|
The objective of this study was
to develop a framework for thinking about safety management
in major disasters, both manmade and natural, and to use this
framework to develop recommendations for improving safety
management for a wideranging group of emergency responders.
During that process, the study team remained cognizant of
the fact that disasters are extraordinary events for individual
jurisdictions. Recognizing the difficulty of dedicating significant
resources to building event-specific capabilities for rare
events, the team sought recommendations to deliver needed
safety management capabilities by drawing on the resources
in a range of response organizations rather than advocating
building every capability in all organizations.
In carrying out this project, the research team drew extensively
|
on a range of sources of information and analytical expertise.
Beyond information available in the published literature and within
RAND and NIOSH, the study relied heavily on expertise from the responder
community on emergency response operations, incident management,
safety and health, and related areas.
Project Scope
In our examination of responder safety management during disaster
response, we defined the scope of the study with the following terminology:
- Emergency Responders. Because of the nature of large-scale
response operations, we adopted a broad definition of disaster
rescue and recovery workers. Beginning with the career responders
and volunteers typically labeled as emergency responders—emergency
management, fire service, law enforcement, and emergency medical
service responders—we also included a range of other workers
likely to be involved in disaster response. These individuals
encompass federal, state, and local personnel; public health professionals;
skilled support personnel (including construction/demolition workers,
transit workers, and utility services workers); disaster relief
workers; and members of volunteer organizations.1
- Convergent Volunteers. In addition, we looked at “convergent”
volunteers —individuals who respond to a disaster but who
are not connected to an organization involved in the response
or who are not directed by their organization to participate.
- Safety Management. We defined “safety management”
as the methods, principles, and organizational structures through
which the manager or managers of a response operation protect
the safety and health of the responders. We understand the focus
of safety management to be risk management—ensuring that
responders clearly understand the risks involved in their activities,
eliminating or reducing as many of those risks as possible, recognizing
any risks that cannot be fully controlled, and weighing the need
for responders to carry out their duties against the dangers involved.
Effective risk management ensures that a response organization
accepts no unnecessary risk, makes risk decisions in a way that
guarantees clear accountability, and manages risk by planning
[ALSAC 2001].2
The focus of the study was to develop recommendations directed
at the strategic goal of improving safety management. An analysis
of the practical details of how each recommendation should or might
be implemented is beyond the scope of this project and requires
consideration of regional- and locality-specific factors. The overall
issues associated with implementation are briefly discussed in the
final chapter of the report.
Because of the project’s focus on safety management, a range
of important issues fall outside the scope of the study. For example,
responders raised a number of technical issues during the research—specific
concerns about protective equipment, problems with communications
interoperability, specific techniques for monitoring hazards, and
individual technical solutions for management issues. We recognize
such issues briefly in this report if they pertain to our central
theme of safety management structures and processes, but we do not
discuss them in depth.
The Research Team
Recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of safety management,
the research team was composed of a mix of researchers whose work
is based in the NIOSH Division of Safety Research; RAND Science
and Technology; RAND Health; RAND National Security Research Division;
and RAND Arroyo Center, which supports the United States Army and
provided important expertise on command structures and processes,
along with a very useful understanding of how military organizations
have wrestled with problems similar to those facing civilian responder
organizations.
Methodology
Having established the scope of the project, we took three approaches
to gathering information and data:
- review of the professional and technical literature
- interviews with members of the response community
- discussions at a workshop focused on improving safety management
in disaster response.
Review of the Professional and Technical Literatures
We examined more than 800 published sources on topics including:
- emergency response strategies and tactics
- incident command and management
- safety issues during emergencies
- characteristics of individual disaster responses
- command of major multiagency operations
- health and medical care issues in disasters.
The literature review captured relevant safety lessons from previous
disasters and provided the study team access to the formidable body
of previous work on incident management and command. The review
also enabled identification of areas that would require specific
attention in later phases of the study.3
Interviews with Members of the Response Community
Interviews with experts from the responder community were utilized
as a major source of safety management information. To provide a
structure for the interview process, we used information that we
assembled during the literature review to select four major disaster-response
operations:
- the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center (New
York)4
- the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon (Virginia)5
- Hurricane Andrew (Florida)6
- the Northridge earthquake (California).7
We chose these four crises because of their scale, national impact,
and the challenges they presented for responder safety. Our aim
was not to produce case studies, but to provide relevant examples
that would elicit important insights from interviewees. These four
disasters formed the basis of an extensive interview process with
individuals who had been directly involved in the operational and
safety management of each event.
We interviewed approximately 70 emergency responders about these
four operations and supplemented these interviews with approximately
20 more with other experts from the response community on the general
topic of safety management.8
We then combined analysis of the information developed in these
interviews with data drawn from the literature review to develop
a set of preliminary recommendations for improving safety management
in future incidents.
Responder Workshop
A workshop was held at RAND’s Washington, D.C., office on
February 27, 2003. We sought participants for their experience,
expertise, and interest in safety and health management issues.9
More than 100 members of the responder community attended the workshop,
representing organizations from the emergency management, firefighting,
law enforcement, emergency medical service, public health, skilled
support and trades, public works, and disaster relief communities.
Representatives from local and state governments and professional
organizations also participated. Key federal organizations relevant
to disaster and terrorism response were represented as well, including
NIOSH; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG); the Department of Defense and three defense
services—the Army (including the Army Corps of Engineers),
the Navy, and the Marine Corps; the Department of Justice; the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); FEMA; the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA); and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
We drew the main topics for workshop discussions from the results
of the initial phases of our research, including our preliminary
recommendations for improving safety management. Attendees participated
in three groups of their choice from among the following five:
- safety management within disaster incident management/command
systems
- improving coordination and control of personnel and resources
during disaster response
- hazard information, intelligence, and risk assessment
- improving training for disaster response
- responder health care.
A RAND researcher with subject matter expertise in the topic guided
each panel. The groups were free to focus attention on the topics
within each area that they felt were most interesting or important.
To encourage candid discussion, the breakout sessions were held
with the understanding that no statements would be attributed to
specific individuals or organizations.10
Not only were the workshop discussions an effective way of gathering
information and input from the disaster response community, they
also provided an invaluable opportunity to obtain comments and feedback
on our preliminary recommendations.
Analytical Framework
In examining the data collected from the literature and the responder
community, the study team relied on the three-stage model of safety
management shown in Figure 1.1 to structure the analytical effort.
The model’s core components—gathering information, analyzing
options and making decisions, and taking action—are similar
to those found in a range of other management decisionmaking models.
By providing a framework to systematically examine the management
practices and requirements to effectively manage responder safety,
the model helped assure that the study fully explored both the opportunities
and shortfalls associated with responder safety in disaster response.
1 In addition to “emergency responders,”
we also use the term “emergency response community,”
particularly in discussions of previous efforts in disaster management
and safety planning. By this, we mean both individuals currently
employed by or active in response organizations and the larger group
of people who have contributed to the existing body of knowledge
on response strategy, operations, and tactics.
2 We also use the term “operational management,”
by which we mean the processes, methods, and organizational structures
used to manage response activities at a disaster. Central to that
discussion is the Incident Command System, which is described in
Chapter Three. While operational management is not the topic of
this study, how safety management fits into overall disaster management
and comparisons between the way safety is managed and the management
of response operations overall were important in developing the
study’s findings.
3 The bibliography presents a selection of the literature
relevant to the analyses and recommendations of this report.
4 On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center’s
twin towers collapsed after being struck by two hijacked commercial
airliners, with the result that more than 2,800 people were killed
and many more injured. Among the fatalities were more than 400 emergency
responder (fire, police, emergency medical services, and Port Authority)
personnel, while many more emergency workers were exposed to multiple
hazards while subsequently working at the collapse site.
5 On September 11, 2001, a third hijacked airliner
crashed into the Pentagon and caused 189 deaths, including all aboard
the aircraft and personnel working in the Pentagon. Emergency responders
involved in rescue operations contended with substantial damage
to the Pentagon structure from the impact of the aircraft crash,
a partial building collapse that occurred later that day, and protracted
fire suppression operations.
6 Hurricane Andrew, which struck Florida and Louisiana
in August 1992, was one of the most destructive natural disasters
to occur in the United States and presented an overwhelming event
for local and state emergency response organizations. The greatest
devastation occurred in south Florida, resulting, both immediately
and during the storm’s aftermath, in more than 45 deaths and
thousands of injuries, over $25 billion in property and infrastructure
damage, and a need for protracted recovery efforts.
7 The Northridge earthquake occurred in the predawn
hours of January 17, 1994, with its epicenter located under the
suburban communities northwest of Los Angeles. The earthquake damage
covered a large area (hundreds of square miles); included building
collapses, major fires, and infrastructure damage; and resulted
in 57 deaths and the displacement of numerous people [FEMA 1994a].
8 The names of the interviewees are included in Appendix
A.
9 The names and affiliations of workshop attendees
are included in Appendix A.
10 Therefore, all citations of “Study Workshop”
are to study workshop discussions at the RAND-NIOSH workshop Protecting
Emergency Responders: Safety Management in Major Disaster and Terrorism
Response in Arlington, VA, on February 27, 2003. In addition,
all citations of “Study Interviews” are to not-for-attribution
interviews held with members of the response community between November
2002 and March 2003.
|