Washington Update
National Construction Safety Team Act Becomes Law On October 2, President Bush signed into law legislation passed by Congress “to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life.”The National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231) authorizes the director of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to deploy teams after building failures that cause substantial damage and/or loss of life. In consultation with the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), the director is to develop procedures for team deployment within three months of the enactment of the new law. Each team, which should be deployed within 48 hours of an event whenever possible, will be lead by a NIST employee and include others chosen by the director from among private sector experts; university experts; representatives of professional organizations with appropriate expertise; and federal, state, and/or local officials.
The NIST director may also conduct hearings, provide regular public briefings, produce witnesses, and issue subpoenas in the course of an investigation. Most of the items and information gathered through an investigation will, however, be made available to the public on request. The director must also appoint an advisory committee to review procedures and team reports.
The Act allows team members to enter property where a building failure has occurred or where building components, materials, and artifacts with respect to failure are located, and take “necessary action” to carry out the duties of the team. They may also inspect any “record, . . . process, or facility” related to the investigation and test building components. When a failure has been caused by a criminal act, the team must relinquish investigative priority to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Additionally, a team must issue a public report 90 days after completing its investigation. Information must include an analysis of likely causes of failure as well as recommendations for changes to or the establishment of evacuation and emergency response procedures, improvement of building codes and construction practices, and research and other actions that will help to prevent future building failures. NIST is then to work with USFA and other federal agencies to conduct or enable others to conduct research recommended by the team and promote adoption of recommendations by the team.
The text of the National Construction Safety Team Act and summaries, as well as additional information on the subject, are available at http://www.house.gov/science. Click on the link, “Lessons Learned from Ground Zero.” The complete text of the legislation can also be found at any federal repository library or on the Library of Congress web site: http://thomas.loc.gov.
FEMA Consolidates Programs That Provide Disaster Assistance
When Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), legislators required that the “Temporary Housing Assistance” provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act be combined with the “Individual and Family Grant” programs (see the Observer, Vol. XXV, No. 3, p. 8). Recently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published an interim final rule in the Federal Register to implement that provision (see Vol. 67, No. 189, pp. 61445-61460). The new program is called the “Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households” and was implemented on September 30, 2002.This new program provides financial assistance and/or other types of assistance to eligible individuals and households that, as a direct result of a major disaster or emergency, have uninsured or under-insured basic living expenses that they are unable to meet through other means. Recipients may receive up to $25,000 for a disaster or emergency. One or more types of housing assistance may be made available, and FEMA shall determine the appropriate type of assistance based on considerations of cost effectiveness, convenience to individuals and households, and suitability and availability of types of assistance. Temporary housing and repair assistance “shall be utilized to the fullest extent practicable before other types of housing assistance” are provided.
FEMA may provide this type of assistance for no longer than 18 months following a presidential disaster declaration. Additionally, this assistance will not be counted as income or a resource to determine eligibility for welfare assistance, income assistance, or income-tested benefits programs from the federal government. These assistance rules also apply to those who are insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and policy holders who have suffered flood losses and received disaster assistance are required to maintain flood insurance for at least the assistance amount.
In general, FEMA may provide assistance to those who qualify under the Stafford Act (e.g, those who have incurred disaster-related expenses in a state that has received a presidential disaster declaration), when the individual’s insurance coverage has been denied, and when insurance proceeds have been significantly delayed or are insufficient to cover necessary expenses. FEMA may also cover medical, dental, and funeral expenses; replacement of clothing and household items; cleaning or sanitizing of personal property; transportation needs; and moving and storage expenses.
Under the new rule, a state may either request that FEMA administer the assistance or apply for a grant from FEMA to administer the grant through the state. If a state chooses to administer its own program, it must submit a State Administrative Plan (SAP) to its FEMA regional director by November 30 of each year. A SAP will be effective for at least one year and must be resubmitted in full every three years.The interim final rule contained in the Federal Register can be found in any federal repository library or on-line at http://www.access.gpo.gov. Further information about this new rule can be obtained from the FEMA Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; (202) 646-3487; e-mail: eipa@fema.gov; http://www.fema.gov.
