Amber Waves 2012 Panel Discussion

Kim Steves – William BrantleyColleen O’Laughlin - Ed Tupin – John Jensen

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.

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

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

National Archives

Detonation Location IRS

Federal Reserve Bank - Kansas City

Downtown – Leavenworth

AMBER WAVES - INTRODUCTION Our discussions today will focus on

Classify and Notify Evacuation and Relocation Food and Feed Transfer of FRMAC Closing Remarks

Classify and Notify

Understanding what has happened and how to respond

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

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

Communication &

Coordination Pathways

Local JICs

Local JICs

UACG

FBI FBI

State JIC – Kansas

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

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

Evacuation & Relocation

Addressing the public safety

EVACUATION/RELOCATIONBridge over

Missouri River between

Leavenworth, KS and Missouri

KANSAS & MISSOURI

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

Food and Feed

Looking at the long term affects and addressing possible solutions

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

Many 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

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

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

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

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

FRMAC Transfer

Transferring management of the FRMAC and moving towards recovery

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

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 areaEPA & DOE

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

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

Closing Remarks

FINAL THOUGHTS

FINAL THOUGHTS