Critical Public Information needs during Drinking Water Emergencies

Request for the Office of Management and Budget

Review and Approval for Federally Sponsored Data Collection

June 10, 2009

Project Officer: Scott Minamyer, Environmental Scientist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

National Homeland Security Research Center

Water Infrastructure Protection Division

26 West Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Table of Contents

    A. Justification	1

	1.   Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary	1

2.   Purpose and Use of Information Collection	3

3.   Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction	7

4.   Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information	8

        4.1 References	9

5.   Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities	9

	6.   Consequences of Collecting Information Less Frequently	9

7.   Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5	10

	8.   Consultations Outside the Agency	10

		8.1 Federal Register Notice	10

		8.2 Consultations	10

	9.   Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents	12

10. Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents	13

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions	14

12. Estimate of Annualized Burden Hours and Costs	14

12.1 Estimate of Annualized Burden Hours	15

12.2 Estimate of Annualized Burden Costs	16

13. Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents and

         Recordkeepers	18

14. Annualized Cost to the Federal Government	18

15. Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments	18

16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project Time Schedule	19

16.1 Project Time Schedule	19

16.2 Analysis and Publications Plan	20

17. Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate	20

18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
20

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods	21

Appendices	22

Appendix A    Authorizing Legislation - Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Selected Sections
Copied)	23

Appendix B    Authorizing Legislation - Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and
Protection	29

Appendix C    Authorizing Legislation - Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 9: Defense of United States Agriculture and Food	39

Appendix D    Screening Instrument EPA Water Security - Professionals	47

Appendix E    Research:  Opinions about a Public Health Issue
Information for Participants - Professionals	49

Appendix F    Moderator’s Guide - Professionals	51

Appendix G    Screening Instrument EPA Water Security - Public	54

Appendix H    Research:  Opinions about a Public Health Issue
Information for Participant - Public	57

Appendix I     Moderator’s Guide - Public	59

Appendix J     Materials Available for Testing - Public	65

Appendix K    Copy of 60 Day Federal Register Notice	87Justification

Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

Since the events of September 11, 2001, improving the security of the
nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure has become a top
priority. As a critical infrastructure, water systems can be subject to
threats and intentional attacks and must be protected. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as the federal lead
sector-specific agency for water, plays a critical role in this effort
and is responsible for protecting water systems including detection and
recovery from terrorist attacks. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is
the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking
water.  SDWA was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect
public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply.
Amendments to the SDWA in 1986 and 1996 required many actions to protect
drinking water and its sources. The 1996 amendments also recognized
public information as an important component of safe drinking water.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, EPA developed and
initiated a research program to comply with the Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. The Act amended
the SDWA and its 1996 amendments and included requirements for EPA to
conduct research and review the methods and the means to prevent,
detect, and respond to contamination by various chemical, biological,
and radiological agents (Appendix A).

In addition to the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, a number of
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) drive EPA’s water
protection research.

HSPD-7:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-5.html"
Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection
designates EPA as the sector-specific lead agency for critical water
infrastructure safety and security and encourages the development of
risk management strategies to address terrorist events (Appendix B).

HSPD-9:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040203-2.html"
Defense of United States Agriculture and Food  directs EPA to develop a
fully coordinated surveillance and monitoring program to provide early
detection and to develop a nationwide laboratory network to support
monitoring and response requirements (Appendix C).

HSPD-10:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040428-6.html"
Biodefense in the 21st Century  is currently a classified document that
reaffirms EPA’s responsibilities under HSPD-9 while adding a clear
directive regarding the agency’s responsibilities during
decontamination efforts and in developing the ability to address the
risk of contamination following a bioattack.

The main focus of EPA’s Homeland Security water protection research
is on improving the nation’s ability to be protected from and respond
to terrorist attacks on the nation’s water and wastewater
infrastructure. The thematic research areas include:

Protection and prevention research, which involves developing tools and
methods to address the vulnerabilities of drinking water and wastewater
systems.

Detection research, which involves developing tools and methodologies to
detect, confirm, and measure accidental and intentional contamination
events and support the development of a laboratory network.

Containment and mitigation research, which involves supporting the
development of planning tools for contamination events and tools and
methodologies for responding to and mitigating such events.

Decontamination and water treatment research, which involves developing
a better understanding of the treatment and decontamination of water
infrastructure and contaminated water.

EPA distributes public information materials and holds public meetings,
working with states, tribes, water systems, and environmental and civic
groups, to encourage public involvement.

As part of EPA’s Homeland Security water protection research
initiatives, a critical need has been identified for the development of
methodologies to effectively communicate risks associated with water
security emergencies.  The EPA sponsored three workshops in 2005 and
2006 on the development of message maps as part of effective risk
communication planning.  Message mapping uses include:

A process by which users can predict 95 percent of questions likely to
be asked by the media and others following an incident, prepare clear
and concise answers to the questions along with supporting information
ahead of time, and practice effective message delivery before a crisis
occurs.

A viable tool for communicating information about terrorist attacks and
other manmade or natural emergencies. They ensure that risk information
has the optimum chance of being heard, understood, and remembered.

A tool to allow organizations to convey timely, accurate, clear, and
credible information. They enable audiences to better understand issues,
act constructively upon the information provided, recover more quickly
from the stress of the event, and gain and regain trust in risk mangers.

As part of the 2005 and 2006 workshops, draft sample messages were
developed through the cooperative efforts of subject matter experts in
water agencies, public health, emergency response, law enforcement,
communication, policy, and management.  This data collection initiative
is being undertaken as part of the formative research to: 1) evaluate
message maps developed during the above-mentioned workshops for
appropriateness and effectiveness and 2) compare public and professional
assessments of critical information needs.

2.	Purpose and Use of Information Collection

	This will be the first opportunity for EPA to evaluate the message maps
developed during the aforementioned workshops for appropriateness and
effectiveness and compare public and professional assessments of
critical information needs as noted previously. The results of the study
will directly support the mission of the National Homeland Security
Research Center (NHSRC).  The NHSRC Threat and Consequence Assessment
Division (TCAD) evaluates environmental and human health risks
associated with the release of contaminants.  TCAD also develops risk
assessment and risk communication techniques and methods of practical
assistance to government agencies and first responders dealing with
chemical, biological, and radiological contamination. In addition, TCAD
aids response leaders and decision makers in determining levels of risk
to the public, deciding what steps to take, and communicating their
decisions to the public in a useful and reassuring way.

The NHSRC Water Infrastructure Protection Division (WIPD) conducts
research focusing on ways to better secure the nation’s drinking water
and wastewater systems against threats and attacks.  Along with
providing applied research and technical support, WIPD
encourages information sharing and risk communication strategies among
key water infrastructure stakeholders.  WIPD scientists and engineers
produce analytical tools and procedures, technology evaluations, models
and methodologies, decontamination techniques, and technical resource
guides and protocols. The overall objective of this study is to provide
practical information that communicators can directly apply to their
message development and crisis communication planning.  The target
audiences for the current efforts are water sector professionals and
consumers (members of the public who use drinking water supplied by
water utilities).

The results of the study will assist water utility Public Information
Officers and others in addressing appropriate issues of public concern
related to a terrorist or other crisis incident impacting drinking water
systems and requiring post-incident decontamination actions.  More
specifically, the research will probe consumers’ and water sector
professionals’ beliefs, opinions, and knowledge about water security
risks that will assist public officials in planning effective risk
communication messages.

Interviews with water sector professionals and focus groups with
consumers will be conducted in each of the four regions of the country
(U.S. Census Bureau identified regions).  The selection of the locations
was based on location (region), city population, location within the top
25 largest cities within the country, and household units (cities with
housing units greater than 250,000 that potentially would use drinking
water supplied by water utilities).

Target Location Considerations

Region	Location*	City Selected	2007 City Population Estimate**	2007
Rank of City

Population

Estimates**	Housing Units***

Region 1	Northeast	Boston, MA	  599,351	23rd	255,072

Region 2	Midwest	Chicago, IL	2,836,658	3rd	1,173,754

Region 3	South	Charlotte, NC	  671,588	19th	296,465

Region 4	West	San Diego, CA	1,266,731	6th	501,609

Data collected from the U.S. Census Bureau web site at:

*        HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf"
www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf  (viewed 12-29-08).

**      HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-01.xls"
www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-01.xls  (viewed
12-29-08).

***    HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/"  www.census.gov/  (viewed
12-29-08).

Water Sector Professional Data Collection:

The objective for the water sector professional data collection is to
explore the communication priorities associated with terrorist attacks
on water supplies and information needs during and following crisis
events.

Data will be collected from water sector professionals through in-depth
interviews.  Interviews will be conducted with those involved in the
following job categories:

Senior Management Water Sector Professionals

Other Water Sector Professionals

   Call Center

   Emergency Management

   Field Operations

   Plant Operations

   Public Information

Recruiting of water sector professionals will be conducted by EPA and
the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), the
supporting contractor for the initiative. ORISE is a U.S. Department of
Energy institute that focuses on scientific initiatives to research
health risks from occupational hazards, assess environmental cleanup,
respond to radiation medical emergencies, support national security and
emergency preparedness, and educate the next generation of scientists.
ORISE also provides support to other government initiatives, including
areas related to safety and health research.  ORISE has a long history
of collecting and analyzing research data for the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, including their agencies such as the Centers
for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute for
Occupation Safety and Health (NIOSH).

For this initiative, EPA will establish contact, obtain agreement of
the organization to participate, and identify prospective interviewees.
ORISE will screen potential interviewees, schedule interviews, provide
directions, and otherwise make arrangements for participation (Appendix
D).

Members of Senior Management will be interviewed individually.  There
will be an interview scheduled with one Senior Management professional
in each city.  Professionals from other job classifications (Call
Center, Emergency Management, Field Operations, Plant Operations, and
Public Information) will be interviewed in pairs (dyads).  Each dyad
will consist of professionals from two different job categories.  There
will be a total of six dyad interviews in each location.  The exact
composition of each dyad will depend on the number of personnel in that
job category and their availability.  Across the dyads, at least one
person from each job category will be interviewed. A total of seven
interview sessions will be conducted in each city.

Water Sector Professional Interview Selection

Water Sectors Professionals Participants to be Interviewed	Number of
Interview Sessions Per City	Number of Participants per Interview Session
Number of Participants per City	Number of Cities where Interviews will
Occur	Number of Participants per Initiative

Senior Management	1 	1	1	4	4

Other Professionals:

-  Call Center

-  Emergency

    Management

-  Field Operations

-  Plant Operations

-  Public Information	6	2	12 	4	48

Total	7	1 - Senior Management

2 -  Other Professionals	13	 4  cities for Senior Managements

and Other Professionals	52

For each individual interview or focus group, the participant(s) will
assemble at a commercial market-research facility. Prior to
participating in the study, each prospective participant will receive an
information sheet providing such information as sponsorship of the
study, their rights as a participant, risks and benefits of
participating, and who to contact for more information (Appendix E).
Participants can keep or discard the information as they choose.  A
representative from ORISE will address any questions regarding the study
before the interview begins.

A moderator will conduct a 1-hour guided discussion with water sector
professionals using a Moderator Guide (Appendix F).  The interview will
focus on discussions about issues the public would want or need to know
in the event of a major water emergency.

