[Relative ranking of fire and explosion in a petrochemical industry by fire and explosion index]

Fire and explosion hazards are considered as the first and second major hazards in process industries. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the fire and explosion hazards as well as relative classification of such hazards in a petrochemical industry. This was a quantitative study in which the process units were selected based on parameters affecting the risk of fire and explosion. Later, these parameters were analyzed using DOW's fire and explosion index [F and EI]. Technical data to determine the index were obtained through process documents and reports as well as the fire and explosion guideline. Following calculating the DOW's index, the high and low risk process units were determined. The stripper column with a rank of 226 and the naphtha tank with a rank of 64 were determined as the most and least disastrous process units. The level of hazard was determined as severe for columns [F and EI>158], heavy for magna-former reactor and gasoline furnace [127< F and EI

Residuos hospitalarios peligrosos en un centro de alta complejidad / Management of hazardous waste in a hospital

Background: An inadequate management of hospital waste, that have toxic, infectious and chemical wastes, is a risk factor for humans and environment. Aim To identify, quantify and assess the risk associated to the management of hospital residues. Material and methods: A cross sectional assessment of the generation of hazardous waste from a hospital, between June and August 2005, was performed. The environmental risk associated to the management of non-radioactive hospital waste was assessed and the main problems related to solid waste were identified. Results: The rate of generation of hazardous non-radioactive waste was 1.35 tons per months or 0.7 kg/bed/day. Twenty five percent of hazardous liquid waste were drained directly to the sewage system. The drug preparation unit of the pharmacy had the higher environmental risk associated to the generation of hazardous waste. The internal transport of hazardous waste had a high risk due to the lack of trip planning. The lack of training of personnel dealing with these waste was another risk factor. Conclusions: Considering that an adequate management of hospital waste should minimize risks for patients, the hospital that was evaluated lacks an integral management system for its waste.