Home Understanding Incident Response to Unplanned Releases at Chemical Facilities
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Understanding Incident Response to Unplanned Releases at Chemical Facilities

  • Stephen C. Fortier EMAIL logo and Gregory L. Shaw
Published/Copyright: July 13, 2013

Abstract

The chemical industry is responsible for process management safety at all of its facilities, especially those that have off-site consequences in the event of an unplanned release. This research is analyzing the current practices for emergency response for chemical facilities and will provide a model that could be utilized by small or large chemical facilities. Business process modeling was used to capture information requirements of extant incident response for chemical facilities. It will determine what technologies, specifically software and information systems, could be utilized to improve the chemical facility emergency response mechanism. The results will provide an optimal process model for an improved solution for an emergency response mechanism. This research-in-progress will produce a model emergency response mechanism, represented in a business process model, for a typical chemical facility.


Corresponding author: Stephen C. Fortier, George Washinton University, e-mail:

  1. 1

    A typical chemical facility, as defined in this research project, is one that processes or stores hazardous chemicals that could potentially harm the general public in the event of an unplanned release.

  2. 2

    RMP* is a database, maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that requires facilities that produce, handle, process, distribute, or store certain chemicals to develop a risk management plan.

  3. 3

    Interviews conducted at ChemITC conference at Palisades, NY in September, 2009.

  4. 4

    EXPRESS is the modeling language used to describe data models as defined by the ISO Standard 10303.

  5. 5

    EXPRESS G is part of the ISO Standard 10303 and is the graphical representation format for the EXPRESS information modeling language.

  6. 6

    WebMaker is a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) product licensed by HandySoft in its business process-modeling tool, BizFlow.

References

ACC (2001) Available from http://www.americanchemistry.com/policy/trade.Search in Google Scholar

ACC (2005) American Chemical Council. Available from http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_mediakits.asp?CID=258&DID=632.Search in Google Scholar

Belke, J. C. (2000) “Chemical accident risks in U.S. industry – A preliminary analysis of accident risk data from U.S. hazardous chemical facilities, U.S. EPA, 25 September 2000.Search in Google Scholar

CERLCA (2009) Available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W. (2003) Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

EPA (2001) LIST OF LISTS, Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 550-B-01-003, October 2001.Search in Google Scholar

FIPS 183 (1993) Draft Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 183. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 21 December 1993. Washington, DC.Search in Google Scholar

Kean, T. H. editor, (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. New York: W.W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar

Kluepfel, H.(2004) “The Commission to Assess the Threat from High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP),” Summary Briefing, ANSI Homeland Security Standards Panel, Third Plenary Meeting, Gaithersburg, Md., December 13–14, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

Laplante, A. “Too Close To Home: A Report on Chemical Accident Risks in the United States,” Available from http://static.uspirg.org/reports/tocolsetohome98.pdf. Accessed on July 22, 1998.Search in Google Scholar

Leveson, N. (1995). Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.Search in Google Scholar

NSPD-41, National Security Presidential Directive, Available from http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd41.pdf. Accessed on December 21, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

Rinaldi, S. M. (2004) “Modeling and Simulating Critical Infrastructures and Their Interdependencies,” Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265180Search in Google Scholar

Sarewitz, D. and R. Pielke (2001) “Extreme Events: A Research and Policy Framework for Disasters in Context,” International Geology Review, 43, 406–418.10.1080/00206810109465022Search in Google Scholar

Schierow, L. “Chemical Plant Security,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Order Code RL31530, Updated February 14, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

Stephenson, J. (2006) “DHS Is Addressing Security at Chemical Facilities, but Additional Authority Is Needed,” GAO-06-899T, June 21, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2013-07-13
Published in Print: 2013-01-01

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Masthead
  2. Masthead
  3. Research Articles
  4. Integrating Federal Approaches to Post-Cyber Incident Mitigation
  5. Cybersecurity and US Legislative Efforts to address Cybercrime
  6. The Military’s Response to Domestic CBRNE Incidents
  7. Building Public Health Preparedness and Food and Agriculture Defense Capabilities Using Whole Community and One Health Concepts
  8. Situated Response and Learning of Distributed Bushfire Coordinating Teams
  9. A Critical Examination of the Assumptions Regarding Centralized Coordination in Large-Scale Emergency Situations
  10. “Of Gods and Men”: Selected Print Media Coverage of Natural Disasters and Industrial Failures in Three Westminster Countries
  11. Spontaneous Planning after the San Bruno Gas Pipeline Explosion: A Case Study of Anticipation and Improvisation during Response and Recovery Operations
  12. Understanding Incident Response to Unplanned Releases at Chemical Facilities
  13. A Study on the Responsiveness of Local Health Departments that Use Facebook
  14. Texas takes on the TSA: The Constitutional Fight over Airport Security
  15. The Gulf Oil Spill and Economic Impacts: Extending the National Interstate Economic Model (NIEMO) to Account for Induced Impacts
  16. The Economic Value of Water: Providing Confidence and Context to FEMA’s Methodology
  17. Diffusion of Emergency Information during a Crisis within a University
  18. Resilience Building Policies and their Influence in Crisis Prevention, Absorption and Recovery
  19. Communication and News
  20. A Practitioner-Researcher Partnership to Develop and Deliver Operational Value of Threat, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Training to meet the Requirements of Emergency Responders
  21. Regional Public-Private Interoperable Communications for Catastrophic Events Using a Cloud Computing Based Portal
  22. It’s Never Too Late: Restructuring the Department of Homeland Security’s Regional Framework
  23. Finding the New High Ground in Cyber War: Malware as an Instrument of War
  24. Opinions
  25. Cybersecurity and Emergency Management: Encryption and the Inability to Communicate
  26. Assessing the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards after 5 Years: Achievements, Challenges, and Risks Ahead
  27. Book Review
  28. Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900–2010 (2nd Edition)
Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jhsem-2012-0063/html
Scroll to top button