An EPA representative will be available to answer questions at the
completion of the discussion.

Up to four observers from EPA and ORISE may observe the interviews from
behind a one-way mirror.  They will take notes of the information being
collected in preparation for drafting the findings of the study.  No
identifying information will be included in the notes.

Consumer Data Collection:

	The objectives of the consumer data collection include:

Explore the appropriateness and effectiveness of the messages prepared
by EPA for delivery by water sector and other spokespersons to the media
and general public during crisis events and post-incident
decontamination.

Explore anticipated concerns of members of the public and their
priorities regarding information they would need during a terrorist
attack on water supplies.

Data from the consumers will be collected by focus group sessions. Up to
eight participants will be selected for each focus group, for a total of
four focus groups per city.

Consumer Group Sessions

Participants to be included in a Focus Group Session	Number of Focus
Group Sessions per City	Number of Participants per Focus Group Session
Number of Participants

per City	Number of Cities where Focus Group Sessions will Occur	Number
of Participants per Initiative

Consumers	4	8	32	4	128

The participants will be selected using a screening instrument (Appendix
G).  Participants will be selected using the follow criteria:

All participants will be at least 18 years of age

Approximately half of the participants will be female

The racial/ethnic mix of the participants will approximate the
composition of the city

                of the focus group session

Participants will be comfortable conversing in English

Participants will be a mix of those who have earned a college degree and
those who have not

None of the participants will work in the media

None of the participants will work in a health-related field

None of the participants will have participated in a market research
study within the last 6 months

For each focus groups session, participants will assemble at a
commercial market-research facility. Prior to participating in the
study, each prospective respondent will receive an information sheet
providing information, such as sponsorship of the study, their rights as
a participants, risks and benefits in participating, and contacts for
more information (Appendix H).  Participants can keep or discard the
information as they choose.  A representative from ORISE will address
any questions regarding the study before the session begins.

A moderator will guide the discussion of the group using the
Moderator’s Guide (Appendix I).  Each session is expected to last
about 2 hours.  The session will focus on:

Discussion of public safety

Identification of information people might want and actions people might
take

Review of draft information sheets (Appendix J); each group will review
three to four fact sheets (Scenarios)

An EPA representative will be available to answer questions at the
completion of the discussion.

Up to six observers from EPA, ORISE, and municipal water operations may
observe the focus groups from behind a one-way mirror.  They will take
notes of the information being collected in preparation for drafting the
findings of the study.  No identifying information will be included in
the notes.

Water Sector Professional and Consumer Data Collections:

Both the interviews with the water sector professionals and the consumer
focus group sessions will be moderated by a representative from Mark
Herring Associates, Inc.  ORISE has a long-standing history of using the
services of this company for government-related data research tasks,
including support for qualitative research projects for CDC.  The
president of the company, Dr. Mark Herring, has consulted on this
initiative and anticipates personally conducting the interviews and
moderating the sessions. Dr. Herring has a doctorate in Counseling
Psychology with doctoral-level training in experimental design, group
process, and behavioral research.  He has over 25 years experience in
market research and works regularly on public health issues.

For provider (water sector professionals) interviews and consumer focus
group sessions:

All sessions will be conducted in English.

Participants will be screened for their comfort level in conversing in
English

An audio recording of each session will be made

No transcripts will be prepared.

A report of the findings will be compiled from the notes of the EPA and
ORISE observers and in-depth discussions with the moderator.  The audio
recording will be reviewed if additional information or clarification is
needed.

Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction

An audio recording of the interviews and focus groups will be made but
will only be used if there are questions about the information received
from the session (interview/focus group meeting).  There is no need for
a transcript or information to be entered into a data system. It is
anticipated the bulk of the information will be obtained from the
observers’ notes and discussions with the moderator.

4.	Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information

	The current data collection will not duplicate any existing or past EPA
work or the work of other agencies.

EPA’s National Homeland Security Research Center has identified a
critical need for the development of methodologies to effectively
communicate risks associated with water security emergencies.  They
sponsored workshops in 2005 and 2006 to prepare example message maps for
such emergencies.  This data collection initiative is being undertaken
to evaluate message maps developed during the workshops and compare
public and professional assessments of critical information needs

A professionally trained librarian researched the literature for any
studies similar to this EPA proposed research. None were found that
closely match these potential research efforts.  During the literature
search, information was located concerning:

Communicating risks to the public in drinking water incidents in a study
conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) that was published in the Journal
of Water and Health (Rundblad 2008). According to the article, the UK
study results indicated the need for communicators to address the words
used to make up risk messages that this proposed research focus will
include.

An international consensus that a preventive risk management approach to
the supply of drinking water (Water Safety Plans [WSPs]) is the most
reliable way to protect public health according to an article published
in the Journal of Water and Health (Byleveld et al. 2008). A key
component of a comprehensive WSP is that water suppliers and health
authorities must have plans to respond in the case of water
contamination and/or outbreaks and include clear guidance on when to
issue warnings to consumers and how these warnings are to be
communicated. This EPA proposed research should aid in providing risk
communication guidance in this area.

Communicating successfully information about water-related risks to the
public was published in the Journal American Water Work’s Association
(Parkin et al. 2003). In a workshop, researchers and practitioners
discussed emerging issues to develop recommendations for improving
water-related health risk communication. Workshop participants stressed
that water utilities need to educate their staff on the importance of
risk communication and that risk communication should be a board-level
responsibility.  This proposed research would support the education of
water professional staff about risk communication methods.

4.1 References

Byleveld PM, Deere D, Davison A (2008): Water safety plans: Planning for
adverse events and communicating with consumers. Journal of Water and
Health 6:1-9.

Parkin RT, Embrey MA, Hunter PR (2003): Communicating water-related
health risks: Lessons learned and emerging issues. Journal American
Water Works Association 95(7):58.

Rundblad G (2008): The semantics and pragmatics of water notices and the
impact on public health. Journal of Water and Health 6(suppl 1):77-86.

5.	Impact of Small Businesses or Other Small Entities

	The participants for this study will be water sector professionals and
consumers of drinking water supplied by water utilities. The water
sector professionals will be municipal employees that have jobs related
to public drinking water.

Consumers will be members of the general public who use drinking water
supplied by water utilities.  Although some of the consumers may work
for small businesses, small businesses will not be directly involved in
the study.

6.  Consequences of Collecting Information Less Frequently

This is a component of EPA’s current behavioral science research
intended to assist water utilities and others in developing
methodologies for effectively communicating risks associated with water
security emergencies. This data collection initiative is being
undertaken to evaluate message maps developed during the workshops and
to compare public and professional assessments of critical information
needs.  It is critical that these methodologies be tested prior to a
real water security emergency to ensure that public officials have the
right tools to use in planning effective risk communication messages.
The interviews and focus group evaluations comprising this study will be
conducted one time.  No follow-up effort is planned at this time.

	There are no legal obstacles to reduce the burden.

7.	Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5

	There are no special circumstances involved in this study.

Consultations Outside the Agency

8.1	Federal Register Notice

	A copy of the 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comments
on the proposed study is attached (Appendix K).

8.2	Consultations

	The following professionals/consultants contributed to the development
of the message maps and/or the message map evaluation process being
proposed:

	Participants of the EPA sponsored Message Mapping Workshops held in
2005 (Atlanta, Georgia and Washington, DC) and 2006 (Alexandria,
Virginia) assisted in developing the message maps that are being
evaluated. Invited workshop participants represented a cross-section of
water utilities from various regions of the United States; local, state,
and federal government agencies; emergency response organizations;
public health officials; law enforcement agencies; water sector
professional associations, and experts in emergency communications.

	Dr. Vincent Covello, Director

Center for Risk Communication

29 Washington Square West Suite 2

New York, New York 10011

	Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Dr. Vincent Covello facilitated the 2005 and 2006 workshops for EPA.
Dr. Covello is an internationally known crisis communication expert and
Director of the Center for Risk Communication. In the past, Dr. Covello
has held numerous positions in academia and government, including
Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences and Clinical Medicine at
Columbia University. He has been a senior scientist at the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, a Study Director at the National
Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, and the Director of the
Risk Assessment Program at the National Science Foundation.  He is on
the editorial board of several journals and is the Past President of the
Society for Risk Analysis.           Dr. Covello has authored or edited
over 25 books and over 75 published articles on risk assessment,
management, and communication.

Dr. Mark Herring

Mark Herring Associates, Inc.

2150 Diamond Rock Road

Malvern, PA 19355-9528

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Dr. Mark Herring was consulted on the process and materials to be used
for the interview and focus group sessions.  Both the interviews with
the water sector professionals and the consumer focus group sessions
will be moderated by a representative from Mark Herring Associates, Inc.
The President of the company, Dr. Mark Herring, anticipates personally
conducting the interviews and moderating the sessions. Dr. Herring has a
doctorate in Counseling Psychology with doctoral-level training in
experimental design, group process, and behavioral research.  He has
over 25 years experience in market research and works regularly on
public health issues.  He has had experience in the completion of
qualitative research projects for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention on many topics, including bioterrorism, willingness of first
responders to be vaccinated for smallpox, and strategies for encouraging
high-risk groups to receive the flu vaccine annually. He has written
several articles for national health care and market research
publications.

Deborah McFalls

	Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education/Oak Ridge Associated
Universities

P.O. Box 117

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117

	Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

	E-mail:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Ms. McFalls contributed to the interview and focus group session format
and content.  She has conducted research in health and safety studies
for the past 10 years for the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. She is a Health Education
Specialist, Project Manager II at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science
and Education where she has worked for 17 years.  Ms. McFalls conducted
the testing of the Moderator Guides and accompanying materials for water
sector professional interviews and consumer focus group meetings.  The
Moderator Guide - Professional was tested with a city Director of Public
Works who has responsibilities for the city’s water distribution
system. The Moderator Guide - Public was tested with four consumers of
public drinking water.   Through the pilot testing for both sectors, the
time required to complete the interviews and focus group meetings was
determined.  The purpose of the testing for interviews and focus group
session materials was to determine the clarity, time, and opinion of
participants about the materials used. None of the participants in the
pilot testing process will be part of the proposed study.

Dr. Richard Tardif

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education/Oak Ridge Associated
Universities

P.O. Box 117

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117

	Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

	E-mail:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Dr. Richard Tardif contributed to the evaluation instrument design
format, layout, and content. He is a Senior Scientist at the Oak Ridge
Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) with 25 years of experience
in risk communication, stakeholder involvement, and training. Dr. Tardif
established and currently manages several ORISE health communication
efforts in environmental and public health. He is responsible for
designing, conducting, and evaluating some of ORISE's most prominent
health education and risk communication efforts in the areas of exercise
planning, audience research, communication science, public health
preparedness, training development, and evaluation. He has also
moderated, facilitated, or served as an instructor for numerous
training, workshop, exercise, and focus group activities.  Some of his
recent projects have addressed health care worker immunization
practices, rotavirus vaccine, smallpox, the Strategic National
Stockpile, Environmental Public Health Tracking, severe acute
respiratory syndrome, emergency communication for bioterrorism events,
pandemic influenza preparedness, and factors influencing adherence to
public health directives.

9.	Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents

No financial payments or incentives will be provided to the water sector
professionals being interviewed.  It is anticipated they will be
employees of the state or local government and will not expect to be
compensated, since this will be a job-related task with the anticipated
research outcome resulting in direct benefits to the government they
represent.

It is standard practice to reimburse focus group respondents for their
time.  Consumers of water utility supplied drinking water asked to
participate in focus group sessions will be paid a cash incentive each
not to exceed $80.00 (this amount may vary slightly based on local
standard market payments).  The $80.00 is a typical incentive for
consumers that ORISE and other contractors have paid for past research
participation activities based on consultation with numerous marketing
research companies.  Consumers are paid to compensate them for their
time and expenses such as gas, parking cost, etc. involved in the
activity.  Even though the results of the study will indirectly benefit
the consumer, this activity is not a job-related task for them. The cash
incentive will be described at the time of recruitment; it is
anticipated that this incentive will help to ensure participation.  An
Information for Participants handout will be provided to all consumers
prior to the start of each focus group session.  Included in the handout
will be information noting that they will receive a cash incentive for
participating in the discussion but will be free to leave at any time
without losing the cash incentive or other penalty (see Appendix H).

     10.	Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents

Confidentiality of responses from respondents will be assured by using
an independent contractor to collect the information, by enacting
procedures to prevent unauthorized access to respondent data, and by
preventing the public disclosure of the responses of individual
participants.

Data are being collected from water sector professionals and focus
groups of consumers of drinking water supplied by water utilities.  EPA
has chosen to implement a confidentiality policy for the participants of
this research in which EPA has deemed it unnecessary for them to have
access to information about the participants in the research. Under this
policy, the support contractor, ORISE, will:

Maintain no identifiers connecting any data collected to any particular
participant; neither will it provide any personal identifiers to EPA or
others; firms that conduct recruiting and host the sessions will be
required to not provide personal identifiers to ORISE or EPA

Retain one set of audio recordings and at least one copy of any report
it produces, which will not contain any personal identifiers

Develop a report in an agreed-upon format summarizing the responses
provided by participants; the report will contain no personal
identifiers--that is, information sufficient to determine the identity
of any participant (e.g., first and last name, address)

Retain records and audiotapes for 1 year and then burn, shred, or
otherwise destroy them. No personal identifiers of participants will be
delivered to EPA or others.

Even though EPA will initially provide a list of potential water sector
professionals for ORISE to contact about participating in the research,
any data collected from them will not have any personal identifiers
linked to them.

An Information for Participants handout will be provided to all
participants prior to the start of each interview or focus group
session.  Among the information on the handout will be a section about
confidentiality that notes the following:

“We will keep the information you give us private and confidential to
the extent allowed by law. Your name will not be used in the reports,
presentations, or publications. No statement you make will be linked to
you by name.  Only members of the research staff will be allowed to look
at the records.  When we present this study or publish its results, your
name or other facts that point to you will not be shown or used.”

ORISE will submit an application to conduct research on human subjects
to the Oak Ridge Site-Wide Institutional Review Board (IRB) and will be
required to abide by any restrictions that the IRB requires of them.

11.  Justification for Sensitive Questions

No questions will be asked that are of a personal or sensitive nature.
The data collection process does not contain any personal questions
regarding health status, lifestyle, sexual practices, religious beliefs,
or other potentially sensitive issues commonly considered to be private.
 Consumer participants will be asked questions about the following
during the participant screening process:

Age:	     All participants will be at least 18 years of age

Education:	     Mix of those who have earned a college degree and those
who have not

Employment:  None of the participants will work in the media or a
health-related field

Gender:	     Approximately half of the participants will be female

Race:	     Racial/ethnic mix of participants will approximate the
composition of

     			     the city of the focus group session

12. Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Costs

The target audiences for the research are water sector professionals and
consumers (members of the public who use drinking water supplied by
water utilities). Data will be collected from water sector professionals
through in-depth 1-hour interviews.  Interviews will be conducted with
those involved in the following job categories:

Senior Management Water Sector Professionals

Other Water Sector Professionals

  Call Center

  Emergency Management

  Field Operations

  Plant Operations

  Public Information

Data from the consumers will be collected by means of 2-hour focus group
sessions. Up to eight participants will be selected for each focus group
for a total of four focus groups per city.  A total of four cities will
be visited.  There is no cost to the consumers or their employers since
they will participate after working hours and will be reimbursed for
participation.

The pilot test with one water sector professional indicated that the
interview takes approximately 1 hour to complete. The pilot test with
consumers indicated that the focus group sessions take approximately 2
hours to complete. The interview and focus group format/materials were
designed so participants can focus quickly on addressing questions and
reviewing materials easily, moving from one exercise to another.

12.1. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours

Type of Respondent	Format	Number of Respondents	Length of
Interview/Focus Group Session	Response Burden

Senior Management	Interview	4	1 hour	4

Other Water Sector Professionals	Interview	48	1 hour each	48

Consumers*	Focus Group 	128	2 hours	NA

Total 	NA	180	NA	     52

Professionals from other water sector professional classifications (five
classifications: Call Center, Emergency Management, Field Operations,
Plant Operations, Public Information) will be interviewed in pairs
(dyads).  Each dyad will consist of professionals from two different job
categories.  There will be a total of six dyad interviews in each
location.  The exact composition of the dyad will depend on the number
of personnel in that job category and their availability.  Across the
dyads, at least one person from each job category will be interviewed. A
total of six interview sessions will be conducted in four cities with a
total of 48 interviews for the research initiative.

12.2. Estimated Annualized Burden Costs

Type of Respondent	Number of Respondents	Response Burden per Respondent/

Interview/Focus Group/State	Total  Burden per Respondent per Respondent
Category	Hourly Wage Rate*	Respondent Cost

Senior Management  - California	1	1 hour	1	$56.00	$56.00

Senior Management  - Illinois	1	1 hour	1	$52.51	$52.51

Senior Management  - Massachusetts	1	1 hour	1	$54.44*	$54.44

Senior Management  - North Carolina	1	1 hour	1	$52.08	$52.08

Total	4	1 hour	4	NA	$215.03

Call Center                - California	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$22.92	$55.01

Call Center

- Illinois	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$24.40	$58.56

Call Center                 -  Massachusetts	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$26.52
$63.65

Call Center                - North Carolina	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$22.65	$54.36

Emergency Management              - California	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$34.22
$82.13

Emergency Management

- Illinois	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$18.70	$44.88

Emergency Management               - Massachusetts	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$31.20
$74.88

Emergency Management               - North Carolina	2.4	1 hour	2.4
$22.23	$53.35

Field Operations        - California	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$25.31	$60.74

Field Operations         - Illinois	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$23.48	$56.35

Field Operations         - Massachusetts	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$20.81	$49.94

Field Operations        - North Carolina	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$16.09	$38.62

Plant Operations        - California	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$25.31	$60.74

Plant Operations        - Illinois

	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$23.48	$56.35

Plant Operations        - Massachusetts	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$20.81	$49.94

Plant Operations        - North Carolina	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$16.09	$38.62

Public Information    - Massachusetts 	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$30.61	$73.46

Public Information    - Illinois	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$25.74	$61.78

Public Information    - North Carolina	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$24.42	$58.61

Public Information    - California	2.4	1 hour	2.4	$30.61	$73.46

Total	48	 1 hour	48	NA	$1,165.43

Consumers*               - California	32	2 hours	2 hours	NA	NA

Consumers *                - Illinois	32	2 hours	2 hours	NA	NA

Consumers*                - Massachusetts	32	2 hours	2 hours	NA	NA

Consumers*                 - North Carolina	32	2 hours	2 hours	NA	NA

Total	128	2 hours	2 hours	NA	NA

Total	52	   NA	     NA	     NA	$1,380.46

* No cost to the consumers or their employers.   They will be
interviewed after working hours and will be reimbursed for
participation.

The hourly wage rate was collected from the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2007 State Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates data located at url:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oessrcst.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oessrcst.htm  (viewed 02-12-09). The
hourly mean wage was used for the hourly wage rate calculation. The
following table reflects the job categories selected from the DOL data
for the EPA research participant hourly wage rates.

Hour Wage Rate Categories

EPA Research Participant Category	DOL Occupational Category Referenced

Senior Management	General and Operations Manager

Call Center	Media and Communication Workers

Emergency Management	Emergency Management Specialists

Field Operations  	Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Plant and System
Operators

Plant Operations	Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Plant and System
Operators

Public Information	Public Relations Specialists

Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or
Recordkeepers

Not applicable.  The interviews or focus group sessions have no capital,
operating, maintenance, or other costs to the water sector professionals
or their employers or to the consumers resulting from the collection of
information.

 Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

This baseline study will be conducted by ORISE under an Interagency
Agreement with EPA.  ORISE has participated in the development of the
evaluation plan including the development of the Moderator Guides,
Screening Instruments, Participant Information Forms, finalization of
materials for testing, and pilot testing the materials being used during
the interviews and focus group sessions.   ORISE will also be
responsible for conducting the focus group sessions and the interviews,
analyzing the data, and developing reports of the results. The total
estimated cost for support from ORISE is $350,000.00, which also
includes the cash incentive payments to focus group participants.  The
estimated total cost of the project to the government is $383,886.00.
This includes the cost for the data collection by ORISE, as well as the
$33,886.00 cost for the federal employees involved in evaluation
planning, oversight, data analysis, and report writing.  The government
employee costs are as follows: 295 hours of a GS-13 ($67.50 fully loaded
rate) and 5 hours of a GS-15 ($94.50 fully loaded rate). There are also
anticipated travel costs of $8,500 and $5,000.00 in initial printing,
bringing the total federal employee cost to $33,886.00.  The total time
period from the beginning of the planning of the project until the
completion of the project is approximately 2 years.  Therefore, the
annualized cost of the project to the government is $191,943.00.

15.  Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments

 This is a new data collection submission.

16.  Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project Time Schedule

There are no tabulated results for this information collection.

16.1 Project Time Schedule

Project Activity	Time Schedule

Recruit water sector professionals from Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago,
Illinois; Charlotte, North Carolina; and San Diego, California for
interviews	1 to 2 months after OMB approval

Recruit consumers (members of the public who use drinking water supplied
by water utilities) from Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois;
Charlotte, North Carolina; and San Diego, California for focus group
sessions	1 to 2 months after OMB approval

Arrange for locations (market research facilities) where interviews and
focus group sessions will be held	1 to 2 months after OMB approval

Arrange for a moderator/interviewer for the interviews and focus group
sessions.	1 to 2 months after OMB approval

Travel to Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Charlotte, North
Carolina; and San Diego, California for interviews and focus group
sessions	2 to 3 months after OMB approval

Develop a report summarizing the responses provided by water sector
professionals and consumers	4 to 5 months after OMB approval

Publish a report of results of the research	6 to 12 months after OMB
approval

16.2 Analysis and Publication Plan

A report of the findings will be compiled from the notes of the EPA and
ORISE

		observers and in-depth discussions with the moderator. The audio
recording will be reviewed if additional information or clarification is
needed.  The results will be combined from the different locations; a
comparison of the results from the different locations may also be
required.  It is anticipated a final report of the study will include:

Executive Summary

Introduction

Findings and Comments

Conclusion and Recommendations

Appendices

Wherever appropriate, a graph or table will display information from
related analyses of the results.

It is anticipated that the messages tested will be revised according to
the findings of the study.  It is also anticipated that an EPA published
report of the findings will be printed and made available through the
EPA web site.

