Combating Nuclear Terrorism: Preliminary Observations on Preparedness to Recover from Possible Attacks Using Radiological or Nuclear Materials
Released: 2009-09-14T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, there is heightened concern that terrorists may try to smuggle nuclear or radiological materials into the United States. These materials could be used to produce either an IND or an RDD. An IND is a crude nuclear bomb made with highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Nonproliferation experts estimate that a successful IND could have a yield in the 10 to 20 kiloton range (the equivalent to 10,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT). An IND with a 20-kiloton yield would have the same force as the equivalent of the yield of the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki; it could devastate the heart of a medium-sized U.S. city and result in thousands of casualties and radiation contamination over a wide area.

Security experts have also raised concerns that terrorists could obtain radioactive material used in medicine, research, agriculture, and industry to construct an RDD, or dirty bomb. This radioactive material is encapsulated, or sealed in metal, such as stainless steel, titanium, or platinum, to prevent its dispersal and is commonly called a sealed radioactive source. These sealed sources are used throughout the United States and other countries in equipment designed to, among other things, diagnose and treat illnesses, preserve food, detect flaws in pipeline welds, and determine the moisture content of soil. Depending on their use, sealed sources contain different types of radioactive material, such as strontium- 90, cobalt-60, cesium-137, plutonium-238, and plutonium-239. If these sealed sources fell into the hands of terrorists, they could use them to produce a simple, but potentially dangerous weapon, by packaging explosives, such as dynamite, with the radioactive material, which would be dispersed when the bomb went off. Depending on its type, amount, and form (powder or solid), the dispersed radioactive material could cause radiation sickness in people nearby and produce serious economic costs and the psychological and social disruption associated with the evacuation and subsequent cleanup of the contaminated area. While no terrorists have detonated a dirty bomb in a city, Chechen separatists placed a canister containing cesium-137 in a Moscow park in the mid-1990s. Although the device was not detonated and no radioactive material was dispersed, the incident demonstrated that terrorists have the capability and willingness to use radiological materials as weapons of terrorism.

Another form of nuclear terrorism occurred with the release of radioactive materials in London. In November 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service, was poisoned with a gram of polonium-210—about the size of a grain of salt. His poisoning was detected only after he was hospitalized for a few weeks and tested for symptoms of radiation exposure because of hair loss. Following the poisoning, forensic investigators identified, with the help of the victim, 47 sites across London where he had been during the few days between his poisoning and death. Of these locations, about 20 showed signs of this radioactive material. Investigators identified over 900 people who might have been exposed to the polonium, including some who may have been exposed while aboard airplanes. After a thorough examination, a few of these individuals turned out to have significant exposure levels. The decontamination activities at these sites, including a hotel room, spanned 19 days, involved a number of methods and technologies, and cost in excess of $200,000.

Cities and States Would Likely Request Federal Assistance for Cleanup of Radiation- Contaminated Areas after RDD and IND Incidents, but Limited Federal Planning Exists for Recovering from Such Incidents

While state and local government responders would be expected to respond first to a terrorist incident within their jurisdiction, they would also expect that the federal government would be prepared to provide the necessary assistance for them to expedite the recovery from such an incident. Emergency management officials from 13 cities and the majority of their respective states indicated in our survey that they would rely on the federal government to conduct and fund all or almost all analysis and cleanup activities associated with recovering from an RDD or IND incident of the magnitude described in the National Planning Scenarios. However, when asked which federal agencies they would turn to for this assistance, city and state respondents replied inconsistently and frequently listed several federal agencies for the same activity. In our view, these responses indicate that there is confusion among city and state officials regarding federal responsibilities for these activities in the event of a terrorist incident. This confusion, if not addressed, could hamper the timely recovery from an RDD or IND incident. Emergency management officials from all the cities and most of their respective states told us they would rely on the federal government because their technical and financial resources would be overwhelmed by a large RDD incident—and certainly by an IND incident. Most of these officials believe they could adequately address a smaller RDD incident, such as one that is confined to a city block or inside a building. Despite this anticipated reliance on the federal government, we obtained mixed responses as to whether these RDD and IND recovery activities should be primarily a federal responsibility. Fewer than half of the respondents from the cities (6 of 13), but most of those from states (8 of 10) indicated that it should be primarily a federal responsibility. The others stressed the need for shared responsibilities with the federal government.

Despite the anticipated reliance by city and state governments on the federal government for analysis and cleanup activities following an RDD or IND incident, FEMA has not developed a national disaster recovery strategy or related plans to guide involvement of federal agencies in these recovery activities, as directed by federal law and executive guidance. To date, much federal attention has been given to developing a response framework, with less attention to recovery. The new FEMA coordinator for the development of a national disaster recovery strategy told us that while the previous administration had drafted a “white paper” addressing this strategy, the new administration has decided to rethink the entire approach. She also told us that FEMA recognizes its responsibility to prepare a national disaster recovery strategy but she could not provide a time frame for its completion. However, she stated that when a recovery strategy is issued it should provide guidance to revise state, local, and other federal agency operational plans to fulfill their respective responsibilities. Moreover, the FEMA official in charge of planning told us that the agency has put on hold issuing component plans that describe how federal capabilities would be integrated to support state and local planning for response to and recovery from RDD and IND incidents.

Some existing federal guidance documents addressing the assets and responsibilities of federal agencies for both response and to a lesser extent recovery-related activities have been issued as annexes to the National Response Framework and in other documents. For example, there is a nuclear and radiological incident annex, which describes the policies, situations, concept of operations, and responsibilities of the federal departments and agencies for the immediate response and short-term recovery from incidents involving the release of radiological materials. There are also emergency support function annexes that provide a structure for coordinating federal interagency support in response to domestic incidents.

In addition, two other sources of guidance have been issued that, according to FEMA officials, represent stop-gap measures until it can issue more integrated planning guidance. In 2008, FEMA issued updated guidance for protection and recovery following RDD and IND incidents. This guidance was to provide some direction to federal, state, and local emergency response officials in developing operational plans and response protocols for protection of emergency workers after such an incident. In regard to recovery, this document recommended a process to involve the affected public, state and local officials, and other important stakeholders in the identification of acceptable cleanup criteria, given the specifics of the incident. The other document, issued by the Homeland Security Council, pertains to responding to an IND in the first few days prior to the arrival of other necessary federal resources. This document was prepared because the prior FEMA guidance did not sufficiently prepare state and local emergency response authorities for managing the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear detonation. Moreover, DOE, EPA and DOD are developing more detailed operational guidance on their own based on the existing federal guidance. For example, DOE has supported research on operational guidelines for implementation of protective actions described in the FEMA guidance, EPA has drafted guidance for the optimization process following RDD and IND incidents, and DOD has established operational plans for consequence management following terrorist incidents, including RDD and IND attacks.

Federal agencies and local jurisdictions have been using the available guidance as a basis for planning RDD and IND exercises to test the adequacy of their plans and skills in a real-time, realistic environment to evaluate their level of preparedness. We identified more than 70 RDD and IND response exercises planned and carried out by federal, state and local agencies since mid-2003. However, officials with FEMA’s National Exercise Directorate told us that only three of the RDD response exercises had a recovery component. According to these officials, recovery discussions following an RDD or IND response exercise have typically not occurred because of the time needed to fully address the response objectives of the exercise, which are seen as a higher priority. The most recent response exercise, based in Albany, New York, and planned by DOE, set aside 2 days for federal, state, and local agencies to discuss operational recovery issues. One unresolved operational issue discussed during this exercise pertained to the transition of the leadership of the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) from the initial analysis of the contaminated area, led by DOE, to the later cleanup phase, led by EPA. For example, there are remaining questions regarding the level and quality of the monitoring data necessary for EPA to accept the leadership of FRMAC. While we were told that this transitional issue has been discussed in exercises dating back to the development of the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan in 1984, it has only recently been discussed in RDD or IND response exercises. Another unresolved operational recovery issue pertains to the distribution of responsibilities for the ownership, removal, and disposal of radioactive debris from an RDD or IND incident. Both of these operational issues are to be examined again in the first full-scale RDD recovery exercise, planned and led by EPA, to take place April 2010.

Insufficient Knowledge and Capability to Use Available Approaches for Cleanup of Radiation- Contaminated Areas Could Impede Efforts to Recover from RDD and IND Incidents

Although some federal agencies, such as DOE and EPA, have substantial experience using various cleanup methods and technologies to address radiation-contaminated areas, little is known about how these approaches might be applied in an RDD or IND incident. For example, DOE has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in research, development, and testing of methods and technologies for cleaning up and decommissioning contaminated structures and soils—legacies of the Cold War. In addition, since the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980, which established the Superfund program, EPA has undertaken significant efforts to study, develop, and use technologies that can address radioactive contamination. DOD has also played a major role in studying potential applications for innovative technologies for its Superfund sites.

Not much is known, however, about the application to RDD and IND incidents of available cleanup methods and technologies because such an incident has never occurred in this country, although research is currently underway to gain a better understanding of potential applications. According to decontamination experts at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, current research has focused on predicting the effects of radiation release in urban settings through simulation, small scale testing, and theory. In addition, researchers at EPA’s National Homeland Security Research Center informed us that while there are standard methods and technologies for cleaning up radiation-contaminated areas, more research is needed to develop standard national guidance for their application in urban environments. The lack of guidance for identifying cost-effective cleanup methods and technologies in the event of an RDD or IND incident might mean that the cleanup approach taken could unnecessarily increase the cost of recovery. According to a decontamination expert at Idaho National Laboratory, for example, experience has shown that not selecting the appropriate decontamination technologies can generate waste types that are more difficult to remove than the original material and can create more debris requiring disposal—leading to increased costs. Moreover, he told us that without guidance and discussion early in the response phase, a contractor might use an approach for no other reason than it was used before in an unrelated situation. In addition, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory decontamination experts told us that decontamination costs can increase dramatically depending on the selection of an initial approach and the length of time before remediation actions are taken. For example, they said that the conventional use of high pressure water hosing to decontaminate a building is effective under normal conditions but could be the wrong cleanup approach for an RDD using cesium-137 because the force of the water would actually cause this radioactive isotope to penetrate even further into porous surfaces. A senior EPA official with the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air told us that studies are currently underway to determine the efficacy of pressure washing for removing contamination from porous urban surfaces.

In addition to the lack of knowledge about the application of cleanup methods and technologies for wide-area urban contamination from an RDD or IND incident, there are also limitations in federal capabilities to handle in a timely manner the magnitude of tasks and challenges that would be associated with these incidents. For example, we found that limitations in federal capabilities to complete some analysis and cleanup activities might slow the recovery from an RDD or IND incident, including: (1) characterizing the full extent of areas contaminated with radioactive materials; (2) completing laboratory validation of contaminated areas and levels of cleanup after applying decontamination approaches; and (3) removing and disposing of radioactive debris and waste. Respondents representing most of the cities (9 of 13) and states (7 of 10), and respondents from most FEMA regional offices (6 of 9) and almost all EPA regional offices (9 of 10) expressed concerns about the capabilities of federal agencies to provide the assistance needed to complete the necessary analysis and cleanup activities in the event of an RDD or IND incident.

City, State, and Federal Emergency Management Officials Have Several Suggestions to Improve Federal Recovery Preparedness for RDD and IND Incidents

Respondents from nearly all the cities and states we surveyed expressed the need for a national disaster recovery strategy to address gaps and overlaps in current federal guidance. According to one city official, “recovery is what it is all about.” In developing such a recovery strategy, respondents from the cities, like those from their states, want the federal government to consult with them in the initial formulation of a recovery strategy through working and focus groups, perhaps organized on a regional basis. Respondents representing most cities (10 of 13) and states (7 of 10) also provided specifics on the type of planning guidance necessary, including integration and clarification of responsibilities among federal, state, and local governments. For example, respondents from some of the cities sought better guidance on monitoring radioactivity levels, acceptable cleanup standards, and management of radioactive waste. Most respondents from cities expressed the need for greater planning interactions with the federal government and more exercises to test recovery plans. One city respondent cited the need for recovery exercises on a regional basis so the cities within the region might better exchange lessons learned. Respondents from most cities (11 of 13) and their states (7 of 10) said that they planned to conduct RDD and IND recovery exercises in the future. Finally, emergency management officials representing almost all cities and states in our survey offered some opinions on the need for intelligence information on RDD and IND threats. They said that sharing information with law enforcement agencies is necessary for appropriate planning for an RDD or IND incident—which they generally consider as low-level threats—but only half of the respondents indicated that they were getting sufficient intelligence information. Emergency management officials from FEMA and EPA regional offices generally concurred with these observations and suggestions of the city and state respondents.

