Amber Waves 2012 Panel Discussion

1. Amber Waves 2012 Panel Discussion Kim Steves – William Brantley Colleen O’Laughlin - Ed Tupin – John Jensen

2. AMBER WAVES - INTRODUCTION • The goal of Amber Waves 2012 (AW12) was to foster interagency collaboration among federal, state, and local organizations with equities in radiological emergency response. • AW12 was conceived as a Tier II full-scale exercise (FSE), however, a number of constraints emerged that made conduct of a full-scale exercise (FSE) unrealistic. • The Exercise was re-scoped to involve a series of workshops and discussion based exercises.

3. Amber Waves - Introduction • Scenario • Terrorists detonate two RDDs in Kansas City Region (Leavenworth, KS and Kansas City, MO) • Cs-137 – 1200 Ci • Am-241 – 50 Ci Downtown – Leavenworth Detonation Location IRS National Archives Federal Reserve Bank - Kansas City

4. AMBER WAVES - INTRODUCTION • In total, there were seven exercise events including: • Technical Workshop – June 7-8, 2012 • REAC/TS Training – June 9, 2012 • Senior Leadership Seminar – July 17, 2012 • Tabletop Exercise – July 18, 2012 • Kansas Community Reception Center Exercise – September 25, 2012 • Food and Feed Workshop – September 26, 2012 • FRMAC Transfer Workshop – September 27, 2012

5. AMBER WAVES - INTRODUCTION • Our discussions today will focus on • Classify and Notify • Evacuation and Relocation • Food and Feed • Turnover of FMRAC • Closing Remarks

6. Classify and Notify Understanding what has happened and how to respond

7. CLASSIFY / NOTIFY • Leavenworth County identified gaps: • How to secure scene with limited law enforcement • How to identify Radioactive Material is involved • Hospitals (two) each only have one hand-held radiation detection meter/contamination concerns/worried well KANSAS & MISSOURI

8. CLASSIFY / NOTIFY • Need to better understand command structure & incident management concepts • Design of the ICS • One Joint Operations Center (JOC) could grow to Two • Will states share a Joint Field Office (JFO) or each have their own? • UACG – Unified Area Coordinating Group • Multiple JICs at various federal, state and county levels • One FRMAC to serve all three states. Where? • Where are the feds sending their people? Everywhere! • Advisory Team stays home and supports the White House Feds “Leaning Forward” KANSAS & MISSOURI

9. Local JICs Local JICs State JIC - Kansas FBI FBI Communication & Coordination Pathways UACG

10. CLASSIFY / NOTIFY • Public Information Issues/Concerns • Multiple JICs [states, locals, federal (HQ) , federal (onsite)] • Potential for mixed messages from multiple “official” sources • What happens when politicians/White House get involved? • How to coordinate information and timeliness of coordination • Sharing of information between JICs • Local PIO (and state) being overrun by vast federal resources • Emergency Public Warnings/Rumor Control • Messaging to worried well - the fear of the word “radiation” • How to communicate scientific and technical data KANSAS & MISSOURI

11. CLASSIFY / NOTIFY • Concepts for coordinating and integrating command and control over many agencies must be better developed and then exercised • Working relationships between agencies improves each time they work together. • The evolution of Unified Command to address a very wide scale, multi-jurisdictional event was explored • There is a great diversity of thought in responding • There are various issue still to address • Scaling the response for an event this large • The role of the EOC vs. the IC/UC in the field EPA & DOE

12. Evacuation & Relocation Addressing the public safety

13. EVACUATION/RELOCATION Bridge over Missouri River between Leavenworth, KS and Missouri KANSAS & MISSOURI

14. EVACUATION/RELOCATION • Senior leaders realized they have to be ready to make tough choices with limited data • All agencies realized that there will be manpower, equipment & communications issues • A real event will probably have more contamination of responders than was discussed & anticipated EPA & DOE

15. Food and Feed Looking at the long term affects and addressing possible solutions

16. FOOD & FEED WORKSHOP • There is a need to get more stakeholders involved in discussions of the response and recovery effort – • Farmers and food manufacturers • Agricultural and food processing industry associations • State and Federal food and agricultural product regulators • Most private food and agriculture industry representatives and farmers are unfamiliar with radiological emergency response and protective actions concepts • Federal and State radiological health advisors and State agriculture representatives should develop concept of operations that prioritizes what needs to be sampled and assessed during various phases of the event– • types of food (milk, perishable mature crops, forage) • agricultural areas (feedlots) or activities (processing plants) USDA

17. FOOD & FEED WORKSHOP • It was predicted that some mature (highly perishable) contaminated crops would not be allowed to be harvested for consumption regardless of contamination levels, these commodities should be identified in advance to a avoid unnecessary sampling during an event or exercise USDA

18. FOOD & FEED WORKSHOP • What We Learned/Action Items: • Water consumption protective measures needs to be included in the Food and Feed Workshop • Having private industry participation was critical – helped recognize business and economic issues from a different perspective • The Food & Feed Workshop identified issues and allowed for good discussions USDA

19. FOOD & FEED WORKSHOP • What We Learned/Action Items: • FDA will perform sampling in facilities which they regulate • USDA and FDA working with FBI – samples are “evidence” and will not be shared • “Food Safety Modernization Act” mandates FDA to work with states • Kansas Dept of Agriculture “de-population” of concern to USDA • Prussian Blue approved by FDA only for humans, not animals • Are future crops/milk and feed animals from this land sellable? • Need “quick reference” guide for who is responsible for which agricultural issues • Need to do some Message Maps addressing radiation and agriculture KANSAS & MISSOURI

20. Turnover Transferring management of the FRMAC and moving towards recovery

21. FRMAC TRANSFER WORKSHOP • DOE will work closely with the EPA to facilitate a smooth transition of responsibility at mutually agreeable time • After consultation with • DHS and the Unified Coordination Group • All State, tribal, and local governments • When specific criteria have been met as detailed in the Nuc/Rad Annex to the NRF • The immediate emergency condition is stabilized. • Offsite releases of radioactive material have ceased …. • The offsite radiological conditions are evaluated / are assessed .... • An initial long-range monitoring plan has been with all stakeholder…. • EPA has received adequate assurances the required resources, personnel, funds for the duration of the Federal response …. EPA & DOE

22. FRMAC TRANSFER WORKSHOP • Major accomplishment: explaining to the States that the FRMAC transfer is a collaborative effort among many parties – States and other federal agencies, beyond DOE and EPA • To ensure that cleanup goals are supported through monitoring and assessment • Multi-State, multi-agency participation essential to FRMAC transfer • Development of long term monitoring plan in collaboration with states • Plan for necessary monitoring in support of cleanup • Plan for monitoring during recovery • The issue of waste streams & waste disposal was not fully addressed. • The states should not assume that all waste will be shipped out of the area KANSAS & MISSOURI

23. FRMAC TRANSFER WORKSHOP • What We Learned/Action Items: • How are the roles divided up? • Who pays for long term monitoring? • Litigation & legal challenges may stall clean-up • Lab resources are limited • Decontamination of buildings, soil, homes, roads, bridges, parks, monuments, hospitals, fire/police stations, factories, etc. may be requested • Waste issue is huge. Who pays for it? • Development of a clean-up strategy and clean-up level will be complicated; public education is needed • How to control radiation spreading to outside areas? KANSAS & MISSOURI

24. FRMAC TRANSFER WORKSHOP • What We Learned/Action Items: • At some point (~45 days out in Amber Waves) DOE wants to turn over leadership / control of the FRMAC to EPA • There is a guidance document to help implement the transfer of leadership of FRMAC The end goal is a signed agreement KANSAS & MISSOURI

25. Closing Remarks

26. FINAL THOUGHTS KANSAS & MISSOURI