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
by AIChE’s Center for Waste Reduction Tech-
nologies and Center for Chemical Process Safe-
ty called MERITT (Maximizing EHS Returns
by Integrating Tools and Talents), which re-
gn
volves around critical components of pollution
prevention (P2), inherent safety (IS), green
chemistry (GC) and related paradigms. It out-
lines a basic framework for integrating P2, IS
and GC and explains the various tools that can
be used for this.
Evaluating E, H and S separately
Several environmental-, health- or safety-
focused paradigms have been developed that are
intended for use earlier in the design process than
the typical compliance-based reviews. Pollution
prevention, inherent safety and green chemistry
are the most common; design for the environment
(DfE) and green technology (GT) are also well
known. They share certain common principles
and have some overlap in their coverage of EHS
issues, as indicated in Figure 1, yet are practiced
separately with very little interaction. This gener-
ally results in duplication of effort or inefficient
application of the disciplines to the product devel-
opment and design process.
Pollution prevention promotes substitution,
recycling and reuse to eliminate or reduce envi-
ronmental effects. For example, the manufac-
ture of chloroacetylchloride (CAC) was modi-
fied with improved cooling via refrigeration,
and the lower reaction temperature decreased
the production of byproducts and increased the
yield of CAC. This change resulted in waste re-
duction of 1.8 million lb/yr and the project
broke even in less than a year.
Inherent safety advocates strategies of mini-
mize, moderate, simplify and substitute in order to
reduce or eliminate safety hazards. For example,
a change in water treatment from chlorine to
hypochlorite can eliminate the need to transport,
store and handle chlorine. If chlorine is the only
high-hazard material on the site, a change to
hypochlorite can also affect processs safety man-
agement requirements.
Green chemistry strives to minimize the EHS
effects of processes by addressing fundamental
chemistry. For example, the synthesis of ibupro-
fen was changed from a 6-step process to a 3-step
process. Step 1 minimizes waste via recycling
with greater than 99.9% efficiency. Steps 2 and 3
are both solvent-free and have efficiencies of
98%. The resulting process is more cost-effective
and produces a higher-quality product.
Phases of product
and process development
There are four key phases in a typical product
development or process design sequence:
1. Research and development. Researchers cre-
ate a product using the materials they typically have
available and that they know “get the job done.”
This generally includes materials such as benzene,
methylene chloride, reactive reagents, water for
scrubbing and cooling, and so on. Some issues as-
sociated with the choice of materials are often not
considered. The typical stages within this phase are
Discovery, Concept Initiation, Process Chemistry,
and Process Development or Definition.
2. Project implementation. Process engineers
design the process based on the equipment that
they know gets the job done, while trying to mini-
mize capital and operating costs and maximize
production rates. This may lead to reusing existing
equipment, regardless of some of the associated
safety and environmental issues. This stage also in-
volves equipment procurement and construction
activities. The typical stages within this phase are
Basic Process Engineering, Detailed Engineer-
ing/Design, and Construction and Commissioning.
3. Production. At this point, the new process is
operated, maintained, modified and optimized by
the site organization. This is also known as the
Operations stage.
4. Post-production. This involves shutting
down, decontaminating, mothballing and/or dis-
assembling the plant.
An earlier consideration of EHS issues during
several of these phases, particularly concept initi-
ation, process chemistry and process development
or definition in the R&D phase, and basic process
engineering and detailed engineering/design in
the project implementation phase, can have sig-
nificant payoffs. However, the present practice is
to conduct reviews of the different E, H and S dis-
ciplines independently in the later lifecycle
stages, as indicated in the table.
There are many opportunities for earlier in-
volvement of the various disciplines. This need
not always involve the addition of more people to
design and development teams — it is only nec-
essary to capture their knowledge or perspective.
This can be accomplished by additional training
of chemists and design professionals, the applica-
tion of tools that highlight critical aspects of EHS
thinking, or brief consultations by EHS staff.
As a project moves through the development
stages, process materials, operating conditions,
equipment requirements and control parameters be-
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
of latitude in the nature and content of the resource compo-
nents and in how tactics are developed. Indeed, these
should be crafted to meet the specific needs of each enter-
prise. It is only necessary that they exist in one workable
form or another.
The five steps comprising the implementation elements
provide a format for conducting EHS evaluations within
the existing development process. These steps are shown in
the center boxes of Figure 4, which illustrates how the
steps are linked.
