Advertisement

Development of European Guidance and a Common Risk/Hazard Assessment Database for Land-Use Planning in the Context of Major Accident Hazards

  • Michalis Christou
  • Michael Struckl
  • Stuart Duffield
  • Olivier Salvi
  • Emmanuel Bernuchon
  • Jos Post
  • Herlinde Beerens
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper presents the recent developments in Europe and the work that is being carried out by a Commission Technical Working Group, aiming at the development of a more consistent framework for Land-Use Planning (LUP) decisions in the context of major accident hazards, as requested by the Seveso II Directive. The work refers to the elaboration of Guidelines on how to deal in a consistent and transparent way with the main LUP issues, such as defining principles of good practice in LUP, taking additional technical measures on the source, and dealing with existing cases of incompatibility between Seveso establishments and residential and sensitive areas. The paper also describes the efforts for development of a technical database containing risk/hazard assessment data to be used in the underlying risk analyses.

Keywords

Member State Pool Fire Failure Frequency Accident Scenario European Working Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on “The control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances”. OJ. L 10/13, Brussels, 14.1.97Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.D. Christou and S. Porter (Eds.), (1999) “Guidance on Land Use Planning as required by Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II)”, EUR 18695 EN, European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christou M. and Porter S. (1998) “Legislative framework and guidance procedures for land-use planning in the European Union” in PSAM 4, A. Mosleh and R.A. Bari (eds.), Springer, Vol.3, pp. 1847–1852.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christou M., et.al. (2000) “ASSURANCE: Assessment of Uncertainties in Risk Analysis of Chemical Establishments”, in PSAM 5, S. Kondo & K. Furuta (eds.), pp. 369–374.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christou M. et.al. (2001) “Implications of uncertainties present in Risk Assessment of chemical installations to risk-informed decision-making: the case of land-use planning”, ESREL 2001, E. Zio, M. Demichela and N. Piccinini (eds.), Vol.3, pp.1747–1754.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P.A.M. Uijt de Haag and B.J.M. Ale, Guidelines for quantitative risk assessment (Purple Book), Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, The Hague (NL), 1999Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Cassidy, “UK risk criteria for siting of hazardous installations and development in their vicinity”, in PSAM ′96, P.C. Cacciabue & I.A.Papazoglou (eds.), Elsevier, pp. 1899-1904.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michalis Christou
    • 1
  • Michael Struckl
    • 1
  • Stuart Duffield
    • 1
  • Olivier Salvi
    • 2
  • Emmanuel Bernuchon
    • 2
  • Jos Post
    • 3
  • Herlinde Beerens
    • 3
  1. 1.European Commission — Joint Research CentreIPSC, MAHBIspraItaly
  2. 2.INERISVerneuil-en-HalatteFrance
  3. 3.RIVMBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations