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 • In total, there were eight 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 • Tabletop Exercise Leavenworth County – September 28th

4. 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

5. AMBER WAVES - INTRODUCTION • Our discussions today will focus on • Classify and Notify • Evacuation and Relocation • Food and Feed • Transfer of FRMAC • 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 • Manyprivate 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 most mature (highly perishable) contaminated crops would not be harvested for consumption (regardless of contamination levels) – because there would be no market for these products. This is not a protective action recommendation – and should be made clear to decision makers. These commodities should be identified in advance to avoid unnecessary sampling during an event or exercise. Alternative uses should be emphasized for less perishable crops (such as corn and soy beans.) USDA

18. FOOD & FEED WORKSHOP • USDA and State Agriculture Department representatives challenged assumptions that contaminated livestock would be destroyed due to the lack of markets for these products. Destruction of large numbers of livestock is difficult and costly. Contamination reduction or mitigation actions and alternative uses should be considered. USDA

19. 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 & EPA

20. 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

21. FRMAC Transfer Transferring management of the FRMAC and moving towards recovery

22. 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 conditions 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 and the immediate consequences are assessed • An initial long-range monitoring plan has been developed with involvement of all affected stakeholders …. • EPA has received adequate assurances the required resources, personnel, funds for the duration of the Federal response …. EPA & DOE

23. 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 EPA & DOE

24. 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

25. 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

26. Closing Remarks

27. FINAL THOUGHTS

28. FINAL THOUGHTS