Appendix A

Inherently Safer Technology Checklist

The following procedure is used to answer each ISD Evaluation Checklist item:

1. Determine the applicability of the item to the process being reviewed.

Indicate “Y” or “N” in the appropriate column to indicate applicability.
2. If an item is applicable to the process under review, determine whether
there are any ISD opportunities or applications available that could
potentially reduce the risk (consequences and/or likelihood) of an
accidental or intentional release. If an ISD opportunity is identified, it
should be described in the Opportunities/Applications Column. If no new
ISD opportunities are identified, this is noted in the Opportunities/
Applications column with supporting information, including general
references to existing safeguards and ISD already implemented, where
applicable.
3. If an ISD opportunity is identified, a screening evaluation of the alternative
should be performed by the review team and the results summarized in the
Feasibility column. If the ISD alternative is determined to be infeasible
(due to cost, technology limitations, security, operability, safety, or other
factors), this decision is noted as such along with supporting information,
including general references to existing safeguards and ISD already
implemented, where applicable. The current status of the opportunity (e.g.,
“to be evaluated further,” “evaluation in-progress,” “implementation in-
progress,” etc.) is documented in the “Current Status” column.
4. If an ISD opportunity is deemed potentially feasible, a recommendation for
further evaluation or implementation is made by the team and entered in
the “Recommendations” column.
While proceeding through the ISD review checklist, existing safeguards are
reviewed for each ISD alternative determined to be infeasible. In some cases, the

293
294 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES

checklist suggests Layers of Protection (Safeguards), which can be active, passive, or

procedural. Credible safeguards designed to prevent, detect, or mitigate a hazard may be
as effective as implementing ISD alternatives. For security issues, countermeasures can
be detection, deterrence, delay, or response. Definitions and examples of safeguards
reviewed include:
• Active - Using controls, alarms, safety instrumented systems (SISs),
and mitigation systems to detect and respond to process deviations
from normal operation. Examples: High level, temperature, and flow
SISs, atmospheric sensors with automatic shutdowns, and pressure
relief systems. Active safeguards require external inputs to function,
such as electrical power.
• Passive - Minimize the hazard by process and equipment design
features which reduce either the frequency or consequences of the
hazard without the active functioning of any device. Examples: dikes,
containment buildings. Passive safeguards do not require external
inputs to function.
• Procedural - Using human response in the form of operating
procedures, administrative checks, and emergency response.
Examples: emergency shutdown or emergency response procedures,
operator checks and corrective actions.
In general, supporting information for rejection of inherently safer design
alternatives should include the presence and adequacy of existing safeguards
combined with cost, operability, or other issues that reduce the feasibility of
implementing the inherently safer options.

SOURCES FOR THIS APPENDIX

1. AcuTech Consulting Group (2007). ISD Checklist.

2. Contra Costa County, CA, Industrial Safety Ordinance (September 12, 2002)
IST Evaluation Checklist 1-06, Revision 0.
3. Hendershot, D.C. (2000). Process minimization: Making plants safer.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 30 (1), 35-40.
4. Center for Chemical Process Safety (1998). Guidelines for Design Solutions
for Process Equipment Failures. New York: CCPS/AIChE.
5. Stankiewicz, A. and Moulijn, J.A. (Eds.) (2004). Re-Engineering the
Chemical Processing Plant: Process Intensification. New York: Marcel
Dekker.
6. Kletz, T. A. (1998) Process Plants: A Handbook for Inherently Safer
Design. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, 1998.
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 295
296 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 297
298 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 299
300 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 301
302 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 303
304 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 305
306 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 307
308 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 309
310 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 311
312 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 313
314 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 315
316 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 317
318 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 319
320 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 321
322 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 323
324 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 325
326 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 327
328 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX A. IS TECHNOLOGY CHECKLIST 329
330 INHERENTLY SAFER CHEMICAL PROCESSES