HD21 - State of Preparedness in Virginia for a Catastrophic Disaster
Executive Summary: Hurricane Andrew, which struck South Florida on August 24, 1992, is a good example of the level of devastation that can be expected from a catastrophic disaster. Hurricane Andrew is generally described as being compact in nature, fast-moving, and producing very little rain, but having very high winds. It struck a moderately populated area of Dade County located just south of Miami. According to the Response-After-Action Report prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in May, 1993, the storm destroyed approximately 26,000 homes, leaving another 107,000 damaged. The majority of the over 100 mobile home parks affected by the storm were also destroyed. This devastation dislocated over 180,000 people and generated the equivalent of 30 years of solid waste accumulation in the Metropolitan Dade landfill. (*1) The cost of debris removal alone totaled 540 million dollars as of July 19, 1993, which represented 57% of the federal public assistance funds obligated at that time. (*2) The devastation included significant damage to the economic base and infrastructure (roads, bridges, electrical systems, water lines, etc.) of the impacted area. Total damages from the storm, which relate to essentially one county in South Florida, currently exceed 25 billion dollars. If the storm had been slower moving, with higher moisture levels, and had impacted a more densely populated area of the state, such as nearby Miami, the damages would have been significantly greater. If a storm similar to Hurricane Andrew struck the Tidewater area, it is highly unlikely only one county or city would be impacted. The devastation would clearly be regional in scope and the costs much higher than that experienced in South Florida. Recent estimates by the Insurance Institute place the cost of a storm similar to Hurricane Andrew striking the Hampton Roads area, and traveling through Northern Virginia (a likely scenario), at thirty to sixty billion dollars. The Commonwealth of Virginia, its political subdivisions, and the federal government have an inherent responsibility to protect human life and property in times of disasters. Although all levels of government play a critical role in responding to and recovering from disasters, the role of the State Coordinating Agency, the Virginia Department of Emergency Services, in coordinating response/recovery activities with local, state, and federal agencies, and the private sector, would be pivotal to the success of disaster operations. The State Coordinating Agency acts as a conduit through which local requests for assistance are made, and state and federal assets are coordinated and passed through to local governments, to support and carry out response and recovery strategies. State agencies and their resources, both human and material, provide the Commonwealth with the capability to respond to and recover from disasters in an effective and efficient manner. State agencies are assigned emergency tasks under the Commonwealth of Virginia's Emergency Operations Plan. Emergency tasks are related to the agencies daily responsibilities as well as capabilities. To ensure an expedient and coordinated response to disasters, the Department is continually working to enhance the level of emergency preparedness in the Commonwealth by striving to improve the integration, coordination, and overall quality of local and state emergency operations plans, as well as developing and implementing the necessary training and exercise programs to ensure their operational efficiency. The level of local and state preparedness will determine their ability to quickly identify disaster needs, assess damages, and carry out and support response and recovery actions. It must be emphasized that the role of the federal government is clearly one of support. Local and state governments control response and recovery operations and only request federal assistance when their resources are depleted or if the situation overwhelms their capabilities. While all available federal assistance would be requested under the provisions of the Federal Response Plan and the FEMA State Memorandum of Understanding of 1993, it is nevertheless essential that the state has the capability to maintain control of these assets. Therefore, it is critical that local and state governments have the facilities, resources, staffing, and training to carry out their emergency responsibilities under the plan. To ensure that adequate resources will be readily available to effectively respond to and recover from a catastrophic disaster, Virginia developed, under the auspices of the Southern Governors Association, a mutual aid compact among all nineteen member-states that comprise the Association. This agreement, which is the only one of its kind in the country at this time, provides the framework under which mutual aid from other states will be requested, received, and utilized in times of disaster. Supplementary support agreements and procedures will be developed by member states to facilitate the implementation of the agreement once it is enacted. This process will begin with those states that are contiguous to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Department of Emergency Services has already been in contact with the states of North Carolina, Maryland, and Tennessee in this regard. The local, state, and federal components of Virginia's emergency management system, as well as the functional elements that comprise them, are linked vertically. This integrated and coordinated system is designed to allow for the free flow of information and interaction between the various levels of government to ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources in a disaster. As resources are depleted in a functional element of a particular level of government, the next level of assistance is activated. The overall performance of the system depends on the level of preparedness of each component and of the elements that make up those components. Critical elements of a successful emergency management program include the following: • An Emergency Operations Center that provides a central location where representatives from all governmental agencies, the private sector, and volunteer groups working as emergency support functions can collocate and coordinate their missions in an effective and efficient manner. This facility must have the capability to enhance the interface with the various network points and external systems so that effective actions and strategies can be developed and implemented in a timely manner. • Integrated, multifaceted, redundant, and survivable communications and warning systems that provide the capability to communicate with all levels of government and to conduct emergency operations throughout all disaster phases. • Plans, procedures, and supporting agreements that provide the framework for emergency operations and ensure a coordinated response. • Staff to develop, maintain, and implement a viable emergency management program, and provide the capability of fulfilling the increasing emergency management program demands and responsibilities. • Training and exercises to ensure a certain standard of operational efficiency locally, regionally, and statewide. • Other tactical and programmatic components such as needs assessment, public education, hazardous material response, search and rescue, and donations management. • Adequate funding to sustain the desired level of local and state preparedness, as well as support the additional federal initiatives designed to enhance response and recovery capabilities. This study identifies and discusses the nature and scope of the strengths and the shortfalls of the various components of the Virginia emergency management system, especially as they relate to a catastrophic disaster. The Commonwealth has established a good foundation of emergency management programs. It is based on an emergency operations plan that has the capability to quickly and effectively interface with existing federal and local emergency operations plans. The plan is exercised and tested regularly under a variety of scenarios and in coordination with local, state, and federal government entities. The Commonwealth has continually strived to improve upon and broaden its emergency management capabilities by implementing new and innovative initiatives in such areas as search and rescue and hazardous material response; upgrading its equipment and facilities; and enhancing the overall quality of its planning, training, and operational programs. However, many of these initiatives have been delayed, canceled, or phased in incrementally due to budget constraints at all levels of government. Current and projected levels of local, state, and federal funding are insufficient to address the shortfalls identified in this report, as well as sustain an optimum level of emergency preparedness on the state and local level. The Commonwealth and its political subdivisions have been able to work around many of the system shortfalls identified in this report (e.g., communications, facility space, computer capabilities) due to the nature, scope, or location of previous disasters. However, the deficiencies in the system would become glaring in a major or catastrophic disaster, especially if it occurred in a very populated and developed part of the state, such as the Tidewater or Northern Virginia areas. The study begins with a hazards analysis and a brief history of the types of disasters that have occurred in Virginia since 1969. It defines the different levels disasters and the corresponding levels of state and federal assistance. The components of Virginia's emergency management system are also described, followed by the assessment of the seven critical program elements previously identified. A summary of the study's recommendations is provided at the end of the report. The key recommendations of this report, which are, for the most part, more capital-intensive in nature, (e.g. EOC, data systems, communications equipment), are listed below. One of the key recommendations deals with the establishment of an Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund, capitalized by a dedicated funding source, for the purpose of supporting state and local preparedness programs in order to enhance operational capabilities during a disaster. Without this, the challenge of meeting the increasing emergency management demands in the Commonwealth will likely go unmet. If a dedicated funding mechanism is approved by the General Assembly, it is anticipated that it will take approximately one year to develop and implement the necessary legislation to enact the program. It will require another year to establish the organizational framework and procedures to collect and disperse the funds. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FACILITIES AND DATA SYSTEMS • Construct a new state Emergency Operations Center to enhance the overall efficiency of emergency operations in a disaster, as well as provide the necessary space for all key government and private agencies. The current facility, which was built in 1951, cannot accommodate the expanded staff now required for less than catastrophic disasters. In catastrophic events, approximately two thirds of the estimated staff required would have to be put elsewhere, which would significantly inhibit continuity and coordination. The current facility has been evaluated by architectural firms and found to be less than one-twelfth of the required size. • Develop the necessary computer systems at the Emergency Operations Center to interface with the various network points, as well as external systems, and allow for the free flow of information between them. The systems must be able to accommodate the anticipated huge volume of requests for resources and assistance that will be generated and processed during the course of a major or catastrophic disaster. The current system does not have the capability or capacity to do this. • Provide the necessary staff support to service and maintain the expanded computer network to ensure its efficient use and minimize down time of the system during disasters. Initially, a computer programmer/analyst and a data entry technician will be required. COMMUNICATIONS AND WARNING SYSTEMS • Create, implement, and support a statewide Emergency Management Communications System that links local jurisdictions, state response agencies, and federal installations and has the capability to transmit data. The Virginia State Police digital microwave system or a satellite system could serve as the basis for such a system. • Promote and support state agency and local government participation in the State Emergency Communications Using Radio Effectively (Operation SECURE) program. This is a high-frequency, single side band system used for intrastate, as well as interstate coordination, when telephone lines are not functioning. • Provide the necessary staff support to service and maintain the communication system in place at the Virginia EOC, as well as deployed in the field. FUNDING • Establish an Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund, similar to that of the State of Florida, with a dedicated funding source, to be administered by the Virginia Department of Emergency Services, for the purpose of supporting state and local emergency programs and initiatives. Florida's recent legislation is generating over 12 million dollars in funding annually to support local and state emergency management programs and initiatives. In Virginia, the estimated need to provide an adequate ongoing program is approximately $8 million. Note that this does not include funding for hazardous material programs or for capital outlay projects, such as the EOC and communications enhancements. By example, this equates roughly to what is currently being generated to support the Fire Programs Fund, described under Section 38.2-401 of the Code of Virginia, using a percentile assessment levied against selected insurance policies. • Create a Hazardous Materials Administration Trust Fund, capitalized by a fee system imposed on the chemical user community, for the purpose of supporting hazardous material preparedness programs and initiatives as described in Sections 44-146.35 through 44-146.39 of the Code of Virginia. Almost fifty percent of the states have enacted some type of funding mechanism to support SARA Title III program requirements and hazardous material response initiatives. __________________________________________ (*1) "Hurricane Andrew, Response After-Action Report," FEMA, Page 15. May 1993 (*2) FEMA, Joint Information Center, July 1993 |
Menu
Published Documents
