You are on page 1of 29

Saudi Kayan

Phenolics Project
Air Dispersion Modelling Report
Report No: UAE 0069520-004
Date: 3 January 2008

Saudi Kayan
Phenolics Project
Air Dispersion Modelling Report
Rev05
Report No: UAE 0069520-004
Date: 3 January 2008

Prepared by: Tristan Coleman

For and on behalf of


Environmental Resources Management
Approved by: Ian James
Signed:

________________________________

Position: Principal
Date: 3 January 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1

INTRODUCTION

1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.3
1.4
1.5

SUMMARY OF THE ASSESSMENT


COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL COMPOSITION
Spent Air Incinerator
Flare Gas Composition
Fuel Gas Composition
POLLUTANTS
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

1
4
4
5
5
6
7
7

DISPERSION MODELLING METHODOLOGY

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6

MODELLING SCENARIOS
STACK PARAMETERS
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
MODEL DOMAIN
MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS
NOX:NO2 ASSUMPTIONS

9
12
13
14
15
15

RESULTS

16

3.1
3.2

ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY


DISPERSION MODELLING RESULTS

16
16

CONCLUSIONS

18

4.1

RECOMMENDATIONS

18

APPENDIX A DISPERSION MODELLING ISOPLETHS

19

APPENDIX B DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS 23

APPENDIX C US EPA AP-42 EMISSION FACTOR METHODOLOGIES

24

INTRODUCTION

1.1

SUMMARY OF THE ASSESSMENT

The Saudi Kayan Petrochemical Company plans to undertake a major investment


programme to design and construct a new grassroots petrochemical complex at Jubail
Industrial City, Saudi Arabia (see Figure 1-1).
Tecnicas Reunidas (TR) has been selected as the EPC contractor for the Phenolics facility
within the Kayan complex. This facility will primarily produce 240,000 tonnes per annum
(tpa) of Bis-Phenol A (BPA).
Figure 1-1 Saudi Kayan Location
N

Jubail Industrial City

Saudi Kayan

The Phenolics facility will consist of the process units presented in Table 1-1 below.
Table 1-1 Process Units within Phenolics Facility
Process Unit

Producing

Cumene

Cumene

325

Phenol

Phenol

245

Acetone

136

BPA

270

BPA

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Design Capacity (k-tpa)

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

This report presents the findings of an air dispersion modelling assessment for normal
operations associated with the Phenolics facility combustion equipment. The report has been
prepared to support a Permit Application Package (PAP) for the project and is based on,
unless otherwise indicated, data provided by TRs design team based in Madrid, Spain.
Emission sources identified at the Phenolics facility that have been considered within the
dispersion modelling assessment are given in Table 1-2 below:
Table 1-2 Phenolics Facility Emission Sources
Emission Source

Process Unit

Equipment ID

Low Pressure Flare

Phenol

FL-56501

Spent Air Incinerator

Phenol

I-52230

Oxidiser Relief Drum Vent

Phenol

V-52223

Prilling Fan Packaging Vent

BPA

PK-54720

Prilling Fan Packaging Vent

BPA

PK-55720

Locations of point emission sources are presented in Figure 1-2 below

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Figure 1-2 Point Source Locations (all coordinates are based on Royal Commission Grid)

Oxidiser Relief Drum Vent


N46412.4276
E61584.9994

Spent Air Incinerator


N46390.2695
E61503.4393

Low Pressure Flare


N46085.9991
E61440.2500

Prilling Fan Packaging Vent


N45929.9838
E61500.0000
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Prilling Fan Bag Filter Exhaust Vent

N45929.9838
E61535.0000

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), non-methane hydrocarbons


(NMHC), and particulate matter (PM) have been considered using the Breeze-AERMOD
dispersion model to determine the potential ground level concentrations of pollutants in the
surrounding areas of the facility.
These pollutants have been considered due to their known deleterious effects to human
health, and subsequently, due to ambient air quality standards having been set by the Saudi
Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu (RC) to regulate such pollutants.
Modelled ground level concentrations have been compared directly with the RC ambient air
quality standards as presented in the RC Environmental Regulations, 2004 (RCER).

1.2

COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL COMPOSITION

The following section describes the materials and fuel that will be combusted in the
incinerator and low pressure flare.
1.2.1

Spent Air Incinerator

Table 1-3 below presents the expected feed composition of the spent air incinerator during
normal operations of the plant. From Table 1-3 it can be seen that feed gas composition will
be free from metals and sulphur and chlorine-containing compounds. In addition, gas
streams will be filtered prior to combustion; this will lead to negligible emissions of
particulate matter and SO2 in the exhaust gas stream. These pollutants have not, therefore,
been considered further.
Table 1-3 Spent Air Incinerator Feed Stream Summary
Component
Nirtogen
Oxygen
Cumene
Methanol
Acetone
AMS
Hydroxyacetone
Phorone
Water

Component Flow Kg/hr (all


are vapour phase)
44,047
2,347
92.2
43.5
7.9
0.2
0.2
0.4
120.5

Total Flow kg/hr


Total VOC kg/hr

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

46,659
138.5

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

1.2.2

Flare Gas Composition

Table 1-4 below presents the flare gas composition under the expected operating scenarios
(see Section 2-1). From Table 1-4 it can be seen that there are negligible levels of sulphur
present in the gas compositions under each of the identified operating scenarios (maximum
of 0.09% methyl mercaptan). Emissions of SO2 have not, therefore, been considered further.
Table 1-4 Flare Gas Compositions
Max Vent II
Max Vap Rate
Blocked Outlet
Comp
MW
kg/hr Mol%
kg/hr
Mol% kg/hr
Mol%
N2
28.01
463.0
0.8880
463.0 0.0474
463.0 0.1121
MeSH
48.11
0.8
0.0009
0.8 0.0000
0.8 0.0001
NP
72.15
104.8
0.0780 23,904.8 0.9508
9,404.8 0.8837
DMK
58.08
0.6
0.0005
0.6 0.0000
0.6 0.0001
H2O
18.02
10.8
0.0322
10.8 0.0017
10.8 0.0041
PHENOL
94.11
0.1
0.0000
0.1 0.0000
0.1 0.0000
DIPE
102.18
0.6
0.0003
0.6 0.0000
0.6 0.0000
o
Temp C
68.3
61.2
59.5
LHV (MJ/kg)
8.21
44.1
42.8
TOTAL
KG/HR
24380.6
9880.6
580.6
MOL/HR
18.6
348.5
147.5
MW
31.2
70.0
67

1.2.3

Fuel Gas Composition

Flare and incinerator feed streams will be supplemented with fuel gas, where necessary, in
order to increase the energy content of the gas stream (to a minimum of 11MJ/m3
RCER2004). In addition, fuel gas will be used for maintaining the pilot at the flare tip.
Table 1-5 below presents the range of fuel gas composition that will be used within the
facility.
Table 1-5 Fuel Gas Composition
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Nitrogen & CO2
H2S
Other S compounds
LHV
HHV

Mol%
Mol%
Mol%
Mol%
ppm
ppm
MJ/Nm3
MJ/Nm3

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

S&U Gas Plant


Berri Gas Plant
80.7
82.7
66.5
79.2
16
5
30
17.2
2.8
0.3
3
0.7
0.5
12
0.5
2.9
<2
<2
<2
NIL
NIL
<5
41.7
33.1
45.7
40.0
44.0
35.0
48.0
42.0

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

1.3

POLLUTANTS

The following pollutants have been considered in this assessment due to their known impact
on human health and the potential for them to be released to the atmosphere from the
combustion equipment.

NOx: Predominantly comprising of NO2 and nitric oxide (NO), NO2 is toxic even at
relatively low concentrations, and can be readily formed from oxidation of NO in the
presence of atmospheric oxidants;

CO: Anthropogenic emissions of CO originate mainly from incomplete combustion


of carbonaceous materials. In the human body, it reacts readily with haemoglobin to
form carboxyhaemoglobin, which reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood
and impairs the release of oxygen from haemoglobin to extra vascular tissues;

PM10: Particulate matter that falls within this size range (i.e., with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than 10 microns) is able to penetrate deep within the human lungs
and cause respiratory illness. A conservative assumption has been made within this
assessment that all particulate matter and soot in combustion emissions will be as
PM10.

NMHC: Non-methane hydrocarbons are of concern because, in the presence of NOx


and sunlight, can be a precursor to the photochemical oxidant ozone (O3). NMHC
flux for the boilers is expected to be negligible due to the low proportion of VOCs
present in the proposed fuels as well as the high combustion efficiency of the boilers.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

1.4

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Table 1-4 presents the RC ambient air quality standards as given in RCER, 2004.
Table1- 4 RC Ambient Air Quality Standards (g/m3)
Pollutant
NOx
PM10
SO23
NMHC4
CO

Maximum
Concentration
660
100
150
50
730
365
80
160
40,000
10,000
1.5

Averaging Period
1 hour1
Annual
24 hour
Annual
1 hour1
24 hours2
Annual
3 hours
1 hour1
Annual1
3 month

Pb
1
: Not to be exceeded more than twice per month
2
: Not to be exceeded more than once per year
3
: Not included in the assessment due to the low sulphur content of fuel and materials to be incinerated
4:

There is no RC adopted standard for NMHC, but rather, this is a goal to aid in the control of ambient ozone
concentrations

1.5

ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

An emissions inventory has been prepared quantifying the atmospheric emissions from the
sources identified in Table 1-5:
Table 1-5 Atmospheric Emissions Inventory Sources and Methodology
Emission Source

Calculation Methodology
Engineering data, mass balance and US EPA AP42 Emission Factors
Engineering data, mass balance and US EPA AP42 emission factors
Engineering data and mass balance
Mass balance and US EPA TANKS1
Design data and US EPA AP-42 emission factors

Flare
Incinerators
Vents
Fugitive losses from storage tanks
Fugitive losses from components (e.g. valves,
flanges)
1

Where tank vents are routed to flare or incinerator, their removal efficiency has been accounted for

In addition to the species assessed in the dispersion modelling assessment (see Section 1-3
above), the following additional pollutants have been considered within the emissions
inventory:

HAP/VOCs: Hazardous air pollutants in the context of this assessment are defined
and listed within the RCER, 2004. These consist of organic and some inorganic

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

materials and any service within the facility containing or handling such materials
are subject to specific control requirements.

CO2: Carbon dioxide is formed from the combustion of organic materials and is a
recognised contributor to global warming.

The estimated emissions from the sources listed in Table 1-6 above are presented in
Section 3-1.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

DISPERSION MODELLING METHODOLOGY

In order to estimate ground level concentrations for each study pollutant, an atmospheric
dispersion modelling study has been undertaken using Breeze-AERMOD. AERMOD is a
straight-line, steady-state Gaussian plume model that can model the dispersion of pollutants
over rural and urban areas, flat and complex terrain. AERMOD considers surface and
elevated releases, and multiple sources (including, point, area and volume sources) to
determine ground level pollutant concentrations at specified receptor points.
AERMOD is a new generation air quality modelling system, developed by the United States
Environmental

Protection

Agency (USEPA) in

collaboration

with

the American

Meteorological Society. It contains improved algorithms for convective and stable boundary
layers, for computing vertical profiles of wind, turbulence and temperature, and for the
treatment of all types of terrain. One of the major improvements that AERMOD brings to
applied dispersion modelling is its ability to construct vertical profiles of required
meteorological variables, allowing improved modelling of the dispersion of pollutants
(particularly of vertical dispersion).

2.1

MODELLING SCENARIOS

A number of different modelling scenarios have been defined based on likely operating
conditions that may potentially impact ambient air quality on a short or long-term timescale.
These are described in more detail in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Modelling Scenarios
Potential Impact

Scenario No.

Flaring Status

Incinerating Status1

Venting Status

Maximum2

High VOC

Continuous

Short-term

Blocked Outlet3

High VOC

Continuous

Short-term

High VOC

Continuous

Long-term

Maximum
Continuous3

Duration

1:

See Table 2-2 for further details on incineration scenarios

2:

Maximum flaring will occur during fire events, estimated to occur once every 5 years for a duration of no

longer than 1 hour


3:

Maximum continuous flaring is estimated to occur once per year, for a duration of no longer that 1 hour

Figures 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 below illustrates the various vent streams connected to each of the
emission sources and show the expected flue gas flow rates and emission fluxes.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Figure 2-1 Flaring Flow Diagram

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

10

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Figure 2-2 Incinerator Flow Diagram

Figure 2-3 Incinerator Flow Diagram

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

11

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

2.2

STACK PARAMETERS

Key emission characteristics associated with combustion sources or other discharge


arrangements which affect dispersion of emissions include:
Stack dimensions (m):

Stack height in relation to nearby buildings and the vertical


profile of the atmosphere can significantly affect dispersion
of pollutants.

Exit gas velocity (m/s):

Gas velocity (correlated to stack diameter) provides plume


momentum, influencing vertical (and horizontal) dispersion.

Exit gas temperature (oK):

Affects the buoyancy of the gas and thus the vertical dispersion
of pollutants.

Emission flux (g/s):

Proportional to the associated ground level concentrations of a


particular pollutant (assuming conservation of mass within the
dispersing plume).

Table 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 below show the model input data used in the assessment together with
the methodology used to calculate emission fluxes.
Table 2-2 Spent Air Incinerator Stack Parameters/ Model Input Data
Operation
Case

Stack
Height1
(m)

Stack
Diameter1
(m)

Exhaust
GasTemp1
(oK)

Exit vel.1
(m/s)

NOX1
(g/s)

NMHC2
(g/s)

CO1
(g/s)

High VOC3

25

1.74

320

13.7

0.30

<0.1

0.41

Normal

25

1.74

160

7.0

0.15

<0.1

0.21

1:

Based on Callidus Vendor Data

2:

Calculated based on feed gas composition and minimum destruction efficiency of 99.99% (RCER 2004)

3:

High VOC case has conservatively been used for the purposes of this assessment as initial model runs have

shown it to result in higher maximum ground level pollutant concentrations

Table 2-3 Low Pressure Flare Tip Parameters / Model Input Data

1:

Operating
Scenario

Height
(m)

Temp.
(oK)

Flaring
Rate
(kg/hr)

Maximum

20

970

24,380

296

Max
Continuous

20

970

581

Blocked
Outlet

20

970

9,881

116

Heat
Release
(MJ/s)

NOX 1
(g/s)

PM10 1
(g/s)

CO 1
(g/s)

NMHC2
(g/s)

11.3

47.0

<0.1

<0.1

0.3

<0.1

1.6

4.6

19.0

<0.1

Based upon USEPA AP42 Factors, flare gas heating value and flow rate

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

12

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

2:

Based upon mass balance calculations of flare gas composition and the rated destruction efficiency of each tip,

nominally 99%

Table 2-4 Vent Input Data


Vent Source

Stack
Height (m)

Stack
Diameter (m)

Exhaust Gas
Flowrate
(m/s)

Exhaust
Gas Temp
(oK)

PM Flux
(g/s)

Phenol Oxidiser
Relief Drum

Prilling Fan
Package PK 54720

15

1.7

19

358

0.33

Prilling Fan
Package PK 55720

15

1.7

19

358

0.33

(ON HOLD)

2.3

METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Local meteorological conditions affect the plume dispersion of emissions with plumes being
largely transported in the direction of the wind. Atmospheric stability criteria influence both
plume fall-out and the resulting pattern of dispersion.
AERMOD requires hourly measurements of wind speed and direction, ambient
temperature, air-mass stability (using the Pasquill stability categories) and estimates of the
urban and rural mixing heights. Ground level concentrations are computed for each hour of
meteorological data for specified averaging periods and receptor points. AERMOD also
utilises hourly sequential upper atmospheric meteorological data for the calculation of
vertical profiles of wind turbulence and temperature.
Three years of hourly sequential meteorological data from Dhahran, Saudi Arabia,
approximately 130 km south-southeast of the study site, for 1st January 2003 to 31st
December 2005 has been utilised for the assessment.
Figure 2-4 shows the typical wind speed and direction experienced at the study site, with the
predominant wind direction being northerly. It is therefore reasonable to expect that air
emissions from the site will predominantly be dispersed to the south of the site.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

13

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Figure 2-4 Dhahran Windrose (2003-2005) (m/s)

2.4

MODEL DOMAIN

Initial model runs were undertaken to determine the geographical extent of plume
dispersion. This subsequently allowed the domain over which modelling will be undertaken
to be refined accordingly. Ground-level concentrations have been calculated on 2 Cartesian
grids; the first with dimensions of 3.5km by 3.5km with a resolution of 100m, the second
with a higher resolution of 50m and centred around the peak ground level concentration
areas.
On review of site plot plans, it was determined that relatively tall buildings will be present
in the vicinity of the hot oil boilers. Building dimensions were entered into the domain, and
potential building downwash effects incorporated within the model runs.
Since atmospheric dispersion takes place differently over rural and urban areas, an analysis
was made to determine the appropriate land use classification for the dispersion modelling
analysis. The surrounding industrial area will create a heat island and surface roughness
effect similar to that seen in urban environments. An urban dispersion coefficient and
surface roughness characteristics have, therefore, been applied in this assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

14

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

2.5

MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS

The following assumptions have been made for the dispersion modelling assessment, and
wherever possible, a conservative approach has been made:

A stack height of 20m has been assumed for the flare, a stack height of 25m for the
incinerator and a stack height of 10m for the vent;

Stack internal diameters for the vents have been set in order that a reasonably
conservative exit velocity can be achieved of between 15 and 20 m/s;

It has been assumed that all particulate matter emitted from the point sources will be
in the form of PM10 for the purposes of comparison with ambient air quality
standards, thereby making the assessment conservative; and

The NO to NOx ratio has conservatively been assumed to be 50%. Further


justification for this assumption is provided below.

2.6

NOX:NO2 ASSUMPTIONS

In practice, typically 5-10% of the NOX emitted during combustion is expected to be in the
form of NO2 (the species of interest) at the point of discharge (i.e. stack exit), the remainder
being nitric oxide (NO). NO is a relatively innocuous substance, but it is of interest as a
precursor to NO2 through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Conversion of NO to NO2 is significant with respect to locations within 5-10 km downwind
of the proposed combustion plant. However, the chemistry of this conversion is complex
and subject to many influences, and therefore it is not possible to accurately predict the rate
of conversion of NO to NO2.
Warren Spring Laboratory Report LR693 (AP)M (1993) supports the use of a NOx:NO2 ratio
of 0.5 (by weight) for power station emissions up to a distance of 50 km (beyond which it
reverts to 0.85). A study by Janssen (1988) reaches conclusions generally consistent with
Warren Spring Laboratory, stating that at a distance of 5 km from source (but depending on
atmospheric stability, prevailing ozone concentration, wind speed and solar radiation),
conversion of NO2 from NO may vary from less than 20% (stable atmosphere) to up to 50%
(unstable atmosphere). Hence, a 50% conversion factor for NOx/NO2 is used for this study
for short-tem averages. Furthermore, the US EPA guidelines (40 CFR 51) propose a
NOx/NO2 conversion factor of 75% by volume (although the conservative aspect of this
value is recognised) for long-term averages. As these assumptions are regarded as being
conservative, it is likely to lead to a higher estimation of ground level NO2 concentration
than would actually.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

15

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

RESULTS

3.1

ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

A summary of the proposed emission sources and associated emissions are presented in
Table 3-1 below.
Table 3-1 Phenolics Facility Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (Tonnes/ Year)
Source name

NOx

CO

VOC

Dust

HAP

CO2

Spent Air Incinerator

10

<1

<1

<1

13,577

Low Pressure Flare

51

15,205

Storage

Tanks1

107

Storage

Tanks2

12

Prilling Fan Package PK


54720

11

Prilling Fan Package PK


55720

11

11

13

171

32

23

28,783

Totals
1:

Loading losses (after emission control)

2:

Standing losses

3.2

DISPERSION MODELLING RESULTS

Table 3-2 below presents the modelled maximum ground level concentrations of the study
pollutants, together with the relevant RCER, 2004 ambient air quality standard for
comparison. Dispersion modelling isopleths are presented in Appendix A.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

16

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Table 3-2 Predicted Maximum Ground Level Concentrations


Scenario

Species

Max Ground level


Conc. [
g/m3]

Avg. Period

RC standard
[
g/m3]

NO2

36.5

1-hour

660

380

1-hour

40,000

100.5

8-hour

10,000

PM10

6.5

24-hour

150

NMHC

<1

3-hour

160

NO2

1-hour

660

143

1-hour

40,000

35

8-hour

10,000

PM10

24-hour

150

NMHC

<1

3-hour

160

NO2

<1

Annual

100

PM10

1.5

Annual

50

CO

CO

It should be noted that in almost all of the model runs the maximum concentrations were
observed within the site boundary. Concentrations of pollutants within places of work are
not regulated using ambient air quality standards but rather occupational exposure limits
which are based on 8 hour exposure periods of workers. Based on the modelling data,
impacts to worker health from emissions are considered unlikely as can be seen in Table 3-3
below.
Table 3-3 Predicted Maximum Ground Level Concentrations and Occupational Exposure
Levels

1:

Max Onsite
Concentration
[
g/m3]

Occupational
Exposure
Limit [
g/m3]1

NO2

10

5,700

CO

100

35,000

Scenario

Species

Limits specified reproduced from UK Health & Safety Executive EH40

In addition, the absolute worst-case calculated concentrations have been compared against
the ambient standards which, in many cases allow for the value to be exceeded a prescribed
number of times before the standard is deemed to have been breached.
It can be derived from Table 3-2 that the modelled ground-level concentrations of assessment
pollutants are not expected to be more than approximately 6% of the relevant short-term
standard and approximately 70% of the relevant long-term standard.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

17

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

CONCLUSIONS

A dispersion modelling assessment, using the internationally recognised AERMOD


dispersion modelling system has been undertaken in order to predict the potential impacts
to air quality associated with the operation of the proposed Phenolics facility.
Based on the findings of this assessment it is expected that emissions from the operation of
the flare, vent and incinerator units will not significantly impact long or short-term ambient
air quality conditions.
It should be noted that the assessment undertaken has been conservative in its approach. It
is expected, therefore, that pollutant concentrations found in the ambient environment
attributable to the Phenolics facility would in reality be less than those predicted in this
assessment.

4.1

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations based on the findings of this study are:

On receipt of further vendor data for the emission sources, the dispersion modelling
assessment should be updated;

On completion of a parts count of equipment within VOC/ HAP service the


emissions inventory shall be updated; and

On receipt of building locations / dimensions, building downwash effects should be


considered within the assessment to determine whether on-site occupational
exposure limits are likely to be breached.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

18

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

APPENDIX A DISPERSION MODELLING ISOPLETHS

Scenario 1, 1 Hour NOx Concentrations

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

19

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Scenario 1, 1-hour CO Concentrations

Scenario1, 8 Hour CO Concentrations

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

20

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Scenario 1, 24 Hour PM Concentrations

Scenario 3, Annual NOx Concentrations

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

21

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Scenario 3, Annual PM Concentrations

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

22

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

APPENDIX B DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS

Scenario

Species

Avg. Period

1st Highest
level Conc.
[ g/m3]

Max Ground
level Conc.
[ppb]

2nd Highest
Conc.
[ g/m3]

3rd Highest
Conc.
[ g/m3]

1st highest
Location

2nd Highest
Location

3rd Highest
Location

NO2

1-hour

37

20

35

31

CO

380
100
6.4

300
80
--

367

327

PM10

1-hour
8-hour
24-hour

6.3

6.1

NMHC

3-hour

<1

<1

<1

<1

353797,
2989087
353797,
2989087
353815.06,
2988905.25
-

353797,
2989187
353797,
2989187
353815.06,
2988905.25
-

353797,
2989287
353797,
2989287
353897.41,
2988887.25
-

NO2

1-hour

13

CO

1-hour

158

130

157

155

8-hour

44

40

35

34

PM10

24-hour

--

6.9

5.9

NMHC

3-hour

<1

<1

<1

<1

353797,
298087
353797,
2989087
353797,
2989087
353697.41,
2988787.25
-

353797,
298087
353797,
2989087
353697,
2989087
353815.06
2988905.25
-

353797,
298087
353797,
2989087
353697,
2989087
353783.69
2988875.75
-

NO2

Annual

<1

<1

<1

<1

PM10

Annual

35

--

24

20

353397,
2988887
353797.41,
2989087.25

353397,
2988787
353697.41,
2989187.25

353397,
2988687
353897.41,
2989087.25

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

23

1st Highest
Date
(YYMMD
DHH)
05110402

2nd Highest
Date
(YYMMD
DHH)
05110403

3rd Highest
Date
(YYMMD
DHH)
03122401

05110402

05110403

03122401

04052024

03042924

04112824

05110402

05031402

05110403

05110402

05031402

05030624

05110408

04052016

05062324

04052024

04052024

04052024

2003

2003

2003

2003

2003

2003

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

APPENDIX C US EPA AP-42 EMISSION FACTOR METHODOLOGIES

US EPA TANKS
The emissions estimating equations that form the basis of the TANKS software were
developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API). The TANKS program is designed to
estimate emissions of organic chemicals from storage tanks. The calculations are performed
according to EPAs AP-42. After the user provides specific information concerning a storage
tank and its liquid contents (see figure below), the system produces a report that estimates
the chemical emissions for the tank on an annual basis with a split between standing and
loading losses.

The equations used in this program are documented in AP-42 Section 7.1, Organic Liquid
Storage Tanks. The software is intended for distribution by the EPA through the EPAs
website.
Tank Details, input data and calculated VOC losses calculated using TANKS is given below:

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

24

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

Unit

Phenol

Tank No.

Tankage

Cumene

Shape

Roof Type

Flow rate

ID

gal/yr

feet

Working Vol

Turnovers /
Year

Emission
Control

gal

Scrubbed
Efficiency

Loading

Scrubbed
Loading

Standing

t/yr

t/yr

t/yr

TK-52-411

CRUDE Alpha Methyl StyreneCylindrical


(AMS)

FR

54,844,862

27

129,417

424

Incinerator

99.99

0.5

0.0

TK-52-211

OXIDIZER FEED (CUMENE)Cylindrical

FR

778,241,650

27

95,788

8,125

Incinerator

99.99

14.1

0.0

0.0

TK-52-301

FRACTIONATION FEED (ACETONE)


Cylindrical

FR

245,297,695

45

525,170

467

Incinerator

99.99

5.1

0.0

0.0

TK-52-450

LIGHT HYDROCARBONS Cylindrical

0.0

FR

6,248,149

12

9,774

639

Incinerator

99.99

0.1

0.0

0.0

TK-52-540 A

HEAVIES

Cylindrical

FR

50,216,604

26

104,347

481

Incinerator

99.99

1.0

0.0

0.0

TK-52-540 B

HEAVIES

Cylindrical

FR

50,216,604

26

104,347

481

Incinerator

99.99

1.0

0.0

0.0

DEPHENOLATION FEED

Cylindrical

FR

58,084,643

26

97,426

596

Incinerator

99.99

1.4

0.0

0.0

TK-52-325 A

ACETONE RUNDOWN

Cylindrical

FR

56,696,165

23

80,783

702

Incinerator

99.99

22.6

0.0

0.5

TK-52-325 B

ACETONE RUNDOWN

Cylindrical

FR

56,696,165

23

80,783

702

Incinerator

99.99

22.6

0.0

0.5

TK-52-395 A

PHENOL RUNDOWN

Cylindrical

FR

156,435,134

23

102,234

1,530

Incinerator

99.99

2.6

0.0

0.0

TK-52-395 B

PHENOL RUNDOWN

Cylindrical

FR

156,435,134

23

102,234

1,530

Incinerator

99.99

2.6

0.0

0.0

TK-53803

ISOPROPYL ETHER

Vertical

IFR

11,503,441

15

22,824

504

0.1

0.1

0.0
0.0

TK-52-620

BPA

Fluid

TK-53804

Vertical
IPE & PHENOL COLUMN FEED

IFR

14,128,234

15

22,824

619

TK-53100

Vertical
MOTHER LIQ (PHENOL, BPA
& PENTANE)

FR

173,876,694

39

289,794

600

TK-56701

DEPHENOLATION FEED (PHENOL)


Vertical

FR

61,839,555

53

687,106

90

TK-59101

BENZENE

Cylindrical

IFR

248,352,821

75

1,986,823

125

TK-59102

CUMENE

Cylindrical

IFR

149,479,274

110

4,270,836

35

TK-59201

PHENOL

Cylindrical

FR

86,732,294

86

2,891,076

30

LP Flare
Incinerator
Incinerator

99
99.99
99.99

0.1

0.1

215.0

2.1

7.9

2.9

2.9

0.1

37.3

0.0

0.7

15.7

15.7

0.1

7.7

0.0

0.2

TK-59301

Cylindrical
PHENOLICS TANKAGE (ACETONE)

IFR

79,821,607

106

3,991,080

20

7.6

7.6

1.9

TK-51901

OFF CUMENE

Cylindrical

IFR

103,112,155

45

317,268

325

26.5

26.5

0.0

TK-51902-A

CUMENE DAY

Cylindrical

IFR

101,610,349

45

158,766

640

26.1

26.1

0.0

TK-51902-B

CUMENE DAY

Cylindrical

IFR

101,610,349

45

158,766

640

26.1

26.1

0.0

439

107

12

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

25

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

US EPA AP-42 Equipment Leak Calculations


Calculations to predict the VOC and HAP emissions from equipment and components are
based upon the US EPA Document: Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, 1995.
The EPAs protocol for estimating equipment leak emissions is the result of detailed
information gathering and data analysis. The protocol was written to provide a thorough
understanding of acceptable approaches to generating process unit-specific emission
estimates.
The Average Emission Factor Approach has been utilised for this study which applies
emission factors to data obtainable from engineering specifications, i.e., the number of each
type of component in a unit (valve, connector, etc) and the service each component is in (gas,
light liquid, or heavy liquid).
The emission factors considered appropriate for this study are given in the table below:

Equipment Type
Valves

Pump Seals

Service

Emission Factor
(kg/hr/source)

Gas

0.00597

Light Liquid

0.00403

Heavy Liquid

0.00023

Light Liquid

0.0199

Heavy Liquid

0.00862

Compressor Seals

Gas

0.228

Pressure Relief Valves

Gas

0.0104

Connectors

All

0.00183

Open-ended lines

All

0.0017

Sampling connections

All

0.0150

Note: Reproduced from Table 2-1, SOCMI Average Emission Factors, Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission
Estimates, 1995 (US EPA)

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

26

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING, JAN 2008

You might also like