Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Chemistry

formerly Central European Journal of Chemistry

1 Issue per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.425
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.511

CiteScore 2017: 1.45

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.349
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.812

ICV 2017: 165.27

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-5420
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 3, Issue 4

Issues

Volume 13 (2015)

Inherent safety evaluation in process plants— a comparison of methodologies

Parisa Abedi
  • Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Science, (Chemical Engineering Design), Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Mohammad Shahriari
  • Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Science, (Chemical Engineering Design), Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2005-12-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/BF02475203

Abstract

A global population increase and an improved standard of living are generally expected. To meet these demands, an increased production of chemicals will be necessary while protecting human health and the environment. However, most current methods of chemical production are unsustainable. New designs must result in plants that assure process and operator safety, the sustained health of workers and the community, and the protection of the environment. Traditional safety precautions and process controls minimize risk but cannot guarantee the prevention of accidents followed by serious consequences. Therefore, the general approach to environmental and safety problems must be changed from reactive to proactive. One way is to further develop the concept of inherent safety.

In this paper some methods for inherent safety evaluations are reviewed. The aim of the study is to analyze the different tools available for inherent safety evaluation and identify the most important criteria in determining the inherent safety of a process plant. A model is proposed to show the interactions of different factors on the inherent safety level of a process and the model is illustrated by a case study.

Keywords: Inherent safety; process plants; safety indices; criteria factors

  • [1] R.E. Bollinger, D.G. Clark, A.M. Dowell III, R.M. Ewbank, D.C. Hendershot, W.K. Lutz, S.I. Meszaros, D.E. Park and E.D. Wixom: Inherently Safer Chemical Processes —A Life Cycle Approach, Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1996. Google Scholar

  • [2] R.D. Turney: “Inherent Safety: What can be done to increase the use of the concept”, In: H. J. Pasman: Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries —10th International Symposium, 2001, Stockholm (Sweden), Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 2001, pp. 519–528. Google Scholar

  • [3] R. Gowland: “Putting Numbers on Inherent Safety”, Chemical Engineering, Vol. 103(3), (1996), pp. 82–86. Google Scholar

  • [4] D.C. Hendershot: “Inherently Safer Chemical Process Design*1”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 10(3), (1997), pp. 151–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-4230(96)00055-1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [5] D.C. Hendershot: “Conflicts and Decisions in the Search for Inherently Safer Process Options”, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 14(1), (1995), pp. 52–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prs.680140109CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [6] D.C. Hendershot: “Measuring Inherent Safety, Health and Environmental Characteristics Early in Process Development”, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 16(2), (1997), pp. 78–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prs.680160206CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [7] A.M. Heikkilä: Inherent Safety in Process Plant Design: An Index-Based Approach, Thesis (PhD), Helsinki University of Technology, 1999. Google Scholar

  • [8] Based Resource Document—Risk-Based Inspection, American Petroleum Institute (API), Publ 581, 2000. Google Scholar

  • [9] Dow Chemical Company: Dow's Fire & Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, 6th ed., American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1987. Google Scholar

  • [10] Dow Chemical Company: Dow's Chemical Exposure Index, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1994. Google Scholar

  • [11] C.B. Etowa, P.R. Amyotte, M.J. Pegg and F.I. Khan: “Quantification of Inherent Safety Aspects of the Dow Indices”, Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 15, 2002, pp. 477–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-4230(02)00039-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [12] F.P. Lees: Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1996. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [13] A.G. Rushton, D.W. Edwards and D. Lawrence: “Inherent Safety and Computer Aided Process Design”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 72 (B), (1994), pp. 83–87. Google Scholar

  • [14] D.W. Edwards and D. Lawrence: “Assessing the Inherent Safety of Chemical Process Routes: Is There a Relation between Plant Costs and Inherent Safety?”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 71 (B), (1993), pp. 252–258. Google Scholar

  • [15] D.W. Edwards, A.G. Rushton and D. Lawrence: “Quantifying the Inherent Safety of Chemical Process Routes”, In: The 5th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, San Diego (USA), 1996, AIChE, New York, 1996, pp. 1113–1118. Google Scholar

  • [16] M. Gentile, W.J. Rogers and M.S. Mannan: “Development of an Inherent Safety Index Based on Fuzzy Logic”, AIChE Journal, Vol. 49(4), (2003), pp. 959–968. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690490413CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17] D. Mansfield, J. Clark, Y. Malmén, J. Schabel, R. Rogers, E. Suokas, R. Turney, G. Ellis, J. van Steen and M. Verwoerd: The INSET Toolkit, AEA Technology, Eutech Engineering Solutions, INBUREX, Kemira Agro, TNO, VTT Manufacturing Technology, 2001, http://www.aeat-safety-and-risk.com/Downloads/INSET%20Toolkit%20_v1_01_complete_feb02.pdf Google Scholar

  • [18] G. Koller, U. Fischer and K. Hungerbuler: “Assessing Safety, Health, and Environmental Impact Early During Process Development”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, (2000), pp. 960–972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie990669iCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [19] F.I. Khan and P.R. Amyotte: “Integrated Inherent Safety Index (I2SI): a Tool for Inherent Safety Evaluation”, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 23(2), (2004), pp. 136–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prs.10015CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20] F.I. Khan, T. Husain and S.A. Abbasi: “Safety Weighted Hazard Index (SWeHI): A New User-Friendly Tool for Swift Yet Comperhensive Hazard Identification and Safety Evaluation in Chemical Process Industries”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 79, (2001), pp. 65–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/09575820151095157CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21] F.I. Khan, R. Sadiq and B. Veitch: “Life Cycle Index (LInX): A New Indexing Procedure for Process and Product Design and Decision-Making”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, (2004), pp. 59–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00194-4CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22] R. King: Safety in the Process Industrics, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 1990. Google Scholar

  • [23] G.L. Wells: Safety in Process Plant Design, Godwin, London 1980. Google Scholar

  • [24] J.L. Koolen: Design of Simple and Robust Process Plants, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2001. Google Scholar

  • [25] G.B. Scuricini: “Complexity in Large Technological Systems”, In: I. Peliti and A. Vulpiani: Measures of Complexity, 1987, Rome, Spriger-Verlag, Berlin, New York, pp. 83–101. Google Scholar

  • [26] T.A. Kletz: Plant Design for Safety, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Warwickshire, England, 1991. Google Scholar

  • [27] T.A. Kletz: Cheaper, Safer Plants, or Wealth and Safety at Work, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, Warwickshire, England, 1984. Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2005-12-01

Published in Print: 2005-12-01


Citation Information: Open Chemistry, Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 756–779, ISSN (Online) 2391-5420, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/BF02475203.

Export Citation

© 2005 Versita Warsaw. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Muhammad Athar, Azmi Mohd Shariff, Azizul Buang, Muhammad Shuaib Shaikh, and Tan Lian See
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018
[2]
Mohammad Javad Jafari, Heidar Mohammadi, Genserik Reniers, Mostafa Pouyakian, Farshad Nourai, Seyed Ali Torabi, and Masoud Rafiei Miandashti
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018
[3]
Hans J. Pasman, William J. Rogers, and M. Sam Mannan
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2012, Volume 25, Number 5, Page 870
[4]
Rajagopalan Srinivasan and Sathish Natarajan
Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2012, Volume 90, Number 5, Page 389
[5]
Mimi H. Hassim and Markku Hurme
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2010, Volume 23, Number 2, Page 260

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in