EPA/600/R-17/272 | September 2017
www.epa.gov/homeland-security-research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
&EPA
Underground Transport Restoration (UTR)
Operational Technology Demonstration
(OTD)
Office of Research and Development
Homeland Security Research Program
-------
EPA Document No. EPA/600/R-17/272
September 2017
Underground Transport Restoration (UTR)
Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD)
-------
UTR OTD Report
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directed and managed this work. This study
was partially funded through the Underground Transport Restoration Project by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate under interagency
agreement (No. RW-7095866901). This report has been peer and administratively reviewed and
has been approved for publication as an EPA document. The views expressed in this report are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Agency. Mention
of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use of a specific product.
This work was supported by an Interagency Agreement (Number RW-70-95866901) from the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T). The
contents are sole the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
views of S&T, DHS, or the United States Government."
1
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table of Contents
Disclaimer i
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
Acknowledgments xii
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 UTR OTD Project 3
1.2.1 OTD Facility 3
1.2.2 OTD Decon Technologies 4
1.2.3 OTD Activities 5
1.2.4 Project Objectives 7
1.2.5 Project Schedule 8
1.2.6 Project Organization and Participants 8
1.2.7 Overall OTD Limitations 12
1.3 Report Organization 12
2 Materials and Methods 14
2.1 Site Preparation 14
2.2 Cross-Contamination Reduction Methods 16
2.2.1 Division of Test Bed into Zones 16
2.2.2 Setup of Sample Preparation and Processing Trailers 17
2.2.3 Setup of Decon Lines 18
2.2.3.1 Personnel Decon Line 19
2.2.3.2 Sample and Equipment Decon Line 21
2.3 Test Organism 21
2.4 Surface Loading Determination and Bg Release 21
2.5 Sampling Approach 23
2.5.1 Sampling Strategy 24
2.5.2 Background Sampling 27
2.5.3 Sample Types and Sampling Methods 28
2.5.3.1 Reference Material Coupons (RMCs) 28
2.5.3.2 Sponge Stick Samples 29
2.5.3.3 Vacuum Samples 30
2.5.3.4 Composite Samples 30
2.5.3.5 Railroad Ballast Wash/Extract Samples 31
2.5.3.6 Waste Samples 32
2.5.3.7 Grimed and Non-Grimed Coupons 33
2.5.4 Sampling Teams 35
2.5.5 Performance Criteria 37
2.5.5.1 Field Processing Controls 37
2.5.5.2 Laboratory Processing Controls 38
2.5.6 Sample Analysis 39
2.5.6.1LRN Laboratory Sample Analysis 39
2.5.6.2 EPA Laboratory Sample Analysis 39
2.5.7 Sample Tracking and Shipment 40
li
-------
UTR OTD Report
2.5.8 Sample Labeling and Kits 43
2.6 Data Management 44
2.7 Decon Methods 48
2.7.1 Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach 48
2.7.1.1 Setup and Preparation of Foggers 49
2.7.1.2 Temperature and RHMeasurement during Fogging. 51
2.7.1.3 CI2 Gas and BI Measurement during Fogging 52
2.7.1.4 Fogging Decon Operation and Conditions 53
2.7.1.5 Demobilization 54
2.7.2 Round 2: Spraying with pAB 55
2.7.2.1 Setup and Preparation of Sprayers 56
2.7.2.2 Temperature and RH Measurement during Spraying 57
2.7.2.3 CI2 Gas Measurement during Spraying 57
2.7.2.4 Spraying Decon Operation and Conditions 58
2.7.2.5 Demobilization 60
3 OTD Health and Safety 62
3.1 General Safety Measures 62
3.1.1 Accident Reporting and Emergency Procedures 63
3.2 Safety Staffing and Responsibilities 64
3.3 PPE Requirements 64
3.4 General Site-Wide Hazards and Controls 66
3.5 Specific Safety Measures for Test Events and Activities 67
3.5.1 Surrogate Spore Releases and Pre- and Post-Decon Sampling 67
3.5.2 Round 1 Decon 67
3.5.3 Round 2 Decon 68
3.5.4 pAB Preparation and Immersion Dunking 69
3.6 Ambient Air Monitoring 69
3.7 Hot Wash 70
4 Decon Efficacy Assessment Results 71
4.1 Background Sampling 71
4.2 Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach 71
4.2.1 Decon Process Measurements 71
4.2.1.1 Quantity of Bleach Fogged 71
4.2.1.2 Temperature andRH. 72
4.2.1.3 Ch Gas Levels Measured by ATI Sensors 72
4.2.1.4 Ch Dosimeter Results 73
4.2.1.5 BI Results 73
4.2.2 Pre-Decon Sampling Results 74
4.2.3 Post-Decon Sampling Results 75
4.2.4 Decon Efficacy 76
4.2.5 Data Limitations 77
4.2.6 Material Effects 77
4.2.7 Summary of Results for Fogging with Diluted Bleach 79
4.3 Round 2: Spraying with pAB 80
4.3.1 Decon Process Measurements 80
4.3.1.1 Quantity of pAB Sprayed 80
in
-------
UTR OTD Report
4.3.1.2 Temperature andRH. 80
4.3.1.3 Ch Gas Levels Measured by ATI Sensors 80
4.3.2 Pre-decon Sampling Results 80
4.3.3 Post-Decon Sampling Results 82
4.3.4 Decon Efficacy 83
4.3.5 Data Limitations 83
4.3.6 Material Effects 83
4.3.7 Summary of Results for Spraying with pAB 83
4.4 Statistical Analyses of Combined Dataset 84
4.4.1 Pre-Decon Data Statistical Analyses 84
4.4.2 Post-Decon Data Statistical Analyses 87
4.5 Assessment of Spore Loading by Surface Stratum 91
4.6 Kriging Interpolations to Estimate Contamination Distribution 91
4.7 Lessons Learned from Decon Efficacy Assessment 94
4.7.1 Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach 94
4.7.2 Round 2: Spraying with pAB 96
5 Grimed and Non-grimed Coupon Study Results 97
6 Waste Management Assessment Results 99
6.1 General Waste Management Approach 99
6.2 On-Site Waste Management 100
6.2.1 Decon Line Wastes 100
6.2.2 Kiosk Wastes 101
6.2.3 Immersion Dunking Decon 101
6.3 Waste Categorization 104
6.4 Waste Management Assessment Results 105
6.5 Lessons Learned from Waste Management Assessment 108
7 Cost Analysis 110
7.1 Cost Analysis Approach 110
7.1.1 Direct Costs Ill
7.1.2 Indirect Costs Ill
7.1.3 Costs Not Included in Cost Analysis 112
7.1.4 Conceptual Description of Cost Analysis 112
7.1.4.1 Sampling and Analysis Costs 114
7.1.4.2 Decon Costs 114
7.1.4.3 Waste Management Costs 115
7.1.4.4 Incident Command Costs 115
7.4.1.5 Other Considerations 116
7.2 Sources of Cost Data 116
7.3 Labor Costs 119
7.3.1 Labor Costs Associated with Tunnel Entry 120
7.3.2 Labor Costs Associated with Personnel Decon 120
7.4 Cost Analysis Assumptions and Limitations 120
7.5 Cost Analysis Results 121
7.5.1 Tunnel Exclusion Zone Entry Costs 121
7.5.2 Sampling and Analysis Costs 122
7.5.3 Facility Decon Costs 124
iv
-------
UTR OTD Report
7.5.4 Waste Management Costs 125
7.5.5 Overall Cost of Remediation 128
7.6 Lessons Learned from Cost Analysis 129
8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 132
8.1 Technical Systems Audit 132
8.2 Equipment Calibration 133
8.3 Decon Assessment 133
8.4 Waste Management Assessment 134
8.5 Cost Analysis 134
8.6 Data Quality Audit 134
9 Summary and Conclusions 135
9.1 Decon Efficacy Assessment 135
9.1.1 Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach 136
9.1.2 Round 2: Spraying with pAB 138
9.2 Composite Sampling 139
9.3 Grimed and Non-Grimed Coupon Study 140
9.4 Waste Management Assessment 140
9.5 Cost Analysis 142
10 References 145
Appendix A: Biological Agent Summary Sheet for Bacillus atrophaeus, Subspecies globigii (Bg)
Appendix B: Spore Loading Pre-release Study and Test Dispersion Data
Appendix C: Sampling Maps
Appendix D: Sampling Protocols
Appendix E: Miscellaneous Operating Procedure (MOP) 3163 A: Aerosol Application of Grime
on Material Coupons in Horizontal Orientation
Appendix F: Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for Dilute Bleach Fogging
Appendix G: CONOPS for pAB Spraying
Appendix H: Temperature and RH during Fogging
Appendix I: CONOPS for Waste Packaging
Appendix J: CONOPS for Immersion Dunking Decontamination
Appendix K: Waste Scaling Factors
Appendix L: Cost Analysis Workbook
v
-------
UTR OTD Report
List of Tables
Table 1-1. OTD Decon Technologies 4
Table 1-2. Major OTD Activities 5
Table 1-3. UTR OTD Group Leads and Responsibilities 10
Table 2-1. Test Organism Characteristics 21
Table 2-2. Number of Background and Pre- and Post-Decon Samples Collected for Rounds 1 and
2 by Sample Medium 26
Table 2-3. Number of Background and Pre- and Post-Decon Samples Collected for Rounds 1 and
2 by Surface Stratum or Material Type 27
Table 2-4. IBAC and RMCs Used during OTD 28
Table 2-5. Composite Samples Collected from Tunnel and Platform Surfaces 31
Table 2-6. Grime Loading per Coupon Material Type 34
Table 2-7. Study Coupon Material, Sampling Method, and Numbers 35
Table 2-8. Laboratories for Each Sample Type 39
Table 2-9. Sample Shipment Dates and Numbers by Sample Type 42
Table 2-10. Sample Shipment Dates and Numbers by Laboratory 43
Table 2-11. Possible Values for Sample Labeling Categories 43
Table 2-12. Data Captured on Electronic Field Data Form for Scribe 46
Table 3-1. OTD Safety Requirements 63
Table 3-2. OTD Emergency Reporting Procedures 63
Table 3-3. PPE Requirements by Task 65
Table 3-4. Description of PPE Levels A, B, and C 66
Table 4-1. Recoveries for Round 1 RMCs 74
Table 4-2. Recoveries from Round 1 Pre-Decon Surface Samples 74
Table 4-3. Positive Round 1 Post-Decon Sampling Results 75
Table 4-4. Round 1 Results for Media and Field Blanks 76
Table 4-5. Recoveries for Round 2 RMCs 80
Table 4-6. Recoveries from Round 2 Pre-Decon Surface Samples 81
Table 4-7. Positive Round 2 Post-Decon Sampling Results 82
Table 4-8. Round 2 Results for Media and Field Blanks 82
Table 4-9. Analysis of Variance Results from Pre-Decon Data 85
Table 4-10. Analysis of Variance Results for Post-Decon Efficiency 88
Table 4-11. Logistic Regression Results Analyzing Proportion Clean (Post-Decon) 90
Table 4-12. Pre-Decon Sampling Results for Sponge Sticks on Floors, Walls, and Ceiling 91
Table 4-13. Prediction Error Statistics 92
Table 5-1. Round 1 Pre- and Post-Decon Coupon Recovery Results 97
Table 5-2. Round 2 Pre- and Post-Decon Coupon Recoveries 98
Table 6-1. Waste Management Measurements and Frequency 104
Table 6-2. Waste Quantities 105
Table 6-3. Waste Generation Summary 105
Table 6-4. Kiosk Waste Item Sampling Results 106
Table 6-5. Extrapolation of OTD Waste Results to Real-World Subway System 107
Table 6-6. Wastewater Sampling Results 107
Table 7-1. Values of User-Adjustable Variables for Cost Analysis 113
Table 7-2. Sources of Cost Data 116
vi
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 7-3. Worksheets from Cost Analysis Workbook 118
Table 7-4. Labor Categories and Loaded Hourly Labor Rates 119
Table 7-5. Labor Categories and Loaded Hourly Labor Rates by Team 119
Table 7-6. Assumptions and Limitations for Cost Analysis Worksheets 121
Table 7-7. Numbers of Team Entries 121
Table 7-8. Sampling and Analysis Costs 123
Table 7-9. Laboratory Analytical Costs with 1.5 Multiplier 124
Table 7-10. Waste Management Scenarios 125
Table 7-11. Waste Management Costs 126
Table 7-12. Estimated Waste Management Costs Based on Difficulty of Disposal 128
Table 7-13. Overall Cost of Remediation 128
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Layout of FAPH UTR OTD Test Bed 3
Figure 1-2. UTR OTD Calendar of Events 9
Figure 1-3. UTR OTD Test Team Organization 11
Figure 2-1. Newsstand Kiosk (A) and Food Stand Kiosk (B) 16
Figure 2-2. Sample Kit and Supply Storage Trailer (A) and Backpacks with New Sample Kits
(B) 17
Figure 2-3. Decon Line Process 19
Figure 2-4. Personnel Decon Line for Level C Entries 21
Figure 2-5. Locations of Aerosol Generators, IBACs, and Fans during Dissemination 22
Figure 2-6. Aerosol Generators, IBAC Sensor, and Fan on Platform (left) and Release of Bg
Spores on Tracks (right) 23
Figure 2-7. Zone Locations 25
Figure 2-8. Sponge Stick Sample Collection from the Tunnel Wall (A), Ceiling (B), and Track
Rails (C) 29
Figure 2-9. Vacuum Sample Collection from the Concrete Platform Floor 30
Figure 2-10. Railroad Ballast Rock Sample Collection from the Tunnel 32
Figure 2-11. Kiosk Register Sampled Using a Sponge Stick (A) and Poster Material Collected as
a Wash/Extract Sample (B) 33
Figure 2-12. Grimed and Non-Grimed Coupon Locations on Subway Platform 34
Figure 2-13. Sponge Stick Sample Collection from Ceramic Tile (A) and Painted Steel (B)
Grimed Coupons; Vacuum Sample Collection from a Concrete (C) Grimed Coupon 35
Figure 2-14. Two Sampling Teams Collecting Samples Near Entry 37
Figure 2-15. Computer Screen Shot of Example EDD Template 41
Figure 2-16. Labeled Container and Bag for Railroad Ballast Wash/Extract Sample 44
Figure 2-17. Screen Shot of Field Data Form 45
Figure 2-18. Field Data Form with Completed Fields and Photograph 47
Figure 2-19. L-30 Fogger Connected to Tote Fogging Water during Final Inspection 49
Figure 2-20. Fogger Transported to EZ Using Rail Cart 50
Figure 2-21. Approximate Locations of Foggers, Fans, and Co-located HOBOs, Dosimeters, and
Bis 50
Figure 2-22. HOBO® Temperature/RH Data Logger 51
Figure 2-23. Locations of ATI Sensors 52
vii
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 2-24. ATI Sensor and Transmitter with LCD Readout of Ch Gas Concentration 52
Figure 2-25. Back Side of Fogger Fan Showing Residue from Fogging Bleach 54
Figure 2-26. Sprayer on Rail Cart Modified with Four Hoses and Spray Nozzles 55
Figure 2-27. Water-Only Test Spraying in Tunnel Entrance 57
Figure 2-28. Filling of Sprayer Tank with pAB 58
Figure 2-29. Six-Person Team Spraying pAB on Ceiling, Side Walls, and Ballast of Tunnel.... 59
Figure 2-30. Sprayer on Rail Cart in CRZ 61
Figure 3-1. PPE Levels Employed during the UTR OTD 64
Figure 3-2. Decon Team Preparing for Entry in Full-encapsulation Level A PPE 69
Figure 3-3. Ambient Air Monitoring Locations 70
Figure 4-1. Temperature and RH of Location 2 72
Figure 4-2. Ch Gas Levels at Location B during Fogging 73
Figure 4-3. Recoveries during Round 1 Pre-decon Sampling 75
Figure 4-4. Metro Card Reader after Fogging with Oxidation Predominately on Top of Reader 78
Figure 4-5. Fogger Pump Plumbing with Oxidation on Some Steel Fittings 79
Figure 4-6. Recoveries during Round 2 Pre-decon Sampling 82
Figure 4-7. Pre-Decon Mean Log CFU/ft2 for Each Surface Stratum 85
Figure 4-8. Pre-Decon Mean Log CFU/ft2 for Each Surface during Each Round 86
Figure 4-9. Pre-Decon Mean Log CFU/in.2 for Each Sample Collection Method 87
Figure 4-10. Post-Decon Mean Decon Efficiency for Each Interaction 89
Figure 4-11. Post-Decon Mean Proportion Clean for Each Decon Method and Each Surface
Stratum 90
Figure 4-12. Pre-decon Sampling Locations 91
Figure 4-13. Post-decon Sampling Locations 91
Figure 4-14. Pre-Decon Gradients for Round 1 Floor Samples 93
Figure 4-15. Post-Decon Gradients for Round 1 Floor Samples 93
Figure 4-16. Pre-Decon Gradients for Round 2 Floor Samples 93
Figure 4-17. Post-Decon Gradients for Round 2 Floor Samples 93
Figure 6-1. Waste Management Concept 100
Figure 6-2. IB C Tote for Aqueous Waste 100
Figure 6-3. Plastic Trough for Waste Immersion 102
Figure 6-4. Immersion of Waste Items in pAB 102
Figure 6-5. Kiosk Materials Draining in Mesh Bags after Immersion 103
Figure 6-6. Disposal of Aqueous Waste from On-Site Immersion Dunking Decon 103
Figure 7-1. QR Code Camera System Prototype (A) Laminated QR Code Attached to Personnel
Entering the Building (B) 117
Figure 7-2. Breakdown of Sampling and Analysis Costs for Single Sample 122
Figure 7-3. Costs for Overall OTD Sampling Efforts 122
Figure 7-4. Facility Decon Costs 125
Figure 7-5. Breakdown of Waste Management Costs 127
Figure 7-6. Breakdown of Overall Remediation Costs 129
viii
-------
UTR OTD Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
jam Micrometer
AAM Ambient air monitoring
AAS Aggressive air sampling
APR Air-purifying respirator
ATI Analytical Technology, Inc.
AWTC Asymmetric Warfare Training Center
Ba Bacillus anthracis
Bg Bacillus atrophaeus, subspecies globigii
BI Biological indicator
BOTE Bio-Response Operational Testing and Evaluation
BSL Biosafety Level
BWA Biological warfare agent
°C Degree Celsius
CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CFM Cubic foot per minute
CFU Colony-forming unit
Ch Chlorine
CMAD Consequence Management Advisory Division
COC Chain of custody
CONOPS Concept of Operations
CRZ Contaminant reduction zone
CST Civil Support Team
dBA Decibel on A-weighted scale
Decon Decontamination
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
EDD Electronic data deliverable
EMS Emergency Medical Service
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EZ Exclusion Zone
°F Degree Fahrenheit
FAC Free available chlorine
FAPH Fort A.P. Hill
FF Firefighter
FM Fire Marshal
ft Foot
ft2 Square foot
ft3 Cubic foot
g Gram
gal. Gallon
HASP Health and safety plan
HOBO HOBO® Model U10-003 Temperature/RH Data Logger
hr Hour
IX
-------
UTR OTD Report
HVAC
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IBAC
Instantaneous Biological Analyzer Collector
IBC
Intermediate bulk container
IC
Incident Commander
ID
Identification
IDLH
Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
in.
Inch
in.2
Square inch
L
Liter
lb
Pound
LCD
Liquid crystal display
LLNL
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
LRN
Laboratory Response Network
M&IE
Meals and incidental expenses
min
Minute
MITLL
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratories
mL
Milliliter
mm
Millimeter
MSW
Municipal solid waste
MOP
Miscellaneous Operating Procedure
NAM
Negative air machine
NHSRC
National Homeland Security Research Center
OSC
On-Scene Coordinator
OTD
Operational Technology Demonstration
oz
Ounce
PAB
pH-adjusted (acidified) bleach
PAPR
Powered air-purifying respirator
PBST
Phosphate-buffered saline with 0.05% Tween® 20
PNNL
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
POTW
Publicly-owned treatment works
PPE
Personal protective equipment
ppm
Part per million
psi
Pound per square inch
QA
Quality assurance
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC
Quality control
QR Code
Quick Response Code
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RH
Relative humidity
RMC
Reference material coupon
RTP
Research Triangle Park
SCBA
Self-contained breathing apparatus
SNL
Sandia National Laboratories
START
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
SZ
Support Zone
TSA
Tryptic soy agar
x
-------
UTR OTD Report
uc
Unified Command
USB
Universal Series Bus
UTR
Underground Transport Restoration
UXO
Unexploded ordnance
V
Volt
VIP
Very Important Person
VSP
Visual Sample Plan
XI
-------
UTR OTD Report
Acknowledgments
The Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD)
required the collaboration of numerous federal and contractor personnel to plan and successfully
execute the project. This project could not have been successfully accomplished without the
collective commitment and contributions of all involved. Our sincerest thanks go to Fort A.P.
Hill (FAPH) personnel for hosting this project. The authors especially appreciate the
contributions of the individuals listed below.
Assistance, Coordination, and Execution of Events
Kristine Brown
Roger Carpenter
Matt Fleetwood
Captain Joseph Fyfe
Chris Haines
Sergeant First Class Joshua Olson
Major Thomas "Skip" Owens
Lynda Rice
Sergio Sergi
FAPH Fire and Emergency Services
Thomas Acacia, Chief of Department
Patrick Byers, Acting Assistant Chief of
Operations
Peter Orioles, Assistant Chief of
Training/Emergency Medical Service
(EMS)
John Thomas, Assistant Fire Chief
Captain Sam Hill
Justin Brennan, Firefighter (FF)
Dana Nichols, FF
Joseph Snihur, FF
FAPH Medic Teams (provided medical monitoring for Level A entries)
Captain Nathan Ford Cindy Tate, EMS
Katherine Jones, Fire Marshal (FM) Paul Richman, EMS
Stephen Vallandingham, FF
Primary Data Analysis and Authorship of this
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
John Archer, Office of Research and
Development (ORD)
Timothy Boe, ORD
M. Worth Calfee, ORD
Francisco Cruz, Office of Land and
Emergency Management (OLEM)
Jayson Griffin, OLEM
Elise Jakabhazy, OLEM
Natalie Koch, OLEM
Sang Don Lee, ORD
Paul M. Lemieux, ORD
Report
Melissa Linden, Region 3
Leroy Mickelsen, OLEM
Michael Nalipinski, OLEM
Lukas Oudejans, ORD
Shawn P. Ryan, ORD
Shannon D. Serre, OLEM
Sarah Taft, ORD
Anna Tschursin, OLEM
Christine Wagner, Region 3
Stephanie Wenning, Region 3
Joseph Wood, ORD
Xll
-------
UTR OTD Report
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Brett Amidan
EPA OLEM and ORD Contractors
Anne Busher, Consolidated Safety Services
(CSS)
Neil Daniell, CSS
EdMullin, CSS
Katrina McConkey, Booz Allen Hamilton
Quality Assurance Management
Eletha Brady-Roberts, ORD
Ramona Sherman, ORD
Field Participation
EPA
John Archer, ORD
Myles Bartos, EPA Region 3
Pratistha Bhandari, ORD
Timothy Boe, ORD
Eletha Brady-Roberts, ORD
David Bright, OLEM
Jason Burgess, Region 3
Worth Calfee, ORD
Romy Campisano, ORD
John Cardarelli, OLEM
Sandip Chattopadhyay, ORD
Francisco Cruz, OLEM
Tim Curry, OLEM
Ann DiDonato, Region 3
Jessica Duffy, Region 3
Charlie Fitzsimmons, Region 3
Lessa Givens, OLEM
Jayson Griffin, OLEM
Randy Guidry, EPA Region 6
Chris Guzzetti, Region 3
Gregory Ham, Region 3
Kaitlin Hess, Region 3
Scott Hudson, OLEM
Elise Jakabhazy, OLEM
Larry Kaelin, OLEM
Jack Kelly, Region 3
Natalie Koch, OLEM
Paul Kudarauskas, OLEM
Sang Don Lee, ORD
Paul Lemieux, ORD
Melissa Linden, Region 3
Melinda Luetke, Region 7
John Martin, Region 6
Billy Martin, Region 3
Dennis Matlock, Region 3
Lahne Mattis-Curry, ORD
Amelia McCall, ORD
Joanna McCauley, Region 3
Don McLaughlin, Region 3
Tanya Medley, ORD
Leroy Mickelsen, OLEM
Anne Mikelonis, ORD
Jason Musante, Region 9
Mike Nalipinski, OLEM
Lukas Oudejans, ORD
Emily Parry, ORD
Jeff Pritchard, EPA Region 7
Eric Rhodes, ORD
Shawn Ryan, ORD
Joe Schaefer, OLEM
Ruth Scharr, Region 3
Megan Schuette, Region 7
Shannon Serre, OLEM
Ramona Sherman, ORD
Erin Silvestri, ORD
Terry Smith, OLEM
Sarah Taft, ORD
Mark Thomas, OLEM
Anna Tschursin, OLEM
Dominic Ventura, Region 3
Christine Wagner, Region 3
Skip Weisberg, Region 3
Stephanie Wenning, Region 3
Stuart Willi son, ORD
Joe Wood, ORD
Xlll
-------
UTR OTD Report
EPA Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participants
Alden Adrion Nicholas Waszczak
Doug Hamilton
National Guard Civil Support Team (CST)
Sergeant Anthony Beccio, 32nd CST Sergeant Erica Cruz, 21st CST
Sergeant First Class Michael Boettger, 32nd Captain Alexi Franklin, 32nd CST
CST Staff Sergeant Scott Stevens, 32nd CST
Staff Sergeant Scott William Camp, 21st CST Sergeant Michael Ware, 32nd CST
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) 7th Special Forces Group
Brandon Carey Philip Frank
Chris Cooper
U.S. Coast Guard
MKC Richard Bassin DC2 Ryan Hristov
BM1 Travis Daniel MSTC Robert Simcox
Lawrence Liver more National Laboratory (LLNL)
Anne Erler
Staci Kane
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratories (MITLL)
Kevin Geder Rich Simmers
Dennis Harty Trina Vian
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)
Charles Brusseau Andres Sanchez
Patrick Burton Steve Storch
Joe Hardesty Matthew Tezak
Bob Knowlton Mark Tucker
Gabriel Lucero
Virginia Commonwealth Department of Environmental Quality
Lisa Ellis Beth Lohman
Gary Flory
EPA OLEM and ORD Contractors
Anne Busher, CSS Sarah Saucier, CSS
Neil Daniell, CSS Blake Silcott, S3I, LLC
Caitlyn Farragher, Battelle David Silcott, S3I, LLC
Andy Imler, ERG Ed Mullin, CSS
Katrina McConkey, Booz Allen Hamilton Max Zelenevich, Battelle
Region 3 Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) Contractors
Craig Anderman Brett Brandes
Erik Armi stead Tom Dakin
xiv
-------
UTR OTD Report
Robin Dermigny
Raj Dutt
Matt Hansen
Marlen Kokaz-Roy
Dane Kormos
Janine Lathan
Robert McGlade
Jake Pellicano
Mitchell Poster
Corey Ricks
David Scerbo
Brian Tolton
Tom Watzer
Eric Watt
Kyle Yarmush
Region 3 Emergency and Rapid Response Services Contractors
Taylor Carlyle
David Clark
Patrick Colson
David Comalli
Tom Coveth
Tyler Evans
Joseph Fenoch
John Goeger
Kelly Irby
Mike Mayo
Penny McMahon
Zack Mikinnon
Sean Palmatier
Kevin Reeves
Ray Toone
Aaron Turneger
Michael Williford
Seth Wood worth
FAPH Fire Department
Captain Sam Hill Joseph Snihur, FF
Captain Nathan Ford Stephen Vallandingham, FF
Katherine Jones, FM Cindy Tate, EMS
Justin Brennan, FF Paul Richman, EMS
Dana Nichols, FF
Sample Analysis
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Jasmine Chaitram
Laboratory Response Network (LRN) Laboratories
Florida State Public Health Laboratory, Jacksonville, FL
Michigan Public Health Laboratory, Lansing, MI
Minnesota State Public Health Laboratory, St. Paul, MN
New York State Public Health Laboratory, Albany, NY
Ohio State Public Health Laboratory, Reynoldsburg, OH
Virginia State Public Health Laboratory, Richmond, VA
National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) Microbiology Laboratory
Ahmed Abdel-Hady, Jacobs Technology
Denise Aslett, Jacobs Technology
Phillip Brown, Jacobs Technology
Lee Brush, Jacobs Technology
Lamar Perry, Jacobs Technology
xv
-------
UTR OTD Report
OLEM Consequence Management and Advisory Division (CMAD) Bioanalysis Laboratory
Sarah Staggs, CSS
On-site Video Documentation of OTD Project
ComDesigns
xvi
-------
UTR OTD Report
Executive Summary
The Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD)
was a full-scale study focused on gathering sampling, decontamination (decon), waste
management, and cost analysis information for the remediation of a subway system after
contamination with a Bacillus anthracis (Ba) surrogate (Bacillus atrophaeus, subspecies globigii
[Bg]). The study venue is located at Fort A.P. Hill (FAPH) in Bowling Green, VA. The work
involved all aspects of remediation of a subway system tunnel and platform (except for rolling
stock, maintenance yards, and related facilities) contaminated with a biological surrogate for Ba,
including pre-decon and post-decon verification sampling and waste management.
The OTD project included the coordinated project planning, support, and/or involvement from
multiple federal agencies and national laboratories, including the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Defense, Sandi a National
Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratories, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. EPA was responsible for
managing the OTD.
The primary OTD objective was to expand the understanding of the operational effectiveness of
decon methods and strategies developed in a laboratory by testing them in an underground
transportation facility, from site preparation to waste treatment and disposal. Furthermore, the
OTD provided the following opportunities:
• Improving response readiness for mitigating the effects of a release of a biological
organism in an underground transportation facility
• EPA staff gaining cross-regional training and biosampling experience
• Collaborating across other federal agencies
• Gaining real-world experience with decon of a biological organism
The OTD project consisted of two separate rounds for decontamination of the mock subway
system. Both rounds included a decon efficacy assessment, composite sampling, a grimed and
non-grimed coupon study, a waste management assessment, and an overall cost analysis of the
approaches. During Round 1, a fogging technology was used to fog dilute bleach, and during
Round 2, a low-pressure commercial sprayer was used to spray pH amended bleach (pAB).
Samples were collected pre- and post-decon for comparison of recovery and assessment of decon
efficacy in the tunnel and platform areas as well as in difficult-to-reach areas such as the railroad
ballast, and newsstand and food stand kiosks. The technologies of the two decon methods vary
significantly. However, both methods resulted in some positive sample results {Bg spores
detected).
For Round 1,135 samples were collected after the release of Bg spores and before decon to
determine the mean surface loading. Of these pre-decon samples, 129 (96%) were positive for Bg
and yielded a mean surface loaded value of 1.26E+05 ± 5.56E+05 CFU/ft2. Following decon
(fogging), 132 decon efficacy assessment samples (not including waste and blank samples but
ES-1
-------
UTR OTD Report
including kiosk in situ surfaces and materials) were collected. Only 11 samples (about 8% of the
sample results) were positive for Bg after decon. Excluding the kiosk area, only 4 out of 106
samples (4%) had a positive result ranging from only 4 to 6 CFU/ft2. For the kiosk materials,
positive results ranged from 12 to 2,395 CFU (kiosk results could not be normalized to CFU/ft2
because the samples had inconsistent and unknown surface areas). Of the 26 kiosk samples
collected, seven results were positive (27%).
For Round 2, 134 samples were collected after the release of Bg spores and before decon to
determine the mean surface loading. Of these pre-decon samples, 131 (98%) were positive for Bg
and yielded a mean surface loaded value of 3.98E+04 ± 4.08E+04 CFU/ft2. Following decon
(spraying), 137 decon efficacy assessment samples (not including waste and blank samples but
including kiosk in situ surfaces and materials) were collected after spraying. Only five samples
(about 4% of the sample results) were positive for Bg after decon. Excluding the kiosk area, only
1 out of 111 samples (1%) had a positive result of only 6 CFU/ft2. For the kiosk materials,
positive results ranged from 5 to 500 CFU. Of the 26 kiosk samples collected, 4 results were
positive (15%>).
For both the fogging and spraying decon methods, the majority of positive results were for
samples collected from the commercial kiosk area, which contained porous and organic items
that are commonly found in subway convenience stores. As will be elaborated later, the removal
of these porous materials for ex situ waste treatment may be the most effective approach for
ensuring that materials do not contain residual spores. As for the other positive results in the
platform and tunnel, in a real incident, locations yielding positive results would require
additional remediation steps. Therefore, there was not much of a practical difference in decon
efficacy between these two decon methods. In addition, no adverse impacts on the facility and its
components was observed after both decon methods.
Comparison of the composite and discrete sponge stick and vacuum sample results demonstrated
that composite sampling can yield representative results for spore detection while reducing the
need for sampling labor and supplies, data management, sample shipment, and laboratory
analysis.
Since the mock subway system at FAPH was relatively clean compared to a real system, grimed
coupons were added to the study area during Rounds 1 and 2 to make the mock subway system
more realistic. Non-grimed coupons also were placed in the study area for comparison to the
grimed coupon results. The study was conducted to determine if the presence of grime affects the
decon efficacy. Because both decontamination rounds resulted in almost complete kill of viable
spores on grimed and non-grimed coupons, no significant difference was observed in spore
inactivation caused by the presence of grime on the materials.
Waste management is an integral part of the decon process and must be included as a specific
function during pre-incident and response planning. The need to simulate waste conditions with
regards to costs, quantities, logistics, etc., and to mimic wastes generated at an actual subway
system after a Ba release was one of the waste management challenges during the OTD. The
waste management assessment included the evaluation of waste management procedures through
waste sampling, including the potential for in situ waste treatment during facility decon and the
potential for ex situ on-site waste treatment using immersion in a pAB solution. The waste
ES-2
-------
UTR OTD Report
management assessment also considered the determination of waste quantities generated and
associated costs. There are several observations and conclusions drawn based on the waste
management assessment. One general observation for both decon methods is that removal of
porous materials for ex situ waste treatment is a more consistently effective approach for
ensuring that waste materials do not contain residual spores.
A cost analysis was conducted to estimate the costs resulting from the application of various
decontamination technologies. The cost analysis approach assumed that although certain pieces
of information derived from the OTD are incident- and site-specific, the information can still be
extrapolated to other events. This information includes costs related to sampling activities,
application of decon technologies for the study area and for personnel entering and leaving the
test area, and costs related to equipment rentals and consumables. Some cost estimates based on
the OTD may be unrealistic because a biological warfare agent (BWA) surrogate was used
instead of a real BWA. Where appropriate and possible, adjustments were made during the cost
analysis to account for an actual Ba incident. The overall cost for remediation was $361,087 for
Round 1 and $356,234 for Round 2. The assessment found that based on cost alone, there is not a
significant difference between the two decon methods. Overall cost largely is driven by sampling
and analysis, both in terms of labor costs associated with laboratory analysis as well as the
significant contribution of personal protective equipment from the Sampling Teams to the overall
waste streams. The differences in decon method did not significantly affect the total cost.
The OTD demonstrated several workable technologies that could be utilized to remediate a
subway system after contamination with Ba, and provided information on the cost and magnitude
of such a response. Overall, the OTD provided the opportunity to assess the countries current
response and remediation capabilities and areas of need for future capability enhancement.
ES-3
-------
1 Introduction
The Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD)
was a full-scale study focused on gathering sampling, decontamination (decon), waste
management, and cost analysis information for the remediation of a subway system after
contamination with a Bacillus anthracis (Ba) surrogate (Bacillus atrophaeus, subspecies globigii
[Bg\). The study venue was located at Fort A.P. Hill (FAPH) in Bowling Green, VA. The work
involved all aspects of remediation of a subway system tunnel and platform (except for rolling
stock, maintenance yards, and related facilities) contaminated with a biological surrogate for Ba,
including pre-decon and post-decon verification sampling and waste management.
The UTR OTD was an interagency effort involving multiple federal agencies and national
laboratories, including the EPA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL), Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratories (MITLL), and Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). EPA was responsible for managing the OTD.
The primary OTD objective was to expand the understanding of the operational effectiveness of
decon methods and strategies developed in a laboratory by testing them in an underground
transportation facility, from site preparation to waste treatment and disposal. Furthermore, the
OTD provided the following opportunities:
• Improving response readiness for mitigating the effects of a release of a biological
organism in an underground transportation facility
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff gaining cross-regional training and
biosampling experience
• Collaborating across other federal agencies
• Gaining real-world experience with decon of a biological organism
The rest of this introduction provides background and discusses the UTR OTD project and the
organization of this report.
1.1 Background
In 2001, letters containing Ba were mailed to various locations throughout the United States. The
initial and residual contamination from the Ba spores was difficult to detect, identify, and
decontaminate efficiently and quickly. In addition, the affected parties incurred significant costs
to decontaminate buildings and equipment suspected of having been contaminated. Government
reports and inquiries indicated that Ba sampling and decon methods were not standardized or
validated and that biological agent location and characterization efforts were deficient. Federal
agencies made recommendations for standardizing and validating procedures for characterizing
biological agent contamination. Further, they made follow-on recommendations for effectively
clearing buildings and associated areas by using efficient decon measures. Since 2001,
significant advances have been made in addressing responses to Ba releases.
1
-------
UTR OTD Report
Research studies have been conducted to better understand the effectiveness and improve the
implementation of decon methods for biological agents (Ryan et al. 2010). These studies have
focused on different fumigants (EPA. 2010; Rastogi et al. 2010) and different liquid chemistries
( ) to evaluate decon efficacy as a function of material type and decontaminant
application conditions. Such studies primarily have been at the bench-scale level using
standardized test methods adapted for the study scale. More recently, some efficacy studies have
been conducted on a larger scale to investigate application procedures and the sporicidal
properties of decontaminants.
For many of the most effective decon chemicals and processes, the impact of decontaminants on
materials and equipment also have been studied (EPA. 2014). Decon efficacy is directly impacted
by the materials present, which in turn directly affects the waste management requirements for a
specific site. The interconnections and trade-offs between the decon and waste management
options significantly affect site-specific decisions for an effective, yet efficient, remediation
effort. More information is necessary to understand these interconnection and trade-offs, and true
cost and time impacts can be understood only through larger scale testing and functional
exercises.
Several remediation efforts (EPA. 2008) at residences contaminated with natural Ba spores have
also contributed to advances in the understanding of successful decon approaches. Although
these efforts pertained generally to cross-contamination from working with contaminated
imported animal hides, they have broadened the understanding of impacts on decon approaches.
For example, the successful implementation of a treatment process for a contaminated wooden
shed in Danbury, CT, led to a joint research project between EPA responders and researchers
( ). The objective of this project was to assess the effectiveness of the train of
treatment steps (such as vacuuming, spraying with a pH-adjusted [acidified] bleach [pAB]
solution, washing, scrubbing, and rinsing) individually and in combinations. The goal of these
efforts was to understand the most effective combination of steps and situation-specific benefits
of decon approaches.
In 2011, the Bio-Response Operational Testing and Evaluation (BOTE) project was designed to
remediate a facility in an operational setting after the release of Bacillus spores (EPA 2013). The
project drew on advances in both general sampling and decon over the past several years. The
study focused on several different decontaminants and decontaminant application methods,
including fumigation using chlorine dioxide, surface cleaning using pH-amended bleach spray,
and fumigation using vaporous hydrogen peroxide. The BOTE project made significant
contributions to a better understanding of the effectiveness of sampling methods and
improvement of implementation of decon methods.
In the aftermath of the studies discussed above, the DHS initiated the UTR Project in 2013. The
purpose of UTR Project is to identify potential solutions to the requirements for rapid
characterization, clean-up, and clearance of biological contamination in the physical structures
(tunnels and stations) and rolling stock (railcars) of an underground transit system. The DHS
developed the UTR Project to improve the capability of transit systems to recover rapidly from a
biological release event, thereby addressing a high-priority need expressed by the Transportation
Security Administration and local transit systems. The outcome of the project will be an array of
2
-------
UTR OTD Report
decision-support tools and operationally relevant methods for transit systems to respond to and
recover from biological agent releases.
The DHS and EPA developed the UTR OTD to conduct and evaluate field-scale mass
transportation decon technologies directed at the intentional release of a biological agent such as
Ba within an underground system. The UTR OTD is a full-scale demonstration of decon
procedures, technologies, and capabilities tested in a mock subway system at FAPH. UTR OTD
planning and execution was based heavily on previous field-scale experience and the expertise
obtained from the assessment and implementation of remediation strategies.
1.2 UTR OTD Project
This section discusses the UTR OTD facility, OTD decon technologies, OTD activities, project
objectives, project schedule, project organization and participants, and overall OTD limitations.
1.2.1 OTD Facility
FAPH is used for military training of both active and reserve troops of the U.S. Army, U.S.
Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Air Force (as well as training for other federal agencies). The
Asymmetric Warfare Training Center (AWTC) is a 300-acre area within FAPH that includes a
headquarters; barracks; administrative, training, and maintenance facilities; as well as several
training ranges. The AWTC also contains a simulated urban area with buildings; a train station
and train; and a small subway system (including a station, tunnel, platform, tracks and two
railcars). This project used the subway station and nearby areas for staging and project
operations (as shown in Figure 1-1). For the purposes of this report, the area below is designated
as the "test bed." During the OTD, the railcars were removed from the underground test facility
because decon of railcars was outside the scope of this OTD.
Coir"1"3'
post
Emergency Egress
Underground Tunnel
Tunnel Entrance and Egress
Waste
Staging
Figure 1-1. Layout of FAPH UTR OTD Test Bed
3
-------
UTR OTD Report
1.2.2 OTD Decon Technologies
The project used a Biosafety Level 1 (BSL-1) non-pathogenic spore simulant, Bg, a common
surrogate for Ba. The project consisted of two separate field-level decon rounds. Round 1 used
an off-the-shelf fogging technology, and Round 2 used a low-pressure (approximately 300
pounds per square inches [psi]) off-the-shelf commercial sprayer. Table 1-1 describes the decon
technologies tested during each round.
Table 1-1. OTD Decon Technologies
Round
Decon Technology Description
1
EPA conducted fogging of the mock subway system using four L-30 foggers
(Curtis Dyna-Fog, Ltd., Westfield, IN). The foggers produce a fog from a diluted
bleach solution. Each machine consisted of an electric-powered motor/blower
assembly, nozzle system, nozzle housing, formulation tank, and metering valve.
Liquid was drawn from the formulation tank through the metering valve and into
the nozzle system, where it was pneumatically sheared into <0.25-|im sized
droplets. Air, powered by a blower, then drove the droplets away from the
machine through the nozzle system to dispense the fog.
2
EPA sprayed subway surfaces with a pAB solution using a Northstar skid sprayer
(Northstar Model 268170, Northern Tool and Equipment, Burnsville, MN) with a
200-gal. tank and a capacity of 11 gal. per minute. The sprayer was modified to
allow the use of four hoses equipped with spray nozzles.
Notes:
|im = Micrometer
gal. = Gallon
Background samples were collected prior to Rounds 1 and 2. During each round, both pre-decon
and post-decon samples were collected. The pre-decon samples were collected to determine the
extent and surface concentrations of Bg throughout the tunnel and platform areas. Post-decon
samples were collected to allow assessment of decon efficacy in the tunnel and platform areas as
well as in difficult-to-reach areas (e.g., the railroad ballast, the wastewater from the decon line
and station sumps, and the newsstand and food stand kiosks). Composite samples were collected
to determine if composite sampling could yield representative results for spore detection while
reducing the need for sampling labor and supplies, data management, and sample shipment and
laboratory analysis. Sampling also included wastes related to the handling and decon of materials
in the tunnel and platform areas. In addition, a grimed and non-grimed coupon study was
conducted to determine if the presence of grime affects the decon efficacy. Finally, a cost
analysis was performed based on study and decon efficacy results, labor, and material usage.
Samples were collected by EPA Consequence Management and Advisory Division (CMAD)
personnel, EPA National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) personnel, EPA Region
3 personnel, Regional On-Scene Coordinators (OSC), EPA contractors, National Guard Civil
Support Teams (CST), the U.S. Coast Guard Atlantic Strike Team, and U.S. Army personnel.
4
-------
UTR OTD Report
1.2.3 OTD Activities
Table 1-2 summarizes the major OTD activities, dates, and responsible parties for the two decon
technologies tested. Each round included release of the Bg spores, pre-decon sampling, decon,
and post-decon sampling. Background sampling was conducted before Round 1.
Table 1-2. Major OTD Activities
Activity
No.
Description
Date
(2016)
Responsible Party
1
Arrival, background sampling, site
preparation, setup, and installation
9/12-9/14
EPA Test Bed and Sampling Groups,
MITLL, and Region 3 Contractors
2
Tracer study
9/15-9/16
EPA and S31, LLC (EPA contractor)
3
Instrument check and pre-release
actions
9/16
EPA
4
Pre-decon spray knockdown system
study* and gel decontaminant
application study*
9/17
EPA and SNL
Round 1
5
Release of Bg spores
9/18
EPA and S31, LLC (EPA contractor)
6
Pre-decon sampling
9/19-9/20
EPA CMAD, NHSRC, Region 3,
and OSCs; CSTs; and others
7
Decon (fogging) and drying period
9/21-9/23
EPA CMAD, NHSRC, and Region 3
8
Post-decon sampling and Very
Important Person (VIP) Day on 9/27
9/26-9/27
EPA CMAD, NHSRC, Region 3,
and OSCs; CSTs; and others
9
Emerging composite sampling
method study*
9/27-9/28
EPA
10
Waste management and sampling
9/19-9/28
EPA
11
Facility reset
9/28
EPA
Round 2
12
Release of Bg spores
9/29
EPA and S31, LLC (EPA contractor)
13
Pre-decon sampling
9/30-10/1
EPA CMAD, NHSRC, Region 3,
and OSCs; CSTs; and others
14
Decon (spraying) and drying period
10/3-10/7
EPA CMAD, NHSRC, Region 3,
and others
15
Post-decon sampling
10/11-10/12
EPA CMAD, NHSRC, Region 3,
and OSCs; CSTs; and others
16
Demonstration of other subway decon
technologies*
10/13
EPA
17
Waste management and sampling
9/29-10/12
EPA
18
Demobilization
10/12-10/15
EPA
Note:
* = Secondary study
As the table shows, the OTD included secondary studies. These studies were conducted because
access to the mock subway system at the AWTC test site provided a unique opportunity for
operational testing. NHSRC and national laboratories researchers conducted these secondary
studies as stand-alone tests or demonstrations, with objectives separate from, but related to, the
primary decon efficacy testing. Each secondary study is briefly described below, however, this
5
-------
UTR OTD Report
report does not discuss further the specific objectives, methodologies, or results of these
secondary studies.
Spray Knockdown System Study
SNL conducted this study to test the efficacy of a spray knockdown system to contain
aerosolized biological agents within a portion of a subway system. The spray knockdown system
consisted of a series of 20 electrostatic spray nozzles (NA-11298 Nozzle Assembly, Electrostatic
Spraying Systems, Watkinsville, GA) mounted on a frame covering 10 feet (ft) of the track.
These nozzles sprayed droplets (approximately 30 micrometers [|im] in size) of a mild decon
fluid containing approximately 4% activated hydrogen peroxide (an aqueous solution consisting
of 4% hydrogen peroxide, 2% glycerol diacetate, 2% potassium carbonate, and 1%
benzalkonium chloride. The droplets were charged with a positive electrical charge. Bg was
disseminated into the study area, and after a contact time of approximately 15 minutes (min), the
inactivation was assessed. All samples showed complete kill, with no growth. The study
methodology and results are available from Mark Tucker at SNL (mdtucke@sandia.gov).
Gel Decontaminant Application Study
SNL conducted this study to test the efficacy of two gelled decon formulations against Bg spores
on inoculated coupons of subway materials (concrete, painted steel, and ceramic tile) oriented
vertically. The two formulations tested included: (1) pAB + 6% by weight Aerosil 200 and (2)
1.2% Dichlor + 6% Aerosil 200. Aerosil 200 is a hydrophilic, fumed silica. SNL personnel
prepared approximately 3 gal. of each formulation at the OTD location. Decon testing included
formulations both with and without gel additive for direct comparison of the decon of vertically
positioned coupons. The study methodology and results are available from Mark Tucker at SNL
(m dtucke@ sandia. gov).
Emerging Composite Sampling Method Study
EPA conducted this study to assess the performance and application of novel composite
sampling methods in a subway system. Post-decon sampling was conducted in the subway
platform and tunnel using three composite sampling methods: aggressive air sampling (AAS);
sampling using commercial wet vacuum cleaners; and sampling using commercial robotic floor
cleaners. The composite sampling approaches were applied immediately after post-decon
sampling using conventional sampling methods for the first round of decon (fogging). After this
sampling, multiple hot spots were introduced to the track area, and AAS was conducted. The
study evaluated the impact of AAS on hotspots and the wet vacuum and robotic floor cleaner
sampling methods. The study methodology and results are discussed in detail in the study report
( )•
Demonstration of Other Subway Decon Technologies
EPA conducted this full-scale demonstration of readily-available equipment to potentially
decontaminate subway infrastructure (tunnels and platforms) after a biological contamination
incident involving Ba spores. The two demonstrated technologies included: (1) the Air-O-Fan
(Air-O-Fan Products Corporation, Reedley CA), an orchard sprayer technology, and (2) the
DustBoss DB30 (Dust Control Technology, Peoria, IL), a dust suppression technology. More
6
-------
UTR OTD Report
information on these technologies and the evaluation of other equipment that can be used for
spraying, brushing, and vacuuming subway infrastructures is presented in the study report (l'P-\
2017bY
1.2.4 Project Objectives
The overall purpose of the OTD was to conduct a field-scale evaluation of mass transportation
decon technologies for remediation after an intentional release of a biological agent such as Ba.
The principal project objectives are related to decon efficacy assessment, composite sampling,
the grimed and non-grimed coupon study, waste management assessment, and overall cost
analysis as summarized below.
Decon Efficacy Assessment
The decon efficacy assessment has four main objectives.
1. Conduct and evaluate field-level remediation of a subway system, from initial discovery
to final environmental remediation.
2. Demonstrate fogging and spraying of sporicidal compounds to inactivate a biological
agent in a subway system, which includes the steps below.
- Determine background concentrations of the Bg spores before dissemination of Bg
spores for the OTD.
- Characterize the extent and magnitude of Bg contamination after each release before
decon (pre-decon).
- Determine the extent and magnitude of Bg contamination after decon (post-decon) to
evaluate the efficacy of each decon approach.
- Determine the presence and amount of residual contamination on waste items to
inform waste management decisions.
3. Determine adverse impacts, if any, on the facility and its components.
4. Conduct composite sampling post-decon to determine if composite sampling can yield
representative results for spore detection while reducing the need for: sampling labor and
supplies, data management, sample shipment, and laboratory analysis.
Grimed and Non-Grimed Coupon Study
To make the mock subway system at FAPH more realistic, grimed coupons were added to the
study area during Rounds 1 and 2. Non-grimed coupons also were placed in the study area for
comparison to the grimed coupon results. The study was conducted to determine if the presence
of grime affects the decon efficacy.
Waste Management Assessment
Another goal of the UTR OTD was to evaluate waste management procedures through waste
sampling, including the potential for in situ waste treatment during facility decon and the
potential for ex situ on-site waste treatment using immersion in a pAB solution.
7
-------
UTR OTD Report
Overall Cost Analysis
The UTR OTD included a cost analysis of all aspects of the two remediation approaches based
on results from the decon study. The primary and secondary objectives of the cost analysis are as
follows:
• Primary Objective: To conduct an analysis of the cost of the approach and application
of cleanup technologies
• Secondary Objective: To develop a tool or methodology that can be used to help guide
decision making for future events
1.2.5 Project Schedule
The OTD was conducted from September 11 through October 15, 2016. The OTD followed a
Master Schedule that included a comprehensive list of on-site study events. Figure 1-2 is a
calendar showing high-level events and activities during the OTD.
1.2.6 Project Organization and Participants
The UTR OTD project was led by EPA in coordination with several other federal agencies. The
project consisted of the following six groups working on different aspects and objectives of the
UTR OTD project:
•
Group 1:
Test Bed Group
•
Group 2:
Sampling Group
•
Group 3:
Decon Group
•
Group 4:
Waste group
•
Group 5:
Cost Analysis Group
•
Group 6:
Health and Safety Group
8
-------
UTR OTD Report
UTR OTD Calendar
September/October
Sundav
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
September
12
13
14
15
16
Gel Test
17
J Knock-down Test
Background Sampling Site Preparation/Isolation
„ Instrumentation Check/Set
Pre-release Tracer Study ¦ ,
' Up & Pre-release Actions
18
Round 1
19
20
21
22
23
I
24
Release*
Training
Pre-Decon Sampling
Decontamination
Drying
25
Training
26
27
VIP Day
28
29
Round 2
30
Octobe
Kl
Post-C
\
lecon Sampling AASTe
Reset/Pre-
St release Actions
Release* Training
Pre-Decon Sampling
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Decontamination
Drying
9
Columbus Day 10
(No Work)
11
12
13
14
15
Training
Equip Test
Post-Decon Sampling Demobilization
* A minimum 24 hour settle time required
VIP = Very important person
AAS Test = Emerging composite sampling method study using AAS
Figure 1-2. UTR OTD Calendar of Events
9
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 1-3 lists the group leads, with an overview of their responsibilities.
Table 1-3. UTR OTD Group Leads and Responsibilities
UTR OTD Title
Name
Responsibilities
Project Manager
and
CMAD IC
Shannon Serre
Overall OTD project management, including
evaluation design, evaluation plan development,
logistics, evaluation execution, data analysis, and
evaluation report preparation
NHSRC IC
Lukas Oudejans
Unified Command
R3 IC
Christine Wagner
Unified Command, authorized to obligate R3
funds to mobilize and direct contractors
Group 1 - Test Bed
Group Leads
Shannon Serre
Mike Nalipinski
Lukas Oudejans
OTD project coordination
Group 2 - Sampling
Group Leads
Francisco Cruz
Sarah Taft
Worth Calfee
Sampling, data management, and analytical
components of project
Group 3 - Decon
Group Leads
loe Wood
Leroy Mickelsen
Decon portion of project, including Round 1 and
Round 2 decon efficacy assessment
Group 4 - Waste
Group Leads
Paul Lemieux
Elise lakabhazy
Anna Tschursin
Collection of data for Round 1 and Round 2
detailed waste analyses
Group 5 - Cost Analysis
Group Leads
Paul Lemieux
layson Griffin
Natalie Koch
Collection of data for Round 1 and Round 2
detailed cost analysis, and data archiving at the
site
Group 6 - Health and Safety
Group Leads
lohn Archer
Skip Weisberg
Test bed HASP and environmental issues, and
on-site safety for all OTD activities
R3 Operations Section Chief
Melissa Linden
Direct R3 operational assets, including equipment
and contractors
NHSRC QA Manager
Eletha Brady-Roberts
Review and approval of QAPP for project
Notes:
HASP = Health and safety plan
IC = Incident Commander
QA = Quality Assurance
QAPP = Quality Assurance Project Plan
OTD support staff included Region 3 Emergency and Rapid Response Services and Superfund
Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contractors and contractors from CSS; S3I,
LLC; Booz Allen Hamilton; ERG; and Battelle.
10
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 1-3 shows the organizational chart for the UTR OTD
UTR OTD Test Team Organization
Project Management
OTD Execution
Secondary TestVDemos
Subway System Decontamination
Efficacy Assessme nt
Data Mgmt.
Stephanie Wenning
Logistics Section
Operations Section Chief
Melissa Linden
Planning Section
Finance/Admin Section
Project Manager
Shannon Serre
QA Manager
Eletha Brady-Roberts
CMAD
NHSRC
Region 3
National Labs
Test Bed
Shannon Serre
Mike Nalipinski
Lukas Oudejans
Waste
Paul Lemieux
Anna Tschursin
Elise Jakabhazy
Comms
Myles Batos
Joanne McCaulev
Cost Analysis
Paul Lemieux
Jayson Griffin
Natalie Koch
Decon
Joe Wood
Leroy Mickelsen
Sampling
Francisco Cruz
Sarah Taft
Worth Calfee
Unified Command
Shannon Serre (CMAD)
Lukas Oudejans (NHSRC)
Christine Wagner (Region 3)
Health and Safety
John Archer
Skip Weisberg (Assistant Safety Officer)
Gelled Coupon Decon Test
Sandia National Laboratories
Knockdown System Test
Sandia National Laboratories
Composite Sampling Test
Sang Don Lee
Commercial Equip. Demo
Worth Calfee
Figure 1-3. UTR OTD Test Team Organization
11
-------
UTR OTD Report
1.2.7 Overall OTD Limitations
The UTR OTD allowed evaluation of the operational aspects and performance of two decon
approaches in a mock subway system. The demonstration provided an opportunity for personnel
to use established sample collection methods in a realistic operational setting, and to use
sampling data to evaluate the decon efficacy of the fogging and sprayer technologies. Due to the
nature of this type of evaluation, however, several challenges limited the data collection and
analysis process, such as sample collection errors and inability to record the temperature and
relative humidity (RH) inside the study area during the spray decon (Round 2). All personnel
who analyzed, interpreted, and applied the study results considered these limitations to ensure
that proper conclusions were drawn from the evaluation results and that appropriate caveats on
the data were made.
This effort assessed decon methods/strategies and sampling methods in an operational setting.
This operational setting, however, consisted of a Bg aerosol release in a mock underground mass
transportation system that in reality is not (and has never been) used for passenger transport.
Modifications to the FAPH metro system introduced some realistic aspects, but the mock system
did not include rolling stock, the third rail, or the level of organic matter and grime present in an
actual operating subway system. The study modifications included adding grimed coupons, an
emergency call box, a subway card reader, two kiosks (to represent newspaper and food vendors
found in some subway stations), and an electrical circuit box.
In addition, dissemination of the surrogate organism was performed so the Bg contamination was
approximately uniform with regards to colony-forming units (CFU) (viable spores) per square
foot (ft2) of sample area across the study area. In practice, spore deposition uniformity depends
on many parameters (such as method of dissemination and RH) that are uncontrolled during an
actual release.
Whenever possible, activities were performed as if the study were being conducted using real Ba
spores. However, because the test did not use real Ba spores, certain aspects of the study (such as
waste management and laboratory analyses) are considered "notionalized" because of cost
limitations, external challenges, and legal hurdles that would make the study impossible to
perform.
1.3 Report Organization
This report discusses the UTR OTD and consists of the following sections:
• Section 1. Introduction
• Section 2. Materials and Methods
• Section 3. OTD Health and Safety
• Section 4. Decon Efficacy Assessment Results
• Section 5. Grimed and N on-grimed Coupon Study Results
• Section 6. Waste Management Assessment Results
12
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Section 7. Cost Analysis
• Section 8. Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)
• Section 9. Summary and Conclusions
A list of references used to prepare this report is provided after Section 9.
In addition, this report contains the following appendices:
• Appendix A: Biological Agent Summary Sheet for Bacillus atrophaeus, Subspecies
globigii (Bg)
• Appendix B: Spore Loading Pre-release Study and Test Dispersion Data
• Appendix C: Sampling Maps
• Appendix D: Sampling Protocols
• Appendix E: Miscellaneous Operating Procedure (MOP) 3163 A: Aerosol Application of
Grime on Material Coupons in Horizontal Orientation
• Appendix F: Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for Dilute Bleach Fogging
• Appendix G: CONOPS for pAB Spray Decontamination
• Appendix H: Temperature and RH during Fogging
• Appendix I: CONOPS for Waste Packaging
• Appendix J: CONOPS for Immersion Dunking Decontamination
• Appendix K: Waste Scaling Factors
• Appendix L: Cost Analysis Workbook
13
-------
UTR OTD Report
2 Materials and Methods
This section discusses the materials and methods for the decon efficacy assessment component
of the UTR OTD in the following sections:
• Section 2.1. Site Preparation
• Section 2.2. Cross-Contamination Reduction Methods
• Section 2.3. Test Organism
• Section 2.4. Surface Loading Determination and BgRelease
• Section 2.5. Sampling Approach
• Section 2.6. Data Management
• Section 2.7. Decon Methods
2.1 Site Preparation
Before the release of Bg spores during Round 1, the following steps were performed to prepare
the facility for the OTD:
• Modified the station platform as follows:
- Installed rubber base cove along the base of walls constructed of gypsum board to
reduce the risk of standing water being absorbed by the gypsum board.
- Removed pictures and signs that could be damaged during decon activities.
- Installed carbon monoxide/fire alarms at two locations inside the study area to alert
personnel of the presence of carbon monoxide from the engine of the boom lift.
- Using a boom lift, installed an eight-camera security system to monitor decon
activities; sealed electrical conduit using heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) tape to prevent water damage; and installed a swivel high-definition camera
to monitor site work.
- Installed Ethernet cable for the high-definition camera.
• Installed sealed plastic barriers in both stairways and across the track-exit section to
contain the study area and reduce the spread of contamination.
• Removed the fan from the air ventilation shaft in the dead end of the tunnel section, and
covered the opening with a wooden enclosure containing a 12-inch (in.) flange for a
negative air machine (NAM) connection.
• Installed electrical power cords to power NAMs, fans, and disseminators.
• Placed high-volume fans throughout the station platform to aid in mixing during the
dissemination and fogging steps.
14
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Placed and connected 17 NAMs at four designated locations: one at the air ventilation
shaft, four on each stairwell, and eight at the track entrance exit to keep the study area
under negative pressure.
• Tested the electrical power systems with the NAMS on to determine load capacity on
each circuit.
• Installed a mock newsstand kiosk and a mock food stand kiosk that contained paper,
food, clothing, equipment, etc. to simulate materials that might be present in an operating
subway system.
• Installed a mock power panel to examine the impact of the decontamination processes on
infrastructure that might be present in an operating subway system. The purpose was to
look for any corrosion or impacts to the panel.
• Set up a decon line in accordance with the Health and Safety Plan (HASP).
• Set up a waste staging area just outside the main study area in accordance with the waste
handling plan and installed a dunking station for ex situ treatment of kiosk items through
immersion in pAB.
• Supplied a roll-off dumpster for waste disposal.
• Set up portable bathrooms for on-site personnel to use.
• Brought in a diesel generator and compressor that were used in the study. The generator
was installed, grounded, and wired to five mobile mini offices/trailers. The mini
offices/trailers were used for sample processing and personnel rest and recuperation.
• Installed a mobile storage container for site supplies.
• Added sets of grimed and non-grimed coupons of subway-related materials (concrete,
ceramic tile, painted steel, and ballast).
The mock kiosks listed above were constructed to represent a simple newsstand and a food stand
as shown in Figure 2-1. The newsstand was stocked with hats, T-shirts, a cash register
containing dollar bills, newspapers, and magazines (not present when photo below was taken).
The food stand was populated with a refrigerator, a hotdog roller, hot dogs and buns,
condiments, wax paper, plastic ware, and two stools (second stool was not present when photo
below was taken).
15
-------
UTR OTD Report
•4>a
-------
UTR OTD Report
included a 12-gauge vinyl plastipane (Sailrite, Columbia City, IN) that helped seal across the
ballast. The plastic that was used in the construction was clear, and allowed for visual monitoring
of personnel inside the hot-zone. The barriers were outfitted with 12-in. stainless steel air duct
ports to connect the NAM units. Eight NAM units were installed at the study area main entrance,
and nine NAM units were placed at the other openings (four on each stairwell and one on the air
ventilation shaft). The eight NAM units at the entrance pushed air into the EZ while the nine
upwind units pulled air from the EZ. The goal was to keep the EZ under slightly negative
pressure (compared to the ambient environment) to reduce the transport of spores outside of the
EZ and aid in the drying of the study area. The operation of the NAMs varied, depending on the
stage of the study.
2.2.2 Setup of Sample Preparation and Processing Trailers
Three on-site office trailers were set up for the Sampling Group. The first trailer was set up for
sample kit and backpack assembly and for supply storage. The second trailer was designated for
sample processing, storage, and packaging. The third trailer was used for data and sample
management activities. Prior to use, each trailer's floor was wiped down with bleach. To further
eliminate and minimize cross-contamination, large sticky pads were placed at the entrances to
each trailer to reduce contamination from foot traffic. The pads were changed at the end or
beginning of each day.
The sample kit and supply storage trailer stored all pre-prepared sample kits and supplies needed
for sample collection (Figure 2-2). In addition, new or decontaminated backpacks were packed
with new sample kits and sample maps for each day's mission. This trailer was designated as a
"clean area." Entry into the trailer was limited to Sampling Group members and individuals that
had not been in the EZ that day.
Figure 2-2. Sample Kit and Supply Storage Trailer (A) and Backpacks with New Sample
Kits (B)
17
-------
UTR OTD Report
The second trailer was used to process samples collected in the field, store samples in
refrigerators, and package samples for shipment to the laboratories. Entry into the trailer was
limited to Sampling Group members. For samples collected from the EZ, each sample's outer
plastic bag and the backpack were decontaminated in the CRZ, and the samples and backpacks
were then brought to the processing trailer. Also in this trailer, Sampling Group members
wearing gloves opened and processed ballast samples in one of two biosafety cabinets and then
placed the samples back into the plastic bag and sealed them. At the end of each day, the surfaces
of the biosafety cabinets and the sample processing counters were wiped down with
bleach. After processing, all samples were stored in refrigerators at 35 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)
(1.6 degrees Celsius [°C]) in the processing trailer until packaging and shipment. Refrigerated
storage usually lasted for several hours. However, if samples were collected on a Friday or
Saturday, they were refrigerated for several days before shipment to ensure delivery to
laboratories on days they were open.
The third trailer was used for data and sample management. This trailer was used to print maps
for the sample collection teams, chain-of-custody (COC) forms, and shipping air bills. In
addition, this trailer was used to calibrate and charge all air sampling pumps and to charge iPads
(iPad Air, Apple, Cupertino, CA). After samples were collected and all personnel and equipment
were decontaminated in the CRZ, the sample collection team delivered the decontaminated iPads
to the data management team. This team downloaded the data, reviewed all entries for
inconsistencies, and prepared electronic data deliverables (EDD) for the laboratories and COC
forms for shipping from this trailer.
2.2.3 Setup of Decon Lines
The decon lines at the OTD were designed for the specific project needs. The revised CMAD
"BioResponse Decon Line Standard Operating Procedure" referred to in the HASP was not
followed explicitly because of time and budgetary constraints (for example, workers wore a
single instead of a double Tyvek® suit, and during personnel decon, larger sprayers were used in
lieu of fine misters). EPA Region 3 contractors constructed the decon lines in the study area
outside the isolation barrier using materials durable enough to last throughout the entire OTD 5-
week time period (Figure 2-21, Section 2.7.1.1. shows the location of the decon line in the
tunnel). The decon line setups were similar between Level C entries (biological decon) and Level
A and B entries (chemical decon). The exceptions were that bleach wipes were not used for the
Level A or B entries during the study area decon and that respirator cleaning was not as critical
for Level A entries. Pre- and post-medical monitoring (of vital signs) was not conducted for
Level C entries in accordance with the Safety Officer's decision, but was conducted for all Level
A and B entries during the study area chemical decon.
Diluted bleach would typically be used for personnel biological decon, but to minimize risks to
personnel during the OTD, the decision was made to use water only for wet decon. Aqueous
decon waste was collected and pumped into 300-gallon (gal.) totes. When the tote was full, the
volume was recorded and the tote was replaced with an empty one. The aqueous waste then was
transported to an FAPH-designated discharge point and released into FAPH's wastewater
management system. Solid waste (used personal protective equipment [PPE], etc.) was bagged
on site, and after Waste Group personnel processed the solid waste, it was disposed of in the on-
site dumpster provided by FAPH.
18
-------
UTR OTD Report
The following sections discuss the long-term personnel and sample and equipment decon lines.
2.2.3.1 Personnel Decon Line
The decon attendants directed decon line entrants verbally through each step of the decon
process and assisted in performing some of the steps (such as operating the sprayer during the
glove, boot, and suit wash). Additionally, descriptive signs were affixed to the wall at each decon
step. Figure 2-3 shows each step of the decon line process, followed by a step-by-step
description of the decon process.
OTD Decontamination Line
EXCLUSION ZONE
Equipment
Drop
Outer
Booty
Removal
O
u
Bleach Wipe
Down*
(Outer Glove
and Mask)
Glove,
Tape, Outer
Glove, Inner
Booty, and
Suit,
Removal
and Suit
Wash
Mask
Remova
Inner
Wash
Glove
Mask Rinse
and Clean
Removal
Sample and
Supplies
Medical Monitoring,
Exit to Support Zone
and Hydrate
*Bleach wipe down was only used for Level C/Bio Decon. No bleach wipe down for Level A/B entries.
Figure 2-3. Decon Line Process
Steps 1 and 2 below were conducted in the EZ. Steps 3 through 8 occurred in the CRZ.
1. Equipment Drop in EZ: Equipment taken into the Exclusion Zone was wiped using a
Dispatch™ (Clorox®, Oakland, CA) bleach cloth and placed on a table upon exiting the
Exclusion Zone and before entering the CRZ. Equipment left in the Exclusion Zone was
reused if more than one entry was planned or was decontaminated later.
2. Outer Booty Removal in EZ: Personnel removed their outer booties and placed them in
a bin before entering the CRZ.
3. Sample and Supplies Drop in CRZ: Samples were placed in a container provided for
decon. Care was taken to ensure that workers maintained custody of the samples. To
19
-------
UTR OTD Report
decontaminate the samples, the outside of each sample bag was wiped down with a
Dispatch™ bleach cloth.
4. Outer Glove and Mask Wipe Down in CRZ: Outer gloves and mask, including
Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR), were wiped down using a Dispatch™ bleach
cloth.
5. Glove, Boot, and Suit Wash in CRZ: PAPRs were turned off, and cartridges were
covered to ensure that filters were not saturated with soap and water. Personnel washed
all outer surfaces in a contained area using soap and water from a pressurized sprayer.
