Local and federal officials participating in a Congressional hearing on nuclear terrorism disagreed about how prepared the country is to respond to an attack.
Administration representatives ranked the preparations higher than the lone local official testifying.
"I would say . . . representing the locals that it's probably in the four to five range," said James H. Schwartz, chief of the Arlington County Fire Department, who was speaking on behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. "And, I realize we're being somewhat arbitrary here."
After the hearing, Schwartz explained that Arlington is probably better prepared than many communities.
"I'm fully cognizant that there are many communities that don't have the capabilities that we have, that haven't had the resources to even devote to planning out their response for such a scenario," he said. "So, my score there was more reflective of the local capabilities across the whole nation."
At the other end of the spectrum was Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator R. David Paulison, who gave the highest score of the three federal officials who testified.
Paulison rated the preparedness to respond at a seven, while Health and Human Services' W. Craig Vanderwagen said it was "probably around a six, maybe a five," and the Defense Department's Paul McHale ranked it at "probably a five."
Vanderwagen is HHS' assistant secretary for preparedness and response and McHale is the DOD's assistant secretary of Defense for homeland defense.
"We're not a 10," Paulison said at the hearing. "There's no question about it. I think everybody at this table recognizes that and everyone in this room recognizes that. But, we have made a tremendous amount of progress, and the fact that we are focusing on this is an important issue. I would say that if I had to put us somewhere: between a seven and an eight."
Following the hearing, Paulison clarified that the "between a seven and an eight" was for the "response system overall" and that he felt seven was reflective of the readiness to respond to a nuclear attack.
"The nuclear is different," Paulison said. "Like Paul McHale said, it's going to be catastrophic if we have a 10" kiloton detonation.
During and after the hearing, Paulison noted that he doesn't like to give number rankings. "I would stick to my seven and hopefully, we never have to test it," Paulison told CQ.
"I would say on Sept. 11, we would have struggled to be a two," he said. "Today, we are probably a five. And to improve our capabilities in the face of a challenge that is almost impossible to calculate, the consequences of a 10-kt nuclear detonation in the heart of a major American city, I think from a DOD standpoint, now that we have designed the right kinds of capabilities . . . we've got to bring an operational reality to the concepts that we've developed."
McHale suggested it would be possible to move from a five to an eight.
"We've got to get realistic, detailed planning at the state and local level so that we properly communicate to our partners at the state and local level what it is we can deliver and how fast we can deliver it," he said. "They can inform us as to where they see their shortfalls and you can't do that with a virtual presence. You need a planning capacity that is a focal point that exists in a real building with real people every day doing the planning."
Schwartz said the fact that the federal officials gave higher numbers means "that we still have a lot of work to do in understanding each other and what resources the federal government is going to bring in support of the state and local governments."
But he said he's pleased that Paulison provided a higher number.
"Many of the changes that Chief Paulison has made at FEMA and so many of the federal partnerships that are working very well right now have not yet trickled down to those of us at the local level," Schwartz said.
"And so I think there's a knowledge gap that still exists between what it is that we can actually expect coming from the federal government in a response like we discussed today, and so I'm very pleased that he's seeing a higher number based on the work that he's done and it's been terrific work."
Daniel Fowler can be reached at dfowler@cq.com.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Subscribe to RSS feed
Post A Comment