Slow Progress: Planning Response to Emergencies in the Capital Region

On Sept. 11, 2001, when World Trade Center was attacked in New York City and the plane crashed into the Pentagon in Northern Virginia killing 188, the Washington region was faced with the challenge of responding to a direct attack on the nerve center of America’s national defense. First responders rushed to the scene, among them fire and rescue crews from Falls Church, as millions of people in the surrounding D.C. area watched, listened, and wondered whether more was going to happen.

Over three years later, a commission, its report, two wars, and a presidential election later, there still exists questions about how well the area can respond if another attack is perpetrated in the capital region.

In fact, a lot more has been done than is apparent to the public eye, though there still remain areas needing improvement. While the airwaves are full of orange alerts, and streets are closed on a regular basis in response government warnings in the District, there is still little public awareness about what is being done to make the area safer and more able to respond to disasters, manmade or natural.

According to the report released by the U.S. Senate Commission on the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, the Capital Region’s emergency response to the attack on the Pentagon was relatively effective, with emergency crews from multiple jurisdictions at both state and federal level coordinating their efforts.

The reaction was the result of tight coordination through the Incident Command System, a common organizational strategy that coordinates multiple agencies in large scale emergencies. The groups had also coordinated their efforts in past emergencies, such as in 1982 when a commercial airliner crashed into the 14th Street Bridge and careened into a frozen Potomac River right below the Pentagon.

But while the initial response and on-ground coordination was well executed on Sept. 11, there were difficulties with communication systems that linked emergency crews, and reverberations from the attacks across the region’s transportation and communication networks practically shut down the region, grid-locking traffic and leaving millions in a panic without any way to learn about what was happening.

Falls Church City Councilman David Snyder, who is the City's representative and now the chair of the Transportation Planning Board for the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Council of Governments (COG), said that other than some basic planning among rescue agencies, the attacks took the D.C. area by surprise.

“The region was not prepared,” Snyder told the News-Press. “Only fire and rescue service was well coordinated. The public had no good source of information and the transportation system locked up.”

Following the attacks, Snyder said, COG took advantage of candid evaluations of failures in responding and launched the process of constructing a regional plan to facilitate communications and collaboration before, during and after any future such emergency.

The regional plan COG developed is broken down into 15 separate emergency support functions including transportation, communications infrastructure, public works, firefighting, information and planning, mass care, resource support, health and medical services, urban search and rescue, hazardous materials, food, energy, law enforcement, media relations, community outreach, and volunteer management.

Part of the deployment of the regional plan was the implementation of the Regional Incident Communication and Coordination System (RICCS). RICCS provides 24 hour, seven days a week communication capability reaching across a variety of agencies.

The system doesn’t act on its own, rather it is a conduit through which agencies can communicate with each other and coordinate their response to any emergency.

“It’s set up to be a virtual conference room for all the key people to learn about what’s going on in the event of an emergency,” said Snyder. “It works to share information and to create a common, coordinated response.”

So far RICCS has been tested on several occasions, with varying degrees of success. In September 2003, as Hurricane Isabel swept into the region, emergency crews and law enforcement used the system to react to incidents caused by the storm's high winds and rain. It was also used to formulate a unified public message.

But there have also been times when the area has not reacted well. When North Carolina farmer Dwight Watson drove his tractor into a pond on the National Mall in the Spring of 2003, threatening to detonate his vehicle as a protest against federal farm policy, the streets around Capitol Hill were immediately grid-locked and whole parts of the city were practically shut down for two days as the stand-off continued.

Snyder said that when agencies have had time to coordinate their efforts, the system has worked well, but when incidents have happened without warning there has still been trouble creating a cohesive effort.

For Snyder, the difficulties serve as examples of why more work needs to be done on emergency response. Recently there has been a movement towards creating a new organization for the region that would serve as a coordinating force in response to sudden major events.

When a disaster happens, the immediate concern, necessarily, is the work immediately surrounding the incident. Whoever is in charge of the situation, depending on the jurisdiction where the incident occurs, is responsible for the deployment of the necessary resources.

But many tertiary systems like transportation and public works are often affected by disasters, and tend to be left out of the equation as the more immediate concerns preempt the less pressing issues.

