Port of antwerp case study: collaborative crisis and emergency management
•
6 j'aime•4,034 vues
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
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (19)
En vedette
En vedette (7)
Similaire à Port of antwerp case study: collaborative crisis and emergency management
Similaire à Port of antwerp case study: collaborative crisis and emergency management (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Port of antwerp case study: 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 | |
- 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 Where the traditional model fails • Decisions are: - Too late, redundant, based on incorrect/outdated data, delayed, based on insufficient experience, … • Lack of a standard Emergency Response Management framework for unified command across private/public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 | |
- 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 • • • • • • | |
- 24. Checklist during Emergency Response | | 24
- 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 | |
- 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 | |
- 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