CHAPTER 8. COAST GUARD
MARINE FIRE FIGHTING ACTIVITIES
A. Authority.
Among the provisions of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221 et
seq.) is an acknowledgment that increased supervision of port operations is necessary to prevent
damage to structures in, on, or adjacent to the navigable waters of the U.S., and to reduce the
possibility of vessel or cargo loss, or damage to life, property, and the marine environment. Section
4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Public Law 101-380) mandates that the Coast
Guard maintain an Area Contingency Plan of pollution response equipment (including firefighting
equipment) within each port. These statutes, along with the traditional functions and powers of the
Coast Guard to render aid and save property (14 U.S.C. 88(b)), is the basis for Coast Guard firefighting activities. 42 U.S.C. 1856-1856(d) provides that an agency charged with providing fire
protection for any property of the United States may enter into reciprocal agreements with state
and local firefighting organizations to provide for mutual aid. This statute further provides that
emergency assistance may be rendered in the absence of a reciprocal agreement, when it is
determined by the head of that agency to be in the best interest of the United States.
B. Policy.
The Coast Guard has traditionally provided firefighting equipment and training to protect its
vessels and property. Commanding Officers of Coast Guard units (COTP's, Groups, Cutters,
Stations) are routinely called upon to provide assistance at fires on board vessels and at waterfront
facilities. Although the Coast Guard clearly has an interest in fires involving vessels or waterfront
facilities, local authorities are principally responsible for maintaining the necessary firefighting
capabilities within U.S. ports and harbors. Additionally, a vessel/facility's owner and/or operator is
ultimately responsible for the overall safety of vessels/facilities under their control, including
ensuring adequate firefighting protection.
A. Authority.
Among the provisions of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221 et
seq.) is an acknowledgment that increased supervision of port operations is necessary to prevent
damage to structures in, on, or adjacent to the navigable waters of the U.S., and to reduce the
possibility of vessel or cargo loss, or damage to life, property, and the marine environment. Section
4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Public Law 101-380) mandates that the Coast
Guard maintain an Area Contingency Plan of pollution response equipment (including firefighting
equipment) within each port. These statutes, along with the traditional functions and powers of the
Coast Guard to render aid and save property (14 U.S.C. 88(b)), is the basis for Coast Guard firefighting activities. 42 U.S.C. 1856-1856(d) provides that an agency charged with providing fire
protection for any property of the United States may enter into reciprocal agreements with state
and local firefighting organizations to provide for mutual aid. This statute further provides that
emergency assistance may be rendered in the absence of a reciprocal agreement, when it is
determined by the head of that agency to be in the best interest of the United States.
B. Policy.
The Coast Guard has traditionally provided firefighting equipment and training to protect its
vessels and property. Commanding Officers of Coast Guard units (COTP's, Groups, Cutters,
Stations) are routinely called upon to provide assistance at fires on board vessels and at waterfront
facilities. Although the Coast Guard clearly has an interest in fires involving vessels or waterfront
facilities, local authorities are principally responsible for maintaining the necessary firefighting
capabilities within U.S. ports and harbors. Additionally, a vessel/facility's owner and/or operator is
ultimately responsible for the overall safety of vessels/facilities under their control, including
ensuring adequate firefighting protection.
So, I guess this proves one of two things. Either Haman and Nabal are absolute LIARS, COMPLETE FOOLS, or..........
BOTH!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment