ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-WL-00-3007 Vent Dispersion and Radiation Study Suban 27 - Rev.2

Document Title : Vent Dispersion and Radiation Study
Suban 27 Flowline and Wellsite Surface Facilities
Doc No. : ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-WL-00-3007
Originator : PT Singgar Mulia

Information Owner : 514034 | Engineering-Onshore Sumatra
Area : SB | Suban
Location : WL | Suban Well
System : 00 | General
Document Type : DRT | Design Report / Study
Discipline / Sub-discipline : P | Process / P1 | Safety Engineering
Old Document No. : -
30 Jun Re-Issued Charlie Budi Rifnanto Zenal Cahya Danang

2 IFU
2023 for Use Manalu Setiawan Suharso Abidin Gumilar Adiwibowo
Project Project Information

Prepared Checked Approved
Reason Engineer Manager owner
Rev Status Issue Date
for Issue
Contractor Approvals MEDCO Approvals
Printed initials in the approval boxes confirm that the document has been signed.
The originals are held within Information Management.
DRT | Design Report / Study ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-WL-00-3007 Rev. 2
Vent Dispersion and Radiation Study Report
Medco E&P Grissik Ltd. Page 2 of 30
Revision Sheet
REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE

0A 20 Feb 2023 Issued for Comment
Issued for Approval:
 Update Objective (Section 1.2)
 Add reference document (Section 2.3)
 Update environmental condition (Section 3.1)
0B 13 Mar 2023
 Update venting scenario (Section 3.3)
 Revise study criteria and receptor location (Section 4)
 Update study result (Section 5)
 Update conclusion and recommendation (Section 6)
Issued for Use:
 Revise Objective and scope of document (Section 1.2 & 1.3)
 Update reference document (Section 2.3)
 Update environmental condition (Section 3.1)
1 05 Jun 2023
 Update venting scenario (Section 3.3)
 Revise study criteria and receptor location (Section 4)
Re-Issued for Use:
 Update project description (Section 1.1)
 Update reference list (Section 2.3.2)
2 30 Jun 2023  Update venting scenario and reliving condition (Section 3.3 & 3.4)
 Update receptor point location (Table 4.2)
Additional Approvers
Name Designation Signature Date
Khotib Sarbini Sr. Process Safety Engineer
Peddy C. Nesa Lead Process Safety

Contents
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Project Description.................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Objective.................................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Scope...................................................................................................................................... 5
2 Definitions, Abbreviations & Reference Document............................................................6
2.1 Definitions................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Abbreviations........................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Document for Reference.......................................................................................................... 7
2.3.1 International Code and Standard............................................................................................. 7
2.3.2 Project Reference Document................................................................................................... 7
3 Design Basis Data................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Environmental Condition.......................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Vent Location........................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Venting Scenario..................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Relieving Condition for Vent Stack.......................................................................................... 9
3.5 Vent Stack Data..................................................................................................................... 10
4 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 11
4.1 General.................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2 Flammable Gas Dispersion Criteria.......................................................................................11
4.3 H2S Gas Dispersion Criteria.................................................................................................. 11
4.4 Heat / Thermal Radiation Criteria.......................................................................................... 11
4.5 Temperature Criteria.............................................................................................................. 12
4.6 Noise Exposure Criteria......................................................................................................... 12
4.7 Receptor Point Location........................................................................................................ 13
5 Result and Discussion........................................................................................................ 15
5.1 Vent Radiation Results of Suban 27......................................................................................15
5.2 Flammable Gas Dispersion Results......................................................................................19
5.3 H2S Gas Dispersion Results.................................................................................................. 22
5.4 Impact Analysis from Suban Flares.......................................................................................24
5.4.1 Simultaneous Normal Flaring from Purged Gas....................................................................24
5.4.2 Simultaneous Flaring during EDP Suban Gas Plant..............................................................25
6 Conclusion and Recommendation.....................................................................................26
6.1 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 26
6.2 Recommendation.................................................................................................................. 27
Appendices
Appendix A – Contour from Flaresim.................................................................................................... 28
Appendix B – Flaresim Report................................................................................................................ 29
Appendix C – Phast Report.................................................................................................................... 30
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The Suban Field is situated in the eastern portion of the Corridor Block PSC, South Sumatra,
approximately 165 kilometers northwest of the city of Palembang. The field covers an area of
approximately 91 kilometer square with a gross thickness of circa 1,000 meters.
The Suban Field is the largest gas producing field in the Corridor PSC. Suban produced gas
contains about 5.4 mol-% CO2 and 40 ppm H2S. Production from the wells is delivered to the
Suban Gas Plant. Currently, Suban Plant has 16 production wells, 1 observation well, and 1 water
disposal well.
Figure 1-1. Suban Field Location

