Should Contingency Plans cover Flooding?

[jelly1921]

A plant encountered a flood last year, which caused the plant stop production for a couple of week.

They will go through follow up audit of TS 16949 in next month.

My question is that whether or not the plant should prepare Contingency plan for flood?

Thanks!

 

[TPMB4]

Re: Should Contingency plans cover flood?

Well I'm not sure about the standard;s requirements for contingency plans but we have one for floods. We are sited in an area near a tidal river that used to flood each year. Our area did not flood but it is close enough to be included in all the flood warnings alongside the locations that did flood. It was considered good business to have at least some idea how we could continue or recover quickly should the flood include us.

So far the only issue was getting people and goods past the floods to us since our factory has not been flooded. Since those days there have been millions of pounds spent on flood defences which have held so is not a problem now.

My question to you is if the site has already had a flood why would they not prepare for it happening again? Irrespective of any quality standard there is a risk to the business that is real. Unless you are talking about a freak event of course I would make the assumption it could happen again. How did the last flood (used the word "last" deliberately) affect the company? Serious or just an inconvenience? No plans could shut down the shop/business.

 

[Miner]

Re: Should Contingency plans cover flood?

I have been out of automotive for a few years, so others may have more current recommendations. The approach that I took was to identify credible risks then develop contingency plans for those risks. This could be a streamlined FMEA approach. Specifically, identify failure modes severe enough to interrupt production and with a credible occurrence rate.

Unless the flood which you experienced was a "100 year flood", it appears that for you it is a credible risk. If you are in a flood plain, it would be a risk. If you were in the desert, it would probably not be a risk.

 

[Ron Rompen]

In the past, I have dealt with things like this with a general contingency plan; i.e. what would we do if there was a fire/flood/catastrophic failure of equipment which would cause the plant to be unable to supply our customers as per our normal process.

It doesn't have to be failure-specific - just shows that you have considered the possibility of something happening, and have some kind of a plan to deal with it.

 

[jelly1921]

Re: Should Contingency plans cover flood?

Well I'm not sure about the standard;s requirements for contingency plans but we have one for floods. We are sited in an area near a tidal river that used to flood each year. Our area did not flood but it is close enough to be included in all the flood warnings alongside the locations that did flood. It was considered good business to have at least some idea how we could continue or recover quickly should the flood include us.

So far the only issue was getting people and goods past the floods to us since our factory has not been flooded. Since those days there have been millions of pounds spent on flood defences which have held so is not a problem now.

My question to you is if the site has already had a flood why would they not prepare for it happening again? Irrespective of any quality standard there is a risk to the business that is real. Unless you are talking about a freak event of course I would make the assumption it could happen again. How did the last flood (used the word "last" deliberately) affect the company? Serious or just an inconvenience? No plans could shut down the shop/business.

They do have a plan how to get people out of danger if the flood came, and how to recover the facilities asap after the flood receded, but nothing to do with production or continously to supply the customer during the disaster.

This is real story happened in Shanghai last Oct.! It is far away from the center of the city --- would take about two hours if drive a car.

Jelly

 

[Bev D]

its important to remember that weather isn't homogenous over the last 1000 years....we are currently experiencing 100 year and 10 year events quite a bit more frequently than previous experience...

 

[BradM]

I certainly can't speak to the requirements side of it; I just don't know. But from an Operations perspective, I would say "yes".


In your contingency plan, you can certainly cite the probability of the occurrence as "low". But you don't want to end up in a position where you don't document the "lessons learned" from the last flood. Surely you learned how to deal with things a little better.

• Do you sit and wait it out?
• What point will you evacuate?
• Is your Information Technology secure?
• What kind of plan do you have when the waters recede?
• Do you establish a short term agreement with a 3rd party to perform your work until you resume?

Your contingency plan doesn't state something will happen; only what you will do if it happens.

 

[WCHorn]

What great timing, in light of the recent Hollywood release of the story of the great flood. Put that one in your contingency plan! Should we have an ark on standby?

 

[qpled]

To add to BradM's list (maybe as part of "plan for when the water recedes"): Check all equipment/furniture/inventory for damage.

 

[Taliesyn]

Depending upon your industry, you may be in a position where the failure to supply is not an option (I'm talking automotive Tier 1 here) - and would result in the complete loss of a major customer's business if you are not a completely unique supplier. Our normal disaster recovery plan includes flooding even though the risk is low as it is required by our insurer!