CHEG 613010: Energy and the environement

Starburst Chemical Company:

Developing an Environmental Plan

Thomas Bollen

Professor: John Carberry

University of Delaware
Department of Chemical Engineering
Academic year 2015 - 2016

Abstract
This Report explores and investigate the performance of the fictitious Chemical company
Starburst. This analysis focusses on environmental sustainability. Different production
sites will be compared using metrics as Energy Intensity, Off-spec recycle, FirstPassFirstQuality Yield, Ultimate yield, Energy Cost, Water Intensity, ODP and Key emissions.
Also, a recommendation for a renewable energy program is presented.

Contents
1 Introduction

2 General information
2.1 Corporates Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 SOCMA and Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7
7
8

3 Production characteristics of different Plants

3.1 Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10
10
13

4 Emissions
4.1 Ozone Depletion Substances . . . .
4.1.1 Corporates Total . . . . . .
4.1.2 Conclusion corporates total
4.1.3 Plants . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.4 Conclusion plants . . . . . .
4.2 Key Emissions plants . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Yellowing Products . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 describing the problem . . .
4.3.2 Conclusion yellowing . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

15
16
16
17
18
19
20
20
23
23
23
25

.
.
.
.

26
26
27
29
32

6 Summarising Recommendation
6.1 Corporate level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Producing sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Renewable energy program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33
33
34
34

5 Renewable Energy
5.1 Solar Energy . .
5.2 Wind Energy .
5.3 Hydropower . .
5.4 Conclusion . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

6.4

6.5

Other . . . . . .
6.4.1 Yellowing
6.4.2 Patents .
Final Conclusion

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

35
35
35
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

46

E PBT Key Emissions

49

List of Figures
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Metrics
Metrics
Metrics
Metrics

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10

corporates total ODS emissions . . . . . .

corporates total GWP . . . . . . . . . . .
Sc vs. Np and plants total ODS emissions
ODS emissions subdividing Sc and Np . .
Water emissions of both products . . . . .
Water emissions of plants producing Sc . .
Air emissions of plants producing Sc . . .
Water emissions of plants producing Np .
PBT profile pentachlorobenzene . . . . . .
PBT profile monochlorobenzene . . . . . .

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7

Map Production sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Map of Average annual DNI in USA (Kwh/sq.m/day) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Map of Potential on-shore wind capacity in the USA (sq.m) . . . . . . . .
PBT profile pentachlorobenzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Waves energy production potential, expressed in Wave Power Density (kW/m)
Tidal Stream energy production potential, expressed in Power Density (W/m2 )
Ocean currents energy production potential, expressed in Mean current
speed (m/s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
River currents energy production potential, expressed in Power Density (gigawatt hours/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.8

for
for
for
for

Sc vs. Np . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
all plants, no subdivision between Sc
all plants producing Sc . . . . . . .
all plants producing Np . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . . .
and Np
. . . . .
. . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

12
12
13
13

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

16
17
19
19
21
21
22
22
24
24

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

26
27
28
29
30
30
31
31

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

45

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

46

E.1
E.2
E.3
E.4

49
49
49
50

PBT
PBT
PBT
PBT

Acetonitrile . . . . .
Acrylonitrile . . . . .
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethanol . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
3

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

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

50

List of Tables
2.1
2.2

Corporate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sum of operating expenses, depreciation and taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7
8

3.1
3.2

General data plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Energy prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11
14

4.1
4.2
4.3

CAS-Number Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ODS emissions plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Key Emissions plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15
18
20

5.1

Several means of Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

6.1

Ranking Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

A.1 Data Corporates Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.2 Data plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39
40

B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4

.
.
.
.

41
42
42
43

C.1 Table of Figure 4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.2 Table of Figure 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.3 Table of part of Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44
45
45

D.1 Table of Figure 4.6 and 4.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D.2 Table of Figure 4.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47
48

Table
Table
Table
Table

of
of
of
of

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

Chapter 1
Introduction
Starburst represents a fictitious chemical company, that will be analysed according to
all three requirements for sustainability. Those three requirements are Health, Safety &
and Environment (HSE). Starburst Chemicals produces two different products, Speciality
Chemicals referred to as Sc and Natural Product referred to as Np. These products
are made by batch processing steps. The first product is fabricated at five different plants
and two of these plants also produce Natural Products.
In the second chapter some general information about the corporates total performances,
SOCMA and employees is presented.
Subsequently, the production characteristics and performances of the five producing sites
are compared using metrics.
In Chapter 4, all possible emissions are analysed. Those contain Ozone depletions related
emissions, 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 final conclusion is presented in Chapter 6.
In appendix A, the originally given date can be found. It is assumed that the data is
sufficiently accurate for regulatory reporting and strategic thinking.

