionally, the UK has created a handbook in response to a review of decontamination and remediation technologies conducted

Decontamination Workshop xv following a series of other radioactive accidents. The UK plans to maintain the handbook over the The handbook includes a simple logic diagram and next three years and add lessons learned from exercises 22 tables on decontamination technologies and and case studies. considerations.

xvi NHSRC Introduction

This report summarizes presentations and discussions This report summarizes the information provided from the “Workshop on Decontamination, Cleanup, and and issues raised during the workshop presentations and Associated Issues for Sites Contaminated With Chemical, associated question and answer periods. It also summarizes Biological, or Radiological Materials,” which was held the content of the discussion sessions. The technical February 23–25, 2005, in Washington, D.C. The content of this report is based entirely on discussions at the workshop objectives were to: workshop. • Allow agencies, organizations, and individuals Although workshop presentations and discussions to share information about the decontamination addressed a number of individual topics, workshop of chemical, biological, and radiological releases. participants raised several key issues to consider during Specific topics addressed included elements of a ongoing research and future decontamination efforts: decontamination event and ways to reduce the • Information sharing and interagency response time and cost; decontamination coordination Workshop participants repeatedly technologies used in real-world situations emphasized the importance of information sharing (e.g., anthrax events in the United States, hospital and coordination during a response action, as well decontamination projects worldwide); and as ongoing information sharing among researchers. research and development projects underway or During presentations, speakers provided examples planned by various organizations and agencies. of both effective and ineffective information • Discuss some of the lessons learned about the sharing. They consistently indicated that better decontamination process and suggest steps to information sharing leads to faster, cheaper, improve that process. and easier decontamination efforts. During the • Identify research needs to fill data gaps and discussion sessions, workshop participants suggested articulate opportunities for improving the current tools for improving the sharing of information, understanding of the decontamination process. highlighted the benefits of sharing information Workshop participants included representatives while addressing research needs, and noted security from federal agencies and laboratories (e.g., the concerns to consider. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of • Preparedness Workshop participants agreed that Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and planning and preparing for threat events is critical Prevention, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Lawrence to responding quickly and appropriately to these Livermore National Laboratory, and Edgewood Chemical events. Presentations highlighted a number of Biological Center), academia, and decontamination research projects that focus on preparing facilities, technology companies. During the workshop, speakers specifically airports and transportation centers, gave presentations on specific topics, including for future terrorist events and identifying possible decontamination event experiences, decontamination response actions. During the discussion sessions, technologies, current and planned research projects, and workshop participants suggested a number of ways radiological agent concerns. Following each presentation, facilities and agencies could prepare for a terrorist speakers held a brief question and answer period. On the event. third day of the workshop, participants engaged in two • Sample methodology and design Workshop free-flowing discussion sessions. During the first session, participants discussed sampling concerns related participants were asked to share the lessons learned during to research projects and decontamination events. research projects and real-world decontamination events. When discussing research projects, workshop The second session focused on areas and topics in need participants voiced concerns about developing of further research. Both discussion sessions allowed standardized sampling methods so that results were participants to elaborate upon the questions and issues comparable across projects, as well as concerns raised during the presentations. about identifying appropriate surrogates. When discussing decontamination events, workshop

Decontamination Workshop xvii participants emphasized the need for clear sampling • Research needs Workshop participants identified objectives, the utility of different sampling methods, a number of research needs from basic research in and the need to streamline the sampling process. fumigation chemistry and effectiveness to advanced Some conflicting views were raised. For example, research on sampling methods (e.g., developing some suggested minimizing sampling requirements cost-effective, real-time sampling methods). See the to streamline a decontamination event, whereas “Panel Discussion—Research and Development others believed that eliminating sampling phases Needs” section of this report for further details. would be detrimental to the process. Participants also voiced differences of opinion about the utility of biological indicators and spore strips in assessing environmental contamination.

xviii NHSRC Opening Remarks 1

Blair Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection of an agent from the release point, addresses the Agency, National Homeland Security Research criminal aspects of an event. Characterization Center sampling identifies the nature and extent of contamination. Biological indicators, fumigation The Decontamination and Consequence Management sampling, and environmental conditions sampling Division (DCMD) of the U.S. Environmental Protection (i.e., temperature, humidity, and pressure) Agency (EPA) National Homeland Security Research are used to ensure a successful fumigation. Center (NHSRC) organized this workshop so that Outdoor monitoring of the fumigant ensures agencies, organizations, and individuals could share safety. Clearance sampling confirms successful information about the decontamination of chemical, decontamination and allows reuse of the building. biological, and radiological releases. Specific topics • Decontamination The decontamination included: event includes procuring, installing, testing, • Elements of a decontamination event and ways operating, disassembling, and finally removing to reduce the response time and cost the decontamination equipment. Procurement • Decontamination technologies used in real-world and testing are pacing items that affect the situations (e.g., anthrax events in the United States, project schedule. Considerations during the hospital decontamination projects worldwide) decontamination event are system safety; the • Research and development projects under way or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) planned by various organizations and agencies systems; and possible fumigant leak areas. The EPA • Lessons learned during real-world situations and trace atmospheric gas analyzer (TAGA), which research projects is discussed in detail in a later presentation, is a • Additional research and development needs. mobile testing unit that was useful for identifying In fall 2001, Bacillus anthracis spores sent through leaks during actual decontamination events. Over the mail contaminated several United States Postal Service the course of a 2- to 3-year process, the actual (USPS) buildings. Using a variety of methods, the USPS decontamination or fumigation is a 1-day event. decontaminated these buildings. The removal and off-site The fumigation may increase to 2 to 3 days if a decontamination of building contents, surface cleaning, no-growth endpoint is selected as the building and fumigation provided the backdrop to this workshop. clearance requirement. The cost of the fumigation Drawing on his personal experience, Martin explained itself is also only a fraction of the overall cost of the the elements of the decontamination process: entire decontamination process. • Selecting a decontamination technology • Materials disposal Materials may be removed When selecting a decontamination method, from a building before or after decontamination. considerations include building security, interagency The decision whether to remove materials depends relationships, incident command structure, on their value, the ease of decontaminating them, preparation and review of technical documents, their impact on the decontamination agent, and contractor selection, and crisis exemption the impact of the decontamination agent on them. applications and approvals. The last three items are Final disposal options must also be considered. pacing items that affect the project schedule. What special handling is needed to dispose • Building characterization and monitoring of material removed from a building prior to Characterization and monitoring, which can occur decontamination? Can materials that are removed simultaneously, are conducted for several reasons. after decontamination be sent to nonhazardous Forensic sampling, which tracks the movement waste landfills or incinerators? Waste disposal

Decontamination Workshop  also includes any wastes generated from the Martin also listed a number of building-related activities decontamination or fumigation effort itself. that need to be considered: orderly building closure; • Communication systems A successful contamination containment, especially within the HVAC decontamination event relies on successful system; documentation to guide decontamination; and communication. Communication plans should equipment storage needs. A building content assessment include law enforcement agencies, health agencies, is needed to identify items that might be affected by environmental regulatory agencies, advisory groups, treatment. contractors, on-scene coordinators (OSCs), building Finally, Martin indicated that workshop participants workers and occupants, as well as residents and have a broad range of experiences with and perspectives businesses in the surrounding communities. about decontamination events. He hoped that they could openly share their knowledge over the course of the meeting.

 NHSRC Presentations and Associated Question and Answer Periods 2

DHS S&T Biological and program called BioWatch. Results reported from BASIS and BioWatch initiate treatment and Chemical Restoration response. BioWatch was used successfully during Programs the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and is now in place in about 30 metropolitan areas. Lance Brooks, Department of Homeland Security • Program for Response Options and Technology This presentation provided a brief overview of restoration Enhancements for Chemical/Biological programs under way at the Department of Homeland Terrorism (PROTECT) Developed in partnership Security (DHS). with transit facilities, the project provides Decontamination is being researched and evaluated response plans and solutions for events in such by a number of agencies, such as EPA’s Office of Research facilities, for example, the sarin release in the and Development (ORD), DHS’s Homeland Security Tokyo subway. DHS found that implementing Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARP), and the the technology component of a response is often Systems Engineering and Development Office. DHS’s role easier than addressing the response’s regulatory, in researching, testing, and evaluating decontamination communications, and other aspects. In a processes is outlined in the National Response Plan, which demonstration project, PROTECT placed agent is scheduled for release on April 14, 2005. DHS hopes to detectors and televisions in strategic positions coordinate efforts with EPA. More information is available in a transit facility. The system includes a laptop at www.HSARPAbaa.com. from which an incident commander could log At the beginning of a project, DHS works with into the system, control cameras, access software, the decontamination-user community to identify and and examine alarmed detectors to coordinate a address their needs. The stated program goal is to provide response. The program also includes a formalized “integrated field demonstrations of the next-generation plan for operating the system and creates incident solutions, which bring together the user, technology, commander transparency. Using the system reduced and ConOps in a real-world test of a particular response time from as much as 40 minutes down to solution.” In other words, DHS personnel are looking 5 minutes. to answer the question of how biological or chemical • Restoration of Large Airport Facilities This agent decontamination will be conducted in the future. program is in progress and focuses on the They work with off-the-shelf or government-owned coordination and understanding of the restoration technologies. Although DHS does not intend to process for a large airport. San Francisco develop technologies, it will, if necessary, work to International Airport, for example, loses $80 further develop technologies near completion. million a day if closed. This is not a technology- Projects conducted by DHS include: driven project but focuses on condensing the • Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information decontamination timeline. The goal of the System (BASIS) BASIS is geared toward providing project is to reduce the time and money needed enhanced biological security at special events and to restore a critical transportation facility after an determining whether a biological release event has attack. Under this project, DHS brought together occurred. The system is easy to set up and deploy stakeholders to conduct tabletop exercises, including but has a limited operational period and covers a a large-scale demonstration exercise to identify fixed location. It served as a platform for a newer and address critical aspects of the response (e.g.,

Decontamination Workshop  development and approval of a decontamination chemical release event. A large-scale demonstration plan, fumigation verification, facility clearance, project is planned. and overall coordination and communication). Project products include templates that provide Questions, Answers, and Comments guidelines for developing response plans and • How will DHS reduce the time required to protocols that are then pre-approved by EPA complete a decontamination event? DHS projects and other regulatory agencies. The project has are geared toward understanding what aspects specifically examined improving the verification contribute to the time and personnel needed to step (i.e., rapid verification mechanisms), assessing complete decontamination and how these aspects sample placement to improve sampling clearance, can be adjusted to reduce the time frame. DHS is using rapid bioviability sampling technologies, and also exploring sampling software that can speed up developing decision support software. A project the decontamination process. report is scheduled for release in late spring 2005. • Has DHS partnered with contractors or is The following projects are in the planning phase, and DHS working to identify technologies to be DHS is looking for a partner agency or organization: used in place? Demonstration projects are run • Restoration of a Transit System This project through DHS and NHSRC. These agencies will focuses on transit facilities, such as subways, that partner with industries, as identified in the pre- have open platforms, tunnels, and transport from demonstration phase. below to above ground. These facilities present • What performance measures were used to many different challenges. The overall project declare BioWatch a success? BioWatch has goal is to reduce time between the event and been implemented in partnership with EPA and restoration. Revenue loss and street traffic impacts the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are problems when these systems shut down. This (CDC). The agencies determined BioWatch’s project will draw from the large airport facilities success by reviewing a matrix of criteria. They project and create templates for response plans and concluded that the system was operational, reported protocols (e.g., restoration plans, contamination no false positives, and had minimal downtime. characterization methods, decontamination and BioWatch strives to provide biological security for as verification sampling for surface, clearance methods, large an area as possible. decision tools) that apply to urban transit systems. A • When detection systems are installed, when large-scale demonstration project is planned. and how do you respond to a positive alarm? • Restoration of a Wide Area (Urban) This How does this procedure apply to BioWatch? project focuses on open areas but will likely include DHS works with EPA, CDC, and the FBI to indoor areas as well. In these areas, contamination confirm positive responses. When an alarm sounds, migration to enclosed and semi-enclosed areas several layers of testing begin. In the first layer, the is a concern. The project goal is to reduce the alarm is reported and agencies provide guidance overall time to restore a large outdoor urban area to local organizations. Secondary testing occurs following a biological attack. As for other projects, in areas around the positive sampler. Organisms, DHS will develop strategies, templates, response if detected, are checked for viability. Agencies plans, and protocols for addressing an event. Two then determine whether they can confirm that an smaller ongoing programs lead into this project. event has occurred. Once an incident is identified, One focuses on technologies and protocols; the investigations move to the FBI and CDC. other examines overall policies. A large-scale Participants should note that BioWatch is only one demonstration project is planned. tool for determining whether an event truly has • Facilities Chemical Restoration Demonstration occurred. The goal of this project is to reduce the overall time to restore a critical facility following a chemical attack. DHS will develop strategies, templates, response plans, and protocols for addressing a

 NHSRC Crime Scene Management integrity of the evidence. They must consider questions such as “Will the decontamination agent and WMD Terrorism remove fingerprints?” Ben Garrett, Federal Bureau of Investigation Biological and chemical agents pose unique challenges for detecting, sampling, and evaluating evidence. These When the FBI becomes involved in a decontamination challenges arise before the FBI arrives at a scene, and event, its goal is to manage the crime scene and handle responses to these challenges may compromise evidence. weapons of mass destruction. It is concerned about the Similar problems arise when addressing radiologicals. criminal aspects of the event. As such, the FBI focuses on Garrett provided two examples that illustrate FBI forensics, which is the collecting and gathering of evidence concerns and considerations. for the identification, prosecution, and conviction of the • The FBI responded to an incident involving three perpetrators. family members who had a history of dealing with Garrett identified four phases to an incident response: ricin and blaming each other for the crime. While • Tactical The tactical phase includes entering the evidence was being collected, miscommunication affected building or area and removing the threat. led to improper evidence handling, which destroyed A plan to enter the area without harm must be in traditional evidence along with the toxin threat. place. • A local public health agency investigated a number • Operational This phase involves protecting the of cases of salmonella poisoning in Oregon. Rumors public and mitigating hazards. The FBI involves speculated that the illness had been intentionally local emergency response agencies in these efforts. spread in order to influence election results. The • Crime scene Evidence collecting, packaging, and public health agency determined that the event was transporting make up this phase. a natural occurrence, the result of poor hygiene. • Remediation The FBI is not responsible for the Later, several people confessed to intentionally cleanup or decontamination of a building or scene. spreading the illness. EPA and other partners address that phase of a response. Questions, Answers, and Comments Some considerations associated with the forensic • During a weapon of mass destruction event and aspects of an event include: FBI investigation, does the FBI help address the • Detection To prove that a crime occurred, the FBI public health ramifications?Historically, the FBI must be able to detect the crime. For example, when has been reluctant to share evidence about ongoing anthrax is detected, the FBI must separate natural cases, even when evidence or data may be useful occurrences of anthrax from an intentional release. for addressing public health concerns. The Bureau, • Sampling The FBI’s focus is on gathering evidence however, has made strides to improve information in a manner that will withstand legal challenge. sharing. It has a public health agent at CDC to In the case of a biological release, the evidence is serve as a conduit for information and includes microscopic. How do you find the crime scene? local, state, and federal public health agencies in How do you collect microscopic evidence? How do conference calls discussing investigation results. For you preserve the evidence’s integrity? example, in August 2002, a New Jersey post office • Traditional exams Fingerprints, fibers, genetics, box tested positive for anthrax. The FBI provided and toolmarks are examples of traditional forensic information about this event to the New Jersey evidence. The FBI must consider collecting and CDC and other public health officials. Although evaluating this evidence while protecting people the FBI has working relationships with CDC and from the biological or chemical threat. The local and state public health agencies, a concern traditional exams are key to linking the evidence that information sharing will compromise an to the perpetrator. Therefore, the FBI prefers to investigation will always exist. use decontamination methods that preserve the

Decontamination Workshop  • What are your thoughts about sharing understanding ventilation systems, transport of agents by evidence data with EPA and others assessing people, and safety and health issues. Over the course of the extent of contamination and planning the the anthrax outbreaks, agencies collected approximately decontamination? Garrett believes that the FBI 10,000 samples. In conducting sampling and obtaining should share data, but the involved parties need to results, agencies must remember that no numeric criteria devise a process for sharing information without exist to interpret biological sampling data. Sample results harming the FBI’s investigation. From experience, cannot be extrapolated to predict exposure. Developing the FBI has learned that it must strike a balance standards, however, is currently under way. between sharing information and maintaining Martinez highlighted the importance of planning the integrity of the investigation to successfully environmental sampling at biological or chemical events. prosecute. Environmental sampling can be the driving force behind public health decisions. CDC’s existing sampling plans are CDC/NIOSH and Health clinically based. When planning sampling, agencies must consider the need for continuity of operations at a facility Response to Biothreat during a response. Agents: Environmental CDC has identified three sampling phases: • Screening Screening occurs in the first few Monitoring days following the incident. For the anthrax events, agencies needed assurance that an event Capt. Kenneth F. Martinez, Centers for Disease had occurred (i.e., an agent had been released). Control and Prevention, National Institute for Sampling plans should optimize finding sources and Occupational Safety and Health assessing their concentrations as soon as possible. Agencies involved in a bioterrorism event hold many • Characterization Sampling for contaminant different perspectives about sampling needs. For CDC, characterization is conducted to prepare for sampling addresses public health concerns. Sample remediation. False positives and negatives are not as collection methods and analysis results, however, much of a concern during characterization. are similar regardless of the data’s end use for public • Remediation/restoration Agencies must have a health decisions, scene characterization, or crime scene high level of confidence in sampling results. Results investigation, so information sharing between agencies is are used to confirm that the agent was removed. important. CDC responded to anthrax releases in Florida, New When the first events occurred, communication Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. between agencies was strained. Agencies now understand In all but two cases, CDC identified the sources of the the value of working together and are moving toward anthrax release. (CDC never found the source of anthrax sharing information more freely. They must, however, affecting a health care worker in New York City or an remember that each has to address its unique mission. elderly woman in Connecticut.) To identify sources, CDC Environmental sampling may identify exposure followed a consistent sampling strategy. They followed the locations, determine agent sources and exposure pathways, trail of the source and considered dissemination methods characterize pathogens and agents, assess the nature and (e.g., air, personnel). For anthrax delivered through the extent of contamination, support risk assessment and mail, CDC sampled the mail-sorting machines and public health decisions, identify people needing medical electrostatic collection points (e.g., computer monitors). treatment, and guide reoccupancy decisions. Public health At Capitol Hill, CDC collected samples from elevators, sampling may examine the paths for agent spread in furniture, floors, ventilation systems, vehicles, and order to limit that spread. For example, CDC considered clothing. CDC personnel collected primarily bulk samples whether postal employees exposed to anthrax transported or surface samples. They rarely collected air samples. At spores home on their clothing. the time no method to validate spore sampling results The National Institute for Occupational Safety existed. Confidence in sampling results comes from and Health (NIOSH) has also been involved with experience with industrial hygiene sampling and past sampling at bioterrorism events. NIOSH has focused on disease sampling.

 NHSRC After the 2001 events, CDC developed a sampling • What validation methods do you plan to use protocol (which will be updated) and conducted in the future? Agencies are currently debating validation studies. CDC also evaluated validation studies validation methods and techniques. At the same by Sanderson et al. (collection efficiencies), McCleery et time, a number of novel technologies are also al. (air sampling), Dugway Proving Ground (biological becoming available. CDC research focuses on agent simulants), and Sandia National Laboratory methods that are cost-effective and easily accessible (anthrax simulants). The Dugway Proving Ground study, to first responders. CDC is also concerned about conducted with EPA, involved releasing an agent in an collection and recovery systems. Some specific air chamber, letting the agent settle, and then collecting research has examined sampling methods such as and sending the sample to a laboratory for analysis. This swabs, wipes, and vacuuming. study allowed method comparison and evaluation of inter- laboratory variability. Ranking Threats for CDC applied the lessons learned during the anthrax events to a ricin event in South Carolina (October 2003), Decontamination Research the BioWatch program agent identification in Texas Nancy Adams, U.S. Environmental Protection (October 2003), and the SARS outbreaks (spring 2003). Agency, National Homeland Security Research CDC coordinated with other agencies to share data, based Center sampling strategies on potential agent transport pathways, and applied updated sampling methodologies. NHSRC/DCMD provides research to support decontaminating and restoring facilities by working with Questions, Answers, and Comments decontamination teams, emergency response teams, and • When CDC conducted subway sampling, what on-scene coordinators. One aspect of NHSRC’s research were some of the sampling challenges? To assess is to identify agents of greatest interest and to examine the incident of the health care worker in New York ongoing research to address these agents. City who contracted anthrax, CDC was asked to This presentation focused on the methods used by sample as many potential sources as possible. CDC NHSRC to identify and rank threat agents. In addition to could not identify a clear contamination pathway ranking agents, NHSRC/DCMD conducts research on but did know the exact subway line that the worker sampling methods, contaminant containment, tracking rode. Using police department personnel trained contaminant movement, and decontamination and in sampling techniques, CDC sampled the subway disposal issues. NHSRC does not focus on collecting line. Each sampling person was accompanied by evidence. a strategist to help identify appropriate sampling Adams discussed four different methods used to rank locations. None of the samples collected in the threat agents. Specific results of the ranking processes subway were positive for B. anthracis. Because were excluded from the presentation because of security B. anthracis out-competes other organisms, concerns. NHSRC is continually updating ranking results interferences were not a concern. to ensure that its research has the proper focus. DCMD approach • Has CDC considered the impacts of • This ranking approach nonculturable but viable organisms? CDC identifies and ranks high-priority threat researchers are currently examining this concern. agents, identifies and ranks likely terrorist They have completed some research withB. targets, and identifies terrorist goals (e.g., loss anthracis; the information gathered for this of life, economic damage, and inducing fear). organism, particularly validation studies, is To identify and rank threat agents, NHSRC applicable to other organisms. CDC has methods examined the ranking schemes and results of other for identifying organisms. Bioviability and its agencies and organizations, including CDC, DoD, EPA, impact on infectivity are critical issues. the State Department, and the intelligence community. NHSRC then developed a list of ranking factors: infective dose, persistence, availability (e.g., small pox is well guarded), prior use, ease of detection, severity

Decontamination Workshop  of effects, transmission, preventives/treatments, ease of environmental). SAIC developed a ranking decontamination (e.g., fumigation, latent desiccation), algorithm that calculated a risk number based on latency, and ease of airborne dispersion. NHSRC is the probability and consequences of an event. The more concerned with airborne dispersion, but they are risk index was the product of agent availability, beginning to address water distribution. Each ranking event feasibility, and the sum of possible health factor is given a weight (1 to 5) for relevance. The weights impacts, economic impacts, and environmental are somewhat arbitrary and can be changed. Each agent is impacts. Values for each of these variables were assigned a value (0 to 4) for each ranking factor. NHSRC identified using a series of decision trees. SAIC has clearly defined the agent-specific values (e.g., for calculated risk indices ranging from 0 to 300,000. the ranking factor “severity of effects,” 0 is mild and 4 is At the conclusion of the project, SAIC found results death). The overall threat agent rank is the sum of the similar to those of the DCMD approach. products of the ranking weight and the agent-specific • Expert systems approach This approach value. considered the open literature, classified reports, NHSRC identified a number of target buildings (e.g., NHSRC reports, and EPA lists of contaminants and shopping centers, convention centers, airports, hospitals, threats. Experts then gathered in a threat scenario museums, and federal agencies). The building ranking meeting and developed a list of priority agents. This factors are building access, HVAC access, potential for list was similar to those developed by NHSRC and infiltration outdoors, room size, and people traffic. Each SAIC. of these factors is then weighted (1 to 5). Infiltration has • Battelle systematic decontamination effort This a low weight because buildings are typically either entirely effort employed a method similar to the DCMD open or closed. Each building is assigned a value (1 to approach and achieved similar results. 5) for each ranking factor. The overall building rank is NHSRC received input from a number of agencies to the sum of the products of the ranking weight and the ensure that the final threat list would be all-encompassing. building value. NHSRC (including DCMD and the Threat and NHSRC combines the agent rank, building rank, and Consequence Assessment Division), DHS, DoD, EPA terrorist goals to link agents to events and develop threat Office of Water, EPA Office of Solid Waste, and EPA scenarios. NHSRC calculated a threat value by summing Emergency Response Team members all provided input. individual ranking factors (e.g., agent availability, agent hazard index, ease of agent use, people traffic, and non- Questions, Answers, and Comments health impacts). Agent availability refers to the ease of • How does the NHSRC ranking scheme compare obtaining an agent and prior use of an agent. The agent with the rankings and categorizations developed hazard index involves the infectious dose, lethality, by other agencies? NHSRC uses the ranking results severity of effects, contagiousness, latency, and treatment primarily to focus research efforts. Ranking schemes availability. Ease of use refers to dispersion options and the and categorizations are based on agency-specific potential for infiltration, and people traffic refers to the missions. For example, CDC is concerned with number of people who use an area. Non-health impacts health effects, so it may rank small pox as a threat include economic, symbolic, political, and psychological agent because of its drastic health consequences. impacts. NHSRC then ranked different threat scenarios NHSRC is concerned with decontamination; since according to visual patterns and statistical cluster analyses small pox is fragile in the environment, NHSRC to help focus work on a small number of persistent agents would rank it as a low priority. with severe potential effects. • NHSRC should add a category for technical • Science Applications International Corporation surprises (e.g., non-cultural but viable (SAIC) ranking approach SAIC researchers organisms). NHSRC is researching methods completed a similar but independent ranking for determining organism viability as well as process for NHSRC. They considered threats bioengineered organisms and newer chemical (physical contaminants and “cyber” threats), threats. targets (buildings, water systems, and wastewater systems), and impacts (health, economic, and

 NHSRC OPP Sterilant Registration • Tier 3 Collaborative and validation testing will occur under tier 3. Project: Improving the • Tier 4 This step involves identifying, developing, Association of Official and conducting comparative evaluations of field-test methods. OPP is currently focusing on laboratory Analytical Chemists (AOAC) assays and is not pursuing field-testing. Sporicidal Activity Test Ensuring that performance standards are maintained is critical when developing new methods or making and the Evaluation of changes to an established method. OPP has identified Quantitative Methods modifications to the existing AOAC method and two new promising methods, which they are testing with Stephen Tomasino, U.S. Environmental Protection surrogates. Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs Modified AOAC Method The current AOAC tests EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is researching use a liquid extract from raw garden soil (soil extraction and developing biological analysis methods. This nutrient broth) as the test medium. To standardize the presentation updated workshop participants about the test, OPP recommends replacing the extract with a method development project status and OPP’s evaluation synthetic broth manufactured to standard specifications. of laboratory sporicidal efficacy methods. OPP operates OPP also recommended replacing porcelain carriers with a microbiological laboratory, which is the home of this stainless steel carriers, adding a carrier count procedure OPP project, at Fort Meade, Maryland. This laboratory with a minimum of five to six logs per carrier, adding a is registered with CDC’s select agent program and may neutralization confirmation procedure, and replacing the become part of CDC’s Laboratory Response Network egg-meat medium. (LRN). OPP tested the current AOAC method against the As part of the method development project, OPP is modified AOAC to examine whether changes in the developing methods that allow laboratories to simulate test medium and the carrier material affected the text real-world conditions. The methods consider the threat performance. Tomasino presented a number of slides agent or surrogate, types of materials, application methods, detailing these test results. Overall results were comparable. and carrier systems. Goals of the project include advancing As part of ongoing efforts, OPP completed a final study the science of efficacy testing, standardizing methods, protocol for the modified AOAC method in March creating comparable efficacy testing results, identifying 2005 and will begin validation testing in April 2005. The a surrogate for B. anthracis, and building a platform for validation report is due in July 2005, and approval of the testing additional biological agents. report is expected in August 2005. OPP’s ultimate goal, however, is to design comparable The two new methods under evaluation are efficacy data to help develop regulatory guidance. The quantitative methods with inoculated vials serving as AOAC sporicidal activity test is the standard test currently the carriers. When identifying new test methods, OPP employed. A single carrier contains 105–106 spores, and considered a number of attributes, such as available a full study uses 720 carriers. This test has a number of protocol, validation, previous use for testing sporicides, limitations: results are qualitative, the test requires 21 readily available equipment, expertise, flexible contact days for incubation, and the test lacks standardization. A times and temperatures, enumeration approaches, percent passing result means that none of the carriers was positive. recovery results, deactivation of the agent, reproducibility, OPP is following a four-tiered approach to developing a turnaround time, suitability for various product forms, method that is easier to run and understand: and adequate controls. Two methods met these criteria: • Tier 1 OPP evaluated methods, including • ASTM E 2111-00 Standard Quantitative Carrier modified AOAC tests, with the agentB. subtilis. Test Method The ASTM method uses a glass vial • Tier 2 Activities under tier 2 will be launched as a carrier. Following exposure, the vial’s contents soon and will include evaluating surrogates for B. are syphoned through a filter to capture spores. The anthracis. filter is then plated to assess spore growth, which indicates that spores remain.

Decontamination Workshop  • Three-Step Method (TSM) (Sagripanti et al., Crisis Exemptions for 1996) TSM employs a glass coupon as the carrier. To determine whether spores remain, the coupon Products Intended to undergoes a three-step process: centrifuge, sonicare, Inactivate Bacillus anthracis and incubation. Jeff Kempter, U.S. Environmental Protection OPP focused tests on liquids and hard surfaces. Each Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs test method required a different amount of sporicide. To assess the variability and repeatability of each method, Crisis exemption is the process of receiving approval to three separate laboratories completed three replicates of use an unregistered chemical as a decontaminant for tests following each method. a particular microorganism, such as B. anthracis. This Repeatability studies highlight inconsistencies presentation provided background information about the within a laboratory. Reproducibility studies highlight crisis exemption process, considerations for evaluating and inconsistencies between laboratories. Repeatability and selecting sporicides, issues that demand attention, and the reproducibility standard deviations were acceptably small current state of the registration process. for all test methods. Tomasino presented slides detailing A number of groups (e.g., researchers, regulators, the test methods and conditions (e.g., pH, sporicide chemical producers, first responders) and the public are concentration, and exposure period) and the results involved in deciding what chemicals should be used to achieved for each method (expressed as the control carrier decontaminate an anthrax event. First responders want log density or the log reduction). OPP’s study results chemicals that are safe and act quickly. The public looks did not show any method to be clearly superior. OPP for chemicals that are safe to use but provide adequate submitted the study results to an expert panel, which decontamination. selected TSM as the preferred method. As part of ongoing In the United States, decontamination agents efforts, OPP will conduct additional surrogate studies with fall under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and TSM beginning in April 2005. TSM and two to three Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA applies to chemicals surrogates will undergo a multi-laboratory validation study sold for inactivating biological agents. These chemicals in September 2005, and a summary report of findings is are considered pesticides and must be registered. When due in December 2005. anthrax attacks occurred in 2001, no chemical had been registered for decontaminating B. anthracis. As such, the Questions, Answers, and Comments government created the crisis exemption process to allow chemical decontamination. A crisis exemption was needed • What fumigants are you testing? To date, OPP for each decontamination event. Of the 63 requests, OPP has tested only liquid fumigants. However, OPP approved 28 and rejected 35. Both federal agencies and believes that TSM can be modified to test other private companies submitted requests and each request fumigants and other surfaces. included remediation action plans, sampling and analysis • What are the surrogate selection criteria? OPP plans, and ambient air monitoring plans. began testing with virulent anthrax. The surrogate When evaluating and selecting sporicides, selection criteria will be straightforward and may be OPP considers both safety and efficacy issues. used by other researchers. • Safety Concerns regarding safety include containment of the contamination area and fumigant, fumigant toxicity and potential human exposure, fumigant generation method, ability to achieve negative pressure in a building, post- treatment aeration and scrubbing needs, system backups, and ambient air monitoring needs. A key concern is that the fumigation be successful after the first treatment. Air treatment systems are also a key concern when considering containment and post- treatment cleanup.

0 NHSRC • Efficacy Issues associated with treatment efficacy labeled for restricted use and require a substantial technical include fumigation processes (e.g., treating the use manual. building as a whole or in sections), fumigant To address efficacy testing, EPA is leveraging distribution (e.g., using fans), reaching and holding interagency cooperation. EPA and others participate decontamination process parameters, monitoring in an expert panel to share information and prevent process parameters (e.g., concentration, time, and redundancies. They are trying to identify one set of tests relative humidity), biological indicator sampling, that is acceptable to all the agencies. These tests could and clearance sampling. Sealing a building to then be used for regulatory and/or registration purposes. prevent or minimize leaks is a time-consuming part Kempter highlighted the OPP method testing discussed in of ensuring the fumigation efficacy. Tomasino’s presentation. Liquids OPP has granted crisis exemptions for four Kempter discussed “Lemon Drop” as an example of a liquid B. anthracis sporicides: aqueous chlorine dioxide, crisis exemption situation. The United States Coast Guard hydrogen peroxide/peracetic acid, sodium hypochlorite, (USCG) identified a shipment of lemons with a viable and hydrogen peroxide/quarternary ammonium foam. threat for biological contamination. USCG needed, and These liquids were approved for use on hard, nonporous OPP provided, a crisis exemption within 24 hours. surfaces only. The exemption for DF-100 was withdrawn OPP and others have been successful at completing because the fumigant failed tests with the AOAC method. decontamination. Certain decontamination methods are DF-200, which is the improved version of DF-100, has safe and effective, some personnel and equipment can reportedly passed testing. be mobilized quickly, and OPP can quickly issue crisis Gases/Vapors Five gases and vapors have exemptions for known decontamination methods. received crisis exemptions: gaseous chlorine dioxide (buildings), vaporized hydrogen peroxide (buildings), Questions, Answers, and Comments paraformaldehyde (equipment in tented enclosures), • For sporicidal testing, is there a standard for methyl bromide (laboratory and field study), and material compatibility? Material compatibility ethylene oxide (specialized off-site treatment of specific standards have not been required. If OPP identifies items). Several vendors offer hydrogen peroxide as a a chemical that passes toxicity and efficacy tests decontamination agent. but has known compatibility problems, OPP will OPP is moving toward registering chemicals for require the manufacturer to label the product B. anthracis decontamination, but several regulatory accordingly. OPP is unlikely to fail a chemical issues must be addressed first. EPA needs to establish based on compatibility. A workshop participant standard efficacy test methods. The registration data noted that many concerns are associated with requirements need to be rigorous but reasonable. EPA material compatibility and fumigation. Material must also consider the question of how clean is clean. A compatibility involves more than just damage to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study focusing on material; it also involves the impact of a fumigant anthrax, plague, and small pox is pending. This study will on materials, the impact of a material on a likely include several recommendations for regulatory fumigant, and the ability of a fumigant to penetrate requirements, such as a site-by-site risk assessment. The a material. study will also address natural versus residual exposures, • Have all the chemicals that were used to past decontamination efforts, and enclosed versus semi- decontaminate B. anthracis been registered? enclosed facilities. No chemicals have been registered for use against Registration requires test data regarding product anthrax. Decontamination is still conducted under chemistry, toxicity, and efficacy. These tests are crisis exemptions and each situation is reviewed on straightforward and are guided by the concept that a a case-by-case basis. Some of the chemicals used in product registered for use against an agent must be tested anthrax decontamination, however, are registered against that agent. OPP may accept surrogate data if the for other uses. OPP is working with laboratories surrogate is proven to be equally susceptible to a product. and others to prepare for crisis exemption Product labeling includes details regarding the product use submissions, if needed. and safety precautions. For registration, a product may be

Decontamination Workshop  Sampling and Clearance Regardless of the objectives, Durno emphasized, the sampling approach must be logical. An approach devised Lessons Learned in the heat of the moment is destined to have problems. Mark Durno, U.S. Environmental Protection A carefully designed approach is more likely to lead to Agency a smooth sampling event. Two examples of sampling approaches are: Tony Intrepido, U.S. Army Center for Health • Known source When B. anthracis was Promotion and Prevention Medicine transported in the mail, the contaminated letters Durno is an OSC and end-user of decontamination were the known sources. For each room where technologies. He was involved in the Capitol Hill anthrax a contaminated letter may have been, sampling incident and has participated in technical working groups. occurred at the areas through which it most likely This presentation discussed many of the approaches passed. If a positive result occurred, sampling in the presented earlier but provided an end-user’s perspective. affected area was expanded. The basic sampling approach is the same for • Known contamination with an unknown source chemical, biological, and radiological agents. The anthrax In this instance, statistical analysis of an area can technical assistance document prepared by the National improve the probability of finding a positive Response Team (NRT) (available at www.nrt.org) provides detection and identifying a source. A negative result, immediate response actions for first responders at a scene. however, does not necessarily indicate that the agent The approach outlined in that document is consistent with is absent from an area. other terrorism response or hazardous release situations. Intrepido continued the presentation with a The specifics of a sampling plan, however, change from discussion of lessons learned from the sampling efforts. site to site. Parameters to formalize before sampling begins In April 2004, Intrepido participated in a workshop include objectives, approaches, sampling and analytical to discuss sampling and detection issues. During that methods, transportation concerns, coordination efforts, workshop, discussions included topics such as hazard and data interpretation. identification, field detection, sampling efficacy, analytical Considerations when developing sampling objectives capabilities, and post-decontamination sampling. The first include: topic applied to first responders and the last three topics • Defining goals Sampling goals may applied to characterization and remediation activities. include assessing risk, characterizing contamination, • Hazard identification Hazard identification is supporting decisions, or verifying decontamination. critcal for first responders because their actions may • Establishing data quality objectives Even if spread contamination. Like hazardous materials, expressed as notes in a log book, data quality biological agents must be contained. Assessing and objectives are critical to a successful sampling event. establishing the credibility of the threat is key. • Identifying standards No decontamination • Field detections Several methods for collecting standards are currently available. field data are available (e.g., hand-held assays, In addition, professionals (e.g., from the medical, infrared sensors, and rapid polymerase chain environmental, laboratory, and public health reaction testing). Misuse of these tools, however, can communities) involved in the decontamination process lead to poor decisions. Intrepido discouraged using should be consulted. Sampling event objectives for first these methods without proper training. Other field responders may include real-time monitoring, screening, detection technologies are under development and bulk material sampling, or unknown material sampling. testing. As the sampling effort moves toward assessing the extent • Sampling efficacy Intrepido listed a number of of contamination or decontamination, the objectives may available guidance materials and references, as well shift to forensics or the effectiveness of decontamination. as several studies by NIOSH, USPS, and others, Transitional sampling, an Occupational Safety and Health that address sampling efficacy concerns. Further Administration (OSHA) approach, clears a building for efficacy studies, however, are needed to identify safe reoccupation. acceptable detection limits.

12 NHSRC • Analytical capabilities Laboratories are working • Did you conduct any high-volume air sampling? to improve analytical capabilities and analytical NIOSH and the Agency for Toxic Substances and support for decontamination projects. CDC has Disease Registry (ATSDR) helped EPA develop established the Laboratory Response Network an aggressive high-volume air sampling protocol, (LRN) and is working to standardize analytical which was similar to asbestos sampling protocols. methods used throughout the LRN. DoD is They sealed several rooms and passed one to two establishing a similar environmental LRN (eLRN) room volumes of air through a dry filter unit. to harmonize sampling. Although the data were insufficient for statistical • Post-decontamination sampling To date, verification, the results improved EPA’s confidence verification sampling has been exhaustive. As in other data, such as surface sampling data. EPA research advances and laboratory applications also augmented sampling data using other sampling become more relevant to field applications, methods (e.g., gelatin filters) that can detect low clearance will become more efficient. concentrations. Overall, the dry filters from the To provide better guidance, the NRT technical high-volume sampling reported positive results assistance document should consider first responder but not with the same frequency as other sampling needs, include a matrix of appropriate sampling strategies methods. EPA hopes that more research in this area and methods (including statistical tools), encourage the will be conducted. use of relevant professionals, and develop consistent • When designing a statistical sampling approach nomenclature. for B. anthracis, the agent’s specific aerosol Two examples illustrate different factors that affect a properties are considered. When designing a sampling strategy. statistical sampling approach for two or three • Hart building A clear understanding of different agents, how do you consider agents’ contamination avenues was present. Sampling was different aerosol properties?When searching for planned using this knowledge. unknowns, targeting specific areas for sampling is • USPS buildings People were working for days and difficult. As more information becomes available weeks after the initial release. A dynamic sampling and you begin to understand the nature of plan considered movement of the agent and objects contamination, you can target areas and change in the building, and so sampling included lifting sampling approaches. some objects and sampling underneath them. • When identifying the logic behind a sampling Appeasement sampling became part of the approach sequence, should you consider clearance to assuage people’s fear. Additional sampling also sampling needs? At the Hart Building, vertical became necessary when one laboratory provided and horizontal grid-style sampling with air quantitative sampling results and other laboratories sampling was conducted. Clearance sampling at reported only qualitative results (i.e., positive or this building was more involved than clearance negative). The quantitative and qualitative results sampling at other buildings because an extended were not comparable. period had lapsed between exposure and decontamination. Sampling included redundancy, Questions, Answers, and Comments extensive horizontal (i.e., surface) sampling, and • A workshop participant expressed concern about consideration of airborne movement. Intrepido false negatives. Statistical design, if correct, can noted that the decontamination process at the consider data risk. In research at the Edgewood Hart Building helped to develop a new sampling Chemical Biological Center (ECBC), differences in nomenclature. The technical language regarding kill efficacy were based on differences in surfaces. the decontamination process is also continuing to Most tests use a stainless steel surface, which does evolve. not account for surface variability in real-world situations.

Decontamination Workshop  The Use of the Trace After testing the systems in a fixed laboratory, EPA moved the system to a mobile laboratory, which Atmospheric Gas Analyzer consisted of a TAGA mounted in a bus. The APCI uses (TAGA) to Qualitatively electrons and protons to ionize a chemical. Ambient air enters the instrument; molecules are ionized and then and Quantitatively Monitor passed through the three-quadrupole mass spectrometer. Ambient Air for Chemical TAGA measures charges and creates a unique spectral “fingerprint” as the result for each chemical. Information Warfare Agents (CWAs) and gathered in the mobile laboratory can then be sent to an Decontamination Agents in incident command location via satellite. Mickunas presented the TAGA fingerprints for Real Time at Parts per Trillion a number of the agents of interest. The technology by Volume Levels or Below considered the molecular weights of the parent and daughter ions. TAGA can even detect low concentrations Dave Mickunas, U.S. Environmental Protection of chemicals with low vapor pressures, such as VX. Ion Agency, Environmental Response Team counting is key to the success of this method. For the The presenter and others are developing and testing tested agents, EPA recorded between 200 and 7,000 ion methods for real-time, low-level monitoring for chemical counts per part per billion (ppb), which indicates a good warfare agents (CWAs) and decontamination agents in response. ambient air. EPA’s TAGA consists of an Atmospheric Overall, TAGA is a good testing method for the Pressure Chemical Ionization (APCI) source linked agents of interest. The mobile unit can identify an to a three-quadrupole mass spectrometer. This project evacuation area, but it is not currently configured for included developing CWA spectra and calibration sampling high concentrations. At a decontamination curves, developing chemical ionization capabilities to event, TAGA can be used to detect fumigant leaks and detect CWA’s, verifying detection limits, determining the identify concentrations exceeding shutdown levels (e.g., dynamic linear range, establishing surrogates, identifying chlorine dioxide concentrations of 25 ppb for three 15- interferences, and demonstrating methods. Mickunas minute periods, or 100 ppb for one 15-minute period). presented a series of slides detailing the test methods, test Questions, Answers, and Comments conditions, test materials, chemicals of interest, and some unique test conditions. • Workshop participants commented that TAGA and Chemical agents of interest throughout the task the mobile laboratory can serve as a leak-detection included GA (Tabun), GB, GD, GF (cyclosarin), technology. The detection limits for hand-held

VX, HD, and the nitrogen mustard agents HN1, sensors are too high to detect leaks. Mickunas

HN2, and HN3. Chlorine dioxide and chlorine were agreed and noted that the TAGA technology is the decontamination agents of interest. Initial testing about six times more sensitive than hand-held occurred in a laboratory chamber. EPA used diisopropyl instruments. methylphosphonate (DIMP) as a surrogate for G and B • Is the method applicable to high-molecular- agents and half mustard as a surrogate for mustard. weight compounds (e.g., ricin)? The One aspect of the testing was to assess how well agents pharmaceutical industry, which deals with high- would transfer through a glass sampling tube without molecular-weight compounds, uses this technology. being adsorbed or reacting with the tubing. Because Air monitoring was not the original end use of laboratory testing must be conducted under a hood, the technology. The method works with these researchers could test only a limited tubing length. Results compounds because it examines charges on showed that the glass tubing was not entirely inert. EPA molecules. is considering additional test conditions, such as adding • Are there concerns about using this technology heat, to assess reactions with the glass tubing. at fumigations in high rises? Downwash is a concern. Overall, many opportunities exist to

14 NHSRC research the logistical implementation of TAGA minimize each party’s risk. For the decontamination and the mobile laboratory. events, the USPS reluctantly accepted full liability and • Does vehicle exhaust interfere with the results? assigned broad indemnity with few exceptions (e.g., Vehicle exhaust interference is minimal, less than outcomes occurring as a result of gross vendor error). 30 percent. Many months, however, passed before the USPS reached • Are fixed monitoring stations in a community the decision to accept liability. To minimize their risk, the required with TAGA and mobile laboratories? USPS then obtained some insurance coverage—a $100 From experience, this workshop participant million policy costing $4 million. Decontamination of has found that fixed stations are costly and one facility, however, cost more than $100 million, so this time-consuming to use. Mickunas agreed that policy did not cover the USPS completely. fixed monitoring stations have limited value. A The USPS course of action has two problems. contamination plume from a leak can be very First, most government agencies cannot indemnify narrow and can pass between fixed stations without decontamination vendors because these agencies are not detection. The mobile monitoring unit provides allowed to enter into the open-ended contracts required more information and more ways to identify and for indemnification. DoD has exceptions to this restriction resolve leaks. for issues related to weapons. The current administration is also very reluctant to grant terrorism exceptions; the Insurance and Indemnity USPS has an indefinite income stream and, for this reason, was able to accept indefinite liability. Second, Issues insurance is not an available standby solution and much time is needed to negotiate an insurance policy after an Jerry Robinson, U.S. Postal Service event occurs. Most insurance companies will not hold This presentation examined insurance and indemnity an open insurance policy without payment, but opening issues at decontamination sites. The USPS is concerned an unnecessary insurance policy is not a smart business not with industrial accidents but with terrorist actions. practice. Nonetheless, the USPS is looking for an available Therefore, some of the insurance and indemnity options standby solution. mentioned in the presentation apply only to terrorist Robinson suggested that contractors obtain a attacks. An act of terror can be broadly defined as anything SAFETY Act designation and certification for their unlawful that causes harm or attempts to use weapons of technologies. This would allow contractors to be mass destruction. A terrorist group does not need to be immediately available to perform decontamination identified and the act may be conducted by a domestic or services. The SAFETY Act—that is, the Support Anti- foreign group. Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of In October 2001, anthrax releases contaminated 2002—is part of the Homeland Security Act. The the USPS Brentwood and Trenton facilities. The attacks SAFETY Act covers decontamination technologies caused illness in 22 people and the death of 5 people. The because these technologies are a response to a terror act. attacks also rendered the facilities unusable, damaged mail- As well as fostering the deployment of more anti-terrorism sorting equipment, and instilled fear in postal workers and technologies, the Act creates a system of litigation and the public. The USPS contracted with vendors to fumigate risk management for those technologies. Litigation and restore the facilities. management restricts punitive and non-economic As the property owner, the USPS needed to protect damages to government contractors; risk management contractors from undesirable outcomes occurring as a restricts liability to the extent that insurance allows. result of the decontamination process (e.g., explosion, The SAFETY Act, however, requires a vendor to unsuccessful fumigation, and harm to postal or vendor purchase insurance, determined by DHS, in order to workers). Obtaining this protection comes at great cost be certified. The insurance level is supposed to be the and great delay. maximum amount that can be purchased without unduly Addressing liability for harm to people is the most raising product price. This is a vague standard for DHS difficult aspect of protecting the vendors and the USPS. to follow. The SAFETY Act also includes a government Involved parties may try to distribute the liability to contractor liability exemption. This exemption absolves

Decontamination Workshop  contractors from responsibility for undesirable outcomes An OSC’s role in a project is defined by the title “on- of the decontamination (e.g., damage to property or scene coordinator” itself. “On-scene” implies a different personal injury). Some attorneys are concerned that the role from “on-site.” “On-site” implies a federal presence at government contractor liability exemption will not stand a specific threat location; “on-scene” indicates involvement up in court. For example, a judge faced with a person in an event without requiring a physical presence. OSCs harmed during a decontamination event and responsible are coordinators, not commanders. Commanders control for overwhelming medical bills may deem the contractor site actions, whereas coordinators play a number of roles to liable because no other responsible party is available. provide information and support remediation efforts. The command structure at a site may seem complex, so the Questions, Answers, and Comments OSC can act as a liaison within this structure. OSCs direct federal response assets. They draw from • Does the SAFETY Act cover decontamination a large tool box of resources (e.g., contractor support, at private companies? Private companies are scientific support, special units, and public relations covered as long as a terror act, and not an industrial support teams) and provide these resources to local accident, caused the damage. and state agencies to ensure that these agencies are not • Is federal insurance an option? The atomic power overwhelmed by the remediation process. They also ensure industry has used a federal insurer model, but the that remediation work at a site is completed properly. For federal government is the insurer of last resort. example, the USPS commanded decontamination efforts The current Congress has not adopted a federal at the postal facilities contaminated with anthrax. The insurance policy for terror acts. OSC simply supported the USPS’s efforts. • Do you see companies investing in insurance because they want decontamination and response Many workshop participants may be contacted by an OSC. Researchers may act as information resources for business? Robinson stated that there is a limited an OSC, or technology vendors may work with OSCs market for decontamination services and suggested to identify resources for testing their technology. OSCs that more insurance options might be available if may also evaluate the remediation equipment used for more contractors entered this market. decontamination. • Is the contractor liability exemption rebuttable? This exemption is only rebuttable if there is proof of Questions, Answers, and Comments fraud in the application to DHS. • One workshop participant has worked with OSCs The Role of the On-Scene over the past three years. The OSCs understood available federal information and assets and Coordinator in the Process obtained them as necessary and worked behind the scene of the decontamination to ensure Marty Powell, U.S. Environmental Protection success. Another participant agreed that the OSC Agency is a valuable source of information, which can be Powell has worked for EPA for 20 years and served as used to support decisions. Powell emphasized that an OSC for about 10 of these years. This presentation OSCs can access many EPA resources and facilitate provided an overview of an OSC’s two responsibilities: obtaining these resources. They provide a link 1. To determine whether there has been a release of an between scientific research and implementation of oil, hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant technologies. and whether the release poses a threat to the public • Another participant noted that an OSC has a broad or environment. range of authority and power. For one site, the OSC 2. To ensure that the threat is mitigated. These determined the chlorine concentration needed for responsibilities remain the same on all projects, decontamination. Powell responded that an OSC although project specifics change. has the ability to make decisions for a site without obtaining a permit. Regulations requiring permits often do not consider emergency response needs.

16 NHSRC In addition, OSCs have no liability and cannot Introduction to be sued for their decisions. The role of the OSC is complicated by the needs of different agencies, such the Government as other offices within EPA, the United States Coast Decontamination Services Guard (USCG), and the Department of Energy (DoE). Regardless of agency, though, an OSC’s Robert Bettley-Smith, Department for roles and responsibilities remain unchanged: they Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, work toward an end goal of threat identification and Government Decontamination Service mitigation. Bettley-Smith presented the United Kingdom • One participant, who works as an OSC, noted that (UK) approach to threat events and subsequent a shortcoming in many responses is coordinating decontamination and provided a history of events that government and academic research to solve have occurred. The UK is examining possible future problems. An OSC may seek more information threats and building its arsenal of technologies to address about a compound, but the literature may provide them. These efforts consider global uncertainty and draw scattered and conflicting information. The OSC on a cross-government effort to ensure preparedness. is then charged with making decisions based on In April 2003, the UK commissioned a study to assess this information. This participant emphasized the the need for an agency to address chemical, biological, and need for more research, planning, and preparedness radiological threats. The study recommended actions to information. improve the UK’s ability to respond to threat events. In • What triggers the appointment of an OSC? A January 2005, the government announced its intention notification of some kind of release, for example, to establish the Government Decontamination Service a call to EPA or the National Response Center, (GDS). Currently, the government is balancing efforts triggers the appointment. (An industry call to to improve the UK’s capability to address an event and EPA about a spill is a notification.) An OSC may establish the organization to implement this capability. respond by granting responsibility to state or GDS must consider current government structure local agencies but is still responsible for ensuring and authority. In the UK, authorities at the county mitigation. Sometimes the response includes a full- level are responsible for hazardous events. They are well scale investigation. prepared for chemical events because of their experience • In the remediation phase, does the OSC act with chemical transport and releases. They also have as the incident commander under the Federal experience with radiological events (e.g., the Chernobyl Response Plan? In Florida, when the FBI event). They lack, however, experience with biological completed investigations and released the events, so GDS will focus its efforts on these threats. GDS building for decontamination, did EPA establish considers biological event decontamination as a specialized a command structure? An OSC is unlikely field with expertise available from the private sector. There to become the incident commander. The OSC is a concern that local authorities could be overwhelmed considers site operations, such as what vendor is by the exigencies of decontamination following an attack providing what services. The command structure, and could respond inappropriately. however, can vary. The USCG strike team is one The UK hopes to learn from the U.S. anthrax resource available to an OSC. Typically, this team events and other countries’ responses to biological serves as the incident commander at coastal sites. threats. The Australian response plan was evaluated Agencies involved in a decontamination event may in November 2003. This plan is grounded in military work together to formalize the incident command actions, a precondition that is not applicable to the structure. EPA is currently working toward UK. Also reviewed was the French plan, which includes developing a more uniform approach. public notification as required by French laws. Again, this plan is not wholly applicable to the UK. Bettley- Smith emphasized the importance of understanding the background for a response plan model, including

Decontamination Workshop  constitutional restrictions and responsible parties. The UK was most familiar with activities in the UK and has also considered establishing a centralized data system was unable to provide an overview of actions for facilitating and sharing knowledge across nations and occurring throughout Europe. Concern has been preventing research overlap. high in Australia since before the Sydney Olympics. In addition to developing a response plan, GDS may France is also working to address decontamination provide information about vendors and technologies concerns. Some of the UK actions have been driven capable of biological decontamination. This information by threat assessments, and the UK is working to may be presented in the form of a catalog of available ensure that event responses are proportional to the goods and services, including long-term, durable responses risk. and proven technologies. GDS may also enter agreements • Does the UK face the same insurance and requiring that vendors offering these services be available indemnity issue as the U.S.? In the UK, the to the government when necessary. government serves as the insurance underwriter, Overall, GDS will serve three primary functions: with certain reinsurance provisions. The • Provide advice and guidance GDS will guide government is working with the insurance industry responsible authorities as they plan for emergencies to quantify risks. Once insurance providers can and test these plans. It will prepare a strategic quantify the risk, they can underwrite it. Key national guidance document; provide ad hoc advice; contractors will likely carry insurance for a variety review case studies; and participate in exercises that of situations. After a terror event has occurred, the test command and coordination abilities, identify risks during the remediation phase of the event are solutions, and highlight response plan weaknesses. the same as the risks during the remediation phase Individuals have already evaluated three case study of a hazardous materials release. These are insurable events (a cesium release and two bombings) to assess risks. Insurance may be difficult, but not impossible, responses and suggest actions to improve responses. to obtain. • Identify resources GDS will provide information about vendors, their capabilities, and their Laboratory Capacity Issues technologies and facilitate interactions between local authorities and vendors. Some interim Rob Rothman, U.S. Environmental Protection arrangements, modeled on the response to the U.S. Agency, National Homeland Security Research anthrax events, are in place, but the public demands Center more confidence in vendor relationships and This presentation addressed laboratory capacity issues as technology success. The lack of technology field- they relate to homeland security. A homeland security testing is a concern because a technology must work presidential directive requires that “federal agencies when needed. be prepared to respond to chemical, biological, and • Advise the central government GDS will track the radiological attacks.” UK’s decontamination capabilities and report to the Laboratories face several issues with regard to meeting central government. this directive: GDS will not assume responsibility for • Validation Validated sampling methods provide decontamination, fund decontamination, or handle a level of confidence in reported sampling results humans, animals, or their remains. If an event occurs and in answering the question “How clean is in the UK today, GDS will likely provide advice and clean?” These methods are lacking for some priority guidance and help secure contracts. It may also be able to chemical, biological, and radiological agents. provide an OSC. Expertise • Laboratories must have expertise in Questions, Answers, and Comments handling CWAs, which may degrade quickly. • Capacity A laboratory may be called to analyze • Is there a perception of urgency to address thousands of samples quickly, especially if an attack decontamination capabilities and preparedness affects city operations. in other European communities? Bettley-Smith

18 NHSRC Creating standardized analytical methods is one way with the sentinel laboratories and first responders. These to address these issues. Standardized methods would laboratories will also provide method validation. Reference ensure consistent and proficient sample analysis across laboratories will provide definitive agent identification laboratories. In September 2004, EPA identified 109 for an event, develop methods and guidance, and priority agents and specific analytical methods for gas, provide quality assurance. Tentatively identified reference solid, oily solid, and aqueous samples. laboratories include the EPA ORD laboratories in Las Revisions to the standard analytical methods are Vegas (chemical focus) and Cincinnati (biological focus). scheduled for June 2005. This revision will include These two laboratories are currently working toward updates to existing methods and will add new methods for identifying preferred analytical methods for all priority analyzing drinking water, CWA degradation products, and agents in all media, developing validated methods for four radiological agents (strontium-90, cesium, iridium, CWAs, and preparing a nationwide quality assurance and cobalt-60). program. Research with CWAs must occur under high-security Optimally, these laboratories will operate under the conditions and within laboratories under the rigorous same system to provide as much consistency as possible. personnel-reliability program. Only a finite number of The network would also be able to address all hazards, laboratories meet these conditions. Rothman listed some provide rapid sentinel screening, employ high-confidence of the available analytical methods for CWAs, which methods, and offer surge capacity. Laboratories will add include a joint U.S. and Finnish method, Organization for real-time technologies to their capabilities when these the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) methods, methods are validated and supported by research. Through Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons the eLRN, EPA hopes to eliminate problems of analytical Convention (VERIFIN) Blue Books, and the Wiley inconsistencies and lack of sample comparability. Encyclopedia of Analytical Methods. EPA not only needs to package this existing information in the standardized Questions, Answers, and Comments analytical methods document but also needs to develop • One workshop participant provided additional new methods. Some chemical-specific concerns in the details about CDC’s LRN. CDC developed the development of methods are that GS degrades quickly LRN to support medical responses. Sentinel (within 24 hours) and VX, mustard, and lewisite are laboratories are given cleared status to conduct relatively persistent. Methods, therefore, must be able to analyses; they include hospitals and others with detect either the primary agent or degradation products. access to biological analysis methods. Confirmatory In addition to developing analytical methods, laboratories are part of a secure system addressing laboratories must have the capacity to handle samples public health concerns (i.e., state and federal public collected during a response. Samples to identify the threat health laboratories). Confirmatory laboratories agent and assess the nature and extent of contamination undergo proficiency testing and follow a quality are collected at the greatest rate within days of the event. assurance/quality control program. Reference Thousands of samples, collected within days or weeks laboratories include the CDC laboratories. The of the initial event may need to be analyzed. Cleanup, impetus for creating the LRN was the need for clearance, and surveillance samples taken weeks, months, high-quality, interpretable results that support and possibly years after the event may be collected in public health decisions. Security at these laboratories greater numbers, but likely at slower rates, than initial is critical. Rothman agreed with the participant sampling. about security: it is critical, especially when To address capacity concerns, EPA is working with laboratories are handling CWAs. EPA is currently CDC to develop the environmental Laboratory Response discussing security issues and will likely limit Network (eLRN). CDC’s existing LRN serves as a security clearance to a small number of laboratories model for the three-tiered eLRN. Screening or sentinel that will develop protocols and then distribute these laboratories will provide analyses and participate in protocols throughout the network. Use of surrogates sampling surges. Confirmatory laboratories will coordinate

Decontamination Workshop  and degradation products may also facilitate actual fumigation. Before fumigation could start, Sabre material handling and address security concerns. considered whether B. anthracis contamination remained • Is EPA considering geographic distribution after 2.5 years of vacancy. Contamination followed the of the laboratories for the eLRN? Geographic mail route and affected the HVAC system above the mail distribution is one of the many factors under areas. Sampling protocols developed for the Capitol Hill consideration. For example, EPA is considering anthrax event were applied to the AMI building. using the 10 EPA regional laboratories as part of the Having confirmed the presence ofB. anthracis, Sabre eLRN. demonstrated the technology to ensure that the fumigant • How did EPA select the four radiological would reach all areas requiring decontamination. Sabre agents for inclusion in the revised standardized used the building’s HVAC system to distribute the analytical methods document? These four fumigant. For the demonstration, about 1,500 biological radiological agents represent a starting point. They indicators and 15 test strips were placed throughout are high-energy gamma emitters that are readily the building. Sabre released the fumigant to achieve a available. concentration of 750 parts per million (ppm) for a 12- • Will the eLRN include private laboratories? hour period. The building remained at a minimum of Private laboratories may be included in the eLRN as 75° F and 50 percent relative humidity. The indicators and sentinel laboratories. test strips confirmed that the fumigant would reach all targets. Chlorine Dioxide Fumigation The Sabre technology involves transforming liquid chlorine to gas. The technology passes the liquid through and Liquid Chlorine Dioxide packing material to achieve the phase change. They controlled for the necessary temperature and humidity John Mason, Sabre Technical Services level using the building’s HVAC system. In Boca Raton, Sabre Technology Services (Sabre) fumigated the AMI dehumidifying the air was necessary. building in Boca Raton and containers involved in During the full-scale AMI fumigation, Sabre placed “Lemon Drop.” (USCG identified a shipment of lemons approximately 200 log-8 test strips throughout the with a viable threat for biological contamination.) USCG building. In post-treatment sampling, all strips showed needed, and OPP was able to provide, a crisis exemption a no-growth response. Tracking sample locations and within 24 hours. Mason presented information about communicating results were concerns, so Sabre developed the chlorine dioxide fumigation technology used at these a three-dimensional sampling map of the AMI building. locations and the lessons learned from conducting these The software enabled people to visualize the sampling fumigations. locations and track the sample chain of custody. At these events, Sabre sought options to accelerate As Sabre completed the AMI building fumigation, the decontamination and clearance process. Options the company was called to apply the same technology to included minimizing wastes generated, minimizing liquid the contaminated containers identified in Newark Harbor. pre-treatments, applying mobile fumigation technologies, Sabre used this event to test its mobile equipment. The streamlining the clearance process, ensuring proper sample total transit time from Boca Raton to Newark was about tracking and quality control, and communicating clearly 20 hours. Within 48 hours of leaving Boca Raton, Sabre with the affected community. At both events, Sabre was ready to begin fumigation. Insurance and a crisis demonstrated its mobile fumigation technology. At the exemption were both obtained within 24 hours because AMI building, streamlining the clearance process would the agencies involved in Newark had worked with Sabre at have been the best option to reduce time. A tremendous the Boca Raton building and were familiar with the Sabre effort was also exerted to describe and discuss the technology. The fumigation in Newark was completed fumigation process to the public and regulatory agencies. within 10 days. To illustrate the process, Mason described the These two projects illustrate the need for pre- fumigation at the AMI building in detail. The fumigation planning. The planning phase can be streamlined when itself lasted 7 days from equipment setup to complete agencies and organizations are familiar with a technology. fumigation. However, 30 days of planning preceded the Data tracking is also critical. Demonstrations of the

0 NHSRC decontamination technology at the AMI building were process demonstrations and arranged a round-table needed partially to ensure that the fumigant was contained discussion for the community the day before the within the building. Sabre has since conducted tests of scheduled fumigation. More than 100 people from tenting with negative pressure to contain fumigants at the community attended this event. a facility in Utica, New York. Obtaining insurance also • Because the original contamination occurred contributed significantly to project delays. The AMI long before building closure, how did you building fumigation was delayed from November to May ensure treatment of surfaces that had since because of insurance issues. been covered? For surface-to-surface mates, Sabre inserted a geoplate between the two surfaces to Questions, Answers, and Comments allow fumigant penetration. They considered items • When decontaminating the containers in Newark such as coffee cups on a surface, dictionaries on Harbor, were you told what the target agent tables, and surfaces within chair cushions. was? Can you discuss project considerations for • How was electronic equipment handled? The conducting decontamination for an unknown? equipment that could run was kept running during Sabre received minimal information about the fumigation. About 60 percent of the equipment target agent in this situation. They were told to treat was nonfunctional by the time of fumigation. Since the containers for an unknown biological agent. fumigation, Sabre has not observed soft metal This situation highlights the need for better testing corrosion. In high-humidity areas, rust films are and method development. The containers had been forming, but this would occur in any facility left tested for only three elements, but treatment was vacant for a long period. needed quickly because of the critical location of • What was your approach to insurance? Sabre the containers. Agencies involved did not know combined insurance with a no-growth standard whether the biological threat was real or a hoax. The for two reasons: 1) a no-growth standard decreases containers had tested positive for narcotics. For the the number of possible questions in the clearance safety of all involved, they assumed that the threat process, and 2) it combines clearance with a was real. Before a bomb squad or customs officials standard. As a private company, Sabre must have could enter the containers, decontamination for the insurance. Immediately following the events biological threat had to occur. of 9/11, insurance was unavailable because • Can you elaborate on your sampling, specifically insurance companies had mold and biological the different sampling at the AMI building exclusions to protect themselves from costly mold points used to track fumigant levels? Sabre situations. Suppliers and vendors on a biological placed thousands of fumigant indicators to confirm decontamination project would have lost their that the fumigant reached desired areas. The base insurance because of the mold and biological indicators change color once they reach a certain exclusions. Companies are working to remove this concentration. exclusion for bio-weapons, and standby insurance is • How did you gain community support for now available. fumigation of the AMI building? Sabre included • At the AMI building, Sabre used tubing to the community early in the decontamination check fumigant concentrations inside. Have you process. A public relations firm provided considered telemetry systems? Sabre selected the community relations support. In addition, the tubing approach—a simple technology—to keep project had the mayor’s support. Sabre was open the overall process simple. Telemetry tied to titration about their activities and made themselves available results is desireable but cost-prohibitive at this to community groups and media outlets. Sabre held point.

Decontamination Workshop  STERIS Chem-Bio houses former office and lab areas, which provide a variety of surfaces and materials for testing. When conducting Decontamination efficacy tests, STERIS places the VHP units in a sealed Iain McVey, STERIS Corporation room. Sensors on the unit track the vapor concentrations. STERIS Corporation (STERIS) provides technologies to Because the whole unit is within the room, the unit is self- prevent infection and contamination. Their technologies decontaminating. Bench- and chamber-scale tests have TM are used in the pharmaceutical industry but also apply to shown modified vaporous hydrogen peroxide (mVHP ) decontamination following biological terror events. (patent pending) to be effective against chemical agents as Vaporous hydrogen peroxide (VHP) decontamination well as biological agents. methods have widespread use in pharmaceutical Because contamination of the cargo air fleet is a companies and clean rooms. A pharmaceutical company concern, STERIS also completed a demonstration project may house manufacturing equipment in a chain of glove to test mVHP for decontaminating a C-141 cargo aircraft. boxes. Decontamination, which may occur monthly or STERIS set up the hydrogen peroxide system in a cargo even daily, consists of simply injecting VHP into the boxes plane slated to be scrapped. Project setup took 2 days. in this chain. STERIS tested different fumigation time periods and After the events of 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, concentrations and conducted chemical and biological STERIS began modifying its technologies to apply to sampling in on-site mobile units. STERIS also exposed anthrax. STERIS used its proprietary VHP to fumigate aircraft materials to 100 hours of hydrogen peroxide two buildings contaminated with anthrax: to investigate concerns about structural integrity. Tests • GSA Building 410 This 1.4 million-ft3 building showed that VHP did affect structural components but was an office supply storage area and a mail-sorting that there were no ill effects on avionics. facility for the White House. STERIS conducted STERIS is working to reduce the system size so fumigation with the building contents in place. The that the system will fit on a cargo plane. STERIS is also building was separated into 200,000-ft3 fumigation working to develop a mobile/modular system, spacecraft zones because no data for fumigation of a whole decontamination systems (with NASA), and an integrated building were available. The HVAC systems were mVHP/HVAC system. treated as separate zones. The decontamination took Questions, Answers, and Comments 3 weeks. • Building SA-32 STERIS simplified the • Has STERIS tested the different effects of decontamination system based on information VHP on fabrics, materials, paintings, wood, gathered during the GSA Building 410 and irreplaceable historical artifacts? The GSA decontamination. This 1.5 million-ft3 building Building 410 storage area contained personal items was also separated into 200,000-ft3 zones. All of its of the President and Vice President, including contents were removed for easier decontamination. several paintings. No problems with the paintings Decontamination at this building took 2 weeks. have been reported to STERIS. Fumigating carpet At both of these buildings, STERIS successfully is a concern. The deeper the carpet, the longer the employed its VHP technology. McVey stated that a benefit exposure period needs to be. Most chemical agents of hydrogen peroxide is that it decomposes to water make very good plasticizers, so they will soak into and oxygen so residual contamination is not a concern. materials such as paint. When hydrogen peroxide is However, the rapid decay of VHP also means that introduced as a gas, it works in a similar fashion. repeated injections are needed to ensure that the proper • Is relative humidity control required? STERIS concentrations are reached. Multiple injection points, personnel use a 35 percent hydrogen peroxide not a single point, may be the best option for optimal aqueous solution for bioefficacy, so they introduce distribution. water with the hydrogen peroxide. If humidity is In collaboration with the ECBC, STERIS continues too high, the hydrogen peroxide gas just condenses. to study the VHP technology. ECBC operates an STERIS uses a system to keep humidity below the abandoned building as a large-scale test site. The building condensation level.

