Presentation given at the FPC seminar on crisis & emergency management for large industrial sites in Singapore on Oct 25th 2013. Case study of the Calahan project in the port of Antwerp: collaborative crisis and emergency management

1. Port of Antwerp Case study
Collaborative crisis & emergency management
Xavier Criel, Managing Director SCE

2. Setting the scene
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2nd largest petrochemical cluster in the world
7/10 largest global chemical companies
Aprox. 70 SEVESO (COMAH) companies
Strategic partnership with
4 public fire stations
3 cities
2 provinces
Vicinity of Dutch border
Population : 1Mio
|
|

3. http://tinyurl.com/calahanvideo
|
|

4. So what was the problem?
• Various risk analysis methods used as basis for
Emergency Planning by SEVESO companies
- Cause-consequence, event tree
- QRA, safety reports, best practices, regulatory requirements,
corporate policies, ….
• Authorities need to prepare for ALL SEVESO risks and
emergency repsonse organisations
|
|

5. In other words….
Government
Company
Alarming & escalation
Fire Brigade
Engage Fire Brigade,
Ambulances & Police
Workshop & crisis
area
Search and Resque
Firewater maps
Engagement of vehicles and
materials
Radio’s
Communication & ICT
Vehicles & extinguising
agents
Operational planning
Crisis organisation
structure
Crisis organisation
structure
|
|
5

6. Some stakeholders
• Company
- Operational Services
• Fire brigade/rescue team, first aid, security, …
- Policy makers: Crisis Management Team
• Government
- CP-OPS (Incident Command Post)
• Operational coordination of civil aid services
• Incident Commander: Dir CP-OPS
- Coordination Committee (CC-GEM, CC-PROV)
• Municipal, Provincial
• Responsible for every agency
• Management: mayor, governer, minister of interiors
- Government coordination and crisis centre (CGCCR)
|
|

7. Complexity of collaborative model
|
|
7

8. Where the traditional model fails
• Decisions are:
- Too late, redundant, based on incorrect/outdated data,
delayed, based on insufficient experience, …
• Lack of a standard Emergency Response
Management framework for unified command
across private/public partners
|
|

9. Project description
• Objective :
- More effective cooperation between government
and industry in the event of a major disaster in
the Port of Antwerp with the use of standards and an
Information Management SystemEfficient management by
matching the policy processes and a Common Operational
Picture
• 5 major incidents’ scenarios :
-
Tank fire
Liquid leak
Gas leak
Nuclear transport
Generic
|
|
9

10. Project partners
| 10 |
25.10.2013
10

11. The decision making process
Information
gathering
Control
Situational
Awareness
Command
Sense making
Decision making
|
|
11

12. Decision Quality
• Quality of Information
• Experience of the Crisis Management Team
• Common understanding of the situation throught
the EM organisation
|
|

13. Information Quality (IQ)
• Is determined by:
- Intrinsic IQ
• Accuracy, Objectivity, Believability, Reputation
- Contextual IQ
• Relevancy, Value-Added, Timeliness, Completeness, Amount of info
- Representational IQ
• Interpretability, Easy of understanding, Concise representation,
Consistent representation
- Accessibility IQ
• Accessibility, Access Security
- Information gathering at incident start (operator process
control panel) saves valuable time leading to improved
decision process
|
|

14. Lack of Experience
• Expertise not available when needed
• Risk of the ‘operational field of gravity’
- Policy makers need to concentrate on strategic issues
• Need for scenario’s to ‘clone’ expertise
• Checklists to act as a reminder for Crisis Managment
Teams
• Roles & Responisibilities need to be defined
beforehand
• ‘Instinctive’ or dicated decision behaviour
|
|

15. Common understanding of the situation
• Crucial for effective incident response
|
|

16. Common understanding of the situation
• Crucial for an effective incident response
• Lack of a common toolset:
-
Different information sources
Site specific data
Maps with source and effect areas
Track incident data
Communication methods
…
|
|

17. Methodology used
• FIRES
• Qualitative approach
• Steps:
- Credible incidents governing scenario’s (type/size)
- Scenario development (tank fire, gas/liquid emission,
Nuclear transport accident)
- Determine alarm phases and corresponding organisational
structure
- Determine ER processes
- Determine Roles & Responsibilities
- Determine interdependencies
|
|

18. ERM Processes
• ER Management process describes
-
Process owner
Topics requiring managerial decisions
Required information
Information owners
Supportive roles
Decision maker
Tasks and executors
• Based on Dutch model ‘Leidraad Maatramp’
• Localised with stakeholders
|
|

19. Process Alignment
|
|
19

20. Roles & Responsibilities
• RA(S)CI matrix
- Accountable, Responsible, Supported, Consulted and
Informed
• Example:
|
|

21. Decision Support CIMS platform
• Crisis Information Management System: NoKeos
• Internet based ubiquitous DS System
• Used at tactical and strategic levels of company, civil
aid services & government
• Structures information flow & assures information
quality
• Dynamic scenario’s: Intelligent suggestions based on
incident parameters
|
|

22. Assuring Information Quality
• Early information capture
- Detection systems, operator alert, …
Scenario determines information owner
Suggested vs. Validated information
Validation by incident manager
Situational Awareness
Common operational picture
Time driven questions to support crisis management
meeting
• Crisis communications by all participants based on
identical, validated information
•
•
•
•
•
•
|
|

23. Early information gathering
|
|
23

24. Checklist during Emergency Response
|
|
24

25. Status reporting
|
|
25

26. Capture knowledge in scenarios
• Rule based
• Suggestions to Incident Commander:
- Incident type/size
- Activation level
- Processes
Based on incident data
• Supports the decision making process
• 90% of scenario is independent of incident type at
strategic level
• Makes knowledge available to less experienced
Incident Commanders
|
|

27. Command & Control
|
|
27

28. Situational Awareness
•
•
•
•
•
Incident data identical for all parties at all times
Validated Information vs. ‘Rumours’
Historical data automatically logged
Use of 1 common map with annotation features
Provides Common Operational Picture
|
|

29. Situational Awareness
|
|
29

33. Mobile Incident Response
iPad
9:24 PM
Select incident
Map
Map
Satellite
Checklist
Timeline
Checklist
Show on map
Tank leak ACME CHEMICALS
Map
Show on map
Edit map [name]
Locked by [name]
Location: Antwerp
Hybrid
854m
Edit
ACME Chemicals
Overview
X: #
Y:
Lat.:
Lon.:
Zoom:
Call info: Tank leak
Edit
Type: Tank leak
Victims: 0
i
Substance involved:
Mogas, Benzene, Butane
ETA: xx
Dispatch info: 3 teams
Ambulance 1
Firetruck 1
Firetruck 2
Meteo info
18°C
3 BFT
No warnings
|
|

34. Project benefits
• Efficiency gain at strategic, tactic and operational level
• Harmonized information flow
- Structured collection of data
- Common view between all participants of the Emergency Response
• Improved quality of the decisions
- Knowledge sharing
- Capturing information early in the process
- Unambiguous information
- Visualisation of incident data via dashboard and geographical data
- Nokeos suggests actions based on incident data
• Automated logging for post-incident analysis
• International recognition:
IAEM ‘Partners in Preparedness Award’
|
|

35. |
|
25.10.2013