Advertisement

Safety Considerations in the Chemical Process Industries

Chapter

Abstract

There is an ongoing emphasis on chemical process safety as a result of highly publicized accidents such as the recent BP Deep Water Horizon well blow out in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in a fire and explosion that killed 11 people and a massive leak of oil that caused catastrophic damage to the environment and economy of the Gulf Coast. Public awareness of these accidents has provided a driving force for industry to improve its safety record. There has also been an increasing amount of government regulation.

Keywords

Quantitative Risk Analysis Process Safety National Fire Protection Association Flammability Limit Runaway Reaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to acknowledge that earlier versions of this chapter, which appeared in the eleventh and preceding editions of the Handbook, were authored by Stan Englund of Midland, Michigan, and that significant content from the previous editions is included herein.

References

  1. 1.
    M & M Protection Consultants (1989) One hundred largest losses: a thirty year review of property damage in the hydrocarbon-chemical industry, 12th edn. M & M Protection Consultants, Riverside PlazaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    CCPS (2010) Process safety boot camp (CCPS Training Course). Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    CCPS (2008) Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    CCPS (2008) Guidelines for safe and reliable instrumented protective system. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grinwis D (1986) Process Systems Associate; Larsen, Paul, Associate Instrument Engineering Consultant; and Schrock, Luther, Process Consultant, The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI and Freeport, personal-communication, Oct 1986Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher H (1985) Chem Eng Prog 3Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huff JE (1977) A general approach to the sizing of emergency pressure relief systems. Reprints of International symposium on loss prevention and safety promotion in the process industries, Heidelberg. DECHEMA, Frankfurt, p. IV 223Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huff JE (1984) Institute of chemical engineers symposium series, No. 85, p. 109Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huff JE (1984) Emergency venting requirements for gassy reactions from closed system tests. Plant/Operations Progress 3(1):50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huff JE (1987) The role of pressure relief in reactive chemical safety. In: International symposium on preventing major chemical accidents, Washington, DC (Sponsored by the Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, The United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Bank), Feb 3, 1987Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fauske, Hans K, Leung J (1985) New experimental technique for characterizing runaway chemical reactions. Chem Eng Progr 39Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    CCPS (2010) Guidelines for process safety metrics. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    CCPS (2007) Guidelines for risk based process safety. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    CCPS (2009) Inherently safer chemical processes, a life cycle approach. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kletz TA (1991) Plant design for safety—a user-friendly approach. Hemisphere, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zabetakis MG (1965) Flammability characteristics of combustible gases and vapors. In: Bulletin 627. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bodurtha FT (1987) Industrial explosion control course. Center for Professional Advancement, Chicago, Sept 14–16, 1987Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baker WE, Cox PA, Westine PS, Kulesz JJ, Strehlow RA (1983) Explosion hazards and evaluation. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lees FP (1980) Loss prevention in the process industries. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ludwig EE (1977) Applied process design for chemical and petrochemical plants, vol 1, 2nd edn. Gulf, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eichel FG (1967) Electrostatics. Chem Eng 154–167Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    TNO (1979) Methods for the calculation of the physical effects of the escape of dangerous materials: liquids and gases. In: The yellow book. TNO, ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brasie WC (1983) Michigan Division, Process Engineering, The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI, personal communication, March 9, 1983Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kletz T (1985) Cheaper, safer plants or wealth and safety at work. Institution of Chemical Engineers, RugbyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cloud MJ (1990) Fire, the most tolerable third party. Mich Nat Res 18Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    FPA (1988) Fire safety data. Fire Protection Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cawse JN, Pesetsky B, Vyn WT (n.d.) The liquid phase decomposition of ethylene oxide. Union Carbide Corporation., Technical Center, North CharlestonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stull DR (1976) Fundamentals of fire and explosion, Corporate Safety and Loss Dept., The Dow Chemical Co., Midland. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, p 50Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kohlbrand (1990) Case history of a deflagration involving an organic solvent/oxygen system below its flash point. In: 24th Annual loss prevention symposium. Sponsored by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, San Diego, Aug 19–22, 1990Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prugh RW (1988) Quantitative evaluation of BLEVE hazards. In: AICHE loss prevention symposium, Paper No. 74e, AICHE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, March 6–10, 1988Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bartknecht W (1981) Explosions course prevention protection. Springer, Berlin, p 108Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    NFPA 77 (1986) National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, QuincyGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    NFPA 68, National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    CCPS (1989) CPQRA (chemical process quantitative risk analysis) Tables 2.12, 2.13. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, p. 161, 165Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Walters S (1984) The beginnings. Mech Eng 4:38–46Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Burk, Art., Principal Safety Consultant. Du Pont, Newark, DE, personal communication (Feb. 20, 1990).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (1990) U.S. Department of Labor, The Phillips Company Houston Chemical Complex explosion and fire, Apr 1990Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clancey VJ (1972) Diagnostic features of explosion damage. In: Sixth Int. Meeting of Forensic Sciences, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brasie WC (1982) Michigan Division, Process Engineering, The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI, personal communication, Oct 6, 1982Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    NUS Corp. (1989) HAZOP Study Team training manual. Predictive hazard identification techniques for Dow Corning facilities. NUS Corp., GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Technica, Inc. (1989) HAZOP leaders course. Technica, Inc., Columbus, OH, Nov 6–10 (course leaders David Slater and Frederick Dyke)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    CCPS (1988) Guidelines for safe storage and handling of high toxic hazard materials. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    API RP 521 (1982) 2nd ed, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    CCPS (2009) Guidelines for developing quantitative safety risk criteria. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    CCPS (2011) Guidelines for process safety in bioprocess manufacturing facilities. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    CCPS (1993) Guidelines for safe automation of chemical processes. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mackenzie J (1990) Hydrogen peroxide without accidents. Chem Eng 84ffGoogle Scholar

Additional Reading References

  1. American Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice 520, Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure Relieving Devices in Refineries, Part I, Sizing and Selection, American Petroleum Institute, 1995–2000Google Scholar
  2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2001) 2001 Boiler Pressure Vessel Code, ASME International, Fairfield, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartknecht W (1993) Explosions course: prevention, protection. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Bretherick L (1995) Handbook of reactive chemical hazards, 5th edn. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Crowl D, Bollinger R (1997) Inherently safer chemical processes: a life cycle approach. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. DIERS (Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems), American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 3 Park Ave, New York. http://www.diers.net/
  7. Englund SM (1991) Design and operate plants for inherent safety. Chemical Engineering Progress, 85–91 (Part 1); 79–86 (Part 2)Google Scholar
  8. Englund SM (1993) Process and design options for inherently safer plants. In: Fthenakis VM (ed) Prevention and control of accidental releases of hazardous gases. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Englund SM (1997) Chemical process safety. In: Green DW, Green DW (eds) Perry’s chemical engineers’ handbook, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hendershot D (2000) Smaller is safer—simplifying chemical plant safety, Safe Workplace, National Council on Compensation Insurance, Boca Raton (Hendershot is a senior technical fellow in the Process Hazard Assessment Department of the Rohm and Haas Company, Bristol, PA, and has written extensively on Process Safety)Google Scholar
  11. Hendershot D (1994) Chemistry—the key to inherently safer manufacturing processes. Presented before the Division of Environmental Chemistry, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 21 August 1994Google Scholar
  12. Kletz T (1998) What went wrong?: case histories of process plant disasters. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, May 1998 (Kletz is well known for his many publications and for bringing the term, “Inherently Safer Plants,” into popular usage.)Google Scholar
  13. Kletz T (1998) Process plants. In: A handbook of inherently safer design. Taylor & Francis, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Lees F (1996) Loss prevention in the process industries: hazard identification, assessment, and control. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Loss Prevention Committee, Safety, Health Division, AIChE (1995) Proceedings of the 29th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium—(Serial), December, 1995Google Scholar
  16. Publications by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269. For a more complete list, see http://www.nfpa.org/Codes/CodesAndStandards.asp
  17. NFPA 30 (2000) Flammable and combustible liquids codeGoogle Scholar
  18. NFPA 69 (1997) Standard on explosion prevention systemsGoogle Scholar
  19. NFPA 68 (1998) Guide for venting of deflagrationsGoogle Scholar
  20. NFPA 325 Guide to fire hazard properties of flammable liquidsGoogle Scholar
  21. PHA Software, “PHA Works,” PSM Source (reference tool for OSHA’s 1910.119) Primatech Inc., Columbus. http://www.primatech.com
  22. Smith KE, Whittle DK (2001) Six steps to effectively update and revalidate PHAs. Chem Eng Progr 70–77Google Scholar
  23. Thompson (2006) Chemical process safety report, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Internet References and WEB pages

  1. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Center for Chemical Process Safety. http://www.aiche.org/ccps/
  2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2001) Boiler pressure vessel code. ASME International, Fairfield. http://www.asme.org/
  3. CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety). American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Chemical Safety Board (Incident Reports). http://www.acusafe.com/Incidents/frame-incident.htm
  5. Manufacturers Chemical Association: http://es.epa.gov/techinfo/facts/cma/cma.html
  6. Manufacturers Chemical Association (Responsible Care): http://es.epa.gov/techinfo/facts/cma/cmacommo.html OSHA Regulations & Compliance Links http://www.osha.gov/comp-links.html
  7. OSHA Regulations (Standards—29 CFR) http://www.osha-slc.gov_OshStd_toc/OSHA_Std_toc.htmlGoogle Scholar
  8. RMP Regulations http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/acc-pre.html. CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety)
  9. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York (This is not a complete list. For a complete list, see on the Internet. http://www.aiche.org/pubcat/seadtl.asp?Act=C&Category=Sect4&Min=30)Google Scholar
  10. CCPS (2009) Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis, 2nd edn. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. CCPS (2011) Guidelines for engineering design for process safety, 2nd edn. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. CCPS (2011) Guidelines for auditing process safety management systems, 2nd edn. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. CCPS (1995) Guidelines for chemical reactivity evaluation and application to process design, 2nd edn. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. CCPS (2010) Guidelines for evaluating the characteristics of vapor cloud explosions, 2nd edn. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. CCPS (2003) Guidelines for investigating chemical process incidents, 2nd edn. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. CCPS (1995) Guidelines for safe storage and handling of reactive materials. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Process Safety ServicesPunta GordaUSA

Personalised recommendations