Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 37

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 36
36 A Guide for Assessing Community Emergency Response Needs and Capabilities for Hazardous Materials Releases Table 19. Response time factors. Response Time Factor Description [RTF] 1 Meets or exceeds desired response time 2 Response time is within 125 percent of desired response time 3 Response time is within 150 percent of desired response time 4 Response time is within 200 percent of the desired response time 5 Response time is more than double the desired response time You may also want to consider response mode in your determination of the appropriate response time factor. The team or elements of the team have the option, given jurisdictional policies, to travel with lights and sirens (commonly known as Code 1), with lights only and more limited exemptions to traffic laws (often known as Code 2), and following normal traffic laws without warning lights or sirens (known as Code 3). Generally, you would want to assume a response mode of Code 1 for the best possible speed to respond to a hazmat incident. In addition, you may also want to consider the impacts that multiple large concurrent inci- dents may have on your ability to respond. Mutual-aid agreements might also be considered in your approach for reducing emergency response time or in meeting emergency response time objectives. You can use a number of tools to estimate response time for response capability (teams) to arrive at the location of potential incidents. These include online mapping tools or geographic infor- mation system (GIS) analysis. Appendix E contains a more detailed explanation of response time assessment, including how to use GIS to determine response coverage areas. Step 18 Calculate the RTF by outcome for each scenario in your hazardous materials portfolio using the values in Table 19, based in turn on your Jurisdictional Class. Record the highest RTF. If the assessment tool is used, this step is calculated automatically from the response time entries in Step 17. An example of the calculation sequence associated with Step 18 is shown in Appendix E. Quantifying the Mitigating Effects To understand how the ERC and RTF terms affect the overall consequence term in the risk equation, first consider that appropriate emergency response will have the maximum impact if it arrives within the desired time frame. If the response capability is below what is needed, then it will be less effective, and consequences will not be reduced as much. The same is true for response time; if the response arrives too late, it will be less effective and will not reduce consequences as much as if it arrived sooner. The combination of ERC and RTF (by multiplying them together) tells you relatively how much your emergency response capability may impact the potential consequences of an incident. Reducing response time and/or increasing response capability are the two key elements that you can control at the jurisdictional level. Given that both of these improvements would incur costs, the methodology in this Guide helps you determine where it makes sense to allocate additional resources.