Unitad States
Environ menial Protection
Agency
Effluent Guide linos Division
WH-562
Washington DC 20460
Water and Wane MmMMMfll
Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Petroleum Refining
EPA 440/1-82/014
October 1982
Point Source Category

-------
          DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT


                   for
     EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
    NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                   and


         PRETREATMENT STANDARDS


                 for the
           PETROLEUM REFINING
          POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
             Anne M. Gorsuch
              Administrator
            Jeffery D. Denit
 Director, Effluent Guidelines Division

              Dennis Ruddy
             Project Officer
              October 1982
      Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Washington, D.C.  20460

-------

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                            PAGE

            CONTENTS                                         iii
            LIST OF TABLES                                   vii
            LIST OF FIGURES                                 xvii
SECTION

   I.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                  1
                 Summary and Conclusions                       1

  II.       INTRODUCTION                                      15
                 Prior EPA Regulations                        15
                 Overview of the Industry                     15
                 Summary of Methodology                       17
                 Approach                                     18
                      Industry Profile                        18
                      Waste Characterization                  18
                      Technology Evaluation                   19
                      Cost Development                        20

 III.       DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRY                           21
                 Introduction                                 21
                 Industry Profile                             21
                      General Description of the               21
                        Industry
                      Refinery Distribution                   22
                      Anticipated Industry Growth              23
                 Unit Manufacturing Processes                 23
                      Overview of Refining Processes           23
                 Process Descriptions  and Wastewater           23
                   Characteristics
                       1.   Crude Oil and Product Storage       24
                       2.   Ballast Water Storage               25
                       3.   Crude Desalting                    25
                       4.   Crude Oil Fractionation             26
                       5.   Thermal Cracking                   27
                       6.   Catalytic Cracking                 28
                       7.   Hydrocracking                      29
                       8.   Polymerization                     29
                       9.   Alkylation                          29
                      10.   Isomerization                      30
                      11.   Reforming                           30
                      12.   Solvent Refining                   31
                      13.   Hydrotreating                      32
                      14.   Grease Manufacturing                33
                      15.   Asphalt Production                 34
                      16.   Drying and  Sweetening               34
                      17.   Lube  Oil Finishing                 35
                      18.   Blending and  Packaging              35
                      19.   Hydrogen Manufacture                36
                      20.   Utilities Function                 36
                                   111

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                          (continued)

SECTION                                                     PAGE

  IV.        INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION                        61
                 Introduction                                 61
                 Selected Subcategories                       61
                 Purpose and Basis of Selection               62
                      Flow Model for 1974 Regulation          63
                      Flow Model Used for Proposed            65
                        1979 Regulations
                      Refined Flow Model                      67

   V.        WASTE CHARACTERIZATION                            69
                 Introduction                                 69
                 Concentration of Toxic, Conventional         70
                   and Non-Conventional Pollutants
                      1977 Survey
                      Short Term Sampling Program             71
                      Long Term Sampling Program              73
                      Survey of 1979 Effluent Monitoring      74
                        Data
                 Industry Flow                                75
                      Summary of Net Wastewater Flow          75
                      Distribution of Flow by Subcategory     75
                      Trends in Industry Water Usage          76

  VI.        SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED          121
                 Introduction                                121
                 Selection of Regulated Pollutants for       121
                   Direct Dischargers
                      Pollutants Selected for Regulation     122
                        in the Petroleum Refining Point
                        Source Category (Direct Discharge
                        Segment)
                      Pollutants Excluded from Regulation    122
                        (Direct Discharge Segment)
                 Selection of Regulated Pollutants for       123
                   Indirect Dischargers
                      Pollutants Selected for Regulation     124
                        in the Petroleum Refining Point
                        Source Category (Indirect
                        Discharge Segment)
                      Pollutants Excluded from Regulation    124
                        (Indirect Discharge Segment)
                 Environmental Significance of Selected      124
                   Pollutants
                      Toxic Pollutants                       124
                      Conventional Pollutants                126
                      Non-Conventional Pollutants            127

 VII.        CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY                 149
                 Introduction                                149
                                  IV

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                           (continued)

SECTION                                                     PAGE

 VII.       CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY  (continued)
                 In-Plant  Source Control                     149
                      In-Plant Treatment Options             149
                      Chemical Substitution                  151
                      Wastewater Reduction                   152
                      Wastewater Reuse                       153
                 End-of-Pipe Treatment                       155
                      Biological Treatment                   156
                      Filtration                             157
                      Granular Activated Carbon              158
                      Powdered Activated Carbon              158
                      Cyanide Removal                        160
                      Metals Removal                         160
                      RSKERL Carbon Studies                  161
                      Ultimate Disposal Methods              162
                 Existing Technology                         164
                      Effluent Concentration                 165

VIII.       BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY           223
              ACHIEVABLE
                 Summary                                     223
                 BAT Options Considered                      224
                 Identification of Best Available            234
                   Technology Economically Achievable

  IX.       NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS                 237
                 Summary                                     237
                 NSPS Options Considered                     238
                 Identification of New Source Performance    240
                   Standards

   X.       PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW      243
              SOURCES
                 Summary                                     243
                 Pretreatment Options Considered             244
                 Identification of Pretreatment Standards    249
                   for Existing and New Sources

  XI.       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                 251

 XII.       REFERENCES                                       253

APPENDIX A  COSTS OF TREATMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEMS           A-l
                 Introduction                                A-l
                 Cost of Technologies Considered             A-2
                      Biological Treatment                   A-2
                      Filtration                             A-2
                      Powdered Activated Carbon              A-3
                      Granular Activated Carbon              A-3
                      In-Plant Control                       A-4
                                   v

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                          (continued)

SECTION                                                     PAGE

APPENDIX A  COSTS OF TREATMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
            (continued)
                 Cost of Technology Selected as Basis        A-6
                   for Limitations and Standards
                      BAT Options                            A-6
                      New Source Costs                      A-10
                      Pretreatment Options                  A-ll

APPENDIX B  RAW PLANT DATA                                   B-l

APPENDIX C  GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS                       C-l
                                  VI

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES
TABLE                         TITLE                         PAGE

1-1      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point         3
         Source Category Best Available Technology Econom-
         ically Achievable  (BAT) Process Configuration -
         Process Breakdown

1-2      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point         4
         Source Category Best Available Technology Econom-
         ically Achievable  (BAT) Size Factors by Sub-
         category

1-3      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point         5
         Source Category Best Available Technology Econom-
         ically Achievable  (BAT) Process Factors by Sub-
         category

1-4      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point         6
         Source Category New Source Performance Standards
         (NSPS) Size Factors by Subcategory

1-5      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point         7
         Source Category New Source Performance Standards
         (NSPS) Process Factors by Subcategory

1-6      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point         8=
         Source Category Best Available Technology
         Achievable (BAT) Effluent Limitations by Sub-
         category

1-7      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point         9
         Source Category New Source Performance Standards
         (NSPS) Effluent Limitations by Subcategory

1-8      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point        10
         Source Category Ballast Water Standards for BAT
         and NSPS

1-9      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point        11
         Source Category Pretreatment Standards for
         Existing Sources (PSES)  and New Sources (PSNS)

III-1    Intermediate and Finished Products Produced by        41
         Petroleum Refining Industry

III-2    Refining Capacity of Petroleum Refineries in the      42
         U.S. by State as of January 1,  1981

III-3    1980 Consumption of Petroleum Products                43
                                   vn

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES
                           (Continued)
TABLE                         TITLE                          PAGE

III-4    Sources of Supply  for U.S. Petroleum  Feedstocks       44

III-5    Characteristics of Crude Oils from Major Fields       45
         Around the World

III-6    Trend in Domestic  Petroleum Refining  from  1975        ^8
         to  1981

III-7    List of Processes  Identified from the  1977            49
         Industry Survey by EPA Process Number

III-8    Qualitative Evaluation of Wastewater  Flow  and         55
         Characteristics by Fundamental Refinery Processes

V-1      Summary of Plant Characteristics for  17 Refin-        77
         eries Sampled in Screening Program

V-2      Comparison of Plant Characteristics -  17 Refin-       78
         eries Sampled vs.  Overall Industry

V-3      Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         79
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 1

V-4      Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         80
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 20

V-5      Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         81
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 50

V-6      Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         82
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 59

V-7      Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         83
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 64

V-8      Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         84
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 80

V-9      Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         85
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 84

V-10     Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         86
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 126

V-11     Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum  Refining         87
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility 153

V-12     Summary of Analytical Data Petroleum Refining         88
         Industry Screening Sampling Program -  Facility
         157, Part 1


                                   viii

-------
                          LIST  OF  TABLES
                           (Continued)
                               TITLE                          PAGE

          Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         89
          Industry Screening  Sampling Program - Facility
          157,  Part 2

V-14      Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         90
          Industry Screening  Sampling Program - Facility  167

V-15      Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         91
          Industry Screening  Sampling Program - Facility  169

V-16      Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         92
          Industry Screening  Sampling Program - Facility  186

V-17      Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         93
          Industry Screening  Sampling Program - Facility  194

V-18      Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         94
          Industry Screening  Sampling Program - Facility  205

V-19      Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         95
          Industry Screening  Sampling Program - Facility  235

V-20      Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         96
          Industry Screening  Sampling Program - Facility  241

V-21      Summary  of  Analytical Data  Petroleum Refining         97
          Industry POTW Sampling Program - Facility  13

V-22      Summary  of  Analytical  Data  Petroleum Refining         98
          Industry POTW Sampling Program - Facility  16

V-23      Summary  of  Analytical  Data  Petroleum Refining         99
          Industry POTW Sampling Program - Facility  21

V-24      Summary  of  Analytical  Data  Petroleum Refining       100
          Industry POTW Sampling Program - Facility  25

V-25      Summary  of  Analytical  Data  Petroleum Refining       101
          Industry POTW Sampling Program - Facility  43

V-26      Summary  of  Analytical  Data  Petroleum  Refining       102
          Industry POTW Sampling Program - Facility  45

V-27     Direct Discharge - Final Effluent Priority          103
         Pollutants  - Summary  of EPA Screening  Program
         Data

V-28      Indirect Discharge  (To POTW} Priority  Pollutants -  106
         Summary of  EPA Screening Program Data
                             IX

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES
                          (Continued)
TABLE                         TITLE                         PAGE

V-29     Final Effluent Priority Pollutants - Summary of      109
         EPA Regional Surveillance and Analysis Data

V-30     Most Frequently Occurring Priority Pollutants -      112
         Plant 1

V-31     Most Frequently Occurring Priority Pollutants -      113
         Plant 2

V-32     Potential Surrogates for Priority Pollutants -       114
         Correlation Coefficients

V-33     Summary of 1976 Net Wastewater Flow - By Refinery    115
         Size

V-34     Summary of 1976 Net Wastewater Flow - By Refinery    116
         Subcategory

VI-1     Flow - Weighted Concentrations and Loadings for      131
         Direct Dischargers in the Petroleum Refining
         Industry - Conventional Pollutants -
         Nonconventional Pollutants

VI-2     Flow - Weighted Concentrations and Loadings for      133
         Direct Dischargers in the Petroleum Refining
         Industry - Toxic Pollutants - Total Phenols
         (4AAP Method)

VI-3     Direct Discharge - Intake Water Priority Pollutant   134
         Detection - Summary of EPA Screening Program Data

VI-4     Direct Discharge - Separator Effluent Priority       137
         Pollutant Detection - Summary of EPA Screening
         Program Data

VI-5     Priority Pollutants Not Detected in Treated          140
         Effluents Discharged Directly/ and Excluded from
         Regulation

VI-6     Priority Pollutants Detected in Treated Effluents    142
         Discharged Directly, but Excluded from Regulation

VI-7     Statistical Analysis Table for the Petroleum         143
         Refining Industry - Direct Discharge - Current/BPT

VI-8     Priority Pollutants Not Detected in Effluents        144
         Discharged to POTW, and Excluded from Regulation

-------
                          LIST OP TABLES
                           (Continued)
VI-10


VII-1

VII-2


VII-3

VII-4


VII-5




VII-6



VII-7

VII-8



VII-9


VII-10


VII-11


VII-12

VII-13

VIII-1
                      TITLE                          PAGE

 Priority  Pollutants  Detected  in  Effluents            145
 Discharged  to  POTW,  but  Excluded from Regulation

 Statistical Analysis Table  for the  Petroleum        147
 Refining  Industry  -  Indirect  Discharge - Current

 Sour Water  Treatment in  Petroleum Refineries        167

 Effect of California Crudes on Reuse  of Sour        171
 Waters

 Reuse of Sour  Water  - Industry Status               172

 Cooling Tower  Makeup Flow Rates  in  the Petroleum    174
 Refining Industry

 Summary of Flow Reduction Techniques  Used            179
 Identified by  the  15  Refineries  Studies During
 Wastewater Recycle Study

 Summary of Data on Removal of Cyanides with  Steam    183
 Stripping and  Biological Treatment  in the
 Petroleum Refining Industry

 Zero Discharge Refineries                            184

 Steam Electric Power  Plants Using Vapor             188
 Compression Evaporation as Part  of  Their Waste-
 water Treatment System

 Treatment Operations  and Water Usage  for 1973        189
 and 1976

 Summary of Treatment  Technologies for 1973 and       215
 1976

 Refinery Flow vs. Final Effluent Concentrations      216
 for 17 Screening Plants

 Effluent Concentration from 50 Plant  Study           217

Achievable Limitations Values                        218

Diluted Effluent Concentrations  from  Direct  Dis-     235
chargers in the Petroleum Refining  Industry  Com-
pared to the EPA Ambient Water Quality  Criteria
for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life
                              XI

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES
                          (Continued)
TABLE                         TITLE                         PAGE

A-1      Raw Wastewater Equalization Systems Capital        A-14
         and Operating Costs

A-2      Rotating Biological Contactors  (RBC's) as          A-15
         Roughing Systems Equipment Cost Basis and Energy
         Requirements

A-3      Rotating Biological Contactors  (RBC's) as          A-16
         Roughing Filters Capital and Operating Costs

A-4      Filtration Equipment Cost Basis and Energy         A-17
         Requirements

A-5      Filtration Capital and Operating Costs             A-18

A-6      Powdered Activated Carbon Equipment Cost Basis     A-19
         and Energy Requirements, 80 mg/L Dosage Rate

A-7      Powdered Activated Carbon Capital Costs,           A-20
         80 mg/L Dosage Rate

A-8      Powdered Activated Carbon Annual Operating         A-21
         Costs, 80 mg/L Dosage Rate

A-9      Powdered Activated Carbon Comparison of            A-22
         Operating Costs, Carbon Regeneration vs.
         Throw-Away

A-10     Powdered Activated Carbon Equipment Cost Basis     A-23
         and Energy Requirements Including Costs for
         Sludge Disposal, 80 mg/L Dosage Rate

A-11     Powdered Activated Carbon Capital Costs            A-24
         Including Costs for Sludge Disposal, 80 mg/L
         Dosage Rate

A-12     Powdered Activated Carbon Annual Operating         A-25
         Costs Including Credit for Sludge Disposal,
         80 mg/L Dosage Rate

A-13     Powdered Activated Carbon Equipment Cost Basis     A-26
         and Energy Requirements, 150 mg/L Dosage Rate

A-14     Powdered Activated Carbon Capital Costs,           A-27
         150 mg/L Dosage Rate

A-15     Powdered Activated Carbon Annual Operating         A-28
         Costs, 150 mg/L Dosage Rate
                              Xll

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES
                           (Continued)
TABLE                         TITLE                          PAGE

A-16     PACT Comparison of Operating Costs,  Carbon          A-29
         Regeneration vs. Throw-Away, 150 mg/L Dosage
         Rate

A-17     Powdered Activated Carbon Equipment  Cost Basis      A-30
         and Energy Requirements  Including Costs, for
         Sludge Disposal, 150 mg/L Dosage Rate

A-18     Powdered Activated Carbon Capital Costs Including   A-31
         Costs for Sludge Disposal,  150 mg/L  Dosage Rate

A-19     Powdered Activated Carbon Annual Operating Costs    A-32
         Including Credit for Sludge Disposal, 150 mg/L
         Dosage Rate

A-20     Granular Activated Carbon Equipment  Cost Basis      A-33
         and Energy Requirements

A-21     Granular Activated Carbon Capital Costs             A-34

A-22     Granular Activated Carbon Annual Operating Costs    A-35

A-23     Supplemental Economic Cost  Information Capital      A-36
         and Operating Costs for  10,000 Gallon per Day
         Treatment Systems

A-24     Cooling Tower Slowdown Rates Petroleum Refining     A-37
         Industry (Million Gallons per Day)

A-25     Chromium Removal Systems Equipment Cost Basis       A-38
         and Energy Requirements

A-26     Chromium Removal Systems Capital and Operating      A-39
         Costs

A-27     Wastewater Recycle Capital and Operating Costs      A-4Q

A-28     Water Softening of Recycled Wastewater Capital      A-4I
         Costs

A-29     Capital and Operating Costs by Refinery Number      A-42

A-30     Capital and Operating Costs, Indirect Discharge -   A-47
         Option 1

A-31     Capital and Operating Costs, Indirect Discharge -   A-50
         Option 2
                             Xlll

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES
                           (Continued)
                              TITLE                          PAGE

         Analytical Results for Traditional Parameters       B-2
         for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program

B-2      Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-9
         the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program - Volatile
         Organics

B-3      Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-12
         the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program - Semivola-
         tile Organics

B-4      Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-17
         the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program - Pesticides

B-5      Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-20
         the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program - Cyanides,
         Phenolics and Mercury

B-6      Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-30
         the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program - Metals

B-7      Analytical Results for Traditional Parameters       B-36
         in the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 1

B-8      Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-37
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 1,
         Volatile Organics

B-9      Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-38
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 1,
         Semivolatile Organics

B-10     Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-40
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 1,
         Pesticides

B-11     Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-41
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 1,
         Metals

B-12     Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-42
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 2

B-13     Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for      B-43
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 2,
         Volatile Organics
                              xiv

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES
                          (Continued)
TABLE                         TITLE                         PAGE

B-14     Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for     B-45
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 2,
         Semivolatile Organics

B-15     Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for     B-48
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 2,
         Pesticides

B-16     Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants  for     B-49
         the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 2,
         Metals
                              xv

-------
                        LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE                        TITLE                         PAGE

1-1      Effluent Guidelines - Petroleum Refining Point       13
         Source Category Best Available Technology
         Economically Achievable Sample Calculation -
         Process Factor

III-1    Geographical Distribution of Petroleum Refineries    56
         in the United States, as of January 1, 1981

III-2    Crude Desalting (Electrostatic Desalting)            57

III-3    Crude Fractionation (Crude Distillation, Three       53
         Stages)

III-4    Catalytic Cracking (Fluid Catalytic Cracking)        59

V-1      Histogram of Net Wastewater Flow by Size Class      117

V-2      Histogram of Net Wastewater Flow by Subcategory     us

V-3      Historical Trend of Total Industry Water Usage      119

VII-1    Rotating Biological Contactors                      219

VII-2    Flow Diagram of a Granular Activated Carbon         220
         System

VII-3    Carbon Regeneration System                          221

Vll-4    Flow Diagram of One Powdered Activated Carbon       222
         Treatment Scheme
                               xvi i

-------
                            SECTION I

                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This  development  document  presents  the  technical  data  base
developed  by  EPA  to support effluent limitations and standards
for the.Petroleum Refining Point Source  Category.   Technologies
covered  by  this  document  to  achieve  these  limitations  and
standards are defined as best available  technology  economically
achievable  (BAT),  best available demonstrated technology (BADT,
equal to new source  performance  standards  NSPS),  pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES), and pretreatment standards
for  new  sources  (PSNS).   Best  conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT) limitations are not addressed in  this  document
because  the  Agency  has  reserved  coverage  of  BCT for future
rulemaking.   Best  practicable  technology  currently  available
(BPT) is not being revised and therefore will not be addressed in
this  document.   The  basis  for  BPT can be found in an earlier
document  (EPA-440/l-74-014a).   This   document   outlines   the
technology options considered and the rationale for selecting the
technology levels on which pollutant limitations are based.

EPA   is   promulgating   BAT   effluent  limitations  guidelines
equivalent to BPT, which were promulgated on May 9, 1974  (39  FR
16560) and amended May 20, 1975 (40 FR 21939).

EPA decided to retain the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
that were promulgated May 9, 1974 (39 FR 16560).

Interim  final pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)
were promulgated on March 23, 1977 (42 FR  15684).   Pretreatment
standards  for new sources (PSNS) were promulgated on May 9, 1974
(39 FR 16560).  This document presents the final  PSES  and  PSNS
promulgated, both of which are revision to the prior pretreatment
standards  for  this  industry.   Pretreatment standards for both
existing and new sources (PSES and PSNS) will limit  ammonia  and
oil  and  grease  at  100  mg/1,  each.  An alternate mass - based
ammonia standard is also provided.  In addition, PSNS contains  a
chromium  mass  limitation based upon the application of a 1 mg/1
standard to the cooling tower  discharge  portion  of  the  total
refinery flow to the POTW.

Stormwater  runoff  is  not addressed in this document.  The 1974
development document presented BPT, BAT, and NSPS for  stormwater
run  off.  These limitations were remanded for reconsideration by
the U.S.  Court of Appeals on August 11, 1976.  These requirements
were reserved by the Agency for future rulemaking.

Effluent  limitations  guidelines  for  conventional   pollutants
(BOD5,   TSS,  oil  and  grease,   and  pH)  will  be  promulgated

-------
separately as BCT limitations for existing direct dischargers  in
this category in future rulemaking.

The  tables  in  this  section  summarize  the  final promulgated
regulations.

Table 1-1 lists  the  processes  used  in  the  determination  of
process categories and their associated weighting factors as used
to determine process configurations.  Tables 1-2 and 1-3 list the
BAT  size factors and process factors/ respectively, while Tables
1-4 and 1-5 list the same factors as applied to NSPS.  Tables 1-6
and 1-7 summarize effluent limitations by subcategory for BAT and
NSPS.  These effluent limitations are to be used  in  conjunction
with  the  process  factors  and  size  factors determined in the
proceeding tables to calculate actual mass limitations applicable
to individual refineries.  Table 1-8 summarizes the ballast water
allowance applicable to both BAT and NSPS.   Table  1-9  contains
the  general  and specific pretreatment limitations applicable to
PSES and PSNS for indirect dischargers.

A sample  calculation of BAT effluent limitations is provided  in
Figure  1-1.  The reader should note that the BPT model uses only
crude processes, cracking processes/ lube processes/ and  asphalt
processes  for the calculation of the process factor (Table 1-1).
Moreover/ the factors for process configuration and size shown in
Tables 1-2 through  1-5  are  discrete  factors  (do  not  permit
interpolated/  intermediate values) which apply to all refineries
within a given range and subcategory.

Implementation of BAT/ NSPS and PSES would  incur  no  additional
cost  to the industry beyond existing requirements.  A single new
indirect discharging refinery of the type and size likely  to  be
built in the 1980's and subject to PSNS would incur an additional
capital cost of $0.39 million and an annual cost of $0.26 million
(1979 dollars).

-------
                                   TABLE 1-1

                              EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
                   PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
            BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT)
                   PROCESS CONFIGURATION - PROCESS BREAKDOWN
Process Category

Crude



Cracking and Coking
Processes Included
Weighting Factor
Lube
Asphalt
desalting                             1
atmospheric distillation
vacuum distillation

fluid catalytic cracking              6
thermofor
houdrlflow
gas-oil cracking
vlsbreaklng
fluid coking
delayed coking

lube hydroflnlng                     13
white oil manufacturing
propane - dewaxlng, deasphaltlng
duo soli solvent dewaxlng
lube vac. tower, wax fract.
centrifuglng and chilling
MEK dewaxlng
deoHIng (wax)
naphthenlc lubes
S02 extraction
wax pressing
wax plant (with neutral separ.)
furfural extraction
clay contacting - percolation
wax sweating
add treating
phenol extraction

asphalt production                   12
asphalt oxidation
asphalt emulsifying

-------
                      TABLE 1-2




               EFFLUENT GUIDELINES



      PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY



BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT)






               Size Factors By Subcategory;

1 ,000 Barrels
of Feedstock
Per Stream - Day
Less than 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100.0 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 to 174.9
175.0 to 199.9
200.0 to 224.9
225.0 or greater
Topping;

Size
Factor
1.02
1.06
1.16
1.26
1.38
1.50
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Cracking;

Size
Factor
0.91
0.95
1.04
1.13
1.23
1.35
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.41
Petrochemical ;

Size
Factor
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1.08
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
Lube:

Size
Factor
0.71
0.71
0.74
0.81
0.88
0.97
1.05
1.14
1.19
1.19
Integrated;

Size
Factor
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1.04

-------
                    TABLE 1-3



               EFFLUENT GUIDELINES



      PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY



BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT)






             Process Factors By Subcategory:
Topping; Cracking;
Process
Configuration
Less
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
than 2.49
to 3.49
to 4:49
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
5.49
5.99
6.49
6.99
7.49
7.99
8.49
8.99
9.49
9.99
10.49
10.99
11.49
11.99
12.49
12.99
13.49
13.99
or greater
Process Process
Factor Factor
0
0
0
0
1







2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
.62 0.58
.67 0.63
.80 0.74
.95 0.88
.07
.17
.27
.39
.51
.64
.79
.95
.12
.31
.51
.73
.98
.24
.53
.84
.18
.36
.00
.09
.19
.29
.41
.53
.67
.82
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
Petrochemical: Lube:
Process
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
1





1
1
1






.73
.73
.73
.80
.91
.99
.08
.17
.28
.39
.51
.65
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
Process
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0







1
1
2
2
2
2
2
.81
.81
.81
.81
.81
.81
.88
.88
.00
.09
.19
.29
.41
.53
.67
.82
.98
.15
.34
.44
.44
.44
Integrated;
Process
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1





2
2
2
2
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.82
.82
.92
.00
.10
.20
.30
.42
.54
.68
.83
.99
.17
.26
.26
.26

-------
               TABLE 1-4
         EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
PETROLEUM REPINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

         Size Factors By Subcategoryt
Toppingt Crack ing i
1,000 Barrels
of Feedstock Size Size
Per Stream - Day Factor Factor
Less than 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 99.9
100.0 to 124.9
125.0 to 149.9
150.0 to 174.9
175.0 to 199.9
200.0 to 224.9
225.0 or greater
.02 0.91
.06 0.95
.16
.26
.38
.50
.57
.57
.57
.57
.04
.13
.23
.35
.41
.41
.41
.41
Petrochemical i

Size
Factor
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1.08
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
Lube t

Size
Factor
0.71
0.71
0.74
0.81
0.88
0.97
1.05
1.14
1.19
1.19
Integrated!

Size
Factor
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.76
0.83
0.91
0.99
1.04

-------




TABLE 1-5
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES




PETROLEUM REPINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

MEM
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
(NSP8)

Process Factors By Subcategoryi

Proceaa
Configuration
Less than 2.49
2.5 to 3.49
3.5 to 4.49
4.5 to 5.49
5.5 to 5.99
6.0 to 6.49
6.5 to 6.99
7.0 to 7.49
7.5 to 7.99
8.0 to 8.49
8.5 to 8.99
9.0 to 9.49
9.5 to 9.99
10.0 to 10.49
10.5 to 10.99
11.0 to 11.49
11.5 to 11.99
12.0 to 12.49
12.5 to 12.99
13.0 to 13.49
13.5 to 13.99
14.0 or greater
Topping i
Process
Factor
0.62
0.67
0.80
0.95
.07
.17
.27
.39
.51
.64
1.79
1.95
2.12
2.31
2.51
2.73
2,98
3.24
3,53
3.84
4.18
4.36
Cracking s Petrochemical t
Process Process
Factor Factor
0.58 0.73
0.63 0.73
0.74 0.73
0.88 0.80


















.00 0.91
.09 0.99
.19
.29
.41
.53
.67
.82
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.89
.08
.17
.28
.39
.51
.65
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
.72
Lubes
Process
Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.88
0.88
.00
.09
.19
.29
.41
.53
.67
.82
.98
2.15
2.34
2.44
2.44
2.44
Integrated i
Process
Factor
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.82
0.82
0.92
.00
.10
.20
.30
.42
.54
.68
.83
.99
2.17
2.26
2.26
2.26

-------
                                                                            TABLE 1-6
                                                                        EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
                                                            PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
                                                      BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT)
                                                            Effluent Limitations By Subcategoryi<'l>


Effluent
Characteristics



Maximum
For Any
One Day
Metric Unitai kiloarema per
COD<»
Phenolic Compounds
Ammonia aa N
Sulfide
Total Chromium
117.0
0.168
2.81
0.149
0.34)
Hexavalent Chromium 0.028
Topping!
Average of Deily
Values For thirty
Consecutive Deys
Shsll Not Exceed


Maximum
For Any
One Dey
Cracking i
Average Of Daily
Values For Thirty
Consecutive Days
Shall Not Exceed
Petrochemical!
Average of Dally
Maximum
For Any
One Day
Valuea For Thirty
Consecutive Oaya
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum
For Any
One Day
Lubel
Average of Daily
Valuea For Thirty
Consecutive Deys
Shsll Not Exceed
Integrated!

Maximum
For Any
One Day
Average of Dally
Valuea For Thirty
Consecutive Days
Shsll Not Exceed
thousand cubic meters of feedstock (kg/1,000 a')
60.)
0.076
1.27
0.068
0.2
0.012
210.0
0.21
18.8
0.18
0.43
0.03)
109.0
0.1
8.)
0.082
0.2)
0.016
210.0
0.2)
23.4
0.22
0.52
0.046
109.
0.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0
12
6
099
3
02
360.0
0.38
23.4
0.33
0.77
0.06B
187.0
0.184
10.6
0.1)
0.4)
0.03
388.0
0.4
23.4
0.3)
0.82
0.068
198.0
0.192
10.6
0.1)8
0.48
0.0)2
English Unitsi  pounds per thoueend bsrrsls of feedstock (lb/1.000(bbl)
COD<»
Phenolic Compounds
Ammonia aa N
Sulfida
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
41.2
0.06
0.99
0.0)3
0.122
0.10
21.)
0.027
0.4)
0.024
0.071
0.0044
74.0
0.074
6.6
0.06)
0.1)
0.012
38.4
0.036
3.0
0.029
0.088
0.00)6
74.0
O.OB8
8.2)
0.078
0.183
0.016
38.4
0.042)
3.8
0.033
0.107
0.0072
127
0
8
0
0
0
.0
.133
.3
.118
.273
.024
66.0
0.06)
3.8
0.0)3
0.16
0.011
136.0
0.14
8.3
0.124
0.29
0.02)
70.0
0.068
3.8
0.0)6
0.17
0.011
(1) To obtain actual Halt at Ions all values in this table Bust be multiplied by a aubcategory dependent variable, F| whets F ia the product of the process
    factor and the size factor end the crude throughput (in thousand barrels par day).
(2) Ones-through cooling Meter eay be discharged Kith a total organic carbon (TOC) concentration not to exceed ) mg/l.
()) In any caaa in which the applicant can demonstrate that the chloride ion concentration in the effluent exceeds 1,000 my/I (1,000 ppm), the Regional
    Adainlatrator may substitute TOC as a parsmater in lieu of COD.  Effluent limitations for IOC shall be based on affluent date froa the plant correlating
    TOC to BOD;.
    If in the Judgoment of the Regional Administrator, adequate correlation data are not available, the effluent limitstions for TOC shall be eateblishod
    at a ratio of 2.2 to 1 to the applicebla effluent limitations on BOD}.

-------
                                                                             TABtE  1-7
                                                                       ETTtMENT  GUIDELINES
PEIROUW REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
MEM SOURCE PERTOBMMCE STANDARDS OBPS)
Effluent 11*1 tit lone By Subcsteooryill>
-------
                             TABLED 1-8


                       EFFLUENT GUIDELINES

            PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

               BALLAST WATER TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR

               BAT AND NSPS.  FOR ALL SUBCATEGORIES
                    Pollutant or
                      Pollutant
                      Property
              Maximum
              For Any
              One Day
Average of Daily
 Values for 30
Consecutive Days
Metric Units
(Kilograms per
cubic meter of
flow)                  COD

English Units
(Pounds per
1,000 gal of flow)     COD
-1
-1
               0.47
               3.9
     0.24
     2.0
1-  In any case in which the applicant can demonstrate that the
    chloride ion concentration in the effluent exceeds 1,000 mg/1
    (1,000 ppm), the regional Administrator may substitute TOC as
    a parmeter in lieu of COD.  Effluent limitations for TOC shall
    be based on effluent data from the plant correlating TOC to BODg.

    If in the judgement of the Regional Administrator, adequate
    correlation data are not available, the effluent limitations for
    TOC shall be established at a ratio of 2.2 to 1 to the applicable
    effluent limitations on BODg.
                                10

-------
                                                            1 of 2
                                TABLE  1-9

                           EFFLUENT GUIDELINES

                 PETROLEUM REFINING POINT  SOURCE CATEGORY
            PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)
                          AND NEW SOURCES  (PSNS)
A.  General Prohibitions

Pollutants introduced  into POTW  by  a non-domestic source shall not pass
through the POTW or interfere with  the  operation or performance of the
works.  These general  prohibitions  and  the specific prohibitions in
paragraph B of this section  apply  to all  non-domestic sources introducing
pollutants into a POTW whether or  not  the source is subject to other
National Pretreatment  Standards  or  any  national, state,  or local
pretreatment requirements.

B.  Specific Prohibitions

In addition, the following pollutants  shall not be introduced into a POTW:

1)  Pollutants which create  a fire  or  explosion hazard in the POTW;

2)  Pollutants which will  cause  corrosive structural damage to the POTW,
    but in no case Discharges with  pH  lower than 5.0, unless the works are
    specifically designed  to accommodate  such Discharges;

3)  Solid or viscous pollutants  in amounts which will cause obstruction to
    the flow in the POTW resulting  in interference;

4)  Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.)
    released in a discharge  at a flow  rate and/or pollutant concentration
    which will cause interference with  the POTW;

5)  Heat in amounts which will inhibit  biological activity in the POTW
    resulting in interference, but  in no  case heat in such quantities that
    the temperature at the POTW  treatment plant exceeds 40°C (104°F) unless
    the approval authority,  upon request  of the POTW, approves alternate
    temperature limits.
                                    11

-------
                                                     2 of 2
                                TABLE 1-9

                           EFFLUENT GUIDELINES

                 PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
            PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES  (PSES)
                          AND NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
                               (continued)
C.  Categorical Pretreatment Standards

1)  Maximum Pollutant Concentrations for Any One Day  (All  Indirect  Dis-
    chargers)
       Pollutant or
    Pollutant Property

    Oil and Grease
    Ammonia
Pretreatment Standard  for
Existing and New Sources
Maximum for Any One Day
Milligrams per Liter (mg/L)

          100
          100 *
    *  Where the discharge to the POTW  consists  solely of  sour waters,  the
       owner or operator has the option of  complying  with  this limit or the
       daily mass limitation set forth  in the  BAT  or  NSPS  standards for
       existing or new  sources, respectively.

2)  Maximum Pollutant Concentration For Any One  Day (new source indirect
    dischargers)

    The following standard is applied to the cooling  tower discharge part
    of the total refinery flow  to the POTW  by  mutliplying: (1) the stan-
    dards; (2) the total refinery flow  to the  POTW; and (3) the ratio of
    the cooling tower discharge flow  to the total  refinery flow.
       Pollutant or
    Pollutant Property

    Total Chromium
 Pretreatment  Standard
 for New Sources  Only
Maximum for Any One  Day
Milligrams per Liter (mg/L)
           1
                                    12

-------
                                                     1 of 2
                                  FIGURE 1-1
                              EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
                   PETROLEUM REFINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
               BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
                      SAMPLE CALCULATION - PROCESS FACTOR
Step 1:  Determine subcategory and  size of the  refinery  (the  example
         refinery is a lube facility with 125,000 bbl/day  throughout),
Step 2:  Obtain information on capacity of processes  listed  in
         Table 1-1 from the refinery.

Step 3:  Calculate process configuration factor as  follows:   (the
         processes and their associated capacities  below  are
         for the example refinery).
Process
crude- ATM
vacuum
desalting
cracking-FCC
hyd roc racking
lubes hydro-
fining
furfural
extraction
phenol
extraction
asphalt
Process
capacity
(1,000
bbl/day)
125
60
125
41
20
5.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
Capacity of
process In
relation to
refinery
throughput*
1.0
0.48
1.0
2.48
0.328
0.160
0.488
0.042
0.032
0.032
0.106
0.032
Process
weighting
factor
(from
Table 1-1)


x 1
x 6

x 13
x 12
Process
config-
uration
factor


2.48
2.93

1.38
0.38
                            Process  configuration factor:
7.17
*Divide process capacity by  refinery  throughput.
 In most cases, refinery throughput is  equal  to the crude capacity.
                                    13

-------
                                                     2 of 2
                               FIGURE 1-1  (Cont'd)
Step 4:  Determine process factor by looking at  Table  1-3  (for BAT),
         For process configuration of 7.17 in  the  lube subcategory,
         the process factor is 0.88.

Step 5:  Determine size factor by looking at Table 1-2 (for BAT).
         For a lube refinery with throughput of  125,000 bbl/day,
         the size factor is 0.97.

Step 6:  Obtain unadjusted effluent limitations  from Table 1-6 for
         BAT.  This example calculation  computes the 30-day daily
         average COD (in units of Ib/mbbl of feedstock).   The COD
         value is 66 Ib/mbbl (30-day).

Step 7:  Calculate limitation for COD by multiplying the process
         factor (from Step 4), the size  factor (from Step  5),
         the effluent limit (from Step 6), and refinery throughput
         (Step 1).

         0.88 (process factor) x 0.97 (size factor) x  66 Ib/mbbl
         (unadjusted effluent limitation) x 125  mbbl - 7042 Ib/day
         of COD (30-day daily average limit).
                                    14

-------
                           SECTION II

                          INTRODUCTION


This  development  document  details  the technical basis for the
Agency's BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS  for  the  petroleum  refining
industry.   These limitations and standards are promulgated under
authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501  of  the  Clean
Water  Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 33 USC 1251 et seq., as amended by the Clean Water  Act  of
1977,  P.L.  95-2177  also  called the "Act".  The regulation was
also promulgated in  response  to  the  Settlement  Agreement  in
Natural  Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.  v. Train, 8 ERC 2120
(D.D.C. 1976),  modified,  12  ERC  1833TD.D.C.  1979)  and  in
response to the decision of the United States Court of Appeals in
American  Petroleum  Institute  v..  EPA. 540 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir.
1976).

PRIOR EPA REGULATIONS

EPA promulgated  BPT,  BAT,  NSPS  and  PSNS  for  the  petroleum
refining  industry on May 9, 1974 (39 FR 16560, Subparts A-E).  A
development document was published in April  1974  (EPA-440/1-74-
014a).   This document provided the bases for the 1974 regulation
and is henceforth referred to as the 1974  Development  Document.
BPT  and  BAT  limitations  and  NSPS were challenged in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by the American  Petroleum
Institute  and others.  The court upheld both BPT limitations and
NSPS,  but  remanded  BAT  limitations,  in  toto,  for   further
consideration.   Storm  water regulations under BPT, BAT and NSPS
were set aside by the court in the same  action.   Interim  final
PSES were promulgated on March 23, 1977 (42 FR 15684).

OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY

The  petroleum  refining  industry  is  defined  by Bureau of the
Census Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)  2911.   The  raw
material   of  this  industry  is  primarily  petroleum  material
(generally, but not always,  crude  oil).   Petroleum  refineries
process  this  raw  material  into  a  wide  wariety of petroleum
products,  including  gasoline,  residual  fuel  oil,  jet  fuel,
heating  oils and gases, and petrochemicals.  Refining includes a
wide  variety  of  physical  separation  and  chemical   reaction
processes.   Because  of  the  diversity  and  complexity  of the
processes used and the products  produced,  petroleum  refineries
are  generally  characterized  by  the  quantity  of raw material
processed, rather than by the  quantity  and  types  of  products
produced.

EPA  has identified 285 petroleum refineries in the United States
and its possessions.  The  smallest  refinery  can  refine  fifty
                               15

-------
barrels  of oil per day (one barrel equals 42 gallons), while the
largest can refine 665,000 barrels per day.

The U.S. refining industry has experienced a dramatic reversal of
historical  growth  trends  as  a  result  of  the  reduction  in
consumption  of  petroleum  products  that  has taken place since
1978.  U.S. crude oil runs peaked at 14.7 million barrels per day
in the calendar year 1978.  Runs have decreased each  year  since
then  reaching 12.5 million barrels per day for the calendar year
1981.  In early 1982 runs have  dropped  to  below  11.5  million
barrels  per day representing percentage capacity utilizations in
the  low  60's.   More  than  fifty  plants   have   discontinued
operations  in  the U.S. over the past year.  It is expected that
U.S. refinery activity  will  recover  somewhat.   The  1981  DOE
Annual  Report  to  Congress  projects  U.S.  crude  runs at 14.4
million barrels per day in 1985 and 13.4 million barrels per  day
in  1990  for their mid-oil price scenarios.  The above forecasts
of U.S. refinery activity indicate that very little, if any,  new
refinery  facilities  will be built at undeveloped sites over the
next decade.  However, it will be necessary for  U.S.  refineries
to   modernize  and  expand  downstream  facilities  at  existing
refinery sites to allow increasingly heavier  and  higher  sulfur
crude  oils  to  be processed into a product mix which emphasizes
production of the lighter and higher quality products  that  will
be demanded by the marketplace.

Since  its inception, the U.S. refining industry has continued to
build  bigger  and  more  efficient  plants as new technology has
developed over time.  The  average  U.S.  refinery  capacity  per
plant  increased  from  43.3  thousand  barrels  per  day to 55.6
thousand barrels per day from January  1,  1967,  to  January  1,
1973.   This  trend  was halted in the late 1970's in response to
the  DOE  "small  refiner  bias"  provision  of  the  crude   oil
entitlements program.  This provision encouraged the construction
of  small,  inefficient  plants  which  offset  the technological
improvements created by expanding  existing,  larger  refineries.
53  additional  U.S.  refineries  were in operation on January 1,
1981 versus January 1, 1975.  The number of plants  in  operation
with capacity greater than 100 thousand barrels, per day increased
by only seven  (from 46 to 53) over this time period.  Most of the
new plants placed in operation were small.  Average U.S. refinery
capacity  increased  only  from 56.0 to 57.3 thousand barrels per
day from January 1, 1975, to January 1, 198.1.  Many of the  small
new  plants  built  in  this time period are among the fifty that
have discontinued operations during the last year.

The four major sources of process wastewater are  cooling  water,
water  used  to  wash  unwanted  materials from a process stream,
water used as part of a reaction process, and  boiler  blowdowns.
Current  treatment  systems  used  by refineries for this process
wastewater include  (a) in-plant controls of water  use;   (b)  in-
plant  treatment  of  segregated  wastestreams  for  ammonia  and
sulfide  removal  via  steam  stripping;  and   (c)   end-of-pipe
                               16

-------
treatment,   consisting   of   oil/water  separators,  biological
treatment and, in some cases, mixed media  filtration.   Although
significant  concentrations  of  toxic  and  other pollutants are
found in untreated waste, data from an EPA  sampling  program  of
seventeen  refineries  show that application of BPT substantially
reduces the concentrations of pollutants (See Sections V  and  VI
for details of sampling programs).  Toxic pollutants were reduced
to  near  or  below  the  concentrations  that  can be accurately
measured using available measurement techniques.

SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY

On December 27, 1977, the President signed  into  law  the  Clean
Water  Act  of  1977.   Although this law makes several important
changes in the Federal water pollution control program, its  most
significant  feature is the incorporation of several of the basic
elements of the Settlement Agreement program for toxic  pollution
control.   Sections  301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now
require the achievement by July 1, 1984, of effluent  limitations
reflecting  BAT for toxic pollutants, including the 65 pollutants
and classes of pollutants which  Congress  declared  toxic  under
Section  307(a).   Likewise, the Agency's programs for new source
performance standards and pretreatment standards  are  now  aimed
principally at toxic pollutant controls.  Moreover, to strengthen
the  toxics  control  program,  Section  304(e)  of  the  Act now
authorizes  the  Administrator  to  prescribe   "best   management
practices" ("BMPs") to prevent the release of toxic and hazardous
pollutants  from  plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or
waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage associated
with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing or treatment process.

In keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water
Act of 1977  also  revised  the  control  program  for  non-toxic
pollutants.    Instead   of  BAT  for  "conventional"  pollutants
identified under Section 304(a)(4) (including biochemical  oxygen
demand,  total  suspended  solids, fecal coliform, oil and grease
and pH), the new Section  301(b)(2)(E)  requires  achievement  by
July  1, 1984, of "effluent limitations requiring the application
of the best conventional pollutant control  technology"  ("BCT").
BCT  is  not  an  additional  limitation but replaces BAT for the
control of conventional pollutants.  In addition to other factors
specified in section  304(b)(4)(B),  the  Act  requires  the  BCT
limitations   be   assessed   in  light  of  a  two  part  "cost-
reasonableness" test.  American Paper Institute v. EPA,  660  F2d
954  (4th  Cir.  1981).   The  first  test  compares the cost for
private industry to reduce its conventional pollutants  with  the
costs  to  publicly  owned  treatment works for similar levels of
reduction in their discharge of  these  pollutants.   The  second
test  examines  the  cost-effectiveness  of additional industrial
treatment  beyond  BPT.   EPA  must  find  that  limitations  are
"reasonable"  under  both  tests before establishing them as BCT.
In no case may BCT be less stringent than  BPT.   For  non-toxic,
nonconventional  pollutants,  Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F)
                               17

-------
require achievement of  BAT  effluent  limitations  within  three
years  after their establishment or by July 1, 1984, whichever is
later, but not later than July 1, 1987.

APPROACH

The emphasis of this regulatory development effort  differs  from
the one in 1974 because of legislative changes.

Despite the major revisions described above, the basic factors to
be  considered  in  developing effluent limitation guidelines and
standards of performance remain  unchanged.   These  include  the
total  cost of applying a technology; effluent reduction benefits
realized; the  age  of  equipment  and  facilities;  the  process
employed;  the  engineering  aspects of applying various types of
control  techniques   and   process   changes;   nonwater-quality
environmental  related  impacts  (including energy requirements);
and other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.

Efforts to compile  the  necessary  information  to  address  the
statutory   factors   mentioned  above  were  divided  into  four
segments: industry profile,  waste  characterization,  technology
assessment,  and  cost  development.   These  efforts are briefly
described below.

Industry Profile

To update the information needed to establish effluent guidelines
for the petroleum refining category, EPA sent  questionnaires  to
all   refineries   in  the  United  States  and  its  territorial
possessions.  The surveys were made  under  Section  308  of  the
Clean   Water   Act.   The  information  obtained  describes  the
petroleum refining industry wastewater  treatment  practices  for
the year 1976.

Information   from  these  surveys  was  combined  with  existing
information to develop an industry profile, including  number  of
plants, their size, geographic location, manufacturing processes,
wastewater   generation,   treatment,   and   discharge  methods.
Information  on  number,  size,  and  geographical   location   of
refineries  was  later  updated  with  1980  data  from  the U.S.
Department of Energy  (DOE).   Questionnaire  data  aided  in  the
final  selection  of  plants  for  other aspects of  this program.
Flow data from the questionnaires was  used  to  develop  a  flow
model   for  the  analysis  of   refinery  wastewater  production.
Another  objective  of  the  survey  was  to  obtain  information
identifying  the  use  or  generation of 123 toxic pollutants and
determining the availability of  plant data on  the   effectiveness
of  their  removal.   Since the  initial questionnaire survey, the
list of toxic pollutants has been revised from 123  to the present
list of 126 specific  substances.

Waste Characterization

-------
Information  on  waste  characterization  of  petroleum  refining
effluent  is  available  from  four  sources  which  are  briefly
described below.

The first effort in determining the  potential  presence  of  the
toxics  involved  the  identification  of toxics manufactured and
purchased by  the  industry.   The  1977  survey  requested  such
information from the industry.

The  second effort was the sampling of 23 refineries and two POTW
to determine the presence, absence and relative concentrations of
toxic/  conventional  and   non-conventional   pollutants.    The
refineries   were   selected   to   be   representative   of  the
manufacturing processes, the prevalent mix  of  production  among
plants/  and  the current treatment technologies in the industry.
The  selected  direct  discharge  refineries  were  meeting   BPT
limitations.     Seventeen   plants   were   direct   dischargers
(refineries that discharge effluents to U.S. waters) and six were
indirect  dischargers  (refineries  that  direct   effluents   to
publicly owned treatment works).

Subsequent  to the 1979 proposal/ EPA conducted a 60-day sampling
program at two petroleum refineries.  The  program  involved  the
sampling of raw and treated effluent every other day for a period
of sixty days.  Pollutants analyzed included toxics/ but excluded
asbestos and pesticides.  The objectives of this program were to:
(1)  determine  if  there is a surrogate relationship between the
priority pollutants and one or more of the traditional  pollutant
parameters  (i.e.  COD/  TOG);  and  (2)  confirm the presence or
absence of specific priority pollutants.

In a separate program/  eight  refineries  were  sampled  by  EPA
regional surveillance and analysis field teams.

Technology Evaluation

Three  major  efforts  were  undertaken  to identify and evaluate
available control and treatment technologies.  These include:

o   A literature search that compiled  available  information  on
    the  status  of  and  advances  being  made  by  the industry
    relative to wastewater handling and disposal.

o   A review of the responses to the 1977 EPA Petroleum  Refining
    Industry  Survey  which determined the status of the industry
    with  regard  to  in-plant  source  control  and  end-of-pipe
    treatment.

o   A program to assess the toxic removal effectiveness of carbon
    absorption treatment on a pilot  scale.   Granular  activated
    carbon was tested at six plants and powdered activated carbon
    was tested in four of the same six refineries.
                               19

-------
Subsequent  to  the  1979  proposal,  the  Agency  conducted  two
additional studies.  The objective of  the  first  study  was  to
determine   the   technical   feasibility   of  recycle/reuse  of
wastewater at fifteen refineries.  The second study involved  the
acquisition  of effluent concentration data from fifty refineries
that have biological treatment systems.  Most of these refineries
have below -  industry  average  flows.   The  purposes  were  to
determine  if low - flow refineries discharge at higher pollutant
concentrations  and  whether   a   long   term   average   phenol
concentration of 19 ppb is achievable.

The  results  of the above studies established a range of control
and treatment technologies available to  the  petroleum  refining
industry.   Section  V discusses these studies in greater detail.
Detailed discussion of BPT treatment technology is not  presented
in  this  document.   It  is  presented  in  the 1974 Development
Document.

Cost Development

Information on costs, energy requirements and  non-water  quality
environmental  impacts  associated with the control and treatment
technologies was compiled at the time of the 1979 proposal.   The
preamble  to the 1979 proposal presented estimates of the cost of
recycle/reuse  for  comparison.   The  Agency   confirmed   these
estimates  of the cost of flow reduction via recycle/reuse during
the 15 refinery study conducted after the 1979 proposal.

Results of  these  programs  are  presented  in  Section  III  on
industry  profile,  Section  V on waste characterization, Section
VII on technology assessment and Appendix A on cost of  treatment
systems.
                               20

-------
                           SECTION III

                   DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
INTRODUCTION
The  purpose of this section is to provide a brief description of
the petroleum refining industry.  This description  is  presented
in two parts:

1)  the overall industry profile; and

2)  the unit manufacturing processes.

The industry  profile  includes  a  general  description  of  the
industry,  a  description  of refinery distribution in the United
States, and data related  to  the  growth  anticipated  for  this
industry.

The   information   presented  on  unit  manufacturing  processes
includes  an  overview  of  refining  process  operations.   Also
included  is  information  on  unit  operations,  and  wastewater
characteristics, related to some 20 individual processes.


INDUSTRY PROFILE

General Description of. the Industry

This effluent guidelines  study  covers  the  petroleum  refining
industry  in the United States, as defined by Standard Industrial
Classification  (SIC)  Code  2911  of  the  U.S.  Department   of
Commerce.  SIC Code 2911 includes facilities primarily engaged in
producing hydrocarbon materials through the distillation of crude
petroleum and its fractionation products.  There are numerous and
varied  intermediate  and  finished products which can be refined
from crude petroleum.  Table III-l presents a listing of some  of
the major products of the petroleum refining industry.

It  is  important  to note that the production of crude petroleum
and natural gas, the production of  natural  gasoline  and  other
natural  liquid hydrocarbons, and operations associated with such
production are not included in SIC 2911.  These  are  covered  by
SIC  Codes  1311  and  1312, respectively, and therefore, are not
within the scope of this  subject.   This  study  also  does  not
include   distribution   activities,  such  as  gasoline  service
stations.  Transportation of petroleum products is  covered  only
to  the  extent  that  it  affects a refinery's pollution control
activities, such  as  the  treatment  of  ballast  water.   Other
activities  outside  the scope of the SIC Code 2911 were  included
in the development of raw waste  load  data  and  are  listed  as
                               21

-------
auxiliary  processes  which  are  an  integral  part  of refinery
operations.  Some of  these  include  soap  manufacture  for  the
production of greases, steam generation, and hydrogen production.

Refinery Distribution

As  of  January 1,  1981,  there  were  a  total of 303 petroleum
refineries operating in the United States, excluding Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, and Guam.   These  refineries  are  operating
with  a  combined  capacity  of  approximately 3.08 million cubic
meters per stream-day (19.37 million barrels per  stream-day)  of
crude  oil  processing.    The  individual  capacities  of the 303
refineries range from about 30 cubic meters per  stream-day  (190
barrels  per  stream-day)  at the smallest plant to about 106,200
cubic meters per stream-day (668,000 barrels per  stream-day)  at
the largest plant.

Since it's inception, the U.S. refining industry has continued to
build  bigger  and  more  efficient  plants as new technology has
developed over time.  The  average  U.S.  refinery  capacity  per
plant  increased  from  43.3  thousand  barrels  per  day to 55.6
thousand barrels per day from January  1,  1967,  to  January  1,
1973.  53 additional U.S. refineries were in operation on January
1,  1981,  versus  January  1,  1975.   The  number  of plants in
operation with capacity greater than 100 thousand barrels per day
increased by only seven (from 46 to 53) over  this  time  period.
Most  of  the new plants placed in operation were small.  Average
U.S. refinery capacity increased only from 56.0 to 57.3  thousand
barrels  per  day from January 1, 1975, to January 1, 1981.  Many
of the small new plants built in this time period are  among  the
fifty that have discontinued operations during the last year.

Additional  information on industry profile is provided in: Table
III-2 on refinery capacity; Table III-3 on  1980  consumption  of
petroleum  products;  Table  II1-4  on sources of supply for U.S.
petroleum feedstocks; Table III-5 on characteristics of crude oil
from major fields around the world; and Table II1-6 on  trend  in
domestic petroleum refining from 1975 to 1981.

Within  the  United  States,  most  of  the  refining capacity is
concentrated in two areas: major crude production areas, such  as
Texas,  California,  Louisiana,  Oklahoma,  and Kansas; and major
population areas,  such  as  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  Ohio,  New
Jersey, and Indiana.  Table II1-2 lists the number of refineries,
total  crude  refining  capacity, and major process capacities in
the United States by state.   The  geographical  distribution  of
these refineries  is displayed in Figure III-l.
                               22

-------
Anticipated Industry Growth

The U.S. refining industry has experienced a dramatic reversal of
historical  growth  trends  as  a  result  of  the  reduction  in
consumption of petroleum products  that  has  taken  place  since
1978.  U.S. crude oil runs peaked at 14.7 million barrels per day
in  the  calendar year 1978.  Runs have decreased each year since
then reaching 12.5 million barrels per day for the calendar  year
1981.   In  early  1982  runs  have dropped to below 11.5 million
barrels per day, representing percentage capacity utilizations in
the  low  60's.   More  than  fifty  plants   have   discontinued
operations  in the U.S.  over the past year.  It is expected that
U.S. refinery activity  will  recover  somewhat.   The  1981  DOE
Annual  Report  to  Congress  projects  U.S.  crude  runs at 14.4
million barrels per day in 1985 and 13.4 million barrels per  day
in 1990 for their mid-oil price scenarios.  The above forcasts of
U.S.  refinery  activity  indicate  that very little, if any, new
refinery facilities will be built at undeveloped sites  over  the
next  decade.  However, it will be necessary for U.S. refiners to
modernize and expand downstream facilities at  existing  refinery
sites  to allow increasingly heavier and higher sulfur crude oils
to be processed into a product mix which emphasizes production of
the lighter and higher quality products that will be demanded  by
the marketplace.

UNIT MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Overview of Refining Processes

A  petroleum  refinery is a complex combination of interdependent
operations engaged in separating  crude  molecular  constituents,
molecular  cracking,  molecular rebuilding, and solvent finishing
to produce petroleum-derived products, such  as  those  shown  in
Table  III-l.   There are a number of distinct processes that may
be utilized by the industry for the refining of  crude  petroleum
and  its fractionation products.  The EPA questionnaire survey of
the  petroleum  refining   industry,   conducted   during   1977,
identified   over  150  separate  processes  being  used.   These
processes, along with the number of  refineries  employing  each,
are presented in Table II1-7.

Although only about 150 separate processes were identified  in the
petroleum   refining   industry,  there  are  many  more  process
combinations that may be  employed  at  an  individual  refinery,
depending  upon  the  type  of crude being processed, the type of
product being produced, and the characteristics of the particular
refinery.

Process Descriptions and Wastewater Characteristics

The characteristics of the  wastewater  differ  considerably  for
different  processes.  Considerable information is available that
can be used to make  meaningful  qualitative  interpretations  of
                               23

-------
pollutant  loadings  from  refinery  processes.   The  results of
analysis of available information is  presented  in  Table  II1-8
which  shows  the  major sources of pollutants within a refinery.
In order to characterize the wastes  for  each  of  the  industry
subcategories,  it  is  essential  to  focus  on  the sources and
contaminants  within  the  individual  production  processes  and
auxiliary  activities.   Each  process is itself a series of unit
operations which causes chemical and/or physical changes  in  the
feedstock  or  products.  In the commercial synthesis of a single
product from a single feedstock, there generally are sections  of
the process associated with the preparation of the feedstock, the
chemical  reaction,  the separation of reaction products, and the
final purification of the desired product.  Each  unit  operation
may  have  quite  different water usages associated with it.  The
types  and  quantities  of  contact  wastewater  are,  therefore,
directly  related  to  the nature of the various processes.  This
implies that the types and quantities of wastewater generated  by
each  plant's  total  production  mix  are unique.  Brief process
descriptions and delineation of wastewater sources for  the  more
important refining processes are presented below.

LL  Crude Oil and Product Storage.  Crude oil, intermediate,  and
finished  products are stored in tanks of varying size to provide
adequate supplies of crude oils for primary fractionation runs of
economical  duration,  to  equalize  process  flows  and  provide
feedstocks  for intermediate processing units, and to store final
products prior to  shipment  in  adjustment  to  market  demands.
Generally,  operating  schedules permit sufficient detention time
for settling of water and suspended solids.

Wastewater pollutants associated with storage of  crude  oil  and
products  are  mainly  in the form of free and emulsified oil and
suspended solids.  During storage, water and suspended solids  in
the  crude  oil  separate.  The water layer accumulates below the
oil, forming a bottom sludge.  When the water  layer  is drawn off,
emulsified oil present at the oil-water interface is  often  lost
to  the sewers.  This waste is high in COD levels and to a  lesser
extent, BOD5..  Bottom sludge is removed at infrequent  intervals.
Additional "quantities  of  waste result from  leaks, spills, salt
"filters"  (for product drying), and tank cleaning.

Intermediate storage  is frequently the source  of  polysulfide   -
bearing  wastewaters  and  iron sulfide suspended  solids.  Finished
product storage can produce high BOD£, alkaline  wastewaters,  as
well  as  tetraethyl  lead.   Tank  cleaning can contribute  large
amounts of oil, COD,  and  suspended solids, and a minor amount  of
BOD5..   Leaks,  spills,   and  open or poorly ventilated  tanks can
also be  a  source  of  air  pollution,  through  evaporation  of
hydrocarbons  into  the atmosphere.
                               24

-------
2.  Ballast Water  Storage.   Tankers  which  are  used  to  ship
intermediate  and  final  products  generally  discharge  ballast
(approximately 30 percent of  the  cargo  capacity  is  generally
required to maintain vessel stability).

Ballast  waters  discharged  by  product tankers are contaminated
with product materials which are the crude feedstock  in  use  at
the  refinery,  ranging  from  water  soluble alcohol to residual
fuels.  In addition to the oil products  contamination,  brackish
water  and  sediments  are  present,  contributing  high  COD and
dissolved solids loadings  to  the  refinery  wastewater.   These
wastewaters  are  generally  discharged to either a ballast water
tank or holding ponds  at  the  refinery.   In  many  cases,  the
ballast  water is discharged directly to the wastewater treatment
system,  and  potentially  constitutes  a  "shock"  load  to  the
treatment system.

li.  Crude Desalting.  Common to all types  of  desalting  are  an
emulsifier and settling tank.  Salts can be separated from oil by
either of two methods.  In the first method, water wash desalting
in  the  presence  of  chemicals  (specific  to the type of salts
present and the nature of the crude oil) is followed  by  heating
and  gravity  separation.   In  the  second  method,  water  wash
desalting is followed by water/oil separation under the influence
of a high  voltage  electrostatic  field  acting  to  agglomerate
dispersed   droplets.   In  either  case,  wastewater  containing
various removed impurities is discharged  to  the  waste  stream,
while  clean  desalted  crude oil flows from the upper portion of
the holding tank.  A  process  flow  schematic  of  electrostatic
desalting is shown in Figure II1-2.

Much of the bottom sediment and water (BS&W) content in crude oil
is  caused  by  the "load-on-top" procedure used on many tankers.
This procedure can result in one or more cargo  tanks  containing
mixtures  of  sea waters and crude oil, which cannot be separated
by decantation while at sea, and are consequently retained in the
crude oil storage at the refinery.  While much of the  water  and
sediment  are  removed  from  the  crude  oil  by settling during
storage,  a  significant  quantity  remains  to  be  removed   by
desalting prior to processing of the crude in the refinery.

The   continuous  wastewater  stream  from  a  desalter  contains
emulsified oil occasionally free oil, ammonia, phenol,  sulfides,
and suspended solids.  These pollutants produce a relatively high
BOD5, and COD.  This wastewater also contains enough chlorides and
other  dissolved  materials to contribute to the dissolved solids
problem in the areas where the wastewater is discharged to  fresh
water   bodies.   There  are  also  potential  thermal  pollution
problems because the  temperature  of  the  desalting  wastewater
often exceeds 95°C (200°F).
                               25

-------
4_._  Crude Oil Fractionation.   Fractionation serves as  the  basic
refining  process  for  the  separation  of  crude petroleum into
intermediate fractions of specified boiling  point  ranges.   The
several  alternative  subprocesses  include  prefractionation and
atmospheric fractionation, vacuum fractionation, and  three-stage
crude distillation.

Prefractionation   and   Atmospheric   Distillation  (Topping  or
Skimming)

Prefractionation is an optional distillation process to  separate
economical  quantities  of  very light distillates from the crude
oil.  Lower temperature and higher pressure conditions  are  used
than would be required in atmospheric distillation.  Some process
water  can be carried over to the prefractionation tower from the
desalting process.

Atmospheric distillation breaks the heated crude oil as follows:

1.  Light overhead products (C5 and lighter) as in  the  case  of
    prefractionation.

2.  Sidestream distillate cuts of kerosene, heating and  gas  oil
    can  be separated in a single tower or in a series of topping
    towers, each tower yielding a  successively  heavier  product
    stream.

3.  Residual or reduced crude oil.

Vacuum Fractionation

The asphaltic residuum from atmospheric distillation  amounts  to
roughly  one-third  (U.S.  average)  of  the crude charged.  This
material is sent to vacuum stills, which recover additional heavy
gas oil and deasphalting feedstock from the bottoms residue.

Three-Stage Crude Distillation

Three-stage crude distillation, representing  only  one  of  many
possible  combinations  of  equipment,  is shown schematically in
Figure II1-3.  The process consists of:

1.  An atmospheric fractioning stage which produces lighter oils;

2.  An initial vacuum stage which produces well-fractioned,  lube
    oil   base   stocks   plus  residue  for  subsequent  propane
    deasphalting; and

3.  A second vacuum stage which fractionates surplus  atmospheric
    bottoms  not  applicable  for  lube  production, plus surplus
    initial vacuum stage residuum not required  for  deasphalting.
    This stage adds the capability of removing  catalytic cracking
    stock from surplus bottoms to the distillation unit.
                               26

-------
Crude  oil  is first heated in a simple heat exchanger, then in a
direct-fired crude charge  heater.   Combined  liquid  and  vapor
effluent  flow  from  the heater to the atmospheric fractionating
tower,  where  the  vaporized  distillate  is  fractionated  into
gasoline  overhead  product and as many as four liquid sidestream
products: naphtha, kerosene, light and heavy diesel oil.  Part of
the reduced crude from the bottom of  the  atmospheric  tower  is
pumped   through   a  direct-fired  heater  to  the  vacuum  lube
fractionator.  Bottoms  are  combined  and  charged  to  a  third
direct-fired   heater.    In   the   tower,   the  distillate  is
subsequently condensed and withdrawn as two sidestrearns.  The two
sidestreams are combined to form catalytic  cracking  feedstocks,
with an asphalt base stock withdrawn from the tower bottom.

Wastewater  from  crude  oil  fractionation  generally comes from
three sources.  The first source is  the  water  drawn  off  from
overhead  accumulators  prior  to  recirculation  or  transfer of
hydrocarbons to other  fractionators.   This  waste  is  a  major
source  of  sulfides and ammonia, especially when sour crudes are
being processed.  It also contains significant  amounts  of  oil,
chlorides, mercaptans, and phenols.

A second waste source is discharge from oil sampling lines.  This
should be separable but may form emulsions in the sewer.

A  third  possible  waste source is the very stable oil emulsions
formed in the barometric condensers used to  create  the  reduced
pressures  in  the  vacuum  distillation  units.   However,  when
barometric condensers are replaced with surface  condensers,  oil
vapors do not come in contact with water; consequently, emulsions
do not develop.

1L.  Thermal Cracking.  This fundamental  process  is  defined  in
this  study to include visbreaking and coking, as well as regular
thermal cracking.  In each of these  operations,  heavy  gas  oil
fractions  (from  vacuum  stills)  are  broken  down  into  lower
molecular  weight  fractions  such  as  domestic  heating   oils,
catalytic  cracking  stock,  and  other fractions by heating, but
without  the  use  of  a  catalyst.   Typical  thermal   cracking
conditions  are 480° - 603°C, (900° - 1100°F) and 41.6 - 69.1 atm
(600-1000 psig).  The high pressures result from the formation of
light  hydrocarbons  in  the  cracking  reaction    (olefins,   or
unsaturated   compounds,  are  always  formed  in   this  chemical
conversion).  There is also a certain amount of  heavy  fuel  oil
and coke formed by polymerization and condensation  reactions.

The  major  source  of  wastewater  in  thermal  cracking   is the
overhead  accumulator  on  the  fractionator,  where   water   is
separated  from  the  hydrocarbon  vapor  and  sent  to the sewer
system.  This water usually contains various oils   and  fractions
and  may be high in BOD5,, COD, ammonia, phenol, and sulfides, and
may have a high alkalinity.
                               27

-------
6.  Catalytic  Cracking.   Catalytic   cracking,   like   thermal
cracking,  breaks  heavy  fractions,  principally  gas oils, into
lower molecular weight  fractions.   This  is  probably  the  key
process  in  the  production  of  large  volumes  of  high-octane
gasoline stocks; furnace oils and other useful  middle  molecular
weight  distillates  are  also  produced.   The  use  of catalyst
permits operations at lower temperatures and pressures than  with
thermal  cracking,  and  inhibits  the  formation  of undesirable
polymerized products.  Fluidized catalytic  processes,  in  which
the  finely powdered catalyst is handled as a fluid, have largely
replaced the fixed bed and moving  bed  processes,  which  use  a
beaded  or  pelleted catalyst.  A schematic flow diagram of fluid
catalytic cracking is shown in Figure III-4.

The process involves at least four types of reactions: 1) thermal
decomposition; 2) primary catalytic  reactions  at  the  catalyst
surface;  3)  secondary  catalytic  reactions between the primary
products; and 4) removal of polymerizable products  from  further
reactions by absorption onto the surface of the catalyst as coke.
This  last  reaction  is the key to catalytic cracking because it
permits decomposition reactions to move closer to completion than
is possible  in  simple  thermal  cracking.   Cracking  catalysts
include   synthetic   and/or   natural   silica-alumina,  treated
bentonite clay,  Fuller's  earth,  aluminum  hydrosilicates,  and
bauxite.   These catalysts are in the form of beads, pellets, and
powder, and are used in either a fixed, moving, or fluidized bed.
The catalyst is usually heated and lifted into the  reactor  area
by the incoming oil feed which, in turn, is immediately vaporized
upon  contact.   Vapors  from  the reactors pass upward through a
cyclone separator which removes most of the  entrained  catalyst.
These  vapors  then  enter  the  fractionator,  where the desired
products are  removed  and  heavier  fractions  recycled  to  the
reactor.

Catalytic  cracking  units are one of the largest sources of sour
and  phenolic  wastewaters  in  a  refinery.    Pollutants   from
catalytic  cracking  generally  come from the steam strippers and
overhead accumulators  on  fractionators,  used  to  recover  and
separate  the  various  hydrocarbon  fractions  produced  in  the
catalytic reactors.

The major pollutants resulting from catalytic cracking operations
are  oil,  sulfides,  phenols,  cyanides,  and  ammonia.    These
pollutants  produce an alkaline wastewater with high BOD5_ and COD
concentrations.   Sulfide  and  phenol  concentrations   in   the
wastewater  vary  with the type of crude oil being processed, but
at times are significant.  Regeneration  of  spent  catalyst  may
produce  enough  carbon monoxide and catalyst fines to constitute
an air pollution problem.
                               28

-------
7_.  Hydrocrackinq.  This process is basically catalytic  cracking
in  the  presence of hydrogen, with lower temperatures and higher
pressures   than   fluid   catalytic   cracking.    Hydrocracking
temperatures  range  from  203°  -  425°C  (400°  - 800°F), while
pressures range from 7.8 - 137.0 atm (100 to 2000 psig).   Actual
conditions  and  hydrogen  consumption depend upon the feedstock,
and the degree of hydrogenation required.  The  molecular  weight
distribution  of  the  products is similar to catalytic cracking,
but with the reduced formation of olefins.

At least one wastewater stream from the process should be high in
sulfides, since hydrocracking reduces the sulfur content  of  the
material  being  cracked.   Most  of  the sulfides are in the gas
products which are sent to a treating  unit  for  removal  and/or
recovery  of  sulfur and ammonia.  However, in product separation
and fractionation units following the hydrocracking reactor, some
of the H2S will dissolve in the wastewater being collected.  This
water from the separator and fractionator will probably  be  high
in  sulfides,  and  possibly  contain  significant  quantities of
phenols and ammonia.

8_._  Polymerization.  Polymerization units  are  used  to  convert
olefin   feedstocks  (primarily  propylene)  into  higher  octane
polymer units.  These units generally consist of a feed treatment
unit (remove H2S, mercaptans, nitrogen  compounds),  a  catalytic
reactor,   an  acid  removal  section, and a gas stabilizer.  The
catalyst is usually phosphoric acid, although  sulfuric  acid  is
used  in  some  older  methods.  The catalytic reaction occurs at
147° - 224°C (300° - 435°F), and a pressure of 11.2 -  137.0  atm
(150  -  2000  psig).  The temperature and pressure vary with the
individual subprocess used.

Polymerization is a rather dirty process in terms  of  pounds  of
pollutants  per  barrel  of  charge,  but  because  of  the small
polymerization capacity  in  most  refineries,  the  total  waste
production  from  the  process is small.  Even though the process
makes use of  acid  catalysts,  the  waste  stream  is  alkaline,
because  the  acid catalyst in most subprocesses is recycled, and
any remaining acid is removed by caustic washing.   Most  of  the
waste  material  comes  from the pretreatment of feedstock to the
reactor.  The wastewater is high  in  sulfides,  mercaptans,  and
ammonia.   These  materials  are  removed  from  the feedstock in
caustic acid.

9.  Alkvlation.  Alkylation is the  reaction  of  an  isoparaffin
Tusually isobutane) and an olefin (propylene, butylene, amylenes)
in   the   presence   of   a  catalyst  at  carefully  controlled
temperatures and pressures to produce a high octane alkylate  for
use  as  a  gasoline  blending component.  Propane and butane are
also produced.  Sulfuric acid is the most widely  used  catalyst,
although  hydrofluoric  acid  is also used.  The reactor products
are separated  in  a  catalyst  recovery  unit,  from  which  the
                               29

-------
catalyst is recycled.  The hydrocarbon stream is passed through a
caustic and water wash before going to the fractionation section.

The  major discharges from sulfuric acid alkylation are the spent
caustics from the neutralization of hydrocarbon  streams  leaving
the  sulfuric acid alkylation reactor.  These wastewaters contain
dissolved  and  suspended  solids,  sulfides,  oils,  and   other
contaminants.   Water  drawn  off  from the overhead accumulators
contains  varying   amounts   of   oil,   sulfides,   and   other
contaminants,  but  is  not  a  major  source  of  waste  in this
subprocess.  Most refineries  process  the  waste  sulfuric  acid
stream  from  the  reactor  to  recover  clean  acids, use it for
neutralization of other waste streams, or sell it.

Hydrofluoric acid alkylation units have small acid rerun units to
purify the acid for reuse.  HF units do not have a spent acid  or
spent  caustic  waste  stream.   Any leaks or spills that involve
loss of fluorides constitute a serious  and  difficult  pollution
problem.   Formation  of fluorosilicates has caused line plugging
and similar problems.  The major sources of  waste  material  are
the overhead accumulators on the fractionator.

10.  Isomerization.   Isomerization  is  a  process technique for
obtaining higher octane motor fuel by converting  light  gasoline
stocks   into   their   higher   octane  isomers.   The  greatest
application has been, indirectly, in the conversion of  isobutane
from  normal  butane  for  use  as  feedstock  for the alkylation
process.  In a typical subprocess, the desulfurized feedstock  is
first   fractionated   to   separate   isoparaffins  from  normal
paraffins.  The normal paraffins are then heated, compressed, and
passed  through  the  catalytic   hydrogenation   reactor   which
isomerizes  the  n-paraffin to its respective high octane isomer.
After  separation  of  hydrogen,  the  liquids  are  sent  to    a
stabilizer,  where motor fuel blending stock or synthetic isomers
are removed as products.

Isomerization wastewaters present no  major  pollutant  discharge
problems.   Sulfides  and ammonia are not likely to be present in
the effluent.  Isomerization wastewaters should also  be  low  in
phenolics and oxygen demand.

11.  Reforming.   Reforming  converts  low  octane naphtha, heavy
gasoline, and  napthene-rich  stocks   to  high  octane  gasoline
blending  stock,  aromatics for petrochemical use, and isobutane.
Hydrogen  is a significant by-product of the  process.   Reforming
is  a  mild  decomposing  process, since some reduction occurs in
molecular size and boiling range of  the  feedstock.   Feedstocks
are  usually  hydrotreated for the removal of sulfur and nitrogen
compounds prior to charging to the reformer, since  the  platinum
catalysts widely used are readily poisoned.

The  predominant reaction during  reforming is the dehydrogenation
of   naphthenes.     Important   secondary    reactions   are    the
                              30

-------
isomerization  and  dehydrocyclization  of  paraffins.  All three
reactions result in high octane products.

One subprocess may be  divided  into  three  parts:  the  reactor
heater  section,  in  which the charge plus recycle gas is heated
and passed over the  catalyst  in  a  series  of  reactions;  the
separator  drum,  in which the reactor- effluent is separated into
gas and liquid streams, the gas being compressed for recycle; and
the  stabilizer  section,  in  which  the  separated  liquid   is
stabilized  to  the  desired  vapor  pressure.   There  are  many
variations in subprocesses, but the essential and frequently  the
only difference is the composition of the catalyst involved.

Reforming   is   a  relatively  clean  process.   The  volume  of
wastewater flow is small, and none of the wastewater streams have
high concentrations of significant pollutants.  The wastewater is
alkaline, and the major pollutant is sulfide  from  the  overhead
accumulator   on   the  stripping  tower  used  to  remove  light
hydrocarbon fractions from the reactor  effluent.   The  overhead
accumulator  catches  any  water  that  may  be  contained in the
hydrocarbon vapors.  In  addition  to  sulfides,  the  wastewater
contains small amounts of ammonia, mercaptans, and oil.

12.  Solvent  Refining.   Refineries  employ  a  wide spectrum of
contact  solvent  processes,  which  are   dependent   upon   the
differential   solubilities  of  the  desirable  and  undesirable
feedstock components.  The principal steps  are:  counter-current
extraction,  separation  of  solvent  and  product by heating and
fractionation,  and  solvent  recovery.    Napthenics,  aromatics,
unsaturated   hydrocarbons,   sulfur  and  other  inorganics  are
separated,  with  the  solvent  extract  yielding   high   purity
products.   Many  of  the  solvent  processes may produce process
wastewaters which contain small amounts of the solvents employed.
However, these are usually minimized   because  of  the  economic
incentives for reuse of the solvents.

Solvent Deasphalting

The primary purpose of solvent deasphalting is to recover lube or
catalytic  cracking  feedstocks  from  asphaltic  residuals, with
asphalt as a by-product.  Propane deasphalting is the predominant
technique.  The vacuum fractionation residual is mixed in a fixed
proportion with a solvent in which asphalt is not  soluble.   The
solvent  is  recovered  from  the  oil  via  steam  stripping and
fractionation, and is  reused.   The  asphalt  produced  by  this
method  is  normally  blended  into  fuel  oil or other asphaltic
residuals.

Solvent Dewaxing

Solvent drawing  removes  wax  from  lubricating  oil  stocks  by
promoting  crystallization  of  the wax.  Solvents which are used
include: furfural, phenol, cresylic  acid  -  propane  (Duo-Sol),
                              31

-------
liquid  sulfur  dioxide  (Eleleanu  process), B-B - dichloroethyl
ether, methyl ethyl  ketone,   nitrobenzene,  and  sulfur-benzene.
The  process  yields  deoiled  waxes/  wax-free lubricating oils/
aromatics, and recovered solvents.

Lube Oil Solvent Refining

This process includes a collection of subprocesses for  improving
the  quality  of lubricating oil stock.  The raffinate or refined
lube oils obtain  improved  temperature/  viscosity,  color,  and
oxidation  resistance  characteristics.   A particular solvent is
selected to obtain the desired quality raffinate.   The  solvents
include: furfural, phenol, sulfur dioxide/ and propane.

Aromatic Extraction

Benzene,  toluene,  and xylene (BTX) are formed as by-products in
the reforming process.  The reformed products are fractionated to
give a BTX concentrate cut/ which, in turn, is extracted from the
napthalene and the paraffinics with a glycol base solvent.

Butadiene Extraction

Approximately 15 percent of  the  U.S.  supply  of  butadiene  is
extracted  from  the  C4 cuts from the high temperature petroleum
cracking processes.  Furfural or cuprous ammonia acetate (CAA) is
commonly used for the solvent extraction.

The major potential pollutants from the various solvent  refining
subprocecses  are the solvents themselves.  Many of the solvents/
such as phenol/ glycol, and amines,  can  produce  a  high  BOD5..
Under  ideal conditions the solvents are continually recirculated
with no losses to the  sewer.   Unfortunately,  some  solvent  is
always  lost through pump seals, flange leaks, and other sources.
The main source of wastewater is from the bottom of fractionation
towers.  Oil and solvent are the major wastewater constituents.

13. Hvdrotreatino.  Hydrotreating processes are used to  saturate
olefins, and to remove sulfur and nitrogen compounds, odor, color
and  gum-forming materials, and others by catalytic action  in the
presence  of  hydrogen,  from  either  straight-run  or   cracked
petroleum  fractions.   In  most  subprocesses/  the feedstock is
mixed  with  hydrogen,  heated,  and  charged  to  the  catalytic
reactor.   The  reactor  products  are  cooled, and the hydrogen,
impurities and  high  grade  product  separated.   The  principal
difference  between  the  many  subprocesses is the catalyst; the
process flow is similar for essentially all subprocesses.

Hydrotreating processes are used to reduce the sulfur content  of
product  streams  from sour crudes by approximately 90 percent or
more.   Nitrogen   removal   requires   more   severe   operating
conditions,  but generally 80 - 90 percent, or better, reductions
are accomplished.
                               32

-------
The primary  variables  influencing  hydrotreating  are  hydrogen
partial  pressure,  process  temperature/  and  contact time.  An
increase  in  hydrogen  pressure  gives  a  better   removal   of
undesirable   materials  and  a  better  rate  of  hydrogenation.
Make-up  hydrogen  requirements  are  generally  high  enough  to
require  a  hydrogen  production  unit.   Excessive  temperatures
increase the formation of coke, and the contact time  is  set  to
give  adequate  treatment without excessive hydrogen usage and/or
undue coke formation.  For the various  hydrotreating  processes,
the  pressures  range  from  7.8  - 205.1 atm (100 to 3000 psig).
Temperatures range from less than 177«C (350°F)  to  as  high  as
450°C  (850°F),  with  most processing done in the range of 314°C
(600°F) to 427°C  (800°F).  Hydrogen consumption is  usually  less
than 5.67 M3_ (200 scf) per barrel of charge.

Principal hydrotreating subprocesses are used as follows:

1.  Pretreatment of catalytic reformer feedstock;
2.  Naphtha desulfurization;
3.  Lube oil polishing;
4.  Pretreatment of catalytic cracking feedstock;
5.  Heavy gas-oil and residual desulfurization; and
6.  Naphtha saturation.

The   strength   and   quantity   of   wastewaters  generated  by
hydrotreating depends upon the  subprocess  used  and  feedstock.
Ammonia  and  sulfides  are the primary contaminants, but phenols
may  also  be  present   if  the  feedstock  boiling   range   is
sufficiently high.

14. Grease Manufacturing.  Grease manufacturing processes require
accurate  weight  or  volumetric measurements of feed components,
intimate  mixing,  rapid  heating  and  cooling,  together   with
milling,  dehydration and polishing in batch reactions.  The feed
components include soap and petroleum oils  with inorganic  clays
and other additives.

Grease  is primarily a soap and lube oil mixture.  The properties
of grease are determined in large part by the properties  of  the
soap  component.   For example, sodium metal base soaps are water
soluble and would then not be suitable for water contact service.
A calcium soap grease can be used in water service.  The soap may
be purchased as a raw material or may be manufactured on site  as
an auxiliary process.

Only  very  small  volumes  of  wastewater  are discharged from  a
grease manufacturing process.  A small amount of oil is  lost  to
the  wastewater system through leaks in pumps.  The largest waste
loading occurs when the batch units are washed, resulting in soap
and oil discharges to the sewer system.
                               33

-------
15. Asphalt Production.  Asphaltic feedstock (flux) is  contacted
with  hot  air  at  203°C  (400°F)  to  280°C  (550°F)  to obtain
desirable asphalt product.  Both batch and  continuous  processes
are  in  operation  at  present,  but  the  batch process is more
prevalent because of its versatility.   Nonrecoverable  catalytic
compounds   include:   copper   sulfate,  zinc  chloride,  ferric
chloride, aluminum chloride,  phosphorous pentoxide,  and  others.
The  catalyst  will  not  normally  contaminate the process water
effluent.

Wastewaters from asphalt blowing contain high  concentrations  of
oils  and  have  high oxygen demand.  Small quantities of phenols
may also be present.

16. Drying and Sweetening.  Drying and sweetening is a relatively
broad process category primarily used to remove sulfur compounds,
water and other impurities from gasoline,  kerosene,  jet  fuels,
domestic  heating  oils,  and  other  middle distillate products.
"Sweetening"  pertains  to  the  removal  of  hydrogen   sulfide,
mercaptans, and thiophenes, which impart a foul odor and decrease
the  tetra-ethyl  lead  susceptibility  of  gasoline.   The major
sweetening operations are oxidation of mercaptans or  disulfides,
removal  of mercaptans, and destruction and removal of all sulfur
compounds.  Drying is accomplished by salt filters or  absorptive
clay  beds.   Electric  fields  are  sometimes used to facilitate
separation of the product.

The  most  common  waste  stream  from  drying   and   sweetening
operations  is spent caustic.  The spent caustic is characterized
as phenolic or sulfidic, depending on which  is  present  in  the
largest  concentration.   Whether  the  spent caustic is actually
phenolic or sulfidic is mainly determined by the  product  stream
being  treated.  Phenolic spent caustics contain phenol, cresols,
xylenols, sulfur compounds  and  neutral  oils.   Sulfidic  spent
caustics  are  rich  in sulfides, but do hot contain any phenols.
These spent caustics have very high BOD5. and COD.   The  phenolic
caustic  streams  are  usually  sold for the recovery of phenolic
materials.

Other waste streams from the process result from water washing of
the treated product and regeneration  of  the  treating  solution
such  as  sodium  plumbite Na2 Pb02) in doctor sweetening.  These
waste streams will contain small amounts of oil and the  treating
material, such as sodium plumbite (or copper from copper chloride
sweetening).

The treating of sour gases produces a purified gas stream, and an
acid  gas  stream  rich in hydrogen sulfide.  The H2S rich stream
can be flared, burned as  fuel,  or  processed  for  recovery  of
elemental sulfur.
                               34

-------
17.  Lube  Oil  Finishing.   Solvent refined and dewaxed lube oil
stocks can be further refined by clay or acid treatment to remove
color-forming  and  other  undesirable   materials.    Continuous
contact filtration, in which an oil-clay slurry is heated and the
oil  removed  by  vacuum  filtration,  is  the  most  widely used
subprocess.

Acid treatment of lubricating oils produces acid  bearing  wastes
occuring  as rinse waters, sludges, and discharges from sampling,
leaks, and  shutdowns.   The  waste  streams  are  also  high  in
dissolved  and suspended solids, sulfates, sulfonates, and stable
oil emulsions.

Handling of acid sludge can  create  additional  problems.   Some
refineries  burn  the  acid  sludge  as fuel.  Burning the sludge
produces large volumes of  sulfur  dioxide  that  can  cause  air
pollution  problems.  Other refineries neutralize the sludge with
alkaline wastes and discharge it to the sewer, resulting in  both
organic  and inorganic pollution.  The best method of disposal is
probably processing to recover the sulfuric acid, but  this  also
produces  a  wastewater stream containing acid, sulfur compounds,
and emulsified oil.

Clay treatment results in only  small  quantities  of  wastewater
being  discharged  to  the sewer.  Clay, free oil, and emulsified
oil are the major waste constituents.  However, the operation  of
clay  recovery kilns involves potential air pollution problems of
hydrocarbon and particulate emissions.  Spent clays  usually  are
disposed of by landfill.

18.  Blending  and  Packaging.   Blending  is  the  final step in
producing   finished   petroleum   products   to   meet   quality
specifications  and market demands.  The largest volume operation
is the blending of various gasoline stocks  (including  alkylates
and  other  high-octane  components)  and anti-knock  (tetra-ethyl
lead), anti-rust, anti-icing, and other additives.  Diesel fuels,
lube oils, and  waxes  involve  blending  of  various  components
and/or  additives.   Packaging  at refineries is generally highly
automated  and  restricted  to  high  volume,  consumer  oriented
products such as motor oils.

These  are  relatively  clean  processes because care is taken to
avoid loss of product through spillage.  The  primary  source  of
waste  material  is  from  the  washing  of railroad tank cars or
tankers prior to loading finished products.   These  wash  waters
are high in emulsified oil.

Tetra-ethyl lead is the major additive blended into gasolines and
it  must  be  carefully  handled  because  of  its liigh toxicity.
Sludges from finished gasoline storage tanks  can  contain  large
amounts  of  lead  and  should  not be washed into the wastewater
system.
                               35

-------
19. Hydrogen Manufacture.   The rapid growth of hydrotreating  and
hydrocracking  has  increased  the demand for hydrogen beyond the
level of by-product hydrogen available from reforming  and  other
refinery  processes.   The  most  widely  used  process  for  the
manufacture of hydrogen in the refinery is steam reforming, which
utilizes refinery  gases  as  a  charge  stock.   The  charge  is
purified  to  remove  sulfur  compounds  that  would  temporarily
deactivate the catalysts.

The desulfurized feedstock is mixed with  superheated  steam  and
charged   to   the   hydrogen  furnace.   On  the  catalyst/  the
hydrocarbons are converted  to  hydrogen,  carbon  monoxide,  and
carbon dioxide.  The furnace supplies the heat needed to maintain
the reaction temperature.

The  gases  from  the  furnace  are  cooled  by  the  addition of
condensate  and  steam,  and  then  passed  through  a  converter
containing  a high or low temperature shift catalyst depending on
the degree of carbon monoxide conversion desired.  Carbon dioxide
and hydrogen are produced by the reaction of  the  monoxide  with
steam.

The  gas  mixture  from  the  converter is cooled and passed to a
hydrogen purifying system where carbon dioxide is  absorbed  into
amine solutions and later driven off to the atmosphere by heating
the rich amine solution in  the reactivator.

Since  some refining processes require a minimum of carbon oxides
in the product gas, the oxides are reacted  with  hydrogen  in  a
methanation  step.   This  reaction takes place in the methanator
over a nickel catalyst at elevated temperatures.

Hydrocarbon impurities in the product hydrogen  usually  are  not
detrimental  to  the  processes where this hydrogen will be used.
Thus, a small amount of hydrocarbon is tolerable in the  effluent
gas.

Information concerning wastes from this process is not available.
However,  the  process  appears to be a relatively clean one.  In
the steam reforming subprocess a potential waste  source   is  the
desulfurization  unit,  which  is required for feedstock that has
not already been desulfurized.  This waste stream  would   contain
oil,  sulfur  compounds,  and  phenol.   In the partial oxidation
subprocess free carbon  is  removed  by  a  water  wash.   Carbon
dioxide  is discharged to the atmosphere at several points  in the
subprocess.

20. Utilities Function.  Utility functions such as the supply  of
steam  and  cooling water generally are set up to service  several
processes.  Boiler  feed water is prepared and steam  is  generated
in  a  single  boiler  house.  Non-contact steam used for  surface
heating is circulated  through  a  closed  loop,  whereby   varying
quantities  are  made  available for the specific requirements of
                               36

-------
the  different  processes.   The  condensate  is  nearly   always
recycled  to  the  boiler  house,  where  a  certain  portion  is
discharged as blowdown.

The three major uses of steam generated within a  refinery  plant
are:

1.  For noncontact process heating.   In  this  application,  the
    steam  is  normally generated at pressures of 9.5 to 45.2 atm
    (125 to 650 psig);

2.  For power  generation  such  as  in  steam  driven  turbines/
    compressors,  and pumps associated with the process.  In this
    application, the steam is normally generated at pressures  of
    45.2 to 103 atm (650 to 1500 psig) and requires superheating;
    and

3.  For use as a diluent, stripping medium, or source  of  vacuum
    through  the  use of steam jet ejectors.  This steam actually
    contacts the hydrocarbons in the manufacturing processes  and
    is a source of contact process wastewater when condensed.  It
    is  used at a substantially lower pressure than the foregoing
    and frequently is exhaust steam from one of the other uses.

Steam is supplied to the different  users  throughout  the  plant
either  by natural circulation, vapor phase systems, or by forced
circulation liquid heat transfer systems.  Both types of  systems
discharge some condensate as blowdown and require the addition of
boiler  makeup  water.  The main areas of consideration in boiler
operation are  normally  boiler  efficiency,  internal  deposits,
corrosion, and the required steam quality.

Boiler  efficiency  is  dependent  on  many  factors.  One is the
elimination  of  boiler  -  tube  deposition  that  impedes  heat
transfer.   The main contributors to boiler deposits are calcium,
magnesium, silicon, iron, copper, and aluminum.  Any of these can
occur in natural waters, and  some  can  result  from  condensate
return  line  corrosion  or  even from makeup water pretreatment.
Modern industrial boilers are designed with efficiencies  on  the
order  of  80  percent.  A deposit of 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in depth
will cause a 2-3 percent drop in this  efficiency,  depending  on
the type of deposit.

The quantity and quality of the blowdown from boilers and cooling
towers  depend  on  the  design  of  the particular plant utility
system.  The heat content of these streams is purely  a  function
of  the  heat  recovery  equipment  associated  with  the utility
system.  The amounts of waste brine and sludge  produced  by  ion
exchange  and  water  treatment systems depends on both the plant
water use function and the intake source.  None of these  utility
waste streams can be related directly to specific process units.
                               37

-------
Quantitative  limitations on parameters such as dissolved solids,
hardness,  alkalinity,  and  temperature,  therefore,  cannot  be
allocated  on  a  production  basis.   The  limitations  on  such
parameters associated with noncontact utility effluents should be
established on the basis of the water  quality  criteria  of  the
specific  receiving water body or an EPA study of all industries,
to define specific utility effluent limitations.

Noncontact cooling water also is  normally  supplied  to  several
processes  from  the utilities area.  The system is either a loop
which utilizes one or  more  evaporative  cooling  towers,  or  a
once-through system with direct discharge.

Cooling  towers  accomplish  the cooling of water circulated over
the tower by moving a predetermined flow of ambient  air  through
the  tower with large fans.  The air water contact causes a small
amount of the water to be evaporated by the air.   Thus,  through
latent  heat  transfer,  the remainder of the circulated water is
cooled.

Approximately 252 kg cal (1,000 BTU) are removed from  the  total
water circulation by the evaporation of 0.454 kg (1 Ib) of water.
Therefore,  if  45.4  kg (100 Ibs) of water are introduced at the
tower inlet and 0.454 kg (1 Ib) is evaporated to the moving  air,
the remaining 44.9 kg (99 Ibs) of water are reduced in total heat
content  by  252  kg  cal (1,000 BTU), of water leaving the tower
have been cooled 3.24°C/kg/kg cal (l°F/lb/BTU) removed,  and  the
exit  temperature  is  reduced by about 5.5°C (10°F).  The common
rule of thumb is 1 percent evaporation loss for each 5.5°C (10°F)
cooling.

Since cooling is primarily by transfer of  latent  heat,  cooling
tower selection is based on the total heat content or enthalpy of
the  entering  air.   At any one enthalpy condition, the wet bulb
temperture is constant.  Therefore, cooling towers  are  selected
and  guaranteed  to  cool  a  specific  volume  of  water  from  a
hot-water temperature to a cold water temperature while operating
at a design wet bulb temperature.  Design wet  bulb  temperatures
vary  from  15.6  °C  (60°F)  to  35°C   (85<>F)  depending  on the
geographic area, and are usually equaled  or  exceeded  only  2.5
percent  to 5 percent of the total summer operating time.

Hot  water  temperature  minus  cold  water temperature is termed
cooling  range, and the difference between cold water and wet bulb
temperature is called approach.

A  closed  system  is  normally   used   when   converting   from
once-through  river  cooling  of  plant processes.   In the closed
system,  a cooling tower is used for cooling  all  the  hot  water
from  the  processes.   With  the  closed system, makeup water  is
required to replace evaporation loss at  the tower.
                               38

-------
Two other types of water losses also occur.  The first is  drift,
which  is droplet carryover in the air as contrasted to evaporate
loss.  The cooling tower industry has  a  standardized  guarantee
that  drift  loss  will  not  exceed  0.2  percent  of  the water
circulated.  The second loss in the closed system is blowdown  to
sewer  or  river.  Although blowdown is usually taken off the hot
water line, it may be removed from the cold water stream in order
to comply with any regulations  that  limit  the  temperature  of
water  returned to the stream.  Blowdown from a tower system will
vary depending on the solids concentration in the  makeup  water,
and on the occurrence of solids that may be harmful to equipment.
Generally, blowdown will be about 0.3 percent per 5.5°C (10°F) of
cooling,  in  order  to  maintain  a  solids concentration in the
recirculated water of three to four  times  that  of  the  makeup
water.

Internal  boiler  water treatment methods have advanced to such a
stage that corrosion in the steam  generation  equipment  can  be
virtually  eliminated.   The  control of caustic embrittlement in
boiler tubes and drums is accomplished through  the  addition  of
sodium nitrate in the correct ratio to boiler water alkalinity.

Caustic  corrosion  in  high  heat  transfer  boilers can also be
controlled by the addition of chelating  agents.   This  type  of
solubilizing internal boiler water treatment has been shown to be
more   effective  than  previous  precipitation  treatment  using
phosphate.

Other factors influencing boiler efficiency include reduction  of
the   amount   of   boiler   blowdown  by  increasing  cycles  of
concentration of the boiler feedwater, efficiency of the blowdown
heat recovery equipment, and the type of feed used.

Steam purity is of prime importance if:

1.  The boilers are equipped with superheaters;

2.  The boilers supply power generation equipment;

3.  The steam is used directly in a process  where  contamination
    could  affect  product quality or destroy some material (such
    as a catalyst) essential to the manufacture of the product.

The minimum purity required for contact steam (or contact process
water) varies from process to  process.   Acceptable  amounts  of
suspended  solids,  total  solids,  and alkalinity vary inversely
with the steam pressure.   The  following  tabulation  summarizes
boiler  water concentration limits for a system providing a steam
purity of 0.5 - 1.0 ppm total solids, which is required for  most
noncontact  steam  uses.  Boiler operation generally requires the
use of antifoam agents and steam separation equipment.
                               39

-------
               Boiler Water Concentration Limits



     Parameter       	Boiler Pressure/ atm.	

                     	    21.5-31.6    31.7-41.8    41.9-52.0

Total Solids
  (rag/L)             6,000     5,000        4,000        2,500
Suspended Solids
  (mg/L)             1,000       200           100            50

Total Alkalinity
  (mg/L)             1,000       900           800          750
Water conditioning  or  pretreatment systems  are  normally part of
the  utilities  section  of  most  plants.    From  the  previous
discussions,  it  is  obvious  that  the  required  treatment  may be
quite extensive.   Ion  exchange demineralization systems are very
widely  employed,  not  only  for  conditioning  water   for  high
pressure  boilers,  but  also  for  conditioning  various process
waters.  Clarification  is  also widely practiced and usually pre-
cedes the ion exchange operation.
                              40

-------
                           TABLE III-l


               INTERMEDIATE AND FINISHED PRODUCTS
           PRODUCED BY THE PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY

                            SIC 2911
Acid Oil
Alkylates
Aromatic Chemicals
Asphalt and Asphaltic Materials  (Semi-Solid and Solid)
Benzene
Benzol
Butadiene
Coke (Petroleum)
Fuel Oils (Distillate and Residual)
Gas (Refinery or Still Oil)
Gases (LPG)
Gasoline (except Natural Gasoline)
Greases (Petroleum, Lubricative, Mineral Jelly, etc.)
Jet Fuels
Kerosene
Mineral Oils (Natural)
Mineral Waxes (Natural)
Naphtha
Naphthenic Acids
Oils (Partly Refined)
Paraffin Wax
Petroleums (Nonmedicinal)
Road Oils
Solvents
Tar or Residuum
                                 41

-------
                                                                                                                        TABLE II1-2

                                                                                 REFINING CAPACITY Of PE1ROLEUH REFINERIES IN THE U.S. BY StATE OS OF JANUARY  1. 1981 (167)
PO
Charge capscity, b/sd
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Deleware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nsw Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Tex aa
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Nest Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyo.lng
TOTAL
NOTES.
No. - Crude
plants • /ad
6
4
1
4
43
1
2
2
2
11
a
11
4
33
2
5
3
a
i
6
i
t
i
5
7
3
1
3
7
12
1
9
1
59
8
1
7
2
1
13
303
24,039
21,526
1,033
10,675
404,303
10,254
23,846
7,076
5,087
19,955
202,544
103,203
77,090
40,219
411,344
4,886
21,931
35,753
62,827
17,646
25,753
979
715
2,715
113,326
19,266
23,159
1,936
10,842
97,926
93,519
2,510
124,458
7,869
866,619
27,449
8,743
65,157
3,672
7,440
34,590
3,079,333
Capacity -
b/ad
151,218
135,410
6,500
67,150
2,769,725
64,500
130,000
44,513
32,000
125,526
1,274,104
649,200
484,933
253,000
2,587,555
30,736
137,594
224,905
395,214
111,000
162,000
6,160
4,500
13,684
712,878
121,190
145,684
12,495
68,200
616,000
588,281
15,789
782,900
49,500
5,451,461
172,668
55,000
409,867
23,100
46,800
217,589
19,370,529
Vacuue
dlstlllatln
31,500
3,000
26,100
1,188,100
27,500
90,700
a, ooo
28,000
429,499
285,500
143,710
118,000
874,542
14,300
26,000
121,000
158,300
40,000
51,100
2,400
3,000
347,952
21,900
43,000
208,500
194,763
16,000
332,850
12,000
1,804,904
45,500
29,000
164,015
10,875
20,500
74,650
6,996,660
Ihernal
i operations
459,683
3,300
44,000
133,600
23,000
50,000
4,000
215,633
23,000
7,000
13,500
10,000
35,944
1,500
1,100
27,400
77,866
394,588
8,500
15,000
38,000
13,444
1,600,058
- Cat cracking -
Fresh feed Recycle
	
15,000
549,000
7,000
62,000

22,000
449,110
212,000
177,550
70,000
876,677
43,000
85,500
72,200
42,000
50,100
2,400

231,444
18,200
42,000
26,000
205,500
206,700
216,300
30,000
1,555,565
54,000
28,000
94,833
9,700
77,477
5,531,256

5OO
60,200
500
15,000

88,640
12,700
46,150
21,000
56,983
6,100
7,900
6,860
12,000
14,700
500

46,333
5,620
12,900
5,200
43,300
32,400
23,300
12,000
273,899
11,660
5,000
28,999
1,000
19,233
870,577
Cat
reforming
23,500
10,000
10,000
578,738
19,000
42,000

12,000
319,677
123,700
121,400
49,000
461,713
34,400
34,600
95,400
16,000
44,200
750

79,944
25,750
23,000
12,500
170,700
127,222
232,900
9,300
1,175,109
23,200
9,500
112,722
6,400
10,000
37,094
4,051,419
Cat hydro-
cracking
7,500
331,722
20,000
66,500
3,200
82,200
68,000
4,900
81,000
5,000
55,000
139,666
1,100
46,000
911,788
Cat hydro-
refining
13,000
369,000
33,000
44,500
40,000
216,500
12,500
69,000
56,000
14,000
110,000
20,000
34,500
26,000
182,000
871,000
5,500
20,500
5,800
16,644
2,159,444
Cat hydro-
treating
38,000
10,000
15,300
834,866
20,200
110,000

15,500
582,753
223,660
175,400
100,500
602,910
39,700
78,800
53,450
61,500
97,550


325,043
31,050
39,500
13,500
172,500
158,277
331,600
29,500
2,150,597
33,600
26,500
172,165
7,800
10,000
63,394
6,625,115
Production capacity, b/ad
Alkyle- Aromatice-
tion isonsrlzstloi



4,500
95,644
8,000

4,500
107,098
30,000
50,400
11,000
162,188
7,500
14,400
14,400
5,000
10,200


17,133
2,940
2,000
2,800
36,800
47,733
43,900
3,600
251,698
11,150
25,333
1,700
7,950
979,567



10,500
3,595

1,500
7,300
21,200
3,400
18,500
36,500
6,000
4,600


28,000
7,000
500
10,900
16,305
9,900
254,220
3,750
2,900
1,500
448,070
n Lubes



3,950
21,570


5,600
8,900
5,400
5,000
30,600
6,500


7,500

2,100
9,800
27,700
97,522
6,600
1,830
240,572
Asphalt
26,500
6,000
8,250
62,100
3,300
17,500
1,300
53,000
55,400
23,000
33,500
56,100
11,300
6,650
49,000
10,400
14,450


96,000
3,100
10,500

31,800
24,600
11,500
30,000
3,500
62,800
4,700
6,500
13,500
14,016
774,266
Hydrogen
(MMcfd)
	
837.7
0.6
72.0
2.5
95.5
20.0
73.0
14.0
109.0
16.7




72.0
10.0
48.5
3)2.0
62.0
1.2
1,766.7
Coke
(t/d)

16,6)6
180
1,500
5,210
1,200
1,855
6,930
1,300
320
800
310


975

1,250
1,750
6,975
350
875
2,910
125
51 ,451
                  m /ad - cubic neter* per »trea»-dey
                  b/sd  - barrels per stream-day

-------
                          TABLE II1-3

            1980 Consumption of Petroleum Products

Products              1980 Consumption, Million Cubic Meters Per Day
                                   (Million Barrels Per Day)
Motor Gasoline                         1.05   (6.6)

Aviation Fuels                         0.17   (1.1)

Distillate Fuel Oil                    0.46   (2.9)

Residual Fuels                         0.40   (2.5)

All Other Products                     0.62   (3.9)

      Total Consumption                2.70  (17.0)


Source - DOE Monthly Energy Review
                               43

-------
                                 TABLE II1-4

              Sources of Supply for U.S. Petroleum Feedstocks
Source
Crude Oil Imports

Residual Fuel

Other Imports

Exports
Supply, Million Barrels Per Day
: Oil Production
•al Gas Liquids
irts
Imports


Sources 1
>ply
1980
8.6
1.6
5.2
.9 	
.7 	
(.5)
.5
17.0
1985 (Projected)
7.9
1.4
5.1
•^1 1
^s i • 1
(.1)
.4
15.8
     processing gain, stock change, etc.

    Sources - 1980 - DOE Monthly Energy Review
              1985 (Projected) - DOE Annual Report to Congress EIA/1980 - low
              price scenario
                                      44

-------
                           TABLE III-5                     Page 1 of 3





Characteristics of Crude Oils from Major Fields Around the World
Country
Abu Dhabi
Murban
Algeria
Hassi Mesaaoud
Canada
Alberta
Bonnie Glen
Golden Spike
Judy Creek
Pembina
Swan Hills
Saskatchewan
Midale
Weyburn
Indonesia
Minas
Iraq
Basrah Light
Libya
Brega
Mexico
Reform*
Maya
Norway
Ekofisk
Saudi Arabia
United States
Alaska
Cook Inlet
Prudhoe Bay
Arkansas
Soackover
Gravity. API
39.4
44.7

_
34 - 44
36 - 39
42 - 43
32 - 37
41

28-32
24 - 33
35.2
33.9

40.4

33.0
22.0

36.3
27 - 39
36
26.8

22.2
Sulfur, Percent
0.74
0.13

_
0.25
0.23
0.42
0.80

1.89
2.12
0.09
2.08

0.21

1.56
3.4

0.21
1.0 - 2.8
0.1
1.04

2.10
Nitrogen. Percent
_
—

_
—
__
—

-—
—
—
—

— •

_
-—

—

—
—

0.080
                          45

-------
                              TABLE II1-5
                                                               Page 2 of 3
California
   Elk Hills
   Huntingcon Beach
   Kern River
   Midway-Sunset
   San Ardo
   Wilmington
Colorado
   Rangely
Kansas
   Bernis Shutts
Louisiana
   Bayou Sale
   Caillou Is).
   Golden Meadow
   Grand Bay
   Lake Bar re
   Lake Washington
   West Bay
   Bay Harchand 81k. 2
   Main Pass Blk. 69
   South Pass Blk. 24
   South Pass Blk. 27
   Timballer Bay
   West Delta Blk. 30
Mississippi
   Baxtervill*
New Mexico
   Vacuum'
Oklahoma
   Golden Trend
Texas
   Anahuac
   Conroe
   Diamond M
   East Texas
   Hastings
   Hawkins
   Headlee
   Kelly Snyder
   Level land
   Midland Farms
   PanhandIe
   Seeliason
                         Gravity. API
22,5
22.6
12.6
22.6
11.1
22.1

34.8

34.6

36.2
35.4
37.6
35
40.4
28.2
32.1
20.2
30.6
32.3
35.6
34.4
27

17.1

35

42.1

33.2
37.6
45.4
39.4
31.0
26.8
51.1
38.6
31.1
39.6
40.4
41.3
                    Sulfur. Percent    Nitrogen. Percent
 0.68
 1.57
 1.19
 0.94
 2.25
 1.44
 0.56

 0.57

 0.16
 0.23
 0.18
 0.31
 0.14
 0.37
 0.27
 0.46
 0.25
 0.26
 a. 18
 0.33
 0.33

 2.71

 0.95

 0.11

 0.23
 0.15
 0.20
 0.32
 0.15
 2.19
<0.10
 0.29
 2.12
 0.13
 0.55
<0.10
0.472
0.048
0.604

0.913
0.073

0.162


0.040
0.02
0.146
0.071

0.098
0.068
0.069
0.081
0.09

0.111

0.075
0.041
0.02
0.076
0.083
0.066
0.136
0.080
 .067
0.014
                                46

-------
                                   TABLE  II1-5                     Page  3 of 3
                        Gravity, API       Sulfur, Percent    Nitrogen, Percent
  torn O'Connor               31.1                0.16                   0.03
  Wasson                     31.9                1.40                   0.47
  Webster                    29.3                0.21                   0.046
  Yates                      30.2                1.54                   0.150

Utah
  Aneth                      40.4                0.20                   0.059

Venezuela

  Boscan                     10.3                5.53                     —
  Tia Juana Medium           24.0                1.6                      —
  Lagomedio                  32.6                1.23                     —
                                       47

-------
00
                                                                        TABLE II1-6


                                                 Trend in Domestic Petroleum Refining from 1975 to 1981
                             Crude Capacity,  bbl/CD

                             Total Companies

                             Total Refineries

CD


city MOO Mbbl/CD
iclty <35 Mbbl/CD
1 >100 Mbbl/CD
(Fifty States)
January 1, 1975
14,737,139
140
263
46
144
8,762.400

January 1, 1981
18,119,160
190
316
53
181
11,043,400

Percent
Change
+23
+36
+20
+15
+26
+26
                             Refineries

                             Average Refinery Capacity,  bbl/CD                    56,035             57,339           +2
                              Sources:   DOE Annual Survey,  EIA  -  0111  (81)
                                        DOI Bureau of  Mines Annual  Survey  (1975)

-------
                                TABLE III- 7
                                                                  Page  1  of 6
        LIST OF PROCESSES IDENTIFIED FROM THE 1977 INDUSTRY SURVEY
                          BY EPA PROCESS NUMBER
                                                              Number of
                                                              Refineries
General Processes                           Units             Using Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
     Atmospheric Crude Distillation
     Crude Desalting
     Vacuum Crude Distillation
     Visbreaking
     Thermal Cracking
     Fluid Catalytic Cracking
     Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking
                       *'
     HF Alkylation }•{
     Hydrocracking '6| .
     Kydroprocessing I"'
     Catalytic Reforming
     Catalytic Polymerization
     Aromatic Petrochemicals Production
     Delay Coking *c'
     Fluid Coking
     Isomerization
     Asphalt Production ( .,
     Eliminated
     Eliminated
Lube Oil Processes
MBD
MBD
MBD
MBD
MBO
MBD
MBD
MBO
MBD
MBO
MBD
MBD
MBD
MBD
MBO
MBD
MBD
MBO
MBD
MBO
                                            MBD
21.  Hydrofining, Hydrofinishing, Lube
     Hydrofining CO
22.  White Oil Manufacture                  MBO
23.  Propane Dewaxing, Propane Deasphalting MBD
     Propane Fractioning, Propane Deresining
24.  Duo Sol, Solvent Treating, Solvent     MBD
     Extraction, Duotreating, Solvent
     Dewaxing, Solvent Oeasphalt
25.  Lube Vac Twr,  Oil Fractional on, Batch MBD
     Still (Naphtha Strip), Bright Stock
     Treating
26.  Centrifuge S Chilling                  MBD
27.  MEK Dewaxing,  Ketone Dewaxing,         MBO
     MEK-Toluene Dewaxing
28.  Oeoiling (Wax)                         MBD
29.  Naphthenic Lube Production             MBD
30.  S02 Extraction                         MBD
31.  See Other Processes                    MBO
32.  See Other Processes                    MBO
33.  See Other Processes                    MBD
34.  Wax Pressing                           MBD
35.  Wax Plant (with Neutral Separation)    MBD
36.  Furfural Extracting                    MBD
37.  Clay Contacting - Percolation          MBO
38.  Wax Sweating                           MBO
39.  Add Treat                             MBD
40.  Phenol Extraction                      MBD
246
191
163
 11
 18
118
 20
 59
 65
 38
122
166
 36
 37
 45
  6
 19
104
                         19

                          6
                         25

                         10


                         26
                                                                      4
                                                                     24

                                                                     11
                                                                     10
                                                                      3
                                                                      2
                                                                      2
                                                                     16
                                                                     19
                                                                      5
                                                                      6
                                                                     11
                                     49

-------
                             TABLE III -7                         Page  2  of 6

Treating and Finishing

41.  Bender Treating                        MBD                      33
42.  Petreco Locap Gasoline Sweetening      MBD                       2
43.  Asphalt Oxidizing (d)                  MBD                      49
44.  Caustic of KOH Treating, For example:   MBD                     162
     Caustic of KOH Treating for: HgS,
     Mercaptan, Cresyllc Add, Naphthenic
     Add, PWS MEA for COS Removal, etc.
45.  Water Wash                             MBD                      99
46.  Mercapflning, Pentane Mercapflning     MBD                       2
47.  Merox Treating (i.e., Liquid-Liquid    MBD                     114
     Extraction, Liquid-Liquid Sweetening,
     and Fixed Bed)
48.  C3 4 C4 Scrubbing, Glrbitol Treating   MBD                      46

49.  Llnde Process (Charge)                 MBD                       7
50.  Doctor Treating                        MBD                      17
51.  Sulfuric Add Treating                 MBD                      10
52.  Unlsol Treating                        MBD                       2
53.  SO- Treating  , ,                      MBD                       3
54.  HyoYotreatlng (b)                      MBD                      62
55.  Perco  (Copper Chloride), Copper Slurry MBD                      25
56.  Inhibitor Sweeting                     MBD                      44
57.  KCr                                    MBD                       1
58.  Clay Treating, Bauxite Treating        MBD                      93
59.  Hypochlorlte Sweetening                MBD                       4
60.  Salt Brightening or Drying             MBD                      87
61.  Sulfinol                               MBD                       3
62.  Unclassified Treating and Finishing    MBD                       9
     (Charge)

Petrochemicals

63.  Isobutane Production                   MBD                      16
64.  Carbon Black Feedstock Production      MBD                       4
65.  Heptene Production                     MBD                       2
66.  Sulfblane Process (Charge)             MBD                       5
67.  OxoAlcohol                             MBD.                       1
68.  Naphthalene Production                 MBO                       1
69.  Butadiene                              MBD                       3
70.  Aliphatics                             MBD                       8
71.  Cumene  (Charge)                        MBD                      10
72.  Paraxylene  (Charge)                    MBD                        7
73.  Xylene Fractionation  (Charge)          MBD                      11
74.  Polypropene, Polyisobutylene, Poly     MBO                       8
     Feed Preparation, Trimer-Tetramer
     Production
75. ' Phenol, Oxonation Additives  Mfg.,      MBD                       4
     Polystyrene Resin,  Lube Oil  Depressant
     Production
76.  Eliminated                             MBD
77.  Cresylic Acid                          MBD                        2
78.  Styrene Production                     MBD                        2
79.  Naphthenic  Acid                        MBD                        5
80.  Alpha  Olefins                          MLBD                       1
81.  Nitric Acid                            STD                        1
82.  Phtahalic Anhydride Production         MBD                        2
                                     50

-------
                             TABLE III -7                    Page  3  of  6

83.  Butyl Rubber                           MLBD                       1
84.  Polypropylene                          MBO                        2
85.  Cyclohexane Production                 MBD                        8
86.  Solvent Hydrotreater (b)               MBD                        7
87.  Hexane-Heptane Unit                    MBD                        1
88.  Unclassified Petrochemicals            MBD                        7

Other Processes

31.  Feed Preparation                       MBO                        1
32.  200°F Softening Point Unfluxed Asphalt MBD                        5
     (d)
33.  Compounding                            MBD                      29
89.  Asphalt Emulsifying W                MBD                      30
90.  Sulfur Recovery, Sulfur Production (') LTD                      82
91.  Hydrogen, Reformer Feed Prep, Steam    MBD                      37
     Methane Reformer, Partial Oxidation
     (Liquid Units) (9)
92.  Gas Plant (Liquid Units) (9)           MBO
93.  DEA Treating and Other Amlne Treating  MBD                      37
     Systems (Liquid Charge) (h)                                     59
94.  C02 Recovery, C02 Production           MLBD                       7
95.  Furfural                               MBD                        0
96.  Oubbs Pitch                            MBD                        1
97.  Solvent Decarbonizing                  MBO                        7
98.  HydrodemethylatlonW                  MBO                        5
99.  Catalyst Manufacture                   STD                        3
100. Gasoline Additives Production          MBO                        2
101. Linear Paraffins                       MBD                        1
102. Butadiene Concentration                MBD                        0
103. Nonene Production                      MBD                        4
104. Ammonia Plants Production(«)           MLBD                       6
500. Light Ends Recovery                    MBD                        7
501. M1sc. Fractionatlon and Distillation   MBD                      10
502. Incineration                           MLBH                       4
503. Sulfuric Acid Plant                    STD                        5
504. Sodium Hydrosulfide                    MBD                        1
505. Coke Calciner                          STD                        0
506. Lube and Fuel Additives                MBO                        5
508. Sulfonate Plant                        MBO                        1
509. Marasol Splitter                       MBD                        1
510. Aromatic Hydrogenatlon                 MBO                        1
511. Aromatic Vacuum Unit                   MBD                        1
512. Sour Concetrate Unifiner               MBD                        1
513. Naphtha Splitter                       MBD                        4
514. Naphtha Unifining                      MBD                        1
518. Isobutylene                            MLBD                       2
519. NEK                                    MBD                        1
520. Secondary Butyl Alcohols               MBD                        1
521. Mesityl Oxide                          MBD                        1
522. MIBK                                   MBD                        1
523. Isophorone                             MBD                        1
524. SNG                                    MBD                        1
525. Petroleum Pitch                        MBD                        1
526. Hydroalkylation  of Aromatics           MBO                        1
528. Naphtha Rerun                          MBD                        2
529. Wax  Slabbing                           MBD                        3
531. Rust Preventives                       MBD                        1
                                      51

-------
                             TABLE III -  7
Page 4 of 6
532. Petrolatum Oxidation                   MBO
533. Calcium Chloride Drying                MBD
534. LPG                                    M8D
535. Fuels Deasphalting                     MBO
536. Ethylene                               MLBO
537. Resin Former Stock                     MBO
539. Rerun Units                            MBO
540. Mineral Spirits                        MBO
541. Udex                                   MLBO
542. Diallylamine                           MLBD
544. Ethyl flmyl Ketone                      MLBD
545. lonol Antioxidant                      MLBD
546. Tertiary Butyl Alcohol                 MLBD
547. Naphthenic Acids                       MLBD
548. Octyl Formol Alkylate                  MLBD
549. Octyl Formol Condensate                MLBO
550. Perma 16                               MLBD
551. Polyisobutylene Chloride               MLBD
552. Automotive Spec Detergent              MLBO
553. Pentoxone                              MLBD
554. Sodium Sulfonates                      MLBO
555. Tertiary Butyl Toluene                 MLBD
556. TBBA - Caustic Extraction              MLBO
557. TBBA - Precipitation                   MLBD
558. Tergols                                MLBO
559. Dehydrating                            MBD
560. Desiccant Manufacture                  STD
562. Oxidate Manufacture                    MBO
563. Grease Mfg. v. Allied Products         MBO
564. Tertiary Amylenes                      MBD
565. Scot Tail Gas                          MMSCFD
566. Propylene                              MBD
567. Acetone                                MBD
568. Misc. Blending and  Packaging          MBO
569. Hydrogen, Reformer  Feed  Prep,  Steam    MMSCFD
     Methane Reformer,  Partial  Oxidation
     (Gas Units)  (g)
570. Gas  Plant (Gas Units)  (g)              MMSCFD
571. DEA  and Other Amine Treating Systems   MMSCFD
     (Gas Charge)  (n)

     Number of plants  responding to survey
      1
      2
      6
      1
      2
      1
      4
      3
      4
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      3
      1
      2
      6
       3
      4
      27
      20
      41
     262
                                    52

-------
                             TABLE III -7                         Page 5  of 6

Notesi

(a)  Process Nos. 20 and 76 have been eliminated to avoid multiple  account-
     Ing of process rates.  Capacities and  rates previously  assigned  to
     these processes have been included wth Process Nos. 8 and 9, where
     applicable.

(b)  Multiple accounting of process rates may  have occurred  in the  original
     survey response for the following hydrogen processes:

           10. Hydrocrackfng                54. Hydrotreating
           11. Hydroprocessing              86. Solvent Hydrotreater
           21. Hydrofinlng, Hydrofinishing  98. Hydrodemethylation
               Lube Hydrofinlng

     Revised values for Process Nos. 10 and 11 Include only  capacities and
     rates which cannot be Included in the other four processes.  Process
     No. 11 should Include hydrotreating of upstream feedstocks  (I.e.,
     hydrodesulfurl ration of catalytic reformer feed), while Process  No. 54
     should include hydrotreating of product.

(c)  To obtain consistent units of 1000 barrels/day, reported charge  rates
     to Process  No. 15 have been converted as  follows:

           tons/day x 0.00667 » 1000 barrels/day

(d)  To avoid multiple accounting of process rates, asphalt  processes have
     been specifically revised to Include the  following:

           18. Asphalt Production           43. Asphalt Oxidizing
           32. 200°F Softening Point        89. Asphalt Emulsifying
               Unfluxed Asphalt

     Reported capacities and rates have been reassigned to the appropriate
     process.

(e)  Multiple accounting of process rates occurred in the original  response
     for Process Nos. 19 and 104.  To resolve  this problem,  Process No.  19
     has been eliminated and the capacities and rates previously included
     there have been reassigned to Process No. 104.

(f)  To obtain consistent units of long tons/day, reported values for
     Process No. 90 have been converted (using specific gravity  of  1.803)
     as follows:

           1000 barrels/day X 282 * long tons/day

(g)  Rates for Process Nos. 91 and 92 are in liquid units, while rates  in
     gaseous units for the same processes are  included in Nos. 569  and 570.

(h)  Liquid charge rates have been included in Process No. 93 for all  amine
     treating (DEA, MEA, etc), while gas charge rates have been  assigned to
     Process No. 571.

Unit Abbreviations:

MBD     - thousand  barrels per day
MLBO    - thousand  pounds per day
                                  53

-------
                             TABLE III -7                        Page 6 of  6
STO    - short tons per day
LTD    - long tons per day
MLBH   - thousand pounds per hour
MMSCFD - million standard cubic feet per day
                                  54

-------
                          TABLE III - 8
Qualitative Evaluation of Waatewater Flow and characteristics

Production
Processes
Crude oil and
Product Storage
Crude Desalting
Crude Distil-
lation
Theraal Cracking
Catalytic Cracking
Bydrocracklng
Polymer ixat ion
Alkylatlon
Isoa«risation
cn
Reforming
Solvent Refining
Asphalt Blowing
Dewaxlng
Rydrotreating
Drying and
Sweetening
XXX - ft





by Fundamental
Refinery Processes

Baulslfled
Plow

XX
XX

XXX
X
XXX
X
X
XX
X

X
X
XXX
X
X

XXX
lajor
BOD

X
XX

X
X
XX

X
X


0

XXX
XXX
X

XXX
COD

XXX
XX

X
X
XX

X
X


0
X
XXX
XXX
X

X
Contribution,
Phenol

X
X

XX
X
XXX
XX
0
0


X
X
X
X


XX
XX -
Sulfide


XXX

XXX
X
XXX
XX
X
XX


X
0

0
XX

0
Moderate
Oil Oil

XXX XX
X XXX

XX XXX
X
X X

X 0
X 0


X 0
X
XXX
X 0
0

0 X
Contribution,
pH Tess>. A*Bonia

000
X XXX XX

X XX XXX
XX XX X
XXX XX XXX
XX XX
XXX
XX X X


0 X X
X 0


XX XX

XX 0 X
X - Minor Contribution,
Chloride Acidity Alkalinity Susp. Solids

0 XX
XXX 0 X XXX

x o x x
x o xx x
X 0 XXX X

X X 0 X
XX XX 0 XX


000 0
0 X


0 0 X 0

o x x xx
0 - Insignificant Blank - No Data

-------
in
                     Alaska - 4
                     Hawaii - 2
                                                                           FIGURE III-l
                                                        GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PETROLEUM REFINERIES
                                                           IN THE UNITED STATES, AS OF JANUARY 1, 1981

-------
                   PROCESS
                   WATER
Ul
—I
                                                                                    DESALTED
                                                                                       CRUDE
                                                                                   	»-
                                                                                    EFFLUENT
                                                                                      WATER
                                                                                   	»».
                                          HEATER
EHULSIFIER
                                                FIGURE  III-2
                                                CRUDE DESALTING
                                          (ELECTROSTATIC DESALTING)

-------
en
00
                             phalter Ft«d
                                                        FIGURE  IIJ-3
                                                   CRUDE  FRACTIONATION
                                                  niSTJT.LATION -  THREE STAGES)

-------
tn
UD
                           PRESSURE
                           REDUCING
                           ORIFICE
                           CHAMBER
                         O
                                 FLUE GAS STEAM
                                    GENERATOR
                                   COMBUSTION AlK
                                                                             GAS AND GASOLINE TO
                                                                             GAS CONCENTRATION PLANT
                                              MAIN COLUMN

                                              LIGHT CYCLE GAS  OjL




                                              HEAVY CYCLE CAS  OIL^

                                                 .HEAVY RECYCLE CHARGE


                                                     CtARJMED SLURRY r_
                                                        SLURRY
                                                        SETTLER
                     COMBINED REACTOR
                        CHARGE
                                                                                           RAW OIL
                                                                                           SLURRY CHARGE
RAW OIL
CHARGE
                                                          FIGURE III-4

                                                      CATALYTIC  CRACKING
                                                 (FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING)

-------
                           SECTION IV

                   INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION

The  purpose  of  this  section of the development document is to
evaluate  distinguishing  refinery  features  which  may  require
subclassification   of   the   industry.    Included  here  is  a
description  of  the  selected  subcategories,   along   with   a
discussion  of  the  purpose  and  basis  of this selection.  The
following items are addressed  in  the  discussion  of  selection
"purpose and basis":

the Flow Model for 1974 Regulation;

the Flow Model Used for Proposed 1979 Regulation; and

the Refined Flow Model.

SELECTED SUBCATEGORIES

Subcategorization   of   the   petroleum  refining  industry  was
evaluated with respect to the traditional factors used to  assess
industries.  However, the complexity of refining facilities (over
150   distinct   processes  are  used  in  this  industry)  makes
traditional Subcategorization infeasible.   Instead,  the  Agency
used  mathematical models that correlate achievable effluent flow
with process variables as the basis  for  Subcategorization.   In
the  development  of  the 1974 regulations, the Agency found that
the industry can be divided into five discrete subcategories:

    o    Topping Refineries
    o    Cracking Refineries
    o    Petrochemical Refineries
    o    Lube Refineries
    o    Integrated Refineries

The 1974 modeling effort developed five mathematical flow  models
which  represented  the best fit for those refineries within each
subcategory.  The models calculated discrete factors for refinery
size,  process  configuration,  and  allowable  wasteload   which
grouped  the  refineries  within  a  subcategory in increments of
production capacity and process configuration.

Data  collected  for  the  1976  industry  characterization  work
indicated   that   many   refineries   were   making  substantial
improvements to their wastewater management  systems.   The  1976
data base sampled twice the number of refineries that contributed
to the 1974 flow modeling effort.
                               61

-------
In  1976  the  U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the 1974 BPT and NSPS
regulations, but remanded the more stringent BAT regulations (the
1974 BAT limitations were calculated using the 1974 flow  model).
Analysis  of  the  expanded  1976  data  base  suggested  that an
alternative modeling approach which treated each refinery  as  an
individual  was  possible to support a more stringent regulation.
The flow model for the 1979 proposed regulation  consisted  of  a
single flow model capable of treating each refinery, essentially,
as  a  separate  subcategory.   This  model  would  calculate the
industry average wastewater generation  for  any  combination  of
processes.    The   petroleum  refining  industry  found  certain
mathematical and conceptual discrepancies in the 1979 flow  model
which were reconciled with the "refined" flow model.  This single
model,  in.  its  final revised form, could serve as the basis for
developing more stringent limitations tailored to each refinery's
wastewater management potential as compared to  industry  average
performance.   The  refined  flow  model resulted in possible BAT
effluent limitations only  slightly  less  stringent  than  those
calculated by the 1979 flow model.

Recent  analyses  by  the  Agency  of  the  actual performance of
properly operated BPT technology  treating  refinery  wastewaters
has  concluded  that  these  refineries  are  providing  adequate
control of non-conventional and toxic priority  pollutants.   EPA
is   establishing   the   effluent  limitations  based  upon  BPT
technology which was upheld in the U.S. Court  of  Appeals.   The
pollutant  load  factors  calculated  by  using  the  1974 model,
achievable concentrations and variability factors insure adequate
treatment.
PURPOSE AND BASIS OF SELECTION

Section  304(b)(2)(B)  of  the  Act  requires  EPA  to  take  the
following  factors  into  account  in  assessing  best  available
technology:  (a) age of equipment and  facilities  involved,  (b)
the process used, (c) the engineering aspects of applying various
types of control technology, (d) process changes, (e) the cost of
achieving   such   effluent   reduction,   (f)  non-water-quality
environmental impacts (including energy  requirements),  and  (g)
other  factors  that  the  Administrator  deems appropriate.  The
assessment for best  conventional  pollutant  control  technology
includes   these   factors   plus   an   evaluation   of  "...the
reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining
a reduction in effluents  and  the  effluent  reduction  benefits
derived, and the comparison of the cost and level of reduction of
such  pollutants from the discharge from publicly owned treatment
works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants  from
a class or category of industrial sources....".

The  Agency . considered  each  factor  in  establishing  effluent
limitations  for  this  industry.   Factors  that   significantly
differentiate  groups  of facilities generally serve as the basis
                               62

-------
for industry subcategorization.  Each subcategory  then  develops
its own technologies representative of BAT, BCT, or BADT.

In  developing  BAT,  the  Agency  analyzed each of the statutory
factors  to  determine  whether  they  significantly  affect  the
ability  of  any group of refineries to meet uniform limitations.
None of the  factors  were  found  to  significantly  affect  the
ability  of  refineries  to  meet  effluent  concentrations.  The
effluent  flow,  however,  is  significantly  dependent  on   the
processes  used.   Information compiled since the 1974 regulation
supports this assessment.  The long-term effluent study  that   is
described  in  Section  V  of  this  report confirms that the BPT
concentrations can be achieved by refineries regardless  of  age,
process,  and  engineering  aspects  of applying various types  of
control technology.  The revised flow model that is described   in
this  section  indicates  that flow is dependent on the processes
used.

In  determining  the  flow  to  use  in  developing  quantitative
effluent  guidelines,  the  Agency  used mathematical models that
correlate  effluent  flow  with  process  variables.    A   brief
description of each model is provided below:

Flow Model For 1974 Regulation

Current  BPT limitations for the refining industry are based on a
linear model of industry effluent  flows.   This  BPT  model  was
developed  using  process  and  flow  data  from the 1972 EPA-API
industry survey and appears as:

         Y - Ao+ A1X1. + A2X2

With components,

         Y » LogJJD, (total flow/capacity)

         Ao » Subcategory dependent constant

         Al_,A;2 « Regression coefficient constants (1.51 and
          ""        0.0738, respectively)

         XI. » Refinery throughput

         X2 - Sum of weighting factors for a particular
          ""        refinery.

For  the  development  of  BPT  regulations,  the  equation   was
mathematically  transformed  from  the  standard  slope-intercept
representation shown above to a form denoting  deviation  from  a
subcategory   average  value.   The  refinery  process  weighting
factors are the normalized coefficients of the regression model:

         Z - Ao +     AlX
                               63

-------
where

         Z * effluent flow

         Ao » regression constant

         Ai, * regression constant (weighting factor)
          ~"        corresponding to the ith petroleum refining
                   process.

         Xi. « throughput for process i.

BPT  subcategorization  was  designed  to  give  overall  minimum
variance  to  the  system; i.e., variance within each subcategory
was minimized and the differences between the subcategories  were
maximized.   A  more  detailed  discussion  of this flow model is
found in the 1974 development document (3).
The model adopted for  the  1974  regulation  subcategorizes  the
industry  into  five  groups:   topping, cracking, petrochemical,
lube, and integrated refineries.  The model  estimates  the  flow
from each refinery in units of gallons of wastewater per thousand
barrels of crude throughput.  Refineries in the United States and
its  territorial  possessions fall into one of the following five
subcategories:
Subcateqory

Topping
Cracking
Petrochemical
Lube
Basic Refinery Operations Included

Topping and catlytic reforming whether or  not
the  facility  includes  any  other process in
addition to topping and catalytic 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
operations,   whether   or  not  the  facility
includes any process in addition  to  topping,
cracking and petrochemical operations,* except
lube oil manufacturing operations.
     Topping,   cracking
manufacturing  processes,
 and    lube    oil
whether  or not the
                               64

-------
                   facility includes any process in  addition  to
                   topping,  cracking  and lube oil manufacturing
                   processes, except petrochemical operations.*

Integrated         Topping,  cracking,  lube  oil   manufacturing
                   processes,   and   petrochemical   operations,
                   whether  or  not  the  facility  includes  any
                   processes  in  addition  to topping, cracking,
                   lube   oil   manufacturing    processes    and
                   petrochemical 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.
                                           ;. ,
In  the  recent  toxics review program, the Agency reassessed the
1974 flow model in light of the more current data from  the  1977
Survey for the purpose of determining achievable flow reduction.

Flow Model Used For Proposed 1979 Regulation

The  Agency  analyzed  the refining industry's discharge flow for
the year 1976.  Data  Collected  for  the  1976  industry  survey
indicated   that   many   refineries   were   making  substantial
improvements  to  their  wastewater  management   systems.    The
expanded  data  base (including approximately twice the number of
refineries covered in the 1972 data base) was  suitable  for  the
development  of  an alternate modeling approach.  In general, the
industry reduced discharge flow significantly between  1972  (BPT
data  base) and 1976.  A revised mathematical model was developed
that more closely described the industry flow of 1976.

This model differed from the  BPT  flow  models  in  that  it  is
additive in form as opposed to the multiplicative form of the BPT
model.   Also,  a  single  flow  model  includes  all  refineries
compared to a separate model for each subcategory.

This model was used in the proposed regulation for the  petroleum
refining  guidelines  of December 1979 and it takes the following
form:

         FLOW - 0.004C + 0.046K + 0.048 (A + L).

Flow is in units of million gallons  per  day.   A,C,K,L  are  in
units  of thousands of barrels per day throughput.  Constants are
in units of million gallons per thousand barrels per day.

Where,

A » sum of asphalt processes
                               65

-------
     Asphalt Production
     Asphalt Oxidizer
     Asphalt Emulsifying

K = sum of cracking processes
     Hydrocracking
     Visbreaking
     Thermal Cracking
     Fluid Catalytic Cracking
     Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking

C * sum of crude processes
     Atmospheric Crude Distillation
     Crude Desalting
     Vacuum Crude Distillation

L * sum of lube processes
     Hydrofining, Hydrofinishing, Lube Hydrofining
     White Oil Manufacture
     Propane Dewaxing, Propane Deasphalting, Propane Fractioning,
      Propane Deresining
     Duo Sol, Solvent Treating, Solvent Extraction, Duotreating,
      Solvent Dewaxing, Solvent Deasphalt
     Lube Vac Twr, Oil Fractionation, Batch Still (Naphtha Strip),
      Bright Stock Treating
     Centrifuge and Chilling
     MEK Dewaxing, Ketone Dewaxing, MEK-Toluene Dewaxing
     Deoiling (wax)
     Naphthenic Lubes Production
     S02, Extraction
     Wax* Pressing
     Wax Plant (with Neutral Separation)
     Furfural Extracting
     Clay Contacting - Percolation
     Wax Sweating
     Acid Treat
     Phenol Extraction
     Lube and Fuel Additives
     Sulfonate Plant
     MIBK
     Wax Slabbing
     Rust Preventives
     Petrolatum Oxidation
     Grease Mgf. v. Allied Products
     Misc. Blending and Packaging

The model for the  1979 proposal does not classify refineries  into
discrete subcategories.  Instead,  it estimates the flow from  each
in-plant process.  Regulation based on this model  would  provide
allocation  which  would  equal  the  summation  of  the  loading
calculated for each of the process throughputs.
                              66

-------
Refined Flow Model

Significant industry comments questioned the  technical  accuracy
and statistical validity of the model as applied to all petroleum
refineries  in the industry.  In response, the Agency refined the
flow model for the 1979 proposal to consider those factors.

The resulting model is the following:

FLOW = 0.0021C + 0.0127A + 0.0236K + 0.0549L + 0.0212R

Where:
       Net Process Wastewater in million gallons/day
       Sum of Crude Process Rates in 1000 bbl/day
       Sum of Asphalt Process Rates in 1000 bbl/day
       Sum of Cracking and Coking Process rates in 1000 bbl/day
       Sum of Lube Process Rates in 1000 bbl/day
       Sum of Reforming and Alkylation Process Rates in 1000 bbl/day
FLOW
C
A
K
L
R
and where;
         Crude Processes are defined as:

              PI, P2f and P3

         Asphalt Processes are defined as:

              P18, P32, P43,and P89

         Cracking and Coking Processes are defined as:

              P4, P5, P6, P7, P10, P15, P16, and P54

         Lube Processes are defined as:

              P21, to P30 and P34 to P40

         Reforming and Alkylation Processes are defined as:

              PS and PI 2

In accordance with the EPA process identification numbers for
the following refinery processes:

1.  Atmospheric Crude Distillation
2.  Crude Desalting
3.  Vacuum Crude Distillation
4.  Visbreaking
5.  Thermal Cracking
6.  Fluid Catalytic Cracking
7.  Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking
8.  H2SCM Alkylation
10. Hydrocracking
12. Catalytic Reforming
                              67

-------
15.  Delayed Coking
16.  Fluid Coking
18.  Asphalt production
21.  Hydrofining, Hydrofinishing,  Lube Hydrofining
30.  S02 Extraction
32.  200 °F Softening Point Unfluxed Asphalt
34.  Wax Pressing
40.  Phenol Extraction
43.  Asphalt Oxidizing
54.  Hydrotreating
89.  Asphalt Emulsifying

Similar to the model for the 1979 proposal,  the  allocation  for
each  refinery  would be equal to the sum of the loading for each
of the in-plant processes.

The methodology utilized to develop  this  model  as  well  as  a
complete  evaluation  of  model  performance  is contained in the
Burns  and  Roe  report  "Draft,   Petroleum  Refining   Industry,
Refinements   to   1979  Proposed  Flow  Model  and  Supplemental
Documentation"  (164).

This flow model is different and significantly  better  than  the
one  used  for  the  proposed regulations of December 1979.  This
model incorporates statistical improvements as  well  as  updated
information.    It should be noted that the refined model provides
allocation  for  Coking,  Reforming  and  Alkylation   processes.
Allocation  was  not  provided  for  these  processes in the 1979
proposed flow model.  Although Reforming and Alkylation are found
to influence discharge flow in the refined model, these processes
should not be considered in calculating BPT  limitations  because
the  model  developed  for BPT is different.  This is because the
wastewaters from these processes were already considered  in  the
1974  BPT model, which generally predicts a higher flow rate than
the refined model.

The model evaluation study  reaffirms  the  finding  of  the  BPT
effort  that  the  only  refinery characteristics which should be
considered  in  the  development  of  effluent  limitations   and
standards  are  the  size  and  types  of  processes  utilized at
individual refineries.
                               68

-------
                            SECTION V

                     WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION

The  purpose  of  this  section  is   to   describe   the   waste
characterization  efforts  undertaken and the results obtained by
the Agency in the development of the  limitations  and  standards
which  are  addressed  in  this  document.   Refinery  wastewater
characterization efforts are described here in two parts:

    a)   the concentration of pollutants; and

    b)   the rate of flow.

The Agency conducted several studies to determine  the  flow  and
concentration   of   toxic,  non-conventional/  and  conventional
pollutants from the petroleum refining industry.   These  studies
included   extensive   questionnaire   surveys  and  sampling  at
refineries of treated and untreated wastewater.

The Agency defined the industry's  discharge  flow  practices  by
distributing  a  questionnaire (1977) which requested information
on the quantity of  wastewater  generated  and  discharged.   The
questionnaires  were  sent  to  all  the refineries in the United
States   and   its    territorial    possessions.     Information
representative  of  industry's production and treatment practices
during 1976 was requested.

Several major programs were implemented to define the presence of
toxics and other pollutants from the petroleum refining industry.
As required under the Consent Decree Agreement  between  EPA  and
NRDC,  the  Agency  was  to  determine  whether  control  of  the
discharge of 65 classes of  toxic  pollutants  would  be  needed.
These   65  classes  of  toxic  pollutants  potentially  included
thousands of specific compounds.  The Agency in 1977 selected 123
toxic pollutants for analyses.  This list of 123 is now  expanded
to  include  126  priority pollutants (PP).  Most of the sampling
was conducted in 1977-78.  Sampling and analytical methodologies,
including quality control and quality assurance procedures,  were
not  fine-tuned  at  that time to quantify low level toxics.  The
results from these programs, however, were adequate to  determine
the  presence,  absence  and  relative  concentrations  of  toxic
pollutants.

Three major efforts  were  conducted.   The  first  task  was  to
request   data  from  the  industry  on:   (a)  toxic  pollutants
purchased, manufactured, and  analyzed  in  wastewater;  and  (b)
treatability data on toxic pollutants.  The second program was to
sample 23 refineries and two POTW receiving refinery wastes for a
                              69

-------
three  day period.  The third effort was to sample two refineries
for a  period  of  60  days  to  determine  long-term  wastewater
characteristics.   The first two programs were conducted in 1977-
1978 while the third program was conducted in 1980.  In  general,
toxic pollutants were found in the untreated refinery wastes,  but
most were reduced to very low levels after BPT treatment systems.
Details on each of these programs follow.

The  Agency  also  compiled  and  analyzed one full year of self-
monitoring effluent data which was provided by 49 refineries  for
the  calendar year 1979.  This data gathering effort was referred
to as "The Survey  of  1979  Effluent  Monitoring  Data  for  the
Petroleum Refining Point Source Category."


CONCENTRATIONS   OF   TOXIC,  CONVENTIONAL  AND  NON-CONVENTIONAL
POLLUTANTS

The   Agency   directed   three   major   efforts   toward    the
characterization  of  petroleum  refinery  wastewater quality:  a
detailed questionnaire survey of the industry (1977 Survey);  and
two  wastewater  sampling programs - one long-term and one short-
term.  In addition, the Agency evaluated effluent monitoring data
for the calendar year 1979 reported by the 49 refineries.

1977 Survey

A comprehensive questionnaire was sent to all refineries  in  the
United  States  and  its  territorial  possessions  in 1977.  The
questionnaire requested the following information:  (1) chemicals
purchased or manufactured (final or intermediate)  which  contain
the  123  toxic  pollutants;  and (2) NPDES limitations on toxics
other than chromium.  The list of 123 toxic pollutants  was  used
in the 1977 mailing and the following compounds were subsequently
added to form a list of 129 toxic pollutants:

    o    Di-n-octyl phthalate
    o    PCB 1221  (Arochlor 1221)
    o    PCB 1232  (Arochlor 1232)
    o    PCB 1248  (Arochlor 1248)
    o    PCB 1260  (Arochlor 1260)
    o    PCB 1016  (Arochlor 1016)

Since that time,  three of the compounds  in the  original  listing
have  been removed from the list of priority pollutants leaving  a
total of 126 pollutant compounds designated  by  the  Agency   (FR
10723,  2/4/81  and  FR  2266,  1/8/81).   The  survey  responses
indicated that  71  toxic  pollutants  were  purchased  as  raw  or
intermediate  materials;  19  of  these  are  purchased by single
refineries.  At least 10 percent of all  refineries  purchase  the
following toxic pollutants:

    o    Benzene
                               70

-------
    o    Carbon tetrachloride
    o    1,1,1-trichloroethane
    o    Phenol
    o    Toluene
    o    Zinc and compounds
    o    Chromium and compounds
    o    Copper and compounds
    o    Lead and compounds

Zinc and chromium are purchased by 28 percent of all  refineries,
while lead is purchased by nearly 48 percent of all plants.

Forty-five  priority  pollutants  are  manufactured  as  final or
intermediate materials; 15 of these are  manufactured  at  single
refineries.   Benzene,  ethylbenzene,  phenol,  and  toluene  are
manufactured by at least 10 percent  of  all  refineries.   Eight
percent  of  all refineries manufacture cyanides; greater than 20
percent manufacture benzene/toluene.

Short Term Sampling program

Since the data obtained from the 1977  Survey  was  limited  with
respect to toxic pollutant data, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research  Laboratory  (RSKERL)  (an EPA Laboratory) and Burns and
Roe (an EPA contractor) conducted a three-day sampling program at
each of 17 direct discharging refineries.  Table V-l is a summary
of plant characteristics for these refineries.  Table  V-2  is  a
comparison  of plant characteristics of the 17 refineries sampled
versus the overall industry characteristics.  The purpose of this
sampling program was to obtain more complete information  on  the
occurrence  of  toxic  pollutants in refinery waste streams.  The
results of this program are presented in Tables V-3 through V-20.

The effluents  from  6  indirect  discharging  refineries,  which
discharge  their  wastewater to a POTW, were sampled by Burns and
Roe in a supplemental sampling  program.   The  results  of  this
study are presented in Tables V-21 through V-26.

Samples  were collected before and after the biological treatment
systems.  In some instances, samples were taken  after  polishing
(i.e.,  polishing  pond, sand filter).  The intake water was also
sampled to determine the  presence  of  toxic  pollutants  before
contamination by refining processes.

Samples  for  conventional, nonconventional, and toxic pollutants
(except for volatile organics, total phenols, and  cyanide)  were
taken  from  24-hour  composite samples.  The laboratory combined
aliquots from these samples  in  equal  portions  to  obtain  the
72-hour   composites  for  toxic  pollutant  analysis  (acid  and
base-neutral extractible organics, pesticides, and metals).  Grab
samples were taken  in  specially  prepared  vials  for  volatile
(purgeable)  organics,  total  phenols and cyanide.  Before plant
visits, sample containers were carefully washed and  prepared  by
                              71

-------
appropriate  methods,  depending  on the type of sample.  Samples
were kept on ice for express shipment in insulated containers.

The analyses for toxic pollutants  were  performed  according  to
groups  of  chemicals and associated analytical schemes.  Organic
toxic pollutants included volatile (purgeable), base-neutral  and
acid  (extractable)  pollutants, and pesticides.  Inorganic toxic
pollutants included heavy metals, cyanide, and asbestos.

The primary method used  to  screen  and  verify  the  volatiles,
base-neutral,  and acid organics was gas chromatography (GO with
confirmation and quantification of  all  priority  pollutants  by
mass  spectrometry (MS).  Total phenols was analyzed by the 4-AAP
method.  GC was  used  to  analyze  pesticides  with  limited  MS
confirmation.    Toxic  heavy  metals  were  analyzed  by  atomic
absorption  spectrophotometry   (AAS)/  with  flame  or   graphite
furnace   atomization  following  appropriate  digestion  of  the
sample.  Duplicate samples were analyzed  using  plasma  emission
spectrometry  after appropriate digestion.  Samples were analyzed
for cyanides by a colorimetric method,  with  sulfide  previously
removed  by distillation.  Analysis for asbestos was accomplished
by microscopy and fiber presence  reported  as  chrysotile  fiber
count.    Non-dispersive   x-ray   fluorescence   was   used  for
confirmation.  Conventional pollutants (BOOS., TSS,  pH,  and  oil
and  grease)  and  nonconventional  pollutants  (TOG and COD) were
analyzed using  "Methods  for  Chemical  Analysis  of  Water  and
Wastes," (EPA 625/6-74-003) and amendments.

The  most common pollutants found (detected in more than half the
samples analyzed) include:


                                       Percent of Samples   BPT
Fraction           Pollutant             Where Detected   Limited

Conventionals         BOD                    100           Yes
                      Total Susp. Solids     100           Yes
                      Oil & Grease           100           Yes

Non-Conventionals     Ammonia Nitrogen       100           Yes
                      COD                    100           Yes
                      TOC                    100           Yes
                      Sulfide                100           Yes
                      Phenol (4AAP)           76           Yes

Volatiles             Methylene Chloride      69           No

Metals                Chromium                78           Yes
                      Copper                  54           No
                      Mercury                 74           No
                      Selenium                68           No
                      Zinc                    80           No
                               72

-------
Of the 126 toxic pollutants, 22 were detected and quantified more
than once in all final  effluent  samples  analyzed  from  direct
discharges  and 28 were detected and quantified more than once in
all final effluent samples from indirect discharges.  Table  V-27
is  a  summary of the final effluent priority pollutant data from
the 17 refineries' screening program.  Table V-28 is a summary of
the indirect discharge priority pollutant effluent data from  the
pretreatment program.

Samples  were  analyzed  for  asbestos  at  only four refineries.
Asbestos was not detected in the intake or  effluent  from  these
refineries.   One  API  separator  effluent  (prior to treatment)
sample contained  3.4  million  asbestiform  mineral  fibers  per
liter.   However,  the  presence  can  be  attributable  to  rain
occurring during the sample collection period.

Additional toxic pollutant data was obtained from  another  eight
direct  discharging  refineries  by the EPA Regional Surveillance
and Analysis teams during  routine  monitoring  operations.   The
data  extracted  from  single  grab-samples  taken at each of the
refineries is summarized in Table V-29.  The  concentrations  and
pollutants  detected  are  similar  to  those  of  the  seventeen
refinery program.

Long-Term Sampling Program

A long-term sampling program was conducted at two refineries  for
a  period  of  sixty  days.(162)   The  purposes  were:    (1)  to
determine if  there  is  a  surrogate  relationship  between  the
priority  pollutants and one or more of the traditional pollutant
parameters; and  (2)  to  confirm  the  presence  or  absence  of
specific  priority  pollutants.   Samples  of  the  untreated and
treated wastewaters were collected every  other  day.   Pollutant
parameters  analyzed include the BPT regulated pollutants and the
toxics, excluding pesticides  and  asbestos.   The  sampling  and
analytical  methods  used  are  similar to those described in the
short-term sampling program discussion.  The  results  from  this
program are summarized in Tables V-30 and 31.

In  general, the types of pollutants and the concentration ranges
are similar to those found in the short term program.   The  data
also  indicate  that  a strong correlation does not exist between
the toxics and the traditional pollutant parameters.

The  30-day  samples  from  the  two  plants  were  statistically
analyzed  to  determine  if  surrogates  for important pollutants
could be found.  Surrogates  were  sought  for  five  pollutants:
priority  pollutant  (PP)  organics,  total organics (PP organics
plus Appendix C alkanes),  extractables,  PP  metals,  and  total
metals  (PP metals plus a set of non-conventional metals).  Seven
potential surrogates were: BOD, COD, total  phenol   (4AAP),  TOC,
TSS, oil and grease, and chromium.
                               73

-------
To  be  acceptable,  a surrogate must demonstrate a statistically
significant correlation with the pollutant and it must allow  the
level   of  the  pollutant  to  be  estimated  with  satisfactory
accuracy.

Since the data samples were relatively small, the sensitivity  of
statistical  analysis  to  the  presence of apparent, outliers was
assessed  by  plotting  surrogates  against  pollutants  and   by
rerunning  analyses  with  outliers removed.  The findings of the
study,  however,  were  not  influenced  by  these  precautionary
measures.   Only two possible surrogates were identified, namely,
total phenol (4AAP) for PP organics and for total  organics,  and
chromium  for PP metals and for total metals.  However, as can be
seen from Table V-32, statistical significance was obtained  only
in  one  plant.   Because  surrogate  adequacy must be consistent
across plants, the relationship was  found  to  be  invalid.   In
addition,  the predictive adequacy, even for the single plant, is
not sufficient  to  allow  practical  application  of  these  two
surrogates.

SURVEY OF 1979 EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA

The  Agency  also  compiled  and  analyzed  one full year of self
monitoring data supplied  by  49  refineries  covering  the  1979
calendar  year.   EPA  selected  50 refineries (163) on the basis
that each reported BPT technology in place  in  the  1976  survey.
Moreover,  25  of  the  50  were examples of refineries reporting
process wastewater flows equal to or less than BAT Option 2 model
flow.  Another 15 of the 50 reported flows  equal to or less  than
1979  BAT  Option 1 model flow.  (See Section VIII for details of
Options proposed for BAT in 1979).

This study was investigating the effects of BPT  treatment  where
the  total  refinery  wastewater is less than 1979 proposed model
flows and therefore, 37 of the 50 refineries  selected  could  be
described  as  low flow refineries.  Objectives of the study were
to calculate  variability  factors,  determine  average  effluent
concentration  for  phenolic  compounds  (4AAP),  examine TOC and
cyanide as  possible  surrogate  parameters,  calculate  refinery
model flow for 1978 and verify the reported flow level.

Review  of  the  data to determine those refineries that actually
meet BPT performance levels appears in Preliminary  Screening  of_
the  1979  Effluent  Monitoring  (BPT) "DATATT60).  Statistical
analysis of the same data set is reported in  Petroleum  Refining
Self Monitoring Data Analysis (161).
                              74

-------
INDUSTRY FLOW

Results  of  the  Agency's efforts in the characterization of the
rate of wastewater flow from the petroleum refinery industry  are
described below.

These  results  are  in three parts:  1) summary data by refinery
size; 2) data on distribution by  refinery  subcategory;  and  3)
water usage trends.

Summary of_ Net Wastewater Flow

Figure  V-l  presents  a histogram of net flow for 243 refineries
which provided the necessary data.  Each point on  the  histogram
represents  a single refinery by its size class using the letters
A through 0 which represent selected size ranges in 1000  bbl  of
crude  processing  capacity.   The  results of this histogram are
summarized in Table V-33.

Although it can be seen that nearly 75  percent  of  total  water
usage  in the industry is attributable to about 20 percent of the
refineries/ these refineries process a large  majority  of  crude
petroleum.

Distribution of Flow by_ Subcateqory

Figure  V-2  presents  a  histogram  of net flow for the same 243
refineries according to the subcategorization procedure described
in Section IV.   Similar  to  the  previous  figure,  each  point
depicts a single refinery.  Letter designations correspond to the
five selected subcategories:

    A - Topping

    B - Cracking

    C - Petrochemical

    D - Lube

    E - Integrated

This histogram is summarized in Table V-34.

This  summary  shows  that,  except  for  Topping Refineries, the
fractional share of industry water usage is approximately equally
distributed among the other  four  subcategories.   However,  the
subcategory  averages show wide disparity, ranging from 0.128 MGD
for the topping subcategory  to  9.327  MGD  for  the  Integrated
subcategory.

The   histograms  in  Figures  V-1  and  V-2  reveal  a  striking
consequence  of  the  skewed  (non-symmetrical)  distribution  in
                               75

-------
wastewater  flow.   This  consequence  is  the  large  difference
between the industry average of 1.7 MGD and the  industry  median
(50-percentile) value of about 0.5 MGD.

Trends _iri Industry Water Usage

Figure V-3 presents the historical trends in industry water usage
from  data  contained in various surveys conducted by the Agency.
The first survey data is the 1972 EPA/API Raw Waste Load  Survey.
This  value  is used as the baseline for further comparison.  The
1977 Survey results provided the next  value  for  calendar  year
1976.   Total  flow  in absolute units as well as a gallon/barrel
value (adjusting for increased process capacity)  was  calculated
for   the   same   refineries  surveyed  in  1972.   The  results
demonstrate that a  significant  reduction  in  water  usage  had
occurred  during  the  previous four year period.  On an absolute
basis/ total water usage was reduced to about 67 percent  of  the
1972  value.   On  a  gallon/barrel basis, the reduction was even
greater - up to 53 percent of the 1972 value.

The "Survey of 1979 Effluent Monitoring Data" (160) also provided
information which was used  to  evaluate  industry  water  usage.
Since   this   survey  was  directed  towards  only  50  specific
refineries, 37 of which had the  lowest  flow  rates,  particular
care  was  taken to prevent the underestimation of industry flow.
For this purpose, the sum of the flows of the 49  respondents  to
this questionnaire was compared to the sum of the 1976 flows from
the  same  refineries.   Although  the  flows  of some individual
refineries increased, the total flow in  1979  was  found  to  be
significantly  lower than the 1976 flow on both an absolute and  a
gallon per barrel basis.

The two curves in Figure V-3 were extrapolated to the year  1984,
the earliest year in which BAT limitations could take effect.  It
can  be  seen  that  the  total water usage of the industry could
potentially reach 42 percent of the  year  1972  value   (or  62.5
percent  of  the  1976  average)  by   1984  if  the current trend
continues.   On  a  gallon/barrel  basis,   water   usage   could
potentially reach 29 percent of the 1972 value  (40 percent of the
1976 average value).
                               76

-------
                            TABLE V-I


                Summary of Plant Characteristics
                    for 17 Refineries Sampled
                      in Screening Program


Refinery         Location       EPA        1000 barrels/    Sub-
Number           State          Region     Stream-day     category


   1             Alabama          IV          30.0          A
  20             California       IX         100.0          B
  50             Colorado        VII          21.5          B
  59             Illinois          V          57.0          B
  64             Illinois          V          78.0          B
  80             Kansas          VII          52.0          B
  84             Kansas          VII          80.0          C
 126             Montana        VIII          46.0          B
 153             Ohio              V         125.0          C
 157             Oklahoma         VI         130.3          D
 167             Pennsylvania    III         195.0          B
 169             Pennsylvania    III         188.0          B
 186             Texas            VI         185.0          C
 194             Texas            VI         405.0          E
 205             Texas            VI         103.4          C
 235             Washington        X          94.0          B
 241             West Virginia   III          12.0          A
                               77

-------
                            TABLE V-2
               Comparison of Plant Characteristics
           17 Refineries Sampled vs.  Overall Industry
                            Percent Distribution of Plants
                        Overall                  17 Refineries
EPA Region              Industry              Sampled

                    (Direct Discharge
                      Segment)

     100
    II                  5                   0
   III
    IV
     V
    VI
   VII
  VIII
    IX
     X
Subcateqory
     A                     27                       12
     B                     45                       53
     C                     12                       24
     D                     11                        6
     E                      5                       __5
                          100                      100

Crude Capacity
(1000 bbl/dav)
     0-49
    50 - 99
   100 - 199
     > - 200
                               78

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-3
                    FRACTION

                    CONVENTIONALS
                    NON-CONVENTIONALS
                    VOLATILES
ID
ACID EXTRACT

BASE-NEUTRALS
                    METALS
                    NON-CONV. METALS

                    MISC.
                                                      SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL  DATA
                                                      PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                                      SCREENING SAMPLING  PROGRAM

                                                            FACILITY       1
PARAMETER

con
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
lf2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE

PHENOL

ACENAPHTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
PHENANTHRENE

ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
COPFgR
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS <4AAPO>


UNITS
MO/L
MG/L
MO/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L


INTAKE
5
2
3
9
4
2
67
N-D
70
N-D
N-D
G 100
N-D
N-D










6
L

G
G
G
G
API
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
107
23
380
9
12
29
8133
100
S
20
100
100
SO
100

FINAL
EFFLUENT
35
1
o9
7
12
11
267
N-D
L 5
N-D
N-D
G 100
L 10
N-D
                                                                          UG/L
                                                                                    N-D
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L


L



L
L
L
L
L
L
L

N-D
N-D
I
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
2-4
5
10
60
1
SO
37
                                                      UG/L   L  20

                                                      UG/L   L  11
                                                                                                13
                                                                                                57
                                                                                                97
                                                                                                               N-D
37
68
1
12
4
S
12
12
26
SO
132
1
S
263






L


L
L
L
L

N-D
N-D
1
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
1
2
30
60
1
50
57
                                                                                                               13
                   POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NEVER DETECTED
                   L-LESS THAN!    N-D  NOT DETECTED!     E-ESTIMATED  OR  VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED!
                                                                                                                  G-GREATER THAN!

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-4
                                                        SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                        PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                        SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                                                              FACILITY
                      FRACTION           PARAMETER

                      CONVENTIONALS      COD
                                         BOD
                                         TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
                                         OIL S GREASE
                                         PH

                      NON-CONVENTIONALS  AMMONIA NITROGEN
                                         TOC
                                         SULFIDE
                                                                           20
                                  UNITS

                                  HO/L
                                  HG/L
                                  MO/L
                                  HG/L
                                  UNIT
          INTAKE

          9
          1
          11
          11
          8
                                  HG/L   L  1
                                  HG/L      19
                                  UG/L      267
                      VOLATILES


                      ACID EXTRACT

                      METALS
00
O
                      NON-CONV. METALS

                      MISC.
CHLOROFORH
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE

2 f4-DIMETHYLPHENOL

CADHIUH
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER
ZINC

HEX-CHROHIUH

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
UG/L
UG/L

UO/L

UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

UO/L

UG/L
10
22

N-D

1
34
22
20
48
9
1
36
                                                                                     10
P/C
TREATHENT
EFFLUENT

433
173
42
21
9

7
107
933

11
30

1000O

1
44
7
43
20
15
S
6

33

29333
FINAL
EFFLUENT

13O
14
22
31
7

17
43
533

10
N-D

10

2
46
6
20
20
15
S
S

20

52
                     POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NEVER DETECTED
                     L-LESS THAN*    N-D  NOT DETECTEDI     E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED!
                                                                         B-GREATER THAN.

-------
                  FRACTION

                  CONVENTIONALS
                  NON-CONWENT IONALS
                  VOLATILES
                  BASE-NEUTRALS
                  METALS
OO
                                                                       TABLE V-5
                                                              SUMMARY OF  ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                             PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                              SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                  NON-CONV.  METALS

                  MISC.
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL f GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE

NAPHTHALENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL>
PHENANTHRENE

ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
THALLIUM
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS  (4AAPO)
                                                        PHTHALATE
                                                                    FACILITY
                                                                                 50

UNITS
HO/L
MG/L
MG/L L
HB/L
UNIT
MG/L L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L L
UG/L L
UG/L L
UG/L L
UG/L
UG/L L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L L
UG/L
UG/L L
UG/L
UG/L L
UG/L
INTAKE
(WELLS)
1
1
1
7
8
1
8
100
N-D
N-D
N-D
85
N-D
ISO
N-D
1
4
2O
1
11
20
IS
2
1
3
3
263
20
5
DAF UNIT
EFFLUENT
323
117
28
93
9
38
71
1347
417
16
38
3
950
290
190
L 1
8
L 20
718
179
323
75
10
L 50
11
L 1
931
17
4550
BIO-TREATMENT
EFFLUENT
123
34
22
11
8
6
41
67
N-D
N-D
N-D
7
N-D
900
N-D
1
6
7
547
118
105
83
3
10
8
L 1
1142
L 20
7
FINAL
EFFLUENT
120
41
19
10
8
10
38
467
N-D
N-D
N-»
20
N-D
155
N-D
3
5
L 20
99
26
50
48
2
5
15
N-D
632
L 20
3
                 POLLUTANTS  NOT  LISTED  UERE  NEVER  DETECTED
                 L-LESS  THANS     N-D  NOT  DETECTED!      E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR  CONFIRMED*
                                                                           G-GREATER  THAN!

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-6
                                                      SUMMARY OF  ANALYTICAL  DATA
                                                     PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                      SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                                                            FACILITY
                                                                          59
00
IN3
                    FRACTION

                    CONVENTIONALS
                    NON-CONUENTIONALS
                    VOLATILES
                    BASE-NEUTRALS
PESTICIDES

METALS
                    NON-CONV. METALS

                    MISC.
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE

FLUORANTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
BENZO (A)PYRENE
CHRYSENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE

PCB-1242

CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
MERCURY
SILVER
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)

UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MO/L
MG/L
UG/L L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
INTAKE
(WELLS)
9
6
24
7
1
8
1
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
2
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
DAF UNIT
EFFLUENT
630
84
43
9
35
183
16000
G 100
G 100
G 100
3
190
N-D
L 1
140
11
FINAL
EFFLUENT
660
100
61
0
39
220
1200
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
3
1
N-D
7
                                                                          UG/L
                                                                                    N-D
                                                                                                              N-0
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
L
L
L
L
L

L

240
40
20
1
250
7
20
230
726
6
50
L 1
L 250
275
L 20
5600
1069
L 5
20
L 1
3
433
10
NOT 1
                   POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NEVER DETECTED
                   L-LESS  THAN)     N-D  NOT DETECTED*     E-ESTIMATED  OR  VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED*
                                                                                                                  G GREATER THAN;

-------
00
co
FRACTION

CONVENTIONALS




NON-CONVENTIDNALS



VOLATILES






ACID EXTRACT


BASE-NEUTRALS



METALS
                                                                 TABLE V-7
                                                     SUMMARY  OF  ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                     PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                     SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                                                            FACILITY
                    MISC.
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE

2>4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
PHENOL

ACENAPHTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE

CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
ZINC

PHENOLICS  (4AAPO)
                                                                         64

UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
H6/L
UNIT
MO/L
MG/L
UB/L
UG/L
UB/l.
UG/L
UQ/L
UO/L
UD/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

INTAKE
47
3
20
8
6
15
L 1
N-D
N-D
50
30
N-D
20
N-D
N-D
2
N-D
L 1
L 1
39
9
10
5
N-D
10
L 10
122
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
157
49
15
7
13
43
1600
G 100
G 100
10
N-D
G 100
N-D
G 100
G 100
150
106
N-D
L 20
71
L 5
L 30
L 60
N-D
6
L 10
25
FINAL
EFFLUENT
59
S
14
8
20
10
467
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
L 20
43
L 5
L 30
L 60
L 1
4
12
52
                                                                         UG/L
                                                                                               9067
                   POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED HERE NEVER DETECTED
                   L-LESS THAN;     N-D  NOT DETECTED!      E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED.
                                                                                                                 G-GREATER  THAN!

-------
00
                    FRACTION
                    CONVENTIONALS
                    NON-CONVENTIONALS
                    VOLATILES
                    BASE-NEUTRALS
                    PESTICIDES
                    METALS
                                                                  TABLE V-8
                                                        SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL  DATA
                                                        PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                                        SCREENING SAMPLING  PROGRAM
                                                              FACILITY
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1i1i1-TRICHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE

FLUORANTHENE
BENZO (A)PYRENE
CHRVSENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE

CHLORDANE
BETA-BHC
PCB-1221

ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
ZINC
                    NON-CONV. METALS   HEX-CHROMIUM
                                                                           80


UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L


INTAKE
343
43
59
8
44
101
1067
G SO
G SO
L 10
29
33
49
140
140
3
N-D
N-D
27
38
157
L 30
1
35
12
76
COMBINED
BIO-TREATMENT
INFLUENT
287
G 73
73
7
11
78
500
N-D
N-D
70 L
N-D
10
7
2
10
N-D
1
L 1
41
58
409
727
L 1 L
93
L 10 L
339

FINAL
EFFLUENT
263
23
102
9
4
89
1000
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
1
1
N-D
M-D
N-D
N-ti
N-D
31
37
124
70
1
67
10
124
                    MISC.
                                       PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
                                                                         UG/L
                                                                         UG/L
                                                                                   210
                                                                                                183
                                                                                                45
                                                                                                                  10
                                                                                                                  24
                   POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED MERE NEVER DETECTED
                   L-LESS THAN!     N-D  NOT DETECTED)     E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED!
                                                                          G  GREATER THAN!

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-9

                                                             SUMMARY  OF  ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                            PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                             SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM

                                                                   FACILITY      84
00
cn
                    FRACTION

                    CONVENTIONALS
                    NON-CONVENTIONALS
                    VOLATILES
                    ACID EXTRACT

                    BASE-NEUTRALS
                    PESTICIDES
                    METALS
                    NON-CONV. METALS

                    MISC.
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL I GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE

PHENOL

FLUORANTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
PHENANTHRENE

ALPHA-EKDOSULFAN
PCB-1242
PCB-1232
PCB-1016

ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
THALLIUM
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PNENOLICS (4AAPO)
                                                                          UNITS
                                                                                    INTAKE
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L





L


L

L











L

L
L

L




L

L

24
1
il
13
8
1
12
300
1
22
1
10
N-D
N-D
1100
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
1
5
20
1
1
20
36
1
10
3
2
27
20
6
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
640
360
139
99
10
14
230
27333
409
293
96
4900
40
1100
700
N-D
40
1100
N-D
1
N-D
2
L 1
5
L 20
7.23
19
11 25
245
1
36
8
L 2
106
IIAF UNIT
EFFLUENT
987
253
131
220
10
12
283
25333
2005
563
76405
2400
N-D
700
1100
N-D
N-D
600
L 1
1
4
8
1
L 4
5
570
2
1758
204
1
21
9
L 2
83
                            FINAL
                            EFFLUENT

                            210
                            7
                            59
                            14
                            8

                            14
                            60
                            1967

                            1
                            12
                            1
                            N-D
                            N-D
                            850
                            N P
                            N-D
                            1

                            N-D
                            N-D
                            N-D
                            N-D

                            1
                            5
                            20
                            50
                            1
                            144
                            40
                            1
                            24
                            13
                            3
                            45
13

23750
7

23333
L  20

   33
                   POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NEVER DETECTED
                   L-LESS THAN.    N-D  NOT DETECTED*     E-ESTIMATED OR  VALUE  NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED;
                                                                                                                 0-GREATER  THAN?

-------
                                                                 TABLE V- 10
                                                      SUMMARY  OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                      PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                      SCREENING SAMPLIN6 PROGRAM

                                                            FACILITY
OO
cn
                   FRACTION

                   CONVENTIONALS
                   NON-CONVENTIONALS
                   VOLATILES
                   ACID EXTRACT
                   PESTICIDES

                   METALS
                   NON-CONV. METALS

                   MISC.
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
.OIL  S GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE

2r4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
PHENOL

4.4'-DDE

CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
SELENIUM
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
126
UNITS
MO/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
INTAKE
(RIVER)
18
1
98
17
8
L 1
12
133
N-D
L 10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
2
12
5
L 20
L 20
L 20
3
13
4
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
no
37
102
52
8
7
54
3100
N-D
55
N-D
N-D
175
440
7
L a
9
23
103
L 20
L 20
20
20 L
2133
FINAL
EFFLUENT
41
1
9
18
8
5
20
147
12
66
70
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
4
10
7
17
28
20
17
20
7
                  POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED  WERE  NEVER  DETECTED
                  L-LESS THAN*    N-D  NOT  DETECTED!      E--ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED*
                                                                                                                 G--GREATER THAN*

-------
CO
                   FRACTION

                   CONVENTIONALS
                   NON-CONVENTIONALS
                   UOLATILES
                   ACID EXTRACT

                   BASE-NEUTRALS
                   METALS
                   MISC.
                                                                 TABLE V- 11

                                                     SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                     PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                                     SCREENING SAMPLING  PROGRAM

                                                           FACILITY    153
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL I GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
ETHYLBCNZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE

PHENOL

NAPHTHALENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE

ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
ZINC

PHENOLICS <4AAPO>                 UG/L

UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
HG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
INTAKE
(CITY)
5
L 3
1
4
8
L 1
5
450
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-D
N-D
950
30
L 4
L 1
10
L 5
32
1
L 50
2
202
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
257
66
39
32
8
4
81
550
2434
812
19
11747
390
2*0
300
N-D
5
78
127
8
52
1
2
3
376
FINAL
EFFLUENT
79
L 12
8
6
7
L 1
31
550
2
N-D
74
L 1
N-D
N-D
300
10
L 4
L 1
45
L 5
S3
1
L 50
21
550
                                                                                               5240
                                                                                                             15
                  POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NEVER DETECTED
                  L-LESS THANI    N-D  NOT DETECTEDI     E-ESTIMA.TED OR VALUE NOT  QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED*
                                                                          G-GREATER  THAN!

-------
                                                                    TABLE V- 12
                                                              SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                              PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                              SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                   FRACTION

                   CONVENTIONALS
                   PARAMETER

                   COD
                   BOD
                   TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
                   OIL  t GREASE
                   PH
                  NON-CONVENT ZONALS  AMMONIA NITROGEN
                                      TOC
                                      SULFIDE
00
00
                  ACID  EXTRACT

                  BASE-NEUTRALS
PESTICIDES
                  METALS
PHENOL

FLUORANTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
PHENANTHRENE

PCB-1242
PCB-1232
PCB-1016

ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC
                  NON-CONV. METALS    HEX-CHROMIUM

                  MISC.               PHENOLICS  (4AAPO)
FACILITY
FART 1
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
•UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
157
INTAKE
25
1
5
13
8
1
14
100
N-D
N-D
N-D
110
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
3
L 1
4
7
L 1
2
L 1
3
L 23
L 2
41
7
11
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
(LUBE OIL)
177
59
S3
77
8
2
51
1433
420
30
N-D
180
30
30
N-D
N-D
N-D
3
136
284
10
192
1
154
7
L 25
L 2
304
17
733
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
(LIGHT OIL)
SS3
0 84
123
158
8
10
162
10500
160
N-D
3SO
300
30
90
1
1
L 1
5
651
59
10
862
2
26
13
L 25 L
2 L
872
2O
1833
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
(THERMAL)
187
29
45
34
7
5
53
2867
1
N-D
1
50
50
1
1
1
1
3
724
15
10
39
1
36
17
N-D
2
229
27
690
                 POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED MERE NEVER DETECTED
                 L-LESS THAN!    N-D  NOT  DETECTEDI     E-ESTIMATED  OR  VALUE  NOT  OUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMEDI
                                                                                                               G-GREATER THAN*

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-13

                                                               SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                               PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                               SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                  FRACTION

                  CONVENTIONALS
                  NON-CONVENTIONALS
                  ACID EXTRACT
                  BASE-NEUTRALS
00
                  PESTICIDES

                  METALS
                  NON-CONV. METALS

                  MISC.
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL t GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

2.4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL

ACENAPHTHENE
FLUORANTHENE
BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL FHTHALATE
CHRYSENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE

PCB-1242

ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOL ICS  (4AAPO)
FACILITY
PART


UNITS
MO/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UQ/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
157
2
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
(OTHER)
337
G 73
52
83
8
6
74
7000
650
850
14000
50
20
600
N-D
N-D
40
80
230
N-D
1
3
U 2
L 20
1451
38
57
32
2
L 50
16
L 1
L 2
•421

SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
(OTHER-2)
83
12
30
14
B
1
25
4333
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
L 1
9
L 1
3
254B
75
20
53
1
54
20
6
3
575


BIO-TREATMENT
EFFLUENT
553
G SB
19
13
8
22
90
22167
750
N-D
G 12000
N-D
N-D
210
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
L ;
L 1
L 2
L 2
L 20
9
13
273
15
3
L 50
18
L 25
L 2
81


FINAL
EFFLUENT
89
6
12
14
7
6
31
700
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
190
30
3
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
L 11
L 4
L 2
L 20
79
9
78
18
2
19
19
L 25
L 2
70
UG/L

UG/L
17

4333
120

251
87

104333
L  20

   11
                 POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED  HERE  NEVER  DETECTED
                 L-LESS THANf     N-D  NOT  DETECTED!      E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED  OR*CONFIRMEDi
                                                                                                                G-GREATER THAN!

-------
                                                TABLE  V-14
                                    SUMMARY  OF  ANALYTICAL DATA
                                   PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                    SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                                          FACILITY
                                                      167
 FRACTION

 CONVENTIONALS
 NON-CONVENTIONALS
 VOLATILES
 ACID EXTRACT
 METALS
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL I GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
METHYLENE CHLORIDE

2-CHLOROFHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLFHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2f4-DINITROPHENOL
PHENOL

CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
 NON-CONV. METALS   HEX-CHROMIUM

 MISC.              PHENOLICS  (4AAPO)

UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MD/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
INTAKE
(RIVER)
25
3
12
10
8
L 1
11
347
N-D
L 10
N--D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
1
13
9
46
L 15
89
L 20
L 10
HAF UNIT
EFFLUENT
690
118
283
293
8
7
237
1000
20
100 L
1100 L
315
1150
5800
11000
105
1 L
1320
276
96 L
15 L
1680
20 L
700
FINAL
EFFLUENT
122
7
23
19
8
3
41
367
N-D
10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
1
87
28
20
15
278
20
29
POLLUTANTS NOT L1STEU WERE NEVER DETECTED
L-LESS THAN;    N-D  NOT  DETECTED;      E-ESTIMATED  OR  VALUE  NOI  HUANTIFIED OK CONFIRMED;
                                                                          G-GREAIER THAN!

-------
 FRACTION

 CONVENTIONALS
 NON-CONVENT IONALS
 VOLATILES
 ACID EXTRACT


 BASE-NEUTRALS
 PESTICIDES

 METALS
                                                 TABLE  V-15
                                          SUMMARY OF  ANALrTICAL DATA
                                          PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                          SCREENING  SAMPLING PROGRAM
                                                 FACILITY
                                                             169
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP.
FH
                                SOLIDS
 NON-CONV. METALS

 MISC.
AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
PHENOL

ACENAPHTHENE
FLUORANTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAFHTHYLENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE

PCB-1242

CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)


UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L


INTAKE
33
1
210
7
L 1
10
700
N-D
N-D
N-D
40
N-D
N-D
N-D
29
L

-n
L


L

SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
423
131
123
8
12
120
1200
G 100
10
G 100
G 100
G 100
G 100
G 100
N-D
N-D
SOO
20
N-D
270
230
N-D
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
(OTHER)
193
37
42
7
11
50
1133
G 100
10
G 100
50
G 100
G 100
G 100
3000
9
280
2
N-D
300
N-D
7

FINAL
EFFLUENT
A3
&
28
7
2
16
533
N-D
N-D
N-D
60
N-D
N-D
N-D
6
L 1
L 1
L 1
N-D
N-D
N-D
L 1
UG/L

UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

UG/L

UG/L
6
8
60
161
1
4
211

100

10
                                                                                            N-D
                                                                                                          N-D
258
110
377
9
1
14
360
23
54667
841
44
150
3
L 1
3
323
17
11000
165
27
80
L 60
L 1
3
161
40
3
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NEVER DETECTED
L-LESS THANI    N-D  NOT DETECTED)     E-ESTIMATED  OR  VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED!
                                                                                               G-GREATER THAN!

-------
                                                                TABLE V-16

                                                    SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                   PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                                    SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                                                          FACILITY
                                                                      186
<£>
ro
                 FRACTION

                 CONVENTIONALS
                 NON-CONVENT IONALS
                 VOLATILES
                 ACID EXTRACT
                 METALS
                 NON-CONV.  METALS

                 MISC.
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL 1 GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
METHYLENE CHLORIDE

PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
2r4-DIMET.HYLPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2r4-DINITROPH£NOL
PHENOL

BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)

UNITS
MO/L
MG/L
MO/L
MO/L
UNIT
MG/L
MO/L
UO/L
UQ/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
INTAKE
(CITY)
9
L 6
L 1
8
8
L 1
7
233
14
44
91
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
L 10
L 3
L 2
16
176
L 20
65
2
L 5
113
OAF UNIT
EFFLUENT
233
40
11
17
8
12
67
500
12
55
180
N-D
18300
1400
2660
33500
2
L 2
113
9
20
L 20
L 15
L 5
126
FINAL
EFFLUENT
84
L 12
11
13
8
L 1
16
367
11
L 10
L 10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
L 10
1
1
81
14
L 20
16
6
2
116
                                                                       UG/L
                                                                       UG/L
                                                                                 10
                                                                                              250
                                                                                              4400
                                                                                                           20
                                                                                                           10
                POLLUTANTS  NOT  LISTED  MERE NEVER DETECTED
                L-LESS THAN!     N-D  NOT  DETECTEIK      E-ESTIMATEIl OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED  OR  CONFIRMED!
                                                                                                               G-GREATER THAN!

-------
to
                   FRACTION

                   CONVENTIONALS
                   NON-CONVENTIONALS
                   VOLATILES
                   ACID EXTRACT
                   EASE-NEUTRAL'S
                   PESTICIDES
                   METALS
                                                                  TABLE V-17

                                                              SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                             PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                                              SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                                                                    FACILITY
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP,
PH
                                                   SOLIDS
                   NON-CONV.  METALS

                   MISC.
AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
ETMVLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE

PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
2f4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
PHENOL

ACENAPHTHENE
FLUORANTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
CHRYSENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1016

CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAH
MERCURY
NICKEL
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS  (4AAPO)
                                                                                 194


UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

INTAKE
(RIVER)
28
L 5
22
8
L 1
11
733
N-D
N-D
N-D
G 100
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-P
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
601
L 40
L 60
L 600
L 1
158
28
S3
L 11

SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
•410
101
85
8
13
103
6733
0 100
IS
G 100
G 100
G <00
N-D
71
G 100
522
8
302
6
87
140
16
N-D
L 1
1
2
1332
16
13
4
L 1
3
597
L 20
5800













G
G

G




L





L



L
L
L
L

L

UNTREATED
UASTEUATER
(OTHER)
463
83
35
7
1
134
833
90
10
20
100
100
10
100
40
N-D
N-D
27
1
N-D
1
1
5
N-D
1
1
667
6
60
60
1
50
4980
20
49

FINAL
EFFLUENT
133
9
45
8
5
34
800
6
N-D
N-D
G 100
35
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
109
2
L 60
L 60
L 1
L 50
64
L 20
L 15
                  POLLUTANTS  NOT  LISTEU WERE NEVER DETECTED
                  I -LESS  THAN!     NO  NOT DETECTED*      E-ESTIMATED OR VAl UE  NOT  QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED.
                                                                                                                 G-GREATER  THAN!

-------
                                                                  TABLE V- 18
                                                     SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                    PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                     SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                  FRACTION

                  CONVENTIONALS




                  NON-CONVENTIONALS



                  VOLATILES



                  ACID EXTRACT


                  CASE-NEUTRALS
IO
-pi
                  METALS
                  NON-CONV. METALS

                  MISC.
                                                           FACILITY
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP.
PH
SOLIDS
AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

CHLOROFORM
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE

2.4-PIMETHYLPHENOL
PHENOL

ACENAPHTHENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE

CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
                                                                       205

UNITS
MG/L
MG/L L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UB/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L L
UG/L L
UG/L L
UG/L L
UG/L
UG/L L
INTAKE
(WELLS)
16
5
11
7
1
19
200
55
130
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
2
6
20
20
60
13
10
DAF UNIT
EFFLUENT
423
94
32
9
10
137
3633
13
N-D
16
2000
1900
390
2500
3750
530
1750
495
1750
248
20 L
147 L
5 L
47 L
L 20
10667
FINAL
EFFLUENT
137
20
25
B
3
47
500
32
44
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
62
&
30
20
60
7
46
                 POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED  WERE  NEVER DETECTED
                 L-LESS THANi    N-D  NOT  DETECTED)      E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED  OR  CONFIRMED)
                                                                          G-GREATER  THAN)

-------
                                                                      TABLE V-19
                                                         SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                         PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                         SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM

                                                               FACILITY
«£>
cn
                      FRACTION

                      CONVENTIONALS
                      NON-CONVENTIONALS
                      VOLATILES
                       ACID  EXTRACT
                       BASE-NEUTRALS
                      PESTICIDES
                       METALS
                       NON-CONV.  METALS

                       MISC.
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP.
PH
                                                      SOLIDS
AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
1 F2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE

2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2.4-DINITROPHENOL
4tA-DINITRO-0-CRESOL

ACENAPHTHENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
PHENANTHRENE

ALDRIN
BETA-ENDOSULFAN
DELTA-BHC

ANTIMONY
CHROMIUM
CYANIDE
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
235
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
HO/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
OG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L


L
L

L

L
L
L



L
L
L











L

L

L
L
INTAKE
(CITY)
3
5
1
7
1
6
1
10
10
11
N-D
N-D
10
10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
25
8
30
12
20
10
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT

537
212
63
10

IS
150
24333

1100
100
N-D
28
1600
65S

1350
20
110
60

315
3550
3200
665
660
660

12
13
12

360
464
63
11

67

67500
   FINAL
   EFFLUENT

   51
   5
   7
   8

   2
   24
   300

   10
   10
   N-D
   N-tl
   41
   N-D

   N-D
   N-D
   N-D
   N-D

   N-D
   N-D
   N-D
   N-D
   N-D
   N-D

   N-D
   N-D
   N-D
   370
   8
L  30
   9

L  20

   11
                      POLLUTANTS NOT LISTEH HERE NEVER DETECTED
                      L -LESS THAN)     N-D  N01 DETECTED!     E-ESTIMA1EU OR  VALUE  NOT  QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED*
                                                                                                                    B fiRFATER  THAN!

-------
                                                                      TABLE V- 20
en
                     FRACTION

                     CONVENTIONALS
                     NON-CONVENTIONALS
                     VOLATILES
ACID EXTRACT

BASE-NEUTRALS


METALS
                                                        SUMMARY  OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                                        PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                        SCREENING SAMPLING PROGRAM
                                                              FACILITY
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL t GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
TOC
SULFIDE

BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TOLUENE

PHENOL

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE

ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
SELENIUM
ZINC

PHENQLICS (4AAPO)
                                                                          241

UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UNIT
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
INTAKE
(WELLS)
11
L 3
2
9
7
L 1
9
333
L 1
N-D
&
N-D
N-D
SEPARATOR
EFFLUENT
320
62
17
50
9
44
80
5767
894
6
4
24
167
FINAL
EFFLUENT
247
26
29
42
9
48
66
600
N-D
N-D
3
N-D
N-D
                                                                           UG/L
                                                                                      10
                                                                                                  60
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
1100
20
L 1
21
L 20
L 1
85
4
34
2
6
553
320
N-D
L 1
438
L 20
L 1
98
3
22
1
8
550
N-D

2000
1

1
734
1
1
90
65
23
2
16
416
                                                                           UG/L
                                                                                                  112
                    POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED  WERE  NEVER  DETECTED
                    L-LESS THAN!    N-D  NOT  DETECTED.      E  ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED  OR  CONFIRMFDf
                                                                                                                   G- RREIATER THAMi

-------
  FRACTION

  CONVENTIONALS
  NON-CONVENTIONAL8
  VOLATILES
  ACID EXTRACT


  BASE-NEUTRALS
  PESTICIDES
  HETALS
  NISC.
                                     TABLE V-21
                            SUHHARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                            PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                               POTU SAHPLINO PROGRAN

                                  FACILITY  13
PARAHETER

COD
BOO
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL S OREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN
SU1FIDE

BENZENE
1r1»1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORH
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE

2»4-DIHETHYLPHENOL
PHENOL

ACENAPHTHENE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
1f2-BENZANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE

4.4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
ALPHA-BHC

ARSENIC
CHROHIUH
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
SELENIUH
ZINC

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
UNITS
MG/L
HG/L
HG/L
HG/L
UNIT
HO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L L
UO/L L
UO/L I
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L L
UO/L
UO/L
FINAL EFFLUENT-
TO POTU
842
404
73
290
11
23
30
173
7
9
203
2300
2430
1650
9
£
92
19
A
&
33
7
33
1
1
1
14
1108
11
203
26
1
107
120
                                                         UO/L
                                                                     92150
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED HERE NEVER DETECTED
L-LESS THAN!    N-D  NOT DETECTED!    E-ESTIHATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRMED!

-------
CD
                     FRACTION

                     CONUENTIONALS
                    NON-CONVENTIONALS

                    VOLATILEB



                    ACID EXTRACT


                    DASE-NEUTRALS

                    PESTICIDES


                    NETALS
                    HISC.
                                                       TABLE V-22

                                               SUMMARY  OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                               PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                                 POTII  SAMPLING PROGRAM

                                                    FACILITY  16
PARAMETER                          UNITS

COD                                HO/L
BOD                                HO/L
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS                 HO/L
OIL t OREASE                       HO/L
PH                                 UNIT

AHHONIA NITROGEN                   HO/L

BENZENE                            UG/L
ETHYLBENZENE                       UO/L
TOLUENE                            UO/L

2>4-DIHETHYLPHENOL                 UO/L
PHEHOL                             UO/L

NAPHTHALENE                        UO/L

4i4'-DDT                           UO/L
ALPHA-BHC                          UO/L

ARSENIC                            UG/L
CHROHIUH                           UO/L
COPPER                             UO/L
CYANIDE                            UO/L
LEAD                               UG/L
SELENIUH                           UO/L
ZINC                               UG/L

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)                  UO/L
FINAL EFFLUENT-
TO POTU

484
120
22
37
8

29

240
277
420

318
345

53

3
1

23
1880
14
47
20
144
333

3700
                  POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED HERE  NEVER DETECTED
                  L-LESS THANI     N-D  NOT  DETECTED*    E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED  OR  CONFIRMED!

-------
10
                     FRACTION

                     CONVENTIONALS
                     NON-CONVENT IONAtS

                     VOLATILES
ACID EXTRACT


BASE-NEUTRALS



PESTICIDES


METALS







MISC.
                                                       TABLE V- 23

                                               SUHMARY  OF  ANALYTICAL DATA
                                               PETROLEUH REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                                  POTU  SAHPLINO PROGRAM

                                                     FACILITY   21
PARAMETER                          UNITS

COD                                HG/L
BOD                                HO/L
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS                 HG/L
OIL t OREASE                       hO/L
PH                                 UNIT

AMMONIA NITROOEN                   HO/L

BENZENE                            UO/L
1'2-DICHLOftOETHAME                 UO/L
CHLOROFORN                         UO/L
ETHYLBENZENE                       UO/L
TOLUENE                            UO/L

2t4-DIHETHYLPHENOL                 UO/L
PHENOL                             UO/L

NAPHTHALENE                        UO/L
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE             UO/L
DIETHYL PHTHALATE                  UO/L

ALDRIN                             UO/L
ALPHA-BHC                          UO/L

CHROHIUH                           UO/L
COPPER                             UO/L
CYANIDE                            UO/L
LEAD                               UO/L
SELENIUH                           UO/L
ZINC                               UO/L

PHENOLICS MAAPO)                  UO/L
                                                                   FINAL EFFLUENT-
                                                                   TO POTU

                                                                   351
                                                                   125
                                                                   23
                                                                   34
                                                                   9
466
29
19
6073
18500

3?4
133

162
5
&

1
1

742
15
20
3?
17
172

1467
                   POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED UERE NEVER DETECTED
                   L-LESS THANI    N-D  NOT DETECTEDI     E-ESTINATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRHEDI

-------
                                                     TABLE V-24

                                             SUMMARY  OF  ANALYTICAL  DATA
                                             PETROLEUM REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                                POTW  SAMPLING PROGRAM

                                                   FACILITY  25
O
O
                   FRACTION

                   CONVENTIONALS
                  NON-CONVENTIONALS

                  VDLAT1LES
                  ACID* EXTRACT
                  BASE-NEUTRALS
                  PESTICIDES

                  METALS
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL  I GREASE
PH

AMMONIA NITROGEN

BENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
ETHYLBENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE

2i4-DIHETHYLPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL

NAPHTHALENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE

BETA-BHC

ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
SELENIUM
ZINC
UNITS

HG/L
MO/L
HG/L
MO/L
UNIT

MG/L

UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L

UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

UG/L

UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
FINAL EFFLUENT-
TO POTU

700
328
30
48
9

37

3847
Id
13
6200
?
10200

644
41S
1430

330
8 '
20
7
47
32
47
11
                                                                                      19
                                                                                      170S
                                                                                      23
                                                                                      2800
                                                                                      28
                                                                                      261
                                                                                      148
                  MON-CONV. METALS

                  MISC.
HEX-CHROHIUH

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
                                                                         UG/L
                                                                         UG/L
            320

            103333
                POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE  NEVER DETECTED
                L-LESS THANI    N-D  NOT  DETECTEDI    E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT  QUANTIFIED  OR  CONFIRHEDI

-------
                                       TABLE V-2S
  FRACTION

  CONVENTIONALS
                                    SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
                                    PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                       POTH SAMPLING PROGRAM

                                           FACILITY   43
PARAMETER

COD
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL t CREASE
PH
UNITS

MG/L
MG/L
NO/L
HO/L
UNIT
FINAL EFFLUENT
TO POTU

2910
931
32
134
B
DIRECT
DISCHARGE

130
38
23
4
B
  NON-CONVENTIONALS

  V01.ATILES
  ACID EXTRACT


  BASE-NEUTRALS
  PESTICIDES
  METALS
  NON-CONV. METALS

  MISC.
AMMONIA NITROGEN

BENZENE
lf2-DICHLOROETHANE
1r1>1-TRICHLOROETHANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE

2r4-PIMETHYLPHENOL
PHENOL

2>4-DINITROTOLUENE
lr2-DIPHENYLHYORAZINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLANINE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE

ALDRIN
4»4'-DDT
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
ALPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC

ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
NICKEL
SELENIUM
ZINC

HEX-CHROMIUM

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
HO/L

UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L

UO/L
UO/L

UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L

UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L

UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L

UO/L

UO/L
43

24
N-D
8
6

4950
7000

N-D
12
N-D
N-D
6

N-D
N-D
N-D
1
N-D

63
49
47
6667
N-D
14
481
47

200

140SOO
N-D
14
N-D
N-D

8
N-B

10
N-D
21
7
N-D

1
1
1
1
1

N-D
204
S
30
18
N-D
N-D
137

30

103
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED HERE NEVER DETECTED
L-LESS THANI    N-D  NOT DETECTED!    E-ESTIMATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRHEDI

-------
                                                      TABLE V-Z6

                                             SUMMARY  OF  ANALYTICAL DATA
                                             PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                                POTW  SAMPLING PROGRAM

                                                   FACILITY  45
O
ro
                   FRACTION
                   CONVENTIONALB
                  NON-CONVENTIONALS

                  VOLATILEB



                  ACID EXTRACT


                  BASE-NEUTRALS
                  PESTICIDES
                  METALS
                  MISC.
PARAMETER                          UNITS

COD                                HG/L
BOD                                HO/L
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS                 HO/L
OIL I GREASE                       MO/L
PH                                 UNIT

AMMONIA NITROGEN                   HO/L

BENZENE                            UO/L
ETHYLBENZENE                       UO/L
TOLUENE                            UO/L

2.4-DIHETHVLPHENOL                 UG/L
PHENOL                             UG/L

ACENAPHTHENE                       UO/L
MAPHTHALEME                        UO/L
ANTHRACENE                         UO/L
PHENANTHRENE                       UG/L
PYRENE                             UG/L

ALDRIN                             UG/L    L
4,4'-DDT                           UQ/L    L
ALPHA-BHC                          UO/L    L

CHROMIUM                           UO/L
COPPER                             UO/L
CYANIDE                            UG/L
LEAD                               UO/L
MERCURY                            UG/L    L
SELENIUM                           UG/L
ZINC                               UO/L

PHENOLICS (4AAPO)                  UG/L
FINAL EFFLUENT-
TO POTU

429
153
17
15
7

104

242
105
434

1360
2447

1?
229
SB
SB
B

1
1
1

440
22
4000
17
1
143
180

14347
                POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED UERE NEVER DETECTED
                L-LESS THANI    N-D  NOT DETECTEDI    E-ESTIHATED OR VALUE NOT QUANTIFIED OR CONFIRHEDI

-------
                                                                 TABLE  V-27
                                                             DIRECT iHSCHAIlGE
                                                  FINAL EFFLUENT  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                 SUMMARY  OF EPA SCREENING PROGRAM DATA
Pa.e  1 of 3
TRACTION

VOI.ATJLES
ACHi  EXTRACT
BASE-NEUTRALS
PAR.
NO.
2
3.
4
&
7
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
23
2?
30
32
33
38
44
45
44
47
48
49
SO
51
85
86
87
88
21
22
24
31
34
57
58
59
60
64
65

PARAMETER
ACROLEIN
ACRYt ONITRILE
PFNZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIHE
rHLOROBENZENE
1 2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 1 . 1-TRICHI.OROETHANE
1 1-DICHLOROFTHANE
1 1 .2-TRICHLOROF.THANE
1 I .2.2-TFTRACHIOROETHANE
CHI OROETHANE
BIS(CHl.OROMETHYL> ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
CHLOROFORM
1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 .2-DICHL OROPROPANE
1.3-DICHLOROPROPYLENE
ETHYLBFNZENE
METHYLENF CHLORIDE
MFTHYl CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
PROMOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANF
TRICHLOROFL UOROHETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CHLOROniBROMOMETHANE
TETRACHl.OROETHYl ENE
TOLUENE
TRICHl OROETHYl FNE
VINYL CHLORIDE
2.4 . 6-TRICHI.OROF'HFNOL
PARACHLOROHETA CRESOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2 » 4 -D I CHLOROPHENOL
2.4-DIMETHYl PHENOL
2-NITROPHFNOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2.4-DINITROPHFNOL
4.6-DINITRO-O-CRFSOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
                                                                                        TOTAL    TOTAL
                                                                    PI ANTS  PI ANTS    SAMPLES  TIMES    PER
                                                              UNITS SAMPLED DETECTING ANALYZED DETECTED CENT  AVFRAOF   MINIMUM   MAXIMUM
                      1  ACENAPHTHENE
                      5  BFNZIBINF.
                      8  1.2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENF
UG/I
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/l
UG/L
1«
16
1«
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
12
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
i
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0


25 2 L 1 12










13 6 L 5 &6





69 33 L 10 100








6 2 L 1 35



5 L 1 L 10 10

5 L 1 N-D 10







5 L 1 N-D 6


L-IESS  THAN!   T-TRACFI   N-D  NOT DETFCTEDI
                                                 G-GREATER  THAN*
                                                                 Note:  Laboratory analysis reported as less than a deduction
                                                                        limit Is considered not detected (value = 0) for this table.

-------
                                                            TABLE V-27
                                                          DIRECT DISCHARGE
                                                FINAL EFFLUENT PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                               SUMMARY OF EPA SCREENING PROGRAM DATA
                                                                                           Page 2 of 3
FRACTION

BASE-NEUTRALS
PESTICIDES
PAR.
NO.  PARAMETER

  9  HEXACHLOROBENZENE
 12  HEXACHIOROETHANE
 IB  BIS<2-CHLOROETHri > ETHER
 20  2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
 25  lf2-DICHLOROBENZENE
 26  1.3-DICHIOROBENZENE
 27  1.4-DICHLOROBENZENE
 28  3.V-OICHLOROBFNZIDINE
 35  2r4-DINITROTOLUENE
 36  2.4-DINITROTOLUENE
 37  lr2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
 39  FLUORANTHENE
 40  4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
 41  4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
 42  BIS<2-CHIOROISQPROPYL> ETHER
 43  BIS(2-CHLOROF.THYOXY) HETHANE
 52  HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
 53  HFXACHLQROCYCLOPFNTADIENE
 54  ISOF'HORONE
 55  NAPHTHALENE
 56  NITROBENZENE
 61  N-NITROSODIHETHYl AMINE
 62  N-NITROSODIPHF.NYLAMINF
 63  N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAHINE
 66  BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
 67  BUTYL BENZYL PHTHAIATE
 68  DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
 69  OI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
 70  DIETHYL PHTHALATE
 71  DIMETHYL FHTHAl ATE
 72  It2-BENZANTHRACENE
 73  BFNZO (A)PYRENE
 74  3r4-BFNZOFLUORANTHENE
 75  11.12-BEN70FLUORANTHENE
 76  CHRYSENE
 77  ACENAPHTHYLENE
 78  ANTHRACENE
 79  1r!2-PENZOPERYLENE
 80  FLIIORENE
 81  PHENANTHRENE
 82  lf2!5r6-DIBENZANTHRACENE
 83  INDENCK 1,2r3-C.n> PYRENE
 84  PYRENE

 89  ALDRIN
 70  DIELDRIN
 91  CHLORTiANF
                                                                                  TOTAL    TOTAL
                                                                PLANTS   PLANTS    SAHPI.E8  TIMES    PER-
                                                         UNITS  SAMPLED  DETECTING ANALYZED DETECTED CENT  AVERAGE   MINIMUM
                                                                                                                            MAXIMUM
L-LESS THANI  T-TRACEt   N-D   NOT DETECTEDI   G-GREATER THAN)
UG/L
UO/I.
UG/L
IIG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UB/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UB/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/I.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
IIG/L
UG/L


17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Note:

22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
17
17
17
Laboratory analysis
limit Is considered
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 5 L 1 N-ti L
0
0
0
0
5 23 180 I 10
0
2 9 1 N-D
0
3 14 1 N-D
1 5 L 1 N-D
0
2 9 L 1 N-D
0
0
3 14 L 1 L 1
0
0
0
0
1 5 L 1 L 1
0
0
1 5 L 1 L 1
0
0
0
reported as less than a deduction
not detected (value = 0) for this tahlo



















1




2000

10

30
3

3


1




1


7






-------
                                                                               TABLE V-27
                                                                            DIRECT DISCHARGE
                                                                  FINAL EFFLUENT PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                                 SUMMARY OF EPA SCREENING PROGRAM DATA
                                                            Page  3 of 3
                  FRACTION

                  PESTICIDES
O
tn
                  METALS
                  NON-CONV.  METAIS

                  MISC.
PAR.
NO.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
too
101
103
103
104
105
106
107
10B
109
110
111
112
113
129
111
115
117
11B
119
120
121
12?
123
124
125
126
127
128
148
147
PARAMETER
4i4'-DDT
4f4/-DDE
4>4'-DDD
AlPHA-ENDOSULFAN
BETA-ENDOSUIFAN
ENDOSUt.FAN SULFATE
FNDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
AlPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
CAMMA-BHC
DELTA-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-124B
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
TOXAPHENE
TCDD
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC
HEX-CHROMIUM
PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
                         TOTAl     TOTAL
      PLANTS   PLANTS    SAMPLES   TIMES     PER-
UNITS SAMPLED  DETECTING ANALYZED  DETECTED CENT AVERAGE
                                                           MINIMUM  MAXIMUM
UG/L
(JO /I.
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/l.
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/l.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/l.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/I.
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L

17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
17
17
17
17
17
16
16

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
1
5
17
12
8
7
11
7
7
2
2
16
5
14
Note:
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
22
17
21
84
86
87
85
54
87
72
89
31
84
32
92
48
45
Laboratory
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
2
5
68
46
26
20
53
20
21
3
5
74
6
34
analysis
limit 1s consldred


IB
38
2 I
6 L
78
54
48
23
74
22
68
4 L
16
80
13
76
reported as
not detected


22 L
177 L
1 L
1 L
115 1.
23 L
39 L
14 L
1 1
8 L
11 L
1 L
1 L
203 L
5 L
16 L
less than a
(value - 0)


1
4
1
1
5
4
5
15
1
1
10
1
1
10
20
10
deduction
for this


370
900
2
20
1230
TOO
320
211
12
74
32
15
12
3000
110
64

table.
                  L-LESS THANI  T-TRACEI   N-D  NOT DETECTED!
                                                                G-GREATER THANI

-------
                                                              TABLE V-20
                                                    INDIRECT DISCHARGE  (TO POTW)
                                                          PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                            SUMMARY OF EPA
                                                       PRETREATMENT PROGRAM DATA
Page  1 of 3
FRACTION

VOLATILES
ACID EXTRACT
PAR.
NO.
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
13
14
IS
16
17
19
23
29
3O
32
33
38
44
45
46
47
48
49
SO
51
85
86
87
88
21
22
24
31
34
57
58
59
60
64
65
1
5
8

PARAMETER
ACROLEIN
ACRYI.ONITRILE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBF.NZENE
2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 f 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1-DICHLOROE THANE
1.2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 f 2 > 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROETHANE
DISC CHI OROMETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROETHYI. VINYL ETHER
CHLOROFORM
Irl-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 r 2-TRANS-DICHL OROETHYLENE
lf2-DICHLOROPROPANE
I i3-DICHLOROPROPYLENC
ETHYL BENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROHOFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
TR I CHLOROFLUOROME THANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CHLORODIBROMOHETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHI.OROETHYl.ENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
2r4r6-TRICHt.OROPHFNOl
PARACHLOROHETA CRESOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2r4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2t4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2»4-DINITROPHENOL
4t6-DINITRO-0-CRFSOL
PF.NTACHl OROPHFNOL
PHFNOL
ACFNAPHTHENE
BENZIDINE
1 »2,4-TRICHLORQBFN7EN£
                                                                                     TOTAt    TOTAL
                                                                  PLANTS  PLANTS     SAMPLES  TIMES     F'ER-
                                                           UNITS  SAHPLFD DETECTING ANALYZED DETECTED CENT AVERAGE
     MINIMUM  MAXIMUri
BASE-NEUTRALS
L-LESS THAN)   T-TRACEI  N-D   NOT DETECTED)
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/l
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/l.
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/l
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
6
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
b
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
6
2
0
0
18
18
18
IS
15
IS
IS
IS
18
IS
18
18
18
IS
IS
IS
18
IS
IS
IS
18
18
18
IS
18
18
15
15
IS
IS
18
18
15
15
IB
IS
18
18
18
18
16
15
IS
18
15
0
0
12
0
1
2
2
0
O
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
1
12
3
0
0


67 817 N-Ii 5800

7 2 N-D 31
13 6 N-D 54
13 2 N-D 15






40 7 N-D 21




73 2540 N-D 18000
7 1 N-D 12







7 1 N-D 18
73 6216 N-tl 48000






93 1509 N-D 9300




4 52 N-D 830
80 194? N-D 14000
20 5 N-D 41


                                                           Note:  Laboratory analysis reported as less th
-------
                                                            TABLE  V-28
                                                   INDIRECT DISCHARGE  (TO POTW)
                                                        PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                          SUMMARY OF EPA
                                                     PRETREATMENT PROGRAM DATA
                                                                                              Page 2 of 3
FRACTION

BASE-NEUTRALS
                   PAR.
                   NO.
                        PARAMETER
                                                               TOTAl     TOTAL
                                             PLANTS   PLANTS    8AHPIES   TIMES     FFR-
                                      UNITS  SAMPLED DETECTING ANALYZED  DETECTED CENT AVFRAfiE
                                                                                                 MINIMUM  MAXIMUM
PESTICIDES
 9  HEXACHLOROBFN7ENE
12  HEXACHLOROETHANE
18  BIS(2-CHLOROFTHYL>  ETHER
20  2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
25  1>2-DICHLOROBENZENE
26  lr3-DICHLOROBENZENF
27  t ,4-tlICHl OROBEN7EME
28  3.3--DICHI OROBENZIDJNE
35  2,4-DINITROTOI.UENE
36  ?»6-DINITROTOLUF.NE
37  1,2-DIPMF.NYtHYDRAZINE
39  FLUORANTHF.NE
40  4-CHLOROPHF.NYL PHENYL ETHER
41  4-BROMOPHENYL PHFNYL  ETHER
•42  BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
43  BIS(2-CHLOROETHYOXY>  METHANE
52  HFXACHI.OROBUTABIENE
53  HFXACHLOROCYCl.OPFNTADIF.NE
54  ISOPHORONE
55  NAPHTHALENE
56  NITROBENZENE
61  N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
62  N-NITROSOOIPHFNYHMINE
63  N-NITROSODI-N-PROFCLAMINF
66  BIS(2-ETHYl HFXYL) PHTHAlATE
67  BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
68  DI-N-BUTYL PHTHAlATE
69  DI-N-dCTYL PHTHALATE
70  PIETHYL PHTHAl ATE
71  DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
72  lr2-BFN7ANTHRACFNE
73  BENZO (A)FYRFNE
74  3.4-RFNZOFLUORANTHFNE
75  11 (12-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
76  CHRYSENE
77  ACENAPHTHYIFNF
78  ANTHRACENE
79  1.12-BENZOPF.RYl ENE
80  FLUORENF
81  PHFNANTHRENE
82  irF.NZANTHRACFNF
83  INriFNO(l,2f3-C.D) PYRENE
84  PYRENE

89  ALDRIN
90  DITI.DRIN
91  CHIORDANE
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/t.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/I.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
tIG/L
UG/L
Ufl/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/l
WO/I.
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UQ/l
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
Note:
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
&
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
A
6
6
6
A
6
A
A
A
A
Laboratory
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
4
0
1
0
0
•o
1
0
3
0
2
3
0
0
2
2
0
0
analysis
18
18
18
IB
15
17
15
18
15
18
15
15
18
18
15
15
IB
18
15
14
18
18
IS
18
15
15
15
15
15
IS
15
18
18
18
15
IS
15
18
15
15
18
18
15
15
15
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
3
8
0
0
2
2
0
0
reported as less than
is considered not detected (value
- 0) for
7

7
79





13
7

27

7



7

S3

20
53


13
13 I


a (iettttton
this table.
2

1
169





2
3

5

1



1

25

7
25


2
1


Unit

N-D

N-D
N-D





N-D
N-D

N- D

N-D



M-D

N-D

N-D
N-D


N-D
N-D




23

12
620





16
40

30

12



II.'

ei

A3
HI


21
1




L-LFSS  THANI   T-TRACF!  N-D  NOT DETECTED)

-------
                                                                                  TABLE   V-28
                                                                        INDIRECT DISCHARGE (TO POTW*
                                                                              PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                                                SUMMARY OF  EPA
                                                                          PRETREATMENT PROGRAM DATA
Page  3 of 3
                   FRACTION
                   PESTICIDES
O
CO
                   METAI. S
PAR.
NO.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
104
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
129
114
11H
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
124
127
128
PARAMETER
4r4'-DDT
4r4'-DDF
4f4'-DDD




Al.PHA-ENDOSULFAN
BFTA-FNBOSUIFAN
ENDOSULFAN
FNDRIN
SULFATF

ENFIRIN ALDEHYDE
HFPTACHLOR
HEPTACHl OR
AlPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
OAMMA-BHC
LF.LTA-BHC
FCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
FCB-12AO
PCB-101A
TOXAPHENE
TCDD
ANTIHONY
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CVANIDF
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC

EPOXIDE



























                   NON-CONV.  MF.TAIS   148  HEX-CHROMIUM
                                                                                                          TOTAl     IOTAL
                                                                                      PI ANTS  PLANTS     SAMPl ES   TIMES     PER
                                                                                UNITS SAMPLED DETECTING ANALYZED  DETECTED  CENT AVERARE
                                                                                                                                             MINIMUM   MAXIMUM
                   MISC.
                                       11A  ASBESTOS
                                       1A7  PHENOLJCS (4AAPO)
UO/L
UG/L
00/1.
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
IIG/I
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
4
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
A
4
A
5
2
1
A
0
0
A
1
0
A
15
15
15
15
18
18
18
18
15
15
15
15
15
15
18
IB
18
18
18
IB
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
IB
18
18
19
18
18
18
18
18
IB
IB
18
IB
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
18
1A
18
10
5
1
16
0
0
18
3
0
IB
27 L
7 L








40 L
13 1












39


100
89
100
53
28 L
A
89


100
17

100
1
1








1
1












18


1057
21
7S2A
18
1
2
192


167
53 I

56900
N-D f,
N-D L 1








N-n 2
N-D I 1












N-D 69


A4 219A
N-D 57
10 9000
N-D 43
N-D 1
N-tt 27
N-D 682


36 405
20 480

1100 151000
                                                                                Hote[  Laboratory analysis reported as less  than a defection limi;
                                                                                      is considered not detected  (value = 0) for this  table.
                   L-IESS  THAN!  T-TRACE)   N-D   NOT  DETECTED*

-------
                                                                            TABLE V-29
                                                                FINAL EFFLUENT PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                                          SUMMARY OF EPA
                                                               REGIONAL SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA
                                                                                           Page 1 of 3
                   FRACTION

                   VOt.ATILES
                                     PAR.
                                     NO.
                                          PARAMETER
O
VO
                   ACID EXTRACT
                   BASE-NEUTRALS
  2  ACROI.EIM
  3  ACRYLQNITRILE
  4  BENZENE
  6  CARBON TETRACHI.ORIDE
  7  CHl.OROBENZENE
 10  1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
 11  ttl't-TRICHLOROrTHANE
 13  It1-OICHlOROETHANE
 14  lili2-TRICHLOROETHANE
 15  lrli2>2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
 14  CHL.OROETHANE
 17  BIS ETHER
 19  2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
 23  CHLOROFORH
 2?  l>l-OICHLORn£THrt.ENE
 30  1>2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYI.ENE
 32  l>2-DICHlflROPROPANE
 33  J'3-DICHLOROPROF-YLENE
 38  ETHYl BENZENE
 44  HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
 45  METHYL CHLORIDE
 46  METHYL BROMIDE
 47  BROHOFORM
 48  niCHLOROBROMOHETHANE
 49  TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHAME
 50  DICHLOROniFLUOROHETHANE
 51  CHLORODIBRONOHETHANE
 85  TETRACHLOROETHYI.ENE
 86  TOLUENE
 87  TRICHI.OROETHYLENE
 88  VINYL CHLORIDE
200  TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE

 21  2>4r6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
 22  PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
 24  2-CHLOROPHENOL
 31  2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL
 34  2t4-DinETHY(.F-HEN01.
 57  2-NITROPHENOL
 58  4-NITRQFHENOL
 59  2.4-DINITROPHENOL
 60  4>«-DINITRO-0-CRESOL
 64  PENTACHLOROPHENOL
 65  PHENOL

  1  ACFNAPHTHENE
                                                               TOTAL    TOTAL
                                             PLANTS  PLANTS    {SAMPLES  TIMES     PER-
                                       UNIT8 SAMPLED DETECTING ANALYZED DETECTED CENT AVERAGE  MINIMUM
                                                                                                                                              MAXIMUM
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/I.
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
110 /I.
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/I.
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
IIO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
IIO/L
UO/L
UG/L
U6/L
UO/L
UG/L
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
«
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
8
8
8
8
10
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
10
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
0
0
0
0
O
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1





20 L 1 N-D 3
25 1 N-D 3






20 1 1 L 10 1


13 L 1 N-D 1

13 L 1 N-D L 1
33 21. 10 9


13 L 1 L 10 1



22 2 L 10 13















11 8 N~fi 76
                                                                            UO/L
                   L-LESS THANI  T-TRACEI  N-D  NOT DETECTED*

-------
                                                           TABLE  V-2S
                                               FINAL EFFLUENT PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                         SUMMARY  OF  EPA
                                              REGIONAL SURVEILLANCE  AND  ANALYSIS DATA
                                              Page 2 of 3
FRACTION

BASF-NEUTRALS
                   PAR.
                   NO.
                        PARAMETER
                         TOTAL     TDTAL
      PLANTS  PLANTS     SAMPLES  TINES    PER-
UNITS SAMPLED DETECTING  ANALYZED DETECTED CENT
                                                                                                          AVERAGE  MINIMUM  MAXIMUM
                     S  BENZIDINE
                     8  lr2r4-TRICHLOROBFNZENE
                     9  HEXACHIOROBENZENE
                    12  HFXACHLOROETHANE
                    18  BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
                    20  2-CHl ORONAPHTHAIENE
                    25  lf2-DICHLOROBENZENE
                    26  li3-DICHlOROBFNZENE
                    27  1>4-DICHLOROBENZFNE
                    28  3r3'-DICHL.OROBENZIDINE
                    35  2.4-DINITROTOLUENE
                    36  2rA-DINITROTOLUENE
                    37  lr2-niPHENYLHYDRAZINE
                    39  FLUORANTHENE
                    40  4-CHLOROPHENYt PHENYL ETHER
                    41  4-BROMOFHFNYL PHENYL FTHER
                    42  BIS(2-CHI.OROISOPROPYL) FTHER
                    43  BIS(2-CHLOROETHYOXr> METHANE
                    52  HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
                    S3  HFXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADICNE
                    54  ISOPHORONE
                    55  NAPHTHALENE
                    56  NITROBENZENE
                    61  N-NITROSODIMETHYLAHINE
                    62  N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINF
                    63  N-NITROSODl-N-PROPYl.AHINE
                    66  BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
                    67  BUTYL  BENZYL PHTHALATE
                    68  DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
                    69  OI-N-OCTYL PHTHAIATE
                    70  niETHYL FHTHALATF
                    71  DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
                    72  1.2-BENZANTHRACENE
                    73  BENZO   PYRENE
                    84  PYRENE
                   207  ANTHRACFNE/PHFNANTHRENE
UO/L
UG/L
UO/l
UG/L
UO/l.
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
IIQ/l
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/t
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/t
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/l
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
•0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
e
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1




