The results of the study will assist water utility Public Information
Officers and others in addressing appropriate issues of public concern
related to a crisis incident impacting drinking water systems and
requiring post-incident decontamination actions.  The research will
probe consumers’ and water sector professionals’ beliefs, opinions,
and knowledge about water security risks that will assist public
officials in planning effective risk communication messages.

 Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate

We are not requesting an expiration date display exemption.

 Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

We are not requesting an exception to the certification statement.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

There is no plan to publish this information for statistical use.

No statistical methods will be used to select respondents/participants.
Selection of water sector participants for interviews will be based on
primary duties at the water works.  Consumers that use drinking water
supplied by water utilities will be screened for participation using the
following criteria:

Age:	     	All participants will be at least 18 years of age

Education:	Mix of those who have earned a college degree and those who
have not

Employment:  None of the participants will work in the media or a
health-related field

Gender:	Approximately half of the participants will be female

Race:               Racial/ethnic mix of participants will approximate
the composition of  the

                              city of the focus group session

There is no minimum acceptable response rate since this is not a
quantitative study.

Appendices

Appendix A:	Authorizing Legislation - Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Selected Sections
Copied)

Appendix B:	Authorizing Legislation - Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and
Protection

Appendix C:	Authorizing Legislation - Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 9:

	Defense of United States Agriculture and Food

Appendix D:	Screening Instrument EPA Water Security - Professionals

Appendix E:	Research:  Opinions about a Public Health Issue Information
for Participants -

Professionals

Appendix F:	Moderator’s Guide - Professionals

Appendix G:	Screening Instrument EPA Water Security - Public

Appendix H:	Research:  Opinions about a Public Health Issue Information
for Participants -

Public

Appendix I:	Moderator’s Guide - Public

Appendix J:	Materials Available for Testing - Public

Appendix K:    Copy of 60 Day Federal Register Notice

Appendix A

Authorizing Legislation - Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Selected Sections Copied)

Web site source:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.fda.gov/oc/bioterrorism/PL107-188.html"
www.fda.gov/oc/bioterrorism/PL107-188.html   (viewed 02-23-09)

[DOCID: f:publ188.107]

PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE ACT OF
 2002

Public Law 107-188

107th Congress

An Act

To improve the ability of the United States to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. <<NOTE:
June 12, 2002-[H.R. 3448]>>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.>>....

Subtitle A--National Preparedness and Response Planning, Coordinating,
and Reporting

SEC. 2801. NATIONAL <<NOTE: 42 USC 300hh.>>  PREPAREDNESS PLAN.

(a) In General.--

(1) Preparedness and response regarding public health emergencies.--The
Secretary shall further develop and implement a coordinated strategy,
building upon the core public health capabilities established pursuant
to section 319A, for carrying out health-related activities to prepare
for and respond effectively to bioterrorism and other public health
emergencies, including the preparation of a plan under this section. The
Secretary shall periodically thereafter review and, as appropriate,
revise the plan.

(2) National approach.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall collaborate with the States toward the goal of ensuring that the
activities of the Secretary regarding bioterrorism and other public
health emergencies are coordinated with activities of the States,
including local governments.

(3) Evaluation of progress.--The plan under paragraph (1) shall provide
for specific benchmarks and outcome measures for evaluating the progress
of the Secretary and the States, including local governments, with
respect to the plan under paragraph (1), including progress toward
achieving the goals specified in subsection (b).

(b) Preparedness Goals.--The plan under subsection (a) should include
provisions in furtherance of the following:

(1) Providing effective assistance to State and local governments in the
event of bioterrorism or other public health emergency.

(2) Ensuring that State and local governments have appropriate capacity
to detect and respond effectively to such emergencies, including
capacities for the following:

(A) Effective public health surveillance and reporting mechanisms at the
State and local levels.

B) Appropriate laboratory readiness.

C) Properly trained and equipped emergency response, public health, and
medical personnel.

D) Health and safety protection of workers responding to such an
emergency.

E) Public health agencies that are prepared to coordinate health
services (including mental health services) during and after such
emergencies.

F) Participation in communications networks that can effectively
disseminate relevant information in a timely and secure manner to
appropriate public and private entities and to the public.

(3) Developing and maintaining medical countermeasures (such as drugs,
vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, and other
supplies) against biological agents and toxins that may be involved in
such emergencies.

(4) Ensuring coordination and minimizing duplication of Federal, State,
and local planning, preparedness, and response activities, including
during the investigation of a suspicious disease outbreak or other
potential public health emergency.

(5) Enhancing the readiness of hospitals and other health care
facilities to respond effectively to such emergencies....

SEC.402.OTHER SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV of the Public Health Service

Act) is amended by inserting the following new sections after section

1433 (as added by section 401 of this Act):

SEC.1434. <<NOTE: 42 USC 300i-3.>>  CONTAMINANT PREVENTION, DETECTION
AND RESPONSE.

(a) <<NOTE: Contracts.>>  In General.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and, after
consultation with appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal
Government and with State and local governments, shall review (or enter
into contracts or cooperative agreements to provide for a review of)
current and future methods to prevent, detect and respond to the
intentional introduction of chemical, biological or radiological
contaminants into community water systems and source water for community
water systems, including each of the following:

(1) Methods, means and equipment, including real time monitoring
systems, designed to monitor and detect various levels of chemical,
biological, and radiological contaminants or indicators of contaminants
and reduce the likelihood that such contaminants can be successfully
introduced into public water systems and source water intended to be
used for drinking water.

(2) Methods and means to provide sufficient notice to operators of
public water systems, and individuals served by such systems, of the
introduction of chemical, biological or radiological contaminants and
the possible effect of such introduction on public health and the safety
and supply of drinking water.

3) Methods and means for developing educational and awareness programs
for community water systems.

(4) Procedures and equipment necessary to prevent the flow of
contaminated drinking water to individuals served by public water
systems.

5) Methods, means, and equipment which could negate or mitigate
deleterious effects on public health and the safety and supply caused by
the introduction of contaminants into water intended to be used for
drinking water, including an examination of the effectiveness of various
drinking water technologies in removing, inactivating, or neutralizing
biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants.

(6) Biomedical research into the short-term and long-term impact on
public health of various chemical, biological and radiological
contaminants that may be introduced into public water systems through
terrorist or other intentional acts.

(b) Funding.--For the authorization of appropriations to carry out this
section, see section 1435(e)........

SEC.1435. <<NOTE: 42 USC 300i-4.>>  SUPPLY DISRUPTION PREVENTION,
DETECTION AND RESPONSE.

(a) <<NOTE: Contracts.>>  Disruption of Supply or Safety.--The
Administrator, in coordination with the appropriate departments and
agencies of the Federal Government, shall review (or enter into
contracts or cooperative agreements to provide for a review of) methods
and means by which terrorists or other individuals or groups could
disrupt the supply of safe drinking water or take other actions against
water collection, pretreatment, treatment, storage and distribution
facilities which could render such water significantly less safe for
human consumption, including each of the following:

(1) Methods and means by which pipes and other constructed conveyances
utilized in public water systems could be destroyed or otherwise
prevented from providing adequate supplies of drinking water meeting
applicable public health standards.

(2) Methods and means by which collection, pretreatment, treatment,
storage and distribution facilities utilized or used in connection with
public water systems and collection and pretreatment storage facilities
used in connection with public water systems could be destroyed or
otherwise prevented from providing adequate supplies of drinking water
meeting applicable public health standards.

(3) Methods and means by which pipes, constructed conveyances,
collection, pretreatment, treatment, storage and distribution systems
that are utilized in connection with public water systems could be
altered or affected so as to be subject to cross-contamination of
drinking water supplies.

(4) Methods and means by which pipes, constructed conveyances,
collection, pretreatment, treatment, storage and distribution systems
that are utilized in connection with public water systems could be
reasonably protected from terrorist attacks or other acts intended to
disrupt the supply or affect the safety of drinking water.

(5) Methods and means by which information systems, including process
controls and supervisory control and data acquisition and cyber systems
at community water systems could be disrupted by terrorists or other
groups.

b) Alternative Sources.--The review under this section shall also
include a review of the methods and means by which alternative supplies
of drinking water could be provided in the event of the destruction,
impairment or contamination of public water systems.

(c) Requirements and Considerations.--In carrying out this section and
section 1434--

1) the Administrator shall ensure that reviews carried out under this
section reflect the needs of community water systems of various sizes
and various geographic areas of the United States; and

(2) the Administrator may consider the vulnerability of, or potential
for forced interruption of service for, a region or service area,
including community water systems that provide service to the National
Capital area.

(d) Information Sharing.--As soon as practicable after reviews carried
out under this section or section 1434 have been evaluated, the
Administrator shall disseminate, as appropriate as determined by the
Administrator, to community water systems information on the results of
the project through the Information Sharing and Analysis Center, or
other appropriate means.

(e) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section and section 1434 not more than $15,000,000 for the fiscal year
2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal years 2003 through
2005.''.

SEC.403.MISCELLANEOUS AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

The Safe Drinking Water Act is amended as follows:

(1) Section 1414(i)(1) <<NOTE: 42 USC 300g-3.>>  is amended by inserting
``1433'' after ``1417''.

(2) Section 1431 <<NOTE: 42 USC 300i.>>  is amended by inserting in the
first sentence after ``drinking water'' the following: ``, or that there
is a threatened or potential terrorist attack (or other intentional act
designed to disrupt the provision of safe drinking water or to impact
adversely the  safety of drinking water supplied to communities and
individuals), which''.

(3) Section 1432 <<NOTE: 42 USC 300i-1.>> is amended as follows:

(A) By striking ``5 years'' in subsection (a) and inserting ``20
years''.

(B) By striking ``3 years'' in subsection (b) and inserting ``10
years''.

(C) By striking ``$50,000'' in subsection (c) and inserting
``$1,000,000''.

(D) By striking ``$20,000'' in subsection (c) and inserting
``$100,000''.

(4) Section 1442 <<NOTE: 42 USC 300j-1.>>  is amended as follows:

(A) By striking ``this subparagraph'' in subsection

(b) and inserting ``this subsection''.

B) By amending subsection (d) to read as follows:

(d) <<NOTE: Appropriation authorization.>>  There are authorized

to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) not more than $35,000,000

for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each

fiscal year thereafter.''.

Appendix B

Authorizing Legislation – Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7:

Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection

Web site source:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1214597989952.shtm#0"
www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1214597989952.shtm#0  (viewed 02-23-09)

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7: Critical Infrastructure
Identification, Prioritization, and Protection

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 establishes a national policy
for Federal departments and agencies to identify and prioritize critical
infrastructure and to protect them from terrorist attacks. The directive
defines relevant terms and delivers 31 policy statements. These policy
statements define what the directive covers and the roles various
federal, state, and local agencies will play in carrying it out.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7

December 17, 2003

SUBJECT: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and
Protection

         Purpose

This directive establishes a national policy for Federal departments and
agencies to identify and prioritize United States critical
infrastructure and key resources and to protect them from terrorist
attacks.

   Background

Terrorists seek to destroy, incapacitate, or exploit critical
infrastructure and key resources across the United States to threaten
national security, cause mass casualties, weaken our economy, and damage
public morale and confidence.

America's open and technologically complex society includes a wide array
of critical infrastructure and key resources that are potential
terrorist targets. The majority of these are owned and operated by the
private sector and State or local governments. These critical
infrastructures and key resources are both physical and cyber-based and
span all sectors of the economy.

Critical infrastructure and key resources provide the essential services
that underpin American society. The Nation possesses numerous key
resources, whose exploitation or destruction by terrorists could cause
catastrophic health effects or mass casualties comparable to those from
the use of a weapon of mass destruction, or could profoundly affect our
national prestige and morale. In addition, there is critical
infrastructure so vital that its incapacitation, exploitation, or
destruction, through terrorist attack, could have a debilitating effect
on security and economic well-being.

While it is not possible to protect or eliminate the vulnerability of
all critical infrastructure and key resources throughout the country,
strategic improvements in security can make it more difficult for
attacks to succeed and can lessen the impact of attacks that may occur.
In addition to strategic security enhancements, tactical security
improvements can be rapidly implemented to deter, mitigate, or
neutralize potential attacks.

Definitions

In this directive:

The term "critical infrastructure" has the meaning given to that term in
section 1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)).

The term "key resources" has the meaning given that term in section 2(9)
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(9)).

The term "the Department" means the Department of Homeland Security.

The term "Federal departments and agencies" means those executive
departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, and the Department of Homeland
Security; independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1);
Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1); and the United
States Postal Service.

The terms "State," and "local government," when used in a geographical
sense, have the same meanings given to those terms in section 2 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).

The term "the Secretary" means the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The term "Sector-Specific Agency" means a Federal department or agency
responsible for infrastructure protection activities in a designated
critical infrastructure sector or key resources category.
Sector-Specific Agencies will conduct their activities under this
directive in accordance with guidance provided by the Secretary.

The terms "protect" and "secure" mean reducing the vulnerability of
critical infrastructure or key resources in order to deter, mitigate, or
neutralize terrorist attacks.

Policy

It is the policy of the United States to enhance the protection of our
Nation's critical infrastructure and key resources against terrorist
acts that could:

cause catastrophic health effects or mass casualties comparable to those
from the use of a weapon of mass destruction;

impair Federal departments and agencies' abilities to perform essential
missions, or to ensure the public's health and safety;

undermine State and local government capacities to maintain order and to
deliver minimum essential public services;

damage the private sector's capability to ensure the orderly functioning
of the economy and delivery of essential services;

have a negative effect on the economy through the cascading disruption
of other critical infrastructure and key resources; or

undermine the public's morale and confidence in our national economic
and political institutions.

Federal departments and agencies will identify, prioritize, and
coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources
in order to prevent, deter, and mitigate the effects of deliberate
efforts to destroy, incapacitate, or exploit them. Federal departments
and agencies will work with State and local governments and the private
sector to accomplish this objective.

Federal departments and agencies will ensure that homeland security
programs do not diminish the overall economic security of the United
States.

Federal departments and agencies will appropriately protect information
associated with carrying out this directive, including handling
voluntarily provided information and information that would facilitate
terrorist targeting of critical infrastructure and key resources
consistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and other applicable
legal authorities.

Federal departments and agencies shall implement this directive in a
manner consistent with applicable provisions of law, including those
protecting the rights of United States persons.

Roles and Responsibilities of the Secretary

In carrying out the functions assigned in the Homeland Security Act of
2002, the Secretary shall be responsible for coordinating the overall
national effort to enhance the protection of the critical infrastructure
and key resources of the United States. The Secretary shall serve as the
principal Federal official to lead, integrate, and coordinate
implementation of efforts among Federal departments and agencies, State
and local governments, and the private sector to protect critical
infrastructure and key resources.

Consistent with this directive, the Secretary will identify, prioritize,
and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key
resources with an emphasis on critical infrastructure and key resources
that could be exploited to cause catastrophic health effects or mass
casualties comparable to those from the use of a weapon of mass
destruction.

The Secretary will establish uniform policies, approaches, guidelines,
and methodologies for integrating Federal infrastructure protection and
risk management activities within and across sectors along with metrics
and criteria for related programs and activities.

The Secretary shall coordinate protection activities for each of the
following critical infrastructure sectors: information technology;
telecommunications; chemical; transportation systems, including mass
transit, aviation, maritime, ground/surface, and rail and pipeline
systems; emergency services; and postal and shipping. The Department
shall coordinate with appropriate departments and agencies to ensure the
protection of other key resources including dams, government facilities,
and commercial facilities. In addition, in its role as overall
cross-sector coordinator, the Department shall also evaluate the need
for and coordinate the coverage of additional critical infrastructure
and key resources categories over time, as appropriate.

The Secretary will continue to maintain an organization to serve as a
focal point for the security of cyberspace. The organization will
facilitate interactions and collaborations between and among Federal
departments and agencies, State and local governments, the private
sector, academia and international organizations. To the extent
permitted by law, Federal departments and agencies with cyber expertise,
including but not limited to the Departments of Justice, Commerce, the
Treasury, Defense, Energy, and State, and the Central Intelligence
Agency, will collaborate with and support the organization in
accomplishing its mission. The organization's mission includes analysis,
warning, information sharing, vulnerability reduction, mitigation, and
aiding national recovery efforts for critical infrastructure information
systems. The organization will support the Department of Justice and
other law enforcement agencies in their continuing missions to
investigate and prosecute threats to and attacks against cyberspace, to
the extent permitted by law.

The Secretary will work closely with other Federal departments and
agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector in
accomplishing the objectives of this directive.

Roles and Responsibilities of Sector-Specific Federal Agencies

Recognizing that each infrastructure sector possesses its own unique
characteristics and operating models, there are designated
Sector-Specific Agencies, including:

Department of Agriculture -- agriculture, food (meat, poultry, egg
products);

Health and Human Services -- public health, healthcare, and food (other
than meat, poultry, egg products);

Environmental Protection Agency -- drinking water and water treatment
systems;

Department of Energy -- energy, including the production refining,
storage, and distribution of oil and gas, and electric power except for
commercial nuclear power facilities;

Department of the Treasury -- banking and finance;

Department of the Interior -- national monuments and icons; and

Department of Defense -- defense industrial base.

In accordance with guidance provided by the Secretary, Sector-Specific
Agencies shall:

collaborate with all relevant Federal departments and agencies, State
and local governments, and the private sector, including with key
persons and entities in their infrastructure sector;

conduct or facilitate vulnerability assessments of the sector; and

encourage risk management strategies to protect against and mitigate the
effects of attacks against critical infrastructure and key resources.

Nothing in this directive alters, or impedes the ability to carry out,
the authorities of the Federal departments and agencies to perform their
responsibilities under law and consistent with applicable legal
authorities and presidential guidance.

Federal departments and agencies shall cooperate with the Department in
implementing this directive, consistent with the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 and other applicable legal authorities.

Roles and Responsibilities of Other Departments, Agencies, and Offices

In addition to the responsibilities given the Department and
Sector-Specific Agencies, there are special functions of various Federal
departments and agencies and components of the Executive Office of the
President related to critical infrastructure and key resources
protection.

The Department of State, in conjunction with the Department, and the
Departments of Justice, Commerce, Defense, the Treasury and other
appropriate agencies, will work with foreign countries and international
organizations to strengthen the protection of United States critical
infrastructure and key resources.

The Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, will reduce domestic terrorist threats, and investigate
and prosecute actual or attempted terrorist attacks on, sabotage of, or
disruptions of critical infrastructure and key resources. The Attorney
General and the Secretary shall use applicable statutory authority and
attendant mechanisms for cooperation and coordination, including but not
limited to those established by presidential directive.

The Department of Commerce, in coordination with the Department, will
work with private sector, research, academic, and government
organizations to improve technology for cyber systems and promote other
critical infrastructure efforts, including using its authority under the
Defense Production Act to assure the timely availability of industrial
products, materials, and services to meet homeland security
requirements.

A Critical Infrastructure Protection Policy Coordinating Committee will
advise the Homeland Security Council on interagency policy related to
physical and cyber infrastructure protection. This PCC will be chaired
by a Federal officer or employee designated by the Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy, in coordination with the
Department, will coordinate interagency research and development to
enhance the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall oversee the
implementation of government-wide policies, principles, standards, and
guidelines for Federal government computer security programs. The
Director of OMB will ensure the operation of a central Federal
information security incident center consistent with the requirements of
the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002.

Consistent with the E-Government Act of 2002, the Chief Information
Officers Council shall be the principal interagency forum for improving
agency practices related to the design, acquisition, development,
modernization, use, operation, sharing, and performance of information
resources of Federal departments and agencies.

The Department of Transportation and the Department will collaborate on
all matters relating to transportation security and transportation
infrastructure protection. The Department of Transportation is
responsible for operating the national air space system. The Department
of Transportation and the Department will collaborate in regulating the
transportation of hazardous materials by all modes (including
pipelines).

All Federal departments and agencies shall work with the sectors
relevant to their responsibilities to reduce the consequences of
catastrophic failures not caused by terrorism.

The heads of all Federal departments and agencies will coordinate and
cooperate with the Secretary as appropriate and consistent with their
own responsibilities for protecting critical infrastructure and key
resources.

All Federal department and agency heads are responsible for the
identification, prioritization, assessment, remediation, and protection
of their respective internal critical infrastructure and key resources.
Consistent with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002,
agencies will identify and provide information security protections
commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm resulting from the
unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or
destruction of information.

Coordination with the Private Sector

In accordance with applicable laws or regulations, the Department and
the Sector-Specific Agencies will collaborate with appropriate private
sector entities and continue to encourage the development of information
sharing and analysis mechanisms. Additionally, the Department and
Sector-Specific Agencies shall collaborate with the private sector and
continue to support sector-coordinating mechanisms:

to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection of critical
infrastructure and key resources; and

to facilitate sharing of information about physical and cyber threats,
vulnerabilities, incidents, potential protective measures, and best
practices.

National Special Security Events

The Secretary, after consultation with the Homeland Security Council,
shall be responsible for designating events as "National Special
Security Events" (NSSEs). This directive supersedes language in previous
presidential directives regarding the designation of NSSEs that is
inconsistent herewith.

Implementation

Consistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary shall
produce a comprehensive, integrated National Plan for Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources Protection to outline national goals,
objectives, milestones, and key initiatives within 1 year from the
issuance of this directive. The Plan shall include, in addition to other
Homeland Security-related elements as the Secretary deems appropriate,
the following elements:

a strategy to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection of
critical infrastructure and key resources, including how the Department
intends to work with Federal departments and agencies, State and local
governments, the private sector, and foreign countries and international
organizations;

a summary of activities to be undertaken in order to: define and
prioritize, reduce the vulnerability of, and coordinate the protection
of critical infrastructure and key resources;

a summary of initiatives for sharing critical infrastructure and key
resources information and for providing critical infrastructure and key
resources threat warning data to State and local governments and the
private sector; and

coordination and integration, as appropriate, with other Federal
emergency management and preparedness activities including the National
Response Plan and applicable national preparedness goals.

The Secretary, consistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and
other applicable legal authorities and presidential guidance, shall
establish appropriate systems, mechanisms, and procedures to share
homeland security information relevant to threats and vulnerabilities in
national critical infrastructure and key resources with other Federal
departments and agencies, State and local governments, and the private
sector in a timely manner.

The Secretary will continue to work with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and, as appropriate, the Department of Energy in order to
ensure the necessary protection of:

commercial nuclear reactors for generating electric power and non-power
nuclear reactors used for research, testing, and training;

nuclear materials in medical, industrial, and academic settings and
facilities that fabricate nuclear fuel; and

the transportation, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials and
waste.

In coordination with the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the Secretary shall prepare on an annual basis a
Federal Research and Development Plan in support of this directive.

The Secretary will collaborate with other appropriate Federal
departments and agencies to develop a program, consistent with
applicable law, to geospatially map, image, analyze, and sort critical
infrastructure and key resources by utilizing commercial satellite and
airborne systems, and existing capabilities within other agencies.
National technical means should be considered as an option of last
resort. The Secretary, with advice from the Director of Central
Intelligence, the Secretaries of Defense and the Interior, and the heads
of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, shall develop
mechanisms for accomplishing this initiative. The Attorney General shall
provide legal advice as necessary.

The Secretary will utilize existing, and develop new, capabilities as
needed to model comprehensively the potential implications of terrorist
exploitation of vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure and key
resources, placing specific focus on densely populated areas. Agencies
with relevant modeling capabilities shall cooperate with the Secretary
to develop appropriate mechanisms for accomplishing this initiative.

The Secretary will develop a national indications and warnings
architecture for infrastructure protection and capabilities that will
facilitate:

an understanding of baseline infrastructure operations;

the identification of indicators and precursors to an attack; and

a surge capacity for detecting and analyzing patterns of potential
attacks.

In developing a national indications and warnings architecture, the
Department will work with Federal, State, local, and non-governmental
entities to develop an integrated view of physical and cyber
infrastructure and key resources.

By July 2004, the heads of all Federal departments and agencies shall
develop and submit to the Director of the OMB for approval plans for
protecting the physical and cyber critical infrastructure and key
resources that they own or operate. These plans shall address
identification, prioritization, protection, and contingency planning,
including the recovery and reconstitution of essential capabilities.

On an annual basis, the Sector-Specific Agencies shall report to the
Secretary on their efforts to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the
protection of critical infrastructure and key resources in their
respective sectors. The report shall be submitted within 1 year from the
issuance of this directive and on an annual basis thereafter.

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and the Assistant
to the President for National Security Affairs will lead a national
security and emergency preparedness communications policy review, with
the heads of the appropriate Federal departments and agencies, related
to convergence and next generation architecture. Within 6 months after
the issuance of this directive, the Assistant to the President for
Homeland Security and the Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs shall submit for my consideration any recommended
changes to such policy.

This directive supersedes Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-63 of May
22, 1998 ("Critical Infrastructure Protection"), and any Presidential
directives issued prior to this directive to the extent of any
inconsistency. Moreover, the Assistant to the President for Homeland
Security and the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs shall jointly submit for my consideration a Presidential
directive to make changes in Presidential directives issued prior to
this date that conform such directives to this directive.

This directive is intended only to improve the internal management of
the executive branch of the Federal Government, and it is not intended
to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States,
its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees,
or any other person.

Appendix C

Authorizing Legislation - Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9:

Defense of United States Agriculture and Food

Web site source: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1217449547663.shtm

(viewed 02-23-09)

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9: Defense of United States
Agriculture and Food

Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 9 establishes a national
policy to defend the agriculture and food system against terrorist
attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. America's agriculture
and food system is an extensive, open, interconnected, diverse, and
complex structure providing potential targets for terrorist attacks.
U.S. agriculture and food systems are vulnerable to disease, pest, or
poisonous agents that occur naturally, are unintentionally introduced,
or are intentionally delivered by acts of terrorism. The directive lays
out policies, including roles and responsibilities, awareness and
warning, and vulnerability assessments, to provide the best protection
possible against a successful attack on the U.S. agriculture and food
system.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9

January 30, 2004

SUBJECT: Defense of United States Agriculture and Food

         Purpose

This directive establishes a national policy to defend the agriculture
and food system against terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other
emergencies.

Background

The United States agriculture and food systems are vulnerable to
disease, pest, or poisonous agents that occur naturally, are
unintentionally introduced, or are intentionally delivered by acts of
terrorism. Americas agriculture and food system is an extensive, open,
interconnected, diverse, and complex structure providing potential
targets for terrorist attacks. We should provide the best protection
possible against a successful attack on the United States agriculture
and food system, which could have catastrophic health and economic
effects.

Definitions

In this directive:

The term critical infrastructure has the meaning given to that term in
section 1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)).

The term key resources has the meaning given that term in section 2(9)
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(9)).

The term Federal departments and agencies means those executive
departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, and the Department of Homeland
Security; indepen-dent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1);
Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1); and the United
States Postal Service.

The terms State, and local government, when used in a geographical
sense, have the same meanings given to those terms in section 2 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).

The term Sector-Specific Agency means a Federal department or agency
responsible for infrastructure protection activities in a designated
critical infrastructure sector or key resources category.

Policy

It is the policy of the United States to protect the agriculture and
food system from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other
emergencies by:

identifying and prioritizing sector-critical infrastructure and key
resources for establishing protection requirements;

developing awareness and early warning capabilities to recognize
threats;

mitigating vulnerabilities at critical production and processing nodes;

enhancing screening procedures for domestic and imported products; and

enhancing response and recovery procedures.

In implementing this directive, Federal departments and agencies will
ensure that homeland security programs do not diminish the overall
economic security of the United States.

Roles and Responsibilities

As established in Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 (HSPD-7),
the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating the
overall national effort to enhance the protection of the critical
infrastructure and key resources of the United States. The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall serve as the principal Federal official to lead,
integrate, and coordinate implementation of efforts among Federal
departments and agencies, State and local governments, and the private
sector to protect critical infrastructure and key resources. This
directive shall be implemented in a manner consistent with HSPD-7.

The Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will perform their
responsibilities as Sector-Specific Agencies as delineated in HSPD-7.

Awareness and Warning

The Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads
of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies shall build upon
and expand current monitoring and surveillance programs to:

develop robust, comprehensive, and fully coordinated surveillance and
monitoring systems, including international information, for animal
disease, plant disease, wildlife disease, food, public health, and water
quality that provides early detection and awareness of disease, pest, or
poisonous agents;

develop systems that, as appropriate, track specific animals and plants,
as well as specific commodities and food; and

develop nationwide laboratory networks for food, veterinary, plant
health, and water quality that integrate existing Federal and State
laboratory resources, are interconnected, and utilize standardized
diagnostic protocols and procedures.

The Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
Director of Central Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall develop and enhance intelligence
operations and analysis capabilities focusing on the agriculture, food,
and water sectors. These intelligence capabilities will include
collection and analysis of information concerning threats, delivery
systems, and methods that could be directed against these sectors.

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate with the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of other appropriate
Federal departments and agencies to create a new biological threat
awareness capacity that will enhance detection and characterization of
an attack. This new capacity will build upon the improved and upgraded
surveillance systems described in paragraph 8 and integrate and analyze
domestic and international surveillance and monitoring data collected
from human health, animal health, plant health, food, and water quality
systems. The Secretary of Homeland Security will submit a report to me
through the Homeland Security Council within 90 days of the date of this
directive on specific options for establishing this capability,
including recommendations for its organizational location and structure.

Vulnerability Assessments

The Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Homeland
Security shall expand and continue vulnerability assessments of the
agriculture and food sectors. These vulnerability assessments should
identify requirements of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
developed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate, and
shall be updated every 2 years.

Mitigation Strategies

The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, working
with the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of
Central Intelligence, and the heads of other appropriate Federal
departments and agencies shall prioritize, develop, and implement, as
appropriate, mitigation strategies to protect vulnerable critical nodes
of production or processing from the introduction of diseases, pests, or
poisonous agents.

The Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Homeland
Security shall build on existing efforts to expand development of common
screening and inspection procedures for agriculture and food items
entering the United States and to maximize effective domestic inspection
activities for food items within the United States.

Response Planning and Recovery

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, will ensure that
the combined Federal, State, and local response capabilities are
adequate to respond quickly and effectively to a terrorist attack, major
disease outbreak, or other disaster affecting the national agriculture
or food infrastructure. These activities will be integrated with other
national homeland security preparedness activities developed under
HSPD-8 on National Preparedness.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall develop a
coordinated agriculture and food-specific standardized response plan
that will be integrated into the National Response Plan. This plan will
ensure a coordinated response to an agriculture or food incident and
will delineate the appropriate roles of Federal, State, local, and
private sector partners, and will address risk communication for the
general public.

The Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, in
coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall enhance
recovery systems that are able to stabilize agriculture production, the
food supply, and the economy, rapidly remove and effectively dispose of
contaminated agriculture and food products or infected plants and
animals, and decontaminate premises.

The Secretary of Agriculture shall study and make recommendations to the
Homeland Security Council, within 120 days of the date of this
directive, for the use of existing, and the creation of new, financial
risk management tools encouraging self-protection for agriculture and
food enterprises vulnerable to losses due to terrorism.

The Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, shall work with State and local governments and the private
sector to develop:

A National Veterinary Stockpile (NVS) containing sufficient amounts of
animal vaccine, antiviral, or therapeutic products to appropriately
respond to the most damaging animal diseases affecting human health and
the economy and that will be capable of deployment within 24 hours of an
outbreak. The NVS shall leverage where appropriate the mechanisms and
infrastructure that have been developed for the management, storage, and
distribution of the Strategic National Stockpile.

A National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) capable of responding
to a high-consequence plant disease with pest control measures and the
use of resistant seed varieties within a single growing season to
sustain a reasonable level of production for economically important
crops. The NPDRS will utilize the genetic resources contained in the
U.S. National Plant Germplasm System, as well as the scientific
capabilities of the Federal-State-industry agricultural research and
extension system. The NPDRS shall include emergency planning for the use
of resistant seed varieties and pesticide control measures to prevent,
slow, or stop the spread of a high-consequence plant disease, such as
wheat smut or soybean rust.

Outreach and Professional Development

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the heads of other
appropriate Federal departments and agencies, shall work with
appropriate private sector entities to establish an effective
information sharing and analysis mechanism for agriculture and food.

The Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, in
consultation with the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Education,
shall support the development of and promote higher education programs
for the protection of animal, plant, and public health. To the extent
permitted by law and subject to availability of funds, the program will
provide capacity building grants to colleges and schools of veterinary
medicine, public health, and agriculture that design higher education
training programs for veterinarians in exotic animal diseases,
epidemiology, and public health as well as new programs in plant
diagnosis and treatment.

The Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, in
consultation with the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Education,
shall support the development of and promote a higher education program
to address protection of the food supply. To the extent permitted by law
and subject to the availability of funds, the program will provide
capacity-building grants to universities for interdisciplinary degree
programs that combine training in food sciences, agriculture sciences,
medicine, veterinary medicine, epidemiology, microbiology, chemistry,
engineering, and mathematics (statistical modeling) to prepare food
defense professionals.

The Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Homeland
Security shall establish opportunities for professional development and
specialized training in agriculture and food protection, such as
internships, fellowships, and other post-graduate opportunities that
provide for homeland security professional workforce needs.

Research and Development

The Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Health and Human
Services, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, will accelerate and expand development of current and new
countermeasures against the intentional introduction or natural
occurrence of catastrophic animal, plant, and zoonotic diseases. The
Secretary of Homeland Security will coordinate these activities. This
effort will include countermeasure research and development of new
methods for detection, prevention technologies, agent characterization,
and dose response relationships for high-consequence agents in the food
and the water supply.

The Secretaries of Agriculture and Homeland Security will develop a plan
to provide safe, secure, and state-of-the-art agriculture biocontainment
laboratories that research and develop diagnostic capabilities for
foreign animal and zoonotic diseases.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretaries
of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, shall establish
university-based centers of excellence in agriculture and food security.

Budget

For all future budgets, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human
Services, and Homeland Security shall submit to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, concurrent with their budget
submissions, an integrated budget plan for defense of the United States
food system.

Implementation

Nothing in this directive alters, or impedes the ability to carry out,
the authorities of the Federal departments and agencies to perform their
responsibilities under law and consistent with applicable legal
authorities and Presidential guidance.

This directive is intended only to improve the internal management of
the executive branch of the Federal Government, and it is not intended
to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States,
its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees,
or any other person.

Appendix D

Screening Instrument EPA Water Security - Professionals

Screening Instrument

EPA Water Security -- Professionals

City: _____________________	Local Water Works Contact: _________________

Hello.  My name is __________________ and I am calling from the Oak
Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE).  We are assisting the
US Environmental Protection Agency in conducting a study about municipal
water supplies.  I understand __________ (EPA or local contact) has
spoken to you about participating in this study [confirm].  We are
calling to schedule your interview and ask a few brief questions for our
records.

1.	First, are you an employee of the municipal water works for ________
(city)?

	01	Yes

	02	No	(THANK AND TERMINATE)

2.	Which of the following activities best describes your primary duties
at the water works?

						(DOCUMENT ON GRID)

01	Public Information

02	Emergency Management

03	Plant Operations

04	Field Operations

05	Senior Management

06  	Call Center

3.	How many years’ experience do you have in this type of work – at
this facility or similar ones?

	01	less than one year	(THANK AND TERMINATE)

	02	_____ years

						(DOCUMENT ON GRID)

4. 	Are you willing to participate in the study?

	01	yes

	02	no

5.	Are you available for the interview on __________ at ________AM/PM?
The location is
____________________________________(address). We will send directions
to you.

These are all of my questions.  Thank you for agreeing to participate in
the study.

Appendix E

Research:  Opinions about a Public Health Issue Information

for Participants - Professionals

Research:  Opinions about a Public Health Issue

Information for Participants -- Professionals

Purpose of This Survey

You are being asked to participate in a discussion being done by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the assistance of the Oak
Ridge Institute for Science and Education.  In the discussion, you will
be asked: 1) your opinions about communication materials that the agency
is developing to inform people about a public health issue; 2) your
knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about the issue; and 3) related
issues. Your answers can help us develop materials to better inform the
public.  The discussion will be recorded (audio only) to be sure we get
all the information.

Please remember that:

You choose to participate.

You are not required to answer the questions.

This session should last about 1 hour.

You are free to leave at any time without losing the cash incentive or
other penalty.

Risks

The risks you take by taking part in the discussion are the same as you
encounter in daily life.

Benefits

You will be better informed about a public health issue.

You may have a sense of satisfaction from your professional
contribution.

Your answers may help us better inform the public and others about a
public health issue.

Confidentiality

We will keep the information you give us private and confidential to the
extent allowed by law. Your name will not be used in the reports,
presentations, or publications. No statement you make will be linked to
you by name.  Only members of the research staff will be allowed to look
at the records.  When we present this study or publish its results, your
name or other facts that point to you will not be shown or used.

Persons to Contact

If you have questions about this session or taking part in it, you may
call:

Scott Minamyer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
513-569-7175.

If you need more information about your rights as a study participant,
you may contact:

Chair, Oak Ridge Site-Wide Institutional Review Board, Oak Ridge
Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117,
865-576-1725.

Appendix F

Moderator’s Guide - Professionals

EPA Water Security

Moderator’s Guide – Professionals

1.  Introductions   (5 minutes)

	A.  Introduce moderator

	B.	EPA sponsorship

		1.  Opportunity, importance of participation

	C.	Audio recording, observers

		1.  For reporting only

		2.  No personal or city identifiers used

	D.	Respondent introductions

		1.  First name

		2.  Something about your particular duties

E.	Plan for the session: discuss issues the public would want/need to
know in the event of a major water emergency.

2. Important Questions during a Disruption of the Water Supply   (35
minutes)

	A.  Exercise: What should people know?

		1.  Imagine it’s been discovered that the water supply is no longer
safe

			a.  Could be chemical, biological, or mechanical

			b.  Could be intentional (terrorism) or unintentional

		2.  What do you think people should know?

(LIST ON FLIPCHART)

Probes:	Incident

Response/Authorities

Response/Public

Recovery

	B.  Ranking of questions

1.  Ask interviewee to rank questions

	a.  Five most important that they think the public should know

b.  Five least important that the public should know.

3.  Issues Thought Most Likely to be Misunderstood by the Public

(10 minutes)

A.  Providing safe water is a complex operation.  It seems likely that a
fair percentage of the general public doesn’t often think about how
the system works or what the issues are if the system is not providing
safe water.  Based on your experience…

B.  What are some issues in a water supply emergency that the public is
most likely to misunderstand?

		1.  Probes	Incident

				Government Response

				Personal Protection

Following Directives

Recovery

4.  EPA Assistance	(5 minutes)

A.  What would be most helpful for your organization to receive from EPA
to help in crisis communication planning for an incident such as we have
been discussing?

5.  Wrap-Up	(5 minutes)

	A. Anything else EPA should know about this subject?

	B.  Thank you.

C.  Introduce EPA representative:  __________ would be glad to answer
questions about the study or EPA activities.

Appendix G

Screening Instrument EPA Water Security - Public

Screening Instrument

EPA Water Security -- Public

Recruit eight per group, four groups per market (two groups to be done
on each of two consecutive evenings; 6:00 and 8:00 p.m.).

Good evening.  My name is __________________ and I am calling from
_______________, a market research firm.  We are talking today with
people in the area as part of a study being done by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  We are not selling anything.  We have
a few brief questions and if you qualify and are interested, we will
invite you to take part in a discussion group with other people in your
area that will take place at a later date.

1.	First, do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the
following? (THANK AND TERMINATE IF YES TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING)

	01	Advertising, public relations, and/or market research

	02	Any form of media – TV, radio, newspaper, magazine

	03	A health clinic, doctor’s office, or hospital

	04	Other health-related field

2.	Have you ever participated in a market research study?

01	Yes (  When was that? (THANK AND TERMINATE IF LESS THAN 6 MONTHS AGO)

02	No

3.	How old are you?		(RECRUIT A MIX)										(DOCUMENT ON GRID)

	01	Under 18 (THANK AND TERMINATE)

	02	18-34

	03	35-44

	04	45-54

	05	55-64

	06	65 or older

	07	Refused (THANK AND TERMINATE)

4.	VERIFY: Conversant in English?

	01	Yes	(CONTINUE)

	02	No	(THANK AND TERMINATE)

5. 	Document gender 	(RECRUIT A MIX)

(DOCUMENT ON GRID)

	01	male

	02	female

6.	What was the highest grade or degree you achieved in school? (RECRUIT
A MIX)										(DOCUMENT ON GRID)

	01	High School Diploma or less

02	College Degree

7.	What is your race? 	(RECRUIT A MIX)

(DOCUMENT ON GRID)

	01	Caucasian

	02	African-American

	03	Hispanic

	04	Asian

	05	Mixed Race

	06	Other __________________

That is all of my questions.  You do qualify for our discussion group
and we would like to invite you to join us on _______ at ______ PM.  The
discussion will last about 2 hours.  In appreciation for you time, you
will be paid $XX at the time of the discussion.

Are you willing to participate?

	01	yes

	02	no

Appendix H

Research:  Opinions about a Public Health Issue Information

for Participants - Public

Research:  Opinions about a Public Health Issue

Information for Participants -- Public

Purpose of This Survey

You are being asked to participate in a discussion being done by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the assistance of the Oak
Ridge Institute for Science and Education.  In the discussion, you will
be asked: 1) your opinions about communication materials that the Agency
is developing to inform people about a public health issue; 2) your
knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about the issue; and 3) related
issues. Your answers can help us develop materials to better inform the
public.  The discussion will be recorded (audio only) to be sure we get
all the information.

Please remember that:

You choose to participate.

You are not required to answer the questions.

This session should last about 2 hours.

You will receive a cash incentive for participating in the discussion.

You are free to leave at any time without losing the cash incentive or
other penalty.

Risks

The risks you take by taking part in the discussion are the same as you
encounter in daily life.

Benefits

You will be better informed about a public health issue.

You may have a sense of satisfaction from civic participation.

Your answers may help us better inform the public and others about a
public health issue.

You will receive a cash incentive for participating in the discussion.

Confidentiality

We will keep the information you give us private and confidential to the
extent allowed by law. Your name will not be used in the reports,
presentations, or publications. No statement you make will be linked to
you by name.  Only members of the research staff will be allowed to look
at the records.  When we present this study or publish its results, your
name or other facts that point to you will not be shown or used.

Persons to Contact

If you have questions about this session or taking part in it, you may
call:

Scott Minamyer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
513-569-7175.

If you need more information about your rights as a study participant,
you may contact:

Chair, Oak Ridge Site-Wide Institutional Review Board, Oak Ridge
Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117,
865-576-1725.

Appendix I

Moderator’s Guide - Public

EPA Water Security

Moderator’s Guide – Public

I.  Introductions	(5 minutes)

Introduce moderator

EPA sponsorship – opportunity, importance of participation

Recording, observers – for reporting only, no personal identifiers
used

Respondent introductions – first name, favorite hobby

Plan for the session

Discuss public safety issue

Identify information people might want, actions people might take

Review some draft information sheets

About 2-hour session

II. City Services	(10 minutes)

NOTE:  Hand out worksheet: “City Services”

In the left-hand column of this worksheet is a list of city services.
There is also space at the bottom for you to list other city services
that are important to you.  Let’s assume that there is a terrorist
attack and these city services are lost for several days.  For each
item, please rate how severe the impact would be, for you and your
family, if services were disrupted for several days.

Please rate each item from 1, not at all severe, to 10, very severe.
You can use any number from 1 to 10.  When you’re finished, we will
talk about the scores you gave and the reasons for those scores.

NOTE:  Respondents will work in pairs.  Provide time for them to discuss
each item, then debrief, getting responses from each dyad.

Did you list any other city services?

Which item was most important to you?  What factors made it most
important?

Which item was least important to you?  What factors made it least
important?

Was water a high priority for you, a low priority, or somewhere in the
middle?  What factors did you consider in deciding on this position?

III.  Exercise: Attack on the Water Supply – Questions and
Information Needs

(40 minutes)

[NOTE:  If someone asks---the spokesperson is someone they trust and
feel would do the best they could to keep people safe—who the person
is providing the information is not an issue to them]

We want to focus the next several minutes of our discussion today on one
of those city services – the water supply. I would like for you to get
comfortable in your chair, close your eyes, and create in your mind’s
eye a vivid image of the following situation:  Imagine it is a weekday
evening.

You have just come home from work or running errands.  The phone rings.
When you pick up the phone you hear a recorded emergency announcement
that there has been an attack on the water supply for [name of city].
Someone has purposely released a pesticide into the water.  The
announcer says that, for now, the water may be unsafe and cannot be used
for any purpose.  In your mind, make a note of the specific questions
you have.

When you are ready, open your eyes.

You have probably come up with some really important ideas during this
exercise.  Take a few minutes to write on your pad anything that is so
important that you want to make sure you don’t forget it.  Also, write
down questions you would most want officials to answer at this point.

[NOTE:  provide time for note-taking]

Now, let’s talk a little bit about this experience.  First, what
questions did you have, when you first heard the phone announcement
about a pesticide in the water?  What did you want or need to know from
officials about this situation at that point?

Now, I would like to understand the relative importance of these
questions.  I’m going to give each of you colored dots.  I want you to
use these dots as votes, placing them on the flip chart paper next to
the questions that are most important for you.  If a question is really
important to you, you may place more than one dot by that question to
indicate how important it is.

NOTE:  Count dots and debrief results

What would be your greatest concern in this situation?  Please tell me a
little about your reaction to the situation you visualized a few minutes
ago.

What are the reasons?

What did you think when you heard the information?

How did you feel when you heard the information?

What kinds of information would you most want to receive during an event
such as this?

What kinds of information would you want if the event happened in a
neighboring community ten miles away?  [if time permits]

What if it were in another more distant city in your state? [if time
permits]

IV. Materials Testing (50 minutes)

One thing we can be certain about is that if there is an attack on the
water supply, people will want lots of information.  It’s important to
EPA that people get information that effectively addresses their
concerns.  An important part of doing that is preparing now, rather than
during an urgent situation.  EPA has identified a number of topics –
questions people are likely to ask or information they feel people would
want to know.  For most of the rest of our time together, we will be
reviewing some of these.

We’ll read one together.  I’ll ask you to mark it up – underlining
the things you like, circling the things you don’t like or want to
change.

There are a few things I would like you to keep in mind for purposes of
this exercise:

1	It’s important to put yourself in the situation.  Continue to
imagine the situation as you did in the last exercise.  Stay in touch
with what you are feeling, as well as what you are thinking.  Both parts
are important.

2.	Keep in mind that the questions you are seeing are a sample.  There
are many more questions likely – too many for one group to look at in
a reasonable amount of time.  We can note other questions you have but
remember that you are not seeing them all.

3.	Remember that in the event of a terrorist attack on a water supply
there will likely be a lot of press conferences and interviews with
public health officials, elected officials, and others.  TV, radio,
newspapers, and the Internet will have lots and lots of coverage.  All
the issues will be addressed in a variety of ways.

Exercise

Assign partners so respondents are working in teams of 2+ people.

Hand out fact sheet

Provide background:  As we work through some of these fact sheets
together, you’ll notice that all of these are set up the same way.
First, there is a question at the top of the page.  Second, there are
three “key messages” in bold print.  Third, for each key message
there are three pieces of supporting information – examples, details
that provide more information.

Read through first fact sheet

What did you underline as important?  Can you tell me the reasons why
this information is important?

What did you circle?  What changes should we make to this information?

What other reactions do you have to this fact sheet?

Repeat for other fact sheets as time allows, rotating the order.

V.  Wrap-Up	(15 minutes)

What additional advice would you give someone who has to prepare or
provide information to the public during a terrorist attack on the water
supply?

All the issues for today.

Thank you.

Introduce EPA representative: discussion may have raised some questions,
_____ will be happy to try to address questions or concerns.

Worksheet:   City Services

Some City Services	Impact of Service Disruption

Electricity

	Telephone

	Water

	Sewage Treatment

	Trash Collection

  1 = not at all severe

10 = very severe

City: _____________________	Date: _______________	Time: __________

Appendix J

Materials Available for Testing - Public

Materials Available for Testing - Public

Scenario 1 - Pesticide contamination (Scenario 5 from workshops)

1-1: What can you tell us about the water contamination?

1-2: What is the water utility doing now about the pesticide
contamination?

1-3: How many people may have been contaminated?

1-4: What are the symptoms of exposure?

1-5: What should people do to protect children and the elderly?

1-6: If people cannot drink or touch the water, is there anything people
can do with it?

1-7: What should people do now for water?

1-8: Do you accept responsibility for what happened?

1-9: How are you going to clean the system?

1-10: Once it is cleaned up, how will you know if the water system is
safe?

1-11: How do you normally know the water is safe to drink?

Scenario 2 - Biological contamination (Scenario 6 from workshops)

2-1: What happened?

2-2: What can you tell us about this contamination event?

2-3: Do you know exactly where the contaminant is within the drinking
water system?

2-4: How did public health find out there was contamination?

2-5: Can people in the affected area use the water at all (bathing,
washing dishes, making coffee)?

2-6: What are the health effects associated with exposure to [Insert
biological agent]?

2-7: How did the city find out there was contamination?

2-8: How or where can people in the affected area get safe water?

2-9: How did this happen?1-1: What can you tell us about the water
contamination?

We have confirmed the presence of a pesticide in the drinking water.

The pesticide is [insert name of pesticide], which is used for [insert
use].

Levels of the pesticide are above recommended drinking water standards.

The drinking water in the following locations has been affected [insert
locations].

An investigation is underway to determine the source and amount of the
pesticide.

We are taking samples and conducting tests throughout the system.

Public health and hospitals are tracking and treating those who are ill.

Law enforcement is investigating the cause.

Effective immediately, people should not use the water.

People and pets should not drink the water.

People should not use the water to bathe, shower, or wash.

Alternative sources of drinking water will be made available at the
following locations [insert locations and show map].

1-2: What is the water utility doing now about the pesticide
contamination?

We are testing water quality throughout the system.

We are taking samples at various locations.

[Insert laboratory name] is testing those samples.

The results of these tests will determine our next steps.

We have begun recovery operations.

Our recovery operations are being coordinated with local, state, and
federal agencies.

The CDC and other public health experts are advising us on potential
health effects.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other experts are advising
us on how to clean the system.

Effective immediately, people should not use the water.

People should not drink the water.

People should not use the water to bathe, shower, or wash.

Alternative sources of drinking water will be made available at the
following locations [insert locations].

1-3: How many people may have been contaminated?

We are assessing the number of people who might be affected.

Health officials are tracking calls and complaints.

Samples have been sent to state laboratories for testing.

Results of the tests will help us better determine affected areas.

We are working closely with local hospitals.

Hospitals are prepared to provide treatment.

Hospitals are also providing medical advice.

The CDC is providing advice to us and the hospitals.

We are coordinating our response efforts with other organizations.

In special cases, we will make door-to-door visits.

Hospitals and nursing homes will receive priority attention.

Other communities have offered resources and support.

1-4: What are the symptoms of exposure?

Symptoms depend on exposure.

Because of the unusual smell and taste, most people will not drink the
water.

Because of the small amounts of pesticide involved, most people will not
breathe amounts large enough to cause harm.

Skin penetration is unlikely unless there has been prolonged contact
with the water.

The pesticide can enter the body through drinking, breathing, or skin
contact.

Exposure is typically not life threatening.

Most people who have been exposed and have symptoms will fully recover.

The biggest concern is exposure by drinking a large amount of
contaminated water.

There are many symptoms.

People who drank more than a quart of the water may experience nausea,
an upset stomach, and vomiting.

People who are experiencing symptoms should not be encouraged to vomit.

Call 911 immediately or go to an emergency room if you have symptoms.

1-5: What should people do to protect children and the elderly?

Children and the elderly need special protection.

Children and the elderly are more vulnerable to illness than other
populations.

Children are more vulnerable because they have less developed body
defenses.

The elderly are more vulnerable because they may have weakened immune
systems.

Children and the elderly should be especially careful not to contact the
water.

Children and the elderly should not bathe using the water.

Children and the elderly should not swim in the water.

Children and the elderly should not wash dishes using the water or use
dishes washed in the water.

Children and the elderly should be especially careful not to drink the
water.

Children and the elderly should drink only bottled water.

Children and the elderly should not drink beverages prepared with the
water.

Parents should not prepare infant formula using the water.

1-6: If people cannot drink or touch the water, is there anything
people can do with it?

Our primary concern is the pesticide entering the body through drinking.

People should not drink the water or cook with it. Boiling does not
remove a pesticide.

People should not drink beverages prepared with the water or make infant
formula.

People should keep children and pets away from the water.

People can water their plants, gardens, and lawns with the water.

People should wear gloves to prevent skin contact with the water when
using a hose.

Avoid breathing aerosolized water from sprinklers.

Avoid creating run-off that could contaminate the sewer system.

Skin contact should be avoided, especially if contact is prolonged.

People should not use the water for washing dishes.

People should not use the water to take baths or showers.

It is okay to flush toilets.

1-7: What should people do now for water?

At this time, people should not use the water.

People should not drink the water.

People should not use the water to bathe, shower, or wash.

Boiling the water will not make it safe.

We will provide regular updates on our testing.

Updates are available on our web site [insert web site].

Updates will be broadcast through local radio and TV.

Updates are available from our information line at [insert number].

People from affected areas should drink only bottled water.

Free bottled water will be available at the following locations [insert
location] at [insert times].

Bottled water should be used for cooking and other uses.

Bottled water should be used for pets.

1-8: Do you accept responsibility for what happened?

Our most immediate concern is the safety of the water.

We are working to identify impacted areas.

We are working to minimize the spread of the pesticide in the system.

Our goal is to restore normal service throughout the system as quickly
and safely as possible.

We will help determine the cause of the incident.

It is possible that the contamination was unintentional.

We are working closely with law enforcement as they conduct their
investigation of the incident.

The investigation should identify the source of contamination.

We are responsible for making changes in our operations, if needed.

After the incident has been addressed, standard procedure is to review
our emergency response plan and make any necessary changes to improve
it.

We will review the actions we took following the discovery of the
pesticide.

We will know more once the investigation is complete.

1-9: How are you going to clean the system?

We are evaluating which parts of the distribution system need to be
cleaned.

We will take samples from throughout the distribution system.

We will analyze the samples to determine where the pesticide is present
in the system.

We will also use water-flow models to determine which parts are
affected.

We will use flushing and other cleaning methods as applicable.

We are consulting with experts at federal, state, and local agencies.

We will select methods that are safe and effective for dealing with
pesticides.

We will select cleaning methods that will enable us to meet regulatory
requirements for this pesticide.

We will selectively replace pipes if needed.

We will replace pipes based on results from the testing program.

Replacement pipes are readily available.

We have extensive experience replacing pipes.

1-10: Once it is cleaned up, how will you know if the water system is
safe?

Testing will confirm the absence of harmful levels.

We will collect water samples at multiple locations along the
distribution system.

Samples will be tested for [insert pesticide name] at laboratories.

The tests are highly accurate in detecting the pesticide.

Federal and state agencies determine what level is considered safe.

The water system will not be put back into service until the
contamination is reduced below this level.

This cleanup level is based on protecting human health against long-term
effects for all age groups.

The public health department will verify that levels are safe.

We will continue testing to ensure that levels remain safe.

We will monitor for elevated levels of the pesticide.