Transcript Amber Waves 2012 Panel Discussion

Amber Waves 2012
Panel Discussion
Kim Steves – William Brantley
Colleen 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
Downtown – Leavenworth
Detonation
Location
IRS
National
Archives
Federal Reserve Bank - Kansas City
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!

Feds “Leaning Forward”
Advisory Team stays home and supports the White House






KANSAS & MISSOURI
Local JICs
Local JICs
State JIC – Kansas
FBI
Communication
& Coordination
Pathways
FBI
UACG
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/RELOCATION
Bridge 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



Development of long term monitoring plan in collaboration
with states



To ensure that cleanup goals are supported through monitoring and
assessment
Multi-State, multi-agency participation essential to FRMAC transfer
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
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