6. Tape, Outer Glove, Inner Booty, and Suit Removal in CRZ: After exiting the wash,
personnel moved to another contained area where they removed tape and outer gloves,
inner booties, and PAPR belt (if PAPR was used). Also, touching only the inside of the
suit, personnel removed the outer suit by carefully rolling the suit outward from the
shoulders down to the feet. Personnel then disposed of boots, gloves, and the suit in a
designated PPE waste container.
7. Mask Removal and Wash in CRZ: Personnel removed the mask using inner gloves.
Cartridges and filters were removed and placed into a designated container. The mask
was dunked into a wash bin containing diluted bleach and then rinsed in a bin containing
water before the mask was dried with towels (mask rinse and clean in Figure 2-3). Note:
During a real Bci incident, mask duking bins would not be used.
8. Inner Glove Removal in CRZ: Personnel removed inner gloves by touching only the
outside of the first glove and then only the inside of the second glove. The inner gloves
were discarded. Filter cartridges were taped by decon personnel to avoid the spread of
contamination and returned to entrant personnel before exiting to the SZ. Note: During a
real Ha incident, filters will be discarded.
Figure 2-4 shows decon attendants directing personnel in Level C PPE through the decon
process.
20
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 2-4. Personnel Decon Line for Level C Entries
2.2.3.2 Sample and Equipment Decon Line
Before samples exited the EZ for packaging and shipping, all sealed Ziploc® bags containing all
samples were decontaminated using a Dispatch™ bleach cloth. The samples were then processed
through the decon line in CRZ, where the sample bags were wiped again on all sides using a
dispatch a Dispatch™ bleach cloth before transport to the SZ. Additionally, iPads were
decontaminated using a Dispatch™ bleach cloth and returned to the Sampling Team's Data
Manager upon exit to the SZ.
2.3 Test Organism
The OTD was aimed at addressing the intentional release of Ba spores. The test organism used
was Bg, a common surrogate for Ba in decon studies. Table 2-1 summarizes the characteristics
of the agent.
Table 2-1. Test Organism Characteristics
Agent
Type
Select Agent
Matrix
Bacillus atrophaens
subspecies globigii
Bacteria
No
Silica-fumed, milled dry powder
Appendix A provides the Biological Agent Summary Sheet for the Bg spores used during the
OTD, including the particle size distribution.
2.4 Surface Loading Determination and 2?^ Release
In accordance with the OTD project goals, the surface loading of viable Bg spores before the
testing of each decon method was desired to be approximately 1E+06 CFU per square foot (ft2)
on horizontal surfaces. To evaluate dispersal conditions in the study area, a tracer study was
conducted using fluorescent polystyrene microspheres (Fluoresbrite PolyFluor 407,
Polysciences, Warrington, PA) before Bg dissemination. Based on the results of the tracer study,
the optimal Bg dissemination conditions were determined.
S3I, LLC (Reiserstown, MD) performed the dissemination of Bg spores before each of the two
study rounds (Rounds 1 and 2) using wet aerosol dispersion. The aerosol generator was a
microcontroller-driven medical nebulizer (Aeroneb Go 7070, Aerogen, Galway, Ireland). The
nebulizer was a battery-powered aerosol generator that produces aerosol by the application of
ultrasonic energy to a microporous disc. The generator was controlled by an on-board
microcontroller controlling the output. The release of the desired amount of the stock preparation
of Bg spores occurred within several minutes after activation of the aerosol generator.
During the release, Instantaneous Biological Analyzer and Collectors (IBAC) (FLIR, Nashua,
NH) measured particle concentrations in the air. These measurements provided on-site, real-time
feedback related to the release for comparison with expected results based on pre-test data. A
21
-------
UTR OTD Report
total of 12 IBACs were placed throughout the enclosed study area to measure the concentration
gradient for each release as shown in Figure 2-5.
• Aerosol generator
O Sensor
• Fan
245
250
O
O •
(J 241 (J 230
•
*A2 *A1
O 235
0
1
O 244
O 258
iiiiiiiiiimiMiiiimiimiiiiii
11111II11
• llllllllllllllllllllftl
llllllllll
imiiiiiiwmmiiiiii
A3
A4 A5
A6
251
257
229
247
242
O
O
O
O
O
Barrier
Volume=160,000 ft3
Length= 275 ft.
Figure 2-5. Locations of Aerosol Generators, IBACs, and Fans during Dissemination
The dissemination procedure is detailed below.
1. IB AC sensors were deployed throughout the study area. At least one sensor was remotely
monitored in real-time using a laptop located at the top of the stairs at the entry of the
subway station connected to a wireless network.
2. The Test Bed Group performed a final walk-through of the study area to ensure that no
personnel were in the area. All barriers were closed, and one NAM was operational at the
end of the tunnel.
3. Bg spore powder (800 milligrams per round) was weighed out in advance and stored in a
sample vial. Distilled water then was added to the Bg powder to provide a liquid
suspension for the aerosol generators. This solution was thoroughly mixed using a
vortexer (VWR model 10153-816, VWR, Radnor, PA).
4. Eight aerosol generators were carried into the building and set up at the release points
(aerosol generators) shown in Figure 2-5. The solution was transferred into the aerosol
generator well using a measuring pipette (Eppendorf Repeater Plus, Iiauppauge, NY).
The aerosol generator well then was capped off.
5. The IBAC sensors were set up and allowed to collect data for at least 30 min. before the
release to characterize the particulate matter background inside the study area.
6. An S3I, LLC, employee triggered the dissemination by pressing the release button on
each individual aerosol generator, working their way back to the main barrier door
(Figure 2-6). No test personnel were allowed to enter the study area after the release until
it was time to perform pre-decon sampling. Three floor fans were used to aid in
dispersion (Figure 2-6) and were allowed to remain on for 20 min. after dissemination
After 20 min., the fans were unplugged from outlets located in the SZ.
22
-------
UTR OTD Report
7. The IBAC sensors were monitored after the release to ensure that the release was
successful. The IBACs collected data throughout the settling period and into the
characterization sampling period.
8. Particles were given time to settle overnight (15 to 18 hours [hr]) before Sampling Teams
entered to perform pre-decon sampling.
Appendix B provides the spore loading pre-release study and test dispersion data.
Figure 2-6. Aerosol Generators, IBAC Sensor, and Fan on Platform (left) and Release of Bg
Spores on Tracks (right)
2.5 Sampling Approach
The sampling activities for each of the two study rounds consisted of collecting samples within
the tunnel and platform areas to determine the pre-decon levels of Bg throughout the test facility
and to determine the post-decon efficacy of each decon technology. In addition, sampling
activities included the collection of background, Reference material coupon (RMC), waste,
grimed and non-grimed coupon, and composite samples.
The sampling objectives included the following:
1. Determine the background concentrations of the Bg spores before dissemination
2. Characterize the extent and magnitude of Bg contamination after each release (pre-decon
activities)
3. Determine the extent and magnitude of Bg contamination after decon (post-decon
activities) to evaluate the efficacy of each decon technology (decon efficacy assessment)
4. Collect composite samples to determine if composite sampling can yield representative
results for spore detection while reducing the need for sampling labor and supplies, data
management, and sample shipment and laboratory analysis
23
-------
UTR OTD Report
5. Determine the presence and amount of residual contamination on waste items to inform
waste management decisions (waste management assessment)
6. Conduct a grimed and non-grimed coupon study to determine if the presence of grime
affects the decon efficacy
Five distinct sampling events were implemented over the 5-week study period.
1. Background sampling before Round 1 Bg dissemination.
2. Pre-decon sampling Round 1
3. Post-decon sampling Round 1
4. Pre-decon sampling Round 2
5. Post-decon sampling Round 2
Samples were collected by EPA CMAD personnel, EPA NHSRC personnel, EPA Region 3
personnel, Regional OSCs, EPA contractors, National Guard CSTs, the U.S. Coast Guard
Atlantic Strike Team, and U.S. Army personnel.
The following sections discuss the sampling strategy, background sampling, sample types and
sampling methods, Sampling Teams, performance criteria, sample analysis, sample tracking and
shipment, and sample labeling and kits.
2.5.1 Sampling Strategy
The OTD sampling strategy used a stratified sampling approach for the test venue. For the
horizontal upward facing strata (tunnel, track, and floors) a grid-based design (EPA. 2.002) was
implemented and a random approach was used for the wall and ceiling strata. Personnel from the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) used Visual Sample Plan (VSP) software (2016)
to determine the number of samples collected from each stratum to allow statistical analysis of
the data. In addition, some judgmental samples were collected from wastes (including newsstand
and food stand kiosk surfaces and materials).
Within each stratum, sampling locations were randomly selected from the different surface
strata. For the UTR OTD, the stratified sampling approach considered contamination on the floor
as most likely (more likely than wall contamination and even more likely than ceiling
contamination). Therefore, the highest density of sampling locations was on the floors. Floor
sampling locations were distributed in evenly spaced transects to make navigation and
identification of sampling locations easier for sampling personnel.
To assist in sample collection, team coordination, and locational awareness of the teams, the
study area was subdivided into the six zones shown in Figure 2-7. Zones 1 and 5 contained
track-only sections, and Zones 2, 3, and 4 contained the middle portion of the study area, which
included both platform and track. Zone 6 contained a newsstand kiosk and a food stand kiosk.
For judgmental sampling, Waste and Sampling Group Leads selected the sampling locations
based on professional judgment, previous studies, and prior information.
24
-------
UTR OTD Report
Railroad track rails, walls, ceiling, and some kiosk surfaces and materials were sampled using
sponge stick wipes. Platform floors and some kiosk materials were sampled using 37-millimeter
(mm) micro-vacuum cassettes. Railroad track ballast and some kiosk materials items were
sampled and then processed using a wash/extraction procedure.
1 Zone 6
1
Platform
Tunnel
11 urn 11 inn
ffl
ffl DI ffi I II I
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Barrier
Figure 2-7. Zone Locations
The materials and surface strata of the study area sampled included the following:
• RMCs
• Tunnel walls and concrete ceilings (sponge stick samples)
• Track rails (sponge stick samples) and railroad ballast (wash/extract samples)
• Platform floor (vacuum samples) and walls (sponge stick samples)
• Composite samples (sponge stick and vacuum samples)
• Waste materials, including the following:
- Wastewater from tunnel sump, decon line, and immersion dunking
- Newsstand and food stand kiosk surfaces and materials (sponge stick, vacuum, and
wash/extract samples)
• Grimed and non-grimed coupons (sponge stick, vacuum, and gravel ballast wash/extract
samples)
• Specialized equipment such as an emergency call box, a subway card reader, and
electrical boxes (assessed for damage only)
Section 2.5.3 discusses each sample type. Appendix C provides the sampling location maps.
Table 2-2 summarizes the number of background, pre-decon, and post-decon samples for
Rounds 1 and 2 by sample medium. Table 2-2 does not include the grimed and non-grimed
25
-------
UTR OTD Report
coupon samples because these samples were not collected as part of the decon efficacy or waste
management assessments. The grimed and non-grimed coupon study therefore is discussed
separately in Section 5.
Table 2-2. Number of Background and Pre- and Post-Decon Samples Collected for Rounds
1 and 2 by Sample Medium
Sample Collection Dates
Type and No. of
9/11-12/17
9/19-21/17
9/26-27/17
9/30-10/1/17
10/11-12/17
Total
Samples8
Background
Round 1
Round 2
Pre-Decon
Post- Decon
Pre-Decon
Post- Decon
RI
VICs
Tunnel/Platform
0
39
0
40
0
79
Media Blanks
0
4
0
4
0
8
Total
0
43
0
44
0
87
Sponge Stick Samples
Tunnel/Platformb
41
58
40
58
40
237
Kiosk (in situ)
0
14
14
14
14
56
Kiosk (ex situf
0
0
2
0
3
5
Field Blanks0
3
4
3
4
4
18
Media Blanks0
2
3
5
4
4
18
Total
46
79
64
80
65
334
Vacuum Samples
Platform Floor
21
37
28
37
31d
154
Kiosk (in situ)
0
3
3
3
3
12
Field Blanks0
2
0
2
3
2
9
Media Blanks0
0
3
2
2
2
9
Total
23
43
35
45
38
184
Railroad Ballast and Kiosk Wash/Extract Samples
Ballast
7
40
38e
39f
40
164
Kiosk (in situ)
0
8s
9
9
9
35
Kiosk (ex situf
0
0
8
0
9
17
Field Blanks0
1
3
4
3
4
15
Media Blanks0
0
4
5
4
5
18
Total
8
55
64
55
67
249
Tunne
Sump, Decon Line, and Immersion Dunking Wastewater Samples
Sump Pump0
0
3
0
4
3
10
Decon Line0
0
10
10
9
10
39
Immersion Dunking0
0
0
1
0
1
2
Total
0
13
11
13
14
51
Total (All Samples)
77
233
174
237
184
905
Notes:
a = This table does not include biological indicators and coupons from the grimed and non-grimed coupon study
b = Sponge stick samples were collected from tunnel and platform walls and ceilings, track rails, and equipment
c = These samples are not used to determine decontamination efficacy values for Rounds 1 and 2
d = Three extra samples were collected from Zone 2
e = Two samples were not collected from Zone 5
f = One sample was not collected from Zone 3
g = One sample was not collected from Zone 6
26
-------
UTR OTD Report
As indicated in Table 2-2, blank, kiosk (ex situ), and wastewater samples were not used to
determine the decon efficacy for Rounds 1 and 2. Blank samples were used to evaluate sample
collection and processing protocols, and kiosk (ex situ) and wastewater samples were part of the
waste management assessment. Table 2-3 summarizes the number of background, pre-decon,
and post-decon field samples collected by surface stratum or material type. These samples
collected from tunnel and platform surfaces were used to determine decon efficacy values for
Rounds 1 and 2.
Table 2-3. Number of Background and Pre- and Post-Decon Samples Collected for Rounds 1 and
2 by Surface Stratum or Material Type
Sample Collection Date
Sample
Type
Surface
9/11-12/17
9/19-21/17
9/26-27/17
9/30-10/1/17
10/11-12/17
Stratum or
Round 1
Round 2
Total
Material Type
Background
Pre-Decon
Post-
Decon
Pre-Decon
Post- Decon
RMCs
0
39
0
40
0
79
Ceiling
6
5
4
5
4
24
Wall
16
22
14
21
13
86
Field
Ballast
7
40
38
39
40
164
Samples
Track Rail
19
28
19
29
20
115
Platform Floor
21
37
28
37
31
154
Equipment
0
3
3
3
3
12
Kiosk (in situ)
0
25
26
26
26
103
Totals
69
199
132
200
137
737
2.5.2 Background Sampling
Background sampling was conducted as a one-time event before Bg dispersal and decon during
both Rounds 1 and 2 as part of the decon efficacy assessment discussed in Section 4. The
background samples were collected to determine if Bg was present in the FAPH subway facility
before testing began. Vacuum and sponge stick samples were collected from the floors, ceilings,
and walls of the tunnel, station, track rails, and the bottom five steps of the stairwells. A stratified
sampling approach using VSP software (2016) was used whereby more samples were collected
from the floor than the walls and more samples were collected from the walls than the ceiling.
Railroad ballast wash/extract samples also were collected from locations near the tracks.
During background sampling, 21 platform floor, 19 track rail, 7 railroad ballast wash/extract
samples, 16 wall, and 6 ceiling samples were collected. The total of 69 samples was necessary
ensure 95% confidence that the true proportion of contaminated samples was within 0.10 of the
estimated proportion.
Section 4.1 discusses the background sampling results. Figures C-l through C-6 in Appendix C
provide maps of the background floor sampling locations. Figures C-7 through C-l 8 provide
maps of the background wall and ceiling sampling locations. The vacuum and sponge stick
27
-------
UTR OTD Report
sampling methods are detailed in Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of Appendix D, and the
railroad ballast wash/extract sampling method is detailed in Attachment 5 of Appendix D.
2.5.3 Sample Types and Sampling Methods
The background, pre-decon, and post-decon sample collection events used several sample
collection methods. Track rails, walls, the ceiling, and some kiosk surfaces and materials were
sampled using sponge stick wipes. Platform floors and some kiosk materials were sampled using
37-mm micro-vacuum cassettes. Railroad track ballast rock and some kiosk materials were
sampled using a wash/extraction procedure. Sample collection procedures for sponge stick and
vacuum sampling for Ba are detailed in scientific literature, including Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC 2012; DHS 2014; Calfee et al. 2014; DHS 2010; Hodges et al.
2010; and Emmanuel. Roos. andNivogi 2008.
Figures C-19 through C-36 in Appendix C provide maps of the pre-decon sampling locations.
Figures C-37 through C-54 in Appendix C provide maps of the post-decon sampling locations.
The following sections provide brief descriptions of the sample types and sampling methods
used during the OTD for the following:
• RMCs
• Sponge stick samples
• Vacuum samples
• Composite samples
• Railroad ballast wash/extract samples
• Waste samples
• Grimed and non-grimed coupons
2.5.3.1 Reference Material Coupons (RMCs)
RMC samples were collected to serve as references to determine relative contamination levels in
the tunnel after Bg dissemination. Specifically, the RMC results were used to determine spore
loading during each round as part of the decon efficacy assessment. Before dissemination of the
Bg spores during Rounds 1 and 2, RMCs were placed throughout the subway on horizontal
ground-level surfaces. The RMCs were polished stainless steel squares measuring 1 in by 2 in.
The RMCs were collected after dissemination at the same time pre-decontamination samples
were collected and placed into vials. The IBAC and RMC results were used to verify spore
dissemination and spore loading, respectively. IBACs are discussed in Section 2.4. Table 2-4
summarizes the IBAC and RMCs used during the OTD to determine spore loading after Bg
dissemination, including the application and analysis for each.
Table 2-4. IBAC and RMCs Used during OTD
Reference Device
and Samples
Description
Application
Analysis
IBAC
Counts particles in
Real-time during Rounds 1 and 2 to
Real-time particle
28
-------
UTR OTD Report
the air
confirm target concentrations and
corroborate RMC results
count
Stainless-steel
RMCs
Polished stainless-
steel squares
measuring 1 by 2 in.
Confirm Bg pre-decon
concentrations after dissemination
during Rounds 1 and 2
Quantitative
analysis culture
and enumeration
During the OTD, 39 RMCs were collected during Round 1 (40 RMCs deployed but one RMC
was not collected) and 40 RMCs were collected during Round 2. The RMCs were cultured for
morphology and enumeration of Bg spores. Section 4 discusses the positive RMC sampling
results. The RMC sampling method is detailed in Attachment 4 of Appendix D.
2.5.3.2 Sponge Stick Samples
Sponge stick samples were collected as part of the decon efficacy assessment discussed in
Section 4 using sponge sticks pre-moistened with a neutralizing buffer, phosphate-buffered
saline (PBS) (3M™ Sponge-Stick with 10 milliliters [mL] neutralizing buffer, Catalog No.
SSL10NB). Sponge stick samples were collected from tunnel and platform walls and ceilings,
track rails, equipment (subway card reader and emergency call box), and kiosk (kiosk samples
are discussed in Section 2.5.3.6). Figure 2-8 shows samples being collected from the tunnel
wall, ceiling, and track rails. Each sample was collected from an area measuring 100 square
inches (in2). The neutralizing solution blocked the continued action of a disinfectant after
sampling. These neutralizing solutions are important during post-decon activities to ensure that
samples, when analyzed properly, do not yield false negative results due to the presence of
residual disinfectant (Calfee et al. 2013).
During Round 1 of the OTD, 105 sponge stick samples were collected (these totals include
composite samples). During Round 2, 106 sponge stick samples were collected. Section 4
discusses the positive sponge stick sampling results. The sponge stick sampling methods are
detailed in Attachment 1 (for sampling using a template) and Attachment 2 (for wipe sampling of
the track rail using a measuring device) of Appendix D.
Figure 2-8. Sponge Stick Sample Collection from the Tunnel Wall (A), Ceiling (B), and
Track Rails (C)
29
-------
UTR OTD Report
2.5.3.3 Vacuum Samples
Vacuum samples were collected as part of the decon efficacy assessment discussed in Section 4.
The vacuum samples were collected from the concrete platform floor and kiosk/kiosk items
(kiosk samples are discussed in Section 2.5.3.6). Each platform floor vacuum sample was
collected from a 12 in. x 12in. area using a template as shown in Figure 2-9. The samples were
collected with a micro-vacuuming technique using a 37-mm vacuum cassette (SKC Inc., mixed-
cellulose ester membrane filter preloaded into a cassette, 0.8 jam, 37 mm, Catalog No. 225-3-01)
and a battery-operated sample pump (Vac-U-Go Pump, SKC Inc., Eighty Four, PA). The
laboratory received the cassettes and processed the filters for analysis.
During Round 1 of the OTD, 67 vacuum samples were collected. During Round 2, 73 vacuum
samples were collected (these totals include composite samples). Section 4 discusses the positive
vacuum sampling results. The vacuum sampling method is detailed in Attachment 3 of
Appendix D.
Figure 2-9. Vacuum Sample Collection from the Concrete Platform Floor
2.5.3.4 Composite Samples
Composite samples were collected during the post-decon sampling events only and included
sponge stick and vacuum samples. Composite sampling involves collecting samples from
multiple locations using the same sample collection method and submitting the multi-location
sample as a single sample. The main advantages of composite sampling are the increase in
surface area sampled; the reduction in the number of samples requiring processing and analysis;
and the reduction in the sample collection labor, time, and materials required. With composite
sampling, the surface area sampled may be increased, thereby increasing the likelihood of
detecting contamination. However, the impact on method performance resulting from increasing
the surface area is unknown and therefore can make interpretation of results difficult. The
composite sample results were compared to the other Round 1 and 2 post-decon results to
determine if composite sampling can yield representative results for spore detection while
30
-------
UTR OTD Report
reducing the need for sampling labor and supplies, data management, and sample shipment and
laboratory analysis.
Composite sponge stick samples were collected from the ceiling, walls, and track rails and
included two- and three-point composite locations. Composite vacuum samples were collected
from the platform floor and stairs and included two- and three-point composite locations. Table
2-5 summarizes the numbers and locations of the composite samples.
Table 2-5. Composite Samples Collected from Tunnel and Platform Surfaces
Round
Platform Floor
and Stairs
(Vacuum)
Track Rail
(Sponge Stick)
Wall
(Sponge Stick)
Ceiling
(Sponge Stick)
Total
1
Post-decon
4* (three-point on
platform floor, two-
point on stairs)
5 (three-point)
6 (five two-point,
one three-point)
1 (two-point)
16
2
Post-decon
5 (three-point on
platform floor, two-
point on stairs)
5 (three-point)
6 (five two-point,
one three-point)
1 (two-point)
17
Note:
* = The Sampling Team did not collect one composite sample from the platform floor
As discussed in Section 2.5.1. the OTD sampling strategy used a probabilistic, grid-based
approach for the tunnel, track, and floors and a random stratified sampling approach for the wall
and ceiling surfaces using VSP software. The Sampling Group used expert judgement to
determine the quantity and location of the composite samples for the platform floors, stairs, and
track rails. For the walls and ceiling, the Sampling Group selected two or three random locations
close to one another to comprise two- and three-point composite samples. The sampled area for
each point in the composite sample was 100 in.2 for the sponge stick samples (including the track
rails) and 144 in.2 for the vacuum samples. The composite samples were collected using the
same sponge stick and vacuum sampling methods detailed in Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and
Attachment 3 of Appendix D. Section 4 discusses the positive composite sampling results.
2.5.3.5 Railroad Ballast Wash/Extract Samples
Railroad ballast rock was sampled as part of the decon efficacy assessment discussed in Section
4. Railroad ballast rock from each location was sampled by filling a 1-liter (L) bottle to the pre-
demarcated 500-mL mark with ballast rock (samplers pick up one rock at a time and placed it
into the bottle as shown in Figure 2-10). After transport to the SZ, the sample was processed by
adding 500 mL of phosphate-buffered saline with 0.05% Tween® 20 (PBST) to the sample bottle
and vigorously shaking the bottle for 2 min. The aqueous rinsate wash/extract from each bottle
then was decanted into a sterile, 500-mL bottle and shipped to the laboratory for analysis. The
purpose was to determine concentrations of Bg on railroad ballast rock by analyzing the
wash/extract. Railroad ballast is a novel substrate to sample, and so, too, was the sampling
approach.
31
-------
UTR OTD Report
During Round 1 of the OTD, 67 railroad ballast wash/extract samples were collected. During
Round 2, 73 railroad ballast wash/extract samples were collected. Section 4 discusses the
positive railroad ballast wash/extract sampling results. The railroad ballast wash/extract sampling
method is detailed in Attachment 5 of Appendix D.
Figure 2-10. Railroad Ballast Rock Sample Collection from the Tunnel
2.5.3.6 Waste Samples
Waste samples were collected during Rounds 1 and 2 as part of the waste management
assessment discussed in Section 6. Each waste sample type is detailed below.
Tunnel Sump, Decon Line and Immersion Dunking Wastewater Samples
These wastewater samples were collected from water from the tunnel sump, decon line, and
immersion dunking station. The sump water was sampled to determine pre- and post-decon Bg
concentrations in runoff from the subway station and tunnel. Each aqueous sample was collected
as a grab sample into 1-L sterile bottles and then shipped to the laboratory for processing and
analysis.
During Round 1, 24 tunnel sump, decon line, and immersion dunking wastewater samples were
collected. During Round 2, 27 sump, decon line, and immersion dunking wastewater samples
were collected. The sampling method for the aqueous wastewater samples is detailed in
Attachment 6 in Appendix D.
Kiosk Surfaces and Materials
Materials typically found in a subway were staged at the mock newsstand and food stand kiosks
at the beginning of each study round (pre- and post-decon). Kiosk samples included sponge stick,
vacuum, and wash/extract samples of the kiosk surfaces and materials. The sampling approach
was intended to determine if in situ decon was successful in killing all residual spores in
32
-------
UTR OTD Report
materials destined to become waste. The kiosk items sampled are considered atypical wastes
Attachment 7 in Appendix D details the sampling methods for the atypical kiosk items,
including the sponge stick, vacuum, and wash/extract samples.
Items of identical materials were placed in the kiosks during both rounds, and the surfaces of the
kiosks and materials were sampled using sponge stick and vacuum sampling methods. During
Rounds 1 and 2, 56 sponge stick and 12 vacuum samples were collected. For wash/extract
sampling, a portion of each material was inserted into a bottle. The aqueous rinsate from the
bottle was decanted, extracted, and analyzed. During Rounds 1 and 2, 35 wash/extract samples
were collected. Figure 2-11 illustrates the sponge stick and wash/extract sampling methods used
for some of the kiosk materials.
Figure 2-11. Kiosk Register Sampled Using a Sponge Stick (A) and Poster Material
Collected as a Wash/Extract Sample (B)
Additionally, some items were removed from the kiosks pre-decon and after dissemination to
evaluate ex situ decon using an immersion dunking station. Section 6.2.3 discusses the
immersion dunking and associated sampling procedures in detail. The concentration of Bg in the
items after dunking was evaluated to determine proper disposal methods for a real Ba incident.
During Rounds 1 and 2, 22 immersion dunking kiosk item samples were collected.
2.5.3. 7 Grimed and Non-Grimed Coupons
To make the mock subway system at FAPH more realistic, grimed coupons were added to the
study area during Rounds 1 and 2. Non-grimed coupons also were added as a control to
determine if the presence of grime affects decon efficacy. The glazed ceramic tile, painted steel,
and concrete coupons were 12 in. x 12in. and the ceramic tile coupons were 13 in. x 13 in.
The grime was adopted from the SNL recipe noted in Miscellaneous Operating Procedure
(MOP) 3163 A in Appendix E and consisted of 94% Arizona fine dust (National Institute of
Standards and Technology-traceable; Powder Technology, Arden Hills, MN; Part number
PP2G4 A2 fine), 2.5% carbon black, 0.25% diesel particulate, 0.13% motor oil, 0.13% pinene,
33
-------
UTR OTD Report
1% lycopodium, 1% ragweed pollen, and 1% mulberry pollen. Grime was applied to one set of
coupons in accordance with MOP 3163 A in Appendix E. In addition, grimed gravel ballast was
stored in a set of five 12 in. x 12in. open boxes. Table 2-6 indicates the nominal mass of grime
applied to each coupon.
Table 2-6. Grime Loading per Coupon Material Type
Coupon Material Type
Grime Loading
(grams)
Glazed ceramic tile
2.2 ±0.1
Painted steel
1.3 ±0.8
Concrete
2.5 ±0.4
Gravel ballast
2.9 ±0.2
Coupons were positioned in two locations on the platform before the release of Bg spores. The
painted steel, ceramic tile, and ballast coupons were positioned as shown in Figure 2-12.
Location A
~EDEDQSnsn
Grimed and non-grimed
Painted Steel
c
T3 E
"ft U
2&'-C'
TT
0
23'-11'
I ™
Note: "X" identifies pre-decon sampling location; gray and white boxes denote grimed and non-grimed
coupons, respectively
Figure 2-12. Grimed and Non-Grimed Coupon Locations on Subway Platform
Coupons were alternated in location as indicated in Figure 2-12 for the pre-decon (two of each
grimed and non-grimed material) and post-decon (three of each grimed and non-grimed material)
coupons (only ballast coupons were grimed material).
For each of the two rounds, 15 non-grimed and 20 grimed coupons were set out. These study
coupons were sampled along with the other pre-decon and post-decon samples. Table 2-7
summarizes the coupon materials, sampling method, and numbers of coupons.
34
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 2-7. Study Coupon Material, Sampling Method, and Numbers
Material
Sampling
Method
No. Coupons per Round
Notes
Pre-Decon
Post-Decon
Glazed ceramic tile
Sponge stick
2
3
Grimed and non-grimed sets
Painted steel
Sponge stick
2
3
Grimed and non-grimed sets
Concrete
Vacuum
2
3
Grimed and non-grimed sets
Gravel ballast
Wash/extract
2
3
Only grimed set
Figure 2-13 shows samples being collected from grimed coupons (ceramic tile, painted steel,
and concrete).
Figure 2-13. Sponge Stick Sample Collection from Ceramic Tile (A) and Painted Steel (B)
Grimed Coupons; Vacuum Sample Collection from a Concrete (C) Grimed Coupon
The sampling method for the sponge stick samples is detailed in Attachment 1 in Appendix D.
The sampling method for the vacuum samples is detailed in Attachment 3 in Appendix D. The
sampling method for the gravel ballast samples is detailed in Attachment 4 in Appendix D. The
grimed and non-grimed coupon study results are discussed in Section 5.
2.5.4 Sampling Teams
The Sampling Teams were organized into groups of three people before entry into the EZ. Each
person's role was as follows:
• Sample Collector ("Dirty Person"): Responsible for collecting each sample in the field
35
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Sampling Assistant ("Clean Person"): Responsible for providing sampling materials to
the Sample Collector
• Data Manager: Responsible for navigating to sampling locations to document the
sampling event using the team's iPad, ensure that proper sampling techniques are used,
and serve as the radio point of contact with the Sampling Group Lead
For most teams, the Data Manager was designated as the Team Leader responsible for the team's
execution of the assignment.
All teams were required to attend just-in-time training provided by the Sampling Group Leader
prior to initial entry into the EZ. The training seminar consisted of an overview of the operations,
maps of the areas to be sampled, detailed explanations and demonstrations of each sampling
technique, with an emphasis on the importance of the "Clean" and "Dirty" roles and
responsibilities, hands-on handling of the sampling equipment, and an opportunity to ask
questions. Additionally, Data Managers were trained on how to use the iPad to document
sampling events.
In addition, the Sampling Teams conducted a walk-through of the decon line to gain an
understanding of how to enter and exit the EZ. During the walk-through, teams were instructed
on equipment to bring with them, how to request additional equipment, and which equipment
could be kept in the EZ.
To conduct the sampling, teams were provided with the following:
• Maps of assigned sampling locations and a marker to check off completed locations on
the maps (sampling maps provided in Appendix C)
• One clear, plastic backpack with all of the sampling kits necessary for the team's
assignment
• At least one empty, clear, plastic backpack for storing samples that had been collected
• An iPad with attached stylus for documenting the sampling event
• Bleach wipes to decontaminate the exteriors of sample bags after sample collection
• Extra gloves for changing between samples
• Gaffers tape and scissors to cut tape to mark sampling locations
• A chain to delineate the length of rail to be sampled
• A radio to communicate with the Command Post
Teams also were instructed on the proper PPE to be used for entries. Once the teams donned the
proper PPE and had attended a final team-specific briefing on sampling and health and safety
issues such as maximum entry time and emergency egress procedures, the teams were allowed to
enter the EZ. The Sampling Teams were monitored in the EZ using closed-circuit television.
Samples were collected starting from the area closest to the entry location (Figure 2-14).
36
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 2-14. Two Sampling Teams Collecting Samples Near Entry
Teams then proceeded down the length of the tunnel in order to prevent cross contamination. A
maximum of two teams entered at one time, splitting the tunnel lengthwise to prevent cross
contamination. Sampling was conducted in each zone shown in Figure 2-7, and each zone was
sampled to completion before the team proceeded to the next zone. This procedure was followed
to reduce contaminant tracking between zones. Once sampling progressed to the platform area,
entry teams were assigned to sample the platform area.
Teams with the most sampling experience were assigned to sample the grimed and non-grimed
coupons and the kiosk area in Zone 6. The grimed and non-grimed coupons and kiosk areas
posed challenges with regard to iPad documentation and sample collection. Therefore, the most
proficient teams were assigned to ensure that the samples were properly collected and
documented.
2.5.5 Performance Criteria
Environmental sampling data of sufficient quality are necessary to estimate the environmental
concentration in liquid (CFU/L) and on surfaces (CFU/ft2). Measurement error and sampling
error are the most significant performance criteria used to assess the quality of environmental
data. For the UTR OTD, measurement error and sampling error were evaluated based on the
field and laboratory processing controls discussed below to determine data quality.
2.5.5.1 Field Processing Controls
Only sterile, clean, and unopened supplies were used to collect the samples for the UTR OTD
project. Each manufacturer's Certificate of Analysis was accepted for the QA/QC of purchased
37
-------
UTR OTD Report
media and supplies. Lot numbers for supplies were noted, and two media blank samples for each
sampling medium were included as field blanks with the other samples delivered to the
laboratory. The blanks included sponge sticks, 37-mm vacuum cassettes, and railroad ballast
wash/extract 1 L collection bottles. Attachments 1 through 4 and Attachment 6 in Appendix D
provide specific details on the collection of negative controls for the sampled media.
The field blanks are negative processing controls used to identify and estimate contamination
immediately before and after sampling (for evaluation of protocols), during sample shipment,
and for samples awaiting measurement or analysis in the laboratory. Sampling Teams collected
the field blanks during on-site sampling to determine if the sampling techniques used by the team
resulted in cross contamination. Field blanks were handled in exactly the same manner as the
investigative field samples, except that they did not come into contact with contaminated
surfaces. Field blanks were collected at a rate of approximately 5% of the investigative field
samples.
2.5.5.2 Laboratory Processing Controls
All equipment in the laboratory was monitored at regular intervals for accurate performance.
Pipettors were calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended schedule. In the
laboratory, positive control reference samples and microbiological media blanks (such as culture
medium blanks, dilution liquid blanks, etc.) were analyzed to demonstrate data quality as
discussed below.
Positive Control Reference Samples
Only two of the six participating Laboratory Response Network (LRN) labs, Michigan (MI)
Public Health Laboratory and Minnesota (MN) State Public Health Laboratory, requested
positive control reference samples of Bg. A streak-plate of Bg was sent to these laboratories for
visual comparison to colonies observed during the analytical procedures.
Negative Processing Controls (Media Blanks)
Negative processing controls, also referred to as media blanks, were analyzed for each sampling
medium. The blanks included RMCs, sponge sticks, 37-mm vacuum cassettes, and bulk railroad
ballast wash/extract buffer solution. The blanks were processed along with the environmental
samples. Media blanks ensure that each lot is sterile and free of contamination. Media blanks are
unexposed sample media used for background correction of sample readings or for recovery
studies. Media blanks are from the same lot or package as the media used for sampling and are
submitted with the investigative samples for analysis to ensure that the sampling media are not
contaminated prior to sample collection.
Together, the field blanks discussed in Section 2.5.5.1 and the media blanks discussed above
constituted approximately 10% of the total samples. Attachments 1 through 5 in Appendix D
provide specific details on the collection of negative controls for the sampled media.
38
-------
UTR OTD Report
2.5.6 Sample Analysis
Samples collected as part of the OTD decon efficacy assessment were analyzed by the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC) LRN, EPA CMAD bioanalysis laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado,
and EPA NHSRC laboratory in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. The samples
included RMC, sponge stick, vacuum filter cassette, and wash/extract liquid samples. These
samples were analyzed for the presence of Bg spores during background sampling and pre- and
post- decon. In addition, during the Round 1 post-decon event only, biological indicators (BI)
consisting of stainless-steel strips inoculated with Ba spores with a population of 1.3E+06 (Apex
Discs, Mesa Labs, Bozeman, Montana) were analyzed. The BI results were used to verify fog
distribution and as a secondary method to determine decon efficiency.
Table 2-8 lists the sample types sent to each participating laboratory.
Table 2-8. Laboratories for Each Sample Type
Sample Type
LRN
EPA
CMAD
EPA
NHSRC,
RTP
Sponge stick
X
Vacuum
X
Wash/extract and liquid (wastewater and
immersion dunking) samples
X
RMCs and Bis
X
The LRN and EPA laboratories received the samples from FedEx and managed the samples
based on information on the sample labels and COC forms that accompanied the samples. The
LRN and EPA laboratory sample analyses are discussed in more detail below.
2.5.6.1 LRN Laboratory Sample Analysis
LRN laboratories in six states provided quantitative analysis by performing cultures using the
spread- and filter-plating methods discussed in Attachment 8 of Appendix D for the sponge stick
and vacuum samples to determine viable spore recovery and subsequently decon efficacy. LRN
laboratories used their approved QA/QC criteria, including the analysis of negative controls. In
the event of a national response incident, the LRN protocols and QA/QC procedures would be
used. All data were compiled as raw CFU counts, and EPA conducted the data reduction.
2.5.6.2 EPA Laboratory Sample Analysis
The wash/extract and liquid (tunnel and decon line wastewater and immersion dunking) samples
were sent to the EPA CMAD bioanalysis laboratory for processing using the methods discussed
in Attachment 8 of Appendix D to determine viable spore recovery and subsequently decon
efficacy.
The EPA NHSRC, RTP laboratory processed and analyzed the RMCs and Bis. The RMCs were
vortexed 2 minutes in 10 mL of PBST, then serially diluted and plated onto tryptic soy agar
(TSA) plates. Plates were incubated overnight at 35 ± 2 °C for morphology and enumeration
using the protocols detailed in Attachment 9 of Appendix D. The Bis were cultured for growth
39
-------
UTR OTD Report
in 10 mL of tryptic soy broth for 7 days at 35 ± 2 °C. The growth (or failure) of the surrogate
spores provided an indication of decon efficacy.
2.5.7 Sample Tracking and Shipment
After the field Sampling Teams completed sampling, data entry into the iPads, and
decontamination of the exterior of sample containers and bags each day, the samples and iPads
were delivered by the Data Manager/Team Leader to the Data Team in the trailer used for
sample shipment. To ensure that the integrity of the samples was maintained, all samples were
immediately placed into refrigerators set to 2 to 8 °C until coolers were packed for overnight
sample shipment to each laboratory.
To prepare the sample shipments to the laboratories each day, samples were removed from the
refrigerator and packaged for shipment. The Sampling Group's procedures for packaging and
shipping all samples to the laboratories are summarized below.
• Approximately two 16-ounce (oz) water-tight frozen coolant gel ice packs were placed
onto the bottom of each Styrofoam shipping cooler.
• Foam wrap was placed on top of the ice packs to prevent direct contact with the samples
and to prevent shifting and breakage during shipment.
• All samples were placed into re-sealable plastic bags upon collection, and the seals were
checked before the bags were placed in the cooler.
• The data team prepared COC forms and assigned samples to a specific laboratory for
analysis. Samples were placed into the laboratory sample coolers and double-checked
against the COC forms.
• Once the cooler was packed with samples, several other pieces of foam wrap were placed
on the top of the samples to fill any void in the cooler and minimize breakage during
shipping.
• The Sampling Group Lead signed the sample COC forms, copies were made, and the
original copies were placed into a resealable bag taped to the top of the sample cooler
before the cooler lid was closed. Each cooler in the shipment contained the COC forms
for the receiving laboratory.
• Prior to transport to the shipping facility, each cooler was securely taped closed. Each
cooler was measured and weighed, and an air bill was generated. The air bill was secured
to the cooler in a clear plastic envelope.
• At the end of the day, the sample coolers were transported to an overnight commercial
delivery facility, where they were individually scanned by the representative and
accepted for overnight shipment to the laboratories.
• The delivery service notified the Sampling Group and laboratories by e-mail about each
step in the cooler delivery process, including delivery notification.
Each day before the coolers arrived at the laboratories, the Sampling Group sent an e-mail
indicating the air bill number of the cooler, a scan of the COC forms for the samples, and an
40
-------
UTR OTD Report
EDD template for each sample cooler to be received. The EDD template is an electronic
spreadsheet containing information for each sample to be used by the laboratories as a standard
format for reporting sample results. Data fields for the EDDs included COC number, sample
number, collection data, sample medium, and analytical results. Figure 2-15 shows a screen shot
of an example EDD template sent to the laboratories.
The laboratory confirmed sample receipt and acceptance by sending an acknowledgment e-mail
and the signed COC forms to the Sampling Group. After the completion of analysis, the
laboratories recorded the sample results on the EDD templates and e-mailed the completed
EDDs to the Sampling Group.
d -
Home Insert
ppa & cut
— Isj^i Copy "
Paste
J Format Painter
Page Layout
Calibri
B I u • | E
Font
LRN1 MN_3-092616-144410-0030jcIsx [Read-Only] - Microsoft Excel
Review View Acrobat
<£> Q <
11 ' A* a" — =[ =
[=jJ Wrap Text General
iW W isl Merge & Center * $ * % *
Alignment lal Number
m m i-
£ AutoSum *
Conditional Format Cell Insert Delete Format
Formatting^ as Table'Styles" ~ r » ^2^
Styles Cells
A
B C
D
E
F
G
H
1 J K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
1
COC
Samp No SampleM
Date Rece Date Plate Spread PI
Spread PI; Spread PI
Spread Pli Spread PI. Spread PI
Spread PI
Spread Ph Spread PI; Spread PI
Spread PI
Spread PI: Analysis
Analyte
2
3-092616-: OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
3
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
4
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
5
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
6
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
7
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
8
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
9
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
10
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
11
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
12
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
13
3-092616-
OTD-RIPC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
14
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
15
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
16
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
17
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
18
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
19
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
20
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
21
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
22
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
23
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
24
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
25
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
26
3-092616-
OTD-R1PC Sponge Stick
Bg Culture Bg
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3
iJL
m
~|xr
cR a r- 0 c © g
Figure 2-15. Computer Screen Shot of Example EDD Template
Table 2-9 lists the sample shipment dates for the background sampling event and Rounds 1 and
2 of the OTD, including sample types, number of samples, and laboratories receiving the
samples for analysis. A total of 999 samples were shipped to eight different laboratories on five
shipping dates, for a total of 70 packages shipped. The six LRN laboratories in MM, NY, MI,
41
-------
UTR OTD Report
OH, VA, and FL received 589 samples. The CMAD bioanalysis laboratory received 310
samples, and the RTP laboratory received 100 samples.
Table 2-9. Sample Shipment Dates and Numbers by Sample Type
Laboratory
Shipment Date
Total
No. of
Samples
9/12/2016
9/21/2016
9/27/2016
10/3/2016
10/12/2016
Background
Round 1
Round 2
Pre-Decon
Post-Decon
Pre-Decon
Post-Decon
Sponge Stick Field and Blan
t Samples
LRNMN
0
0
25
0
25
50
LRNNY
26
0
20
28
0
74
LRN MI
20
44
0
18
0
82
LRN OH
0
43
0
0
20
63
LRN VA
0
0
11
30
0
41
LRN FL
0
0
24
12
37
73
Vacuum Field and Blank Samples
LRNMN
13
25
0
5
0
43
LRNNY
10
0
11
17
0
38
LRN MI
0
0
7
0
19
26
LRN OH
0
22
0
0
8
30
LRN VA
0
0
14
17
0
31
LRN FL
0
0
10
10
18
38
Wash/extract and Liquid Field and Blank Samples
CMAD
8
70
78
70
84
310
RMC Field Samples
NHSRC,
RTP
0
43
0
44
0
87
B1
Field Samples
NHSRC,
RTP
0
0
13
0
0
13
Total No.
Date
77
247
213
251
211
999
Note: This table includes all shipments to the various laboratories and includes some samples that were not part
of the decontamination assessment study.
42
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 2-10 lists the sample shipments by laboratory.
Table 2-10. Sample Shipment Dates and Numbers by Laboratory
Shipment Date
Total No. of
Laboratory
9/12/2016
9/21/2016
9/27/2016
10/3/2016
10/12/2016
Samples
Background
Round 1
Round 2
per
Pre-Decon
Post-Decon
Pre-Decon
Post-Decon
Laboratory
LRNMN
13
25
25
5
25
93
LRNNY
36
0
31
45
0
112
LRN MI
20
44
7
18
19
108
LRN OH
0
65
0
0
28
93
LRN VA
0
0
25
47
0
72
LRN FL
0
0
34
22
55
111
CM AD
8
70
78
70
84
310
RTP
0
43
13
44
0
100
Total Samples
Shipped
77
247
213
251
211
999
Note: This table includes all shipments to the various laboratories and includes some samples that were not part of
the decontamination assessment study.
2.5.8 Sample Labeling and Kits
Before the sampling began, sample labels were generated using Excel software. Columns for the
project identification (ID), round, sampling method, and sample number were populated in the
Excel spreadsheet. Table 2-11 lists possible values for each column category.
Table 2-11. Possible Values for Sample Labeling Categories
Project ID
Round
Sampling Method
Sample No.
OTD
BKG = Background
SPNG = Sponge stick
001-999
R1PRE = Round 1 pre-decon
VAC = Vacuum
001-999
R1POST = Round 1 post-decon
EXTR = Wash/extract
001-999
R2PRE = Round 2 pre-decon
RMC = RMC
001-999
R2POST = Round 2post-decon
BI = BI
001-999
A column was then created in Excel whereby the "CONCATENATE" formula was used to
generate unique sample ID numbers for all samples. An example sample ID number is "OTD-
BKG-SPNG-001," indicating background sponge stick sample number 001. Labels then were
copied and pasted into a Microsoft Word file for printing onto Avery template No. 5160. Labels
were printed onto Planet Label 2-mil White Polyester Die Cut Labels (product No. LT875-
30POLY).
Sample kits were prepared and assembled in the RTP laboratory under sterile conditions before
sampling began. Attachment 10 in Appendix D provides the UTR OTD sample kit assembly
instructions. The sample kits were prepared for each sample and included all materials needed to
collect each type of sample. These preassembled sample kits included sampling media, sample
containers, inner and outer sample bags, and the printed sample labels. The kits also contained
43
-------
UTR OTD Report
tubing for collecting 37-mm micro-vacuum samples and templates for collecting the sponge stick
and vacuum samples as well clean supplies needed for sample collection. The sample labels were
placed onto each sample container and inner and outer sample bags as shown in Figure 2-16.
Figure 2-16. Labeled Container and Bag for Railroad Ballast Wash/Extract Sample
2.6 Data Management
Early in the planning process for the UTR OTD project, the Sampling Group worked with Data
Managers to determine the information to be collected for each field sample and how to best
capture and manage that information. Scribe software (https://www.ertsupport.ore) was used to
manage all sampling, observational, field data, and analytical information for the UTR OTD
project. The EPA Environmental Response Team developed the Scribe software tool to assist in
the management of environmental data.
During early discussion with the Data Managers, the Sampling Group Lead determined each
field of information to be collected in the field and the sampling approach needed to collect the
required information. To easily and accurately capture all necessary field data, the Sampling
Group created a field data form using FileMaker software (FileMaker, Inc., Santa Clara, CA)
loaded onto the iPads. Figure 2-17 shows a screen shot of the field data form.
44
-------
UTR OTD Report
iPad ?
4:07 PM
98% »
©
OTD Sampling Event Final *
Q
OTD Sampling Event
+ V "£ S *
Sample ID
Event ID )
Sample Date | 1/18/2017
Sample Time 4:06:49 PM
Team ID
Location Zone |
Location ID
Location Type
Record #
Flow Rate l/m
Sample Media M
Sample
Collection Type
Sample
Collection I U
Sample Type M
Surface Type
Comments (any additional information)
Photos
Delete
Photo
O
+
r,
Figure 2-17. Screen Shot of Field Data Form
The Sampling Team members could complete the form in the field for each sample collected
using an iPad, the iPad's internal camera, and a stylus. The field samplers would select the input
for each sample by either typing the information onto the iPad form or selecting the appropriate
response from a picklist in a drop-down box. Other information such as time and date was auto-
populated into the form. Upon completi on of field activiti es each day, the completed data form
was uploaded to Scribe software. At the end of the day, Scribe software was used to generate all
COC forms for each shipment to the laboratories and the laboratory EDDs. The information
captured on the iPad field data form during the sampling effort included the following:
• Sample ED, event ID, date, time, team ED, location zone, location ID, and location type
• Sample medium, collection type, method, sample type, and surface type
• Comments on observations or problems encountered during sample collection
Table 2-12 includes a complete list of the form caption fields, data type, Scribe fields, and
picklist values or information for data collected in the field.
45
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 2-12. Data Captured on Electronic Field Data Form for Scribe
Form Caption
Data Type
Scribe Fields
Picklist Value or Information
Sample ID
Picklist
Samp_No
ProjectID + EventID + Matrix +
Incrementing Number
Record #
Numeric
Not applicable
Unique number for each record
Event ID
Picklist
EventID
Background Sampling, SNL
Sampling, Round 1-Pre-Decon
Sampling, Round 1-Post Decon
Sampling, Round 2-Pre-Decon
Sampling, Round 2-Post Decon
Sample Date
Date
SampleDate
Auto-populates to current date
Sample Time
Time
SampleTime
Auto-populates to current time
Team ID
Text
Sampler
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Other
Location Zone
Text
LocationZone
Zl, Z2, Z3, Z4, Z5, Z6, Z7(waste)
Location ID
Text
Location
Zone + sampling location (Zones 1
through 6)
Location Type
Text
Location Description
Waste, Ceiling, Wall, Floor,
Coupon, Track, Other
Flow Rate
Text
Dust Avg Flow
User-entered
Sample Media
Picklist
Sample Media
Vacuum, Sponge Stick, 1-L Sterile
Bottle, BI, RMC
Sample
Collection
Type
Picklist
Sample Collection
Vacuum, Sponge Stick,
Wash/Extract, BI, RMC
Sample
Collection
Picklist
Coll_Method
Grab, Composite
Sample Type
Picklist
SampleType
Media Blank, Field Blank, Field
Sample, Other
Surface Type
Picklist
Area_Surface
Ballast, Track, Platform, Equipment,
Grimed Coupon, Non-Grimed
Coupon, BI, RMC, Other (additional
Zone 6 and 7 picklists)
Comments
Text
Comments
User-entered additional information
Photos
Text
ImagePath
Filename for image
Volume
Default
Volume
Volume/Area based on Sample
Media selected
Volume Units
Default
Volume_Units
Units based on Sample Media
selected
Not applicable
Numeric
Sample Weight
Sample weight in grams - select
wash/extract samples only
Not applicable
Numeric
Result
Calculated final sample result
Not applicable
Text
Result Units
Units
Not applicable
Numeric
Result Area
Calculated result by area (volume)
Not applicable
Text
Result Area Units
Units
46
-------
UTR OTD Report
In addition, using the iPad camera, a minimum of one photograph was taken of each sample as it
was collected and of its location. The photographs were captured in the field data form as shown
in Figure 2-18.
©
OTD Sampling Event
Sample ID OTD-R1PRE-VAC-002
Event ID Round 1 - Pre-
Sample Date
9/14/2016
Sample Time 1:19:17 PM
Team ID 4
Location Zone Z4
Location ID Z4-001
Location Type Wall
1:24 PM
OTD Sampling Event Final *
Record # 002
Flow Rate
3.5
Sample Media | 37 mm Cassette
Sample Micro_Vac
Collection Type - — —
Sample
Collection
l/m
Sample Type ( Field Sample |
Surface Type Platform J")
Comments (any additional information)
i $ 100%
Q
'£ 1
Photos
Delete
Photo
Delete
Photo
O
+
Figure 2-18. Field Data Form with Completed Fields and Photograph
Before each sampling event, the Sampling Group conducted "Just-in-Time" training for each
Sampling Team's Data Manager on how to collect sampling information correctly using the
FileMaker form and the iPad. Each Sampling Team practiced collecting sample information
using the form, the iPad, and the camera before field activities began.
After the Sampling Team collected the samples in the field, the Data Manager returned the iPad
to the data team in the trailer used for sample shipment. The Data Team performed a quality
review of the data on the iPad to identify issues before uploading the data into the Scribe
database. The Data Team and field Sampling Team Data Manager checked the uploaded EDD to
identify any critical missing data for immediate correction. After data import, Scribe was used to
generate the COC forms for each sample shipment to the laboratories based on the number and
type of samples each laboratory could accept. Finally, Scribe was used to generate the EDD
templates for the laboratories to enter results for the samples.
47
-------
UTR OTD Report
After the laboratories had processed the samples and entered the results on the EDD template,
the completed results were sent back to the Sampling Group. The Data Team Manager imported
each laboratory's final EDD into the Scribe database.
2.7 Decon Methods
The OTD consisted of two separate field-level decon rounds. Round 1 used an off-the-shelf
fogger technology with diluted bleach, and Round 2 used a low-pressure off-the-shelf
commercial sprayer with pAB. The decon methods for each technology are discussed below.
2.7.1 Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach
During Round 1, the mock subway system was fogged using four foggers (model L-30, Curtis
Dyna-Fog, Ltd., Westfield, IN) to aerosolize a diluted bleach solution having an estimated free
available chlorine (FAC) level of 20,000 parts per million (ppm). In total, 400 gal. of bleach
solution were to be fogged. The 400-gal.-volume was selected based on results from laboratory
tests showing that approximately 2.5 gal. of fog solution per 1,000 cubic feet (ft3) of volume was
optimal (EPA. 2017c). Appendix F provides the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for dilute
bleach fogging. The foggers were selected from off-the-shelf makes and models based on their
particle size, less than 20 micron droplets; blower volume, 1350 cfm; and flow rate, up to 7
gal./hr. Four foggers were used to geographically disperse the release points in four different
locations and to increase the total fogging flow rate by four times, to 28 gal./hr.
The foggers consisted of a motor/blower assembly, nozzle/atomizer system, nozzle housing,
formulation tank, and metering valve. Liquid was drawn from the formulation tank through the
control valve and into the nozzle system, where it was pneumatically sheared into an aerosol.
The droplets were driven away from the machine using air powered by a blower, passing by the
nozzle system.
Each fogger was equipped with a controller tethered to the fogger with a 25-ft cable. The
controller allowed the user to: (1) turn on and off the air blower, the liquid pump, and atomizer;
(2) switch the liquid source from the chemical tank to the small purge tank (filled with water);
and (3) adjust the vertical angle of the fogger. The user had to manually adjust the horizontal
orientation of the fogger.
For the OTD, the foggers were modified to include a power converter (DLS-55/IQ4, Iota
Engineering, Tucson, Arizona) to allow the foggers to operate continuously on alternating
current using a 110-volt (V) electrical outlet. This modification was necessary because the
foggers initially were designed for deployment in the back of a pickup truck using a battery
charged through the vehicle's electrical system. The foggers also were modified by adjusting the
dip tube and with a longer length of tubing to allow the use of a 100-gal. tote rather than the 25-
gal. chemical tank with which they were equipped from the manufacturer.
The following sections discuss the setup and preparation of the foggers, temperature and RH
measurement during fogging, chlorine (Ch) gas and BI measurement during fogging, fogging
decon operations and conditions, and demobilization.
48
-------
UTR OTD Report
2. 7.1.1 Setup and Preparation of Foggers
The Test Bed Group covered large electrical panels and outlets not already covered by protective
covers inside the EZ with plastic and tape to minimize detrimental impacts from the fogging and
spraying of bleach solutions. All other metallic or potentially impacted materials and equipment
(such as conduit and lighting) were left uncovered.
On September 14, 2016, the foggers were tested before Round 1 during a final inspection using
only water to ensure that they were producing fog at the desired flow rate of approximately 7.5
gal./hr. Figure 2-19 shows a fogger connected to its 100-gal. tote during the final inspection.
Figure 2-19. L-30 Fogger Connected to Tote Fogging Water during Final Inspection
On the evening of September 20, 2016, after the pre-decon sampling activities were completed,
four personnel transported, placed, set up, and oriented the foggers and filled the totes with
bleach and water in the subway tunnel and platform. Each fogger weighed approximately 120
pounds (lb) and was moved into the EZ using a manual rail cart as shown in Figure 2-20.
49
-------
UTR OTD Report
/
Figure 2-20. Fogger Transported to EZ Using Rail Cart
The floor location for each fogger and its tote was sprayed with pAB using a backpack sprayer
(SHURflo ProPack™ SR600 rechargeable electric backpack sprayer, SHlJRflo Inc., Cypress,
CA) before placement. The foggers then were moved into the tunnel to the positions labeled 1
through 4 in Figure 2-21. The figure also shows the locations of the three fans placed in the EZ
to assist with air circulation and the measurement devices deployed during fogging
•vv
'0/
Entry
Barrier
Decon line
Barrier Barrier
EBBS
10
Platform
t
^ !iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiinMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii":-!imiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Tunnel and station not drawn to scale
White arrow with numbers indicateapproximatefogger/tote locationsand direction of fog
Red numbers indicate approximate locationsof co-located Bis, HOBOs, and dosimeters
! —» Fan location and direction
Figure 2-21. Approximate Locations of Foggers, Fans, and Co-located HOBOs, Dosimeters,
and Bis
50
-------
UTR OTD Report
Once the totes and foggers were in place, the bleach solution was prepared. The decon solution
used for fogging consisted of concentrated germicidal bleach diluted with water at a ratio of 1
part bleach to 3 parts water. At this dilution, the free available chl orine (FAC) level of the decon
solution was expected to be at least 20,000 ppm (2%), as confirmed in laboratory tests (EPA
2017c). Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach (The Clorox® Company) was used because it
has a bleach sodium hypochlorite concentration of 8.3%, which is higher than typical bleach.
This product was also used because of its sporicidal properties (registered for Clostridium
difficile spores; EPA registration number 5813-102).
Unlike the pAB solution, the dilute bleach solution used for fogging was not acidified and had a
pH of approximately 11 based on laboratory tests. The diluted bleach solution for each 100-gal.
tote was prepared by adding 25 gal. (27 121-oz bottles) of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal
Bleach to each 100-gal. tote. The remainder of the tote was filled to the 100-gal. volumetric mark
on each tote with water from a hose connected to an external source.
2. 7.1.2 Temperature and RH Measurement during Fogging
Temperature and RH were measured during fogging using 10 HOBO® Model U10-003 (Onset
Corporation, Bourne, MA) Temperature/RH Data Loggers (HOBO; see Figure 2-22). The
HOBOs were placed throughout the subway system at the locations shown in red in Figure 2-21.
Figure 2-22. HOBO® Temperature/RH Data Logger
All HOBOs were taped to a wall at a height of approximately 5 ft. The HOBOs were co-located
with the Cb gas sensors and dosimeters and the Bis discussed in the next section. The HOBOs
were installed on September 16, 2016, and programmed to begin logging data every 2 min on
September 16 at 1700 hrs. The HOBOs were retrieved on September 27, 2016, and the data were
downloaded on September 28, 2016. Appendix F provides CONOPS information for the
HOBOs
51
-------
UTR OTD Report
2. 7.1.3 CI2 Gas and BI Measurement during Fogging
During fogging, Ch gas levels were measured in real time using Analytical Technology, Inc.
(ATI), sensors (Model B12-11-6-0200-1, ATI, Collegeville, PA) placed at the four locations
shown in Figure 2-23.
Barrier
Barrier
Entry
Barrier
Sensor down air
vent shaft /
Platform
Decon line
Notes:
¦ ATI "A" has LCD readout and sensor both outside fog zone to measure Cl2 gas levels in front of decon line.
ATI "B" was connected to data logger and laptop outside fog zone, with sensor on wall in tunnel at a height of
approximately 15 feet.
ATI "C" sensor was located at a height of approximately 5 feet on wall in front of newsstand kiosk. LCD readout was
located on south stairs just beyond barrier.
ATI "D" sensor was on north end of tunnel wall at a height of approximately 6 feet. Sensor hung from cable to LCD
readout, which was just outside of vent shaft.
Figure 2-23. Locations of ATI Sensors
Figure 2-24 shows the sensor and its transmitter.
Figure 2-24. ATI Sensor and Transmitter with LCD Readout of Ch Gas Concentration
52
-------
UTR OTD Report
All sensors were attached to a 25-ft cable, the maximum length provided by the vendor. On one
end of the cable was the sensor, and the other end was plugged into the transmitter. Each
transmitter was located outside the EZ, and plugged into a 110-V outlet on a power supply.
Three of the four ATI sensors had a direct liquid crystal display (LCD) readout of Ch gas
concentration (in ppm) associated with the transmitter, and the other transmitter was connected
to a data acquisition system (IOtech PDAQ 56; Measurement Computing Corporation, Norton,
MA). The LCD monitors were read manually every 30 min or so, and the data were recorded in a
notebook. The data acquisition system was configured to log Ch data every four seconds but also
had a digital meter on the laptop, so these data were manually recorded as well. Appendix F
provides CONOPS information for the ATI sensors.
Ten Ch gas dosimeters (Gastec, #8D; Zefon International) also measured CI2 gas (through
diffusion) in terms of a time-weighted average (ppnrhours). These dosimeters provide only a
colorimetric-based reading up to a dose of 50 ppm*hours. One dosimeter was co-located with
each HOBO and BI at the locations shown in red in Figure 2-21. All dosimeters were taped to a
wall at a height of approximately 5 ft adjacent to the HOBOs and Bis.
The Bis were kept in a mobile laboratory refrigerator until placement on September 20, 2016.
One BI was taped to the wall at each of the 10 locations shown in red in Figure 2-21. The Bis
(along with the dosimeters and HOBOs) were retrieved on September 27, 2016, and were
provided to the Sampling Group for storage in the mobile laboratory refrigerator until analysis.
Three Bis not exposed to the fog served as positive controls. The Bis were cultured for growth
under laboratory conditions. The growth (or failure to grow) of the surrogate spores provided an
indication of the decon process efficacy.
Appendix F provides CONOPS information for the ATI sensors, CI2 dosimeters, and Bis.
2.7.1.4 Fogging Decon Operation and Conditions
At 0700 hrs on September 21, 2016, four personnel in Level A PPE entered the EZ to turn on
each of the four foggers. Because the foggers did not use direct spraying, the decision was made
to use Level A PPE for those workers manually turning on the foggers. The fogger located near
the entry barrier (Fogger 1 in Figure 2-21) was the last to be turned on at 0720 hrs. All NAMs
were running at this point, but at 0800 hrs, all of the NAMs were turned off except for one that
was set on the highest setting located at the north end of the tunnel, resulting in an estimated air
flow of approximately 2,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM).
From 0800 to 0830 hrs, the ATI sensor at the north end of tunnel (Location D in Figure 2-23)
was reading approximately 5 ppm, and video footage and observation through the barriers
indicated that the foggers were working satisfactorily. However, at 0830 hrs, the Decon Group
noticed that Fogger 2 at the south stairwell was leaking and apparently was not producing any
fog. At 0900 hrs, the CI2 gas level at the north end of the tunnel (Location D) had dropped to
approximately 3 ppm. At 1000 hrs, EPA personnel entered the EZ to assess the situation and
determined that for each fogger, the pump and fan were functioning but not the atomizers. (The
bleach solution was being pumped to the atomizer, but then dropped to the ground without being
fogged.) EPA personnel turned off the fogger pumps and fans and exited the EZ.
53
-------
UTR OTD Report
After a teleconference with the fogger vendor and following vendor recommendations, personnel
entered at 1130 hrs to inspect the circuit breakers located between the charger and the battery for
each fogger. The circuit of each fogger was broken, so the battery was not being charged by the
converter, eventually resulting in enough power to run the fan and pump only but not the
atomizer. It was estimated that each fogger had pumped approximately 1 hr worth of liquid
(approximately 7 gal.) onto the ground without the atomizer functioning. Each fogger's circuit
breaker was reset, and the foggers were turned back on, solving the problem.
After this initial malfunction, the foggers operated without problems for the rest of the day.
Personnel entered at approximately 2230 hrs on September 21, 2016, to shut off and flush the
foggers with water. Personnel attempted to flush all of the foggers, but because of the difficulties
discussed in the next section, only Fogger 3 was flushed.
Based on video footage and observation of fogging operations through the barriers at the
stairwells and at the entry barrier, it was determined that the Foggers 2, 3, and 4 had completed
fogging at approximately 2130 hrs (fog was less visible at this time) and that the Fogger 1 had
completed fogging at approximately 2230 hrs. Based on the time the foggers were pumping
liquid onto the ground and were turned off, it was estimated that the foggers produced fog for
approximately 13 hr.
2. 7.1.5 Demobilization
To avoid interfering with post-decon sampling and the VIP tours, the foggers and totes remained
in the EZ until September 27, 2016 (6 days after completion of the fogging), when they were
removed from the EZ and rinsed with water. All foggers had surfaces containing a salt-like,
white residue, and more of the residue was found in the fan and atomizer areas of the foggers
(see Figure 2-25). Additional attempts were made to purge Foggers 1, 2, and 4 with water at this
time but without success.
Figure 2-25. Back Side of Fogger Fan Showing Residue from Fogging Bleach
54
-------
UTR OTD Report
On September 28, 2016, a visual inspection and check of the voltage on each fogger's batteries
was conducted. Fogger 3's voltage was 12.7 V and considered normal. The batteries from
Foggers 1 and 4 had voltages of 10 and 9 V, respectively. The voltage for the Fogger 2 battery
was 5 V, and the battery had a crack in the casing and was leaking fluid. Moving the good
battery from Fogger 3 to the other foggers, the Decon Group attempted to purge the foggers
again. For Fogger 4, all systems were functioning and the Decon Group was able to purge the
fogger with water successfully. After connection of the good battery to Foggers 1 and 2, the fans
and atomizers functioned but not the pumps. Therefore, these foggers could not be flushed.
On October 4, 2016, the Decon Group checked the voltage output from each fogger's power
converter, and all of them registered no charge output. The Decon Group will work with the
fogger manufacturer to develop a detailed analysis of the fogger components that failed and why.
See Section 4.7.1 for further discussion of the foggers, including recommendations for avoiding
damage to the foggers.
2.7.2 Round 2: Spraying with pAB
For Round 2 of the OTD, the Decon Group modified a 200-gal. sprayer (NorthStar, Skid Sprayer
Model M268170E.6) powered by a Honda 160-cc engine with a capacity of 0 to 580 psi
(typically run at approximately 300 psi) pressure by adding three 100-ft-long hoses to the 300-ft-
long hose already on the sprayer. Four spray wands (Valley Industries, Long-Range Spray Gun,
25 GPM, 850 PSI, Model No. SG-3200) were attached to each hose, and the sprayer was
mounted onto a rail cart (Model KPX-2T, Xinxiang Hundred Percent Electrical and Mechanical
Co., Ltd, Henan, China) for transport into the tunnel (Figure 2-26).
Figure 2-26. Sprayer on Rail Cart Modified with Four Hoses and Spray Nozzles
55
-------
UTR OTD Report
The sprayer was selected from off-the-shelf makes and models based on its capacity, 200
gallons; adjustable sprayer pressure, 0 to 580 PSI; flow rate, up to 11 gal./min.; and size, able to
fit onto the motorized rail cart. The NAMs were positioned to move fresh air from one end of the
tunnel, where spraying would begin, to the opposite end of the tunnel, where spraying would be
completed. Based on a previous field study ( )13) and the surface strata and area requiring
decon, the Decon Group estimated that 570 gallons would be needed for Round 2 spraying.
The Decon Group prepared the pAB solution for the sprayer by mixing 1 part bleach, 1 part
white vinegar, and 8 parts water. Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach (The Clorox®
Company) was used because it has a bleach sodium hypochlorite concentration of 8.3%, which is
higher than typical bleach. This product was also used because of its sporicidal properties
(registered for Clostridium difficile spores; EPA registration number 5813-102). Paper pH test
strips (UX-35850-06, Oakton, Vernon Hills, IL) were used to measure the pH of approximately
half of the batches of pAB solution. These colorimetric-based strips measure pH to the nearest
whole unit (pH 6, pH 7, etc.). The test strips were used in accordance with manufacturer
instructions. The Decon Group's protocol to maintain the proper pH value was to add vinegar (4-
5% acetic acid) if the pH level of the solution reached 7 or higher. All test strips used indicated a
pH below 7 after initial mixing was completed. Therefore, the need to lower the pH of the pAB
solution was not implemented.
Multiple spray teams of six personnel outfitted in Level A PPE sprayed the mock subway station
and portions of the tunnel in the EZ with 570 gal. of pAB. Level A PPE was selected based on
the potential for inhalation and skin hazards (high levels of airborne Ch and liquid spray/splash
from the application of pAB were expected). The goal was to distribute the pAB onto all surfaces
in the EZ at a rate of 16 gal./1,000 ft2, including the ceilings, walls, platform, stairs, and other
items such as the newsstand and food stand kiosks and materials in the kiosk (25,000 ft2).
Because of the high-surface-ratio, the railroad ballast (5,000 ft2) was sprayed with twice as much
volume of pAB (32 gal./l,000 ft2). Appendix G provides the CONOPS for pAB spraying.
The following sections discuss the setup and preparation of the sprayers, temperature and RH
measurement during spraying, Ch gas measurement during spraying, spraying decon operations
and conditions, and demobilization.
2.7.2.1 Setup and Preparation of Sprayers
On October 3, 2016, the Decon Group tested the sprayer using water only to ensure the desired
flow rate and that the spray reached the tunnel ceiling. Each spray nozzle was confirmed to be
pumping liquid at adequate flow rates and distances. Figure 2-27 shows the water-only test
inside the tunnel entrance.
56
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 2-27. Water-Only Test Spraying in Tunnel Entrance
Before Bg spore release, plastic and duct tape were used to cover and protect two electrical
breaker boxes and several unused, unprotected outlets to reduce the potential damage caused by
the decontaminant.
For the first day of spraying, 17 NAMs were set up and functional before spraying, although not
all NAMs were used. Seven NAMs operated at the entry barrier, six on high setting and one on
low setting, pushing a nominal 13,000 CFM into the EZ. At the stairs and end of the tunnel, nine
NAMs operated on high setting, pulling a nominal 18,000 CFM from the EZ, creating a net
negative pressure on the EZ.
For the second day of spraying, the flow rate was reduced to slow the rate of surface diying. At
the entry barrier, four NAMs operated, two on high setting and two on low setting, pushing a
nominal 6,000 CFM into the EZ. At the stairs and end of tunnel, four NAMs operated on high
setting, pulling a nominal 8,000 CFM from the EZ, creating a net negative pressure on the EZ.
2. 7.2.2 Temperature and RH Measurement during Spraying
One HOBO was placed in the EZ during spraying to monitor temperature and RH However, the
HOBO was destroyed during pAB spraying, and HOBO data could not be recovered.
2. 7.2.3 CI2 Gas Measurement during Spraying
During Round 2 spraying, Ch gas measurement differed from Round 1 fogging in that only one
ATI sensor was used to minimize damage to the sensors. This ATI sensor monitored the far
north end of the tunnel in the EZ at Location D in Figure 2-23. During Round 2, CI2 dosimeters
and Bis were not deployed.
57
-------
UTR OTD Report
2. 7.2.4 Spraying Decon Operation and Conditions
The Decon Group prepared the pAB solution based on the volume of each bleach bottle (0.94
gal.) and vinegar bottle (1.33 gal .) and the volume of the sprayer tank (200 gal.). The Decon
Group mixed the first batch of pAB at 1015 hr on October 3, 2016 (see Figure 2-28).
Approximately 100 gal. of water initially was loaded into the sprayer tank, followed by 16
bottles of vinegar, 21 bottles of bleach, and then enough water to fill the rest of the 200-gal. tank.
For approximately half of the batches of pAB, the Decon Group measured the pH of the solution
using pH test strips in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, with a resulting pH of
approximately 5.5.
Figure 2-28. Filling of Sprayer Tank with pA B
On October 3, 2016, at 1110 hrs, a team of six plus two observers dressed in Level A PPE
entered the EZ with the cart-mounted sprayer. The team began spraying the inside of the tunnel
barrier at 1119 hr and then continued to spray the ceiling, side walls, and ballast of the tunnel
entry area as shown in Figure 2-29, working north to the south side of the platform.
58
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 2-29. Six-Person Team Spraying pAB on Ceiling, Side Walls, and Ballast of Tunnel
Although the team was directed to spray the ballast with twice as much decontaminant as the
other surfaces, no attempt was made to measure the volume of decontaminant sprayed. At 1250
hrs, a sprayer hose came loose from its fitting and the first spray team exited the EZ. A team of
two then entered the EZ and reattached the hose. At 1300 hrs, the Decon Group mixed an
additional 100-gal. batch of pAB using 10.5 bottles of bleach and 8 bottles of vinegar to fill a
100-gal. tote located in the SZ. Using a hose, the new pAB solution was added to the sprayer
located in the EZ.
At 1510 hrs, a second six-member spray team entered the EZ and began spraying the platform
area. The team worked from the south side of the platform to the north side, spraying the ballast,
ceiling, and walls adjacent to the platform. The team reached the north side of the platform at
1536 hr and stopped spraying with 30 gal. of pAB remaining in the spray tank. The team pumped
the excess pAB from the tank at 1630 hrs and disposed of it as waste. In total, 270 gal. of pAB
was sprayed on the first day. On the first day of spraying, the entry part of the tunnel (ballast,
ceiling, and walls) and the ballast area in front of the platform had been sprayed, approximately
half the total area to be sprayed.
On October 4, 2016, the Decon Group began the second day of pAB spraying by preparing two
100-gal. batches of pAB in two separate 100-gal. totes in the SZ. The pAB in both totes was
pumped into the sprayer located in the EZ, a task completed at 0900 hrs.
59
-------
UTR OTD Report
Based on discussion after the first day of spraying, the Decon Group decided to respray the
ballast and wall by the entry door adjacent to the NAM entry point. Several team members noted
that the area dried out very quickly, and there were concerns that the pAB had not achieved the
necessary 10-minute wetted contact time. To slow down drying, the NAM settings were dialed
back to reduce flows into and out of the EZ by 4,000 CFM. A five-person team began spraying at
1000 hrs. The team spent the first few minutes near the NAM air entry area, then moved to the
north side of the platform and began spraying the end section of the tunnel. Spraying of this
section of the tunnel was completed at 1034 hr after approximately 130 gal. of pAB had been
sprayed.
At 1110 hrs, a second five-person spray team entered the EZ and sprayed the platform and stairs.
Another hose clamp different from the first fitting became detached at 1120 hrs, and the team
stopped spraying and exited the EZ. A two-person team reattached the hose and checked all hose
connections. Another 50-gal. batch of pAB (6.5 bottles of bleach and 4 bottles of vinegar) was
pumped to the sprayer at 1320 hrs.
At 1340 hrs, a five-person spray team continued spraying the platform and stairs. At 1406 hr, the
sprayer ran out of pAB, with only a small section of the platform left that required spraying. At
1437 hr, another 50-gal. batch of pAB was mixed and added to the sprayer. At 1446 hr, a five-
person team began spraying the last section of the platform, ending at 1500 hrs with the sprayer
empty and the total EZ completely sprayed.
Over the 2-day spraying period, a total of 570-gal. of pAB was sprayed. After spraying was
competed, the NAMs were adjusted back up to 6,000 and 8,000 CFM at the entry and exit,
respectively, and three fans in the EZ were turned on to assist the drying process.
2.7.2.5 Demobilization
After spraying was completed, the sprayer was moved to the entry barrier, through the barrier,
and out to the tunnel entrance in the CRZ as shown in Figure 2-30.
The small amount of PAB remaining at the bottom of the tank was drained, and the tank was
flushed with water to remove the remaining pAB solution. The tank then was filled with
approximately 20 gal. of water. The sprayer engine was started, and each nozzle was used to
flush out pAB from the hoses and nozzles. When the 20 gal. of water was used up, the engine
was turned off and the tank again was drained. Each hose was fully extended to empty the
contents, and the hose was wound up and secured for travel. The sprayer was removed from the
cart and placed on a flatbed truck for transport back to RTP, North Carolina.
60
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 2-30. Sprayer on Rail Cart in CRZ
61
-------
UTR OTD Report
3 OTD Health and Safety
As with any field study, health and safety of the participants was a primary concern for the OTD.
Coordination with participants regarding emergency response and daily communication with
FAPH personnel regarding range safety was consistently demonstrated throughout this project.
In addition, the Health and Safety Group developed a project-specific HASP for the project.
This section provides a high-level overview of the following OTD safety requirements and issues
based on the HASP:
• General safety measures (Section 3.1)
• Safety staffing and responsibilities (Section 3.2)
• PPE requirements (Section. 3.3)
• General site-wide hazards and controls (Section. 3.4)
• Specific safety measures for test events and activities (Section 3.5)
• Ambient air monitoring (Section 3.6)
• Hot wash (Section 3.7)
3.1 General Safety Measures
One project-specific HASP was prepared for the OTD. The HASP (1) identifies potential site-
and project-specific safety and health hazards and hazard controls, (2) outlines emergency and
environmental management procedures, and (3) integrates the elements of a field research health
and safety protocol and an emergency response HASP.
Although various organizations and response agencies were involved with the OTD, all were
required to comply with OSHA 1910.120 requirements for ensuring a safe environment for
project personnel. All personnel were required to read, understand, and sign off on the HASP.
Professional health and safety ethics guided all participants to function in their assigned roles in
the safest manner possible.
It was the responsibility of all persons associated with the OTD to stop work if, in their opinion,
a health and safety concern was observed. Participants were required to notify the Unified
Command (UC) and the Safety Officer immediately if such a situation existed. No stop work
orders were issued during the OTD as the HASP was followed by all parties involved. However,
several workers were held out of re-entries into the EZ based on follow-up medical monitoring.
Personnel attendance at the FAPH test bed was tracked and accounted for via participant sign-in
and sign-out sheets.
Table 3-1 summarizes the safety requirements written into the HASP and implemented during
all phases of the OTD. The following sections discuss accident reporting and emergency
procedures.
62
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 3-1. OTD Safety Requirements
(n-iu-r:il Ut(|iiin iiunl
The safety of personnel takes priority over ALL events or activities.
All personnel and visitors must comply with the requirements of the HASP. All personnel involved in
the project on site, regardless of employer, must read, understand, and sign off on the HASP.
All individuals must follow their own organizational safety procedures in addition to the procedures
and requirements outlined in the HASP. In the event of conflicting guidance, the more restrictive
requirements shall be followed.
All organizations will also comply with their respective environmental, health, and safety plans and
procedures as well as appropriate federal, state, and local environmental, health and safety regulations.
All site personnel must either attend the daily safety briefings and "hot wash" summaries or be briefed
on them by their Team Lead, and always remain aware of current site activities and hazards.
All participants serve as safety observers. Any safety concerns should be addressed immediately,
and unabated or potential safety issues must be reported immediately to the Safety Officer or Assistant
Safety Officer.
All accidents, near misses, illnesses, and injuries must be reported immediately to the Safety Officer
and UC.
Some EPA assets or individuals may be required to conform to additional safety requirements related
to their particular function or mission within the OTD. In no case will EPA-related requirements take
precedence over existing or more stringent safety requirements (such as DOD or FAPH requirements).
Any health and safety issues or requests for changes must be discussed with the Safety Officer.
Do not touch and be aware of unexploded ordinance (UXO). Retreat from the area, and report the UXO
to the Safety Officer and UC.
No digging or ground penetrations are allowed at the OTD site.
3.1.1 Accident Reporting and Emergency Procedures
The procedures listed in Table 3-2 would have been implemented in case of an emergency
during the OTD.
Table 3-2. OTD Emergency Reporting Procedures
Report in i» Procedure
Anyone observing a participant who is seriously ill or injured immediately will advise a Team Lead,
the UC, and the Safety Officer or Assistant Safety Officer, and then render aid if possible and if the aid
does not exceed his or her training. The UC and Safety Officer serve as the Range Safety Officers and
Officers in Charge and are responsible for communication with FAPH range control.
A person aware of an emergency will provide the following information to the Safety Officer or
Assistant Safety Officer:
• Exact location of emergency
• Conditions
• Requirements
If the nature of the emergency requires a suspension of the OTD, all test activities will immediately
cease. The OTD may resume once the emergency situation has been addressed.
If an emergency occurs that affects the entire OTD, the OTD may be suspended or terminated at the
discretion of the UC and Safety Officer. The notification will be made from the Command Post.
The UC or Safety Officer will activate an alarm by producing three blasts from an air horn. All
personnel then MUST evacuate upwind of the site to the pre-designated assembly area.
63
-------
UTR OTD Report
3.2 Safety Staffing and Responsibilities
During all entries into the EZ, radio communication was maintained with either the sampling
coordinator, Safety Officer, or Assistant Safety Officer/Entry Safety Officer. Entry teams also
could be observed through the see-through barrier curtain or the video monitors connected to the
camera system. Site safety staff included the following individuals:
• Safety Officer: John Archer, Certified Industrial Hygienist, EPA
NHSRC/Decontamination Consequence Management Division, responsible for test bed
HASP and environmental issues, and on-site safety for all OTD activities
• Assistant Safety Officer/Entry Safety Officer: Skip Weisberg, EPA Region 3 Safety,
Health and Environmental Management Manager, responsible for providing support to
the Safety Officer and for supervising Level A/B entries into the EZ
• Additional Safety Officers and Assistant Safety Officers (as necessary):
- Mike Nalipinski, Associate Director, EPA Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and
Nuclear (CBRN) CMAD
- Francisco Cruz, Field Operations Branch, EPA CBRN CMAD
- Elise Jakabhazy, EPA Team Leader, CBRN CMAD
- Christine Wagner, EPA Region 3 Federal OSC responsible for providing oversight of
the personnel decon line and EZ entries by contract staff
- Additional CMAD personnel or OSCs as necessary
3.3 PPE Requirements
The PPE levels shown in Figure 3-1 (Levels A, B, C, and D) were used during the OTD. Table
3-3 lists the PPE level and requirements implemented for specific OTD tasks. Any changes or
exceptions to these requirements were made at the discretion of the Safety Officer. The revised
CMAD "BioResponse Decon Line Standard Operating Procedure" referred to in the FIASP was
not followed explicitly because of time and budgetary constraints (for example, workers wore a
single instead of a double Tyvek * suit). Also, the minimum PPE for being on site at FAPH
AWTC was long pants and closed-toe shoes. Hard hats and steel-toed shoes were only required
as summarized in Table 3-3.
• !¦ If
J i * sf & M Mm
Level A Level B Level C Level D
Figure 3-1. PPE Levels Employed during the UTR OTD
64
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 3-3. PPE Requirements by Task
Task
PPE Level
PPE Required
• Hard hat
Site Preparation (Setup)
D
• Eye protection
• Hearing protection (if above 85 dBA)
• Foot protection (steel-toed safety shoes or equivalent) when
material handling or work presents foot hazard
• Fall protection while working in lift
Background Sampling
D
• Nitrile gloves
• Foot protection (steel-toed safety shoes or equivalent) when
material handling or work presents foot hazard
Pre-release Tracer Study
C
• Nitrile gloves
• Tyvek® coveralls
• Eye protection
Bg Release 1
C
• Nitrile gloves
• Tyvek® coveralls
Pre-Decon Sampling
C
• APR or PAPR with multi-gas/P 100 combo cartridges
• Foot covers (booties)
• SCBA
Decon - Round 1
B
• Level B suit
• Impermeable, slip-resistant foot protection
Post-Decon Sampling
C
• Nitrile gloves
Bg Release 2
C
• Tyvek® coveralls
Pre-Decon Sampling
C
• APR or PAPR with multi-gas/P 100 combo cartridges
• Foot covers (booties)
A or B
(B
minimum)
• SCBA
Decon - Round 2
• Level A or B suit (decision made to use Level A for all Round
2 decon entries)
• Impermeable, slip-resistant foot protection
• Nitrile gloves
Post-Decon Sampling
C
• Tyvek® coveralls
• APR or PAPR with multi-gas/P 100 combo cartridges
• Foot covers (booties)
• Hard hat
Demobilization
D
• Eye protection
• Hearing protection (if above 85 dBA)
• Foot protection (steel-toed safety shoes or equivalent) when
material handling or work presents foot hazard
• Fall protection while working in lift
Notes:
APR = Air-purifying respirator
dBA = Decibel on A-weighted scale
SCBA = Self-contained breathing apparatus
65
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 3-4 provides a description of the protection associated with the PPE Levels A, B, and C.
Table 3-4. Description of PPE Levels A, B, and C
PPE
Level
Body
Protection
Respiratory
Protection
OSHA Notation
Respirator
Recommendation
Notes
A
Totally-
encapsulating
chemical-
protective suit
SCBA or
Airline
Selected when
greatest level of
skin, respiratory,
and eye
protection is
required.
IDLH (10 ppm) or
above
Work involves
a high potential
for splash or
exposure to
skin hazards
B
Hooded
chemical-
resistant
clothing
SCBA or
Airline
Highest level of
respiratory
protection is
necessary but a
lesser level of
skin protection
is needed.
IDLH (10 ppm) or
above
• Direct skin
contact with
contaminant
is unlikely
• Vapors/gases
do not
represent a
severe skin
hazard
C
Hooded
chemical-
resistant
clothing
APR (full
face or
PAPR)
Concentration(s)
and type(s) of
airborne
substance(s) is
known and the
criteria for using
air purifying
respirators are
met
Above 0.25 ppm
(Site Action Level)
and Up to 10 ppm;
APR not to be used
in IDLH situations
• Severe skin
hazard
unlikely
• Onsite
decision
limited APR
use to 5 ppm
or less
Notes:
APR = Air-purifying respirator
IDLH = Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
SCBA = Self-contained breathing apparatus
3.4 General Site-Wide Hazards and Controls
The project-specific HASP provides a complete hazard assessment for all OTD activities. The
primary hazards during the OTD were slip/trip/fall hazards in and around the tunnel, as well as
heat stress from wearing PPE for extended durations. The slip/trip/fall hazards resulted from the
inherent layout of the underground subway tunnel. Other than on the platform, the ground was
not level. Workers were advised to use extra caution in and around the tunnel. In addition, a
barrier was set up to prevent falls from the platform to the track area below. A stairway system
was also installed to allow safe movement from the platform to the track/ballast area.
Participants were instructed to walk inside the tracks when moving along the tunnel and to use
the cross braces to avoid uneven surfaces posed by the ballast.
Heat stress was an issue during the OTD because of the requirement for wearing Level A, B, and
C PPE on days with high temperatures. The HASP laid out a work-rest regimen that was
generally followed. Exceptions were made for Sampling Team entries based on tunnel
66
-------
UTR OTD Report
temperatures and radio communication with the Sampling Teams. Water and electrolytes were
provided for hydration, along with an area for rest and recuperation.
Emergency egress procedures were established to quickly decontaminate personnel who had
medical emergencies while in the EZ. An emergency egress lane was placed parallel to the
normal decon line to allow rapid exit from the EZ and decon line. No emergencies occurred
during the OTD that necessitated the need to utilize the egress lane.
3.5 Specific Safety Measures for Test Events and Activities
This section discusses safety measures for specific test events and activities, including Bg
surrogate spore releases and pre- and post-decon sampling, Round 1 decon, Round 2 decon, and
pAB preparation and immersion dunking.
3.5.1 Surrogate Spore Releases and Pre- and Post-Decon Sampling
During both releases of the surrogate Bg spores, personnel entry into the EZ was minimal.
Personnel necessary to disseminate the spores wore Level C PPE, including an air-purifying
respirator (APR) or PAPR with multi-gas/PlOO cartridges, even though the spores were BSL-1
and non-pathogenic. The dissemination was conducted just inside the tunnel barrier. All other
personnel were kept outside the tunnel enclosure during dissemination and until pre-decon
sampling began. During release, sampling, and decon, the tunnel was maintained under negative
pressure as an additional safety measure.
Sampling Teams entering the tunnel containment area for either pre- or post-decon sampling
donned Level C PPE, including an APR or PAPR with multi-gas/PlOO cartridges, Tyvek® suits,
and booties. Vital signs of the Sampling Teams were not monitored before and after the Level C
entries, but radio communication was maintained throughout with each of the Sampling Team
Leads, and entry times were recorded and monitored. Heat stress issues for our Sampling Teams
were likely prevented due to enforcing these measures, as well as employing a strict rest and
hydration regimens.
3.5.2 Round 1 Decon
The first round of decon involved the use of agricultural-grade foggers to aerosolize diluted
bleach throughout the study area. Because the foggers did not use direct spraying, the decision
was made to use Level C PPE for those workers setting up the foggers; and Level A PPE for
those workers manually turning on the foggers. The entry team used portable Cb devices
(GasAlert Extreme, BW Technologies, Alberta, Canada) to monitor exposure. ATI sensors also
collected real-time Ch data at four different points inside the tunnel. Due to the circuit breaker
problem on the first day of fogging (discussed in Section ... M), the Ch levels were allowed to
dissipate and the entry team returned to the EZ to repair the foggers. This group was allowed to
enter wearing Level C PPE and personal CI2 monitors. Radio communication with the Safety
Officer was maintained at all times and reported CI2 levels frequently. The peak CI2 level
observed during the entry of this group was 3.2 ppm. Because the levels did not exceed half of
the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) (5ppm) as specified by the safety office,
it was determined that there was no need to upgrade from level C.
67
-------
UTR OTD Report
3.5.3 Round 2 Decon
The second round of decon involved the use of a liquid spray system with multiple spray wands
and a liquid reservoir. Three personnel manually operated this system using pAB, which
increased the health hazard involved with the work. Bleach amended with acetic acid (vinegar)
liberates Chgas in greater quantities than diluted bleach alone. Because high levels of airborne
Ch and liquid spray/splash from the application of pAB were expected, the decision was made to
use Level A PPE.
Each entry group of six individuals wore personal Ch monitors to accurately characterize the
exposure involved with each particular task (such as spraying, contractor oversight, EPA
oversight, and rail cart operation). Because personnel could come into contact with overspray,
the real-time Ch monitors were placed in the breathing zone of the workers but were moved to
the back of the Level A suit to minimize saturation of the CI2 sensors during active spraying.
The pAB was demonstrated to produce elevated levels of CI2 vapor in the breathing zones of
workers that exceeded five times the IDLH value of 10 ppm for CI2. CI2 exposure was highest for
the sprayer operators, which was expected based on their proximity to the spray stream. Peak
exposure levels ranged from 11 to 50 ppm for the spray operators. It is likely that exposure
exceeded 50 ppm, but the upper end of the CI2 monitor's instrument range was 50 ppm during
one spray event. The EPA and contractor oversight personnel were farther away from the spray
operation but still had significant peak CI2 exposures of 13 to 26 ppm. The operators of the rail
cart used to transport the sprayer down the track had peak exposures of 13 to 19 ppm. As
expected, CI2 levels in the breathing zone of the decon entry teams easily exceeded the
occupational exposure limits and action levels outlined in the HASP for CI2 during active
spraying. CI2 concentrations were noticeably higher during the second day of decon because of
the decrease in overall air exchange in the space.
Based on excessive CI2 levels well above the occupational exposure limits and IDLH during the
active decon spraying operation as well as the liquid spray/splash hazard, the decision to require
Level A PPE was warranted. Level B PPE would have protected the workers from inhalation
exposure to the high levels of CI2 vapor, but during the spraying of the ceiling and wall surfaces,
the PPE accumulated significant liquid CI2 from the overspray. Additionally, visual observation
and video footage confirmed the high likelihood of overspray contacting the surface of the Level
A suits. The Level A suits provided full encapsulation as shown in Figure 3-2, which provided
an additional safety measure as well as protected the Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
units from corrosion and damage. However, use of Level A PPE adds additional time and cost to
a response using a spray system.
68
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 3-2. Decon Team Preparing for Entry in Full-encapsulation Level A PPE
Additionally, FAPH Fire and Emergency Services personnel monitored entrant's vital signs
before and after all Level A and B entries. This support was essential in safely performing the
Round 2 decon efforts.
3.5.4 pAB Preparation and Immersion Dunking
Personal Ch monitoring was conducted for pAB solution preparation and immersion dunking.
Level C PPE was used to perform these tasks. During the outdoor mixing of pAB, when acetic
acid was added, Ch levels reached a peak of 3.3 ppm in the worker breathing zone. Similarly,
during outdoor immersion dunking activities, peak exposures to workers were between 1.8 and
3.1 ppm. These levels exceed the exposure limit of 0.5 ppm, even when the activities were
conducted outdoors. Therefore, the use of Level C PPE, including an APR, was warranted.
3.6 Ambient Air Monitoring
Ambient air monitoring (AAM) for Ch was performed at the seven locations shown in Figure 3-
3. EPA Region 3 contractors took the AAM measurements using AreaRAE and ToxiRAE
monitors (RAE systems, San Jose, CA). Locations were selected by the Region 3 contractors and
the Safety Officer. The EZ was the entire subway tunnel and monitoring locations were chosen
to detect CI2 fugitive emissions from the barrier, tunnel exhaust, tunnel opening/staging area, and
provide warning for support zones and downwind locations. AreaRAE monitors were set to
provide an audible/visual alarm at half of the appropriate occupational exposure limit (0.25
ppm). All monitoring results were negative for CI2.
69
-------
UTR OTD Report
Air Monitoring Location Key
AAM-001: OTD Command Post (AreaRAE)
AAM 002: North East Perimeter (AreaRAE)
AAM-003: Staging Area (AreaRAE)
AAM 004: PPE Dress Out Area and Rehab (AreaRAE and ToxiRAE)
AAM-005: Tunnel CRZ (AreaRAE and ToxiRAE)
AAM-006: Decon Solution Mix Area (AreaRAE and ToxiRAE)
AAM 007: Woodline (ToxiRAE)
Figure 3-3. Ambient Air Monitoring Locations
3.7 Hot Wash
A hot wash was held on most days in late afternoon or the evening (work sometimes continued
after the hot wash according to the Master Schedule). The UC or Safety Officer facilitated the
hot wash with all participants. The hot wash captured feedback from OTD participants about
issues, concerns, and proposed improvements. Safety was always a hot wash topic of discussion.
On some days, a hot wash was not necessary because of the nature of the work at the time. The
UC, in conjunction with the Safety Officer, decided when hot washes were not needed.
Although some aspects of safety oversight could have been performed differently during testing,
the OTD was completed without significant injuries to on-site participants. No Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-recordable injuries or illnesses were documented
during the 5-week project timeframe.
70
-------
UTR OTD Report
4 Decon Efficacy Assessment Results
Comparison of pre- and post-decon recoveries of Bg spores allowed assessment of the decon
efficacy. A decon method is considered highly effective in the field when no viable spores are
recovered (EPA, and CDC ). This section discusses the decon efficacy results in the
following sections:
• Section 4.1. Background Sampling
• Section 4.2. Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach
• Section 4.3. Round 2: Spraying with pAB
• Section 4.4. Statistical Analysis of Combined Dataset
• Section 4.5. Assessment of Spore Loading by Surface Stratum
• Section 4.6. Kriging Interpolations to Estimate Contamination Distribution
• Section 4.7. Lessons Learned from Decon Efficacy Assessment
4.1 Background Sampling
A total of 69 samples (41 sponge stick, 21 vacuum, and seven railroad ballast wash/extract
samples) were collected before the first Bg spore release to determine if Bg spores were present
in the study area. Of the 69 samples, 47 samples were collected from the floor (19 sponge stick,
21 vacuum, and seven railroad ballast wash/extract samples), 16 from the wall (sponge stick
samples), and six from the ceiling (sponge stick samples). Bg was not detected in any of the 69
samples or in the six field blanks and two media blanks sent for analysis during this sampling
event.
The results indicate that Bg spores were not present in the test venue before Round 1 of the OTD.
4.2 Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach
The decon process measurements, pre-decon sampling results, post-decon sampling results,
decon efficacy, data limitations, and material effects are discussed below for Round 1 fogging
with diluted bleach, followed by a summary of results.
4.2.1 Decon Process Measurements
Round 1 decon process measurements included quantity of bleach fogged, temperature and RH,
Ch levels measured by the ATI sensors, Ch dosimeter results, and BI results.
4.2.1.1 Quantity of Bleach Fogged
The estimated total amount of bleach solution disseminated from each fogger as fog was 92 gal.,
and less than 1 gal. of solution remained in each tote after fogging was completed. As discussed
in Section 2.7.1.4. the Decon Group estimated that at approximately 1 hour into the test each
71
-------
UTR OTD Report
fogger pumped bleach solution without the atomizer functioning, resulting in a loss of about 7
gal. of bleach solution to the floor.
4.2.1.2 Temperature and RH
Figure 4-1 shows a graph of the temperature and RH levels for Location 2 during fogging as
well as before and after fogging.
Location 2
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/15/2016 9/17/2016 9/19/2016 9/21/2016 9/23/2016 9/25/2016 9/27/2016 9/29/2016
• Temp, °F •RH,%
Figure 4-1. Temperature and RH of Location 2
Appendix H provides the graphs for temperature and RH measured by the HOBOs at all 10
locations. The trends for temperature and RH at Location 2 were typical for all the other
locations. The temperature remained fairly stable, although it declined slowly from September 17
through 27, 2016, from 77 °F to 73 °F. The fogging operations on September 21, 2016,
apparently did not affect temperature. The RH measurements were more variable and ranged
from approximately 60% to 100%, the latter value occurring during fogging as expected.
4.2.1.3 CI2 Gas Levels Measured by A TI Sensors
During Round 1, four ATI sensors measured Ch gas levels in the study area. The sensor at
Location A in Figure 2-23 was located outside of the EZ and in front of the decon line. This
sensor measured task-related Ch gas levels. This sensor read zero for the entire duration of the
fogging event.
The ATI sensor at Location B (near the entry barrier; see Figure 2-23) was connected to a data
acquisition system that logged the data to a laptop. Figure 4-2 shows a plot of these data. Ch gas
levels near the entry began to climb with the start of fogging at around 0730 hrs and peaked at
approximately 0.7 ppm at 0900 hrs. CI2 gas levels then began to decline because of the
malfunctioning foggers and the eventual turning off of the foggers. When the foggers were
turned back on at approximately 1100 hrs, CI2 gas levels climbed rapidly to about 1.5 ppm, then
gradually rose to roughly 2 ppm over the course of the day until the foggers were turned off at
about 2200 hrs.
72
-------
UTR OTD Report
Cl2 (ppmv)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Figure 4-2. Ch Gas Levels at Location B during Fogging
At Location C, the Ch gas levels peaked at 3 ppm in the morning before the foggers
malfunctioned. After the foggers began leaking, the level declined to 1 ppm at 0900 hrs. With the
foggers back on, the Ch gas level was 3 ppm at 1149 hrs, and remained at 3 ppm until the last
reading taken at 2216 hrs, when it declined to 2 ppm.
At Location D, the Ch gas levels followed a similar trend as at Location C. Location D levels
ranged from 3 ppm at 0900 hrs to 5 ppm. The CI2 gas level remained stable at 5 ppm most of the
day. Towards the end of the fogging cycle, readings taken at 2130 hrs and 2216 hr were both 4
ppm.
4.2.1.4 CI2 Dosimeter Results
During Round 1, 10 CI2 gas dosimeters also measured CI2 gas levels through diffusion at the
locations shown in Figure 2-21. None of the dosimeters provided a colorimetric change to
indicate a ppm*hour dosage of CI2 gas. It is not clear why these monitors did not register any CI2
gas dosage because the minimum dosage expected based on the ATI sensor readings at Location
B would have been approximately 15 ppnrhours. The high humidity of the fogging environment
could have interfered with the chemical reaction producing the colorimetric change, or, because
the dosimeters were mounted on the wall, air movement may not have been sufficient for passive
diffusion.
4.2.1.5 BI Results
During Round 1,10 Bis were taped to the walls at the locations shown in Figure 2-21. All 10 of
the Bis exposed to the fog were negative, indicating complete inactivation of the target organism.
The three Bis used as positive controls (not exposed to fog) yielded positive results (showed
growth).
AJ
0000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000
dddddddddddddddddddodd
0000000000000000000000
{DiNoo6idH(Nrn^i>iiis6dcridH(NrodH(Nro
t—It—It—It—It—It—It—It—It—It—IfNfNfNfN
73
-------
UTR OTD Report
4.2.2 Pre-Decon Sampling Results
Of the 40 RMCs deployed during Round 1, 39 were recovered and sent for analysis (samplers
could not locate one of the RMCs). Table 4-1 summarizes the recoveries for the Round 1 RMCs.
Table 4-1. Recoveries for Round 1 RMCs
Zone
No. of
Samples
Mean Recovery (CFU/ft2)
Standard Deviation
(CFU/ft2)
1
5
2.30E+04
1.42E+04
2
10
6.57E+04
2.95E+04
3
10
7.35E+04
1.54E+04
4
8
7.68E+04
2.60E+04
5
6
8.00E+04
2.71E+04
All Zones
39
6.67E+04
2.86E+04
Spore loading in all five zones is within the same order of magnitude (4 Logio CFU/ft2). The
results suggest that spore loading during Round 1 is 6.67E+04 ± 2.86E+04 CFU/ft2 across all
zones.
Round 1 pre-decon sampling results summarized in Table 4-2 are consistent with the RMC
results. Zone 6 (kiosk) results are not included in the estimate of mean surface loading because
the kiosk samples had inconsistent and unknown surface areas and results could not be
normalized to CFU/ft2.
Table 4-2. Recoveries from Round 1 Pre-Decon Surface Samples
Zone
No. of
Samples
Mean Recovery (CFU/ft2)
Standard Deviation
(CFU/ft2)
1
19
1.29E+05
1.78E+05
2
33
2.27E+05
1.10E+06
3
29
8.82E+04
1.53E+05
4
30
6.68E+04
1.12E+05
5
24
1.05E+05
1.79E+05
All Zones
135
1.26E+05
5.56E+05
The mean recovery for field samples (excluding blanks) for all sample collection methods and
across all zones (excluding Zone 6) was 1.26E+05 ± 5.56E+05 CFU/ft2. Recoveries from
vacuum samples generally are one order of magnitude lower than recoveries for the sponge stick
and ballast samples, as shown in Figure 4-3.
74
-------
UTR OTD Report
Round 1 - Pre-Decon Sampling Results
107
oT
£ 106
3
u_
O
> 105
v-
o
-------
UTR OTD Report
Zone
Sample
Type
Sample ID
Remarks
Recovery
(CFU)
Recovery
(CFU/ft2)
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-048
Under register wipe
12
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-05 0
Food stand kiosk wipe
240
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-05 7
Plexiglass poster case
exterior wipe
36
Note:
* = Zone 6 kiosk results could not be normalized to CFU/ft2 because the samples had inconsistent and unknown
surface areas.
Eleven Round 1 post-decon sample results were positive. Of these, seven of the results were for
samples collected from kiosk-associated surfaces and materials. One wall sample result for Zone
2 was positive. However, this positive result may be due to cross contamination from the sponge
stick being accidentally dropped on the ballast. The result for 1 out of the 16 composite samples
collected was positive.
Table 4-4 summarizes the Round 1 results for the media and field blanks, which all were
negative for Bg.
Table 4-4. Round 1 Results for Media and Field Blanks
Sampling Event
Positive Media Blanks
Positive Field Blanks
Round 1 pre-decon
0 out of 13
0 out of 9
Round 1 post-decon
0 out of 12
0 out of 7
4.2.4 Decon Efficacy
Based on the pre-decon spore recovery levels from the RMC data (average of 4 Logio CFU/ft2),
the decon efficacy of fogging is approximately 4 to 5 log reduction.
Comparison of pre- and post-decon recoveries of Bg spores allowed assessment of the decon
efficacy. Out of the 132 samples (not including waste and blank samples but including kiosk in
situ surfaces and materials) collected after bleach fogging, 11 samples had positive results for Bg
(see Table 4-3). Therefore, 8% of the post-decon sample results were positive. Of the 11 positive
results, seven were associated with the kiosk, with no particular sampled surface area, for
materials including T-shirts, hot dog buns (from an opened bag), wax paper, newspaper, the area
under the cash register, the food stand kiosk surface, and plexiglass. The post-decon positive
results for the kiosk range from 12 to 2,395 CFU. For the kiosk samples, 7 out of 26 results were
positive (27%). The positive results were for the sponge stick and wash/extract samples.
The other four positive results all were for samples from Zone 2, one sponge stick from the wall
and three vacuums from the platform. The CFU levels from Zone 2 were relatively low, and
ranged from 4-6 CFU/ft2. The positive results for Zone 2 may be due to problems with the
technology, such as insufficient distribution of the fog in the zone, a problem with the fogger in
Zone 2, etc. In addition, because Zone 2 is directly adjacent to the kiosk area, remaining viable
spores from the kiosk may have contaminated some of the Zone 2 samples through
reaerosolization mechanisms.
76
-------
UTR OTD Report
The composite platform floor vacuum sample with the 11-CFU result is the only composite
sample with a positive result out of four vacuum samples and out of 16 total composite samples
collected. Therefore, for Round 1 post-decon sampling, the composite sample positive results
rate is 1 out of 4 (25% positive rate for vacuum samples) or 1 out of 16 (6% positive rate for all
composite samples/types). These positive rates are similar to the Round 1 post-decon discrete
sample positive rate of 11 out of 132 (8%).
4.2.5 Data Limitations
One data limitation of the decon efficacy assessment is the lack of spore recovery data (before
and after decon) for all the electronic equipment and for materials covered with tape or plastic to
prevent damage from the bleach fog. During a real event, these materials would be
decontaminated (most likely using a bleach-based wipe) and then covered with plastic to prevent
damage.
With regard to the fogging process data, data were not available for the pH or FAC of the bleach
solutions fogged. The bleach solutions were produced using 1 part bleach and 3 parts water, the
same materials and protocols as used during laboratory testing (FP V). During the
laboratory tests, the bleach solution pH level was approximately 11 and FAC level was over
20,000 ppm (2%).
Finally, although Ch gas dosimeters were deployed, no colorimetric changes (dose reading of
zero) were observed.
4.2.6 Material Effects
No damage to the functionality of any electrical or other equipment in the EZ was observed after
fogging operations were completed. However, in order to minimize damage to FAPH's training
facility, many of the electrical panels and outlets were covered in plastic or tape before fogging
began. Some of the metal-based materials in the EZ had small, occasional patches of minor
oxidation and discoloration. These materials included items such as a few metal outlet boxes,
unpainted areas of the stairwell handrails, metal base plates on stairs, exposed threads on
galvanized steel pipe, and the Metro card reader (see Figure 4-4).
77
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 4-4. Metro Card Reader after Fogging with Oxidation Predominately on Top of
Reader
There appeared to be no oxidation of the electrical conduit. Oxidation was observed on
galvanized metal that had been cut or threaded and thus lost the galvanized coating.
There was some anecdotal evidence of additional corrosion of the rails, although this observation
was difficult to confirm because the rails already had a layer of rust before fogging. No detailed
photographs of the rails were taken before or after fogging. Non-metallic surfaces and materials
such as the concrete, ballast, wood, wallboard, and plastic generally were unaffected based on
qualitative visual assessments.
The morning after fogging, a faint smell of rotten eggs in the EZ resulted in a check for the
presence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). A hand-held MultiRAE (RAE systems, San Jose, CA)
detector held near the foggers as well as the wallboard on the platform detected H2S at a few
ppm. One of the fogger's batteries that had been overcharging was emitting the H2S.
Overcharging of lead acid batteries can result in the formation of H2S. Once the power to the
charger was shut off, the PI2S dissipated.
Some of the steel parts and fittings of the foggers also showed patches of oxidation. Figure 4-5
shows corrosion of some fittings on the fogger pump plumbing.
78
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 4-5. Fogger Pump Plumbing with Oxidation on Some Steel Fittings
In addition, there was some damage to the fogger chargers (electrical converters), batteries, and
pumps. This damage may have been due to exposure to the bleach fog but also may have been
due to running the foggers without any liquid. The fogger manufacturer recommended that the
foggers be shut off as soon as possible after all of the liquid was disseminated, but some of the
foggers may have been running for 1 to 2 hr without any bleach solution.
4.2.7 Summary of Results for Fogging with Diluted Bleach
The deployment of the foggers and bleach solutions went smoothly. The equipment used to
monitor the fogging process also worked well. The foggers operated well except for the initial
problem of not having the circuit breakers closed. This and other issues are discussed further in
Section 4.7.]. Overall, out of the 400 gal. of bleach solution that the Decon Group began fogging
with, approximately 370 gal. was fogged over 13 hr. The 30-gal. difference is due to the
malfunctioning of foggers that caused the bleach solution to leak and to the solution left in each
tote after the fogging was completed.
Monitoring of temperature, RH, and Ch gas levels was successful. The Ch gas levels are lower
than expected (based on laboratory testing), but the monitoring of CI2 gas using the ATI sensors
provided a good indication of when there was a problem and when the fogging process was
complete. The results for all 10 Bis indicated that the spores were inactivated.
Only about 8% of the post-decon sample results were positive for Bg. The positive results were
samples collected from Zone 2 and Zone 6 (kiosk area). Excluding the kiosk area, only 4 out of
106 samples (4%) had a positive result ranging from only 4-6 CFU/ft2. For the kiosk materials,
positive results ranged from 12 to 2,395 CFU. Of the 26 kiosk samples collected, seven results
were positive (27%).
79
-------
UTR OTD Report
The primary drawback of using bleach fog is the impact on materials. No damage to the
functionality of any electrical or other equipment in the EZ was observed after fogging, although
the electrical panels were covered in plastic or tape before fogging. Small patches of minor
oxidation on some metal-based materials (such as outlet boxes) were observed. Patches of
oxidation also were observed on some of the steel parts and fittings of the foggers.
4.3 Round 2: Spraying with pAB
The decon process measurements, pre-decon sampling results, post-decon sampling results,
decon efficacy, data limitations, and material effects are discussed below for Round 2 spraying
with pAB, followed by a summary of results.
4.3.1 Decon Process Measurements
Round 2 decon process measurements included quantity of pAB sprayed, temperature and RH,
and Ch levels measured by the ATI sensors. Ch dosimeters and Bis were not deployed during
Round 2.
4.3.1.1 Quantity of pAB Sprayed
The estimated total amount of PAB solution sprayed was 570 gal. A powered sprayer uniformly
sprayed pAB onto 30,000 ft2 of tunnel surfaces. All surfaces received 16 gal. pAB per 1,000 ft2.
However, the railroad ballast (5,000 ft2) received twice that rate.
4.3.1.2 Temperature and RH
The HOBO placed in the EZ to monitor temperature and RH was destroyed during pAB
spraying. Therefore, temperature and RH data could not be recovered.
4.3.1.3 CI2 Gas Levels Measured by A TI Sensors
Only one ATI sensor was deployed during Round 2 to minimize damage to the sensors. This ATI
sensor was located at the far north end of the tunnel (Location D in Figure 2-23). Therefore, the
readings for this sensor do not necessarily represent the entire EZ. Nevertheless, Ch readings at
Location D ranged from 2 to 18 ppm when spraying was conducted near the entry barrier and
near the platform. When spraying operations were closer to the ATI sensor at Location D, CI2
gas levels generally increased. When spraying occurred in the far north tunnel area closest to the
sensor, CI2 levels ranged from 35 to 54 ppm.
4.3.2 Pre-decon Sampling Results
All 40 deployed RMCs were recovered and sent for analysis after the Round 2 dissemination.
Table 4-5 summarizes the recoveries for the Round 2 RMCs.
Table 4-5. Recoveries for Round 2 RMCs
Zone
No. of
Samples
Mean Recovery
(CFU/ft2)
Standard Deviation
(CFU/ft2)
1
5
1.56E+04
9.30E+03
80
-------
UTR OTD Report
2
10
4.43E+04
1.00E+04
3
10
5.71E+04
1.99E+04
4
9
4.80E+04
3.10E+04
5
6
1.12E+05
1.45E+05
All Zones
40
5.49E+04
6.14E+04
Spore loadings were between 4 and 5 Logio CFU/ft2 for Zones 1 through 5. The results suggest
that the spore loading during Round 2 was 5.49E+04 ± 6.14E+04 CFU/ft2. The Round 2 pre-
decon sampling results summarized in Table 4-6 are similar to the Round 1 pre-decon sampling
results with regard to trends and magnitudes. Zone 6 (kiosk) results were not included in the
estimate of mean surface loading because the kiosk samples had inconsistent and unknown
surface areas and results could not be normalized to CFU/ft2.
Table 4-6. Recoveries from Round 2 Pre-Decon Surface Samples
Zone
No. of
Mean Recovery
Standard Deviation
Samples
(CFU/ft2)
(CFU/ft2)
1
20
2.80E+04
2.62E+04
2
33
2.36E+04
2.80E+04
3
27
4.05E+04
3.15E+04
4
30
4.29E+04
4.45E+04
5
24
6.7LE+04
5.51E+04
All Zones
134
3.98E • 04
4.08E+04
The mean recovery for field samples (excluding blanks) for all sample collection methods and
across all zones (excluding Zone 6) was 3.98E+04 ± 4.08E+04 CFU/ft2. Figure 4-6 shows the
Round 2 pre-decon recovery for each type of sample.
CM
3
LL
o
<1)
>
o
o
a)
DC
Round 2 - Pre-Decon Sampling Results
106
105 -
104 -
103
X
X
<*-
A®
<$>
r*N
£E
81
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 4-6. Recoveries during Round 2 Pre-decon Sampling
Recoveries were slightly lower than those from Round 1 except for the vacuum samples, which
had recoveries slightly higher (approximately 10%) than those from Round 1, as shown in
Figure 4-6.
Results from 3 out of 134 (2%) of the field samples (excluding, RMCs, blank, and Zone 6
samples) were non-detect: 3 out of 5 (60%) sponge stick samples from the ceiling (one in zone 2
and two in zone 4). In Zone 6 (kiosk), 1 out of 26 (4%) samples collected from surfaces in the
newsstand and food kiosks were non-detect. This one sponge stick sample (newspaper)
represented 7% of collected kiosk sponge stick samples.
4.3.3 Post-Decon Sampling Results
Table 4-7 summarizes the positive Round 2 post-decon sampling results. Five post-decon
sample results are positive. Of these, four of the results are for samples collected from kiosk-
associated surfaces and materials. One platform vacuum sample yielded a positive result of 6
CFU/ft2. None of the composite sample results is positive.
Table 4-7. Positive Round 2 Post-Decon Sampling Results
Zone
Sample
Type
Sample ID
Remarks
Recovery
(CFU)
Recovery
(CFU/ft2)
4
Vacuum
OTD-R2POST-VAC-001
Platform
6
6
6
(kiosk)
Wash/Extract
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-041
Cash from register
10
No result*
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-044
Hot dogs
50
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-047
T-shirts
500
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-049
Newspaper
5
Note:
* = Zone 6 kiosk results could not be normalized to CFU/ft2 because the samples had inconsistent and
unknown surface areas.
Table 4-8 summarizes the Round 1 results for the media and field blanks.
Table 4-8. Round 2 Results for Media and Field Blanks
Sampling Event
Positive Media Blanks
Positive Field Blanks
Round 2 pre-decon
lout of 14
0 out of 10
Round 2 post-decon
0 out of 11
0 out of 10
One Round 2 pre-decon vacuum media blank result is positive. Since the media blank was
unopened prior to laboratory processing, the positive result is likely due to laboratory
contamination. However, given the low occurrence of positive blanks overall, this positive value
does not have an impact on data quality.
The result is for vacuum sample OTD-R2PRE-VAC-040, which has a 6 CFU/ft2 result for Bg.
None of the other Round 2 media or field blank results is positive.
82
-------
UTR OTD Report
4.3.4 Decon Efficacy
Based on the pre-decon spore recovery levels from the RMC data (average of 4 Logio CFU/ft2),
the decon efficacy of pAB spraying is approximately 4 to 5 log reduction.
Comparison of pre- and post-decon recoveries of Bg spores allowed assessment of the decon
efficacy. Out of the 137 samples (not including waste and blank samples but including kiosk in
situ surfaces and materials) collected after pAB spraying, 5 samples have positive results for Bg
(see Table 4-7). Therefore, 4% of the post-decon sample results are positive. Of the five positive
results, four are associated with the kiosk area, with no particular sampled surface area, for
materials including the cash from the register, hot dogs, T-shirts, and newspapers. The post-
decon positive results for the kiosk area range from 5 to 500 CFU. For the kiosk samples, 4 out
of 26 results are positive (15%). The positive results are for the wash/extract samples. The other
positive result of 6 CFU/ft2 is for the Zone 4 platform.
4.3.5 Data Limitations
One data limitation of the decon efficacy assessment is the lack of spore recovery data (before
and after decon) for all the electronic equipment and for materials covered with tape or plastic to
prevent damage from the bleach spray. During a real event, these materials would be
decontaminated (most likely using a bleach-based wipe) and then covered with plastic to prevent
damage.
4.3.6 Material Effects
For Round 2 pAB spraying, no immediate effects to subway tunnel materials was evident. Non-
metallic surfaces and materials such as the concrete, ballast, wood, wallboard, and plastic
generally were unaffected based on qualitative visual assessments. No damage to the
functionality of any electrical or other equipment in the EZ was observed after fogging
operations were completed. However, in order to minimize damage to FAPH's training facility,
many of the electrical panels and outlets were covered in plastic or tape before fogging began.
Therefore, material compatibility and functionality for this item could not be assessed. Some of
the metal-based materials in the EZ had slightly more oxidation and discoloration than what was
observed after Round 1 decon. These materials included items such as a few metal outlet boxes,
unpainted areas of the stairwell handrails, metal base plates on stairs, exposed threads on
galvanized steel pipe, and the Metro card reader.
4.3.7 Summary of Results for Spraying with pAB
The deployment of the sprayers and pAB solutions went smoothly. The equipment used to
monitor the spraying process also worked well except for the HOBO in the EZ, which was
destroyed during pAB spraying. A powered sprayer uniformly sprayed 570 gal. of pAB onto
30,000 ft2 of tunnel surfaces. All surfaces received 16 gal. pAB per 1,000 ft2. However, the
railroad ballast (5,000 ft2) received twice that rate. Overall, spraying with pAB using the
equipment chosen was effective in decontaminating the subway platform, ballast, tracks, walls,
and ceiling materials.
83
-------
UTR OTD Report
The HOBO in the EZ lost functionality due to chlorine levels. Therefore, temperature and RH
data could not be recovered.
Excluding the kiosk samples, only 1 out of 111 decontamination assessment samples (1%) had a
positive result of only 6 CFU/ft2. For the kiosk samples, the Zone 6 positive results ranged from
5 to 500 CFU. Of the 26 kiosk samples collected, 4 results were positive (15%). Therefore, a
decon approach other than pAB spraying is recommended for the kiosks and associated
materials.
4.4 Statistical Analyses of Combined Dataset
Analytical results were entered into the appropriate worksheets at the on-site workstation. These
analytical results were used to determine the percentage of contamination removed by the decon
technology. Statistical methods to analyze the decon effectiveness by
• Determining if differences exist between the decon methods,
• Exploring if other factors influence the effectiveness of the decon methods, such as
concentration amount, surface type, and sampling methods
• Quantifying effectiveness by calculating confidence intervals
Statistical analyses were performed on the Round 1 and 2 pre-decon and post-decon data. The
statistical analysis of the pre-decon data was conducted to determine if there are differences in:
(1) the contaminant disseminations between the two rounds; (2) the five surface strata sampled;
and (3) the six zones of the study area. The post-decon statistical analysis was performed to
determine differences in the effectiveness of each decon method and the effect of surface stratum
and zone location on decon effectiveness. Each analysis is discussed below.
4.4.1 Pre-Decon Data Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were performed on the pre-decon data to determine if there were differences
in: (1) the contaminant disseminations between the two rounds; (2) the five surface strata
sampled; and (3) the six zones of the sampled study areas shown in Figure 2-7. The five surface
strata consist of ceiling, wall, equipment-related items, platform floor, and track (including
ballast and rails). The grimed and non-grimed coupons were not included because these coupons
were assessed separately as discussed in Section 5. The surface strata sample results were
compared to the contaminant amounts recovered from the RMCs. Analysis of variance was used
to determine the statistical significance of the factors. Because of the skewed nature of the data,
log CFU/ft2 was used for the analysis. Data for the ceiling samples was removed because the
ceiling sample recovery results are much lower than the other samples and because the ceiling
samples are not well represented across all zones. Data for Zone 6 was removed because the data
do not represent any of the surface strata, only kiosk-related surfaces and materials. This removal
left four different surface strata (wall, equipment, platform floor, and track) and five zones
(Zones 1 through 5) for the analysis.
84
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 4-9 summarizes the analysis of variance results. Factors and interactions with p-values
less than 0.05 are considered significant. All factors and interactions with p-values exceeding
0.10 were removed from the analysis.
Table 4-9. Analysis of Variance Results from Pre-Decon Data
Source
Df
SSb
Fc
p-valued
Round
1
0.76
1.10
0.2945
Strata
3
93.75
45.61
<0.0001
Zone
4
6.09
2.22
0.0672
Round* Strata
3
5.14
2.50
0.0601
Residuals
296
716.0
Notes:
a = Degree of freedom
b = Sum of squares
c = F-test statistic
d = p-value for given F-test statistic (less than 0.05 indicates 95% confidence that significant
difference exists)
There is no significant difference in contaminant amount between the two rounds. There are
significant differences in contaminant amount between surface strata as shown in Figure 4-7.
The ceiling surface stratum was removed from the analyses, but ceiling results are included in
the plot. The figure presents the results for combined Round 1 and 2 data and also includes
standard error bars for each stratum (the vertical lines).
5 "I
4 -
S. 3 -
D
U_
o
5"
2 -
1 -
uj
Surface Strata
O
2
tr
Figure 4-7. Pre-Decon Mean Log CFU/ft2 for Each Surface Stratum
Figure 4-8 shows the nearly significant interaction between round and strata. This plot shows
that the amount of contaminant recovered generally stays constant or decreases going from
85
-------
UTR OTD Report
Round 1 to Round 2, except in the case of the floor stratum. The floor stratum amount of
contaminant recovered is much higher for Round 2.
ID
CM
<
o
O)
o
lO
co
o
CO
Track
1— Equip
Round
Figure 4-8. Pre-Decon Mean Log CFU/ft2 for Each Surface during Each Round
Although the analysis of variance shows significant di fferences between the surface strata, the
stratum effect is partially confounded by the sample collection method. In other words, the effect
of recovering more contaminant may be due to: (1) the surface stratum sampled (such as track or
floor); (2) the sampling medium (such as sponge stick wipe); or (3) a combination of these
factors. Because each surface stratum was not sampled using every sample collection method,
the stratum effect is confounded, which is not a problem but should be considered when drawing
conclusions about the surface strata and sample collection method.
Figure 4-9 plots the differences between the sample collection methods. The figure presents the
results for combined Round 1 and 2 data and also includes standard error bars for each method
(the vertical lines).
86
-------
UTR OTD Report
5 -i
0
03
>
1
o
I—
o
o
03
•*—>
X
UJ
5
cn
03
O
cr
Figure 4-9. Pre-Decon Mean Log CFU/in.2 for Each Sample Collection Method
4.4.2 Post-Decon Data Statistical Analyses
The post-decon statistical analysis was performed to determine differences in the effectiveness of
each decon method and the effect of surface stratum and zone location on decon effectiveness.
Two measures of decon efficiency were used. The first measure was decon efficiency, which was
determined as follows:
pre-post
pre
where pre values are the CFU/ft2 values for adjacent samples and post values are CFU/ft2 values
for each sample.
The second measure analyzed was proportion clean. Samples with no growth (0 CFU) were
considered clean, and samples with growth values greater than 0 were considered to have
contaminant present.
The decon effectiveness measure used analysis of variance and the log of decon efficiency to
determine significant factors and interactions (p-values less than 0.05 considered significant).
Table 4-10 summarizes the analysis of variance results. Factors and interactions with p-values
less than 0.05 are considered significant. All factors and interactions with p-values exceeding
0.10 were removed from the analysis. Also, data for the ceiling stratum and Zone 6 was removed
as discussed in Section 4.4.1.
87
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 4-10. Analysis of Variance Results for Post-Decon Efficiency
Source
Df
SSb
Fc
p-valued
Decon method
1
1.22E-07
1.42
0.2349
Strata
3
5.84E-07
2.27
0.0814
Zone
4
3.27E-07
0.96
0.4331
Decon method* Strata
3
6.19E-07
2.41
0.0683
Strata* Zone
7
1.33E-06
2.22
0.0342
Residuals
206
1.63E-05
Notes:
a = Degree of freedom
b = Sum of squares
c = F-test statistic
d = p-value for given F-test statistic (less than 0.05 indicates 95% confidence that significant
difference exists)
The interaction between decon method and surface strata is not statistically significant (p-value =
0.0683). The interaction between surface strata and zone is statistically significant (p-value =
0.0342).
Figure 4-10 plots each interaction. The top plot shows the decon method and strata interaction
without ceiling stratum and Zone 6 data. The middle plot shows the same interaction for all the
data. The bottom plot shows the significant interaction of strata and zone for all data. The plots
show that fogging with diluted bleach has a lower decon efficiency for the wall stratum and the
equipment/kiosk stratum, especially in Zone 6 when the kiosk items are included (kiosk items
are not included in all other analyses) and in Zone 2. The equipment/kiosk stratum in Zone 6
contained food and newspaper surfaces that proved difficult to decontaminate, especially using
the fogging method. The lower decon efficiencies for the wall stratum and Zone 2 resulted
because only four samples were collected during each round and because one of the four samples
yielded a positive result.
88
-------
UTR OTD Report
1.0000
^ 0.9998
o
c
¦| 0.9996
ft
HI
g 0.9994
o
d>
0.9992
0.9990
Strata-Decon Method Interaction (without Zone 6)
-2— Spraying w/ pH-adj bleach
-1- Fogging w/ diluted bleach
Strata-Decon Method Interaction (all zones, all strata)
0 0.9
1
0.9992 - "
Spraying w/ pH-adj bleach
-1- Fogging w/ diluted bleach
Strata-Zone Interaction (all zones, all strata)
1.0000 -
0.9998 -
>*
c 0.9996 -
o
£ 0.9994 -
c
8 0.9992 -
0.9988 -
-1-
-2-
-3- Z3
-4- Z4
Z5
-6- Z6
Figure 4-10. Post-Decon Mean Decon Efficiency for Each Interaction
Logistic regression was used to assess proportion clean. The same reduced data set was used for
this analysis, with the Zone 6 and ceiling stratum data removed. In addition, the interaction
between decon method and surface was not significant, so this interaction was removed. Table
4-11 summarizes the results for this analysis, which shows significant differences between the
two decon methods and between the surface strata.
89
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 4-11. Logistic Regression Results Analyzing Proportion Clean (Post-Decon)
Source
Df
SSb
Fc
p-valued
Decon method
1
2.32
5.90
0.0161
Strata
3
9.68
11.82
<0.0001
Residuals
204
80.20
Notes:
a = Degree of freedom
b = Sum of squares
c = F-test statistic
d = p-value for given F-test statistic (less than 0.05 indicates 95% confidence that
significant difference exists)
Figure 4-11 plots the differences between the two decon methods and the surface strata. The
figure presents the results for combined Round 1 and 2 data and also includes standard error bars
for each method (the vertical lines).
CD
jj>
o
c
o
"E
o
Q.
o
1.00 —i
0.95 —
0.90 —
0.85 —
0.80 —1
Decon Method
c
-------
UTR OTD Report
4.5 Assessment of Spore Loading by Surface Stratum
When comparing only pre-decon sampling results for sponge wipes, across floor, wall, and
ceiling sampling locations, its apparent that approximately ten-fold (10x) more spores were
deposited on the floor than on the walls, and approximately two to three orders of magnitude
(100x or lOOOx) more spores were deposited on the walls than the ceiling (Table 4-12).
Table 4-12. Pre-Decon Sampling Results for Sponge Sticks on Floors, Walls, and Ceiling
Round
Mean ± Standard Deviation (n) Sponge Stick Recoveries (CFU/ft2)
Floor Samples
Wall Samples
Ceiling Samples
1
1.67E+05 ± 1.30E+05 (n = 24)
3.28E+04 ± 1.06E+05 (n = 19)
9.0 ±9.95 (n = 5)
2
3.18E+04 ± 2.99E+04 (n = 29)
7.33E+02 ± 7.00E+02 (n = 21)
2.4 ±3.91 (n = 5)
4.6 Kriging Interpolations to Estimate Contamination Distribution
Sampling results were interpolated using a kriging method to estimate the distribution of
contamination in the subway. Kriging is an interpolation technique used to predict values for
locations that lack sample points. Specifically, the kriging method assumes that the distance or
direction between sample points reflects a spatial correlation that can be used to explain
variations in the surface. This approach has great potential in identifying hotspots and aiding in
the understanding of wind flow patterns and decon efficacy for biological incidents.
Figures 4-12 and 4-13 show the pre- and post-decon sampling locations, respectively.
Figure 4-12. Pre-decon Sampling Locations
VC-1 VC-1 V24 V25 vc=4 VC-5 VC-5
• • • • *VC-f • •
VC-1 V27 V28 V29 V30 V36 V37 V38 V39 V40 V51 V52 V53 VC-5
] V31 V32 V33 VC-2 VC-2 VC-2 V42 V43 VC-3 VC-3 VC-3 V56 V57 V58 [
• ••••• ••••••••
B8 B9 B10B11 B36 B37 B38 B39 B40 B41
S41 • SC-1* SC-f SC-T S49* S46 S55 SC-5 SC-5 SC-5 S59 S60 S67 SC-8 SC-8 SC-8 S71 S72 S80 SC-9 SC-9 SC-9 S84 S8§ S-%0 St-11 St-11 $C-11 594
• •••••••••••••• ¦•••••••••••••
B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 B29 B30 B31 B32 B33 B34 B35 B42 B43 B44 B45 B46 B47
• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••A
• Sample Point
Figure 4-13. Post-decon Sampling Locations
91
-------
UTR OTD Report
Only floor samples were used (not including the kiosks). RMC, sponge stick, vacuum, and
wash/extract sampling results were included in the analysis. Because the sampling results
represent each sampling method's protocol (sampled area size), results were converted to an
equivalent for 1 ft2 of sampling area (CFU/ft2). For the purposes of this study, a universal kriging
method was used.
The performance of the kriging models can be determined through prediction error statistics.
Prediction error statistics consist of three important measurements: 1) root-mean-square error, 2)
root-mean-square standardized, and 3) average standard error. The prediction error statistics for
all four kriging models are shown in Table 4-13.
Table 4-13. Prediction Error Statistics
Round
Root-Mean-
Square Error
Root-Mean-Square
Standardized
Average
Standard Error
Pre-Decon Round 1
573522.10
0.86
663294.50
Pre-Decon Round 2
41787.29
1.04
40037.60
Post-Decon Round 1
1.05
1.20
0.85
Post-Decon Round 2
0.60
1.00
0.60
The predictions for pre-decon significantly deviate from the measured values, as indicated by the
high root-mean-square error and average standard error; however, the prediction for post-decon
do not significantly deviate from the measured values, as indicated by the low root-mean-square
error and average standard error. The increased deviation for pre-decon is likely attributed to the
significant outliers contained in the sampling results. This may be the result of a number of
different factors such as dissemination device issues, wind flow patterns, or other phenomena.
However, there is a high confidence that all four models are the most optimal as indicated by
the root-mean-square standardized being close to one and the average estimated prediction
standard errors being close to the root-mean-squared prediction error. Namely, the regression
function used to describe these models is best fit and cannot be improved.
Pre-decon and post-decon gradient maps were generated for both rounds, totaling four separate
maps. Figures 4-14 and 4-15 show the Round 1 gradient results for pre- and post-decon floor
samples, respectively. Figures 4-16 and 4-17 show the Round 2 results for pre- and post-decon
floor samples, respectively.
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 4-14. Pre-Decon Gradients for Round 1 Floor Samples
CFU/FT2
Figure 4-15. Post-Decon Gradients for Round 1 Floor Samples
CFU/FT2
* - ^ ^
V? .f>- ^
Figure 4-16. Pre-Decon Gradients for Round 2 Floor Samples
CFU/FT2
Figure 4-17. Post-Decon Gradients for Round 2 Floor Samples
Data bins were defined using the Jenks Natural Breaks algorithm (http://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-
app/help/mapping/symbols-and-styles/data-cl assification-methods.htm). which groups similar
values to augment the differences between bins (natural breaks occur in the histogram at the low
points of valleys). This method commonly is used to map data values that are not evenly
distributed, such as heterogeneously deposited contamination. Although the kriging equations
represent the best linear, unbiased predictor for unsampled locations, the resulting data points are
93
-------
UTR OTD Report
not bound to minimum or maximum values, potentially resulting in gradients that disagree with
the input dataset. However, this anomaly is widely accepted with kriging. For example, Figure
4-17 does not show a gradient for the single positive sample result.
Overall, the prescribed interpolation method demonstrates great potential in mapping the
distribution of contamination using discrete sampling data. The pre-decon maps show complete
contamination, with heterogeneously distributed hotspots throughout the subway.
The Round 1 pre-decon gradients shown Figure 4-14 may indicate direct or indirect contact of
the spore stock with the sampled surface. For example, the hot spot in the lower left-hand side of
the figure was near an aerosol generator.
4.7 Lessons Learned from Decon Efficacy Assessment
For both the fogging and spraying decon methods, most positive results are for samples from the
kiosk area. The kiosks contained porous and organic items commonly found in convenience
stores. The primary reason for less efficacious decon of the kiosk-related surfaces and materials
most likely is due to the complexity, porosity, and organic content of the kiosk-related surfaces
and materials. Decontaminants generally are less effective on porous materials, and bleach is
known to be less effective on materials with organic content ( 12a). It is also possible that
the kiosk structures and materials inhibited fog droplets from evenly distributing throughout the
kiosk area.
If the materials that populate the platform and tunnels (such as vendor items, maps,
advertisements, and trash) can be decontaminated in situ as part of the overall facility decon, the
subsequent management of items and materials that enter the waste streams will be greatly
facilitated. In other words, if materials destined to be waste are successfully decontaminated to
the point where no detectable viable spores are present, then not only could these materials be
handled with greatly reduced PPE requirements, but they could also be managed as conventional
solid waste. Therefore, the items placed in the kiosks were subjected to both pre- and post-decon
sampling to identify problematic materials.
The sections below review the lessons learned for both the fogging with diluted bleach and
spraying with pAB decon methods.
4.7.1 Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach
Listed below are the observations of bleach fogging and other lessons learned based on the
specific materials and procedures used during the OTD.
Observations
• The four foggers were purchased as-is and off-the-shelf, except that the vendor added
an electrical inverter to allow the foggers to run on alternating current. Minor
adjustments also were made to the dip tube and tanks. Although the foggers were
purchased off-the-shelf, the wait time for delivery was a few months because of the
manufacturer's backlog.
94
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Manpower requirements are minimal. During the OTD, only four people were needed
for a few hours each time during mobilization and demobilization.
• The foggers should run at a higher liquid pump flow rate but still maintain a relatively
smaller droplet size distribution. The foggers selected were the best the Decon Group
could find (in terms of maximizing flow rate while maintaining smaller droplet size
distribution). Even so, the fogging process required over 12 hours.
• The fogging method is relatively efficacious except for the kiosk-related surfaces and
materials, which yielded positive results. During an actual event, food items and porous,
organic materials most likely would need to be sampled and treated as contaminated
waste prior to disposal.
• For actual decon in a subway, a large source of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal
bleach may not be readily available. Alternatively, other bleach products could
potentially be used. Proper storage of a large source, according to the shelf life
requirements of the bleach product, also needs to be considered.
• In terms of adverse impacts caused by the decon process, no immediate effects to
subway tunnel materials was evident. Non-metallic surfaces and materials such as the
concrete, ballast, wood, wallboard, and plastic generally were unaffected based on
qualitative visual assessments. No damage to the functionality of any electrical or other
equipment in the EZ was observed after fogging operations were completed. However,
in order to minimize damage to FAPH's training facility, many of the electrical panels
and outlets were covered in plastic or tape before fogging began. Therefore, material
compatibility and functionality for this item could not be assessed. Some of the metal-
based materials in the EZ had small, occasional patches of minor oxidation and
discoloration. These materials included items such as a few metal outlet boxes,
unpainted areas of the stairwell handrails, metal base plates on stairs, exposed threads
on galvanized steel pipe, and the Metro card reader.
Other Lessons Learned
• The Decon Group had to enter the EZ to turn the fogger on and off because the
controller was tethered to a 25-ft-long cable. In hindsight, all foggers should have been
located near a barrier, with the controller outside the EZ whenever possible. Ideally,
operators should be able to control the fogger (turn it off and on and purge with water
when fogging is completed) without having to enter the EZ. Having to turn on the
foggers inside the EZ necessitated the use of Level A PPE. In addition, damage to the
foggers could have been avoided if the foggers could have been stopped and purged
with water as soon as the bleach solution for each fogger was completely disseminated.
• For the repeated use of the fogger, it should be removed from the EZ as soon as possible
after decon to rinse off bleach residue and thus avoiding potential damage.
• Ideally, the foggers should be plugged directly into an electrical outlet, eliminating the
need for a battery and electrical converter. The batteries and converters seemed to have
suffered the most damage from the bleach fog, so not having these components would
be advantageous.
95
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Ch gas levels were lower than expected (based on laboratory testing). Therefore, the
need for Level A PPE for entry during bleach fogging may require evaluation on a case-
by-case basis in future applications.
• The Ch gas dosimeters were not useful as implemented. None of the dosimeters
provided a colorimetric change to indicate a ppm*hour dosage of Ch gas. It is not clear
why these monitors did not register any CI2 gas dosage. The high humidity of the
fogging environment could have interfered with the chemical reaction producing the
colorimetric change, or, because the dosimeters were mounted on the wall, air
movement may not have been sufficient for passive diffusion.
• The ATI has sensors were useful in determining steady-state CI2 gas levels. Therefore,
they could be used to identify fogging completion times and deviations that indicate
problems.
4.7.2 Round 2: Spraying with pAB
Listed below are the observations of spraying with pAB and other lessons learned based on the
specific materials and procedures used during the OTD.
Observations
• The sprayer was purchased off-the-shelf and ready to use. However, three additional
hoses were added to increase the sprayer's distribution capacity, requiring minor
modifications and time.
• Decon of the study area using spraying was time consuming, requiring approximately
42 hours of manpower in Level A PPE (manpower hours include donning of PPE, entry
into tunnel to perform decon, personnel decon, and medical monitoring). Level A PPE
was required because of the high concentration of CI2 gas and the liquid spray/splash
hazard in the work environment.