13 34 N-D 270





38 16 L 10 75

13 1 L 10 9








13 L 1 N-D 1







13 9 N-D 80
L-LEPS THANI  T-TRACEI   N-D  NOT DETECTEDI

-------
                                                          TABLE   V-29
                                              FINAL EFFLUENT PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS
                                                        SUMMARY OF  EPA
                                             REGIONAL SURVEILLANCE  AND ANALYSIS DATA
                                                                                      Page 3 of 3
PAR.
FRACTION NO.
PESTICIDES 89
90
91
?2
93
94
95
9A
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
10A
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
129
METALS 114
US
117
118
119
120
121
172
123
124
125
126
127
12B

PARAMETER
ALDRIN
DIELDRIN
CHLORDANE
4.4--DDT
4.4'-DDE
4>4'-DDD
ALPHA-ENnoSULEAN
BETA-FNDOSIJLFAN
ENDOSULFAN SULFATF
FNDRIN
ENDRIN At DEHYDE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
AlPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
OAMMA-BHC
PELTA-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
TOXAPHENE
TCPD
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CAPHIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
I EAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC
                                                                                   TOTAL    TOTAL
                                                                PLANTS  PLANTS     SAMPLES  TIMES    PER-
                                                          UNITS SAMPLED DETECTING  ANALYZED DETECTED CENT AVERAGE   MINIMUM
                                                                                                                             MAXIMUM
NON-CONV. METALS

MISC.
                   1 16
                   167
                        HEX-CHROMIUM
ASBESTOS
PHENOLICS (4AAPO)
UG/l
UG/L
UO/L
UG/1
UG/L
UG/L
UP/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/l
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
IIG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
2
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
3
6
6
3
5
5
3
1
1
1
7
0
0
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
9
9
8
9
8
8
8
8
8
10
8
T
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
3
8
7
4
s
5
3
1
1
1
9
0
0
8


25
13
29
38
89
78
50
56
A3 L
38
13
13 L
13
90


89


20
4
7
6
149
11
3
33
1
13
2
1
13
258


46


1
L
L
L
L
L


L
L
L
L
L
L





5
3
2S
10
5
10
N-D
N-D
1
5
5
5
10
10


N-D


98
28
40
35
480
20
8
160
1
39
18
2
100
620


125
L-LFSS THAN)   T-TRACEf   N-P  NOT DETECTED*

-------
                                TABLE V-30

            MOST-FREQUENTLY OCCURRING PRIORITY POLLUTANTS*
                                PLANT 1
Parameter

Influent

  Volatiles - 30 samples analyzed
  Benzene
  Toluene
 Times
Detected
Average(ug/1)   Range(ug/1)
   30
   28
  Extractables - 30 samples analyzed
  2, 4 Dimethyphenol                 29
  Phenol                             30
  Napthalene                         30
  Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate       28
  Di-N-Butyl Phthalate               26
  Anthracene/Phenanthracene          30
  Fluorene                           30
  Pyrene                             25

  Metals - 30 samples analyzed
  Arsenic                            26
  Chromium                           30
  Selenium                           29
  Zinc                               30
 27,083
  6,877
                    256
                    769
                    253
                     26
                      8
                     38
                     20
                     23
                     10
                    320
                     28
                    350
5800
  ND
                ND
               180
                72
                NO
                ND
                 5
                L5
                ND
                LI
               120
                LI
                22
75000
17000
       800
       1800
       610
       170
       30
       120
       79
       400
       24
       920
       81
       1900
Effluent

  Extractables - 29 samples analyzed
  Phenol28
  Di-N-Butyl Phthalate               28

  Metals - 30 samples analyzed
  Arsenic                            26
  Chromium                           30
  Selenium                           29
  Zinc                               26
                     12
                      9
                      8
                    103
                     31
                     69
                ND
                ND
                LI
                50
                LI
                  9
       55
       27
       21
       167
       72
       411
Notes;

*Pollutants occurring in 80 percent of samples taken from each point
L - Less than
ND - Not detected
                                     112

-------
                                TABLE V-31

            MOST-FREQUENTLY OCCURRING PRIORITY POLLUTANTS*
                                PLANT 2
Parameter

Influent

  Volatiles - 30 samples analyzed
  Benzene
  Ethylbenzene
  Toluene
                     Times
                    Detected
Average(ug/1)   Range(ug/1)
                       30
                       29
                       30
  Extractables - 29 samples analyzed
  2, 4-Dimethylpheno1
  Phenol
  Naphthalene
  Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
  Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
  Chrysene/1, 2 Benzoanthracene
  Anthracene/Phenanthracene
  Fluorene
  Pyrene
  Metals - 30
  Chromium
  Selenium
  Zinc
samples analyzed
                       29
                       29
                       29
                       26
                       23
                       26
                       29
                       28
                       23
                       30
                       27
                       30
 18,747
  1,890
  8,573
    272
  3,007
    289
     21
      5
     32
    195
     77
     23
  1,324
     18
    516
3600
  ND
2300
  60
1200
  89
  ND
  ND
  ND
  11
  ND
  ND
  70
  LI
   9
90000
3800
20000
720
6300
810
205
19
150
730
383
72
3420
76
1840
Effluent

  Extractables - 28 samples analyzed
  Phenol26
  Bis (2-ethylhexyl Phthalate)       23
  Di-N-Butyl Phthalate               26

  Metals - 30 samples analyzed
  Arsenic                            26
  Chromium                           30
  Selenium                           28
  Zinc                               27
                                          8
                                         17
                                          6
                                          7
                                        160
                                         21
                                         60
                ND
                ND
                ND
                LI
                20
                LI
                L9
       51
       260
       12
       20
       1250
       71
       339
Notes;

'Pollutants occurring in 80 percent of samples taken from each point
L - Less than
ND - Not detected
                                 113

-------
                                TABLE V-32

               POTENTIAL SURROGATES FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                         CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

                     (Statistics obtained by removing
                     outliers shown in parentheses)
Pollutant
PP Organics
PP Organics
Appendix C
Alkanes

PP Metals
Total Metals
Plant 1
Plant 2

Plant 1
Plant 2
Plant 1
Plant 2

Plant 1
Plant 2
Total Phenol

 0.681 (-0.013)
-0.011 ( 0.027)

 0.545
-0.104
                                      Chromium
                          0.39
                          0.844 (0.589)

                          0.571
                         -0.057 (0.108)
                                   114

-------
                                TABLE V-33

                   SUMMARY OF 1976 NET WASTEWATER FLOW
                             BY REFINERY SIZE

                        (Million Gallons Per Day)
Size Class
(1000 bbl crude
Capacity)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
LT
50
100
GT
50-1
- 100
- 200
200-2
Number of
Refineries
143
50
32
18
Fraction of
Total for Average for Total
Size Class Size Class Industry Flow
37.
72.
131.
180.
75
25
90
00
0.
1.
4.
10.
264
450
122
000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0895
1713
3126
4266
                       243
421.90
1.736
1.0000
Footnotes;

(1)  LT - less than
(2)  GT - greater than
                                   115

-------
                                TABLE V-34

                   SUMMARY OF 1976 NET WASTEWATER FLOW
                         BY REFINERY SUBCATEGORY

                        (Million Gallons Per Day)
Subcategory

(A) Topping

(B) Cracking

(C) Petrochemical

(D) Lube

(E) Integrated

All Subcategories
Number of    Total for
Refineries  Subcategory
     85

    103

     24

     20

     11

    243
 10.880

135.857

 84.816

 88.080

102.597

422.230
Average for
Subcategory

     0.128

     1.319

     3.534

     4.404

     9.327

     1.738
 Fraction of
    Total
Industry Flow

      0.0258

      0.3218

      0.2008

      0.2086

      0.240
      1.0000
                                   116

-------
          SrHBOL  COUNT
LT50        A      143
50-100      B       SO
100-200     C       32
MEAN     ST.DEV.
 0.264       0.384
 1.450       1.282
 4.122       2.849
FLOW
(MGD)
.50000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
2<5000
3.0000
3.SOOO
4.0000
4.5000
5.0000
5.5000
6.0000
6.5000
7.0000
7.5000
8.0000
8.5000
9.0000
9.5000
10.000
10.500
11.000
11.500
12.000
12.300
13.000
13.500
14.000
14.500
is.'ooo
15.500
16.000
16.500
17.000
17.500
18.000
18.300
19.000
19.500
20.000
20.30O
21.000
21.500
22.000
22.500
23.000
23.500
* 24.000
* 24.500
* 23.000

UllUU O 10
5 10 13 20 25 30 35
4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA*
4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBBBC
4AAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBC
4BBBBBBCC
4AABBBBCCCCCCD
4BBBCCCCD
4BCCCCC
4CCC
4CD
4BCCCOO
4
4
4CD
4
40
4BD
4C
4C
40
4C
4CDD
4
40
4
4CD
4
40
4
4
f
4
4
40
40
4
4
40
4
4
4
4
4
40
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5 10 13 20 25 30 US
1U.UUI 3.343

FREQUENCY
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 73 80 INT. CUM.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAt 126
31
20
8
13
B
6
3
2
6
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40 43 50 SS 60 A3 70 73 80
126
157
177
185
198
206
212
215
217
223
223
223
225
225
226
228
229
230
231
232
233
235
236
236
238
238
239
239
239
239
239
239
240
241
241
241
242
242
242
242
242
242
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243





PERCENTAGE
INT. CUM.
51
12
0
3
5
3
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

.9
.8
.2
.3
.3
.3
.5
.2
.8
.3
.0
.0
.8
.0
.4
.8
.4
.4
.4
.4
.2
.0
.4
.0
.8
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.4
.4
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0'
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0

51
44
72
76
81
84
87
88
89
91
91
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
96
97
97
97
97
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

.9
.6
.8
.1
.5
.8
.2
.5
.3
.8
.8
.8
.6
.6
.0
.8
.2
.7
.1
.5
.7
.7
.1
.1
.9
.9
.4
.
.
.
.
.
.8
.2
.2
.2
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0

              NUMBER OF REFINERIES

-------
CO





FLOW
(MGD)

* .50000
1 .0000
1.5000
2.0000
2.5000
3.000O
3.5000
4.0000
4.5000
5.0000
5.5000
6.0000
6.5000
7.0000
7.500O
8.0000
8.5000
9.0000
9.5000
10.000
10.500
11.000
11.500
12.000
12.500
13.000
13.500
14.000
14.500
15.000
13.500
16.000
16.300
17.000
17.500
18.000
18.500
19.000
19.300
20.000
20.300
21.000
21.500
22.000
22,500
23.000
2^.500
24.000
24.500
23.000


SYMBOL COUNT MEAN ST. DEW.
A A 85 0.128 0.210
B B 103 1.319 1.682
C C 24 3.334 3.857
D D 20 4.404 5,508
E E 11 9.327 5.477












FREQUENCY
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 35 60 65 70 75 80
4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB*
4AAAAABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCDDDD
4ABB8BBBBBBBBBBCCCDDO
4BBBBBBCC
48BBBBCCCDDBDE
4BBBBBBBC
4BBBCCE
4BBD
4CC
4BBCDEE
4
4
4BE
4
4B
4CD
4B
46
4E
4C
4CDE
4
40
4
4DE
4
4E
4
4
4
4
4
4C
4E
4
4
4E
4
4
4
4
4
4D
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+ 	 1 	 1 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 ^ 	 4 	 1 	 + 	 1 	 f 	 1 	 +
5 10 15 20 23 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
INT.
126
31
20
8
13
B
6
3
2
6
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


CUM.
126
157
177
185
198
206
212
213
217
223
223
223
223
225
226
228
229
230
231
232
235
235
236
236
238
238
239
239
239
239
239
239
240
241
241
241
242
242
242
242
242
242
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243














PERCENTAGE
INT.
51.9
12.8
8.2
3.3
5.3
3.3
2.5
1.2
0.8
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.2
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


CUM.
31.9
64.6
72.8
76.1
81.5
84.8
87.2
88.5
89.3
91.8
91.8
91.8
92.6
92.6
93.0
93.8
94.2
94.7
95.1
95.5
96.7
96.7
97.1
97.1
97.9
97.9
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.8
99.2
99.2
99.2
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


                                                    NUMBER OF REFINERIES

-------
                             FIGURE V-3


                 HISTORICAL TREND OF TOTAL INDUSTRY

                             WATER USAGE
    100
g
      1972

                                                                    —O.LO
                                                                     — 0
                                                                            I
h
O

2
O
M
                                                                            Gu
                                        119

-------
                           SECTION VI

             SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED
INTRODUCTION

The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to describe the selection of
pollutants to be regulated.  Included here is  a  description  of
the  selection  process  (and  results)  for  both the direct and
indirect discharge  segments  of  the  petroleum  refining  point
source  category.   Also  presented  here  is a discussion of the
environmental effects of certain pollutants.

EPA conducted an extensive sampling  and  analytical  program  to
determine the presence of toxic, conventional and nonconventional
pollutants  in  petroleum refinery wastewaters (see Section V for
details).   The  program  included  the  sampling  of  17  direct
dischargers,  6  indirect  dischargers,  and  2 POTW.  Additional
long-term wastewater sampling was conducted at two refineries  to
investigate  the  possible  existence  of surrogate relationships
between toxic pollutants and  other  pollutant  parameters.   The
results of these sampling efforts are presented in Section V.

Since results of the various sampling programs are quite similar,
the  data  from the 17 direct and 6 indirect discharge refineries
were used as the basis for estimating pollutant loadings and  for
selecting pollutants to be regulated.

The  conventional  and  nonconventional  pollutants analyzed were
found frequently in effluent streams.  Toxics were detected  less
frequently  and  at  much  lower concentrations.  Pollutants from
direct discharge  refineries  that  have  average  concentrations
greater  than  10  ppb  include  total  chromium,  cyanide, zinc,
toluene, methylene chloride, and  bis  (2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate.
The  latter  two compounds are contaminants from the analyses and
their presence can not be  solely  attributable  to  the  plants'
operation.   Cyanide,  whose flow weighted concentration averages
45 ug/1, occurs at levels too low to be  effectively  reduced  by
feasible  technology  available  to this industry.  Zinc found at
average concentrations of 105 ug/1 is neither causing nor  likely
to cause toxic effects.  Toluene was removed to below measureable
limits by all but one direct discharge refinery.

The   estimated   concentration  and  discharge  loading  of  the
conventional and non-conventional pollutants  are  summarized  in
Table  VI-1.   Similar information on toxics is included in Table
VI-2.

Characteristics of wastewaters from indirect discharge refineries
prior to their entry into POTW sewers are provided in Table V-28.

SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
                              121

-------
The Act requires that effluent  limitations  be  established  for
toxic   pollutants   referred   to  in  Section  307{a)(l).   The
Settlement  Agreement  in  Natural  Resources  Defense   Council,
Incorporated  vs.  Train,  8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12
ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979), provides for the exclusion of  particular
pollutants, categories and subcategories (Paragraph 8), according
to the criteria summarized belowj

    1.   Equal or more stringent protection is  already  provided
by EPA's guidelines and standards under the Act.

    2.   The pollutant  is  present  in  the  effluent  discharge
solely as a result of its presence in the intake water taken from
the same body of water into which it is discharged.

    3.   The pollutant is not detectable in the  effluent  within
the   category   by   approved   analytical  methods  or  methods
representing the  state-of-the-art  capabilities.   (Note:   this
includes  cases  in  which  the  pollutant is present solely as  a
result of contamination during sampling and analysis  by  sources
other than the wastewater.)

    4.   The pollutant is detected in  only  a  small  number  of
sources within the category and is uniquely related to only those
sources.

    5.   The pollutant is present only in trace  amounts  and  is
neither causing nor likely to cause toxic effects.

    6.   The pollutant is present in  amounts  too  small  to  be
effectively reduced by known technologies.

    7.   The  pollutant  is   effectively   controlled   by   the
technologies upon which other effluent limitations and guidelines
are based.

Pollutants  Selected  for  Regulation  in  the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category  (Direct Discharge Segment)

Specific effluent limitations are established for BOD5., TSS, COD,
oil and grease,  phenolic  compounds   (4AAP),  ammonia,  sulfide,
total  chromium,  hexavalent  chromium, and pH.  These pollutants
are limited under BPT, as well as BAT, and NSPS.

Tables  VI-3  and  VI-4  are  summaries  of  priority   pollutant
detection  results  from  the  screening  program   for the intake
water, and separator effluent, respectively, at direct  discharge
refineries.

Pollutants Excluded From Regulation  (Direct Discharge  Segment)

All  of  the  organic  and   inorganic priority pollutants  (except
chromium)  are excluded from  regulation.
                              122

-------
Those priority pollutants which were not detected  in  the  final
effluent of direct discharge refineries are listed in Table VI-5.

Priority  pollutants which were detected in the final effluent of
direct dischargers are listed in Table VI-6.  Table VI-7 contains
a  statistical  evaluation  of  the  analytical  data  for  these
parameters.  Average flow-weighted concentrations from Table VI-7
show  low  or  trace  concentrations  for all priority pollutants
except chromium (108 ppb).  These pollutants are neither causing,
nor likely to cause, toxic effects.

Two of the priority pollutants,  methylene  chloride  and  bis(2-
ethylhexyl)  phthalate,  were  detected  in  one  or  more of the
treated effluent samples, however, their presence is believed  to
be  the  result  of  contamination  in  the field and laboratory.
During sampling, polyvinyl  chloride  (Tygon)  tubing  was  used.
Phthalates  are widely used as plasticizers to ensure that tubing
(including tygon) remains soft and flexible.  Methylene  chloride
was  used  as a solvent in the organic analytical procedure.  The
presence of these two pollutants,  therefore,  cannot  be  solely
attributable to the refinery effluents.

SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS

Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for both existing and new sources which discharge their
wastes   into  publicly  owned  treatment  works  (POTW).   These
pretreatment standards are designed to prevent the  discharge  of
pollutants  which  pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTW.  In addition, the  Clean
Water  Act  of  1977  adds  a new dimension to these standards by
requiring pretreatment of pollutants, such as metals, that  limit
POTW sludge management alternatives.

The  Settlement  Agreement  in Natural Resources Defense Council,
Incorporated vs. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C.  1976),  modified.  12
ERC  1833,  D.D.C. 1979, provides for the exclusion of particular
pollutants   from   pretreatment   standards,   categories    and
subcategories (Paragraph 8), according to the criteria summarized
below:

    (1)  if 95 percent or more of all point sources in the  point
source  category or subcategory introduce only pollutants to POTW
that do not interfere with, do  not  pass  through,  or  are  not
otherwise incompatible with the POTW; or

    (2)  the toxicity and amount of the  incompatible  pollutants
(taken together) introduced by such point sources into POTW is so
insignificant  as  not  to  justify  development  of pretreatment
standards; or

    (3)  criteria (1, 3, 4, 5, and 6)  set  forth  in  the  above
direct discharge segment discussion.
                               123

-------
Pollutants  Selected  for  Regulation  in  the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category (Indirect Discharge Segment)

Specific  pretreatment  standards  are  established   for   total
chromium, ammonia, and oil and grease.

Pollutants Excluded From Regulation

With  the  exception  of  chromium,  all  organic  and  inorganic
priority pollutants are excluded from regulation.

Those priority pollutants excluded because they were not detected
are listed in Table VI-8.

Table VI-9 lists the priority pollutants which were  detected  in
the effluents of indirect dischargers.  Pollutants listed in Part
I and Part II of Table VI-9 are excluded from national regulation
in  accordance  with  Paragraph  8  of  the  Settlement Agreement
because either they were found to be susceptible to treatment  by
the  POTW  and  do  not  interfere with, pass through, or are not
otherwise incompatible with the POTW, or the toxicity and  amount
of  incompatible pollutants are insignificant.  Pollutants listed
in Part III of Table  VI-9  are  excluded  for  several  reasons.
First,   there   is  significant  removal  of  several  of  these
pollutants by the existing oil/water separation  technology  used
to  comply  with  the  pretreatment  standard for oil and grease.
Second, there is significant removal of these pollutants  by  the
POTW  treatment  processes  by  air stripping and biodegradation.
Third, the amount and  toxicity  of  these  pollutants  does  not
justify developing national pretreatment standards.

Table  VI-10  contains a statistical evaluation of the occurrance
and average  flow  weighted  concentrations  for  those  priority
pollutants listed in Table VI-9.


ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SELECTED POLLUTANTS

The  environmental  significance of the pollutants selected above
is  discussed  here  in  the  following  groupings:    a)   toxic
pollutants,  b)  conventional pollutants, and c) non-conventional
pollutants.

Toxic Pollutants

The following "selected" pollutants are addressed here (under the
grouping of toxics):  lead, chromium, zinc, cyanide, and toluene.

Lead.   Human  exposure  to  lead  has  been   shown   to   cause
disturbances  of  blood  chemistry,   neurological  damage, kidney
damage, adverse reproductive effects, and adverse  cardiovascular
effects.   Lead  has  also  been   shown  to  be  carcinogenic and
teratogenic in experimental animals.
                              124

-------
The effects  of  lead  on  aquatic  life  have  been  extensively
studied,  particularly  for  freshwater  species.   As with other
toxic metals, the toxicity of lead is strongly dependent on water
hardness.  LC50 values reported for freshwater fish in soft water
are in the low mg/L range.  Lead is  chronically  toxic  in  soft
water  at  concentrations  ranging  from  19  to 174 »g/L for six
species of freshwater fish.  Lead  is  bioconcentrated  by  fish,
invertebrates, algae, and bacteria.

Chromium.   Although  chromium  is an essential nutrient in trace
amounts, it can be quite toxic to  man  at  high  concentrations.
Damage  to  the  skin,  respiratory tract, liver, and kidneys has
resulted from occupational exposure to high levels  of  chromium.
Epidemiological  studies  suggest  that  long  term inhalation of
chromium produces lung cancer.

Concentrations of  chromium  lethal  to  aquatic  organisms  vary
considerably  depending  upon  the chemical form of chromium, the
water hardness, and the species or organism exposed.  LC$0 values
reported for 21 species of fish range from 3,300 *g/L to  249,000
i«g/L.   LC50  values  reported for 33 invertebrates range from 67
<«g/L to 105,000 »»g/L.

Cyanides.  Cyanides are a diverse group of compounds  defined  as
organic  or  inorganic  compounds  which  contain  the -CN group.
Cyanides are rapidly lethal to humans in low doses but apparently
do not exert sublethal or chronic toxic  effects.   Cyanides  are
acutely  toxic  to  fish  at concentrations as low as 57 
-------
single chronic value of 2.2 mg/L has been reported for  saltwater
fish.

Conventional Pollutants.

The  environmental  Significance  of the conventional pollutants,
biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, and oil  and  grease
is discussed below.

Biochemical  Oxygen Demand.  Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a
measure of the oxygen consuming capabilities of  organic  matter.
The  BOD  does not in itself cause direct harm to a water system,
but it does exert an indirect effect  by  depressing  the  oxygen
content of the water.  Sewage and other organic effluents, during
their  processes  of decomposition, exert a BOD, which can have a
catastrophic effect on the  ecosystem  by  depleting  the  oxygen
supply.   Conditions  are  reached  frequently  where  all of the
oxygen is used  and  the  continuing  decay  process  causes  the
production of noxious gases such as hydrogen sulfide and methane.
Water  with  a  high  BOD  indicates  the presence of decomposing
organic matter, and subsequent high bacterial counts that degrade
its quality and potential uses.

Suspended Solids.  Suspended  solids  include  both  organic  and
inorganic   materials.    The   organic  fraction  includes  such
materials as grease, oil, tar, animal and vegetable fats, various
fibers, sawdust, hair, and various materials from sewers.   These
solids  may  settle  out rapidly, and bottom deposits are often a
mixture of both organic and  inorganic  solids.   They  adversely
affect  fisheries  by  covering  the bottom of the stream or lake
with a blanket of material that destroys  the  fish-food,  bottom
fauna  or  the  spawning  ground  of  fish.   Deposits containing
organic materials may deplete bottom oxygen supplies and  produce
hydrogen  sulfide,  carbon  dioxide,  methane,  and other noxious
gases.

Solids may be suspended in water for a time, and then  settle  to
the  bed  of  the stream or lake.  These settleable solids may be
inert, slowly biodegradable materials,  or  rapidly  decomposable
substances.   While in suspension, they increase the turbidity of
the   water,   reduce   light   penetration,   and   impair   the
photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.

Solids  in  suspension  are aesthetically displeasing.  When they
settle to form sludge deposits on the stream or  lake  bed,  they
are  often  much  more  damaging  to  the life in water, and they
retain the  capacity  to  displease  the  senses.   Solids,  when
transformed  to  sludge  deposits,  may  do a variety of damaging
things, including blanketing the stream or lake bed  and  thereby
destroying  the  living  spaces  for those benthic organisms that
would otherwise occupy the  habitat.   When  of  an  organic  and
therefore decomposable nature, solids use a portion or all of the
dissolved  oxygen  available in the area.  Organic materials also
                              126

-------
serve as a seemingly inexhaustible food  source  for  sludgeworms
and associated organisms.

Oil  and  Grease.   In  the  petroleum  refining  industry, oils,
greases, various other hydrocarbons and some inorganic  compounds
will be included in the freon extraction procedure.  The majority
of  material  removed  by  the procedure in a refinery wastewater
will, in most instances,  be  of  a  hydrocarbon  nature.   These
hydrocarbons,   predominately  oil  and  grease  type  compounds,
contribute to COD, TOC, TOD, and usually BOD  resulting  in  high
test   values.   The  oxygen  demand  potential  of  these  freon
extractables is only one of the detrimental  effects  exerted  on
water  bodies  by  this  class  of  compounds.  Oil emulsions may
adhere to the gills of fish or coat and destroy  algae  or  other
plankton.  Deposition of oil in the bottom sediments can serve to
inhibit  normal  benthic  growths,  thus interrupting the aquatic
food chain.  Soluble and emulsified materials  ingested  by  fish
may taint the flavor of the fish flesh.  Water soluble components
may exert toxic action on fish.  The water insoluble hydrocarbons
and  free  floating  emulsified  oils in a wastewater will affect
stream ecology by interfering with oxygen transfer,  by  damaging
the  plumage  and  coats  of  water  animals  and  fowls,  and by
contributing taste and toxicity  problems.   The  effect  of  oil
spills  upon  boats  and  shorelines  and their production of oil
slicks and iridescence upon the surface of waters is well known.

Non-convent i ona1 Pollutants.

The environmental significance of the following  non-conventional
pollutants:  chemical  oxygen  demand,  sulfides,  total  organic
carbon, phenolics (4AAP), and ammonia is discussed below.

Chemical Oxygen Demand.  Chemical oxygen demand (COD) provides  a
measure   of  the  equivalent  oxygen  required  to  oxidize  the
materials present in a wastewater sample, under  acid  conditions
with  the  aid  of  a  strong chemical oxidant, such as potassium
dichromate, and a catalyst (silver sulfate).  One major advantage
of the COD test is that the results  are  available  normally  in
less  than  three  hours.  Thus, the COD test is a faster test by
which to estimate the maximum oxygen demand a waste can exert  on
a  stream.   However, one major disadvantage is that the COD test
does   not   differentiate   between   biodegradable   and   non-
biodegradable  organic  material.   In  addition, the presence of
inorganic reducing chemicals (sulfides, reducible metallic  ions,
etc.) and chlorides may interfere with the COD test.

Sulfides.   In  the petroleum refining industry, major sources of
sulfide  wastes  are  crude  desalting,  crude  distillation  and
cracking  processes.   Sulfides  cause  corrosion, impair product
quality and shorten the useful catalyst life.  They  are  removed
by  caustic,  diethanolamine   (DEA), water or steam, or appear as
sour condensate waters in these  initial  processing  operations.
Hydrotreating  processes  can  be  used to remove sulfides in the
                               127

-------
feedstock.  Most removed  and  recovered  sulfide  is  burned  to
produce sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur.

When  present  in  water,  soluble  sulfide salts can  reduce pH,
react with iron and other metals  to  cause  black  precipitates,
cause  odor  problems,  and  can  be  toxic to aquatic life.  The
toxicity of solutions of sulfides to fish  increases  as  the  pH
value  is lowered.  Sulfides also chemically react with dissolved
oxygen  present  in  water,  thereby  lowering  dissolved  oxygen
levels.

Total Organic Carbon.  Total organic carbon (TOO is a measure of
the  amount  of  carbon  in  the organic material in a wastewater
sample.  The TOC analyzer withdraws a small volume of sample  and
thermally  oxidizes  it  at  150  degrees C.  The water vapor and
carbon dioxide from the combusion chamber (where the water  vapor
is  removed) is condensed and sent to an infrared analyzer, where
the carbon dioxide  is  monitored.   This  carbon  dioxide  value
corresponds to the total inorganic value.  Another portion of the
same  sample  is  thermally  oxidized  at  950  degrees  C, which
converts all the carbonaceous material to  carbon  dioxide;  this
carbon  dioxide value corresponds to the total carbon value.  TOC
is determined by subtracting the inorganic carbon (carbonates and
water vapor) from the total carbon value.

Phenolic Compounds (4AAP).  Phenols and  phenolic  compounds  are
found in wastewaters of the petroleum refinery, chemical and wood
distillation   industries.   Phenolic  compounds  include  phenol
(commonly referred to as carbolic acid) plus a  number  of  other
compounds that contain the hydroxy derivatives of benzene and its
condensed nuclei.  EPA has identified a number of toxic materials
from this family of compounds, nine of which have been designated
priority pollutants.

Phenol  in concentrated solutions is quite toxic to bacteria, and
it has been widely used as a germicide  and  disinfectant.   Many
phenolic  compounds  are  more  toxic  than  pure  phenol;  their
toxicity varies with the chemical combination and general  nature
of  the  total  wastes in which they occur.  The toxic effects of
combinations of different phenolic compounds is cumulative.

Biological treatment systems have been found able to  effectively
treat  relatively high concentrations of phenolic compounds using
them as food  without  serious  toxic  effects.   Experience  has
indicated  that biological treatment systems may be acclimated to
phenolic concentrations of 300 mg/L or more.  However, protection
of the biological treatment system against slug loads  of  phenol
should  be  given  careful  consideration   in  the  design.  Slug
loadings as low as 50 mg/L could be inhibitory to the  biological
population, especially if the biological system is not completely
mixed.

Phenols in wastewater present the following two major problems:
                               128

-------
 1)   At high concentrations,  phenol acts as a bactericide.

 2)    At  very low concentrations,  when disinfected with chlorine,
     chlorophenols are formed,  producing taste and odor problems.

 Phenols and phenolic compounds are both acutely  and  chronically
 toxic  to  fish  and  other aquatic animals.  Also, chlorophenols
 produce an unpleasant  taste  in  fish  flesh,  destroying  their
 recreational and commercial value.

 It   is  necessary  to control  phenolic compounds in the raw water
 used to supply drinking water, as  conventional treatment  methods
 used  by  water  supply  facilities  do  not remove phenols.  The
 ingestion of concentrated solutions of  phenols  will  result  in
 severe pain, renal irritation, shock, and possibly death.

 The  amino  antipyrine  method  (4AAP)  measures  the presence of
 phenolic compounds in terms of  the  color  effects  caused  when
^these  materials  react in the presence of potassium ferricyanide
 at  a pH of 10 to form a stable reddish-brown  colored  antipyrine
 dye.    Color   response  of  phenolic  materials  with  4-amino-
 antipyrine is not the same for all compounds.   Because  phenolic
 type  wastes  usually  contain  a   variety  of phenols, it is not
 possible to duplicate a mixture of  phenols  to  be  used  as  a
 standard.    For  this reason phenol itself has been selected as a
 standard and any color produced by the reaction of other phenolic
 compounds is reported as phenol.  This value will  represent  the
 minimum  concentration  of  phenolic  compounds  present  in  the
 sample.  It is not  possible  to  distinguish  between  different
 phenolic compounds using this  analytical method.

 Results  of  the  sampling  data  for direct discharge refineries
 (Table V-27) illustrates the concentrations of total phenols  (as
 measured  by  the  4AAP  method)  versus  concentrations  of  the
 individual phenolic compounds  identified as  priority  pollutants
 and  present  in  refinery wastewaters.  While phenolic compounds
 were found in the effluents of 14  of 16 refineries at an  average
 concentration  of  16  ug/L,  only  one of the priority pollutant
 phenols was detected at a concentration at or  below  measureable
 limits of the analytical equipment.

 Ammonia.   Ammonia is commonly found in overhead condensates from
 distillation and cracking and   from  desalting.   It  is  usually
 found combined with sulfide as an  ammonium sulfide salt.  Ammonia
 is  a common product of the decomposition of organic matter.  Dead
 and  decaying aminals and plants along with human and animal body
 wastes account for much  of the  ammonia  entering  the  aquatic
 ecosystem.  Ammonia exists in  its  non-ionized form only at higher
 pH  levels and is the most toxic in this state.  The lower the pH,
 the  more  ionized  ammonia is formed and its toxicity decreases.
 Ammonia, in the presence of dissolved  oxygen,  is  converted  to
 nitrate (N03) by nitrifying bacteria.  Nitrite (N02), which is an
 intermediate  product  between  ammonia  and  nitrate,  sometimes
                               129

-------
occurs in  quantity  when  depressed  oxygen  conditions  permit.
Ammonia   can   exist  in  several  other  chemical  combinations
including ammonium chloride and other salts.

Nitrates are considered to be among the poisonous ingredients  of
mineralized  waters,  with potassium nitrate being more poisonous
than sodium nitrate.  Excess nitrates  cause  irritation  of  the
mucous linings of the gastrointestinal tract and the bladder; the
symptoms  are  diarrhea  and  diuresis/ and drinking one liter of
water containing 500 mg/L of nitrate can cause such symptoms.

In most natural water the pH range is  such  that  ammonium  ions
(NH4+)   predominate.    In   alkaline   waters,   however,  high
concentrations of un-ionized ammonia  in  undissociated  ammonium
hydroxide increase the toxicity of ammonia solutions.  In streams
polluted  with  sewage,  up  to  one  half of the nitrogen in the
sewage may be in the form of free ammonia, and sewage  may  carry
up  to  35  mg/L  of total nitrogen.  It has been shown that at a
level of 1.0 mg/L un-ionized ammonia, the ability  of  hemoglobin
to  combine  with  oxygen  is  impaired  and  fish may suffocate.
Evidence indicates  that  ammonia  exerts  a  considerable  toxic
effect  on  all aquatic life within a range of less than 1.0 mg/L
to 25 mg/L, depending  on  the  pH  and  dissolved  oxygen  level
present.

Ammonia  can  add  to  the problem of eutrophication by supplying
nitrogen through its breakdown products.  Some  lakes  in  warmer
climates, and others that are aging quickly are sometimes limited
by  the nitrogen available.  Any increase will speed up the plant
growth and decay process.
                               130

-------
                                       1 of 2
                  TABLE VI-1
             (Ref. 168, page 22)

FLOW-WEIGHTED CONCENTRATIONS1 AND LOADINGS FOR
     DIRECT DISCHARGERS IN THE PETROLEUM
             REFINING INDUSTRY
          -Conventional Pollutants-
Pollutant
BOD
TSS
Oil and Grease
.Total Loading
Pre treated Raw
Cone.
mg/L
133.2
92.1
150.6

Load
kkg/yr
57405.4
39691.8
64909.6
162006.8
Current/BPT
Cone.
mg/L
13.5
26.1
17.1

Load
kkg/yr
5833.0
11252.1
7389.2
24474.3
        -Nonconventional Pollutants- 2
Pollutant
COD
Ammonia
TOG
Sulfides
Total Phenols
Total Loading
Pretreated Raw
Cone.
mg/L
442.7
14.1
112.2
5.2
22.5

Load
kkg/yr
190836.3
6070.1
48348.8
2257.1
9719.1
257231.4
Current/BPT
Cone.
mg/L
114.6
6.8
33.3
0.6
0.018

Load
kkg/yr
49422.2
2941.3
14342.5
274.1
7.6
66987.7
                     131

-------
                                                     2 of 2
                                TABLE VI-1
                           (Ref. 168, page 22)

              FLOW-WEIGHTED CONCENTRATIONS1 AND LOADINGS FOR
                   DIRECT DISCHARGERS IN THE PETROLEUM
                           REFINING INDUSTRY
                               (continued)
Footnotes:
1  Pretreated Raw and Current/BPT concentrations were  supplied  by EGD on
   a plant-by-plant basis.  The industry-wide Pretreated  Raw  direct  and the
   Current indirect discharge concentrations were  obtained  by flow-weight-
   ing the data for the seventeen direct and the four  indirect  dischargers
   studied in this analysis.  The plant-by-plant Current/BPT  direct  dis-
   charge concentrations were flow-weighted to determine  the  industry-wide
   concentrations.  The BAT industry-wide  concentrations  were calculated
   using the Current/BPT concentrations and flow-weighting  on a plant-by-
   plant basis, based on the adjusted BAT  flows.   The  flow-weighted  con-
   centrations were derived by multiplying the average concentrations by
   the flow for each of the 17 refineries  sampled.  The sum of  the products
   divided by the total flow of the  refineries sampled results  in a flow-
   weighted average concentration.

2  Nonconventional pollutant loadings are  not presented for BAT because the
   BAT removal effectiveness for these pollutant parameters is  unknown.
                                   132

-------
                                   TABLE VI-2

                   FLOW-WEIGHTED CONCENTRATIONS1 AND LOADINGS
                          FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS IN THE
                           PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                              -Toxic Pollutants-  2



Pollutant
Total
Toxic
Loadings
Pretreated
Raw
Load
kkg/yr


3502.1
Current/
BPT
Load
kkg/yr


136.6
BAT3
Option 1
Load
kkg/yr


103.3
Option 2
Load
kkg/yr


83.0
Rev. Option 1
Load
kkg/yr


100.8
Rev. Option '*
Load
kkg/yr


87.1
Footnotes:
1  Pretreated Raw and Current/BPT concentrations were  supplied  by EGD on
   a plant-by-plant basis.  The industry-wide  Pretreated  Raw direct and the
   Current indirect discharge concentrations were  obtained  by flow-weight-
   ing the data for the seventeen direct  and the four  indirect  dischargers
   studied in this analysis.  The plant-by-plant Current/BPT direct dis-
   charge concentrations were flow-weighted  to determine  the industry-wide
   concentrations.  The BAT industry-wide concentrations  were calculated
   using the Current/BPT concentrations and  flow-weighting  on a plant-by-
   plant basis, based on the adjusted BAT flows.   The  flow-weighted con-
   centrations were derived by multiplying  the average concentrations by
   the flow for each of the 17 refineries sampled.   The sum of  the products
   divided by the total flow of the refineries sampled results  in a flow-
   weighted average concentration.

2  The individual toxic pollutant concentrations are listed in  Section 2.3.

3  Some of the pollutants have an increased  BAT concentration above Current/BPT
   because of the plant-by-plant flow-weighting procedure.
                                    133

-------
                                                                                  TABLE VI-3
                                                                                DIRECT DISCHARGE
                                                                      INTAKE WATER PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS'  DETECTION
                                                                    SUMMARY OF EPA SCREENING PROGRAM DATA
                                                                                           PAGE 1 of 3
                     FRACTION

                     VOLATILES
CO
                     ACIfi EXTRACT
                     BASE-NEUTRALS
PAR.
NO.  PARAMETER

  2  ACROLEIN
  3  ACRYIONITRII.E
  4  BENZENE
  6  CARBON TETRACHLORIPE
  7  CHLllROBENZENE
 10  1.2-DJCHLOROETHANE
 11  Irl.l-TRICHLOROFTHANE
 13  1.1-nICHLOROETHANE
 14  l»lr2-TRICHLOROFTHANE
 15  lil,2i2-TETRACHI.OROETHANE
 16  CHLOROETHANE
 17  BIS
-------
                                                                             TABLE VI-3
                                                                           DIRECT JISCHARJE
                                                                  INTAKE HATER 'PRIORITY POLLUTANTS*  DETECTION
                                                                SUMMARY OF EPA SCREENING PROGRAM DATA
                                                                                             2 of 3
                  FRACTION

                  BASF-NEUTRALS
                                     PAR.
                                     NO.
                                          PARAMETER
                                                               TOTAL    TOTAL
                                            PLANTS   PLANTS    SAMPLES  TIMES
                                      UNITS SAHPLED  DETECTING ANALYZED DETECTED
CO
en
                  PESTICIDES
 9  HEXACHLOROBENZENE
12  HFXACHLOROETHANE
18  BIS<2-CHLOROETHYl>  ETHER
20  2-CHLORONAPHfHAl.ENE
25  1F2-DICHLOROBENZENE
26  1.3-DICHLOROBENZENE
27  1>4-DICHLOROBFNZENE
28  3f3'-DICHLflROBENZIDINE
35  2>4-DINITROTOLUENE
36  2f6~DINITROTOLUENE
37  1.2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
39  FLUORANTHENE
40  4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
41  4-BROMOPHFNYL PHENYL ETHER
42  BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)  ETHER
43  BIS(2-CHl.OROETHYOXY> METHANE
52  HFXACHLOROBUTADIENE
53  HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
54  KiOPHORONE
55  NAPHTHALENE
54  NITROBENZENE
61  N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
42  N-NITROSODIPHFNYl.AHINE
63  N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
66  BIS(2-ETHYl HEXYl) PHTHALATE
67  BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
68  DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
69  DI-N-OCTYL PHTHAl ATE
70  D7ETHYL PHTHALATE
71  DIMETHYL PHTHAl ATE
72  lf2-BENZANTHRACENE
73  BFN70 (A)PYRENE
74  3t4-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
75  11.12-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
76  CHRYSFNE
77  ACFHAPHTHYLENE
78  ANTHRACENE
79  It12-BFNZOPFRYLENE
80  FLUORENE
81  PHFNANTHRENE
82  1,2l5r6-DlBENZANTHRACENE
83  INriFNO(l,2.1-CrF» PYRENE
84  PYRENE

89  At UK 1H
90  DIFLDRIN
91  CHLORDANE
UO/L
IIO/L
UO/I.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
IIO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
IIO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
U6/L
UG/L
UG/L
Note:
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Laboratory
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
analysis
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
reported as
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
c
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
less than
r 	 : — r-" 	 : 	 .
                  L-LESS THAN)   T-TRACFI   N-D  NOT DETECTED)
                                                                                  detection limit Is considered not detected
                                                                                 (value = 0) for this table.

-------
                                                                                     TABLE VI-3
                                                                                  DIP.ECT DISCHARGE
                                                                        INTAKE WATER PRIORITY POLLUTANTS'  DETECTION
                                                                      SUMMARY OF EPA SCREENING PROGRAM  DATA
PAGE 3 of 3
                      FRACTION
                     PESTICIDES
CO
CT)
                     METALS
PAR.
NO.
92
93
94
95
96
97
9B
99
100
101
10?
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
129
114
115
117
MR
119
120
121
1?2
123
124
125
126
127
12fl
PARAMETER
4r4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4f4'-ODn




ALPHA-ENDOSULFAN
BEfA-F.NDOSUl FAN
FNDOSULFAN
FNDRIN
Sill FATE

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HFPTACHLOR
HFPTACHLOR
ALPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
GAMMA-BHC
DFl TA-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
TOXAPHENE
TCDD
ANTIMONY
ARSFNIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC

EPOXIDF



























                     NON-CONV,  METALS   148   HEX-CHROMIUM
                     MISC.
                                         167  PHENOl ICS  (4AAPO)
                                                                                                          TOTAL     TOTAL
                                                                                       PLANTS   PI ANTS    SAMPLES   TIMES
                                                                                 UNITS SAMPLED  DETECTING ANALYZED DETECTED
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/l
UO/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
IIG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
Note:

17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
17
17
17
17
17
16
17
Laboratory
deduction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
IS
12
3
10
10
9
6
1
0
16
7
9
analysis
limit Is
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
85
85
85
86
52
88
69
88
23
85
34
90
48
48
reported <
considered
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
0
4
34
48
4
26
51
13
10
2
0
3u
10
17
is less than a
not detected
                                                                                      (value - 0)  for this  table.
                     L-LESS  THAN)  T-TRACE)   N-D  NOT DETECTED)

-------
                                                                                      TABLE VI-4
                                                                                   DIRECT DISCHARGE
                                                                     SEPARATOR  EFFLUENT PRIORITY POLLUTANTS' i DETECTION
                                                                      SUMMARY OF EPA SCREENING PROGRAM DATA
Page  1 of 3
                     FRACTION

                     VOLATILES
CO
--4
                     ACID EXTRACT
PAR.
NO.
2
3
A
&
7
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
23
29
3O
32
33
38
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
85
86
87
88
21
22
24
31
34
57
58
59
to
64
65
1
5
8

PARAMETER
ACROIEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHI.OROBENZENE
2-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-TRICHLOROFTHANE
1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-TRICHLOROFTHANE
li2f2-TETRACHLOROFTHANE
CHLOROETHANE
BIS(CHIOROHETHYL) ETHER
7-CHLOROFTHYL VINYL ETHER
CHLOROFORM
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 » 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYl ENE
1 , 2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 1 3-PICHLOROPROPYI ENE
FTHYLBEN7ENE
MFTHYLFNE CHLORIDE
METHYL CHIORIDE
METHYL BROMIDE
BROMOFORM
DICHl.OROBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
niCHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
CHLORODIBROMOMFTHANE
TETRACH1 OROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHL OROETHYLENE
VINYL CHIORIDE
2>4f6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
PARACHLOROHETA CRESOL
2-CHl.OROPHENOL
2>4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2i4-DIMFTHrLPHFNOL
2-NITROPHFNOL
4-NITROPHENOL
2.4-PINITROPHFNOL
4.6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
PFNTACHl OROPHFNOL
PHENOL
ACFNAPHTHENE
BENZIDINE
1 »2,4-TRICHLOROBEN7ENE
                                                                                                            TOTAL     TOTAL
                                                                                        PI ANTS   PLANTS     SAMPIES   TIMES
                                                                                  UNITS SAMPIED  DETECTING  ANALYZED  DETECTED
                     BASE-NFIITRALS
                     L-LESS  THANI   T-TRACFI   N-P  NOT  PETFCTFIII
UO/L
UO/L
UO/l
UO/L
UO/l
UO/L
UO/L
UO/l.
UO/L
UO/L
UG/l
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/l
UG/L
HG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Note:

9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Laboratory
detection
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
6
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
5





9
6
0
0
analysis
limit Is
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
IS
15
IS
IS
15
IS
15
15
reported
considered
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
7
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
1
1
1
12
6
0
0
as less than
not detected
                                                                                         (value =  0) for this  table.

-------
                                                                                    TABLE ¥1-4
                                                                                UIRECT  BI50HAR6E
                                                                  SEPARATOR EFFLUENT PRIORITY POLLUTANTS'  UETECT10N
                                                                  SUMMARY OF EPA SCREENING PROG I AM DATA
                                                                                Page  2 of 3
                     FRACTION

                     BASE-NEUTRALS
                                        PAR.
                                        NO.
                                             PARAMETER
                                                               TOTAL     TOTAL
                                            PLANTS  PLANTS     SAMPLES   TINES
                                      UNITS SANPLED DETECTING  ANALYZED DETECTED
CO
00
                     PESTICIDES
 9  HEXACHLOROBENZENE
12  HEXACHLOROETHANE
18  BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
20  2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
25  lf2-I>ICHLOROFENZENE
26  lr3-DICHLOROBENZENE
27  1r4-DICHLOROBENZENE
28  3r3'-DICHLORDBEN7lDlNE
35  2>4-DINITROTOLUFNE
36  2>6-DINITROTOLUENE
37  li2-DIPHENYI.HYDRAZINE
39  FLUORANTHENE
40  4-CHLOROPHENY1. PHENYL ETHER
41  4-BROHOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
42  BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL> ETHER
43  BIS<2-CHLQROETHYOXYJ HETHANE
52  HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
53  HEXACHLOROCYCl.OPENTADIENE
54  ISOPHORONE
55  NAPHTHALENE
56  NITROBENZENE
61  N-NITROSODIMETHYLAHINE
62  N-NITROSODIPHFNY1AMINE
63  N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAHIHE
66  BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
67  BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
68  DI-N-BUTY1. PHTHAl ATE
69  DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
70  DIETHYL PHTHALATE
71  DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
72  1t2-BEN7ANTHRACENE
73  BENZO (A)PYRENE
74  3>4-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
75  11.12-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
76  CHRYSENE
77  ACENAPHTHYLENE
78  ANTHRACENE
79  It12-BENZOPERYLENE
SO  Fl UORENE
81  PHENANTHRF.NE
82  1.2IS»6-DIBENZANTHRACENE
83  INDENO3-CrD> PYRENE
84  PYRENE

89  AI.DRIN
90  nmtlRIN
91  CHI.ORDANE
                     L-LESS  THANI   T-TRACEi   N-D  NOT PFTFCTEIH
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/l.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/I
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/I.
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
Note:

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Laboratory
detection
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
0
2
6
0
0
2
1
0
0
analysis
limit is
15
15
15
IS
IS
IS
IS
15
15
15
IS
IS
IS
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
IS
15
IS
15
IS
IS
15
15
15
15
IS
15
15
15
IS
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
IS
reported
considered
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
s
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
1
0
3
8
0
0
2
1
0
0
as less tnan ,
not detected

-------
                                                                                    TABLE VI-4
                                                                                 DIRECT DISCHARGE
                                                                      SEPARATOR EFFLUENT  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS' DETECTION
                                                                      SUMMARY  OF EPA SCREENING  PROGRAM DATA
Page 3 Of 3
                      FRACTION
                      PESTICIDES
to
                      METALS.
PAR.
NO.
92
93
94
95
96
97
9B
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
in
129
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
12A
127
128
PARAMETER
4i4'-DDT
4f4'-DDE
4t4'-DDD




ALPHA-ENDOSULFAN
BETA-ENDOSUl.FAN
FNDOSULFAN
FNDRIN
SULFATE

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
HFPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR
At PHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
OAMHA-BHC
DELTA-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
FCB-1260
PCB-1016
TOXAPHENE
TCDD
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THAI LIUM
ZINC

EPOXIDE



























                      NON-CONV. METALS   148  HEX-CHROMIUM
                       MISC.
                                          167  PHFNOIICS  (4AAPO)
                                                                                                           TOTAL     TOTAL
                                                                                        PLANTS  PLANTS    SAMPLES  TIMES
                                                                                  UNITS SAMPLED DETECTING ANALY7FD DETECTED
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/l
UG/L
UO/L
(IG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
IIG/L
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
(10 /I.
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
U8/L
UO/L
UO/L
UG/L
UO/L
UG/L
IIG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UO/l.
UG/L
UO/L
Note:

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
Laboratory
detection
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
5
1
1
10
8
9
7
7
7
4
1
1
10
6
10
analysis
limit Is
IS
15
15
15
IS
IS
15
15
IS
IS
IS
15
IS
IS
15
15
IS
IS
15
15
15
IS
15
15
19
75
78
92
79
47
81
80
78
39
75
40
100
42
48
reported
considered
0
l
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
13
1
4
80
61
38
39
61
17
29
3
4
89
22
46
as less than i
not detected
                                                                                        (value = 0) for this table.
                       L-LESS THAN)  T-TRACEi   N-D  NOT DFTECTEDI

-------
                                                             1 of 2
                                  TABLE VI-5
             PRIORITY POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED IN TREATED EFFLUENTS
               DISCHARGED DIRECTLY, AND EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION
Pursuant to Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the Settlement Agreement, the following 98
priority pollutants are excluded from national regulation because they were not
detected in effluents from BPT treatment systems by Section 304(h) analytical
methods or other state-of-the-art methods:
EPA                                    EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant               No.

 2    acrolein                         52
 3    acrylonitrile                    53
 5    benzidine                        54
 6    carbon tetrachloride             55
 7    chlorobenzene                    56
 8    1,2,4-trichlorobenzene           57
 9    hexachlorobenzene                58
10    1,2-dichloroethane               59
11    1,1,1-trichloroethane            60
12    hexachloroethane                 61
13    1,1-dichloroethane               62
14    1,1,2-trichloroethane            63
15    1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane        64
16    chloroethane                     65
18    bis(2-chloroethyl)ether          67
19    2-chloroethylvinyl ether         69
20    2-chloronaphthalene              72
21    2,4,6-trichlorophenol            74
24    2-chlorophenol                   75
25    1,2-dichlorobenzene              77
26    1,3-dichlorobenzene              78
27    1,4-dichlorobenzene              79
28    3,3'-dichlorobenzidine           80
29    1,1-dichloroethylene             82
30    1,2-trans-dichloroethylene       83
32    1,2-dichloropropane              85
33    1,3-dichloropropylene            87
34    2,4-dimethylphenol               88
35    2,4-dinitrotoluene               89
36    2-6-dinitrotoluene               90
37    1,2-diphenylhydrazine            91
38    ethylbenzene                     92
39    fluoranthene                     93
40    4-chlorophenyl  phenyl  ether     94
41    4-bromophenyl phenyl ether       95
42    bis(2-chloroisopropyl)  ether    96
43    bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane     97
45    methyl chloride                 98
46    methyl bromide                   99
47    bromoform                       100
48    dichlorobromomethane             101
51    chlorodibromomethane             102
Priority Pollutant

hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamlne
pentachlorophenol
phenol
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthrace ne
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthane
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(ghl)perylene
fluorene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
be ta-endosulfan
endosulfan  sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor  epoxide
alpha-BHC
                                       140

-------
                               TABLE VI-5 (Cont'd)
                                                        2 of 2
EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant

103   beta-BHC
104   gamma-BHC
105   delta-BHC
106   PCB-1242
107   PCB-1254
108   PCB-1221
109   PCB-1232
EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant

110   PCB-1248
111   PCB-1260
112   PCB-1016
113   toxaphene
114   antimony (total)
116   asbestos
129   2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
        dioxin (TCDD)
                                      141

-------
                                  TABLE VI-6
               PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN TREATED EFFLUENTS
               DISCHARGED DIRECTLY, BUT EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION
I.    Pursuant to Paragraph 8(a)(lli) of the Settlement Agreement, the following
      25 priority pollutants are excluded from national regulation because they
      are already effectively controlled by technologies upon which other
      effluent limitations and guidelines are based:
EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant

 1    acenaphthene
 4    benzene
22    parachlorometacresol
23    chloroform
31    2,4-dichlorophenol
68    di-n-butyl phthalate
70    diethyl phthalate
71    dimethyl phthalate
73    benzo(a)pyrene
76    chrysene
81    phenanthrene
84    pyrene
86    toluene
EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant
115
117
118
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
 II.    Pursuant  to  Paragraph 8(a)(iii)  of  the Settlement Agreement, the following
       two  priority pollutants  are excluded from national regulation because
       their  detection is  believed to  be attributed to laboratory analysis and
       sample contamination:

 EPA
 No.    Priority  Pollutant

 44    methylene chloride
 66    bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
                                        142

-------
                              TABLE  VI-7
             Statistical  Analysis  Table  for  the Petroleum Refining  Industry'
                               Direct Discharge - Current/BPT
Pollutant
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
2 , 4-0 1 eh 1 or opheno 1
p-ch 1 oro-ffl-creso 1
Dimethyl ph thai ate3
Dl ethyl ph thai ate
0!-n-butyl phthalate
Acenaphthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chyrsene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene ^
Arsenic
Bery 1 1 1 urn
Cadmium '
Chromium (Trlvalent)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver3
Thai Hum
Zinc
Average
Flow-Weighted
Pol 1. Cone.
(uq/l )
3.1
2.3
10.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
1.5
0.04
1.1
0.1
0.02
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.04
0.25
107.8
7.7
9.8
45.3
5.2
0.9
3.4
17.2
0.04
3.2
104.6
Maximum
Pol lutant
Concentration
(ug/l)
66
11
35
10
10
3
30
10
6
3
1
1
7
31
2
20
1230
110
199
320
113
6
74
32
4
12
620
Frequency
of Detection
2/17
3/17
1/17
1/17
1/17
1/17
1/17
2/17
1/17
2/17
2/17
1/17
1/17
3/17
2/51
3/53
41/53
8/48
26/50
26/39
10/54
20/45
13/55
17/20
1/47
5/14
43/59
Footnote :

^11 129 priority pollutants were analyzed during the sampling of the Current/BPT
wastestream.  Thirteen organic pollutants and fourteen Inorganic pollutants were detected.
The Current/BPT concentrations were calculated by flow-weighting the data available for
the seventeen direct dischargers sampled.

2Low values were not Included, and were assumed to be not quantifiable.  High values
were not Included because laboratory contamination was suspected; therefore, data were
assumed to be Invalid.
     Current/BPT pollutant concentration Js greater than In the Pretreated Raw
wastestream because of the variability of the data during sampling.
                                       143

-------
                                  TABLE VI-8
             PRIORITY POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED IN TREATED EFFLUENTS
               DISCHARGED TO POTW, AND EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION
Pursuant to Paragraph 8(a)(ill) of the Settlement Agreement, the following 75
priority pollutants are excluded from national regulation because they were
not detected by Section 304(h) analytical methods or other  state-of-the-art
methods in effluents discharged to POTW:
EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant
                                       EPA
                                       No.

 3    acrylonitrile                     62
 5    benzidine                         63
 6    carbon tetrachloride              66
 8    1,2,4-trichlorobenzene            69
 9    hexachlorobenzene                 71
12    hexachloroethane                  74
13    1,1-dich^oroethane                75
14    1,1,2-trichloroethane             79
15    1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane         82
16    chloroethane                      83
18    bis(2-chloroethyl)ether           87
19    2-chloroethylvlnyl ether          88
20    2-chloronaphthalene               90
21    2,4,6-trichlorophenol             91
22    parachlorometa eresol             94
25    1,2-dichlorobenzene               95
26    1,3-dichlorobenzene               97
27    1,4-dichlorobenzene               98
28    3,3'-dichlorobenzidine            99
29    1,1-dichloroethylene             100
31    2,4-dichlorophenol               101
32    1,2-dichloropropane              102
33    1,3-dichloropropylene            103
35    2,4-dinitrotoluene               104
36    2-6-dinitrotoluene               106
37    1,3-diphenylhydrazine            107
41    4-bromophenyl phenyl ether       108
42    bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether     109
43    bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane      110
44    methylene chloride               111
45    methyl chloride                  112
46    methyl bromide                   113
47    bromoform                        114
51    chlorodibromomethane             116
52    hexachlorobutadiene              126
53    hexachlorocyclopentadiene        127
56    nitrobenzene                     129
61    N-nitrosodimethylamine
Priority Pollutant

N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nit rosodi-n-propylamine
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
d-n-octyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthane
benzo(ghi)perylene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ideno(l,2,3-C,D)pyrene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
endosulfan  sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor  epoxide
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
PCB-1242
PCP-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
toxaphene
antimony  (total)
asbestos
silver (total)
thallium  (total)
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-
  dioxin  (TCDD)
                                   144

-------
                                                     1 of 2
                                  TABLE VI-9
                   PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN EFFLUENTS
               DISCHARGED TO POTW, BUT EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION
I.    Pursuant to Paragraph 8(b)(i) of  the Settlement Agreement,  the  following  5
      priority pollutants are excluded  from regulation because  95  percent  or
      more of all point sources in the  subcategory introduce  into  POTW  only
      pollutants which are susceptible  to treatment  by the POTW and which  do  not
      interfere with, do not pass through, or are not otherwise incompatible
      with such treatment works:
EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant

 24   2-chlorophenol
 57   2-nitrophenol
 77   acenaphthylene
 80   fluorene
125   selenium
II.   Pursuant to Paragraph 8(b)(ii) of  the  Settlement  Agreement,  the following
      33 priority pollutants are excluded  from  regulation  because  the amount and
      toxicity of each pollutant do not  justify developing national
      regulations:
EPA                                    EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant               No.

 2    acrolein                          85
 7    chlorobenzene                     89
10    1,2-dichloroethane                92
11    1,1,1-trichloroethane             93
23    chloroform                        96
30    1,2-trans-dichloroethylene       105
39    fluoranthene                     115
40    4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether      117
48    dichlorobromomethane             118
60    4,6 dinitro-o-cresol             120
64    pentachlorophenol                121
67    butyl benzyl phthalate           122
68    di-n-butyl phthalate             123
70    diethyl phethalate               124
72    benzo(a)anthracene               128
73    benzo(a)pyrene
76    chrysene
84    pyrene
Priority Pollutant

t e t rachloroe thylene
aldrin
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
beta endosulfan
delta BHC
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
                                    145

-------
                                                        2 of  2
                               TABLE VI-9 (Cont'd)
III.   Pursuant to Paragraphs 8(a)(iii), 8(a)(iv), and 8(b) of the Settlement
      Agreement, the following 12 priority pollutants are excluded from regula-
      tion for the following reasons.  (1) There is significant removal of
      several of the pollutants by the technology upon which existing pretreat-
      ment standards for oil and grease are based.  (2) There is significant
      removal of all these pollutants by the POTW treatment system.  (3) The
      amount and toxicity of the pollutants do not justify developing national
      pretreatment standards.
EPA                                    EPA
No.   Priority Pollutant               No.   Priority Pollutant

 1    acenaphthene                     58    4-nitrophenol
 4    benzene                          59    2,4-dinitrophenol
34    2,4-dimethylphenol               65    phenol
38    ethylbenzene                     78    anthracene
54    isophorone                       81    phenanthrene
55    naphthalene                      86    toluene
                                       146

-------
                                                                  1 of  2
                            TABLE VI-10

Statistical Analysis Table for the Petroleum Refining Industry
                Indirect Discharge - Current
Pollutant
Aeroieln
Aldrln
i-BHC
ODE
DOT
0-Endosulfan
1 sophorone
0 Ich 1 orobromomethane
Chloroform
1,2-Otchloroethane
Average
Flow-weighted
Poll. Cone.
Cua/M
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.01
0.6
293.3
0.1
24.6
0.9
1,1, 1-Tr Ich 1 oroethane 0.3
Trans-1,2-01chloroethene 0.1
Tetracn 1 oroethene
4-Ch 1 oropnenypheny I
ether
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Pnenol
2-Chlorophenol
Pentach 1 or opheno 1
2-Nttrophenol
4-mtrophenol
2,4-OlnItrophenol
2,4-Olmethy (phenol
4 , 6-0 1 n I tro-o-ereso 1
Oiethyl phthalate
Ol-n-butyl phthalate
0.4

1.4
148.8
0.1
123.8
398.1
1368.7
28.3
2.2
63.3
361.4
1068.4
1207.7
2,9
1.3
0.1
Butyl benzyl ph thai ate 0.04
Acenap n thene
Aeenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo ( a )anthracene
188.9
81.3
119.2
0.4
Maximum
Pollutant
Concentration
(ua/I)
100
12
12
7
3
13
3350
24
too
34
14
20
30

30
3800
31
18000
48000
33500
313
830
1350
3800
11000
18300
60
38
40
16
522
665
1750
12
Frequency
of Detection
1/29
3/22
2/27
1/27
1/28
1/29
3/27
1/28
17/28
3/29
1/28
1/29
1/29

21/27
1/28
17/27
20/27
20/27
1/27
1/27
1/27
1/29
4/29
3/29
17/27
1/29
4/27
1/27
2/27
6/27
4/27
7/27
1/27
                               147

-------
                                                                         2 of 2
                             TABLE VI-10  (Continued)
        Statist tea I Analysis Table for the Petroleum Refining Industry1
                         Indirect Discharge - Currant
                                  (Continued)
Pollutant
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
F 1 uoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Arsenic2
Beryllium
Cadmium
Average
Flow-Weighted
Poll. Cone.
(UQ/1 )
0.03
3.3
6.3
50.5
581.6
234.7
4.6
0.3
0.1
0.03
Chromium (Trlvaient) 731.1
Chromium (Hexavalent) 16.8
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
80.6
195.2
24.6
1.8
14.6
51.2
429.4
Maximum
Pol lutant
CmiCeMi rf1 Q^ ion
(UQ/I )
10
30
812
495
3750
1750
16
41
2
3
2196
410
310
3000
958
78
771
322
3000
Frequency
of Detection
1/29
4/27
4/27
4/27
18/26
13/27
5/27
9/29
3/63
1/63
58/71
23/60
52/66
53/36
21/66
28/65
6/66
10/78
65/78
Footnota:

 All 129 priority pollutants «ara analyzad  during ttia  sampling of tha Currant
wastastraam.  Forty organic pollutants  and  twalva  Inorganic  pollutants wara datactad.
Tha
pollutant concentrations wara obtained  fro» How-weighting tha data  for seventeen
Pretreated Raw direct and the four Currant Indirect  dischargers studied In this analysis.
PSE5 limits for toxic pollutants are assumed  to  renain at Current  levels.  There  Is no
flow reduction at PSE5.
     values were not Included,  and were assumed  to  be  not quantifiable.  High values
were not Included because laboratory contamination  was suspected; therefore, data were
assumed to be Invalid.
                                         148

-------
                           SECTION VII

                CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the  control  and  treatment  technologies
that  are  determined to be feasible methods for the reduction of
pollutants in  petroleum  refining  wastewater.   In  identifying
these  technologies/ the Agency assumed that each refinery had or
would install the best practicable control  technology  currently
available  (BPCTCA)  to  comply  with  BPT  limitations (3).  The
treatment technologies described below  can  further  reduce  the
amount  of  pollutants  discharged to navigable waters.  They are
divided into two  broad  classes:  in-plant  source  control  and
end-of-pipe treatment.  (A discussion of BPT technologies is also
presented  here  for  completeness).   These  two  "classes"  are
discussed in the following paragraphs/ along with  a  description
of  existing  wastewater  treatment  and its effectiveness in the
industry.

IN-PLANT SOURCE CONTROL

In-plant source control reduces the overall pollutant  load  that
must   be  treated  by  an  end-of-pipe  system  and  reduces  or
eliminates a particular pollutant before it  is  diluted  in  the
main wastewater stream.

In  developing  an  in-plant  control  scheme/ the source of each
particular pollutant must  be  identified  and  evaluated  as  to
whether it can be eliminated or reduced.  Sampling the wastewater
at  various  points  within  the refinery sewer, beginning at the
end-of-pipe treatment system and ending  at  the  process  units/
produces  a profile of the refinery sewer, which shows the origin
and flow path of the pollutant in question.

Once the source of the particular pollutant  is  identified/  the
next  step  is  to  determine if the pollutant can be (a) removed
with an in-plant treatment system;  (b)  eliminated  by  chemical
substitution;   or  (c)  reduced  by  recycling  or  reusing  the
particular wastewater stream.  In-plant source control is further
discussed  below  in  terms  of   treatment   options,   chemical
substitution, wastewater reduction, and wastewater reuse.

In-Plant Treatment Options

In  all  in-plant  treatment  options,  the process waste streams
under  consideration  must  be  segregated.   If   a   particular
pollutant  (or  pollutants)  has  more  than one source, they all
require segregation from  the  main  wastewater  sewer.  However/
similar sources can be combined for treatment in one system. Sour
water,  for  example  is  produced  at various locations within a
                              149

-------
refinery complex but can be  treated  as  a  combined  wastewater
stream.

Sour  water  and cooling tower blowdown are the two waste streams
for which in-plant treatment is now practiced or is available.

Sour Water.  Sour water generally results from water brought into
direct contact with a hydrocarbon stream.  Direct contact results
when steam is used as a stripping or mixing medium or when  water
is  used  as  a  washing  medium, as in the crude desalting unit.
Sour water contains sulfides, ammonia, and phenols.

The most  common  in-plant  treatment  schemes  for  sour  waters
involve  sour  water  stripping, sour water oxidizing, or combin-
ations of the two.  These systems can greatly reduce sulfides and
ammonia levels, and can also remove  some  phenols  (24).   Table
VII-1  summarizes  the  extent of this technology in the refining
industry.  The operation of sour water strippers and  sour  water
oxidizers  is  discussed  at  great  length in numerous technical
publications (3, 6, 18, 20, 24, 28, 48).  A sour water  stripping
study  was undertaken in 1972 by the American Petroleum Institute
(24).  The results of this survey showed that 17 of  31  refluxed
sour  water  strippers  and  12  of  24  non-refluxed  sour water
strippers removed more than  99  percent  of  the  sulfides.   An
additional  nine  refluxed  and  three non-refluxed units removed
more than 99 percent of the sulfides and more than 95 percent  of
the  ammonia.   The  data  thus  suggest  that, overall, refluxed
columns remove greater percentages of both pollutants.  Note that
of the five two-stage units studied, only one unit removed  large
percentages  of  both  pollutants.   Six  of  the seven strippers
operating with flue or fuel gases removed over 99 percent of  the
sulfides.  However, none of these units removed a high percentage
of ammonia.

The average effluent concentration of all refluxed, non-refluxed,
and  flue  gas  units  that  removed  more than 99 percent of the
sulfide was 6.7 mg/L of sulfide.  The average effluent  from  all
units  that  removed more than 95 percent of the ammonia was 62.5
mg/L of ammonia.  These averages are based upon a wide  range  of
influent and effluent values.

Existing  sour  water stripper performance can be  improved by (a)
increasing the number of trays,  (b) increasing  the  steam  rate,
(c) increasing tower height, and/or (d) adding a second column' in
series   (107).   All  these  methods  are  now  available  to the
refining industry.

Biological  treatment  to  remove  total  phenols   is   also    a
demonstrated   technology  in  this  industry  (48).   Biological
treatment of stripped sour waters  may  prove  cost-effective  in
removing  any  biodegradable organic priority pollutants that may
originate in this waste stream.
                               150

-------
Phenols can also be removed from the sour water waste  stream  by
the  addition  of  oxidizing agents, such as ozone (51), hydrogen
peroxide  (11),  chlorine,  chlorine   dioxide,   and   potassium
permanganate (113).

A recent research project demonstrated that activated carbon also
removes phenolic compounds.  The experiment showed that activated
carbon  has  a  high  affinity  for phenolic compounds, requiring
relatively short detention times.  Activated carbon treatment  in
sour  water  streams  may  also remove any other organic priority
pollutants present.  Refinery 237 uses activated carbon to  treat
the sour water waste stream, and the Agency has investigated this
particular system further.

Cooling  Tower  Slowdown.  Metals (such as chromium and zinc) and
phosphate can be removed by precipitation and clarification at  a
relatively high pH (8 to 10).  Hexavalent chromium, however, must
be  first  reduced  to  the  trivalent  state  before  it  can be
precipitated and removed by clarification.  Reduction is  usually
accomplished by adding sulfur dioxide, ferrous sulfate, or sodium
bisulfite.  The pH of the wastewater then rises with the addition
of  lime  or  caustic  (lime is preferred if phosphates are to be
precipitated),  and   the   wastewater   stream   is   clarified.
Flocculants  and  flocculant aids, such as ferric chloride, alum,
and polymers, can be added to increase removal efficiencies.

Japan's Mitsubishi  Petrochemical  Company  has  reported  a  new
treatment  technique  for  the removal of heavy metal ions (126).
The system involves electrolytic coagulation in which  electrical
currents  cause an iron electrode to dissolve.  The iron combines
with heavy metals and added hydroxide ion to form a  sludge  that
can  be  precipitated  rapidly  from  solution.   Magnets aid the
settling process.  Mitsubishi  reports  that  the  new  treatment
system  can  reduce  Cr+*  concentration to less than 0.05 ppm in
2900 gallons of metal plating wastewater.  This system  could  be
used  to  treat  cooling  tower  blowdown  streams  at  petroleum
refineries.

Chemical Substitution

Chemicals are added to  cooling  tower  recirculating  water  and
boiler water to reduce corrosion, scaling, and biological growth.
These  chemicals  usually include chromium, zinc, phosphates, and
free chlorine.

Using organic chemicals to replace zinc and chromium solutions is
also  a  viable  alternative  (53,54).   Molybdates  are  also  a
practical alternative (55).  (Molybdates are compounds containing
the anion MQ4-2 )
                              151

-------
Wastewater Reduction

Reduction  in water usage may sometimes be more cost-effective if
the wastewater discharge  is  reduced,  rather  than  reusing  or
recycling  the  existing  amount  of wastewater discharged.  Good
housekeeping is one inexpensive method of reducing wastewater and
may include (a) shutting down pump gland cooling water  lines  on
pumps  that  are out of service; (b) shutting down washdown hoses
that are not  in  use,  (c)  eliminating  leaks,  (d)  using  dry
cleaning  methods/  and  (e)  using vacuum trucks to clean up oil
spills.  Numerous  other  housekeeping  procedures  are  commonly
practiced throughout the industry.

Many  new  and  modified refineries incorporate reduced water use
and  pollutant  loading  into  their  design.   Some   of   these
modifications include:

    o    Substitution of improved  catalysts  that  require  less
         regeneration.

    o    Replacement  of  barometric  condensers   with   surface
         condensers or air fan coolers.

    o    Replacement of surface condensers with air fan coolers.

    o    Use of hydrocracking and  hydrotreating  processes  that
         produce   lower   wastewater   loadings   than  existing
         processes.

    o    Increased  use  of  improved  drying,  sweetening,   and
         finishing  procedures  to  minimize  spent  caustics and
         acids,  water  washes,  and  filter   solids   requiring
         disposal.

    o    Recycle of wastewater at the process units to reduce the
         amount of wastewater leaving the process area.

A  major  process  change  that  can  reduce  wastewater   is  the
substitution  of  air  cooling devices for water cooling systems.
Many refineries have  installed air cooling systems with their new
process installations, thereby reducing the additional wastewater
production associated with increased refinery complexity.

Of the 78 refineries  for wh;Lch  comparative  data  are  available
between  1972  and  1976,  the  use  of  air  cooling systems has
increased at 39 refineries, has decreased at 26  refineries,  and
has  remained  the  same  at 13 refineries.  Increased use of air
cooling systems can reduce the quantity of cooling tower blowdown
discharges that require treatment.

Another method of reducing wastewater  is  to  eliminate   cooling
water from general purpose pumps  (117).  In certain instances the
elimination  of  water can increase machinery reliability, reduce


                              152

-------
capital expenditures for piping and water  treatment  facilities,
and   save   operating   costs.   Guidelines  are  available  for
implementing a well-planned,  step-by-step  program  of  deleting
cooling water from pumps and drivers.  These procedures have been
successfully implemented on a full-scale basis  (117).

Wastewater Reuse

Many   streams,  such  as  treated  sour  waters,  cooling  tower
blowdowns, and utility blowdowns, are suitable  for  use  as  wash
water  and fire system water.  However, before  reusing wastewater
for these purposes, each plant must be investigated to  determine
the technical and economic feasibility.

Wastewe. jrs   emanating   from  end-of-pipe  BPT  facilities  are
generally of such quality that reuse  can  be   quite  attractive.
Uses  for  treated  refinery wastewaters include makeup water for
cooling towers, pump gland cooling systems, washdown  water,  and
fire water systems.

A  number  of  articles  in  recent  years  describe actual reuse
practices at one refinery (41, 57, 58).  This plant  reuses  most
of its treated wastewater as makeup to the cooling tower and fire
water systems.  In practice, the cooling towers act as biological
treatment  units, removing over 99 percent of the phenols present
(41).  The refinery reuses approximately 4.5 million  gallons  of
process  wastewater  per  day  in  the  cooling towers; about 2.2
million gallons of  cooling  tower  blowdown  per  day  are  sand
filtered and discharged to the receiving stream.  The difference,
over  2  million  gallons  per  day, is evaporated in the cooling
towers or in an impounding basin (58).  Wastewater reuse began at
this refinery  in  1954.   Years  of  operating  experience  have
confirmed  that  reuse  water  is a satisfactory makeup supply to
cooling towers and does not require special water conditioning or
treatment.  Continued monitoring has confirmed  that  the  system
has  no  problems  of  corrosion, heat transfer, or cooling tower
wood  deterioration.   Refinery  management  has  concluded  that
cooling  water  reuse  is  an economically sound practice, paying
significant dividends in terms of both  pollution  abatement  and
water conservation (57).

Finelt and Crump (128) report that refiners faced with increasing
freshwater  costs  may  direct  their  water  management policies
toward the recirculation  of  treated  water.   Properly  treated
wastewater can be recycled as makeup to the cooling tower system.
At   new  refineries,  the  recycle  system  could  be  justified
economically over a non-recycle system for a number  of  reasons.
There  are a number of factors to be considered, most notably the
cost.  The cost of fresh water  primarily  determines  the  least
costly  system.   At  existing  well-operated facilities, only at
very high freshwater costs can the recycle  system  prove  to  be
less  costly  than a non-recycle system.  However, application of
                               153

-------
recycle technology can reduce effluent  discharge  by  up  to  90
percent.

The  use  of  sour  waters  as makeup to the desalter is a proven
technology in this industry.   This  practice  does  remove  some
phenol  because  the  phenolics are extracted from the sour water
while the crude  is  washed.   However,  the  removal  efficiency
varies  greatly,  depending  on  a  number  of  factors, and this
treatment scheme may not be  a  practical  alternative  for  some
refineries (48).  Certain crudes, particularly California crudes,
may  present  problems  in  reusing  sour  waters in the desalter
because they produce emulsions in the desalter effluent.

Table VI1-2 identifies refineries  with  California  crudes  that
recycle  wastewater;  the  table  also  lists  the  percentage of
California crudes that makeup crude capacity and  the  percentage
of   reused   sour  waters.   These  data  show  that  refineries
processing California crudes do not use large percentages of sour
water in the desalter.  In fact,  refineries  that  use  a  large
percentage  of  California crudes appear to reuse less sour water
than refineries that process a  small  percentage  of  California
crude.  However, Table VII-3 shows that five of the six plants in
this analysis do reuse sour water elsewhere in the refinery.

Sour  water  from stripper bottoms has other demonstrated uses in
the petroleum refining  industry  (36).   It  can  be  reused  as
cooling   tower  makeup  and  as  process  wash  water.   In  the
biological environment in most cooling  systems,  90  percent  or
more of the phenols present can be removed (36).

The  1977  Survey  shows  that 36 refineries reuse 100 percent of
their treated sour waters in the desalter, while an additional 43
plants reuse at least some portion of their treated  sour  waters
in  the  desalter.  In addition, 32 refineries reuse treated sour
waters in some other process.  Of these plants,  four  reuse  100
percent of their treated sour waters as makeup to cooling towers.
Table  VII-3  summarizes  the extent of industry reuse of treated
sour waters.

The American Petroleum Institute published Water Reuse Studies in
August  1977 (150).  This document presents methods for  achieving
zero discharge, including:

o   Recycle and reuse  of   treated  effluent  as  well  as  other
    wastewaters

o   Recovery and reuse of condensate streams

o   Evaporation of wastewater with waste heat

0   Use of brine concentrators to eliminate high TDS streams.
                              154

-------
The API report concludes that for most existing refineries,  "(1)
engineering  concepts are available which indicate complete reuse
of refinery water is technically possible and (2) the capital and
operating costs appear favorable  for  complete  recycle
."(150).

The  recycle  of  treated effluent as cooling tower makeup or for
other  uses  is  certainly  a   viable   treatment   alternative.
Significant  reductions in wastewater generation can decrease the
quantities of pollutants discharged to  navigable  waters.   When
refineries  improve  the  present wastewater management system by
minimizing cooling tower blowdown, the  treated  effluent  to  be
recycled may require softening before recirculation.

To determine an upper limit of how much treated wastewater can be
reused  as  cooling  tower  makeup,  the  amount of cooling tower
makeup required by each plant in the industry  is  summarized  in
Table VI1-4.  The percentage of cooling tower makeup water in the
total  wastewater  discharged is also shown.  This table has been
derived from the 1977 survey data base.  Approximately  half  the
facilities  have  a  cooling  tower makeup water requirement that
equals or exceeds the total refinery discharge flow.

In order to determine the degree of flow reduction  that  can  be
achieved  on  a  national basis, EPA developed a flow model.  The
objective of the model was to  estimate  the  average  wastewater
discharge  flow from refineries which use similar processes.  The
model established which refineries are discharging less flow than
other facilities.  The higher flow refineries may be  subject  to
flow reduction requirements.

In  the  proposed revisions of December 1979, an industry average
flow reduction of 52% was required.   This  reduction  level  was
determined  by  selecting  the  medium  performance of refineries
which are discharging less then the  model  predicts.   The  flow
model  upon  which  the  proposal  was  based  was  found  to  be
statistically deficient.  A refined flow model was developed (see
Section IV).The overall flow reduction  as  calculated  from  the
refined  flow  model is 37.5%.  For the purpose of confirming the
achievability of this flow level, a  detailed  engineering  study
was  conducted  at  15  refineries  located throughout the United
States.   The  results  of  this  study  showed  that  the  37.5%
reduction  on  an  industry  wide basis is technically achievable
(159).  A  summary  of  the  techniques  identified  for  reusing
wastewaters  and  reducing discharge flow rates at the refineries
studied is presented in Table VI1-5.

END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT

End-of-pipe treatment is defined here as all wastewater treatment
systems that follow an  API  separator  or  a  similar  oil/water
separation  unit.  The following end-of-pipe treatment techniques
are available  for  the  reduction  of  pollutants  in  petroleum


                               155

-------
refining  wastewater:  a) biological treatment, b) filtration, c)
granular activated  carbon,  d)  powdered  activated  carbon,  e)
cyanide  removal,  and  f)  metals removal.  These techniques are
discussed below, along with the carbon studies conducted  by  the
EPA Kerr Lab, and ultimate disposal methods.

Biological Treatment

Biological   treatment   is  the  basic  process  by  which  most
refineries meet existing BPT guidelines.  Very large  amounts  of
oxygen-demanding compounds (as measured by the BOD5> COD, and TOC
test   methods)  are  removed  at  many  refineries  through  the
application  of  well-designed   and   well-operated   biological
treatment systems (146).

Many  options  are  available to plants which would upgrade their
present  biological  systems.   These  include  compartmentalized
oxidation  ponds  to  provide  preliminary  mechanical  aeration,
revamping  of  aerated  lagoon  systems  into  activated   sludge
systems,  and  converting of standard activated sludge systems to
pure  oxygen  systems.   Other  modifications  can  improve   the
operating  efficiency  of  particular biological treatment units,
but each plant must be investigated to determine the  feasibility
of such modification.

Rotating  Biological Contactors (RBC's) have attracted widespread
attention in the  United  States  since  1969.   RBC's  generally
consist  of  rows  of  plastic disks mounted on horizontal shafts
that turn slowly keeping the disk about 40 percent  immersed in   a
shallow  tank  containing wastewater (see Figure VII-1).  The RBC
is a combination fixed film reactor and mechanical aerator.   The
fixed  film  reactor is the disk upon which microorganisms attach
themselves and  grow.   Mechanical  aeration  occurs  during  the
portion  of  each  rotation that a section of disk  is above water
level.  Microorganisms produce a film on the surface of the  disk
which removes organic matter from the wastewater.  Biodegradation
of  organic matter causes biomass to accumulate on  the surface of
each disk.  Excess  biomass  is  stripped  and  returned  to  the
wastewater  stream  by  the  shearing  action  of  water  against
rotating disks.  Waste biomass  is  held  in  suspension  by  the
mixing  action  of  the disks, and carried out of the reactor for
removal by a clarifier.  Treatment efficiency can be improved  by
increasing  the  number  of  RBC's  in series, and  by temperature
control, sludge recycle, and chemical addition.

RBC's have characteristics  such  as  ability  to   sustain  shock
loads,  modular expansion, and low power consumption which may be
especially attractive for  industrial application.

Full scale RBC  installations treating refinery  wastewaters  have
resulted  in removal of oxygen demanding pollutants comparable to
activated sludge and trickling filter  systems   (23,  172,   173).
These   refineries  did  not  report  removal  effectiveness  for


                              156

-------
priority pollutants, however, they do report 4AAP phenol removals
ranging from 42 percent to 97 percent.  Data  from  the  Regional
Surveillance  and Analysis program show one refinery using RBC's,
Refinery 131, which achieved priority pollutant removals  similar
to the BPT systems studied in the 17 refinery B&R/RSKERL sampling
program (158, Appendix B).

The sampling data presented in Section V indicate that biological
treatment  can  remove  organic priority pollutants to low levels
(10-100 ug/L).   These samples are from both industry and POTW and
were collected and analyzed by EPA for this study.

Filtration

Filtration,  utilized  as  a  polishing  step  after   biological
treatment,  is  part  of  model  BPT  treatment  (3).  The survey
results indicate that 27 of the 259 respondents use filtration as
part of the existing treatment scheme, including plants that  use
filtration    before   biological   treatment.    Sixteen   other
refineries plan to install filtration systems in the near future.
Table VI1-6 lists those refineries that have, or are planning  to
install,  rapid sand or dual media filtration systems. Filtration
can improve effluent quality by  removing  suspended  solids  and
associated  BOD5_  and  COD  and by removing carryover metals that
have already been precipitated and  flocculated.  Filtration  can
also improve overall treatment plant performance (130, 132, 133).

Use  of  filtration  techniques  to  remove  solids  reduces  the
effluent variability of biological treatment systems.  One  study
(30)  showed that the percentage of suspended solids removed does
not deteriorate with high feed content; in fact,  the  amount  of
solids   removed   often   increases   with  feed  concentration.
Concentration of suspended solids in  the  effluent  rose  during
these  situations,  but  not  in proportion to the feed increase.
Thus, one conclusion of the report is that granular media filters
may be used to clarify refinery wastewaters, including occasional
surges.

Another study (99) showed that filtration  of  refinery  effluent
can  reduce  suspended  solids  to less than 5 mg/L for "all feed
concentrations" (8 to 91 mg/L of  TSS),  further  supporting  the
fact   that  filters  can  reduce  the  effluent  variability  of
biological treatment systems.

One petroleum refining company  uses  rapid  sand  filtration  to
treat  its biological treatment plant influent (150).  Biological
treatment  systems  now  remove  both  suspended  and   dissolved
materials.   However  if  filtration  is  used  before biological
treatment to remove the suspended material not removed in primary
treatment,  the  biological  system  can  remove  more  dissolved
organics  and  generate  fewer solids (50).  Another advantage of
prefiltration is that it allows the biological system to  operate
at  increased sludge ages (20 to over 40 days).  With high sludge
                              157

-------
ages, treatment efficiencies  are  greater  and  less  sludge  is
generated with fewer system upsets.

Granular Activated Carbon

Granular  activated  carbon  has  been  used in the potable water
industry  for  many  years;  recently  industrial  and  municipal
wastewater  treatment  plants  have  used  it to remove dissolved
organics (49).  Activated carbon systems have functioned both  as
polishing  units  following  a biological treatment system and as
the major treatment  process  in  a  physical/chemical  treatment
system.

The  granular activated carbon system considered here consists of
one or more trains of carbon columns,  each  train  having  three
columns operated in series. The columns operate by rotating their
positions in the train.  The newly regenerated carbon would be in
the  third  vessel, whereas the vessel with the most spent carbon
would be the first vessel.  One  possible  piping  and  equipment
arrangement  showing  this  scheme   is presented in Figure VI1-2.
Smaller refineries may require only  one or two  vessels  operated
manually  without  the  sophisticated piping arrangement shown in
Figure VII-2.

EPA expects that all but the smallest systems  will  require  on-
site  regeneration  of carbon.  Figure VII-3 is a flow diagram of
one possible carbon  regeneration  system.   In  some  instances,
filtration  may  be  needed  before  carbon  adsorption to remove
suspended solids and prevent plugging of the carbon pores.

Refinery 168 treats all wastewater with activated  carbon.   This
refinery  uses  granular  activated  carbon as the main treatment
process; that is,  it uses  no  biological  treatment  system  for
organic  and  BOD  removal  before   adsorption.  The refinery has
experienced operating problems with  the  system  (many  of  which
have  been  mechanical  in  nature)  and  now  plans to install  a
biological treatment facility to replace the carbon system.

Powdered Activated Carbon

A new technology developed over the  past several  years  consists
of  adding  powdered  activated  carbon  to  biological treatment
systems.  The adsorbant quality of carbon, which has  been  known
for  many  years,  aids in the removal of organic materials  in the
biological treatment unit  (144).  This treatment  technique  also
enhances  color  removal, clarification, and system stability, as
well as BOD and COD removal  (115,  116).  Results of pilot testing
(59, 60) indicate  that this type of  treatment,  when  used  as   a
part  of the activated sludge process, is a viable alternative to
granular carbon systems.

One chemical manufacturing complex has installed a full-scale, 40
MGD powdered activated carbon system that started up  during  the


                              158

-------
spring  of 1977 (61).  A simplified flow  diagram is presented in
Figure VII-4.  The waste sludge, which contains powdered  carbon,
is  removed  from  the activated sludge system and thickened in a
gravity thickener.  The sludge is  then  dewatered  in  a  filter
press   before  being  fed  to  the  regeneration  furnace.   The
regenerated carbon is washed in an acid solution to remove metals
as well as other inorganic materials.  Fresh carbon is  added  as
makeup  to  replace  the  carbon  lost  in  the overflow from the
activated sludge process or in the regeneration system.

The powdered activated carbon system just  described  is  a  very
comprehensive  treatment  system and includes operations that not
all installations may require.  The  decision  to  use  a  filter
press  system  or  acid  cleaning  system in addition to a carbon
regeneration furnace should  be  made  individually,  since  some
refineries  may  not require every treatment step.  If the metals
content is low and most of the solids are settleable, the  filter
press  or  acid  cleaning  systems  may  not  be required even by
refineries that regenerate carbon onsite.

Several tests in which powdered activated  carbon  was  added  to
petroleum  refinery  activated  sludge  systems  were  conducted.
Rizzo reported on a plant test in which carbon was  added  to  an
extended  aeration  treatment  at  the Sun Oil Refinery in Corpus
Christi, Texas (150).  In this test,  three  carbon  dosages,  24
ppm,  19  ppm,  and  9 ppm, were tried.  Test results showed that
even the very small carbon dosages  significantly  improved  BOO,
COD,  and  TSS  removals,  as  well as producing uniform effluent
quality, a clearer effluent and eliminating foam.

Grieves et al. (153) reported on a pilot plant study at the Amoco
refinery in Texas City where activated carbon was  added  to  the
activated  sludge process in 37.9- liter (10- gallon) pilot plant
aerators.  Significant amounts  of  soluble  organic  carbon  (53
percent),  soluble  COD  (60  percent),  NH3-N  (98 percent), and
phenolics were removed after 50 mg/L of high surface area  carbon
was  added.  The amounts removed increased with increasing carbon
dosage.

Exxon researchers tried adding activated carbon  to  bench  scale
activated  sludge  units  with somewhat less success (154).  They
evaluated  three   carbon   dosages,   which   produced   aerator
equilibrium carbon levels of 25 to 2,000 mg/L.  At aerator carbon
levels of 25 to 400 mg/L, the performance of the activated sludge
process   did  not  improve.   This  low  dosage  is  usually  an
inadequate amount of carbon, which gets lost  or  overwhelmed  in
the system.

At  higher carbon dosages, aerator carbon levels of 1,000 mg/L or
more, Exxon  got  positive  results.   In  a  field  test  (scale
undisclosed),  Thibault  et  al.  significantly improved effluent
quality and noted improvement in shock loading resistance leading
                              159

-------
to process stability.   An additional 10 percent of  TOG  and  COD
was removed.

Another  powdered  activated  carbon  scheme  that uses very high
sludge ages (60 days or more) has been studied  (60,  145).   The
high   sludge   ages   allow   carbon   to   accumulate  to  high
concentrations in the mixed-liquor, even though only small makeup
amounts are added to the system.  This approach may eliminate the
costly regeneration scheme previously described  because  of  the
low  carbon  addition  rates  and spent carbon may be disposed of
with the sludge.  Considerable pilot work has been done with this
concept, but no full-scale system is currently operating.

Pilot tests (62) have also shown that powdered  activated  carbon
can  be  used  successfully  with  rotating biological contactors
(RBCs).  Refinery 32 has constructed a full-scale system  on  the
basis of pilot test results.

Cyanide Removal

Various  treatment  technologies are available for the removal of
cyanides.  Cyanide can  be  removed  by  treatment  with  ferrous
sulfate.   This precipitates the cyanide as a ferrocyanide, which
can be removed in a subsequent sedimentation step.  For the  coil
coating industry, a long-term effluent concentration of 0.07 mg/L
was achieved via this technology (169).

Chlorine  oxidation  is  a common technique of cyanide treatment.
Chlorine is used primarily as an oxidizing  agent  in  industrial
waste  treatment to destroy cyanide.  Chlorine can be used in the
elemental or hypochlorite form.  The two step  chemical  reaction
is:

       C12 + NaCN + 2NaOH - NaCNO + 2 NaCl + H20               (2)

       3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NaCNO - 2NaHC03 + N2 + 6 NaCl + 2H20    (2)

The  long-term  concentrations  achieved by the metal plating and
inorganic chemical industry  (hydrogen  cyanide  subcategory)  are
0.18 mg/L (171) and 0.21 mg/L,  (170) respectively.

Cyanide  can  also  be  removed by steam stripping and biological
treatment.  Both of these technologies are currently  being  used
by  the  petroleum  refining  industry.   Steam stripping removes
approximately  50%  (See  Table  VI1-6)  of  the   cyanide,   and
biological  treatment  removes  approximately 75%.  The long-term
concentration  of  cyanide  being  discharged  by  the  petroleum
refining  industry after steam stripping and biological treatment
is 0.16 mg/L.

Metals Removal
                              160

-------
Metals such as copper,  zinc,  lead,  arsenic,  and  cadmium  may
originate  from  many  sources  within  a  refinery,  and may, in
specific cases, require end-of-pipe treatment.   The  development
document   published  in  March  1974  for  the  copper,  nickel,
chromium, and zinc segment of the electroplating  industry  (114)
considered  chemical  precipitation  and  clarification to be the
best practicable treatment in that category.  The best plants  in
that  industry  obtained the following long-term average effluent
concentrations for selected metals:

    o    Copper (Cu)                         0.2 mg/L
    o    Nickel (Ni)                         0.5 mg/L
    o    Hexavalent Chromium (Cr+«)          0.055 mg/L
    o    Trivalent Chromium  (Cr(T))          0.3 mg/L
    o    Zinc (Zn)                           0.3 mg/L
    o    Cyanide (CN)                        0.04 mg/L

The results of the RSKERL and Burns and Roe supplemental sampling
programs (see Section V) show that BPT in the  refining  industry
achieves  metal  discharges  similar  to or lower than the values
shown;  therefore,   end-of^pipe   chemical   precipitation   and
clarification generally will not significantly improve the metals
concentrations   in   petroleum   refinery  effluent  over  those
achievable  with  existing  BPT.   Further  reductions   in   the
concentration   of   metals  would  require  advanced  wastewater
treatment schemes, such as   ion  exchange,  reverse  osmosis,  or
activated carbon (147).

Since  the chemical treatment scheme described earlier is applied
as an in-plant measure, the  actual  discharge  concentration  of
chromium may be lowered by dilution of the cooling tower blowdown
in the final effluent stream.

A  study was conducted to determine whether separate treatment of
cooling tower  blowdown  prior  to  mixing  with  other  refinery
process wastewaters would be practical.  Site visits were made to
fifteen  refineries  and  engineering  analyses were performed to
determine:  (1)  the  feasibility  of  separating  cooling  tower
blowdown  and  (2)  the  advantage  of  separate  treatment.  The
findings of the study are: (1) not  all  cooling  tower  blowdown
streams  are  collectable  (especially for older refineries where
sources of leaks-cannot be found); and  (2)  some  cooling  tower
blowdown  is  highly  contaminated  with oil.  Therefore, cooling
tower blowdown  may  still   require  biological  treatment.   The
conclusion from the study is that a national regulation requiring
separate   treatment  of  cooling  tower  blowdown  for  existing
refineries is not technically feasible.

RSKERL Carbon Studies

The Robert S. Kerr  Environmental  Research  Laboratory  (RSKERL)
studied the implementation and effects of carbon treatment at six
refineries as part of this study.


                               161

-------
In  the  granular  carbon  tests,  four  columns were operated in
parallel.  Each column contained a different type  of  carbon  so
that  differences in performance could be determined.  One column
contained previously exhausted and then regenerated carbon.   The
other  three  columns contained different types of virgin carbon.
Using the isotherm testing method, the laboratory conducted field
tests to determine which of the virgin carbons  demonstrated  the
best  .performance.   The  effluents from the "best" virgin carbon
and the "regenerated" carbon were then tested to evaluate removal
capabilities.  The inlet wastewater to  the  carbon  columns  was
treated using multi-media filtration.

RSKERL  also tested a powdered activated carbon system at four of
the six refineries.  The test unit consisted of a small activated
sludge pilot unit to which powdered carbon was added on  a  batch
basis.

Because  of  the limited testing period, the low concentration of
toxic pollutants in the influent to the PAC system, and  lack  of
repeated  carbon exhaustion and regeneration, the data from these
pilot tests are insufficient to determine removal effectiveness.

Ultimate Disposal Methods

The use of flow reduction  and  the  recycle  methods  previously
described  will  reduce  the quantity of water discharged or that
needing end-of-pipe treatment.  None of the techniques  discussed
will  eliminate  the discharge of water.  Zero discharge of water
is technically achievable.  55 existing refineries have  reported
zero   discharge.    Table  VI1-7  presents  information  on  the
capacities and disposal methods used by these 55 refineries.   Of
the  55  plants,  32 use evaporation or percolation ponds, 10 use
disposal wells, 5 use contract disposal, 2 use leaching  beds,   1
uses  surface  spray,  and 6 reported no wastewater generation at
all.

To highlight the geographical and  process  distribution  of  the
zero dischargers, the following breakdown is provided:
                               162

-------
Distribution by
  EPA Region
     Distribution by
     BPT Subcateqorv
          Number of
          Refineries
           Number of
Subcateqorv Refineries





Not

A
B
C
D
E
Classified
Total
34
15
1
2
0
3
55
Region

  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
Total

Percolation and evaporation ponds are attractive disposal methods
when  evaporation  losses exceed rainfall.  These ponds are sized
according to the  annual  flow  so  that  the  inflow,  plus  the
incidentally added water such as rainfall, equals percolation and
evaporation  losses.   Many U.S. petroleum refineries now use this
sizing technique.

The  petroleum  refining  industry   also   practices   deep-well
injection.  This method can be used only if extensive studies are
conducted to ensure environmental protection.

Irrigation  or other similar land disposal techniques is a viable
end-of-pipe treatment alternative.  This can eliminate  discharge
of  all or a portion of process wastewaters to navigable streams.
Refinery 26 already uses this or a similar technology.

Deep-well injection and irrigation or  similar  disposal  methods
are  viable  treatment  alternatives.  However, their application
depends largely on the amount  of  rainfall,  availability  of  a
suitable  deep-well,  availability of land, and/or availability of
land suitable for irrigation.  Plants that are not located in  an
area  with these conditions can also achieve zero discharge.  The
zero discharge technology for these plants  is  based  on  forced
(vapor  compression)   evaporation.   (Table VI1-8 is a listing of
steam  electric  power  plants  which   use   vapor   compression
evaporation  as part of their wastewater treatment system).  Heat
is used to evaporate the  water.   The  steam  is  condensed  and
reused  as  makeup water to the refinery while the brine (slurry)
stream is transformed into a solid state in a flash dryer.   This
zero  discharge  treatment  scheme  is described in detail in the
1977 American Petroleum Institute Report (150).
                          163

-------
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY

Existing BPT guidelines are based on: (a)  end-of-pipe  treatment
systems consisting of biological treatment followed by rapid sand
or  multi-media  filtration  or an equivalent polishing step, and
(b) in-plant control practices widely used within  the  petroleum
refining industry that include the following:

    o    Installation of  sour  water  strippers  to  reduce  the
sulfide and ammonia concentrations entering the treatment plant.

    o    Elimination of once-through barometric  condenser  water
by  using  surface  condensers or recycle systems with oily-water
cooling towers.

    o    Segregation of sewers so that  unpolluted  storm  runoff
and once-through cooling waters are not normally treated with the
process and other polluted waters.

    o    Elimination of polluted once-through  cooling  water  by
monitoring  and  repairing surface condensers or by using wet and
dry recycle systems.

The National Commission on Water Quality received a  contractor's
report  prepared in 1975 on the petroleum refining industry.  The
report included a status of the treatment  technology  and  water
usage  of  most of the refineries in the United States (65).  The
data were obtained for 1973 and present a picture of the industry
as it appeared at the time the BPT limitations were promulgated.

Data in the 1977 EPA Petroleum  Refining  Industry  Survey   (1977
Survey)  reflect  conditions during  1976.  Table VII-9 presents a
comparison of the industry's wastewater treatment  practices  for
1973  (National  Commission  Data)   and  1976  (1977 survey).  The
following list explains the abbreviated  treatment  processes   in
Table VII-9:

    (Corr. Plat Sep.)             Corrugated Plate Separator
    (DAF)                         Dissolved Air Flotation
    (OAF)                         Other Air Flotation Systems
    (Chemical Floe.)              Chemical Flocculation
                                  Prefiltration
    (Stab. Pond)                  Stabilization Pond
    (Aerated Lag.)                Aerated Lagoon
    (Act. Sludge)                 Activated Sludge
    (Trick. Filter)               Trickling Filter
    (RBC)                         Rotating Biological Contactor
    (Other Org. Rem.)             Other Organics Removal
                                  Filtration
    (Pol. Pond)                   Polishing Pond
    (Act. Carbon)                 Activated Carbon Adsorption
    (Evap. or Perc. Pond)         Evaporation  or Percolation Pond
                               164

-------
Table  VII-10  summarizes  the  treatment systems listed in Table
VI1-9, showing the progress made by the  industry  in  installing
end-of-pipe  treatment  technology.  The treatment units shown in
these tables do not necessarily treat all  of  a  particular  re-
finery's wastewaters, and many treatment schemes may be pretreat-
ment systems for discharge to a POTW.

The  word  "none"  where  indicated  in  Table  VI1-9  refers  to
refineries that do not  have  any  of  the  treatment  operations
considered  in  this  analysis.  However,  these plants may treat
their wastewaters using gravity oil separation techniques.

A definitive list of refineries that have filtration or activated
carbon  operations  is  significant.   Refineries  that  included
filtration  or  activated  carbon  in their responses to the 1977
survey were screened to eliminate those systems that are treating
only a minor portion of  their  wastewater,  such  as  stormwater
runoff  or  boiler  blowdown.   This  approach  reduced the total
number of refineries listed as having these types of treatment to
just those plants that  treat  a  significant  portion  of  their
wastewater using this technology.

Table  VII-10  shows that in 1976 the number of refineries having
BPT in place markedly increased from the  number  in  1973.   The
number  of pretreatment operations, such as DAF, OAF and chemical
flocculation  also  significantly   increased,   indicating   the
importance of these unit operations in meeting BPT limitations.

Table   VI1-9  also  presents  data  on  water  usage,  including
once-through  cooling  water,  during  the  two  1-year   periods
surveyed.   The  comparison  is based on water usage, rather than
wastewater production, because data on wastewater production were
not available for 1973.  Those refineries  for  which  data  were
available  for both survey years, had reduced the overall flow by
approximately 16 percent.  This percentage would undoubtedly have
been  greater  if  market  conditions  had   remained   constant.
However,  many  refineries expanded their operations or increased
their complexity by adding additional process units between  1973
and  1976;  these  additions  would  minimize the effect of water
reduction on a unit basis.

Effluent Concentration

The  effluent  concentration  achievable  by  BPT  treatment   is
discussed in the 1974 development document.  The sampling results
from  the  17  screening plants agree with the original findings.
The concentrations  and  variability  factors  used  in  the  BPT
limitations are given below:
                              165

-------
                         Concentration
                         	mq/L	
                                    Variability Factors
                                    daily       monthly
Phenol
Chromium
Chromium
BODS
TSS~
O&G
(total)
(hexavalent)
 0.1
 0.25
 0.02
15.0
10.0
 5.0
3.5
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.0
1 .7
1 .7
1 .4
1.7
2.1
1 .6
The   1974  development  document  concluded  that  the  influent
concentrations do not affect the  effluent  quality  of  the  BPT
wastewater  treatment system.  Screening sampling results support
this conclusion.

Table VII-1-1 presents a detailed summary of  the  discharge  data
from  17  sampled  plants/  including  the  percentage  of actual
discharge flow to BPT model flow and effluent concentrations  for
BOD,  TSS,  TOC,  and oil and grease.  The table also presents an
analysis of the correlations among  these  factors.   These  data
show that there is no significant correlation between percentages
of  actual  flow  to  BPT  flow and final effluent concentrations
after BPT treatment.

A study was conducted to further examine the relationship between
flow and concentration.  Effluent  flow  and  concentration  data
from  fifty  refineries were compiled.  The data were analyzed to
determine whether a statistically significant correlation  exists
between  concentration and discharge flow (in relationship to the
flow model prediction).  The results of this  study  support  the
assessment  that  refineries with low discharge flow (in relation
to  the  model  prediction)   do   not   have   higher   effluent
concentrations  than  refineries with higher discharge flow.  The
data from the fifty refineries were also  analyzed  to  determine
the  level  of  phenols   (4AAP) achievable.  The result indicated
that the 19 ppb long-term average concentration (a value used  in
the proposed regulation of December 1979) is too low and that the
BPT long-term concentration of 100 ppb is appropriate.

Effluent    information   was  also  evaluated  to  determine  the
appropriateness of the BPT concentrations for BODS, TSS, oil  and
grease,  and chromium  (total).  The result indicates that the 30-
day concentrations from the new data closely approximate that  of
BPT  (See   Table  VII-12).   The  daily  maximum  concentrations,
however, are higher than  the  BPT  values  for  TSS,  BOD5,  and
phenols.    It should be noted that most of the refineries in this
study have  flows that are significantly lower than the BPT  model
prediction.   If  significant  flow  reduction  is  required, the
concentrations  in Table VII-13 would probably be more appropriate
than the BPT values.   Long-term  pollutant  reduction  would  be
achieved    by   flow   reductions,   but   higher  daily  maximum
concentrations  should be permitted because of higher variability.
                              166

-------
              TABLE  VII-1                    Page 1  of 4
               SOUR UATER TREATMENT
              IN  PETROLEUM REFINERIES

REFINERY    SINGLE STAGE  TUO STAGE
 NUMBER      STRIPPING    STRIPPING    OXIDIZING      OTHER
    3                                     X
    3                                                  X
   10                                                  X
   13            X                         X
   IS            X
   16            X
   IS            X
   20            X
   24                                     X
   23            X                         X
   29            X                         XX
   30            X
   31                                                  X
   32            X
   33            X                         X
   36                                     X
   37            X
   38            X                         XX
   39            X
   4O            X            X            X
   41            X            X            X
   42                                     X
   43            X                         X
   43            X
   4<4            X                         X
   49            X
   SO                        X
   51            X            X
   33                                                  X
   53            X
   54                                     X            x
   57                                                  X
   39            X
   60                        X
   61            X
   62            X
   63            X                                      X
   64            X
   63            X
   67            X
   68            X
   70                                     X
   71            X
   72                                     X
   73            X
   74            X
   76            X
   77            X
   73                                     X
   SO            X
   31            X
   33            X            X
                 167

-------
TABLE VII  -  1                      Page  2 of 4
REFINERY
NUMBER
34
35
36
87
38
94
96
98
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
113
114
115
116
117
121
122
124
125
126
127
129
130
131
132
133
134
139
142
143
144
147
149
150
151
132
153
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
SINGLE STAGE TWO STAGE
STRIPPING STRIPPING
X
X
X


X
X
X
X





X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OXIDIZING









X



X




X



X





X



X




















                                 OTHER
    168

-------
TABLE VII  -  1                Page  3  of 4
REFINERY
NUMBER
166
167
163
169
174
175
176
179
180
182
133
134
135
136
137
133
190
194
195
196
197
200
203
204
205
208
209
210
211
212
213
216
221
n22
224
225
226
227
228
230
232
233
234
235
237
238
241
243
245
246
252
255
256
257
SINGLE STAGE TWO STAGE
STRIPPING STRIPPING
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X X

X
X
X
X
X X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OXIDIZING
















X










X



X








X




X





X


                                OTHER
    169

-------
               TABLE  VII -  1                   Page  4 of  4
REFINERY    SINGLE STAGE  TUO STflGE
 NUMBER     STRIPPING    STRIPPING     OXIDIZING      OTHER
  258           X
  259           X
  241           X
  265           X
  309           X
                   170

-------
                                  TABLE VII-2





              EFFECT OF CALIFORNIA CRUDES ON REUSE OF SOUR WATERS
Ref. No.




   13




   32




   37










   38
   40
   41
State




 CA




 CA




 CA









 CA
 CA
 CA
Crude Source




L.A. Basin




California




San Joaquin Val, CA




Coalinga, CA




California




California




California




California




California




California




CA Midway Waxy




CA Mid Spec.
Percentage
of Crude
Capacity
17
49
39.6
23.0
28.1
20.2
15.7
1.2
20
10
35
10
Percentage
of Sour Water
to Desalter
26
12.5
17

30



60

25

                                    171

-------
                                               Page 1 of  2

           TABLE VII-3
             Percentage  of     Percentage of
Refinery  Reuse in Desalter   Other Reuse


    2
   13
   20
   24
   29
   30
   32
   37
   38
   40
   41
   49
   51
   52
   53
   55
   57
   59
   60
   61
   42
   65
   67
   68
   71
   72
   73
   76
   80
   81
   33
   83
   36
   94
   98
  104
  111
  114
  115
  116
  121
  122
  126
  130
  131
  132
  142
  143
  144
  145
  147
  149
  150
  131
100.00
26.00
0.0
100.00
0.0
0.0
12.30
17.00
UNKNOWN
60.00
23.00
100.00
10.00
UNKNOWN
0.0
100.00
0.0
90.00
48.00
51.00
70.00
55.40
100.00
74.00
100.00
0.0
0.0
100.00
0.0
37.00
100.00
39.00
100.00
100.00
38.00
10.00
UNKNOWN
60.00
33.30
60.00
0.0
38.00
0.0
30.00
62.00
0.0
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.0
100.00
100.00
100.00
73.00
0.0
13.00
29.10
0.0
30.00
UNKNOWN
18.90
17.00
0.0
22.00
37.00
0.0
20.00
0.0
100.00
0.0
28.50
10.00
15.00
10.00
0.0
23.40
0.0
26.00
0.0
59.00
100.00
0.0
100.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.00
0.0
30.00
0.0
28.00
i.OO
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
              172

-------
            TABLE VII-3                        Page 2 of 2

                Percentage of    Percentage of
ReftneaL     Reuse, in  Desalter   Other RP.US&
    133
    153
    136
    137
    159
    160
    161
    163
    165
    169
    179
    132
    133
    134
    136
    187
    133
    194
    196
    200
    203
    204
    205
    209
    211
    216
    224
    223
    227
    223
    230
    232
    233
    234
    241
    243
    232
    256
    257
    238
    259
    265
    303
20.00
33.00
30.00
0.0
50.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
100.00
37.00
100.00
0.0
100.00
66.00
30.00
100.00
73.00
30.00
40.00
100.00
40.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
13.00
100.00
100.00
73.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
30.00
UNKNOWN
35.00
99.99
30.00
100. OO
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
20.00
30.00
0.0
50.00
3.20
0.0
0.0
10.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.00
0.0
0.0
40.00
0.0
0.0
•o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.00
                173

-------
           TABLE SECTION  VII-4
   COOLING TOWER  MAKEUP FLOW RATES
 IN  THE  PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                        Page  1  of  5
Refinery
                 Makeup         Percentage
              Flow  Divided     Of Cooling
Makeup  Flow  By  Total          By BUI By
   (MGD)       Effluent  FlowCooling  Towers
      i
      2
      3
      4
      A
      7
      a
      9
     10
     11
     12
     13
     13
     IS
     16
     17
     IS
     19
     20
     21
     22
     23
     24
     23
     26
     29
     30
     31
     32
     33
     35
     36
     37
     38
     39
     40
     41
     42
     43
     44
     45
     46
     48
     49
     50
     31
     32
     53
     54
     55
     56
     37
     58
     59
  0.059600
  0.114800
  0.0
  NOT APP.
  NOT APP.
  0.107000
  0.010000
  0.025000
  0.020000
  2.909999
  0.300000
  7.303997
  7.303997
  0.084300
  0.382100
  0.018500
  0.108000
  0.013000
  1.450000
  0.298000
  0.094500
  NOT APP.
  0.350000
  0.367000
  0.297000
  3.419997
  0.193000
  0.0
  4.969995
  0.650000
  NOT APP.
  0.036000
  6.808996
  3.290996
  0.163000
  6.614997
  6.621992
  0.030000
  3.769996
  0.0
  4.348996
  1.462999
  0.140500
  0.650000
  0.23SOOO
  NOT APP.
  NOT APP.
  0.050000
  0.030000
  NOT APP.
  1.600000
  9.699997
  1.314149
  1.82S500
0.313684
2.125923
0.0
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.648485
2.000000
0.694444
0.400000
1.939999
0.723589
1.446336
1.446336
0.354099
1.179320
0.337229
0.473684
3.037382
0.739162
4.382351
1.049999
NOT APP.
1.166666
1.791321
1.993238
0.914438
0.814277
0.0
0.342372
1.633164
NOT APP.
1.090908
2.883168
1.073734
1.092714
0.348076
0.703969
0.874126
1.314045
0.0
1.363321
1.116793
0.231848
UNKNOWN
1.523973
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.200000
1.764706
NOT APP.
1.223115
0.941747
1.058845
1.639544
 94.0000
100.0000
100.0000
  0.0
  0.0
 70.1000
 30.0000
 UNKNOWN
 UNKNOWN
 94.0000
 UNKNOWN
 95.0000
 31.5000
100.0000
 72.0000
 40.000O
 UNKNOWN
100.0000
 30.000O
 UNKNOWN
 73.0000
  0.0
 15.0000
 58.000O
 79.000O
 75.0000
100.0000
 UNKNOWN
 76.8000
100.0000
  0.0
 98.5000
 43.0000
 80.0000
 UNKNOWN
 9O.0000
  4.5000
 UNKNOWN
 62.9000
 95.0000
 53.6000
 50.0000
 95.0000
65.0000
 30.0000
  0.0
  0.0
 98.0000
100.0000
   .0
   .0000
 89.0000
 99.0000
 47.3000
 0.
81.
                           174

-------
            TABLE SECTION  VII-4
     COOLING TOWER  MAKEUP  FLOW rtATES
   IN THE  PETROLEUM  REFINING INDUSTRY
Refinery
     60
     61
     62
     63
     64
     65
     66
     67
     68
     70
     71
     72
     73
     74
     76
     77
     78
     79
     30
     31
     32
     33
     34
     85
     36
     37
     38
     89
     90
     91
     92
     93
     94
     95
     96
     97
     98
     99
    100
    102
    103
    104
    103
    106
    107
    108
    109
    110
    111
    112
    113
    114
    115
    116
Makeup Flow
      (MGD)
     Makeup
 Flow Divided
    By Total
Effluent  Flow
3.052498
4.599999
5.659997
1.355000
4.308998
2.484499
0.000050
3.829994
8.348999
0.0
0 . 359000
0.021000
0.468000
0.471500
1.933998
0.630000
0 . 075SOO
0.0
2.129998
0.776500
0.216000
2.929999
2.204995
5.394799
0.440950
NOT APP.
0.735000
0.0
0.017000
0.005000
6.552999
0.0
1 . 728000
0.0
19.014984
0.014040
4.289999
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.0
0.025000
8.384995
NOT APP.
2 . 250000
0.045000
0.126000
0.200000
NOT APP.
2.342497
0.302500
0.529300
0.320000
1.983199
1.568117
1.742423
1.179166
0.496337
0.897708
0.690139
UNKNOWN
0.416706
1.717900
0.0
1.486542
0.138158
0.605433
2.357499
0.848245
2.232607
0.111029
UNKNOWN
9 . 260860
0.641735
0.375000
1.197973
1.304730
1.639756
1.274422
NOT APP.
3.223682
0.0
0.377773
0.416667
'< 0.387186
0.0
0.941176
0.0
1.605995
UNKNOWN
1.656370
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.0
> 0.396825
1.123531
NOT APP.
1.069391
1.499999
2.S63636
0.833333
NOT APP.
1.799048
1.490147
0.957305
1.C30000
0.708235
                                           Page  2 of  5
   Percentage
   Of Cooling
    By BTU B>
CaolincL Towers
                0.364000
                                0.720000
                                      60.0000
                                      47.0000
                                      74.0000
                                      91.4100
                                      66.0000
                                      40.0000
                                    100.0000
                                      65.6000
                                      74.4000
                                      UNKNOWN
                                     100.0000
                                      10.0000
                                      75.0000
                                      95.OOOO
                                      36.5000
                                      59.0000
                                      90.0000
                                      UNKNOWN
                                      35.4000
                                     100.0000
                                     100.0000
                                      60.0000
                                      75.0000
                                      80.0000
                                      97.0000
                                       0.0
                                      39.2000
                                      28.0000
                                      60.0000
                                      UNKNOWN
                                      56.0000
                                      UNKNOWN
                                      36.5000
                                     100.0000
                                     100.0000
                                      UNKNOWN
                                      39.4OOO
                                       0.0
                                       0.0
                                       0.9000
                                      UNKNOWN
                                      71.0000
                                       0.0
                                      30.0000
                                     100.0000
                                      99.0000
                                       7.6000
                                       0.0
                                      46.0000
                                      35.0000
                                      49.4000
                                      78.0000
                                      58.8000
                                      40.0000
                      175

-------
        TABLE SECTION VII-4
  COOLING TOWER MAKEUP FLOW RATES
IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Ref i nerv
117
113
119
120
121
122
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
133
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
172
173
Makeup Flow
.. JMGD) _^
1.450000
0.036500
0.100500
0.175000
4.250000
3.323500
0.975999
0.766000
0.400000
0.090000
NOT APP.
0.066600
NOT APP.
0.330000
1.599999
5.160996
0.0
0.0
0.378000
0.0
0.466000
• 0.071000
0.222000
0.0
0.502500
0.030000
0 . 739500
0.004500
0.300000
1.695000
0.126500
0.740000
NOT APP.
4.150000
3.070000
5.792999
0.063000
0.391700
1.697997
4.119996
0.570800
0.199500
0.323000
2.1149V7
2.115499
2.732998
0.030000
0.595400
0.050000
3.364999
1.240000
6.794998
0.772000
0.0
Makeup
Flow Divided
By Total
Effluent Flow
1.435642
1.013387
0.670000
1.590908
0.944444
0.519297
2.054733
1.723224
0.061728
0.320231
NOT APP.
0.665999
NOT APP.
0.114383
0.156648
0.630819
0.0
UNKNOWN
1.321678
0.0
0.647222
• 3.071427
2.018131
0.0
0.317233
0.023000
1.161314
UNKNOWN
3.223806
2.942707
0 . 790623
0.627650
NOT APP.
1.044288
0.366348
1.489202
0.063000
2.266782
1.697997
2.049748
1 .041605
0.720216
1.374235
3.253841
0.363469
2.633486
1 .363636
2.053102
0.434545
0.737343
0.430355
0.783737
0.339130
0.0
Percentage
Of Cooling
By BTU By
Cool ina_ Towers
99.0000
30.0000
28.0000
30.0000
65.0000
97.0000
100.0000
60.0000
22 . 0000
99 . 0000
0.0
UNKNOWN
0.0
20 . 0000
10.0000
35.0000
62.0000
UNKNOWN
100.0000
100.0000
1.0000
99.9000
70.0000
100.0000
66.5000
2 . 0000
100.0000
100.0000
UNKNOWN
39.0000
100.0000
77 . 0000
0.0
61.7000
35.0000
63.0000
UNKNOWN
100.0000
60.0000
38.9000
71.5000
60.0000
100.0000
70.0000
UNKNOWN
38.0000
100.0000
49.3000
67.0000
70.0000
200.0000
90.0000
91.3000
UNKNOWN
Page 3 of 5
                       176

-------
           TABLE SECTION  VII-4
    COOLING TOWER MAKEUP  FLOW  RATES
  IN THE  PETROLEUM  REFINING INDUSTRY
                                     Page  4 Of  5
  Refinery
               Makeup  Flow
              Makeup
           Flow Divided
             By Total
Percentage
Of  Coding
 By BTU By
(MGD)      Effluent Flow Cooling  Towers
174
175
176
177
179
180
181
182
183
184
18S
184
187
188
18?
190
191
192
193
194
193
196
197
199
200
201
202
203
204
203
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
213
216
219
219
220
221
-*••»*>
224
223
226
227
228
229
230
231
NOT APP.
10.787498
0.086000
0.028000
0.632700
1.870998
20.876480
6.399497
2.169648
4.673997
1.771300
2.374697
3v 244994
4.633500
0.0
0.085000
2.345300
0.028000
0.0
11.303490
0.0
16.445445
0.002000
0.017200
1.694998
2.156999
0.009500
10.209991
5.268191
2.818796
12.300000
0.180000
2.344998
0.413500
0.137000
0.679049
1.743000
0.038880
0.0
0.0
16.502472
7.300000
1 . 939999
0 . 022000
0.0
0 . 360000
0.0
1.679999
0.0
1.483199
0.364500
0.113300
1.150000
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.364521
0.184986
0.036601
2.243616
0.676183
1.301526
1.031171
3.390073
3.438233
2.116487
1.418566
4.203360
? 1.911087
0.0
2.360240
5.606828
> 0.198582
0.0
0.664911
0.0
0.388944
0.250000
UNKNOWN
2.769604
2.270524
95.000000
0.789026
1.560205
1.156192
134.408600
2.533211
0.370140
1.759574
3.312819
0.834726
2.507822
0.762333
0.0
0.0
0.808945
UNKNOWN
1.616665
0.716667
0.0
2.457141
0.0
1.411764
0.0
1.167872
1.732403
3.456731
1.642857
NOT APP.
                            0.0
                           UNKNOWN
                           33.0000
                           73.0000
                           32.0000
                           98.7500
                           49.0000
                           70.0000
                           59.7000
                           75.0000
                           93.0000
                           71.0000
                           60.0000
                           30.0000
                           UNKNOWN
                           70.0000
                          100.0000
                          100.0000
                           UNKNOWN
                           79.0000
                           UNKNOWN
                           91.3000
                          100.0000
                           UNKNOWN
                           70.0000
                           69.0000
                          100.0000
                           65.0000
                           75.0000
                           90.6000
                          100.0000
                           90.0000
                           47.3000
                           40.0000
                           79.9000
                           UNKNOWN
                           63.0000
                           35.0000
                           UNKNOWN
                           UNKNOWN
                           78.0000
                          100.0000
                           63.0000
                          10O.OOOO
                           99.3000
                          100.0000
                           UNKNOWN
                           97.7000
                           29.8000
                           30.0000
                          100.0000
                          100.0000
                           38.0000
                           0.0
                         177

-------
          TABLE  SECTION  VII-4
  COOLING TOWER MAKEUP  FLOW RATES
IN THE PETROLEUM  REFINING  INDUSTRY
                                          Page 5 of 5
 Refinery
                  Makeup        Percentage
               Flow Divided     of Coaling
Makeup  Flow    By Total          By BTU by
    (MGD)      Effluent Flow Cooling Towers
     232
     233
     234
     235
     236
     237
     238
     239

     i40
     241
     14^
     243
     244
     243
     246
     247
     248
     249
     230
     231
     252
     233
     234
     235
     256
     237
     258
     239
     260
     261
     244
     265
     266
     279
     291
     "l(p">
     275
     296
     299
     302
     303
     305
     307
     303
     309
   0.0
   2,450000
   0.0
   2.149999
   0.016000
   0.016000
   1.999999
   0.055000
   0.130000
   0.324000
   0.450000
   0.524000
   0.612000
   0.707000
   0.182500
   0.558800
   0.0
   0.380000
   0.0
   NOT APP.
   0.009000
   0.0
   0.0
   0.0
   0.040000
   NOT APP.
   0.792000
   NOT APP.
   NOT APP.
   0.640000
   0.0
   1.296000
   NOT APP.
   0.0
   0.506000
   NOT APP.
   0.610600
   NOT APP.
   0.0
   NOT APP.
   0.0
   0.040000
   0.0
   0.0
   0.720000
0.0
2.430000
0.0
1.433332
0.133333
0.571428
1.044931
0.436508
0.300000
0.490909
0.703125
3.119045
0.334426
1.178332
0.323009
2.696910
0.0
0.456731
UNKNOWN
NOT APP.
0.064748
0.0
UNKNOWN
0.0
0.109389
NOT APP.
0.792000
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
1.361701
0.0
1.169674
NOT APP.
UNKNOWN
3.563379
NOT APP.
2.361176
NOT APP.
0.0
NOT APP.
UNKNOWN
0.363931
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
0.743801
  2.5000
 45.0000
 UNKNOWN
 33.0000
 UNKNOUH
 90.0000
 34.3000
 47.0000
 UNKNOWN
100.0000
 93.0000
 69.0000
 99.0000
 99.6000
 UNKNOWN
100.000O
100.0000
 50.0000
 UNKNOWN
  0.0
 90.0000
 UNKNOWN
 UNKNOWN
 UNKNOWN
100.0000
  0.0
 40.0000
  0.0
  0.0
 90.0000
 UNKNOWN
 UNKNOWN
  0,0
 UNKNOWN
 90'. 0000
  0.0
 90.0000
  0.0
100.0000
  0.0
 UNKNOWN
100.0000
 UNKNOWN
 UNKNOWN
100.0000
   .  - DUE TO UNKNOWN MAKE-UP FLOWS FOR  SOME  COOLING TOWERS.
       THE NUMBER  IS GREATER THAN SHOWN
   NOT APP. - NOT  APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF  0.0 7. COOLING BY COOLING TOWERS
                           178

-------
                                                       TABU! VII-5
                                                                                                              Page 1 of 4
                 SUMMARY OF FLOW REDUCTION TECHNIQUES USED IDENTIFIED DURING HASTEHATER RECYCLE STUDY
Refinery
  Ho.
Base
Year
 Process
Mastewater
Discharge
Rate (MGO)
Proposed
  BAT
Discharge
Rate (MGO)
 Potential Plow Reduction
 Techniques Identified to
Achieve BAT Discharge Bate
Additional Flow Reductions
   Techniques Identified
  32      1979     2.43
                              3.53
                                        Refinery has achieved BAT
                                        discharge rate.
  50      1979     0.06
  57      1978     4.10
                              0.32
                              1.S9
  60      1979     1.12
                              2.46
                                        Refinery has  achieved BAT
                                        discharge rate
                              Recovery and reuse of
                              condensate for desalter
                              •akeup and boiler feed-
                              water.
                              Reduction of steap vent
                              losses.
                              Control of cooling tower
                              blowdown.
                              Reduction of once-thru
                              pump cooling water.

                              Refinery has achieved BAT
                              discharge rate
  67      1979     10.0
                              8.26
                                        Reuse of  treated effluent
                                        for cooling  tower makeup
                                                    In-Place t
                                                    Reuse of treated effluent for cooling water,
                                                    service water,  coke sluicing operation, and
                                                    coke pile  dust  control.
                                                    Reuse of stripped sour water for desalter
                                                    •akeup and washwater.
                                                    Recovery and reuse of  condensate for boiler
                                                    feedwater.
                                                    Potential!
                                                    Reuse of stripped sour water and Isocracker
                                                    water for  cooling tower  Makeup.
                                                    Recovery and reuse of  condensate for cooling
                                                    tower Makeup.
                                                    Optimization of cooling  tower operation

                                                    In Placet
                                                    Reuse of treated effluent for cooling tower
                                                    •akeup.
                                                    Potential!
                                                    Reuse of sour water for  desalter makeup.

                                                    In-Placet
                                                    Reuse of treated effluent for firewater system
                                                    Recovery and reuse of  condensate for desalter
                                                    •akeup and boiler feedwater
                                                    In-Place i
                                                    Reuse of treated effluent for utll'ity water,
                                                    firewater,  wssVyater,  pump cooling, and coking
                                                    operation.
                                                    Reuse of stripped sour water for desalter makeup
                                                    and washwater.
                                                    Recovery and reuse of  condensate.
                                                    Recycle of  desalter effluent

                                                    In-Placei
                                                    Reuse of treated effluent for cooling tower makeup
                                                    and firewater system-.
                                                    Potential!
                                                    Recovery and reuse of  condensate for boiler feed-
                                                    water.
                                                    Reduction of steam vent losses.
                                                    Recycle of  process water.

-------
                                                                                                                                             Page 2 of 4
                                                                                      TABLE VII-5


                                            SUMMARY  Of FLOW REDUCTION TECHNIQUES USED IDENTIFIED DURING NASTEWATER RECYCLE STUDY (Continued)
                                             Process
                                            Westewatar
                                            Discharge
                                            Rat* (MSDl
Proposed
  BAT
Discharge
lUte (HBP)
                                       1978
                                                1.33
                                                          1.12
 Potential flow Reduction
 Technique! Identified to
achieve Mt Discharge Kate

Reuse of •tripped sour
water for desalter makeup
and fee weihwater.
Redaction of boiler blow-
Additional Plow Reductions
   Techniques Identified
                                                                                                In-Placei
                                                                                                Reuee of treated effluent for decoklng operation.
                                                                                                Potential!
                                                                                                Recovery of atearn vent loeeea.
                                                                                                Control of cooling tower blowdown.
                              96      1979      8.0
                                                          10.1
                                                                    Refinery hae achieved BAT   In-Plecei
                                                                    discharge rate
                                        Reuee of •tripped eour water for deealter Makeup.
                                        Recovery and reuse of condensate for deaalter
                                        makeup.
                                        Reduction of once-thru pomp cooling water.
                             112      1978     0.17
CO
o
                             125      1978     2.36
  0.11      Recovery and reuse of con-
            densate for boiler feed-
            water.
            Reduction of steal) vent
            losses.
            Recovery and reuse of once-
            thru pump end compressor
            cooling water for deselter
            awkeup.

  1.13      Reuee of treated effluent
            for cooling water at
            catalytic cracking unit.
            Replacement of barometric
            condensers with surface
            condensers and reuse of
            treated effluent for
            cooling.
            Recovery and reuse of
            condensate for boiler
            feedwater.
            Control of cooling tower
            blowdown.
            Reduction of once-thru
            pump cooling water.
                                                                                                In-Placet
                                                                                                Reuee of treated effluent for barometric con-
                                                                                                densers and pump cooling water at crude unit.
                                                                                                Recovery and reuse of condensate for boiler feedwater.
                                                                                                Potentiali
                                                                                                Reuse of treated effluent for utility water, fame
                                                                                                and heat exchanger cooling water.

-------
                                                                                                                                                 Page  3 of  4
                                                                                          TABLE VII-5

                                              SUMMARY OF FLOW REDUCTION TECHNIQUES USED IDENTIFIED DURING NASTEHATER RECYCLE STUDY  (Continued)
                               Refinery
                                 Ho.

                                157
Base
Year
                                         1979
 Process
Mastewater
Discharge
Rate (HOP)
Proposed
  BAT
Discharge
Rate (MOD)
 Potential Flow Reduction
 Techniques Identified to
Achieve BAT Discharge Rate
Additional Flow Reductions
   Techniques Identified
                                                  2.17
                                                             2.31
CO
                                168
                                         1979
                                                  3.25
                                                            2.75
                                ISO
                                196
                                         1978
                                         1978
                                                  1.81
                                                  26.7
                                                            1.66
                                                              7.6
                                                                      Refinery has achieved BAT
                                                                      discharge rate.
                                                          In-Placei
                                                          Recovery and reuse of condensate for boiler
                                                          feedwater and deaalter makeup.
                                                          Reduction of steam requirements.
                                                          Reuse of stripped sour water for wash water.
                                                          Reuse of treated effluent for desalter makeup.
                                                          Optimization of cooling tower operation.
                                                          Recycle of desalter effluent and process
                                                          water.
                                                          Potentiali
                                                          Recovery and reuse of condensate for boiler
                                                          feedwater.
                                                          Reduction of steam vent losses.
                                                          Reuse of treated effluent for cooling tower
                                                          makeup.
                                                          Reuse of once-thru cooling water for cooling
                                                          tower makeup.
                              Reduction of once-thru
                              cooling water and service
                              water.
                              Improved oil/water
                              separation for once-thru
                              cooling water with
                                                    In-Placei
                                                    Recovery and reuse of condensate for desalter
                                                    makeup.
                                                    Potential!
                                                    Reuse of stripped sour water for desalter makeup.
                        WWA^II^ w«t-o& W.LI.II          Recovery and reuse of condensate for boiler
                        Increased segregation from  feedwater.
                        process wastewater for      Reduction of steam vent losses.
                        separate discharge.
                                                                      Control of cooling tower
                                                                      blowdown.
                                                                      Dissolved air flotation
                                                                      and reuse of treated
                                                                      effluent for cooling  tower
                                                                      makeup, firewater, and
                                                                      service water.
                                                                      Segregation, dissolved air
                                                                      flotation and filtration
                                                                      of ballast water, and
                                                                      filtration of regenerant
                                                                      wastes for separate
                                                                      discharge.
                                                                      Elimination of brackish
                                                                      water In firewater system.
                                                          Potentialt
                                                          Reuse of stripped sour water for desalter makeup.
                                                          Recovery and reuse of condensate for boiler
                                                          feedwater and desalter makeup.
                                                          Reduction of steam vent losses.
                                                          Reuse of treated effluent for firewater system.

                                                          Potentiali
                                                          Reuse of stripped sour water for desalter makeup.
                                                          Recovery and reuse of condensate for boiler firewater.

-------
                                                                                                                                              Page 4 of 4
                                                                                        TABLE VII-5

                                            SUMMARY OF FLOW REDUCTION TECHNIQUES USED IDENTIFIED DURING WASTEWRTER RECYCLE STUDY (Continued)
                            Refinery
                              Ho.

                              205
                              238
Base
Tear
 Process
Hastewater
Discharge
Rate, (MOD)
Proposed
  BAT
Discharge
Rate (MOD)
 Potential Flow Reduction
 Technique* Identified to
achieve, BAT Discharge Rate
Additional Plow Reductions
   Techniques Identified
                                       1978
                                       1979
                                                1.65       1.34      Filtration and reuse of
                                                                     treated effluent for
                                                                     firewater system.
CO
N)
          2.14        1.03      Dissolved air flotation,
                              filtration, and reuse of
                              treated effluent for
                              cooling tower makeup and
                              washwater.
                              Segregation, dissolved air
                              flotation and filtration
                              of ballast water, and
                              filtration of regenerant
                              wastes for separate
                              discharge.
                                                    In-Placei
                                                    Reuse of stripped sour water for desalter makeup.
                                                    Recovery and reuse of condensate for cooling tower
                                                    makeup and boiler feedwater.
                                                    Optimization of cooling tower operation.

                                                    In-Placet
                                                    Recovery and reuse of condensate for desalter
                                                    makeup and boiler feedwater.
                                                    Potentialt
                                                    Control of cooling tower blowdown.

-------
                             TABLE VII-6
             Summary of Data on Removal of Cyanides with
             Steam Stripping and Biological Treatment  in
                   the Petroleum Refining Industry
Percent Removal of Cyanides
by Steam Stripping (ref. 48)
                         Biological Treatment
                     (from Tables V-l thru V-18)
   Refluxed

      0
     73
      0
     57
Non-Refluxed

    91
    59
    22
    50
    75
Average for Both   53
Plant

Number

 50
 59
 80
 84
126
169
205
235
Average
Percent Removal

of Cyanides

     85
     60
     90
     90
     83
     70
     82
     52
     77
                                183

-------
                   TABLE  VII  -7
                                   Page 1  of  4
Refinery

C5H Refinery, Inc.
  Lusk, WY
                    Zero Discharge Refineries
      Capacity
(1000  bbl/stream day)

          .05
Southwestern Refining Co., Inc.      .5
  LaBarge, WY

United Independent Oil Co.           .75
  Tacoma, HA

Yetter Oil Co.                      1.
  Colmer, IL

Dorchester Gas Producing Co.        1.
  Amarillo, TX

Mountaineer Refining Co., Inc.      1.
  LaBarge, WY

Glenrock Refinery, Inc.             1.
  GlenrocJc, WY

Thriftway, Inc.                     1.
  Graham, TX

Sage %Creek Refining Co.             1.
  Cowley, WY

Pioneer  Refining, Ltd.              2.2
  Nixon, TX

Oxnard Refinery                     2.S
  Oxnard, CA

Caribou  Four Corners, Inc.          2.5
  Kirtland, MM

Kanco Refinery, Inc.                3.
  Woif Point, MT

Kentucky Oil and Refining Co.       3.0
  Betsy Layne, Ky
Wastewater
Disposition

Evap/perc pond
                          No  wastewater
                          generated

                          No  wastewater
                          generated

                          Evap/perc pond


                          Evap/perc pond


                          Evap/perc pond


                          Evap/perc pond


                          No  wastawater
                          generated

                          No  wastewater
                          generated

                          Evap/perc pond


                          Disposal well
                          No wastewater
                          generated

                          Evap/perc pond
                          No wastewater
                          generated
   This table includes all refineries whose production wastewater
   (excluding stonswatar, ballast water, once-thru non-contact  cooling
   water, and sanitary wastewater) is not discharged directly via  an
   MPDES permit nor is discharged to a  POTW.  This table  also includes
   those refineries which do not generate production wastewater.
                                    184

-------
                    TABLE  VII-7
                                        Page  2 of 4
Refinery

Sabre Refining, Inc.
  Bakersfield, CA

Mid-Tax Refinery
  Hearne, TX

Bayou State Oil Corp.
  S hreveport, LA

Thriftway Co.
  Fannington, MM
                                 Capacity
                           (1000 obi/stream day)

                                    3.5


                                    3.5


                                    4.


                                    4.
Southern Union Refining Co.,
  Monument Refinery, Sobbs,  KM

Arizona Fuels Corp.
  Fredonia, A2

Tonkawa Refining Co.
  Arnett, OK

Plateau. Inc.
  Roosevelt, OT

Texas Asphalt and Refining Co.
  Euleaa, IX
Sunland Refining Corp.
  Bakersfield, CA
Plateau, Inc.
  Farming-ton,
MM
Douglas- Oil Co. of CA
  Santa Maria, CA

Gary Western Co.
  Fruita, CO

E-Z Serve, Inc.
  Scott City, KS

Husky Oil Co.
  Cody, WY
                                    4.5


                                    5.


                                    5.


                                    5.6



                                    6.0


                                    7.


                                    7.5


                                    9.5


                                   10.


                                   10.


                                   10.3
                                       Wastewater
                                       Disposition

                                       Contract
                                       disposal

                                       Recycle (7/1/77)
Disposal well,
Evap/perc pond

Evap/perc pond


Disposal well


Leaching bed
Disposal well

Evap/perc pond


Svap/perc pond


Evap/perc pond
Contract disposal

Evap/perc pond


Evap/perc pond


Disposal well
                                       Evap/perc pond
                                       Recycle

                                       Evap/perc pond
                                       Evap/perc pond
                                       (7/1/77)
                                  185

-------
                     TABLE  VII-7
                           Page  3 of 4
Refinery

Witco Chemical Corp.
  Oildale, CA

Newhall Refining Co., Inc.
  Newhall, CA

Atlantic Richfield Co.
  Prudhoe Bay, AK

Atlantic Terminal Corp.
  Newington, MH

Kern County Refinery, Inc.
  Bakersfield, CA

San Joaquin Refining Co.
  BaJcersfield, CA

Texaco Inc.
  El Paso, TX

Shell Oil Co.
  Gallup, MM

Texaco, Inc.
  Amarillo, TX

Texaco,,Inc.
  Casper, WY

Mohawk Petroleum Corp., Inc.
  Bakarafield, CA

CHA, Inc.
  Phillipsburg, KS

Husky Oil Co.
  Cheyenne, WY

Southern Union Refining Co.
  Lovington Refinery, Hobbs, MM

Little America Refining Co.
  Evansville, WY

Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
  Bakersfield, CA
Capacity
(1000 bbl/stream day)
11.
12.
13.
15.
17.
17.
17.
19.
20.
21.
22.3
23.2
24.2
2S.1
, MM
25.5
Waatewater
Disposition
Contract
disposal
Contract
disposal
Evaporation
Leaching bed
Surface spray
Evap/perc pond,
recycle
Evap/perc pond,
recycle
Evap/perc pond
Disposal well,
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond,
recycle
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond
Disposal well
Evap/perc pond
26.
                  Contract disposal,
                  recycle
                                       186

-------
                      TABLE  VII-7
                                             Page 4  of  4
Refinery

Navajo Refining Co.
  Artesia, NM

Champlin Petroleum Co.
  Wilmington, CA

Shell Oil Co.
  Odessa, TX

Lion Oil Co.
  Bakersfiald, CA

Amoco Oil Co.
  Casper, WY

Sinclair Oil Corp.
  Sinclair, WV

Diamond Shamrock Corp.
  Sunray, TX
               Capacity
         (1000  bbl/stream day)

                 29.9
Cosden Oil and Che
  Big Spring, TX
                 32.


                 35.


                 40.


                 44. S


                 SO.9


                 53.5


aical  Co.         56.
Hawaiian Independent Refininery    60.3
  Ewa Beach, HI

Chevron U.S.A. Inc.                 75.
  El Paso, TX
Waatewater
Disposition

Evap/pero pond


Disposal well


Evap/perc pond


Disposal well,
Evap/perc pond

Evap/perc pond,
recycle

Evap/perc pond


Disposal well
Evap/perc pond,
recycle

Disposal well,
Evap/perc pond

Evap/perc pond
                                      187

-------
                           TABLE VI1-8
       STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS USING VAPOR COMPRESSION
    EVAPORATION AS PART OF THEIR WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Station & Location

San Juan Station
Farmington, NM

Huntington Station
Huntington, UT

Navajo Station
Page, AZ

Hayden Station
Hayden, CO

Colstrip Station
Colstrip, MT

Craig Station
Craig, CO

R. D. Nixon Station
Four Corners
Fruitland, NM

Pawnee Station
Brush, CO

Big Stone Plant
South Dakota
Owner/Operator

Public Service Co.
of New Mexico

Utah Power & Light
Salt River Project
Montana Power Co.
City of Colorado
Springs
                        Capacity
                        (Ibs/hr)

                          94,500
                         189,000

                          94,500
                          94,500
Colorado-Ute Electric    123,000
Assoc. Inc.
Public Service Co.
of Colorado

Otter Tail Power
                         157,000
Colorado-Ute Electric    350,000
Assoc. Inc.
                         175,000


Arizona Public Service   202,000
                         227,000
                         300,000
                              188

-------
                    TABU VII-9
                                                       Page 1 of 26
TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AMD 1976
                                                Hater Usage
Re*.
Mo.
001


002
003
__ 004
CO
UD 006

007

008
009

010
Oil
012

013

014
Treatment
1973
DAF
Act. Sludge





Stab. Fond

DAE
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.

Stab. Pond
Stab. Pond
Stab. Pond

DAF

DAF
Operations
1976
Corr. Plate Sep.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Chemical Floe.
RBC
None

DAF
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Aerated Lag.

Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Stab. Pond

Pre-Flltratlon
Stab. Pond
Chemical Floe.
DAF

Million
1973
0.61


0.291



0.144


0.200

0.26

0.44
2.92
0.23

12.35

0.062
Gal/Day
1976
1.87


0.186
0.125


0.144

0.243

ip.o
0.09

0.14
3.S2
0.72

10.96

0.155
X Red.

-207


36



0.0

-22


65

68
-21
-213

11

-150

-------
                                                                                     Page 2  of 26
                                                 TABLB VI1-9
                             TREATMENT OPEEATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
Ref.
No.
015

016
017

018
019
020



021
022
023

024


025

026
Treatment
1973
DAF
Filtration
None


None
None
DAF
Act. Sludge


None



DAF
Aerated Lag.

DAF

None
(continued)
Operationa
1976
Chemical Floe.
OAF
None
Chemical Floe.
Evap. or Pete. Pond
None
None
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
None
DAF
Filtration
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Other Org. Rem.
DAF
Other Org. Rem.
Other Org. Rem.
Water Usage
Million Gal/Day
1973 1976
0.270

0.56
0.06

0.60

4.79 4.51 .



0.22
0.18
.475

0.35 0.54.


1.4

0.35
                                                                                                        Z Red.
                                                                                                         5.8
                                                                                                         -54
027

-------
                                                       Page 3 of 26
                    TABLE VI1-9
TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
Ref.
No.
028
029
030
031
032

033
034
035
036
037

038
039
040


Treatment
1973

None
None
None
OAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond



Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Corr. Plate Sep.
DAF
Evap. or Perc. Pond
None


(continued)
Operations
1976
OAF
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAF
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond


None
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Corr Plate Sep.
DAF

Chealcal Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Othera Org. KM.
Water Usage
Million Gal/Day
1973 1976

•
6.5
0.33
0.10
18.80 16.2

0.71

4.0
0.12
7.6 7.6

7.73 6.34
0.35
57.0 11.2


                                                                           X Red.
                                                                             14
                                                                             0.0
                                                                             18
                                                                             20

-------
                                                                                                          Page 4 of 26
                                                                       TABLE VII-9
                                                   TREATMENT OPEKATIOtIS AMD WATER USAGE  1973 AND  1976
VO
Ref.
No.
041
042
043
044
045
046
047
048
049
050
(continued)
Treatment Operation*
1973 1976
Aerated Lag. Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag. Chemical Floe.
Evap. or Perc. Pond Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Perc. Pond
None DAF
Stab. Pond
Filtration
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAF Chemical Floe.
DAF
OAF
DAF Chemical Floe.
DAF

Stab. Pond Evap. or Perc. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag. Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag. DAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Filtration
Hater Usage
Million Gal/Day
• 1973 1976
126.2
0.10
4.96
2.72
29.71 28.9
55.60 44.

1.27 0.85
1.53 0.77
0.40 0.47
                                                                                                                               Z Red.
                                                                                                                                 2.7
                                                                                                                                 21
                                                                                                                                 33
                                                                                                                                 50
                                                                                                                                -18

-------
                                                                                                               Page 5 of 26
                                                                           TABLE VII-9
                                                       TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE  1973 AND 1976
<£>
CO


Ref.
No.
051



052

053


054
055



056


(continued)
Water Usage
Treatment Operation* Million Gal/Day Z Red.
1973
1976 1973 1976
Act. Sludge Chemical Floe. 321.

Act.
Pol.
Evap. or Pare. Pond Stab
Pol.
DAF
Sludge
Pond
. Pond 0.34
Pond
None Filtration 1.25 0.11 Question-


DAF
None Corr
Stab
Pol.
Evap
Aerated Lag.
able
Data
0.08 0.09 -13
. Plate Sep. 0.18
. Pond
Pond
. or Perc. Pond
DAF 5.82 -37
Aerated Lag. 4.24


057

058
059


Pol.
Evap
Pond
. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag. Aeraged Lag. 17.63
Pol.
None DAF
DAF DAF
Aerated Lag. Act.

Pond
2.73
51.27 2.4 Question
Sludge able
Data

-------
                                                                         TABLE VII-9
                                                                                                            Page  6 of  26
                                                     TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
VD


Ref.
No.
060



061



062


063

064

065

066
067


068
070


Treatment
1973
DAT
Aerated Lag.
Act. Sludge
Filtration
DAF
Act. Sludge


Trick Filter
Evap. or Fare. Pond

Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Act. Sludge


DAF
Aerated Lag.

Act. Sludge

(continued;

Operatlona
1976
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
Trick Filter
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
Evap. or Pare. Pond
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Act. Sludge
None

Water Ueaga
Million Gal/Day Z Red,
1973 1976
4.84 5.2 -7.4



12.09



13.4 9.57 29


7.97 8.79 -10

27.89 24.8 11

4.06 5.0 -23

0.001
13.49 144.3 -7


8.52 6.72 21
0.17

-------
                                                                           TABLE  VIl-9
                                                                                                              Page  7. of  26
                                                       IKEATMBNT OPERATIONS AND HATE* USAGE  1973 AND 1976
en
Ref.
No.
071
072
073
074
075
076
077
078
079
oao
Treatment
1973
OAF
Stab. Pond
Aerated ,Lag.
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
None
Stab. Pond
Evap. or Pare. Pond
None
None
Stab. Pond
(continued)
Operationa
1976
Chemical Floe.
OAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Chemical Floe.
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Chemical Floe.
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond

Chemical Floe.
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Chemical Floe.

Stab. Pond
Hater Oaage
Million Gal/Day
1973 1976
0.68 0.59
1.44
1.01 1.79
0.63 0.67
1.27
3.60 3.0
0.63 0.63
O.S1
0.16
1.33 3.46
X Red.
13

-77
-0.3

17
0.0


-160

-------
                    TABLE VI1-9
                                                       Page 8 of 26
TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
Ref.
No.
081
082
083
084

085


086

087
088
089
090
091
092

Treatment
1973
Chemical Floe.
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
None
OAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
None


DAP

None
OAF
Evap. or Perc. Pond

None
DAF
Other Org. Rea.
(continued}
Operations
1976
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAF
DAF
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
Chenlcal Floe.
OAF
Act. Sludge
Chenical Floe.
DAF
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Stab. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag.
None
DAF
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Water Usage
Million Gal/Day
1973 1976
2.50 1.58

4.62 4.86
3.54 3.84

11.0 10.43


0.35 0.47

0.42 1.0
1.16
0.31 0.19
0.031
0.032 0.012
321.5 278.8

I Red
37

-5.0
-8.5

5.2


-34

-138

39

63
13


-------
                                                       Page 9 of 26
                    TABLE VII-9
TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
Ref.
No.
093
094



095

096



097
098



099


100
101
102
103
(continued)
Treatment Operations
1973 1976
None
Act. Sludge Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated Lag. DAF
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
None Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Corr. Plate Sep. Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated Lag. Chealcal Floe,
DAF
Act. Sludge
None
Aerated Lag. OAF
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Filtration Filtration
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag. Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Water Usage
Million Gal/Day
1973 1976

4.59 3.6



0.60

90.52 34.64



0.034
31.27 26.56



121.


0.19

17.9 21.1
0.27
                                                                           X Red.
                                                                             22
                                                                             62
                                                                             IS
                                                                            -18

-------
                                                                         TABLE VIl-9
                                                                                                           Page  10 of  26
                                                     TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973  AND 1976
UD
00
Ref.
No.
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
Treatment
191 f
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
None
OAF
OAF
Act; Sludge ,
Trick. Filter
Stab. Pond

Filtration
Aerated Lag.
Act. Sludge
(continued)
Operations
1976
Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Chemical Floe.
OAF'
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Filtration
OAF
Chealcal Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Pol. Pond

Chemical Floe.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Water
Million
1973
24.88
71.0
S.76
0.39
0.31
83.25
1.22

0.75
1.14
0.72
Usage
Gal/Day
1976
21.34
84.
4.59
0.39
0.34
66.22
1.0
1.8
0.51
0.90
0.59
X Red.
14
-18
20
0.0
-9.7
20
18

32
21
18

-------
                                                 TABLE VII-9
                                                                                    Page 11 of 26
                             TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
(continued)
Ref. Treatment Operation*
No. 1973
115 Act. Sludge
116 Aerated Lag.
117 DAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
_, 118 None
10
10
119 Filtration
120 None
121 Corr. Plate Sep.
1976
Pre-Filtratlon
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
Stab. Pond
OAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Filtration
Aerated Lag.
Filtration
Aerated Lag.
Filtration
Corr. Plate Sep.
Water Usage
Million Gal/Day Z Red.
1973 1976
5.05 3.92 22
2.06 2.77 -34
2.01 2.10 -4.5
0.13 0.94 -623
0.17 0.23 -35
0.35 0.29 17
34.5 14.0 59
122
124
        DAF
        Aerated Lag.
        Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
None
     DAF
Aerated Lag.
Other Org. Ren.
Pol. Pond

Aerated Lag.
Chealcal Floe.
     DAF
Stab. Pond
12.08
35.
                                                                                  1.87
Question-
  able
  Data

-------
                                                       Page 12 of 26
                    TABLE VI1-9
TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
Ref.
No.
125
126
127
ro
0
o
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Treatment
1973
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Bvap. or Perc. Pond
None
Stab. Pond
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Stab. Pond
(continued)
Operationa
1976
Aerated Lag.
Other Org. Re*.
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Cheaical Floe.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Pol. Pond
None
OAF
BBC -
OAF
Act. Sludge
DAF
Adt. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Filtration
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Water Usage
Million Gal/Day X Red.
1973 1976
1.23 1.28 -4.1
33.0 40.8 -24
0.31 0.25 19
0.01
0.15
3.13 2.67 15
74.01 56.6 24
174.5 181.5 -4.0
35.28 19.3 45
8.64 8.81 -2.0

-------
                                                                                                            Page 13 of 26
                                                                         TABU VII-9
                                                     TREATMENT OPERATIONS AMD HATU USAGE 1973 AMD 1976
INi
O
Ref.
Mo.
US
136
137
138
139
140
141
142

143

144

14S
146
147


(continued)
Treatment Operations
1973 1976
Core. Plata Sap.
Nova Nona
Hone Kvap. or Pare. Pond
Stab. Pond Kvap. or Pare. Pond
Kvap. or Pare. Pond
None Kvap. or Pare. Pond
DA? Chemical Floe.
DAP
OAF Chenlcal Floe.
DAF
Aerated Lag. Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond

None
Stab. Pond Stab. Pond
DAF Chemical Ploc.
DAF
Act. Sludga
Water Oaaga
Million Gal/Dav X Red.
1973 1976
0.6
0.06
1.03
0.168
0.5
0.03
10.35 21.67 -18

28.85 33.7 -17

45.02 1.77 Question-
able
Data
0.014
0.32 0.3 6.3
1.40 1.94 -39


                         148
DAF
                             DAF-
                                                                                  0.47

-------
                                                 TABU VII-9
                                                                                    Page  14 of 26
                             TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976


ReC.
No.
149

150

151


ro
o
^ 152

153



154

155

156






1973
Aerated Lag.

Aerated Lag.

OAF
Aerated Lag.



DAF
Aerated Lag.
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.

Stab. Pond

Aerated Lag.



(continued)

Treatment Opera tlona
1976
Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated Lag.
Corr. Plate Sep.
Act. Sludge
Chealcal Floe.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond

DAF
Act. Sludge
Other Organica Reau
Filtration


Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Cheaical Floe.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond

Water lleage
Million Gal/Day
1973 1976
1.78 4.92

84.44 60.14

6.50 7.59




122.1 44.05

5.43 4.7



0.31 0.85

0.59 0.65

2.47 2.37





X Red,

-176

29

-17




64

13



-174

-10

4.0



157     Other Organica Hem.
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
Other Organica Re*.
7.65
7.33
                                                                     4.2

-------
                                                                                    Page 15 of 26
                                                 TABLE VI1-9
                             TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976

Kef.
No.
158
159
160
ro
o
OJ
161
162
163
164
165


197?
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
None
DAF
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.

Stab. Pond
(continued)
Water Usage
Treatment Operation* Million Gal/Day X Red.
1976 1973 1976
Act. Sludge 1.40 1.49 -6.4
Pol. Pond
Stab. Pond 0.75 0.69 8.0
Pol. Pond
Chemical Floe. 0.53 0.65 -23
OAF
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag. 1.72 0.12 -81
Other Organic* Rea.
Pol. Pond
DAF 5.84 6.3 -7.9
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag. 4.48 3.5 22
Pol. Pond
Bvap. or Perc. Pond
Chemical Floe. 0.73 0.80 -9.6
DAF
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
166     None
None
                                                     0.2

-------
                                                                                                                Page 16 of 26
                                                                             TABLE VI1-9
                                                         TREATMENT OPERATIONS AMD HATER USAGE 1973 AMD 1976
ro
o
tef.
Mo.
167

168

169
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179


180
Treatment
1973
DAF
Other Organic* Re*.
nitration
Act. Carbon
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
OAF
Aerated Lag.


Aerated Lag.
Bvap. or Fere. Fond
(continued)
Operattona
1976
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Fre-Filtratlon
Act. Carbon
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter

None
None
Aerated Lag.
Corr. Flate Sep.
Aerated Lag.
None

Chemical Floe.
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Fond
Pol. Fond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Water
Million
1973
9.84

81.4

51.2
7.84

5.43
28.8
124.5
3.28
4.10
0.82
0.98


4.38
Usage
Gal/Day
1976
11.8

123.

49.23

1.58
3.07
8.08
106.6
5.86
2.15

0.98


3.91
X Red,

-20

-51

3.8


43
72
14
-79
48

0.0


11

-------
                                                       Page 17 of 2$
                    TABLE VII-9
TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
Ret.
Mo.
181
182
183
ro
o
en
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
Treatment
1973
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
DAP
Aerated Lag.
Act. Sludge
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAP
Act. Sludge
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Hone
None
DAP
Aerated Lag.
DAP
(continued)
Operations
1976
Pre-Plltration
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Act. Sludge
Chealcal Ploc.
DAP
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Chemical Ploc.
Act. Sludge
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAP
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
Piltration
Bvap. or Perc. Pond
Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond

Water
Million
1973
26.70
16.56
1.40
6.32

4.35

6.22
0.05
0.40

Usage
Gal/Day
1976
27.5
14.53

6.86
2.4
6.13
2.35
5.23
0.03
0.12
2.89
X Red

-3.0
12

-8.5

-18

16
40
70


-------
                                                                                    Page 18 of 26
                                                 TABLE VZI-9
                             TKKATHBNT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
Ref.
No.
192
193
194
195
196
ro
O
Treatment
1973
None
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
None
DAF
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
(continued)
Operations
1976
Evap. or Perc. Pond
None
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
None
Corr. Plate Sep.
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Water
Million
1973
0.039
44.25

130.0

Usage
Gal/Day
1976
0.035
0.053
32.7
0.0011
46.38

Z Red.

-36
26

64

197


198

199



200

201
None
None

DAT
Aerated Lag.
                             Act. Sludge
                             Stab. Pond

                             Aerated Lag.
                             Pol. Pond
Pre-Flltratlon
Aerated Lag.
Filtration

None

Chemical Floe.
     OAF
Act. Sludge
Filtration
2.00

2.02
0.012




0.05



1.43

2.9
 29

-44
202
                                                                                  0.004

-------
                                                                         TABLE  VII-9
                                                                                                             Page  19 of 26
                                                     TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
ro
o
--4


Ref.
No.
203

204



205


206
207
208




Treatment
1973
DAF
Act. Sludge
Act. Sludge



DAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Bvap. or Perc. Pond
None
Trick. Filter
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
(continued)
Water Usage
Operation* Million Gal/Day X Red.
1976 1973 1976
Chemical Floe. 52.4 29.14 44
DAF
Chemical Floe. 8.07
DAF
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
DAF 12.66 9<05 29
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
0.05 0.14 -180
None
Corr. Plate Sep. IS. 25 23.2 -52
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
                        209




                        210

                        211
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond

     DAF
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Bvap. or Perc. Pond

None

Chemical Floe.
     DAF
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
Filtration
1.25
                0.76
1.98
-58

-------
                                                                          TABU VI1-9
Page 20 of 26
                                                      TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
CO


Ref.
No.
212

213



214
215
216


218
219


220
221
222

223
224



Treatment
1973
DAF
Act. Sludge
DAF



Evap. or Perc. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Act . Sludge
Aerated Lag.

Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag.


Evap. or Perc. Pond
Act . Sludge
Stab. Pond


DAF

(continued)
Water Usage
Operations Million Gal/Day Z Red.
1976 1973 1976
DAF 3.57
Act. Sludge
OAF 0.14
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Cheaical Floe. 672. 53.24 Question-
Act. Sludge able
Aerated Lag. Data
0.68
Aerated Lag. 3.45
Pol. Pond
Filtration
0.087
Other Organic* Rev. 14.33 8.15 43
Aerated Lag. 0.89
Pol. Pond
None
Cheaical Floe. 0.40 0.413 -3.3
DAF

-------
                    TABLE VII-9
                                                       Page 21  of 26
TREATMENT OPERATIONS AMD HATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976

Ret.
No.
22S
226
227
ro
o
10
228
229
230
231
232
233
234

Treatment
1973
DAT
Stab. Pond
Stab. Pond
Rvap. or Perc. Pond
Kvap. or Perc. Pond
None
Stab. Pond

Aerated Lag.
Filtration
DAP
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
DAF
Act. Sludge
(continued)
Operation*
1976
DAF
Filtration
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
OAF
Aerated Lag.
RBC
Pol. Pond
Filtration
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Stab. Pond

Chemical Floe.
Filtration
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Pol. Pond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Pol. Pond

Hater Uaage
Million Gal/Day
1973 1976
2.52
0.04 0.084
2.56 2.59
0.48 0.55
0.1S
1.80 1.5

72.22 63.65
5.59 3.75
2.30

X Re<

-110
-1.2
-15

17

12
33


-------
                                                 TABLE VI1-9
                                                                                    Page 22 of 26
                             TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND HATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976


Ref.
No.
235


236
237


238




239


240
241

242
243



Treatment
1973
Trick. Filter
Act. Sludge

Filtration
Corr. Plate Sep.


Trick. Filter
Act. Sludge



Filtration
Stab. Pond

None
Other Organic* Re>.

None
Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Perc. Pond
(continued)

Operation*
1976
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Pol. Pond

Corr. Plate Sep.
OAF
Act . Carbon
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Corr. Plate Sep.
BBC
Pol. Pond

Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
None
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond

Water
Million
1973
4.40


0.13



3.72




0.23


1.58
2.47

0.95
0.86


Usage
Gal/Day Z Red.
1976
3.66 17


0.15 -15
0.038


4.2 -13




0.216 6.1


1.34 15
0.96 61

0.86 9.5
0.77 10

244
Bvap. or Perc. Pond
3.19

-------
                                                                                                             Page 23 of 26
                                                                         TABLE VII-9


                                                     TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND HATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
                                                                         (continued)

                                                                                                      Water Usage
                        Ref.    	     Treatment Operations     	       	Million Gal/Day            I Red.
                        Ho.                197?                        TSTf                       I97J             197?

                        245     Stab. Pond                   Corr. Plate Sep.
                                                             Aerated Lag.
                                                             Pol. Pond
                                                             Evap. or Perc. Pond

                        246     DAF                          Aerated Lag.                         2.16             2.84          -31
                                Stab. Pond                   Evap. or Perc. Pond
                                Evap. or Perc. Pond          Pol. Pond

ro                      247     Evap. or Perc. Pond          Evap. or Perc. Pond                                   0.84

                        248                                  Evap. or Perc. Pond

                        249     DAF                          DAF
                                Evap. or Perc. Pond          Evap. or Perc. Pond

                        250     Evap. or Perc. Pond

                        251

                        252     Stab. Pond                   Stab. Pond                           0.24             0.32          -33

                        253     Evap. or Perc. Pond          Evap. or Perc. Pond

                        254                                  None                                                  1.0

                        255                                  Pre-Flltration                                        0.13
                                                             Aerated Lag.
                                                             Pol. Pond

                        256                                  Corr. Plate Sep.                                      0.04
                                                             Stab. Pond

-------
                                                                     TABLE VI1-9
                                                                                                         Page 24 of 26
                                                 TREATMENT OPK1ATIOHS AND WATER USAGE 1973 AND 1976
ro
Ref.
No.
257

258

259

260
261



264
265



266
275
278
282
(continued)
Treatment Operation*
1973 1976
DAF Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag. DAF
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
OAF
Act. Sludge
None Aerated Lag.
DAF
Trick. Filter
EBC
Evap. or Pare. Pond

Corr. Plate Sap.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
None None

None

Hater Uaage
Million Gal/Day
197T 1976
99.5

1.96

21.55

0.25 1.0




3.0
2.07



0.94 0.83

0.024

                                                                                                                            Z Red.
                                                                                                                            -300
                                                                                                                              12

-------
ro

GO                       290

                         291

                         292

                         293

                         294

                         295

                         296

                         297

                         298
                                                                                                            Page 25 of 26
                                                                         TABLE VII-9


                                                     TR&ATMEIfr OPERATIOHS AMP HATER U8AGK 1973 AMD 1976
                                                                         (continued)

                                                                                                      Water Usage
                         Kef.    	Treatment Operation*       	             Million Gal/Day             X Red.
                         Mo.               T97fT9TS                       WfS            WfG

                         283

                         284

                         287

                         288

                         289

-------
                                                                                     Page  26  of 26
                                                 TABLE VII-9


                             TRKATMKMT OPERATIONS AMD MATER USAGE 1973 AMD 1976
                                                 (continued)

                                                                              Hater Uaage
Ref.    	   Treatment Operattona	             Million Cal/Day             X Red.
MO.                T977                        787S

299

300

301

302                                  Bvap. or Perc. Pond

303

304

305

306

307

308                                  Bvap. or Perc. Pond

309                                  Chemical Floe.
                                     Act.  Sludge
                                     Aerated Lag.

-------
                  TABLE VI1-10
For 1973 and
1976

Tr^fl,^ svst— Htabar of Raf inaria.

Corragatad Plata Separators
Chanical Flocenlation
Oiaaolvad Air Flotation
Othar Flotation Systana
Prafiltration
Activatad Sludga
Trickling Filtar
Aaratad Lagoon
Stabilization *)nd
Rotating Biological Contactor
Othar Organica Ranoval
Filtration
Polishing Ponda
Activatad Carbon
Evaporation or Percolation Ponda
1973
4
1
56
1
Unknown
30
7
63
4-4
0
4
10
Unknown
1
26-
1976
20
46
68
15
6<1'
50
10
73
35
5
10
23 (1)
75
2
37
(1)  Two rafineriaa hav« both prafiltration and poat  filtration.
    3o that a total of only 27 rafinariaa had filtration systama
    in 1976.
                   215

-------
                           TABLE VII-11
                     BZFIMEKJf FUN VS. FBDU, hJPFUJBIT
                   COHQ9ITRKTIQH FOR 17 SCREENING PLANTS

Refiaerr
Coda
A
a
c
0
c
F
<3
H
I
J
K
L
M
H
0
P
Q
Slope
Intercept
Percent of
Actual Diacbarg*
Flow to 3PT Flow
40.3
37.3
36.7
49.7
143.3
.96
121.7
72.5
69.4
58.0
39.4
173.9
35.0
69.1
121.3
*
28.0

t
(Correlation)*
Average
SOD.
">/l
< 2.5
13.5
41.0
125.0
< 9.5
27.0
<12.5
<. 4.5
<'U.O
6.0
* 3.5
•* 7.5
•C12.0
9.0
«S1.0

-------
ro
                          TABLE VII-12


           Effluent Concentration From 50 Plant Study


Pollutant Parameter



BOD5
TSS"
O & G
CRT
POL


NOTE:  Concentrations are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Daily
tudy
62
58
17
0.5
1.2
Maximum
BPT
48
31
15
0.725
0.35
30-day
Study
20
24
5.6
0.13
0.19

BPT
25.5
21
8.0
0.425
0.17

-------
                                       TABLE VII-13

                               ACHIEVABLE LIMITATIONS VALUES
Pollutant
BPT Refineries
BOD
TSS
O&G
CRT
POL
ro
00
Mean
Pollutant
Level
15.74
19.23
4.446
0.0928
0.1229


                                 Daily
                              Variability
                                 Factor

                                  3.93

                                  3.00

                                  3.90

                                  5.48

                                 10.04
  Daily
Limitation
  Value

  61.86

  57.69

  17.34

   0.5085

   1.234
  30-Day
Variability
  Factor

   1.27

   1.22

   1.27

   1.36

   1.56
  30-Day
Limitation
  Value

  19.95

  23.53

   5.63

   0.13

   0.19
Note;  Concentrations are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L)

-------
O
                                             at
                                             u
                                             in
                                             (3


                                             »—




                                            I
                                                                                                 IU
                                                                                                 t-
                                                                                                 
-------
                                                                        FIGURE  VII-2
                                                          flow. Diagram of a Granular Activated Carbon Syste
ro
o
                                                                                                                          Backwash out
                      Influent
                                                                                                                                   Effluent
                                                                                                                                      V
                                                 To other carbon trains
                      PIping Explaoatjon
                         Main influent  heoder  (to 1st tank in series)
                         Main effluent  deader  (from 3rd tank in series)
                         Influent header  to 2nd tank tit series
                         Influent header  to 3rd tank in series
                         Effluent header  from  1st tank in series
    Effluent fn* 2nd tank in series
    Connection between 13 and IS headers
    Connection between M and 16 headers
..  Backwash  inlet  header
16) Backwash  outlet (leader

-------
                                                                FIGURE  VI1-3

                                                       Carbon  Regeneration  System
r>o
Make-up carbon
                                      Regenerated
                                        Carbon
                                        Holding
                                         Tank
                                                                I
                                      Carbon, Adsorption
                                            Tanks
Spent Carbon
  Holding
   Tank
                                                                     Furnace

-------
                                                            FIGURE  VII-4

                                              Flow  Diagram of One Powdered Activated
                                                Carbon Treatment  Treatment Scheme
ro
ro
ro
                     Uastewater Influent
                      	i-M
                             r
Powdered
Activated
Carbon
Inlet
                      Carbon Make-up
                                   Treated Effluent
                                           V-
 Sludge
Thickener
Filter Presses
                                                                   Carbon
                                                                  Regeneration
                                                                   Furnace
                                                   Acid Hash
                                                    System

-------
                          SECTION VIII


        BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE


SUMMARY

Best Available Control Technology Economically  Achievable  (BAT)
is   equivalent  to  the  existing  Best  Practicable  Technology
Currently Available (BPT)  level  of  control.   BAT  technology/
which  is  the same as BPT, includes in-plant control and end-of-
pipe treatment.  BPT in-plant technology consists of widely  used
control   practices   such   as   ammonia  and  sulfide  control,
elimination  of  once   through   barometric   condenser   water,
segregation  of  sewers, and elimination of polluted once-through
cooling  water.   BPT   end-of-pipe   treatment   includes   flow
equalization,  initial  oil  and solids removal (API separator or
baffle  plate  separator),  further  oil   and   solids   removal
(clarifier or dissolved air flotation), biological treatment, and
filtration  or  other  final  "polishing"  steps.   The  effluent
limitations for BAT are the same as those for BPT because the BAT
flow model and subcategorization scheme are the same as those for
BPT.   BAT  control  technology,  which  is  equivalent  to   BPT
technology,  is  Option  9  of the nine options considered by the
Agency.

BAT limitations, in  general,  represent  the  best  economically
achievable  performance  of  direct  dischargers  included  in an
industrial category or subcategory.  BAT limitations control  the
discharge  of  toxics  (priority pollutants) and non-conventional
pollutants (COO, phenolic compounds [4AAP], ammonia and sulfides)
in the effluent of existing direct dischargers in  the  petroleum
refining industry.  BAT does not regulate conventional pollutants
(TSS,  oil  and  grease,  B005. and pH) which are considered under
Best Conventional Treatment Economically Available (BCT).

In assessing BAT, the Agency considers the age of  the  equipment
and  facilities involved, the processes employed, the engineering
aspects of control technologies, process  changes,  the  cost  of
achieving   such   effluent   reduction,  and  non-water  quality
environmental impacts.  The  Administrator  retains  considerable
discretion  in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors.
Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate,  BAT  may  be
transferred from a different subcategory or category.

EPA  is  required to consider costs, but does not have to balance
costs against effluent  reduction  benefits.   However,  EPA  has
given  substantial  weight  to  the reasonableness of costs.  The
Agency has considered the volume and nature  of  discharges,  the
volume  and  nature  of  discharges expected after application of
BAT, the general environmental effects of the pollutants, and the
                               223

-------
costs and economic impacts  of  the  required  pollution  control
levels.

Effluent  limitations  for  the  petroleum  refining industry are
expressed as mass limitations, i.e., restrictions  on  the  total
quantity  of  pollutants that may be discharged.  Since the total
mass of pollutants in an effluent  stream  depends  on  both  the
total  effluent  flow and the concentration of pollutants in that
flow, the nine options considered for BAT reflect both  flow  and
concentration considerations.

BAT OPTIONS CONSIDERED

EPA  investigated  nine  control and treatment technology options
for  selection  of  BAT  criteria.   Options  1   through  6  were
considered  in  formulating  the proposed rule published in 1979.
Model flow for options 1 through  5  refers  to  the  flow  model
presented  in the 1979 proposed regulation.  Detailed explanation
of these options is  available  in  the  1979  draft  development
document.   Option 7, a modification of Option 2, and Option 8, a
modification of Option 1, were  developed  using  the  data  base
available  at  the  time  of  the 1979 proposal, supplemented and
modified by information collected by EPA after the proposed  rule
was  published,  as  well as from public comments received on the
proposed rule.  Model flow for Options 7  and  8  refers  to  the
refined  flow  model  which reconciled discrepancies noted in the
1979 model, and  more  accurately  depicted  refinery  wastewater
flows (see Section IV).

Option  9,  the  BPT  level  of  control,  was reconsidered after
publication of the proposed rule, as a result of public  comments
received.   Model  flow  for  Option  9  refers to the flow model
presented in the 1974 development document.

    Option 1 - Discharge flow reduction of 27 percent from  model
    flow,   achieved   through   greater  reuse  and  recycle  of
    wastewaters, in addition to BPT treatment.

    Option 2 - Discharge flow reduction of 52 percent from  model
    flow,   achieved   through   greater  reuse  and  recycle  of
    wastewaters, in addition to  BPT  treatment.   This  was  the
    control treatment option selected in the 1979 proposal.

    Option  3 - Discharge flow reduction of 27 percent from model
    flow per Option 1, plus BPT treatment enhanced with  powdered
    activated carbon to reduce residual toxic organic pollutants.

    Option  4 - Discharge flow reduction of 52 percent from model
    flow  per  Option  2,  in  addition  to  BPT  treatment  plus
    segregation and separate treatment of cooling tower blowdown.
    Cooling  tower blowdown treatment for metals removal includes
    reduction of hexavalent chromium to  trivalent  chromium,  pH
    adjustment, precipitation, and settling or clarification.
                               224

-------
    Option  5 - Discharge flow reduction of 27 percent from model
    flow per Option 1,  in addition to BPT treatment plus granular
    activated carbon treatment to reduce residual  toxic  organic
    pollutants.

    Option  6  - A "no discharge of wastewater pollutants" (i.e.,
    zero  discharge)  standard   based   upon   reuse,   recycle,
    evaporation, or reinjection of wastewaters.

    Option  7  -  Discharge  flow  reduction of 37.5 percent from
    refined model flow achieved through greater reuse and recycle
    of wastewaters, in addition to BPT treatment.

    Option 8 -  Discharge  flow  reduction  of  approximately  20
    percent  from  refined  model  flow  achieved through greater
    reuse  and  recycle  of  wastewaters,  in  addition  to   BPT
    treatment.

    Option  9 - Flow equalization, initial oil and solids removal
    (API  separator  or  baffle  plant   separator),   additional
    oil/solids  removal  (clarifiers or dissolved air flotation),
    biological  treatment,  and   filtration   or   other   final
    "polishing"  steps.  This option is the basis of the existing
    regulations.

    Option K  Reduce discharge flow to 27  percent  below  model
flow (flow model for 1979 proposal) in addition to BPT treatment.
Establish  a  long  term  achievable  concentration  for phenolic
compounds (4AAP) at 19 ug/1 as the base for  computing  pollutant
load.    Fifty  percent  of  the petroleum refineries were already
operating at this flow level (27 percent less than model flow) at
the time of the 1979 proposal.

Flow reduction is a viable technology in the  petroleum  refining
industry.    Since   1972  the  refining  industry  has  reported
decreasing wastewater discharge flows as refineries install water
conservation,  recycle  and  reuse  technology  in  response   to
existing  regulations,  water  supply  costs, and water treatment
costs.   The  following  summary  of  industry  discharge   flows
demonstrates   this   significant   change  in  water  management
practices:


Specified Flow Type                         Total Flow, MGD
1.  Total 1976 Indirect Discharge Flow
    (Supplemental Flow Questionnaire)                   50

2.  Total Calculated BPT Flow 1972                     569

3.  Total 1976 Direct Discharge Flow
    (Supplemental Flow Questionnaire)                  346

4.  Total 1976 Direct Discharge Flow



                              225

-------
    Minus Planned Flow Reductions (1977
    Industry Survey and Supplemental Flow
    Questionnaire)                                     311

5.   Total allowable BAT Flow Based on
    1979 Proposed Flow Model                           227

6.   Total allowable BAT Flow Based on
    Refined Flow Model                                 251

7.   Same as (5), except actual individual
    flows from (4) are used if less than
    allowable individual BAT Flows                     205

8.   Same as (6), except actual individual
    flows from (4) are used if less than
    allowable individual BAT Flows                     215

The methods of recycle/reuse are described in detail  in  Section
VII.  In order to verify that the 37.5 percent flow reduction was
achievable,  the  Agency  conducted  a 15 plant study (159).  The
study concluded that this level of flow reduction can be achieved
by traditional recycle/reuse schemes.

Figure V-3 shows the results  of  projecting  this  trend  toward
reduced   wastewater   flow.   The  analysis  predicts  that  the
petroleum refining industry will achieve the Option 7 flow  level
(63 percent of revised model flow) within a few years.  Reduction
in  pollutant  loading  occurs when BPT treatment systems achieve
the  same  discharge  pollutant  concentrations  at   a   reduced
discharge flow level.

The   Agency  has  concluded  that  removal  of  non-conventional
pollutants would not change measureably from BPT treatment to BPT
treatment plus 27 percent flow reduction.   Ammonia  and  sulfide
loadings  depend  primarily  upon  the  process of stripping sour
waters, an in-plant control technique, and will not  be  directly
related  to flow.  No technologically feasible process changes or
in-plant controls have been identified to further reduce  ammonia
and  sulfides.   Also, chemical oxygen demand (COD) does not vary
directly with effluent flow.  The Agency's attempts  to  quantify
or  predict changes in COD levels with the implementation of flow
reduction/water reuse technologies were inconclusive.

Option 1 would limit total phenols at  a  mass  limitation  based
upon an effluent concentration equivalent to 19 ug/L.  The Agency
received  a  number  of  comments  on this issue stating that the
proposal to limit total phenols at  19  ug/L  was  too  stringent
because  technology is not available to consistently achieve such
a level.  Additional information on phenols was collected by  EPA
in  the  Petroleum Refining Long Term Data Analysis  (161) and the
"Surrogate Sampling Program" (1621subsequent  to  the  December
1979 proposal.  Information collected included effluent data from
                              226

-------
49 refineries for calendar year 1979 plus 60 day sampling results
at two refineries in 1980.  Analysis of the data collected during
these  two  studies  concluded  that  TOO  ug/L is appropriate to
establish a mass limitation applicable on an  industrywide  basis
in  light  of  the  variability  due to fluctuations in treatment
system performance.

Discharge of toxic priority pollutants would  be  less  than  BPT
levels   because   the   refineries   would  achieve  former  BPT
concentrations at reduced  discharge  flows.   Estimates  of  the
pollutant  reductions  to  be achieved by BPT treatment plus flow
reduction assumed that  the  pollutant  load  for  trivalent  and
hexavalent  chromium  after BPT treatment would be at or near the
allowable level.  Subsequent evaluation of  BPT  treatment  since
the  original  estimates  indicates  that  BPT treatment achieves
better removal of priority pollutants  than  originally  thought,
and   that  reduction  in  flow  would  achieve  minimal  further
reductions.  The Agency has estimated this further  reduction  in
toxic  pollutants over BPT treatment at 1 percent of the priority
pollutants in raw refinery wastewater.  This translates  into  an
additional  removal  beyond  BPT  of  approximately 1.3 pounds of
toxic pollutants per day, per direct discharge refinery (168).

The preamble to the proposed 1979 regulation (44 FR 75933) stated
that $23.5 million additional investment would be  required  with
an annual cost of $9.3 million (1979 dollars) to implement Option
1  for  this  industry.   The  capital  costs,  to a considerable
extent, represent retrofit costs.  These  cost  figures  are  the
incremental costs beyond BPT to achieve Option 1 technology.

Option  1  effluent limitations are based upon the flow model for
the 1979 proposal.  Since the Agency has decided not to use  this
flow model for the regulation, Option 1 was rejected.

    Option 2_.  Reduce discharge flow, 52 percent below model flow
(flow  model  for  1979  proposal)  in addition to BPT treatment.
Establish a  long  term  achievable  concentration  for  phenolic
compounds  (4AAP)  at 19 ug/1 as the base for computing pollutant
load.   Thirty-eight  percent  of  the  refineries  were  already
operating at or below 52 percent of model flow at the time of the
1979 proposal.

Removal  of  non-conventional  pollutants   (ammonia, sulfides and
COD) is not directly dependent upon flow reduction.  Like  Option
1,  the  Agency has concluded that installation of flow reduction
will  not  achieve  measureable  decrease   in   non-conventional
pollutant loads over BPT treatment.

This  option would also apply the 19 ug/L long term concentration
to the 52 percent of model flow to calculate the  allowable  load
by phenolic compounds (4AAP).
                              227

-------
Again,  many  commenters  questioned  the  ability  of  petroleum
refineries to achieve this long term effluent concentration on an
industrywide basis.  Additional studies by the  Agency  concluded
that 19 ug/L cannot be achieved consistently and that 100 ug/L is
the appropriate concentration for regulating loadings of phenolic
compounds  (4AAP)  for  all  direct  dischargers in the petroleum
refining industry.

Removal of priority pollutants would again be accomplished by the
refineries achieving BPT level treatment at even greater  reduced
flows.   The  Agency's  analysis  of  available  data  shows that
implementation of Option 2 would remove an additional 1.5 percent
of toxic pollutants from raw  wastewaters  beyond  BPT  treatment
levels  (168).   BPT  removes  96 percent of the toxic pollutants
from  raw  wastewaters  discharged  by  the  petroleum   refining
industry.    This  additional  1.5  percent  translates  into  an
additional removal beyond BPT  of  approximately  two  pounds  of
toxic pollutants per day, per direct discharge refinery.

The  preamble  to  the  1979  proposal  (44 FR 75938) stated that
implementation of  Option  2  would  result  in  the  removal  of
approximately  123,000 pounds of chromium per year.  This 123,000
pounds of chromium per year represents  the  incremental  removal
from  the  BPT  level  to the BAT Option 2 level.  However, based
upon reevaluation of the effluent data base, the Agency has found
this  figure  was  overstated,  because  the  observed   chromium
discharge of refineries with BPT level treatment was considerably
less  than  that  allowable by the BPT chromium limitations.  The
actual amount of chromium which would  have  been  removed  under
this option is approximately 32,000 pounds per year  (168).

Implementation  of  Option  2  would result in annual cost to the
industry of $62 million with an  initial  capital  investment  of
$138  million  (1979 dollars).  Initial investment includes, to a
considerable  extent,  retrofit  costs.   These  cost   estimates
represent  the  incremental  cost beyond BPT treatment to achieve
Option 2 technology.

    BAT Option 2 was  developed  using  the  proposed  1979  flow
model.   However, based upon data submitted by commenters and the
"Flow Model" study performed  by  EPA  after  the  proposal   (See
Section  IV),  the  proposed  1979  flow model was modified.  The
technical points  raised  by  some  of  the  commenters  were  of
considerable  assistance  in  the  flow model refinement prpcess.
The main emphasis  of  the  comments  concerned  the  statistical
deficiencies   of   the  proposed  model,  the  choice  of  model
variables, and aspects of the resulting model fit.   The structure
of the model and  the  process  variables  to  be  included  were
reexamined  and  modified  accordingly.   This refinement process
resulted in the refined flow model which was more  representative
of  the  current  wastewater  generation  in the industry.  Thus,
Option 2 has been rejected because it was based on   the  proposed
flow model that has been modified.
                               228

-------
    Option  3_.  Reduce discharge flow by 27 percent of model flow
(flow model for 1979 proposal) per Option  1  plus  enhanced  BPT
treatment with powdered activated carbon (PAC) to reduce residual
toxic organic pollutants.

The  two  end-of-pipe  treatment  technologies  that were used to
establish Option 3 are rotating biological contactors  (RBC)  and
powdered  activated  carbon   (PAC) treatment.  At the time of the
Agency's data collection efforts in 1976-1979, there  were  seven
facilities using these technologies.  The Agency determined that,
upon   analysis   of   available   data,  there  are  significant
operational  (mechanical)  problems  with  RBC  technology.   The
Agency  also found that full-scale experience with PAC technology
was  mixed,  i.e.,  some  facilities   experienced   consistently
measurable   pollutant   reductions  as  intended,  while  others
experienced inconsistent or no  measurable  effluent  reductions.
Because  of  these  operational  problems  observed in full-scale
facilities, there was limited performance information available.

The Agency's analysis of available data shows that implementation
of Option 3 would remove  an  additional  1.5  percent  of  toxic
pollutants  from  raw  wastewaters  beyond  BPT treatment levels.
This  translates  into  an  additional  removal  beyond  BPT   of
approximately  two pounds of toxic pollutants per day, per direct
discharge refinery (168).

Option 3, flow reduction plus PAC  enhancement  of  a  biological
system  may  offer  promise  as  a treatment technology to remove
individual toxic pollutants under special circumstances, but this
option is not a  proven  technology  in  the  petroleum  refining
industry  which  can  be  applied  in an industrywide regulation.
Full scale  experience  with  this  technology  did  not  produce
consistent measurable results.

Given  the limited additional effluent reduction benefits and the
limited performance data available at this time, Option 3 is  not
warranted for this industry.

    Option  4.  Reduce discharge flow by 52 percent of model flow
(flow model for 1979 proposal) per Option 2  plus  BPT  treatment
and  separate  treatment  of cooling tower blowdown.  This option
could result in better removals  than  Option  2,  since  cooling
tower  biocides  would  not enter the biological treatment system
and wastewater would not be diluted  with  cooling  water  before
biological treatment.

Option  4  was  predicated  on industrywide ability to segregate,
collect, and separately treat cooling tower blowdown,  the  major
source   of   chromium   for   this   industry.   The  wastewater
recycle/reuse study  (see   Section  VII),  completed  after  the
publication  of  the  proposed  regulation,  concluded  that, for
existing sources, it is extremely difficult in many instances  to
segregate cooling tower blowdown for chromium treatment.  Cooling
                              229

-------
tower  blowdown  is  typically  effected  at  numerous  locations
throughout a refinery.  Extensive  collection  systems  would  be
necessary  at many refineries to collect all blowdown streams for
separate treatment.  In addition, not all cooling tower  blowdown
streams  are  collectible.  For instance, cooling water when used
as makeup for refinery processing commingles with  process  water
and   cannot   be  traced  or  segregated,  especially  in  older
refineries.  Therefore, the Agency has determined that  it  would
not be proper to base BAT effluent limitations guidelines on this
technology option.

Because  this technology is not available to all direct discharge
refineries on an industrywide  basis,  the  Agency  has  rejected
Option  4 as the basis for BAT regulation of existing refineries.
However, refineries  which  will  be  built  in  the  future  can
incorporate separate treatment of cooling tower blowdown into the
plant design.

    Option  5..   Reduce  discharge flow to 27 percent below model
flow (flow model  for  1979  proposal)  plus  BPT  treatment  and
granular  activated  carbon  treatment  to  reduce residual toxic
organic pollutants.  Option 5 would provide treatment  equivalent
to Options 2 and 3.

BAT Option 5 is predicated on industrywide ability to install and
operate  granular  activated carbon  (GAC) treatment as an end-of-
pipe technology.   Although  GAC  technology  is  used  in  other
industries,  long  term  performance  data  of full scale systems
treating refinery  wastewaters  would  be  required  before  this
technology  could  be used as the basis for industrywide effluent
limitations.

The Agency conducted six pilot plant  treatability  studies  that
used  GAC  to  treat  refinery  wastes after BPT treatment  (108).
While toxic pollutant removal generally increases with the use of
GAC, the levels of toxic pollutants  after BPT treatment  were  so
low  that additional pollutant reduction across GAC treatment was
minimal.  Difficulties in quantifying pollutant  reductions  were
experienced  when  the  Agency  tried to evaluate toxic pollutant
removals in BPT treated water where  concentrations approached the
analytical limits of quantification.

Because of the difficulties experienced   in  Agency  attempts  to
measure  removal  of  toxic pollutants, removal efficiencies have
not been estimated for this option.   Moreover,  considering  the
marginal  benefits and uncertain effectiveness of this technology
in treating dilute concentrations  of  priority  pollutants,  the
Agency decided to reject BAT Option  5.

    Option  6,.   Zero  discharge  of wastewater is a demonstrated
technology. "There are currently  fifty-five  refineries  in  the
United  States  that  do  not discharge wastewater.  However, the
technology employed at these zero discharge  refineries  is  very
                              230

-------
site  specific,  e.g.,  32  of the 55 use evaporation/percolation
basins which rely upon special conditions of climate and geology.
The zero discharge technologies considered by the Agency  include
those  currently  in  use  by  the  industry  and  those that are
applicable from other industrial sources.   The  Agency  realizes
that some of the technologies in use by the refinery industry can
not  be  applied  in  other  geographical  locations  because  of
meteorological   conditions,   load   availability,   and   other
environmental  constraints.   Vapor  compression  distillation is
identified to be universally available and applicable.   Although
none  of  the  refineries are using VCD, full scale use of such a
system is being used successfully in the steam electric industry.
However, the secondary impacts of VCD can be  quite  severe,  and
are prohibitive in the Agency's opinion.  These secondary impacts
include high energy consumption and solid waste generation.

Removal  of  toxic  pollutants  under  this  option would be 100%
assuming that percolating or  injected  wastewater  will  not  be
transported  to  acquifers  and  streams.   The  1979 development
document (158) did  not  contain  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of
retrofitting  all  existing  direct  discharge refineries to zero
discharge.  The technology would be different for  each  refinery
and could be expected to incur higher capital and operating costs
than a new refinery designed to achieve zero discharge.

The Agency rejected BAT Option 6, (1) because of its high capital
and operating costs, including significant retrofit expenditures;
and  (2)  because  analysis  of  the  zero discharge technologies
revealed that significant non-water quality impacts would  result
from   their   use.   These  non-water  quality  impacts  include
generation of large amounts of solid waste and very  high  energy
consumption.

    Option  7_.  Reduce discharge flow to 37.5 percent below model
flow (refined flow  model)  plus  BPT  treatment.   Option  7  is
similar  to  Option 2, except that the revised mathematical model
calculates a slightly different flow  quantity.   Also  the  flow
reduction below model flow is less than the 1979 proposal.  Based
upon the refinements to the 1979 flow model described above, flow
reduction  was  revised  from an average 52 percent from the 1979
model flow to 37.5 percent from the  refined  model  flow.   This
average 37.5 percent flow reduction was designated Option 7.

Option. 7 resulted from modeling efforts conducted after the 1979
proposed regulation.  The methods of recycle/reuse are  described
in  detail  in  Section  VII.   In  order to verify that the 37.5
percent flow reduction was achievable, the Agency conducted a  15
plant  study.   The  study  concluded  that  this  level  of flow
reduction can be achieved by traditional recycle/reuse schemes.

Removal of non-conventional pollutants beyond BPT treatment would
be limited for the reasons discussed under Options 1 and 2.
                               231

-------
The Agency's analysis of available data shows that implementation
of Option 7 would have removed an additional  110,000  pounds  of
toxic pollutants annually beyond BPT treatment levels, equivalent
to  an  additional  1.5  percent  of  toxic  pollutants  from raw
wastewaters beyond BPT treatment levels.  This translates into an
additional removal beyond BPT of two pounds of  toxic  pollutants
per day per direct discharge refinery.

The  Agency estimated the costs to implement Option 7 recycle and
reuse technologies.  A capital  cost  of  $112  million  and  $37
million (1979 dollars) in annual costs are associated with Option
7.

The  Agency  believes, that given the limited additional effluent
reduction benefits and  the  costs  involved,  Option  7  is  not
warranted for this industry.

    Option  §..   Reduce  discharge flow to 20 percent below model
flow (revised flow model) plus BPT treatment.  BAT  Option  8  is
similar  to  Option  1.   Based upon additional data submitted by
commenters and the technical studies performed by EPA  after  the
proposal  (See Section IV), the flow model upon which Option 1 is
based was reevaluated.  The result of  this  reevaluation  was  a
refinement  in  the  1979  flow model with use of more and better
quality data.  The amount of flow reduction via recycle and reuse
technologies was determined to be an  average  20  percent  below
refined model flow.

Removal  of  non-conventional  pollutants  beyond  BPT  would  be
limited for the reasons discussed under Option 1.   The  Agency's
analysis  of available data shows that implementation of Option 8
would remove an additional one percent of toxic  pollutants  from
raw  wastewaters  beyond  BPT  treatment levels.  This translates
into an additional removal beyond BPT  of  1.3  pounds  of  toxic
pollutants per day, per refinery (168).

The  cost of implementing Option 8 is estimated at a capital cost
of $77 million and an annual cost of $25 million (1979 dollars).

The Agency believes that, given all these factors and  the  costs
involved, Option 8 is not warranted for this industry.

    Option  9_.  A level of control equivalent to the BPT level of
control consists of flow equalization,  initial  oil  and  solids
removal  (API separator, baffle plate separator), further oil and
solids removal (clarifiers, dissolved air flotation),  biological
treatment, and filtration or other final "polishing" steps.  This
option  is  based  upon  the  flow  model  developed  for the BPT
regulations promulgated by the Agency in  1974.   Therefore,  the
effluent   limitations   are   equivalent  to  the  BPT  effluent
limitations.
                              232

-------
Removal of non-conventional pollutants would  remain  at  current
BPT  levels.   Table  VI-1  shows  a  total annual raw wastewater
loading of non-conventional pollutants equal to  257,231  kkg/yr.
BPT  treatment  would  reduce this pollutant waste load to 66,988
kkg/yr  for  a  net  74  percent  removal   of   non-conventional
pollutants  by  the  petroleum  refining  industry.   Table  VI-1
contains removal efficiencies for total phenols  as  measured  by
the   4AAP  method.   BPT  treatment  reduces  the  total  annual
wasteload from 9719 kkg/yr to 7.6 kkg/yr.

Table V-27 contains a  summary  of  the  analytical  results  for
concentrations  of phenolic compounds (4AAP) and individual toxic
phenolic compounds found in the effluent of  direct  dischargers.
Parameter  No. 167 (4AAP phenolic) shows an average 15 ug/L in 76
percent of the samples while individual toxic phenolic  compounds
identified as priority pollutants (parameters 21, 24, 31, 34, 57,
58, 59, 64 and 65) show a total of one detection  occurrence at a
concentration  at  or below measurable limits.  This data was the
basis for the 19 ug/L achievable concentration proposed in 1979.

EPA compiled additional data on  the  performance  of  refineries
providing   BPT   treatment  in  the  "Survey  of  1979  Effluent
Monitoring  Data."  This  study  examined  the  results  of   BPT
treatment  at  refinery  flows predominantly less than 1979 model
flows.  The analytical results are, therefore, representative  of
low-flow treatment systems (163).  This study computed an average
long  term  achievable  concentration  of 123 itg/L for refineries
with BPT treatment systems.  This conclusion  supports  the  long
term  achievable  concentration of 0.100 mg/L initially set forth
to calculate BPT pollutant loads at the BPT model flow rate.   In
addition,  the  Agency  collected  data  on discharge of phenolic
compounds from the Long Term Sampling Program (162) and  the  EPA
Regional  Surveillance  and  Analysis  Teams  (Table  V-29) which
confirm that the 19 ug/L value is not representative  of  average
long term performance and that the 100 ug/L is appropriate.

Removal  of  toxic pollutants would remain at the levels achieved
by BPT treatment.  Table VI-2 shows a total annual raw wastewater
loading equal to 3502  kkg/yr.   BPT  treatment  can  reduce  the
discharge  of  toxic  pollutants to a total annual loading of 137
kkg/yr for a net removal efficiency of  96  percent.   Ninety-six
percent  removal  of  toxic  pollutants  is  calculated  from the
actual, measured performance of BPT treatment.

The concentration of pollutants in the final  refinery  effluents
and  their  associated  water  quality  criteria are presented in
Section VI.  Limited environmental benefit  would  be  gained  by
requiring further control beyond BPT.

In   summary,   only  the  following  pollutants  were  found  at
concentrations  (average)  in  excess  of   10   ppb:    chromium
(trivalent),  cyanide,  zinc,  toluene,  methylene  chloride, and
bis(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate.  Of  these,  methylene  chloride  and
                               233

-------
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phathalate are contaminants of the sampling and
analytical  methodology.   Chromium  is  already  limited by BPT.
Cyanide occurs in concentrations (flow-weighted average 45  »»g/L)
at  the  limits  of  effective  removal  by  known  technologies.
Toluene is removed to below measurable  limits  by  all  but  one
refinery  and  is not characteristic of the industry.  Zinc at an
average concentration of 105 «g/L is not likely  to  cause  toxic
effects.

The  cost of implementing Option 9 is effectively zero, since the
Act requires that all refineries achieve BPT treatment by 1977.

Considering the limited pollutant reduction  benefits  associated
with   Options   1   through   8,   the   inability  to  quantify
nonconventional pollutant reduction via Options 1 through 8,  the
costs  involved of going beyond the BPT level of control/ and the
96 percent reduction in toxic pollutant loadings achieved by BPT/
the Agency has determined that the BAT level of control should be
equivalent to the BPT level of control for the petroleum refining
industry.

IDENTIFICATION  OF   BEST   AVAILABLE   TECHNOLOGY   ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE

BAT  Selection  and  Design  Criteria  -  EPA  selected Option 9.
Effluent data from the EPA sampling survey show that present  BPT
treatment  removes 96 percent of the toxic pollutants/ 85 percent
of the conventional pollutants (BOD/ TSS, oil and grease), and 74
percent of the nonconventional  pollutants  (COD/  ammonia/  TOC,
sulfides,  and  phenolics (4AAP)).  The levels of toxics from the
final refinery effluents are extremely low (see  Section  VI  for
details).

A  separate analysis of the Effluent Guidelines Division sampling
and analytical data showed  that  there  are  no  environmentally
significant   priority   pollutants  in  direct  discharges  from
petroleum refineries at BPT technology levels  after   application
of  the  50th  percentile  average  and low flow dilutions.  (See
Table VIII-1).  The basis for this determination of environmental
significance is the comparison of diluted average plant  effluent
concentrations  with ambient water quality criteria as determined
by EPA Criteria and Standards Division (165).  Selection of  this
option  would  result   in no additional cost or secondary impacts
beyond that associated with BPT compliance.

The bases for the BPT   limitations  can  be  found   in  the  1974
development  document.   The information upon which the  numerical
limitations are derived is presented in  Table  50-52(3).   These
tables provide the concentrations/ variability factors,  and flows
used.   An  example  of how BPT should be applied is presented  in
Section I.
                              234

-------
                                                                              TABLE VIII-1
                                                                                                                                 1  of  2
                                       1.6  Diluted Effluent Concentrations from Direct Dischargers In the Petroleua Refining Industry
Pollutant
Arsenic
Bary Ilium
CddnliM
Cnrcnlwa ITrl.l
Chromium (Hex.)
Copper
Cyan Ida
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SelanliM
Silver
IhallluM
Zinc
Chlurolonn
Ranzene
Toluene
Currant/bPT '
Flow-Mlghted
Avg. Cone.
ug/l
0.01
0.04
0.29
107.79
7.73-
9.89
49.46
9.19
0.88
3.39
17.19
0.04
3.21
104.6
3.1
2.3
10.1
Diluted Concentration 2
using the 50th percent lie
average flow
ug/l
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
Diluted Concentration
using the 9Oth percent lie
low flow
ug/l
0
0
0
0.22
0.02
6.02
0.09
0.01
0
0.0|
0.03
0
0.01
0.21
0.01
0
0.02
EPA Mblent Mater
For the Protect lo
Aquatl
Acute *
ug/l
440
130"
3.0
4700
21
22
92
170
4.1
1800
260
4.1
1400*
320
28900*
9300*
17900*
Quality Criteria
« of Freshwater
cLIfe
Chronic f
ug/l
MCA
9.3*
0.029
44*
0.29
9.6
3.9
3.8
0.2
96
39
0.12*
40*
47
1240*
MCA
NCA
N)
CO
Ul

-------
                                                                           TABLE VIII-1  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                      2 of 2
Co
(Ti
                                          1.6  Diluted Effluent Concentration* Fro Direct Dischargers In the Petroleum Refining Industry
                                          Compared to the EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of  Freshwater Aquatic Life
                                                                                   (Continued)




Pollutant
2. 4-Dlch lorophenol
p-Ch loro-m-Cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dlethyl phthalate
Ol-n-butyl phthalate
Acanaphthena
Benzo(a)pyrena
Chyrsana
Phananthrana
'yrane
1
Current/Mr
Flow-weighted
Avg. Cone.
ug/l
0.22
0.28
0.19
1.46
0.04
1.06
0.09
0.02
O.|8
0.12
2
Diluted Concentration
using the 90th percentlle
averaga flow
U9/I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Diluted Concentration
using the 90th percent II*
low flow
ug/l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria
For the Protection of Freshwater
Aquatic Life
Acute4
ug/l
2020*
290*
33000*
92100*
940*
1700*
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
Chronic »
ug/l
369*
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
NCA
                 Footnotas:

                 'Derived by multiplying the average concentration by the flow for each of the 17 refineries  sampled.   The turn of  the products divided by the
                 total  How of  the refineries sampled results In a flow-weighted average concentration.

                 Wived by dividing the  flow-weighted averaga concentration by the 90th percent lie average  flow  dilution factor.  The 90th percentlle (19127)
                 corresponds to the median average flow dilution factor.   Flow data were available for 43 of  the  164 refineries.  Diluted concentration values
                 lass  than 0.01 ug/l are reported as lero.

                 'Derived by dividing the  flow-weighted average concentration by the 90th percentlle low  flow dilution  factor.  The 90th percentlle (496)
                 corresponds to the median low flow dilution factor.  Flow data were available for 32 of  the  164 refineries.  Diluted concentration values less
                 than 0.0) ug/| are reported as zero.

                 *Acute - The maximum concentration of a pollutant allowed at any time to protect freshwater  organisms.

                 'chronic - The 24-hour averaga concentration of • pollutant to protect freshwater organisms.

                 •Lowest reported toxic concentration to protect freshwater organisms.   Reported when no  other criteria are available.

                 NCA - No criteria available.

-------
                           SECTION IX

                NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
SUMMARY

New source performance standards (NSPS)  are  equivalent  to  the
existing NSPS promulgated on May 9, 1974 (39 FR 16560) which were
upheld  by  the  United  States  Court  of  Appeals  in  American
Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023 (10th cir. 1976T

NSPS require a reduction in pollutant load  based  upon  BPT  in-
plant   and  end-of-pipe  treatment  plus  a  25  to  50  percent
wastewater flow reduction (depending upon subcategory).  BPT  in-
plant  technology  consists of widely used control practices such
as ammonia  and  sulfide  control,  elimination  of  once-through
barometric   condenser   water,   segregation   of   sewers,  and
elimination of polluted once-through cooling water.  BPT  end-of-
pipe  technology  consists  of flow equalization, initial oil and
solids separation (API  separator  or  baffle  plate  separator),
further  oil  and  solids  separation (clarifier or dissolved air
flotation),  biological  treatment,  and  filtration   or   other
"polishing"  steps.   NSPS  use  the flow model developed for the
1974 regulation to calculate pollutant loadings.

NSPS  regulate  the  discharge  of  the  following  conventional,
nonconventional  and  toxic pollutants from new refineries, which
include BOD5_, TSS COD, oil  and  grease,  total  phenols  (4AAP),
ammonia(N),""sulfide, total chromium, hexavalent chromium, and pH.

A  "new  source"  is  a  new  refinery  ("greenfield  site") or a
modification to an existing plant which is extensive enough to be
"substantially independent" of an existing source.  For  example,
as stated in the preamble to the proposed criteria for new source
determinations, 45 FR 59343 (September 9, 1980) the addition of a
structurally  separate  cracking  unit at the site of an existing
refinery that processes crude oil  by  the  use  of  topping  and
catalytic  reforming  would  be  considered a modification of the
existing source and not a new source, because the  cracking  unit
would not be a substantially independent process.

New Source performance standards are equal to existing NSPS; this
is Option 4 of the four options considered by EPA in this study.

Instructions   for  calculating  effluent  limitations  and  mass
limitation factors for each subcategory are in Section I.

The basis for  new  source  performance  standards  (NSPS)  under
Section  306  of  the  Act  is  the  best  available demonstrated
technology (BADT).  New plants have the opportunity to design the
best  and  most  efficient  petroleum  refining   processes   and
wastewater  treatment  technologies;  Congress therefore directed
                              237

-------
EPA to consider the best demonstrated process  changes,  in-plant
controls,  and  end-of-pipe  treatment  technologies  capable  of
reducing pollution to the maximum extent feasible.

NSPS  OPTIONS  CONSIDERED

EPA  considered  four control and treatment options for the final
new  source  performance  standards.   Options  1   and   2   were
considered  in  formulating the proposed rule and were based upon
the flow model for the proposed 1979 regulations.   Option 4,  the
existing   NSPS   level   of   control,  was  reconsidered  after
publication of the proposed  rule  as  a  result  of  the  public
comments and is based upon the 1974 flow model.

    Option 1 - Discharge flow reduction to 52 percent below model
    flow (flow model for 1979 proposal), achieved through greater
    reuse   and  recycle  of  wastewaters,  in  addition  to  BPT
    treatment.  This Option is equivalent to BAT Option 2.

    Option 2 - Discharge flow reduction to 27 percent below model
    flow (flow model for 1979 proposal), achieved through greater
    reuse  and  recycle  of  wastewaters  in  addition   to   BPT
    treatment,  plus  use  of granular activated carbon to reduce
    residual organic toxic pollutants.  This option is equivalent
    to BAT Option 5.

    Option 3 - Zero discharge of wastewater pollutants.

    Option 4 - Discharge flow reduction from  25  percent  to  50
    percent  below  BPT  model  flow, depending upon subcategory,
    achieved through greater reuse and recycle of wastewaters  in
    addition  to BPT treatment.  This option is the basis for the
    existing NSPS regulation, including the 1974 flow model  upon
    which the existing NSPS is based.

NSPS Option 1 - Effluent flow reduction to 52 percent below model
flow  (flow  model  for  1979  proposal)  plus  BPT  treatment is
equivalent to BAT Option 2.  The technology for  this  option  is
the  same  as that for the existing NSPS regulations - wastewater
recycle and reuse technologies, in addition  to  BPT  end-of-pipe
treatment.

The  Agency  compared  effluent reductions achievable by existing
NSPS and this option.  This comparison  concluded  that  effluent
reductions  are  comparable  to  the 1974 NSPS.  The analysis was
performed on a model  greenfield  new  source  refinery  (190,000
bbl/day,  cracking)  which  is  classified  as  a "Subcategory B"
refinery as defined  by  the  existing  regulation.   This  model
refinery  was  configured  to  correspond  with  demand growth as
published by the Department of Energy  (see the Economic  Analysis
document).   The costs to implement this option are comparable to
the  existing  NSPS   (see   Appendix   A).    Nonwater   quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements are also similar to
existing NSPS.

                               238

-------
Since  the  costs,  pollutant  removals/ energy and environmental
effects are comparable there would be no significant  benefit  in
adopting a regulation equivalent to BAT Option 2 (or BAT Option 7
which incorporates the refined flow model).

NSPS Option 2 - Effluent flow reduction to 27 percent below model
flow  (flow  model  for  1979  proposal)  plus BPT technology and
granular activated carbon (GAC) to remove residual organic  toxic
pollutants.   NSPS  Option 2 is equivalent to BAT Option 5, which
is also based on GAC end-of-pipe technology.

A major proportion  of  the  cost  of  GAC  treatment  is  annual
operating  expense  which will be similar for a new plant and for
an existing plant.  A new refinery will not  incur  the  retrofit
cost of flow reduction associated with BAT Option 5, however/ the
new  refinery  will  sustain  the capital costs of GAC technology
plus annual operating costs.  Estimates of these costs are  shown
in Appendix A.

For the reasons stated in the proceeding discussion on BAT Option
5/  the  Agency  believes  that GAC treatment is not demonstrated
technology for this industry.

NSPS Option 3 - Zero discharge of pollutants  is  a  demonstrated
technology.   However, the technology employed and the associated
costs are very site-specific.  This technology is  now  practiced
by  about  55 refineries in the United States where conditions of
climate and geology make zero discharge attractive.

The Agency estimated the pollutant removal benefits  which  would
accrue over and above existing NSPS for a typical 150/000 bbl/day
refinery  of  the cracking subcategory.  Daily pollutant removals
would be 2.46 Ib/day phenol, 3.9 Ib/day  hexavalent  chromium,  6
Ib/day total chromium, 308 Ib/day TSS and 381 Ib/day BOD.

Section   VII  and  the  discussion  on  BAT  Option  6  describe
technologies such as vapor compression distillation and deep well
injection which are available, but which have other cost,  energy
and environmental affects that must be considered for an industry
wide  regulation.   Unlike  BAT  Option  6,  a  newly constructed
refinery can be designed to  incorporate  zero  discharge  during
construction.   However,  annual  operating  costs remain high at
sites which do not have favorable conditions.

The Agency reported  a  costing  method  for  incorporating  zero
discharge  into  the  construction  of  a typical new refinery as
described by the American Petroleum Institute.  The  capital  and
annual  costs  for a typical petroleum refinery producing 150,000
barrels/day are estimated to be $11.6 million  and  $4.6  million
(1979  dollars),  respectively.   The industry indicated in their
comments that the energy consumed would cost $2,000,000 per year;
they also stated that 7,300 tons per year of solid waste would be
                              239

-------
generated.   EPA  believes  that  the  energy  and  solid   waste
estimates from the industry are reasonable approximations.

While  the Agency proposed zero discharge for NSPS in 1979, after
careful re-examination of the combined  effects  associated  with
NSPS Option 3, EPA has rejected this proposal because:

    1.    it   generates  significant  adverse  non-water  quality
         related  impacts,  including  the  production  of  large
         amounts of solid waste and high energy consumption;

    2.    the  cost of achieving zero discharge is estimated to be
         extremely high, especially in geographical areas of  low
         evapotranspiration   which   requires  energy  intensive
         forced evaporation techniques;

    3.    only  marginal  additional  water  pollution   reduction
         benefits would be achieved beyond the existing NSPS.

    4.    the  high  costs  of  implementation could raise serious
         barriers to any decision invovling construction of a new
         source refinery.

NSPS Option 4 - Effluent flow reduction to 25 to 50 percent below
model flow (ilow model for 1974 regulation) plus  BPT  technology
is equivalent to the existing NSPS.  Flow reduction of from 25 to
50 percent of average BPT flow, depending upon subcategory, would
be achieved by recycle and reuse technology.

Implementation of Option 4 would not cause the petroleum refining
industry  to  incur  any  additional  expense  beyond the cost of
meeting the current regulations for new direct discharge.

After careful consideration of  the  options  proposed  in  1979,
together  with  the public comments received, the Agency finds no
reason for revising current NSPS.

IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

EPA is retaining the existing NSPS which are based on recycle and
reuse technology resulting in  pollutant  reductions  that  range
from  25  to  50  percent beyond BPT removals, depending upon the
subcategory.  Regulated  pollutants  for  NSPS  are  BODS,  total
suspended  solids,  chemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, .total
phenols (4AAP), ammonia  (N), sulfide, total chromium,  hexavalent
chromium, and pH.

New  greenfield  refineries  are not expected to be built between
now and 1990.  Existing refineries, however, may be  modified  to
accommodate   the  heavier  and  higher  sulfur  crudes  which are
becoming  increasingly prevalent in the current oil  market.   The
change could  cause certain refineries, or parts of refineries, to
be  considered  new  sources.   However,  it is unlikely that the
                              240

-------
modification would be  extensive  enough  so  that   the   existing
refinery would be reclassified as a new source.
                              241

-------
                            SECTION X

       PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES


Summary

PSES - Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

Interm  final  PSES  were  promulgated by the Agency on March 23,
1977 (42 FR  15684)  and  are  currently  in  effect.   Regulated
pollutants  are  oil  and  grease (100 mg/L) and ammonia (N) (100
mg/L) each on a  daily  maximum  basis.   EPA  is  retaining  the
existing  PSES regulation, with one modification.  An alternative
mass limitation for ammonia (N) is provided  for  those  indirect
dischargers  whose  discharge to the POTW consists solely of sour
waters.  PSES is equivalent to Option 3 of the  three  technology
options considered by the Agency for pretreatment standards.

PSNS - Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

PSNS  were promulgated by the Agency on May 9, 1974  (39 FR  16560)
and  are  currently  in  effect.   Pretreatment   standards   for
incompatible  pollutants  are equivalent to NSPS.  Final PSNS are
equivalent to pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES),
except that they also regulate total chromium at  the  equivalent
of  1  mg/L  for the cooling tower discharge part of the refinery
flow to the POTW.  An alternative mass limitation for ammonia (N)
is  also  provided,  as  described  above  for  PSES.   PSNS   is
equivalent  to  Option 1 of the two technology options considered
by the Agency for pretreatment standards for new sources.

A new indirect discharging refinery of the size and  configuration
likely to be built in the 1980's would incur  additional  capital
costs  of $0.37 million and an annual cost of $0.26  million (1979
dollars) beyond the cost of complying with existing  PSNS.

Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for both existing sources (PSES) and new sources  (PSNS)
that discharge pollutants into  publicly  owned  treatment  works
(POTW).  PSES are designed to prevent the discharge  of pollutants
that  pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible
with the operation of the publicly owned treatment works  (POTW).
They  must  be  achieved within three years of promulgation.  The
legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates  that  pretreatment
standards  are  to  be  technology-based,  analogous  to the best
available  technology  for  removal  of  toxic  pollutants.   The
general  pretreatment  regulations, which served as  the framework
for the categorical pretreatment regulations are found in 40  CFR
Part  403  (43  FR  27736, June 26, 1978; 44 FR 9462, January 28,
1981) (also see Section I).
                              243

-------
The Clean Water Act  of  1977  requires  pretreatment  for  toxic
pollutants  that  pass  through  the  POTW  in amounts that would
violate direct discharger effluent limitations or interfere  with
the  POTW's  treatment  process or chosen sludge disposal method.
EPA has generally  determined  that  there  is  pass  through  of
pollutants  if  the  percent  of  pollutants  removed  by a well-
operated POTW achieving secondary  treatment  is  less  than  the
percent removed by the BAT model treatment system.

Like  PSES, PSNS are to prevent the discharge of pollutants which
pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible  with
the  operation  of  the  POTW.  PSNS are to be issued at the same
time  as  NSPS.   New  indirect  dischargers,  like  new   direct
dischargers,   have  the  opportunity  to  incorporate  the  best
available demonstrated technologies.  The  Agency  considers  the
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating
PSES.

Pollutants Not Regulated

The  toxic  pollutants  listed  in  Table  VI-9  were detected in
petroleum refinery waste streams that  are  discharged  to  POTW.
The  Agency  has  decided  not  to establish PSES for these toxic
pollutants in this industry for the following reasons:

The pollutants listed  in Part I and Part II  of  Table  VI-9  are
excluded  from national regulation in accordance with Paragraph  8
of the Settlement Agreement because they were either found to  be
susceptible  to  treatment by the POTW and do not interfere with,
pass through, or are not otherwise incompatible with the POTW, or
the  toxicity  and  amount  of   incompatible   pollutants   were
insignificant.

The pollutants listed  in Part III of Table VI-9 are excluded from
regulation  for  a  combination  of  reasons.   First,  there  is
significant removal of some of these pollutants by  the  existing
pretreatment  standards  for  oil  and  grease.  Second, there is
significant removal of all these pollutants by the POTW treatment
system.  Third, the amount and toxicity of these pollutants  does
not  justify developing national pretreatment standards.

The  Agency  did  not  propose requiring installation of BPT-type
treatment on an industrywide  basis for indirect dischargers.

PRETREATMENT OPTIONS CONSIDERED

EPA  considered  three control   and   treatment   options   for
pretreatment  standards  for  existing sources and two options for
pretreatment standards for new sources.  Options  1  and   2  were
considered   in  formulating   the  proposed  rule.  As a result of
public comments received,  an alternative  mass  limitation  for
ammonia  was  added to Option 1 after proposal of the regulation.
Option 3,  the existing PSES  level of  control,  was  reconsidered
                               244

-------
after  publication  of the proposed rule.  Option 3 also contains
an alternative mass limitation for ammonia (N).

    Option 1  - Chromium reduction by pH adjustment, precipitation
    and clarification technologies applied to segregated  cooling
    tower blowdown, plus control of oil and grease and ammonia at
    the existing PSES level of control.

    Option   2  -  Establishment  of  two  sets  of  pretreatment
    standards.   The  first  would  be  Option  1   control   for
    refineries  discharging  to  POTW  with  existing  or planned
    secondary treatment.  The second would be  Option  1  control
    plus  treatment for total phenols by biological treatment for
    those refineries discharging to a POTW that has been  granted
    a  waiver from secondary treatment requirements under Section
    301(h) of the Act.  EPA's proposed pretreatment standards for
    existing  sources  were  based  on  this   option.    Further
    discussion   is  provided  in  the  1979  proposed  petroleum
    refining regulation at 44 FR 75935.

    Option 3 - Reduction  of  oil  and  greases  and  ammonia  by
    oil/water separation and steam stripping technologies.

Evaluation of. Pretreatment Options Considered

Option 1 - Reduce chromium in cooling tower blowdown to 1 mg/L by
pH  adjustment/  precipitation,  and  clarification, and maintain
control of oil and grease and  ammonia  (N)  at  existing  (PSES)
level   of   control   (100   mg/L).   Include  alternative  mass
limitations for ammonia (N) for those refineries  that  discharge
only sour waters to the POTW.

For   the  1979  proposal,  the  Agency  estimated  the  cost  of
retrofitting the affected indirect  discharge  refineries  at  an
initial  investment  of  $11.7 million and an annual cost of ?6.8
million (1979 dollars).   These  estimates  assume  that  cooling
tower  waste  streams  are readily identifiable and separable for
all refineries (see Appendix A).

This option  presumes  the  industrywide  ability  to  segregate,
collect,  and  separately treat cooling tower blowdown, the major
source  of  chromium   for   this   industry.    The   wastewater
recycle/reuse   study   (see   Section   VII),   completed  after
publication of  the  proposed  regulation,  concluded  that,  for
existing  sources,  it  is  not technologically feasible, in many
instances, to  segregate  cooling  tower  blowdown  for  chromium
treatment.   Cooling  tower  blowdown  is  typically  effected at
numerous locations throughout a refinery.   Extensive  collection
systems  would  be  necessary  at  many refineries to collect all
blowdown streams for separate treatment.  In  addition,  not  all
cooling  tower  blowdown  streams are collectable.  For instance,
cooling  water  when  used  as  makeup  for  refinery  processing
                              245

-------
commingles with process water and cannot be traced or segregated,
especially in older refineries.

An  alternative,  treatment of the combined refinery waste stream
for chromium removal, would require installation of most, if  not
all,  of  the BPT treatment train.  Installation of BPT treatment
for all existing indirect dischargers  would  cost  an  estimated
$110  million in capital costs, and an annual cost of $42 million
(1979  dollars).   This  estimate  represents  the  maximum  cost
estimated  by  assuming  installation  of  BPT  treatment for all
indirect dischargers (See Option 2).

New refineries have  the  opportunity  to  design  separation  of
cooling  tower  waste  streams  into  the system and do not incur
retrofit costs or the cost of treating  combined  waste  streams.
Separate  treatment  of  cooling  tower  blowdown  may be readily
applied by new source indirect dischargers.  The Agency estimated
the incremental cost of incorporating Option 1  technology  in  a
new source at an annual investment of $0.37 million and an annual
cost of $0.26 million (1979 dollars) (see Appendix A).

Option  2  -  Establish  two sets of criteria; one for refineries
that  discharge  to  POTW  with  existing  or  planned  secondary
treatment,  and  one  for refineries that discharge to POTW which
have received a Section 301(h) waiver.

Under Section 301
-------
total  phenols.  Treatment for total phenols (4AAP) would require
the addition of BPT end-of-pipe treatment.

Total  cost  of  implementing  Option  2  for  existing  indirect
dischargers  could not be calculated for the 1979 proposal, since
no POTW had yet been granted a Section 301(h) waiver.  The Agency
did estimate the cost of installing biological treatment for each
indirect discharge refinery.  The Agency also estimated the  cost
of  installing  Option  1   treatment technology for each indirect
discharging refinery.  There was no determination of which of the
refineries would ultimately  discharge  to  POTW  with  secondary
treatment  versus those that would discharge to POTW with Section
301(h) waivers.  However,  if all indirect discharging  refineries
were  required  to install biological (BPT end-of-pipe) treatment
systems, the maximum cost to the industry  would  be  an  initial
capital  investment  of  $110  million  and an annual cost of $42
million (1979 dollars) (Appendix A).

Option 2 was proposed  in  the  December  1979  regulation.   The
rationale  was  that  a POTW with a primary treatment system will
not adequately remove the toxics from the refinery.  A POTW  with
primary   treatment  that  receives  waste  from  refineries  was
sampled.  The results indicated  that  removal  effectiveness  is
significantly  less than that of a secondary system (see Appendix
B - Raw Plant Data).

There are currently three POTW which recieve refinery wastes that
can apply for Section 301(h) variances.  In  order  to  obtain  a
301(h) variance, the POTW must be able to demonstrate that:

    o   The  discharge  will not interfere with the attainment or
         maintenance  of  water   quality   which   assures   the
         protection  of  public water supplies and the protection
         and propagation of a balanced, indigeneous population of
         shellfish, fish and  wildlife  and  allows  recreational
         activities, in and on the water, (Section 301(h)(2);

    o  The POTW has a monitoring system to measure, to the extent
         practicable,   the   impact   of   the  discharge  on  a
         representative  sample  of   aquatic   biota,   (Section
         301(h)(3);

    o   The  discharge will not impose additional requirements on
         any other point or nonpoint source, ^Section 301(h)(4);

    o   All  applicable  pretreatment  standards  are   enforced,
         (Section 301(h)(5);

    o   The  POTW,  to  the  extent  possible,  has established a
         schedule  of  activities  designed  to   eliminate   the
         entrance of toxic pollutants from non-industrial sources
         into the treatment works,  (Section 301(h)(6));
                              247

-------
    o   There  will  be  no substantial increase in the volume of
         discharged pollutants to which the modification  applies
         from the treatment works.

The  degree  of treatment required for a POTW obtaining a Section
301(h) waiver is determined after evaluating, among other things,
the physical characteristics of the discharge and the  nature  of
the  receiving  waters.   Treatment  levels  vary  for every POTW
because of the importance of these site-specific  factors;  thus,
the  levels of toxic pollutants which pass through will also vary
significantly in each case.

EPA now believes that it is not feasible and  that  it  would  be
inappropriate  to  establish national pretreatment standards that
take into account whether a discharger  uses  a  POTW  which  has
received  a  301(h)  waiver.   Rather, the need for more rigorous
pretreatment controls should be resolved on a case-by-case  basis
during the Section 301 (h) waiver process, depending on the degree
of the toxic pollutant problems in each instance.

Option  3  -  Reduce  oil  and  grease  and  ammonia by oil/water
separation and steam  stripping  technologies.   This  option  is
equivalent  to  existing  PSES  except  that  an  alternate  mass
limitation for ammonia is provided  for  ammonia  (N)  for  those
refineries   that   discharge  only  sour  waters  to  the  POTW.
Regulated pollutants are oil and  grease  and  ammonia  (N)  (100
mg/L), each on a daily maximum basis.

Option  3  does  not  limit  the concentration of chromium in the
effluent of indirect dischargers.  At the time of  proposal,  the
Agency  believed  such  concentrations  of chromium would limit a
POTW's use or management alternatives of the sludge.  Based  upon
review of existing information and analysis of public comments on
the proposal, EPA has determined that this rationale is not valid
on  a  nation  wide basis.  For this industry, chromium levels in
sludge from POTW receiving petroleum refinery wastes generally do
not impact sludge disposition or alternatives for use.  There are
no Section 405 sludge standards  directed  at  concentrations  of
chromium  in  the sludge.  Therefore, EPA has determined that the
better approach is to  permit  the  POTW  to  establish  chromium
pretreatment  standards  for  existing  sources  if refinery waste
would limit their  sludge  disposal  alternatives.   The  general
pretreatment  regulations specifically provide the POTW with this
authority.  (See 40 CFR 403.5).

This option is the basis for  the  existing  interim  final  PSES
regulation.   An  alternative  mass limitation for ammonia  (N) is
provided to those indirect dischargers  whose  discharge  to  the
POTW  consists  solely  of  "sour  waters.  Sour waters generally
result from water brought into direct contact with a  hydrocarbon
stream,  and  contains sulfides, ammonia and phenols.  The Agency
developed an alternative mass limitation for ammonia in  response
to  public comments received on the proposed regulation.  Several
                             248

-------
commenters indicated that, when the  refinery  discharge  to  the
POTW  consists solely of sour waters, achievement of the 100 mg/L
ammonia concentration limitation is often not possible.  This  is
because   steam   stripping   technology,   the   basis  for  the
limitations,  cannot consistently reduce  ammonia  in  sour  water
streams  to  the  100  mg/L  level.   Thus,  an  equivalent  mass
limitation for ammonia was developed by the Agency.

IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

PSES - EPA has selected Option 3, retention of the existing level
of control, for final regulation of existing  indirect  discharge
refineries.   Option  1  was rejected because the Agency found it
infeasible in many instances to segregate cooling tower  blowdown
for  chromium  treatment  on  an  industrywide basis for existing
refineries.  Option 2 was rejected on the basis that it would  be
inappropriate   to   establish   separate  national  pretreatment
standards for those refineries that discharge to POTW which  have
a  Section 301(h) waiver because the conditions surrounding those
installations are very site specific and can be better  evaluated
by  the  individual  POTW.   The general pretreatment regulations
specifically provide POTW  with authority to institute  standards
for  pretreatment  of  industrial  discharges  which limit sludge
disposal options.

PSNS - The Agency has selected Option 1 for the regulation of new
sources.  Segregation and separate  treatment  of  cooling  tower
blowdown can fae implemented with little additional expense in the
design and construction of new refineries.  Option 2 was rejected
for the same reasons discussed under PSES.
                               249

-------
                           SECTION XI

                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Many    individuals    representing    numerous    organizations,
corporations, and agencies have contributed  material,  time  and
energy  to  the  technical  studies conducted in developing these
effluent  limitations  guidelines  and  standards,  and  to   the
production of this document.

This  document  was  prepared  under  the direction of Mr. Dennis
Ruddy and Mr. John Lum, Project Officers in the Energy and Mining
Branch of EPA's Effluent Guidelines  Division.   Mr.  William  A.
Telliard,  Chief  of  the Energy and Mining Branch, also provided
direction and assistance during the course of the program.

The Agency  wishes  to  acknowledge  the  contributions  to  this
project  of  Burns  and  Roe  Industrial  Services Corporation of
Paramus, New Jersey under the direction of Mr. Arnold S. Vernick,
Manager of Environmental Engineering, and Mr. Elwood  C.  Walker,
Program Director.

The   cooperation   and  assistance  of  the  American  Petroleum
Institute and of the numerous company and refinery personnel  who
were  involved  in  data  gathering  efforts/  site  studies, and
wastewater  sampling  programs  are  greatly  appreciated.    The
Agency's  Robert  S.  Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, all
EPA regional offices, and the County Sanitation Districts of  Los
Angeles are specifically acknowledged for their efforts.

Appreciation  is  expressed  to  those  at  EPA  Headquarters who
contributed to the completion  of  this  project,  including  Mr.
Jeffery  Denit  of  the Effluent Guidelines Division; Ms. Eleanor
Zimmerman of the Monitoring and Data Support Division; Mr.  Louis
DuPuis,  Mr.  John  Kukulka,  and Mr. Henry Kahn of the Office of
Analysis and Evaluation; and Ms. Susan Lepow and Mr. Mark  Gordon
of the Office of General Counsel.
                              251

-------
                           SECTION XII

                           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,
         DC, 1969.

3.       Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
         andNewSource  Performance  Standards  for  Petroleum
         Refining,  EPA-440/l-74-014a/  April 1974, Environmental
         Protection Agency, Washington,  DC.

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

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

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

7.       Easthagen, J.H. et al., "Development of  Refinery  Waste
         Water Control at Pascagoula, Mississippi," Journal Water
         Pollution  Control Federation,  Vol. 37, No. 12, December
         1965.

8.       Beychock, M.  R.,  Aqueous  Wastes  from  Petroleum  and
         Petrochemical Plants, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967.

9.       Klett, R. J., "Treat Sour Water for Profit," Hydrocarbon
         Processing, pp. 98-99, October, 1972.

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

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

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

13.      Congram, G. E., "Refiners Zero In on Better  Desalting,"
         The Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 153-154, December 30, 1974.
                              253

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

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

16.       "New Ion-Exchange  System Treats Sour Water," The Oil and
         Gas Journal,  pp.  88-89, February 11, 1971.

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

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

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

20.       Gantz,  R.  G.,   "API  -  Sour  Water  Stripper  Studies,"
         Proceedings  American  Petroleum  Institute, Section III
         Refining,  Vol. 54, pp. 39-66, 1975.

21.       Short,   T.E.   et  al.,  "Petroleum   Refining   Phenolic
         Wastewaters,"  American  Chemical  Society, Div. of Fuel
         Chemistry, paper presented at  168th  National  Meeting,
         September 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 and Conference, April  4-5,
         1968.

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

24.       1972 Sour Water Stripping Survey Evaluation, Publication
         No. 927,  prepared  for  American  Petroleum   Institute,
         Washington, DC, June  1972.

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

26.       Analysis of the 1972  API-EPA Raw Waste Load Survey Data,
         Brown & Root, Inc., API publication  No. 4200,  July  1974.
                              254

-------
27.       Diehl, D. S. et al.,   "Effluent  Quality  Control  at  a
         Large  Oil  Refinery,"  Journal  Water Pollution Control
         Federation,  Vol. 43,  No. 11, p. 2254, November 1971.

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

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


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

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

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

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

35.       Aalund, L. 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, pp. 151-152, September, 1975.

37.       State  and  Local  Pretreatment   Programs   -   Federal
         Guidelines,  January 1977, U.S. Environmental Protection
         Agency, Washington, D.C.

38.       Refinery Effluent Water Treatment Plant Using  Activated
         Carbon, June 1975, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
         EPA-660/2-75-020.

39.       Assessment of_ Hazardous Waste Practices in. the Petroleum
         Refining Industry, prepared by  Jacobs  Engineering  Co,
                              255

-------
         for  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  June 1976,
         Contract No.  68-01-2288.

40.       Report to Congress - Disposal of_ Hazardous Wastes,  U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No. SW-115,
         1974.

41.       Elkin,  H.  F.,  "Biological  Oxidation  and  Reuse   of
         Refinery  Wastewater  for  Pollution  Control  and Water
         Conservation," Division of Refining, Vol. 36,  No.  Ill,
         p. 340, 1956.

42.       Elkin, H.  F.  et  al.,  "Biological  Oxidation  of  Oil
         Refinery  Wastes  in  Cooling  Tower  Systems," Sewage &
         Industrial Wastes, Vol. 28, No. 12,  p.  1475,  December
         1956.

43.       Mohler, E. F., et al., "Experience with Reuse  and  Bio-
         oxidation  of  Refinery  Wastewaters in Cooling Towers,"
         Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 36, No.
         11, p. 1380,  November 1964.

44.       Wiley, M.  A.,  "Chromium  Analysis",  API  Proceedings,
         Holiday Inn,  Arlington, VA, May 25 and June 11, 1973.

45.       "Coastal Water Research  Project,"  Southern  California
         Coastal   Water   Research  Project  (SCCWRP),  1500  E.
         Imperial Highway, El Segundo, CA 90245,  Annual  Report,
         June 1975.

46.       "Environmental   Effect   of   Disposal   of   Municipal
         Wastewater  in Open Coastal Waters," Southern California
         Coastal  Water  Research  Project   (SCCWRP),   1500   E.
         Imperial Highway, El Segundo, CA 90245, August 1975.

47.       Donaldson,   W.   T.,   "Trace   Organics   in   Water,"
         Environmental  Science  and  Technology,  Vol. 11 No. 4,
         April, 1977.

48.       Interim  Final  Supplement  for  Pretreatment   to   the
         Development   Document   for   the   Petroleum  Refining
         IndustrvTExisting   Point   Source   Category,   U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency EPA 400/1-76/083a, March
         1977.

49.       Davis, J. C., "Activated Carbon: Prime Choice  to  Boost
         Secondary  Treatment,"  Chemical  Engineering, April 11,
         1977, pp. 81-83.

50.       Grutsch, J. F. and Mallatt, R. C.,  "A New Perspective on
         the Role of the Activated Sludge Process  and  Ancillary
         Facilities,"  presented  at the Open Forum on Management
         of Petroleum Refinery Wastewaters, January 26-29, 1976.
                              256

-------
51.       Gould,  J.  P.  and Weber,  W. J., "Oxidation of Phenols  by
         Ozone," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.
         48,  No. 1, January 1976.

52.       Zogorski,  J.  S. and Faust, S.D.,  "Removing  Phenols  via
         Activated  Carbon,"  Chemical  Engineering Progress, pp.
         65-66,  May 1977.

53.       Gesick, J. A.,   "A  Comparative  Study  of  Non-Chromate
         Cooling  Water  Corrosion  Inhibitors," presented at the
         35th  Annual   International  Water  Conference  of   the
         Engineers'  Society of Western Pennsylvania, October 31,
         1974.

54.       Zecher, D. C.,  "Corrosion Inhibition by Surface - Active
         Chelants,"  presented  at  the  International  Corrosion
         Forum,  Toronto, Canada,  April 14-18, 1975.

55.       Robitaille, D.  R.  and Bilek,  J. G., "Molybdate  Cooling-
         Water  Treatments,"  Chemical  Engineering, December 20,
         1976.

56.       Bush,  K. E.,  "Refinery Wastewater Treatment and  Reuse,"
         Chemical Engineering, April 12, 1976.

57.       Mohler, E. F.,  Jr., and Clere, L.  T.,  "Development  of
         Extensive  Water  Reuse and Bio-Oxidation in a Large Oil
         Refinery," Complete Water Reuse,  American  Institute  of
         Chemical  Engineers, Library of Congress Catalog No. 73-
         87964,   based  on  papers  presented  at  the   National
         Conference on Complete Water Reuse, April 23-27, 1973.

58.       Mohler, E. F.,  Jr., and Clere, L. T., "Sun Oil  Develops
         Water Reuse Program,H The Oil and Gas Journal, September
         10,  1973.

59.       Crame,  L.  W., "Activated Sludge Enhancement:   A  Viable
         Alternative to Tertiary Carbon Adsorption," presented at
         the  Open  Forum  on  Management  of  Petroleum Refining
         Wastewater, June 6-9, 1977.

60.       Grieves,  C.   G.  et  al.,  "Powdered  Activated  Carbon
         Enhancement  of  Activated  Sludge  for  BATEA  Refinery
         Wastewater Treatment," presented at the  Open  Forum  on
         Management  of  Petroleum Refinery Wastewater, June 6-9,
         1977.

61.       Heath,  H.  W., Jr., "Combined Powdered Activated Carbon -
         Biological  ("PACT")  Treatment  of  40  MGD  Industrial
         Waste,"  presented  at  Symposium  on  Industrial  Waste
         Pollution Control at A.C.S. National Meeting, March  24,
         1977.
                               257

-------
62.      Dehnert,  J.  F.,  "Case History  -  The  Use  of  Powdered
         Activated  Carbon  With a Biodisc-Filtration Process for
         Treatment of Refinery Wastes,"  presented  at  the  Open
         Forum  on  Management  of Petroleum Refinery Wastewater,
         June 6-9, 1977.

63.      Zanitsch, R. H., and  Lynch,  R.  T.,  "Granular  Carbon
         Reactivation:  State-of-the-Art,"  presented at the Open
         Forum on Management of  Petroleum  Refinery  Wastewater,
         June 6-9, 1977.

64.      Process   Design   Manual   for    Carbon    Adsorption,
         Environmental  Protection  Agency  Technology  Transfer,
         October 1973.

65.      Ford, D.L. and Tischler, L. F., "Meeting  BPT  Standards
         for  Refinery  Wastewater Treatment," Industrial Wastes,
         July/August 1977.

66.      Proceedings of_ the 1972 National Conference  on  Control
         of_  Hazardous  Materials  Spills, University of Houston,
         March 21-23, 1972.

67.      Spill  Prevention  Techniques  for  Hazardous  Pollution
         Substances,   prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc., for the
         U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  February  1971,
         Contract No. 14-12-927.

68.      Industrial  Process  Profiles  for  Environmental   Use.
         "Chapter3  - Petroleum Refining Industry," prepared by
         Radian   Corporation,   for   the   U.S.   Environmental
         Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-77-023C, January  1977.

69.      Rizzo, J. L. and Shepard, A.  R.,  "Treating   Industrial
         Wastewater with Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering.
         January 3,  1977.

70.      DeWall, F.B. et al., "Organic Matter Removal by Powdered
         Activated Carbon Added  to  Activated  Sludge,"  Journal
         Water Pollution Control Federation, April  1977.

71.      Thibault, G. T. et al.,  "PACT  Performance  Evaluated,"
         Hydrocarbon Processing, May  1977.

72.      Lanouette, K. H. and Paulson, E. G., "Treatment of Heavy
         Metals in Wastewater,"  Pollution  Engineering,  October
         1976.

73.      Petroleum Refineries iji the  United  States  and  Puerto
         Rico, Mineral Industry Bureau of Mines, January 1,  1977.
         Surveys,   Washington,  D.C.,  U.S.  Department  of  the
         Interior,
                              258

-------
74.      Petroleum Refineries in the  United  States  and  Puerto
         Rico,Washington,  D.C.,  National  Petroleum  Refiners
         Association,  July 22, 1977.

75.      Sampling  and  Analysis  Procedures  for  Screening   of_
         Industrial   Effluents  for  Priority  Pollutants.  U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  OH,  April
         1977.

76.      Preliminary Industry Profile Data, prepared by Burns and
         RoeIndustrial  Services  Corporation,  for  the   U.S.
         Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Effluent  Guidelines
         Division, December 30, 1976.

77.      "Worldwide  Directory,  Refining  and  Gas   Processing,
         1976-1977," The Oil and Gas Journal, 34th Edition, 1976.

78.      S-l.  Analysis of_ Self Reporting Data From Refineries  To
         Determine   Compliance   with   July  1^  1977  Effluent
         Limitations.prepared  by  Burns  and   Roe  Industrial
         Services   Corporation,   for   the  U.S.  Environmental
         Protection   Agency,   Effluent   Guidelines   Division,
         February 22,  1977.

79.      S-2.   Selection  of  Refineries  for   RSKERL   Sampling
         Program.  preparecTby Burns and  Roe Industrial Services
         Corporation,   for  the  U.S.  Environmental   Protection
         Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, February 22, 1977.

80.      Analytical Variability of  Five  Wastewater  Parameters,
         Petroleum  Refining Industry, prepared by Robert S. Kerr
         Environmental  Research   Laboratory,   for   the   U.S.
         Environmental   Protection   Agency,   EPA-600/2-76-234,
         September 1976.

81.      Economic  Analysis   of.   Interim   Final   Pretreatment
         Standards  for  the  Petroleum  Refining  Industry. U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/1-77-002, April
         1977.
82.      Askins, W., and Wilcox, D. R., "Tertiary Treatment of an
         Organic Chemicals  Plant  Effluent,"  prepared  for  the
         Ninth  Mid-Atlantic  Industrial Waste Conference, August
         8-9, 1977.

83.      Talbot, R.S., "A New Redox Method for  Complete  Removal
         of  Chromium  from  Wastewater,"  prepared for the Ninth
         Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste  Conference,  August  8-9,
         1977.

84.      "Injections Pep Up Cat Crackers," Chemical  Week.  April
         13, 1977.
                              259

-------
85.       Schwartz,  R.  D.,  and McCoy/   C.J.,   "The  Use  of  Fluid
         Catalytic   Cracking   Catalyst   in   Activated  Sludge
         Wastewater Treatment/1 Journal Water  Pollution  Control
         Federation, Vol.  48, No.  2,  February 1976.

86.       Ford,  D.  L.,  "Putting Activated Carbon in Perspective to
         1983 Guidelines," Industrial Water Engineering, May/June
         1977.

87.       Economic Analysis of. Proposed Revised Effluent Standards
         and Limitations for  the  Petroleum * Refining  Industry,
         U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-440/2-79-027,
         November 1979.

88.       From  Refinery  Wastes  to  Pure   Water,   Hydrotechnic
         Corporation,  New York, NY, undated.

89.       Siegal, B. A. and Barrel, R. C.,  "Community  Metabolism
         in  a  Refinery  Holding  Pond," Journal Water Pollution
         Control Federation, Vol.  48, No. 10, October 1976.
90.      Baird, R. et  al.,  "Behavior  of  Benzidine  and  Other
         Aromatic   Amines   in  Aerobic  Wastewater  Treatment,"
         Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, July 1977.

91.      Reed,  J.   L.,   "Outlook   for   Refinery   Capacity,"
         Hydrocarbon Processing, June 1977.

92.      Maclean, W. D., "Construction Site Selection  -  A  U.S.
         Viewpoint," Hydrocarbon Processing, June 1977.

93.      Jenkins, D. M.  and  Sheppard,  W.  J.,  "What  Refinery
         Pollution  Abatement Costs," Hydrocarbon Processing, May
         1977.

94.      Hatch, L.  F.  and  Matar,  S.,  "From  Hydrocarbons  to
         Petrochemicals," Hydrocarbon Processing, June 1977.

95.      Becker, K.P. and Wall, C.F., "Fluid Bed Incineration  of
         Wastes," Chemical Engineering Progress, October 1976.

96.      "Putting  Powdered  Carbon  in  Wastewater   Treatment,"
         Environmental  Science  and  Technology, Vol. 11, No. 9,
         September 1977.

97.      Puckorius, P.,  "New  Cooling-Water-Systerns  Treatment,"
         The Oil and Gas Journal, July 5, 1971.

98.      Nicholas, G.W., and Sopocy, D.M.,  "Evaluation of Cooling
         Tower Environmental Effects," Combustion, November  1974.

99.      Kempling, J.C. and Eng, J., "Performance  of  Dual-Media
         Filters-2," Chemical Engineering Progress, April 1977.
                              260

-------
100.      Porter,  J.W.  et al.,  "Zero Discharge of Wastewater  From
         Petroleum   Refineries/1    prepared   for  the  National
         Conference on Complete Water Reuse, April 23-27,  1973.

101.      Lindsay,  J.T.   and  Pratter,  B.V.,  "Solving  Petroleum
         Refinery  Wastewater  Problems," Journal Water Pollution
         Control  Federation,  August 1977.

102.      Neff,  B.,  "The Development of Petroleum Refinery  Liquid
         Effluent  Controls,"  prepared  for  members of the U.S.
         Environmental  Protection  Agency  by  Water   Pollution
         Control  Directorate,  Environment Canada, March 3, 1977.

103.      Status Report on Abatement of. Water Pollution  From  the
         Canadian   Petroleum   Refinery    Industrv-1975,    Water
         Pollution  Control  Directorate,   Environment   Canada,
         Report No. EPS-3-WP-76, December 1976.

104.      Economic  Analysis  of_ Proposed  Effluent   Guidelines,
         Petroleum    Refinery   Industry,   U.S.   Environmental
         Protection Agency, EPA -230/1-73-020, September 1973.

105.      Huber, L.J.,  "State and Development in Refinery Effluent
         Purification," prepared for the   Ninth  World  Petroleum
         Congress,  1975.

106.      Statistical Package  for   the Social  Sciences,   Second
         Edition,  McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.

107.      Beychok,  Milton  R.,   "State-of-the-Art  in  Sour  Water
         Stripping," prepared for  the Open Forum on Management of
         Petroleum Refinery Wastewater, June 6-9, 1977.

108.      Screening  Survey  for Priority  Pollutants,  Petroleum
         Refining  Industry,  Draft Report, prepared by the Robert
         S.  Kerr  Environmental Research Laboratory, for the  U.S.
         Environmental Protection  Agency, September 1977.

109.      Watkins,   J.P.,   "Controlling   Sulfur   Compounds   in
         Wastewaters," Chemical Engineering, October 17, 1977.

110.      Paulson,  E.G., "How  to  Get  Rid  of  Toxic  Organics,"
         Chemical Engineering, October 17, 1977.

111.      Ford,  D.L., and Elton, R.L., "Removal of Oil and  Grease
         from   Industrial  Wastewaters,"  Chemical  Engineering,
         October  17, 1977.

112.      Lanouette,  K.H.,  "Heavy  Metals   Removal,"   Chemical
         Engineering,  October 17,  1977.

113.      Lanouette,  K.H.,  "Treatment   of   Phenolic   Wastes,"
         Chemical Engineering, October 17, 1977.
                              261

-------
114.      Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
         and New Source Performance  Standards  for  the  Copper,
         Nickel, Chromium,  and Zinc Segment of the Electroplating
         Point  Source  Category.  U.S.   Environmental Protection
         Agency, EPA-440/l-74-003-a,  March 1974.

115.      Grulich,  G. et  al.,  "Treatment  of  Organic  Chemicals
         Plant Wastewater With DuPont PACT Process," prepared for
         the AICHE Meeting,  February 1972.

116.      Button,  D.G.,  and  Robertaccio,  F.L.,   U.S.   Patent
         3,904,518, September 9,  1975.

117.      Bloch, Heinz P.,  "Improve  Safety  and  Reliability  of
         Pumps  and Drivers," Hydrocarbon Processing, pp. 97-100,
         January 1977.

118.      Natural Resources Defense Council et al.,  y_._  Train,  8
         E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976).

119.      Thibodeaux, L.J.,   and  Millican,  J.D.,  "Quantity  and
         Relative  Desorption Rates of Air-Strippable Organics in
         Industrial  Wastewater,"   Environmental   Science   and
         Technology. Vol. 11, No. 9,  September 1977.

120.      Knowlton, H.E., "Biodisks Work in Waste-Water Treating,"
         The Oil and Gas Journal. October 3, 1977.

121.      Kunz,  R.G.  et  al.,  "Cooling   Water   Calculations,"
         Chemical Engineering. August 1, 1977.

122.      Environmental   Considerations   of_   Selected    Energy
         Conserving  ManufacturingProcess  Options;   Vol.  IV.
         Petroleum Refining Industry Report,  U.S.  Environmental
         Protection Agency,  EPA-600/7-76-034d, December 1976.

123.      Dellinger,  R.  W.,  "Incorporation  of   the   Priority
         Pollutants into Effluent Guidelines Division Documents,"
         prepared  for  the Open Forum on Management of Petroleum
         Refinery Wastewater, Tulsa,  Oklahoma, June 7,  1977.

124.      S-3^ Selection of. Refineries  for  B  &  R  Supplemental
         Sampling  Program,   prepared by Burns and Roe  Industrial
         Services  Corporation,  for  the  U.  S.   Environmental
         Protection  Agency,  Effluent Guidelines Division, March
         18, 1977, revised May 4, 1977.

125.      Data  Base  for  the  Review  of.  Effluent   Limitations
         Guidelines  (BATEA),  New  Source Performance Standards,
         and Pretreatment Standards for  the  PetroleumRefining
         Point  Source  Category,  Paramus,  N.J.,  Burns and Roe
         Industrial Services Corporation, December 1977.
                              262

-------
126.      "Electrolytic Coagulation Cleans Waste Water,"  Chemical
         and Engineering News,  January 23, 1978.

127.      Reed,  D.T.,  Klen,  E.F.,  and Johnson,  D.A.,  "Use  Stream
         Softening  to Reduce Pollution," Hydrocarbon Processing,
         November 1977.

128.      Finelt,  S.  and Crump,  J.R., "Pick the Right Water  Reuse
         System," Hydrocarbon Processing, October 1977.

129.      Telliard, W. A., Rationale for the  Development  o_f  BAT
         Priority Pollutant Parameters, May 24, 1977.

130.      Grutsch, J.F. and Mallatt,  R.C.,  "Optimizing  Granular
         Media Filtration," Chemical Engineering Progress, April,
         1977.

131.      Lash,  L., "Scale-up of Granular Media Filters," Chemical
         Engineering Progress,  April 1977.
132.      Brody,  M.A.  et al., "Performance of Dual-Media Filters,"
         Chemical Engineering Progress.  April 1977.

         Upflow Filtration," Chemical Engineering Progress, April
         1977.

134.      Bardone, L.  et al., Costs of Reducing SOs Emissions  and
         Improving   Effluent   Water  Quality  from  Refineries,
         Concawe, Report NR., March 1977.

135.      Heath,  H.W., Jr., "Chambers Works  Wastewater  Treatment
         Plant  Removal  of Organic and Organo-Nitrogen Compounds
         From Wastewater," unpublished report .to Robert  S.  Kerr
         Environmental  Research  Laboratory,  November  1976  to
         April 1977.

136.      Hakansson, H.  et  al.,  Petroleum  and  Petrochemicals,
         Swedish  Water  and  Air  Pollution Research Laboratory,
         B346,  Stockholm, January 1977.

137.      Matthews, J.E. et al., Acute Toxic Effects of.  Petroleum
         Refinery   Wastewaters  on  Redear  Sunfish.  Office  of
         Research and Development, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
         Agency, EPA-600/2-76-241, October 1976.

138.      Pendleton, H.E., Ph.D., "Petroleum and the Environment,"
         Pollution Engineering. September 1977.

139.      Dickerman, J.C. et al., Industrial Process Profiles  for
         Environmental    Use   "Chapter   3-Petroleum   Refining
         Industry," U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  EPA-
         600/2-77-023C, January 1977.
                              263

-------
140.      "Industry's Challenge-on Benzene," Business Weeks August
         22,  1977.

141.      Gubrud,  A.E.,   remarks  at  the  Federal  Water  Quality
         Association  Conference on Toxic Substances in the Water
         Environment, April 28,  1977.

142.      Weiss,   A.E.,   remarks  at  the  Federal  Water  Quality
         Pollutants in the Aquatic Environment," prepared for the
         Open   Forum   on   Management   of  Petroleum  Refinery
         Wastewater, June 7, 1977.

143.      Kuserk,  F., "Texaco Has the  Right  Answer  for  Cleaner
         Refinery Effluents," New Jersey Effluents, October 1977.

144.      DeWalle,  F.B.  et  al.,  "Organic  Matter  Removal   by
         Powdered  Activated  Carbon  Added to Activated Sludge,"
         Journal  Water Pollution Control Federation, April 1977.

145.      Grieves,  C.G.,  "Powdered  Carbon  Improves   Activated
         Sludge Treatment," Hydrocarbon Processing, October 1977.

146.      Ford,  O.L.  et  al.,   "Meeting   BPT   Standards   for
         Intermediate    and    Secondary   Refinery   Wastewater
         Treatment," Industrial Wastes, September/October 1977.
147.     Hannah, S.A. et al., "Removal of Uncommon  Trace  Metals
         by  Physical  and Chemical Treatment Processes," Journal
         Water Pollution Control Federation, November 1977.

148.     Electron  Microscopic  Analysis  of.  Water  Samples  for
         Asbestos,  Final Report, GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology
         Division, December 1977.

149.     Analysis of Petroleum  Refinery  Effluents  for  Organic
         Priority   Pollutants,   Draft   Final  Report,  Midwest
         Research Institute, March 1978.

150.     Water  Reuse  Studies,  API  Publication  949,  American
         Petroleum Institute, August 1977.

151.     Cost Manual for the  Direct  Discharge  Segment  of_  the
         Petroleum  Refining  Industry, prepared by Burns and Roe
         Industrial   Services   Corporation,   for   the    U.S.
         Enviornmental Protection Agency March 1979.

152.     Rizzo, J.A., "Case History:  Use of  Powdered  Activated
         Carbon  in an Activated Sludge System," prepared for the
         First Open  Forum  on  Petroleum  Refinery  Wastewaters,
         Tulsa, OK, January 1976.

153.     Grieves, C.G. et al.,  "Effluent Quality  Improvement  by
         Powdered  Activated  Carbon in Refinery Activated Sludge
                              264

-------
         Processes," prepared for the  API  Refining  Department,
         42nd Midyear Meeting,  Chicago, Illinois, May 11, 1977.

154.      Thibault,   G.T.,   Tracy,  K.D.,   and  Wilkinson,   J.B.,
         "Evaluation  of  Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment for
         Improving Activated Sludge  Performance,"  prepared  for
         the  API  Refining  Department,   42nd  Midyear  Meeting,
         Chicago, IL, May  11, 1977.

155.      Flynn,  B.P.,  "Startup  of  38  MGD  Powdered  Activated
         Carbon  -  Activated  Sludge  (PACT) Treatment System at
         DuPont's Chambers Works," prepared for the  50th  Annual
         Water    Pollution    Control   Federation   conference,
         Philadelphia, PA, October 3, 1977.

156.      Robertaccio, F.L., "Combined Powdered Activated Carbon -
         Biological Treatment:  Theory and Results," prepared  for
         the   Second  Open  Forum  on  Management  of  Petroleum
         Refinery Wastewaters,  Tulsa, OK, June 8, 1977.

157.      Spady,  B.  and Adams, A.D.,  "Improved  Activated  Sludge
         Treatment  With  Carbon,"  Deeds £ Data, Water Pollution
         Control Federation, January 1976."

158.      Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
         and Standards for the PetroleumRefining  Point  Source
         Category.      U.S.   Environmental   Protection   Agency
         440/1-79/014-b, December 1979.

159.      Wastewater Recycle Study - Petroleum Refining  Industry,
         preparedby  Burns   and   Roe   Industrial  Services
         Corporation for the U.S.E.P.A. E.G.D., November 1980.

160.      Preliminary Screening of the  1979  Effluent  Monitoring
         (BPT)Data,  prepared  by  Burns  and  Roe  Industrial
         Services  Corporation   for   the   U.S.   Environmental
         Protection   Agency,   Effluent   Guidelines   Division,
         September 1982.

161.      Petroleum  Refining  Self  Monitoring   Data   Analysis,
         prepared  bySanford  Research  Institute  for the U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Analysis  and
         Evaluation, September 1982.

162.      Surrogate Sampling Program Petroleum Refining  Industry,
         prepared   by  Burns   and   Roe   Industrial  Services
         Corporation Submittal to U.S.  Environmental  Protection
         Agency, Effluent  Guidelines Division, September, 1982.

163.      Summary of the Record for the Development of, the  Survey
         of  1979  Effluent  Monitoring  Data  for  the Petroleum
         Refining Point Source Category,  prepared  by  Burns  and
         Roe   Industrial    Services  Corporation  for  the  U.S.
                              265

-------
         Environmental  Protection  Agency,   Effluent  Guidelines
         Division,  June 19SQ.

164.      Petroleum  Refining  Industry,    Refinements   to   1979
         Proposed Flow Model and Supplemental Documents,  prepared
         by Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corporation for the
         U.S.     Environmental    Protection   Agency,    Effluent
         Guidelines Division,  September 1982.

165.      Ambient  Water  Quality  Criteria,   U.S.    Environmental
         Protection  Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, EPA
         440/5-80-069, November 1980.

166.      Petroleum Refining Industry,  Flow  Model  Documentation
         Report,  prepared  by  Burns and Roe Industrial Services
         Corporation  for  the  U.S.   Environmental   Protection
         Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, March 1980.

167.      Cantrell,  Ailleen, "Annual Refining Survey," Oil and Gas
         Journal, March 30, 1981.

168.      Environmental  Data  Summary  and   Analysis   for   the
         PetroleumRefining  Industry,  prepared by Versar, Inc.
         for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Monitoring
         and Data Support Division, September 10,  1982.

169.      Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
         andStandardsfor  the  Coil  Coating   Point   Source
         Category,  EPA 440/1-81/071b, January 1981.

170.      Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
         and Standards""!:or the Inorganic Chemicals  Manufacturing
         Point  Source  Category,  Final,  EPA 440/1-82/007, June
         T9827

171.      BAT Compliance Costs for the Direct Discharge Segment of_
         the Petroleum Refining Industry, prepared by  Burns  and
         Roe Industrial Services Corporation for the U.S.Environ-
         Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division,December
         1980.

172.      Hynek, R.J. and Chou, C.C., "Field Performance of  Three
         RBC Aeration Modes Treating Industrial Wastes,"presented
         at the 35th Annual Purdue Industrial  Waste  Conference,
         May 13-15, 1980.

173.      Davies, B.T. and Vose, R.W. "Custom Designs Cut Effluent
         Treating Costs Case Histories  at  Chevron U.S.A., inc."
         Proceedings of the 32nd Purdue Industrial Waste  Confer-
         ence, May 10-12, 1977.

174.      Grieves, C.G., Crame, L.W.,  Vernardos, D.G.,   Ying, W. ,
         "Powdered versus Granular Carbon For Oil  Refinery Waste-
         water Treatment," Journal Water Pollution Control Feder-
         ation , March 1980.
                               266

-------
                           APPENDIX A

             COSTS OF TREATMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the costs associated with the control and
treatment technologies presented in Section VII.  As such, the
cost estimates represent the incremental expenditures required
over and above the capital and operating costs associated with
attainment of existing effluent limitations.  These differential
costs, therefore, relate to specific control and treatment
alternatives that could be necessary to comply with BAT limit-
ations .

The cost estimates presented do not include land costs; the cost
of land is variable and site dependent and cannot be estimated on
a national basis.  However, the amount of land required is
indicated for each of the major end-of-pipe treatment schemes.
These land requirements are minimal compared with the land
requirements for refinery process equipment and existing waste-
water treatment facilities.

The cost data presented in this section are based on flow rates.
The major capital cost items considered were equipment, instal-
lation,  engineering, and contingencies, while operating costs
included maintenance, labor, chemical, and power costs.  The
following unit costs in 1977 dollars were used for calculating
the major capital and operating costs presented in this section:

Item                                    Unit Cost

1.  Tank Steel                          $1.40 - 2.00/pound
2.  Tank Lining                         $3.00 - 4300/ft
3.  Carbon, granular (capital cost)      $31.00/ft
4.  Carbon, granular (operating cost)    $0.61/lb
5.  Carbon, powdered (operating cost)    $0.31/lb
6.  Electricity                         $0.04/kilowatt hr
7.  Manpower                            $10.00/hr

Capital costs for major equipment items such as clarifiers,
filters, carbon regeneration furnaces, solids dewatering filters,
activated carbon, and large pumps were obtained from equipment
manufacturers.  Other costs such as the unit cost of tank steel,
piping,  small pumps, etc. were derived from the contractor's
(Burns and Roe)  in-house experience and expertise in the design
and construction of major facilities.

-------
COST OF TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED

Biological Treatment

Cost analyses developed for BPT regulations are based on activated
sludge or equivalent BPT systems (3).  A very limited number of
refineries may need to upgrade their existing biological treatment
systems to comply with BAT limitations.

One method of upgrading a biological unit is to install a raw
wastewater equalization system (143).  Table A-l presents capital
and operating costs for this type of modification.  These costs
are based on 12 hours detention and include the necessary pumps
and controls for equalization of flow and pollutant loading.

EPA assumes the tanks are manufactured by placing a steel shell
on a concrete pad.  Costs are included for pumping the wastewater
either to or from the equalization tank.   The Agency also assumes
that either pumping is not required on both sides of the tank, or
one set of pumps exists to supply the second pumping requirement.

Another method of improving the performance of a biological
treatment system is to install a biological roughing unit.
Rotating biological contactors (RBCs) are an applicable treatment
alternative for use as a roughing system.

Tables A-2 and A-3 present equipment sizes and energy requirements
and capital and operating costs for RBC units.  It is assumed
that this treatment alternative will be used if aerated lagoons
or oxidation ponds comprise the basic biological treatment process.
The use of aerated lagoons and oxidation ponds implies that the
refinery has sufficient land to install this type of wastewater
treatment system.

It is also assumed that the RBC units will precede the present
biological system.  Clarifiers or additional sludge handling
capabilities will not be required,  based on the assumption that
the amount of solids carryover from the RBC units to the lagoons
is approximately the same as that now entering the lagoons from
the raw wastewater.

Filtration

BPT limitations are based, in part, on granular media filtration
or polishing ponds (3).  Many refineries do not include filtration
or other polishing techniques in their present systems, even
though that technology was included in model BPT.  Certain
refineries may have to install granular media filtration to
comply with BAT limitations.  Tables A-4 and A-5 include the
associated cost data for filtration systems.
                                    A-2

-------
Powdered Activated Carbon

Refineries with activated sludge or trickling filter systems may
inprove their effluent quality with powdered activated carbon
treatment.  Tables A-6 through A-8 present cost data for powdered
activated carbon systems that do not include the cost of sludge
handling in the analysis.  However, when carbon regeneration is
used in conjunction with powdered activated carbon treatment,
the sludge produced in the biosystem is incinerated as the
carbon is regenerated, thus eliminating the sludge disposal
costs associated with this requirement.  An analysis was undertaken
to compare annual cost when sludge handling is included as a
cost factor.  This analysis is included in Table A-9.  Tables A-
10 through A-12 present cost data for powdered activated carbon
systems based upon the inclusion of sludge handling costs.

Table A-ll includes the costs for purchase of solids dewatering
systems, whereas Table A-12 includes operating costs with sludge
disposal shown as a credit for the systems that include carbon
regeneration.

The powdered activated carbon costs described above are based
upon an 80 mg/L dosage rate.  Thfis number is based upon one year
of operating data at the DuPont Chambers works facility.

Powdered activated carbon treatment may also be used for the
removal of organic toxic pollutants, but may require higher
carbon dosages.  Tables A-13 through A-15 present costs for
powdered activated carbon systems based upon a carbon dosage of
150 mg/L.  Tables A-16 through A-19 present the analyses and
associated results when the costs for sludge hauling are recognized.

Granular Activated Carbon

Table A-20 presents the equipment sizes and energy requirements
used to estimate the capital and operating costs for granular
activated carbon systems.  The sizes are based on the design
concept described in Section VII, with the system consisting of
tanks that can be shipped in one piece, thereby minimizing field
construction.  This sizing constraint results in an unusually
large number of tanks for the larger systems.  In reality, a more
cost-effective approach (with cost savings approximately 5 to 15
percent)  is for a given refinery to use field constructed steel
tanks,  concrete tanks, or other construction techniques, which
have been determined for that refinery individually.  The use of
shop fabricated tanks with similar sizes allows for uniformity in
cost estimating, especially in developing construction and design
engineering estimates.  This approach also results in a conserva-
tive (larger) estimate, and is considered preferable when considering
general industry-wide costs.
                                    A-3

-------
Table A-21 presents the capital costs for the systems outlined in
Table A-20.   Table A-22 provides the operating costs, excluding
depreciation, for these granular activated carbon systems.  The
capital costs for carbon regeneration systems are based on an
equipment manufacturer's quotations.  Manpower requirements for
the operation of the granular carbon adsorbers were obtained from
the EPA Technology Transfer Series,  Carbon Adsorption Manual
(64).

One equipment supplier leases carbon adsorption systems.  Plants
would pay a yearly operating cost with no initial investment
other than a foundation for and piping to the equipment.  This
supplier has suggested the following rental cost estimates for
the two smallest systems:
o    380 M3/day (O.lxlO6 gal/day)
     Foundation and hookup

o    3,800 M3/day (l.OxlO6 gal/day)
     Foundation and hookup
- $75,000 to $100,000/yr
- $5,000

- $450,000/yr
- $15,000
These estimates are based on a lease agreement for a minimum of
three years and include the carbon adsorbers with installation,
all granular carbon required, and carbon regeneration services.
Manpower for the operation of the carbon columns is not included.

Low Flow Rate Systems

Table A-23 presents capital and operating costs for the systems
discussed above at a design flow rate of 10,000 gal/day.

In-Plant Control

Chromium Removal - The treatment technology described in Section
VII is the basis for estimating the costs of chromium removal.
Refineries can also take advantage of the reduction capabilities
of refinery sewers and the removal capabilities of secondary
treatment systems.

Table A-24 presents cooling tower blowdown rates for the refineries
that responded to the 1977 EPA Petroleum Refining Industry Survey.
The flow rates have been used as the design basis for chromium
treatment systems.  Table A-25 presents equipment cost bases and
energy requirements for selected flow rates from Table A-24;
Table A-26 presents the capital and operating costs for these
systems.

Flow Reduction - Section VII describes a number of in-plant
control measures designed to reduce or eliminate wastewater flow.
Many of these measures, however, require a plant-by-plant evaluation
to determine their usefulness.  In addition, the costs associated
with their implementation are, for the most part, site dependent
making an accurate estimation of representative costs on an
industry-wide basis very difficult.

                                    A-4

-------
For the 1979 proposal, the Agency did select one in-plant flow
reduction measure, however, that can be applied at most refineries
and whose cost can be readily estimated on an industry-wide
scale.  This flow reduction scheme consists of recycling treated
refinery wastewaters for process-related applications such as
cooling tower makeup, pump gland cooling water, washdown water,
and fire system water.  This wastewater could be reused once and
then returned to the refinery wastewater collection system for
end-of-pipe treatment.  The amount of wastewater that can be
recycled in this manner depends on many factors, including the
number of cooling towers in the plant and the salinity of the
wastewater to be recycled.  EPA chose this wastewater reduction
technique to form an estimate, because it is both definable and
representative of the costs that would be incurred by other,
similarly effective in-plant control measures.

Table A-27 presents the capital and operating costs per mile used
for the 1979 proposal for recycling various amounts of treated
wastewater.  In some cases, particularly for cooling tower makeup,
the recycled wastewater may require treatment to remove calcium
and magnesium hardness.  The costing procedure for the 1979
proposal assumed the use of lime or lime-soda ash softening
followed by filtration.  Table A-28 presents the capital costs
for softening systems that correspond to the flow rates in Table
A-27.  Operating costs cannot be readily determined on an industry-
wide basis because they depend largely on the site specific
concentrations of calcium and magnesium in the recycled waste-
water.  Lime costs can be approximated at $0.025/1,0000 gal of
treated water for an influent hardness of 100 mg/1 (as CaCCU), to
$0.12/1,000 gal for an influent hardness of 500 mg/1 (as CaCOO.
These costs can vary, depending on the desired effluent qualify
and on the influent water quality, especially costs involving
alkalinity.

In an effort to confirm its assessment of wastewater flow reduction
costs, the Agency conducted a series of site investigations after
proposal to identify feasible flow reduction techniques and to
determine actual costs for specific refineries to install these
technologies.  This Wastewater Recycle Study involved fifteen
refineries throughout the United States and focussed on methods
of recycling and reusing wastewaters within a refinery in an
effort to reduce the rate of final discharge.  These methods
included the recycling of treated wastewaters, the reuse of sour
water, the recycling of pump and compressor cooling water, and
the collection and reuse of steam condensate.  Site investigations
involved wastewater management practices that were found to be
successful in reducing final effluent and that could be generally
applicable to other refineries.  The findings of the overall
study, including discussions of the flow reduction schemes developed
                                   A-5

-------
for each refinery and estimates of the capital and annual
operating cost requirements involved, were presented in a report
(159).   Results indicate that wastewater discharge reduction to
the proposed BAT flow level is achievable at the refineries
investigated.  The study also revealed that the costing procedure
used in developing the proposed regulations did produce conserva-
tive cost estimates.

COST OF TECHNOLOGY SELECTED AS BASIS FOR LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS

EPA considered nine options in finalizing BAT regulations, four
options for NSPS guidelines, and three options for PSES and PSNS
controls.  The following discussions describe the costing method-
ologies and results obtained for each.

BAT Options

As discussed in Section VIII, nine regulating options that included
various combinations of flow reduction and wastewater treatment
technology were considered for BAT.   Options 1 through 6 were
investigated in formulating the proposed rule.  Option 7  (a
modification of Option 2)  and Option 8 (a modification of Option
1) were developed on the basis of information that was available
at the time of the 1979 proposal, but was then modified and
supplemented as a result of information collected by EPA after
the proposal.  Option 9 requires no additional controls beyond
existing BPT, and therefore, would incur no additional cost.

Cost estimates for Options 1, 2, and 3 were developed for the
direct discharging segment of the industry on a plant-by-plant
basis for the 1979 proposal.  These estimates of total capital
and annual operating costs in 1977 dollars are presented in
Table A-29.

It was realized that the most accurate method of determining
compliance costs would be to conduct an engineering evaluation at
each refinery that might be affected by proposed discharge regu-
lations.  However, in order to produce conservative compliance
costs within a reasonable manhour expenditure, a cost estimating
procedure was established.  The procedure relied on flow reduction
and end-of-pipe treatment alternatives that could be directly
defined.  The approach included flow reduction only (Option 1) ,
and flow reduction plus enhanced biological treatment (Option 3).
The costs of the Option 3 wastewater management combination were
used to represent the costs associated with meeting Option 2
requirements.

The procedure developed to estimate plant-by-plant compliance
costs began with a review of each refinery's generated waste-
waters, end-of-pipe treatment system, and modes of disposition.
The volume of wastewater generated daily by each refinery was
traced and categorized according to treatment and disposal.  Data
were obtained from industry responses to EPA's 1977 Petroleum
Refining Industry Survey and its subsequent submittals.

                                    A-6

-------
The next step in the costing procedure was to determine the type
of biological enhancement to be added at each refinery and then
assign costs.  Although an individual refinery may choose to
upgrade its biological treatment system in other ways, powdered
activated carbon treatment and rotating biological contactors
were considered in this procedure, and readily priced as add-on
systems.  Refineries that had, or were planning to have, aerated
lagoons or oxidation ponds were given costs for RBC systems.
Refineries that had, or were planning to have, activated sludge,
trickling filters, or RBC systems were given costs for powdered
activated carbon treatment.  Capital and operating treatment
costs were based on the influent rate to the end-of-pipe system,
with a minimum of 10,000 gallons per day.  Costs for these systems
were expected to be conservatively high estimates.

Determining the amount of flow reduction required by each refinery
was the third step in the procedure.  The proposed flow model
presented in Section IV was used to calculate model wastewater
generation rates, based on process capacities, for each direct
discharger.  BAT discharge rates were then set at 73 percent of
the calculated model flow (27 percent reduction).  Each refinery's
actual rate of direct discharge of production wastewaters was
compared to its calculated BAT discharge rate to determine
required reductions.  Prior to this comparison, actual discharges
were adjusted by planned reductions in the amount of wastewater
generated,  and reductions in flow to end-of-pipe treatment.

The following step in the procedure was to allocate flow reduction
costs.  The assumed reduction technique selected for the develop-
ment of cost estimates was the recycling of treated wastewater
for use in process related applications, such as cooling tower
make-up, pump gland cooling water, wash down water, and fire
system water.  Based on recycle flow rate and a derived relation-
ship between refinery size and required pumping distance, pumping
and piping costs were calculated for each refinery that required
flow reduction.  The assumption was also made that softening
would be necessary before treated wastewater could be reused.
Costs were determined for softening 25 percent of the recycled
wastewater with the lime-soda process and filtration.

The final step in the compliance costing procedure was to combine
the treatment and flow reduction costs assigned to each refinery
and to compute overall industry costs.  Capital and operating
costs for each refinery were generated by adding those model
technologies that did not exist in 1976 and that were not planned
for the future.  Since biological treatment is essential in
meeting the BPT guidelines, this level of treatment was assumed
to exist at all direct discharging refineries.  Therefore, the
cost estimates represent the incremental expenditures required
over and above the costs associated with attainment of BPT
effluent limitations.
                                    A-7

-------
More details on the costing procedure and refinery data used to
estimate compliance costs can be found in the report on this
effort entitled, "Cost Manual for the Direct Discharge Segment of
the Petroleum Refining Industry" (151).   The cost evaluation
concluded that, for Option 1, a total industry capital cost of
$23.5 million in 1979 dollars would be required, with an annual
operating cost of $3.4 million, to comply with proposed effluent
limitations guidelines.  Option 2 and Option 3 would require a
total capital cost of $138 million and an annual operating cost
of $27.1 million.  These cost figures have been updated to 1979
dollars based upon the Nelson Refinery Construction and Operating
Cost Indices.

An "annualized cost" combines capital cost and operating cost
into a single value that represents average annual disbursements
required to finance, operate, and amortize a facility.  The basis
for computing annualized compliance costs, as outlined in the
Agency's economic analysis of proposed effluent standards and
limitations  (87), is the sum of annual operating costs (including
labor, materials, chemicals, energy, insurance, and taxes),
capital recovery, and return-on-investment.  Computed on this
basis, the estimated annualized cost that would be required for
Option 1 is $9.3 million, while $62 million would be required for
Options 2 and 3.

Option 4 required effluent limitations beyond BPT based upon
wastewater flow reduction and the segregation and separate
treatment of cooling tower blowdown.  While the cost of chromium
removal could be estimated, the cost of segregating cooling tower
blowdown from other process streams was not available at the time
of proposal.  Therefore, EPA did not make a detailed cost analysis
for this option.

One objective of the Agency's wastewater recycle/reuse study
(159), conducted after the publication of the proposed regulation,
was to determine the waste management changes that would be
required and the costs involved to segregate and collect these
blowdown streams.  Results of the study indicate that, for
existing sources, it is extremely difficult, in many instances, to
segregate cooling tower blowdown for chromium treatment.  Cooling
tower blowdown is typically effected at numerous locations
throughout a refinery.  Extensive collection systems would be
necessary at many refineries to collect all blowdown streams for
separate treatment.  In addition, not all cooling tower blowdown
streams are collectible.  For instance,  cooling water when used
as makeup for refinery processes commingles with process water
and cannot be traced or segregated, especially in older refineries.
Therefore, the Agency has determined that it would not be proper
to base BAT effluent limitations guidelines on this technology
option.  Complete cost estimates for this option have not been
developed.
                                   A-8

-------
Option 5 was based upon wastewater flow reduction in addition to
BPT treatment plus the addition of granular activated carbon
treatment to control residual toxic organic pollutants.  Cost
estimates for this option were based upon compliance costs
developed for Option 1 and the capital and operating costs for
GAG treatment as shown in Tables A-21 and A-22.  A total annual
industry cost of an estimated $470 million in 1979 dollars would
be required for this option.


Prohibiting the discharge of wastewater pollutants was proposed
as Option 6, and was based upon reuse, recycle, evaporation, or
reinjection of wastewaters.  Total industry costs were not calcu-
lated for this option.  While additional costs for building a new
refinery to eliminate discharge have been determined, the costs
of retrofitting an existing refinery are highly site specific.
Costs for a zero discharge option, however, would be significantly
higher than costs for applying any of the other options.

Options 7 and 8 are revisions to Options 1 and 2, and are based
upon discharge flow reductions from the revised model flow.
Results of the Agency's wastewater recycle study were used to
revise the compliance costing procedures previously developed for
Options 1 and 2.

Several methods were found at the refineries studied that could
reduce the rates at which wastewaters were being discharged from
boiler circuits, cooling tower circuits, and general process
uses.  The use of treated effluent as a replacement for raw water
in these areas was also examined.  However, not all methods are
applicable at every refinery.  Each refinery's flow scheme,
intake water quality, and wastewater treatment system limit the
flow reduction options available to it.  But, a list of techniques
has been identified from which a refinery can select one or more
alternatives to reduce its discharge rate to the target BAT
level.

Capital and operating cost data developed during the study represeni
combinations of flow reduction techniques that could be used to
meet the BAT level.  A unit flow reduction cost resulted for each
refinery based on the mix of reduction schemes proposed for that
particular refinery.  Annual flow reduction costs established for
all of the refineries investigated fall within a specified range
when expressed in terms of dollars per gallon reduced per day.
These cost data were used to estimate flow reduction  costs for
the industry.

The previous compliance costing procedure began with a review of
each refinery's generated wastewaters, end-of-pipe treatment
system, and modes of disposition.  The volume of wastewater
generated daily by each refinery was traced and categorized
according to treatment and disposal.   The revised procedure
continued with a determination of the amount of flow reduction

                                   A-9

-------
required by each refinery.   Model flows were calculated based
upon process crude capacities.  BAT discharge rates were then set
at 62.5 percent of the calculated model flows.  Each refinery's
existing process wastewater discharge rate is compared to its
target BAT discharge rate to determine required reductions.
Prior to this comparison, existing discharges were adjusted by
flow reductions that were reportedly being planned for the near
future.  Flow reduction costs were then allocated for each
refinery.

Plant-by-plant estimates of the costs that would be required for
Option 7 were developed for the direct discharge segment of the
industry.  These estimates, along with refinery data used in the
costing procedure, are presented in a report prepared for this
effort entitled, "BAT Compliance Costs for the Direct Discharge
Segment of the Petroleum Refining Industry"  (171).  Results of
the revised procedure indicate that a total capital cost of $112
million and an annualized cost of $37 million in 1979 dollars
would be required for this segment of the industry to comply with
Option 7.

The Agency has not performed a detailed cost analysis of Option 8,
but has estimated such costs based upon the costing procedure
developed for Option 7.  BAT discharge rates were set at 80
percent of the revised model flows.  Flow reduction costs were
allocated for each direct discharge refinery, generating plant-
by-plant estimates of compliance costs for Option 8.  This effort
concluded that a total capital cost of $77 million and an annualized
cost of $25 million in 1979 dollars would be required for the
industry to comply with Option 8.

New Source Costs

EPA considered four options for the final rulemaking.  NSPS
Options 1, 2, and 3 were included in the 1979 proposal.  Option 4
was added subsequently and would set new source standards equal
to the existing standards promulgated in 1974.  NSPS Options 1,
2, and 3 utilize technology similar to BAT Options 2, 5, and 6,
respectively.  Unlike the similar BAT technology options, new
sources have the opportunity to incorporate technological changes
without incurring the retrofit costs included in modifications to
existing refineries.

NSPS Option 1 - Discharge flow reduction to 52 percent below
model flow, achieved through greater reuse and recycle of waste-
water, in addition to BPT treatment, is equivalent to BAT Option 2.
                              A-10

-------
The 1979 development document contains an estimate of cost to
construct a new 150,000 barrel/day subcategory B refinery.  Cost
for NSPS Option 1 include:

               Cost Component           1979 Dollars

               Capital Costs            $ 0.75 million
               Operating Costs            0.37 million

NSPS Option 2 - Discharge flow reduction to 27 percent below BPT
model flow, achieved through greater reuse and recycle of waste-
waters in addition to BPT treatment, plus use of granular activated
carbon (GAC) treatment to reduce residual organic toxic pollutants
is equivalent to BAT Option 5.  A new refinery will not incur the
retrofit costs of flow reduction associated with BAT Option 5,
however,  it will incur the capital cost for GAC plus annual
operating costs as shown in Tables A-21 and A-22.

NSPS Option 3 - Zero discharge of wastewater pollutants is similar
to BAT Option 6 except that the new refinery will not incur
retrofit costs.

EPA has not calculated the costs for eliminating wastewater
discharge.   However, the API publication Water Reuse Studies
(150)  has presented such costs for a 150,000 barrel per day
refinery.  Based upon estimates contained in this document,
investment, over BPT, of 11.6 million would be required with an
annual cost of 4.6 million, including interest and depreciation
(1979 dollars).

NSPS Option 4 - Discharge flow reduction to from 25 percent to 50
percent below BPT model flow, depending upon subcategory, achieved
through greater reuse and recycle of wastewater is equivalent to
the existing new source performance standard promulgated in 1974.
NSPS Option 4 is equal to the existing criteria for new sources,
and therefore,  a new refinery will incur no additional cost in
complying with this technology option.

Pretreatment Options

The Agency evaluated three technology options for the selection
of final standards for indirect dischargers.  Options 1 and 2 are
similar to Options 1 and 2 presented in the 1979 proposal.  The
third option was considered after the 1979 proposal and is similar
to the existing standard for existing sources.  EPA developed
these costs by estimating the values for each plant requiring
chromium removal and/or biological treatment.  The costs presented
in the tables were updated to January 1977.

Costs for end-of-pipe treatment includes the following processes:

     Biological treatment, consisting of activated sludge units,
     thickeners, digesters, and dewatering facilities.


                              A-ll

-------
     Granular media filtration,  consisting of filter systems and
     associated equipment.

These costs were also indexed to January 1977 values.

PS Option 1 - Chromium reduction by pH adjustment, precipitation
and clarification technologies applied to cooling tower blowdown,
plus control of oil and grease and ammonia at the existing level
of control is similar to Option 1 in the 1979 proposal.  Separ-
ation and treatment of cooling tower blowdown is the additional
technology required beyond  existing pretreatment standards.

Table A-30 presents the costs of modifying each indirect discharge
refinery to meet Option 1 requirements.   The analysis includes
the cost of combining the effluents from multiple cooling tower
installations.  Estimates of necessary pumps and piping were
obtained from the cost presented for recycle of treated effluents
in Table A-27.

The Agency estimated the combined cost of retrofitting affected
indirected dischargers at $11.7 million initial investment and
an annual cost of $6.8 million (1979 dollars).

The Agency estimated the incremental cost of incorporating PS
Option 1 technology into a  subcategory B model new refinery
(150,000 barrel per day topping and cracking) at an initial
investment of 0.37 million  and an annual cost of $0.26 million
(1979 dollars) including interest and depreciation.

PS Option 2 - Establish two sets of pretreatment standards.
Provide Option 1 control for refineries that discharge to POTW
with existing or planned secondary treatment.  Provide Option 1
controls plus biological treatment for refineries that discharge
to POTW that have a Section 301(h) waiver from secondary treatment.
Tables A-30 and A-31 combined contain the costs to implement
Option 2  (1977 dollars).  Included in Table A-31 are costs for
the installation of in-plant control measures for those plants
whose wastewater flow exceeded the calculated BPT model flow.
These costs were obtained from the National Commission on Water
Quality (20).

Total cost of implementing  Option 2 for existing refineries
could not be calculated for the 1979 proposal since no POTW had
been granted a Section 301(h) waiver at the time the cost estimates
were prepared.  The Agency  did estimate the cost of installing
biological treatment for each indirect discharge refinery.
These values are shown in Table A-31 for information purposes
only.  If all indirect discharge refineries were required to
install biological treatment systems, the maximum cost to the
industry  (obtained by summing cost to each refinery in Table A-
31 and indexing to a base year)  would be an initial investment
of $110 million and an annual cost of $42 million  (1979 dollars).
All refineries discharging  to POTW having secondary treatment
were subject to the cost of providing Option 1 treatment shown
in Table A-30.

                                A-12

-------
PS Option 3 - Reduction of oil and grease and ammonia by oil/water
separation and steam stripping technologies is equivalent to the
existing pretreatment standard.  Since indirect discharging
refineries are already required to provide treatment equivalent
to Option 3, implementation of Option 3 would incur no additional
cost to existing refineries.
                              A-13

-------
                                                        TABLE A-l
                                           RAW WASTEWATER EQUALIZATION SYSTEMS
                                               CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
                                                                    Capital  Cost,  Dollars
Description

Detention tank, 12 hours detention,
steel shell on concrete pad
Pumps, and associated controls,
installed
Subtotal
Piping, installed (15%)
Total Installed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Land Requirements, Ft
Pumping
Maintenance (3% of Capital Cost)
380 M3/day
(0.1 x 10°)
gal/day
$ 30,000
8,000
$ 38,000
5,700
$ 43,700
6,650
6.650
$ 57,000
585

$ 140
1.700
3800 M3/dpy 19
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/day
$

$

$


$


$

116,000
30,000
146,000
22,000
168,000
26,000
26,000
220,000
5,780
Annual
1,400
6,600
,000 M /day 38
(5 x ICT)
gal/day
$ 346,000
87,000
$ 433,000
65,000
$ 498,000
75,000
75,000
$ 648,000
28,200
Operating Costs
$ 7,000
19,500
,000 M /day
(10 x 10 )
gal/day
$ 595,000
149,000
$ 744,000
117,000
$ 861,000
129,500
129,500
$1,120,000
57,600
, Dollars
$ 14,000
33,600
76,000 M /day
(20 x 10 )
gal/day
$1,020,000
255,000
$1,275,000
192,000
$1,467,000
221,500
221,500
$1,910,000
113,000

$ 28,000
57,300
Total Annual Cost
$  1,840
8,000
$  26,500
47,600
85,300
Notet  The Depreciation factor has been omitted from this analysis  due  to the  fact  that  it will be included
       separately in the Economic Impact Analysis  Supplement.

-------
                 TABLE A-2
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS (RBC's)
          AS ROUGHING SYSTEMS
         EQUIPMENT COST BASIS
        AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
                              Equipment Size
Description

Design Percent Removal
of BOD
Number of Units
> Shaft Lengths, each
1
in Total Square Feet of Surface Area
Manpower Requirements, hours
Power Requirements, kwh/year
380 M /day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/day
50
1
15
75,000

500
33,000
3800 M /day
(1.0 x 10°)
gal/day
50
6
20
630,000
Annual
750
294,000
19,000 M3/day 38,000 M3/day
(5 x 10°)
gal/day
50
24
25
3,200,000 6,
Operating and Energy
1,000
1,180,000 2,
(10 x 10")
gal/day
50
48
25
400,000
Requirements
1,500
360,000
76,000 M /day
(20 x 10 )
gal/day
50
96
25
12,800,000

2,000
4,720,000

-------
                                                         TABLE A-3
                                         ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS (RBC's)
                                                   AS ROUGHING FILTERS
                                               CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
                                                                    Capital Cost, Dollars
Description

RBC Units, Steel Shell,
Fiberglass Cover
Piping
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (50%)
Total Constructed Cost
Engi neering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Land Required, Ft
Power
Labor
Maintenance (3% of Total Capital Cost)
Total Annual Cost
380 M /day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/day
$ 46,000
5,000
51,000
25,500
76,500
11,750
11,750
$100,000
420

$ 1,500
5,000
3,000
$ 9,500
3800 M /day
(1.0 x 10°)
gal/day
$340,000
35,000
375,000
187,500
562,500
84,750
84,750
$732,000
2,600

$ 12,000
7,500
22,000
$ 41,500
19,000 H /day 38,000 M /day
(5 x 10U)
gal/day
$1,590,000
160,000
1,750,000
875,000
2,625,000
397,500
397,500
$3,420,000
13,500
Annual Operating
$ 48,000
10,000
103,000
$ 161,000
(10 x 10")
gal/day
$3,170,000
317,000
3,487,000
1,744,000
5,231,000
784,500
784,500
$6,800,000
27,000
Costs*
$ 95,000
15,000
204,000
$ 314,000
76,000 M3/day
(20 x 10 )
gal/day
$6,340,000
634,000
6,974,000
3,487,000
10,461,000
1,569,500
1,569,500
$13,600,000
54,000

$ 190,000
20,000
408,000
$ 798,000
Notei  The depreciation factor has been omitted from this analysis due to the fact that it will be included separately
       in the Economic Impact Analysis Supplement.

