An Approach for Teaching Process Safety Risk

Engineering and Management Control Concepts

Using AIChE’s Web-based Concept Warehouse

Bruce K. Vaughen
AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), New York, NY, 10005; [email protected] (for correspondence)
Published online 00 Month 2018 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/prs.12010

One of many efforts to help instructors teach process safety- 1. INTRODUCTION

related concepts to undergraduate chemical engineers includes This paper provides a literature review of global process
using AIChE’s web-based Concept Warehouse, a real-time, safety-related educational efforts, background on AIChE’s Edu-
interactive teaching tool which can be used during lectures cation Division’s Concept Warehouse (CW) database,
when teaching chemical engineering subjects. This article describes the framework that will be used to help organize the
describes a student outreach effort by the AIChE Safety and process safety problems, defines a few process safety-related
Health Division to help populate the Concept Warehouse with terms, and shows example problems being developed for
vetted process safety-related problems. The purpose of this article entry and vetting the database. Before defining and describing
is to describe how we are bridging the gap between the practi- this CW effort, however, that a formal volunteering effort is
tioner volunteering their expertise and faculty members inter- currently underway to help provide training on how problems
ested in incorporating current process safety-related concepts can be entered and how they will be vetted and approved
into their classes. The goal for this effort is to provide a before being used by others [1]. Ultimately, anyone teaching
comprehensive instructional tool that can be used to help teach process safety will be able to develop and enter process
process safety-related engineering design concepts, as well as to safety-related problems specific to their discipline or expertise,
help teach the essential administrative process safety and risk such that their vetted problems will become available to and
management system concepts, using problems that describe
used by other instructors lacking such expertise.
both the engineering and administrative controls required for
The efforts to ensure proper understanding and application
safe and reliable operations.
The Concept Warehouse is an information database and of process safety concepts to students are consistent with the
instructional tool accessible to anyone teaching core chemical principles for ethical conduct established by many global engi-
engineering topics such as thermodynamics, kinetics, or process neering professions. These groups define high expectations of
safety anywhere in the world. This article defines and provides their members. In particular, their members (1) must exhibit
the framework of this effort to populate the Concept Warehouse the highest standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality, fair-
with process safety-related problems. As process safety risk ness, and equity, and (2) must be dedicated to the protection
reduction efforts continue to evolve, this article provides updates of the public health, safety, and welfare. For example, the
to traditional definitions that can be used to help orient those AIChE Code of Ethics states first that engineers “hold para-
unfamiliar with these systems-related process safety risk man- mount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and protect
agement strategies. The article concludes with a few example the environment in performance of [their] professional duties
problems which could be used when teaching process safety- [2].” This is a premise which sets the basis for global process
related concepts. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers safety and risk reduction efforts: To keep people safe by pre-
Process Saf Prog 2018 venting incidents that cause harm due to lost control of haz-
Keywords: concept warehouse; curriculum; process safety; ardous materials and energies.
teaching; undergraduate In addition, this effort is part of a direct response to a run-
away, exothermic reaction and explosion incident in 2007
which caused four fatalities, including the chemical engineer
who helped design the process, and injured 32 people in the
surrounding community [3]. The US Chemical Safety Board
(CSB) investigated and reported on this incident, issuing these
© 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers two specific recommendations to AIChE in 2009:

Process Safety Progress Month 2018 1

1. Work with the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Tech- industry willing to teach process safety, students must be pro-
nology, Inc. (ABET) to add reactive hazard awareness to bac- vided with opportunities to learn. This section provides a brief
calaureate chemical engineering curricula requirements. overview of other educational-related efforts which this author
2. Inform all student members about the Process Safety Certifi- located through a literature review compiled for this article.
cate Program and encourage program participation. The author is among many who are encouraged to see that
there are many dedicated professionals and instructors helping
As part of AIChE’s response in 2010, the AIChE Safety and train the next generation in safety, whether it is in process
Chemical Engineering Education (SAChE) Committee issued its safety, laboratory safety, occupational health and safety, or
recommendations describing student expectations for under- environmental safety. Keep the hazardous materials and ener-
standing process safety concepts that will meet the ABET cur- gies in the equipment. In particular, this search identified
riculum requirements [4]. As a result, process safety first went papers describing safety-related teaching and training efforts
into effect as a criterion for United States Chemical Engineering from other disciplines, such as chemistry departments (i.e., lab
programs in the 2012–13 ABET accreditation cycle. Specifi- safety), and from industrial safety professionals training in
cally, the ABET criterion regarding safety in the chemical engi- academic institutions to help employers qualify their safety
neering curriculum is as follows [5]: personnel (i.e., to help the employer meet safety-related work-
place regulations). Some articles also provided educational
“The curriculum must provide a thorough grounding in efforts on different approaches for more effective teaching,
the basic sciences including chemistry, physics, and/or including efforts for making safe decisions (i.e., the psychology
biology, with some content at an advanced level, as of thinking and behavior).
appropriate to the objectives of the program. The curric- A goal for teaching process safety is to convey as best as
possible the hard lessons of the past and set a strong founda-
ulum must include the engineering application of these
tion from which these new professionals will not only know
basic sciences to the design, analysis, and control of how to work safely with and effectively manage hazardous
chemical, physical, and/or biological processes, includ- materials, energies, and processes, but who will know how to
ing the hazards associated with these processes. This cri- build upon and evolve today’s practices for better process
terion can be addressed by (i) a dedicated course safety performance. Thus, it is essential that learnings, often at
and/or (ii) incorporating safety into other courses.” the expense of lives, the environment, and the business, are
shared—“what went wrong?”—to help prevent or mitigate the
Unfortunately, as it is difficult to adapt current, often overloaded, impact of such incidents from occurring again. Unfortunately,
curricula with both diverse research and industrial trends, chemi- significant incidents keep happening on this journey and, thus,
cal engineering departments in the United States at the time of there is always room for improvement.
this publication still have a “scarcity of … a Process Safety course” The number of publications shown in Figure 1 is compiled
[6]. This is due, in part, to departments struggling to justify from two sources: (1) a comprehensive literature review of
changes to different university committees while satisfying criteria process safety education [7]; and (2) a search by this author
from accreditation organizations. One of the efforts to help uni- using additional search terms, such as safety education, teach-
versities meet part (ii) of the ABET accreditation requirement is ing safety, and laboratory safety. There were over 80 references
described in this paper: the process safety-related problems in in the first literature review [7]; an additional 50 articles are
the Concept Warehouse. Other AIChE-driven undergraduate pro- noted in Table 1 depicting the broad range of publications
cess safety-related educational efforts are noted briefly in located. These two literature reviews resourced books pub-
Section 7, as well. lished by AIChE, CCPS, and IChemE, from conference pro-
ceedings, from book publishers, and from articles included in
2. A LITERATURE REVIEW OF GLOBAL EFFORTS FOR IMPROVING the publications listed in Table 2.
PROCESS SAFETY EDUCATION There are two distinct trends from this compiled review.
Other global efforts have been underway to help convey These trends, noted in the first review [7], were reinforced with
industrial process safety knowledge to students, as well. How- the additional references noted in this paper (Table 1). The
ever, not only must there be instructors from academia and efforts to instruct students with current technology using cur-
rent teaching tools is a global effort reaching across all disci-
plines, not just process safety.
The first trend from these reviews is the increase in the
number of educational-related publications and shared efforts
across the world, as depicted in the count of publications
noted in over the years in Figure 1. There has been an increase
over the decades of the publications discussing safety, whether
in chemical engineering departments, chemistry departments,
occupational health and safety programs, and industrial or
governmental organizations working with academia to better
train the workforce.
The second trend focuses on the challenges when attempt-
ing to convey process safety knowledge to students. Commu-
nication is a two-way street, requiring both those willing to
talk and those willing to listen, and includes several strategies.
Unfortunately, even after major industrial accidents and inci-
dents over the decades such as Flixborough, Seveso, Mexico
City, and Bhopal [8,9], efforts by those willing to teach and get
the process safety message to students have been stymied and
fraught with disappointment. In particular, educational institu-
Figure 1. Count of education-related publications since 1989 tions have similar administrative and instructional issues
[Added to Results from 7]. around the world which have placed roadblocks to the com-
munication efforts, including: (1) the ability for educational

2 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress
Table 1. References with educational safety-related efforts in addition to those noted in prior review [7].

Alvarez, C. R., M. E. Arce, M. I. Tapia., L. G. Castillo, and S. Herrera, “Teaching safety at the University of Sonora” (Mexico),
Chemical Health & Safety, September/October 2003, p 5–7.
Azizan, M. T., N. Mellon, R.M. Ramli, and S. Yusup, “Improving Teamwork Skills And Enhancing Deep Learning Via Development
Of Board Game Using Cooperative Learning Method In Reaction Engineering Course,” Education for Chemical Engineers 22:
1–13 (2018).
Berger, S., “Guest Editorial: Teaching Process Safety,” Chemical Engineering Progress, October 2009, p 3.
Boogaerts, G., J. Degreve, and G. Vercruysse, “Education as a Foundation fo Other Process Safety Initiatives on Education,”
Process Safety Progress 36: 414–421 (2017).
Burka, M. K., “Letter from AIChE - New ABET Requirements,” Process Safety Progress 32:110 (2013).
Cheah, S., “Module Re-Design for Holistic Approach to Teaching Chemica Process Safety,” ISATE 2015, International Symposium
on Advances in Technology Education, 16–18 September 2015, Nagaoka, JAPAN.
Dahoe, A. E., and V.V. Molkov, “On the Implementation of an International Curriculum on Hydrogen Safety Engineering into
Higher Education,” J. Loss Rev. Process Ind., 21: 222–224 (2008).
Eckhoff, R. K., “Process safety - a persistent challenge to educators,” J. Loss Rev. Process Ind. 7(4): 266 (1994).
Eizenberg, S., M. Shacham, and N. Brauner, “Combining HAZOP with dynamic simulation - Applications for safety education,”
J. Loss Rev. Process Ind. 19: 754–761 (2006).
Fam, I. M., H. Nikoomaram, and A. Soltanian, “Comparative analysis of creative and classic training methods in health, safety and
environment (HSE) participation improvement,” J. Loss Rev. Process Ind. 25: 250–253 (2012).
Farand, P., and J. R. Tavares, “A Concept Inventory for Knowledge Base Evaluation and Continuous Curriculum Improvement,”
Education for Chemical Engineers 21: 33–39 (2017).
Ferguson, L. H., “Guidelines for a safety internship program in industry,” Professional Safety, American Society of Safety Engineers,
Des Plaines, IL (April 1998).
Ferguson, L.H., and K. Wijekumar, “Design and Use of Web-Based Distance Learning Environments,” Professional Safety,
American Society of Safety Engineers, Des Plaines, IL (December, 2000).
Ferguson, L., and J. Ramsay, “Role of Education and Certification in the Future of the Safety Profession”, Professional Safety,
American Society of Safety Engineers, Des Plaines, IL (October 2010).
Ferjencik, M. and Zdenek J., “What can be learned from incidents in chemistry labs,” J. Loss Rev. Process Ind. 23: 630–636 (2010) .
Fivizzani, K. P., “The evolution of chemical safety training,” Chemical Health & Safety, November/December 2005, p 11–15.
Foo, D., and J. Glassey, “Editorial: Student Learning,” Education for Chemical Engineers 18: 1 (2017).
Gautam, S., Z. Qin, K. C. Loh, “Enhancing Laboratory Experience Through e-Lessons,” Education for Chemical Engineers 15:
19–22 (2016).
Gillett, J. E., “Chemical Engineering Education in the Next Century,” Cheimcal Engineering and Technology, 24:6, 561–570 (2001).
Giot, M., “Loss Prevention, Engineering, and Culture,” J. Loss Rev. Process Ind. 2: 186 (1989).
Glassey, J., K. Novakovica, and M. Parr, “Enquiry Based Learning in Chemical Engineering Curriculum Supported By Computer
Aided Delivery,” Education for Ehemical Engineers 8: e87–e93 (2013).
Grossel, S., “Current status of process safety/loss prevention education in the US,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 5(1): 2 1992.
Gupta, J. P., “A course on Inherently Safer Design,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 13: 63–66 (2006).
Hill, R. H., Jr.,"Getting safety into the chemistry curriculum,” Chemical Health & Safety, March/April 2003, p 7–9.
Hill, R. H. Jr., and D. A. Nelson, “Strengthening safety education of chemistry undergraduates,” Chemical Health & Safety,
November/December 2005, p 19–23.
Jarell, J. A., “A study of long-term learning outcomes transfer—For OSHA outreach train-the-trainer courses,” Chemical Health &
Safety, November/December 2004 p 8–11.
Leveneura, S., L. Vernieres-Hassimi, and T. Salmi, “Mass & Energy Balances Coupling In Chemical Reactors For A Better
Understanding Of Thermal Safety,” Education For Chemical Engineers 16: 17–28 (2016).
Louvar, J. F., “Editorial - Urgent Letter to Universities,” Process Safety Progress 31:327 (2012).
Louvar, J. F., “Editorial - Teaching Process Safety,” Process Safety Progress 32:107 (2013).
Louvar, J. F., “Supporting Materials for Teaching Process Safety,” Process Safety Progress 32:122–125 (2013).
Murphy, J. M., “Letter to Editor - Response to Urgent Message to Universities,” Process Safety Progress 32:108 (2013).
Najdanovic-Visak, V., “Team-based Learning for First Year Engineering Students,” Education for Chemical Engineers 18: 26–34 (2017).
Nelson, D. A., “Incorporating chemical and safety topics into chemistry curricula,” Chemical and Health Safety, September/
October 1999, p 43–48.
Nolan, F., “Safety and Loss Prevention Teaching, “J. Loss Prev. Process lnd. Vol 2: 3–4 (1989).
Nolan, P. F., “Safety Education,” J Loss Prev. Process Ind. 4: 66–67 (1991).
(Continues)

Process Safety Progress Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2018 3
Table 1. Continued

Olewski, T., and M. Snakard, “Challenges in applying process safety management at university laboratories,” J Loss Prev. Process
Ind. 49 92017) 209–214
Pekdemir, T., K. Murray, and R. Deighton, “A New Approach to the Final Year Design Project,” Trans IChemE, Part D, 2006,
Education for Chemical Engineers, 1:90–94.
Saleh, J. H., K. B. Marais, and F. M. Favaró, “System Safety Principles: A Multidisciplinary Engineering Perspective, “J Loss Prev.
Process Ind. 29: 283–294 (2014).
Sanders, R. E., “Keep a Sense of Vulnerability: For Safety’s Sake,” Process Safety Progress 32:119–121 (2013).
Sarquis, Mickey, “Building student safety habits: Barriers and recommendations,” Chemical Health & Safety, March/April 2003, p
10–12.
Senkbeil, E. G., “Merits of a safety course in the chemistry curriculum,” Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2004, p 17–20.
Spickett, J., T., “Occupational health and safety curricula: the factors that decide — an Australian experience,” Occup. Med., 49:7,
419–422 (1999).
Theis, A. E., “Letter to Editor - Response to Urgent Message to Universities,” Process Safety Progress 32:108 (2013).
Vaughen, B. K., “An Approach to Help Departments Meet the New ABET Process Safety Requirements,” Chemical Engineering
Education, 46(2):129–134 (2012).
Vaughen, B. K., “Letter to Editor - Response to Urgent Message to Universities,” Process Safety Progress 32:109 (2013).
Voronov, R. S., S. Basuray, G. Obuskovic, L. Simon, R. B. Barat, and E. Bilgili, “Statistical Analysis of Undergraduate Chemical
Engineering Curricula of United States of America Universities: Trends and Observations,” Education for Chemical Engineers
20: 1–10 (2017).
Welles, W.L., R. E. Wilburn, J. K. Ehrlich, and J. M. Kamara, “New York Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES)
Data Support Emergency Response, Promote Safety and Protect Public Health,” J J Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22: 728–734 (2009).
Zenga, Anrong, and Anran Zenga, “Cultivating a Safety Mindset In Chemical Engineering Students: Design Of A Training Module,”
Education for Chemical Engineers 20: 32–40 (2017).

departments to add new courses to a packed curriculum, espe- meet the ABET requirement part (ii) described in Section 1, by
cially one focusing on process safety; (2) understanding the helping instructors incorporate “safety into other courses.” In
importance and availability of course-specific process safety particular, when the Concept Warehouse is used for real-time
problems, especially those which fit into the current core interactive reviews during lectures, instructors can access and
chemical engineering courses; and (3) the expectation and use vetted problems, obtain real-time feedback from their stu-
ability to sustain current technological relevance in the class- dents using clickers, smart phones, or laptops, assess instantly
room as the industrial process safety risk management how the students are doing (how much they understand or do
approaches evolve and thus, represent, the evolving and best not understand), and immediately adjust their lecture content
practices for effectively managing process safety risks of com- based on results of the real-time assessment. The Concept
plex chemical processes. The bridge-building continues to Warehouse can be used in addition to other tools, such as
address the gap between academia and industry [6,10]. This homework and laboratory assignments, to help reinforce the
article, in part, addresses item (ii) of the ABET accreditation student’s understanding of the concept.
criterion, providing a process safety-related problems globally The overarching goal of the Concept Warehouse is to
with a web-based, student interactive instructional database. enable chemical engineering instructors to better provide their
students with concept-based instruction [11]. Whereas some
3. THE PROCESS SAFETY PROBLEM FRAMEWORK AND VETTING students may focus more on rote memorization and learning
PROCEDURE
rather than on conceptual understanding, it is known that
This section provides a brief overview of the Concept Ware- concept-based instruction helps students use their knowledge
house, a proposed framework for organizing the problems in better when given new situations, especially after graduation
the process safety pallet, and describes the steps for how these [12]. The effectiveness of the student’s learning is reflected in
problems will be vetted before they become available to the data assessment during the lecture using the different types of
global community. The purpose of this section, Section 3, is to problems that are entered into the warehouse.
provide some background for those unfamiliar with the Concept For effective student learning and comprehension, several
Warehouse. Section 4 will introduce the terminology currently instructional strategies must be used to increase the likelihood
being used in industry at the time this paper was being prepared for retention. Thus, the Concept Warehouse provides several
to provide some background for those unfamiliar with the ever- types of activity and presentation (“delivery”) options for prob-
evolving process safety related terms. Both Section 3 (the “aca- lems, including physical experiments or simulations performed
demic” discussion) and Section 4 (the “industry” discussion) are by the student or demonstrated by the instructor, and thought
designed to help bridge the gap between those familiar with the experiments with discussions led by the instructor during a
Concept Warehouse and those familiar with how process haz- lecture. An example list of activity and delivery options for a
ards and risks are identified and assessed in industry. Section 5 cooling beverage problem option is illustrated in Figure 2 [11].
provides examples of some process safety-related problems The more hands-on activity, the more effective the teaching;
which can be selected and used by instructors. conversely, the less hands-on the instruction, such as a “thought
experiment,” the less effective the teaching may be. The amount
3.1 The Concept Warehouse of effort to create, use and explain a physical experiment will
One of the reasons for choosing the Concept Warehouse is take considerably more effort than the effort for generating a
to help chemical engineering departments in the United States thought experiment, as well. The Concept Warehouse (CW)

4 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress
Table 2. Publications with articles on safety-related warehouse’s fork truck operator and select problems that apply
educational efforts. to their class, as is illustrated in Figure 3. While many chemical
engineering subjects have had time for problems to be
developed, entered, and vetted for global use, there were
1 AIChE Journal, American Institute of Chemical Engineers
less than 10 process safety-related problems entered at the
– AIChE, onlinelibrary.wiley.com
time this article was prepared. To address this shortcoming, vol-
2 Chemical Engineering and Technology, onlinelibrary.
unteers from the S&H Division formed a team to: (1) take advan-
wiley.com
tage of the process safety-related problems created by process
3 Chemical Engineering Education, ww2.che.ufl.edu/cee
safety professionals for use in chemical engineering courses, and
4 Chemical Engineering Progress, American Institute of
(2) enter and vet these problems into the Concept Warehouse
Chemical Engineers—AIChE, www.aiche.org/
database. Example problems are shown in Section 5.
resources/publications/cep
To help instructors find process safety-related problems
5 Chemical Health and Safety, American Chemical
pertinent to their class, the process safety-related problems
Society—ACS, Division of Health and Safety, www.
have been organized to match each Class following the typical
journals.elsevier.com
chemical engineering curriculum. Thus, for each Class, “Pro-
6 Cognition, Technology, and Work, www.springer.com/
cess Safety” can be chosen as a “Topic”—the pallet of prob-
computer/hci/journal/10111
lems accessible by the instructor. For example, a
7 Computers and Chemical Engineering, www.journals.
thermodynamics instructor can search for a process-safety
elsevier.com
related problem that they could use in their class, such as the
8 Computers and Industrial Engineering, www.journals.
energy-release calculations for an adiabatic expansion. One of
elsevier.com
the examples in Section 5 is such a case based on an actual
9 Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, www.
incident when a CO2 fire extinguisher exploded. Within each
journals.elsevier.com
Class/Topic there are Subtopics from which the instructor can
10 Education for Chemical Engineers, Institution of
choose. These Subtopics are based on the eight Hazards Iden-
Chemical Engineers – IChemE, www.journals.elsevier.
tification and Risk Analysis (HIRA) steps used in industry to
com
help understand the risks that must be managed: (1) Identify
11 Journal of Integrated Security Science, journals.library.
Hazards; (2) Identify Scenarios; (3) Identify Consequence
tudelft.nl/index.php/jiss
Types; (4) Evaluate Scenario Impact; (5) Evaluate Scenario
12 Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
Likelihood; (6) Evaluate Risk; (7) Evaluate Protection Layers
www.journals.elsevier.com
(Barriers); and (8) Manage Risk. These Subtopics will be dis-
13 Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education,
cussed in more detail Section 4. The Class/Topic/Subtopic
American Society of Civil Engineers—ASCE, ascelibrary.
framework for the process safety problems in the Concept
org
Warehouse is shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the Con-
14 Journal of Safety Research, www.journals.elsevier.com
cept Warehouse Subtopics selections can be expanded to
15 Occupational Health and Safety, ohsonline.com
include other subjects, such as process control, laboratory,
16 Occupational Medicine, Society of Occupational
case studies, and regulatory requirements.
Medicine—SOM, academic.oup.com/occmed
17 Procedia Computer Science, www.journals.elsevier.
com 3.3 The Problem Entry and Vetting Procedure
18 Procedia Engineering, www.journals.elsevier.com This effort to populate the Concept Warehouse is split into
19 Process Safety and Environmental Protection, www. two phases which will overlap during the transition from the
journals.elsevier.com initial existing problem entry and vetting effort (Phase 1) to the
20 Process Safety Progress, Center for Chemical Process ongoing problem creation, entry, and vetting effort (Phase 2).
Safety—CCPS, onlinelibrary.wiley.com The first phase, currently underway as this paper is being pre-
21 Professional Safety, formerly the American Society of pared, will be supported by S&H Division volunteers. These
Safety Engineers—ASSE, now the American Society of volunteers will enter previously created problems from a vari-
Safety Professionals—ASSP, assp.org ety of undergraduate-level problem sets and sources [13,14].
22 Reliability Engineering and System Safety Journal, www. The second phase, Phase 2, will be an ongoing authoring
journals.elsevier.com effort with new problems continuously being created, entered,
23 Safety Science, www.journals.elsevier.com vetted, and approved for global access. These ongoing prob-
lem creation efforts will include using manuals and software
provided to the CCPS and EPSC through a generous contribu-
tion by the Dow Chemical Company [15,16,17,18]. The basis
Team’s volunteer problem-entry work described in this paper for both of these HIRA-related gifts, the Chemical Engineering
for entering process safety-related problems is “low effort,” Fundamentals (CHEF) Calculation Aid and Risk Analysis
using existing problem sets that have been already developed Screening Tool (RAST), is described in Section 4.2.
by process safety professionals. As was noted in Section 3.2, there are many excellent
sources available today that contain process safety-rated
problems. These problems have been organized within the
3.2 The Framework for Organizing the Process Safety framework shown in Table 3, with the initial problem set allo-
Problems cated to each volunteer for them to enter into the Concept
At the time this article was prepared, the Concept Warehouse Warehouse database. In both phases, problem volunteer/
contained over 2,000 interactive problems from fundamental author will be (or will be) trained and given access to the Con-
chemical engineering course subjects such as material and cept Warehouse, with the following steps occurring before the
energy balances, kinetics and reactor design, transport phenom- problem is vetted, approved, and subsequently released to the
ena, thermodynamics, etc., with each “Class” designated as a global community:
“pallet.” Thus, the problem database “warehouse” contains many
pallets that an instructor can access and use during lectures. 1. Author enters problem
Using the warehouse as the location of and storage area for pal- 2. CW Vetting Team reviews problem
lets of inventoried problems, the instructor can be depicted as a 3. Author addresses and corrects any issues

Process Safety Progress Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2018 5
Figure 2. The effectiveness and effort for different types of student/instructor activities [11]. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

4.1 Some Process Safety Terms

Locating safety problems within the framework described in
Section 3.2 hinges on the instructor’s understanding of the pro-
cess safety terms which are defined in this section. These pro-
cess safety terms, in turn, are then used in the example
problems presented in Section 5. These definitions incorporate
and combine similar, often misinterpreted terms in the literature.
The terms, listed in Table 5, include: barrier; consequence; fre-
quency; hazard; incident; life cycle; operational discipline; pro-
cess safety and risk management; process safety foundation;
process safety program; process safety system; risk; and safety
culture and leadership. Without a clear definition on how these
terms are used, instructors—and practitioners—will not be able
to clearly explain them. As will be described in Section 4.5, the
process safety systems are administrative controls that apply
across the entire process and equipment life cycle (described in
Section 4.4). For additional definitions, especially in context of
those which have evolved from historical and superseded
Figure 3. An image of the Concept Warehouse pallets [11]. approaches, please refer to other resources in the literature [e.
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] g., [19,21]].

4.2 The Hazards Identification and Risk Analysis

4. CW Vetting Team approves problem (HIRA) Approach
5. CW Administrator releases vetted problem for global access The process safety subtopics in the Concept Warehouse are
through the Concept Warehouse. based on the Hazards Identification and Risk Analysis (HIRA)
approach. This section provides a brief introduction to the
A summary of the different steps for these two phases for HIRA described in more detail in the literature [22]. There are
problem entry and vetting is shown in Table 4. Phase 1 is six questions that are posed to provide a comprehensive
expected to begin in the last quarter of 2018 and is expected understanding of how to effectively manage hazardous mate-
to be completed in the first half of 2019. rials and energies. The hazards, the consequences, the likeli-
4. BRIDGING BETWEEN ACADEMIC AND INDUSTRIAL TERMINOLOGY: hood, the risk, and the barriers are identified or evaluated in
PROCESS SAFETY DEFINITIONS the following sequence of questions:
As noted in Section 3, this section will provide guidance to Q1) What are the hazards?
those unfamiliar with recent advances in how process hazards Q2) What can go wrong?
and risks are identified and assessed in industry. In particular, Q3) How bad could it be?
this section briefly covers some common process safety-related Q4) How often might it happen?
terms, describes the HIRA approach, describes the types of Q5) What is the risk?
barriers used to help manage process safety risks, describes Q6) What are the controls?
the equipment life cycle, and describes how process safety By answering these questions, effective barriers can be
risks are effectively managed. designed, implemented, and managed for safe and reliable

6 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress
Table 3. The Concept Warehouse process safety problem framework.

Process Safety Progress Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2018 7
Table 4. The Concept Warehouse process safety problem potential incidents where loss of control of these hazards can
vetting procedure. cause harm to people, property, and the environment.
After identifying the scenario, Question 4 is used to deter-
mine the likelihood: “How often might it happen?” There are
three broad categories used to estimate the initiating event for
a scenario: equipment failure, human error, and external
events. Each of the causes in these groups has a frequency
associated with it: either the cause can occur frequently, for
example, once every day, or not very often, for example, once
every 10 years. Equipment failures include mechanical system
failures due to equipment-related defects, wear, vibration, and
corrosion, and control system/component failures, such as
sensor, processor, or control element failures. When equip-
ment breaks, it fails to do its job, and the scenario begins. Human
errors can occur at any time in the equipment’s life cycle (refer to
Section 4.3): when engineers design the equipment and pro-
cesses; when operators operate the process equipment; and
when maintenance personnel maintain the equipment. External
events include extreme weather (such as hurricanes, typhoons,
or earthquakes), potential incidents from adjacent facilities that
could impact the facility (such as a toxic release that crosses the
fenceline), and sabotage or terrorism (depending on many factors
across the world). Each of the initiating events just described has
some measure of how often it could occur. This number is used
in the simplified risk equation and is often represented in number
of events per year, such as at one failure or one error per year.
Although there is standard industrial guidance for equipment fail-
ure, human error, and external events such as a hurricanes or
floods depend on the location of the facility (e.g., on a coastline
or near a river). Managing these risks, even with the significant
operations—the risks are being effectively managed to meet consequences from them when they occur, can be addressed
our objective to do no harm. A visual depiction of the ques- with engineering designs (such as pumps located above
tions and HIRA approach is provided in Figure 4; a summary expected flood levels) and administrative controls (such as emer-
of the HIRA questions and steps is provided in Table 6. gency planning and response). Again, please refer to the litera-
As was discussed in Section 3.2, to assist instructors teaching ture for detailed methods for estimating the likelihood [17,25,26].
process safety-related engineering and administrative controls The risk posed in Question 5 (What is the risk?) can be
and concepts, the problems in the Concept Warehouse have determined by calculating the risk and then using an iterative
been organized using the HIRA approach. The connection approach on the types of barriers required to effective reduce
between the HIRA questions and Concept Warehouse subtopics the overall risk. Again, this is beyond the scope of this article
is also shown in Table 6. For example, an instructor teaching a and the reader is referred to excellent resources in the literature
material and energy balances class could refer to the problems [17,23]. How risk can be effectively managed is discussed in
provided in the process safety subtopic for Question 1: “What more detail in the literature as well [19,22,28]. See Section 4.3
are the hazards?” Since all material and energy hazards must be for more background on the types of barriers used to effectively
identified first for each process, this is the first question posed manage process safety risks, which is described in Section 4.5.
in the HIRA. Chemical hazards and the potentially hazardous Once Questions 1 through 5 have been addressed, Ques-
interactions between them must be identified and understood tion 6 is asked: “What are the controls?” The engineering and
for each process unit. Chemical hazards focus on their toxicity, administrative controls, both preventive and mitigative, are
flammability, explosivity, instability, reactivity, and corrosivity explained in Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. These address the last
and their adverse effects on people or other materials. There step in the HIRA approach: effectively managing the protection
are energy hazards that must be understood, as well. Hazardous layers (Figure 4, Table 6).
energies include chemical energy (e.g., energy released during
a chemical reaction), thermal energy (e.g., heat radiated by a
fire), mechanical energy (e.g., heat generated by rotating equip- 4.3 The Types of Barriers Used to Help Manage
ment), and pressure energy (e.g., vacuums or confined gas or Process Safety Risks
liquid pressures). On completion of the HIRA, a process safety practitioner
The other HIRA questions and associated steps will be has established the types of barriers which are required to
briefly noted in this section, with those unfamiliar with details either prevent or mitigate the scenario analyzed in a HIRA.
for performing an effective HIRA encouraged to learn more Again, it is not the purpose of this article to provide the details
through resources in the literature [18,22,23,24,25,26]. As of how barriers, also known as protection layers, have been
shown in Figure 4 and summarized in Table 6, the HIRA evaluated for each scenario. Such details can be obtained in
approach includes identifying scenarios—event sequences— the literature [17,22,23]. This section briefly describes some of
that could occur if the hazardous materials or conditions are the barriers which can used to help manage process safety
not controlled (the incident), identifying the types of conse- risks and where such problems can be found in the Concept
quences which could occur, such as toxic releases, fires, Warehouse.
explosions, or runaway reactions, and how bad the conse- Barriers are either designated as preventive (designed and
quence could be—their potential impact. The impact is esti- in place to reduce the likelihood of an incident) or mitigative
mated using source and dispersion models [15,27]. The hazard (in place to reduce the impact of an event). Barriers are also
scenarios identified using Question 2 (What can go wrong?) called protection layers that are often characterized as an engi-
and Question 3 (How bad could it be?) are then used as neering control, an administrative control, or a combination of

8 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress
Table 5. Definitions and descriptions of some process safety terms.

Term Definition or Description

Barrier An engineering or administrative control designed to help reduce the process safety risk associated
with an incident, either by reducing the incident’s frequency or its consequence.
Consequence The undesirable result of an incident or loss event, usually measured in health and safety effects,
environmental impacts, loss of property, and business interruption costs.
Frequency The number of occurrences of an event per unit time (e.g., 1 event in 10 years. = 0.01 events/yr.).
Hazard The intrinsic properties of materials and processes that can either directly or through release of energy lead to
harmful effects. The material properties include toxicity, flammability, explosivity, and reactivity
(“instability”); process properties include vacuum, high pressure, and cryogenic or high temperature systems.
Incident A combination of conditions and events that result in toxic releases, fires, explosions, or runaway
reactions that harm people, damage the environment, and cause property and business losses.
Note: Incidents are “loss events” or “loss of containment” events which result in harm due to the loss of
control of hazardous materials and energies.
Life cycle The phases that a process or equipment goes through from “birth to death.” The eight phases are design,
fabricate, install, commission, operate, maintain, change, and decommission. Note: The fabricate and
install phase may be combined into a single “construct” phase (Figure 6, Table 8).
Operational discipline One of the three process safety foundations [19]. Its key concept is: following system and procedure
requirements correctly every time.“What you do when no one is looking”
Process safety and risk The principles and systems applied to identify, understand, and control process hazards to reduce
management process safety risks and protect the safety and health of people, neighbors, and the environment.
Process safety foundation An essential building block for a process safety program. There are three foundations for an effective
process safety program: Safety culture and leadership, Process safety systems, and Operational
discipline. Note: The key concepts for these foundations are described in this table [19].
Process safety program The management program designed, implemented, and sustained within a company which is used to
improve process safety performance, helping reduce process safety risks.
Process safety systems One of the three process safety foundations [19]. Its key concept is: the administrative controls - the
management systems - designed, implemented, and used to ensure that process hazards are identified,
evaluated, and understood, such that adequate risk management controls are provided to achieve and
maintain safe and reliable operations. Note: The eight Process Safety Systems are described in Table 9 [19].
Risk A measure of potential harm associated with process activities and events, based on frequency
(e.g., events/year) and potential consequences (e.g., fatalities, injuries, property damage, or
environmental harm per event). The risk is often presented as a simple equation as a function of the
frequency and the consequence: Risk (R) = Frequency (F) x Consequence (C) with its typical units in
some measure of harm per year.
Safety culture and One of the three process safety foundations [19]. Its key concept is: the normal way things are done at
leadership a facility, company, or organization, reflecting expected organizational values, beliefs, and behaviors
that set the priority, commitment, and resource levels for safety programs and process safety
performance.

both engineering and administrative controls. Engineering con- diagram, as is shown in Figure 5. The preventive and mitiga-
trols include computerized, instrumented systems, pressure tive engineering controls are further defined in Table 7
relief valves, and flare systems. Administrative controls include [19,20,22,28,29]. Thus, if an instructor would like to teach some
procedures and process safety systems. These different types aspect of an engineering design, such as a pressure relief sys-
of barriers are depicted a diagram known as an “onion skin” tem, they would find such a problem in their design class

Figure 4. Questions in the Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis (HIRA) approach [Adapted from 18, 22]. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Process Safety Progress Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2018 9
Table 6. Questions and steps in the Hazards Identification and Risk Analysis (HIRA) approach.

under the process safety subtopic 7) Evaluate Protection Layers 4.4 The Process and Equipment Life Cycle
(Barriers), as is shown in Concept Warehouse problem frame- Before discussing how process safety risks are effectively
work (Table 3). managed, there is one more essential concept that must be
clearly communicated to the student: the process and equip-
ment life cycle. The phases in the process and equipment life
cycle affect and are affected by the management systems—the
administrative controls—in an effective process safety
program. In particular, all of the process safety equipment
engineered to monitor, detect, respond, and control the pro-
cess hazards and their risks have eight distinct phases from
their birth to death, as is shown in Figure 6. These eight phases
described in Table 8.
In addition, the equipment designed and used to con-
trol the process safety risks fit into two general categories
in the Concept Warehouse problem set for maintaining
and sustaining the equipment’s integrity over their
life time:

1. the original design, construction, and commissioning of the

equipment, Phases 1 through 4, and then
2. the management of the equipment integrity and reliability
during the equipment’s useful life, all of the phases due to
changes (Phase 7), Phases 1 through 8.

