Mary Kay Every Dog is Allowed to Bite Once! O’Connor by Dr

1 Spring 2006Centerline, Vol. 10, No. 1

2 / Director’s Corner 3 / TAC Update4 / Recent Publications

INSIDE

Vol. 10, No. 1SPRING 2006

Mary KayO’ConnorProcessSafetyCenter

Chemical EngineeringDivision of the

Texas EngineeringExperiment Station

The Texas A&MUniversity System

Centerline

Centerline

Every Dog is Allowed to Bite Once!

I received my MSc in 1965 from the Technical University of Lodz inchemical engineering. My professional career started with one of the biggestPolish dyestuff companies, Boruta-Zgierz close to Lodz, as a process engineer.The company was old-fashioned, with highly complex chemistry and poorprocessing, which affected the health and safety of the workers. I still rememberworkers sitting on the edge of big vessels where diazo processes were takingplace and mixing the contents byhand with a big spade and manualremoval of very dusty dyestuffpowder from a ball mill or cabinetdryer. It was really a big mess.Moreover, the production output wasvery large because the COMPANYproduced more than 10000 tons ofhigh quality organic dyestuff at thattime because of a big demand fromthe Polish textile industry located innearby Lodz, which was calledPolish Manchester due to its hugetextile manufacturing.

I was shift manager in the semi-product division supervising sulfonationprocesses when in April 1966, during the night shift a very huge explosion tookplace, just 150 meters from my production area. Three people were killed on thespot and a reactor with mass of about 15 tons traveled through the roof of theproduction building and hit the wall of our warehouse and caused some damage.It was a very traumatic incident similar to what an individual might feel from avicious bite from a rabid dog. I was asked to join the investigation team to findout the causes of the accident, what at that time should be read as: who wasguilty? Or, was sabotage involved? We saw the victims and talked to their families,and it was a very shocking and unpleasant experience. The real cause was typical,loss of cooling in a batch reactor and a runaway chemical reaction in themanufacture of p-amino salicylic acid, which is a component for pharmaceuticals.No classical layers of protection were normally used for that purpose, likeemergency cooling with subsequent dumping of all contents. After the investigation,during which we developed a cause and consequence model of that accident, weasked ourselves: Can we allow such dogs to bite us AGAIN? What should we doto avoid such a tragedy in the future? Since we identified the causes, the solutionwas rather simple, but from our present perspective we didn’t take into accountreal underlying causes. At that time there was no process hazards analysis (PHA),

6 / Safety Climate Study 8 / Don Kimbril Story9 / Curriculum Survey

11 / Atmospheric Relief12 / Symposium19 / Continuing Education

Continued on page 21

by Dr. Adam Markowski

Adam Markowski & Sam Mannanat Farewell Luncheon


Director’sCorner

“REACH will have far-reaching impacts.”Forgive the play on words but that is exactly what isgoing to happen. I had the opportunity to attend a 1-day workshop on a new European Communitylegislation referred to as Registration, Evaluation, andAuthorization of Chemicals (REACH). Even thoughREACH is a European Union legislation, because ofsome of the elements of the upcoming legislation,impacts are expected to be felt worldwide.

The evolution of REACH started with thepublication of a White Paper in 1998 aimed atprotection of human health and environment andmaintenance and enhancement of the competitivenessof the European chemical industry. After making itthrough a myriad of European Union rulemakingprocesses, REACH is now being deliberated by theEuropean Parliament and the European Council ofMinisters. Conventional wisdom is that sometime atthe end of 2006 or at the latest in early 2007, REACHwill receive final approval as a European Unionregulation. Already, efforts are underway to establisha brand new European Agency headquartered inHelsinki to manage and implement REACH.

REACH will establish a single coherentsystem for new and existing chemicals that willestablish requirements for pre-registration,registration, evaluation, and authorization ofchemicals. About 30,000 chemicals are initiallyexpected to be covered by REACH requirements. Thepre-registration process is expected to take about 12-18 months and would require the submission ofinformation such as substance name, potentialsignificant details (e.g., third party representative),deadline for registration, and similar substances. TheHelsinki REACH agency would then publish a list andrelated information on web site. The idea is toprovide companies with the opportunity to cometogether to share data.

The registration process would include thedevelopment of a chemical safety assessment thatwould include hazard and exposure information,

development of exposure scenarios, development ofsafety data sheets, and risk management procedures.The registration process consists of development andsubmittal of physical/chemical, environmental, andhealth effects that include the following:• Physical/chemical property dossier• Chemical safety report including life cycle

analyses as appropriate• Collect and share existing data on properties of

substances and generate new information includinganimal testing, if necessary

• Prepare safety data sheet (SDS) and provide SDSto downstream users and distributors

• Classify and label using globally harmonizedsystem

• Develop and communicate risk managementmeasures

The Evaluation process is expected to ensurethat industry is meeting obligations and unnecessarytesting is prevented. The Authorization process is toensure that risks from substances of high concern areproperly controlled. In some cases, the Agency mightlimit or discontinue the usage of certain chemicalsbased on evaluation and authorization analyses.

The foregoing discussion provides a briefsummary of the myriad and extensive requirements ofREACH. However, the impact of this forthcomingEuropean legislation will be felt much farther andwider than the European Union. For example, considera product that is manufactured somewhere outside theEuropean Union and then imported into the EuropeanUnion. If the product (in case it is a pure substance) orany of the constituents (if the product is a mixture) is aREACH-listed chemical, then the importer is obligatedto comply with the requirements of REACH. Thus,there could possibly be extensive implications both upand down the supply chain. Some of the scenarios thatcould lead to the unavailability of certain chemicalsare:

-Continued-


• Based on analyses conducted during the evaluation and authorization steps, the agency mightlimit or discontinue the usage of a chemical

• Based on costs involved for REACH compliance, a supplier may decide to stop productionof a certain chemical

• Because of the limited demand for a certain chemical, the supplier may stop production ofthe chemical regardless of the costs involved for REACH compliance

REACH will have extensive impacts on the chemical industry in the European Union.However, as discussed above, because of supply chain implications combined with the stringentrequirements of REACH, the impact of REACH is likely to be felt worldwide.

M. Sam Mannan

TAC UPDATEThe Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center’s Technical Advisory Committee

met in College Station on Thursday, April 6, 2006. Dr. Vic Edwards, Process Directorat Aker Kvaerner, chaired and moderated the very productive semi-annual meeting.

Dr. Sam Mannan gave an update on Center operations.Among the discussions was a rundown on Center

research projects and proposals. Presentations were providedon five of fourteen research areas that are part of the Center’sStrategic Research Plan. They are LNG Fire Protection/BraytonFire School tests/CFD models, Engineering for SustainableDevelopment, Nanotechnology Calorimeter, Bio Fuels Safety,and Resilient Engineering. An overview of LNG researchbeing undertaken by the Center was provided by Dr. JaneWang, research scientist and project manager. LNGexperiments will be conducted later in April at the BraytonFire School of Texas A&M University. The project involves the collaboration of theCenter, several TAMU departments, and outside companies, and will include tests onLNG spills, measurements of dispersion, fire radiation, and fire mitigation data. Fourgraduate research assistants will be aiding in the experiment.

The TAC was asked for recommendations on future Center research. Many ofthe suggestions will be considered for MS or PhD research projects. Others areappropriate for semester projects within safety courses directed by the Center in thechemical engineering program and in the safety engineering program (SENG).

The next TAC meeting will follow the Center Symposium in October and isscheduled for Thursday, October 26, 9 AM – 3 PM, at the Jack E. Brown Building,Room 256, Texas A&M University, College Station. The Symposium is on October 24-25, 2006, and will be held at the Brazos Center in College Station, Texas.

More information on all of the above mentioned topics can be found on theCenter website at: http://process-safety.tamu.edu.

Dr. Vic Edwards


Recent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent Publications1. Vidal, M., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Prediction of Minimum Flash Point Behavior for

Binary Mixtures,” Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, Part B, Process Safety andEnvironmental Protection, vol. 84, no. B1, January 2006, pp. 1-9.

2. Wei, C., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Detection of Autocatalytic Decomposition Behaviorof Energetic Materials Using APTAC,” Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, vol. 83,no. 1, January 2006, pp. 125-130.

3. Badders, N.R., C. Wei, A.A. Aldeeb, W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Predicting the ImpactSensitivities of Energetic Materials Using Quantum Chemical Descriptors,” Journal of EnergeticMaterials, vol. 24, no. 1, January-March 2006, pp. 17-33.

4. Rajaraman, S., J. Hahn, and M.S. Mannan, “Sensor Fault Diagnosis for Nonlinear ProcessesWith Parametric Uncertainties,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 130, no. 1-2, March2006, pp. 1-8.

5. Vidal, M., W. Wong, W.J. Rogers and M.S. Mannan, “Evaluation of Lower Flammability Limitsof Fuel–Air–Diluent Mixtures Using Calculated Adiabatic Flame Temperatures,” Journal ofHazardous Materials, vol. 130, no. 1-2, March 2006, pp. 21-27.

6. Anand, S., N. Keren, M.J. Tretter, Y. Wang, T.M. O’Connor, and M.S. Mannan, “HarnessingData Mining to Explore Incident Databases,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 130, no. 1-2,March 2006, pp. 33-41.

7. Olive, C., T.M. O’Connor, and M.S. Mannan, “Relationship of Safety Culture and ProcessSafety,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 130, no. 1-2, March 2006, pp. 133-140.

8. Qiao, Y., H.H. West, M.S. Mannan, D.W. Johnson, and J.B. Cornwell, “Assessment of theEffects of Release Variables on the Consequences of LNG Spillage onto Water Using FERCModels,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 130, no. 1-2, March 2006, pp. 155-162.

9. Wei, C., W.J. Rogers, and M.S. Mannan, “Thermal Decomposition Hazard Evaluation ofHydroxylamine Nitrate,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 130, no. 1-2, March 2006, pp.163-168.

10. Mitchell, S.M. and M.S. Mannan, “Designing Resilient Engineered Systems,” ChemicalEngineering Progress, vol. 102, no. 4, April 2006, pp. 39-45.

11. Liu, Y.-S., V.M. Ugaz, W.J. Rogers and M.S. Mannan, “Development of a MiniatureCalorimeter for Identification and Detection of Explosives and Other Energetic Compounds,”Proceedings of the 8th Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium –Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas,October 25-26, 2005, pp. 23-31.

-Continued-


12. Papadaki, M., E.M. Domingo, T. Mahmud, M.S. Mannan, W.J. Rogers and C. Zhang,“Hydrogen Peroxide Runaway Reaction,” Proceedings of the 8th Annual Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance:Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas, October 25-26, 2005, pp. 72-83.

13. Leake, J., D. Furry, A. Murthi and M.S. Mannan, “Application of PhotographicVisualization and Thermal Detection Techniques for Non-Intrusive Imaging of LNGLeaks and Plumes,” Proceedings of the 8th Annual Mary Kay O’Connor ProcessSafety Center Symposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety SecondNature, College Station, Texas, October 25-26, 2005, pp. 164-182.

14. Kim, K., K. Park, M.S. Mannan and E.S. Yoon, “Safety Analysis of LNG TerminalFocused on the Consequence Calculation of Accidental and Intentional Spills,”Proceedings of the 8th Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterSymposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance: Making Safety Second Nature,College Station, Texas, October 25-26, 2005, pp. 200-218.

15. Raghunathan, V., S. Anand, H.H. West, Y. Wang, M. Sawyer and M.S. Mannan, “SpillModeling of Dilute Water Stream Solutions,” Proceedings of the 8th Annual Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium – Beyond Regulatory Compliance:Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas, October 25-26, 2005, pp. 400-410.

16. Whipple, T., R. Coates, M. Wisby, K. Richardson, A. Murthi, H.H. West and M.S.Mannan, “Design of Experiments for LNG Spills on Land,” Proceedings of the 8th

Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium – Beyond RegulatoryCompliance: Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas, October 25-26,2005, pp. 543-554.

17. Wise, M.S., A. Murthi, H.H. West and M.S. Mannan, “Multiple Agent SuppressionCharacteristics in Fires Involving Cryogenic Fuel Groups,” Proceedings of the 8th

Annual Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Symposium – Beyond RegulatoryCompliance: Making Safety Second Nature, College Station, Texas, October 25-26,2005, pp. 555-578.

Recent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent PublicationsRecent Publications - Cont’d.


Safety Climate and Decision MakingStephanie C. Payne, Mindy E. Bergman, JaimeB. Henning, & Carolyn J. Stufft, Department ofPsychology, Texas A&M University

Employees have to make decisions regardingsafety in the workplace every day. Whether they willmake the right decision depends on factors internal andexternal to the individual employees. Internal factorsinclude such individual differences as job knowledge,skill level, beliefs, and propensities, whereas externalfactors include environmental conditions, the qualityof the equipment and materials, and the climate of theorganization.

We conducted a study to gain further insightinto the relative influence of individual differencecharacteristics and environmental characteristics onemployee decision making regarding issues of safetyand productivity in the organization. To do this, wedeveloped two hypothetical scenarios1 and askedparticipants to report how they would respond to eachscenario. We also asked respondents to rate a batteryof their own personal characteristics and to assess theirown organization’s safety climate.

In this article, we focus on the results for safetyclimate. Safety climate refers to shared employeeperceptions of the policies, practices, and proceduresconcerning safety. Consistent with this definition, Zohar(2000) offered a more parsimonious definition of safetyclimate as the relative priority of safety in anorganization. Organizations often have competingoperational goals, and one goal that often competeswith safety is productivity. Thus, the level of safetyclimate reflects the priority given to safety versusproductivity. Typically climate is assessed byadministering a battery of items to all employees withina given work group or organization and aggregatingtheir responses. When climate questions areadministered to only one employee of an organization(as in this study), the construct assessed is referred toas psychological rather than organizational climate.Psychological safety climate was expected to relatepositively to safe decision making.

We administered our survey to two samples.Sample 1 consisted of attendees to the 2005 Mary KayO’Connor Safety Symposium who were recruited toparticipate in a survey study on safety climate. Although

the symposium attracted attendees from industry,consulting, and academia, only those attendees whowork for industry were eligible to participate. This isbecause only industry employees would be embeddedin an organizational setting in which the organization’ssafety climate could influence the decisions they makeabout the organization’s processes, safety, andproductivity. Thirty-four usable surveys were returnedfrom 30 males and 4 females. The majority ofparticipants (91.2%) were Caucasian, and the averageage was 49 years. Twenty-four respondents wereemployed in chemical process manufacturing, six werein oil and gas production, and four reported “other.”Twenty-two respondents identified themselves as plantmanagement, eight as process supervisors, and four asperforming other roles within industry.

