Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 42

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 41
CHAPTER 8 Identifying Shortfalls where Additional/Different Capabilities Are Warranted In Chapter 3 some shortfalls were developed by comparing the current tier level capability in the region identified in Chapter 2 with the tier level capabilities required based on the Jurisdictional Class selected for the region in Chapter 3. These basic shortfalls should be addressed first. For example, when evaluating the tier level performance capabilities, the lower tier level may have been specified because the emergency response organization could not perform up to the higher tier level requirement in those few areas. Thus, to perform at the higher tier level expected for the selected Jurisdictional Class, only a few capability upgrades might be required. Since these affect the overall performance of the emergency response organization, these should be addressed as soon as resources permit. 250 The next part of the shortfall analysis focuses on upgrading the tier level performance for 200 those scenarios that have the highest risk metric value. Frequently, the upgrade will affect several 150 scenarios. Consequently, many shortfalls might be addressed by a single upgrade activity. 100 The first step in this part of the approach is to order the scenarios by decreasing risk metric value. For this example (refer to Table 21), a large release of chlorine is the biggest concern, followed by 50 a BLEVE of a rail tank car carrying ethylene. While this Guide does not recommend specific 0 thresholds above which a scenario's risk metric warrants action, each jurisdiction can easily identify the top scenarios and examine the range of values for breakpoints that could be used as thresh- Figure 3. Chart old values. Examination of Table 21 (see Figure 3) shows possible breaks at risk metric values of of risk metrics 75 and 24, so either can be used as a threshold for focusing the initial remediation efforts. from Table 21. 41