22 NHSRC • At the NBC offices in New York City, was a crisis The technology works by flash evaporating a exemption needed for VHP? STERIS obtained 30 percent to 35 percent hydrogen peroxide solution into a crisis exemption for the NBC decontamination. the environment. The hydrogen peroxide then creates a There was a concern about releasing VHP in an micro-condensate on surfaces within the treatment area. occupied building. Affected rooms, therefore, were The micro-condensate greatly improves the kinetics of treated by liquid decontamination. At this site, the decontamination; the D-value is less than 2 minutes when effect of hydrogen peroxide on personal items was the micro-condensate occurs and 2 hours without the also a great concern. STERIS removed personal micro-condensate. BIOQUELL uses an optic condensation items and fumigated them with VHP off-site. monitor to detect the onset of the micro-condensation. • What was involved in emptying Building SA-32? Relative humidity has not been a factor in the use of this STERIS removed the old mail-sorting machine, technology; success has been achieved in environments which was autoclaved for decontamination and ranging from 5 percent to 85 percent humidity. Modeling incinerated for disposal. STERIS personnel also is necessary for planning decontamination events and removed the wallboard down to the studs, so they ensuring success. In 2002, BIOQUELL published a paper really fumigated an empty shell of a building. detailing the physical chemistry behind the process. Hydrogen peroxide tends to form strong hydrogen Hydrogen Peroxide bonds between the molecules, which limits its movement. To ensure proper distribution, BIOQUELL releases Vapor for Room/Building hydrogen peroxide vapor from a self-contained unit Decontamination Following a with a rotating nozzle system that distributes the vapor dynamically. Chemical or Biological Agent BIOQUELL is currently examining material Attack: Overview of Efficacy compatibility issues associated with using hydrogen peroxide vapor on different substrates. Initial efficacy tests and Practical Issues under EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program for decontamination and destruction of anthrax Mike Herd, BIOQUELL, Inc. have been conducted on seven materials (carpet, bare BIOQUELL, Inc., is a company with experience using wood, glass, laminate, galvanized metal ductwork, painted hydrogen peroxide vapor for decontamination applications wallboard, and painted cement). The first four of these in the healthcare, bio-defense, pharmaceutical, and materials are nonporous; the last three are porous. Some environmental industries. spore reduction occurred on each of these materials, which Hydrogen peroxide vapor forms a condensate at was unexpected—no reduction was expected on porous a submicron level. By nature, it is residue-free because materials, such as the carpet. A report summarizing the it degrades to oxygen and water. A treated area can be results of this study is available at www.epa.gov/etv. Further reoccupied when the concentration there reaches a efficacy testing with other pathogens is planned. Herd time-weighted average of 1 ppm. Users must remember, indicated that BIOQUELL hopes to conduct research however, that decontamination using any type of fumigant with CWAs and would like to identify a partner for this does not replace actual cleaning and is not appropriate for research. use on spills that must be physically removed. Herd discussed several case studies to illustrate The BIOQUELL system was designed to apply to any technology applications. The presentation slides provided size room or location. The system consists of self-sufficient specific details regarding these case studies. In one incident, units that can be chained together to form an infinitely BIOQUELL personnel responded to the SARS incident scalable system, although Herd noted that practical in Singapore. Within 3 days they arrived on-site and began application would limit the number of connected units. decontamination. In this instance, they treated 88 rooms The units operate independently of a building’s HVAC without having to modify the building. Medical equipment system. They are self-sanitizing because they are sealed in was included in the treatment. No material compatibility the treatment area. issues arose after treatments at these or other hospitals.

Decontamination Workshop  Questions, Answers, and Comments Whole-Structure • Using the workshop meeting room as an Decontamination of Bacterial example, would you recommend removing the contents before fumigating with hydrogen Spores by Methyl Bromide peroxide vapor? Would you recommend pre- Fumigation cleaning? Herd estimated that three of the BIOQUELL model R machines would suffice Rudolf Scheffrahn, University of Florida to fumigate the meeting room. Decisions about Scheffrahn is an entomologist with the University material removal or pre-cleaning are made on a of Florida. His expertise with termite fumigants and case-by-case basis and depend on the end use of the fumigation events research is relevant to decontamination. room (e.g., reuse or replacement of the contents). He discussed a laboratory and field study of methyl How do you seal a hospital room, how long does • bromide fumigation and tenting techniques as they apply it take, and do you train hospital people to apply to decontamination following a terror event. the technology? Hydrogen peroxide is a “lazy” Every day in Ft. Lauderdale, fumigants are used to gas and does not move readily. BIOQUELL tapes clear quarantined fruit and vegetables. Ship containers, a room and then conducts sentinel monitoring to each holding $50,0000 to $60,000 worth of product, are identify possible leaks. BIOQUELL manufactures a sealed and fumigated for 2 to 4 hours. Methyl bromide, small decontamination unit for hospitals. Hospital which has served as an agricultural chemical for more than staff could be trained to use the technology, but 60 years, is one fumigant used. Methyl bromide diffuses they would likely need assistance for room-level readily and is very stable, which means that clearing a decontamination. treated building is necessary. Methyl bromide can be used Does concrete or the concrete surface coating • with any humidity level and has already been approved interact with hydrogen peroxide vapor? Have to treat some bacteria. However, methyl bromide is a you seen any interaction with smooth, hard stratospheric ozone depleter. surfaces in hospital applications? Were your In partnership with EPA, Scheffrahn conducted material compatibility tests representative of laboratory and field studies to assess methyl bromide as real-life conditions? To Herd’s knowledge, tests a fumigant for anthrax. In laboratory trials, spore strips found no interaction with concrete. He thought were placed in desiccation chambers and exposed to that researchers had identified the surface geometry methyl bromide. The spore strips were then incubated to of concrete as a key factor in concrete interactions. assess the kill rate. After 48 hours at 37°C, complete kill A workshop participant noted that the later was observed for B. anthracis and G. stearothermophilus. presentation describing research conducted under However, B. atrophaeus and B. thuringiensis experienced the EPA ETV program would discuss material only partial kills. compatibility findings with regard to concrete. Research continued with a 2004 field study at Has BIOQUELL hung spore strips in the air to • a 30,000-ft3 home in the Florida Keys. The house test whether decontamination of airborne (vs. represented a typical residential environment with the surface) spores also occurs? Some testing of air kill addition of computers and electronic equipment to assess has been conducted to assess how HVAC systems collateral damage. Researchers placed spore strips (G. may affect decontamination. Herd volunteered to stearothermophilus on paper, B. thuringiensis on paper, B. share the data upon request. atrophaeus on paper, and B. atrophaeus on stainless steel) throughout the structure (e.g., on walls and carpeting, inside a computer CD drive, in chair fabric, wall plates, light fixtures, hanging files, and a sealed refrigerator). They also established eight real-time monitoring locations within the house. The house was then sealed, using tenting—as is commonly done for termite treatments in Florida.

24 NHSRC The fumigation involved passing liquid methyl • Does methyl bromide present an explosion bromide through a heat exchanger to create the gas. hazard? No, methyl bromide was once used as an At EPA’s request, the researchers tested a higher gas ingredient in fire extinguishers. concentration than truly necessary. (More than 600 • What are the long-term availability and costs of pounds of methyl bromide were used to reach the methyl bromide? Methyl bromide will remain a mean concentration of 312 milligrams per liter [mg/L]. quarantine fumigant until a suitable replacement Scheffrahn estimated that 150 pounds of methyl bromide can be found. Researchers have been searching would have sufficed.) Reactions with methyl bromide for a replacement for 10 years or so. Suitable are temperature dependent; higher temperatures result in replacements are already available for other methyl better kill efficacy. As such, fans and heaters maintained bromide uses. a target temperature of 35°C within the house. The fans • How would scrubber waste be disposed of? moved the heat through the house but were not necessary Scheffrahn thought that the scrubber waste would to diffuse the methyl bromide. After a 48-hour exposure be treated as a hazardous waste and incinerated. period, the researchers aerated the structure to remove the • Can methyl bromide be used on wet surfaces? methyl bromide, and after 4 days, methyl bromide was There have been some studies with damp (free not detected around the house. At 48 of 50 spore strip water vs. high-humidity) wood treatment. Methyl locations, no growth was observed. Growth occurred on bromide has low solubility—about 1.5 grams per all controls. The two failure locations were the refrigerator 100 milliliters of water. and at an improperly mounted spore strip location. No • Was there an attempt to have methyl bromide damage to electronic equipment was observed. approved for treatment of the anthrax releases? Advantages to the methyl bromide and tenting Scheffrahn understood that Great Lakes, the system included the low cost (approximately $150 per company that manufactures methyl bromide for 1,000 ft3); rapid turnover to completion (approximately fumigation, was contacted. Research found during 200 hours); treatment of all porous material, voids, and a literature review indicated that methyl bromide HVAC systems; application at any humidity; and absence could kill anthrax, but the data were unclear. The of collateral damage. To demonstrate how quickly a home primary study examined anthrax kill in woolens and can be sealed with a tent, Scheffrahn showed an example tested only pure methyl bromide. The uncertainties of a four-man crew in Ft. Lauderdale installing a tent of the data eliminated methyl bromide from around a 3,000-ft2 home in about 40 minutes. consideration. More recent research has found that Scheffrahn also suggested some future research a 2 percent methyl bromide by volume is sufficient avenues: real-time infrared methyl bromide detectors; air for efficacy. displacement with materials (e.g., nylon 66) to reduce the total treatment volume; silicone ground seals, and methyl DF-200 Decontamination bromide scrubbing. At quarantine locations, scrubbers are used to treat methyl bromide. of CBW Agents, Other

Questions, Answers, and Comments Biological Pathogens, and • What was the temperature inside the refrigerator? Toxic Industrial Chemicals [Room temperature.] The refrigerator was off to Rita Betty, Sandia National Laboratory prevent recirculation, and the door was closed tightly during the fumigation. Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) is testing a • If sulfuro fluoride is a substitute for methyl decontamination formulation (DF-200) for neutralizing bromide, why not use that against anthrax? CWAs and toxic industrial chemicals, killing biological Sulfuro fluoride treats only insects and has limited agents, and combating aerosolized chemical and biological use against insect eggs. Methyl bromide, however, agent clouds. can treat bacteria. DF-200 is an aqueous-phase formula that has been used successfully by the military. The commercial product is mixed on-site as a tertiary system of surfactant,

Decontamination Workshop  a 7.9 percent hydrogen peroxide solution, and a novel DoD considers DF-200 to be the best available activator. The hydrogen peroxide solution is below 8 decontamination technology. SNL developed DF-200 to percent to allow for easy shipping. After mixing, the final enable rapid and safe neutralization of agents. Currently, hydrogen peroxide concentration is about 3.5 percent. DF-200 is available in a variety of sizes and dispersal DF-200 is less corrosive than bleach and other available techniques (e.g., 5-gallon backpack size) to meet multiple decontamination materials. needs. DF-200 is available to first responders addressing SNL tested DF-200 and DS2 (a corrosive a terror event. In 2004, EPA registered DF-200 for decontaminant used by the military in the past) as disinfecting hard, nonporous materials. Applications decontaminants for GD, VX, and HD in stirred reactor beyond decontaminating threat events may also exist. studies. Results were similar, with DS2 performing only slightly better at the 1-minute exposure period. Both Questions, Answers, and Comments chemicals achieved 100 percent decontamination of live • What remains after decontamination with agents after a 60-minute exposure period. In other studies, DF-200, and how is it treated? The residue and DF-200 rapidly (within a 15-minute exposure period) cleanup depend on the release scenario. After the neutralized nerve agents, sodium cyanide, phosgene, and foam collapses, a wet-dry vacuum will remove it carbon disulfide, as well as biologicals B.( anthracis and Y. from indoor areas. After an outdoor release, the pestis). Mustard agents required more time (a 30-minute foam dries to a light, silky residue, which may exposure period) because of mustard’s low solubility. weather in a short period of time. A benefit of using DF-200 to neutralize VX is that it • What is created in air when the foam mixes cleaves the phosphorous-sulfur bonds to create less-toxic with the agent? Is the air still dangerous after byproducts. Overall, SNL has completed a number of tests the kill? When is it safe to reoccupy an area? To of DF-200. Specific results are classified, but generally the be effective as knockdown, the foam is deployed results demonstrate a high efficacy. Betty provided contact as small droplets that eventually fall to the ground. information for those seeking to learn more. The droplets maximize the capture efficiency of Laboratories at Kansas State University have tested the agent. No gas is involved. Overall, the process DF-200 and biofilms. Samples consisted of six- to seven- creates a neutral cloud. log biofilms that underwent a 1-minute exposure to DF- • In the subway example, what is the active spray 200. The biofilms were allowed to grow for 1, 3, 7, and duration? The foam spray is not necessarily 14 days prior to treatment. The 1-minute exposure to continuous. In chamber tests, 1-minute spray DF-200 successfully decontaminated the sample biofilms. durations were used. For the 8-cubic-foot chamber, DF-200 was also completely successful in eliminating about 2 liters of DF-200 are deployed in this time. infectivity and viral RNA integrity in influenza tests. Toxic industrial chemicals, which are an increasing threat, provide unique challenges for decontamination Capitol Hill Ricin Incident: because of the variety in their chemical and physical Decontamination Dilemmas properties. They also attack by differing mechanisms: nucleophilic attack, oxidation, reduction, or buffering. Jack Kelly, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Foam is a highly effective treatment method, except Emergency Response Team against toxic metals or strong acids and bases that may The ricin incident at Capitol Hill provides a real-world react violently. example of issues faced at a decontamination event. The SNL is also conducting a feasibility study of using Capitol Police responding to the ricin event had little foam (e.g., DF-200) for knocking down an aerosol agent information about ricin, so they called in OSCs, whose cloud intended to drift to target areas. The study explores primary purpose at this event was to gather information. methods for cloud knockdown and neutralization. SNL This presentation reviews OSC actions. In the end, the does not intend to design a system for implementing OSCs themselves were forced to make decisions about treatment. ricin based on limited information.

26 NHSRC Ricin was first developed as a weapon during World reopened on February 9, 2004, with the mail room and War I. It is a white powder that can be made fairly easily buffer rooms remaining closed for renovations. from the protein toxins of castor plant beans. Worldwide, EPA considered several options for decontaminating more than a million tons of castor beans are processed for the clothing, office items, mail, and mail equipment that castor oil annually. Castor oil production in the United had been removed from the building. A decontamination States, however, ceased in the 1970s. Ricin is composed of team researched the options and suggested heat treatment. two toxins that act together to cause toxicity by inhibiting If the heat treatment were unsuccessful, ethylene oxide protein synthesis in cells. Ricin is considered extremely fumigation would follow. Chlorine dioxide fumigation toxic by any exposure route (inhalation, ingestion, or was the third option. injection). No vaccines or antidotes are available. The decontamination team considered packaging On February 2, 2004, ricin was found in the items for decontamination, setting sterilization mail room attached to a senator’s office in the Dirksen specifications, and establishing efficacy measurements. The Building. The Capitol Police contacted an OSC that day team also considered ricin concentrations, ricin locations and requested assistance. Field sampling and follow-up on materials, and ricin toxicity values. Because of the laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of ricin. EPA unknowns surrounding ricin, EPA decided that near 100 was asked to receive, inventory, and store mail from the percent denaturation of ricin was needed. building; conduct additional characterization; perform In cooperation with ECBC and the Naval Medical decontamination of the affected areas and their contents; Research Center (NMRC), EPA obtained crude and and conduct clearance sampling. A February 9, 2004, purified ricin to test treatment efficacy. Clothing and office deadline for decontamination was established. materials, along with indicator vials of crude and pure By February 8, 2004, EPA had containerized ricin, underwent heat treatment. Temperature probes in approximately 80 drums of unopened mail and stored the treatment bags tracked the temperature (82–88 °C). clothing from 32 potentially exposed individuals. EPA, the Treatment resulted in 100 percent deactivation of 13 of FBI, and Capitol Police had collected at least 670 samples the 14 purified ricin vials. For the crude ricin, 14 of the 28 from three affected rooms and identified 19 positive vials reported 94.4 percent to 99.7 percent deactivation. results—all from one room. From the affected room, EPA EPA was unable to determine why crude ricin was more removed and stored personal and office items. Large hard- difficult to denature than purified ricin. The vials that did surface items were left in place. not achieve 100 percent deactivation underwent a second The mail room was clearly contaminated. Bordering heat treatment. Some of the vials were reanalyzed within rooms on either side were considered buffer rooms and 4 days of treatment and others 3 weeks after treatment. potentially contaminated. EPA looked toward existing The crude ricin reported 99.8 percent to 99.99 percent research and data to devise a decontamination plan. deactivation after 4 days and greater than 99.99 percent The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious deactivation after 3 weeks. The purified ricin reported 100 Diseases (USAMRIID) Blue Book served as the primary percent deactivation after 4 days and only 99.92 percent resource. Technologies considered were chlorine dioxide to 99.99 percent deactivation after 3 weeks. EPA believed fumigation, heat treatment, and sodium hypochlorite this reactivation may have been due to protein refolding. solution cleaning. The decontamination team documented their findings in EPA chose to decontaminate with a sodium a brief memorandum. Recommendations for the fate of hypochlorite solution. This decision was based on the the clothing and office materials that underwent the single small size of the decontamination area, the extent of heat treatment were left to the OSC. ricin contamination, knowledge of ricin properties, a EPA received a second set of materials, including literature review, and input from an advisory group. paper items, mail, and vacuum cleaner contents, for Decontamination occurred in the mail room that was decontamination at the end of March 2004. These known to be contaminated; the two buffer rooms; the materials underwent a single heat treatment. In addition, room that held evacuees; and the common hallways, EPA conducted ethylene oxide pilot tests to assess efficacy. elevators, and mail drops. EPA covered the mail room The pilot test resulted in deactivation up to 99.9 percent, with the solution and effectively cleaned the room. Post- so EPA decided to expose the heat-treated materials to treatment testing found no ricin activity. The building was ethylene oxide. Results from test vials undergoing ethylene

Decontamination Workshop  oxide treatment alone or heat followed by ethylene oxide their decontamination technologies. They have treatment indicated that the combined treatment was conducted some studies of protein degradation that most effective. In the combined treatment, 9 of the 11 may be applicable to ricin. Vendors also hypothesize crude ricin vials experienced 100 percent deactivation, that if a fumigant can destroy a prion, it should with the other 2 samples reporting 99.995 percent and be able to destroy ricin. Overall, ricin should be a 99.997 percent deactivation. All 11 purified ricin vials priority agent for further research. were 100 percent deactivated. Again, the decontamination team documented findings in a memorandum and the Restoration From OSC provided recommendations for reuse. Kelly noted several lessons learned from this Decontamination: USPS decontamination event: Experience • Documentation EPA correctly assumed that they would receive requests to retrieve information Richard Orlusky, U.S. Postal Service for the criminal investigation. Documenting the In October 2001, the USPS Trenton facility closed as the materials held in each container was critical. result of an anthrax event. This presentation highlighted • Communication The decontamination team first the USPS’s experiences in restoring this building after considered simply disposing of replaceable personal decontamination. items (e.g., clothing) and reimbursing the owners. Although contamination occurred in 2001, the However, the owners were emphatic about having Trenton facility was closed until offices in Washington, items returned. An effective communications D.C., had been decontaminated. Construction of the program might have persuaded owners to accept fumigation system in Trenton began in April 2003, and reimbursement as a solution. fumigation with chlorine dioxide gas occurred in October • Coordination Interagency groups and the of that year. An environmental clearance committee decontamination groups worked well together recommended reoccupancy in February 2004. At that and may have a place in a response. Large groups, time, the USPS and the vendor began removing the however, may suffer delays simply because of the fumigation equipment, conducting limited building group size. Collaboration with other agencies, such restoration (e.g., cleaning the HVAC system), and meeting as ECBC and NMRC, was critical for the research with restoration contractors to plan restoration activities. projects conducted as part of decontamination. This The USPS began restoring the mail machinery in March collaboration allowed the involved OSCs to focus 2004 and restoration contractors mobilized at the site in on managing the response and avoid becoming May 2004. The building reopened in March 2005. bogged down by the technology. Critical factors that impacted the restoration included: Questions, Answers, and Comments • The building’s age and the type and condition of the equipment • How do the percentages reported for deactivation • The effects of the decontamination effort (e.g., relate to kill? The mammalian cell assays assess surface cleaning with bleach damages equipment reduction in activity and provide results as the and flooring) percent of toxicity inactivity. Crude and purified • Building degradation from inoperable control ricin were used as surrogates for the ricin actually systems (e.g., shutting down the HVAC system led found during the event. to high temperatures and high humidity) • What was the ricin particle size? This information • Equipment degradation from a lack of preventive was never made public. maintenance (e.g., mail-sorting equipment requires • Ricin is a considerable concern for the extensive preventive maintenance and performs USPS. Have fumigation vendors looked at poorly after sitting idle) decontaminating ricin? Some studies of ricin fumigation have been conducted. Vendors, however, are unable to obtain ricin for testing

28 NHSRC Orlusky noted that if the USPS had known the fumigation contractor can help with planning a extent of damage caused by fumigation with chlorine comprehensive scope of work. dioxide, they would have used a different, less damaging • Select the decontamination technology wisely. material. They would have reserved bleach for surface If fumigation is the selected decontamination decontamination only. Orlusky also noted that the longer method, then surface cleaning with a bleach a building and its equipment are left idle, the longer it agent should be conducted sparingly. Additional takes to restore the equipment. At the Trenton facility, chloride dioxide research may show effective the interior temperature reached 90 to 100 °F, which decontamination at lower concentrations and resulted in a harsh working environment. Restoring reduced contact times, which may reduce damage environmental controls is key to creating a comfortable caused by the fumigant itself. work environment and minimizing equipment and • Maintain the facility. Restoring environmental building degradation. controls as quickly as possible, maintaining Restoration considerations included: equipment, and reducing the downtime before and • The cost of inspecting and servicing components after fumigation reduce the overall time needed to versus replacing components restore a facility. • The service life of existing building equipment • Estimate hidden costs. Costs beyond the • Necessary building upgrades decontamination and fumigation event themselves • Building aesthetics can be substantial. In addition to aesthetic and Inspecting and servicing equipment are hidden costs equipment-servicing costs, industrial hygiene of decontamination and restoration. These costs should be activities, such as health and safety training, weighed against the cost of simply replacing equipment. emergency response and evacuation planning, as Aesthetics also carry hidden costs, but the importance well as site security, add to the overall cost. of aesthetics, which impact worker relations and public relations, should not be underestimated. The USPS Questions, Answers, and Comments spent considerable money replacing bathroom fixtures, • A workshop participant stated that bleach renovating the lobby, and replacing locking devices (e.g., alternatives have been approved under crisis employee lockers and P.O. boxes). exemptions. In instances of heavy contamination, At the Trenton facility, restoration included rebuilding however, some pre-cleaning is necessary to reduce the mail machinery; inspecting electrical wiring, circuit biocontaminants to levels that will respond to breakers, motor controls, and transformers to identify additional treatment. Orlusky agreed that bleach replacement versus repair points; laying new flooring cleaning is necessary in some instances. After several over workroom floor tiles and replacing carpet in office attempts, the decontamination crew developed a areas; replacing components of the HVAC systems; and successful bleaching technique. Bleach cleaning, addressing building aesthetics. however, was a labor-intensive practice. Orlusky discussed the following lessons learned from • How were the HVAC systems addressed? The the USPS’s experiences: USPS kept the HVAC systems running after closing • Prepare up-to-date as-built plans. Many delays the building, but over time components of the experienced by the USPS stemmed from the lack system failed. Workers wore personal protective of accurate as-built plans and drawings. These plans equipment while conducting repairs. are critical to ensuring successful decontamination • Did the USPS conduct OSHA restoration and restoration. sampling? OSHA has posted a guidance document • Consider the facility. The age of the building, for restoration sampling on its Internet site, and maintenance status, and type of equipment are the USPS submitted a restoration sampling plan major determinants of cost, time, and scope. These to OSHA. The agencies worked closely together to factors should be considered when planning the conduct restoration sampling, which was a major decontamination and restoration. effort. The facility employees appreciated this • Plan restoration actions early. Including the relationship with OSHA. restoration contractor in discussions with the

Decontamination Workshop  Another Look at Chlorine hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid to produce chlorine. The chlorine was then combined with sodium chlorite. Dioxide Fumigation: Half of the strips were analyzed by RVTP and half by the Concentration-Times, standard culture technique. LLRN barcoded each to track sample locations in the test chamber and test results. The Efficacy Tests, and Biological barcode maintained the sample chain-of-custody. Indicators Krauter presented details of the RVTP and standard culture test conditions. Results of the standard culture Paula Krauter, Lawrence Livermore National are determined by visual turbidity, which is a subjective Laboratory endpoint. RVTP results are less subjective; positive results Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) are based on a specific number of DNA detections. At and SNL, in partnership with the San Francisco a dose of 750 ppm of chlorine dioxide for 6 or more International Airport, have been collaborating in a hours, no viable growth was identified by either RVTP Domestic Demonstration and Application Program or standard cultures. No significant difference in results (DDAP) to develop and demonstrate procedures, provided by the two methods was identified. The standard plans, and techniques for the rapid restoration of a culture method reported a 1.5 percent false positive rate. major transportation facility. DDAP consists of many No false negatives or positives were observed for RVTP. components. This presentation focused on research, Both stainless steel and paper strip biological development, and evaluation of rapid efficacy tests indicators were tested. At nonlethal doses of chlorine to improve the verification and clearance phases of dioxide, LLNL found a significant difference in number decontamination. LLNL specifically studied fumigation of positive results identified for the stainless steel versus with chlorine dioxide. paper strips. These biological indicators differ in several Researchers developed a rapid viability test protocol qualities: porosity, spore viability, purity, and spore piling. (RVTP), which is an overnight method for processing These results highlight considerations for selecting a biological indicator strips using real-time polymerase chain decontamination method (gas or liquid) applicable to reaction (PCR). LLNL’s research sought to demonstrate conditions (porous versus hard surfaces). this method’s ability to test thousands of samples and Overall, LLNL’s research met the objective of demonstrate a tracking and data analysis tool. The developing an analytical method that can provide accurate research compared the RVTP against the standard culture results in 15 hours. Continuing research includes testing method, which requires 7 days for results, to assess the RVTP with a high-throughput automation mode and accuracy of the RVTP. The research included a rigorous applying RVTP to a variety of environmental samples quality assurance program to evaluate potential cross- (e.g., wipes and filters). contamination, to determine the RVTP’s ability to detect Questions, Answers, and Comments blind positives, and establish assay sensitivity. In testing the RVTP, LLNL included a number of blind positives, • LLNL’s results found better kill on the stainless steel degradation products that would interfere with the disks versus paper strips. These results conflict with methods, and positive and negative controls. other research with glass and paper. Krauter noted LLNL conducted testing over the course of 2 days. this inconsistency. LLNL used a different fumigant Testing involved exposing more than 1,000 biological generation process and a different technology indicator strips to 750 ppm of chlorine dioxide for up to apply spores to the stainless steel disks. These to 12 hours. A number of strips were also exposed to differences may have affected the results. nonlethal concentrations of chlorine dioxide by varying • What kind of variability was there in the the contact times. (LLNL used a test chamber and replicates? For each test concentration and technology provided by Sabre.) Researches were able time period, LLNL tested 50 individuals and to tightly control the chlorine dioxide concentration, identified positives within the test group. They then temperature, and humidity within the test chamber. The conducted the standard student T-test on results. chlorine dioxide was generated by combining sodium • How were nonlethal doses achieved? The study

0 NHSRC consistently exposed test strips to 750 ppm of These tests also examined methods for distributing the chlorine dioxide, but the exposure period varied to VHP and provided data for modeling efforts. Ongoing achieve a nonlethal dose. The test results indicated research with mVHP includes reducing the equipment a need for more information on the 3- to 5-hour size to a system transportable on military vehicles; assessing exposure periods and for log-8 versus log-6 test material compatibility and equipment sensitivities; strips. expanding aircraft studies; and assessing applications for • What is the cost of RVTP? Krauter did not ambulances, hospitals, or hotel suites. have specific information about analysis costs, but • Forced hot air Injecting an area with forced another workshop participant indicated that RVTP hot air acts as accelerated weathering. Past tests costs about 5 cents per sample. were unsuccessful because of uneven heating; even heating prevents recondensation. ECBC has Innovative and Emerging conducted more recent testing in aircraft using airflow strategies that achieve consistent target Decontamination surface temperatures. Results indicated that forced Technologies hot air increases off-gassing for chemical agents but is insufficient for treating biological agents. Mark Brickhouse, Edgewood Chemical and Studies consistently found that longer cycle Biological Center times are needed for more absorptive materials. Considerations for forced hot air systems include This presentation provided an overview of ECBC material compatibility, treatment volume, and air activities. Public- and private-sector researchers are distribution. ECBC believes the system could be evaluating a number of decontamination technologies, modified to treat other vehicles. such as mVHP, forced hot air, Decon Green, chlorine • Combined VHP and forced hot air A combined dioxide, enzymes, solvent suspensions and wipes, ionic system takes advantage of the benefits of both liquids, and supercritical carbon dioxide. ECBC and DoD technologies. The forced hot air enhances hydrogen are seeking replacements for liquid decontaminants, such peroxide vaporization, controls heat and relative as bleach because of problems with corrosivity. humidity, and enhances the diffusion of VHP. The Congress funds most ECBC projects, which have forced hot air also improves desorption of chemical focused on field-testing technologies. The following agents. The effluent from treating an aircraft can summarizes ongoing efforts. be routed through a carbon-based filtration system, • Modified vaporous hydrogen peroxide catalytic oxidation, or thermal oxidation treatment (mVHP) ECBC and STERIS co-developed this system. ECBC may conduct further research on the decontamination technology, which includes combined technology in fiscal year 2007. ammonia as an activator. They have conducted • Decon Green ECBC is also developing Decon field-testing at an abandoned building and in Green, an environmentally friendly decontaminant a C-141 cargo plane, as described during the formulated using commercial chemicals. Decon presentation by McVey of STERIS. Field-testing Green is designed to replace DS2 and DF-200 in proved efficacious against biological and chemical military use. Studies have proven Decon Green agents. The C-141 cargo plane served as a to be effective against chemical and biological demonstration of the mobile technology. For bare agents, but the chemical is disruptive to surfaces. To metal coupons, greater than 99.9 percent kill rates improve material compatibility, reformulations have were found for biologicals and a mustard simulant slightly reduced kill efficacies. Decon Green has a was reduced to less than the 8-hour time-weighted number of benefits: it is ready for use 15 minutes average in 5-, 10-, and 24-hour test runs. On after mixing, applicable in a variety of weather more absorptive surfaces, however, longer exposure conditions, effective for 12 hours after mixing, periods and higher concentrations were required for compatible with protective clothing, and disposable success. as a nonhazardous material after hydrogen peroxide degradation.

Decontamination Workshop  • Resistant coatings Traditional chemical agent • Enzyme decontamination ECBC and resistant coatings (CARCs) are nonreactive, durable Genencor International have partnered to and nonmarring, weather resistant, and flexible. investigate the use of enzymes to decontaminate Research for next-generation CARCs has been nerve agents, sulfur mustard, and biological agents funded. and toxins. They have signed an exclusive patent • Reactive coatings These materials actively destroy license agreement to begin commercial production surface chemical agent contamination either by of viable enzyme products. These products are hydrolysis or oxidation. Research information available to first responders. on reactive coatings is readily available, and • Sensitive equipment decontamination ECBC reactive materials such as these are widely used is also researching small-scale decontamination in industrial processes. Identifying and studying systems that are capable of treating a wide range of materials resistant to biological and chemical chemical and agent materials. Two research areas agents will likely be a strategic research area in are sorbent/reactive suspensions and solvent wipes. the next few years. Potential agents for reactive Ongoing tests of these technologies are planned. coatings include metal oxides, activated carbon, Nonreactive wipes also play a role in reducing gross zeolites, microporous membranes, novel polymers, contamination. dendrimers, and microencapsulation materials. • Ionic liquid-based decontamination Ionic Current research with reactive coatings aims to liquid has been a productive research area for the identify a coating that could achieve 99.999 percent past 5 to 10 years. Researchers have identified a decontamination when partnered with other broad class of ionic liquids for decontamination standard decontamination technologies. ECBC of CWAs. Ionic liquids would replace traditional is partnering with the Army Research Laboratory solvents by combining solvent, surfactant, buffer, (ARL) to study hyperbranched polymers and and oxidizing agent functionalities. Further tests are polyoxometalates. ECBC will perform the efficacy planned. and material compatibility tests. • Supercritical carbon dioxide decontamination • Other research materials ECBC and others are ECBC developed a bench-scale supercritical conducting research on several other materials. In a carbon dioxide reactor to test this decontamination joint venture with NATICK, ECBC is evaluating technology. This material seems to be an effective active moieties in uniforms for personal protection. cleaning and sterilizing agent. Supercritical carbon Catalysts, such as metal oxides, activated carbon, dioxide is also environmentally friendly and recycles and polyoxometalates would be included in carbon dioxide, thus preventing the release of uniform fabrics to improve personnel protection greenhouse gases. The technology is readily available from chemical agent vapors. ECBC is also for garment cleaning, hard-surface cleaning, and investigating self-decontaminating coatings (e.g., sterilization. polyoxometalates and other inorganic catalysts) for water infrastructure protection and zeolite- Questions, Answers, and Comments based systems that would apply to a wide variety of • What technologies apply to wide-area situations. decontamination, such as large cities? Foam and In addition to researching specific decontamination base-activated technologies can both be developed agents, ECBC is conducting several other research for wide areas. GL1800 is modified airport de-icing projects: equipment that can be used for deploying a liquid • Comparative decontamination The object over a large area. of this study is to compare the efficacy of three • Is the forced hot air technology effective different commercial fumigation products and against virus contamination? ECBC has tested study the effects of parameters such as temperature decontamination technologies against virus and relative humidity. contamination, but a decontaminant must be able to kill a spore to be considered a biological

32 NHSRC decontaminant. A first responder will not looking to use American Society for Testing and Materials necessarily know the differences among viruses, (ASTM) standards for strength and other characteristics. biological agents, and spores. Deposition velocity testing has begun, and material • When conducting aircraft research, why was compatibility testing is slated for April 2005. the HVAC system excluded from study? ECBC researchers excluded the HVAC system because Questions, Answers, and Comments they were considering contamination scenarios that • When generating chlorine dioxide, determining may not involve the HVAC system. Contamination whether chlorine gas is present is critical. Other of the main cargo area was seen as the more likely researchers used ammonia-based analytical tests to scenario. identify chlorine dioxide. • One workshop participant suggested that Systematic Decontamination ECBC use corrosivity tests developed in the Project: Homeland Security telecommunications industry when conducting material compatibility tests with circuits. This test Verification of Chemical and includes exposing a copper plate to an agent and Biological Decontamination counting the holes that form. Koga indicated that ECBC considered testing the circuit function, as Technologies well as material compatibility. Has ECBC considered pore symmetry tests or Phil Koga, Edgewood Chemical and Biological • other methods to assess surface degradation? Center ECBC has considered a number of methods but is When decontaminating an anthrax-contaminated open to other recommendations. building, one must consider treatment options (e.g., • Is there a need for a secondary scrubber for surface treatment versus fumigation), efficacy data, and chlorine gas when fumigating with chlorine material impacts. ECBC, in conjunction with NHSRC, dioxide? ECBC is testing for the presence of is conducting systematic studies on the performance of chlorine gas in the chlorine dioxide gas stream and chlorine dioxide and VHP for decontamination. addressing this concern. As part of its research, ECBC is conducting a • What was the spore recovery material for the bioefficacy study to assess concentration and exposure coupons? ECBC used a water-based material. time, evaluate six types of materials (porous and nonporous), and test avirulent and virulent B. anthracis. The study also examines sub-optimal temperatures and Use of HVAC Systems in relative humidities as well as B. anthracis surrogates. The Building Decontamination test design included three fumigants (STERIS’s VHP, Tina Carlsen, Lawrence Livermore National ClorDiSys, Inc.’s chlorine dioxide, and Sabre’s chlorine Laboratory dioxide), six microorganisms, and test coupons made of six different materials. The two chlorine dioxide fumigants LLNL and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory differed in that ClorDiSys, Inc., uses a dry generation (LBNL) became involved in decontamination process and Sabre uses a wet process. research after the sarin release in the Tokyo subway. ECBC conducted range-finding tests to assess optimal This presentation describes their HVAC system fumigant concentrations and exposure periods and decontamination studies. examine the effects of temperature and humidity. Koga After the Tokyo subway incident, three potential presented specific test details. Testing seeks also to provide attack scenarios were identified: open air (e.g., a stadium), information about the effects of six different building semi-enclosed (e.g., a subway), and enclosed (e.g., a materials on the fumigant concentrations and the effects building or an airplane). In two of these scenarios, HVAC of the fumigants on the integrity of the building materials. systems are involved, so LLNL’s research focuses on HVAC This testing is linked with the bioefficacy studies. ECBC is systems and gaseous fumigants used in decontamination.

Decontamination Workshop  Specifically, the research examines both decontamination collected includes square footage, interior materials, of HVAC systems and use of HVAC systems in layout, HVAC system operation modes, injection point decontamination. The research includes a medium-scale, locations, humidity controls, HVAC system returns, well-instrumented demonstration with hydrogen peroxide and areas not serviced by the HVAC system. An HVAC (generated using the STERIS technology). engineer can help to address architectural concerns. LLNL The LLNL test facility consists of an office trailer split has collected HVAC system information from three into two rooms: a test room and a control room. The test federal buildings (a two-story, modern office building; an room contains an HVAC system created with 6-inch- older, multistory office building; and an indoor arena). round galvanized steel ductwork, aged to remove organics. Collected information is classified because these are federal Preliminary experiments involved injecting the test room facilities. The surveys identified architectural features with hydrogen peroxide through the ductwork. The that would be difficult to decontaminate. LLNL also decontamination cycle consisted of four steps: dehumidify concluded that an HVAC engineer should be involved in to reach 30 percent relative humidity, condition by the building surveys. The results may support a database of injection with hydrogen peroxide at 7.3 grams per information needed for developing remediation strategies minute (g/min) for 12 minutes, sterilize by injection with and individual building assessments. hydrogen peroxide at 4.2 g/min for 3 hours, and aerate for Ongoing research will include biological indicator 4 hours. tests within the ductwork to characterize kill rates and LLNL expected a hydrogen peroxide concentration of optimize VHP efficacy, characterization tests with 1 mg/L during the sterilization phase. In testing, however, alternate ductwork materials, and completion of the the hydrogen peroxide concentrations were significantly modeling program. Ongoing room-scale studies include lower. Concentrations dropped near one corner of the characterization of VHP distribution and development of room. A test with biological indicators supported this predictive models. During characterization tests, LLNL finding; some positive indicators were found. LLNL researchers will evaluate different modes of fumigant hypothesized that the galvanized steel was affecting the introduction and dispersal. They will also increase the hydrogen peroxide concentrations. A subsequent study sensor density in the test room to provide additional data. using polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ductwork supported this hypothesis. The bulk hydrogen peroxide concentration Questions, Answers, and Comments was much greater when introduced with PVC than with Workshop participants commented on the application galvanized steel. of the research to real-world situations. Several participants LLNL created a new circular ductwork configuration commented that larger office buildings often use that included 90 feet of galvanized steel with sensors fiberglass-lined ductwork and that returns may be lined located throughout. After injecting this system with with papier-mâché or fiberglass. Another participant noted hydrogen peroxide, LLRN found that the hydrogen that the presence of slime and dirt in HVAC systems peroxide concentration decreases as a function of flow rate, would affect study results. And yet another participant temperature, and distance traveled along the ductwork. noted that the iron content of the ductwork would also These results indicate a need for increased injection rates affect results. Carlsen agreed that any lining, material, or or multiple injection points. Condensation is a concern dirt in the ductwork would affect results. An initial project when increasing the injection rate. goal was to provide information for airports, which usually In conjunction with LBNL, LLNL is creating a have HVAC systems made of unlined galvanized steel. computational fluid dynamic model to characterize LLNL obtained their galvanized steel ductwork from a decomposition in the ductwork. Available test data commercial business and did not test for iron content. indicate that the VHP degradation process is third order. LLNL researchers have not yet studied lined ducts, but Once this model is created and validated, it can be used to they would welcome additional research to add to the assess longer systems and larger configurations. body of knowledge. LLNL started its research with a basic, LLNL is also conducting surveys of buildings with clean system. Subsequent efforts could involve expanding HVAC systems. The surveys identify the features that the system or testing a dirty system. Because of funding have the greatest impact on hydrogen peroxide. LLNL limitations, LLNL researchers selected room scaling as a collects real-world data about these features. Information

34 NHSRC next phase. They hope to conduct dirty system testing in applications (DADS); a database of experimental results the future. (e.g., deposition velocities, byproducts); and screening calculations that facilitate fumigation system design, Building Disinfection consider fumigant consumption, and rank byproducts. The test included 96 combinations of materials Byproducts: Experimental and disinfectants that served as standard conditions. Evaluation and Decision Tool Relative humidity and dose remained consistent. Relative humidities, disinfectant doses, and disinfectant and Richard Corsi, University of Texas material combinations were then adjusted, yielding 36 variations. Tests were replicated 14 times. The research Corsi’s research focuses on the effects of building materials generated more than 3,000 samples. The four disinfectants on fumigants and the production of gaseous byproducts. tested included ozone, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen The research investigates how materials affect the amount peroxide, and methyl bromide. The 24 test materials of fumigant needed for decontamination and provides included commonly purchased construction materials anecdotal evidence regarding material compatibility. (e.g., concrete, carpet, wallboard, ductwork). In conducting building decontamination, a The experiment system consisted of four closed disinfectant must reach a specific dose to ensure efficacy. chambers that were simultaneously injected with a single The dose is based on the disinfectant concentration, as well disinfectant. The system included controls to maintain as on exposure time, and can be expressed as ppm-hours. specific disinfectant concentrations, temperatures, and Disinfectant consumption by materials in the treatment relative humidities. The four chambers vented to a single space (e.g., a room) affect the dose. Consumption may monitored exhaust point and then passed through a reduce the disinfectant air concentration, increase the potassium iodide scrubber. In the tests, one of the four time to the threshold concentration, suppress doses, and chambers remained empty as a control and the other three require greater mass injection rates and increased injection chambers contained test materials. Each test run of the times. Another concern of fumigation is the production system consisted of a 9-hour background phase, a 4- to and persistence of disinfectant byproducts. Byproducts 16-hour disinfection phase, and a persistence phase of at themselves may be toxic, persist in a building, compromise least 20 hours. During the background phase to identify worker safety, and increase the time to reoccupation. chemical emitters from the test materials, test temperature Researchers have evidence that a fumigant can enter and relative humidity were reached, but no disinfectant and react with porous materials. The termdeposition entered the system. The disinfectant was injected into the velocity describes the mass transport of a disinfectant in or system during the disinfection phase. out of material and chemical reactions. Corsi presented an Overall, tests conducted so far have identified equation describing disinfectant concentration in a room significant materials effects for ozone and chlorine dioxide, over time, which is a function of injection rate, gas-phase significant disinfectant effects, significant concentration decay, and velocity deposition. The deposition velocity is a effects, rapid decay in consumption rates (for ozone function of time and materials. and chlorine dioxide), and non-zero endpoints. Corsi Issues regarding byproduct formation and release provided specific test data to illustrate the findings. Ceiling include byproduct identification, formation factors, and tiles and office partitions continued to be consumers of persistence. Factors affecting byproduct formation include chlorine dioxide and ozone throughout the disinfection the disinfectant, disinfectant concentration, material, phase. Concrete was almost completely passivated. Most relative humidity, and exposure time. materials had low deposition velocities after 16 hours, but Corsi’s research evaluated 4 disinfectants and 24 all materials had non-zero endpoints. materials, quantified deposition velocities, and identified Byproduct formation is highly dynamic and produces byproducts and release rates. Some byproducts are unique material/disinfectant fingerprints. There were volatile while others are more persistent. This research significant differences among disinfectants. Byproduct tried to identify and quantify byproduct formation. persistence (off-gassing) was also likely; 5-day and 1- Data from this research feed several tools: a software year tests showed persistence in some byproducts. For application that will support decisions regarding fumigant most materials, with the exception of ceiling tiles and

Decontamination Workshop  HVAC system components, ozone was more reactive Evaluation of Two Biological than chlorine dioxide. Ozone byproducts included 16 saturated carbonyls and about 50 additional, unquantified Decontamination Methods in chemicals. Chlorine dioxide byproducts also included 16 a Room-Sized Test Chamber saturated carbonyls, 6 unknown chlorine compounds, and a number of additional unquantified compounds. Mark Buttner, University of Nevada, Las Vegas The chlorine dioxide reaction with latex paint created Researchers at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, significant quantities of an unknown chlorine compound. conducted research to test the efficacy of two The reaction behind this byproduct formation remains decontamination products (DF-100 and chlorine dioxide unknown. VHP created only a small amount of volatile gas) and compare surface sampling methods and analytical byproducts. Methyl bromide itself was a greater concern techniques for detecting biological agents, using cultures, for building reoccupation than byproduct formation. quantitative PCR, and hand-held assays. Reports summarizing research findings are slated DF-100 is a Modec, Inc., decontamination foam for release in July 2005. Completion of the software with two liquid components. Product ingredients include supporting decisions regarding fumigant applications cationic detergents, fatty alcohols, stabilized hydrogen (DADS) is scheduled for June 2005. peroxide, water, and inert materials. DF-100 has since been replaced by DF-200. The Gas:Solid technology Questions, Answers, and Comments by CDG Research Corporation produced the chlorine • How were materials placed in the test chambers? dioxide for testing. Spores of B. atrophaeus served as the For carpet or flooring, the bottom of the test test organism and TSAC cultures, hand-held assays, chamber was completely covered. Other materials PCR primer/probe sequences, and TaqMan assay (7700 with edges that would not be exposed in a real- Sequence Detection System) served as the analysis world situation were sealed with sodium silicate methods. The 7700 Sequence has since been replaced by a along the edges. Paper, however, was simply stacked 7900 Sequence system. in the chamber as it would be stacked on a desk. Researchers conducted tests in a controlled chamber. • Was the presence of hexanol due to residual levels They placed the test surface materials in the chamber, ran or continual emissions? Hexanol may have been the chamber HVAC system, introduced dry spores (using residual. Compared with the amount involved a Pitt-3 dry aerosol generator), stopped the HVAC system, in the persistence phase of the test, the amount and allowed the spores to settle overnight. They conducted emitted in the background phase was small. sampling the next day. Test surface materials included • How were blanks considered? The beginning wood laminate (desk material), vinyl tile (flooring), and of each experiment was considered a blank. The painted metal (a metal file cabinet). Predecontamination 9-hour background phase was used to identify samples were collected using readily available methods: background chemical concentrations. swipe, heavy wipe (damp cloth), and swab sample • Were the chambers sealed from light? Chambers processing kit (foam swab). After initial sampling, were sealed from light. researchers injected the decontaminants and collected • How were air concentrations considered? Flow post-decontamination samples. Samples were analyzed rates and air concentrations were used to find mass using the three test methods (culture, quantitative PCR, per volume. The results are reported as relative and hand-held assay). emissions. Had the tests lasted longer, higher masses During spore injection, the average airborne would have been reported. A workshop participant concentration was 1.5 x 106 spores per cubic meter. The also commented that the test identified only volatile culture and quantitative PCR methods reported 105 to 106 byproducts. spore per square foot in the predecontamination samples. • What efforts were made to establish that no Each of the three sampling methods demonstrated chlorine gas was formed? The chamber exhaust comparable spore collection efficiencies. Similar levels was tested to prove that chlorine gas was not of spores were found on each of the three test surface formed. materials as well. The results from the predecontamination

36 NHSRC served as the control for the post-decontamination potential of nonculturable pathogens. sampling. Buttner provided the following references for this After decontamination with DF-100, post- research: decontamination samples found no culturable spores • Buttner, M.P., P. Cruz, L.D. Stetzenbach, A.K. although the quantitative PCR analysis indicated that Klima-Comba, V.L. Stevens, and T.D. Cronin. spore DNA remained. Earlier studies of DF-100 with viral 2004. “Determination of the efficacy of two agents identified no viral RNA after treatment, however, a building decontamination strategies by surface virus is more fragile than a spore. sampling with culture and quantitative PCR After decontamination with chlorine dioxide, post- analysis.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70:4740–4747. decontamination samples found no culturable spores • Buttner, M.P., P. Cruz, L.D. Stetzenbach, A.K. in 24 of 27 samples. Of the three positive samples, each Klima-Comba, V.L. Stevens, and P.A. Emanuel. supported only one colony. The quantitative PCR analysis 2004. “Evaluation of the Biological Sampling Kit indicated that spore DNA remained. The hand-held assay (BiSKit) for large-area surface sampling.” Appl. results were positive for all samples. Environ. Microbiol. 70:7040–7045. Researchers also conducted one environmental background trial for each decontamination method to Questions, Answers, and Comments determine the impact of dust on the effectiveness of the • Would you expect similar material compatibility decontamination method and the analytical method. concerns with DF-200? Buttner indicated that They collected dust from the outdoor air filters of several speculating about results for DF-200 would be commercial buildings and then aerosolized 10 grams of inappropriate. Nonetheless, a workshop participant this dust in the test chamber. They found an approximate speculated that material compatibility issues would soiling level of 2 milligrams of soil per 100 square be fewer for DF-200 than for DF-100 because DF- centimeters. Researchers then injected spores into the 200 has a lower solvent content. chamber and conducted decontamination. Spore culture • Did you have a biocide neutralization step post- data were comparable between the predecontamination sampling? No biocide neutralization step was samples with and without environmental background. conducted. The dust, however, did inhibit the quantitative PCR results. Culture data for post-decontamination samples were similar with or without environmental background. Verification of Commercial Quantitative PCR results indicated that spore DNA Decontamination remained in post-decontamination samples. Buttner listed some practical considerations for Technologies in Bench-Scale each of the decontaminants tested. DF-100 is fast Studies Using B. anthracis and easy to use, but it is limited to use on nonporous, washable surfaces. It also resulted in material damage Spores (e.g., it dissolved floor polish, stripped paint, and caused Mike Taylor, Battelle Memorial Institute bubbling of wood laminate). Chlorine dioxide gas can decontaminate an entire space with contents in place. EPA’s ETV program verifies environmental technology This method, however, requires specialized equipment, performance and objectively reports results to end-users training, and personnel. It also causes material damage such as permitters and buyers. The program performs (e.g., it yellowed wall paint and corroded aluminum). tests as outlined in quality assurance plans developed in In conclusion, both decontamination methods were conjunction with technical experts, stakeholders, and effective in reducing the number of culturable spores vendors. ETV does not purposely try to fail technologies. and neither method was affected by environmental Battelle works as a contractor to ETV. This presentation background. Spore DNA remained after treatment with provided results from testing three decontamination both decontaminants. The quantitative PCR analysis technologies: BIOQUELL Inc.’s hydrogen peroxide gas; method, however, was inhibited by environmental CERTEK Inc.’s formaldehyde gas, and CDG Research background. This study did not assess the infection Inc.’s chlorine dioxide gas.

