State-of-the-Art of Risk Assessment of Chemical Plants in Europe

  • R. A. Cox
  • D. H. Slater
Part of the Advances in Risk Analysis book series (AIRA, volume 2)


The manufacture and processing of chemicals has a long history and for most of its existence the industry has been associated with unpleasant side effects such as smells, fires, and pollution. It is only in recent years that three factors have combined to bring the new aspect of possible catastrophic accidents to public attention. These are:
  • ○ The significant increase in scale and complexity in the manufacturing processes involved.

  • ○ The occurrence of a number of major accidents (albeit not the worst conceivable).

  • ○ The increasing public awareness of risks in the context of other industries, notably nuclear power.


Chemical Plant Failure Case Pool Fire Loss Prevention Fault Tree Analysis 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. A. Carson and C J. Mumford, “An analysis of incidents involving major hazards in the chemical industry,” J. Hazardous Materials, 3:2 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lord Robens, “Safety and Health and Work,” Cmnd. 5034, HMSO, London (1972).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. L. Wells, C. J. Seagrave, and R. M. C. Whiteway, Flowsheeting for Safety, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Ruby (1977), pp. 44-45.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chemical Industry Safety and Health Council, A Guide to Hazard and Operability Studies, Chemical Industries Association, London (1977).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dienst Centraal Milienbeheer Rijnmond, Risk Analysis of Six Potentially Hazardous Industrial Objects in the Rijnmond Area, a Pilot Study, Report to the Rijnmond Public Authorith, Publ. D. Reidel Publishing Co. (1982).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Shaw and F. Briscoe, Evaporation from Spills of Hazardous Liquids on Land and Water, UKAEA Report SRD R100 (1978).Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    R. A. Cox, Methods for Predicting the Atmospheric Dispersion of Massive Releases of Flammable Vapor, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 6:141–149 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    TNO Bureau for Industrial Safety, Methods for the Calculation of the Physical Effects of the Escape of Dangerous Material, Directorate-General of Labour, Voorburg, Netherlands (1980).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Provinciale Waterstaat Groningen, Pollution control and use of norms in Groningen — criteria for risks related to dangerous goods, Groningen, Netherlands (April 1979), pp. 43-57.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Royal Society Study Group on Risk, The Assessment and Perception of Risk, The Royal Society, London (1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. H. Howland, Hazard analysis and the human element, Proc. 3rd Int. Loss Prevention Symp., Basel (September 15–19, 1980).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Pilz, What is wrong with risk analysis? Proc. 3rd Int. Loss Prevention Symp., Basel (September 15–19, 1980).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Bjordal, Is risk analysis obsolete? Proc. 3rd Int. Loss Prevention Symp., Basel (September 15–19, 1980).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. A. Cox and P. J. Comer, Development of low-cost risk analysis methods for process plant, Proc. Int. Symp. on Assessment of Major Hazards, I. Chem. E. Symposium Series NO. 71:14–16 (April 1982).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. A. Cox, Improving Risk Assessment Methods for Process Plant, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 6:249–260 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Health and Safety Executive, Canvey: An Investigation of Potential Hazards from Operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock area, HMSO, London (1978).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Health and Safety Executive, Canvey — a second report, HMSO, London (1978).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. F. Blokker, R. A. Cox, H. J. D. Lans, and F. H. Meppelder, Evaluation of risks associated with process industries in the Rijnmond area — a pilot study, Proc. 3rd Int. Loss Prevention Symp., Basel (September 15–19, 1980).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Health and Safety Executive Assessment of the hazard from radio frequency ignition at the Shell and Esso sites at Braefoot Bay and Mossmorran, Fife., HSE (1977).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stichting ‘CONCAWE,’ Performance of oil-industry cross-country pipelines in Western Europe; Statistical summary of reported spillages — 1980, The Hague (1982).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Guidelines for Safety Evaluation of Platform Conceptual Design (August 1981).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. A. Cox
    • 1
  • D. H. Slater
    • 1
  1. 1.Technica, Ltd.UK

Personalised recommendations