The proposed new agency would coordinate deployment of resources across all the affected agencies and systems. Some of the tasks would include making sure transportation is routed appropriately, coordinating the deployment of emergency vehicles and making sure that affected jurisdictions get the proper information.

Snyder noted that in many cases proper coordination can keep a relatively minor incident from causing major disturbances and delays, and can save lives when a larger disaster requires a quick concerted response.

But the creation of an overarching coordinating agency for the region has been a hard sell, as many local jurisdictions and agencies fear that it might become just another layer of bureaucracy, and infringe upon an already obscure chain of command.

Snyder said that the new body wouldn’t preempt any existing organization but only provide expert assistance for agencies responding to an incident. “It will help make sure that things happen right every time,” he said.

Still, implementation of many of the plan’s recommendations has been slow. Other than RICCS, Snyder said that there have been only incremental improvements to the region’s response system, although he acknowledges that change is not easy with all the people that have to take part in crisis decision making.

With funding coming from three jurisdictions and the approval hinging upon those bodies, it is difficult to satisfy everyone. But Snyder is optimistic that the new system will be approved. “I would hope by next year at this time that it’s in place,” he said.

While the systemic work at the government level has been important, there is also work being done to make sure that individuals facing an emergency, personally, are also prepared.

The Response to Emergencies and Disasters Institute (READI) in Ashburn, Virginia, which works to prepare people for disasters, from professional emergency personnel to civilian employees, has been increasingly busy leading workshops and performing evaluations for groups in the Capital Region and throughout the United States.

Paul Kim, associate director of operations for the institute talked with the News-Press about teaching emergency response. Prior coming to READI, Kim worked as director and area emergency manager for the Department of Veteran’s Affairs in Albany, New York. During his time there he was a part of the emergency response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 in Manhattan, and has over 20 years of experience in both planning and response to emergency situations.

Kim breaks down the process of dealing with emergencies into four areas. The first is planning and preparedness. In preparing for emergencies, he said it is important to make sure enough individuals are trained and ready for the event and that the risk factors are evaluated. While terrorism is a top concern for many areas, other risk factors are region-specific, including earthquakes and hurricanes.

The second step is the response itself. READI works to make sure that those responding are trained both to handle the emergency, but also aware of whom they will be working with and how to arrange for necessary resources.

The third step is the recovery, which includes not only resolving any problems caused by the disaster, but also learning how to evaluate the reason for the disaster and any problems in responding to the problem.

The final step is mitigation, which involves working with the information gained during the evaluation and restructuring plans to better deal with future events.

Kim described the process as a cycle where the response to each event leads to a better understanding of how to prevent and respond to future occurrences.

While READI folks work with many government agencies, they also teach classes to private organizations and institutions to promote a better sense of how to react to disasters at all levels, from the employee level to organizational leaders.

Kim said that over the past three years, many organizations and communities have become better educated and prepared for the next disaster. “I’ve seen some pretty incredible things going on,” he said. “We’ve been the catalyst to help some of these things get going.”

Today, many public places like malls and schools have learned more about how services and guidance can be provided in the event of emergency. While part of the goal of teaching communities about emergency response is to reassure them that they can do something, Kim said that what is taught today is a lot more effective than the "duck and cover" response taught during the nuclear scares of the 1950s and 60s. “We’re showing folks there’s something they can do,” he said.

“We’re never going to be 100% secure. The threats change every day. This is an ongoing process and it will be for many years to come.”

Still, for many, a lack of public information persists about how to react if an emergency occurs. It's something Snyder sees as one of the biggest challenges that the area faces.

In the event of an emergency, a poorly educated public could respond in a way that would have detrimental effects on the ability of government to handle the situation. Snyder said that a big problem is the tendency of people to try and evacuate the area during a disaster. A massive exodus from an area will not only lock-up transportation and prevent resources from getting to where they are needed, but it will also put more people exposed and at risk of attack on the transit system.

“The best response is usually to stay where you are,” Snyder said.

While there remains a gap in public awareness, the region continues to work to improve its plan, through real world response, exercises, and continuing evaluation of area needs.