• The amount of spray could be varied between surface types. In this case, twice the
amount of liquid decontaminant was sprayed on the high-surface-ratio ballast material
than on the other surface types. However, there is no guarantee that workers will cover
any specific area with the right amount of liquid decontaminant.
• The spraying method is relatively efficacious except for the kiosk-related surfaces and
materials, which yielded positive results. During an actual event, food items and porous,
organic materials most likely would need to be sampled and treated as contaminated
waste prior to disposal.
• For actual decon in a subway, a large source of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal
bleach may not be readily available. Alternatively, other bleach products could
potentially be used. Proper storage of a large source, according to the shelf life
requirements of the bleach product, also needs to be considered.
96
-------
UTR OTD Report
• In terms of adverse impacts caused by the decon process, no immediate effects to
subway tunnel materials was evident. Non-metallic surfaces and materials such as the
concrete, ballast, wood, wallboard, and plastic generally were unaffected based on
qualitative visual assessments. No damage to the functionality of any electrical or other
equipment in the EZ was observed after spraying operations were completed. However,
in order to minimize damage to FAPH's training facility, many of the electrical panels
and outlets were covered in plastic or tape before spraying began. Therefore, material
compatibility and functionality for this item could not be assessed. Some of the metal-
based materials in the EZ had slightly more oxidation and discoloration than what was
observed after Round 1 decon. These materials included items such as a few metal
outlet boxes, unpainted areas of the stairwell handrails, metal base plates on stairs,
exposed threads on galvanized steel pipe, and the Metro card reader.
Other Lessons Learned
• All hose clamps and fittings on the sprayer should be tightened before operations to
avoid potential disruption in operations.
• The sprayer should be outfitted with valves to control the individual hoses.
• The pH strips used to measure the pH of pAB solution were colorimetric-based, and it
was difficult to differentiate color changes.
5 Grimed and Non-grimed Coupon Study Results
As discussed in Section 2.5.3.7. to make the mock subway system at FAPH more realistic,
grimed coupons were added to the study area during Rounds 1 and 2. Non-grimed coupons also
were placed in the study area for comparison to the grimed coupon results. The study was
conducted to determine if the presence of grime affects the decon efficacy.
A total of 79 grimed and non-grimed coupon samples were collected during Round 1(1 coupon
could not be found during sampling. A total of 80 grimed and non-grimed coupon samples were
collected during Round 2.
Table 5-1 summarizes the Round 1 pre- and post-decon coupon recovery results. The pre-decon
mean recovery for Round 1 across all additional materials (except ballast) was 1.6E+05 CFU/ft2.
This value is consistent with recovered viable spores from the platform near the location where
the coupons were placed. After decon, all coupons yielded zero viable spores except for one non-
grimed painted steel coupon, which had a result of 3 CFU.
Table 5-1. Round 1 Pre- and Post-Decon Coupon Recovery Results
Material
Sampling Method
Grimed or Non-
grimed
CFU/ft2
Average
Pre-Decon (n=2)
Average
Post-Decon (n=3)
Concrete
Vacuum
Grimed
1.5E+04
0
Non-grimed
1.2E+05
0
Ballast
Wash/extract
Grimed
5.3E+04
0
Non-grimed
Not included
Not applicable
Tile
Sponge stick
Grimed
2.7E+05
0
97
-------
UTR OTD Report
Non-grimed
1.2E+04
0
Painted Steel
Sponge stick
Grimed
2.6E+05
0
Non-grimed
3.1E+05
1*
Note:
* = Positive result of 3 CFU/ft2 on one coupon; results for the other two coupons were negative
Table 5-2 summarizes the Round 2 pre- and post-decon coupon recovery results.
Table 5-2. Round 2 Pre- and Post-Decon Coupon Recoveries
Material
Sampling Method
Grimed or Non-
grimed
CFU/ft2
Average
Pre-Decon (n=2)
Average
Post-Decon (n=3)
Concrete
Vacuum
Grimed
2.9E+04
0
Non-grimed
6.5E+04
0
Ballast
Wash/extract
Grimed
8.8E+04
0
Non-grimed
Not included
Not applicable
Tile
Sponge stick
Grimed
1.2E+05
0
Non-grimed
2.2E+05
1*
Painted Steel
Sponge stick
Grimed
5.6E+05
0
Non-grimed
3.6E+05
0
Note:
* = Positive result of 3 CFU/ft2 on one coupon; results for the other two coupons were negative
The pre-decon mean recovery for Round 2 across all additional materials (except ballast) was
2.3E+05 CFU/ft2. This value is consistent with recovered viable spores from the platform near
the location where the coupons were placed. After decon, all coupons yielded zero viable spores
except for one non-grimed ceramic tile coupon, which had a result of 3 CFU.
Because both decontamination rounds resulted in almost complete kill of viable spores on
grimed and non-grimed coupons, no significant difference was observed in spore inactivation
caused by the presence of grime on the materials. Similar results were obtained for the grimed
ballast.
98
-------
UTR OTD Report
6 Waste Management Assessment Results
Proper waste management is a key element of remediation. Wastes generated during response to
a biological incident include waste generated by the incident itself, and waste generated during
cleanup after the incident. Different decon strategies result in different waste quantities and
characteristics, and the management of these wastes can significantly affect the overall
remediation timeline, resource requirements, and costs.
Waste disposal options and criteria for defining and classifying the waste must be considered
before selection of the decon technology. No decon efforts should begin without first
determining disposal options and criteria. Ease of waste management for a given technology
must be balanced against factors of time, availability, and cost.
One of the waste management challenges during the UTR OTD was the need to simulate waste
conditions with regard to costs, quantities, logistics, etc., and to mimic wastes generated at an
actual subway system after a Ba release. During the UTR OTD, a simulant spore (Bg) was used.
Therefore, the waste generated was considered "notional" waste only. An additional test
constraint was that waste generated during the test required handling in accordance with FAPH
waste management practices (for "real" waste), which may differ from waste management
practices during an actual biological contamination incident. Waste generated during the OTD
may not have significantly different characteristics from waste generated during a real incident,
but some aspects of the management process for /^/-contaminated waste could not be completely
mimicked in the OTD setting. The waste management practices for a real Ba contamination
incident would be determined by the appropriate agencies in the state where the incident
occurred and would follow state-specific regulations concerning waste characterization.
The waste management assessment included pre-decon and post-decon verification sampling and
the determination of waste quantities generated and associated costs. The following sections
discuss the general waste management approach, on-site waste management, waste
categorization, waste management assessment results, and lessons learned from the waste
management assessment.
6.1 General Waste Management Approach
The waste management concept shown in Figure 6-1 was developed to estimate the cost of and
issues related to management of the different "notional" waste streams generated during the
OTD while still appropriately addressing FAPH requirements for "real" waste streams. "Initial
Disposition" refers to what happened to the "notional" waste immediately upon generation at the
site. "Measurements" refers to the different measurements (such as weight and point of origin)
taken for the "notional" waste after initial disposition. "Short-Term Storage" refers to the near-
term management of the "real" waste (such as temporary storage, mingling with or separation
from other waste streams, etc.). "Final Disposition" refers to waste management activities related
to introducing the "real" waste (conventional solid waste) into FAPH's waste management
processes. The waste was treated as /^/-contaminated waste up until the waste entered its "real"
temporary waste management stage in preparation for final disposition in the FAPH waste
management process (as solid waste).
99
-------
UTR OTD Report
Waste is treated as "real
Waste is treated as "notional
Final
Deposition
Measurements
Waste Stream
Short-term
Storage
Initial
Disposition
Figure 6-1. Waste Management Concept
6.2 On-Site Waste Management
The waste management concept shown in Figure 6-1 was implemented during the OTD, for both
rounds of testing and all additional testing (besides the two rounds of decon performed by EPA
and the national laboratories). On-site waste management included management of the decon
line wastes, kiosk wastes, and immersion dunking decon (as discussed below).
6.2.1 Decon Line Wastes
For each of the two major decon tests (fogging and spraying), workers bagged solid waste
originating from the decon line and placed the bags outside the decon line structure. The bags
were weighed on a scale, the weights and points of origin were recorded, and then the bags were
placed into the roll-off container provided by FAPH. Additional wastes generated from
personnel entries into the EZ for non-sampling activities (such as maintenance) were also
collected and bagged similarly to the decon line wastes.
Aqueous waste from the decon line was accumulated in 275-gallon intermediate bulk container
(EBC) totes as shown in Figure 6-2.
I
Figure 6-2. IBC Tote for Aqueous Waste
When the container was full, the volume was recorded and the container was replaced with an
empty one. The aqueous waste then was transported to an FAPH-designated discharge point and
released into FAPH's wastewater management system. Samples were collected from the
wastewater container after the first decon round and both before and after the second decon
round.
100
-------
UTR OTD Report
6.2.2 Kiosk Wastes
In addition to the operational wastes discussed above, items were placed in the newsstand and
food stand kiosks in Zone 6. These items were intended to represent items typically found in a
subway system. The items were staged at the mock newsstand and food stand kiosks at the
beginning of each study round. Some items were sampled post-decon to determine if in situ
decon was successful in killing all residual spores in materials destined to become waste.
Although it would have been useful to duplicate the actual quantity of materials generated from
all retail activities in an actual subway system, this approach is impossible for a number of
reasons. First, no two subway systems or even stations within a single system are identical with
regard to the amount and type of retail space and or to the quantity of waste generated. Second,
setting up a simulation within the constraints of the FAPH facility is cost- and time-prohibitive.
Finally, the quantity of items in subway system retail venue is extremely variable based on time
of day. Based on these constraints, the study focused on various items typically present in
subway kiosks to determine if they could be adequately treated in situ using the decon methods
studied.
The newsstand and food stand kiosk surfaces and materials were exposed to the Bg release
during both rounds of testing. Kiosk-related materials were sampled pre- and post-decon for each
round. The kiosk materials were replaced (reset) after the Round 1) to ensure that "clean"
materials were present for Round 2.
To determine decon options for the kiosk wastes, two approaches were tested. The first approach
was to remove the kiosk wastes and decontaminate them ex situ through immersion dunking. The
other approach was to leave the kiosk wastes in the subway and decontaminate them in situ using
the fogging and spraying test methods. Kiosk wastes were packaged for removal in accordance
with the CONOPS in Appendix I.
To compare the in situ and ex situ decon approaches, after each dissemination, a subset of the
kiosk materials was removed and subjected to ex situ immersion dunking decon following the
CONOPS in Appendix J. Then, the remaining subset of kiosk materials left in the subway was
sampled as part of the pre- and post-decon activities using the sampling procedures for atypical
waste presented in Attachment 7 of Appendix D. Materials subjected to immersion were
sampled afterwards using the same sampling procedures. Upon completion of post-decon
sampling for both decon methods, the remaining kiosk items were collected, weighed, and
disposed of as "real" waste through the FAPH waste management program along with the other
wastes remaining in the subway, such as the kiosks themselves, refrigerators, cash registers, and
hot dog rollers. The immersion dunking decon process is discussed in detail below.
6.2.3 Immersion Dunking Decon
A portion of each type of material in the kiosks was collected after spore dissemination. The
materials included items such as newspapers, magazines, clothing, money, food, and food-related
items. Each collected material was sealed in separate bags and removed from the EZ for
treatment using immersion in pAB ( ). Immersion was conducted in a 10-cubic-meter
101
-------
UTR OTD Report
plastic trough (Hog Trough EZ Grout Corporation, Part No. HTP10, Malta, OH) as shown in
Figure 6-3.
Figure 6-3. Plastic Trough for Waste Immersion
The pAB solution was prepared in the plastic trough using the procedures described in EPA
2016. Each material was removed from its sealed bag, placed in a mesh bag, and immersed in the
pAB solution as shown in Figure 6-4.
Figure 6-4. Immersion of Waste Items in pAB
Each material was immersed for 15 min and then allowed to drain in the mesh bag until pAB
solution stopped dripping from the material as shown in Figure 6-5.
102
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 6-5. Kiosk Materials Draining in Mesh Bags after Immersion
After draining, the mesh bags were moved to a restricted area for drying, typically overnight.
Once dry, the materials were sampled, packaged, and labeled using one of the following three
methods: (1) cutting a representative portion of the material for sampling; (2) using a sponge
stick and template to sample the item; or (3) using a vacuum with a 37-mm filter cartridge to
sample the item. Attachment 7 in Appendix D details the sample collection method for these
atypical waste items.
The samples were delivered to the sample preparation area for processing and shipment to the
laboratories. The remaining kiosk materials then were disposed of in the same manner as the
operational wastes through bagging and disposal in the facility waste system. The aqueous waste
from the dunking trough was pumped into a 55-gal. drum (see Figure 6-6) and brought to the
designated FAPH discharge point for aqueous wastes.
Figure 6-6. Disposal of Aqueous Waste from On-Site Immersion Dunking Decon
103
-------
UTR OTD Report
6.3 Waste Categorization
The waste that was collected was segregated for tracking purposes to provide an assessment of
the types of waste generated in the OTD. Table 6-1 lists the various waste streams associated
with the OTD and describes the initial disposition, measurements, and frequency of
measurements for each waste stream.
Table 6-1. Waste Management Measurements and Frequency
Waste Stream
Initial Disposition
Measurements
Frequency
PPE and other solid
decon and sampling
residues
Collect in bag at end of
personnel decon line
Item description
and weight
As bags filled, decon line
personnel put them outside
the decon line
Personnel decon line
rinsate and collected
aqueous residues
from decon
Collect in container at end
of personnel decon line;
soapy water from decon
line and bleach from
personnel decon line
collected separately;
aqueous residues from pAB
immersion dunking also
collected separately
Volume
When container is full
Kiosk items
removed before and
during decon
Bag and move to staging
area); place bag outside in
waste holding area for
immersion dunking decon
Item description
and weight
During sampling rounds
Sampling waste
from donning trailer
Place in plastic bag
Item description
and weight
As bags filled
Note:
Assumptions: It is assumed that no residues are listed or considered characteristically hazardous under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). It also is assumed that any pathogenic agent was "rendered
non-viable" through autoclaving or a similar process and that no free liquids are present. Aqueous waste is
likewise assumed as "rendered non-viable" and assumed to meet PLN-8104 requirements. Most liquid (non-
RCRA), if not all, is assumed to have been disposed of in the sanitary waste system via a pumper truck. It is
assumed that any additional solid waste regulations of the state have been met.
The final disposition of these wastes is based on FAPH waste management procedures, with state
input. For an actual incident involving a Ba release, however, waste management procedures
would be developed in accordance with state requirements, with collaborative technical support
from appropriate federal agencies, as requested. In addition, if the decon and sampling residues
are either listed or considered characteristically hazardous under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), then disposal must be in accordance with RCRA Subtitle C requirements
defined by the state and the acceptance criteria of the waste management facility. If the waste
management facility is not in the same state as where the incident occurred, then both state solid
waste regulatory offices must be consulted. Ultimately, the decision to accept the waste will be
up to the waste management facility receiving the waste.
104
-------
UTR OTD Report
6.4 Waste Management Assessment Results
To the extent possible, waste was assigned to the activities that resulted in the generation of that
batch of waste. However, due to the duration of some of the workdays during the OTD, some
activities were deferred until the following day. This deferral may have resulted in some waste
being assigned to activities associated with the following day. These minor discrepancies may
change the activity that the waste was assigned to but has a negligible effect on the overall cost
analysis for the waste management assessment. In addition, as previously noted, the UTR OTD
involved all aspects of remediation of a subway system except for rolling stock. Therefore, waste
management of subway cars, maintenance facilities, and contents was not performed. However,
management of this waste should be considered for a full-scale event. Table 6-2 summarizes the
quantities of waste generated from different OTD activities.
Table 6-2. Waste Quantities
Waste Source
Round 1
Round 2
Total
Pre-decon
Sampling
Decon
Post-decon
Sampling
Pre-decon
Sampling
Decon
Post-decon
Sampling
Decon line
(solid)
243.21b
98.3 lb
290.4 lb
71.1 lb
-
314.9 lb
1017.91b
Decon line
(aqueous)
-
-
-
-
275 gal.
-
275 gal.
Donning tent
-
-
7.91b
-
-
-
7.9 lb
Tunnel
-
-
-
-
-
3.41b
3.4 lb
Waste dunking
solid
-
15.91b
41.8 lb
-
-
105.5 lb
163.2 lb
Waste dunking
aqueous
-
-
35.0 gal.
-
-
35.0 gal.
70.0 gal.
Sampling
36.7 lb
-
170.5 lb
-
-
87.3 lb
294.5 lb
Decon
-
35.61b
-
-
-
4.41b
40.0 lb
Total solid
waste (lb)
279.9
149.8
510.7
71.1
-
515.5
1526.9
Total aqueous
waste (gal.)
-
-
35.0
-
275.0
35.0
345.0
Table 6-3 summarizes the total quantity of waste generated for each round.
Table 6-3. Waste Generation Summary
Round
Solid Waste (lb)
Aqueous Waste
(gal)
Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach
940.4
35.0
Round 2: Spraying with pAB
586.6
310.0
Table 6-4 presents the results from sampling of the kiosk wastes before, and after decon as well
as after immersion dunking in pAB. No viable spores were detected in any of the post-immersion
dunking samples.
105
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 6-4. Kiosk Waste Item Sampling Results
Round 1
Round 2
Waste Source
Pre-decon
Post-decon
Post-
immersion
Pre-decon
Post-decon
Post-
immersion
Wooden stool
+
-
NA
+
-
NA
Cash register
+
-
NA
+
+
NA
Refrigerator
+
-
NA
+
-
NA
Hot dog roller
+
-
NA
+
-
NA
Hot dog bun
+
+
-
+
-
-
Hot dog
+
-
-
+
+
-
Wax paper
+
+
-
+
-
-
Newspaper
+
+
-
+
+
-
Magazine
+
-
-
+
-
-
Money
+
-
-
+
-
-
Shirts
+
+
-
+
+
-
Baseball hat
+
-
-
+
-
-
Plastic ware
+
-
-
+
-
-
Food stand kiosk
+
+
NA
+
-
NA
Newsstand kiosk under
NA
NA
register post-decon
Plexiglass poster case
+
+
-
+
-
-
Notes:
+ = Positive Bg result
- = Negative Bg result (no spores detected)
NA = Item not subjected to immersion dunking but was sampled pre- and post-decon
To extrapolate the waste generation results from the OTD to a hypothetical real-world subway
system, estimates were made regarding the amount of waste generated per linear foot of tunnel.
This extrapolation would enable municipalities to generate a waste estimate based on the OTD
results, taking into account unique system-specific features (such as multiple parallel tunnels).
Table 6-5 presents the extrapolation results. Appendix K presents the spreadsheet used to
generate these waste scaling factors.
106
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 6-5. Extrapolation of OTD Waste Results to Real-World Subway System
Parameter
OTD
Real-World System3
Real-World System3
(1,000-ft Section)
Average tunnel diameter (ft)b
NA
16
16
Average tunnel height (ft)b
19
13
13
Average tunnel width (ft)b
22
13
13
Tunnel length (ft)b
352
132,000
1,000
Tunnel surface area (ft2)b
28,864
13,270,087
100,531
PPE waste (lb)c
763
351,002
2,659
Aqueous waste (gal.)c
103
47,124
357
Notes: Waste estimates based on average of two OTD rounds (Round 1 fogging of 368 gal. of dilute bleach and
Round 2 spraying of 570 gal. of pAB)
a = Hypothetical system has two parallel tunnels
b = FAPH has rectangular tunnels, most subway systems have round tunnels, therefore an equivalent diameter must be
calculated. Used average rectangular FAPH tunnel dimensions; adjusted length to match ft2 of OTD facility (including
platform); converted tunnel circumference to equivalent square tunnel dimension
c = PPE (Level C) quantity from OTD scaled by factor of 1.8 to reflect double Tyvek suits that would be used in real
incident; aqueous waste includes only personnel decon rinsate
Table 6-6 presents the wastewater sampling results. The only wastewater samples that exhibited
positive results are the sump pump sample and the decon line wash water samples collected
during the Round 2 Pre-Decon sampling activities. However, sediment buildup on the analytical
filters prevented the detection of colonies on some samples. These samples are noted in the data
summaries.
Table 6-6. Wastewater Sampling Results
Wastewater
Source
Round 1
Round 2
Pre-decon
Post-decon
Pre-decon
Post-decon
Results
No. of
Samples
Results
No. of
Samples
Results
No. of
Samples
Results
No. of
Samples
Sump Pump
-
3
NA
NA
+
4
-
3
Decon Line
-
10
-
10
+
9
-
10
Immersion
Dunking
NA
NA
-
1
NA
NA
-
1
Notes:
+ = Positive Bg result
- = Negative Bg result (no spores detected)
NA = No samples collected
One issue that would be relevant in a real subway system would be the potential for significant
quantities of aqueous waste being released accidentally or intentionally to surface water, both
before and after decontamination. Before decon, this wastewater stream could contain viable
spores. After decon, the water could contain the decontaminant in concentrations that may be
problematic. These types of issues should be discussed with the appropriate regulatory
authorities.
107
-------
UTR OTD Report
6.5 Lessons Learned from Waste Management Assessment
Waste management for the OTD presented the challenges summarized below.
• It was difficult to properly capture only the PPE wastes from the personnel decon line
because they were comingled with other wastes such as water and electrolyte drink
bottles supplied to personnel for hydration.
• It was difficult to determine the additional effort and costs of managing wastes containing
Ba compared to managing wastes containing a nonpathogenic organism.
• It was difficult to specify procedures for bagging solid wastes and sampling the bagged
waste.
• Immersion dunking resulted in the disintegration of some items, making post-decon
sampling difficult.
• Immersion dunking required that already packaged bags of waste be reopened to allow
immersion. This requirement presents potential biosecurity and worker safety issues.
Performing the immersion dunking in a special location within the hot zone could
alleviate this issue.
• Immersion dunking added significant weight to items, making them difficult to handle.
This problem would be compounded by the large quantity of waste generated during an
actual incident.
• Immersion dunking is labor-intensive and time-consuming. In an actual incident, larger
quantities may require alternative equipment to facilitate these operations, including the
ability to hold much larger quantities of materials, counteract buoyant effects of some
materials, automation of the process, and minimize worker safety impacts.
• Wastes accumulated while awaiting dunking or removal for management. This
accumulation presented problems during unfavorable weather conditions (incoming
storm) and could present security problems during a real incident.
Observations and conclusions drawn based on the waste management assessment are
summarized below.
• Waste management is an integral part of the decon process and must be included as a
specific function during pre-incident and response planning.
• The OTD did not include rolling stock. Therefore, waste management of subway cars,
maintenance facilities, and contents should be considered for a full-scale event.
• In general, most solid waste generated was PPE from personnel entries during sampling
activities. Most aqueous waste was generated from personnel decon operations. Neither
decon approach appeared to dominate waste generation.
• If the state agrees to accept aqueous wastes in a RCRA Subtitle D publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) facility, waste management is greatly simplified. There may be
a stigma associated with biological incident waste streams, and waste treatment and
108
-------
UTR OTD Report
disposal facilities may be unwilling to accept associated wastes even if they have been
successfully treated so that they can be disposed of as conventional solid waste.
• In general, non-porous items and porous items that were somewhat isolated in their kiosk
location (such as hats) could be successfully decontaminated in situ as part of the facility
decon process.
• In general, items bundled together in their kiosk location (such as shirts) could not be
successfully decontaminated in situ as part of the facility decon process.
• Immersion dunking was effective for all wastes tested. Some items (e.g., hot dog buns)
disintegrated during the dunking process. Some items (e.g., newspapers) significantly
increased their weight in the dunking process due to absorbed bleach solution.
• Implementing the immersion dunking process at full-scale would require: (1) minimizing
worker exposure from waste handling; (2) addressing the impact of material buoyancy
during immersion so that proper wetting of materials occurs; and (3) addressing the
added weight associated with materials soaking up large quantities of aqueous decon
solutions.
• Fogging was less effective for potentially reusable items (such as the hot dog roller and
cash register), while spraying was fully effective on all items tested. This may affect the
re-usability of some items (e.g., cash register) which might survive fogging but will likely
not survive spraying.
• In general, based on the variable degree of success for the porous kiosk items for both
decon methods, removal of porous materials for ex situ waste treatment is a more
consistently effective approach for ensuring that waste materials do not contain residual
spores.
• The volume of aqueous waste from personnel decon and collected by sump pumps from
tunnel decon can be significant, especially for decon by spraying and if procedures are
not put into place to minimize excess spraying. Minimizing excess aqueous waste from
personnel decon can be achieved by using a misting approach (EPA 2015b) rather than a
spray-down of personnel as they pass through the personnel decon line. Spray-down
roughly converts to 0.94 gal. per linear foot of tunnel, or 0.011 gal./ft2 of surface area
decontaminated. Disposal of these wastes may present significant challenges, especially
if POTWs do not choose to accept the waste because of the stigma associated with a
high-visibility event.
109
-------
UTR OTD Report
7 Cost Analysis
A detailed cost analysis was performed for the fogging with diluted bleach (Round 1) and
spraying with pAB (Round 2) technologies to remediate contamination with Bg spores (although
cost estimates are based on the assumption of an actual Ba incident). The main task of the Cost
Analysis Group was to estimate costs resulting from the application of various decon
technologies as a function of labor cost, materials, and time. The primary objectives of the cost
analysis are as follows:
• Primary Objective: To conduct an analysis of the cost of the approach and application
of cleanup technologies
• Secondary Objective: To develop a tool or methodology that can be used to help guide
decision making for future events
To achieve these objectives, the Cost Analysis Group acquired cost data for the following:
• Time and materials required to perform a wide variety of sampling activities
• Time and materials required to perform sampling preparatory activities, train sampling
personnel, perform sample COC activities, pack and ship samples, and perform
laboratory analyses
• Time and materials required to prepare entry teams and perform personnel decon
operations after the teams left the EZ
• Time and materials required to use two different decon technologies on a subway system
and to restore the structure to its condition prior to contamination
• Quantities and characteristics of waste generated during sampling and decon operations.
The cost analysis does not include costs for the composite sampling or grimed and non-grimed
coupon study.
The following sections discuss the cost analysis approach, sources of cost data, labor costs, cost
analysis assumptions and limitations, the results, and lessons learned from the cost analysis.
7.1 Cost Analysis Approach
The cost analysis approach assumes that although certain pieces of information derived from the
OTD are incident- and site-specific, the information still can be extrapolated to other events.
These pieces of information include costs related to sampling activities, application of decon
technologies for the study area and for personnel entering and leaving the test area, and costs
related to equipment rentals and consumables. Furthermore, some costs critical to a cost analysis
are not explicitly based on the OTD.
Some cost estimates based on the OTD may be unrealistic because a biological warfare agent
(BWA) surrogate was used instead of a real BWA. Where appropriate and possible, adjustments
were made during the cost analysis to account for an actual Ba incident. Costs not based on
110
-------
UTR OTD Report
either the OTD or on best engineering judgment are not included in the cost analysis. Some
elements of the cost analysis are notional in nature, including the following:
• Extrapolation of analytical costs to account for the increased effort of performing
analyses in a BSL-3 environment instead of the BSL-2 environment used for the OTD
• Estimation of fixed costs associated with management of waste potentially contaminated
with Ba
• Estimation of waste characterization sampling and analytical costs
• Estimation of replacement costs for commonly found subway materials (such as rail cars
and vendor goods)
• Estimation of waste transportation costs and waste disposal tipping fees
In addition, for the purposes of this cost analysis, an initiation point and a destination point were
selected to calculate travel costs. Because the overall UTR effort involved collaborative planning
with the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority and because EPA's Consequence CMAD has a
significant quantity of response assets in Erlanger, KY, Cincinnati, OH, was used as the initiation
point of travel and San Francisco, CA, was used as the destination.
The following sections discuss direct costs, indirect costs, costs not included in the cost analysis,
and the conceptual description of the cost analysis.
7.1.1 Direct Costs
Direct costs derived from the OTD Round 1 and Round 2 activities were used to extrapolate
costs for an actual incident by including incident- and site-specific variables in the analysis but
reducing the calculations to scalable quantities (such as labor hours and time of entry), whenever
possible. The goal was to assess costs associated with applying a given decon technology on a
per application basis, if possible.
Personnel costs (for both federal employees and contractors) are based on labor rates,
management fees, and overhead, resulting in a loaded hourly labor rate rather than a single fixed-
price number. Costs for waste management are based on the quantity of waste removed from the
study area and included packaging, handling, transportation, and sampling and analysis. An
adjustment factor was applied to the disposal costs (for transportation costs and landfill tipping
fees) to allow premium fees to be applied as a variable for waste disposal. Some of the disposal
cost elements are notional rather than based on data from the OTD because the OTD used a
BWA surrogate instead of an actual BWA.
7.1.2 Indirect Costs
A number of indirect costs are notional because they could not be quantified for the OTD
because the testing was performed using a BWA surrogate instead of a real BWA. These costs
are included in the analysis using best engineering judgment rather than data from the OTD.
Although indirect costs associated with decon may be significant for an actual event, the
111
-------
UTR OTD Report
constraints of a controlled trial prevented realistic measurement of some of these indirect costs in
dollar terms. Therefore, the indirect costs for the following are evaluated in qualitative terms:
• Travel, lodging, and rental car costs for incident response participants
• Development of planning documents (such as sampling plan, waste management plan,
and remediation plan)
• Coordination with regulatory authorities
7.1.3 Costs Not Included in Cost Analysis
Some cost elements, although important, are not included in the cost analysis for the OTD. In
general, these costs either are impossible to accurately assess due to their site- and incident-
specific nature or are not likely to be a strong element of the decon strategy. Costs not included
in the cost analysis are for the following:
• Costs due to denial of access to facilities that have not been cleared
• Costs associated with delays in reaching a final disposal decision
• Sociological costs
• Costs associated with public panic
• Costs due to denial of access because of the public's refusal to reoccupy facilities that
have been cleared
• Costs due to the extension of response and recovery timelines due to political
considerations
• Other costs that could not be estimated using data from the OTD, best engineering
judgment, or other reasonable assumptions
7.1.4 Conceptual Description of Cost Analysis
The cost analysis was performed using a Microsoft Excel workbook that contained multiple
worksheets. Appendix L provides the cost analysis workbook, which includes detailed
information on how costs were estimated. Several parameters in the workbook affected the cost
distribution and are site- or incident-specific or possibly reflect key decisions that would be made
by various decision-making authorities (including federal, state, and local decision makers; the
UC; and the site Safety Officer). The worksheet for these user-adjustable parameters is called
"Knobs" because, like the knobs on a control panel, these parameters could be easily adjusted to
examine the effect on cost. Table 7-1 summarizes the user-adjustable variables and the values
used for this cost analysis.
112
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 7-1. Values of User-Adjustable Variables for Cost Analysis
Parameter
Value
Comment
1 = If decontaminated waste is treated
as MSW
2 = If decontaminated waste has a lOx
Waste Difficulty
2
premium charge
3 = If decontaminated waste is treated
as contaminated and has a lOOx
premium charge
Purchased Equipment Variables
Equipment Amortization Period (months):
60
How long equipment is amortized
OTD Amortization Period (months):
1.5
How long incident lasted
Multiplier for LRN BSL-3 vs. BSL-2 Analysis
1.5
Needed to account for additional effort
to maintain BSL-3 protocols
Multiplier for amount of PPE that would actually be
worn
1.8
EPA responders would be wearing 2
Tyvek® suits
Average Length of Day (hr)
12
Post-Entry Rest Period (hr)
0.5
Travel Variables
NA
Airfare + M&IE + lodging + rental car
+ labor for 2 travel days
Cincinnati, OH (CVG) to San
Airfare to Site ($/person)
$518
Francisco, CA (SFO); 2017
government rate fare
Rental Car (one per team) ($/week/3 person team)
$406
Minivan
Lodging ($/day/person)
$267
2017 rate for San Francisco
M&IE ($/day/person)
$74
2017 rate for San Francisco
Decon Round Variables
Round 1 Drying Days:
3
Round 2 Drying Days:
3
Waste Sampling Variables
Number of Waste Samples Per 50 kg:
3
1 sample per 3 5-lb bag
Number of Water Samples Per 220 L:
1
1 sample per 55-gal. drum
Notes:
kg = Kilogram
M&IE = Meals and incidental expenses
MSW = Municipal solid waste
The cost analysis used a mathematical approach to collecting the various cost elements and
combining them into an overall cost. The cost analysis has four main components: (1) sampling
and analysis, (2) decon, (4) waste management, and (4) incident command. Based on these
components, the total cost per round (C) was calculated using the following equation:
C Csampling Cdecon Cwaste Ccommand
The following sections discuss each element of the cost equation, followed by a discussion of
other considerations.
113
-------
UTR OTD Report
7.1.4.1 Sampling and Analysis Costs
Sampling and analysis costs include the following components:
• Materials including PPE
• Travel, lodging, and rental cars for Sampling Teams
• Labor associated with preparation of sampling kits
• Labor associated with sampling personnel entries into tunnel
• Labor associated with personnel decon operations
• Labor associated with analytical laboratory personnel
• Labor associated with sample packaging and shipment
• Laboratory waste management costs
Sampling costs were calculated for both the pre-decon and post-decon phases for each OTD
round.
Laboratories performing the analyses submitted data sheets with labor estimates for preparing
samples, performing the analyses, and reporting the analytical results as well as an estimate of
laboratory waste (aqueous and solid) generated during the analyses. Because the laboratory
analyses were performed under BSL-2 conditions instead of the BSL-3 conditions that would
apply during a real Ba incident, a multiplier factor of 1.5 was assigned based on an estimate from
a laboratory manager. The 1.5 multiplier reflects the additional cost burden from the increased
laboratory safety requirements associated with BSL-3 operations. Laboratory waste estimates
were reported in the laboratory data sheets found in Appendix H but were not included in the
cost analysis because no cost data on laboratory waste disposal were available.
7.1.4.2 Decon Costs
Decon costs include the following components:
• Materials, including PPE
• Equipment purchases and rentals
• Travel, lodging, and rental cars for decon personnel
• Labor associated with decon personnel entries into tunnel
• Labor associated with support personnel outside the tunnel
• Labor associated with personnel decon operations
• Decon waste management costs
Some of these components may be zero for certain decon technologies, and some components
are notional (such as travel) to reflect limitations in available staff resources. Wherever possible,
the cost assessment was as detailed as possible and included factors such as electricity for the
114
-------
UTR OTD Report
NAMs, water, and shipment of supplies. Travel costs for personnel are implicitly included in the
hourly rate for personnel.
7.1.4.3 Waste Management Costs
Waste management costs include the following components:
• Materials, including PPE
• Equipment purchases and rentals
• Labor associated with collection, packaging, on-site treatment, and handling (notional)
• Transportation costs per mile (notional)
• Waste sampling and analysis costs
• Costs of disposal at a landfill or wastewater treatment plant (notional)
• Development of waste management plan (notional)
• Development of transportation plan (notional)
• Development of tracking and reporting plan (notional)
• Coordination with regulatory agencies and facilities (notional)
Waste management costs were calculated based on amounts of materials removed from the
tunnel after decon, as well as waste materials generated from personnel decon operations. The
quantities of the waste generated from site and personnel decon operations are scalable to other
locations based on a given area's square footage or volume. However, due to funding limitations
and logistical practicalities, the actual costs of disposal are largely notional. FAPH shipped waste
materials off site for disposal, but because the waste materials were not contaminated with even
trace levels of Ba, the disposal costs used in the analysis are notional.
Some components of the waste cost are associated with development of various documentation,
community outreach, and coordination with regulatory authorities. These costs all are notional
and are based on estimates for the time required to perform each activity.
7.1.4.4 Incident Command Costs
Incident command costs include the following components:
• Materials
• Equipment purchases and rentals
• Labor associated with command personnel
• Labor associated with health and safety oversight
• HASP and oversight costs (notional)
• Contract oversight costs (notional)
115
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Communications and community outreach plan (notional)
The costs are based on two personnel overseeing operations and health and safety oversight
personnel. Many equipment purchases and rentals, otherwise not assigned to specific activities,
are included in the incident command costs. High-priced capital equipment items (such as
computers, generators, and vehicles) typically tracked as accountable government property were
depreciated over a 60-month anticipated lifetime, with the depreciation being prorated over an
estimated 1.5-month total response time. It was assumed that other equipment would be
purchased for the response and not depreciated. Notional costs are included as part of the
incident command costs for development of the incident-specific HASP, contract oversight, and
development of communications and community outreach planning documents.
7.4.1.5 Other Considerations
Other factors are not considered in this cost analysis, although they are potential contributors to
cost. These other considerations include intangibles such as the following:
• Potential exposure when mixing the pAB solution may require additional considerations
including additional PPE, monitoring, engineering controls.
• Potential for stigma associated with removed materials impacting waste management
practices.
• Potential for having to manage waste that, even though it has been decontaminated or
treated, has not been sampled to verify absence of residual contamination. Ultimately, the
treatment/disposal facility has the right of refusal for receiving the waste.
• Potential for limitations in available decon resources that could impact the ability to
apply a given technology.
• Potential for less effective decon for certain material types.
7.2 Sources of Cost Data
Much of the information used to populate the Excel cost analysis workbook was generated as
part of the planning process and on information in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
and sampling and analysis plan used by the OTD groups. Some information was generated as the
tests rounds occurred and was collected as discussed throughout this report. Table 7-2 lists the
raw data sources, including the QC method for checking accuracy.
Table 7-2. Sources of Cost Data
Mi'iimmviiu'iiI
l'rim;ir\ Simnv
ye Mi-iin.il
Entry team personnel decon
line data
Observer outside EZ
Compared with Test Group Director
notes and health and safety notes
Entry team preparation time
QR Code system and personal
notes
Occasional observations
Entry team times inside EZ
QR code system and personal
notes
Compared with Test Group Director
notes
Material costs
Copies of purchase orders and
Spot check of random entries for
116
-------
UTR OTD Report
Measurement
Primary Source
QC Method
e-mail messages
accuracy
Personnel decon line
operations data
Test Group Director Notes
Compared with notes
Times to perform decon
operations
Radio broadcasts
Compared with notes and Test
Group Director notes
Times to collect samples
iPad time stamp information
Compared with notes and Test
Group Director notes
Waste origination point
Notes made on iPad
Not applicable
Waste quantity estimates
Platform scale near personnel
decon line; volumetric
estimate on full barrels
Scale periodically checked for drift
and zeroed with full bottle of bleach
Notes:
QR code= Quick response code
The QR system referred to in Table 7-2 uses Universal Series Bus (USB)-interface webcams
(Figure 7-1 A) along with an internally developed python-based tool called the "QR code
Reader for Personnel Tracking."
Figure 7-1. QR Code Camera System Prototype (A) Laminated QR Code Attached to
Personnel Entering the Building (B)
The QR code system tracked the movements of personnel within the tunnel and measured the
amount of time it took for personnel to perform their duties. The QR code technology uses
laminated 8.5- by 11 -in. QR codes that were taped to the front of the PPE (Figure 7-1, B). As
personnel enter within range of the camera (typically around 5 ft), the system recorded their
name and the time. QR code measurement stations were set up in the following locations:
• At the exit of the PPE donning room
• At the entrance to the EZ
• At the exit of the personnel decon line
117
-------
UTR OTD Report
The QR code cameras were placed at locations where accountability information required
documentation (typically are the entrance and exit of the EZ). For the purposes of the OTD, this
information was used to track Sampling Team entry durations for the cost spreadsheet.
The worksheets in the Excel cost analysis workbook are provided in Appendix L and
summarized in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3. Worksheets from Cost Analysis Workbook
Worksheet Name
Information in the Worksheet
Activities
List of activities throughout the UTR OTD
Analytical
Calculations for estimating laboratory analytical costs
Cost Equations
Main cost calculation sheet that estimates values for the terms in the
equations
Daily Activity List
Lookup table assigning activities in the "Activities" worksheet to a given
date
Decon Line Ops
Raw data on observations of the labor associated with personnel decon line
operations
Entry Team Times
Raw data on observations of the amount of time each EZ entry team spent in
the personnel decon line
Knobs
Worksheet with user-adjustable parameters
Lumped Costs
Raw data on observations and calculations of various lumped costs that are
not scalable based on labor hours or entries (such as travel)
Notes and Assumptions
List of notes and assumptions
Numbers of Samples
Calculations related to numbers of samples
Purchase Orders
Raw data on observations and calculations of various items purchased for
UTR OTD
Sampling
Raw data on observations as well as automatically generated data from the
QR code readers
Revisions
List of revisions to cost analysis workbook as calculations were developed
Salary Table
A table of salaries used to estimate labor rates for various efforts
Summary
Intermediate calculations of various terms used in "Cost Equations"
worksheet
TABLE - Sampling
and Analysis (S&A)
Costs
Sampling and analytical cost estimation
TABLE - Team Entries
Calculations of numbers and duration of entries by various teams
TABLE - Waste Cost
Calculations of waste management costs
TABLE-Waste
Summary
Calculations of amount of waste generated in each room and amount of
waste broken down by category
Team Makeup
Defines the makeup of each team and includes calculations of the team's
loaded hourly labor rate based on team makeup and "Salary Table"
worksheet
Time Per Sample
Calculations of how long each type of sample took to acquire
Waste
Raw data on quantities of waste generated
118
-------
UTR OTD Report
7.3 Labor Costs
Labor costs were estimated using a loaded hourly labor rate approach that uses designated teams
for various activities. Contractor hourly labor estimates (CareerMedia.com 2017) are based on
values for the labor categories shown in Table 7-4.
Table 7-4. Labor Categories and Loaded Hourly Labor Rates
Labor Category
Job Classification
Loaded Hourly
Rate ($)
PL1
Engineer I
101
PL2
Engineer II
118
PL3
Engineer TIT
142
PL4
Engineer V
210
TL1
Engineering Aide I
71
TL2
Engineering Aide II
81
TL3
Engineering Aide III
101
EMT
Paramedic
61
OSC/IC
GS-13 Step 5
155
The OSC/IC rate is based on a GS-13 Step 5 rate in the 2016 General Schedule Locality Pay
Tables for Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC (U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2017). A
multiplication factor of 3 was used to estimate total loaded hourly rates from the base hourly
salary values. This multiplier accounts for benefits and management overhead associated with
the employee. The personnel mix of teams performing various aspects of the response is based
on mixtures of the labor categories discussed above for varying numbers of hours. Table 7-5 lists
the teams for the various response activities.
Table 7-5. Labor Categories and Loaded Hourly Labor Rates by Team
Team
osc /
IC
EMT
PL1
PL2
PL3
PL4
TL1
TL2
TL3
No. on
Team
No. of
Teams
Sampling Team
0.3
3.0
3.3
6
Decon Team (Level C)
0.3
3.0
1.0
4.3
1
Decon Team (Level A)
0.3
6.0
2.0
8.3
1
Decon Line Setup Team
2.0
2.0
1
Decon Line Ops Team
0.3
1.0
3.0
4.3
1
Sample Packaging Team
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1
Waste Handling Team
1.0
3.0
4.0
1
Laboratory Analysis Team
0.3
0.3
1.0
1.5
1
Data Management Team
1.0
1.0
2.0
1
Data Analysis Team
2.0
2.0
4.0
1
Sample Kit Preparation
Team
1.0
1.0
1
Health and Safety Team
1.0
1.0
1
Documentation/Plan
Writing Team
0.5
0.3
1.0
1.8
1
Command Team
2.0
2.0
1
OSC/IC
1.0
1.0
1
119
-------
UTR OTD Report
Team
osc /
IC
EMT
PL1
PL2
PL3
PL4
TL1
TL2
TL3
No. on
Team
No. of
Teams
Regulatory Coordination
Team
1.0
2.0
3.0
1
EPA Purchasing Team
1.0
0.3
1.3
1
Waste Sampling Team
3.0
3.0
1
Water Sampling Team
3.0
3.0
1
The following sections discuss the labor costs associated with tunnel entry and personnel decon.
7.3.1 Labor Costs Associated with Tunnel Entry
Labor costs associated with entry into the tunnel were assessed assuming that each entry team
undergoes the following activities to constitute a single "entry":
• Donning of PPE
• Entry into tunnel for the designated activity
• Personnel decon
• 30-minute rest period
To account for other time-based cost factors that could differ for a real incident, as opposed to a
field test, it is assumed that entry teams for sampling would immediately perform another entry
as soon as their rest period was over. The average entry time and time it takes to perform
sampling activities is used to determine the overall length of time to perform all necessary
sampling. It must be noted that ambient conditions could dramatically affect some of these
numbers. For example, in high temperatures, wearing double Tyvek, much shorter entry
durations might be required.
7.3.2 Labor Costs Associated with Personnel Decon
The personnel decon costs were broken down based on the labor hours and labor category of the
personnel performing the decon. These costs include expendables and supplies as separate line
items. Personnel decon costs are rolled into the costs for the primary OTD function (such as
sampling and decon). Personnel costs associated with supervising the decon lines are also
included.
To estimate the personnel decon costs, it is assumed that the decon line personnel are present all
day for any day that includes entries into the EZ. For the purposes of the cost analysis, a 12-hour
day was assumed.
7.4 Cost Analysis Assumptions and Limitations
The cost analysis is based on many assumptions and has limitations. Table 7-6 lists the
assumptions and limitations for each worksheet tab of the Excel cost analysis workbook
(Appendix L).
120
-------
UTR OTD Report
7.5 Cost Analysis Results
The cost analysis results are discussed below for tunnel EZ entry, sampling and analysis, facility
decon, and waste management costs, followed by a discussion of the overall cost of remediation.
Table 7-6. Assumptions and Limitations for Cost Analysis Worksheets
Worksheet
Assumptions and Limitations
All
Cells with a GREEN color have user inputs associated with them.
All
Cells with a WHITE color are calculated based on formulas.
All
Cells with a BLUE color are used in other worksheets.
All
A single average time per entry is used based on Test Group Director data.
Analytical Costs
A knob has the multiplier for BSL-3 analysis versus BSL-2 analysis.
Cost Equations
Average material cost per sample type = total materials for that sample type +
total lumped costs for that sample type + general sample costs distributed among
number of sponge stick wipe, swab, and air.
Cost Equations
Decon contractor fixed costs = sum of all lumped costs + purchase order costs for
each round + 1/3 of general decon costs not attributed to any given round.
Cost Equations
The cost of the Safety Team is included in incident command costs. The decon
incident command cost is for the safety team entering the building.
Lumped Costs
Assumptions are that Sampling Teams fly in, rent one car per team, stay for the
duration of the sampling, and fly out, with 1 day of travel each way.
Lumped Costs
Assumptions are that decon teams fly in, rent one car per team, stay for the
duration of decon, and fly out, with 1 day of travel each way.
Lumped Costs
Assumptions are that travel is paid only for sampling, decon, safety, and OSC/IC
personnel. Travel costs are not paid for decon line operation, sample kit
preparation, and other personnel, including local labor.
Cost Equations
"Other" costs from the lumped cost worksheet are applied to both rounds rather
than averaged between the two rounds.
Team Makeup
It is assumed that one rental car per 3-man Sampling Team was used.
7.5.1 Tunnel Exclusion Zone Entry Costs
Table 7-7 lists the number and type of entries for the major components of the OTD and
includes the average entry time both in Level A and Level C PPE. These average entry times
were used throughout the cost analysis to assess labor costs associated with EZ entries.
Table 7-7. Numbers of Team Entries3
Round
Sample
Team
Entries
Decon
Team
Level C
Entries
Decon
Team
Level A
Entries
Health and
Safety Team
Entries
Average Level C
Entry Time (hr)b
Average Level A
Entry Time (hr)c
Round 1
33
3
2
6
1.81
1.18
Round 2
33
2
6
6
1.81
1.18
Note:
a = Sampling Team entries were minutely tracked during Round 1 and spot checked during Round 2, therefore team
entry data were averaged across the two Rounds for this analysis.
b = Time includes donning of PPE, entry into tunnel to perform activity, and personnel decon.
c = Time includes donning of PPE, entry into tunnel to perform activity, personnel decon and medical monitoring.
121
-------
UTR OTD Report
7.5.2 Sampling and Analysis Costs
Table 7-8 summarizes the sampling and analysis costs, and Figure 7-2 illustrates the distribution
of costs associated with a single sample. Figure 7-3 illustrates the distribution of costs associated
with the overall OTD sampling effort. The cost of sample analysis is much higher than the cost
of sample collection, suggesting that using a composite sampling technique could result in
significant cost savings. Also, costs associated with the use of Bis as a decon performance
indicator are significantly lower than the costs for conventional sampling and culturing methods.
Cost Per Sample
$450
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
1L Sterile Sponge 37 mm RMC BI Strip Solid Waste Aqueous
Bottle Stick Cassette Waste
Sample Type
¦ Sampling Cost ($/sample) ¦ Analytical Cost ($/sample)
¦ Lab Waste Disposal Cost ($/sample)
Figure 7-2. Breakdown of Sampling and Analysis Costs for Single Sample
Costs for OTD Sampling Efforts
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
I ™
- <
¦ Fogging ¦ Spraying
Figure 7-3. Costs for Overall OTD Sampling Efforts
122
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 7-8. Sampling and Analysis Costs
Sample Type
Time
Expendables
Wastes
Costs
Sample Kit
Preparation
Sampling
Sample
Packaging/
Shipping
Analysis
Sampling
Analysis
Solid
Aqueous
Sampling
Analysis*
Lab Waste
Disposal
Total
(hr/sam
pie)
($/sample)
(kg/ sample)
(L/ sample)
($/sample)
RMC
0.12
0.06
0.03
0.08
16.00
1.95
0.03
0.01
69.82
22.78
0.43
93.02
Sponge stick
0.12
0.09
0.03
0.67
14.52
46.87
1.94
0.00
82.32
241.21
22.17
345.70
Vacuum
0.18
0.15
0.03
0.77
26.18
34.28
1.94
0.00
131.20
247.27
22.17
400.65
1-L sterile
bottle
wash/extract
0.12
0.08
0.03
0.79
27.81
35.64
0.94
0.64
90.20
254.19
12.80
357.20
Solid waste
0.12
0.17
0.03
0.79
27.81
35.64
0.94
0.64
132.04
254.19
12.80
399.03
Aqueous
Waste
0.10
0.08
0.03
0.79
27.81
35.64
0.94
0.64
90.40
254.19
12.80
357.40
Bis
0.09
0.07
0.03
0.08
10.88
1.95
0.03
0.01
64.22
22.78
0.43
87.42
Note:
* = Analytical cost includes adjustment of analytical cost to reflect BSL-3 requirements
123
-------
UTR OTD Report
Waste sampling and analysis costs are a relatively minor contributor to the overall sampling and
analysis costs for the OTD, unlike for the BOTE study (EPA 20131 where waste sampling and
analysis constituted a major component of the overall sampling and analysis cost. Part of the
reason for this difference is that a subway system is not likely to contain a large quantity of
removable materials unlike an office building or residence. Another reason is that other than the
PPE waste generated from sampling and decon activities, only a small amount of extraneous
materials was populated in the subway tunnel (the kiosk items), with the specific goal of
evaluating the ability of each decon method to perform in situ treatment of materials destined as
waste.
To account for the fact that the OTD laboratory analyses were performed under BSL-2
conditions instead of BSL-3 conditions, a multiplier of 1.5 was applied to the analytical cost
estimates. Table 7-9 summarizes the laboratory analytical costs with the multiplier applied.
Table 7-9. Laboratory Analytical Costs with 1.5 Multiplier
Sample Type
Analytical
Labor
(hr/sample)
Expendables
($/sample)
Solid Waste
(lb/sample)
Aqueous Waste
(gal./sample)
RMC
0.1
$1.95
0.1
0.01
Sponge stick
0.7
$46.87
4.3
0.0
Vacuum
0.8
$34.28
4.3
0.0
Aqueous
(wash/extract
and liquid)
0.8
$35.64
2.1
0.64
Bis
0.1
$1.95
0.1
0.01
7.5.3 Facility Decon Costs
Both decon processes required entries in Level A PPE, more so during Round 2 than Round 1 (as
discussed in Section 3.51 which necessitated additional support personnel inside the tunnel (see
the "Team Makeup" worksheet in Appendix L).
Figure 7-4 shows the distribution of the contributions to the facility decon costs for the OTD.
Based on the OTD scenario, costs appear relatively evenly divided among labor, equipment,
materials, and logistical support (such as personnel decon line). Fogging is approximately 30%
less expensive to implement than spraying with pAB because of a slightly increased cost for
most of the decon cost components. The column labeled "Other Decon Costs" represents lumped
costs not attributable to a given decon technology (see the "Lumped Costs" worksheet in
Appendix L). Costs in this column include development of planning documents and travel for
personnel.
124
-------
UTR OTD Report
Facility Decontamination Costs
$50,000
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
= ilrill..
Cost of Decon Cost of Decon Other Decon Material Cost
Teams Line Operations Costs for Decon
Team
¦ Fogging ¦ Spraying
Figure 7-4. Facility Decon Costs
7.5.4 Waste Management Costs
Three hypothetical waste management scenarios were examined based on the difficulty of
managing the waste (see Table 7.1), which affected the estimated transportation and disposal
costs. Table 7-10 lists the waste management scenarios.
Table 7-10. Waste Management Scenarios
Degree of Disposal
Difficulty
Waste Classification
Disposa
Pathway
Solids
Aqueous
Low
MSW
RCRA Subtitle D
Landfill 10 miles
away
Local POTW facility
10 miles away
Medium
MSW with lOx surcharge
High
Contaminated waste with
lOOx surcharge
The first scenario, "Low Difficulty," assumes that all solid waste initially contaminated is
disposed of as municipal solid waste (MSW) in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill 10 miles from the
incident location and that all aqueous waste is brought to a local POTW facility 10 miles from
the incident location. No increased charges above and beyond costs for normal MSW and
sanitary sewage are assumed.
The second scenario, "Medium Difficulty," assumes that decontaminated waste has been
decontaminated, but a lOx multiplier surcharge is applied for transportation and disposal to
reflect increased security, monitoring, and liability concerns on behalf of the receiving facility.
Total Decon
Cost
125
-------
UTR OTD Report
The third scenario, "High Difficulty," assumes that decontaminated waste is still contaminated,
resulting in a lOOx multiplier surcharge on transportation and disposal at a RCRA Subtitle C
landfill 200 miles away.
The waste management cost estimation approach was supported by process knowledge and
experience from real responses to both intentional and naturally occurring anthrax incidents since
2001. All scenarios assume that waste that was sampled and did not have any detectable viable
spores is considered conventional solid waste and suitable for disposal at a RCRA Subtitle D
landfill. Another assumption is that all aqueous waste, regardless of initial level of
contamination, is disposed of at a local POTW facility.
Waste management cost estimates are based on observed quantities of waste from various parts
of the OTD facility, as well as notional treatment and disposal operations costs and level of effort
associated with the development of key documents. Aqueous wastes and solid wastes were
tracked separately, and the sources of the wastes were identified. The waste is characterized as
being from one of the following sources:
• Decon line (solid)
• Decon line (aqueous)
• Donning tent
• Tunnel
• Waste immersion (solid)
• Waste immersion (aqueous)
• Sampling
• Decon
For the purposes of most of this cost analysis, it is assumed that waste is successfully treated on
site to contain no detectable viable spores and that a landfill is found to accept the waste for a
lOx surcharge on the tipping fee ("Medium Difficulty"). Table 7-11 summarizes the waste
management costs
Table 7-11. Waste Management Costs
Round
Solid
Waste
(kg)
Aqueous
Waste
(L)
Collection,
Handling,
Packaging
Transportation
Disposal
Sampling
and
Analysis
Other
Total
1
427
132
$3,532
$550
$470
$1,345
$54,153
$60,050
2
267
1,173
$3,247
$550
$293
$2,600
$53,899
$60,589
Note: It is assumed that waste is managed as conventional solid waste, with a lOx premium assessed for
disposal tipping fees.
126
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 7-5 depicts the breakdown of waste management cost components for the OTD.
Waste Management Costs
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
Round 1: Fogging Round 2: Spraying
¦ Other Costs ($)
¦ Sampling and Analysis Cost ($)
¦ Disposal Cost ($)
¦ Transportation Cost ($)
¦ Collection, Handling, Packaging Cost ($)
Figure 7-5. Breakdown of Waste Management Costs
The column labeled "Other Costs" represents lumped costs not attributable to a given decon
technology (see the "Lumped Costs" worksheet in Appendix L). Costs in this column include
development of planning documents, coordination with regulatory agencies, and travel for
personnel.
Estimating the total costs of waste management from the two rounds required notionalizing
many of the waste management activities. None of the waste generated during the OTD was
actually contaminated with Ba, therefore, the waste was characterized as if it were Ba-
contaminated and had been treated or decontaminated before placement into the dumpster and
entering the FAPH waste management process. For this scenario, the waste management costs
are largely driven by the development of the necessary documentation and coordination with
regulatory authorities (representing approximately 40% of the notional costs). Although this
assumption may appear unreasonable, assuming only 40 hours to discuss waste management
issues with various stakeholders likely is a conservative estimate, particularly for a complicated
incident involving a weaponized biological contaminant in a subway. This significant cost
component may be reduced through the development of pre-incident waste management
planning documents so that many decisions can be made (or at least be discussed) before an
incident occurs.
127
-------
UTR OTD Report
Table 7-12 lists the waste management costs from the "Low," "Medium," and "High" difficulty
disposal scenarios.
Table 7-12. Estimated Waste Management Costs Based on Difficulty of Disposal
Round
Waste Disposal Difficulty
Low
Medium
High
1
$59,177
$60,050
$69,732
2
$59,875
$60,589
$68,680
Based on the costs in Table 7-12, for the "Low" and "Medium" disposal levels of difficulty, the
transportation and disposal fees do not contribute significantly to overall waste management
costs, even with the lOx surcharge on transportation and disposal for the "Medium" level. Even
with the lOOx surcharge on transportation and disposal for the "High" disposal difficulty case,
overall waste management costs increase only approximately 30% from the "Low" case.
Although transportation costs for a wide-area incident are expected to be proportional to the
amount of waste generated, for smaller incidents requiring only a single large truck to transport
all waste generated, this proportionality does not apply.
Other than development of the necessary documentation, costs associated with the development
of planning documents and coordination with regulatory agencies appears to be the most
significant contribution across all waste management scenarios.
These observations are significantly different from the BOTE study findings (EPA 2013). for
which waste sampling and analytical costs dominated. Some of this difference is at least partially
due to the minimal amount of materials placed into the mock subway system. The development
of planning documents and regulatory coordination may constitute a significant fraction of waste
management costs for scenarios where the contaminated areas are not full of materials destined
for waste. Development of pre-incident planning documents could minimize these "other waste
management costs" in the event of a real contamination incident.
7.5.5 Overall Cost of Remediation
The overall cost of remediation was determined by combining all of the cost elements discussed
in Sections 7.5.1 through 7.5.4 with a component to account for a minimal incident command
structure (command and safety only) during the duration of the decon processes. Table 7-13
summarizes the overall cost of remediation.
Table 7-13. Overall Cost of Remediation
Round
Incident
Command
Cost
Sampling and
Analysis Cost
Decon Cost
Waste
Management
Cost
Total Cost
1
$108,724
$222,453
$29,910
$60,050
$361,087
2
$108,724
$203,661
$43,849
$60,589
$356,234
128
-------
UTR OTD Report
Figure 7-6 shows the breakdown of overall remediation costs.
Overall Remediation Cost
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$-
Round 1 - Fogging Round 2 - Spraying
¦ IC Cost ¦ Sampling and Analysis Cost ¦ Decon Cost ¦ Waste Management Cost
Figure 7-6. Breakdown of Overall Remediation Costs
Based on this analysis and the assumptions discussed above, sampling and analysis appears to be
the most significant contributor to the overall cost of a subway remediation after a biological
contamination incident. The slightly higher cost of performing the decon by spraying with pAB
and the costs associated with waste management are insignificant compared to costs associated
with sampling and analysis. This observation suggests that reducing sampling and analytical
costs is the most effective way to reduce the overall remediation cost. Development of pre-
incident waste management planning documents so that many decisions can be made or at least
discussed before an incident occurs appears to be the most effective way to reduce waste
management costs.
7.6 Lessons Learned from Cost Analysis
Observations and conclusions drawn based on the cost analysis are summarized below.
• Sampling and analysis are the most significant contributors to the overall remediation
cost, with laboratory analytical activities accounting for most of the cost associated with
sampling and analysis. This finding suggests that the use of composite sampling
approaches and Bis can significantly reduce costs and the laboratory analytical burden.
• Decon costs for fogging with diluted bleach are roughly 30% less than spraying with
pAB because of slightly increased costs for most of the decon components for spraying.
• The cost estimates do not account for the cost of damage to a facility. The tunnel was not
populated with many items, so it is not possible to assess the amount of damage from
spraying with pAB. The decision of whether to replace items after decon most likely will
be based on who is paying for the replacement.
129
-------
UTR OTD Report
• The cost of personnel decon is substantial due to the necessity of having decon line staff
available during the entire operational period.
• PPE is a major contributor to the waste quantity. In a real subway system, the quantity of
non-PPE waste per unit area is expected to be higher than for the OTD, but still
significantly lower than the non-PPE waste generated from an office building or
residence per unit area.
• Even though coordination with regulatory authorities regarding waste management issues
is a notional cost, it is a significant cost component. Development of pre-incident waste
management planning documents so that many decisions can be made or at least
discussed before an incident occurs appears to be the most effective way to reduce waste
management costs.
• The overall cost for remediation was $361,087 for Round 1 and $356,234 for Round 2.
Based on cost alone, there is not a significant difference between the two decon methods.
Overall cost largely is driven by sampling and analysis, both in terms of labor costs
associated with laboratory analysis as well as the significant contribution of PPE from the
Sampling Teams to the overall waste streams. The differences in decon method does not
significantly affect the cost.
• Overall, the QR code system performed well. Timestamps reported by the system were
within a 1% difference of the entry times reported by the Sampling Team Manager. The
observations below were noted.
- Due to facility power issues, fewer QR code stations were installed than originally
proposed.
- The QR code system significantly reduced the level of radio communication required
to keep track of sampling personnel.
The recommendations summarized below are based on findings from the cost analysis.
• Identifying ways to reduce the sampling labor burden and the number of samples (such as
through composite sampling) could result in significant cost savings.
• Identifying ways to minimize PPE waste could result in significant cost savings.
Composite sampling could minimize the number of personnel entries into the EZ to
reduce PPE waste.
• Coordination of waste management activities with regulatory authorities is a significant
contribution to the overall waste management cost. Development of pre-incident waste
management planning documents could significantly reduce this cost component.
• Identifying ways to accomplish personnel decon in a way that minimizes the amount of
waste generated could result in significant cost savings.
• Identifying ways to perform the remediation while minimizing the number of entries into
the contaminated facility in PPE may reduce the personnel decon line operations,
resulting in significant cost savings.
130
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Identifying alternate strategies for minimizing the number of waste characterization
samples could result in cost savings.
• For future scenarios, training should be conducted to show entry teams and decon line
personnel how to use the QR code system. QR codes should include the name and team
number of each individual. In the event of a team member change, extra QR codes should
be made available to Sampling Teams.
The cost analysis limitations summarized below are important considerations.
• The cost analysis assumes that only a single decon method is used through the entire
subway system. However, during an actual incident, different parts of the system may be
decontaminated in different ways.
• The materials populated into the tunnel are meant to be representative of the types of
materials in a highly traveled subway system. The quantities of materials populated are
probably lower than for a real setting.
• Receiving permission from the appropriate regulatory authorities to landfill some (or all)
of the waste directly to a local RCRA Subtitle D facility without additional waste
characterization sampling could significantly reduce waste management costs. A key
provision of this permission will hinge upon whether the waste is considered hazardous,
infectious, biohazardous, or solid waste. The classification of the waste greatly affects
disposal costs. Pre-planning for waste management is critical to an effective and cost-
efficient response.
131
-------
UTR OTD Report
8 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The UTR OTD Project Manager and QA Manager are required to approve the final planning
document prior to the execution of the plans. Subsequent changes to the planning document were
added through amendments (needing QA manager approval) made prior to the plan's execution or
via documentation of deviations during the plan's execution.
The UTR OTD project consists of two separate rounds. During Round 1, a fogging technology
was used to fog dilute bleach, and during Round 2, a low-pressure commercial sprayer was used
to spray pH amended bleach (pAB). The QA personnel were on-site to assess the execution of
Round 1.
This section discusses the QA/QC activities and assessments that occurred during the UTR OTD,
including a technical systems audit, equipment calibration, decontamination assessment, waste
management, cost analysis, and a data quality audit. The assessments focused primarily on the
set-up, background sampling, and field decontamination aspects of Round 1. The quality
assurance personnel were involved with reviewing the project plans and conducting on-site
assessment of the different group activities listed in Table 1-2.
8.1 Technical Systems Audit
As part of the technical system audit, test procedures were compared to those specified in the
planning documents, and data acquisition and handling procedures were reviewed. None of the
observations were documented as needing corrective action. The following is a list of the UTR
OTD activities that the QA staff assessed during phase 1 of the demonstration:
• Test Bed preparation activities included installing a convenience store/newsstand and
barriers in both stairways and the track-exit section barrier, and situating and installing
NAMs. The planning document was modified to reflect the need to tent the NAMs placed
outside as they were designed for indoor-use only. The installation and the testing of the
NAMs was successful.
• The sampling activities for each of the two study rounds consisted of collecting samples
within the tunnel and platform areas to determine the pre-decon levels of ^throughout
the test facility and to determine the post-decon efficacy of each decon technology.
Background sampling was conducted before the first Bg spore release to determine if Bg
spores were present in the study area. Sampling teams were responsible for both pre- and
post-decon sampling for quantification of challenge and clearance of viable spore
loadings (CFU per sampled area). The sampling methods used during the OTD included
sponge stick, vacuum, wash/extract, and wastewater aqueous.
• Sampler training was provided to ensure that all Sampling Team members had an
opportunity for hands-on experience with collection methods, sample documentation, and
the transfer and tracking of samples.
132
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Samples were shipped to designated laboratories for analysis. A chain of custody (COC)
form documented the transfer of sample custody from the test bed to the respective
laboratories.
• Preparation and dissemination of the Bg were conducted as part of Round 1. The platform
and adjoining track section were contaminated with Bg spores.
• Decontamination using foggers (Round 1) with a sporicidal compound for inactivation in
the mock subway system was observed.
8.2 Equipment Calibration
Since this was a field-level evaluation, most of the equipment checks were conducted based on
the documentation that accompanied the equipment used in the field. All available equipment
records were checked. Equipment (e.g., pipettes, biosafety cabinets) and monitoring devices
(e.g., HOBOs, gas sensors) used at the time of the evaluation were verified as being certified,
calibrated, or validated. Several of the battery-operated sample pumps used for vacuum sampling
were not checked prior to shipment to the site and did not work properly. Only properly
functioning pumps were used during the demonstration.
8.3 Decon Assessment
The following assessments related to decon were performed:
• Air temperature and RH: The sensors used for temperature and RH measurement
("HOBOs") were verified by EPA's metrology lab on March 11, 2016.
• Chlorine gas concentration in the air: The chlorine gas sensors (ATI's) were newly
purchased for the OTD project and thus were factory calibrated. In addition, all of the
sensors read "zero" when they were initially turned on and were sampling ambient air
prior to fogging.
• pH of bleach solutions: None of the bleach solutions for the fogging decontamination and
only about half of the bleach solutions prepared for the pAB spray decontamination
round (Round 2) were measured with the pH strips. The pH strips were colorimetric-
based and it proved difficult to differentiate the color change. The bleach cartons were
checked and verified to be within the expiration dates.
• Liquid volumes: Volumes of bleach and vinegar were measured via counting the number
of bottles used. The vinegar bottles were 1/3 gal. each and the Chlorox bottles were 121 -
ounces each. The volumetric markings on the sides of the 100-gal. totes used for bleach
fogging and the 200-gallon tank used for the pAB spraying were used to measure
quantities of water to be added.
133
-------
UTR OTD Report
8.4 Waste Management Assessment
All goals were achieved for measuring the quantity of solid and aqueous waste, although on
occasion trash was co-mingled in with the PPE waste. These occurrences are noted in the data
worksheets. The trash co-mingled with PPE was only a minor fraction of the measured waste
streams and would not significantly affect the overall quantities of waste.
The scale used for weighing the waste was tared using a gallon jug of vinegar prior to use. The
scale was then tared every time it was subsequently used.
All sampling and analytical data goals were achieved for solid waste and aqueous waste (tunnel
sump and decon line wastewater).
8.5 Cost Analysis
The QR code readers greatly facilitated tracking of personnel entries, and sign-in sheets were
used to verify entry times.
The cost analysis results were checked by having the Cost Analysis Group review cost
worksheets in the overall cost analysis workbook. Lists of purchase orders were manually
checked by an independent person who did not fill in the spreadsheet.
8.6 Data Quality Audit
Upon receipt by the EPA, over 95% of the calculations were checked and verified. In addition,
all of the data (100 %) were assessed for transcription errors. At least 10% of the data acquired
during the evaluation were checked by a second reviewer.
134
-------
UTR OTD Report
9 Summary and Conclusions
The UTR OTD was a full-scale study focused on gathering sampling, decon, waste management,
and cost analysis information for the remediation of a subway system after contamination with a
Ba surrogate (Bg). The study venue was located at FAPH in Bowling Green, VA. The work
involved all aspects of remediation of a subway system tunnel and platform (except for rolling
stock, maintenance yards, and related facilities) contaminated with a biological surrogate for Ba,
including pre-decon and post-decon verification sampling and waste management.
The primary OTD objective was to expand the understanding of the operational effectiveness of
decon methods and strategies developed in a laboratory by testing them in an underground
transportation facility, from site preparation to waste treatment and disposal. Furthermore, the
OTD provided the following opportunities:
• Improving response readiness for mitigating the effects of a release of a biological
organism in an underground transportation facility
• EPA staff gaining cross-regional training and biosampling experience
• Collaborating across other federal agencies
• Gaining real-world experience with decon of a biological organism
The project consisted of two separate field-level decon rounds. During Round 1, a fogging
technology was used to fog dilute bleach. During Round 2, a low-pressure commercial sprayer
was used to spray pAB. Both rounds included a decon efficacy assessment, composite sampling,
a grimed and non-grimed coupon study, a waste management assessment, and a cost analysis.
