Review of global process safety regulations: United States, European Union, United Kingdom, China, India

Abstract Process safety regulations are an integral part of maintaining the safety of workers, the public, and the environment. Therefore, global regulations were analyzed to compare the extent of process safety regulations in the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, China, and India. The development of regulations is typically instigated by the occurrence of a significant process safety incident. However, the extent of the regulations and the quality of their enforcement varies greatly between countries. In general, the developed countries have better reporting procedures, enforcement of regulations, and emergency plans which increases the number of incidents reported. Developing countries are working to implement regulations, typically influenced by regulations from developed countries, but the regulations aren't currently enforced to the same extent. Overall, improvement in reporting & data collection procedures and increased communication between the government, companies and the public would help increase the effectiveness of process safety regulations.

[1]  G Brambilla,et al.  The Seveso studies on early and long-term effects of dioxin exposure: a review. , 1998, Environmental health perspectives.

[2]  김원국.  Process safety management , 1994 .

[3]  Johanna Suikkanen,et al.  Process safety challenges for SMEs in China , 2013 .

[4]  J. L. Hawksley.  Developing a major accident prevention policy , 1999 .

[5]  Barack Obama,et al.  Executive Order 13650: Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security , 2013 .

[6]  Johanna Suikkanen,et al.  Lessons learned for process safety management in China , 2014 .

[7]  Roy E. Sanders.  Chemical Process Safety: Learning from Case Histories , 1999 .

[8]  Ronald J. Willey,et al.  The Bhopal tragedy: its influence on process and community safety as practiced in the United States , 2005 .

[9]  M. Migliorati.  The Commission as a Network Orchestrator in EU Multi-Level Governance? The Case of the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) , 2017 .

[10]  G. Bennett.  Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control, vol. III, third ed., Sam Mannan (Ed.). Elsevier, Butterworths, Heinemann, Burlington, MA (2005), three-volume set, US$ 476.00, 1071 pp.), ISBN 0-7506-7555-1 (three-volume set), ISBN 0-7506-7589-3 (vol. II , 2005 .

[11]  M. Sam Mannan,et al.  Lessons learned from recent incidents: Facility siting, atmospheric venting, and operator information systems☆ , 2007 .

[12]  Andrew Hopkins.  Disastrous Decisions: The Human and Organisational Causes of the Gulf of Mexico Blowout , 2012 .

[13]  D. Antoniadis,et al.  The 319 Major Industrial Accidents Since 1917 , 2013 .

[14]  Lisa A. Long.  History of process safety at OSHA , 2009 .

[15]  Daniel A. Crowl,et al.  Chemical Process Safety , 1990 .

[16]  Daniel A. Crowl,et al.  Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications , 2001 .

[17]  Andrew Hopkins,et al.  Lessons from Longford: The ESSO Gas Plant Explosion , 2000 .

[18]  Oswer.  Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule Overview , 2013 .

[19]  Andrew Hopkins,et al.  Failure to Learn: The BP Texas City Refinery Disaster , 2008 .

[20]  Simone Schweitzer.  What Went Wrong Case Histories Of Process Plant Disasters , 2016 .

[21]  Dedy Ng,et al.  Common lessons learned from an analysis of multiple case histories , 2011 .