Public Protection & Safety Branch Operations Division 653 Airport Road, Fort St. John BC V1J M6 Phone (5) 79-5 Fax (5) 79-538 Rev. 16--9 FUCTIOAL/FULL SCALE EXERCISE AUDIT FORM The BC Oil and Gas Commission audits emergency exercises as part of our safety management program. Through these routine evaluations, the Commission is able to confirm each company has the trained and certified staff and resources identified in their emergency response plan, and that staff participating in the exercise are knowledgeable in their roles and responsibilities during incidents and emergencies. Our intent is to provide each company with a fair and accurate account of how their staff met these expectations, and to identify any areas of concern which the exercise may have highlighted. We are also committed to the dialogue on safety, and welcome feedback on both our evaluation process, and any specific points within an evaluation that your organization would like to clarify. Auditing of emergency management exercises contributes to the Commission s overall understanding of the safety culture within each company. Combined with other evaluation factors such as a company s maintenance of Emergency Response Plans and emergency contact telephone numbers the Commission is able to best focus inspection and auditing resources on the areas of highest risk. The tool has been designed for use across the full range of exercise types, and there may be occasions when some fields are not applicable due to the type or design of a specific exercise. In such cases, the overall assessment may be adjusted to reflect the elements that were present and evaluated. The purpose of an emergency management exercise tabletop or full scale is to provide all participants with an opportunity to confirm their knowledge, and discover any gaps in plans, expectations and assumptions. This is particularly important when mutual aid forms part of the emergency response, as the quality of communications between organizations determines the effectiveness of a response. It is important that a common vision exists between evaluators and exercise participants of these key objectives: Promote emergency preparedness Test a new plan or amendments to a plan Reveal planning weaknesses Reveal resource gaps Test equipment and standard operating procedures Improve coordination Clarify role and responsibilities Improve individual performance Demonstrate operational capability Fulfill regulatory requirements Additional benefits that may achieved through emergency management exercises include: Gain public recognition of the emergency management program Develop confidence in the knowledge and skills necessary to act effectively during emergencies. The auditing tool on the following pages has been developed in consultation with representatives of emergency management planning, upstream, mid-stream and downstream aspects of the oil and gas sector in British Columbia.
Permit Holder ame: Date & Time (start and end) OGC Auditor(s) in Attendance: Date: Start Time: End Time: Area of evaluation by Auditor ICP Field EOC Other: Copy of Exercise scenario given to OGC representative es o /A Other Agencies in Attendance: Person & Company Conducting Exercise ame of ERP used for Exercise Type of Exercise Functional Full scale Exercise for which fields or facility: (Confirm with PH at exercise) Was this the first exercise held for this field(s) or facility? es o Date and type of Last Exercise Date: Type: Full Scale Exercise Due (if applicable): PERSOEL: Field ICP EOC # of responding employees work in field / facility: # of responding employees in attendance: Percent of employees participating: What is the permit holder s plan for exercising field personnel not in attendance today? Was this the first exercise for any participants? es o If es, how many? Was the EOC part of the exercise? es o Location of Exercise Where was the Incident Commander located? At or near the site Off-site command post
= ot or ot - eeds PREPARATIO Pre-Exercise 1 3 5 Was there a sign in sheet for participants? Did the exercise have objectives? Were rules set out for the exercise? Does the company use the ICS system? 1 3 1 3 -Attendance was recorded of participants -o attendance was recorded of participants - There were objectives -There were no objectives -Rules were communicated to participants -Rules were not communicated to participants -Does not use ICS 1-Permit Holder uses some ICS roles but no EOC structure -Permit Holder uses some roles from ICS and has an EOC structure 3-Permit Holder has the 7 basic roles but EOC is different - Permit Holder uses the complete ICS and EOC roles -Initial input given but no further inputs given 1-Inputs given ad hoc -Planned inputs given at appropriate times but not to appropriate roles 3-Planned Inputs given to appropriate roles but not at appropriate times -Inputs were given to appropriate roles in a planned sequence at appropriate times Were inputs used in the exercise? Emergency Response Plan 6 7 8 Do all ERP s have the same date? Has the ERP(s) been updated in the last year? Did all roles have an ERP manual? -All manuals have same date on cover and same last revision list as PP&S manual -Some manuals do not have the same date -The ERP(s) are have been updated within the last year -The ERP(s) are more than a year old -o roles had an ERP or a form of it - Some roles had an ERP or a form of it - All roles had an ERP or a form of it EXERCISE Internal Communication 9 Did the first person on site activate the Emergency Response plan in a timely manner? - The plan was activated immediately upon discovery of incident and Incident Command was established. -The plan was not activated. 3
1 11 1 13 1 15 16 17 = Was a mode of communication discussed and designated for the emergency? Was a backup communication system planned or discussed? ot or ot - Were notification times set? Was the time synchronized and time zone to be used determined between participants? Did inaccurate phone numbers in the ERP affect the effectiveness of the response? Were Status Board information visible and kept up to date. Was regular status update-briefing meetings set and held to communicate progress? Were set times given for incident briefing meetings? 1 3 eeds -o mode of communication was discussed or designated -Mode of communication was either discussed OR designated -Mode of communication was discussed and designated -Backup communication was discussed, planned, and communicated out well -o backup mode of communication was discussed or planned for -o times were given by ICS roles for callers to call back at -Times were given by ICS roles for callers to call back but were not adhered to -Times were given by ICS roles for callers to call back and were adhered to -Time and time zone was not synchronized - Either time or time zone was done but not the other -Time and time zones were synchronized Inaccurate phone numbers affected the effectiveness of the response - Inaccurate phone numbers did not affect the effectiveness of the response - There were no inaccurate phone numbers observed -o visible status - Status Board is visible but not kept up to date -Status boards were visible and kept up to date -Meetings were not set or held 1-Meetings were set but not held -Meetings were set and held but communication was poor 3-Meetings were set and held and were effective -Times were given at the briefing meeting for the next briefing meetings -Times were not given at the briefing meeting for the next briefing meeting
18 = Were appropriate positions present at the briefing meetings? 19 ot or ot - 1 3 Did each ICS role give a quick status update report? Were subordinates of assigned roles appropriately updated and informed? eeds -o one was present because no meetings were held 1-ot all the section chief s and command staff were present -More positions were present than necessary 3- All appropriate positions were present and on time. - All appropriate positions were present and on time and communication flowed well. -o roles gave a status update -ot all roles were given an opportunity to give a status update. -All roles were given an opportunity to give a status update -Subordinates were not appropriately updated or informed -Some subordinates were appropriately updated and informed -All subordinates were appropriately updated and informed. Emergency Level 1 3 Was the level of emergency selected promptly? Was the risk matrix applied correctly? Was the level of emergency confirmed with the OGC? Was the level of emergency communicated to key internal and external stakeholders? Level of emergency was declared within the first 3 minutes of the incident -Level of emergency was not declared within the first 3 minutes of the incident -The risk matrix was applied correctly -The risk matrix was not applied correctly -The level of emergency was confirmed with the OGC. -The level of emergency was not confirmed with the OGC. -The level of emergency was not communicated to key internal and external stakeholders -The level of emergency was communicated to some key internal and external -The level of emergency was communicated to key internal and external stakeholders 5
= ot or ot - eeds Action Plan 5 Was an action plan determined and written out? 1 3 -o action plan was determined or written out 1-A partial action plan was determined but not written out -A full action plan for an operational period was determined but not written out 3-A full action plan for an operational period was determined and written out - A full action plan for an operational period was determined and written out and communication to the appropriate positions Response Priorities 6 Was the correct response priorities used? 1. Responder Safety,. Public Safety 3. Control of Incident -The correct response priorities were used when responding to the incident -The correct response priorities were not used when responding to the incident. Hazards 7 8 9 Was a situational assessment or site safety plan completed prior to entering the site of the incident? (consideration given for length of time for air in Scott pack, nonintrinsically safe devices, and vehicles being an ignition source)(use of checklist/ template, procedure) Was mitigation considered? Were the hazard procedures referenced in the ERP? -- A written situational assessment or site safety plan was completed prior to entering the site of the incident -A situational assessment or site safety plan was not completed prior to entering the site of the incident. -Mitigation was considered -Mitigation was not considered -Hazard procedures were referenced in the ERP -Hazard procedures were not referenced in the ERP Map & Hazard Response Zone (HRZ) 3 Was the map pulled out and referenced when incident started? -The map was not pulled out -The map was pulled out but not referenced -The map was pulled out and referenced 6
31 3 33 3 35 36 Was the map posted and marked up when the incident started for everyone to see? Was an HRZ determined quickly? Was an HRZ for the hazard determined correctly? (especially if non HS incident) Was the HRZ drawn on the map correctly? = Was the HRZ communicated well to the appropriate positions? (scan map to them, take picture and text, etc.) Were personnel able to interpret the map well? 37 38 39 ot or ot - Was the map correct and did it contain all pertinent information? Was an inventory of the HRZ performed quickly? Was an inventory of the HRZ performed correctly? eeds -The map was posted and well-marked up with emergency details e.g. wind direction, location of incident, HRZ, roadblocks, evacuated/sheltered public, ICP, staging area, reception center, etc. -The map was not posted or marked up. -The HRZ was determined within the first 15 minutes -The HRZ was not determined within the first 15 minutes -The calculated HRZ was correctly determined for the hazard -The calculated HRZ was not correctly determined for the hazard -The HRZ was not drawn on the map -The HRZ was drawn on the map but was not correct. - The HRZ was drawn on the map correctly. -The HRZ was not communicated to key positions -The HRZ was communicated well to some key positions. -The HRZ was communicated well to key positions. -Personnel were not able to interpret map well - Some personnel were able to interpret the map well -All personnel were able to interpret the map well (tenure holder boundaries, cross reference entities on the map with information in the binder, etc.) -The map was correct and contained all pertinent information. -The map was not correct and it was missing pertinent information. -Inventory of the HRZ was performed quickly (within 15 minutes) -Inventory of the HRZ was not performed quickly (within 15 minutes) -The inventory of the HRZ was performed correctly (tenure holders, permit holders, residents, waterways, railroads, etc.) -The inventory of the HRZ was not performed correctly. 7
= ot or ot - eeds Time it took: -Roadblocks were placed in correct locations -Roadblocks were not placed in correct locations -Roadblocks were set up in a timely manner appropriate to the circumstances -Roadblocks were not set up in a timely manner appropriate to the circumstances Roadblocks &Closure Order 1 Were roadblocks determined in correct locations? Were roadblocks set up in a timely manner? (Discussion to take place with permit holder) 3 Were roadblocks drawn and numbered on the map? Was a closure order requested from applicable agency in a timely manner? Were there enough resources for roadblocks including kits? -Roadblocks were drawn and numbered on the map -Roadblocks were either not drawn or numbered on the map -Road closure was requested from applicable agency -Road closure was not requested form applicable agency -There were enough roadblock kits for all roadblocks -There was not enough roadblock kits for all roadblocks Roles 5 Were roles assigned quickly for the appropriate response? 6 7 Were enough personnel activated at the ICP? Did the participants communicate what role they were assigned to each other during the exercise? (e.g. vests, name tags, verbal, etc.) 1 3 -Roles were not assigned 1-Some roles were assigned but not quick enough for the appropriate response -Some roles were assigned quickly for the appropriate response 3-Enough roles were assigned but not quickly for the appropriate response -Enough roles were assigned quickly for the appropriate response -Enough personnel were activated at the ICP -Enough personnel were not activated at the ICP -Roles did not communicate their role to others -Some roles communicated their role to others -All roles communicated their role to others 8
8 9 5 51 5 53 5 55 Did the Incident Commander assume roles that were not assigned? (use checklist of those roles) Was span of control adhered to? (span of control 3-7) = Did the roles adhere to their assigned roles? Were the names and phone numbers of the roles documented on a chart or whiteboard and visible for everyone? Did the chart get communicated to other command posts? Were all the roles assigned, appropriate for the response? (don t assign tasks, assign roles to do the tasks) Did the Incident Commander have a working knowledge of each duty and responsibility of those under him/her? Was a chain of command understood during the exercise? eeds -The IC assumed the roles that were not assigned which was demonstrated by using the checklists for those roles -The IC did not assume the roles that were not assigned -o role had more than 7 people reporting to them -One or more roles had more than 7 people reporting to them -Roles did not adhere to their assigned roles -Some roles adhered to their assigned roles -All roles adhered to their assigned roles -The names and phone numbers of all the roles were not documented on a wall chart -Some names and phone numbers were documented on a wall chart -All names and phone numbers were documented on a wall chart -The chart was communicated to all other command posts -The chart was not communicated to all other command posts -The roles assigned were appropriate for the response -The roles assigned were not appropriate for the response - The IC has a good working knowledge of the roles and their duties -The IC did not have a good working knowledge of the roles and their duties -The chain of command was understood during the exercise. -The chain of command was not understood during the exercise ot or ot - 9
= ot or ot - eeds Checklist 56 Did everyone pull out and use their roles & responsibility checklist when assigned a role? 1 3 -o roles pulled out their checklist 1-Some roles pulled out their checklist but did not use them -Some roles pulled out their checklist and used them 3-All roles pulled out their checklist but some or all did not use them -All roles pulled out their checklist and used them Forms 57 From the sample(s) did that position use the proper forms for that role? -o forms were used -Some forms were used for that role -All forms were used for that role Residents, Transients, Evacuation, Sheltering 58 59 6 61 6 63 Were the company s evacuation/sheltering written procedures practical/realistic? Was the resident section of the ERP referenced? Was there a discussion on how affected residents would be contacted? Were applicable residents sheltered/evacuated in a timely manner? Was consideration given first to the closest affected parties downwind? Was consideration given to notification of schools and school buses? -The evacuation/sheltering written procedures were practical and realistic -The evacuation/sheltering written procedures were not practical and realistic - The resident section of the ERP was referenced -The resident section of the ERP was not referenced -There was discussion about how the residents would be contacted -There was no discussion about how the residents would be contacted. -Residents were sheltered/evacuated in a timely manner - Residents were not sheltered/evacuated in a timely manner -Consideration was given first to the closest affected parties downwind - Consideration was not given first to the closest affected parties downwind. -Consideration was given to notification of the school children and their buses. -Consideration was not given to notification of the school children and their buses. 1
6 65 66 67 68 69 7 71 7 73 Were residents given instructions on which route to take to evacuate? Was consideration given to sheltering and was the sheltering criteria referenced? Were pre-scripted messages used for the residents? Were rovers dispatched quickly? Were there enough resources for roving? Was consideration given to dispatching a helicopter to help with roving? Did the company contact other public potentially affected by the incident such as non-resident landowners/renters, other operators, tenure holders, recreational users, etc. Were actions taken to prevent access into the HRZ by other means such as railways, water courses, etc. Did the company have enough available resources to evacuate/shelter the public? Was the reception center opened with someone assigned to the reception center in a timely manner? = - ot or ot eeds - Residents were told which route to take when evacuating their home. -Residents were not told which route to take when evacuating their home. - Sheltering was considered by referencing the sheltering criteria. -Sheltering was not considered. -Pre-scripted messages for evacuation/sheltering were used. -Pre-scripted messages for evacuation/sheltering were not used. -Rovers were dispatched within 15 minutes. -Rovers were not dispatched within 15 minutes. -There were enough people and vehicles for roving -There were not enough people and vehicles for roving -Consideration was given to dispatching a helicopter -Consideration was not given to dispatching a helicopter -All known transients were identified -ot all known transients were identified -Actions were taken to prevent access to the HRZ from other means. -Actions were not taken to prevent access to the HRZ from other means. -The company had enough resources available to evacuate/shelter the public. -The company did not have enough resources available to evacuate/shelter the public. - The reception center was opened and staffed prior to evacuating the public. -The reception center was not opened and staffed prior to evacuating the public 11
7 After public consideration, was consideration given to potential impact on animals and livestock? = - ot or ot eeds -Consideration was given to the potential impact on animals and livestock - Consideration was not given to the potential impact on animals and livestock OTAM Order 75 Was consideration given for a OTAM order?(to be considered where there is a release of a toxic substance for flammable product -A OTAM order was considered -A OTAM order was not considered External Communication 76 77 78 79 Was EMBC contacted within one hour? Were all relevant government agencies contacted? MOT/Public Works Local Gov. Authority Local Health Authority WorkSafe MOE (through EMBC) RCMP MFLRO School District Was the OGC updated regularly? Was external telephone lists accurate and complete? -EMBC was contacted within one hour -EMBC was not contacted within one hour -All relevant government agencies were contacted. -All relevant government agencies were not contacted. -The OGC was updated on a regular basis. -The OGC was not updated on a regular basis. -External telephone lists were accurate and complete. -External telephone lists were not accurate and complete. Command Posts 8 81 Were command posts established and communicated? ICP, Offsite Command Post, EOC Were there check in procedures for each post/site? -Command Posts were established and communicated -Command Posts were established but not communicated -There were check in procedures for each post/site. -There was no check in procedures for each post/site. 1
8 Was a staging area established, communicated, and effectively managed for external resources to report to? = ot or ot - eeds -A staging area was established, communicated and effectively managed -A staging area was not established, communicated or effectively managed. Air Monitoring 83 8 85 Was active air sampling taking place by company personnel during the incident? Was mobile air monitoring called and dispatched promptly from nearest center? Did the company follow their written air monitoring procedures? -Active air sampling was taking place by company personnel such as roadblocks, rovers, etc. -Active air sampling was not taking place by company personnel such as roadblocks, rovers, etc. -Mobile air monitoring was called and dispatched at the beginning of the incident from the nearest center. -Mobile air monitoring was not called or dispatched at the beginning of the incident from the nearest center. -The company followed their written air monitoring procedures -The company did not follow their written air monitoring procedures Ignition 86 87 88 Was consideration given for ignition by referencing the ignition criteria? Did the company properly follow their Ignition procedures? Was there staff on site competent to carry out ignition? (training, course, performed in the past) -Ignition was considered by referencing the ignition criteria. -Ignition was not considered by referencing the ignition criteria. -The company properly followed their ignition procedures? -The company did not properly follow their ignition procedures. - There were competent people on site able to ignite -There were not competent people on site able to ignite Equipment 89 Was company equipment available? e.g. Communication equipment, PPE, roadblock kits, hand held monitors, vehicles, etc. -o equipment was readily available -Some equipment was readily available -All equipment was readily available 13
9 Was necessary external equipment and resources promptly located? = ot or ot - eeds -The necessary external equipment and resources were not promptly located. - The necessary external equipment and resources were not prompted located Media 91 9 93 Was an external communication strategy formulated? Was media releases coordinated with the OGC? Was a media contact person communicated to all individuals? (e.g. Roadblock crew, IC, receptionist, staging area, etc.) -An external communication strategy was formulated -An eternal communication strategy was not formulated -Media releases were coordinated with the OGC -Media releases were not coordinated with the OGC -A media contact person was not communicated to individuals. -A media contact person was communicated to some individuals. -A media contact person was communicated to individuals. Post Incident 9 95 96 97 98 Was the decision to downgrade/stand-down the incident done in consultation with the OGC? Were the public notified to return to their homes? Was decontamination considered or in place during the exercise? Were the applicable government agencies called back once downgraded? Was consideration given to securing the site and evidence for investigation? -The decision to downgrade/stand-down was done in consultation with the OGC. -The decision to downgrade/stand-down was not done in consultation with the OGC. -The public were notified to return to their homes -The public were not notified to return to their homes -Decontamination was considered or in place during the exercise -Decontamination was not considered or in place during the exercise. -All applicable government agencies were informed of the downgrade/stand-down. -ot all applicable government agencies were informed of the downgrade/stand-down -Site security was considered or in place for evidence preservation post incident - Site security was not considered or in place for evidence preservation post incident 1
= ot or ot - eeds ERP 99 1 11 Did the participants have good knowledge about their ERP? Were the participants able to find information in the ERP easily? Did applicable participants open the ERP manual during the exercise? -o one had a good knowledge of their ERP -Some participants had a good knowledge of their ERP -All participants had a good knowledge of their ERP -Particpants were not able to easily find information in the ERP -Some participants were able to easily find information in the ERP -All participants were able to easily find information in the ERP - participants used their ERP or a form of it during the exercise -ot all applicable participants used their ERP or a form of it during the exercise. EMERGEC OPERATIO CETRE 1 13 1 15 16 Was the EOC staff involved in the exercise? Did the personnel at the EOC understand their role? (support to IC) Were enough personnel activated at the EOC? Did EOC/ICP have a scribe recording the incident events and posted so everyone could see? Did the EOC/ICP have good wall reference material and wall forms? e.g. Incident briefing report, ICS chart, Action Plan, etc. -The EOC staff were involved in the exercise -The EOC staff were not involved in the exercise -The EOC understood their role as a support role to the ICP -The EOC did not understand their role as a support role to the ICP -Enough personnel were activated at the EOC -ot enough personnel were activated at the EOC -The EOC/ICP did not have a scribe recording the incident events -The EOC/ICP had a scribe recording the incident events but it was not posted for other to see -The EOC/ICP had a scribe recording the incident events and it was posted for all to see -The EOC/ICP did not have any wall reference material or forms -The EOC/ICP had some wall reference materials or forms -The EOC/ICP had good wall reference materials and forms 15
= - ot or ot eeds POST EXERCISE 17 18 19 11 111 11 113 Did the exercise execute and flow well? Were observers used to evaluate the exercise both at ICP, onsite, at EOC? Were forms collected after the exercise? Was an exercise debriefing meeting held to state what went well and what areas need improvements? Was debriefing comments and action items captured? Were the exercise goals and objectives met? Were the action items from the last exercise completed? -The exercise executed and flowed in a systematic and methodical manner -The exercise was not executed or flowing in a systematic and methodical manner -Observers were used to evaluate the exercise at both sites -Observers were not used to evaluate the exercise at both sites -All forms were collected after the exercise -All forms were not collected after the exercise -A debriefing meeting was held -A debriefing was not held -Debriefing comments and action items were captured -Debriefing comments and action items were not captured -The exercise objectives and goals were met -The exercise objectives and goals were not met -The action items from the last exercise were completed -The action items from the last exercise were not completed. 16
TOTAL SCORE: OGC Observations (items mentioned at debrief) Successes Opportunities for improvement OGC Recommendations: OGC SIG OFF OGC Staff Member: Date: OGC Staff Member: Date:
COMPA REPRESETATIVE RECEIVIG FORM COMMETS: (plans to address deficiencies, comments on form, comments on evaluation, etc) Acknowledgement of receipt and contents of the Audit: Senior Company Representative ame: Senior Company Representative: Date:
TIME TIME AD EVET LOG OF THE EXERCISE EVET