environmental investigation in chemical company

8/15/2019 environmental investigation in Chemical company

1/52

CHEG 613010: Energy and the environement

Starburst Chemical Company:Developing an Environmental Plan

Thomas Bollen

Professor: John Carberry

University of DelawareDepartment of Chemical Engineering

Academic year 2015 - 2016


2/52


3/52

Contents

1 Introduction 6

2 General information 72.1 Corporates Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 SOCMA and Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Production characteristics of different Plants 103.1 Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Emissions 154.1 Ozone Depletion Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1.1 Corporates Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1.2 Conclusion corporates total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.1.3 Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.1.4 Conclusion plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2 Key Emissions plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.2.1 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.2.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.3 Yellowing Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.3.1 describing the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.3.2 Conclusion yellowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5 Renewable Energy 265.1 Solar Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.2 Wind Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275.3 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6 Summarising Recommendation 336.1 Corporate level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336.2 Producing sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346.3 Renewable energy program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1


4/52

6.4 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356.4.1 Yellowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6.4.2 Patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356.5 Final Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendices 38

A Data Project 39

B Tables for Metric Charts 41

C Tables for ODP Charts 44

D Tables for Key Emission Charts 46E PBT Key Emissions 49


5/52

List of Figures

3.1 Metrics for Sc vs. Np . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.2 Metrics for all plants, no subdivision between Sc and Np . . . . . . . . . . 123.3 Metrics for all plants producing Sc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.4 Metrics for all plants producing Np . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.1 corporate’s total ODS emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.2 corporate’s total GWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.3 Sc vs. Np and plant’s total ODS emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.4 ODS emissions subdividing Sc and Np . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.5 Water emissions of both products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.6 Water emissions of plants producing Sc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.7 Air emissions of plants producing Sc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.8 Water emissions of plants producing Np . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.9 PBT prole pentachlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244.10 PBT prole monochlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.1 Map Production sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.2 Map of Average annual DNI in USA (Kwh/sq.m/day) . . . . . . . . . . . . 275.3 Map of Potential on-shore wind capacity in the USA (sq.m) . . . . . . . . 285.4 PBT prole pentachlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295.5 Waves energy production potential, expressed in Wave Power Density ( kW/m ) 305.6 Tidal Stream energy production potential, expressed in Power Density ( W/m 2 ) 305.7 Ocean currents energy production potential, expressed in Mean current

speed (m/s ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.8 River currents energy production potential, expressed in Power Density (gi-gawatt hours/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

C.1 Table of part of Figure 4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

D.1 Table of Figure 4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

E.1 PBT Acetonitrile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49E.2 PBT Acrylonitrile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49E.3 PBT 1,2-Dichlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49E.4 PBT Ethanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3


6/52

E.5 PBT VinylChloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50


7/52

List of Tables

2.1 Corporate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 Sum of operating expenses, depreciation and taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1 General data plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.2 Energy prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.1 CAS-Number Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.2 ODS emissions plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.3 Key Emissions plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5.1 Several means of Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.1 Ranking Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

A.1 Data Corporate’s Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A.2 Data plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40B.1 Table of Figure 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41B.2 Table of Figure 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42B.3 Table of Figure 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42B.4 Table of Figure 3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

C.1 Table of Figure 4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44C.2 Table of Figure 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45C.3 Table of part of Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

D.1 Table of Figure 4.6 and 4.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47D.2 Table of Figure 4.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5


8/52

Chapter 1

Introduction

Starburst represents a ctitious chemical company, that will be analysed according toall three requirements for sustainability. Those three requirements are Health, Safety &and Environment (HSE). Starburst Chemicals produces two different products, “SpecialityChemicals” referred to as Sc and “Natural Product” referred to as Np. These productsare made by batch processing steps. The rst product is fabricated at ve different plantsand two of these plants also produce Natural Products.In the second chapter some general information about the corporate’s total performances,SOCMA and employees is presented.Subsequently, the production characteristics and performances of the ve producing sitesare compared using metrics.

In Chapter 4, all possible emissions are analysed. Those contain Ozone depletions relatedemissions, the Key emissions, and emissions related to the preventing of yellowing.The next chapter gives a recommendation about starting a renewable energy program.Finally, all chapters are summarised and a nal conclusion is presented in Chapter 6.In appendix A, the originally given date can be found. It is assumed that the data issufficiently accurate for regulatory reporting and strategic thinking.

6


9/52

Chapter 2

General information

2.1 Corporates Total

Table 2.1 gives a general overview of the economics of both products

Table 2.1: Corporate Data

As can be seen, Natural Products are 30% of the company’s total Volume. Total saleshave reached $100 million/yr. and are apparently growing at about 10-12%/yr. Prot,described in the table as ATOI (after tax operating income), runs about 17%. This valuecan be computed by subtracting operating expenses, depreciation and taxes from the grossRevenue. The sum of these rst three values is computed in Table 2.2.

7


10/52

Table 2.2: Sum of operating expenses, depreciation and taxes

The Utilities include energy (fuel and electricity), water, compressed air, nitrogen, andoperation of waste disposal.

Now ATOI(KK$/yr) can be calculated as ATOI = Total Sales - SUM. This yields anATOI value of 17 KK$/yr, what corresponds with the value of Table 2.1. Sales growthrates, price per pound, and protability of Natural Products are higher than for SpecialityChemicals. However, more than 75% of the raw materials for the Natural Products busi-nesses have to be imported from all over the world. This is a disadvantage, it makes the

price and delivery of raw materials dependent of the international political and economicalsituation. Speciality Chemicals does better, about 20% of the raw materials are imported.Both percentages are rising slowly.

The biggest part of the cost of the utilities are due to energy costs. The percentage of energy cost can be calculated by dividing the energy (5.63 KK$/yr.) by the total sales(100 KK$/yr). This gives an energy cost of 5.63%

Starburst has less than 10% of total company sales that are international sales, thoseinclude both natural and traditional chemicals. Those sales are growing more rapidly, and

are generally more protable than the company’s average.

2.2 SOCMA and Employees

Starburst belongs to 200+ members Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates,Inc. (SOCMA), an international trade association that represents the interests of thebatch, custom and speciality chemical industry[ 1]. Starburst sales are high ranked, theyare more than double the SOCMA average. The company has +/- 200 workers at theve sites. At about $500K sales/employee, Starburst is well below the SOCMA overall


11/52

average of $600K sales/employee, but well above the average for “small” SOCMA mem-bers of $400K/employee. Also, the average selling price/lb. and average margin are both

well above SOCMA averages. So there can be concluded Starburst is performing excellentamong the other SOCMA members.

The company has a history of good relations with its workers. The 200 employees includeabout 10% leadership, business, marketing and staff and 14% engineering. Both groupsare seated at the Camden headquarters. The remaining employees are distributed acrossthe ve sites based on the level of production at the various sites. Normal operations areve days per week, with a reduced second shift and no third shift, at all sites. Periods of higher than “normal” demand are met by working more on the second shift or on Saturdayand Sunday, all on overtime.


12/52

Chapter 3

Production characteristics of different Plants

3.1 Metrics

Starburst contains ve plant sites, all in the U.S. The rst one is located in the east of Camden, New Jersey. Two of the other sites are in the U.S. Southeast (Richmond, VAand Birmingham, AL), and the other two are on the U.S. West Coast (Irvine, CA andPortland, OR). Speciality Chemicals are manufactured at all ve sites with roughly thesimilar process. Natural Products manufactured only at the two sites in the Southeastwith a similar process as well.These ve sites will compared according to the following six criteria:

1) Energy intensity (KKBtu/lb)

= total energy / production

2) Off-spec recycle (%)

= off-spec re-work(ppy) / (production+off-spec re-work(ppy)+total waste)

3) FirstPasFirstQuality Yield (%)

= production / (production+off-spec re-work(ppy)+total waste)

4) Ultimate yield (%)

= production / (production+total waste)

10


13/52

5) Energy Cost ($/lb)

= Energy Cost / Production

6) Water Intensity (gal/lb)

= Water Use / Production

These values can be evaluated using the data provided in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: General data plants

All the following charts will be based on this data. The Tables used to plot these chartsare to be found in Appendix B.

To assure a fair judgement between the plants, rst a comparison between both productsmust be made, because not all the plants produce Natural Products. To compare thosetwo, the mean performance of Speciality Chemicals of all the plants vs. the mean perfor-mance of Natural Products of the two producing plants. This is calculated by dividingtotal Sc and Np by respectively 5 and 2. The results are plotted in Figure 3.1.


