I understand the structure of what area response planning and a risk analysis is about. I'm asking whether you support that because you foresee the potential of moving valuable resources out of certain areas because there is less or no risk, rather than leaving them in a geographic area because of some small probability that there could be an incident there. Or do you foresee this as an exercise that will say that no area will lose resources for response, but in fact we may need to have additional resources in a given geographic area?
On December 2nd, 2014. See this statement in context.