What is the theoretical basis for the emergency response guidelines?

The core positioning of the emergency response guide is the direct theoretical basis for the three core contents of emergency plan implementation, front-line on-site emergency response, and emergency work assessment and evaluation.

I have been working at grassroots emergency outlets for almost 8 years. I have seen many people throw this booklet into dust in the information cabinet and only think of reading it when something really happened. I have also seen frontline guards nip the budding dangers by relying on their familiarity with the guide. Don’t underestimate this booklet, which is several centimeters thick. Behind each revision is a review conclusion that focuses on major accidents. Unlike general emergency plans, which are written in a relatively macroscopic manner, the guide clearly breaks down the logic of “who will do it, what to do, and what to do first.” For example, in the past two years, the chemical industry park in our jurisdiction revised the emergency response guide for hazardous chemicals leakage. The general plan only stated "immediate disposal of leaks in the event of a leak." The guide directly listed the disposal priorities of 12 scenarios in 3 categories according to leakage volume, leakage point, and toxicity level. Afterwards, a small solvent leak occurred in the park. It only took the team on duty 12 minutes to report the leak and handle it. It took half an hour for all departments to align the plan process.

There are actually different voices in the industry regarding the positioning of the guide. Some experts who prepare plans believe that the guide must be detailed down to every action. Front-line personnel can just follow it without thinking too much, which can minimize the error rate. However, many experienced emergency responders who go to the scene do not think so. After all, any situation can happen at the scene, so how can they follow the booklet exactly? Last year, a village in the south was hit by a flash flood. The emergency team on duty originally followed the instructions to rush downstream to evacuate the elderly living alone. However, as soon as they left the village committee, they discovered that a landslide had blocked the road to the downstream. He temporarily changed his route and went to a small water storage point upstream to open the gate. The flood discharge actually lowered the water level in advance, preventing the overflowing water from rushing into the downstream villages. During the review afterwards, there was an argument for almost two hours. Some people said that he violated the guideline disposal process and should be held accountable, while others said that the guideline meant that only those who died were alive, and that if the process was blocked, something big would happen.

In fact, to put it bluntly, the emergency response guide is more like the question bank for subject one of our driver's license test. Before you get on the road, you must first understand these rules. This is the bottom line. But if you encounter unexpected scratches or roadblocks, it is impossible to memorize the standard answers in the question bank. Now we do grassroots emergency drills and annual emergency response capability assessments, and the core criterion for scoring is the local emergency response guide. For example, if you rush to grab equipment during the drill and forget to evacuate the surrounding unrelated people first, no matter how fast you put out the fire in the end, you will still fail. This is its core role as the basis for assessment and evaluation - first frame the bottom line of all disposals, and the rest is room for on-site flexibility.