Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
________________________________
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
1
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
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
16
16
CONCLUSIONS
18
4.1
RECOMMENDATIONS
18
19
24
INTRODUCTION
1.1
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
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
Phenol
FL-56501
Phenol
I-52230
Phenol
V-52223
BPA
PK-54720
BPA
PK-55720
Figure 1-2 Point Source Locations (all coordinates are based on Royal Commission Grid)
N45929.9838
E61535.0000
1.2
The following section describes the materials and fuel that will be combusted in the
incinerator and low pressure flare.
1.2.1
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
46,659
138.5
1.2.2
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
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
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;
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.
1.4
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
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
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.
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:
2:
Maximum flaring will occur during fire events, estimated to occur once every 5 years for a duration of no
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
10
11
2.2
STACK PARAMETERS
Affects the buoyancy of the gas and thus the vertical dispersion
of pollutants.
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:
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
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
12
2:
Based upon mass balance calculations of flare gas composition and the rated destruction efficiency of each tip,
nominally 99%
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.
13
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.
14
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
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
RESULTS
3.1
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
10
<1
<1
<1
13,577
51
15,205
Storage
Tanks1
107
Storage
Tanks2
12
11
11
11
13
171
32
23
28,783
Totals
1:
2:
Standing losses
3.2
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.
16
Species
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
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.
17
CONCLUSIONS
4.1
RECOMMENDATIONS
On receipt of further vendor data for the emission sources, the dispersion modelling
assessment should be updated;
18
19
20
21
22
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
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
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:
24
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
FR
54,844,862
27
129,417
424
Incinerator
99.99
0.5
0.0
TK-52-211
FR
778,241,650
27
95,788
8,125
Incinerator
99.99
14.1
0.0
0.0
TK-52-301
FR
245,297,695
45
525,170
467
Incinerator
99.99
5.1
0.0
0.0
TK-52-450
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
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
25
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
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)
26