The following sections summarize the outcomes of each and conclusions drawn based on the
outcomes.
9.1 Decon Efficacy Assessment
Comparison of pre- and post-decon recoveries of Bg spores allowed assessment of the decon
efficacy. A decon method is considered highly effective in the field when no viable spores are
recovered (EPA, and CDC ). The technologies of the two decon methods vary significantly.
However, both methods resulted in some positive sample results {Bg spores detected). Round 1
yielded 11 positive results, and Round 2 yielded five positive results. In a real incident, locations
yielding positive results would require additional remediation steps. Therefore, there is not much
practical difference in decon efficacy between the two decon methods.
For both the fogging and spraying decon methods, most positive results are for samples collected
from the kiosk area, which contained porous and organic items commonly found in subway
convenience stores/stalls. The decon efficacy assessment for each round of the OTD are
summarized below.
135
-------
UTR OTD Report
9.1.1 Round 1: Fogging with Diluted Bleach
The deployment of the foggers and bleach solutions went smoothly. The equipment used to
monitor the fogging process also worked well. The foggers operated well (except for the initial
problem of not having the circuit breakers closed). Overall, approximately 370 out of the original
400 gal. of bleach solution was fogged over 13 hrs The 30-gal. difference is due to the
malfunctioning of foggers that caused the bleach solution to leak and the solution left in each tote
after the fogging was completed.
Monitoring of temperature, RH, and Ch gas levels was successful. The CI2 gas levels are lower
than expected (based on laboratory testing), but the monitoring of Ch gas using the ATI sensors
provided a good indication of when there was a problem and when the fogging process was
complete. The results for all 10 Bis indicated that the spores were inactivated.
For Round 1, 132 decon efficacy assessment samples (not including waste and blank samples but
including kiosk in situ surfaces and materials) were collected after fogging. Only about 8% of the
post-decon sample results were positive for Bg. The positive results are for samples collected
from Zone 2 and Zone 6 (kiosk area). Excluding the kiosk area, only 4 out of 106 samples (4%)
had a positive result ranging from only 4 to 6 CFU/ft2. For the kiosk materials, positive results
ranged from 12 to 2,395 CFU. Of the 26 kiosk samples collected, seven results were positive
(27%). Therefore, a decon approach other than bleach fogging is recommended for the kiosks
and associated materials.
All 10 Bis that were set out to assess the decontamination performance or efficacy, were
negative for growth.
No damage to the functionality of any electrical or other equipment in the EZ was observed after
fogging, although the electrical panels were covered in plastic or tape before fogging. Small
patches of minor oxidation on some metal-based materials (such as outlet boxes) were observed.
Listed below are the observations of bleach fogging and other lessons learned that should be
considered if fogging is selected as the decon method.
Observations
• The four foggers were purchased as-is and off-the-shelf, except that the vendor added
an electrical inverter to allow the foggers to run on alternating current. Minor
adjustments also were made to the dip tube and tanks. Although the foggers were
purchased off-the-shelf, the wait time for delivery was a few months because of the
manufacturer's backlog.
• Manpower requirements are minimal. During the OTD, only four people were needed
for a few hours each time during mobilization and demobilization.
• The foggers should run at a higher liquid pump flow rate but still maintain a relatively
smaller droplet size distribution. The foggers selected were the best the Decon Group
could find (in terms of maximizing flow rate while maintaining smaller droplet size
distribution). Even so, the fogging process required over 12 hours.
136
-------
UTR OTD Report
• The fogging method is relatively efficacious except for the kiosk-related surfaces and
materials, which yielded positive results. During an actual event, food items and porous,
organic materials most likely would need to be sampled and treated as contaminated
waste prior to disposal.
• For actual decon in a subway, a large source of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal
bleach may not be readily available. Alternatively, other bleach products could
potentially be used. Proper storage of a large source, according to the shelf life
requirements of the bleach product, also needs to be considered.
• In terms of adverse impacts caused by the decon process, no immediate effects to
subway tunnel materials was evident. Non-metallic surfaces and materials such as the
concrete, ballast, wood, wallboard, and plastic generally were unaffected based on
qualitative visual assessments. No damage to the functionality of any electrical or other
equipment in the EZ was observed after fogging operations were completed. However,
in order to minimize damage to FAPH's training facility, many of the electrical panels
and outlets were covered in plastic or tape before fogging began. Therefore, material
compatibility and functionality for this item could not be assessed. Some of the metal-
based materials in the EZ had small, occasional patches of minor oxidation and
discoloration. These materials included items such as a few metal outlet boxes,
unpainted areas of the stairwell handrails, metal base plates on stairs, exposed threads
on galvanized steel pipe, and the Metro card reader.
Other Lessons Learned
• The Decon Group had to enter the EZ to turn the fogger on and off because the
controller was tethered to a 25-ft-long cable. In hindsight, all foggers should have been
located near a barrier, with the controller outside the EZ whenever possible. Ideally,
operators should be able to control the fogger (turn it off and on and purge with water
when fogging is completed) without having to enter the EZ. Having to turn on the
foggers inside the EZ necessitated the use of Level A PPE. In addition, damage to the
foggers could have been avoided if the foggers could have been stopped and purged
with water as soon as the bleach solution for each fogger was completely disseminated.
• For the repeated use of the fogger, it should be removed from the EZ as soon as possible
after decon to rinse off bleach residue and thus avoiding potential damage.
• Ideally, the foggers should be plugged directly into an electrical outlet, eliminating the
need for a battery and electrical converter. The batteries and converters seemed to have
suffered the most damage from the bleach fog, so not having these components would
be advantageous.
• Ch gas levels were lower than expected (based on laboratory testing). Therefore, the
need for Level A PPE for entry during bleach fogging may require evaluation on a case-
by-case basis in future applications.
• The Ch gas dosimeters were not useful as implemented. None of the dosimeters
provided a colorimetric change to indicate a ppm*hour dosage of Ch gas. It is not clear
why these monitors did not register any CI2 gas dosage. The high humidity of the
fogging environment could have interfered with the chemical reaction producing the
137
-------
UTR OTD Report
colorimetric change, or, because the dosimeters were mounted on the wall, air
movement may not have been sufficient for passive diffusion.
• The ATI has sensors were useful in determining steady-state Ch gas levels. Therefore,
they could be used to identify fogging completion times and deviations that indicate
problems.
9.1.2 Round 2: Spraying with pAB
The deployment of the sprayers and pAB solutions went smoothly. The equipment used to
monitor the spraying process also worked well except for the HOBO in the EZ, which was
destroyed during pAB spraying. A powered sprayer uniformly sprayed 570 gal. of pAB onto
30,000-ft2 of tunnel surfaces. All surfaces received 16 gal. pAB per 1,000 ft2. However, the
railroad ballast (5,000 ft2) received twice that rate. Overall, spraying with pAB using the
equipment chosen was effective in decontaminating the subway platform, ballast, tracks, walls,
and ceiling materials.
For Round 2, 137 decon efficacy assessment samples (not including waste and blank samples but
including kiosk in situ surfaces and materials) were collected after spraying. Excluding the kiosk
materials, only 1 out of 111 samples had a positive result of only 6 CFUft2. For the kiosk
materials, the Zone 6 positive results range from 5 to 500 CFU. Of the 26 kiosk samples
collected, 4 results were positive (15%). Therefore, a decon approach other than pAB spraying is
recommended for the kiosks and associated materials.
Listed below are the observations of spraying with pAB and other lessons learned that should be
considered if spraying with pAB is selected as the decon method.
Observations
• The sprayer was purchased off-the-shelf and ready to use. However, three additional
hoses were added to increase the sprayer's distribution capacity, requiring minor
modifications and time.
• Decon of the study area using spraying was time consuming, requiring approximately
42 hours of manpower in Level A PPE (manpower hours include donning of PPE, entry
into tunnel to perform decon, personnel decon, and medical monitoring). Level A PPE
was required because of the high concentration of Ch gas and the liquid spray/splash
hazard in the work environment.
• The amount of spray could be varied between surface types. In this case, twice the
amount of liquid decontaminant was sprayed on the high-surface-ratio ballast material
than on the other surface types. However, there is no guarantee that workers will cover
any specific area with the right amount of liquid decontaminant.
• The spraying method is relatively efficacious except for the kiosk-related surfaces and
materials, which yielded positive results. During an actual event, food items and porous,
organic materials most likely would need to be sampled and treated as contaminated
waste prior to disposal.
138
-------
UTR OTD Report
• For actual decon in a subway, a large source of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal
bleach may not be readily available. Alternatively, other bleach products could
potentially be used. Proper storage of a large source, according to the shelf life
requirements of the bleach product, also needs to be considered.
• In terms of adverse impacts caused by the decon process, no immediate effects to
subway tunnel materials was evident. Non-metallic surfaces and materials such as the
concrete, ballast, wood, wallboard, and plastic generally were unaffected based on
qualitative visual assessments. No damage to the functionality of any electrical or other
equipment in the EZ was observed after spraying operations were completed. However,
in order to minimize damage to FAPH's training facility, many of the electrical panels
and outlets were covered in plastic or tape before spraying began. Therefore, material
compatibility and functionality for this item could not be assessed. Some of the metal-
based materials in the EZ had slightly more oxidation and discoloration than what was
observed after Round 1 decon. These materials included items such as a few metal
outlet boxes, unpainted areas of the stairwell handrails, metal base plates on stairs,
exposed threads on galvanized steel pipe, and the Metro card reader.
Other Lessons Learned
• All hose clamps and fittings on the sprayer should be tightened before operations to
avoid potential disruption in operations.
• The sprayer should be outfitted with valves to control the individual hoses.
• The pH strips used to measure the pH of pAB solution were colorimetric-based, and it
was difficult to differentiate color changes.
9.2 Composite Sampling
Composite sampling was conducted to determine if composite sampling can yield representative
results for spore detection while reducing the need for sampling supplies, data management, and
sample shipment and laboratory analysis. For Round 1, a composite platform floor vacuum
sample with a result of 11 CFU is the only composite sample with a positive result out of four
vacuum samples and out of 16 total composite samples collected (a total of four floor composite
samples were taken). Therefore, for Round 1 post-decon sampling, the composite sample
positive results rate is 1 out of 4 (25% positive rate for vacuum samples) or 1 out of 16 (6%
positive rate for all composite samples/types). These positive rates are similar to the Round 1
post-decon discrete sample positive rate of 11 out of 132 (8%).
The positive composite sample result for Zone 2 may be due to problems with the technology,
such as insufficient distribution of the fog in Zone, a problem with the fogger in Zone 2, etc. In
addition, because Zone 2 is directly adjacent to the kiosk area, remaining viable spores from the
kiosk may have contaminated some of the Zone 2 samples through reaerosolization mechanisms.
For the composite samples collected during Round 2, there were no positive results. For the
discrete sponge stick and vacuum samples collected during Round 2, only 5 out of 143 sample
results are positive.
139
-------
UTR OTD Report
Based on the similarity of the composite and discrete sponge stick and vacuum sample results,
composite sampling can yield representative results for spore detection while reducing the need
for sampling labor and supplies, data management, and sample shipment and laboratory analysis.
9.3 Grimed and Non-Grimed Coupon Study
As discussed in Section 2.5.3.7. to make the mock subway system at FAPH more realistic,
grimed coupons were added to the study area during Rounds 1 and 2. Non-grimed coupons also
were placed in the study area for comparison to the grimed coupon results. The study was
conducted to determine if the presence of grime affects the decon efficacy. A total of 70 grimed
and non-grimed coupon samples were collected during Round land Round 2.
The pre-decon mean recovery for Round 1 across all additional materials (except ballast) was
1.6E+05 CFU/ft2. This value is consistent with recovered viable spores from the platform near
the location where the coupons were placed. After decon, all coupons yielded zero viable spores
except for one non-grimed painted steel coupon, which had a result of 3 CFU.
The pre-decon mean recovery for Round 2 across all additional materials (except ballast) was
2.3E+05 CFU/ft2. This value is consistent with recovered viable spores from the platform near
the location where the coupons were placed. After decon, all coupons yielded zero viable spores
except for one non-grimed ceramic tile coupon, which had a result of 3 CFU.
Since both decontamination rounds resulted in almost complete kill of viable spores on grimed
and non-grimed coupons, no significant difference was observed in spore inactivation caused by
the presence of grime on the materials. Similar results were obtained for the grimed ballast.
9.4 Waste Management Assessment
One of the waste management challenges during the UTR OTD was the need to simulate waste
conditions with regard to costs, quantities, logistics, etc., and to mimic wastes generated at an
actual subway system after a Ba release. During the UTR OTD, a simulant spore (Bg) was used.
Therefore, the waste generated was considered "notional" waste only. An additional test
constraint was that waste generated during the test required handling in accordance with FAPH
waste management practices (for "real" waste), which may differ from waste management
practices during an actual biological contamination incident. Waste generated during the OTD
may not have significantly different characteristics from waste generated during a real incident,
but some aspects of the management process for /^/-contaminated waste could not be completely
mimicked in the OTD setting. The waste management practices for a real Ba contamination
incident would be determined by the appropriate agencies in the state where the incident
occurred and would follow state-specific regulations concerning waste characterization.
The waste management assessment included pre-decon and post-decon verification sampling and
the determination of waste quantities generated and associated costs. On-site waste management
included management of the decon line wastes, kiosk wastes, and immersion dunking decon
wastes.
Waste management for the OTD presented the challenges summarized below.
140
-------
UTR OTD Report
• It was difficult to properly capture only the PPE wastes from the personnel decon line
because they were comingled with other wastes such as water and electrolyte drink
bottles supplied to personnel for hydration.
• It was difficult to determine the additional effort and costs of managing wastes containing
Ba compared to managing wastes containing a nonpathogenic organism.
• It was difficult to specify procedures for bagging solid wastes and sampling the bagged
waste.
• Immersion dunking resulted in the disintegration of some items, making post-decon
sampling difficult.
• Immersion dunking required that already packaged bags of waste be reopened to allow
immersion. This requirement presents potential biosecurity and worker safety issues.
• Immersion dunking added significant weight to items, making them difficult to handle.
This problem would be compounded by the large quantity of waste generated during an
actual incident.
• Immersion dunking is labor-intensive and time-consuming. In an actual incident, larger
quantities may require alternative equipment to facilitate these operations, including the
ability to hold much larger quantities of materials, counteract buoyant effects of some
materials, automation of the process, and minimize worker safety impacts.
• Wastes accumulated while awaiting dunking or removal for management. This
accumulation presented problems during unfavorable weather conditions (incoming
storm) and could present security problems during a real incident.
Observations and conclusions drawn based on the waste management assessment are
summarized below.
• Waste management is an integral part of the decon process and must be included as a
specific function during pre-incident and response planning.
• The OTD did not include rolling stock. Therefore, waste management of subway cars,
maintenance facilities, and contents should be considered for a full-scale event.
• In general, most solid waste generated was PPE from personnel entries during sampling
activities. Most aqueous waste was generated from personnel decon operations. Neither
decon approach appeared to dominate waste generation.
• If the state agrees to accept aqueous wastes in a RCRA Subtitle D POTW facility, waste
management is greatly simplified. There may be a stigma associated with biological
incident waste streams, and waste treatment and disposal facilities may be unwilling to
accept associated wastes even if they have been successfully treated so that they can be
disposed of as conventional solid waste.
• In general, non-porous items and porous items that were somewhat isolated in their kiosk
location (such as hats) could be successfully decontaminated in situ as part of the facility
decon process.
141
-------
UTR OTD Report
• In general, items bundled together in their kiosk location (such as shirts) could not be
successfully decontaminated in situ as part of the facility decon process.
• Immersion dunking was effective for all wastes tested. Some items (e.g., hot dog buns)
disintegrated during the dunking process. Some items (e.g., newspapers) significantly
increased their weight in the dunking process due to absorbed bleach solution.
• Implementing the immersion dunking process at full-scale would require: (1) minimizing
worker exposure from waste handling; (2) addressing the impact of material buoyancy
during immersion so that proper wetting of materials occurs; and (3) addressing the
added weight associated with materials soaking up large quantities of aqueous decon
solutions.
• Fogging was less effective for potentially reusable items (such as the hot dog roller and
cash register), while spraying was fully effective on all items tested. This may affect the
re-usability of some items (e.g., cash register) which could survive fogging but will likely
not survive spraying.
• In general, based on the variable degree of success for the porous kiosk items for both
decon methods, removal of porous materials for ex situ waste treatment is a more
consistently effective approach for ensuring that waste materials do not contain residual
spores.
• The volume of aqueous waste from personnel decon and collected by sump pumps from
tunnel decon can be significant, especially for decon by spraying and if procedures are
not put into place to minimize excess spraying. Minimizing excess aqueous waste from
personnel decon can be achieved by using a misting approach rather than a spray-down of
personnel as they pass through the personnel decon line. This roughly converts to 0.94
gal. per linear foot of tunnel, or 0.011 gal./ft2 of surface area decontaminated. Disposal of
these wastes may present significant challenges, especially if POTWs do not choose to
accept the waste because of the stigma associated with a high-visibility event.
9.5 Cost Analysis
The main task of the cost analysis was to estimate the costs resulting from the application of
various decontamination technologies as a function of cost, materials, and time. The cost analysis
approach assumes that although certain pieces of information derived from the OTD are
incident- and site-specific, the information still can be extrapolated to other events. These pieces
of information include costs related to sampling activities, application of decon technologies for
the study area and for personnel entering and leaving the test area, and costs related to equipment
rentals and consumables. Furthermore, some costs critical to a cost analysis are not explicitly
based on the OTD.
Some cost estimates based on the OTD may be unrealistic because a BWA surrogate was used
instead of a real BWA. Where appropriate and possible, adjustments were made during the cost
analysis to account for an actual Ba incident. Costs not based on either the OTD or on best
engineering judgment are not included in the cost analysis.
Observations and conclusions drawn based on the cost analysis are summarized below.
142
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Sampling and analysis are the most significant contributors to the overall remediation
cost, with laboratory analytical activities accounting for most of the cost associated with
sampling and analysis. This finding suggests that the use of composite sampling
approaches and Bis can significantly reduce costs and the laboratory analytical burden.
• Decon costs for fogging with diluted bleach are roughly 30% less than spraying with
pAB because of slightly increased costs for most of the decon components for spraying.
• The cost estimates do not account for the cost of damage to a facility. The tunnel was not
populated with many items, so it is not possible to assess the amount of damage from
spraying with pAB. The decision of whether to replace items after decon most likely will
be based on who is paying for the replacement.
• The cost of personnel decon is substantial due to the necessity of having decon line staff
available during the entire operational period.
• PPE is a major contributor to the waste quantity. In a real subway system, the quantity of
non-PPE waste per unit area is expected to be higher than for the OTD but still
significantly lower than the non-PPE waste generated from an office building or
residence per unit area.
• Even though coordination with regulatory authorities regarding waste management issues
is a notional cost, it is a significant cost component. Development of pre-incident waste
management planning documents so that many decisions can be made or at least
discussed before an incident occurs appears to be the most effective way to reduce waste
management costs.
• The overall cost for remediation was $361,087 for Round 1 and $356,234 for Round 2.
Based on cost alone, there is not a significant difference between the two decon methods.
Overall cost largely is driven by sampling and analysis, both in terms of labor costs
associated with laboratory analysis as well as the significant contribution of PPE from the
Sampling Teams to the overall waste streams. The differences in decon method does not
significantly affect the cost.
• Overall, the QR code system performed well. Timestamps reported by the system were
within a 1% difference of the entry times reported by the Sampling Team Manager. The
observations below were noted.
- Due to facility power issues, fewer QR code stations were installed than originally
proposed.
- The QR code system significantly reduced the level of radio communication required
to keep track of sampling personnel.
The recommendations summarized below are based on findings from the cost analysis.
• Identifying ways to reduce the sampling labor burden and the number of samples (such as
through composite sampling) could result in significant cost savings.
• Identifying ways to minimize PPE waste could result in significant cost savings.
Composite sampling could minimize the number of personnel entries into the EZ to
reduce PPE waste.
143
-------
UTR OTD Report
• Coordination of waste management activities with regulatory authorities is a significant
contribution to the overall waste management cost. Development of pre-incident waste
management planning documents could significantly reduce this cost component.
• Identifying ways to accomplish personnel decon in a way that minimizes the amount of
waste generated could result in significant cost savings.
• Identifying ways to perform the remediation while minimizing the number of entries into
the contaminated facility in PPE may reduce the personnel decon line operations,
resulting in significant cost savings.
• Identifying alternate strategies for minimizing the number of waste characterization
samples could result in cost savings.
• For future scenarios, training should be conducted to show entry teams and decon line
personnel how to use the QR code system. QR codes should include the name and team
number of each individual. In the event of a team member change, extra QR codes should
be made available to Sampling Teams.
The cost analysis limitations summarized below are important considerations.
• The cost analysis assumes that only a single decon method is used through the entire
subway system. However, during an actual incident, different parts of the system may be
decontaminated in different ways.
• The materials populated into the tunnel are meant to be representative of the types of
materials in a highly traveled subway system. The quantities of materials populated are
probably lower than for a real setting.
• Receiving permission from the appropriate regulatory authorities to landfill some or all of
the waste directly to a local RCRA Subtitle D facility without additional waste
characterization sampling could significantly reduce waste management costs. A key
provision of this permission will hinge upon whether the waste is considered hazardous,
infectious, biohazardous, or solid waste. The classification of the waste greatly affects
disposal costs. Pre-planning for waste management is critical to an effective and cost-
efficient response.
144
-------
UTR OTD Report
10 References
Calfee, M.W., et al. 2013. "The Effects of Decontaminant Residue on the Viability of Bacillus
Spores during Sample Storage." JournalofBiosafety, SI, 1-5.
Calfee, M.W., et al. 2014. "Evaluation of sampling methods for Bacillus spore-contaminated
HVAC filters." J. Microbiol, Meth. 96:1-5.
CareerMedia.com. 2017. "2017 Salary Table." Accessed January 30, 2017. On-line Address:
http://careerm.edia.salarY.com
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. "Surface Sampling Procedures for
Bacillus anthracis Spores from Smooth, Non-Porous Surfaces." CDC, Cincinnati, OH.
Revised on April 26, 2012. Accessed on March 10, 2017. On-line Address:
https://www.cdc.gOv/niosh./topics/emres/siirface-sampline-bacilliis-anthracis.htm.l
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2010. "BioWatch Outdoor Program - Guidance
Document for BioWatch Jurisdictions." For Official Use Only. August 11.
DHS. 2014. "Draft - Reference Guide for Developing and Executing Bacillus anthracis
Sampling Plans in Indoor Settings." Version 4. DRAFT copy.
Emanuel, P., J.W. Roos, and K. Niyogi. 2008, "Sampling for Biological Agents in the
Environment." ASM Press, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. "Guidance on Choosing a Sampling Design
for Environmental Data Collection (QA/G-5S)." EPA/240/R-02/005. Office of
Environmental Information, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2008. "After Action Report — Danbury Anthrax Incident." EPA Region 1, September 19.
EPA. 2010. "Persistence Testing and Evaluation of Fumigation Technologies for
Decontamination of Building Materials Contaminated with Biological Agents."
EPA/600/R-10/086. Washington, DC.
EPA. 2012a. "Assessment of Liquid and Physical Decontamination Methods for Environmental
Surfaces Contaminated with Bacterial Spores." Part 1 - Development and Evaluation of
the Decontamination Procedural Steps. EPA/600/R-12/025. Washington, DC.
EPA. 2012b. "Protocol for Detection of Bacillus anthracis in Environmental Samples During the
Remediation Phase of an Anthrax Event." Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-12/577.
EPA. 2013. "Bio-response Operational Testing and Evaluation (BOTE) Project, Phase 1:
Decontamination Assessment." EPA/600/R-13/168. Washington, DC.
EPA. 2014. "Assessment of the Impact of Decontamination Fumigants on Electronic
Equipment." EPA/600/R-14/316. Washington, DC.
145
-------
UTR OTD Report
EPA. 2015a. "Expedient Approach for Decontamination of Biologicals - Indoor Environment
Determination of Operationally Effective Liquid Decontaminant Application Methods for
Indoor Decontamination." EPA/600/R-15/100. Washington, DC.
EPA. 2015b. "Decontamination Line Protocol Evaluation for Biological Contamination
Incidents, Assessment and Evaluation Report." EPA/600/R-14/476. Washington, DC.
EPA. 2016. "Expedient Approaches for the Management of Wastes Generated from Biological
Decontamination Operations in an Indoor Environment - Evaluation of Waste Sampling
and Decontamination Procedures - Part II." EPA/600/R-16/132. Washington, DC.
EPA. 2017a "Field Application of Emerging Composite Sampling Methods." EPA/600/R-
17/212. Washington, DC.
EPA. 2017b. "Evaluation of Commercially-Available Equipment for the Decontamination of
Bacillus anthracis Spores in an Urban Subway System." EPA/600/R-17/156.
Washington, DC.
EPA. 2017c. "Fogging of Chlorine-Based Sporicidal Liquids for the Inactivation of Bacillus
anthracis Surrogate Spores." EPA/600/R-17/134. Washington, DC.
EPA and CDC. 2012. "Interim Clearance Strategy for Environments Contaminated with Bacillus
anthracis." Accessed on March 10, 2017. On-line Address:
https://www.epa.gov/emergencv-response/epacdc-interim-clearance-strategy-
environments-contaminated-anthrax
Hodges, L.R., et al. 2010. "National Validation Study of Swab Protocol for the Recovery of
Bacillus anthracis Spores from Surfaces." Journal of Microbiological Methods, 81:141-
146.
Rastogi, V. K., et al. 2010. "Systematic Evaluation of Chlorine Dioxide Efficacy in
Decontamination of Building Interior Surfaces Contaminated with Anthrax Spores."
American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 05/01/2010: 3343-3351.
Ryan, S.P., et al. 2010. "Research to Support the Decontamination of Surfaces and Buildings
Contaminated with Biothreat Agents." Disinfection, Sterilization, and Antisepsis:
Principles, Practices, Challenges, and New Research. William Rutala, Editor,
Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Washington, DC.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 2017. "2017 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay
Tables." Accessed on January 30, 2017. On-line Address: fa.ttps://www.opm.gov/policv-
data-oversight/pav-leave/salaries-wages/ sneral-schedule/
146
-------
EPA/600/R-17/272
July 2017
Appendices for the
Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational
Technology Demonstration (OTD)
Draft Report
A: Biological Agent Summary Sheet for Bacillus alrophaeus, Subspecies g/obigii (Bg)
B: Spore Loading Pre-release Study and Test Dispersion Data
C: Sampling Maps
D: Sampling Protocols
E: MOP 3163 A: Aerosol Application of Grime on Material Coupons in Horizontal
Orientation
F: CONOPS for Dilute Bleach Fogging
G: CONOPS for pAB Spraying
H: Temperature and RH during Fogging
I: CONOPS for Waste Packaging
J: CONOPS for Immersion Dunking Decontamination
K: Waste Scaling Factors
L: Cost Analysis Workbook
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
-------
Appendix A: Biological Agent Summary Sheet for Bacillus
atrophaeus, Subspecies globigii (Bg)
-------
This biological agent summary sheet is for Bacillus atrophaeus, subspecies globigii (Bg), a non-
pathogenic, spore-forming bacterium often used as a surrogate for Bacillus anthracis during tests
and studies. The Bg spores discussed in this summary sheet were used during the Underground
Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD) full-scale study at
Fort A.P. Hill (FAPH) in Bowling Green, VA. The Critical Reagents Program (CRP) under the
Bio-Response Operational Testing and Evaluation (BOTE) project supplied the spores.
The morphology, titer, and physical characteristics; quantitative polymerase chain reaction
(qPCR) and DNA sequencing; and aerosol particle size distribution analysis are discussed below
for the Bg spores and negative control used during the UTR OTD. The reference used to prepare
this report is listed at the end of this summary sheet.
A1 Morphology, Titer, and Physical Characteristics
All morphological characteristics of the Bg spores were consistent with previously documented
descriptions of Ba spores. Escherichia (E.) coli, the negative control, did not fit any of the
morphological or physical characteristics consistent with Ba spores and vegetative cells. The
following sections discuss the gram staining procedure, colony morphology, titer determination,
heat shock test, acid resistance test, and microscopic observations.
Al.l Gram Staining Procedure
The gram staining procedure was used to describe the test and negative control organisms.
Results indicated that vegetative Bg cells were purple or gram-positive as expected, while the
negative control, E. coli, DH5a, was pink or gram-negative as expected.
A1.2 Colony Morphology
Characteristics of the colonies of the test organism and controls are described below in
accordance with Reddy at al. (2007). The next page presents representative photographs of these
organisms on tryptic soy agar (TSA) plates.
Colonial Growth of CRP BOTE Strain Bg
• Orange/peach/salmon color
• Rough texture
• 1- to 3-millimeter (mm)-diameter individual colonies
• Round form
• Undulate margin
• Flat (slightly convex) elevation
A-l
-------
Bacillus globigii
CRP - BOTE strain
Bacillus globigii
Positive Control
Escherichia coli
Negative Control
A-2
-------
Colonial Growth of Bg Positive Control
• Orange/peach/salmon color
• Rough texture
• 1- to 2-mm-diameter individual colonies
• Round form
• Undulate margin
• Flat (slightly convex) elevation
Colonial Growth of E. coli Negative Control
• Translucent pearl white
• Smooth texture
• 0.75- to 1-mm-diameter individual colonies
• Round form
• Entire margin
• Convex elevation
A1.3 Titer Determination
Three dry aliquots, Aliquots 2, 4, and 5, were prepared using Bg spores supplied by the CRP.
Each aliquot was weighed and cultured to determine the viable number of cells per gram. Titer
determinations for each aliquots were as follows:
• Aliquot2: 1.34E+11 colony-forming units per gram (CFU/g) (11.13 Logio)
• Aliquot 4: 2.68E+11 CFU/g (11.43 Logio)
• Aliquot 5: 1.22E+1 lCFU/g (11.09 Logio)
• Average Titer: 1.74E+11 CFU/g (± 8.1E+10 CFU/g)
Results Summary: The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirement of a minimum
1.0E+10 CFU/g titer was met. In addition, abundance estimates from triplicate samples were
within the precision criterion of 0.5 Log of one another, again meeting the QA/QC criterion.
A1.4 Heat Shock Test
The spore viability of the CRP-supplied Bg and the positive control Bg was determined for both
heat-shocked spores (80 degrees Celsius [°C] for 20 minutes) and non-heat-shocked spores. The
heat-shocked and non-heat-shocked samples were tested in triplicate, and the percent survival
was determined. Results are summarized below.
CRP BOTE Strain Be
• Non-heat-shocked: 5.65E+05 CFU (5.75 Logio)
• Heat-shocked: 1.28E+05 CFU (6.11 Logio)
• Log difference: 0.36
Bg Positive Control
• Non-heat-shocked: 1.12E+06 CFU (5.75 Logio)
A-3
-------
• Heat-shocked: 9.58E+05 CFU (6.11 Logio)
• Log difference: 0.07
Result Summary: The QA/QC requirement for the log difference before and after heat-shock
treatment to not exceed 0.5 was met.
A1.5 Acid Resistance Test
Spore viability of the CRP Bg and positive control Bg spores was determined for hydrochloric
acid (HC1) exposures of 2, 5, 10, and 20 minutes. Non-HCl-exposure control determinations also
were conducted. Both the sets of samples exposed to HC1 and not exposed to HC1 were tested in
duplicate. Spore viability was determined by the development of turbidity in fluid thioglycollate
culture tubes after 21 days of incubation at 35 °C. Growth in either the aerobic or anaerobic
fraction of the fluid thioglycollate medium was considered a positive response for the sample.
Spore growth in the fluid thioglycollate medium was confirmed or refuted by plating each
positive broth tube. An aliquot of 0.1 milliliter (mL) was plated onto a TSA plate and incubated
overnight at 35 °C. Results are summarized below.
• Negative control (no inoculum): No growth in any tube or on any plate
• Positive control Bg: Growth in all tubes and on plates for HC1 exposures of 0, 2, 5, and
10 minutes; 50% of samples viable (tubes; confirmed by plating) after 20 minutes of HC1
exposure
• CRP Bg: Growth in all tubes exposed for 0 and 2 minutes; growth in 50% of tubes
exposed for 10 and 20 minutes; only 25% growth in tubes exposed for 5 minutes; in all
cases, growth in fluid thioglycollate broth tubes was confirmed by plating on TSA plates
Results Summary: Both the CRP and positive control Bg spores met the QA/QC requirement
for the Bg spores to survive HC1 exposure for a minimum of 2 minutes.
A1.6 Microscopic Observations
Both the CRP and positive control Bg spore preparations were suspended in diluent to produce a
monolayer under a 22-mm2 cover glass on a glass microscope slide. These preparations were
examined at 1,000 times magnification using phase contrast optics. Representative photographs
are provided on the next page. The positive control Bg spore preparation contained numerous
spores of consistent size and shape. The spores were mono-dispersed and showed no evidence of
clumping. The CRP Bg spore preparation exhibited clumps of various sizes. Although these
clumps apparently were not composed uniformly of spores, signs of spore adherence were
evident. Some of the smaller clumps appeared to be composed entirely of spore associations.
A-4
-------
Bacillus globigii positive control
spore preparation; phase 1,000 X
oil immersion, note the preparation
is mono-dispersed. (2/1/2011)
CRP Bacillus globigii spore
preparation; phase 1,000 X oil
immersion, note there are
clumps to which spores appear
attached. (2/14/2011)
A2 qPCR and DNA Sequencing
For both the CRP and positive control Bg spores, the DNA was extracted and amplified. The
qPCR amplifications separately targeted the Surface Spore Protein (SSP) gene and the recF gene
(DNA repair gene). As a negative control, E. coli vegetative cell DN A was extracted and
amplified. The negative control DNA did not amplify, but the DNA of both the CRP and positive
control Bg spores amplified in a dose response manner, producing low cycle threshold (Ct)
values.
Results Summary: Both the CRP and positive control Bg spores met the QA/QC requirement
for the Bg spore molecular analysis. The negative control reacted as expected.
For DNA sequencing, PCR product from multiple Bg SSP gene and 16S ribosomal gene was
prepared and combined using ethanol precipitation. This material was submitted to the CORE
Molecular Genetics Laboratory at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center for DNA
sequencing. According to David Fletcher, the CORE laboratory manager, the SSP gene
sequencing results were inconclusive because of the small size of the amplified PCR product. On
the other hand, Mr. Fletcher indicated that the 16S gene sequencing results confirmed that both
the CRP and positive control spores were more than 99% similar to known B. atrophaeus strains
A-5
-------
in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) BLAST Database. The negative control E. coli DNA
was 99% similar to known E. coli strains in the NIH BLAST Database.
Results Summary: Both the CRP and positive control Bg spores met the QA/QC requirement
for the Bg spore DNA sequencing. The negative control reacted as expected.
A3 Aerosol Particle Size Distribution Analysis
Aerosol particle size distribution analysis indicated an overall particle size of 3.38 micrometers
(|im) for the CRP Bg spore preparation suspended in ethanol. The table and figure on the next
pages indicate great agreement between the various determinations. However, when the CRP Bg
spore preparation was suspended in water, the determinations (data not shown) were not tight
and suggested a great deal of clumping. The Bg spore preparation suspended in water showed a
number of broad based peaks, unlike the single distinct peak observed for the ethanol suspension.
Reference
Reddy, C.A., et al. 2007. Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology. Third Edition. ASM
Press, Washington, DC.
A-6
-------
BG Spore Size Distribution Overall Average
Aerosol Particle Size Distribution
A-7
-------
Bg Spore Size Distribution Testing
approx. 1 milligram Bg spores in 100 mL of 200 proof ethyl alcohol
Aerosolized with a three-jet Collison nebulizer
Tests performed at 25 ± 3 °C and 40% ± 10% relative humidity
Particle size distribution measured using UV-APS
Nine consecutive 60-second samples in each of three runs
Spore density used = 1.39; "= 0.25*pwet+0.75*pdry"
^20 lP°re P Dry Sp°re P = 1 45
*Run 1 includes only samples 4 through 9
Overall Average, Mass Concentration with Fluorescence >1
Particle aerodynamic
diameter
(|im)
"Run 1 (mg/m3)
Average of
Run 2 (mg/m3)
Run 3 (mg/m3)
Average
(mg/m3)
0.523
0
0
0
0
0.542
0
0
0
0
0.583
0
0
0
0
0.626
0
0
0
0
0.673
0
0
1.50527E-08
5.02E-09
0.723
0
0
0
0
0.777
0
2.31801E-08
0
7.73E-09
0.835
0
0
5.753E-08
1.92E-08
0.898
5.35435E-08
3.56957E-08
3.56957E-08
4.16E-08
0.965
6.6444E-08
0
4.4296E-08
3.69E-08
1.037
8.2453E-08
5.49687E-08
0
4.58E-08
1.114
3.06957E-07
1.36425E-07
1.36425E-07
1.93E-07
1.197
6.34858E-07
7.6183E-07
3.38591E-07
5.78E-07
1.286
2.36345E-06
1.89076E-06
1.57564E-06
1.94E-06
1.382
3.91053E-06
3.51948E-06
1.95527E-06
3.13E-06
1.486
9.46283E-06
7.76437E-06
6.95558E-06
8.06E-06
1.596
2.61954E-05
1.18431E-05
1.44526E-05
1.75E-05
1.715
4.5958E-05
3.1386E-05
3.56206E-05
3.77E-05
1.843
9.73701E-05
7.29502E-05
6.86227E-05
7.96E-05
1.981
0.000191027
0.000146531
0.000148065
0.000162
2.129
0.000334158
0.000269421
0.000263233
0.000289
2.288
0.000515678
0.000454246
0.000444204
0.000471
2.458
0.00074548
0.000682441
0.000702232
0.00071
2.642
0.001041072
0.000892347
0.000932371
0.000955
2.839
0.001227565
0.001116378
0.001178462
0.001174
3.051
0.001521229
0.001374149
0.00148621
0.001461
3.278
0.001647871
0.00147926
0.001519239
0.001549
3.523
0.001640455
0.001589764
0.001628591
0.00162
3.786
0.00167835
0.001675673
0.001747946
0.001701
4.068
0.00151471
0.001697406
0.001650901
0.001621
4.371
0.001317
0.001310817
0.00121601
0.001281
4.698
0.000828666
0.001063967
0.000930971
0.000941
5.048
0.00043799
0.000622072
0.000641115
0.000567
5.425
0.000200865
0.000354468
0.000370223
0.000309
5.829
2.93249E-05
0.000273699
0.000156399
0.000153
6.264
0
7.27807E-05
8.49108E-05
5.26E-05
6.732
0
6.02107E-05
1.50527E-05
2.51E-05
7.234
0
0
3.73589E-05
1.25E-05
7.774
0
0
4.63602E-05
1.55E-05
8.354
0
0
0
0
8.977
0
0
0
0
9.647
0
0
0
0
10.37
0
0
0
0
11.14
0
0
0
0
11.97
0
0
0
0
12.86
0
0
0
0
13.82
0
0
0
0
14.86
0
0
0
0
15.96
0
0
0
0
17.15
0
0
0
0
18.43
0
0
0
0
19.81
0
0
A-8
0
0
-------
Appendix B: Spore Loading Pre-release Study
and Test Dispersion Data
-------
Peak Concentration of Particles for Three Events
UTR OTD Dispersion Tests
Peak Concentration: particles per liter of air
1 §¦¦¦ 1 245
250 1 IBM | °
o • U 230 •
•a2
O 235 O
O 244
iiiiiinniiUMHiim Minnnn
A3
O
imimiwinHiiiiiinmmwmminnt
A4 A5
257 220 ZA7
O O O
O 258
'''' ii!w»Lmiiimr
AO
242
O
825 mg release
FPSL Test
IBACSN
Peak [FPSL]
229
50,785
230
138,219
235
63,769
240
55,133
241
107,665
242
23,934
244
28,767
245
37,679
247
123,857
250
39,599
251
71,232
257
27,838
258
30,190
Next Section
End of Tunnel
800 mg release
Spore Release 1
IBACSN
Peak [Spore]
229
6,122
230
55,422
235
7,248
240
6,163
241
16,036
242
4,582
244
3,790
245
5,722
247
35,413
250
4,602
257
2,433
258
1,808
800 mg release
Spore Release 2
IBACSN
Peak [Spore]
229
8,854
230
65,299
235
9,388
240
10,704
241
45,588
242
3,120
244
21,931
245
8,308
247
55,147
257
4,583
258
4,523
• Aerosol generator
O Sensor
• Fan
0 244
A3
251
o
lllllll
250
O •
"XT
241 230
245
O
A 2
o 235
A1
Q 240
s
A4 A5
257 229 247
O OO
O 258
~man
A6
242
O
Next Section
.8-
Barrier
Platform
Volume=160,000 CF
Length= 275 ft.
End ofTunnel
Length= 370 ft.
B-l
-------
FPSL Test Peak Aerosol Concentration
Peak Concentration: particles per liter of air
FPSL Test
IBACSN
Peak [FPSL]
229
50,785
230
138,219
235
63,769
240
55,133
241
107,665
242
23,934
244
28,767
245
37,679
247
123,857
250
39,599
251
71,232
257
27,838
258
30,190
IHIIItlU IIIIUIIll
2 so
1 o
o •
241 O230 •
•a2 *A1
O 235 O 240
O 244
O 259
¦' ' HI .*1111111 hllllTTHI
[I 9 ' ' | I' I|l|I i iQi i :1
A3
2S1
O
A4 A5
257 229 247
O O O
Afi
242
O
Next Section
Platform
End of Tunnel
Barrier
B-2
-------
r
FPSL Release Sensor 229
L
* I
CT>cO
229 September Test
40 --
30
20
10 --
o 1 —.—
09/15 16:00:00
09/15 22:00:00
09/15 22:00:00
50
40
30
20
10
09/15 16:00:00
"J .¦¦J.'"
hia
09/16 04:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
FPSL Release Sensor 230
jfg
O a.
o ^
230 September Test
09/15 22:00:00
09/15 22:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
140
120
100
BO
60
40
20
0
09/15 16:00:00
0 i
09/15 16:00:00
B-3
-------
FPSL Release Sensor 235
FPSL Release Sensor 240
5f • • °
O a» o
•w
O
A3
O
NOHl B&OtKxn
w '» Mr
O O o
Ptatlorm
Ml
O
End of funtvel
235 September Test asriwr
70
60
f§ 50
40
30
~ 20
10
0
09/15
60
_ 50
Cf>co
40
30
T _m
° 3- 20
10
0
09/15 16:00:00
*. npri *d
O • " Uiii Uiii ~
•fcj «h,i
0244
?. 1 a
KT »• 3*r
O O o
o m
as'
>«
o
MA
NCnl Section Clatfocm Cud of Tunnol
240 September Test
09/15 22:00:00 09/1604:00:00
=
^ X 30
Ss 2°
* 10
o
09/15 17;00;00
09/15 23:00.00
09/16 05:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
09/15 23:00:00
09/16 05:00:00
17:00:00
B-4
-------
FPSL Release Sensor 241
S2J«
;»pmnnmnBngTT[mTii''
"• h;
Newt SOOIKH)
241 September Testing
C nd of T urinol
J? 2
•?5
O o.
100
80
60
40
20
0
09/15 17:00:00
09/15 23:00:00
09/16 05:00:00
¦C co
80
60
40
20
0 -
09/15 17:00:00
09/15 23:00:00
09/16 05:00:00
f ]|
i
FPSL Release Sensor 242 m
c> • 9
-w.
ox» DMA
m u
Q 144
m
>M
O
irnnrn inn t* •; n imrmrngn in lirui:
Q 1H
' ... • • 1"'"
m
A« AS
"• T*t
a e o
No*l Becltoii
Platform
C nd of Tunnel
247 September Test
15 --
co
2E 10
0
09/15 16:00:00
Note:
WIFI disconnected
Onboard file to follow
CT>cf>
< <=>
25
20
15
10
5
09/15 16:00:00
09/15 22:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
09/15 22:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
B-5
-------
FPSL Release Sensor 244
O !M
?. ''irmmgTiimim mtmramiiramij
09/15 17:00:00
09/16 05:00:00
¦<
ISO
20
15
10
5 -
0 ,
09/15 17:00:00
09/15 23:00:00
09/16 05:00:00
FPSL Release Sensor 245
245 September Tesl
Q »» O **<
09/15 17:00:00 09/15 23:00:00 09/16 05:00:00
|3>CO
M £
30
15
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
09/15 17:00:00
09/15 23:00:00
09/16 05:00:00
B-6
-------
FPSL Release Sensor 247
O 1» tj /«
P)fO
*7 ro
"a.
2g
24 7 September Test
09/15 16:00:00
100 f—¦
80
60
40
20
0 —I
09/15 16:00:00
09/15 22:00:00 09/16 04:00:00
09/15 22.00:00 09/16 04:00:00
FPSL Release Sensor 250 1
o • •
«w.
o taa> o
1 ¦
o >**
nnnrcanmrnixninm
uunixagpu .
Mf »» HI
© o o
O 211
•
Mt
O
A3
o
Neil S0CIKXI
Platform
End nf Turtwi
250 September T est
09/15 16:00:00 09/15 22:00:00 09/16 04:00:00
40
30
20
10
25
¦C <--i
-i &
9>
-------
r
FPSL Release Sensor 251
L
251 September Test
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
04/02 15:00:00
04/02 21:00:00
04/03 03:00:00
It
50
40
30
20
10
0
04/02 15:00:00
04/02 21:00:00
04/03 03:00:00
Note:
Clock issue with sensor
FPSL Release Sensor 257
1
o»»
1
O HI
rnumnnn snmiiLlJLJI.il LI
O IH
ni
o
*•
39T *47
O a O
o
SRclwn RlmrcWTTt E m: m Tumn»l
257 Septemt>er Test aswier
30
20
10
09/15 16:00:00
09/15 22:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
20
09/15 22:00 00
09/15 15:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
B-8
-------
FPSL Release Sensor 258
• itl'n l -I'l
"J
^ *w.
v »» mss
lill M
M7
Net seetoon
End of Tunnel
258 September Tesl
09/15 16;00;00
09/15 22:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
09/15 16:00:00
09/15 22:00:00
09/16 04:00:00
B-9
-------
Dissemination Round 1
Sensor Aerosol Generator Fan Locations
• Aerosol generator
O Sensor
• Fan
llllllllll llllllllll
245
0
250
| |
O •
U241 U 230
~
#A3 *A2 *A1
0 235 0 240
0244
O 258
HI WWII
t iin i j t n i ¦ 1111111111 n
¦ lllrtll
WlMiTTIlTTTTTTTIiii
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
257
229
247
242
0
0
0
O
Next Section
Platform
End ofTunnel
,oV
ISP*
&
Barrier
Volume=160,000 CF
Length= 275 ft.
Lerigth= 370 ft.
Spore Release 1
Peak Concentration: particles per liter of air
Spore Release 1
IBACSN
Peak [Spore]
229
6,122
230
55,422
235
7,248
240
6,163
241
16,036
242
4,582
244
3,790
245
5,722
247
35,413
250
4,602
257
2,433
258
1,808
O 244
iiiiiuiiiiiiiMMmiimnnin
245
O
250
o • O 241 U230
*A3 *A2 *A1
Q 235 Q 240
iMimiHUiuiiiwiimiiiiHimniinn
257
O
AG
229
o
A7
247
O
O 258
HH1H111HHTTTTTTTT
242
O
Next Section
Platform
End of Tunnel
Barrier
B-10
-------
Spore Release 1 Sensor 229
1
JPLJ.'"
•- •»
o »> o
i
&
auuui) UgUEJIllnimi!
O
•
229 9-16-16
NwjI SbcIdti
W 247
O O O
J4)
o
F n-d csf T usincil
g, 4000
< -
3000
2000
1000
6000
5000
09/18 15:00:00
09/18 17:00:00
09/18 19:00:00
¦ I
09/18 21:00:00
Spore Release 1 Sensor 230
230 9-16-16
0
09/18 15:00:00
09/18 21:00:00
B-ll
-------
Ptattonn
Qjkrrwv
Spore Release 1 Sensor 235
09/18 15:00:00 09/18 16:00:00 09/18 17:00:00 09/18 18:00:00 09/18 19:00:00
235 9-16-16
"5 —
I—
O
Spore Release 1 Sensor 240
09/18 15:00:00 09/18 17:00:00 09/18 19:00:00 09/18 21:00:00
0 244
ai U do
240 9 16 16
7000 -
5000
CT)
2 5" 4000
£ 3
o
3000
2000
1000
6000
B-12
-------
•ill • a
09/18 15:00:00
09/18 17:00:00
09/18 19:00:00
Spore Release 1
Sensor 242
O 1U
242 9-16-16
N«»l saclnn
5000
4000
3000
2000 ¦¦
1000
09/18 15:00:00
09/18 16:00:00
09/18 17:00:00
09/18 18:00:00
B-13
-------
Spore Release 1 Sensor 244 1
•„ *1
e i«
MI1I1 llll '
*4
• • wnniiHiiwiini
A3 A* *7
n/ ur
o o a
O J%*
•
HI
244 9-16-16
Oai
N«xt Section
PIUHUHII
Fndai Tunnel
5000
4000 •-
^ ... 3000
»_ re
§~
2000
1000
1 i 1 I 1 —
09/18 15:00:00 09/18 17:00:00 09/18 19:00:00 09/18 21:00:00
Spore Release 1 - Sensor 245
09/18 15:00:00 09/18 17:00:00 09/18 19:00:00 09/18 21:00:00
7000
3000
2000
1000
?45 9-16-16
8000
6000
9000
5000
4000
B-14
-------
Spore Release 1 Sensor 247
09/18 15:00:00 09/18 17:00:00 09/18 19:00:00 09/18 21:00:00
•„
O 144
O JM
•
M *• AT
B/ J*T
O O O
All
HZ
O
N«xl Sec 1 tor»
PliltfufMI
Ind at Tunnel
ra 20
09/18 15:00:00 09/18 17:00:00 09/18 19:00:00 09/18 21:00:00
5000
4000
1000
250 9-16-16
H 3000
5
2000
B-15
-------
Spore Release 1 Sensor 257
1
0° * ' r- J 4 i ' 1J •
irni niiimiymrniiin mil
in imuiiii nmniMTTin int 11 irMimrr
U JU
•
257 9-16-16
*4
as «• ai
ITS/ Mr
o o o
Mt
o
3000
2500
2000
1000
500
09/18 15:00:00
Next Sect
End at Tunnel
09/18 21:00:00
Spore Release 1
Sensor 258
258 9-16-16
fcnd o* I unnoi
1500
1000
09/18 15:00:00
09/18 17.00.00
09/18 19.00.00
B-16
-------
Dissemination Round 2
Peak Concentration: particles per liter of air
Spore Release 2
IBACSN
Peak [Spore]
2.29
8,854
230
65,299
235
9,388
240
10,704
241
45,588
242
3,120
244
21,931
245
8,308
247
55,147
257
4,583
258
4,523
lllllltlll i 111 1 llll 1
245
250 I O
O • «-> 241 <-> 230 •
#A3 •Al
O 235 O 240
O 244
O 258
111ill111:1 m < Mllllllll 1
i 1 • l1 111 llll! ' \m~i !ill ti i: 11 ittllllMI
• iinnm
A4
AS A6 A7
257 229 247
o o o
AS
242
O
Next Section Platform End of Tunnel
Barrier
Spore Release 2 Sensor 229
229 9-20-16
9000
8000
09/29 10:00:00
09/29 16:00:00
09/29 22:00:00
6000
3000
2000
1000
7000 --
5000 ¦¦
4000
B-17
-------
Spore Release 2 Sensor 230
230 9-20 16
1 i
O Q.
30
—I 1
09/29 10:00:00
1 1 1
09/29 16:00:00
09/29 22:00:00
r
Spore Release 2 Sensor 235
09/29 10:00:00 09/29 16:00:00 09/29 22:00:00 09/30 04:00:00
9000
8000
7000
6000
j?
2 3 5000
1^ S-
4000
3000
2000
1000
235 9 20 16
B-18
-------
Spore Release 2 Sensor 240
1
o" • • °
•«
o »» O »*<
O !*•
•
• • «
O JM
• ' ¦
240 9-20-16
M
M *» At
73/ "» MT
B O ©
*a
UI
o
Neat Section
Plulloim
End a* Tuiinol
S 10:00:00 09/29 16:00:00 09/29 22:00:00 09/30 04:00:00
¦S ~ 6
*T M
O a
PI dltoflfl
09/30 04:00:00
B-19
-------
Spore Release 2 Sensor 242 1
i".1 lPuJ.""
•.» •„ •*,
o *« o >«
o /*¦*
UIUIIJ J"111"-1 '
• • •
© JM
•
« »• *'
»f i» wr
o o e
AM
m*
O
242 9-20-16
On
N»xl Section
PloKumi
F rvd of Tunnot
4000
09/29 10:00:00
09/29 16:00:00
09/29 22:00:00
1000
3000
2000
r
Spore Release 2 Sensor 244 I
o • -• . « -•»* •
•" •«
O »¦ O a«
©1+4
i-ujji.i jpinmiiua-.!;'
^nBiip.OT^uiJDiiiiniraini;
O 7M
•
244 9-20-16
m
T*V ir* 347
o o o
M
Ml
O
N«xl Section
Pla1lo«m
Fmi erf Tunnol
20
cr>
"3 —'
*T J2
O Q-
15
10
09/29 10:00:00
09/29 12:00:00
09/29 14:00:00
—• 1—
09/29 16:00:00
B-20
-------
Spore Release 2 Sensor 245
09/29 10:00:00 09/29 16:00:00 09/29 22:00:00
8000
7000
3000
2000
1000
9000
Z» >47
6000
5000
4000
245 9-20-16
Spore Release 2 Sensor 247
247 9-20-16
09/29 16:00:00
O 144
09/29 22:00:00
" , TO
o -a.
h
09/29 10:00:00
B-21
-------
Spore Release 2 Sensor 257
4000
3000
2000
1000
09/29 10:00:00
09/30 04:00:00
Spore Release 2 Sensor 258
5000
4000
3 3 3000
,o a.
2000
1000
4 •—
09/29 10:00:00
258 9-20-16
o 1**
¦mimraiT
jn 24V
Ntfji Sect ton
F rxl of Tunnel
09/30 10:00:00
10/01 10:00:00
B-22
-------
Appendix C: Sampling Maps
-------
Figure C-l. Background Floor Samples C-l
Figure C-2. Background Floor Zone 1 Samples C-l
Figure C-3. Background Floor Zone 2 Samples C-2
Figure C-4. Background Floor Zone 3 Samples C-2
Figure C-5. Background Floor Zone 4 Samples C-3
Figure C-6. Background Floor Zone 5 Samples C-3
Figure C-7. Background South Wall and Ceiling Samples C-4
Figure C-8. Background South Wall Zone 1 Samples C-4
Figure C-9. Background South Wall and Ceiling Zone 2 Samples C-5
Figure C-10. Background South Wall and Ceiling Zone 3 Samples C-5
Figure C-ll. Background South Wall Zone 4 Samples C-6
Figure C-12. Background South Wall Zone 5 Samples C-6
Figure C-13. Background North Wall and Ceiling Samples C-7
Figure C-14. Background North Wall and Ceiling Zone 1 Samples C-7
Figure C-15. Background North Wall Zone 2 Samples C-8
Figure C-16. Background North Wall Zone 3 Samples C-8
Figure C-17. Background North Wall and Ceiling Zone 4 Samples C-9
Figure C-18. Background North Wall and Ceiling Zone 5 Samples C-9
Figure C-19. Pre-Decon Floor Samples C-10
Figure C-20. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 1 Samples C-ll
Figure C-21. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 2 Samples C-12
Figure C-22. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 3 Samples C-13
Figure C-23. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 4 Samples C-14
Figure C-24. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 5 Samples C-15
Figure C-25. Pre-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Samples C-16
Figure C-26. Pre-Decon Platform Wall Zone 1 Samples C-17
Figure C-27. Pre-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Zone 2 Samples C-18
Figure C-28. Pre-Decon Platform Wall Zone 3 Samples C-19
Figure C-29. Pre-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Zone 4 Samples C-20
Figure C-30. Pre-Decon Platform Wall Zone 5 Samples C-21
Figure C-31. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Samples C-22
Figure C-32. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 1 Samples C-23
Figure C-33. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 2 Samples C-24
Figure C-34. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 3 Samples C-25
Figure C-35. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 4 Samples C-26
Figure C-36. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 5 Samples C-27
Figure C-37. Post-Decon Floor Samples C-28
Figure C-38. Post-Decon Floor Zone 1 Samples C-29
Figure C-39. Post-Decon Floor Zone 2 Samples C-30
Figure C-40. Post-Decon Floor Zone 3 Samples C-31
Figure C-41. Post-Decon Floor Zone 4 Samples C-32
-------
Figure C-42. Post-Decon Floor Zone 5 Samples C-33
Figure C-43. Post-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Samples C-34
Figure C-44. Post-Decon Platform Wall Zone 1 Samples C-34
Figure C-45. Post-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Zone 2 Samples C-35
Figure C-46. Post-Decon Platform Wall Zone 3 Samples C-36
Figure C-47. Post-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Zone 4 Samples C-37
Figure C-48. Post-Decon Platform Wall Zone 5 Samples C-38
Figure C-49. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Samples C-39
Figure C-50. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 1 Samples C-40
Figure C-51. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 2 Samples C-41
Figure C-52. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 3 Samples C-42
Figure C-53. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 4 Samples C-43
Figure C-54. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 5 Samples C-44
-------
Legend Background Floor
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
/-— Sponge
o b a
¦ B LJ B
iiiiwiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiwiii
~ . . i] . . ~
Figure C-l. Background Floor Samples
Legend
Background Floor
~ Ballast
Zone 1
¦ Vacuum
(n)
m/^— Sponge
~
B1
~
B2
~
B3
!!!!!!!llJ!!!!!!JJ!!!!!UJ!!!!!!l|!!!!!!
\S2 *S3 ^S4 SP3
Figure C-2. Background Floor Zone 1 Samples
C-l
-------
Legend
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
Sponge
Background Floor
Zone 2
Figure C-3. Background Floor Zone 2 Samples
Legend Backrgound Floor
Zone 3
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
Sponge
Figure C-4. Background Floor Zone 3 Samples
C-2
-------
Legend Background Floor
_ n 4 Zone 4
_ Ballast
vacuum
Sponge
Figure C-5. Background Floor Zone 4 Samples
Legend
Background Floor
Zone 5
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
(n)
Sponge
S29
VS30
S31
S32
Figure C-6. Background Floor Zone 5 Samples
C-3
-------
Legend Background
_ South Walls
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
Sponge
ZONE 4
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 1
Figure C-7. Background South Wall and Ceiling Samples
Legend
Background
~ Ballast
South Wall
-------
Legend
~ Ballast
Background
South Wall
Zone 2
¦ Vacuum
Sponge
S10
Figure C-9. Background South Wall and Ceiling Zone 2 Samples
Legend
~ Ballast
Background
¦ Vacuum
South Wall (n)
¦ /
Zone 3
^/— Sponge
1
S15
ISP2
r
sie
Figure C-10. Background South Wall and Ceiling Zone 3 Samples
C-5
-------
Legend
~ Ballast
Backrgound
South Wall
¦ Vacuum
Zone 4 T
¦/—— Sponge
S21
~
Figure C-ll. Background South Wall Zone 4 Samples
Legend
~ Ballast
Background ^
¦ Vacuum
South Wall (n)
Zone 5 *
^/— Sponge
S28
Figure C-12. Background South Wall Zone 5 Samples
C-6
-------
Legend Background
n dm f North Wall
_ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
¦ Sponge
ZONE 5
Figure C-13. Background North Wall and Ceiling Samples
Legend Backrgound North Wall
Zone 1
S6
Ballast
Vacuum
¦ Sponge
Figure C-14. Background North Wall and Ceiling Zone 1 Samples
C-7
-------
Legend
Background
~ Ballast
North Wall
Zone 2 @
¦ Vacuum
No Samples ¦
¦/— Sponge
\WWVV
Figure C-15. Background North Wall Zone 2 Samples
Legend
~ Ballast
Background
North Wall
¦ Vacuum
*£!/
Zone 3 T
Sponge
Figure C-16. Background North Wall Zone 3 Samples
C-8
-------
Legend
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
/— Sponge
Background
North Wall
Zone 4
S26
S34
S33
S27
Figure C-17. Background North Wall and Ceiling Zone 4 Samples
Legend
~ Ballast
Background
North Wall
¦ Vacuum
V™/
Zone 5 T
Sponge
S35
S38
S37
S36
S34
S33
S27
Figure C-18. Background North Wall and Ceiling Zone 5 Samples
C-9
-------
Legend
~ Ballast All Zones
¦ Vacuum Pre-Decon
• RMC Floor Samples
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
Platform Wall
ZONE 5
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
Track Wall
Note: Due to 3D map perspective, one RMC sample (R35) is not visible in Zone 5. Its location is masked by the platform wall.
Figure C-19. Pre-Decon Floor Samples
C-10
-------
Legend
Zone 1
~ Ballast
Floor
¦ Vacuum
Pre-Decon
9 RMC
• HOBOBI/dosimeter
¦/i— Sponge
Platform Wall
O1
R1
R2
~
B8
O1
nB9 dB10 nBll n
R3
B12
Zone 2
Track Wall
Figure C-20. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 1 Samples
C-ll
-------
R6
O ¦ V22
Platform Wall
V 23
V241
¦ V26
IV27
IV28
iV29
V30
qR9
IV31
|V32
~
V33
> RIO
V34
V35l
Platform
Or11
R12
~ S58 ~
B21 B22
S59 ~
Zone 2
Floor Samples
Pre-Decon
Track Wal
Legend
C Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
Zone 3
Figure C-21. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 2 Samples
C-12
-------
Platform Wall
V36
V37
R17
R16
,R18
V38
V41
V42
V43
Platform
V39 V40
_ R19
V44
~
V45
, R20
, R21
R22
Zone 2
O R25
Legend
Zone 3
~ Ballast
Floor Samples
¦ Vacuum
Pre-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
Track Wall
Zone 4
Figure C-22. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 3 Samples
C-13
-------
Platform Wall
R26 BV4G #0R2^
V47 V48
R28
V49 V50
~
Zone 3
V51
OR29
¦
V55
V52
V53
V54
O R30
~
V56
V57
V58
Platform
R31
O R32
!!!Ul!!!UI!!!li!!!!JJ!!!UJ!!!UJ!!!l
^S80 XS81 S82 S83 ^84
~ ~~~~~~
B31 B32 B33 B34 B35
5R33
O
B33 B34
' R34
~
•o
Zone 5
Legend
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
• HO BO/BI/dosimeter
¦ Sponge
Zone 4
Floor Samples
Pre-Decon
Track Wall
Figure C-23. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 4 Samples
C-14
-------
Legend
C Ballast
Zone 5
¦ Vacuum
Floor Samples
• RMC
Pre-Decon
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
Platform Wall
O
R35
O1
R36
R37q«
B37
cao
Rao
Rdfl
B41
Zone 4
Track WaII
Figure C-24. Pre-Decon Floor Zone 5 Samples
C-15
-------
Legend /\n zones
~ Ballast Platform Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum Pre-Decon
t RMC
• HOBO©l/dosimeter
¦ Sponge
Figure C-25. Pre-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Samples
C-16
-------
Legend
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
Zone 1
Platform Wall Samples
Pre- Decon
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
Platform Wall
Zone 2
S39
S40
YZZ/###£lil f I I I
Floor
Figure C-26. Pre-Decon Platform Wall Zone 1 Samples
C-17
-------
S51
Platform Wall
Legend
Zone 2
~ Ballast
Platform Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Pre-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/81/dosimeter
¦/-—» Sponge
S >*•
,S54
S52
. S53
Platform
f fill 11 IllllimUW
EU EZ1 d? ~ C3
I Zone 3
Floor
Figure C-27. Pre-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Zone 2 Samples
C-18
-------
Legend
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/-" Sponge
Zone 3
Platform Wall Samples
Pre-Decon
Platform Wall
a
9:
. S65
i S66
Platform
~
j_jS64 Wall Sample below Platform
[//////!### 1JJIII 111 11 miiiiitiww
mr m n
o •o
O
^—i
Floor
Figure C-28. Pre-Decon Platform Wall Zone 3 Samples
C-19
-------
Legend
Zone 4
O Ballast
Platform Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Pre-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/•—• Sponge
#v,
Platform Ceiling
S77
S78
~
Platform
Zone :
////Zi#ir##ii.ifiiui 11 mii\VLi\vvvxy>
Floor
Figure C-29. Pre-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Zone 4 Samples
C-20
-------
1
Platform Wall
Legend Zone 5
~ Ballast Platform Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum Pre-Decon
• RMC
• H OB 0/B l/dosimeter
'1 Sponge
~ S8?
nS88
1
|
•
ffJLEJMU ill # # f
LI
LIIIIU.
1111
IU11V
£7 m
EZ)
E3
o
o
Floor
Figure C-30. Pre-Decon Platform Wall Zone 5 Samples
C-21
-------
Legend
All Zones
~ Ballast
Tunnel Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Pre-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO^I/dosimeter
Sponge
Figure C-31. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Samples
C-22
-------
Legend Zone1
c Ballast Track Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum Pre-Decon
• RMC
• HOBOyBI/dosimeter
s/— Sponge
Track Wall
Zone 2
~ S47
nS48
^ CJ E3
_ ,
~
o •
a rj
a a
Floor
Figure C-32. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 1 Samples
C-23
-------
V
Legend
Zone 2
~ Ballast
Track Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Pre-Decon
9 RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
Zone 3
Track Wall
S63
Zone 1
~I
Figure C-33. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 2 Samples
C-24
-------
Legend
Zone 3
IZ Ballast
Track Wall and
¦ Vacuum
Kiosk Platform Samples
9 RMC
Pre-Decon
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
Track Wall
Zone 4 Zone 2
, S76
—7 r-> °
ft- - "=1
<=>
Pla
o
tforn
r-^73 - - (j
VS74 °
n
Figure C-34. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 3 Samples
C-25
-------
Legend
Zone 4
~ Ballast
Track Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Pre-Decon
• RMC
• H OB O/BI /dosimeter
Sponge
Track Wall
Zone 3
SS6
Platform
Figure C-35. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 4 Samples
C-26
-------
Legend
C Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
• HOBOyBI/dosimeter
Sponge
Zone 5
Track Wall Samples
Pre-Decon
. S96
. S97
Track Wall
Zone 4
S98
S95
111 iiiuiiuiuww
Floor
fx
Figure C-36. Pre-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 5 Samples
C-27
-------
Legend
C Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge ~ Composite Sample
All Zones
Post-Decon
Floor Samples
Zone 1
BOB
{
17. v
(limiiimnnrmtTtMintiiim imiiintrnrmtTtiiiirnijiiT iiiMiwraHiiitiiiiitii
Zone 2
Platform Wall
TL
a O B B O B
Track Wall
Zone 3
r *
B O O B O
Zone 4
a o a a a o
o B B o b B
I
Zone 5
Figure C-37. Post-Decon Floor Samples
C-28
-------
Legend
Zone 1
~ Ballast
Floor Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/—— Sponge
^ Composite Sample
Platform Wall
aB13 1— B14 Qb15
'XI
^616 DB17
Track Wall
Figure C-38. Post-Decon Floor Zone 1 Samples
C-29
-------
Platform Wall
• X2
IV27
IV28
'V29 V30'
»X3
¦V31
' V32
IV33
-VC-2 ¦
Platform
S59
S60
~
BIS
~B19 O
B20
Zone 1
Legend
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
# RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/«— Sponge
Zone 2
Floor Sample
Post Decon
~ Composite Sample
~B21
• X4
Track Wall
~B22 ¦ i
B23
Zone 3
Figure C-39. Post-Decon Floor Zone 2 Samples
C-30
-------
Platform Wall
X5
~
-VC
1 V36
I V37
'V38
'V39
'V40
~
-2'
1V42
Platform
V43
-.VC-3.
