Disaster Response for Hazardous Materials - Essay Example

? Disaster Response for Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials can be detrimental to the health of organisms especially people. Those materials contain harmful substances that may leak and affect the condition of human beings. Those materials are then different from hazardous wastes as the wastes are those that are not used properly and disposed. Hazardous material disaster occurs when unexpected distractions happen and disrupt daily activities that involve chemicals. The paper is aimed to explore issues related to disastrous response to hazardous materials. Disaster Response for Hazardous Materials The head of the State together with the government must create some concrete plans on how to uplift the conditions of the citizens. One of the considerations is on how to manage hazardous materials. Hazardous materials can be natural or synthetic and are usually dangerous as they contain harmful chemicals. Those contents can be detrimental to the health of the organisms or to the condition of other objects. Some examples of hazardous materials are gasoline, cleaning materials and paint (Schnepp, 2010, p. 5). The chemical contents of those objects may find their way to the habitats of animals or to local residences when moisture is present or may mix with the air and cause damages to the surroundings. Hazardous materials then must not be confused with hazardous waste as the latter pertains to things improperly handled like spilled gasoline, used oil and used paint (Gallant, 2006, p. 39). Once hazardous materials are causing damages, those occurrences are said to be hazardous material disasters. Hazardous materials disaster may happen in a variety of possibilities and disrupt the regular activities by unexpected incident like onset of fire, chemical spills or sudden burst with the existence of dangerous materials that can harm people, property and other organisms (Antosia, 2006, p. 189). The burst then is said to be related to explosion which is an immediate displacement of objects from their former position together with a very loud noise (Kramer and Bahme, 1992, p. 379). Disaster is like a calamity or any unwanted and unexpected destruction that may cost lives and properties. It is not limited to fire but any form of accident involving chemicals or harmful substances (Perry, 2007, p. 1). Because of the disasters that may happen again from hazardous materials, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 were passed by the Congress (Dawes, 1995, p. 62). That act had two main focuses: emergency planning program must be adequate and positioned rightly through the joint efforts of the government officials and community people for their own safety and an awareness program for information dissemination regarding the presence of chemicals used by facilities at their locality (Bunger, 2012, p. 236). In line with that, 2002 State Emergency Response Commission Conference was held to discuss the following: redefining SERC roles and responsibilities; assessing the impact of September 11 on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and its goal of providing chemical facility information to the general public; coordinating hazardous materials and homeland security planning and response actions; enhancing public-private partnerships; discussing the vulnerability of chemical facilities to acts of terrorism; and exchanging SERC best practices (National Governors Association, 2002). The topics discussed in the conference were numerous, but the focus is on the hazardous materials. The paper then will focus on answering various questions with regards to the conference and the hazardous materials. The next paragraphs then will answer the questions like what were the main issues expressed by the States concerning Homeland Security and states rights at the 2002 State Emergency Response Commission Conference? Does the author believe that the State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and the Local Emergency Response Commissions (LERCs) are threatened for control of local disasters by the Department of Homeland Security? Does the author believe that the Federal government has to do more to simplify and limit liability for state and local governments and industry for certain disasters? What is the opinion of the author when it comes to the inclusion of industry in the strategic planning process for emergency and disaster planning? Does the author believe that as the current system exists that there will be more or less failures of disaster management in the near future and that the inherent "system" problems have been corrected? In the case of hazardous materials and homeland security planning, it was tackled in the meeting that several possible dangers were identified from the absence of hazmat planning in rural areas (National Governors Association, 2002). Hazmat planning is the procedure created to prevent hazardous materials from causing any harm to the people (Kramer, 2009, p. 220). Suggestions from the places like North Dakota and Montana became hot topics as Local Emergency Planning Committee must perform the least. Some tribes in Montana had their own Emergency Response Commissions and the government stressed that WMD capability is almost not possible in the absence of solid hazmat plans (Canton, 2007, p. 63). Also the source of funds is an issue as it is critically needed in turning the plans into reality (National Governors Association, 2002). Perhaps the main issue is the lack of information, planning and coordination among the agencies when it comes to safety and hazardous materials. Information dissemination was being suggested to be controlled for the sake of public safety, but it might limit the preparedness and