Design and Development of Realistic Exercise Scenarios: a Case Study of the 2013 Civil Defence Exercise Te Ripahapa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Design and development of realistic exercise scenarios: a case study of the 2013 Civil Defence Exercise Te Ripahapa T. R. Robinson T. M. Wilson T. R. H. Davies C. Orchiston J. R. Thompson GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 69 February 2014 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Robinson, T. R.; Wilson, T. M.; Davies, T. R. H.; Orchiston, C.; Thompson, J. R. 2014. Design and development of realistic exercise scenarios: a case study of the 2013 Civil Defence Exercise Te Ripahapa, GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 69. 113 p. T. R. Robinson, UC Centre for Risk, Resilience and Renewal (UCR3), Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand T. M. Wilson, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand T. R. H. Davies, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand C. Orchiston, Department of Tourism, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand J. R. Thompson, Canterbury Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group, PO Box 345, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand © Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2014 ISSN 1177-2441 ISBN 978-1-927278-10-9 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... VI KEYWORDS ........................................................................................................................ VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 NEW ZEALAND CIVIL DEFENCE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ................... 3 2.1 CDEM STRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 3 2.2 CDEM EXERCISES ............................................................................................ 4 2.3 EXERCISE TE RIPAHAPA .................................................................................... 5 3.0 EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS EXERCISES .................................................................. 7 3.1 HURRICANE PAM, 2004 ..................................................................................... 7 3.2 EXERCISE 24, 2010, 2011, & 2012 .................................................................... 8 3.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SHAKEOUT, 2008 ........................................................ 10 3.4 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 13 4.0 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 15 4.1 EXERCISE DESIGN STAGES .............................................................................. 19 4.1.1 Exercise Requirements ....................................................................................19 4.1.2 Hazard Selection ..............................................................................................19 4.2 HAZARD SCENARIO ......................................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Primary Process(es) .........................................................................................20 4.2.2 Moderating Factors ..........................................................................................21 4.2.3 Secondary Processes ......................................................................................21 4.2.4 Peer Review .....................................................................................................22 4.3 IMPACT SCENARIO ........................................................................................... 22 4.3.1 Asset Groups ....................................................................................................22 4.3.2 Asset Exposure/Fragility ...................................................................................24 4.3.3 Impacts/Functionality ........................................................................................24 4.3.4 Pre-existing Conditions ....................................................................................25 4.3.5 Asset Interactions .............................................................................................25 4.3.6 Resource/Information Requests .......................................................................26 4.3.7 Peer Review .....................................................................................................26 4.4 EXERCISE CONTROL ........................................................................................ 27 4.4.1 Injects ...............................................................................................................27 5.0 EXERCISE TE RIPAHAPA ....................................................................................... 29 5.1 EXERCISE DESIGN ........................................................................................... 29 5.1.1 Exercise Requirements ....................................................................................29 5.1.2 Hazard Selection ..............................................................................................29 5.2 HAZARD SCENARIO ......................................................................................... 30 5.2.1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................30 5.2.2 Discussion Points .............................................................................................31 5.3 IMPACT SCENARIO ........................................................................................... 34 5.3.1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................34 GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 69 i 5.3.2 Discussion Points .............................................................................................35 5.3.3 Impacts/Functionality ........................................................................................36 5.3.4 Asset Interactions .............................................................................................36 5.3.5 Resource/Information Requests .......................................................................37 5.3.6 Casualties .........................................................................................................38 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 41 7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... 43 8.0 REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................. 43 FIGURES Figure 1 New Zealand Civil Defence hierarchy and associated exercise tier levels. .................................. 3 Figure 2 The CDEM Groups and their associated Local Councils (www.civildefence.govt.nz). ................. 3 Figure 3 Modified Mercalli Intensity shake map of the 2012 M7.4 Oaxaca, Mexico earthquake (from USGS) of which the X24 Mexico earthquake scenario was coincidentally similar. ............. 9 Figure 4 Seismic scenario used in the Southern California ShakeOut 2008 exercise showing ground motions in m/s at 30s, 60s, and 120s after the earthquake begins. ............................... 11 Figure 5 Conceptual framework for the design and development of discussion based exercises. ........... 15 Figure 6 Conceptual Scenario Development framework (SDf) for the design and development of emergency management scenarios. .......................................................................................... 18 Figure 7 Flow-chart showing the development of Hazard Scenarios for emergency management exercises. ................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 8 Flow-chart showing the development of Damage Scenarios for emergency management exercises. ................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 9 Major active faults of the South Island capable of generating a large earthquake with widespread consequences. ........................................................................................................ 30 Figure 10 Comparison of the proposed Dunedin aftershock scenarios. a) The Akatore Fault scenario used in Te Ripahapa; b) The Dunstan North Fault alternative scenario suggested by exercise coordinators. .......................................................................................... 33 Figure 11 Interdependencies between three of the major critical lifelines networks. Arrows point to dependent network; thick line – strong dependence; thin line – weak dependence; medium line – moderate dependence. ....................................................................................... 36 Figure 12 Photograph of the Young River landslide dam used in Te Ripahapa as an example of aerial reconnaissance missions that would have witnessed landslide dams. ............................. 38 TABLES Table 1 Summary of casualties for earthquake and landslide tsunami as well as the worst affected Districts. ........................................................................................................................ 38 ii GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 69 APPENDICES APPENDIX