mary kay process safety symposium o’connor attracts record … · centerline, vol. 10, no. 3 1...

1 Fall 2006Centerline, Vol. 10, No. 3

2 / Director’s Corner5 / Recent Publications6 / Award Recipients

INSIDE

Vol. 10, No. 3FALL 2006

Mary KayO’ConnorProcessSafetyCenter

Chemical EngineeringDivision of the

Texas EngineeringExperiment Station

The Texas A&MUniversity System

Centerline

Centerline

7 / OSHA Alliance 8 / Dr. Walter Howard10 / BP LNG

21 / Call for Papers22 / Proceedings23 / Continuing Education

Continued on page 11

Process Safety SymposiumAttracts Record Attendance

The 9th Annual International Symposium of the Mary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center was held on October 24-25, 2006, at the Brazos Center. Over 300people from United Kingdom, Poland, Korea, Indonesia,Canada, Australia, France, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, andfrom across the United States attended the Symposiumto hear expert presentations on Reactive Chemicals,Lessons Learned, Security and Risk Management,Facility Siting, LNG issues and Case Histories.

The Frank P. Lees Memorial Lecture keynotespeaker was Mr. Michael P. Broadribb with BPInternational, who presented “Lessons Learned at TexasCity, A Case Study.”

Mr. Rich Wells with Dow Chemical Company gave the presentation entitled“The Drive to Zero: Dow Chemical’s Injury Reduction Journey,” on the second dayof the Symposium.

Following are summaries of the other presentationsmade at the Symposium. In the Reactive Chemicals sessionMarc Levin with Shell Global Solutions presented thepaper titled “Solvent Effects on DTBP Decomposition.”Levin discussed that Di-Tert Butyl Peroxide (DTBP) is areadily-available organic peroxide often employed as aninitiator for radical polymerization. Its repeatable andwell-behaved thermal decomposition renders it amongfavorites for evaluating adiabatic calorimeter performance.Mixtures of DTBP in toluene are frequently utilized in round-

robin studies. He described a current study that examines the influence of variousorganic solvents on DTBP decomposition via adiabatic calorimetry.

C.M. Shu with the National Yunlin University in Taiwan presented the paperentitled “A Complete Analysis by Calorimetries and Spectrometers for Styrene and itsDerivatives.” Shu discussed part of a project devoted to the definition of polymerizationmechanisms for styrene. The exothermic behavior and polymerization mechanism ofstyrene, AMS, and TBMS were clearly affected by thermal source from monomer topolymer. He said the results in this study can also be applied to assess the thermalhazard for various isomers, such as organic peroxides, under runaway reactions. Severalpolymerization mechanisms were explored to explain the behavior.

Michael P. Broadribb

Rich Wells

25 / WCOGI26 / Calendar


Director’sCorner

-Continued-

I have so much to report to you, I really do not know where to start. The year 2006 saw a lot of growth andgood things for the Center but we also had our share of tragedy. The 2006 Annual Symposium of the Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Center superceded all previous attendance records. This year’s Symposium was the9th in the series, an important annual event that focuses on research, education, training, and service issues thatimpact safety.

During 2005-2006, the Center developed outreach programs with various national and internationalorganizations. The Center is also maintaining an active involvement with the Reactive Chemical Alliance andReactivity Management Roundtable. On the international front, the Center is continuing its collaborativepartnerships with Korea Gas Safety Corporation and Seoul National University, both from South Korea. Dr.Adam Markowski from the University of Lodz in Poland finished a six-month stay at the Center. The Center hasalso established agreements for long-term research collaboration with the University of Lodz. The Center hasalso developed exchange programs with Universidad del Santander in Bucarmanga, Colombia and LasUniversidad del Zulia in Maracaibo, Venezuela.

The Center continues to provide cost-effective short courses at various Houston locations as well astailored courses at various plant sites throughout the United States. Recent events in industry have broughtadditional focus on specific areas of process safety and plant operations that need renewed and focused attention.These areas include facility siting, atmospheric venting and process upset management. To address this need,the Center organized 1-day workshops on each one of these topics. The objective was to provide an openforum for discussion of the issues, gaps in technology, and path forward.

1-Day WorkshopsFebruary 1, 2006 -Atmospheric Relief WorkshopFeaturing speakers from the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB),Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),majoroperating companies, and the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center (MKOPSC).Location: Marriott Hotel, George Bush Intercontinental, HoustonJuly 13, 2006 -Process Upset Management WorkshopFeaturing speakers from government, major operating companies, and leading technology firms.Location: HESS Club, 5430 Westheimer Road, HoustonSeptember 29, 2006 -Facility Siting WorkshopFeaturing speakers from the Environmental Protection Agency), Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration , major operating companies, and the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterLocation: Marriott Hotel, George Bush Intercontinental, Houston


Practical Risk Reduction

LNG Vapor Cloud Control and Mitigation Research

Fault Diagnosis for Plant Operations and HAZOPDesign/Improvement

Quantitative Risk Analysis on HydrolysatePost-Treatment Process

Small Business Process Safety Programs

Engineering for Sustainable Development

Propane Incident Data Collection Project

Chemical Stability and Reactivity Analysis forStorage of HAN

Safety Climate, Attitudes, and Decision Making

-Continued-

Some of the other outreach and service activities accomplished during 2005-2006 include the following:

♦ Development of research collaboration with Dr. Maria Papadaki of Leeds University, UnitedKingdom

♦ Review and input to the Government Accountability Office report on Chemical InfrastructureProtection

♦ Review of the National Academy report on, “Terrorism and Chemical Infrastructure –Protecting People and Reducing Vulnerabilities.

♦ Provide input to curriculum and program development at the Pennsylvania State University.♦ Development and implementat ion of Ethics training course as required by Texas

Administrative Code♦ Coordination of research and other activities with CCPS♦ Continuing collaboration and exchange programs with organizations in Canada, Columbia,

India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Qatar, South Korea, United Kingdom, andVenezuela.

The Center also maintains close relationship and participates in the activities of many professionalorganizations as well as government agencies. These include:

➪➪➪➪➪ the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,➪➪➪➪➪ the American Institute of Chemical Engineers,➪➪➪➪➪ the American Society of Safety Engineers,➪➪➪➪➪ the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration,➪➪➪➪➪ the National Fire Protection Association,➪➪➪➪➪ the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,➪➪➪➪➪ the UK Health and Safety Executive,➪➪➪➪➪ the UK Institute of Chemical Engineers,➪➪➪➪➪ the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board,➪➪➪➪➪ and US Environmental Protection Agency.

During 2005-2006, the Center also continued to work on significant research projects in the following areas:


The year 2006 also brought tragedy and a major loss for the Center. As you know, on October 4,2006 we lost Dr. Harry H. West, a prolific supporter of the Center and its research, and a mentor forstudents in the Chemical Engineering Department and world-wide. Harry’s endless desire to push, topull, and encourage everyone to make the best of themselves and their gifts, will be missed every bit asmuch as his stories for every occasion.

One of Harry’s leading contributions to process safety and the Center was his dedication to thestudents and their research. He believed that laying the groundwork for making safety second naturerested with the “kids”, in what they learned during their college years and their time at the Center.Through this new generation of engineers, Harry’s dedication to teaching process safety, especially inthe fields of LNG, risk assessment, and abnormal situation management has given industry a head start inthe integration of safety practices and awareness.

The Harry H. West Memorial Endowment for Process Safety has beenestablished to provide endowed student fellowships and scholarshipsto undergraduate and graduate students pursuing academic and researchprograms in process safety.

