Is Your Town Prepared?

Growing up in Honolulu I listened to the monthly air raid siren tests, though I had no idea what to do in the event of an emergency. More than forty years had passed since the attack on Pearl Harbor and the sirens sounded like cold war paranoia to me. Years later, I witnessed the attacks on the World Trade Center and realized the paranoia was valid. But I still had no idea what to do and, unfortunately, I was not alone that day.

September 11th took us all by surprise, exposing some of our greatest vulnerabilities. In an effort to evaluate and improve our capacity to respond to an event on this scale, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Department of State recently ran an exercise, dubbed Topoff2 (for Top officials). More than one hundred agencies and organizations at local, state and federal levels participated in the exercise, which tested reactions to two simultaneous, hypothetical attacks: a "dirty bomb" (radioactive material dispersed by a conventional explosive) in Seattle and a covert biological release in Chicago.

So how well is our nation prepared for worst-case scenarios like these?

Perhaps not well enough. It's too soon to say what was learned during Topoff2, and implementing any changes in policy or procedure will take time. But a look at the current state of affairs in three key areas reveals some disturbing deficiencies and oversights.

The Dark Side of the Chemical Age

According to the EPA, there are 123 facilities in America located in areas where a worst-case scenario could expose over a million people to toxic chemicals if a release happened. Such facilities may include chemical plants, agricultural retailers, water supply and treatment systems and petroleum refineries, among others. All told, 15,000 facilities produce, use or store significant amounts of the 140 chemicals identified by the federal government as posing the greatest risk to human health and the environment if released, accidentally or otherwise.

In March 2003, the U.S. General Accounting office (GAO), the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, released a report on chemical facilities security which raised more questions than it answered. At the heart of the problem is a lack of clear federal laws and regulations that specifically require businesses dealing with hazardous chemicals to assess their vulnerabilities or safeguard against attack. As the title of the report states, in part, the "Extent of Security Preparedness Is Unknown."

"This report confirms what we've known all along about chemical hazards in communities," says Paul Orum, director of the Working Group on Community Right-to-Know. Not only do hazardous chemicals in large quantities present attractive targets for terrorists, Orum notes that they are a "long-term concern as future superfund sites."

Switching to safer chemicals and processes would reduce risks. A coalition of labor, environmental and health groups support the Chemical Security Act of 2003, which requires companies to reduce chemical hazards where practicable. Orum cites the example of sewage treatment plants that have stopped using chlorine gas, which can permanently damage the lungs in a single high exposure, in favor of sodium hypochlorite or ultraviolet light. According to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, two facilities have switched, including one in Washington D.C. Editorials in both The New York Times and The Washington Post have also endorsed this position.

The End of the Nuclear Age?

The possibility of a radiological release has always been a threat to public health and safety. Because of this, the law requires that nuclear plants have a certified emergency response plan in place that includes evacuating the area within 10 miles of the facility. But radiation doesn't stop at any border and radioactive particles can be spread over a wide area by the wind, making evacuation plans insufficient.

Take Indian Point (IP) nuclear power plant, for example. Located in lower New York state, IP has a poor safety record going back ten years and twenty million people living within a fifty mile radius. An independent review of the plant's evacuation plan concluded that it was inadequate to protect public safety. As a result, state officials and four surrounding counties refused to certify the plan. A coalition of fifty-seven grassroots groups and hundreds of elected officials are calling for the plant's closure. Only the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, the federal agency that regulates nuclear materials and facilities, has the authority to shut nuclear facilities, but at this point it is unclear if they will do so.

NRC is also responsible for assessing onsite emergency plans. The Nuclear Security Act of 2003, if passed, will establish a task force to examine the threat from potential terrorist threats. According to NRC Public Affairs officer Scott Burnell, one long-term change under consideration is to design all nuclear facilities to withstand an air attack like September 11th's, but changes like these won't happen for years. "We are taking interim measures such as requiring an increase in the number of patrols and additional physical barriers at facilities," Burnell continued.

A Rebirth of Public Health

Perhaps the most immediate improvement in homeland security appears in the field of public health. "A strong public health system that has a strong disease tracking capacity is the essential first line of defense against bioterrorism and chemical attack," according to Dr. Phil Landrigan, director of Children's Health at Mount Sinai School of Medecine.

Funds to develop preparedness and regional hospital response plans are coming from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Increased funding for public health means better communication systems, greater laboratory capacity, training and staffing. Doctor Don Weiss with New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene describes additional syndromic surveillance systems set up in the wake of 9/11. "Now we collect information on 911 emergency calls to track clusters of symptoms," he says; "we're looking for signs of disease outbreaks, natural or man-made." Improvements like these will benefit public health everyday, emergency or not. For example, hospital-level preparation priorities such as providing isolation and quarantine units help doctors and others deal with biological agents like anthrax as well as new, non-terrorist threats, such as SARS.

"The public health system has made progress in a year," says Dr. Landrigan, "but there are still lots of holes, due largely to budgetary cutbacks." Indeed, the current budget crisis at federal, state and local levels may be the greatest impediment to our security at the moment. Perhaps the more than $16 million that TopOff2 cost might have been better spent on public health.

The chemical and nuclear industries pose national security -- and environmental -- threats. With little money available to pay for widespread changes, the quickest way to reduce these threats is to remove the "targets:" shut down nuclear plants in high population areas and switch from highly toxic chemicals or processes to less-toxic ones. As better public health preparedness improves our overall quality of life, these changes will also make us safer on a daily basis.

What you can do:

• Support Senator Jon Corzine's (D-NJ) Chemical Security Act of 2003; see the "Safeguard our Homes and Communities" InterActivate.

• To find chemical facilities near you, see scorecard.org

• Locate nuclear reactors and their safety information at NRC's website, www.nrc.gov. For evacuation plans, consult your Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) at www.rtknet.org/lepc/

• To find your state's public health department, go to Association of State and Territorial Health Official's website and click on "State Links": www.astho.org

• See Right to Know Network for EPA's Toxics Release Inventory and Emergency Response Notification rtk.net/rtkdata.html

• For information on chemical emergency preparedness, go to: yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/index.html

• For Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response, see www.bt.cdc.gov/