簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 朱進宏
Ju, Jin-hong
論文名稱： 煉油廠排放有機性有害空氣污染物對民眾健康風險評估影響因素研究
Study on Relevant Parameters in Health Risk Assessment of Organic Air Toxics Emissions from Refinery
指導教授： 蔡俊鴻
Tsai, Jiung-hong
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 工學院 - 環境工程學系
Department of Environmental Engineering
論文出版年： 2009
畢業學年度： 97
語文別： 中文
論文頁數： 265
中文關鍵詞： 煉油製程 、致癌風險機率分佈 、排放量推估 、有機性有害空氣污染物 、不確定性
外文關鍵詞： Refinery Process, Cancer Risk Stochastic Distribution, Uncertainty Parameter, Emission Estimates Approach, Organic Air Toxics
相關次數： 點閱：118  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本研究主要探討煉油製程排放有機性有害空氣污染物所致鄰近地區居民健康風險評估程序之不確定性因素，依循美國加州空氣資源局及環境健康危害評估處所建置方法，援用熱點分析及報告軟體(HARP)做為評估工具，以國內煉油製程六種污染源(排放管道、設備元件、儲槽、廢氣燃燒塔、裝載場及廢水廠)為案例，探討應用國外評估程序於國內進行健康風險評估之影響因素，整體研究架構係以較保守極端條件為基準。
    研究煉油製程六種污染源排放VOC量推估結果差異性顯示，排放管道排放量造成差異最小(佔總排放量1%)，設備元件排放量推估差異最大(佔總排放量33%)。
    參考WebFIRE、SPECIATE 4.0及加州AB2588有害空氣污染物年度報告所列HAP排放係數，試算HAP排放量，挑選差異較大案例進行比較，結果顯示排放特徵成份分類(Speciate)選用差異造成污染源及污染物管制優先性改變，毒性及危害性亦明顯變化；案例分析結果顯示，致癌效應設施優先性指數差異可達202倍。
    四種有害空氣污染物(苯、乙苯、甲苯及二甲苯) 年平均及小時濃度與監測站數據比對分析結果顯示，模擬值皆較監測值為低，年平均模擬值與監測值差異約11~17倍。
    執行研究案例健康風險評估結果顯示，總致癌風險最高值為10600×10-6，發生於石化工業區，鄰近地區總致癌風險大多落於10-5~10-6，達到SCAQMD需告知民眾(Notification Level)位準(10×10-6)，亦達到需進行風險削減(Risk Reduction Audit & Plan)位準 (25×10-6) ；慢性健康總危害指數最高值為5.2，發生於石化工業區場區，鄰近地區慢性健康總危害指數大多落於0.01~0.001，未達到需告知民眾位準，亦未達到需進行風險削減位準。
    整體而言，排放量推估造成健康風險評估結果差異十分明顯，潛在原因包括:VOC排放係數選用、AP-42經驗公式參數選用、HAP排放特徵選用、控制效率合理性等均造成健康風險差異。排放管道VOC排放量推估造成致癌風險機率分布中位數差異最小(0.1×10-6)，儲槽排放推估造成差異低小；不同VOC排放推估方法造成致癌風險分佈中位數最高相差3×10-6。排放特徵選用所造成差異最大，選取案例造成整體致癌風險機率分布中位數最高差異78倍。

    This study investigates the uncertainty and the relevant parameters of health risk assessment procedure for organic air toxics released from refinery. The assessment methodology has been developed by California Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment which was part of Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP). Six emission source categories, including stack, equipment component, storage tank, flare, loading/unloading, and wastewater treatment plant, in petroleum refinery were discussed in the case study.
    The results indicate that the greatest variance of VOC emission estimation among different approaches was found in the category of equipment leakage (33%). The variance of stack emission was small.
    Applying WebFIRE, SPECIATE 4.0 and the California AB2588 air toxics annual report to calculate HAP emission in two scenarios. The result indicated that the priority of facility with high cancer risk was changed due to the selection of process SCC and target pollutant in SPECIATE 4.0 database.
    In this study, the ambient concentrations of four organic air toxics (benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene) in monitoring station were used to compare to the simulation output from air dispersion modeling. The result shows that the field monitoring data were higher than the model simulation output with 11-17 folds. The maximum value of total cancer risk for target air toxics is 10,600×10-6 for case study. The value achieves the notification level according to SCAQMD regulation (10×10-6) which also means the reduction of risk base on the regulation (25×10-6) of the Risk Reduction Audit & Plan. The maximum chronic hazard index (HI) for non-carcinogenic toxics is 5.2 for this case study. The HI values are 0.01~0.001 which means there is not critical risk in this case.
    In brief, selection of VOC emission factor, AP-42 empirical formula parameter, HAP emission profiles, and reasonable control efficiency strongly influence the result of health risk assessment. The HAP emission profile selection causes the greatest difference on risk assessment among those factors (up to 78 times). Otherwise, the air dispersion model may also effect on health risk assessment attribute to the model algorithm, the parameter assumed, the meteorological data to select, the emissions elevation, the photochemical reaction, the breathing rate, the contaminants deposit.

    中文摘要 ............................................................................................................. Ι 英文摘要 ............................................................................................................. III 誌謝 ....................................................................................................................... V 總目錄 ................................................................................................................. VI 表目錄 ................................................................................................................. IX 圖目錄 .............................................................................................................. XIV 第一章 前言 ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 研究緣起 ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 研究目標 ...................................................................................................... 1-3 第二章 文獻回顧 .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 有害空氣污染物健康風險評估程序 .......................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 AB1807(有害空氣污染物辨識及控制計畫) ..................................... 2-2 2.1.2 AB2588(有害空氣污染物熱點資訊與評估法) ................................. 2-3 2.1.3有害污染物許可計畫(Toxic Permitting Program) ............................. 2-5 2.1.4熱點分析及報告軟體(HARP) ............................................................ 2-6 2.1.5加州環境健康危害評估處健康風險評估準則 ................................. 2-7 2.1.6加州南岸(SCAQMD)有害空氣污染物健康風險評估程序 ........... 2-14 2.2 石化業有害空氣健康風險評估案例分析 ................................................ 2-15 2.2.1煉油程序 ........................................................................................... 2-15 2.2.2國內健康風險評估案例 ................................................................... 2-17 2.2.3加州健康風險評估案例 ................................................................... 2-18 2.3 有害空氣污染物健康風險評估影響參數 ................................................ 2-20 2.4 健康風險評估不確定性 ............................................................................ 2-26 第三章 研究方法 .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 研究架構 ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 排放量推估方法 .......................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.1 排放管道排放量推估方法 ................................................................ 3-7 3.2.2 設備元件排放量推估方法 ................................................................ 3-8 3.2.3 儲槽排放量推估方法 ...................................................................... 3-10 3.2.4 裝載場排放量推估方法 .................................................................. 3-14 3.2.5 廢氣燃燒塔排放量推估方法 .......................................................... 3-16 3.2.6 廢水廠排放量推估方法 .................................................................. 3-17 3.3 模擬設備及污染物優先性 ........................................................................ 3-17 3.4 應用HARP模擬方法 ............................................................................... 3-20 3.4.1 HARP/ISCST3空氣擴散模擬方法 ................................................. 3-20 3.4.2 HARP/RISK健康風險模擬方法 ..................................................... 3-21 3.5 健康風險機率分析方法 ............................................................................ 3-24 第四章 結果與討論 .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 污染源VOC排放量及差異分析 ................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 排放管道 ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2 設備元件 ............................................................................................ 4-4 4.1.3 儲槽 .................................................................................................. 4-12 4.1.4 廢氣燃燒塔 ...................................................................................... 4-15 4.1.5 裝載場 .............................................................................................. 4-19 4.1.6 廢水廠 .............................................................................................. 4-22 4.1.7 綜合討論 .......................................................................................... 4-23 4.2 污染源HAP排放量及差異分析 .............................................................. 