Overall Incinerator

Fuel Optimization

Singapore Methyl Methacrylate

(SMM)

Presentation

● Introduction of Singapore Methyl Methacrylate (SMM)

● SMM MMA Products Application

● Overall Incinerator Fuel Optimization Project

Introduction of SMM

● Singapore Methyl Methacrylate (SMM) is a leading manufacturer ofMethyl Methacrylate Monomer (MMA-m) and Polymer (PMMA).

● 100% Subsidiary of Sumitomo Chemical Asia (SCA), headquarteredin Japan (Sumitomo Chemical Corporation)

● Located in SMAG @ Sakra Island

● Production Capacity : 223KTA MMA-m / 150KTA PMMA

MMA-m Plant(3 Plants)

Monomer Plants

PMMA Plant 3PMMA Plant 2PMMA Plant

(3 Plants)

Polymer Plants

Singapore Methyl Methacrylate (SMM)

Application of MMA-m

PMMA Resin Copolymer Applications(MS - MMA Styrene Copolymer)

Emulsion Paint

Sound BarrierAquarium Block

Application of PMMA

Bathtub Signboard LED Lighting Cover

Sunglasses Motorcycle Tail LampCar Tail Lamp

House-ware Products

Overall Incinerator Fuel Optimization Project

Project Objectives

Optimizing Approaches

Challenges

Overall Results

Incinerator Operation

● SMM Plants Incinerators treat Process Waste Oil (WO) andWastewater (WW) generated from Monomer Process.

● Designed to operate at 1000 degC and powered by Keroseneand partially by Process WO.

Kero + Process WO-A

Process WO-B

WW

Flue Gas

HeatRecovery

Heat Recovery Stack

TemperatureControl

BFW

Steam

Combustion Chamber

Residual O2Analyser

Air

● Heat is recovered from flue gas via heat exchangers to producesteam before emitting to atmosphere.

IncineratorWindbox

● Superheated steam is also produced to drivedownstream turbines

● Residual O2 at flue gas is monitoredcontinuously for complete combustion.

Project Objectives

Since Y2010, SMM MMA-m Plants embarked on the

Overall Incinerator Fuel Optimization Initiative targeting to

a. Improve Energy / Fuel Efficiency of Incinerator

b. Reduce CO2 Emissions

c. Reduce Fuel Cost

Kero + Process WO-A

Process WO-B

WW

Flue Gas

HeatRecovery

Heat Recovery Stack

TemperatureControl

BFW

Steam

Combustion Chamber

Residual O2Analyser

Air

IncineratorWindbox

Optimizing Approaches (Overview)

Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017 Y2018 Y2019

j Reduction of

Incinerator Operating

TemperatureBelow Design

k Reduction of

Main Burner Guns

Min. Firing RateBelow Design

l Substitution of

Purified Water (WP)

Use with Process

Wastewater (WW)

j Temp. Reduction

k Step 1 Min. FiringReduction

k Step 3 Min. FiringReduction

k Step 4 Min FiringReduction

k Step 2 Min. FiringReduction

l Step 1 WP Substitution

l Step 2 WP Substitution

Optimizing Approach j

● OEM had experiences operating at lower than design conditions.

j Reduction of

Incinerator Operating

TemperatureBelow Design

k Reduction of

Main Burner Guns

Min. Firing RateBelow Design

Justification

● Historical flue gas emission results complying well below NEA Limits.

Temp => NOx CO

l Substitution of

Purified Water (WP)

Use with Process

Wastewater (WW)

Optimizing Approach j

Methods

1. Technical Feasibility Study

Conduct heat and mass balance to simulate and evaluate critical process conditions are maintained with Incinerator temp. reduction:

a. Minimum stack temperatures (prevent fouling on fin tubes)

b. Minimum superheated steam temperature (internal requirements)

2. Actual Plant Trial

Stepwise temperature reduction with detail monitoring at each step

a. Compliance with NEA emission limits

b. Validate above critical process conditions within expectation

c. Confirm actual site flame condition is healthy

880

900

920

940

960

980

1000

Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18

Inci

ner

ato

r Te

mp

. (d

egC

)

Incinerator Temperature Reduction

SMM-1 Incinerator Temp (degC)

SMM-3 Incinerator Temp (degC)

Design Set Temp (degC)

Results

Optimizing Approach j

Note. Actual temperature

maintain above 900 degC due

to main burner firing already

@ min. rate.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18

Flue Gas CO (mg/Nm3)

CO

CO Limit

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18

Flue Gas Nox (mg/Nm3)

NOx

NOx Limit

Compliance with NEA limits are maintained with

Operating Temperature reduction

Optimizing Approach k

k Reduction of

Main Burner Guns

Min. Firing RateBelow Design

Justification

j Reduction of

Incinerator Operating

TemperatureBelow Design

Burner already operate at min. fuel turndown of burner guns. (According to Vendor Manual guideline, 1/3 of gun capacity to maintain stable flame)

● OEM and Licensor had experiences operating at lower than design conditions.

● Actual site flame conditions is healthy.

l Substitution of

Purified Water (WP)

Use with Process

Wastewater (WW)

Limitations

Burner Firing Reduction trials conducted stepwise just before Shutdown Maintenance.

Optimizing Approach k

Methods

Kero + Process WO-A

Process WO-B

WW

Flue Gas

HeatRecovery

Heat Recovery Stack

TemperatureControl

BFW

Steam

Combustion Chamber

Residual O2Analyser

Air

IncineratorWindbox

Flame stability ensured with proper adjustment of burner guns atomizing air

Confirmation of flame

distribution / stability

Stepwise reduction of

burner guns

SMM Incinerators main burner gun min. turndown successfully reduced below design

Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18

Ker

o+

Pro

cess

WO

Fir

ing

Plant No.3 Kerosene + Process Waste Oil Firing

SMM-3 Kero+Process WO Firing (kg/h)

Min Turndown Adjustment (kg/h)

Optimizing Approach k

Results

Design min. turndown

25%

Reduction

below design

min. turndown

achieved

Optimizing Approach l

j Reduction of

Incinerator Operating

TemperatureBelow Design

k Reduction of

Main Burner Guns

Min. Firing RateBelow Design

l Substitution of

Purified Water (WP)

Use with Process

Wastewater (WW)

Strategy

Justification

● Routine Process WW Analysis showed that the process WW quality is suitable for recycling with tolerable impacts to the process.

Worked in conjunction to overcome Approach k (Min. Fuel Firing) limitation by concurrently reducing WW load to achieve actual fuel savings

Wastewater reduced by ~10 KT / year due to process wastewater recycling initiatives

145,000

150,000

155,000

160,000

165,000

Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017

Was

tew

ater

Gen

erat

ion

(to

n)

Total Wastewater Generation Trend

Wastewater Generation (ton)

Optimizing Approach l

Results

Challenges

Challenges to achieving project objectives include:

b. Operational Stability

● Challenging of design conditions potentially increase risk to plant stability eg. Production Loss.

● Overcome traditional risk-adverse mindsets through risk management & close monitoring

This new levels of energy efficiency is attained together with the full support and endorsement from management

a. Operating Below Design Conditions

● Clear understanding of actual process vs design conditions

● Technical and operational knowledge as well as consultation with vendor for “best experience”

Overall Results

a. Improvement in Energy (Fuel) Efficiency

0.041

0.0450.048

0.045

0.038

0.039

0.038

0.038

0.035

0.037

0.039

0.041

0.043

0.045

0.047

0.049

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017

Fue

l Un

it C

on

sum

pti

on

(t

on

-fu

el/t

on

-WW

)

Fue

l Co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

ton

)

Yearly Fuel Consumption Trend

Fuel Consumption (ton)

Fuel Efficiency (ton-fuel/ton-WW)

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017

Ene

rgy

fro

m F

ue

l (T

J)

Yearly Energy Trend (from fuel)

Energy from Fuel (TJ)

NOTE: Actual Fuel Consumption could

be subject to process loads and WWquality variation.

Improvement in Fuel Efficiency = 7%

Annual Energy Saving = 123 TJ

Overall Results

b. Reduction in CO2 Emission

20,972

22,277

23,788

21,683

18,326 18,54317,787 18,192

10000

15000

20000

25000

Y2010 Y2011 Y2012 Y2013 Y2014 Y2015 Y2016 Y2017

CO

2 Im

pac

t (t

on

)

Total CO2 Impact (ton)

CO2 Impact (ton)

CO2 Emission Reduction = 13%

Overall Results

c. Full Compliance with NEA Emissions Regulations

• SMM continues to comply to NEA Emissions Regulations in all changes made to operating conditions of Incinerators

• Emission parameters were also ensured to comply with future regulated limits (O2 Denominated)

Conclusion

Success Factors:

● Rigorous technical & practical considerations

● Strong inter-departmental synergy

● Strong management commitment

Always seek to overcome design constraints. Don’t Give Up!

Consider combined optimizing approaches

Challenge systematically with proper risk management

Summary of Achievements:

SMM managed to breakthrough Incinerator design limitations without

compromising operational stability with following results:

- Fuel Consumption Reduction : 880 ton/year

- Fuel Efficiency Improvement : 7%

- CO2 Emission Reduction : 13%

Key takeaways from Project:

Thank You for your attention!