I-35 Bridge Collapse Case

Introduction 

I-35W Bridge passed through Mississippi which collapsed into this city on 1 st August 2007 in the evening (Cook, 2009) . Unfortunately, the collapsing of the bridge was not earlier foreseen by the relevant people in charge of emergency cases. However, if the response team were aware of the uncertainty, they would have issued out a public closure of the bridge. After the collapse, the response and emergency team tried their level best to minimize the number of casualties in such a sophisticated situation. There was an estimate of 100 cars at the time of collapsing (LePatner, 2010) . There were many survivors, and some people were not fortunate to survive. 13 people died on the spot, and 144 people were injured (LePatner, 2010) . After a 16 month investigation by NTSB, the case of the disaster was found to be a flaw in design (LePatner, 2010) . The bridge has been remodeled three times since it was constructed and the last remodeling that happened in 2007 was the source of the design flaw that caused the tragic accident. This assignment will discuss the application of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery to the I-35W Bridge incidence. 

Mitigation 

Major emergencies and sophistication of disasters in the environment are characterized by the limitations of human capacity, understand and protocols. Unpredictable disasters and unexpected outcomes lead to complex situations like the collapsing of the I-35W Bridge. The mitigation of the bridge disaster was not effectively done . The first issue that contributed to the collapsing of the bridge was the physical disturbance (Cook, 2009) . The bridge was serving many vehicles across Mississippi, and with time the physical disturbance below the bridge led to the accumulation of debris material that was also deposited in the Mississippi River. Continuous deposition of the debris disrupted the river and posed significant risks to the durability of the I-35W Bridge. The local agencies tried to identify the source of the risks and modified the bridge (Nunnally, 2011) . This was a mitigation step that the concerned personnel to reduce serious and severity of the situation of the bridge. However, the modification was not effective enough to sustain the bridge with the continuous usage of the bridge. The physical disturbance was continuous and the debris kept on accumulating. Lack of enough clarity about the risk was a hindrance against having a suitable mitigation plan for the bridge. If the local leaders and regulators could have measured the risk impact, they could have probably closed the bridge until when the safety of the structure was assured. 

Preparedness 

The preparedness of the collapsing of the bridge was unique and complicated. It is a disaster that other response teams are learning from it. Even though the collapsing of the structure was something that was planned and prepared for, but the disaster was beyond the prepared plan. The 40-year-old bridge had no warning signs when it was collapsing. At the time of collapsing, it had approximately 100 cars and 160 people on the bridge (Cook, 2009) . The disaster was so sudden that multiple planes of steel broke and concrete crashed some vehicles, and the bridge became partially embedded on the Mississippi River. As a result, vehicles and people fell into the river. The National Management System (NIMS) focused on training its employees on different ways to stay prepared for such disasters in the future . The collapsing of the Mississippi Bridge was a learning point for many organizations dealing with disaster and mitigation, including the firefighter's department. Emergencies dealing with events like collapsing of a bridge causes massive destruction of property and loss of many lives. 

Response 

The State of Minnesota and City Minneapolis Emergency Plans in collaboration with the Homeland Security Department Response Plan. The Homeland Security Department provides all disaster and hazard approach to domestic events and provides roles and responsibilities of all response agencies. The guideline and emergency response plans is a management tool that is important for disastrous events like the collapsing of the bridge. The response plan was not sufficient enough, and the majority of such plans were amended after the collapsing of the bridge. 

Within the first 24 hours, over 74 response agencies participated in response activities (Cook, 2009) . This posed a high level of uncertainty because each responder was using different tactical measures. The disaster was life-threatening, and the intervention of more than 74 response agencies was a challenge. There was a potential challenge in decision-making among the responders, and it created a complicated situation because of ineffective communication strategies. The impact of the collapsing of the bridge was a complicated situation that attracted the police and fire response entities on the local scene. During the response activities, there was a threat of hazardous materials that threatened the safety of the aquatic environment. This is because the embedded bridge crashed some train cars that were leaking a toxic substance called styrene (Cook, 2009) . It was until lab tests were carried out that the responders understood how to handle the hazardous substance. The leaking was from the crashed railroad car. 

Another source of the challenge faced by the emergency responders like the EMS agency was to locate the exact scene of the collapsed bridge. The reports indicated that the spot was at 500 2 nd Street Southeast, yet the exact spot was one-third from the actual incident (Cook, 2009) . There was a miscommunication of the exact figures between the reporters and the response team. However, response assets were readily available for the rescue operations like divers, boats, and barges among others. Once the injured victims were recovered from the scene, they were taken to the local hospital for further treatment. The response team did not have a centralized mode of transporting survivors to the hospital. Some were taken to private hospitals by ambulances while others were walked to the local area hospital (LePatner, 2010) . From this incidence, it is clear that there was not effective communication strategy between the response agencies. The situation would have been more controllable is the agencies onsite were communicating effectively and encouraging teamwork . 

Recovery 

Part of the rescue team that arrived in the situation were the donations and volunteers. They offered coffee for the rescue teams , sandwiches and loads of supplies to help in the situation . Volunteers and donations were helpful in the recovery mission. Individuals volunteered to donate food and blood to rescue the health of the hospitalized survivors. They also helped in collecting relevant information for the state emergency operations department. 

There was a Family Assistance Center (FAC) that provided the family members and friends will find relevant information about missing people, those who have been saved and news about the ones who did not make it alive (Nunnally, 2011) . This was an important service because families need to be updated on the progress and gave the rescue team enough time to handle the victims and the situation at large. Nevertheless, there was a disagreement on where to locate the FAC, but the debate was quickly resolved . The selection of FAC raised concerns to show that it not always obvious that rescue team will have the same point of view when it comes to the making of the decision . 

Providing the public with consistent updates of the situation was part of the recovery mission. The handling of the public information was regulated to make sure that communication is straight and has correct figures. Only the Medical Examiner was allowed to report the number of deaths from the scene. The families were also updated about their loved ones before broadcasting it on the national TV. The recovery of the incident depended on the activeness of the response team, a collaboration between the emergency agencies and federal agencies, and observing relevant protocols. The announcement of eh disaster helped those who were planning to use the bridge to change the route to avoid more damages and loss of lives. Communication is an important factor from raising the alarm , to response agencies and finally the recovering of the incidence. 

I-35W Bridge disaster was a learning situation for many emergency response agencies at the time. The mitigation plan for such structures was later amended and highlighted the new risks that were found within the collapsing of the bridge. The main limitation of the effectiveness of a mitigation plan is the limitation of human effort to certain disasters. However, the response and recovery efforts of the disaster were effective and helped to save lives by rescuing the victims. Consequently, family members were involved in making an announcement on the national TV about their loved ones. 

References 

Cook, A. H. (2009). Towards an Emergency Response Report Card: Evaluating the Response to the I-35W Bridge Collapse. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management , 1-25. 

LePatner, B. B. (2010). Too big to fall: America's failing infrastructure and the way forward. New York: Foster Pub. ; Hanover [N.H.]: in association with University Press of New England. 

Nunnally, P. (2011). The city, the river, the bridge: before and after the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.