EPA 440/1-76/083 A

           INTERIM FINAL
          Supplement For
         PRETREATMENT
              to the
       Development Document
              for the

 PETROLEUM REFINING

          INDUSTRY

            Existing
     Point Source Category

              4>   v"^
               ^ PROlt-°
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             MARCH 1977

-------
       INTERIM FINAL SUPPLEMENT
                 FOR
             PRETREATMENT
     TO THE DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
               FOR THE
     PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
    EXISTING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
          Douglas M. Costie
            Administrator
          Thomas C. Jorling
       Assistant Administrator
   for Water & Hazardous Materials

          Albert J. Erickson
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
    for Water Planning & Standards
          Robert B. Schaffer
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
             Dennis Ruddy
           Project Officer
             MARCH, 1977
     Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water & Hazardous Materials
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                          ABSTRACT






This  development  document  presents  the  findings  of  an



extensive  study of the existing source pretreatment segment



of the petroleum  refining  industry  for  the  purposes  of



developing pretreatment standards pursuant to Section 307(b)



of  the  Federal  Water  Pollution Control Act Amendments of



1972 (P.L. 92-500).  This document is a  supplement  to  the



"Development  Document  for  Effluent Limitations Guidelines



and New  Source  Performance  Standards  for  the  Petroleum



Refining  Point  Source  Category"  (April,  1974).   Interim



final pretreatment standards are present for the  industrial



segment   discharging  to  publicly  owned  treatment  works



(POTW).







The interim final pretreatment  standards  contained  herein



are  based  upon  treatment  technologies  analogous  to the



application of best practicable control technology currently



available  (BPCTCA).    Selection  of  pollutant   parameters



included  an  evaluation  of  potential  for pass through or



interference with the operation of  POTW.   Supporting  data



and  rationale  for  the  development  of  the interim final



pretreatment standards are  contained  in  this  development



document.

-------
                          CONTENTS

Section                                               Page


I          Conclusions                                  1

II         Recommendations                              5

              Pretreatment Standards for Existing
              Sources                                   5

III        Introduction                                 9

              Purpose and Authority                     9

              Pretreatment Standards Development
              Procedure                                10

              General Description of Industry
              Segment Utilizing POTW                   13

IV         Industry Subcategorization                  15

              Introduction                             15

              Factors Considered in Subcategorization  16

              Summary                                  21

V          Waste Characterization                      25

              Introduction                             25

              Pretreatment Effluent Characteristics    25

              API Separator Effluent Characteristics   29

              Sour Water Waste Stream Characteristics  29

VI         Selection of Pollutant Parameters           35

              Introduction                             35

              Selected Pollutant Parameters            35

VII        Control and Treatment Technology            39

              Introduction                             39

              Disposition of Waste Streams             39
                              111

-------
Section                                               Page
	•   • i  <•                                               ••••*• ..



              In-Plant Control Technology              41

              At-Source Pretreatment—Segregation      43

              Treatment Technology                     45

VIII       Cost, Energy, and Non-Water Quality
           Aspects                                     69

              Introduction                             69

              Cost and Energy                          69

              Non-Water Quality Aspects                83

IX         Pretreatment Standards                      89

              Introduction                             89

              Existing Local Pretreatment Require-
              ments                                    89

              Subcategorization                        90

              Rationale for Development of Pretreatment
              Standards for Selected Pollutant Para-
              meters Parameters                        90

              Summary                                  97

X          Acknowledgments                             99

XI         References                                 103

XII        Glossary and Abbreviations                 109

              Glossary                                109

              Abbreviations                           114
                                IV

-------
                           TABLES


Table No.                    Title                         Page
III-l      Inventory of Petroleum Refineries                 11
           Discharging to Municipal Systems

IV-1       Distribution of Refineries by Crude
           Capacity                                         19

IV-2       API Separator Effluent Characteristics
           for Subcategory B - Cracking—Indirect
           Discharge Refineries vs. Total Industry          20

IV-3       Distribution of Refineries by Sub-
           category                                         22

IV-4       Process Summary—Indirect Discharge
           Refineries                                       23

V-l        Summary of Indirect Discharge Refineries'
           Effluent Data                                    27

V-2        Summary of Indirect Discharge Refineries'
           API Separator Effluent Quality                   30

V-3        Data Summary of Indirect Discharge
           Refineries' Stripped Sour Water                  32

V-4        Average Quality of Sour Water Stripper
           Bottoms - Steam Stripping - Refluxed             33

V-5        Average Quality of Sour Water Stripper
           Bottoms - Steam Stripping - Non-Refluxed         34

VI-1       Effects of Chromium on Biological  Treatment
           Processes                                        38

VII-1      Wastewater Operations at Indirect
           Discharge Refineries                             40

VII-2      Description of Existing POTW Receiving
           Refinery Effluent                                42

VII-3      Summary of Operating Data—Sour Water
           Strippers - Steam Stripping - Refluxed           46

VII-4      Summary of Operating Data—Sour Water
           Strippers - Steam Stripping - Non-Refluxed       51
                                v

-------
Table No,

VII-5



VII-6


VII-7


VII-8


VIII-1


VIII-2

VIII-3


VIII-4

VIII-5

VIII-6

VIII-7

VIII-8


VIII-9
            TABLES (Cont.)

               Title                     Page

Summary of Operating Data—Sour  Water
Strippers - Flue Gas and Fuel Gas
Strippers                                  57

Sour Water Stripper Operating Data
for Refinery #17                           59

Summary of Operating Data—Sour  Water
Oxidizers                                  61

Operating Data for the Removal of
Phenols in the Desalter—Refinery  #18       62

Costs for Installing Sour Water
Strippers for Ammonia Removal              74

Operating Costs—Sour Water Strippers       75
Capital Costs—Pretreatment for Phenol
Removal
76

78

80
Operating Costs—Phenol Removal Systems

Capital Costs—Chromium Removal Systems

Operating Costs—Chromium Removal Systems  81

Capital Costs—Dissolved Air Flotation     84

Total Capital Costs—Dissolved Air
Flotation                                  85

Operating Costs—Dissolved Air Flotation   86
                                vi

-------
                          FIGURES
Figure No.

IV-1

V-l


VII-1


VII-2


VIII-1

VIII-2


VIII-3


IX-1


IX-2


IX-3
                Title                     Page

Geographic Distribution of Refineries      17

Waste Characterization Procedure for
Indirect Discharge Refineries              26

Influent Phenol Concentration to Bio-
Unit at Plant 52                           64

Effluent Phenol Concentration from
Bio-Unit at Plant 52                       65

Capital Cost—Sour Water Stripping         70

Refinery Capacity vs. Sour Water Flow
Rate                                       71

Capital Costs vs. Flow Rate—Dissolved
Air Flotation                              82

Oil and Grease Effluent Data for
Selected Indirect Discharge Refineries     93

Sulfide Effluent Data for Selected
Indirect Discharge Refineries              95

Ammonia-N Effluent Data for Selected
Indirect Discharge Refineries              96

-------
                         SECTION I

                        CONCLUSIONS
There are presently 26 refineries that have been  identified
whose   process   wastewater   is  discharged  to  municipal
treatment systems.  Generally, the  geographic  distribution
of  these  indirect  dischargers  is  similar to that of the
industry as a whole, with  the  majority  being  located  in
California  and  Texas.  Analyses of location, age, economic
status, size, wastewater characteristics, and  manufacturing
processes  of  indirect versus direct dischargers shows that
there are no fundamental differences that  would  warrant  a
different  method  of  subcategorization  for  the  indirect
discharging segment of the petroleum refining industry.   It
was  determined  in  this  study  that the subcategorization
scheme for  indirect  dischargers  should  be  the  same  as
defined   in   the  197U  Development  Document  (3).   This
subcategorization scheme is as follows:

    A - Topping;
    B - Cracking;
    C - Petrochemical;
    D - Lube; and
    E - Integrated.

Quantitative data describing the effluent characteristics of
indirect discharging refineries, industry-wide API separator
effluent characteristics, and sour water  stripper  effluent
characteristics  were collected and are presented in Section
V  of  this  document.   The  criteria  for   selection   of
pollutants  to  be  considered  in  this  study included the
ability of a particular pollutant to interfere with or  pass
through  a  publicly  owned  treatment  works  (POTW).  Upon
analyses of the  available  data,  the  following  pollutant
parameters were selected for further study:

    Ammonia;
    Sulfide;
    Oil and Grease;
    Phenol; and
    Chromium

It  is  concluded  that  all  indirect dischargers should be
subject to the same  pretreatment  standards.   Pretreatment
standards  are  imposed on a concentration basis as compared
to a mass basis characteristic of effluent  limitations  and
standards  of  performance for new sources for the petroleum

-------
refining  point  source   category   (direct   dischcirgers) .
Additionally,  the  pollutants  of  concern for pretreatment
purposes are common to  all  refineries'  wastewaters.   The
treatment   technologies  available  for  controlling  these
pollutants are applicable to refinery wastes in general.

Information  on  the  control  and  treatment   technologies
presented   in   the   1974  Development  Document  included
discussions of the capability  of  removing  the  pollutants
selected  for  regulation.   This  same  approach  has  been
applied to the indirect discharging segment of the petroleum
refining  industry  in  this  document.   The   technologies
discussed   herein   consider  those  processes  capable  of
removing pollutant parameters  selected  for  further  study
(sulfides,  ammonia, phenols, oil and grease, and chromium).
Analyses of the available data confirm that the major source
of ammonia, sulfide, and phenol  is  the  sour  water  waste
stream.  Therefore, segregation and treatment of sour waters
are   of   immediate   concern   relative  to  pretreatment.
Discussion of other significant wastewater sources  is  also
presented  in this document.  The sources and concentrations
of the selected pollutants are generally equivalent  between
subcategories;  therefore,  available treatment technologies
are applicable to all subcategories.

Based on the effluent data collected, the available  control
and treatment technologies, and the effect of each pollutant
parameter   on   POTW  operations,  it  was  concluded  that
pretreatment standards should be established for ammonia and
oil and grease.  Uniform national pretreatment standcirds for
phenol, sulfide, and chromium were judged at this time to be
inappropriate for all indirect dischargers.   However,  this
document provides guidance to the operators of POTW relative
to  chromium,  sulfides, and phenolic compounds should these
be determined, on an individual basis, to be harmful  to  or
not adequately treated by POTW.

-------
The  indirect  discharging  segment of the industry has been
specifically  identified  relative  to  their  current  pre-
treatment    operations.    Therefore,   total   costs   for
implementation of pretreatment standards have been estimated
based  on  a   plant-by-plant   evaluation.    Model   plant
evaluations  have  been utilized to supplement this approach
where necessary.  The estimated total capital costs for  all
indirect  discharging refineries are summarized by pollutant
parameter as follows:

    Ammonia                           $3,560,000

    Oil and Grease                     2,370,000
             Total                   $ 5,930,000

These  estimates  represent  maximum  costs  that  would  be
experienced   if   it   were  necessary  that  all  indirect
discharging refineries not  having  pretreatment  technology
in-place  install  facilities  for ammonia and secondary oil
removal.  In actuality, the economic impact of  pretreatment
standards  on the industry should be significantly less than
the total costs shown, since many refineries may not require
additional  facilities  in  order   to   meet   pretreatment
standards  for these parameters.  It is not anticipated that
any serious energy impact or non-water quality environmental
impact  will  result  from   the   implementation   of   the
recommended pretreatment standards.

-------
                         SECTION II

                      RECOMMENDATIONS



PRETKEATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

It  is  recommended that the following be established as the
pretreatment  standards  for  existing  sources  within  the
petroleum  refining  point  source category.  They should be
applicable to discharges to publicly owned  treatment  works
(POTW)   from  petroleum  refineries,  including  refineries
within the Topping subcategory  (subcategory A), the Cracking
subcategory  (subcategory B), the  Petrochemical  subcategory
(subcategory  C),  the Lube subcategory (subcategory D), and
the Integrated subcategory (subcategory E).

Pretreatment  standards  for  Existing  Sources  within  the
Petroleum  Refining  Point Source Category  (Subparts 419.14,
419.24, 419.34. 419.44, and 419.54)

For the purpose of establishing pretreatment standards under
Section 307(b)  of the Act for a source within the  petroleum
refining point source category, the provisions of 40 CFR 128
shall not apply.  The recommended pretreatment standards for
an existing  source  within  the  petroleum  refining  point
source category are set forth below.

    (a)  No pollutant  (or  pollutant  property)   introduced
into  a  publicly owned treatment works shall interfere with
the operation or performance of  the  works.   Specifically,
the  following  wastes  shall  not  be  introduced  into the
publicly owned treatment works:

    (1)  Pollutants which create a fire or explosion  hazard
in the publicly owned treatment works.

    (2)  Pollutants which will  cause  corrosive  structural
damage  to treatment works, but in no case pollutants with a
pH  lower  than  5.0,  unless  the  works  is  designed   to
accommodate such pollutants.

    (3)  Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which  would
cause   obstruction   to   the  flow  in  sewers,  or  other
interference with the proper operation of the publicly owned
treatment works.

    (4)  Pollutants at  either  a  hydraulic  flow  rate  or
pollutant flow rate which is excessive over relatively short

-------
time  periods so that there is a treatment process upset and
subsequent loss of treatment efficiency.

    (b)   In addition to the general prohibitions  set  forth
in  paragraph (a)  above, the following pretreatment standard
establishes  the  quality  or  quantity  of  pollutants   or
pollutant properties controlled by this subsection which may
be  introduced  into  a  publicly owned treatment works by a
source subject to the provisions of this subpairt.

Pollutant or                      Pretreatment
Pollutant Property                Standard

                                  Maximum for
                                  any one day
                                  (milligrams
                                   per liter)

Ammonia (as N)                       100
Oil and grease                       100

    (c)   Any owner or operator of any source  to  which  the
pretreatment  standards  required by paragraph  (a) above are
applicable, shall be in compliance with such standards  upon
the   effective  date  of  such  standards.   The  time  for
compliance with standards required by  paragraph  (b)  above
shall  be  within the shortest time but not later than three
years from the effective date of such standards.

Guidance  to  Assist  Local  Authorities   in   Implementing
Pretreatment  Standards  for  Existing  Sources  within  the
Petroleum Refining Point Source Category   (Subparts  419.14,
419.24,  419.34, 419.44 and 419.54)  in those Individual Cases
Where  Chromium,  Sulfides,  or  Phenol  are Found to Have a
Detrimental Effect on POTW

Should it be determined on  an  individual  basis  by  local
authority that sulfides, phenol, or chromium discharged from
petroleum  refineries  have a significant detrimental effect
on  a  POTW,  by  creating  either  upset  or   pass-through
problems,  the  following limitations can be achieved by the
application of existing technology.  These  limitations  are
meant  to  serve  as guidance to assist local authorities in
dealing with their individual problems.

Pollutant or                      Guidance
Pollutant Property                Standard

                                  Maximum for
                                  any one day

-------
                                  (milligrams
                                   per liter)
Total Chromium                       1.0
Sulfides                             3.0
Phenol                               0.35

-------
                        SECTION III

                        INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments  of  1972
(the   "Act")   were  designed  by  Congress  to  achieve  an
important  objective  —  to  "restore  and   maintain   the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters."   Primary  emphasis  for attainment of this goal is
placed upon technology-based regulations.  Industrial  point
sources  which  discharge into navigable waters must achieve
limitations based on  best  practicable  control  technology
currently  available  (BPCTCA)  by  July  1,  1977, and best
available technology economically achievable (BATEA) by July
1, 1983, in accordance with sections 301(b)   and  304(b)  of
the   Act.    New   sources  must  comply  with  new  source
performance standards (NSPS) based on best available  demon-
strated  control  technology  under  section 306 of the Act.
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must  meet  "secondary
treatment"  by  1977  and  best  practicable waste treatment
technology by  1983  in  accordance  with  sections  301(b)r
304 (d), and 201 (g)  (2)  (A)  of the Act.

Users  of  POTW also fall within the statutory scheme as set
forth in section 301(b).  Such sources must comply with pre-
treatment standards promulgated pursuant to section 307.

Sections 307(b) and (c)  are the key sections of the Act with
regard to pretreatment.  The intent is to require  treatment
at  the  point  of  discharge complementary to the treatment
performed by the POTW.  Duplication of treatment is not  the
goal; as stated in the Conference Report (H.R.  Rept. No. 92-
1465,   page   130),  "In  no  event  is  it  intended  that
pretreatment facilities be required for compatible wastes as
a substitute for adequate municipal waste treatment  works."
On  the other hand, pretreatment by the industrial user of a
POTW of pollutants which are not susceptible to treatment in
a POTW is absolutely critical to attainment of  the  overall
objective  of the Act.  Pretreatment of pollutants can serve
two useful functions — protecting  the  POTW  from  process
upset  or  other  interference  and  preventing discharge of
pollutants which would  pass  through  or  otherwise  remain
untreated  after  treatment  at  such works.  Thus, the fact
that an industrial source utilizes a POTW does  not  relieve
it of substantial obligations under the Act.

-------
Section  307(b)   of  the  Act  requires the Administrator to
promulgate regulations establishing  pretreatment  standards
for  the  introduction  of  pollutants  into treatment works
which are publicly owned  for  those  pollutants  which  are
determined  not  to  be  susceptible  to  treatment  by such
treatment works, or which would interfere with the operation
of such treatment works.  Pretreatment standards established
under this section  shall  be  established  to  prevent  the
discharge of any pollutant through treatment works which are
publicly  owned  which  pollutant  interferes  with,  passes
through, or otherwise is incompatible with such works.

Section 307 (c)  provides that the  Administrator  shall  pro-
mulgate pretreatment standards for any source which would be
a  new source subject to section 306 if it were to discharge
pollutants  to  navigable  waters.   The   promulgation   of
pretreatment standards for new sources is to be simultaneous
to  the  promulgation  of  standards  of  performance  under
section 306 for the  equivalent  category  of  new  sources.
Such  pretreatment  standards shall prevent the discharge of
any pollutant into such treatment works which pollutant  may
interfere  with,  pass through, or otherwise be incompatible
with such works.

The purpose of this study was to obtain data on that portion
of the petroleum refining industry  that  utilizes  POTW  as
part  of  its  waste  management program.  Specifically, the
study sought  to  obtain  definitive  information  from  the
literature,  to  analyze  previous  reports  relative to the
petroleum industry  published  by  the  Effluent  Guidelines
Division  of  EPA  and  the  National  Commission  on  Water
Quality, and to obtain further detailed information  through
visits  of representative plants discharging their effluents
to POTW.  The data obtained  in  this  manner  provided  the
basis  for  pretreatment  standards  for that segment of the
industry utilizing  POTW  (i.e.,  the  indirect  discharging
segment) .

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE

The  information  presented  in  this  document  relative to
petroleum refineries  which  are  indirect  dischargers  was
developed in the following manner.

The   1974   Development   Document   and   the   associated
supplemental  information  were  reviewed.    The   indirect
discharging  segment  of the petroleum refining industry was
identified through an inventory of refineries discharging to
POTW  (Table III-l).  Data on these plants, including process
unit operations   (Table  IV-1),  wastewater  characteristics
                               10

-------
                                               TABLE III-l
EPA Region IV
Delta Refining Co., Memphis, Term.
INVENTORY OF PETROLEUM REFINERIES DISCHARGING TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS

                                    POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works)

                                    Memphis (south) Waste-water Treatment Plant
EPA Region V
Ashland Petroleum Co., Findlay, Ohio
Clark Oil & Refining Corp., Blue Island, 111.

EPA Region VI
Atlantic Richfield Co., Houston, Tex
Crown Central Petroleum Corp., Houston, Tex.
Lafiloria Oil & Gas Co., Tyler, Tex.
Pride Refining, Inc., Abilene, Tex.
Quintana-Howell, Corpus Christ!, Tex.

EPA Region VII
Derby Refining Co., Wichita, Kan.

EPA Region  VIII
Amoco Oil Co., Salt Lake City, Utah
Husky Oil Co., Hbrth Salt Lake, Utah

EPA Region IX
Atlantic Richfield Co., Carson, Cal.
Douglas Oil Co. of Cal., Paramount, Cal.
Edgington Oil Co., Long Beach, Cal.
Fletcher Oil & Refining Co., Carson, Cal.
Golden Eagle Refining Co., Carson, Cal.
Powerine Oil Co., Santa Fe Springs, Cal.
Shell Oil Co., Wiladngton, Cal.
Texaco, Inc., Wilmington, Cal.
Union Oil Co. of Cal., Los Angeles, Cal.
Lunday-Thagard Oil Co., South Gate, Cal.
MacMillan Ring-Free Oil Co., Long Beach, Cal.
Mobil Oil Corp., Torrence, Cal.
Gulf Oil Co., Santa Fe Springs, Cal.
Beacon Oil Co., Hanford, Cal.
                                    Findlay Wastewater Treatment Plant
                                    Chicago MSD - Calumet Plant
                                    Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority*
                                    Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority*
                                    City of Tyler Sewer System - West Plant
                                    Abilene Wastewater Reclamation Plant
                                    Corpus Christi Wastewater Treatment Works - West Plant
                                    Wichita Sewage Treatment Plant
                                    Salt Lake City Wastewater Reclamation Plant
                                    South Davis County - S. Plant
                                    L.A. County Sanitary District  (LACSD)
                                    (Joint Water Pollution Control Plant)
                                    Los Coyotes Water Renovation Plant  (LACSD)
                                    Hanford Municipal System
EPA Region X
Standard Oil of Cal., Portland, Ore.
                                    City of Portland Sewer System
NOTE:  Inventory excludes those refineries with only sanitary sewer connections to POTW's.

*GCWDA treats only industrial wastewaters

-------
(total plant, raw waste, and major waste streams - Tables V-
1, 2, and 3), and pretreatment operations (Table VII-1)  were
then   obtained.    POTW   receiving   refinery   wastewater
(excluding  those  receiving  only  sanitary  wastes)    were
identified  and  characterized  in  terms of location (Table
III-l),  flow,   pretreatment   operations,    and   refinery
pretreatment requirements (Table VII-2).

This  additional  information was obtained from a literature
search and  from  direct  contact  with  representatives  of
industry  and  the  respective  municipalities.   Twenty-six
indirect discharging refineries were identified  (see  Table
III-1).   Eleven  of  these  indirect discharging refineries
were visited.  Representatives  of  the  remaining  15  were
contacted  by  telephone.   A  visit  was made to the County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County which receive the
effluent from 12 of the  26  refineries  that  discharge  to
POTW.  Representatives of other refineries  (direct discharge
refineries)   and  representatives  of  the EPA and State and
local agencies were also contacted in this endeavor.

The indirect discharging segment was  studied  to  determine
whether separate pretreatment standards were appropriate for
the   different   subcategories   within  the  point  source
category.  This analysis included a review of the data  base
developed as background to the 1974 Development Document and
of  the  newly aquired data to determine whether differences
in raw  materials  used,  products  produced,  manufacturing
processes  employed, equipment employed, age and size of the
facilities, wastewater constituents, or other factors  would
require  development  of separate pretreatment standards for
different subcategories within the point source category.

The raw waste characteristics of  the  indirect  discharging
segment  were  identified and included in the analysis.  The
analysis included consideration  of:   1)  the  sources  and
volume  of  water  used  in  the  processes employed and the
sources of pollutants and wastewaters in the  refinery,  and
2) the constituents of all wastewaters generated at indirect
discharging  refineries.  The constituents of wastewaters to
be considered for pretreatment standards were identified.

The full range  of  control  and  pretreatment  technologies
existing  within  the point source category were identified.
This included identification of each  distinct  control  and
treatment  technology,  including an identification in terms
of the amounts of constituents and the  chemical,  physical,
and  biological  characteristics  of  pollutants, and of the
effluent level resulting from the application of each of the
pretreatment  and  control  technologies.    The   problems,
                                  12

-------
limitations,  and  reliability of each treatment and control
technology and the required implementation  time  were  also
identified.  In addition, the nonwater quality environmental
impacts,  such  as  the  effects  of the application of such
technologies upon other pollution problems,  including  air,
solid  waste,  and  noise  were also identified.  The energy
requirements of each control and treatment  technology  were
identified  as  well  as the cost of the application of such
technology.

The  information  gathered  and   the   analysis   of   this
information  form  the  basis  of the pretreatment standards
presented in Section IX of this document.  The goal of  this
study was to develop pretreatment standards on a technology-
basis.   The  study  centered on technology currently in use
and readily available to the industry  for  the  purpose  of
controlling  selected  pollutant  parameters which interfere
with, are inadequately treated by, or pass through POTW.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY SEGMENT UTILIZING POTW

That portion of the petroleum refining industry  which  dis-
charges    to   municipal   treatment   systems   represents
approximately 10 percent of the total number  of  refineries
in the United States.  These plants are generally similar to
those  representative  of  the industry as a whole, with the
exception of the feasibility of indirect  discharge  due  to
plant   location  (accessibility  to  a  POTW).   A  general
description of the entire industry is contained in the  1974
Development   Document   (see   pages   14-54  of  the  1974
Development Document) and  is  equally  applicable  to  both
direct and indirect dischargers.
                                    13

-------
                         SECTION IV

                 INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION

The   petroleum   refining   point   source   category   was
subcategorized during the  development  of  effluent  limit-
ations  and  guidelines and new source performance standards
(see the 1974 Development Document).  The  subcategorization
is  process  oriented; the delineation between subcategories
is based upon raw waste load characteristics in relation  to
the  complexity of refinery operations.  It is identified in
the 197U Development Document  (3) as follows:
Subcategory

A - Topping
B - Cracking
C - Petrochemical
Basic Refinery Operations Included

Topping and catalytic reforming whether
or not the facility includes any other
process in addition to topping and cata-
lytic reforming.  This subcategory
is not applicable to facilities
which include thermal processes
(coking, visbreaking, etc.)  or
catalytic cracking.

Topping and cracking, whether or not the
facility includes any processes in addition
to topping and cracking, unless specified
in one of the subcategories listed below.

Topping, cracking, and petrochemical opera-
tions, whether or not the facility includes
any process in addition to topping, cracking
and petrochemical operations,* except lube
oil manufacturing operations.
*The term "petrochemical operations" shall mean the production
of second generation petrochemicals (i.e., alcohols, ketones,
cumene, styrene, etc.)  or first generation petrochemicals and
isomerization products  (i.e., BTX, olefins, cyclohexane, etc.)
when 15% or more of refinery production is as first generation
petrochemicals and isomerization products.
                                   15

-------
D - Lube             Topping, cracking and lube oil manufacturing
                     processes,  whether or not the facility includes
                     any process in addition to topping, cracking
                     and lube oil manufacturing processes,  except
                     petrochemical (*see note on previous page)
                     and integrated operations.

E - Integrated       Topping, cracking, lube oil manufacturing,
                     and petrochemical operations, whether
                     or not the facility includes any
                     processes in addition to topping, cracking,
                     lube oil manufacturing, and petro-
                     chemical operations  (*see note on previous
                     page) .


In developing pretreatment standards  for  the  industry,  a
comparison  of  characteristics of indirect dischargers with
those of the industry as  a  whole  was  made  to  determine
whether  or  not  the  subcategorization  presented above is
applicable to those refineries  discharging  wastewaters  to
POTW.  The factors considered were:

    1.   Refinery characteristics
    2.   Volume and characteristics of wastewater
    3.   Manufacturing processes employed

FACTORS CONSIDERED IN SUBCATEGORIZATION

Refinery Characteristics

Within the United States, petroleum refineries  are  concen-
trated   in   areas   of   major  crude  production   (Texas,
California, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Illinois,  Kansas)  and  in
major population areas  (Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio,
Texas,   California).    Of   the  total  of  256  operating
refineries as of January 1, 1976  (19),  26  refineries  were
identified  that discharge process waste waters to POTW.  As
shown in Figure IV-1, the geographic distribution  of  these
indirect  discharging  refineries  is similar to that of the
industry as a whole, with  the  majority  being  located  in
California  and  Texas.   It  is  therefore  concluded  that
geographic location is not a  significant  factor  affecting
subcategorization.

Most  indirect  discharging  refineries  surveyed were first
constructed decades ago, as is the case with many facilities
throughout the industry.  Initial construction, however,  is
a meaningless characteristic for comparison, since additions
to   and   modifications  of  existing  refineries  are  the
                                 16

-------
                                                                       X   Indirect Discharger

                                                                       *    Other Refineries
       FIGURE  IV-1
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
     OF REFINERIES

-------
industry's principal form of expansion.   The age of existing
plants does not determine either the volume or  the  quality
of  wastewater discharged to a POTW and, therefore, is not a
valid factor affecting subcategorization.

During the technical study, no general trend was  recognized
in  terms  of the economic stature of refineries discharging
to municipal treatment  systems.   There  is  no  reasonable
basis  for  assuming  that  refineries  utilizing  POTW  for
disposal of wastes are significantly different  economically
than  their counterparts that discharge wastewaters directly
to navigable waters.  (The economic study,  which  parallels
the  technical  study,  has  determined  that  even with the
implementation of pretreatment standards for ammonia and oil
and  grease,  indirect   discharging   refineries   have   a
competitive  advantage  over  direct discharging refineries.
See Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 56, March  23,  1976,  p.
15685) .

The   combined  crude  throughput  of  indirect  dischargers
amounts to about 10% of the 15.7 million  barrels/day  total
capacity  of  all  U.S.  petroleum  refineries  operating in
1976 (19).  These range in size from a  small,  5000  bbl/day
topping  facility  to  a  large,  integrated  complex with a
233,500 bbl/day capacity.  Table  IV-1  indicates  that  the
size  distribution  of  indirect  discharging  facilities is
approximately the same as that for the industry as a whole.

Volume and Characteristics of Wastewater

During the  development  of  effluent  limitations  for  the
petroleum  refining point source category, it was determined
that raw waste  loading  was  the  most  significant  factor
affecting  subcategorization  (see 1974 Development Document
at pages 56-62).  The 1972  "Petroleum  Industry  Raw  Waste
Load  Survey"  (1)  provides a useful tool for comparing raw
wastewater  characteristics  between  direct  and   indirect
dischargers.   The  1972  study  included  a  survey  of API
separator  effluents  from  135  refineries.    Table   IV-2
presents  information obtained in that survey for refineries
within  the  Cracking  subcategory    (subcategory   B).    A
comparison   of   median  raw  waste  load  values  for  the
identified indirect  dischargers  to  those  for  the  total
industry  indicates  a  close  similarity  for  certain  key
parameters—flow  (gal/bbl crude), TOC, oil and  grease,  and
sulfide.    Recognizing   the   limited   quantity  of  data
available, the data tend to confirm  that  raw  waste  water
quality  for  indirect  dischargers  does  not differ in any
significant way from that of the entire industry.  A further
comparison  with  raw  waste  load  data  gathered  for  the
                                  18

-------
                         TABLE IV-1

                 DISTRIBUTION OF REFINERIES
                     BY CRUDE CAPACITY
                              Crude Capacity  (1000 bbl/day)

                             <40           40-100       >100

Indirect Dischargers:

     Number of refineries      13              76

     Percentage of total       50             27         23


Total Industry*:

     Number of refineries    139             68          49

     Percentage of total      54             27          19



*Reference 19
                           19

-------
Indirect  Discharge
                                                                                         TABLE IV-2

                                                                           API SEPARATOR EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                                FOR SUBCATEGORY B-CRACKING
                                                                               INDIRECT  DISCHARGE REFINERIES
                                                                                             VS.
                                                                                       TOTAL INDUSTRY
                                                                                       (Reference #26)
                                                                                         API Separator Effluent Load (Ibs./day per 1000 bbl. crude)
                                Effluent Volume
Refinery Code
2
3
7
10
15
17
18
19
tS3 oc
O ^'
"»
Median
Total Industry
Median
Total MGD
7.96
3-35
3.46
0.48
0.08
0.25
1.22
0.22
3.41
i».96
2^8

1.31
Gal. /Bbl Crude
85.82
47.86
26.62
11.21
6.93
24.49
32.71
8.46
36.54
55.73
29.67

40.73
BOD(5)
-
255-95
365.37
67.41
2.17
329.97
42.69
-
57-99
1 6 "*."t 8
11535

37.96
COD
-
598.88
1432.58
211.15
17.84
590.95
148.86
0.03
131.78
5 6 5.5 5
21 1.15

105.29
TOC
-
140.34
89-23
21.1+4
4.12
6.45
46.67
20.19
20.24
73.1»8
21*-,

18.21
O&G
-
38.35
203.20
13.74
3.82
3-31
4.72
12.00
2.81
22.68
12.00

14.52
Phenolics
22.21
12.66
0.60
17.69
0.37
3.58
0.66
1.83
15.47
it 3.0 5
8.12

1.66
Sulfide
0.18
0.03
0.40
0.00
0.03
17.48
14.22
0.42
1.82
0.00
0.29

0.34
Chromium
-
0.18
0.1*5
0.00
0.12
0.00
-0.05
0.01
7.68
0.13
0.12

0.03
Ammonia
21.63
127.77
103-95
56.16
0.86
3.36
1.56
6.45
48.24
38.25
3H.90

7.86

-------
establishment   of  effluent  limitations  (see  Development
Document, Table  19,  page  65)   shows  that  the  data  for
indirect  discharging refineries (Table IV-2)  are within the
range of values anticipated.  Although  no  comparable  data
were  obtained  during  this study from indirect dischargers
within other subcategories, it  is  not  expected  that  raw
waste  water quality will differ in any significant way from
that of the industry  as  a  whole.   It  is  expected  that
additional   data   will  be  available  to  enable  further
evaluation as a result of the BATEA review for the petroleum
refining industry which is being conducted as  a  result  of
the  order  of  the  U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia entered in Natural Resources  Defense  Council,  et
al., v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976).

Manufacturing Processes Employed

Today's  petroleum  refinery  is  a  complex  combination of
interdependent operations which involve  the  separation  of
crude  molecular constituents, molecular cracking, molecular
rebuilding, and solvent finishing to produce a diverse range
of products.  As shown in Table IV-3,  the  distribution  of
indirect discharge refineries in each subcategory is similar
to that for the entire industry.  Table IV-4 is a summary of
the  types  of  manufacturing  processes  employed  by those
refineries  identified  in   this   study   as   discharging
wastewaters  to  POTW,  No major differences were identified
between the refining methods used by  these  facilities  and
those employed by the industry in general.

SUMMARY

The  subcategorization  presented  in  the  1974 Development
Document  (3) allows for the definition of  logical  segments
within  the  refining industry based on factors which affect
raw waste load.  Further analysis of these factors has shown
that  there  are  no  fundamental  differences  between  the
indirect   discharging  portion  of  the  industry  and  the
petroleum refining industry as a whole.  Therefore, the same
method of subcategorization  can  be  used  to  characterize
those refineries discharging to POTW.
                                  21

-------
                                           TABLE IV-3
                                   DISTRIBUTION OF REFINERIES
                                         BY SUBCATEGORY
to
Indirect Dischargers:

           Number of refineries

           Percentage of total


Total Industry*:

           Number of refineries

           Percentage of total
                                                                 Subcategory
A
10
38
96
38
B
13
50
111
43
C D E
2 o 1
80 4
19 22 8
793
     *References 19,29

-------
                                                                                              TABLE IV-1*

                                                                                           PROCESS SIMMARY
                                                                                     INDIRECT DISCHARGE REFINERIES
SJ
     Standard Oil Co. of Cal.
     Portland, Ore.
     Union Oil Co. of Cal.
     Los Angeles, Cal.
     Texaco  Inc.
     Wilmington, Cal.
      Shell Oil Co.
      WiJjnington, Cal.
      Poverine Oil Co.
      Santa Fe Springs,  Cal.
     Mobil Oil Corp.
     Torrance, Cal.
     MacMillan  Ring-Free Oil  Co.
     Long Beach, Cal.

     Lunday-Thagard Oil Co.
     South Gate, Cal.
      Gulf Oil  Co.
      Santa Fe  Springs,  Cal.
     Golden Eagle Refining Co.
     Carson, Cal.

     Fletcher Oil & Refining  Co.
     Carson, Cal.

     Edgington Oil Co.
     Long Beach, Cal.

Region
10


9


9


9




9


9



9

9


9


9

9

9


Sub-
Category
A


B


B


B




B


B



A

A


B


A

A

A


Refinery Crude
Capacity Processes
1000 bbl/day 1000 bbl/day
15.0 D
A
V
111.0 D
A
V
75-0 D
A

101.0 D
A
V


1*1*.0 D
A
V
123.5 D
A
V

12.2 A
V
5.0 D
A
V
53.8 D
A
V
15.0 D
A
20.0 D
A
30.0 D
A
V
15.0
15.0
15.0
86.0
111.0
83.0
22.0
75.0

101.0
101.0
60.0


1*4.0
i*.o
15.0
100.0
123.5
95.0

12.2
12.2
5.0
5.0
3.0
53.8
53.8
25.0
15.0
15.0
20.0
20.0
30.0
30.0
19.0
Cracking Lube Asphalt
Processes Processes Production
1000 bbl/day 1000 bbl/day 1000 bbl/day Data Source



F
H
V
D
F
H
D
F



F


D
F
H
V





F
H
V







8.6 3,29


52.0 10.0 3
21.0
20.0
U8.0 3,29
28.0
20.0
37.0 c 7.8 3, HC
1*0.0 D 21*. 3
E 1.8
G 18.6
X 7.8
12.0 5.0 3,19,RC


1*6.6' 3,RC
56.0
18.0
16.0
19,29

2.15 19.29.RC


13.8 It.O 3
11.0
13.8
19,29,RC

19

12.0 19,29



-------
                                                                                       TABLE IV-1* (Cont.)
                                                  Sub-
 Douglas Oil Co.  of Cal.
 Paramount, Cal.
 Beacon Oil Co.
 Hanford,  Cal.

 Atlantic  Richfield Co.
 Carson, Cal.
 Husky Oil Co.
 North Salt Lake City,  Utah
 Aicoco Oil Co.
 Salt Lake City,  Utah

 Derby Refining Co.
 Wichita,  Kan.
 Quintana-Hovrell
 Corpus  Christ!, Tex.

 Pride Refining Inc.
 Abilene,  Tex.

 LaGloria  Gas & Oil Co.
 Tyler,  Tex.
 Crown  Central Petroleum Corp.
 Houston,  Tex.
Atlantic Richfield Co.
Houston, Tex.
Clark Oil & Refining  Corp.
Blue Island, 111.
Ashland Petroleum Co.
Findlay, Ohio


Delta Refining Co.
Memphis, Term.


LEGEND

Crude Processes
    D - Desalting
    A - Atmospheric distillation
    V - Vacuum distillation
Refinery
Capacity
1OOO bbl/day
1*6.5


12.lt

186.1*




2l*.0


39.0

27.65


1*1*.5

37.96

29-7


103.0


233.5




70.0


21.0


1*4.8


Crude
Processes
1000 bbl/day
D
A
V
D
A
D
A
V


D
A
V
D
A
D
A
V
D
A
D
A
D
A

D
A
V
D
A
V


D
A
V
D
A
V
D
A
V
1*6.5
1*6.5
21.0
12.1*
12.1*
186.1*
186.1*
93.0


2U.O
21*. 0
4.6
39.0
39.0
27.65
27.65
8.8
l*l«.5
1*1*. 5
37.96
37.96
29.7
29.7

103.0
103.0
38.0
233.5
233.5
70.0


70.0
70.0
27.0
21.0
21.0
8.0
1*1*.8
l*l*.8
15.0
Cracking Lube
Processes Processes
1000 bbl/day 1000 bbl/day



a
V
D
F
0
H
V



F

D
T





D
F
G
D
F

D
F
H


F
H




F
I




0.5
2.75
30.0
65.0
12.5
19.7
1*2.0



22.0

3-8
12.55





12.0
15.0
3.0
9.5
52.0

27.0 A 5.2
71*. 0 C 3.1*
4.5 D 0.6
a i».o
Q 6.2
25.0
11.0




12.0
12.0

Asphalt
Production
1000 bbl/day Data Source
18.0 19,29,RC


3,19,29

3,29,RC




3.H.PC


2.5 3

3,19


3,19

3,19

3,19


3


3




t.5 3


6.5 19,29


8.0 3,19,29


Cracking Processes
    D - Delayed coking
    F - Fluid catalytic cracking
    G - Gas-oil cracking
    H - Hydrocracking
    T - Thermal cracking
    V - Visbreaking
Lube Processes
    A - Lube hydrofining
    C - Propane - dewaxing, deasphalting
    D - Duo sol, solvent dewaxing
    E - Lube vac. toner, wax tract.
    G - MEK dewaxing
    M - Furfural extraction
    Q - Phenol extraction
Data Source
    RC - Refinery contact

-------
                         SECTION V

                   WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION

The  purpose  of  this section of the document is to present
quantitative    data    which    describe    the    effluent
characteristics  of  petroleum refineries which discharge to
POTW.  In addition, available data on API separator effluent
characteristics from all petroleum refineries are  included.
Finally,  sour  water  stripper effluent characteristics are
discussed; this waste stream represents a  major  source  of
pollutants   which   may  pass  through  or  interfere  with
municipal treatment  plants.   Figure  V-l  is  a  schematic
diagram  of  the  relationship of the waste characterization
data presented herein.

PRETREATMENT EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS

Table  V-l  is  the  summary  of  available  effluent   data
collected   either  from  representatives  of  the  indirect
discharging refineries or the receiving POTW, as  indicated.
This  table includes all pertinent data obtained on indirect
dischargers in the industry.  It represents the  results  of
specific  data requests  (in most cases by both telephone and
formal letter) to the refineries and/or the  receiving  POTW
listed  in  the inventory (Table III-1).  The data presented
is as received from the refinery or the  POTW;  verification
sampling   has  not  been  conducted  because  of  the  time
constraints imposed on completion of this study.

Data collected on the  effluent  from  indirect  discharging
refineries  within  the  Topping subcategory  (subcategory A)
are characterized from Table V-l as follows:
                                                   # of Plants
                      Max        Min     Median     Reporting
Flow (MGD)           .258       .006     0.127         6
BODS (mg/1)           323        205     I.D.          1
COD  (mg/1)            905        71      275           6
TOC  (mg/1)            No Data
O&G  (mg/1)            195       .8       32            6
Phenolics  (mg/1)       63.4      LT .05   1.96          6
Sulfides  (mg/1)       75.3      LT .01   0.05          6
Total Chromium (mg/1)  8         LT.005   0.62          6
Ammonia (mg/1)        127       .617     34.0          5
          Notes:   ID - Insufficient data.
                  LT - Less than.
                                    25

-------
                  FIGURE V-l

      WASTE  CHARACTERIZATION  PROCEDURE
     FOR  INDIRECT DISCHARGE REFINERIES
   Sour Water
   Stripper  Effluent*
v
                API  Separator
V
  Other
  Refinery
  Waste Streams
                         Raw Wastewater*
                       V
             Pretreatment Operation
                         Effluent  to  POTW*
 *Waste  Characterization data described in this section
                       26

-------
                                                                                                 TABLE V-l

                                                                          SUMMARY OF INDIRECT  DISCHARGE REFINERIES' EFFLUENT DAXA
    Refinery Code

    Category A - Topping
          8
         14
         11



         21


         12


         13
     Category  B  -  Cracking
jo       30
         22
         19

         18
 (1)

 Flow
(55a>T

0.006
0.258



0.216


0.033


0.14
0.0432
0.0446
0.0687
0.127
0.136
0.6*
o.4oi
0.1*76
0.323
1.42
                                                    (2)
0.25-0.40

1.32
1.35
1.26
1.78
1.51
1.38
1.32
1.1*0
1.39
l.Ul
1.31
1.57
                 205
                 323
553
525
657
756
175

23!*
154
101*
106
112
11*6
123
123
                                                     167
                                                      58
                                                      U8
                                                      1*2
                                                      53
                                                      47
                                                      56
                                                      51
                                                      57
                                                      67
                                                      70
                                                      68
                                                      72
              (3)

              COD
             (Sg/D

              234
              680
                                                                   470
              200
               98
               71

              494
              905

              390
              400
              240
              127
              275
 321
 390
 275
 265
 285
 268
 275
 258
 179
 226
<503
 237
 187
 423-1300
                (4)

                TOC
               (SI7D
 (5)

 C&G
(Si/D

 128
  80
                                                                                                 135
                               12.1
                                7.1
                                0.8

                               195
                               22.3

                               32
                               11
                               49
                               34.5
                               11.0
                               109.9
                               87.5
                               73-6
                               66.0
                                            14-23(19.5)

                                            25
                                            21
                                            19
                                            21
                                            17
                                            10
                                            18
                                            24
                                            24
                                            25
                                            17
                                            20
(6)

Phenolics
(mg/l)
<0.05
50
0.14/0.10/
4.2/2.5/5-1/
5.5/0.7

0.65
0.70
0.25
0.50
_
3-2
2.0
7.5
1.3
1.96
63.4
10.5-58(33-5)
15-33.5(22.0)
13-60 (32.7)
16-61 (33.7)
4.1
3.7
3-5
4.5
2.9
3.2
4.1
4.14
2.75
4.15
3.62
3-03
2.87
11-88 (49.5)
18
19
5
16
15
10
23
20
16
8.3
6.4
33
(7)

Sulfides
O-SA)
<0.10
<0.10
<1.0/<0.05/
<0.05/<0.05/
<0.05/<0.05/
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
•CO.l
<0.04
75.3
54.6
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.78
0.33
.
.
;
37.0
45.0
50.0
51.3
24.9
51.6
26.6
36.6
22.2
24.1
23.6
47.1
2.45
nil
2.9
1.1
0.4
0.7
1.2
2.7
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.5
3.0
16
(8)
Total
Chromium
(mg/1)
<0.20
2.8
-

2.75
<0.05
<0.05
<0.005
8
0.03
0.66
1.7
0.62
6
<0.01
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.03-0.
45
56
55
51
U8
46
210
230
330
212
198
167
                               (10)

                             Comments
                75           Column #1 from reference 29
                22.4         columns fe - 9 obtained from
                             two quarterly grab samples (POTW)
               /64/67/S6/
               /127/34       Data for Column #1 and the first
                             seven sets of data from individual
                             grab samples (Refinery)
                34           Data for the last set from a
                             single quarterly grab sample
                             (POTW)
                3°           All data from individual grab
                17           sample analyses-the first fur-
                23           nished by the POTW, and the
                             second and third by the refinery.
                             Colunn #lX3eneral data (POTW)
                             Columns #2-9 - Individual grab
                             samples (POTW)
                35           All data fron quarterly grab
                28           samples (POTW)
                9*3          Two individual grab samples
                32.3         (POTW)
                0.617
                             Data for the first four sets
                             of values from monthly averages
                             (POTW).   For Column #6, average
                             in parentheses.
                             Data for Colunn #1 from POTW
                             Data for Columns #3, 6, & 7
                             from monthly averages of weekly
                             (on file) grab samples (POTW)
                             Data for Column #2 from monthly
                             grab sotples (POTW)
0.03-0.63 (0.33)32-105(68.5) All data given only as range
                             (POTW) (Averages by B&R)
                                                                                           5.9
                                                                                           15.2
                                                                                           7.2
                                                                                           8.4
                                                                                           11.2
                                                                                           14.0

                                                                                           3.2
                                                                                           3.9
                                                                                           5.8
                                                                                           6.0
                                                                                           22
                             Data for Column #1 from daily
                             averages for each month.  Data
                             for Ooliams #2, 5, & 8 from
                             mnnt.hly grab samples.  Data for
                             Columns #6, 7 & ( from monthly
                             averages of weekly samples (on
                             file).  All data obtained from
                             the refinery.

-------
                                                                                 TABLE V-l  (Cont.)

                                                               SUMMARY OF INDIRECT DISCHARGE REFINERIES' EFFLUENT DATA
               Refinery Code


               Category B  - Cracking  (Cont.)
               17
               15
10
00
               Category C - Petrochemical
               16
                27
(1)
Flow
(MGD)
0
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
-
0.
-
-
0.
0
-
0.
0.
0
0
.220










.385


.080
.097

.530
.480
.540
.243
0.056
~
4.
4
4.
3.
2
2
3
3 ,
0,
0.
0.
0.
3,
3.
3,
4,
5.
4,
5.
5,
1.


.39
.02
.42
.73
.92
.90
.00
,12
.58
.70
.36
.72
.30
.12
.40
.16
.51
.03
.63
.68
.5

(2) (3) (4)
BODS COD TOC
(5) (6)
O&G Phenolics
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
-
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
75
38
56
47
103
-
746
723
1546
2900
600
100
1113
1094
1394
1008
1228
1231
1938
1186
2618
4150
5967
5890
383
378
370
329
774
790
971
679
200-375 500-800

.
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37
13
-
-
50
-
46.7
43
66
346
208
<1.0
81
53.9
51.2
50.1
96
90
69
ilj
51
120
101
160
5
2
7
3
31
19
57
31
25-80(52

(mg/1)
0.21
0.31
0.45
0.85
1.5
1.25
1.4
1.31
1.4
1.41
1.44
-
-
-
-
0.19
8.50
13.5
52
94
105
<0.05
<0.05
65
76.2
88.5
71.7
80
147
37
60
199
178
150
213
18.5
5.5
4.0
2.2
32
57
59
10
.5) -

(7)
Sulfldes
(mg/1)
0
0.
0.
0
1
1
2.
2.
2
2
2.
-
-
-
-
-
1
.
< 0.
<0
0
-< 0
<0
0.
< 0
0.
0.
•CO.
<0.
•CO.
<0.
0
0
0
0
< 0.
< 0.
< o.
< 0.
<0.
<0.
-< 0.
-<0.
-

.21
.29
.67
.47
.0
.0
.3
.4
.4
.3
.8





.00

.1
.1

.1
.1
.11
.015
.315
.08
.10
.05
.10
.02




10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10


(8)
Total
Chromium
(mg/1)
0.
0.
0.
0.
-
-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-
-
-
-
0.
2.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.

-------
Data collected on the  effluent  from  indirect  discharging
refineries  within  the cracking subcategory (subcategory B)
are characterized from Table V-l as follows:
Flow (MGD)
BODS (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
06G (mg/1)
Phenolics (mg/1)
Sulfides (mg/1)
Max
4.42
756
5967
No Data
160
213
51.6
Total Chromium  (mg/1) 330
Ammonia (mg/1)        1130
Min
.080
 38
 179

 2
 0.19
 0
.03
 3.2
Median
1.34
75
463

40
10.5
0.9
.844
21.4
Number of
  Plants
Reporting
   11
    5
    7

   10
   11
   10
    9
    9
The number of indirect  discharging  refineries  within  the
Petrochemical subcategory (subcategory C)  and the Integrated
subcategory  (subcategory  E)  is  limited.   Therefore,  no
characterization is presented beyond that data presented  in
Table  V-1  for  subcategories  C and E.  There have been no
indirect discharging refineries identified within  the  Lube
(subcategory  D).   The  Agency solicits input regarding the
identification of additional refineries discharging to  POTW
other than those identified in Table III-l.

API SEPARATOR EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS

Table  V-2  presents  a  summary  of  API separator effluent
quality data (26)  and  is  based  on  the  1972  "Petroleum
Industry  Raw  Waste  Load  Survey"  (1).  Data pertaining to
those refineries identified in this study as being  indirect
dischargers   are  summarized.   These  data  represent  the
refinery waste water quality after passage  through  an  API
separator,  but  before any subsequent pretreatment prior to
discharge to the municipal  system.   Median  data  for  all
plants  reported  in  the  survey,  both direct and indirect
dischargers, are also included in the table for purposes  of
comparison.

SOUR WATER WASTE STREAM CHARACTERISTICS

Refinery   wastewater   condensates   containing   sulfides,
ammonia, and phenolics are termed sour  water.   These  sour
water   waste   streams   constitute  the  major  source  of
pollutants discharged from petroleum refineries which  might
be  expected  to  pass  through or interfere with POTW.  The
most significant sources of sour water are condensates  from
accumulators,  reflux  drums, flare drums, and knockout pots
                                   29

-------
                                                                       TABLE V-2
                                                             SUMMARY OF INDIRECT DISCHARGE
                                                      REFINERIES'  API SEPARATOR EFFLUENT QUALITY
                                                                    (Reference #26)
Refinery Code

Category A - Toppirfg (*Median)
Category B - Cracking
25
19
18
17
15
10
7
4
3
2
•Median
Category C - Petrochemical
16
•Median
Category E - Integrated
26
•Median
BODS
(mg/1)
23.3
190
-
156
1615
37.5
720
1646
354
641
-
138

202
144
.
94.4
114
COD
(mg/1)
107
432
0.425
546
2893
309
2258
6453
1217
1500
-
383

1096
418

442
261
TOC
(mg/1)
20.0
66.4
286
171
31.6
71.2
229
401
158
352
-
66.3

-
135

167
51.5
OSG

-------
in catalytic reformers, cracking, hydrocracking, coking, and
crude distillation units (2).  Since most refineries provide
sour water stripping for sulfide and ammonia reduction prior
to biological treatment, characterization  of  the  effluent
quality  from  stripping  units is significant.  Data on the
quality of stripped sour water was requested for all of  the
indirect  discharging  refineries identified in Table III-l.
Table V-3 is a summary of the responses received.

Additional data on the quality of stripped sour water  waste
streams  can  be  found  in  the  "1972 Sour Water Stripping
Survey Evaluation" (24).  This information is  presented  in
Tables V-4 and V-5.  The refineries which provided this data
have  not  been  identified  as  discharging  to  POTW, and,
therefore, are assumed to be primarily  direct  dischargers.
However,  the  characteristics  of stripped sour water waste
streams are equally applicable to indirect as well as direct
dischargers.
                                  31

-------
                                   TABLE V-3

                DATA SUMMARY OF INDIRECT DISCHARGE REFINERIES'
                              STRIPPED SOUR WATER
Refinery
Code
17
16
Flow
(gpm)
Ammonia
(mg/1)

Max 58
Min 40
         Max 75
         Min 35
Sulfide
(mg/1)

  2
  0
Phenol
(mg/1)
Thio
Sulfa.te
(mg/1)
Comments
                       Monthly sampling
                       6/74 - 12/75

                       operating
                       conditions
14
           100
 14
           2710
   138
  11
                        650
                       76
                       design conditions

                       average
                       performance
     Additional data on stripped sour water quality from an API Sour Water
Stripper Survey (Reference 24) is presented in Tables V-4 and V-5.  The facilities
providing this data have not been identified as dischargers to POTW's and con-
sequently can be assumed to be primarily direct dischargers.  However, the
wastewater characteristics of stripped sour water from direct dischargers is
applicable to indirect dischargers as well.
                                  32

-------
                              TABLE V-4

            AVERAGE QUALITY OF SOUR WATER STRIPPER BOTTOMS
                      -STEAM STRIPPING-REFLUXED
                            (Reference #2k)
Stripper
  Code
3
12
13B
lU
15
19
20A
20B
22A
22B
22C
23
25
26A
27
28
3^
36
37A
37B
38A
38B
1+1
42
43
44
55
56
60
61

700
290
38
280
562
170
250
305
259
199
95
435
90
45
108
74

154
119
78
250
25
281*
188
340
2,055
3,159
68
6k
63
100
65
45
200
5000
80
80
600
850
200
500
1*00
187
15
56
25
693
1*4.70
555
(ppm)
1.5
1.0
4
2.8
3.5
2
696
665
1
0.1
0.1
1
16
28
20
1500
15
5
50
100
60
100
200
30
Trace
20
1
255
65
Nil
(ppm)
_
290
10.7
582
116
155
311
521
-
_
_
4oo
90
-
150
1000
280
200
-
_
-
90
600
-
375
239
250
4io
Nil
28
Mean
Max
Min
Median
200
700
22
590
5000
15
188
128
1500
Nil
16
290
1000
Nil
250
                                   33

-------
                              TABLE V-5

            AVERAGE QUALITY OF SOUK WATER  STRIPPER BOTTOMS
                   -STEAM STRIPPING-NON-REFLUXED
                            (Reference #24)
Stripper
  Code
5
7
8
9
10
13A
18
21A
21B
29
31
32
33
47
48
51
52
53
54A
54B
57
58
59
63
Flow
(gpm)

45
57
47
177

120
56
427
90
53
80
80
307
52
80
56.3
16.4
218
53
143
13.4
32.0
64
101
Tppm)

208
49-5

380
96
4oo
265
300
300
2600
408
65
200
115
115
1017
56
9-8
76
350
860
11
250
580
HpS
Tppm)

3
30.3
20
90
16
6
2
90
300
3000
13
0.2
8
5

88
1
4.5
6
22
202
1
10
291
Phenols
 (ppm)
45
350
400

200
45
479
310

31
20
320
225

455
147

13
250
280
150
i4o
63
Mean
Max
Min
Median
103
427
13.4
64
379
2600
9.8
250
183
3000
0.2
13
206
479
13
200
                                34

-------
                         SECTION VI

             SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
INTRODUCTION

Petroleum refinery wastewaters have  been  characterized  in
the  previous  section  and in the 1974 Development Document
with regard to significant pollutant parameters  present  in
refinery  effluents.   Certain  pollutants, namely BOD, COD,
and TOC, are treatable in POTW  (BPCTCA for these  parameters
is based on biological treatment of petroleum refinery waste
waters)   and, consequently, have not been further considered
in  this  document.   Therefore,  the  pollutant  parameters
selected  for  further consideration in the establishment of
pretreatment standards for the petroleum  refining  industry
are  those  pollutants  which  might  be  considered to pass
through or interfere with POTW.

SELECTED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS

Presented below is a listing of those pollutants present  in
refinery  effluents which may pass through or interfere with
the operation of POTW.

    Ammonia
    Sulfides
    Oil and grease
    Phenols
    Chromium

The  environmental  significance  and   sources   of   these
wastewater  parameters are discussed in the 1974 Development
Document on pages 71  through  90.   These  discussions  are
adequate  and, therefore, are not repeated in this document.
The following discussions consider the removability  of  the
selected  parameters by POTW and the effects of the selected
parameters on POTW  (see reference 37) .
Ammonia

Evidence exists that ammonia exerts a toxic  effect  on  all
aquatic  life  depending  on the pH, dissolved oxygen level,
and  the  total  ammonia  concentration  in  the  water.   A
significant  oxygen  demand  can  result  from the microbial
oxidation of ammonia.  Approximately 4.5 grams of oxygen are
required for every gram of ammonia to be oxidized.
                                35

-------
At low concentration levels, ammonia serves as an  important
nutrient   in  a  healthy  biological  oxidation system.  No
adverse  effects  on  oxygen  consumption   are   noted   at
concentrations  of  up  to  100  mg/1.   At excessively high
levels (about 480 mg/1)  ammonia exhibits inhibitory  effects
on  the  activated sludge process (see references 42, 44, 46
and 48) .

Sulfides

Sulfides can  be  converted  to  sulfuric  acid  in  sewers,
causing  corrosion of concrete pipes used to convey effluent
to the treatment plant  (i.e., POTW).  Sulfides do  not  pass
through  biological  treatment  systems;  rather,  they  are
oxidized  to  sulfates.    Therefore,  excessive  levels   of
sulfide  can  interfere with the activated sludge process by
depleting the dissolved oxygen transferred in  the  aeration
process.   Limited  data  indicates  that  25  to 50 mg/1 of
sulfide  is  sufficient  to  cause  interference  with   the
activated  sludge  process   (see  references 45, 46, 49, and
55).

Oil arid Grease

In  addition  to  partially  passing  through  a  biological
treatment plant, oil and grease of petroleum origin has been
reported  to interfere with the aerobic processes of a POTW.
It is believed that the principal interference is caused  by
attachment of floe particles, resulting in a slower settling
rate, loss of solids by carryover out of the settling basin,
and   excessive   release  of  BOD  from  the  POTW  to  the
environment.  Additionally, in activated sludge  units,  oil
and  grease  may  coat  the biomass, interfering with oxygen
transfer.  As a consequence of this "smothering"  action,  a
lower  degree  of treatment may be achieved.  Oil and grease
may also cause other problems in  POTW  operation,  such  as
clogging  screens  and interfering with skimming and pumping
operations   (see   reference    37).     Therefore,    many
municipalities limit the quantity of oil and grease that can
be discharged to their treatment systems by industry.

Phenols

There  is  an  extremely  diverse  reaction  caused  by  the
discharge  of  phenolic  wastes  to   biological   treatment
systems.   This reaction depends upon whether the sludge has
been acclimated to this material.  Relatively small  amounts
of  phenolics  can  be  inhibitory  to  unacclimated sludge.
However, with acclimation and use  of  the  complete  mixing
mode  of  operation,  high  concentrations  of phenol can be
                                  36

-------
tolerated in biological  treatment  systems  (see  reference
37).

Chromium

Chromium  in its various valence states is hazardous to man.
It can produce lung tumors when inhaled and can induce  skin
sensitizations.   Large  doses  of  chromates have corrosive
effects on the intestinal tract and can  cause  inflammation
of the kidneys.  Levels of chromate ions that have no effect
on  man  appear  to  be so low as to prohibit determination.
The recommendation for public water supplies  is  that  such
supplies contain a maximum of .05 mg/1 of total chromium.

The  toxicity  of  chromium  salts to fish and other aquatic
life  varies  widely  with  the  species,  pH,  temperature,
valence  of  the  chromium,  and synergistic or antagonistic
effects.  Studies have shown that trivalent chromium is more
toxic to fish of some types than hexavalent chromium.  Other
studies report the opposite effect.  Fish food organisms and
other lower forms of aquatic life are extremely sensitive to
chromium.  Chromium also inhibits the growth of algae.

Interferences with biological processes are reported at  the
1 mg/1 concentration level of hexavalent chromium.  However,
in  the  concentration  range of 1 to 50 mg/1, the published
literature is quite confusing and contradictory,  indicating
effects  ranging  from serious interference to insignificant
effects.  Table VI-1 summarizes the conclusions  reached  in
an  earlier study (37)  concerning the effects of chromium on
biological treatment processes.
                                   37

-------
                                        TABLE VI-1

                    EFFECTS OF CHROMIUM ON BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
Concentration
mg/1
0.005
0.05
0.25
1
1
1
1.5
2.5
5
5
7

8.8
5-10
10
10

. 15
4
0-50


50

50
50
50
100


100

300
300
500
500
430 & 1440
Effect On
Activated
Sludge
Processes
B


N
I
T




I

I
I
T
I






I

I





I






Anaerobic
Digestion
Processes






T


T














N
U






u
U
u

Nitrifi-
cation
Processes


I




U
U







I
I








I




I



U

Comments




K2Cr207





25% Loss in BOD
Removal
25 mg/1 K2Cr267

29% Loss in BOD
Removal
Cr III

Cr III, Mo Effect
on Trickling
Filter Operation
3% Loss in BOD
Removal



Reduced Nitrifi-
cation by
66-78%
3% Loss in BOD
Removal






References
40

54
40
40
38
38
43,48,52
38
38
38

41
48,50
48,50
47

48
44
48


53

51
39
53,50
40


53

53
53
53
48
48
NOTES;

B * Beneficial
N = No Effect
T = Threshold for Inhibitory Effects
I = Inhibitory
U = Upset
Concentrations represent influent to the unit processes.
                                            38

-------
                        SECTION VII

              CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION

Pollution abatement and control technologies  applicable  to
this  industry  are  presented  in detail in the Development
Document (at pages 91 through 112).  The  technologies  that
generally   apply   to  indirect  discharge  facilities  are
summarized in this section.

The control and treatment  technologies  considered  in  the
Development  Document  were  based on their capabilities for
removing the parameters selected for limitations.  This same
philosophy  applies  to   this   document,   in   that   the
technologies presented herein are limited to those treatment
techniques  capable  of  removing  pollutants which may pass
through or interfere with POTW.   These  pollutants  include
sulfides, ammonia, phenols, oil and grease, and chromium.

Analysis  of  the data collected shows that the major source
of sulfide, ammonia, and phenols is  the  sour  water  waste
stream   (see   Section   V).   Therefore,  segregation  and
treatment of sour waters are the major areas of concern  for
pretreatment.

In  addition,  discussions  of  other significant wastewater
sources are presented.  The sources  and  concentrations  of
selected    pollutants   are   generally   similar   between
subcategories.   Therefore,   the   treatment   technologies
available  within  the  various subcategories are identical;
the discussions presented herein are  applicable  throughout
the industry without regard to subcategorization.

DISPOSITION OF WASTE STREAMS

Refineries   that  discharge  to  POTW  do  not  necessarily
discharge all of their waste streams to  the  sewer.   Other
discharge  outlets are available at some of these refineries
and are used for discharging  wastewaters  such  as  cooling
water and utility blowdown.

Table  VII-1  summarizes  the disposition of the wastewaters
emanating  from  indirect  dischargers  and  presents  other
information relating to pretreatment operations employed and
flow  rates to POTW.  The column labeled "Pretreatment Waste
Streams" includes those waste streams that are known  to  be
                                 39

-------
                                                                                             TABLE VII-1
                                                                        WASTEWATER OPERATIONS AT INDIRECT  DISCHARGE REFINERIES
    Category A - Topping
    Category B - Cracking
-P-
O
     Category C  -  Petroch"™'* cal
     Category E - Integrated
    *Reflnery or POTW contact
                                                                                                                                                       Pretreatment Operations
Effluent Flow
Refinery Code
28

21
to POTW (MOD)
0.

0.
18

lit
Final Disposition of
Pretreatment Waste Streams to POTW Other Wastewater Streams
Process water, contaminated
runoff
All, except stormwater
Local stream

Local creek,


Surface con-
tainment, Evaporation
20

14
13
12


11

9
8


1
30
25
22
19
18
17


15


10
7



5


3
2


0.
0.
0.


0.



258
132
052


033

This information
0.



0.

1.
006



1*43

42
Cooling tower blowdown, Boiler
blowdown, Contaminated runoff
All, except stormwater
All
Process water, Cooling tower
blowdown, Boiler blowdown,
tank bottoms
All, except stormwater

not requested of this refinery
Process water, Cooling tower
blowdown, Boiler blowdown,
Contaminated runoff
Aix, except stormwater
All, except stormwater
All
All, except stormwater
Local channel



Evaporation,


Evaporation,
lation

Evaporation ,




Evaporation
Evaporation,



Septic tanks


Ground perco-


Consumption





Local creek
0.25-0.1*0
1.
0.


0.


0.
It.



0.


0.
3.
42
220


088


53
14



33


70
5
Sour water, Oily water
Process water, Sour water,
Cooling tower blowdown, Boiler
blowdown
Process water, Cooling water,
Cooling tower blowdown, Boiler
blowdown, Stormwater
All, except stormwater
Process water, Cooling tower
blowdown, Utility blowdowns,
Tank botoms, Contaminated
runoff
Process water, Sour water,
Cooling tower blowdown, Boiler
blowdown
Sour water
Process water

Evaporation


Evaporation


Evaporation
Local channel



Local channel


Local channel








, Evaporation



, Evaporation



Evaporation, Local harbor,
Sour Water
Stripping
None


None
None

SWS, OX
SWS
None


OX

None
None


None
SWS
SWS
SWS
SWS
SWS
SWS


None


SWS, OX
SWS, OX



SWS, OX


SWS, OX
SWS
Other
PSEPAR,


PSEPAR,
PSEPAR,

PSKIMC,
PSEPAR,
PSEPAR,


PSEPAR,

PSEPAR
PSEPAR,
OSDTEQ,

PSEPAR
PSEPAR,
PSEPAR
PSEPAR,
PSEPAR,
PSEPAR,
PSEPAR


PDETPD,
OSDISA

PSEPAR,
PSEPAR
OSDISA


PCORRP,
PSED3M,

PDETPD
PSEPAR,
OSDISA,


OSDTEQ,
OSDTEQ

PSEPAR
PSEDIM
PSKIMC


OSFILT,


OSDISA,
OSAERT


OSDISA,

OSDTEQ
OS SETS
OSDISA,



PSKIMC,


OSDISA
, OSDTEQ,



PSEPAR,
OSDTEQ


OSDISA,
OSDTEQ


OSSETB







OSDTEQ


OSFILT,



OSDTEQ



OSFILT



PSEPAR,



PSKIMC



PSKIMC,



OSDTEQ
Data
Source
2Q»


29*
29*

29*
29*
29*


20*

29*

29*

29*
29*
29,1
29,1
29,1*
29,1*
29,1*



29,1*

29,1*

29*


29*


29,1*
29*
Contract disposal
It

27
16

26
2.

98

1.5
5.21

7.

64
Process water, Sour water,
Contaminated runoff
All
Process water, Sour water,
Contaminated runoff
All
Local channel
, Evaporation,
SWS, OX
Contract disposal


Local channel, Evaporation

Evaporation


None
SWS, OX

SWS
PCORRP,
OSDTEQ
PSEPAR
PSKIMC,
OSDISA,
PDETPD,
PSEPAR,


PSEPAR,
OSDETQ
PSEPAR,
OSDISA,


OSFLOC,

PSEDIM,
29*

29*

29,1*
29,1
                                                                                                                                                              OSAERL
                                                                                                                Codes for Pretreatment Operations
                                                                                   Sour Water Stripping
                                                                                      Sour Water Stripper            SWS
                                                                                      Oxidation                      OX
                                                                                   Primary Separation
                                                                                      Detention, Holding Tank        PDETPD
                                                                                      API Separator                  PSEPAR
                                                                                      Corrugated Plate Interceptor   PCORRP
                                                                                      Oil Skimmer,  Trap or Tank      PSKIMC
Additional Oil and Solids Removal
   Dissolved Air Flotation
   Detention or Equalizing
   Filtration
   Chemical Flocculation
   Settling Basin
   Aeration Tank
   Aprated Lagoon
   Stabilization Pond
   without aerators
OSDISA
OSDTEQ
OSFILT
OSFLOC
OSSETB
OSAERT
OSAEKL
ORSTBQ

-------
discharged   to   the   sewer.   The  column  headed  "Final
Disposition of Other Wastewater  Streams"  lists  additional
outlets  available  to  indirect dischargers.   These include
evaporation ponds, local rivers and channels,   and  contract
disposal  operations.   For  refineries  discharging process
waste waters to POTW, there are  no  known  instances  where
sour  waters  are  segregated  and  discharged  directly  or
disposed of in another manner.

Table VII-1 also provides information as to which refineries
are presently treating sour water with a sour water stripper
(SWS) or by oxidation.  There are  17  indirect  discharging
refineries  in  this  segment  of the industry known to have
sour water treatment.  Nine refineries have been  identified
that  do  not have SWS's; however, it has been reported that
no sour waters are produced by refinery operations at  eight
of  the nine refineries.  Therefore, there has been only one
refinery  identified  that  is  discharging  untreated  sour
waters to a municipal sewer.

Table  VII-2  presents  a  summary  of  information gathered
relative to the fourteen POTW which are currently  receiving
refinery wastewaters.  Data relative to the refinery average
discharge  flow  versus  the  total POTW average daily flow,
treatment processes  employed  at  the  POTW,   and  effluent
limitations required of petroleum refineries by the POTW are
included.

IN-PLANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Many  newer  refineries  are being designed or modified with
reduction of water use and pollutant loading as a major part
of the design criteria.  These advances include:

    1.   Use  of  improved  catalysts  that   require   less
         regeneration.

    2.   Replacement of barometric condensers  with  surface
         condensers,  thereby  reducing  a  major  oil-water
         emulsion source.

    3.   Substitution of water cooling with air  coolers  to
         reduce cooling water requirements.

    U.   Newer  hydrocracking  and  hydrotreating  processes
         which  produce  lower waste loadings than the units
         they replace.

    5.   Increased use of improved drying,  sweetening,  and
         finishing  procedures to minimize the production of
                                   41

-------
                                                                                     TABLE VTI-2

                                                              DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING POTW   RECEIVING REFINERY KFFLUEIfT
                                                                                                                                       Refinery Effluent Limitations (ppm)
POTW
Code

Ml
H3
M4

M5
M5
H8
«9
M10
Mil
M12
M13
M13
M13
M13
M13
ML3
M13
M13
M13
M13
ffl.3
M13
Mil*
KL6
M17
KL8
Refinery
  Code

   30
   28
   27

   26
   25
   22
   21
   20
   19
   IB
   13
   12
   11
    9
    8
    7

    It
    3
    2
   15
    1
   17
   10
Category

   B
   A
   C

   E
   B
   B
   A
   A
   B
   B
   C
   A
   A
   A
   A
   A
   A
   B
   B
   B
   B
   B
   B
   A
   B
   B
Average Daily
POTW (MGD)
8O-150
7.5
220

7
10.5
3.03
32
42
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
351
1.7
100
2.35
19

Flow
Refinery
0.443
0.18
1.5
7.64
1.1(2
0.14

0.25-0. 40
1.42
5.21
0.258
0.132
0.052
0.033
Not requested
0.006
4.14
0.33
2.98
0.70
3.5
0.088

0.220
0.53
CODES FOR POTW
POTW Treatment
Operations
C01
C06
C01

B02
C01
B02
B01
B05
A01
A01
A01
ADI
ADI
A01
ADI
A01
A01
A01
A01
A01
B02
C01
B04
C01
TREATMENT OPERATIONS
Phenol
None
None

OjlO
None
None
0.1

Less











1.0
Amnonia
None
None

None
None
100
1.0

than excessive
"
"
n
11
n
"
n
"
"
11
n
None
H-Hex
T-Total
Chromium
None
10(H)
25(T)
5.0
5.0
Less than Harmful
T-1.8lb/day
H. 0.005 ng/1
quantities











l.O(H)
Sulfides
None
None

5.0
None
1.0
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
None
O&G
None
100

100 (
100
100
10

75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
200
                                                                                                                              Lees than excessive quantities
                                                                  ADI   Conventional Primary Sedimentation Process

                                                                  B01   A01 plus  Trickling Filter,  Clarifier

                                                                  B02   A01 plus  High Bate Trickling Filter,  Clarifier

                                                                  B04   A01 plus  2  Trickling Filters in Series,  Clarifier

                                                                  B05   A01 pxus  2  High Rate Trickling  Filters in Series,  Clarifier

                                                                  C01   A01 plus  Activated Sludge,  Clarifier

                                                                  C06   A01 plus  High Hate Activated Sludge,  Clarifier
                                                                                                                                                                         0.1
                                                                                                                                                                                         75
                                                                  (l) New proposed ordinance  sets limit at  50 ppm

-------
         spent caustics and acids, water washes, and  filter
         solids requiring disposal.

Additionally,  traditional  methods utilized in the refining
industry for reducing flow and pollutant loading are equally
applicable to indirect dischargers.  These  methods  include
recycle  and  reuse  of  various  waste streams and improved
housekeeping.  A detailed discussion of these procedures  is
provided  in  the  Development Document (at pages 91 through
95).

AT-SOURCE PRETREATMENT--SEGREGATION

The first step in good pretreatment practice is  the  segre-
gation of major wastewater streams.  Each stream can require
individual  treatment  of  a  different  nature;  therefore,
segregation can drastically reduce  the  size  of  equipment
needed  for  pretreatment.   A  discussion  of  some  of the
significant process waste streams that should be  segregated
from the oily sewer system is presented below.

Storm Water Runoff

Large  volumes  of  stormwater  runoff  must  be  handled at
relatively infrequent intervals of varying duration.   There
are  several  techniques  available  and  in  practice  that
refiners can employ to minimize storm water loads.   In  all
cases,  clean  and  contaminated storm waters should be kept
separated from each other.  This ensures that  the  size  of
the  treatment  facilities  for handling oily process wastes
and contaminated storm water can be kept to a minimum.

One consideration is the use of a separate clean storm water
sewer and holding system that provides  separate  collection
facilities for storm water runoff.  By controlling hydraulic
load,  protection  is  provided relative to the operation of
the oil/water separator.

An alternate to the  separate  sewer  system  would  be  the
provision  of a storm surge pond that would receive polluted
waters when the flow  to  the  oil/water  separator  exceeds
design  conditions.   During  non-rainfall  conditions,  the
combined storm water and refinery effluent can  be  diverted
to  the  oil/water separator and discharged to the treatment
system (i.e., POTW) .

The design of  storm  water  detention  facilities  must  be
determined on an individual basis.  The requirements of POTW
receiving  refinery  wastewaters  vary  greatly  and  have a
significant effect on the design.  In many  cases,  POTW  do
                                    43

-------
not  accept  stormwater  runoff either treated or untreated.
For example, the County Sanitation Districts of Los  Angeles
County will accept only the first 15 minutes of a storm; the
remainder must be discharged elsewhere.

The  degree of pollution by storm water runoff is influenced
to a large extent by the degree  of  housekeeping  practiced
within  the  refinery confine.  This aspect was discussed in
the Development  Document   (page  100),  including  specific
preventative  measures to be utilized to avoid contamination
of storm water to the greatest extent possible.

Spent Caustic

Caustic solutions are widely used in refining.  Typical uses
are to neutralize and extract:

    a.   acidic materials that may occur naturally in  crude
         oil,
    b.   acidic reaction products that may  be  produced  by
         various chemical treating processes, and
    c.   acidic  materials   formed   during   thermal   and
         catalytic   cracking   such  as  hydrogen  sulfide,
         phenolics, and organic acids.

Spent caustic solutions may,  therefore,  contain  sulfides,
mercaptides, sulfates, sulfonates, phenolates, naphthenates,
and other similar organic and inorganic compounds.

Spent  caustics  usually  originate  as  batch  dumps.   The
batches may be combined and equalized before  being  treated
and  discharged  with  the  general  refinery  waste waters.
Spent   caustic   solutions   can   also   be   treated   by
neutralization with flue gas.

Some refiners process spent caustics to market the phenolics
and  the sodium hyposulfide.  However, the market is limited
and most of the spent caustics are very dilute; the cost  of
shipping  the  water  can  make this operation uneconomical.
Some refiners neutralize the  caustic  with  spent  sulfuric
acid from other refining processes and charge it to the sour
water stripper where the hydrogen sulfide is removed.

Spent  caustic  solutions  can also be oxidized to transform
the sulfides to thiosulfates.  This is a similar process  to
the  one  described in more detail for the treatment of sour
waters.
                                    44

-------
Indirect dischargers have been identified using all  of  the
technologies  described  above.  In addition, two refineries
have been identified from which spent caustics are sent to a
landfill.   It  should   be   noted   that   fluidized   bed
incineration  is  now  being used in some refineries, but no
indirect dischargers have  been  identified  as  using  this
process.

Sour Waters

Sour or acid waters are produced in a refinery when steam is
used   as   a  stripping  medium  in  the  various  cracking
processes.   The  hydrogen  sulfide,  ammonia,  and  phenols
distribute  themselves  between  the  water  and hydrocarbon
phases in the condensate.  Historically, the purpose of  the
treatment  of  sour  water  has  been the remove sulfides to
protect process equipment.  Emphasis on the control of waste
water pollutants has caused an  increased  emphasis  on  the
removal  of  ammonia  as  well.   Sour  waters are generally
treated by stripping of sulfide with steam or flue  gas,  or
by  conversion  of  hydrogen  sulfide to thiosulfates by air
oxidation.  A discussion of each process is provided in  the
following section on applicable treatment technologies.

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

Sour Water Treatment Systems

Sour  Water Stripping.  Sour water stripping is a gas/liquid
separation process that uses steam or  flue  gas  to  remove
impurities (i.e., sulfides and ammonia)  from the wastewater.
The stripper itself is a distillation type column containing
either trays or packing material.  Columns range from simple
one  pass  systems  to  sophisticated  refluxed columns with
reboilers.  Some refineries have a number of units operating
in parallel,  while others  use  two  columns  in  series  to
facilitate   high   ammonia   removals  (i.e.,  Chevron  WWT
process).  The vast majority of units used in  this  country
utilize   steam   as  the  stripping  medium.   No  indirect
discharge refineries have been identified that use  anything
other than steam as the stripping medium.

There have been a number of major studies done on sour water
stripper   operations    (24,28,29).    These  projects  have
addressed removal efficiencies and costs of  SWSls.   Tables
VII-3  through VII-5 have been extracted from the "1972 Sour
Water Stripping Survey Evaluation" prepared by the  American
Petroleum  Institute  (24).   These tables present operating
data for sour water strippers that  are  (1)   steam/refluxed
                                  45

-------
        TABLE VTI-3

SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA
  SOUR WATER STRIPPERS
    (Reference #2k)
STEAM STRIPPING - REFLUXED
CODE NO.
REMARKS
pH CONTROL
3
•
None
12

None
13B
( test
run
None
14
1 test
run
None
IS

None
19

N'one
20A

None
20B

None



RAW FEF.D:
Flow - epm
Tenrn- F. tow-r L'ntranr*
NH3, Mm -- ppm
NH3, Max -- pnm
NH3 » Avij -- pnm
HjS, Min -• onm
H2S, Max -- pnrn
H2S, Avg -- ppm
Phenols, Mm -- ppm
Phenols, Max -- ppm
Phenols, Avy -- pnm
120
1W
1 , (,1.0
2, 970
2, 500
2,640
o. 720
3. 770
-
-
.
21.5
-
2t200
b, rj50
4,900
I,'j50
3, 7HO
2,475
215
400
315
170
200
.
-
1,200
.
.
1,470
.
-
24.3
80
235
-
-
1,200
.
.
2,000
.
.
608
252
I'.O
1,950
2,000
1,975
3,000
3,400
3,200
167
174
171
72
224
.
-
2.510
-
.
3,080
-
.
174
50
200
2,000
8.500
3,720
2,500
10,000
4.460
225
700
375
172
l in
2,500
5,600
4,300
2,400
5,5oO
4,2bO
175
700
554











Cyanides, Min -- ppm - - ..- ...
Cyanides. Max -- nnm - - - - .-'-
Cyanides, Avg -- opm
PH AVR
,
9.4
-
8.7
.
-
< 1
-
11
-
.
8.7
-
8.8
-
8.9


RECYCLE:
Flow - Rpm
Temperature - "F
NH3, Av« -- pnm
HzS, Avg -- ppm
Phenols, Avg -- ppm
pH
Disposition
.
238
20.000
13,600
.
13.5
top tray
5
185
3,900
1,300
270
-
faed line
2
210
.
-
.
-
reed
drum
5
223
.
.
.
-

.
223
.
-
.
-
drum
8
219
13,200
5,820
350
9.6

.
-
-
-
.
-
drum
.
.
49,220
66, 9CO
110
8.9
feed
drum







STRIPPER OFF-GAS-
Temperature - "F
NHi. Avc - Ib/hr
!I>S, Avu - Ib/hr
Phenol*, Avt; - Ib/nr
238
IhO
241
-
185
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
223
.
-
.
225
.
.
.
219
76
110
0
-
-
.
-
120
90
400
.


	
Cyanides, Avi; -Ib/hr - - t- - - *
Water Vapor - Ib/hr
TOW KR HO 1 1 OMS
Flow - cpm
Temperature - "F
NII3. Min. - nnm
Nllj. Max - or>m
Mil. Avc - l>:im
H2S. Mm - pom
H'S, Max - ppm
H2S. Avc - pom
Phenols, Mm . ppm
Phenols. Max . ppm
Phenols. Avc - ppm
1.20U

140

25
-
7h
0
-
1.5
-
-
.
-

22
225
160
300
250
0.2
5.0
1.0
275
300
290


.
230
.
.
25
.
.
4
-
.
10.7


h5
240
.
-
284
.
.
2.8
.
.
582


270
230
130
246
If-b
2
5
3.5
107
125
1 16
360

80
230
.
-
340
-
.
2
-
.
155


53
230
970
.
2. 1)55
400
-
696
214
.
311
J50

175
2?fl
1,420
.
3. 159
2S-0
-
bl>5
120
-
521













Cyanides. Mm - ppm - - .. ...
Cyanides. Max . ppm - . .. ...
Cyanides. Avg - ppm
PH Avg
Disposition
.
9.4
Sewer
.
8.4
Desalter

.
Desalter
O
-
Sewer
< 1
.
Cooling
Tower
.
9. -5
Desalter
-
9.5
Desalter
-
9.7


Desalter
REMOVAL:
NHj- "To
H2S - '.
Phenols - "a
Cyanides - "•
96.9
99.96
•
-
94.9
99.96
7.9
-
97.9
99.7
56.0
.
76.33
99.86
4.28
0
90.5
99.89
32.2
-
86.45
99.94
10.. 9 '
-
44.8
84.4
17. I
-
3H. 1
1-4.5
0.0
-




STEAM:
Heating - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Mlb/hr
Total - Mlb/hr
Strippinc - Ib/nal of raw fend
Total - Ib/cal o( raw ffiri
1.5 (31
10 (4)
11.5
1.4
l.ft
.
-
-.
_
-
2.6 (1)
9.8 (4)
12.4
1.0
1.2
0.2 (11
4.55 (4)
4. 75
1.0
1.0
8.9
16.7
25.6
1. 1
1.7
0.9 (1)
3.8 (4)
4.7
0.9 •
1. 1
O.t (II
3.2 (4)
4.0
1. 1
1 3
1 .8
I.'.
3.4
(I. 1
0.3
(1)
14)



TOWLR-
Diameter - ft.
Height - ft.
No. of Trays
Type of Trays
Dvplh of I'acltint: - tl .
Type of Hacking
Top Temp. - " K
Top ljr«-ss. - psm
4
39.5
10
Valve Caps
-
•
.
-
3
25.5
12
Sieve
-
•
1 IT
J
5
24.5
8
5
2n
6
6
24
.
3.5
42
.
4
10
.
Valve Bubble Tap - -
-
-.
22S
4
.
-
1 14
10
11
I11 CS
Rmvs
11
7. 3
IK
Rini-s

10.7
1
k! r'itaschu
Ilmvjs
Jiiil
In
*>
S3
5
nubble
>



Cap

• 1 Kaschtu

1 ' . T


           46

-------
TABLE VII-3 (Cont.)
COOK
REMARKS
pH Control
RAW Ft.r.D-
Flow - gpm
Temp. - *fr, TOW«T Kntrance
NHj, Min -- ppm
NHj, Max -- pom
NHi, Avg -- ppm
H^S, Min -- ppm
HzS, Max -- ppm
HZS, Avg -- ppm
Phenol i. Mm - pom
Phenols, Max - pom
Phenols, Avg - porn
Cyanides, Min - pom
Cyanides, Max - ppm
Cyanides, Avg - opm
pH - Avg
RECYCLE:
Flow - cpm
Temperature - "F
NH^» Avg - ppm
H2S. AVJJ - ppm
Phenols, Avg - ppm
PH
STRIPPER OFF-GAS
Temperature - "F
NHi. Avg - Ib/hr
HzS± Avn - Ib/hr
Phenols. Avg - Ib/hr
Cyanides, Avg - Ih/hr
Wafer Vapor - Ih/hr
Disposition
TOWER BOTTOMS-
Flow - gpm
Temperature - "F
NHj, Mm - pnm
NH^» Max - ppm
NH^, Avg - ppm
HjS, Mm - ppm
HzS, Max - ppm
H2S, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Mm - opm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avq - pnm
Cyanides, Mm - ppm
Cyanides, Max - ppm
Cyanidei, Avg - ppm
pHAvg
Disposition
REMOVAL:
NHl - %
H2S - %
_ Phenols - ',.
Cyanide* - %
STEAM:
"Heatinf Mlh/hr
Stripping - Mlb/hr
Total - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Ib/iMl of raw feed
Total - lb/Kal of raw feed
TOWER-.
Diameter - ft
Height - ft
No. of Tray*
Type of Trays
Depth of F'ackinc - ft.
Type of Packing
Top Temp - T
Top Press . - psiq
22A
Hhe nolle
b. ripper
None

210
r>«
-
.
1.720
-
-
1,650
100
200
-
.
-
13
8.6

M.5
-
.
-
-
-
TopJ-tay,,
190
-
-
-
-
-
S. Plan:

-
243
-
-
68
-
- .
1
100
200
-
2
5
3.5
-
Dcsalter

96.0
99.94
0
. 73

Reboiler
-
13.6
-
1. i

4.5
70
30
Sieve
-
.
228
-
22B
• •*' - Phenolic
birippcr
None

68
i 1 i
300
500
430
-
-
570
-
-
.
-
-
-
8.5

19.5
-
-
-
.
-

205
-
.
-
-
-
S. Plant

-
244
-
-
64
-
-
0. 1
25
65
-
-
-
-
-
FCC Unit

85. 1
«9.8
.
-

Reboiler
-
10.2
-
2.5

4.5
70
30
Sii've
.
-
237
-
22<"
Dcsaltur
Water
Strinper
None

2 IK,
i OK
5
100
74
-
-
32
.
-
-
1.5
2.0
1.8
7.7

l.S
.
.
-
-
-

236
. •
-
.
-
-
S. Plant

-
250
.
-
63
.
-
0. 1
30
65
.
-
.
.
-
Bio-Umt

14.9
99.69
-
-

Reboiler
.
7.0
- f
0.6

4
60
24
Sieve
-
.
240
-
2}

None

700
195
-
-
4.000
.
-
5.000
.
-
800
-
-
-
9. 1

120
190
60,000
40.000
1,000
9. 9

190
1,400
1,750
-
-
2,000
S. Plant

700
245'
40
-
100
0.2
-
1
250
.
400
.
.
.
-
Sewer

97.5
99. 9«
50.0
.

Reboiler
-
80
-
1.9

8.5
50
23
Sieve
-
.
235
1. 3
25
1st Stage
None

250
240
-
-
1,600
-
-
3,500
.
-
140
.
-
.
8.7

-
-
-
-
-
"

240
46
440
.
.
-
Flare

290
.
.
.
890
.
.
180
.
.
.
-
.
-
10.0
To 2nd Stage*
«
44.3
94.86
_
.

-
-
•
.
.

6
70. 75
» t
Valve
.
.
-
-

2nd Stage
None

290
240
-
-
890
-
-
160
-
-
-
.
-

10.0

-
-
-
-
-
-

240
170
15
-
-
-
Furnace

.
-
.
-
65
.
-
16
.
-
90
-
.
-
9.2
Sewer

9Z.3
91. 11
35.7
.

.
-
.
.
.

6
78. 1
30
Valve
-
.
.
-
          47

-------
                       TABLE VII-3  (Cont.)
COPE. NO.
                               2'P.
                                                  28
                                                                    )6
REMARKS
pK CONTROL

Nnntr

- un.'

Nnne
2-parallel
•tripper
None

None

None
RAW FEED:
Flow . gpm
Temp. - "F, Tov.fr I ntrancc
NH}, Min - ppm
35
no
7J5
50
230
43)
355
21o
1, 500
i4*
130
5.000
150
2mi
1 , 300
280
245
-
NH3, Max - ppm
NH3. Avg - ppm
HzS, Min - ppm
H?S, Mast - ppm
H?S, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Min - ppm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avfi - pom
Cyanides, Mm * pom
Cyanides. Max - ppm
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
pH - AVR
RECYCLE:
Flow - Rpm
Temperature - *F
NH3, Avg . ppm
HjS, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Avg - ppm
pll
Disposition
STRIPPER OFF-OAS-
Temperature - *F
NHj. Avg . Ib/hr
HlS. Av£ - Ib/hr
Phenols, Avc - Ib/hr
Cyanides, Avg - Ib/hr
Water Vapor - Ib'hr
TOWER BOTTOMS:
Flow - cpm
9.440
5,410
2.900
14. 500
11,343
.
-
-
.
-
.
8.0

.
-
.
.
-
-
Feed Drum

-
-
-
.
-
-

3h (1)
8, 660
3, 550
<)25
7,hOO
4,002
-
-
.
-
-
-
8.3

-
-
-
-
-
-
To Tower

-
-
-
.
.
-

-
i, 450
2. 000
3.500
5,000
4,250
200
.400
300
2
5
3
9.0

30
175
80,000
115.000
-
10.0
Feed Line

.
225
550
.
.
77

« 280 (5)
t,,OoO
5, 500
10.000
17,000
12.000
800
1, 100
1,000
.
.
10
8.5

.
.


-
-
Top Tray

.
.
-
.
.
-

562 (51
;>,ooo
1 , 400
2.400
ti, 900
3, 200
230
610
440
.
.
.
B.5

22
.
.
.
.
.
Feed Line

200
377
446
19
.
900

170 (51
.
19.000
.
.
17,000
.
-
750
.
.
.
.

83
190
90.000
56,000
1,000
.
Feed Tank

190
2,710
2. 411
71
.
1, 308

250
Temperature - "F
NHj, Min - ppm
Nl!^, Max - ppm
NH}, Avg - ppm
H?S, Min - ppm
H>5, Max - ppm
H»S , AVR - ppm
Phenols, Min - pom
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg - pom
Cyanides. Mm •> ppm
Cyanides, Max - ppm
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
pH - AVI;
Disposition
REMOVAL-
NH, - %
H2S - %
Phenols - %
Cyanides - 70
230
19
71
45
0
56
28
-
-
-
.
.
.
8.4
Sewer

99.2
99.75
-
-
.
37
3.200
-
1
406
.
.
.
.
,
.
-
9.3
Sewer

.
.
.
.
270
25
300
200
5
50
20
100
200
ISO
2
5
3
9
Bio-Unit

90.0
99.54
50.0
0
170
4,000
5.000
5,000
.
-
1.500
800
1.000
1,000
.
.
-
9
Oxidizer

9. 1
87.5
0
.
230
7
-
80
5
.
15
140
.
280
.
.
-
.
Sewer

94.3
99.53
36.4
.
27(«
.
-
60
-
.
5
.
.
200
.
.
.
.
Desalter

99.6
99.97
73.3
.
STEAM:
Heating^- Mlb/hr
Stripping^ - Mlb/hr
Total - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Ib/gal of raw [fed
Total - lb/cal o( raw feed
TOWER:
Diameter - ft.
Heit-ht - ft.
No . or Trays
Type of Trays
Depth of Packing - ft.
Typo of Packing
Top Temp.
Top Press, -psig
0.7
16. 3
[7
7.8
8. 1

5
23. 1
5 •
r.litseh
-

216
5.5

.
4
.
i" . 3

2.5
55
.
.
20
3" Raschii;
Rings
.
-
3.3
26.7
30
1.8
2.0
(
5
35
10
Ftexitrays
.
-
250
45
12 in
4 (4)
16
0. 1
0.5

5
34
15
Dubblc Cap
-
-
ZIS
-
3.1 ">
11.7
16.8
1.5
1.9

7
35
.
-
15
3" Raschig
Rings
225
8
Reboiler
- •
-
-
-

7
- ,
18
-
-
•
258
29
                                      48

-------
TABLE VII-3 (Cont.)
CODE NO.
REMARKS
pH CONTROL
RAW FEED
Flow . gnm
.Temp. - F.To^cr l.mrance
NH^, Mm - npm
NH3, Max - ppm
NH3, Avg - ppm
HzS, Min - ppm
H23, Max - ppm
H?S, Avg - ppm
Phenols* Mm - ppm
Phenols. Max - ppm
Phenols, Avq - pom
Cyanides. Mm - ppm
Cyanides. Max - ppm
Cyanides. Avg - ppm
pH - AVB
RECYCLE:
Flow - Rpm
Temperature - *F
NH3, Avg - ppm
H2S, Avg - ppm
Phenols, AVR - ppm
pH
STRIPPER OFF-GAS-
Temperature - *F
NHj. Avg - Ib/hr
HzS. Avg - Ib/hr
Phenols, Avg - Ib/hr
Cyanides, AVH - Ib/hr
Water Vapor - Ib/hr
Disposition
TOWER BOTTOMS
Flow - fzpm
Temperature - 'F
NH3, Mm - ppm
NH3, Max - ppm
Nrl3, Avg - ppm
H2S, Mm - ppm
H2$* Max - ppm
H?S. Avg - ppm
Phenols, Mm - ppm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg - ppm
Cyanides, Mm - ppm
Cyanides, Max - pom
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
pH - Avg
Disposition
REMOVAL-
HH\- %
H2S - %
Phenols - %
Cyanides - %
STEAM:
Heating - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Mlb/hr
Total - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Ib/gal of raw feed
Total - Ib/cat of raw feed
TOWER-
Diameter - ft
Height - ft.
No. of Trays
Type of Trays
Depth of Packing - ft.
Type of Packing
Top Temp - *F
Top Press. - psig
37A

Vone

285
149
-
-
1.400
.
-
2.575

-
-
-
-
-
8.0

.
-
-
-
-


21o
-
-
-
-
-
S. PUnt

305 15)
225
-
-
600
-
-
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
Sewer

57.2
08.06
-
-

11.1 (1)
13.9 <4>
• 25
0. H
I. 5

6
-
-
-
35
2" Al Rings
216
2-5
3 7 IT

None

245
195
-
-
1. 500
-
-
2,800
-
-
-
.
-
-
8.5

.
-
-
-
-
-

225
-
-
-
.
-
S. Plant

250 »'
235
-
-
850
-
-
100
-
-
-
-
.
.
10
De sailer

43.3
96. 4J
-
-

4.9
4. I ,-'
9
0. J
0. 6

4
-
18
-
-
-
225 .
4.5
38 A

None

186
170
-
-
270
-
-
400

-
544
-

-
8.0

5
173
-
-
-


173
5
31
-
-
13
Furnace

190 ( II
Z10
-
-
200
-
-
60
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
Dio-Unit

18.5
85.0
-
-

4. 1 (1)
2.3 (4)
6.4
0. 2
fO.6

5
-
20
Shower
-
-
217
0. 7
31-B

None

ftO
109
-
-
3, 000
-
-
3,600
-
-
1,000
.
-•
-
8.0

-
-
-
-
-


-
100
150
35
-
3,900
CO boilur

95 1 1)
236
#
-
500
-
-
100
-
-
90
-
-
-
9.7
Bio-Unit

83.3
97.37
91.0
-

5.3-
3.9
9.2
0.8
1.9

5
-
20
Showe r
-
.
-
8.8
41

None

400
210
-
-
1,400
-
-
1.700
-
-
975
.
-
-
-

50
170
85,000
85.000
2. 700


170
200
300
75
-
225
Absorber

435(1) 15)
240
-
.
400
-
-
200
-
.
600
.
-
-
9.5
Desalter

•74.4
88.24
38.5
-

11) 6.2 (1)
(4) 22.6 (4)
28.8
0.9
1.2

6.5
40
16
Valve
-
.
230
-
42

N'orc

!><)
1',?
2e
-------
TABLE VII-3 (Cont.)
CODE NO.
RIM ARKS
pit Control
43

None
44
Feed t
Recycle
Non-
55

Caiibltc
46

None-
60

>.on,.
61
Caustic
in FrtH
Ac i-l
RAW FEED-
Flow - upm
Temp* - 'r*. Tower Fnt ranee
NH3, Mm - pom
Ntt3, Max - ppm
Nrt), Avi; - ppm.
H2S. Mtn - ppm
F.2S, Max - ppm
H2S, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Mm - ppm
Phenols* Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg - pmn
.
-
1, 500
2.500
2,000
2.000
4.000
3.000
300
500
400
•-7.5
130
-
.
32,200
-
-
45,000 •
.
.
27b '
72
I'l',
1, 200
3, mo
l.M'G
l.t'iOO
3,400
2, 500
-
.
440
1 J
I.,.,
647
1,733
1, JSM
H74
2,293
874
484
580
532
141
IM)
.
-
Ho
-
-
4,060
.
.
-, 10
1 1-
225
.
.
1,440
-
.
1,200
.
.
71
Cyanides, Mm * pom - - ...
Cyanides, Max * p>pm - - ...
Cyanides. Avg - ppm
PH . Av*
RECYCLE:
Flow - gpm
Temperature - *F
NHj, Avg - ppm
^ H2S. Avg - ppm
Phenols, Avg • ppm
PH
Disposition
-
9.2

.
-
-
.
-
.
Feed Drum
-
9.8

23
105
150,000
182,000
12,000
.
Feed Drum
-
8.3

11.7
180
-
.
.
0.4
Feed Line
0.7
-

-
IRQ
•
-
.
.
Feed Drum
-
9.0

22
135
111, 000
121,600
.
9.6
Feed Line
-
9.4

-
-
-
-
.
-
Feed Drum
STRIPPER OFF-GAS:
Temperature - "F
NH3, Avg - Ib/hr
HlS. Avg - tl>/hr
-
40
60
180
.
.
180
56.5
90.0
.
.
.
.
.
.
180
.
34.3
Phenols. Avg - Ibfhr - - ...
Cyanides, Avg - Eb/hr - - ...
Water Vapor - ibVhr
Disposition
-
Furnace
-
(tare
77
Furnace
-
Flare

S. Plant
3.900
-
TOWER BOTTOMS:
Flow . gpm
Temperature • 'F '
NHi, Min - ppm
NHi, Max - ppm
NHs. AVR - ppm
H2S. Min - ppm
H7S, Max . ppm
H2S, Avp - ppm
Phenols. Min * ppm
Phenols. Max - ppm.
Phenols, Avg - ppm
45
.
10
.
IS
0
-
Traoe
-
.
375
10R (U
.
-
.
56
.
.
20
-
-
239
74
235
7
.
25
0
.
1
.
.
250
-
224
287
9oa
693
129
312
255
299
695
410
154
230
1,000
2,000
1.470
50
200
65
-
.
Nil
119 151
270
.
-
55%
-
.
Nil
-
-
28
Cyanides, Mm - ppm - • ...
Cyanides, Max - ppm ~ - ...
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
_ PH - Avg
Disposition
-
7.3
Desalter
•
8.5
Desalter
-
9.0
Desalter
0.3
9.6
Desalter
-
9.7
Sewer
-
8.4
Sewer
REMOVAL:
__ NH} - %
H,S - r.
Phenols - %
Cyanides - %
99.3
99.98
6.3
-
-
.
.
.
98.4'
99.96
43.2
.
49.9
70.8
22.9
57.1
• -
98.41
-
.
61.5
99.92
60.6
.
STEAM:
Heating - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Mlb/hr
Total . Mlb/hr
StHppi^B - Ib/eal of raw feed
. Total - tb/gal of raw feed
IOWKR:
Diameter - ft.
Height - ft.
No. of Trays
Type of Trays
	 D<-nth of Pick mB . ft
- Type of Packing
Top Trmn - *F
Top Press. - psic
0
.
4.5
.
.

3.3
36.5
20
Bubble Cap
.
• .
220
3.0
4.7
6.6
11.3
1.2
2. 1

4
33.5
12
Socony
.
.
215
15
Reboiler
.
.
.
f.

