Development of composite environment risk evaluation method for chemical enterprises and its application

Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue/China Environmental Science

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 133-138

  Jiang, Wen Yan ^a   Tang, Qing He ^a   Li, Huai Zheng ^b   Yu, Wen Xi ^c   Liu, Jia Xin ^c  

^a SHANGHAI ACADEMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES   (China)

^b TONGJI UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c Environmental Protection Bureau of Minhang District   (China)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Chemical enterprise; Composite environmental risk evaluation; Evaluation indicators; Fuzzy comprehensive assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951245207     PISSN: 10006923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Hou Y, Zhang T Z. Evaluation of major polluting accidents in China-Results and perspectives[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 168(213): 670-673.
2. Khan F I, Abbasi S A. Techniques and methodologies of risk analysis in chemical process industries[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1998, 11(4): 261-277.
3. Cave S R, Edwards D W. Chemical process route selection based on assessment of inherent environmental hazard[J]. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 1997, 21(Supplement 1): 965-970.
4. Scott A. Environment accident index: validation of a model[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 1998, 61(1-3): 305-312.
5. Hansen B G, Haelst A G, Leeuwen K, et al. Priority setting for existing chemicals: European Union risk ranking method[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1999, 18(4): 772-779.
6. Koller G, Fischer U, Hungerbuhler K. Assessing safety, health, and environmental impact early during process development[J]. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 2000, 39: 960-972.
7. Gunasekera M Y, Edwards D W. Estimating the environmental impact of catastrophic chemical releases to the atmosphere an index method for ranking alternative chemical process routes[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2003, 81(6): 463-474.
8. Kletz T A. Preventing catastrophic accidents[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 1976, 83(8): 124-128.
9. Edwards D W, Lawrence D. Assessing the inherent safety of chemical process routes: Is there a relation between plant costs and inherent safety?[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 1993, 71(B): 252-258.
10. Khan F I, Husain T, Abbasi S A. Safety weighted hazard index (SWeHI): A new user-friendly tool for swift yet comprehensive hazard identification and safety evaluation in chemical process industries[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2001, 79(2): 65-80.
11. Gentile M, Rogers W J, Mannan M S. Development of a fuzzy logic-based inherent safety index[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2003, 81(6): 444-456.
12. Shah S, Fischer U, Hungerbuhler K. A hierarchical approach for the evaluation of chemical process aspects from the perspective of inherent safety[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2003, 81(6): 430-443.
13. Paralikas A N, Lygeros A I. A multi-criteria and fuzzy logic based methodology for the relative ranking of the fire hazard of chemical substances and installations[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2005, 83(2): 122-134.
14. Khan F I, Sadiq R, Veitch B. Life cycle index (LInX): a new indexing procedure for process and product design and decision-making[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2004, 12(1): 59-76.
15. Khan F I, Amyotte P R. I2SI: a comprehensive quantitative tool for inherent safety and cost evaluation[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2005, 18(4-6): 310-326.
16. Ronza A, Touza L L, Carol S, et al. Economic valuation of damages originated by major accidents in port areas[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2009, 22(5): 639-648.
17. Ale B J M, Piers M. The assessment and management of third party risk around a major airport[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2000, 71: 1-16.
18. Jonkman S N, Gelder P H A J M, Vrijling J K. An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2003, 99(1): 1-30.
19. NORSOK standard Z-013 Risk and emergency preparedness, Annexure C: Methodology for establishment and use of environmental risk acceptance criteria[S].
20. Khan F I, Haddara M. Risk-based maintenance (RBM): a quantitative approach for maintenance/inspection scheduling and planning[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2003, 16(6): 561-573.
21. 1990.
22. 1999.
23. American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Dow's fire and explosion index hazard classification guide (7th)[M]. New York: AIChE, 1994.
24. 2002: 104-106.
25. EPA, NOAA. ALOHA user's manual[EB/OL]. http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/cameo/ALOHAManual.pdf, 2007-02.
26. 2004, (2): 97-103.
27. Sadiq R, Khan F I, Veitch B. Evaluating offshore technologies for produced water management using GreenPro-I-a risk based life cycle analysis for green and clean process selection design[J]. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 2005, 29: 1023-1039.
28. 2002.