tri-state full-scale exercise
TRANSCRIPT
TRI-STATE FULL-SCALE EXERCISE
Providence, RI September 10, 2011
AFTER-ACTION REPORT/ IMPROVEMENT PLAN
December 14, 2011 Final
1
CONTENTS Handling Instructions 3 Executive Summary 4
Section 1: Exercise Overview Exercise Details ...................................................................................... 6 Scenario & Purpose ................................................................................ 7 Venus .................................................... .......................................... 8 ..... Section 2: Exercise Design Summary Exercise Planning Team . . 9 ......................................................................... Participating Organizations ........... 10 ............................................................ Section 3: Analysis of Capabilities Staging ……………...................................................................................... 11 Fire Venue ……………………………..................................................................... 11
HazMat Venue ….…………………………………..………............................................... 13
Section 4: Conclusion .................................................................................. 15 Appendix A: Improvement Plan ................................................................... 16
2
HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
cument is the Tri-State Full-Scale Exercise Providence, RI After-Action
handled as
mitted, and hole or in part,
e stored in a tainer or area offering sufficient protection against theft, compromise, inadvertent access, and
ode Island State of Connecticut
(o) 203-265-8205 (o) 203-589-6585 (c)
1. The title of this doReport/Improvement Plan (AAR/IP).
2. The information gathered in this AAR/IP is classified as For Official Use Only and should be sensitive information not to be disclosed. This document should be safeguarded, handled, transstored in accordance with appropriate security directives. Reproduction of this document, in wwithout prior approval from the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island is prohibited. 3. This AAR/IP will be disseminated only on a need-to-know basis and, when unattended, will blocked conunauthorized disclosure. 4. Primary points of contact: Jim Ball Gerard Goudreau State of RhRI DEM Chief Emergency Response SERC Chairman 401-222-1360 401-255-2904 (c) [email protected] [email protected]
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tri-State Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Response Full-Scale Exercise (FSE) was held toprinciples of the Incident Action Plan (IAP) and Communications Plan developed at a prior W
able Top Exercise and to review inte
validate the orkshop and
ragency coordination in response to a multijurisdictional, i-
f
e the effectiveness of the newly developed Incident Action Plan (IAP) and onse to a HazMat incident.
firefighting and hazardous
. On-site Incident Management. Examine the structure and process to effectively manage a mpacts, establishment of command, roles and
ment, and incident reporting. The purpose of this report is to document the analysis of exercise results, identify strengths to be maintained and built on, identify potential areas for further improvement, and support development of corrective actions. Major Strengths The major strengths for interagency sharing identified during this exercise are as follows:
• Good communication was observed throughout the venues. The Communications Plan developed during earlier exercise activities supported all full-scale response activities.
• Connecticut and Rhode Island responders have sufficient communication capabilities to support interoperability on scene of a large fire and Hazmat incident.
• Responding units were well coordinated. • The Connecticut and Rhode Island Foam Task Force teams were well equipped with trained personnel,
resources and equipment to effectively respond to the incident. • The Connecticut and Rhode Island HazMat teams were well equipped with trained personnel, resources
and equipment to effectively respond to the incident.
Tmultidisciplinary HazMat (ethanol) incident within the first 12 hours. This FSE is the third exercise in the TrState HazMat Response Exercise Series and continued to expand on the lessons learned at the Tri-State Workshop and Tabletop Exercise (TTX) held earlier in the year. The Exercise Planning Team was composed orepresentatives from numerous and diverse local, state and federal agencies. The Exercise Planning Team decided to use a multijurisdictional incident involving rail cars of ethanol as the basis for the FSE scenario. The FSE took place in the Port of Providence. The following objectives were developed for the TTX: 1. Communications. Evaluat
ommunications Plan in respC
th. D cuss t abili of res2. Environmental Heal is he ty ponding agencies to mitigate the effects of a HazMat incident in a timely manner to protect the public and the environment. 3. Fire & HazMat Incident Response Support. Evaluate the effectiveness ofmaterial assets and mobilization plans for Connecticut and Rhode Island. 4multijurisdictional HazMat incident, including mutual aid coresponsibilities of all responding agencies, resource manage
4
Primary Areas for Improvement Throughout the exercise, several opportunities for future action were identified. The primary areimprovement are as follows:
• The Marine Task Force had difficult time spraying water onto the railcars without putting their vessels and personnel in jeopardy with adjacent structures such as the pier sea
as for
wall. Additional hands-on training is recommended.
nue the older style railcar created a problem with the application of the Chlorine Institute C Kit. The RI & CT HazMat teams should consider purchasing a Midland Chlorine Kit to
ents are recommended to continue to validate interoperability, especially with regards to communications.
• Standard hazard assessments should be followed prior to putting vessels into areas where a hazardous atmosphere could endanger the boat as well as the crew.
• At the HazMat ve
address these circumstances. • Additional joint inter-state training and exercise ev
5
SECTION 1: EXERCISE OVERVIEW
xercise Details
8 hours Location Port of Providence, Rhode Island Sponsor State of Connecticut State of Rhode Island Mission Response Capabilities Communications Environmental Health Fire & HazMat Incident Response Support Onsite Incident Management
E Exercise Name Tri-State Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Response Full-Scale Exercise (TTX) Type of Exercise Full Scale Exercise Exercise Date September 10, 2011 Duration
6
Scenario
r HazMat Incident
ultiple Scene Rail CaM
ber 10, 2011 an exercise took place within the Port of Providence. a. Two separate hniques associated
olving hazardous material (HAZMAT). The cause of the derailment ponse agencies proceeded to the incident scenes from staging.
ars contain ethanol. More than 2 million gallons of denatured ethanol area by rail, barge, and tractor trailer per week. Ethanol is a highly , colorless clear liquid and is completely soluble in water.
e was used for fire response and the other was used for HAZMAT. The re response for ethanol requires the use of an Alcohol Resistant-Aqueous Film Forming
FFF). The use of AR-AFFF was simulated. The HAZMAT response simulated rocedures to assess and mitigate a leaking rail car not directly involved in a fire.
dditionally, first responders toured the Motiva facility. Motiva manages a substantial hanol at its Providence facility.
Purpose FSE was to provide participants with an opportunity to implement SOPs when faced with a response to a substantial HazMat incident in a rea. The exercise focused on field activities associated with responding
erailment using an IAP and a Communications Plan that was developed during ise activities. The response focused on the integration of multi-jurisdictional, local,
Federal assets necessary to save lives and protect public health and the ent.
On Saturday SeptemThe exercise simulated a train derailment in a multijurisdictional areenues were used to allow first responders to practice response tecv
with a train wreck invwas unknown. All res The derailed rail cmove through thevolatile, flammable One exercise venufiFoam (AR-Ap Aamount of et
Exercise The purpose of thisresponse plans and multi-jurisdictional ato a train dprior exercState andenvironm
7
TRI-STATE EXERCISE VENUES
ence, RI Provid
8
SECTION 2: Design Team & Participants
xercise Planning TeamE
Name Organization Phone Number E-Mail Jim Ball RIDEM 401-822-0635 [email protected] Gerard Goudreau CT SERC 203-265-8205 [email protected] Michael Dillon Providence Fire 401-243-6075 [email protected] Neil Torres CT DEP 860-982-7088 [email protected] Nick Child Mass DEP 508-965-6318 [email protected] Anthony P. Manfredi Mystic FD - CERRIT Team 860-867-6261 [email protected]
Ron Samuel New London Fire/CERRIT 860-447-5291 [email protected] Andrew Zompa P&W Railroad 508-755-4000 [email protected] Mike Brazel FEMA 617-894-7014 [email protected] Jim Gaffey U.S. EPA 617-918-1753 [email protected] Fred Malaby OSHA 401-528-4635 [email protected] Gary Ruggiero Connecticut DEMHS 860-256-0891 [email protected]
9
Exercise Participants
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
CERRIT City of Groton, CT
City of Norwich, CT Connecticut CERRIT
Connecticut Department of En rotection vironmental PConnecticut Fire Academy
Connecticut IMT 4 Connecticut SERC
Cranston Fire Department East Providence Fire Department
Johnston Fire Department Massachusetts Department of E rotectionnvironmental P
Mohegan Tribe CERRIT Mystic Fire Department
New London Fire Department Norwich Fire Department
OSHA Pfizer Fire Department
Providence Fire Department Providence & Worcester Railroad
RI Department of Environmental Management RI Emergency Management Agency
United States Coast Guard United States Environmental Protection Agency
Valley Falls Fire Department Warwick Fire Department
Woonsocket Fire Department Woonsocket Fire Department HazMat Team
10
SECTION 3: Analysis of Capabilities The Homeland Security Exe Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Exercise Evaluation
Guides (EEGs) were used by the exercise. The following is a summary of the notes taken from the completed evaluation forms:
rcise andevaluators during
Staging
Strengths - • Egress to the • Rehab faci
Areas f
• Security was n n nature of the site and number of responders
• Organization could have been better
site was good lities were good
or Improvement (Lessons Learned) – eeded giving the ope
staged associated with sign in
Fire Venue
I. Safety Issues Strengths -
• Good communication observed throughout venue • 2 ma• PPE use
Areas for Im
• The boats had difficulty controlling steering during portions of the response. There was a potential for personnel to be knocked off the vessels during the exercise.
• Overspray from trucks could hit personnel on boats and vice versa. • Extensive idling of trucks. Personnel standing behind idling vehicles exposed
to CO. • Gap between the barge and dock presented a fall hazard. Response personnel
observed jumping a couple of feet with hoses. • Not all trucks were chucked. • Drinking water for all participants was lacking during the response.
n and m d ulti-man lifting observe
provement (Lessons Learned) –
11
II. Incident Management
cene report in a timely manner
• IAP and Communications Plan developed during earlier exercise activities supported response activities
• Good communication including face-to-face when needed. Radio nications w r
Learned) – ystem would assist command staff with the on
cidents and improve accountability.
e mapping.
III. Fire Response
Strengths - • First responding unit provided initial on-s• ICS initiated and implemented quickly; IC aide assigned and documentation
initiated in a timely manner and in accordance with established SOP • Managed scene effectively
commu as also clea
Area s for Improvement (Lessons• A mobile command board s
scene management of units assigned to inOnly one board should be used for each venue. The use of the data management system such as the US EPA’s SCRIBE system would aid command and emergency management officials through the tracking and documentation of environmental monitoring data on GIS typ
g units were well coordinated aged scene effectively;
d effectively properly requested
nsiderations were implemented; safety message concerning salt water issued
s was good; Norwich FD did
Strengths - • Respondin• IC man• Fire resources including foam operations were use• Foam requirements were calculated and• Safety co
• Over communications with Marine Unitexperience some problems in this area
Areas for Improvement (Lessons Learned) –
• Additional training is warranted for several departments in deploying their foam assets
• Deployment of foam assets took longer than expected • Consider using fire boats as hydrants to supply on-shore pumpers
for all foam trailers and SOPs for placing • Consider providing gate valvesthem inline
• Consider providing relay pumpers on long lays and/or lays from marine units
12
• Use dikes, booms or changed feeder line to contain product and/or foam t
blanke
Hazmat Venue
I. Safety Issues Strengths -
• The responders were able to adapt to a change in the scenario (froleak to anhydrous ammonia leak)
m ethanol very well.
onse was well coordinated. All the
bucket with a rope attached to bring tools and equipment to the teams were not aware of this tactical
. bers were on top of the rail car at the
. It should be assessed if there is a
eams e of
ular n done to assess the teams. Air
monitoring did not seem to be continuous and lacked reporting back to iality of the venue.
II.
• This multi-agency/multi-department respvarious departments and agencies worked seamlessly to perform a response to an anhydrous ammonia leak.
• ICS was utilized throughout the response and worked very well. Areas for Improvement (Lessons Learned) –
• In one instance a responder in Level A Suit was observed climbing an accessladder to the top of the rail car with a metal clamp in one hand. Although there was atop of the rail car. Some response system
• In one instance all three entry team memsame time exercising repairing of a leakneed for that many people need to on top at the same time.
