Recent major oil pollution incidents in the United States have clearly demonstrated how far we, the marine oil pollution response community, have come since the EXXON VALDEZ spill in 1989.
We previously had what appeared to be a somewhat divisive atmosphere in the response arena highlighted by a perceived lack of cohesiveness and organization between the responders, the responsible party and the impacted maritime community.
The lessons of the EXXON VALDEZ incident have taught us well, we learned much and have fashioned an oil pollution response methodology which has proven to be a dynamic, flexible and extremely successful system.
From a federal government regulatory standpoint, The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, known as OPA 90, provided the legal impetus to initiate many initiatives covering areas of oil pollution response ranging from financial liability, compensations for damages/loss, vessel and facility operating requirements, exercise requirements, equipment prestaging to planning and preparedness aspects of pollution response.
The basis for succes of the U.S. model of oil spill response is premised on the tenets that the polluter, or responsible party, is responsible for cleanup. That response occurs at the direction of the federal government. Further, while the federal government representative (the U.S. Coast Guard in marine incidents and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for most inland spills) has the responsibility to ensure cleanup is satisfactory, the inclusion of what we refer to as stakeholders is absolutely essential to a successful response. These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, other government representatives from state and local municipalities; natural resource trustees; historic preservation representatives and environmental concerns. Their participation in response planning and execution ensures a more effective and efficient response than existed prior to the EXXON VALDEZ response.
These relationships with the aforementioned stakeholders and all those who could possibly be impacted by a pollution event are captured by the all encompassing U.S. National Contingency Plan, created by OPA 90, which gives our current response the force of law. Our planning makes its way to all levels of government and community as, from the National Contingency Plan, we have developed Regional Contingency Plans and, from these, finally Area Contingency Plans. It has been clearly learned, through experience, that the Area, or local, contingency plan is of paramount importance. It is here that cleanup priorities are pre-identified, based on environmental sensitivity analyses. It is also the plan which identifies the response resources available within the area as well as the cascading of resources from other locales as the situation mandates or escalates. The response organization is described here and includes all local representatives, contacts and positions/roles within the response.
This plan is the product of an Area Committee where local stakeholders meet to discuss concerns and achieve consensus on what the most important local issues are in a pollution incident. While the environment is always of paramount concern, issues which are also critical to the welfare of the impacted community, like economic impact, are also extremely important. Local fishermen, shipping interests, recreational concerns, scientific interests and other members of the maritime community are all part of the process which develops the Area Contingency Plan and are afforded the opportunity to express their response priorities. One key factor to the planning process is simple... in the end, consensus must be reached. The common thread that runs throughout our lessons learned is that extensive planning, partnering and networking with all who may be impacted by a pollution event goes a long way to removing controversy during the actual response, and ameliorates a painful legacy from the EXXON VALDEZ spill.
While the Area Contingency Plan planning process builds consensus amongst government agencies during the planning process, a key factor essential to the smooth implementation of the many months of planning is the designation of one person in charge. That individual, known as the federal on-scene coordinator (FOSC) is charged, by law, with directing the response to any spill that threatens public health or welfare.
The far reachng interpretation of public welfare places the FOSC in the directing mode for the majority of all medium and larger spills. Other spills, which have a known responsible party who is responding in a proper manner will be monitored by the FOSC as the cleanup progresses. The FOSC always retains the ultimate responsibility to ensure cleanups are satisfactorilly conducted in accordance with the applicable contingency plans. This designation of one person in charge has proven to be exceptionally effective as it clarifies the question as to who the final arbiter is when contentious issues arise.