performance of LEPCs as they might not hold the records for chemicals involved in their areas (Cronin, 2007, p. 470). The issues presented then are the answers to the first question as secrecy for protection may not be a good idea as the author thought of it as a barricade to information dissemination which is needed in planning and controlling the possibilities of having hazmat disasters. The next consideration is the Department of Homeland Security as it threatens the local agencies into controlling the disasters at their respective localities. Since the department is the national agency responsible for the local security, it has the right to barge in when the local agencies like SERCs and LERCs cannot function well. With that, SERCs and LERCs are threatened, but they may not feel the intervention of the Department of Homeland Security unless they are not able to render their functions. The third one deals with the efforts of the Federal government to limit the liabilities of the local government when it comes to disasters. Perhaps the federal government has the authority to take steps in revising the liabilities of the local government and the companies involve for certain disasters. The federal government must then control the liabilities as disasters have different results and coverage (Schneider, 2011, p. 230). With the steps taken by the federal government through the actions of the Department of Homeland Security, State Emergency Response Commissions and the Local Emergency Response Commissions may have limited control as the department can provide specific instructions for the performance of the two commissions (Bullock et. al., 2012, p. 134). It is needed to limit the liability for the simplification of the process needed and to easily manage the hazards and potentialities of hazmat to cause damages. Afterwards, it can also be considered that private groups like the different industries then must participate in the making of strategic plans for emergency and disasters as the members of the different industries are the major responsible for the proliferation of hazardous materials that may put risks upon the health of the people in the locality (Gustin, 2010, p. 19). The author thinks that factories with chemicals must put extra effort to take care of those around them as part of the corporate social responsibility. It is therefore needed to manage the use of chemicals and other hazardous substances to ensure the safety of the community. Lastly, Dr. Erik Auf der Heide told that the usual causes of problems in delivering the disaster assistance are failures in the system. Failures are parts of imperfect system and may come out anytime and prompt and well-planned changes may correct the existing problems. As system problems are the usual cause of delays and lack of success in disaster management the detected issues must be corrected immediately (Borodzicz, 2005, p. 23). People involved in the management must be aware of system failures as those may appear from time to time. Giving attention to such issues can prevent serious events that can endanger human lives and environmental welfare. The current system then ensures good support in disaster care as the author may consider that, but it is not complete on its own. Consistent improvements and evaluations must be done to revise and adapt the system according to the needs of the community. The conference in 2002 therefore was an essential step in making revisions and strengthening the support of the Federal Government especially the Department of Homeland Security to the SERCs and LERCs without the Homeland Security taking charge upon all the functions that the two should have been carrying out. Disaster management then must be a continuous learning as problems may always arise as there is not perfect system in reality. With that, industries must also help in planning and managing the substances to prevent any hazmat disasters. References Antosia, R. (2006). Hazardous material disasters. In R. Antosia and J. Cahill. Handbook of bioterrorism and disaster medicine (pp. 189-191). USA: Springer. Borodzicz, E. (2005). Risk, crisis and security management. England: John Wiley and Sons. Bullock, J., Haddow, G., and Copolla, D. (2012). Introduction to homeland security: Principles of all-hazards risk management. USA: Elsevier. Bunger, D. (2012). Deficits in EU and US mandatory environmental information disclosure. USA: Springer. Canton, L. (2007). Emergency management: concepts and strategies for effective programs. USA: John Wiley and Sons. Cronin, B. (2007). Annual review of information science and technology. USA: Information Today Inc. Dawes, W. (1995). Hardening semiconductor components against radiation and temperature. USA: Noyes Publication. Gallant, B. (2006). Hazardous waste operations and emergency response manual. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Gustin, J. (2010). Disaster and recovery planning: A guide for facility managers. USA: The Fairmont Press. Kramer, W. (2009). Disaster planning and control. USA: PennWell Corporation. Kramer, W. and Bahme, C. (1992). Fire officer’s guide to disaster control. USA: Fire Engineering Books and Videos. National Governors Association. (2002). 2002 State emergency response commission conference highlights. NGA Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-archive/col2-content/title_2002-state-emergency-response-commission-conference-highlights.html Perry, R. (2007). What is a disaster? In H. Rodriguez. Handbook of disaster research. USA: Springer. Schneider, S. (2011). Dealing with disaster: Public management in crisis situations. USA: M. E. Sharpe Inc. Schnepp, R. (2010). Hazardous materials awareness and operations. USA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Read More