Skip to main content

Safety Considerations in the Chemical Process Industries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Industrial Chemistry and Biotechnology

Abstract

The chemical industry is one of the safest industries, but its safety record in the eyes of the public has suffered. Perhaps this is because sometimes when there is an accident in a chemical plant it is spectacular and receives a great deal of attention. The public often associates the chemical industry with environmental and safety problems, which results in a negative image of the industry.

Process safety is important because good process safety performance, the lack of major process safety incidents, allows a company the freedom to manage its business without the interference of government regulators, litigation, and adverse public opinion. By avoiding injuries to people, major property loss, and business interruption loss, process safety results in the creation of positive business value for a company. The actions that are required to manage process safety well are the same actions required to manage business well.

Occupational Safety Versus Process Safety

It is important to differentiate between occupational safety which involves accident prevention through work systems which are aimed at minimizing the risk of injury to workers and process safety which involves the prevention and mitigation of fires, explosions, and accidental chemical releases that can have far-reaching impacts. Occupational safety focuses on the prevention of worker injuries and occupational illness, primarily relating to trips, slips, falls, cuts, burns etc. These injuries result from the failures in the control of traditional work procedures. Process safety focuses on the prevention of leaks, spills, process upsets, toxic releases, and equipment failures which may or may not injure or result in fatalities to workers or others at or near the site. This chapter deals primarily with process safety.

Process Safety Technology Issues

The Internet provides considerable information on incidents, good industry practice, and design guidelines. The best practices in industry are briefly discussed in this chapter. Details are readily available from resources listed in the references section at the end of the chapter. Hazards from combustion and runaway reactions play a leading role in many chemical process accidents. Knowledge of these reactions is essential for the control of process hazards. Much of the damage and loss of life in chemical accidents are caused by a loss of containment that results in a sudden release of hazardous material at high pressures, which may or may not result in fire; so it is important to understand how loss of containment and sudden pressure releases can occur. Loss of containment can be due, for example, to ruptured high pressure tanks, runaway reactions, flammable vapor clouds, or pressure developed from external fire. Fires can cause severe damage to people and property from thermal radiation. Chemical releases from fires and pressure releases can form toxic clouds that can be dangerous to people over large areas. Static electricity often is a hidden cause of accidents. It is very important to understand the reactive nature of the chemicals involved in a chemical facility.

Process Safety Management Issues

Chemical process safety involves both the technical and the management aspects of the chemical industry, and this chapter addresses both. It is not enough to be aware of how to predict the effect of process hazards and how to design systems to reduce the risks of these hazards. It also is important to consider how chemical process safety can be managed. Technical and management people at all levels in an organization have process safety management responsibility and can contribute to the overall management of safer chemical processing plants.

Loss of containment due to mechanical failure or misoperation is a major cause of chemical process accidents. The publication One hundred largest losses: a thirty year review of property damage losses in the hydrocarbon-chemical industry (M&M Protection Consultants, 12th edn, Riverside Plaza, Chicago, 1998) cites loss of containment as the leading cause of property loss in the chemical process industries.

It has become clear that process safety can be and must be managed as any other part of the business. A process safety management system is focused on preparedness for the prevention and mitigation of catastrophic releases of chemicals or energy from a process associated with a facility. It also includes the response to and restoration from these events. The term process safety management was first recognized on a broad scale in the late 1980s after Bhopal (see case histories). It formed the basis for many of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers’ Center for Chemical Process Safety’s guideline books and eventually led to US regulations (OSHA PSM) in 1992.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 549.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 699.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. M & M Protection Consultants (1989) One hundred largest losses: a thirty year review of property damage in the hydrocarbon-chemical industry, 12th edn, 222S. Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  2. CCPS (2010) Process safety boot camp (CCPS Training Course). AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. CCPS (2008) Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. CCPS (2007) Guidelines for safe and reliable instrumented protective system. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  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, TX, personal-communication

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher H (1985) Chem Eng Prog: 3

    Google Scholar 

  7. Huff, J. E, “A General Approach to the Sizing of Emergency Pressure Relief Systems,” Reprints of Int. Symp. on Loss Prev. and Safety Promotion in the Process Ind., Heidelberg, Germany, 1977, p. IV 223, DECHEMA, Frankfurt (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Huff JE (1984) Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, No. 85, p 109

    Google Scholar 

  9. Huff JE (1984) Emergency venting requirements for gassy reactions from closed system tests. Plant Oper Progr 3(1):50–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fauske HK, Leung J (1985) New experimental technique for characterizing runaway chemical reactions. Chem Eng Progr 39

    Google Scholar 

  12. CCPS (2010) Guidelines for process safety metrics. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. CCPS (2007) Guidelines for risk based process safety. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. CCPS (2009) Inherently safer chemical processes, a life cycle approach. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zabetakis MG (1965) Flammability characteristics of combustible gases and vapors. In: Bulletin 627, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bodurtha FT (1987) Industrial explosion control course. Center for Professional Advancement, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  17. Baker WE, Cox PA, Westine PS, Kulesz JJ, Strehlow RA (1983) Explosion hazards and evaluation. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eichel FG (1967) Electrostatics. Chem Eng 154–167

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lees FP (1980) Loss prevention in the process industries. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ludwig EE (1977) Applied process design for chemical and petrochemical plants, vol 1, 2nd edn. Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX

    Google Scholar 

  21. TNO (1979) Methods for the calculation of the physical effects of the escape of dangerous materials: liquids and gases. In: The yellow book. Apeldoorn, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brasie WC (1983) Michigan Division, Process Engineering. The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI, personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kletz T (1985) Cheaper, safer plants or wealth and safety at work. Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, England

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cloud MJ (1990) Fire, the most tolerable third party. Mich Nat Res 18

    Google Scholar 

  25. FPA (1988) Fire safety data. Fire Protection Association, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cawse JN, Pesetsky B, Vyn WT (n.d.) The liquid phase decomposition of ethylene oxide. Union Carbide Corporation, Technical Center, North Charleston, WV

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stull DR (1976) Fundamentals of fire and explosion, p 50, Corporate Safety and Loss Dept., The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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, CA

    Google Scholar 

  29. Prugh RW (1988) Quantitative evaluation of BLEVE hazards. In: AICHE loss prevention symposium, Paper No. 74e, AICHE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, LA

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mackenzie J (1990) Hydrogen peroxide without accidents. Chem Eng 84ff

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bartknecht W (1981) Explosions course prevention protection. Springer, Berlin, p 108

    Google Scholar 

  32. Brasie WC (1982) Michigan Division, Process Engineering, The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI, personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  33. NFPA 77 (1986) National Fire Protection Association. Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA

    Google Scholar 

  34. NFPA 68 (1998) National Fire Protection Association. Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA

    Google Scholar 

  35. CPQRA (Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis) (1989) Tables 2.12, 2.13, p 161, 165. Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers

    Google Scholar 

  36. Technica, Inc. (1989) HAZOP leaders course, Columbus, OH; course leaders David Slater and Frederick Dyke

    Google Scholar 

  37. Walters S (1984) The beginnings. Mech Eng 4:38–46

    Google Scholar 

  38. Burk, Art. (1990) Principal Safety Consultant. Du Pont, Newark, DE, personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  39. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (1990) U.S. Department of Labor, The Phillips Company Houston Chemical Complex Explosion and Fire

    Google Scholar 

  40. Clancey VJ (1972) Diagnostic features of explosion damage. Sixth International Meeting of Forensic Sciences, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  41. NUS Corp. (1989) HAZOP Study Team Training manual. Predictive hazard identification techniques for Dow Corning facilities, Gaithersburg, MD

    Google Scholar 

  42. AIChE (1988) Guidelines for safe storage and handling of high toxic hazard materials. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  43. API RP 521 (1982) 2nd edn, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  44. CCPS (2009) Guidelines for developing quantitative safety risk criteria. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Murphy JF, Conner J (2012) Beware of the black swan: the limitations of risk analysis for predicting the extreme impact of rare process safety incidents. Process Saf Prog 31(4)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Murphy JF, Conner J (2014) Black swans, white swans and fifty shades of grey: remembering the lessons learned from catastrophic process safety incidents. Process Saf Prog 33(2)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Murphy JF (2016) Surviving the black swan, strategies for process safety specialist and companies to survive unpredicted catastrophic events. Process Saf Prog 35(1)

    Google Scholar 

  48. CCPS (2003) Guidelines for analyzing and managing the security vulnerabilities of fixed chemical sites, center for chemical process safety. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. CCPS (2011) Guidelines for process safety in bioprocess manufacturing facilities. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Howard W (1981) Consultant, Monsanto Chemical Company, Personal Communication

    Google Scholar 

  51. CCPS (1993) Guidelines for safe automation of chemical processes. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jackson BL (1986) Piping Specialist, The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI, personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  53. Technical Management of Chemical Process Safety (1989) Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bodurtha FT (1980) Engineering Dept., Du Pont, Industrial Explosion Prevention and Protection. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. Boundy, RH, Boyer RF (1952) Styrene, American Chemical Society Monograph Series, p 63. Reinhold Publishing Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Webley P (1990) Director, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Practice School, Midland Station, Midland, MI, personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  57. Moore CV (1967) The design of barricades for hazardous pressure systems. Nucl Eng Des 5:1550–1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Allen WT (1988) Process engineering. The Dow Chemical Co. Midland, MI, personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  59. Arendt JS, Lorenzo AF, Lorenzo DK (1989) Evaluating process safety in the chemical industry. A Manager’s Guide to Quantitative Risk Assessment, Chemical Manufacturers Association, DC

    Google Scholar 

  60. CCPS (2001) Layer of protection analysis, simplified process risk assessment. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. AIChE (1988) Guidelines for safe storage and handling of highly toxic hazard materials. Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

Additional Reading References

  • American Petroleum Institute (1995–2000) API Recommended Practice 520, Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure Relieving Devices in Refineries, Part I, Sizing and Selection. American Petroleum Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2001) 2001 Boiler Pressure Vessel Code, ASME International, Fairfield, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartknecht W (1993) Explosions course: prevention, protection. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretherick L (1995) Handbook of reactive chemical hazards, 5th edn. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  • DIERS (Design Institute for Emergency Relief Systems). American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY. http://www.diers.net/

  • Englund SM (1991) Design and operate plants for inherent safety. Chem Eng Prog 85–91 (Part 1) and 79–86 (Part 2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund SM (1993) Process and design options for inherently safer plants. In: Prevention and control of accidental releases of hazardous gases. Van Nostrand, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund SM (1997) Chemical process safety. In: Green DW (ed) Perry’s chemical engineers’ handbook, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendershot D (2000) Smaller is safer—simplifying chemical plant safety. Safe Workplace, National Council on Compensation Insurance, Boca Raton, FL (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 

  • Hendershot D (1994) Chemistry—the key to inherently safer manufacturing processes. Presented before the Division of Environmental Chemistry, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kletz T (1998) What went wrong? Case histories of process plant disasters. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX (Kletz is well known for his many publications and for bringing the term, “Inherently Safer Plants,” into popular usage)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kletz T (1998) Process plants. In: A handbook of inherently safer design. Taylor & Francis: Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees F (1996) Loss prevention in the process industries: hazard identification, assessment, and control. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Loss Prevention Committee, Safety, Health Division, AIChE (1995) Proceedings of the 29th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium—(Serial)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • NFPA 30 (2000) Flammable and combustible liquids code

    Google Scholar 

  • NFPA 69 (1997) Standard on explosion prevention systems

    Google Scholar 

  • NFPA 68 (1998) Guide for venting of deflagrations

    Google Scholar 

  • NFPA 325 Guide to fire hazard properties of flammable liquids. PHA Software, “PHAWorks,” PSM Source (reference tool for OSHA’s 1910.119) Primatech Inc., Columbus, OH. http://www.primatech.com

  • Smith KE, Whittle DK (2001) Six steps to effectively update and revalidate PHAs. Chem Eng Progr 70–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson Publishing Group (2006) Chemical process safety report. Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Internet References and WEB Pages

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge that earlier versions of this chapter, which appeared in the 11th 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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John F. Murphy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Murphy, J.F. (2017). Safety Considerations in the Chemical Process Industries. In: Kent, J., Bommaraju, T., Barnicki, S. (eds) Handbook of Industrial Chemistry and Biotechnology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52287-6_34

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics