Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
General principles
Plant layout is often a compromise between a number of factors such as:
The need to keep distances for transfer of materials between plant/storage units to a minimum to reduce costs
and risks;
The geographical limitations of the site;
Interaction with existing or planned facilities on site such as existing roadways, drainage and utilities
routings;
Interaction with other plants on site;
The need for plant operability and maintainability;
The need to locate hazardous materials facilities as far as possible from site boundaries and people living in
the local neighbourhood;
The need to prevent confinement where release of flammable substances may occur;
The need to provide access for emergency services;
The need to provide emergency escape routes for on-site personnel;
The need to provide acceptable working conditions for operators.
The most important factors of plant layout as far as safety aspects are concerned are those to:
Inherent safety
The major principle in Inherent Safety is to remove the hazard altogether. The best method to achieve
this is to reduce the inventory of hazardous substances such that a major hazard is no longer
presented. However, this is not often readily achievable and by definition no COMAH facility will have
done so. Other possible methods to achieve an Inherently Safer design are:
The methodology for undertaking a rapid ranking method that is based on the Dow / Mond index is
detailed in ILO, PIACT, Major Hazard Control: A practical manual, 1988.
Although these are useful rule-of thumb methodologies for first consideration of plant layout, they do
not replace risk assessment. The distances derived between plant units using these systems are
based upon engineering judgement and some degree of experience rather than any detailed analysis.
Domino effects
Hazard assessment of site layout is critical to ensure consequences of loss of containment and
chances of escalation are minimised. Domino may be by fire, explosion (pressure wave and missiles)
or toxic gas cloud causing loss of control of operations in another location.
Fire
A fire can spread in four ways:
Explosion
Explosion propagation may be directly by pressure waves or indirectly by missiles. As for fires,
inherently safe methods that should be considered are:
arranging separation distances such that damage to adjacent plants will not occur even in the worst case;
provision of barriers e.g. blast walls, location in strong buildings;
protecting plant against damage e.g. provision of thicker walls on vessels;
directing explosion relief vents away from vulnerable areas e.g. other plants or buildings, roadways near site
boundaries.
However, the latter may not provide practical solutions, particularly against missiles, and risk analysis
may be required to prove adequate safety.
Locating all high-volume storage of flammable / toxic material well outside process areas;
Locating hazardous plant away from main roadways through the site;
Fitting remote-actuated isolation valves where high inventories of hazardous materials may be released into
vulnerable areas;
Provision of ditches, dykes, embankments, sloping terrain to contain and control releases and limit the safety
and environmental effects;
Siting of plants within buildings as secondary containment;
Siting of plants in the open air to ensure rapid dispersion of minor releases of flammable gases and vapours
and thus prevent concentrations building up which may lead to flash fires and explosions;
Hazardous area classification for flammable gases, vapours and dusts to designate areas where ignition
sources should be eliminated.
Risk management techniques should be used to identify control measures that can be adopted to
reduce the consequences of on or off site events. See references cited in further reading material.
Status of guidance
Additional material providing much insight into analysis of offsite consequences through a risk
management program is now available from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This
provides guidance on offsite consequence analysis for toxic gases, toxic liquids, and flammable
substances.
Kaess, D., Jr., Guide to Trouble-free Plant Layout, Chemical Engineering, pp 122-134, June 1, 1970.
Meissner, R.E. III and Shelton, D.C., Plant Layout: Part 1 Minimizing Problems in Plant Layout, The
Ralph M. Parsons Co., Chemical Engineering, 99, 4, p81, April 1992.
Brandt, D., George, W., Hathaway, C. and McClintock, N., Plant Layout: Part 2 The Impact of Codes,
Standards and Regulations, Davy-McKee Corp., Chemical Engineering, 99, 4, p89, April 1992.
Kirk-Othmer, 'Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology', Vol. 18: Plant Layout, pp23-43; Plant Location,
pp44-59; Plant Safety, pp60-86, Wiley, New York, 1982.
Kern, R., CE Refresher: Plant Layout, 12 Parts, Chemical Engineering, 23 May 1977 through 14
August 1978.
Basusbacher, E. and Hunt, R., Process Plant Layout and Piping Design, Auerbach Publishers,
Boston, 1990.
Burklin, C.R., Safety Standards, Codes and Practices for Plant Design, Chemical Engineering, pp56-
63, October 2, 1972.
EPA / CEPP, 'Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis', RMP Series,
United States Environmental Protection Agency / Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office, April 1999.
Konz, S., Work Design: Industrial Ergonomics, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1983.
Konz, S., Facility Design, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1985.
Sule, D.R., Manufacturing Facilities: Location, Planning, and Design, Boston, MA: PWS-KENT
Publishing Co., 1988.
Lees, F.P., Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Second Edition, 1996.