National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

December 20, 2017

The Honorable John Thune

Chairman

Committee on Commerce, Science,

 and Transportation

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am pleased to submit the 2017 Annual Report of the National Construction Safety Team 

(NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The Committee serves as NIST’s advisor on implementation of the NCST

Act (P.L. 107-231; the Act), and the opinions and recommendations expressed in this letter 

reflect our views as an independent, Federal Advisory Committee composed of members from 

the private sector. The Committee met at NIST on September 28, 2017, in Gaithersburg, MD, at 

which time we were briefed on activities performed under the Act. In addition, because there are 

several new members of the Committee, we were given a lengthy briefing on the Act itself, and 

the expectations of the Committee. 

The Committee is formed for two general purposes:

1. Evaluation of team activities.

2. Assessment of the implementation of recommendations.

Evaluation of Activities

The NCST is a part of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at NIST. The program is under 

new leadership and the Committee applauds the renewed enthusiasm with relation to the work of 

NCST. A disaster resource team has been established with regular meetings, so that the related 

units within NIST are ready to respond as a team rather than being newly formed for each 

response.

The NCST has not undertaken a major investigation since the Joplin Tornado in 2011. Over the 

last few years, the Committee has commented that NIST may be missing opportunities to impact 

the built environment by performing more such investigations. Under the new leadership, the 

Disaster and Failure Studies Program has performed 3 preliminary reconnaissance reviews 

(including Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) and is considering further reviews of Irma and Maria 

once the safety of their investigators on the ground can be considered appropriate. Consistent 

with a recommendation in 2016 by the Committee that NCST review its deployment criteria, the 

NCST is now actively looking for investigation and learning opportunities which can help 

construction safety in the United States. The NCST has also, this year, chosen to review a series 

of chronic events (construction fires) which individually would not lead to an investigation, but 

as a series of events meet the intent of the Act. We applaud the staff for making the additional 

move. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Because of the way the Act was written and implemented, there is a continual tension between 

priorities for NIST staff. Besides the single position of Disaster and Failure Studies Director, 

there is no budget, nor dedicated staff, for investigations. Therefore, any investigation pulls 

people and funds away from other programs. We commend the approach of the Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory in prioritizing these investigations, but that prioritization is not assured 

under future leadership. One solution to a part of the problem would be to have specific funds 

allocated to investigations when disasters are declared (see recommendations). 

Assessment of the Implementation of Recommendations

The Joplin Tornado investigation has led to much better understanding of the phenomenon and 

has also resulted in technical, sociological and operational changes in the preparation for and 

response to tornados. This investigation is an example of successful implementation of the Act

and should motivate more such investigations (see recommendations sections). Some of the 

successes are:

1. A better understanding of the winds and forces generated by tornados, thereby increasing our 

ability to better design buildings to withstand such forces, and to write standards to address 

them. 

2. Better reporting of actual events, with removal of biases, which allows for better preparation 

for future events.

3. An understanding of the risk messaging from public and private sources (alerts and 

warnings), and the reaction of the public to those messages. This has resulted in changes to 

codes and standards, and also changes in operating procedures in many tornado-prone areas. 

The Committee applauds the on-going efforts and results of the NCST in this investigation. It 

counsels, however, that while NIST should maintain their involvement in the codes and 

standards process, they need to carefully balance their position as the country’s technical advisor 

with an understanding and appreciation of the economic and design factors that may be involved.

Recommendations to Congress

1. NCST Act: Proposed expansion of scope of failures to be investigated. 

The NCST Act focuses exclusively on safety from building failures. NIST has investigated 

failures of construction that cannot be characterized properly as buildings, and should do so 

again in the future. A current example deserving such investigation is the failure of the 

power and communication systems in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Studies of 

such events are crucial to building performance, but also to improving tools to enhance 

community resilience, which is a current focus of research at NIST. A past example of an 

important NIST (then NBS) investigation of a construction failure that was not a building 

was the 1978 collapse of a cooling tower for the Pleasants Power Station at Willow Island, 

West Virginia. While investigations of failures of non-building structures have been and 

could be carried out under the authority granted to NIST in its Organic Act, in the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, it is recommended here that formal consideration be given to amending the NCST 

Act to emphasize the important role NIST should play in such investigations. The 

amendment also needs to acknowledge the important role other Federal agencies have in 

selected structural failures, including, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

2. As stated previously, the Committee commends the current administration for their 

interest and willingness to respond to and learn from recent disasters. However, funding 

priorities must always be considered. The Committee suggests to Congress that some means 

of ensuring consistent funding to such endeavors is needed. One possible consideration is to 

include specific allocation for investigations in the funding mechanisms that are created 

when a Federal disaster is declared. 

Recommendations Regarding NCST Activities: 

1. NCST has already sent reconnaissance teams to investigate Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. 

Building on the success in understanding alerts, messaging, and people movement in Joplin, 

we recommend that NIST further study communication of alerts and warning during 

imminent threats. We recommend, as part of their investigations of these hurricanes,

additional analysis of the presence or absence of communicator strategies to reach 

populations at risk, including the mechanisms and technology to help decision making about 

protective actions such as evacuation and sheltering.

2. We recommend that, in addition to the technical findings and recommendations from 

these emergencies, NIST should spend more effort looking at the cost and benefit of 

implementing their recommendations. The past and current recommendations are not 

consistently supported by sufficient economic analysis. For example, the Joplin 

recommendations conclude that “critical buildings and infrastructure such as hospitals and 

emergency operation centers are designed to remain operational in the event of a tornado.”

Wind loads from tornados greatly exceed current design wind loads, so a recommendation 

like this should include the benefits and cost impact to construction of these facilities in 

tornado-prone regions.

3. We recognize and applaud the activities of NIST social and behavioral scientists to 

develop technical and scientific knowledge about risk. This is currently being translated into 

hazard maps and damage indicators. We recommend that NIST continue the effort, with 

consistent attention given to portraying such information in appropriate scientific terms as 

well as terms that can be understood by community officials and the general public. This 

will help reach and affect the decision making of vulnerable populations.

The Committee is honored to serve in our advisory capacity and continue to find the NCST 

program to be highly valuable and relevant to the security of the nation’s building stock.

Very Truly Yours,

James R. Quiter, PE, FSFPE, LEED AP

Chair, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

Identical letter sent to:

 The Honorable Bill Nelson

 Ranking Minority Member
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Appendix

Proposed amendments to the NCST Act:

Sec. 2, paragraph (a):

“...after events causing the failure of building(s) or buildings structure(s) that has resulted in 

substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. Where the 

failure of the structure(s) is the proper subject for investigation by another Federal agency, the 

Director shall defer to the authority of that agency. To the maximum extent practicable...”

And Sec. 2, paragraph (b)

“(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of investigation by Teams is to improve the safety and structural 

integrity of buildings the built environment in the United States.

And replace the term “buildings” with “the built environment” in Sec. 2 paragraph (b)(2)(D)

And replace the term “building standards, codes, and practices” with “engineering standards, 

practices, and building codes” at the following locations:

Sec. 8 paragraph (3)

Sec. 9, paragraph (2)

Sec. 14

And replace the term “building failure” with “failure” at the following locations:

Sec. 2, paragraph (b)(2)(a)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(G)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(J)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1) [2 locations]

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(4)

Sec. 7, paragraph (c)

Sec. 8, paragraph (1)

Sec. 8, paragraph (4)

And replace the term “building components” with “components” at the following locations:

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(1)

And broaden Sec. 4, paragraph (d) on Interagency Priorities to include other agencies that have 

legislative mandates for the investigation of the failure of selected types of failures, such as the 

Army COE for dams and levees, the NRC for nuclear power generation, the DOE for nuclear 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

weapons facilities, and the DOT for vehicular bridges. [Such mandates are assumed, not 

verified, by this Committee]

Lastly, unrelated to the preceding, consider updating Sec. 2 paragraph (c)(1)(J) by adding a 

reference to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

December 20, 2017

The Honorable Bill Nelson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Commerce, Science,

 and Transportation

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Nelson:

I am pleased to submit the 2017 Annual Report of the National Construction Safety Team 

(NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The Committee serves as NIST’s advisor on implementation of the NCST 

Act (P.L. 107-231; the Act), and the opinions and recommendations expressed in this letter 

reflect our views as an independent, Federal Advisory Committee composed of members from 

the private sector. The Committee met at NIST on September 28, 2017, in Gaithersburg, MD, at 

which time we were briefed on activities performed under the Act. In addition, because there are 

several new members of the Committee, we were given a lengthy briefing on the Act itself, and 

the expectations of the Committee. 

