Board reviews after-action report on Nov. 7 oil spill; officials call for faster state-federal notification and clearer local roles

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, sitting as a committee of the whole, heard a draft after-action report on Jan. 29 from the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) assessing the city—s response to the Nov. 7 oil spill and the region—s incident command structure.

The report, presented by Rob Dudgeon of DEM and discussed by Director Laura Phillips, said city agencies performed well operationally but that early coordination and notification from state and federal partners hindered the initial response. The hearing focused on lessons learned, changes already under way and recommended next steps including improved notification procedures, better inclusion of local government in unified command, and formal protocols for volunteer management.

Why it matters: The spill exposed gaps in how federal and state pollution-response organizations integrate local officials and communicate urgent information to city leaders and supervisors. The board sought specifics on how San Francisco will ensure faster, clearer warnings to supervisors and residents and how city resources and volunteers can be better used in future marine casualties.

DEM—s summary and key findings

Rob Dudgeon told the board the report is a comment draft based on hot-wash meetings, interviews and outreach to roughly 1,500 volunteers. He said the report was organized around nationally recognized "target capabilities" so findings could be benchmarked against federal preparedness metrics. Dudgeon said the city had identified "lessons to be learned" and already incorporated several changes into its procedures.

Director Laura Phillips, identified in the hearing as the city's director of emergency management, thanked staff and the 17 city agencies involved and said San Francisco was not the lead agency in the spill response. She said the Coast Guard, California Department of Fish and Game and the ship owner's contractor initially led the response but that those organizations have become more cooperative since the spill.

Coordination and notification

Multiple supervisors pressed DEM on early notification. Phillips and Dudgeon said the report documented that notification and liaison roles between unified command and local government did not function well at first and that the city had pushed to be included in the Coast Guard—s incident-specific preparedness review (ISPER). Phillips said San Francisco was the only local government invited to participate in that Coast Guard review.

Dudgeon cited recent improvement: a January 20 barge strike in Richmond prompted direct phone calls from federal and state officials to city staff and quicker follow-up e-mails to supervisors, showing the notification process can work when lines are clear.

Beaches, volunteers and the port

Supervisors asked about conflicting information early in the response—for example, whether Ocean Beach and Crissy Field were closed and disagreements over the estimated amount of oil discharged. Phillips and Dudgeon said foggy conditions and the difficulty of making early estimates complicated assessments; they reported that subject-matter experts advised treating scale and scope rather than initial numeric estimates.

The report and oral testimony stressed volunteer-management shortfalls and the need for clearer, prearranged procedures. Dudgeon noted the PUC and other city units performed well on hazmat protocols on beaches but said the city lacked a standing training-and-deployment pipeline to accept large volunteer surges safely. DEM said it is surveying volunteers and exploring models (including community-college HAZWOPER courses) to create rosters of trained people who can be deployed when needed.

Port input and legal issues

Supervisors asked whether the port—s early internal reports (one official told the board the amount appeared larger than "158 gallons") were analyzed. Dudgeon said interviews with port staff had been delayed because the port had been advised by its city attorney to refrain from on-the-record participation while litigation against the ship owner was pending; DEM said the issue will be incorporated into the final report once port interviews are scheduled.

Operational recommendations and current actions

Key recommendations described in the draft and reiterated at the hearing include: - A standard operating procedure for timely, official information dissemination from city sources. - A formalized liaison structure so local-government representatives are embedded or reliably connected to unified command teams. - Inclusion of local government in area contingency planning and drills; more local participation in Coast Guard exercises. - Cataloging of pre-approved command-post and staging facilities with minimum infrastructure requirements (phone, power, shelter). - Improved volunteer management protocols and rosters of trained personnel; consideration of partnerships with community colleges for recurring HAZWOPER training. - Drills that simulate low-visibility and uncertain-release scenarios rather than fully scripted exercises.

Several witnesses and DEM staff said parts of the list are already being implemented, including better direct contact with Coast Guard sector command and updates to the regional emergency coordination plan (RECP).

Supervisor questions, public comment and next steps

Supervisors pressed DEM for short timelines and asked how recommendations would be resourced. Dudgeon said the draft report will be open for comment for about two weeks before a final report is issued and that DEM expects to incorporate supervisor and port input into the final analysis.

A few members of the public spoke during public comment, urging clearer leadership in crises and better equipment for maritime response. The board closed public comment after two speakers.

Ending note

Supervisors praised DEM staff, Director Phillips and the many city departments, volunteers and partner agencies involved in the response. The board will receive a final DEM after-action report after the comment period and further follow-up, and supervisors asked DEM to return with a timeline for implementing the report—s priority reforms.