14/52

Figure 3.1: Metrics for Sc vs. Np

From this Figure, there can be concluded that the two products have notable differenceproduction characteristics. Speciality Chemicals score best on all 6 criteria, with the biggestvariance in Energy Cost, Energy intensity and Water intensity.One could compare all the plants by adding the values of Natural Products with SpecialityChemicals within one plant. This result is plotted in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Metrics for all plants, no subdivision between Sc and Np

However, because both products score a non-negligible difference for the criteria, the plantscannot fairly be compared by regarding Speciality Chemicals and Natural Products as


15/52

‘equally’. Doing this, the companies producing Natural Products would be unfairly dis-advantaged. Therefore, the plants should be compared for both products separately. The

results for the plants producing Speciality Chemicals and Natural Products are to be foundrespectively in Figure 3.3 and 3.4.

Figure 3.3: Metrics for all plants producing Sc

Figure 3.4: Metrics for all plants producing Np

3.2 Conclusion

As mentioned earlier, basing the judgement on Figure 3.2 Richmond and Birminghamwould be sentenced worse than they perform. One should compare by using Figure 3.3


16/52

and 3.4. From this rst gure, it is clear that Camden is performing very well. It beats allthe other plants in every aspect. Especially its Off-spec recycle, energy intensity and cost

score very high.The four other plants accomplish a comparable value for FirstPassFirstQuality yield andultimate yield. For the four other criteria, they differ. The following ranking can be made:Camden scores the best, followed by Richmond, Portland and Birmingham. Irvine scoresthe worst. Note, this ranking is not absolute, for instance, Birmingham beats Portland inoff-spec recylce although it is ranked lower.

Studying Figure 3.4, there can be concluded that again Richmond performs better thanBirmingham.

Note, the criteria ‘Energy Cost ($/lb)’ is inuenced by the energy price ($/KKbtu) of eachstate. This is calculated in Table 3.2 by dividing the energy Cost by Total energy.

Table 3.2: Energy prices

Irvine has the highest energy price, so a higher Energy Cost can be expected. However,this is not a valid excuse. Also, its water and energy intensity, Off-spec recycle and Fst-PasFstQual Yield are inferior.


17/52

Chapter 4

Emissions

Compliance is excellent at all sites. For the next ve years, no permits will come up forrenewal. Programs to reduce emissions begun in the mid 1990’s. There are some generali-ties among the sites. First of all, air emissions are fugitive, or exiting thermal oxidizers atconcentrations that are below the threshold for practical and economic recovery. Second,water emissions are below the threshold for practical and economic recovery. Thirdly, airand water emissions are within current state permit levels.Sequentially, Ozone Depletion substances, Key emissions and yellowing products are dis-cussed. Table 4.1 gives an overview off all CAS-Numbers of some substances used atStarburst.

Table 4.1: CAS-Number Substances

15


18/52

4.1 Ozone Depletion Substances

4.1.1 Corporates TotalIn 2000, Starburst started a program to reduce emissions of gasses with ozone depletionpotential. The company uses four substances with a notable ODP: CFC-11, Halon 1301,methylbromide and CH2FBr. Using the data of the Corporates total, a stacked chartin Figure 4.1 is plotted. All the substances are expressed in “equivalent ODP CFC-11(pounds/year)”. The converting values are:[ 2]

CFC-11 −→ 1.00

Halon 1301 −→ 10.00

Methylbromide −→ 0.70

CH2BrF −→ 0.73

As can be seen, Halon 1301 has a very high ODP compared to CFC-11. Methylbormideand CH2BrF have a quite low ODP.

Figure 4.1: corporate’s total ODS emissions

Supplementary, it is important to consider the GWP (global warming potential) of thesubstances. The following converting values are used to express all the gases in “equivalentGWP CO2 (pounds/year)”:[ 2]

CFC-11 −→ 4,750


19/52

Halon 1301 −→ 7,140

Methylbromide −→ 5.00

CH2BrF −→ 675[6]

These values are valid over a 100 year time horizon. Important, the exact value of CH2FBris not found. There is assumed that CH2F2 has a similar GWP value. Both componentshave one carbon, two hydrogens, and two halogens. Using these values, a chart describingthe emissions regarding to GWP is obtained in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: corporate’s total GWP

The Tables used to plot these last two charts are to be found in Appendix C.

