2016 International Symposium for Young Chemical Engineers

INTEGRATION OF SAFETY PROCESS INDEX IN CHEMICAL

INDUSTRY
Dyan H.A.Sudarni1, Juwari1,*, Renanto Handogo1
1

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Department of Chemical Engineering

Departement of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Industry Technology,
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Kampus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia
*E-mail Address: joecheits@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
The chemical industry has various stages of production processes. Every
process production has levels of risk failure. The level of the risk of fail can be
discerned from chemicals, the process condition and equipment. The previous methods
by use one or two of the parameters. The method of risk assessment fail to research has
not previously been integrating the three aspects which is divided into two main of the
parameters. This research deals with an assessment of the safety of with three this
aspect integration called index safety value (ISV). The assessment technique ISV was
with a determining parameters, assessment of each ISV parameter, and assessment with
integration. This integration can be used for determining the risk level in process by
standardization. Standardization is done to determine the characteristics of each
production process steps. This standardization has a ranges of index value and
characteristics of the risk level. The research take production of methyl methacrylate
(MMA) with acetone cyanohydrin (ACH) as the case to be studied. Main parameters is
safety chemicals and safety conditions in an operation. Production of MMA has four
steps production process. The first step is HCN product, ACH product, HMPA/HMPSE
and the last is the production of MMA. From the four steps the HCN product has higher
risk level, with an index value of 0,299 and moderate characteristics. The low less risk
level is step of production of MMA with index value 0,201 and light characteristics.
Keywords: Risk Level, Safety Assessment, Safety Value, Standardization

INTRODUCTION
Safety is a strategy used to reduce the risk from accidents. Risk reduction
accident at main process and applied to strategy inherent safety to reduce the danger
(Heikkila, 1999). Inherent safety is concept, security approach focusing on reduce the
risk which is a conditions. The identification process and apply safety in a development
plans a plant are called inherent safety design (Kletz, 2009). There are harm reduction in
a process can be described in inherent safety compared with the process control passive,
active and procedural (CCPS, 1993).

A plant built safely will be equipped with equipment control. The many
strategies have been introduced to reduce or minimize the consequences of the accident.
Thus should be built a safe situation so that workers can reduce the rate of accidents and
there must be the maintenance of the equipment to prevent the occurrence of equipment
failure. (Kletz, 2009).
The previous methods of still much lack, therefore investigation with the main
development technique assessment in integration. This integration put together some
parameters. Prototype Inherent Safety Index (PIIS) is the first published index for
evaluating safety in the process. This index measures evaluation of production processes
in the chemical industry. Parameter that is used has 8 parameters. Parameters of
chemical safety are inventory, flammability, explosiveness and toxicity. While process
safety are temperature, pressure and heat reaction (Edwards, et.al., 1998). Inherent
Safety Index (ISI) is an assessment developed for larger scope of the process. This
assessment uses 12 parameters to evaluate, and divided into two main parameters
chemical and process parameters (Heikkil, 1999). NuDITS is the safety assessment.
This new technique uses the numeric assessment method. Safety parameters that are
used are temperature, pressure, heat reaction, yield, flammability, explosiveness,
toxicity and inventory for the chemical industry. The assessment results can be used to
easily identify the safest route between several alternatives of synthesis process and can
determine the potential source of risk from the synthesis processes (Ahmad, et.al.,
2014).
METHOD
The previous methods using one parameter or two parameter. The parameter
risk can be divided into different of kind. The assessment safety chemicals divided into:
the levels flammability, explosiveness, toxic and reactivity. Whereas for safety process
divided into: temperature, pressure and the process of inventory. This research talk
about assessment the security of by integration that uses three aspects (chemical,
process and equipment). This research deals with an assessment of the safety of with
three this aspect integration called index safety value (ISV). The research take
production of methyl methacrylate (MMA) with acetone cyanohydrin (ACH) as the case
to be studied. The Previous method using in this research is PIIS, ISI and NuDIST.
The way that counts safety level with ISV using two parameter main.
Parameter that used in this research was parameter process safety and chemical safety.
Stage calculation new method this;
1. Determine Parameters
The main parameter used for this assessment is process safety and chemistry
safety. Parameter calculated based on any equipment passed the process of
making MMA based on PFD (Chauvel dan Lefebvre, 1998). Equipment parameter
have to contributed the insecurity is reactor, instrument heat exchanger, and
column. Calculations use the ISV in accordance equation 1.
ISV = IVC + IVP

(1)

Index Safety Value (ISV) is a total of total insecurity. Inherent Value Chemical
(IVC) is chemicals safety parameters this value can be MSDS. Inherent Value
Process (IVP) is process safety from the operating conditions a plant to be
verified.
2

2. Calculation Method with ISV

Parameter divided into two main parameter consisting of IVC and IVP. Every
parameter have sub parameters as equation 2 and equation 3.
IVC = VFL + VEXP + VTOX + VREAC

(2)

IVP = VT + VP + VHR + VI

(3)

3. Assessment by Integration
The assessment integration are the judgments in total with equation 1 that
combines with all aspects parameter. Tied this data to integrate data obtained for
the judgment of has been true or not. Because the results from compared with the
results of data from the previous method.
4. Analysis of Safety Levels with Characteristic
The risk level be used to hazard a process production proposed in table 1. The any
process production of a plant is there are several production route. Table 1 to ease
determine how the potential for a failure process.
Table 1: Characteristic of the Risk Level
Risk Level
Index
Severe
0,75 - 1,00
1
Heavy
0,50 - 0,75
1
Moderate
0,25 - 0,50
1
Light
0
- 0,25
Table 1 concerns the characteristics of the index assessment level where zero is
the level of light hazard. While the index value approaching one is greater risk level.
Risk level assessment can be used to estimate the area that has a great danger, and in
case of failure the process can be prioritized in advance to mitigate them (Sudarni, et.al.,
2016)
RESULT
The assessment in the study is carried out by various methods that have been
done by previous researchers. Focus research is production of Methyl Methacrylate
(MMA) with Acetone Cyanohydrin (ACH) process. Assessment aims to see how much
the risk if accident occurs. The processing manufacturing production is divided into four
stages or routes. Which are production of HCN, ACH, HMPSA/HMPSE and MMA.
Evaluation ISV is divided into two main parameters Inherent Value Chemical (IVC) and
Inherent Value Process (IVP). The assessment is calculations equation 1 and 2.
Table 2: Method ISV

Route HCN
Route ACH

Inherent Value Chemical

VFL
VEXP
VTOX VREAC
116,6 153,8
145
4
-145,3 64,2
780
6
3

Inherent Value Process

VT
VP
VHR
VI
1200
3,4
-3757
64
38
1
-458
91

Route
HMPA/HMPSE
Route MMA

-44,9

145,9

620

150

Small

98

32,2

51,3

400

130

Small

198

Table 2 form a part of total calculation sub parameter IVC and IVP. Table 3
integration with tied data to be used compare about ISV Method and previous method.
And then table 4 is a Result ISV Method and Characteristic of the Risk Level.
Table 3: Calculation with Tied Data as a Comparison

Route HCN
Route ACH
Route
HMPA/HMPSE
Route MMA

Inherent Value Chemical

VFL
VEXP
VTOX VREAC
4
4
1
2
1
2
4
4

Inherent Value Process

VT
VP
VHR
VI
4
3
4
1
1
4
3
2

1,5

1.5

1,5

1.5

Table 4: ISV and Characteristic of the Risk Level

Route HCN
Route ACH
Route
HMPA/HMPSE
Route MMA

ISV
23
21

Index
0.2987
0.2727

Risk Level
Moderate
Moderate

17,5

0.2273

Light

15,5

0.2013

Light

The Risk Level analysis of hazards in a production process proposed in Table 1

can be used or not. Table 5 is an assessment by the standardization will be compared
with some previous methods (PIIS, ISI and NuDIST).
Table 5: Compare Result ISV Method and previous Method
Route
Route HCN
Route ACH
Route
HMPA/HMPSE
Route MMA

