Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inherent safety evaluation in process plants— a comparison of methodologies

  • Published:
Central European Journal of Chemistry

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  CAS  Google 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. F.P. Lees: Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1996.

    Google 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.

    CAS  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.

    CAS  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.

    Article  CAS  Google 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

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google 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.

    Article  CAS  Google 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.

    Article  CAS  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Science, (Chemical Engineering Design), Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Parisa Abedi & Mohammad Shahriari

Authors
  1. Parisa Abedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Shahriari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Shahriari.

About this article

Cite this article

Abedi, P., Shahriari, M. Inherent safety evaluation in process plants— a comparison of methodologies. cent.eur.j.chem. 3, 756–779 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2478/BF02475203

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/BF02475203

Keywords

Search

Navigation