Vessel Response Plans: Measuring Effectiveness After The First 5 Years

Abstract

ABSTRACT The owners or operators of tank vessels (herein referred to as “plan holders”) have clear preferences regarding the effectiveness of the vessel response plan (VRP) requirements. Surveys were used to rank the planning elements with respect to preparedness, actual usage, and quality of response. With respect to preparedness, the preferred areas of plan development are “Notification Procedures,” “List of Contacts,” “Onboard Checklists,” “Qualified Individuals,” and “Spill Management Teams.” For actual usage, the planning elements most frequently implemented during an incident are “Qualified Individuals,” “Notification Checklists,” “Shipboard Spill Mitigation Procedures,” “Oil Spill Removal Organizations,” and “Spill Management Teams.” With respect to the quality of a response, the preferred elements for enhancing a response are “Notification Information,” “Lists of Contacts,” and “Qualified Individuals.”, Survey measurements indicate that plan holders perceive the plans as being closely linked to enhancing their preparedness, but not necessarily to enhancing a response through the use of the plan itself during an incident. This highlights the fact that much of a VRP's contents is dedicated to enhancing the plan holder's preparedness and is not, in most cases, intended to be used as an operational set of tools during an incident. VRPs have been designed as planning documents and should not be viewed or used as performance documents. An analysis of the survey data reveals that the common thread or strength that ties all the “most effective” planning elements together is their involvement in creating a predetermined, rapid response structure. The true value of the plans, then, lies in their ability to create this structure and prepare the plan holder to implement it quickly, enabling the response to be set in motion without delay.