The first (Establishing the Basis) and last (Reconciling
Issues and Decision-Making) implementation elements
MERITT tools are designed to help chemists, scientists
and engineers address EHS issues in an integrated way dur-
ing process selection, development, design and implementa-
tion. The tools are intended to supplement a company’s own
procedures and processes for addressing P2, IS, GC and sim-
ilar considerations. Tools are one way of making EHS knowl-
edge and experience available to projects without adding
more staff to existing teams. Three types of tools are re-
quired: inquiry tools, option generation tools, and option
evaluation and decision support tools.
Inquiry tools are used to coordinate and facilitate investi-
gations, evaluations and group discussions, as well as indi-
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
offer a somewhat different approach. Suitability usually de-
pends on organizational structure, project size, the develop-
ment process and stage of development, and business culture.
Thinklists are knowledge-based and are typically used to
evaluate a specific system design, but they can also be used in
early stages of new process creation to eliminate safety and
environmental hazards identified through years of operation
of similar systems. The analysis involves the use of a list of
specific items to identify known types of hazards, design de-
ficiencies and potential accident situations associated with
common process equipment and operations (1).
Brainstorming is a facilitated, relatively informal (al-
though not totally unstructured) interaction involving small to
medium-sized groups (2). Brainstorming uses the synergy of
group dynamics, coupled with the ingenuity of each partici-
pant, to generate a set of ideas better than what could have
been achieved by each person working alone.
Option generation tools are geared toward helping to
identify options for minimizing environmental, safety or
health impacts. Tools that may be particularly useful for inte-
grated EHS evaluation include the Solvent Selection Guide
developed by GlaxoSmithKline and the Process Options
Generation Tool developed by the Integrated SHE in Design
(INSIDE) Project (3, 4). [The INSIDE Project was a major
undertaking co-funded by the European Community and in-
dustry, the objectives of which were to promote the use of in-
herent safety, health and environmental (SHE) protection
across Europe and to develop tools to enable chemists and
engineers to optimize processes and designs using the “inher-
ent” principles (4).] Some tools are capable of defining very
explicit options (e.g., the Solvent Selection Guide), while
others provide broader guidance in channeling thinking. No-
table by their absence are tools specifically focusing on
health impacts — health impacts tend to be included within
tools designed to address environmental or safety concerns.
The Process Options Generation Tool (Inherent SHE Tool
B) provides both guide-word prompt lists and a thinklist (for sit-
uations where there are no flowsheets) to motivate creative
thinking on inherent EHS strategies. The purpose is to rigorous-
ly challenge route and process alternatives in order to obtain a
process that inherently has fewer adverse EHS impacts (3, 4).
The Solvent Selection Guide ranks solvents according to
their inherent EHS hazards through a scoring scheme based
on four categories of factors, including waste, impact, health
and safety. Each solvent is rated and given a numerical score
under the four key categories (5). The prime objective is to
provide guidance to chemists for selection of solvents based
on their inherent EHS issues, taking into account a variety of
general and specific process and facility considerations.
Option evaluation and decision support tools help the
design team choose among alternatives and perform evalua-
tions against established criteria, as well as assist in the over-
all decision-making process. Tools in this category include
indices such as the Reaction Hazards Index and cost analyses
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
specifically for integrated EHS evaluations.
The Reaction Hazards Index provides an estimation of the
risk of occurrence of runaway reaction, but not the magnitude
of the consequences. It is based on the exothermic level of
the reaction and is relatively simple to use. It provides both
penalties for risk factors (for example, the biggest penalty is
for a batch process) and credits for safety factors (such as a
reliable stirring system) (6).
Total Cost Assessment is designed to quantify all environ-
mental and health costs, both internal and external, associated
with a business decision. The methodology is based on a life-
cycle context and was designed to provide a disciplined and
standardized approach to improve business decisions by bet-
ter evaluating the complete range of potential environmental
and health costs (7). Because cost metrics are used, it is read-
ily understood by decision-makers.
The Inherent SHE Performance Index (Inherent SHE Tool
I) is a bundle of index tools that covers all of the various EHS
practice areas (3, 4). One practical advantage of tools that are
tailored to a single EHS discipline is their ready availability
for different development stages.
Some tools are generic and can be applied to all stages,
while others are stage-specific. Figure 5 illustrates the appli-
cability of just a few tools to the various development stages
and indicates the EHS discipline(s) in which they have tradi-
tionally been used. Some tools (e.g., what-if analysis and
thinklists) are generally applicable at almost any stage, but
work best during certain stages depending on the level of in-
formation available. Other tools (e.g., the Solvent Selection
Guide) were developed specifically to be used during the ear-
lier stages of process creation.
Most of the existing tools that might be considered for use
with the MERITT approach were developed for a single EHS
discipline or practice area. For example, the hazard and oper-
ability (HAZOP) study (a type of guide-word process hazard
analysis (1)) was initially developed to identify process safety
issues that need to be addressed by the project design team.
Likewise, there are various environmental indices that were
developed to evaluate design alternatives based on environ-
mental worthiness.
However, the fact that some of these were originally sin-
gle-purpose tools does not necessarily limit their use to a sin-
gle practice area. Many of the tools can and have been used
for some or all of the EHS disciplines. Most tools have char-
acteristics that fit more than one category. Furthermore, by
appropriate modification, some of these tools can be trans-
formed into a truly integrated MERITT tool.
Implementation
Just as the process development cycle varies depending
on the nature and magnitude of the project, so should the
application of the MERITT approach. The various ele-
ments should be applied only to the level of detail needed
to realize the desired benefits. The MERITT technique
should not be viewed as an inflexible set of requirements.
The fundamental principles will remain constant, but the
resource components and the implementation elements will
be different for each situation.
The starting point is deciding what the enhanced process
development process is supposed to achieve. This may in-
volve both primary and secondary requirements. Primary re-
quirements might be to ensure that EHS issues are addressed
concurrently and early so that the process is ready for startup
on schedule and performance is sustained during operations.
A secondary requirement could be to ensure that specific reg-
ulatory requirements (such as a process hazards analysis) are
completed at appropriate times.
After the objectives have been identified, the next steps in-
volve designing the critical links between the process devel-
opment process and the EHS integration. These will include
the criteria to be used at various stage-gates. The expertise
needed for each stage must also be delivered, whether in per-
son or through tools and training. This may require changing
the staffing mix for the process development team and/or
training staff on various tools that effectively bring EHS
knowledge into the evaluation and decision-making process.
Interim arrangements (e.g., additional internal or external re-
sources) may be required until certain tools or training efforts
are complete, and until the MERITT approach becomes the
normal way of doing things.
To get the most value from the MERITT approach, a com-
pany usually must modify and tailor its existing process de-
velopment practices. Such modifications may include:
• integrating inputs at stage-gates and/or milestones; the
inputs will not be the same for each stage-gate, but there
should be EHS integration efforts at each stage-gate
• identifying minimum expectations for the involvement
of EHS expertise and reviews (i.e., applications of tools) at
different stages, just as some level of cost estimate is typical-
ly required at most stages
• adding sign-offs or checklist items related to EHS inte-
gration for each stage or milestone, just as they exist for engi-
neering or finance
• including an overview of MERITT concepts in project
manager training; specific training on tools will also be needed
• publicizing a listing of contacts and resources to assist
project managers and other team members
• changing project management metrics and their tracking
system to include integrated metrics
• adding MERITT to the topics of discussion at project
meetings to ensure that it is an integral and ongoing part of
the design process.
The most effective means to institute these changes will
vary from company to company, but must reflect each or-
ganization’s culture.
“Show-me” cultures. In many companies, it will be im-
portant to have a phased rollout, so that success can be
demonstrated internally before widespread adoption occurs.
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
integrating EHS into the existing process development pro-
cess is gathered. The champion(s) will then need to present
these success stories to top management. At this point, the
MERITT-influenced development process can be turned into
an overall policy or a corporate-wide approach.
Command-and-control cultures. In these companies, an
immediate and total change will be necessary to reinforce the
message that “This is how things are going to be done, no
questions asked.” This can be true in countries where em-
ployees always look to their bosses for direction or in compa-
nies or countries where there are rigid rules and guidelines
for all business processes. Full-scale adoption can also work
when many processes are being changed as a result of a
merger, a major event like a turnaround, a catastrophic event
or traumatic experience, or even a new training program.
Companies that really resist any kind of change to the status
quo will also occasionally be more likely to adopt a rapid and
mandatory change than an evolutionary one, especially if
their future viability is on the line.
