EPA/600/R-20/327 | October 2020
www.epa.gov/homeland-security-research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
oEPA
Tabletop Exercise Report
Sample Plan Development for
Biological Incidents, Large and
Small - Trade-Off Tool for
Sampling (TOTS)
Office of Research and Development
Homeland Security Research Program
-------
EPA 600-R20-327
October 2020
Tabletop Exercise Report
Sample Plan Development for
Biological Incidents, Large and Small
-Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS)
M. Worth Calfee, Timothy Boe, Leroy Mickelsen
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Christopher Johnson, Ryan James
Battelle Memorial Institute
-------
DISCLAIMER
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and
Development funded and managed the research described herein under EP-C-16-014 to Battelle
Memorial Institute. It has been subjected to the Agency's review and has been approved for
publication. Note that approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of
the Agency. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement
by the U.S. Government or EPA. The EPA does not endorse any commercial products, services,
or enterprises.
Questions concerning this document or its application should be addressed to:
M. Worth Calfee, Ph.D.
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER)
EPA's Office of Research and Development
Phone: 919-541-7600
Fax:919-541-0496
calfee.worth@epa.gov
www2.epa.gov/homeland-security-research
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER) within the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) conducts applied stakeholder-driven research and provides
responsive technical support to help solve the Nation's environmental challenges. The Center's
research focuses on innovative approaches to address environmental challenges associated with
the built environment. We develop technologies and decision-support tools to help safeguard
public water systems and groundwater, guide sustainable materials management, remediate sites
from traditional contamination sources and emerging environmental stressors, and address
potential threats from terrorism and natural disasters. CESER collaborates with both public and
private sector partners to foster technologies that improve the effectiveness and reduce the cost
of compliance, while anticipating emerging problems. We provide technical support to EPA
regions and programs, states, tribal nations, and federal partners, and serve as the interagency
liaison for EPA in homeland security research and technology. The Center is a leader in
providing scientific solutions to protect human health and the environment.
Gregory Sayles, Director
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
111
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
Abbreviations/Acronyms viii
Executive Summary x
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Trade-Off Tool for Sampling 2
2.1 TOTS Overview 2
2.2 TOTS Functionality 2
2.3 TOTS Sampling Techniques 3
3.0 Table-top Exercise 4
3.1 TTX Description 4
3.2 TTX Quality Assurance 8
3.3 Scenario 1 -Office Building (Indoor Setting) 8
3.3.1 Scenario 1a - Develop Sampling Plan for Building Characterization 9
3.3.2 Scenario 1 b - Develop Plan for Clearance Sampling 11
3.3.3 Scenario 1 c - Develop Plan for Clearance Sampling with Restrictions 12
3.3.4 Scenario 1d - Develop Plan for Clearance Sampling with Additional
Restrictions 14
3.4 Scenario 2 - Outdoor Neighborhood 17
3.4.1 Scenario 2a - Develop Sampling Plan for Characterization Sampling 18
3.4.2 Scenario 2b - Develop Sampling Plan for Characterization Sampling (with
restrictions) 19
3.4.3 Scenario 2c - Develop a Clearance Sampling Plan with Probabilistic Sampling 21
3.4.4 Scenario 2d - Develop a Clearance Sampling Plan with Additional Restrictions 23
4.0 Table-top Exercise Feedback 25
4.1 TOTS TTX Participant Questions/Comments and Discussion on Sample Planning 25
4.1.1 Questions/Comments and Discussion from OSC Academy TTX 25
4.1.2 Questions/Comments and Discussion from IDC TTX 26
4.2 TOTS TTX Participant Feedback (Hotwash) on General TOTS Functionality (combined
from both TTX) 27
iv
-------
4.2.1 TOTS TTX Participant Feedback (Hotwash) on Scenario 1 (combined from
both TTXs) 28
4.2.2 TOTS TTX Participant Feedback (Hotwash) on Scenario 2 (combined from
both TTX) 29
4.2.3 TOTS TTX Participant Feedback from OSC Academy Evaluation Forms 29
5.0 Table-top Exercise Conclusions 30
6.0 References 30
Appendix A Class Slides A-l
v
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1. TOTS ArcMap toolbar 3
Figure 2. Sampling techniques in TOTS (Traditional - left and Innovative - right) 3
Figure 3. One of the TTX Teams working at the OSC Academy TTX 6
Figure 4. Indoor office map (right) representing an actual office building (left). Ground floor
(right bottom) and 2nd Floor (right top) 8
Figure 5. Example Scenario la TOTS graphic. Includes 444 vacuum cassette placed
probabilistically (grid-based design, shown with small squares) and 13 wet vacuum samples
(shaded rooms) placed with a targeted approach at a total cost of $273,000 9
Figure 6. Example Scenario lb TOTS graphic. Includes 84 aggressive air samples to cover entire
area of the building at a total cost of $80,000 11
Figure 7. Example Scenario lc TOTS graphic. Includes 391 vacuum cassette samples (small
squares) placed using a 95% Hotspot VSP at a total cost of $239,000 13
Figure 8. Example Scenario Id TOTS graphic. Includes 11 wet vacuum samples and 4 robot floor
cleaners (shaded rooms) placed using a targeted approach at a total cost of $12,434 15
Figure 9. Scenario 2 neighborhood map 17
Figure 10. Example Scenario 2a TOTS graphic. Includes 6,945 vacuum cassette samples
determined probabilistically at a total cost of $4.3M 18
Figure 11. Example Scenario 2b TOTS graphic. Includes 238 aggressive air samples placed using
a targeted approach (shown with small squares) at a total cost of $227,124 (over 2 days). 20
Figure 12. Example Scenario 2c TOTS graphic. Includes 5,646 wet vacuum samples placed using a
probabilistic approach (shown with small squares) at a total cost of $4M (over 23 days)... 22
vi
-------
TABLES
Table 1. TOTS Teams and Organizations/Expertise 4
Table 2. Surface Areas for the Areas of Interest 6
Table 3. Sampling Tool Attributes 7
Table 4. Sampling Strategies Available 7
Table 5. Scenario la Inputs and Results 10
Table 6. Scenario lb Inputs and Results 12
Table 7. Scenario lc Inputs and Results 14
Table 8. Scenario Id Inputs and Results 16
Table 9. Scenario 2a Inputs and Results 19
Table 10. Scenario 2b Inputs and Results 21
Table 11. Scenario 2c Inputs and Results 23
Table 12. Scenario 2d Inputs and Results 24
Appendix A. TTX Introductory Slides
Appendix B. TTX Handouts
vii
-------
Abbreviations/Acronyms
BOTE
Bio-Response Operational Testing and Evaluation
CAD
computer aided design
CBRN
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
CSV
comma separated value
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ft2
square foot/feet
FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
GIS
geographical information systems
HVAC
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HSRP
Homeland Security Research Program
IDC
International Decontamination Conference
LOD
limit of detection
NIOSH
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
ORD
Office of Research and Development
OSC
on-scene coordinator
OEM
Office of Emergency Management
PPE
personal protective equipment
SAP
sampling and analysis plan
SME
subject matter expert(s)
TOTS
Trade-off Tool for Sampling
TTX
table-top exercise
TWG
technical working group
VSP
Visual Sampling Plan
viii
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was developed by the EPA's Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP)
within EPA's Office of Research and Development. Dr. Worth Calfee (HSRP) was the project
lead for this document. Contributions of the following individuals and organizations to the
development of this document are acknowledged.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Timothy Boe, Homeland Security Research Program
Leroy Mickelson, Office of Emergency Management, CBRN [chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear] Consequence Management Advisory Division
Battelle Memorial Institute
Ryan James
Christopher Johnson
IX
-------
Executive Summary
The Trade-off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) is a tool under development that aids planners,
responders, and subject matter experts in developing defensible yet practicable sample collection
plans following a biological contamination incident. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) held a table-top exercise (TTX) with two separate groups of people. The purpose of the
TTX was to gather critical end-user feedback on the utility of the tool for future revisions of
TOTS and to increase collective (responders, planners, and researchers) understanding of
challenges during the sampling and analysis plan (SAP) development for biological incidents,
all for the goal of strengthening EPA's capabilities in this area. The first TTX session was held at
the 2019 EPA International Decontamination Conference in Norfolk, Virginia (November 18,
2019), and the second TTX session was held at the EPA On-scene Coordinator (OSC) Academy
in Chicago, Illinois (February 26, 2020). The ultimate goal is to provide EPA planners and
operational personnel (e.g., on-scene coordinators) the tools and resources necessary to
effectively and efficiently plan and execute EPA's response obligations.
For this TTX, several contamination response scenarios were provided to the participants (as will
be described thoroughly throughout this report), each including unique requirements or resource
restrictions. During each TTX session, the participants were divided into teams of four to six
people who gathered around a computer with TOTS capability to work through the scenarios.
While friendly competition between the teams was beneficial, the goal of each TTX session was
not to "win" the scenario. Specifically, the objectives of the TTX sessions were as follows:
To provide feedback of the strengths and limitations of TOTS to improve tool utility
To compare resource requirements (cost, time, staffing, laboratories, etc.) for various
sampling plans developed for biological contamination scenarios
To determine which factors (targeted or probabilistic, number of samples, sample
collection methods, etc.) have the greatest impact on time and resource demand
To identify critical information and capabilities required for effective SAP development
To identify gaps in capabilities and in knowledge to inform future research.
The two TTX sessions have provided valuable feedback. Through the use of TOTS (facilitated
by experienced ArcGIS users), a significant benefit was that the teams clearly developed an
increased operational understanding of the use of innovative sampling approaches. The scenarios
were designed to provide an opportunity to evaluate targeted and probabilistic sampling plans
(using traditional and innovative sampling approaches) to understand their respective strengths
and weaknesses. As the teams progressed through Scenarios 1 and 2, they tended to increase the
use of the targeted innovative sampling approaches (and thus decreased time and cost).
