Governance of the territory around hazardous industrial plants: decision process and technological risk
European regulation about major accident hazards, since the 9th December 1996 Seveso II directive, not only imposes the prevention of technological risk at their source but also imposes limitations to the land-use planning (12th article). Until the major accident occurred in Toulouse in September 2001, this requirements were mostly concerning new establishments or their modifications. The French new law about industrial risk control voted on the 30th July 2003 , proposes to expand this land-use planning to areas where industry and other urban activities have already been present together, sometimes for a long time. This new element, imposes new tools to support public decision. The following paper proposes the basis for such a tool based partly on an analysis of the Toulouse explosion and its consequence. A the tool, which aims at implementing the technological risk prevention plans is based on a decision process involving the evaluation of three different levels of vulnerability on the territory.
KeywordsExclusion Zone Specific Vulnerability Intrinsic Vulnerability Technological Risk Blast Effect
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Law n° 2003-699 30th July 2003 relative to technological and natural risk prevention, Journal Officiel, n° 175, 31th July 2003, Paris, page 13021Google Scholar
- 2.Barthélémy F, «Usine de la société Grande Paroisse à Toulouse accident du 21 septembre 2001», l’Inspection Générale de l’Environnement, MATE, Paris, 24 octobre 2001Google Scholar
- 3.Loos F et Le Deaut J.Y, « Rapport de la commission d’enquěte sur la sûreté des installations industrielles...en cas d’accident industriel majeur», Tome 1, N°3559, Assemblé Nationale, 29 janvier 2002Google Scholar
- 4.Tixier J et ai, «Assessment of the environment vulnerability in the surroundings of an industrial site», Proceedings of ESREL 2003, European Safety and Reliability conference 2003, 15–18 June 2003-Maastricht, The Netherlands, vol 2, pages 1543–1551.Google Scholar