The United Kingdom’s Handling of the 2006 Polonium Incident and Subsequent Actions to Better Prepare for an RDD or IND Incident

While it was more limited in scope than what is usually envisioned as an RDD incident, the aftermath of the 2006 polonium poisoning incident in London had many of the characteristics of an RDD including testing hundreds of people who may have been exposed to radiation and a cleanup of numerous radiation-contaminated areas. All this activity resulted from an amount of radioactive material the size of a grain of salt—many times smaller than the amount of radioactive material found in certain common medical devices that could be used in an RDD. Because of its experience in dealing with the cleanup from the 2006 polonium incident and other actions the United Kingdom has taken to prepare for an RDD or IND attack, we visited that country to examine its recovery preparedness programs. United Kingdom officials told us that the attention to recovery in their country is rooted in decades of experience with the conflict in Northern Ireland, dealing with widespread contamination from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, and a national history of resilience—that is, the ability to manage and recover from hardship. We found that actions the United Kingdom reported taking to prepare for recovery from RDD and IND incidents are similar to many of the suggestions for improvement in federal preparedness that we obtained through our survey of city, state, and federal regional office emergency management officials in the United States. For example, we found that the United Kingdom reported taking the following actions: Enacted civil protection legislation in 2004, with subsequent non-statutory emergency response and recovery guidance to complement this emergency preparedness legislation. The emergency response and recovery guidance describes the generic framework for multi-agency response and recovery for all levels of government. The guidance emphasizes that response and recovery are not discrete activities and do not occur sequentially, rather recovery should be an integral part of response from the very beginning, as actions taken at all times can influence longer-term outcomes of the communities.

Developed on-line, updatable national recovery guidance in 2007. This guidance reinforces and updates the early emergency response and recovery guidance by establishing, among other things, a recovery planning process during the response phase so that the potential impacts of early advice and actions are explored and understood for the future recovery of the affected areas.

Issued a national handbook for radiation incidents in 2008. This handbook provides scientific information, including checklists for planning in advance of an incident, fact sheets on decontamination approaches, and advice on how to select and combine management of these approaches.

Conducted a full-scale RDD recovery exercise in 2008. This exercise, involving several hundred participants, provided a unique opportunity to examine and test the recovery planning process within the urgency of a compressed time frame. The lessons learned from this exercise were incorporated into the United Kingdom’s recovery strategy.

Issued updated nuclear recovery plan guidance in 2009. This guidance provides direction on recovery from events involving a radiological release from a civil or defense nuclear reactor, as well as the malicious use of radiological or nuclear materials. Among other things, it requires that all high-risk cities in the United Kingdom prepare recovery plans for such incidents.

In addition to these initiatives, in 2005, the United Kingdom established a special Government Decontamination Service. This organization was created out of recognition that it would not be cost-effective for each entity—national, regional, and local government—to maintain the level of expertise needed for cleaning up chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials, given that such events are rare.

Finally, according to United Kingdom officials, the 2006 polonium incident in London showed the value of recovery planning. In particular, through this incident United Kingdom officials gained an appreciation for the need to have an established cleanup plan, including a process for determining cleanup levels, sufficient laboratory capacity to analyze a large quantity of samples for radiation, and procedures for handling the radioactive waste. Furthermore, they found that implementing cleanup plans in the polonium poisoning incident and testing plans in the November 2008 recovery exercise have helped the United Kingdom to better prepare for a larger RDD or IND incident.

Madam Chairwoman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time.

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov. Individuals who made important contributions to this testimony were Ned Woodward (Assistant Director), Nancy Crothers, James Espinoza, Tracey King, Thomas Laetz, Tim Persons, Jay Smale, and Keo Vongvanith.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.