The biggest challenge surrounding TOTS remains the requirement of having experienced
ArcGIS users available for those who want to utilize TOTS. TOTS has been shown to be a
valuable training tool for responders, and as TTX sessions are performed more frequently,
perhaps there could be several OSCs who are identified as being willing to assist with
conducting analyses using TOTS when required (thus increasing its practical use in the field),
which would expand its use beyond only being a research or training tool.
x
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 1 of 43
1.0 Introduction
The Homeland Security Research Program in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Office of Research and Development strives to support EPA's chemical, biological,
radiation and nuclear (CBRN) response capabilities through the research and development of
scientific solutions such as data tools that aid in response planning and decision making. The
Trade-off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) is one such tool under development that aids planners,
responders, and subject matter experts in developing defensible, yet practicable, sample
collection plans. TOTS employs a user-friendly graphical interface that facilitates the design of
sampling and analysis plans (SAPs) with immediate feedback on the cost, time, and resource
requirements for each SAP.
The ultimate goal of TOTS is to provide EPA planners and operational personnel (e.g., on-scene
coordinators) the tools and resources necessary to effectively and efficiently plan and execute
EPA's response obligations following a biological incident. EPA held a table-top exercise (TTX)
on two separate occasions to gather critical end-user feedback on the utility of the tool for future
revisions and to increase collective understanding by responders, planners, and researchers of
challenges during SAP development for biological incidents, all for the goal of strengthening
EPA's capabilities in this area. The first TTX session was held at the 2019 EPA International
Decontamination Conference in Norfolk, Virginia (November 18, 2019), and the second TTX
session was held at the EPA On-scene Coordinator Academy in Chicago, Illinois (February 26,
2020).
For this TTX, several contamination response scenarios were provided to the participants (as will
be described thoroughly throughout this report), each including unique requirements or resource
restrictions. During each TTX session, the participants were divided into teams of four to six
people who gathered around a computer with TOTS capability to work through the scenarios.
While friendly competition between the teams was generated, the goal of the TTX sessions was
not to "win" the scenario. Specifically, the goal of the TTX sessions were as follows:
To provide feedback on the strengths and limitations of TOTS to improve tool utility
To compare resource requirements (cost, time, staffing, laboratories, etc.) for various
sampling plans developed for biological contamination scenarios
To determine which factors (targeted or probabilistic, number of samples, sample
collection methods, etc.) have the greatest impact on time and resource demand
To identify critical information and capabilities required for effective SAP development
To identify gaps in capabilities and in knowledge to inform future research
This report provides a description of the TTX scenarios, gives examples of how teams
approached the response scenarios (using TOTS) to determine resource needs for sampling
plans, shows graphics depicting the shape files resulting from using TOTS to develop said
sampling plans, and documents the feedback received from the participants on the function and
usability of TOTS.
1
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 2 of 43
2.0 Trade-Off Tool for Sampling
2.1 TOTS Overview
Trade-off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) is a user-friendly graphical interface to assist in sample
plan development in a geographical information systems (GIS) platform. This interactive tool
provides an automated means of estimating cost and resources associated with sample plan
development. It also allows for quantitative evaluation of several options of sampling techniques,
number of sampling teams and size of each, etc. TOTS development was initiated with a
Microsoftฎ Excelฎ prototype and transitioned into a GIS-based tool equipped with an ArcMap
add-on built in Python that provides a point-and-click interface. This development facilitates
creating SAPs by plotting sample locations onto aerial imagery or computer aided design (CAD)
drawings, thus supporting selection of appropriate sampling strategy by evaluating the impact on
resource demands (cost and time). TOTS also supports systems-based decision making and is
valuable in a research context, identifying capability gaps and informing sampling research.
2.2 TOTS Functionality
A comprehensive description of TOTS is not included here as the rationale and foundational
concepts shaping the development of TOTS have been published elsewhere [1], In general, use
of the TOTS ArcMap add-on requires the following steps (to be performed by someone familiar
with the use of ArcGIS/ArcMap):
1. Opening a map document - defines the extent of the area of interest;
2. Changing the visibility of layers - shows the desired attributes such as labels,
contamination (e.g., scenario-specific contamination maps for planning and TTX use, or
contamination maps imported from actual sample results), placed sample locations, area
boundaries, etc.;
3. Adding samples - the step that defines the resources that will be required for
accomplishing the sampling plan that is being developed; targeted samples can be added
manually, a selected number of samples can be added randomly to the map by a tool
within TOTS called "Random TOTS", or probabilistic sampling strategies can be
employed using files generated in Visual Sampling Plan (VSP); and
4. Running TOTS - execution of the tool prompts entry of several variables (sampling area,
available sampling teams, personnel per team, hours per shift, shifts per day, available
laboratories, analysis hours per day, etc.), and then a shapefile and comma separated
value (CSV) file are created, displayed, and saved to disk.
In addition, because the TOTS ArcMap interface has some limitations (for VSP files, only one
sample type can be used, processing time can be 5-20 seconds depending on the number of
samples, etc.), a spreadsheet version of TOTS is also available and is especially convenient for
use during the optimization of the sampling plan. The TOTS graphical interface is very helpful in
conceptualizing how the sampling plan should be developed and to get the initial results, but use
of the spreadsheet to adjust the type and number of samples to reach a resource goal of limited
time, staff, or funding may be done more efficiently using the TOTS spreadsheet tool.
2
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 3 of 43
2.3 TOTS Sampling Techniques
The U.S. EPA has previously described the methods that are included in TOTS [1], The TOTS
ArcMap add-on features the TOTS toolbar, which is shown in Figure 1 and includes six sample
types as shown and the symbols defined in Figure 2. Three of these sample types, sponge wipe
(Sp), swab (Sw), and vacuum cassette (M), are considered EPA traditional sampling methods
because they have standard methods associated with them, and three of them (floor cleaning
robots [R], wet vacuums [W], and aggressive air sampling [A]) are considered EPA innovative
sample methods because there has been a lesser degree of verification and validation with these
methods. To place a sample, the sample type is selected from the toolbar, and then the map is
clicked to place a sample at a specified geographic location. The "VSP" button prompts selection
of a VSP file (as discussed above), the "X" deletes a previously placed sample, and the "running
man" symbol triggers a TOTS execution. Several TOTS graphical outputs will be shown in the
sections that follow.
Sp M W R A SAi % X Sampling Layer Samples
Sponge
Sponge Sample
Figure 1. TOTS ArcMap toolbar.
Sponge Wipe
(100 in2)
Sp
Swab (4 in2)
37mm Vacuum Cassette
(144 in2)
M
Automated Floor Cleaning Robots (R)
Wet-Vacuums (W|
4-
&V
'-2*
1 '
Aggressive airsam piing{A(- provides resuspension of spares to
make the-m available for collection
Figure 2. Sampling techniques in TOTS (Traditional - left and Innovative - right).
3
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 4 of 43
3.0 Table-top Exercise
One TTX session was held at the EPA OSC Academy in Chicago, Illinois (February 26, 2020),
and another TTX session was held in conjunction with the 2019 EPA International
Decontamination Conference (IDC) in Norfolk, Virginia (November 18, 2019). The ultimate
goal was to introduce EPA planners and operational personnel (e.g., on-scene coordinators) to
the tools and resources necessary to effectively and efficiently plan and execute EPA's response
obligations.
Several contamination response scenarios were provided to the participants (as described below),
each including unique requirements or resource restrictions. During each TTX session, the
participants were divided into TOTS teams of four to six people who each gathered around a
computer with TOTS capability to work through the scenarios.
3.1 TTX Description
The IDC TTX consisted of three TOTS teams, and the OSC Academy TTX consisted of four
TOTS teams. Table 1 shows the members of each TOTS team and their organization/expertise.
Table 1. TOTS Teams and Organizations/Expertise
Name
Organization
Expertise
OSC Academy TTX TOTS Team #1
John Archer
EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD)
Aerosol sampling and personnel
decontamination
Steve Touw
EPA Region 2
On-scene Coordinator (OSC)
Chris Wagner
EPA Region 3
OSC
Adam Brought on
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
OSC
Eric Nold
EPA Region 7
OSC
Kirk Mammoliti
EPA Region 7
OSC
OSC Academy TTX TOTS Team #2
Lukas Oudejans
EPA ORD
Biological and chemical agent
sampling and decontamination
Jennifer Gundersen
EPA Office of Emergency
Management (OEM)
OSC
Cathy Young
EPA Region 1
OSC
Mark Durno
EPA Region 5
OSC
Alex Sherrin
EPA Region 1
OSC
Greg Bazley
EPA Region 9
OSC
OSC Academy TTX TOTS Team #3
Leroy Mickelsen
EPA OEM
Emergency response sampling and
site coordination
Lawrence Kaelin
EPA OEM
OSC
James Mitchell
EPA Region 5
OSC
David Rees
EPA Region 5
OSC
4
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 5 of 43
Anna Tschursin
EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
OSC
OSC Academy TTX TOTS Team #4
Katherine Ratliff
EPA HSRP
Biological decontamination
Joyce Ackerman
EPA Region 8
OSC
Enid Chiu
EPA OEM
Administrative support
Jane Kepler
EPA OEM
Administrative support
Philip Rouse
EPA Region 6
OSC
International Decont
amination Conference (IDC) TOTS Team #1
Sarah Taft
EPA ORD
Biological sampling and
decontamination
Don Bansleben
Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)
Biological and chemical agent
response
Lisa Delaney
National Institute for
Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH)
Emergency Response and
Preparedness
Chad Dowell
NIOSH
Emergency Response and
Preparedness
IDC TOTS Team #2
Molly Rodgers
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
(ERG)
TOTS Developer
Sang Don Lee
EPA ORD
Biological and radiological
decontamination
Sara Casey
United Kingdom Department
for Environment, Food &
Rural Affairs
Biological hazards
Joe Schaefer
EPA OEM
Environmental response teams
Shannon Serre
EPA OEM
Biological contamination site
leadership and coordination
IDC TOTS Team #3
Leroy Mickelsen
EPA OEM
Emergency response sampling and
site coordination
Paul Lemieux
EPA ORD
Waste management
Elise Jakabhazy
EPA OEM
Response planning and
implementation
Christine Tomlinson
EPA OEM
Biological decontamination
Cary Rue
Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Biological Evidence Collection
5
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 6 of 43
Because of the nature of expertise of
the OSC Academy and IDC attendees,
the OSC TTX was attended by more
operational responders than
researchers, while the IDC TTX was
attended by more researchers than
operational responders. However, both
of these perspectives were highly
valuable in gaining feedback on
TOTS, as the operational responders
are the people who will be using the
tool in the instance of actual
responses, and the researchers will be
planning projects that will more fully
inform future versions of the tool. Therefore, the interaction and feedback given by the
participants to one another and to the TOTS developers was very important. The teams were not
divided up intentionally based on experience or expertise, but all teams had significant
interaction and incorporated a signifi cant level of teamwork (see Figure 3).
