環境資源報告成果查詢系統

98年度雲林縣離島工業區揮發性有機物查核暨減量計畫

中文摘要 本計畫執行期程係自98年12月31日至99年12月30日止,共計12個月,主要工作項目包括:1.配置執行本計畫適切人力執行執行相關查核業務。2.執行設備元件稽查管制作業,其中元件稽查檢測至少50,000點次並至少需完成10製程及離島工業區列管元件數量20%之現場清點作業。3.至少完成固定頂式儲槽及外浮頂式儲槽各200座現場查核作業,且以連續自動監測儀器進行至少35座固定頂式或內外浮頂式儲槽揮發性有機物逸散量測作業。4.進行40個樣品數之廢氣燃燒塔廢氣成分檢測作業,以掌握廢氣燃燒塔之排氣組成。5.辦理離島工業區減量協談會議5場次,以製程改善、增設防制設備或廢氣回收為改善原則。6.協助執行污染源相關管理作業並配合本縣空氣品質惡化或重大空氣污染事件執行固定污染源之相關緊急應變措施。7.計畫開始執行日起10工作天內完成人員進駐,並完成工作人員職前教育訓練。8.若發生空氣污染緊急應變事故,得自行邀請專家學者提供諮詢並協助處理並配合本縣SIP計畫執行項目與本局工作檢討會。 截至99年12月20日止,離島工業區內21家工廠已取得操作許可證之製程數有162個,設置許可證有8個,其中試車中而未取得操作許可證之製程數有3個(塑化麥寮一廠M35製程;台化海豐廠M11、M13製程),已完成規劃而在建廠中有2個(南亞海豐廠M06及長春石油M02製程),另外尚未建廠之製程則有27個,正式運轉製程數佔總製程數197的82.2%,試車中之製程數佔1.5%,兩者合佔全部製程數之83.7%。 離島工業區各工廠排放口數為383根,儲槽則為1,853個,設備元件數1,759,572個(簽約時1,549,186),裝載場數量153座及廢氣燃燒塔44根。其中排放口數以南亞塑膠麥寮廠及台塑麥寮廠57根次最多,各占總排放口數的14.88%,其次以塑化麥寮一廠45根次佔總排放口數的11.75%。儲槽則以南亞麥寮廠的435座最多佔總數23.48%,其次以塑化麥寮一廠404座佔列管總數21.8%及台塑麥寮廠207座佔列管總數11.17%。設備元件則以塑化麥寮一廠的578,511個最多佔總列管元件數的32.88%,其次是台化海豐廠為244,523個元件佔總數13.9%及台塑麥寮廠234,340個元件佔總數的13.32%。裝載場部份以塑化麥寮一廠65座佔列管總數42.48%最多,其次以南亞麥寮廠24座佔列管總數15.69%及台塑麥寮廠17座佔列管總數11.11%。目前列管中的廢氣燃燒塔共44根,以塑化麥寮一廠9根佔列管總數20.45%最多,其次為塑化麥寮三廠及台化海豐廠各6根佔13.64%。 本計畫執行期間具體工作成果包括;共完成完成87個製程的設備元件清點,其中單一製程全數清點完成之製程數共計有10個,累計清點數達320,766顆,佔簽約時之20.71%,查核期間共發現1,011個元件未建檔,其中未建檔之元件,以法蘭為最多,其次為開口閥及閥。 設備元件共完成50,017顆稽查檢測作業,其中元件型式有法蘭(F)27930點、閥(V)14260點、開口閥(O)3564點、泵浦(P)327點、釋壓安全閥(R)98點、壓縮機(C)8點、取樣連接裝置(S)22點、其他連接頭(N)3773及鵝型管30點,另外還檢測4點管線,共發現12點濃度超過洩漏管制值10,000ppm,皆依法開單告發共查處180萬元。 紅外線影像氣體微漏偵測儀(FLIR)偵測作業,共完成25天次公私場所41個石化製程設備元件紅外線氣體成像儀之洩漏篩檢,其中發現16件洩漏。洩漏點中以管線洩漏佔最多,計有6件,佔46%;其次為閥,有5件,佔31%;法蘭洩漏則有4件,佔25%;泵浦有1件,佔6%。以洩漏流體區分,則丙烯5件最多;其次為有機廢水2件。 儲槽法規符合度作業共查核了400座儲槽,其中外浮頂式儲槽40座、固定頂式儲槽360座,查核結果發現有4座固定頂儲槽違法,其餘列管396座儲槽皆合法,不合格率為1.01%。 有機液體儲槽檢測作業,淨檢測值前三名分別為塑化輕油廠內浮頂儲槽TR54檢測濃度40,206ppm最高,其次依序為塑化烯烴二廠內浮頂儲槽T063的13625ppm,及台化芳香烴一廠固定頂儲槽T019的12724ppm,其餘32座儲槽淨檢測值皆未超過10000ppm。若以洩漏定義值2000ppm為洩漏判定基準,總共有13座儲槽最高淨檢測值大於2000ppm。此外,計畫執行期間35座儲槽量測中,最高淨檢測值低於2000ppm的儲槽共有22座,其中內浮頂式與固定頂式儲槽各佔一半;大於2000ppm之儲槽,固定頂式的有7座,內浮頂式也有6座,這顯示內浮頂式儲槽對於逸散濃度的抑制並未優於固定頂,業者一眛將固定頂式儲槽改制為內浮頂式,而不加強儲槽之洩漏維修管理實在值得商榷。 廢氣燃燒塔排氣組成掌握方面共完成40根燃燒塔廢氣成分分析,發現含有甲烷者有14根,最高為塑化OL-3廠的P024、P023、P025,含苯者共有9根,最高為台化苯乙烯廠PL01的48.6%、其次為塑化輕油廠AR02的2.84%,含有氫氣者共有23根,最高為塑化輕油廠AR05的60.1%,其次為台化PP廠的49.5%,含有硫化氫者共有14根,最高為塑化輕油廠AR02與AR03的1.46%與1.08%。 在硫化氫濃度檢測分析方面,本計畫執行期間發現塑化輕油廠AR02與AR03的燃燒處理前硫化氫濃度大於650ppm,因此於於99.10.20、99.10.25及99.10.28針對塑化輕油廠的燃燒塔AR03、AR05及AR06以管道中硫化氫採法(NIEA A406.71A)進行硫化氫檢測,其檢測結果均超過管制值皆依法告發。
中文關鍵字 固定污染源、廢氣燃燒塔、排放標準

基本資訊

專案計畫編號 經費年度 098 計畫經費 91000 千元
專案開始日期 2009/12/31 專案結束日期 2010/12/30 專案主持人 林清標
主辦單位 雲林縣環境保護局 承辦人 詹聖偉 執行單位 台灣曼寧工程顧問股份有限公司

成果下載

類型 檔名 檔案大小 說明
期末報告 本文word.rar 60MB
英文摘要 This project involves an execution period that spans 12 months from Dec. 31, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2010. Main tasks include: 1. allocating adequate human power for executing related auditing affairs in this project; 2. carrying out the auditing and control of components, in which a minimum of 50,000 inspections of the components is to be conducted and the on-site counting of at least 10 processes and 20% of the controlled components in offshore industrial zones should be done; 3. Completing on-site inspection of at least 200 each fixed roof tanks and external floating roof tanks and measuring VOC emission in at least 35 fixed roof tanks or internal/external floating roof tanks using continuous automatic monitoring device; 4. conducting content tests on exhaust from flare samples in the number of 40 to comprehend the composition of flare exhaust; 5. holding 5 sessions of counsel on reduction in offshore industrial zones, based on the improvement principles of process improvement, setting up of more controlling equipment or exhaust recycling; 6. assisting in the execution of pollution source-related management and of stationary pollution source-related contingency measures during air quality deterioration or major air pollution incidents in this county; 7. completing the stationing of personnel within 10 days after the execution of project begins and carrying out advance training for staff; and 8. freely inviting experts to provide consultation and assist in handling in case of emergency of air pollution and cooperating on the executive tasks of the County’s SIP program and the Bureau’s work review meeting. Till Dec. 20, 2010, the number of processes that have been given operation permit in 21 firms in offshore industrial zones is 162 and that given installation permit is 8, of which 3 were in test run with operation permit pending (M35 process at Mailiao #1 plant of Formosa Petrochemical Corporation, M11 and M13 processes at Haihong plant, Formosa Chemical), 2 have finished planning and were constructing the plant (M06 process at Haifong plant of Nan Ya, and M02 process of Chang Chun Petroleum), while 27 processes were yet to build plant. Processes that are officially operating account for 82.2% of all 197 processes, and those under test run account for 1.5%; together they account for 83.7% of all processes. There are 383 discharge ports, 1,853 tanks, 1,759,572 components (1,549,186 at time of contract making), 153 loading yards and 44 flares in all plants in the offshore industrial zones. Nan Ya at Mailiao and Formosa Plastics at Mailiao combined have the most, 57, which accounts for 14.88% of all the discharge ports, followed by Mailiao #1 plant of Formosa Petrochemical Corporation, with 45, representing 11.75%. Nan Ya at Mailiao also has the most tanks, 435 of them, accounting for 23.48% of all tanks, which is followed by Mailiao #1 plant of Formosa Petrochemical Corporation, 404, accounting for 21.8% and Formosa Plastics at Mailiao, 207, which is 11.17%. Mailiao #1 plant of Formosa Petrochemical Corporation has the most components, 578,511 of them, which represent 32.88% of all controlled components, followed by Formosa Chemical at Haihong, 244,523, accounting for 13.9% and Formosa Plastics at Mailiao, 234,340, accounting for 13.32%. Mailiao #1 plant of Formosa Petrochemical Corporation leads in the number of loading yards with 65, which represents 42.48% of all controlled number, followed by Nan Ya at Mailiao with 24, which accounts for 15.69% and Formosa Plastics at Mailiao with 17, 11.11%. Currently of the 44 controlled flares, Mailiao #1 plant of Formosa Petrochemical Corporation has 9, accounting for 20.45%, Mailiao #3 plant of Formosa Petrochemical Corporation and Formosa Chemical at Haihong each has 6, which is 13.64%. Concrete results of execution of this project include the counting of components in 87 processes, of which 10 single processes were completed with all components counted, up to 320,766 components, representing 20.71% of the number at time of contract entering. During the inspection, a total of 1,011 components was found to be without filing and the majority of the unfiled components are flanges, open valves and valves, in the order of number. Inspection was made in 50,017 components, the types of which include flange (F) at 27,930 positions, valve (V) at 14,260 positions, open valves (O) at 3,564 positions, pump (P) at 327 positions, pressure relief valve (R) at 98 positions, compressor (C) at 8 positions, sampling connection (S) at 22 positions, other connector (N) at 3,773 positions and tube at 30 positions. Also, tests were conducted in pipelines at 4 positions and resulted in the finding of 12 positions with concentration exceeding controlled leakage of 10,000 ppm; these were subjected to penalty by law for a total of NT$1.8 million. Tests with infra red gas finder (FLIR) were conducted on 25 days at public and private places for leakage at 41 petrochemical process components and found 16 of them with leakage. Of the leaking positions, pipeline leakage was dominating, found at 6 positions, which represents 46%, followed by valve, at 5 positions, 31%, flange, at 4 positions, 25% and pump, at 1 position, 6%. Propylene and organic wastewater are the most common types of fluid leakage; the former was found in 5 cases and the latter 2. Inspections of legal compliance were made in 400 tanks, of which 40 are external floating roof tanks and 360 are fixed roof tanks, resulting in 4 fixed roof tanks found noncompliant. With the rest 396 tanks compliant, the noncompliance rate was 1.01%. In the testing of organic fluid tanks, the most severe three were the internal floating roof tank TR54 of Formosa Petrochemical Corporation Naphtha Cracking Plant with a concentration tested at 40,206 ppm, the internal floating roof tank T063 at Formosa Petrochemical Corporation #2 Olefins plant with 13,625 ppm and the fixed roof tank T019 at Formosa Chemical’s #1 aromatic hydrocarbon plant with 12,724 ppm. None of the remaining 32 tanks was found with testing over 10,000 ppm. If the benchmark for leakage is defined at 2,000 ppm, then a total of 13 tanks turned out with highest net test level above it. In addition, during the execution of this project, 35 tanks were measured and 22 of them were found with highest net values below 2,000 ppm, of which internal floating roof tanks and fixed roof tanks were equal in number; 7 of fixed type and 6 of internal floating type were above 2,000 ppm. This indicated that as the inhibition of concentration of emission in internal floating roof tanks was inferior to that in fixed type, the practice of changing from fixed roof tanks to internal roof type by factories without strengthening the maintenance and management of tank leakage is an issue. Exhaust analysis was conducted in 40 flares to understand the composition of exhaust. Methane was found in 14 flares, the highest being P024, P023 and P025 at Formosa Petrochemical Corporation’s OL-3 plant; benzene was found in 9 flares, the highest being PL01 at Formosa Chemical’s Styrene plant with 48.6% and AR02 at Formosa Petrochemical Corporation Naphtha Cracking Plant with 2.84%. hydrogen was found in 23 flares, the highest being AR05 at Formosa Petrochemical Corporation Naphtha Cracking Plant with 60.1%, and Formosa Chemical’s PP plant with 49.5%; hydrogen sulfide was found in 14 flares, the highest being AR02 and AR03 at Formosa Petrochemical Corporation Naphtha Cracking Plant, 1.46% and 1.08%, respectively. In respect of analysis in hydrogen sulfide concentration, the AR02 and AR03 at Formosa Petrochemical Corporation Naphtha Cracking Plant were found during the execution of this project with pre-burning concentration higher than 650 ppm; hence tests were conducted on AR03, AR05 and AR06 of the same plant by in-duct H2S sampling (NIEA A406.71A) on Oct. 20, Oct. 25 and Oct. 28, 2010. All failing to meet the controlled level, the test results were brought to legal proceeding.
英文關鍵字 fixed roof tank、flare、Component