J.3
52
20
Sieve
.
.
225
5.3
0.3
.
.
.
-

2.5
8
3
Dual Flow
-
-
222
3.5
_
.
10.2
.
1.2

4.5
25
10
Hubble Cap
-
-
221
3
2.7.
4. 1
6.8
0.6
1.0

3
35 '
10
Koch
.
.
252
29
              50

-------
                                       TABLE
                              SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA
                                 SOUR WATER STRIPPERS
                                   (Reference #2k)
                            STEAM STRIPPING - NON-REFLUXED
CODE NO.
                                                                  10
                                                                            13A
REMARKS
pH CONTROL
RAW FEED:
Flow - gpm
Temp. -*t , Tower Entrance
NH3, Mm - ppm
NHjj Max - ppm
NHj, Avg - ppm
HzS. Min. - ppm
HzS, Max - ppm
H^S. Avg - ppm
Phenols, Min - ppm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg - ppm
Cyanides, Min - ppm
Cyanides, Max - ppm
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
pH Avg.
I -Sample
None

40
160
1,000
2,000
1,700
1,000
14.000
-
200
600
-
-
-
0.5
6.0

None

54
143
900
1.250
960
1, 500
4, 000
2,600
76
215
128
2
5. 1
3.3
8.4

None

45
170
-
-
-
2,000
6,000
3,000
200
900
700
-
-
-
8.5

None

167
23',
-
-
2, 150
-
-
2, 560
-
-
500
-
•-
-
8.3
Data is
Design
None

95
-
-
-
• 1,850
-
-
1,070
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 -Sample
None
120 '
-
-
-
1 , 700
-
-
2.080
	
-
330
-
.
<1
-
TOWER BOTTOMS:
Flow - gpm
Temp. - "F
NH3, Mm - ppm
45
230
-
57 (5)
204
29.8
47
212
-
177 fl) (5)
240
-
-
-
-
120 (5)
225
.
NHj, Max - ppm - - - -
NH-j, Avg - ppm
H2S, Min - ppm
H2S, Max - ppm
H?S, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Min - ppm
Phonols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg. - ppm
Cyanides, Mm - ppm
•Cyanides, Max - ppm
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
pH Avg.
Disposition
208
0
9
3
150
450
-
-
-
1.2
8.5
Bio-Unit
49.5
29.2
-
30.3
-
-
45
-
- .
0. 3
9.4
Desaltitf
-•
-
-
20
100
600
350
-
. .-
-
7. I
Sewer
380
-
-
90
-
-
400
-
-
-
8.0
Desaltor
96
-
-
16
-
.
-
-
-
-
. -
DC salt er
400
-
.
6
-
.
200
-
.
0
-
Sew IT
REMOVAL:
NII3- %
H2S - %
Phenols - 7o
Cyanidrs - ".'a
88
.
-
-
96.9
98.88
64.8
90.9 '
-
99.33
50:0
-
82. 5
* 96.5
20.0
.
94.8
98.5
.
.
76.5
99.7
39.4
.
STRIPPER OFF-GAS:
Temp. - -F
NHj. Avg^- Ib/hr
HzS. Avg - Ib/hr
Phenols, Avg. - Ib/hr
Cyanides, Ayg - Ib/hr
Water Vapor - Ib/hr
Disposition
STEAM:
Heating - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Mlb/hr
Total - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Ib/pal of raw feed
Total - Ib/tjal of raw feed
215
-
-
-
-
.
CO-boiler

1. 3n
1. 34
2.7
0. o
1. 1
201
24.6
70.2
2.2-
-
4.800
CO-boiler

1.6 (3)
4.8 (4)
6.4
1.5
2.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
CO-boiler

0.9 (3)
3.6 (4)
4.5
1.3
1.7
254
150
222
2
-
10,400
Furnace

0.4 (3)
10.6 (4)
11.0
1. 1
1. 1
.
81
51
.
-
.
Flare

-
-
1.7

0.3
224
-
.
.
-
-
Flare

-
.
4. 1 _
-
0.6
TOWER-
Diameter - ft.
Heipht - ft.
No. of Trays
Type of Trays
Dcpt'n of packing - ft.
Typ" of Packinc
Top T-rnp. - ' F
Bot. Tr:rr.p - °F
Top I'ressurc - psig
5. 5
3. 7
l>
Gbtsch
-
-
215
230
3
4. 5
23
b
Bubble Caj>
-
.
201
204

3
39.7
12
Glitsch
.
.
•
212
-
-
48
10
Valve
.
.
.
-
17
2
IS
6
Showe r
.
.
.
292
-
3.5
20 __
-
-
-
1" rinps
.
225 	
4
                                         51

-------
TABLE VII-4 (Cont.)
CODE NO.
REMARKS
pH CONTROL
18

None
21A
1 st itage
f4one
21A
2nd Stage
None
2LB

None
29

None
31
I -sample
None
RAW FEED:
Plow - £$pm
'Temp. - T, Tower fnirancc
NHi, Mm - ppm
NH3, Max - ppm
NH3, Avy - ppm
HzS, Mm - ppm
H^S, Max - ppm
HjS, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Min - pom
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg. - ppm
4U
170
2,41)0
4, 500
4, 4iU
2, 400
5,200
2,480
ISO
400
188
403
216
!, 900
3,900
2.800
2,800
5, 900
4, 000
360
740
629
405
227
1, 500
2,600
2, 000
200
800
500
-380
700
584
Kf,
210
-

2, 500
.-

1,300

..
2,400
50
220
-
-
3, 700
-
-
8,750
-
-
-
73
2 !'•
.
.
5,305
. -
-
21.760
-
-
232
Cyanides, Min - ppm - - - ...
Cyanides, Max - opm
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
pH Avg.
TOWER BOTTOMS:
Flow - gpm
Temp. - °F
NH3, Min - ppm
NH3, Max - ppm
NH3, Avg. - ppm
H2S, Min - ppm
HzS, Max - ppm
H2S. Avg - ppm
Phenols, Min - ppm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, AVI; - pnm
Cyanides, Min - ppm.
Cyanides, Max - ppm
Cyanides, Avf> - ppm
pll Avg.
Disposition
REMOVAL:
NH3, - %
HzS - To
Phenols - Ti
Cyanides - °'o
STRIPPER OFF-GAS:
Temp - *F
NH3. Avg^- Ib/hr
HzS, Avg^- Ib/hr
Phenols, Avq. - Ib/hr
Cyanides, Avg - Ib/hr
Water Vapor - Ib/hr
Disposition
STEAM:
Heating - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Mlb/hr
Total - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Ib/gal of raw feed
Total - Ib/cal of raw feed
-
<15
8.6

56 (5)
209
150
500
265
2
9
2
45
150
45
-
-
-
-
Dcsalter

94. 1
99.92
76. 1
-

218
101.9
51.4
2.9
-
9,570
CO-boiler

1. 03
9.23
10.3
3.9
4.3
-
-
8.9

407 (5)
227
1,500
2,600
2,000
200
800
500
380
700
584
-
-
-
-
2nd Stage

28.6
87.5
7.2
-

220
158
704
7
-
3, 392
S. Plant

2.3 (1)
1.7 (4)
4. 0
0.07
0.2
• -
-
-

427 (5)
272
200
1, 300
300
10
300
90
320
700
479
-
-

-
Desaltcr

85.0
82.0
18.00
-

266
342
83
17
-
7,987
CO-boiler

9.5 (1)
12.0 (4)
21 .5
0.5
0. 9

..
9.7

90 (5)
235
-
-•
300
-
-
300
-
-
310
-
-

h.3
Bio- Unit

88.0
.76.9
87. 1
-

237
93
42
89
-
1,616
Furnace

1.0 (3)
2.9 (4)
3.9
3.6
0.8
-
.
9. 1

53 (5)
273
-
-
2,600
-
-
3,000
-
-
-
-
-

9.5
Scwcr

29.7
65.7
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
Furnace

1.1 (3)
1-1 (4)
2.2
0.4
0.7
-
28
8.7

80 (5)
238
-
-
408
-
-
13
-
-
31
-
-
H.6
9.0
Desaltrr

92.3
99.94
86. ft
58.6

230
-
-
-
-
-
Furnace

1.0 (1)
5.3 (4)
6.8
1.3
1.6
TOWER-
Diameter - ft.
Height - ft.
No. of Trays
Type of Trays
Depth of Packing - ft.
Type of Packing
Top Temp - ° F
Bot. Temp - -' F
Top Pressure - P?1^
3.3
39
-

16
3" Saddles
218
-
-
6
30. 5
9
Bubble Cap
-
-
220
227
7
6. 5
41
15
Ballast
-
-
2b6
1 272
33
i.5
4.1.5
11;
Sieve
-
-
237
23 :;
K.7
3.5
22
-
-
12
l\" Saddles
-
273
57
5
28
8
Koch
-
-
230
238
12
              52

-------
TABLE VII-lr  (Cont.)
CODE NO.
REMARKS
pH CONTROL
32

None
33

None
47

None
4S
1st Stage
None
48
2nd Stage
None
51

None
RAW FEED:
Flow - gpm
Temp - *F. Tower Entrance
NH}, Min - ppm
NH3, Max - ppm
NH3, Avg - ppm
HzS, Min - ppm
H?S, Max - ppm
HzS, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Min - ppm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg - ppm
Cyanides, Min - ppm
75
118
1, 110
1,310
1,200
300
1,200
600
31
122
75
-
283
J90
2,300
3,000
2,600
4,350
5,400
5.. 250
310
570
530
-
50
210
600
1. 350
1, 000
2, 100
2, 900
2, 550
270
800
550
-
80
205
2, 000
5, 000
2, 500
3,000
6,000
3,800
-
-
-
-
80
225
-
-
1,050
-
-
215 .
-
-
-
-
55
242
-
-
4,400
-
-
3,743
-
-
398
-
Cyanides, Max - ppm -
Cyanides, Avg. - ppm
PH Avg.
TOWER BOTTOMS:
Flow - gpm
Temp - 'F
NHii Min - ppm
NH3, Max - ppm
NHj, Avg - ppm
HzSi Min - ppm
HzS, Max - ppm
HzS, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Min - ppm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg - ppm
Cyanides, Min - ppm
Cyanides, Max - ppm
•~ - Cyanttle*, "AVg •-•pprft ."-«••.-.-•.
pH Avg.
Disposition
REMOVAL:
NHj- %
HjS - %
Phenols - "'<,
Cyanides - %
STRIPPER OFF-GAS:
Temp - *F
NHi, AVR - Ib/hr
HzS, Avg^ - Ib/hr
Phenols, Avg - Ib/hr
-
8.3

80 (5)
215
36
124
65
0
4
0.2
14
39
20
-
-
T-. .-•..-•-• -.
-
Desalter
.
94. 6
99.97
73.3
.

180
-
-
-
-
8.6

307 (1)
215
34
250
200
0
12
8
310
390
320
-
-
. •. .. •.„. . *-. ••
8.6
Lagoon
»
92.3
99.85
39.6
.

225
119
242
15
-
7.5

52 15)
225
115
280
115
5 .
100
5
225
450
225
-
-
. .~. +,.. . .-
8.0
Desalter

88.5
99.8
59.1
- '

215
22
64
8
•
8.5

86 (1)
Zi't
-
-
1,050
-
-
215
-
-
-
-
-
... ••
-
2nd Stage

79.0
. 94.3
-
-

210
55
143
-
-
- •

80 (5)
235
-
-
115
-
-
N.D.
-
-
-
-
-
. . .,
-
Desalter

89.1
-
-
-

230
41
9
-
0.45
9. 1

56.3 (1)
208
-
-
1.017
-
.
68
.
-
455
-
-.
• 0.-35 •
-
Bio -Pond

76.9
97.65
-
22

224
88
f-fi
1
Cyanides, Avg - Ib/hr - - - - -
Water Vapor - Ib/hr
Disposition
STEAM:
Heating - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Mlb/hr
Total - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Ib/gal of raw/ feed
Total - lb/^al of raw feed
.
B.D. Stack

3.7 (1)
2,8 (4)
6.5
0.6
1.4
7,950
CO-boiler

5.1 (1)
2.9 (4)
8.0
0.2
0.5
-
CO-boiler

0.4 (1)
5.6 (4)
6.0
. 1.9
2.0
-
To Atmos.

0.8 (1)
2. I (4)
2.9
0.4
0.6
-
To Atmos.

0.4 (1)
4.3 (4)
4.7
0.9
1.0
2. 390
Furnace

-
-
2.6
-
0.8
TOWER:
Diameter - ft.
Height - ft.
No. of Trays
Type of Trays
Depth of Packing - ft.
Type of Packing
Top Tomp. - °F
Bot. Tcmp.-T
Top Pressure - psig
4
20.8
-
-
15
3" Rings
ISO
200
1
3.5
29
-
-
15
3" Saddles
225
230
8
5
48.5
19
Bubble Cap
-
-
' 215
225
1.5
3.5
31,5
-
-
20
3" Raschig
Rings
210
. 225
1
4
47. 1
12
V-grid
-
-
230
235
7
4
36.5
-
-
10
3" Raschig
Rings
224
242
4.5
            53

-------
                                     TABLE VII-IT  (Cont.)
CODE NO.
                                    52
                                                              53
                                                                            54A
                                                                                        54B
                                                                                                      54 B
REMARKS
                                               1 st Stayc
                                                           2nd
                                       Crude Unit   1st Stage
                                       St rip^jc r
                                                                                                   2nd Stag.;
p.H CONTROL
 None
               None
                                                           Caustic
                                                                           None
                                                                                       None
                                                                                                     None
RAW FEED:
    Flow
                                     14
                                                  231
                                                              211 i
                                                                             50
                                                                                        135
                                                                                                      137
    Temp - °F.  Tower Entrance
                                                  171
                                                              212
                                                                            224
                                                                                        ZIP
                                                                                                      2Z5
          Min - ppm
    NH3,  Max - ppm
    NH3,  Avg - ppm
5,-150
2,625.
                          1,425
                                          215
                                                                                      2.500
                                                                  2.330
         Min - ppm
    H2S, Max - ppm
    H2.S, Avg - ppm
5, 215
3.400
                            375
                                          417
                                                    4,200
                                                                                                      425
    Phenols. Min - ppm
    Phenols, Max - ppm
    Phenols, AVR - ppm
                                    202
                                                                             20
                                                      390
                                                      336
    Cyanides, Min - ppm.
    Cyanides, Max - ppm.
    Cyanides, Avg - ppm
                                      1.2
                                      9. 1
                  8.3
                 9.6
                                            7.3
                                                                                          8.6
TOWER BOTTOMS:
    Flow
                                     16.4
                                                  231
                                                     liL
                           JLLLilL
                             53 <1)	137  (5)
                        143  (II
    Temp. - "F
                                    Z2Z
                                                  212
                                                              234
                                                                            224
                                                                                        Z25
                                                                    216
    NH3, Min - ppm
    NH3, Max - ppm
    N'H3, Avg - ppm
                                     56
              1.425
                 9,8
                                                                             76
                                      2,330
                        350
          Min - ppm
          Max - ppm
    H2S, Avg - ppm
                                                  375
                                                               4. 5
                                                                                        425
                                                                                                       22
    Phenols, Min - ppm
    Phenol.1!, Max - ppm
    Phenols, Avg.  - ppm
                                    147
                                                                             13
                                                                                        336
                                                                    250
    Cyanides, Min - ppm
    Cyanides, Max - ppm
    Cyanides, Avg.  - ppm
                                       1.23
    pM AVI;.
  .  fe..6
                                                    9.6
                              9.3
                                                                                                        9.7
     Disposition
Uio-ljond     2nd Sta^e
                                                            Dusalter
                                                                         Waslv Wafer   Dcsalter
                                                                                                   DC (alter
REMOVAL:
     NHi -To
                                     9fi.9
                                                   45.7
                             99.3
                                                                             b4.6
                                                                                          6.8
                                                                                                       85.0
                                     99.98
                                                   B9.0
                                                               9b.8
                                                                            '90.56
                                                                                         89.KB
                                                                                                       17.7
     Phenols  - T,.
                                     27.2
                                                                             35.0
                                                       13.9
                                                                                                       25.6
    Cyanides  -
STRIPPER OFF-GAS:
    Temp. - "F
                                    220
                                                  194
                                                              223
                                                                            225
                                                                                        216
                                                                                                      214
     NHj, Avg - Ib/hr
                                     38
                                                  133
                                                               156
                                                                              3.5
                                                                                          10
                                                                                                      137
          Avg. - Ib/hr
                                     37
                                                  334
                                                                             10.3
                                                                                        Z55
                                                                                                       27. S
     Phenols, Avg.  -Ib/hr
                                      0.3
                                                                              0. t
                                                                                          0.6
                                                                      5.9
     Cyanides,  Avg.  - Ib/hr
     Water Vapor - Ib/hr
1,610
                           1,350
                                                                                        975
                      6.000
     Disposition
                                  Furnace
                                                Gas Plant  Vent Stack
                                                                         Furnace
                                                                                      Furnace
                                                                                                    Furnace
 STEAM:
     Heating - Mlb/hr
    0.9
                                                    4.8 (1)
                              2.0 (1)
                                                                              0.2 (1)
                                                                                           1.2(1)
     Stripping - Mlb/hr
                              T-
                                       1.6
                  0.9(4)
                 9.4 (4)
1,2 (4)
Q.8(4)
     Total - Mlb/hr
                                       2.5
                  5.7
                                                                11.4
                                                                              1.4
                                                                                           2.0
                                                                      6.0
    Stripgim; y
                     of raw f«-ed
                                       1.0
                                                    0.07
                                                                 0.8
                                                                              0.4
                                                                                          0. I
     Total - lb/Ral of raw feed
 TOWER:
                                      3.0._
                                                    O.A.
                              0.9
                                                                              0.5
                                                                                          0.3
                                                                                                        0.7
     Diameter - ft.
                                       2.5
                                                                 3. 5
                                                                              2.5
     Height - ft.
                                      27
                                                   25
                                                                  . 5
                                                                             18
                                                                                         25
                                                                                                       24.7
     No. of Trays
                                                                20
                                                                                                        10
     Type of Trays
                                    Valve
                                                Bubble Cap   Bubble Cap
                                                                            Valve
                                                                 Bubble C>p_
     Depth of Packing - ft.
                                                                                          15
     Type of Packing
                                                   Z" Raschig
                                                      Rings
     Top Temp.  -  *F
                                     220
                                                   194
                                                               223
                                                                            225
                                                                                        216
                                                                                                      214
     Bot.  Temp.  - 'F
                                     222
                                                  212
                                                               234
                                                                            230
                                                                                         227
                                                                                                      221
     Top Pressure - psig

-------
TABLE Vll-k (Cont.)
COOK NO.
REMARKS
pH CONTROL
RAW FEKD:
Flow - Epm
• Temp. - °F, Tower Entrance
NH3, Min - ppm
NH3, Max - ppm
NH3, Avg - ppm
HjS, Min - ppm
HzS, Max - ppm
HzS, Avg. - ppm
Phenols, Min - ppm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg. - ppm
Cyanides, Min - pnm
Cyanides, Max - ppm
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
pH Avg.
TOW Ell BOTTOMS:
Flow - gpm
Temp. - °F
NHs, Min - ppm
NH3, Max •- ppm
NH3, Avg. - ppm
HzS, Mm - 'ppm
H2S, Max - ppm
H2S, Avg. - ppm
Phenols, Min - ppm
Phenols, Max - ppm
Phenols, Avq. - ppm
Cyanides, Mm - pnm
Cyanides, Max - ppm
Cyanides, AVR. - ppm
pll Avg.
Disposition
REMOVAL:
NHi_- %
HzS - "!,
Phenols - %
Cyanides - %
STRIPPER OFF-GAS:
Temp. - "F
NH3. Avg. - Ib/hr
HZ.S! Avg. - Ib/hr
Phenols, Avg. - Ib/hr
Cyanides, Avg. - Ib/hr
Water Vapor - Ib/hr
Disposition
STEAM:
Heating - Mlb/hr
Stripping - Mlb/hr
Total - Mlb/hr
Striuoinc - lh/«al of raw feed
Total - Ib/ijal of ravi fete!
TOWER:
Diameter - ft.
Height - ft.
No. of Travs
Type of I rAys
Dcpti' ol Pat '*ing - ft.
Type of PiCKing
Top Temp. - ^ F
Hot. 'I ?mp. - °F
Top Pressure - pur:
57

Mono

-
145
-
-
3,b42
-
. -
2,885
-
-
260
-
-
0.6
9.2

13.4
200
-
-
860
-
-
202
-
-
280
-
.
0.3
9.6
Lagoon

77.6
93.0
-
50.0

-
18.5
16.9
-
-
-
To Atmos.

-
-
-
-
-

2.5
If. 1
-
-
10
1' Raschig
Rings
.
200
-
58

None

^
145
1,000
8, 100
4 , 400
COO
2,730
2,300
175
225
190
-
-
1.01
8.8

32.0 M)
215
10
45
11
0 .
10
1
100
400
150
-
.
1.05
8.3
Bio -Unit ^

99.8
99.96
21.1
-

213
77
35
0. 15
-
3.840
Burner

1.2
4.5
5.7
2. 7
3.4

3
23
f
Koch
-
-
213
2!5
0. 5
59

None

57
1-37
1, 373
1, 630
1. 548
1,585
3,042
2,300
•152
270
210
7
' 9
8
7.8

64 (1)
207
183
324
250
0
20
10
94
184
140
1
3
2
9.0
Bio -Pond

83.6
99-57
33.3.
75.0

205
35
57
1.4
-
1,300
Vent Stack

1.6 (1)
2.4 (4)
4.0
0. 7
1. 2

4
25
-
-
18
3" Raschig
Rnnt;s
.'05
207
0. 1
63

None

94
214
-
806
767
-
1,550
1,325
-
71
68
-
-
-
8.1

101 (1)
235. .
-
890
580
-
582
291
.
-
63
-
-
-
9.6
St.-wer

24.4
*?8.0
7.4
-

232
25
2,000
-
-
-
S. Plant

0.9 (1)
0. 5 (4)
1. 4
0.09
0.3

5.7
48. 3
22
Bubble Cap
-
-
232
235
8
             55

-------
               NOTES FOR TABLES VII-3 AMD Vll-k


(l)   Calculated bottoms rate or steam rates.   See explanation in
     Notes (2)  and (U)  below.

(2)   Heating steam rates designated as calculated were determined by
     taking the enthalpy change in raising the feet at the temperature
     entering the tower to the tower operating temperature and convert-
     ing it to a steam rate based on the indicated steam temperature
     and pressure.

(3)   The reported steam rate does not equal the calculated rate.

(10   Stripping steam rates were determined by taking the difference
     between the total steam and the heating steam.

(5)   The reported bottoms rate does not equal the sum of the feed plus
     the condensed heating steam.  The reported bottoms rates should
     not be used as a basis for estimating the stripping steam rate.

(6)   The following strippers are presently not in service:  13B, 27,
     10, and 31.
                           56

-------
          TABLE VII-5

   SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA
      SOUR WATER STRIPPERS
        (Reference #24)
FLUE GAS AND FUEL GAS STRIPPERS
coor NO.
REMARKS
pH CONTROL
RAW FC CD:
Flow . gpm
Temp. • *F
NHj. Min - ppm
NH}, Max • ppm
NH3, Avg -jpm
H2"S. Mm - pom
H2S, Max - ppm
H2S, Avg - pom
Phenols. Mtn * ppm
Phenols, Max - pom
Phenols. Avg - ppm
Cyanides, Avg. Di*m
pH Ave
TOWER BOTTOMS
Flow. - Rpm
Temp. - 'F
NHJ. Mm - ppm
NHj, Max • ppm
NHj. Avg - ppm
H2S, Min - ppm
H2S. Max - ppm
H2S, Avg - ppm
Phenols, Mm - ppm
Phenols. Max - ppm
Phenols, Avg - ppm
Cyanides, Avg - ppm
ph Avtj.
Disposition
REMOVAL
MlJ- '..
H2.S - %
Phenols - f.
Cyanides - %
STRIJ'PKR OFF-GAS
Temp. - "F
MJ3, Avg - Ib/hr
Hz_S. Avg . Ib/hr
Phenols, Avg - Ib/hr
Cyamdi-s. Avg - ib/hr
Water Vajior - Ib/hr
CO2- Ib/hr
Disposition
STRIPPING MF.D1UM:
Stripping Gas
Quality
C02 - *.
CO - TG
0,- «'.
N2- r.
H20 - T.
Quantity - Ib/hr
Quantity - SCFH
Pressure - PSIR
Temp. - "F
STEAM-
Temp. - "F
Pressure - pstR
Lb/Hr
TOWF.H-
Diameter - ft.
lleichl - Ft.
No. of Trays
Type of Trays
Depth of Packmc
Type of Packing
Top Pressure - tisii;
4

None

200
140
-
-
-
616
3. 73o
2. 176
-
-
220
0.29
8.5

200
204
-
-
-
0
4
4
-
-
130
0.25
h. 5
Scwcr

-
99. b2
40. q
13. 8

-
-
-
.
• .
-
-
CO-Boiler

Flue Gas

9. 1
12.5
0
-
-
-
• 27S. 300
-
856

-
45
5, 100

5
40
10
V.ilvc
-
-
-
1 1
Feed inclut
KO Pot
None

24
175
-
-
3,800
-
- •
6.000
-
-
330
.
8.5

24
200
-
.
1,500
0
20
-
-
-
250
-
8.3
Dio-Unit

60.5
99.83
24.2
-

160
33.5
87.5
1.2
-
200
904
Incinerator

Flue Gas

8.0
13.0
0. 1
78.9
-
4,000
-
5-10
300

350
-
200

2.5
33
13
Bubble Ca
-
-
5
3S
Ics
Worn-

2J5

1,900
2. 300
2, 200
2.900
4. 100
3.K40
-
-
491
5
8. 1

225
165
410
-
535
6
-
12
-
-
422
13
7.0
Scwu r

75.7
» 99.69
14. 1
-

165
-
-
-
-
-
-
CO-Boile

Flue Gas

10
12
Trace
66
It
-
-
5
1,275

.
*
6. 700

6
40
13
r> Siwc
-
•
2
•40

None

49
87
3,300
3.800
3,600
3,600
3.900
3,800
100
150
no
ml
9.3

51
141
780
-
870
nil
-
nil
80
-
90
nil
94
Pond

7S.b
99.95
I«.2
-

• 156
64
92
0.34
nil
1. 180
24
r Stack

Flue Gas

8.3
.
2.5
72.5
16.7

80, 150
-
335

-

2.098

6
21. 7
-
-
Ill
1}" Raschig
RinK.
3.5
>.l

None

84
190
400
900
700
SCO
1, 600
1, 700
oo
135
100
-
8.7

87
ISO
-
-
700
-
-
65
.
.
too
-
8.7
Sewer

0
06. IS
0


200
-

-
-

9


Flue Gas

10
9
1 -
71
9
-
35.000
7
600

.
-
-

2.7
30
.
.
22
1} "Saddles
-
2

None

51
177
4.060
6.25U
5.320
6.850
10.000
8, 590
91
181
143

9.0

53
236
431
t.37
537
11
22
15
68
136
101
-
9.6
Sewer

89.9
99.83
Z9.4
-

233
146
230
1
-
3,730
-
T

Fuel Gas

-
-
-
-
-
795
-
-
51

430
144
5.084

3
31
18
Baffle
-
•
14
39A

Acid

250
no
-
-
1,800
-
-
2,500
-
-
-
.
6.7

276
2S5
-
-
1.670
-
-
6
-
-
-
-
10
Desaltcr

7. 2
99.76
.
-

205
nil
312
.
-
250
-


Fuel Gas

-
-
-
-
-
200
•
-
.

285
35.3
13,000

4

16
-
-
-
35.3
                  57

-------
(2)   steam/non-refluxedr  and  (3)   flue  gas  and  fuel gas
stripped, respectively.

The results of this survey show that 18 of the  31  refluxed
and  11  of  the  2H non-refluxed SViS's and 6 of the 7 SWS's
using flue or fuel  gas  as  the  stripping  medium  achieve
greater  than  99%  removal  of sulfides.  In addition, nine
refluxed and three non-refluxed units achieve  greater  than
99%  removal  of  sulfides  and  95%  or  greater removal of
ammonia in the same unit.  It  should  be  noted  that  many
other  columns are performing nearly as well as the removals
indicated.  It is interesting to note that of the five  two-
stage  units  for  which  data  are  reported, only one unit
achieves high removals of both parameters.  From  the  data,
it appears that refluxed columns are yielding better overall
removals of both pollutants.

The average effluent of all units that are achieving greater
than  99% sulfide removal is 5.8 mg/1.  The average effluent
from all units achieving 95% or greater ammonia  removal  is
62.5  mg/1.   These  averages are based upon a wide range of
influent and effluent values.

Table VTI-6 presents the data collected  during  this  study
for the sour water stripper at indirect discharging refinery
#17.

sour Water Oxidizers.  Another way of treating sour water is
to oxidize by aeration.  Compressed air is injected into the
waste   with   sufficient   steam   to  raise  the  reaction
temperature to at least 190 degrees F.  Reaction pressure of
50 - 100 psig is required.  Oxidation proceeds  rapidly  and
converts practically all of the sulfides to thiosulfates and
about  10%  of the thiosulfates to sulfates.  Air oxidation,
however, is much less effective than stripping in regard  to
reduction  of  the  oxygen  demand of sour waters, since the
remaining thiosulfates can later be oxidized to sulfates  by
aquatic microorganisms.

Oxidation systems using peroxide and chlorine have also been
identified  during  this  project.  These syste:ms operate in
open tanks, without the use of steam.

Due to the very low limits required by the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, refineries  discharging  to
this  sewer  system  use  both sour water strippers and sour
water oxidizers, in series.  Levels of less  than  0.1  mg/1
sulfides  in  the  effluent  are  consistently maintained by
these refineries.   Los  Angeles  County  also  maintains   a
                                 58

-------
           TABLE VII-6

SOUR WATER STRIPPER OPERATING DATA
              FOR
           Refinery #17
          Operating Data

         Hydrogen Sulfide         Ammonia
Date
6/74
7/74
8/74
9/74
10/74
11/74
12/74
1/75
2/75
3/75
4/75
5/75
6/75
7/75
8/75
9/75
10/75
11/75
12/75
In
126
120
100
104
95
112
102
80
86
78
92
100
98
115
110
120
116
98
80
Out
2
1
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
In
112
105
95
100
90
102
98
85
87
84
98
110
110
120
118
124
120
104
92
Out
52
50
48
50
46
51
47
40
44
46
50
55
56
58
58
55
56
48
44
                 59

-------
restriction  of  50  mg/1  of  thiosulfates  to  control the
chlorine demand at the sewage treatment plant.

Table VII-7 has been extracted from the "1972 API Sour Water
Stripping Survey Evaluation" (24).  As can readily be  seen,
these  treatment  systems  are capable of removing virtually
all of the sulfides present in the wastewater regardless  of
the raw feed concentration.

Phenol Removal Systems

The  removal of phenols by end-of-pipe treatment systems has
been demonstrated in this as well as  in  other  industries.
Phenol  removal  as  a  pretreatment  operation involves the
treatment of sour waters prior to dilution by other  process
waste  streams.  There are two major techniques practiced by
the refining industry  for  the  pretreatment  of  phenols—
biological  treatment  and the use of sour waters as make-up
to the desalter.

Recycling to the Desalter.  The use of sour waters as  make-
up  to  the desalter is a proven technology in the industry.
Phenol removal efficiencies will vary greatly depending on a
number of factors, but the most important factor is the type
of crude being refined.

Data were obtained on the removal efficiencies  accomplished
through  the  application of this technology at Refinery f!8
and are presented in Table VII-8.  A total of three indirect
discharge refineries (numbers  17,  18  and  22)  have  been
identified  that treat their sour waters by recycling to the
desalter after stripping.

Industry has suggested that the  crude  source  can  have  a
significant  effect  on  the  practicality of recycling sour
water stripper bottoms to the desalter.  For example, it has
been contended that the use of sour waters to  desalt  heavy
California  crudes can lead to the formation of emulsions in
the desalter  effluent.   The  Agency  solicits  information
relative  to  this  contention  such  that  the existence of
desalter effluent emulsions and their effects on end-of-pipe
treatment can be quantified.

Biological Treatment.  Biological oxidation  has  been  used
successfully to treat industrial wastes containing phenol at
various  concentrations.   Since phenol is a bactericide, it
can have the effect of inhibiting  biological  action  in  a
treatment plant not acclimated to phenolic wastes.  However,
biota  can  become  acclimated  to  the phenol by developing
strains of organisms resistant to phenol that  are  able  to
                                   60

-------
      TABLE VII-7

SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA
  SOUR WATER OXIDIZERS
    (Reference #2*0
CODE NO.
REMARKS
pH Control
16
1st Stage
Oxidizer
Caustic

2nd Stage
Ammonia
Stripper
None
39B

-
45

Caustic
46
2 parallel
Oxidizer s
Caustic
RAW FEED
Flow - gpm
Temp - °F
NH3, Avg. - ppm
H2S, Avg - pom
Phenols, Avg - ppm
pH, Avg. -
TREATED WATER
Flow - gpm
Temp. - °F
NH3, Avg. - ppm
H2S, Avg. - ppm
Phenols, Avg. - ppm
Thiosulfate - ppm
pH Avg.
Disposition
STEAM
Flow - SCFM
Flow - Ib/hr
29
100
2,000
1, 160
38
12

31.8
210
1,700
0
34
2,800
10
2nd Stage

23
-
19.6
210
1,700
0
34
10

20.4
245
200
0
32
-
-
Sewer

-
1,500
175
.
9,000
10,000
-
9.5

185
200
7, 100
0
-
-
10
Storage

-
3,300
110
110
3,550
4,740
1, 100
8.2

115
200
2,760
<1
1,000
-
9
Sewer

-
3,000
530
109
6,510
8,800
141
-

-
198
3,800
0
141
8,800
-
Sewe r

-
8,350
AIR
Flow - SCFM
Flow - Ib/hr
217
-
-
-
-
5,400
500
-
5,600
-
TOWER
Diameter
Height
No. of Trays
Type of Trays
Stages
Temp. Top
Temp. Bot.
Pressure Top
Pressure Bot.
4.5
50
-
-
4
210
200
37
85.
3
40
15
Valve
-
235
245
10
15
7
50
-
.
4
220
200
85
140
6
83
26
Bubble Cap
-
200
187
40
72
9.5
50
-
-
4
210
200
40
85
             61

-------
                  TABLE VII-8

             OPERATING DATA FOR THE
       REMOVAL OF PHENOLS IN THE DESALTER

                  Refinery #18
                         Phenol Concentration, mg/1

Date                Influent               Effluent

5/13/76                55                      8

5/14/76                55                     10

5/17/76               104                     14

5/18/76                93                     25

5/21/76                63                      8
                      62

-------
utilize  phenol  as  food  material.   Biological  treatment
systems can thrive on phenolic-bearing  wastes  and  oxidize
the  phenols  to  innocuous  substances.  The most effective
technique  for  biological  treatment  appears  to  be   the
completely  mixed  activated  sludge  process with detention
times  of  about  24  hours  in  the  aeration  tank.   This
technique  tends  to  minimize the adverse effects of sudden
changes in concentration (i.e., shock loads)  of  phenols  or
other pollutant parameters.  It is also possible to minimize
these  fluctuations in influent phenol concentrations by the
use of waste water equalization techniques.

Biological treatment for phenol removal is  practiced  in  a
number of refineries at which the combined plant effluent is
treated   biologically  for  removal  of  oxygen  demand  in
addition  to  phenol  reduction.   However,  treatment   for
specific  removal  of  phenol  in  the  sour water stream by
biological means has been identified to be in  use  at  only
one  refinery.   This refinery is a direct discharger and is
coded #52 in the  "1972  API  Sour  Water  Stripping  Survey
Evaluation"   (24)  discussed previously.  No refineries that
are presently discharging to a POTW have been identified  as
using this technology.

The  phenol  pretreatment system at plant #52 consists of an
aeration tank with a detention  time  of  3.6  days  at  the
design flow rate of 100 gpm.  Two 20 HP surface aeraters are
used to supply the oxygen.

Figures  VII-1  and  VII-2 present probability plots for the
phenol concentrations entering and  exiting  the  bio  unit.
This  facility  is  averaging  99%  removal  of phenols.  It
should be  noted  that  the  unit  has  experienced  foaming
problems   that   have   affected   the  plant's  operations
periodically.  The data presented in the  probability  plots
are based upon approximately 150 daily samples taken over an
eight month period.

Activated  Carbon.   The  capability  of activated carbon to
adsorb  phenol  is  well  established  in  the   literature.
However, the pollutant category of "phenol" can include many
compounds with widely varying rates of adsorption on carbon.
Activated carbon is in general a nonselective adsorbent.  It
will  adsorb  other  organics  as well as phenols; important
factors to the effectiveness and economics  of  the  process
are  the  relative  concentration  of  the  various  organic
compounds, the rate of adsorption, the  equilibrium  concen-
tration, and the capacity of the carbon.
                                   63

-------
                              FIGURE VII-1

                      INFLUENT PHENOL CONCENTRATION
                        TO  BIO-UNIT AT PLANT 52
                        (API STRIPPER SURVEY CODE)
1000P-
 500
                              PROBABILITY PLOT

-------
                                FIGURE VII-2

                       EFFLUENT PHENOL CONCENTRATION
                         FROM BIO-UNIT AT PLANT  52
                         (API STRIPPER SURVEY CODE)
10.0
                                                         2  I  0',  02 II 0..5  l"li
                         5  93	80  70 60  il  40 30  !J
 0.1
                               PROBABILITY  PLOT

-------
The use of activated carbon for phenol removal is not widely
practiced  in the refining industry.  There were no indirect
dischargers   identified   that   used   activated    carbon
pretreatment  for phenol reduction prior to discharge to the
POTW.

Chemical Oxidation.  A number of relatively common oxidizing
agents are  capable  of  oxidizing  phenol.   These  include
ozone,  hydrogen  peroxide,  chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and
potassium permanganate.

Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent  capable  of  destroying
most  of  the  organic  compounds,  including phenols, which
contribute to pollutants such as BOD, COD, and  TOC.   Since
ozone  is  too unstable to ship and store, it must be gener-
ated  on  site  with  an  ozone  generator.   The  generator
produces   ozone   by  passing  air  or  oxygen  through  an
electrical discharge.  While the use of oxygen results in  a
more  efficient generation of ozone than the use of air, its
use can usually be justified only in larger installations.

Aside  from  ozone,  hydrogen  peroxide  is  the   preferred
oxidizing   agent  in  the  remaining  group  of  chemicals.
Chlorine  and  chlorine  dioxide  are  relatively  low  cost
commercial  chemicals,  but could tend to form chlorophenols
which  may  be  more  toxic  than   unchlorinated   phenols.
Potassium  permanganate  is  significantly  mo>re costly than
hydrogen peroxide for equivalent oxidation capacity.

Chemical  oxidation  is  not  widely  utilized  for   phenol
reduction,   and   no  indirect  discharge  refineries  were
identified that employ this technology.

Removal of Chromium

Chromium will appear in the wastewaters from oil  refineries
when  it  is  used  as  a  scale preventative and biocide in
cooling towers.  This type of  cooling  tower  treatment  is
prevalent  throughout  the  industry  and  is  used  by many
indirect dischargers.

Chromium will be present in the wastewater in both the  tri-
valent  and  hexavalent  forms.   The first step in chromium
removal involves the reduction of hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent state.  This is usually accomplished  through  the
addition  to  the  waste  water of a reducing agent, such as
sulfur dioxide, ferrous sulfate, or  sodium  bisulfite,  and
agitating  for an appropriate period of time.  The trivalent
chromium is then precipitated by adding lime or  caustic  to
the  wastewater  to  raise the pH to alkaline conditions, at
                                  66

-------
which  chromium  has  the   least   solubility   in   water.
Flocculants  and  flocculant  aids, such as ferric chloride,
alum,  and  polymers,  can  be  added  to  increase  removal
efficiencies.   The  wastewater  is  then fed to a clarifier
where adequate detention time must be afforded to allow  the
flocculated  metallic  hydroxide  particles to settle out of
the  wastewater.   Filtration  would  usually   follow   the
clarification unit to remove suspended solids.

There  are  no  pretreatment techniques for chromium removal
presently being used  by  indirect  discharging  refineries;
therefore, removal efficiency data are not available.

Removal of Oil and Grease

A  major  waste  emanating  from  oil refineries is commonly
referred to as  the  oily  stream.   These  wastewaters  are
normally generated from many sources and operations within a
refinery,  including pad washings, tank bottom washings, and
contaminated storm runoff.  This waste stream can either  be
treated separately or in combination with the other refinery
wastewaters.   The  control and treatment technology for oil
and grease  removal  is  well  known  and  has  been  widely
demonstrated   throughout   the  industry  (see  Development
Document, pages 101, 102, and 107).

Gravity  separation  is  the  unit  operation  employed  for
primary  oil  and  grease removal.  The most common piece of
equipment used  in  this  industry  is  the  API  separator.
Gravity  separation  is  universally  utilized  in petroleum
refineries and is described in considerable  detail  in  the
Development  Document  (pages  T01  and  102).  All indirect
dischargers presently have gravity oil separators as part of
their pretreatment systems.

Another  type  of  separator  finding  increasing   use   in
refineries is the parallel plate separator.  This technology
is   described  in  the  Development  Document  (page  102).
Refineries #4 and #5 are the only indirect dischargers  that
have been identified that use this type of treatment unit as
part of their pretreatment systems.

Secondary  oil and grease removal may be achieved by several
unit processes.  One of the most effective and  widely  used
in  petroleum  refineries  is  dissolved air flotation  (DAF)
(see Development Document,  page  107) .   Thirteen  indirect
discharging  refineries  have  been identified that pretreat
their wastewaters with DAF systems.  It is also possible  to
employ multi-media filtration as a pretreatment technique to
further  reduce  oil  and grease discharges (see Development
                                   67

-------
Document, pages 102, 110, and 111).  No indirect discharging
refineries have been identified that  employ  filtration  as
pretreatment prior to discharge to POTW.

-------
                        SECTION VIII

        COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION

This  section  addresses the costs, energy requirements, and
non-water quality environmental impacts associated with  the
control  and  treatment technology presented in Section VII.
The cost estimates presented do not include land costs.   It
is   assumed   that   ample   space  is  available  for  the
construction of  any  necessary  pretreatment  systems.   In
addition,  the estimates are based on the assumption that no
unusual  foundation  or  site  preparation  problems  exist.
These factors are not included in the estimates because they
are  site specific.  Land costs and site conditions may vary
from  one  refinery  to  another.   Land  requirements   are
relatively  minimal  compared  to those for refinery process
equipment and the land areas required  for  installation  of
pretreatment   systems  are  expected  to  be  available  to
indirect discharging petroleum refineries.

The entire segment of the industry discharging to  POTW  has
been  identified  and,  except  for  a  few  instances,  the
pretreatment systems presently employed at these  refineries
are  known.   Total costs can be calculated for all indirect
discharging refineries and are presented  in  this  section.
In  some  cases,  costs are based on a model plant approach,
while in other cases, a plant by plant evaluation is made.

COST AND ENERGY

Sour Water Strippers

As discussed in Section VII, the major pretreatment  process
available  to the petroleum refining industry for removal of
sulfides and ammonia from sour waters is stripping.

The  source  of  cost  data  for  this  technology  is   the
"Economics of Refinery Wastewater Treatment" prepared by the
American  Petroleum  Institute (31).  The estimates of total
capital cost as presented  in  the  reference  document  are
shown  in  Figure VIII-1.  These estimates include the costs
of sour water collection and steam supply to the stripper as
well as the cost of  the  stripping  facilities  themselves.
The  costs  shown  in  Figure  VIII-1  are presented in 1972
dollars; therefore, costs were adjusted by a factor of  1.35
                                    69

-------
   0.5
CO
EH
CO
O
O
   0.2
   0.1
  0.05
  0.02
   0.01
                             FIGURE  VIII-1


                             CAPITAL COST
                         SOUR WATER  STRIPPING
                    10,000            50,000        200,000

                           REFINERY CAPACITY (BPD)


                  LEGEND:
                  1- High nitrogen  crude  installations
                  2- New installations  for H2S  stripping
                  3- Revisions  for  NH3  stripping
                  Reference  31
                                    7n

-------
   960
  840
  720
  600
S
&
o
w
£
S 480
1
  360
  240
  120
                  •	I
                                               7
                40        80        120        160
                 REFINERY CAPACITY,  1000 BBL/DAY
200
                          FIGURE VIII-2
           REFINERY CAPACITY VS. SOUR WATER FLOW  RATE
                                71

-------
(calculated from Consumer Price Index)  to update the figures
to 1976 costs.

In  order  to  verify  the  relationship  between sour water
stripping capital cost and  refinery  capacity,   sour  water
flow  rate  data  obtained  during this project  were plotted
against corresponding refinery  throughput.    This  plot  is
shown  in  Figure  VIII-2.  The results indicate an adequate
correlation between these two parameters for the purpose  of
estimating capital costs associated with the installation of
sour  water  strippers  for  removal of hydrogen sulfide and
ammonia.

Sulfide Removal.  Nine refineries were  identified  that  do
not have a sour water stripper as part of their  pretreatment
operations.   It  was  determined  that  at   eight  of these
refineries stripping technology was not required since there
are no sour waters produced by their operations.

Based on this analysis, only one refinery could  be  affected
to any significant degree by the requirement of  pretreatment
standards  for sulfides.  The following table summarizes the
capital costs associated with the installation of sour water
stripping at this refinery:

                      Refinery Capacity         Capital Cost
Refinery Code           1000 BBL/Day              Dollars

    27                       70                   $785,000
    Total                    70                   $785,000

Minor costs may be experienced at the  remaining  refineries
to  revamp  certain  portions  of their stripping systems to
improve the  effluent  quality.   The  costs,  however,  are
generally not major and are expected to be on the same order
of magnitude as maintenance costs.

Ammonia   Removal.    The   refineries  that  are  presently
discharging to municipal sewers are not required by the POTW
to meet ammonia limitations.  Therefore, it is assumed  that
the SWS's at the refineries contacted are not being operated
for  optimum  ammonia  removals.   Within the scope and time
constraints of this study, it was not possible to  determine
how  many  of  the present systems can be easily modified to
meet  ammonia  pretreatment  standards  or   at   how   many
refineries  it  will  be  required that a second stripper be
                                     72

-------
installed to remove ammonia.  Because there is no  available
method  of  determining  which refineries definitely need to
install ammonia removal equipment, it was assumed  that  all
indirect  discharging  refineries  that generate sour waters
will need to install additional equipment  to  meet  ammonia
standards.   This  approach  results  in  an estimate of the
maximum cost  possible.   Table  VIII-1  presents  estimated
capital  expenditures  for the 26 refineries in the indirect
discharging segment to  attain  pretreatment  standards  for
ammonia.   The estimates are based on the assumption that at
all refineries where sour waters are  generated,  additional
ammonia   removal   facilities  will  be  installed.   These
estimates are taken from the "Revisions for Ammonia Removal"
curve on Figure VIII-1.  The estimated total  costs  to  the
indirect  discharging  portion  of  the  industry  are  also
presented in Table VIII-1.

Operating Costs  and  Energy  Requirements.   The  estimated
operating  costs for sour water strippers are shown in Table
VIII-2.  Three typical sizes were chosen that represent  the
size  range  of refineries that are presently discharging to
POTW.

Costs incurred by individual refineries can vary for reasons
that are site specific such as the amount of steam used, the
redundancy of equipment, and the distance that waste  waters
are pumped.  Other operating costs, such as the treatment of
off-gases  and  pH  adjustment  of  the sour waters  are not
included in the estimates presented in Table VIII-2, because
it is extremely difficult to determine costs for these items
that are representative of the  entire  industry.   However,
these  factors,  if  applicable,  could  have  a significant
effect on the total operating cost of sour water  stripping.
The  Agency  solicits specific information relative to these
factors.

The energy requirements associated with sour water stripping
are:   (1) electrical power for pumping, and (2)   the  energy
associated  with  the  production  of  steam.    Total energy
consumption can range from 1,000,000 BTU/hour for  a  20,000
BBL/  Day  refinery  to  33,000,000  BTU/hour  for a 150,000
BBL/Day refinery.

Phenol Removal

The technology most likely to be  used  in  a  refinery  for
phenol  removal is biological treatment.  For the purpose of
determining the costs for pretreatment, the use of  packaged
biological  treatment plants has been assumed.  Table VIII-3
presents  the  estimated  capital   costs   for   biological
                                     73

-------
                             TABLE VIII-1
               COSTS FOR  INSTALLING SOUR WATER STRIPPERS
                                   FOR
                            AMMONIA REMOVAL
Refinery Code
     2
     3
     4
     5
     7
    10
    11
    13
    14
    16
    17
    18
    19
    22
    25
    26
    27
    30
Refinery Capacity
  1,000 BBL/Day

    111.0
     75.0
    101.0
     44.0
    123.5
     53.8
     •15.0
     30.0
     46.5
    186.4
     24.0
     39.0
     27.65
     29.7
    103.0
    233.5
     70.0
     44.8
                    TOTAL
   1358
 Capital  Cost
 $ 260,000
   212,000
   243,000
   158,000
   273,000
   176,000
    89,000
   130,000
   162,000
   338,000
   115,000
   149,000
   126,000
   130,000
   250,000
   385,000
   203,000
   161.000

$3,560,000
                                    74

-------
                                 TABLE VIII-2
                                OPERATING COSTS
                             SOUR WATER STRIPPERS
                                                  Sulfide Removal
Description

Steam - $3.00/1000 Ibs.

Pumping - .06 hp/gpm $0.04/kwh

Labor (1/2 man-year)

Depreciation (20% of total capital cost)   86,500

Maintenance (3% of total capital cost)

     Total Annual Cost
Steam

Pumping

Labor

Depreciation

Maintenance

     Total Annual Cost
Annual Cost, Dollars
20,000
bbl/day
$ 50,000
500
10,000
86,500
13,000
$160,000
$ 50,000
500
0
21,600
3,400
$75,500
95,000
bbl/day
$ 620, 000
5,000
10,000
185,000
28,000
$848,000 $1
Ammonia Removal
$620,000
5,000
0
48,600
7,400
$681,000
150,000
bbl/day
$860,000
8,000
10,000
230,000
35,000
,143,000
$860,000
8,000
0
62,000
9,000
$939,000
                                     75

-------
                        TABLE VIII-3

                       CAPITAL COSTS
              PRETREATMENT FOR PHENOL REMOVAL
Description                    	Cost,  Dollars	
                               0.02 MGD         0.4 MGD
                               20,OOP BBL/Day   95,000 BBL/Day

Biological Treatment Unit
with Sludge Holding Tank         $  30,000         $ 120,000

Pumps and Wetwell                  10,000            20,000
     Subtotal                      40,000           140,000

Piping  (10%)                        4,000            14,000

Other Auxiliary Equipment (10%)     4,000            14,000
     Total Equipment Cost          48,000           168,000

Installation  (50%)                 24,000            84,000
     Total Constructed Cost        72,000           252,000

Engineering  (15%)                  10,800            37,800

Contingency Cost                   12,200            40,200
     Total Capital Cost          $ 95,000         $ 330,000
                               76

-------
treatment  systems  at different flow rates.   Each flow rate
has been correlated to a refinery capacity,  based  upon  the
sour  water flow rate information provided in Figure VIII-2.
The two model sizes were determined by dividing the indirect
discharge refineries into two capacity  ranges,  those  with
capacities  greater than 40,000 BBL/Day, and those with less
than 40,000 BBL/Day capacity.  The average of  the  refinery
capacities  in  the  former range is 21,000  BBL/Day, whereas
the average capacity of the latter range is  95,000 BBL/Day.

The  total  cost  for  all  of  the   indirect   discharging
refineries  to pretreat their sour waters for phenol removal
is estimated as follows:

Cost Per Refinery     No. of Refineries   Total Capital Cost

$ 95,000 per small
         system               13              $ 1,235,000

$330,000 per larger
         system               13              $ 4,290,000
     Total                    26              $ 5,525,000

Estimated operating costs for the phenol removal systems are
shown in Table VIII-4.   Items  included  in  the  operating
costs  are electrical power for aeration and pumping, labor,
depreciation, and maintenance.  As can be seen by  the  data
presented, depreciation is the largest factor in determining
the total operating costs for each facility.

The  major  uses  of energy are associated with the aeration
and pumping systems.   Total  energy  requirements  for  the
20,000  BBL/Day model refinery are estimated to be 3.5 H.P.;
the total energy requirement for the  95,000  BBL/Day  model
refinery is estimated at 30 H.P.

Chromium Removal

Most  refineries  should  be  able  to take advantage of the
reducing environment in sewers and the  detention  time  and
settling  capabilities  of  oil  removal  systems  to effect
reductions in chromium discharges.   However,  no  data  are
available  at the present time to enable a quantification of
these phenomena.  In the development of cost  estimates,  it
was  assumed  that  it  would  be  necessary  that treatment
technology be installed to effect removal of chromium.   The
technology  on  which  the  cost estimates are based is that
described  in  Section  VII—the  reduction  of   hexavalent
                                     77

-------
                     TABLE VI11-4

                   OPERATING COSTS
                PHENOL REMOVAL SYSTEMS

Description                     	Annual Cost, Dollars
                               20,000 BBL/Day95,OOP BBL/Day

Aeration                         $    750           $ 5,500

Pumping                               750             5,500

Labor (1/2 manyear)                10,000            10,000

Depreciation (20% of total
             capital cost)         19,000            66,000

Maintenance (3% of total
            capital cost)           3,000            10,000
     Total Annual Cost           $ 33,500          $ 97,000
                              78

-------
chromium to trivalent chromium followed by precipitation and
clari fication.

Cost estimates require meaningful determinations of the flow
associated  with  segregated  cooling tower blowdown.   Model
flow rate data were obtained from the "Economics of Refinery
Waste Water Treatment"  (31).   Costs  associated  with  the
installation of chromium removal technology at three typical
sized   refineries   were   determined.    The  three  model
refineries are representative of the  size  distribution  of
indirect discharging refineries.  The characteristics of the
three model refineries are:
Refinery                  Typical           Cooling Tower
Capacity                Subcategory         Flow Rate
(M Bbl/day)                                       (gpm)
   15                        A                   31

   39                       A/B                 160

  119                        B                  720
Table  VIII-5  presents  capital cost estimates for chromium
removal for the three  refineries  described  above.    Table
VIII-6   presents  estimates  of  operating  costs  for  the
chromium removal systems.

The only energy uses are associated with chemical feed pumps
and mixers.  Total  energy  requirements  are  estimated  to
range  from  approximately  2  hp  for  the  15,000  bbl/day
refinery to roughly 10 hp for the 119,000 bbl/day refinery.

Oil and Grease Removal

All  identified  indirect  dischargers  have   gravity   oil
separation   as   part   of   their   pretreatment  systems.
Therefore, cost estimates associated with  the  installation
of this type of treatment facility are not presented.

Dissolved air flotation is presently being used at 13 refin-
eries  that  are  discharging  to POTW.  Of the remaining 13
refineries, it is not known at how many the installation  of
DAF  systems  would  be required to comply with pretreatment
standards for oil and grease.  The costs associated with the
installation of DAF systems at four  model  refineries  were
                                   79

-------
                                 TABLE VIII-5

                                 CAPITAL COSTS

                           Chromium Removal Systems
Description

Detention Tank (45 minutes),
with Mixer
Acid and SO  Feed Systems

pH and ORP Control Systems
Solids Contact Clarifier
(0.6 gpm/ft  settling rate)

Caustic Feed System

Pumps

     Subtotal

Misc. Auxiliary Equipment  (10%)

Piping (10%

     Total Equipment Cost

Installation (50%)

     Total Construction Cost

Engineering  (15%)

Contingency

TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Cost, Dollars
15,000
bbl/day
$ 5,000
15,000
10,000
30,000
10,000
5,000
75,000
7,500
7,500
90,000
45,000
135,000
20,000
20,000
$175,000
39,000
bbl/day
$ 15,000
25,000
10,000
40,000
15,000
10,000
115,000
11,500
11,500
138,000
69,000
207,000
31,000
31,000
$269,000
119,000
bbl/day
$ 35,000
40,000
10,000
80,000
20,000
15,000
200,000
20,000
20,000
240,000
120,000
360,000
54,000
54,000
$468,000
                                      80

-------
                                 TABLE VIII-6

                                OPERATING COSTS

                           Chromium Removal Systems
Description

Energy and Chemical Costs

Labor (.25 man-year)

Depreciation (20% of total
capital cost)

Maintenance  (3% of total
capital cost)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST
15,000
bbl/day

$ 2,000

  5,000


 35,000


  5,000

$47,000
                                                Annual Costs, Dollars
39,000
bbl/day

$ 11,000

   5,000


  54,000


   8,000

 $78,000
119,000
bbl/day

$ 47,000

   5,000


  94,000


  14,000

$160,000
                                    81

-------
            FIGURE  VIII-3

CAPITAL COST VERSUS TOTAL WASTEWATER FLOW
    FOR DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
           FLOW (H.G.D.)

-------
estimated.   These cost data are presented in  Table  VIII-7.
Figure VIII-3 presents the relationship between capital cost
of installing DAF systems  and  total  effluent  flow  rate.
Table  VIII-8 presents the total cost to the industry if all
13 remaining refineries were to  install  new  DAF  systems.
The  estimates shown in this table are based on Figure VIII-
3.  A minimum capital  cost  of  $50,000  has  been  assumed
regardless of flow rate.

Table VIII-9 presents operating costs for the four model DAF
systems.   Operating  costs include chemical addition, power
requirements, labor, depreciation, and maintenance.  The two
major cost items for DAF  systems  are  electric  power  and
depreciation.

Energy  consumption  for  DAF systems consists of the horse-
power requirements for skimming and for the recirculation of
wastewater within the unit itself.  In  most  cases  pumping
between  the  gravity  oil separator and the DAF unit is not
necessary.

Total energy requirements for DAF  units  are  estimated  to
range  from  six  H.P.  for a 20,000 BBL/Day refinery to 180
H.P. for a 200,000 BBL/Day refinery.

NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS

Non-water quality considerations  associated  with  in-plant
controls  and  end-of-pipe treatment in petroleum refineries
were discussed in the Development Document (see  pages  111,
112, and 141).  The specific non-water quality environmental
impact of the installation of  the  pretreatment  facilities
discussed herein relate to the following:

    1.   Gaseous  hydrogen  sulfide  and   ammonia   streams
         created  by  new or additional sour water stripping
         facilities.

    2.   Sludges  generated  by  the   use   of   biological
         treatment for phenol removal.

    3.   Sludge and oily froth from DAF systems.


Generally the gaseous stream from a sour water  stripper  is
either incinerated or directed to a recovery facility.  If a
second  stripper  is added in series for ammonia removal, it
is not anticipated  that  the  disposition  of  the  gaseous
stream will create serious problems within the refinery.  in
fact,  the  use  of  two  strippers in series allows for the
                                       83

-------
                     TABLE VIII-7

                    CAPITAL COSTS
               DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
                              Cost, Dollars, at Selected Plow Rates
Description               MGD   . 08	1	4.4	6.2


Dissolved Air Flotation
Unit with instruments and
controls                     $35,000  $80,000  $130,000  $150,000


Chemical Injection equipment  15,000   30,000    45,000    55,000
     Subtotal                 50,000  110,000   175,000   205,000

Piping (10%)                    5,000   11,000    17,500    20,500
     Total Equipment Cost     55,000  121,000   192,500   225,500

Installation (50%)             27,500   60,500    96,500   112,500
     Total Constructed Cost   82,500  181,500   289,000   338,000

Engineering (15%)             12,500   27,300    43,500    51,000

Contingency                   15,000   26,200    42,500    51,000
     Total Capital Cost     $110,000 $235,000  $375,000  $440,000
                             84

-------
                               TABLE VIII-8
                          TOTAL  CAPITAL  COSTS
                         DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
                                              Effluent
Refinery Code               Capacity           Flow Rate     Capital Cost
                            1000  BBL/Day        MGD           Dollars

     1                         15.0
     5                        44.0
     9                         5.0
    11                         15.0
    12                        20.0
    13                        30.0
    17                        24.0
    20                        44.5
    21                         37.96
    22                        29.7
    25                       103.0
    26                       233.5
    27                        70.0

                 TOTAL       671.7             15.58           $2,370,000

(1)  No flow data available; estimate based  on flow  of similar  sized
     refineries.
.05 (1)
0.33
.03 (1)
.033
.052
.132
.220
.833 (1)
.14
1.42
3.2 (1)
7.64
1.5
$ 85,000
150,000
65,000
65,000
85,000
112,000
130,000
220,000
115,000
263,000
340,000
465,000
270,000
                               85

-------
                     TABLE VI11-9

                   OPERATING COSTS
               DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION

                              Annual Costs, Dollars, For Selected
Description                   	Flow Rates	
                           MGD   .08	1         4.4      6.2

Chemicals

     Alum                     $1,000    $14,000   $62,000  $86,000

     Polyelectrolyte             500      6,000    27,000   39,000


Power (Electricity)

     DAF Unit Requirements     1,400      8,000    35,000   50,000

     Chemical Feed Pumps and
     Mixers                      200        400     2,000    3,000


Labor (.25 man-years)          5,000      5,000     5,000    5,000


Depreciation (20%)            22,000     47,000    75,000   88,000


Maintenance  (3% of total
            capital cost)      3,500      7,000    11,000   13,000
      Total Annual Cost      $33,600    $87,400  $217,000 $284,000
                            86

-------
production of high  purity  sulfide  and  ammonia  off-gases
which  can  be  recovered  and disposed of more readily.  In
some refineries, ammonia is  recovered  in  the  aqueous  or
anhydrous  form  and  sold  as a by-product of the stripping
operation  (9).   The  Agency  solicits  information   which
provides  cost  and other data regarding sulfide and ammonia
off-gas recovery and disposal.

Sludges created by  biological  treatment  systems  removing
phenol  could  be  combined  with  other  semi-solid  wastes
generated in  the  refinery.   This  sludge  should  not  be
offensive  in  nature,  since  it  will not contain sanitary
sewage.  Similarly, sludge generated by a DAF  system  could
be   combined   with  separator  sludge  for  treatment  and
disposal.  The oily froth could be directed to the  refinery
slop oil system or disposed of by incineration.

In  most  cases the sludges described above are nonhazardous
substances requiring only minimal custodial care.   However,
some  constituents  may be hazardous and may require special
consideration.  In order to ensure long term  protection  of
the    environment   from   these   hazardous   or   harmful
constituents, special consideration of disposal  sites  must
be made.  All landfill sites where such hazardous wastes are
disposed  should be selected so as to prevent horizontal and
vertical  migration  of  these  contaminants  to  ground  or
surface  waters.  In cases where geologic conditions may not
reasonably  ensure  this,  adequate  legal  and   mechanical
precautions   (i.e.,  impervious  liners)  should be taken to
ensure  long  term  protection  to  the   environment   from
hazardous  materials.   Where  appropriate,  the location of
solid,  hazardous  materials  disposal   sites   should   be
permanently  recorded  in  the  appropriate  office of legal
jurisdiction.

Other nonwater quality aspects, such as noise  levels,  will
not  be  perceptibly  affected.   Most  refineries  generate
fairly high noise levels  (85-95 dB (A))  within  the  battery
limits  because  of  equipment  such  as pumps, compressors,
steam jets, flare stacks, etc.   Equipment  associated  with
in-process  or  end-of-pipe  control  systems  would not add
significantly to these levels.   There  are  no  radioactive
nuclides    used    in   the   industry,   other   than   in
instrumentation.   Thus,  no  radiation  problems  will   be
expected.   Compared  to  the  odor  emissions possible from
other refinery sources, odors from the waste water treatment
plants are not expected to  create  a  significant  problem.
However,  odors are possible from the wastewater facilities,
especially  from  the  possible  stripping  of  ammonia  and
sulfides in the air flotation units.
                                 87

-------
In summary, it is not anticipated that any serious non-water
quality   environmental   impact   will   result   from  the
implementation  of  the  pretreatment  operations  described
herein.
                                    88

-------
                         SECTION IX

                   PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION

The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to present pretreatment
standards for indirect discharging refineries in  accordance
with  the  requirements  of Section 307 (b)  of Public Law 92-
500.  Earlier  sections  of  this  document  covering  waste
characterization, selection of pollutant parameters, control
and  treatment  technology,  and  cost and non-water quality
aspects, form the basis  for  the  recommended  pretreatment
standards.  The following discussion includes an analysis of
existing   conditions   in   terms   of  local  pretreatment
requirements  now  in  effect  and  the  rationale  for  the
development of pretreatment standards for selected pollutant
parameters.

EXISTING LOCAL PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

Existing   pretreatment  standards  for  selected  pollutant
parameters as reported for nine of  the  15  POTW  receiving
waste   waters  from  indirect  discharging  refineries  are
summarized below:
Pollutant
Parameter

Phenol

Ammonia

Chromium (Hex.)

        (Total)

Sulfide

Oil and Grease
    Notes:  LTEQ
             LTH
     Number of
  PQTW Reporting

        3
        5
        2
        6
        3
        4
        4
        4
        5
        4
        8
        1
Existing Pre-
treatment Standards

0.01 - 1.0 mg/1
None or LTEQ
1.0 - 100 mg/1
None or LTEQ
0.005 - 10 mg/1
None, LTEQ, or LTH
5-25 mg/1
None, LTEQ, or LTH
0.1-5 mg/1
None
10 - 200 mg/1
None
less than excessive quantities
less than harmful
                                   89

-------
Existing treatment operations reported at 13 of the 1U  POTW
receiving refinery process wastewaters are summarized below:

Type of Treat-       Number of POTW   Number of Refineries
ment Employed           Reporting       	Accepted	

Primary Sedimentation          1                   12

Trickling Filter               6                    6

Activated Sludge               6                    6
The  table  indicates  that  only  one of the POTW currently
accepting refinery process wastewaters  is  at  the  primary
treatment  level.   It  should  be noted that this plant has
secondary treatment facilities planned for the near future.

In conversations with the operators of  the  POTW  employing
biological treatment, it was noted that refinery wastewater,
within  the  limits  of  local pretreatment requirements, is
essentially compatible and does not create significant plant
upset or pass-through  conditions.  However,  it  should  be
pointed  out  that  because  of  dilution effects, the pass-
through of pollutants may not be readily apparent.

SUBCATEGORIZATION

The   petroleum   refining   point   source   category   was
subcategorized   primarily   on   the   basis   of   process
considerations   during   the   development   of    effluent
limitations and guidelines.  In the course of establishing a
subcategorization   scheme   for  the  indirect  discharging
segment of this industry, it has been  determined  that,  on
the  basis  of  location,  age, economic status, size, waste
water  characteristics,  and  manufacturing  processes,   no
fundamental differences exist that would warrant a different
method of subcategorization  (see Section IV) .,
RATIONALE  FOR  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PRETREATMENT  STANDARDS FOR
SELECTED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS

The following discussions relate to  the  parameters  chosen
for   consideration  as  to  the  establishment  of  uniform
national pretreatment standards—ammonia,  oil  and  grease,
phenolics, chromium, and sulfides  (see Section VI).

It  has been determined that all indirect dischargers should
be subject to the same pretreatment standardis, regardless of
                                    90

-------
subcategory.   The  pollutants   under   consideration   for
pretreatment  standards  are common to all refineries' waste
waters,  regardless  of  subcategorization.    Additionally,
pretreatment   standards   are   based   on   an  attainable
concentration  rather  than  the  mass  basis  used  in  the
establishment  of  effluent  limitations  and guidelines for
direct dischargers.

Phenolics

Phenolic compounds are biodgradable  by  biota  that  become
acclimated to them.  Many POTW are able to accept industrial
effluents containing phenolic compounds without experiencing
either  upset  or  pass-through  problems.  The limited data
available  indicate  that  the  efficiency  of  removal   of
phenolics  by  individual  POTW  should be considered in the
development of pretreatment standards for this parameter.

It is, therefore, recommended  that  pretreatment  standards
for  phenolics be established on an individual basis by POTW
receiving refinery waste  waters.   The  promulgated  BPCTCA
effluent  limitation  for  phenol  can be used as a guide by
POTW.  In those cases where it is determined that  the  POTW
is  unable  to  adequately  treat  phenolics  in  a specific
refinery's waste waters, a phenolics limitation of 0.35 mg/1
(daily maximum)  can be achieved (see  Development  Document,
pages  144-149).   The  model technology which supports this
limitation is biological treatment of segregated sour  water
stripper bottoms  (see Section VII).

Chromium
None  of the indirect discharging refineries were identified
as having specific treatment technology for the  removal  of
chromium.  Therefore, removal data for specific technologies
were  not  available from the industry.  Removal of chromium
by POTW utilizing biological treatment  has  been  reported.
In  a  recent  survey of 112 POTW, the mean chromium removal
was 42 percent, with a mean effluent  concentration  of  218
ug/1.

The  best practicable control technology currently available
effluent limitations for chromium were based on the observed
discharge of chromium subsequent  to  biological  treatment.
Therefore,  the  logic  used  in  the  establishment of best
practicable pretreatment standards for existing sources,  to
be  consistent  with  direct  discharge  standards, would be
biological treatment as represented by the POTW.
                                  91

-------
The  establishment  of  a  specific  national   pretreatment
standard   for   chromium  discharged  in  wastewaters  from
petroleum refineries is judged to be inappropriate  at  this
time.   This  pollutant  will  be studied more thoroughly in
light of the order  of  the  U.S.  District  Court  for  the
District  of  Columbia  entered in Natural Resources Defense
Council, et al. v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C.  1976).   The
Agency  solicits  additional  information  relating  to  the
effects of chromium on POTW in terms  of  both  treatability
and sludge disposal.

In   those   individual  cases  where  chromium  levels  are
determined to be having a significant detrimental effect  on
a POTW, by creating either upset or pass-through problems, a
total chromium limitation of 1.0 mg/1 (daily maximum)  can be
achieved  and  is  included  as  guidance for the purpose of
assisting local authorities.   The  model  technology  which
supports  this  limitation  is  the  treatment of segregated
cooling  tower  blowdown  by  clarification,  subsequent  to
reduction  of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium with
the addition of sulfur dioxide  (see Section VII).

Oil and Grease

BPCTCA has been  identified  to  include  both  primary  oil
removal  (API  separators  or  baffle  plate separators) and
secondary  oil  removal   (dissolved  air  flotation  or  its
equivalent)   (see  Development  Document,  page 143) .   These
technologies are employed to ensure effective removal of oil
and  grease  prior  to  biological   treatment.    Oil/water
separation techniques equivalent to those employed at direct
discharging   refineries  should  be  employed  at  indirect
discharging refineries to ensure  protection  of  POTW  from
slug loadings of oil and grease.

Available  effluent  data for oil and grease discharges from
those indirect discharging  refineries  with  dissolved  air
flotation  or  an  equivalent treatment technology installed
are presented in Figure IX-1.  Data for refineries No. 2, 4,
7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, and 30 are included.  Due to the  time
constraints imposed, no attempt has been made to screen this
data  to  verify  that  the  treatment  facilities have been
properly maintained and operated; all data  from  refineries
that  have the recommended pretreatment technology installed
are presented.

The recommended pretreatment standard for oil and grease  is
100  mg/1   (daily  maximum).   This standard is based on the
necessity to minimize to possibility of slug loadings of oil
and grease being discharged to  POTW.   The  capability  for
                                 92

-------
                                              PERCENTAGES
    1000
                         10
CO

oo

+
t-(
\
£

0)
c
(0
     500
     200
     100
                                          FIGURE IX - 1
                                  OIL AND GREASE EFFLUENT DATA
                           FOR SELECTED  INDIRECT DISCHARGE REFINERIES
                                               93

-------
consistent   reduction   of   oil   and  grease  below  this
recommended standard by use of the  identified  pretreatment
technologies   (API  separators  and  DAF  units)   is  well-
established in the petroleum refining industry (1,26).

Sulfides and Ammonia

The available data for sulfide and ammonia  discharges  from
refineries  after  the  application  of sour water stripping
and/or oxidation are presented  in  Figures  IX-2  and  IX-3
respectively.   The  lack  of  availability of influent data
relative to sour water treatment did not permit a  selection
of   sour   water  teratment  systems  exhibiting  the  best
performance.   Refineries  with  obvious  poor   performance
(based  on  effluent  data) were excluded from presentation.
Figure IX-2 includes data relating to sour  water  treatment
system  performance  at Refineries 2, 7, 10r 11,  13, 14, 16,
17, and 18.

Sulfides.  Sulfides discharged by refineries  may  interfere
with  the  operation  of a POTW, particularly with regard to
corrosion of concrete pipes that are used to convey effluent
to the treatment plant itself.  Sulfide  removal  techniques
are  universally  employed  at refineries to protect process
equipment  from  corrosion.   However,  if  sulfide   levels
discharged  by refineries are determined, for the individual
case, to have a significant detrimental effect on a POTW,  a
sulfide  standard of 3 mg/1  (daily maximum) can be achieved.
This  number  is  included  as  guidance  to  assist   local
authorities.    This  recommended  standard  represents  the
highest reported value at  the  refineries  whose  data  are
presented  in  Figure IX-2.  This standard is also supported
by the results of the 1972 API sour water  stripping  survey
(see Section VII) .

Ammonia.    High   concentrations  of  ammonia  can  exhibit
inhibitory effects on  the  activated  sludge  process   (see
Section  VI) .   At  concentrations  of  up  to  100 mg/1, no
adverse effects on oxygen  consumption  are  noted.   It  is
recommended  that pretreatment for ammonia be implemented to
the  extent  that  it  is  employed  by  direct  discharging
refineries--steam stripping of ammonia prior to discharge to
biological   treatment.    It  is  well-documented  that  the
application  of  steam  stripping  techniques  for   ammonia
removal can ensure that ammonia levels in excess of 100 mg/1
(daily  maximum)   can  be  avoided.   This  standard is also
supported by the data presented in  Figure  IX-3  which  are
representative  of indirect discharging refineries.  Ninety-
six percent of the reported values upon which Figure IX-3 is
based  are  less  than  100  mg/1.   Better  operation,  the
                                  94

-------
    10
                       10
      20     30
PERCENTAGES

    50
70    80
o
o

-------
                        10
                                20
PERCENTAGE

     50
   1000*
CTi
2

(0
•rH

O
    500
    200
    100
                                   AMMONIA-N EFFLUENT DATA

                         FOR SELECTED  INDIRECT DISCHARGE REFINERIES
                                            96

-------
addition  of  more steam, and increasing the number of trays
or the height  of  packing  are  ways  in  which  refineries
experiencing   poor   ammonia   removal  can  obtain  better
performance.

SUMMARY

The recommended pretreatment standards for existing  sources
within  the  petroleum  refining category are based on those
pretreatment  techniques  employed  at  direct   discharging
refineries.   These  pretreatment  steps employed to protect
biological treatment systems from upset  conditions  include
(1)  oil  and  grease removal through the application of API
separators and dissolved  air  flotation  or  other  similar
processes and (2) ammonia removal through the application of
steam stripping of sour water waste streams.

The recommended standards are:

Oil and grease:             100 mg/1 (daily maximum)
Ammonia:                   100 mg/1 (daily maximum)

In  addition,  the  Agency recommends that sulfides, phenol,
and chromium be controlled as needed on an individual  basis
by  local  authorities.  The data available to the Agency at
the present  time  do  not  support  the  implementation  of
uniform    national   pretreatment   standards   for   these
pollutants.  Should it be determined that  either  sulfides,
phenol,  or  chromium  create  either  upset or pass-through
problems,  the  application  of   appropriate   pretreatment
technology  will  allow  the  attainment  of  the  following
standards:

Chromium  (total) :                    1 mg/1 (daily maximum)
Phenol:                           0.35 mg/1 (daily maximum)
Sulfides:                            3 mg/1 (daily maximum)
                                     97

-------
                         SECTION X

                      ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation of -the initial  draft  of  this  report  was
accomplished   through   a   contract  with  Burns  and  Roe
Industrial Services Corporation.  The following  members  of
the   Burns   and   Roe  technical  staff  made  significant
contributions to the overall project effort.
          Arnold S. Vernick, P.E. -
          Tom H. Fieldsend
          Barry S. Langer, P.E.   -
          Paul D. Lanik, P.E.
          Gary C. Martin
Project Manager
Civil Engineer
Chemical Engineer
Environmental Engineer
Civil Engineer
Acknowledgment  is  made  to  all  Environmental  Protection
Agency personnel contributing to this effort.   Included were
Robert  Schaffer, Carl Schafer, Lamar Miller,  Martin Halper,
Elwood Forsht, Nancy  Zrubeck,  and  Carol  Swann,  Effluent
Guidelines  Division; Lee Breckenridge and Pam Quinn, Office
of General Counsel; Charles Cook and Louis DuPuis, Office of
Analysis and Evaluation,  and  Madeleine  Nawar,  Office  of
Enforcement.

Special  appreciation is expressed to Robert W. Dellinger of
the Effluent Guidelines Division who participated in editing
of the final report.  His major contribution was  to  ensure
that  this  document  is  consistent  with the interim final
standards published on March  23,  1977   (Federal  Register,
Vol. 42, No. 56, March 23, 1977, p. 15684).

Representatives  of  the  following  oil companies, publicly
owned  treatment  systems,  and  other   organizations   are
specifically   acknowledged   for   their   cooperation  and
assistance in furnishing requested information and data upon
which this report is based:
     Amoco Oil Co.
     Salt Lake City, Utah

     Ashland Oil Inc.
     Ashland, Kentucky

     Atlantic Richfield Co.
     Carson, California
Edgington Oil Co.
Long Beach, California

Exxon Co., U.S.A.
Billings, Montana

Fletcher Oil 6 Refining Co.
Carson, California
                                  99

-------
Beacon Oil Co.
Hanford, California

Chevron Oil Co.
Salt Lake City, Utah

Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Blue Island, Illinois

Delta Refining Co.
Memphis, Tennessee

Douglas Oil Co. of California
Paramount, California

LaGloria Oil & Gas Co.
Tyler, Texas

MacMillan Ring-Free Oil Co.
Long Beach, California

Mobil Oil Corp.
New York, New York

Mobil Oil Corp.
Torrance, California

Phillips Petroleum
Woods Cross, Utah

Powerine Oil Co.
Santa Fe Springs, California

Pride Refining Inc.
Abilene, Texas

Quintana-Howell
Corpus Christi, Texas

Shell Oil Co.
Carson, California

Shell Oil Co.
Houston, Texas

Texaco, Inc.
Lockport, Illinois
Golden Eagle Refining Co.
Carson, California

Gulf Oil Co.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Gulf Oil Co.
Santa Fe Springs, California

Gulf Oil Co.
Toledo, Ohio

Husky Oil Co.
North Salt Lake, Utah

City of Abilene Water Utilities
Abilene, Texas

City of Hanford
Dept. of Public Works
Hanford, California

City of Memphis
Division of Public Works
Memphis, Tennessee

City of Portland
Portland, Oregan

City of Tyler Sanitary Sewer
System
Tyler, Texas

City of Wichita Water Dept.
Wichita, Kansas

Corpus Christi Wastewater
Services
Corpus Christi, Texas

County Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles, County
Whittier, California

Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
                               100

-------
Texaco, Inc.
Wilmington, California

South Davis County Sewer
Improvement District
Woods Cross, Utah

American Petroleum Institute
Washington, D.C.
Salt Lake City Wastewater
Reclamation Plant
Salt Lake City, Utah

Engineering-Science, Inc.
Austin, Texas
                            101

-------
                         SECTION XI

                         REFERENCES
1.  American Petroleum Institute,  "Petroleum  Industry  Raw
    Waste Load Survey", December, 1972.

2.  American  Petroleum  Institute,  "Disposal  of  Refinery
    Wastes  -  Manual, Volume of Liquid Wastes", Washington,
    D.C., 1969.

3.  "Development   Document   for    Effluent    Limitations
    Guidelines  and New Source Performance Standards for the
    Petroleum Refining Point Source Category", Environmental
    Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April, 1974.

4.  Bush, Kenneth E.,  "Refinery  Wastewater  Treatment  and
    Reuse",  Chemical Engineering, April 12, 1976.

5.  Wigren,  A.A.  and  Burton,  F.L.,  "Refinery  Wastewater
    Control",   Journal   of  the  Water  Pollution  Control
    Federation, Vol. 44, No. 1, January, 1972.

6.  Armstrong, T.A., "There's a Profit  in  Processing  Sour
    Water",   The Oil and Gas Journal, June 17, 1968, pp. 96-
    98.

7.  Easthagen,  J.H.,  Skrylov,  F.,   and   Purvis,   A.L.,
    "Development   of   Refinery   Waste  Water  Control  at
    Pascagoula, Mississippi",  JWPCF,  37  (12),  1965,  pp.
    1671-1678.

8.  Beychock, M.R., Agueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petro-
    chemical Plants, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967.

9.  Klett, R.J., "Treat Sour Water for Profit",  Hydrocarbon
    Processing, October, 1972, pp. 97-99.

10.  Brunet,  M.J., and Parsons, R.H., "Mobil  Solves  Fouling
    Problem   Sour  Water Stripper", The Oil and Gas Journal,
    Nov. 20, 1972,  pp. 62-64.

11.  "Phenols in Refinery Waste Water Can  be  Oxidized  with
    Hydrogen Peroxide", The Oil and Gas Journal, January 20,
    1975, pp. 84-86.
                                 103

-------
12. Short, Thomas E. Jr., et al.,  "Controlling  Phenols  in
    Refinery   Waste  Waters",  The  Oil  and  Gas  Journal,
    November 25, 1974, pp. 119-124.

13. Congram,  Gary  E.,  "Refiners   Zero   In   on   Better
    Desalting",  The Oil and Gas Journal, December 30, 1974,
    pp. 153-154.

14. Beychock,  M.R.,  "Wastewater  Treatment",   Hydrocarbon
    Processing, December, 1974, pp. 109-112.

15. Ewing, R.C., "Modern Waste-Treatment Plant on Stream  in
    Texaco Refinery", The Oil and Gas Journal, September 28,
    1970, pp. 66-69.

16. "New Ion-Exchange System Treats Sour Water", The Oil and
    Gas Journal, February 22, 1971, pp. 88-89.

17. Pollio, F.X. and Kunin,R., "Ion  Exchange  Resins  Treat
    Sour  Water",  The  Oil  and  Gas Journal, May 19, 1969,
    pp.126-130.

18. Melin, G.A., et  al.,  "Optimum  Design  of  Sour  Water
    Strippers",  Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 71, No.
    6, June, 1975.

19. Contrell, Aileen, "Annual Refining Survey", The Oil  and
    Gas Journal, March 29, 1976, pp. 125-152.

20. Gantz, Ronald G., "API - Sour Water  Stripper  Studies",
    Proceedings  American  Petroleum  Institute, Section III
    Refining, V54,  1975, pp.  39-66.

21. Short, T.E., DePrater, B.L., and Myers, L.H., "Petroleum
    Refining  Phenolic   Wastewaters",   American   Chemical
    Society,  Div.  of  Fuel  Chemistry,  paper presented at
    168th National Meeting, Sept. 8 - 13, 1974.

22. Norwood,  B.E.,  "Application  of  Biological  Trickling
    Filter  for  Treatment  of  Effluent  Water at Shell Oil
    Company's Houston  Refinery",  paper  presented  at  the
    Petroleum   and  Petrochemicals  Session  of the National
    Pollution Control Exposition G Conference, April  4  and
    5, 1968.

23. Congram,  Gary  E.,   "Biodisk  Improves  Effluent-Water-
    Treating  Operation",  The Oil and Gas Journal, February
    23,  1976.
                                   104

-------
24. "1972   Sour   Water   Stripping   Survey   Evaluation",
    Publication  No.  927,  prepared  for American Petroleum
    Institute, Washington, D.C., June, 1972.

25. Annessen, R.J. and Gould, G.D., "Sour  Water  Processing
    Turns  Problem Into Payout", Chemical Engineering, March
    22, 1971, pp. 67-69.

26. Brown & Root, Inc., "Analysis of the  1972  API-EPA  Raw
    Waste Load Survey Data", API publication No. 4200, July,
    1974.

27. Diehl, Douglas S., Denbo, Robert T.,  Bhatla,  Mannohan,
    and  Sitman,  William D., "Effluent Quality Control at a
    Large Oil Refinery",  Journal  Water  Pollution  Control
    Federation, Vol. 43, No. 11, November, 1971, p. 2254.

28. "Sour Water Stripping Project",  Committee  on  Refinery
    Environmental  Control,  American  Petroleum  Institute,
    prepared by Environmental Services  Department,  Bechtel
    Corporation, API publication No. 946, June, 1975.

29. "Petroleum Refining Industry, Technology  and  Costs  of
    Wastewater   Control",   prepared   for   the   National
    Commission on Water  Quality,  by  Engineering  Science,
    Inc., June, 1975.

30. "Granular  Media  Filtration   of   Petroleum   Refinery
    Effluent  Waters", prepared by the EIMCO BSP Division of
    Envirotech  Corporation  for  the   American   Petroleum
    Institute, API publication No. 947, October, 1975.

31. "Economics of Refinery Waste Water Treatment",  prepared
    by  Brown  &  Root,  Inc.  for  the  American  Petroleum
    Institute, API publication No. 4199, August, 1973.

32. "Economic Impact of EPA's Regulations on  the  Petroleum
    Refining  Industry",  Sobotka  &  Company, Inc., for the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April, 1976.

33. Mitchell,  G.E.,  "Environmental  Protection  -  Benecia
    Refinery",   API   35th  Midyear  Meeting,  Division  of
    Refining, Houston, May, 1970.

34. Ewing,  Robert  C.,  "Shell  Refinery  Uses   Pollution-
    Abatement  Units",  The  Oil  and  Gas Journal, March 8,
    1971.
                                    105

-------
35.  Aalund,  Leo A.,  "Cherry Point Refinery - A Story of Air,
    Water, and Fuel", The Oil and Gas Journal,  January  24,
    1972.

36.  Maguire, W.F.,  "Reuse  Sour  Water  Stripper  Bottoms",
    Hydrocarbon Processing, September, 1975, pp. 151-152.

37.  "State  and   Local   Pretreatment   Programs,   Federal
    Guidelines    (Draft)",   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency,  Washington, D.C., August, 1975.

38.  Nemerow,  Nelson  Leonard,  Theories  and  Practices  of
    Industrial  Waste  Treatment,  Addison-Wesley Publishing
    Company, Inc., Reading, Massachusetts, 1963.

39.  Kugelman, I.J. and Chin, K.K., "Toxicity, Synergism, and
    Antagonism  in  Anaerobic  Waste  Treatment  Processes",
    Advanced Chemistry, Series 105, Vol. 55, 1971, p. 55.

40.  Rudolfs W., et  al.,  "Review  of  Literature  on  Toxic
    Materials Affecting Sewage Treatment Processes, Streams,
    and  BOD  Determinations", Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
    Vol. 22, No.  9,  September, 1950, p. 1157.

41.  Environmental Effect of Photoprocessing Chemicals,  Vol.
    ^,  Report  by  the National Association of Photographic
    Manufacturers, Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Ave.,  Harrison,  NY
    10528, 1974.

42.  Ghosh, S., "Anaerobic Processes  -  Literature  Review",
    Journal  of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.
    44, No. 6, June 1972, p. 948.

43.  Wheatland, A.B., et al., "Pilot Plant Experiments on the
    Effects of Some Constituents of Industrial Waste  Waters
    on  Sewage Treatment", Water Pollution Control, Vol. 70,
    1971, p. 626.

44.  Pohland, F.G. and Kang, S.  J.,  "Anaerobic  Processes",
    Journal  of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.
    43, No. 6, June, 1971, p. 1129.

45.  Rudolfs,  William  and  Amberg,   H.R.,   "White   Water
    Treatment",   Sewage  and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 24, No.
    10, October,  1952, p.  1278.

46.  Dague,  Richard  R.,  et  al.,  "Digestion  Fundamentals
    Applied  to   Digester  Recovery  -  Two  Case  Studies",
    Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation,  Vol.
    42, No. 9, September,  1970, p. 1666.
                                   106

-------
47. Brinsko,  G.A.,  "Annual Report -  Control  of  Toxic  and
    Hazardous  Material Spills in Municipalities", Allegheny
    County Sanitary Authority, November 4, 1974.

48. A  Handbook  on  the  Effects  of  Toxic  and  Hazardous
    Materials on Secondary Biological Treatment Processes, A
    Literature  Review, Environmental Quality Systems, Inc.,
    Rockville, Maryland, prepared for the  Allegheny  County
    Sanitary  Authority and the EPA, Sept. 1973, unpublished.

49  Lawrence, Alonzo W., et al., "The Effects of Sulfides on
    Anaerobic Treatment",  Proceedings  of  19th  Industrial
    Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1964, p. 343.

50. Reid, George W., et al., "Effects of  Metallic  Ions  on
    Biological  Waste Treatment Processes," Water and Sewage
    Works, Vol. 115, No. 7, July, 1968, p. 320.

51. Bailey,  D.A.,   et  al.,  "The  Influence  of  Trivalent
    Chromium    on   the  Biological  Treatment  of  Domestic
    Sewage,"  Water Pollution Control, Vol. 69, No. 2,  1970,
    p. 100.

52. Ludzack,  F.J. and Ettinger,  M.B.,  "Industrial  Wastes-
    Chemical   Structures  Resistant  to  Aerobic Biochemical
    Stabilization," Journal of the Water  Pollution  Control
    Federation, Vol. 32, No. 11, November, 1960, p. 1173.

53. Interaction  of  Heavy  Metals  and  Biological   Sewage
    Treatment   Processes,   U.S.   Department   of  Health,
    Education  and  Welfare,  Environmental  Health  Series,
    Water  Supply and Pollution Control, Pub. No. 999-WP-22,
    May, 1965.

54. Beckman,  Wallace J. and Avendt, Raymond J.,  Correlation
    of   Advanced   Wastewater   Treatment  and  Groundwater
    Recharge, Environmental Protection  Agency,  Project
    801478, Program Element 1BB043, Roap/Task 21 ASB-30.
R-
55. McCarty, P.L., "Anaerobic Waste Treatment  Fundamentals;
    Part III, Toxic Materials and Their Control," Journal of
    Public Works, November, 1964.
                                    107

-------
                        SECTION XII

                 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY

Acid  Oil   -  Straight  chain  and  cyclic hydrocarbon with
    carboxyl group (s) attached.

Act       - The Federal Water Pollution  Act  Amendments  of
1972.

Aerobic   - In the presence of oxygen.

Anaerobic - Living or active in absence of free oxygen.

Best  Available  Demonstrated  Control  Technology   (BADT) -
    Treatment required for new sources as defined by section
    306 of the Act.

Best Available Technology Economically Achievable  (BATEA)
    Treatment  required  by  July  1,  1983  for  industrial
    discharge to surface waters as defined  by  section  301
     (b) (2) (A)  of the Act.

Best  Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently  Available
     (BPCTCA)  -  Treatment  required  by  July  1,  1977  for
    industrial  discharge  to  surface  waters as defined by
    section 304 (b)  (1) (A) of the Act.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand  (BOD_5) - Oxygen used  by  bacteria
    in  consuming  a waste substance  (Measured in a five-day
    BOD test) .

Blowdown -  A discharge from a system designed to prevent  a
    buildup of some material, as in boiler and cooling tower
    to control dissolved solids.

By-Product - Material which, if recovered, would accrue some
    economic  benefit,  but  not necessarily enough to cover
    the cost of recovery.

Capital Costs - Financial charges which are computed as  the
    cost  of  capital  times  the  capital  expenditures for
    pollution control.  The cost of capital is based upon  a
    weighted  average  of  the  separate  costs  of debt and
    equity.
                                     109

-------
Catalyst -  A substance which  can  change  the  rate  of  a
    chemical  reaction,  but which is not itself involved in
    the reaction.

Category and Subcategory -  Delineation  of  all  industries
    (categories)  and  divisions  within specific industries
    (subcategories)   which  possess  different  traits  that
    affect water quality and treatability.

Chemical  Oxygen  Demand  (COD)   -  Oxygen  consumed through
    chemical oxidation of a waste.

Clarification  -  The  process   of   removing   undissolved
    materials  from  a  liquid.    Specifically,  removal  of
    solids either by settling or filtration.

Coke Petroleum - Solid residue,  90 to 95 percent of which is
    fixed carbon.

Compatible Pollutants  -  Parameters  of  organic  pollution
    (namely, BOD, COD and TOC) which are treatable by POTW.

Cracking Plant - Refinery having basic operations of topping
    and cracking.

Depletion or Loss - The volume of water which is evaporated,
    embodied  in product, or otherwise disposed of in such a
    way that it is no longer  available  for  reuse  in  the
    plant  or  available  for  reuse  by  others outside the
    plant.

Depreciation - The cost reflecting the  deterioration  of  a
    capital asset over its useful life.

Direct   Discharger   -   Refinery  which  disposes  of  its
    wastewater   directly   to   the   environment   without
    discharging  any  industrial  wastewater  to a municipal
    treatment system.

Emulsion -  A liquid system in which one  liquid  is  finely
    dispersed  in  another  liquid in such a manner that the
    two will not separate  through  the  action  of  gravity
    alone.

End-of-Pipe   Treatment  -  Treatment  of  overall  refinery
    wastes, as distinguished from  treatment  at  individual
    processing units.
                                      110

-------
Filtration  -  Removal  of  solid  particles or liquids from
    other liquids or gas streams by passing  the  liquid  or
    gas stream through a filter media.

Fractionator  -  A  generally  cylindrical  tower in which a
    mixture  of  liquid  components  is  vaporized  and  the
    components    separated   by   carefully   varying   the
    temperature and sometimes pressure along the  length  of
    the tower.

Gasoline  -   A  mixture  of  hydrocarbon  compounds  with a
    boiling range between 100 and UOO degrees F.

Grease -    A solid or semi-solid  composition  made  up  of
    animal fats, alkali, water, oil and various additives.

Hydrocarbon - A compound consisting of carbon and hydrogen.

Hydrogenation  -  The  contacting  of  unsaturated or impure
    hydrocarbons   with   hydrogen   gas    at    controlled
    temperatures  and pressures for the purpose of obtaining
    saturated   hydrocarbons   and/or    removing    various
    impurities such as sulfur and nitrogen.

Incompatible  Pollutants  -  Pollution  parameters which may
    pass through POTW or which may, in sufficient  quantity,
    interfere with the operation of a POTW.

Indirect  Discharger  -  Refinery  which  disposes  of   its
    industrial  wastewater  to  the  environment  through  a
    municipal treatment system.

Industrial Waste  -  All  wastes  streams  within  a  plant.
    Included   are  contact  and  non-contact  waters.   Not
    included are wastes typically considered to be  sanitary
    wastes.

Integrated  Plant  -  Refinery including the following basic
    operations:  Topping, cracking, lube  oil  manufacturing
    processes, and petrochemical operations.

Investment  Costs  -  The  capital  expenditures required to
    bring  the  treatment   or   control   technology   into
    operation.   These  include the traditional expenditures
    such as design, purchase of  land  and  materials,  site
    preparation,  construction  and installation, etc., plus
    any additional expenses required to bring the technology
    into  operation  including  expenditures  to   establish
    related necessary solid waste disposal.
                                    Ill

-------
Isomer  -     A  chemical compound that has the same number,
    and kinds of atoms as another compound, but a  different
    structural arrangement of the atoms.

Lube   Plant   -  Refinery  including  the  following  basic
    operations:   Topping,   cracking,    and    lube    oil
    manufacturing processes.

New   Source   -   Any  building,  structure,  facility,  or
    installation from which there is or may be  a  discharge
    of  pollutants and whose construction is commenced after
    the publication of the proposed standards.

No Discharge of Pollutants - No net increase  (or  detectable
    gross  concentration  if  the situation dictates) of any
    parameter designated as a pollutant to the accuracy that
    can be determined from the designated analytical method.

Olefins -   Unsaturated straight-chain hydrocarbon compounds
    seldom present in  crude  oil,  but  frequently  present
    after the application of cracking processes.

Operation  and  Maintenance  - Costs required to operate and
    maintain pollution abatement  equipment.   They  include
    labor, material, insurance, taxes, solid waste disposal,
    etc.

Overhead  Accumulator - A tank in which the condensed vapors
    from the tops of the fractionators, steam strippers,  or
    stabilizers are collected.

Petrochemical  Operations  - Production of second generation
    petrochemicals   (i.e.,   alcohols,   ketones,   cumene,
    styrene,  etc.)  or  first generation petrochemicals and
    isomerization products  (i.e., BTX, olefins, cyclohexene,
    etc.)  when 15% or more of  refinery  production  is  as
    first   generation   petrochemicals   and  isomerization
    products.

Petrochemical Plant - Refinery including the  following basic
    operations:    Topping,   cracking   and   petrochemical
    operations.

Petroleum  -  A  complex  liquid mixture of hydrocarbons and
    small quantities of nitrogen, sulfur, cind oxygen.
                                   112

-------
pH -        A measure of the relative acidity or  alkalinity
    of water.  A pH of 7.0 indicates a neutral condition.  A
    greater  pH  indicates alkalinity and lower pH indicates
    acidity.  A one unit change in pH indicates  a  10  fold
    change in acidity and alkalinity.

Phenolics  -  Class  of  cyclic organic derivatives with the
    basic formula C6HJ3OH.

Plant Effluent or Discharge After Treatment - The volume  of
    wastewater discharge from the industrial plant.  In this
    definition,  any  waste  treatment  device is considered
    part of the industrial plant.

Pretreatment - Treatment provided prior to  discharge  to  a
    publicly owned treatment works  (POTW).

Process Effluent or Discharge - The volume of water emerging
    from a particular use in the plant.

Process Upset - Disruption of the operation of a POTW as the
    result of the introduction of excessive concentration of
    incompatible pollutants.

Publicly  Owned Treatment Works - A municipal facility whose
    function is the final  treatment  of  wastewater  to  be
    discharged to the environment.

Raw -       Untreated or unprocessed.

Reduced  Crude  -  The  thick,  dark,  high-boiling  residue
    remaining after  crude  oil  has  undergone  atmospheric
    and/or vacuum fractionation.

Secondary  Treatment  - Biological treatment provided beyond
    primary clarification.

Sludge  -     The  settled  solids  from  a   thickener   or
    clarifier.   Generally,  almost  any flocculated settled
    mass.

Sour -      Denotes the presence of sulfur  compounds,  such
    as sulfides and mercaptans, that cause bad odors.

Spent  Caustic  -  Aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide that
    has  been  used  to  remove  sulfides,  mercaptans,  and
    organic acids from petroleum fractions.

Stabilizer - A type of fractionator used to remove dissolved
    gaseous hydrocarbons from liguid hydrocarbon products.
                                    113

-------
Stripper  -   A unit in which certain components are removed
    from a liquid hydrocarbon  mixture  by  passing  a  gas,
    usually steam, through the mixture.
Supernatant  -  The  layer  floating  above the surface of a
    layer of solids.

Surface Waters - Navigable waters.  The waters of the United
    States, including the territorial seas.

Sweet -      Denotes  the  absence  of  odor-causing  sulfur
    compounds, such as sulfides and mercaptans.

Topping  Plant  -  Refinery  having  the basic operations of
    topping and catalytic reforming.

Total  Suspended  Solids  (TSS)  -  Any  solids   found   in
    wastewater  or  in the stream which in most cases can be
    removed by filtration.  The origin of  suspended  matter
    may  be  man-made wastes or natural sources such as silt
    from erosion.

Waste Discharged - The amount  (usually expressed as  weight)
    of   some  residual  substance  which  is  suspended  or
    dissolved in the plant effluent after treatment, if any.

Waste Generated - The amount (usually expressed  as  weight)
    of  some residual substance generated by a plant process
    or the plant as a whole that is suspended  or  dissolved
    in water.  This quantity is measured before treatment.

Waste   Loading  -  Total  amount  of  pollutant  substance,
    generally expressed as pounds per day or pounds per unit
    of production.
ABBREVIATIONS

API    -    American Petroleum Institute

BADT   -    Best Available Demonstrated Technology

BATEA  -    Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

bbl    -    Barrel

BOD    -    Biochemical Oxygen Demand

bpcd   -    Barrels per calendar day
                                  114

-------
BPCTCA -    Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
            Available

bpsd   -    Barrels per stream day  (operating day)
COD    -    Chemical Oxygen Demand

cu m   -    cubic meter (s)

DAF    -    Dissolved Air Flotation

gpm    -    gallons per minute

k      -    thousand  (i.e., thousand cubic meters)

kg     -    kilogram(s)

1      -    liter

Ib     -    pound (s)

M      -    Thousand  (i.e., thousand barrels)

MBCD   -    Thousand Barrels per Calendar Day

MBSD   -    Thousand Barrels per Stream Day

mgd    -    million gallons per day

mg/1   -    milligrams per liter (parts per million)

MM     -    Million (i.e., million pounds)

O6G    -    Oil and Grease

POTW   -    Publicly Owned Treatment Works

ppm    -    parts per million

psig   -    pounds per square inch, gauge

scf    -    standard cubic feet of gas at 60 degrees F and
            14.7 psig

SWS    -    Sour Water Strippers

TOC    -    Total Organic Carbon
                                 115

-------
                                 METRIC UNITS

                               CONVERSION TABLE



MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)              by                  TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)

ENGLISH UNIT         ABBREVIATION  CONVERSION ABBREVIATION '   METRIC UNIT
acre
acre - feet
British Thermal
  Unit
British Thermal
  Unit/pound
cubic feet/minute
cubic feet/second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Fahrenheit
feet
gallon
gallon/minute
horsepower
inches
inches of mercury
pounds
million gallons/day
mile
pound/square
  inch (gauge)
square feet
square inches
tons (short)
yard
              0.405
           1233.5

              0.252
ha
cu m

kg cal
ac
ac ft

BTU

BTU/lb
cfm
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
F°
ft
gal
gpm
hp
in
in Hg
Ib
mgd
mi
psig  (0.06805 psig +1)*  atm
sq ft         0.0929     sq m
sq in         6.452      sq cm
t             0.907      kkg
y             0.9144     m
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
1
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
hectares
cubic meters

kilogram - calories

kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/second
killowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer

atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric tons (1000 kilograms)
meters
*Actual conversion, not a multiplier

-------