Are We Ready for Another Catastrophe - Research Paper Example

Are We Ready for Another Catastrophe? Introduction During the last few years, the United States has been hit by catastrophes that continue to challenge the nation’s emergency response and preparedness. Major disasters such as the wildfires in California and oil spill in Gulf of Mexico tested the country’s capacity to handle a national crisis. As a result, the responses of federal agencies were met by myriad repercussions which prompted the government to improve its overall emergency preparation. This paper aims to know if America has learned its lessons in emergency preparedness by looking at the responses of government agencies on the local, state, and federal level during a major catastrophe. More specifically, the research will present a comparison on the government’s action during these major catastrophes that hit the country in recent years: 1.) Hurricane Katrina and subsequent hurricanes in different states; 2.) Mount St. Helens eruption and the emergency preparedness on other volcanic eruptions; and 3.) the September 11 attack and the improvement in counter terrorism. On the federal level, government agency reports by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and CDC (Centers for Disease and Control Prevention) will be examined by looking at decisive changes on emergency response and preparedness. On the State level, emergency management in disaster prone areas such as Florida, Texas, New York, and Mississippi will also be looked upon. Lastly, on the local level, steps taken by the community to prepare itself for major catastrophe will be examined. By studying these aspects in emergency preparedness, this paper aims to assess America’s readiness to handle catastrophes that can strike the country at any moment. Emergency Preparedness in Today’s Context According to Perry & Lindell (2003), emergency preparedness refers to the readiness of a political jurisdiction to react constructively to threats from the environment in a way that minimizes the negative consequences of impact for the health and safety of the individuals and the integrity and functioning of physical structures and systems1. However, this definition does not encompass the entire scope of disasters that we face in modern society. Among these catastrophes are nuclear power plant emergencies, cyber terrorism, bio terrorism, and other man-made disasters. As such, a broader definition was provided by Nursing Clinics of America on its issue on Disaster Management and Response (2005), stating that emergency preparedness is the “comprehensive knowledge, skills, abilities and actions needed to prepare for and respond to threatened, actual, or suspected chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive incidents, man-made incidents, natural disasters or other related events.” 2 The extended definition is necessary because according to Disaster Management and Preparedness handbook (2001), “today’s risks of disasters have evolved substantially to include areas far beyond the natural disasters of the past”3. Catastrophes such as cyber terrorism, product tampering, biological threats, and ecological terrorism – disasters which were unheard of few short years ago, have devastating effects that can be as severe as a natural disaster. As the world continues to change, new technologies also emerge and evolve. This means that emerging risks are also increasing and changing. Because of this, government agencies must also adapt to changes in order to prevent and minimize the risks and damage brought about by natural and man-made catastrophes. Assessing Emergency Preparedness In order to gauge the country’s capacity in emergency response and preparedness, lessons learned from previous catastrophes in the US will be presented. These disastrous events – Mount St. Helens’ eruption (1980), September 11 terrorist attack (2011), and Hurricane Katrina (2005) revealed holes in America’s disaster preparedness.  As such, responses from federal agencies will be evaluated by looking at the response action done on subsequent tragedies which followed each catastrophe. In this way, improvement and changes in emergency preparedness will be fully assessed. Mount St. Helens Eruption and Response On May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted at the state of Washington after being dormant for 123 years. Days after the eruption, a 5.1 magnitude earthquake prompted the collapse of the mountain’s north flank, releasing the largest landslide in recorded history and a volcanic eruption equal in power to 500 atom bombs4. As a result, many roads were closed, trains halted and aircraft grounded during the entire catastrophe. During the ordeal, the emergency response by federal agencies was documented by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Report in 19905. The following are some of the significant actions done by the agencies concerned by the event: On March 31, an on-site, comprehensive, volcanic-hazards assessment was presented at another meeting of agencies responsible for public safety. As the number of earthquakes increased, USGS and other scientists discussed with Gifford Pinchot National Forest officials the significance of the seismic activity, and the safety of USFS (U.S. Forest Service) facilities near the volcano. By the time the eruptive activity was into its second week, 25 to 30 scientists participated in daily briefings with USFS and other officials and provided advice on the locations of hazardous zones for use. All decisions regarding access and restricted areas were the sole responsibility of the USFS, Washington, and other land managers for the Mt. St. Helens region. Legislation passed by Congress in 1974 made the Geological Survey the lead Federal agency responsible for providing reliable and timely warnings of volcanic hazards to State and local authorities. On the same report, it was reported that the eruptive activity of Mount St. Helens has “provided a good test for scientists who faced the challenge of obtaining, relaying, and explaining in easily understandable terms the information needed by the Federal, State, and local officials charged with land management and public safety”. However, although local authorities worked hard in keeping the population away from Mount St. Helens, the eruption still killed 58 people and caused more than $1 billion in property damage6. Are we ready for Another Volcanic Eruption? Twenty years after the Mount St. Helens eruption, National Geographic News reported that only three of the most dangerous U.S. volcanoes are sufficiently monitored. These are Kìlauea in Hawaii, Mount St. Helens in Washington State, and the Long Valley caldera in California7. In the same report (Roach, 2006), volcanologist Stanley Williams of Arizona State University urged the need for more volcanic monitoring since there are few volcanoes that are really being studied at a very close level. These claims was further supported by U.S. Geological Survey analysis, indicating that even though the government has installed more than 350 seismic sensors around the country, many dangerous volcanoes are inadequately monitored (Doughton, 2010)8. The same report sought a government budget $15 million a year for the next decade to bolster what it calls a "National Volcano Early Warning System”. These actions by federal agencies were the result of its experience during the Mount St. Helens eruption. It was noted how scientists and emergency responders in the disaster still carried seismometers into trucks and headed for the mountain. USGS volcanologist Dan Dzurisin admitted that if advanced tools had been available in 1980, “scientists might have at least provided a few minutes' warning of the flank collapse that unleashed the most destructive eruption in U.S. history” (Doughton, 2010). Through these accounts, we are able to determine possible lapses of the response team during the volcanic crisis. September 11 and Counter terrorism Following the 9/11 terrorist attack, U.S. agencies have seen dramatic national efforts to re-prioritize concepts of national preparedness when it comes to terrorism. To address this grave concern, the 9-11 Commission was created to prepare complete accounts of the World Trade Center terrorist attack. The report includes a detailed account on the emergency responses to the attacks and recommendations designed to guard against future attacks. The report emphasized failures in military intelligence and weakness of emergency preparedness by responsible agencies. The preparation for a large scale terrorist threats were simply overlooked and so “government services share a responsibility for not adequately preparing for terrorism before Sept. 11”9. In the same report, specific recommendations were highlighted to improve the emergency preparedness by different agencies handling the crisis: Make homeland security funding contingent on the adoption of an incident command system to strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including a regional approach. Allocate more radio spectrum and improve connectivity for public safety communications, and encourage widespread adoption of newly developed standards for private-sector emergency preparedness—since the private sector controls 85% of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Base federal funding for emergency preparedness solely on risks and vulnerabilities, putting New York City and Washington, D.C., at the top of the current list. Such assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing or pork-barrel spending. Furthermore, communication failure brought the incident management into a ruin as it was found that command and control units have problematic internal communications. This was confirmed in the Commission Report that the lack of interagency coordination and communications that hindered the response effort. The report also describes the efforts that the cities have made to meet these challenges. Emergency Preparedness after 9/11 According to the report on emergency preparedness after September 11, Markowitz & Rosner (2004) stated that most state departments of health were “grossly unprepared for September 11 and its aftermath”10. This statement was also supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention on its 2001 report entitled “Public Health's Infrastructure”, which claimed that the U.S. public health infrastructure is still “structurally weak in nearly every area"11. It means an admission that the health agency is still not fully prepared for large scale biological and chemical attacks since “public health physicians and nurses are untrained in new threats like West Nile virus and ‘weaponized’ microorganisms” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001). Almost a decade after 9/11, the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force has published a report to the US Congress declaring that the country’s state of preparedness is “positive, with continual, significant signs of improvement since the September 11, 2001 attacks”12. However, the report admitted that it still cannot “effectively identify preparedness objectives in a prioritized, measurable way” and because of this, cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability of emergency plans are limited. According to the study on domestic preparedness by the United States Army (Bossone et. al., 2008), many domestic preparedness initiatives and programs were already in place, but a coordinated response effort. This is why the creation of Homeland Security in July 2002 was crucial to unite emergency efforts across the different agencies and specify responsibilities for improved response on terrorist attacks13. In this way, response agency could work together to strengthen the fight against future catastrophe. Lessons from Hurricane Katrina On August 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed an estimated $96 billon property and took the lives of 1,720 Americans -- making it one of the most destructive national disasters in U.S. history14. Due to this catastrophe, several weaknesses of emergency preparedness by responding agencies were revealed. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2005), there were many lapses in government programs that could have been improved during the disaster. These weaknesses include: 1.) lack of preparation of health care providers for catastrophic event; 2.) insufficient communication and collaboration among federal, state, and local governments; and 3.) vulnerable petroleum markets that are susceptible to natural disruptions. Because of these failures in emergency response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2006) provided key recommendations to increase the level of preparedness among different agencies tasked to handle natural calamities15. These recommendations include: Increased coordination among agencies through the Department of Defense (DOD) as the lead field coordinator for ongoing preparedness and response coordination in disasters in each of FEMA’s ten regional offices. Improving situational awareness and communication by establishing a unified incident command with state partners and arming them with satellite phone capability to coordinate with local officials and report information from the local level. Improving the disaster workforce to manage and perform functions such as canvassing areas immediately following a disaster to inform citizens of FEMA's programs, and assessing the community's needs. As part of the U.S. Homeland Security, FEMA should be able to manage emergency responses immediately after a major catastrophe. In this way, mitigation activities within different agencies will be unified and coordinated. Are we ready for Another Katrina? Six years after the Hurricane Katrina, FEMA along with firefighters, policemen and emergency management officials have been implementing ways to improve their response to similar tragedies. According to Lawlor (2011) local government units are participating to regional training drills and exercises to respond to future hurricane disasters16. In addition, communication materials such as regional emergency radio systems were in place to improve the coordination between local and national government. To know the lessons that Americans learned during the Hurricane Katrina, a report entitled ‘The Katrina Effect on American Preparedness’ was prepared by the Center for Emergency Preparedness and Response (CCPR)17. It contained a detailed survey on the level of preparedness by Americans before and after the tragedy. Since it became the center of media coverage, the research aims to know what most Americans were able to learn anything from the disaster. According to the report (Light, 2005), 40% of Americans blamed the government response for the escalation of damage and casualties during the hurricane18. They identified mismanagement, lack of leadership, and non-prioritization of preparedness as the reasons why there was the government failed on its response to the tragedy. On the other hand, 60% of them said that “it was impossible to be prepared for hurricanes, terrorist attacks, or a flu epidemic. When it comes to emergency preparedness, the survey furthered revealed the challenges that most Americans face during the calamity. Surprisingly the findings showed relatively the same answers from respondents before and after Katrina19, which shows: 46% agreed they were not sure exactly where to turn for help after Katrina, compared with 49% before the tragedy. 75% said they wish they were more organized before Katrina, compared with 69% after Katrina. 57% of Americans strongly or somewhat agreed that they wish they had more time to focus on preparing after Katrina, compared with 53% before. 27% said they did not want to think about preparedness after Katrina and Rita, compared to 23% who did not want to think about September 11th 18% said they did not think preparedness was necessary after, compared to 19% before the catastrophe. While most respondents did not show changes in their answers before and after the Hurricane, the report only showed that there is a “continuing barriers to preparedness among a very large percentage of Americans, particularly on those who do not have the personal organization, time, and knowledge about where to turn to help”. With this, suggestion regarding the need of an effective response system was suggested to coordinate the response of different agencies in the state and local level. Emergency Preparedness on the Federal Level As showed, the confidence of American people on the government has decreased as recent catastrophes wreak havoc in the country. In response, the government is implementing its “largest mobilization of emergency response and disaster recovery resources” – by far the largest in U.S. history, according to FEMA (2006)20. This includes strengthening its federal coordination and improving awareness and communication to respond properly to disasters. However, contradicting reports from the Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of Civil Authorities after Certain Incidents revealed that "there is currently no comprehensive national integrated planning system to respond to either natural or man-made disasters"21. Adding to this, result of the study showed that there was no coordination when it comes to response plans by the federal, state, and local agencies which are tasked to act during crisis. Emergency Preparedness on Local level Emergency preparedness on the local level showed to be decreasing as many Americans have “lost confidence in their local government, police departments and local businesses to help those who need assistance following an emergency” according to the Center for Emergency Preparedness and Response (2005). The result is deemed to be crucial since, historically, response to major catastrophes has always been assigned to local government units. Because of this, there were two possible scenarios offered by DeBoiser & Meyer (2010) which can either be cutting down of emergency management funding resulting to lesser preparation by the local government or spending time responding to calamities but neglecting disaster preparation22. And so, while there is a continuous planning and training of firefighters, policemen, and other local officials, there is a need to “make their emergency management and further establish local command centers”23. Conclusion Catastrophic events such as the Mount St. Helens eruption, 9/11 Attack, and Hurricane Katrina showed that improvements are still needed to be done in order to respond quickly to calamities. As presented in different reports by accountability agencies (GAO, CEPR, and other organizations), there is a need to implement an integrated and coordinated response system to prevent damages in major catastrophes. As such, it is only when the recommendations from different agencies are actualized and addressed that we can achieve success in emergency preparedness. Therefore, the country could not anymore risk repetition of tragedies during major catastrophes. References Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of Civil Authorities After Certain Incident (2010). Before Disaster Strikes Imperatives for Enhancing Defense Support of Civil Authorities. Washington, DC: Rand Research. Bossone, C., Kenneth Despain, & Shirley Tuorinsky. Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare (1997). Washington, DC: Office of The Surgeon General, Department of the Army, p. 753 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). Public Health's Infrastructure: A Status Report Prepared for the Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Colby, J. (2006). FOX Facts: Hurricane Katrina Damage. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210970,00.html Collins L. (2000). Disaster Management and Preparedness - Occupational Safety & Health Guide Series. New york, NY: : CRC Press Deboiser & Meyer (2010). Federalizing Disasters Weakens FEMA--and Hurts Americans Hit by Catastrophes. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/Federalizing-Disasters-Weakens- FEMA-and-Hurts-Americans-Hit-by-Catastrophes Doughton, Sandi. (2010) 30 years after Mount St. Helens blast, agency pushes high-tech warning system.The Seattle Times, p.6. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2006). FEMA: Ready for 2006 Hurricane Season. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=29049 Federal Emergency Management Agency (2010). Perspective on Preparedness: Taking Stock Since 9/11 Report to Congress Of the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force p.49. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/preparednesstaskforce/perspective_on_preparedness.pdf Lawlor J. (2011). June 1 marks the start of hurricane season: Is Hampton Roads ready? Retrieved from http://articles.dailypress.com/2011-05-26/weather/dp-nws-cp-hurricane-preparedness-20110526_1_local-emergency-management-officials-natural-disasters-hampton-roads Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force (2010). Perspective on Preparedness: Taking Stock Since 9/11. Washington DC: US Congress Light, P. (2005) The Katrina Effect on American Preparedness. New York, NY: New York University Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response. Markowitz, Gerald & David Rosner (2004). Emergency Preparedness, Bioterrorism, and the States: The First Two Years after September 11. New York, NY: Milbank Memorial Fund. Myers & Theisen (1994) Mount St. Helens Seismic Alert and CVO Response. Retrieved from http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/EruptionAlert/msh_november90_alert.html National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 376 Nursing Clinics of America. Disaster Management and Response, September 2005, Vol 40 number 3, p. 426 Perry RW & Lindell MK, Preparedness for emergency response: guidelines for the emergency planning process. Disasters 2003; 27 (4): 336-50 Roach, J. (2006, January 20). 18 Most Dangerous U.S. Volcanoes Include Erupting Alaska Peak. National Geographic News. pp. 12-14 Tilling, R., Lyn Topinka, & Donald A. Swanson. (1990). Eruptions of Mount St. Helens: Past, Present, and Future. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey Special Interest Publication. U.S. Government Accountability Office (2005). HURRICANE KATRINA Providing Oversight of the Nation’s Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Activities. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051053t.pdf Read More