SC-8'
Zone 2
Zone 4
Zone 3
Floor Sample
Post-Decon
Track Wall
Legend
C Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/— Sponge ~ Composite Sample
Figure C-40. Post-Decon Floor Zone 3 Samples
C-31
-------
Platform Wall
' V48
~
V51
¦V 52
1V53
~
V56
Platform
V57
V58 X8
SC-9
Zone 3
Zone 5
Track Wall
Legend
Zone 4
C Ballast
Floor Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/i—i Sponge
^ Composite Sample
Figure C-41. Post-Decon Floor Zone 4 Samples
C-32
-------
Legend
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/—— Sponge
Zone 5
Floor Samples
Post-Decon
¦ Composite Sample
Platform Wall
Track Wall
Figure C-42. Post-Decon Floor Zone 5 Samples
C-33
-------
Legend
All Zones
~ Ballast
Platform Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
e RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
~~| Composite Sample
\-
¦r
~TH~rtnT 3
- ~n-
D 1
w
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 5
Figure C-43. Post-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Samples
Legend
Zone 1
~ Ballast
Platform Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
™ Sponge
1 Composite Sample
Platform Wa
Zone 2
Figure C-44. Post-Decon Platform Wall Zone 1 Samples
C-34
-------
k SC-3
Platform Ceiling
Legend
Zone 2
~ Ballast
Platform Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/-— Sponge
| Composite Sample
Platform Wall
_S51
iS52
Zone 1
o">
SC-4
c
Zone 3
¦
Figure C-45. Post-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Zone 2 Samples
C-35
-------
Legend
Zone 3
~ Ballast
Platform Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
| Composite Sample
Platform Wall
T
Figure C-46. Post-Decon Platform Wall Zone 3 Samples
C-36
-------
Le9end Zone 4
~ Ballast Platform Ceiling Samples
¦ Vacuum Post-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge | | Composite Sample
Zone 3
D
Platform Ceiling
S77
,S78
Platform Wall
~
Zone 5
Figure C-47. Post-Decon Platform Wall and Ceiling Zone 4 Samples
C-37
-------
Legend
~ Ballast
¦ Vacuum
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
Zone 5
Platform Wall Samples
Post-Decon
Composite Sample
Figure C-48. Post-Decon Platform Wall Zone 5 Samples
C-38
-------
Legend
_ q J. . All Zones
~ Ballast
Track Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
• RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge |_J| Composite Sample
\
/
t
~
^ ~
•
a
r —-—-—- "—i—-— -- - -- - - „
Zone 5 Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1
Figure C-49. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Samples
C-39
-------
Legend
Zone 1
~ Ballast
Track Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
9 RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/-— Sponge
^ Composite Sample
Zone 2
Track Wall
~
SC-2
Figure C-50. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 1 Samples
C-40
-------
Legend
Zone 2
C Ballast
Track Wall
¦ Vacuum
Post Decon
9 RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/-— Sponge
^ Composite Sample
Zone 1
Zone 3
Track Wall
S63
Figure C-51. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 2 Samples
C-41
-------
Legend Zone 3
c Ballast Platform Kiosk and Trac
¦ vacuum Wal1 Samples
• RMC Post-Decon
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
• Sponge | | Composite Sample
Track Wall
Zone 4
<=¦
dt
Zone 2
S76
S7
73
S74
i=>
CP
Platform
Figure C-52. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 3 Samples
C-42
-------
Legend
Zone 4
IZ Ballast
Track Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
9 RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
Sponge
^ Composite Sample
Track Wall
SC-10
Zone 5
rp
=B
Figure C-53. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 4 Samples
C-43
-------
Legend
Zone 5
~ Ballast
Track Wall Samples
¦ Vacuum
Post-Decon
9 RMC
• HOBO/BI/dosimeter
¦/-— Sponge
^ Composite Sample
Track Wa
Zone 4
SC-12
Figure C-54. Post-Decon Tunnel Wall Zone 5 Samples
C-44
-------
Appendix D: Sampling Protocols
Attachment 1: Sample Collection Method for Non-porous Surface Wipe Samples Using
Cellulose Sponge Sticks
Attachment 2: Sample Collection Method for Metal Rails Using Cellulose Sponge Sticks
Attachment 3: Sample Collection Method for Porous Surface Vacuum Samples Using 37-mm
Cassettes (MCE Micro-Vacuum)
Attachment 4: Sample Collection Method for Reference Material Coupon (RMC) Samples
Attachment 5: Sample Collection Method for Bulk Railroad Ballast Wash/Extract Samples
Attachment 6: Sample Collection Method for Liquid Wastewater Samples
Attachment 7: Sample Collection Method for Atypical Kiosk Items
Attachment 8: Laboratory Response Network Procedures for UTR OTD
Attachment 9: Laboratory Procedures for Recovering Bacillus Spores from RMCs, MOP 6609
Attachment 10: UTR OTD Sampling Kit Assembly Instructions
-------
Attachment 1: Sample Collection Method for Non-porous Surface
Wipe Samples Using Cellulose Sponge Sticks
This attachment details the use of cellulose sponge (sponge) sticks to collect samples on non-
porous surfaces in support of the Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational
Technology Demonstration (OTD). The required materials and supplies, sampling procedure,
sampling kit assembly, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) sampling, and sources
used to prepare this sampling procedure are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
The sampling kit for collecting each sample contains the following:
1. Disposable sampling template with a sampling area measuring 100 square inches (in.2) (645
square centimeters [cm2])
2. 1.5- by 3-in. sterile cellulose sponge pre-moistened with 10 milliliters (mL) of neutralizing
buffer solution folded over a handle (such as the 3M™ Sponge-Stick [3M, St. Paul, MN;
Catalog No. SSL-10NB] or equivalent)
3. Resealable plastic bag, 1-quart or smaller
4. Resealable plastic bag, 1-gallon or larger
5. Individually wrapped, sterile, 4-ounce screw-cap specimen container (such as General
Purpose Specimen Container [Kendall Healthcare, Mansfield, MA; Catalog No. 8889-
207026] or equivalent)
In addition, the sampling team will need the following:
1. Nitrile gloves
2. Documentation materials, such as digital camera, indelible ink pen, iPad, tablet, and/or
logbook
3. Documentation forms and permanent marker(s)
4. Chain-of-custody forms, shipping paperwork, custody seals, and tags
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
1. Wearing a clean pair of gloves over existing gloves, place the disposable sampling template
over the area to be sampled and secure it. If a template cannot be used, measure the sampling
area with a disposable ruler, and delineate the area to be sampled with masking tape. The
surface area sampled should be less than or equal to 100 in2 (645 cm2).
2. Remove the sterile sponge stick from its package. Grasp the sponge stick near the top of the
handle. Do not handle the sponge below the thumb stop.
3. Wipe the surface to be sampled using the moistened sponge stick by laying the widest part of
the sponge on the surface, leaving the leading edge slightly lifted. Apply gentle but firm
pressure, and use an overlapping "S" pattern to cover the entire surface using horizontal
strokes as shown below.
D-l
-------
K
Turn the sponge over, and wipe the same area again using vertical "S" strokes as shown
below.
\
Use the edges of the sponge (narrow sides) to wipe the same area using diagonal "S" as
shown below.
Use the tip of the sponge to wipe the perimeter of the sampling area as shown below.
m\
D-2
-------
8. Place the head of the sponge directly into a sterile, 4-ounce specimen container. Bend the
handle of the sponge by rocking it back and forth until the handle breaks off the head of the
sponge. The end of the sponge handle touched by the collector should not touch the inside of
the specimen container. Discard the broken off handle. Securely seal and label the container
(such as with the unique sample identifier, sampling location, initials of the sample collector,
and date and time of collection).
9. Place the sample container in the pre-labeled 1-quart resealable plastic bag. Securely seal the
bag, and record information (such the bar code, sampling location, date and time of sample
collection, and name of sample collector). Specimen containers and re-sealable bags may be
pre-labeled to assist with sampling efficiency.
Note: Remove excess air from the resealable plastic bags to increase the number of samples
that can be shipped in one container.
10. Dispose of the template or masking tape, sponge stick handle, and sampling supply wrappers.
11. Remove outer gloves and discard. Clean gloves should be worn for each new sample.
SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY
Sampling kit assembly instructions are provided in Attachment 10.
QA/QC SAMPLING
The QA/QC samples for the sponge sticks include negative control (field blanks) and media
blanks. Combined, these blanks should be equal to at least 10% of the investigative samples
collected. Procedures for collecting these samples are summarized below.
Negative Controls (Field Blanks)
Field blanks should be collected using the procedure below in the center of the sampling area
before the first sample is collected
1. Remove the sterile, pre-moistened sponge stick from its package. Grasp the sponge stick near
the top of the handle. Do not handle the sponge below the thumb stop.
2. Place the head of the sponge directly into the sterile specimen container. Break off the head
of the sponge into the container. Discard the broken off handle. Securely seal and label the
container.
4. Place the sample container in a pre-labeled, 1-quart resealable plastic bag. Securely seal the
bag.
5. Process the samples along with the other environmental samples.
Media Blanks
Provide unopened cellulose sponge sticks as media blanks to the processing laboratory.
SOURCES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. "Surface Sampling Procedures for
Bacillus anthracis Spores from Smooth, Non-Porous Surfaces." Cincinnati, OH. Revised
April 26, 2012. Accessed on May 29, 2012. On-line Address:
http://www.cdc.eov/niosh/topics/emres/surface-sampling-bacilliis-anthracis.html
D-3
-------
Emanuel, P., J.W. Roos, and K. Niyogi. 2008. Sampling for Biological Agents in the
Environment. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
Hodges L.R., et al. 2010. "National Validation Study of Swab Protocol for the Recovery of
Bacillus anthracis Spores from Surfaces. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 81:141-
146.
D-4
-------
Attachment 2: Sample Collection Method for Metal Rails
Using Cellulose Sponge Sticks
This attachment details the use of cellulose sponge (sponge) sticks to collect samples on metal
rails in support of the Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology
Demonstration (OTD). The required materials and supplies, sampling procedure, sampling kit
assembly, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) sampling, and source used to prepare
this sampling procedure are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
The sampling kit for collecting each sample contains the following:
1. Disposable sampling template with a sampling area measuring 36 inches (in.) long and 2.75
in. wide, for a sampling area of about 100 square inches (in.2) (645 square centimeters [cm2])
2. 1.5- by 3-in. sterile cellulose sponge pre-moistened with 10 milliliters (mL) of neutralizing
buffer solution folded over a handle (such as the 3M™ Sponge-Stick [3M, St. Paul, MN;
Catalog No. SSL-10NB] or equivalent)
3. Resealable plastic bag, 1-quart or smaller
4. Resealable plastic bag, 1-gallon or larger
5. Individually wrapped, sterile, 4-ounce screw-cap specimen container (such as General
Purpose Specimen Container [Kendall Healthcare, Mansfield, MA; Catalog No. 8889-
207026] or equivalent)
In addition, the sampling team will need the following:
1. Nitrile gloves
2. Documentation materials, such as digital camera, indelible ink pen, iPad, tablet, and/or
logbook
3. Documentation forms and permanent marker(s)
4. Chain-of-custody forms, shipping paperwork, custody seals, and tags
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
1. Wearing a clean pair of gloves over existing gloves, place the disposable sampling template
over the area to be sampled and secure it.
2. Remove the sterile sponge stick from its package. Grasp the sponge stick near the top of the
handle. Do not handle the sponge below the thumb stop.
3. Wipe the surface to be sampled using the moistened sponge stick by laying the widest part of
the sponge on the surface (side A on the right-hand image below) at one end of the area to be
sampled (left-hand image below), leaving the leading edge slightly lifted. Apply gentle but
firm pressure to traverse the entire surface of the rail section with one stroke.
D-5
-------
4. Turn the sponge over and use the opposite flat side (side C on the right-hand image above) of
the sponge to wipe the same area again in the opposite direction as shown below.
5. Use the narrow edges of the sponge (sides D and B on the right-hand image above) to wipe
the same area two more times, once in each direction, one pass for each side of the sponge.
6. Place the head of the sponge directly into a sterile, 4-ounce specimen container. Bend the
handle of the sponge by rocking it back and forth until the handle breaks off the head of the
sponge. The end of the sponge handle touched by the collector should not touch the inside of
the specimen container. Discard the broken off handle. Securely seal and label the container
(such as with the unique sample identifier, sampling location, initials of the sample collector,
and date and time of collection).
7. Place the sample container in the pre-labeled 1-quart resealable plastic bag. Securely seal the
bag, and record information (such the bar code, sampling location, date and time of sample
collection, and name of sample collector).
8. Note: Remove excess air from the resealable plastic bags to increase the number of samples
that can be shipped in one container.
9. Dispose of the template or masking tape, sponge stick handle, and sampling supply wrappers.
10. Remove outer gloves and discard. Clean gloves should be worn for each new sample.
SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY
Sampling kit assembly instmctions are provided in Attachment 10.
D-6
-------
QA/QC SAMPLING
The QA/QC samples for the sponge sticks include negative control (field blanks) and media
blanks. Combined, these blanks should be equal to at least 10% of the investigative samples
collected. Procedures for collecting these samples are summarized below.
Negative Controls (Field Blanks)
Field blanks should be collected using the procedure below in the center of the sampling area
before the first sample is collected
1. Remove the sterile, pre-moistened sponge stick from its package. Grasp the sponge stick near
the top of the handle. Do not handle the sponge below the thumb stop.
2. Place the head of the sponge directly into the sterile specimen container. Break off the head
of the sponge into the container. Discard the broken off handle. Securely seal and label the
container.
4. Place the sample container in a pre-labeled, 1-quart resealable plastic bag. Securely seal the
bag.
5. Process the samples along with the other environmental samples.
Media Blanks
Provide unopened cellulose sponge sticks as media blanks to the processing laboratory.
SOURCE
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. "Surface Sampling Procedures for
Bacillus anthracis Spores from Smooth, Non-Porous Surfaces." Cincinnati, OH. Revised
April 26, 2012. Accessed on May 29, 2012. On-line Address:
http://www.cdc.eov/niosh/topics/emres/surface-sampling-bacilliis-anthracis.html
D-7
-------
Attachment 3: Sample Collection Method for Porous Surface
Vacuum Samples Using 37-mm Cassettes (MCE Micro-Vacuum)
This attachment details the use of 37-millimeter (mm) cassettes (MCE Micro-Vacuum) to collect
samples on porous surfaces in support of the Underground Transport Restoration (UTR)
Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD). The required materials and supplies, sampling
procedure, sampling kit assembly, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) sampling,
and sources used to prepare this sampling procedure are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
The sampling kit for collecting each sample consists of one pre-labeled 1-gallon (gal.) (10- by
12-inch [in.]) resealable overpack bag containing the items listed below.
1. One pre-labeled 1-quart resealable bag containing the following:
a. One assembled, pre-labeled 37-millimeter (mm) cassette with a unique barcode or sample
identification (ID) number
b. One 20-centimeter (cm) long piece of Tygon tubing connected to cassette
c. One sampling nozzle consisting of 2.5-cm long piece of tubing connected to cassette
d. Two polyvinyl chloride (PVC) adapters
e. Red plugs removed from the cassette
f. One pre-labeled 15-milliliter (mL) polypropylene conical tube (Fisher Scientific, Part No.
15-959-70C) with the same bar code or sample ID number
2. One 12- by 12-in. paper sampling template (SKC, Catalog No. 225-2416)
3. One pre-labeled 4- by 6-in. resealable plastic bag
In addition, the sampling team will need the following:
1. Non-powdered nitrile gloves
2. A portable vacuum (sample pump) (such as the Vac-U-Go Pump [SKC, Catalog No. 228-
9605] or a personal sampling pump)
3. Alternating current (AC) 110-volt power source if Vac-U-Go Pump used
4. Field rotameter (SKC, Catalog No. 320-100) or electronic calibrator (SKC, Product Code
717-530H) capable of reading up to 30 liters per minute (L/min)
5. Timer
6. Documentation materials, such as digital camera, indelible ink pen, iPad, tablet, and/or
logbook
7. Documentation forms and permanent marker(s)
8. Chain-of-custody forms, shipping paperwork, custody seals, and tags
D-8
-------
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Sample Collection
1. For each sample collected, wear a new pair of gloves. A two-person sample collection team
is recommended: a sample handler and a support person.
2. Determine the sampling location.
3. Wearing a pair of sterile gloves, place the 12- by 12-in. sample template over the area to be
sampled. Photograph the sampled area, and/or draw a map of the location in the logbook.
4. The support person will remove the 37-mm cassette from the sampling supply bin containing
all sampling kits.
5. The support person will scan the bar code or record the sample collection bag identification
(ID) number on the sampling log sheet, iPad, or in a logbook, or radio the information to a
data recorder in the support zone.
6. The support person will perform the following:
a. Open the 37-mm cassette outer bag, and remove the unlabeled 37-mm cassette assembly
bag
b. Open the 37-mm cassette assembly bag
c. Hold the bag so that the sample handler can remove the kit
d. Hold the Tygon tubing for the sample handler to place the 37-mm cassette assembly onto
the tubing (if not already attached)
7. The sample handler will remove the 37-mm cassette assembly from the bag and attach it to
the Tygon tubing held by the support person (if not already attached).
8. The support person will attach the 20-cm-long Tygon tube to the vacuum device (if not
already attached).
9. The support person will activate the sample pump (vacuum device) and deactivate it upon
completion of each sample collection.
10. The sample handler will collect the sample using an overlapping "S" pattern both in the
horizontal and vertical directions from the 12- by 12-in. area within the template, using a
traverse rate of 3 to 5 seconds per linear foot. The table below summarizes the suggested
sampling duration for concrete and upholstery in a 12- by 12-in. area.
Material
Total Sampling
Duration
Single Pass
Duration
No. Passes per
Direction
Concrete
300 seconds (5 min)
3 seconds
50
Upholstery
300 seconds (5 min)
3 seconds
50
During sample collection, the sample handler will perform the following:
a. Ensure that the filter is correctly placed on the Tygon vacuum tube, and make any
necessary adjustments
b. Vacuum horizontally using "S" strokes to cover the entire area of the surface not covered
by the template while keeping the Tygon nozzle angled so that the tapered opening of the
nozzle is flush with the sampled area's surface
D-9
-------
c. Pace the traverse rate to achieve the target sampling time
d. Vacuum the same area vertically using the same technique
e. Turn off the vacuum when sampling is completed
f. Remove the nozzle from the cassette
11. The support person will remove the 15-mL tube from the sample kit and open the tube.
12. The sample handler will place the nozzle into the tube, with the adapter end down while
holding the cassette in the opposite hand.
13. The support person will seal the tube and place it in the 4- by 6-in. resealable plastic bag.
14. The sample handler will use the hand holding the nozzle to remove the tubing from the outlet
side of the cassette and hand the cassette to the support person.
15. The support person will don a fresh pair of gloves and seal the cassette with the two red plugs
in the 1-quart unlabeled sample collection bag.
16. The support person will hold the 4- by 6-in. resealable plastic bag open for the sample
handler to place the secured 37-mm cassette into the bag with the 15-mL conical tube.
17. The support person will then seal the 1-quart bag and wipe it with a Dispatch® wipe.
18. The support person will open the labeled 1-gallon bag and place the 1-quart bag containing
the cassette inside it.
19. After collection of approximately 5 to 10 samples, the support person will seal the labeled 1-
gallon bag and wipe it with a Dispatch® wipe.
20. The sample handler will remove the used 20-cm length of tubing and discard it after the
collection of each sample.
Note: Use of a new 20-cm-long tube for each sample reduces the risk of cross-contamination
(contamination of the exterior of filter cassettes) because tubing may inadvertently contact
contaminated surfaces during sample collection. Reuse of this section of tubing between
multiple sampling locations may be allowable, but care should be taken to prevent cross-
contamination. If re-use is planned, one section of 20-cm tubing can be attached to every
fifth cassette during preparation of the sampling kits (see Attachment 10).
21. The support person will place the double-bagged sample into the sample collection bin.
22. All members of the sampling team will remove and discard their gloves.
After Sample Collection
1. Decontaminate outer sample bag before leaving the exclusion zone. This decontamination
usually is performed at the entrance of the personnel decontamination line.
2. Package samples for transport.
3. Fill out a COC form, and make a copy.
4. Secure samples in shipping container with the COC form, and attach Custody seals.
5. Fill out the shipping manifest, or contact the courier.
6. At the completion of testing, determine the final flow rate of the vacuum using the rotameter,
and record the rate in the project logbook.
D-10
-------
SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY
Sampling kit assembly instructions are provided in Attachment 10.
QA/QC SAMPLING
The QA/QC samples for the vacuum samples include negative control (field blanks) and media
blanks. Combined, these blanks should be equal to at least 10% of the investigative samples
collected. Procedures for collecting these samples are summarized below.
Negative Controls (Field Blanks)
Field blanks should be collected using the procedure below in the center of the sampling area
before the first sample is collected
1. Put on a new pair of gloves.
2. Open the resealable plastic bag containing the 37-mm cassette sampling kit, and remove the
unlabeled 37-mm cassette assembly bag.
3. The support person will open the bag aseptically and hold the bag so that the sample handler
can remove the kit.
4. The support person will hold the tubing for the sample handler to place the 37-mm cassette
assembly onto the tubing (if not already attached).
5. The sample handler will remove the 37-mm cassette assembly from the bag and attach the
20-cm Tygon tube onto the sample pump inlet. DO NOT TURN ON THE PUMP.
6. Using the resealable plastic bag to handle the assembly, remove the assembly from the
sample pump inlet, remove the tubing from both ends of the cassette, plug both ends of the
cassette to seal and close the cassette, and seal the bag.
7. Process the samples along with the other environmental samples for shipment to the
laboratory.
Media Blanks
Provide unopened 37-mm cassette sampling kit as media blanks to the processing laboratory.
SOURCES
Calfee, M.W., et al. 2013. "Comparative evaluation of vacuum-based surface sampling methods
for collection of Bacillus spores." Journal of Microbiological Methods, 95(3): pp. 389-
396.
Calfee M.W., et al. 2014. "Evaluation of sampling methods for Bacillus spore-contaminated
HVAC filters." Journal of Microbiological Methods, 96: pp. 1-5.
Emanuel, P., J.W. Roos, and K. Niyogi. 2008. Sampling for Biological Agents in the
Environment. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. "Evaluation of Vacuum-based Sampling Devices
for Collection of Bacillus Spores from Environmental Surfaces." EPA 600/R-13/137,
D-ll
-------
Washington, DC. On-line Address:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public j wnload.cfir ' wnload id= 5
D-12
-------
Attachment 4: Sample Collection Method for
Reference Material Coupon (RMC) Samples
This attachment details the collection of RMC samples in support of the Underground Transport
Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD). The required materials and
supplies, sampling procedure, and sampling kit assembly are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
The sampling kit for collecting each RMC consists of one pre-labeled 1-quart (8- by 10-inch
[in.]) resealable overpack bag containing the items listed below.
1. One package of sterile disposable forceps (Busse Hospital Disposables, Item No. 7190)
2. One pre-labeled 4- by 6-in. biohazard specimen transport bag (Fisherbrand™, Item No. 01-
800-00)
3. One pre-labeled 50-milliliter (mL) conical centrifuge tube (Falcon) inside 4- by 6-in. bag;
make sure bar code lines are parallel with the tube graduated line)
In addition, the sampling team will need the following:
1. Four pairs of nitrile gloves in a 1-gallon or larger resealable plastic bag
2. Documentation materials, such as digital camera, indelible ink pen, iPad, tablet, and/or
logbook
3. Sample labels, documentation forms, and permanent marker(s)
4. Chain-of-custody (COC) forms, shipping paperwork, custody seals, and tags
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
1. A three-person sample collection team is recommended: an iPad operator, a supplier, and a
collector.
2. The iPad operator, supplier, and collector will discard the top pair of gloves. After each
person has discarded a total of four pairs of gloves, open the 1-gallon plastic bag of clean
gloves. Each person will don another pair of clean gloves inside the plastic bag.
3. Discard the empty plastic bag that held the gloves as biohazard waste.
4. The supplier will perform the following:
a. Open the sample collection bin.
b. Remove the RMC sampling kit from the bin.
c. Hold the sampling kit label out for the iPad operator to scan
5. The iPad operator will enter data in the required fields on the iPad.
6. The supplier will perform the following:
a. Open the sampling kit bag and remove the package of disposable forceps.
b. Open the package of disposable forceps without touching the forceps for the collector to
remove the forceps from the package.
D-13
-------
c. Discard the forceps packaging as biohazard waste.
d. Move the 50-mL conical tube to the top of the 4- by 6-in. biohazard specimen transport
bag, and loosen the cap of the tube. Remove from the tube from the bag, and uncap the
tube. Hold the tube out to the collector.
%
- A
j\ 1 - ^ j J
ii - i
7. The collector will perform the following:
a. Remove the disposable forceps from the package, and use them to transfer the RMC into
the 50-mL conical tube held by the supplier, being careful not to touch the surface of
RMC, the tube, or the plastic bag.
b. Discard the disposable forceps as biohazard waste.
8. The supplier will perform the following:
a. Immediately close and tighten the cap of the 50-mL conical tube, and slide the tube back
into the 4- by 6-in. biohazard specimen transport bag.
b. Place the 4- by 6-inch biohazard specimen transport bag into the sampling kit bag.
9. The supplier and collector will remove the outer pair of gloves and discard them as biohazard
waste.
SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY
Sampling kit assembly instructions are provided in Attachment 10.
D-14
-------
Attachment 5: Sample Collection Method for Bulk Railroad Ballast
Wash/Extraction Samples
This attachment details the collection of bulk railroad ballast wash/extraction samples in support
of the Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration
(OTD). The required materials and supplies, sampling procedure, sampling kit assembly, quality
assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) sampling, and source used to prepare this sampling
procedure are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
The sampling kit for collecting each ballast wash/extraction sample consists of one pre-labeled
14- by 10-inch (in.) resealable overpack bag containing the items listed below.
1. One pre-labeled 1-liter (L) Nalgene bottle (ThermoFisher Scientific, Item No. 2187-0032);
mark the 500-milliliter (mL) (half full) level on the side using a permanent marker (83 mm or
3.25 in. from the bottom)
2. Two additional sample ID labels (for laboratory extraction sample 500-mL bottle and
secondary containment bag upon sample processing)
In addition, the sampling team will need the following:
1. Nitrile gloves
2. One 500-mL Nalgene bottle (Daigger® Scientific, Item No. EF2247C)
3. One 6- by 10-in. resealable plastic primary containment bag
4. Phosphate-buffered saline with 0.05% Tween® 20 (sterilized)
5. Documentation materials, such as digital camera, indelible ink pen, iPad, tablet, and/or
logbook
6. Sample labels, documentation forms, and permanent marker(s)
7. Chain-of-custody (COC) forms, shipping paperwork, custody seals, and tags
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Exclusion Zone
1. For each sample collected, wear a new pair of gloves. A two-person sample collection team
is recommended: a sample handler and a support person.
2. The support person will record the sample identification (ID) number on the 14- by 10-in.
sampling kit bag.
3. The support person will open the sampling kit bag, maneuver the 1 -L Nalgene bottle to the
bag opening, and open the bottle lid using one hand to hold the bottle through the bag and the
other hand to twist and remove the lid.
Note: The support person should hold the lid in one hand and bottle in the other hand
throughout sample collection. Do not set the lid or bottle down, and do not remove the bottle
from the sampling kit bag.
D-15
-------
4. While the support person holds the bottle and lid, the sampler will collect gravel from a depth
of 0 to 10 centimeters using gloved hands by dropping each piece of gravel into the bottle
without touching the bottle.
5. The sampler will collect enough gravel to fill the 1-L bottle to the half full mark.
6. The support person will recap the bottle and then allow the bottle to drop to the bottom of the
sampling kit bag. Seal the bag.
7. The support person will store the bottle and bag containing the sample.
8. The support person and sampler will remove the outer pair of gloves.
Support Zone
1. Affix the corresponding labels from the sampling kit onto the 500-mL bottle and 6- by 10-in.
primary containment bag
2. Determine the weight of gravel in the 1-L Nalgene bottle using an analytical balance. Record
the weight to nearest 1 gram. The tare weight of the bottle is about 100 grams. The weight of
the bottle and the gravel should be about 500 to 900 grams.
3. Carefully add 500 mL of sterile phosphate-buffered saline with 0.05% Tween® 20 (PBST) to
the 1-L bottle.
4. Grasp the bottle with one hand on bottom of bottle and the other hand around the bottle near
the top. Hold the bottle over the shoulder, and shake vigorously back and forth for 2 minutes.
5. Allow the sample to settle for 30 seconds.
6. Pour off the eluent into the clean, pre-labeled 500-mL bottle. Make sure the sample labels for
each sample collection bottle matches its respective eluent bottle label.
7. Place the 500-mL bottle into the pre-labeled 6- by 10-in. primary containment bag, and seal
the bag.
8. Ship samples to the laboratory. Include cold packs in the shipping container.
Dilution and Plating of the Eluent
1. Serially dilute the sample 10-fold using the steps below.
a. Homogenize the eluent sample.
b. Remove 100 microliter (|iL) of the sample, and add it to a sterile, 900-|iL dilution tube
(for the 10"1 dilution tube).
c. Vortex the tube for 10 seconds.
d. Remove 100 |iL of the sample, and add it to a sterile, 900-|iL dilution tube (for the 10"2
dilution tube)
e. Vortex the tube for 10 seconds.
2. Plate the sample and dilutions using the steps below.
a. Plate 100 |iL of undiluted sample onto tryptic soy agar (TSA) plates in triplicate,
b. Plate 100 |iL of 10"1 dilution tube sample onto TSA plates in triplicate.
c. Plate 100 |iL of 10"2 dilution tube sample onto TSA plates in triplicate.
d. Filter 1 mL of undiluted sample onto a Pall 4804 analytical filter, and place the filter
(collection side up) onto a TSA plate.
D-16
-------
e. Filter 10 mL of undiluted sample onto a Pall 4804 analytical filter, and place the filter
(collection side up) onto a TSA plate.
f. Filter 100 mL of undiluted sample onto a Pall 4804 analytical filter, and place the filter
(collection side up) onto a TSA plate.
g. Filter the remainder of the undiluted sample (about 385mL) onto a Pall 4804 analytical
filter, and place the filter (collection side up) onto a TSA plate. Record the exact volume
plated.
3. Incubate all plates at 35 ± 2 °C for 18 to 22 hours.
4. Record the abundance of colony-forming units (CFU) on all plates with discrete CFUs. even
if the data are outside quantification range.
SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY
Sampling kit assembly instructions are provided in Attachment 10. For laboratory extraction, kit
assembly is not required.
LABORATORY EXTRACTION SUPPLIES
Sufficient numbers of 500-mL bottles and 6- by 10-in. containment bags should be available for
sample processing. Labels for each are contained in the sample kits. PBST (500 ml) should be
pre-loaded into these bottles (one for each sample, no labels needed at this point), to ease the
field-transfer of extraction liquid to the Nalgene collection vessel. Following extraction yet prior
to shipment, labels (one to the primary receptacle (500ml bottle) and one to the secondary bag
(6" xl2") should be attached.
QA/QC SAMPLES
The QA/QC samples for the ballast wash/extraction samples include negative control (field
blanks) and media blanks. Combined, these blanks should be equal to at least 10% of the
investigative samples collected. Procedures for collecting these samples are summarized below.
Negative Controls (Field Blanks)
Field blanks should be collected using the procedure below in the center of the sampling area
before the first sample is collected
Field Negative Controls (Field Blank):
Field blanks should be collected using the procedure below in the center of the sampling area
before the first sample is collected.
1. Put on a new pair of gloves.
2. Open the 1-L sample bottle, cap the 500-mL bottle, and affix the sample label.
3. Place the bottle into the pre-labeled resealable plastic bag.
4. Process the samples along with the other environmental samples.
Media Blanks
Provide sterile, 500 mL bottles of PBST to the processing laboratory.
D-17
-------
SOURCE
Boehm, A. B., et al. 2009. "Faecal indicator bacteria enumeration in beach sand: a comparison
study of extraction methods in medium to coarse sands." Journal of Applied
Microbiology, 107(5): pp. 1740-1750.
D-18
-------
Attachment 6: Sample Collection Method for
Liquid Wastewater Samples
This attachment details the collection of liquid wastewater samples in support of the
Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD). The
required materials and supplies, sampling procedure, sampling kit assembly, quality assurance
(QA) and quality control (QC) sampling, and sources used to prepare this sampling procedure
are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
The sampling kit for collecting each ballast wash/extraction sample consists of one pre-labeled
14- by 10-inch (in.) resealable overpack bag containing the items listed below.
1. One pre-labeled 500-milliliter (mL) Nalgene bottle (Daigger® Scientific, Item No. EF2247C)
2. Two additional sample ID labels (for laboratory extraction sample 500-mL bottle and
secondary containment bag upon sample processing)
In addition, the sampling team will need the following:
1. Nitrile gloves
2. One 1-liter (L) Nalgene bottle (ThermoFisher Scientific, Item No. 2187-0032)
3. One 6- by 10-in. resealable plastic primary containment bag
4. Phosphate-buffered saline with 0.05% Tween® 20 (sterilized)
5. Parafilm M® wax strips or Teflon™ tape
6. Extension pole and duct tape
7. Documentation materials, such as digital camera, indelible ink pen, iPad, tablet, and/or
logbook
8. Sample labels, documentation forms, and permanent marker(s)
9. Chain-of-custody (COC) forms, shipping paperwork, custody seals, and tags
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
1. For each sample collected, wear a new pair of gloves.
2. Attach the 500-mL bottle to a pole or hold the bottle in your hands to collect water from the
station sump.
Note: Ensure that your gloved hand does not enter the dip bottle or the sample bottle, or
contact the sump water.
3. Transfer the water sample from the dip bottle to the 1-L pre-labeled sample bottle. Continue
collecting water using the dip bottle until the 1-L bottle is almost full. Allow an air space of
2.5 to 5 centimeters (1 to 2 inches) above each sample to allow proper mixing of the sample
before analyses.
4. Cap the bottle, and seal it tightly.
D-19
-------
5. Double bag the sample in the 6- by 10-in. resealable plastic primary containment bag and the
14- by 10-in. resealable overpack bag.
6. Decontaminate the outer bag in the decontamination line.
7. Ship samples to the laboratory. Include cold packs in the shipping container.
SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY Sampling kit assembly instructions are provided in Attachment
10.
QA/QC SAMPLES
The QA/QC samples for the liquid wastewater samples include negative control (field blanks).
These blanks should be equal to at least 10% of the investigative samples collected. Procedures
for collecting these samples are summarized below.
Field Negative Controls (Field Blank):
Field blanks should be collected using the procedure below in the center of the sampling area
before the first sample is collected.
1. Put on a new pair of gloves.
2. Open the 1-L sample bottle, and fill it with sterile water. Allow 1 to 2 in. of clearance below
the top of the bottle.
3. Cap the bottle, and affix the sample label.
4. Place the bottle into the pre-labeled resealable plastic bag.
5. Process the sample along with the environmental vacuum samples.
SOURCES:
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2010. "BioWatch Outdoor Program - Guidance
Document for BioWatch Jurisdictions." August 11. For Official Use Only.
Emanuel, P., J.W. Roos, and K. Niyogi. 2008. Sampling for Biological Agents in the
Environment. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
D-20
-------
Attachment 7: Sample Collection Method
for Atypical Kiosk Items
This attachment details the collection of samples from a mock newsstand kiosk and a mock food
stand kiosk constructed in the subway station at Fort A.P. Hill in support of the Underground
Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD). General sampling
instructions are presented below, followed by a list of each material to be sampled, the numbers
and types of samples to be collected, and sampling instructions.
General Sampling Instructions
A three-person sample collection team is recommended: an iPad operator, a sampler, and a
support person (clean person). The iPad operator will only record sampling information and will
not handle any samples or sampling supplies. The sampler and support person will don a new
pair of gloves for each sample collected. The samples include sponge stick, vacuum, and
wash/extract samples. Attachment 1. Attachment 3. and Attachment 5 provide detailed sampling
procedures for the sponge stick, vacuum, and wash/extract samples, respectively. Sampling
procedure modifications are explained below, as necessary.
Poster
Wash/extract sample (1)
The sampler will carefully cut out approximately 1 square foot (ft2) from the corner of the poster
using safety scissors. The sampler will loosely fold the cut out corner to allow placement into a
pre-labeled, 1-liter (L) Nalgene bottle held by the support person. The support person will secure
the bottle lid tightly, decontaminate the exterior of the bottle, and place the bottle into a
secondary containment bag. The sampler will decontaminate the scissors.
Plexiglass Poster Mounting Case
Sponge stick sample (1)
The support person, while holding only the exterior of the sponge stick sample bag, will hand the
sampler a sponge stick. The sampler will touch only the sponge stick handle to retrieve the
sample from approximately 1 ft2 in the corner area on the outside of the plexiglass case. The
support person will present an open primary specimen container for the sampler to place the
sponge stick sample into. The support person will then close the specimen container,
decontaminate the outside of the container, and place it into a secondary containment bag.
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above, except that the sample
will be collected from approximately 1 ft2 in the corner area on the inside of the plexiglass case.
Hot Dog Roller (Previously labeled Steam Table)
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case
from the rollers and drip pan using all sides of the sponge. The flat surface of the sponge will be
used on top of rollers, then each side of the sponge will be used to sample the front side (one
side) and back side (other side) of the rollers. The tip of the sponge will be used to sample the
drip pan.
D-21
-------
Plastic Forks
Wash/extract sample (1)
The sampler will collect three forks and place them into a pre-labeled 1-L Nalgene bottle held by
the support person. The support person will secure the bottle lid tightly, decontaminate the
exterior of the bottle, and place the bottle into a secondary containment bag.
Wax Paper
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case.
The sampler will place a section of wax paper on a flat, horizontal, solid surface convenient for
sample collection. The sampler will hold the wax paper in place using the thumb and index
fingers while collecting the sample from approximately 1 ft2 on the wax paper surface. The
sampler will mark the area as "sampled" using a permanent marker.
Wash/extract sample (1)
The sampler will collect a full sheet of wax paper. The sampler will loosely fold the wax paper to
allow placement into a pre-labeled, 1-L Nalgene bottle held by the support person. The support
person will secure the bottle lid tightly, decontaminate the exterior of the bottle, and place the
bottle into a secondary containment bag.
Refrigerator
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case
from approximately 1 ft2 on the exterior top (horizontal) surface of the refrigerator.
Note: After decontamination, the refrigerator was flipped with the front door on the floor to
allow the vacuum sampling of the coils as discussed below, so the horizontal sample was
collected from approximately 1ft2 from the exterior back surface.
Vacuum sample (1)
The sampling team will collect one 37-millimeter (mm) vacuum cassette sample from evaporator
coils and fan areas. The sampling duration will be 3 to 5 minutes.
Hot Dogs
Wash/extract sample (1)
The sampler will collect two hotdogs and place them into a pre-labeled, 1-L Nalgene bottle held
by the support person. The support person will secure the bottle lid tightly, decontaminate the
exterior of the bottle, and place the bottle into a secondary containment bag.
Hot Dog Bun
Wash/extract sample (1)
The sampler will collect one hotdog bun and places it into a pre-labeled, 1-L Nalgene bottle held
by the support person. The support person will secure the bottle lid tightly, decontaminate the
exterior of the bottle, and place the bottle into a secondary containment bag.
Kiosk Surfaces (2 at each kiosk = 4 total)
Sponge stick sample (2 at Newsstand Kiosk)
D-22
-------
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case
from approximately lft2 of exposed, exterior, hard, non-porous, horizontal surfaces of the kiosk.
One area on the surface of kiosk will be sampled, and one area under the cash register will be
sampled. The support person will carefully pick up the register and place it to the side, and the
sampler will don fresh gloves to collect the sample.
Sponge stick sample (2 at Food Stand Kiosk)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case
from approximately lft2 of exposed, exterior, hard, non-porous, horizontal surfaces of the kiosk.
One area on the surface of the kiosk will be sampled, and one area under the hot dog roller will
be sampled. The support person will hold the roller up, and the sampler will don fresh gloves to
collect the sample from the area under the roller.
Newspaper
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case.
The sampler will place the newspaper on a flat, horizontal, solid surface convenient for sample
collection. The sampler will hold the front page of the newspaper in place using the thumb and
index fingers while collecting the wipe sample from approximately 1 ft2 on the newspaper
surface. The sampler will mark the area as "sampled" using a permanent marker.
Wash/extract sample (1)
The sampler will carefully cut out the front page of the newspaper using safety scissors. The
sampler will loosely fold the page to allow placement into a pre-labeled, 1-L Nalgene bottle held
by the support person. The support person will secure the bottle lid tightly, decontaminate the
exterior of the bottle, and place the bottle into a secondary containment bag. The sampler will
decontaminate the scissors.
Magazine
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case.
The sampler will place the magazine on a flat, horizontal, solid surface convenient for sample
collection. The sampler will hold the magazine in place using the thumb and index fingers while
collecting the wipe sample from approximately 1 ft2 (about a page and a half) on the magazine
surface. The sampler will mark the area as "sampled" using a permanent marker.
Wash/extract sample (1)
The sampler will carefully cut out the front page of the magazine using safety scissors. The
sampler will loosely fold the page to allow placement into a pre-labeled, 1-L Nalgene bottle held
by the support person. The support person will secure the bottle lid tightly, decontaminate the
exterior of the bottle, and place the bottle into a secondary containment bag. The sampler will
decontaminate the scissors.
D-23
-------
Cash Register
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case
from approximately 1ft2 on the exterior surface of cash register. The preferred sampling area will
be a hard, non-porous, horizontal surface. The sampling team will avoid key pads, buttons, and
coin drawers (to be covered by the vacuum samples discussed below).
Vacuum sample (1)
The sampling team will collect one 37-mm vacuum cassette sample from evaporator register
buttons, the display area, and coin drawers. The sampling duration will be 3 to 5 minutes.
Wooden Stool
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case
from approximately 1ft2 on the exterior surface of the wooden stool, including all outside-facing
surfaces of the stool's legs and the top surfaces of the crossbars.
Cash
Sponge stick sample (1)
This sample will be collected using the same technique discussed above for the plexiglass case.
The sampler will place the cash as flat as possible in one hand. The sampler will wipe the bill
length-wise using one side of the sponge, flip the bill over, and wipe the opposite side. The edges
of the bill will be sampled using the sides of the sponge stick.
Wash/extract sample (1)
The sampler will collect two bills and place them into a pre-labeled, 1-L Nalgene bottle held by
the support person. The support person will secure the bottle lid tightly, decontaminate the
exterior of the bottle, and place the bottle into a secondary containment bag.
Note: Only one bill was collected for Round.
Hat
Vacuum sample (1)
The hat will be carefully positioned hat on the counter for sampling, and the sampling team will
try not to handle the hat too much. The sampling team will collect one 37-mm vacuum cassette
sample from all exposed hat surfaces. The sampling duration will be 3 to 5 minutes.
T-Shirts
Wash/extract sample (1)
Using safety scissors, the sampler will carefully cut out four separate pieces of T-shirts totaling
approximately 1 ft2. The sampler will loosely fold each piece to allow placement into a pre-
labeled, 1-L Nalgene bottle held by the support person. The support person will secure the bottle
lid tightly, decontaminate the exterior of the bottle, and place the bottle into a secondary
containment bag. The sampler will decontaminate the scissors.
D-24
-------
Attachment 8: Laboratory Response Network
Procedures for UTR OTD
The Laboratory Response Network (LRN) laboratories will analyze environmental surface
samples to detect Bacillus atrophaeus, subspecies globigii (Bg) spores in support of the
Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD)
conducted from September 11 to October 14, 2016. The analytical data will be used to measure
the efficacy of two different decontamination approaches. The environmental surface samples
include sponge stick and 37-millimeter (mm) vacuum cassettes collected after the dissemination
of Bg and after each decontamination technology has been applied. All chain-of-custody (COC)
forms will be generated using Scribe software.
The following sections discuss the workflow and responsibilities, sample transport, sample
receipt by the LRN laboratory, sample processing, precautions, and the extraction and plating
procedures for the environmental surface (sponge stick and vacuum) samples.
I. WORKFLOW AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The OTD environmental samples include reference material coupon (RMC), sponge stick,
vacuum cassette, railroad ballast and kiosk wash/extract, and waste samples collected by
sampling teams under the direction of Francisco J. Cruz of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Upon removal from the contaminated building, samples will be collated and
shipped from Fort A.P. Hill to specified LRN laboratories arranged by Jasmine Chaitram at the
LRN Program Office. LRN laboratories will process the samples and report analytical results in
an Excel spreadsheet to Jasmine Chaitram, who will forward the spreadsheets to Dr. Sarah Taft
and Dr. Worth Calfee (EPA) within 48 hours of receipt. The diagram below shows the general
workflow.
Sample
Transport
Sample
Receipt by
LRN
Sample I Data
Processing I Reporting
D-25
-------
II. SAMPLE TRANSPORT
Samples will be packaged and shipped in high-quality styrofoam boxes with cardboard overpack
(such as Thermosafe Polyfoam Packers). Each shipment will contain frozen freezer packs to
moderate shipping temperatures and a completed and signed COC form indicating all samples
contained within the shipment. Because Bg is not an infectious agent, Category B shipping is not
required.
FedEx will ship the packages for overnight delivery to the designated LRN laboratories.
Anticipated shipping dates are September 12, 19, 20, 26, and 27, and October 3, 11, and 12,
2016.
III. SAMPLE RECEIPT BY LRN LABORATORY
LRN laboratories should receive the samples by 10 a.m. on September 13, 20, 21, 27, and 28,
and October 4, 12, and 13, 2016. The samples will be logged into the Excel spreadsheet provided
by EPA before processing.
IV. SAMPLE PROCESSING
Samples will be processed using existing LRN procedures for sponge stick and vacuum cassette
samples for the identification of Bacillus anthracis. The procedures were modified as necessary
for the analysis of Bg.
The LRN laboratory will analyze samples using culture methods only and will not conduct
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.
All samples will be processed using dilution plating as well as filter plating to ensure detection of
low concentrations of Bg.
V. PRECAUTIONS
At a minimum, LRN laboratories will conduct all procedures involving Bg in accordance with
Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) guidelines established in Biosafety in Microbiological and
Biomedical Laboratories (5th edition; on-line address:
http://www.cdc.gov/biosafetv/publications/bmbl5/index.htm).
At minimum, laboratory personnel handling the samples will use gowns and gloves for all
procedures. Each Laboratory Director may impose additional safety requirements in accordance
with the laboratory's general safety procedures.
VI. SAMPLE EXTRACTION AND PLATING PROCEDURES
This section lists the materials and equipment required for sample extraction and analysis,
followed by discussions of the sampling and extraction procedures for the sponge stick and
vacuum samples.
D-26
-------
MATERIALS
• Detergent/disinfectant solution
• Samples (sponge sticks and vacuum cassettes)
• Phosphate-buffered saline with 0.05% Tween® 20 (PBST) (Teknova Brand, Part No.
P0201; Fisher Bioreagents Part No. 50842946)
• Disposable polystyrene serological pipettes (5 and 10 milliliters [mL])
• Tryptic soy agar (TSA) culture plates (such as BD, Part No. 236950)
• MicroFunnel disposable filter funnels (Pall Life Sciences VWR Part No. 55095-
060) orNalgene sterile analytical filter units (Part No. 130-4020)
• Disposable sterile forceps
• Disposable sterile 10-microliter (|iL) loops
• Laboratory tissue wipes
• Disposable gloves
• Cell spreaders (such as Lazy-L, Fisher Part No. NC9417825)
• Freshly prepared 10% bleach solution
• Deionized water
• Racks for 15- and 50-mL centrifuge tubes
• Sterile, plastic, screw-cap 50-mL centrifuge tubes (such as BD, Part No. 352070)
• Sterile, plastic, screw-cap 15-mL centrifuge tubes (such as BD, Part No. 352097)
• Pipette tips with aerosol filter for 1 mL and 100 [j.L (such as Rainin, Parts No. SR-L200F
and SR-L1000F)
EQUIPMENT
• Vortex Mixer (such as Daigger Vortex Genie 2, Part No. EF3030A)
• Portable Pipet-Aid (Eppendorf Easypet Pipet, Fisher Part No. 13-688-177)
• Pipettors for 1 mL and 100 [xL (such as Rainin Light Touch LT1000 and LT100)
• Barnant Portable Air/Vacuum Pressure Station (Fisher Scientific, Part No. 13-875-240)
• Vacuum tubing (such as Nalgene 180 Clear polyvinyl chloride [PVC] vacuum tubing,
VWR Part No. 63013-763)
• Vacuum pump or vacuum line with vacuum gauge (Cole Parmer; gauge Catalog No.
07380-62; connector kit Catalog No. 07395-20; and bushing Catalog No. 08539-83)
• Nalgene heavy-duty polypropylene vacuum bottles (Fisher Scientific, Part No. 02-923-
11)
• Quick-filling venting closure, two-port (Fisher Scientific, Part No. 02-923-19)
• Filter funnel manifold (Pall Corporation, six-place, aluminum, Part No. 15403; or Fisher
Part No. xx2504735)
• Incubator (set to 35 °C)
• Biological safety cabinet (BSC)
• 40-kilohertz sonicator bath (such as Branson Ultrasonic Cleaner Model 1510, Process
Equipment and Supply, Inc., Part No. 952-116)
• Centrifuge with rotors and sealable centrifuge buckets to hold 50-mL conical tubes
• Seward Stomacher® 400 Circulator (Seward; Part No. 0400/001/AJ) with closure bags
(Part No. BA6141/CLR) and rack (Part No. BA6090)
D-27
-------
SPONGE STICK SAMPLE EXTRACTION AND PLATING
A. Preparation
1. Equipment preparation
a) Assemble equipment in the BSC as needed, including the stomacher, vortex, filtration
manifold, automatic pipettors, racks, etc.
b) Assemble extra supplies and reagents near the BSC.
2. Supply preparation
a) Unpack shipping containers directly into the BSC.
b) If sponge sticks are not included in the Stomacher® bags, label one Stomacher® bag for
each sponge stick sample, and place the bags in a bag rack.
c) Label one specimen cup for each sponge stick sample.
d) Label two sterile 50-mL centrifuge tubes for each sponge stick sample, and place them in
a tube rack.
e) For each sample, label 14 TSA plates on the agar side of the plate with the sample
number and the following:
Label three each as follows (for spread-plates):
• 10"1
• 10"2
• 10"3
• 10"4
Label two each as follows (for filter-plate):
• 10°
B. Spore extraction, elution, and culture
1. Dislodge spores from the sponge stick samples.
a) Put on gloves and disposable protective clothing. All subsequent procedures involving
manipulation of sponge stick samples and spore suspensions must be performed in a
BSC.
b) If sponge stick samples are not included in the Stomacher® bags, transfer each sponge
stick sample to a Stomacher® bag using sterile forceps. Change forceps between samples.
c) Add 90 mL of PBST to each bag that contains a sponge stick sample.
d) Process Stomacher® sponge stick samples in the PBST.
• Set the Stomacher® to 260 revolutions per minute (RPM).
• Place one bag containing the sponge stick sample into the Stomacher® so that the
sample rests evenly between the homogenizer paddles.
• Stomach each wipe for 1 minute (min).
• Open the door of the Stomacher®, and remove the bag containing the sponge stick
sample. From the outside of the bag, grab the sponge stick sample with your hands.
Move the sponge stick sample to the top of the bag while squeezing excess liquid
from the sample.
• Remove and discard the sponge stick sample using sterile forceps.
e) Repeat steps (b) through (d) for all samples.
f) Allow bags to sit for 10 min to allow elution suspension foam to settle.
2. Concentrate wipe elution suspension.
a) Gently mix elution suspension up and down three times using a 50-mL pipette.
D-28
-------
b) Split the elution suspension volume equally.
• Remove half of the suspension volume (about 45 mL) using a sterile 50-mL pipette,
and place it in a 50-mL screw-capped centrifuge tube.
• Place the remaining suspension (about 45 mL) into a second 50-mL tube.
c) Record the suspension volumes on the tubes and in the data sheet.
d) Repeat steps (a) through (c) for all samples.
e) Centrifuge 50-mL centrifuge tubes.
• Place tubes into sealing centrifuge buckets.
• Decontaminate centrifuge buckets before removal from the BSC.
• Centrifuge tubes at 3,500 x g for 15 min. Do not use the brake option on the
centrifuge to slow the rotor because re-suspension of the pellet may occur.
f) Remove supernatant using a 50-mL pipette, and discard it to leave approximately 3 mL in
each tube. The pellet may be easily disturbed and not visible, so place the pipette tip
away from the tube bottom.
g) Vortex and sonicate the tubes.
• Set vortexer to high intensity level and activate.
• Set sonicator water bath to high and turn on.
• Vortex tubes for 30 seconds.
• Transfer tubes to the sonicator bath, and sonicate for 30 seconds.
• Repeat the vortex and sonication cycles two times.
h) Remove suspension from one tube using a sterile 5-mL pipette, and place it in the other
tube of the same sample.
i) Measure the final volume of the suspension using 5-mL pipette, and record the volume
on tube and in the data sheet.
j) Repeat steps (e) through (i) for all samples.
3. Serially dilute the spore elution suspension in PBST.
a) Vortex the elution suspension on high for 30 seconds.
b) Remove 1 mL of spore elution suspension (10°), and place it in one tube containing 9 mL
of PBST. This is the 10"1 suspension. Recap the 10"1 tube, and vortex it on high for 30
seconds.
Note: Alternatively, serial dilutions may be created by transferring 0.1 mL of sample
into 0.9 mL of PBST to reduce the reagent and supply burden. If this option is used and
highly turbid samples are expected, then wide-orifice pipette tips should be used to
prevent clogging of pipette tips during transfer.
c) Open the cap of the 10"1 suspension, remove 1 mL of this suspension, and place it in a
new tube containing 9 mL of PBST. This is the 10"2 suspension. Recap the 10"2 tube, and
vortex it on high for 30 seconds.
d) Open cap of the 10"2 suspension, remove 1 mL of this suspension, and place it in a new
tube containing 9 mL of PBST. This is the 10"3 suspension. Recap the 10"3 tube, and
vortex it on high for 30 seconds.
You will have four spore suspensions: the initial wipe elution suspension (no dilution = 10°) and
three serial dilutions of this suspension in PBST (10"1, 10"2, and 10"3).
e) Repeat steps (a) through (d) for all samples.
4. Culture diluted spore suspensions on TSA plates.
D-29
-------
a) After vortexing the tubes well, remove 100 [xL from the 10"3 suspension using the PI00
pipette, and place it onto a TSA plate labeled 10"4. Repeat two more times, for a total of
three inoculated TSA plates.
Note: The plating of 100 [xL is an additional 1:10 dilution of the 10"3 suspension,
resulting in a 10"4 dilution on the plate.
b) Spread the inoculum on each of the three 10"4-labeled TSA plates using one Lazy-L cell
spreader. Discard the spreader.
c) After vortexing the tubes well, remove 100 [xL from the 10"2 suspension using the PI00
pipette, and place it onto a TSA plate labeled 10"3. Repeat two more times, for a total of
three inoculated TSA plates.
Note: The plating of 100 [xL is an additional 1:10 dilution of the 10"2 suspension,
resulting in a 10"3 dilution on the plate.
d) Spread the inoculum on each of the three 10"3-labeled TSA plates using one Lazy-L cell
spreader. Discard the spreader.
e) After vortexing the tubes well, remove 100 [xL from the 10"1 suspension using the PI00
pipette, and place it onto a TSA plate labeled 10"2. Repeat two more times, for a total of
three inoculated TSA plates.
Note: The plating of 100 [xL is an additional 1:10 dilution of the 10"1 suspension,
resulting in a 10"2 dilution on the plate.
f) Spread the inoculum on each of the three 10"2-labeled TSA plates using one Lazy-L cell
spreader. Discard the spreader.
g) After the vortexing tubes well, remove 100 [xL from the initial wipe elution suspension
(10°) using the P100 pipette, and place it onto a TSA plate labeled 10"1. Repeat two more
times, for a total of three inoculated TSA plates.
Note: The plating of 100 [xL is an additional 1:10 dilution of the initial wipe elution
suspension (10°), resulting in a 10"1 dilution on the plate.
h) Spread the inoculum on each of the three 10"'-labeled TSA plates using one Lazy-L cell
spreader. Discard the spreader.
i) Place all plates in an incubator set at 35 ± 2 °C for a maximum of 3 days. Plates should be
examined within 18 to 24 hours after the start of incubation and within 72 hours of
sample collection. Count the colony-forming units (CFU) of each suspected Bg colony
(orange in color), and record the number on the viable count worksheet.
• If the CFU count is between 0 and 300 per plate, record the actual number.
• If the CFU count is less than 300 per plate, record "too numerous to count" (TNTC).
• If no growth is observed, record "none detected."
5. Capture spores on Microfunnel membranes, and culture on TSA plates.
a) Place two 0.45-micrometer (|xm) (pore-size) Microfunnels on the vacuum manifold.
b) Moisten Microfunnel membranes with 5 mL PBST, open the vacuum valve, and vacuum
through the filter. All filtering should be performed at a vacuum pressure of about 20
centimeters of mercury (cm Hg).
c) With the vacuum valve closed, place 10 mL of PBST into each filter cup.
d) Add 1.0 mL of 10° elution suspension from 3(a) to each filter cup.
e) Open valves, and vacuum the suspension through the filter.
f) Rinse the walls of each Microfunnel cup using 10 mL of PBST, and vacuum through the
filter.
D-30
-------
g) Squeeze the walls of the Microfunnel cup gently, and separate the walls from the base
holding the filter. Remove each filter membrane using sterile forceps, and place the filter
grid-side up on a TSA plate. Make sure that the filter is in good contact with the surface
of the agar. If an air pocket occurs under the filter, use the sterile forceps to lift the edge
of the filter to release the air pocket for better contact with the agar.
h) Record the exact volume of the 10° elution suspension filtered on each plate. It should be
about 1 mL.
i) Repeat steps (a) through (i) for each sample.
j) Incubate TSA plates with filter membranes at 35 ± 2 °C for a maximum of 3 days. Plates
should be examined within 18 to 24 hours after the start of incubation and within 72
hours of sample collection. . Count the colony-forming units (CFU) of each suspected Bg
colony (orange in color), and record the number on the viable count worksheet.
• If the CFU count is between 0 and 300 per plate, record the actual number.
• If the CFU count is less than 300 per plate, record "too numerous to count" (TNTC).
• If no growth is observed, record "none detected."
VACUUM CASSETTE EXTRACTION AND PLATING
A. Preparation
1. Equipment preparation
a) Assemble equipment in the BSC as needed, including the vortex, filtration manifold,
pipettors, racks, etc.
b) Assemble extra supplies and reagents near the BSC.
2. Supply preparation
a) Unpack shipping containers directly into the BSC.
b) If vacuum socks are not in sterile, plastic specimen cups, label one 4-ounce sterile
specimen cup for each vacuum sample.
f) For each sample, label 14 TSA plates on the agar side of the plate with the sample
number and the following:
Label three each as follows (for spread-plates):
• 10"1
• 10"2
• 10"3
• 10"4
Label two each as follows (for filter-plate):
• 10°
B. Spore extraction, elution, and culture
1. Dislodge spores from the vacuum and concentrate elution suspension.
a. Put on gloves and disposable BSL-3 personal protective equipment (PPE). All subsequent
procedures involving manipulation of vacuum samples and spore suspensions must be
performed in a BSC.
b. Clean the BSC workspace by wiping surfaces with a disinfectant found by EPA to
effectively inactivate B. anthracis (EPA 600/S-l 5/172). Subsequently, clean the area with
water, followed by 70% isopropyl alcohol (or equivalent). Wipe with a Kimwipe® (or
D-31
-------
equivalent) to remove any excess liquid. Place an absorbent pad under the workspace
area within the BSC before working with the samples.
Note: A 1:10 dilution of household sodium hypochlorite (5.25%) with a 10-minute
contact time, followed by water and 70% isopropyl alcohol (or equivalent) may be used
to initially disinfect the workspace.
c. Each cassette should be received separately in a specimen cup placed into a small
sealable bag (primary containment) along with the Tygon® tubing nozzle in a 15-mL
tube. These materials should be within secondary containment. Ensure that all samples
are labeled. Review COC and/or sample submittal forms that accompany the samples to
ensure that all labels are consistent and that there are no notable variations. If
discrepancies are found, note them on the sample results form.
d. Gather all necessary items to perform the tasks described below.
e. Discard outer gloves, and don a fresh pair.
f. For each cassette sample:
• Label one 2-ounce polypropylene cup with the sample identifier.
• Obtain one 15-mL conical tube containing 11 mL of sterile PBST.
2. Open and rinse the filter cassette.
a. In the BSC, process each sample one at a time. Remove the conical tube containing the
nozzle and the cassette from the secondary and primary containment bags.
b. Wipe down the outside of the conical tube containing the Tygon® using a disinfectant
found by EPA to effectively inactivate B. anthracis (EPA 600/S-l 5/172). Place the tube
into a rack. Aseptically add 5 mL of PBST from the tube containing 11 mL PBST under
1(f) above. Set the rack to the side.
c. Remove the band from around the cassette using a sterile scalpel or sterile pair of
scissors. Wipe each cassette with a disinfectant found by EPA to effectively inactivate B.
anthracis (EPA 600/S-15/172) and then with a clean Kimwipe®. Discard the used wipes
in accordance with the laboratory's approved disposal method. Remove gloves, and don a
fresh pair before proceeding.
d. With the plug in place on the back side of the filter, remove the red plug from the front
filter side of the cassette. Use a transfer pipette to aseptically dispense 1 mL of PBST
(from the tube now containing 6 mL of PBST) into the cassette, and replace the plug.
Roll the cassette around to allow the liquid to touch all surfaces of the inside of the
cassette. If the cassette contains a large quantity of particulate matter, more PBST may be
needed for dampening before the cassette is opened.
e. Perform a visual check to ensure that the matter is dampened enough to prevent
aerosolization. Use the cassette tool to pry open the top section of the cassette by
carefully rotating the cassette while using the tool to pry the edges up. Be careful to hold
the cassette right side up while prying it open so that the liquid inside does not spill.
f. When the cassette is open, set the bottom portion aside (containing the filter, filter side
up). Use a sterile transfer pipette to aseptically rinse the inside walls of the upper portion
of the cassette with 1 to 2 mL of PBST (additional aliquots from the same 6 mL in the
conical tube). Remove the rinse eluate (using the same transfer pipette), and place it in
the 2-ounce sterile cup labeled with the sample identifier.
g. Use the cassette opening tool to remove the middle section of the cassette in the same
manner as the top section. This allows the filter to be removed. Using sterile forceps,
D-32
-------
aseptically remove the filter, being careful not to pick up the support filter underneath.
Place the filter in the 2-ounce polypropylene cup with the rinse eluate.
h. Use the remainder of the 6 mL PBST and the transfer pipette to rinse the walls and
bottom section of the cassette while holding it over the open 2-ounce cup. Transfer all
rinse eluate to the 2-ounce cup. All 6 mL of PBST, the filter, and as much particulate
matter as can be rinsed from the cassette should now be inside the 2-ounce cup.
Note: Do not transfer the support filter.
i. Discard the cassette sections, support filter, cassette plugs, and disposable pipettes in
accordance with the laboratory's approved disposal method. Place the filter forceps into a
closed, autoclavable container.
j. Close the 2-ounce cup tightly. Wipe the outside of the cup with a disinfectant found by
EPA to effectively inactivate B. anthracis (EPA 600/S-15/172). Place the cup in the
specimen cup rack or sample retention bin.
k. Wipe down the cassette opening tool thoroughly using a disinfectant found by EPA to
effectively inactivated, anthracis (EPA 600/S-l5/172), discard the absorbent pad, and
wipe down the surface of the BSC as described in B. 1 .b above.
1. Change gloves, and repeat the process for each remaining sample,
m. Perform internal process control.
• Open the lid of the 2-ounce cup, and aseptically dispense 6 mL of PBST (from the
tube containing 11 mL PBST) into the cup.
• Wipe down the outside of the conical tube containing the remaining 5 mL of PBST
(no nozzle) with a disinfectant found EPA to effectively inactivate B. anthracis (EPA
600/S-l5/172), Place the tube into the rack with the other sample tubes.
• Wipe the outside of the 2-ounce cup with a disinfectant found by EPA to effectively
inactivate B. anthracis (EPA 600/S- 15/172). Place the cup in a specimen cup rack or
sample retention bin.
3. Process 37-mm filters and nozzles.
a. Recover the conical tubes from B.2.b above.
b. Seal all conical tubes with Parafilm™
c. Place the rack of conical tubes containing 5 mL of PBST with the vacuum tubing and
adapters (sampling nozzle) into the sonicating bath with a weighted, waterproof,
rectangular, flat surface on top of the tubes to keep them from floating when submerged.
Sonicate the conical tubes for 1 min.
d. Remove the tubes from the sonicator, dry them using Kimwipes®, and wipe them with a
disinfecting wipe.
e. Vortex the conical tubes (still containing the vacuum tubing and adapters [sampling
nozzle]) for 2 min.
f. Aseptically transfer 5 mL of PBST from the conical tube samples to the 2-ounce cup
containing the filter sample that corresponds with the conical tube sample. The labels on
the conical tube should match the labels on the cup. The tubing and adaptor are not
transferred but remain in the conical tube.
g. Seal all 2-ounce polypropylene cups with Parafilm™ Place all 2-ounce cups containing
the 37-mm filters and about 11 mL of PBST in the cup rack. Place a weighted,
waterproof, rectangular, flat surface on top of the cups to keep them from floating when
submerged in the sonicating bath. Another cup rack works well.
D-33
-------
h. Place the rack with the cups and the weighted surface into the bath so that they are
submerged about 1 to 2 inches, leaving about 1 inch between the cup lid and the level of
the bath water.
Note: This step may require one or two wire racks (test tube racks or additional cup
holders) in the bottom of the sonicating bath to achieve the correct level for the cups.
Make sure the sonicating bath is filled with water to the correct level designated by the
line on the inside of the bath. A series of open racks is preferable to a basket for this
purpose because the baskets provided by the bath manufacturers tend to have more solid
walls with small holes, which can restrict the sonic waves more than a wire rack. If the
sonicating bath is too small for the cup rack, hold the cups manually by the lids and
submerge the lower portion of the cups in the bath so that they are submerged about 1 to
2 inches, leaving about 1 inch between the cup lid and the level of the water.
i. When the correct level of submersion is achieved, turn on the sonicating bath (no heat),
and sonicate for 3 min. Rotate the cup rack within the bath after each minute (pick up,
turn 90 degrees, and re-submerge).
j. Remove the rack of cups from the sonicating bath and place on an absorbent pad.
k. Remove each 2-ounce cup from the rack, wipe each with a Kimwipe® until dry, and place
back inside the BSC.
1. Place cups in a sealable plastic lidded box until ready to proceed with culturing the eluate
(D below).
4. Clean out the BSC, and appropriately discard waste.
C. Serial dilution of spore elution suspension in PBST
1. Vortex the elution suspension in the 2-ounce cup on high for 30 seconds.
2. Remove 1 mL of spore elution suspension (10°), and place it in one tube with 9 mL of PBST.
This is the 10"1 suspension. Recap the 10"1 tube, and vortex it on high for 30 seconds.
Note: Alternatively, serial dilutions may be created by transferring 0.1 mL of sample into 0.9
mL of PBST to reduce the reagent and supply burden. If this option is used and highly turbid
samples are expected, then wide-orifice pipette tips should be used to prevent clogging of
pipette tips during transfer.
3. Open cap of the 10"1 suspension, remove 1 mL of this suspension, and place it in a new 9-mL
tube of PBST. This is the 10"2 suspension. Recap the 10"2tube, and vortex it on high for 30
seconds.
4. Open cap of the 10"2 suspension, remove 1 mL of this suspension, and place it in a new 9-mL
tube of PBST. This is the 10"3 suspension. Recap the 10"3 tube, and vortex it on high for 30
seconds.
You will have four spore suspensions: the initial wipe elution suspension (no dilution = 10°) and
three serial dilutions of this suspension in PBST (10"1, 10"2, and 10"3).
5. Repeat steps 1 through 5 for all samples.
D. Culture of diluted spore suspensions on TSA plates
1. After vortexing the tubes well, remove 100 [xL from the 10"3 suspension using the PI00
pipette, and place it onto a TSA plate labeled 10"4. Repeat two more times, for a total of three
inoculated TSA plates.
Note: The plating of 100 [j,L is an additional 1:10 dilution of the 10"3 suspension, resulting in
a 10"4 dilution on the plate.
D-34
-------
2. Spread the inoculum on each of the three 10"4-labeled TSA plates using one Lazy-L cell
spreader. Discard the spreader.
3. After vortexing the tubes well, remove 100 [xL from the 10"2 suspension using the PI00
pipette, place it onto a TSA plate labeled 10"3. Repeat two more times, for a total of three
inoculated TSA plates.
Note: The plating of 100 [j,L is an additional 1:10 dilution of the 10"2 suspension, resulting in
a 10"3 dilution on the plate.
4. Spread the inoculum on each of the three 10"3-labeled TSA plates using one Lazy-L cell
spreader. Discard the spreader.
5. After vortexing the tubes well, remove 100 [jL from the 10"1 suspension using the PI00
pipette, and place it onto a TSA plate labeled 10"2. Repeat two more times, for a total of three
inoculated TSA plates.
Note: The plating of 100 [j,L is an additional 1:10 dilution of the 10"1 suspension, resulting in
a 10"2 dilution on the plate.
6. Spread the inoculum on each of the three 10"2-labeled TSA plates using one Lazy-L cell
spreader. Discard the spreader.
7. After vortexing the tubes well, remove 100 [xL from the initial wipe elution suspension (10°)
using the PI00 pipette, and place it onto a TSA plate labeled 10"1. Repeat two more times, for
a total of three inoculated TSA plates.
Note: The plating of 100 [j,L is an additional 1:10 dilution of the initial wipe elution
suspension (10°), resulting in a 10"1 dilution on the plate.
8. Spread the inoculum on each of the three 10"'-labeled TSA plates using one Lazy-L cell
spreader. Discard the spreader.
9. Place all plates in an incubator set at 35 ± 2 °C for a maximum of 3 days. Plates should be
examined within 18 to 24 hours after start of incubation and within 72 hours of sample
collection. Count the CFUs of each suspected Bg colony (orange in color), and record the
number on the viable count worksheet.
• If the CFU count is between 0 and 300 per plate, record the actual number.
• If the CFU count is less than 300 per plate, record "too numerous to count" (TNTC).
• If no growth is observed, record "None detected."
E. Capture of spores on Microfunnel membranes and culture on TSA plates
1. Place two 0.45-[j,m (pore-size) Microfunnels on the vacuum manifold.
2. Moisten Microfunnel membranes with 5 mL PBST, open the vacuum valve, and vacuum
through the filter. All filtering should be performed at a vacuum pressure of about 20 cm Hg.
3. With the vacuum valve closed, place 10 mL of PBST into each filter cup.
4. Add 1.0 mL of 10° elution suspension from C.l above to each filter cup.
5. Open valves, and vacuum the suspension through the filter.
6. Rinse the walls of each Microfunnel cup using 10 mL of PBST, and vacuum through the
filter.
7. Squeeze the walls of the Microfunnel cup gently, and separate the walls from the base
holding the filter. Remove each filter membrane using sterile forceps, and place the filter
grid-side up on a TSA plate. Make sure that the filter is in good contact with the surface of
the agar. If an air pocket occurs under the filter, use the sterile forceps to lift the edge of the
filter to release the air pocket for better contact with the agar.
D-35
-------
8. Record the exact volume of the 10° elution suspension filtered on each plate. It should be
about 1 mL.
9. Repeat steps 1 through 8 for each sample.
10. Incubate TSA plates with filter membranes at 35 ± 2 °C for a maximum of 3 days. Plates
should be examined within 18 to 24 hours after the start of incubation and within 72 hours of
sample collection. . Count the colony-forming units (CFU) of each suspected Bg colony
(orange in color), and record the number on the viable count worksheet.
• If the CFU count is between 0 and 300 per plate, record the actual number.
• If the CFU count is less than 300 per plate, record "too numerous to count" (TNTC).
• If no growth is observed, record "none detected."
D-36
-------
Attachment 9: Laboratory Procedures for Recovering Bacillus
Spores from Reference Material Coupons (RMCs), MOP 6609
This Miscellaneous Operating Procedure (MOP) outlines the process for recovering Bacillus
spores from reference material coupons (RMC) in support of the Underground Transport
Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD). The purpose of the procedure
is to determine spore viability and obtain quantifiable data. The required materials and supplies
and sampling procedure are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
• RMCs
• Personal protective equipment (PPE) (gloves, laboratory coat, and protective eyewear)
• Class II Biological Safety Cabinet (BSC)
• pH-amended bleach (pAB)
• Deionized water
• 70% solution of denatured ethanol
• Kimwipes®
• Dispatch® bleach wipes
• Non-regulated waste container
• 50-milliliter (mL) sterile conical tubes containing appropriate volume of buffer
• Vortex mixer
• Sonicator
• Cart
• Sterile disposable forceps
• Wire or foam rack for 50-mL conical tubes
• Container for collection of contaminated RMCs
• Tryptic soy agar (TSA) plates
• 900-microliter (|iL) tubes of sterile phosphate-buffered saline with 0.05% Tween® 20
(PBST)
• Pipettor and pipette tips for dilutions
• Incubator set to appropriate growth temperature for target organism (35 °C or 55 °C)
• Light box for counting colonies
• Laboratory notebook
• Quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for project using the RMCs
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
1. Don fresh PPE (gloves, laboratory coat, and protective eyewear).
2. Each RMC sample should be received as one RMC in a 50-mL conical tube. Ensure that all
samples are labeled. Review chain-of-custody forms that accompany the samples to ensure
that all labels are consistent and that there is no notable variation in the samples. If there is
variation, note it in the laboratory notebook.
D-37
-------
3. Clean the BSC workspace by wiping surfaces with pAB, then deionized water, and lastly
with a 70 to 90 % solution of denatured ethanol. Dry all surfaces using Kimwipes®. Ensure
that the workspace is clean and free of debris.
4. Gather all necessary items to perform the analyses, and place them on a clean cart beside the
BSC within arm's reach.
5. Discard gloves and replace with fresh pair.
6. One at a time, under the BSC, remove the RMC samples by unscrewing the cap of the 50-mL
conical tube and aseptically adding 10-mL of PBST to each tube. Repeat this procedure for
every sample.
7. Using the procedure to clean the BSC discussed under Step 3 above, clean the BSC again.
Afterwards, don a fresh pair of gloves.
8. Using a vortex mixer, agitate the RMC samples in the BSC in 10-second bursts for 2 minutes
total. Clean the BSC after each set of four samples, and change gloves between each set of
samples.
9. After the RMCs have been vortexed, place the tubes into a sonicator rack. Place the rack in
the sonicator, and sonicate the samples for 10 minutes.
10. After sonication, use a pair of sterile disposable forceps to remove each RMC from each
tube, and place the RMC in a container for destruction. Use a new pair of disposable forceps
for each sample.
11. Use TSA (or other appropriate growth media) plates that are appropriately labeled with the
sample number, dilution set, and date. Conduct dilution plating for the RMC samples
immediately after the 10-minute sonication step (Step 9) is completed. The samples should
also be agitated again for 10 seconds directly before an aliquot is removed from the sample
tube. Each dilution tube should also be agitated for 10 seconds before the removal of
aliquots. Plating should be repeated for all samples, with any changes in protocol noted in
the laboratory notebook. Spiral plating can be substituted for manual plating.
12. Once the dilution plating has been completed, place the plates in an incubator. The plates
should be incubated at 35°C ± 2° C for 18 to 24 hours.
13. After the plates have incubated for 18 to 24 hours and the growth of colonies is quantifiable,
the colonies should be manually counted using the light box, and the data should be properly
recorded in accordance with the QAPP. All results will be checked for quality assurance, and
all data will be reported to the proper personnel as outlined in the QAPP.
D-38
-------
Attachment 10: UTR OTD Sampling Kit Assembly Instructions
This attachment provides instructions for assembling the sampling kits for the Underground
Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD). Sampling kits will
be prepared for sponge stick samples, vacuum samples, reference material coupons (RMC), bulk
railroad ballast wash/extract samples, and liquid wastewater samples as detailed below.
All sample kits will be prepared in advance in a clean office or laboratory using aseptic
techniques. Don clean gloves to assemble each kit. Store all kits in a clean, dry location.
SPONGE STICK SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY (QUANTITY 450)
Into one pre-labeled 1-gallon (gal.) (10- by 12-inch [in.]) resealable overpack bag, place the
following:
1. One wrapped, sterile, pre-moistened cellulose sponge stick
2. Two pairs of clean sampling gloves
3. One sampling template (10- by 10-in. for non-porous surface or 36- by 2.75-in. for metal rail)
4. One pre-labeled, individually wrapped, sterile, 4-ounce screw-cap specimen container with
lid
5. One pre-labeled, 1-quart resealable overpack plastic bag
D-39
-------
VACUUM SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY (QUANTITY 300)
Into one pre-labeled 1-quart (8- by 10-in.) resealable bag, place the following:
1. One assembled, pre-labeled 37-millimeter (mm) cassette with a unique barcode or sample
identification (ID) number; cassette should be pre-loaded with either a or b
g. 0.8-micrometer (pm) pore size mixed cellulose ester (MCE) membrane (SKC, Catalog
No. 225-3-01)
h. 0.3-uin pore size polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane (SKC Catalog No. 225-
1723)
Cassette assembly instructions provided below
2. One 20-centimeter (cm) long piece of Tygon tubing, lA-in. inside diameter, 7/16-in. outside
diameter (SKC, Catalog No. 225-1345) connected to cassette (see cassette assembly
instructions below)
3. One sampling nozzle consisting of 2.5-cm long piece of tubing connected to cassette (see
cassette assembly instructions below)
4. Two polyvinyl chloride (PVC) adapters (SKC, Catalog No. 225-132A, 250 per package)
connected to cassette (see cassette assembly instructions below)
5. End of the cassette that attaches to the vacuum tubing should be closest to the bag opening
6. Red plugs removed from the cassette
7. One pre-labeled 15-milliliter (mL) polypropylene conical tube (Fisher Scientific, Part No.
15-959-70C) with the same bar code or sample ID number
Into one pre-labeled 1 -gal. (10- by 12-in.) resealable overpack bag, place the following:
1. The pre-labeled, 1-quart bag containing the items listed above
2. One 12- by 12-in. paper sampling template (SKC, Catalog No. 225-2416)
3. One 4- by 6-in. resealable plastic bag
D-40
-------
Cassette Assembly
1. Aseptically remove the cassette plugs, and place a PVC adaptor onto each end of the cassette.
Save the removed plugs for placement into the 1-quart bag.
2. Cut a 20-cni long piece of tubing using scissors.
3. Cut 2.5-cm long piece of tubing with scissors, cut one end at a 45° angle.
4. Place the 20-cm long tubing onto the downstream end of the cassette.
5. Place the sampling nozzle (2.5-cm long section of tubing) onto the upstream end of the
cassette, with the angled side furthest from the cassette.
REFERENCE MATERIAL COUPON (RMC) SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY
(QUANTITY 88)
Into one pre-labeled 1-quart (8- by 10-in.) resealable overpack bag, place the following:
1. One package of sterile disposable forceps (Busse Hospital Disposables, Item No. 7190)
2. One pre-labeled 4- by 6-in. biohazard specimen transport bag (Fisherbrand™, Item No. 01-
800-00)
3. One pre-labeled 50-mL conical centrifuge tube (Falcon) inside 4- by 6-in. bag; make sure bar
code lines are parallel with the tube graduated line)
Note: Sterile RMCs will be stored in bulk in separate containment before deployment (RMCs
not included in the sampling kit)
BULK RAILROAD BALLAST WASH/EXTRACT SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY
(QUANTITY 200)
Into one pre-labeled 14- by 10-in. resealable overpack bag, place the following:
1. One pre-labeled 1-liter (L) Nalgene bottle (Daigger® Scientific, Item No. EF2247C); mark
the 500-mL (half full) level on the side using a permanent marker (83 mm or 3.25 in. from
the bottom)
2. Two additional sample ID labels (for laboratory extraction sample 500-mL bottle and
secondary containment bag upon sample processing)
D-41
-------
LIQUID WASTEWATER SAMPLING KIT ASSEMBLY (QUANTITY 230)
Into one pre-labeled 14- by 10-in. resealable overpack bag, place the following:
1. One pre-labeled pre-labeled 500-mL Nalgene bottle (Daigger® Scientific, Item No.
EF2247C)
2. Two additional sample ID labels (for laboratory extraction sample 500-mL bottle and
secondary containment bag upon sample processing)
D-42
-------
Appendix E: MOP 3163A: Aerosol Application of Grime on
Material Coupons in Horizontal Orientation
-------
This Miscellaneous Operating Procedure (MOP) describes the procedure for applying grime to
coupons of various materials in a reproducible manner. The purpose of this MOP is to
standardize grime application to material coupons using a Binks SV100 sprayer. A two-person
team is required during the spraying process. The required materials and supplies, grime
preparation, sprayer loading and settings, spray verification using paper control coupons,
spraying procedure, and cleanup procedure are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
• Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) (laboratory coat, nitrile gloves, and safety
glasses)
• Binks SV100 sprayer with can
• Croix CH-10 turbine with air line
• Grime (14 grams [g] + 7.0 g per coupon set)
• 95% Ethanol (300 milliliters [mL] + 150 mL per coupon set)
• Ethylene oxide (EtO)
• Deionized (DI) water
• Sterile specimen cups
• Measuring tape
• Two calibrated scales, one that will measure milligrams (mg) and one with a capacity of at
least 500 g
• Spatula
• Coupons to be sprayed (in sets of three)
• Timer
• Dispatch® wipes
• Kimwipes®
• Absorbent bench liner
• Paper for making control coupons
• Masking tape
GRIME PREPARATION
The grime mixture is very costly. Therefore, it should be mixed and used only as needed to avoid
waste due to unforeseen problems. The grime consists of 94% fine dust, 3% soot, and 3%
biological materials. The grime will be prepared in-house using the procedure used for Work
Assignment (WA) 2-25. The grime recipe was adopted from "Evaluation of Surface Sampling
Method Performance for Bacillus Spores on Clean and Dirty Outdoor Surfaces" developed by
Sandia National Laboratories (Reference 10 in the project Quality Assurance Project Plan
[QAPP]). Table E-l provides the grime recipe.
E-l
-------
Table E-l. Grime Recipe
Vendor
Part No.
Component
Name
Relative
Proportion
of
Individual
Component
Relative
Composition of
Component
Powder Technology Inc.
(PTI)
PP2G4 A2 fine
Arizona fine dust
94.00%
94% Fine dust
PTI
Raven 410
Carbon black
2.50%
3% Soot
National Institute of
Standards and Technology
(NIST)
SRM 1650b
Diesel particulate
0.25%
Auto Parts
Off the shelf
Motor oil
0.13%
Fisher Scientific
ACT 643 6-0050
a-Pinene.97%
0.13%
Fisher Scientific
S755301
Lycopodium
1.00%
3% Biological
materials
Polysciences Inc.
7673
Ragweed pollen
1.00%
Polysciences Inc.
7670
Paper mu lberry
pollen
1.00%
SPRAYER LOADING AND SETTINGS
1. Sterilize the sprayer and can using EtO in accordance with MOP 3204,
2. Prepare the grime/ethanol solution in the sterile sprayer can.
a. Tare an empty sterile weighing container (such as a sterile specimen cup), and aseptically
add 14.0 g of sterile grime to the cup.
b. Weigh the empty sprayer can (see Figure E-l), and record the weight in the laboratory
notebook. The sprayer can should weigh about 285 g.
Figure E-l. Empty Binks SV100 Sprayer Can
E-2
-------
c. Pour the grime into the sprayer can inside a fume hood.
d. Add 300 mL 95% ethanol to the sprayer can. This is a minimum amount of grime
solution that allows reproducible application.
Note: If more than one set of coupons is being sprayed, an additional aliquot of grime
mixture should be added to the can after completion of spray application for the first
set of coupons. For each additional set, mix an additional 7.0 g of grime in 150 mL of
95% ethanol, and add to the pre-weighed can to maintain the minimum required
operational volume of grime solution. This procedure ensures ample volume for
reproducible application for each extra set of three coupons.
e. Weigh the sprayer can and contents, and record the weight in the laboratory
notebook.
f. Connect the can to the Binks SV100 sprayer and seal using the lever on the top of the
can (see Figure E-2).
3. Set the dials on the Binks SV100 sprayer (see Figure E-2) to prepare for grime application.
Sealing
lever
Figure E-2. Binks SV100 Sprayer Dial Locations
Dial 1: Adjust this valve to produce spray.
Dial 2: Fully open this valve for maximum flow.
Dial 3: Fully open this valve to enable full range of the trigger.
Dial 4: Turn clockwise to close, then open the valve counterclockwise 2.5 turns.
E-3
-------
SPRAY VERIFICATION USING PAPER CONTROL COUPONS
1. Line the back wall and tabletop of the fume hood with absorbent bench liner.
2. Measure and cut three 14- by 14-inch paper coupons.
3. Obtain tare weights of the paper coupons using the milligram scale. One method is to zero a
beaker on the balance, gently roll the paper, and place it in the beaker through the top door.
4. Lay the paper coupons to be grimed on the tabletop next to each other in a line as shown in
Figure E-3. Secure the paper using small pieces of tape if necessary.
Figure E-3. Paper Coupon Setup in Fuine Hood
5. Ensure all sprayer settings are correct in accordance with Step 3 under "Sprayer Loading and
Settings."
6. Don all appropriate PPE (laboratory coat, nitrile gloves, and safety glasses).
7. Connect the turbine hose to the bottom of the sprayer using the quick-connect fitting.
8. Perform a spray check using the spraying procedure described below. The target application
is 1.0 g ± 10% on each coupon. If the target is not met for the paper control coupons, contact
the Work Assignment Leader (WAL) before proceeding. If the target application is met,
proceed to the spraying procedures below to apply grime to the test coupons.
SPRAYING PROCEDURE
1. Shake and swirl the sprayer to mix the grime/ethanol mixture.
2. Turn on the Croix CH-10 turbine.
3. While shaking the sprayer up and down, test the spray on the bench liner taped to the back
wall.
4. If there is no flow, adjust Dial 1 slightly until flow is present.
5. Spray the coupons starting at the top left corner and working left to right and top to bottom in
a zigzag motion, as shown on Figure E-4. Spray for a total of 1 minute to cover all three
coupons. Constantly shake the sprayer while spraying.
E-4
-------
Mi
^
Figure E-4. Coupon Spraying Pattern
6. After completing the first application, allow the coupons to dry for up to 10 minutes for non-
absorbent materials. More absorbent materials may require less drying time.
7. Complete a second application using Step 5, allow the coupons to dry for 10 minutes, and re-
weigh each coupon. Record weights in the laboratory notebook.
Note: Test coupons should be allowed to dry for 30 minutes before attaching the aerosol
deposition apparatus. Application of grime uses about 120 g of solution per set of three
coupons.
8. Weigh and record the weight of the spray can after spraying. Compare this weight to the
weight of the empty sprayer and can recorded in Step 2.b. of "Sprayer Loading and Settings"
above to determine how much grime was applied. If weights differ by more than 15%,
consult the WAL before proceeding.
9. For each additional set of coupons to be sprayed, mix an additional 7.0 g of grime in 150 mL
of 95% ethanol, and add to the pre-weighed can to maintain the minimum required
operational volume of grime solution. This procedure ensures ample volume for reproducible
application for each extra set of three coupons.
10. At the end of test day, perform cleanup as discussed below.
CLEANUP PROCEDURE
1. Record the final weight of the spray can.
2. Rinse the spray can with ethanol, then DI water. Wash the can with soapy water, rinse, and
allow to dry.
3. Disconnect the sprayer from the hose.
4. Turn off the turbine blower, coil the hose, and move the turbine to a convenient location.
5. Wipe down the empty fume hood with Dispatch® wipes and Kimwipes® until no black
residue remains.
6. Rinse the fume hood with DI water, and allow it to dry.
E-5
-------
Appendix F: CONOPS for Dilute Bleach Fogging
-------
This Concept of Operations (CONOPS) details the procedure for dilute bleach fogging at the
mock subway station at Fort A.P. Hill during Round 1 in support of the Underground Transport
Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD). The required materials and
supplies, personnel, tunnel and platform preparation, placement of monitoring equipment,
staging and operation of foggers and related equipment, and fogger decontamination (decon) and
demobilization are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
• Four, L-30 Dynafoggers set at maximum flow rate to each produce approximately 7
gallons per hour (gal./hr)
Notes: All foggers should be preset to 7 gal./hr, but this setting should be checked as the
foggers are set up to enter the exclusion zone. Do not move the setting beyond the 7
gal./hr point because this may actually decrease the fogger flow rate. All foggers have
been modified by manufacturer to include a charger/inverter.
• Multiple 50-foot (ft) extension cords for foggers, fans, ATI chlorine gas (Cb) sensors,
data loggers, etc.
• Transport trolley to transport foggers, totes, and decon solution into and out of subway
station
• Dolly, cart, or similar device to move foggers, tanks, and other heavy equipment
• Three large oscillating fans
• Four 100-gal. totes for mixing and storing decon solution during fogging
Note: 400 gal. of total decon solution will be needed for each 100-gal. tote for each
fogger.
• Source of water (at least 300 gal.) and long enough hose (hundreds of ft) to mix with
bleach
• 100 gal. of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach with sodium hypochlorite
concentration of 8.3%
Note: It is critical that this particular Clorox® be used because of its higher hypochlorite
content (http://www.homedepot.eom/p/Clorox-121-oz-Concentrated-Germicidal-Bleach-
4460030798/203393067). This bleach is sold in 121 -ounce bottles, not a 1 -gal. size, so at
least 106 bottles are required for fogging.
• Three pumps and several tanks for prestaging water for simultaneously filling foggers
with water
• 10 Cb gas colorimetric dosimeter tubes (Gastec, #8D; Zefon International)
• 10 HOBO® Model U10-003 Temperature/RH Data Loggers (HOBO) for temperature and
relative humidity (RH) data logging
• 10 biological indicators (BI) consisting of stainless-steel strips inoculated with Bacillus
spores with a population of 1.3E+06 (Apex Discs, Mesa Labs, Bozeman, MT)
F-l
-------
• Four Analytical Technology, Inc. (ATI), sensors (Model B12-11-6-0200-1, ATI,
Collegeville, PA), with separate sensor for Cb gas (0 to 200 parts per million [ppm];
order code B12-11-6-0200-1: $725.00 per unit as of October 29, 2015;
http://www.analvticaltechnology.com/analvticaltechnologv/gas-water-
monitors/product.aspx?Produ( ftab-1)
• Four 24-volt (V) power supplies and extension cords for each ATI sensor (can be
purchased from ATI)
• Iotech PDAQ data logger and laptop
• Small table for data logger and laptop
• Two 2 backpack sprayers for spraying each fogger and tote footprint with pH- amended
bleach (pAB)
• Separate tank for mixing PAB.
• Sporicidal, hypochlorite based wipes such as Hype Wipes or Clorox germicidal wipes,
containing at least 0.5% sodium hypochlorite.
• Duct tape and plastic for electrical boxes.
• Wireless cameras
• Video camera to document condition of materials
• Personnel decontamination line and staff
PERSONNEL
1. Two to three contractor personnel will be needed to move and set up the foggers, fans, drums
for decon solution, containers for mixing chemicals, etc.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel will be needed to assist with setup
and shakedown procedures, especially for the monitoring equipment.
3. Once the fogging has begun, minimal labor and personnel will be needed to monitor and
record ATI sensor data and confirm fogging operations (performed by EPA personnel).
Record monitor readings in the fogger logbook.
4. If a technical problem occurs with a fogger (such as if it inadvertently shuts off), personnel
may have to enter the exclusion zone to assess the situation. Additional backup personnel and
safety and health oversight also will be needed.
TUNNEL AND PLATFORM PREPARATION
1. Ensure the correct negative air machines (NAM) are turned on (preferably only the end-of-
the-tunnel NAM on high setting during fogging) and turned off. Some unused NAMs may
require capping off to prevent short-circuiting. However, during setup of the foggers, more
NAMs should be turned on to benefit workers inside the exclusion zone.
2. Ensure that the area is completely sealed except to allow personnel to exit the area before
fogging begins.
F-2
-------
3. Tape or cover all outlets and plugs to minimize the accumulation of moisture that could
trigger a short circuit. This step is required only for the few standard outlets not protected
with cover plates.
4. Fill extra tanks or drums with about 250 gal. of water in preparation for simultaneous filling
of the fogger tanks using pumps.
5. Launch HOBO units with the computer software before entry.
PLACEMENT OF MONITORING EQUIPMENT
I. Place the 10 FIOBOs evenly throughout the tunnels and station (see Figure F-l). These units
should be placed at ground level as well as higher up (at least 1 to 2 meters above the
platform floor). The HOBOs require launching using a computer equipped with HOBO
software to begin m onitoring of temperature and RH.
Tentative locations for foggers and fans;
HOBOs, Bis, dosimeters
Q >
_j \r
i
.oN ^ -
1
—
i
* —
1*®-
—
3-
- ... e
— fm-
need to confirm locations of outlets for fans, foggers, ATls * Locationsof HOBOs/Bls/dosimeters
Figure F-l. Tentative Locations of HOBOs, Bis, Dosimeters, and ATI Sensors
2. Place the Ch gas dosimeters and Bis adjacent to the HOBOs. The dosimeters need to be
cracked open at one end to begin Ch gas diffusion sampling. Open the dosimeters as they are
placed, and record the time.
3. For the real-time ATI sensors, place one sensor in each of the two tunnel sections and one on
the platform (see Figure F-2). Place a fourth ATI sensor in the access tunnel near the barrier.
F-3
-------
Tentative ATI locations
Where are nearest outlets for ATls?
Barn«r
Barrier
aI
Barrier
NewspaperStand
Senior down air
vent shaft ,
B
Platform
iiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiuiiiiniiiniiiiiiiiiimiiriiiiiiii
SI
Notes:
» 2 "A" ATls have LCD readout outside fog zone, with sensor inside volume to be fogged
* 1 "A" ATI with sensor AND LCD transmitter in tunnel, but outside fog zone
* 1 "B" ATI connected to data logger and laptop, with sensor in tunnel in fog 2one, but
computer and PDAQ. outside fog zone
Figure F-2. Locations of ATI Sensors
a. Each of the three ATI Cb gas sensors in the exclusion zone can be used with a cable up
to 25 ft long. On one end of the cable is the sensor, and the other end plugs into the ATI
transmitter. The transmitter will be located outside of the exclusion zone and plugged in
to a 110-V outlet via the 24-V power supply. Because of the 25-ft-long limit on the cable,
the end of the sensor most likely will be placed near the tenting seal so that the sensor can
exposed to the fog while the transmitter is located outside and can be accessed to view
Ch gas levels. Figure F-3 shows the setup for the ATI sensors in the exclusion zone.
ATI set up with data logging (1 typical)
To be set up in tunnel
Elec
outlet
laptop
PDAQ
25 ft sensor cable
CI2 sensor 1,1 inch diaj
N otes: Mou nt sensor on wall? Place PDAQ and laptop on table
Figure F-3. ATI Sensor Setup in Exclusion Zone
F-4
-------
b. The fourth ATI sensor at the end of the tunnel will be connected to the Iotech PDAQ data
logger, which is connected to the laptop to allow Cb gas data logging. Figure F-4 shows
the setup of this sensor.
ATI set up with LCD readout (3 typical)
Outside fcg ione
ATI
Trans
mitler
Elec
outlet
Volume to be fogged
25 ft sensor cable
CI2 sensor ("" 1,1 inch die)
Notes: Mount ATI transmitter on barrier frame? Mount sensor on wall? Hook into conduit?
Data read directly from transmitter LCD, recorded In notebook every 30 minutes
Figure F-4. ATI Sensor Setup at End of Tunnel
STAGING AND OPERATION OF FOGGERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
1. Prior to placing foggers in the subway system, perform a quick check using water to ensure
that each fogger's fan and pump are operating correctly, fog is produced, and the charger and
the tethered remote control for the on/off switch is working. Also ensure that the flow rate
setting is at 7 gal./hr.
2. Set up the personnel decon line in accordance with the health and safety plan (HASP). It is
assumed that the line will be on the exit side of the track-exit section of the tunnel.
3. Place the foggers and fans at the locations shown in Figure F-l using the transport trolley.
Point the foggers in the directions shown in the figure. Spray the footprint of both the fogger
and 100-gal. tote with pAB using backpack sprayers before setting the foggers in place
4. Angle the foggers upward to ensure that fog will reach the ceiling.
5. Place a tote adjacent to each fogger, and fill the tote with the diluted bleach and water
fogging solution before connecting the tote to the fogger pump. To prepare the diluted bleach
solution for each 100-gal. tote, add 25 gal. of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach to
each tote. Fill the remainder of the tote with water using a long hose connected to a fire
hydrant outside, or pump water into the tote using the pump and 200-gal. tank from the
sprayer or drums.
6. Place the three large oscillating fans at the locations shown in Figure F-l, and turn them on.
F-5
-------
7. Place the lid with the fogger dip tube onto each tote. Ensure that the dip tube is connected to
the fogger pump.
8. Plug in the charger/inverter for each fogger into an appropriate electrical outlet, and stage
extension cords as needed.
9. Start the Iotech PDAQ to begin logging Cb data.
10. Turn on each fogger, note the time, ensure that fog is produced, confirm adequate mixing of
fog and air, observe flow patterns, and quickly make adjustments as needed. Then
immediately exit the study area. If a fogger does not function as expected, turn off all
foggers, and troubleshoot the problem. Restart all four foggers after the problem has been
solved.
Note: Personnel performing this step are in a contaminated area and will carry contamination
out on their personal protective equipment (PPE). It is critical to follow proper decon
procedures.
11. During fogging, at least every 30 minutes, conduct the activities below.
a. View the reading for each of the three ATI Cb gas sensors in the exclusion zone to
confirm that Cb gas is present. At this time, the proper CI2 gas concentration is unknown
but may be between 10 and 100 ppm. Record the CI2 reading for each sensor in fogger
logbook.
b. View the readings for the ATI equipped with the Iotech PDAQ data logger to determine
long-term CI2 gas trends.
c. Any ATI sensor registering a CI2 level lower than expected may indicate a
malfunctioning fogger or some other technical difficulty, and entry into the exclusion
zone may be required. Discuss this situation with the Site Safety Officer before entering
the exclusion zone.
d. Four foggers running should provide a total flow of about 28 gal./hr. To fog the targeted
400 gal. will take about 14.5 hr if all foggers run nonstop.
e. At the 14-hr mark, maintain more vigilant observation of the ATI sensor readings and
wireless cameras to assess the completion of fogging.
12. Once fogging has been completed (assume 15 hr), personnel wearing self-contained
breathing apparatuses (SCBA) (depending on ATI sensor readings) will enter the exclusion
zone to ensure that all decon solution in each fogger has been fogged. If all the fog solution
has been disseminated, then shut off and unplug the fogger.
13. If substantial amounts of decon solution remain, ensure that the fogger is operating,
troubleshoot the problem as needed, or determine with EPA personnel if fogging should end.
14. After fogging has been completed, allow a dwell time of at least 8 hr. Keep NAMs operating
at fogging levels until the end of the dwell time.
15. Increase the NAM rates as needed to reduce drying time after the dwell time is complete.
16. After several days, conduct all clearance sampling activities. Once this has been completed,
the following fogger decon activities can resume.
F-6
-------
FOGGER DECON AND DEMOBILIZATION
1. Measure and record the remaining amount of decon solution for each fogger.
2. Remove HOBOs and Cb gas dosimeters. Record CI2 dosimeter readings in the fogger
logbook, and download the temperature and RH data from the HOBOs.
3. Remove fogging equipment and decontaminant totes. These pieces of equipment require
decon before removal from the tunnel. Decon may consist of using Hype-Wipes® or Clorox®
germicidal wipes and/or using the backpack sprayers containing pAB.
4. Remove any remaining decon solution liquid from the fogger tanks, and dispose of it in
accordance with the waste management plan. Rinse tanks with a small amount of fresh water,
and dispose of this rinse water as waste in accordance with the waste management plan.
5. Add 5 gal. more fresh water to each fogger tank, and run each fogger for about 50 minutes to
clean out foggers.
6. Lightly spray outside fogger surfaces with water to remove residual bleach.
F-7
-------
Appendix G: CONOPS for pAB Spraying
-------
This Concept of Operations (CONOPS) details the procedure for spraying with pH-amended
bleach (pAB) at the mock subway station at Fort A.P. Hill during Round 1 in support of the
Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology Demonstration (OTD). The
required materials and supplies, personnel, tunnel and platform preparation, pAB
decontamination (decon) solution preparation, pAB spraying operations, and drying are
discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
• 17 negative air machines (NAM)
• 200-gallon (gal.) NorthStar skid sprayer (Model M268170E.6) powered by a Honda 160-
cc engine with a capacity of 0 to 580 pounds per square inch
(http://www.northemtool.com/shop/tools/prodiict 200329^ 0329207) modified to
allow the use of four hoses, one 300-foot (ft) hose and three 100-ft hoses
• Additional nozzles/spray guns and spares to use with sprayer, for example:
- Six heavy-duty spray guns
(http://www.northemtool.com/shop/tools/prodiict 2.00311936 201 6)
- Two telescoping spray guns, 6- to 24-ft
("http://www.northemtool.com/shop/tools/product 200343044 200343044)
- Broadcast sprayer for spraying ballast and floor
• Two wet/dry high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums with brush and squeegee
attachments to remove excess pAB spray from floors
• Chemical-resistant pumps for pumping excess pAB spray liquid from HEPA vacuum
tanks to plastic tanks or carboys; may also need pump to transfer pAB from 55-gal. drum
to 200-gal. spray tank
• One or two 55-gal. plastic drums for mixing pAB solution
• Three plastic carboys (or inflatables) or drums for storing waste liquid runoff from the
sump pumps
• Six fans for drying ( in addition to NAMs)
• Rail cart to transport sprayer and personnel, modified with railing
• Waste containers and roll-off dumpster
• Bags for waste
• 70 gal. of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach with sodium hypochlorite
concentration of 8.3%
Note: It is critical that this particular Clorox® be used because of its higher hypochlorite
content (http://www.homedepot.eom/p/Clort icentrated-Germicidal-Bleach-
4460030798/203393067). This bleach is sold in 121 -ounce bottles, not a 1 -gal. size, so at
least 75 bottles are required for fogging.
G-l
-------
• 70 gal. distilled white vinegar, 4 to 5% acetic acid, for example, the vinegar available at
http://www.webstaurantstore.com/distilled-wh.ite-vineear-4-l-eallon-bottles-
case/ HIE .html
• About 560 gal. of water to mix with bleach for pAB solution
• Enough length of large-diameter hose (hundreds of feet) to connect water source to for
preparation of pAB solution
• Duct tape and plastic sheeting for covering electrical panels, outlets, and other special
equipment that should not be sprayed directly
• Sporicidal, hypochlorite- based wipes such as Hype-Wipes® or Clorox® germicidal
wipes, containing at least 0.5% sodium hypochlorite
• Four HOBO®Model U10-003 Temperature/RH Data Loggers (HOBO) for temperature
and relative humidity (RH) data logging
• pH test strips to ensure that pH of pAB solution is between 6 and 7
• Cb gas dosimeter tubes
• Wireless cameras
• Video camera to document condition of materials
• Personnel decon line and staff
PERSONNEL
1. The crew size is estimated at eight individuals to complete pAB spraying. Four personnel at a
time will enter the mock subway system to conduct spraying operations, while the other four
individuals will remain outside the exclusion zone to provide support.
2. Personnel conducting the spraying operations will wear self-contained breathing apparatuses
(SCBA) and will be in the exclusion zone for no more than 30 minutes before swapping
tanks.
3. The four-person team providing support will then switch duties with the team conducting
spraying operations.
4. Standby personnel for rescue may be required. Personnel from the National Homeland
Security Research Center (NHSRC) and Consequence Management Advisory Division
(CMAD) personnel may be used.
TUNNEL AND PLATFORM PREPARATION
Note: Some of the tasks below will be handled by Test Bed Group and Waste Group personnel,
not contractor personnel.
1. Check all decon equipment for completeness and functionality. Check the seating of the
filters in the HEPA vacuums and the NAMs.
2. Check barriers at both stairways and the track exit section. Place and connect NAMs at all
locations, four in each stairway barrier, eight in the entry/exit barrier, and one at the track-
end fan location. Check the operation of all NAMs.
G-2
-------
Note: The NAMs operate differently during spraying and during drying.
a. Flow rate settings on the NAMs will be set to maintain flow from the track-exit barrier
and slight negative pressure inside the tunnel area compared to outside.
b. In flow: Eight machine inlets built into the entry/exit barrier will move air into the tunnel.
Set two NAMs at the entry/exit point to 1,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) and six to
2,000 CFM to move air into the underground area (nominal flow of 14,000 CFM).
c. Out flow at end of track: Set one NAM on the track-end fan opening at the ceiling at
2,000 CFM.
d. Out flow on stairways: Connect eight NAMs at the staircase barriers, four on each stair
case barrier. The setting on these NAMs will be at 2,000 CFM (nominal flow of 18,000
CFM).
3. The Test Bed Group will set up the personnel decon line in accordance with the health and
safety plan (HASP). It is assumed that the line will be on the exit side of the track-exit
section of the tunnel.
4. The Waste Group will set up a waste staging area just outside the decon line area in
accordance with the waste handling plan.
5. The Waste Group will set up an immersion dunking decon station for kiosk wastes.
6. The Waste Group will set up a roll-off dumpster for solid waste.
7. Spraying teams will be trained in decon procedures, equipment use, surface coverage, and
contact times.
8. The order of work will be coordinated with all decon team members.
9. Make video recordings of the decon area to document the condition of all items and
structural materials before decon.
10. Unplug all electrical items not used for decon.
11. Wipe the exteriors of outlets and electrical boxes with Hype-Wipes® or Clorox® wipes.
12. Tape and seal off all unused outlets (only outlets not protected by plastic cover or tape) and
all electrical boxes to reduce liquid entering the outlets and boxes. One person should
perform the decon in Step 11, and the other person should tape and seal the outlets and
electrical boxes to reduce contamination during the taping process.
13. Staff the personnel decon line.
14. The decon team will don appropriate personal protective equipment in accordance with the
HASP.
15. Place carboys to collect and store waste liquid runoff from the sump pumps.
pAB DECON SOLUTION PREPARATION
1. Prepare a total of about 630 gal. of pAB solution. The pAB solution will consist of 1 part
bleach, 1 part white vinegar, and 8 parts water. The initial pAB solution will be prepared and
blended in the 200-gal. tank located on the sprayer. Water will be added in two doses to
provide mixing. Use the procedure below to prepare the pAB solution.
G-3
-------
a. First add 17 bottles (16 gal.) of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach to the tank.
b. Add approximately 50 gal. water.
c. Add 16 gal. of vinegar (minimum 4% acetic acid).
d. Nearly fill (not all the way) the rest of the 200-gal. sprayer tank with water.
2. Check the pH of the pAB solution using pH strips. The pH should be about 6. Add more
vinegar as needed if the pH is above 7.
3. Each pAB mix is viable for up to 3 hours (hr). Mix new batches as needed throughout the
spraying process.
4. Subsequent 50-gal. batches of pAB may be prepared and stored in polyethylene 55-gal.
drums using following recipe:
a. First add 4 to 5 bottles (5 gal.) of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach to the drum.
b. Add approximately 10 gal. of water.
c. Add 4 gal. of vinegar (minimum 4% acetic acid).
d. Nearly fill (not all the way) the rest of the 55-gal. drum with water.
e. Check the pH of the pAB solution using pH strips. Add more vinegar if the pH is above
7.
Note: Only prepare batches as needed. Do not prepare each batch too early because of short
shelf life.
5. The solution will be maintained at a pH of 6 to 7 and remixed as needed and transferred to
the sprayer tank or mixed directly in the sprayer tank.
6. Track and record the number of batches of pAB solution made, including the volume of each
batch and the number of bottles of bleach and vinegar used.
pAB SPRAYING OPERATIONS
1. A total of about 630 gal. of pAB solution will be needed to conduct the spraying. For
example, 100 gal. of the pAB solution should cover about 15% of the surface area. Decon
personnel should plan accordingly. If the spraying is 30% completed after only 100 gal. has
been used (not enough pAB per area covered), decon personnel will respray that area again,
increasing the amount of bleach for that area. On the other hand, if only 5% of the surface
area has been sprayed after 100 gal. has been used (too much pAB solution sprayed per area
covered), decon personnel will have to spray less pAB per unit area or prepare more pAB
solution.
2. A railcar-mounted NorthStar Skid Sprayer with a 200-gal. tank will be used to apply the pAB
solution in the tunnel. Fill the gas tank before decon begins. Fill the tank with the pAB
solution, and move the railcar to the barrier entrance.
3. Before spraying begins, collect and bag all salvageable items, noting the locations from
which the items were collected. Spray the outside of each bag with decon solution until
wetted. Move the bags to a special salvage area in accordance with Appendix I, the CONOPS
for waste packaging.
G-4
-------
4. After removing salvageable items, remove waste itemsand note the locations from which the
items were collected. Spray all furniture (kiosks, chairs, etc.) and all items destined for the
waste stream. Bag all waste items. Spray the outside of each bag with decon solution until
wetted. Move the bags to a staging area in accordance with Appendix I, the CONOPS for
waste packaging.
5. After all salvageable and waste items have been removed, note the amount of pAB in the
tank before spraying begins to allow estimation of the used pAB solution vs. the surface area
covered. An estimate of the gallons used per surface area covered should be made before the
tank is refilled.
6. Spraying should be conducted systematically over an area large enough to be efficient but not
too large so that the spray equipment will require moving back and forth to cover the area.
Ensure that surfaces are sprayed and wetted for the prescribed 10-minute contact time.
Systematically spray all surfaces, walls, ceiling, stairs, ballast, etc., using the spraying
process detailed below.
a. Turn on the broadcast sprayer attachment as the cart moves toward the end of the tunnel,
and begin spraying. When the end of the tunnel is reached, return to the entry/exit, and
conduct spraying again.
b. Position the cart and sprayer so that hoses will reach the barrier entry area and the
platform.
c. Spray the entry/exit barrier and ceiling. Spray the ceiling next to the barrier and walls,
working down the walls and to the ballast. Continue moving away from the entry,
spraying the ceiling and walls and ballast as the sprayer progresses further into the tunnel
toward the platform.
d. At the platform, two additional sprayers can start spraying the platform, including the
ceiling, walls, and stairs. Cover all surfaces in a systematic manner so that no surfaces are
missed.
e. During spraying, numerous personnel change-outs will occur to allow SCB A tank
changes and rotating rest-work cycles. Personnel should conduct briefings as needed to
exchange information as change-outs occur to ensure that all areas are covered and no
areas are left unsprayed.
f. Check the liquid level and fuel level in the sprayer tanks, and fill the tanks as needed.
g. Check on carboys to verify that they are not overflowing.
Spraying should be conducted in the order below.
i. Spray the entry/exit section first.
ii. The ballast is special and will receive extra spray. It will be sprayed using an initial two
passes using the broadcast sprayer and then sprayed manually when the ceilings and
walls are sprayed by section. The ballast requires extra decon because of its large surface
area and hidden surfaces.
iii. Start at the end of the platform nearest to the entry/exit and where the passengers board
the trains. Move across the platform toward the stairs and toward the tunnel dead-end.
At the stairs, spray the barrier and ceiling, move down the walls to the stairs and down
G-5
-------
the stairs to the platform. Be careful near the passenger boarding area, where there is a
4-ft drop to the ballast and tracks.
iv. As spraying is conducted on the platform, spraying should continue down the tracks and
ballast, always moving toward the dead-end side of the tunnel.
7. To exit the study area, spray the sprayer equipment and your boots, especially the boot bottoms
whenever you suspect stepping in untreated contaminated areas.
8. Go through the personnel decon line at the exit/entry.
DRYING
Once spraying has been completed, keep all 17 NAMs on during the entire drying process. Four
wireless HOBOs will be placed in the study area to record temperature and RH during the drying
phase. If significant standing water is present on the platform, a wet vacuum can be used to
remove the excess standing water. The decontaminated areas will need approximately 2 to 3 days
to dry enough to perform clearance sampling. The exact drying time will depend on the decon
solution used and local weather conditions (temperature and RH). Fans will be set up to help the
drying process by circulating clean dry air to all areas.
G-6
-------
Appendix H: Temperature and RH during Fogging
-------
Location 1
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/15/2016 9/17/2016 9/19/2016 9/21/2016 9/23/2016 9/25/2016 9/27/2016 9/29/2016
• Temp, °F • RH, %
Location 2
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/15/2016 9/17/2016 9/19/2016 9/21/2016 9/23/2016 9/25/2016 9/27/2016 9/29/2016
• Temp, °F •RH, %
Location 3
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/15/2016 9/17/2016 9/19/2016 9/21/2016 9/23/2016 9/25/2016 9/27/2016 9/29/2016
• Temp, °F •RH, %
H-l
-------
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/15/
Location 4
2016 9/17/2016 9/19/2016 9/21/2016 9/23/2016 9/25/2016 9/27/2016 9/29/2016
• Temp, °F •RH,%
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/16/
Location 5
2016 9/17/2016 9/18/2016 9/19/2016 9/20/2016 9/21/2016 9/22/2016 9/23/2016
• Temp, °F • RH, %
120
100
80
Location 6
60
40
20
0
9/16/
2016 9/17/2016 9/18/2016 9/19/2016 9/20/2016 9/21/2016 9/22/2016 9/23/2016
• Temp, °F • RH, %
H-2
-------
Location 7
9/16/2016 9/17/2016 9/17/2016 9/18/2016 9/18/2016 9/19/2016
• Temp, °F • RH, %
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/15/2016 9/17/2016 9/19/2016 9/21/2016 9/23/2016 9/25/2016 9/27/2016 9/29/2016
• Temp, °F •RH, %
Location 8
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/15/
Location 9
2016 9/17/2016 9/19/2016 9/21/2016 9/23/2016 9/25/2016 9/27/2016 9/29/2016
• Temp, °F • RH, %
H-3
-------
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/15/
Location 10
2016 9/17/2016 9/19/2016 9/21/2016 9/23/2016 9/25/2016 9/27/2016 9/29/2016
• Temp, °F •RH,%
H-4
-------
Appendix I: CONOPS for Waste Packaging
-------
This Concept of Operations (CONOPS) details the procedure for packaging waste materials in
support of the Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational Technology
Demonstration (OTD). The purpose of this CONOPS is to ensure that (1) waste materials
brought out of the study area either before or after decontamination (decon) have a representative
number of spores bound on the materials, and (2) the materials can be effectively run through the
decon line and sent to the immersion dunking station without cross contamination.
The general waste packaging process is to double-bag each waste item. Each inner bag is sealed,
sprayed with pH-adjusted bleach (pAB), and placed in an outer bag that is sealed. The bags then
are transported through the personnel decon line before being weighed and brought to the
immersion dunking station. The waste items include clothing, food, newspapers, magazines,
cash, and other materials.
The required materials and supplies, preparation of the decon solution, packaging of waste
materials, processing of bags through the decon line, and management of bags after decon are
discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
• Contractor bags (35 gallon [gal.])
• Backpack sprayer (such as Solo®, Model 425 or equivalent)
• Level C personal protective equipment (PPE)
• Nitrile gloves
• pH- amended bleach (pAB)
• Secondary containment (such as a plastic drop cloth or kiddie pool)
• Tablet (iPad or equivalent) inside Ziploc® bag, with stylus to allow touch-screen activity
through bag
• Zip ties
PERSONNEL
• Bag holder to hold bag open
• Waste bagger to place materials into the bag
• Bag sprayer to spray decontamination solution onto bag
PREPARATION OF DECON SOLUTION
Prepare pAB in accordance with the QAPP. The quantity of bleach should not exceed the
capacity of a single backpack sprayer.
PACKAGING OF WASTE MATERIALS
1. Remove outer nitrile gloves, and place them in appropriate waste container.
2. Replace outer nitrile gloves with new gloves.
1-1
-------
3. The bag holder will open a new bag and hold it open to facilitate placement of items into the
bag.
4. The waste bagger will place waste material into the bag.
5. The waste bagger will seal this inner bag using a zip tie.
6. The waste bagger will place the inner bag into secondary containment.
7. The bag sprayer will lightly spray the outside of the inner bag with pAB, completely
covering the outside of the inner bag.
8. The bag holder will open a second (outer) bag and place the inner bag inside the outer bag.
9. The bag holder will seal the outer bag using a zip tie.
PROCESSING OF BAGS THROUGH DECON LINE
The sealed, double-bagged waste will be brought through the personnel decontamination line and
subjected to equipment decontamination procedures.
MANAGEMENT OF BAGS AFTER DECON
1. Each bag will be weighed, and its weight recorded using the tablet or iPad.
2. The bag will be placed into the Fort A.P. Hill (FAPH) dumpster for subsequent management
as conventional waste through the FAPH waste management system.
1-2
-------
Appendix J: CONOPS for Immersion Dunking Decontamination
-------
This Concept of Operations (CONOPS) details the procedure for immersion dunking
decontamination in support of the Underground Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational
Technology Demonstration (OTD). The decontaminated materials included items such as
newspapers, magazines, clothing, money, food, and food-related items. Each collected material
was sealed in separate bags and removed from the exclusion zone for treatment using immersion
dunking in pH-amended bleach (pAB). The purpose of this CONOPS is to ensure that all
immersion dunking decontamination is performed in a consistent manner.
The required materials and supplies, preparation of the pAB solution, and immersion dunking
decontamination process are discussed below.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
• 75-Gallon (gal.) immersion trough (10-cubic-foot Hog Trough, EZ Grout Corporation,
Part No. HTP10)
• Polypropylene mesh (McMaster Carr, Part No. 30145T51)
• Stir rod
• pH paper
• Ventilating polypropylene mesh bags, 21 inches (in.) wide by 3VA in. high (McMaster
Carr, Part No. 9883163^)
• 4 gal. of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach with sodium hypochlorite
concentration of 8.3%
Note: It is critical that this particular Clorox® be used because of its higher hypochlorite
content (http://www.homedepot.eom/p/Clort icemtrated-Gerro.icidal-Bleach-
446003 0798/203 3 93 067Y
• 4 gal. distilled white vinegar, 4 to 5% acetic acid, for example, the vinegar available at
http://www.webstaiirantstore.com/distilled-white-vinee gallon-bottles-
case/ HTE.html
• About 32 gal. of water to mix with bleach for pAB solution
PREPARATION OF pAB SOLUTION
1. Prepare approximately 35 gal. pAB solution in the immersion trough using the procedures
specified in the QAPP. Use 1 part of Clorox® Concentrated Germicidal Bleach, 1 part white
vinegar, and 8 parts water. Each pAB mix is viable for up to 3 hours. Mix new batches as
needed throughout the immersion dunking process.
2. Check the pH of the pAB solution using pH paper. The pH should be below 7.
3. Track and record the number of batches of pAB solution prepared, the volume of each batch,
and the number of bottles of bleach and vinegar used.
IMMERSION DUNKING DECONTAMINATION PROCESS
Before immersion dunking begins, lower the sterilized mesh into the immersion trough
containing the pAB solution so that the mesh covers the bottom and walls of the tank. Then
J-l
-------
perform immersion dunking on each item. Samples will be collected from some items, while for
other items, the samples will consist only of the residual pAB decontaminant solution. The
procedures for each are summarized below.
Sampled Items
1. Place the entire batch of items (see the QAPP for batch information) into a sterilized
polypropylene mesh bag.
2. Lower the mesh bag containing the items into the immersion trough containing the pAB
solution so that the solution completely covers the items. If necessary, add weights to the bag
to keep it submerged.
NOTE: Some food items (such as bread, rolls, etc.) may begin to disintegrate while in
contact with the pAB solution and may not be amenable to immersion dunking.
3. Allow the items to soak for 15 minutes (min).
4. Lift the mesh bag out of the trough, and allow it to drain over the immersion trough for 5
min.
5. After draining, move the mesh bag to a restricted area for drying, typically overnight.
6. Once dry, place the items in the established area for sample collection.
7. Collect samples from the dunked items in accordance with the QAPP. Then place the
sampled items into the same waste storage bag as the undunked items.
8. Collect a sample of the residual pAB decontaminant solution.
9. Analyze the residual decontaminant solution for the active ingredient (hypochlorite/
hypochlorous acid), pH, and temperature.
Unsampled Items
Use the same procedures as above, except that instead of performing Steps 6 and 7, the dunked
items will be placed into the same waste storage bag as the undunked items and will not be
sampled.
J-2
-------
Appendix K: Waste Scaling Factors
-------
OTD dimensions
Description
Notes:
Length (ft)
Width (ft)
H. Area (ft2)
Height (ft)
V. Area (ft2)
Volume (ft3)
Floor
Tunnel 1
barrier to platform
54
22
1188
19
NA
22572
Platform
platform only
160
23
3680
15
NA
55200
Track at platform
track width at platform
160
16.75
2680
19
NA
50920
Tunnel 2
dead end tunnel section
53
22
1166
19
NA
22154
Sum horizontal surface area
8714
NA
150846
1 1
Ceiling Ceiling Assumed identical to floor
8714
NA
Vertical walls
Tunnel 1
Two sides in surface calc.
54
NA
19
2052
Tunnel 1
Barrier wall
22
NA
19
418
Platform wall
One side only; open to track
160
NA
15
2400
Platform end walls
Two sides in surafce calc.
23
NA
15
690
Track at platform
One side only; open to platform
160
NA
19
3040
Tunnel 2
Two sides in surface calc.
53
NA
19
2014
Tunnel 2
Dead end wall
22
NA
19
836
Sum vertical surface area
11450
Tunnel section outside hot zone (not used)
365
22
8030
19
SUMMARY
Area (ft2)
floor
8714
ceiling
8714
vertical
11450
Total surface area subject to decon (ft2)
28878
K-l
-------
Appendix L: Cost Analysis Workbook
-------
APPENDIX L
COST ANALYSIS WORKBOOK
Based on UTR OTD Cost Analysis rl8 063017
TITLE
L-l
-------
Waste Difficulty
1 = If Deconned Waste is treated as MSW; 2 = If Deconned
Waste has lOx Premium Charge; 3 = If Deconned Waste is
treated as Contaminated with lOOx Premium Charge
Purchased Equipment Variables
Equipment Amortization Period (months):
60
How long is equipment amortized for?
OTD Amortization Period (months):
1.5
How long did the incident go on for?
Multiplier for LRN BSL-3 vs BSL-2 Analysis
1.5
Multiplier for amount of PPE that would actually be worn
1.8
Average Length of Day (hrs)
12
Post-Entry Rest Period (hrs)
0.5
Travel Variables
Airfare to Site ($/person):
$ 518
Rental Car (1 per team) ($/week/team):
$ 406
Lodging ($/day/person):
$ 267
Meals and Incidental Expenses ($/day/person):
$ 74
Decon Round Variables
Round 1 Drying Days
3
Round 2 Drying Days
3
EPA responders would be wearing 2 Tyvek suits
travel = airfare + M&IE lodging + rental car + labor/M&IE for 2
travel days
CVG to SFO 2017 Government Fare
Minivan
2017 San Francisco
2017 San Francisco
Waste Sampling Variables
Number of Waste Samples Per 50 kg
3
1 sample per 35 lb bag
Number of Water Samples Per 220 L
1
1 sample per 55 gal drum
Knobs
Page L-2
-------
"O
O)
era
n>
n
o
_Q
c
CD
w =-.
3
Total Cost
Sampling and
Analysis Cost
IC Cost
Decon Cost
Waste Management
Cost
Total Cost
rt) ft
OJ QJ
Average Level A Decon
Team Entry
Average Level C Decon
Team Entry
Decon Costs
Number of Decon Teams
(Level A)
Number of Decon Teams
(Level C)
Number of Entries (Level A)
Number of Entries (Level C)
Cost of Decon Teams
Days Required for Decon
Cost of Decon Line
Operations
Other Decon Costs
Material Cost for Decon
Team
Total Decon Cost
Average Sampling Team
Entry Time (hr)
Number of Samples to be
Taken (Only Included Sponge
Stick, 37 mm cartridge.
Sterile Bottles)
Sampling and Analysis
Number of Sampling Teams
Hours Required for Sampling
Days Required for Sampling
Cost of Decon Line
Operations
Other Sampling/Analytical
Costs
Facility Sampling and
Analysis
Waste Sampling and Analysis
Total Sampling Cost
3 3
-------
Overall Remediation Cost
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$-
Fogging Spraying
ICCost ¦ Sampling and Analysis Cost BDeconCost ¦ Waste Management Cost
FIGURE-Overall Cost
Page L-4
-------
Labor Category
Job Classification
Annual
Salary
Median
including
Bonuses
Hourly Rate
(Assuming
1949 hours
worked per
year)
Loaded
Hourly Rate
(Assuming 3x
Loading
Factor)
Source
PL1
Engineer 1
$ 65,373
S 34
S ioi
http
//careermedia.salarv.com
PL2
Engineer II
$ 76,352
S 39
S 118
http
//careermedia.salary.com
PL3
Engineer III
$ 91,936
S 47
$ 142
http
//careermedia.salarv.com
PL4
Engineer V
$ 136,581
S 70
$ 210
http
//careermedia.salary.com
TL1
Engineering Aide 1
$ 46,327
S 24
$ 71
http
//careermedia.salarv.com
TL2
Engineering Aide II
$ 52,733
S 27
$ 81
http
//careermedia.salary.com
TL3
Engineering Aide III
$ 65,791
S 34
S 101
http
//careermedia.salarv.com
EMT
Paramedic
$ 39,704
$ 20
S 61
http
//careermedia.salary.com
OSC/Commander
GS-13 Step 5
$ 100,605
S 52
S 155
US Govt Salary Table; Locality Pay for Research Triangle Park, NC
Salary Table
Page L-5
-------
OSC/Commander
EMT
T—1
1
Q.
IN
O.
rn
O.
*1-
O.
T—1
1
1-
IN
—1
1-
rn
1-
# on Team
# of Teams
Folks
Cost/Hr
Notes
Labor Rates($/hr Loaded)
$155
$61
$101
$118
$142
$210
$71
$81
$101
Sampling Team
0.3
3.0
3.3
6
20.0
$ 476
Decontamination Team (Level C)
0.3
3.0
1.0
4.3
1
4.3
$ 686
2 monitors, 3 simultaneous teams of 2 each
Decontamination Team (Level A)
0.3
6.0
2.0
8.3
1
8.3
$1,321
4 monitors, 2 teams of 4 people each, switch between support and entry (LM)
Decon Line Setup Team
2.0
2.0
1
2.0
$ 203
2 guys for 1 day probably
Decon Line Ops Team
0.3
1.0
3.0
4.3
1
4.3
$ 356
Sample Packaging Team
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1
3.0
$ 412
Waste Handling Team
1.0
3.0
4.0
1
4.0
$ 398
Lab Analyst Team
0.3
0.3
1.0
1.5
1
1.5
$ 169
Data Management Team
1.0
1.0
2.0
1
2.0
$ 311
Data Analysis Team
2.0
2.0
4.0
1
4.0
$ 703
40 hours total re Jacky R for aerosol
JTI Sample Kit Prep
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
$ 118
105 hours total per Worth C
Aggressive Air Sampling Team
1.0
3.0
4.0
1
4.0
$ 507
Health and Safety Team
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
$ 155
Documentation/Plan Writing Team
0.5
0.3
1.0
1.8
1
1.8
$ 157
Command Team
2.0
2.0
1
2.0
$ 310
Commander (OSC)
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
$ 155
Regulatory Coordination Team
1.0
2.0
3.0
1
3.0
$ 575
Notional
EPA Purchasing Team
1.0
0.3
1.3
1
1.3
$ 236
Waste Sampling Team
3.0
3.0
1
3.0
$ 302
Water Sampling Team
3.0
3.0
1
3.0
$ 302
Team Makeup
Page L-6
-------
Date
Team
Time at PPE Donning Start
Time at PPE Donning Complete
Time at Hot Zone Entry
Time at Decon Line Entry
Time at Decon Line Exit
PPE Level (A or C)
Time Donning PPE (min)
Time in Hot Zone (min)
Personnel Decon Time (min)
Total Entry Time (min)
Entry Team Recovery Time (min)
Notes
9/19/16
7
11:27
11:57
12:04
c
30
7
45
30
9/19/16
1
11:29
12:45
12:57
c
76
12
96
30
9/19/16
3
12:15
12:29
13:45
13:50
c
76
5
89
30
9/19/16
4
12:44
13:06
14:40
14:47
c
94
7
109
30
9/19/16
5
13:28
14:53
14:59
c
85
6
99
30
9/19/16
6
13:56
14:16
16:01
16:09
c
105
8
121
30
9/19/16
7
14:33
14:53
16:12
16:24
c
79
12
99
30
9/19/16
8
15:22
15:28
16:48
17:00
c
80
12
100
30
9/19/16
9
16:12
16:22
18:44
18:54
c
142
10
160
30
9/20/16
6
8:28
8:47
9:53
10:02
c
66
9
83
30
9/20/16
8
9:08
9:20
10:18
10:28
c
58
10
76
30
Listed as Team 8 in Notes
9/20/16
5
9:33
9:49
11:13
11:21
c
84
8
100
30
9/20/16
9
9:47
10:01
11:17
11:26
c
76
9
93
30
9/20/16
1
10:05
10:42
12:01
12:13
c
79
12
99
30
9/20/16
2
11:48
13:00
13:07
c
72
7
87
30
9/20/16
3
12:22
12:37
14:39
14:45
c
122
6
136
30
9/20/16
8
13:20
13:29
15:20
15:28
c
111
8
127
30
Listed as Team 4 in notes
9/26/16
1
9:42
10:15
10:21
c
33
6
47
30
9/26/16
2
9:30
10:20
10:29
c
50
9
67
30
9/26/16
3
10:40
10:45
11:42
11:46
c
57
4
69
30
9/26/16
4
10:46
11:01
12:44
12:56
c
103
12
123
30
9/26/16
5
11:18
12:49
12:58
c
91
9
108
30
9/26/16
9
14:27
14:33
14:32
15:45
15:52
c
6
73
7
86
30
9/26/16
7
15:57
17:07
c
100
30
9/26/16
6
14:52
14:57
14:56
17:05
17:10
c
5
129
5
139
30
9/26/16
2
16:35
17:23
17:29
c
48
6
62
30
9/26/16
8
17:07
18:35
c
88
105
30
No Q.R data
9/29/16
4
9:22
9:36
c
14
106
30
9/21/16
NA
c
120
137
30
Deploying Totes and Foggers for Decon (JPW); Q.C Check Date
9/21/16
NA
c
120
137
30
Removing Totes and Foggers (JPW); Q.C Check Date
10/3/16
1
10:24
11:10
11:10
11:47
11:51
A
46
37
4
87
30
Level A; Q.C - check date
10/3/16
4
14:40
14:59
15:07
15:41
15:49
A
19
34
8
61
30
Level A; Q.C - check date
10/3/16
5
9:45
9:58
9:58
10:37
11:01
A
13
39
24
76
30
Level A; Q.C - check date
10/3/16
6
10:53
11:03
11:03
11:22
11:29
A
10
19
7
36
30
Level A; Q.C - check date
9/21/16
NA
A
60
77
30
Level A; Turning on Foggers (JPW); Level C 2nd Time; QC Check Date
9/21/16
NA
A
60
77
30
Level A; Turning off Foggers (JPW); Q.C Check Date
Entry Team Times
Page L-7
-------
Health and
Sample
Decon
Decon
Safety
Logged
Team
Team Level
Team Level
Team
Activity
Entries (n)*
Entries (n)
C Entries (n)
A Entries (n)
Entries (n)
Notes
Site Preparation/Isolation
0
0
0
0
2
Pre-release tracer study
0
0
0
0
Instrumentation Check and Pre-release Actions
0
0
0
0
Deconl - Release
0
0
0
0
Deconl - Pre Sampling
17
17
0
0
3
QR agrees with 17
Deconl - Decontamination
2
0
3
2
need to QC
Deconl - Drying
0
0
0
0
Deconl - Post Sampling
10
16
0
0
1
FC had 16; QR agrees with 16
Decon2 - Release
0
0
0
0
Decon2 - Pre Sampling
1
17
0
0
3
FC had 11; QC'd ipad data shows 17 entries
Decon2 - Decontamination2
0
0
2
6
need to QC
Decon2 - Drying
0
0
0
0
Decon2 - Post Sampling
0
16
0
0
3
FC had 12; QC'd ipad data shows 16 entries
* - this was a QC check of the team entry data
Health and
Average
Sample
Decon
Decon
Safety
Level A
Team
Team Level
Team Level
Team
Entry Time
Activity
Entries
C Entries
A Entries
Entries
Average Level C Entry Time (hrs)
(hrs)
Round 1 - Fogging
33
3
2
6
1.81
1.18
Round 2 - AB Spray
33
2
6
6
1.81
1.18
TABLE - Team Entries
Page L-8
-------
Average
Box Prep
Total
Time
Number
Time
Number
(person -
Date
of People
Activity
(min)
of Kits
min/kit)
NA
1
Sterilize 500 ml bottles (loosen caps, move in/out of autoclave)
175
350
0.5
NA
1
Prepare/Sterilize dl water
350
175
2.0
NA
1
Dispense 500 ml PBST into 500 ml bottles
875
350
2.5
NA
1
Prepare sampling kits - sponge wipes
950
475
2.0
NA
1
Prepare sampling kits - 37mm vac cassettes
1800
300
6.0
NA
1
Prepare sampling kits - ballast
400
200
2.0
NA
1
Prepare sampling kits - water
75
75
1.0
NA
1
Prepare sampling kits - RMCs
176
88
2.0
NA
1
Prepare culture tubes for Bis
8
16
0.5
Sample Kit Prep
Page L-9
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
i
i
i
x
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-063
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-024
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-012
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-011
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-025
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-026
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-023
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-020
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-021
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-065
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-014
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-009
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-013
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-062
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-008
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-064
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-567
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-568
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-570
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-571
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-572
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-B30
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-B29
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-B28
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-B27
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-050
Track
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-050
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-066
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-018
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-016
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-015
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-019
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-017
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-022
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-021
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-020
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-019
Coupon
Spore Strip
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-040
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-028
1 L Sterile Bottle
0TD-R1PRE-EXTR- 024
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-038
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-S39
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-S40
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-BI-B
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-R17
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V36
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V41
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V41
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-R18
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V42
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-R16
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-R19
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V37
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V38
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V43
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V44
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-V45
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-066
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-065
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-064
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-063
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-074
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-077
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-078
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-080
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-076
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-075
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-079
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-073
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-082
Track
Sponge Stick
Sampling
Page L-10
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-026
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-RlPRE-RMC-OOl
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-081
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-022
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-070
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-023
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-071
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-027
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-002
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-072
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-029
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-068
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-069
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-067
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-033
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-003
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-085
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-034
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-084
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-037
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-083
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-086
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-004
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-046
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-032
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-047
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-007
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-008
Other
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-021
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-022
Sponge Stick
OTD-RlPRE-SPNG-OOl
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-043
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-046
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-049
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-048
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-003
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-004
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-002
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-045
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-005
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-006
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-047
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-RIPRE-SPNG-OIO
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-007
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-011
Other
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-014
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-015
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-013
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-007
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-038
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-002
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-047
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-029
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-049
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-048
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-040
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-034
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-033
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-034
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-032
Wall
Sponge Stick
0TD-R1PRE-RMC-027
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-029
Track
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-028
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-044
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-042
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-043
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-025
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-024
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-039
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-019
1 L Sterile Bottle
Sampling
Page L-ll
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-020
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-005
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-018
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-017
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-044
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-061
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-046
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-045
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-044
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-043
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-042
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-041
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-037
Other
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-029
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-036
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-035
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-036
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-039
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-030
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-031
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-040
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-038
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-038
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-011
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-031
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-036
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-035
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-012
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-041
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-012
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-009
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-044
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-042
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-011
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-009
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-012
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-004
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-031
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-003
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-050
37 mm Cassette
OTD-RlPRE-VAC-OOl
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-033
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-032
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-039
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-037
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-035
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-051
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-041
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-037
Coupon
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-040
Floor
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-003
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-007
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-015
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-013
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-RIPRE-EXTR-OIO
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-014
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-048
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-028
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-027
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-026
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-016
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-009
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-006
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-006
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-022
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-045
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-025
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-021
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-013
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-018
Sampling
Page L-12
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1
I
X
I
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-015
OTD-RIPRE-RMC-OIO
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-016
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-019
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-018
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-069
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-073
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-017
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-072
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-058
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-005
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-060
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-049
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-023
Spore Strip
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-056
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-059
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-061
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-062
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-059
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-053
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-050
1 L Sterile Bottle
Manually cleared - Times not entered
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-057
1 L Sterile Bottle
Manually cleared - Times not entered
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-052
1 L Sterile Bottle
Manually cleared - Times not entered
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-058
1 L Sterile Bottle
Manually cleared - Times not entered
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-056
1 L Sterile Bottle
Manually cleared - Times not entered
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-051
1 L Sterile Bottle
Manually cleared - Times not entered
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-054
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-055
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-060
1L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-067
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-071
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-EXTR-070
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-008
37 mm Cassette
OTD-RIPRE-VAC-OIO
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-VAC-028
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-042
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-030
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-043
OTD-R1PRE-RMC-014
RMC
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-016
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-020
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1PRE-SPNG-017
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-069
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-071
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-018
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-020
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-019
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-016
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-014
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-020
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-015
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-018
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-019
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-036
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-034
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-037
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-035
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-038
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-042
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-026
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-041
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-022
Sponge Stick
OT D- R1 POST-VAC-027
37 mm Cassette
OT D- R1 POST-VAC-004
37 mm Cassette
OT D- R1P OST-VAC-003
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-002
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-031
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-045
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-077
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-094
1 L Sterile Bottle
Sampling
Page L-13
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-076
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-035
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-030
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-034
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-033
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-033
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-032
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-031
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-027
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-030
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-032
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-029
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-028
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-031
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-075
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-022
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-021
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-023
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-012
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-026
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-024
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-025
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-BI-OQ2
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-039
Sponge Stick
OTD-RIPOST-SPNG-Oll
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-013
Sponge Stick
OTD-RIPOST-SPNG-OIO
Sponge Stick
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-026
37 mm Cassette
OTD-RIPOST-VAC-Oll
37 mm Cassette
OT D- R1P OST-VAC-009
37 mm Cassette
OT D- R1P OST-VAC-008
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-005
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-BI-OQ5
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-027
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-VAC-012
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-VAC-013
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-028
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-VAC-015
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-VAC-014
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-065
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-075
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-066
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-074
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-083
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-037
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-040
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-036
Sponge Stick
OTD-RIPOST-BI-IO
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-015
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD- R1P OST- EXTR-013
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD- R1P OST- EXTR-017
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD- R1P OST- EXTR-016
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD- R1P OST- EXTR-014
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-017
Sponge Stick
OTD-RlPOST-BI-OOl
Wall
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-080
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-083
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-084
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-082
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-085
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-081
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-069
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-064
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-070
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-067
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-071
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-072
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-068
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-073
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-VAC-022
Floor
37 mm Cassette
Sampling
Page L-14
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1
I
X
I
OTD-R1POST-BI-OQ3
Spore Strip
OT D- R1P OST-VAC-023
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-BI-OQ4
Wall
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-038
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-020
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-021
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-010
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-007
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-006
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-017
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-019
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-016
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-018
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-065
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-055
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-046
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-048
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-047
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-045
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-041
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-055
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-043
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-054
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-052
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-051
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-050
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-045
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-047
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-046
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-044
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-053
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-049
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-048
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-052
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-005
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-BI-006
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-009
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-097
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-098
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-093
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-099
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-BI-007
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-061
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-062
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-063
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-005
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-006
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-068
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-079
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-067
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-076
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-073
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-BI-008
Other
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-VAC-035
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OT D- R1P OST-VAC-036
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-037
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-038
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-034
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OT D- R1P OST-VAC-033
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-VAC-041
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-040
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-039
Coupon
37 mm Cassette
OTD-RIPOST-Bl-Oll
Other
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-BI-012
Spore Strip
OTD-R1POST-BI-013
Spore Strip
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-093
1 L Sterile Bottle
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-092
1 L Sterile Bottle
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-095
1 L Sterile Bottle
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-094
1 L Sterile Bottle
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-096
1 L Sterile Bottle
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
Sampling
Page L-15
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1
I
X
I
OTD-R1POST-BI-OQ9
Spore Strip
laybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-007
Sponge Stick
laybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-039
1 L Sterile Bottle
laybe Wrong Sampler - QC
QTD-RlPQST-EXTR-040
1 L Sterile Bottle
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
QTD-RlPQST-EXTR-006
1 L Sterile Bottle
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-043
Sponge Stick
Maybe Wrong Sampler - QC
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-058
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-057
Sponge Stick
OT D- R1 POST-VAC-028
37 mm Cassette
OTD-RlPQST-VAC-030
37 mm Cassette
OTD-RIPOST-VAC-Blank
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-042
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-032
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-044
37 mm Cassette
OTD- R1P OST-VAC-043
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-059
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-060
Other
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-024
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-025
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-023
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
OTD-RlPOST-EXTR-OOl
Waste
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-OQ3
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-RIPOST-EXTR-Oll
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-012
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-OQ4
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-RIPOST-EXTR-OIO
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-OQ9
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-OQ7
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-OQ8
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-OQ2
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-RlPOST-VAC-OOl
37 mm Cassette
OTD-RlPOST-SPNG-OOl
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-OQ2
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-EXTR-OQ8
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-OQ3
Sponge Stick
OTD-R1POST-SPNG-OQ4
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-049
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-013
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-008
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-004
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-B24
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-072
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-041
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-040
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-042
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-043
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-S68
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-S67
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-047
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-043
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-042
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-049
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-044
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-045
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-046
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-048
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-041
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-087
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-086
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-030
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-063
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-066
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-064
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-065
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-031
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-027
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-029
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-028
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-024
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-032
Sponge Stick
Sampling
Page L-16
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1
I
X
i
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-023
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-003
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-002
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-047
Other
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-020
Coupon
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-005
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-003
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-006
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-022
Coupon
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-002
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-001
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-021
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-005
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-004
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-058
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-062
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-055
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-053
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-050
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-061
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-056
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-052
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-051
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-059
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-057
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-054
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-060
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-068
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-067
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-030
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-008
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-007
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-004
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-002
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-001
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-020
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-027
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-025
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-026
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-009
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-019
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-036
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-005
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-009
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-039
Coupon
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-001
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-025
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-007
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-006
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-042
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-026
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-033
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-014
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-011
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-071
Other
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-003
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-006
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-075
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-073
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-074
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-080
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-077
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-078
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-079
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-076
Coupon
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-065
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-066
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-063
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-064
Coupon
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-021
Ceiling
Sponge Stick
Sampling
Page L-17
-------
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-022
Ceiling
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-018
Wall
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-019
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-044
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-020
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-028
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-073
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-015
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-016
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-084
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-016
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-015
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-011
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-017
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-013
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-005
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-017
Coupon
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-011
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-012
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-014
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-018
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-016
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-015
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-014
Coupon
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-014
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-017
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-048
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-033
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-037
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-029
Coupon
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-038
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-039
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-035
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-034
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-004
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-001
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-018
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-013
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-003
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-010
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-008
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-006
Track
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-019
Coupon
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-012
Floor
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-007
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-008
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-002
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-009
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-007
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-070
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-071
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-069
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-023
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-083
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-040
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-051
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-072
1 L Sterile Bottle
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-025
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-024
RMC
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-081
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-082
Sponge Stick
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-012
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-020
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-021
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-022
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-010
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-011
Coupon
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-019
Floor
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-018
37 mm Cassette
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-017
37 mm Cassette
Sampling
Page L-18
-------
Date
Sample Number
Location Zone
Location Description
Sampler
Sample Media
1 L Sterile Bottle
Sponge Stick
37 mm Cassette
RMC
Spore Strip
QC (Should be TRUE)
Start Time (m.s)
Sample Time (min)
Notes
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-024
Z2
Floor
4
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:02:52
6.5
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-015
Z2
Floor
4
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:09:19
8.0
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-012
Z2
Coupon
4
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
11:17:19
3.1
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-013
Z2
Coupon
4
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
11:20:26
1.8
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-010
Z2
Coupon
4
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
11:22:11
3.2
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-009
Z2
Coupon
4
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
11:25:22
2.9
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-023
Z2
Floor
4
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:28:14
6.2
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-025
Z2
Floor
4
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:34:27
6.6
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-026
Z2
Floor
4
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:41:01
7.9
9/30/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-016
Z2
Floor
4
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:48:55
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-036
Z5
Coupon
5
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
10:41:15
3.3
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-032
Z5
Floor
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:44:30
1.2
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-069
Z5
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:45:39
5.9
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-031
Z5
Floor
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:51:35
3.4
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-052
Z5
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:54:57
4.6
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-037
Z5
Floor
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:59:34
2.3
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-035
Z5
Coupon
5
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
11:01:52
6.7
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-050
Z5
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:08:31
2.4
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-028
Z5
Floor
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:10:53
2.1
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-051
Z5
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:12:57
6.6
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-035
Z5
Floor
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:19:33
2.5
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-049
Z5
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:22:01
3.9
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-033
Z5
Coupon
5
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
11:25:56
4.5
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-036
Z5
Floor
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:30:24
3.4
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-088
Z5
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:33:48
2.6
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-048
Z5
Other
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:36:22
2.0
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-047
Z5
Wall
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:38:22
5.7
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-046
Z5
Wall
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:44:01
7.8
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-045
Z5
Wall
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:51:48
7.2
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-111
Z5
Wall
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:59:01
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-036
Z4
Floor
1
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:16:50
13.6
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-030
Z4
Floor
1
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:30:24
12.6
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-038
Z4
Floor
1
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
08:43:02
4.0
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-027
Z4
Floor
1
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:47:01
13.5
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-050
Z4
Floor
1
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
09:00:33
13.0
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-037
Z4
Coupon
1
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
09:13:31
5.7
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-028
Z4
Floor
1
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
09:19:13
13.8
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-029
Z4
Floor
1
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
09:33:03
9.7
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-041
Z4
Coupon
1
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
09:42:45
5.0
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-032
Z4
Floor
1
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
09:47:47
7.5
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-031
Z4
Floor
1
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
09:55:17
6.9
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-040
Z4
Coupon
1
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
10:02:13
Deleted value due to time difference
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-085
Z7
Other
1
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:01:27
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-041
Z4
Coupon
3
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:23:19
6.9
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-042
Z4
Coupon
3
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:30:16
10.0
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-043
Z4
Coupon
3
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:40:13
4.6
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-044
Z4
Coupon
3
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:44:51
10.7
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-045
Z4
Coupon
3
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:55:33
4.2
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-VAC-046
Z4
Coupon
3
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:59:47
13.5
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-053
Z4
Ceiling
3
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:13:14
6.3
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-054
Z4
Ceiling
3
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:19:31
5.2
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-055
Z4
Coupon
3
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:24:44
4.5
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-035
Z4
Other
3
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:29:12
2.9
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-034
Z4
Other
3
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:32:06
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-032
Z5
Coupon
4
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
10:51:54
5.4
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-034
Z5
Track
4
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:57:15
4.4
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-039
Z5
Track
4
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:01:37
1.6
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-031
Z5
Track
4
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
11:03:14
4.1
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-038
Z5
Track
4
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:07:21
3.1
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-023
Z5
Track
4
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:10:24
3.6
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-034
Z5
Coupon
4
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
11:13:59
3.2
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-033
Z5
Track
4
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:17:08
5.1
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-024
Z5
Track
4
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:22:12
5.4
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-068
Z5
Wall
4
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:27:34
7.4
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-067
Z5
Wall
4
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:35:01
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-SPNG-056
Z4
Track
2
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:22:50
2.2
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-027
Z4
Other
2
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
08:24:59
12.2
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-RMC-026
Z4
Other
2
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
08:37:09
4.7
10/1/16
OTD-P2PRE-RMC-044
Z4
Other
2
RMC
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
08:41:53
3.7
10/1/16
OTD-R2PRE-EXTR-021
Z4
Floor
2
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:45:34
3.1
Sampling
Page L-19
-------
Date
V
Location Zone
Location Description
t
-------
Date
V
Location Zone
:
¦
t
-------
Date
V
Location Zone
:
¦
t
CO
Sample Media
1 L Sterile Bottle
Sponge Stick
s
I
r*
m
RMC
QC (Should be TRUE)
1
1
I
1
1
I
Notes
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-SPNG-050
Z2
Wall
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:44:57
6.7
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-087
Z2
Track
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:51:41
5.8
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-088
Z2
Track
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:57:26
3.8
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-032
Z2
Track
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:01:11
1.6
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-SPNG-010
Z2
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:02:45
5.0
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-009
Z2
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:07:44
7.2
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-008
Z2
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:14:57
2.8
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-006
Z2
Track
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:17:44
6.2
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-007
Z2
Other
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:23:58
2.5
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-053
Z2
Other
5
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:26:31
4.1
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-031
Z2
Other
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:30:38
2.6
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-033
Z2
Other
5
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
12:33:16
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-092
Z3
Other
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:04:27
23.5
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-039
Z3
Floor
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:27:58
5.5
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-007
Z3
Floor
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:33:29
5.3
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-006
Z3
Floor
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:38:46
3.8
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-037
Z3
Floor
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:42:34
5.5
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-005
Z3
Floor
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:48:02
4.7
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-040
Z3
Floor
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:52:42
4.0
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-038
Z3
Floor
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
13:56:43
3.5
10/11/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-091
Z3
Floor
6
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
14:00:13
20.0
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-042
Z3
Track
6
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
14:20:10
3.3
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-038
Z3
Track
6
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
14:23:28
8.3
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-052
Z3
Track
6
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
14:31:43
11.4
10/11/16
OTD-R2P OST-S PNG-051
Z3
Track
6
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
14:43:07
9.1
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-040
Z3
Wall
6
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
14:52:12
6.3
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-039
Z3
Wall
6
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
14:58:30
1.8
10/11/16
OTD-R2P OST-S PNG-041
Z3
Other
6
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
15:00:20
4.2
10/11/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-005
Z3
Other
6
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
15:04:32
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-058
Z5
Track
2
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:18:00
4.4
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST—013
Z5
Other
2
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:22:24
3.7
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-054
Z5
Track
2
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:26:06
2.6
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST—011
Z5
Other
2
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:28:43
3.6
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-055
Z5
Track
2
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:32:20
8.8
10/12/16
OTD-R2 POST—018
Z5
Floor
2
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:41:06
5.5
10/12/16
OTD-R2 POST—020
Z5
Floor
2
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:46:36
4.4
10/12/16
OTD-R2 POST—012
Z5
Floor
2
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:51:00
6.5
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-056
Z5
Track
2
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:57:28
13.5
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-057
Z5
Wall
2
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
09:11:00
10/12/16
OTD-R2 POST-019
Z5
Floor
2
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
09:05:00
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-069
Z7
Waste
11
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:16:22
0.9
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-079
Z7
Waste
11
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:17:18
0.7
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-073
Z7
Waste
11
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:17:59
0.7
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-076
Z7
Waste
11
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:18:44
0.7
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-072
Z7
Waste
11
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:19:25
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-057
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:06:44
4.7
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-060
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:11:28
5.5
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-058
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:16:59
6.3
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-061
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:23:19
1.8
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-059
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:25:09
3.2
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-045
Z7
Waste
10
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:28:23
5.4
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-056
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:33:45
5.2
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-044
Z7
Waste
10
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:38:58
2.2
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-055
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:41:10
5.2
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-053
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:46:20
8.5
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-050
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:54:50
6.0
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-051
Z7
Waste
10
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:00:53
2.4
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-083
Z7
Waste
10
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:03:17
3.8
10/12/16
OT D- R2 P OST-VAC-O 45
Z7
Waste
10
37 mm Cassette
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:07:02
13.5
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-SPNG-043
Z7
Waste
10
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:20:31
6.4
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-082
Z7
Waste
10
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:26:54
7.5
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-SPNG-079
Z7
Waste
10
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:34:23
4.6
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-SPNG-078
Z7
Waste
10
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:38:58
6.4
10/12/16
OTD-R2P OST-S PNG-081
Z7
Waste
10
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
11:45:21
10/12/16
OTD-R2P OST-S PNG-001
Z4
Ceiling
4
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:17:03
3.8
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-024
Z4
Ceiling
4
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:20:53
7.7
10/12/16
OTD-R2P OST-S PNG-023
Z4
Ceiling
4
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:28:35
3.8
10/12/16
OTD-R2P OST-S PNG-002
Z4
Other
4
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:32:22
5.2
10/12/16
OTD- R2 P OST-S P N G-025
Z4
Other
4
Sponge Stick
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
10:37:32
10/12/16
OTD-R2POST-EXTR-019
Z5
Floor
3
1 L Sterile Bottle
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
08:30:26
19.5
Sampling
Page L-22
-------
"O
Q>
era
n>
LO
CD
3
"O
M 3
uj era
,0
,o
,o
,o
.O
,o
,o
.O
,o
.O
,o
,o
,o
,o
,o
,o
Date
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
m
m
cn
m
m
m
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-040
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-041
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-039
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-035
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-038
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-037
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-033
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-036
| OTD- R2 P OST-VAC-034
| OT D- R2 POST-VAC-103
| OTD-R2POST-VAC-102
| OTD-R2POST-VAC-101
O
o
"O
O
t/i
"O
Z
9
o
un
i£>
O
o
"O
O
t/i
"O
Z
9
o
cn
o
O
o
"O
O
t/j
X
30
o
m
O
o
"O
O
t/j
X
30
O
o
CO
O
o
"O
O
X
30
o
Un
O
o
"C
O
t/j
X
30
o
o
O
o
"O
O
t/j
X
30
o
-J
Sample Number
rsi
¦£*
rsi
rsi
rsi
rsi
rsi
rsi
rsi
rsi
K
rsi
w
rsi
w
INI
Ul
INI
Ul
INI
Ul
INI
Ul
INI
Ul
INI
Ul
INI
Ul
Location Zone
o
o
c
T3
O
D
o
o
c
T3
O
D
o
o
c
T3
O
D
o
o
c
T3
O
D
n
o
c
T3
O
D
o
o
c
T3
O
D
n
o
c
T3
O
D
o
o
c
T3
O
D
o
o
c
T3
O
D
| Floor |
| Floor |
| Floor |
| Wall
| Wall
| Floor |
| Floor |
| Floor |
| Floor |
| Floor |
Location Description
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
Sampler
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| 37 mm Cassette |
| Sponge Stick |
| Sponge Stick |
| 1 L Sterile Bottle |
| 1 L Sterile Bottle |
| 1 L Sterile Bottle |
| 1 L Sterile Bottle |
| 1 L Sterile Bottle |
Sample Media
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
1 L Sterile Bottle
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
Sponge Stick
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
37 mm Cassette
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
RMC
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
| FALSE
Spore Strip
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
| TRUE
QC (Should be TRUE)
| 09:50:50|
| 09:42:54
| 09:39:20|
| 09:32:5l|
| 09:26:33|
| 09:23:54|
| 09:15:24|
| 09:07:42|
| 08:58:29|
| 08:37:5l|
| 08:29:53|
| 08:28:05|
o
up
CO
o
CO
| 09:13:28|
| 09:01:37|
| 08:58:55|
| 08:54:18|
| 08:52:10|
08:49:57
Start Time (m.s)
Id
w
cn
ffs
In
ffs
lu
"sj
CO
In
"sj
| 20.6 |
CO
o
CO
kl
| 11.9 |
"sj
K
Sample Time (min)
Notes
-------
# of Samples
# of
Samples -
# of Samples
Background
Round 1 -
Round 2 - AB
Total # of
Sampling
Fogging
Spray
Samples
1 L Sterile Bottle
8
148
154
310
Sponge Stick
46
167
170
383
37 mm Cassette
23
89
89
201
RMC
0
43
44
87
Bl Strips
0
13
0
13
Total w/o
907
Numbers of Samples
Page L-24
-------
Time (min)
Number of
Samples (n)
Packaging Time
(min/sample)
32.5
20
1.63
Sample Packaging
Page L-25
-------
MN Dept of Health
Processing
Analysis
37 mm
Sponge-
Manual
Filter
Recording
37 mm
Filters
Sponge-
sticks
dilution
Plating
Results
Solid
Date
Preparation (hrs/day)
Filters (n)
(hrs/day)
sticks (n)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
Waste (lb)
7/28/2016
10
8/17/2016
8
8/19/2016
8
8/24/2016
8
8/26/2016
8
9/7/2016
3
9/8/2016
1
9/9/2016
1
9/11/2016
2
9/12/2016
1
9/13/2016
13
2.5
9/14/2016
1.0
0.5
20.0
9/16/2016
2
9/20/2016
15
5.5
9/21/2016
1.0
2.0
1.0
9/22/2016
1.0
25
5.0
1.0
0.5
20.0
9/23/2016
1.0
2.0
0.5
40.0
9/27/2016
25
5.0
9/28/2016
2.0
2.0
1.0
40.0
9/29/2016
1.0
0.5
20.0
10/3/2016
2.0
10/4/2016
5
1.5
10/5/2016
1.0
0.5
0.5
20.0
10/6/2016
2.0
10/7/2016
1.0
10/11/2016
2.0
10/12/2016
1.0
10/14/2016
25
5.0
10/15/2016
1.0
0.5
60.0
10/16/2016
10/17/2016
3.0
| TOTALS:
66.00
43
9.00
65
19.50
8.50
0.00
6.00
220.00
1 large Biohazard bag == assume 20 lb per bag pml
1 large Biohazard bag == assume 20 lb per bag pml
2 large Biohazard bags == assume 20 lb per bag pml
2 large Biohazard bags == assume 20 lb per bag pml
1 large Biohazard bag == assume 20 lb per bag pml
1 large Biohazard bag == assume 20 lb per bag pml
3 large BH bags == assume 20 lb per bag pml
Costs Independent of Sample Types
Preparation (hrs)
66.0
Manual Dilution (hrs)
8.5
Filter Plating (hrs)
0.0
Recording Results (hrs)
6.0
Total Hours for all Samples (hrs)
80.5
Total Number of Samples
108
Labor Hours Per Sample (hrs)
0.7
Costs Dependent on Sample Types
37 mm Filter Processing (hrs)
9.0
37 mm Filter # Samples
43
Labor Hours Per 37 mm Filter Sample (hrs)
0.2
Sponge Sticks Processing (hrs)
19.5
Sponge Sticks # Samples
65
Labor Hours Per Sponge Stick Sample (hrs)
0.3
Labor Hours per Sample (hrs)
37 mm Filters
1.0
Sponge Sticks
1.0
Expendables ($/sample)
37 mm Filters
$ 18.55
Sponge Sticks
$ 28.73
Solid Waste (lb/sample)
37 mm Filters
2.04
Sponge Sticks
2.04
Lab-MN
Page L-26
-------
Ohio Department of Health
Processing
Analysis
37 mm
Sponge-
Manual
Filter
Recording
37 mm
Filters
Sponge-
sticks
dilution
Plating
Results
Solid
Date
Preparation (hrs/day)
Filters (n)
(hrs/day)
sticks (n)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
Waste (lb)
9/20/2016
11
1.8
9/20/2016
1.4
2.3
36.0
9/20/2016
0.6
2.0
9/20/2016
0.5
9/21/2016
1.5
9/22/2016
24
4.0
2.0
2.5
50.0
9/23/2016
43
4.8
9/23/2016
2.7
6.0
80.0
9/26/2016
0.5
9/26/2016
43
5.5
5.5
100.0
9/27/2016
2.0
150.0
TOTALS:
0.50
24
6.00
97
9.72
9.50
10.25
9.50
416.00
1-96 gal trash bin (assumed 100 lb); 2-31 gallon red biohazard bins (assumed 62 lb)
3.5 workers
3 workers
3 workers
3 workers
Costs Independent of Sample Types
Preparation (hrs)
0.5
Manual Dilution (hrs)
9.5
Filter Plating (hrs)
10.3
Recording Results (hrs)
9.5
Total Hours for all Samples (hrs)
29.8
Total Number of Samples
121
Labor Hours Per Sample (hrs)
0.2
Costs Dependent on Sample Types
37 mm Filter Processing (hrs)
6.0
37 mm Filter # Samples
24
Labor Hours Per 37 mm Filter Sample (hrs)
0.3
Sponge Sticks Processing (hrs)
9.7
Sponge Sticks # Samples
97
Labor Hours Per Sponge Stick Sample (hrs)
0.1
Labor Hours per Sample (hrs)
37 mm Filters
0.5
Sponge Sticks
0.3
Expendables {$/sample)
37 mm Filters
Sponge Sticks
Solid Waste {lb/sample)
37 mm Filters
3.44
Sponge Sticks
3.44
Lab-OH
Page L-27
-------
Virginia Department of General Services Division of Consolidated
Processing
Analysis
37 mm
Sponge-
Manual
Filter
Recording
37 mm
Filters
Sponge-
sticks
dilution
Plating
Results
Solid
Date
Preparation (hrs/day)
Filters (n)
(hrs/day)
sticks (n)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
Waste (lb)
9/16/2016
3.0
9/20/2016
22
3.5
1.0
2.0
162.0
9/21/2016
1.0
10
5.0
0.5
2.0
0.5
9/22/2016
1.0
1.5
9/23/2016
1.0
TOTALS:
6.00
10
5.00
22
3.50
1.50
4.00
2.00
162.00
1-96 gal trash bin (assumed 100 lb); 2-31 gallon red biohazard bins (assumed 62 lb)
Costs Independent of Sample Types
Preparation (hrs)
6.0
Manual Dilution (hrs)
1.5
Filter Plating (hrs)
4.0
Recording Results (hrs)
2.0
Total Hours for all Samples (hrs)
13.5
Total Number of Samples
32
Labor Hours Per Sample (hrs)
0.4
Costs Dependent on Sample Types
37 mm Filter Processing (hrs)
5.0
37 mm Filter # Samples
10
Labor Hours Per 37 mm Filter Sample (hrs)
0.5
Sponge Sticks Processing (hrs)
3.5
Sponge Sticks # Samples
22
Labor Hours Per Sponge Stick Sample (hrs)
0.2
Labor Hours per Sample (hrs)
37 mm Filters
0.9
Sponge Sticks
0.6
Expendables {$/sample)
37 mm Filters
Sponge Sticks
Solid Waste {lb/sample)
37 mm Filters
5.06
Sponge Sticks
5.06
Lab-VA
Page L-28
-------
New York State Department of Health Wadsworth Center
Processing
Analysis
37 mm
Sponge-
Manual
Filter
Recording
37 mm
Filters
Sponge-
sticks
dilution
Plating
Results
Solid
Date
Preparation (hrs/day)
Filters (n)
(hrs/day)
sticks (n)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
Waste (lb)
9/9/2016
2.0
0.0
9/12/2016
5.0
0.0
9/13/2016
14
2.0
0.5
2.0
70.0
9/14/2016
10
1.5
12
3.0
1.0
2.0
0.5
70.0
9/15/2016
2.5
0.0
9/16/2016
2.0
140.0
9/23/2016
2.0
9/26/2016
3.0
9/27/2016
1.0
11
2.0
1.5
1.5
80.0
9/29/2016
1.0
20
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
160+40
9/30/2016
2.0
10/3/2016
1.0
80.0
TOTALS:
14.00
21
3.50
46
8.00
6.00
7.50
9.00
440.00
Costs Independent of Sample Types
Preparation (hrs)
14.0
Manual Dilution (hrs)
6.0
Filter Plating (hrs)
7.5
Recording Results (hrs)
9.0
Total Hours for all Samples (hrs)
36.5
Total Number of Samples
67
Labor Hours Per Sample (hrs)
0.5
Costs Dependent on Sample Types
37 mm Filter Processing (hrs)
3.5
37 mm Filter # Samples
21
Labor Hours Per 37 mm Filter Sample (hrs)
0.2
Sponge Sticks Processing (hrs)
8.0
Sponge Sticks # Samples
46
Labor Hours Per Sponge Stick Sample (hrs)
0.2
Labor Hours per Sample (hrs)
37 mm Filters
0.7
Sponge Sticks
0.7
Expendables ($/sample)
37 mm Filters
$ 50.00
Sponge Sticks
$ 65.00
Solid Waste (lb/sample)
37 mm Filters
6.57
Sponge Sticks
6.57
Lab-NY
Page L-29
-------
EPA/NEIC
Processing
Analysis
37 mm
Sponge-
Water
Water
Manual
Filter
Recording
37 mm
Filters
Sponge-
sticks
Samples
Samples
dilution
Plating
Results
Solid
Aqueous
Date
Preparation (hrs/day)
Filters (n)
(hrs/day)
sticks (n)
(hrs/day)
(n)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
(hrs/day)
Waste (lb)
Waste (L)
10/4/2016
2.5
3.0
5.8
0.0
11.9
9.8
10/5/2016
3.0
3.8
5.3
1.5
35.5
11.8
10/6/2016
0.5
3.7
5.0
1.7
38.2
12.8
10/7/2016
0.5
70
0.0
0.0
2.3
25.0
0.0
10/13/2016
3.0
3.0
5.7
0.0
13.2
9.4
10/14/2016
3.5
3.5
6.5
0.5
34.8
12.1
10/15/2016
0.5
3.0
6.0
0.7
37.1
9.6
10/16/2016
0.5
2.8
6.5
0.5
34.3
9.4
10/17/2016
0.0
84
0.5
19.0
0.0
9/16/2016
5.0
9/19/2016
8.0
9/21/2016
3.0
9/22/2016
1.2
4.2
2.7
3.1
7.8
9/23/2016
1.2
5.0
3.2
1.0
23.2
7.9
9/24/2016
1.0
4.8
3.0
1.2
29.0
7.9
9/25/2016
1.0
4.8
3.0
1.0
26.6
8.2
9/26/2016
0.0
71
0.8
21.0
9/29/2016
1.0
2.7
4.7
0.0
10.2
8.0
9/30/2016
5.0
3.0
4.5
0.7
24.9
10.2
10/1/2016
0.5
2.5
3.5
0.5
26.0
9.7
10/2/2016
0.5
2.5
3.3
0.7
29.3
10.0
10/3/2016
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
22.0
0.0
| TOTALS:
41.34
0
0.00
0
0.00
225
0.00
52.25
68.59
15.60
464.30
144.60 |
Costs Independent of Sample Types
Preparation (hrs)
41.3
Manual Dilution (hrs)
52.3
Filter Plating (hrs)
68.6
Recording Results (hrs)
15.6
Total Hours for all Samples (hrs)
177.8
Total Number of Samples
225
Labor Hours Per Sample (hrs)
0.8
Costs Dependent on Sample Types
37 mm Filter Processing (hrs)
0.0
37 mm Filter#Samples
0
Labor Hours Per 37 mm Filter Sample (hrs)
Sponge Sticks Processing (hrs)
0.0
Sponge Sticks # Samples
0
Labor Hours Per Sponge Stick Sample (hrs)
Water Sample Processing (hrs)
0.0
Water# Samples
225
Labor Hours Per Water Sample (hrs)
0.0
Labor Hours per Sample (hrs)
37 mm Filters
Sponge Sticks
Water
0.8
Expendables ($/sample)
37 mm Filters
Sponge Sticks
Water
$ 35.64
Solid Waste (lb/sample)
l l
Aqueous Waste (L/sample)
i i o.m"
Lab-NEIC
Page L-30
-------
EPA/RTP Biolab
Processing
Analysis
Recording
Results
(hrs/day)
Solid
Waste (lb)
Aqueous
Waste (L)
Preparation (hrs/day)
37 mm
Filters (n)
37 mm
Filters
(hrs/day)
Sponge-
sticks (n)
Sponge-
sticks
(hrs/day)
RMC
Samples
(n)
RMC
Samples
(hrs/day)
Bl
Samples
(n)
Bl
Samples
(hrs/day)
Manual
dilution
(hrs/day)
Filter
Plating
(hrs/day)
88
6.9
40
3.1
6.6
1.0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
88
6.88
40
3.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.60
1.00
t of Sample Types
Preparation (hrs)
Manual Dilution (hrs)
Filter Plating (hrs)
Recording Results (hrs)
Total Hours for all Samples (hrs)
Total Number of Samples
Labor Hours Per Sample (hrs)
on Sample Types
37 mm Filter Processing (hrs)
37 mm Filter # Samples
Labor Hours Per 37 mm Filter Sample (hrs)
Sponge Sticks Processing (hrs)
Sponge Sticks # Samples
Labor Hours Per Sponge Stick Sample (hrs)
RMC Sample Processing (hrs)
RMC # Samples
Labor Hours Per RMC Sample (hrs)
Bl Sample Processing (hrs)
Bl # Samples
Labor Hours Per Bl Sample (hrs)
Labor Hours per Sample (hrs)
37 mm Filters
Sponge Sticks
RMC
0.1
Bis
0.1
Aqueous Waste (L/sample)
0.01
Solid Waste (lb/sample)
n o!o8
Expendables ($/sample)
37 mm Filters
Sponge Sticks
RMC
$ 1.95
Bis
$ 1.95
Lab-RTP
Page L-31
-------
Laboratory
Sample Type
Labor
(hr/sample)
Expendables
($/sample)
Solid Waste
(lb/sample)
Aqueous
Waste
(lb/sample)
MN Dept of Health
37 mm Filters
0.95
$
18.55
2.04
MN Dept of Health
Sponge Sticks
1.05
$
28.73
Ohio Department of Health
37 mm Filters
0.50
3.44
Ohio Department of Health
Sponge Sticks
0.35
Virginia Department of General Services Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services
37 mm Filters
0.92
5.06
Virginia Department of General Services Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services
Sponge Sticks
0.58
New York State Department of Health Wadsworth Center
37 mm Filters
0.71
$
50.00
6.57
New York State Department of Health Wadsworth Center
Sponge Sticks
0.72
$
65.00
EPA/NEIC
Aqueous
0.79
$
35.64
2.06
0.64
EPA/RTP Biolab
RMC
0.08
$
1.95
0.08
0.01
EPA/RTP Biolab
Bl
0.08
$
1.95
0.08
0.01
Sample Type
Analytical Labor
(hr/sample)
Expendables
($/sample)
Solid Waste
(lb/sample)
Aqueous
Waste
(lb/sample)
37 mm Filters
0.8
$ 34.28
4.3
0.0
Sponge Sticks
0.7
$ 46.87
4.3
0.0
Aqueous
0.8
$ 35.64
2.1
0.64
RMC
0.1
$ 1.95
0.1
0.01
Bl
0.1
$ 1.95
0.1
0.01
TABLE-Analytical Costs
Page L-32
-------
Cost Per Sample
$450
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
1L Sterile Sponge 37 mm
Bottle Stick Cassette
RMC
Sample Type
Bl Strip Solid Waste Aqueous
Waste
Sampling Cost ($/sample) ¦ Analytical Cost ($/sample)
Lab Waste Disposal Cost ($/sample)
FIGURE-Per Sample Cost
Page L-33
-------
Sample
Sample Kit
Packaging/
Preparation
Sampling
Shipping
Analytical
Sampling
Analytical
Aqueous
Sampling
Analytical
Lab Waste
Time
Time
Time
Time
Expendables
Expendables
Solid Waste
Waste
Cost
Cost
Disposal Cost
Total Cost
Sample Type
(hr/sample)
(hr/sample)
(hr/sample)
(hr/sample)
($/sample)
($/sample)
(kg/sample)
(L/sample)
($/sample)
($/sample)
($/sample)
($/sample)
1 L Sterile Bottle
0.12
0.08
0.03
0.79
$
27.81
$
35.64
0.94
0.64
$
90.20
$
254.19
$
12.80
$
357.20
Sponge Stick
0.12
0.09
0.03
0.67
$
14.52
$
46.87
1.94
0.00
$
82.32
$
241.21
$
22.17
$
345.70
37 mm Cassette
0.18
0.15
0.03
0.77
$
26.18
$
34.28
1.94
0.00
$
131.20
$
247.27
$
22.17
$
400.65
RMC
0.12
0.06
0.03
0.08
$
16.00
$
1.95
0.03
0.01
$
69.82
$
22.78
$
0.43
$
93.02
Bl Strip
0.09
0.07
0.03
0.08
$
10.88
$
1.95
0.03
0.01
$
64.22
$
22.78
$
0.43
$
87.42
Solid Waste
0.12
0.17
0.03
0.79
$
27.81
$
35.64
0.94
0.64
$
132.04
$
254.19
$
12.80
$
399.03
Aqueous Waste
0.10
0.08
0.03
0.79
$
27.81
$
35.64
0.94
0.64
$
90.40
$
254.19
$
12.80
$
357.40
NOTE: analytical cost includes adjustment of analytical cost to reflect BSL-3 requirements
TABLE-S&ACosts
Page L-34
-------
¦U
SI)
era
fD
CD
c
73
l/l
99
uj 3>
un n
¦ijy
V)-
un
o
o
o
o
¦ijy
i->
o
o
o
o
o
¦ijy
i->
un
o
o
o
o
V)-
NJ
o
o
o
o
o
V)-
NJ
un
o
o
o
o
Cost of Decon Line I
Operations |
o
era
era
3'
era
Other Sampling/Analytical
Costs
en
TD
—5
QJ
3'
era
Facility Sampling and
Analysis
Waste Sampling and
Analysis
-------
o
n>
r>
o
3
"O
CD
era
rD
' 5
UJ
O
"O
| 10/15/16 |
| 10/14/16 |
| 10/13/16 |
| 10/12/16 I
| 10/11/16 I
| 10/10/16 |
| 10/9/16 |
| 10/8/16 |
o
cn
o
\
cn
o
Ln
cn
| 10/4/16 |
o
UJ
cn
o
N
cn
| 10/1/16 |
1 9/30/16 I
1 9/29/16 |
1 9/28/16 |
1 9/27/16 |
1 9/26/16 |
1X5
NJ
Ln
cn
t£)
NJ
cn
t£)
NJ
UJ
cn
1 9/22/16 |
1 9/21/16 |
1 9/20/16 I
| 9/19/16 |
| 9/18/16 |
cn
\
cn
Ln
cn
| 9/14/16 I
UJ
cn
NJ
cn
Date
UJ
uj
uj
uj
UJ
UJ
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
uj
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Number of Staff
CO
NJ
uj
uj
o
uj
o
Iu
o
uj
o
uj
o
uj
o
uj
o
o
o
CO
o
o
£
UJ
uj
o
uj
o
u>
o
Ln
&
O
o
o
o
o
UJ
o
CO
o
o
Ui
CO
CO
UJ
Time at Sign In
o
o
uj
o
uj
o
CO
uj
o
¦P*
uj
o
o
o
CO
uj
o
o
o
Un
-£»
uj
o
o
o
cn
uj
o
119:001
116:301
115:301
t£)
o
Ln
1X3
uj
o
CO
NJ
o
uj
o
uj
o
cn
uj
cn
--j
Time at Sign Out
o
Ln
cn
o
o
cn
o
o
cn
cn
o
o
o
o
o
o
¦P*
O
Ui
o
cn
cn
o
o
Ui
o
cn
Ln
UJ
<£>
O
Ui
Ui
Ui
¦P*
o
cn
<£>
O
o
o
o
Un
-P=»
O
Un
o
--J
Ln
ui
o
o
o
cn
Un
O
ui
o
ui
CO
un
Ui
NJ
cn
Ui
-Pi
Decon Line Time (min)
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
no activity |
Notes
-------
Facility Decontamination Costs
$50,000
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$-
1—
¦ 1
¦
1 ¦¦
Cost of Decon Cost of Decon Other Decon Material Cost Total Decon
Teams Line Operations Costs for Decon Cost
Team
¦ Fogging ¦ Spraying
FIGURE-Decon Costs
Page L-37
-------
£
F .
1617
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1626
1627
1630
1631
914
917
921
923
924
925
925
926
927
1200
1406
1408
1410
1411
1411
1413
1414
1052
1053
1054
1055
1055
1056
1056
1057
1058
1105
1106
1106
1107
1107
1108
1109
1121
1122
1123
1124
1124
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
927
928
930
931
933
934
935
935
935
936
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
907
909
909
910
1052
1122
1123
1123
1124
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon line PPE waste
Some general trash from 9-19 and 9-20
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon line PPE waste
Some general trash from 9-19 and 9-20
Decontamination Line Solid
ne PPE waste
Some general trash from 9-19 and 9-20
Decontamination Line Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
from 9-19 and 9-20
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon line PPE waste
Some general trash from 9-19 and 9-20
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon line PPE waste
Some general trash from 9-19 and 9-20
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon line PPE waste
Some general trash from 9-19 and 9-20
Including box. Box weight=1.3 lb
Including box. Box weight=0.9 lb
Sampling
Ballast sample waste
Sampling
Ballast sample waste
Decontamination Line Solid
Hot zone PPE waste
Gathered 9-20 1036
Decontamination Solid
Chlorox bottles
Decontamination Solid
Chlorox bottles
Fogging
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon line PPE waste
Some general trash
Decontamination Solid
Chlorox bottles
Decontamination Solid
Chlorox bottles
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon line PPE waste
Some general trash
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon line PPE waste
Some general trash
Waste Dunking Solid
Waste for dunking
Waste Dunking Solid
Bag of bags
Waste Dunking Solid
Dunked waste
Waste Dunking Solid
Dunked waste
Decontamination Line Solid
PPE, bottles, chlorox bottle
Decontamination Line Solid
PPE with a couple bottles
Decontamination Line Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
Mostly PPE, unknown yellow cloth
Waste Dunking Solid
Waste dunking PPE
Concrete coupons and templates
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Concrete coupons and templates
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Ceramic tiles and templates
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Templates, kiosk materials, general trash
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Donning Tent
PPE packaging trash
generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Sampling
Hot zone templates
generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Concrete coupons
•xtra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Sampling
Hot zone templates, markers
generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Decontamination Line Solid
generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Concrete coupons
•xtra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Decontamination Line Solid
generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Decontamination Line Solid
generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Tile coupon and templates
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Concrete coupons
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Decontamination Line Solid
{generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Concrete coupons
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Sampling
Ballast cages
Not waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Concrete coupons and templates
Extra waste {generated 9/27, recorded 9/28)
Decontamination Line Solid
PPE waste from hot zone
generated 9/27, recorded 9/28
Sampling
Concrete coupons and templates
ated 9/27, recorded 9/28
Decontamination Line Solid
ated 9/27, recorded 9/28
Sampling
Ballast sample waste
ated 9/27, recorded 9/28
Sampling
Ballast sample waste
ated 9/27, recorded 9/28
Sampling
Ballast sample waste
ated 9/27, recorded 9/28
Sampling
Ballast sample waste
ated 9/27, recorded 9/28
Decontamination Line Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
Mostly gloves and boxes
PPE, trash, tubing
Aggress
Decontamination Line Solid
Decon 10/4
Decontamination Line Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
PPE waste with hose
Decontamination Solid
Sampling
Ballast samples
Sampling
Ballast samples
Decontamination Solid
Case of empty vinegar bottles
Decontamination Line Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
Sampling
Backpacks
Sampling
Backpacks
Waste Dunking Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
Decontamination Line Solid
Dunked newspaper
PPE from hot zone
PPE from hot zone
Waste
Page L-38
-------
3"
al
O-
3
3
o
o
c
o
3"
.2?
3
8
¦§¦
ts
Datt
Tirm
3
O
o
3
<
"o
>
o
z
10/12/16
1124
Decontamination Line Solid
PPE waste
12.4
22.3
10/12/16
1125
Decontamination Line Solid
PPE waste
5.9
10.6
10/12/16
1125
Waste Dunking Solid
Waste group waste
11.7
11.7
Generated by awste group
10/12/16
1126
Waste Dunking Solid
Dunked waste
20.4
20.4
10/12/16
1152
Sampling
PPE waste from waste sampling
7.7
13.9
From waste sampling
10/3/16
1730
Decontamination Line Liquid
Wastewater from Decon Line
275
IBCtote capacity
9/26/16
1730
Waste Dunking Liquid
Aqueous Waste from Dunking Trough
35
10/12/16
1730
Waste Dunking Liquid
Aqueous Waste from Dunking Trough
35
Waste
Page L-39
-------
>
~~
"O
CD
era
n>
o
rD
on
c
3
3
CD
— S
D O
cro t/i ~
- s
|Decontamination Solid
jSampling
| Waste Dunking Liquid
| Waste Dunking Solid
|Tunnel
|DonningTent
|Decontamination Line Liquid
|Decontamination Line Solid
Source of Waste
-p*
o
o
| 294.5 |
--j
o
o
| 163.2 |
UJ
4^
Id
| 275.0 |
1017.9
Total (lb) or (gal)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Site Preparation/Isolation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pre-release tracer study
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Instrumentation Check and Pre-release
Actions
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Deconl - Release
o
o
u>
Ol
--j
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
243.2
Deconl - Pre Sampling
uj
Ul
o
o
o
o
i—1
UH
Id
o
o
o
o
o
o
UD
00
UJ
Deconl - Decontamination
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Deconl - Drying
o
o
170.5
35.0
-p*
00
o
o
Id
o
o
290.4
Deconl - Post Sampling
o
o
O
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Decon2 - Release
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
--j
i—1
i—1
Decon2 - Pre Sampling
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
275.0
o
o
Decon2 - Decontamination2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Decon2 - Drying
-p*
4^
00
u>
| 35.0 |
105.5
UJ
4^
o
o
o
o
314.9
Decon2 - Post Sampling
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Demobilization
-------
Waste Variable Cost Elements
Standard MSW Disposal Fee ($/kg)
$ 0.11
Standard POTW Disposal Fee ($/L)
$ 0.00001
Standard Transportation Fee ($/mile)
$ 5
Miles to Local Landfill
10
Miles to Secure Landfill
200
Miles to POTW
10
Multiplier for Premium Disposal
10
Multiplier for Contaminated Disposal
100
Truck Capacity (kg)
20000
Truck Capacity (L)
20000
Solid Waste Collection, Handling and Segregation
$ 7.97
Aqueous Waste Collection, Handling and Segregc
$ 0.96
Lab Solid Waste Disposal ($/kg)
$ 11.41
Lab Aqueous Waste Disposal ($/L)
$ 3.27
assumed $100/ton
assumed $50/10000 gal
assumed rate of 50 kg/hr
assumed rate of 110 gal/hr (416.395 L/hr)
$10/lb per Alan Call; $0,813 FL State Lab
$681.62 per 55 gal drum per Alan Call
Waste Difficulty Knob (1,2,3)
1 - Deconned Waste is treated as MSW; 2 - Deconned Waste has Premium Charge; 3 - Deconned Waste is treated as Contaminai
Round 1: Fogging
Round 2: Spraying
Collection,
Sampling
Collection,
Sampling
Handling,
and
Total Waste
Handling,
and
Total Waste
Solid
Aqueous
Packaging
Transportation
Disposal
Analysis
Other Costs
Management
Solid Waste
Aqueous
Packaging
Transportation
Disposal
Analysis
Other Costs
Management
Waste (kg)
Waste (L)
Cost {$)
Cost{$)
Cost {$)
Cost{$)
{$)
Cost{$)
(kg)
Waste (L)
Cost{$)
Cost {$)
Cost {$)
Cost{$)
{$)
Cost{$)
If Deconned Waste - MSW
427
132
$ 3,532
$100
$ 47
$ 1,347
$ 54,153
$ 59,180
267
1173
$ 3,247
$100
$ 29
$ 2,605
$ 53,899
$ 59,880
If Deconned Waste - Premium Charge
427
132
$ 3,532
$550
$ 470
$ 1,347
$ 54,153
$ 60,053
267
1173
$ 3,247
$550
$ 293
$ 2,605
$ 53,899
$ 60,594
If Deconned Waste - Contaminated
427
132
$ 3,532
$6,000
$ 4,702
$ 1,347
$ 54,153
$ 69,735
267
1173
$ 3,247
$6,000
$ 2,934
$ 2,605
$ 53,899
$ 68,685
Waste Management Costs {Based on Waste
Knob)
Solid
Waste (kg)
Aqueous
Waste (L)
Collection,
Handling,
Packaging
Cost {$)
Transportation
Cost{$)
Disposal
Cost {$)
Sampling
and
Analysis
Cost{$)
Other Costs
{$)
Total Waste
Management
Cost{$)
Round 1: Fogging
427
132
$ 3,532
$ 550
$ 470
$ 1,347
$ 54,153
$ 60,053
Round 2: Spraying
267
1173
$ 3,247
$ 550
$ 293
$ 2,605
$ 53,899
$ 60,594
Waste Disposal Difficulty
Waste Management Costs
Low
Medium
High
Round 1: Fogging
$ 59,180
$ 60,053
$ 69,735
Round 2: Spraying
$ 59,880
$ 60,594
$ 68,685
TABLE-Waste Cost
Page L-41
-------
Waste Management Costs
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
Round 1: Fogging
¦ Other Costs ($)
¦ Sampling and Analysis Cost ($)
¦ Disposal Cost ($)
¦ Transportation Cost ($)
¦ Collection, Handling, Packaging Cost ($)
Round 2: Spraying
FIGURE-Waste Management Costs
Page L-42
-------
Lumped Item
tn
O
u
Notes
Incident Command/Test Site
LU
D.
Q-
Analysis Expenables
Analysis Equipment
Sampling - RMC
Sampling - 37 mm Cartridge
Sampling - Ballast
Sampling - SpongeSticks
Sampling - Agg. Air
Sampling - General
Sampling - Other
Decon - Fogging
Decon - Spray
Decon - Personnel
Decon - General
Waste Management - Fogging
Waste Management - Spraying
Waste Management - General
Waste Management Plan
S 6,280
estimated 40 hours
X
Waste Transportation Plan
S 6,280
estimated 40 hours
X
Tracking and Reporting Plan
S 6,280
estimated 40 hours
X
Health and Safety Plan and Oversight
Costs
S 6,280
estimated 40 hours
X
Contract Oversight Costs
S 6,280
estimated 40 hours
X
Communications and Community
Outreach Plan and Costs
S 6,280
estimated 40 hours
X
Coordination with Regulatory Agencies
and Facilities
S 23,013
estimated 40 hours
X
Sampling Team Airfare
S 10,359
X
Sampling Team Lodging
S 21,358
average of round 1 and round 2 days
X
Sampling Team Rental Car
S 2,438
assumed 1 week rental car per team
X
Decon Team Airfare
S 4,317
assumed level A decon team
X
Decon Team Lodging
S 10,012
average of round 1 and round 2 days
X
Decon Team Rental Car
S 1,138
assumed 1 week
X
IC Airfare
S 2,072
X
IC Lodging
S 8,010
average of round 1 and round 2 days
X
IC Rental Car
S 1,626
assumed 1 week per person
X
Sample Packaging Team Airfare
S 1,554
X
Sample Packaging Team Lodging
S 3,204
assumed same lodging as samplers
X
Sample Packaging Team Rental Car
S 406
assumed 1 week rental car per team
X
Waste Sampling Team Airfare
S 1,554
X
Waste Sampling Team Lodging
S 3,605
average of round 1 and round 2 days
X
Waste Sampling Team Rental Car
S 406
X
Water Sampling Team Airfare
S 1,554
X
Water Sampling Team Lodging
S 3,605
average of round 1 and round 2 days
X
Water Sampling Team Rental Car
S 406
X
Lumped Costs
Page L-43
-------
Purchased Item
Cost
5
z
Test Bed/Incident Command |
Equipment - Purchased |
Sampling- RMC |
Sampling - 37 mm Cartridge |
Sampling -Ballast |
Sampling - SpongeSticks |
Sampling- Agg. Air |
Sampling -General |
Sampling - Other (Not Tracked) |
Decon - Fogging |
Decon - Spray |
Decon - Personnel |
Decon - General |
Waste Management -Fogging |
w.Tite Management-Spraying |
jwaste Management - General |
100 gal totes for mixing/storing decontaminant during fogging, 6
$ 1,137.23
Decontamination - General
X
20XPBST 1000 inL Sterile
$ 381.05
Ballast Samples
X
24 VDC power supplies for powering the ATls, 4
$ 1,080.00
Equipment
X
2'x3' Paper Poster
$ 113.70
Test Bed/Incident Command (Kiosks)
X
37 mm cassettes
$ 719.00
Vacuum Samples
X
3M sponge wipes
$ 610.85
Sponge Stick Samples
X
4-Port USB 3.0 Hub
$ 16.99
Equipment
X
4TB My Book Desktop External Hard Drive - USB 3.0
$ 138.58
Equipment
X
50 ft. roll of tubing for samples
$ 458.55
Vacuum Samples
X
500-Watt Halogen Stand Work Light
$ 37.34
Equipment
X
500-Watt Halogen Stand Work Light
$ 139.92
Equipment
X
50ml conical tubes
$ 129.12
Referee Coupons
X
54 gal tote
$ 70.34
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
9V Batteries
$ 18.66
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Adapters for Scott 3000
$ 780.96
Equipment
X
AED Device
$ 1,199.00
Equipment; owned; got price from heartsmart.com
X
Air Horn
$ 15.60
Equipment
X
Air pump
$ 35.03
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Ant bait, 2
$ 12.84
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Ant spray
$ 5.84
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Anti Fog inserts, 2
$ 13.57
PPE
X
Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor
$ 500.00
Equipment; owned; got price from tigermedical.com
X
Avery Pre-a-ply Labels
$ 181.20
Sampling - General
X
Backpack sprayers for spraying pH amended bleach (PAB), 5
$ 724.70
Decontamination - Spray
X
Backpack, clear, 60
$ 921.17
Sampling - General
X
Balance/scale and case
$ 129.51
Equipment
X
Ball valve
$ 31.69
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Barrier System/ Materials
$ 2,120.00
Test Bed/Incident Command; assumed $200 matl + 2 days/2 people
X
Binder clips
$ 19.36
Sampling - General
X
BI'S
$ 62.70
Decontamination - General; $418 but only 15/100 were used
X
Bluetooth HOBOs
$ 675.00
Sampling
X
Bolt cutter
$ 18.94
Sampling - General
X
Boom lift
$ 2,521.70
Equipment
X
Booties
$ 525.64
PPE
X
Bottled Water
$ 165.00
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Box Fans, 3
$ 390.00
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Bright orange spray paint & other colors for ballast
$ 27.88
Decon - General
X
Broadcast sprayer for spraying ballast, floor
$ 334.50
Decontamination - Spray
X
Broom, 4
$ 28.08
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Bubble Wrap
$ 13.00
Sampling
X
Buckets, 4
$ 14.00
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Bushing
$ 1.51
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Busse sterile forceps
$ 76.38
Referee Coupons
X
BW Gas Alert Extreme Single Gas Monitors with Chlorine Sensors, 4
$ 1,231.04
Equipment
X
Cable, 2
$ 42.22
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Canon imageCLASS D530 Laser Printer
$ 105.99
Equipment
X
Carbon paper, 2
$ 46.94
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Carboy, 20L w/ stopcock
$ 376.32
Ballast Samples
X
Cassette Opener
$ 57.50
Vacuum Samples
X
Cat6 Orange Cable, 1000 ft
$ 129.99
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Cat6 Plug
$ 17.39
Equipment
X
Caulk, 2
$ 5.42
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Caution tape, 2
$ 55.70
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Chain
$ 44.10
Sampling - General
X
Chemical resistant pumps
$ 116.22
Decontamination - General
X
Child proof Plug Covers
$ 8.45
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Chlorine calibration gas cylinders, 2
$ 390.12
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Chlorine gas colorimetric dosimeter tubes, 10
$ 120.00
Decontamination - General; $240 but only used half
X
Chlorine gas sensor, 4
$ 2,900.00
Equipment
X
Cleaned Liquid Sampler, with T-Handle, 7/8" OD, 1-1/2 Feet LG
$ 171.00
Waste
X
Cleaning cloths
$ 10.63
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Cleaning supplies
$ 247.89
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Clipboard
$ 286.13
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Clorox concentrated germicidal bleach
$ 50.90
Waste; 8 gal used for waste dunking
X
Clorox concentrated germicidal bleach
$ 636.25
Decontamination - Fogging; 10 gal used for fogging
X
Clorox concentrated germicidal bleach
$ 381.75
Decontamination - Spray; 60 gal used for spray decon
X
CM CAN PAD
$ 10.43
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
CO Alarm, 2
$ 64.53
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Command Post (Region 3 or Mobile mini)
$ 250,000.00
Equipment; estimate based on web searching
X
Computer cable
$ 29.32
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Conex box to stage non-heat sensitive items at FAPH
$ 1,038.34
Equipment
X
Conical tubes w/screw cap, 15 mL
$ 73.38
Vacuum Samples
X
Contractor Bags (30 gal) (Clear)
$ 31.22
Waste
X
Cooler for drinks
$ 115.96
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Copy/Printer Paper
$ 100.35
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Cord wraps, 19
$ 35.02
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Coupling
$ 11.73
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Crimp Tool
$ 17.99
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Purchase Orders
Page L-44
-------
Purchased Item
Cost
5
z
Test Bed/Incident Command |
Equipment - Purchased |
S
1
Sampling - 37 mm Cartridge |
Sampling-Ballast |
Sampling - SpongeSticks |
Sampling-Agg. Air |
Sampling -General |
Sampling - Other (Not Tracked) |
.f
Q
Q
SI
a
Q
Waste Management - Fogging |
Waste Management - Spraying |
Waste Management - General |
Cups
$ 2.26
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Cushions, 4
$ 17.09
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Data Acquisition Module
$ 1,600.00
Decontamination - General
X
Decon Line
$ 146.50
Equipment; pool from jet.com; sprayer from sprayerdepot.com
X
Digital Thermometer
$ 60.00
Test Bed/Incident Command; omega.com
X
Dirt Catcher Sticky Mats
$ 542.58
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Dispatch Wipes, 60 count, (Pack of 12)
$ 1,303.44
Sampling
X
Distilled white vinegar, 4-5 % acetic acid
$ 30.15
Waste; 8 gal used for waste dunking
X
Distilled white vinegar, 4-5 % acetic acid
$ 226.15
Decontamination - Spray; 60 gal used for spray decon
X
Door stops, 4
$ 4.56
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Downspout adapter, 2
$ 11.72
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Drain fitting, 5
$ 31.57
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Dry cell calibrators with charger
$ 3,600.00
Equipment (3 @$1200)
X
Dry erase pens
$ 20.07
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Duct tape, 2
$ 18.74
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Ducting
$ 57.51
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
DYMO® M25 Digital Postal Scale
$ 129.51
Equipment
X
Elbow, 4
$ 38.79
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Electric panels/fuse boxes
$ 22.59
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Electrical adapters
$ 369.95
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Epson ink
$ 69.26
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Ethernet Switch (S-port)
$ 23.00
Equipment
X
Extension Cords, 12/3 50"
$ 1,051.22
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Extension pole
$ 16.72
Sampling - General
X
Extra SDforGoPro
$ 65.80
Equipment
X
Eye Wash Station
$ 762.49
Equipment
X
Fiberglass Filament tape
$ 13.10
Decon - General
X
Field Note Books
$ 270.93
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
File Storage Bins
$ 257.04
Sampling
X
Fire Extinguisher
$ 46.93
Equipment
X
Fire hose, 8
$ 756.32
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
First Aid Kit
$ 22.28
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Flex drain, 2
$ 28.13
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
FLEXCOTP Rubber Wall Base - baseboards
$ 80.28
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Flip chart
$ 68.02
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Floor cleaner
$ 11.14
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Foggers, Dyna Jet L-30
$ 1,369.50
Decontamination - Fogging; Amortized $54,780 cost
X
Folders
$ 8.79
Sampling - General
X
Folders
$ 16.41
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Folders hanging
$ 9.38
Sampling - General
X
Food materials (hot dogs and hot dog buns)
$ 75.00
Test Bed/Incident Command (Kiosks)
X
Fork Lift
$ 4,500.00
Test Bed/Incident Command; rented; www.bigrentz.com
X
Furniture - registers
$ 235.30
Test Bed/Incident Command (Kiosks)
X
Furniture - stools
$ 95.00
Test Bed/Incident Command (Kiosks)
X
Gaffer Tape - 5 colors
$ 477.49
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Garbage Can - 10-gal w/lid, 3
$ 34.80
Decon - General
X
Garbage Can - 30-gal w/lid
$ 48.00
Decon - General
X
Garden hoses, 6
$ 444.82
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Gas can
$ 50.46
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Gatorade
$ 296.60
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Generator
$ 7,878.98
Equipment
X
Gloves
$ 11.72
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Gloves - work
$ 76.32
PPE
X
Gloves, 2
$ 9.30
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
GoPro Hero, 4
$ 2,773.75
Equipment
X
Gorilla Carts or wagons
$ 302.91
Equipment
X
Hard Drive 2TB, 2
$ 210.16
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Hard Drive 5TB, 2
$ 316.98
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Hard Hats
$ 100.00
PPE; assumed 10 @$10 ea
X
HD Pro Webcam C920, 1080p
$ 669.06
Equipment
X
HDMI Cable
$ 23.47
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Heavy duty spray guns, 6
$ 468.23
Decontamination - Spray
X
High-Force Blunt-Point Lightweight Scissors, Uncoated Stainless Steel Blade
$ 75.73
Waste
X
Hooks
$ 16.43
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Hose nozzle
$ 44.90
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Hot dog roller, 2
$ 281.27
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
HP ink, 8
$ 555.25
Sampling - General
X
HVAC Ducts, 4
$ 263.14
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
HVAC starting collar, 3
$ 28.88
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Ice Packs
$ 210.00
Sampling
X
Ice, 39
$ 138.69
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Industrial strength velcro or Gorilla tape, and HVAC tape
$ 167.25
Decon - General
X
iPad Air(wifi)
$ 2,990.00
Equipment
X
iPad cases NuuD
$ 144.90
Equipment
X
iPad Styluses
$ 63.20
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Junction box
$ 22.59
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Kiosk building materials
$ 2,120.00
Test Bed/Incident Command; assumed $200 matl + 2 days/2 people
X
Kiosk magazines, 5
$ 18.73
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Purchase Orders
Page L-45
-------
Purchased Item
Cost
5
z
|test Bed/Incident Command |
Equipment - Purchased |
S
1
Sampling - 37 mm Cartridge |
Sampling-Ballast |
Sampling - SpongeSticks |
Sampling-Agg. Air |
Sampling -General |
Sampling - Other (Not Tracked) |
.f
Q
Q
£
Q
Q
Waste Management - Fogging |
Waste Management - Spraying |
Waste Management - General |
Kit Boxes for Sampling Ops
$ 45.72
Sampling
X
L5 adaptor connectors
$ 350.00
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Ladder
$ 93.90
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Lamination paper, 13
$ 380.00
Sampling - General
X
Laminator
$ 176.09
Equipment
X
LAN cable
$ 4.63
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Laptop cable, 2
$ 68.07
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Laptop Computers, 6
$ 2,466.40
Equipment
X
Large extension cords forfoggers (20 AMP)
$ 814.60
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Large fans to aid in fog dispersal 15,000-20,000 CFM
$ 1,347.33
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Large Screen TV
$ 1,300.00
Test Bed/Incident Command; amazon.com
X
Lens cleaning kit
$ 8.26
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Lighting Towers
$ 279.00
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Liner, 55 Gallon Drum, Round-Bottom Polyethylene, 4 mil
$ 371.30
Waste
X
Liquid sampler, 24
$ 171.00
Sampling - General
X
Litter
$ 8.21
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Locking cable, 2
$ 16.39
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Logbooks
$ 270.93
Sampling - General
X
Lumber, 2x4 (use with plywood above) (assumed 16)
$ 811.36
Test Bed/Incident Command homedepot.com
X
Lumber, plywood, 2
$ 35.15
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Mask disinfectant wipes
$ 54.90
Test Bed/Incident Command; 5 packs of Clorox wipes @$10.98
X
Mesh Bags, 6
$ 95.00
Waste
X
Metal gas cans (1 for regular gas, 1 for diesel)
$ 50.46
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
MicroSDHC
$ 74.56
Equipment
X
Misc sewing
$ 1.16
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Misc. Cables, power cords for sensors and DAQ
$ 400.00
Decontamination - General
X
Mobile Mini Portable Units
$ 4,870.90
Equipment
X
Mule, 2
$ 30,000.00
Equipment; owned; from kawasaki.com
X
Multi-Card Reader for SD/SDHC/SDXC/MS/CF Cards
$ 12.99
Equipment
X
MultiRAE Calibration kit
$ 350.00
Equipment; per John Archer estimate
X
MultiRAE pro w/C02 and Chlorine Sensors
$ 6,000.00
Equipment; owned; from raeco.com
X
N95 Disposable Respirator, 3M
$ 50.00
PPE; per John Archer
X
Nalgene Bottles (1L) See Notes
$ 2,392.32
Ballast Samples
X
NAM Filters
$ 3,958.80
Starter Kit, HE PA fileter, 8 ducts
X
Name badges
$ 36.97
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Naval Jelly
$ 16.40
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Negative Air Machines (dual 1000/2000 CFM)
$ 16,966.40
Equipment
X
Nitrile Gloves (L)
$ 670.00
PPE
X
Nitrile Gloves (XL)
$ 536.00
PPE
X
Nitrile Gloves Medium
$ 1,238.80
PPE
X
Nitrile Gloves Small
$ 619.40
PPE
X
N on-hazardous waste roll off
$ 2,154.00
Test Bed/Incident Command; Rented; alphadumpstersnc.com
X
Northstar skid sprayer, 200 gal capacity, Honda 160 cc engine
$ 3,122.00
Decontamination - Spray
X
Notebooks, 6
$ 25.29
Sampling - General
X
OfficeJet Injet printer for sampling
$ 133.80
Equipment
X
Orange Stripping Gloves Large (for Waste Team)
$ 17.60
Waste
X
Orange Stripping Gloves Medium (for Waste Team)
$ 17.60
Waste
X
Package tape - clear
$ 23.00
Decon - General
X
Packing tape
$ 13.36
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Padlock
$ 19.95
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Paper pads, 2
$ 21.11
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Paper towels
$ 18.78
Waste
X
Paper towels, 2
$ 30.51
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Paperclips
$ 11.73
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
PAPR Cartridges - bought while onsite
$ 5,917.44
PPE
X
PAPR, 3
$ 5,619.00
PPE (Rented)
X
Parafilm 2" wide roll of 250 ft
$ 26.61
Sampling
X
Parts bin with 4 dividers
$ 121.00
Sampling
X
PC power cord, 2
$ 46.89
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Pens
$ 21.71
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Personal Bio Bacterial Spore Filter Sampling
$ 3,364.00
Equipment
X
Personal Real-Time Chlorine Monitoring
$ 1,846.56
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Personal samples pumps, 2-5 packs
$ 1,721.38
Test Bed/Incident Command; Rented
X
pH strips
$ 70.00
Decontamination - General
X
Pipe elbow
$ 10.56
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Plastic ware, package
$ 3.00
Test Bed/Incident Command (Kiosks)
X
Polypropylene Sample Bottle (500mL) See Notes
$ 1,930.00
Ballast Samples
X
Pop up canopy for waste, NAMS, 5
$ 684.61
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Port-a-jons and Washing Stations
$ 1,204.20
Equipment
X
Post fix epoxy, 4
$ 46.82
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Power distribution Panel-1200 AMP MULTI PANEL
$ 8,962.75
Equipment
X
Power Strips -10 outlet used in ICP
$ 200.70
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
PPE Donning and Storage Tent
$ 1,200.00
Test Bed/Incident Command; canopymart.com
X
Printers, 2
$ 70.90
Equipment
X
PTFE Fluoropore Membrane 25mm filters, 3 um pore size (100/pack), 2
$ 514.64
PPE
X
PVC ad paters
$ 606.00
Vacuum Samples
X
PVC fitting, 4
$ 29.25
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
PVC pipe
$ 4.58
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Purchase Orders
Page L-46
-------
Purchased Item
Cost
5
z
|test Bed/Incident Command |
Equipment - Purchased |
S
1
Sampling - 37 mm Cartridge |
Sampling-Ballast |
Sampling - SpongeSticks |
Sampling-Agg. Air |
Sampling -General |
Sampling - Other (Not Tracked) |
.f
Q
Q
cL
Q
Q
Waste Management - Fogging |
Waste Management - Spraying |
Waste Management - General |
PVCtarp, 2
$ 39.00
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Radios & chargers
$ 5,580.00
Equipment; assumed 20 piece Motorola system; staples.com
X
Rail Transport (MERV)
$ 9,203.00
Equipment
X
Rechargeable battery powered flash lights
$ 71.40
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Reducer
$ 5.86
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Reducing nipple for discharge hose
$ 6.00
Decontamination - General
X
Refrigerator/freezer -18 cu/ft
$ 480.00
Equipment
X
Replacement O-rings, 10
$ 140.00
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Respirator Cartridges
$ 2,958.40
PPE
X
Safety Glasses
$ 120.00
PPE; 15 pairs @ $8/pair
X
Safety Harness
$ 110.42
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Sakrete, 7
$ 36.74
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Scale
$ 236.40
Equipment (Waste)
X
Scissors
$ 11.73
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Scott 3000 for DCMD (8 total)
$ 1,733.52
Equipment, PPE
X
Scott SCBA
$ 20,000.00
Equipment, PPE (4 @ $5K each)
X
SD cards
$ 16.75
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Secondary containment for dunking station - PVCTarp
$ 70.25
Waste
X
Security System cables
$ 265.87
Equipment
X
Self-Locking 6+8+12-Inch Nylon Cable Ties
$ 8.99
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Separate tank for mixing PAB (550 gal tote)
$ 555.48
Decontamination - Fogging
X
Sharpies -fine Point, ultafine, etc.
$ 158.33
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Sheet protectors, 5
$ 5.17
Sampling - General
X
Signs, 2
$ 1.57
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
SKC Button Aerosol Sampler Calibration Adapters, 2
$ 63.48
Equipment
X
SKC Button Aerosol Samplers, 14
$ 3,160.92
Equipment
X
Small Fridge for Kiosk, 2
$ 139.40
Test Bed/Incident Command (Kiosks)
X
Spider Box
$ 5,189.50
Equipment
X
Stainless steel referee coupons
$ 240.00
Referee Coupons; $60/hr; 4 hours
X
Starplex Specimen Cups B120210
$ 204.66
Sponge Stick Samples
X
Stir rod/paddle for dunking tank (plastice yard stick) PVC pipe
$ 3.35
Waste
X
Storage Trailer (PPE, Etc.)
$ 77,769.00
CMAD; Equipment; Jayson checked property records
X
Straight-Blade GFCI Extension Cord, Triple Outlet w Power Light, NEMA 5-15 Plug, 2"
$ 148.79
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Surge protect 8 outlet, 7
$ 172.10
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Surge protector
$ 32.86
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Swiffer and wet cloths
$ 23.42
Decon - General
X
Tables and chairs
$ 1,100.00
Test Bed/Incident Command; 6 tables @ $100 ea; 20 chairs @ $25 ea
X
Tape measure
$ 21.20
Waste
X
Tape, 6
$ 13.17
Sampling - General
X
Tape, 8
$ 82.56
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Teflon tape
$ 1.12
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Telescoping spray guns, 6-24 ft, 2
$ 245.28
Decontamination - Spray
X
Templates, 10" x 10"
$ 400.00
Sponge Stick Samples
X
Templates, 12" x 12"
$ 244.00
Vacuum Samples
X
Therm covers, 3
$ 14.05
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Thermosafe Shipping Boxes
$ 1,432.65
Sampling
X
Thermosafe Shipping Boxes
$ 247.40
Sampling
X
Tie-downs, 5
$ 160.79
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Tools, 3
$ 117.31
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Totes, 5
$ 27.77
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Traffic safety cones
$ 120.00
Equipment; uline.com
X
Traffic safety sign
$ 82.50
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Trash bags
$ 30.51
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Trash Bags, 30-gal
$ 48.00
Decon - General
X
Trash cans, 3
$ 34.80
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Trent iPad Rugged Cases with Handle
$ 490.00
Equipment
X
Triple tapext cord, 2
$ 223.01
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Truck to haul CMAD Trailer
$ 53,000.00
Equipment; owned; F450 price
X
T-shirts and Hats
$ 13.40
Test Bed/Incident Command (Kiosks)
X
Tubing plugs, 8
$ 9.20
Sampling - General
X
Tubing, 2
$ 35.18
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Tygon tubing, 1/4" OD
$ 656.18
Vacuum Samples
X
Tyvek Coveralls
$ 510.21
PPE
X
UPS power supply, 2
$ 375.69
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
USB 2.0 Extension, 10 Meter (32 Foot)
$ 15.95
Equipment
X
USB cable, 5
$ 138.44
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
USB Flash Drive-10 16GB
$ 88.29
Equipment
X
Utility knife
$ 8.20
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Valve
$ 3.51
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Velcro labels, 2
$ 11.72
Sampling - General
x
Velcrotape, 2
$ 64.62
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Ventilating polypropylene mesh bag, white, 21" wide x 31V" high
$ 95.00
Waste
X
Visqueen roll (6' by 100') clear
$ 66.90
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Wall base adhesive
$ 14.50
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Waste basket
$ 16.37
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Wax paper, sheets
$ 12.25
Test Bed/Incident Command (Kiosks)
X
Weatherstation
$ 750.00
Equipment; owned; from weathershack.com
X
Whiteboard, 6
$ 140.50
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Purchase Orders
Page L-47
-------
-
¦a
s
a
n
s
F
In
Y
¦ft
ra
<3
&
°
s
¦a
"S
£
S
1
1
<
s?
1
Je
S?
I
£
|
|
1
—
e
tn
1U
t/i
u
v
il
e
e
e
io
f
F
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
O.
2
2
€
S
«
III
•~
8
8
8
8
«
«
3
z
K
£
UJ
a
a
a
Q
*
WiFi Range Extender
$ 135.14
Equipment
X
Wi-Fi Router, 2 for cameras
$ 377.21
Equipment
X
Wired Security System/Camera
$ 945.50
Equipment
X
Yellow over boots
$ 150.00
PPE; 3pair@$50 each per John Archer
X
Zip ties
$ 78.05
Test Bed/Incident Command
X
Ziplock bags, 4x6
$ 95.82
Sampling
X
Ziplokbags, 10x12
$ 287.49
Sampling
X
Ziplokbags, 10x14
$ 292.82
Sampling
X
Ziplok bags, 14x24
$ 559.04
Sampling
X
Ziplok bags, 18x20
$ 582.98
Sampling
X
Ziplokbags, 6x12
$ 231.60
Sampling
X
Purchase Orders
Page L-48
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |