Pollution prevention 1059

Xiongtao Yang1 Review

Qiang Xu1
Kuyen Li1 Flare Minimization Strategy for Ethylene
1
Dan F. Smith Department of Plants
Chemical Engineering, Lamar
University, Beaumont, TX,
USA. Flaring is an important but passive method in ethylene plants to protect plant
personnel, facilities, and the ambient environment. However, excessive flaring
emits huge amounts of CO, CO2, NOx, and hazardous volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), which may cause locally transient air pollution problems and
negative societal impacts. Flaring may also cause high losses of raw material and
energy that could generate more desired products for the industry. Thus, flare
minimization has great benefits to environmental, societal, and industrial sustain-
ability. Based on current industrial practices, a general strategy for flare minimi-
zation under various ethylene plant events is presented.

Keywords: Dynamic simulation, Ethylene plants, Flare minimization, Pollution prevention,

Steady-state simulation
Received: December 3, 2009; revised: April 28, 2010; accepted: May 7, 2010
DOI: 10.1002/ceat.200900588

1 Introduction health. For instance, the industrial flare emission of HRVOCs

Ethylene plant activities such as start-ups, shutdowns, mainte-
nance, upsets, and routine operations will generate off-spec
product streams that are typically sent to flares for destruction.
This flaring activity emits large amounts of carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), highly reactive VOCs (HRVOCs) (defined in the
Texas air quality regulation as ethylene, propylene, isomers of
butene, and 1,3-butadiene), and partially oxygenated hydro-
carbons (e.g., formaldehyde), which will cause severe air pollu-
tion problems and negative societal impacts. Flaring also
results in tremendous raw material and energy losses that
could generate much needed products for the industry. For in-
stance, an ethylene plant with a capacity of 1.2 billion pounds
of ethylene production per year may send five million pounds
of ethylene for flaring during an ordinary start-up [1]. Based
on the flaring efficiency (destruction efficiency) of 98 % for es-
timation, the total emission during the start-up generates
7.5 Klbs of NOx, 40.0 Klbs of CO, and 100.0 Klbs of HRVOCs.
This is just a normal scenario of the flaring emission for the
ethylene stream. If all the other flaring species are included,
such as ethane, propylene, and propane, huge amounts of air
emissions will be produced through flaring emission.
It should also be noted that flaring may cause localized and
transient air pollution events, which are harmful to people’s
– which will experience numerous flaring events in the lifetime,
Correspondence: Prof. Q. Xu (Qiang.xu@lamar.edu), Dan F. Smith
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lamar University, 4400 MLK
Blvd, Beaumont, TX 77710, USA.
and NOx has been identified with associating high concentra-
tions of ozone as observed in the Texas Houston/Galveston
area, which violates the National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS) for ozone [2, 3]. Thus, flare minimization
(FM) has great benefits to environmental, societal, and indus-
trial sustainability.
In the last two decades, ethylene producers and researchers
have been enthusiastically implementing approaches to reduce
flaring. Loring and Smith [4] reduced the flare load to ensure
a smokeless start-up. Shaikh and Lee [5] used natural gas dur-
ing commissioning of an ethylene plant to diminish off-spec
material generation. The Westlake Petrochemicals Carlyss
plant reduced start-up flaring through a recycle method [6].
The Nova Chemicals Joffre site minimized flaring through
procedural changes during ethylene plant start-ups and shut-
downs [7]. The Dow Chemical Freeport site implemented the
Six Sigma methodology for FM during plant upsets [8]. Shell
Chemical’s Deer Park OP-III olefins unit developed a parking
mode to reduce feed rates to the unit when an unanticipated
flaring occurs [9]. Lyondell Chemicals implemented several
FM projects within its olefins sites [10, 11]. Xu and Li’s re-
search groups at the Lamar University systematically addressed
FM methodologies in chemical plants through dynamic simu-
lations [12–16].
Based on the current literature survey, comprehensive stud-
ies on major FM opportunities at ethylene plants are still lack-
ing. As ethylene plants are important flaring contributions,
a comprehensive FM study is necessary. Based on current in-
dustrial practices, a general FM strategy for ethylene plants is
presented. In this strategy, various flaring activities are classi-

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 7, 1059–1065 © 2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
1060
fied and many possible FM measures are presented and dis-
cussed. The significance of modeling and simulation for help-
ing ethylene plants to conduct FM is also highlighted.
2 Ethylene Process and Flare Source
Description
To reduce flaring emission sources, the ethylene plant process
should be analyzed first. Fig. 1 illustrates a typical flow dia-
gram for an ethylene plant.
2.1 Ethylene Production Process
The feedstock (e.g., LPG, naphtha, and light diesel) is sent to
furnaces for cracking. The furnace effluent, called cracked gas,
is then forwarded to the quench tower where the cracked gas is
cooled and partially condensed. The quench tower overhead
vapor is then sent to cracked gas compressors (CGCs). After
being compressed and dried, the cracked gas is fed to the chil-
ling train, where the cracked gas becomes chilled and then is
directed to flash drums. Hydrogen is separated from the top of
the flash drums, which will be used as a cold stream in the chil-
Figure 1. Typical flow sheet for an ethylene plant.
www.cet-journal.com © 2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
X. Yang et al.
ling train and the reactants thereafter for C2 and C3 reactors.
Liquid accumulated in the bottom of flash drums is fed to the
demethanizer (DeC1). In DeC1, methane is separated from the
cracked gas as the overhead product stream mainly used as the
fuel gas. The bottom stream consisting of C2 and heavier com-
ponents is sent to the recovery section, which includes deetha-
nizer (DeC2), depropanizer (DeC3), and debutanizer (DeC4)
to separate the C2, C3, and C4 components, respectively. The
C2 and C3 reactors are used to convert acetylene to ethylene
and convert MAPD (methyl acetylene/propadiene) to propyl-
ene, respectively. The main products of ethylene and propylene
are separated from the tops of the C2 and C3 splitters, respec-
tively, while the bottom streams from the C2 and C3 splitters,
containing ethane and propane distinctively, are circulated to
the upstream as the feedstock.
2.2 Identification of Flare Sources
Major flare activities in ethylene plants are start-ups, shut-
downs, process upsets, and plant trips. During these activities,
eight flaring locations are identified, which include:
– CGC suction. Cracked gas will be diverted to the plant flar-
ing system from CGC suction during situations that com-
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 7, 1059–1065

pressors trip, compressors are unable to receive cracked gas
during start-ups, or compressors are already shut down
while the cracked gas still keeps coming.
– Chilling train tail gas outlet. When the top product flow rate
of DeC1 overpasses the pipe limits to the fuel gas network,
the excessive products will be directed to flare in order to
protect the systems.
– DeC2/DeC3 overheads. When DeC2/DeC3 overhead prod-
ucts do not meet the feed requirements to the C2/C3 reactor
distinctively, the products will be diverted to the flare system
to prevent catalysis deactivation.
– C2/C3 reactor outlets. The majority of flaring during ethyl-
ene plant start-ups and process upsets occurs at the C2/C3
reactor outlets. Since very low concentrations of acetylene/
MAPD are specified at their outlets, C2/C3 reactors easily
suffer upsets. Once the unqualified outlet streams are sent to
the downstream units, the C2/C3 splitters will be contami-
nated and require at least several hours to recover. Under
this situation, the unqualified streams from the C2/C3 reac-
tor outlets should flow to the flare system directly.
– C2/C3 splitter overheads. The final products are high-purity
ethylene from the C2 splitter overhead and high-purity pro-
pylene from the C3 splitter. The customer requirements are
around 99.95 vol.-% and 99.60 vol.-%, respectively. There-
fore, off-spec products with lower purity will be directed to
the flare system.
3 General FM Strategy
Based on the introduction, it is apparent that FM at ethylene
plants is a very challenging task. It deals with such a complex
system that synergistic effects should be sought and utilized
whenever possible and at all possible scales. The developed strat-
egy contains three steps as explained in the following sections.
3.1 FM Classification and FM Opportunity
Identification
Flares occur when off-spec products are generated or opera-
tional emergencies are met. Generally, they can be classified by
planned and unplanned categories, both of which involve dif-
ferent scenarios. Because the conditions and root causes for
each flaring scenario are generally different, FM measures for
these scenarios should be identified in advance. Examining
efforts should be conducted in advance instead of during the
flaring. The potential FM opportunities can be identified based
on the cooperation of researchers and site expertise.
3.2 FM Feasibility and Reliability Examination
Once possible FM opportunities (measures) are identified, they
need to be examined and validated to ensure their feasibility
and reliability. Previously, many plants used a trial-and-error
approach to gain expensive and sometimes painful experiences
[12]. Recently, Xu and Li’s research groups systematically stud-
ied FM problems in chemical plants through dynamic simula-
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 7, 1059–1065 © 2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Pollution prevention 1061
tions [12–16]. Their methodology can be generally divided into
three steps: (i) develop and validate steady-state simulation
(SS) models; (ii) upgrade the SS models to dynamic simulation
(DS) models with real validations; (iii) use the validated DS
models to examine FM procedures for their operational safety
and operability [17]. Fig. 2 presents this methodology frame-
work. Note that based on the methodology framework, FM
strategies can also be optimized. The plant expertise-assisted
dynamic simulation will be a cost-effective and promising way
to examine FM opportunities in the future.
Figure 2. General methodology framework.
3.3 FM Project Management
When validated FM measures are put into practice, their
execution should be well managed. This needs experienced op-
erators, engineers, and administration, along with effective
planning, scheduling, and training. For instance, many
planned FM projects involve plant operational and design
modifications. Thus, the affected facilities or even the entire
plant should be in shutdown mode to protect the personnel
and equipment safety. To reduce the downtime loss, the modi-
fications should be scheduled during plant turnarounds. Since
a typical turnaround takes only 20–50 days, advanced planning
is critical in order to avoid excess downtime [18, 19]. A special
team should be organized and equipments and pipelines must
be ordered well in advance of the date required onsite [19].
Qualified personnel is required to execute the projects. The
project should also be scheduled at stages, and various tasks of
each stage should be well-monitored to ensure that the tasks
are accomplished with quality on time.
4 Major FM Activities
As aforementioned, the major flares that an ethylene plant
experiences can be classified into planned and unplanned cate-
gories. In this section, FM activities related to these two cate-
gories will be extensively addressed.
4.1 Planned Plant Events
Planned events provide enough time for orderly and controlled
actions in plants. These events mainly include plant shut-
www.cet-journal.com
1062
downs, maintenances, and start-ups. As the flaring emissions
during shutdowns and start-ups account for a significant por-
tion of the whole plant flaring, this section will focus on these
two planned events.
4.1.1 Plant Shutdown
Shutdown is a transient operation plants experience from nor-
mal operation to an idle mode. During this period, the raw
feed to the furnace section is worked offline, the units are
depressurized, and the process is brought to an ambient tem-
perature. The operation transition generates off-spec products,
which are released to the flare system. Historical practices dur-
ing shutdowns would firstly reduce the feed flow rates to the
lowest point of plant stability, then trip out CGC, and pull fur-
naces off as quickly as possible. This process results in a huge
number of flaring from the CGC suction. For such a shut-
down, flaring emission could be as high as millions of pounds
[4].
In order to reduce flaring and recover the high-value gas,
the following measures are identified [7, 10, 11]:
– Replace all plant-produced hydrogen to the C2/C3 reactors
with imported hydrogen to maintain reactor effluents on
specification. Circulate plant-produced hydrogen and tail
gas to the CGC suction.
– For an ethane/propane feedstock, reduce the furnace coil
outlet temperatures (COTs) to suppress cracking reactions,
while pushing high-value components out of facilities as
product with uncracked ethane/propane.
– Use ethane and propane cycles to gradually replace the fresh
feedstock until the plant runs in full recycle.
– Recycle the C2/C3 reactor effluents back to the CGC suction
when product streams from the C2/C3 splitters are no long-
er on-spec.
– Recover ethane from the C2 splitter and direct it to the fuel
system until the C2 splitter bottom is drained out. Then take
the furnaces offline.
– Slowly take refrigeration systems offline, shut down the
CGC operation, and depressurize the left hydrocarbons in
the process to the flare system.
4.1.2 Plant Start-up
Start-up involves operating the process from its initial state to
its normal operation condition. During this period fresh feeds
increase gradually and equipments are pressurized; fluids are
heated up or cooled down to normal operating temperatures.
Historical start-up procedures would ramp up furnace feeds to
provide the CGC feed and help generating super high-pressure
steam to drive the compressors’ turbine. It will then start up
the CGC section, start up the chilling train, start up DeC1
through DeC4, bring the C2/C3 reactors on specification, and
bring ethylene and propylene products on specification.
During the start-up, from the activating CGC to the nor-
malizing product quality, off-spec product or intermediate
product streams will be generated and flared. In detail, the feed
stream to the CGC suction will be flared off until the require-
www.cet-journal.com © 2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
X. Yang et al.
ment is met. After the CGC has started, the tail gas from the
chilling train and the DeC1 top will be flared until the chilling
train and the DeC1 systems finally chill down, allowing that
methane and hydrogen separations are guaranteed.
Similarly, before C3s contained in the DeC2 overhead
stream meet the composition requirement of the C2 reactor
feed, the feed is directed to flare [5, 6, 10]. At that time when
C3s meet the requirement, the flow is routed forward through
the C2 reactor. Then, hydrogen is added to the reactor to start
catalytic reactions. After that, the flaring source will be the off-
spec effluent (acetylene is higher than the limit) from the reac-
tor. Once the reactor effluent is on-spec, the reactor effluent
will be fed into the C2 splitter for the separation of ethylene
and ethane. Before ethylene from the C2 splitter overhead
meets all customer specifications, the off-spec product still
needs to be flared. This principle is also used in the C3s separa-
tion. After products are on-spec, furnace feed rates begin to
increase. For such a start-up, the total flaring emission could
be as high as millions of pounds [11].
The following measures have been summarized to minimize
flares [4–8, 10–16, 20]:
– Establish appropriate recycles to recover off-spec products.
– Pre-inventory and operate distillation towers on total reflux.
– Start up the CGC section with artificial gas before start up
the cracking furnaces.
– Start up furnaces one by one and control the feed ramping
rate carefully.
– Speed up the chilling-down rate while maintaining the chil-
ling train within equipment constraints.
– Ensure that the normal operating conditions of the DeC1
through the DeC4 are almost achieved before directing the
bottom stream of one tower to the downstream of the next.
– Add imported high-purity ethylene into the reflux drum of
the C2 splitter to reduce its settling time.
Very recently, DS-based studies for start-up FMs have made
a significant progress. It is a cost-effective way to help plants
identify and improve their start-up strategies. Two reported
case studies are employed to demonstrate the DS application
significance. The first case is about a DS-assisted flare minimi-
zation project [12], which studied the OP1 plant of Equistar
Chemicals Channelview complex. The DS was performed to
cover the DeC2, DeC3, and C2 reactors and the C2 splitter on
the basis of process flow scheme, equipment data, and instru-
ment data. With the help of simulations, the DeC2 control tray
temperature set point was tuned from 62.2 /C (144 /F) to
57.2 /C (135 /F), which improved the temperature distribution
of DeC2 from Figs. 3a to 3b, and thus enhanced its operation
stability during the start-up. As reported, the actual start-up
flaring load in OP1 plant was significantly reduced by 75 %
compared with the earlier startup of the OP2 plant (OP1 and
OP2 plants have the same design and production scheme) on
that site.
The second case is about an ethylene plant start-up flare
minimization via plant-wide dynamic simulation [15]. This
study covers the CGC, chilling train, DeC1, and recover sec-
tions. To avoid excessive flaring, multiple recycles were estab-
lished including the major recycles from the DeC1/chilling
train, DeC2, and DeC3 to the CGC suction, and a short recycle
from the DeC4 top to the DeC2 bottom. These recycles were
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 7, 1059–1065
 Pollution prevention 1063

(100 °F) (150 °F) other significant project requirements [19]. In this stage,
DeC2 Temperature Profile
everyone who participates in the project should be in
37.8 °C 65.6°C

agreement with the concept [7]. Detailed engineering ex-

ecution begins once the PFDs, P&IDs, equipment specifi-
cations, and the overall scope of the project are completed
[19].
Planning and scheduling helps ensure project quality
Temperature

and efficiency [19]. The project for upgrading start-up and

(-50 °F) (0 °F) (50 °F)
-45.5 °C -17.8 °C 10 °C

shutdown operations to reduce flaring is a nontrivial job,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Tray Index
(a)
DeC2 Temperature Profile
(-50 °F) (0 °F) (50 °F) (100 °F) (150 °F)
-45.5 °C -17.8 °C 10 °C 37.8 °C 65.6°C
and it not only involves a lot of experienced staff and var-
ious stages of work, but also consumes much time. Ideally,
the project time should fall within the scheduled down-
time. Advance planning and realistic scheduling are the
keys to make this ideal a reality. On the contrary, poor-
scheduled and/or extended shutdowns can result in exces-
sive costs, business losses, and safety or environmental
incidents [21, 22].
To plan, schedule, and execute the project, it is very
essential to organize a team to support and direct the pro-
ject. This team will be responsible to develop strategic
planning, marshal internal and external sources, manage
human power, and monitor work progress at stages. When

necessary it is charged with removing any barriers so as to

make sure the project is accomplished smoothly. There-
fore, the team should include representatives from the
operators, process engineers, maintenance staff, rotating
equipment specialists, and plant leaders [7].
Temperature

Once a collaborative environment is established, the

team goal is then set up: minimize flaring during plant
start-up and/or shutdown. The objectives connected to
this goal are usually as follows: (i) reduce volume and
duration of flaring; (ii) install all project-required equip-
ments and pipelines; (iii) minimize project duration; (iv)
ensure carrying out the project smoothly.
Within these objectives, the steps to be done are: plan
activities, set up jobs, define work scope, schedule assign-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 ments, execute tasks and monitor work progress, and eval-
Tray Index uate project quality. According to workload at stages, per-
sonnel in specified numbers should be brought in to
(b) accomplish the work at each stage and released when their
Figure 3. DeC2 tower temperature profiles [12]. jobs are completed. This personnel includes project engi-
neers, construction engineers, cost control specialists, re-
cording and file keeping supervisors, purchasing staff,
used to recover off-spec materials during start-up operations. welding engineers, material engineers, piping supervisors,
The plant-wide DS was performed to test the feasibility and excavation and foundation supervisors, transportation and de-
operability of the plant start-up procedure when setting up livery experts, and field construction supervisors [19]. The key
these recycles. It was reported that the DS successfully helped to execution is good communication, organization, supervi-
the plant start-up operation, and the flaring emission was sion, and a contingency plan. Communication ensures that the
reduced by over 50 % from the estimation. right people receive the required information to execute their
work; organization ensures that roles and responsibilities are
met; supervision ensures that daily and weekly schedules are
4.1.3 Execute a Planned FM Project executed; the contingency plan ensures that unforeseen issues
can be handled promptly and effectively [23].
Once a planned FM project is approved, it should be consid- Upon the completion of construction, the plant will be
ered from the systems’ engineering point of view and imple- commissioned. During this period, operators conduct the
mented in a systematic way. It starts with marking up an exist- improved procedures, collect information, and provide com-
ing process flow diagram and providing a project description ments and suggestions for further improving the procedures.
that defines (i) which modifications are to be made, (ii) which Process engineers measure the success of the modified process-
equipments are required, and (iii) what is needed to meet es/procedures and test operators’ suggestions, and further

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 7, 1059–1065 © 2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
1064
improve the process. Operation during this period is for trou-
bleshooting and ensures that the plant start-up, daily opera-
tion, and shutdown are performed safely, reliably, and effi-
ciently. The team leader needs to conduct meetings to evaluate
the project, update documents, conclude the project, assign
responsibility for further improvements, etc.
4.2 Unplanned Plant Events
Unplanned events occur in plant operation as a result of fault
operations, equipment malfunctions, power outage, etc. Such
events require immediate and synergistic actions to reject pro-
cess disturbances and suppress process upsets, so as to protect
plant personnel and facilities. For unplanned events, plant
safety is always the first priority. Flaring is one of the most fre-
quent choices during these unplanned events, because it is a
quick and effective way to protect the plant personnel, facil-
ities, and the ambient environment. FM activities should not
jeopardize plant safety and should be very carefully implemen-
ted. In practice, two types of unplanned events contribute to a
significant part of flaring: process upsets and plant trips. FM
details of these two events are discussed below.
4.2.1 Process Upsets
Process upsets mean that facilities run in an unstable or an
undesirable situation that may jeopardize product quality and/
or plant safety. The most significant flaring scenarios during
process upsets occur when off-spec products are generated and
have to be burned.
To reduce the flaring caused by process upsets, recycling off-
spec materials to the upstream process for reprocessing pre-
sents a good choice. Two major options are available to route
the off-spec components: one is to line the recycle to the CGC
suction, and the other is to tie it to the furnace feed [6, 8].
Both options have advantages and disadvantages. For the for-
mer option, there are limits for the recycled flow rate. Too big
flow rates will cause further unstable operations as a result of
the snowball effect. The latter option, because ethylene and/or
propylene are brought to cracking again, will generate more
acetylene and MAPD and subsequently take a longer time for
product streams to come back on-spec. Under this scenario,
the furnace COT set point and the flow rate of raw feed should
be considered to decrease to some extent. Another choice for
handling the off-spec propylene stream is to store it temporari-
ly because of its noncryogenic temperature for the liquid
phase. To determine the best FM way, plant situations and up-
set root cause should be investigated case by case. Under this
situation, dynamic simulation-based decision making can be
helpful.
4.2.2 Plant Trips
Plant trips usually bring plants to emergency situations, under
which quick and effective actions are a must. Most plant trips
are CGC or refrigeration compressor tripping, primarily as a
www.cet-journal.com © 2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
X. Yang et al.
result of a power outage, instrument air failure, equipment
malfunction, lightening weather, etc. Plant trips usually cause
the partial or total shutdown of a plant immediately, allowing
very little time for specific planning. Under such situations,
piping and equipments in the system should be depressurized
to flare to protect personnel, equipments, and facilities. The
ambient environment is usually polluted, because it is often
impossible to make adjustments necessary to minimize flaring
to the same extent as what should be done during a scheduled
shutdown. Despite this situation, there are still actions that
can be taken to reduce flaring. As the flaring source is the fur-
nace sector, reducing the furnace load as quickly as possible is
the best option [8, 9]. Like Shell Chemicals at Deer Park, plants
can develop an emergency shutdown sequence for furnaces
based on their flaring impact [9]. The following rules may be
useful: (i) shut down large-capacity furnaces before small-ca-
pacity furnaces; (ii) shut down cracking furnaces with lighter
feed first.
Note that when shutting down furnaces, the feed flow rates
should be well controlled within equipment constraints. The
simulation can be helpful to identify which way is the most
effective and which shutdown rate is the safest and fastest for
flaring reduction. There are some situations that furnaces just
need to be cut down instead of shut down. In these cases, the
cut rates can be optimally determined with the help of a simu-
lator.
Also note that operators’ faultless handling of emergencies
definitely helps plants accomplish flare minimization. As some
emergencies happen occasionally, operators seldom have ex-
perience to handle them. Simulations can virtually create these
situations so that operators can have a better training. Simula-
tions can also be used to develop a standard operation proce-
dure (SOP) and train operators to improve their operation
when facing these emergencies.
5 Concluding Remarks
Flaring is an important but passive method in ethylene plants
to protect the personnel, plant, and the environment. Excessive
flaring causes air pollution problems and negative societal im-
pacts, as well as tremendous raw material and energy losses.
Thus, flare minimization has great benefits to environmental,
societal, and industrial sustainability. Based on various indus-
trial practices, a general solution strategy is presented to mini-
mize ethylene plant flaring. In this strategy, various flaring
activities are classified and major possible flare minimization
measures are presented and discussed. The significance of
modeling and simulation for helping plant flare minimization
in terms of examining operation feasibility and safety and
developing training programs and SOP to improve operators’
performance is also highlighted.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Texas Air Research
Center (TARC) in the United States.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 7, 1059–1065

References
[1] Q. Xu, K. Y. Li, Integrated Environmental Management Con-
sortium Meeting, Houston, TX, June 2008.
[2] J. Nam et al., Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 4198.
[3] W. Vizuete et al., Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 7641.
[4] M. P. Loring, S. K. Smith, AIChE Spring National Meeting,
Houston, TX, March 1995.
[5] A. Shaikh, C. J. Lee, Hydrocarbon Processing 1995, July, 89.
[6] M. Chellino, AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX,
April 2001.
[7] M. Williamson, J. Dennehy, AIChE Spring National Meeting,
Houston, TX, April 2001.
[8] S. Krientenstein, AIChE Spring National Meeting, Atlanta,
GA, April 2005.
[9] E. B. Kagay, M. Taylor, N. Genty, AIChE Spring National
Meeting, Atlanta, GA, April 2005.
[10] D. Chenevert et al., Oil Gas J. 2005, 103, 54.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 7, 1059–1065 © 2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Pollution prevention 1065
[11] S. Cullen, J. Saionz, AIChE Spring National Meeting, Orlan-
do, FL, April 2006.
[12] A. Singh et al., Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 29, 19.
[13] Q. Xu et al., Proc. FOCAPO 2008, 247.
[14] Q. Xu et al., Proc. FOCAPD 2009, 603.
[15] Q. Xu et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48 (7), 3505.
[16] X. Yang et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48 (20), 9195.
[17] P. Rutherford, W. Persad, M. Lauritsin, Hydrocarbon Proces-
sing 2003, October, 75.
[18] K. Y. Cheung et al., Comput. Chem. Eng. 2004, 28, 91.
[19] R. Elshout, D. Garcia, Chem. Eng. 2009, July, 34.
[20] A. Bernard, AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX,
April 2007.
[21] J. Thompson, C. Etter, AIChE Spring National Meeting,
Houston, TX, March 2001.
[22] A. Bonton, M. Thomas, AIChE Spring National Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, March 2003.
[23] K. Lewton, www.metdemand.com. December 2005.
www.cet-journal.com