presentation from the Loss Prevention Council 2010, Bruges, Belgium case study of Calahan project in the port of Antwerp about joint emergency management between industry and authorities for hazmat incidents

1. 1 Unified Emergency Managementin the port of Antwerp

2. Setting the scene 2nd largest petrochemical cluster in the world 7/10 largest global chemical companies Aprox. 70 Seveso companies 4 publicfire stations 3 cities 2 provinces Vicinity of Dutch border Population:1Mio 2

3. Problem definition Various risk analysis methods used as basis for Emergency Response 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 Response organisations 3

4. In other words… 4 Company Fire Brigade Workshop & crisis area Firewater maps Radio’s Vehicles & extinguising agents Crisis structure Government Alarming & escalation Engage Fire Brigade, Ambulances & Police Engagement of vehicles and materials Communication & ICT Operational planning Crisis organisation structure

5. Some of the stakeholders Company Operational services Dispatch, fire brigade/rescue team, firstaid, … Policy : Crisis cell Government CP-OPS (Command Post Operations) Operationalcoordination of aid services Command : Dir CP-OPS CoordinationCommittee (CC-GEM, CC-PROV) Municipal, provincial Responsibleforeach discipline Management: mayor, governer Governmentcoordination and crisis centre (CGCCR) 5

6. Complexity of collaborative model 6 Strategic Tactical Operational

7. Where the current model fails Decisions are: Too late, redundant, based on incorrect/outdated data, delayed, based on insuffient experience, … Lack of a standard Emergency Response Management framework for collaborative crisis management 7

8. Objective : More effective cooperation between governmentand industry in the event of a major disaster inthe Port of Antwerp with the use of standards and tools Efficient management by matching the ER processes and providing a common operational picture 4 major incidents’ scenarios : Tank fire Liquid leak Gas leak Nuclear transport 8 Project description

9. The decision making process 9

10. Decision Quality is based on: Quality of Information Experience of the Crisis Management Team Common understanding of the situation throughout the EM organisation 10

11. Information Quality (IQ) Is determined by: Intrisic IQ Accuracy, Objectiveity, Believability, Reputation Contextual IQ Relevancy, Value-Added, Timeliness, Completeness, Amount of Info Representational IQ Interpretability, Ease 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 proces 11

12. Lack of Experience Expertise not available when needed Risk of the ‘operational field of gravity’ Policy makers need to concentrate on business strategy Need for scenario’s to ‘clone’ expertise Checklists to act as a reminder for Crisis Management Teams Roles & Responsibilities need to be defined beforehand ‘instinctive’ or dictated decision behaviour 12

13. 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 … 13

14. Methodology used FIRES methodology Qualitative approach Steps: credible incidents governing scenario’s (type/size) Scenario development (tank fire, gas emission, liquid emission, Nuclear transport Accident) Determine alarm phases and corresponding EM organisational structure Determine ER processes Determine Roles & Responsibilities Determine interdependencies 14

15. 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 15

16. 27 main ERM processes 16

17. Roles & Responsibilities RA(S)CI matrix Accountable, Responsible, Supported, Consulted and Informed Example: 17

18. Decision Support CIMS platform Crisis Information Management System: NoKeos Internet based ubiquitous DSS system Used at tactical and strategic levels of company, civil aid services & government Structures information flow & assures information quality Suggests actions based on scenario 18

19. Assuring Information Quality Early information capture Detection systems, operator alert, … Scenario determines information owner Suggested vs Validated information Validation by incident manager The same information at the same time to all parties Time driven questions to support crisis meeting Crisis Communication by company and government based on identical validated information 19

20. Earlyinformationgathering 20

21. Information capture during Emergency Response 21

22. Status report 22

23. Capturing knowledge in scenarios Rule based Suggest to Incident commander: incident type/size alert phase 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 23

24. Command & Control 24

25. Common Operational Picture Incident data identical for all parties at all times Validated Information vs. Rumours Historical data logged Use of 1 common map with annotation feature Provides visual of incident and effect area 25

26. CommonOperational Picture 26

27. Conclusion and Lessons Learned Project received international IAEM award in Orlando Succesfull alignment of ER Management processes of 10 parties Common framework between private and public sector is possible and necessary Common operational picture with validated information creates value Quality and speed of decision taking improved 90% of all scenario’s are identical at strategic level Scenario’s need further finetuning as more companies and civil aid services join System can also be used for non SEVESO incidents: eg security Standards can quickly be built bottom up 27

28. First Results Successful deployment at VOPAK exercise 17-11-09 International recognition: IAEM Award:Partners in Preparedness,nov 2009, Orlando, Florida 28

29. 29 Xavier Criel CALAHAN Program Manager FPC Noorderlaan 133, 2030 Antwerp +32-3-542.62.45 xcriel@fpc.be