New York City Incident Plan Comes Under Criticism

They beat the deadline, but are the problems really solved? Possibly not, according to critics of the agreement reached by New York City emergency services to guide their responses to major incidents in the city, including acts of terrorism.

“This document formalizes the chaos that existed on 9/11 [2001]. It does nothing to unify command,” Capt. Peter Gorman, president of the union representing the city’s firefighters, told the New York Times.

The agreement, reached in May, came after months of wrestling between the city’s fire and police departments over which agency would assume control at large-scale incidents. As city authorities struggled to craft their Citywide Incident Management System (CIMS), police sought to assume control over incidents traditionally under the purview of the fire department, including building collapses and hazmat incidents.

In the end, they didn’t get everything they wanted, but an NYPD spokesman said he was “pleased with the outcome.”

Under the agreement, FDNY retains authority over fires, structural collapses, entrapments and confined-space emergencies, while NYPD takes the lead with explosive devices, civil disturbances, water/ice rescues and special events. At WMD/hazmat incidents, authority will be shared: Police will handle overall assessment, site management and criminal investigation, while fire will oversee life-safety issues and decontamination. The city’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) will respond to multi-agency incidents and coordinate resources and logistics. Other agencies are involved in certain responses as well.

The agreement follows months of wrangling—it was supposed to be completed in the fall of 2003—but beats an important deadline: The federal government had threatened to withhold millions of dollars in homeland security funding if a plan compatible with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) was not in place by October.

That plan is now in place, but its effectiveness is being questioned. In certain situations, it in essence says little more than that the departments will work together. The plan was immediately criticized by Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr., head of the city’s Public Safety Committee, who told the Times, “It says anything anyone wants it to say.”

In particular, the fire side takes issue with police having assessment and scene-management duties at chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents. Fire officials believe that with their greater training and expertise, it should be their responsibility.

The city’s OEM chief has promised that through careful training and review, the departments will work out any confusion or uncertainties.

—JE