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 National Archives Detonation Location IRS Federal Reserve Bank - Kansas City Downtown – Leavenworth

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. Communicatio n & Coordination Pathways Local JICs UACG FBI State JIC - Kansas FBI

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