Carbon Filtration for Reducing Emissions from Chemical Agent Incineration (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Risk Assessments and Change Management: An Evaluation of the Army's Decision-Making Process
5 Risk Assessments and Change Management: An Evaluation of the Army's Decision-Making Process
Pages 40-48
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 40... ...
Anticipating that carbon filters would offer a net benefit by reducing public risk or, at least, enhancing public confidence, the Army decided in 1994 to add carbon filters to the baseline incineration designs for facilities at Anniston, Alabama; Umatilla, Oregon; and Pine Bluff, Arkansas (U.S.
|
From page 41... ...
Army, 1998b) Letter Report from the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization Implementing the Change Management Process: Validation of the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Pollution Abatement Filter System Implementation (U.S.Army, 19986)
|
From page 42... ...
However, individual worker fatality risk from agent due to upsets in the PAS are estimated at 3.3 x 10-5 with the PFS and 1.1 x 10-5 without the PFS over the life of the facility. This is in contrast to total worker risk from agent of 4.1 x 10-4 as estimated for the TOCDF.
|
From page 43... ...
Furthermore, while there is an increase in the risk for worker fatality associated with the operation and maintenance of the PFS, the magnitude of the increased risk is relatively small (i.e., 2.8E-05 risk increase over a baseline worker risk of 2.2E-04~.
|
From page 44... ...
. For the population 2 to 5 km from the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, the individual public fatality risk is 1.4 X 10-5 per year; the societal public fatality risk is 2.6 x 10-2 per year.
|
From page 45... ...
Delays associated with changing the current plan to operate ANCDF [Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility] with carbon filters outweigh any delays caused by the presence of the filters.
|
From page 46... ...
For example, public involvement could have been used to help frame the questions to be answered during the PFS risk evaluation process.
|
From page 47... ...
Without a clear understanding of the nature and magnitude of the risks to human health and the environment, including a comprehensive evaluation of worker risks and how they can be controlled, no fully informed decision can be made about the overall value of the PFS. If the increased risk to on-site workers is found to be substantial, the Army should consider making design modifications, as long as they do not substantially increase overall worker risk or public risk, including the risk of storage during a prolonged delay.
|
From page 48... ...
The Stockpile Committee is hesitant, however, about commenting on the details and conclusions of these current risk assessment reports because they are not freestanding documents and are not complete. The Army will have to provide a careful assessment of worker risk, as well as an independent technical review of the underlying PFS HRA and QRA reports to meet scientific standards and present a defensible case to the public.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.