The notice of the Interim Final Rule for revision of the Group Flood Insurance Policy under the NFIP, which addresses the requirement for certain recipients of disaster aid to purchase flood insurance as a condition of their assistance, can also be found in the same issue of the Federal Register from page 61460 to 61462.
USFA Releases Guidance for Local Infrastructure ProtectionFirst it was Y2K, then it was terrorism. In fact, any type of catastrophic event can cause major interruptions in a community’s critical infrastructure, including disruptions to major transportation routes, utilities, electrical transmission, telecommunications, and the computers that control critical systems. Community leaders, including emergency first responders, have the responsibility to decide what infrastructures must be protected from attacks by people, nature, or hazardous materials accidents. The reality of scarce resources (i.e., time, money, personnel, and material) tremendously complicates decision-making.
Recently, FEMA’s U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) recognized the need for emergency responders to take stock of critical systems and plan for potential disruptions. In order to assist local governments, USFA’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Information Center (CIPIC) recently published the Critical Infrastructure Protection Process Job Aid (2002, 18 pp., free) for local jurisdictions.The Critical Infrastructure Protection Process is an analytical model to guide communities in establishing the systematic protection of critical infrastructures. Essentially, it is a reliable decision sequence that helps leaders identify which infrastructure elements require protection. This process enhances efficiency because it prioritizes infrastructure according to survivability and mission success and assists public officials in determining which structures should be protected first.
The document can be downloaded from the CIPIC web site: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/dhtml/fire-service/cipc-jobaid.cfm.
CDC Restructures Epidemiology and Surveillance Division In an effort to more effectively deal with the changing needs of public health surveillance and immunization to address the threat of bioterrorism, the Bush Administration recently announced the restructuring of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, National Immunization Program.In a September 23, 2002, notice in the Federal Register, (Vol. 67, No. 184, pp. 59526-59528), the CDC outlined the new program functions, designating the National Immunization Program as the agency that directs all program activities regarding epidemiology; national surveillance; research and technical consultation for pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, smallpox, and the vaccines and toxoids to prevent these diseases; and immunization safety. The agency will also have a role in creating immunization policy and vaccine development in the U.S. It will provide epidemic aid in collaboration with other CDC agencies and direct epidemiological research.
Copies of the Federal Register can be found in any federal repository library or on-line at http://www.access.gpo.gov.A Letter to the Editor
Of Personal Responsibility and Politics: A Response to Last Month’s Invited CommentAlthough much of Ellis Stanley’s comment regarding vulnerability to natural hazards is undeniably correct and appropriate (see the Observer, Vol. XXVII, No. 1, p. 1), I feel, however, that explicit mention must be made of two critical unstated issues regarding vulnerability. First, it is not “we” who must “protect citizens and property.” A primary factor in risk mitigation is for individual citizens to accept the responsibility for their own actions—it is “they” who must protect themselves. We in the hazard mitigation community can empower them, but they must choose to use that power. Many of the traditional paternalistic approaches, such as drawing sharp zoning boundaries, answer legal needs, but do not relate to the actualities of the hazards themselves—a flood will not necessarily stop at the edge of the mapped 100-year floodplain! The second issue is even more pernicious: natural disasters are the incumbent politician’s best friend. They offer one of the very few opportunities for a politician to “buy” votes with someone else’s money—the government’s, thus ultimately ours. The partnership Stanley urges cannot and will not work when one of the more powerful members of that partnership, local and regional politicians, have a powerful disincentive to participate effectively.
All of the measures Stanley proposes will fail unless the responsibility (i.e., the cost) is placed directly on those who make unwise decisions, and unless politicians are enjoined from after-the-fact profiteering in the guise of “humanitarian relief.” Neither of those eventualities are likely, or perhaps even possible, in our system. Accordingly, investment in many of the measures Stanley advocates is likely to be a continued waste of money.
William W. Locke, Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University
Table of Contents for This Issue of the Natural Hazards Observer