In memory of Harry and his life’s work, Mike O’Connor, in his unwavering, giving manner, hasissued a challenge grant, that for every dollar contributed to the Harry H. West Memorial Endowment forProcess Safety, he will match the contribution, up to $500,000. To give to this endowment, please sendyour checks made out to the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center with a cover letter directing thatthe funds are meant for the Harry West Memorial Endowment for Process Safety. Or, you may contactMs. Sara Lillehaugen at the Texas A&M Foundation Engineering Development Office at phone (979)845-5113 or email [email protected] for more information.

Finally, I would like to report to you about the $12.5 milliongift to the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center as part of thesettlement of the Rowe lawsuit arising out of the explosion at BP’sTexas City refinery.

The primary use of these funds by the Center will be to provide financial support for the studentsstudying in the center. These young people are the ones who are preparing to enter the work force with asound grounding in process safety, and they can make a difference in the future of workplace safety. Webelieve that this gift will help transform a tragedy into a positive legacy, help educate a new generationof engineers, and help improve safety performance in the industry. The Texas A&M Foundation willmanage the gift to ensure that the funds will support objectives of the settlement agreement. The Foundationmanages investments in academic excellence to enhance Texas A&M University’s capability to be amongthe best universities.

M. Sam Mannan


1. Mannan, M.S., K.S. Park, Y-D. Jo, J-Y. Kim, N. Keren, and Y. Wang, “Incident Analysis of Bucheon LPGFilling Station Pool Fire and BLEVE,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 137, no. 1, September2006, pp. 62-67.

2. Keren, N., S. Anand, and M.S. Mannan, “Calibrate Failure-Based Risk Assessments to Take Into Accountthe Type of Chemical Processed in Equipment,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,”vol. 19, no. 6, November 2006, pp. 714-718.

3. Mannan, M.S., H.H. West, and P.C. Berwanger, “Lessons Learned from Recent Incidents: Facility Siting,Atmospheric Venting, and Operator Information Systems,” Proceedings of the 6th International Symposiumon Hazards, Prevention, and Mitigation of Industrial Explosions, vol. III, Dalhousie University, Halifax,NS, Canada, Aug 27 – Sep 1, 2006, pp. 733-744.

4. Wei, C., W.J. Rogers and M.S. Mannan, “Layer of Protection Analysis for Reactive Chemical RiskAssessment,” Proceedings of the 9th Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium –Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas, October 24-25, 2006, pp. 60-71.

5. Papadaki, M., P. Stathi, W.J. Rogers and M.S. Mannan, “Preliminary Studies of Hydroxylamine IsothermalDecomposition,” Proceedings of the 9th Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium– Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas, October 24-25, 2006, pp. 72-78.

6. Mitchell, S.M. and M.S. Mannan, “Beyond Guns, Guards, and Gates: A Holistic Approach to CriticalInfrastructure Protection,” Proceedings of the 9th Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterSymposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas,October 24-25, 2006, pp. 424-439.

7. Markowski, A.S. and M.S. Mannan, “Fuzzy Risk Matrix,” Proceedings of the 9th Annual Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety SecondNature, College Station, Texas, October 24-25, 2006, pp. 440-449.

8. Cormier, B., Y. Wang, M. Moore, H.H. West, and M.S. Mannan, “LNG Mitigation Experiments –Preliminary Results,” Proceedings of the 9th Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterSymposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas,October 24-25, 2006, pp. 450-467.

9. Mitchell, S.M. and M.S. Mannan, “Resilient Engineered Systems: Pipe Design,” Proceedings of the 9th

Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance: MakingSafety Second Nature, College Station, Texas, October 24-25, 2006, pp. 548-558.

10. Narayanan, D., R. Talreja, C. Ehlig-Economides, H.H. West, and M.S. Mannan “Engineering for SustainableDevelopment – Application of Analytical Approach and Metrics on a Bio-Diesel Plant,” Proceedings ofthe 9th Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas, October 24-25, 2006, pp. 559-563.

Recent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent Publications


2006 Merit and Service Awards

Mr. Steve Arendt2006 Merit Award Recipient

Mr. George King2006 Service Award Recipient

The 2006 Merit Award was presented toMr. Steve Arendt.

Steve Arendt is the Vice President of ABSConsulting’s Operational Performance Assurancegroup. He is involved with risk management andcommunication, process safety and site security, andcounterterrorism activities associated with thechemical and allied industries.

Mr. Arendt has more than 25 years of experiencein process safety, risk management, and security. Hehas performed hundreds of safety analyses, riskanalysis, audits, and accident investigations on avariety of chemical and related industry processes.Recently, he helped develop industry guidelines forperforming security vulnerability analyses.

Mr. Arendt has published many articles andauthored several major process safety publications,including RMP Compliance Guide: A Manager’sGuide to QRA; Resource Guide for the Process SafetyCode of Management Practices; Guidelines for HazardEvaluation Procedures, Second Edition with WorkedExamples; and Guidelines for Risk-based ProcessSafety Management. He is a coinstructor for securitycourses and has led numerous industry-sponsoredsecurity workshops.

Mr. Arendt is a registered Professional Engineer(P.E.) in the state of Tennessee.

The 2006 Service Awards was presented toMr. George King and Mr. Patrick Berwanger.

George King is a process safety associate at DowChemical in Freeport, Texas. He is Senior TechnologyAssociate for The Dow Chemical Company’sIntegrated Engineering Solutions Technology Center; served on the editorial boards of the OSHA ProcessSafety Management Safety and Health Topics page; amember of the MKOPSC TAC 2001-2006; SymposiumPlanning Committee 2004 – 2006; Steering Committee2001 - 2006.

Mr. King is Dow’s Process Safety TechnicalLeader for The OSHA and The Dow ChemicalCompany Alliance focusing on using OSHA’s andDow’s collective expertise to further enhance a cultureof prevention while sharing proven practices andtechnical knowledge in the areas of, but not limited to,process safety management (PSM) and ergonomics.

Pat Berwanger is recognized as one of the world’sleading authorities in the area of pressure relief systemdesign. He and his company have worked on morethan 150 pressure relief system design and analysisprojects. He is a co-author of the widely used PressureProtection Manager©TM software package and has alsoauthored numerous articles on pressure relief systemdesign. He is a member of and contributor to the DesignInstitute of Pressure Relief Systems (DIERS).

Mr. Berwanger is a licensed professionalengineer and was founder of Berwanger, Inc. He isregularly requested to lecture and provide experttestimony relating to pressure relief systems, and hasauthored many articles.


Center and OSHA Form Alliancefor Chemical Industry Worker Safety

The Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Centerand the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) have formed an alliance for worker safety inthe chemical processing industry.

Representatives from the agencies signed anagreement establishing the alliance Oct. 4 at Texas A&MUniversity.

OSHA and the Center will provide chemicalindustry workers with information, guidance and accessto training resources that will help them protectemployees’ health and safety, particularly in reducingand preventing exposure to processsafety management hazards. OSHAand the Center will also deliver thecourses to industry nationwide, saidMary Kay O’Connor Process SafetyCenter director, Dr. Sam Mannan.

Mannan said this alliance isa significant step forward inproviding training and other programs to the chemicalindustry that will help improve safety performance. The

Significance and impact of this alliance is expected tobe even greater in Texas given the density of chemical/petrochemical industry in Texas, he said. Mannan alsosaid the mission of the Mary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center is to improve safety in the chemical processindustry. The center conducts programs and researchactivities that enhance safety in the chemical processindustries. The center’s educational activities promotesafety as second nature to everyone in the industry.

Joining Mannan and representing the TexasEngineering Experiment Station (TEES), for the signingwas Dr. Theresa A. Maldonado, associate vicechancellor and associate dean of engineering for research,and TEES deputy director.

“This alliance provides an important and visibleopportunity to work with industry in accordance withour statewide mission,” Maldonado said.

Joe Reina, OSHA deputy regional administrator, saidthe partnership will allow the twogroups to work together to identifyparticular issues in the chemicalindustry and to better train industryand personnel to reduce potential foraccidents.

“We want to get information andtraining to employees before

accidents occur,” Reina said, “because by the time theycome to us for help, something has already happened.

Peng Lian is awarded2006 Lamiya Zahin Memorial Safety Scholarship

In 2005, the Chemical Engineering Department and the Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center established the Lamiya Zahin Memorial Safety Scholarship.The criteria for the $1,000 scholarship award was writing a 1000-word essay on“Safety Innovations In Research Projects?”.

The recipient of the 2006 Lamiya Zahin Memorial Safety Scholarship wasPeng Lian for his paper entitled “Application of Colloids and Interface Chemistryin Aerosol and Flammability Research Related to Chemical Process Safety”. Thescholarship and plaque were presented to him during the morning general sessionof the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center International Symposium onOctober 25, 2006.

The recipient of the first Lamiya Zahin Memorial Safety Scholarship was Arnab Chakrabarty.


In Memoriam

Dr. Walter B. Howard

- Continued -

Dr. Walter Burke Howard age 90 years, of Omaha, NE, died October 30,2006 inOmaha. He was past Director of Loss Prevention, Safety and Health Fields of Monsanto,a Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and a process safety and lossprevention consultant.

In 1987, Dr. Howard received the firstAIChE Safety and Health Division Norton H.Walton/Russell L. Miller award which recognizessignificant contributions to the field of lossprevention and safety.

The 1999 Mary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center Merit Award was presented to Dr.Howard. In presenting the Merit Award, TexasA&M University Chemical EngineeringDepartment Head Dr. Ray Anthony said, “Thecelebration of Dr. Howard’s accomplishmentswill hopefully be another catalyst in improvingprocess safety in the process industries.”

A SACHE Award was named to Honor WaltHoward. Starting in 2003, the SACHE DesignAwards was named The Walt Howard SACHEIndividual Design Award. It is given for the bestapplication of the principles of Chemical ProcessSafety for the Individual AICHE Student DesignProblem Solution .

Recollections of Walt Howard and His Work –

In the early 1960’s before OSHA and EPA, there were several large processplant explosions that raised concern and led to a safety session at the 1965 AIChENational Meeting in Houston. Walter Howard was the Chairman of the Technical ProgramCommittee for this meeting at which there was discussion about the relatively newtopic of process safety. Walt saw the need to develop formal analysis on chemicalprocesses and proposed to the AIChE Executive Board that there should be a lossprevention symposium to discuss papers on process safety.


The first Loss Prevention Symposium (LPS) was held in Houston in 1967 andfeatured pioneering chemical process papers, including a paper on sizing relief ventsfor two-phase flashing flow, that influenced subsequent loss prevention activities. Asa result of his work to coordinate the analysis of process safety issues, Walt Howardis considered a founder and guiding light of the annual LPS.

Notable at the LPS following each paper was a question and answer period,which was taken by a few participants, including Walter Howard, as opportunities tostate their views in detail to a captive audience. Walt took every opportunity to engagepeople with issues that he thought needed action. Walt also was influential to improvethe quality of symposium presentation slides through his pointed comments duringsessions and letters to the LPS committee. Walt Howard also helped to found theDesign Institute for Emergency Relief Systems (DIERS) by arranging for a meetingfollowing the 1976 LPS at which a paper had been presented about the need for moreinformation concerning reactor vent design. Walt continued to discuss the need forresearch on vent designs for runaway reactions and research in other areas of processsafety.

For information that he thought to be important or critically needed, Walt wouldshow his impatience with inaction, which he referred to as “perpetuating the talk,” andinsisted on taking immediate steps for research to obtain the needed information. Theseimportant areas included uncontrolled combustion models to be tested in buildings atfull scale and runaway reaction behavior and relief system models from studies over awide range of scale from laboratory to industrial.

Walt looked for opportunities to present his research ideas, and he alwaysengaged his audience with energy and passion. During his presentation at a 1999 meetingof the Technical Advisory Committee of the MKOPSC, he emphatically stated in regardto large scale testing that “I did it and you can do it!” Walt was always eager todiscuss the research he had performed, and his memory of methods, equipment details,data, and conclusions was comprehensive. Walt’s commitment to his principles andmethods was compelling to all of us who interacted with him, and our memory of hispioneering safety contributions is enduring.

Continued – Walt Howard and His Work


BP, TEEX, and the Center Join Forcesto Address LNG Training and Research

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – with its ability to be transported from distant locations to market – is playingan increasingly important role in helping meet growing world demand for energy and cleaner fuels. In recent years,a host of new export projects in countries such as Qatar, Egypt, Trinidad and Australia have come into operation,complemented by new import terminals in the UK, the US, China, South Korea and other locations. Other newfacilities are also under development or in the planning stage. While the LNG industry can be justifiably proud ofits safety record, all this activity has underlined the need for it to continue to devote the highest possible attention tosafety and its ability to respond to unexpected and unlikely events.

Against this background, the Texas Engineering Ex-tension Service (TEEX), a member of the internation-ally respected Texas A&M University system, BP andindustry equipment and supply partners have developedthe world’s foremost hands-on LNG fire training andequipment testing facility and a center of excellence forLNG safety.

Open to industry, the facility has received world-wide recognition by providing a quality learning envi-ronment, developing expertise and sharing techniques tomanage LNG vapor releases and spills. The center en-

ables simulations of most potential spill and fire scenarios that could be encountered in real life at LNG facilitiesand during LNG transportation, and provides a testing ground for new industry equipment and products.

The facility provides a training environment for practical experience in learning how LNG reacts when spilledon ground or water and the appropriate techniques to confront and manage uncontrolled vaporization and fire.Participants, including local first responders, fire fighters, design engineers, process operators, and others, experi-ence controlling LNG fires and vapors under conditions designed to simulate incidences which might occur atliquefaction plants, re-gasification terminals and marine installations. Such training leads to better understanding offacility layout and operations, and ways to further reduce risk in handling LNG.

Participating industry suppliers utilize this facility to testand develop both new products and continue to refine currentstate-of-the art detection and mitigation equipment. Ongoingresearch efforts further the understanding of LNG propertiesand the development and application of state-of-the-art firemanagement technology.

Given the rapid growth of the LNG industry in today’smarket place, new information, processes and systems are keyto ensuring successful safety and security practices.

Each training session at the Fire School produces a wealthof new information. Through the PhD program, the learningsare incorporated into a BP sponsored research initiative at theMary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center (MKOPSC). It focuses on further understanding the behaviors of spilledLNG as well as the effectiveness of various foam application products in reducing vaporization and minimizing theintensity of radiated heat when ignited. The outcome of this research will be used to refine models to more accu-rately predict the behavior of potential events in real world situations and optimize placement of detection and firefighting equipment.


M. Kaszniak of the U.S.Chemical Safety and HazardInvestigation Board presented“Runaway Chemical ReactionExposes Community to HighlyToxic Chemicals.” Kaszniak saidthat the U.S. Chemical Safety andHazard Investigation Board(CSB) conducted acomprehensive investigation of arunaway chemical reaction atMFG Chemical (MFG) in Dalton,Georgia on April 12, 2004 thatresulted in the uncontrolledrelease of a large quantity ofhighly toxic and flammable allyl alcohol and allylchloride into the community. Five people werehospitalized and 154 people required decontaminationand treatment for exposure to the chemicals. Thisincluded police officers attempting to evacuate thecommunity and ambulance personnel who responded to911 calls from residents exposed to the chemicals. Hediscussed the findings of the CSB report including adiscussion on tolling practices; scale-up of batch reactionprocesses; Process Safety Management (PSM) and RiskManagement Program (RMP) implementation; emergencyplanning by the company, county and the city; andemergency response and mitigation actions taken duringthe incident.

X. Li with the National Research Institute forFire and Disaster in Japan presented the paper titled“Study on Thermal Decomposition Characteristics ofAIBN.” He said that it is found that the results such asobserved in the DSC, which show the major thermaldecomposition of self reactive material can not berepresentative of what happens at the initial stage of areaction. The reaction at this stage is related to thecondition of storage or transportation, often having riskto be developed into a runaway reaction. He discussedthe thermal decomposition characteristics of AIBN atvarious conditions and explained the mechanism thataffects the self heating of the given material.

J. Tsui with GlaxoSmithKline presented“Decomposition of Solvents in Reactive ChemicalProcesses.” Tsui explained that Hydrochloric acid is areagent commonly used in the pharmaceutical process.

For example, removal of amino protecting group BOCis usually performed with hydrochloric acid in an organicsolvent. Some organic solvents,such as TBME, are notcompatible with hydrochloricacid for process safety reasons.Decomposition of TBME to formisobutylene (flammable), methylchloride (genotoxic) andmethanol was detected duringtesting. She discussed the study concerning solvent(ethyl acetate, tetrahydrofuran, toluene, acetonitrile,isopropyl acetate) decomposition under acidicconditions. Toluene, which exhibits no degradation, wasrecommended to use in the BOC removal process. Inprocess development, we do design a process to scale-up safely and avoid genotoxic impurities in the ActivePharmaceutical Ingredient.

Russ Elveston, AssistantArea Director US OccupationalSafety and Health Administration,led a Panel Discussion onReactive Chemicals.

Maria Papadaki ofUniversity of Leeds in the UKpresented the paper entitled“Combined Use of Heat-FlowCalorimetry and MolecularModeling for the Study ofRunaway Reactions.” Papadakistated that following two tragicaccidents involving hydroxylamine,adiabatic calorimetry studies combined withcomputational chemistry have substantially advanced theknowledge on the thermal behaviour of this system.However, the elucidation of the mechanisms of thisdecomposition is expected to considerably improveour insight in regard to the behavior of thehydroxylamine family of reactions. She presented amethodology for the isothermal study of the thermaldecomposition of this reaction. Preliminarymeasurements have shown that isothermaldecomposition is relatively slow, thus its kinetic studyis possible.

C.-S. Kao with Jen-Teh Junior College ofMedicine, Nursing and Management in Taiwanpresented the paper entitled “Studies on Runaway

Symposium, Continued from page 1

Levin

Kaszniak

Tsui

Elveston

Papadaki


Reaction of ABS PolymerizationProcess.” Kao said that Taiwanhas the largest acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)copolymer production in theworld. Preventing on unexpectedexothermic reactions and relatedemergency relief hazard is essential in the safety controlof ABS emulsion polymerization. A VSP2 (vent sizingpackage) apparatus is capable of studying both normaland abnormal conditions (e.g. cooling failure, mischarge,etc.) of industrial process. He discussed a study wherethe scenarios were verified from the abnormal conditionsincluding loss of cooling, double charge of initiator,overcharge of monomer, without charge of solvent, andexternal fire. An external fire with constant heating willpromote higher self-heat rate and this is recommendedas the worst case scenario of emulsion polymerizationon butadiene. Cooling failure coupled with bulk systemof reactant was determined to be the credible worst casein ABS emulsion polymerization. He said that theemergency vent sizing based on thermokinetics from VSPassociated with DIERS methodology were used forevaluating the vent sizing and compared to that of theindustrial plants.

Y. Iwata with the NationalResearch Institute for Fire andDisaster in Japan presented thepaper “Risk Evaluation on theBasis of Pressure Rate Measuredby Automatic Pressure TrackingAdiabatic Calorimeter.” Iwatadiscussed the use of an automaticpressure tracking adiabatic calorimeter (APTAC) thathad been developed to obtain the thermokinetic and thevapor pressure data during runaway reactions. The dataobtained by the APTAC is important information for thedesign for the safe industrial process. However, themeasurement data with the APTAC are limited and notenough for discussing the properties of the APTAC datain detail. The thermal decomposition of di-tert-butylperoxide (DTBP) was investigated in order toexamine the temperature data and the pressure data ofthe APTAC [3]. The thermodynamics parameters andthe gas production were discussed on the basis of theexperimental data of various concentrations and weights

of DTBP/toluene solution. He emphasized the analysisand the evaluation method of the pressure data. Thepressure data is important for designing the pressurerelief in the chemical reactor. In addition, the thermaldecomposition of DTBP was studied on the basis of theexperimental data.

In the Alarm Managementand Safety Instrumented Systemssession, C. Miller with Exidapresented “PSM and SIS: Let’sBridge the ISA 84 ComplianceGaps Now.” Miller discussedidentifying where compliancegaps exist in ISA 84. He then reviewed how PSM(process safety management) can support the SIS (safetyinstrumented system) team in bridging the gaps. The netresult is a protective system that has a correct target SIL(safety integrity level) and is designed, installed, andmaintained to the level required throughout the completesafety lifecycle.

M. Gentile with SIS-TECH Solutions presented thepaper entitled “The Evolution ofthe Cookbook.” Gentilediscussed that the SafetyInstrumented System (SIS) isdesigned to achieve or maintaina “safe state” when unacceptable process conditions aredetected. The need for an SIS is identified during theHazard and Risk Analysis (H&RA), which assesses theprocess risk associated with identified hazardous events.She described examples of simple “cookbook”approaches of SIS design and management practices verycommon in the process industry at the time of theissuance of ISA 84.01-1996. She illustrated howarchitectures must evolve when addressing higherintegrity levels and/or process reliability.

B. Hollifield with PASpresented the paper titled “TheTop Ten Worst AlarmManagement Systems in theProcess Industries.” Hillifieldsaid since 1994, PAS hasbenchmarked hundreds of alarmsystems in various industrialmarkets around the world. From our project databases,we bring forward examples of the worst, most

Kao

Iwata

Miller

Gentile

Hollifield


overloaded alarm systems we have encountered (withidentities concealed to protect the embarrassed).Examples in many industry segments are covered, somewith shockingly severe problems. He discussed thepossible solutions to the problems identified.

In the Safety Culture session, Bill Nelson of DNVConsulting presented the paper entitled “Process Safety

Improvement – Quality and TargetZero.” Nelson discussed thatProcess safety practitioners haveadopted quality managementprinciples in design of processsafety management systems withpositive effect, yet achieving safety

objectives sometimes remain a distant target. Companiesregularly apply tools and methods which have roots inquality and productivity improvement. He describedvarious quality improvement methods, and explained howmethods intended for product quality can be additionallyapplied to continual improvement of process safety.

Andy Peters with Parsons Corporation gave thepresentation “Safety – Make it Personal.” Peters said

that Safety is more than a priorityat Parsons Corporation (Parsons),it is one of the core values thatinclude integrity, innovation,respect, diversity, and competence.Priorities can be redirected inminutes to meet client needs; butour focus on safety never changes.

He outlined the overall safety program and details ofParson Safety, Health, and Risk Program (SHARP).

J.B. Baek with the ChungjuNational University presented thepaper entitled “Safety ClimatePractice and Its Predictors in theKorean Manufacturing Industry.”Baek described a safety climatesurvey sent to Korean manufacturingplants, especially in hazardous chemical treating plants.He discussed attempts to improve safety culture andclimate among industries as well as government agenciesin Korea. A safety climate study has not been done inKorean manufacturing industries. There has been ageneral agreement to create a safety climate in Koreanmanufacturing industries, but few validated tools existto measure important elements of a safety climate. He

explored the validity of HSE (2002) instruments inKorean industry to measure safety climate and factorsthat may influence the workers’ safety culture and climate.

