Category: Disaster

There has been an argument as to whether whistle blowing should be considered an essential aspect when it comes to the issue of enhancing a better business continuity mismanagement system. This is the reason why the US Labor Department is collecting comments that will give a good direction and come up with new regulations that will have a long term effect of protecting whistle blowers (Honour 1).

Whistle blowers are mainly workers who voice issues about security, safety, and health concerns. Business continuity is an activity performed by many organizations to ensure that critical business functions are accessed and guaranteed by all the stakeholders concerned. Many people have assumed that business continuity should only be conducted or done when an organization is faced by a disaster (Honour 2).

Although this should not be the case, however, business continuity should be done or performed daily to maintain recoverability, service, and consistency. It has been argued that encouraging employees to report risky business operations in their organizations supports and enhances business continuity. This is because silenced workers will never feel free to work well.

In the long run, their potential will not be realized. This is a very important issue when looked at from a business continuity perspective. Perhaps there is a need to ponder on the question of whether or not whistle blowing should be encouraged as an essential aspect of business continuity (Honour 3) about disaster recovery and emergency management.

Workers should be given a voice as a way of getting a better insight into a given organization. This way, they stand a chance to better understand the risks faced by an organization without the knowledge of others or better still the public at large.

These risks can be hidden, but they may have a very large business impact on a given organizations continuity. For efficient business continuity, there is a need to have good disaster management and recovery measures that will ensure that huge losses are not incurred. Without good measures to mitigate such eventualities, an organization will find it hard to operate well, and this may come up as a challenge in a bid to compete well.

As much as whistle blowing can be encouraged as a way of identifying disasters in advance, several boards have seen this as a threat to their organizational and business operations and hence, not a good thing (Honour 2). Instead of appreciating such employees, the management and boards have seen them as enemies who are reporting the organization to a given regulatory or government body that will eventually punish them.

This should instead be seen as a way of encouraging employees to voice their concerns on areas they think the organization is not doing well. Organizations are advised to have their whistle blowing structures internally as a way of assessing their performance. If this is done efficiently, employees will feel that they are highly valued listened to and empowered (Honour 3).

This will give them another reason to work harder and ensure that the organization is successful. In other words, they will feel that they are part of the organization and in the process, give it their best.

This approach will likely create a good business continuity and disaster management approach. There are occasions where employees might see something that will hurt the organization and keep it to themselves. It might be because they fear to talk about such issues due to the consequences that might befall them (Honour 4). Business continuity will only be termed effective if the latest information that preceded it is well catered for.

Managers know very well that business continuity will only be guaranteed if there is a proper business impact analysis (Honour 4). There is no way that an organization can achieve considerable success without a proper business impact analysis. The impact analysis should be done while looking at the possible negative and positive scenarios that might befall an organization as a result of a given action.

This process will be flawed if employees and the management dont work together harmoniously as expected (Honour 4). They should not feel that they are working under pressure from others. In this case, they should be free to reveal whatever they feel is important towards positive continuity of the organization. This means that they should be in a better position to disclose processes and procedures that are risky or disastrous than they may be presumed to be.

From this explanation, it is obvious that whistle bowing can come in handy in enhancing the achievement of proper disaster management and business continuity. A good whistle blowing process will ensure that there is a lot of confidentiality in information delivery, which will make it easy for participants to input their concerns without any fear (Honour 5).

Whistle blowing will make it easy to identify new disasters that have not been factored in a given organizations business continuity plan. If employees are encouraged to whistle blow, an organization will be safe from any disasters that might pose a threat to its continuity (Honour 6).

Works Cited

Honour, D. Why encouraging employees to report risky processes and behaviors supports business continuity. 2010. Web.

Key Points of the Article How CEOs Improvised in the Wake of Sandy

Responding to Business Challenges strategically and operationally

It is debatable whether Hurricane Sandy was a foreseeable event; nonetheless, it is an unexpected occurrence, which requires innovative action to maneuver.

Ethics and Social Responsibility

Ideally, the office is preferred as a workstation. However, at a tie of crisis such as the one faced by Northeast CEOs, most ended up working in unconventional environments such as entertainment halls, homes, and any other place with WI-FI.

Entrepreneurship in Action

The decision to cancel a business trip or the launching of a regional meeting given an outage is wise and so is the predetermined backing up of work files in a smartphone.

Analysis of the Article How CEOs Improvised in the Wake of Sandy

The power shortages or outages that crippled businesses in the Northeast due to Hurricane Sandy resulted in ingenious survivorship skills among numerous families, but while the ordinary employee may not have been affected much in terms of mental pressure and professional responsibilities, the CEOs of various major firms did not get off so easy. For instance, The Lands End Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Edgar Huber was on a business trip, but the power issues forced him to set up an unexpected trip to his in-laws apartment complex where he put up his office to continue working. The CEO of Sears Holding Corporation was forced to cancel his business trip to New York when cancellations hit the airport and so he did what he could by boarding an Amtrak train to the Washington DC area and booked himself into a communal entertainment center at the Bethesda MD complex where he soldiered on with the WI-FI.

Foot Locker Inc. CEO Ken Hicks bravely endured in his office long past the compulsory shut down of his New York Headquarters where he worked until three in the afternoon. Afterward, he moved to his house in Murray Hill and continued working until the power went out. However, he would not be shut down and upon this turn of events, he resorted to working on paperwork for another two and a half hours. Yet another CEO, Jonathan Hsu, CEO of Recyclebank was forcefully detained by the power supply in his home. He had to juggle between his five and three-year-old daughters and work on his third floor and managed this by distracting the children with animation films. Eventually, he had managed to cover some ground despite the disruptions. What is inspirational about all these occurrences is the resilience portrayed by CEOs. They worked on despite the hiccups and used every available resource. The Acorda Therapeutics Inc. CEO Ron Cohen had to maneuver this power and transportation crisis alongside the possibility of delivery as his wife was to give birth in a week. He was hesitant about using a generator, as he feared the outage would last even a week. However, he had to use it because he wanted to save on his cell battery just in case there was a medical emergency.

Conclusion

The Northeast is not a stranger to power outages and the populace is somewhat prepared for this eventuality, at least psychologically. However, strategic and operational plans should be laid out on a large-scale level to deal with a repeat event proactively. As such, these CEOs could team up and come up with a workable solution that would permanently protect them from the adverse effects of power and transport disruptions on a large-scale basis.

Works Cited

Mattioli, Dana. How CEOs Improvised in the Wake of Sandy. The Wall Street Journal, 2012. Web.

Methods of Communication/Awareness

A disaster recovery plan has to be properly managed, including responsibilities assignment, schedule implementation, documentation, and the development of appropriate awareness campaigns (Erbschloe, 2003). All employees should be highly aware of the plan and trained to know the details that may influence the quality of disaster response. Awareness and training of employees cannot be neglected in a disaster response team because the more employees know, the better they understand what can be done next or how to avoid complications. Stakeholders are investors, employees, and their families who may face risks when a disaster occurs (Erbschloe, 2003).

If I were a part of the disaster recovery planning team of an organization, the process of building awareness among employees and external stakeholders would be based on such steps as creating motivational posters to underline the role of each team member, writing employee newsletters to provide all stakeholders with clear instructions, and making e-mail announcement lists to make sure that all stakeholders are involved and aware. Corporate web portals may be used to promote communication between all team members. These methods of communication should improve peoples understanding of a disaster recovery plan, its mission statement, and implementation and introduce a basic description of all important steps.

Frequency of Testing

Testing and rehearsing are the two important parts of a disaster recovery plan with the help of which it is possible to run a live disaster simulation. Many employees and their leaders believe that these steps have a lot of organizational and personal benefits. Still, there is no clear answer concerning the frequency of testing disaster recovery plans because this process depends on the availability of the resources, employees intentions, and leadership (Whitman, Mattord, & Green, 2014). Some people believe that it is enough to test plans once per month or once per year, but the statistics show that quarterly testing is the most widely chosen option (Teplow, 2017).

Frequent testing may decrease the level of trust in a system, and no rehearsals may question plans importance. Therefore, quarterly checks provide a solid backup plan for a company. Such frequency is effective because it reminds about the worth of each person involved in a disaster recovery plan and determines the objectives that cannot be forgotten. Finally, there are many special circumstances when disaster recovery plans are important, and people should remember about them to be ready for them. For example, earthquakes or wildfires can influence the work of organizations. A quarterly frequency of testing and rehearsals is effective due to the possibility to consider the latest weather changes and involve new people in a process.

Impact of New and Changing Technologies

The evolution of new technologies and marketing/feedback cycles cannot be neglected in a disaster recovery process because of several important reasons. First, new technologies lead to considerable improvements in services. They may help to entail risks and introduce new decisions on how to use different sources. For example, the feedback cycle can be improved to enhance a products competitive position, improve its functionality, and change cost-effectiveness (Erbschloe, 2003). If employees are not ready for some new changes, it is possible to create an image of improvement and change the intentions of competitors. However, not all new technologies may be relevant and appropriate for a company. Employees have to evaluate their personal skills, organizational background, and readiness to work with new technologies.

Updating Documentation

Disaster recovery planners and developers have to evaluate possible threats and new business conditions to promote updates and effective communication regarding recent structural or hierarchical changes. For example, there is a small company of auditors who aim at cooperating with local organizations and dealing with their financial procedures and improvements that may be appropriate or unwanted at the moment. There are ten regular and five temporary employees. A communication plan of this company is based on effective communication between all stakeholders, and any structural or hierarchical change may influence disaster responses in different ways. Therefore, it is necessary to update communication plans all the time and consider such points of the checklist as:

1. Contact information about all current employees and stakeholders;
2. List of jobs and functions of every worker;
3. Priority list of restoration of functions;
4. Distribution of all new information via e-mail online and in a written form.

Updating of a communication implant is required to be confident that all employees have the information about the latest changes and improvements and know what they should do in case of a disaster or other unpredictable event.

Communication during a Contingency

Communication during a contingency is an important policy requirement in many organizations. It can help to protect a company and prepare employees for the worst things that may happen. As a rule, contingency is characterized by increased complexity, and not all companies really comprehend what they should do, and what steps should be avoided. Contingency plans should answer such questions as who?, what?, where?, and why?. As soon as an organizational vulnerability is identified, and the critical points are mentioned, employees have to follow a plan and cooperate. To ensure the effectiveness of a communication plan during a contingency, it is necessary to check its time-frames, make sure that all steps are real, and inform all stakeholders about possible steps to be taken. It is desirable to have one coordinator to address and make sure that all employees are aware of this person and have all contact information.

References

Erbschloe, M. (2003). Guide to disaster recovery. Mason, OH: Course Technology.

Teplow, L. (2017).How often should you test your disaster recovery plan? Web.

Whitman, M.E., Mattord, H.J., & Green, A. (2014). Principles of incident response and disaster recovery (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Facts of the Challenger Case

Engineering design and its impact on future missions and on the society

Focusing more on the schedule than the achievement of the right design, where NASA put more emphasis on the timeframe of the project as compared to the quality standards of the project. There was great pressure from both the political environment and unfair competition with other countries that were working on the space mission programs. The success of an engineering project is determined by the design, and thus NASA should have given more time to the improvement of the design rather than pushing the engineers towards finishing the project within the predetermined scheduled time. The failure of the Challenger due to these problems acted as a great lesson for NASA and from that time, it has been stressing on the design qualities as opposed to the scheduled timeframe for its projects. In addition, the society learnt from the failure of that mission and the lessons have been used as ethical guidelines in various professions.

Neglecting early noted design problems

NASA is blamed for neglecting the severity of earlier noted problems by relying on previous launches and consequently the project failed due to poor designing. Engineers had raised issues on the ability of O-rings to seal the field joints during the launching, but NASA neglected the need to look at the severity of the problem and their inherent impacts to the project. As aforementioned, NASA was focused on the scheduled time, and thus it was determined to launch the Challenger even with minor design problems. The excuse given was that the Challenger was the first mission and such undertakings are not perfect, thus implying that design changes were to be considered in the future modified projects. Since then, NASA vowed to work on the early noted problems before launching any shuttle in a bid to ensure the public and astronauts safety (Vaughan 176).

Failure to change O-rings and instead putting the steel billets

NASA was frustrating engineers whenever they tried to work on the O-ring designs; however, Thiokol engineers went ahead to redesign the field joints that had no O-rings, and instead put steel billets. Steel billets were considered as safe alternatives for the project due to their ability to withstand hot gases. Unfortunately, NASA was against the idea from the start, as the launching date would arrive before finishing the modified designs. After the accident, NASA regretted its frustrations towards the involved engineers, and since then, it has been stressing on the achievements of the best possible designs for any project before it is launched in a bid to minimize risks.

Atmospheric (weather) conditions from the night before launch until the time of the disaster

Cold front

A day before the launching, the area was declared free from the cold front, but the situation changed during the night when the weather changed towards the launching area.

Extreme cold temperatures

The weather condition in the area was not favorable for the launching due to extreme cold temperatures during the night at 8⁰ F. The cold temperatures affected the O-rings by causing them to shrink, and thus allowing the blow-by gases to pass through.

Shear winds

Soon after the launching, there was a very strong wind shear, which was believed to have caused stress on seals, thus leading to leakage of hot gases to the fuel tank. These conditions ultimately contributed to the explosion that befell the Challenger.

Neglected Professional Responsibilities

The project was riddled with professional misconducts, which are believed to have been the major causes of the project failure. NASAs idea of beating the scheduled timeframe and ignoring other aspects of the project including safety measures amounted to professional misconduct. In addition, the engineers were involved in unhealthy managerial wars, whereby their opinions concerning the conditions under which the project could launch were met with strong oppositions from the managers. According to the ethics of the engineering profession, engineers ought to uphold safety standards in project designs (Harris et al. 37). However, given the condition under which they were working, they did not have the opportunity to adhere to that professional requirement. Hence, the NASA officials, who doubled as the project managers, mistreated the project engineers by disapproving their views on the quality and viability of the project designs before the launch. In addition, engineers are not supposed to authenticate projects that have a probability of causing injuries (Fleddermann 163). However, the Thiokol engineers allowed NASA to continue with the launching program albeit with the knowledge of the potential risks.

Engineers in managerial positions as a factor that resulted in the disaster

The engineers involvement in the managerial position in NASA was not the reason for the project failure. Like other professionals, engineers can make good managers; however, the problem arose from the ignorance and professional battles within the organization. The project required high degree of perfectness for successful launching. Therefore, it could have been prudent to give the Thiokol engineers enough time to finish the field design before launching; unfortunately, NASA engineers were impatient for they wanted to beat the set deadline. If I were an engineer working in a management position, I would have emphasized safety first.

Works Cited

Fleddermann, Charles. Engineering ethics, New York: Prentice Hall, 2012. Print.

Harris, Charles, Michael Pritchard, Michael Rabins, Ray James, and Elaine Englehardt. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, New York: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

Vaughan, Diane. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Print.

Executive Summary

The Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred in 2010 caused severe deterioration of the environment as well as significant financial losses. Organizational and operational factors of several companies involved in oil production led to the accident. It is recommended to improve interaction and cooperation between stakeholders, develop preventive policies and guidelines, and introduce a new organization that would be responsible for monitoring.

Problem Statement

The accident occurred in Mexican Gulf in 2010 affected the environment, economy, and social life of the US. The problem is that the Deepwater Horizon disaster accident was caused by errors in the management of companies involved in the development of the field, including weak safety measures, changes in organizational issues and leadership as well as Macondo Well projects multiple mistakes and repairs of the platform. The experts detected that various repairs required immediate attention. The combination of the above factors caused the mentioned accident.

Data Analysis

Reviewing the case study by Ingersoll, Locke, and Reavis (2012), it becomes evident that the violations were systematic. In particular, British Petroleum (BP) did not have adequate response measures to ensure safety, including the inability of workers to identify the first signs of an imminent accident. It should be emphasized that BP management stated that the report of the presidential commission along with the companys own investigation conducted in September 2010 coincides with the conclusion that the responsibility for the accident in the Gulf of Mexico lies on several companies, including BP, Cameron, Halliburton, Anadarko, Hyundai, and Transocean. Figure 2 shows that three organizational layers were found responsible for this case: Basic events, decisions, and organizational level. In September 2011, a joint report of the US Coast Guard and the Office for World Ocean Affairs and International Problems in the field of environment and science on the causes of the accident on Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico confirmed the findings of the government commission (Tabibzadeh & Meshkati, 2014). It is also critical to point out that the defects in cementing the well on which the platform worked were also detected.

The identified accident led to a serious environmental disaster. As a result of the oil leakage that lasted almost three months from BPs emergency well into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, about 206 million gallons of black gold was lost (see Figure 1). After the oil spill, thousands of claims for damages were filed in the courts, and the main defendants were Transocean and BP. In November 2012, BP pleaded guilty to the death of 11 people and agreed to pay a fine of 4.5 billion dollars for an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (Dadashzadeh, Abbassi, Khan, & Hawboldt, 2013). It was BP, Halliburton, and Transocean solutions that increased the risk of a Macondo well breakthrough, thereby saving companies a lot of time and money. In addition, BP was accused of mistakes during the elimination of oil leaks from the emergency well (Starbird et al., 2015). In particular, miscalculations were noted with cement fluid during the shut-in operation of the well. It was stressed that such an accident can happen again if government reform in the oil and gas industry is not carried out.

Key Decision Criteria

Among the main decision criteria that were taken into account during the operation of the Deepwater Horizon, one may enumerate a rather complicated organizational context and unawareness of safety measures. As it is noted in the case by Williams, the first signs of the disaster were perceived as simulation, and the workers proved to be lacking skills and knowledge on how to act in such cases (Ingersoll et al., 2012). More to the point, it seems that neither the oil industry nor BP thought that the risk will grow when drilling in increasingly difficult conditions as there is a clear underestimation of the threatening dangers (see Table 1). The preventer at Macondo well was also non-functional since one of its pipe dies, the plates covering the drill string and intended not to allow gases and liquids rising through the preventer, was replaced by a non-working pilot (Mills & Koliba, 2015).

Alternatives Analysis

Since the mentioned disaster was caused by a range of decisions in several fields, it is possible to suggest that some alternatives might prevent it. The initial accident and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon platform could have been avoided if the safety alarm had triggered (Reader & OConnor, 2014). According to BP company representatives, the siren was turned off so as not to disturb the sleep-dropping team after the shift. Another alternative refers to the promotion of greater collaboration between organizations involved in the process of oil production. If they might coordinate their responsibilities or, for example, agree on shared accountability, the problem would be eliminated due to timely monitoring and repair of systems.

Recommendations

In the view if the given case study, the pivotal goal is the prevention of similar accidents in the future. To effectively reduce such threats, it is necessary to develop space monitoring and ground-based research related to a qualitative rather than formal assessment of the impact of oil production on the environment. With the aim of achieving a balance between the desire to increase production and compliance with measures to protect natural resources, one may suggest that the federal government should create such a system of verifications that would reveal any errors. One more solution is associated with the creation of an international organization that would consider such issues by providing regulations, guidelines, and other preventive and punitive measures.

Action and Implementation Plan

To prevent such an accident, it is necessary to not to start new large-scale projects, unless a high environmental security guarantee is technologically provided. The analysis shows that reducing costs inevitably leads to the deterioration in security. Therefore, in the event of a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it is important to note that the final test of the cement plug was canceled, the defect of which led to the destruction of the platform (Tabibzadeh & Meshkati, 2014). In addition, employees of companies did not make independent decisions, which indicate the significance of employee training and education. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, the platform employees did not take responsibility for the activation of the emergency warning system, and it should be prevented in the future. In general, there is a need to elaborate a comprehensive plan that should take into account organizational and operational issues and address all factors that were mentioned in this paper. The control from the government and related bodies seems to be essential to monitor errors and prevent disaster in the oil industry.

References

Dadashzadeh, M., Abbassi, R., Khan, F., & Hawboldt, K. (2013). Explosion modeling and analysis of BP Deepwater Horizon accident. Safety Science, 57, 150-160.

Ingersoll, C., Locke, R. M., & Reavis, C. (2012). BP and the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010. MIT Sloan School of Management, 3, 1-28.

Mills, R. W., & Koliba, C. J. (2015). The challenge of accountability in complex regulatory networks: The case of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Regulation & Governance, 9(1), 77-91.

Reader, T. W., & OConnor, P. (2014). The Deepwater Horizon explosion: Non-technical skills, safety culture, and system complexity. Journal of Risk Research, 17(3), 405-424.

Starbird, K., Dailey, D., Walker, A. H., Leschine, T. M., Pavia, R., & Bostrom, A. (2015). Social media, public participation, and the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 21(3), 605-630.

Tabibzadeh, M., & Meshkati, N. (2014). Learning from the BP Deepwater Horizon accident: Risk analysis of human and organizational factors in negative pressure test. Environment Systems and Decisions, 34(2), 194-207.

Exhibits

Nowadays, it is essential to introduce effective prevention strategies to avoid the negative consequences of the crisis. Nonetheless, it is impossible to control natural and manmade disasters, and incidents such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes tend to take place. To enhance the recovery process, different non-profit and governmental entities rapidly respond to these situations. For this discussion, I have selected three organizations (American Red Cross, FEMA, and the European Network for Traumatic Stress) that attempt to react to disasters promptly. Consequently, the primary goal of this post is to describe these organizations and understand their crisis-responding roles.

American Red Cross

In the first place, it could be said that the American Red Cross can be considered as one of the bright examples of non-profit organizations that focus on providing aid in different situations. Apart from blood donations, this institution specializes in post-disaster rehabilitation while offering help and required products and support to victims in need (American Red Cross: Disaster relief, 2017). American Red Cross highly relies on its volunteers, as these individuals are not indifferent to the lives of other people and eager to help in dissimilar situations. For example, the role of the American Red Cross in the rehabilitation process after natural disasters such as Hurricane Matthew, Superstorm Sandy, and tornadoes in Oklahoma cannot be underestimated (American Red Cross: Disaster relief, 2017). In these situations, this organizations help was vital, as it provided shelters, psychological support, and products and clothes for people affected by these incidents.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Another organization is FEMA, and it is a governmental entity that responds to various hazards to diminish their adverse consequences (FEMA: About the agency, 2017). Its goals have similarities with the ones of the American Red Cross such as supplying affected individuals with required services and items such as medical assistance and products (FEMA: About the agency, 2017). Its crisis responding role also could not be underrated, and its actions helped it become an independent organization. For example, after Hurricane Katarina, FEMA paid vehement attention not only to the material needs of victims but also provided effective mental support by investing $52 million in it (James & Gilliland, 2017). FEMA also helped recover after other devastating disasters, but this case changed the perception of crisis-responding organizations while making psychological help an essential element of the rehabilitation process

The European Network for Traumatic Stress

Lastly, another selected organization is the European Network for Traumatic Stress, and it is funded by the European Union (James & Gilliland, 2017). Similarly, to organizations operating in the United States of America, this entity also offers support to people affected by various natural disasters by offering them psychological assistance (James & Gilliland, 2017). All organizations mentioned above highlight that it is necessary to provide qualified training to volunteers and professionals, as, otherwise, they will be affected by devastating stories of victims (Gift from Within, 1998). Consequently, one of the goals of the European Network for Traumatic Stress is to minimize stress levels among specialists and provide qualified psychological help, where it is unavailable. The role of this European entity is important since it changes the perception of the rehabilitation process while increasing the availability of psychological assistance in case of emergency in rural areas and countries with a lack of financial resources. Overall, the importance of these organizations cannot be underestimated since they not only supply the affected individuals with required products and items after disasters such as hurricanes, fires, and tsunamis but also offer psychological support to increase the speed of recovery.

References

American Red Cross: Disaster relief. (2017). 

FEMA: About the agency. (2017). Web.

Gift from Within. (1998). When helping hurts: Sustaining trauma workers [Video file]. Web.

James, R., & Gilliland, B. (2017). Crisis intervention strategies. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Introduction

Some emergencies are hard to prevent. Therefore, the only way of dealing with them entails putting in place strategies for responding to their effects to minimize the suffering of the affected people. Although disaster managers have the responsibility of ensuring that emergencies do not translate into immense suffering, other emergency management efforts such as evacuation do not constitute part of their work (Bristow & Brumbelow, 2013). However, this position attracts mixed reactions concerning who should be blamed for any unsuccessful disaster response. Should one blame the enforcement agencies coupled with various volunteer organizations or the emergency managers taking part in the emergency management and planning process? In response to this query, this paper discusses the key role of emergency planners. It explains how the emergency planner takes part in each stage of the preparedness cycle. In the last section, it clearly differentiates between strategic, operational, and tactical planning and the role of the emergency planner in the development of these plans.

The Key Role of the Emergency Planner

The issue of responsibilities coupled with roles played by each party during an emergency is best resolved during the planning phase. Hence, an emergency is well-addressed when effective plans are made and evaluated before the actual occurrence of a disaster. This planning can only happen if emergency planners understand their role in the disaster preparedness process (FEMA, 2010). The major primary role of emergency planners involves ensuring business continuity in the event of the occurrence of an emergency. Hence, they must play the role of advising and providing consultancy services to businesses to ensure that they (businesses) remain operational following an emergency (Bristow & Brumbelow, 2013). Planners are required to prepare for the possibility of occurrence of major risks such as disease outbreaks, gas leaks, and/or technical failures among other dangers depending on the industry in which the emergency planners work.

Emergencies encompass physical or natural acts, which destroy various socially constructed events. Their planning includes the major elements involved in handling any danger, for instance, deterrence, protection, rejoinder, resurgence, and alleviation. Today, people also cause such events. For example, acts of terrorism may give rise to an emergency. Nevertheless, it is incredibly hard to describe succinctly the complex social and physical aspects that may lead to emergencies because of their unpredictability. In this case, an emergency planner is required to play the role of risk assessments in various fields, including sporting, nuclear factories, and chemical plants among others.

The main objective for planning for emergencies is to ensure that appropriate authorities respond proactively to guarantee minimal human suffering, loss of life, and property damage. This goal makes emergency planners assume the role of implementing safety standards and preparing reports for the same. They help in the preparation and execution of safety exercises. These roles are incomplete without the communication of various emergency plans. This gap calls for emergency planners to get in touch with various emergency service providers and organizations that respond to disasters (Huder, 2012). For example, to guarantee an effective response, law enforcement agencies must be aware of the possibility of an emergency. The agencies can only arrange how to respond if they have been informed and/or certified such a possibility. Here, emergency planners come in handy in helping to determine the number of resources, including finance and labor, to be allocated for an effective response.

How Emergency Planners sets the Stage for Success at Each Phase of the Preparedness Cycle

The process of emergency planning is cyclic in nature as shown in Figure 1. Planning is one of the constituent elements of the preparedness cycle. After plans are made, they undergo the organizing, training, equipping, exercising, and evaluation processes (FEMA, 2010). The assessment process is executed simultaneously with improvement formula for a better plan based on the actual performance of the developed framework. Once this assessment is done, the process starts all over again. There is no specific time in which a superior emergency plan is acquired. Every situation is an emergency that presents challenges that must be overcome using better approaches to emergency management, should the same emergency reoccur. In the first phase, planning, emergency planners guarantee success through the development of plans that are strategic in nature. Hence, the plans are focused and clear-cut when it comes to addressing all possible scenarios that characterize an imminent potential risk.

Organization and equipment are critical phases that ensure the allocation and assignment of resources, which are necessary for the execution of the emergency plans. Emergency tools are critical in the response process. Besides, they require human resources to be operated. Human resources entail all people who take part in the implementation of the plan, including response and recovery processes. Therefore, emergency planners ensure that the required human resources are well prepared to address an emergency through training. Hence, while other people are in shock following an emergency, the people responding to it are always ready to plunge into action immediately with zeal.

Monetary and time resources are usually constrained. Hence, its effective organization is critical for the success of any emergency plan. For example, monetary resource allocation should be planned in a manner that finances are effectively utilized for specific purposes, which mainly involve the management of those risks that directly relate to the anticipated emergency. The exercising phase involves the actual implementation of the plans to test how they would work prior to a foreseen potential emergency (Huder, 2012). The phase involves issuing things such as false alarms to test peoples preparedness. Depending on the outcomes of the exercising stage, improvements are made on the plans to help in optimizing the outcome during the next testing until the planner acquires the best response. A plan with the best response becomes the optimal arrangement, which effectively helps in the management of the emergency in question.

Strategic, Operational, and Tactical Planning and the Role of the Emergency Planner in the Development of these Plans

Emergency planning is comprised of tactical, strategic, and operational arrangements. Strategic planning involves a group of continuous activities and comprehensive processes that emergency planners use to organize and align resources systematically. Actions in strategic emergency planning are aligned with a predetermined mission, goals, objectives, and vision. Such activities transform a static emergency plan into an arrangement that gives strategic performance outcomes to reach the established decisions while enabling strategies to gradually develop as requirements and emergency management frameworks change. For example, strategic planning describes in detail how various jurisdictions would want to achieve their need for emergency management in the long-term (FEMA, 2010). Policymakers, especially high-ranking officials, mainly develop the plans. Such plans are priority-based, although a change may warrant a reconsideration of the priorities.

Operational plans are used to provide various descriptions of responsibilities coupled with roles, actions, and requisite tasks that should be undertaken during emergencies. A planner uses the plans in goal development, responsibility allocation, assignment of roles, and in the integration and coordination of response (FEMA, 2010). Through operational planning, a planner integrates the private parties as important facets of emergency response. Using the plans, a planner assumes the role of ensuring the effective allocation of both time and monetary resources. Compared to tactical plans, operational plans are broad-based, comprehensive, and complex in nature (FEMA, 2010).

Tactical plans mainly focus on response. For example, when Hurricane Katrina occurred, the goal was to rescue the affected people while at the same time putting off possible fires that had spread to buildings to protect property and lives. Orleans Fire Department sought to achieve this goal through its workforce and the intervention of the response equipment (Walton, 2015). This situation indicates that tactical plans are specific since they deal mainly with resources. They establish mechanisms for managing personnel and equipment during the response. During the pre-emergency phase, tactical planning is important in availing an opportunity for conducting exercises. It helps to identify training and equipment in a good time. Tactical plans help in revealing gaps for any help from external agents to be arranged. A contingency leasing may be conducted where necessary.

Conclusion

The inevitability of some emergencies suggests the importance of developing preparedness to address them when they occur. Through good response and recovery plans, human suffering coupled with the loss of both life and property can be minimized. Effective planners require an understanding of the emergency preparedness cycle. They should also have the capacity to develop strategic emergency plans, operational procedures, and tactical frameworks. Besides ensuring long-term plans, emergency planners guarantee that complex and comprehensive broad-based plans translate into explicit and actionable procedures.

References

Bristow, E., & Brumbelow, K. (2013). Simulation to aid disaster planning and mitigation: Tools and techniques for water distribution managers and emergency planners. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, 139(4), 376-386.

FEMA. (2010). Developing and maintaining emergency operations plans: Comprehensive preparedness guide (CPG) 101. Web.

Huder, C. (2012). Disaster operations and decision making. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Walton, R. (2015). 10 years after: Remembering how Entergy New Orleans survived hurricane Katrina. Powergrid International, 20(9), 12-13.

NASA Leadership

The Space Shuttle Columbia (SSC) disaster occurred on February 1, 2003, leading to seven deaths and discrediting NASA management (History, 2018). The tragedy initiated a series of internal organizational changes, and it was evident that NASA required additional safety regulations for workers and astronauts (Howell & Dobrijevic, 2021). From these considerations, NASA should have identified the management failure elements that led to the disaster and substituted them with sustainable alternatives.

Stop Work Authority (SWA)

Consequently, the implementation of the SWA policy could have helped prevent the tragedy. The crucial stage of the SSC disaster was when the NASA officials rejected the suggestion to document the damage of the breached wing, which later led to malfunction (Howell & Dobrijevic, 2021). In other words, if the organization had a functional SWA policy, the astronauts could potentially ignore the officials statements and inspect the breached wing. SWA also implies the Right to Refuse (RTR), which could be implemented by the crew of the shuttle and potentially save their lives (Skjerven, 2019).

Risk Management

ISO 31000: 2018 guidelines concern the extent of organizational influence in risk management. Therefore, the implementation of ISO 31000 increases safety awareness and directly relates to the SWA policy (PECB, 2018). Improving security culture in the organization is one of the most effective methods to prevent future disasters, similar to the SSC tragedy. ISO 31000 also provides guidelines on how to implement risk management activities in all organizational operations, including the autonomy of workers in decision-making (PECB, 2018).

Implications of SWA in Risk Management

As a speculation, it is safe to assume that SWA in connection with ISO 31000:2018 could potentially save the lives of the astronauts during the SSC disaster. It is a known fact that some of the NASA engineers attempted to persuade the officials of the necessity of documenting the damage of the breached wing (Howell & Dobrijevic, 2021). In case either engineers or astronauts had more autonomy due to SWA, they could initiate their Right to Refuse and inspect the shuttle. While it is not certain whether they had time or resources to fix the problem, they still would have had a higher chance of survival if the SWA policy had been implemented.

References

History. (2018). Space shuttle Columbia. Web.

Howell, E., & Dobrijevic, D. (2021). Columbia disaster: What happened and what NASA learned. Web.

PECB. (2018). ISO 31000:2018-risk management guidelines. Web.

Skjerven, H. (2019). Stop work authority: Why you need it and how to successfully implement an SWA plan. Safeopedia. Web.

Summary of the events

On November 5, 2010, a disaster occurred at the Valero Delaware City, Delaware. Two workers succumbed to suffocation within a process vessel. According to the report, the victims were unaware of the presence of too much nitrogen, as a result of the gas being odorless in nature, and unable of identifying the danger they were exposed to (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2006a). Only after their bodies had been deprived of oxygen and filled with nitrogen, the effects probably started manifesting.

Had particular steps been taken to ensure safety within the confined space, the fate of the two victims would probably have been less fatal. One of such steps, as stipulated in the Safety and Health Fact Sheet No. 36 as a requirement for confined spaces (American Welding Society, 2009), is to constantly monitor and ventilate the confinement so as to ensure that the safe exposure limits are not exceeded.

Something else that could have saved the lives of the two victims would have been to check that the vents were unclogged and leak free. This would have ensured the circulation of clean and safe air within the vessel.

Having more than one watchpersons at the entry of the vessel to constantly check in on the workers would also have contributed to saving the lives of the workers. This would ensure that as one foreman attends to an incident, the other would quickly set an alarm and request for immediate medical attention.

Analysis of the initial vessel entry

The vessel entry, as shown in the video from the companys website, seems to have been blocked (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2006b). The nature of the entry probably made it even harder for the victims to climb back up even if they suspected they had being suffocated by poisonous gas. The foreman could have had a chance of surviving if he had alerted any other worker that he was going down to attend to the motionless entrant who seemed to be in trouble. He could have also taken time to put on an artificial respirator incase the air within the vessel had reached dangerous levels. Although it would have taken a little time, it could have helped save his life.

Importance of safety procedures within confined spaces

Safety procedures within confined spaces are put there with the primary objective of ensuring workers safety. They are part of company regulations that must be followed before a permit is issued, allowing the company to carry on with their business (Asfahl & Rieske, 2009).

However, some companies may want to evade such rules in an attempt to reduce operational costs. However, such cases are monitored and checked by the authorities so as the working conditions follow the requirements stated in the OSHA Construction Safety and Health Regulations (1926.21). Regarding the confined spaces, it is said that workers who access confined or enclosed spaces should be aware of the nature of the hazards involved and educated in the use of protective and emergency equipment provided by the company, thus all the necessary precautions are to be taken.

Roles and responsibilities of entrants, attendants, and supervisors in confined spaces

The entrants/workers in any confined space have the right and responsibility to ask for equipment, such as respirators and gas masks in order to safeguard their own health. They also deserve to be trained on how to operate the equipment for maximum efficiency.

Attendants and supervisors are supposed to be always alert and on standby in case of any accident. Appropriate response plans should be formulated and protocol followed to avoid the consequences of any accident.

Conclusion

The accident that occurred at Valero Refinery on November 5, 2010, was absolutely devastating and served as a wakeup call to all the participants within the industry. The fatalities could have been avoided only if the proper controls had been put in place and accurately implemented.

Other facilities, such as panic buttons within the confined spaces, could actually reduce fatalities and make it easy for working process to be monitored.

The adoption of emergency drills in such companies would test their response time and help workers know what to do in case of actual danger.

References

American Welding Society. (2009). Ventilation for Welding and Cutting. (Safety and Health Fact Sheet No. 36). Web.

Asfahl, C.R. &. Rieske, D.W. (2009). Industrial Safety and Health Management (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. (2006a). Confined Space Entry  Worker and Would-be Rescuer Asphyxiated. (Case Study No. 2006-02-I-DE). Web.

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. (2006b). Hazards of Nitrogen Asphyxiation. Web.

Energy is essential in ensuring that modern civilization is sustained. Large quantities of energy are needed by modern technologies and in the process increase the energy demand. Traditional sources of energy such as fossils and hydroelectric energy are not in a position to satisfy the ever-increasing global energy demands. Nuclear energy has been one of the solutions to the global energy crisis but unfortunately, this form of energy has some major risks associated with it. Despite being feasible and cost-effective, nuclear generation plants are a source of radioactive materials that can be very disastrous to the environment and human beings if not well contained. This paper will report on the mechanical and engineering failures that sparked a nuclear meltdown in the Three Mile power plant, the effects of a nuclear accident and finally look at how to improve safety in nuclear power plants to prevent accidents.

Nuclear plants are supposed to produce nuclear energy in large quantities and the process prevents the occurrence of any form of nuclear disaster. Since nuclear disasters need to be avoided as much as possible, it is therefore very important for nuclear energy generation plants to put much emphasis on multiple prevention methods. Some of the recommended multiple prevention methods include the installation of fail-safe locks in the reactor, the use of concrete and lead in constructing the plants, putting evacuation protocols in place and not forgetting the plant area lockdown. All nuclear reactors should have multiple ways of cooling down reactors in case a cooling system fails. One of the major sources of nuclear disasters is when the water in the plant turns into steam. This kind of threat is normally controlled by pressurizing the primary system.

The pilot-operated relief valve is normally used to release excess pressure from the primary system and in the process prevent water from turning into steam. The emergency core coolant system is very useful in emergency cases when there is insufficient coolant in the primary system. The other potential source of a nuclear disaster is when a piping system of the nuclear plant fails and this can be very fatal. This kind of failure occurred at Three Mile Island in the year 1979. The mechanical failure occurred in the piping system of the plant consequently causing the turbines to shut down because the pumping system had ceased to operate. The nuclear reaction was stopped because the rate of nuclear fusion could not be regulated by the systems control rods.

Accidents at a nuclear plant can also be prevented using civil engineering processes. Civil engineers employ the use of isolation technology to protect the building from being destroyed and at the same time prevent internal instruments and equipment from being damaged. The isolation technology is a precaution of protecting the nuclear plant from the effects of natural forces like earthquakes. The earthquake energy can not be transferred to the building in the event preventing the occurrence of a nuclear disaster. In case a nuclear disaster occurs in the plant, the plant remains stable to a certain degree while the reactor remains safe from outside events due to the isolation technology. The use of thick concrete walls in constructing the reactor and power plants ensures that the plant does not leak any radiation to the environment. The walls are normally one to two meters thick.