1、% API PUBL8337 9b 0732290 0558385 018 American Petroleum se! Institute mide Development of Emission Factors for Leaks in Refinery Components in Heavy Liquid Service Health and Environmental Affairs Department Publication Number 337 August 1996 API PUBLX337 96 I 0732290 0558386 T54 I ”L- EnvimnnnikJ
2、Partanrbip One of the most significant long-term trends affecting the future vitality of the petroleum industry is the publics concerns about the environment. Recognizing this trend, API member companies have developed a positive, forward-looking strategy called STEP: Strategies for Todays Environme
3、ntal Partnership. This program aims to address public concerns by improving our industrys environmental, health and safety petformance; documenting performance improvements; and communicating them to the public. The foundation of STEP is the API Environmental Mission and Guiding Environmental Princi
4、ples. API ENVIRONMENTAL MISSION AND GUIDING ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES The members of the American Petroleum Institute are dedicated to continuous efforts to improve the compatibility of our operations with the environment while economically developing energy resources and supplying high quality produ
5、cts and services to consumers. The members recognize the importance of efficiently meeting societys needs and our responsibility to work with the public, the government, and others to develop and to use natural resources in an environmentally sound manner while protecting the health and safety of ou
6、r employees and the public. To meet these responsibilities, API members pledge to manage our businesses according to these principles: 9 To recognize and to respond to community concerns about our raw materials, products and operations. 6 To operate our plants and facilities, and to handle our raw m
7、aterials and products in a manner that protects the environment, and the safety and health of our employees and the public. 9 To make safety, health and environmental considerations a priority in our planning, and our development of new products and processes. .5 To advise promptly, appropriate offi
8、cials, employees, customers and the public of information on significant industry-related safety, health and environmental hazards, and to recommend protective measures. 9 To counsel customers, transporters and others in the safe use, transportation and disposal of our raw materials, products and wa
9、ste materials. 9 To economically develop and produce natural resources and to conserve those resources by using energy efficiently. 9 To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the safety, health and environmental effects of our raw materials, products, processes and waste materials
10、. 9 To commit to reduce overall emission and waste generation. .5 To work with others to resolve problems created by handling and disposal of hazardous substances from our operations. o* To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard th
11、e community, workplace and environment. 9 To promote these principles and practices by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of similar raw materials, petroleum products and wastes. Development of Emission Factors For Leaks in Refinery C
12、omponents in Heavy Liquid Service Health and Environmental Affairs Department API PUBLICATION NUMBER 337 PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT BY: HAL TABACK COMPANY 378 PASEO SONRISA WALNUT, CALIFORNIA, 91789 AUGUST 1996 American Petroleum Ins titute API PUBL*337 9b 0732290 0558388 827 FOREWORD API PUBLICATIONS
13、NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. API IS NOT UNDERTAKING TO MEET THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS, MANUFAC- TURERS, OR SUPPLIERS TO WARN AND PROPERLY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES, A
14、ND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTAKING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY API PUBLICATION IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS GRANTING ANY RIGHT, BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE MANU- FACTURE, SALE, OR USE OF ANY MET
15、HOD, APPARATUS, OR PRODUCT COV- ERED BY LETTERS PATENT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LETTERS PATENT. THE PUBLICATION BE CONSTRUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABIL- Copyright O 1996 American Petroleum Institute iii API PUBLx337 96 0732290 0558389 763 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T
16、HE FOLLOWING PEOPLE ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS OF TIME AND EXPERTISE DURING THIS STUDY AND IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT API STAFF CONTACT Karin Ritter, Health and Environmental Affairs Department AIR TOXIC MULTI-YEAR STUDY WORKGROUP HL EMISSION FACTORS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Minam Lev-
17、On, Chairperson, ARCO Robert D. Andrew, Mobil Dan Isaacson, BP Oil Dan VanDerZanden, Chevron , API FINANCE. ACCOUNTING. AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT Gina Papush Paul Wakim HAL TABAC K COMPANY Michael Godec, Data Analyst thus, its screening data may not be representative of refineries without stringent
18、fugitive emission controls. However, the Southern California screening data were compared to screening measurements made at refineries in Washington State, which is an area in attainment of the NAAQS and therefore without fugitive emissions control. There was no significant statistical difference fo
19、und in emission factors between the two areas; the results suggest there is no difference in emissions from heavy liquid components in areas with and without leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. The new emission factors range from 65% to 86% less than the current EPA emission factors. API PUBL
20、*337 96 0732290 0558L91 311 TABLE OF CONTENTS uuI.!2 2- 1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-la 3-lb 3-lc 3-ld 3-le 3-2a 3-2b 3-2 3-2d 3 -2e 3 -3 LIST OF FIGURES - HL Component Leak Rate Distribution - Refinery C 1 2-4 HL Component Leak Rate Distribution - Refinery C2 2-4 HL Component Leak Rate Distribution - Refinery C
21、3 2-5 HL Component Leak Rate Distribution - Refinery C4 2-5 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery W 1 - Fittings - 3-4 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery W1 - Flange - 3-4 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery W1 - Pump - 3 -4 Leak Rate Distribution by Component f
22、or Refinery W1 - Valve - 3-5 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery W1 - Aggregate - 3-5 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery W2 - Fittings - 3 -6 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery W2 - Flange - 3 -6 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery, W2 - Pump - 3
23、-6 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery W2 - Valve - 3-7 Leak Rate Distribution by Component for Refinery W2 - Aggregate - 3-7 Comparison of the Aggregate Leak Rate Distribution for Southern California and Washington Refineries . 3-8 A-12 A-3 Illustration of the Combined Effect of Stream
24、 Type and Temperature- API PUBLX337 96 D 0732290 0558393 394 LIST OF TABLES Table ES- 1 2- 1 2-2 3-1 3 -2 3-3 3 -4 3-5 3 -6 u Emission Factors for Components in HL Service ES-3 Correlation Equations, Default Zero Emission Rates, and Pegged Emission Rates Used for Emissions Calculations 2-2 Average E
25、mission Factors for Components in Heavy Liquid Service - 2-3 Washington State Test Matrix -_-_-_- - _-_-_-_-_- 3-1 Component Stream Counts (Washington Refineries)- 3 -2 Emission Data by Stream Type (Washington Refineries)- 3 -3 Emissions Factors by Component Size (Washington Refineries) - 3-9 Emissi
26、ons Factors by Temperature (Washington Refineries) 3-1 O Aggregate Emissions Factors by Component Type (Washington Refineries) - 3-1 1 A- 1 A-2 Suggested Heavy Liquid Service Emission Factors- A-2 Southern California Refineries - Simple Average Emission Factors - A-4 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 Washingt
27、on Refineries - Simple Average Emission Factors A-5 Emission Factors for Reduced Refinery C 1 Data . A-8 Emission Factors for Reduced Refinery C2 Data . A-8 Emission Factors for Washington Data by Stream Type A-13 Aggregate Emission Factors for Southern California Refineries- A-16 Aggregate Emission
28、 Factors for Washington Refineries A-16 A-9 Emission Factors for Combined Southern California and Washington Data _-_- - - - - A-1 8 API PUBLU337 96 m 0732290 0558394 O20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a study to develop emission factors applicable to refinery components in he
29、avy liquid (HL) service. It includes an analysis of whether the type of distillate or residual hydrocarbon in the stream would influence the emission factors. The objectives were accomplished using existing screening data for components in HL service and confirming those data with new screening data
30、 obtained from refineries without Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) programs. These factors, expressed in pounds/hour/component, are such that they can be multiplied by the number of individual components in HL service in a refinery to calculate the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions due to le
31、aks from those components. Extensive statistical analysis of the screening data and related process parameters was performed. TECHNICAL APPROACH Refineries in Southern California (SoCal) were solicited for available HL screening data. Four refineries responded, providing 2 1 1,290 discrete screening
32、 values. Leak Detection and Repair has been practiced at these refineries for approximately ten years on components in gas (G) and light liquid (LL) service, but not for HL service. Nevertheless, because SoCal has tight emission controls, it was decided to conduct additional HL component screenings
33、in an area without LDAR to determine whether or not the Soca1 HL screening values were representative. The site chosen for the HL screenings was Washington State, which is in attainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for VOCs and where LDAR programs are not required except for
34、 new or modified facilities under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). More than 2,500 discrete values were recorded from which the average emission factors for each component category were computed. A sampling matrix was used for the Washington test which would cover a representative range
35、of middle distillate and residual process streams. These data were compared to values from SoCal to assess whether they were representative of all refineries. CONCLUSIONS The screening tests performed as part of the program showed that the emission factors for the refineries in Southern California,
36、for which HL screening data were available, were similar to ES- 1 API PUBL*337 96 0732290 0558195 Tb7 emission factors determined based on measurements at the Washington State refineries. Both sets of emission factors are lower than those published in EPAs “Protocol for Equipment Leak Estimates,” Co
37、ntract 68-dl -0 1 17, for EPA by Radian Corp., June 1993 (EPA 1993). The Washington State factors are lower than those from Southern California for all components with the exception of pumps. The higher pump value in Washington State was influenced by one pump leaking at a high rate. The screening v
38、alues for components in HL service were found to be independent of stream temperature and hydrocarbon composition (as defined by the 10% Distillation Temperature, ASTM Method D86). At first this may seem odd. The heavy liquid streams range from kerosene to asphalt. Intuitively, kerosene should leak
39、more than asphalt. However, a reasonable explanation of this observed phenomenon is that the heavier hydrocarbons, which are more viscous and less volatile at ambient temperatures, inherently circulate in higher temperature process streams. Therefore, for the medium-weight middle distillate, the hea
40、vy-weight middle distillate, and the heavy residual streams, it appears that the viscosity and vapor pressure (properties that affect leakage) have a similar effect on the screening values. In this report, the SoCal data are presented and discussed along with the details of the Washington State test
41、s. An extensive statistical analysis of the various data sets is presented in Appendix A discussing various methods of combining the data to derive emission factors. The conclusions reached as a result of the statistical analysis follow: . * e SoCal data have a s 60% 3.25% 1.74% 0.00% O:OO% 0.00% L
42、= 999 9,999 49,999 50,000 Screening Range (ppmv) Figure 3-lb. Leak Rate Distributions by Component for Refinery W1- Flange 8.33% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% lo%- O%, rc= 10 11-99 loo- 1,Ooo- 10,Ooo- = 999 9,999 49,999 50,oOo Screening Range (ppmv) Figure 3-lc. Leak Rate Distributions by Component for Re
43、finery W1- Pump 3 -4 API PUBL*337 96 O732290 0558208 Y45 D 7- 97.27% lo0%r 90% + 2 60% a 2 50% O t 40% E 30% a n 20% t 10% t 0% i 2.55% 0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% I = 999 9,999 49,999 50,000 Screening Range (ppmv) Figure 3-ld. Leak Rate Distributions by Component for Refinery W1 - Valve 97.33% 100% 90%
44、 80% 70% 0 60% 50% 8 40% E 30% 20% 10% 0% c O c = 999 9,999 49,999 50,000 Screening Range (ppmv) Figure 3-le. Leak Rate Distributions by Component for Refinery W1 - Aggregate 3-5 100%4 90%- go%.- : 70%.- 6 60%- 8 40%.- 2 30%- * c c, 0 50%.- 20%- 2.37% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10% 0% . 100% 4 90% - 80
45、% - 70%- o 60%- o 50%- 8 40%- i 30%- 20% 71 2 c, = 999 9,999 49,999 50,000 Screening Ringe (ppmv) Figure 3-2b. Leak Rate Distributions by Component for Refinery W2 - Flange = 999 9,999 49,999 50,000 Screening Range (ppmv) igure 3-2c. Leak Rate Distributions by Component for Refinery W2 - Pump 3-6 AP
46、I PUBL*337 96 0732270 0558210 OT3 = 90.30% 100% 90% 80% ci = 70% o u 60% * 50% 3 2 40% 2 (L1 O 30% I 20% 10% 0% 5.06% 4.22% 0.42% 0.00% 0.00% I = 999 9,999 49,999 50,000 Screening Range (ppmv) rigure 3-2d. Leak Rate Distributions by Component for Refinery W2 - Valve 94.69% f 100% 90% 80% 20% 10% 0%
47、3.32% 1.73% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% = 999 9,999 49,999 50,000 Screening Range (ppmv) Figure 3-2e. Leak Rate Distributions by Component for Refinery W2 - Aggregate 3-7 API PUBLa337 96 W 0732290 05582LL TIT 90% 80% E 7O%- u 60%- s g SO%- o g: rr O i 40%- 30% 20Yo 1 O% O% The emission factor for Heavy Middle
48、 Distillate Pump in Refinery W1 (given in Table 3-3) was influenced by one large-leaking pump seal. There is no doubt that this pump seal was leaking greater than 100,000 ppmv screening value. The screening team verified and re-verified the screening value. Interestingly, the stream in which the large leak was discovered is one of the heavier hydrocarbon streams, a material that is discharged at the bottom of the atmospheric still
