1 / 12

CANUSLANT 2007

CANUSLANT 2007. Incident Management & Communications Workshop May 15-16, 2007. CANUSNORTH. CANUSDIX. CANUSWEST. CANUSQUE. CANUSEAST. CANUSPAC. CANUSPLAIN. CANUSLANT. CANUSLAK. CANUSCENT. CANUSCENT. U.S./Canada Joint Pollution Contingency Plans & Geographic Annexes.

winda
Download Presentation

CANUSLANT 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CANUSLANT 2007 Incident Management & Communications WorkshopMay 15-16, 2007

  2. CANUSNORTH CANUSDIX CANUSWEST CANUSQUE CANUSEAST CANUSPAC CANUSPLAIN CANUSLANT CANUSLAK CANUSCENT CANUSCENT U.S./Canada Joint Pollution Contingency Plans & Geographic Annexes • Joint MarinePollutionContingency Plan • Joint InlandPollutionContingency Plan • Coordinates harmful substance response • “Bridges” domestic systems

  3. Let’s go over this command thing one more time, shall we? Why revisit organization? • Fundamental response issue… basis of response actions. • Numerous changes in recent years… • U.S. adoption of NIMS ICS for all response and issuance of National Response Plan • Canadian RMS improvements to Ver. 3. • More use of multi-agency coordination and Area Command concepts in U.S. • Remaining work from 2002 exercise • Unresolved/unknown extent of political pressure • Different participants, different philosophies • Fundamental exercise question… arose in design of September’s CANUSLANT 2007

  4. What does our plan say?

  5. Some of the history… • Current organization, particularly options for most significant events largely reflects work assembled in 1994 and tested in 1996… • Little known of ICS and RMS • Much less communications capability • Less media and political pressures • More recent topic considerations have produced ideas and issues, but did not trigger Atlantic Geographic Annex changes

  6. View from authorizing documents… • Great Lakes WQA: • Very general, tasks Coast Guards with a Plan for coordinated response to pollution • Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan • Establishes overarching structure • JCP and Annexes provide “bridge” between responses under national systems • Coordinated planning & response using ICS & RMS as described in annexes • “Coordinated responses” may be activated. Liaisons may be requested; will be provided to requesting party • Issue resolution is first at the OSC, then District/Region level • Other Annexes generally organize with liaisons, CANUSLAK provides option for collocation

  7. Support for Joint Response Mechanisms • Joint operations generally have received support: • 2002 OSC group reviewed as one of 5 issues in a workshop • Recommended small (30 person) joint coordination center to address international issues. • Response today would require a once-a-day physical visit of OSCs, State/Provincial, RP as substitute • Long term approach should be the joint center… staffing sources and relationship to OSCs not detailed • 1996 test of both structures showed coordination advantages of collocation of OSCs • 1994 workshop generally advocated joint operations • Public Information, Environment, Tactical operations benefit • Industry response supports single coordination point • Exercising together, not apart, is the norm

  8. Support for Coordinated but Separate Mechanisms • Plenty of caveats supporting dual ICPs: • Political pressure to be in home territory must be anticipated • State/Provincial participation needed for functionality • ICS/RMS differences must be addressed if operating together • Procedures and equipment are largely country-specific • Efforts to facilitate integration are significant for low risk events • Other regions generally operate separately with liaisons, but some provide for co-located (CANUSLAK). • Concerns more recently expressed on political viability of joint operations • No immediate changes were rolled into 2004 plan update, desire to memorialize change now and document more robustly finalize issue for immediate future.

  9. Support for the third option… • Option 3 in Annex was a novel concept from the 1994 workshop • Separate industry logistics and financial center • Not tested or based on other Incident Management Models • Based on industry concerns regarding staffing two domestic systems especially for logistics and finance • Will not be specifically reviewed this afternoon

  10. Realities… • Event specifics • No two are alike • All have time scales • Very little real CANUS transboundary response history to draw upon

  11. Our Goal • Strong focus on this segment of plan • Update plan and group philosophy on issue • Consider supporting communication technologies as part of command & control equation

More Related