GovernmentExecutive.com

A proposed federal plan to react to such disasters as the Sept. 11, attacks or Hurricane Katrina came under fire Tuesday from emergency response experts who said the proposal needs revision.

The broad-scale attacks on the National Response Framework put together by the Homeland Security Department and Federal Emergency Management Agency came at a hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Economic Development Subcommittee.

"It is not rocket science and it does not have to be 800 pages long," said Robert Bohlmann of the International Association of Emergency Managers. "The draft NRF that we have reviewed appears to be more like a public relations document rather than a response plan or framework," Bohlmann told the panel.

The draft plan is an outgrowth of legislation approved by Congress last year to deal with the confusing layers of bureaucracy and other problems that arose after the storm.

As an example of his complaint, Bohlmann said, "there is no discussion of the role and responsibility of the FEMA administrator with respect to the president of the United States as Congress clearly delineated."

Similarly, Paul Stockton, senior research scholar at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, said a key responsibility of the draft framework is to clarify the role and responsibilities in the federal emergency management structure.

"Unless revised, the framework will create new confusion over roles at the very top of the system, not only within DHS but also amongst the departments that must partner with FEMA and DHS for disaster response, and with state and local leaders whom the federal government will assist," Stockton said.

Economic Development Subcommittee Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., said she was "deeply troubled that the critiques of the plan we are receiving go to the congressional mandate in the Post Katrina Act itself."

She suggested the Homeland Security Department "just doesn't get it, or does not want to get it."

FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison and Roger Rufe, director of the Office of Operations Coordination for the Homeland Security Department, defended the document. Paulison said the critics had not seen the latest version of the draft, but Norton said it was very close to the one distributed to emergency responders earlier this summer.

Paulison resented the attacks "of a general nature" and said specific concerns will be addressed after a 30-day public review and comment period.

COMMENTS

• The concept of a planning framework is not an inherently bad idea and this one is actually of some help in understanding the so-called National Response System mandated by federal law, Executive Orders, and Homeland Security Directives (HSPDs). But what is missing from the whole process is during any specific event, who will show up, what training and expertise will they have, what money will they be able to use (funding), and what will they be doing. It is important to know exactly who can mission assign under the Stafford Act, where and when! If the Stafford Act is going to be used for any event where the federal establishment is part of the response or recovery to the incident or event then it must be revisited and Congress should go back to 1989 and the tragedy of the VALDEZ event where there was NO declaration of disaster or emergency by the President and determine whether the Stafford Act is truly all-hazards, including terrorism and other man-made incidents or not applicable. Key executive orders relying on the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 that was repealed by Public Law 103-337 in November 1994, must be reviewed to make sure that Executive Orders relying on that statute don't require revision. Finally, all HSPD's must cite their sources of legal authority and funding authority for operations and delegations pursuant to them. The critical failure in the NRF is legal not doctrine or format. Also, the technical response agencies that will be issuing PAR's (Protective Action Recommendations) to the Public, monitoring and decontamination of the public and responders, issuing instructions for access and egress to the contaminated zone, determining that re-entry by responders or the public is okay, and finally fully decontamination and clean-up authority and responsibiltiy must also be determined. What the public, first responders, the federal agencies, state governments, and local governments, NGO's still don't have even after 9/11 and Katrina is a blueprint of what will happen during an incident/event and who and when will help (the cavalry be one the way) nor does the private sector. That is why the National Response Framework has yet to developed. William R. Cumming Posted September 22, 2007 5:47 AM
• First, this is the instruction manual for the plan, not a plan. There will be thousands of plans, and this is a standardization guide. As a deliberate planning framework for "All Hazards", this document is ONLY 84 pages (including the cover and diagrams, etc.) not the 800 pages of rocket science ranted about in the article. That being said, I wonder how many critics have acutally taken the TWO DAYS since the framework's release in DRAFT form to read and constructively criticise it. (DHS has an email address for comments) As a document meant to coordinate the efforts of everyone in the country, it does a good job clarifying roles and responsibilties in an incident without pre-writing any one plan. The reminder that everyone has a part to play, from the individual homeowner on up, should go a long way toward abolishing "poor me" while empowering individuals to protect themselves. Government, and especially Federal government, should and can do only those things which individuals, municipalities, and States cannot to for themselves (Ref. Ammendment X to the Constitution). It's time to choose preparedness over drama. Christopher Krus Posted September 13, 2007 11:44 AM