Method
PIIS
27
16

ISI
25
21

NuDITS
423,13
382,12

ISV
23
21

21

416,22

17,5

12

19

403,47

15,5

This comparison is taken because it has the same parameters. Results of standardization
in Table 6. From the results of standardization characterizing the risk level of hazard
every Route of production in a plant. The result about risk level analysis most
dangerous is a route HCN. Whereas the lighter risk level is route MMA.
Table 6: The Comparison ISV Method and Previous Method
Method
Route
PIIS
ISI
NuDITS
ISV
Route HCN
0,422
0,291
0,260
0.299
Route ACH
0,250
0,244
0,235
0.273
4

Route
0,141
0,244
0,256
HMPA/HMPSE
Route MMA
0,188
0,221
0,248
Table 7: Result Integration of Parameters (Method ISV)
Route HCN
Route ACH
Route
HMPA/HMPSE
Route MMA

Index
0,5152
0,1829
0,1736
0,1283

0.227
0.201

Risk Level
Heavy
Light
Light
Light

Table 7 is the result of integration of each parameters and is the result from ISV
method. Table 6 is as a result validation to determine the results in accordance with the
previous methods if done standardization. The standardization is validation in order by
means to do of compares with other method. HCN is very poisonous based on
characteristic of a chemical compound. The advantage a method ISV better than of
other methods: Parameters used easily seen and all matches the operation. This method
easy to apply, Can be directly known characteristic that hazard inflicted if occur a
dangerous.
CONCLUSION
Production of MMA has four steps production process. The first step is
production of HCN, then ACH, HMPA/HMPSE and the last is the production of MMA.
From the four steps the HCN product has higher risk level, with an index value of 0,299
and moderate characteristics. The low less risk level is step of production of MMA with
index value 0,201 and light characteristics. A method of ISV this can only be used for
just one production process. This method good will be used to assessment with be
integrated for two main parameters and this method easy apply.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, Syaza I., Hashim, H., Hassim, M.H. (2014), Numerical Descriptive Inherent
Safety Technique (NuDIST) for Inherent Safety Assessment Petrochemical
Process, J. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 92, 379-389.
CCPS (1993). Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety. American Institute
of Chemical Engineers: New York
Chauvel, A., Lefebvre, G. (1998), Petrochemical Processes: Technical and Economic
Characteristics Second Edition, Gulf Publishing Company, Paris.
Edwards, D.W., Lawrence, D., 1993. Assessing the inherent safety of chemical process
routes: is there a relation between plant costs and inherent safety. Trans.
IChemE 71 (B), 252258.
Heikkila, A.M. (1999), Inherent Safety Process Plant Design an Index Based
Approach, Helsinki University of Technology.
Kletz, T. (2009), Inherently Safer Chemical Processes, second edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Sudarni, Dyan H. A., Juwari, Handogo, R. (2016), Process Safety Index in Chemical
Process, The 2nd International Seminar on Science and Technology-ITS. Vol
183-184.
5

April 26, 1986: Chernobyl disaster. At the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Prypiat,
Ukraine a test on reactor number four went out of control, resulting in a nuclear
meltdown. The ensuing steam explosion and fire killed up to 50 people with
estimates that there may be between 4,000 and several hundred thousand
additional cancer deaths over time. Fallout could be detected as far away as
Canada. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, covering portions of Belarus and
Ukraine surrounding Prypiat, remains contaminated and mostly uninhabited.
Prypiat itself was totally evacuated and remains as a ghost town.
The cause of the accident. Cause of accident.