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 companys total Volume. Total sales
have reached $100 million/yr. and are apparently growing at about 10-12%/yr. Profit,
described in the table as ATOI (after tax operating income), runs about 17%. This value
can be computed by subtracting operating expenses, depreciation and taxes from the gross
Revenue. The sum of these first three values is computed in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Sum of operating expenses, depreciation and taxes

The Utilities include energy (fuel and electricity), water, compressed air, nitrogen, and
operation of waste disposal.
Now ATOI(KK$/yr) can be calculated as ATOI = Total Sales - SUM. This yields an
ATOI value of 17 KK$/yr, what corresponds with the value of Table 2.1. Sales growth
rates, price per pound, and profitability of Natural Products are higher than for Speciality
Chemicals. However, more than 75% of the raw materials for the Natural Products businesses 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 economical
situation. 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, those
include both natural and traditional chemicals. Those sales are growing more rapidly, and
are generally more profitable than the companys 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 the
batch, custom and speciality chemical industry[1]. Starburst sales are high ranked, they
are more than double the SOCMA average. The company has +/- 200 workers at the
five sites. At about $500K sales/employee, Starburst is well below the SOCMA overall

average of $600K sales/employee, but well above the average for small SOCMA members 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 excellent
among the other SOCMA members.
The company has a history of good relations with its workers. The 200 employees include
about 10% leadership, business, marketing and staff and 14% engineering. Both groups
are seated at the Camden headquarters. The remaining employees are distributed across
the five sites based on the level of production at the various sites. Normal operations are
five 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 Saturday
and Sunday, all on overtime.

Chapter 3
Production characteristics of
different Plants
3.1

Metrics

Starburst contains five plant sites, all in the U.S. The first one is located in the east of
Camden, New Jersey. Two of the other sites are in the U.S. Southeast (Richmond, VA
and Birmingham, AL), and the other two are on the U.S. West Coast (Irvine, CA and
Portland, OR). Speciality Chemicals are manufactured at all five sites with roughly the
similar process. Natural Products manufactured only at the two sites in the Southeast
with a similar process as well.
These five 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

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 charts
are to be found in Appendix B.
To assure a fair judgement between the plants, first a comparison between both products
must be made, because not all the plants produce Natural Products. To compare those
two, the mean performance of Speciality Chemicals of all the plants vs. the mean performance of Natural Products of the two producing plants. This is calculated by dividing
total Sc and Np by respectively 5 and 2. The results are plotted in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Metrics for Sc vs. Np

From this Figure, there can be concluded that the two products have notable difference
production characteristics. Speciality Chemicals score best on all 6 criteria, with the biggest
variance in Energy Cost, Energy intensity and Water intensity.
One could compare all the plants by adding the values of Natural Products with Speciality
Chemicals 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 plants
cannot fairly be compared by regarding Speciality Chemicals and Natural Products as

equally. Doing this, the companies producing Natural Products would be unfairly disadvantaged. Therefore, the plants should be compared for both products separately. The
results for the plants producing Speciality Chemicals and Natural Products are to be found
respectively 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 Birmingham
would be sentenced worse than they perform. One should compare by using Figure 3.3

and 3.4. From this first figure, it is clear that Camden is performing very well. It beats all
the 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 and
ultimate 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 scores
the worst. Note, this ranking is not absolute, for instance, Birmingham beats Portland in
off-spec recylce although it is ranked lower.
Studying Figure 3.4, there can be concluded that again Richmond performs better than
Birmingham.
Note, the criteria Energy Cost ($/lb) is influenced by the energy price ($/KKbtu) of each
state. 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 FstPasFstQual Yield are inferior.

Chapter 4
Emissions
Compliance is excellent at all sites. For the next five years, no permits will come up for
renewal. Programs to reduce emissions begun in the mid 1990s. There are some generalities among the sites. First of all, air emissions are fugitive, or exiting thermal oxidizers at
concentrations that are below the threshold for practical and economic recovery. Second,
water emissions are below the threshold for practical and economic recovery. Thirdly, air
and water emissions are within current state permit levels.
Sequentially, Ozone Depletion substances, Key emissions and yellowing products are discussed. Table 4.1 gives an overview off all CAS-Numbers of some substances used at
Starburst.

Table 4.1: CAS-Number Substances

15

4.1
4.1.1

Ozone Depletion Substances

Corporates Total

In 2000, Starburst started a program to reduce emissions of gasses with ozone depletion
potential. 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 chart
in 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. Methylbormide
and CH2BrF have a quite low ODP.

Figure 4.1: corporates total ODS emissions

Supplementary, it is important to consider the GWP (global warming potential) of the
substances. The following converting values are used to express all the gases in equivalent
GWP CO2 (pounds/year):[2]
CFC-11 4,750

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 CH2FBr
is not found. There is assumed that CH2F2 has a similar GWP value. Both components
have one carbon, two hydrogens, and two halogens. Using these values, a chart describing
the emissions regarding to GWP is obtained in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: corporates 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 1990s. Under
the pressure of the Montreal Protocol restrictions, alternatives have been steadily developed and the use of CFC-11 is successfully (strongly) decreased.
Methyl bromide is used in most Natural Products as a conditioner. However, this substance is toxic and therefore a number of those products have switched to CH2FBr. This
substance is a perfect substitute regarding to ozone depletion, because both ODP values
are 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 fire extinguishant. Because of his effectiveness, it is highly favored by the computer industry to
protect the new and expensive instrumentation of Starburst. However, Halon 1301 has a

high ODP value and the steadily growing use of this substance has a noteworthy impact
on the corporates total ODS (ozone depletion substances) emissions.
This makes that the Corporates total ODS emissions decrease until 2010 and start slightly
increasing 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 beneficed emissions
of GWS (global warming substances). The decrease of GWS is mostly due to the decrease in
CFC-11, having the second highest GWP. Again, the use of Halon 1301 is not recommended
because of its very high GWP value.
Replacing methylbromide by CH2BrF is for GWP not favorable, GWP is +/-100 times
bigger. 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 the
following charts will be based on the data in Table 4.2. The Tables used to plot these
charts are to be found in Appendix C.

Table 4.2: ODS emissions plants

Again, first the two products are compared to make a fair judgement. If both have a
distinguishable ODS emissions, the plants should be compared with only taking the same
product into account. In Figure 4.3, the mean pounds of CFC-11/year is expressed for a
Speciality Chemical and for a Natural Product. Also the ODS emissions for every entire
plant is plotted. As mentioned, the latter doesnt give a good perception to compare the
companies, however it is shown to give a general overview.

Figure 4.3: Sc vs. Np and plants total ODS emissions

From this figure can be concluded that, to produce Natural products, more than double
ODS are emitted. So the plants must be compared looking at one product at a time. In
case you would compare using the blue bars of Figure 4.3, wrong conclusions would be
made.
By extracting the correct data, a chart to compare the five plants producing Speciality
Chemicals and to the two plants producing Natural Products can be made. This is to be
seen 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 for
producing speciality Chemicals but worse for Natural product. In this case, Figure 4.3 can

be used to look at the total ODS emissions. Examining this, there can be concluded that
Birmingham scores a bit better than Richmond.
So second place is for Birmingham, followed by Richmond, Portland and once more, Irvine
is the worst.

4.2
4.2.1

Key Emissions plants

Data

The key emissions are Acetonitrile, Acrylonitrile, 1,2-Dichlorobenzene, ethanol and Vinyl
Chloride. The PBT profile[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 seems
logic 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). The
Tables used to plot these charts are to be found in Appendix D.
Again, first a comparison between both products is made. The results is the a bit strange
looking graph in Figure 4.5. The fact that the shape of the graph is odd, stresses that
Speciality Chemicals and Natural Products have different key emissions. Something that
directly catches the eye: for producing Natural Products, there are no air emissions (regarding only Acrylonitrile and Vinyl Chloride, Np does emit ODS).

Figure 4.5: Water emissions of both products

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

Figure 4.6: Water emissions of plants producing Sc

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 not
made because there are no emissions to air.

Figure 4.8: Water emissions of plants producing Np

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 low
is: Camden, Richmond, Birmingham/Portland, Irvine. Birmingham and Portland share
the 3th place because one scores a bit better on water while the other one scores better on
air.
However, one alarming anomaly is COD exposure to water of Irvine. This value is extremely 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 Products

4.3.1

describing the problem

A troubling phenomenon is the yellowing of the products. The steady growth and strong
earnings of Starburst would be better if the yellowing problem were fully eliminated. R&D
has found two additives that would greatly improve this problem. First, there is pentachlorobenzene, 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 control
and supervision to exclude oxygen and carefully control the temperature during a few key
times in the Starburst process. Also, this substance doesnt only make the process more
complex at Starburst, the customer experiences this as well. The preparation of the first
intermediate at the customers site requires oxygen exclusion and careful temperature control, albeit not as critical as the step at the Starburst site.
The extra supervision and control make the monochlorobenzene process slightly more expensive. However, this is not the only criteria. Toxicity is an other important one. Using
the EPA PBT profiler[3], the PBT profile of both substances can be found in Figure 4.9
and 4.10.

Figure 4.9: PBT profile pentachlorobenzene

Figure 4.10: PBT profile monochlorobenzene

However, the measure of toxicity of the PBT profiler is only regarding to Aquatic toxicity.
For that reason, consulting other sources can be useful. Using a MSDSs, the following
relevant additional information about toxicity can be summarized:[4]
*Pentachlorobenzene:
Avoid exposure of (pregant) women
The substance is very toxic to aquatic organisms
Oral, rat: LD50 = 250 mg/kg[5]
*Monochlorobenzene:
Confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans
Oral, rat: LD50 = 1110 mg/kg

4.3.2

Conclusion yellowing

From an economical point of view, pentachlorobenzene is the best. Monochlorobenzene

makes the process too complex.
However, after regarding the toxicity, it is clear that using pentachlorobenzene is mostly
discouraged. First, it scores very bad on the PBT profiler. Second, it may be dangerous to (pregnant) women. Third, the LD50 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 LD50 . For
monochlorobenzene, 20ppm will be used and LD50 equals 1110, so this is the 55.5 fold,
what is already better. Also the PBT profile of monochlorobenzene scores acceptable. So,
despite the higher cost, mono- is preferred over pentachlorobenzene.
If the increase in producing costs succeeds the profit for preventing yellowing, no additives
should be used, or some now R&D is required.

Chapter 5
Renewable Energy
Because of uncertainty of energy prices and supply, the possibility of a renewable energy
program for Starburst is investigated. sequentially, Solar energy, Wind energy and Hydro
power are discussed. To give a geographical overview, the five production sites are marked
on 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, the
average 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 always
held perpendicular (or normal) to the rays that come in a straight line from the direction
of the sun at its current position in the sky.[7]
26

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

From this figure can be concluded that Irvine is very well located for Solar energy. Also
Birmingham 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 industry
standard wind turbine, installed on a 110-m tower. This represents plausible current
technology options.

Figure 5.3: Map of Potential on-shore wind capacity in the USA (sq.m)
From this figure it is clear that on-shore Wind Energy is absolute not suited for any of
the five plants sites. However, all plants (except for Birmingham) are located close to the
coast line. This implies off-shore wind capacity could be used. Figure 5.4[10] shows a wind
map with the estimates of the total offshore wind potential that would be possible from
developing the available offshore areas for a height of 90 meter.

Figure 5.4: PBT profile pentachlorobenzene

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

5.3

Hydropower

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

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, several
sources are consulted. Figure 5.5[12], 5.6[13], 5.7[14] and 5.8[15] show a map of energy production 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/m2 )

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 (gigawatt hours/year)
Using the given legend, all four techniques score relatively seen poorly. For Figure 5.5, the
Wave power Density goes from +/-10 until 35 Kw/m for the locations close to the plant
sites. For Figure 5.6, the Power density is lower than 50 W/m2 , Figure 5.7 has mostly a
mean current speed smaller than 0.5 m/s, and Figure 5.8 Power density is less than +/-13
gigawatt hours/year

5.4

Conclusion

First of all, Hydropower doesnt seem to be a cost effective energy source. The problem
for Wind energy is that it isnt very reliable. There is absolutely no guarantee of energy
production when energy consumption is peeking. Therefore, energy storage is required.
This could be done by batteries or water towers. However, this makes the wind energy
program too expensive.
Solar Energy generates electricity only during day time. Because Starburst produces in
batch during day time, and not on a continuous base, energy consumption decreases a lot
during night times. So the energy generation of the Solar Panels follows more or less the
trend of energy consumption. This means no energy storage is required, which is a great
benefice of the solar energy program. Shortcomings during non-sunny and winter days can
be countered by buying energy when required.
This means the final recommendation would be to investigate the solar energy program at
the sites of Irvine and Birmingham further in detail. In addition, remember energy price is
the highest in California (see Table 3.2). This only increase the benefit of having renewable
energy at Irvine.

Chapter 6
Summarising Recommendation
In what follows, a general summarizing recommendation for the next five years of Starburst
is made. The main focus will be on environmental sustainability. This will be done
using all three requirements for sustainability: Health, Safety & and Environment. The
recommendation is subdivided on four different areas: Corporate level, the five producing
sites, renewable energy program, and other. This chapter ends with a final 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 Chemicals. Starburst should try to focus on increasing the relative volume, which is 30% at
the moment. However, this can become risky for the company because Natural products
are highly dependent of the imported raw materials (> 75%). Therefore there must be
searched for possibilities of decreasing the percentage of imported raw materials.
Also, for all products, raw materials are moderately expensive per pound. Programs for
the internal re-work of off-spec material to re-make first quality product are highly recommended.
Although international sales have a higher profit than the companys average, it is only
10% of total sales. More promotion of Starbust products should be made abroad to keep
the international sales growing.
Energy cost is 5.6% of total sales, and is a rapidly growing cost component. This means
fluctuating energy prices influence a considerably part of profit. Making efforts to lower
energy intensity or using renewable energy sources owned by the company can help making
the profits less fluctuating. Also, smoothing the fluctuating energy consumption during
the cycle of a batch is encouraged.
All data indicate constantly growing sales, at the moment they are estimated at 10-12% a
33

year. Because of this, the company should consider cancelling the reduction on the second
shift 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 and
Key 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 to
score bad. Its other criteria are also inferior.
All producing sites should take Camden as an example. Production processes and methods need to be compared with the ones executed in Camden to get closer to Camdens
performances.
Of highly importance, Irvine should check the origin of its extremely high COD. Both
Irvine and Birmingham are close to nearby offices, up-scale shopping, day-care centers
etc., so safety measures should be kept tight. A BOD<3 and a COD<120 is required, this
is almost surpassed with Irvines COD of 117. Also Birmingham should pay attention with
its BOD of 28.
The question: why does Camden scores that high? may be posed. A plausible reason
could be the fact that all employees working in engineering, business, marketing, etc. are
seated 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 the
excellent performance at Camden.

6.3

Renewable energy program

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

6.4
6.4.1

Other
Yellowing

Using pentachlorobenzene may be financially seen the best, nevertheless it is too toxic from
a 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 should
think about going for patents to lower those risks.

6.5

Final Conclusion

Starburst is performing very well. Both Financially and Sustainability seen, Starburst is
a strong player in the market. However, this doesnt mean the company can fall asleep. It
should try to constantly improve products and production processes. Numerous targets,
many stated in this report, will make Starburst an even more dominant firm.

Bibliography
[1] Wikipedia, (03/12/2015). SOCMA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates
[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (03/12/2015). Class I Ozone-depleting Substances
http://www3.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classone.html
[3] EPA, (03/12/2015). PBTprofiler
http://www.pbtprofiler.net/notice.asp
[4] SIRI, (03/12/2015). msds
http://hazard.com/msds/
[5] msds, (03/12/2015). pentachlorobenzeen
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/TaskForce/popsxg/20002003/pentachloorbenzeen.pdf
[6] GWP, (03/12/2015). CH2BrF
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/tools/Global-Warming-Potential-Values.pdf
[7] 3tier, (03/12/2015). DNI
http://www.3tier.com/en/support/solar-prospecting-tools/what-direct-normalirradiance-solar-prospecting/
[8] maps, (03/12/2015). solar capacity
http://maps.nrel.gov/prospector
[9] U.S. department of energy, (03/12/2015). windsmap
http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/windmaps/resource potential.asp
[10] U.S. department of energy, (03/12/2015). windsmap
http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/windmaps/offshore.asp
[11] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). hydropower
http://energy.gov/eere/water/marine-and-hydrokinetic-resource-assessment-andcharacterization

36

[12] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). watermap

https://maps.nrel.gov/mhk-atlas/
[13] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). watermap
http://www.tidalstreampower.gatech.edu/
[14] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). watermap
http://www.oceancurrentpower.gatech.edu/
[15] energy.gov, (03/12/2015). watermap
http://maps.nrel.gov/river atlas

Appendices

38

Appendix A
Data Project

Table A.1: Data Corporates Total

39

Table A.2: Data plants

Appendix B
Tables for Metric Charts

Table B.1: Table of Figure 3.1

41

Table B.2: Table of Figure 3.2

Table B.3: Table of Figure 3.3

Table B.4: Table of Figure 3.4

Appendix C
Tables for ODP Charts

Table C.1: Table of Figure 4.1

44

Table C.2: Table of Figure 4.2

Figure C.1: Table of part of Figure 4.3

Table C.3: Table of part of Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4

Appendix D
Tables for Key Emission Charts

Figure D.1: Table of Figure 4.5

46

Table D.1: Table of Figure 4.6 and 4.7

Table D.2: Table of Figure 4.8

Appendix E
PBT Key Emissions

Figure E.1: PBT Acetonitrile

Figure E.2: PBT Acrylonitrile

Figure E.3: PBT 1,2-Dichlorobenzene

49

Figure E.4: PBT Ethanol

Figure E.5: PBT VinylChloride