Disaster Recovery Journal Fall 2023

the already-damaged infrastructure. The compounding effect of two events in close proximity led to long-lasting power out ages and more severe structural damage to entities in the area. Another example is Hurricane Harvey, which slammed into Southeast Texas in 2017. Before Hurricane Harvey, many businesses had response plans which only considered the increasing threat of wind and tidal surges to determine if they should move into the next phase of their response effort. These plans were developed mainly after Hurricane Ike in 2008. Prior to Ike, many plans were either based on the storm category, the proxim ity of the storm to a given site, or if there was a hurricane watch or warning issued. Post-Ike, the response plans focused on the probability of certain winds, often 58 mph winds, as well as the expected height of the tidal surge. These plans improved upon the previous standards by escalat ing objectively based on the rising threat to one’s location. However, they did not consider freshwater flooding. In Harvey, there was never a signifi cant threat of strong winds or tidal surges to the Houston and Beaumont areas. Most phases of hurricane response plans were not triggered. This resulted in many busi nesses, including major oil refineries, not initiating the necessary precautions before the storm. When the catastrophic flooding affected these sites, many refiners were forced to perform immediate shutdowns, which can lead to additional costs upon restarting. One chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, exploded as the flooding ren dered the refrigeration system inoperable. Unrefrigerated organic peroxides end up self-igniting as a result. After Harvey, many businesses, includ ing major chemical plants and oil refin eries, decided to escalate their response plans if significant flooding was expected from a tropical storm or a hurricane. This means they may advance to a higher phase than warranted due to the predicted wind and surge threat. The flexibility to escalate despite the defined criteria not being met allows businesses to shut down operations ahead of the storm safely. This permits

most workers to be released from duty before any risk threatens their safety. In addition, it dramatically reduces the likeli hood of a significant accident during the storm and cuts down on costs to restart operations. Why dynamic vs. static plans are necessary The two examples above demonstrate why dynamic response plans, as opposed to static plans, are necessary. A static plan is less flexible and can lead to challenges in response and recovery. Businesses should consider modifying their response plans to include weather hazards, not weather phenomena when shifting from static to dynamic ones. An example of a weather hazards plan would include individual plans for light ning, damaging wind, hail, flooding rain, tornados, and not just one blanket plan for thunderstorms. Thinking of each element as a separate threat and how to respond to each is a best practice. A starting point for creating a dynamic response plan is understanding the histor ical weather patterns and types of severe weather for which each location could be

at risk. The next step is breaking down each extreme weather event into differ ent hazards and risks to develop plans for each. Once the plans are developed, run through various scenarios, includ ing compounding disasters, to ensure they can run concurrently. In addition to the dynamic response plan, contingency plans are also recommended to provide the highest level of safety for assets and employees. Overall, the importance of having a dynamic response plan considering com pounding disasters has become increas ingly apparent. Organizations can set themselves up for success by considering each of the changing and varied climates when creating response plans. v

Shannon Copeland is an industry man ager for StormGeo and a graduate of the University of Oklahoma’s School of Meteorology. During her tenure, she sup ported numerous research initiatives

focused on severe weather, emergency management, and disaster preparedness and recovery, including con tent review for FEMA’s National Hurricane Program train ing series. As an industry manager, Copeland supports StormGeo’s outreach strategy and aids in identifying weather-related risks to businesses and their employees.

16 DISASTER RECOVERY JOURNAL | FALL 2023