Are we too risk-averse for inherent safety? An examination of current status and barriers to adoption

T he inherent safety (IS) philosophy and its practice in inherently safer design (ISD) are described. The aim is to avoid or minimize hazards by substitution of benign materials, moderation of conditions and simplification of operations in process plant. This common sense approach is becoming common knowledge but it is not yet common practice, although some IS plants exist. Production trends in the industry together with an increasing aversion to taking business risks with new ideas in the current competitive environment are militating against further uptake of ISD. Such risk aversion can manifest in many forms including: process development traditions (particularly for fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals), project assessment methods and preoccupation with new product speed to market and protection of existing market share. There are no regulatory 'sticks' or incentives Zn lives to overcome this risk aversion and no reason for the industry to improve its already good safety performance. The industry might not want to make too much of the undoubted benefits of IS, if this might result in pressure for costly revamps to existing plant. Strategies for increasing uptake of IS may be described as by: persuasion, incentives and regulation. The economic benefits of IS are many and follow easily from the fundamentals of ISD but the industry is extremely reticent about acknowledging actual achievements. Other benefits might seem obvious but not to the industry, it seems. Incentives might need to be funded by government. IS has begun to appear in legislation in the USA and it behoves companies to anticipate future legislation by putting IS into practice now. In order that risks of accidents are not exported, a global industry-led body is needed to set global standards. This might particularly ease the uptake of IS, as might the education and encouragement of young engineers to use IS.