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
------- |