Risk Studies for Process Plants

  • Ulrich Hauptmanns
  • Wolfgang Werner


Chemical processes involve both physical and chemical hazards. Physical hazards derive from operating conditions which may be extreme, such as very low or very high temperatures and pressures. Chemical hazards are those associated with the materials present in the process, which may be toxic, flammable or explosible, or exhibit several of these properties at the same time. This is complicated further by the fact that some of these properties may vary with changes of process parameters such as temperatures, pressures, or concentrations or that these changes may give rise to unwanted side reactions, as was the case in Seveso [1]. In addition, dangerous properties, if not present under normal process conditions, may evolve upon contact of process media with auxiliary media such as coolants or lubricants. After release, reactions with substances present in the environment, e.g. the humidity of the air, may give rise to dangerous properties.


Nuclear Power Plant Process Plant Nuclear Power Station Industrial Complex Risk Study 
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.
    Lees, F.P.: Loss prevention in the process industries. Vols. I and II. London 1980Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canvey — An investigation of potential hazards from operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock Area. London 1978Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Risk analysis of six potentially hazardous industrial objects in the Rijnmond Area. A Pilot Study. Dordrecht, Holland / Boston, U.S.A. / London, England 1982Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menzies, R.M.; Strong, R.: Some methods of loss prevention. The Chemical Engineer, p.151, March 1979Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Dow Chemical Company: Fire and explosion index — hazard classification guide, May 1987Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ausfalleffektanalyse. DIN 25448 (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ICI Ltd.: Hazard and operability studies. Process safety Rep. 2. London 1974Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ereignisablaufanalyse — Verfahren, graphische Symbole und Auswertung. DIN-25419 (1985)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canvey — A second report. A review of potential hazards from operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock area three Years after publication of the Canvey Report. London 1981Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Methods for the calculation of the physical effects of the escape of dangerous materials (liquids and gases). Bureau for Industrial Safety T.N.O. Directorate General of Labour. Voerburg, The Netherlands 1979Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deutsche Risikostudie Kernkraftwerke: Eine Untersuchung zu dem durch Störfälle in Kernkraftwerken verursachten Risiko. Köln, 1979 (English translation: German risk study — main report. A study of the risk due to accidents in nuclear power plants. EPRI NP-1804-SR. Palo Alto, California, April 1981)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reactor study — an assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants. WASH-1400/NUREG-075/014, 1975Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hömke, P. et al.: Zuverlässigkeitskenngrößenermittlung im Kernkraftwerk Biblis B; Abschlußbericht. GRS-A-1030, Köln 1984Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Doberstein, H.; Hauptmanns, U.; Hömke, P.; Verstegen, C; Yllera, J.: Ermittlung von Zuverlässigkeitskenngrößen für Chemieanlagen. GRS-A-1500, Köln 1988Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Hauptmanns
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Werner
    • 1
  1. 1.Gesellschaft für ReaktorsicherheitGRSmbHKöln 1Deutschland

Personalised recommendations