SA0200 – Emergency Management


To provide university officials guidelines to assist campuses/institutes/units to develop and maintain plans and procedures that meet emergency prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery requirements within the National Incident Management System and the Tennessee Emergency Management Plan. These plans and procedures will help ensure that all campuses/institutes/units are able to respond appropriately in the case of emergencies or disasters which could occur within or around the university community in order to minimize negative effects on persons and property and facilitate recovery from these incidents.


  1. Strategy  
    Most immediate emergency response actions that involve protection from harm to persons and property are executed at the local and regional level. Therefore, the goal of having a system emergency management policy is to provide general guidelines that assist campuses/institutes/units in responding to emergencies and to establish procedures to monitor the emergency preparedness activities of campuses/institutes/units. The system guidelines will specify requirements that campuses/institutes/units must meet to adhere to state and federal requirements. The guidelines will also be flexible enough to allow campuses/institutes/units to develop plans and procedures that meet their emergency management needs and that can be executed at the campus/institute/unit level.
    The primary roles of the University of Tennessee Emergency Services Coordinator (UT ESC) are to (1) act as a liaison between the university and the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (TEMA) for planning, coordination and response of university activities during activation of the State Emergency Operations Center, and (2) provide the necessary guidance for campus/institute officials to meet federal and state requirements.
  2. Responsibilities  
    Each campus is required to develop a comprehensive emergency management plan that meets federal and state requirements. Each campus/institute is responsible for designating, in writing, a person to serve as the campus emergency manager [1] to ensure emergency management responsibilities are fulfilled. University locations not geographically located on a campus are not required to maintain an independent emergency management plan but must maintain emergency procedures which at a minimum include evacuation, shelter-in-place, active shooter, and accountability procedures.
    1. University units that are not responsible for maintaining an independent emergency management plan are still responsible for developing and maintaining local building emergency procedures to address the safety of occupants with the assistance of and oversight by campus safety officers.
    2. The Institute for Public Service and all Agricultural Extension Offices shall prepare emergency procedures for inclusion in the UT System emergency management plan. Those emergency procedures shall address their specified tasks in the Emergency Support Functions[2] of the Tennessee Emergency Management Plan. The UT Space Institute in Tullahoma and the Institute for Agriculture in Knoxville are covered under the UTK Emergency Management Plan.
    3. Campuses will ensure building specific emergency action plans are developed to address evacuation and sheltering of occupants during emergencies.
    4. Campus emergency management programs will be guided by nationally accepted emergency management program standards and campus emergency plans will be consistent with National Incident Management System. 
      1. A hazard identification and priority for their geographic location shall be included in the Situation Overview of the basic plan with the hazard summary (see Tennessee Emergency Management Plan, intro 18).
      2. Each emergency plan will establish a method for the issuance of a campus declaration of emergency. Such declaration shall authorize the implementation of emergency management plans, empower those identified in the plan to request additional resources through local and state emergency management systems, and authorize the Incident Commander to direct the operations of individuals not normally in their direct chain of command.
      3. Mutual Aid Agreements including the Memorandum of Understanding between UT and TBR schools shall be addressed in the Organization and Responsibilities section of the plan. Examples of mutual aid agreements include the following agencies: 
        1. Law enforcement and fire departments
        2. Local public and mental health departments
        3. Local 911 centers
        4. American Red Cross
      4. Emergency management plans shall include procedures to ensure activities are entered in the WEBEOC[3] activity log in the Direction, Control and Coordination tab of the basic plan.
      5. The Information Collection and Dissemination tab of the basic plan shall include accountability procedures for faculty, students and staff during emergencies and provide the location of and access instructions for logging in to the System Reconnect site.
      6. Emergency management plans shall include procedures for capturing required resource expenditure data in the Administration, Finance and Logistics section.
      7. Review the core functions of Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 and assess which need to be separate functional annexes and what additional annexes might be necessary to address campus specific hazards.
      8. Include Prevention and Protection Activities (mitigation) and Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Restoration (also address long term recovery here).
      9. Include pandemic and active shooter plans in the hazard specific portion of the plan.
    5. Coordination responsibilities: 
        1. Act as liaison between TEMA (state) and UT representatives, including campus emergency managers.
        2. Coordinate a semi-annual meeting or video conference with campus emergency managers.
        3. Attend monthly TEMA ESC meetings.
        4. Monitor campus compliance with this policy.
        5. Notify (TEMA) and document any TEMA reportable event. This process is done through WebEOC
        6. Assist in coordinating key personnel training.
        7. Prepare an annual report of emergency management activities for the President.
        1. Oversee the campus emergency management program to create a resilient campus.
        2. Use WebEOC to report any TEMA reportable event and include notification to the UT System EM as soon as practical. Coordinate training for campus key personnel.
        3. Coordinate participation in appropriate local emergency management exercises.
        4. Coordinate and oversee campus compliance with this policy.
        5. Provide the information needed to complete the annual peer emergency preparedness review.
        6. Complete an annual report using a standardized format
    The UT System Director of Emergency Manager is responsible for assisting all campuses with their unified emergency management plans and needs. The Director will communicate directly with the President of the UT System and the UT System Policy Group regarding any emergency situation that takes place on a campus or institute. It is the campus representative’s responsibility to communicate or designate someone within the campus emergency operations team or policy group to communicate with the UT System Director in the event of any emergency related situation on campus to ensure that the System President and System Policy Group can be advised of any situation. The Director will provide a periodic report to the Board of Trustees audit committee.
    The System will also provide training for system-wide employees to prepare for potential events at the home office or on a campus or institute. The System Office will also be responsible for communication with campuses during an event to ensure that UT System messaging is accurate and consistent with the campus(es) public releases.
  4. Annual UT Peer Review
    The University of Tennessee will conduct an annual internal peer review of campus emergency plans based on EMAP standards. The process for the review will be as follows:
    1. Purpose, Scope, and Goals
      1. Purpose. This procedure will provide structure and guidance to the University of Tennessee Emergency Management Assessment Program (EMAP) Peer Review Process. The EMAP standards are being used as an internal guide to assist campuses in building and maintaining emergency preparedness programs.
      2. Scope. This procedure provides guidance for using campus peer reviews based on EMAP standards. Administration of campus emergency preparedness programs and how the standards are addressed is at the discretion of the campus. This procedure applies to the UT Chattanooga (UTC), UT Health Science Center (UTHSC), UT Knoxville (UTK), and UT Martin (UTM) campuses. UT Institute of Agriculture (UTIA) and UT Space Institute (UTSI) will be covered by the Knoxville program.
      3. Goals. 
        1. Provide the safest environment possible and continuity and protection for the university.
        2. Use the EMAP standards to improve and maintain campus programs.
        3. Campus programs that meet or exceed the standard of care of peer institutions.
        4. Standards based campus programs.
      4. Objectives. 
        1. Use standards based review to help set priorities.
        2. Identify gaps in programs that need to be addressed.
        3. Identify best practices to be shared with other campuses.
        4. Make efficient resource decisions.
        5. Protect the university by meeting standard of care expectations.
        6. Provide continuity to university business operations.
    2. Situation and Assumptions
      1. Situation: Seeking full accreditation is cost and resource prohibitive on most campuses; however, the university is responsible to make every effort to provide as safe and resilient of an environment as possible. A reasonable alternative to seeking accreditation is using a national standard to help guide campus emergency preparedness programs. The university has decided to use a peer review process to help meet its fiduciary responsibilities in regards to emergency preparedness.
      2. Assumptions. 
        1. Peer review is a no fault process designed to facilitate improvement.
        2. Campuses may choose not to meet some standards for valid reasons.
        3. Some standards may be partially met.
        4. Resource constraints are likely to impact compliance with some standards.
        5. The effort to use national standards and best practices will result in better programs.
    3. Concept of Operations:
      Campuses have discretion to set their own priorities and on how they implement their emergency preparedness programs; however, the peer review will use EMAP standards as a guide to allow for a uniform process. The university will take a phased and flexible approach to provide campuses with the ability to address campus priorities and capabilities. The peer review will take place annually. The standards have been divided into thirds and will be reviewed in a three year cycle (appendix 1). The peer review will be conducted using a checklist based on the standards to be reviewed that year (example in appendix 2). The campus will respond to the reviewer’s checklist and comments and this document will be maintained as the basis for improvement planning and progress reporting.
      1. Direction/Control and Coordination 
        1. Peer reviewer assignments will be coordinated by the UT System Emergency Manager (EM).
        2. Campus EMs and the assigned reviewer will schedule the on-site review.
        3. Coordination of third party reviewers can be requested by the campus EM being reviewed.
        4. The review will be complete around the July timeframe annually.
      2. Organization and Assignment of Functional Roles and Responsibilities: 
        1. The UT System EM is responsible for monitoring and oversight of the UT peer EM review process and will: 
          1. Make reviewer assignments annually.
          2. Provide the checklist to the campus EMs for the annual review.
          3. Collect and review the campus responses to the peer review.
          4. Share identified trends and best practices.
          5. Provide a summary of the campus peer review results in the annual emergency management report.
        2. Campus Emergency Managers are responsible for their campus’ participation in the EM peer review program. Additionally, they will: 
          1. Identify any additional standards to be reviewed outside that year’s annual selection.
          2. Provide all documentation requested by the reviewer and other support as needed to facilitate the review. This may be requested in advance of the site visit for some standards.
          3. Provide the campus response to the reviewer and UT System EM no later than 30 days after receipt of the reviewers report.
          4. Determine improvement planning objectives based on the review and campus priorities.
        3. Reviewers are responsible for completing the peer review based on the checklist provided and documentation available from the campus. Additionally, they will: 
          1. Identify to the campus EM any documentation needed during the course of the review to complete the checklist.
          2. Review large documents prior to arrival if necessary.
          3. Provide the completed review to the campus EM no later than 15 days after the site visit.
          4. Identify any best practices to be shared with the other campuses.
        4. The UTIA and UTSI safety officers are responsible for planning and documentation needed by the UTK EM to address their specific geographic location and operational circumstances.
    4. Administration, Logistics and Resources
      1. Reviewers will make their own travel arrangements in accordance with agreed upon schedule.
      2. Records: Both the campuses and UT System EM will maintain records of the final peer review checklist with campus responses. 
        1. Review records will be maintained for a minimum of 6 years.
        2. The UT System EM will maintain a record of identified trends and best practices.
    5. Plan Administration and Maintenance
      1. The UT System ESCs are responsible for maintaining this procedure.
      2. This plan will be reviewed annually for input at the UT System Emergency Managers meeting.
    6. Authorities and References:
      1. Establishment of ESCs and their authority is from TCA-58-2-108.
      2. The standards to be reviewed are derived from Emergency Management Standard by EMAP.
    Individual and collective training are necessary to ensure a proper state of readiness. The following are the minimum training requirements:
    1. Individual training 
      1. Campus Emergency Managers: Meet all training requirements established in at TCA 58-2-133 as promulgated by TNEMA and listed in Appendix 1.
      2. General personnel: Personnel with any role in emergency preparedness, incident management, or response such as IS 100[4] Higher Education (HE) and 700.
      3. Critical personnel: Personnel with a critical role in response such as personnel assigned to the emergency response teams or member of another key campus emergency management team: IS-IS 100.HE, 200, 700 and 800.
      4. Leadership personnel: Personnel with a leadership role and are typically obligated to command and manage during incident response in the absence of traditional incident response personnel. This is normally associated with university personnel who may be assigned as the Incident Commander
        1. IS-300 and 400 (IS-ICS/100,200,700 and 800 are prerequisites) are required for Campus Emergency Managers and the Incident Commander. Campus Emergency Managers are also required to be proficient with WEBEOC.
        2. Senior administration will have an important role in emergency response and will likely be assigned to a Policy Level Group [5] if not assigned a role in the emergency operations center. Chancellors and Vice Chancellors assigned to a Policy Level Group will be instructed in G367 Emergency Planning for Campus Executive seminar.
    2. Collective training 
      1. All students, faculty and staff: Orientation training on individual responsibilities during emergencies to include local sources of information and guidance.
      2. Key personnel training: Each campus will conduct annual training with the goal of realistically exercising the operation of their emergency operations center and validating their emergency management plan. 
        1. Participants shall include the Chancellor and executive team of each campus, individuals who are assigned emergency response duties and other selected subject matter experts as appropriate for the exercise scenario.
      3. Campus Emergency Managers will participate in appropriate local emergency management training and exercises and identify key personnel to participate as necessary.
      4. TEMA ESC shall complete training as required by TEMA.
    Send change recommendations to the UT TEMA ESC (Mike Gregory) to
  7. NOTES – top
    [1] Emergency representatives are responsible for the local execution of system emergency management policy and become the primary point of contact for the university ESC during emergencies. Sample assignment letters are available through the UT ESC.
    [2] The Emergency Support Function (ESF) concept divides emergency response responsibilities into functional sections for direction and control. Each ESF has lead and supporting agencies. The Institute for Public Service and the Institute of Agriculture have specified supporting agency responsibilities in some ESFs in the state emergency management plan.
    [3] WEBEOC is a web based software program used to communicate during emergencies.
    [4] References to IS-ICS ### are course numbers available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. “IS” indicates independent study and “ICS” are all courses related to the Incident Command System.
    [5] Policy Level Groups are formed during emergency operations but do not occupy the emergency operations center and consist of agency representatives with executive decision making authority. They have responsibility for prioritizing critical resource allocations and providing policy direction.
      Under recent changes to State law (TCA 58-2-133), the State has established specific criteria for local emergency mangers to include qualifications, duties and responsibilities and minimum training requirements. TEMA has taken these requirements along with existing guidance for local emergency managers and developed for the following minimum training requirements for an individual appointed as a local emergency manager:
    2. TEMA Training
      1. TEMA Hazardous Materials Operations Level*
      2. TEMA Damage Assessment Workshop
      3. G-191 – ICS/EOC Interface Operations
      4. S-775 – TN Emergency Operations Center Course
      5. G-300 – ICS 300 Intermediate ICS
      6. G-400 – ICS 400 Advanced ICS
    3. FEMA Independent Study (IS) Courses
      1. IS 100 – Incident Command System (ICS)
      2. IS 200 – ICS for Single Resources
      3. IS 700 – National Incident Management System
      4. IS 701 – Multi-Agency Coordination System
      5. IS 706 – Intra-State Mutual Aid
      6. IS 800 – National Response Framework
    4. FEMA Professional Development Series (Independent Studies)
      1. IS 120 – An Introduction to Exercises
      2. IS 230 – Fundamentals of Emergency Management
      3. IS 235 – Emergency Management Planning
      4. IS 240 – Leadership and Influence
      5. IS 241 – Decision Making and Problem Solving
      6. IS 242 – Effective Communication
      7. IS 244 – Developing & Managing Volunteers
        *Substitution accepted for previously accomplished TEMA Ops Level training (either accepted):
      8. Initial Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents: Basic Concepts (BC) and Concept Implementation (CI)
      9. Certification as TEMA Hazmat Technician

Policy Details:

SA0200 – Emergency Management
Version: 5 // Effective: October 1, 2017
PDF icon Downloadable PDF