A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned for Improving Local Community Recovery from Disastrous Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

24 3.1 Overview Restoring, rebuilding, and revitalizing the areas impacted by a hazardous materials trans- portation incident like that shown in Figure 3-1 can require the commitment of substantial resources. An array of federal, non-profit, and private-sector resources exist in whole and/or in part to support these efforts. When developing recovery plans, it is important to have an under- standing of the resources that are available to support their implementation. This section of the report is intended to address that by providing background information on the various types of public- and private-sector resources that are available to help meet community recovery needs, regardless of the hazard. 3.2 Financial Assistance for Recovery As a local community plans for a potential hazardous materials transportation incident, there are often concerns about who will be responsible for the costs. This is especially true during a time of shrinking government budgets. This section looks at the avenues of financial recovery open to the community for cost reimbursement relative to response, cleanup, and recovery. 3.2.1 Negotiations and Settlement Actions As previously mentioned, CERCLA established the policy that holds entities deemed respon- sible for hazardous materials releases liable for the costs associated with cleanup and restoration. CERCLA also created a trust fund (Superfund) to assist with cleanup and restoration costs when the responsible parties cannot be identified. The CERCLA/Superfund Orientation Manual45 defines the process of negotiations that EPA must engage in to establish the responsible party and financial obligation for remedial actions. EPA must first identify and attempt to compel potentially responsible parties to conduct, and/or pay for, the cleanup wherever possible. The following two approaches to settlement are available to EPA: • Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs) — AOCs are binding agreements between EPA and potential responsible parties. AOCs become effective upon the signature of the potential responsible party and the EPA Regional Administrator. • Consent Decrees (CDs) — CDs are similar to AOCs, with the exception that CDs are a judicial action requiring they be filed in court, published in the Federal Register for public comment, and then approved by a judge before becoming final. CDs provide site information and the names of the parties bound by the decree; describe the roles and responsibilities of the bound parties; set forth performance standards that must be met with stipulated penalties for not C H A P T E R 3 Resources Available to Support Community Recovery

Resources Available to Support Community Recovery 25 complying with those standards; detail the financial agreements in relation to financial assur- ances and reimbursement of costs; and address liability issues with respect to indemnification and insurance, covenants not to sue, and re-openers. If settlements are not achieved, two enforcement options are available to EPA as follows: • Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) — UAOs are most commonly used to require potentially responsible parties to conduct cleanup activities when negotiations fail. In removal situations where time is limited, UAOs may be issued without prior negotiation. Potentially responsible parties may face statutory penalties of $25,000 per day and costly litigation if they do not comply with the terms of a UAO. If the potentially responsible party is not cooperative, UAO issuance sets the stage for EPA to recover up to three times its response costs. • Litigation/Judgments — If a potentially responsible party refuses EPA or another potentially responsible party access to the site, pursuant to CERCLA Section 104(e), EPA may seek a court order to obtain site access. Also, if EPA and the potentially responsible parties fail to reach an agreement that the potentially responsible parties will finance or conduct the cleanup, EPA may use CERCLA Section 106 authorities to order cleanup or CERCLA Section 107 to recover its response costs. There are three important settlement tools that EPA may use to facilitate settlements with potentially responsible parties as follows: • Mixed Funding Settlements — These are settlements where EPA reaches agreement with less than all potentially responsible parties for less than 100 percent of the response costs. Also EPA agrees to use trust fund money for some, or all, of the short fall. Under this process, EPA then later seeks to recover the costs of that portion of the cleanup from the responsible parties. Additionally, under a mixed funding settlement, a potentially responsible party can agree to a settlement where that party provides cleanup services in lieu of funding. • De Minimis Settlements — These are settlements that have been determined to be only a minor portion of the total response costs at the site, practicable, and in the public interest. These settlements are used if the hazardous substances contributed by the potentially respon- sible parties are minimal in amount and toxicity in comparison to other hazardous substances at the site. (SOURCE: http://www.fema.gov/hazard/hurricane/2005katrina/ slideshow/ page1.fema?id=1; Photo Credit: FEMA/George Armstrong: FEMA News Photo) Figure 3-1. Recovery efforts in Gulfport, Mississippi.

26 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned • Non-Binding Allocations of Responsibility (NBARs) — These are allocations of the costs for response among the potentially responsible parties at a facility and are based primarily on the volume of hazardous substances contributed by the potentially responsible parties, although other factors, (e.g., toxicity and mobility of the hazardous substances and relative treatment costs) may be considered. The objective of the negotiation process is to have either 100 percent of the cleanup costs paid by the potentially responsible parties, or a commitment that they will perform the entire response operation at the site. When there is a partial settlement, it is very important to litigate against non-settlers as soon as possible. In most cases, this is a cost recovery action. If negotia- tions with the potentially responsible parties are not successful, EPA may choose to perform the work and seek to recover its costs later. To recover its costs, EPA usually issues a demand letter, and if the potentially responsible parties do not reimburse EPA’s costs, EPA then refers a judicial action to the DOJ to pursue the case. If a total of $500,000 or less in response costs is incurred at a site or facility, EPA may settle with the potentially responsible parties directly using an admin- istrative order. If more than $500,000 in response costs is incurred at a site, written approval of the U.S. Attorney General is required for the EPA to settle the case administratively. The process of identifying responsible parties can often involve multiple investigators and lengthy legal battles. In the event of a hazardous materials transportation incident, the findings published by the NTSB are among the factors that can impact the bottom line for responsible parties. NTSB and other investigative agencies rarely issue findings rapidly. Ideally, this should not be a hindrance to the assignment of the responsible party and the implementation of reme- diation and recovery actions. As an example, following the July 18, 2001, Howard Street Tunnel train derailment in Balti- more, MD, initial complexities included the determination of whether the derailment was caused by a water main break or the water main break was caused by the train derailment and subse- quent fire. Beyond the City of Baltimore and CSX (the train operators), potential litigants ranged from the manufacturer of the train cars involved in the accident to the firm that designed the water main above the tunnel.46 Ultimately, the NTSB findings (reported 3 years later) were inconclusive as to the cause, stat- ing in the official accident brief that “convincing evidence to explain the derailment of the CSX freight train” could not be identified.47 Still, CSX Transportation was held responsible for a sig- nificant portion of short-term losses incurred by impacted businesses.48 Longer term response and cleanup activity payments made by CSX have included lawsuits filed by those suffering personal injury. The long-term challenge associated with responsible parties’ financing of recovery operations is underscored by recent news regarding litigation related to recovery efforts that have been ongoing with the Exxon Mobil Corporation for more than 20 years. The company, identified as the responsible party for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, has been involved in lengthy legal battles related to criminal and punitive damages. In 1991, Exxon Mobil paid approximately $900 mil- lion in a civil settlement. Despite this, federal and state officials filed a $92 million dollar claim in 2006 that was brought to court in March 2011. Although the U.S. District Court ultimately ruled against the claim, this exemplifies the type of long-term litigation that may result from major hazardous materials transportation incidents.49 3.2.2 Superfund CERCLA (also known as the Superfund and discussed in Chapter 2 previously) established the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund from a tax on crude oil and 42 commercially used chem-

Resources Available to Support Community Recovery 27 icals. Should the case exist where a responsible party cannot be identified or the responsible party cannot pay the cleanup costs, EPA can reimburse local governments for costs through the Trust Fund up to $2 million per year per incident. There are three ways to access the Trust Fund as follows50 • By the FOSC, through enabling cleanup actions; • Through the claims process where claims can be made by any person other than the U.S. government, states, and political subdivisions thereof, except to the extent the claimant is otherwise compensated for the loss or states and political subdivisions if they are potentially responsible parties (only response actions that EPA has preauthorized are eligible for reim- bursement through the claims process); and • Through the Local Government Reimbursement (LGR) Program. The LGR Program was established to assist local governments and federally recognized tribal nations in covering the costs of emergency responses to hazardous materials incidents. States are not eligible for reimbursement under the LGR Program. Among other things, local governments have been reimbursed for releases from transpor- tation accidents, illegally dumped waste, tire fires, and contamination from illegal drug labs. Incidents involving releases of oil or oil-related products are not covered unless the oil product has been mixed with another type of hazardous material (see Section 3.2.3). Local governments can be reimbursed up to $25,000 per incident for costs that they may incur while performing temporary emergency response measures. In the past, reimbursement has been provided for (1) disposable materials and supplies, (2) rental or leasing of equipment, (3) special technical and laboratory services, (4) evacuation services, (5) decontamination of equipment, (6) overtime pay for employees, and (7) replacement of equipment lost or destroyed.51 3.2.3 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF)52 The OSLTF was created in 1986 and is managed by the USCG’s National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC). However, it wasn’t until the passage of the OPA in 1990 that authorization was granted for the collection of funds for its maintenance. The OSLTF is now a billion dollar fund used for cleanup costs not directly paid by the responsible party. The fund is also used to pay costs to respond to “mystery spills” for which the source has not been identified. There are two funds within the OSLTF as follows: • Emergency Fund: Available to FOSCs for response to oil spills and to federal natural resource trustees to initiate natural resource damage assessments. • Principal Fund Balance: Used to pay claims and to fund federal agencies to administer the provisions of OPA along with supporting research and development. Acceptable uses of the OSLTF include the following: • Federal Removal Costs: Payments to cleanup contractors, government personnel overtime, equipment, testing to identify the type and source of oil, disposal of recovered oil and oily debris, and preparation of cost documentation. • Claims: Costs and damages specified in OPA include uncompensated removal costs, natural resource damages, real/personal property, loss of profits, loss of subsistence use of natural resources, loss of government revenues, increased costs of government services, and claims from responsible parties asserting a defense to liability. There are also limitations to accessing the OSLTF, which include the following: • The spill or threatened spill must be in or on navigable U.S. waters, adjoining shorelines, or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs);