The Committee is formed for two general purposes:

1. Evaluation of team activities.

2. Assessment of the implementation of recommendations.

Evaluation of Activities

The NCST is a part of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at NIST. The program is under 

new leadership and the Committee applauds the renewed enthusiasm with relation to the work of 

NCST. A disaster resource team has been established with regular meetings, so that the related 

units within NIST are ready to respond as a team rather than being newly formed for each 

response.

The NCST has not undertaken a major investigation since the Joplin Tornado in 2011. Over the 

last few years, the Committee has commented that NIST may be missing opportunities to impact 

the built environment by performing more such investigations. Under the new leadership, the 

Disaster and Failure Studies Program has performed 3 preliminary reconnaissance reviews 

(including Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) and is considering further reviews of Irma and Maria 

once the safety of their investigators on the ground can be considered appropriate. Consistent 

with a recommendation in 2016 by the Committee that NCST review its deployment criteria, the 

NCST is now actively looking for investigation and learning opportunities which can help 

construction safety in the United States. The NCST has also, this year, chosen to review a series 

of chronic events (construction fires) which individually would not lead to an investigation, but 

as a series of events meet the intent of the Act. We applaud the staff for making the additional 

move. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Because of the way the Act was written and implemented, there is a continual tension between 

priorities for NIST staff. Besides the single position of Disaster and Failure Studies Director, 

there is no budget, nor dedicated staff, for investigations. Therefore, any investigation pulls 

people and funds away from other programs. We commend the approach of the Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory in prioritizing these investigations, but that prioritization is not assured 

under future leadership. One solution to a part of the problem would be to have specific funds 

allocated to investigations when disasters are declared (see recommendations). 

Assessment of the Implementation of Recommendations

The Joplin Tornado investigation has led to much better understanding of the phenomenon and 

has also resulted in technical, sociological and operational changes in the preparation for and 

response to tornados. This investigation is an example of successful implementation of the Act 

and should motivate more such investigations (see recommendations sections). Some of the 

successes are:

1. A better understanding of the winds and forces generated by tornados, thereby increasing our 

ability to better design buildings to withstand such forces, and to write standards to address 

them. 

2. Better reporting of actual events, with removal of biases, which allows for better preparation 

for future events.

3. An understanding of the risk messaging from public and private sources (alerts and 

warnings), and the reaction of the public to those messages. This has resulted in changes to 

codes and standards, and also changes in operating procedures in many tornado-prone areas. 

The Committee applauds the on-going efforts and results of the NCST in this investigation. It 

counsels, however, that while NIST should maintain their involvement in the codes and 

standards process, they need to carefully balance their position as the country’s technical advisor 

with an understanding and appreciation of the economic and design factors that may be involved.

Recommendations to Congress

1. NCST Act: Proposed expansion of scope of failures to be investigated. 

The NCST Act focuses exclusively on safety from building failures. NIST has investigated 

failures of construction that cannot be characterized properly as buildings, and should do so 

again in the future. A current example deserving such investigation is the failure of the 

power and communication systems in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Studies of 

such events are crucial to building performance, but also to improving tools to enhance 

community resilience, which is a current focus of research at NIST. A past example of an 

important NIST (then NBS) investigation of a construction failure that was not a building 

was the 1978 collapse of a cooling tower for the Pleasants Power Station at Willow Island, 

West Virginia. While investigations of failures of non-building structures have been and 

could be carried out under the authority granted to NIST in its Organic Act, in the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, it is recommended here that formal consideration be given to amending the NCST 

Act to emphasize the important role NIST should play in such investigations. The 

amendment also needs to acknowledge the important role other Federal agencies have in 

selected structural failures, including, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

2. As stated previously, the Committee commends the current administration for their 

interest and willingness to respond to and learn from recent disasters. However, funding 

priorities must always be considered. The Committee suggests to Congress that some means 

of ensuring consistent funding to such endeavors is needed. One possible consideration is to 

include specific allocation for investigations in the funding mechanisms that are created 

when a Federal disaster is declared. 

Recommendations Regarding NCST Activities: 

1. NCST has already sent reconnaissance teams to investigate Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. 

Building on the success in understanding alerts, messaging, and people movement in Joplin, 

we recommend that NIST further study communication of alerts and warning during 

imminent threats. We recommend, as part of their investigations of these hurricanes, 

additional analysis of the presence or absence of communicator strategies to reach 

populations at risk, including the mechanisms and technology to help decision making about 

protective actions such as evacuation and sheltering. 

2. We recommend that, in addition to the technical findings and recommendations from 

these emergencies, NIST should spend more effort looking at the cost and benefit of 

implementing their recommendations. The past and current recommendations are not 

consistently supported by sufficient economic analysis. For example, the Joplin 

recommendations conclude that “critical buildings and infrastructure such as hospitals and 

emergency operation centers are designed to remain operational in the event of a tornado.” 

Wind loads from tornados greatly exceed current design wind loads, so a recommendation 

like this should include the benefits and cost impact to construction of these facilities in 

tornado-prone regions.

3. We recognize and applaud the activities of NIST social and behavioral scientists to 

develop technical and scientific knowledge about risk. This is currently being translated into 

hazard maps and damage indicators. We recommend that NIST continue the effort, with 

consistent attention given to portraying such information in appropriate scientific terms as 

well as terms that can be understood by community officials and the general public. This 

will help reach and affect the decision making of vulnerable populations.

The Committee is honored to serve in our advisory capacity and continue to find the NCST 

program to be highly valuable and relevant to the security of the nation’s building stock.

Very Truly Yours,

James R. Quiter, PE, FSFPE, LEED AP

Chair, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

Identical letter sent to:

 The Honorable John Thune

 Chairman
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Appendix

Proposed amendments to the NCST Act:

Sec. 2, paragraph (a):

“...after events causing the failure of building(s) or buildings structure(s) that has resulted in 

substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. Where the 

failure of the structure(s) is the proper subject for investigation by another Federal agency, the 

Director shall defer to the authority of that agency. To the maximum extent practicable...”

And Sec. 2, paragraph (b)

“(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of investigation by Teams is to improve the safety and structural 

integrity of buildings the built environment in the United States.

And replace the term “buildings” with “the built environment” in Sec. 2 paragraph (b)(2)(D)

And replace the term “building standards, codes, and practices” with “engineering standards, 

practices, and building codes” at the following locations:

Sec. 8 paragraph (3)

Sec. 9, paragraph (2)

Sec. 14

And replace the term “building failure” with “failure” at the following locations:

Sec. 2, paragraph (b)(2)(a)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(G)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(J)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1) [2 locations]

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(4)

Sec. 7, paragraph (c)

Sec. 8, paragraph (1)

Sec. 8, paragraph (4)

And replace the term “building components” with “components” at the following locations:

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(1)

And broaden Sec. 4, paragraph (d) on Interagency Priorities to include other agencies that have 

legislative mandates for the investigation of the failure of selected types of failures, such as the 

Army COE for dams and levees, the NRC for nuclear power generation, the DOE for nuclear 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

weapons facilities, and the DOT for vehicular bridges. [Such mandates are assumed, not 

verified, by this Committee]

Lastly, unrelated to the preceding, consider updating Sec. 2 paragraph (c)(1)(J) by adding a 

reference to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

December 20, 2017

The Honorable Ted Cruz

Chairman

Subcommittee on Space, Science, 

 and Competitiveness

Committee on Commerce, Science,

 and Transportation

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am pleased to submit the 2017 Annual Report of the National Construction Safety Team 

(NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The Committee serves as NIST’s advisor on implementation of the NCST

Act (P.L. 107-231; the Act), and the opinions and recommendations expressed in this letter 

reflect our views as an independent, Federal Advisory Committee composed of members from 

the private sector. The Committee met at NIST on September 28, 2017, in Gaithersburg, MD, at 

which time we were briefed on activities performed under the Act. In addition, because there are 

several new members of the Committee, we were given a lengthy briefing on the Act itself, and 

the expectations of the Committee. 

