Combating Terrorism: FEMA Continues to Make Progress in Coordinating Preparedness and Response
Published: 2001-03-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: GAO reviewed the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) actions to improve its capabilities to respond to terrorist incidents based on its response to lessons learned from the Oklahoma City bombing, requirements in Presidential Decision Directives 39 and 62, and its own guidance. Specifically, GAO determined the extent to which FEMA has (1) incorporated the lessons learned from the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, (2) ensured the preparedness of states and federal agencies to respond to terrorist incidents, and (3) ensured that states' plans are tested through exercises.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that FEMA (1) has made across the board improvements in those areas identified as needing action after the Oklahoma City bombing, (2) updated the Federal Response Plan to address how federal agencies, states, and localities would work together to respond to an act of terrorism, and (3) assessed states' capabilities for consequence management in 1995 and set up a system to continue monitoring those capabilities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The threat of terrorist attacks within the United States has been an issue of  growing national concern. In April 1995, terrorists struck Oklahoma City  with a bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building, killing 168  people and damaging a 48-block area. The Federal Emergency Management  Agency (FEMA) coordinated the federal agencies’ assistance in response to  that terrorist act. Two months after the attack, under Presidential Decision  Directive (PDD) 39, the President formalized FEMA’s lead role in managing  federal agencies’ assistance after a domestic terrorist incident and required  FEMA to take several actions to increase its effectiveness and that of other  responsible agencies and the states in responding to domestic terrorism.  These actions included updating the Federal Response Plan, assessing the  capabilities of states and local governments to respond to a terrorist  incident, and ensuring that states’ response plans were adequate and  tested. In May 1998, the President issued PDD 62, which reaffirms  PDD 39 and further articulates the responsibilities of specific agencies.
State and local governments exercise primary authority in responding to  the consequences of terrorism; the federal government provides assistance  as required. FEMA’s role in “consequence management” is to participate in  and lead other agencies’ assistance in protecting public health and safety;  restoring essential government services; and providing emergency relief to  state and local governments, businesses, and individuals after a terrorist  incident. PDD 39 reaffirms the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) lead  responsibility for “crisis management.” FEMA also develops strategies to  enhance the federal government’s capability to support state and local  governments in dealing with the consequences of a terrorist incident  involving a weapon of mass destruction.
As requested by the former Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight,  Investigations, and Emergency Management, we reviewed FEMA’s actions  to improve its capabilities to respond to terrorist incidents based on its  response to lessons learned from the Oklahoma City bombing,  requirements in PDDs 39 and 62, and its own guidance. Specifically, we  determined the extent to which FEMA has (1) incorporated the lessons  learned from the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, (2) ensured the  preparedness of states and federal agencies to respond to terrorist  incidents, and (3) ensured that states’ plans are tested through exercises.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993 and the  Murrah federal building in Oklahoma in 1995 raised concerns about the  vulnerability of the states to terrorist attacks. After the 1995 attack on the  Murrah building, the President established the general U.S. policy, in  PDD 39, to use all appropriate means to deter, defeat, and respond to all  terrorist attacks. PDD 39 directs all federal departments and agencies to  take measures to (1) reduce vulnerabilities to terrorism, (2) deter and  respond to terrorism, and (3) develop effective capabilities to prevent and  manage the consequences of terrorism. PDD 62 (May 1998) reaffirmed  PDD 39 and set up an integrated program to increase the federal  government’s effectiveness in countering terrorist threats against the  United States; it also clarified the roles and activities of many of the  agencies responsible for combating terrorism.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, Nov. 23, 1988), as amended, establishes the basis for federal  assistance to state and local governments when they cannot adequately  respond to a disaster such as a terrorist incident. After the President has  declared a federal emergency, FEMA coordinates its and as many as 27  other federal agencies’ responses under the Federal Response Plan. The  plan outlines how the agencies will implement the Stafford Act and  contains policies and procedures to guide the conduct of operations during  a federal emergency. These operations include transporting food and  potable water to the area, assisting with medical aid and temporary  housing, and providing generators to keep hospitals and other essential  facilities working.
Under FEMA’s Director, the Senior Advisor for Terrorism Preparedness, a  position created in 2000, is tasked to coordinate FEMA’s overall terrorism  preparedness programs and activities, including budget strategy and  formulation. In planning for consequence management, the primary FEMA  units involved are the Directorates for Preparedness, Training, and  Exercises and for Response and Recovery; the U.S. Fire Administration;  and FEMA’s regional offices. The directorates and other units are  responsible for executing the terrorism-related programs and activities and  control the personnel and other resources. The Senior Advisor has no  direct management authority over the resources of FEMA’s directorates  and other units.
FEMA is responsible for leading and coordinating with 27 federal agencies  on consequence management activities. These agencies include the  Departments of Defense, Justice (the FBI), Energy, and Health and Human  Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency. FEMA also works with  the states, territories, and communities to help them develop plans for  consequence management of terrorist incidents and provides grants for  training and exercises to help in preparing them to deal with such  incidents.
FEMA’s budget for terrorism-related activities has steadily increased over  the past 3 years, from $17.6 million in 1999 to $28.5 million in 2000 and  about $34.0 million in 2001. A major portion of this funding, about $20 million for 2001, is in the form of grants to the states and localities.
section_title: FEMA Has Responded to Lessons Learned From Oklahoma City Bombing
paragraphs: When the President declared the Oklahoma City bombing a federal  emergency, FEMA served effectively as the lead federal agency responsible  for consequence management. FEMA established a Regional Operations  Center within an hour of the explosion. The prior FEMA Director,  James L. Witt, was on the scene the first day and Urban Search and Rescue  Teams began arriving within 14 hours. Because the emergency was created  by a terrorist attack, however, new and distinct challenges emerged. First,  the incident combined a federal crime scene with a disaster area, and  second, the swift and catastrophic nature of the bombing thrust FEMA into  direct contact with local authorities, causing the agency to bypass many of  the customary state channels.
After FEMA had completed its response activities, it assessed its and  others’ actions to reflect lessons learned from the response to the bombing.  The agency found that (1) unclear authority, roles, and responsibilities in  the Federal Response Plan and other guidance impeded decision-making  and response measures; (2) state and local response plans did not  correspond to the Federal Response Plan, which affected operational  coordination; and (3) almost all of the available Urban Search and Rescue  Teams were used during the incident.
FEMA responded to these lessons learned in several ways. To ensure that  roles and responsibilities for managing the consequences of a terrorist  incident are clear and to respond to PDD 39 requirements, FEMA—alone or  in coordination with other federal agencies:  updated the Federal Response Plan and added a Terrorism Incident  Annex that includes better interagency guidance and describes federal,  state, and local policies and the structure for coordinating management  of the consequences of terrorist incidents;   added to the Federal Response Plan four support annexes covering  community relations, donations management, logistics management,  and occupational health and safety and an appendix, Overview of a  Disaster Operation;  developed a Concept of Operations Plan to guide the overall federal  response to domestic terrorist incidents and describe actions federal  agencies should take nationally and locally;  established a better liaison between FEMA and local FBI offices and  trained staff for liaison positions;  developed terrorism preparedness annexes to support FEMA regions’  response plans and provided updates of these plans to federal and state  partners; and  established a logistics and donations manager as part of the response  structure.
To increase awareness of relevant changes to the Federal Response Plan  and other guidance and policies affecting consequence management,  FEMA  developed a planning guide to help state and local authorities update  their emergency operations plans and to develop terrorism response  plans that more closely mirror the federal plan and other guidance in  accordance with PDD 39 and  updated training courses, for example, the Integrated Emergency  Management Course, to disseminate current information on plans and  response capabilities related to consequence management of terrorist  incidents.
FEMA also provides program coordination and grants to promote the  development of emergency management plans, to include terrorism  consequence management, at the state and local levels. Federal grants are  used to encourage state and local recipients to improve their terrorism  preparedness through planning, training, and exercises.
Examples of activities supported by grants include the following:  development of a comprehensive terrorism preparedness document for  inclusion in state emergency operations plans;  review of state and local emergency plans and procedures to ensure the  incorporation of current FEMA and FBI planning guidance;  state terrorism task force planning; development of comprehensive terrorism preparedness training   test and evaluation of state and local terrorism response plans through  multiagency exercises; and   distribution of terrorism preparedness handbooks and/or checklists to  first responders at state and local levels.
Our analysis indicates that most of the states’ emergency operations plans  reflect awareness of terrorism preparedness and the federal support role.  Figures 1 and 2 show, respectively, states with emergency operations plans  that mirror the Federal Response Plan and states with plans that  incorporate a section on terrorism preparedness. According to FEMA  officials, each of the remaining states will likely complete similar updates  to their plans within the next 12 months.
To respond to the need for more Urban Search and Rescue Teams, FEMA  has increased the number of teams from 12 at the time of the bombing, to  28 in calendar year 2000. These 28 teams are comprised of 62 specialists  from 4 major functional elements—search, rescue, technical, and medicine.  Search specialists use highly trained dogs to find victims under rubble, for  example, and rescue specialists determine the best way to free the victims.  Technical staffs deal with engineering problems, hazardous materials,  heavy rigging, and logistics. The medical staff is comprised of four medical  specialists who are often also firefighters and two physicians who are often  emergency medicine experts.
section_title: FEMA Has Worked to Ensure Preparedness to Respond to Terrorist Incidents
paragraphs: To ensure the preparedness of the states and other federal agencies to  handle the consequences of terrorist incidents, FEMA has assessed the  states’ response capabilities, increased terrorism preparedness training  courses, provided training grants, and coordinated extensively with  responsible federal agencies on terrorism issues.
subsections: section_title: FEMA Has Assessed State and Local Response Capabilities
paragraphs: To ensure that states are adequately prepared for a terrorist incident,  PDD 39 tasked FEMA to assess the states’ response capabilities. Initially,  FEMA used the National Governor’s Association to survey the states’  capabilities. The Association’s primary fact-gathering methodology was  focus group discussions with emergency first responders from four  metropolitan areas. This survey, which was completed in 1995, concluded  that the states’ and localities’ capabilities could easily be overwhelmed by a  terrorist incident. Since then, FEMA and other agencies have worked with  state and local authorities to assess the needs of local first responders.
In 1996, in hearings before the Senate Committee on Appropriations,  FEMA’s Director committed the agency to (1) developing national-level  performance criteria to measure the capability of the states to perform in  the areas of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery and (2) assessing the states’ capabilities to effectively respond to disasters,  including terrorist incidents. Subsequently, FEMA and the National  Emergency Management Association jointly developed the Capability  Assessment for Readiness process and FEMA issued a report on its  assessment in December 1997. In the report, FEMA concluded that the  states have the basic capabilities to effectively respond to disasters but  were not well prepared for a terrorist incident involving a weapon of mass  destruction.
The report also noted that FEMA’s Chemical Stockpile Emergency  Preparedness Program (CSEPP) and Radiological Emergency  Preparedness (REP) Program provide emergency management  performance standards that strengthen related states’ programs. FEMA’s  Terrorism Preparedness Implementation plan states that CSEPP and REP  are also used to support the agency’s terrorism-preparedness efforts.  (Appendix I contains a discussion of attributes of these programs’  exercises.) However, the report also identified two areas that required  significant improvement: (1) planning and equipment for response to  nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorist incidents and (2) coordination  between state emergency management agencies and the private sector.  FEMA expects to publish its fiscal year 2000 assessment report by April  2001.
section_title: FEMA Has Increased the Number and Scope of Its Terrorism Preparedness Training Courses
paragraphs: Since the Oklahoma City bombing, FEMA has made considerable progress  in training its staff and those of other federal agencies, the states, and local  entities to ensure their preparedness for a terrorist attack. The agency has  developed several terrorism preparedness courses and incorporated  terrorism preparedness into its emergency management curriculum.  FEMA’s terrorism preparedness training funding, including grants to states  and local communities, totaled $6 million in fiscal year 1998, $7.6 million in  fiscal year 1999, and $10.4 million in fiscal year 2000.
FEMA’s National Emergency Training Center, in Emmitsburg, Maryland, is  a major provider of formal training related to consequence management.  The Center offers resident training for its and other federal agencies’  personnel and provides course materials to state and local organizations.  The Center includes the Emergency Management Institute and the United  States Fire Administration’s National Fire Academy. The Institute serves as  the national focal point for the development and delivery of emergency  management training to enhance the capabilities of federal, state, and local  government officials, volunteer organizations, and the private sector. Since  the Institute focuses on disaster preparedness, its courses are provided to  emergency managers and community-level policy officials. (Appendix II  contains additional information on the Institute’s principal terrorism  preparedness courses.) The National Fire Academy serves as the national  focal point for fire-related and emergency management training activities.  First responders from fire departments across the United States attend the  Academy’s courses.
FEMA uses its Integrated Emergency Management course to immerse  senior public officials and emergency management personnel (see app. II,  table 3) in an intense, simulated disaster environment. According to  FEMA’s report on the Oklahoma City bombing, this course proved valuable  to numerous Oklahoma City officials who had received the training in 1994.  Furthermore, city officials praised the course trainers’ willingness to serve  as on-site mentors to city decisionmakers during response and recovery  operations after the bombing.
After the Oklahoma City bombing incident, FEMA developed its first  course specifically related to terrorism preparedness in 1996 (see table 1).  This course, the Integrated Emergency Management Course: Consequences  of Terrorism, incorporates all the core elements of the original Integrated  Emergency Management Course, but focuses on managing terrorist  incidents.
Although the course was offered nine times in 2000, it is normally  presented two to four times a year unless an agency other than FEMA  (such as the Department of Justice) funds additional courses.
section_title: FEMA Coordinates Extensively to Ensure Preparedness for Consequence Management
paragraphs: FEMA performs many functions with other federal agencies and state and  local officials to help prepare for managing the consequences of terrorist  incidents. Chief among these functions are (1) coordination of key  terrorism preparedness guidance and policy documents, (2) day-to-day  coordination of operations and special events, and (3) membership in  formal interagency groups and committees.
section_title: Coordination of Key Agency Guidance and Policy Documents
paragraphs: FEMA and the agencies cited most prominently in PDD 39 (the  Departments of Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services and the  Environmental Protection Agency) coordinate with the FBI on its Domestic  Guidelines and on its Concept of Operations Plan. The FBI’s guidelines  are a road map for government agencies’ mobilization, deployment, and  use—under PDD 39—in response to a terrorist threat or incident. The FBI’s  Concept of Operations Plan will guide how the federal government is  structured to respond to domestic terrorism incidents. The agencies listed  above are now doing a final review of the Plan before the FBI issues it as  formal guidance.
FEMA also developed the State and Local Guide 101 for All-Hazard  Emergency Operations Planning (1996) for state and local emergency  management agencies to use in developing and updating risk-based,  all-hazard emergency operations plans. These plans are the basis for an  effective response to any emergency and facilitate coordination with the  federal government during catastrophic disasters that require  implementation of the Federal Response Plan. The guide describes core  functions such as communications, evacuation, mass care, health and  medical services, and resource management, as well as unique planning  considerations for earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding, and hazardous  materials.
A new component of State and Local Guide 101, Attachment G: Terrorism,  is now being coordinated through the National Security Council’s Domestic  Contingency Planning and Exercises Subgroup and the National  Emergency Management Association, and with the International  Association of Emergency Managers. It is intended to aid state and local  planners in developing and maintaining an appendix to their emergency  operations plans on incidents involving terrorists’ use of weapons of mass  destruction. The attachment addresses various hazards, a concept of  operations, organizational responsibilities, logistics, and administrative  issues. FEMA expects to publish the attachment on March 30, 2001.
section_title: Day-to-Day Coordination of Operations and Special Events
paragraphs: Under the auspices of the National Security Council, FEMA and other  agencies coordinate to provide the appropriate preparedness response at  important events that may present an attractive target for terrorist attack.  Through its active role in this process, FEMA has the opportunity to  coordinate and practice with federal, state, and local agencies involved in  consequence management. During the past 2 years, FEMA has participated  in 17 special events, ranging from high-profile athletic competitions to  international conferences (see table 2 for examples).
section_title: Participation in Interagency and Intra-Agency Groups and Committees
paragraphs: FEMA is a member of numerous interagency groups related to  preparedness for domestic terrorism. It participates in the National  Security Council’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness Group and  two of its subgroups—the Assistance to State and Local Authorities Group  and the Contingency Planning and Exercises Group. FEMA maintains a  formal liaison with the National Domestic Preparedness Office and  supports the Domestic Preparedness Leadership Group and the State and  Local Advisory Group. FEMA supports and coordinates with the  Department of Justice on its programs for terrorism preparedness training  activities, the state and local capabilities assessment project, and the  equipment grant program. It also coordinates with and provides support to  the Departments of Defense and Justice program managers on the Nunn- Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program and participates in the  Multi-Agency Task Force on Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Exercises, which  develops policy for domestic preparedness exercises. FEMA also serves on  the Secretary of Defense’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Advisory Panel,  the FBI/Department of State’s Interagency Working Group on  Domestic/International Counter Terrorism Exercises, and the national and  regional response teams concerned with hazardous material and oil spills.
FEMA exercises an active leadership role in terrorism consequence  management planning. At the national level, it coordinates federal response  planning through the Emergency Support Function Leaders Group, the  Catastrophic Disaster Response Group (comprising the 27 signatories of  the Federal Response Plan), and the Concept Plan Working Group. FEMA  issues the National Exercise Schedule after compiling and coordinating  information from federal departments and agencies with emergency  management responsibilities. In coordination with applicable federal  departments and agencies, FEMA also assessed the capabilities of federal  agencies to provide consequence management in an incident involving  weapons of mass destruction. FEMA and the other agencies identified key  critical areas that needed to be addressed, including the need for baseline  information on capabilities; combined federal, state, and local planning;  and timely federal augmentation of local authorities. The overall results of  this assessment were reported in 1997.
At the regional level, FEMA regional offices coordinate consequence  management planning through Regional Interagency Steering Committees.  These Committees are comprised of regional representatives from  essential response agencies and are responsible for coordinating regional  response plans with the Federal Response Plan. Memorandums of  understanding between each state and its FEMA regional office are  supplemented by the regional response plans.
section_title: FEMA Has Increased Support for Exercises That Test States’ Response Preparedness Plans
paragraphs: PDD 39 requires FEMA to ensure that states’ terrorism response  preparedness plans are adequate and tested, and the agency has made  progress in meeting this requirement. Through FEMA’s and other agencies’  efforts, the types, numbers, and complexity of terrorism preparedness  exercises to test states’ response plans have increased significantly over  the past 5 years (see fig. 3). FEMA provides grants to the states and six U.S.  jurisdictions to help them develop and test their plans. For example,  FEMA sponsored 22 of the 28 exercises conducted in the state of  Washington during 1996-2000. These exercises employed chemical,  biological, radiological, nuclear, conventional high explosive, and  combination threat scenarios while highlighting crises and consequence  management activities.
In tabletop exercises, participants discuss how their agency or unit might  react to a scenario or series of scenarios. These exercises emphasize higher  level policy and procedural issues and frequently include more senior-level  agency officials. There is no actual deployment of personnel or equipment  for tabletop exercises; rather, they are held in a classroom-type setting.  Functional exercises are not conducted solely in a classroom environment  and generally test an operational function, such as an evaluation of  interagency emergency operations capability and response. Full-scale  exercises, which are primarily conducted in the field, evaluate operations  over an extended period. For field exercises, personnel and their  equipment are actually deployed to a field setting where they practice  tactics, techniques, and procedures that would be used in a real incident;  thus, they are the most realistic of the exercises.
During 1996-2000, FEMA led or co-led 19 percent of the terrorism  preparedness exercises in which it participated. Most of the exercises  (70 percent) were of the tabletop type; 30 percent were either functional or  full-scale. Figure 4 reflects the focus of the exercises.
In May 2000, in responding to a congressional mandate that a national  combating terrorism field exercise be conducted, FEMA joined with the  Department of Justice to sponsor TOPOFF (top officials) 2000. TOPOFF  2000 was a large-scale, “no-notice exercise” of federal, state, and local  organizations’, including the American Red Cross, plans, policies,  procedures, systems, and facilities to assess the nation’s crisis and  consequence management capability. In Denver, Colorado, the exercise  involved a biological weapons incident, and in Portsmouth, New  Hampshire, the exercise involved a chemical incident. In addition, NCR  2000 (National Capital Region), a separate but concurrent exercise, was a  no-notice exercise of an incident that involved simulated mass casualties  and highlighted the use of radiological devices. (Fig. 5 shows a  decontamination team during the exercise.) NCR 2000 consisted of  previously planned exercises that complemented the TOPOFF 2000  activities but did not involve agencies’ top officials. An assessment of the  benefits of these exercises was under way but not available at the time of  our review.
During the last 5 years, FEMA has also conducted a series of functional  exercises for community-based public officials and emergency personnel  as part of its Integrated Emergency Management Course: Consequences of  Terrorism. Through the simulation of a realistic crisis scenario, participants  are exposed to an increasingly complex and stressful situation within a  structured learning environment. The course culminates in an emergency  exercise designed to test leadership, knowledge, awareness, and  interpersonal skills. Figure 6 shows dispatchers participating in an exercise  during the course at the Mount Weather Emergency Assistance Center.  (See app. II for additional information on the course.)
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to FEMA for its review and comment.  FEMA agreed with the report’s characterization of its terrorism-related  activities and provided technical comments for our consideration. We  incorporated technical comments as appropriate. A copy of FEMA’s letter  is included in appendix III.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent FEMA has incorporated lessons learned from its  response to the Oklahoma City bombing incident, we reviewed FEMA’s  after-action report and the after-action report prepared by the Oklahoma  Department of Civil Emergency Management. To determine the actions  taken to address the lessons learned, we interviewed senior FEMA officials  and officials in the Preparedness and Response and Recovery Directorates,  using a survey instrument keyed to the 3 broad and 22 specific  recommendations contained in the FEMA report. FEMA’s Region VI  Director, who coordinated federal operations after the bombing, provided a  written response to our questions. We also identified and reviewed several  actions that FEMA and its partner federal agencies implemented to  improve its response to terrorist incidents, for example, the revisions to the  Federal Response Plan, the addition of a Terrorism Incident Annex, and  improvements to the terrorism training program. We also surveyed FEMA’s  regions and the states to determine whether the states’ and localities’  emergency operations plans are current, mirror the Federal Response Plan,  and incorporate a section on terrorism.
To determine the extent to which FEMA has ensured the preparedness of  states and federal agencies to respond to terrorist incidents, we reviewed  our prior work on combating terrorism, FEMA’s strategic plan, annual  performance plans and reports, and the Terrorism Preparedness Strategic  Plan. We also reviewed PDDs 39 and 62 and discussed their requirements  with top FEMA officials relative to the Federal Response Plan and its  Terrorism Incident Annex, FEMA’s budget for consequence management,  the State and Local Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning  and its draft section on unique planning considerations for terrorism  incidents, special events’ operational plans, and the Capability Assessment  for Readiness report. We also reviewed FEMA’s terrorism grants program,  including several state grant proposals and reports. To determine progress  in the terrorism preparedness training since the Oklahoma City bombing,  we visited and interviewed senior agency officials at the National  Emergency Training Center, including the Emergency Management  Institute and the National Fire Academy, in Emmitsburg, Maryland. To  assess the dispersion and density of FEMA’s training program coverage, we  used a geographic information systems program to map students’ city or  zip codes for three selected courses.
To assess FEMA’s progress in ensuring that states’ response plans are  adequate and tested, we reviewed our prior work on terrorism  preparedness exercises. We analyzed the numbers, types, and threat  scenarios of terrorism exercises conducted in the states since 1995. We  also discussed the nature, scope, and extent of the terrorism exercise  program with several state program managers for the emergency  management of terrorist incidents and exercise directors. We interviewed  and obtained exercise program data from officials at FEMA headquarters.  During our visit to the National Emergency Training Center, we observed a  terrorism consequence management exercise conducted as a part of  FEMA’s Integrated Emergency Management Course: Consequences of  Terrorism. We also discussed the course and exercise with some of its  participants. We also examined policies, program plans, guidelines, and  handbooks; exercise plans and reports; and training course materials. We  attended NCR 2000 controller/observer training and observed TOPOFF  2000 and NCR 2000 exercise operations in the FEMA emergency operations  center and the Catastrophic Disaster Response Group.
We performed our work from March through December 2000 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no  further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that  time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional committees and the  federal agencies discussed in this report. We will also make copies  available to other interested parties upon request.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-6020. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Federal Emergency Management Agency Programs With Well-Established Consequence Management Exercise Practices
paragraphs: The Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) and  the Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program are Federal  Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA) programs that conduct  consequence management exercises. CSEPP and REP exercises (1) have  clearly defined objectives, (2) are resourced with both headquarters and  field staff involvement, (3) have consistent schedules and assessment  programs, and (4) build on lessons learned through after-action reporting.  CSEPP and REP cover 10 and 32 states, respectively, and together conduct  about 40 exercises per year.
In 1985, Congress directed the Department of Defense to dispose of its pre- mixed (i.e., lethal unitary) chemical agents and munitions while providing  “maximum protection for the environment, the general public and the  personnel involved in the destruction of lethal chemical agents and  munitions … .” Ten states (8 with storage facilities) and 40 counties are  involved.
In response to congressional direction, the Army sought funds to support a  site-specific emergency planning program for communities located near  the bases within those 10 states that could be affected by the release of  chemicals during storage or destruction. Because the Army had little  experience dealing with state and local emergency management authorities  and possessed no infrastructure to manage the program, it looked for  support from other federal agencies, specifically FEMA, to help meet the  mandate. Therefore, FEMA joined the Army in implementing CSEPP  through a Memorandum of Understanding signed in August 1988.
CSEPP’s goal is to improve preparedness to protect the people of these  communities in the event of an accident involving U.S. stockpiles of  obsolete chemical munitions. The Memorandum of Understanding  identified the specific responsibilities of the Army and FEMA, defining  areas of expertise and outlining where cooperation would result in a more  efficient use of personnel and resources. FEMA is responsible for  developing preparedness plans, upgrading response capabilities, and  conducting training for communities located near the Army bases.
Local and state emergency services, along with public health,  environmental, fire and rescue, law enforcement, and medical service  agencies, have major roles, as do elected and appointed officials. The Army  and FEMA provide funding, training, guidance, technical support, and  expertise. Other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection  Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services, also lend their  expertise in specific areas.
CSEPP provides planning, training, equipment, emergency operations  centers, command and control systems, personnel, cooperative agreement  funds, exercises, and more. FEMA administers the local community  portion of the program primarily through its regional offices. Each region  has a CSEPP program manager. FEMA serves as CSEPP exercise co- director in each region and takes the lead in planning, conducting,  evaluating, reporting, and tracking identified findings. CSEPP funds pay for  over 200 staff at the state and county levels, including planners, trainers,  health and automation experts, and logistical personnel. Comprehensive  planning guidance is contained in FEMA’s Planning Guidance for the  Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program.
CSEPP was established to test local, installation, and state emergency  operations plans and the jurisdictions’ capabilities to implement those  plans. The program is governed by the Exercise Policy and Guidance for  the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program. Exercises are  generally conducted on an annual basis at each location. Through 1999, 62  CSEPP exercises had been conducted. For many of the state and local  jurisdictions, CSEPP’s comprehensive, multijurisdictional exercise  program was a new concept. Before CSEPP, communities exercised their  emergency preparedness capabilities; however, exercises were generally  focused on first responder fire or hazardous materials communities. Thus,  multijurisdictional exercises were the exception, rather than the norm.
CSEPP included two types of exercises, the Federally Managed Exercise  and the Alternate Year Exercise. Localities may conduct additional  exercises. The Federally Managed Exercise is a mandatory, federally  evaluated readiness assessment of a community’s full capabilities to  respond to a chemical stockpile accident. This exercise tests the entire  emergency response effort and evaluates interaction of all components. It  involves mobilization of emergency service and response agencies,  activation of communications centers and emergency facilities, such as  emergency operations centers and command posts, and field play. An  Alternate Year Exercise is used by a community to train participants,  evaluate emergency operations plans, evaluate procedures for new  equipment or resources, validate corrections to outstanding findings, and  address other issues. A community may request varying levels of federal  support or management.
Many lessons have been learned from the exercises. For instance, FEMA  has learned that communication between installations and nearby  communities has improved considerably over the years and that assessing  threat and meeting notification times for nearby communities has been  difficult. The information gained from post-exercise reports allows  planners to focus exercises on areas requiring greater attention. Every  exercise evaluation ends with a meeting in which exercise evaluators  provide immediate feedback to the community. Further, a 45-day review  and comment period is provided prior to finalization and distribution of the  exercise report, which consists of a plan negotiated by regional, state, and  local officials to correct deficiencies and identify responsibility for  corrective actions. Problems noted during exercises are addressed in  future planning and training activities.
FEMA is the lead federal agency for planning and preparedness for all types  of peacetime radiological emergencies, including accidents at commercial  nuclear power plants. Dating back to the incident at Three Mile Island in  1979, FEMA has worked with state and local governments to ensure that  emergency preparedness plans are in place for U.S. commercial nuclear  power plants. FEMA issues policy and guidance to assist state and local  governments in developing and implementing their radiological emergency  response plans and procedures. Much of this FEMA guidance is developed  with the assistance of the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating  Committee and its member agencies.
REP has a goal of ensuring that the public health and safety of residents  living around commercial nuclear power plants are adequately protected in  the event of an accident. The program’s responsibilities encompass only  “off-site” activities—that is state and local government emergency  preparedness activities that take place beyond the nuclear power plant’s  boundaries. On-site activities continue to be the responsibility of the  Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  reviewing and evaluating off-site radiological emergency response plans  developed by state and local governments;  evaluating exercises conducted by state and local governments to  determine whether plans are adequate and can be implemented;  preparing findings and making determinations on the adequacy of  off-site emergency planning and preparedness and submitting them to  the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;  responding to requests by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under  the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and  FEMA dated June 17, 1993;  coordinating the activities of more than a dozen federal agencies with  responsibilities in the radiological emergency planning process; and  chairing the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating  Committee and the Regional Assistance Committee.
REP evaluates the adequacy of state and local emergency preparedness  plans during regular exercises. REP exercises are designed to test the  capability of off-site response organizations to protect the public health  and safety through the implementation of their emergency response plans  and procedures under simulated accident conditions. FEMA’s Radiological  Emergency Preparedness Exercise Manual and the Radiological  Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation Methodology serve as the  principal documents that FEMA uses in all aspects of REP exercises.  According to FEMA officials, these documents have been valuable tools for  assessing the adequacy and implementation of state and local governments’  radiological emergency preparedness plans and procedures.
The exercise manual provides guidance for planning and conducting REP  exercises. It provides basic guidance for the interpretation and application  of planning standards and evaluation criteria. These standards and criteria  are included in 33 REP objectives that are to be demonstrated by the  off-site response organizations at the biennial REP exercises. The exercise  objectives address the off-site response organization’s capability to carry  out specific radiological emergency functions such as communications,  mobilization of emergency response personnel, accident assessment,  protective action decision-making and implementation, public alerting and  notification, and evacuee monitoring and decontamination.
Similarly, the exercise evaluation methodology assists FEMA and other  federal agencies in the uniform and consistent documentation of the  performance of the off-site response organizations during REP exercises.  The REP methodology document contains a set of 33 multipage evaluation  forms, 1 for each of the 33 REP objectives delineated in the exercise  manual. Each evaluation form consists of a series of short questions or  prompts (points of review) for each REP objective to facilitate the exercise  evaluator’s systematic collection and documentation of essential data and  information required by FEMA. This information provides the basis for  FEMA findings and determinations on the adequacy of plans and  preparedness that are submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for  consideration in licensing decisions.
Figures 7 and 8 show the level of program funding for the FEMA exercise  program and provide indicators for the level of effort required for an  exercise program.
section_title: FEMA’s Terrorism Preparedness Training Program
paragraphs: FEMA has developed and expanded a terrorism preparedness curriculum  involving several of its organizations. FEMA’s Emergency Management  Institute, which delivers numerous all-hazards emergency response and  related courses, also delivers several courses that focus on the implications  of terrorism incidents for emergency management. Similarly, FEMA’s  National Fire Academy, part of the United States Fire Administration, has  developed a series of courses addressing emergency response for terrorism  incidents. These courses are primarily for delivery to first fire and rescue  responders and to incident commanders.
subsections: section_title: Emergency Management Institute
paragraphs: As part of its all-hazards emergency response and recovery curriculum, the  Emergency Management Institute has developed and delivered numerous  emergency response, incident command, and related courses. These  courses are offered to federal, state, and local organizations and personnel.  The Institute also offers a number of courses that incorporate terrorism  preparedness elements. Some of these courses are focused on the  Community Emergency Response Team, Radiological Emergency  Response Operations, Incident Command System, exercise design, and  Mass Fatalities Incident Response. FEMA has also developed a course,  Terrorism and Emergency Management, as part of its Higher Education  Project. Through the National Fire Academy, FEMA provides several  courses in the Emergency Response to Terrorism curriculum.
The Institute delivered its first terrorism preparedness course, the  Integrated Emergency Management Course: Consequences of Terrorism, in  1996. Since then, the Institute has incorporated terrorism preparedness in  its courses as part of the all-hazards approach. Following are other  terrorism preparedness courses developed and offered by the Institute:  Emergency Response to Criminal and Terrorist Incidents. A 1-day  course that focuses on the interface between law enforcement  authorities and emergency management system personnel. It addresses  topics such as lifesaving and evidence preservation. This course can be  taught by local officials using Institute materials.
Senior Officials Workshop on Terrorism. A 1-day course that addresses  special planning and policy considerations related to terrorism  preparedness. The workshop is conducted on location, with a 3-hour  instructional module followed by a 3-hour exercise. The target audience  is the mayor and other senior management officials. (Fig. 9 highlights  the locations where officials have received this training.)
Weapons of Mass Destruction Course. A series of facilitator-led courses  intended to improve the ability of senior local government officials to  manage and respond to mass casualty terrorism incidents involving the use  of weapons of mass destruction. Each course in the series incorporates the  same five objectives, with a different weapons of mass destruction  scenario introduced during each course. The scenarios include incidents  involving nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological agents or devices.  (Fig. 10 shows where this course was given during 1996-June 2000.)
subsections: section_title: Integrated Emergency Management Course: Consequences of Terrorism
paragraphs: This exercise-based course focuses on preparing local community officials  who must respond to the consequences of a terrorist act. The Integrated  Emergency Management Course: Consequences of Terrorism is presented  at the Institute and on location. Two versions are offered based on the  audience. A general iteration is presented to local officials from different  venues, while a more tailored program is presented to officials from the  same city or community. Table 3 provides a nominal list of the participants  for the tailored course.
Prior to presenting the tailored version on site, the Institute sends an  advance team to the receiving location to review its Emergency Operations  Plan and design the exercise phase based on the actual environment.
Classroom instruction, planning sessions, and exercises are intended to  allow for structured decision-making in a realistic environment. Special  emphasis is placed on the fact that the disaster area is also a crime scene.  In addition to the actual exercise of plans and procedures, participants’  skills and abilities are tested.
As shown in figure 11, the course has reached a wide audience throughout  the nation.
To facilitate its training program, FEMA has increased the use of  independent study courses and the Internet. FEMA has also implemented a  satellite-based distance learning system, the Emergency Education  NETwork, that can provide interactive training programs to communities  nationwide.
section_title: United States Fire Administration’s National Fire Academy
paragraphs: The United States Fire Administration is responsible for numerous  emergency management activities, including disaster planning, community  preparedness, hazard mitigation, and training. In addition to its more  traditional role, the Fire Administration is also an active participant in the  preparation for and fight against terrorism. The Fire Administration  participates as an active member of the FEMA federal response team and  its staff members support many of the Federal Response Plan activities.
The National Fire Academy, part of the Fire Administration, works to  enhance the ability of fire and emergency services and allied professionals  to deal more effectively with fire and related emergencies. Along with its  federal partners and response shareholders, the Academy has developed a  series of courses for delivery to first fire and rescue responders.
The Academy has a number of course delivery systems. On the  Emmitsburg, Maryland, campus, the Academy conducts specialized  training courses and national-level advanced management programs. The  Academy also delivers courses throughout the nation in cooperation with  state and local fire training organizations and local colleges and  universities. Students can attend courses within their geographical regions  through the Academy’s off-campus, Regional Delivery Program. Through a  cooperative working relationship with state and local fire training systems,  the Academy’s Train-the-Trainer Program provides expanded opportunities  for fire service personnel to participate in Academy courses. Personnel of  the four branches of the armed services also participate in this program at  the state and local level.
The Academy began developing its initial Emergency Response to  Terrorism courses for firefighters in fiscal year 1996 and delivered its initial  course in fiscal year 1997. The numbers of courses have steadily increased.  Currently, seven different Emergency Response to Terrorism courses are  offered (see table 4). According to FEMA officials, other courses are under  development.
section_title: Comments From the Federal Emergency Management Agency
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Nadine Furr, Jay Willer, and  Judy Clausen made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of  reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to  the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit  cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are  discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and  testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list  from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone  phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain  these lists.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm  e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov  1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)