Integrating EHS

Integrate EHS for Better

Process Desig Get a jump on process development by
addressing environmental, health and
safety (EHS) issues together early
Lisa Bendixen,
in the design and development
Arthur D. Little, Inc. cycle. The result will be a
better process and
lower costs.

B usinesses have traditionally evaluated

the environmental, health and safety
(EHS) requirements (regulatory and
otherwise) of process designs inde-
pendently. The changes that result from these re-
views often add costs over the life of a process,
cause rework in designs and installed facili-
ties, and create delays. This leads to a com-
monly held view that EHS issues are “cost-
adders.” However, it is often possible to
achieve a 15–35% lifecycle cost reduction
when EHS issues are addressed in a con-
current and timely manner, and improve-
ments of 50% or more in project costs
have been attained in some cases.

26 www.cepmagazine.org February 2002 CEP

 This article presents an approach developed Phases of product
by AIChE’s Center for Waste Reduction Tech- and process development
nologies and Center for Chemical Process Safe- There are four key phases in a typical product
ty called MERITT (Maximizing EHS Returns development or process design sequence:
by Integrating Tools and Talents), which re- 1. Research and development. Researchers cre-

gn
volves around critical components of pollution ate a product using the materials they typically have
prevention (P2), inherent safety (IS), green available and that they know “get the job done.”
chemistry (GC) and related paradigms. It out- This generally includes materials such as benzene,
lines a basic framework for integrating P2, IS methylene chloride, reactive reagents, water for
and GC and explains the various tools that can scrubbing and cooling, and so on. Some issues as-
be used for this. sociated with the choice of materials are often not
considered. The typical stages within this phase are
Evaluating E, H and S separately Discovery, Concept Initiation, Process Chemistry,
Several environmental-, health- or safety- and Process Development or Definition.
focused paradigms have been developed that are 2. Project implementation. Process engineers
intended for use earlier in the design process than design the process based on the equipment that
the typical compliance-based reviews. Pollution they know gets the job done, while trying to mini-
prevention, inherent safety and green chemistry mize capital and operating costs and maximize
are the most common; design for the environment production rates. This may lead to reusing existing
(DfE) and green technology (GT) are also well equipment, regardless of some of the associated
known. They share certain common principles safety and environmental issues. This stage also in-
and have some overlap in their coverage of EHS volves equipment procurement and construction
issues, as indicated in Figure 1, yet are practiced activities. The typical stages within this phase are
separately with very little interaction. This gener- Basic Process Engineering, Detailed Engineer-
ally results in duplication of effort or inefficient ing/Design, and Construction and Commissioning.
application of the disciplines to the product devel- 3. Production. At this point, the new process is
opment and design process. operated, maintained, modified and optimized by
Pollution prevention promotes substitution, the site organization. This is also known as the
recycling and reuse to eliminate or reduce envi- Operations stage.
ronmental effects. For example, the manufac- 4. Post-production. This involves shutting
ture of chloroacetylchloride (CAC) was modi- down, decontaminating, mothballing and/or dis-
fied with improved cooling via refrigeration, assembling the plant.
and the lower reaction temperature decreased An earlier consideration of EHS issues during
the production of byproducts and increased the several of these phases, particularly concept initi-
yield of CAC. This change resulted in waste re- ation, process chemistry and process development
duction of 1.8 million lb/yr and the project or definition in the R&D phase, and basic process
broke even in less than a year. engineering and detailed engineering/design in
Inherent safety advocates strategies of mini- the project implementation phase, can have sig-
mize, moderate, simplify and substitute in order to nificant payoffs. However, the present practice is
reduce or eliminate safety hazards. For example, to conduct reviews of the different E, H and S dis-
a change in water treatment from chlorine to ciplines independently in the later lifecycle
hypochlorite can eliminate the need to transport, stages, as indicated in the table.
store and handle chlorine. If chlorine is the only There are many opportunities for earlier in-
high-hazard material on the site, a change to volvement of the various disciplines. This need
hypochlorite can also affect processs safety man- not always involve the addition of more people to
agement requirements. design and development teams — it is only nec-
Green chemistry strives to minimize the EHS essary to capture their knowledge or perspective.
effects of processes by addressing fundamental This can be accomplished by additional training
chemistry. For example, the synthesis of ibupro- of chemists and design professionals, the applica-
fen was changed from a 6-step process to a 3-step tion of tools that highlight critical aspects of EHS
process. Step 1 minimizes waste via recycling thinking, or brief consultations by EHS staff.
with greater than 99.9% efficiency. Steps 2 and 3 As a project moves through the development
are both solvent-free and have efficiencies of stages, process materials, operating conditions,
98%. The resulting process is more cost-effective equipment requirements and control parameters be-
and produces a higher-quality product. come more defined. By the time it reaches basic

CEP February 2002 www.cepmagazine.org 27

 Integrating EHS
(Process) Health Enviroment Project Stage GC IS P2
Safety
Concept Initiation
Pollution Prevention (P2)
Process Chemistry
Inherent Safety (IS)
Process Development or Definition
Green Chemistry (GC)
Basic Process Engineering
Design for the Enviroment (DfE)
Detailed Engineering
Green Technology (GT)
Major Substantial Selective
Primary Secondary Directly Linked Opportunities Opportunities Opportunities
Focus Focus Benefit

■ Figure 1. Focus of individual EHS paradigms. ■ Figure 2. EHS opportunities.

process engineering, the chemistry route, raw materials, process is greater at earlier project stages. Because GC recognizes
conditions and process steps are essentially fixed, and the abili- the need to minimize the EHS effects of chemical processes
ty of any integrated EHS methodology to make a significant by addressing the fundamental chemistry employed, it is
difference is severely limited. Furthermore, trying to analyze heavily weighted toward the early stages of process develop-
EHS issues this late can prove to be embarrassing to the devel- ment. Similarly, IS emphasizes changing the nature of the
opment team, and in some instances can result in termination of process in the early stages in order to reduce or eliminate the
a project. Therefore, the tenets of MERITT need to be incorpo- hazards associated with the materials and operations in a
rated at the earliest possible stage of serious development work. way that is permanent and inseparable. However, IS is best
Decisions in earlier stages may impose constraints that applied when some process definition is available. P2 gener-
limit the choices available for addressing EHS concerns. For ally addresses upstream waste reduction and has found
example, a decision by a process chemist to employ a chlori- countless applications in manufacturing, process and service
nated solvent severely limits the environmental or process en- industries. P2 has a heavy environmental focus that in the
gineer’s choice of disposal method for waste solvents. Simi- chemical process industries is most closely aligned with en-
larly, the number of steps using different solvents and/or pro- vironmental and chemical engineers, and therefore has most
cess conditions can significantly affect process energy con- frequently been used in mid- and later-stage development ef-
sumption and water usage rates, both of which have environ- forts and upgrade projects.
mental and possibly inherent safety impacts.
EHS opportunities are inexorably linked to the develop- The MERITT framework
ment stage and the corresponding process characteristics. The basic MERITT framework has three parts, as
Figure 2 maps P2, IS and GC opportunities by project stage. shown in Figure 3. The first part embodies the Fundamen-
In general, the ability to incorporate P2, IS and GC concepts tal Principles, which form the glue that holds everything
together. The second part comprises the Re-
source Components, which are the five basic
Table. Attributes of traditional product development and process design stages.
building blocks of MERITT that serve as the
Project/Lifecycle Stage Scale of Stage Focus Traditional Process- key assets that support the integration effort.
Operations Related Disciplines *
The third part contains the Implementation
Concept Initiation Bench-top Product Synthesis CR, H Elements, a set of five steps used to generate
Process Chemistry Lab Scale-Up Basic Chemistries CR, CP the tactics for utilizing the resource compo-
Process Development Pilot Process Optimization CP, PDE, S, M nents. These steps help to structure the direc-
tion and interrelationships of activities. The
Process Definition Commercial Technology Selection PDE, PE, CPE, S, E, M, CP
(Replication)
resulting tactics will vary depending upon
the nature and requirements of a particular
Process Definition Commercial Process Improvement PM, PE, DE, E, S, M
(Upgrades)
development process.
Much of this framework has been de-
Basic Process Engineering Commercial Process Design PM, PE, DE, S, H, E, M rived from two types of sources — P2, IS,
* Before application of MERITT GC and DfE concepts that have already been
Discipline Key: developed and fairly widely accepted, and
CR = Chemist, Research/Synthesis
CP = Chemist, Process
best practices of leading companies that
CPE = Conceptual Process Engineer and/or Economic Evaluator have been engaged in advancing the integra-
DE = Design Engineer tion of environmental, health and/or safety
E = Environmental Engineer/Advocate
H = Health Specialist into corporate policies and procedures. In
M = Material Specialist many companies, much of what is required
PE = Process Engineer
PDE = Process Development Engineer
already exists. The existing infrastructure
PM = Project Manager and supporting constituents need not be re-
S = Process Safety Specialist built or replaced. What works well should

28 www.cepmagazine.org February 2002 CEP

 Fundamental • Commitment
Principles • Concurrency
• Communication
• Collaboration are commonly found in most development processes, par-
• Continuity ticularly those structured using stages with stage-gate cri-
Resource teria. These serve as the links between the MERITT
Components methodology and the existing development processes.
Metrics Tools
They will probably require some degree of expansion or
Criteria Alignment Staffing adjustment to accommodate the integration of EHS with
the existing process. The middle three elements may or
may not exist in some form within a company’s existing
Implementation • Establishing the Basis
Elements • Identification of Issues development processes.
(and Generating Opportunities) Figure 4 also incorporates four of the resource compo-
• Development of Options nents — Criteria, Metrics, Tools and Staffing; the Alignment
• Assessment of Options resource component is not shown since it is implicit to all of
• Reconciliation of Issues and
Decision-Making the tools and reinforces all of the fundamental principles. To-
gether, these items complete the functional format of
MERITT and present one integrated EHS approach (but by
■ Figure 3. The basic MERITT framework. no means the only one).

certainly be sustained, and perhaps expanded to envelop a Integration tools

broader integrated EHS perspective. There is a great deal MERITT tools are designed to help chemists, scientists
of latitude in the nature and content of the resource compo- and engineers address EHS issues in an integrated way dur-
nents and in how tactics are developed. Indeed, these ing process selection, development, design and implementa-
should be crafted to meet the specific needs of each enter- tion. The tools are intended to supplement a company’s own
prise. It is only necessary that they exist in one workable procedures and processes for addressing P2, IS, GC and sim-
form or another. ilar considerations. Tools are one way of making EHS knowl-
The five steps comprising the implementation elements edge and experience available to projects without adding
provide a format for conducting EHS evaluations within more staff to existing teams. Three types of tools are re-
the existing development process. These steps are shown in quired: inquiry tools, option generation tools, and option
the center boxes of Figure 4, which illustrates how the evaluation and decision support tools.
steps are linked. Inquiry tools are used to coordinate and facilitate investi-
The first (Establishing the Basis) and last (Reconciling gations, evaluations and group discussions, as well as indi-
Issues and Decision-Making) implementation elements vidual thinking, and to examine and scope issues. Examples

■ Figure 4. The MERITT

Existing/expanded steps in process development cycle framework in more detail.
Fundamental Principles
New/adjusted steps to integrate EHS issues
Commitment
Stage-gate in process development cycle Concurrency
Communication
Collaboration
Continuity

Information and Staffing Metrics

Data from Prior
Assessments Core Team(s)
(Stages) Support Staff

Identifying Issues,
Establishing Reconciling Output to Next
Generating and Developing Assessing
or Refreshing Issues and Stage of
Prioritizing Options Options
Basis Decision-Making Development
Opportunities

Option Evaluation/
Inquiry
Criteria Definition Decision Support
Tools
Tools Tools
Tools

CEP February 2002 www.cepmagazine.org 29

Integrating EHS

Tool Type Tool Applicability to Stage

IS P2 GC Concept Process Process Basic Detailed
Initiation Chemistry Definition Process Engineering
Engineering Design
Inquiry Thinklists ✔ ✔ ✔ ! ! ⊗ ⊗ ⊗
Chemical Interaction Matrix ✔ ✔ ✔ ! ! ⊗ " "
Brainstorming ✔ ✔ ✔ ! ! ! ⊗ "
What-if Analysis ✔ ⊗ ⊗ ! ! !
Guide-Word Process Hazards Analysis ✔ " " ! ! !
Option IS Strategies l ✔ ✓ ⊗ ! ! ! ⊗
Generation
P2 Strategies l ✓ ✔ ⊗ ! ! ⊗ ⊗
Solvent Selection Guide ✔ ✔ ✓ ! ! ⊗ " "
Process Option Generation Tool* ✔ ✔ ! ! ! ! ⊗
Brainstorming ✔ ✔ ✔ ! ! ! ! ⊗
Option Dow/Mond Index ✔ ⊗ ! ! ⊗ "
Evaluation
Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA) ✔ " " ⊗ ! !
and Decision
Support Fault Tree Analysis ✔ ✓ " " " ! !
Total Cost Assessment ✓ ✔ ⊗ ⊗ ! ! !
Inherent SHE Performance Index* ✔ ✔ " ⊗ ! ! ⊗

* Tools from the INSIDE Project ✔ Typical Use ! High Applicability

l Minimization, Moderation, Substitution, Simplification ✓ Also Useful ⊗ Moderate Applicability
l Minimization, Recycle/Reuse, Alternative Waste Treatment " Seldom Applied

■ Figure 5. Applicability of EHS tools.

include thinklists and brainstorming. All of the inquiry tools across Europe and to develop tools to enable chemists and
offer a somewhat different approach. Suitability usually de- engineers to optimize processes and designs using the “inher-
pends on organizational structure, project size, the develop- ent” principles (4).] Some tools are capable of defining very
ment process and stage of development, and business culture. explicit options (e.g., the Solvent Selection Guide), while
Thinklists are knowledge-based and are typically used to others provide broader guidance in channeling thinking. No-
evaluate a specific system design, but they can also be used in table by their absence are tools specifically focusing on
early stages of new process creation to eliminate safety and health impacts — health impacts tend to be included within
environmental hazards identified through years of operation tools designed to address environmental or safety concerns.
of similar systems. The analysis involves the use of a list of The Process Options Generation Tool (Inherent SHE Tool
specific items to identify known types of hazards, design de- B) provides both guide-word prompt lists and a thinklist (for sit-
ficiencies and potential accident situations associated with uations where there are no flowsheets) to motivate creative
common process equipment and operations (1). thinking on inherent EHS strategies. The purpose is to rigorous-
Brainstorming is a facilitated, relatively informal (al- ly challenge route and process alternatives in order to obtain a
though not totally unstructured) interaction involving small to process that inherently has fewer adverse EHS impacts (3, 4).
medium-sized groups (2). Brainstorming uses the synergy of The Solvent Selection Guide ranks solvents according to
group dynamics, coupled with the ingenuity of each partici- their inherent EHS hazards through a scoring scheme based
pant, to generate a set of ideas better than what could have on four categories of factors, including waste, impact, health
been achieved by each person working alone. and safety. Each solvent is rated and given a numerical score
Option generation tools are geared toward helping to under the four key categories (5). The prime objective is to
identify options for minimizing environmental, safety or provide guidance to chemists for selection of solvents based
health impacts. Tools that may be particularly useful for inte- on their inherent EHS issues, taking into account a variety of
grated EHS evaluation include the Solvent Selection Guide general and specific process and facility considerations.
developed by GlaxoSmithKline and the Process Options Option evaluation and decision support tools help the
Generation Tool developed by the Integrated SHE in Design design team choose among alternatives and perform evalua-
(INSIDE) Project (3, 4). [The INSIDE Project was a major tions against established criteria, as well as assist in the over-
undertaking co-funded by the European Community and in- all decision-making process. Tools in this category include
dustry, the objectives of which were to promote the use of in- indices such as the Reaction Hazards Index and cost analyses
herent safety, health and environmental (SHE) protection such as Total Cost Assessment. Of particular note is the In-

30 www.cepmagazine.org February 2002 CEP

herent SHE Performance Index (INSET Toolkit) developed should not be viewed as an inflexible set of requirements.
specifically for integrated EHS evaluations. The fundamental principles will remain constant, but the
The Reaction Hazards Index provides an estimation of the resource components and the implementation elements will
risk of occurrence of runaway reaction, but not the magnitude be different for each situation.
of the consequences. It is based on the exothermic level of The starting point is deciding what the enhanced process
the reaction and is relatively simple to use. It provides both development process is supposed to achieve. This may in-
penalties for risk factors (for example, the biggest penalty is volve both primary and secondary requirements. Primary re-
for a batch process) and credits for safety factors (such as a quirements might be to ensure that EHS issues are addressed
reliable stirring system) (6). concurrently and early so that the process is ready for startup
Total Cost Assessment is designed to quantify all environ- on schedule and performance is sustained during operations.
mental and health costs, both internal and external, associated A secondary requirement could be to ensure that specific reg-
with a business decision. The methodology is based on a life- ulatory requirements (such as a process hazards analysis) are
cycle context and was designed to provide a disciplined and completed at appropriate times.
standardized approach to improve business decisions by bet- After the objectives have been identified, the next steps in-
ter evaluating the complete range of potential environmental volve designing the critical links between the process devel-
and health costs (7). Because cost metrics are used, it is read- opment process and the EHS integration. These will include
ily understood by decision-makers. the criteria to be used at various stage-gates. The expertise
The Inherent SHE Performance Index (Inherent SHE Tool needed for each stage must also be delivered, whether in per-
I) is a bundle of index tools that covers all of the various EHS son or through tools and training. This may require changing
practice areas (3, 4). One practical advantage of tools that are the staffing mix for the process development team and/or
tailored to a single EHS discipline is their ready availability training staff on various tools that effectively bring EHS
for different development stages. knowledge into the evaluation and decision-making process.
Some tools are generic and can be applied to all stages, Interim arrangements (e.g., additional internal or external re-
while others are stage-specific. Figure 5 illustrates the appli- sources) may be required until certain tools or training efforts
cability of just a few tools to the various development stages are complete, and until the MERITT approach becomes the
and indicates the EHS discipline(s) in which they have tradi- normal way of doing things.
tionally been used. Some tools (e.g., what-if analysis and To get the most value from the MERITT approach, a com-
thinklists) are generally applicable at almost any stage, but pany usually must modify and tailor its existing process de-
work best during certain stages depending on the level of in- velopment practices. Such modifications may include:
formation available. Other tools (e.g., the Solvent Selection • integrating inputs at stage-gates and/or milestones; the
Guide) were developed specifically to be used during the ear- inputs will not be the same for each stage-gate, but there
lier stages of process creation. should be EHS integration efforts at each stage-gate
Most of the existing tools that might be considered for use • identifying minimum expectations for the involvement
with the MERITT approach were developed for a single EHS of EHS expertise and reviews (i.e., applications of tools) at
discipline or practice area. For example, the hazard and oper- different stages, just as some level of cost estimate is typical-
ability (HAZOP) study (a type of guide-word process hazard ly required at most stages
analysis (1)) was initially developed to identify process safety • adding sign-offs or checklist items related to EHS inte-
issues that need to be addressed by the project design team. gration for each stage or milestone, just as they exist for engi-
Likewise, there are various environmental indices that were neering or finance
developed to evaluate design alternatives based on environ- • including an overview of MERITT concepts in project
mental worthiness. manager training; specific training on tools will also be needed
However, the fact that some of these were originally sin- • publicizing a listing of contacts and resources to assist
gle-purpose tools does not necessarily limit their use to a sin- project managers and other team members
gle practice area. Many of the tools can and have been used • changing project management metrics and their tracking
for some or all of the EHS disciplines. Most tools have char- system to include integrated metrics
acteristics that fit more than one category. Furthermore, by • adding MERITT to the topics of discussion at project
appropriate modification, some of these tools can be trans- meetings to ensure that it is an integral and ongoing part of
formed into a truly integrated MERITT tool. the design process.
The most effective means to institute these changes will
Implementation vary from company to company, but must reflect each or-
Just as the process development cycle varies depending ganization’s culture.
on the nature and magnitude of the project, so should the “Show-me” cultures. In many companies, it will be im-
application of the MERITT approach. The various ele- portant to have a phased rollout, so that success can be
ments should be applied only to the level of detail needed demonstrated internally before widespread adoption occurs.
to realize the desired benefits. The MERITT technique First the MERITT approach is implemented on a limited

CEP February 2002 www.cepmagazine.org 31

Integrating EHS

basis and company-specific evidence showing the value of ance of a one-shot wonder), the believers need to start a care-
integrating EHS into the existing process development pro- ful communication campaign that reaches out to senior man-
cess is gathered. The champion(s) will then need to present agement as well as those with various project responsibilities.
these success stories to top management. At this point, the This will provide both a push and a pull on the organization
MERITT-influenced development process can be turned into and should help ensure greater support and buy-in. Parallel
an overall policy or a corporate-wide approach. efforts to develop tools and offer training will help ensure
Command-and-control cultures. In these companies, an that potential obstacles are minimized before someone has
immediate and total change will be necessary to reinforce the the opportunity to say that they are insurmountable.
message that “This is how things are going to be done, no Regardless of the company’s culture, implementation will
questions asked.” This can be true in countries where em- be more successful if the approach has been reviewed by rep-
ployees always look to their bosses for direction or in compa- resentatives of those groups who will be affected by it (the
nies or countries where there are rigid rules and guidelines stakeholders). During these reviews, most project managers
for all business processes. Full-scale adoption can also work and team members will share some concerns about merging
when many processes are being changed as a result of a MERITT into the existing process development process.
merger, a major event like a turnaround, a catastrophic event However, the basic role of the project manager (and the over-
or traumatic experience, or even a new training program. all team) will not change, and this should be emphasized in
Companies that really resist any kind of change to the status communications. The staff will still drive the day-to-day pro-
quo will also occasionally be more likely to adopt a rapid and cess, but those staff may change slightly and may include
mandatory change than an evolutionary one, especially if others in addition to engineers and chemists. The role of the
their future viability is on the line. manager will still be to monitor performance and make sure
“Guerilla MERITT.” In yet other companies, there may that appropriate resources are available — albeit a wider
be a small cadre of believers, but no initial top-down support. range of resources and tools.
Here it is important to find a process development team that Emphasize that the changes in EHS activities will result in
can demonstrate the benefits. The MERITT process and all benefits later — there should ultimately be savings in EHS
the benefits and lessons learned should be documented. work, not an increase. The use of tools instead of EHS staff
Based on this information, the approach is refined and addi- in various stages can also help ease workload concerns.
tional pilot opportunities are sought. Once compelling stories Take advantage of external examples that demonstrate
can be told for several different projects (to avoid the appear- the benefits of using the MERITT approach versus some
of the pitfalls associated with using uncoordinated, se-
quential, individual E , H and S reviews. Share any experi-
Literature Cited ence with these pitfalls that you may have. Then as inter-
nal successes occur, promote them and include them in
1. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, “Guidelines for Haz-
ard Evaluation Procedures,” AIChE Center for Chemical Process
training materials. CEP

Safety, New York, NY (1992).

2. Pojasek, R. B., “Identifying P2 Alternatives with Brainstorming and
Brainwriting,” Pollution Prevention Review, 6 (4), pp. 93–97 (Au- For Additional Details
tumn 1996).
3. Mansfield, D., “INSET Toolkit Stages III and IV — Process Front This article is based on the book “Making EHS an Integral Part of Process De-
sign,” written by Arthur D. Little, Inc. and published by the American Institute
End and Detailed Design,” presented at the Conference on Inherent of Chemical Engineers. To order the book (hardcover, 164 pages, $85.00, Pub-
SHE: The Cost Effective Route to Improved Safety, Health and Envi- lication C-19, ISBN 0-8169-0848-6), call 1-800-AIChemE (1-800-242-4363)
ronmental Performance, sponsored by the INSIDE Project and IBC or go to AIChE’s online publications catalog at www.aiche.org/pubcat. For in-
Conferences, Ltd., London (June 16–17, 1997). formation about AIChE’s Center for Waste Reduction Technologies, contact Jo
Rogers, CWRT Director, at [email protected] or (212) 591-7727. For infor-
4. Mansfield, D., “The INSIDE Project — Inherent SHE in Design,” mation about AIChE’s Center for Chemical Process Safety, contact Scott Berg-
presented at the Conference on Inherent SHE: The Cost Effective er, CCPS Senior Manager, at [email protected] or (212) 591-7237.
Route to Improved Safety, Health and Environmental Performance,
sponsored by the INSIDE Project and IBC Conferences, Ltd., Lon-
don (June 16–17, 1997).
LISA BENDIXEN is a principal in Arthur D. Little, Inc.’s Global Environment & Risk
5. Curzons, A., et al., “Solvent Selection Guide: A Guide to the Inte-
Practice (Acorn Park — 15W/214A, Cambridge, MA 02140; Phone: (617) 498-
gration of Environmental, Health, and Safety Criteria into Solvent
6120; Fax: (617) 498-7019; E-mail: [email protected]). Her areas of
Selection,” Clean Products and Processes, I (2), pp. 82–90 (1997). responsibility include risk assessment, risk management, process safety, EHS
6. Vilchez, J. A., and J. Casals, “Hazard Index for Runaway Reac- management systems, and risk-based decision-making. She has authored the
tions,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 4, pp. Center for Chemical Process Safety’s “Guidelines for Chemical Transportation
125–127 (1991). Risk Analysis” and “Guidelines for Integrating Process Safety Management,
7. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, “Total Cost Assess- Environment, Safety, Health and Quality.” She holds an SB in applied
ment Methodology Manual,” AIChE Center for Waste Reduction mathematics and an SM in operations research from the Massachusetts Institute
Technology, New York, NY (June 1999). of Technology. She is a member of CCPS’s Technical Steering Committee and is a
past chair of ASME’s Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis Division.

32 www.cepmagazine.org February 2002 CEP