(EDMG340) Assignment 5 – Managing the Event

The following writing was originally submitted in response to a homework assignment:

Week 5 Assignment

Jeremiah Palmer (4145412)

AmericanPublicUniversity

EDMG340

Christian Kazmierczak

11/09/2012

I.  INTRODUCTION

In a prior course, students were given the following scenario to respond to on the final exam:

SCENARIO: At 10:05a.m. today, a hurricane/earthquake/tornado/flood hit the community of Edenton. The downtown area was hardest hit. People have reported damage to homes, and businesses have been affected as well. No fatalities have been reported. Three people with injuries have been taken to the Edenton Community Hospital, which is also reporting some damage. As many as 10 people are missing.

The downtown fire station is destroyed/inoperable. Two other fire stations are operational.

Other possible effects:

• A large fire has broken out in downtown
• Water mains are cut
• 10 percent of the population has sustained injuries
• Utility lines are down
• Animals in the zoo have escaped from their cages
• Looters are rampaging downtown
• Sewers have backed up, endangering public health
• Many houses are destroyed/inhabitable and shelters will be needed
• A hazardous spill has occurred
• A major road has been affected.

Students were asked to develop an Incident Command System for the scenario, defining roles and responsibilities for the functions that should be included. For this week’s assignment I am offering a similar response^[1] to the one I had given for the aforementioned scenario.

II. – SCENARIO RESPONSE

Establishing Command

With the events at Edenton being as described above, recommendation should be made for the establishment of a Unified Command (UC) at the community’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC). In the event that the primary EOC is located in the downtown area, command should take place at the designated secondary EOC location; if by chance a secondary EOC has not been previously designated, then a temporary base of operations for the EOC needs to be located. Potential secondary locations may include schools, civic buildings, empty factories/warehouses—any location that has relatively easy access to utilities and can be secured if necessary. The relocation of the EOC to a secondary site is advisable, as the primary—assuming it is located downtown—may be affected by the fires and looting.

Structure of Command and Sections

The UC structure of the EOC would be comprised of the local EM director and applicable top-level government heads—mayor and/or judge-executive or local government equivalents and their respective deputies/assistants. Prior to this event, the UC has been structured so that one member is designated as overall IC, while the remaining act in traditional top-level command staff capacities—PIO, safety, liaison.

Below the UC are established the following sections: Operations (OPS), Planning (PLAN), Logistics (LOG) and Finance/Administration (ADMIN).

OPS could potentially have a section chief, or could operate without one; operating without a section chief may create difficulty in OPS branches communicating with the IC and UC, but is feasible. OPS section chief should be someone experienced in managing a crisis and knowledgable of communication and practices of the OPS branches—communication issues should be negligible as plain-language is supposed to be used across the board. Potential candidates for OPS Chief are the Deputy EM or a commissioner/council-man/magistrate sitting over public safety. The OPS section would be comprised of several operating branches for this incident, each headed by their respective chief/top-level administrator:

• FIRE branch;
• LAW enforcement branch;
• public HEALTH branch;
• ANIMAL control branch;
•  public WORKS branch;
• UTILITIES branch.

The remaining sections would not necessarily have the need for branches; supporting staff might be advisable to aid in any “gopher” activities.

Structure and Duties of Sections

PLAN could easily be filled by an EM staff member or a commissioner/council-man/magistrate. PLAN would work closely with UC, LOG and OPS in compiling information and keeping all sections and command briefed with SITREPs. PLAN would also work closely with the PIO in gathering and distributing information to and from the public.

LOG could be staffed in a manner similar to PLAN. LOG would be in constant communication with OPS and PLAN for the purposes of locating and supplying any necessary resources or materials. LOG would be responsible for locating outside sources for assistance that do not already have an MOU/MOA with OPS branches (agencies with pre-existing MOU/MOA would be contacted by the respective OPS branch); should an agency be located, LOG would forward said agency to ADMIN for event-specific MOU/MOA processing.

ADMIN could be staffed similarly to PLAN and LOG; however recommendation should be made for the city/county attorney to fill this position. ADMIN would work closely with OPS, PLAN, LOG and the UC for record keeping, document processing/filing as well as tallying costs and damages.

Operations and Functions of Branches and Sections

In regards to particular actions to take in this incident, recommended actions are—though not necessarily in this exact order:

FIRE should dispatch available units to control and suppress the fires downtown. Since the possibility exists that looting and fire could spread to other locations, FIRE should attempt to keep at least one engine and its crew at out-lying stations; this is, of course, at FIRE’s discretion. FIRE will have notified outside agencies with established MOU/MOA per SOP/SOG; additional fire support may be located by LOG.

WORKS should make attempts to feed water to mains in downtown area for FIRE activities. Water supply to HEALTH facilities are next priority. All areas of town outside of the active FIRE area should be restricted, limited, or shut-off at WORKS discretion. WORKS may attempt to patch or divert sewage systems to keep issues from occurring at HEALTH facilities. LOG may be able to locate emergency above-ground lines and pumps for both potable and non-potable water systems.

HEALTH should obtain a SITREP from the local hospital and establish satellite medical centers for the purposes of First Aid and lower priority medical cases; potential locations for these satellite medical centers are established clinics and health departments. At least one ambulance—if the service(s) allow capacity—should be located at each satellite center for emergency transport and assistance should a case present itself with higher degree of trauma at a satellite. HEALTH should coordinate with PLAN and LOG for acquisition of additional supplies and personnel.

UTILITIES will coordinate with all public service utilities—save those covered by WORKS—for SITREPs. Electricity and communications lines to the EOC, dispatch and repeater sites as well as HEALTH sites will be priority. Emergency services bases and satellites will be secondary, prioritizing by location’s capacity and ability to generate alternate power. UTILITIES will want to coordinate with LOG for locating generators and fuel for these affected locations should they not be previously equipped.

ANIMAL control will assist with the operations at the local zoo for the locating/capture/holding of lost/escaped animals. ANIMAL will receive additional assistance from Fish & Wildlife—Fish & Wildlife will be contacted by LOG.

LAW will establish a presence in the areas affected by looting; however, LAW will not make any arrests or use force to counteract the looting in progress—any such maneuver may incite additional rioting. Instead, LAW will act to protect properties that have not been looted.

LOG will contact National Guard for additional support for LAW, FIRE, HEALTH and WORKS; most Guard units—especially engineer battalions—are trained for all of these situations.

FIRE—if not equipped as a HAZMAT team—should dispatch one qualified unit to the HAZMAT area for identification. FIRE unit will make use of ERG and CAMEO/ALOHA software for recommendation of evacuation/SIP area. FIRE will coordinate with PLAN for contacting NRC/state EOC/NWS with SITREP of HAZMAT incident, per established SOP/SOG. Evacuation of area shall be conducted by LAW. HAZMAT operations will be conducted by team sent by NRC/state EOC.

LOG/PLAN should contact highway department for SITREP and forward highway department to WORKS. Affected highway should be closed at junction/intersect nearest reported damage; damage will be surveyed. If possible, highway will be restricted to emergency traffic until proper clearing/repairs are made.

LOG will contact schools, churches and civic buildings for potential sheltering operations. LOG will contact Red Cross and/or Salvation Army for sheltering support and staff. Red Cross/Salvation Army will coordinate with LOG for additional supply/support. LOG/PLAN will designate a representative at each shelter site as a point of contact for SITREPs and communication needs.

III. – EXPLANATION & REVIEW

ICS is typically seen as a simple type of hierarchal command; one Incident Commander (IC) is charged with the overall control of the situation at hand, while other functions branch off below. In my model of response, I do not stray from this traditional view/use, with the exception of declaring a Unified Command (UC). In my studies—through those at this school and those taken at varying EM workshops—I have heard and seen issue related to the declaration of “who’s in charge” in multi-agency efforts; NIMS recognizes these issues as well (DHS, 2008). Enter the Multi-Agency Command System (MACS)/ICS and UC/ICS concepts, as applied to NIMS ICS.

The traditional IC structure and nomenclature work perfectly fine in individual agency settings, yet when multiple agencies begin to work together—especially with governmental heads overseeing the events—the desire to point fingers and place blame, or steal credit when matters go favorably, grows. To combat the potential bickering and scope of responsibility, we simply adjust the terminology—without dramatic change to the structure—and perform an interesting psychological play; instead of saying one man is in charge, we declare that there is a Unified Command with an overall IC, a Safety Officer (SO), Public Information Officer (PIO) and a Liaison (LNO). The National Incident Management System (NIMS) allows for this variation in ICS, so long as compliance with NIMS standards are met (DHS, 2008). In the MACS/ICS system with a UC, OPS must have a designated OPS Section Chief (DHS, 2008).

The example of ICS use given above shows how complex—yet simple—structuring and organizing efforts can be. To a lay-person, the example given would likely seem to be an over-expanded and drawn out mess—why not simply state that law enforcement can go about their business while fire services do theirs, etc.? The truth is, this model does state that; however it ensures that there isn’t any confusion or replication of services that could potentially lead to making the situation more damaging and costly. The system also ensures that resources are being placed in a prioritized fashion, without having any one agency respond to a situation in one location when a greater threat exists elsewhere. Additionally, the system allows for the creation of points of contact, where agency representatives can communicate with another clearly and effectively, stating which needs are being met, which needs aren’t, and what additional actions or resources are necessary.

Again, the lay-person or member of an outside agency may question the structuring of this ICS, wondering how a MACS stylized ICS affects the normal operations and individual ICS structure of involved agencies. Honestly, it doesn’t; all agencies are independently working together, following their own hierarchy—an ICS, even if it is not named such within the organization—with the addition of the respective agency’s IC reporting to the MACS/ICS/UC back at the EOC.

The ICS is a system that simply works when applied properly—as such, ICS and slight variations had been employed by many agencies and governing bodies across the nation prior to the establishment and direction of NIMS (“NIMS and the Incident Command System”, n.d.). The only differences between these pre-existing ICS versions and variations and the ICS concept as described by NIMS is the attempt at better clarification and designation of ICS structure and terminology across the entire nation, reinforcing the concepts of ICS—a common, understandable organization of personnel and resources without duplication and confusion.

IV. – FINAL THOUGHTS

The ICS described in response to the scenario given is, for the most part, NIMS compliant. Some functions are not fully described or included in this example; this is due—in part—to the length at which this paper was written versus the brevity that was requested—the author has responded to a 500 word minimum with over 2,000 words! Comparing the ICS supplied, however, with the system described in NIMS Appendix B (DHS, 2008) reveals an understanding of NIMS requirements. Review of NIMS Appendix B also shows how complex a task of writing a description of an ICS structure for a particular scenario can be.

For additional information on ICS structure, and visual representation of the ICS organizational tree, review of NIMS Appendix B is recommended.

References

Department of Homeland Security. (2008). National Incident Management System. Web. Retrieved November 9, 2012 from: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/NIMS_core.pdf

“NIMS and the Incident Command System.” (n.d.). Web. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from: http://www.fema.gov/txt/nims/nims_ics_position_paper.txt

Palmer, J. (2011). Incident Command – Final Exam. Web. Retrieved November 9, 2012 from http://kg4vma.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/incident-command-8211-final-exam/