|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Emergency Planning Shows Heavy WMD Focus By Joe Fiorill WASHINGTON — Nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks figured in two-thirds of the disaster scenarios the U.S. Homeland Security Department considered last year in formulating a list of capabilities that emergency responders around the country should have (see GSN, April 15). In developing the National Preparedness Goal, a priority-setting tool required by a 2003 presidential directive, Homeland Security drew up a list of 15 disaster scenarios and considered what capabilities personnel would need when responding to them. Ten of the scenarios, the full list of which was contained in a Government Accountability Office report published yesterday on Homeland Security’s “all-hazards” planning, involve weapons of mass destruction, and two others involve terrorism. “All-hazards” plans are those intended to be flexible enough to apply to both terrorist attacks and other disasters. The list was leaked earlier this year, before its completion, but yesterday’s report appeared to be the first official government publication of the scenarios (see GSN, March 16). WMD scenarios on the list include separate attacks using an improvised nuclear device, aerosolized anthrax, plague, blister agent, nerve agent, radiological dispersal device, food-borne disease and animal disease. Also considered were two attacks on industrial facilities with the intent of releasing toxic chemicals, one of which involved chlorine. The two other terrorist attacks on the list were a cyber attack and a strike with an improvised explosive device. The nonterrorist scenarios involved influenza, an earthquake and a hurricane. Consideration of the scenarios led to a list of 36 essential capabilities for first responders, 30 of which the auditing office said apply to both terrorist and nonterrorist events, despite the terrorism focus of the scenarios. As examples of such dual-use capabilities, the auditors cited on-site disaster management and search and rescue. The 36 core capabilities are reflected in Homeland Security decisions on grant funding to state and local agencies and govern the department’s spending, assessments and training. State and local emergency officials have criticized the department for focusing too much on terrorism planning at the expense of work to address more common disasters. “State preparedness officials and local first responders we interviewed said that DHS’ emphasis for grant funding was too heavily focused on terrorism and they sought to acquire dual-use equipment and training that might be used for emergency events that occur more regularly in their jurisdictions in addition to supporting terrorism preparedness,” the audit office says in the report. In response to such complaints, the report indicates, DHS “promoted flexibility” for fiscal 2005 grants but also said dual-use purchases were allowed all along. National Emergency Management Association Executive Director Trina Sheets said today that state emergency agencies, which the association represents, have “concerns that the planning scenarios are so terrorism-centric.” “We understand that they are looking at events of the highest consequences, but frankly, when resources are so limited at the state and local level,” Sheets said, Washington should display “a recognition that there has to be a continued focus on those hazards that states know they’re going to face on a regular basis.” “We cannot continue to direct resources away [from more probable threats] and towards terrorism,” Sheets said. The auditors reviewed the National Preparedness Goal, the National Response Plan and Homeland Security’s command and management processes and “determined that each supports a national all-hazards approach.” They say “challenges” in implementing uniform national assessments, priorities and training could arise from the varying situations faced by the country’s states and cities. “A key challenge will be establishing a standardized approach for measuring and reporting the risks faced by diverse states and localities in order to effectively prioritize and allocate federal resources,” they wrote.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