4-30 4.2.1 排放管道 .......................................................................................... 4-30 4.2.2 設備元件 .......................................................................................... 4-31 4.2.3 儲槽 .................................................................................................. 4-32 4.2.4 廢氣燃燒塔 ...................................................................................... 4-33 4.2.5 裝載場 .............................................................................................. 4-34 4.2.6 廢水廠 .............................................................................................. 4-34 4.2.7 綜合討論 .......................................................................................... 4-35 4.3煉油廠優先性有害空氣污染物濃度分佈模擬 ......................................... 4-62 4.3.1 場址氣象 .......................................................................................... 4-62 4.3.2 地形特徵 .......................................................................................... 4-68 4.3.3 模式輸入參數設定 .......................................................................... 4-70 4.3.4 HAPs物種濃度分佈 ...................................................................... 4-78 4.3.5 空氣擴散模擬結果比對分析 .......................................................... 4-89 4.4 煉油廠排放有害空氣污染物潛在健康風險評估 .................................... 4-97 4.4.1 有害空氣污染物潛在致癌風險 ...................................................... 4-97 4.4.2 有害空氣污染物潛在非致癌健康危害 ........................................ 4-108 4.4.3 廠外距離對民眾健康風險影響 .................................................... 4-123 4.5 健康風險評估不確定性分析 .................................................................. 4-126 4.5.1 案例研究不確定性因素分析 ........................................................ 4-126 4.5.2 排放推估對民眾致癌風險機率影響分析 .................................... 4-131 第五章 結論與建議 .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 結論 .............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 建議 .............................................................................................................. 5-4 參考文獻 附件A 英文縮寫對照表 附件B 擴散模擬污染物濃度前20大值 附件C 健康危害限值表 附件D 設備元件及儲槽VOC排放量推估比較

    A. Yegnan, D.G. Williamson , and A.J. Graettinger ,“Uncertainty analysis in air dispersion modeling",Environmental Modelling & Software 17,639–649,2002
    CARB (2003), HotSpots Analysis and Reporting Program User Guide
    C.Y. Yang, H.F. Chiu,and S.S. Tsai,and C.C. Chang,and H.Y. Chuang , “Increased Risk of Preterm Delivery in Areas with Cancer Mortality Problems from Petrochemical Complexes ",Environmental Research Section A 89, 195-200 ,2002
    CAPCOA (1990), Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Facility Prioritization Guidelines
    CARB (1989), Technical guidance document for the emission inventory criteria and guidance regulation for AB2588
    DTSC (2006), Final Health Risk Assessment for Industrial Service Oil Company, INC
    D. Heinold, R. Paine, E. Kintigh, S. Hanna, D. Baker, and R. Karp, “Assessment of Uncertainty in Urban Air Toxics Simulations: Monte Carlo Study of the Houston Ship", A&WMA 98th Annual Conference and Exhibition: June 21-24, 2005
    EPA Website (December 2005) ‧WebFIRE‧2009年2月取自http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.mai
    EPA Website (February 2009)‧Emissions Factors & AP 42 ‧2009年2月取自http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html
    EPA Website (May 2008)‧About Air Toxics ‧2008年11月取自http://www.epa.gov/air/toxicair/newtoxics.htm
    EPA (1995) , AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources
    E Cetin , M Odabasi, R Seyfioglu, “Ambient volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations around a petrochemical complex and a petroleum refinery, “The Science of the Total Environment 312, 103–112, 2003
    F. Kalberlah, K. Schneider, and U. Schuhmacher-Wolz, “Uncertainty in toxicological risk assessment for non-carcinogenic health effects, “Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 37 , 92–104,2003
    Gregory C. Pratt, Chun Yi Wu,Don Bock,John L. Adgate, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Thomas H. Stock,Maria Morandi,and Ken Sexton, “Comparing Air Dispersion Model Predictions with Measured Concentrations of VOCs in Urban Communities, “Environ. Sci. Technol 38, 1949-1959, 2004
    H. C. Frey , “Quantification of Uncertainty in Emission Factors and Inventories", 16th Annual International Emission Inventory Conference Emission Inventories: "Integration, Analysis, and Communications," Raleigh, North Carolina, May 14 - 17, 2007
    Hanna, S.R., D. Heinold, R. Paine, H.C. Frey, D. Baker, R. Karp, and H. Feldman, “A Monte Carlo Study of the Uncertainties in Predictions by ISCST3 and AERMOD of Annual Average Benzene and 1,3-Butadiene Concentrations around the Houston Ship Channel,” A&WMA 97th Annual Conference and Exhibition: June 22-25, 2004
    IPCC (2000) , Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change (IPCC), Kamiyamaguch, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan. (available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/gpgaum.htm). (accessed on 9/16/2003)
    I. Alameddine, M. E1-Fadel, “Stack emissions from desalination plants : a parametric sensitivity analysis for exposure assessment",Desalination 177, 15-29,2005
    K. Rypdal, “Uncertainties in the Norwegian emission inventories of acidifying pollutants and volatile organic compounds",Environmental Science & Policy 5 , 233–246,2002
    K. M. Thompson, D. E. Burmaster,and E. A.C. Crouch, “ Monte Carlo Techniques for Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis in Public Health Risk Assessments, “Risk Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1992
    Los Angeles World Airports (2006) , Environmental Impact Report Appendix F-Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment Technical Report
    MARAMA (2003) ,Evaluating Petroleum Industry VOC Emissions in Delaware,New Jersey and Southeastern Pennsylvania
    MPRO(2006),Interim White Paper-Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measures- Source Category: Petroleum Refineries
    OEHHA(2003), The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments
    Padma Rao, S. Ankam, M. Ansari, A. G. GAVANE, A. Kumar, V. I. Pandit and P. Nema, “Monitoring of Hydrocarbon Emissions in a Petroleum Refinery , “Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,108, 123–132, 2005
    RAAC (1996) ,A Review of the California Environmental Protection
    Agency’s Risk Assessment Practices, Policies, and Guidelines
    SCAQMD (2005) ,Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212
    S. Belli, M. Benedetti,and P. Comba, and D. Lagravinese,and V. Martucci, and M. Martuzzi, and D. Morleo, and S. Trinca1 & G. Viviano, “Case–control study on cancer risk associated to residence in the neighbourhood of a petrochemical plant", European Journal of Epidemiology 19, 49–54, 2004
    S. R. Hanna, R. PAINE, D. Heinold, E. Kintigh,and D. Baker, “Uncertainties in Air Toxics Calculated by the Dispersion Models AERMOD and ISCST3 in the Houston Ship Channel Area, “Joural of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Volume 46,1372-1382,2006
    SCAQMD (2008) ,CHEVRON Products Company El SEGUNDO Refinery Product Reliability And Optimization Project Final Environmental Impact Report
    SCAQMD (2005) , Rule 1118. Control of Emissions From Refinery FLARES
    T. Sax, V. Isakov ,“ A case study for assessing uncertainty in local-scale regulatory air quality modeling applications", Atmospheric Environment 37 , 3481–3489,2003
    T-Y Lin, U Sree, S-H Tseng, K H Chiu, C-H Wu,J-G Lo, “Volatile organic compound concentrations in ambient air of Kaohsiung petroleum refinery in Taiwan, “Atmospheric Environment 38, 4111–4122, 2004
    Yang, C. Y., Cheng, M. F.,and Chiu, J. F., and Tsai, S. S. , “Female lung cancer risk and petrochemical air pollution in Taiwan. ", Arch. Environ. Health 54, 180-185, 1999
    Zhao, Y., H.C. Frey, “Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty for Censored Data Sets and Application to Air Toxic Emission Factors,” Risk Analysis, 24(3), 1019-1034 , 2004
    行政院環保署, “空氣品質模式模擬規範,” 民國92年
    行政院環保署, “土壤及地下水污染場址建立健康風險評估評析方法與撰寫指引,” 民國95年
    行政院環保署(2008) ‧排放清冊介紹‧2009年2月取自http://www.ctci.com.tw/air-ei/new_main1.htm
    行政院環保署(2008)‧地方環境資料庫‧2009年5月取自http://edb.epa.gov.tw/localenvdb/index.as
    行政院環保署, “ 健康風險評估技術規範(服務建議書) ,” 民國98年
    行政院環保署, “ 固定污染源有害性揮發性有機物排放調查及健康風險評估期中報告(簡報) ,” 民國98年
    田浚致, “ 利用空氣擴散模式模擬石化工業區致癌性污染物之濃度及推估居民之致癌風險,” 國立成功大學，民國93年
    台灣曼寧工程顧問股份有限公司, “ 雲林縣九十六年度離島工業區空氣污染監測、檢測許可查核與總量管制計畫,” 雲林縣環保局，民國97年
    台灣中油股份有限公司, “ 三輕更新計畫環境影響說明書,” 民國97年
    吳義林, “ 廢氣燃燒塔與鍋爐之揮發性有機物排放係數建置,” 國科會，民國96年
    邱奕誠, “ 有害空氣污染物濃度分佈解析方法在風險評估程序中之不確定性研究,” 國立雲林科技大學，民國86年
    洪世明, “ 焚化廠戴奧辛之健康風險評估集其大氣物理及化學反應模擬,”國立雲林科技大學，民國92年
    南亞環安中心, “ 六輕四期擴建計畫環境影響說明書定稿,” 民國93年
    南亞塑膠工業股份有限公司環安中心, “ 六輕空氣污染物排放總量查核報告,” 民國96年
    徐武軍, “ 石油化學工業-原料製程及市場,” 五南圖書出版股份有限公司，民國94年
    雲林縣環保局, “ 離島工業區有害空氣污染物濃度背景調查與管制對策研究,” 民國86年
    許長春、李文園, “ 石油煉製原理與實務(上、中、下) ,” 中國石油股份公司，民國92年
    詹長權, “ 健康風險評估指引,” 行政院衛生署國民健康局，民國92年
    經濟部工業局, “ 石化工業污染對社區居民健康影響之研究,” 民國92年
    蔡俊鴻, “ 規劃固定源有機性有害空氣污染物之排放量調查作業及管制策略,” 行政院環保署，民國92年
    廖琦峰, “ 工業區有害空氣污染物排放與影響評估方法之研究,” 國立成功大學，民國94年
    劉明全, “ 焚化廠排放空氣污染物之健康風險評估－以鹿草焚化廠為例,”國立雲林科技大學，民國91年
    環科工程顧問股份有限公司, “ 固定污染源有害性揮發性有機物排放調查及健康風險評估計畫進度報告,” 行政院環保署，民國98年
    總統府, “中華民國環境基本法,” 民國91年

    無法下載圖示 校內：2108-07-31公開
    校外：2108-07-31公開
    電子論文尚未授權公開，紙本請查館藏目錄
    QR CODE