1. Protective Action Guides for Radiological/Nuclear Incidents November 1, 2005 Craig Conklin Department of Homeland Security

2. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 2 Background  TOPOFF 2 Highlighted Lack of Consensus on Clean-up Levels  Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD) and Improvised Nuclear Devices (IND) Preparedness Working Group Takes Lead to Resolve Clean-up Issue  Efforts Coordinated With  Office of Science and Technology Policy  Homeland Security Council

3. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 3 Consequence Management Subgroup  Department of Homeland Security  Environmental Protection Agency  Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Department of Energy  Department of Defense  Occupational Safety and Health Administration  Centers for Disease Control

4. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 4 Sources of Guidance  National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements  International Commission on Radiological Protection  International Atomic Energy Agency  Health Physics Society  American Nuclear Society  State Programs  Academia

5. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 5 Existing Federal Guidance  Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents  Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human Food and Animal Feeds: Recommendations for State and Local Agencies  Potassium Iodide as a Thyroid Blocking Agent in Radiation Emergencies

6. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 6 Existing Protective Action Guides  Early Phase  Sheltering  Evacuation  Administration of Potassium Iodide  Intermediate Phase  Relocation  Food and Water Interdiction  Late Phase  Site Restoration and Clean-up

7. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 7 PAG Principles  Prevent Acute Effects  Reduce the Risk of Chronic Effects  Require Optimization to Balance Protection With Other Important Factors  Ensure That Actions Taken Result in More Benefit Than Harm

8. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 8 Protective Action Guides (PAGs)  Are NOT Absolute Standards  DO NOT Define “Safe” or “Unsafe” Levels of Exposure or Contamination  DO Represent Approximate Levels at Which the Protective Actions Are Justified  DO Provide Flexibility to Be More or Less Restrictive Based on the Unique Characteristics of the Incident and Local Considerations

9. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 9 Guidance Objectives  Aid Decision Makers in Protecting  The Public  First Responders  Other Emergency Workers  Balance Social and Economic Impacts  Timely Return to Normalcy Critical for Minimizing Adverse Impacts

10. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 10 PAGs for RDDs and INDs  Limit Responder Exposure – 5 rem (or greater)  Sheltering – 1-5 rems  Evacuation – 1-5 rems  Administration of KI – FDA Guidance  Relocation – 2 rems 1 st year, 500 mrem/yr in subsequent years  Food Interdiction – 500 mrem/yr  Drinking Water – 500 mrem/yr (EPA basis under development)  Clean-up - Optimization

11. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 11 Operational Guides  Access Controls During Emergency Response Operations  Relocation Areas  Critical Infrastructure Utilization in Relocation Areas  Temporary Access to Relocation Areas for Essential Personnel  Transportation and Access Routes  Property Control for Release of Property to Non-impacted Areas

12. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 12 Clean-up/Recovery Strategy  Due to Extreme Range of Potential Impacts Workgroup Determined That a Strict Numerical Approach Was Not Useful  Site-specific Remediation and Recovery Strategies Should Be Developed Using Principals of Optimization  Must Include Appropriate Stakeholders in Decision Making Process

13. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 13 Optimization  Flexible Process for  Determining Societal Objectives  Developing and Evaluating Options  Selecting the Most Acceptable Option  Public Health and Welfare  Public Acceptability  Costs and Resource Availability  Technical Feasibility  Long-term Effectiveness  Projected Land Usage  Size of Impacted Area  Type of Contamination

14. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 14 Process Overview  Goals  Transparency  Inclusiveness  Effectiveness  Key Characteristics  Flexibility  Scalability  Iterative

15. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 15 Process Implementation  Takes Place At/Near Incident Location  Utilizes Following Teams/Work Groups  Decision Making Team (DMT)  Recovery Management Team (RMT)  Stakeholder Working Group (SWG)  Technical Working Group (TWG)  Federal, State and Local Representation

16. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 16 Decision Making Team  Membership  Secretary of Department of Homeland Security  Governor of Affected State  Local Mayor, County Executive, Etc.  Responsibilities  Make Final Clean-up Decision(s)  Commit Funding and Resources  Resolve Difficult Issues or Elevate Them to the President

17. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 17 Recovery Management Team  Membership  Selected by the Decision Making Team  DHS Representative  State and Local Officials  Federal/state Lead Technical Agency  Co-chaired by State and DHS Official  Responsibilities  Provide Oversight and Guidance  Ensure Effective Wok Group Interaction  Ensure Effective Community Involvement  Prioritize Options for the Decision Making Team

18. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 18 Stakeholder Working Group (SWG)  Membership  Selected by Recovery Management Team  Federal, State, Local and Tribal Representatives  Non-government Organizations  Exact Selection and Balance Is Incident Specific  Co-chaired by State or Local and DHS Official  Responsibilities  Represent Local Needs and Desires  Provide Input on Site Restoration and Proposed Clean-up Options

19. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 19 Technical Working Group (TWG)  Membership  Selected by Recovery Management Team  Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Subject Matter Experts  Co-chaired by State and Federal Lead Technical Agencies  Responsibilities  Provide Expert Input on Economic and Technical Issues  Consider Input From Stakeholder Working Group  Review Analyses Performed by Lead Technical Agencies  Provide Reports to Recovery Management Team

20. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 20 Recovery Process  TWG Develops Options Based on SWG Input  TWG Briefs RMT and SWG on Options’ Feasibility, Costs, Strengths and Weaknesses  TWG Forwards Sound, Reasonable and Balanced Recommendation(s) to RMT  RMT Transmits Recommendation(s) to the Decision Making Team for Final Action

21. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 21 Recovery Process (cont)  Decision Making Team Informs Public Of Process, Recommendations Analyzed And Final Decision; Seeks Public Comment  Public Comments Are Considered And Incorporated As Appropriate  Final Decision Is Then Implemented  Effectiveness Of Operations Continually Evaluated

22. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 22 Future Activities  Scheduled to be Published in Federal Register  60-day Public Comment Period  Publish Final Guidance in Late 2006

23. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 23 Closing Statements  Primary Goal Is Provide a Flexible Approach for Responding to RDD/IND Incidents  This Is Not a Rejection of Other Cleanup Methodologies or Approaches  This Guidance Is Not Intended to Be Used for Cleanups Conducted Under Other Programs

24. Craig Conklin November 1, 2005 24 Questions?