Yeah I was thinking about the disaster part because normally FEMA is natural but the EPA part is kinda what got me. In the link you shared (and thank you for that) it mentions hazard mitigation. Even without the burn the fact that chemicals and what they were and that they were in the area with enough residents would give me more pause.
I looked into a Chemical Incident for FEMA
https://www.fema.gov/cbrn-tools/key-planning-factors-chemical/prologue/1
And reading into that EPA, etc all play a role. I've broken the paragraph down to make it easier to read but this was all lumped together
- "There are several escalating layers of systems for the federal response to chemical incidents, allowing for appropriately-scaled responses to incidents that range from the less serious to those that may have catastrophic impacts."
- "In the case of smaller incidents, the state, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) governments, and/or the Responsible Party (RP) are often able to effectively address the response on their own."
- "As incidents become larger and the responses more complex, the NCP may be activated, requiring a Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) from the EPA or USCG. In response to the most serious incidents, for example those cases involving a Presidential Disaster Declaration under the Stafford Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides enhanced resource coordination under the National Response Framework in support of FOSC authorities."
So EPA is involved and has been since it was first reported, that checks the box of becoming a larger scale situation. But the way this reads are they effectively needing to wait until the President deems it a Federal disaster before providing actual assistance or am I reading this incorrectly? Because then I see in the link I shared this bottom part
"Even emergencies that do not rise to the level requiring a Stafford Act declaration may tax local abilities to respond and recover."
So then pertinent to this issue with a train derailment carrying chemicals would be this link
https://www.fema.gov/cbrn-tools/key-planning-factors-chemical/prologue/4
But would a burn mean FEMA is like you're on your own at the moment? It sounds like residents experienced issues before the burn even occurred. the evacuation was needed because they viewed the burned as the better solution and the burn could create other harmful chemicals.
And if you read all of that then yes I think we can def. agree this sounds very complex. I'm really interested to hear what if any public statements get released from various entities.