Abstract
Although many studies could benefit from the aspects of risk assessment described in this book to clean up Cold War legacies only a few studies have integrated risk management and risk assessment well. This chapter describes one such study—efforts of the U.S. Army to remediate the legacy of chemical weapons stored in the United States. This effort addressed the human risk associated with that storage developed and implemented a process to destroy the chemical weapon energetics and agent analysed the facility and human risk associated with the destruction process and used a risk management approach to control the process. The risk analysis is an accident analysis. Risk from routine operations and mild accidents is examined in other studies and is small compared with the risk of more severe accidents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Public Law (PL) 99–145. (1986) Department of Defense Authorization ActTitle 14, Part B, Section1412.
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (1993)Convention on the Prohibition of the Development Production,Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, Netherlands.
Covello, V.T., and Mumpower, J. (1985) Risk analysis and risk management: an historical perspectiveRisk Analysis5(2), 103–120.
Keeney, R.L. (1995) Understanding life-threatening risksRisk Analysis15(6), 627–637.
Morgan, M.G. (1993) Risk analysis and management, Scientific AmericanJuly32–41.
Nathwani, J., and Narveson, J. (1995) Three principles for managing risk in the public interestRisk Analysis15(6), 615–626.
Somers, E. (1995) Perspectives on risk managementRisk Analysis15(6), 677–684.
Van Mynen, R. (1990) Risk management concepts in the chemical industry: one large manufacturer’s approachPlant/Operations Progress9(3), 191–193.
U.S. Department of the Army. (1990)System Safety-Engineering and ManagementAR 385–16, U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (1993)Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Code of Federal Regulations29 CFR 1910.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996)Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accidental Release Prevention, Code of Federal Regulations40 CFR 68
Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. (1997)Guide to Risk Management Policy and Activities.U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. (1996)Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Risk Management Program Requirements.U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council Committee for Review and Evaluation of the U.S. Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. (1993) Letter to the Assistant Secretary U.S. Army for Installations, Logistics, and Environment. U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. (1994)Recommendations for the Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions.National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. (1987)Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program Risk Analysis of the Disposal of Chemical Munitions at Regional or National Sites.Report SAPEO-CDE-IS-87008, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
SAIC. (1996)Final Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Quantitative Risk Assessment.SAIC, Abingdon, Maryland.
National Research Council. (1996)Review of Systemization of the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility.National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. (1997)Risk Assessment and Management at the Deseret Chemical Depot and the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility.National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. (1999)Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Update on National Research Council Recommendations.National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
SAIC. (2000)Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Quantitative Risk Assessment.DRAFT, SAIC, Abingdon, Maryland.
Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. (1999)Public Involvement in the U.S. Army’s Program to Destroy Chemical Weapons Fiscal Year 1999. U.S. Army, Public Outreach and Information Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1983)PRA Procedures Guide-A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Power Plants.Final Report, Volume 1, NUREG/CR-2300, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1990)Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants.NUREG-1150, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1991) Aircraft hazards,in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan. NUREG-0800 (Formerly NUREG-75/087),Revision 2, Section 3.5.1.6, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1992)Methods for External Event Screening Quantification: Risk Methods Integration and Evaluation Program (RMIEP) Methods Development.NUREG/CR-4839, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Whitacre, C.G., Griner, J.H., III, Myirski, M.M., and Sloop, D.W. (1987)Personal Computer Program for Chemical Hazard Prediction (D2PC).CRDEC-TR-87021, Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center (CRDEC), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
SAIC. (1996)CAFTA for Windows Version 3.2.SAIC, Palo Alto, California.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1975)Reactor Safety Study: Assessment of Risks in US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.Wash-1400, NUREG75/014, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bley, D.C., Droppo, J.G., Eremenko, V.A., Lundgren, R. (2003). Integrated Accident Risk Analysis and Applications for the Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions. In: Bley, D.C., Droppo, J.G., Eremenko, V.A., Lundgren, R. (eds) Risk Methodologies for Technological Legacies. NATO ASI Series, vol 18. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0097-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0097-0_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1258-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0097-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive