T2 Laboratories experienced a chemical explosion in 2007 due to a runaway exothermic reaction during the production of MCMT. The explosion was caused by a loss of sufficient cooling during the process, which led to an uncontrollable increase in pressure and temperature inside the reactor. The explosion damaged the facility equivalent to 1400 pounds of TNT. The study found that T2 Laboratories lacked proper process safety information and hazard analysis, did not understand the chemistry's potential for runaway reactions, and had an improperly designed emergency relief system. The incident highlights the importance of thoroughly understanding chemical reactions and implementing safety systems, such as cooling and pressure controls, when scaling up chemical production.

1. Case study: T2 Laboratories
explosion
Presented by
Sajid Rashid
ID:2022A8004237002

2. The Article

3. Outlines
• The paper
• Production of the plant
• Drawbacks in chemical Process
• Hazards Evaluation
• Causes of incident
• My point of view about paper
• Conclusion

4. The Paper:
This paper quantifies the damage caused by the explosion of runaway chemical reaction occurred at the T2
Laboratories, Inc. facility in December 2007. and also identifying the root cause as a failure to recognize the runaway
reaction hazard associated with the chemical it was producing. Furthermore, This study concentrate on the lessons
learnt from this incident, including a thorough hazard assessment for reactive chemicals as well as proper collection
and application of adiabatic calorimetry data to characterize the chemical reaction and suggest suitable mitigation
techniques. Examples will be given to establish safer operating conditions, install safeguards, and lower total risk

5. Production of T2 Plants
• T2 Labs manufactured MCMT which is a gasoline additive sold under the trade name
Ecotane. T2 manufactured MCMT using a sequence of three steps performed within a
single process reactor.

6. Design of T2 Plant:
 The maximum allowable working pressure of the reactor was 600 psig. The reactor was outfitted with a
4″ rupture disk and a set pressure of 400 psig.
 A pressure control valve was connected to the outlet pipe on the reactor prior to the rupture disk.
 The reactor had internal heating coils and an external jacket which used water for cooling.
 The emergency relief system design was based on the maximum amount of hydrogen generation for the
desired reaction at the intended operating temperature.

7. Drawbacks in the chemical process
• Lack of process safety information
• Ignorance of the chemistry's propensity for runaway reactions
• Improper emergency relief system design
• Absence of a process hazard analysis (PHA) that would have helped identify crucial safety
systems like cooling water

8. Potential Hazards
• Risk of explosion by shock, friction, fire or other sources of ignition
• May become highly flammable or may initiate a fire, especially if other combustible
materials are present
• Combination liberates gaseous products, at least one of which is flammable. May
cause pressurization
• Potential gases: Hydrogen
• Unsaturated hydrocarbons may be further unsaturated by the presence of group I
metals, liberating flammable hydrogen gas

9. Causes of the accident
• A runaway exothermic reaction occurred during the first (metalation) step of the MCMT process.
• A loss of sufficient cooling during the process likely resulted in the runaway reaction, leading to an
uncontrollable pressure and temperature rise in the reactor.
• the reactor burst and its contents ignited, resulting in an explosion equivalent to 1400 pounds of TNT .

10. conclusion
 The owners who were involved in the T2 MCMT process' development and operation were not aware
of crucial process safety information that would have allowed a process to be safely scaled up from
the laboratory scale to production
 The owners did not understand the potential for a runaway reaction to occur in this process, nor did
they understand the magnitude of the consequences of such an event
 Performing a PHA on this process could have identified the need to quantify consequences due to
upset scenarios such as a loss of cooling event.

11. My point of view
• This study describe clearly the drawbacks of different process of a chemical
plant i.e. operating conditions and the process plant (temperature and
pressure operating range, equipment design requirements).
• This study also provide some useful recommendations for such chemical
plants.
• This research is necessary to assess the safety of a plant's chemical processes
in different parts of the world

12. Thank you