Decontamination Workshop  The testing apparatus consisted of the technology the biological indicators are qualitative; positive results under evaluation and a test chamber. The test chamber is indicate growth and negative results indicate an absence of a compact glove box with a decontaminant injection port, growth. Some of the biological indicators and spore strips sensors, and an exhaust port. In this system, Battelle used were positive after decontamination with the CERTEK spore strips to assess biological efficacy and construction Inc. formaldehyde. The indicators and strips were placed material coupons to assess material compatibility. in a pouch and the positives were likely the result of Researchers tested seven material coupons (carpet, bare uneven gas penetration into the pouch. Testing with the wood, glass, laminate, galvanized metal ductwork, CDG Research Inc. chlorine dioxide gas is undergoing painted wallboard, and painted concrete). The painted repeat testing and verification. concrete coupons consisted of sawed and painted cinder block. Each coupon measured 0.75 by 5 inches. Battelle Questions, Answers, and Comments evaluated biological efficacy by assessing the log reduction in viable spores on the test materials and identifying • One workshop participant commented that ETV positive or negative bacterial growth on the biological originally intended to test technologies volunteered indicators and spore strips. The biological indicators and by vendors, with vendors sharing the costs. For spore strips provided a link to real-world events, which homeland security related technologies, this format rely on these indicators for decontamination sampling. changed to a new program called Technology Changes in coupon appearance, color, texture, and Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP) and is other parameters indicated coupon damage and material fully funded by EPA, which allows flexibility in compatibility concerns. testing. The general test procedure consisted of connecting • A number of research projects with chlorine dioxide the decontamination technology to the test chamber, gas are ongoing. Additional areas of research inoculating test material coupons and placing them in may examine chlorine gas and reactions in gas the test chamber, implementing the decontamination chromatograph (GC) columns and study flow rates technology, and removing and analyzing the coupons. through the test chamber. Chlorine dioxide can be Before inoculating the coupons, Battelle wiped each one as much as 50 times more soluble in organics than with isopropyl alcohol. Coupons were not autoclaved, so in water. This is a trait that should be considered. some microbes remained and Battelle observed microbe • A workshop participant noted that studies need to growth. Each coupon was inoculated with 108 of the consider air exchange rates. The laboratory studies biological test agents. B. anthracis analyses were conducted should mimic the air exchange rates found in real- with a 15-minute extraction followed by 1- and 7-day world situations. growth assessments. The supernatant from the extraction • Why was methyl bromide excluded from testing? process underwent a 1-hour heat shock and dilution Battelle discussed including methyl bromide, but plating for enumeration. Efficacy data (log reductions) EPA funding and approval, which was not received, were calculated as the log of the viable spores recovered is necessary. Battelle, however, is willing to discuss from control samples minus the log of the remaining various technology options with vendors interested spores on the decontaminated samples. Battelle also in the testing program. conducted several statistical analyses to assess results • What were the replicates for each variability. decontaminant? Because tests began after the Taylor presented the specific study conditions for anthrax incidents following 9/11, Battelle was each of the three technologies tested, as well as the specific pushed for results. The tests examined a single dose study results, including mean efficacy for spore reduction (concentration × time) with three replicates. on each test material, statistical analyses for each test • Are you anticipating any major changes in material, and growth on the biological indicators and protocol as new projects start? Some minor spore strips. Results for the efficacy tests and statistical changes may occur, but the overall study design analyses are expressed as log reductions from 1 to 8, with should remain the same. Battelle may add monitors 8 indicating 100 percent kill. Battelle found that surrogate to examine the rate of volatilization and to identify results did not compare to B. anthracis results. Results for degradation products. It will likely change the

38 NHSRC protocol for cleaning the test material coupons and quarterly sampling and analyze the samples using the move away from the isopropyl solution wipes. microassays identified or developed during Phase I. The data from Phase II will provide an understanding of the Technical Support Working variability and prevalence of biological background as affected by season, weather, activity level, and geographic Group Decontamination location. Research and Development • Statistical design tool for sampling contaminated buildings Under this project, TSWG, in Activities partnership with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), will develop a user-friendly Rebecca Blackmon, Technical Support Working software tool that will design statistically valid Group surface sampling protocols for determining the The presentation provided an overview of projects extent of contamination following a chemical or underway by the Technical Support Working Group biological terrorist attack. Users will input specific (TSWG). These projects, which can last from 7 statistical requirements and tailor the program’s months to 2 years, focus on methods that speed up the generic floor plan to meet specifics of the facility decontamination process. The presentation was organized and HVAC system under investigation. The by projects that affect activities before, during, and after program includes decision criteria that affect decontamination. sampling protocols (e.g., providing the user the Under TSWG, the Chemical, Biological, confidence intervals that the sampling protocol Radiological, and Nuclear subgroup identifies user needs will identify hot spots and maximum agent related to these materials and conducts rapid research, concentrations). Users, however, should discuss development, and prototyping. Their focus areas are agent statistical sampling needs (e.g., level of confidence) detection, decontamination, protection, and information before an event occurs. The software will also help collection. TSWG and the subgroup projects include: users estimate costs associated with sampling. The • Biological backgrounds in critical facilities project is slated for completion in June 2005. The intent of this two-phase project is to determine • Wireless multisensor environmental monitors seasonal and diurnal variations in existing In conjunction with Esensor, Inc., and SUNY background bacterial and viral aerosol load with Buffalo, TSWG is developing a real-time sensor a focus on threat agents (e.g., B. anthracis). The system that is lightweight, portable, inexpensive, project will provide information about the bacterial and battery-operated. The system contains eight background at critical locations, which will help interchangeable sensors that monitor CWAs and responders identify possible interferences if a toxic industrial chemicals. The sensors use wireless bioterrorist event occurs. As part of the project, or Internet/Ethernet connections compatible researchers collect integrated and time-resolved with other wireless systems to communicate samples at multiple locations and link these samples results. This type of system is especially relevant with HVAC systems and environmental data. to decontamination events. A bomb squad could Samples undergo analysis with classic microbiology also use the system to assess suspicious packages. and microassay methods. The University of TSWG is targeting a cost of $3,000 to $5,000 for Minnesota and Los Alamos National Laboratory the system. A prototype has been designed, and (LANL) are partners in this project. production of a system for testing is under way. Phase I of the project serves as a demonstration for • Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) sensor web Phase II. Under Phase I, the research partners completed Although similar to the wireless multisensor a 1-month sampling program at local airports to assess monitors, the JPL sensor web has unique sampling protocols. Phase I also included developing applications. This project responds to an EPA extraction protocols and developing and evaluating low- requirement for monitoring chlorine dioxide during cost microassay methods. Phase II is in the planning decontamination. The system may also apply to phase. Over the course of 1 year, researchers will conduct urban search-and-rescue operations (e.g., searching

Decontamination Workshop  collapsed buildings) when inserting a sensor is safer items of historical interest). The technology has than inserting a person to assess environmental been demonstrated with oil paintings, tapestries, conditions. This wireless network monitors and black and white photographs, and ink on paper. controls temperature, humidity, light intensity, and AOAC sporicidal testing has also been successfully decontaminant agent concentrations in a facility completed. TSWG completed this project in July undergoing decontamination. The system is self- 2004. A report summarizing results is available on networking and has proven reliability from field- request. testing (e.g., monitoring for explosives along the • Expedient mitigation of radiological releases Alaska pipeline). JPL has built a 40-pod network The project examines methods to minimize the and demonstrated this network for sensing chlorine spread of radioactive particles from a radiological dioxide. The pod sensors consist of a single pass dispersion device (RDD). A strippable polymer sample cell with no mirrors or reference beams. coating would be applied to surfaces after rescue The sensors are easy to calibrate and have a wide operations and during the decontamination detection range (80 to 1,000 ppm for chlorine planning phase. The polymer coating developed dioxide). The sensors are also inexpensive to by TSWG requires 24 hours for curing. produce and require little power to run. As a next Demonstrations have shown that it is durable step, JPL aims to miniaturize the chlorine dioxide yet easy to strip. The coating can also be applied sensor and develop an Urban Search and Rescue using equipment familiar to first responders (e.g., (USAR) gas sensor. hoses and backpack systems). Ongoing efforts • Electrostatic decontamination system This under this project include testing the coating with is an effective, safe, and logistically efficient radiologicals and investigating a dual use with dust decontamination system now in its fifth generation. re-entrainment mitigation. Clean Earth Technologies demonstrated chemical • Radiological decontamination technologies and biological agent decontamination without In conjunction with Argonne National Laboratory damaging surfaces. The technology is within the (ANL), TSWG is examining a chemical process to EPA regulatory processes, with the biological aspect nondestructively remove cesium-137 from porous undergoing verification testing. building materials. The process applies an ionic The decontamination unit for this technology wash followed by a superabsorbent gel that captures has a rugged, compact, modular design. A single the cesium-137. The gel is then vacuum-removed operator can easily use the system. Without brushing, from the surface. The process is particularly scrubbing, mopping, or scraping, the decontaminant applicable to concrete decontamination. ANL has provides a greater than log-6 kill for B. anthracis spores completed laboratory testing and may conduct within seconds. Compared with foam technologies, field-testing in 2005. ANL is also modifying the approximately six times less of this decontaminant is gel formation for other materials and examining needed to achieve success. The decontaminant also has application technologies. Commercialization high material compatibility; a paper document can be negotiations are in progress. submersed in the decontaminant for 24 hours without • Mass personnel decontamination protocol harming the print. The system can be employed with or TSWG has completed the guidance document without ultraviolet (UV) light. UV light increases the kill “Best Practices and Guidelines for Mass Personnel rate when used with the biological decontaminant. Testing Decontamination.” This document, which is has shown that the system is effective against biological available for order on the Internet (www.cbiac. agents, chemical agents, and viruses (e.g., flu, polio). The aprea.army.mil), includes information for decontamination process does not destroy DNA and decontamination of chemical, biological, and therefore does not compromise DNA evidence. radiological agents on people. A first edition was • Atmospheric plasma decontamination This completed in 2003, and a second edition was decontamination method provides effective and released in September 2004. efficient neutralization of biological agents but minimizes damage to high-value items (e.g.,

0 NHSRC Questions, Answers, and Comments About 90 percent of specialized radiological materials, such as weaponized radionuclides (e.g., • What is the minimum detection levels on the uranium, plutonium), are under government control. monitors and sensors (ppm/ppb/ppt)? TSWG Academic, industrial, agricultural, and medical settings is involved with two sensor projects—one uses use radiological materials for many different applications. existing sensors placed in pods, the other requires Medical treatments, specifically, require thousands of developing a new technology. Blackmon believes curies. Of the 2 million sources of radiological agents, these sensors detect contamination to the ppm level. about 5,000 are susceptible to becoming orphaned (lost, • For the electrostatic decontamination system, stolen, etc.) each day. Worldwide control is a problem what was the test substrate and how was the (e.g., the former Soviet Union contains many “orphans”). biological solution applied? Blackmon did not Radiation is described in terms of alpha and beta have immediate access to the project details but said particles and gamma rays. Alpha particles move short she would obtain the information for the workshop distances and can be blocked by paper or skin. Beta participant. Blackmon provided her contact particles are higher energy but can be shielded by information to workshop participants. aluminum foil or skin. These particles can travel several feet and exposures can result in deep, serious burns. “Dirty Bombs” (Radiological Gamma rays consist of high-energy, short wavelength Dispersion Devices [RDDs]) protons. These particles are pure energy and can travel many feet. They are very penetrating and can cause severe and Cleanup health effects. Radiation is measured as the number of Fred Holbrook, U.S. Environmental Protection nuclei decay per second. One curie (Ci) is considered Agency a large radiation source; 100 Ci is considered very dangerous. RDDs, or “dirty bombs,” use conventional explosives Radiation doses are reported as rems. Holbrook listed (e.g., TNT, RDX) to disperse radioactive materials. These several radiation doses and associated health effects. At 25 bombs would cause low-level radiological contamination to 50 rems, a person may have decreased numbers of white and cause psychological and economic damage. Fatalities blood cells. An RDD event is unlikely to produce a dose from RDD events, however, would be expected to be above 25 rem. low. Holbrook listed several radiological agents that are A 1987 event in Brazil provides an example of a potential components of RDDs and specified the half-life nonterror event that nonetheless resulted in a terrible of each. (The more radioactive materials have shorter half- endpoint. Scavengers found cesium in an abandoned lives.) To cause the worst health effects, the radiological radiotherapy clinic. The scavengers took the material agent must enter a person’s lungs. Cesium fluoride is of home to their village. As a result, 20 people received a particular concern because it is a fine, talclike powder, i.e., high radiation dose, 129 people were contaminated, and it is easily dispersed. thousands more were monitored for radiation sickness. An improvised nuclear device is a crude nuclear In another event, a young girl found cesium (a glowing weapon that can cause vast destruction (e.g., destroy blue powder), painted her body with it, and then ate food buildings, start fires, and cause tremendous loss of life). without washing her hands. She died within 30 days. This Enriched uranium can be a fuel source for a nuclear event occurred in a tourist and agricultural area and caused device; approximately 1,300 to 2,100 metric tons of economic disaster in that area. The cleanup cost about $20 enriched uranium throughout the world have questionable million. controls. The two bombs dropped on Japan to end World High cleanup costs are a consideration for addressing War II are examples of nuclear devices. Little Boy, which radiological agent events. An obvious first step would was dropped on Hiroshima, used 60 kilograms (kg) of be to reduce the possibility of an event. Holbrook enriched uranium as a fuel source. Fat Man, which was suggested programs that would encourage users to return dropped on Nagasaki, used 6 kg of plutonium as a fuel radioactive materials to the manufacturer to minimize the source. number of orphan sources. A public health campaign to educate people about radiation and radioactive releases

Decontamination Workshop  may reduce the extent of cleanup required by political Radiological and Nuclear pressures. Holbrook illustrated impact areas from the release of a 2-Ci source of cesium-137. A large number Terror: Technical Aspects of people would receive a dose of 150 millirems (mrems), and Implications for which is equivalent to the difference in background radiation between Washington, D.C., and Denver, Decontamination and Site Colorado. However, that small increase in risk may seem Cleanup unacceptable if not properly communicated. Decontamination options include acid dissolution John MacKinney, U.S. Environmental Protection of a radiological agent from the contaminated substrate, Agency, National Homeland Security Research chelant bonding for excretion from organisms (including Center humans), and blasting with abrasive materials for removal RDDs and nuclear weapons are vastly different. An RDD of the contaminated material. Holbrook highlighted (i.e., a “dirty bomb”) may consist of radiological agents several specific decontamination technologies in his injected into an HVAC or water system, dispersed from presentation. He noted that one strain of bacteria can a crop duster, or disseminated covertly. A nuclear weapon consume as much as 0.5 inches of concrete per year when may include smuggled weapons or improvised devices a sulfur gel is applied to the concrete. He also noted that produced with smuggled weapons-grade materials. This DoD and power plant authorities have successfully used presentation not only discussed issues associated with foams on a variety of surfaces. RDDs but also identified a nuclear weapon event as a worst-case scenario. Questions, Answers, and Comments The United States and other countries have experience • What is the difference between a low-level and with radiological agents from activities with uranium high-level radioactive waste facility? These two and plutonium in commercial and defense facilities; types of facilities are vastly different. Only about remediation at hazardous waste sites; running waste three facilities in the United States currently management facilities; and operating commercial, test, accept low-level radiological wastes, so disposal and research reactors and laboratories. These facilities of radiological wastes after decontamination is a are in fixed locations where accident prevention and substantial problem. response programs are in place. Facilities may also provide • Will radioactive waste facilities accept mixed a long warning period before releases occur. Conversely, wastes? Will some of the decontamination terror events are unpredictable. They can occur anywhere technologies mentioned produce mixed without warning. As such, RDDs present new challenges waste? Wastes that contain both radioactive and for local and federal responders. Most people, however, hazardous chemical materials are a huge problem. believe an RDD event is the most likely threat, especially Radioactive waste facilities do not accept mixed considering the abundance of missing and unaccounted- wastes. When reviewing available technologies, for radioactive material. many characteristics and factors must be considered, The question becomes how do we prepare for an including cost, feasibility, life cycle, performance, RDD event. One solution is to develop many different maintenance, and safety. Strong acid technologies release scenarios and plan accordingly. The radiation can be hazardous to the people deploying the released from a device is unlikely to result in fatalities, technology and may create a mixed waste. although the actual explosion may cause harm. A principal effect of RDDs is to deny access to places. An RDD may consist of an explosive device or any means of dispersing radiological agents (e.g., spraying from an automobile or aircraft, injecting into a building or water system). A device may distribute radiation in a small area (e.g., the size of the meeting room) or a much larger area (e.g., tens of city blocks).

42 NHSRC Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster in further research is needed. MacKinney showed examples history. This event released more than 100 million Ci of dispersion patterns with and without buildings. of contamination. For contrast, MacKinney presented a With the buildings, materials disperse in patterns that realistic radiological release example. Within 24 hours, are not necessarily intuitive. In addition, studies of a small radiological device (10 Ci of cesium-137) would particle dispersion have shown that indoor particulate disperse about a 1-rem dose of radiation to an area several concentrations following an event may be high. tens of city blocks, based on a simple gaussian dispersion Returning to the topic of preparing for an RDD model. event, MacKinney provided several suggestions. Currently, researchers at SNL are examining explosives Organizations should develop threat scenarios—much and radiological devices. The tests are being conducted in has been done and is ongoing in this area. Using these igloos (50 m3 in size) formerly used to examine explosions scenarios, we can create standard response and mitigation at plutonium pits. Current tests are small and use 0.5 procedures, plan possible cleanup actions, and evaluate pound of explosive with solid metal bars or ceramic disks existing technologies. Additional research is needed to of radiological materials. The research examines whether a adapt existing technologies to threat scenarios and to radiological agent will aerosolize and how the shape of the develop and test new technologies. When developing charge may affect dispersal. Aerosolized or in vapor form, decontamination technologies, research organizations a radiological agent can enter a person’s body and cause should avoid rushing to invest in solutions that address harm. Researchers tested a number of materials to examine a single problem and should invest only in technologies how the material properties affected aerosolization (e.g., with sound scientific support and real-world experience. form or shape, thermal properties, shock physics, vapor Research should target technologies that fill gaps. pressure). Entrainment is not inherent to the radioactive The decontamination and restoration periods after materials but is another complication because the an event follow a similar pattern, regardless of the threat explosion will entrain dirt and particles of concrete. agent (e.g., chemical, biological, or radiological). The Stress levels induce different material reactions first step is the safe shutdown of the affected building or and different particle sizes. In a worst-case scenario, area. A shutdown has huge implications when involving an explosion will impart enough stress to change a city blocks and private properties. Through work groups, radiological element to a vapor form. (The vapor then DHS is assessing possible optimized approaches to condenses as sub-micron particles, which are readily decontamination and restoration after an RDD release. dispersed.) For most of the metal bars tested, the This approach would be flexible in selecting cleanup explosion dispersed large chunks of metals. Tests found criteria based on societal needs, expected land uses, and that bismuth, however, aerosolizes very well: 80 percent is decontamination technologies. aerosolized into the respirable range because the bismuth Nuclear devices present another radiological threat. passes to the vapor stage during the tests. A carefully They include improvised devices, as well as weapons configured charge can also aerosolize cobalt. Ceramics, bought or stolen from a nuclear state. A nuclear device including strontium 90, used in the former Soviet Union has a likely yield of 0 (failure) to 50 kilotons. The most shipping beacons, also tended to create large chunks. (A likely event would involve a device with a 5- to 20-kiloton large chunk is 12 to 15 microns in diameter and a very capacity. A 10-kiloton device, which is considered small, large chunk is 1 inch in diameter.) Cesium chloride poses has the explosion capacity of nineteen 100-ton coal cars. another threat because it passes through the liquid to the The bomb exploded at Hiroshima was 13 kilotons; the vapor phase during an explosion. bomb exploded at Nagasaki was 22 kilotons. Several factors influence the dispersion pattern of After detonation, temperatures soar within a fraction an RDD. Larger chunks remain local to the impact of a second with the fireball reaching millions of degrees. area. Smaller particles disperse more widely depending The extreme rise in heat is followed immediately by on particle dynamics (e.g., phase changes, size, shape, incredible winds (measured near 700 miles per hours and aerodynamics). Buoyant rise—the lift from the heat during historic testing events). Most deaths after of the explosion—and meteorology also play roles in detonation are caused by burns. In addition to proximity dispersion. Smaller particles can be caught on air currents. to the detonation point, an individual’s specific injuries Models can predict possible dispersion patterns, however, depend on location within a building and building

Decontamination Workshop  materials. DHS modeling estimated that a nuclear Information from these sensors helped the UK identify detonation in Washington, D.C., would result in 50,000 areas of contamination after the Chernobyl incident. For deaths from the initial blast and another 50,000 to example, contamination was patchy because of heavy rains 100,000 deaths due to radiation. Radioactive fallout could within the fallout area. The UK identified some areas that extend hundreds of miles. were no longer safe for grazing sheep. In conclusion, an RDD detonation is a likely threat. RIMNET provides a vast amount of data regarding Organizations must understand possible threat scenarios local background levels of radiation, which can be used and can use models to help simulate urban impacts. to identify irregular events. The system is linked to Decontamination technologies must mesh with larger government departments, and all departments can access remediation and renovation goals. Although a large the data simultaneously. Agencies can use RIMNET as a nuclear device attack is unlikely, this threat cannot be tool for communicating with politicians, communities, ignored because of the severity of the impact. and international partners. For example, an incident occurring in the UK will also impact nations on mainland Questions, Answers, and Comments Europe. In an exercise with sensors in Scotland, the • When creating an RDD, why not grind the RIMNET database was able to upload years’ worth of radiological material? Because of the radiation sampling data within 30 minutes. dose, grinding may be fatal. If the proper safety Updates to the RIMNET system include a precautions are used, grinding may work to further modeling component that can assess short-, medium-, distribute the ceramic-form radiological materials, and long-range impacts. The system is also linked with but grinding metal-form radiological materials meteorological data. With these components, the system might prevent the shock wave that creates the phase can backtrack from an alarmed detector to a radiation change. A number of technical issues are involved in source. If a release occurs anywhere in world, the system creating successful RDDs. can also calculate when radiation will reach the UK. If the release occurs in the UK, the system can calculate when radiation will reach other countries. The UK also has the UK Approach to RDD ability to run models that, within 10 minutes of a release, Cleanup can identify areas to shut down to prevent contaminant movement. Malcolm Wakerley, Department for Environment, A model output in the presentation illustrated Food, and Rural Affairs releases associated with a 6,000-Ci cobalt bomb that The UK learned lessons about radiological contamination aerosolized. The map shows the inhalation dose from as the result of past nonterrorist, nuclear incidents (e.g., the passing cloud. The predominant dose, however, the U.S. B-52 bomber accident in Spain, Chernobyl results from deposition. The area closest to the release reactor fallout, and Brazil’s cancer therapy unit wastes). presents the greatest concern. Doses are lower farther from These incidents provided information about contaminant the release point, but a public relations concern exists movement resulting from an RDD detonation. The regarding communicating dose impacts to communities. Chernobyl incident and the events of 9/11 in the United Commonly, communities want doses to return to levels States prompted the creation and upgrade of a radiation present before an event. Determining how and to what monitoring network and radiation response handbook. level decontamination occurs becomes a political question. This presentation focused on these two items. As such, releases become instruments of economic as well After the Chernobyl incident, the UK created the as health destruction. Radiation Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET). In 1996, the UK created a radiological handbook in This system consists of 92 gamma detectors, located response to a review of decontamination and remediation approximately 30 kilometers apart, that supply data technologies conducted after a series of additional to a group of laboratories. The sensors are very simple radioactive accidents. The review identified trees, soil, and cannot detect alpha-emitting materials. Many of and grass as contributing substantially to exposure the sensors have been in service for more than 20 years. doses. Vertical surfaces were only minor contributors to overall dose. The existing response system is predicated

44 NHSRC on equipment available to local authorities, but The UK plans to maintain the handbook over specialized military equipment would be available for the next 3 years and add lessons as they are learned. In decontamination. The radiological handbook includes a exercises, the UK has examined case studies of accidents simple logic diagram and 22 tables on decontamination using the handbook as a resource and considering technologies and considerations. It also includes an advances in technologies to reassess what actions example release incident and discusses the UK inventory should have been taken. The UK is willing to share the of decontamination equipment. information it has gained, as well as the radiological After the events of 9/11 in the United States, the handbook, with the United States. UK expressed increased interest in the 1996 review and Wakerly concluded with his thoughts on a potential handbook. The handbook has grown since 1996 and now RDD attack. The attack will likely occur in an urban includes radiological agents that terrorists might use. (The setting. Ground surfaces, such as soil and grass around radiological threat agents addressed by the UK are similar homes and work areas, will provide the predominant to the priority radiological threat agents selected by the radiation routes of exposure after the initial attack. United States) The handbook provides reliable, consistent, Removing radiation from those areas will provide the best and comprehensive information to help decision makers reduction in dose. select the most practical decontamination methods and to guide them through the decontamination process. Questions, Answers, and Comments The UK is currently working to expand the handbook to After his presentation, Wakerly commented that the UK address various climates and crops so that it is relevant to is examining the practical side of using the handbook all of Europe and potentially to the United States. and decision trees. The handbook has worked well for Emergency planners use the handbook during tabletop exercises. In real-world situations, however, threat event exercises so its use will be intuitive during many additional concerns exist (e.g., seals for vehicles a real event. The handbook follows a 10-step decision conducting decontamination). Wakerly asked how the process outlined in detail in the presentation. Generally, United States was addressing the many radiological issues. these steps involve considering the nature and extent of A workshop participant responded that RDDs are a new the contamination, the availability and applicability of research area for the United States Some investigations, decontamination methods, and the land uses of affected however, are under way. For example, a TSWG project areas. Each land use area is then considered and evaluated examines the next generation of materials for personal individually. Land use areas in an inhabited area, for protective equipment. These materials will be lightweight example, may include residential, commercial, and and breathable because heat is a substantial issue when recreational areas. using personal protective equipment.

Decontamination Workshop  46 NHSRC Panel Discussion—Lessons Learned 3

Several bio-decontamination events are now suggested that CDC and EPA detail employees complete. Workshop participants shared their experiences to the FBI to facilitate information sharing for at these events with others in order to discuss lessons decontamination and public health concerns learned about the decontamination process and to suggest without compromising the criminal investigation steps that would improve that process. aspect of an event. For example, a whole report may be classified, but only a small portion contains Information Sharing and classified information. Security and classification issues will likely continue to be a problem. Agency Coordination • Suggestions for information sharing methods One workshop participant suggested that DHS Workshop participants uniformly agreed that improving spearhead efforts toward better information sharing. coordination and information sharing efforts among Another recognized the benefit of this workshop federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private and suggested that NHSRC and others regularly companies and communities, would improve responses to host workshops of its type for government, private, chemical, biological, and radiological threat events. They civilian, and military groups. Others also provided agreed that sharing information early when a threat event suggestions for data repositories. One workshop occurs would result in responses that are faster and better. participant suggested creating virtual repositories • Examples of existing efforts Although containing electronic documents and paper- information sharing and coordination efforts can be copy documents converted to electronic forms to much improved, workshop participants provided maximize information sharing. These repositories examples of current efforts among agencies. would serve as centralized information centers and ▶ EPA ORD recently published two reports might include: as a means of sharing information with ▶ Research and priority agent repositories others. The first summarizes EPA data from that list completed, ongoing, or planned decontamination events. The second compiles research efforts and priority agents for building decontamination data and reviews research If agencies and researchers had a clear decontamination options beyond crisis understanding of efforts underway by others, exemption options. EPA has not been proactive they could reduce potential redundancies, in distributing these reports, but they are address priority issues quickly, and appropriate available to workshop participants upon their funds properly. EPA has launched an internal request. campaign to track research projects. This effort ▶ DoD requires annual internal agency research will not only prevent research redundancies but updates and coordinates efforts with EPA. also feed into budgeting decisions. ▶ Participants from the UK noted that they ▶ Decontamination portfolios that link threat publish information on the Internet. They also agents with decontamination technologies encouraged ongoing coordination between the The repository should list technologies that are United States and UK. validated as well as those under development. A • Security concerns When sharing information, workshop participant noted that the National agencies must be cautious that information is not Decontamination Team may be creating this used against us. Data security must be considered type of repository. when sharing information. One participant

Decontamination Workshop  ▶ Agent repositories that list threat agents linked information readily available would likely streamline with laboratories able to analyze these agents the response. This repository could also include acceptable • Response plans Workshop participants agreed surrogates for research projects and methods that exercises should encourage organizations to for preparing these surrogates to provide prepare plans. For example, plans could identify consistency across research studies. methods to treat irreplaceable objects (e.g., ▶ Databases that list people with expertise in paintings, historical documents) or process large areas pertaining to decontamination Such volumes of personal items. FEMA has published a database could list training and work a radiological response plan that addresses experience. One workshop participant noted communication and preparedness concerns. All that this database exists and is available response plans should include communication through EPA. strategies (e.g., protocol for notifying the President Several workshop participants who work as OSCs and other government officials). emphasized the need for information when responding to • Standards Research and planning for pieces of the an event. They need information about decontamination response is under way or complete, but a means for methods that work or do not work and why. They also looking at the overall response process is lacking. need information in order to address the specific concerns A protocol that outlines a systematic way to assess of agencies from multiple levels of government (e.g., local an event would be useful. This protocol should boards of health, mayors’ offices). cover both simple indoor and complex indoor/ outdoor situations and should include standards. Preparedness A workshop participant noted that the process of writing and preparing standards may identify Organizations can prepare for a chemical, biological, or potential problems and force decisions before an radiological agent event in a number of ways. Workshop event. participants repeatedly suggested tabletop exercises • Up-to-date drawings In one participant’s as a way to identify possible threat scenarios, develop experience, the lack of accurate building plans led response plans, and pinpoint data gaps. They suggested to delays and increased expense in decontaminating interagency panels and peer reviews for these exercises. an impacted building. Having accurate plans readily The exercises should illustrate the pressures of the event available is critical for rapid response. and the complexity of decontamination planning (e.g., One workshop participant noted that prepositioning addressing HVAC systems). Workshop participants decontamination equipment may be appropriate. Others suggested focusing these exercises on airports and thought that this action was not economically viable. If transportation facilities. One workshop participant noted the government buys the infrastructure for a technology that exercises can become complex and attempt to address now, the technology may be obsolete when needed. worst-case scenarios. In these exercises, the focus becomes Having the equipment in the right place at the right the technical aspect of the response plan. In a real-world time and ensuring that it would operate after years on situation, the technical side of a response may be easy standby are also concerns. A participant suggested that compared with regulatory or communication issues. technology vendors research dual uses of decontamination Materials that would help prepare agencies and technologies, such as applications in agricultural facilities include: decontamination for insects and mold, responses to • Matrix of responses Similar to a decontamination hazardous material releases, or uses in hospital settings. database, this matrix would link threat agents with Dual-use technologies would provide a sustainable appropriate decontamination methods and site business model and provide technologies for addressing conditions (e.g., a contained building contaminated agents if needed. Another workshop participant noted with anthrax). All known decontamination that the military often develops technologies and then agents and material compatibility issues should turns them over to the commercial market. They are then be included. Some of this information may be available commercially when needed. subjective or anecdotal. Nonetheless, having this

48 NHSRC Sampling and Analytical Other workshop participants were more hesitant about linking different types of indicators Issues to environmental samples. One noted that spores on steel coupons or paper strips will not Workshop participants discussed several topics regarding respond the same as spores on desks, fabric, or sampling utility and sampling methods. These topics other materials in a building. As such, hospital included: and pharmaceutical practices may be of limited • Streamlining the sampling process Several usefulness. Currently, biological indicators and workshop participants noted that sampling (for spore strips confirm that a decontamination agent characterization, verification, and clearance) took was present, but indicators and strips do not up much of the response timeline. They suggested directly confirm that decontamination of agents in streamlined sampling (e.g., minimize or eliminate the environment has occurred. characterization sampling when fumigation is • Improving sampling methods Workshop the planned response; only screen samples to participants noted lessons learned and identified determine viability). When characterization concerns regarding sampling methods. sampling is minimized, verification and clearance Lessons learned: sampling become more important. Individual ▶ Calibrating sampling instruments and workshop participants noted that the clearance ensuring proper operation before samples were most important when reoccupying a sampling is critical. building and that good communication with the ▶ Fixed sampling points are costly and difficult affected community (e.g., workers in a building) is to site, and they provide a limited amount of necessary to minimize clearance sampling. information. A mobile unit (e.g., TAGA) can Other workshop participants strongly believed be more useful. that no sampling phase should be eliminated. One ▶ Remotely monitoring a building with a participant believed that characterization sampling titration system can be difficult. In one took up only a small segment of the response participant’s experience, the system required timeline and should not be compromised. 5,000 feet of tubing and months for setup • Using biological indicators Decontamination and operation. events rely on biological indicators (e.g., spore Concerns raised: strips), but results from these tests may not ▶ Many questions arose from a lack of correlate to environmental conditions (i.e., actual understanding. For example, additional levels of spores). Several workshop participants environmental sampling was required at identified correlating these tests as a research need. one facility to address workers’ concern Having participated in five or six decontamination about the safety of their workstations. events, one participant noted that no positive ▶ Rapid screening and sampling may overlook environmental samples were found when the multiple-agent attacks. For example, a biological indicators were negative and desired terrorist may use a single event to drive people fumigant concentration had been achieved. toward a common area and a second event. Another noted that establishing a link between ▶ Any sampling protocol should address multi- indicators (e.g., paper or stainless steel strips) agent attacks. Once an agent is identified and environmental samples may help speed at an event, agencies may race toward reoccupation of sensitive areas. Several other decontamination. Other agents may be participants noted that pharmaceutical companies overlooked. already use biological indicators to confirm sterilization. Decontamination research may be able to draw from this experience. In termite fumigation, vendors also rely on indicators to confirm complete fumigation.

Decontamination Workshop  Decontamination Process the local agencies and must be careful not to say anything that could be construed as policy. Workshop participants provided comments based on their • A representative from CDC indicated that experience at decontamination events. historically a clear understanding of the different • When fumigation is the selected decontamination phases of a response was lacking. Participants in method, the fumigation itself takes up only a small a decontamination event should recognize that segment of the decontamination timeline. the response phases are not separate and distinct; For example, a 1-week fumigation requires 6 however, activities are becoming clearer as agencies weeks of preparation and several months of post- gain more decontamination experience. fumigation activities. • An OSC provides information to agencies involved • Knowing the target agent is critical for properly in a decontamination event. Agencies use this planning a response. One workshop participant information to support their decisions. (One noted that time and money could have been saved OSC at the workshop indicated that many of the at one site if the decision makers knew that the technical experts present could be called upon to target agent was a weaponized biological agent. provide information to support a decontamination They would have selected fumigation immediately event.) Agencies working with an OSC need instead of spending time considering alternative to understand the command structure at a decontamination technologies. decontamination event. • Sealing a building can be costly and time- • An environmental clearance committee supports consuming. In addition to the cost of sealing the local agency decisions about when it is safe to building, budgets must also include inspection reoccupy a building by providing information costs. A project in Utica, New York, found tenting and credibility. The more the local agencies know, to be an effective means of sealing a building. the better able they are to make decisions. The • Preserving sensitive and valuable materials is a committee itself does not make decisions. concern when one is selecting a decontamination • One workshop participant served on several technology. One workshop participant suggested environmental clearance committees. This innovative research grants to businesses or participant noted that the facility operator at one academics as a way to address concerns about site supported the committee as an independent preserving materials. group assessing clearance for reoccupation. • One workshop participant suggested leaving as • An OSC attending the workshop voiced support of much material as possible inside a building for environmental clearance committees and technical fumigation to alleviate disposal concerns. working groups. To support an OSC, however, • CDC is concerned about the public health side technical working groups should consist of people of an event and facility safety for reoccupation. who are authorized to make decisions for their However, decisions about reoccupation are made agencies. Environmental clearance committees by the local health agencies, so CDC responses should recognize that they serve as advisory bodies, to an incident must be carefully crafted and must recommending cleanup values to the local agencies respect the command structure. CDC only supports that make the decisions.

0 NHSRC Panel Discussion—Research and Development Needs 4

Over the course of the 3-day workshop, presenters ▶ Aerosolization and re-aerosolization of biological described a number of ongoing research projects. During and radiological agents the second panel discussion, workshop participants ▶ Effects of heat and humidity on the deactivation suggested many additional research needs. Again, workshop of ricin participants emphasized the need for agency coordination ▶ Applicability of chelaters, HEPA filters, to maximize research efforts. The following is a list of and other decontamination technologies to suggestions provided during the second panel discussion, as radiological agents well as research needs identified during the lessons learned ▶ Activated reagents and their use on CWAs panel discussion. ▶ Decontamination of infectious agents in an • Both basic and applied research are needed. environment with a heavy organic load Researchers must ensure that their efforts translate to • In addition to expanding research on specific threat real-world situations. Small-chamber studies provide agents, workshop participants thought research a systematic approach, but these studies do not assess should expand to consider more threat scenarios, real-life concerns. Studies should simulate responses such as a large, outdoor contamination event. in real buildings. Issues of scale and engineering Events that may cause agricultural contamination or may be a concern when moving from laboratory economic damage are also of concern. to field-testing. For example, real-world situations • Research efforts should assess the whole cost of often include greater surface areas and volumes for a decontamination event, including the disposal decontamination. Workshop participants provided and restoration components. These efforts should several specific suggestions for applied research topics: identify potential savings areas that would reduce ▶ Real-time monitoring technology (e.g., the expense and time required for decontamination developing faster, cheaper, and better and restoration. Gathering information and technologies) for agents and fumigants conducting decontaminations quickly could cut ▶ Appropriate sampling methods (e.g., costs. A workshop participant noted that removing determining whether cotton wipes or rayon building contents before decontamination requires wipes are better for surface sampling) for bio- consideration of the restraints of working in a agents (e.g., spores) contaminated environment as well as packaging ▶ Validation of decontamination technologies and transporting waste materials pulled from ▶ Tenting as a means of sealing a facility for the building. If materials are removed after fumigation decontamination, perhaps they could be handled • Most of the information presented during the as relatively innocuous materials. Waste products workshop applied to B. anthracis. A number of from the decontamination process itself must also be workshop participants mentioned the need to considered. expand research related to other chemical, biological, • Dual-use technologies should be identified or and radiological threat agents. Most agreed that developed before the next threat event occurs. additional basic research on radiological agents is Technologies for decontaminating biological needed. Specifically, participants suggested research agents, specifically, could have many uses (e.g., topics including: decontaminating mold-infested buildings, hospitals, ▶ Interactions of chemical and radiological agents and manufacturing facilities). As an added benefit, with building and environmental materials research on dual-use technologies can also foster ▶ Movement of fine radiological particles collaboration between public and private sectors.

Decontamination Workshop  • Workshop participants also encouraged research into • During the lessons learned panel discussion, biotechnology-based decontamination approaches workshop participants mentioned specific research (e.g., bacteria-eating anthrax). One workshop needs regarding existing sampling methods. One participant mentioned an existing project studying participant identified the need for research to address viruses that attack anthrax. Another discussed a several questions: How much sampling is enough? personal experience with a past project researching What samples are truly necessary? How clean is a bacterial virus for remediating a pathogen threat. clean? Other research topics specifically mentioned This research was difficult to pursue because of were rapid testing protocols, methods for sampling concern that this project could be construed as irreplaceable items (e.g., paintings or historical biological warfare. Rather than using a bacterial virus, documents), accurate and inexpensive real-time an enzyme extracted from the virus could destroy monitors, and sampling standards (e.g., B. anthracis and other pathogens very quickly. (This 1 spore strip per 100 ft2). technique also has a hospital application.) Current • Several workshop participants suggested additional research is pursuing enzymes as a means of addressing research to develop surfaces and coatings that are chemical and biological agents. easy to clean, serve as biocides, or limit chemical • Several workshop participants mentioned the infiltration. Specifically, studies could develop a need for better surrogates. One participant noted way to seal porous materials, which can be difficult that identifying surrogates is more complex than to decontaminate. Some research of surfaces and identifying a single surrogate for a single threat coatings is under way. agent. Surrogates can change based on the threat • Architects and engineers are notably absent from agent, decontamination methods, and material this meeting. These experts can provide information characteristics. Researchers should consult about designing buildings with smart systems—using microbiologists to consider whether biological building materials to combat contamination. A indicators, spore strips, glass disks, and other media workshop participant mentioned that comprehensive truly simulate B. anthracis releases. Identifying planning at a State Department building resulted in successful surrogates would enable academic a structure that minimizes the potential impact of a institutions and others without clearance to work contamination event. For example, the mail room with threat agents to advance decontamination has a self-contained HVAC system with HEPA technologies. filters. Mail is processed through holding areas that • Workshop participants repeatedly mentioned can be tested for threat agents before the mail enters biological indicators and spore strips as an area of the building. uncertainty. For example, the test coupons need • Many of the presentations given during the to better represent real-world situations (e.g., workshop discussed material compatibility issues. carpet coupons versus steel disks). The participants Workshop participants agreed that additional suggested additional research to improve available research to understand interactions between indicator and strip technologies and to develop decontaminants (e.g., fumigants), threat agents, new methods for ensuring that agent deactivation and building materials is needed. Much remains occurred. One workshop participant specifically unknown about chemical off-gassing, for example, mentioned the need for understanding the biology or decontaminant impacts on sensitive equipment behind these technologies. Decontamination events (e.g., computer components, aircraft systems). A rely heavily on biological indicators and spore strips, workshop participant noted that the IBM facility but information from these tests is not directly in Rochester, New York, has a laboratory for testing comparable to environmental samples. As during sensitive equipment. IBM is open to having others the lessons learned panel discussion, workshop use this laboratory for research. One presenter found participants held conflicting opinions about that a number of carbonyls formed during chlorine whether relating biological indicators and strips dioxide fumigation tests. Very little of the reacted to environmental conditions (actual spores) was chlorine from those tests was recovered. The fate of appropriate. the remaining chlorine remains unknown. More

52 NHSRC information is needed to understand chemical positive results on different days (i.e., some are reactions during fumigation and the formation of positive on day 1, some on day 4, and occasionally fumigation byproducts. some on day 6). The reason for this is unknown. • Workshop participants suggested research Perhaps results vary based on different culture to characterize background (e.g., dust, filth, media. grime) to understand how these materials may • One workshop participant suggested convening impact decontamination, especially fumigation a panel of experts distant from ongoing technologies. LLNL plans to test and characterize decontamination discussions and research to grime in subways, and DoE seeks to characterize independently review the collective research efforts background characteristics of airborne materials that ongoing at various agencies and facilities. This could be threat agents. For example, live anthrax panel may be able to identify topics that have been spores can be found everywhere. Understanding overlooked or projects that are redundant. They these background levels should prevent unnecessary may also be able to determine whether current fumigation. research is focusing on too few decontamination • Several workshop participants suggested additional technologies or identify other areas of interest. The research to address the question “How clean is panel would meet periodically (e.g., to observe the clean?” They suggested conducting risk-based presentations and discussions at this workshop). modeling to understand the aggregate risk before, Their input may prevent us from being blindsided during, and after a decontamination event. For by an unexpected terrorist attack. example, if no growth is reported for 106 spore strips, is a building safe for reoccupation? From a risk-based perspective, how should we address intact, nonviable spores? • Nonculturable but viable organisms have not been addressed. Citing personal observations, a workshop participant noted that biological indicators report

Decontamination Workshop  54 NHSRC Appendices 5 Appendix A: Agenda

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005 8:00am Registration/Check-in

PLENARY SESSION 9:00am Opening remarks; decontamination timeline; summary of all events thus far ...... Blair Martin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC)

9:30am DDAP program ...... Lance Brooks Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 10:00am BREAK

10:15am FBI/Forensics sampling ...... Ben Garrett Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

SESSION 1: The Decontamination Process

10:45am CDC approach to sampling ...... Ken Martinez Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

11:15pm Agents of interest ...... Nancy Adams, EPA/NHSRC

11:45am LUNCH

12:45pm AOAC sterilant registration method ...... Steve Tomasino, EPA

1:15pm Crisis exemptions ...... Jeff Kempter, EPA

1:45pm Sampling issues ...... Mark Durno, EPA Region 5

2:15pm BREAK

2:30pm Ambient monitoring for fumigants/CW agents–TAGA van ...... Dave Mickunas, EPA

3:00pm Insurance and indemnity issues ...... Jerry Robinson United States Postal Service (USPS)

Decontamination Workshop  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005 (continued)

SESSION 1: The Decontamination Process (continued)

3:30pm The role of on-site coordinators in the process ...... Marty Powell, EPA

4:00pm The UK perspective on decontamination approaches ...... Robert Bettley-Smith (GDRS)

4:30pm Lab capacity issues ...... Rob Rothman, EPA/NHSRC

5:00pm ADJOURN

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2005

SESSION 2: Decontamination Technologies

8:30am ClO2 fumigation, liquid ClO2/bleach ...... John Mason Sabre Technical Services

9:00am ClO2 system test Aniston ...... Tom McWhorter CDG Technology

9:30am VHP fumigation, liquid HP, and sporeclenz ...... Iain McVey STERIS Corporation 10:00am BREAK

10:15am VHP fumigation ...... Mike Herd Bioquell, Inc.

10:45am Methyl bromide fumigation ...... Rudi Scheffrahn University of Florida

11:15am Foam decontamination technologies ...... Rita Betty Sandia National Laboratory 11:45pm LUNCH

2:30pm Ricin ...... Jack Kelly, EPA/ERT

1:00pm Restoration from decontamination ...... Rich Orlusky, USPS

1:30pm Evaluating ClO2 fumigation efficacy ...... Paula Krauter Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

2:00pm Innovative/emerging decontamination technologies ...... Mark Brickhouse Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC)

56 NHSRC THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2005 (continued)

SESSION 3: Decontamination R&D

2:30pm Systematic decontamination studies ...... Phil Koga (ECBC)

3:00pm Use of HVAC systems in building decontamination ...... Tina Carlsen Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 3:30pm BREAK

3:45pm Impact of materials on disinfection and byproduct formation ...... Rich Corsi University of Texas

4:15pm Chamber studies ...... Mark Buttner University of Nevada, Las Vegas

4:45pm Decontamination ETV program ...... Mike Taylor Battelle Memorial Institute

5:15pm TSWG R&D activities ...... Rebecca Blackmon Technical Support Working Group 5:45pm ADJOURN

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2005

SESSION 4: Lessons Learned

8:30am PANEL DISCUSSIONS • Lessons learned from building decontamination work

10:30am BREAK

10:45am • Research and technology development needs

12:00pm LUNCH

SESSION 5: Radiological Dispersion Device Cleanup

1:00pm Scenarios ...... Fred Holbrook (DOE) EPA/NHSRC

1:30pm Dirty Bombs ...... John MacKinney, EPA

2:00pm Radiological cleanup ...... Malcolm Wakerley DEFRA/Radio Active Substances

2:30pm Wrap-up ...... Blair Martin, EPA

Decontamination Workshop  Ap pendix B: List of Participants The following pages list workshop participants. The list does not include those who were invited to participate but could not attend the workshop. Asterisks denote presenters. Nancy Adams *Lance Brooks John Drake Director, Decontamination and Scientist Project Manager C onsequence Manage ment Programs, Plans, Budget Decontamination and Consequence National Homeland Security Science & Technology Directorate Management Division R esearch Center Department of Homeland Security National Homeland Security U.S. Environmental Room 10-D47 Research Center Protection Agency Washington, DC 20528 U.S. Environmental MC E-343-06 Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Karen Burgan 10282 Rock Springs Road Senior Policy Advisor (OH/WVDP) Nick Adams Office of Emergency Management West Valley, NY 10282 President Office of Solid Waste and B ioQuell, Inc. Emergency Response *Mark Durno 101 Witmer Road - Suite 500 National Planning and On-Scene Coordinator Horsham, PA 19044 Preparedness Division Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Superfund Division *Robert Bettley-Smith Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Department for Environment, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Agency - Region 5 Food & Rural Affairs (5202A) 25089 Center Ridge Road (ME-W) 4/E4 Ashdown House Washington, DC 20460 Westlake, OH 44145 123 Victoria Street London, SW1E 6DE *Mark Buttner Haroona Franklin United Kingdom Microbiologist Head of Contracts and Resources University of Nevada, Las Vegas GDS Project *Rita Betty 4505 South Maryland Parkway 2 Little Smith Street Member Technical Staff Box 454009 London SW1P 3DH Chemical and Biological Las Vegas, NV 89154-4009 United Kingdom Technologies Sandia National Laboratory *Tina Carlsen Scott Fredericks P.O. Box 5800 (0734) Senior Environmental Scientist Environmental Reponse Team Albuquerque, NM 87185 Environmental Chemistry Office of Superfund and Biology Remediation & Technology *Rebecca Blackmon Environmental Restoration Innovation Subject Matter Expert Lawrence Livermore National U.S. Environmental Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Laboratory Protection Agency & Nuclear Countermeasures P.O. Box 808 (L-528) Technical Support Working Group Livermore, CA 94550 *Benjamin Garrett 12821 Old Fort Road, Suite 302 Senior Scientist for WMD Fort Washington, MD 20744 Karen Cavanagh Hazardous Materials Response Unit General Counsel and Chief Federal Bureau of Investigation Nicolas Brescia Operating Officer 2501 Investigation Parkway On-Scene Coordinator Sabre Technical Services, LLC Quantico, VA 22135 Removal Branch 17 Computer Drive, E Hazardous Site Cleanup Division Albany, NY 12205 Perry Gaughan U.S. Environmental On-Scene Coordinator - Region 3 Protection Agency John Chang Removal and Response Branch 1650 Arch Street (3HS31) Chemical Engineer Hazardous Site Clean Up Philadelphia, PA 19103 IEMB U.S. Environmental Air Pollution Prevention Protection Agency *Mark Brickhouse & Control Division 1650 Arch Street (3HS31) Team Leader National Risk Management Philadelphia, PA 19103 Decontamination Sciences Research Laboratory Physical and Chemical Scientist U.S. Environmental Harold Heaton Research Development Protection Agency Principal Staff Physicist Engineering Command 109 TW Alexander Drive (E305-03) Special Applications Branch Edgewood Chemical Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 National Security Biological Center Technology Department 5183 Black Hawk Road *Richard Corsi Johns Hopkins Applied (AMSRD-ECB-RT-PD) Professor Physics Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD Department of Civil Engineering 11100 Johns Hopkins Road 21010-5424 Center for Energy & (17N-686) Environmental Research Laurel, MD 20723 University of Texas at Austin 10100 Burnet Road (R7100) Austin, TX 78757

58 NHSRC Craig Heimbach *Jeff Kempter *Blair Martin Physicist Senior Advisor Associate Division Director Neutron Interactions and Dosimetry Office of Pesticide Programs National Risk Management Ionizing Radiation Antimicrobials Division Research Laboratory National Institute of Standards U.S. Environmental Air Pollution Prevention and and Technology Protection Agency Control Division 100 Bureau Drive (8461) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW U.S. Environmental Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (7510C) Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 109 T.W. Alexander Drive *Michael Herd (E343-04) Vice President Max Kiefer Research Triangle Park, NC 27511 Bioquell, Inc. Assistant Director Emergency 101 Witmer Road - Suite 500 Preparednness and Response *Kenneth Martinez Horsham, PA 19044 Office of Director Regional Operations Director National Institute fo Occupational Coordinating Office of Emergency *Fred Holbrook Safety and Health Preparedness and Response Senior Engineer Centers for Disease Control Office of the Director Decontamination and and Prevention Centers for Disease Control/NIOSH Consequence Management 1600 Clifton Road (MS E-20) 4676 Columbia Parkway (R-11) National Homeland Security Atlanta, GA 30333 Cincinnati, OH 45226 Research Center U.S. Environmental *Philip Koga *John Mason Protection Agency Associate Director for Chief Executive Officer 26 West Martin Luther King Special Programs Sabre Technical Services, LLC Drive (163) Edgewood Chemical & 17 Computer Drive, E Cincinnati, OH 45268 Biological Center Albany, NY 12205 Research & Technology Directorate Anthony Intrepido U.S. Army Research Michael McLoughlin Program Manager Development & Engineering Program Manager Industrial Hygiene Field Services Command Department of Homeland Security, Directorate of Occupational Health RDECOM-ECBC /AMSRD-ECB-RT Science and Technology U.S. Army Center for Health Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD HSARPA Promotion and Protective Mediums 21010-5424 Washington, DC 20528 5158 Blackhawk Road ATTN: MCHB-TS-OFS *Paula Krauter *Iain McVey Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD Environmental Microbiologist Project Manager 21010 Environmental Protection Defense and Industrial Department STERIS Corporation Jenna Jambeck Environmental Restoration 5960 Heisley Road Post-Doc Lawrence Livermore Mentor, OH 44060 Atmospheric Protection Branch National Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention 7000 East Avenue (L-528) *David Mickunas & Control Division Livermore, CA 94550 Chemist U.S. Environmental Environmental Response Team Protection Agency Terrance Leighton Office of Superfund 109 TW Alexander Drive (E305-02) Senior Scientist Remediation Technology Innovation Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 CIVD/CHORI U.S. Environmental 5700 Martin Luther King Parkway Protection Agency Peter Jutro Oakland, CA 94609 Building 18 - 2890 Deputy Director Woodbridge Avenue National Homeland Security Paul Lemieux Edison, NJ 08837 Research Center Chemical Engineer U.S. Environmental Decontamination & Mark Minier Protection Agency Consequences Management Vice President 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW National Homeland Security Sabre Technical Services (8801R) Research Center 17 Computer Drive, E Washington, DC 20460 U.S. Environmental Albany, NY 12205 Protection Agency *Jack Kelly 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Robert Murtha On Scene Coordinator Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 President Removal Response Branch MURTECH Hazardous Site Cleanup Division *John MacKinney 820 Cromwell Park Drive U.S. Environmental Protection Senior Scientist Glen Burnie, MD 21061 Agency - Region 3 Center For Radiological 1650 Arch Street (3HS31) Emergency Response/ORIA Laurel O’Connor Philadelphia, PA 19103 U.S. Environmental Senior Research Scientist Protection Agency Battelle 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1204 Research Drive (6608J) Aberdeen, MD 21001-1228 Washington, DC 20460

Decontamination Workshop  *Richard Orlusky *Rudolf Scheffrahn John Vitko Environmental Coordinator Professor of Entomology Director, Biological Environmental Policy Management University of Florida Countermeasurers United States Postal Service 3205 College Avenue Science and Technology Directorate 21 Kilmer Road Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314 Department of Homeland Security Edison, NJ 08899 Washington, DC 29528 Lewis Schwartz Cayce Parrish Vice President, Operations & Chris Wagner Principal Technical Advisor Opportunity Development On-Scene Coordinator Office of the Administrator Defense and Industrial EPA National Office of Homeland Security STERIS Corporation Decontamination Team U.S. Environmental 5960 Heisley Road 26 West Martin Luther King Drive Protection Agency Mentor, OH 44060 (MS 271) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Cincinnati, OH 45268 (1109A) Les Sparks Washington, DC 20460 Senior Chemical Engineer *Malcolm Wakerley Decontamination and CBRN Specialist *Marty Powell Consequence Management Division Radioactive Substances U.S. Environmental National Homeland Security Department for Environment, Protection Agency Research Center Food & Rural Affairs 303 Methodist Building U.S. Environmental 4/E4 Ashdown House 11th and Chapline Streets (3HS33) Protection Agency 123 Victoria Street Wheeling, WV 26003 (ND 305-03) London SW1E 6DE Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 United Kingdom Vipin Rastogi Senior Research Biologist Harry Stone Phan Winter Research & Technology Directorate Program Manager Associate, SETA for DHS U.S. Army - Edgewood Chemical & Battelle Booz Allen Hamilton Biological Center 10300 Alliance Road - Suite 155 4001 Fairfax Drive - Suite 750 E-3150 Kingscreek Street, N Cincinnati, OH 45242 Arlington, VA 22203 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010 Michael Takacs Joseph Wood Health Physicist Decontamination and *Gerald Robinson Nuclear & Chemical Hazards Consequence Management Division Attorney, Purchasing & DHS/FEMA National Homeland Security Commercial Protection Law Department of Homeland Security Research Center United States Postal Service - 500 C Street, SW - Room 200 U.S. Environmental Law Department Washington, DC 20472-0001 Protection Agency 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW E343-06 Washington, DC 20260-1136 *Michael Taylor Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Program Manager Richard Rossman Measurement and Data Rosemary Workman Principal Research Scientist Analysis Sciences Environmental Scientist SA&E Energy and Environment Division Office of Homeland Security Battelle Memorial Institute Battelle Memorial Institute U.S. Environmental 1204 Technology Drive 10300 Alliance Road - Suite 155 Protection Agency Aberdeen, MD 21001 Cincinnati, OH 45242 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1109) *Rob Rothman Rodney Taylor Washington, DC 20460 Physical Scientist Managing Director Office of Research & Development Breitstone & Company, Ltd. National Homeland Security 534 Willow Avenue Research Center Cedarhurst, NY 11516 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency *Stephen Tomasino 26 West Martin Luther King Senior Scientist Drive (163) Microbiology Laboratory Branch Cincinnati, OH 45268 Biological and Economic Analysis Division Shawn Ryan Office of Pesticide Programs Chemical Engineer U.S. Environmental Decontamination & Consequence Protection Agency Management Division Environmental Science Center National Homeland Security 701 Mapes Road (7503C) Research Center Ft. Meade, MD 20755 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Abe Turetsky 109 TW Alexander Drive Edgewood Chemical & (MD-H-137-03) Biological Center Research Triangle Park, NC U.S. Army E-3150 Kingscreek Street, N Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010

0 NHSRC Appendix C: Presentation Slides

  

        

 

 

 

                                    

 

                                        

Decontamination Workshop                                     

 

                                 



                 

62 NHSRC          

                         



  

 



 

          

            

                                          

 Decontamination Workshop   

          

                                                            

         

                                                     

                                                                                           

64 NHSRC  

           

          

 

 

                           

   

 

                            

   

 Decontamination Workshop   

                                 

   

 

                          

   

   

                                 

   

66 NHSRC   

             

 

 Decontamination Workshop     

 

 



             

 

                           

68 NHSRC   

                               

 

                                

   

                          

Decontamination Workshop     

                             

6RXUFH(3$SKRWRVGXULQJ&DSLWRO+LOO&OHDQXS

 

 



                                      

0 NHSRC                                  

   

                        

 

          

Decontamination Workshop      

                             

  

                          



                   

72 NHSRC              

        

               

              

                                       

Decontamination Workshop                                      

 

                                                

                             

74 NHSRC   

               

    

              

                   

                            

Decontamination Workshop    

                                

                           

    

           

       

                           

             

                 

76 NHSRC    

                     

 

                            



 

 

 

Decontamination Workshop        

 

   

    

 

   

        

 

    

  

      

                                

78 NHSRC   

                            

    

 

  

    

  

  

   

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

                       

Decontamination Workshop     

                  

  



   

                                      

 

                                                 

0 NHSRC         

   

   

  

          

      

 

 

                   

 

Decontamination Workshop     

                    

  

          

        

   

                         

82 NHSRC                      

   

      

        

                 

   

  

                   

             

Decontamination Workshop             

  

   

                   

          

        

  

      

      

    

  

                            

84 NHSRC           3UHVHQWHGDW          

 

                         

 

                           

 

Decontamination Workshop    

                      

 

 

                                                   

 

                                                                                     

86 NHSRC  

                                                                     

             

 

                             

 

Decontamination Workshop                                      

 

 

                

 

                                               

88 NHSRC  

                      

                               

 

                             

Decontamination Workshop    

                              



         



               

0 NHSRC   

   

 

                            

                                 

Decontamination Workshop                                  

 

                        

 

                              

92 NHSRC    

          

      



 

       

 

 

  

     

   

                 

      

Decontamination Workshop                      

   

   

        

       

              

    

           



94 NHSRC   

 

 

Decontamination Workshop   

 

 

  

  

 

 

 

    

               

    

     





 

      

    

                

               

  

 



 

   

 

 

 

 

                               

                    

96 NHSRC      

       

       

                           

   

                                                 

        

 

  



   

 

   

                  

                  

   

 

   

        

  

 

                                       

  

Decontamination Workshop 97         

                 

 

     

 

  

      

  

        

        

                      

     

  

 

    

 

  

                             

               

   

 

 

      

 

      



                              

 

           

  

98 NHSRC               

   

       

  

  

          

 

                

                 

   

 



  

  

  

       

      



                                        

     

 

         

        

 

         

        

  

Decontamination Workshop 99                                              

 

 

 



  

 

  

  

   

     

  

                 

  

 

 

 

 

 

  



 

                                   

            

  

                             

  





      

    

 

             

       

100 NHSRC                          



 

      

 

         

          

            

 

 

  

       



 

   

  

          

  

        

           

     

    

 



   

  

   

 

 

                                

Decontamination Workshop 101      

     

      

      

 

  

      

  

                         

 

                                                         

          

                                                                                                                                                                           

                   

                                               

                   

    

          

                                                        

          

          

                      

          

          

 

102 NHSRC    

           

 

 

                            

 

 



  

 

 

                     

 

                                            

                                                                                                                                       

Decontamination Workshop 103   

                       

 

 

         

                 

                         

 

                                                                                                                                      

   

104 NHSRC  

             

 

                           

 

              

Decontamination Workshop 105   

              

 

                 

 

                    

106 NHSRC   

          

 

                         



          

Decontamination Workshop 107         5REHUW%HWWOH\5REHUW%HWWOH\6PLWK)5,&66PLWK)5,&6  *'63URMHFW'LUHFWRU  

'HSDUWPHQWIRU(QYLURQPHQW)RRGDQG5XUDO$IIDLUV 'HIUD

 

                             

                     

108 NHSRC     

                 

 

                   

JGV#GHIUDJVLJRYXN

Decontamination Workshop 109    

      

                         

 

                        

110 NHSRC   

                  

       

                                         

         

   

  

  

 

 

 









 

   

 

  

 

 



 

   

 

 

                     

Decontamination Workshop 111          

     

   

                                          



     

112 NHSRC      



  



  

                                    

  

                                                                           

Decontamination Workshop 113

            

  

   

  

 

 

  

  

  

      

        



     



   

        

  

 

      

         

              

         

114 NHSRC

  

     

                              

 

                                

Decontamination Workshop 115

      

                             

                           

                      

 

      

  

116 NHSRC

                      

     

                       

 

                       

Decontamination Workshop 117

   



  





      



  



 

         

      

   



  



118 NHSRC

    



 

         





     



Decontamination Workshop 119    

                         

     

           

120 NHSRC   



        

          

                                                                                                                            





Decontamination Workshop 121  122 NHSRC  

  

Decontamination Workshop 123  

            



  

              

124 NHSRC   

         

Decontamination Workshop 125                  

126 NHSRC  Decontamination Workshop 127  128 NHSRC                              

      

       

 

 



   



   



  



  





 



 

         

            

    

   

                                                            

Decontamination Workshop 129      

                                                                             

 

  

                   

                        

  

                

      

 

 

                                                                     

 

130 NHSRC      

          

                                                    

   

                                      

   

    

              

                                

                           

Decontamination Workshop 131    

                

   

   

    

  







  

                      

  

132 NHSRC    

                   

    

Decontamination Workshop 133                               

 

                                        

134 NHSRC                                                   

 

          

  

 

Decontamination Workshop 135   

                                    

 

  

136 NHSRC                                    

   

             

    

                                  

Decontamination Workshop 137                               

        



                                               

138 NHSRC                       

                

                           

                                                                                                                                                              

Decontamination Workshop 139                                    

                               

                                       

140 NHSRC                                

        

                            

         

        

                                                 



                                                                                                                                              

    

                                

 

                               

141 Decontamination Workshop                                  

142 NHSRC  

                                      

  

                                  

                                                      

Decontamination Workshop 143                                  

    

                       

              

  

                                                                                                                                                     

144 NHSRC   

         

 

   

         

   

 ¡

   

 

   

      

                                              

  

                                                                                                                                                                

         

Decontamination Workshop 145   

                ¡                    ¡   



       

                         

      

                         

   

  

                                              

                                        



146 NHSRC                                         





 

                  

     

        

      

Decontamination Workshop 147   

 

   

             

        

             

 

                                              

148 NHSRC   

                         

 

        

                 

      

 

                              

 

Decontamination Workshop 149   

                    

                 

 

                               

 

                                      

150 NHSRC   

  

  

  

  

 

 

                      

 

 

   

           

       

Decontamination Workshop 151   

 

   

 

  

    

                 

 

          

                             

152 NHSRC   

     

                     

 

          

    

   





Decontamination Workshop 153  

                      

      

 

                       

 

 

                 



154 NHSRC   

                                       



 

                         

 

                      

     



Decontamination Workshop 155    

     

                      

 

    



                                       

       

     

                                                                           

   

156 NHSRC      

                                                                            

 

     

                                                                              

         

    

                                                

    

Decontamination Workshop 157       

                                                                                             

   

                                                                                   

   

                              

158 NHSRC                     

 

              

 

                                 

159 Decontamination Workshop                         

                             

                                   

160 NHSRC                                   

  

        

      

       

                                                    

161 Decontamination Workshop   

                     

 

      

             

       

     

                 

162 NHSRC   

    'U0DOFROP'U0DOFROP:DNHUOH\:DNHUOH\      'HSDUWPHQWIRU(QYLURQPHQW)RRGDQG5XUDO$IIDLUV ಴ 8NUDLQH&KHUQRE\OUHDFWRUDFFLGHQW&VIDOORXW 'HIUD DFURVVPRVWRI(XURSH ಴ %UD]LO*RLDQLDFDQFHUWKHUDS\XQLW&V :DVKLQJWRQ)HEUXDU\ FKORULGHP

 

                                   

 

                      

Decontamination Workshop 163  5DGLRDFWLYH,QFLGHQW0RQLWRULQJ5DGLRDFWLYH,QFLGHQW0RQLWRULQJ1(7ZRUN1(7ZRUN 5,01(7 5,01(7   IL[HGPRQLWRULQJORFDWLRQVDFURVV8QLWHG.LQJGRP ಴ 0HDVXULQJDPELHQWJDPPDGRVHUDWH ಴ 0HDVXULQJ5DQJH Q6YKಥ  P6YK 5,01(7 0XOWLSOH :RUN /LQNV *DPPD 5,01(7 6WDWLRQV 5,01(7 WRDOOWRDOO 'RVH5DWH $SSURYHG ,QDOO,QDOO 5HVLOLHQW 1DWLRQDO ಴ 6HQVLWLYLW\FSVX6YK 0RQLWRUV 'DWD *RYW &RPPV&RPPV

  6XSSOLHUV 'HSWV'HSWV 1HWZRUN ,QWHUQDWLRQDO,QWHUQDWLRQDO

SDUWQHUV $JHQFLHV ಴ 7HPSHUDWXUH5DQJHR& R& ಴ (QHUJ\5HVSRQVH.H9ಥ 0H9 QRUPDOLVHGWR FDHVLXP

 

$FFHVVWRPRGHOOLQJFDSDELOLW\RI8.0HW2IILFH ಴ 6KRUW5DQJHಥ $UHDRI,PSDFW &KHPHW3$&5$0 ಴ 0HGLXP 0HVRVFDOH ಥ /RFDOHIIHFWV $'06 ಴ /RQJ5DQJH /DJUDQJLDQ GLIIXVLRQ ಥ 7UDQVERXQGDU\ LPSDFWV 1$0(

164 NHSRC   

                                                 

 

                                   

 

                  

Decontamination Workshop 165  PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID United States EPA Environmental Protection Agency PERMIT NO. G-35

Office of Research and Development National Homeland Security Research Center Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

EPA/600/R-05/083 October 2005