SUMMARY
JOINT AMCBO/NCSBCS Public Sector Members Teleconference
TOPIC: NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION SAFETY TEAM ACT
Participants: States of Florida, New Jersey,
Cities of: Akron, OH; Baltimore, MD; Richmond, VA; Phoenix, AZ; New York City;
San Antonio, TX; Atlanta, GA; Columbus, OH; Denver, CO; Wilmington, DE;
County of: Fairfax, VA
WELCOME: Ila Jones, Chair of the NCSBCS Regulatory Affairs Committee and NCSBCS Florida Delegate welcomed attendees to the call. Ms. Jones introduced Claude Cooper, AMCBO Chair, and Mark Topping, NYC and Vice Chair of the Regulatory Affairs Committee.
Ms. Jones then welcomed to the call and introduced Dr. James Hill, Acting Director, NIST Center for Building and Fire Research. Dr. Hill provided an overview of the National Construction Safety Team Act and addressed the five questions framed for this call.
OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION SAFETY TEAM ACT: Dr. Hill
Act was created in response to 9/11 WTC towers collapse - 3,000 plus deaths. Congress felt there needed to be an organization like NTSB for building failures. On 10/01/02 signed into law and gave authority to NIST for NCSTA.
Purpose of Act:
Any building failure with a substantial loss of life or potential substantial loss of life. ("Substantial" not defined in Act.)
Gave authority to NIST to form teams
NIST Duties:
Role is not to find fault/who is responsible.
Then supposed to make recommendations as to how failure addressed
NIST 20 years prior had authority to investigate major fires and was invited to investigate some structural collapses.
NIST SPECIFIC AUTHORITY under the ACT:
Launch investigation teams, do investigations, and issue public report 90 days after investigation is completed.
Have no authority to implement the recommendations. Can promote but not implement
(recommendations would be made to: professional societies, model code organizations, etc.)
Will make recommendations and work with groups to get adopted but can’t force.
(LIKE NTSB)
Over last 15 months NIST has:
November 28, 2003, Federal Register called for comments to NIST by December 28 - Second Rule on Forming Teams and criteria to do investigations. (Previous rule covered legal issues.)
Met with NTSB learning how they do investigations andtheir processes and procedures.
Procured equipment - still in formative stage.
No appropriations to implement the Act to date from Congress; none on horizon.
Until get appropriations from Congress not likely to do any more investigations.
OPEN TO QUESTIONS:
Question - Currently when an Investigation Team goes into a jurisdiction how do they interface with the code enforcement officials (building and/or fire department) in that community?
Answer - J. Hill - Based on only two investigations so far, interface with search and rescue people and those in control of disaster site. Will interface with building department after the failure and depends on how that jurisdiction’s building department is involved in the disaster site and follow-up. In NYC, working with Port Authority of NY/NJ. Since then, interface with NYC Department of Buildings.
In RI a criminal investigation is involved and NIST has done very little interaction with RI officials due to fact that NIST must rely on secondary sources to do their investigation work.
Future interface with local building or fire department will be a function of the event and how successful NIST is able to educate local government about the Act and its Team’s responsibilities.
Question - Claude Cooper - Described his experience in Fairfax County, VA, in 1970’s when a gag order had been issued in the Bailey Crossroads high-rise failure.
Answer - J Hill - NIST is working under similar circumstances in West Warwick, RI.
Question - Mark Topping - In proposed rule, whether or not NIST does an investigation depends in part if this would cause a duplication of investigations because a state or local government has started an investigation. Will NIST contact building officials as part of the protocol to determine if such a state or local investigation is being established?
Answer- J. Hill - Yes that would be appropriate. NIST under the Act needs to establish a whole network to educate state/local officials about Act. A Federal Register Rule is out now for comment. Need to establish mechanism to make sure that NIST investigation is not causing a duplication of sources at state and/or local level.
In Chicago, for example, Illinois is launching its own investigation of federal building fire deaths with James Lee Witt running it and so NIST deferred conducting any investigation under the Act to the state of Illinois.
Need to figure out a way to sort out who will be doing investigations early on.
Question - M. Topping - Can NCSBCS help in the outreach to state and local officials and in helping sort out who does investigations?
Answer - J Hill - Help from NCSBCS would be appropriate and appreciated.
Question - Does NIST and/or the investigation team hold periodic "off-the-record" briefings with the building/fire department and elected officials?
Answer - J. Hill - It is not likely that an investigation team would hold any off the record briefings. Like NTSB, NIST would hold periodic briefings on record.
Question - Would NIST under this program want input or assistance from jurisdictions in drafting a protocol for cooperation between the building/fire department and the NIST investigation team that could then be used as a template nationwide?
Answer - J Hill - Yes, NIST would be open to such help, suggestions, assistance. Need to establish a network of communications in and around the country. Already have received offers from others, such as all state FEMA coordinators, fire marshals. NCSBCS can provide thoughts and suggestions as to how to set-up such a communications network. This would be welcomed.
Question - How does/would NIST investigation team interface with local building officials efforts to recover from the disaster and get business and the economy in that community back to "normal? (Any lessons here from NYC?)
Answer – J Hill - In the World Trade Center in NYC, NIST got involved over a year after the event occurred. Recovery is not part of NIST responsibility under the Act. Just do investigation and that’s it.
Question - Claude Cooper - NYC Buildings Department went through large effort to get business relocated into functioning building. Would that delay your investigation needs?
Answer - Yes it would delay us, and we would defer to getting a city functioning again. NIST takes common sense approach to this.
Under the Act, NIST has subpoena power which we haven’t used to date. Our intention is to use it very sparingly and not to impose unreasonable requests on local government and to be understanding.
Question - Mark Topping - Needs of investigation in terms of materials and could in investigating on site situation could delay repairs to that structure. Any discussions how to approach that situation? How would NIST sort out the static investigation needs versus community’s need in moving forward with remediation?
Answer – J Hill – No, haven’t addressed this yet. But see that safety must be addressed first and that NIST team will need to work with local community to address this concern. Common sense would have to prevail.
Question - What will NIST do once it issues its final investigation report? What will NIST do regarding follow-up on recommendations regarding changes in building and/or fire codes, codes administration process/procedures, enabling legislation in the jurisdiction?
Answer - J Hill - As noted earlier, NIST will only promote the adoption of its recommendations. Can not enforce them. In each case, NIST will go to the relevant organization that can make those changes and will encourage them to do so.
Emphasis/focus of NIST’s recommendations will be towards national model codes and standards. Cannot envision involvement in enabling legislation in a community.
Question - Cynthia Wilk - Could NIST submit a code change proposal or only recommend one?
Answer – J Hill - Suppose that is possible; haven’t gotten there yet. At least will make recommendation and someone else make it.
Comment - C. Wilk - In her mind recommendation is a code change.
Question - Norman Koplon, Atlanta - What would keep a jurisdiction from adopting NIST recommendation locally?
Answer - J Hill - Nothing. But we are making recommendations to national models.
Question - Koplon - Major cities used to generate their own building codes but now use models to varying degrees. Will NIST make recommendations to a specific jurisdiction’s building code?
Answer - J Hill - NIST has recommendation authority only and cannot enforce or cause a jurisdiction to adopt. NIST will promote the adoption of them as best we can.
Question - Koplon - Many of our cities have older building retrofit issues. While some of us have been able to phase in retrofit requirements for sprinklers or seismic changes, others have not. Given that findings/recommendations made by a NIST team might find that we need to make further revisions to our codes and standards about retrofit, what can NIST do to keep from frightening every owner of a building when there is some aspect in design that is suddenly found to be inherently unsafe?
Answer - J Hill - NIST would like your specific recommendations to us as to how to address such a situation.
Comment - Mark Topping, NYC - We had to address this potential problem in NYC with our Code Task Force.
Comment - J Hill - This problem is very issue specific. NIST is sensitive to this.
Comment - C Copper - The joint AMCBO/NCSBCS November 25 conference call on high-rise retrofit needs touched on this. The proposed high-rise retrofit conference being put together by AMCBO and NCSBCS needs to discuss and offer recommendations as to how such findings are addressed by NIST in its recommendations when they are uncovered.
Question - J Hill - How did NYC Department of Buildings and the NYC Code Task Force in their report handle the fear/concern factor in city relative to their findings?
Answer - M Topping - NYC took a combination approach - did make changes require retroactive provision changes and in other cases took a risk management approach. In general, NYC buildings are safe. Hitting a building with a large plane is unique event and generally beyond scope of codes. Had to emphasize codes are strong and safe; put it in context.
Question - Atlanta - Offered a hypothetical codes situation and asked NIST how they would address.
Answer - J Hill - NIST will need to think about how to implement the recommendation so as to not cause undue panic or alarm. The wording of the preamble to the finding could help in this regard.
Comment - San Antonio - Outcome of Northridge Earthquake follow-up was parallel to this. Findings ended up being put in as amendments in the 2000 IBC. That’s how codes get changed.
Comment - Phoenix - Also in aftermath of Northridge, California and Arizona building officials got together and corrected deficiencies in retrofit.
Question - R Wible, NCSBCS - Will NIST make recommendations to associations representing legislatures or other elected officials if team findings include fact that a jurisdiction politically legislated a reduction in the appropriate codes or standards in that community and that contributed to the disaster (e.g. a legislature in a high seismic zone not adopting the model code seismic safety provisions appropriate to that city’s zone and adopting lesser provisions instead – "earthquakes can’t happen here")?
Answer - J Hill - NIST will make recommendations wherever it deems appropriate including to associations representing government.
Question - C Wilk - What role does the National Advisory Board play?
Answer - J Hill - The National Advisory Board does not function like the National Transportation Safety Board. It is NIST that does the investigations not the National Advisory Board.
The Advisory Board instead: advises the Director of NIST on how to carry out the ACT, reviews inspection team activities, recommends improvements, prepares an annual report to Congress and reviews findings. Advisory Board is comprised of 10 individuals with strong technical credentials in fire/materials/structures.
Advisory Board has met 3 times at NIST and commented on draft NIST procedures and looked at project investigations. Board will comment on recent Federal Register Notice but will not review the comments that come in. That is NIST’s role.
NIST will share information with the Advisory Board but it is NIST’s responsibility to revise the rule.
GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Comment - Greg Burgoon, Akron - Took a course offered by the US Department of Justice – Course on how to assist emergency responders. Training was useful. Chain of command protocol. NIST teams may find that course useful as well.
Response - J Hill - Looks like training that we could use for our staff.
Question - Mark Topping - Is the safety team’s role investigatory only?
Answer - J Hill - That is absolutely right. NIST is not in control in any way on disaster site.
Question - M Topping - Can NIST offer advice to local officials on remediation and security of the site?
Answer - J Hill – Yes, if NIST team members have that experience and request is made by the jurisdiction for such input then team member would probably do it. NIST teams, for example, have extensive fire experience. However, I want to stress that the primary purpose of the NIST investigation team under the Act is to gather information for our investigation only.
Question - C Cooper - NIST helped Fairfax County with technical advice on progressive collapse and unbonded protective concrete back during the Bailey Crossroads incident. Will NIST be doing anything like this in future?
Answer - J Hill - Yes, in this situation its different under the Act. Today NIST has much broader authority. Now it is formalized with rigorous requirements.
Question - Phoenix - Has NIST looked at ATC-20 disaster assessment procedures?
Answer - J Hill - NIST will look at these as more resources are available. NIST plans to assemble a library of such assessment tools and procedures and review them for appropriate application in the team’s work.
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF NOVEMBER 28th FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE:
Comment - Claude Cooper - Believe states and localities should support the Federal Register input - must offer network to support this program. Collectively we localities and states have documentation and resources that NIST teams will need. Support going on record offering a network for getting that information.
Comment - Mark Topping - Concur with Claude that this should be supported. In terms of network as that rule require notification of building officials either through incident command. Recommend that as soon as NIST considers sending a team to investigate a disaster that the building department in that jurisdiction be contacted immediately. The building department may have valuable input to NIST.
Question - Akron, OH - How many jurisdictions know about this? EOC’s in large cities?
Answer - J.Hill - At present NYC and West Warwick for sure. Others need to learn about it.
Comment – Akron - Offered input to NIST to assist in outreach to major jurisdiction EOC’s.
Comment - C Wilk - States and localities need to work with Jim Hill and NIST - give access to listings of building offices in state and local jurisdictions. (NCSBCS will provide access to NIST to its database for this information.)
Comment - Atlanta - Whatever comes out of this needs to be done. Hope federal government applies NIST recommendations to their facilities as well as states and localities.
Comment - San Antonio - City had a collapsed building under construction a year ago and hired an independent forensic engineer to go back in and tell us what happened. Main purpose was to make sure that the jurisdiction didn’t overlook anything and make changes to assure it doesn’t happen again. Issue was onsite and was just an accident, however, city put in additional procedures and precautions. Work of NIST teams will be valuable.
Comment - Atlanta - We
should go back into our libraries. Many items in older codes are now in
standards that few people read and, therefore, don’t understand why we require
certain things. Would be good for people to look at original reasons for some of
our code provisions. Perhaps wouldn’t have some problems that occur today if
they did. (For example, section in old Atlanta Building Code regarding when
forms can be removed from concrete.) Structural engineer of record should be
responsible - comment. A peer review doesn’t always find problem.
INPUT SOUGHT FROM JURISDICTIONS BY NCSBCS:
NCSBCS will be commenting on the NIST November 28 Federal Register Notice and Bob Wible requested those on the call to provide him with input for the Conference’s comments. Input must be received at NCSBCS by c.o.b. Monday, December 22.
Ila Jones and Bob Wible encouraged jurisdictions on the call to submit their own comments to NIST as well.
CLOSING OF CALL:
Mrs. Jones thanked Mr. Hill for his participation on the call and the valuable information he provided to everyone about the Act.
Mr. Hill thanked the Chair for the invitation and invited everyone to provide him with their further thoughts and comments at any time by emailing him at james.hill@nist.gov.
The call was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
The Next NCSBCS/AMCBO public members important issues call will be held in February 2004. A notice of the topic and date and time of the call will be sent to members and posted on the NCSBCS/AMCBO website - www.ncsbcs.org.