Editorial

This newsletter is an year old now. There is a great feeling of satisfaction, tinged with some pride that it has been brought on time, every month for the last twelve months since April 2002. In the course of this past year, the paper has turned glossy, the masthead has acquired a coat of colour. It is time now to take a fresh look at the contents.

The primary objective of the Newsletter has been satisfactorily accomplished. This was to disseminate information amongst members about IIChE’s activities and programmes. There is yet another purpose, which is to provide a platform for the members to share their ideas and experiences. This part is untapped as yet. I request all the members to participate actively and contribute their ideas. Only then can this Newsletter become more vibrant and dynamic.

The continuing poor attendance at the monthly programmes is a matter of concern. Last month, we had an excellent talk on TRIZ – Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Sadly the attendance was just 10 members. It dampens everyone’s enthusiasm. This month we have lined up yet another excellent speaker on the novel subject of Chemical Weapons Convention. Hope the members will turn up in large numbers.

After the last month’s appeal for members to furnish their particulars for the Database, there has been about 15 responses. This is a renewal of the appeal to others, to make the Directory happen before the AGM in September.

K.Sahasranaman

D.P.Misra

The key findings of TRIZ research are that:

1. All innovations emerge from the application of a very small number of inventive principles and strategies.

2. Technology evolution trends are highly predictable.

3. The strongest solutions transform the unwanted or harmful elements of a system into useful resources.

4. The strongest solutions also actively seek out and destroy the conflicts and trade-offs most design practices assume to be fundamental.

TRIZ offers users access to the knowledge and experiences of the world's finest inventive minds. It is intended to complement and add structure to our natural creativity rather than replace it.

TRIZ effectively strips away all boundaries between different scientific, engineering and creative discipline and its effectiveness has been proved across a broad spectrum of fields and problem types.

TRIZ is different to most other creativity aids, and quite appear a little unnatural at first. Here are some of the things that may help how you think about TRIZ and the way you will use it:

TRIZ is about providing means for problem solvers to access the good solutions obtained by the world's finest inventive minds. The basic process by which this occurs is illustrated below. Essentially, TRIZ researchers have encapsulated the principles of good inventive practice and set them into a generic problem-solving framework. The task of problem definers and problem solvers using the large majority of the TRIZ tools thus becomes one in which they have to map their specific problems and solutions to and from this generic framework.

1500 person years of TRIZ research have produced a significant number of innovation tools and methods. This section offers a brief summary of the four main elements that make the method distinct from other innovation and problem solving strategies.

TRIZ researchers have identified the fact that the world's strongest inventions have emerged from situations in which the inventor has successfully sought to avoid the conventional trade-offs that most designers take for granted. More importantly they have offered systematic tools through which problem solvers can tap into and use the strategies employed by such inventors. The most commonly applied tool in this regard is the Contradiction Matrix - a 39x39 matrix containing the three or four most likely strategies for solving design problems involving the 1482 most common contradiction types. Probably the most important philosophical aspect of the contradiction part of TRIZ is that, given there are ways of 'eliminating' contradictions, designers should actively look for them during the design process.

Ideality:

While studying the patent database, TRIZ founder Genrich Altshuller identified a trend in which systems always evolve towards increasing 'ideality' and that this evolution process takes place through a series of evolutionary S-curve characteristics. A key finding of TRIZ is that the steps denoting a shift from one S-curve to the next are predictable. A number of underlying technology evolution trends consistent with the ideality concept have been identified during the course of research on the global patent database. Used as a problem definition tool, the ideality part of TRIZ encourages problem solvers to break out of the traditional 'start from the current situation' type of thinking, and start instead from what is described as the Ideal Final Result (IFR). The simple definition of IFR is that the solution contains all of the benefits and none of the costs or 'harms' (environmental impact, adverse side-effects, etc). Although there are many instances where systems have been seen to evolve all the way to their Ideal Final Result, many have not. The method gets users to think about these situations by working back from the IFR to something, which is practicably realizable. Generally speaking these solutions incorporate the concept of systems solving problems 'by themselves'. The key word is 'self'; things that achieve functions by themselves - self-cleaning, self-balancing, self-heating, self-aerating, etc - all represent, when incorporated in a true TRIZ fashion, very powerful and resource-efficient solutions.

Functionality:

Although the functionality aspects of TRIZ owe a significant debt to the pioneering work on Value Engineering, the method of defining and using functionality data is markedly different; sufficient at the very least to merit discussion as a distinct paradigm shift in thinking relative to traditional occidental thought processes. Three aspects are worthy of particular note:

1) The idea that a system possesses a Main Useful Function (MUF) and that any system component, which does not contribute towards the achievement of this function, is ultimately harmful. In a heat exchanger, for example, the MUF is to transfer heat to the working medium; everything else in the system is there solely because we don't yet know how to achieve the MUF without the support of the ancillary components. (Systems may of course perform several additional useful functions according to the requirements of the customer.)

2) In traditional function mapping, the emphasis is very much on the establishment of positive functional relationships between components. TRIZ places considerable emphasis on plotting both the positive and the negative relationships contained in a system, and, more importantly, on using the function analysis as a means of identifying the contradictions, in-effective, excessive and harmful relationships in and around a system. Function and attribute analysis thus becomes a very powerful problem definition tool.

3) Functionality is the common thread by which it becomes possible to share knowledge between widely differing industries. A motorcar is a specific solution to the generic function 'move people', just as a washing powder is a specific solution to the generic function 'remove solid object'. By classifying and arranging knowledge by function, it becomes possible for manufacturers of washing powder to examine how other industries have achieved the same basic 'remove solid object' function. 'Solutions change, functions stay the same' is a message forming a central thread in the TRIZ methodology: People want a hole not a drill.

India, it is reported, is preparing to ratify Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, also known as POPs Treaty. This treaty is the latest and the most potent one among dozens of international environmental treaties in force. POPs Treaty can impact our lives, our economy and our progress in many ways. For the benefit of general readers, here is a brief introduction to POPs Treaty. Not many in our country may have already heard of this treaty, touted to be the most significant global treaty in the interest of developing countries!

In May 1995, United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council directed several international agencies to begin evaluating 12 substances- all man made organic chemicals- considered to be hazardous, persisting for long in the environment and move long distances. They were termed Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Subsequently at a meeting held during Feb 1997, UNEP concluded that a global, legally binding instrument was required to reduce the risks to human health and the environment posed by these 12 POPs. What followed was a series of negotiations leading to adoption of POPs Treaty in May 2001 at Stockholm.

The POPs Treaty (otherwise called Stockholm Convention) has so far been ratified by 8 countries – Canada, Fiji,Germany,Lesotho,Nauru & Netherlands. It will enter into force once 50 countries ratify it. The initial list of POPs is grouped into three categories.

Aldrin, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene, Mirex and Toxaphene.

II Industrial Chemical:

Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs)

III Un intended by- products:

Dioxins and Furans

A majority of the substances in the POPs list are no longer in production in the world and also in India- either already banned or phased out. One could, therefore, be tempted to ask "why to worry about POPs Treaty that mainly covers dead products?" Well, here lies the crux of the treaty that is not yet widely known or recognised especially in developing countries including India. Annex D of the POPS Treaty provides for "adding new substances" to POPs list. Does the annex specify criteria for selection of new substances? Yes, it does. Ironically, it is the specified criteria that give rise to well founded fears in the minds of those who have been observing the evolution of this treaty. For, the criteria specified has a mix of firm cut off value limits along with subjective evaluation possibilities. For example, under "persistence", a criterion for candidate POPs, the treaty provides following guidelines.

Half life in water > 2 months

Half life in soil >6 months

Half life in sediments > 6 months

Or

Pray, how do we finitely define the term "sufficiently persistent"? No easy explanation available.

Selection criteria (with questionable subjectivity) apart, there is another basic flaw in the POPs Treaty. It is to common knowledge that the environmental factors such as temperature, level of solar radiation etc influence the rate of chemical degradation. The persistence of a particular chemical will widely vary from tropical climate (India) to temperate climate (Europe). A chemical that persists long in European climate may have a much shorter persistence in India. Are we in a position to effectively communicate such subtleties to UNEP and, more importantly, stick to our stand steadfast? Is India willing to question the very scientific basis (with strong reliance on data from temperate regions) proposed for selection of chemicals to POPs list? Is India prepared to tell the POPs Review Committee that we will go by our data and not by alien data while studying a chemical for its persistence in the environment?

In global forums such as UNEP, although all countries are supposedly equal, there is a discernable chasm between groups of developed countries and that of developing countries. One would never find developing countries initiating or actively participating in deliberations, be they about technical or legal or procedural issues. Their voice can be heard only while seeking financial aid! According to one expert observer, many developing countries are institutionally incapable of following international negotiation process let alone influencing it. They mutely accept the dictates of developed countries who conceive, discuss and conclude international environmental treaties. This is the plain, uncomfortable truth about birth of all international environmental treaties – though rarely acknowledged in public. POPs treaty is no exception. Western interests and expertise have been the dominant driving force for this treaty.

This is not to suggest that chemical pollution is non existent in India. But, that it is not the major pollution problem must be recognised by us. This realization will lead to right prioritization. Environmental NGOs i.e. ENGOs (who receive funds from abroad) have carefully propagated fears about POPs in the minds of the public. A few years ago, a global environmental NGO released a report from Bombay that boldly claimed" Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are turning out to be particularly significant problem in Asia". For evidence, the report published a photo from Canada of a bird with crossed bill and a photo of a whale (also from Canada) with mammary gland lesion. The irrelevance was striking! The ENGOs have been saying that POPs are among the most dangerous life threatening substances. Honestly, how many of us in India have seen our lives or lives around us threatened by POPs?

"Men are disturbed not by things that happen;

but by their opinion of the things that happen"

-Epictetus(55-135 AD)

Repeated and highly visible campaigns by foreign funded ENGOs against a few chemicals make the common man believe in the myths created around them. The public gets informed by ENGOs that use of POPs lead to thinning of egg shells. But, how many of us have seen this happening in our country? Painful indeed it is to realize that none in our country has chosen to critically evaluate such claims in our environment

India must realize that it is a developing country with a difference. It has a large chemical manufacturing facility. Before signing / ratifying any open ended international environmental treaty(such as POPs treaty), it should foresee all future consequences. The so-called alternatives to POPs do not come cheap. They come with a huge price tag attached. Can Indian industry and people of India afford it? We must realize that those who are actively pushing POPs treaty are those who are rich enough to take to expensive alternatives. Ten out of the twelve chemicals figuring in the POPs treaty were banned in most western countries in 1960s and 70s. The real purpose of POPs treaty is to bring additional chemicals (widely used in developing countries) under this highly proscriptive treaty. Already there are reports that Global Environment Facility (GEF) has embarked on a $5 million study to identify such additional chemicals. If there is one thing that India can do immediately to defend itself from the visible and invisible onslaught on its chemical industry in the guise of POPs, it is to assert itself now and refuse to ratify the POPs Treaty. Suffice it to say there is more to POPs Treaty than what meets the eyes! This should alert the government.

S.Ganesan

Co-Chairman
International Treaties Expert Committee,ICMA

This year we plan to bring out a directory of our members. This database will not be restricted to mere contact particulars; it will also list the area of specialisation / core competence of the member. The advantages of such a listing are too obvious to enumerate here. Though an appeal was made through the editorial of this Newsletter in September 2002, requesting members to furnish their details, the response sad to say has been lacklustre. To make things even worse, the particulars of the three members who responded were lost due to a computer glitch. On the day of factory visit, we were able to collect the information from all the participants and hopefully it is a new beginning. Hence this is one more earnest appeal to all of you to give their particulars in the following format. Please send it to me by mail, fax (25784913) or e-mail (secretary@iichemrc.org).

K.Sahasranaman

Website of the Month

This month’s website http://www.chemsafety.gov is owned by the US Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board. This is an independent scientific investigation agency and not a regulatory enforcement body. The site features a Chemical Incident Report Centre, which has a comprehensive database of accidents from the chemical industry worldwide. Very instructive.

Send your feedback on this and the Newsletter in general to secretary@iichemrc.org. Of course do keep visiting www.iichemrc.org for the MRC news and www.iiche.org.in for the news from the IIChE Headquarters.

Forthcoming Programmes

Keep watching our website for further announcements.