In the Atmospheric Venting session, Bill Banickwith ExxonMobil gave apresentation entitled “ExxonMobilDesign Practices for AtmosphericVenting.” Banick discussedExxonMobil practices related toatmospheric relief systems and keyconsiderations that dictate risk andrisk management approaches for atmospheric relief. Healso discussed specific examples of when atmosphericrelief is acceptable and safe.

Don Eure with Dow Chemical Companypresented “Screening Atmospheric Relief Devices forUnacceptable Risks.” Eure stated that recent industryincidents have highlighted the need to carefully considerthe risks associated with reliefdevices and where they are routed. That is especially true for those thatare routed to the atmosphere. It’seasy to establish a policy statingthat the relief device must be routedto a flare, recover, or treatmentsystem when the risks are too high.The hard part is to find an effective way to apply this toactual designs. He discussed how Dow commissioneda team with the task of coming up with an objectivescreening tool/method/work process. He described theproduct of that team; an objective method for screeningrelief designs for unacceptable risks.

In the Lessons Learned from Katrina and Ritasession, Perri Ruckart with ATSDR presented the paperentitled “Industrial Chemical Releases Associated withHurricanes Katrina and Rita in Louisiana and Texas.”Ruckart discussed the unintended chemical releases thatwere results of the hurricanes. Data from two states(Louisiana and Texas) participating in the HazardousSubstances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES)system were analyzed to describe the characteristics ofindustrial chemical releases associated with HurricanesKatrina and Rita. She discussed the conclusions andrecommendations made to prevent or minimize acutereleases of hazardous substances during futurehurricanes, which include acquiring backup powergeneration, securing equipment and piping to withstand

Nelson

Peters

Baek

Banick

Eure


high winds, following established and up-to-date start-up procedures and checklists, and carefully performingpre-start-up safety reviews.

W. Duplantis with Shell International Explorationand Production presented the paper “HSE & Technical

Challenges for the Mars RecoveryProject.” Duplantis described theMars Recovery Project team that wasformed immediately after the damagefrom hurricane Katrina to the MarsTLP platform was discovered. Theteam faced many HSE and technicalchallenges during the recovery effort

including: how to work safely in a high risk environment;the quick mobilization of a heavy lift vessel and flotel;fast and reliable marine and topsides engineering;expedited equipment replacements; and effectivePersonnel On Board management. He discussed thechallenges and the team’s efforts to safely accomplishthem.

Roy E. Sanders of PPGIndustries presented the paperentitled “Hurricane Rita: AnUnwelcome Visitor to PPGIndustries in Lake Charles,Louisiana.” Sanders discussed thatPPG’s Lake Charles chemicalscomplex is approximately 35 miles to the northeast ofwhere the storm’s center came ashore. The complexreceived Rita’s punishing winds and a measure of herstorm surge. He gave a presentation that provided aglimpse of the within-the-fence activity of a majorchlorine, caustic soda and chlorinated hydrocarbonsmanufacturing complex, immediately before and duringthe two weeks following Hurricane Rita.

In the Hazard Management session, P.K. Raj ofthe Technology and Management Systems presented thepaper “A Review of the Criteria for People Exposure toRadiant Heat Flux from Fires.” Raj discussed howseveral countries in Europe and the Far East have adopted5 kW/m2 as the human exposure criterion for use in riskassessment when determining the hazard distance topeople exposure from a fire, but allow/require the use oflower values for children and physically challengedpeople. He reviewed the available literature on the basisof the 5 kW/m2 and other criteria, in addition to the datafrom actual experiments on thermal exposure of human

beings and animal studies. He evaluated the realisticconditions of potential exposure of populations in urban,industrial and residential environments to heat fluxes froma large fire, such an LNG fire.

T.J. Myers with Exponent, Inc. presented“Reducing Aluminum Dust Explosion Hazards: CaseStudy of Dust Inerting in a BuffingOperation.” Myers described the2003 dust explosion at aluminumwheel manufacturer HayesLemmerz. Facilities that processbulk metals are at risk due to dustgenerated during machining andfinishing operations. He discussed an inerting methodto reduce the dust explosion hazard of dust created in analuminum buffing operation as the dust is generated. Thistechnique reduces the dust explosion hazard throughoutthe buffing process and within the dust collector systems.Dust explosion testing results are presented for processdusts produced during trials with varying amounts offlame retardant additives.

A. Shafaghi with ShellInternational Exploration andProduction Inc. presented the paperentitled “Equipment Failure RateUpdating Bayesian Estimation.”Shafaghi described that equipmentfailure rates are a main ingredientin any risk or reliability analysis.In a risk analysis, the failure data is needed to estimatethe frequencies of events contributing to risks posed by afacility. And in a reliability analysis, they are requiredto predict an unavailability or unreliability of a system.But, the question is where are we going to get the data?He discussed a method that is often known as dataupdating or data augmentation, which is performed usingthe Bayesian methodology where generic data is used asa priori and plant specific data as an evidence (likelihoodfunction) to obtain posterior.

T. Kishi of The Universityof Tokyo in Japan presented thepaper entitled “Study on theGeneration of PerfluorooctaneSulfonate from the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam.” Kishi stated thatPerfluorooctane sulfonate(C8HF17SO3) and perfluorooctane acid (C8HF15O2) are

Duplantis

Sanders

Myers

Shafaghi

Kishi


artificial chemicals and have been used all over theworld, mainly as water repellent agents, fluorochemicalsurfactants, coating agents etc. However, perfluorooctanesulfonate and perfluorooctane acid are environmentalcontaminants because of their stability, bio-accumulativeness, and long-term persistence in theecological environment. He discussed the study whereactivated sludge added AFFF were analyzed forperfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctane acid.

In the Lessons Learned/Case Histories session,Joey Cranston with the Albemarle Corporationpresented the paper entitled“Haloamine Formation in BromineRecovery Tower – A Case StudyReinforcing the Need for PeriodicReview of Process Hazards.”Cranston stated that AlbemarleCorporation is a leading producer ofbromine and brominated products. At the Magnolia,Arkansas plant, many of the production units have effluentstreams containing bromide. The aqueous sodiumbromine stream contains some amount of unreactedDimethylamine (DMA). Upon recycle to the brominerecovery unit, the DMA can react to form chlorinated orbrominated amines. These products are known to beexplosive at elevated concentrations. In 1985,Albemarle studied the effect of chloride concentrationand pH on the conversion of DMA to haloamines in thebromine recovery tower. This study set safe operatingconditions for the process.

D. Belonger with DJBAssociate, Inc. presented the paperentitled “Managing a Major Crisisin A Chemical Facility - Are YouPrepared?”. He discussed thatmanagement of a major crisisrequires prevention, planning,testing, evaluation and maintenanceto mitigate and minimize the consequences. The processused by a company can determine the outcome for thoseaffected, including employees, community and thecompany. A crisis is any natural, accidental or intentionalevent that severely impacts people, property, and/or theenvironment. He examined the question, if a majordisaster occurred today, are attendee organizationsprepared to respond.

Mark Kaszniak with the U.S. Chemical Safetyand Hazard Investigation Board presented the paper“Trailer Siting Issues.” Kaszniak described theexplosion that occurred March 23, 2005, at the BP TexasCity oil refinery during the startup of an isomerization(ISOM) process unit. In particular, he discussed theneed for work trailers within process units, the adequacyof risk analysis methods in API 752, and minimum safedistance requirements.

In the Management for Process Safety session,G.M. Kiihne with BASF Corporation presented thepaper “What Really Went Wrong? – Root CauseDetermination Study and Improvement InitiativeResults.” Kiihne said that many incident investigationsstop before identifying the real root cause or all rootcauses. In 2004 with the implementation of a newcorporate-wide incident reporting electronic database,an evaluation was made possible as to the quality ofincident investigations and reports at all sites withinthe case study organization. After reviewing almost1000 incident reports, the Occupational and ProcessSafety expertise teams in this organization determinedthat a need for improvement in the determination of thereal Root Causes of the incidents and development ofappropriate Corrective Actions. A communication andtraining initiative across multiple functional groupsensued to enable all sites within the organization to betterunderstand why incidents were happening and to developCorrective Actions to successfully prevent recurrenceof the same or related incidents. He gave a briefbackground of the initiative, demonstrated whatactivities that were undertaken and illustrated the successof the approach for BASF.

Cheryl Gagliardi and Bob Baker of FMApprovals, presented the paper entitled “MaintainingProduct Certification Compliance of Salvaged/Remanufactured/New-Surplus Equipment Used inHazardous (Classified) Locations.” Galiardi explainedthat in order to understand how to maintain certificationcompliance of equipment used in hazardous (classified)locations, one must first have an understanding of whata hazardous (classified) location is and what therequirements are for the equipment certification. Shediscussed the meaning of a hazardous location. Bakerexplained recommendations for end-user actions formaintaining the certification compliance.

Cranston

Belonger


D.A. Jones with AcuTechConsulting presented the papertitled “Using a Risk-Based Processto Design Inherently Safer and MoreReliable Technological Systems.”Jones discussed that effective andsafe design of products can beachieved through the employmentof formal quality management systems. As such, safetyand reliability aspects can be “built in” by applyinghazard identification and risk assessment methodologiesat the design stage. He addressed integrating formalquality management and classical risk managementprocesses into a single risk-based design process fordeveloping inherently safer and more reliabletechnological systems.

C. McDonald with Dyadem Engineeringpresented the paper “A Project Management CenteredApproach for MOC in Process Industry.” Chris said thatthe implementation of MOC in the process industry hasalways been known to be a challenging task and that it istypical that companies need to keep track of thousandsof MOC projects on an annual basis. Companies need toensure their MOC systems comply with regulations andindustrial accepted engineering standards, meet corporatesafety and environmental strategies, and align withbusiness objectives and targets. He discussed the use ofEnterprise Level Project Management Application(ELPMA) solution, a project management centeredapplication powered by a workflow engine.

Jack McCavit with J.L.McCavit Consulting presented thepaper entitled “Risk BasedProcess Safety.” McCavitexplained that the chemicalprocess industries face a dilemmaof continually reducing processsafety incidents while resourcesare cut for cost control. He described a CCPS book,Risk Based Process Safety, being written to address theneed for better results with fewer resources.

In the Databases and Learning session, M.R.Gomez of the U.S. Chemical Safety and HazardInvestigation Board presented the paper entitled “TheCSB Incident Database – Description, Summary Statisticsand Uses.” Gomez described the Chemical IncidentScreening Database currently used by the CSB to identify

and evaluate chemical incidents forpossible investigations, andsummarized descriptive statisticsfrom this database that can potentiallyhelp to estimate the number, character,and consequences of chemicalincidents in the US. He comparedsome of the information in the CSB database to roughlysimilar information available from databases operatedby EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR). He discussed whether a systemmodeled after the existing CSB screening database couldbe developed to serve as a national surveillance tool forchemical incidents.

Russ Elveston with the U.S. Occupational Safety& Health Administration presented the paper entitled“Recent Case Histories from OSHA.” Elveston describesome of the incidents studied by OSHA and discussedthe OSHA enforcement programs Regional EmphasisProgram for Petrochemical Plants and National EmphasisProgram for Refineries.

T.A. Kletz with the Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Centerpresented the paper “Searchlights fromthe Past.” Kletz explained thatsearchlights, not faint beams, shine outfrom the past and show us the pits intowhich we will fall if we do not lookwhere we are going. Some of these searchlightsilluminate specific technical risks while others remindus of general principles. In an age of rapid change peopleare particularly prone to ignore the past, but whiletechnology changes, people do not. He said for thoseconcerned with industrial safety and other technicalproblems, the light from the past is more like a searchlightthan a faint beam.

In the Human Error session, Maria Papadakiwith Leeds University in the United Kingdom, presentedthe paper entitled “Inherent Safety, Ethics, and HumanError.” Papadaki discussed personal views that have beenestablished from the correlation of the results of numerousaccident investigation reports with the causes of smalland insignificant incidents. She explained that shebelieves that often, complex accidents, similarly toinsignificant ones often demonstrate an attitude whichcan be characterized as “inherently unsafe”. She discussedthe huge human potential and the human ability to minimize

Jones

McCavit

Kletz

Gomez


accidents needs to become a focal point towards inherentsafety, and that restricting ourselves to human limitationsand how we could “treat” or prevent humans from notmaking accidents needs to be re-addressed.

R.A. Ogle withExponent, Inc. presented thepaper entitled “The RelationshipBetween Automation Complexityand Operator Error.” Ogle statedthat one of the objectives ofprocess automation is to improvethe safety of plant operations. Manual operation, it isoften argued, provides too many opportunities foroperator error. By this argument, process automationshould decrease the risk of accidents caused by operatorerror. However, some accident theorists have arguedthat while automation may eliminate some types ofoperator error, it may create new varieties of error. Hedescribed six case studies of explosions involvingoperator error in an automated process facility.

Steven Zhang with theMary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center gave thepresentation entitled “PropaneIncident Database Analysis:Human Action.” Zhang explainedthat propane has been extensivelyused for a wide variety ofapplications including household and commercial uses.Thus, it is very important to improve the safe use ofpropane. A valid incident database with propaneinvolved can provide information that can furtherenhance safety initiatives, positively influence consumer-buying decisions and mitigate unnecessary, burdensomeand costly regulatory mandates. He discussed themethodology of creating the integrated database fromhistorical databases, statistical sources, and real-timedata and how the study shows that human action andequipment malfunction are two primary suspected causesof incidents.

In the Safety, Security and Risk Managementsession, B. Deshotels with Fluor, Inc. presented thepaper “A Cost-Effective Approach to Flammable GasDetector Spacing.” Deshotels explained that while it iscommonly recognized that some gas detectors are neededin a process plant containing flammable gas or volatileliquids, the answer to “How many detectors are enough?”

is complicated. To find a reasonable quantitative answer,it is necessary first evaluate the risk. He discussed theRisk-Based Approach for determining the appropriatespacing for flammable gas or vapor detectors.

Jack Philley with BakerPetrolite presented the paperentitled, “Enhance Process HazardAnalysis by Optimizing the StudyTeam.” Philley discussed theeffectiveness and costs of ProcessHazard Analysis (PHA) studiesthat are significantly influenced bythe composition and conduct of the PHA study team. Hedescribed the key success factors related to PHA teamsincluding: team dynamics, selection of team members,logistics and scheduling issues, mix of skill sets,documentation practices, and attributes of highlysuccessful PHA facilitators. He also discussed avoidablemistakes and lessons learned.

Susan M. Mitchell with theMary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center presented the paperentitled “Beyond Guns, Guards, andGates: A Systems Approach toHomeland Security.” Mitchellstated that presently, engineers andscientists face numerous challengesin the design of engineered infrastructures and systems.The complexity and interdependence of these systemshas resulted in the potential for catastrophic consequencesshould unanticipated events occur. Current world eventshave necessitated that designers focus on the challengeof protecting these systems from an additional importantsource of unanticipated events, potential terrorist attacks.She discussed the background on critical infrastructureprotection with a particular focus on its applicability topetrochemical industry, and current protectionapproaches, limitations; and future opportunities to aidpetrochemical processors in identifying andunderstanding issues involving system security andprotection.

Adam S. Markowski with the TechnicalUniversity of Lodz in Poland presented the paper entitled“Fuzzy Risk Matrix.” Markowski explained that a riskmatrix is a mechanism to characterize and rank processrisks that are typically identified through one or moremultifunctional reviews (e.g., process hazard analysis,

Ogle

Zhang

Philley

Mitchell


audits, or incident investigation. He described aprocedure for developing a fuzzy risk matrix that may beused for emerging fuzzy logic applications in differentsafety analyses (e.g., LOPA). The fuzzification offrequency and severity of the consequences of theincident scenario are basic inputs for fuzzy risk matrix.Subsequently using different design of risk matrix, fuzzyrules are established enabling the development of fuzzyrisk matrices. Three types of fuzzy risk matrix have beendeveloped (low-cost, standard, and high-cost), and heused a distillation column case study, to demonstrate theeffect of the design on final defuzzified risk index.

In the LNG session, Ben Cormier with the MaryKay O’Connor Process SafetyCenter presented the paperentitled “LNG Experiments –The Answer to Many Questions.”Cormier explained that LiquefiedNatural Gas (LNG) safety is backin the headlines as over fortyLNG importation terminals haverecently been proposed to meet the projected USA naturalgas demand. Controversy over LNG facility siting hasfocused attention on LNG safety issues, particularly thepotential impact of large spills and fires on adjacentareas. He said that since 2005, medium size LNG spillshave been performed at Texas A&M’s EmergencyServices Training Institute (ESTI) sponsored by BPGroup Technology. He presented the preliminary findingsfrom the analysis of the data gathered in 2005 and 2006tests.

F. Gavelli with Exponentpresented the paper “Validation ofCFD (FLUENT) to LNG Spills intoGeometrically ComplexEnvironments.” Gavelli said thatrecent discussions on the fate of LNGspills into impoundments havesuggested that the commonly used combination ofSOURCE5 and DEGADIS to predict the flammable vapordispersion distances is not accurate, as it does not accountfor vapor entrainment by wind. He described the use ofFluent, a widely-used commercial CFD code, to simulateone of the tests in the “Falcon” series of LNG spill tests.The “Falcon” test series was the only series thatspecifically addressed the effects of impoundment wallsand construction obstructions on the behavior and

dispersion of the vapor cloud. He discussed the criticalparameters necessary for a CFD model to accuratelypredict the behavior of a cryogenic spill in ageometrically complex domain, and presentscomparisons between the gas concentrations measuredduring the Falcon-1 test and those predicted using Fluent.

J. Havens with theUniversity of Arakansas presentedthe paper entitled “Errors inDeterminations of LNG VaporCloud Exclusion Zone.” Havenssaid that vapor cloud dispersionexclusion zones for specified spillsfrom land-based LNG containmentand transfer systems are requiredby 49 CFR 193 and NFPA 59A. As spills in a land-based facility are typically into concrete impoundmentslocated inside earthen-diked areas, there is a need toconsider the effects on LNG vapor dispersion of vaporholdup in the impoundment/dike system. DEGADIS andFEM3A are currently the only models approved by DOTfor modeling atmospheric dispersion from such spills.He explained that although the FEM3A model is designedto determine these effects correctly, it has not been usedto date in the applications of any of more than a dozenimport terminal siting applications. Instead, ad hocmethods for determining input to DEGADIS have beenused – incorrectly, with the result that the intent of 49CFR 193 to provide vapor dispersion exclusion zonesadequate to protect the public is not being met. Hediscussed this error (failure to consider LNG vapor/airmixing in the holdup volume), and demonstrated that theerror, which is contrary to the interests of public safety,persists.

M. Moore with FlameOut Control presented“Videos of Recent LNG Experiments.” Moore gave avideo presentation of LNG spills into the confinementpits at the Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX)Brayton Fire Training Field at Texas A&M University inCollege Station, Texas. Some of the videos showed LNGspills into water within the containment pits where iceformation and wave action due to the LNG spill on waterare noticeable. Video images of the downwind vapordispersion of LNG from various pit spills were alsoincluded. The tests were conducted in October 2005and April 2006 during LNG training sessions sponsoredby BP.

Cormier

Gavelli

Havens


In the Modeling and Simulation session, R.R.Kotdawala with the WorcesterPolytechnic Institute presented thepaper entitled “MolecularSimulation Studies of Adsorptionof Hazardous Molecules: TheHydrogen Cyanide and MethylEthyl Ketone Case.” Kotdawaladiscussed a research study withthe primary aim of understandingand characterizing the physical adsorption of polarmolecules namely, hydrogen cyanide and methyl ethylketone (MEK) in zeolite NaX, and activated carbonthrough detailed Monte–Carlo simulations andcomputational quantum chemistry techniques.

M. Rothschild with theRohm and Haas Company presentedthe paper entitled “ScreeningAnalysis to Evaluate Whether an In-Building Release Can Have anOffsite Impact.” Rothschildexplained that a toxic spill inside ofa building could present a hazard toresponders. If the release is a flashing liquid or a gas,then the resulting vapor upon discharge through thebuilding ventilation could possibly present a hazardoutside of the building. Traditional modeling approachesto evaluate the potential impact of an indoor releasescenario require specialized skills and tools, which maynot be readily available. Moreover, it would probablytake a skilled modeler approximately 20-30 minutes toset up and run the analysis and interpret the results. Bythat time it may be too late to implement an effectiveresponse. He discussed a screening tool that wasdeveloped to facilitate immediate analysis of the hazardof an indoor release.

J. Guarnaccia with CibaSpecialty Chemicals presented thepaper “Offsite Toxic ConsequenceRisk Assessment – A SimplifiedModeling Procedure and CaseStudy.” Guarnaccia explained thatan assessment of offsite riskexposure from spills/releases oftoxic chemicals can be conducted by compiling site-specific operational, geographic, demographic, andmeteorological data and by using public-domain modeling

tools. He described an approach that allows one to assessrisk from catastrophic release (e.g., via terrorism), orplausible release scenarios (related to standard operatingprocedures and industry standards). He discussed a casestudy that implemented this approach.

In the Facility Sitingsession P. Partridge with The DowChemical Company presented thepaper entitled “Dow’s NewPractice for Locating TemporaryPortable Buildings.” Partridgeexplained that in 2005, Dowimplemented a new best practice for locating portableoccupied buildings. He presented highlights of severalfeatures from that best practice that includes prescribeddefault separation distances from process structures toordinary trailers or high strength portable buildings,based upon a set of reasonably conservative assumptionsabout potential vapor cloud explosions at Dowfacilities.

C. Buchwald with theExxonMobil Chemical Companypresented the paper“Considerations for SitingBuildings with Regard to VaporCloud Explosions.” Buchwalddiscussed three generalapproaches to siting buildings, distance, pressure andbuilding damage level. He described the application ofusing the building damage level approach for siting.

Vijay Raghunathanwith DNV presented thepaper entitled “RecentAdvancements in VaporCloud Explosion Modelingfor Onshore Installations.”Raghunathan explained thatthe concept of facility sitingis an important aspect of riskmanagement and one of the most critical actions for thesafe operation of refineries and onshore chemicalfacilities today. Appropriate siting and layout helpsisolate potential sources of fire and explosion from otherprocess areas/ plant personnel. He discussed the keyobjectives of a facility siting study and the benefits andweakness of the different VCE explosion models.

Kotdawala

Guarnaccia

Buchwald

Partridge

Raghunathan

Rothschild


In the Sustainable Engineering & Risk Management session, Susan M. Mitchellwith the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center presented the paper entitled “ResilientEngineering Systems: Case Study on a Pipe Design.” Mitchell explained that system designerstoday face many challenges as they attempt to improve the safety and efficiency of complex,interdependent engineered systems. While many tools and methods are available to aid thesedesigners, there is no quantitative measure available to assess the resiliency of an engineeredsystem. Resiliency is a well-established concept in material science; an equivalent measurefor systems has only been proposed and is still in the development stage. She discussed thechallenges and future research objectives remaining to be addressed by resiliency research.

Divya Narayanan with the Mary Kay O’Connor Process SafetyCenter presented the paper entitled “Engineered SustainableDevelopment: Analytical Approach and Application to Bio-dieselPlant.” Narayanan explained that bio-diesel can be considered as oneof the most promising developments in the field of renewable fuelsources. Bio-diesel has numerous advantageous features as a fuel,thereby making it a possible replacement for non renewable fuels. Thereare currently a number of process techniques for producing bio-diesel.Some of the techniques differ in the raw materials or catalysts used andsome in the process technique itself. She discussed an analytic approach to identifying themost sustainable process alternative for a bio-diesel production that has been developed bymaking use of life cycle assessment of the process and a differential comparison process.

David Jones with AcuTech Consulting presented the paper entitle “The New JerseyChemical Security Prescriptive Order and Implications for National Chemical Security andInherent Safety.” Jones described the Prescriptive Order for chemical plant security measuresto protect against terrorist attacks as issued by the State of New Jersey. He discussed theimplications of part of the new requirements, that some facilities must review the potentialfor adopting inherently safer technology (IST) as part of their assessment.

Jaffee A. Suardin with the Mary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center presented the paper entitled “An Expert System forLOPA.” Suardin explained that an expert system is essentially acomputer program that attempts to represent knowledge from a welldefined and usually highly specialized domain and hence solveproblems that would otherwise require additional human expertise.He discussed the case study of a proposed method that will supportand extend Layer of Protection Analysis application, especially forrisk assessment of major chemical and process industry hazards.

The Call for Papers for the 2007 Symposium can be found on page 21 of this publicationor on-line at:

http://psc.tamu.edu/symposium/program.htm

Narayanan

Suardin

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


CALL FOR PAPERSCALL FOR PAPERSMaking Safety Second NaturePROCESS SAFETY SYMPOSIUM

October 23-24, 2007Sponsored by

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterChemical Engineering Division • Texas A&M University System

Case Studies – Histories, Lessons Learned, Databases

Inherently Safer Processes – New Processes, Existing Plants, Man – Machine Interface

Human Factors – Engineering, Behavioral Safety, Human Error

Management for Process Safety – PS Metrics and Benchmarking, PS Engineering, PSMcomponents, PS training, PSM with limited resources, Innovative strategies for improvement,

Accident Investigation

Safety Culture – Relationship to high consequence/low probability events

Facility Siting – Personnel Siting

LNG – Design, Experiment Evaluation, Consequence Analysis, Mitigation, Research needs,Regulations

Control Systems – Unusual Situation Mgmt., Safety Instrumented Systems, Integrity Levels,Reliability analysis, Reliance on SIS, Alarm Mgmt.

Risk Assessment, Analysis and Management

Reactive Chemistry – Predicting Reactivity, Role of Contaminants, Catalysts and Inhibitors,Case Histories, Experimental Methods

Equipment Integrity – Design for Maintenance, Maintenance Hazard Analysis, CorrosionMonitoring

Abstracts are due no later than March 1, 2007

Send abstracts to Dr. Sam Mannan, e-mail: [email protected](979) 862-3985, FAX (979) 458-1493

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas 77843-3122

Additional information available on internet at http://process-safety.tamu.edu

Exhibition space for displaying equipment, software, and materials is available. For further information onexhibition space, contact Ms. Donna Startz ([email protected]) (979) 845-3489.


Symposium Proceedings Order FormMary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

BEYOND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, MAKING SAFETY SECOND NATUREPlease Print

Last Name___________________________ First Name___________________________ MI_____

Company Name___________________________________________________________________

Shipping Address__________________________________________________________________

City________________________________ State______________________ Zip______________________

Telephone__________________ Fax__________________ E-Mail Address___________________________

Payment by Check

Total Enclosed $______________

Please send order form and check(made payable to Mary Kay O’Connor

Process Safety Center) to:

Texas A&M UniversityMary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterAttention: Mary Cass3122 TAMUCollege Station, TX 77843-3122

Payment by Credit CardPhone: (979) 458-1863

Fax: (979) 458-1493E-mail: [email protected]

MasterCard Visa American Express Diners Club

CC# _____________________________

Card Holder _______________________

Exp. Date _________________________

Total $ ___________________________

1999 Proceedings, Printed Cost: US $45.00

2000 Proceedings, Printed Cost: US $45.00

2001 Proceedings, Printed & CD Cost : US $65.00






(For overseas shipping, add $20.00)


Continuing Education • 2007 Spring ScheduleMary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

January

9-11 Implementing or Optimizing Your SHE Management System– Jack McVaugh – Location: TBD, Houston $695

March

7 - 8 Layer of Protection Analysis– Angela E. Summers – Location: SIS-TECH facility, Houston 1.4 CEUs • $495 • 8:30AM - 4:30PM

14-15 SIL Verification– Angela E. Summers – Location: SIS-TECH facility, Houston 1.4 CEUs • $495 • 8:30AM - 4:30PM

20-21 Auditing Your SHE Management System– Jack McVaugh – Location: TBD, Houston $695

20-22 SIS Implementation– Angela E. Summers – Location: SIS-TECH facility, Houston$695 • 8:30AM - 4:30PM

27-28 How to Deal with the Media– Judy Hoffman – Location: SIS-TECH facility, Houston$295

Registration Fees: Early Registration (4 weeks prior)

Contact: 979-458-1863 • 979-458-0422 (fax) • [email protected]

Check for future classes at:http://process-safety.tamu.edu/education/main.htm

Other Course OfferingsAvailable by Request and On-Site


COURSE TITLE COURSE DATE FEE

Last Name First Name MI

Company Name

Mailing Address

City State Zip

Telephone Fax E-Mail Address*

Early registration is 4 weeks prior to course date. Seeindividual classes for fee, (based on course duration).

Circle one: MC Visa AmEx

Total $ __________________

CC# ______________________________ Exp. ______

Card Holder __________________________________

Please send registration form and check(made payable to the Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center) or fax registration ifpaying by credit card (American Express,Diners Club, MasterCard, or Visa) to:

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterAttention: Mary CassTexas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843-3122Phone: 979/458-1863 Fax: 979/458-0422

CANCELLATION & REFUND POLICY1) If the course is cancelled for any reason, we will provide a 100% refund or the student can transfer

their registration fee to the next offering of the same course, or to a different course.2) If the student cannot attend the course, they may have a substitute attend. Cancellations must

be received ten working days prior to the start of the course to receive a refund. After that time,there will be a 30% penalty. All refunds will incur a $25 service charge. The Center will not beresponsible for any costs and/or expenses incurred by the registrant when a class is cancelled.

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterContinuing Education Registration Form

*Email addresses received via this registration form will be added to our email distribution list unless otherwise noted.

Registration and Fees:

To register online go to: http://www.texasonline.state.tx.us/NASApp/tamu/ODEManagerand select courses offered by the Texas Engineering Experiment Station and then you will be linked tothe site listing all our our courses. Follow the instructions and be sure to wait for a confirmation that yourregistration was received before exiting the site.


Contact:Donna StartzMary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterTexas A&M University3122 TAMUCollege Station, TX 77843-3122

Phone: 979/845-3489Fax: 979/458-1493

http://process-safety.tamu.edu

CALENDCALENDCALENDCALENDCALENDARARARARAR

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Thursday, January 11, 2006Steering Committee Meeting

10 AM - 3 PMTexas A&M University - Room 256, Jack E. Brown Building

Friday, March 30, 2007Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

9AM-4PMShell Global Solutions US

Houston, TX

October 23-24, 20072007 SYMPOSIUM

The Brazos Center, College Station, TX

© Copyright 2006. Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center. All rights reserved.College Station, Texas, USA, December 2006

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

mary kay process safety symposium o’connor attracts record … · centerline, vol. 10, no. 3 1...

Documents