Assessing the consequences of pipeline accidents to support land-use planning

Safety Science

Volumn 97, Issue , 2017, Pages 34-42

  Ramírez Camacho, J Giovanni ^a   Carbone, Federica ^b   Pastor, Elsa ^a   Bubbico, Roberto ^b   Casal, Joaquim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^b SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

Accidents; Failure causes consequences; Hazardous materials; Oil gas; Pipelines; Transport

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENTS; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; PIPELINES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS; LAND USE PLANNING; LOSS OF CONTAINMENT; OIL/GAS; ONSHORE PIPELINES; PIPELINE ACCIDENTS; TRANSPORT;

LAND USE;

PROPANE;

ARTICLE; ATMOSPHERE; HUMAN; INDUSTRY; LAND USE; LIMIT OF QUANTITATION; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RAILWAY; RISK FACTOR; SOIL POLLUTION; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT;

EID: 84958230837     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: 18791042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.021     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. APSC, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, 2013. Trans-Alaska Pipeline System FACTS: A collection of Facts Compiled Over the Duration of the Operation of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. < www.alyeska-pipe.com> (Accessed December 16, 2015).
2. ARIA, Analysis, Research and Information on Accidents, 2009. Rupture and Ignition of a Gas Pipeline, 30 July 2004, Ghislenghien, Belgium. Report No. 27681.
3. ARIA, Analysis, Research and Information on Accidents, 2014. French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy. < www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr> (Accessed October 15, 2014).
4. Boot, H., The use of risk criteria in comparing transportation alternatives. Chem. Eng. Trans. 31 (2013), 199–204.
5. Buonvicini, S., Antonioni, G., Morra, P., Cozzani, V., Quantitative assessment of environmental risk due to accidental spills from onshore pipelines. Process Safe. Environ. 93 (2015), 31–49.
6. CONCAWE, European Oil Company Organization for Environment, Health and Safety, 2013. Performance of European Cross-Country Oil Pipelines. Statistical Summary of Reported Spillages. < www.concawe.eu> (Accessed September 24, 2014).
7. COWI, 2011. Assessing the Case for EU Legislation on the Safety of Pipelines and the Possible Impacts of Such an Initiative. Final Report ENV.G.1/FRA/2006/0073. Lyngby, Denmark.
8. DOT-PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2014. Pipeline Failure Investigation Reports. < www.phmsa.dot.gov/> (Accessed September 22, 2014).
9. EGIG, European Gas pipeline Incident Data Group, 2015. Gas Pipeline Incidents, 9th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (Period 1970–2013). Doc. Number EGIG 14.R.0403.
10. GAZPROM, 2015. Unified Gas Supply System of Russia. < www.gazprom.com/> (Accessed December 16, 2015).
11. Guidi, G., Ludovisi, G., Mazzarotta, B., 2001. Methodological Approach for the Evaluation, in Economic Terms, of the Risk from Industrial Plants Subject to Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II). In: ESREL International Conference, 16–20 September, Torino, Italy.
12. Hauer, E., Hakkert, A.S., Extent and some implications of incomplete accident reporting. Transp. Res. Rec. 1185 (1988), 1–10.
13. Hemmatian, B., Abdolhamidzadeh, B., Darbra, R.M., Casal, J., The significance of domino effect in chemical accidents. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29 (2014), 30–38.
14. HSE, U.K. Health and Safety Executive, 2014. Contract Research Reports. < www.hse.gov.uk/> (Accessed October 31, 2014).
15. MHIDAS, Major Hazardous Incident Data Service, 2007. In AEA Technology. HSE-Health and Safety Executive (United Kingdom), London.
16. NTSB, U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, 1982. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Natural Gas Pipeline Puncture, San Francisco, California, August 25, 1981, Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-82/01, Washington, DC.
17. NTSB, U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, 2012. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Rupture and Release, Marshall, Michigan, July 25, 2010, Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-12/01, Washington, DC.
18. NTSB, U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, 2014. Pipeline Accident Reports. < www.ntsb.gov/> (Accessed November 6, 2014).
19. Papadakis, G.A., Major hazard pipelines: a comparative study of onshore transmission accidents. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 12 (1999), 91–107.
20. Ramírez-Camacho, G., Pastor, E., Casal, J., Amaya-Gómez, R., Muñoz-Giraldo, F., Analysis of domino effect in pipelines. J. Hazard. Mater. 298 (2015), 210–220.
21. TRB, Transportation Research Board, 2004. Transmission Pipelines and Land Use. A Risk-Informed Approach. Special Report 281. Washington, D.C.
22. Trépanier, M., Leroux, M.H., de Marcellis-Warin, N., Cross-Analysis of Hazmat Road Accidents Using Multiple Databases. 2007, Interuniversity Research Centre on Enterprise Networks, Logistics and Transportation, Canada.
23. Trépanier, M., Leroux, M.H., de Marcellis-Warin, N., Cross-analysis of hazmat road accidents using multiple databases. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41:6 (2009), 1192–1198.
24. TSB, Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 2014. Pipeline Investigation Reports. < www.tsb.gc.ca> (Accessed September 24, 2014).
25. Vílchez, J.A., Sevilla, S., Montiel, H., Casal, J., Historical analysis of accidents in chemical plants and in the transportation of hazardous materials. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 8:2 (1995), 87–96.