Command, Control, Response and Preparedness – New Issues, New Problems, Proven Solutions

Abstract

ABSTRACT Since the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA ’90), the National Response System (NRS) preparedness program has been responsible for the steady evolution and improvement in the response readiness of the “community as a whole” – Area (local), Regional and National. While the direct impact that any one specific component of the NRS preparedness programs have had on the response to a spill may be difficult to evaluate, local response communities and plan holders continue to attest to the value of preparedness in improving their response capabilities. The M/V KURE Spill in Eureka, California in September 1996 is another example of the value of the current Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP). Key government and industry stakeholders exercised only three months before the spill and were able to quickly come together to respond to this incident. In the aftermath of 9/11/01, the NRS is again facing the challenge of having to make significant changes to response management processes in response to the increased likelihood of a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) incident requiring the implementation of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). While the tactical response of how oil, hazardous materials, and other pollutants are contained, recovered, and stored/disposed of remains the same (i.e. a response is a response) – the NRS is faced with the addition of new players with input into, and participation in overall (strategy development) response management development, and changes in how some response tactics are implemented. The NRS preparedness programs are proven approaches for improving local readiness and assisting the NRS in adapting to the changes in response management brought on by OPA ‘90. If it can do it for one change, why shouldn't it be used to support the development of changes needed after 9/11?