Emergency-response managers from most major cities say they needmore federal funds and information than they currently receive ifthey are to properly respond to a terrorist attack involving aradiological dispersal device (RDD) or an improvised nuclear device(IND), the Government Accountability Office says in a newreport.

The report said that of 27 major cities interviewed, most hadassessed their ability to respond to an attack from a radiologicalor nuclear device and had ranked the risk of these attacks as lowerthan the risk of other hazards they face.

However, most emergency managers reported to GAO that they needmore federal technical and resource assistance than currentlyprovided if they are to properly respond to such an attack.

“GAO found that federal guidance on the type and timing of suchassistance is not readily available or understood by all emergencymanagers,” the report says. “This condition could lead to adisjointed and untimely response that might increase theconsequences of either kind of attack.”

The report adds that emergency managers in the 27 citiescontacted by GAO said there is also a need for improved proceduresand more information, a matter that the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency is trying to address.

“Most emergency managers reported their city needed federalfunding to maintain current capabilities to respond to RDD and INDattacks,” the GAO says.

According to DHS guidance, GAO notes, response capabilities aredeveloped through planning, training, equipping, and exercising,“which are essential elements of an integrated, capability-basedapproach to preparedness.”

The report was issued at the request of members of Congress asthey debate when and if to renew the current Terrorism RiskInsurance Act.

The law currently in place sunsets Dec. 31, 2014. Both the Houseand Senate committees held hearings on the issue late last month,but no member of the two committees committed himself or herself toreauthorizing the program.

The issue of coverage for Nuclear, Chemical, Biological andRadiation (NCBR) was repeatedly brought up at the hearings.

Peter J. Beshar, executive vice president and general counsel ofMarsh & McLennan, New York, said at the House hearing thatCongress should specifically clarify during the reauthorizationprocess that coverage should be provided by TRIA for all forms ofterrorism (i.e., conventional and NBCR) if coverage is afforded onthe primary policy.

Beshar said “there is ambiguity” in the market currently as towhether TRIA covers workers' compensation in the event of anNBCR-related act.

He also said a reauthorized TRIA should clarify that itaddresses cyber terrorism, which he called a “new terrorismrisk.”

Industry officials are meeting regularly to discuss ways ofgetting Congress to deal with the issue as soon as possible, butthe industry consensus is that “nothing will happen this year, andthe heat won't get strong until policyholders feel threatened, andthat's probably middle of next year,” according to an industrylobbyist.

Besides NCBR, cyber risk is emerging as a key concern for bothcarrier and insureds. “The interest is exploding right now,” oneindustry lobbyist said. “We had a meeting with the top cyber dogsat the White House in August, and there's a lot of concern abouttake-up rate (or lack thereof) and how prepared industry is for theimminent attack— apparently within the next five years.”

The lobbyist acknowledged that the “take-up rate is actuallypretty high considering the lower profile of the product line, butwe have members wanting to lead on this and looking for somevisibility here—hopefully include clarity in the TRIA bill.”