The Committee is formed for two general purposes:

1. Evaluation of team activities.

2. Assessment of the implementation of recommendations.

Evaluation of Activities

The NCST is a part of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at NIST. The program is under 

new leadership and the Committee applauds the renewed enthusiasm with relation to the work of 

NCST. A disaster resource team has been established with regular meetings, so that the related 

units within NIST are ready to respond as a team rather than being newly formed for each 

response.

The NCST has not undertaken a major investigation since the Joplin Tornado in 2011. Over the 

last few years, the Committee has commented that NIST may be missing opportunities to impact 

the built environment by performing more such investigations. Under the new leadership, the 

Disaster and Failure Studies Program has performed 3 preliminary reconnaissance reviews 

(including Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) and is considering further reviews of Irma and Maria 

once the safety of their investigators on the ground can be considered appropriate. Consistent 

with a recommendation in 2016 by the Committee that NCST review its deployment criteria, the 

NCST is now actively looking for investigation and learning opportunities which can help 

construction safety in the United States. The NCST has also, this year, chosen to review a series 

of chronic events (construction fires) which individually would not lead to an investigation, but 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

as a series of events meet the intent of the Act. We applaud the staff for making the additional 

move. 

Because of the way the Act was written and implemented, there is a continual tension between 

priorities for NIST staff. Besides the single position of Disaster and Failure Studies Director, 

there is no budget, nor dedicated staff, for investigations. Therefore, any investigation pulls 

people and funds away from other programs. We commend the approach of the Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory in prioritizing these investigations, but that prioritization is not assured 

under future leadership. One solution to a part of the problem would be to have specific funds 

allocated to investigations when disasters are declared (see recommendations). 

Assessment of the Implementation of Recommendations

The Joplin Tornado investigation has led to much better understanding of the phenomenon and 

has also resulted in technical, sociological and operational changes in the preparation for and 

response to tornados. This investigation is an example of successful implementation of the Act 

and should motivate more such investigations (see recommendations sections). Some of the 

successes are:

1. A better understanding of the winds and forces generated by tornados, thereby increasing our 

ability to better design buildings to withstand such forces, and to write standards to address 

them. 

2. Better reporting of actual events, with removal of biases, which allows for better preparation 

for future events.

3. An understanding of the risk messaging from public and private sources (alerts and 

warnings), and the reaction of the public to those messages. This has resulted in changes to 

codes and standards, and also changes in operating procedures in many tornado-prone areas. 

The Committee applauds the on-going efforts and results of the NCST in this investigation. It 

counsels, however, that while NIST should maintain their involvement in the codes and 

standards process, they need to carefully balance their position as the country’s technical advisor 

with an understanding and appreciation of the economic and design factors that may be involved.

Recommendations to Congress

1. NCST Act: Proposed expansion of scope of failures to be investigated. 

The NCST Act focuses exclusively on safety from building failures. NIST has investigated 

failures of construction that cannot be characterized properly as buildings, and should do so 

again in the future. A current example deserving such investigation is the failure of the 

power and communication systems in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Studies of 

such events are crucial to building performance, but also to improving tools to enhance 

community resilience, which is a current focus of research at NIST. A past example of an 

important NIST (then NBS) investigation of a construction failure that was not a building 

was the 1978 collapse of a cooling tower for the Pleasants Power Station at Willow Island, 

West Virginia. While investigations of failures of non-building structures have been and 

could be carried out under the authority granted to NIST in its Organic Act, in the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, it is recommended here that formal consideration be given to amending the NCST 

Act to emphasize the important role NIST should play in such investigations. The 

amendment also needs to acknowledge the important role other Federal agencies have in 

selected structural failures, including, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

2. As stated previously, the Committee commends the current administration for their 

interest and willingness to respond to and learn from recent disasters. However, funding 

priorities must always be considered. The Committee suggests to Congress that some means 

of ensuring consistent funding to such endeavors is needed. One possible consideration is to 

include specific allocation for investigations in the funding mechanisms that are created 

when a Federal disaster is declared. 

Recommendations Regarding NCST Activities: 

1. NCST has already sent reconnaissance teams to investigate Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Building on the success in understanding alerts, messaging, and people movement in Joplin, 

we recommend that NIST further study communication of alerts and warning during 

imminent threats. We recommend, as part of their investigations of these hurricanes, 

additional analysis of the presence or absence of communicator strategies to reach 

populations at risk, including the mechanisms and technology to help decision making about 

protective actions such as evacuation and sheltering. 

2. We recommend that, in addition to the technical findings and recommendations from 

these emergencies, NIST should spend more effort looking at the cost and benefit of 

implementing their recommendations. The past and current recommendations are not 

consistently supported by sufficient economic analysis. For example, the Joplin 

recommendations conclude that “critical buildings and infrastructure such as hospitals and 

emergency operation centers are designed to remain operational in the event of a tornado.” 

Wind loads from tornados greatly exceed current design wind loads, so a recommendation 

like this should include the benefits and cost impact to construction of these facilities in 

tornado-prone regions.

3. We recognize and applaud the activities of NIST social and behavioral scientists to 

develop technical and scientific knowledge about risk. This is currently being translated into 

hazard maps and damage indicators. We recommend that NIST continue the effort, with 

consistent attention given to portraying such information in appropriate scientific terms as 

well as terms that can be understood by community officials and the general public. This 

will help reach and affect the decision making of vulnerable populations.

The Committee is honored to serve in our advisory capacity and continue to find the NCST 

program to be highly valuable and relevant to the security of the nation’s building stock.

Very Truly Yours,

James R. Quiter, PE, FSFPE, LEED AP

Chair, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

Identical letter sent to:

 The Honorable Edward Markey

 Ranking Minority Member
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Appendix

Proposed amendments to the NCST Act:

Sec. 2, paragraph (a):

“...after events causing the failure of building(s) or buildings structure(s) that has resulted in 

substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. Where the 

failure of the structure(s) is the proper subject for investigation by another Federal agency, the 

Director shall defer to the authority of that agency. To the maximum extent practicable...”

And Sec. 2, paragraph (b)

“(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of investigation by Teams is to improve the safety and structural 

integrity of buildings the built environment in the United States.

And replace the term “buildings” with “the built environment” in Sec. 2 paragraph (b)(2)(D)

And replace the term “building standards, codes, and practices” with “engineering standards, 

practices, and building codes” at the following locations:

Sec. 8 paragraph (3)

Sec. 9, paragraph (2)

Sec. 14

And replace the term “building failure” with “failure” at the following locations:

Sec. 2, paragraph (b)(2)(a)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(G)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(J)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1) [2 locations]

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(4)

Sec. 7, paragraph (c)

Sec. 8, paragraph (1)

Sec. 8, paragraph (4)

And replace the term “building components” with “components” at the following locations:

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(1)

And broaden Sec. 4, paragraph (d) on Interagency Priorities to include other agencies that have 

legislative mandates for the investigation of the failure of selected types of failures, such as the 

Army COE for dams and levees, the NRC for nuclear power generation, the DOE for nuclear 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

weapons facilities, and the DOT for vehicular bridges. [Such mandates are assumed, not 

verified, by this Committee]

Lastly, unrelated to the preceding, consider updating Sec. 2 paragraph (c)(1)(J) by adding a 

reference to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

December 20, 2017

The Honorable Edward Markey

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Space, Science, 

 and Competitiveness

Committee on Commerce, Science,

 and Transportation

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Markey:

I am pleased to submit the 2017 Annual Report of the National Construction Safety Team 

(NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The Committee serves as NIST’s advisor on implementation of the NCST 

Act (P.L. 107-231; the Act), and the opinions and recommendations expressed in this letter 

reflect our views as an independent, Federal Advisory Committee composed of members from 

the private sector. The Committee met at NIST on September 28, 2017, in Gaithersburg, MD, at 

which time we were briefed on activities performed under the Act. In addition, because there are 

several new members of the Committee, we were given a lengthy briefing on the Act itself, and 

the expectations of the Committee. 

The Committee is formed for two general purposes:

1. Evaluation of team activities.

2. Assessment of the implementation of recommendations.

Evaluation of Activities

The NCST is a part of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at NIST. The program is under 

new leadership and the Committee applauds the renewed enthusiasm with relation to the work of 

NCST. A disaster resource team has been established with regular meetings, so that the related 

units within NIST are ready to respond as a team rather than being newly formed for each 

response.

The NCST has not undertaken a major investigation since the Joplin Tornado in 2011. Over the 

last few years, the Committee has commented that NIST may be missing opportunities to impact 

the built environment by performing more such investigations. Under the new leadership, the 

Disaster and Failure Studies Program has performed 3 preliminary reconnaissance reviews 

(including Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) and is considering further reviews of Irma and Maria 

once the safety of their investigators on the ground can be considered appropriate. Consistent 

with a recommendation in 2016 by the Committee that NCST review its deployment criteria, the 

NCST is now actively looking for investigation and learning opportunities which can help 

construction safety in the United States. The NCST has also, this year, chosen to review a series 

of chronic events (construction fires) which individually would not lead to an investigation, but 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

as a series of events meet the intent of the Act. We applaud the staff for making the additional 

move. 

Because of the way the Act was written and implemented, there is a continual tension between 

priorities for NIST staff. Besides the single position of Disaster and Failure Studies Director, 

there is no budget, nor dedicated staff, for investigations. Therefore, any investigation pulls 

people and funds away from other programs. We commend the approach of the Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory in prioritizing these investigations, but that prioritization is not assured 

under future leadership. One solution to a part of the problem would be to have specific funds 

allocated to investigations when disasters are declared (see recommendations). 

Assessment of the Implementation of Recommendations

The Joplin Tornado investigation has led to much better understanding of the phenomenon and 

has also resulted in technical, sociological and operational changes in the preparation for and 

response to tornados. This investigation is an example of successful implementation of the Act 

and should motivate more such investigations (see recommendations sections). Some of the 

successes are:

1. A better understanding of the winds and forces generated by tornados, thereby increasing our 

ability to better design buildings to withstand such forces, and to write standards to address 

them. 

2. Better reporting of actual events, with removal of biases, which allows for better preparation 

for future events.

3. An understanding of the risk messaging from public and private sources (alerts and 

warnings), and the reaction of the public to those messages. This has resulted in changes to 

codes and standards, and also changes in operating procedures in many tornado-prone areas. 

The Committee applauds the on-going efforts and results of the NCST in this investigation. It 

counsels, however, that while NIST should maintain their involvement in the codes and 

standards process, they need to carefully balance their position as the country’s technical advisor 

with an understanding and appreciation of the economic and design factors that may be involved.

Recommendations to Congress

1. NCST Act: Proposed expansion of scope of failures to be investigated. 

The NCST Act focuses exclusively on safety from building failures. NIST has investigated 

failures of construction that cannot be characterized properly as buildings, and should do so 

again in the future. A current example deserving such investigation is the failure of the 

power and communication systems in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Studies of 

such events are crucial to building performance, but also to improving tools to enhance 

community resilience, which is a current focus of research at NIST. A past example of an 

important NIST (then NBS) investigation of a construction failure that was not a building 

was the 1978 collapse of a cooling tower for the Pleasants Power Station at Willow Island, 

West Virginia. While investigations of failures of non-building structures have been and 

could be carried out under the authority granted to NIST in its Organic Act, in the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, it is recommended here that formal consideration be given to amending the NCST 

Act to emphasize the important role NIST should play in such investigations. The 

amendment also needs to acknowledge the important role other Federal agencies have in 

selected structural failures, including, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

2. As stated previously, the Committee commends the current administration for their 

interest and willingness to respond to and learn from recent disasters. However, funding 

priorities must always be considered. The Committee suggests to Congress that some means 

of ensuring consistent funding to such endeavors is needed. One possible consideration is to 

include specific allocation for investigations in the funding mechanisms that are created 

when a Federal disaster is declared. 

Recommendations Regarding NCST Activities: 

1. NCST has already sent reconnaissance teams to investigate Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Building on the success in understanding alerts, messaging, and people movement in Joplin, 

we recommend that NIST further study communication of alerts and warning during 

imminent threats. We recommend, as part of their investigations of these hurricanes, 

additional analysis of the presence or absence of communicator strategies to reach 

populations at risk, including the mechanisms and technology to help decision making about 

protective actions such as evacuation and sheltering. 

2. We recommend that, in addition to the technical findings and recommendations from 

these emergencies, NIST should spend more effort looking at the cost and benefit of 

implementing their recommendations. The past and current recommendations are not 

consistently supported by sufficient economic analysis. For example, the Joplin 

recommendations conclude that “critical buildings and infrastructure such as hospitals and 

emergency operation centers are designed to remain operational in the event of a tornado.” 

Wind loads from tornados greatly exceed current design wind loads, so a recommendation 

like this should include the benefits and cost impact to construction of these facilities in 

tornado-prone regions.

3. We recognize and applaud the activities of NIST social and behavioral scientists to 

develop technical and scientific knowledge about risk. This is currently being translated into 

hazard maps and damage indicators. We recommend that NIST continue the effort, with 

consistent attention given to portraying such information in appropriate scientific terms as 

well as terms that can be understood by community officials and the general public. This 

will help reach and affect the decision making of vulnerable populations.

The Committee is honored to serve in our advisory capacity and continue to find the NCST 

program to be highly valuable and relevant to the security of the nation’s building stock.

Very Truly Yours,

James R. Quiter, PE, FSFPE, LEED AP

Chair, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

Identical letter sent to:

 The Honorable Ted Cruz

 Chairman
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Appendix

Proposed amendments to the NCST Act:

Sec. 2, paragraph (a):

“...after events causing the failure of building(s) or buildings structure(s) that has resulted in 

substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. Where the 

failure of the structure(s) is the proper subject for investigation by another Federal agency, the 

Director shall defer to the authority of that agency. To the maximum extent practicable...”

And Sec. 2, paragraph (b)

“(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of investigation by Teams is to improve the safety and structural 

integrity of buildings the built environment in the United States.

And replace the term “buildings” with “the built environment” in Sec. 2 paragraph (b)(2)(D)

And replace the term “building standards, codes, and practices” with “engineering standards, 

practices, and building codes” at the following locations:

Sec. 8 paragraph (3)

Sec. 9, paragraph (2)

Sec. 14

And replace the term “building failure” with “failure” at the following locations:

Sec. 2, paragraph (b)(2)(a)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(G)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(J)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1) [2 locations]

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(4)

Sec. 7, paragraph (c)

Sec. 8, paragraph (1)

Sec. 8, paragraph (4)

And replace the term “building components” with “components” at the following locations:

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(1)

And broaden Sec. 4, paragraph (d) on Interagency Priorities to include other agencies that have 

legislative mandates for the investigation of the failure of selected types of failures, such as the 

Army COE for dams and levees, the NRC for nuclear power generation, the DOE for nuclear 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

weapons facilities, and the DOT for vehicular bridges. [Such mandates are assumed, not 

verified, by this Committee]

Lastly, unrelated to the preceding, consider updating Sec. 2 paragraph (c)(1)(J) by adding a 

reference to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

December 20, 2017

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

Committee on Science, Space,

 and Technology

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am pleased to submit the 2017 Annual Report of the National Construction Safety Team 

(NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The Committee serves as NIST’s advisor on implementation of the NCST

Act (P.L. 107-231; the Act), and the opinions and recommendations expressed in this letter 

reflect our views as an independent, Federal Advisory Committee composed of members from 

the private sector. The Committee met at NIST on September 28, 2017, in Gaithersburg, MD, at 

which time we were briefed on activities performed under the Act. In addition, because there are 

several new members of the Committee, we were given a lengthy briefing on the Act itself, and 

the expectations of the Committee. 

The Committee is formed for two general purposes:

1. Evaluation of team activities.

2. Assessment of the implementation of recommendations.

Evaluation of Activities

The NCST is a part of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at NIST. The program is under 

new leadership and the Committee applauds the renewed enthusiasm with relation to the work of 

NCST. A disaster resource team has been established with regular meetings, so that the related 

units within NIST are ready to respond as a team rather than being newly formed for each 

response.

The NCST has not undertaken a major investigation since the Joplin Tornado in 2011. Over the 

last few years, the Committee has commented that NIST may be missing opportunities to impact 

the built environment by performing more such investigations. Under the new leadership, the 

Disaster and Failure Studies Program has performed 3 preliminary reconnaissance reviews 

(including Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) and is considering further reviews of Irma and Maria 

once the safety of their investigators on the ground can be considered appropriate. Consistent 

with a recommendation in 2016 by the Committee that NCST review its deployment criteria, the 

NCST is now actively looking for investigation and learning opportunities which can help 

construction safety in the United States. The NCST has also, this year, chosen to review a series 

of chronic events (construction fires) which individually would not lead to an investigation, but 

as a series of events meet the intent of the Act. We applaud the staff for making the additional 

move. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Because of the way the Act was written and implemented, there is a continual tension between 

priorities for NIST staff. Besides the single position of Disaster and Failure Studies Director, 

there is no budget, nor dedicated staff, for investigations. Therefore, any investigation pulls 

people and funds away from other programs. We commend the approach of the Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory in prioritizing these investigations, but that prioritization is not assured 

under future leadership. One solution to a part of the problem would be to have specific funds 

allocated to investigations when disasters are declared (see recommendations). 

Assessment of the Implementation of Recommendations

The Joplin Tornado investigation has led to much better understanding of the phenomenon and 

has also resulted in technical, sociological and operational changes in the preparation for and 

response to tornados. This investigation is an example of successful implementation of the Act 

and should motivate more such investigations (see recommendations sections). Some of the 

successes are:

1. A better understanding of the winds and forces generated by tornados, thereby increasing our 

ability to better design buildings to withstand such forces, and to write standards to address 

them. 

2. Better reporting of actual events, with removal of biases, which allows for better preparation 

for future events.

3. An understanding of the risk messaging from public and private sources (alerts and 

warnings), and the reaction of the public to those messages. This has resulted in changes to 

codes and standards, and also changes in operating procedures in many tornado-prone areas. 

The Committee applauds the on-going efforts and results of the NCST in this investigation. It 

counsels, however, that while NIST should maintain their involvement in the codes and 

standards process, they need to carefully balance their position as the country’s technical advisor 

with an understanding and appreciation of the economic and design factors that may be involved.

Recommendations to Congress

1. NCST Act: Proposed expansion of scope of failures to be investigated. 

The NCST Act focuses exclusively on safety from building failures. NIST has investigated 

failures of construction that cannot be characterized properly as buildings, and should do so 

again in the future. A current example deserving such investigation is the failure of the 

power and communication systems in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Studies of 

such events are crucial to building performance, but also to improving tools to enhance 

community resilience, which is a current focus of research at NIST. A past example of an 

important NIST (then NBS) investigation of a construction failure that was not a building 

was the 1978 collapse of a cooling tower for the Pleasants Power Station at Willow Island, 

West Virginia. While investigations of failures of non-building structures have been and 

could be carried out under the authority granted to NIST in its Organic Act, in the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, it is recommended here that formal consideration be given to amending the NCST 

Act to emphasize the important role NIST should play in such investigations. The 

amendment also needs to acknowledge the important role other Federal agencies have in 

selected structural failures, including, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

2. As stated previously, the Committee commends the current administration for their 

interest and willingness to respond to and learn from recent disasters. However, funding 

priorities must always be considered. The Committee suggests to Congress that some means 

of ensuring consistent funding to such endeavors is needed. One possible consideration is to 

include specific allocation for investigations in the funding mechanisms that are created 

when a Federal disaster is declared. 

Recommendations Regarding NCST Activities: 

1. NCST has already sent reconnaissance teams to investigate Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Building on the success in understanding alerts, messaging, and people movement in Joplin, 

we recommend that NIST further study communication of alerts and warning during 

imminent threats. We recommend, as part of their investigations of these hurricanes, 

additional analysis of the presence or absence of communicator strategies to reach 

populations at risk, including the mechanisms and technology to help decision making about 

protective actions such as evacuation and sheltering. 

2. We recommend that, in addition to the technical findings and recommendations from 

these emergencies, NIST should spend more effort looking at the cost and benefit of 

implementing their recommendations. The past and current recommendations are not 

consistently supported by sufficient economic analysis. For example, the Joplin 

recommendations conclude that “critical buildings and infrastructure such as hospitals and 

emergency operation centers are designed to remain operational in the event of a tornado.” 

Wind loads from tornados greatly exceed current design wind loads, so a recommendation 

like this should include the benefits and cost impact to construction of these facilities in 

tornado-prone regions.

3. We recognize and applaud the activities of NIST social and behavioral scientists to 

develop technical and scientific knowledge about risk. This is currently being translated into 

hazard maps and damage indicators. We recommend that NIST continue the effort, with 

consistent attention given to portraying such information in appropriate scientific terms as 

well as terms that can be understood by community officials and the general public. This 

will help reach and affect the decision making of vulnerable populations.

The Committee is honored to serve in our advisory capacity and continue to find the NCST 

program to be highly valuable and relevant to the security of the nation’s building stock.

Very Truly Yours,

James R. Quiter, PE, FSFPE, LEED AP

Chair, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

Identical letter sent to:

 The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

 Ranking Minority Member
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Appendix

Proposed amendments to the NCST Act:

Sec. 2, paragraph (a):

“...after events causing the failure of building(s) or buildings structure(s) that has resulted in 

substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. Where the 

failure of the structure(s) is the proper subject for investigation by another Federal agency, the 

Director shall defer to the authority of that agency. To the maximum extent practicable...”

And Sec. 2, paragraph (b)

“(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of investigation by Teams is to improve the safety and structural 

integrity of buildings the built environment in the United States.

And replace the term “buildings” with “the built environment” in Sec. 2 paragraph (b)(2)(D)

And replace the term “building standards, codes, and practices” with “engineering standards, 

practices, and building codes” at the following locations:

Sec. 8 paragraph (3)

Sec. 9, paragraph (2)

Sec. 14

And replace the term “building failure” with “failure” at the following locations:

Sec. 2, paragraph (b)(2)(a)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(G)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(J)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1) [2 locations]

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(4)

Sec. 7, paragraph (c)

Sec. 8, paragraph (1)

Sec. 8, paragraph (4)

And replace the term “building components” with “components” at the following locations:

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(1)

And broaden Sec. 4, paragraph (d) on Interagency Priorities to include other agencies that have 

legislative mandates for the investigation of the failure of selected types of failures, such as the 

Army COE for dams and levees, the NRC for nuclear power generation, the DOE for nuclear 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

weapons facilities, and the DOT for vehicular bridges. [Such mandates are assumed, not 

verified, by this Committee]

Lastly, unrelated to the preceding, consider updating Sec. 2 paragraph (c)(1)(J) by adding a 

reference to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

December 20, 2017

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Science, Space,

 and Technology

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Johnson:

I am pleased to submit the 2017 Annual Report of the National Construction Safety Team 

(NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The Committee serves as NIST’s advisor on implementation of the NCST 

Act (P.L. 107-231; the Act), and the opinions and recommendations expressed in this letter 

reflect our views as an independent, Federal Advisory Committee composed of members from 

the private sector. The Committee met at NIST on September 28, 2017, in Gaithersburg, MD, at 

which time we were briefed on activities performed under the Act. In addition, because there are 

several new members of the Committee, we were given a lengthy briefing on the Act itself, and 

the expectations of the Committee. 

The Committee is formed for two general purposes:

1. Evaluation of team activities.

2. Assessment of the implementation of recommendations.

Evaluation of Activities

The NCST is a part of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at NIST. The program is under 

new leadership and the Committee applauds the renewed enthusiasm with relation to the work of 

NCST. A disaster resource team has been established with regular meetings, so that the related 

units within NIST are ready to respond as a team rather than being newly formed for each 

response.

The NCST has not undertaken a major investigation since the Joplin Tornado in 2011. Over the 

last few years, the Committee has commented that NIST may be missing opportunities to impact 

the built environment by performing more such investigations. Under the new leadership, the 

Disaster and Failure Studies Program has performed 3 preliminary reconnaissance reviews 

(including Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) and is considering further reviews of Irma and Maria 

once the safety of their investigators on the ground can be considered appropriate. Consistent 

with a recommendation in 2016 by the Committee that NCST review its deployment criteria, the 

NCST is now actively looking for investigation and learning opportunities which can help 

construction safety in the United States. The NCST has also, this year, chosen to review a series 

of chronic events (construction fires) which individually would not lead to an investigation, but 

as a series of events meet the intent of the Act. We applaud the staff for making the additional 

move. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Because of the way the Act was written and implemented, there is a continual tension between 

priorities for NIST staff. Besides the single position of Disaster and Failure Studies Director, 

there is no budget, nor dedicated staff, for investigations. Therefore, any investigation pulls 

people and funds away from other programs. We commend the approach of the Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory in prioritizing these investigations, but that prioritization is not assured 

under future leadership. One solution to a part of the problem would be to have specific funds 

allocated to investigations when disasters are declared (see recommendations). 

Assessment of the Implementation of Recommendations

The Joplin Tornado investigation has led to much better understanding of the phenomenon and 

has also resulted in technical, sociological and operational changes in the preparation for and 

response to tornados. This investigation is an example of successful implementation of the Act 

and should motivate more such investigations (see recommendations sections). Some of the 

successes are:

1. A better understanding of the winds and forces generated by tornados, thereby increasing our 

ability to better design buildings to withstand such forces, and to write standards to address 

them. 

2. Better reporting of actual events, with removal of biases, which allows for better preparation 

for future events.

3. An understanding of the risk messaging from public and private sources (alerts and 

warnings), and the reaction of the public to those messages. This has resulted in changes to 

codes and standards, and also changes in operating procedures in many tornado-prone areas. 

The Committee applauds the on-going efforts and results of the NCST in this investigation. It 

counsels, however, that while NIST should maintain their involvement in the codes and 

standards process, they need to carefully balance their position as the country’s technical advisor 

with an understanding and appreciation of the economic and design factors that may be involved.

Recommendations to Congress

1. NCST Act: Proposed expansion of scope of failures to be investigated. 

The NCST Act focuses exclusively on safety from building failures. NIST has investigated 

failures of construction that cannot be characterized properly as buildings, and should do so 

again in the future. A current example deserving such investigation is the failure of the 

power and communication systems in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Studies of 

such events are crucial to building performance, but also to improving tools to enhance 

community resilience, which is a current focus of research at NIST. A past example of an 

important NIST (then NBS) investigation of a construction failure that was not a building 

was the 1978 collapse of a cooling tower for the Pleasants Power Station at Willow Island, 

West Virginia. While investigations of failures of non-building structures have been and 

could be carried out under the authority granted to NIST in its Organic Act, in the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, it is recommended here that formal consideration be given to amending the NCST 

Act to emphasize the important role NIST should play in such investigations. The 

amendment also needs to acknowledge the important role other Federal agencies have in 

selected structural failures, including, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

2. As stated previously, the Committee commends the current administration for their 

interest and willingness to respond to and learn from recent disasters. However, funding 

priorities must always be considered. The Committee suggests to Congress that some means 

of ensuring consistent funding to such endeavors is needed. One possible consideration is to 

include specific allocation for investigations in the funding mechanisms that are created 

when a Federal disaster is declared. 

Recommendations Regarding NCST Activities: 

1. NCST has already sent reconnaissance teams to investigate Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Building on the success in understanding alerts, messaging, and people movement in Joplin, 

we recommend that NIST further study communication of alerts and warning during 

imminent threats. We recommend, as part of their investigations of these hurricanes, 

additional analysis of the presence or absence of communicator strategies to reach 

populations at risk, including the mechanisms and technology to help decision making about 

protective actions such as evacuation and sheltering. 

2. We recommend that, in addition to the technical findings and recommendations from 

these emergencies, NIST should spend more effort looking at the cost and benefit of 

implementing their recommendations. The past and current recommendations are not 

consistently supported by sufficient economic analysis. For example, the Joplin 

recommendations conclude that “critical buildings and infrastructure such as hospitals and 

emergency operation centers are designed to remain operational in the event of a tornado.” 

Wind loads from tornados greatly exceed current design wind loads, so a recommendation 

like this should include the benefits and cost impact to construction of these facilities in 

tornado-prone regions.

3. We recognize and applaud the activities of NIST social and behavioral scientists to 

develop technical and scientific knowledge about risk. This is currently being translated into 

hazard maps and damage indicators. We recommend that NIST continue the effort, with 

consistent attention given to portraying such information in appropriate scientific terms as 

well as terms that can be understood by community officials and the general public. This 

will help reach and affect the decision making of vulnerable populations.

The Committee is honored to serve in our advisory capacity and continue to find the NCST 

program to be highly valuable and relevant to the security of the nation’s building stock.

Very Truly Yours,

James R. Quiter, PE, FSFPE, LEED AP

Chair, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

Identical letter sent to:

 The Honorable Lamar Smith

 Chairman
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Appendix

Proposed amendments to the NCST Act:

Sec. 2, paragraph (a):

“...after events causing the failure of building(s) or buildings structure(s) that has resulted in 

substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. Where the 

failure of the structure(s) is the proper subject for investigation by another Federal agency, the 

Director shall defer to the authority of that agency. To the maximum extent practicable...”

And Sec. 2, paragraph (b)

“(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of investigation by Teams is to improve the safety and structural 

integrity of buildings the built environment in the United States.

And replace the term “buildings” with “the built environment” in Sec. 2 paragraph (b)(2)(D)

And replace the term “building standards, codes, and practices” with “engineering standards, 

practices, and building codes” at the following locations:

Sec. 8 paragraph (3)

Sec. 9, paragraph (2)

Sec. 14

And replace the term “building failure” with “failure” at the following locations:

Sec. 2, paragraph (b)(2)(a)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(G)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(J)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1) [2 locations]

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(4)

Sec. 7, paragraph (c)

Sec. 8, paragraph (1)

Sec. 8, paragraph (4)

And replace the term “building components” with “components” at the following locations:

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(1)

And broaden Sec. 4, paragraph (d) on Interagency Priorities to include other agencies that have 

legislative mandates for the investigation of the failure of selected types of failures, such as the 

Army COE for dams and levees, the NRC for nuclear power generation, the DOE for nuclear 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

weapons facilities, and the DOT for vehicular bridges. [Such mandates are assumed, not 

verified, by this Committee]

Lastly, unrelated to the preceding, consider updating Sec. 2 paragraph (c)(1)(J) by adding a 

reference to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

December 20, 2017

The Honorable Barbara Comstock

Chairwoman

Subcommittee on Research and Technology

Committee on Science, Space,

 and Technology

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Chairwoman:

I am pleased to submit the 2017 Annual Report of the National Construction Safety Team 

(NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The Committee serves as NIST’s advisor on implementation of the NCST 

Act (P.L. 107-231; the Act), and the opinions and recommendations expressed in this letter 

reflect our views as an independent, Federal Advisory Committee composed of members from 

the private sector. The Committee met at NIST on September 28, 2017, in Gaithersburg, MD, at 

which time we were briefed on activities performed under the Act. In addition, because there are 

several new members of the Committee, we were given a lengthy briefing on the Act itself, and 

the expectations of the Committee. 

The Committee is formed for two general purposes:

1. Evaluation of team activities.

2. Assessment of the implementation of recommendations.

Evaluation of Activities

The NCST is a part of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at NIST. The program is under 

new leadership and the Committee applauds the renewed enthusiasm with relation to the work of 

NCST. A disaster resource team has been established with regular meetings, so that the related 

units within NIST are ready to respond as a team rather than being newly formed for each 

response.

The NCST has not undertaken a major investigation since the Joplin Tornado in 2011. Over the 

last few years, the Committee has commented that NIST may be missing opportunities to impact 

the built environment by performing more such investigations. Under the new leadership, the 

Disaster and Failure Studies Program has performed 3 preliminary reconnaissance reviews 

(including Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) and is considering further reviews of Irma and Maria 

once the safety of their investigators on the ground can be considered appropriate. Consistent 

with a recommendation in 2016 by the Committee that NCST review its deployment criteria, the 

NCST is now actively looking for investigation and learning opportunities which can help 

construction safety in the United States. The NCST has also, this year, chosen to review a series 

of chronic events (construction fires) which individually would not lead to an investigation, but 

as a series of events meet the intent of the Act. We applaud the staff for making the additional 

move. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Because of the way the Act was written and implemented, there is a continual tension between 

priorities for NIST staff. Besides the single position of Disaster and Failure Studies Director, 

there is no budget, nor dedicated staff, for investigations. Therefore, any investigation pulls 

people and funds away from other programs. We commend the approach of the Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory in prioritizing these investigations, but that prioritization is not assured 

under future leadership. One solution to a part of the problem would be to have specific funds 

allocated to investigations when disasters are declared (see recommendations). 

Assessment of the Implementation of Recommendations

The Joplin Tornado investigation has led to much better understanding of the phenomenon and 

has also resulted in technical, sociological and operational changes in the preparation for and 

response to tornados. This investigation is an example of successful implementation of the Act 

and should motivate more such investigations (see recommendations sections). Some of the 

successes are:

1. A better understanding of the winds and forces generated by tornados, thereby increasing our 

ability to better design buildings to withstand such forces, and to write standards to address 

them. 

2. Better reporting of actual events, with removal of biases, which allows for better preparation 

for future events.

3. An understanding of the risk messaging from public and private sources (alerts and 

warnings), and the reaction of the public to those messages. This has resulted in changes to 

codes and standards, and also changes in operating procedures in many tornado-prone areas. 

The Committee applauds the on-going efforts and results of the NCST in this investigation. It 

counsels, however, that while NIST should maintain their involvement in the codes and 

standards process, they need to carefully balance their position as the country’s technical advisor 

with an understanding and appreciation of the economic and design factors that may be involved.

Recommendations to Congress

1. NCST Act: Proposed expansion of scope of failures to be investigated. 

The NCST Act focuses exclusively on safety from building failures. NIST has investigated 

failures of construction that cannot be characterized properly as buildings, and should do so 

again in the future. A current example deserving such investigation is the failure of the 

power and communication systems in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Studies of 

such events are crucial to building performance, but also to improving tools to enhance 

community resilience, which is a current focus of research at NIST. A past example of an 

important NIST (then NBS) investigation of a construction failure that was not a building 

was the 1978 collapse of a cooling tower for the Pleasants Power Station at Willow Island, 

West Virginia. While investigations of failures of non-building structures have been and 

could be carried out under the authority granted to NIST in its Organic Act, in the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, it is recommended here that formal consideration be given to amending the NCST 

Act to emphasize the important role NIST should play in such investigations. The 

amendment also needs to acknowledge the important role other Federal agencies have in 

selected structural failures, including, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

2. As stated previously, the Committee commends the current administration for their 

interest and willingness to respond to and learn from recent disasters. However, funding 

priorities must always be considered. The Committee suggests to Congress that some means 

of ensuring consistent funding to such endeavors is needed. One possible consideration is to 

include specific allocation for investigations in the funding mechanisms that are created 

when a Federal disaster is declared. 

Recommendations Regarding NCST Activities: 

1. NCST has already sent reconnaissance teams to investigate Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Building on the success in understanding alerts, messaging, and people movement in Joplin, 

we recommend that NIST further study communication of alerts and warning during 

imminent threats. We recommend, as part of their investigations of these hurricanes, 

additional analysis of the presence or absence of communicator strategies to reach 

populations at risk, including the mechanisms and technology to help decision making about 

protective actions such as evacuation and sheltering. 

2. We recommend that, in addition to the technical findings and recommendations from 

these emergencies, NIST should spend more effort looking at the cost and benefit of 

implementing their recommendations. The past and current recommendations are not 

consistently supported by sufficient economic analysis. For example, the Joplin 

recommendations conclude that “critical buildings and infrastructure such as hospitals and 

emergency operation centers are designed to remain operational in the event of a tornado.” 

Wind loads from tornados greatly exceed current design wind loads, so a recommendation 

like this should include the benefits and cost impact to construction of these facilities in 

tornado-prone regions.

3. We recognize and applaud the activities of NIST social and behavioral scientists to 

develop technical and scientific knowledge about risk. This is currently being translated into 

hazard maps and damage indicators. We recommend that NIST continue the effort, with 

consistent attention given to portraying such information in appropriate scientific terms as 

well as terms that can be understood by community officials and the general public. This 

will help reach and affect the decision making of vulnerable populations.

The Committee is honored to serve in our advisory capacity and continue to find the NCST 

program to be highly valuable and relevant to the security of the nation’s building stock.

Very Truly Yours,

James R. Quiter, PE, FSFPE, LEED AP

Chair, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

Identical letter sent to:

 The Honorable Daniel Lipinski

 Ranking Minority Member
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Appendix

Proposed amendments to the NCST Act:

Sec. 2, paragraph (a):

“...after events causing the failure of building(s) or buildings structure(s) that has resulted in 

substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. Where the 

failure of the structure(s) is the proper subject for investigation by another Federal agency, the 

Director shall defer to the authority of that agency. To the maximum extent practicable...”

And Sec. 2, paragraph (b)

“(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of investigation by Teams is to improve the safety and structural 

integrity of buildings the built environment in the United States.

And replace the term “buildings” with “the built environment” in Sec. 2 paragraph (b)(2)(D)

And replace the term “building standards, codes, and practices” with “engineering standards, 

practices, and building codes” at the following locations:

Sec. 8 paragraph (3)

Sec. 9, paragraph (2)

Sec. 14

And replace the term “building failure” with “failure” at the following locations:

Sec. 2, paragraph (b)(2)(a)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(G)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(J)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1) [2 locations]

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(4)

Sec. 7, paragraph (c)

Sec. 8, paragraph (1)

Sec. 8, paragraph (4)

And replace the term “building components” with “components” at the following locations:

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(1)

And broaden Sec. 4, paragraph (d) on Interagency Priorities to include other agencies that have 

legislative mandates for the investigation of the failure of selected types of failures, such as the 

Army COE for dams and levees, the NRC for nuclear power generation, the DOE for nuclear 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

weapons facilities, and the DOT for vehicular bridges. [Such mandates are assumed, not 

verified, by this Committee]

Lastly, unrelated to the preceding, consider updating Sec. 2 paragraph (c)(1)(J) by adding a 

reference to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

December 20, 2017

The Honorable Daniel Lipinski

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Research and Technology

Committee on Science, Space,

 and Technology

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Lipinski:

I am pleased to submit the 2017 Annual Report of the National Construction Safety Team 

(NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). The Committee serves as NIST’s advisor on implementation of the NCST 

Act (P.L. 107-231; the Act), and the opinions and recommendations expressed in this letter 

reflect our views as an independent, Federal Advisory Committee composed of members from 

the private sector. The Committee met at NIST on September 28, 2017, in Gaithersburg, MD, at 

which time we were briefed on activities performed under the Act. In addition, because there are 

several new members of the Committee, we were given a lengthy briefing on the Act itself, and 

the expectations of the Committee. 

The Committee is formed for two general purposes:

1. Evaluation of team activities.

2. Assessment of the implementation of recommendations.

Evaluation of Activities

The NCST is a part of the Disaster and Failure Studies Program at NIST. The program is under 

new leadership and the Committee applauds the renewed enthusiasm with relation to the work of 

NCST. A disaster resource team has been established with regular meetings, so that the related 

units within NIST are ready to respond as a team rather than being newly formed for each 

response.

The NCST has not undertaken a major investigation since the Joplin Tornado in 2011. Over the 

last few years, the Committee has commented that NIST may be missing opportunities to impact 

the built environment by performing more such investigations. Under the new leadership, the 

Disaster and Failure Studies Program has performed 3 preliminary reconnaissance reviews 

(including Hurricanes Harvey and Irma) and is considering further reviews of Irma and Maria 

once the safety of their investigators on the ground can be considered appropriate. Consistent 

with a recommendation in 2016 by the Committee that NCST review its deployment criteria, the 

NCST is now actively looking for investigation and learning opportunities which can help 

construction safety in the United States. The NCST has also, this year, chosen to review a series 

of chronic events (construction fires) which individually would not lead to an investigation, but 

as a series of events meet the intent of the Act. We applaud the staff for making the additional 

move. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Because of the way the Act was written and implemented, there is a continual tension between 

priorities for NIST staff. Besides the single position of Disaster and Failure Studies Director, 

there is no budget, nor dedicated staff, for investigations. Therefore, any investigation pulls 

people and funds away from other programs. We commend the approach of the Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory in prioritizing these investigations, but that prioritization is not assured 

under future leadership. One solution to a part of the problem would be to have specific funds 

allocated to investigations when disasters are declared (see recommendations). 

Assessment of the Implementation of Recommendations

The Joplin Tornado investigation has led to much better understanding of the phenomenon and 

has also resulted in technical, sociological and operational changes in the preparation for and 

response to tornados. This investigation is an example of successful implementation of the Act 

and should motivate more such investigations (see recommendations sections). Some of the 

successes are:

1. A better understanding of the winds and forces generated by tornados, thereby increasing our 

ability to better design buildings to withstand such forces, and to write standards to address 

them. 

2. Better reporting of actual events, with removal of biases, which allows for better preparation 

for future events.

3. An understanding of the risk messaging from public and private sources (alerts and 

warnings), and the reaction of the public to those messages. This has resulted in changes to 

codes and standards, and also changes in operating procedures in many tornado-prone areas. 

The Committee applauds the on-going efforts and results of the NCST in this investigation. It 

counsels, however, that while NIST should maintain their involvement in the codes and 

standards process, they need to carefully balance their position as the country’s technical advisor 

with an understanding and appreciation of the economic and design factors that may be involved.

Recommendations to Congress

1. NCST Act: Proposed expansion of scope of failures to be investigated. 

The NCST Act focuses exclusively on safety from building failures. NIST has investigated 

failures of construction that cannot be characterized properly as buildings, and should do so 

again in the future. A current example deserving such investigation is the failure of the 

power and communication systems in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Studies of 

such events are crucial to building performance, but also to improving tools to enhance 

community resilience, which is a current focus of research at NIST. A past example of an 

important NIST (then NBS) investigation of a construction failure that was not a building 

was the 1978 collapse of a cooling tower for the Pleasants Power Station at Willow Island, 

West Virginia. While investigations of failures of non-building structures have been and 

could be carried out under the authority granted to NIST in its Organic Act, in the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, it is recommended here that formal consideration be given to amending the NCST 

Act to emphasize the important role NIST should play in such investigations. The 

amendment also needs to acknowledge the important role other Federal agencies have in 

selected structural failures, including, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

2. As stated previously, the Committee commends the current administration for their 

interest and willingness to respond to and learn from recent disasters. However, funding 

priorities must always be considered. The Committee suggests to Congress that some means 

of ensuring consistent funding to such endeavors is needed. One possible consideration is to 

include specific allocation for investigations in the funding mechanisms that are created 

when a Federal disaster is declared. 

Recommendations Regarding NCST Activities: 

1. NCST has already sent reconnaissance teams to investigate Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Building on the success in understanding alerts, messaging, and people movement in Joplin, 

we recommend that NIST further study communication of alerts and warning during 

imminent threats. We recommend, as part of their investigations of these hurricanes, 

additional analysis of the presence or absence of communicator strategies to reach 

populations at risk, including the mechanisms and technology to help decision making about 

protective actions such as evacuation and sheltering. 

2. We recommend that, in addition to the technical findings and recommendations from 

these emergencies, NIST should spend more effort looking at the cost and benefit of 

implementing their recommendations. The past and current recommendations are not 

consistently supported by sufficient economic analysis. For example, the Joplin 

recommendations conclude that “critical buildings and infrastructure such as hospitals and 

emergency operation centers are designed to remain operational in the event of a tornado.” 

Wind loads from tornados greatly exceed current design wind loads, so a recommendation 

like this should include the benefits and cost impact to construction of these facilities in 

tornado-prone regions.

3. We recognize and applaud the activities of NIST social and behavioral scientists to 

develop technical and scientific knowledge about risk. This is currently being translated into 

hazard maps and damage indicators. We recommend that NIST continue the effort, with 

consistent attention given to portraying such information in appropriate scientific terms as 

well as terms that can be understood by community officials and the general public. This 

will help reach and affect the decision making of vulnerable populations.

The Committee is honored to serve in our advisory capacity and continue to find the NCST 

program to be highly valuable and relevant to the security of the nation’s building stock.

Very Truly Yours,

James R. Quiter, PE, FSFPE, LEED AP

Chair, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

Identical letter sent to:

 The Honorable Barbara Comstock

 Chairwoman
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Appendix

Proposed amendments to the NCST Act:

Sec. 2, paragraph (a):

“...after events causing the failure of building(s) or buildings structure(s) that has resulted in 

substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential for substantial loss of life. Where the 

failure of the structure(s) is the proper subject for investigation by another Federal agency, the 

Director shall defer to the authority of that agency. To the maximum extent practicable...”

And Sec. 2, paragraph (b)

“(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of investigation by Teams is to improve the safety and structural 

integrity of buildings the built environment in the United States.

And replace the term “buildings” with “the built environment” in Sec. 2 paragraph (b)(2)(D)

And replace the term “building standards, codes, and practices” with “engineering standards, 

practices, and building codes” at the following locations:

Sec. 8 paragraph (3)

Sec. 9, paragraph (2)

Sec. 14

And replace the term “building failure” with “failure” at the following locations:

Sec. 2, paragraph (b)(2)(a)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(G)

Sec. 2, paragraph (c)(1)(J)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1) [2 locations]

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(a)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (c)(2)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (d)(4)

Sec. 7, paragraph (c)

Sec. 8, paragraph (1)

Sec. 8, paragraph (4)

And replace the term “building components” with “components” at the following locations:

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(1)

Sec. 4, paragraph (a)(3)

Sec. 4, paragraph (b)(1)

And broaden Sec. 4, paragraph (d) on Interagency Priorities to include other agencies that have 

legislative mandates for the investigation of the failure of selected types of failures, such as the 

Army COE for dams and levees, the NRC for nuclear power generation, the DOE for nuclear 
National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee

National Institute of Standards and Technology

weapons facilities, and the DOT for vehicular bridges. [Such mandates are assumed, not 

verified, by this Committee]

Lastly, unrelated to the preceding, consider updating Sec. 2 paragraph (c)(1)(J) by adding a 

reference to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.