Discussion
Kudo： The Federal On-Scene Coordinator―does he need to have frequent contacts with Washington every time something happens? The reason I ask this is because there are, I believe, many decisions to be made, such as decisions on cost as well as the legal coordination and adjustments to be made between different organizations. Is the Federal On-Scene Coordinator given the authority and the power to make the decisions himself?
Bennis： ...as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), I would have to use the phrase, "the buck stops here". The Federal On-Scene Coordinator has the authority to make all the decisions. In a huge pollution incident, as in the EXXON VALDEZ, we may bring in a more senior officer. In the EXXON VALDEZ the Commander was replaced by a more senior Vice Admiral, because of the intense public and political interest.
But, until that three star Admiral was brought in and designated as the new FOSC, the responsibility to authorize the money and determine what the response consists of remains with the pre-designated FOSC.
Without that authority, we would not be successful. Military rank is not the issue for the FOSC. His supervisor, historically, is an Admiral but the FOSC need not go to his supervisor for approval, permission, or to discuss issues. The FOSC will have a lawyer on his/her staff to advise him. He will have members of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Staff to advise on procedures, but, the final authority in a successful response has to lie with the Federal On-Scene Coordinator and that authority.
Gainsford： I have two questions. Do you split up the marine side of the operation from the shore side in the headquarters or do you try to combine the two headquarters to deal with at-sea response and onshore response? And the second point is, do the local authorities or state authorities have a statutory duty to clean-up and also to contingency plan prior to the event, or is it a voluntary effort?
Bennis： Offshore, near-shore, inland, river―they are all planned as one. We do not separate offshore incidents and near-shore incidents. The states―it certainly behooves them to participate in their area contingency plan and in their regional response team meetings. Of all our states, we have three states, which will go nameless, that are very aggressive in their response programs. I won't name them, but I think they are Texas, California and Florida. They, too, get very involved, but historically, in our responses, we have the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, the responsible party and the state representative in that triad at the top of the response, the Unified Command. So there is no competing between the federal government and the state governments. They are all part of the team, and they work together. Those states that perhaps get a little more involved are those states that are fortunate enough to have more money and more manpower to participate a little more aggressively, and we welcome any money and manpower that someone brings to the table.
Gainsford： When you said near-shore, was that shoreline as well?
Bennis： Yes.
Gainsford： But doesn't the actual operation center become too large?
Bennis： It could on a spill of national significance as in the EXXON VALDEZ. I think we ended up having four centers. We had four primary centers. One center was basically the mother ship, where the Federal On-Scene Coordinator was, and he sent three other representatives to the other centers to run those and brief him out on a regular basis. But certainly, in a geographic issue, we will have sub-units as far as responding, but they'll report back to the mother ship or the main response organization.
Gainsford： One final question, if I may. Is there any transfer of funds from federal to state to do the
