NATO AND TERRORISMOn Scene: New Challenges for First Responders and Civil Protection

This Series presents the results of scientific meetings supported under the NATO

Advanced Research Workshops (ARW) are expert meetings where an intense butinformal exchange of views at the frontiers of a subject aims at identifying directions forfuture action

re-organised. Recent volumes on topics not related to security, which result from meetingssupported under the programme earlier, may be found in the NATO Science Series.

Sub-Series

D. Information and Communication Security IOS PressIOS Press

http://www.nato.int/science

http://www.iospress.nl

Springer

Springer

E. Human and Societal Dynamics

Springer

http://www.springer.com

The Series is published by IOS Press, Amsterdam, and Springer, Dordrecht, in conjunction with the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

A. Chemistry and Biology

C. Environmental SecurityB. Physics and Biophysics

and Mediterranean Dialogue Country Priorities. The types of meeting supported are generally "Advanced Study Institutes" and "Advanced Research Workshops". The NATOSPS Series collects together the results of these meetings. The meetings are co-organized by scientists from NATO countries and scientists from NATO's "Partner" or"Mediterranean Dialogue" countries. The observations and recommendations made at the meetings, as well as the contents of the volumes in the Series, reflect those of parti-cipants and contributors only; they should not necessarily be regarded as reflecting NATOviews or policy.

latest developments in a subject to an advanced-level audienceAdvanced Study Institutes (ASI) are high-level tutorial courses intended to convey the

Following a transformation of the programme in 2006 the Series has been re-named and

NATO Science for Peace and Security Series

Programme: Science for Peace and Security (SPS).

Defence Against Terrorism; (2) Countering other Threats to Security and (3) NATO, Partner The NATO SPS Programme supports meetings in the following Key Priority areas: (1)

Series B: Physics and Biophysics

edited by

Published in cooperation with NATO Public Diplomacy Division

and

San José State University

Department of Political Science,

Friedrich SteinhäuslerDivision of Physics and Biophysics,

Salzburg, Austria

University of Salzburg

San José, CA, U.S.A.

NATO AND TERRORISM

and Civil ProtectionOn Scene: New Challenges for First Responders

Frances L. Edwards

Published by Springer,

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,

of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being enteredand executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted© 2007 Springer

www.springer.com

P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

ISBN 978-1-4020-6276-6 (PB)ISBN 978-1-4020-6275-9 (HB)

ISBN 978-1-4020-6277 -3 (e-book)

recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on

–2 4 March 2006

Ericeira Portugal

First Responders and Civil Protection,

Emergency Management after a Major Terror Attack: The New Challenges for

Table of Contents

xiii

Acknowledgements xv Contributors xvii 1. Introduction 1

3

2. Security Threat Assessment 7

14 2.2.1. Unconventional Use of Conventional Explosives 14 2.2.2. Radiological Weapons 16 2.2.3. Weapons of Mass Destruction 17 2.2.4. Emergency Management Challenges 18

2.3.1. Challenges due to CBRNE Threats 19 2.3.2. Covert versus Overt Terror Attack 21 2.3.3. Response by Law Enforcement Agents 22

2.3.5. General Indicators of CBRNE Terrorist Activities 29 32

2.4.1. The Importance of Legal Measures During 32

2.4.2. Terrorism versus Catastrophic Terrorism 33 35 2.4.4. Tort Law as a Societal Mechanism to

36 38 2.4.6. Breaking the Mold 39 2.4.7. Distributive Justice Model and its Limitations 40 2.4.8. Not Unusual Policy 42

Protect the Innocent Injured

v

A Matter of Risk 7 2.2. The New Risk Environment

1.1. Overview 1 1.2. The issue 2

1.3. Emergency Planning and Terrorism 1.4. The Framework 5

2.3. Challenges to Law Enforcement due to a Major terror Attack 19

2.4. Legal Aspects of Emergency Situations

2.1. Preparing for Natural Hazards versus Terror Attack:

Enforcement Agents 27

2.4.3. Criminal Justice Responses

for Victims of WMVs

Pre- and Post-Attack Periods

2.4.9. Fund Replacement of Tort Actions42

2.3.4. Prevention, Disruption, and Investigation by Law

Foreword

Preface

2.4.5. Tort Lawsuits in a Post 9/11 World

xi

2.4.10. Policy Correction Needed 43 2.4.11. Legal Issues for Emergency Management Planning 44

3. Protection Against Terrorism through Emergency Management Structures 49

50 3.1.1. Public Alerting and Warning

50

3.1.2. Public Warning Technical Systems 52 3.1.3. Post-Event Messages 55 3.1.4. Role of Government versus Responsibility

of Individual 57 57

3.2.1. Local, State and Federal Response Structures 58 3.2.2. Evacuation or Shelter in Place 59 3.2.3. Federal Structures for Rendering Aide 62 3.2.4. Non-Governmental Organizations’ Role 63

64 3.3.1. Air Modeling 64 3.3.2. Land Use-Based Modeling 68 3.3.3. Structural Engineering as Mitigation 71

73 3.4.1. Communications Systems 73

3.4.3. Coordination/Command and Control Systems 78 79 3.4.5. Special Challenges for Cross-Border Law

Enforcement

4. International Disaster Response 83

4.1.1. Overview of UK Preparedness 84 4.1.2. Training and Exercises 86 4.1.3. Case Study: London Bombings July 2005 88

Uncertainty in Doing the Right Things 96 96 4.2.2. The Dutch Crisis Control Organization 96 4.2.3. A Scientific Approach to Emergency Management 97

4.3.1. Federal Risk Assessment and Central

100 4.3.3. Necessary Improvements 102

TABLE OF CONTENTSvi

4.3. German Civil Protection 99

81 Assistance

3.1. Structures for Managing Alerting and Warning

3.3. Using Technology to Aid Planning and Response

3.2. Emergency Management Structures for Managing Response

4.1. United Kingdom 84

4.3.2. The Level of Capability of First Responders

4.2. National Emergency Preparedness in the Netherlands:

3.4. Cross-Border Interoperability Across Systems

for Terrorism

4.2.1. Change in Risk Awareness

3.4.4. Receiving External Help—Existing Systems

3.4.2. Interoperable Equipment 76

Emergency Respon se 99

Management Structures in Norway 104 4.4.1. Justification and Rationale for Emergency

Preparedness 104

Principles and Priorities 105 4.4.3. Norwegian Legislation and Regulations on

Emergency Preparedness 106 4.4.4. Structural Framework 107 4.4.5. First Responder Community in Norway 110

114 4.5.1. Principles and Priorities 114 4.5.2. Danish Legislation and Regulations on

Emergency Preparedness 114 4.5.3. Structural Framework 4.5.4. First Responders in Denmark 116 4.5.5. Norwegian and Danish Emergency Preparedness

Compared 117 120

4.7.1. Preparatory Phase 123 4.7.2. Command and Control 124 4.7.3. Phases of Response 124 4.7.4. Search Concept of Operations 127 4.7.5. The Role of Specialists 129 4.7.6. Special Search Operations 130 4.7.7. Conclusion 131

in Russia 132 4.8.1. EMERCOM Organization 132 4.8.2. Operational Plans within EMERCOM 132 4.8.3. Management Actions 134 4.8.4. Action Plan 136 4.8.5. The Beslan School Terror Attack 137

4.9.1. Homefront Command 139 4.9.2. Terrorism Response Planning and Training 140 4.9.3. Phased Response to a Terror Attack 144

Disaster Response Coordination Centre 145 4.10.1. Introduction 145 4.10.2. The Role of NATO and EADRCC 145

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

138

4.10. NATO and Consequence Management: The Euro-Atlantic

4.4.2. Norwegian Emergency Preparedness:

4.4. Protection Against Terrorism through Emergency

4.5. Danish Emergency Preparedness

4.6. Emergency Preparedness in Portugal

4.8. National Emergency Preparedness in Case of Terrorism

4.9. Response to Unconventional Terrorist Attacks in Israel

115

4.7. The U.S. Response to Catastrophic Urban Disasters 122

146

4.10.4. Steps Taken After a Request for Assistance 147 4.10.5. Inventory of National Chemical, Biological

and Radiological Capabilities 148 4.10.6. Examples of NATO Response Capabilities 150 4.10.7. Training and Exercises 152 4.10.8. NATO SHAPE/Allied Command Operations 152

154 4.11.1. Maintaining Preparedness 154 4.11.2. Lessons Learned 155

Weapons 156 4.12.1. Roles and Expertise 156 4.12.2. Intervention Capabilities 157

158

5. Research and Development Needs in Field Response to Terrorism 161 162

164

171 5.4.1. Short-Term Challenges for R&D 173 5.4.2. Mid-Term Challenges for R&D 175 5.4.3. Long-Term Challenges for R&D 176

6. Conclusions and Recommendations 179 179 181 183

183 6.3.2. Protection Against Terrorism through Emergency

Management Structures 184

185 6.3.4. International Disaster Response 186

187 189

TABLE OF CONTENTSviii

4.11. European Union Civil Protection Mechanism

6.3.1. Security Threat Assessment

to Terrorism 6.3.3. Research and Development Needs in Field Response

Emergency Management

5.3. Strategic Operations Model for Scientific Innovation 166

6.4. Managing a Radiological Terror Attack: A Paradigm for

6.5. Conclusions and Next Steps Transformational Emergency Management

6.3. Research and Improvement Program for NATO Member States

5.1.The Catastrophic Risk Model as a Basis for R&D on

6.2. Conclusions of the Workshop Terrorism

5.4. Timelines for Deliverables

4.12. Organization for the Prevention of Chemical

4.13. The Way Forward

4.10.3. The International Staff: Ops Division Organization

5.2. R&D for Urban Warfare and Terrorist Capability

6.1. International Challenges of Cooperation Against

Appendix 1 List of Participants 191 Appendix 2

195 Appendix 3 Review of the Brazilian Emergency Management

Appendix 4 Terror Attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001 225

Appendix 5

235 Acronyms 243 References 249

TABLE OF CONTENTS xi

Index 259

After The Radiological Incident in Goiania in 1987 221 Review of the US Emergency Response After the

Review of the US Emergency Management in

Countering Fourth-Genera tion Warfare with

for First RespondersA Theory of Functional Force Employment

August 29–September 2, 2005 New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina,

First-through Third-Generation Warfare:

Foreword

The present security environment is and will be complex and global, and subject to unforeseeable developments. We realize that international security developments have an increased impact on the lives of the citizens of our home countries.

Terrorism, increasingly global in scope and lethal in results, and the possible spread of weapons of mass destruction are likely to be the principal threats to civil populations over the next 10 to 15 years.

Peace, security and stability are more interconnected than ever. This places a premium on close cooperation and coordination among relevant international organizations, playing their respective, interconnected roles.

The NATO Alliance will continue to follow the broad approach to secu-rity of the 1999 Strategic Concept and perform the fundamental security tasks it set out, namely security, consultation, deterrence and defense, crisis management, and partnership.

Collective defense will remain the core purpose of the Alliance. The character of potential Article 5 challenges, the article of the North Atlantic Treaty on collective defense, is continuing to evolve. Large scale aggression against the Alliance will continue to be highly unlikely; however, as shown by the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, following which NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time, attacks may originate from terrorist groups and involve unconventional forms of armed assault. Future attacks could also involve the use of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, defense against terrorism and the ability to contribute to the protection of civilian populations, critical infrastructure, and to support consequence management will retain an increased importance for NATO.

NATO and Partners’ populations and critical infrastructures may face various threats, including the use of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) weapons. It is a requirement of the Alliance to help enhance the ability to deter, disrupt, defend and protect against terrorism, and more particularly to contribute to the protection of the Alliance’s population, terri-tory, critical infrastructure and forces and to support consequence manage-ment.

We all know and we all agree that response to a disaster or a catastrophic event is first and foremost a national responsibility. Stricken nations that cannot cope with the situation within own resources can request international assistance. Arrangements are in place within the framework of international organizations to respond to such a request. Some of these arrangements are

xi

based on solidarity others are more of a binding nature with international agreements.

Increased cooperation with the United Nations and the European Union will continue to be a priority for the Alliance. In this respect, the Riga Summit Declaration, in line with the Istanbul Summit Communiqué, states that NATO-EU relations cover a wide range of issues of common interest, including civil emergency planning, and calls for “improvements in the NATO-EU strategic partnership as agreed by our two organizations to achieve closer cooperation and greater efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication, in a spirit of transparency and respecting the autonomy of the organizations”.

The first workshop in 2004 took a close look at the threats first respon-ders face when dealing with the consequences of terrorism against civilian populations. This second workshop continued this important work by exa-mining existing Emergency Management Structures. While the emphasis of the second workshop clearly was on national structures as they are the ones that have the responsibility to respond to catastrophic events, the workshop also provided an opportunity to look at international arrangements that are available to complement and supplement national response. Guenter W. Bretschneider Head of the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre at NATO Headquarters Brussels

FOREWORDxii

Preface

On March 2–4, 2006 NATO held a Joint STS-CNAD Workshop, entitled Emergency Management After a Major Terror Attack: The New Challenges for First Responders and Civil Protection, held in Ericeira, Portugal. The meeting was organized jointly by Prof. Friedrich Steinhäusler (University of Salzburg, Austria), and Dr. Frances Edwards (San Jose State University, California, U.S.A.). Altogether 25 experts from 11 countries participated, presenting an overview of the current situation with regard to first respon-der and emergency management capabilities within the different countries.

The contributions represent the opinion of the authors but not neces-sarily that of the institution they represented at the NATO meeting. F. Steinhäusler, F. Edwards

xiii

Acknowledgements

The logistical support by the following institutions is gratefully acknow-ledged: NATO (Public Diplomacy Division), Brussels (Belgium); University of Salzburg, Salzburg (Austria); San Jose State University, California (U.S.A.); Bioterrorism Unit of Interpol, Lyon, France; California State University, Northridge, California (U.S.A.); Norman Y. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, California; NewRisk, Limited, London, England; Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo, Norway; Grand Valley State Univer-sity, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Respond BV, Tilburg, The Netherlands; EMERCOM, Moscow, Russia; State Fire Department and Emergency Medical Service of Hamburg, Germany; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; and Menlo Park Fire Protection District, Menlo Part, California.

The sponsorship provided by NATO Scientific Committee is also grate-fully acknowledged.

Furthermore, the editors wish to acknowledge the valued assistance pro-vided by Ms. Lyudmila Zaitseva, without whom the workshop would not have been possible; and Ms. Claudia Heissl for her dedicated work in suppor-ting the logistics of the workshop.

xv

Contributors

BACIU, Adrian, Bioterrorism Unit, Public Safety and Terrorism Sub-direc-torate, Interpol, General Secretariat, 200 quai Charles de Gaulle 69 006 Lyon, France

BALLARD, James David, Department of Sociology, California State Univ-

ersity, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff St., Northridge, CA 91330-8318 BRETSCHNEIDER, Günter, Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination

Center (EADRCC), NATO, Boulevard Leopold III, B-1110 Brussels, Belgium

GOODRICH, Daniel C., Norman Y Mineta Transportation Institute, 20405

Via Volante Cupertino, CA 95014 LEIVESLEY, Sally, NewRisk Limited, Frazer House, 32/38 Leman St.

London E1 8EW, United Kingdom MAERLI, Morton Bremer, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs,

P.O. Box 8159 Dep. N-0033 Oslo, Norway MULLENDORE, Kristine, School of Criminal Justice, Grand Valley State

University, 271 C DeVos Center, 401 W. Fulton St., Grand Rapids, MI 49504-6431

OTTEN, Jan, Respond BV, Jules Verneweg 121, 5015 BK Tilburg, The

Netherlands POTAPOV, Boris, EMERCOM of Russia, Moscow, Russia RECHENBACH, Peer, State Fire Department and Emergency Medical Ser-

vice of Hamburg, Westphalensweg 1, D-20099 Hamburg, Germany RYDELL, Stan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 Congress St.,

Boston, MA 02114-2023 SCHAPELHOUMAN, Harold, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, California

Task Force 3 – National Urban Search and Rescue Program, 300 Middlefield Rd, Menlo Park, CA 94025

xvii