IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/crtinf/v3y2022i1p137-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Risk‐Informed Community Framework for the Assessment of Chemical Hazards

Author

Listed:
  • Curtis Smith
  • Kurt Vedros
  • Kenneth Martinez
  • David Kuipers

Abstract

We present the Data and Risk‐Informed Chemical Assessment Technique (DRICAT), a quantitative/qualitative risk analysis technique for assessing the risk of a potential chemical release incident that may lead to a mass casualty event in United States communities. Risk assessment is a comprehensive, structured, and logical analysis approach aimed at identifying and assessing risks in “systems” for the purpose of improving management of these systems. DRICAT leads to better understanding and effective management of risks from chemical incidents through risk and scenario identification and ranking by severity by helping community planning to minimize morbidity and mortality during and after potential events. As such, DRICAT is designed to be reproducible, evidence‐based, practical, and scalable for different types of communities and the possible chemical hazards present in that community. Recognizing that many communities have assessment protocols and response mechanisms already in place, we believe these DRICAT characteristics will enhance both existing chemical incident awareness and readiness activities while providing a baseline approach for communities lacking chemical release risk analysis techniques. To understand where potential hazards might exist within a community, it is useful to consider drivers for hazards (i.e., those factors that influence the presence of the hazards and the uncertainty). DRICAT uses essential elements of information (EEI) to identify chemical initiating events (IE) which are a part of potential hazardous scenarios. Both formal and informal approaches can be used to identify initiators arising from chemical hazards. DRICAT focuses on precursor events and a deductive approach using a hazard identification diagram. EEI data sources for community chemical hazards range from informal (e.g., social media, and local news outlets) to formal vetted databases. EEIs include systematic identification of hazards, community factors that affect hazards (e.g., population density, weather, and commodity flows), associated IEs, and grouping of individual causes into like categories. IE characteristics may vary among communities and include IEs that may lead directly to a chemical release or may require additional mitigative failures. DRICAT leverages EEIs to identify IEs to build and rank chemical accident scenarios from IE to the potential outcome. The likelihood of this release and the consequence of the release determine the overall risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Curtis Smith & Kurt Vedros & Kenneth Martinez & David Kuipers, 2022. "A Risk‐Informed Community Framework for the Assessment of Chemical Hazards," Journal of Critical Infrastructure Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 137-168, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:crtinf:v:3:y:2022:i:1:p:137-168
    DOI: 10.18278/jcip.3.1.9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.18278/jcip.3.1.9
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18278/jcip.3.1.9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucy Page & Stephen Sheppard, 2019. "Heat Stress: Ambient Temperature and Workplace Accidents in the US," Department of Economics Working Papers 2019-05, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    2. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    2. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    3. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    5. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    6. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    7. Michael Greenberg & Paul Lioy & Birnur Ozbas & Nancy Mantell & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Lahr & Tayfur Altiok & Joseph Bober & Clifton Lacy & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Jennifer Rovito, 2013. "Passenger Rail Security, Planning, and Resilience: Application of Network, Plume, and Economic Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1969-1986, November.
    8. Felipe Aguirre & Mohamed Sallak & Walter Schön & Fabien Belmonte, 2013. "Application of evidential networks in quantitative analysis of railway accidents," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(4), pages 368-384, August.
    9. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    10. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    11. Julie E. Shortridge & Benjamin F. Zaitchik, 2018. "Characterizing climate change risks by linking robust decision frameworks and uncertain probabilistic projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 525-539, December.
    12. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2006. "On the Definition of Vulnerabilities in Measuring Risks to Infrastructures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 293-296, April.
    13. Angelo Panno & Annalisa Theodorou & Giuseppe Alessio Carbone & Evelina De Longis & Chiara Massullo & Gianluca Cepale & Giuseppe Carrus & Claudio Imperatori & Giovanni Sanesi, 2021. "Go Greener, Less Risk: Access to Nature Is Associated with Lower Risk Taking in Different Domains during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Peng Ye, 2022. "Remote Sensing Approaches for Meteorological Disaster Monitoring: Recent Achievements and New Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-28, March.
    15. Denitsa Angelova & Andrea Bigano & Francesco Bosello & Shouro Dasgupta & Silvio Giove, 2023. "Assessing systemic climate change risk by country. Reflections from the use of composite indicators," Working Papers 2023: 28, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    16. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Emilia T. Skupień & Stefan Jankowski & Jacek Ryczyński, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Human Factors of Logistic Handling of Deliveries at an LNG Terminal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, April.
    17. Ioanna Ioannou & Jaime E. Cadena & Willy Aspinall & David Lange & Daniel Honfi & Tiziana Rossetto, 2022. "Prioritization of hazards for risk and resilience management through elicitation of expert judgement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2773-2795, July.
    18. Alexander A. Ganin & Phuoc Quach & Mahesh Panwar & Zachary A. Collier & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Dayton Marchese & Igor Linkov, 2020. "Multicriteria Decision Framework for Cybersecurity Risk Assessment and Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 183-199, January.
    19. de Vries, J. Pierre, 2017. "Risk-informed interference assessment: A quantitative basis for spectrum allocation decisions," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 434-446.
    20. Raymond F. Boykin & Mardyros Kazarians & Raymond A. Freeman, 1986. "Comparative Fire Risk Study of PCB Transformers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 477-488, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:crtinf:v:3:y:2022:i:1:p:137-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2693-3101 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.