• There did not seem to be a lot of regular communications with the entry tand the hazmat officer during the entries. Although there was a direct linsite due to area constraints, under real conditions the team would have be at least 330’ from the decon line and even further from operations. Regstatus communications should have bee
command. This may be due to the artific
Hazmat Response
pply
Strengths – • Numerous Level A entries made by a variety of responding agencies • Good hands on experience climbing a rail car in Level A and working to a
a C kit
13
• Excellent opportunity for entry teams from two states and a myriad of jurisdictions to interact in the field
• HazMat teams from Connecticut and Rhode Island were well equipped with trained personnel, resources, and equipment to effectively respond to the incident
• Thorough hazard assessment and risk evaluation although not as timely as timeliness due to confusion associated with railcar props (see area of
ement below)
ure
readings to facilitate response
d niques used varied indicating that a SOP was not followed carefully
expected; improv
Areas for Improvement (Lessons Learned) – • Chemical changed from ethanol to anhydrous ammonia as the result of rail
car markings and erroneous messaging • Rail car markings (anhydrous ammonia) caused a change in scope of the
response. Consider evaluating the railcars prior to the drill to insmarkings meet the intended exercise scope
• Control should provide simulated meter• At least two entry teams had all their personnel on top of the rail car • General lack of communication between the entry teams and the command
staff • Decontamination activities were sloppy. Decon line was inadequately manne
and tech
14
SEC The ies and orrespon xercise was an effective medium that allowed participating agencies nd or ies, and procedures regarding a ultiju
The m
• s. The Communications Plan developed
• rt
onnel,
es
The prim
• eawall. Additional hands-on
training is recommended. • Standard hazard assessments should be followed prior to putting vessels into areas where a hazardous
atmosphere could endanger the boat as well as the crew. • At the HazMat venue the older style railcar created a problem with the application of the Chlorine
Institute C Kit. The RI & CT HazMat teams should consider purchasing a Midland Chlorine Kit to address these circumstances.
• Additional joint inter-state training and exercise events are recommended to continue to validate interoperability, especially with regards to communications.
Planners and trainers should use the results of this exercise to improve the development and execution of future exercises and to forecast needs and requirements when responding to a multijurisdictional HazMat incident.
TION 4: Conclusions
Tri-State Hazardous Materials Response Full-Scale Exercise was successful and well attended by all agencganizations, and displayed a continuing commitment to advance and further develop the Region’s se and recovery capabilities. This eganizations to continue to discuss and evaluate plans, polica
m risdictional HazMat situation.
ajor strengths identified during this exercise are as follows: Good communication was observed throughout the venueduring earlier exercise activities supported all full-scale response activities. Connecticut and Rhode Island responders have sufficient communication capabilities to suppointeroperability on scene of a large fire and Hazmat incident.
• Responding units were well coordinated. • ers The Connecticut and Rhode Island Foam Task Force teams were well equipped with trained p
resources and equipment to effectively respond to the incident. • The Connecticut and Rhode Island HazMat teams were well equipped with trained personnel, resourc
and equipment to effectively respond to the incident.
ary areas for improvement are as follows: ilcars without putting their vessels The Marine Task Force had difficult time spraying water onto the ra
and personnel in jeopardy with adjacent structures such as the pier s
15
APPENDIX A: IMPROVEMENT PLAN
result of the Tri-State Hazardous Materials Response Full-1. These recommendations draw on both the after-action
port and the after-action conference.
This improvement plan has been developed as aScale Exercise conducted on September 10, 201re
Table A.1 Improvement Plan Matrix Strengths & Areas of Improvement
Capability Observation Title Recommendation Primary Agency Corrective Action Capability Completion
Description Element Responsible Start Date Date POC Agency HAZMA
RI EMA Ray
Jan 2012 On-going T Observation 1.1: Regional (Tri-State Continue HAZMAT Strength. There were many
resources) should continue to train together to
Regional HazMat training & exercises.
Training & Exercises.
Laprad
trained responders capable of entering the hot
increase mutual aid awareness and
CT DEMHS Gary Ruggerio
zone in chemical protective
continuity of SOPs and
clothing. capabilities. State Exercise Coordinators consider additional cross-boarded exercises during planning.
IC
training & Exercises.
Observation 1.2: Strength The
Reinforce following HSEEP protocols and
Continue Regional HazMat
HAZMAT Training &
RI EMA
Ray Laprad
Jan 2012 On-going
communication plan developed during earlier
develop key ICS documents during TTXs and
exercises in accordance with HSEEP protocols.
CT DEMHS Gary Ruggiero
exercise activities supported the full scale response activities.
workshops to be field tested in full scale exercises.
16
y Observation Title Recommendation Corrective Action Description
Capability Element
Primary Capabilit Responsible
Agency
Agency POC
Start Date Completion Date
HAZMAT
Improvement Entry teams nee to uti e rope &bucket system for tools instead of climontequipment.
equipment to mresponse easier afer.
Regional HazMat training &
HAZMAT Training &
RI HAZMAT
Jim Ball
JeM
Jan 2012 Sept 2012 Observation 2.1: Area for
Train entry teams to use all available
dliz s
ake and
exercises. Exercises. Decon Sub-committee
CT FA ff orrissette
bing ladders o railcar holding
HAZMAT OArImDeshwr ures anconsistency throughout the Region.
RTeams should dpgbe implemented in t .
,
exercises. Training & Exercises.
RI HAZMAT
committee
CT FA
Jim Ba
Jeff Morrissette
Jan 2012 Sept 2012 bservation 2.2: ea for provement con teams
ould compare itten procedd insure
egional Decon
evelop consistent rocedures and uidelines that can
he Tri-State area
Regional Decon SOP reviewtraining &
HAZMAT SOPs,
Decon Sub-
ll
HAZMAT
Observation 2.3: Area for Improvement Chlorine C Kit was nora
Purchase MidlanK
HAZMAT Equipment & training.
HAZMAT Equipment
RI EMA
Richard Jones
Bill Sewerd
Jan 2012 December 2012
t conducive to ilcar.
d it
CT FA
FIRE/ HAZMAT
Observation 2.4ArImMFodico
Ctvtm
Mat Training & Exercises.
Providence Chief Jan 2012 On-going onduct further raining with the essels that includes he use of the onitors
Regional Haztraining & exercises.
HAZMAT FD Dillon
: ea for provement
arine Strike rce team had
fficulties ntrolling vessels
during response evolutions
FIRE/ HAZMAT
Observation 2.5: Area for Improvement Marine Strike Force & Foam Task Force need further field experience interfacing and coordinating.
Conduct further training with the vessels and coordinate with shore base operations.
Regional HazMat training & exercises.
HAZMAT Training & Exercises.
Providence FD
Chief Dillon
Jan 2012 On-going
17
Primary Agency Corrective Action Capability Completion Capability Observation Title Recommendation Start DateResponsible Description Element Date POC Agency
FIRE/ Observation 2.6:
Conduct further Fi Providence Jan 2012 Feb 2012 HAZMAT Area for
ent ImprovemNot all the fire trucks were chucked during theresponse.
training with the fire department to reinforce chucking.
re Department training brief.
Fire Dept. Training FD
Chief Dillon
IC :
bile ommand board
ne
y at
onsider purchasing
boards to improve on-scene accountability. Tri-
e
HAZMAT Equipment & training.
HAZMAT Equipment
CT FA
Richard nes
Bill Sewerd
Jan 2012 July 2012 Observation 2.7Area for Improvement A single mocsystem should be used to assist command staff with the on scemanagement of units assigned to incidents and improve accountabiliteach venue.
Cmobile command
State agencies should consider buying the samboard system for interoperability purposes.
RI EMA
Jo
IC Observation 2.8: Area for ImprovemThe use of the
ent
’s
data on IS type mapping.
a data management system should be considered or call for by incident
n
ining.
RI DEM CT DEP data
management system such as the US EPASCRIBE system
would aidcommand and emergency management officials throughthe tracking and documentation of environmental monitoring G
Develop guidance that outlines when such
command, and provide training ithe management of the data management system.
HAZMAT Data management, SOP & tra
HAZMAT
Jim Ball
Mark DeCaprio
Jan 2012 Sept 2012
Exercise
eded
er staged
h the
f full-es.
ExDesign Team
J
Gerry Goudreau
Design Observation 2.9: Area for Improvement Security was negiving the open nature of the site and numbof responders
Ensure police departments are involved witplanning & execution oscale exercis
Exercise Design Full Scale Exercise
Tri-State ercise
im Ball
Dec 2011 Jan 2012
IC
.10: rea for
Improvement Credentialing of participants needs
RI EMA should consider purchasing the Salamander system to improve personnel tracking.
HazMat Training and Operations
IC RI EMA
Richard Jones
Jan 2012 July 2012 Observation 2A
18
19
to be improved for safetyapurposes.
and ccountability
IC/ HAZMAT
e
atmosphere the
e
Marine Task Force as well as the Providence
Hazard Assessment guidance & training.
SOPs, Training & Exercises.
Providence FD Dillon
ObservatArea for
ion 2.11:
Improvement Standard hazardassessments should bfollowed prior to putting vessels into areas where a hazardouscould endangerboat as well as thcrew.
Develop written guidelines that address the capabilities or the
HAZMAT team.
HAZMAT: HAZMAT Chief Jan 2012 Sept 2012