PSM Elemen 14
TRADE SECRET
Tofan ???
Wahyu Hidayat
Safety Case
• Chemical Release at DuPont's La Porte Facility
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbFzuS8Bdhw
• Deepwater Horizon Blowout Animation
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVCOWejlag
Trade Secret
Inroduction
• Famous trade secrets Secret Recipes: Kentucky fried chicken
The secret recipe of “11 herbs and spices” lies in a
bank vault. Few people know it, and they are
contractually obligated to secrecy.
The ingredients are mixed by two different
companies in two different locations and then
combined elsewhere in a third, separate location.
To mix the final formula, a computer processing
system is used to blend the mixtures together and
ensure that no one outside KFC has the complete
recipe
Trade Secret
Definition
• The term "trade secret" is defined by 29 CFR 1910.1020(c)(14) as "any
confidential formula, pattern, process, device, or information or
compilation of information that is used in an employer's business and that
gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over
competitors who do not know or use it.“
• Trade secrets is one of the 14 elements of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM)
standard. However, unlike the other 13 elements, there is little
explanation or guidance on how to comply with this element, which may
occur to be a problem for implementation in the process industries.
Trade Secret
Flow Process
Trade Secret
Definition
Trade Secret
Definition
Trade Secret
Definition
Trade Secret
Definition
Case Study:
Toxic Chemical Release in Georgia
• On April 12, 2004, a runaway chemical reaction at a facility in Dalton, Georgia resulted in the release of toxic
chemicals into the local community. One employee sustained serious injuries, and 154 people were treated for
chemical exposure. The CSB found in its investigation that the accident occurred when the company was
attempting to manufacture a new product, triallyl cyanurate (TAC), in a 4,000-gallon reactor. The runaway
chemical reaction over-pressurized the reactor, activating the emergency vent, which then released toxic vapours
(allyl alcohol and allyl chloride) into the atmosphere.
• The CSB stated in its report that personnel did not conduct an adequate evaluation of the reactive chemistry
hazards associated with manufacturing TAC prior to producing the first batch. As such, the operators were
unaware of the potential for a runaway reaction when they added the entire quantity of each chemical and a
catalyst all at once to make TAC. The CSB stated that the company did not conduct process hazard analyses or
pre-start up reviews prior to manufacturing the first batch of TAC. Such analyses may have highlighted the need
for a liquid/vapor containment system on the emergency vent to prevent a toxic chemical release. A hazard
analysis may also have uncovered the need for personal protective equipment such as respirators in case of a
spill and air-monitoring equipment to detect such a spill.
Case Study:
Toxic Chemical Release in Georgia
• The CSB did state that the company had conducted small-scale testing of the process on a 30-gallon reactor, but those tests were
different from the final process in that the small-scale tests did not use catalyst. These tests misled company employees on the
amount of cooling required for the 4,000-gallon tank, and hence the tank was not sufficiently cooled to control the reaction. The
company had performed an analysis to design the cooling system, but that analysis failed to consider key aspects of the reaction
chemistry.
• The report noted that the company had agreed to produce TAC in a tolling agreement with a client company. Toll manufacturing
is an arrangement whereby a first firm with specialized equipment processes raw materials or semi-finished goods for a second
firm. In this arrangement, the client issued a purchase order to the company for the manufacturer of TAC. The client had
performed its own laboratory-scale tests of this process, and had identified manufacturing safety considerations, including that
the process liberated significant heat. Both the company and the client discussed issues associated with the process. However,
the report stated that the client did not ensure that the company specifically addressed the hazards of production-scale
manufacturing of TAC. In addition, the report stated that the company did not share all process information with the client, in
part because some of the information was proprietary and contained company trade secrets.
• U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, “Toxic Chemical Vapor Cloud Release, MFG Chemical, Inc., Dalton, Georgia,
April 12, 2004,” Investigation Report No. 2004-09-I-GA, April 2006.
