Upon perusal of the recent memorandum by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on the issue of protective hoods, a document that includes a long and painstaking list entitled “Hood Procurement Criteria,” I am reminded of a friend of mine in college who once said that the chief function of a government bureaucrat is “to cover his own behind.” Even though he’s in government, our esteemed U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby must feel the same way about bureaucrats, because his office issued a statement the other day describing the criteria as “unnecessary, bureaucratic and counter productive.”
Now let’s set aside for a moment the more problematic parts of the FEMA memo, i.e., those parts local emergency management officials and the Calhoun County Commission take issue with.
For now, let’s look at the memo itself and remember what my old friend said about bureaucrats. The entire document, take or leave a few sentences, seems to be about the business of covering FEMA’s behind in case there is an accident involving someone using the hoods.
There is very little said about the community, i.e., the people who might find the mere possession of these hoods of some reassurance.
And finally, there is hardly a mention of safety. Funny that, since I was under the impression that emergency management was supposed to be about safety for the general public, whether we’re talking about hoods or over-pressurization at schools and hospitals, or whatever. Amazingly, the word “safety” is used on FEMA’s criteria list only once, in the same sentence in which the public is supposed to be warned that “shelter-in-place” provides more safety than any hood.
Never in the entire document are the 36,000 people living in the “pink zone” mentioned. The criteria writers, bureaucrats that they are, apparently didn’t think of those people. Perhaps that was because they were too busy filling up their laundry list with unwieldy and non-sensical phrases like this one, taken from a section with the heading “Training of individuals…:”
“(The plan shall include) “Time line for the development of course materials and methodologies of course delivery for the training of individuals selected:”...
What are we talking about?
These hoods, should they ever be put out to bid, paid for and actually delivered, are meant to be used by folks who in all likelihood will use them only in case of emergency. These are people who live near the site — farmers, truck drivers, schoolteachers. Perhaps even Depot employees.
They are ordinary citizens. They are not like young Marines who must be drilled over and over again and must be taught to be efficient at the de-assembly and re-assembly of an automatic weapon.
Instruction on proper use of the hoods and caution and care are one thing. But let’s not go out of our way to complicate people’s lives when they’ve been complicated enough already.
Regardless of how you feel about shelter-in-place, there’s no way a reasonable person can argue that it is “fail-safe.” Which is why it is reasonable as well that the county, in order to reach “maximum protection,” as ordered by Congress, should at least be able to provide those in the most danger with the option – just the option, mind you — of an alternative safety measure. At the very least, we might be able to make a few folks sleep a little better at night.
No, these hoods should not be viewed as the be-all, end-all to protection against a possible accident. On the other hand, where’s the harm in at least trying them? If our own emergency officials believe the protective hoods should be offered as an option, they should not have to go through nine layers of bureaucratic hell to get them.
In the FEMA letter, there is mention of “concerns with the use of hoods by the general public.” Those may be well-founded concerns, but let’s face it, ours is an unusual situation.
It is reasonable to assume that some time before the year is out, the chemical demlilitarization of the more than 2,300 tons of nerve agent now stored at the Anniston Army Depot will have begun. It is also reasonable to assume that people living in closest proximity to the process, especially, will be somewhat apprehensive about it.
It is reasonable to assume that all will go well with that process, that any emissions caused by the weapons incineration will either be contained or will escape in only trace amounts and that the general public will remain unharmed. However, it is possible that our fears could come true, that there could be some sort of accident, at the stockpile or during incineration, an event in which emergency measures would need to be taken.
The commissioners and the state EMA are not being unreasonable in asking for assistance on this hood issue. They are asking, it seems to me, only for a timely delivery of protective gear that has already been agreed upon, without all the strings attached. They are asking, finally, for a little help and perhaps a modicum of respect from the federal government.
These people, the ones the FEMA memo never mentions, did not ask to live in any “pink zone.” It just turned out that way. The least the federal government and emergency officials —local, state and federal — can do is give them the option of using protective hoods if they so desire.
This unfortunate episode is a microcosm of the breakdown in honest communication that has too often dogged this project from the beginning.
Seeing two truths on the matter of incineration, or emergency preparedness or protective hoods is one thing, not being able to communicate very well with one another in a manner where a certain amount of trust is involved is another. That’s where we have been for some time now, and where we seem destined to remain.
