Computers and Chemical Engineering 23 (1999) 1469 – 1475

www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Environmental criteria in design

Paul Sharratt
En6ironmental Technology Centre, UMIST, Manchester, UK

Accepted 20 September 1999

Abstract

The representation of process environmental performance in the modelling of chemical processes is considered. The wide range
of environmental effects associated with chemical processes is discussed. Selection of appropriate representations depends on the
stage of design, the effects to be considered and the nature of the design decisions to be supported. The objective of the paper
is to provide guidelines for the modeller to support the selection of appropriate measures of environmental performance. © 1999
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environment; Performance measures; Process models

1. Introduction legislative frameworks or enhanced understanding of

Environmental performance is a central consider-
ation in the design and operation of chemical and other
process plants. It is thus natural to wish to take account
of environmental considerations when using computers
to carry out process engineering calculations. However,
the highly complex nature of environmental effects
makes it difficult to link environmental and design
calculations with either sufficient scope or detail. This
paper explores the links between (chemical) process
design and the environment, providing guidance in the
design and selection of appropriate representations of
environmental performance. In particular, emphasis
will be placed on issues related to the simulation of
whole processes.
An increasing understanding of the interaction of
human activity and the environment has driven rapid
development of regulations at local, national and global
levels. Whereas in the past laws used to deal directly
with environmental problems (for example through the
application of concentration discharge limits at a plant
boundary) they are becoming broader in their scope.
For example, UK legislation (HM Government, 1995)
requires the regulators to work towards the achieve-
ment of sustainable development. Industrial design
practice has necessarily followed legal requirements.
However, the process modelling community has often
been slow to adapt their activities to match either new
environmental matters.
The nature of the main interactions of the process
industries and environmental issues is illustrated sche-
matically in Fig. 1. The process industries use natural
resources for products that are ultimately used to meet
human needs. In doing this, the primary environmental
concerns are depletion of resources and the release of
materials to the environment. These releases may lead
to impacts - harm to fauna and flora for example.
While other environmental concerns could be identified
(noise, visual intrusion, land use etc.) it could reason-
ably be argued that at present the contribution of the
process industries to these effects is limited compared
with other human activities. Similarly, maintenance and
end-of-life decommissioning in the chemical process
industries (at least for processes operated to current
best-practice standards) will in most cases represent
only minor effects.
Releases to the environment can clearly have a great
range of effects. In order to simplify the situation it is
useful to note that all effects can in principle be linked
to the concentration, dispersion and persistence of ma-
terials in the environment. Thus, it is important to
understand to what extent materials will accumulate.
At one extreme of behaviour are materials that are not
degradable and thus accumulate. At the other extreme
are highly degradable materials that will quickly reach
an essentially steady level in the environment as their

0098-1354/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 9 8 - 1 3 5 4 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 3 0 5 - 1
1470 P. Sharratt / Computers and Chemical Engineering 23 (1999) 1469–1475
rate of release is balanced by their destruction. Envi-
ronmental impacts may arise through direct effect (e.g.
toxicity to organisms) or indirect effect (e.g. depletion
of river oxygen through biodegradation of released
materials). Steady concentrations of chemical species in
the environment may be either harmful or harmless.
The picture is further complicated by the spatial
dispersion of pollution. Pollution from a factory only
affects those areas to which it disperses. We must
consider both loads and concentrations in the context
of environmental receptors if we wish to have realistic
measures of the potential harm from releases.
The intermittency of some releases may also be rele-
vant in judging impact. Some planned releases are
intermittent - for example from batch processes. This
can lead to peak concentrations well above the mean.
Given that dose-response relationships are often
strongly non-linear (Jackson et al., 1991) short periods
of high concentration may have very different effects to
steady exposures to the same mean concentration. Ex-
amples include: odour; nuisance; as well as toxic re-
sponse (Jones & Griffiths 1983). An extreme form of
intermittency is the accidental or abnormal release. A
central difficulty in measuring the overall environmen-
tal impact from a given design is consideration of the
risk from accidents. The difficulty arises not only from
the stochastic nature of such events, but also problems
in quantifying the size of releases and the uncertainty of
their effects.
A broad perspective on environmental effects is pro-
vided by the use of life cycle analysis (LCA) (see for
example Vigon et al., 1993). This involves a mass and
energy balance round the production, use and disposal
of a given product or service. It can also be viewed as
a relationship between the rate of meeting human need
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the interaction of the process industries and the environment.
(i.e. for a product or service) and the rates of resource
use and environmental load generation. Social and
economic impacts of a process can also be considered
during LCA (Tillman, 1998). The life cycle boundary
marked in Fig. 1 could be seen as providing source
terms to an overall ‘balance sheet’ for the environment.
d
(Resources)= f(life cycle) (1)
dt
d
(environmental load)
dt
= g(life cycle)− environmental capacity (2)
d
(quality of life)= h(life cycle, environmental load)
dt
(3)
In Eq. (2), the ability of the environment to degrade
pollution is included. Eq. (3) recognises the link be-
tween quality of life and the presence of pollutants in
the environment. The integral over time of Eqs. (1)–(3)
for a process potentially provides a means of consider-
ing its sustainability. The balance of resource use and
benefit is an individual or societal judgement and is
clearly difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, it is clear that
society is increasingly demanding such consideration of
those who wish to implement new processes. It is
equally clear that a systems approach provides a means
of quantifying the tradeoffs that are being made in the
most fundamental of all design decisions - ‘should this
process be carried out at all?’
In summary, the environmental performance of a
process has a number of ‘dimensions’. The process
contributes to direct (associated with the process) and
indirect (associated with other parts of the life cycle)
 P. Sharratt / Computers and Chemical Engineering 23 (1999) 1469–1475
effects. The release of polluting materials can have
local, regional or global impacts. The timescale of an
impact may be short or extend over many years. Re-
leases may be intended (such as stacks) or accidental
(leaks and spills). Increasingly it is important to con-
sider not only the direct impacts of pollution, but also
efficiency of resource utilisation. Finally, human percep-
tion is important to such impacts as noise, visual intru-
sion and acceptance of risk. The impact of a process
thus depends not only on amounts of materials released
intentionally, but also on its location, social acceptance,
resource utilisation and risk of accident. The selection
of appropriate measures of performance to represent
environmental impact in design calculations depends
critically on these factors.
2. Environmental considerations in design
It is widely recognised that early consideration of
environmental matters during design is needed to ob-
tain good environmental performance at least cost. The
early stages of chemical process design - chemical route
selection and conceptual design - provide the greatest
opportunities for the identification of inherently clean
processes. These areas are difficult to support with
computer-based tools. The flexibility existing during
flowsheet development still allows some creativity to be
focused on environmental performance, and is an activ-
ity much better served with computer software. The
later stages of design (detailed design, layout etc.) tend
to have limited influence on environmental performance
if carried out competently.
2.1. Currently used design methods
The chemical process industries already use a wide
range of process analysis tools to identify, quantify and
control risks and problems in plant operation, safety
and environmental performance (Ohba, 1997). Broadly,
two separate sets of tools exist - methods for the
identification and quantification of abnormal situations
and methods for quantification of planned releases.
Identification of potential problems is relevant for
accidental and abnormal releases. Tools used have their
origins in process safety assessment, for example
HAZOP and FMEA (Kletz, 1992; CCPS, 1992). Quan-
titative risk assessment (QRA) techniques can then be
used to quantify the likelihood of undesired events and
outcomes (Kletz, 1992, Turney & Pitblado, 1996).
Tools have been developed to screen process designs for
possible accidents - for example the DOW index
method (DOW, 1976). Work is taking place to provide
similar methods to consider environmental risk (Cave &
Edwards, 1997).
1471
Methods to quantify planned release impacts have
mostly been driven by legislation. They include release
concentrations and rates (HMIP, 1993). Measures of
concentration at the environmental receptor play an
important part in the UK regulatory framework (UK
Environment Agency, 1997), and can readily be
adapted as boundary conditions for process design
problems. (Kiperstok & Sharratt, 1996; Kipersok &
Sharratt, 1997; Sharratt & Ogden, 1997)
Aggregation of releases to give a single measure of
performance has been used as a screening tool early in
the design process. ELF, waste ratio are examples (see
Table 1). Aggregation of release effects under impact
categories (e.g. global warming, aquatic BOD, toxicity)
has been used for environmental reporting (ICI, 1997)
and for process option comparison (Stefanis, Liv-
ingston & Pistikopoulos, 1995)
2.2. Selection of methods for CAPE applications
The selection of appropriate measures of environ-
mental performance for a process model will depend on
the nature of the environmental concerns, the type and
quality of information available and the degree of
accuracy required in the representation. In developing
performance measures (figures of merit) for the envi-
ronmental performance of a design option a number of
criteria should apply.
“ The measure should be unbiased. With perfect input
data the method will converge to a measure of the
actual impact.
“ The measure should be complete. Distortions that
arise from ignoring some impacts and not others will
give poor solutions and misdirect resource. For ex-
ample, an overall measure of process impact should
include the contributions of fugitive and accidental
releases where these are significant.
“ The measure should be meaningful - measures
should be proportional to the effect on the environ-
ment. Ground level concentrations of materials re-
leased to the atmosphere are determined primarily
by the rate of release rather than the concentration
at the point of release.
“ The measure should be relevant to any regulatory
constraints. In most cases this is likely to be equiva-
lent to the issues of completeness and meaning, but
not always.
“ The measure should be transparent. Aggregated or
highly complex measures that do not communicate
clearly are likely to lead to misunderstanding and
error.
“ They should be applicable in such a way as not to
make the solution of the model excessively expensive
or impossible.
These criteria define an unachievable ideal, and some
compromise is inevitable, especially in the early stages
1472 P. Sharratt / Computers and Chemical Engineering 23 (1999) 1469–1475

Table 1
Selected measures relevant to environmental performance

Measure Description Applicability

Atom efficiency Proportion of atoms in raw materials appearing in final Screening of chemical route alternatives (route selec-
product tion stage); measure of inherent route efficiency
ELF Environmental load factor (ELF) =(weight waste)/(weight Screening of route alternatives, early process options
product) (route selection and conceptual design); very crude
measure
Waste ratio Waste ratio = (Waste100%)/(All outputs) Screening of route alternatives, early process options
(route selection and conceptual design); very crude
measure
Weighted weight mea- Overall index = all releases release rate×harm factor Each Measure of process performance used in waste min-
sures substance is associated with a single harm factor represent- imisation and process design; relies on expert judge-
ing its overall impact potential ment to fix harm factor - so somewhat subjective
Burden/impact vector Contribution of process releases to defined harm categories Good when different options release different sub-
(e.g. global warming, aquatic toxicity) stances; good for comparison of different processes
BPEO index/ground Contribution of process releases to concentrations at recep- Good for detailed assessment of process in its in-
level concentration tor; index = (process contribution)/(allowable concentra- tended location; requires dispersion calculations, so
tion); one index value calculated for each release into each release data need to be quite detailed
medium
Release concentration Obvious Relevant to some regulations; relevant when release
concentration relates directly to harm; may mislead
if flow and release concentration both vary
Release amount Obvious Relates directly to environmental concentrations at
the receptor through dispersion models; often a limit
on this is part of regulatory control
Energy/tonne product Energy content of product in both raw materials and im- Life-cycle comparison of materials
ported energy
BOD Oxygen demand of organics released to water expressed as Useful aggregation for aquatic releases – relates di-
the amount of oxygen that will be used in their degrada- rectly to harm by oxygen depletion; relevant to cal-
tion culation of load (and thus cost) in wastewater
treatment
Critical volumes Volume of receptor (e.g. air or water) that is polluted to Means of comparing releases of different compounds
reference level (typically an environmental quality standard)
by the release
LC50 Concentration lethal to 50% of chosen organism Relevant to accidental releases in large quantities;
irrelevant to low concentration, non-lethal releases
Environmental quality Acceptable concentration of a material in the environment Relevant to normal releases into the environment
standard (EQS) leading to negligible harm

of design when reliable data are limited. Some examples
of measures of performance that can be used during
design are described in Table 1. The list is not intended
to be exhaustive, but does include the main approaches
to representation of environmental performance.
2.3. Recommended procedure
It is recommended that in the identification of appro-
priate measures for inclusion in a model, the following
areas are considered. The aim of this is to ensure a
relevant, appropriately detailed and viable set of envi-
ronmental conditions is adopted.
1. Scoping of environmental concerns relevant to the
problem. Which environmental effects are impor-
tant? What are the relevant environmental recep-
tors? Which decisions are to be taken with an
environmental component? Where are the process
boundaries to be drawn?
2. Consideration of the type and quality of informa-
tion available from the proposed model in relation
to the concerns identified by the scope. How do the
model predictions link to the environmental effects?
Is the information required to drive the method
available, and in particular at the time that the
method is to be used?
3. Identification of key measures of performance. The
measures should be derived from the available data
and ideally satisfy the criteria listed above. Mea-
sures could be selected from Table 1 or elsewhere
(for example UK Environment Agency, 1997).
4. Audit of selected measures. Have all of the environ-
mental effects that are influenced by the results of
the calculation been included in the measures? Are
these measures significant compared with the total
process environmental performance?
5. Examination of environmental trade-offs predicted
by the process model. Whenever a process has more
than a single environmental impact (i.e. in almost all
 P. Sharratt / Computers and Chemical Engineering 23 (1999) 1469–1475
cases) the tradeoff between impacts at fixed cost
should be explored.
An important prerequisite to selecting appropriate
environmental measures for use in design calculations is
definition of the scope. In many cases the most impor-
tant contribution to this scope will be the applicable
regulations. However, increasingly companies have in-
ternal controls on environmental performance that may
provide more demanding targets. To some extent this
reflects the fact that environmental pressure on compa-
nies comes from financiers, insurers and other stake-
holders. Efficient use of resources is another is usually
driven by cost rather than by regulation.
It is a notable feature of many process systems
research papers that the scope of environmental im-
pacts considered is incomplete (and more seriously is
not recognised to be incomplete). While this is may be
justified by the focus of the research, it does mean that
the credibility and value of the proposed techniques is
limited for the industrial designer. It can also lead to
effort being spent addressing issues that are not rele-
vant in reality.
Particular areas that cause problems are accidental
releases, fugitive emissions and off-site emissions. The
modeller should consider whether these are relevant.
Accidental releases are often considered late in de-
sign. While the potential for and magnitude of releases
are clearly both influenced by decisions taken earlier
during flowsheet development (materials holdup, pro-
cess condition etc.), it is not usual for an explicit link to
be made between those decisions and either the process
environmental impact or control costs. It could reason-
ably be argued that such costs are in effect the cost of
insuring the process, and estimated according to past
experience or a proportion of the capital cost. How-
ever, this approach allows no credit to the designer for
reducing the risk. Where the impact of accidents is
likely to account for a significant part of the overall
impact, risk-based methods should be adopted to quan-
tify the cost-impact tradeoff.
In principle it would be appropriate to model the
likely fugitive emissions as part of a process model.
This is not easy to do. Simple models of fugitive
emissions are based simply on a proportion of process
throughput, while the next level of detail relates to
mean leak rates from individual valves etc. (Rohm &
Haas, 1991; Rollinson, 1994). It could be argued that
the decisions taken at the conceptual and flowsheeting
stages are not linked to the potential for fugitive emis-
sions. Fugitive emissions might be considered to be
purely a function of mechanical engineering. This is
manifestly untrue. The selection of intrinsically leaky
devices - compressors and pumps for example - results
in either leaks or higher containment costs. The use of
extreme process pressures and the design of complex,
intricate systems with many pipes and valves clearly
1473
also contribute to leaks. The problem that the designer
has is that cost-performance correlations currently used
in process simulation do not consider fugitive emis-
sions. The problem is further complicated by the link
between fugitives and maintenance expenditure.
Most processes have demands for both energy and
disposal of residues that are met by organisations out-
side the limits of the process. Increasingly, the environ-
mental impacts of those off-site activities are under
scrutiny. It is important to avoid, for example, the
generation of substantial pollution at a power station in
order to reduce process emissions by a small amount.
This is an example of the sort of tradeoff that should be
examined with a process model to ensure that the
design represents a sensible option for the environment
as a whole.
In cases where optimisation of a single, fixed process
is considered it is possible to some extent to decouple
consideration of environmental effects from simulation
of the process. The process will contribute to a number
of environmental effects, and according to the process
parameters chosen will have a different cost. The viable
set of solutions is the non-inferior set of solutions in
{cost, environmental impact} space. The desired solu-
tion can then be chosen by choosing appropriate
weightings for the cost and environmental objectives in
what is essentially a mulit-objective optimisation.
3. Example
The following example illustrates some of the rele-
vant considerations in developing appropriate measures
of performance for use during process design. In the
manufacture of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) a num-
ber of releases from the process can occur (Barton et
al., 1997; HMIP, 1994). To air, potential releases in-
clude VCM, ethylene dichloride (EDC), other chlori-
nated materials, hydrogen chloride and carbon dioxide.
The potential impacts range from acute and chronic
toxic effects (HCl and VCM) to global warming (car-
bon dioxide). Furthermore, significant quantities of
chlorinated solid and liquid residues are produced that
must be disposed of - usually by incineration. Wastewa-
ter from the process may contain organic residues,
particulates and also be warm giving rise to thermal
pollution).
An important consideration in scoping is whether
waste incineration would be included in the impact or
not. Simply representing the residue as an incineration
cost would ignore the impact associated with incinera-
tion. This is an area where judgement and company
policy would necessarily play a part. The incineration
might be carried out off-site by another operator. How-
ever, the impacts are essentially incurred as soon as the
residues are generated. While individual companies
1474 P. Sharratt / Computers and Chemical Engineering 23 (1999) 1469–1475

would decide on their own approach to this issue, the
important thing to recognise is that there is an issue.
In the estimation of release amounts it would be
important to consider the contribution of fugitive emis-
sions. Since the discovery that it is a carcinogen, emis-
sions of VCM have been very tightly controlled. Thus,
unlike processes that release relatively innocuous mate-
rials, it is certain that fugitive emissions form a signifi-
cant proportion of the total release.
Broader issues face the company investing in VCM
manufacture. The ultimate product (PVC) has been
linked to a range of environmental issues that have led
some people to question the benefit of manufacturing it
at all. The manufacture of chlorine - used to manufac-
ture raw material EDC - is also associated with safety
and environmental problems. In this case, life-cycle
assessment would have highlighted the risks elsewhere
in the supply chain.
Having identified these potential impacts it is then
necessary to link them to the outcomes of process and
unit operation models (stage ii) of the methodology).
Table 2 lists some potential environmental impact
sources for VCM manufacture. The stage of design at
which they could be quantified (and thus modelled) and
the relevance of design calculations to quantification of
the impact is noted.
Measures of performance relevant to this case would
need to be linked to regulatory requirements such as
release levels, ground level concentration arising from
releases etc. Regulation or commercial agreements with
waste treatment companies could also influence deci-
sions as to what allowable in discharges to sewer and as
solid waste.
The scope of impacts is broad, and clearly, a single
aggregated figure of merit for all these releases is inap-
propriate. Adding together, say, global warming and
aquatic toxicity is practically meaningless. An environ-
mental burden approach would probably be best for
use in considering impacts during flowsheeting - i.e.
summing the impact of the contribution of each release-
impact source to impact categories that would include
toxicity to man, contribution to surface acidification,
contribution to global warming, contribution to
ground-level ozone creation etc. This would give a
vector of impact contributions.
As can be seen from the above the environmental
impacts of VCM manufacture can not be expressed
neatly as a single figure. Both the full scope of emis-
sions and full range of impacts need to be considered.
For VCM, the scope should ideally include vent
emissions, fugitives as well as the risk of accidental
emissions. By modelling the process using only, for
example, steady vent emissions as a measure of perfor-
mance would be a gross distortion. Fugitive emissions
could be included as a fixed proportion of plant
throughput, based on standards achieved elsewhere.
This would put in context other releases - it would be
pointless to spend excessive money on vent loss reduc-
tion if the amounts were smaller than the likely fugitive
emissions. Indeed, it is the risk of accidental emissions
that is seen as the major environmental problem for
operators of VCM processes.
4. Discussion and conclusions
While on the surface it appears easy to set environ-
mental constraints for process design problems, there
are many pitfalls. Incorrect and incomplete identifica-
tion of the impacts, incomplete appreciation of the
relationship between environmental concerns and the
process and inappropriate definition of impact mea-
sures can all lead to difficulties. There is a need for the
process systems community to take on board these

Table 2
Selected potential environmental impacts from VCM manufacture

Impact source Stage of design Possible calculation method for prediction

during design

Steady release of materials to environment Known in outline at concept stage, quantified Process flowsheet model, Including reactor
from process vents at flowsheeting model (for CO2 generation)
Fugitive emissions Determined by detailed design and operating Emission factors
strategy
Accidental emission of any process material Inventory usually fixed at flowsheet stage, risk Quantitative risk assessment and dispersion
determined by detailed design models.
Energy use Known in outline at concept stage, quantified Flowsheet model
at flowsheeting
Generation of heavy organic residues Quantified to some extent during flowsheet Reactor model
stage
Decoking of cracking furnace Quantified to some extent during flowsheet Reactor model
stage
Energy use by compressors leading to Known in outline at concept stage, quantified Flowsheet model
power-station emissions at flowsheeting
 P. Sharratt / Computers and Chemical Engineering 23 (1999) 1469–1475
problems and to ensure that models represent the real
situation faithfully.
The recommended procedure outlined in this paper is
intended to start to bridge the gap between environ-
mental experts and process systems specialists. There is
clearly need for further work in a number of areas. The
development of cost-performance relationships for as-
pects not usually considered such as fugitive emissions
would be useful. Fugitive emission levels depend partly
on mechanical design standards (number and type of
flanges etc.), partly on process conditions and perhaps
most importantly on the nature and extent of leak
detection and repair programmes used during opera-
tion. Software tools for the estimation of fugitive emis-
sions have been developed, but are seldom used during
design. Such tools would logically be linked to the
software used during mechanical design of process
plant, but are often unused until plant operation starts.
Incorporation of risk-based methodologies into flow-
sheeting tools to account for the risk of accidental
releases would also help the process designer to manage
potential environmental impacts. The risk of accidental
release is related to inventory as well as process features
such as pressure, corrosivity and so on. Clearly the
operational advantages of high inventories need to be
balanced not only against the associated working capi-
tal but also the environmental and safety risks. Soft-
ware tools can also be used to quantify the potential
effects of accidental releases. Increasingly, the steady-
state environmental impacts of a process are managed
to such low levels that the risk of accident can be
viewed as the dominant environmental effect.
In the context of adding environmental assessment
tools to process-plant design software the challenge is
to incorporate these complex issues in such a way as to
be useful but not to mislead through being irrelevant or
incomplete.
References
Barton, P., Baugh, P., Davies, D., Dunn, G., Sharratt, P. N., Wood,
A., & Whitehead A. (1997). PVC in packaging and construction
materials: an assessment of their impact on human health and the
environment, National Centre for Business and Ecology, Report
No C77/38/23(V2), Salford.
Cave, S. R., & Edwards, D. W. (1997) Chemical process route
selection based on assessment of inherent environmental hazard,
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 21 (Suppl.), S965-S970.
1475
CCPS, (1992). Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures, Centre
for Chemical Process Safety. American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
DOW Chemical Company. (1976). Fire and explosion index hazard
classification guide (4th ed.). Michigan: Midland.
HM Government. (1995). The en6ironment act. London: HMSO.
HMIP. (1993). Chief inspector’s guidance to inspectors - process
guidance note IPR 4/1. London: HMSO.
HMIP. (1994). Authorisation number AK6039 Production of
ethylene dichloride, vinyls chloride and polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
introductory note, En6ironment Agency Public Register, Warring-
ton, March 30th.
ICI. (1997). Safety health and en6ironmental performance. London:
Millbank.
Jackson, J., Corigliano, L., De Graaf, E. L., De Rooy, C., De Jong,
G., Farrar, D., Sharratt, M., & Bontinck, W. J. (1991). Emer-
gency exposure indices for industrial chemicals, ECETOC Techni-
cal report No. 43, ECETOC, Brussels.
Jones, C. D., & Griffiths, R. F. (1983). Full-scale experimentson
dispersion around an isolated building using an ionized air tracer
technique with very short averaging time. Atmospheric En6iron-
ment, 18 (5), 903 – 916.
Kiperstok, A. F., & Sharratt, P. N. (1996). Environmental optimisa-
tion of releases from industrial sites into a linear receiving body.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 20 (Suppl.), S1413-S1418.
Kipersok, A. F., & Sharratt P. N. (1997). Optimisation of pollution
control operations in industrial sites considering decay capabilities
of the receptor. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 21 (Suppl.),
S977-S982.
Kletz, T. (1992). Hazop and Hazan (3rd Ed.), J. Chem. Eng., Rugby.
Ohba, M. S. (1997). Assessment of environmental performance mea-
sures to assist in design of clean technology. MPhil Thesis,
UMIST.
Rohm, & Haas. (1991). Metercalc, SARA title III section 313,
calculations guidance manual (metric version).
Rollinson, K. (1994). Determination and quantification of fugitive
emissions. MSc Dussertation, UMIST.
Sharratt, P. N., & Ogden, K. (1997). Integrated management of
environmental impact for multiple emissions, Institute of Chemi-
cal Engineers Symposium Series, 143, 139 – 147.
Stefanis, S. K., Livingston, A. G., & Pistikopoulos, E. N. (1995).
Minimizing the environmental impact of process plants: a process
systems methodology, Computers & Chemical Engineering, 19
(Suppl.), S39-S44.
Tillman, A. M. (1998). Use of LCA and its implications for LCA
methodology. In Schäfer, A. I., Basson, L. & Richards, B. S.
(Eds.), Proc. Env. Eng. Res. Event. New South Wales, Australia:
UNIV, 101 – 106.
Turney, R. D., & Pitblado, R. M. (1997). Risk assessment in the
process industries, 2nd ed. 1996, Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Rugby
UK Environment Agency. Technical guidance note E1 - environmen-
tal, economic and BPEO assessment principles for integrated
pollution control, HMSO, London.
Vigon, B. W., Tolle, D. A., Cornaby, B. W., Latham, H. C.,
Harrison, C. L., Boguski, T. L., Hunt, R. G., & Sellers, J. D.
(1993). Life cycle assessment: inventory guidelines and principles,
U.S. E.P.A. Report No EPA/600/R-92/245, Cincinnati, Ohio.