Assessment of the consequences of accident scenarios involving dangerous substances

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

Volumn 85, Issue 1 B, 2007, Pages 23-38

  Pintaric Z N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARIBOR   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Accident; Chemicals; Consequences estimation; Loading; Risk; Safety report; Seveso II; Storage; Unloading

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENTS; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; INDUSTRIAL PLANTS; LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS; LOADING; STORAGE (MATERIALS); UNLOADING;

FLAMMABLE ORGANIC SOLVENTS; MODELLING SYSTEMS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

ACCIDENTS; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; LOADING; RISK ASSESSMENT; STORAGE; UNLOADING;

EID: 33947140176     PISSN: 09575820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1205/psep06014     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. American Institute of Chemical Engineers/Centre for Chemical Process Safety (AIChE/CCPS), 2003, Guideline for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis (Centre for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, USA).
2. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), 2006, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) (Fairfax, VA, USA).
3. Carter, D.A., Hirst, I.L., Maddison, T.E. and Porter, S.R., 2003, Appropriate risk assessment methods for major accident establishments, Trans IChemE, Part B, Proc Safe Env Prot, 81(B1): 12-18.
4. Cozzani, V. and Salzano, E., 2004, The quantitative assessment of domino effects caused by overpressure: Part I. Probit models, J Hazard Mater, 107(3): 67-80.
5. CSB Investigation Digest, 2004, DFC Enterprises Chlorine Release, Festus, Missouri, August 14 2002, (www.csb.gov/completed_investigations/ docs/CSB_DPCFinalDigest.pdf).
6. CSChE/PSM, 2004, Risk Assessment-Recommended Practices for Municipalities and Industry (Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering, Process Safety Management Division, Ottawa, Ontario).
7. Demichela, M., Piccinini, N. and Poggio, A., 2004, Analysis of an LPG accidental release, Trans IChemE, Part B, Proc Safe Env Prot, 82(B2): 128-131.
8. Det Norske Veritas, 1999, PHAST 6.21.
9. Keey, R.B.A., 1991, Rapid hazard-assessment method for smaller-scale industries, Trans IChemE, Part B, Proc Safe Env Prot, 69(B2): 85-89.
10. Khan, F.I. and Abbasi, S.A., 1998, Techniques and methodologies for risk analysis in chemical process industries, J Loss Prevent Proc, 11 (4): 261-277.
11. Khan, F.I. and Abbasi, S.A., 2002, A criterion for developing credible accident scenarios for risk assessment, J Loss Prevent Proc, 15(6): 467-475.
12. Lee, R.L., Albritton, J.R., Ermak, D.L. and Kim, J., 1997, Computational fluid dynamics modelling for emergency preparedness and response, Environ Modell Softw, 12(1): 43-50.
13. Lees, F.P., 2001, Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK).
14. Murphy, J.F. and Zimmermann, K.A., 1998, Making RMP hazard assessment meaningful, Proc Safety Prog, 17(4): 238-242.
15. Neophytou, M.K.A. and Britter, R.E., 2006, Buoyancy-generated turbulent flows in semi-enclosed regions: a computational fluid dynamics study, Prog Comput Fluid Dy, 6(1-3): 137-145.
16. Papadakis, G.A. and Amendola, A. (eds), 1997, Guidance on the Preparation of a Safety Report to Meet the Requirements of Council Directive 96/82/EC (SEVESO II) (Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg).
17. Ryder, N.L., Sutula, J.A., Schemel, C.F., Hamer, A.J. and Van Brunt, V., 2004, Consequence modeling using the fire dynamics simulator, J Hazard Mater, 115(1 -3): 149-154.
18. Uijt de Haag, P.A.M., Ale, B.J.M., Tiemessen, G.W.M., Heitink, J., Wiekema, B.L. and Janssen, L.A.M., 1999, CPR 18E Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment - The Purple Book (Committee for Prevention of Disasters/Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague, Netherlands).
19. Venetsanos, A.G., Huld, T., Adamsc, P. and Bartzis, J.G., 2003, Source, dispersion and combustion modelling of an accidental release of hydrogen in an urban environment, J Hazard Mater, 105(1-3): 1-25.
20. Wells, G.L., Phang, C., Wardman, M. and Whetton, C., 1992, Incident scenarios: their identification and evaluation, Trans IChemE, Part B, Proc Safe Env Prot, 70(B4): 179-188.
21. Wood, M., Pichard, A., Gundert-Remy, U., de Rooij, C. and Tissot, S.M., 2006, The AETL methodology as a potential solution to current challenges associated with the development and use of acute exposure levels in Seveso II applications, J Hazard Mater, 133(1-3): 8-15.
22. Woodward, J.L. and Worthington, D.R.E., 1999, Comparison of EPA guidelines tables with a commercial model, Proc Safety Prog, 18(1): 25-30