28 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned • The spill or threatened spill must be oil (includes petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil) and it cannot include any substance listed or designated as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; and • The maximum amount from the OSLTF is $1 billion per incident or the balance in the OSLTF, whichever is less. The NPFC has several responsibilities related to recovering from oil spills including provid- ing timely funding, initiating Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs), compensating claimants, recovering costs owed by the responsible parties, and certifying the financial responsi- bility of vessel owners and operators. As it pertains to the role of the EPA, activities may include the following: 53 • Communicating with the USCG district to obtain a federal project number (FPN) for response and ongoing recovery and with the EPA regional budget office to obtain an account number; • Obtaining USCG approval for expenditure ceilings; • Initiating remedial action contracting mechanisms such as Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS) contracts and Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs); • Utilizing the NCP’s federal support structure to obtain assistance from other federal agencies; and • Tracking progress and costs of remediation. (If the cleanup period is 30 days or less, cost documentation must be submitted within 30 days of completion; however, for incidents that result in cleanup activities that exceed 30 days, cost documentation packages must be created every 45 days.) In addition to EPA’s ability to access OSLTF, states can access the fund in three ways as follows: • Direct access, • Pollution Removal Funding Authorization (PRFA), or • Claims to the NPFC. OPA also stipulates that the President, upon the request of a state Governor, may obligate OSLTF monies through the NPFC for payments less than $250,000 for removal costs consistent with the NCP required for the immediate oil release removal or for mitigation of a substantial release threat.54 Claimants have 3 years within which to make damage claims, and 6 years “after the date of completion of all removal actions” to make a claim for removal costs.55 In terms of short- and long-term recovery, the types of claims available under the NPFC include • Real and personal property damages including boat damage; • Loss of profits and earning capacity; • Loss of government revenue or increased public services (state and local governments only); and • Natural resources damages (natural resource trustees only) and loss of subsistence use of natural resources. Since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, OPA’s liability cap has been called into question as a result of the extent of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Various legislators have sought to raise the cap through a variety of means, including a failed proposal to increase the cap to $10 billion.56 As of the publication of this report, discussion is ongoing in Congress regarding liability limits. Technically, OPA requires the President to issue regulations at least every 3 years to adjust the cap; however, there is no “per incident” provision that would take into account extreme disasters such as Deepwater Horizon. In June 2010, the President announced that British Petroleum had established a $20 billion fund that will be processed by an independent claims facility to cover economic damage claims from people and businesses that suffered from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.57 As a result of this $20 billion fund, the NPFC has adjusted its claims process to reflect British Petroleum’s obliga- tions. According to NPFC documentation, individuals, businesses, and local governments must

Resources Available to Support Community Recovery 29 first file with British Petroleum before they file through OSLTF (although states may continue to file directly with NPFC). Only if British Petroleum denies the claim, or if the claim goes unsettled for more than 90 days, may claims then be made with NFPC.58 3.2.4 Stafford Act If the situation were to arise where the President declares that an incident is a major disaster or emergency, the following programs may be activated to assist with recovery efforts (see Chapter 2 for a discussion of Stafford Act activation requirements and applicability). The President also determines which programs will be made available and to what extent: • Public Assistance Program (Section 406 of the Stafford Act) – These are grants to state and local governments, tribal nations, and certain private non-profit organizations to assist with response costs, emergency work, and repairs to facilities damaged by the disaster. Grants are provided on a cost-sharing basis, with the federal share not less than 75 percent of eligible costs, and are paid as reimbursements. • Individual Assistance Program (Section 408 of the Stafford Act) – This program provides financial assistance to individuals, private businesses, and certain private non-profit organiza- tions through a “needs met” process. The major provisions include low-interest loans from the Small Business Administration (interest is based on the ability to repay the loan), access to approximately 30 federally administered grant programs, and short- and long-term housing assistance. • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404 of the Stafford Act) – These are post-disaster mitigation grants available to all eligible public assistance applicants throughout the state in which the disaster is declared. Grant funding is allocated using a sliding scale formula based on a percentage of the estimated total federal assistance under the Stafford Act. Applicants with a FEMA-approved state or tribal standard mitigation plan may receive (1) up to 15 percent of the first $2 billion of the estimated aggregate amount of disaster assistance, (2) up to 10 percent for the next portion of the estimated aggregate amount more than $2 billion and up to $10 bil- lion, and (3) 7.5 percent for the next portion of the estimated aggregate amount more than $10 billion and up to $35.333 billion. Applicants with a FEMA-approved state or tribal enhanced mitigation plan are eligible for HMGP funding not to exceed 20 percent of the esti- mated total federal assistance under the Stafford Act, up to $35.333 billion of such assistance, excluding administrative costs authorized for the disaster. Because of the duplication of benefits clause in Section 312 of the Stafford Act, and further discussed in Section 206.226(a)(1) of 44 CFR, Stafford Act funding will not reimburse costs that are eligible for payment through another federal program or agency or are covered by a financial mechanism (such as insurance or private donations). 3.3 Other Resources Available to Support Recovery Efforts Emergency and disaster response is immediately initiated at the local level. Typically, during the response phase to any potentially catastrophic event, a locality performs an assessment of the situation as it unfolds and while the jurisdiction is responding. The jurisdiction is then able to project use and maximization of its resources to determine the need for escalation to a higher level of government to secure and coordinate additional resources to adequately meet and allevi- ate the threatening situation. When a community has exhausted its available resources, including supplemental resources through mutual aid agreements, compacts, or contracts, the community can apply for assistance

30 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned to the state through its county. It is assumed that local communities understand what additional resources are available to them through mutual aid within their state and, therefore, these are not specifically discussed in this report. When more resources are required than are available through the state, the local community can request (through the state) that FEMA, the federal coordinating agency under the NRF, activate various NRF ESFs or NDRF Recovery Support Functions (RSFs), which then provide resources from select federal agencies to assist with the incident. FEMA’s National Response Resource Center indicates that ESFs are “used by the federal government and many state governments as the primary mechanism at the operational level to organize and provide assistance. ESFs align categories of resources and provide strategic objec- tives for their use. ESFs utilize standardized resource management concepts such as typing, inven- torying, and tracking to facilitate the dispatch, deployment, and recovery of resources before, during, and after an incident” (http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/glossary.htm#E). The NDRF explains that the six RSFs “ . . . bring together federal departments and agencies – including those not active in emergency response – to collaborate and focus on recovery needs. The RSFs are organized into six manageable components and through the RSFs relevant stake- holders and experts are brought together during steady-state planning and, when activated, post- disaster to identify and resolve recovery challenges.”59 This section of the report provides background information on the various types of federal and private resources that are available to meet the response and recovery needs of a community regardless of hazard. 3.3.1 Federal Support The NRF and NDRF identify ESFs and RSFs that are available to state and local governments to assist in response and recovery operations. As noted previously, for hazardous materials trans- portation incidents, ESF #10 is the overarching authority and designates a FOSC from either the EPA or USCG (depending on the location of the incident). The FOSC’s role is defined as “ . . . the federal official responsible for monitoring or directing responses to all oil spills and hazardous substance releases reported to the federal government” (http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/nrs/ nrsosc.htm). Hazardous materials incidents are one of three types of incidents wherein federal authorities may take a leading role in response and recovery operations (the others are the law enforcement response to a terrorist attack and response to a nuclear incident). For community planning pur- poses, it is helpful to identify available assistance and resources and how these may be utilized as defined in the federal ESFs and RSFs. Table 3-1 provides an overview of applicable ESFs and RSFs and identifies the responsible federal agency for that function. 3.3.2 Emergency Management Assistance Compact61 The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) is a national inter-state mutual aid agreement that enables states to share resources during times of disaster. EMAC is adminis- tered by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA). EMAC is first and foremost a state-to-state compact; however, FEMA and EMAC leadership have a long-standing agree- ment in which NEMA, through the National Coordination Group (NCG), facilitates requests to deploy a team to coordinate EMAC activities with federal personnel when requested. Requesting and deploying resources is at the discretion of the impacted (requesting) state allowing them the ability to pick what they need and for what price. The responding (assisting) state only has to offer assistance if they have the resources and can deploy them.

