Are You Ready: Part 1: Emergency Response

For many of us responding to emergency situations still has the ability to trigger images of flashing lights & last minute heroic decisions saving the day. The unfortunate reality is that on many occasions these decisions should have been made with an eye towards mitigating the risks associated with the complete emergency lifecycle and not just the initial response.


What constitutes an emergency scenario?


Emergency scenarios are significant events which result from uncontrolled developments that demand an immediate & all-encompassing response. Managing & mitigating the risks associated with emergencies will require an immediate, coordinated & possibly sustained response to minimize the potential or actual harm to the physical, financial, legal & reputational interest of the business.

Although such events are infrequent they can have severe ramifications if not managed appropriately. Incidents generally become emergencies in two (2) ways:


  1. They commence as an emergency (for example: structural collapse, explosion etc with only minimal or no warning) or
  2. They develop from incidents into emergencies (for example: fires or hazardous substance spills which escalate due to changing weather conditions).

To be considered an emergency scenario, the incident will require multiple elements of the following criteria to be present:

  • Involve more than one responding government agency (fire brigade, law enforcement, medical services etc)
  • Immediately obvious as being costly to control and mitigate,
  • Will require extensive mitigation, recovery and rehabilitation for the location &
  • Have the potential for public impact or interest & as such create greater media interest.


What does an effective response structure look like?


The key to mitigating emergencies is to have an established emergency response structure which provides for maximum flexibility & redundancy in a variety of situations. This can be achieved by designing a structure that adapts to the nature and scale of the emergency in question.


Additionally it is not uncommon for an emergency response to require the management of multiple streams of response which are complimentary but not necessarily overlapping.


The first & most obvious area which will require a dedicated response is the emergency location (ground zero), with some or all of the following activities being undertaken: containment of the immediate impact plus control or minimization of any secondary impact, establishment of control area to treat (for example: injuries of personnel or pollution response), engagement with internal & external emergency response parties, primary point of contact for liaison with statutory authorities & recording / dissemination of up to date information to the key internal decision makers.


Due to the exposure of this role at the emergency location it will have a high probability of being required to provide a statement to the authorities in regards to the nature of the emergency & response undertaken. This could be as an individual or on behalf of the business as an authorized representative

.

A secondary location will emerge within a short period of time of the emergency becoming known. This will depend on the magnitude of the impact being experienced & may require some or all of the following activities to also be undertaken: ensuring adequate attention & care is provided to any injured person(s) (including family members) beyond the control treatment area mentioned above, becoming the primary liaison with medical staff, hospital administration, insurance etc.


The nature of this response will require that the representative will be at a location away from the original emergency location. In addition, the nature of the human element plus availability of social media can quickly raise the profile of the emergency, plus potentially draw formal requests & enquiries from media agencies. As such real time monitoring of social media news & updates will become critical.


Due to the role being away from “ground zero” it is likely to be more accessible to media enquiries & as such it may become necessary for this position to be able to prepare & present information to the media either electronically or via live interview.


The third response stream which will emerge will be operationally driven & will largely depend on the extent of the impact that the interruption can or has had on the supply chain.


It is always a good idea to ensure that some or all of the following activities are being undertaken: communication with clients (beginning with the directly impacted parties) and stakeholders to allow them to minimize the impact of the emergency, co-ordination of loss adjustment activities for insurance purposes (for example you will not be able to start demolishing a partially standing structure until the loss adjusters have had an opportunity to assess it first – exceptions exist for making the area safe) this may also include the need for rescheduling of workload for current & planned projects whilst also considering the loss of key people, plant & continued business interruptions.


All of the above considerations are strategic in nature & should compliment any tactical responses being undertaken by the business. The value proposition of such strategic activities will become more visible in the future articles of the “Are You Ready? – Emergency Lifecycle Series”.

 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Zenergy Asia Pacific.

Contact Us

Zenergy News

22 Apr, 2024
The annual Zenergy Leaders Forum is one of the premier events on the senior health, safety & sustainability calendar in Australia.  This is a non-ticketed invitation only event hosted by Zenergy. Attendee numbers at the Zenergy forum are 150 and will include executive, people and culture directors, CEO, COO and directors of health & safety and HSE personnel. The topic for this year is “Integrated Psychosocial Risk Management”. All of the event information is below and reach out to your account manager at Zenergy for further details.
22 Apr, 2024
This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au . A commission has cautioned that society's "significantly raised" bar for what constitutes consent for physical interactions is "even higher" in work-related environments, in upholding the summary dismissal of a worker for inappropriately touching a colleague. In Perth, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Melanie Binet said that regardless of the intention of the worker, who claimed he was simply moving his female colleague "out of the way", his conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. Workers should be "on notice" of the increased scrutiny of behaviours, given the extensive social discourse and media coverage on sexual harassment issues, she said. "This is particularly so in the mining industry in Western Australia where a parliamentary inquiry [see related article ] focused community attention on the odious frequency of sexual harassment and assault of women in the mining industry." The Deputy President added that recent amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 that specifically identify sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal (see related article ) "reflect a societal recognition that sexual harassment has no place in the workplace in the same way as violence or theft don't". The worker was an Alcoa of Australia Ltd advanced mechanical tradesperson when he was sacked for inappropriately touching the colleague in an office at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in September last year. The worker claimed he turned his back to the colleague to squeeze between her and a desk to go to speak to another person and his hands made contact with her lower torso. Afterwards, the colleague's partner entered the office and found her visibly distressed. He confronted the worker, accusing him of grabbing the colleague's buttocks and squeezing it. The issue was escalated, and the worker was summarily dismissed after an investigation concluded he sexually harassed the colleague by making "unwelcomed and socially inappropriate physical contact". Alcoa found the worker breached codes and policies that he had been trained on, which stated that harassment was not determined by the intent of the person who engaged in the conduct but by the impact on the recipient. The worker admitted touching the colleague but claimed this only occurred because the room was crowded. He said he did not intend to behave in a sexual manner and apologised to the colleague as soon as he found out she was upset. He claimed unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement in the FWC. Deputy President Binet found the worker's accounts of the incident were inconsistent, with the parts of the colleague's body that he touched changing in his various statements. She accepted the colleague's evidence that the worker groped her in an "intimate sexual location" and his conduct caused immediate and ongoing effects to her health and wellbeing. The worker could have waited until there was space for him to pass between the desks, requested the colleague to move from the gap or gently touched her arm to get her attention, the Deputy President said. "There was simply no justification for him to turn his back then have his hands at [the colleague's] buttocks level, touch her buttocks and consciously push her out of his way," she said. "I am not convinced that [his] conduct was intended to be entirely without a sexual nature," she concluded. She stressed that even if she was wrong on this point, this type of unwelcome touching could objectively be seen as being capable of making recipients feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. The Deputy President also slammed the worker's representatives for choosing "to follow a well-worn but discredited path of blaming the victim" by accusing the colleague of inviting the "accidental" contact by standing in the narrow walkway. "Women should be able to attend their workplaces without fear of being touched inappropriately," she said in dismissing the worker's case. "It is a sad inditement of the positive work that has been undertaken by employers, unions and regulatory bodies in the mining industry that young women like [the colleague] are still frightened to report incidents of harassment for fear of being ostracised."
22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure
16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch
16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality
16 Apr, 2024
Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls WorkSafe Victoria recently launched a statewide blitz to tackle fall risks on building sites, such as unsafe or incomplete scaffolds, inappropriate ladder use, steps, stairs and voids or falling from or through roofs. The initiative was launched after nine Victorian workers died in 2023 as a result of falls from height, including four in the construction industry. The number of accepted workers’ compensation claims from construction workers injured in falls from heights also increased to 441 – up from 421 in 2022 and 404 the year before. Construction continues to be the highest-risk industry for falls from heights, making up a third of the 1352 total falls from height claims accepted last year. Of the construction workers injured, 160 fell from ladders, 46 from steps and stairways, 31 from buildings or structures, 27 from scaffolding, and 13 from openings in floors, walls or ceilings. WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer, said inspectors would be out in force with an extra emphasis on ensuring employers are doing everything they can to prevent falls. “As a leading cause of injury in the construction industry, falls from height is always a priority for our inspectors – but they will be making this a particular focus as they visit building sites over the coming weeks,” Beer said. “The safest way to prevent falls is to work on the ground. Where that’s not possible, employers should use the highest level of safety protection possible, such as complete scaffolding, guard railing and void covers.” Beer said WorkSafe Victoria can and will take action against employers who fail to ensure the highest level of risk control measures are in place to protect workers from falls. “A fall can happen in just seconds and it can turn your world upside down – so there’s no excuse for taking shortcuts when working at heights,” she said. The statewide blitz will be supported by fall prevention messaging across social media, newsletters and online, reminding employers and workers that fall can be fatal or cause life-changing injuries. Source: Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)
More Posts
Share by: