Visit Report

Organization/Location: Sunoco Chemicals

Haverhill, OH

Date of Contact: 3 February 2006

Persons Contacted: Jim Delabar, Mgr Tech Svcs, Phenol

Rick Spaulding, Superintendent Phenol Production
Jordan Morgan, Plant Manager
Paul O’Neill, Utilities Facility Engineer
Wayne ?, (unidentified in phenol production)
Mike ?,
Andy ?

Praxair Personnel: D. Gimbel

K. Jones
D. Plaskon
W. Renz

Subject: Air Enrichment for Phenol

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Summary:
 Sunoco is interested in AE as a potential approach for increasing capacity and reducing
VOC emissions in one of their two operating phenol units at Haverhill. They will be
considering this in the coming weeks as one of multiple potential solutions.
Report:
 This was an introductory discussion on AE/Phenol that was presented along with PX’s
proposal for nitrogen supply to the site, and a review of the PX cryo condensation
technology for VOC recovery. The phenol discussion had been arranged with Jim
Delabar who is leading a recently-formed “phenol rate improvement team” at Haverhill.
In a preceding telephone conversation, he had indicated that one phenol plant (Unit III) is
currently constrained by air oxidation capacity, as well as being air-permit limited due to
VOC emissions from the plant’s tail gas.
 The audience was somewhat guarded during the full meeting and much of the useful
information was obtained through the informal discussions afterward. Sunoco appeared
to largely accept the technical and economic arguments that AE could be a viable
strategy for providing incremental capacity (PX economics were based on $120/ton
oxygen pricing). Jim noted that AE/phenol had previously been conducted at Haverhill
until 1976 when an increase in blower capacity removed this need. Jordan asked if PX
could identify phenol producers currently using AE (we said we could not) although we
acknowledged that PX currently supplied O2 for this application.
 AE’s advantage in terms of reducing gas volume through the plant seemed at least as
important to Sunoco (as a means of limiting VOC emissions) as increasing the oxidation
capacity. Jim commented during the meeting that Haverhill was not air limited on a site
basis and suggested they had the option of making a capital investment in environmental
control equipment in order to bump up capacity. (His later comments hinted that Sunoco
may be considering using the spare oxidizer capacity in the other phenol units to feed the
back-end of Unit III.) The forward plan is for the Haverhill team to develop a set of
options and costs over the next several weeks that can be reviewed with Sunoco’s
management. Jim suggested later that AE is likely to be among these.
 The Haverhill site has three KBR phenol plants with a combined nameplate capacity of
over 1 billion lbs/year. A large portion (70-80%) is consumed on-site for bisphenol-A

Praxair Confidential
 Visit Report

which is sold to polycarbonate producers, and the balance is sold in the merchant
market. Later on, Jim explained that the three phenol units had been constructed over a
timespan of more than three decades, and they differ significantly in their operating cost
structure (particularly energy intensity) and the quality of phenol produced. The oldest
plant (Unit I) was principally designed to make PF (phenol/formaldehyde resin) grade
product, and is currently idle. The newest, Unit III, was built in the 1990s and is highly
automated. Unit III is by far the lowest cost, and Sunoco is currently operating the plant
flat-out. The older Unit II is currently operating at ~50% capacity which Jim and Wayne
said was a bit of a feat because it normally used 3 air compressors at full output.
 Privately, Jim dismissed the notion that Unit I would ever be restarted, not only because
of its high cost, but because of the low quality phenol it produces. He said in the current
market, “polycarbonate quality” phenol has become the norm, even for non-Bisphenol A
applications. He was extremely doubtful Sunoco could ever market the more
colored/impure material at a price that would be anywhere near attractive to them.
 Jim said the rated capacity of Unit III was 300MM lbs/year (implying a potential O2
requirement of about 10-25 tpd depending on the AE level). Wayne indicated that
implementing AE on Unit III could be very straightforward given the layout of the air feed
lines (stainless steel) and the automated process controls that could be fed back to the
PX skid to control oxygen flow. In contrast, he said it would be a challenge to deploy AE
on Unit II because of the complicated air piping layout and the less sophisticated control
system. Unit III uses interlocks for oxidizer temperature and overhead oxygen
concentration that are fed back to the air flow control. CHP concentration is used as the
reaction end point and monitored, but is not used as a control or interlock air flow.
 Jim noted that the Frankford, PA plant runs the Sunoco/UOP process, and he was candid
that the two Sunoco sites do not share the same perspective about which is superior. He
felt the key advantage of the KBR process was that the higher overhead pressures that
reduce the required size of the vessels and also simplifiy waste gas treatment by
concentrating the tail gas VOCs. In contrast, the Sunoco/UOP process runs at lower
temperature and pressure which, according to Jim, reduces capital on the front end of the
process, but this is offset my the “massive” carbon adsorption units required to treat the
larger volume of tail gas. (During the meeting, Mike had suggested that adsorption
treatment of some of the tail gas streams at Haverhill containing acetone and other VOCs
could be hazardous because of the very large heat of adsorption produced.)
 Haverhill’s dealings with KBR have been limited and awkward since Sunoco acquired the
site. Jim mentioned they are in the process of severing their relationship with KBR in
order to avoid any appearance of allowing confidential KBR info to pass within Sunoco.
 We offered PX’s assistance, if needed, in evaluating the AE option at Haverhill, including
site survey and HAZOP participation. Jim reinterated his general interest in AE and
promised to call back in a few weeks with an update on their review.

Action Items:

 Check with Jim Delabar re. AE/Phenol (WLR)

Praxair Confidential