Resources Available to Support Community Recovery 31 Resource Description NRF Emergency Support Functions ESF #3 – Public Works and Engineering : Coordinating Agency – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Pre- and post-incident assessments of public works and infrastructure; • Executing emergency contract support for life-saving and life-sustaining services; • Providing technical assistance to in clude engineering expertise, construction management, and contracting and real estate services; and • Providing emergency repair of damaged public in frastructure and critical facilities. ESF #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services: Coordinating Agency – Federal Emergency Management Agency Mass Care: • Sheltering; • Feeding operations; • Emergency first aid; • Bulk distribution of emergency items; and • Collecting and providing information on victims to families. Emergency Assistance: • Support of evacuations (registra tion and tracking of evacuees); • Reunification of families; • Provision of aid and services to special needs populations; • Evacuation, sheltering, and other emergency services for household pets and service animals; • Support to specialized shelters; • Support to medical shelters; • Nonconventional shelter management; • Coordination of donated goods and services; and • Coordination of volunt ary agency assistance. Housing (most of these services fall under the Stafford Act and may not be available following a hazardous materials transportation incident): • Rental assistance; • Repair; • Loan assistance; • Replacement; • Factory-built housing; • Semi-permanent and permanent construction; • Referrals; • Identification and provision of accessible housing; and • Access to other sources of housing assistance. Human Services (most of these services fall under the Stafford Act and may not be available following a hazardous materials transportation incident): • Implementation of disaster assistance pr ograms to help disaster victims recover their non-housing losses; programs to replace destroyed personal property; • Help to obtain disaster loans, food stamps, crisis counseling, disaster unemployment, disaster legal services; and • Support and services for special needs populations. ESF #8 – Public Health and Medical Services: Coordinating Agency – Department of Health and Human Services • Assessment of public health/medical needs; • Health surveillance; • Medical care personnel; • Health/medical/veterinary equipment and supplies; • Patient evacuation; • Patient care; • Safety and security of drugs, biologics, and medical devices; • Blood and blood products; • Food safety and security; • Agriculture safety and security; • All-hazard public health and medical consultation, technical assistance, and support; • Behavioral health care; • Public health and medical information; • Potable water/wastewater and solid waste disposal; • Mass fatality management, victim identification, and decontaminating remains; and • Veterinary medical support. Table 3-1. ESF and RSF resources. (continued on next page)

32 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned ESF #10 – Oil and Hazardous Materials Response: Coordinating Agency – Environmental Protection Agency • Actions to prevent, minimize, or mitigate a release; • Efforts to detect and assess the extent of contamination (including sampling and analysis and environmental monitoring); • Actions to stabilize the release and prevent the spread of contamination; • Analysis of options for environmental cleanup and waste disposal; • Implementation of environmental cleanup; and • Storage, treatment, and disposal of oil and hazardous materials. ESF #14 – Long-Term Community Recovery: Coordinating Agency – Federal Emergency Management Agency The NDRF replaces the NRF Emergency Support Function #14 (ESF #14) - Long- Term Community Recovery.60 Key ESF #14 concepts are expanded in the NDRF and include recovery-specific leadership, organizational structure, planning guidance, and other components needed to coordinate continuing recovery support to individuals, businesses, and communities. NDRF Recovery Support Functions Community Planning and Capacity Building: Coordinating Agency – Federal Emergency Management Agency Primary Agencies – Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Health and Human Services Supporting and building recovery capacities and community planning resources of local, state and tribal governments needed to effectively plan for, manage, and implement disaster recovery activities in large, unique, or catastrophic incidents. • Assists states in developing a pre- and post-disaster support for their communities. • Provides an emphasis on hazard mitigation throughout pre- and post-disaster recovery planning and implementation. • Serves as a mechanism for the integration of non-governmental and private-sector resources into public-sector recovery planning processes. Economic Development: Coordinating Agency – Department of Commerce Primary Agencies – Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Small Business Administration, Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture Integrate the expertise of federal government to help local, state, and tribal governments and the private sector sustain and/or rebuild businesses and employment and develop economic opportunities that result in sustainable and economically resilient communities after large-scale and catastrophic incidents. Resource Description Health, Social, and Community Services: Coordinating Agency – Department of Health and Human Services Primary Agencies – Corporation for National and Community Service, Department of Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Protection Programs Directorate, and Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties), Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Education Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Veterans Affairs The Health and Social Services RSF mission is for the federal government to assist locally led recovery efforts in the restoration of the public health, health care, and social services networks to promote the resilience, health, and well-being of affected individuals and communities. Housing: Coordinating Agency – Department of Housing and Urban Development Primary Agencies – Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Justice. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture Address pre- and post-disaster housing issues and coordinate and facilitate the delivery of federal resources and activities to assist local, state, and tribal governments in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of destroyed and damaged housing, whenever feasible, and development of other new accessible, permanent housing options. Table 3-1. (Continued).

Resources Available to Support Community Recovery 33 EMAC complements the federal disaster response system by providing timely and cost-effective relief to requesting states from assisting states who understand the needs of communities strug- gling to preserve life, the economy, and the environment. EMAC can be used for traditional emergency management assistance for incident management either in lieu of federal assistance, or in conjunction with it, and provides another source of assistance. More information on EMAC is available on the EMAC website (http://www.emacweb.org/). 3.3.3 Public-Private Partnerships The private sector also plays an essential role in protecting critical infrastructure and imple- menting plans to restore normal commercial activities. Private-sector organizations, ranging from local businesses to nationwide chains, are instrumental to improving the quality of life for individuals impacted by a disaster, as well as enhancing the pace at which communities recover. The private sector shares a common need with communities to restore, as well as revitalize, impacted areas as quickly as possible. Rapidly returning to pre-incident conditions allows busi- ness to return to normal operating conditions quickly, thereby reducing the impact of any losses. Similarly, re-opening businesses in affected areas allows communities to more effectively target public resources on areas of remaining need. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5): Management of Domestic Incidents states The federal government recognizes the role that the private and non-governmental sectors play in pre- venting, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The secretary [Department of Homeland Security] will coordinate with the private and non-governmental sectors to ensure adequate planning, equipment, training, and exercise activities and to promote partnerships to address incident management capabilities.62 Within this context, public-private partnerships have demonstrated their value in homeland security and emergency response capability by helping to fill gaps neither government nor industry acting alone could address. Public-private partnerships also require a level of trust that is built at the local level. These relationships grow and are strengthened as partners work together to achieve a common goal. Such partnerships make it possible for business and government leaders to work together for the welfare of their communities on an ongoing basis across many initiatives.63 Description Resource Infrastructure Systems: Coordinating Agency – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Primary Agencies – Department of Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Protection Programs Directorate), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation Facilitate the integration of the capabilities of the federal government to support local, state, and tribal governments and other infrastructure owners and operators in their efforts to achieve recovery goals relating to the public engineering of the nation’s infrastructure systems. Natural and Cultural Resources: Coordinating Agency – Department of the Interior Primary Agencies – Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency Integrate federal assets and capabilities to help state, tribal governments, and communities address long-term environmental and cultural resource recovery needs after large-scale and catastrophic incidents. (SOURCES: National Response Framework Resource Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency, http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ nrf/glossary.htm#E and National Disaster Recovery Framework, September 2011, Federal Emergency Management Agency, http://www.fema.gov/recoveryframework/) Table 3-1. (Continued).

34 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned FEMA maintains a listing of successful models for public-private partnerships on their web- site. Table 3-2 highlights some of the examples provided on that site. Additional, successful programs encouraging public-private partnerships are described in “Con- tingency Planning Advances through Public & Private Partnerships” and include the following:64 • Public-Private Partnerships 2000 (PPP 2000). A cooperative effort of the 19 agencies com- prising the Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, part of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, as well as other National Level Citizen Corps Background: Citizen Corps is the grassroots movement to strengthen community safety and preparedness through increased civic engagement. Citizen Corps is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency but implemented locally. Citizen Corps strives to bring together government and community leaders and engage the public in all-hazards emergency preparedness. Requirements for Success: • A commitment from elected officials and government leadership to participate in two-way interaction with the community; • Input and participation from civic leaders from all sectors; • Outreach through trusted organizations and networks to all segments of the community; • Shared responsibility and mutual benefit for participants; • Participating organizations contribute to common goals while retaining their own missions; • Resources to build and sustain engagement; • Clearly stated common goals and measurable annual objectives. Goals and Objectives: • Engaging the whole community in collaborative community planning and capacity building; • Integration of community resources; • Outreach and localized preparedness education and training; and • Emergency communications to all population segments. Resources: A seat in the Emergency Operations Center; resources to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters; web resources; grants; and tools and templates. State Level California Business and Utility Operations Center (BUOC) Background: The impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the need to better integrate the private-sector resources with public-sector emergency services. The need to respond rapidly, ensure the safety of all Californians; provide necessary emergency water, shelter, food and clothing; and to ensure the viability of economic recovery requires collective resources and efforts of public and private entities. Cal EMA and the BUOC members worked together to develop a strategy and operational plan to foster this critical partnership. The BUOC Activation Guidelines assist business and government to communicate, collaborate, and take the actions necessary to mitigate the effects of emergencies in California. Requirements for Success: • Provide trained, knowledgeable staff to support Cal EMA during times of disaster needs; and • Cal EMA will share situational awareness information and training opportunities. Goals and Objectives: • Continuity of community. BUOC will help facilitate continuity of community following disasters and may include maintenance of critical infrastructure such as transportation, power, food, water, shelter, health care, and telecommunications; • Enhanced situational awareness. BUOC will provide a greater degree of situational awareness to all parties. Situational awareness plays a key role in supporting informed decisionmaking and avoiding duplication or conflict in efforts by the private-sector and government; • Increased information flow. BUOC will provide an increased bi-directional flow of information relating to activities, policies, and other efforts affecting critical community resources; • Improved private-sector support. The private sector has significant capability and willingness to provide supplies, services, and assistance to government. Through the BUOC, the private sector can provide this support more efficiently and effectively; and • Development of close partnerships. Both the private sector and the government have the opportunity to develop trusted relationships and become true partners in the emergency response and recovery efforts. Resources: A seat in the Emergency Operations Centers; resources to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters; Web resources; tools and templates, and BUOC guidelines. Model Description of the Partnership Table 3-2. Model public-private partnerships highlighted by FEMA.

Resources Available to Support Community Recovery 35 Model Description of the Partnership County Level Miami-Dade, FL Business Recovery Program (BRP) Background: The Miami-Dade County BRP is a public-private collaboration designed to ensure private- sector emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The BRP is open to any organization and currently is composed of businesses, non-profits, and educational institutions. The Miami-Dade BRP is a county-led initiative with close support from Florida International University, whose team is continually developing unique tools, including the Business Continuity Information Network (BCIN), to facilitate the development of the program and achievement of its goals. BCIN is a Web-based service where public and private organizations can gather to share critical information and resources as well as support continuity efforts before, during, and after a disaster. Requirements for Success: The need to have member organizations representing diverse segments of the community who take an active role in driving the group toward achieving its goals. Goals and Objectives: • Developing symbiotic relationships where businesses benefit by being able to open their doors quickly after a disaster; • Building a disaster-resilient private sector; • Facilitating the timely exchange of information and resources; • Creating and maintaining a perpetual network of private- and public-sector participants. Resources: A seat in the Emergency Operations Center; resources to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters; Web resources; tools and templates; and Business Continuity Information Network. Regional Level Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L) Background: In 2006 KCP&L approached the City of Kansas City to do a joint exercise testing communication and team building with KCP&L funding the exercise. In 2008, another drill was conducted with Johnson County EM, City of Overland Park, KS, City of Olathe, KS, and WaterOne (local water utility). KCP&L covers an 18,000-square-mile, 47-county region in Eastern Kansas (250,000 customers) and Western Missouri (600,000 customers). Requirements for success: Keeping focused on the desire to improve response to a major incident. Goals and Objectives: • Testing and developing communication channels; • Regional overview of city and county EOPs and how KCP&L's plan fits; • Developing long-term relationships in the region; and • Building relationships with key emergency management personnel. Resources: A seat in the Emergency Operations Center; resources to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters; and Web resources. City Level Chicago, IL The Critical Infrastructure Resiliency Task Force (CIRTF) Background: The CIRTF expands upon existing programs by combining public-sector organizations (fire, police, emergency management) with private-sector representatives (utilities, building owners, financial firms, etc.). The group includes senior-level operational representatives from each agency or institution. The purpose of the group is to fast-track solutions to common issues affecting both the private and public sector. The primary focus of the group is on infrastructure and interconnected systems. Active partners include the Mayor's Office, the Chicago Fire Department, the Chicago Police Department, the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), Chicago FIRST, AT&T, Commonwealth Edison, and Peoples Gas. Requirements for Success: • Joint participation and buy-in of both public-sector and private-sector representatives; and • Participants have an operational background with their organizations, and the authority to make substantive decisions. Goals and Objectives: • Promoting high-level contacts between the public and private sectors; • Assessing and recognizing critical infrastructure and interconnected systems; • Identifying and developing redundancies within critical systems; and • Exercising and training to consistently raise standards of preparedness. Resources: Resources to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters; tools and templates; and joint training and exercises. Table 3-2. (Continued). (continued on next page)

36 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned private-sector organizations. The goal is to “seek new and innovative opportunities for gov- ernment and non-profit, private-sector organizations to work together to reduce vulnerability to, and losses from, natural hazards in communities across the nation.” • The Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). IBHS showcases states to demonstrate the benefits of taking specific, creative steps at the state government level to reduce deaths, injuries, property damage, economic losses, and human suffering caused by natural disasters. • The Florida Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH). The insurance industry, the State of Florida, the federal government, and national nonprofit organizations have formed a statewide public awareness and education campaign for Floridians. • The New York State Joint Loss Reduction Partnership Project. This partnership includes the Contingency Planning Exchange (CPE), FEMA, a representative of the state’s business leader- ship, along with key federal, state, and local government officials under the leadership of the state emergency management office. Initiatives include leveraging the expertise of many companies based in New York concerning actions necessary to make the state’s businesses disaster resistant. • International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). Actively pursues partnerships that advance coordination and support between public and private organizations and con- stituencies worldwide. • Disaster Recovery Business Alliance (DRBA). A nationwide initiative to unite public and private sectors, one municipality at a time. • National and independent contingency planning organizations, with public- and private- sector members, participate in disaster mitigation and continuity of operations educational workshops, mentoring, training, and exercises. • Community Emergency Operations Centers arrange for private-sector liaison representa- tives to have a presence in times of emergency for better communications and resources. Model Description of the Partnership Event Specific Florida Background: Florida’s more than 18 million residents and visitors face hurricanes and other natural disasters. Innovative emergency managers augmented standard (broadcast) emergency communication by also delivering specific, localized messages to the public via digital billboards. Digital billboards operated by the private sector display static images that do not scroll or flash. Under Florida law, these static images may change every 6 seconds. Digital billboards allow emergency managers to reach motorists at no cost to the public. The Florida Outdoor Advertising Association (FOAA) volunteers to post emergency messages on donated digital billboards as a public service. FOAA is a member of the state Emergency Response Team. In an emergency, Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) contacts FOAA to request digital billboard postings and to provide information for the alert such as geographic area and timeframe. After sign-off by FDEM, FOAA inserts an alert message into a pre- approved template and notifies participating member companies in the affected area, or statewide, if necessary. Participating billboard companies track display times and locations to quantify the scope of the communication. Requirements for Success: • Digital billboard inventory; • Willingness of digital billboard operators to donate space for emergency messages and provide timely postings; • Protocols for uniform operation such as templates for messages; • Designated staff in government and the private sector to manage the partnership; and • Speedy, effective communication between state emergency officials and private billboard operators. Goals and Objectives: • Enhance the state Emergency Response Team’s ability to communicate critical information quickly to Floridians during disasters; • Use the latest technology to communicate emergency information to mobile residents and visitors outside the home; and • Cultivate public/private partnerships. Resources: FOAA has the ability to provide information through its website, and to provide tools and templates to create the alert notification messages on the billboards quickly and easily. (SOURCE: “Public-Private Partnership Models,” Federal Emergency Management Agency website, http://www.fema.gov/privatesector/ppp_models.shtm) Table 3-2. (Continued).

Resources Available to Support Community Recovery 37 Developing public-private partnerships is a proven approach to improving disaster resilience for both the community and private-sector businesses. An example of one city’s deliberate efforts to proactively cultivate this type of relationship follows in the next section. 3.3.4 The Howard Street Tunnel Incident and Subsequent Recovery Efforts Public-private partnerships can develop through the planning process or as a result of actual response and recovery operations. Organizations working on the cleanup associated with a haz- ardous materials incident may forge partnerships based on cooperation and a better understand- ing of the role each plays. One example of this is the aftermath of the Howard Street Tunnel fire in Baltimore, MD. On July 18, 2001, a CSX train passing through the Howard Street Tunnel derailed resulting in the release of several types of toxic chemicals and a large fire. In addition, a large water main above the tunnel ruptured. This incident significantly disrupted freight and commuter rail traf- fic, slowed Internet service, and closed surrounding businesses for 6 days.65 As a follow-up to this incident, a joint inspection was performed by CSX and the City of Bal- timore. Although no specific cause of the incident was ever established, CSX committed to more frequent tunnel inspections, expedited rail replacement and increased infrared probes to detect hidden track flaws, improved drainage, and installed new pumps. CSX also indicated they would share information directly with the city about hazardous cargo moving through the tunnel (pre- viously, city officials had to wait for notification from the state). In turn, the City of Baltimore’s Office of Emergency Management began exploring the potential for using a Homeland Security grant to purchase an 800-megahertz radio transmitter to install in the tunnel and a portable ven- tilation system. In a statement to WBAL TV, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said “ . . . CSX has been a really great partner working with us. They are doing work improving the drainage and, through the tunnel, they are also going above and beyond when it comes to the safety checks.” 66 This is an example of a partnership that can develop during an incident and continue after- wards to the benefit of both parties. In this case, the net benefit to the surrounding community was a safer tunnel and more timely notification of hazardous cargo movements. 3.3.5 Private-Sector Resources Numerous private-sector resources are also available to assist local communities with their planning, response, and recovery operations following a hazardous materials transportation incident. Three examples of these resources include the following: • CHEMTREC – This is a round-the-clock resource for response operations for incidents involving hazardous materials and dangerous goods. CHEMTREC can provide chemical and response specialists, public emergency services, and private contractors to assist in the cleanup operations (http://www.chemtrec.com/). • TRANSCAER® (Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response) – This is a voluntary national outreach effort that provides assistance to communities to prepare for, and respond to, a possible hazardous materials transportation incident by promoting safe transportation and handling of hazardous materials, educating and assisting communi- ties near major transportation routes about hazardous materials, and assisting with com- munity emergency response planning for hazardous material transportation incidents. These resources consist of volunteer representatives from the chemical manufacturing, transporta- tion, distributor, and emergency response industries, as well as the government (http://www. transcaer.com/).

38 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned • Responsible Party – The responsible party needs to be involved in the operations immediately after the incident. They become a part of the unified command and have access to technical expertise on the product(s) involved, as well as to contractors and consultants to ensure a complete cleanup is accomplished. Additional resources to consider are contractors, consultants, and professional organizations. Industry-related professional organizations have access to member organizations that can bring technical expertise, specialized equipment, and other resources that may be required. Many of these private-sector entities are available to provide assistance with recovery planning and opera- tions, as well as for development of appropriate public education materials and information campaigns.