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
