IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v29y2009i11p1601-1614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Environmental Accidental Risk Assessment in the Process of Granting Development Consent

Author

Listed:
  • Branko Kontic
  • Marko Gerbec

Abstract

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a procedure that must be followed for certain types of development before they are granted development consent. The procedure requires the developer to compile an environmental impact report (EIR) describing the likely significant effects of the project on the environment. A regulatory requirement in Slovenia is that an accidental risk assessment for a new installation should be a part of an EIR. The article shows how risk assessment (RA) related to accidental release of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) or a polyvalent alcohol mixture from a new planned unit of a chemical factory in the Alpine region of Slovenia was performed in the framework of an EIA for the purpose of obtaining a construction permit. Two accidental scenarios were considered: (a) a spill of 20 m3 of MDI or polyvalent alcohol mixture into the river Soča (the river runs close to the chemical factory) and (b) a fire in the warehouse storing the raw material, where emission of toxic gases HCN, NOx, and CO is expected during combustion of MDI. One of the most important results of this case is the agreement among the developer, the competent authority, and a consultant in the field of EIA and RA to positively conclude the licensing process despite the absence of formal (regulatory) limit values for risk. It has been approved that transparent, reasonably uncertain, and semi‐quantitative environmental risk assessment is an inevitable component of an EIA, and an essential factor in informed, licensing‐related decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Branko Kontic & Marko Gerbec, 2009. "The Role of Environmental Accidental Risk Assessment in the Process of Granting Development Consent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1601-1614, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:29:y:2009:i:11:p:1601-1614
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01285.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01285.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01285.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Branko Kontić & Marko Bohanec & Tanja Urbančič, 2006. "An Experiment in Participative Environmental Decision Making," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 5-15, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dellise Marie & Jonathan Villot & Rodolphe Gaucher & Anne Amardeil & Valérie Laforest, 2024. "Enhancing Environmental Performance: A Method for Identifying and Prioritizing Key Environmental Issues in Industry," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-24, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    2. Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2020. "Collectivism and commonality in liquidity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-162.
    3. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    4. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    5. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    6. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    7. Justin Baker & W. Douglass Shaw & Mary Riddel & Richard T. Woodward, 2009. "Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 59-74, January.
    8. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    9. Joan Costa-i-Font & Cristina Vilaplana-Prieto, 2023. "Health System Trust and Compliance with Covid-19 Restrictions," CESifo Working Paper Series 10291, CESifo.
    10. Domenica Lavorato & Alessandra Lardo & Rita Lamboglia, 2025. "Mapping and measuring IC in Knowledge- Intensive Organizations: An interventionist study," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2025(1), pages 15-37.
    11. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    12. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    13. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    14. Shojiro Yasui, 2013. "An analysis of the argument over the health effects of low-dose radiation exposure caused by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi APP in Japan," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 937-944, September.
    15. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Richard Wilson, 2012. "The Development of Risk Analysis: A Personal Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2010-2019, December.
    17. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    18. Beierle, Thomas C. & Cayford, Jerry, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," Discussion Papers 10899, Resources for the Future.
    19. M. V. Ramana, 2018. "Technical and social problems of nuclear waste," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), July.
    20. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk communication between experts and the public: perceptions and intentions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2003:13, Stockholm School of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:29:y:2009:i:11:p:1601-1614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.