Phosgene Expansion Optimization:

Financial and Risk Analysis

Daniel Devillier, Meghan Kenyon, Luke Larive, Shade Winfrey

Problem Statement Alternative 1 Risk Matrix

Evaluate which cooling solution is the better alternative for phosgene production
while taking into account safety and cost. The first alternative will require a new Current Mitigated
reactor built onto an existing cooling water system where the second alternative Guideword Cause Freq Cons Risk Safeguard IPL Credit Risk
will use Hexane as the coolant which may require an additional heat exchanger. Plugged
pipe; Heat Phosgene
Reaction Closed exchanger or cooling
valve; tube water Pressure
Mixing vapor chlorine with carbon monoxide using a carbon catalyst produces a No Flow pump rupture escape; if A Regulator; 2; 2 C
failure 1x10-2 both Operator
phosgene vapor in an exothermic reaction. exothermic Response
reaction
Less
cooling
water
Leak in causes
heat Heat higher A
exchanger exchanger phosgene Pressure
Less Flow pipe tube leak temp. Regulator; 2; 2 C
Background 1x10-1 phosgene Operator
escapes Response
• A majority of phosgene goes toward producing isocyanates, which are then used
in the production of polyurethane and pesticides. Phosgene should be produced More Consequence drop for no flow
on demand to prevent catastrophes during transportation or storage. Too much cooling Excess
pressure Relief water Flow
• An accident at a DuPont plant in Belle, West Virginia on January 23rd, 2010  Total Capital Investment in Alternative 1 is lower than Alternative 2 More Flow within device causing A valve;
resulted in fatal phosgene exposure. A highly corroded steel hose burst. heat failure lower Operator 1; 2 C
 Alternative 1 Return on Investment occurs at a quicker rate exchanger 1x10-2 phosgene Response
• In 1994, the failure to prevent over pressure resulted in the release of phosgene, temp
 Hexane, used in Alternative 2, is flammable and has a risk of explosion
hydrochloric acid and muriatic acid at an Olin plant in Lake Charles, LA. The  Alternative 1 is a less complex plant design with less process equipment,
accident caused a fatality and serious injury
therefore, will have reduced complications
Chlorine Carbon Monoxide Phosgene Unmitigated LOPC
Cost Analysis Alternative 1 Phosgene Release Hexane Release

Chemical Reactivity
LEGEND
X No self reaction
N Not Compatible
C Caution
Y Compatible
SR Self Reactive

Radius: 7.8 km Radius: 0.185 km

Area: 190 km^2 Area: 0.107 km^2

 Phosgene product value is equivalent for the two alternatives Emergency Response
 Capital costs for the process are recovered through steam production
 Catalyst maintenance costs far exceed the equipment purchase costs  Employees will wear color-changing phosgene dosimeter badges to
 Variation in interstage temperature has the biggest impact on cost alert when high exposure occurs
 Net Present Value (NPV) = -$206,068  Orange wind cones placed around the site
 All personnel on site have access to respirators
Comparative Cost Analysis
 Upon detection of a leak, process is shutdown
and audible plant alarms are triggered.
 Employees put on their respirators and assemble
 Exothermic side reactions resulting from Cumulative
Capital at gathering points located in pre-specified
potential methane and hydrogen Dollar Value Over Boiler Feed Water Cooling Water
Investment well-sealed buildings.
contamination in the feedstock pose 15 Years
 In case of release, the “buddy system” will be
thermal risk at the reactor inlet implemented for employees in the unit.
 Phosgene decomposition will occur at  Nearby community and CSB is notified if high-volume release is
higher temperatures Alternative 1 $314,561 -$1.565 MM $14,825 suspected.
 Tube leakage to the shell side of the
reactor will lead to generation of HCl and Alternative 2 $353,482 -$1.451 MM $10,690
increase rate of corrosion and fouling