Toward an integrative approach of the industrial risk management process in France

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

Volumn 18, Issue 4-6, 2005, Pages 414-422

  Salvi, Olivier ^a   Merad, Myriam ^a   Rodrigues, Nelson ^a  

^a INSTITUT NATIONAL DE L ENVIRONNEMENT INDUSTRIEL ET DES RISQUES INERIS   (France)

Author keywords

Multi disciplinary approach; Multiple criteria methodology; Risk management

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; DISASTERS; HAZARDS; INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION;

INDUSTRIAL DISASTERS; MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH; MULTIPLE-CRITERIA METHODOLOGY; RISKS PREVENTION;

RISK MANAGEMENT;

RISK;

EID: 25444507220     PISSN: 09504230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.030     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Christou M., Nivolianitou Z., Lauridsen K., Amendola A., Markert F., Crossthwaite P., et al. (2001). Implications of the uncertainties present in risk assessment of chemical installations to risk-informed decision-making: The case of land-use planning. In Safety and reliability. Towards a safer world. Proceedings. Vol. 3. ESREL 2001, Torino (IT), 16-20 Sep 2001. Zio, Demichela, Piccinini (eds.), (Politecnico di Torino, Torino, 2001) (pp. 1747-1754) in the Process Industries. 19-21 June 2001, Stockholm, Sweden.
2. Christou M. D., & Porter S. (1999). Guidance on land-use planning as required by the council directive 96/82/EC, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, EUR 18695 EN.
3. Code de l'Environnement, Livre V, Titre 1er (previously Loi no. 76-663 du 19/07/1976 relative aux Installations Classées pour la Protection de l'Environnement).
4. Didier C., Tritsch J. J., & Watelet J. (1999). Evaluation du risque d'instabilité en surface à l'aplomb d'une ancienne carrière souterraine-Principes d'une analyse par configurations types, Compte-rendus. Congrès international de mécanique des roches. Paris.
5. European Commission (2002), Report on the application in the Member States of Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities for the period 1997-1999 (2002/C 28/01).
6. Hourtolou D & Salvi O (2003), ARAMIS Project: Development of an integrated Accidental Risk Assessment Methodology for IndustrieS in the framework of SEVESO II directive. In Proc. ESREL, Maastricht, Netherlands, 16-18 June 2003.
7. ISO/IEC Guide 73: 2002, Risk Management - Vocabulary - Guidelines for use in standards.
8. Loi no. 2003-699 du 30 juillet 2003 relative à la prévention des risques technologiques et naturels et à la réparation des dommages.
9. M. Maharik, and B. Fischhoff Public views of using nuclear energy sources in space missions Space Policy 9 2 1993 99 108
10. M. Merad, T. Verdel, B. Roy, and S. Kouniali Use of multi-criteria decision-aids for risk zoning and management of large area subjected to mining-induced hazards Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 19 2 2004 125 138
11. Pettitt G. (1999), Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century, Chapter 3.8 Copenhagen, Edited by European Environment Agency, Denmark, pp 227-244.
12. G. Pettitt Europe's environment: the third assessment. Chapter 10: technological and natural hazards 2003 European Environment Agency Copenhagen Denmark 92-9167-574-1 pp. 213-217
13. O. Renn Risk communication and the social amplification of risk R.E. Kasperson P.J.M. Stallen Communicating Risks to the Public: International Persepctives 1991 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht 287 327
14. O. Renn 39 Risk communication: balancing science, policy making and public perception Toxicology Letters 144 Suppl.1 2003 13
15. O. Renn Perception of risks Toxicology Letters 149 1-3 2004 405 413
16. O. Renn, and D. Levine Credibility and trust in risk communication R.E Kasperson P.J.M. Stallen Communicating Risks to the Public: International Persepctives 1991 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht 175 219
17. Roy B., Bouyssou D. (1993). Aide Multicritère à la Décision: Méthodes et Cas. Paris: Economica, 695 p.
18. P. Slovic The Construction of Preference American Psychologist 50 5 1995 364 371