Sun, May 25, 2025
[Archive]
.png)
Volume 9, Issue 2 (6-2023)
jhehp 2023, 9(2): 83-90 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hamideh H, Sadeghi G, Azimi Pirsaraei S R. A Survey on Environmental Pollutants Emission Sources in Process Industries: A Comprehensive HAZOP and Bow-tie Study on a Sulfur Recovery Unit. jhehp 2023; 9 (2) :83-90
URL: http://jhehp.zums.ac.ir/article-1-569-en.html
URL: http://jhehp.zums.ac.ir/article-1-569-en.html
1- Department of Health Safety and Environment (HSE), School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan-Iran.
2- Department of Environmental Health Engineering & Department of Health Safety and Environment (HSE), School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan-Iran.
3- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering & Department of Health Safety and Environment (HSE), School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan-Iran.
2- Department of Environmental Health Engineering & Department of Health Safety and Environment (HSE), School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan-Iran.
3- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering & Department of Health Safety and Environment (HSE), School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan-Iran.
Abstract: (1220 Views)
Background: The process industry is known for its hazardous and complex nature, and thus, hazard identification and risk management are crucial to ensure safety. Implementing hazard identification methods and incident modeling concurrently is essential to prevent adverse events. This study aims to identify potential hazards in a sulfur recovery plant from an environmental perspective using the Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study method and to model the identified hazards using the Bow-tie technique.
Method: This descriptive cross-sectional study involved five research steps to gather necessary information on the sulfur recycling unit. The HAZOP study was utilized to identify process hazards, which were subsequently modeled using the Bow-tie method in Bow-tie Pro software. The statistical analysis and important variable values of these two methods were described.
Results: The findings of the study conducted on the sulfur recycling unit revealed the identification of 10 nodes, 95 deviations, 158 causes, 186 consequences, 95 safeguards, and 92 recommendations through the HAZOP study. Additionally, the Bow-tie study recognized 19 top events, 19 threats, 90 controls, 69 consequences, and 162 escalation factors.
Conclusion: The results demonstrate that any faults or deficiencies in control devices can significantly impact the consequences of environmental pollution in process industries. However, efficient monitoring of process deviations and the implementation of recommended measures can effectively eliminate or reduce such impacts.
Method: This descriptive cross-sectional study involved five research steps to gather necessary information on the sulfur recycling unit. The HAZOP study was utilized to identify process hazards, which were subsequently modeled using the Bow-tie method in Bow-tie Pro software. The statistical analysis and important variable values of these two methods were described.
Results: The findings of the study conducted on the sulfur recycling unit revealed the identification of 10 nodes, 95 deviations, 158 causes, 186 consequences, 95 safeguards, and 92 recommendations through the HAZOP study. Additionally, the Bow-tie study recognized 19 top events, 19 threats, 90 controls, 69 consequences, and 162 escalation factors.
Conclusion: The results demonstrate that any faults or deficiencies in control devices can significantly impact the consequences of environmental pollution in process industries. However, efficient monitoring of process deviations and the implementation of recommended measures can effectively eliminate or reduce such impacts.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Environmental Health, Sciences, and Engineering
Received: 2023/03/26 | Accepted: 2023/05/11 | Published: 2023/06/10
Received: 2023/03/26 | Accepted: 2023/05/11 | Published: 2023/06/10
References
1. Badry N, Kareshky H, Nourai F, Hashemi V. Consequence Assessment in Process Industries. The 3th National Conference on Safety Engineering & HSE Management. 2010. [Google Scholar]
2. Abdolhamidzadeh B, Badry N. Quantitative and Qualitative Risk Assessment in Process Industries. Andisheh Sara. 2010.
3. Jozi A, Ghasemi M, Safari H. Comparative Comparison of Process and Environmental Risk Assessment of Gas Collection and Condensing Unit by HAZOP and EFMEA Methods. J Environ Plan Manag. 2013; 3: 1-3.
4. Goharrokhi M, Torabi M, Akbari F, Golezari F. Quantitative and Qualitative Risk Assessment in Process Units. Tarahan Tash Resaneh. 2010.
5. Nasirian D, Kahish Sardari M, Rahimi S. Investigation of HAZOP System Performance in Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Industries. International Conference on Research in Science and Technology. 2016.
6. Kang J, Guo L. HAZOP Analysis Based on Sensitivity Evaluation. Saf Sci. 2016; 88: 26-32. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
7. Isimite J, Rubini P. A Dynamic HAZOP Case Study Using the Texas City Refinery Explosion. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2016; 40: 496-501. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
8. Baybutt P. A Critique of the Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) Study. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2015; 33: 52-8. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
9. Letahri Jozei N, Naser I. Qualitative Assessment of Process Hazards of Carbon Dioxide Supply Section of Urea Unit Based on HAZOP Method and Using PHA-Pro 6 Program. 8th Chiller and Cooling Tower Heat Exchangers Conference. 2016.
10. Aqlan F, Ali EM. Integrating Lean Principles and Fuzzy Bow-Tie Analysis for Risk Assessment in Chemical Industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2014; 29: 39-48. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
11. Kotek L, Tabas M. HAZOP Study with Qualitative Risk Analysis for Prioritization of Corrective and Preventive Actions. Procedia Eng. 2012; 42: 808-15. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
12. Molashahi A, Samadi F. Optimization and Reduction of Environmental Pollutants in the Sulfur Recovery Unit of South Pars Refinery Phases 4 and 5. 3th Conference on Process Engineering. 2015.
13. Sarioletlagh Fard S, Khadem Samimi P. Design and Leadership of Sulfur Recovery Unit in Oil and Gas Refinery. Research Institute of Petroleum Industry. 2016.
14. Rezaei K, Chenani A, Mozdianfard M, Masoudieh F, Beygzadeh G. Investigation of Process Hazard of Gas Refinery Unit Sludge HAZOP Technique. 4th Conference on Process Engineering. 2015.
15. Azizneghad V, Rezaei K, Chenani A, Mozdianfard M, Shariati Mehr H. Investigation of Process Hazard of Water Supply Utility Unit of the Fifth South Pars Refinery Using HAZOP Technique. 4th Conference on Process Engineering. 2015.
16. Naserzadeh Z, Alahyari Mehrabani M, Mirhabibi Z. Bow-Tie Pro™-LOPA Risk Assessment Software Training. Fanavaran. 2014.
17. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Implementing Process Safety Management System. 1994.
18. Villa V, Paltrinieri N, Khan F, Cozzani V. Towards Dynamic Risk Analysis: A Review of the Risk Assessment Approach and its Limitations in the Chemical Process Industry. Saf Sci. 2016; 89: 77-93. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
19. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA). 2001.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
© 2024 The Author(s)
