|
To print the entire report as text-only, go to complete.htm
Purpose of Objectives
The exercise was designed to test selected aspects of the emergency plan. The purpose
of testing by exercise is to uncover and repair awkward or unworkable aspects of the
plan. Not all aspects of a full-scale emergency response were included in this
exercise, but additional areas for improvement unrelated to the objectives were identified
in the summary and detailed Findings and will be addressed in the recommendations.
The following objectives represent the focus areas of the exercise and guided the
design team in its development of this ECC functional exercise. Events and
simulations were created to target the fulfillment of these objectives and evaluate the
related efficacy of the emergency plan. Future exercises will examine different aspects of
the emergency plan.
The stated objectives for this ECC functional exercise were related to resource
information utilization, purchase request processing, technical information in long-range
planning, communications accuracy, and public information coordination.
The ECC Evaluation Team
- Max Messman, Washington State Emergency Management
- Patty Hopkins, Portland Office of Emergency Management
- Gene Juve, Gresham Emergency Management
- Perry Fladager, Clark County Sheriff's Office(CCSO) and ARES/RACES
- Kari Schulz, CCSO and ECC Public Information Officer
- Deborah Needham, CRCA, Exercise Controller
The evaluation team members were selected for their knowledge and expertise of
emergency management or in their assigned evaluation area. They were given clear,
measurable points of review for each of the objectives they were assigned to evaluate.
Other evaluators from public safety agencies and the health district were also present at
the exercise to evaluate their own agency participation in the exercise. They were not
assigned to a formal ECC objective evaluation form, however.
Other Evaluation Input
Additional observers provided helpful written and verbal feedback at the exercise.
Participants filled out a written critique exercise immediately after the exercise.
A debrief held on September 19, 2000 in the ECC discussed the written comments and served
as a forum for additional comments from the participants, evaluators, and emergency
management staff that attended the meeting. All comments were read and considered in
the compilation of the Summary and Detailed Findings.
Those who attended the debriefing also proposed and explored possible solutions to some
of the challenges encountered in the exercise. Those ideas have been carefully considered
and incorporated into the Recommendations.
The evaluators were instructed to assess ECC operations and procedures related to the
objectives, rather than focusing on any individual's performance. The following detailed
reports are the exact points of review used to assess the ECC during this exercise,
along with the evaluator's actual comments.
Objective 1: Resource information utilization
Resource management staff will demonstrate the
ability to utilize resource directories and other sources of procurement information to
locate needed supplies and equipment and deliver them to the requesting party.
POINTS OF REVIEW:
- Were resource management staff able to locate resource directories or other
sources of information? Yes. The Logistics personnel were very proactive in
reviewing the documents at their table. It was noted immediately that their resource
directory only listed City and County resources. However, they acquired phone directories
for outside vendors. They noted that they really would want their city and county vendor
lists available at the ECC.
- Were staff able to determine or obtain correct specifications for requested
parts or supplies? Yes and No. The Logistics Section was not used as
appropriately as they could have been, in part this is to the newness of this developing
section in the ECC. They were able to process the orders that they did receive, but did
not follow though on all details. The most evident was the foam ordered for the fire. In
part this was due to the staff substitutions last minute in the ECC and lack of actual
fire-fighting knowledge. There are several types of foam and you specifically have to know
what to order. The simulators never had a chance to assist the Logistics section with
appropriate information, because the Logistics personnel made up their vendors and did not
actually place any calls.
- Was fire-fighting foam emergency procurement researched and obtained without
unnecessary delays? Not really. The actual call went to Operations at 1348 and
was passed on to Logistics at 1353, it was at 1308 that the paperwork was filled as
completed. Although 15 minutes does not seem like a long time, under these conditions it
was. I think this was due to the fact that it was not passed on that there was a fire at
the airport. The foam was to be delivered to a Fire Station and that did not say rush.
There was a note that said Need Immediately, but that again did not mean that it was a
critical to any incident at the time. Also, since no calls were actually placed for the
order, no rush, no times were determined for the delivery.
- Based on information provided, did Red Cross accurately forecast and request
needed resources? Yes. Due to actual events, the Red Cross came into the
exercise at 1215. They immediately got a briefing on what was needed and started calling
shelters to see if in a actual event they would have been available to open. They did a
great job.
Objective 2: Purchase request processing
Finance/Purchasing staff will demonstrate the ability
to coordinate and track emergency purchase requests from the ECC, or work cooperatively
with their remote office.
POINTS OF REVIEW:
- Did purchasing staff document all purchasing requests and outcomes? Somewhat.
The only documentation provided to the Logistics section were message forms and unit logs.
They did use both of these for documentation. However, a resource status board is a great
tool for keeping the ECC posted on where their resources are, and also an ICS 201 is
another great tool.
- Did purchasing staff utilize existing vendor records when available in order to
expedite purchases? No. The Logistics personnel noticed right away that
they did not have any vendor information except for the phone books. They indicated that
they would be bringing their vendor city and county contractor records in the future. A
resource guide is another handy document, but takes a lot of time to compile and update on
a regular basis.
- Were purchasing requests prioritized to reflect emergency planning objectives?
No. This was not done due to two major points. One, there were never
any planning objectives set for the ECC. Two, Logistics was left out of the internal
communication loop. If they are not told what the priorities are (such as in the foam
needed for the fire) they can not meet them.
Objective 3: Technical information in long-range planning
Planning Section will demonstrate the ability to do a
technical- needs assessment, and procure and manage technical information resources to
assist in long-range event planning and emergent situation management.
POINTS OF REVIEW:
- Did Planning Section and GIS work together to share information, needs, and
capabilities? Yes. The Planning Section, GIS, and Hydrology Team worked well
together, once they began to get an appreciation for what they could do for (and needed
from) each other. Given that it was a learning curve, the cooperation and teamwork was
very good!
- Did Planning Section determine the need for and request hydrology predictions? Yes,
same as above.
- Did Planning Section pass technical information and predictions appropriately
through ECC communications? Not observed, although it seemed the information
products of GIS and Hydrology were generally aimed at specific users such as
transportation and law enforcement. It appeared that the majority of the players did not
get the information/projections.
- Was Planning Section able to begin the planning process using estimates while
waiting for more accurate information to be produced? Yes. The Planning
Section Chief did a good job getting an early focus on evacuation and shelter data…
and requesting detailed info as soon as available. It was not clear to this evaluator who
was really doing the evacuation planning, making decisions, getting the word out, etc.
Objective 4: Communications accuracy
ECC personnel will demonstrate timely and accurate
internal and external messaging and communications, with special attention to completeness
and accuracy of whiteboard.
POINTS OF REVIEW:
- Was notification of the dam release announced to ECC personnel immediately? The
ECC Manager very effectively accomplished this virtually real-time via the PA
announcement. Note: This would have been a good opportunity for the Manager to clearly
focus immediate efforts on flood projections, evacuation requirements, shelter selection
and activation, etc.
- Was school bus rumor adequately researched and correct information provided
appropriately? Not directly observed. The input was around 1020 or so…
the determination by the school liaison that all school buses were accounted for came in a
phone call at 1105. She immediately passed this info to PIO. Comment was that it was
indeed just a rumor, but no immediate action observed.
- Were both I-205 and I-5 bridge closures posted to the whiteboard? Yes…
I-5 info received at 1126… posted at 1140. I-205 posted in real-time.
- Was the C-Tran mass casualty incident posted to the whiteboard within 5 minutes?
Yes. Received 1123… posted 1128. (But not sure if the significance of the
MCI was adequately noted.)
- Was the requested time-to-river-crest estimate relayed to field personnel
working the C-Tran incident? Not directly observed, but Dispatch Liaison
indicated that an estimate of 1-2 hours was relayed to the field.
- Did ARES/RACES staff correctly record field messages? Yes and
processed them correctly.
- Did ARES/RACES staff notice and follow up on missed or delayed transmissions? Yes,
but they need to develop a better process to keep track of missed and/or delayed
transmissions and requests to other managers in the ECC.
- Were message forms from ARES/RACES to the ECC completed and routed correctly? Yes
they were. In addition they also used their forms, which were also completed accurately.
- Were ARES/RACES staff able to access and correctly interpret river monitor data
on the computer? Yes and No. They missed one planned event on the river watch
monitor. They need to make sure that all personnel are briefed on the how to read the
data.
- If available, were ARES/RACES members dispatched to locations as requested by
the ECC? Yes, they had 10 operators ready to respond if this had been an
actual event.
Objective 5: Public information coordination
Public Information Officers will gather and disseminate
accurate and timely information to the media following standard ECC procedures.
POINTS OF REVIEW:
- Did PIO issue ECC activation news release as soon as possible? Yes,
they immediately sent out a news release announcing the activation of the ECC.
- Was school bus rumor adequately researched and correct information provided? Not
observed.
- Were adequate news releases sent to keep media informed of current situations? Yes.
Many news releases were sent out, though the time between the first and second news
releases was lengthy. Becoming more familiar with how the Blastfax works and having
another computer or two would be extremely helpful in getting information out to the
public.
- Did PIO staff release ONLY information that was on the whiteboard?
Yes. They did a great job of following this cardinal rule. They worked together and
reviewed the information against the whiteboard before it was sent out. There was at least
one incident when incorrect information was released, but a correction notice soon
followed. The original news release was sent out without having the affected agency review
it first.
- Did PIO respond to media in a positive and timely manner? Yes,
the PIO team was responsive and worked hard to release information in a timely manner.
They were courteous to the media, facilitated interviews and responded to media request as
soon as they could.
To view the web site version of this
information, go to Objectives at object.htm
and Evaluation at evaluate.htm
|