Sample 2 consisted of 41 Texas A&MUniversity engineering students who had previouslycompleted an internship. Students were recruited duringone of their classes (thermal dynamics, process safety,industrial hygiene engineering, or systems safetyengineering) to participate in a survey study on decisionmaking in organizations2. This sample consisted of 26(63%) males and 15 (37%) females. As in sample 1,the majority of the participants (83%) were Caucasian.Most of the students were seniors (66%) with a meanage of 22 years. Internships tended to be for onesemester (61%) with an average of 30% of their timespent on safety issues.

Participants in both samples completed aneight-page survey and responded to two hypotheticalscenarios. Scenarios were written to emulate real-lifesafety decisions made on the job. The first scenario(scenario 1) described a situation in which therespondent heard a report from an employee thatturnaround intensive maintenance in a chemical processplant had been field stripped. Resuming the processcould generate lower quality output and damageequipment and/or release chemicals into the air.Participants then indicated their likelihood of choosingone of two response options on an 8-point scale (1 =most risky, 8 = most conservative/safe). The optionswere (a) proceed as planned with the scheduledinspection or (b) require that any maintenance notcompleted to specification be redone.


The second scenario (scenario 2) described astyrene leak from a tank which could explode in thetank farm. The effects of styrene, the results of an airquality check, and information about the materials logwere described. Again, participants then indicatedtheir likelihood of choosing one of two responseoptions on an 8-point scale (1 = most risky, 8 = mostconservative/safe). The options were (a) conductcontainment and clean-up activities or (b) counselcity authorities to institute a mandatory evacuation.Upon completion of the survey, symposiumrespondents had the opportunity to include their namein a raffle drawing for a set of industry handbooks.Students in sample 2 earned class credit for theirparticipation.

Descriptive statistics for the decisions to thehypothetical scenarios are particularly interesting. Itseems the participants made more conservativedecisions for scenario 1 (M = 6.82 for sample 1 andM = 5.74 for sample 2) than scenario 2 (M = 3.81for sample 1 and M = 3.34 for sample 2). There alsowas more variance in responses to scenario 2 (SD =2.18 for sample 1; SD = 1.63 for sample 2) than toscenario 1 (SD = 1.67 for sample 1; SD = 1.50 forsample 2).

Safety climate was assessed with sixteenitems from Zohar and Luria (2005) on a 5-pointagreement scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = stronglyagree). Symposium participants were asked torespond with their current organization in mind,whereas students were asked to respond about theorganization in which they interned. An example itemread: “Executive plant management in my plant/company react quickly to solve the problem whentold about safety hazards.” Descriptive statistics forsafety climate were as follows: M = 3.82 SD = 0.67for sample 1 and M = 4.54, SD = 0.89 for sample 2.

Consistent with expectation, the students’perceptions of safety climate in the organization theyinterned with was strongly related to making a saferdecision for scenario 1 (r = .48, p < .05); howevertheir perceptions of safety climate were not related totheir decision making for scenario 2 (r = .15, p > .05).

Contrary to expectation, the symposiumparticipants’ perception of the safety climate in theircurrent organization did not relate significantly totheir decision making for scenario 1 (r = .15, p >.05) or scenario 2 (r = .00, p > .05). It is unclear ifthis was a function of a small sample size or theartificiality of the hypothetical paper-basedscenarios.

Our collaborative work with the Mary KayO’Connor Process Safety Center is still in its earlystages. We plan to develop further studies on safetyclimate, with emphasis on individual characteristicsof safe employees, safe decision making, and the roleof various stakeholders (e.g., subordinates,supervisors, top leadership, local community) ininfluencing safety climate and safe decision making.If you and your organization would be interested inpartnering with us and the Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center to advance the agenda ofunderstanding and improving safety climate, pleasecontact Stephanie Payne, (979) 845-2090,[email protected].

ReferencesZohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of

safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate onmicroaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 587-596.

Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevelmodel of safety climate: Cross-level relationshipsbetween organization and group-level climates.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 616-628.

(Footnotes)1 Thank you to Michael O’Connor for his assistance

generating the scenarios.2 Thank you to Drs. William Rogers, Yanjun Wang,

Michael Bevan, and Lale Yurttas for giving usaccess to their students during class time.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Don Kimbril of ExxonMobilHeads Steering Committee

Mr. Donald R. Kimbril, Chief Safety Engineerof ExxonMobil Chemical Company, Baytown Texas,assumed the chairmanship of the Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center Steering Committee beginningwith the April 6 meeting.

Don was born and raised in Alabama andattended Auburn University, receiving a Bachelorsdegree in Industrial Engineering in 1975. He receiveda Masters degree in Engineering from Texas A&MUniversity in 1976.

Don began his career as a Safety Engineer withthe U. S. Army Materiel Development and ReadinessCommand at the Red River Army Depot in Texarkana,Texas. His primary duties centered around thehazards and risks associated with heavy machinery,explosives, and lasers...among others. He thentransferred to the Tennessee Valley Authority, wherehis duties related to the hazards and risks of electricalpower generation and distribution, including nuclearpower. He joined Mobil Corporation in 1979.

The first 10 years of Don’s career with Mobilwere spent in the upstream Exploration andProduction side of the business, where he hadopportunity to appreciate the bitter cold of northernCanada, and the stifling heat of the desert of Libya.Don relayed, “I observed that God didn’t often put oiland gas reserves in Paradise. Rather, He chose to putthem in less hospitable parts of the world. I had myfirst clue of this early in my career when I was doing adrilling rig inspection in northern Canada. Thehelicopter departed from Fort St John, BritishColumbia before daylight and headed North, about aone hour ride where the rig was operating in the frozentundra. The temperature was about 50 below zero.Let me remind you that I was born and raised inAlabama, where 50 below zero is outlawed. I steppedout of the helicopter at the break of daylight, and wasgreeted by the Toolpusher in a particularly jovialmood, who stated: “You picked a great day for thevisit. Sun’s shining and it’s warming up.” It was 40below....doesn’t matter about the Celsius orFahrenheit stuff.”

In 1980, Don and his family moved to TripoliLibya. The U. S. Embassy had been burned severalmonths earlier, and U. S. - Libya relations were

deteriorating rapidly. The U. S.shot down two Libyan jets overthe Gulf of Sidra in 1981, andabout 6 months later PresidentReagan and U. S. businessessevered relations with Libya.

For the next severalyears Don and his family livedand worked in the Netherlands,Norway, and Eastern Canada insupport of offshore development projects. Hetransferred to the downstream Chemicals side of thebusiness in 1989, and assumed his current role as ChiefSafety Engineer in 2000 following the Exxon and Mobilmerger.

As Chief Safety Engineer, Don works withExxonMobil businesses worldwide to continue toimprove Process Safety performance. Don said hisgoals in business are perfectly aligned with the Centergoal of improving Process Safety throughout industry.“I believe the Process Safety Center is perfectlypositioned to work with academia, industry andagencies to recognize opportunities to improve ProcessSafety, and seize those opportunities. Excellentexamples of this multi disciplinary effort occurred justrecently when the Center sponsored workshops relatedto facility siting and atmospheric relief to recognize andseize the lessons learned from the BP Texas Citytragedy.’’

“I am excited about working with the SteeringCommittee to bring together a broad based group ofprofessionals to discuss the challenges facing industryin the pursuit of process safety improvement, exchangeinformation and ideas about how to tackle thosechallenges, and ultimately take those learnings back intoour respective companies to make a difference. Onething I love about Process Safety is that the people whomake it a career do so with passion and commitment.There is an openness to share best practices so that wemay all get better. The Center stands at the crossroadsof this channel of communications.”

Don has two children, Courtney and Andrew,the former a Texas Tech grad and the latter a soon-to-be Texas Tech grad. Don and his wife Shirley live inFriendswood, Texas.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


The Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center conducted a survey of nearly two hundreduniversities across the United States, to establish the status of the Process Safety in the chemicalengineering curriculums of American universities. The survey addressed the following issues:• Is process safety currently offered?

o If yes, is process safety part of the core or elective curriculum?o If no, are there plans for offering process safety courses in the future?

Of the 180 universities surveyed, 102 responses were received. At least two follow-uptelephone calls were made to the 78 universities that responded. Based on anecdotal informationand non-response to the follow-up telephone calls, it can reasonably be assumed that the 78 non-respondent universities do not have any process safety courses. Based on this assumption, thestudy findings conclude:

• Around 20 universities or 11% of the chemical engineeringdepartments in the United States offer process safety as part ofthe core curriculum.

• Another 24 universities or an additional 13% of the chemicalengineering departments in the United States offer a processsafety course as an elective.

• Five universities have plans to introduce process safety in theirengineering curriculums in the near future.

• Overwhelmingly, the textbook by Crowl and Louvar was usedas the textbook for the process safety course, whether taughtas a core course or an elective course.

What do these results say about the status of Process Safety education and its place in thechemical engineering curriculum in American universities? According to study director, Dr. M.Sam Mannan, “We have reason to be hopeful. One-fourth of the US universities are offering processsafety as a core or elective course. Having said that, I must also raise the alarm that we have a longways to go. If we are going to solve the challenging safety problems facing the process industry,improve safety performance, and march towards zero incidents; the other three-fourths of the USuniversities much also move up to the table. It is unconscionable to ask our graduates to developand practice the principles of ‘making safety second nature,’ if we refuse to teach them the principlesand fundamentals during their education. One of the more satisfying comments I have receivedfrom former students is, ‘Process Safety is the most important course I took in college. Thank youfor introducing us to these important principles.’”

The accompanying map (on page 10), shows the results of the survey. The survey instrument,responses received, and listing of the universities with information regarding status of processsafety in the chemical engineering curriculum is available on request. The same information isalso available in the Members Area of the Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center website(http://process-safety.tamu.edu)

Process Safety Curriculum in US Universities


PR

Process Safety Curriculum SurveyResults – 3/16/06

180 universities contacted102 responses received

Of those responses:20 universities – have a Core course in Process Safety24 universities – offer an Elective course in Process Safety 5 universities – plan to add process safety to the curriculum

Core Curriculum

Elective

Future Plans

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Atmospheric Relief WorkshopThe Center hosted a one-day workshop focused

on atmospheric venting of flammable and toxicmaterials. The workshop was held at Houston’sGeorge Bush Intercontinental Airport on February 1,2006. This was the Center’s second workshop; thefirst was also held in Houston back in the fall of 2005.The first’s workshop’s topic was facility siting.

The workshop had more than 50 participants,including representatives of major operatingcompanies, the USChemical and HazardInvestigation Board(CSB), andconsulting firms.Many of the world’sleading experts onthis topic were inattendance. The Center commends all workshopparticipants for contributing.

Recent events in industry have greatlyincreased the focus of both industry and regulators onissues relating to the venting of hazardous materials toatmosphere. On the one hand, industry representativeshave expressed concern about unwarranted newregulatory requirements. On the other hand, regulatorshave expressed their concern that there are instanceswhere industry is inappropriately relying uponatmospheric venting where discharge to a closedsystem would be much better. The workshop providedparticipants a forum to exchange views in anenvironment conducive to education on this importanttopic.

As with the Center’s previous workshop, theformat consisted of a morning of presentations,followed by an afternoon of workgroup sessionsfocusing on particular aspects of atmospheric venting.

The Center’s Chairman, Dr. Sam Mannan,opened the workshop with a technical and regulatoryoverview.

Dr. Mannan’s presentation was followed by theCSB’s Giby Joseph who presented a slide showentitled, “Impact of BP Texas City – March 23, 2005”.

The slide show included a presentation of the CSB’sinterim findings as well as a viewing of the CSB’scomputer animation of the incident. Mr. Joseph alsoentertained many questions from the audience.

ExxonMobil’s Bill Banick presented, inconsiderable detail, ExxonMobil’s practices concerningatmospheric relief. Of particular interest wereExxonMobil’s practices relating to when, and when not,condensable blowdown drums (aka blowdown drums)can be used. Mr. Banick also took many questions fromthe audience.

Pat Berwanger, of Berwanger, Inc., who alsohappened to be one of OSHA’s investigators of the BPincident, presented his thoughts on the relative hazardsof different types of releases.

Just prior to lunch there was a very lively paneldiscussion touching on an array of issues but withparticular attention given to the use of instrumentation inlieu of pressure relief devices.

In the afternoon, workshop participants split intothree workgroups.

Workgroup A, facilitated by DNV’s Karl VanScyoc, focused on the safety and environmental aspectsof dispersion modeling.

Workgroup B, facilitated by Dow Chemical’sGeorge King, addressed liquid level

Workgroup C, facilitated by Berwanger’s PatBerwanger, centered around Pressure Relief Header/Disposal Systems.

At the end of the day, each workgroup presentedits findings to all workshop participants.

Interested parties can receive a copy of theworkshop proceedings, including copies of all thepresentations and workgroup findings, on a CD bycontacting Mary Cass at [email protected].

The Center’s next workshop will be held onJuly 13, 2006 in Houston. The topic will be ProcessUpset Management (PUM).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

20062006200620062006InteInteInteInteInternrnrnrnrnational Symposiumational Symposiumational Symposiumational Symposiumational Symposium

20062006200620062006InteInteInteInteInternrnrnrnrnational Symposiumational Symposiumational Symposiumational Symposiumational SymposiumMary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center

BEYOND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE,MAKING SAFETY SECOND NATURE

October 24-25, 2006

at The Brazos Center • College Station, Texas

The Symposium qualifies for 14 PDH (Professional Development Hours)required by Texas Board of Professional Engineers.

A one hour Ethics seminar is offered seperately.

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center - 2006 International SymposiumThe Brazos Center, College Station, TX

MORNING

8:00 -9:30AM

10:00 -11:30AM

AFTER-NOON

12:30 -2:00PM

2:30 -4:30PM

Track I Track II Track IIIChairs: Chairs: Chairs:

Skip Early, Marc Levin Kathy Shell, Mike Marshall George King, Scott Ostrowski

Time Tuesday, October 24, 2006

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Reactive Chemicals - I“Reactive Calorimetry, M. Levin, Shell

Global Solutions“A Complete Analysis by Calorimetries

and Spectrometers for Styrene and itsDerivatives,” C.C. Liao, C.M. Shu, NationalYunlin University, Taiwan, and M.L. Shyu,University of Miami

“Runaway Chemical Reaction ExposesCommunity to Highly Toxic Chemicals,” M.Kaszniak and J. Vorderbruggen, U.S.Chemical Safety and Hazard InvestigationBoard

Reactive Chemicals – II“Study on Thermal Decomposition

Characteristics of AIBN,” X. Li, X. Wong, andH. Koseki, National Research Institute for Fireand Disaster, Japan

“Decomposition of Solvents in ReactiveChemical Processes,” J. Tsui, P. Liu, J.Sisko, and P. Dell’Orco, GlaxoSmithKline

“Layer of Protection Analysis for ReactiveChemical Risk Assessment,” C. Wei, DNV andW.J. Rogers and M.S. Mannan, MKOPSC

Reactive Chemicals – III“Combined Use of Heat-Flow Calorimetry

and Molecular Modeling for the Study ofRunaway Reactions,” M. Papadaki, Universityof Leeds, UK, and W.J. Rogers and M.S.Mannan, MKOPSC

“Studies on Runaway Reaction of ABSPolymerization Process,” K.-H. Hu, C.-S. Kao,and Y.-S. Duh, Jen-Teh Junior College ofMedicine, Nursing and Management, Taiwan

“Risk Evaluation on the Basis of PressureRate Measured by Automatic PressureTracking Adiabatic Calorimeter,” Y. Iwata andH. Koseki, National Research Institute for Fireand Disaster, Japan

Lessons Learnedfrom Katrina and Rita

”Industrial Chemical Releases Associatedwith Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Louisianaand Texas, P.Z. Ruckart, M.F. Orr, ATSDR, andK. Lanier, A. Koehler, Louisiana Office of PublicHealth

”HSE & Technical Challenges for the MarsRecovery Project,” D. Knoll, Shell InternationalExploration and Production

”Hurricane Rita: An Unwelcome Visitor toPPG Industries in Lake Charles, Louisiana,”R.E. Sanders, PPG Industries

Hazard Management”A Review of the Criteria for People

Exposure to Radiant Heat Flux from Fires,” P.K.Raj, Technology and Management Systems

”Reducing Aluminum Dust ExplosionHazards: Case Study of Dust Inerting in aBuffing Operation,” T.J. Myers, Exponent, Inc.

”Improve the Process of PHA forSustainable Safety,” S.L. Chakravorty, OISD,Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, NewDelhi, India

Lessons Learned/Case Histories”Haloamine Formation in Bromine

Recovery Tower – A Case Study Reinforcingthe Need for Periodic Review of ProcessHazards,” J. Cranston, Albemarle Corporation.

”Managing a Major Crisis in A ChemicalFacility – Are You Prepared?,” D. Belonger,DJBAssociates, Inc

.”The Sub-Process Approach to PlantSafety Management,” G.S. Price, Plant SafetyAnalysts

“Trailer Siting Issues”,” D. Holmstrom, F.Altamirano, J. Banks, G. Joseph, M. Kaszniak,C. MacKenzie, R. Shroff, H. Cohen, andS. Wallace, U.S. Chemical Safety and HazardInvestigation Board

Human Error”Inherent Safety, Ethics, and Human Error,”

M. Papadaki, Leeds University

”The Relationship Between AutomationComplexity and Operator Error,” R.A. Ogle, D.T.Morrison, and A.R. Carpenter, Exponent, Inc.

”Culture and Cultural Change,” R. Goodin,NASA

Safety, Security and Risk Management”A Cost-Effective Approach to Flammable

Gas Detector Spacing,” B. Deshotels, L. Porter,M. Dejmek, and S. DeFriend, Fluor, Inc.

”Enhance Process Hazard Analysis byOptimizing the Study Team,” J. Philley, BakerEngineering and Risk Consultants

”Beyond Guns, Guards, and Gates: ASystems Approach to Homeland Security,” S.M.Mitchell and E.C. Bristow, Texas A&MUniversity

”Fuzzy Risk Matrix,” A.S. Markowski,Technical University of Lodz, POLAND and M.S.Mannan, MKOPSC

LNG”LNG Experiments – The Answer to Many

Questions,” B. Cormier, Y. Wang, and M.S.Mannan, Mary Kay O’Connor Process SafetyCenter

”Study on the Generation ofPerfluorooctane Sulfonate from the AqueousFilm-Forming Foam,” T. Kishi and M. Arai, TheUniversity of Tokyo, Japan

”Validation of FLUENT Predictions for LNGSpills into an Impoundment,” F. Gavelli, E.Bullister, and H. Kyotomaa, Exponent

(8-9 am) Frank P. Lees Memorial Lecture“An Engineering Analysis of the Failures at Texas City,” Mike Broadribb, BP

9:30 am: State of the Center: Research Program, Current Activities, and Future Direction,”Dr. Sam Mannan, Director, Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

5-7PM Cocktail Reception

MORNING

8:00 -9:30AM

10:00 -12 Noon

AFTER-NOON

1:00-2:30PM

3:00 -4:30PM

4:45 -5:45PM

Track I Track II Track IIIChairs: Chairs: Chairs:

Skip Early, Marc Levin Kathy Shell, Mike Marshall George King, Scott Ostrowski

Time Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center - 2006 International SymposiumThe Brazos Center, College Station, TX

Management for Process Safety–I”What Really Went Wrong? – Root Cause

Determination Study and Improvement InitiativeResults,” G.M. Kiihne, BASF Corporation

”Expanding Known Process Safety andRisk Analysis Concepts to Manage SecurityConcerns,” D.W. Abrahamson, OccidentalChemical Corporation and A.L. Sepeda, A.L.Sepeda Consulting

”Maintaining Product Certif icationCompliance of Salvaged/Remanufactured/New-Surplus Equipment Used in Hazardous(Classified) Locations,” C.A. Gagliardi, FMApprovals

Management for Process Safety–II”A Project Management Centered

Approach for MOC in Process Industry,” P.Guillard and A. Wong, Dyadem Engineering

”The Challenges and Pitfalls of Managementof Change Programs,” N. Keren, Iowa StateUniversity and H.H. West, Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center

”Risk Based Process Safety,” J.L. McCavit,J.L. McCavit Consulting

”Using a Risk-Based Process to DesignInherently Safer and More ReliableTechnological Systems,” D.A. Jones, AcuTech

Databases and Learning”The CSB Incident Database – Description,

Summary Statistics and Uses,” M.R. Gomez,U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard InvestigationBoard

”Searchlights from the Past,” T.A. Kletz,Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

Modeling and Simulation”Molecular Simulation Studies of Adsorption

of Hazardous Molecules: The Hydrogen Cyanideand Methyl Ethyl Ketone Case,” R.R. Kotdawala,N. Kazantzis, and R.W. Thompson, WorcesterPolytechnic Institute

”Screening Analysis to Evaluate Whether anIn-Building Release Can Have an Offsite Impact,”M. Rothschild, Rohm and Haas Company

”Offsite Toxic Consequence Risk Assessment– A Simplified Modeling Procedure and CaseStudy,” J. Guarnaccia, T. Hoppe, and L. Floyd,Ciba Specialty Chemicals

Facility Siting”Dow’s New Practice for Locating Temporary

Portable Buildings,” P. Partridge, Dow ChemicalCompany

”Considerations for Siting Buildings withRegard to Vapor Cloud Explosions,” C.Buchwald, ExxonMobil Chemical Company

”An Analysis of the Siting Process of an LNGReception Facility in Taichung Port, Taiwan,” E.C.Tsai, National Sun-Yat Sen University, Taiwan

”Recent Advances in 2-D Explosion Modelingfor Onshore Installations,” V. Raghunathan andC. Spitzenberger, DNV

Sustainable Engineering & Risk Management”Resilient Engineering Systems: Case Study

on a Pipe Design,” S.M. Mitchell and M.S.Mannan, MKOPSC

”Engineered Sustainable Development:Analytical Approach and Application to Bio-dieselPlant,” D. Narayanan, R. Talreja, C. Ehlig-Economides, H.H. West and M.S. Mannan,MKOPSC

”The New Jersey Chemical SecurityPrescriptive Order and Implications for NationalChemical Security and Inherent Safety,” D.A.Moore, M. Hazzan, and M. Rose, AcuTech

”An Expert System for LOPA,” A.S. Markowski,J.A. Suardin and M.S. Mannan, MKOPSC

General Session“The Drive to Zero: Dow Chemical’s Injury Reduction Journey”

Rich Wells, The Dow Chemical Company

Alarm Management andSafety Instrumented Systems

”PSM and SIS: Let’s Bridge the ISA 84Compliance Gaps Now,” C. Miller, Exida

”The Evolution of the Cookbook,” M.Gentile and A.E. Summers, SIS-TECHSolutions

”The Top Ten Worst Alarm ManagementSystems in the Process Industries,” B.Hollifield, PAS

Safety Culture”Process Safety Improvement – Quality

and Target Zero,” K. van Scyoc, DNVConsulting

”Measuring the Immeasurable –Assessing PSM Elements Using ObjectiveCriteria,” P.J. Palmer, Vescen Consulting

”Safety – Make it Personal,” A. Peters,Parsons Corporation

”Safety Climate Practice and Its Predictorsin the Korean Manufacturing Industry,” J.B.Baek, Chungju National University, S. Bae, K.P.Singh, University of North Texas HealthSciences Center

Atmospheric Venting

”ExxonMobil Design Practices forAtmospheric Venting,” B. Banick, ExxonMobil

”Operational and Engineering Learningson Atmospheric Venting,” P. Berwanger,Berwanger, Inc.

”Screening Atmospheric Relief Devicesfor Unacceptable Risks,” D. Eure , DowChemical Company

Special Session: Engineering Ethics - (Register Separately)Dr. Sam Mannan, Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center - 2006 SYMPOSIUM REGISTRATION BEYOND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, MAKING SAFETY SECOND NATURE

October 24-25, 2006The Brazos Center • College Station, Texas

Please Print

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

Total Enclosed $___________________ Payment by Credit Card MasterCard Visa American Express Diners Club

CC# _____________________________________________________Card Holder ________________________________ Exp. ___________

Total Charge $____________________

Send payment to:Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

Texas A&M University3122 TAMU

244 Jack E. Brown Bldg.College Station, TX 77843-3122

-or-Phone: (979) 845-5981

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

Travel:You can travel to College Station by flying into theEasterwood Airport in College Station from theHouston Intercontinental or the Dallas/FortWorthAirport. Also, you can drive from Houston Inter-continental, which is about an hour and a half drive.

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

• • • • • •

For more information: Contact Donna StartzE-mail: [email protected] • Phone: (979) 845-5981

http://process-safety.tamu.edu

Cancellation Policy: Cancellations must be received ten working days prior to the symposium to receive a full refund.After that time, there will be a 30% penalty. All refunds will incur a $25 service charge.

Accommodations:Please indicate you are attending the Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center Symposium when making reservations. Rooms have been blocked at the following hotels.HOTEL PHONE RATE Deadline Group CodeHilton (979) 693-7500 $85.00 10/1/2006 MARYHoliday Inn Express (979) 846-8700 $80.00 9/25/2006 M05Ramada Inn (979) 693-9891 $64.00 10/8/2006 Mary Kay O’ConnorHampton Inn (979) 846-0184 $74.00 10/7/2006 MKSHawthorn Suites (979) 695-9500 $83.00 10/7/2006 Mary Kay O’Connor

Last Name First Name MI

Company Name

Mailing Address

City State Zip

Telephone Fax E-Mail Address

Additional Persons Registering:

2) _______________________________________________ 4) ________________________________________________

3) _______________________________________________ 5) ________________________________________________

Please indicate preferred track for session attendance:Day 1 - First Session: Track I Track II Track III Day 2 - First Session: Track I Track II Track III

Second Session: Track I Track II Track III Second Session: Track I Track II Track IIIThird Session: Track I Track II Track III Third Session: Seminar I Seminar II

REGISTRATION FEES: {Fee includes refreshments, lunch, handouts and proceedings} • Received by September 11, 2006- $495.00 per person • After September 11, 2006 - $550.00 per person Partner, Sponsor, and Advisor membership level organizations receive 40%, 20%, and 10% discounts, respectively.

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

Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety CenterEngineering Ethics Session - Registration Form

4:45-5:45PM, Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Fee: $45 (Separate from Symposium registration fee.)

Immediately following the Symposium, SPECIAL SESSION: "Engineering Ethics" will bepresented by Dr. Sam Mannan.

This session qualifies for one PDH (professional development hour) in the area of professionalethics or roles and responsibilities of professional engineering, as required by the Texas Boardof Professional Engineers, RULE §137.17 Continuing Education Program.

Registration for this session is separate from the Symposium registration.

The session will be held 4:45 - 5:45PM on Wednesday, October 25, 2006,at The Brazos Center. Registration fee is $45.

Fax or mail form.

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

Total Enclosed $___________________❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Payment by Credit Card ❑ MasterCard ❑ Visa ❑ American Express ❑ Diners Club

CC#_______________________________________________________

Card Holder _________________________________ Exp. ___________

Total Charge $____________________

Send payment to:

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety CenterTexas A&M University

3122 TAMU244 Jack E. Brown Bldg.

College Station, TX 77843-3122-or-

Phone: (979) 845-5981Fax: (979) 458-1493

E-mail: [email protected]


Company Name

Mailing Address

City State Zip

Telephone Fax E-Mail Address

Cancellation Policy: Cancellations must be received ten working days prior to the symposium to receive a full refund.After that time, there will be a 30% penalty. All refunds will incur a $25 service charge.

Send $45 registration fee to:


October 24-25, 2006Brazos Center

College Station, Texas

Invites you to to to to to exhibit at the

Making Safety Second Nature• • • •

$1250 includes: • one Symposium registration• listing in meeting programs

(in print and on-line)• 10'X10' booth• electrical hookup• table/chairs• curtain backdrop

2006 Symposium2006 Symposium2006 Symposium2006 Symposium2006 Symposium2006 Symposium2006 Symposium2006 Symposium2006 Symposium2006 Symposium

For more information or to register, contact Donna Startz atphone: 979-845-5981 -or- email: [email protected]

http://prhttp://prhttp://prhttp://prhttp://process-safocess-safocess-safocess-safocess-safetyetyetyetyety.tam.tam.tam.tam.tamu.eduu.eduu.eduu.eduu.edu

Mary Kay O’ConnorMary Kay O’ConnorMary Kay O’ConnorMary Kay O’ConnorMary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety CenterProcess Safety CenterProcess Safety CenterProcess Safety CenterProcess Safety CenterMary Kay O’ConnorMary Kay O’ConnorMary Kay O’ConnorMary Kay O’ConnorMary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety CenterProcess Safety CenterProcess Safety CenterProcess Safety CenterProcess Safety Center


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)


2006 Spring Continuing Education Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center

April

18-19 Layer of Protection Analysis – Angela E. Summers - Location: SIS-Tech facility, Houston --- 1.4 CEUs • $495 • 8:30AM - 4:30PM

May

16-17 Safety Integriy Level (SIL) Verification – Angela E. Summers - Location: SIS-Tech facility, Houston --- 1.4 CEUs • $495 • 8:30AM - 4:30PM

16-18 Responsible Care Management Systems Implementation & Integration – Jack McVaugh - Location: GSWEC, Katy, TX --- 1.8 CEUs • $695 • 9AM – 4PM

23-24 A Systematic Assessment of Reactive Chemical Hazards – M. Sam Mannan & William J. Rogers - Location: GSWEC, Katy, TX --- 1.2 CEUs • $495 • 9AM – 4PM

AUGUST

22-23 A Systematic Assessment of Reactive Chemical Hazards – Location: Great Southwest Equestrian Center, Katy --- 1.2 CEUs • $495 • 9:00AM - 4:00PM

29 - 30 Fundamentals of Process Safety Management (PSM) –Location: Great Southwest Equestrian Center, Katy --- 1.2 CEUs • $495 • 9:00AM - 4:00PM

SEPTEMBER

- -

12-13 Engineering Design Practices for Safer Process Plants – Location: SIS-TECH Solutions facility, Houston --- 1.2 CEUs • $495 • 9:00AM - 4:00PM

19-20 Root Cause Incident Investigation – Location: Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants facility, Houston --- 1.4 CEUs • $495 • 8:00AM - 4:00PM

26-27 Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) Leadership Training – Location: SIS-TECH Solutions facility, Houston --- 1.2 CEUs • $495 • 9:00AM - 4:00PM

OCTOBER

3 Root Cause Incident Investigation (1-day) – Location: Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants facility, Houston --- 0.7 CEUs • $295 • 8:00AM - 4:00PM

10-11 Introduction to Consequence Analysis – Location: SIS-TECH Solutions facility, Houston --- 1.2 CEUs • $495 • 9:00AM - 4:00PM

NOVEMBER

7 How to Deal with the Media – Location: SIS-TECH Solutions facility, Houston 0.6 CEUs • $295 • 9:00AM - 4:00PM

14-16 Responsible Care Management Systems: Internal Audit Training – Location: SIS-TECH Solutions facility, Houston --1.8 CEUs • $695 • 9AM - 4PM

DECEMBER

5-6 Security for Chemical Process Industry – Location: TBD --- 1.2 CEUs • $495 • 9AM - 4PM

Registration Fees: Early Registration (4 weeks prior) Contact: 979-458-1863 • 979-458-0422 (fax) • [email protected]


COURSE TITLE COURSE DATE FEE


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 DinersClub

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.


no rigorous safety management system (SMS), and noprocess safety education either. As if we where in a“process safety desert.” However, I promised myselfthat sooner or later I would work in that area. Althoughchemical engineering was in transition from unitoperations into transport phenomena, it was veryfascinating and challenging for all chemical engineers.

I received my PhD in 1972 in the area of heat andmass transfer. My promotor was Prof. Cz. Strumillo ofthe Lodz Technical University. It was a very goodfoundation to further process safety research, however,this issue needed to wait more than 15 years (in the meantime I was working 5 years at the College of Technologyin Owerri, Nigeria, in the Chemical and MetallurgyDepartment) until I got a 3-month scholarship funded bythe British Council, in 1987 and I went to United Kingdom.In the UK, I spent my first few month at the StrathclydeUniversity at Glasgow headed at that time by Prof GordonBreveridge, who later became President of IChemE.There I met other fascinating people, among them Mr.Frank Crowley, a highly talented safety practitioner withextensive experience in process safety plant design andoperation during years in ICI and BP. I still rememberhis passionate talk on the 1988 Piper Aplha incident where167 people were killed. His encouragement was sooverwhelming that I stopped immediately the advancedresearch I was doing (jet spouted bed system for dryingapplications) and I spent the next two months, from earlymorning to late night time, reading and assimilating allavailable process safety literature. There in Scotland, Irealized that I must go to Rugby and visit the Institutionof Chemical Engineers. It was a very wise move. InRugby, I met wonderful people, first of all theunforgettable Mr. Ben Hancock, who was a chairman ofEPSC and Dr. Peter Varey, who was Editor-in-Chief ofIChemE publications. A fantastic Loss Prevention Bulletindescribing different safety incidents enriched myknowledge and imagination. It was a real lesson to belearned. The IChemE publications literature was veryexpensive, and I was not able to buy any of thesefascinating books and materials. Upon knowing of myinterest, Ben and Peter asked me to select some of theIChemE materials as gifts as a start for my future processsafety career. The first book I selected was the famous,“Notes on Hazop and Hazan” of Trevor Kletz, where thetitle of my essay first appeared.

Back in Poland, I immediately started in 1988the first courses on Safety and Loss Prevention for our

chemical engineering curriculum, and those courses arecontinued until now. Two famous text books were usedby me: the above-mentioned, “Notes on a Hazop andHazan,” and the 1st edition of “Chemical ProcessSafety” by Crowl and Louvar, which was brought toPoland as a matter of fact, from Texas A&M Universityby my Dean of Faculty Prof. Stanislaw Ledakowicz.This book will be replaced this year with a new copyof the 2nd edition presented to me by Prof. M. SamMannan.

In 1989, after 55 years of Russian presence inPoland, the process of democratization and all structuralchanges have taken place. Being in the center of Europe,Poland has started to be a western-oriented countrywith a perspective to join the well-established EuropeanUnion. Immediately I thought that this is our big chanceand an opportunity to develop more extensive activitiesin the process safety area. Shortly, I became an agentfor DNV and TNO with software products like PHASTand EFFECTS. On behalf of Poland, I joined theEuropean funded projects on application of MORTtechniques to accident investigation and simultaneouslyI started two big projects: one funded by the SwedishGovernment concerning creation of the EnvironmentalTraining Centre. In our FACULTY as well, I developeda post-graduate course on Industrial Process Safety (1year course) having in mind future needs with regardto the implementation of the Seveso directives inPoland. Both projects were very successful. The firstone comprised 10 different seminars for industry andthe second one lasted 8 years, where more than 240participants first completed such courses of that typein Poland.

We also succeeded to be a coordinator of theother European funded project TEMPUS entitled,“Education and Training for Loss Prevention inPoland,” with cooperation from the wonderful Prof.Mike Purvis of the Portsmouth University of UK.Everything was possible because I had the supportof my Head of the Department, Prof. RomanZarzycki, and due to his effort in 1993, we moved toan old renovated palace where students haveexcellent learning conditions. This is now THE homeof our Process Safety and Ecological Division,formed in 1996 as a separate part of the SystemEnvironmental Engineering Department. At the sametime I got a German Shepard dog (AS) to which Irefer later on. AS was a real friend.

(Every Dog - ccontinued from page 1)

-Continued-


Through education and training, further expansionon different research and consultancy topics took place.

We analyzed the Maillard reaction as a cause for a hugeexplosion of a crystallizer in the sugar industry whereseven people were killed. This incident proved that anysubstance can be highly dangerous if only the appropriateconditions are formed. In that case, the sacharozearozecan decompose rapidly if the pH is acidic and thetemperature is above 120°C for a sufficient period oftime. Such a situation happened in that sugar crystallizer.We worked out the issue of a domino effect for the refineryindustry and some other methodological issues on riskmanagement for the largest Polish companies. It helpedus to buy new books and training packages (now, manyof them are available from IChemE), software (Phast,Safety, Effects, CARA, and so on). Thanks to Mitchelson,we received for research the academic version of FLACSfor modeling and simulation of explosion phenomena.And also for our new safety chemical engineeringlaboratory, we received a Mettler Toledo RC1, Reactioncalorimeter CPA from Chemisens, AS, as well as a DSCand a DTG. We feel now that we are the strongest processsafety group in Poland.

In 2001, I visited Texas A&M University and Imet Dr Sam Mannan for the first time. After a short visit,which was very friendly and open, he asked me: howare we going to cooperate? That question was open atall times and not answered by me until the Conferenceon 4TH December 2004, organized by Prof. Jai Gupta ofKanpur IIT, to commemorate the 20th anniversary ofBhopal. Sam, who was in India to present the keynotespeech at the conference, repeated the question, this timein a more direct manner: “when will you join the MaryKay O”Connor Process Safety Center at Texas A&M

University for an extended visit.” It was a very temptingproposal. After a talk with my wife who agreed to joinme, I sent an acceptance e-mail to Sam and on the 16th ofSeptember, 2005, I arrived in Houston enroute to CollegeStation.

The time is flying and the 6 months of my stayhere is approaching to an end. It was a very busy and ahappy period to me. The first three months I spentpreparing my lecture (SENG 321: Industrial SafetyEngineering), teaching and performing other academicduties. Although I have been teaching more than 35 years,teaching here was also a very good experience. Now Ihave a better appreciation of the role of the internet,preparation of handouts, and direct contact with students.The interaction with students was very important to mebecause of some communication problems at thebeginning (different accent, pronunciation, etc). Aftermy teaching, I started my research on Layer of ProtectionAnalysis, which was developed in the USA in the mid-nineties. Having the luxury of being able to discuss andexchange views on many research topics with Prof. SamMannan, Prof. Harry West as well as with Dr. W. Rogersand access to a very good library of the Center, I havestarted to apply my long-lasting idea on fuzzy logicapplications for LOPA. I feel that uncertainties andsubjectivities involved in LOPA can be overcome withthe help of mathematics and logic. With the help of Dr.Srinivasan Rajaraman (a student of Professor SamMannan), we developed the fLOPA model, which willbe presented at the European Meeting on Environmentand Safety in Vienna, in May 2006. Two additionalpapers prepared jointly with Sam and Harry were alsoprepared and 2 more papers for the Annual Mary KayO’Connor Symposium are in progress. All those workswere the basis for the new book I have been working onentitled “LOPA for the Process Industry.” It has been avery fruitful and successful period in my life here at TexasA&M University.

Being so loaded with all those technical matterswe can not forget about some relief and relaxation. I andmany of my friends consider the exposure to differentarts as a “relief valve” to our psychological life and itbalances all stresses acquired during academic work.This is why 5 years ago as a pioneer in my Universityand possibly in all of the Technical Universities in Poland,I organized the Art Gallery named “Shortly and Knotty”.The name is a little strange but it comes from typicalphrases of our beloved Prof. Mieczyslaw Serwiñski, who

Home of the Process and Ecological Safety Division,Technical University of Lodz, Poland

-Continued-


was founder of chemical engineering at Lodz TechnicalUniversity 50 years ago. He would summarize hiswonderful lectures with: “Speaking shortly andknotty…and so on… “ Wewould think that he wasapproaching the end of hislecture but it was only anillusion. He was able tocontinue on after anadditional hour had passed.At “Shortly and Knotty” wehave had 35 exhibitionswhere more than 5,000attended. From time totime, during our vernissagemusic was performed.

Time is flying andafter 6 months we arereturning to Poland with alot of memories. We willtake to the Home ofChopin, the Mozart pianomusic performed at theFestival-Institute at Round Top, Texas, by master pianistJames Dick. We are coming back with good feelingsalso for Texas country music, which sounds like Texas,especially with young singer Yousha Taylor singing“Your Man.” We are coming back with memories ofbeautiful Big Bend and fantastic sunsets. We are comingwith new ideas about process safety and first of all weare coming back with a stronger belief in the role of

process safety science in providing to our societies thesafe and secure feeling that is most important for ourlife. Finally I wish to come to my dog AS and the famous

Trevor Kletz phrasereferred to in thefirst figure. My doghad never causedany trouble butonce the side gateto our yard was leftopen by ourdaughter, and ASgot out as he sawthe neighborwalking her dog.After a short time Isaw my neighborwith a bleedinghand because shewanted to protecther dog from myown. The situationwas difficult. She

was a lawyer and I immediately realized that I must dosomething. In Poland as in many places, a bucket offlowers and apologies are always a good starting pointfor resolving any problems. In fact, in this case theflowers really helped and there was no problem at all.After that I took appropriate precautions to make surethat my dog did not bite or harm anyone else. Thus, ASwas forgiven for his one bite and I did not suffer any

major consequences. However, if wehave such big “dogs” as large tankswith highly flammable substances ortoxic materials, we cannot allow themto bite even once. The reason is ifsomething wrong happens, all theflower shops in the world will notsolve the problem.

Thanks to my friends andstudents in the Mary Kay O’ConnorProcess Safety Center at Texas A&MUniversity. And special thanks andgratitude to Prof. M. Sam Mannan forhis invitation, support, and friendshipduring our stay at Texas.

Vernissage gallery of “Shortly and Knotty” at our house in CollegeStation, TX

Art Gallery:”Shortly and Knotty”From right: Prof. A. Gieraga and Prof. F. Garboliñski

of the Art College at Lodz; Prof. E.Rybicki, Vice Rectorof Tech. University of Lodz; Dr. A.S. Markowski,

Manager of the Art Gallery

-Continued-


References:1. Kletz, T.A., Notes on Hazop and Hazan, IChem E2. Crowl, D.A., and J.F. Louvar, Chemical Process Safety Fundamentals with Applications, 2nd ed., Prentice

Hall, 20013. Scott D. and F. Crawley “Proces Plant Design and Operation”, IChem E, 19924. Markowski, A.S., and M. Œlot “Thermal Characteristic of a Runaway Chemical Reaction in the Sugar

Industry” La Rivista dei Combustibili vol. 51, fasc.3, 109-115 (1997)5. Markowski, A.S., “Ryzyko wybuchu cieplnego w procesie krystalizacji cukru”)Thermal explosion risk in

sugar cristallization process”), In¿. Chem i Proc. 20, 585-599(1999)6. A.S. Markowski, A.S., “Quantitative risk assessment improves refinery safety,” Oil and Gas Journal, No. 9,

September 20027. Markowski A.S. and M. S. Mannan “Fuzzy Logic for LOPA”, 5th European Meeting on Environment and

Safety, Vienna, 3-5 May, 20068. Markowski A.S. and M. S. Mannan, “Development of incident scenario for LOPA”, 5th European Meeting

on Environment and Safety, Vienna, 3-5 May, 20069. Markowski A.S. “Layer of Protection Analysis for Process Industry”, Polish Academy of Sciences, in

press, May 200610. Art Gallery: Krótko i Wezlowato: <www.wipos.p.lodz.pl>

Life is beautiful due to the moments that are never repeated.

Arts, fuzzy logic, and process safety

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


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

2006 CALEND2006 CALEND2006 CALEND2006 CALEND2006 CALENDARARARARAR

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Thursday, June 15, 2006Steering Committee Meeting

11 AM - 4 PMTexas A&M University - Room 256, Jack E. Brown Building

2006 SYMPOSIUMOctober 24-25, 2006

The Brazos CenterCollege Station, TX

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

Documents

Mary Kay Every Dog is Allowed to Bite Once! O’Connor by Dr