Before the start of the TTX, EPA TOTS development and biological sampling experts briefed
the TOTS TTX teams on the function of TOTS (as summarized above) as well as the objective
of the TTX exercise, which was not to solve the scenarios, but to gain feedback on the TOTS.
This briefing (provi ded as Appendix A) included a descri ption of the sampling m ethods (wipes,
swabs, vacuum cassette, robot vacuum, aggressive air, and wet vacuum) and how they are
applied within TOTS for targeted (manual selection of sample locations) or probabilistic
(statistical determination of the number and pattern of sample locations) sampling. In addition to
information specific to TOTS, EPA provided the TOTS TTX teams an Excel spreadsheet that
included formulas that provide the underlying calculations within TOTS and can, in some
scenarios, be quicker and more convenient than using the TOTS interface. The information
shown in Tables 2-4 (applicable outdoor surface areas , sampling tool attributes, and available
sampling strategies) were provided to the TOTS teams. In addition, Appendix B shows the
handouts that the TOTS TTX teams received.
Figure 3. One of the TTX Teams working at the
OSC Academy TTX.
Table 2. Surface Areas for the Areas of Interest
Area of Interest
Square
Feet
Single Building
7400
Neighborhood Building Footprints
Neighborhood Outdoors (large)
Neighborhood Outdoors (small)
Neighborhood Combined (large)
Neighborhood Combined (small)
142746
1742824
661500
1885570
804246
6
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 7 of 43
Table 3. Sampling Tool Attributes
Area
Sampling Tools
(in2)*
Area (ft2)**
Cost/Sample
Cost/ft2
Swab
4
0.028
$458
$16,357
Sponge
100
0.694
$493
$710
Micro Vac
144
1.0
$612
$612
Wet Vac
28,800
200.0
$712
$3.56
Robot
144,000
1,000.0
$1,153
$1.15
Aggressive Air
144,000
1,000.0
$800
$0.80
*in2 = square inches; ** ft2 = square
foot/feet
Table 4. Available Sampling Strategies
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Single
Buildings (86
Neighborhood
Outdoor +
Sampling Strategies
Building
units)
Outdoor
Indoor
Targeted (Judgmental)
X
X
X
X
Random TOTS
X
X
X
X
95% Hotspot
X
X
X
X
99% Hotspot
X
X
X
X
95% Prob, 95% Area; Grid
X
X
95% Prob, 95% Area;
Random
X
X
95% Prob, 99% Area; Grid
X
X
95% Prob, 99% Area;
Random
X
X
99% Prob, 99% Area; Grid
X
X
99% Prob, 99% Area;
Random
X
X
The two TTX sessions were facilitated similarly and included two separate contamination
scenarios, one involving an indoor office building setting and the delivery of a piece of mail
containing Bacillus anthracis spores, and a second scenario where spore-contaminated
newspapers were delivered to a neighborhood. Each of these hypothetical scenarios resulted in
the exposure of multiple individuals who contracted anthrax. For both scenarios, a fictitious
contamination map was developed based on the storyline. The contamination map was kept
hidden from the TTX participants until the end of each scenario, at which time the teams'
developed plans were evaluated against the map to illustrate the challenges of contaminant
characterization. The following sections include a description of each scenario, the sampling
plans that teams took to address each contamination scenario, examples of the graphics generated
following use of TOTS to develop sampling plans, and TTX participant feedback on the use of
TOTS.
7
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 8 of 43
3.2 TTX Quality Assurance
Quality assurance/quality control procedures were performed in accordance with the project
quality requirements. Given that no experimental data was collected and no secondary data was
directly used, no audits were performed. The EPA quality assurance staff reviewed the report and
confirmed technical accuracy and consistency in the description of the TOTS TTX.
Figure 4. Indoor office map (right) representing an actual office building (left).
Ground floor (right bottom) and 2nd Floor (right top).
3.3 Scenario 1 -Office Building (Indoor Setting)
Figure 4 shows the interior map of the
office building used in Scenario 1. The
building is two stories and has multiple
types of rooms and surfaces (offices of
various sizes and shapes, restrooms,
breakrooms, janitor work spaces,
receptionist areas, stairways, and
hallways, etc.)
Scenario 1 Description: Two janitorial workers, an administrative assistant and a
personal assistant at a local university have developed inhalational anthrax. All four
individuals work in the same building on campus. Develop a sampling plan to
identify areas needing remediation, and areas safe for reoccupancy.
Scenario 1 included four sets of goals and restrictions (all applicable to the office building shown
above). These are described below as Scenario la-Id and include the goals and restrictions,
examples of the TTX graphical results, and a summary of the various sampling approaches taken
(and results obtained) by the TTX teams. In several locations within each example of graphical
result, contamination locations are noted in green, yellow, and red (representing lower to higher
magnitudes of contamination). When a selected sample intersects this area, TOTS identifies that
sample as a "hit", a sample that detects contamination (shown in the last row of each result
table). The contamination map was not revealed to the TTX teams until after Scenario Id.
8
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 9 of 43
3.3.1 Scenario la- Develop Sampling Plan for Building Characterization
Goals: To inform decontamination locations for spot decontamination (preferred over
whole building fumigation)
Restrictions: No Restrictions on Cost/Time, two laboratories available for analysis
Figure 5 gives an example of one of the TOTS graphical outputs (OSC Team 1) from Scenario
la. For this example, there is combined probabilistic and targeted sampling. The probabilistic
sample locations are indicated by the small squares placed in an obvious grid across the map, and
the targeted locations are indicated by the shading of full rooms. Table 5 gives the TOTS inputs
and results for the teams that completed documentation of their TTX results. Each TOTS TTX
team had forms matching Table 5 with which to document their results during the TTX. The
degree to which these forms were filled out varied significantly by team. However, when TOTS
was used, the resulting data were saved to the computer that had been used to run TOTS, and
those data were then retrieved from the computer to be included in this report.
n,en's Rj?
pp'y
s Rf?
si's
tflrsk
I Jr. * fV.Tฐ n
Figure 5. Example Scenario la TOTS graphic. Includes 444 vacuum cassette placed
probabilistically (grid-based design, shown with small squares) and 13 wet vacuum
samples (shaded rooms) placed with a targeted approach at a total cost of $273,000.
9
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 10 of 43
Table 5. Scenario la Inputs and Results
Inputs
Team
OSC 1
OSC 2
OSC 3
OSC 4
IDC 1
IDC 2
IDC 3
Approach Targeted (T)
or Probabilistic (P)
T/P
T
T
T/P
T/P
P
P
- If P. selection:
95%/95%
_a
-
Random
99%
Hotspot
-
95.95
Grid
Available Teams
8
1
4
4
4
1
1
Staff per Team
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Available Laboratories
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Shifts
1
1
1
1
3
8
1
Results
Cost ($)
273K
11K
36K
58K
232K
9.5M
33K
Total time (days)
8.7
1
1
2.7
7.6
289
2.9
Samples
457
17
60
115
454
19,600
68
Sponge
0
6
xb
102
X
0
68
Micro Vac
444
0
0
13
0
0
0
Swab
0
0
0
0
X
19,600
0
Wet Vac
13
7
X
0
X
0
0
Robot Floor Cleaner
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
Aggressive air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sampled area (ft2)
1,948
1,982
5,401
6,142
3,414
549
68
area coverage (%)
6
27
73
83
46
7
1
# of samples with hits
10
4
6
5
11
0
0
a indicated that the team did not fill out a value.
b "x" indicates that the total samples were divided between sample types (but the exact number of samples was not
recorded by the team).
Across the TTX sessions, five out of the seven teams that reported results used at least some
probabilistic sampling for Scenario la. Because the probabilistic sampling approach tends to
increase the number of samples over a given area (to increase probability of detection), this
approach would generally be expected to result in a more expensive approach than using fewer
targeted samples. Therefore, it is reasonable that the teams used the probabilistic approach to
increase the probability of characterization (given there was no restriction in the cost of
sampling). However, for this scenario, the costs across the teams varied widely, from $1 IK using
a targeted approach (with wet vacuum and sponge wipe sampling) to $9.5M using an unspecified
probabilistic strategy to generate 19,600 swab samples. Note that this scenario was the first one
during the TTX, so teams were still acclimating to TOTS and developing an understanding of the
goals of the day (so some of their entries may not be accurate).
10
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 11 of 43
3.3.2 Scenario lb - Develop Plan for Clearance Sampling
Goals: To inform sampling plan for clearance (post decontamination, no prior
characterization sampling)
Restrictions: No Restrictions
Figure 6 gives an example of one of the TOTS graphical outputs (OSC Team 1) from Scenario
lb. For this example, a targeted sampling strategy was used, which included 84 aggressive air
samples that covered the entire area of the office building. The targeted sampling strategy is
indicated by the shading of the whole building. Table 6 gives the TOTS inputs and results for the
teams that completed documentation of their TTX results.
Mart* Rp
KH
PI
rn* rr
Ces*
Figure 6. Example Scenario lb TOTS graphic. Includes 84 aggressive air
samples to cover entire area of the building at a total cost of $80,000.
11
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 12 of 43
Table 6. Scenario lb Inputs and Results
Inputs
Team
OSC1
OSC 2
OSC 3
OSC 4
IDC 1
IDC 2
IDC 3
Approach Targeted (T)
or Probabilistic (P)
T
_a
P
T
P
T
P
- If P. selection:
-
-
95%/95%
Random
-
99/99
Grid
-
99/99
Grid
Available Teams
2
-
6
4
4
10
6
Staff per team
3
-
3
3
3
3
3
Available Laboratories
-
-
6
10
2
3
2
Shifts
1
-
1
1
3
2
Results
-
Cost ($)
80K
-
3 IK
114K
354K
8.6K
270K
Total time (days)
6.5
-
0.4
5
9.9
1.6
9
Samples
84
-
63
128
637
90
549
Sponge
0
-
63
0
549
0
549
Micro Vac
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
Swab
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
Wet Vac
0
-
0
xb
0
0
0
Robot Floor Cleaner
0
-
0
X
0
0
0
Aggressive air
84
-
0
X
2
X
0
Sampled area (ft2)
7,076
-
62
21,312
-
-
518
Area coverage (%)
96
-
1
288ฐ
101
100
7
# of samples with hits
4
-
-
6
10
-
8
a indicated that the team did not fill out a value.
b "x" indicates that the total samples were divided between sample types (but the exact number of samples was not
recorded by the team)
0 Sampling area coverage can be greater than 100% if sampling areas overlap one another.
Across the TTX sessions, three teams used probabilistic sampling strategies and three teams used
targeted sampling strategies for Scenario lb. The use of probabilistic sampling may have been
driven because there were no budget or time restrictions in this scenario, therefore, minimizing
the number of samples and sample locations was not a priority. The teams that chose targeted
approaches tended to choose sampling approaches that covered larger areas (wet vacuum,
aggressive air, etc.) that would meet the "clearance" objective of this scenario at a generally
lower cost. The costs across the teams varied from $8.6K using a targeted approach (with
aggressive air sampling) to $354K using an probabilistic strategy to generate 637 samples
(mostly sponge).
3.3.3 Scenario lc Develop Plan for Clearance Sampling with Restrictions
Goals: To inform sampling plan for clearance (post decontamination, no prior
characterization sampling)
12
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 13 of 43
Restrictions: Local Public Health is requiring a confidence-based approach, 95%
confident that no hotspots remain
Figure 7 gives an example of one of the TOTS graphical outputs (OSC Team 1) from Scenario
1c. For this example, 391 vacuum cassette samples were placed using a 95% Hotspot
probabilistic strategy, indicated by small squares placed in an obvious grid across the map. Table
7 gives the TOTS inputs and results for the teams that completed documentation of their TTX
results.
Men's RR
Figure 7. Example Scenario lc TOTS graphic. Includes 391 vacuum cassette samples
(small squares) placed using a 95% Hotspot VSP at a total cost of $239,000.
13
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 14 of 43
Table 7. Scenario lc Inputs and Results
Inputs
Team
OSC1
OSC 2
OSC 3
OSC 4
IDC 1
IDC 2
IDC 3
Approach Targeted (T)
or Probabilistic (P)
P
_a
P
P
-
-
-
- If P. selection:
95%
Hotspot
-
95%
Hotspot
95%
Hotspot
-
-
-
Available Teams
8
-
6
4
-
-
-
Staff per team
3
-
3
3
-
-
-
Available Laboratories
2
-
6
10
-
-
-
Shifts
1
-
1
1
-
-
-
Results
-
-
-
-
Cost ($)
239K
-
192K
192K
-
-
-
Total time (days)
7.5
-
2.7
4.1
-
-
-
Samples
391
-
391
391
-
-
-
Sponge
0
-
391
391
-
-
-
Micro Vac
391
-
0
0
-
-
-
Swab
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
Wet Vac
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
Robot Floor Cleaner
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
Aggressive air
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
Sampled area (ft2)
391
-
391
391
-
-
-
Area coverage (%)
5
-
5
5
-
-
-
# of samples with hits
7
-
-
7
-
-
-
a indicated that the team did not fill out a value.
This scenario was only completed during the OSC TTX. All three teams reporting results used
the 95% Hotspot probabilistic sampling strategy (as clearly suggested by the scenario). For these
three teams, the cost of sampling ranged from $192K for 391 sponge wipe samples (over three
days) to $239K for 391 vacuum cassette filters (over eight days).
3.3.4 Scenario Id Develop Plan for Clearance Sampling with Additional Restrictions
Goals: To inform sampling plan for clearance (post decontamination, no prior
characterization sampling)
Restrictions: Two days for sampling, two laboratories available, $15,000 cost, two teams
of three samplers and maintain at least equivalent surface area of the probabilistic
approach in lc
Figure 8 gives an example of one of the TOTS graphical outputs (OSC Team 1) from Scenario
Id. For this example, 11 wet vacuum samples and 4 robot floor cleaners were placed using a
14
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 15 of 43
targeted approach, indicated by the shading of full rooms. Table 8 gives the TOTS inputs and
results for the teams that completed documentation of their TTX results.
-Dean's off
Men's RR
/omen's RR
S ipply closet
's RR
en's RR
Recept. desk
Figure 8. Example Scenario Id TOTS graphic. Includes 11 wet vacuum samples and 4 robot
floor cleaners (shaded rooms) placed using a targeted approach at a total cost of $12,434.
15
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 16 of 43
Table 8. Scenario Id Inputs and Results
Inputs
Team
OSC 1
OSC 2
OSC 3
OSC 4
IDC 1
IDC 2
IDC 3
Approach Targeted (T)
or Probabilistic (P)
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
- If P. selection:
_a
-
-
Available Teams
2
2
2
-
2
2
2
Staff per Team
3
3
3
-
3
3
3
Available Laboratories
2
2
2
-
2
2
2
Shifts
1
1
1
-
2
3
-
Results
-
-
Cost ($)
12K
14K
8. IK
4K
13.8K
9.2K
9.2K
Total time (days)
0.8
0.999
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.5
Samples
15
13
7
4
12
8
8
Sponge
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Micro Vac
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Swab
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wet Vac
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
Robot Floor Cleaner
4
7
7
0
12
12
8
Aggressive air
0
6
0
4
0
0
0
Sampled area (ft2)
4,260
7,814
7261
301
6,368
7,400
7,400
Area coverage (%)
58
106b
98
4
86
100
100
# of samples with hits
4
10
1
1
4
-
3
a indicated that the team did not fill out a value.
b Sampling area coverage can be greater than 100% if sampling areas overlap one another.
Across the TTX sessions, all seven teams used targeted sampling strategies, driven by the
scenario restrictions requiring the total area be at least the area sampled during Scenario lc and
the $15,000 cost limit with sample collection operations lasting a maximum of two days.
Throughout the TTX, the teams recognized that the innovative sampling approaches provided a
much larger surface area coverage for a lower cost per unit area, and they all used these
approaches. Across the seven teams, the cost of sampling ranged from $4K for four aggressive
air samples (over less than a half-day covering 7,261 ft2) to $14K for 11 wet vacuum samples
and four robotic floor cleaning samples (over less than a day, covering 7,814 ft2). Several of the
teams were able to accurately identify the contamination areas based on tracking the sample
results throughout the previous scenario subparts and refining sample plans accordingly.
16
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 17 of 43
3.4 Scenario 2 - Outdoor Neighborhood
Figure 9 shows the map of the wide area outdoor space used in Scenario 2. The space is a
neighborhood with various features such as houses, streets, green space, etc.
Figure 9. Scenario 2 neighborhood map
Scenario 2 Description: A few days after the college building incident, four kids in a
nearby neighborhood develop inhalational anthrax. Two weeks after these illnesses, a
woman in the neighborhood developed gastrointestinal anthrax. The exposure route
is unknown at this moment, but since all 4 live in the same neighborhood,
characterization sampling needs to be conducted in this neighborhood to determine if
others are at risk for exposure. Develop a sampling plan to identify areas needing
remediation, and areas safe for reoccupancy.
17
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 18 of 43
Scenario 2 included four sets of goals and restrictions (all applicable to the neighborhood shown
above). These factors are described below as Scenarios 2a-2d and include the goals and
restrictions, examples of the TTX results, and a summary of the various sampling approaches by
the TTX teams. In several locations within each example graphical result, contamination
locations are noted in green, yellow, and red (representing lower to higher magnitudes of
contamination). When a selected sample intersects this area, TOTS identifies that sample as a
"hit", a sample that detects contaminati on (shown in the last row of each result table). The
contamination map was not revealed to the TTX teams until Scenario 2d.
3.4.1 Scenario 2a - Develop Sampling Plan for Characterization Sampling
Goals: To develop plan for characterization sampling
Restrictions: No Restrictions
Figure 10 gives an example of one of the TOTS graphical outputs (OSC Team 1) from Scenario
2a. For this example, a probabilistic strategy was used for placement of 6,945 vacuum cassette
samples indicated by the small squares placed in an obvious grid across the map. Table 9 gives
the TOTS inputs and results for the teams that completed documentation of their TTX results.
Figure 10. Example Scenario 2a TOTS graphic. Includes 6,945 vacuum
cassette samples determined probabilistically at a total cost of S4.3M.
18
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 19 of 43
Table 9. Scenario 2a Inputs and Results
Inputs
Team
OSC1
OSC 2
OSC 3
OSC 4
IDC 1
IDC 2
IDC 3
Approach Targeted (T)
or Probabilistic (P)
P
T
T
P
P/T
P
T
- If P. selection:
99%
hotspot
_a
-
-
-
-
-
Available Teams
20
1
15
10
7
86
10
Staff per Team
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Available Laboratories
200
1
2
10
10
20
10
Shifts
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
Results
Cost ($)
4.3M
99K
78K
3.7M
-
7.5M
85K
Total time (days)
14
11
90
39.6
-
23
0.7
Samples
6,945
86
-
6,000
-
15,000
177
Sponge
0
86
-
-
-
-
172
Micro Vac
6,945
-
-
6,000
-
-
-
Swab
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wet Vac
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
Robot Floor Cleaner
0
-
-
-
-
-
5
Aggressive air
0
-
90
-
-
-
-
Sampled area (ft2)
6,994
85,994
90,000
6,000
-
18,177
119
Area coverage (%)
1
5
5
1
-
1
0.01
# of samples with hits
81
5
5
20
-
81
6
a indicated that the team did not fill out a value.
