Quantitative accident consequences analysis on chemical plant of acetic acid production

Authors

  • Mohd Aizad Ahmad INPRES, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia
    • Noranierah Noho INPRES, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia
      • Zulkifli Abdul Rashid INPRES, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia

        DOI:

        https://doi.org/10.24191/mjcet.v5i2.19316

        Keywords:

        Accident Consequences, Acetic acid, Affected area, Major equipment, Threat zone distance

        Abstract

        The growing concern about the possibility of major chemical accidents in India has driven both government and industry to figure out ways to recognise and evaluate potential hazards. A Quantitative Accident Consequences Analysis is a formal and structured approach to accident analysis that quantifies the consequence associated with engineering process operations. The application of accident analysis for this study is to achieve two objectives which are to identify hazardous substances and scenarios that can occur in acetic acid plant and the consequences to people outside and inside of the plant involved estimation of the accidental consequences with threat zone distance and area affected calculation. The acetic acid production plant located at MIDC Bhosari, Pimpri Chinchwad in Maharashtra India is the subject of this study. The methodology for this study is applied calculations of chemical inventories and process piping flow, assumptions, and selections are based on plant design supported by simulation using HYSYS software; and using ALOHA and MARPLOT Software for simulation of the accidental consequences. This study has a selected wind direction from East (E), which were blowing into residential area. Methanol reactor, R-101 produced boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) scenario which has the largest affected area of 572, 461 m2 and the longest distance of 427 meters, compare to other equipment in the plant.

        References

        Abbasi, T., Tauseef, S. M., Suganya, R., & Abbasi, S. A. (2017). Types of accidents occurring in chemical process industries and approaches to their modelling. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Mathematics, 6(7), 424–455.

        Ahmad, M. A., & Rashid, Z. A. (2019). Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system prediction method for percentage fatalities of jet fire incident in methanol production plant. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 9(1), 5766–5772. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.A3060.109119

        Ahmad, M. A., A. Rashid, Z., El-Harbawi, M., & Al-Awadi, A. S. (2021). High-pressure methanol synthesis case study: Safety and environmental impact assessment using consequence analysis. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 19, 8555–8572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03724-1

        Ahmad, M. A., Wan Badli Shah, W. N. A. N., & Abdul Rashid, Z. (2021). Consequence assessment using threat zone analysis on sulphuric acid production plant. Malaysian Journal of Chemical Engineering and Technology, 4(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.24191/mjcet.v4i1.12971

        Aizad, M., & Rashid, A. (2019). Fatality assessment for high pressure reactor of methanol production plants from CO2 hydrogenation. Malaysian Journal of Chemical Engineering and Technology, 2, 26–40.

        Arunraj, N. S., & Maiti, J. (2009). A methodology for overall consequence modeling in chemical industry. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 169(1–3), 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.133

        Casal, J. (2017). Evaluation of the effects and consequences of major accidents in industrial plants (Second Edition).Elsevier.

        Deshmukh, G., & Manyar, H. (2020). Production pathways of acetic acid and its versatile applications in the food industry. In T. P. Basso, T. O. Basso, & L. C. Basso (Eds.), Biotechnological Applications of Biomass. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92289

        Dunjó, J., Fthenakis, V., Vílchez, J. A., & Arnaldos, J. (2010). Hazard and operability (HAZOP) analysis. A literature review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 173(1–3), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.08.076

        Hairul Amri Abd Rashid. (2021). Quantitative risk assessment. DNV Oil & Gas.

        Hokstad, P., & Steiro, T. (2006). Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.014

        Johnson, W. K. (2000). CEH marketing research report: acetic acid. Chemical Economics Handbook.

        Khan, F. I., & Abbasi, S. A. (1999). Major accidents in process industries and an analysis of causes and consequences. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 12(5), 361–378.

        Khan, F. I., & Amyotte, P. R. (2005). I2SI: A comprehensive quantitative tool for inherent safety and cost evaluation. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 18(4–6), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.022

        Martín-Espejo, J. L., Gandara-Loe, J., Odriozola, J. A., Reina, T. R., & Pastor-Pérez, L. (2022). Sustainable routes for acetic acid production: Traditional processes vs a low-carbon, biogas-based strategy. Science of The Total Environment, 840, 156663. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156663

        National Center for Biotechnology Information (2022). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 176, Acetic Acid. Retrieved October 31, 2022 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Acetic-Acid.

        NORSOK Standard (2010). Risk and emergency preparedness assessment(Z-013).

        Pandey, S. K., Tauseef, S. M., Abbasi, T., & Abbasi, S. A. (2018). Pool fires in chemical process industries: occurrence, mechanism, management. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 18(5), 1224–1261.

        Pula, R., Khan, F. I., Veitch, B., & Amyotte, P. R. (2006). A grid-based approach for fire and explosion consequence analysis. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 84(2 B), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1205/psep.05063

        Ramli, A., Ghani, N. A., Hamid, N. A., & Desa, M. S. Z. M. (2018). Consequence modelling for estimating the toxic material dispersion using aloha: case studies at two different chemical plants. Proceedings, 2, 1268. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2201268

        Rashid, Z. A., Subri, M. A., Ahmad, M. A., Fuad, M. F. I. A., & Japperi, N. S. (2021). Severity effect of methanol toxicity from high pressure reactor. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 18(2), 203–215.

        Shao, H., & Duan, G. (2012). Risk quantitative calculation and ALOHA simulation on the leakage accident of natural gas power plant. Procedia Engineering, 45(4), 352–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.08.170

        Shariff, A. M., & Zaini, D. (2013). Inherent risk assessment methodology in preliminary design stage: A case study for toxic release. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26(4), 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2012.12.003

        Tseng, J. M., Su, T. S., & Kuo, C. Y. (2012). Consequence evaluation of toxic chemical releases by ALOHA. Procedia Engineering, 45, 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.08.175

        United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1975). Reactor safety study WH-1400. NUREG-75/014.

        Van Sciver, G. R. (1990). Quantitative risk analysis in the chemical process industry. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 29(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(90)90072-U

        Victoria, T., & Dragos, M. (2012). Air quality assessment based on road traffic pollutants dispersion modelling: Giurgiu – Ruse Bridge Case study. Incas Bulletin, 4(4), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.13111/2066-8201.2012.4.4.16

        Villa, V., Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., & Cozzani, V. (2016). Towards dynamic risk analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Safety Science, 89, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002

        Vipin, Pandey, S. K., Tauseef, S. M., Abbasi, T., & Abbasi, S. A. (2018). Pool fires in chemical process industries: occurrence, mechanism, management. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 18(5), 1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-018-0517-2

        Weber, M. (2006). Some Safety Aspects on the Design of Sparger Systems for the organic liquid. Process Safety Progress, 25(4), 326–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.10143

        Yet-Pole, I., Shu, C., & Chong, C.H. (2009). Applications of 3D QRA technique to the fire/explosion simulation and hazard mitigation within a naphtha-cracking plant. Journal of Loss Prevention in The Process Industries, 22, 506-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2009.04.002

        Zhang, N., Shen, S., Zhou, A., & Chen, J. (2019). A brief report on the March 21, 2019 explosions at a chemical factory in Xiangshui, China. Process Safety Progress, 38(2), e12060. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.12060

        Downloads

        Published

        2022-10-31

        Issue

        Vol. 5 No. 2 (2022): 2022 MJCET Vol 5 Issue 2

        Section

        Articles

        License

        Creative Commons License

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

        How to Cite

        Quantitative accident consequences analysis on chemical plant of acetic acid production. (2022). Malaysian Journal of Chemical Engineering and Technology, 5(2), 148-160. https://doi.org/10.24191/mjcet.v5i2.19316

        Similar Articles

        11-20 of 52

        You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

        Most read articles by the same author(s)