Incident Command Systems in Relation to the Buncefield Disaster - Assignment Example

A REPORT ON INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEMS IN RELATION TO THE BUNCEFIELD DISASTER Submitted to (INSTRUCTOR’S NAME) (INSTITUTION NAME) (ADDRESS) February 15th, 2010 By (STUDENT NAME) (INSTITUTION NAME) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Contents…………………………………………………………………… 2 2. Abstract………………………………………………………………….. 3-4 3. Introduction: 4. The Reasons For The Establishment Of An Effective Incident Command System For Large Scale Incidents Such As Buncefield…………………5 5. The Various Levels Of Command Needed To Effectively Deal With Large Scale Incidents……………………………………………………..8 6. The Role Of Public Agencies In Disasters Such As Buncefield………..11 7. An Appropriate Dynamic Risk Assessment That Would Have Been Implemented At The Scene And Structure An Effective Action Plan….14 8. The Need For Effective Liaison With Media And Other Agencies During Major Incidents 9. The Need For Effective Liaison With Media And Other Agencies During Major Incidents 10. Conclusion 11. References INTRODUCTION An Incident Command System (ICS) refers to a systematic instrument used for the command, coordination and control of disaster response (Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations, 2006). ICS makes it easier for emergency services to work collectively with the use of operating procedures and common terminology controlling facilities, personnel, communications and equipment at a single incident or disaster scene. It allows for a consistent response to virtually any incident through the use of a common organizational structure which can be contracted and expanded in a coherent manner according to the level of the needed response (Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations, 2006). Incident Command Systems have been used by many emergency services such as fire services which make use of this systematic method of breaking down an incident into its constituent parts. In fact, several fire services have used ICS which is used all over the U S by fire services, counties and cities (Dispatch Magazine Online, 2007). THE REASONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM FOR LARGE SCALE INCIDENTS SUCH AS BUNCEFIELD ICS is a very important method of dealing with incidents, accidents and disasters with a success rate in several types of incidents. ICS as a system as been developed to be organizationally flexible and interdisciplinary in nature. According to dispatch Online Magazine (2007), ICS has proven efficient for reacting forms of incidents such as natural hazards, HAZMAT (hazardous materials) incidents; fires; planned events such as concerts; and so on. It would thus have been very suitable for the Buncefield incident. The benefits obtained from ICS are immense. As the National Response Team (2003) explain, the way in which ICS has been effectively structured, agencies benefit severally. For one, ICS helps remove duplicative efforts. This is due to the command structure in place whereby there are several levels of command, one command post at each level and each level has clear functions. ICS allows emergency responders to create and execute one combine IAP (Incident Action Plan). The ICS structure spells out the functions and responsibilities lessening the likely conflicts that may arise as well as enhancing the flow of information among all agencies that are taking part. Furthermore, ICS makes use of a common response culture and language which helps optimize combined efforts. It enables the collective approval of planning, logistics, operations and finance activities. It promotes a cooperative response environment therefore time is saved. Further to that, integral to ICS is the use of shared facilities amongst various levels and agencies and this significantly lessens emergency response costs (The National Response Team, 2003). Personnel from several agencies meld into a common management structure thus creating a type of unified group. This is also highly beneficial with regards to minimizing breakdowns in communication and maximizing overall effectiveness. According to Marx (2009), there are so many different reasons why developing an effective ICS system would have been beneficial for a large scale disaster such as the Buncefield incident. One such benefit he identified is that it contributes to the total utilization of resources.  This is because of how the system is designed whereby there is a continual maintenance of a controllable span of control; it has an integrated communications system; appropriate incident control facilities and locations are identified from the onset; and there is proper execution of efficient resource management protocols (Marx, 2009). All these features give the system a holistic nature that ensures it functions optimally. Lastly, and very importantly, ICS is useful for dealing with incidents of any size or type (The National Response Team, 2003). Therefore, whether it’s an earthquake such as the recent Haiti earthquake or a nuclear accident such as Chernobyl, ICS is still applicable. Evidently, it would have been similarly applicable for the Buncefield incident. THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF COMMAND NEEDED TO EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH LARGE SCALE INCIDENTS One of the benefits of ICS is the lack of duplication of functions due to the command structure that is in place unity in command. According to FEMA (2007), in terms of the levels of command, the ICS structural organization is arranged from the top down thus: command> operations> planning> logistics> finance/ administration. Duties and performance start with the Incident Commander (IC). The responsibility of the IC is to supervise the overall management of the incident in question. The IC is chosen according to their experience and qualifications. The command staff in the chain of command who are assigned by the IC include among others the PIO (Public Information Officer, the SO (Safety Officer), and the LO (Liaison Officer). The General Staff are the personnel in management who correspond to the main functional elements of the ICS such as the Operations Section Chief, Planning Section Chief and so on. The Command and General Staff have to constantly interact and share important information (FEMA, 2007). Under the operations section, on-scene tactical operations are managed so as to meet the incident objectives that have been developed by the IC. The next level of command under the planning section has the function of collecting, analyzing and distributing information on the state of the incident. The logistics section level support all the needs of the incident such as procuring resources via proper procurement authorities as well as providing transport, facilities, fueling, supplies, equipment maintenance, communications, food service and medical services for the personnel. The last level, the finances section, deals with the financing and administration of finances of the incident response. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC AGENCIES IN DISASTERS SUCH AS BUNCEFIELD The public expects excellent public agency leadership prior to, during, and after incidents. Some of these public agencies include public health agencies and the health department, transportation agencies, federal agencies and so on (Naim, 2006). The roles played by these public agencies vary from the relaying of information, removing debris, emergency medical care among others. According to Altevogt (2008, p. 6), the role of public agencies before, during, and after incidents is to carry out routine activities in line with policy development, public health’s assessment and assurance functions this role varies according to the interagency agreements, community resources and service provision roles. In these roles, public agencies collect, appraise, and broadcast information; collaborate and cooperate with other disciplines such as the health care sector to stop the spread of diseases and ensure the stability of health care. Public health professionals should have a significant role both before and in the immediate aftermath of any incident such as the Buncefield one. In most emergencies, there are serious injuries that if not treated as soon as possible, they can lead to fatalities or disabilities. The public health is one of the most, if not the most important, public agency without which emergency response would be impossible. Transportation agencies also should have been involved. Transportation agencies often have a dynamic role according to the incident’s timeline such as being early responders to the incident; supporting the incident commander and agencies; running post-event transportation; and/ or transporting displaced and evacuated people. The role of federal agencies is likewise crucial and is that of coordination or investigation after the incident has occurred. Federal agencies, according to Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (1998, p. 2), have several duties: providing the response with supplies, equipment, personnel and facilities’; provision of technical assistance, loans and even grants if the incident is particularly severe. Public Works and Engineering are also needed to restore public services to the latter state; fire Fighters are necessary for the suppression of fires and explosions as they occur; health and medical services are very important for providing help for medical care and public health needs; urban search and rescue search and rescue teams are needed for locating, removing and providing primary medical care to victims trapped in harms way; Food/ agriculture departments are necessary for identifying food and distributing them to the affected areas; departments of energy are needed for restoring power systems if they go out as well as fuel supplies. AN APPROPRIATE DYNAMIC RISK ASSESSMENT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AT THE SCENE AND STRUCTURE AN EFFECTIVE ACTION PLAN. An oil storage and transfer depot like Buncefield is highly susceptible to risks such as explosions and thus a risk assessment in such a case is not optional- it is a necessity. The Buncefield disaster was caused when fuel spilled over from a storage tank and the vapour cloud ignited. All tanks were holding about 3 million gallons of fuel thus the risk was quite substantial to begin with (Webster, 2006, p. 3). Evidently, there was sloppiness with regards to preventing this fuel overflow and it resulted in over 40 people getting injured property worth hundreds of millions of pounds being destroyed. A risk assessment is necessary to prevent dangerous incidents from occurring and the following discussion is a risk assessment of the shall b 1. Hazard Identification: In this case, there were several possible risks/ hazards. For one, the lack of effectiveness of the bunds. Bunds are secondary containment areas that prevent leaks from polluting the area. In the Buncefield incident, the bunds were ineffective in containing the leaks. In addition, there was no buffer zone between the depot and the residents, exposing them to the resultant pollution. Another risk is the location of the depot in relation to humanity and water resources. The Buncefield oil depot is located in a densely-populated and had the potential to affect the health’s of hundreds of thousands of residents. 2. Risk Reduction Strategies: Construction of an adequately sized buffer zone. The buffer zone should be at least 50 meters wide between the depot and residents to cushion them against the effects of a possible explosion. All oil storage tanks should be bunded. A fire rated barrier that has at least 30 minutes protection should be constructed that extends 300mm higher and wider than all applicable faces of the tank (Martin, 2009). Tanks should be located at least 2m away from buildings and residencies. (Martin, 2009). All oil tanks should be labelled with instructions concerning how to respond in case of a leak All oil containers must be strong enough to withstand bursting or leakages during regular use. All containers must be stored inside a drip tray or any other type of appropriate secondary containment system (SCS) to prevent oil from escaping from the container. The base and walls of the bunds must be verified to be impermeable to oil and water. In addition, the walls and base must not be penetrated by any pipe, valve or opening (Major Incidents Investigations Board, 2008. THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE LIAISON WITH MEDIA AND OTHER AGENCIES DURING MAJOR INCIDENTS Effective communication during an emergency is necessary in preventing time wastage and unnecessary loss of life. According to Continuity Central (2005), emergency responders have to liaise with public agencies and local authorities. The Buncefield incident is evidence shows how crucial it is for local authorities and emergency services to cooperate during a major incident. Failure to liaise with local authorities results in missing important information that shall assist in managing the next incident effectively. According to Tapster (2007, p. 17) in the Buncefield incident there were incidents where communications from the SCG (Strategic Coordinating Group) to and from central Government was inefficient and untimely. A lot of this is due to the challenge of correctly financing the role for a long time, the relative novelty of the role and the fact that whereas information was flowing to central government departments through the GLO, this was not the case with regards to the information coming down to SCG from government departments. When there was a request for information by the SCG it was given through the GLO but when there was a request for information from it was often not either not forthcoming or the response was very slow. Nevertheless, there were instances when the system worked well for instance during the fast tracking of customs arrangements to allow raw materials for the manufacture of extra foam stocks to enter the UK as quickly as possible (Tapster, 2007, p. 17). Evidently, communication is important and can be enhanced through the preparation of a media and communications plan. During the Buncefield, such a media and communications plan should have been implemented. In this plan, one main coordinator would have been chosen from the emergency services who will act as the front spokesperson to enhance the reliability, consistency and accuracy of the reports, risk predictions and updates. The communications and management team should work in unison with the coordinator. In terms of the type of communication, the coordinator and team must predict the questions and anxieties of the people and prepare correct, factual and cautious responses to these questions that need to be communicated both proactively and reactively. The messages must be repeated; reassuring; calm; and backed by facts. (UK Resilience, Cabinet Office, 2009). Filling the information vacuum must be done so as to prevent panic and dissemination of wrong information. This is what should have been done in the Buncefield incident. CONCLUSION The 2005 Buncefield 2005 was an explosion of major proportions that caused destruction of property worth millions of pounds. It was an incident that showed clearly the importance of a proper management system for emergency response and Incident Command System (ICS) is one such management system. ICS is very important for large scale incidents such as Buncefield do to the various benefits it provides such as the fact that it quickens emergency response sine the duplication of duties is reduced significantly. Further to that, it also has the benefit of unified command due to the top- down level of command in place- command> operations> planning> logistics> finance/ administration. This level of command enhances the efficiency of ICS. In addition to an ICS, preventing major incidents from occurring can be done through a risk assessment as shown in the risk assessment of the current discussion. Public agencies are also very important in emergency response and they include among others the public health sector and transportation agencies that assist in treating the injured and transporting them to safety thereby mitigating the risks of the incident. Yet, without communication, the response would be ineffective and thus liaison between agencies and the media is crucial to ensure the adequate flow of information to ease the flow of help to the affected. The Buncefield incident should have enhanced communication through the implementation of a media and communications plan which would have ensured adequate communication throughout the incidents duration. If the above measures can be taken in each and every incident, many incidents shall be prevented and for the few that occur, the injuries, deaths and damages will be substantially reduced for the betterment of society both now and in the future. BIBLIOGRAPHY Altevogt, Bruce M. 2008. Research Priorities in Emergency Preparedness and Response for Public Health Systems: A Letter Report. Institute Of Medicine. Washington, D.C. Dispatch Magazine Online. 2007. What Is the Incident Command System (ICS)? Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://www.911dispatch.com/info/ics/ics_describe.html Fema. 2007. National Incident Management System Incident Command System Emergency Responder Field Operating Guide (Erfog) Draft. Retrieved 14th February, 2010 from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/erfog.pdf Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations. 2006. Glossary: Simplified Guide to the Incident Command System for Transportation Professionals. Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ics_guide/glossary.htm Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 1998. The Role of Government in a Disaster. University of Florida. Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://disaster.ifas.ufl.edu/PDFS/CHAP03/D03-07.PDF Kapucu, Naim. 2006. The Evolving Role of the Public Sector in Managing Catastrophic Disasters: Lessons Learned. Administration & Society, Vol. 38 (3): 279-308 Major Incidents Investigations Board. 2008. Notice of prosecution: Explosion and fire at Buncefield Oil Storage Depot - Five companies to face prosecution. Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/press/b08002.htm Martin, Josie. 2009. General requirements of the Oil Storage Regulations. Environment Agency. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/netregs/63236.aspx Marx, Carl. 2009. Understanding the Incident Command System to Effectively Manage Emergencies. Ezine Articles. Retrieved 14th February, 2010 from http://ezinearticles.com/?Understanding-the-Incident-Command-System-to-Effectively-Manage-Emergencies&id=2773628 Tapster, Caroline. 2007. Buncefield Multi-agency Debrief Report Recommendations. Hertfordshire Resilience Forum. Retrieved 15th February, 2010 from http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/131513/buncefield_%20_multi%20agency_debrief_report.pdf The National Response Team. 2003. Incident Command System/ Unified Command (ICS/UC) Technical Assistance Document. Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://www.nrt.org/Production/NRT/NRTWeb.nsf/AllAttachmentsByTitle/SA-52ICSUCTA/$File/ICSUCTA.pdf?OpenElement UK Resilience, Cabinet Office. 2009. Working with the Media. Retrieved 14th February, 2010 From http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ukresilience/response/recovery_guidance/case_studies/y5_buncefield.aspx Webster, Helen N et.al. 2006. Dispersion Modeling Studies of the Buncefield Oil Depot Incident. Met Office. Retrieved 14th February, 2010 from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/HCTN/HCTN_69.pdf Read More