Because the probabilistic sampling approach tends to increase the number of samples over a
given area (to increase probability of detection), this approach would generally be expected to
result in a more expensive approach than using fewer targeted samples. Therefore, it is
reasonable that the teams used the probabilistic approach to increase the probability of
contaminant detection during characterization (given there was no restriction in the cost of
sampling). However, across the TTX sessions, three of the six teams that reported results used
targeted sampling for Scenario 2a even though there were no restrictions. The teams using
probabilistic strategies had costs of $3.7M to $7.5M, while the teams that used targeted strategies
had costs of less than $100K.
3.4.2 Scenario 2b Develop Sampling Plan for Characterization Sampling (with
restrictions)
Goals: To develop plan for characterization sampling
Restrictions: Seven teams (three-person teams), two-day limit, 10 laboratories, two
shifts at each laboratory
19
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 20 of 43
Figure 11 gives an example of one of the TOTS graphical outputs (OSC Team 1) from Scenario
2b. For this example, 238 aggressive air samples were placed using a targeted approach. Table
10 gives the TOTS inputs and results for the teams that completed documentation of their TTX
results.
Figure 11. Example Scenario 2b TOTS graphic. Includes 238 aggressive air
samples placed using a targeted approach (shown with small squares) at a total
cost of $227,124 (over 2 days).
20
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 21 of 43
Table 10. Scenario 2b Inputs and Results
Inputs
Team
OSC 1
OSC
2
OSC 3
OSC
4
IDC 1
IDC
2
IDC 3
Approach Targeted (T)
or Probabilistic (P)
T
T
T
T
T
-
T
- If P. selection:
_a
-
-
-
-
-
Available Teams
7
7
7
7
7
-
7
Staff per team
3
3
3
3
3
-
3
Available Laboratories
10
10
10
10
10
-
10
Shifts
2
2
2
2
2
-
2
Results
Cost ($)
227K
7K
130K
139K
47K
-
174K
Total time (days)
1.97
0.054
1.02
1.014
0.64
-
1.7
Samples
238
6
113
168
23
-
264
Sponge
0
-
0
150
xb
-
172
Micro Vac
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
Swab
0
-
0
-
-
-
-
Wet Vac
0
-
0
-
-
Robot Floor Cleaner
0
6
113
18
X
-
7
Aggressive air
238
-
0
-
-
4
Sampled area (ft2)
19,831
3,640
113,000
82,788
22,917
-
15,188
Area coverage (%)
2.3
3
6
-
1
-
11
# of samples with hits
7
3
5
6
7
-
12
a indicated that the team did not fill out a value.
b "x" indicates that the total samples were divided between sample types (but the exact number of samples was not
recorded by the team)
Across the TTX sessions, all six teams reporting results used targeted sampling strategies, driven
by the scenario restrictions requiring results within two days, thus limiting the number of
samples that could be collected (diminishing probabilistic strategies as options). Throughout the
TTX, the teams recognized that the innovative sampling approaches provided a much larger
surface area coverage for a lesser time (and cost), and they all used these approaches. Across the
six teams, the cost of sampling ranged from $7K for robot floor cleaning samples to $227K for
238 aggressive air samples.
3.4.3 Scenario 2c Develop a Clearance Sampling Plan with Probabilistic Sampling
Goals
o To develop a plan for clearance sampling with probabilistic sampling
o Local public health has stated that any plan should meet 95% confidence that no
hotspots of contamination reside in the area (outdoors or indoors)
21
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 22 of 43
Restrictions: Seven teams (three-person teams), ten laboratories, two shifts at each
laboratory
Figure 12 gives an example of one of the TOTS graphical outputs (OSC Team 1) from Scenario
2a. For this example, 5,646 wet vacuum samples were placed using a probabilistic approach
indicated by the small squares placed in an obvious grid across the map. Table 11 gives the
TOTS inputs and results for the teams that completed documentation of their TTX results.
Figure 12. Example Scenario 2c TOTS graphic. Includes 5,646 wet vacuum
samples placed using a probabilistic approach (shown with small squares) at
a total cost of $4M (over 23 days)
22
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 23 of 43
Table 11. Scenario 2c Inputs and Results
Inputs
Team
OSC 1
OSC 2
OSC 3
OSC 4
IDC 1
IDC 2
IDC 3
Approach Targeted (T)
or Probabilistic (P)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
- If P. selection:
95%
Hot
Spot
95%
Hot
Spot
95%
Hot
Spot
95%
Hot
Spot
95%
Hot
Spot
95%
Hot
Spot
95%
Hot
Spot
Available Teams
7
7
7
-
7
7
7
Staff per team
3
3
3
-
3
3
3
Available Laboratories
10
10
10
-
10
10
10
Shifts
2
2
2
-
2
2
2
Results
Cost ($)
4M
2.8M
8.3M
2.8M
2.8M
6.7M
2.8M
Total time (days)
23
17
64
16.94
18
40.5
17
Samples
5,646
5,646
-
5,646
5,646
13,500
5,646
Sponge
5,646
0
5,646
5,646
13,500
5,646
Micro Vac
0
-
13,531
-
0
-
-
Swab
0
-
0
-
0
-
-
Wet Vac
5,646
-
0
-
0
-
-
Robot Floor Cleaner
0
-
0
-
0
-
-
Aggressive air
0
-
0
-
0
-
-
Sampled area (ft2)
5,646
5,646
13,531
5,646
5,645
8,042
5,645
Area coverage (%)
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
# of samples with hits
70
70
71
70
70
71
70
a indicated that the team did not fill out a value.
Across the TTX sessions, all seven teams used the 95% Hotspot probabilistic sampling strategy
(as clearly suggested by the scenario). The cost of sampling ranged from $2.8M for 5,646 sponge
wipe samples (over 17 days) to $8.3M for 13,531 vacuum cassette filters (over 64 days). Each of
the teams had either 70 or 71 samples result in identification of the contamination areas.
3.4.4 Scenario 2d Develop a Clearance Sampling Plan with Additional Restrictions
Goals:
o To develop plan for clearance sampling with probabilistic sampling
o To develop a clearance sampling plan with area sampled equal to that of 2c
Restrictions: $25,000, two-day limit, seven teams (three-person teams), ten laboratories,
two shifts at each laboratory
The teams generally used the TOTS spreadsheet to develop the Scenario 2d sampling strategy
(by adjusting the results from the previous scenario) to meet the additional restriction of $25,000
limit while sampling at least as much area as was sampled during Scenario 2c (in no more than
23
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 24 of 43
two days). Therefore, no example graphic is shown. Table 12 gives the TOTS inputs and results
for the teams that completed documentation of their TTX results.
Table 12. Scenario 2d Inputs and Results
Inputs
Team
OSC1
OSC 2
OSC 3
OSC 4
IDC 1
IDC 2
IDC 3
Approach Targeted (T)
or Probabilistic (P)
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
- If P. selection:
_a
-
-
-
Available Teams
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Staff per team
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Available Laboratories
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Shifts
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Results
Cost ($)
17K
7 IK
68K
154K
24K
9K
9K
Total time (days)
1.6
0.96
0.53
2.1
0.2
0.03
0.03
Samples
23
74
59
161
34
8
8
Sponge
0
-
-
-
xb
0
0
Micro Vac
12
(indoor)
-
-
-
0
0
0
Swab
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
Wet Vac
6
(indoor)
-
-
-
X
0
0
Robot Floor Cleaner
0
-
59
-
X
8
8
Aggressive air
5 (play
areas)
-
-
161
0
0
0
Sampled area (ft2)
6,200
9,037
59,000
13,448
9,900
8,000
8,000
area coverage (%)
1
1
7
2
1
1
1
# of samples with hits
-
-
2
4
7
3
4
a indicated that the team did not fill out a value.
b "x" indicates that the total samples were divided between sample types (but the exact number of samples was not
recorded by the team)
Across the TTX sessions, all seven teams used targeted sampling strategies, driven by the
scenario restrictions requiring the total area be at least the area sampled during Scenario 2c and
the $25,000 cost limit (over a maximum of two days). Throughout the TTX, the teams
recognized that the innovative sampling approaches provided a much larger surface area
coverage for a lower cost per unit area, and they all used these approaches. Across the seven
teams, four teams attained the restriction goals with results ranging from $9K for eight robotic
floor cleaning samples (over less than a half-day covering 8,000 ft2) to $24K for a mix of 23 total
sponge, wet vacuum, and robotic floor cleaning samples (over less than a half-day covering
9,900 ft2). Several teams were able to correctly identify the contamination areas around the map
based on the sample numbers that were identified as "hits".
24
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 25 of 43
4.0 Table-top Exercise Feedback
4.1 TOTS TTX Participant Questions/Comments and Discussion on Sample Planning
4.1.1 Questions/Comments and Discussion from OSC Academy TTX
Does TOTS have the ability to consider surfaces of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems, surfaces of walls and other systems, and surfaces of other
complicated surface areas to sample? Current solution is to assume all surfaces were
horizontal and accessible, as the more complicated and enclosed HVAC systems are
difficult to deal with in GIS.
The previous question led into a discussion describing a feature of TOTS where a
sampling area selected in TOTS is larger than the specified area of a sample tool. When
this happens, TOTS will calculate the required number of samples (of the selected
sampling tool) to complete sampling across the entire selected sampling area and
determine the corresponding cost to collect and waste generation for that calculated
number of samples. TOTS uses results from the Underground Transport Restoration
Operational Technology Demonstration , and other field-scale tests, to estimate costs.
Can TOTS be applied to break areas into zones (like early anthrax work)? TOTS does
not automatically break selected sampling areas in to "zones", but users can easily
fashion area maps to functionally generate zones of interest.
Can TOTS be usedfor modeling? A discussion ensued that using TOTS for modeling
requires creation of shape files from the desired modules of interest that can then be
iterated to effectively "model" using TOTS. In addition, dispersion modeling and import
of models into ArcMap can be used as contours in conjunction with Random TOTS.
Participants commented that use of probabilistic sampling is limited to use of only one
sample type. While this is true, it was explained that the TOTS capability can be
expanded by use the TOTS spreadsheet (mentioned above) that includes the foundational
formulas on which TOTS was built. The spreadsheet allows for assignment of ratios of
selected sample times during probabilistic sampling. In addition, Random TOTS is a
capability that has been added to place a selected number of samples randomly across the
area of interest.
How was the number of random samples is determined? The determination of the number
of random samples is not a TOTS function, but is a data quality objective determination
made by researchers or on-scene staff.
EPA research staff asked if the TOTS spreadsheet would be helpful for traditional
contaminants (PCBs, Hg, etc.). Experienced sampling staff shared that their experience
enables very accurate estimates, but that that TOTS could be valuable for larger sites.
Is the TOTS data transferable into the collector application? There is a "Collector"
approach (e.g., Collector for ArcGIS) to help with this, and EPA is working on a tool that
would track a team's location through a site using barcodes placed on workers and
scanning stations at ingress and egress locations.
Does TOTS handle composite sampling? Not at this time.
25
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 26 of 43
How does modifying VSP [Visual Sampling Plan] plans alter probabilities? VSP files
generate probabilistic sampling plans of various area coverages corresponding to
confidence intervals of likelihood of contamination detection.
Is TOTS applicable for decision point determination? Discussion ensued that
acknowledged that TOTS applicability depended on the decision point that needed to be
made. Also, EPA has several Decision Support Tools that may be used in combination
with the results from TOTS as part of an approach that uses multiple lines of evidence to
come to a preponderance of evidence with which to make a decision.
Questions/Comments and Discussion from IDC TTX
Participants noted that there should be both ArcGIS and sampling/response expertise for
the exercise to be successful and expressed concern that utilization of TOTS might be
limited because of the relatively few people who have ArcGIS experience. For these
TTXs, experienced ArcGIS operators were selected to lead each team, but further user
interface improvements are planned to increase user-friendliness.
2D sampling is a potential limiter. Discussion revealed that TOTS may be able to receive
Z coordinate information in the future to consider vertical (above floor height, desktops,
doorknobs, cabinets, etc.) surfaces. Also, the "notes" function can receive text data that
provides instructions defining the orientation of a sample (e.g., indicating a vertical
surface such as a wall or desktop).
Inclusion of a demonstration on sampling method options and their associated costs and
efficacy was very important to the participants and their ability to benefit from the TTX.
Cost per sample/ft2 should be conveniently available for users. Also, lodging and meals
may need to be included via Government Services Administration per diem calculations
based on location.
A discussion took place to describe Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)/NIOSH/
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) actions
o Access to private residences would depend on attribution "legal case" scenario" -
around a two-week delay, likely three to four weeks for EPA to get access
o Law Enforcement would only conduct sampling until the "story" is complete for
legal prosecution, (e.g., not conduct sampling sufficient for environmental
clearance)
OEM staff initiated discussion that another outside variable that can come into play
during sampling design planning is whether or not evacuation of a building or area has
taken place. This comment recognized that when people are removed from their homes or
businesses from their locations, there is a heightened level of pressure to complete
sampling in the shortest amount of time to minimize the disruption in people's lives.
Participants recognized that TOTS could be applicable to a non-biological contaminant
response. Discussion ensued that acknowledged that the same tool could be coded with
cost and area data that would be applicable to other contaminant sampling techniques (to
accommodate the different physical/chemical properties) to make TOTS applicable to
other contaminants.
26
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 27 of 43
TOTS TTX Participant Feedback (Hot wash) on General TOTS Functionality
(combined from both TTX)
TOTS is a great teaching tool to show how each variable impacts resources available to
execute the mission.
Participants were initially concerned about how difficult it might be to develop or
otherwise obtain building maps. Discussion indicated that an experienced ArcGIS
operator would have little difficulty in generating the building or neighborhood
background files with the required level of detail. Further discussion acknowledged that
developing detailed maps for indoor spaces is a larger response capability gap common to
many requirements, not exclusively a TOTS issue.
Participants noted that an effective file management system (.csv files) is critical for
recall/comparison of TOTS outputs.
Participants questioned how/whether "false negatives" could/should be considered in this
exercise. Response stated that no false negatives were introduced as they are accounted
for in the limit of detection (LOD); LOD is -30 cfu. Because any detect of Bacillus
anthracis is actionable, results below LOD come back zero.
Participants desired that detection limits for each sampling method be displayed for
comparison purposes. Discussion revealed that detection limits can be enabled in TOTS.
The ability to export developed sampling plans to other applications (Collector and
Survey 123) was viewed as a very important capability of TOTS. Also, compatibility with
Scribe was deemed a necessary capability. Scribe is a software tool developed by EPA to
assist in the process of managing environmental data. The tool captures sampling,
observational and monitoring field data.
It was suggested that there should be an addition to the toolbar that allows users the
ability to unite multiple sampling files. At least one team of participants wanted to import
the VSP-generated sampling plan for all outdoor areas, and then use Random TOTS to
place samples in a subset of houses based on intelligence. Both tools create separate
layers, but TOTS can only process one layer at a time.
In addition, a tool to create custom ArcGIS masks for Random TOTS may be beneficial.
As more sampling methods become available, participants noted the flexibility to add
additional sampling methods to the toolbar would be necessary.
Participants inquired if TOTS can prioritize samples. Discussions indicated that layering
sample plans is possible but may require more advanced ArcGIS skills to accomplish.
Participants wanted to know if the waste volume/weight data consider the personal
protective equipment (PPE) waste stream. Yes, those estimates were based on results
from the Operational Technology Demonstration and Bio-Response Operational Testing
and Evaluation (BOTE) use data.
What assumptions were made to calculate costs? URS (the contractor for Operational
Technology Demonstration-subway decontamination project) provided their estimates.
Participants inquired if waste weight will be adjusted by hours per team. Discussions
indicated that it is calculated per entry and may need to consider changing this
methodology because of the possible gap in accounting for all the changes of PPE given
the various lengths of time in a contaminated area.
27
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 28 of 43
Participants noted that rounding values of the TOTS output would be helpful as the large
number of decimal places make the results difficult to read.
Participants asked if the sampling robot was not contaminated, could it be transported
and reused to save cost and waste. The research staff noted that the waste and purchase
cost would be insignificant with respect to the rest of the sampling efforts.
Can TOTS run probabilistic and targeted sampling plans together? Samples can be
added to probabilistic plans. The user must be in that layer and select the samples to add.
Is personnel sampling a capability that could be used or added? If determined to be
applicable, it could be added to a future version.
Are there any samples appropriate for outdoors? Yes, they can all be assumed applicable
to outdoors for TTX purposes, and in most cases, there have been research projects
completed that show they are applicable.
Participants asked if there would be reachback capabilities for those not savvy with
TOTS and ArcGIS, especially if sampling plans are on short timeframes. As TOTS use
may become more prevalent, there would be assistance available from EPA research staff
and staff more familiar with TOTS and ArcGIS.
Participants noted that a consideration may need to be made for complex surfaces such as
crown molding or wainscoting, which increase the surface area to something higher than
just a flat surface.
Recommendations for future table-top exercises (combined from both TTXs):
Focus more on the sampling methods and spend less time on TOTS demonstration.
Make clear how to navigate to VSP folder.
Make clear how to use the Home button when using file system browser.
Explain VSP plans. Explain difference between hotspot versus confidence. Provide
explanation of VSP filename syntax, e.g., what 95-95 implies. How were plans created in
VSP?
VSP plans: Don't include Areas.shp if it is not needed.
VSP import: Restrict choices to those that make sense; e.g., wet vac didn't make as much
sense as sponge, microvac, or swab.
Label all rooms.
Make a driver manual available.
Driver manual: Include an explanation on how to quickly iterate by using the ArcMap
results window.
Two teams experienced a bug in TOTS when using aggressive air sampling; TOTS drew
just two polygons for aggressive air, and the number of samples was not adjusted based
on the areas selected.
4.2.1 TOTS TTX Participant Feedback (Hot wash) on Scenario 1 (combined from both
TTXs)
Participants questioned whether other interagency characterization data (specifically FBI)
could be available at the start of the scenario. The TTX team acknowledged that
28
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 29 of 43
realistically that would be the case. However, in the interest of making the problem more
challenging, that information was omitted.
Participants recommended that a contamination overlay should be prepared for both pre-
and post-decontamination operations to show the effectiveness of the sampling plan.
Participants recommended that future evolution should encourage more iterations of each
sub-scenario to generate more comparisons (most "hits" per sample).
Participants noted that a more complex building (i.e., airport terminal) with multiple
HVAC systems would offer a more challenging exercise. Current scenario does not
consider the impact of HVAC systems on contaminant spread, and does not allow
developing sampling plans within the HVAC ducts.
Participants recommended the need for inclusion of compositing in future versions.
A comment was made that aggressive air could cause the further spread of contamination,
but discussion revealed that sealing each room and doing aggressive air samples in each
room could be an effective way of identifying hotspots
4.2.2 TOTS TTX Participant Feedback (Hot wash) on Scenario 2 (combinedfrom both TTX)
Provide a cheat sheet for TOTS (user guide).
Currently, the TOTS results are written to a .csv file that defaults to the bottom of the .csv
rather than starting at the top, which would be preferable.
Currently, every time TOTS is rerun, TOTS renumbers the ID numbers on the samples,
so if you are trying to keep track of which samples are getting "hits", they keep changing.
Rework the exercise to follow reality: conduct characterization sampling;
decontamination occurs; display any detects; conduct clearance sampling.
Participants recommended the need to include the option of a soil sample for outdoors.
TTX was very good at considering thinking about the use of the innovative sampling
approaches (in showing the clear cost and time advantages).
4.2.3 TOTS TTX Participant Feedback from OSC Academy Evaluation Forms
Interesting and informative for a non-OSC to develop perspective of the tasks that OSCs
are responsible for
ArcGIS introduction was not applicable to those without such experience; learned about
sampling methods from discussions with colleagues, but other than that felt like we were
solving a puzzle; have gained a better understanding of time and budget restrictions
Would need an ArcGIS expert to use TOTS in a real scenario; seems most valuable for
cost estimating
Good mix of lecture and "hands-on"
Would be nice to do this for waste; really needs a simpler user interface; autoload from
shape file to spreadsheet
Course was a great first introduction to TOTS; it could benefit from additional
information shared on other options for biological response.
Had a great time playing with the tools; cost estimating seems most beneficial
Good opportunity to work as a group to share ideas and points of view
29
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 30 of 43
5.0 Table-top Exercise Conclusions
Two TTX sessions have provided valuable feedback (as indicated in the above sections). By the
use of the TOTS (facilitated by experienced ArcGIS users), a significant benefit was that the
teams clearly developed an increased operational understanding of the use of innovative
sampling approaches. The scenarios were designed to provide opportunity to evaluate targeted
and probabilistic sampling plans (using traditional and innovative sampling approaches) to
understand their respective strengths and weaknesses. As the teams progressed through Scenarios
1 and 2, they tended to increase the use of the targeted innovative sampling approaches (and thus
decreased time and cost).
The biggest challenge surrounding TOTS remains the requirement of having experienced
ArcGIS users available for those who want to utilize TOTS. The TTX allowed EPA TOTS
developers to observe and document feedback provided by TTX participants. This feedback was
essential in addressing software bugs and implementing enhancements to improve its reliability
and usability, such as transitioning TOTS to a web-based platform for increased ease of use and
access. In addition to technical enhancements, as TTX sessions are performed more frequently,
perhaps there could be several OSCs who are identified as being willing to assist with TOTS use
when required (thus increasing its practical use in the field) and moving away from its use as a
research-only tool.
6.0 References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Review of Biological Agent Sampling
Methods and Application to a Wide-Area Incident Scenario to Characterize Time and
Resource Demands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-17/176, 2017.
30
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 31 of 43
Appendix A
Table-top Exercise Introductory Slides
31
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 32 of 43
Appendix B
Table-top Exercise Handouts
32
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 33 of 43
Course Packet
Sample Plan Development for
Biological Incidents, Large and
Small - An Interactive TTX and
Training Course
33
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 34 of 43
Course Title
Sample Plan Development for Biological Incidents, Large and Small - An
Interactive TTX and Training Course
Course Abstract
This scenario-driven table-top exercise and training will be conducted during a one-
day course with the main objective to familiarize EPA personnel with the decisions,
methods, strategies and trade-offs necessary when developing indoor/outdoor
sampling plans following a biological contamination incident. The course and TTX
will provide a venue for emergency response personnel, managers, researchers, and
other support staff to discuss and learn about incident response challenges from each
other's perspectives, with regards to sampling plan development and execution.
Two scenarios will be presented to the attendees, a small-scale, single-building
incident and a larger-scale, multi-facility incident. Each scenario brief will include
current incident knowledge, site characteristics, epidemiological information, as
well as the status of any remediation efforts and the phase of response. Attendees
will be divided into teams and tasked with developing defensible sampling plans for
each of the two scenarios.
Additionally, Office of Research and Development (ORD) HSRP is developing an
ArcGIS-based tool, intended to assist technical working groups (TWGs) and
responders to quickly and defensibly develop sampling plans following
contamination incidents. The tool allows the user to understand the resource demand
(cost, time, personnel, etc.) necessary to carry out any plans developed. TOTS
(trade-off tool for sampling) will be demonstrated during the initial briefing and
made available to attendees for plan development.
At the end of the course, a hotwash will be conducted to gather feedback from
participants to: 1) identify gaps in current capabilities with regards to sample plan
development, 2) prioritize future research, 3) identify issues or areas of improvement
for the TOTS and training course, and 4) generate an after-action report to
memorialize the findings.
34
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 35 of 43
Agenda
09:00
Welcome and TTX participant objectives
09:15
Introduction to TOTS
09:45
Scenario 1 - Single Building
10:15
15-minute break
11:15
Scenario 1 Hot Wash
12:30
Lunch (1-hour 15 min)
13:45
Scenario 2 - Multi-Building, Wide Area
15:15
15-minute break
16:30
Scenario 2 Hot Wash
17:00
Wrap-up/Closing comments
35
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 36 of 43
Scenarios
Single Building Scenario
Two janitorial workers, an administrative assistant and a personal assistant at a
local university have developed inhalational anthrax. All four individuals work in
the same building on campus. Develop a sampling plan to identify areas needing
remediation, and areas safe for reoccupancy.
Multi-Building Scenario (Neighborhood)
A few days after the college building incident, four kids in a nearby neighborhood
develop inhalational anthrax. Two weeks after development of these illnesses, a
woman in the neighborhood developed gastrointestinal anthrax. The exposure
route is unknown at this moment, but since all four live in the same neighborhood,
characterization sampling needs to be conducted in this neighborhood to determine
if others are at risk for exposure. Develop a sampling plan to identify areas needing
remediation and areas safe for reoccupancy.
36
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 37 of 43
Men's RR
.Women's RR
Assist, off. 2
Supply "closet
Breakroom
Lounge"
Stairwell
Women's RR
Grad. assist., off.
^Conference room
Purchasing
Recept. desk
Lounge
Entrance
Breakroom
Tutoring center
Single Building Floor Plan. Upper panel = upstairs, lower panel = downstairs
37
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 38 of 43
Neighborhood Map (Small Extent)
Surface Areas for the Areas of Interest
38
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 39 of 43
Area of Interest
Square
Feet
Single Building
7400
Neighborhood Building Footprints
142746
Neighborhood Outdoors (large)
1742824
Neighborhood Outdoors (small)
661500
Neighborhood Combined (large)
1885570
Neighborhood Combined (small)
804246
Sampling Tool Attributes
Area
Sampling Tools
(in2)
Area (ft2)
Cost/Sample
Cost/Ft2
Swab
4
0.028
$458
$16,357
Sponge
100
0.694
$493
$710
Micro Vac
144
1.0
$612
$612
Wet Vac
28800
200.0
$712
$3.56
Robot
144000
1000.0
$1153
$1.15
Aggressive Air
144000
1000.0
$800
$0.80
Sampling Strategies Availability
Neighborhoo
Neighborhood
Available Sampling
Single
d Buildings
Neighborhoo
Outdoors +
Strategies
Building
(86)
d Outdoors
Indoors
Targeted (Judgmental)
X
X
X
X
Random TOTS
X
X
X
X
95% Hotspot
X
X
X
X
99% Hotspot
X
X
X
X
95% Prob, 95% Area; Grid
X
X
95% Prob, 95%) Area;
Random
X
X
95% Prob, 99% Area; Grid
X
X
95%o Prob, 99% Area;
Random
X
X
99% Prob, 99% Area; Grid
X
X
99% Prob, 99% Area;
Random
X
X
39
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 40 of 43
TTX Tasks - Scenario 1
l.a. Develop sampling plan for Building Characterization
i. To inform decon locations for spot decon (preferred over whole building fumigation)
ii. No Restrictions on Cost/Time, two laboratories available for analysis
l.b. Develop plan for Clearance Sampling, (post-decon, no characterization sampling)
i. No Restrictions
I.e. Develop plan for Clearance Sampling, (post-decon, no characterization sampling)
i. Local Public Health is requiring a confidence-based approach, 95% confident that no
hotspots remain
l.d. Develop plan for Clearance Sampling, (post-decon, no characterization sampling)
i. Restrictions - two days for sampling, two laboratories available, $15,000 cost, two
teams of three samplers and maintain at least equivalent surface area of the probabilistic
approach in lc
40
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 41 of 43
TTX Tasks - Scenario 2
2.a. Develop a Plan for Characterization Sampling
i. No Restrictions
2.b. Develop a Plan for Characterization Sampling
i. Restrictions - 21 people, 7 teams, 2 days, 10 laboratories, 2 shifts
2.c. Develop a clearance sampling plan with confidence
i. Local public health has stated that any plan should meet 95% confidence that no
hotspots of contamination reside in the area (outdoors or indoors)
ii. Restrictions - 21 people, 7 teams, 10 laboratories, 2 shifts
2.d. Develop a clearance sampling plan with area sampled equal to that of 2c, but with
time/cost restrictions
i. Restrictions - $25,000 + 21 people, 7 teams, 2 days, 10 laboratories, 2 shifts
41
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 42 of 43
EPA Trade Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise Results Page
Scenario:
Scenario:
Inputs
Inputs
Approach (Targeted or
Probabilistic)
Approach (Targeted or Probabilistic)
- If probabilistic, selection:
- If probabilistic, selection:
Available Teams
Available Teams
Staff per team
Staff per team
Available Laboratories
Available Laboratories
Shifts
Shifts
Results
Results
Cost
Cost
Total time
Total time
Samples
Samples
Sponge
Sponge
Micro Vac
Micro Vac
Swab
Swab
Wet Vac
Wet Vac
Robot Floor Cleaner
Robot Floor Cleaner
Aggressive air sampling
Aggressive air sampling
Sampled area
Sampled area
Total area coverage
Total area coverage
# of samples with detection
# of samples with detection
Limiting resource
Limiting resource
42
-------
Trade-Off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) Tabletop Exercise
Date: 9/28/20
Final Report
Page 43 of 43
TOTS TTX Hot-Wash Questions
TOTS Questions;
What did you like about TOTS?
What did you dislike about TOTS?
What steps could have been made easier?
What additional features/functionality would make TOTS more useful?
Could TOTS be useful outside a Bio-Response?
Who do you envision being the appropriate end-user for TOTS? Environmental Unit
Lead? SME [subject matter experts]? TWG [technical working groups]?
TOTS can export developed plans to apps such as Collector and Surveyl23, is this
useful?
Does TOTS allow enough flexibility for development of sampling plans that meet your
site-specific needs?
Do you commonly work with ArcGIS or have someone who supports your GIS needs?
Did TOTS give you new insights into sample planning? If yes, what did you learn?
Sample Plan Development Questions:
Is there a process you currently follow for sample plan development? Would TOTS fit
into this process?
What other information do you foresee being needed prior to developing a sampling
plan?
What are other ways decision tools or data tools could assist in response activities?
TTX Questions:
What would you have changed about the scenario? How could it have been more realistic
or engaging?
What should we have spent more time on?
What should we have spent less time on?
Does this TTX help us identify and discuss capability gaps?
43
-------
Appendix A: Class Slides
Sample Plan Development for Biological Incidents, Large and Small -An
Interactive Table Top Exercise and Training Course
A-l
-------
2020 OSC Academy
Sample Plan Development for Biolog cal
Inc dents, Large and Small - An Interactive
Table Top Exercise and Training Course
Worth Calfee (ORD), Timothy Boe (ORD), Leroy
Mickelsen (CMAD), Christy Tomlinson (CMAD), Elise
Jakabhazy (CMAD)
% United States
Environmental Protection
i^ImI M ^Agency
-------
Disclaimer
This presentation has been subjected to the
Agency's review and has been approved for
publication. Note that approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views of the Agency. Mention of trade
names, products, or services does not
convey official EPA approval, endorsement,
or recommendation.
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Background
2001 Amerithrax Incident
~ How many letters?
~ How many grams of spores per letter?
~ How many buildings were sampled?
~ How many environmental samples collected?
~ How long did it take to complete the remediation?
~ What was the total cost of remediation?
P* ฆ # A, *
'4 r Jo:
M
4 # f
* J
; #ซ .v
tas
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Background
Urban Area Contamination
Scenario;
~ 2 mi2 outdoor urban 'area of
interest'
ฆ 15 mi2 indoors, 0.5 mi2
underground
ฆ @95% probability
ฆ 30 million samples
ฆ $15B
ฆ 3.6M Person-hours
ฆ 10 years
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Background
Biological contamination incidents often require development of
sampling plans to characterize extent of contamination, to
develop decontamination strategies, and to verify areas are safe
for re-entry. Many factors need to be considered when
developing sampling plans.
~ A tool to develop sampling plans for bio-incident is desirable
Transparency of decision making
One platform for planning, documenting, and generation of fieldable maps
Optimizing resources, weighing options, understanding trade-offs
~ EPA HSRP is currently developing a tool to meet these needs
The current TTX aims to gather critical responder and end-user input to refine
the tool
What works, what doesn't work, what's missing?
2020 OSC Academy
-------
TTX Preview
Trade-off Tool for Sampling (TOTS) is a
user-frieridly graphical interface
ฆ Sample plan development in GIS platform
ฆ Estimates cost and resources
ฆ Allows quantitative evaluation of options
Targeted end-users could be SMEs, TWGs,
OSCs, researchers
Application of TOTS to various TTX
scenarios
ฆ TOTS strengths and limitations can
be determined by participants
ฆ Feedback will be used to improve the
tool
ฆ Stimulate conversation and thought
about SAP development
u> p F
ijHfif. CvR. i
.1
m
li ฆ ฆ T
W
(_P!L
^ -pgg.
' * il I
ฆ 1
- **1"
fi *
2020 OSC Academy
-------
TTX Participant Objectives
~Utilize TOTS, create sampling plans per the
scenario requirements
~Compare resource requirements (cost, time,
staffing, laboratories, etc.) for various sampling
plans developed
~Provide feedback of the strengths and
limitations of TOTS to improve tool utility
~ Identify critical information and capabilities
required for effective SAP development,
including gaps in capabilities and knowledge to
inform future research
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Agenda
~
9:00
Welcome and TTX participant objectives
~
9:15
Introduction to TOTS
~
9:45
Scenario 1 Overview and Initiation (Single Building)
~
10:15
15 minute break
~
11:15
Scenario 1 Hot Wash
~
12:30
Lunch (1 hour 15 min)
~
1:45
Scenario 2 Overview (Multi-Building, Wide Area)
~
3:15
15 minute break
~
4:30
Scenario 2 Hot Wash
~
5:00
Wrap-up/Closing comments
2020 OSC Academy
-------
TOTS Background/Overview
Literature Review
XLS Prototype
Report
y
2016
-y-
2016
y
2017
Internal
Tabletop
Exercises
Desktop-Based
Tool
Web-Based Tool
Enhancements
"Y
2018
-y
2019
"Y
2020
Literature Review
Analyze currently-accepted
biological agent sampling
methods
Conceptual XLS Prototype
XLS-based calculations to
support resource demand
estimates
Report
Literature findings
Summarized available data
Case study
Internal Tabletop Exercises
Explore feasibility concerns
Emphasis on composite
sampling
Desktop-Based Tool
Exercising in conjunction with
AnCOR exercise
Web-Based Tool
Address stakeholder feedback
Integration with field data
collection apps
2020 OSC Academy
-------
TOTS Description
~GIS-based tool for defining sampling plan
~ArcMap Add-on built in python
~Provides a point-and-click interface
~Facilitates creating SAPs by plotting sample locations
using aerial imagery or computer aided design (CAD)
drawings
~Support selection of appropriate sampling strategy by
evaluating the impact on resource demands (cost and
time)
~Support systems-based decision making
~Confirm capability gaps and informs research
2020 OSC Academy
-------
TOTS Demonstrat on
1:2.963
Q Neighborhood.mxd - ArcMap
File Edit View Bookmarks Insert Selection Geoprocessing Customize Windows Help
ฉ X o
Table Of Contents
Ha O# @
U it <9
V X
B ฃ? Layers
0 0 Samples
~
E @ neighborhood_auxiliary
ฉ
S 0 Background
E ~ Indoor
GE) ~ Outdoorjndoor
SI ~ Outdoor
5) ~ Contamination
m Resu... | QP ArcT... Table..
^1 EBB BSD -
P II iฃl xv I4I ; Sp M W R A SA \ x -f Sampling Layer
SB
~ a | e 11 <
a x
~
O
m
370736.27 4078680.671 Meters
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Traditional Sampling Methods
Sponge Wipe
(100 in2)
SP
Swab (4 in2)
Sw
37mm Vacuum Cassette
(144 in2)
M
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Innovative Sampling Methods
1. Automated Floor Cleaning Robots (R) 2. Wet-Vacuums (W)
3. Aggressive air sampling (A) - surface agitation coupled with air
sampling
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Sampling Methods - Cost and Area
Sampling
Method
Sampled Area
(ft2)
Cost
(per sample)
Cost
(per ft2)
Swab
0.028
$458
$16,357
Sponge Wipe
0.694
$493
$710
Micro-Vacuum
1
$612
$612
Wet-Vacuum
200
$712
$3.56
Robotic Vacuum
1000
$1153
$1.15
Aggressive Air
1000
$800
$0.80
2020 OSC Academy
13
-------
Scenario 1 - Single Building
Time Limit: 2.5 hours
Two janitorial workers, an administrative assistant
and a personal assistant at a local university have
developed inhalational anthrax. All four individuals
work in the same building on campus. Develop a
sampling plan to identify areas needing
remediation, and areas safe for reoccupancy.
(TTX participants will be asked to develop a
sampling plan, for each of the injects for this
single-building scenario.)
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 1 - Office Floor Plan
i Women's RR
Assist, off- 2
Assist, off. 1
Supply closet
Breakroom
Lounge
Stairwell
Women's RR
Grad. assist, off.
.Conference room
Purchasing
Recept. desk
Lounge,
Entrance
Breakroom
Tutoring center.
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 1 - Office Tour
-------
Scenario 1a - Objectives / Restrictions
1.a. Develop sampling plan for Building
Characterization
i. To inform decon locations for spot decon
(preferred over whole building fumigation)
ii. No Restrictions on Cost/Time, 2 labs available
for analysis
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 1b- Objectives / Restrictions
1.b. Develop plan for Clearance Sampling, (post
decon, no characterization sampling)
i. No Restrictions
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 1c - Objectives / Restrictions
1.c. Develop plan for Clearance Sampling, (post
decon, no characterization sampling)
i. Local Public Health is requiring a confidence-
based approach, 95% confident that no hotspots
remain
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 1d - Objectives / Restrictions
1.d. Develop plan for Clearance Sampling, (post
decon, no characterization sampling)
i. Restrictions - 2 days for sampling, 2 labs
available, $15,000 cost, two teams of 3 samplers
and maintain at least equivalent surface area of
the probabilistic approach in 1c
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 1e - Objectives / Restrictions
I.e. Compare how plans performed against
scenario contamination map (show contam map in
ArcGIS with sample plan, complete results page,
discuss outcomes)
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 1 Hot Wash
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 2 - Neighborhood
Time Limit: 2.5 hours
A few days after the college building incident, four kids in a
nearby neighborhood develop inhalational anthrax. Two
weeks after these illnesses, a woman in the neighborhood
developed gastrointestinal anthrax. The exposure route is
unknown at this moment, but since all 4 live in the same
neighborhood, characterization sampling needs to be
conducted in this neighborhood to determine if others are
at risk for exposure. Develop a sampling plan to identify
areas needing remediation, and areas safe for
reoccupancy.
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 2 - Neighborhood Map
2020
fock cniia
.Playground,
Busstop j
cmia 4
[Bus stop.
;ick'C!ri!id3]
CoTTonariSi]
J^Path tosocJr
Play areTj^ ^
.Common area j
[Grandpafenis of Q cfc Ctilldj
Community center
Dog pans
9
-------
Scenario 2 - Neighborhood Tour
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 2a - Objectives I Restrictions
2.a. Develop a Plan for Characterization Sampling
i. No Restrictions
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 2b - Objectives I Restrictions
2.b. Develop a Plan for Characterization Sampling
i. Restrictions - 21 people, 7 teams, 2 day, 10
labs, 2 shifts
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 2c - Objectives / Restrictions
2.c. Develop a clearance sampling plan with
confidence
i. Local public health has stated that any plan
should meet 95% confidence that no hotspots
of contamination reside in the area (outdoors
or indoors)
ii. Restrictions - 21 people, 7 teams, 10 labs, 2
shifts
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 2d - Objectives I Restrictions
2.d. Develop a clearance sampling plan with area
sampled equal to that of 2c, but with time/cost
restrictions
i. Restrictions - $25000 + 21 people, 7 teams,
2 day, 10 labs, 2 shifts
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 2e - Objectives I Restrictions
2.e. Compare how plans performed against
scenario contamination map
2020 OSC Academy
-------
Scenario 2 Hot Wash
2020 OSC Academy
-------
TTX Hot Wash
2020 OSC Academy
-------
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
------- |