PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2005 | 3 | 4 | 756-779
Article title

Inherent safety evaluation in process plants- a comparison of methodologies

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
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.
Publisher

Journal
Year
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
756-779
Physical description
Dates
published
1 - 12 - 2005
online
1 - 12 - 2005
Contributors
author
  • Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Science, (Chemical Engineering Design), Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden, parisaabedi@yahoo.com
  • Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Science, (Chemical Engineering Design), Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden, msh@chemeng.chalmers.se
References
  • [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.
  • [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.
  • [3] R. Gowland: “Putting Numbers on Inherent Safety”, Chemical Engineering, Vol. 103(3), (1996), pp. 82–86.
  • [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)00055-1[Crossref]
  • [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.680140109[Crossref]
  • [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.680160206[Crossref]
  • [7] A.M. Heikkilä: Inherent Safety in Process Plant Design: An Index-Based Approach, Thesis (PhD), Helsinki University of Technology, 1999.
  • [8] Based Resource Document-Risk-Based Inspection, American Petroleum Institute (API), Publ 581, 2000.
  • [9] Dow Chemical Company: Dow's Fire & Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, 6th ed., American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1987.
  • [10] Dow Chemical Company: Dow's Chemical Exposure Index, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1994.
  • [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)00039-6[Crossref]
  • [12] F.P. Lees: Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1996. [WoS]
  • [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.
  • [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.
  • [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.
  • [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.690490413[Crossref]
  • [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
  • [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/ie990669i[Crossref]
  • [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.10015[Crossref]
  • [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/10.1205/09575820151095157[Crossref]
  • [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)00194-4[Crossref]
  • [22] R. King: Safety in the Process Industrics, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 1990.
  • [23] G.L. Wells: Safety in Process Plant Design, Godwin, London 1980.
  • [24] J.L. Koolen: Design of Simple and Robust Process Plants, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2001.
  • [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.
  • [26] T.A. Kletz: Plant Design for Safety, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Warwickshire, England, 1991.
  • [27] T.A. Kletz: Cheaper, Safer Plants, or Wealth and Safety at Work, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, Warwickshire, England, 1984.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.-psjd-doi-10_2478_BF02475203
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.