4.1.2 Conclusion corporates total

CFC-11 was commonly used as a reaction and extraction solvent in the early 1990’s. Underthe pressure of the Montreal Protocol restrictions, alternatives have been steadily devel-

oped and the use of CFC-11 is successfully (strongly) decreased.

Methyl bromide is used in most Natural Products as a conditioner. However, this sub-stance is toxic and therefore a number of those products have switched to CH2FBr. Thissubstance is a perfect substitute regarding to ozone depletion, because both ODP valuesare more or less the same and are low.

Halon 1301 can be used as a coolant, but is in this company mostly used as a re extin-guishant. Because of his effectiveness, it is highly favored by the computer industry toprotect the new and expensive instrumentation of Starburst. However, Halon 1301 has a


20/52

high ODP value and the steadily growing use of this substance has a noteworthy impacton the corporates total ODS (ozone depletion substances) emissions.

This makes that the Corporates total ODS emissions decrease until 2010 and start slightlyincreasing after that. This increase is mostly due to the increment of Halon 1301.

Analysing GWP, there can be concluded that the reduction of ODS also beneced emissionsof GWS (global warming substances). The decrease of GWS is mostly due to the decrease inCFC-11, having the second highest GWP. Again, the use of Halon 1301 is not recommendedbecause of its very high GWP value.Replacing methylbromide by CH2BrF is for GWP not favorable, GWP is +/-100 timesbigger. However, due to the still relatively seen (compared to CFC-11 and Halon 1301)low GWP, this effect is negligible.

4.1.3 Plants

Now the performances regarding ODP of the plants individually will be discussed. All thefollowing charts will be based on the data in Table 4.2. The Tables used to plot thesecharts are to be found in Appendix C.

Table 4.2: ODS emissions plants

Again, rst the two products are compared to make a fair judgement. If both have adistinguishable ODS emissions, the plants should be compared with only taking the sameproduct into account. In Figure 4.3, the mean ‘pounds of CFC-11/year’ is expressed for aSpeciality Chemical and for a Natural Product. Also the ODS emissions for every entireplant is plotted. As mentioned, the latter doesn’t give a good perception to compare thecompanies, however it is shown to give a general overview.


21/52

Figure 4.3: Sc vs. Np and plant’s total ODS emissions

From this gure can be concluded that, to produce Natural products, more than doubleODS are emitted. So the plants must be compared looking at one product at a time. Incase you would compare using the blue bars of Figure 4.3, wrong conclusions would bemade.

By extracting the correct data, a chart to compare the ve plants producing SpecialityChemicals and to the two plants producing Natural Products can be made. This is to beseen in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: ODS emissions subdividing Sc and Np

4.1.4 Conclusion plants

Again, Camden scores the best. Note that Richmond scores better than Birmingham forproducing speciality Chemicals but worse for Natural product. In this case, Figure 4.3 can


22/52

be used to look at the total ODS emissions. Examining this, there can be concluded thatBirmingham scores a bit better than Richmond.

So second place is for Birmingham, followed by Richmond, Portland and once more, Irvineis the worst.

4.2 Key Emissions plants

4.2.1 Data

The key emissions are Acetonitrile, Acrylonitrile, 1,2-Dichlorobenzene, ethanol and VinylChloride. The PBT prole [3] of these components is to be found in Appendix E.To evaluate the Key emissions of every plant, the data in Table 4.3 is used. In what follows,

the emissions for water and air are regarded separately. From a practical view, this seemslogic because both waste streams can be treated totally different.

Table 4.3: Key Emissions plants

All the following graphs will be based on this data. Note that all 5 components are organic.This means that those that are related with water contribute to BOD (and COD). TheTables used to plot these charts are to be found in Appendix D.Again, rst a comparison between both products is made. The results is the a bit strangelooking graph in Figure 4.5. The fact that the shape of the graph is odd, stresses thatSpeciality Chemicals and Natural Products have different key emissions. Something thatdirectly catches the eye: for producing Natural Products, there are no air emissions (re-garding only Acrylonitrile and Vinyl Chloride, Np does emit ODS).


23/52

Figure 4.5: Water emissions of both products

Again, because the average key emissions of both products differ, the plants are comparedbased on the same product. In Figure 4.6 and 4.7, the ve production sites are comparedfor respectively key emissions to Water and Air for Speciality Chemicals.

Figure 4.6: Water emissions of plants producing Sc


24/52

Figure 4.7: Air emissions of plants producing Sc

Figure 4.8 shows the key emissions to water for Natural Products. A chart for air is notmade because there are no emissions to air.

Figure 4.8: Water emissions of plants producing Np


25/52

4.2.2 Conclusion

Conclusions about the performances of the production sites keep showing the same trend.The ranking of the key emissions to water and air for Speciality Chemicals from high to lowis: Camden, Richmond, Birmingham/Portland, Irvine. Birmingham and Portland sharethe 3th place because one scores a bit better on water while the other one scores better onair.However, one alarming anomaly is COD exposure to water of Irvine. This value is ex-tremely high.There should be an investigation if this is due to a measurement error and if not, the production should be revised immediately.

4.3 Yellowing Products4.3.1 describing the problem

A troubling phenomenon is the yellowing of the products. The steady growth and strongearnings of Starburst would be better if the yellowing problem were fully eliminated. R&Dhas found two additives that would greatly improve this problem. First, there is pen-tachlorobenzene, which totally prevents this yellowing, when added at very low levels(+/-10ppm).Second, R&D suggested monochlorobenzene that can be used at slightly higher levels (+/-20ppm), also with excellent results. The monochlorobenzene process requires close controland supervision to exclude oxygen and carefully control the temperature during a few keytimes in the Starburst process. Also, this substance doesn’t only make the process morecomplex at Starburst, the customer experiences this as well. The preparation of the rstintermediate at the customer’s site requires oxygen exclusion and careful temperature con-trol, albeit not as critical as the step at the Starburst site.The extra supervision and control make the monochlorobenzene process slightly more ex-pensive. However, this is not the only criteria. Toxicity is an other important one. Usingthe EPA PBT proler[ 3], the PBT prole of both substances can be found in Figure 4.9and 4.10.


26/52


27/52

4.3.2 Conclusion yellowing

From an economical point of view, pentachlorobenzene is the best. Monochlorobenzenemakes the process too complex.However, after regarding the toxicity, it is clear that using pentachlorobenzene is mostlydiscouraged. First, it scores very bad on the PBT proler. Second, it may be danger-ous to (pregnant) women. Third, the LD 50 is quite low, which means it is very toxic.10ppm will be used (1 ppm = 1 mg/kg) in one product, what is only 25 times LD 50 . Formonochlorobenzene, 20ppm will be used and LD 50 equals 1110, so this is the 55.5 fold,what is already better. Also the PBT prole of monochlorobenzene scores acceptable. So,despite the higher cost, mono- is preferred over pentachlorobenzene.If the increase in producing costs succeeds the prot for preventing yellowing, no additivesshould be used, or some now R&D is required.


28/52

Chapter 5

Renewable Energy

Because of uncertainty of energy prices and supply, the possibility of a renewable energyprogram for Starburst is investigated. sequentially, Solar energy, Wind energy and Hydropower are discussed. To give a geographical overview, the ve production sites are markedon a map in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Map Production sites

5.1 Solar Energy

To check whether the geographical location of a plant site is suited for solar energy, theaverage annual DNI is pictured in Figure 5.2[8]. DNI stands for Direct Normal Irradiance.This is the amount of solar radiation received per unit area by a surface that is alwaysheld perpendicular (or normal) to the rays that come in a straight line from the directionof the sun at its current position in the sky.[ 7]

26


29/52

Figure 5.2: Map of Average annual DNI in USA (Kwh/sq.m/day)

From this gure can be concluded that Irvine is very well located for Solar energy. AlsoBirmingham is not that bad. Portland and Cadmen are not suited, they have very low av.an. DNI.Richmond is in the middle.

5.2 Wind Energy

This problem is tackled in the same way as Solar Energy. On Figure 5.3[9], a map of potential on-shore Wind capacity is displayed. This map is valid for a 2014 industrystandard wind turbine, installed on a 110-m tower. This represents plausible currenttechnology options.


30/52

Figure 5.3: Map of Potential on-shore wind capacity in the USA (sq.m)

From this gure it is clear that on-shore Wind Energy is absolute not suited for any of the ve plants sites. However, all plants (except for Birmingham) are located close to thecoast line. This implies off-shore wind capacity could be used. Figure 5.4[10] shows a windmap with the estimates of the total offshore wind potential that would be possible fromdeveloping the available offshore areas for a height of 90 meter.


31/52

Figure 5.4: PBT prole pentachlorobenzene

This gure shows that all plants (except for Birmingham) are close or tangent to a purplezone, what implies medium wind speed.

5.3 Hydropower

Hydropower can be generated by several means. Here, generating energy from waves, tidalstreams, ocean currents and river currents is considered. Table 5.1[11] gives an overviewof the estimated annual energy generated by this four techniques in (Twh/year).


32/52

Table 5.1: Several means of Hydropower

From the table it is clear the using waves (from the ocean) would generate the most energy.To check the capacities of the water streams/oceans around the companies sites, severalsources are consulted. Figure 5.5[12], 5.6[13], 5.7[14] and 5.8[15] show a map of energy pro-duction potential for respectively waves, tidal streams, ocean currents and river currents.

Figure 5.5: Waves energy production potential, expressed in Wave Power Density ( kW/m )

Figure 5.6: Tidal Stream energy production potential, expressed in Power Density ( W/m 2 )


33/52

Figure 5.7: Ocean currents energy production potential, expressed in Mean current speed(m/s )

Figure 5.8: River currents energy production potential, expressed in Power Density (gi-gawatt hours/year)

Using the given legend, all four techniques score relatively seen poorly. For Figure 5.5, theWave power Density goes from +/-10 until 35 Kw/m for the locations close to the plantsites. For Figure 5.6, the Power density is lower than 50 W/m 2 , Figure 5.7 has mostly amean current speed smaller than 0.5 m/s, and Figure 5.8 Power density is less than +/-13gigawatt hours/year


34/52

5.4 Conclusion

First of all, Hydropower doesn’t seem to be a cost effective energy source. The problemfor Wind energy is that it isn’t very reliable. There is absolutely no guarantee of energyproduction when energy consumption is peeking. Therefore, energy storage is required.This could be done by batteries or water towers. However, this makes the wind energyprogram too expensive.Solar Energy generates electricity only during day time. Because Starburst produces inbatch during day time, and not on a continuous base, energy consumption decreases a lotduring night times. So the energy generation of the Solar Panels follows more or less thetrend of energy consumption. This means no energy storage is required, which is a greatbenece of the solar energy program. Shortcomings during non-sunny and winter days canbe countered by buying energy when required.

This means the nal recommendation would be to investigate the solar energy program atthe sites of Irvine and Birmingham further in detail. In addition, remember energy price isthe highest in California (see Table 3.2). This only increase the benet of having renewableenergy at Irvine.


35/52

Chapter 6

Summarising Recommendation

In what follows, a general summarizing recommendation for the next ve years of Starburstis made. The main focus will be on environmental sustainability. This will be doneusing all three requirements for sustainability: Health, Safety & and Environment. Therecommendation is subdivided on four different areas: Corporate level, the ve producingsites, renewable energy program, and other. This chapter ends with a nal conclusion.

6.1 Corporate level

Sales growth rates of Natural products are growing faster than Speciality Chemicals, plus

the ATOI is 5% higher. This makes this product more attractive than Speciality Chem-icals. Starburst should try to focus on increasing the relative volume, which is 30% atthe moment. However, this can become risky for the company because Natural productsare highly dependent of the imported raw materials ( > 75%). Therefore there must besearched for possibilities of decreasing the percentage of imported raw materials.Also, for all products, raw materials are moderately expensive per pound. Programs forthe internal re-work of off-spec material to re-make rst quality product are highly recom-mended.

Although international sales have a higher prot than the company’s average, it is only10% of total sales. More promotion of Starbust products should be made abroad to keepthe international sales growing.

Energy cost is 5.6% of total sales, and is a rapidly growing cost component. This meansuctuating energy prices inuence a considerably part of prot. Making efforts to lowerenergy intensity or using renewable energy sources owned by the company can help makingthe prots less uctuating. Also, smoothing the uctuating energy consumption duringthe cycle of a batch is encouraged.

All data indicate constantly growing sales, at the moment they are estimated at 10-12% a

33


36/52

year. Because of this, the company should consider cancelling the reduction on the secondshift and reintroducing a third working shift in the future. This measure is needed to avoid

an excessive amount of employees working on overtime.

6.2 Producing sites

In Table 6.1, the obtained rankings of Production Characteristics, Ozone emissions andKey emissions are summarized.

Table 6.1: Ranking Plants

It is clear that Irvine should do a big effort on all three areas to catch up with the others.The fact that energy is more expensive (remember Table 3.2) is a bad excuse for Irvine toscore bad. Its other criteria are also inferior.All producing sites should take Camden as an example. Production processes and meth-ods need to be compared with the ones executed in Camden to get closer to Camden’sperformances.Of highly importance, Irvine should check the origin of its extremely high COD. BothIrvine and Birmingham are close to nearby offices, up-scale shopping, day-care centersetc., so safety measures should be kept tight. A BOD < 3 and a COD< 120 is required, thisis almost surpassed with Irvine’s COD of 117. Also Birmingham should pay attention withits BOD of 28.

The question: ‘why does Camden scores that high?’ may be posed. A plausible reasoncould be the fact that all employees working in engineering, business, marketing, etc. areseated at Camden. It might be a good idea to spread those technical and economical

skilled people out to the four other plants. This might help in catching up with theexcellent performance at Camden.

6.3 Renewable energy program

The renewable energy program should focus on solar energy. This technology gives theleast problems regarding energy storage. The plant that qualies the best for this programis Irvine. This geographical area has the highest average annual DNI and has the highestenergy price.


37/52

6.4 Other

6.4.1 YellowingUsing pentachlorobenzene may be nancially seen the best, nevertheless it is too toxic froma safety point of view. Therefore it is recommended to use monochlorobenzene.

6.4.2 Patents

Starbust has very few process or product patents. This is risky and the company shouldthink about going for patents to lower those risks.

6.5 Final ConclusionStarburst is performing very well. Both Financially and Sustainability seen, Starburst isa strong player in the market. However, this doesn’t mean the company can fall asleep. Itshould try to constantly improve products and production processes. Numerous targets,many stated in this report, will make Starburst an even more dominant rm.


38/52

Bibliography

[1] Wikipedia, (03/12/2015). SOCMAhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates

[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (03/12/2015). Class I Ozone-depleting Sub-stanceshttp://www3.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classone.html

[3] EPA, (03/12/2015). PBTprolerhttp://www.pbtproler.net/notice.asp

[4] SIRI, (03/12/2015). msdshttp://hazard.com/msds/

[5] msds, (03/12/2015). pentachlorobenzeenhttp://www.unece.org/leadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/TaskForce/popsxg/2000-2003/pentachloorbenzeen.pdf

[6] GWP, (03/12/2015). CH2BrFhttp://www.ghgprotocol.org/les/ghgp/tools/Global-Warming-Potential-Values.pdf

[7] 3tier, (03/12/2015). DNIhttp://www.3tier.com/en/support/solar-prospecting-tools/what-direct-normal-irradiance-solar-prospecting/

[8] maps, (03/12/2015). solar capacityhttp://maps.nrel.gov/prospector

[9] U.S. department of energy, (03/12/2015). windsmaphttp://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/windmaps/resource potential.asp

[10] U.S. department of energy, (03/12/2015). windsmaphttp://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/windmaps/offshore.asp

[11] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). hydropowerhttp://energy.gov/eere/water/marine-and-hydrokinetic-resource-assessment-and-characterization

36


39/52

[12] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). watermaphttps://maps.nrel.gov/mhk-atlas/

[13] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). watermaphttp://www.tidalstreampower.gatech.edu/

[14] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). watermaphttp://www.oceancurrentpower.gatech.edu/

[15] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). watermaphttp://maps.nrel.gov/river atlas


40/52

Appendices

38


41/52

Appendix A

Data Project

Table A.1: Data Corporate’s Total

39


42/52

Table A.2: Data plants


43/52

Appendix B

Tables for Metric Charts

Table B.1: Table of Figure 3.1

41


44/52




45/52



46/52

Appendix C

Tables for ODP Charts

Table C.1: Table of Figure 4.1

44


47/52


48/52

Appendix D

Tables for Key Emission Charts

Figure D.1: Table of Figure 4.5

46


49/52

Table D.1: Table of Figure 4.6 and 4.7


50/52

Table D.2: Table of Figure 4.8


51/52

Appendix E

PBT Key Emissions

Figure E.1: PBT Acetonitrile

Figure E.2: PBT Acrylonitrile

Figure E.3: PBT 1,2-Dichlorobenzene

49


52/52

Figure E.4: PBT Ethanol

Figure E.5: PBT VinylChloride

environmental investigation in chemical company

Documents