Emergency Audit
Date
24 July 2026
Category
Industry
Residential high-rise construction
Location
Inner Brisbane
Scope
Independent audit of the site-specific emergency response plan
Deliverables
Emergency plan audit report, compliance review summary, marked-up plan and corrective-action log
Reference
WHS Regulation 2011 (Qld) s 43, Queensland Codes of Practice, AS 2444, AS 1851 and AS 4775
Critical deficiencies
Required actions
Compliant provisions
Extinguishers missing
Emergency Plan Audit - Case Study 06
Background
Background
The principal contractor of a multi-level construction project in inner Brisbane engaged OHSE Consultants to rebuild its Emergency Response Plan as a site-specific document. The existing plan had not been developed for this site: administrative records were incomplete, several equipment and procedural details were missing, and it did not reflect the arrangements actually in place.
Scope
Scope
The work covered completing the approval, distribution and personnel tables, adding a consultation record and review schedule, listing the applicable legislation and standards, and localising alarm, equipment and procedural detail to this site. The review covered alarms, emergency-control roles, evacuation, rescue from height, assembly points, equipment, first aid, drills, emergency-services consultation and plan maintenance.
Findings
Findings
Nine critical issues were identified. The mega-horn stated in the plan was not the actual warning system; the ORISENT all floors alarm was absent from the plan; there were missing signage and extinguishers; and key emergency roles were unassigned. Site-office relocation and upper-level work had not triggered review, leaving vertical evacuation and rescue incomplete, assembly points inside the collapse zone, and equipment, drills, first aid and emergency-services arrangements outdated or absent.
Guidance
Guidance
The plan requires review at least annually and on trigger events: site-office relocation, superstructure completion or phase change, a notifiable incident, or a change to the site risk profile. Wardens are inducted to the site-specific plan, emergency procedures are tested through regular drills with alarm testing recorded, and post-incident debriefs feed the review while corrective actions are recorded, assigned, tracked and verified.
Outcomes
Outcomes
The rebuilt plan documents the ORISENT siren as the primary alarm, the megaphone as backup, adds an AED, and sets fire-equipment servicing to AS 1851. Muster points were corrected to spatially correct locations, eyewash flushing times set to AS/NZS 4775:2007, and PEEP, visitor and contractor control, post-incident debrief and recovery, notifiable-incident escalation, a consultation record and a review schedule added.
Conclusion
Conclusion
The ERP had carried over a generic meaning where the required review triggers had not been actioned, leaving its alarm, muster points and emergency roles out of step with the actual sites activities. Rebuilding it as a site-specific document aligned the plan to the site's hazards, warning system and actual construction phase. It was rewritten fully to comply as the original plan was a temp[late and not fit for purpose.
Background
Background
The principal contractor of a multi-level construction project in inner Brisbane engaged OHSE Consultants to rebuild its Emergency Response Plan as a site-specific document. The existing plan had not been developed for this site: administrative records were incomplete, several equipment and procedural details were missing, and it did not reflect the arrangements actually in place.
Scope
Scope
The work covered completing the approval, distribution and personnel tables, adding a consultation record and review schedule, listing the applicable legislation and standards, and localising alarm, equipment and procedural detail to this site. The review covered alarms, emergency-control roles, evacuation, rescue from height, assembly points, equipment, first aid, drills, emergency-services consultation and plan maintenance.
Findings
Findings
Nine critical issues were identified. The mega-horn stated in the plan was not the actual warning system; the ORISENT all floors alarm was absent from the plan; there were missing signage and extinguishers; and key emergency roles were unassigned. Site-office relocation and upper-level work had not triggered review, leaving vertical evacuation and rescue incomplete, assembly points inside the collapse zone, and equipment, drills, first aid and emergency-services arrangements outdated or absent.
Guidance
Guidance
The plan requires review at least annually and on trigger events: site-office relocation, superstructure completion or phase change, a notifiable incident, or a change to the site risk profile. Wardens are inducted to the site-specific plan, emergency procedures are tested through regular drills with alarm testing recorded, and post-incident debriefs feed the review while corrective actions are recorded, assigned, tracked and verified.
Outcomes
Outcomes
The rebuilt plan documents the ORISENT siren as the primary alarm, the megaphone as backup, adds an AED, and sets fire-equipment servicing to AS 1851. Muster points were corrected to spatially correct locations, eyewash flushing times set to AS/NZS 4775:2007, and PEEP, visitor and contractor control, post-incident debrief and recovery, notifiable-incident escalation, a consultation record and a review schedule added.
Conclusion
Conclusion
The ERP had carried over a generic meaning where the required review triggers had not been actioned, leaving its alarm, muster points and emergency roles out of step with the actual sites activities. Rebuilding it as a site-specific document aligned the plan to the site's hazards, warning system and actual construction phase. It was rewritten fully to comply as the original plan was a temp[late and not fit for purpose.
The nine critical deficiencies
| Deficiency | What the audit found |
|---|---|
| Alarm coverage | The only alarm documented was a ground-level horn. It does not reach the active upper levels, including Levels 11 and 12, so workers at height had no effective alert. The system that does reach those levels, a nurse-call and evacuation siren, was not described in the plan and appeared only on a site image. The horn was named inconsistently across the plan, with conflicting signals. |
| Emergency control personnel | No Chief Warden or emergency coordinator was assigned to a named person. The key personnel table was left blank and the named personnel were out of date. |
| Vertical evacuation and rescue from height | The plan did not designate the egress route for workers on the upper levels, did not prohibit use of the hoist or lift during a fire, did not require two forms of emergency egress with one suitable for a stretcher, and did not address removal of an immobilised worker from perimeter scaffold, formwork or the core. |
| Assembly points | Both assembly points were located close to the building, within the falling-object and collapse zone. Those locations exposed evacuated workers to falling material and defeated the purpose of moving them to safety. |
| Emergency equipment register | The plan deferred to an equipment register that did not exist. The only record was a location diagram drawn on the superseded office layout. No firefighting equipment was specified for the ground-level hazardous chemical storage, contrary to section 359. |
| Testing frequency | The plan set no testing or drill frequency and deferred to a review matrix that did not exist. Section 43 requires the frequency to be stated in the plan. |
| Maintenance and updating | The office relocation and the superstructure reaching the upper levels were review triggers that had not been incorporated. The revision schedule did not record the later site changes. |
| Emergency services consultation | A twelve-storey site with a tower crane meets the threshold at which the local emergency services should be consulted. The plan recorded no consultation with the fire or ambulance services on site access, high-rise fire response, or rescue from the tower crane. |
| First aid | The named first aiders no longer reflected the current site team, and no assessment confirmed the number was adequate for the current headcount against the recommended ratio of one first aider for every twenty-five workers at a high-risk workplace. |