Unified Emergency Management in the port of Antwerp


Published on

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

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Unified Emergency Management in the port of Antwerp

  1. 1. 1<br />Unified Emergency Managementin the port of Antwerp<br />
  2. 2. Setting the scene<br />2nd largest petrochemical cluster in the world<br />7/10 largest global chemical companies<br />Aprox. 70 Seveso companies<br />4 publicfire stations<br />3 cities<br />2 provinces<br />Vicinity of Dutch border<br />Population:1Mio<br />2<br />
  3. 3. Problem definition<br />Various risk analysis methods used as basis for Emergency Response Planning by SEVESO companies<br />Cause-consequence, Event Tree<br />QRA, safety reports, best practices, regulatory requirements, corporate policies, …<br />Authorities need to prepare for ALL SEVESO risks and Emergency Response organisations<br />3<br />
  4. 4. In other words…<br />4<br />Company<br />Fire Brigade<br />Workshop & crisis area<br />Firewater maps<br />Radio’s<br />Vehicles & extinguising agents<br /> Crisis structure<br />Government<br />Alarming & escalation<br />Engage Fire Brigade, Ambulances & Police<br />Engagement of vehicles and materials<br />Communication & ICT<br />Operational planning<br />Crisis organisation structure<br />
  5. 5. Some of the stakeholders<br />Company<br />Operational services<br />Dispatch, fire brigade/rescue team, firstaid, … <br />Policy : Crisis cell<br />Government<br />CP-OPS (Command Post Operations)<br />Operationalcoordination of aid services <br />Command : Dir CP-OPS<br />CoordinationCommittee (CC-GEM, CC-PROV)<br />Municipal, provincial<br />Responsibleforeach discipline<br />Management: mayor, governer<br />Governmentcoordination and crisis centre (CGCCR)<br />5<br />
  6. 6. Complexity of collaborative model<br />6<br />Strategic<br />Tactical<br />Operational<br />
  7. 7. Where the current model fails<br />Decisions are:<br />Too late, redundant, based on incorrect/outdated data, delayed, based on insuffient experience, …<br />Lack of a standard Emergency Response Management framework for collaborative crisis management<br />7<br />
  8. 8. Objective :<br />More effective cooperation between governmentand industry in the event of a major disaster inthe Port of Antwerp with the use of standards and tools<br />Efficient management by matching the ER processes and providing a common operational picture<br />4 major incidents’ scenarios :<br />Tank fire <br />Liquid leak<br />Gas leak<br />Nuclear transport<br />8<br />Project description<br />
  9. 9. The decision making process<br />9<br />
  10. 10. Decision Quality is based on:<br />Quality of Information<br />Experience of the Crisis Management Team<br />Common understanding of the situation throughout the EM organisation<br />10<br />
  11. 11. Information Quality (IQ)<br />Is determined by:<br />Intrisic IQ<br />Accuracy, Objectiveity, Believability, Reputation<br />Contextual IQ<br />Relevancy, Value-Added, Timeliness, Completeness, Amount of Info<br />Representational IQ<br />Interpretability, Ease of understanding, Concise representation, Consistent representation<br />Accessibility IQ<br />Accessibility, Access Security<br />Information gathering at incident start (operator, process control panel) saves valuable time leading to improved decision proces<br />11<br />
  12. 12. Lack of Experience<br />Expertise not available when needed<br />Risk of the ‘operational field of gravity’<br />Policy makers need to concentrate on business strategy<br />Need for scenario’s to ‘clone’ expertise<br />Checklists to act as a reminder for Crisis Management Teams<br />Roles & Responsibilities need to be defined beforehand<br />‘instinctive’ or dictated decision behaviour<br />12<br />
  13. 13. Common understanding of the situation<br />Crucial for an effective incident response<br />Lack of a common toolset:<br />Different information sources<br />Site specific data<br />Maps with source and effect areas<br />Track incident data<br />Communication methods<br />…<br />13<br />
  14. 14. Methodology used<br />FIRES methodology<br />Qualitative approach<br />Steps:<br />credible incidents governing scenario’s (type/size)<br />Scenario development (tank fire, gas emission, liquid emission, Nuclear transport Accident)<br />Determine alarm phases and corresponding EM organisational structure<br />Determine ER processes<br />Determine Roles & Responsibilities<br />Determine interdependencies<br />14<br />
  15. 15. ERM Processes<br />ER Management process describes<br />Process owner<br />Topics requiring managerial decisions<br />Required information<br />Information owners<br />Supportive roles<br />Decision maker<br />Tasks and executors<br />Based on Dutch model ‘Leidraad Maatramp’<br />Localised with stakeholders<br />15<br />
  16. 16. 27 main ERM processes<br />16<br />
  17. 17. Roles & Responsibilities<br />RA(S)CI matrix<br />Accountable, Responsible, Supported, Consulted and Informed<br />Example: <br />17<br />
  18. 18. Decision Support CIMS platform<br />Crisis Information Management System: NoKeos<br />Internet based ubiquitous DSS system<br />Used at tactical and strategic levels of company, civil aid services & government<br />Structures information flow & assures information quality<br />Suggests actions based on scenario<br />18<br />
  19. 19. Assuring Information Quality<br />Early information capture<br />Detection systems, operator alert, …<br />Scenario determines information owner<br />Suggested vs Validated information<br />Validation by incident manager<br />The same information at the same time to all parties<br />Time driven questions to support crisis meeting<br />Crisis Communication by company and government based on identical validated information<br />19<br />
  20. 20. Earlyinformationgathering<br />20<br />
  21. 21. Information capture during Emergency Response<br />21<br />
  22. 22. Status report<br />22<br />
  23. 23. Capturing knowledge in scenarios<br />Rule based<br />Suggest to Incident commander:<br />incident type/size<br />alert phase<br />processes<br />Based on incident data<br />Supports the decision making process<br />90% of scenario is independent of incident type at strategic level<br />Makes knowledge available to less experienced incident commanders<br />23<br />
  24. 24. Command & Control<br />24<br />
  25. 25. Common Operational Picture<br />Incident data identical for all parties at all times<br />Validated Information vs. Rumours<br />Historical data logged<br />Use of 1 common map with annotation feature<br />Provides visual of incident and effect area<br />25<br />
  26. 26. CommonOperational Picture<br />26<br />
  27. 27. Conclusion and Lessons Learned<br />Project received international IAEM award in Orlando<br />Succesfull alignment of ER Management processes of 10 parties<br />Common framework between private and public sector is possible and necessary<br />Common operational picture with validated information creates value<br />Quality and speed of decision taking improved<br />90% of all scenario’s are identical at strategic level<br />Scenario’s need further finetuning as more companies and civil aid services join<br />System can also be used for non SEVESO incidents: eg security<br />Standards can quickly be built bottom up<br />27<br />
  28. 28. First Results<br />Successful deployment at VOPAK exercise 17-11-09<br />International recognition: IAEM Award:Partners in Preparedness,nov 2009, Orlando, Florida<br />28<br />
  29. 29. 29<br />Xavier Criel<br />CALAHAN Program Manager<br />FPC<br />Noorderlaan 133, 2030 Antwerp<br /> +32-3-542.62.45<br /> xcriel@fpc.be<br />