“Guerilla MERITT.” In yet other companies, there may
be a small cadre of believers, but no initial top-down support.
Here it is important to find a process development team that
can demonstrate the benefits. The MERITT process and all
the benefits and lessons learned should be documented.
Based on this information, the approach is refined and addi-
tional pilot opportunities are sought. Once compelling stories
can be told for several different projects (to avoid the appear-
Literature Cited
1. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, “Guidelines for Haz-
ard Evaluation Procedures,” AIChE Center for Chemical Process
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-
tumn 1996).
3. Mansfield, D., “INSET Toolkit Stages III and IV — Process Front
End and Detailed Design,” presented at the Conference on Inherent
SHE: The Cost Effective Route to Improved Safety, Health and Envi-
ronmental Performance, sponsored by the INSIDE Project and IBC
Conferences, Ltd., London (June 16–17, 1997).
4. Mansfield, D., “The INSIDE Project — Inherent SHE in Design,”
presented at the Conference on Inherent SHE: The Cost Effective
Route to Improved Safety, Health and Environmental Performance,
sponsored by the INSIDE Project and IBC Conferences, Ltd., Lon-
don (June 16–17, 1997).
5. Curzons, A., et al., “Solvent Selection Guide: A Guide to the Inte-
gration of Environmental, Health, and Safety Criteria into Solvent
Selection,” Clean Products and Processes, I (2), pp. 82–90 (1997).
6. Vilchez, J. A., and J. Casals, “Hazard Index for Runaway Reac-
tions,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 4, pp.
125–127 (1991).
7. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, “Total Cost Assess-
ment Methodology Manual,” AIChE Center for Waste Reduction
Technology, New York, NY (June 1999).
32 www.cepmagazine.org February 2002 CEP
ance of a one-shot wonder), the believers need to start a care-
ful communication campaign that reaches out to senior man-
agement as well as those with various project responsibilities.
This will provide both a push and a pull on the organization
and should help ensure greater support and buy-in. Parallel
efforts to develop tools and offer training will help ensure
that potential obstacles are minimized before someone has
the opportunity to say that they are insurmountable.
Regardless of the company’s culture, implementation will
be more successful if the approach has been reviewed by rep-
resentatives of those groups who will be affected by it (the
stakeholders). During these reviews, most project managers
and team members will share some concerns about merging
MERITT into the existing process development process.
However, the basic role of the project manager (and the over-
all team) will not change, and this should be emphasized in
communications. The staff will still drive the day-to-day pro-
cess, but those staff may change slightly and may include
others in addition to engineers and chemists. The role of the
manager will still be to monitor performance and make sure
that appropriate resources are available — albeit a wider
range of resources and tools.
Emphasize that the changes in EHS activities will result in
benefits later — there should ultimately be savings in EHS
work, not an increase. The use of tools instead of EHS staff
in various stages can also help ease workload concerns.
Take advantage of external examples that demonstrate
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-
ence with these pitfalls that you may have. Then as inter-
nal successes occur, promote them and include them in
training materials. CEP
For Additional Details
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
of Chemical Engineers. To order the book (hardcover, 164 pages, $85.00, Pub-
lication C-19, ISBN 0-8169-0848-6), call 1-800-AIChemE (1-800-242-4363)
or go to AIChE’s online publications catalog at www.aiche.org/pubcat. For in-
formation about AIChE’s Center for Waste Reduction Technologies, contact Jo
Rogers, CWRT Director, at jorogers@aiche.org or (212) 591-7727. For infor-
mation about AIChE’s Center for Chemical Process Safety, contact Scott Berg-
er, CCPS Senior Manager, at scotb@aiche.org or (212) 591-7237.
LISA BENDIXEN is a principal in Arthur D. Little, Inc.’s Global Environment & Risk
Practice (Acorn Park — 15W/214A, Cambridge, MA 02140; Phone: (617) 498-
6120; Fax: (617) 498-7019; E-mail: bendixen.l@adlittle.com). Her areas of
responsibility include risk assessment, risk management, process safety, EHS
management systems, and risk-based decision-making. She has authored the
Center for Chemical Process Safety’s “Guidelines for Chemical Transportation
Risk Analysis” and “Guidelines for Integrating Process Safety Management,
Environment, Safety, Health and Quality.” She holds an SB in applied
mathematics and an SM in operations research from the Massachusetts Institute
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.