|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 3
1
Introduction
In light of contamination of the Hart Senate Office
Building, the Brentwood postal facility in Washington,
D.C., and a few other buildings with Bacillus anthracis
(anthrax) in the fall of 2001, Congress has allocated
$50 million to the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) for research on issues relating to
the safety of building occupants when a chemical or
biological attack occurs. In response EPA has initiated
a comprehensive research program focusing on build-
ing security, building protection, and the safe and effi-
cient decontamination of buildings when hazardous
materials are deliberately introduced. Over the remain-
ing time of the program (to the end of fiscal year 2005)
EPA intends to provide research and technical assis-
tance on methods, technologies, equipment, and tools
required to protect built structures from deliberate
attacks with biological warfare agents, chemical war-
fare agents, and toxic industrial chemicals through the
National Homeland Security Research Center's Safe
Buildings Program.
EPA is targeting the products of this program for
use by building owners and managers, architects, emer-
gency responders, decontamination crews, state and
local public health officials, EPA program and regional
offices, and other agencies involved in protecting
human health and the environment. The Safe Building
Program addresses three issues.
3
1. How can building occupants be protected during
a terrorist attack that contaminates the indoor air?
2. How can contaminated buildings be safely, effi-
ciently, and cost-effectively restored?
3. How can decontamination information be effec-
tively conveyed to building owners and manag-
ers, emergency responders, decontamination
crews, and federal regulatory groups?
The cornerstone of EPA's Safe Buildings Program
is the Research Implementation Plan (RIP), a document
that outlines the various research areas, proposals, and
research timeframes for the program. It is designed to
address all areas of building protection and decontami-
nation needs, identify highest priority needs for imme-
diate action, and determine how best to meet these
needs.
The plan comprises four research areas that are
considered separately.
1. Detection research seeks to ensure that effective
sampling and analysis tools are available to con-
duct a thorough building decontamination. It will
also develop monitoring techniques that can be
used to detect an attack and provide safe re-
occupancy of a building.
2. Containment research aims to develop methods
OCR for page 4
4
to prevent the spread of contaminants in order to
protect building occupants, first responders, and
decontamination crews as well as provide tech-
niques and guidance to determine the efficacy of
chemical and biological protection measures for
new and existing buildings.
3. Decontamination research will provide the tools,
techniques, technologies, and guidance needed to
decontaminate a building subsequent to a chemi-
cal or biological attack.
a. Disposal research will provide guidance for dis-
posal of materials contaminated by chemical and
biological agents or materials that have been con-
taminated as a result of decontamination.
EPA commissioned the National Academies to
assemble a committee to address the following ques-
tions with regards to the Safe Buildings Program
Research Implementation Plan:
· From the expert committee's viewpoint, has the
Research Implementation Plan completely and
accurately identified important issues and needs
in the buildings security arena? If the answer is
no, what issues and needs should be added?
From the expert committee' s viewpoint, are the
needs accurately prioritized and sequenced within
the issues? If the answer is no, what would be the
recommended adjustments and why is this the
case?
.
.
From the expert committee' s viewpoint, are the
projects recommended for funding over the next
three years under each need appropriately
sequenced to move to the ultimate product or
products identified in the Appendix? If the
answer is no, what would the committee recom-
mend as adjustments and why is this the case?
· Overall, from the expert committee's viewpoint,
lEPA, 2003, Research Implementation Plan Safe Buildings
Program (Draft), presented to the committee on May 13, 2003, by
N. Adams, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
REVIEW OF EPA HOMELAND SECURITY EFFORTS
what changes to the RIP would be recommended
to improve its presentation in terms of content and
structure so as to more clearly convey the build-
ings security research and technical support pro-
gram that is described?
EPA gave the committee a draft of EPA's Safe
Buildings Program Research Implementation Plan,
which consisted of a program overview along with
work proposals in the four outlined areas (detection,
containment, decontamination, and disposal). In addi-
tion, the plan stressed the completion of EPA research
projects within the allotted three years. After a presen-
tation by the project leaders in each of the four areas,
the committee concluded it needed the following addi-
tional information from EPA in order to perform a fair
and accurate assessment of the RIP:
· Detailed information on the threat scenario analy-
sis and its relation to the major research programs,
including a matrix describing the relevance of
research proposals implemented as a result.
· More information about the gap analysis performed
in order to ensure minimal overlap between
research areas already in place.
· A list of the research proposals already underway.
· A document detailing the lessons learned from
the recent anthrax decontamination efforts
The content of this report is the committee' s review
of EPA's RIP. The critiques and ideas expressed in this
document are intended to aid EPA in determining the
most efficient strategy to implement its research plan
in a manner that provides the most success to EPA and
to the nation. Chapter 2 of this report contains an
assessment of each RIP area, identifying both strengths
and weaknesses. The committee's findings and recom-
mendations are outlined in Chapter 3.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
buildings program