Medco E&P Grissik Ltd. as operator has plan to drill 2 (two) new infill wells (Suban-22 & 27) and
convert existing observation well (Suban-9) into production well as part of Corridor Development
Program Phase-1. The objective of this program is to maximize gas recovery and to maintain
production from Suban Field.
The new Suban-27 infill well is planned to be drilled near existing well Suban-4 or Suban-16. A
short above ground 12" flowline (approx. 500m length) will be installed and tied-in to the existing
16" Suban-4 flowline. In order to minimize the well back pressure and to increase the recovery
gas gained from this well cluster (Cluster C), additional 16”-5.1 km flowline length direct tie-in to
Suban Gas Plant inlet header will also be installed. This new 16” flowline will be installed parallel
with the existing 16” Suban-4 flowline. A jumper line will be provided between the new 16” Suban-
27 flowline and the existing 16” Suban-4 flowline. Manual isolation valves are provided and
arranged such that operation has flexibility to operate these 2x16” parallel flowlines individually or
together.
The main scope of works of this project are to install wellsite surface facilities for the new Suban-
27 well including the installation of Suban-27 flowline from this wellsite tie-in to the existing Suban
Gas Plant Inlet Header and installation of Jumper Line to the existing Suban-4 flowline. The
wellsite surface facilities will consist of:
 Well Flowline
 Manual valves
 Choke Valve
 Chemical injection package (CIP)
 Well Head Control Panel (WHCP) & Nitrogen Bottle
 SCADA System
 Solar Power System for SCADA system & Lighting
 Vent system
 ESD System (including PSHH, PSLL, fusible plug and manual ESD push button)
 Electrical & instrument system
 Piping system
 Civil & Structural
1.2 Objective
The objectives this study are as follow:
 To evaluate the proposed vent stack height including the proposed location by assessing the
thermal radiation and gas dispersion from all possible relief scenarios, which may impact to
personnel and equipment at wellsite facilities.
 To analyze the dispersion of flammable and toxic gas dispersion from vent stack.
 To review the thermal radiation at potential receptor points within Suban-27 wellsite facilities
during accidental ignition of vent gas relief.
 To review maximum noise level and temperature profile during vent gas relief.
 To determine hazardous area classification radius from vent stack.
 To analyze heat radiation impact from existing flares at Suban Gas Plant related to Suban-27
new flowline installation work tie-in to Suban Gas Plant Inlet Header. This includes the
continuous normal flaring and emergency relief scenarios from all flares.
1.3 Scope
This study will conduct the dispersion and thermal radiation analysis for Suban-27 vent stack (8”-
VA-AA2-3M-20394). Venting scenarios for Suban-27 vent stack are taken from Vent Load
Calculation Report Suban-27 Flowline and Wellsite Surface Facilities [Ref. 6].
Additional review will include Suban Gas Plant flaring and its potential hazard to Suban-27 new
flowline installation work i.e., continuous relief of purged gas by all flares (Flare #1, Flare #2, &
Flare #3) and emergency relief from all flares (simultaneous) [Ref. 13].
2 Definitions, Abbreviations & Reference Document

2.1 Definitions
 COMPANY is MEDCO E&P GRISSIK LTD. shall mean firm or corporation as the owner of
the Project
 CONTRACTOR is PT SINGGAR MULIA shall mean firm or corporation as the executor of
the DED of Suban Wells Development Phase-1 Project
 PROJECT is DED of Suban Wells Development Phase-1 consist of Suban-22, Suban-27,
Suban-9 Flowline and Wellsite Facilities.
 EPC CONTRACTOR shall mean firm or corporation as the executor of the EPC project
execution stage
 VENDOR/SUBCONTRACTOR is the party, which manufacturers or supplies the equipment
and services to perform the duties specified by the EPC Contractor
2.2 Abbreviations
API STD American Petroleum Institute Standard
CGP Central Gas Plant
CIP Chemical Injection Package
CMPT Centre for Marine and Petroleum Technology
DED Detail Engineering Design
DNV Det Norske Veritas
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
ESD Emergency Shutdown
GA General Arrangement
IG Instrument Gas
KO Knock Out
LFL Lower Flammability Limit
PSC Production Sharing Contract
PSHH Pressure Switch High-High
PSLL Pressure Switch Low-Low
PSV Pressure Safety Valve
RP Receptor Point
SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition
STEL Short Term Exposure Limit
TWA Time Weighted Average
WHCP Well Head Control Panel
2.3 Document for Reference

2.3.1 International Code and Standard
No. Document Number Document Title
1. API STD 521 Pressure-relieving and Depressuring
Systems (Seventh Edition, June 2020)
2. CMPT, 1999 A Guide to Quantitative Risk Assessment
for Offshore Installation
3. Permenaker RI No. 5 Tahun 2018 Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja
Lingkungan Kerja
4. NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), Recommended
Exposure Limit (REL)
2.3.2 Project Reference Document

No. Document Number Document Title
5. ID-N-SB-PP0-BOD-GN-00-3004 Basis of Design Suban-27 Flowline and
Wellsite Surface Facilities Project
6. ID-N-SB-PP0-CAL-WL-00-3007 Vent Load Calculation Report Suban-27
Flowline and Wellsite Surface Facilities
Project
7. ID-N-SB-PP1-PHY-WL-00-3001 Safety Design Philosophy Suban-22,
Suban-27 and Suban-9 Flowline and
Wellsite Surface Facilities
8. ID-N-SB-LL0-GAD-WL-00-3056 Suban #27 Wellsite Surface Facilities
Plot Plan
9. ID-N-SB-PP0-PID-WL-3M-3003 PID Suban Well #27 Wellsite Area
10. ID-N-SB-LL0-GAD-WL-00-3087 General Arrangement Drawing Detail
Vent Stack Suban #27 Wellsite Facilities
11. ID-N-SB-PP1-RTD-WL-00-3001 Assumption Register for Safety Studies
Suban-22, Suban-27 & Suban-9 Flowline
and Wellsite Surface Facilities
12. ID-N-SB-LL0-DRT-WL-00-3001 3D Model Review Procedure and Report
Suban-27 Flowline and Wellsite Surface
Facilities
13. ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-ST-00-3001 Flare Radiation and Dispersion Study
FEED Suban Compressor Revamping
Project
14. C-84567-SB-PP0-DRT-ST-00-0006 Blowdown, Relief and Flare Study Suban
Compression Project
3 Design Basis Data

3.1 Environmental Condition
This environment data for Suban-27 are as follow [Ref. 5]:
 Max. Ground Temperature : 85o F

 Average Humidity : 80%
 Wind Speed & Pasquil Stability : 2, 5 and 12 m/s. Pasquil stability: F for 2 m/s, D for 5 & 12
m/s
 Prevailing Wind : Wind towards plant or facilities for more conservative
approach.
 Toward Plant South East (Toward IG KO Pot)
 Toward Plant North West (Toward CI Package, WHCP
/SCADA/RTU Shelter, and Primary Muster Point)
 Solar Radiation : 300 Btu/hr.ft2 (0.95 kW/m2)

 Surface Roughness : 0.1 m (Flat Land - few trees, long grass, fairly level grass
plains)
3.2 Vent Location
Suban-27 vent stack (8”-VA-AA2-3M-20394) is located near the Chemical Inhibitor Package (42-
SZZ-027) and Instrument Gas KO Pot (3M-MBD-027) as shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Suban-27 Vent Location [Ref. 8]
3.3 Venting Scenario

The flowrate cases for dispersion and thermal radiation analysis assessment are presented in the
Table 3-1 [Ref. 6]. However, the case of manual depressurization is not considered for radiation
calculation. The possibility of fire at vent stack due to lightning spark is unlikely since during
manual depressurization there is presence of operator to monitoring depressurizing activity, and
stop depressurizing immediately when there is lightning strike.
Table 3-1 Flowrate for Vent Dispersion/Radiation Calculation

No. Scenario Flowrate (MMscfd)
1 Normal Operation 0.02 (Note 1)
2 Depressurization (Manual) 3.5 (Note 2, 4)
3 PSV Relief + Normal Operation 0.72 (Note 3)
Notes:
1. Additional 20% margin from continuous instrument gas relief rate [Ref. 6] is
considered for relief flowrate during normal operation.
2. Assumed the relief scenario is independently from each isolatable section
instead of simultaneous relief, based on common procedure by Operation.
3. Highest PSV Relief Rated + Normal Operation [Ref. 6].
4. Excluded for radiation calculation as the ignited release during manual
depressurization is considered unlikely.
3.4 Relieving Condition for Vent Stack

Relieving condition and its composition for Suban-27 Vent Stack is based on Vent Load
Calculation Report Suban-27 Flowline and Wellsite Surface Facilities Project [Ref. 6], as given in
Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 Vent Gas Relief Condition
Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: PSV

Scenario Normal Depressurization Relief + Normal
Operation (Manual) Operation
Peak Rate, MMScfd 0.02 3.5 0.72
Mass Flowrate, lb/hr 43.57 7253 1552
Pressure @ Vent Stack Tip,
0.01 0.01 0.01
Psig
Temperature @ Vent Stack
267 55 277
Tip, oF
Velocity @ Vent Stack Tip, ft/s 1 113 22
Composition (Mole Fraction)
H2S 40 ppm(Note 1) 40 ppm(Note 1) 40 ppm(Note 1)
CO2 0.0520 0.0576 0.0520
Nitrogen 0.0016 0.0018 0.0016
Methane 0.7968 0.8858 0.7964
Ethane 0.0308 0.0340 0.0307
Propane 0.0091 0.0099 0.0091
i-Butane 0.0027 0.0029 0.0027
n-Butane 0.0027 0.0028 0.0027
i-Pentane 0.0015 0.0014 0.0015
n-Pentane 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010
n-Hexane 0.0017 0.0010 0.0017
Mcyclopentane 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002
Benzene 0.0006 0.0004 0.0006
Cyclohexane 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002
n-Heptane 0.0010 0.0003 0.0010
Mcyclohexane 0.0003 0.0001 0.0003
Toluene 0.0005 0.0001 0.0005
n-Octane 0.0009 0.0001 0.0009
E-Benzene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
m-Xylene 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002
p-Xylene 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002
Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: PSV

Scenario Normal Depressurization Relief + Normal
Operation (Manual) Operation
o-Xylene 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
n-Nonane 0.0006 0.0000 0.0006
Cumene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
n-PBenzene 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
124-MBenzene 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
n-Decane 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005
n-C11 0.0004 0.0000 0.0005
n-C12 0.0003 0.0000 0.0004
n-C13 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003
n-C14 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002
n-C15 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
n-C16 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
H2O 0.0930 0.0008 0.0930
Total 1 1 1
Note: 1. H2S concentration of 40 ppm [Ref. 5] in the mixture will be considered in this study.
3.5 Vent Stack Data

The vent stack data of Suban 27 wellsite surface facilities is summarized as below:
Table 3-3 Vent Stack & Tip Data [Ref. 9, 10]
Parameters Suban-27 Vent Stack & Tip

Stack & Tip Diameter (ID) 8 inch (ID 202.72 mm)
Tip Type Open Pipe
Vent Height (Include Tip) 8 m (26.25 ft)
Stack & Tip Configuration Vertical
4 Methodology
4.1 General
The gas dispersion modelling is conducted with DNV Phast 8.22 software. DNV Phast software
predict the behavior of flammable gas influenced by wind and air entrainment from the
atmosphere.
The heat radiation calculation is performed during accidental ignition (e.g., due to lightning) of
vent gas scenario using Flaresim 6.0 software. The calculation method used is the “Mixed”
method which is the combination of the API model (flame considered as a single point source)
and the diffuse source model. This method gives more realistic results. The limit for heat radiation
is based on any criteria as shown on Section 4.4.
The “Calculated Method” is used for the calculation of the factor for correcting the transmissivity
of radiation through the atmosphere as per environmental condition data. The “Calculated
Method” calculates the transmissivity as a function of the distance travelled by the radiation
through the atmosphere and the atmospheric humidity. The generic pipe correlation is used to
predict F Factor for conservative value for pipe tip type.
4.2 Flammable Gas Dispersion Criteria

Hydrocarbon gas discharged directly into the open air can leading to fire and/or explosion events,
if ignited. Dispersion study is therefore performed to ensure the flammable cloud will not reach
any ignition source in the facility. The hydrocarbon gas cloud envelopes are defined by the Lower
Flammability Limit (LFL). Flammable gas at 100% LFL concentration could become a flash fire
when ignited. In addition to the gas detection threshold criteria (if any), the other concentration of
20% LFL and 60% LFL are analyzed.
The concentrations criteria above are considered for flammable materials. Those concentrations
have been used to generate the gas dispersion contours to determine the extent of dispersion
within the facility.
Related to hazardous radius determination from vent stack, the following scenarios are applied:
- Normal operation continuous relief (100% LFL): for Class I, Div.1 hazardous area
- Manual depressurization (100% LFL): for Class I, Div.2 hazardous area
4.3 H2S Gas Dispersion Criteria

The H2S concentration of 1 ppm at Time Weighted Average (TWA) for an 8-hour exposure, and 5
ppm at Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) [Ref. 7] are used for toxic gas dispersion criteria for all
cases.
4.4 Heat / Thermal Radiation Criteria

Heat radiation is investigated by combination of wind velocities and its directions. Wind directions
toward the plant locations used as worst wind condition. In order to ascertain the impact of
thermal radiation from the vent (during accidental ignition) on critical areas and structures, the
following thermal radiation levels per API STD 521 [Ref.1] are used to determine acceptable
criteria:
- 500 BTU/h.ft2 (1.58 kW/m2)
- 1,500 BTU/h.ft2 (4.73 kW/m2)
- 2,000 BTU/h.ft2 (6.31 kW/m2)
- 3,000 BTU/h.ft2 (9.46 kW/m2)
The impact of thermal radiation limits is shown in Table 4-1 that is a comparison of the thermal
radiation intensity detailed in the API STD 521 [Ref. 1].
Table 4-4 Impact of Thermal Radiation Limits
Permissible Design Level
Conditions
BTU/h.ft2 (kW/m2)
3,000 (9.46) Maximum radiant heat intensity at any location where
urgent emergency action by personnel is required. When
personnel enter or work in an area with the potential for
radiant heat intensity greater than 6.31 kW/m2 (2,000
Btu/h·ft2), then radiation shielding and/or special protective
apparel (e.g., a fire approach suit) should be considered.
SAFETY PRECAUTION — It is important to recognize
that personnel with appropriate clothing cannot
tolerate thermal radiation at 2,000 Btu/h·ft2 (6.31
kW/m2) for more than a few seconds.
2,000 (6.31) Maximum radiant heat intensity in areas where emergency
actions lasting up to 30 s can be required by personnel
without shielding but with appropriate clothing
1,500 (4.73) Maximum radiant heat intensity in areas where emergency
actions lasting 2 min to 3 min can be required by
personnel without shielding but with appropriate clothing
500 (1.58) Maximum radiant heat intensity at any location where
personnel with appropriate clothing can be continuously
exposed
Note:
1. Appropriate clothing consists of hard hat, long-sleeved shirts with cuffs buttoned, work
gloves, long-legged pants and work shoes. Appropriate clothing minimizes direct skin
exposure to thermal radiation.
The maximum thermal radiation level for escape routes and area where personnel may be
located are as follows [Ref. 5]:
 500 BTU/hr/ft2 (1.58 kW/m2) including solar radiation for continuous exposure at locations
where personnel with appropriate clothing may be continuously exposed
 1,500 BTU/hr/ft2 (4.73 kW/m2) including solar radiation for emergency conditions, where per-
sonnel evacuation is to be immediately in 2-3 minutes to safe area.
4.5 Temperature Criteria
For area where personnel will likely be present e.g., process area, the maximum temperature
shall be limited to 158oF (70oC), which allow exposure above 15 minutes for personnel (Section
V.2.2 CMPT, 1999) [Ref. 2].
During emergency condition, some area may be exposed to high temperature and personnel will
have limited time (2-3 minutes) for escape to safe location. For this area, the maximum
temperature shall be limited to 300oF (149oC), which obtained from CMPT (Section V.2.2, Ref. 2)
equation with consideration of 2-3 minutes exposure duration for personnel.
The maximum thermal exposure criteria for electrical/ instrument equipment refers to each data
sheet/ catalogue by Vendor. It specifies the following maximum temperature exposure for:
 Lightning pole solar panel battery at 131 oF (55 oC)

 SCADA antenna radio transmitter at 131 oF (55 oC)
4.6 Noise Exposure Criteria

Refer to Permenaker No.5 Tahun 2018 [Ref. 3] for details. In this study, the criteria should be as
follow as minimum:
 Maximum noise of 85 dBA for continuous exposure in 8 hours, and
 Maximum noise of 106 dBA for 2-3 minutes exposure, during personnel escape/evacuation
to safe area during emergency flaring (corresponds to safe time limit for personnel to escape
from 1500 BTU/hr/ft2 heat radiation exposure).
4.7 Receptor Point Location
Table 4-2 provides the receptors location with respect to origin, which is at the vent stack base.
The receptor points are located at some areas which personnel may exist for the necessity of
operation, maintenance, sampling, etc. and possibly to be impaired by heat radiation from the
vent. Heat radiation around the plant shall be below the acceptable limit to provide a safe way for
personnel during emergency.
Position of each receptor point at Suban-27 wellsite facilities are shown in Figure 4-1.
Table 4-5 Receptor Point Location
Coordinate (1)
No. Area
Northing (m) Easting (m) Elevation (m) (2)
PCV’s of Instrument Gas
RP-1 -1.724 1.43 3.4
KO Pot Service Platform
RP-2 Nearest Personal Gate -17.67 -5.24 2
RP-3 Primary Muster Point 49.51 -56.33 2
RP-4 Sampling Point 0.85 -12.05 2
Corrosion Inhibitor
RP-5 3.01 -1.54 2
Shelter
Security Post/ Guard
RP-6 55.26 -45.98 2
House
RP-7 Alternative Muster point 0 -116.6 2
Lighting Pole Solar Panel
RP-8 0.51 -5.64 7.38
Battery
RP-9 SCADA Antenna Pole 13.08 -5.81 20
Notes:
1. Northing, easting and elevation distance of each designated area is measured from the origin
point (vent stack base).
2. Receptor point coordinate has already included 2 meter height of personnel, except for RP-8 &
9.
Figure 4-1. Receptor Point Locations

DRT | Design Report / Study ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-WL-00-3007 Rev.
2
5 Result and Discussion

5.1 Vent Radiation Results of Suban 27
Based on relief data in Section 3.4 and vent stack design in Section 3.5, the result at all receptor points are shown in Table 5-1 & 5-2 (for Scenario 1) and
Table 5-3 & 5-4 (for Scenario 3) below.
Table 5-6 Vent Radiation at Receptor Points during Wind Toward Plant North West - Scenario 1 (Normal Operation)
Wind Condition
Acceptance Criteria
Receptor 2F 5D 12D Meet Criteria
Point Radiation Noise Radiation Noise Radiation Noise (YES/NO)
Temperature Temperature Temperature Radiation Temperature Noise Level
Level Level Level Level Level Level
(degF) (degF) (degF) (Btu/hr.ft2) (degF) (dBA)
(Btu/hr.ft2) (dBA) (Btu/hr.ft2) (dBA) (Btu/hr.ft2) (dBA)
RP-1 324 122 87 331 107 87 337 98 87 500 158 85 NO
RP-2 304 120 76 304 105 76 304 96 76 500 158 85 YES
RP-3 301 119 69 301 105 69 301 96 69 500 158 85 YES
RP-4 308 120 79 308 1-5 79 308 97 79 500 158 85 YES
RP-5 323 122 85 327 107 85 329 97 85 500 158 85 YES
RP-6 301 119 69 301 105 69 301 96 69 500 158 85 YES
RP-7 301 119 68 301 105 68 301 96 68 500 158 85 YES
RP-8 343 124 86 343 108 86 342 98 86 N/A 131 N/A YES
RP-9 303 120 76 303 105 76 304 96 76 N/A 131 N/A YES
Table 5-7 Vent Radiation at Receptor Points during Wind Toward Plant South East - Scenario 1 (Normal Operation)
Wind Condition
Acceptance Criteria
RP-1 339 124 87 347 108 87 352 98 87 500 158 85 NO
RP-2 304 120 76 304 105 76 304 96 76 500 158 85 YES
RP-3 301 119 69 301 105 69 301 96 69 500 158 85 YES
RP-4 306 120 79 306 105 79 306 97 79 500 158 85 YES
RP-5 315 121 85 318 106 85 321 97 85 500 158 85 YES
RP-6 301 119 69 301 105 69 301 96 69 500 158 85 YES
RP-7 301 119 68 301 105 68 301 96 68 500 158 85 YES
RP-8 335 123 86 331 107 86 329 97 86 N/A 131 N/A YES
RP-9 304 120 76 304 105 76 304 96 76 N/A 131 N/A YES
DRT | Design Report / Study ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-WL-00-3007 Rev.
2
Table 5-8 Vent Radiation at Receptor Points during Wind Toward Plant North West - Scenario 3 (PSV Relief and Normal Operation)
Wind Condition
Acceptance Criteria
RP-1 786 171 103 820 138 103 896 118 103 1500 300 106 YES
RP-2 397 130 91 394 111 91 393 100 91 1500 300 106 YES
RP-3 308 120 79 308 105 79 307 97 79 500 158 106 YES
RP-4 509 142 94 538 120 94 570 106 94 1500 300 106 YES
RP-5 745 167 100 842 139 100 989 121 100 1500 300 106 YES
RP-6 309 120 80 308 105 80 307 97 80 1500 300 106 YES
RP-7 304 120 76 303 105 76 303 96 76 500 158 106 YES
RP-8 1408 231 102 1674 190 102 2090 160 102 N/A 131 N/A NO
RP-9 446 135 91 437 114 91 446 102 91 N/A 131 N/A NO
Table 5-9 Vent Radiation at Receptor Points during Wind Toward Plant South East - Scenario 3 (PSV Relief and Normal Operation)
Wind Condition
Acceptance Criteria
RP-1 958 188 103 1100 155 103 1329 133 103 1500 300 106 YES
RP-2 412 132 91 420 113 91 427 101 91 1500 300 106 YES
RP-3 307 120 79 307 105 79 306 97 79 500 158 106 YES
RP-4 461 137 94 449 115 94 446 102 94 1500 300 106 YES
RP-5 625 154 100 643 127 100 689 110 100 1500 300 106 YES
RP-6 308 120 80 307 105 80 306 97 80 1500 300 106 YES
RP-7 303 120 76 303 105 76 303 96 76 500 158 106 YES
RP-8 1098 202 102 1004 149 102 930 119 102 N/A 131 N/A NO
RP-9 446 135 91 431 113 91 413 100 91 N/A 131 N/A NO
Figure 5-1. Heat Radiation Contour Wind Speed 12 m/s towards Plant North West for Scenario 3 (Top View)
Figure 5-2. Heat Radiation Contour Wind Speed 12 m/s towards Plant South East for Scenario 3 (Top View)
Figure 5-3. Heat Radiation Contour Wind Speed 12 m/s for Scenario 1 (Side View)
Figure 5-4. Heat Radiation Contour Wind Speed 12 m/s for Scenario 3 (Side View)
Based on Table 5-1 & 5-2 above, heat radiation and temperature at all receptor points are still
within the criteria for all wind conditions during venting Scenario 1 (Normal Operation).
Furthermore, heat radiation level of 500 Btu/hr.ft2 would not reach the ground level of Suban 27
wellsite area. Side view radiation contour for Scenario 1 is shown in Figure 5-3 above. On the
other hand, noise level during Scenario 1 at RP-1 (PCV’s of Instrument Gas KO Pot Service
Platform) is 87 dBA and slightly higher than the criteria of 85 dBA. Refer to [Ref. 3], the maximum
exposure duration is approx. 4 hours which considered sufficient for personnel to conduct activity
around RP-1 area (e.g., regular checking, open close manual valve, etc.) during normal
operation.
Despite it has been calculated that the temperature exposure is acceptable for emergency
condition (STEL at 15 minutes), a sensitivity calculation is conducted to check the maximum
allowable exposure time for personnel in case of ignited relief of normal venting (Scenario 1). The
maximum exposure duration at each receptor point during worst wind speed condition are
calculated by using CMPT equation (Section V.2.2, Ref. 2) and the result is shown below.
The average duration indicates the allowable duration of personnel intervention onsite (e.g., shut
off the CI Pump) in case of ignited release during normal operation (Scenario 1) shall be less than
45 minutes exposure. This time is considered sufficient and no significant concerns are expected.
Table 5-5 Maximum Exposure Duration during Venting Scenario 1
Maximum
Temperature,
Receptor Point No. o
Exposure Duration,
F
minutes
RP-1 124 44.2

RP-2 120 47.5
RP-3 119 47.8
RP-4 120 47.3
RP-5 121 46.3
RP-6 119 47.8
RP-7 119 47.7
RP-8 123 44.9
RP-9 120 47.0
Based on Table 5-3 & 5-4 above, heat radiation, temperature and noise at all receptor points
impact to personnel are still within the criteria for all wind conditions during venting Scenario 3.
The highest heat radiation level and noise level is occurred at RP-1, i.e., 1329 Btu/hr.ft2 and 103
dBA, respectively. From these results, venting from Scenario 3 (including accidental ignition case)
at Suban 27 is unlikely to cause significant hazard to the personnel. Furthermore, personnel shall
immediately escape to safe location (i.e., PMP) in case of ignited PSV relief (Scenario 3) to allow
a longer duration exposure period of continuous criteria at muster point prior to the evacuation
process.
Temperature exposure during venting Scenario 3 can exceed the criteria for RP-8 (Lightning Pole
Solar Panel Battery) and RP-9 (SCADA Antenna Pole) which could cause electrical equipment
damage. Mitigation has been provided by means lightning protection installation and hazardous
area classification application to prevent ignition of vented gas. The likelihood of ignited vent
stack relief is considered unlikely, supported by the historical data that no lightning struck occur in
vent stack of Suban wellsite facilities.
5.2 Flammable Gas Dispersion Results

The overall flammable gas dispersion from Suban 27 Vent Stack is summarized in table below.
Flammable gas dispersion contour from each wind speed case is shown in Figure 5-5 to 5-7.
Table 5-6 Flammable Gas Dispersion Distance of Suban 27 Vent
Wind Downwind
Concentration The Lowest
Speed Dispersion Distance
Level (ppm) Cloud Height (m)
(m/s) (m)
Scenario 1: Normal Operation
LFL 20% 3.0 7.9
2F LFL 60% 1.4 7.9
LFL 100% 1.0 7.9
LFL 20% 4.0 7.9
5D LFL 60% 2.0 7.9
LFL 100% 1.4 7.9
LFL 20% 3.6 7.9
12D LFL 60% 1.9 7.9
LFL 100% 1.3 7.9
Scenario 2: Depressurization (Manual)
LFL 20% 14.0 8.0
2F LFL 60% 4.3 8.0
LFL 100% 2.3 8.0
LFL 20% 17.9 8.0
5D LFL 60% 5.8 8.0
LFL 100% 3.1 8.0
LFL 20% 17.3 7.9
12D LFL 60% 6.5 7.9
LFL 100% 3.7 7.9
Scenario 3: PSV Relief + Normal Operation
LFL 20% 7.6 8.1
2F LFL 60% 3.0 8.1
LFL 100% 1.9 8.1
LFL 20% 11.6 7.9
5D LFL 60% 4.7 7.9
LFL 100% 2.9 7.9
LFL 20% 11.0 7.8
12D LFL 60% 5.0 7.8
LFL 100% 3.2 7.8
Figure 5-5. Side View Flammable Gas Dispersion Contour during Scenario 1 at Wind Speed 5 m/s
Based on Table 5-6 and Figure 5-5 to 5-7 above, flammable gas dispersion during all cases tend
to rise vertically and unlikely to reach the ground level for concentration 20% LFL, 60% LFL and
100% LFL. It occurs due to vent gas composition is mostly contain Methane (approx. 79 - 88%
mole), which is lighter than air.
From table above, hazardous area classification radius from the vent tip can be determined as
below:
 Class I Div. 1 radius = 1.5 m from vent tip (100% LFL during Scenario 1)
5.3 H2S Gas Dispersion Results

The H2S gas dispersion from Suban-27 Vent Stack is summarized in table below. H 2S gas
dispersion contour from each wind speed case is shown in Figure 5-8 to 5-10.
Table 5-8 H2S Gas Dispersion Distance of Suban 27 Vent
Wind Speed Concentration Downwind Dispersion The Lowest

(m/s) Level (ppm) Distance (m) Cloud Height (m)
Scenario 1: Normal Operation
1 ppm 1.7 7.9
2F
5 ppm 0.4 7.9
1 ppm 2.4 7.9
5D
5 ppm 0.6 7.9
1 ppm 2.2 7.9
12D
5 ppm 0.6 7.9
Scenario 2: Depressurization (Manual)
1 ppm 5.3 8.0
2F
5 ppm 0.8 8.0
1 ppm 7.1 8.0
5D
5 ppm 0.9 8.0
1 ppm 7.0 8.0
12D
5 ppm 1.1 8.0
Scenario 3: PSV Relief + Normal Operation
1 ppm 3.7 7.8
2F
5 ppm 0.8 7.9
1 ppm 5.8 8.0
5D
5 ppm 1.0 8.0
1 ppm 6.0 7.8
12D
5 ppm 1.2 7.9
Figure 5-8. Side View H2S Gas Dispersion Contour during Scenario 1 at Wind Speed 5 m/s
Based on H2S gas dispersion calculation result in Table 5-8 above, H2S gas dispersion from all
scenarios are not potential to cause any hazard to personnel due to gas at concentration of 1
ppm and 5 ppm are unlikely to reach the ground level of Suban 27 wellsite area.
5.4 Impact Analysis from Suban Flares

5.4.1 Simultaneous Normal Flaring from Purged Gas
There are potential heat radiation exposure during Suban 27 new flowline installation work due to
the location is enough close to the existing flares at Suban Gas Plant. The location of Suban 27
new flowline is indicated in figure below. Heat radiation simulation is conducted for scenario of
normal flaring (purged gas) from all flares with gas flowrate of 0.85 MMSCFD from each flare
[Ref. 14]. The simulation result is indicated in Table 5.9.
Figure 5-11. Suban 27 Flowline Location
Table 5-9 Heat Radiation from Simultaneous Normal Flaring
Wind Speed, Heat Radiation Heat Radiation Criteria

m/s(Note 1) Exposure (Btu/hr.ft2) (Btu/hr.ft2)
2 305 500
5 305 500
12 305 500
Note:
1. Wind direction towards West of Suban Station (toward Suban 27
flowline) which considered as worst condition.
From the simulation result in Table 5-9, heat radiation at the nearest location of Suban-27 new
flowline installation work area is still below the criteria, and personnel are considered safe for
work during construction activity of Suban 27 flowline during normal continuous flaring at Suban
Gas Plant.
5.4.2 Simultaneous Flaring during EDP Suban Gas Plant

The potential consequence during simultaneous flaring of all flares during EDP actuation to the
Suban 27 new flowline has been reviewed [Ref. 13] and the result is presented in table below.
Table 5-10 Flares Radiation during Suban Gas Plant EDP at Suban-27 New Flowline
Installation Work
Heat Radiation Acceptance Criteria

Wind Noise
Exposure Temperature
Speed, Level Heat Radiation Noise
(degF) Temperature
m/s(Note 1) (Btu/hr.ft2) (dBA) Criteria Level
(degF)
(Btu/hr.ft2) (dBA)
2 2018 284 106 1500 300 106
5 2043 212 106 1500 300 106
12 2109 161 106 1500 300 106
Heat radiation level at Suban-27 new flowline installation work can exceed the criteria of 1500
Btu/hr-ft2 during all wind scenarios. The highest heat radiation at RP-11 is 2109 Btu/hr-ft 2 during
wind speed 12 m/s and potential to cause personnel injury/fatality if exposed. From this result, all
working activities related to Suban-27 flowline installation work must be stopped and personnel
shall escape immediately to the safe location away from flares area.
The highest temperature at Suban-27 new flowline is 284oF (140oC) which occurred during wind
speed 2 m/s. Maximum exposure duration is calculated using the average time to incapacitation
equation from [Ref. 2]. From the calculation, maximum exposure duration at temperature of 284 oF
is 3.9 minutes. This duration is considered sufficient for personnel to escape from receptor area
during emergency. Refer to CMPT [Ref. 2], in the temperature condition above 120 oC (248oF), the
impact of heat convection is dominated by pain from burns to the skin which occur in less than 5
minutes. Therefore, an immediately escape process to the safe location is strongly encouraged
during this condition.
Noise level at Suban-27 new flowline is 106 dBA. However, this noise level is broadly acceptable
in regard to the maximum criteria of 106 dB (2-3 minutes exposure). Personnel shall escape to
the safe location immediately along with the use of hearing protection device during this
condition.
Simple escape analysis is conducted as part of the study [Ref. 13] to ensure personnel have a
sufficient time for escape from area which impaired by heat radiation of 2109 Btu/hr-ft2 (maximum
exposure less than 30 seconds) and 1500 Btu/hr-ft2 (exposure criteria 2-3 min). The distance
between areas which exposed to heat radiation 2109 Btu/hr-ft2 to 1500 Btu/hr-ft2 is 52.5 m. The
required time for personnel is calculated by assuming horizontal escape speed 1 m/s [Ref. 2].
Based on the calculation, the required time is 53 seconds (0.88 min) which still within the
maximum exposure criteria of 2.5 minutes (time difference between concerned heat flux and
maximum heat flux exposure during emergency) and considered acceptable.
6 Conclusion and Recommendation

6.1 Conclusion
Based on analysis performed, the following conclusion are drawn:
1. Based on Vent Load Calculation Report [Ref. 6], the maximum venting scenario at Suban-27
Wellsite Facilities is occurred from Manual Depressurization case (Scenario 2) with gas
flowrate of 3.5 MMscfd.
2. Ignited relief of venting activity from Scenario 1 (normal operation) may result no significant
impact of heat radiation, temperature and noise exposure to all receptor points, except for
noise at RP-1 (PCV’s of Instrument Gas KO Pot Service Platform) i.e. 87 dBA which slightly
exceed the criteria of 85 dBA. However, this result can be acceptable due to the maximum
exposure duration is approx. 4 hours [Ref. 3] and considered sufficient for personnel doing
normal checking activity around RP-1 area.
3. A sensitivity calculation is conducted to check the maximum allowable exposure time for
personnel in case of ignited relief of normal venting (Scenario 1) with regards to potential
high temperature exposure. In the case of ignited vent relief during normal operation,
Security Guard shall contact Suban CCR for further action e.g., manual intervention to
temporarily shut off the source (CI pump shutdown), with the maximum approach of 45
minutes exposure. This time is considered sufficient and no significant concerns are
expected.
4. Venting activity from Scenario 3 (PSV relief) is unlikely to cause a significant hazard due to
heat radiation (during accidental ignition), high temperature and noise level generated are
still within the criteria.
5. Temperature at RP-8 (Lightning Pole Solar Panel Battery) and RP-9 (SCADA Antenna Pole)
during venting from Scenario 3 is exceed the criteria and could cause electrical parts
damage. However, the mitigation has been provided by means of lightning protection
installation and hazardous area classification application to prevent ignition of vented gas.
The likelihood of ignited vent stack relief is considered unlikely, supported by the historical
data that no lightning struck occur in vent stack of Suban wellsite facilities.
6. Flammable gas dispersion at 20% LFL, 60% LFL and 100% LFL concentration during all
venting scenarios would not reach ground level of Suban 27 wellsite area. Hazardous area
classification radius from the vent tip is determined as below:
7. H2S gas dispersion at concentration of 1 ppm and 5 ppm are not potential to expose the
personnel at the ground level due to the lowest elevation of H 2S gas is 7.8 m above the
ground.
8. Normal flaring (purged gas) from existing Suban flares are unlikely to generate hazard for
personnel which working within Suban 27 new flowline. The heat radiation is still below the
criteria and personnel are considered safe for work during construction activity of Suban 27
flowline.
9. During simultaneous EDP flaring scenarios from Suban flares, heat radiation and noise level
at Suban 27 new flowline are potential to exceed the criteria leading to personnel injury
and/or fatality. Personnel at Suban 27 new flowline shall escape immediately to the safe
location away from flares area during simultaneous flaring (EDP of Suban Gas Plant). In this
condition, EDP will also activate Public Address/General Alarm (PA/GA) which can alert
personnel within process area to conduct emergency escape immediately [Ref. 13].
6.2 Recommendation
The following recommendations are drawn from this study:
1. In line with the recommendation stated in Flare Radiation and Dispersion Study of Suban
Compressor Revamping Project (FEED) [Ref. 13], it is recommended to install several
warning signs at Suban-27 flowline installation work area within Suban Gas Plant. The
minimum signs are as follow:
 Danger Heat Radiation During Emergency Depressurization
 Danger High Noise Level During Emergency Depressurization
 Danger High Temperature During Emergency Depressurization
Personnel working at that area shall be equipped with proper PPE, including to hearing
protection as another precaution.
This requirement shall be addressed into HSE Plan and included into HAZID Construction
concern by EPC Contractor.
2. To conduct corrective checking and maintenance in case of accidental ignition of PSV vent
gas relief occurred, especially for the impact to electrical/instrument equipment around
Suban-27 vent stack e.g., Lightning Pole Solar Panel Battery and SCADA Antenna.
3. To provide operating procedure or update the existing site specific procedure (if any)
regarding tactical step when Suban-27 vent tip ignited due to any reasons to avoid prolonged
flaring at wellsite.
4.
Appendix A – Contour from Flaresim

Appendix B – Flaresim Report

Appendix C – Phast Report

ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-WL-00-3007 Vent Dispersion and Radiation Study Suban 27 - Rev.2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-WL-00-3007 Vent Dispersion and Radiation Study Suban 27 - Rev.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document Title : Vent Dispersion and Radiation Study

Suban 27 Flowline and Wellsite Surface Facilities

Doc No. : ID-N-SB-PP1-DRT-WL-00-3007

Originator : PT Singgar Mulia

30 Jun Re-Issued Charlie Budi Rifnanto Zenal Cahya Danang

Project Project Information

REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE

Name Designation Signature Date

Khotib Sarbini Sr. Process Safety Engineer

Peddy C. Nesa Lead Process Safety

Figure 1-1. Suban Field Location

2 Definitions, Abbreviations & Reference Document

2.3 Document for Reference

2.3.2 Project Reference Document

3 Design Basis Data

 Max. Ground Temperature : 85o F

 Solar Radiation : 300 Btu/hr.ft2 (0.95 kW/m2)

Figure 3-1. Suban-27 Vent Location [Ref. 8]

3.3 Venting Scenario

Table 3-1 Flowrate for Vent Dispersion/Radiation Calculation

3.4 Relieving Condition for Vent Stack

Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: PSV

Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: PSV

3.5 Vent Stack Data

Parameters Suban-27 Vent Stack & Tip

4.2 Flammable Gas Dispersion Criteria

4.3 H2S Gas Dispersion Criteria

4.4 Heat / Thermal Radiation Criteria

 Lightning pole solar panel battery at 131 oF (55 oC)

4.6 Noise Exposure Criteria

 Maximum noise of 85 dBA for continuous exposure in 8 hours, and

Figure 4-1. Receptor Point Locations

5 Result and Discussion

RP-1 124 44.2

5.2 Flammable Gas Dispersion Results

Table 5-6 Flammable Gas Dispersion Distance of Suban 27 Vent

5.3 H2S Gas Dispersion Results

Wind Speed Concentration Downwind Dispersion The Lowest

5.4 Impact Analysis from Suban Flares

Figure 5-11. Suban 27 Flowline Location

Table 5-9 Heat Radiation from Simultaneous Normal Flaring

Wind Speed, Heat Radiation Heat Radiation Criteria

5.4.2 Simultaneous Flaring during EDP Suban Gas Plant

Heat Radiation Acceptance Criteria

6 Conclusion and Recommendation

 Danger Heat Radiation During Emergency Depressurization

 Danger High Noise Level During Emergency Depressurization

 Danger High Temperature During Emergency Depressurization

Appendix A – Contour from Flaresim

Appendix B – Flaresim Report

Appendix C – Phast Report

You might also like