All of the preceding entities have a legally vested interest via some 

 statute, regulation, or ordinance. There are certain groups or individuals 

 who have a moral, civil, or legal invitational right to be involved. They 

 include the following: 



16. Affected Parties: 



a) The railroad company 



b) The shippers and/or product owners 



c) Industrial expertise groups - Chemtrec, etc. 



d) Property owners 



e) The injured 



f) Audubon, 



Save the River, 



Other Environmental Groups. 



The RRT may never consist of all these entities. In fact, a normal RRT 

 consists usually of 10 to 15 people. It is emphasized that each interest 

 mentioned previously (and perhaps others) will have a public, if not legal, 

 right to assert a view or position in the "typical" scenario. This, then, 

 is the generator of the dynamics of the decision process. Finally, what 

 is the forum for these views and who is in charge? 



Prior to 1968, it was "every jurisdiction and authority for itself"; 

 the resolution of issues was unilateral and individual participation was 

 ad hoc. In 1968, using the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as a basis, 

 the Regional Response Team (RRT) concept was formalized. This Federal team 

 augmented with State, local, and other members has served the southeastern 

 States well. As to who is in charge, no one really is, simply because there 

 is no effort to perfect a single solution. There is a Federal On-Scene 

 Coordinator (OSC) who is the single Federal official designated by law to 

 "coordinate and direct Federal pollution control efforts." This authority 

 extends to "public health and welfare." 



It is true that there is no perfect solution, but there are singular 

 resolutions of problems that must be made involving serious competing in- 

 terests. The OSC must, using some rational procedure, determine and imple- 

 ment the final resolution of each issue. In the domain of EPA, Region IV's 

 RRT area (inland) the system of discussion, conflict, and voting among those 

 with the appropriate expertise is often used. Economics is pitted against 

 wildlife, time against money, ducks against shrimp, forestry against water 

 supply, "endangered species" against human life and/or environment, and so 

 on. The idea in this system is that considering all factors and alterna- 

 tives, if ducks must lose then that decision has been made by the best in 

 that field of expertise at all interest levels. 



Finally, please always remember that we are talking about emergencies, 

 not long range, practical applications. Time is all important, data are 

 usually crude, and experience is paramount. 



23 



