national emergency risk assessment guidelines 2010 - word document

8/10/2019 National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines 2010 - Word Document

1/85

National Emergency RiskAssessment Guidelinestober 2010

onal Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines October 2010


2/85

document was develoed as arthe National Emergency "anagement

mmittee$s imlementation o! the NationalAssessment %ramework& The guidelinedeveloed by the Tasmanian 'tate

ergency 'ervice( on behal! o! the Riskessment "easurement and "itigationnal Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines#ommittee&

e Emergency 'erviceartment o! +olice and Emergencyagement,o- 12.0

art TA' 001ommonwealth o! Australia and each states and territories 2010work is coyright& Aart !rom any !airngs !or the urose o! study( research(

ism( or review( as ermitted under#oyright Act1.3( no art may beoduced by any rocess without written

mission !rom the National Emergencyagement #ommittee&.3)0).305.5)0)2 6/ardcoy7

N .3)0).305.5)1). 6+*%7ograhic re!erence8 National Emergency "anagement #ommittee 620107( 9NationalRisk Assessment Guidelines$( Emergency Tasmanian 'tate Emergency 'ervice(art&ges8tograhs throughout this documente rovided by a number o! agencies&tributions !rom Emergency "anagementtralia and the 'tate Emergency 'ervicenowledged&6Tasmania7 are grate!ully

laimer8National Emergency "anagement

mmittee( its o:cers( emloyees andnts do not accet liability( howeverng( including liability !or negligence(

any loss arising !rom the use or reliancen the content o! this document& Nolity or resonsibility is acceted !orconse;uences o! any inaccuracy in thisument( and ersons relying uon it dot their own risk absolutely&material was roduced with !unding

ort !rom the Attorney)General$sartment through the


3/85

ontents4ntroduction,ackground+urose'coe'tructure

Evaluate Risks12>?5

AR+ +rincilek Tolerabilitymonstration o! A@AR+ision +oint

k Register

*etailed Analysis !or Risk Assessment

Risk "anagement4ntroduction+rincilesThe Risk "anagement %rameworkThe Risk "anagement +rocessThe Role o! Risk Assessment

Treat RisksRisk Treatment +rocess*etailed Analysis !or Risk Treatment

endicesble 4nde-le 1le 2le >le ?le 5le le trol Tablese;uence Table

elihood Tablealitative Risk "atri-Bdence Tableluation Table Ch #onBdence @evelluation Table Cderate #onBdence @evel

luation Table Cw #onBdence @evelected Techni;ues !or *etailedlysis on /aDards

Risk Assessmentor Emergency Events


4/85

The "ethodologyThe +rocess

Establish the #onte-t,asic +arametersReorting

Arrangements !orhe Risk Assessment+rearing !or the =orkshondertaking the =orkshoA!ter the =orksho

Resonsibilities

le 3le .

gure 4nde-ure 1ure 2ure >ure ?ure 5ure ure ure 3ure .k "anagement C rinciles(mework and rocessk "anagement %rameworkk "anagement +rocessk Assessment Aroachesk Assessment "ethodologyEmergency Eventsmle /istorical Risk +lotmle o! the bow tie diagrammle Risk +lot

AR+ +rincile

Risk Assessment4denti!y the Risks12>?

w)Tie *iagramnerate Risk 'tatementsnti!y #ontrolsk Register


5/85

Analyse the Risks1 Reviewing the Risk Registerand ,ow)Tie *iagram

2 #ontrol @evel> Risk #riteria? #onBdence5 Risk Register



6/85

4ntroduction1 ,ackgroundergency events and disasters stem !rom a rangeatural( biological( technological( industrial ander human henomena and imose signiBcantal and economic costs on Australia& Theseude8 direct damage to roerty( in!rastructure!acilitiesF Bnancial costs and indirect economicesF !atalities( inuries and illnessF imairment o!systems and loss o! biodiversityF and social andural losses& ,etween the 1.50s and the 1..0s theorted global cost o! natural disasters increased

een !old and by 1... in Australia the annualt o! large natural disasters alone was estimated1&1? billion 6based on data !rom the eriodC1...7& This uward trend o! disaster costs(

bally and in Australia( continues and( in 2003 thenomic cost o! the Bve most signiBcant Australiannts alone e-ceeded H2&?. billion&2esonse to this trend and to concerns aboutential increases in the !re;uency o! severeather events( a review o! Australia$s aroachealing with disaster mitigation and relie! and

overy arrangements was commissioned by thencil o! Australian Governments 6#OAG7& Theew concluded that a new aroach to natural

asters in Australia was needed and it rovidedrecommendations and 12 re!orm commitmentsreate sa!er( more sustainable communities byucing risk( damage and losses !rom naturalasters in the !uture& This aroach involves adamental shi!t in !ocus beyond resonse( relie!recovery towards cost)eIective( evidence)based

aster mitigation& To suort this aroach theort called !or a 00( the Australian Emergency "anagement

mmittee endorsed a National Risk Assessmentmework to suort the develoment o! andence)base !or eIective risk management

isions and to !oster consistent base)linermation on risk& The National Emergency

k Assessment Guidelines (NERAG) have beeneloed as one o! the Brst oututs o! the

mework$s imlementation lan& As such( theyvide a methodology to suort the re!orm

mmitments and risk and data obectivesommended by #OAG&ddition to #OAG$s re;uirements( there are soundctical( social and economic reasons !or having aonal aroach to the conduct o! emergency riskessments& +rimarily these reasons include8

mroving understanding o! emergency risk

ues and ensuring that risk treatment measuresovide a sound return on investmentandardising risk assessments and theveloment o! alternative risk reductionoosalscreasing transarency so that assessmentocesses can be !ollowed easily( checked orodiBed in the light o! imroved knowledgein!ormation

mroving consistency to allow meaning!ulmarisons between diIerent geograhicaleas andLor haDard classes&se guidelines have been ublished to meet thoseds&

2 +uroses document has been reared to imroveconsistency and rigour o! emergency riskessments( increase the ;uality and comarabilityn!ormation on risk and imrove the nationaldence)base on emergency risks in Australia&

NERAG rovide a conte-tualised emergencyassessment methodology consistent withAustralianLNew Mealand 'tandardAS/NZS ISO


7/85

!"# Risk management $ %rinci&les anddelines&en the comle-ity and severity o! ossiblese;uences !rom emergency events( thesedelines have been designed to generatentegrated( comrehensive and obectiveerstanding o! emergency risks& The oututs

m risk assessments undertaken using the NERAGimrove decision making when allocatingrce resources !or risk treatment and emergencyaredness measures&2001( Economic #osts o! Natural *isasters in Australia( Reort 10>( ,ureau o! Transort Economics( #anberra&ch Re( 200.( Toics8 Natural #atastrohes 2003 Analyses Assessments +ositions AustralasiaLOceania version( "unich( available at www&munichre&com&G( 200?( Natural *isasters in Australia& Re!orming "itigation( Relie! and Recovery Arrangements( Reort to the #ouncil o! Australian Governments

high)level o:cials$ grou( August 2002( *eartment o! Transort and Regional 'ervices( #anberra&G( 200( A National Risk Assessment %ramework !or sudden onset natural haDards( National Risk Assessment Advisory Grou(ble at htt8LLwww&ga&gov&au&



8/85

method used is scalable( has been develoedassessing emergency risks arising !rom anyard and is !or use at local( regional( stateLitory and national levels& *eending on thete-t o! alication( any study conducted usingguidelines will necessarily !ocus on articularards o! signiBcance and imact classes o!ortance to the community in ;uestion&users o! the guidelines are likely to be risk

dy sonsors( team leaders( subect mattererts 6e&g& haDard leaders7 and !acilitators !orergency risk studies& /owever( the NERAG willet the needs o! a range o! stakeholders( including

se resonsible !or develoing emergency risknagement olicy( those accountable !or ensuringis eIectively managed in a community or

anisation( secialist risk ractitioners who mustly the methodology( and those who evaluateeIectiveness o! emergency risk managementctices&ses a scenario)based aroachamles risk across a range o! crediblense;uence levelsentiBes current risk under e-isting controlsd residual risk assuming imlementation o!ditional controls or control imrovements

rovides base)line ;ualitative risk assessments

d triggers !or more detailed analysislows risk evaluation at varying levels o!nBdencerovides oututs that are comarable( which ratek and suggests means to reduce risk&ough the #OAG review and the National Riskessment %ramework both !ocus on sudden onsetural haDards( such as bushBre( earth;uake( ood(rm( cyclone( storm surge( debris ow( tsunami(tornado( not all emergency events are initiated

ough natural means& 4ndeed( conse;uences !romergency events may be similar( regardless o! theger !or a articular event& There!ore( the NERAGes an all haDards aroach and rovides a method

t is suitable !or considering other sources o!( these could include disease 6human( animallant7( insectLvermin lague( as well as those

ing !rom technological and other anthroogenicrces& These guidelines recognise that seciBcassessment techni;ues have been develoed !or

ailed analysis o! seciBc haDards& 'ee section &?&ses to communities can result !rom e-osure togle or multile events and( !or any emergencynarioF multile sources o! risk can imact on

mmunities( as well as lead to conse;uential orondary eIects& %or e-amle( troical cyclonesonly bring both e-treme winds and heavy rain!allrimary sources o! risk7( but can also cause

se;uential haDards such as ooding or landslidecondary sources o! risk7&guidelines$ methodology allows ractitionersddress these comle-ities and its all haDardsroach is consistent with contemorary emergencynagement arrangements and ractices&ough the NERAG !ocus on risk assessment(

y need to be integrated into the overall risknagement rocess5& /ence the guidelines alsow how to establish the conte-t( which develosommon understanding o! the scoe and urosehe risk study& 4t also rovides guidance on

> 'coeNERAG rovide a methodology to assess

s !rom emergency events and are rinciallycerned with risk assessment& They do not !ocusrisk management or mitigation C nor do theyress business continuity rocesses and ractices

outlinedAS/NZS ''!"1 usiness ontinuity $naging +isru&tion Related Risk( although oututsm alying the methodology suort and beneBtse&guidelines are not intended to address the entire


9/85

management !ramework or the risk managementcess as outlined inAS/NZS ISO 31!"#&wever( because they !ocus on the assessmentsks !rom emergency events( they ultimatelyct the management o! emergency risks inwith the international standards !or risk

nagement&guidelines aim to rovide a risk assessment

thodology that8nables !ocus on risks in small 6e&g& municial7large 6e&g& regional andLor state andLortional7 areasuseable !or both risk 9!rom$ and risk 9to$ 6e&g&

k !rom bushBre( risk to in!rastructure !rom allseciBc sources o! risk7

M' 4'O >10008200.



10/85

ating risks( which involves develoing and selecting risk reductionons& ommunication and consultation and monitoring and re,ie-cesses are also briey e-amined in 'ection 2& NotwithstandingNERAG content( usershis guideline should obtain a coy o!AS/NZS ISO 31!or useh this document&ough the guidelines rovide a rigorous methodology !or

ergency risk assessments( they should not be considered anerational risk assessment toolJ& That is( it is not intended thataroach be used to assess risk to emergency ersonnel(e-amle( while undertaking emergency resonse duties&

? 'tructureguidelines rovide in!ormation on and a methodology !or risk

essments including their rearation( conduct and oututsemergency events& They also rovide e-licit risk criteria andorting temlates& The accomanying #* rovides a coy o! thisument and relevant temlates and tools&tions 1 to > rovide background in!ormation& The 4ntroduction intion 1 is !ollowed by a descrition o! the rinciles( !ramework!undamentals o! the risk management rocess and the role o!assessment in 'ection 2& 'ection > outlines the risk assessment

thodology !or emergency events and the overall rocess tolement this methodology&tions ? to 3 describe how to8stablish the conte-treare and conduct a risk assessment !or emergency eventsreare a risk register !rom the risk assessment

eat risk 6an overview7ontinue to monitor and review risks&siderations !or more detailed analysis( i! deemed re;uired( aresented and a brie! descrition o! the imlications !or treatings is rovided&orting documents are comiled in the Aendices8endi- A C guidance !or describing your environmentendi- , C criteria !or assessing risk treatment otionsendi- # C a glossary o! terms used in the conte-t o!

mergency risk assessmentsendi- * C a worked e-amle&oughout the guidelines( there is sulementary in!ormation inbo-es 6coloured blue7( e-amles 6coloured orange7 and tooles 6coloured ale blue7& These suort understanding concets(

cesses and imlementation&deline Structure

ackgroundctions 1 to >7troductionsk "anagementsk Assessment

ethodology and +rocessRisk Assessment:paration Conduct Follow-up6'ections ? to 37

stablish the #onte-trrangements !or the Risksessment

sk Assessment8enti!y( Analyse( Evaluate(etailed Analysiseatment o! Risk

pendices



11/85

Risk "anagement1 4ntroduction..5( 'tandards Australia and 'tandards Newland develoed a risk management standard8NZS .3!1##' Risk *anagement& 4t emhasisedmanagement o! risk rather than the managementaDards& The emergency management sectorognised the value o! this aroach andte-tualised risk management aroaches werelished by Emergency "anagement Australia in0& The AustralianLNew Mealand Risk "anagementndard was revised and reublished in 200?

has been adoted by many organisationsh in and outside Australia as the basis !or theirroaches to risk management& As a result( in 20054nternational 'tandards Organisation created anrnational standard( based onAS/NZS .3!".

k *anagement0The international standard>10008200. Risk management C rincilesguidelines e-tends the risk management

cess to include rinciles !or risk managementseciBes a !ramework !or embedding risk

nagement into standard governance and businessctices 6both o! which were either imlicit ory covered artially inAS/NZS .3!". Risknagement)0The NERAG rovide a conte-tualised

roach !or the conduct o! risk assessments !orergency events and are consistent with Australianinternational standards&

ure 1 rovides a reresentation o! thetionshis between the risk managementciles( !ramework and rocess as described

S/NZS ISO 31!"#&

ure 1k Management principles !ramework and processblish the conte-tti!y risksyse risksuate risksrisks

National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines October 2010

"onitoringand review o!the !ramework

+rocess

#ommunicateand consult

"onitorandreview

4mlemention o!the !ramework andrisk management rocesses

#ontinual imrovemento! the !ramework

%ramework

*esign o! aneIective !ramework!or managing risks

"andate and #ommittment

%acilitatescontinualimrovement enhancemen

to! theorganisation

Takes humanand cultural!actorsinto account

+art o!decisionmaking

4ntegral arto!organisational rocesses

,ased on thebest availablein!ormation

*ynamic(iterativeresonsiveto change

#reatesvalue

Transarent inclusive

'ystematic(structured timely

E-licitlyaddressesuncertainty +rinciles

Tailored


12/85

2 +rincilesumber o! rinciles underin and suortctive risk management& These rinciles areculated inAS/NZS ISO 31!"#and aresistent with those !ound in the National Riskessment %ramework& 4n alying risk assessmentthodology( governments( organisationscommunities are to remain cognisant o!

se !undamentals and must ensure that risknagement8reates and protects "alue#Emergency riskanagement contributes to societal obectives o!hieving sa!er( sustainable communities throughotection o! eole( the environment( theonomy( ublic administration( social caital andrastructure&

ntegrates into all organisational processes&mergency risk management is a mainstreamtivity that is most eIective when integratedo standard business ractices o! organisations(vernments and communities&

n!orms decision making& Emergency riskanagement suorts in!ormed decision makingd rioritisation o! scarce resources !or riskduction activities&&plicitl' addresses uncertaint'& Rigorous

mergency risk management continues to rovide

lue when uncertainty e-ists&s'stematic structured and timel'& #onsistent(iable and comarable results are achieved

hen a systematic( structured and timelyroach is taken&(ased on (est a"aila(le in!ormation#st available data and in!ormation on risks(Dards( e-osure and vulnerability are alied

om a variety o! sources including historical data(recasts( modelling( observations( communityut and e-ert udgement& *ecision makersust( however( be aware o! the limitations o!ta( modelling and the ossibility o! divergentinions among e-erts&

tailored# Emergency risk managementethodology takes a Bt)!or)urose aroachat is aligned with societal needs( conte-t andk roBle&onsiders and takes account o! )uman andultural !actors#The caabilities( ercetions andentions o! individuals and the risk study team

ust be taken into account in emergency riskanagement rocesses&

transparent and inclusi"e& To remain relevant(to date and eIective( emergency risk

anagement must involve stakeholders and(articular( decision makers in an aroriated timely manner&d'namic iterati"e and responsi"e to c)ange&

mergency risk management resonds toanging risk roBles and emerging in!ormationhaDards( e-osure and vulnerability& =hen

onitoring and reviewing o! risks is eIective( thisocess can identi!y when risks emerge( changedisaear&

acilitates continual impro"ement#Iective emergency risk management relies

the develoment and imlementationstrategies that imrove a government(ganisation or community$s risk managementaturity& 'uch an aroach underins a resilientd adative community&

> The Risk "anagement %rameworkording toAS/NZS ISO 31!"#( the successsk management deends on


13/85

used at relevant levels in decision making&risk management !ramework is designed tost integration o! risk management and itsuts into mainstream governance and businesstems and activities& The key comonents o! anctive risk management !ramework deicted in

ure 2 include8mandate and commitment !rom leaders andanagersrocesses !or the design o! an eIectivemework !or managing risk

rograms to imlement the !ramework and riskanagement rocesses

rograms to allow monitoring and review o! themework

rocesses !or continual imrovement o! themework&

ure 2 shows the relationshi between themonents o! an eIective risk managementmework& %urther detail on each comonentvailable !rom A'LNM' 4'O >10008200.&200.( 4'O >1000 Risk management C rinciles and guidelines( 4nternational Organisation !or 'tandardisation( Geneva&



14/85

ure 2k "anagement %ramework 6adated !romAS/NZS ISO 31!"#7ndate and commitmentProcess !or t)e design o! anecti"e !ramework !or managing risknderstanding conte-tccountabilitytegrationternal and e-ternal communication and reorting

plementationContinualmpro"ement

)e !ramework

the !rameworkthe emergency

k managementocessesnitoring and re"iew o! t)e !ramework

? The Risk "anagement +rocessrocess !or risk management is described in

NZS ISO 31!"#& According to this standard(rocess should be integral to managementdecision making( integrated into racticesculture and tailored to the community or

anisation and its risk roBle& 4n an emergencynagement conte-t( risk management is a rocessch involves dealing with risks to the communitying !rom emergency events& 4t is a systematicthod !or identi!ying( analysing( evaluating andating emergency risks and takes an iterativeroach with well)deBned activities( leading tolementation o! eIective risk)treatment strategies&risk management rocess is shown in %igure >&rocess comrises Bve main elements8

ablishing the conte-t( identi!ying the risks(lysing the risks( evaluating the risks and

ating the risks which are suorted byenabling activities C communicating and

sulting( and monitoring and reviewing C whichly to each o! the maor elements o! the rocess&

ure >k "anagement +rocess C Overviewablish the conte-tnitor and reviewnti!y riskslyse risksluate risksAssessment

at risks


#ommunicate and consult


15/85

mmunicate and Consultmmunication and consultation are !undamentaloughout the risk management rocess and shoulde lace with internal and e-ternal stakeholdersng all stages o! the rocess& 4t is imortant toure that all those who need to be involved 6e&g&ause they are resonsible !or the rocess or haveested interest7 are not only ket in!ormed( but areo invited to contribute to the rocess( in order toablish a common understanding o! how decisionsmade& 4t is also imortant to consider involvingersarial groustakeholders in this rocess !rom the outset

minimise any ongoing unhel!ul criticism&s will enhance the management o! risks( becausekeholders may tend to make udgments aboutbased on their ercetions& These ercetionsvary due to diIerences in values( needs(

umtions( concets and concerns& ,ecausekeholders$ views can have a signiBcant imact ondecisions made( it is imortant that diIerences

heir ercetions o! risk be identiBed( recordedaddressed early in the risk management

cess&a(lis) t)e Conte&testablishing the conte-t !or the managementsks( the basic arameters within which risks

ll be managed are deBned& The rocess deBnesumtions !or the e-ternal and internal environmenthe organisation or community and the overallectives o! the risk management study& This willuse!ul in gaining a common understanding o! thee o! the rocess and o! the risk criteria againstch the risks will be measured& Establishing thete-t initially involves a number o! activities8ing the scoe( establishing goals and obectives(ning resonsibilities( deBning key elements(

nti!ying key activities and rocesses( andBrming the methodologies& #onte-t setting alsoBrms evaluation rocesses( considers decisionst might need to be made and identiBes any

bling research( including the resources re;uiredsuch studies& This rocess is critical !or structuringrisk identiBcation( analysis and evaluation stes&se;uently( establishing the conte-t ensurest the aroach adoted is Bt)!or)urose and isroriate !or the community and its risk roBle&nti!' Risksthe basis o! good ;uality in!ormation andrough knowledge o! the organisation or


mmunity 6including its internal and e-ternalironment7( haDards( vulnerabilities and theociated risks are identiBed and described&rces o! risk( current controls( events and theirsible causes( areas o! imact and otentialse;uence are considered& A systematic and

mrehensive aroach is taken to ensure thatsigniBcant risk is inadvertently e-cluded&instance it is imortant that a su:ciently

mrehensive ool o! e-ertise is assembled tody all signiBcant causes and emergency scenariosause there are many ways an emergency eventoccur& This might involve considering historicalrmation or roections on similar events&

nti!ying these scenarios may rove use!ul(ause they can lead to reasonable redictionsut current and evolving issues& At the conclusionhis hase( all risks o! interest are identiBed and

orded( even i! some o! those are already knownossibly controlled by e-isting risk treatment

asures&al'se Risksk analysis is the element in the rocess throughch the level o! risk and its nature is determinedunderstood& 4n!ormation !rom risk analysis

ritical to rank the seriousness o! risks and to decide whether risks need to be treated or


16/85

4n this hase( control oortunities are alsontiBed& The analysis involves consideration o!sible conse;uences( the likelihood that thosese;uences may occur 6including the !actors thatct the conse;uences7( and any e-isting controlt tends to reduce risks& *uring this hase theel o! conBdence in the analysis is assessedconsidering !actors such as the divergenceinion( level o! e-ertise( uncertainty( ;uality(ntity and relevance o! data and in!ormation(limitations on modelling& At the conclusion

his ste( all identiBed risks are categorised intolevels and given a risk rating( and statements

cerning e-isting controls and their ade;uacymade&

aluate Risksing risk evaluation( the level o! risk is

mared with the risk criteria which are conBrmedhe outset o! the rocess( when the conte-t isablished& 4n addition( the scoe and obectivehe rocess itsel!( stakeholder views( and the

mulative imact o! a series o! events that couldur simultaneously need to be taken into account&


17/85

desired outcome o! the evaluation is a decisioncerning which risks need treatment and the

atment riorities& Risk evaluation may also lead decision to undertake !urther analysis& Anothercome might be that neither !urther analysis noratment is re;uired( so that the relevant risk willrely be subect to continuation o! e-isting controlsongoing monitoring and review&at Risks

ving evaluated all identiBed risks( risk treatment isrocess o! selecting and assessing measures to

di!y risk( and the rearation and imlementationreatment lans( which either rovide !or new

trols andLor modi!y e-isting controls& This meansnti!ying and designing alternative aroriateons !or managing the risks( the evaluationassessment o! their results or imact( andseciBcation and imlementation o! treatment

ns& 4t is imortant to consider all direct andrect costs and beneBts( whether tangible orngible( and measure them in Bnancial or other

ms& Also( more than one otion can be consideredadoted either searately or in combination&

asures to treat risk can include avoiding( takingncreasing 6in order to ursue an oortunity7(oving the source o! risk( changing 6likelihood o!se;uence7( otimising( trans!erring( sharing or

aining the risk& A!ter the imlementation o! riskatment( residual risks must be included in regularnitoring and review activities&nitor and Re"iewe o! the critical !actors in risk management isstablish ongoing monitoring and reviewing(Brming the eIectiveness o! e-isting controlsaccounting !or changes in circumstances&se activities comlete the risk managemente so that assumtions( methods( data sources(

ults and reasons !or decisions are subect toular checks& Regular checks assist in keeingseciBed action lans relevant and u to date&

ality assurance rocesses including eer review

suort this !unction& The rocess shouldo allow consolidation o! !urther in!ormationmrove risk assessments( analysis o! lessonsrned !rom events( trends in changes o! e-osure

vulnerability( detection o! these changes andnges in the nature 6!re;uency and severity7 o!ardous events& 4mortantly( resonsibilities !orcking and monitoring should be clearly deBned&agreed rocesses and oututs o! monitoringreview should be recorded and reorted( and

m an imortant art o! the review cycle !or ananisation$s or community$s risk managementmework&

5 The Role o! Risk Assessmentound understanding o! the risk o! disastersssential !or minimising their conse;uences&ording toAS/NZS ISO 31!"#( riskessment is deBned as the overall rocess o!identiBcation( risk analysis and risk evaluation&ther words( it is the rocess used to describeissues and determine risk management riorities

evaluating and comaring the levels o! riskinst redetermined standards& As such( it !ormsitical art o! the risk management rocess&ing this rocess( the likelihood o! articularse;uences o! haDardous events are assessed(ng account o! robabilities o! an event occurring(acting on the elements at risk and having seciBc

se;uence outcomes& 4n!ormation on the elementsly to be e-osed to the imact o! a haDardousnt and their vulnerability to that articularard is considered as art o! this rocess&k assessment allows communities( organisations

governments to understand and measure thes involved and to decide on the aroriateasures to manage them&urose o! risk assessment is to identi!y(


18/85

lyse and evaluate risks in a systematic(sistent and obective manner& 4n Australia(assessment models !or emergency events canerally be categorised by the comle-ity o! the

dy and its !ocus& The comle-ity can range !romle ) mostly ;ualitative aroaches( which arenly used !or screening uroses( to detailed )ch o!ten use ;uantitative models and can involveher order satial data analyses and imactdelling& The more comle- aroaches are o!tenducted to sulement ;ualitative aroaches&level o! comle-ity is directed by needs toress uncertainty and the rigour re;uired 6e&g& to

i!y high)cost treatments7& The aroaches rangem asset)centric 6


19/85


20/85

Risk Assessment !or Emergency Events1 The "ethodologyure 5 shows the risk assessment methodology !or emergency events( integrated into the risk managementcess& The aroach is e-ected to yield oututs that rate identiBed risks and indicate key areas andons !or risk treatment measures&

ure 5k Assessment "ethodology !or Emergency Eventsa(lis) t)e Conte&tectives( scoe( stakeholders( criteria(elements

taLin!ormationsessment team

k Assessmentnti!' Risksergency scenario6s7

uses( revention and rearedness(onse and recovery( imactsenario dynamics

al'se Risksiled risklysis

rol levele;uence and likelihoodrating

Bdence

rtherysisred

aluate Riskslow as reasonably racticable 6A@AR+7

erabilitycision oint

at Risksonal Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines October 2010

Communicate andConsult

Monitor andRe"iew


21/85

methodology is consistent and comliant withNZS ISO 31!"#and rein!orces the rovisiont risk evaluation may


22/85

tuts in the !orm o! ratings o! identiBed risksth an indication o!


23/85

2 The +rocessergency risk assessment is most eIectively undertaken in aksho environment( where relevant stakeholders address eachelement to generate a comrehensive list o! risks associated

h the emergency event6s7&aration !or the worksho will be directed by the conte-t(ch will have to be established be!ore the assessment& 4n order

ma-imise the e:ciency o! the rocess( each team member needsnderstand the background o! the assessment( the seciBcs o!relevant emergency scenario( the worksho aroach and their in the rocess& There!ore( !ollowing its care!ul rearation(worksho needs to summarise the decisions made( whenconte-t was established( and the collected and reviewedrmation to develo imact otentials& This aroach willt the sceneJ !or the assessment&imortant that the worksho is set u to ensure that there is8rong technical e-ertise relevant to the !ocus o! the workshoscilined imlementation o! the risk assessment rocessuick access to ertinent in!ormation and datag& comiled and made available be!ore the worksho7creative thinking environment !or the risk study team&worksho !acilitator should be an e-erienced( obective

son who is not involved in the details o! the subect matteris not art o! the risk study team& This will ma-imise

ectivity and hel roduce oututs on time&

ial Meetingke)olderol"ementmmon 5iew o!ecti"espek Criteria

%lements

+AB8$S9% C4+%+essment +eam;ilitator Selectiona collectiond re"iewact Potential

e"elopmentessment +oolmpilationrks)op Sc)edule

Arrangementsrmation Brie!sseminationsentationparation

R7S9P%PARA+$4

+ough a worksho is re!erable !or risk identiBcation(

not the only aroach that may be adoted&er aroaches are outlined in Standards Australiand2ook .3!". Risk *anagement Guidelines $m&anion toAS/NZS 4360:2004and include8ructured techni;ues such as ow charting(sign review( /aDard and Oerability 6/AMO+7 studies

what)i!$ and scenario analysishecklists&eendent research couled with bilateral interviews cano be an eIective strategy& "ind mas in a grouironment are another use!ul tool&atever aroach is adoted( it is imortant that the aroachtC!or)urose&ne Setting

R7S9Pk $denti/cationk Anal'sisk %"aluationt)er Anal'sise=uired>ailedl'sis

going Risknagement


24/85

ER T/ERS'/O+onal Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines October 2010


25/85

Establish the #onte-t1 ,asic +arametersablishing the conte-t is the Brst ste in the NERAG methodology&s ste allows an organisation or community to articulate itsectives and deBne the e-ternal and internal arameters to been into account when managing risk& The rocess also sets thee and risk criteria !or the risk study& %or risks !rom emergencynts( the emhasis is on ensuring a common understanding o! theose and obectives( scoe and key elements !or the risk studyore starting the assessment&en establishing the conte-t( the owners o! the rocess& emergency management committees at state( regional or

al level7 need to consider the relevant community environment(uding geograhy( climate( oulation( industries( essentialvices and critical in!rastructure& Aendi- A rovides a checklistonsider when describing the environment& This will hel inning or conBrming the basic arameters o! the risk study obectives( scoe( stakeholders( risk criteria and key elements7&ecti"es

ommon understanding o! the assessment$s obectives isamount in ensuring that all relevant risks are catured&Brming obectives will suort other asects o! the conte-t)ing haseF these include deBning the scoe( identi!ying

keholders and determining key elements&+AB8$S9 +9% C4+%+ial Meeting

ke)olderol"ementmmon 5iew o!ecti"espek Criteria

%lements

+large comple& riskessments t)e owners o! t)ecess s)ould consider w)et)er

' )a"e t)e resources ande a"aila(le to commit to eac)

ase o! t)e risk assessmentcess# +)ere s)ould (e a clear

derstanding o! all resourceuirements (e!ore committingluding an e&pectation t)atditional resources;!unds ma'necessar' to treat t)e risks#

&ample o! an (6ecti"enduct an assessment o! t)e risks to t)e communit' !rom ant Coast 8ow in order to direct and prioritise t)e communit'?sergenc' management e*orts t)roug) pre"entionparedness response and reco"er' acti"ities#

opescoe o! the risk assessment needs to be ade;uately consideredeBne the re;uired data& ,ecause the management o! risks

m emergencies could involve multile haDards( the deBnition o!e needs to address the range o! haDards !or a single event ortile events( the relevant community including its geograhicalurisdictional boundaries( and timelines to be considered&ordingly( consideration needs to be given to determine8e emergency event6s7 to be considerede sources o! risk to be considered 6describing the haDards7e imact categories to be considered 6describing the elementsrisk7&



26/85

ing the scoing stage( the owners o! the rocessht want to consider a range o! emergency eventsadot an all haDards aroach& 'imilarly( a risk

dy may simly be concerned with a single eventaddress only one haDard or one element at risk&

en multile emergency events and haDards are toconsidered( close consideration should be givenhe time and resources available to comlete thek&imortant to consider the urisdictional authority

either a geograhical basis or the relative rolesLonsibilities o! organisations in the community(uding the three sheres o! government( NGOs

industry( and the interrelationshis o! the riskdy with bordering areasLurisdictions&k Criteriak criteria are used to analyse and evaluatentiBed risks and will include the !ollowing8onse=uencelevel deBnitions 6consider the tyesimact that may occur7

keli)oodlevel deBnitions 6consider the likelihoodthe conse;uence7sk le"elcategories 6determine whether thek is such that !urther treatment measurese re;uired7on/dencedeBnitions 6consider !actors imacting

the conBdence in the risk study7

"aluationcategories 6determine accetabilitytolerability o! risks7&NERAG risk criteria are a central and deBning

racteristic o! this ublication and are !undamentalhe roduction o! comarable risk assessments&en the urose o! the guidelines( the NERAG riskeria comrise a standardised set o! descritorsrisk that all users must aly8onse;uence table 6re!er to Table 2( 'ection &2&>7kelihood table 6re!er to Table >( 'ection &2&>7ualitative risk matri- 6re!er to Table ?( 'ection2&>7onBdence table 6re!er to Table 5( 'ection &2&?7valuation matrices 6re!er to Tables ( and 3(

ction &>&27&amle o! a 'coeassessment will address the risks !rom a

rm surge( associated with an %ast Coast 8owhe local communit'and consider ossiblepacts to people and in!rastructurein thenicipalit'& 'torm surges to be considered1:1@@year and 1:@@year events&ke)olderskeholders can be categorised into threeerlaing7 grous8 those who may be aIecteddetrimental imacts !rom emergency eventsFse who may contribute secialist knowledgehe rocessF and those who have urisdictional

hority !or the seciBc haDards and elements at& These grous can usually be analysed according

motivations and concerns& /owever( the mainkeholders o! the three grous should be involvedstablishing the conte-t and( later( involved inrisk study team in order to ensure substantial

keholder ownershi o! the oututs& 'takeholderstyically8

overnment and ublic sectoron)government organisationsrivate sectorommunity and individuals&

t)e outset it ma' (e use!ul to translate t)eati"e conse=uences !rom t)e conse=uencele into a(solutes to gi"e participants ater idea o! t)e si,e o! t)e loss# For instanceastrop)ic economic loss is de/ned as D o!enue# Gi"en t)e re"enue o! a municipal council

E1@ million catastrop)ic economic loss !or t)isuncil is greater t)an E@@@@@#


27/85

rt wit) an initial meeting o! t)e owners)e process# $t is use!ul and common to t)enol"e stake)olders in !ocused meetings# to discuss t)e scope o! t)e risk assessmentater to prepare t)e works)op# +)ese conte&tting acti"ities suc) as (ilateral discussions) risk owners or su(6ect matter e&perts

mmunit' sur"e's or consultation meetingsd works)ops aim at gaining a common "iewall rele"ant matters in order to ensure a welluctured and eHcient risk assessment#onal Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines October 2010


28/85

' %lementselements hel to structure the assessment

cess and ma-imise its eIectiveness&emergency events( the key elements should

selected in accordance with the scoe to !ocusattention o! the risk study team& /owever( asinimum it would be aroriate to select thevant sources o! risk and the categories o! imact

key elements o! the study& The assessment willn address these key elements one by one( asciBed by the relevant community with regard toemergency event6s7 to be considered& 4! re;uired(sets o! these key elements can be deBned to

ure that all imortant risks will be identiBed&

Pen considering t)e ke' elements !or a riskd' consideration needs to (e gi"en toticularl' "ulnera(le elements at risk# Fortance in a Iood scenario a residential aged-e !acilit' (uilt in a low-l'ing area wit)inmunicipalit' is likel' to present a )ig)er

nera(ilit' to impacts on people t)an ot)eridential )ousing assets#

amle o! Sey Elementse scope o! t)e assessment de/nes t)e rele"ant sources o! risk and t)e categories o! impact#e !ollowing could (e selected as ke' elements and possi(le su(sets !or t)e assessment o! risks

m an %ast Coast 8ow:urce:rm surge breaching of river banks and foreshore dunes breaking !evee banks dam fai!ure

pacts:mage to infrastructure inc!uding se#age treatment $!ant rai!#a% !ine$acts on $eo$!e inc!uding $otentia! !oss of !ife and dis$!acementnera(le communities:

#(!%ing deve!o$ment inc!uding aged(care faci!it% #ithout )ood $rotection

2 Reortingbasis !or decisions that deBne or conBrm the

ective( scoe( stakeholders( risk criteria and keyments o! the risk study need to be documented toure that the rocess is transarent and lausible&

eorting temlate is shown on the ne-t age&

e established( the conte-t needs to bemmunicated to and understood by all arties

hat the rocess yields the desired oututs& Onbasis( the risk assessment worksho can be

ared with emhasis on selecting the risk studym and collecting and reviewing relevant data toermine otential imacts&temtation to rush the


29/85

&ample o! Reporting +emplateta(lis) t)e Conte&tecti"e:

nduct an assessment o! t)e risks to t)e communit' !rom an %ast Coast 8ow in order to directd prioritise t)e communit'?s emergenc' management e*orts t)roug) pre"ention preparednessponse and reco"er' acti"ities#

ope:e assessment will address t)e risks o! a storm surge associated wit) an %ast Coast 8owt)e local communit' and consider possi(le impacts to people and in!rastructure in t)e municipalit'#rm surges to (e considered are 1:1@@-'ear and 1:@@-'ear e"ents#ke)olders:al Fire Aut)orit' 8ocal Police Council Representati"es including /nance engineering.

unteer %mergenc'


30/85

Arrangements !or theRisk Assessment1 +rearing !or the =orksho

ough it is acknowledged that alternative aroaches !or thentiBcation( analysis and evaluation o! risks can be adoted( aksho is the re!erred aroach !or emergency risk assessments(ause it engages stakeholders and gives them a sense o!

nershi& /owever( meticulous rearation is aramount to thecess o! the assessment and should be initiated by the owners o!rocess( once the conte-t o! the study has been established&

rksho rearation involves a range o! deskto activities& Among

most imortant issues are the selection o! the risk study teamthe review and collection o! haDard and community seciBc dataevelo imact otentials& /ere( care should be given to involvele who can rovide in!ormation about the relevant emergencynt andLor the vulnerability o! the community or region& 4t is alsoommended that the team members are selected !rom elementshe community that might be aIected( such as owners o! criticalastructure and associated services& %urthermore( individualsiliar with the alicable emergency management arrangementse-isting revention( rearedness( resonse and recovery

asures should !orm art o! the team& 4n general( all mainkeholders should be reresented at the risk study worksho&en collecting haDard and community seciBc data( it may be!ul to identi!y and review relevant historical events( which might

cate event trends and 6ast7 vulnerabilities& This is most easilyieved by using the standardised NERAG risk criteria 6as identiBedables 2( > and ?7 !or rating the risks that were realised !or thosents and lotting risk values against the ;ualitative risk matri-&s might also add value to the assessment by visually uttingrent risks into historical conte-t seciBc to the community&ng this aroach( a risk lot based on historical data describesconse;uences !rom events with an estimated likelihood o!urrence in any one year& Each lot could describe the risk !romarticular haDard to a articular imact category and in generaluld sloe down !rom le!t to right( indicating that events withh conse;uences are less likely to occur than events with lowse;uences& %or each historical event a oint will aear on thetri- which when combined rovide a concetual reresentation o!

risk roBle !or articular haDards& %igure rovides an e-amlewhat this might look like& 4t is recognised that it may be di:cultroduce this when there is limited historical data 6which is thee !or many haDards in Australia7&R7S9P PR%PARA+$4essment +eam;ilitator Selectiona collectiond re"iewact Potential

e"elopmentessment +oolmpilationrks)op Sc)edule

Arrangementsrmation Brie!

sseminationsentationparation

Predients !or an e*ecti"erks)op include:ompetent !acilitatornd scri(ee/ned deli"era(les andet)od o! deli"er'reati"e t)inking to identi!'sks

met)odical structure tonal'se risks e#g# addressinge' elements or identi/edsks in turns.eadil' a"aila(le data'stematic record-takingissues addressed

greements etc#si(ilit' o! proceedings e#g#esentation tools suc) as on-


31/85

reen pro6ections o! records.eam owners)ip o! t)e processnd consensus outputsme management including

uHcient (reak time#



32/85

ure Lample 9istorical Risk Plotstructed using NERAG risk criteria in rearation !or the worksho to suort stakeholdererstanding o! the risk issues !or articular sources o! riskostainlihoodkely1...dsust 1321

oodostedible

gniBcanteratese;uenceastrohic

key issues !or worksho rearation are8stablish the assessment conte-t and assignteam leader !or the risk studyra!t a realistic imlementation lan and scheduleet u a reliable communication regimeoint a !acilitatorelect and noti!y the risk study team membersstribute relevant in!ormation( such as thente-t o! the assessment and the roles to beayed by individual team members

ollect and review aroriate in!ormation andta on relevant haDard6s7 and communitiesevelo imact otentials and dra!t a bow)tieagram 6see 'ection &1&17 !or each 6single orultile haDard7 eventomile and adust assessment toolsg& risk register7

ra!t a worksho rogram and scheduleg& one or more sessions( ossibly arallel7range !or the re;uired resourcesg& room( roector( recording !acilities etc&7

reare and distribute an in!ormation brie! welladvance o! the worksho

reare a summary resentation to set the scenethe outset o! the worksho

ocument the rocess and distribute to workshotendees and other stakeholders&ending on the scoe o! the assessment(sideration should be given to breaking theksho into several( ossibly arallel( sessions&

s is use!ul when assessing one or more eventsh multile haDards in order to address eachard searately& Also( slitting the rocessording to the main elements C risk identiBcation(analysis and risk evaluation C is o!ten hel!ul&

Pen selecting a !acilitator t)e !ollowingnciples s)ould (e taken into account:

ndependenceirect liaison aut)orit'ccess to e&pertiseapacit' to engage wit) t)e communit'location o! ade=uate resources time;ot)er.#



33/85

2 ndertaking the =orkshoe the team is assembled and the worksho has started(!ormal risk assessment rocess is underway& The structurehe worksho is driven by the rocess and usually comrisesr hases8 setting the scene( identi!ying risks( analysing risksevaluating risks&ting t)e Scene

ummarise and discuss the obective( scoe( stakeholders(sk criteria( and key elements o! the risk studyummarise in!ormation and data reviewed and resent imacttentials

resent the worksho aroach and deBne the roles o! individualam members&nti!'ing Risks see Section L#1.escribe relevant 6singleLmultile haDard7 event6s7 that mightause an emergencyescribe relevant imacts that an emergency might causescuss the dynamics o! the emergency scenario

ummarise risks associated with the imacts in light o! theevant event6s7

ummarise e-isting revention and rearedness !actorsummarise e-isting resonse and recovery !actorsature in!ormation in a risk register&al'sing Risks see Section L#K.view the risk register to conBrm identiBed riskste e-isting controls

ssign conse;uence and likelihood ratings to each risk

d determine the risk leveletermine conBdence in the rocess&aluating Risks see Section L#.view the risk register to conBrm the analysis o! risks

ly the A@AR+ rincile to determine tolerabilityecide on the need !or !urther analysis or 6immediate7 treatment!ore monitoring and review&worksho must generate a comrehensive list o! risks

ociated with the relevant emergency event ensuring that no maores are overlooked& This list needs to include e-isting controlsto rovide an overall rating o! each risk( based on the likelihoodarticular conse;uences& 4n addition( key areas and otionsrisk treatment should be identiBed by considering the level o!sting controls and the dynamics o! the emergency scenario&

eneral( !acilitators must be mind!ul o! the time allowed !or theksho and ensure that each o! the three main elements o! thecess( identi!y( analyse and evaluate( is given due consideration&s is imortant( because the desired amount o! time is o!tenavailable due to resource constraints& E-tensive lanning andaration !or the worksho and !ocused !acilitation are there!orecial to the assessment$s success&


R7S9Pne Settingk $denti/cationk Anal'sisk %"aluationt)er Anal'sis

e=uired>

Pe !acilitator s)ould ensuret all works)op participants

"e a clear understanding o!conte&t and are gi"en t)e

portunit' to )a"e input# +)ete&t ma' need to (e modi/edordingl'#


34/85

A!ter t)e ailedl'sis

+%R +9%R7S9Pgoing Risknagement

Responsi(ilitiesstakeholders in the risk study will need to assume resonsibilitytheir involvement& Sey members will be the risk study ownerLnsor( team leader( subect matter e-ert( !acilitator and

ticiant&ner;Sponsoritiate and oversee the risk studyovide ade;uate resources 6Bnancial( non)Bnancial7

nsure realisitic timelines&m 8eaderanage and coordinate the imlementation o! the risk study&

(6ect Matter %&pertrovide relevant in!ormation( data and e-ert advice regardinge risk to be assessed&ilitator

rovide advice on the rearation o! the risk assessmentmain indeendent o! the risk assessment subect mattercilitate the risk assessment worksho&

ticipantngage actively in the rocessnsure availability !or the entire duration o! the study(re;uired&



35/85

Risk Assessment1 $denti!' t)e Riskssk identiBcation involves the identiBcationsk sources( events( their causes and theirential conse;uencesJ 6AS/NZS ISO 31!"#7&ding( recognising and describing risks canolve the use o! historical data( theoreticalomutational analysis( e-ert oinions and

keholder needs& This hase reveals the scenarioamics o! otential emergencies in the establishedte-t( so that risks can be identiBed&ally( the identiBcation o! risks is !acilitated by

rmation and data that is collected( reviewedreared !or resentation by stakeholders withvant secialist knowledge when rearing !orworksho& This in!ormation should be used inworksho environment to describe the naturehe relevant sources to be addressed 6which couldone or more single or multile haDard events7(h their ossible imacts to be considered&oen discussion allows consideration o! diIerentsectives and e-eriences and signiBcantlytributes to gaining a holistic understandinghe risk( which will be subect to scrutinyng the risk analysis Bow-+ie 2iagram

denti!ying risks( it is imortant to reveal therrelationshi o! sources o! risks and imacts&re!erred tool !or this is the bow)tie diagram(

ch can be used to identi!y8 6a7 athways leadinghe emergency and the actual imactsF and 6b7ventionLrearedness and resonseLrecoverytrols& 4t concetualises the sources( causes(trols and imacts o! an emergency event( theails o! which are then catured in the riskster&bow)tie diagram combines advantages o!

m)based brainstorming and o! more structuredhni;ues( such as systems analysis( because it israhical reresentation o! the relevant emergency

nario& 4t deicts the storyline !or a loss to themmunity( which identiBes areas that are criticalontrolling risk6s7& %igure illustrates the bow tiecet and a worked e-amle is rovided in theendices&

puts and +ools8sk 4dentiBcationn!ormation on )a,ard and communit')aracteristics as well as impact potentialsow-tie diagramsk register

Pen identi!'ing risks it is important to consider

mmunit' "ulnera(ilities# Because "ulnera(ilit'ans (eing suscepti(le to a potential impact

mmunities t)at )a"e )ig) e&posure to )a,ardsd are less a(le to adapt are "ulnera(le#

depending on t)e scope o! t)e stud'nti!'ing risks will re"eal e&posed elementsrisk and t)eir capacit' to cope in order tooritise "ulnera(le elements o!. communities#en appropriate speci/c "ulnera(le. elements

risk can (e used to generate risk statements#

ure Nample o! t)e (ow tie diagramentionL+rearedness #ontrolsonseLRecovery #ontrols

ce 1rol 1rol 2rol >rol 1>rol 1?rol 15ct 1ce 2rol ?rol 5


36/85

rol rgencyrol 1rol 1rol 13ct 2ce >rol rol 3rol .rol 1.rol 20rol 21ct >ce ?rol 10rol 11

rol 12rol 22rol 2>rol 2?ct ?



37/85

most aroriate way o! constructing a bow)tiegram !or emergencies is to address the Bve main

monents o! risk8ourceurces o! emergency risks are the haDardssociated with the initiating event& 4n the bow)tieagram( the sources are listed on the le!t)handde&

nomy

lic administrational settingastructure&

Pnsideration ma' also (e gi"en to t)e !act t)atergencies ma' )a"e (ene/cial long-term

nse=uences !or t)e rele"ant communit' w)ic)g)t partiall'. o*set immediate or s)ort-termrimental impacts# Also conse=uences (e'ondregion or 6urisdiction o! concern ma' increase

reduce t)ose wit)in t)e region# $n general an'ue raised during t)e risk identi/cation processcluding concerns can (e considered

ptured in t)e risk register and assessedoug) to t)e risk e"aluation#ese guidelines do not pro"ide e&plicit guidance(ene/cial conse=uences or opportunities (utt)ods o! adapting risk assessment tec)ni=uesdeal wit) (ene/ts and opportunities arecussed in Standards Australia 9and(ook 9BL:K@@#ontrolsntrols are used to manage the causes andereby either reduce the likelihood o! occurrencethe incident or reduce the imact that results

om the incident& 4n the bow)tie diagram( thentrols are laced on the athways 6causes7ading !rom the source to the incident and

rther on to the imact& %or emergency events(evention and rearedness controls are usedrevent or mitigate e-osure o! the elementrisk or otential imacts( whereas resonsed recovery controls are used only to mitigateacts& *ocumenting e-isting controls willovide imortant in!ormation !or ossible controlortunities during risk evaluation and risk

eatment&ere ossible( a dra!t bow)tie diagram should beared by the roect team be!ore the worksho&hould encomass the sources o! risk( the seciBcergency( the ossible imacts and categories !ortrols8

enti!y the knot o! the bow)tiet all relevant sources o! risk within the scoethe study on the le!t)hand side o! the diagramt all relevant imact categories within the scoethe study on the right)hand side o! the diagram

Ppical sources o! emergenc' risks are natural,ards: (us)/re eart)=uake Iood stormlone storm surge landslide tsunami andnado# 9owe"er some )a,ards ma' )a"e am(er o! sources# For instance Ioods ma'ult !rom intense rain dam !ailure or snowlt# 8ig)tning strike arson non-intentional

man causes and in!rastructure !ailure aremmon causes o! (us)/re#auseuses usually describe the mechanisms andnditions !or the element at risk to be e-oseda source o! risk& 4n the conte-t o! emergencyents( these mechanisms and conditions e-iste to the characteristics o! the environmentg& earth;uake)rone land7 and o! the e-isting


38/85

evention and mitigation controls 6e&g& designandards7& 4n the bow)tie diagram( the causese reresented by the athways leading !rome source to the incident and !urther on to theact&

ncidentcidents are events when the element at riske-osed to the source o! risk& The incidentthe knot o! the bow)tie and reresents the

mergency&mpactacts describe the conse;uences !or the

ements at risk !rom e-osure to the source o!

k( that is( the emergency& @evels o! imact areBned in a standardised conse;uence table ande categorised !or the elements at risk& 4n thew)tie diagram( the imacts on the elementsrisk are on the right)hand side o! the diagram the yellow bo-es7& 4mact categories to bensidered are8eolenvironment

8200? Risk "anagement Guidelines #omanion to A'LNM' ?>08200?



39/85

enti!y high)level categories !or reventionLearedness controls and relate them to onemore sources o! risk by lacing them on anaginary line between the relevant source6s7d the knot o! the bow)tieenti!y high)level categories !or resonseLcovery controls and relate them to one orore imact categories by lacing them on anaginary line between the knot o! the bow)tied the relevant imact categorye bow)tie will be oulated with additional dataring the worksho&h)level categories !or controls can be determined

he roect team which could draw on table 1 6seee >07 or other re!erences including /,?>8200?nsiration&e-amle( the risk statement in the e-amledeals with damage to in!rastructure and

vice delivery caused by ooding during ant #oast @ow&

&ample o! Risk Statementsere is t)e potential t)at a storm surge resultingm an %ast Coast 8ow will cause Ioods in t)estal areas o! t)e communit' w)ic) in turn cause !ailure o! signi/cant in!rastructure and"ice deli"er'#ere is t)e potential t)at a storm surge resultingm an %ast Coast 8ow will cause Ioods in t)estal areas o! t)e communit' w)ic) in turn willse impact on t)e in)a(itants#

ere is t)e potential t)at a storm surge resultingm an %ast Coast 8ow will cause Ioods to

w-l'ing de"elopment including an aged care-ilit' w)ic) in turn will cause impact on t)ea(itants## $denti!' Controlseach risk statement and !or each high)leveltrol category shown in the bow)tie diagram(risk study team needs to identi!y seciBcventionLrearedness controls and resonseLovery controls& The !ollowing tyes o! control

uld be considered8ehavioural controls C reliance on human actiontiated by individuals or grous based on theireriencerocedural controls C reliance on human actionaccordance with rescribed aroaches within

management systemhysical controls C assiveLB-ed controlsautomatic e-ecution o! controls within

management system and not re;uiringman action&e 1 is used to determine the level o! control but

o rovides e-amles o! controls 6see & >17 Risk Register

risk register serves as the database !or the teamis where all relevant in!ormation is recorded and

umented& According to the staged aroach o!identiBcation( risk analysis and risk evaluation(register should be comleted during each hasehe assessment&

Ps recommended t)at one (ow-tie diagram (epared !or eac) single or multiple-)a,ard.

ent# +)e s)ape and comple&it' o! eac) (ow-will depend on t)e scope o! t)e assessment#instance i! a single source o! risk is to (e

nsidered t)e le!t-)and side o! t)e (ow-tie

s)ow 6ust one pat)wa'# $n contrast multipleurces will result in multiple pat)wa's leadingt)e knot i#e# t)e emergenc'.##K Generate Risk Statementsk statements need to be roduced !or all crediblerrelationshis between the source6s7 o! riskimact categories as deBned in the scoedeicted in the bow)tie diagram& They are to

cra!ted indeendent o! the conse;uence level(


40/85

should include details on the initiating event(uding its relative magnitude( where aroriate&each risk statement( one or more credible

els o! conse;uence and their likelihood will beermined during the analysis hase& There coulda number o! elements at risk !rom each event(ch( deending on the scoe o! the study mightd to be addressed&h risk statement should outline8e source o! riske imact categorye conse;uence o! the interaction&



41/85

ular review and monitoring is an integral arthe emergency risk management rocess andtems should be established and maintained tolitate this rocess& The Emergency "anagementtralia ublication( Emergency Risk "anagementlications Guide "anual 5( recommends a uni;ue

ntiBer system( whereby an alhanumeric identiBerssigned to each risk& %or instance( two letters tonti!y the community( two digits to identi!y theure o! the source o! risk and two digits to identi!yse;uential osition o! the risk&er to the !ollowing e-amle o! a risk register&mle o! Risk Register 6Risk 4dentiBcation7

AG R$S7 R%G$S+%Re:ecti"e:

Ps recommended t)at one (ow-tie diagram (epared !or eac) single or multiple-)a,ard.

ent# +)e s)ape and comple&it' o! eac) (ow-will depend on t)e scope o! t)e assessment#instance i! a single source o! risk is to (e

nsidered t)e le!t-)and side o! t)e (ow-tie s)ow 6ust one pat)wa'# $n contrast multiple

urces will result in multiple pat)wa's leadingt)e knot i#e# t)e emergenc'.#duct an assessment o! the risks to the community !rom an East #oast @ow in order to direct and rioritise the community$srgency management through revention( rearedness( resonse and recovery&

pe:assessment will address the risks o! a storm surge( associated with an East #oast @ow( to the local community and considerible imacts to eole and in!rastructure in the municiality& 'torm surges to be considered are 18100 year and 18500 yearts&4dentiBcationNo&

'tatemente is the otential that a storme resulting !rom an Eastt @ow will cause oods in thetal areas o! the community(h in turn will cause !ailuregniBcant in!rastructure andce delivery&e is the otential that a storme resulting !rom an Eastt @ow will cause oods in the

tal areas o! the community(h in turn will cause imact onnhabitants&e is the otential that a storme resulting !rom an East #oastwill cause oods to low lyingloment including an aged!acility( which in turn wille imact on the inhabitants&cemectgorystructureentionLaredness #ontrolse ,anks

ing Regulationsnage "aintenancen +lanningveryLResonserols

ness #ontinuitys

melee ,anksing Regulationsc Education

nage "aintenance=arning 'ystem

n +lanning

ing Regulationsc Educationnage "aintenance

=arning 'ystem

rgency 'heltersnteernisationscal 'ervices

rgency 'heltersnteer


42/85


43/85

K Anal'se t)e Riskssk analysis is the systematic rocess toerstand the nature o! and to deduce the level o!J 6AS/NZS ISO 31#!"#7& The level o! risk isermined by identi!ying the likelihood o! articularse;uences occurring&her analysis( more detailed analytical methodsiIerent comle-ity levels may be adoted tolement the rocess&base)line assessment deduces the level o! riskollowing a systematic rocess( whereby theregister derived !rom the bow)tie diagram( as as an assessment o! the control level and thelication o! the standardised NERAG risk criteria(rovide a consistent analysis o! emergency risks&h risk in the risk register will be subect to reviewrating in line with the !ollowing aroach&

#1 Re"iewing t)e Risk Register and Bow-+ie2iagramiew o! the risk register and the bow)tie diagrams at conBrming that all relevant risks have been

ntiBed& uestions to ask at this stage include8ave all trivial issues been screened outave all dulicates been drawn togetherave reventionLrearedness controls beenentiBed !or all sources o! riskave resonseLrecovery controls been identiBed

r all imact categories#K Control 8e"elystematic assessment o! controls regarding theirctiveness highlights weaknesses and directsons !or their imrovement& 4! used in combination

h the bow)tie diagram( it also rovides valuablermation about how to manage risks by

nti!ying treatment otions through !ocusing oncal athwaysF that is( athways without controlslace or athways with controls which are vital most relied on7&control level should be assessed as art o! theanalysis be!ore rating the risks& As a starting

nt( it is use!ul to romt team discussions

each identiBed risk on the !ollowing controlracteristics&penda(ilit'ow reliable is itit breaks down( how long will it be outserviceill it work even i! other controls are !ailingill it survive an incidentcticalit'it a roven control

oes it comly with a known standard

puts and +ools8sk Analysisow-tie diagramsk registerontrol ta(letandardised 4%RAG risk criteriachoice o! analysis method is usually determinedhe conte-t and available resources( and may

;ualitative( semi);uantitative and ;uantitative&simly( ;ualitative methods emloy simle

chanisms 6matri-( nomogram7 to use eole$serience to rovide a rating o! risks& 4n contrast(ntitative methods generally include comle-thematical calculations o! risk based on !re;uencyrobability o! !ailures as well as the hysics o!underlying haDard& E-erience has shown that

litative assessments and mathematical dataseldom in harmony& 'emi);uantitative methodsre!ore aim at combining the advantages o!litative and ;uantitative methods&

k analysis may 2e undertaken to ,aryingrees o detail de&ending u&on t4e risk5 t4e&ose o t4e analysis5 and t4e inormation5a and resources a,aila2le0 Analysis may 2elitati,e5 semi76uantitati,e or 6uantitati,e


44/85

com2ination o t4ese5 de&ending on t4eumstances0 84e order o com&le9ity andts o t4ese analyses5 in ascending order5 islitati,e5 semi76uantitati,e and 6uantitati,e0ractice5 6ualitati,e analysis is oten usedt to o2tain a general indication o t4e le,elisk and to re,eal t4e ma;or risk issues0


45/85

there something about the emergency event(mmunity or other criteria that will revent iting eIectivenitoringthere a management rocess to track and

easure control er!ormanceow will any deterioration be detected earlyople $n"ol"ementthere any way eole can undermine thisntrolo they understand its imortancere oerators cometent and roerly trainedowing this discussion( the tool !or rating is the

trol table 6Table 17( which ranks the eIectivenessdiIerent tyes o! control& 4t deBnes three levelsbehavioural( rocedural and hysical controls andbe used to address both community and state

cesses& As indicated in the table( behavioural andcedural controls may achieve high ratings( taking account that a resilient community( through itsity to coe( is not disabled in crisis situations(mobilises to deal with them&rating !or each control needs to be recorded inrisk register&



46/85

(le 1 Control +a(le"el o!ntrol)a"ioural Controlsance on human action initiatedindividua!s or grou$s basedon their e+$erience,

ature organisationturnover o! staIroortion o! new oulationn community

ory o! control !ailure

nisation with well)understoodand resonsibilities

ed and trained staImunity with communication andaction between all oulationsory !or minor control !ailures

have holistic understanding o!mact o! one control$s !ailure onher

re organisation with clear andmented roles and resonsibilitiesrienced and skilled staI)established community with higho! awareness andLor educationving all oulation grousistory o! any control !ailures andonstrated ability to learn !rom

astagement system includes rulesrotocols 6access( authoritys( e-ected control range7inuous er!ormance checksagement reorting o!ormanceumented management !ollow)uBciencies

agement system subect tornal accreditation and auditingrol covered by a rigorous changeagement regimeberate actions re;uired !orbling controlres managed as art o!tenance system and given

er riority !or resolutiontenance system diIerentiateseen critical and non)critical tasks

umented management !ollow)ustem deBciencies

cedural Controls!iance on human actionccordance #ith $rescribeda$$roaches #ithin amanagement s%stem,umented rocedureocument control7oI cometency assessmentnst rocedureoI con!ormance and outcomeuationument control systemodic cometency assessmentnst the rocedurened er!ormance outcomes

odic con!ormance auditingding management reortingdit outcomes

'sical Controlssive/.+ed contro!s or automaticecution of contro!s #ithin anagement s%stem and #ithoutreuiring human action,gned to seciBc er!ormanceria 6availability( reliability7emented to design criteria

gned in relation to the elementsk to be rotectedaged as art o! a reventativetenance system

em)generated notiBcation in

event o! activation and !ailure



47/85

# Risk Criteriak analysis aims at assigning each identiBed risk ang in accordance with the agreed risk criteria& 4tumes that the emergency scenario( as deicted inbow)tie diagram( arises& The analysis there!ore

es on a realistic understanding o! the scenarioamicsF that is( o! all causes that may result inemergency( the imacts that may arise !rom theosure( and relevant controls that are in lace&risk criteria are centred on two arameters8

se;uence and likelihood& Each risk is assigneddible conse;uence levels and !or each o!se conse;uence levels likelihood ratings

determined& #ombined( the likelihood andse;uence ratings are used to determine the risk&outcome must be a set o! risk ratings( which

ects the team$s assessment o! the risk level&nse=uence Rating

risk study team needs to be mind!ul that thereld be a range o! credible levels o! conse;uenceeach risk statement& sing the standardisedse;uence table 6Table 27( each crediblese;uence level is to be recorded in the riskster& 4n the emergency conte-t( this is a ratingthe otential outcome once the


48/85

(le K Conse=uence +a(lestrohicsreadile loss o!mortalityn tensand7(th system

ble to coe(acement o!

le beyondty to coe

"ironmentsreadreirmentss o!ystemtions acrossies andscaes(overableronmentalagereirmentss o!ystemtionsting manyies or

scaes(ressiveronmentalage

onom'coverablecial loss V >We governmentor$s revenues1(t destructionss industryors leadingdesread

ness !ailuresoss o!oyment

ncial lossW o! the

rnmentor$s revenues1iring maorges in

ness strategyartly7 coversigniBcanttions acrossstry sectorsng to multile

ness !ailuresoss o!oyment

ncial loss1W o! thernment

or$s revenues1iring

stments toness strategyver loss(tions to

cted industryors leading toted cases o!

ness !ailuremultile loss

mloymentncial loss0&>W o! thernment

or$s revenues1iring activationserves to coverdisrutions

usiness level

ng to isolateds o! loss o!oyment

(lic Social Setting $n!rastructureministrationerning bodyble to manageevent(dered ublicnistration

out eIective

Conse=uence People8e"el


49/85

tioning(c unrest(a coveragend region or

dictionerning bodyrbed withaging thet( ublicnistration

ggles tode merelyal services(o! ublicdence inrnance(a coverage

nd region ordictionerning bodyages the eventconsiderablersion !romy( ublicnistration

tions limitedcus onal services(sreadc rotests(a coveragen region ordictionerning bodyages the event

er emergencyme( ublicnistration

tions withe disturbances(tedessions o!c concern(a coveragen region ordictionerning bodyages the eventn normalmeters( ublicnistration

tions withoutrbances(

c conBdencevernance( noa attentionmunity

ble to suort!( widesreado! obectslturalBcance(cts beyondtional andhologicalcity in all

s o! themunityuced ;ualitye withinmunity(Bcant loss

amage tocts o! culturalBcance(cts beyondtional andhologicalcity in large

s o! themunity)term !ailure

gniBcantstructure andce deliveryting all artse community(ing e-ternalort at large

e re;uired

rle loss o!mortality V 1e hundredsand7(th system)stressed(e numbersslacedle 6more

2? hours7


50/85


51/85

eliance onth systemmisses orents withoutronmentalage( novery eIortsred

ncial loss1W o! thernment

or$s revenues1e managedn standardcial rovisions(

nse;uentialtions at

ness levelnse;uentialt)term !ailure!rastructureserviceery( notion to thec services

orted in the annual oerating statement !or the relevant urisdiction( organisation and community



52/85


53/85

Pere are a num(er o! wa's t)at t)e c)ance o! an e"ent occurring can (e e&pressed# %&ceedance statisticst)e' are commonl' called are used in planning and management to de/ne a le"el o! accepta(lekO t)e likeli)ood o! occurrence is (alanced against t)e costs o! mitigating t)e risk# Man' terms areed interc)angea(l' at times including Annual %&ceedance Pro(a(ilit' A%P. Return Period A"eragecurrence $nter"al AR$. pro(a(ilit' and !re=uenc'#turn period usuall' re!ers to t)e a"erage time (etween e"ents o! a certain magnitude w)ile e&ceedance(a(ilit' indicates t)e c)ance t)at an e"ent o! a particular magnitude will occur in a certain period o! time#

s strongl' recommended t)at )a,ard (e considered in terms o! pro(a(ilit' (ecause t)e use o! AR$ andturn periods can lead to con!usion in t)e minds o! some decision makers and mem(ers o! t)e pu(lic#)oug) t)e terms are simple t)e' are sometimes misinterpreted to impl' t)at )a,ard e"ents wit) t)eociated magnitude are onl' e&ceeded at regular inter"als and t)at t)e' are re!erring to t)e elapsed

e to t)e ne&t e&ceedance#s t)ere!ore pre!era(le to e&press t)e rarit' o! an e"ent in terms o! A%P#


54/85

e taken into account& Relevant in!ormationo be collected !or the emergency event andelements at risk and may also include localorical data as well as roections&de=uac' o! t)e e&isting controlse control level and the risk rating determinee ade;uacy o! e-isting controls& =hen severalntrols are in lace( the interaction o! thesentrols and their cumulative ade;uacy has to bensidered& Two ;uestions should be addressedr each risk8

controls in lace( which are likely toaroriatethese controls have back)usathematically indeendent eventsF that is( !or haDard events unrelated to earlier events



55/85

er !actors to consider( when necessary( aretime!rame o! the assessment and the li!etimehe elements at risk& These arameters needsideration because the longer their duration( theater the chance o! an incident and its associatedse;uences being e-erienced at some stageng that eriod& %or instance( the chance o! aard with a 1W AE+ occurring in a certain year isall 6i&e& 1W7& /owever( i! a time!rame o! 100 yearsonsidered( then it is much more likely that theard event will occur at least once during that time >&?W7& Obviously( the same can be illustratedthe li!etime o! the element at risk& Also( temoral

ors which might inuence the likelihood o! ase;uence( such as eak tra:c hours( may havee taken into account&risk study team needs to assign a likelihood

ng !or each conse;uence considering all o! theve !actors and using Table >&k Rating;ualitative risk matri- 6Table ?7 combines a

el o! conse;uence with a level o! likelihood toermine a level o! risk& The risk level( togetherh the conBdence in the overall assessmentcess and other !actors( will determine the needdetailed analysis and in!orm the treatment o!s&

ng the risk matri-( all risk levels are to beorded in the risk register&

&ample o! 8ikeli)ood Ratinge likeli)ood rating !or t)e risk o! multiple lossi!e in low l'ing de"elopments including an

ed-care !acilit':currence o! an emergenc' e"ent:currence of a 5:500 %ear storm surge from anst oast 'o#e!ihood rating 7$ossib!e8atial in!ormation:giona! estimates of the e+tent of an ast oast# corre!ate #ith the area being considerede!ihood rating is not reduced: 7$ossib!e8

e=uac' o! t)e e&isting controls:e --/** contro!s for !oss of !ife #ere most!%ed at !eve! 2 and the risk stud% team fe!t the

ntro!s #ou!d have some eect in $reventing aor conseuencee!ihood rating is reduced to 7un!ike!%8eli)ood 8e"el:e !ike!ihood rating for the risk of mu!ti$!e !ossife in !o#(!%ing deve!o$ments inc!uding an

ed(care faci!it% #as determined as 7un!ike!%8,

(le alitati"e Risk Matri&nse=uence 8e"eleli)ood 8e"elost #ertain

elysiblekelyey Rareost 4ncredibleigni/cantdiumwwwww

wnordiumdiumwwwww


56/85

deratehhdiumdiumwww6orremehhdium

diumww

astrop)icremeremehhdiumdiumwonal Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines October 2010


57/85

ere a range o! credible conse;uences have beenntiBed( the resulting risk ratings can be shownorially as a risk lot( overlain on the risk matri-&storical data was used to generate a risk lotore undertaking the risk assessment( bothld be shown together !or comarison urosesough both datasets cannot be combined to !ormrisk lot because they were derived by diIerent

thods and !or diIerent times o! occurrence&reare a risk lot !or a articular source o!and a articular imact class( lot ointshe matri- based on the agreed likelihoodsconse;uences !or the event analysed( using

scenario)based aroach in the NERAG& +lotitional oints !or other scenarios considered&id e-tending lots beyond the area o! thenarios considered&ure 3 below shows a tyical risk lot withthetic data derived during the risk study usingNERAG lotted !or three credible conse;uence

els along with data !rom ten historical events !ormarison&

lot can be use!ul in concetualising risk ando !or identi!ying outliers in risk ratings& 'uchiers may romt the team to review and checkdata that led to the articular risk rating& 4n thismle this lot indicates that the highest risk is

ociated with moderate conse;uence& Given itsvation !rom historical risk ratings the team mayide to review the inuts to this risk value be!oreceeding&

ure ample Risk Plot comparing )istorical risk in!ormation and risk data !rom current stud'

*ata !rom scenario)basedassessment using the NERAGostainkelyost

ediblegniBcanteratese=uence

astrohic

# Con/denceoututs generated by the risk assessment are

d to determine ossible action& ,e!ore decisionsmade( however( the risk study team needs ancation o! the robustness o! the aroach& Toieve this( the level o! conBdence in the riskessment rocess will be used to identi!y and

mmunicate uncertainty& #onBdence hels toid misleading results( because inuences in thecess 6such as subective ercetions or a lack o!

a7 may be addressed( thus contributing to themarability o! oututs& Assessing conBdence isro-y !or sensitivity analysis and will suort theision concerning whether there is a need !or moreailed risk analysis&


8ikeli)ood


58/85

Bdence assessments can !ocus on !actors suchdivergence o! oinion among e-erts( uncertainty(lity and availability o! data and in!ormationhey relate to scenarios( controls( crediblese;uence levels and assessed likelihoods andratings& The tool to determine the level o!Bdence is shown in Table 5& The table deBnes

ee levels 6low( moderate and high7 !or threeBdence criteria8ata;in!ormationis criterion addresses both the availability andality o! data( and in!ormation relevant to theDard and community& The data may also cover

ormation on the sources o! risk as well ase e-osure( vulnerability andLor resilience o!e community and its concerns& 4n addition( itay include roections o! !uture develoments(ch as climate change and demograhics( and

melines o! interest&eam knowledgeis criterion addresses the knowledge o! thek study team o! the emergency event or tyehaDard and the risk assessment rocess& 4t

cludes the e-ertise and skills ac;uired througherience or education&greementis criterion addresses the level o! agreement in

e risk assessment and includes team consensusdata interretation( assignment o! risk criteria

tings etc& 4t is to be udged urely on technicalounds&

(le n/dence +a(lederate #onBdencemmunity or haDardciBcF validatedorical or scientiBcard or rocess seciBcnterretationsatingsh #onBdence

mmunity and haDardciBcF validatedorical and scientiBcard and rocessciBcnterretationsratings

ther communityhaDard seciBcFcdotal onlyther haDard nor rocessk assessment7 seciBcther on interretationson ratings

Bdence #riteria @ow #onBdenceaL4n!ormationm knowledgeeementratings !or each o! the above conBdence

eria will hel rate conBdence in the overall riskessment rocess& This rating will be conductedeach risk at the end o! the risk analysis hase&ill be recorded in the risk register in orderommunicate uncertainty and to suort theision)making rocess concerning the needdetailed risk analysis( or the selection o! riskatment measures& 4n general( i! the overallBdence in the rocess is low( !urther analysis

ht be warranted( and a more detailed analysisy need to be conducted& ,ut i! the risk study teams that the in!ormation and results are robust andne with the obectives o! the risk assessment(conclusions !rom the assessment would !eed the risk management rocess without !urtherlysis&

ending on the signiBcance o! the decision( theBdence rating should be assessed in conunction


59/85

h an e-ternal arty or otherwise validated by ad arty( such as through eer review or otherdation mechanism Risk Registerhis stage o! the risk assessment rocess thestudy team will have identiBed and analysedrisks& The Bndings should now be recorded inrisk register 6re!er to the e-amle risk register

owing7&onal Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines October 2010

8/10/2019 National Emergen

national emergency risk assessment guidelines 2010 - word document

Documents