homeland security forum post (215)

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the subsequent anthrax attacks provided an opportunity to measure the legitimacy of planning assumptions and to gain a perspective on protocols and issues that need to be merged into the response planning process; this includes the role of local, state, and federal agencies and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation dilemma. “The very nature of a WMD attack places tremendous pressure on the local response community.  As a result, consequence management planning is just as demanding and even evolutionary in many respects” (Department of Defense 1997).

What we know is that the Stafford Act (P.L. 93-288) establishes the process and authority for "all hazards" response to natural and man-made disasters in the United States. It is executed through Executive Order 12656, the Federal Response Plan in 2008 (and later revised in 2010 and renamed the National Response Framework and subsequently updated in 2013), and Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 39 established the policy for crisis and consequence management of terrorist incidents involving the use of weapons of mass destruction. These documents all represent the framework for the: Integrated Response Concept that occurs at Local, State, and Federal levels.

Figure above taken from the National Response Plan (NRP), provides an overview of initial federal involvement under the Stafford Act.

Local

Local response to an emergency uses the Incident Command System (ICS) to ensure that all responders and their support assets are coordinated for an effective and efficient response. The Incident Commander is normally the senior responder of the organization with the preponderance of responsibility for the event (e.g., fire chief, police chief, or emergency medical). If local assets are not sufficient to meet the emergency response requirements, they request state (or regional) assets through the State Office of Emergency Services. (Department of Defense 1997)

State

Initially the discussion indicated:

The state’s substantial resources, including the National Guard in state status, are coordinated through the state’s response plan(s) and are normally coordinated by the state’s Office of Emergency Services. If state assets are not sufficient to meet the emergency response requirements, they request federal assets through the FEMA Regional Operations Center. (Department of Defense 1997)

Subsequently, more defined language was provided in the National Response Framework to further define the role of the state:

State governments15 supplement local efforts before, during, and after incidents by applying in-state resources first. If a state anticipates that its resources may be exceeded, the governor may request assistance from other states or the Federal Government.

 Federal assistance may be available to the states under the Stafford Act and other Federal authorities. Under some Federal laws, Federal response actions may be taken without a request from the state. For example, when notified of an oil discharge or chemical release, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) are required to evaluate the need for Federal response and may take action without waiting for a request from state or local officials. Federal financial assistance may also be available to supplement non-Stafford Act incidents and for disability-related access and functional needs equipment. The following paragraphs describe some of the relevant roles and responsibilities of key officials. (National Response Framework 2013)

Federal

The Presidential Decision Directive 39 entitled "U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism" recognizes that there must be a rapid and decisive capability to protect U.S. citizens, defeat or arrest terrorists, respond against terrorist sponsors, and provide relief to victims. The goals during the immediate response phase of an incident are to terminate the terrorist attack so that terrorists do not accomplish their objectives or maintain their freedom, and to minimize loss of life and damage and to provide emergency assistance to the affected area. In responding to a terrorist incident, Federal departments and agencies rapidly deploy the needed Federal capabilities to the scene, including specialized elements for dealing with specific types of incidents resulting from the threat or actual use of WMD. To coordinate the Federal response, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and FEMA have been assigned lead agency responsibility for crisis and consequence management, respectively, in response to a domestic terrorist threat or incident.

The FBI is the lead agency for crisis management response to acts of domestic terrorism, which includes measures to identify, acquire, and plan the use of resources needed to anticipate, prevent, or resolve a threat or act of terrorism. The laws of the United States assign primary authority to the Federal government to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism; State and local governments provide assistance as required. Crisis management is predominantly a law enforcement response. Crisis management activities include active measures for prevention, immediate incident response, and post-incident response. Activities include command of the operational response as the on-scene manager for an incident in coordination with other Federal agencies and State and local authorities. The FBI provides guidance on the crisis management response in the FBI Nuclear Incident Contingency Plan and the FBI Chemical/Biological Incident Contingency Plan.

 FEMA is the lead agency for consequence management, which entails both preparedness for and dealing with the consequences of a terrorist incident. Although the affected State and local governments have primary jurisdiction for emergencies, a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction could create havoc beyond their capability to respond. If this were to happen, FEMA would coordinate consequence management activities including measures to alleviate damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused by the incident; to protect public health and safety; to restore essential government services; and to provide emergency assistance. FEMA would implement the Federal Response Plan, cooperating with State and local emergency response agencies. Final authority to make decisions on scene regarding the consequences of the incident (rescue and treatment of casualties, protective actions for the affected community) rests with the local Incident Commander.

The federal government, including the DoD, responds to emergency requests from the states through the Federal Response Plan. After the President declares a major disaster or emergency, the resources of the federal government needed to support the state response are managed by the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO). When the State Coordinating Officer makes specific requests for assistance, he or she certifies that the state does not have the capability to meet the requirements. The FCO assigns the request to one of the 12 Emergency Support Functions (ESF) represented within the Emergency Response Team. If the lead agency of any ESF is not able to meet the requirements, it may ask the Defense Coordinating Officer (DCO) to provide the necessary response. The DCO coordinates all federal military assistance provided during the consequence management response. (Department of Defense 1997)

The United States is beginning to realize that terrorists may attack individuals, institutions, and facilities with weapons of considerable destructive power. Under Secretary of State Bartholomew, during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 1993, delivered an almost prophetic warning when he said,

We are especially concerned about the spread of biological and toxin weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. …To date we have no evidence that any known terrorist organization has the capability to employ such weapons… However, we cannot dismiss the possibilities… It may be only a matter of time before terrorists do acquire and use these weapons. (Department of Defense 1997)

Additionally, the federal government has taken various steps to prepare to meet that threat. Among those steps has been the issuance of national policies, such as the National Response Framework, issued in January 2008 by the Department of Homeland Security and approved by the President. The National Response Framework

established a comprehensive approach for a unified national response to natural and man-made disasters, including WMD incidents. The National Response Framework directs the Attorney General to appoint a Senior Federal Law Enforcement Official to coordinate and direct federal law enforcement support activities related to a critical incident. Further, the National Response Framework includes annexes called Emergency Support Functions (ESF) that assigns specific responsibilities to

Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) is assigned by ESF-13 the responsibility for coordinating federal law enforcement activities in response to a critical incident, such as a WMD attack, and for ensuring public safety and security in the event an incident overwhelms state and local law enforcement. (National Response Framework 2008)

This National Response Framework is a living document. In fact, another revision was release in 2013 by the Department of Homeland Security which further attempts to define the roles and responsibilities in the all-encompassing plan. 

Question to Consider

1. Does the United States have effective national preparedness planning to meet a WMD emergency?

2. Is effective national preparedness planning required for the identification of functions that would have to be performed during a WMD emergency?

3. Does the United States have sufficient capabilities at all levels of government to meet essential defense and civilian needs during any national security emergency?

4. Does effective national security emergency preparedness planning requires: identification of functions that would have to be performed during such an emergency; development of plans for performing these functions; and development of the capability to execute those plans?

References/Works Cited:

Department of Homeland Security (2008). National Response Framework. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from:  http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf

Department of Homeland Security (2013). National Response Framework. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from:  http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32230?id=7371

DoD Tiger Team (1998). Department of Defense Plan for Integrating National Guard and Reserve Component Support for Response to Attacks Using Weapons of Mass Destruction. Retrieved from:  http://www.dod.mil/pubs/wmdresponse/index.html#TOC

Office of the President of the United States. (1998). Executive Order 12656: Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities. Washington, D.C.

Weapons of Terror, Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms,  http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/37/069/37069022.pdf