Post by scannerman5555 on May 9, 2005 20:02:32 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D
FDNY pushes for joint emergency command
BY GRAHAM RAYMAN
STAFF WRITER
May 10, 2005
The Fire Department's top uniformed official said Monday that the city's emergency response procedure fails to clearly lay out command roles in the event of a major disaster or terror attack.
Chief of Department Peter Hayden told a City Council panel that the hazardous materials component of the Citywide Incident Management System creates confusion by placing the Police Department in charge, when the Fire Department has the job of performing life-saving operations.
"If the objective of that document was to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each agency, it has failed," Hayden said during the hearing.
Hayden added that the Fire Department is better equipped, trained and experienced to handle hazardous materials incidents.
"It makes no sense to have one agency do the hazard assessment and the risk analysis, and then have another agency put themselves at risk," Hayden said. "If I am going to put my people at risk, I need to participate fully."
Later, Hayden said, "I'm very concerned about the construct of the document. I think it's bad policy. I think it's a bad document, and that's what prompted me to come forward."
It is rare for an official of such high rank to publicly criticize the policies of the administration.
Hayden led the operations in the World Trade Center's north tower on Sept. 11, 2001, and then directed FDNY operations at Ground Zero.
Nearly four years after the attack, the hearing demonstrated the difficulty the city's emergency agencies have had in agreeing on a command structure for major disasters.
The document has been rewritten at least six times, with the most recent version signed April 11 by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Joseph Bruno, the city's emergency management director, defended the protocol and sought to reassure the panel that the arrangement would not compromise safety.
"The FDNY does not have to wait for the NYPD, or any other agency, to commence life safety operations," Bruno said.
Kelly cited his concerns about the possibility of a chemical or biological attack and the importance of beginning an investigation immediately."We think the stakes are so great -- you're talking about the possibility of hundreds of thousands of casualties," Kelly said. "In this particular instance, we think investigation is paramount. But it only kicks in after life safety concerns are addressed."
Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said he was ready to move forward.
"Although the department did not prevail on issues of importance to us, we believe that the final protocol, when implemented in good faith, can and will protect public safety," he said.
Although they testified for nearly three hours, the commissioners could not seem to put an end to the confusion. "I'm probably more confused now than I was when I came into the hearing," said Council member James Oddo (R-Staten Island).
Hayden questioned whether the commissioners themselves fully understood the document.
"It was very clear to me that they are very confused, and if they are confused, then I'm confused and my firefighters are confused and the police officers are confused, and there will be a compromise of safety," Hayden said.
James Ellis, a former Fire Department and city emergency management official, said the hearing demonstrated that the city "has to go back to the drawing board and make it simpler."
"They're here three hours trying to explain it," he said. "If they can't explain it in 10 minutes here, then what is going to happen in the field?"
Kelly, though, denied that the plan was too complicated.
"It's good government, and the plan is going forward," he said.
At day's end, the mayor's office issued a statement that seemed to confirm that.
"Giving the Police Department the ability to investigate a situation to determine whether it is an act of terrorism is the responsible thing to do in the post 9/11 world," said Edward Skyler, a Bloomberg spokesman.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
FDNY pushes for joint emergency command
BY GRAHAM RAYMAN
STAFF WRITER
May 10, 2005
The Fire Department's top uniformed official said Monday that the city's emergency response procedure fails to clearly lay out command roles in the event of a major disaster or terror attack.
Chief of Department Peter Hayden told a City Council panel that the hazardous materials component of the Citywide Incident Management System creates confusion by placing the Police Department in charge, when the Fire Department has the job of performing life-saving operations.
"If the objective of that document was to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each agency, it has failed," Hayden said during the hearing.
Hayden added that the Fire Department is better equipped, trained and experienced to handle hazardous materials incidents.
"It makes no sense to have one agency do the hazard assessment and the risk analysis, and then have another agency put themselves at risk," Hayden said. "If I am going to put my people at risk, I need to participate fully."
Later, Hayden said, "I'm very concerned about the construct of the document. I think it's bad policy. I think it's a bad document, and that's what prompted me to come forward."
It is rare for an official of such high rank to publicly criticize the policies of the administration.
Hayden led the operations in the World Trade Center's north tower on Sept. 11, 2001, and then directed FDNY operations at Ground Zero.
Nearly four years after the attack, the hearing demonstrated the difficulty the city's emergency agencies have had in agreeing on a command structure for major disasters.
The document has been rewritten at least six times, with the most recent version signed April 11 by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Joseph Bruno, the city's emergency management director, defended the protocol and sought to reassure the panel that the arrangement would not compromise safety.
"The FDNY does not have to wait for the NYPD, or any other agency, to commence life safety operations," Bruno said.
Kelly cited his concerns about the possibility of a chemical or biological attack and the importance of beginning an investigation immediately."We think the stakes are so great -- you're talking about the possibility of hundreds of thousands of casualties," Kelly said. "In this particular instance, we think investigation is paramount. But it only kicks in after life safety concerns are addressed."
Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said he was ready to move forward.
"Although the department did not prevail on issues of importance to us, we believe that the final protocol, when implemented in good faith, can and will protect public safety," he said.
Although they testified for nearly three hours, the commissioners could not seem to put an end to the confusion. "I'm probably more confused now than I was when I came into the hearing," said Council member James Oddo (R-Staten Island).
Hayden questioned whether the commissioners themselves fully understood the document.
"It was very clear to me that they are very confused, and if they are confused, then I'm confused and my firefighters are confused and the police officers are confused, and there will be a compromise of safety," Hayden said.
James Ellis, a former Fire Department and city emergency management official, said the hearing demonstrated that the city "has to go back to the drawing board and make it simpler."
"They're here three hours trying to explain it," he said. "If they can't explain it in 10 minutes here, then what is going to happen in the field?"
Kelly, though, denied that the plan was too complicated.
"It's good government, and the plan is going forward," he said.
At day's end, the mayor's office issued a statement that seemed to confirm that.
"Giving the Police Department the ability to investigate a situation to determine whether it is an act of terrorism is the responsible thing to do in the post 9/11 world," said Edward Skyler, a Bloomberg spokesman.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.