1

2 / Director’s Corner 3 / Executive Forum & TAC; RecentPublications; Award Nominations 4 / Précis 5 / ReactiveChemicals 9 / CISP 10 / Symposium 20 / Continuing Education

INSIDE

Old Dogs Can Learn New Tricks

By Dr. Jai P. Gupta. The Bhopal gas tragedy happened in December 1984, about300 miles (460 km) from my city, Kanpur in NorthernIndia. Forty-one tons of MIC and its reaction productsspilled out into a quiet, winter night from a Union Carbidepesticide plant killing over 3,000 and injuring over200,000. (Many thousands more have died since.) Forthe fund collection drive, I asked my three children (thenaged 6 to 11), individually so no one knows about theother’s answer, as to how much they would like todonate. Two donated their pocket allowance for fourmonths and one for 5 months. I felt happy at their senseof concern. That is where my concern largely ended and I went about with myongoing research and teaching.

Sushil Handa, an aeronautical engineer and a close friend from my collegedays, who had emigrated to Montreal, wrote a personal letter (no e-mails thosedays) expressing his serious concern at Bhopal, accusing chemical engineers of

fatally gassing thousands of poor and the innocent people inBhopal and asking me to do something. Several weekslater I replied expressing understanding of his concerns butdid not express any personal interest in getting into processsafety since I was comfortable with my R&D in heattransfer. A few months later, another letter from Sushillanded on my desk. He was very upset at my reply andinsisted that I do something to reduce the chance ofrecurrence, by educating our students, conducting researchand imparting training to practicing engineers. He wantedto hear my commitment, not a reply full of pleasantries.

I promised to do whatever I could in making the process industry safer anddecided to learn about it. The first source was our library but it had very littleinformation since no one till then had ordered any books or journals on the topic.The Regional Labor Institute, one of four in India, is located in our city, Kanpur.One of their training programs is on industrial safety. They had several magazinesand books on safety in different engineering disciplines. A fertilizer company inKanpur, then owned by ICI, UK, had a very good safety department withnumerous books, including the 2-Vol set of Frank Lees, 1st ed. Both theseorganizations were very helpful and cooperative, loaning me the books and journals.

(Continued on page 15)Vol. 7, No. 1SPRING 2003

Mary KayO’ConnorProcessSafetyCenter

Chemical EngineeringDivision of the

Texas EngineeringExperiment Station

The Texas A&MUniversity System

Prof. Jai P. Gupta

Mr. Sushil Handa

2

Director’sCorner

Recently, I was privileged to be invited to help theColumbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). TheCAIB hosted a safety seminar with nationally recognizedsafety professionals from industry and academia, April 27-28, 2003 at the CAIB headquarters to raise their awarenessof industry and organizational safety standards andpractices.

As part of their investigation into the cause of theColumbia Shuttle mishap, the board met with Dr. NancyLeveson, Dr. M. Sam Mannan, Allan McMillan, JamesWick, Dr. David Woods, and Deborah Grubbe to discussNASA’s safety management and programs, decision-makingprocesses, and safety culture. They also reviewed riskanalysis and risk management in addition to accidentinvestigation models, safety culture, metrics, indicators, anddecision-making processes.

The Columbia disaster earlier this year causedmany to ask tough questions. I believe that such questionsneed to be asked so that improvements can be made to helpprevent such disasters. The safety requirements for spaceflight are quite demanding and require a multi-layeredapproach. In the first layer, one must build in thetechnology and procedures that provide an appropriate levelof safety for manned spacecraft. The second layer consistsof management systems that ensure that procedures arefollowed and proper standards are implemented at all times.Finally, the third layer consists of creating a healthy andstrong safety culture. The increasingly higher levels areharder to define and implement but they are very important.In fact, safety culture is very elusive and varies accordingto the activity and the mission of the organization. It is quitedifficult to identify objective characteristics of a good safetyculture. However, some known characteristics include:• Commitment AND involvement of the highest level

personnel• Open communication at all levels of the organization• Everyone’s responsibilities and accountabilities regarding

safety is clearly defined and understood• Safety is second nature• Zero tolerance for disregard of management systems,

procedures, and technology• Information systems allow all parties access to design,

operational, and maintenance dataAs part of the multi-layered approach discussed

above, safety-conscious organizations use analysis of trendsto spot problems. Trend analysis should be focused on

leading as well as trailing indicators. A trailing indicator is adownstream measurement of the outcomes of safety andhealth efforts. These indicators reflect successes or failuresof the system to manage hazards. Examples of trailingindicators include fatalities, injuries, and incidents. Aleading indicator is an upstream measure that characterizesthe level of success in managing safety systems;measurement of activities toward risk reduction prior tooccurrence of incidents. While every effort should be madeto measure and track trailing indicators, relying on thetrailing indicators to assess safety performance is self-defeating. Thus, it is very important to measure and trackleading indicators, particularly for high-risk activities such asspace flight. Leading indicators however are more difficultto define and measure and vary according to the activity andthe mission of the organization. Examples of leadingindicators might include:

• The level of near-miss reporting• Effectiveness of incident investigation and corrective

action• Management of change• Emphasis on inherently safer design• Effective application of risk assessments• Level of deferred maintenance• Level of repetitive maintenance• Number and severity of faults detected by inspection,

testing, and audits• Number and nature of unresolved safety issues.• Participation in continuing education and symposia• Employee morale, level of expertise

As the CAIB completes its work, we hope they areable to determine the root and especially the contributingcauses of the Columbia disaster. Most importantly, we hopethey are able to identify and address systemic issues thatmay have led to the shuttle disasters. If they only determineand fix the specific cause of this specific failure little willhave been done to improve the overall safety of theprogram.

The ultimate sacrifice made by the seven braveastronauts will not have been in vain if we are able tosignificantly reduce such disasters in the future as wecontinue our space program and look towards the brightfuture brought about by the scientific advances possiblebecause of space flight and research.

M. Sam Mannan

3

Executive Forum and TAC Hold Spring Meetings

RECENT PUBLICATIONSn Krishna, K., T.K. Kim, K.D. Kihm, W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Predictive Correlations for Leaking Heat

Transfer Fluid Aerosols in Air,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 16, no. 1, January 2003,pp. 1-8.

n Saraf, S.R., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Prediction of Reactive Hazards Based on Molecular Structure,”Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 98, no. 1-3, March 2003, pp. 15-29.

n Saraf, S.R., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Application of Transition State Theory for Thermal StabilityPrediction,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 42, no. 7, 2003, pp. 1341-1346.

n Mannan, M.S., W.J. Rogers, M. Gentile, and T.M. O’Connor, “Inherently Safer Design: ImplementationChallenges Faced by New and Existing Facilities,” Hydrocarbon Processing, vol. 82, no. 3, March 2003, pp. 59-61.

n Cisneros, L.O., X. Wu, W.J. Rogers, M.S. Mannan, J. Park, and S.W. North, “Decomposition Products of 50mass% Hydroxylamine/water Under Runaway Reaction Conditions,” Process Safety and EnvironmentalProtection, Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, vol. 81, part B, March 2003, pp. 121-124.

n Gentile, M., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Development of an Inherent Safety Index Based on Fuzzy Logic,”AIChE Journal, vol. 49, Issue 4, April 2003, pp. 959-968.

n Roberts, M.A., W.J. Rogers, M.S. Mannan, and S.W. Ostrowski, “Prevention and Suppression of Metal PackingFires,” Proceedings of the 37th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 30 –April 3, 2003.

n Saraf, S.R., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Challenges in Classification of Reactive Chemicals,” Proceedingsof the 37th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 30–April 3, 2003.

n Krishna, K., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Integrating Aerosol Formation, Flammability, and ExplosionInformation into Selection of Heat Transfer Fluids,” Proceedings of the 2003 Process Plant Safety Symposium,New Orleans, Louisiana, March 30–April 3, 2003.

n “Lessons Learned from a Catastrophic Control Valve Failure,” paper presented at the ISA Safety DivisionSymposium, March 20, 2003, Houston.

The Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterExecutive Forum held its Spring Meeting on March 18,2003, at the Great Southwest Equestrian Center in Katy,Texas. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Michael Deak ofDupont. The meeting was followed by a joint dinner with

Nominations Sought for 2003 Merit and Service AwardsThe Steering Committee of the Mary Kay

O’Connor Process Safety Center is accepting nominationsfor the Annual Merit Award and the Service Award.

Award nominations should be submitted to:Dr. Sam MannanMary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterTexas A&M UniversityChemical Engineering Dept.College Station, Texas 77843-3122e-mail: mannan@tamu.edu

In addition to providing names and contactaddress for nominees, a biographical sketch of thenominee should be provided, as well as a statement ofwhy the nominee deserves to be recognized. Pleasesubmit nominations no later than August 15, 2003. Boththe Merit and Service Award will be presented inconjunction with the Annual Symposium to be held onOctober 28-29, 2003 at Reed Arena in College Station.

For more information on nominee criteria andpast award recipients see our website at:http://psc.tamu.edu/symposium/awards.htm

the Technical Advisory Committee.The Technical Advisory Committee Spring

Meeting was held on March 19, 2003, at theEquestrian Center. The TAC meeting was chaired byDr. Harry West.

4

Précis of Excellence: Abdul Aldeeb

In August 2000 I joined the Reactive ChemicalsResearch Laboratory at the Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center (MKOPSC). I still remembervividly that after my first few weeks, I was asked totalk briefly about my graduate research project.Similar to what I am writing here, but different in thesense that I had to present it in front of the Center’sTechnical Advisory Committee. Not only that, but theresearch was still in the very early stages and frankly Iwas very nervous.

Today and as I am about to conclude my graduatework for a PhD degree in chemical engineering, I stillremember that day as one of the great opportunities Ihad during my graduate career at the MKOPSC. I am glad I did the presentation and manyothers, because they made me realize the extraordinary attributes of my colleagues, along withthe continuous learning opportunities and challenges.

To say the least, I appreciate that the Center truly believes in technology, innovation, andmore importantly, in direct technical communication with the professional industrial and academiccommunities. These communications helped me tremendously in shaping and improving myresearch. I am grateful to be a part of this Center that consists of people with a wealth ofknowledge, diversity in technical and ethnical backgrounds, and genuine attitudes towards oneanother.

Research: Systematic Approach for Chemical Reactivity EvaluationStrategies for safe and economic process require accurate information about chemicals and

chemical reactions, but sufficient information is often not available from traditional sources. Theprimary difficulty in identifying reactive chemicals stems from the variety of conditions underwhich certain chemicals can undergo uncontrollable hazardous reactions and the large number ofchemicals that may exist in the same process. An important conclusion that arises when oneconsiders the process as a whole, is that reactive chemical hazards are seldom characteristic ofthe chemical by itself but are highly dependent on the process conditions and modes of operation.

My research at the Reactive Chemicals Research Laboratory employs a systematic approachfor the evaluation of reactive chemical hazards. This approach is based on a combination ofscreening computational methods, correlations, and experimental thermal analysis techniques.The main goal of performing this systematic approach is to focus the research on the mostpossible and most hazardous reaction stoichiometries and hence reduce the need for detailedexpensive experimental analysis for a large number of chemicals the process may contain. Moredetailed and advanced experimental analyses may be required for the more complex and morereactive systems.

5

System Identification

Reactants & Products

Process chemistry

Operating conditions

Theoretical predictions

Experimental measurements

TMRad

Tonset

∆Tad

(dT/dt)max

(dP/dt)max

Thermokinetic parameters

Reactivity hazards

evaluation

Figure 1. Identification information process required for evaluating chemical reactivity hazards

(Continued on page 6)

Reactive Chemicals: Understanding the ProblemReactivity is the ability, or propensity under certain

conditions, of a pure chemical or a mixture of chemicals toundergo chemical change or combine with otherchemicals. The nature of some chemicals to be highlyreactive can be very beneficial, and this reactivity makespossible a wide variety of synthesized products and a highstandard of technology. However, uncontrolled reactivityor insufficient knowledge about reactions has led tonumerous incidents. The U.S. Chemical Safety andHazard Investigation Board (CSB) in its recent studyidentified 167 reactive chemical incidents since 1980 thatcaused 108 deaths to workers and the public.

Reactive chemicals may exist in every unit of achemical process. They may be stable under certainoperating conditions, but sometimes a slight deviation ofthese operating conditions may trigger unwanted reactionsor behavior. These reactions can be highly exothermic tothe extent that they may exceed the designed heat removalcapability of the chemical process and lead to thermalrunaway reaction, explosion, or fire. In other cases, thesereactive chemicals may lead to unwanted but thermallyneutral reaction. However, these reactions may involve

high rate gas generation causing mechanical failure of theequipment. Characterizing reactive chemicals is anultimate goal, and the primary difficulty in thischaracterization stems from the unlimited number ofchemicals and the wide variety of conditions under whichthese chemicals may undergo uncontrollable hazardousreactions.

What do we need to know?An effective evaluation of chemical reactivity

must be based on essential process identificationinformation as described in Figure 1, which includes

process operating conditions, process chemistrymechanisms, conditions under which chemical reactivehazards can appear, and parameters for quantifyingreactive chemical hazards. Identification of theseconditions and parameters is essential for designs of safe,and economical processes. The key step in linkingprocess information with the chemical reactivityevaluation parameters can be achieved only throughmeasurement and prediction of thermokinetic parametersof the most dominant reaction pathways. This key step

6

of thermokinetic parameter evaluation is expensive andthe degree of success in the overall reactivity evaluationprocess depends directly on the level of accuracy indetermining those parameters.

Thermokinetics Evaluation ApproachThermokinetic parameters are traditionally

measured by techniques of thermal analysis(calorimetric), has been the most acceptable approachfor accurate evaluation of chemical reactivity. Therefore,applications of thermal analysis techniques to evaluatereactive chemical hazards have been a major concern forresearchers. Because the needs for an assessmentprocedure varies from one industry to another, manythermal analysis techniques and procedures have beensuggested in the recent literature for categorizing reactivechemicals.

The applied techniques range from rapidscreening thermal analysis techniques to more advancedtechniques with higher accuracy. Some of these thermalanalysis devices are used for various applications such asthe differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), while othersare specifically designed for chemical reactivity hazardevaluation, such as the Advanced Reactive SystemScreening Tool (ARSST), the Automated PressureTracking Adiabatic Calorimeter (APTAC), theAdiabatic Reaction Calorimeter (ARC), and the VentSizing Package (VSP2).

The experimental approach has had theadvantage of accuracy and the ability to simulate the realrunaway scenario, but because of the large number ofchemical compounds and reaction scenarios inproduction processes, experimental evaluation can bevery expensive and time consuming. Also, thermalanalysis testing can be hazardous for highly energetic ortoxic materials.

The introduction of newer screening steps forreactivity hazards evaluation has been proved beneficialto reduce analysis time and resources. Molecularsimulation and computational methods are now practicalengineering tools for predicting thermophysicalproperties, estimating reaction rates, and forunderstanding molecular-level causes of macroscopicbehavior measured in the laboratory. There areimportant process safety applications of molecularsimulation models to supplement experimental

measurements, such as the analysis of unstable reactionsystems that have caused thermal runaway reactions.

Various levels of theory can generate thermokineticparameters of reactive systems such as molecularcontribution methods and computational quantumchemistry. However, there exists no one theoreticalchemistry method that yields satisfactory results for allchemical systems, and the usefulness of the variousmethods depends on the system size, the property that iscalculated, and the calculation costs. In a recent article,we discussed this strategy of chemical reactivityevaluation1.

Why a systematic approach is needed?The chemical industry has expended considerable

effort to understand chemical reactivity and to evaluate itspotential hazards. Most of that effort was based on acase-by-case evaluation methodology with the outcomevery specific to the evaluated case. In some cases theseevaluation studies were very explicit to a certain processoperating condition where possible process operationdisturbances were overlooked. In other cases the focuswas on the thermodynamics of the process (the potentialenergy release) and process kinetics (the rate of energyrelease) was neglected. With these results and conclusionsit was very difficult to draw a sufficient understanding ofthe reactivity problem.

Another approach to the chemical reactivityproblem is the list-based approach. Lists of potentiallyreactive chemicals based on incidents, unstable functionalgroups, or chemical compatibility considerations can becreated. There are approximately 18,000 chemicals inindustrial use and an endless combination of chemicals,surfaces, and contaminants. The complexity ofunderstanding the unstable behavior of any one of thesechemicals can be quite daunting2. A list-based approachcontains a limited number of chemicals and can give thefalse impression of non-reactivity for chemicals that are notincluded within a list. They may also indicate that a certainfunctional group is stable or unstable while ignoringconditions under which these groups may play a significantrole in defining its reactivity. For example, the presence ofa nitro group attached to a long aliphatic chain does notexhibit a thermal hazard, even though the nitro group ispart of well-known unstable structures. On the other

(Continued on page 7)

7

hand, the initial absence of unstable groups is noguarantee for long-term stability of the compound. Somealdehydes and ethers, for example, are easily convertedto peroxides by reaction with oxygen from air3.

The appropriate and safe production, handling,and storage of chemicals is a complex issue requiringknowledge of the potential energy of the materials, howthat energy can be released, and its potential impact on

200

220

240

260

280

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Styrene wt.%

- ∆H

r, ca

l/g

Figure 2. Heat of reaction of styrene-acrylonitrile copolymerization runaway reaction usingthe APTAC

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time, min

Pres

sure

, psi

a

80:20

50:50

S:AN Weight Ratio

Initiation of copolymerization reaction

End of the copolymerization reaction

A secondary exothermic reaction behavior

Figure 3. APTAC pressure profiles of S:AN samples with weight ratios of 70:30 and 50:50

the immediate environment. Evaluation by intrinsicreactivity alone or a list-based approach will not impactsituations where materials inadvertently mix and react, orthe control of an intended reaction between two (or more)materials is lost and the rate of energy release exceeds theability of its surroundings to contain it2. For example,styrene (S) and acrylonitrile (AN) react to produce thestyrene-acrylonitrile (SAN) copolymer. An analysis of this

(Continued on page 8)

-∆Hr, cal/g

8

system using the Automatic Pressure Tracking AdiabaticCalorimeter (APTACTM) demonstrates that the heat ofreaction changes as the monomer’s mixing ratio ischanged as presented in Figure 2. Styrene is usuallymixed with 20-35% by weight of acrylonitrile in thisprocess4. Analysis of the heat of reaction values ofvarious feed ratios demonstrates that inadvertent mixingof S and AN will reduce the heat of reaction, since themaximum possible heat of reaction is actually at theprocess operating conditions. However, it was foundthat with higher AN concentrations a secondarypolymerization is initiated followed by an decompositionreaction that has a higher heat of reaction than the mainprocess5.

Figure 3 shows pressure profiles of two S andAN feed ratios and a runaway reaction. At the processmonomer mass feed ratio of 80:20 (S:AN), which is apossible process operating condition, there is a singlepressure increase peak, but for a mass feed ratio of50:50 (S:AN), which is a possible inadvertent mixing, asecondary pressure activity causes a huge increase in thepressure compared to the initial mixing ratio profile. Areactivity evaluation based only on heat of reaction at theoperating conditions will not produce a sufficientunderstanding of reactivity hazards, but a systematicevaluation that takes into consideration various reactivityparameters is a more effective approach to identify upsetscenarios that can cause incidents.

The objective of a systematic approach forchemical reactivity evaluation is to plan the variousassessment methodologies to reduce the required workand cost, enhance the overall assessment performance,and generalize the evaluation approach to extend tovarious reactivity scenarios rather than being limited tooperating conditions of a single process. Also asystematic approach is a flexible tool for reactivityevaluation, which incorporates the knowledge that everychemical process and group of chemical reactions has itscharacteristic behavior that cannot generally beunderstood through a single evaluation approach.

ConclusionsDefining the chemical reaction mechanism and

evaluating the thermokinetic parameters are key elementsfor characterizing reactivity hazards. Various methods

for measuring and predicting the thermokineticparameters are available, but no single method ortechnique can provide the complete solution. Thecombination of experimental thermal analysis,computational chemistry methods, and thermodynamic-energy relationships through a systematic approach ofevaluation results in better understanding of reactionstoichiometry and better estimations of systemthermodynamics and kinetics that are necessary forevaluating the hazards of runaway reactions due tochemical reactivity. Traditional techniques of limitingchemical reactivity evaluation to lists of chemicals orchemical functional groups have inherent limitations.Also, focusing on reaction thermodynamics withoutunderstanding the kinetics may lead to misleadingconclusions and a false sense of security about reactivityhazards.

References1. Aldeeb, A., Rogers, W., and Mannan, M.,

“Theoretical and experimental methods for theevaluation of reactive chemical hazards,” Trans InstChem Eng: Part B, 80(3), 2002, pp. 141-149.

2. “Challenges of Regulating or Implementing aReactive Chemicals Hazard ManagementProgram,” Comments provided to the United StatesChemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board,Reactive Chemicals Public Hearing, Houston,Texas,September 17, 2002.

3. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS),Guidelines for chemical reactivity evaluationand application to process design, AIChE/CCPS,New York, 1995.

4. Chanda, M., Advanced Polymer Chemistry,Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000.

5. Aldeeb, A.A., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan,“Evaluation of Styrene-AcrylonitrileCopolymerization Thermal Stability and RunawayBehavior,” Proceedings of the 5th Annual MaryKay O’Connor Process Safety CenterSymposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance:Making Safety Second Nature, College Station,Texas, October 29-30, 2002, pp. 575-588.

9

CISP Thermal Safety Software

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

The Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, in collaboration with Dow Chemical, DuPont, andChemInform of St. Petersburg (CISP), and with sponsorship from the U.S. Government throughthe International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), is offering the CISP Thermal SafetySoftware (TSS), licensed free of charge, to U. S. companies, laboratories, and universities.During a trial use period extending through June 2004, technical support for this software alsowill be provided free of charge by CISP personnel.

The roles and objectives of the TSS software include

• Manipulation and processing of calorimetric data• To supplement analytical methods; identify important species and elementary reactions• Identification of sensitive parameters• Overall kinetic analysis• Application tools, such as vent sizing• Reduction of a system to reactions and conditions leading to runaway behavior• Identification of potential hazards from chemical reactivity for designs of safer and more

economical processes

The goals of the CISP software development program include

• Comparisons with available analytical methods• Comparisons with established benchmarks, such as DIERS• Develop functional capabilities• Establish a practical user interface and clearly defined methods for assessment of results

To extend the use and development of this powerful and versatile software, the Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Center is holding a workshop for a limited number of participantson May 27-28, 2003, at Texas A&M University. The workshop will be led by Dr. ArcadyKossoy, thermal physicist from CISP. Cost for the workshop is $495 per person and includescourse materials, refreshments, and parking.

Contact informationIf you are interested in participating in this thermal software use and development program,please contact Donna Startz (donnas@tamu.edu; 979-845-5981) at the Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center. The workshop can accommodate only a limited number of participants.Computer workstations are provided, however participants may bring their own computerswith the CISP software installed (provided). Further workshop details available upon request.

w MKOPSC will administer cost-free licenses and transfer of the software.

w CISP will supply cost-free technical support during the development program (through June 2004)

10

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

BEYOND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE,MAKING SAFETY SECOND NATURE

October 28 - 29, 2003

Reed Arena • Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas

URL: http://process-safety.tamu.edu

11

MORNING

8:00 -10:00AM

10:30 -12 Noon

AFTER-NOON

1:00 -2:30PM

3:00 -5:00PM

Frank P. Lees Memorial Lecture8:00AM - Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary,

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

9:30AM - State of the Center: Research Program, Current Activities, and Future DirectionDr. Sam Mannan, Director, Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

Time Tuesday, October 28, 2003

Track I Track II Track III Chairs: David Chung and Skip Early Chairs: Rob Smith and Hunter Hild Chairs: Kathy Shell and Mike Marshall

Risk Assessment/Risk Management­ “Financial Drivers of Accident

Preparedness and Safety,” P.R.Kleindorfer, Risk Management andDecision Processes Center, Universityof Pennsylvania

­ “Making the Business Case for ProcessSafety Using Value at Risk Concepts,”J. Fang, D.M. Ford, and M.S. Mannan,Mary Kay O’Connor Process SafetyCenter, Chemical EngineeringDepartment, Texas A&M University

­ “Automation Assets Management: ACorporate Risk ManagementImperative,” C. Uehlinger, PlantAutomation Services, Inc.

Chemical Plant Security­ “Process Threat Management,” J.R.

Whiteley, Oklahoma State University;M.S. Mannan, Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center, ChemicalEngineering Department, Texas A&MUniversity; and S.J. Brouillard,ConocoPhillips

­ “Force Protection: Today’s Reality,”Colonel R. Torgerson, Versar, Inc.

­ “The New Paradigm for ChemicalProcess Security and Safety,” D.A.Moore and M. Hazzan, AcuTechConsulting Group

General Session – Case Histories­ “Lessons From Experience,” T.A. Kletz

­ “Practicing Chemical Process Safety: A Look at Layers of Protection,” R.E. Sanders, PPG Industries, Inc.

­ “Loss Prevention at the Houston Chemical Complex,” F. Broussard, ChevronPhillips Chemical Company and A.E. Summers,SIS-TECH Solutions

Lessons Learned from HSEES Data­ “New York Hazardous Substances

Emergency Events Surveillance: Learningfrom Hazardous Substances to ImproveSafety,” W.L. Welles, R.E. Wilburn, andJ.K. Ehrlich, New York State Departmentof Health­ “Hazardous Substances Emergency

Events Surveillance (HSEES): What CanWe Learn from Tropical Storm Allisonand Other Adverse Weather Conditionsin Texas?” J. Borders, R. Harris, M.Samples-Ruiz, and P. Zeitz, Texas StateDepartment of Health­ “Lessons from Hazardous Chemical

Incidents – Louisiana HazardousSubstances Emergency EventsSurveillance (HSEES) System,” D.J.Raymond and C-Y. Hu, Louisiana Officeof Public Health

Human Factors­ “Can Energy Drinks Prevent Fatigue

During a Mental Task?” A. Ronen, T.Oron-Gilad, D. Shinar, and Y. Cassuto,Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,Israel

­ “Who’s Fault is it Anyway? A PracticalIllustration of Human Factors in ProcessSafety,” G. Hughes and M. Kornowa-Weichel, DNV Consulting

­ “Human Performance Breakdowns AreRarely Accidents; They Are Usually VeryPoor Choices With Disastrous Results,”R.O. Besco, PPI

Process Management for Safety - I­ “Knowledge-Based Support Tool for

Carrying out HAZOP of BatchProcesses,” P. Chung, S. McCoy, and D.Zhou, Loughborough University, UK

­ “Geometric Process Control ImprovesProcess Operations and AlarmManagement,” R. Brooks, CurvaceousSoftware, UK

­ “Evaluating and Assessing ProcessHazard Analyses,” P.J. Palmer, VescenConsulting, Inc.

Process Management for Safety - II­ “Environmental Health and Safety (EHS)

Investigation of CVD Exhaust System:Identification and Mitigation of PotentialRelease of Process Gases andByproducts,” L. Chandna, A.Bustamante-Reynoso, C. Nauert, andK. Hendricksen, Motorola, Inc.

­ “Web-Based Workplace ManagementSystems – The Future of Safe Working inHazardous Environments,” M. Neill,Pyrotrechnics, Ltd., Scotland, UK

­ “Extension of the Relational Database toCommon “Global” Scenarios,” A.E.Shackelford, Berwanger, Inc.

5:00 -7:00PM - Reception

Co-Sponsors

MARY KAY O’CONNOR PROCESS SAFETY CENTER - 2003 SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM

12

Keynote Session – Chemical Plant Security

Ms. Debbie Detrich, Director,Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Time Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Reactive Chemicals – I­ “An Adiabatic Calorimetric Study of the

Reactions of Butadiene and Isoprene inthe Presence of Butadiene PopcornPolymer,” M.E. Levin, A.D. Hill, L.W.Zimmerman, N.O. Gonzales, and T.E.Paxson, Shell Global Solutions (US), Inc.

­ “Calorimetric Measurements ofHydroxylamine Decomposition in thePresence of Transition Metals, “ M.Kumasaki, National Institute of IndustrialSafety, Tokyo, Japan

­ “Evaluation of 1,3-Butadiene ThermalStability: Dimerization and SecondaryReactions,” A.A. Aldeeb, Y.S. Liu, W.J.Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Center,Chemical Engineering Department,Texas A&M University

Reactive Chemicals – II­ “A Novel Methodology for the Study of

Decomposition Reactions Induced byThermal Runaways,” S. Lever and M.Papadaki, University of Leeds, UK

­ “The Advanced Approach to ReactivityRating,” A. Kossoy, ChemInform, St.Petersburg, Russia

­ “Use of ARC in Screening for ExplosiveProperties,” G.T. Bodman, EastmanKodak

Reactive Chemicals – III­ “Temperature Distribution of Solid

Unstable Substances Near SADT,” X. Li,D. Yang, and H. Koseki, NationalResearch Institute for Fire and Disaster,Tokyo, Japan

­ “Testing Stategy for Classifying Self-Heating Subsances for Transport ofDangerous Goods”, S. Chervin and G.T.Bodman, Eastman Kodak

­ “Chemical Reactivity Assessments inR&D,” D.J. Leggett, Baker Engineeringand Risk Consultants

Incident Analysis­ “Investigating Causes and Assigning

Blame,” I.J. Rimson, Forensic Engineer

­ “Investigating Accidents and Incidentswith a Logic-Based Process,” R.F.Smullen

­ “Incident Investigation EvidenceManagement,” J. Philley, Baker Risk andEngineering Consultants

Inherently Safer Design­ “Dynamic Disadvantages of

Intensification in Inherently SaferProcess Design,” W.L. Luyben, LehighUniversity; and D.C. Hendershot,Rohm and Haas Company

­ “Design Optimization ofHydroxylamine Production: ProcessIntegration with Safety Targets,” K.Krishna, Y. Wang, S. Saraf, R.Mahmud, M.M. El-Halwagi,and M.S. Mannan, Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center, ChemicalEngineering Department, Texas A&MUniversity

Consequence Analysis – I­ “A Way to Conduct a Facility/Stationary

Source Study,” W.S. Almon, DuPont

­ “Effect of Droplet Size Distribution onReaction heat in Liquid-LiquidHeterogeneous Reaction Process “, Y.Fujimoto, National Institute of IndustrialSafety, Tokyo, Japan

­ “Modeling the Initial Velocity of AerosolJets”, T. Spicer and J. Havens, Universityof Arkansas; and D. Johnson, QuestConsultants

Consequence Analysis – II­ “Designing an Experimental System to

Study Flame Propagation Enhancementand Suppression in HeavyHydrocarbon Aerosols,” K. Krishna,W.J. Rogers, S. Girimaji, and M.S.Mannan, Mary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center, Chemical EngineeringDepartment, Texas A&M University

­ “Explosion Caused by Flashing Liquidin a Process Vessel,” R.A. Ogle, M.Megerle, D.R. Morrison, and A.R.Carpenter, Exponent Failure AnalysisAssociates

­ “Consequence Modeling of Fire UsingLarge Eddy Simulation,” J.A. Sutula, C.F.Schemel, and N. Ryder, CombustionScience and Engineering; and V.V.Brunt, University of South Carolina

Track I Track II Track III Chairs: David Chung and Skip Early Chairs: Rob Smith and Hunter Hild Chairs: Kathy Shell and Mike Marshall

MORNING

8:00 -10:00AM

10:30 -12 Noon

AFTER-NOON

1:00 -2:30PM

3:00 -5:00PM

Case Histories – II

­ “Learning from What Went Wrong – Two Case Studies,” R. Grotefendt, EastmanChemical Company

­ “Case Study: Chlorine Transfer Hose Failure,” G. Joseph, U.S. Chemical Safety andHazard Investigation Board

­ “Case Study: Portable Oxygen System Fire,” L.C. Hasselbring, Stress EngineeringServices, Inc.

­ “Process Furnace Safety: A Case Study of Heater Incidents, Causes, andConsequences,” K. Clark, Horizon Consultants

MARY KAY O’CONNOR PROCESS SAFETY CENTER - 2003 SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM

13

2003 SYMPOSIUM REGISTRATIONMary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

BEYOND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, MAKING SAFETY SECOND NATUREOctober 28-29, 2003

Reed Arena • Texas A&M University • College Station, TexasPlease Print Clearly

q Payment by Check(payable to Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center)

Total Enclosed $___________________q Payment by Credit Card

q MasterCard q Visa q American Express q Diners Club

CC# _______________________________________________________

Card Holder _________________________________ Exp. ___________

Total Charge $____________________

Send payment to:

Texas A&M UniversityMary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

3574 TAMU916 Richardson PE Bldg.

College Station, TX 77843-3574-or-

Phone: (979) 845-5981

Fax: (979) 458-1493

E-mail: donnas@tamu.edu

Travel:You can travel to College Station by flying into theEasterwood Airport in College Station from the HoustonIntercontinental or the Dallas/FortWorth Airport. Also, youcan drive from Houston Intercontinental, which is aboutan hour and a half drive.

Parking: Complimentary parking is available atReed Arena during the Symposium.

• • • • • •For more information: Contact Donna StartzE-mail: donnas@tamu.edu • Phone: (979) 845-5981http://process-safety.tamu.edu

Accommodations:When making reservations, please indicate that you are attendingthe Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium.Rooms have been blocked at the following motels:• Hilton • (979) 693-7500 •  Single rate: $80 (hotel shuttle available)• Holiday Inn Expr • (979) 846-8700 • Single rate: $69 (hotel shuttle available)• Manor House Inn • (979) 764-9540 • Flat rate: $56 (hotel shuttle available)• Hampton Inn     • (979) 846-0184 • Single rate $67 (hotel shuttle available)• La Quinta Inn • (979) 696-7777 •  Single rate: $69 (hotel shuttle available)• Quality Suites • (979) 695-9500 • Flat rate: $80• Vineyard Court • (979) 693-1220 •  Single rate: $80• Ramada Inn   • (979) 693-9891 • Flat rate: $58

Rooms will be released to the general public after September 25, 2003

Day 2 - General Session

Last Name First Name MI

Company Name

Mailing Address

City State Zip

Telephone Fax E-Mail Address

Additional Persons Registering: ($50.00 discount per person when registering five or more from the same organization)

2) _______________________________________________ 4) ________________________________________________

3) _______________________________________________ 5) ________________________________________________

Please indicate preferred track for session attendance:

Day 1 - First Session: Track I Track II Track III First Session: Track I Track II Track III Second Session: Track I Track II Track III Second Session: Track I Track II Track IIIGeneral Session Third Session: Track I Track II-III

REGISTRATION FEES {Fee includes refreshments, lunch, handouts and proceedings}

• Received by September 29, 2003- $495.00 per person • After September 29, 2003 - $550.00 per person

q Proceedings only (Book/CD-Rom set) - $65.00

14

The Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, in collaboration with GexCon, is offering a FLACSsoftware workshop. FLACS (FLame ACceleration Simulator) is an advanced tool for the modelingof ventilation, gas dispersion, vapor cloud explosions and blasts in complex process areas. FLACSis used for the quantification and management of explosion risks in the offshore petroleum industryand onshore chemical industries.

FLACS workshop topics• What is a gas explosion? Discussion of explosion scenarios, mechanisms, and tests• Introduction to explosion modeling including phenomenological and CFD approaches• Hands-on explosion modeling exercises will include process equipment, offshore modules,

onshore plants with control rooms, and semi-confined buildings• Use of FLACS in mitigation, explosion load reductions, and design optimizations

Workshop Goals• Learn how to set up and run simulation of explosion scenarios and how to analyze and

validate the results

• Learn how to run and analyze simulations under various conditions, including explosion loadreductions (panels, water, inert gases, design changes)

How can I buy FLACS?FLACS is available under license or lease through GexCon.

Contact: Olav Roald Hansen, R&D DirectorEmail: olav@gexcon.comWeb: http://www.gexcon.com

The Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center is holding a FLACS software workshop fora limited number of participants on May 22-23, 2003, at Texas A&M University. Theworkshop will be led by Mr. Olav Roald Hansen, R&D Director. Cost is $495 per personand includes course materials, refreshments, and parking.

Contact informationIf you are interested in participating in the FLACS software workshop, please contactDonna Startz (donnas@tamu.edu; 979-845-5981) at the Mary Kay O’Connor Process SafetyCenter. The workshop can accommodate only a limited number of participants. Furtherworkshop details available upon request.

GexCon FLACS Software

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterMaking Safety Second Nature

15

my getting into process safety. On return to Kanpur, I proposed for ourstudents an elective course on Chemical Plant Safety and Hazard Analysis,which was accepted for the Spring Semester, 1987-88 academic year. Ithink we had 8 students registering for the course including one each fromChemistry and Environmental Engineering departments.

Prof. Lees had told me about a 5-day short course due in January1988 on Hazard Analysis at Loughborough University. While a professorcan get funding to participate in a conference, it is not easy to get suchfunding for attending a course. As a professor you are supposed to knowit all or self-learn! A flyer picked up at the Paris UNESCO Conferencementioned earlier came in handy. It was from the Fellowship ofEngineering, London, to fund UK residents for various academic activities.(That organization has been re-named since.) I wrote. The President ofFellowship offered to do his best. He put it up before the Governing Bodyof his organization, which promptly refused since I was not a UK resident.Using his own discretionary powers, restricted to a maximum of 500pound sterling, he asked the Loughborough University to reduce the fee by100 pound sterling and contacted the British Council for the balance of theamount (approximately 800 pound sterling). His office worked very fast,depositing the fee with the University and sending me the air tickets. Therest is history.

(Old Dogs,Continued from page 1)I read about Bhopal and some

other major incidents. It started tobecome an obsession. I became moreand more convinced that these incidentsneed not have happened and could havebeen prevented. I decided to teach acourse on process safety to our students.Teaching is a very good way to learn thesubject oneself. I contacted hundreds ofindividuals, companies and internationalorganisations (WHO, ILO, UNDP,UNEP, The World Bank, etc.) onprocess safety and asked for reprints,technical manuals and suggestions for thecourse I was planning to teach. Theresponse was fast and overwhelming.Apart from responding to my queries,some also sent slides and photographsfor use in lectures. It appeared that notonly my friend Sushil, but all theseindividuals and organizations also wantedme to get into this area! The time hadarrived. By then, I knew enough aboutthe two foremost experts, Prof. FrankLees and Prof. Trevor Kletz, both U.K.based, to want to meet them.

An opportunity knocked in theshape of an all-expenses paid InvitedKeynote Lecture at a UNESCOConference in Paris in September 1987on Continuing Engineering Education.My Institute, the Indian Institute ofTechnology Kanpur (IITK) agreed to payfor my trip from Paris to England to talkto the two professors. I had severalhours of discussions individually with bothof them. They were most supportive of

India

PAKISTAN CHINA

JAMMUKASHMIR

HIMACHALPRADESH

PUNJAB

HARYANA•DELHI

UTTARPRADESH

RAJASTHAN

GUJARATMADHYAPRADESH

NEPAL

BURMADIU DAMAN

ARABIANSEA BAY

OFBENGAL

INDIAN OCEANSRI

LANKA

MAHARASHTRA

GOA

TIBET

SIKKIM

BIHAR

•KANPUR

•BHOPAL

BOMBAY •

KARNATAKA

LAKSHADWEEP KERALA

TAMILNADU

PONDICHERRY

ANDHRAPRADESH

WESTBENGAL

ORISSA

BANGLADESH

MEGHALAVA

ASSAM

ARUNACHALPRADESH

ANDAMANAND

NICOBARISLANDS

NAGALAND

MANIPUR

MIZORAMTRIPURA

BHUTAN

Prof. KletzProf. Lees

16

practice is quickly increasing. I wrote an article on a fullone-semester course on ISD that generated a lot ofinterest (4). I was invited to lecture for 2 days in Muscat,Oman, to the Petroleum Department of Oman and for afull Masters level course at Helsinki University ofTechnology where a third of the 21 participants werefrom industry. One of them wrote later that, afterattending the course, he had lectured to his colleagues inhis industry and they now look for ISD aspects ineverything they do. When one sees participants applyingtheir newly gained knowledge to practical problems, it isvery fulfilling. So are the invitations to go around theworld to lecture on fully paid trips (I, of course have topay for my wife who loves traveling.) There are otheradventures too: like an airport fire in Birmingham, UK,while traveling to Helsinki; getting stuck with my wife inMuscat in a Wadi (a wide gap between 2 mountains,lined with large and small stones, no regular road) withvehicle breakdown at a temperature of 45ºC (113ºF)with little water, no trees to provide shade, no cell phoneand no other vehicle traveling that route for over 4 hours!

With the demand for training and the increasingwork in process safety and yet the number of peopleavailable to do the job being still limited, there are a lot ofdemands on time to lecture at various places. Thus, Ihave travelled to numerous places in India and met alarge number of interesting people. If there is a fire orexplosion in my town, people often come calling for help,both for incident analysis and steps to take to stoprecurrence. It is a satisfying feeling to be able to help insuch cases, which one hopes do not recur. I do notmake any charges for it. They are already suffering a lotfrom the incident. I am on the Board of the Directorateof Factories to review the emergency plans of newhazardous industries being setup in my state, UttarPradesh, the largest of 25 states in India. In order tomake hazard analysis easier, we have developedsoftware under a project financed by the Government ofIndia. Several companies in India have acquired it.

A few years ago, the Government of India askedme to do hazard analysis for the whole District of Bhopaland its neighboring Raisen District because there arepetroleum product bulk storage depots, a large LPGbottling plant, pesticide manufacturing and formulatingunits, though none compares with the ill-fated UnionCarbide plant. For this I visited Bhopal several times,including the Union Carbide plant (from the outside), andrehabilitation centers for the Bhopal tragedy victims. Itfurther fortified my resolve to continue to work in the

The short course proved very helpful. I have usedparts of it in my lectures. Our library bought books as fastas I could fill in the requests, and now we have a superblibrary on process safety: both books and journals.

Ours was amongst the first full-semester courseson process safety taught in chemical engineering degreegranting colleges anywhere in the world (1). In order toencourage others, I wrote an article on the course inChemical Engineering Education (2). Several departmentsaround the world contacted me for details. It showed thatthe time had come for such courses.

The Government of India deputed me to theEmbassy of India, Washington, DC, as a Diplomat forScience and Technology, 1988-91. I used this period tocement my ideas on process safety, attended severalconferences of AIChE, CCPS, NSC, EPA, etc., andwrote a book ‘Family Safety’ (3), with a view that safehabits formed at home during childhood carry on with aperson during his/ her professional career as a secondnature. To keep the price down, I refused royalties fromthe book. It is currently being translated into Hindi fordistribution by companies to their workers. I gavelectures on the then state of safety and possible researchareas in different engineering disciplines at the World Bankand at the University of Michigan.

Realizing that practicing engineers in industry areat the front line facing safety issues and making life-affecting decisions based on limited knowledge, I startedteaching a short course to them. The course withcontinuously modified contents, has been offered severaltimes in Kanpur and other cities (Bombay, Madras,Baroda). A total of approximately 450 have been trained,the attendance in courses varying from 28 to 71. Thecourse is a ‘How to’ type which gives enough theoreticalbackground along with practical examples. After the veryfirst such course, one participant changed his consultingfrom process design to process safety, did a fabulousbusiness in his second year, migrated to Canada, and isnow a majority owner of a process safety consultingcompany with new offices in South Africa and India.Numerous other participants are now doing risk analysis intheir own companies and are better able to talk to andconvince the consultants and regulators. The level ofawareness about process safety has increased several foldin Indian corporations. They need to understand it fasterbecause Bhopal happened there. This is a very satisfyingaspect of my getting into process safety.

Lately, I have been placing a greater emphasis onInherently Safer Design (ISD). Its acceptance and

17

Now it is working to make processes and plants moreresilient to any such attacks. It gives me a sense ofprofessional satisfaction to have played a little roletowards this end.

It was a dream come true when theLoughborough University made an offer of an EPSRCVisiting Fellowship to work on Inherently Safer Design(ISD). Process Safety got its initial academic start thereunder the leadership of Prof. Frank Lees and then underProf. Trevor Kletz who joined there after a long andfruitful innings at ICI. For the privilege of spending a yearat the Mecca of process safety, I had to decline an offerof Directorship (President in U.S. terms, Vice Chancellorin British terms) of a national institute in India. I spentone year (2001-02) at Loughborough. The EPSRCFellowship work was broken into two segments:1. A survey of the current knowledge about interest in

and use of ISD concepts in process industryworldwide. Coupled with it were equally importantsurveys of academic institutions’ involvement inteaching and research in ISD and the emphasis theregulators placed on the use of ISD concepts byindustry. Academicians play a most significant role inteaching the next generation of engineers aboutprocess safety and also further the frontiers byconducting research. The regulators can bring gentlepressure on the companies to consider ISD, eventhough its use is not mandated by law (Contra CostaCounty, California, now mandates evaluation of ISD).Details about the survey and results obtained havebeen published (7). The paper got the HutchinsonMedal of the Institution of Chemical Engineers (U.K.)“for the best paper presented to or published by theInstitution that is likely to act as a catalyst to engenderdiscussion and influence future practice”. It isanticipated that the paper “will stimulate debate inindustry and Health and Safety Executive…, and spurcompanies to examine their own approaches andattitudes to ISD”. It is very satisfying that our workhas been so recognized.

2. Development of a simple index for measuring inher-ently safer designs out of several options. Since animportant concept of ISD is simplicity, we have keptthe index very simple (8). It brings out all the impor-tant features of different designs with room to addother considerations. There are several other elegantmethods proposed by other researchers. It will be awhile before a consensus is arrived at globally on ameasurement index for ISD.

area of process safety since I could see that the effects ofan incident could last for generations, as in Bhopal. A lotof legislation worldwide has evolved post-Bhopal andthe world is a lot safer with regard to process industryincidents than it earlier used to be. This is not denyingthat incidents still happen, but the number of casualtiesper billion dollar of production, or per billion hoursworked, or any other comparative measure, wouldindicate that, post-Bhopal, the trend is significantlydownwards. This trend has been shown from theanalysis of several US databases by the Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Center under the NationalChemical Safety Program (NCSP) based at the Center.Both the fatalities and the ‘days away’ rate due tochemicals have shown a decreasing trend (5). Further,Prof. Kletz has, on the basis of results from certaincompanies, written that ‘we can thus claim that the lossprevention movement has prevented many hundreds ofdeaths, perhaps over a thousand. The number of majorinjuries, those causing serious and permanent injury,prevented is probably comparable and, in addition, manyother injuries and much damage to plant have beenprevented’ (6).

In order to take stock of the developments inprocess safety post-Bhopal and to chart out a course ofaction for the future, an International Conference ‘Bhopaland its Effects on Process Safety’, has been plannedfrom December 1 to 3, 2004, at the Indian Institute ofTechnology, Kanpur, with a post-conference tour ofBhopal for those interested in it (details atwww.iitk.ac.in/infocell/announce/bhopal or contact me atjpg@iitk.ac.in). It is being co-sponsored by the MaryKay O’Connor Process Safety Center (MKOPSC,USA), The American Institute of Chemical Engineers(AIChE, USA), The Center for Chemical Process Safety(CCPS, USA), The Health & Safety Executive (HSE,U.K.), The European Safety Management Group(ESMG, Germany), The Institution of ChemicalEngineers (U.K.), and The European Process SafetyCentre (EPSC, UK).

After 9/11, genuine concerns arose aboutsecurity of process plants that store huge amounts ofenergy and/or very toxic materials. The good part is thatpost-Bhopal, a lot of consequence analysis has alreadybeen done, and steps to mitigate the consequences are inplace in process industries around the world. Therefore,the industry is not hamstrung in its security planning.Actually, the process industry is probably in the bestshape to handle the consequences of any terrorist acts.

18

a second year (first year was at Loughborough), whichwas readily approved by the Institute administration.

I joined the MKOPSC in mid-June, 2002. Thetime spent at MKOPSC has indeed been great. This isthe largest center for process safety in an academicinstitution worldwide. With Prof. Sam Mannan as itsdynamic Director, it has a most vibrant program ofresearch, teaching, and continuing education courses,consulting, widely attended annual internationalconference, and issuing of position papers that are lookedup to by the opinion makers and legislators in the StateCapital and in the National Capital. Sam’s vastexperience in industry has resulted in a research programthat is respected both in academics and industry. In arecent survey of all the engineering disciplines at TexasA&M University, it was determined that the research atthis center was the one with most applications in industry.

The faith placed in this center is further exemplified by thefact that Butterworth Heinemann, publisher of the famous3-volume set of late Prof. Frank P Lees ‘Loss Preventionin the Process Industries’ has asked Sam to edit the nextedition of the book, which is well underway. In theorganization and operation of the center, renownedindustries around the nation are members of the ExecutiveForum, Technical AdvisoryCommittee and SteeringCommittee. Several companiescontribute annually towards itsmembership. This is apart fromthe numerous grants and the initialTrust fund donated by Mr. MikeO’Connor that got the centerstarted. Thus, it is able to attractvery good students and visiting faculty to collaborate.More information on the center is at its web page at http://process-safety.tamu.edu.

Apart from the process industry, safety issues areinvolved in several other industries such as space

The year spent at Loughborough provided a goodopportunity to meet numerous active researchers in ISD,Process Intensification, etc., and to attend several relatedconferences so as to be up to date in this area. The futureof process industry is tied to its becoming safer still. Itsfuture will improve as its safety record improves both inreality and in public perception. There have lately beenseveral publications, each mentioning process safety as amost important activity that both the academics andindustry should take up in right earnest. Funding is alsoavailable from various new sources, such as HomelandSecurity.

The Safety and Chemical Engineering Education(SACHE) Division of CCPS conducts faculty workshops.I got to attend one in Detroit at the BASF Facility,Wyandotte, Michigan, during April 2002. It was an all-expenses paid workshop (except one had to pay to cometo Detroit) and very well conducted. It was subsidized bysignificant grants from several large companies that haveset a mark in process safety in their facilities worldwide.This shows a measure of deep interest that the majorcompanies have in building a safety conscious engineeringcadre through the faculty members that attend theworkshops and go back to teach their students. It alsobrought me in touch with the leaders in the field as well aswith other faculty members from all over the USA. As aconsequence I have been inducted as an InternationalMember of the SACHE Committee.

One of the meetings I attended in the U.K. was‘Hazard XVI’, organized by the Institution of ChemicalEngineers, U.K., at Manchester. These meetings areorganized every 18 months and bring the latestdevelopments in process safety to the fore. At thatmeeting, during the first tea-break, Prof. Sam Mannan,Director, Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center(MKOPSC), invited me to spenda year at his Center. I had heardof the Center and had a desire tovisit some day. The offer to spenda year was tempting. After talkingto my wife that night, I answered inthe affirmative. Those who knowSam’s way of working would notbe surprised that within a couple ofweeks of his return from the conference, all the paperwork was sent to me with all the approvals as might havebeen needed. When I conveyed to the Chair of mydepartment about the Center and its Global standing andthe expected benefits of spending a year in the most activeand largest research group, he recommended my leave for

Prof. Sam Mannan

Mr. Mike O’Connor

Research Group

19

References1. Dan Crowl, personal e mail, Feb. 14, 20032. J. P. Gupta, ‘A Chemical Plant Safety and Hazard Analysis Course’,

Chemical Engineering Education, 23(3) 194-196(1989).3. J.P. Gupta, ‘Family Safety’, Ratna Sagar Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

(1995).4. J. P. Gupta, ‘A Course on Inherently Safer Design,’ J. Loss

Prevention in the Process Industries, 13(1), 63-66 (2000).5. Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, ‘Feasibility of Using

Federal Incident Databases to Measure and Improve ChemicalSafety’, MKOPSC Report 2002-02, TEES, Chemical EngineeringDepartment, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas (April2002)

6. T. A. Kletz, ‘The Origins and History of Loss Prevention’, Trans.IChemE, Process Safety and Loss Prevention, Vol. 77B, 109 (1999)

7. J. P. Gupta and D.W. Edwards, ‘Inherently Safer Design – Presentand Future’, Trans. IChemE, Process Safety and EnvironmentalProtection, Vol. 80 (B), 115-125 (2002). Winner of the HutchinsonMedal of the IChemE, U. K.

8. J.P. Gupta and D. W. Edwards, ‘ Some thoughts on measuringInherent Safety’, Proceedings of the Mary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center 2002 Symposium ‘Beyond Regulatory Compliance,Making Safety Second Nature’, College Station, Texas, October 29-30, 2002. To be published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.

9. Linda T. Cohen, et al. (editors) ‘To Err is Human; Building a SaferHealth System’, National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2000)

10. Vincent van Brunt, personal e mail, Feb. 14, 2003

exploration, civil construction, road and train transport. India, with abillion plus population, also has lots of activities in these areas andhence has safety concerns. Before coming to MKOPSC, the relatedagencies and I were discussing my involvement in some of their safetyrelated activities. Another area of growing interest is in reducing errorsin the medical field (9). On return to my Institute in June 2003, I planto pursue these further. I state it only to emphasize that work inprocess safety takes one into other vital disciplines where also onemay be able to make a slight difference.

My hope is that more and more chemical engineeringdepartments will start teaching process safetyas a regular or core course, and start doing research in this area,which in many cases would be an extension of what they are alreadydoing. As Prof. Vincent van Burnt of University of South Carolinastated recently (10), ‘Our graduates are our product. …Do we wantto assume the liability associated with a product that does not haveinstructions in one of the basic core competencies’. Ifirmly believe it to be our duty to send them with the requisiteknowledge in process safety. My stay, both at Loughborough and atMKOPSC, will help me further this goal.

Exhibit at the 2003Annual Symposium It is time to plan for your EXHIBIT atthe Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Pro-cess Safety Center Symposium, to beheld on October 28-29, 2003 at ReedArena on the Texas A&M Universitycampus in College Station. A 10X10 space is $1250 andincludes one complimentary registration.Past Symposium attendance is around 250people, mostly from industry and theremaining from government agencies,academia, and public interest groups. To reserve a booth, please call DonnaStartz at 979/845-5981, or see our website at: http://process-safety.tamu.edufor more information.

20

Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center2003 Continuing Education

November

4 - 6 · Safety Instrumented Systems Implementation(Covering ISA8401 and IEC 61511 Regulations) - Angela E. SummersSIS-Tech facility -- $695 Early, $750 Regular

11-12 · Systematic Assessment of Reactive Chemical Hazards - Sam Mannan and Bill RogersIBT -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

18-19 · Siting - Addressing the OSHA PSM and EPA RMP Requirements - Adrian L. SepedaGSWEC, Katy -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

September

9 - 10 · Special Topics in Behavioral Safety for Process Industries - Thomas BurnsGSWEC, Katy -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

23-24 · Root Cause Incident Investigation - Jack Philley*Class time: 8AM-4PMGSWEC, Katy -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

30-10/1 · Management of Change - Harry WestGSWEC, Katy -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

http://process-safety.tamu.edu

October

7 - 8 · Inherently Safer Design - Dennis HendershotIBT -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

7 - 8 · Process Hazard Analysis Leadership Training - William (Skip) EarlyGSWEC, Katy -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

7 - 8 · Security - David MooreSIS-Tech facility -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

14-15 · Process Safety Management - Adrian L. SepedaGSWEC, Katy -- $495 Early, $550 Regular

Locations:• IBT Facility, Houston, TX• Great Southwest Equestrian Center (GSWEC),

Katy, TX• SIS-Tech Solutions Facility, Houston, TX

All classes run: 9:00AM - 4:00PM (*Except where noted)

Registration Fees:Ø Early Registration is 4 weeks prior to

course date.Ø See individual classes for fee, (based on

course duration).

For more information, contact Mary Cassat 979-458-1863 or mary-cass@tamu.edu