Despite Katrina, 9/11, and
Sandy, there are still two laws in NJ that are stalling disaster
preparedness. One only requires public employees who are paid
first-responders to report to work during a declared emergency. The
other lacks a specific mandate for communities throughout
NJ to write and test plans for responding to nuclear
terrorism.
Most
Government Workers Still Aren’t Required to Work During a Disaster
S1717
is about protecting most employees from being disciplined for not
reporting to work during a declared emergency.
Prudently,
it still requires some employees in Public Safety Agencies to work
during a declared emergency.
Most
“essential workers” like department heads, non-union supervisors,
and first responders – police, fire services, emergency medical
services, health departments, and public works - already understand
that they have to work during emergencies. This in spite of how
ad-hoc and ephemeral the definition of “essential
worker” has become.
But
S1717 does not specifically require employees from other
public-sector departments to work during a declared emergency. The
ones who are rarely if ever called out to respond to a routine HazMat
- the majority of public sector employees.
The
ones who would be needed to provide essential logistics and support
for first responders and command staff during a regional disaster:
shelters, food and medical deliveries, clinics, warehouses, phone
banks, inventories, Information Technology, and clerical work.
So,
despite what we learned during Super Storm Sandy - when most
volunteers were unable to respond during the first crucial days of
the storm – most public-sector workers can still refuse to go to
work during a declared emergency.
The problem is spelled out
on page 20 (pdf page 390) of Section 1.14 of the Appendix,
“Comments on the October 2014 Draft Plan” of Monmouth County's
MultiJurisdictional
Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Supporting
and funding “policies and programs that require all government
workers to report to work during a declared emergency … sounds like
a viable option.”
But “at
this time proposed legislation S1717, which is in direct
contradiction, has been discussed with the NJ Association Counties
and until which time the pending legislation is revised or
resubmitted, no action will be taken on this comment.”
California
isn't stuck in this Catch-22.
Since
2005, California requires all government workers to be Disaster
Service Workers as part of their employment.
They know they can be assigned to support activities that protect
public health and safety; they know they must report to their
department supervisor or to a departmental staging area during a
disaster.
California
Government Code Section 3100-3109
states in part:
"It
is hereby declared that the protection of the health and safety and
preservation of the lives and property of the people of the state
from the effects of natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies which
result in conditions of disaster or extreme peril to life, property,
and resources is of paramount state importance…in protection of its
citizens and resources, all public employees are hereby declared to
be disaster service workers…"
California
has been working out the details for ten years: training, unions,
Civil Service, compensation. NJ shouldn't still be relying on
part-time volunteers to man essential services during a declared
emergency.
Terrorism
Preparedness is Still Not Specifically Required in the NJ
Radiological Emergency Response Plan
N.J.S.A.
26:2D-37, and other sections of the Radiation
Accident Response Act, specifically limit the definition of an
emergency response to a radiation accident that occurs at a nuclear
facility or during a transportation accident. The regulations as
presently written have left out a mandate to plan for responding to
a nuclear disaster if it is caused by an act of terrorism and it is
outside the 10-mile
Emergency Planning Zone.
The
EPZs in New Jersey are two
10-mile circles around the Oyster Creek and the Salem-Hope Creek
nuclear power plants. This is where minimum standards for planning
and drilling are mandated by the Act.
N.J.S.A.
26:2D-37 et seq. still doesn't require agencies in all localities in
NJ to prepare specific plans for responding to a detonation of a
nuclear bomb by terrorists.
Adding
this mandate would expand nuclear preparedness planning beyond the
10-mile EPZ into the rest of NJ – without needing to be approved by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear bomb preparedness is not about regulating the nuclear power
industry. They would not need to do a cost effectiveness analysis
because they would not be funding it.
If
it is impractical to mandate preparedness for nuclear terrorism
throughout NJ, a pilot program could be initiated in counties within
the 20-mile
Dangerous Fallout Zone surrounding major urban centers within or
proximate to NJ.
The
Dangerous Fallout Zone (DFZ) from a 10 kiloton bomb temporarily peaks
at 10,000
milliroentgens/hour - a million times background radiation in
coastal NJ - about twenty miles from ground zero. A ten kiloton bomb
is what federal
planners use now in their hypothetical scenarios, and is about
the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
The
radiological planning documents already developed for the two 10-mile
EPZs could be provided to communities in NJ within the 20-mile DFZ to
speed up planning.
There
is precedent for adding a new requirement like nuclear terrorism
preparedness to these regulations. In 1985, requirements were added
to reduce risks from radon (N.J.S.A 26:2D-62); and most recently in
1989, tanning booths (N.J.S.A 26:2D-82).
Adding
this mandate would be consistent with recommendations by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services in 2012 that agencies
need to begin requiring preparedness plans for responding to
Improvised
Nuclear Devices:
“Although
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires nuclear powerplants to
have emergency plans for their facilities and the immediate
surrounding area, no Federal entity requires States or localities to
have public health emergency plans for nonpowerplant radiological
and/or nuclear (RN) incidents, such as a terrorist attack.”
Every
year, in August, September, and October, we remember the
anniversaries of Katrina, 9/11, and Sandy.
This
far along, are you finding it hard to believe that the “government
isn't fully prepared to handle a nuclear terrorist attack or a
large-scale natural catastrophe, lacks effective coordination, and in
some cases is years away from ensuring adequate emergency shelter and
medical treatment”?
Read
the most recent in a
series of warnings issued in December 2014 by the Government
Accountability Office, “an independent, nonpartisan agency that
works for Congress.” Then ask your
legislator what they think. It's #NationalPreparednessMonth.