Severe incidents causing fatalities, injuries, environmental

damage, significant property damage, and significant busi-
ness losses have occurred when uncontrolled changes were
made to processes or equipment, adversely affecting the
original process or equipment design [8,9,30]. Thus, it is
essential that a facility maintain its equipment integ-
rity [19,31].

Figure 5. An example protection layer or barrier model [20] 4.5 Effectively Managing Process Safety Risks
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] As depicted in Figure 5, the engineering and administrative
controls have been designed to reduce the process safety risk

10 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress
Table 7. Definitions for the protection layers (barriers).

Process Safety Progress Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2018 11
 2
Fabricate
1 4 5 6 8
Construct Commission Operate Maintain Decommission
Design
3
Install
7
Change

Birth Use Death

Figure 6. The process and equipment life cycle [Adapted from 19].

using both preventive and mitigative controls. The preventive con- other systems-based approaches [22,28,32,33,34]. An effective
trols are designed to help reduce the frequency of the hazardous process safety program consists of three fundamental founda-
loss event from occurring. The mitigative controls are designed to tions that help integrate each of the process safety elements used
reduce the consequence’s impact of the incident. When combined to identify, evaluate, understand, and manage process safety
in an overall process safety and risk management program, both hazards and risks. The three essential foundations for an effec-
these preventive and mitigative engineering and administrative tive process safety program, Safety Culture and Leadership, Pro-
controls help reduce the overall process safety risk [19]. cess Safety Systems, and Operational Discipline for consistency
The management system examples provided in Section 5 are with capitalization in Figure 7. The key concept for each of these
based on the eight process safety systems essential for an effec- foundations was provided with a description in Table 5. Within
tive process safety program [19]. Please refer to the literature for the Process Safety Systems foundation, there are eight systems
required to effectively manage process safety risks during the
entire life cycle. The intent and concept for each of these eight
Table 8. The different phases in the process and equipment
systems is shown in Table 9. Please refer to the literature for
life cycle.
more details on these concepts, including how they have been
successfully implemented in industry [19,35,36]. The final risk
management controls, both engineering and administrative, are
implemented and are used to achieve and maintain safe and reli-
able operations during the process and equipment life time.

5. SOME EXAMPLES OF PROCESS SAFETY-RELATED CONCEPT

PROBLEMS
Once the instructor clearly conveys the process safety
definitions to their students, the instructor can then select
problems pertinent to their class using the Concept Ware-
house framework described in Section 3.2. As noted earlier,
these problems and discussions will help the instructor con-
vey important process safety design and management con-
cepts to the student in an academic setting, giving the
student more awareness of what will be expected of them
once they graduate and begin applying the concepts. These

Figure 7. The three foundations for an effective safety

program [19]. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

12 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress
Table 9. The concepts for each of the process safety systems[Adapted from 19].

problems are designed to help the student bridge the process Safety topic, with examples from three of the HIRA subtopics:
safety theory and practice, especially in context of all of their evaluate scenario impact; evaluate protection layers (barriers);
coursework. and manage risk (Figure 4, Table 6). These problem examples
This section provides five problem and solution examples only provide a sampling of the different types of problems
entered into the Concept Warehouse’s Process Safety topic which could be taught during a lecture using basic engineering
(pallet). These problems are organized within the Process science or management systems used for design, analysis, and

Table 10. Summary of the process safety problem examples.

Process Safety Progress Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2018 13
 Example 5.1.1: The Effect of Release Height on the Downwind
Ground-Level Concentration
The plume from a constant release at a storage tank is illus-
trated in Figure 8. The equation for the maximum concentra-
tion is shown in Figure 9 [27]. This problem example uses a
“multiple choice—single right answer” question format.
Problem Statement: What is the effect of increasing the
release point height on the downwind ground-level
concentration?
All other terms being held constant, the downwind concen-
tration of the plume at ground-level will ________ as the
height of the release point increases.

decrease
Figure 8. A depiction of a gaseous plume release from an
increase
elevated release point. [Color figure can be viewed at
stay the same
wileyonlinelibrary.com] Problem Solution: The correct answer is “decrease.”

Example 5.1.2: Exploding Fire Extinguisher—Adiabatic Expan-

control of process hazards and risks. The engineering and sion of High Pressure Liquid to Gas
modeling examples provided in this article are based on equa- This example is based on an incident described in one of the
tions in a process safety design fundamentals textbook [27]. references from the existing problem sets [14]. The problem state-
Please refer to the literature for other sources of process safety ment is shown in Figure 10; the solution to this problem is shown
design guidance, as needed [37,38,39,40]; many important in Figure 11. (Note: These figures are screen shots from the edit-
management systems references already have been noted in ing field in the Concept Warehouse to help illustrate how the
Section 4.5. A summary of these five problems is shown in problems are depicted and can be edited, if needed, during the
Table 10. problems review and vetting process.) This problem example
uses a “multiple choice—multiple right answers” question format.

5.1 Example Problems for Estimating the Impact 5.2 Example Problem for Designing a Protection Layer
The two problem examples in this section address the (Barrier)
third question in the HIRA approach, “How bad could it be?,” The problem example in this section address the sixth ques-
which is used to estimate the impact of the loss of contain- tion in the HIRA approach, “What are the controls?,” further
ment (the release) of a hazardous material or energy delving into the types controls used to effectively manage the
(Section 4.2). risk: subtopic HIRA step 7) Evaluate Protection Layers (Barriers)
(Section 4.2). This problem focuses on a mitigative engineering
design: a pressure relief valve. This problem example uses a
“multiple choice—single right answer” question format.
The basic design of pressure protection systems is well-
established to ensure that the relief device will activate when
needed and protect the processing equipment and piping from
high pressure which can overpressurize the equipment. Over-
pressurized equipment can catastrophically fail and violently
explode. For example, the incident at Geismar resulted in two
fatalities and multiple injuries when a blocked-in boiler under
maintenance was heated [41]. The boiler’s line to its relief sys-
tem had been blocked and the rising pressure upon heating
eventually exceeded the boiler’s design pressure. A cross sec-
tional view of a Pressure Relief Valve (PRV) used for vessel
protection is shown in Figure 12. The seat is highlighted; it lifts
when the relief valve’s set pressure is exceeded, helping pre-
vent the equipment being protected from overpressurizing.
One parameter used in the PRV design calculations is the
vent area (A), as is shown in Eq. 1 [27].
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Qv ρ
A¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
Co 2gc ΔP

Where Qv is the volumetric flow, Co is the discharge coeffi-

cient, ρ is the liquid density, and ΔP is the pressure drop
across the relief. An oversimplified concept-related example
problem could be as follows.

Figure 9. The equation for the maximum ground-level Example 5.2.1: Sizing the Diameter for a Pressure Relief Valve
concentration. [Color figure can be viewed at in Liquid Service
wileyonlinelibrary.com] Problem Statement: Two identical liquid phase Reactors
R-101 and R-102 have a Pressure Relief Valve (PRV) designed

14 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress
Figure 10. Depiction of the fire extinguisher problem in the Concept Warehouse. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

to relieve each reactor’s potential overpressure of 25 psi
greater than

(1.7 atm.) to a common pressure relief piping system. The
less than
emergency relief piping systems—a “header”—leads to the
is equal to
common flare system.
If the amount of material in R-101 is greater than the Problem Solution: The students must select “greater than”
amount of material in R-102, with both reactors operating at for the correct answer, as the vent area increases with a greater
the same pressure and same relief set point, then the diameter flow rate (Eq. 1) as the area of the circular seat equals πr2 - the
for the PRV on R-101 will most likely be ________ the diame- diameter (2r) must be greater for the PRV located on Reactor
ter for the PRV on R-102. R-101.

Figure 11. Depiction of the fire extinguisher problem solution in the Concept Warehouse. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Process Safety Progress Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2018 15

Management of Change

Operational Discipline

Problem Solution: The students must select the three cor-

rect answers from the four options. As shown in Figure 7 and
described in Table 5, the correct answers are: Process Safety
Systems, Safety Culture and Leadership, and Operational Disci-
pline [19].

Example 5.4.2: Describe the “Evaluate and Manage Process

Risks” System
Problem Statement: True or False: The ‘Evaluate and
Manage Process Risks’ system is used to help design, imple-
ment, and maintain equipment required to manage process
hazards and risks.
Figure 12. A cross sectional view of a pressure relief
valve (PRV) [49]. [Color figure can be viewed at
True
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
False

Problem Solution: The correct answer for this example is

“False.” The answer is: “Evaluate and manage process hazards
5.3 Example Problem for Effectively Managing and risks by properly designing, implementing, and maintain-
Changes ing process safety systems” (from Table 9).
The problem example in this section address the sixth This section provided five example problems which can be
question in the HIRA approach, “What are the controls?,” fur- used when instructing students on process safety and risk
ther delving into the types management controls used to effec- management and basic engineering concepts. Although they
tively manage the risk: subtopic HIRA step 8) Manage Risk presented just a sampling of the types of problems that can be
(Section 4.2); in particular, in how the equipment life cycle created, it is important to emphasize to the student that protec-
must be managed (Figure 6). This problem example uses a tion layers and barriers must be designed, fabricated, installed,
“short answer” open-ended question format. and maintained so that they will operate when needed. All
effective process safety program must sustain both the preven-
tive and mitigative barrier integrity and reliability when the
Example 5.3.1: The Effects of Change on the Life Cycle
process is operating. When the process and equipment life
Problem Statement: Please select one of the following
cycle is neglected, experience in industry has shown that sig-
equipment’s life cycle phases and briefly explain how increas-
nificant incidents occur. Once Phase 1 of the S&H Division’s
ing the flow rate to get more products through the lines could
Student Outreach committee’s volunteers have completed their
adversely affect another life cycle phase and could potentially
existing problem entry efforts, there will be more than 100 pro-
increase the process safety risk.
cess safety-related problems entered and vetted in the
1) Design.
database.
2) Operate.
3) Maintain. 6. SUMMARY
Problem Solution: This is a problem that has an open- This paper provided a literature review of global process
ended response. The instructor can review the answers to see safety-related educational efforts, background on AIChE’s Edu-
if the students addressed the following: cation Division’s Concept Warehouse database, describes the
framework that will be used to help organize the process
1. Design: The change could exceed the equipment’s design safety problems, defines a few process safety-related terms,
specifications. and shows example problems being developed for entry and
2. Operate: The change could exceed the safe operating vetting the database. The Concept Warehouse provides
limits. instructors with a real-time, interactive teaching tool which can
3. Maintain: The change could accelerate wear on the equip- be used during lectures to teach students basic engineering sci-
ment and affect the testing and inspection schedule. ence and process safety risk management concepts. The
instructor can assess how the class is doing during the lecture
5.4 Example Problems for Effectively Managing and, based on the results, adjust their discussion to clarify
Process Safety Risks ideas which are not being understood by the students. Anyone
The problem example in this section also address the sixth teaching process safety anywhere in the world can develop
question in the HIRA approach, “What are the controls?,” fur- and enter problems specific to their discipline, such that, once
ther delving into the types management controls used to effec- vetted, their problems can be available globally to other
tively manage the risk: subtopic HIRA step 8) Manage Risk instructors lacking such expertise. The concepts behind the
(Section 4.2); in particular, in how the equipment life cycle design and management of these preventive and mitigative
must be managed (Figure 6). These problem examples use the engineering controls are essential for students. The process
“multiple choice—single right answer” (includes a “true/false”) safety concepts will help them understand and successfully
answer formats. manage their process safety risks in their engineering roles
once they graduate.
Example 5.4.1: The Three Process Safety Program Foundations 7. CONTINUING OUR PROCESS SAFETY AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Problem Statement: Name the essential foundations for JOURNEY
an effective process safety program (select all that apply): The efforts for developing and populating the Concept
Warehouse with Process Safety problems are being performed

Process Safety Systems in conjunction with other AIChE process safety-related initia-

Safety Culture/Leadership tives and programs, including:

16 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress
1. The AIChE Foundation’s Undergraduate Process Safety process safety, Education for Chemical Engineers 15
Learning Initiative [42], which includes the Safety and (2016), 23–32.
Chemical Engineering Education (SAChE) Certificate pro- 11. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), AIChE
gram, currently developing online AIChE Academy SAChE Education Division Concept Warehouse. Available at
courses [43] http://jimi.cbee.oregonstate.edu/concept_warehouse/.
2. The AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) pub- Accessed 27 October 2018.
lications [44], CCPS Faculty Process Safety Workshops [45], 12. M.D. Koretsky, The AIChE concept warehouse: A website
and CCPS support for the Undergraduate Student Process resource for concept-based instruction, Chemical Engi-
Safety Boot Camps [46] neering Education 52(3) (Summer 2018), 175–181.
3. The AIChE Chem-E-Car Competition® specifying process 13. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), Safety,
safety-specific reviews by volunteers in the AIChE Safety & Health, and Loss Prevention in Chemical Processes, Prob-
Health Division [47], including the Annual meeting’s manda- lems for Undergraduate Engineering Curricula, Instructor’s
tory Chem-E-Car Competition® Safety Inspection and Guide, AIChE, New York, NY (1990).
Chem-E-Car Poster Competition, and 14. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Safety,
4. The annual AIChE Student Design Competition which Health, and Loss Prevention in Chemical Processes Vol-
includes process safety-specific reviews by volunteers in ume 2, Problems for Undergraduate Engineering Curricula,
the AIChE Safety & Health Division for inherently safer American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE),
design and essential process safety and risk management New York, NY (2002).
concepts [48]. 15. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), and
the European Process Safety Centre (EPSC), “Chemical
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS engineering fundamentals (CHEF) manual,” Version 1.1,
Although there are many colleagues who have influenced 13 September 2018, CCPS/AIChE (2018). Available at www.
the author to date, both directly and indirectly, this paper is aiche.org/ccps/resources/user-guide-and-manuals
dedicated to the many instructors and industrial volunteers 16. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), and the
across the world, including those in the AIChE Safety and European Process Safety Centre (EPSC), “Chemical engineer-
Health Division Student Outreach Team, who over the ing fundamentals (CHEF) calculation aid software,”
decades have helped, are currently helping, and will be help- 14 September 2018, CCPS/AIChE (2018). Available at www.
ing share our academic and industrial expertise to teach and aiche.org/ccps/resources/user-guide-and-manuals
train our future process safety leaders, from those at the facility 17. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), and the
operations and maintenance level running the processes and European Process Safety Centre (EPSC), “Risk analysis
touching the equipment, including those anticipating and man- screening tool (RAST) user’s manual,” Version 1.1,
aging the hazards and risks of the processes, to those in the
13 September 2018, CCPS/AIChE (2018). Available at www.
senior administrative positions or the board room making deci-
aiche.org/ccps/resources/user-guide-and-manuals
sions and charting the future directions for their organizations.
18. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), and the
9. LITERATURE CITED
European Process Safety Centre (EPSC), “Risk analysis
1. AIChE Safety and Health Division, Student Outreach screening tool (RAST) software,” Version 1.1, 17 September
Committee. Safety & Health Division (S&H) (B. K. 2018, CCPS/AIChE (2018). Available at www.aiche.org/
Vaughen, contact for Concept Warehouse Team, ccps/resources/risk-analysis-screening-tool-rast-and-
2018). Available at www.aiche.org/community/sites/ chemical-hazard-engineering-fundamentals-chef
divisions/sh. Accessed 27 October 2018. 19. J.A. Klein and B.K. Vaughen, Process Safety: Key Concepts
2. AIChE Code of Ethics. Available at www.aiche.org/ and Practical Approaches, CRCPress, Boca Raton, FL
about/code-ethics. Accessed 27 October 2018. (2017).
3. US Chemical Safety Board, “T2 Laboratories, Inc., Run- 20. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), “Process
away Reaction,” Report No. 2008-3-I-FL (2009). safety metrics: Guide for selecting leading and lagging
4. AIChE Safety and Chemical Engineering Education indicators,” Revised April, 2018. Available at www.aiche.
(SAChE), SAChE Recommendations for ABET Safety Con- org/ccps
tent in Chemical Engineering, February 18, 2010. Available 21. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), CCPS Pro-
at www.sache.org/SACHEGuidelinesForABET.pdf cess Safety Glossary (2018). Available at www.aiche.org/
5. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. ccps/resources/glossary
(ABET) Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 22. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for
(2018). Available at www.abet.org Risk Based Process Safety (RBPS), Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2007).
6. R.S. Voronov, S. Basuray, G. Obuskovic, L. Simon, R. 23. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Layer of
B. Barat, and E. Bilgili, Statistical Analysis of Undergradu- Protection Analysis (LOPA): Simplified Risk Assessment,
ate Chemical Engineering Curricula of United States of Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2001).
America Universities: Trends and Observations, Education 24. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines
for Chemical Engineers 20 (2017), 1–10. for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd ed., Wiley,
7. E. Mkpat, R. Genserik, and V. Cozzani, Process safety edu- Hoboken, NJ (2008).
cation: A literature review, Journal of Loss Prevention in 25. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines
the Process Industries 54 (2018), 18–27. www.elsevier. for Enabling Conditions and Conditional Modifiers in
com/locate/jlp. Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA), Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
8. J.A. Atherton and F. Gil, Incidents That Define Process (2013).
Safety, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2008). 26. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines
9. T.A. Kletz, What Went Wrong? Case Histories of Process for Initiating Events and Independent Protection Layers in
Plant Disasters and How They Could Have Been Avoided, Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
5th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann/IChemE, Gulf Profes- (2015).
sional Publishing, Burlington, MA, USA (2009). 27. D.A. Crowl and J.F. Louvar, Chemical Process Safety, Fun-
10. R. Benintendi, The bridge link between university and damentals with Applications, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper
industry: A key factor for achieving high performance in Saddle River, NJ (2011).

Process Safety Progress Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2018 17
28. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines 40. S. Mannan, Lee’s Process Safety Essentials: Hazard Identifi-
for Integrating Management Systems and Metrics to Improve cation, Assessment and Control, Elsevier, Butterworth-
Process Safety Performance, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2016). Heinemann, Oxford, UK (2014). www.elsevier.com.
29. The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Inherently 41. The US Chemical Hazards and Safety Board (CSB), "Wil-
Safer Chemical Processes: A Life Cycle Approach, 2nd ed., liams Olefins Plant Explosion and Fire," Report
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2009). No. 2013-03-I-LA (2016). www.csb.gov
30. K. Bloch, Rethinking Bhopal: A Definitive Guide to Investi- 42. AIChE Undergraduate Process Safety Learning Initiative,
gating, Preventing, and Learning from Industrial Disasters, (2018). Available www.aiche.org/ccps/community/
1st ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2016). undergraduate-process-safety-learning-initiative
31. R.F. Wasileski III, Think facility, act on integrity, Process 43. AIChE Safety and Chemical Engineering Education
Safety Progress 36 (2017), 264–272. (SAChE) Certificate Program, (2018). Available at www.
32. American Petroleum Institute, Process Safety Standards (2018). aiche.org/ccps/community/technological-communities/
Available at www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/health- safety-and-chemical-engineering-education-sache/
and-safety/process-safety/process-safety-standards. certificate-program
33. Energy Institute, “Process Safety” publications (2018). 44. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Publications,
Available at publishing.energyinst.org/topics/process- (2018). Available at www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/
safety. Accessed 27 October 2018. publications
34. J.A. Klein, Two Centuries of Process Safety at DuPont, Pro- 45. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Faculty Work-
cess Safety Progress 28 (2009), 114–122. shops, (2018). Available at www.aiche.org/ccps/
35. J. Champion, S. Van Geffen, and L. Borrousch, Reducing resources/conferences/events/faculty-workshops
Process Safety Events: An Approach Proven by Sustainable 46. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), (2018).
Results, Process Safety Progress 36 (2017), 326–337. Undergraduate Student Process Safety Workshops,
36. B.K. Vaughen, J.A. Klein, and J. Champion, "Our Process (2018). Available at www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/
Safety Journey Continues: Operational Discipline Today," conferences/events/student-bootcamps
presented at the 14th Global Congress on Process Safety, 47. AIChE Chem-E-Car Competition®, (2018). Available at
April 2018, Process Plant Safety Symposium, Orlando, FL, www.aiche.org/community/students/chem-e-car
submitted for publication in Process Safety Progress. 48. AIChE Safety and Health Division Student Design
37. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Competition Award for Safety, (2018). Available
Engineering Design for Process Safety, 2nd ed., Wiley, at www.aiche.org/community/awards/safety-and-
Hoboken, NJ (2012). health-division-student-design-competition-award-
38. D. Green and R.H. Perry, Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ safety
Handbook, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York (2008). 49. Industrial Valve Store, What are Pressure Relief Valves?
39. KLM Technology Group, Safety in Process Equipment (2018). Available at www.industrialvalvestore.com/
Design, Malaysia (July 2011). www.klmtechgroup.com pressure-relief-valve. Accessed 27 October 2018.

18 Month 2018 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress