Читать книгу Emergency Incident Management Systems - Mark Warnick S., Louis N. Molino Sr - Страница 52

On 19 April 1995, in Oklahoma City, OK, the Alfred P. Murrah Building was bombed by a domestic terrorist. This bombing remained the deadliest terrorist attack on United States soil until the 11 September 2001 attack that was committed by foreign terrorists. The Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of six, and physically injured more than 675 other individuals (Shariat, Mallonee, & Stidham 1998).

Beyond the human toll, the explosion destroyed or damaged 325 buildings, including the Murrah Federal Building. The blast was so strong that numerous buildings suffered damage in a 48‐block area and the window glass of 258 nearby buildings was completely shattered. The blast destroyed or burned 86 cars and caused over $650 million in damage (Hewitt, 2003). This was the work of domestic terrorists, later identified as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols (Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management [ODCEM], n.d.). The homemade explosive was contained in seventeen 55‐gallon drums and delivered to the Murrah Federal Building using a rented 24‐ft Ryder delivery truck. The device was designed and positioned to inflict the most damage.

The response to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City involved hundreds of public, nonprofit, and private organizations, as well as untrained spontaneous volunteers. According to the Oklahoma City Memorial Museum, (n.d.), this incident was the first time that the ICS was utilized in a major incident that was not fire‐related. By utilizing the ICS method, there was a fully integrated response of federal, state, local, and tribal governments as well as nongovernmental resources. While there were some issues, overall, the ICS method worked extremely well in organizing and managing all responders.

In looking over the previous actions of Oklahoma City, the city government appeared to be moving in the right direction in preparedness as well. Not only had they created the plans, but they also had been implementing the Cycle of Preparedness. While their preparedness efforts had not considered such a large event, or an event that involved blowing up a federal building, those plans provided a basis and the key elements for any type of disaster response. Because they began undertaking this preparedness process, collaborative networks were already in place, there was already some cooperation that was ongoing, coordination was in place, and some of the communications issues had already been addressed. Additionally, many of the roles and responsibilities for each level of city government were already known and practiced, which reduced uncertainty. All of these factors combined created the foundation for a more organized and unified response and recovery (Manzi, Powers, & Zetterlund, 2002).

City agencies were also sporadically training together, undertaking exercises, evaluating plans, and taking corrective action. While they were moving in the right direction, there were still identified and unidentified gaps that needed to be fixed. Among those gaps were an effective way to evaluate exercises, and the occasional agency that did not think they needed to be involved in these preparedness efforts (Manzi et al. 2002).

As is often the case, some agencies in the area did not play well with others, so there were some additional gaps already in the plans prior to the incident. It should also be noted that planning for a catastrophic event such as this had never been broached prior to the bombing. Even so, the preparedness efforts that had been addressed would play an important role in how, when, and where resources were deployed (ODCEM, n.d.).

As you read further, you will see how specific discipline responded and how seamlessly they integrated with other agencies. You will see how there was coordination and cooperation, and some of the outcomes from using the ICS method. While the use of an ICS method was not perfect, it did provide for a more integrated response.