-------
                                                                  TABLE A-4
 I
I-1
^3
                                                               FILTRATION

                                                 EQUIPMENT COST BASIS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS



                                                             Equipment Coat Basia
Description
Filter Description
(all units are
automatic and
air scoured)
Bed depth, ft.
Operation type
Media type
Pumping.
KHH/year
Labor,
Manhours/year
380 M3/ day
(0.1 X 106gal/day)
2 units
5* dia»., steel
4
Gravity
Dual Media

3,440
400
3800 M3/day
(1 X 10%al/day)
2 units
11* diam., steel
4
Gravity
Dual Media
Annual Operating
34,400
500
19,000 M3/day
(5 X 106gal/day)
1 unit. 4-35 'square
cells, concrete
4
Gravity
Dual Media
and Energy RequireMei
172,000
6OO
38,000 M3/day
(10 X 106gal/day
1 unit, 4-47 'square
cells, concrete
4
Gravity
Dual Media
its
344,OOO
700
76,000 N3/day
(20 X 106gal/day)
2 units, 47' square
cells, concrete
4
Gravity
Dual Media

688,000
BOO

-------
                                                        TABLE A-5
                                                      FILTRATION
                                             CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
                                                              Capital Cost,  Dollars
Description

Filtration Units Installed
Interconnecting Piping, Installed
Pumps, Installed
Total Installed Cost
Engineering
I—1 Contingency
00 Total Capital Cost
Land Requirement, Ft
Pumping
Labor
Maintenance (3% of Capital Cost)
380 M3/day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/day
$ 25,000
3,000
5,000
33,000
6,OOO
6,000
$ 48,000
200

$ 140
4,000
1,400
3800 H /day
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/day
$100,000
10,000
15,000
125,000
20,000
20,000
$165,000
700
Annual
$ 1,400
5,000
5,000
19,000 M3/day
(5 x 10°)
gal/day
$250,000
25,000
42,000
317,000
49,000
49,000
$415,000
5,000
Operating Cost,
$ 7,000
6,000
12,500
38,000 M /day
(10 x 10 )
gal/day
$350,000
35,000
60,000
451,000
69,500
69,500
$590,000
9,000
Dollars
$ 14,000
7,000
18,000
76,000 M3/day
(20 x 10 )
gal/day
$600,000
60,000
100,000
770,000
115,000
115,000
$1,000,000
18,000

$ 28,000
8,000
30,000
Total Annual Cost
$  5,540
$ 11,400
$ 25,500
$ 39,000
66,000
Note:  The Depreciation factor has been omitted from this  analysis due  to the fact  that  it will be included
       separately in the Economic Impact Analysis  Supplement.

-------
                                                    TABLE  A-6
                                               POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                 EQUIPMENT COST BASIS
                                                AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
                                                  80 ng/1 DOSAGE RATE
                                                                Squlpstent Size
Description

380 • 3/day
(0.1 x 10S
3800 • /day
(1.0 x UT)
gal/d
19.000 •3/dav
(5 x 10")
9al/d
38.000 B/day
(10 x KT)
gal/d
76. 000 • /day
(20 v 10 )
gal/d
Powdered Carbon Feed Tanks (2 each)        700         7.000          35.000          70.000          140.OOO
  Capacity, gallons (Based on feed
  concentration of one pound
  carbon/gallon water)

Feed Rate pounds/day                       67           670           3.350           6.700           13.400
                                                   Annual Operating and Energy Requirements
Manpower RequireeMnts, hours

Miscellaneous Power Require**
kWh/yr
                             nt*,
                                          400
                                                        540
25.OOO        50,000
                                                                        940
                                                                    125.000
                                                                                      1,240
200,000
  1.940


375.000

-------
                                                                       TABLE  A-7
                                                                 POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                                       CAPITAL COSTS
                                                                    80 mg/l DOSAGE RATE
 I
KJ
O
                   Total Capital Cost
                                                                              Capital Costa, Dollars
Description

Powdered Carbon Peed System
Piping
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (SOt)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
380 * /day
(0.1 x l
-------
                                                     TABLE A-8
                                               POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
                                                  BO mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
                                                           Annual Cost, Dollar*
Description

Carbon Nake-Up
Miscellaneous Power Requirements
Labor (flO/nanhour)
Maintenance (3% of total Capital Cost)
380* '/day
(0.1 x 10")
9«l/d
$ 7,400
1.000
4,000
1.000
3800»3/day
(1.0 * 10°)
«al/d
$74,000
2.000
5,400
2.000
19. 000 • /day
(5 x 10°)
9»l/d
$370,000
5,000
9,400
3.000
38.000m /day
(10 x 10*")
9al/d
$740.000
8,000
12.400
4.000
76,000 m /day
(20 x 10")
9«l/d
$1,480.000
15.000
19.400
6.600
Total Annual Colt                      $11,400      $83,400        $387,400        $764,400        $1.521,000
Motei

The depreciation (actor has been omitted from this  analysis due to the fact that it will be included separately
in the Economic Impact Analysis Supplement.

-------
                                                                       TABLE A-9
 i
M
NJ
                                                                  POMDBMCD ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                                COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTS
                                                              CARBON REGENERATION VS. THROW-AWAY
                                                                     80 B9/1  DOSAGE  RATE
                                                                                     Regenerated
Item
Capital Cost
Carbon Make-Up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power
Labor
Maintenance (3%)
(15%)
Depreciation (27%)
Total Annual Cost
Capital Cost
Carbon Make-up
Labor
Maintenance (3%)
Miscellaneous Power
Depreciation (27%)
Total Annual Cost
Cost for Sludge Dewatering
Annual Cost with Sludge Dewatering
Cost for Land Disposal
Annual Cost with Land Disposal
380 m /day
(0.1 * 10")
gal/d
$735.000
> 2.200
5,000
1,000
91.600
1,000
105,000
200.000
$405.800
$ 35.000
$ 7.400
4,000
1.000
1.000
9.500
$ 22.900
$ 20.000
$ 42.900
4.000
$ 46.900
3800 • /day
(1.0 x 10 J
gal/d
$1.000.OOO
$ 22.000
19,000
2.000
93,000
2,000
140,000
270.000
$ 548,000
$ 39.SOO
$ 74,000
5,400
2.000
2,000
17,600
$ 101,000
$ 76.000
$ 177,000
40.000
$ 217.000
19.000 • /day
(5 x 10°)
gal/d
$1.650.000
$ 110,000
44,000
5,000
97,000
3,000
233,000
446,000
$ 938,000
Non-Regenerated
$ 97.000
9 370,000
9.400
3.000
5,000
26.200
$ 413,600
$ 137,000
$ 550,000
200,000
$ 750,000
38.000 • /day
(10 x 10 )
gal/d
$2.300,000
$ 220.000
76.0OO
8,000
100,000
4.000
328.000
621.000
$1.357.000
$ 130,000
$ 740,000
12,400
4,000
8,000
35,100
$ 799,500
$ 226,000
$1,025,000
400,000
$1,425,000
76,000 • /day
(20 x 10 )
gal/d
$3,250,000
$ 440.000
132.000
• 15,000
108,000
6,600
455.000
878.000
$2,034,600
$ 215,000
$1,480.000
19,400
6.600
15.000
58,000
$1,579,000
$ 335,000
$1,914,000
800,000
$2,714,000

-------
                                                        TABLE A-10
                                                POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                  EQUIPMENT COST BASIS
                                                 AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
                                           INCLUDING COSTS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
                                                    80 mg/1 DOSAGE  RATE

                                                                     Equipment Size
Description

Powdered Carbon Feed Tanks (2 each)
Capacity, gallons (Based on feed
concentration of one pound
carbon/gallon water)
;> Feed Rate pounds/day
N)
oo Sludge handling and/or regeneration
system, Ibs/day dry solids
380 M3/day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/day
700
67
290
3800 M3/day
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/day
7,000
670
2,900
19,000 M /day 38
(5 x 10L)
gal/day
35,000
3,350
14,600
Annual Operating and Energy
Carbon make-up Ibs/day
Furnace power requirements
Fuel, BTU/hr
Connected hp
67
N.A.
N.A.
670
N.A.
N.A.
3,350
N.A. 2
N.A.
,000 M3/day
(10 x 10 )
gal/day
70,000
6,700
29,000
Requirements
2,000
,500,000
100
76,000 M3/day
(20 x 10 )
gal/day
140,000
13,400
58,000

4,000
4,500,000
140
Manpower requirement, hours
400
540
940
10,OOO
10,700

-------
                                                                 TABLE  A-11
 i
to
                                                               POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                                    CAPITAL COSTS
                                                          INCLUDING COSTS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
                                                                  80 ng/1 DOSAGE RATE
                                                                                     Capital Costs,  Dollars
Description (P
Powdered Carbon Feed systesi
Solids Dewatering Systesi
Regenerated Carbon Acid Mash
Systea
Subtotal
Piping (10%)
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (50%)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Subtotal
Activated Carbon Regeneration
Syste* (Installed)
Contingency (For Utility
Hook-up, etc.)
Engineering for Carbon
Regeneration Systen
Total Capital Cost
Land Requirements, ft2
380 «3/«I
.IxlOgal/d) .
(10.000
—

10,000
1.000
11,000
5.500
16,500
9,000
8,000
35,000
—
135,000
100
3800 p3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
$30,000
—

30,000
3.000
33.000
16.500
49.500
10,000
10.000
69.500
—
(69,500
200
19,000 «3/d
(SxlO qal/d)
$45.000
~

45.000
49.500
24.800
74.300
11.350
11.350
97.000
~
$97,000
900
38,000 «3/d
(10x10 qal/d)
$60,000
397,000
40,000
497,000
546,700
273.400
820,100
119.950
119,950
1.O60.0OO
900.OOO
190.000
150.000
82.300.000
3.000
76.000 B3/d
(20x10 gal/d)
$100,000
585,000
60,000
745.000
74,500
819.500
410,000
1,229.500
185,250
185.250
1,600,000
1,200,000
250,000
200,000
$3,250,000
4,500

-------
                                                      TABLE  A-12

                                               PONDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
                                          INCLUDING CREDIT FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
                                                   BO  ng/1 DOSAGE RATE
                                                                       Annual Cost, Dollars
Description

Carbon Make-Up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power Requirements
Labor ($10/manhour)
I
Is-1 Sludge Disposal Credit
Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
380 M /day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/day
$7,400
	
1,000
4,000
	
1,000
$13,400
3800 M3/day
(1.0 x 10°)
gal/day
$74,000
	
2,000
5,400
	
2,000
$ 83,400
19,000 M /day
(5 x 10 )
gal/day
$370,000
	
S.OOO
9,4OO
	
3,000
$387,000
38,000 M /day
(10 x 101*)
gal/day
$220,000
76,000
8,OOO
100,000
(-)400,000
332,000
$336,000
76,000 M /day
(20 x 10°)
gal/day
$440,000
132,000
15,000
108,000
(-) 800,000
461,600
$ 356,000
Note:
 The depreciation factor has been omitted from this  analysis  due  to  the  fact  that  it will  be  included  separately
 in the Economic Impact Analysis Supplement.

-------
                                                                    TABLE  A-13
                                                              POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON

                                                     EQUIPMENT COST BASES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

                                                                 ISO mg/l DOSAGE RATE
                                                                                   Equipment Site
 I
NJ
Description (0.
Powdarad Carbon Feed Tanks
(2 each) Capacity, gallons
(Based on feed concentration
of 1 Ib carbon/gal water)
Feed Rate Ib/d
Sludge Handling and/or
Regeneration System,
Ib/d dry solids
Carbon Make-Up Ib/d
(25% Make-up)
Furnace Power Requirements
Fuel. Btu/h
Connected hp
380 «j3/d
1x10 gal/d)
1,000
125
335
Annual
125
N.A.
N.A.
3800 «3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
10,000
1.250
3,350
Operating and Energy
1,250
N.A.
N.A.
19.000 B)3/d
(5x10 gal/d)
43.0OO
6,250
16,700
Requirements
6.250
N.A.
N.A.
38,000 »3/d
(10x10 gal/d)
87,000
12.500
33.500
12.500
N.A.
N.A.
76.000 B)3/d
(20x10 gal/d)
175.000
25,000
66,700
8,150
4,500.000
140
                       Manpower Requirements,  hours
                                                      400
                                                                       540
                                                                                        940.
1.240
                                                                                                                        10.700

-------
                                                                    TABLE  A-14
 i
NJ
                                                              FOUDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                                    CAPITAL COSTS
                                                                ISO mg/1 DOSAGE HATE
                                                                                  Capital Costs. Dollar*
Description |0.
Powd«r*<1 Carbon Fe«d System
Solids Dewatering System
Regenerated Carbon Acid Hash
System
Subtotal
Piping (10*)
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (SOt)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Subtotal
Activated Carbon Regeneration
System (Installed)
Contingency (For Utility
Hook-up, etc.)
Engineering for Carbon
Regeneration System
Total Capital Cost
Land Requirements, ft
180 li'/d
1x10 aal/d)
$15.000
--
	 ~
15,000
1.500
16.500
8.500
25.000
9.000
9.000
43,000
--
$ 43,000
100
3800 m3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
$45.000
—
	 «
45.000
4,500
49.500
24.500
74,000
13.000
13.000
100.000
f 100.000
800
19.000 mJ/d
(5x10 «al/d)
$65,000
—
	 ~
65.000
6.500
71.500
35.500
107.000
16,500
16.500
140.000
—
$140.000
2,000
38, OOP mJ/d
(10x10 9al/d)
$90,000
—
	 ^
90,000
9.000
99,000
49.500
148.500
22.250
22.250
193.000
—
$193.000
3.OOO
76, OOO 8>J/d
(20x10 aal/d)
$150,000
615,000
60.000
825,000
83.000
908,000
454.000
1,362.000
207.500
207.500
1.777,000
1,300,000
280.000
200.000
$3.557.000
4,500

-------
                                                                   TABLE  A-15
                                                             POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                              ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
                                                               150 ng/1 DOSAGE RATE
                                                                                    Annual Coat. Dollars
 I
M
00
Description
Carbon Hake-Up
Furnace Power
Mlacallanaoua Power
Requirements
Labor ($10/man-hour)
Nalntananca
Total Annual Cost
380 |3/d
(0.1x10 gal/d)
$13.900
—
1,000.
4,000
1,000
» 19, 900
3800 «i3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
$139,000
. „
2,000
5,400
2.000
$148.400
19,000 «3/d
(5*10 gal/d)
$694.000
~
5.000
9,400
3.000
$711.400
38.000 »3/d
(10x10 gal/d)
$1,388.000
~
8,000
12.400
4.000
$1,412.400
76,000 »3/d
(20x10 gal/d)
$ 825.000
132.000
15.000
108,000
491,000
$1,571,000
                    NQt« i

                    Tha Depreciation factor has bean omitted from this  analysis due to the fact that it will ba included separately
                    in the Economic Jspact Analysis Supplement.

-------
                                                                   TABLE A-16
 i
NJ
                                                                       PACT
                                                           COWARISON OF OPERATING COST*
                                                        CARBON REGENERATION VS.  THROW-AWAY
                                                               150 «g/l DOSAGE RATE
                                                                                            Regenerated
Description (0,
Capital Cost
Carbon Make-up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power
Labor
Maintenance (3%)
(15%)
Depreciation (25%)
Total Annual Cost
380 «3/d
$743.000
4,130
5,000
1,000
91,600
1.000
105,000
200. OOP
$407,730
3800 B3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
$1.035.000
41.300
19.000
2,000
93.000
2,000
140,000
280.000
$577.300
19.000 »3/d
(SxlO qal/d)
$1.743,000
207,000
44,000
5,000
97,000
3,000
240,000
471.000
$1,067,000
38,000 n3/d
(10x10 gal/d)
$,2,463,000
413,000
76,000
8.000
100,000
4,000
343,000
$1,609,000
76,000 «3/d
(20x10 gal/d)
$3.557.000
825,000
132,000
15,000
108,000
6,000
485,000
961,000
$2,532,000
Non-Regenerated
Capital Cost
Carbon Make-up
Labor
Maintenance (3t)
Miscellaneous Power
Depreciation (27t)
Total Annual Cost
Cost for Sludge Dewatering
Annual Cost with Sludge
Dewatering
Cost for Land Disposal
$ 43,000
13.900
4,000
1,000
1,000
11.600
$ 11,500
25.000
$ 56,500
5,000
$100,000
139.000
5,400
2,000
2,000
27.000
$175,400
95.000
$270,400
50,000
$140,000
694,000
9,400
3,000
5,000
37.600
$749.200
171,000
$920,200
250.000
$193,000
1,388,000
12,400
4,000
8.000
52 , 100
$1,464,500
282.000
$1,746.500
500,000
$322,000
2,775,000
19,400
6.600
15,000
87.000
$2,903,000
419,000
$3,322,000
1.000,000
                     Annual Cost with Land
                     Disposal
* 61.500
                                                                  $320.400
                                                                                  $1,170.200
                                                   $2.246.500
$4.322,000

-------
                                                             TABLE  A-17
                                                           POWDERED ACTIVATED CAR13GN
                                                 EQUIPMENT COST BASES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
                                                      INCLUDING COSTS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
                                                             ISO B9/1 DOSAGE RATE
                                                                                      Equipment Sizo
 I
U>
O
Description (0.
Powdered Carbon Feed Tanks
(2 each) Capacity, gallons
(Based on feed concentration
of 1 Ib carbon/gal water)
Feed Rate Ib/d
Sludge handling and/or
Regeneration System,
Ib/d dry solids
Carbon Make -Up Ib/d
(25% make-up)
Furnace Power Requirements
Fuel, Btu/h
Connected hp
380 m'/d
1x10 gal/d)
1,000
125
335
Annual
125
N.A.
N.A.
3800 m /d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
10,000
1,250
3,350
Operating and Energy
1,250
N.A.
N.A.
19,000 m /d
(5x10 gal/d)
43,000
6,250
16,700
Requirements
2.100
1,300.000
80
38.000 m'/d
(10x10 gal/d)
87.000
12,500
33,500
418
2,500,000
100
76,000 B /d
(20x10 gal/d)
175,000
25,000
66 , 7OO
8,350
4,500,OOO
140
                  Manpower  Requirements, hours
                                                  400
                                                                   540
                                                                                   9.700
10,000
                                                                                                                     10.700

-------
          TABLE  A-18
    PONDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
          CAPITAL COSTS
INCLUDING COSTS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
       150 ag/1 DOSAGE RATE
                        Capital Costs. Dollar*
Description (0.
Powdered Carbon Peed Systra
Solid* Dem te ring Syste>
Regenerated Carbon Acid Hash
System
Subtotal
Piping (104)
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (SO)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Subtotal
Activated Carbon Regeneration
System (Installed)
Contingency (For Utility
Hook-up, etc.)
Engineering for Carbon
Regeneration System
Total Capital Cost
Land Requircnents, ft
380 p3/d
1x10 gal/d)
(15,000
—

15,000
1,500
16,500
6,500
25,000
9,000
9,000
43,000
—
$43.000
100
3800 B3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
I 45,000
—

45,000
4,500
49,500
34,500
74,000
13,000
13,000
100,000
—
$100,000
000
19,000 B3/d
(5x10 gal/d)
$ 65.000
250.000
20.000
335.000
34.000
369,000
IBS. OOP
554,000
62.000
62.000
718.000
750.000
16O.OOO
115.000
$1,743.000
2,000
38.000 »3/d
(10x10 gal/d)
$ 90,000
415.000
40.000
545,000
55.000
602,000
300.000
900,000
131,500
131.500
1,163,000
950,000
200,000
150.000
$2,463,000
3,000
76,000 BJ/d
(20x10 gal/d)
$150.000
615,000
60.000
825,000
83. OOP
908,000
454.000
1.362.000
207.500
207,500
1.777.000
1.300.000
2 80,000
200.000
$3.557.000
4.500

-------
                                                                        TABLE  A-19
 i
U>
NJ
                                                                 POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                                  ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
                                                            INCLUDING CREDIT FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
                                                                    ISO mg/l DOSAGE RATE
                                                                                         Annual Cost.  Dollars
Description
Carbon Make-up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power
Requirement*
Labor ($10/Mn-hour|
Sludge Disposal Credit
Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
380 g3/d
(0. 1x10 qal/d)
$13,900
~
1,000
4,000
~
1.000
$19.900
3800 p3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
$139,000
—
2.000
5,400
—
2.000
$148,400
19,000 m3/d
(5x10 gal/d)
$207.000
55,000
5,000
97,000
(-) 250.000
243,000
$357,000
38,000 »3/d
(10x10 gal/d)
$413,000
95.000
8.000
100,000
(-1500.000
347.000
$463.000
76.000 m3/d
(20x10 gal/d)
$825.000
165,000
15.000
108.000
(-) 1,000, 000
491.000
$604.000
                         Mote i
                        The Depreciation factor ha* been oaltted Iron thla analysis due to the  fact that it will be included separately
                        in the Economic Ispact Analysis Supplement

-------
                                                  TABLE  A-20
Description
                            380 m3/day
                           (0.1x106 gal/d)
                    Granular Activated Carbon
                      Equipment Cost Basis
                         Energy Requirements

                                    Equipment Size
                                      19,000 m*7~~
                                                 £gu
                                                and"
 3800 ni3/day       "l97op6 m37day    38,000 m3/day     76.000 m3/day
(l.OxlO6 gal/d)     (SxlO6 gal/d)     (JOxlO6 gal/d)     (20x10° gal/d)
Activated Carbon Units
         .3
Three-4'diam.
  x  13'  high
      281
Carbon, ftj Total

Automatic Controls Included       No

Furnace size, Ib/d               N.A.
      of carbon
Three-11'  dlam.
  x   18'  high
      2800

      Yes

      1250
Nine-12' diara.    Fifteen-12'  dlam.  Thirty-12'  dlam.
 x   25' high      x     30'  high    x    30'  high
     14.000            28.000           56,000
                                            Yes

                                           6,250
                        Yes

                       12.500
  Yes

25,000
Carbon Make-up, Ib/d
  (10% make-up)

Furnace Power Require-
  ments
    Fuel.Btu/hr
    Connected  hp

Pumping Power Require-
  ments  kWh/yr

Manpower Requirements,
  hours
      125
      Annual  Operating and Energy Requirements


       12,5                625             1,250
                                         2,500
N.A.
N.A.
11,400
2,100
500.000
40
114,000
9,800
800,000
50
570.000
10.500
1,500.000
60
1.140,000
11,500
2,800,000
80
2,280,000
12.500

-------
                                                                               TABLE  A-21
 I
OJ
                                                                         GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                                               CAPITAL COSTS
                                                                                                 Capital Coats, Dollars
Description


Activated Carbon Units
Pumping t Misc. Equip. (10\)
Piping (1O%)
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (50t)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Subtotal
Activated Carbon Regeneration
System (Installed)
Contingency (For utility hooK-
up, etc.)
Engineering for Carbon Regeneration
System
38O »3/day
(0.1 X10 )
gal/d
$50, OOO
5.OOO'
5,000
6O.OOO
30, OOO
90,000
40.0OO
20.0OO
150,000



3800 «3/day
(1.0 X10 )
yal/d
$325,000
32,500
32,500
390,000
195,000
585,000
85,000
80,000
75O,OOO
3OO,OOO
6O.OOO
50,000
19,000 JI3/d«
(5 X10 )
gal/d
$1,500,000
150,000
150,000
1,800,000
900,000
2.700.OOO
400,000
400,000
3,500,000
450,OOO
100,000
5O.OOO
y 38,000 " /day
(10 X10 )
gal/d
$2,600,000
260, OOO
260, OOO
3,120,000
1,560,000
4,680,OOO
710,000
710,000
6,1OO,OOO
600,000
12O.OOO
80,000
76, OOO »3/day
(20 XlO )
gal/d
$5,000,000
500,000
500,000
6,000,000
3,000,000
9,000,OOQ
1,350,000
1,350,000
11,700,000
750,000
15O.OOO
100,000
                                 Total Capital Cost
$150,000
                                                                              $1,160,000
                                                                                             $4,100,000
$6,920,000
                                                                                                                           $12,700,000
                                 Land Requirements, ft
                                                                       300
                1,500
                                                                                                  3,500
                                                                                                                 5,500
                                                                                                                                12.0OO

-------
                                                                             TABLE  A-2 2
                                                                        URANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
                                                                          ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
                                                                                               Annual Coats, Dollars
OJ
Description

Carbon Make-Op
Furnace Power
Pumping
*
Labor ($lO/manhour)
Maintenance (3% of total
Capital Cost)
Total Annual Cost
NOTE: The depreciation factor
380 u /day
(0.1 X106)
gal/day
528,000
	
50O
21.0OO
4,500
$54,000
3800 n3/da
(1.0 X106)
gal/day
$28,000
19,000
5.OOO
98,000
35,000
$185,000
has been omitted from this
y 19,000 m /day
(5 X106)
gal/day
$137,000
27,000
25,000
105,000
123,000
$417,000
analysis due to the
38,000 »3/day
(10 X106)
gal/day
$275,000
46,000
50,000
115,000
208, OOO
$694,000 $1
fact that it will
76, OOO » /day
(20 X106)
gal/day
$550,000
82,000
100,000
125,000
381,000
,238,000
be included
                                separately  in  the Economic Impact Analysis Supplement.
                                *  The Manpower requirements were obtained from the "Process Pesign  Manual for carbon Adsorption,"
                                   Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Series,  October  1973.  Labor includes operation,
                                   maintenance, and laboratory personnel requirements.

-------
                              TABLE A-23
              SUPPLEMENTAL ECONOMIC COST INFORMATION
                    CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
            FOR 10,000 GALLON PER DAY TREATMENT SYSTEMS
                           Capital Cost,       Annual Operating Cost
Treatment System	Dollars	Dollars*	

Equalization               $ 12,000                   $  400

Rotating Biological          50,000                    6,100
  Contactors

Filtration                   35,000                    3,000

Powdered Activated           35,000                    4,300
  Carbon

Granular Carbon              60,000                   10,000
                              A-36

-------
                                                 TABLE A-24

                                        COOfclNG TOWER SLOWDOWN RATES
                                        PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
                                          (MILLION GALLONS PER DAY)
REFINERY
 NUMBER

    1
    2
    3
    4
    6
    7
    8
    9
   10
   11
   12
   13
   15
   16
   17
   18
   19
   20
   21
   22
   23
   24
   25
   26
   29
   30
   31
   32
   33
   35
   36
   37
   38
   39
   40
   41
   42
   43
   44
   45
   46
   48
   49
   SO
   51
   52
   53
   54
   55
   56
   57
   58
   59
   60
   61
   62
   63
   64
   65
   66
   67
   68
   70
   71
   72
   73
   74
   76
   77
   79
   80
   81
   82
   83
   84
   85
   87
   88
   89
   90
   91
   92
   93
   94
   95
SLOWDOWN

 0.008
 0.014
 Unknown
 Not App.
 Not App.
 0.03
 Unknown
 0.001
 0.015
 1.8
 0.002
 1.015
 0.023
 0'.069
 0.005
 0.021
 0.0015
 0.32
 0.0113
 0.011
 Not App.
 0.065
 0.167
 0.0745
 0.33
 0.033
 0.01
 0.84
 0.11
 Hot App.
 0.0055
 1.83
 0.702
 0.06
 Unknown
 1.01
 0.012
 0.55
 Unknown.
 0.817
 0.145
 0.141
 0.17
 0.0255
 Not App.
 Not App.
 0.0355
 Unknown
 Not App.
 0.65
 6.3
 0.269
 0.237
 0.85
 1.4
 1.025
 0.299
 1.0
 0.944
 Unknown
 3.23
 2.448
 Unknown
 0.095
 0.022
 0.138
 0.157
 0.826
 0.198
 Unknown
 0.87
 0.24
 0.006
 1.015
 Unknown
 2.539
 Not App.
 0.073
 Unknown
 0.007
 0.0036
 2.024
 0.021
 0.432
 Unknown
                                    SLOWDOWN
96
97
98
99
100
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
in
122
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
166
167
168
169
172
173
174
175
176
177
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187

6.01
0.01
0.78
Not App.
Not App.
Unknown
0.01
2.59
Not App.
0.52
0.01
Unknown
0.185
Not App.
1.11
Unknown
0.109
0.12B
0.521
0.288
0.50
0.012
0.031
0.023
0.74
1.562
0.135
0.114
0.120
0.025
Not App.
0.066
Not App.
0.120
0.75
1.831
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0.153
0.006
0.055
Unknown
0.11
Unknown
0.144
Unknown
Unknown
0.49
0.055
0.15
Not App.
1.50
1.78
3.806
0.050
0.098
0.564
0.925
0.067
0.066
0.042
1.129
0.356
0.-642
0.16S
0.025
1.189
0.62
1.659
0.149
Unknown
Not App.
4.36
0.0026
0.014
0.149
0.386
5.219
1.858
0.341
0.521
0.322
0.516
0.983
A- 37
NUMBER

 188
 189
 190
 191
 192
 193
 194
 195
 196
 197
 199
 200
 201
 202
 203
 204
 205
 206
 207
 208
 209
 210
 211
 212
 213
 214
 2X5
 216
 218
 219
 220
 221
 222
 224
 225
 .226
 227
 228
 229
 230
 231
 232
 233
 234
 235
 236
 237
 238
 239
 240
 241
 242
 243
 244
 245
 246
 247
 246
 249
 250
 251
 252
 253
 254
 255
 256
 257
 258
 259
 260
 261
 264
 265
 266
 278
 291
 292
 295
 296
 298
 302
 303
 305
 307
 308
 309
SLOWDOWN

 1.01
 Unknown
 0.01
 0.485
 0.01
 Unknown
 2.99
 Unknown
 3.51
 0.001
 0.01
 0.4
 0.48
 Unknown
 2.035
 1.536
 0.6911
 2.5
 0.037
 0.86
 0.095
 0.015
 0.279
 0.374
 0.013
 Unknown
 Unknown
 2.42
 Unknown
 0.565
 0.012
 Unknown
 0.20

 0.711
 Unknown
 0.389
 0.122
 0.009
 0.37
 Hot App.
 Unknown
 0.307
 Unknown
 0.23
 0.00
 0.0015
 0.325
 Daknown
 0.072
 0.11
 0.305
 0.125
 0.0315
 0.153
 0.0425
 0.1166
 Unknown
 0.015
 Unknown
 Not App.
 0.0015
 Unknown
 Unknown
 Unknown
 0.0008
 Hot App.
 0.634
 Not App.
 Hot App.
 0.20
 Unknown
 0.259
 Not App.
 Unknown
 0.00126
 Not App.
 0.158
 Not App.
 Unknown
 Not App.
 Unknown
 0.010
 Unknown
 Unknown
 0.302

-------
 I
(jO
CO
                                                                         TABLE  A-25


                                                                      Chromium Removal Systems
                                                             Equipment Cost Basis  and Energy Requirements
Description
Detention Tank, gallons
Mixer, hp
Mixing Requirements , Mh/yr
3.8,m3/day
(1x10 gal/d)
32
0.25
1.650
Solids Contact Clarifier, diaro. 8
S02 Feed Rate. lb/d
Acid Feed Rate, lb/d
Caustic Feed Rate, lb/d
Pumping Requirements, kWh/yr
Manpower Requirements, h/yr
0.4
0.2
2
23
520
38 j3/day
(1x10 gal/d)
320
0.25
1.650
8
4
2
20
230
520
380,M3/day
(IxlCT gal/d)
3.200
1.5
9.900
15
40
20
200
2,300
520
3800 m3/day
(IxlO6 gal/d)..
32.000
15
99.000
45
400
200
2.000
23.000
1.040
19,000 m3/day
(5x10° gal/d)
160.000
80
528,000
100
2.000
1,000
10,000
115.000
2.080

-------
                                                                            TABLE  A-26
u>
VD
                          Description
                                                    (IxJO3 gal/day)
                  Chromium Removal Systems
                 Capital and Operating Costs

                            Capital Costs. Dollars

                 38.m3/day        380,m3/day         3800 m3/day       19.000 m3/day
              (1x10* gal/day)   (IxlO3 gal/day)    (1x10° gal/day)    (5x10° gal/day)
Detention Tank
Chemical Feed Systems
Automatic Controls
Solids Contact Clarifler
Pumps
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (SOX)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost

SO
Acfd
Caustic
Mixing
Pumping
Labor
Maintenance (31 of
Total Capital Cost)
$ 100
5,000
--
25.000
30,100
15,000
45.100
6.950
6,950
$59,000

* 16
4
130
70
Negligable
5.200
1.780
V 1,000
15.000
10,000
25.000
51,000
25.500
76.500
11.750
11,750
$100.000
Annual
$ 160
40
1.300
70
10
5,200
3,000
$ 5,000
30.000
10,000
35.000
80.000
40,000
120.000
17.500
17.500
$155.000
Operating Costs.
$ 1,600
400
13,000
400
100
5,200
4,800
$20,000
40.000
10,000
80,000
150,000
75,000
225,000
37.500
37,500
$300,000
Dollars*
$ 16.000
4,000
130.000
4,000
1,000
10,000
9,000
$50.000
45,000
10.000
155,000
260.000
130,000
390,000
60,000
60,000
$510.000

$ 80.000
20,000
620,000
21.000
5,000
20,000
16,000
                          Total Annual Cost
$ 7.200
$  9.780
$ 25,500
$174,000
$782.000
                           *Hote:  The depreciation factor has been omitted from this analysis due to the fact that  It will be  included
                                  separately in the Economic Impact Analysis Supplement,

-------
                                         TABLE A-27
Description
Uastewater Recycle -  Capital  and  Operating  Costs

                      Capital  Costs.  Dollars  -  Per  Mile

         2.3 m3/hr  16 m3/hr  80  m3/hr  160 m3/hr  320 m3/hr  800 m3/hr
        (10 qpm)    (70 qpm)   (350 qpm) (700 gpm)   (1400  qpm) (3500 gpm)
Piping:
  Piping,installed,per mile
  M1sc.  Costs (15%)
  Total  Constructed  cost,
    per mile
  Engineering (15%)
  Contingency

Piping-total capital costs
  per mile
         $32,000   $53,000   $100,000  $135,000   $175,000   $243,000
           5.000     8.000     15.000    20.000     26.000     36,000

          37,000    61,000    115,000   155,000    201,000    279,000
           6,000     9,000     18,000    23,000     30,000     42,000
           7.000    10.000     17.000    22.000     29.000     42.000

         $50,000   $80,000   $150,000  $200,000   $260,000   $363,000
Pumps:
  Pumps and associated
  equipment instated (10*
  of piping cost)	
           5,000     8,000     15,000    20,000      26,000     37,000
Total  capital  costs per mile   $55,000   $88,000    $165,000   $220,000    $286,000    $400,000
(Minimum pumping costs
  regardless of distance)
           5,000     6,000     12,000    18,000     24,000     40,000
Pumping costs per mile,
  per year
Maintenance (V.5% of capital
  costs) per mile,per year
                 Annual Operating Costs,  Dollars  -  Per flile

            $100     $ 700      $2600     $4500     $ 9200    $24,300

             800      1300       2500      3300       4300      6,000
Total Annual operating cost
            $900     $2000
$5100     $7800    $13,500    $30,300
Note:  The Depreciation factor has  been  omitted  from  this  analysis due  to the  fact  that
       it will be included separately in the Economic Input Analysis  Supplement.
                                           A-40

-------
                                         TABLE A-28
                          Water Softening of Recycled Uastewater
                                       Canital  flnst.s
                                                 Capital Costs, Dollars
Description
Solids Contact Clarifier
(Diameter, ft)
2.3 m3/hr
(10 gprn)
$ 25,000
(8)
16 m3/hr
(70 apm)
$ 30,000
(ID
80 m3/hr
(350 gpm)
$ 45,000
(23)
160 m3/hr
(700 qpm)
$ 65,000
(32)
320 m3/hr
(1400 qpm)
$ 80,000
(45)
800 m3/hr
(3500 qpm)
$125,000
(72)
Chemical Feed System(s)
Total Capital  Costs
   5,000
7,000    10,000    15,000     25,000
50,000
Filter Unit
(Diameter, ft)
Subtotal
Auxiliary Equipment
Total Capital Cost
Installation(50%)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
15,000
(3)
45,000
5,000
50,000
25,000
75,000
15,000
15,000
25,000
(8)
62,000
8,000
70,000
35,000
105,000
20,000
20,000
30,000
(11)
85,000
10,000
95,000
50,000
145,000
25,000
25,000
40,000
(15)
120,000
15,000
135,000
70,000
205,000
30,000
30,000
80,000
(two-151
units)
185,000
20,000
205,000
100,000
305,000
45,000
45,000
150,000
(three-201
units)
325,000
35,000
360,000
180,000
540,000
80,000
80,000
$105,000   $145,000  $195,000  $265,000   $395,000   $700,000
                                         A-41

-------
                                                  1  of  5
              TABLE A-2 9
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 3Y REFINERY NUMBER
REFINERY
5TUMBER

1
2
3
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
19
20
24
30
32
37
38
40
41
43
46
49
50
51
52
53
54
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
63
70
OPTION
CAPITAL
COSTS
131.000
76.000
50.000
36,000
70.000
15.000
70,000
179,000
145,000
No coat -
No coat -
200.000
73,000
325.000
750,000
610,000
No co*t -
935,000
550.000
300,000
338,000
110,000
130.000
1.420,000
166,000
65,000
53,000
645,000
1,280,000
385,000
0
650,000
400,000
250,000
485,000
720,000
4,510,000
1,335,000
190,000
ECONOMIC COSTS. DOLLARS
I
ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
3,600
5,900
4,700
6.700
5.600
3.200
5,600
6,500
5,200
considered presently indirect
insignificant flow.
15.000
6.900
19,300
29.300
32.300
considered presently indirect
47.300
37.500
17.300
17.500
7,800
6.600
606.000
10.100
2.200
4.000
35.300
121.000
19,100
0-
33,300
24,500
13.000
32,500
47,600
360,000
38.000
10,700
OPTION 2.
CAPITAL
COSTS
131.000
126,000
35,000
171.000
140,000
67.000
140 , 000
233.000
536,000
discharger only.

275,000
313, OCO
375,000
4.750.000
2,210,000
discharger only
1,060,000
6.950,000
2,400,000
398,000
230,000
745,000
3.690,000
406.000
100.000
38.000
1.550,000
1.380.000
460 , 000
75,000
730,000
500,000
2.150,000
560,000
320,000
7.760,000
1,490,000
225,000
3
ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
30.100
14.900
9,700
14,700
12,600
9.400
12,600
73,500
32,200


165,000
22.900
43 , 300
122,000
117,000

558,000
323.000
120.000
90.500
17.300
40,600
942.000
26.100
20.200
15.000
33.300
683 , 000
104,000
145,000
238.000
397,000
103.000
225,000
330.000
720,000
464,000
28 , 700
                    A-42

-------
          TABLE A-29
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS BY
                                2  of 5
REFINERY
HUMBES

71
72
73
74
76
77
30
31
33
34
35
37
38
39
90
91
92
93
94
96
97
98
99
100
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
112
113
114
115
116
117
ECONOMIC COSTS. DOLLARS
OPTICS i
CAPITAL
COSTS
145.000
50,000
So cost -
72.000
380 , 000
70.000
91.000
270.000
210,000
520.000
300.000
220.000
60.000
79.000
58,000
45,000
1.630.000
51,000
428.000
600,000
35,000
650,000
45,000
30,000
230,000
48,000
500,000
305,000
200,000
HO coet -
70,000
145.000
So cost -
295,000
90,000
So cost -
0
400,000
677,000
ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
9,300
5,700
OPTION
CAPITAL
COSTS
345,000
35,000
2.3
ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
24.300
22,700
considered presently indirect discharger only.
2,500
26,400 1.
6,700
6,300
21,100 1.
17,000
25,400
22.000
15,400
6,200
6,100
4.700
3,400
78.100 4.
4.000
27.400
44,300 3,
6.500
30.300 2.
5.000
1.100
13,600
6,100
28,000 4,
22,200
13,000 1.
will discharge to POTW in future.
5,400
9.300
will discharge to POTW in future.
184,000
7.300
will discharge to POTW in future.
0
21.000 1.
25.300 1,
242.000
630,000
110.000
181,000
150,000
295,000
595.000
295,000
315.000
235.000
156.000
118.000
30,000
0 1C. 000
86,000
503,000
080,000
120.000
250.000
128.000
65.000
305.000
157.000
600.000
380.000
300,000

105,000
185,000

465.000
420 , 000

90,000
300.000
270.000
15,500
92,400
34,700
15,300
69,100
209,000
164,000
286.000
24,400
19.200
15.100
11.700
7,400
415.000
10.000
172.000
387,000
17.500
111.000
13,000
10,600
32.600
14,100
208.000
203,000
73,000

13,400
119.000

31,400
28.300

216,000
69,000
59,300
A-43

-------
                TABLE A-29                     3  of 5
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 3Y aSTINERY NUMBER
REFINERY
NUMBER

1X3
119
120
121
122
124
12S
126
127
129
131
132
133
134
142
143
144
146
147
149
150
151
152
133
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
167
163
169
172
173
OPTION
CAPITAL
COSTS
20,000
60.000
55,000
1,000.000
1.320.000
220.000
210,000
760,000
126,000
221.000
300.000
740,000
1.560.000
940.000
Bo cost - vill
No eo«t - will
110.000
220,000
109.000
570,000
372,000
1.230,000
1,530.000
0
310.000
95,000
115.000
580,000
243,000
158.000
56.000
30.000
220.000
165.000
162.000
1.680.000
0
2.220.000
320.000
255.000

r
ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
900
2.000
1,300
47,500
115.000
12,400
12.000
54,500
3.400
15,600
17,500
108,000
172.000
56,500
di.«ch»rg« to POTW
disch»rg« to POTW
7,700
15.300
3,700
31,700
18.900
62.000
155.000
0
19.400
7.000
9.000
23,500
13.400
10.200
6.500
7.200
17.000
11.400
10.000
111,000
0
172.000
24,000
17,700
A-44

OPTION
CAPITAL
COSTS
75,000
175.000
155,000
4.100.000
5,720,000
535.000
550.000
5.160,000
276,000
521.000
390.000
3,070,000
1.690.000
1.040,000
la fatux*.
in futuz*.
223,000
315,000
149,000
1.370.000
424.000
3.930.000
1,650.000
100,000
1.010,000
190,000
S90.000
655,000
283,000
333.000
91.000
355,000
295.000
365,000
396,000
1,780,000
30,000
2, 3
-------
              TABLE  A-29
                                                         4 of  5

CAPITAL AHD  OPERATING COSTS 3Y REFINERY HUMBER
REFINERY
NUMBER

174
175
176
177
179
ISO
131
183
184
186
189
190
194
196
197
199
201
204
203
208
210
211
21?
213
216
219
221
222
226
227
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238

ECONOMIC COSTS.
OPT! OH 1
CAPITAL
COSTS
244,000
Ho cost -
185.000
485,000
158,000
565.000
980,000
106,000
150,000
580.000
50.000
38.000
2.870,000
2,230,000
35.000
155.000
209,000
268,000
890.000
420.000
35,000
0
0
71,000
1.000.000
0
600,000
235.000
63.000
0
125.000
Mo coat -
0
385.000
385,000
400,000
100,000
55.000
793,000

ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
16,900
will diacharg* to POTW in
11.000
28.500
9,800
46.100
106,000
8.500
12.000
26,500
3,700
3,800
154,000
255,000
3,000
9,500
7,700
18.700
43.400
25.000
3,200
0
0
5,700
€6.800
0
423,000
17.000
5.000
0
9,400
will discharge to POTW in
0
19,400
19.400
24,000
7,100
4,500
45,100
A-45
D Of, TARS
OPTION 2 ,
CAPITAL
COSTS
674,000
fucura.
470,000
535,000
383,000
640.000
3,540,000
526.000
225,000
655.000
103.000
60,000
12.200.000
5.330,000
85.000
227.000
269,000
358.000
2.590.000
520.000
70,000
60.000
50,000
144,000
4.250,000
350,000
690,000
510,000
128,000
60 , 000
645,000
future.
60,000
445,000
445.000
475.000
135,000
90.000
368,000

3
ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
42,900

30.000
93 , 500
25.600
263.000
448.000
33,400
112.000
171.500
9.900
6.400
650,000
611,000
9.000
16,500
87,700
283 , 000
133,000
415,000
3,200
69,000
61,000
12,700
424,000
48,000
301.000
35,000
12,000
96,000
40 , 400

90,000
103,400
103,400
144,000
20,100
10,500
196.000


-------
TABLE A-29
5 of 5
REFINERY
SUMBER

239
240
241
242
243
252
235
256
2S7
238
239
260
261
265
266
292
293
309
ECONOMIC COSTS. DOLLARS
OPTICS i OPTICS
CAPITAL
COSTS
110,000
145.000
205,000
70,000
55,000
110.000
60,000
30,000
590,000
165,000
590.000
58,000
335,000
248,000
410,000
So coat -
315,000
425,000
ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
7.700
9.100
11,300
6.700
6,000
7,700
2.000
7",300
29,000
11,400
29.300
4.400
22,100
13.700
23.200
inaigniiicant Slow.
20.100
59, 100
CAPITAL
COSTS
145.000
135.000
250,000
110,000
200,000
225,000
175,000
365.000
1.990.000
225,000
665.000
.116.000
433,000
296.000
470. '000

355.000
470.000
2 ,3
ANNUAL OPERATING
COSTS
24.200
33 . 600
51.800
34.700
17.500
17,700
12.000
26,300
101.000
95,400
198.000
10.700
261.000
64,700
81.200

45.100
99. 100
  A-46

-------
   TABLE A-30
Page 1  of  3
 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS





INDIRECT DISCHARGE - OPTION I
Cooling
Refinery Tower
Code Slowdown
No. gal/day
8
13
14
16
18
21
23
25
29
31
33
38
45
58
73
1,250*«
1,O20,OOO
7,700
69, 300
21,500
11,300
Does Not
167,000
325,000
10,000
J 10, OOO
702,000
817,000
269,000
139,000
ChroBiiw Removal, $ Piping Coat, $
Capital Annual Capital Annual
Cost operating Cose Cost Operating Coat
63,000
300,000
94,000
143,000
115,000
102,000
Have Cooling
172,000
207,000
100.OOO
156,000
265,000
280,000
194,000
165,000
7,300 « «
17L,, OOO 320,000 11,000
8,000 20,000 400
20,OOO 45,000 900
12,500 30, OOO 4OO
10,OOO * •
Tower +
40,000 60,000 1,600
70,000 ISO, OOO 4,200
9,800 * *
28, OOO 5u,OuO 1.10U
130,000 160,000 5,000
150,000 200,000 6,500
60.0OO 90,OOO 2,500
35.OOO 60, OOO 1,300
Total Cost, $
Capital Annual
cost Operating Cost
63,000
620,000
114, OOO
188,000
145.0OO
102,000

232,000
357.OOO
lOu.OOO
2O6 , OOO
425,000
480,000
284,000
225.0OO
7,300
186,000
8,400
20,900
12,900
10,000

41,600
74,200
9,800
29,1OO
135,000
157,000
62,500
36,300

-------
                                                                                           Page 2  of 3
                                               TABLE  A-30
            Cooling
Refinery      Tower          Chromium Removal, §                Piping Cost,  $                     Total Cost, $
 Code      Blowdown       Capital         Annual            Capital         Annual           Capital          Annual
  No.      gal/day         Cost       Operating Cost        Cost       Operating Cost        Cost         Operating Cost
78
79
86
107
110
111
' 114
iP>
°°
130
142
143
145
148
166
175
182
188
15,000 108,000 10,000 35,000 500 143,000
No Cost - Unknown Flow
148,000 166,000 35,000 45.0OO 1,100 211,000
10,000 100,000 10,000 « * 100,000
No Cooling Tower +
1,110,000 310,000 188,000 160,000 5,600 470,000
Non Chromium Treatment -*•+
No Cooling Tower +
No Cooling Tower +
110,000 156,000 28,000 60.0OO 1,400 216,000
Non Chromium Treatment t+
1,000«* 59,000 7,200 * * 59,000
Non Chromium Treatment + +
25,000 118,000 12,000 « * 118,000
4,360,000 487,000 628,000 405,000 34,200 972,000
1,860,000 370,000 285,000 630,000 28,700 1,OOO,000
l,010,uOO 300,000 175,000 200,000 7,000 500,000
10,500

36,100
10,000

194,000


29,400

7,200

12,000
662,000
314,000
182,000

-------
                                                                TABLE  A-30
                                                                                                            Page  3  of  3
                        Cooliny
            Refinery      Tower
             Code      Blowdown
              No.       gal/day
V£>
  Chromium Removal, $
Capital         Annual
 Cost       Operating Cost
    Piping Cost,  $
Capital         Annual
 Cost       Operating Cost
       Total Cost.  S
Capital          Annual
 Cost          Operating  Coat
193
195
20O
203
206
207
220
224
225
228
229
231
264
291
305
TOTAL
130"
59,OOO 7,200 « *
59.OOO 7,200
No Cooling Tower +
395,000
2,040,000
2,OOO
36,500
Non Chromi
Non Chrowi
Non Chromi
122.OOO
8,500
No Cooling
No Cooling
126,000
11,600"
5
220,000 80,000 65,000 2,000
382,000 308, OOO 680,000 31,800
70,000 8,000 * *
126. OOO 15,000 40,000 700
uw Treatment ++
urn Treatment ++
uw Treatment ++
166,000 30.0OO 50,000 1,000
98/000 9,400 • *
Towers +
Tower a +
162,000 30,000 40,000 BOO
103, OOO 11,300 * *
,916. OOO 2, 633, OOO J, 675, OOO ISO, OOO
285,000 82,000
1,062,000 340,000
70,000 8,000
166,000 15,700



216,000 31,000
98,000 9,400


2O2.OOO 30.8OO
103,000 11,300
9,591,000 2, 783, OOO
              NOTE:      *   These  Refineries have only one cooling  tower and so piping coat is excluded.

                       **   Actual Cooling Tower blowdown data were not availablej the blowdown rate is assumed to be
                           25% of total wastewater generated.

                        +   These  Refineries do not have any cooling towers.

                       +t   These  Refineries do not use Chromium in the cooling towers.

-------
                                    Page 1  of 2
TABLE  A-31
 CAPITAL AMD OPERATING COSTS
INDIRECT DISCHARGE - OPTION 2
Mfinary
Cod* NO.
8
13
14
16
13
21
23
25
29
31
33
38
45
58
73
78
79
36
107
110
111
114
128
130
Capital
Co«M, S
No Cost
5,800,000
315,000
826,000
495,000
373,000
315,000
375,000
4,650,000
247,000
1,090,000
4,350,000
3,900,000
1,900,000
915,000
1,390,000
NO Cost
300, JOO
255,000
250,000
2,450,000
683,000
277,000
1,310,000
Annual Operating
Costs, $
- Insignificant Flow
626,000
51,400
136,000
58,000
62,500
60,200
54,500
521,000
54,700
152,000
455,000
419 , 000
159,000
34 , 100
119,000
- Unknown Flow
104,000
57 , 900
56 , 700
211,000
103,000
29,700
421,000
                A-50

-------
TABLE A-31
                            Page 2 of 2
Refinery
Cod* NO.
142
143
145
148
166
175
1S2
188
193
195
200
203
206
207
220
224
225
228
229
231
264
291
305
Capital
Costs , $
2,450,000
2,190,000
247,000
493,000
273,000
13,300,000
7,000,000
3,660,000
247,000
247,000
1,150,000
13,300,000
437,000
375,000
258,000
655,000
2,220,000
710,000
242,000
1,110,000
250,000
250,000
277 , 000
Annual Operating
Costs, S
211,000
174,000
54,700
111,000
96,900
2,360,000
781,000
340 , 000
54 , 700
54,700
106,000
1,510,000
95,800
92,500
56,700
112,000
177 , 000
112 , 000
25 , 400
378,000
55,500
51,200
29,700
            A-51

-------
                           APPENDIX B

                         RAW PLANT DATA
The purpose of this appendix is to present the raw analytical
results for both the 17 refineries' screening program, and
the pretreatment program.  (It should be noted that the
"screening program1 is referred to in this appendix as the
RSKERL and B&R sampling program).   These results are presented
in Tables B-l through B-16, which follow.

Tables B-l through B-6 contain the analytical results for
the 17 direct discharge refineries.

Tables B-7 through B-ll include results from the first week
of sampling for the pretreatment program.  These tables
report pollutant characteristics for wastewater leaving
Refinery No. 25 and at various points in the treatment train
of the first POTW.

Tables B-12 through B-16 contain the analytical results from
the second week of the pretreatment program.  Included in
these tables are effluent characteristics for Refinery Nos.
13, 16, 21, 43, and 45, as well as the wastewater pollutant
characteristics at various stages in the treatment train of
the second POTW.

-------
                                                                                     TABLE  B-l
      Page 1  of  7
                                                 Analytical Usenlts tot Traditional  Parameters tot the K3KEM. and BtR Saaplina Prcxirasi
          Sasole - DOT

          tannery A
            Intake - 1
            Intake - 2
            Intake - 3
            Separator effluent - 1
            Separator effluent - 2
            Separator effluent - 3
            Final effluent -  1
            Final effluent -  2
            Final effluent -  3

          Refinery B
            Intake - 1
            Intake - 2
£0          Intake - 3
 |           DAT effluent  - 1
NJ          DAP effluent  - 2
            OAF effluent  - 3
            Final effluent -  1
            Final effluent -  2
            Final effluent -  3

          Refinery c
            Intake -  1
            Intake -  2
            Intake -  3
            Separator effluent -  1
            Separator effluent -  2
            Separator effluent -  3
            Treated effluent  - 1
            Treated effluent  - 2
            Treated effluent  - 3
            Final effluent -  1
            Final effluent -  2
            Final effluent -  3

BStl
L2
U
2
20
20
2S
L2
L2
3
L3
L3
2
130
170
270
IS
9
30
2
L3
2
ISO
160
78
28
34
4O
37
40
45

BOD-2 BOD-3 COD
L2 4
U 4
4 •
24 130
18 91
10 99
L2 36
L2 40
2 28
U 9
U 9
L3 9
140 420
110 440
220 500
14 ISO
7 120
7 120
1
1
2
110 380
120 370
as 220
130
120
120
130
130
100

TOC
1
2
2
36
25
26
ii
11
11
11
25
18
100
110
110
47
39
43
12
a
s
88
75
49
44
39
41
42
37
36

TBS
S
4
Ll
49O
39O
260
44
30
42
9
13
11
38
SO
38
22
24
20
Ll
Ll
Ll
22
36
26
2O
18
28
2O
22
16

Sl3
Ll.O
11
1.0
13
11
11
16
11
9.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
8.4
7.3
6.7
18
16
IB
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
52
SO
13
8.4
S.6
4.5
7.8
17
3.9
+6
CE
L.02
L.O2
L.02
.09
.03
.OS
.04
L.O2
L.02
L.O2
.02
L.O2
L.02
.10
L.02
L.02
L.O2
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.OS
L.O2
L.O2
L.O2
L.02
L.02
L.O2
L.02
L.O2

s-2
L.I
L.I
.2
9.0
6.9
8.5
.2
.2
.4
.2
.2
.4
.6
1.0
1.2
.5
.5
.6
L.S
L.S
.3
L.S
3.8
.3
L.S
L.S
.2
.5
.5
.4

ota









19
7
6
33
18
11
53
24
IS
8
10
4
150
1OO
28
a
15
11
7
11
11
        Flow  (MOD)
7.6
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
9.0
6.9
7.4
7.O
B.2
8.]
*.3
S.2
a.e
».S
7.2
».6
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.4
8.6
9.1
8.7
7.8
7.7
7.6
8.0
8.1
7.6
 .433
 .427
 .432
3.91
3.86
 .12
 .78
 .81
 .81
 .69
 .07
 .48
  .0715
  .0848
  .1526
  .1787
  .1411
  .2357
          Notei  L -  Less  than
                G -  Greater than

                BOD-1 Indicate* analytical Method used aeed fra* a domestic sewage treatment plant.

                BOO-2 Indicates analytical method used seed fron refinery  final effluent.

                BOD-3 Indicates analytical method where no seed was used.

-------
                                                                            TABLE  B-1




                                            Analytical Result* for Traditional Parameters  for the BSKERL and BtR Sampling Program
Page 2  of  7
                                                                        Concentration (•£/!)
Sanpla - n.»
















w
1
1
U)






Refinery D
Intake - 1
Intake - 2
Intake - 3
DAF effluent -
DAF effluent -
DAF effluent -
Final effluent
Final effluent
Final effluent
Refinery B
Intake - 1
Intake - 2
Intake - 3
DAF effluent -
DAF effluent -
DAF effluent -
Final effluent
Final effluent
Final effluent
Refinery F
Intake - 1
Intake - 2
Intake - 3




1
2
3
- 1
- 2
- 3




1
2
3
- 1
- 2
- 3




Cooling tower blowdown-1
Cooling tower blowdown-2
Cooling tower blowdown-3



Final effluent
Final effluent
Final effluent
- 1
- t
- 3
BCO-1
LS
1
3
160
140
12O
SO
210
150

3
2
2
54
52
45
18
2
LI

4O
40
42
25
130
47
18
36
20
SfiP-J
20
4
6
L220

L360




4
3
3
56
41
44




SO
52

42
G160
36



BOD-j COD
20
4
4
1OOO
500
390
40 820
62 670
9O 49O

43
59
39
160
160
ISO
18 47
U 75
U 55

340
350
35 340
210
300
350
10 260
36 270
18 260
TOC
1O
5
a
3OO
150
100
290
220
150

IS
IS
IS
48
42
39
1O
7
13

96
110
97
62
78
95
110
75
82
at
24
32
16
60
36
32
64
6O
6O

14
19
28
17
13
16
9
20
13

68
68
40
64
76
80
110
96
100
Slj
Ll.O
2.2
2.O
36
29
4O
36
42
39

1.0
7.8
7.8
13
1}
IS
35
11
13

1.7
68
63
3.9
10
19
3.9
2.8
3.9
«*"
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.O2
L.O2
L.O2
L.02
L.O2
.03

L.O2
L.02
L.O2
L.O2
L.OJ
L.02
L.O2
L.02
L.02

L.02
.02
L.02
.05
.09
.41
L.02
L.02
.03
£-* 1
L.I
L.I
L.I
15
18
15
1.7
1.1
.8

L.I
L.I
L.I
1.8
l.S
1.5
.3
.5
.6

1.6
.9
.7

1.0
L.I

2.0
L.I
OSG ug Flow (USD)
7.3
7.4
7.3
8.9 .932*
8.5
8.6
7.7 .932*
7.7
7.6

7.7 18.00
7.6 16.56
7.5 18.00
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.6 5.02
7.5 4.59
7.5 4.61

8.2 1.5*
8.1
8.0
7.3 0.17*
8.1
6.8
8.6 0.017*
8.5
8.6
* Average flow during  72-hour campling period.

-------
                                                                                        TABLE  B-l
Page  3  of  7
 Sample-Day


  Refinery 6
    Intake - 1
    Intake - 2
    Intake - 3
    Separator effluent -  1
    Separator effluent -  2
    Separator effluent -  3
    DAF effluent - 1
    DAT effluent - 2
    mr effluent - 3
    final effluent - 1
    rinal effluent - 2
    Final effluent - 3

 •efinery  R
    Intake - 1
    Intake - 2
(JO  Intake - 3
 I  Separator effluent - 1
*"• Separator effluent - 2
   Separator effluent - 3
   Final effluent - 1
   Final effluent - 2
   Final effluent - ]
 Deflnery  I
   Intake - 1
   Intake - 2
   Intake - 1
   Separator effluent - 1
   Separator effluent - 1
   Separator effluent - 3
   Mnal efflnent-1
   Final affluent-}
   Final efflnent-3
Concentration (Bg/l)
BCD-1
L3
L3
L3
24O
250
260
240
280
220
IS
10
6
L2
L2
2
60
20
30
L6
L6
3
U
u
u
88
76
SS
L12
U2
U2
pOO-2 BOP-3
L3 L3
L3
L3
280 260
240
J90
270 250
280
260
12
UO
U4
L2
U
2
80
US
31
U
U
3
'-


77
32
66

U2
U2
SOD
20
28
24
820

860
860
900
1200
200
22O
210
12

23

200
ISO
40
16
48
4
S

260
260
ISO
88
76
72
«
12
16
8
240

220
200
360
290
60
64
56
9

14

57
SO
20
18
21
S
4

89
eo
75
34
29
29
TSa
U
18
16
54
252
112
64
152
176
36
76
64
14
113
167
120
66
121
8
10
8
U
LI
2
38
46
32
6
8
10
NHl
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
2O

8.O
14
12
10
IS
15
12
Ll.O

Ll.O

7.3
6.2
6.2
S.O
5.0
U.O
U.O

t.
4.
S.
U.
u.
1.
CC*6
L.02
L.02
L.02
.02
.02
L.02
.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.04
L.02
.02
.04
L.O2
L.02
L.02









-2
L.I
.6
.3
22
32
28
18
28
30
2.0
1.8
2.1
.3
L.I
.1
3.7
4.4
1.2
.2
.2
.1
.$

.4
.5

.6
.7

.4
O&G
23
7
8
13O
56
no
190
250
220
24
9
10
31
13
8
8O
51
24
37
13
3
2
4
5
30
25
42
5
3
9
    pH
   7.6
   7.6
   7.7
  10.2
  10.3
  10.6
   9.9
  10.2
  1O.4
   8.3
   8.0
   8.O
   8.2
   8.5
   7.9
   7.3

   8.6
   1.4
   8.4
   7.8
   7.8
   8.6
   7.
   5.
   9.
   8.
   7.
   7.
   7.5
3.22
3.11
3.20
2.50
2.27
2.O4
35.•
 5.04*
3.53
3.53
3.53
2.99
3.26
3.29
2.75
2.27
2.44
•Average, flow durina thn  r.aupUng period.

-------
                                                                                     TABLE B-l
                                                                                                                                                 Page 4 of  7
                                                      Analytical Haaulta tor Traditional Paraa»ter» tor tha mOOf. mi BtK Saaolino, Program
                                                                                  Conc«ntr«tloo
                                         BOO-1
                                                                       BOO-3       OOP        TOO
                                                                                                                                                        OM
 Rnflnary  J

   Intake-1
   Intake-2
   Intake-}
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
W Separator
Ul
   Separator
effloant-1
eMloant-2
attlwnt-3
•ffloant-1
affluent-*
etfluant-3
afflnant-1
•fflmnt-
afflnant-
aftlaant-
•fflwnt-
affluant-
•fflaant-
•fflmnt-
•ffluent-
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
   Separator
   Bio-pond lnfloant-1
   Bio-pond tnflnant-2
   Bio-pond lnfluent-3
   rinal effluent:-!
   final eMltnnt-2
   Final e(flwnt-)
                                          13
                                           2
                                          SI
                                          76
                                          OS
                                          IS
                                          20
                                          70
                                          10
                                          12
                          004


3
»
7*
SO
004
OM
OM
H
21
it
100
35
•0
1O
10
10


004


6
1C
40
30
JIO
ISO
ico
310
«M
««0
ICO
100
MO
110
no
430
03
7»
•2
•10
370
4OO
07
07
92
14
1»
10
CO
39
SS
57
200
23O
SI
45
«3
66
50
97
23
22
31
SO
100
120
34
M
32
10
3
1
54
02
22
C4
19C
100
C2
30
34
3C
2C
94
26
1C
4O
24
16
10
20
7
8
2.
U.
U.
2.
1.
1.
0.
1
0.
3.
C.
4.

7.
0.
2.
1.
U.
2;
14
2C
«.l
S.(
5.<
L.02 1
.02 1
L.O2
.02
L.O2
.01
L.O2
.04
.02
.02
.02
.04
L.02
L.02
.OS
.14
.13
.09
1 .08
1 .10
• .08 3
1 L.02
» L.OJ
> L.OZ
..1 1C 1
k.l 11 1
.3 11 1
.7 74
.0 120
.0 3C
.5 04
11 140
IS 250
.0 25
.3 23
.5 S4
.0 CS
.1 34
.1 ISO
.1 7
.0 9
12 25
14 11
•*» 9
I.S 2O
.2 20
L.O C
.9 16
r.s
r.o
r.3
.9
.2
.9
.2
.2
.2
.4 .464
.3 .122
r.3 .572
r.7
r.3
.C
.1
.1
.1
.4
.7
r.s
r.o 2.70
r.s 2.55
r.9 2.71

-------
                                                                                         TABLE  B-1
  Page 5 of  7
                                                      Analytical Beaulta for traditional f«ra»Mtet» tor the KsrERL and BtR Sailing Program

                                                                                    Concentration (»g/l)
        Sample-Day

         Refinery  K
           Intake-1
           Intake-1
           Intake-3
           DAT effluent-1
           DAT effluent-2
           DMT effluent-3
           Final effluent-1
           Final effluent-2
           Final effluent-3

         Refinery L
           lntake-1
           Intake-2
           Intake-)
|jj         Separator 1 effluent-
 |          Separator J. effluent-
CTl         Separator 1 effluent-
           Separator 2 effluent-
           Separator ? affluent-
           Separator 2 effluent-
           Final effluent-1
           Final effluent-2
           Final effluent-3

        Refinery H
           Intake-1
           Intake-2
           Intake-3
           OAF effluent-1
           DAP effluent-2
           OAF effluent-3
          Final effluent-1
          Final effluent-2
          Final effluent-3
BOfcl
4
4
I*
LI 20
22O
LI 20
a
L6
11
2

L2
100

180
32

40
3

11
L6
LS
L6
51
SO
36
L12
L6
L6
«*



U20
210
LI 2O



3
l&
L3
130
100
170
38
31
42






2$
S2
40



BPP.-3
4
4
V*
80
200
LI 20
7
6
10
2
L3
LS
120
98
150
34
42
40
3
L4
8
LS

L6
34
40
34
112
LS
L6
COB
27
23
24
53O
10OO
540
96
130
140
56
20
24
390
350
S30
200
210
170
75
44
71
1O
9
a
260
220
220
92
86
73
TOC

11
10
180
350
180

39
42
13
10
6
110
110
140
49
56
46
19
IS
14
6
10
4
72
62
66
18
16
14
IBS
12
14
10
260
38O
210
21
16
32
290
220
120
140
110
120

36
48
34

21
LI
LI
LI
18
9
7
8
IS
11
m
Ll.O
Ll.O
.0
.7
.7
.2
.2
.4
.9
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
6.2
10
20
7.8
IS
9.0
Ll.O
3.4
3.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
13
9.5
12
u.o
Ll.O
1.0
**«
L.O2
L.O2
L.02
L.02
.04
.02
L.02
L.O2
L.02
.25
L.02
.05
L.02
L.O2
.07
.05
L.02
L.O2
L.02
.11
.01
L.O2
L.02
L.O2
.75
L.O2
L.02
L.O2
L.O2
L.02
a'
.4
.4
,3
.8
1.6
.6
.5
.3
.3
.1
1.0
1.0
.9
1.5
1.2
.8
1.7
.9
.4
.3
.9
.2
.2
.3
.6
.5
.4
.4
.4
.3
OtG
9
6
14
59O
190
98
31
15
12












4
8
11
16
18
18
13
12
14
 8.1

 7.4
 7.8

 7.3
 7.7

 7.3

 7.2
 7.5
 7.1
 7.9
 8.3
 8.6
 8.0
 6.3
 8.4
 7.2
 6.9
 7.2
8.0
8.0
8.1
6.9
8.4
8.2
7.7
7.9
7.8
            flow 
-------
                                                                           TABLE  B-l

                                          Analytical Raanlte tor Traditional Paranaters for the BSKBRI. and B»R Sampling Program

                                                                       Concentration (mg/1)                      	
                                               BOD-1
                                                               BOO-2
                                                                          BOO-3     COO
                                                                                               IDC      TSS
                                                                                                                              Cr
                                                                                                                                                                  Page  6  of 7
                                                                                                                                                   oea         pH
w
 i
Refinery M
  lntake-1
  Intake-2
  Intake-3
  Separator effluent-1
  Separator effluent-2
  Separator effluent-3
  Cheat,  plant effluent-!
  Chen,  plant effluent-2
  Che».  plant effluent-3
  final  effluent-1
  Final  effluent-2
  Final  effluent-3

Refinery O
  Intake-1
  Intake-2
  Intake-3
  OUT efflnent-1
  Wt effluent-2
  DAF effluent-3
  Final  efflu.nt-1
  Final  effluent-2
  Final  effluent-3
                                                                 ts
                                                                 U
                                                                 34
                                                L2
                                                tS
                                                U
                                               120
                                               100
                                                as
                                                 6
                                               uo
                                                94
tS
L2
U


83
100
120
74
140

10
8
10







tio
tB
40
16
28
360
430
440
340
810
240
140
120
140
11
26
12
380
410
480
ISO
140
120
12
8
12
88
120
100
93
240
69
33
33
36
10
21
X
1*0
110
180
48
40
S2
18
22
26
68
112
76
28
36
40
SO
4O
44
10
10
14
21
32
42
24
26
24
tl.O
U.O
tl.O
12
IS
13
1.1
U.O
2.0
6.2
6.7
3.0.
U.O
U.O
U.O
.1
.4
18
.S
.1
.S
t.02
.07
.09
L.02
t.02
t.O2
t.02
t.02
t.02
t.02
t.O2
t.02
t.02
.02
.02
t.02
t.02
t.02
t.02
.02
t.02
.3
.9
1.1
2.9
8.1
9.2
.1
.9
.9
.6
.9
.9
.5
t.l
.1
3.9
4.1
2.9
.6
.5
.4
8.4
7.7
7,3
0.1
8.1
7.9
6.8
6.6
6.7
8.6
7.4
7.4
7.1
6.8
7.O
8.4
8.6
8.8
7.9
24.69
26.84
25.91
15.25
1S.2S
18.25
0.8
0.95
0.9
14.75
15.9
17.6



2.88*


2.88*
                                                                                                                                                               7.8
             •Average  flow during 72-hour period.

-------
                                                                                          TABLE B-l
                                                                                                                                                        Page  7 of  7
                                                           Analytical Ra«ult» for Traditional ParMeteca for the RSKERI. and »t» Sampling Program
to
 I
00
Saeple-Dav

Refinery P
  Intake-1
  Intake-2
  Intake-3
  Separator «ffluant-l
  Separator effluont-2
  Separator effluent-3
  Final effluent-1
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-3

Refinery g
  Intake-1
  Intake-2
  Intake-3
  Separator effluant-1
  Separator effluent-2
  Separator effluent-3
  Final effluant-1
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-3
Concentration (•£/!)
**>-!
L2
LS
L2
320
210
ISO
LS
LS
13
L2
L2
13
80
40
66
26
2O
3O
BOp-2 BOD-3 CU>
4
LS 6
L2 14
600
220 540
160 470
64
LS 49
L3 41
4
4
24
SO 370
70 33O
64 260
260
2SO
230
TOG
3
7
7
170
140
140
16
24
31
8
11
9
91
84
CS
59
78
60
TOS
U
u
U
68
78
42
11
2
7
3
2
LI
28
10
12
38
22
26
Bb
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
11
16
18
1.4
2.0
2.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
41
48
39
S3
49
42
a*6
L.O2
L.02
L.02
L.02
.IS
.05
L.02
L.O2
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
r2
L.I
L.I
L.I
25
25
23
.3
.6
L.I
.4
.3
.3
9.3
5.6
2.4
.7
.6
.5
QCG









5
9
13
62

38
45
45
37
                                                                                                                                                                         EH


                                                                                                                                                                         7.0
                                                                                                                                                                         6.8
                                                                                                                                                                         6.3

                                                                                                                                                                        10.1
                                                                                                                                                                         9.9

                                                                                                                                                                         7.7
                                                                                                                                                                         7.S
7.1
7.4
7.5
9.2
9.3
9.8
8.8
8.3
8.7
                                                                                                                                                                                    Flow (MSP)
.2783
.3086
.3186

-------
                                    TABLE B-2

                   ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

                     FOR THE RSKERL AND BSR SAMPLING PROGRAM

                      VOLATILE ORGANICS  (CONCENTRATIONS, uq/1)
                                                                         Page 1  of  3
Compound                            Intake Water

4   Benzene                            NDj,
23  Chloroform                         70
29  1,2-trana-Dichloroethylene         ND
38  Ethylbenzene                       NO
44  Methylene chloride                 G (100)°
85  Tetrachloroethylene                NO
36  Toluene                            NO
         Refinery A

      Separator Effluent

           GdOOK
           D(L 5)°
           20
           GUOO)h
           G(100)
           G(50)
           G(100)
                                                                      Final Effluent
                                                                          NO
                                                                                 b
                                                                          D  (L 5)
                                                                          ND
                                                                          ND    b
                                                                          G(100)
                                                                          D(L 10)
                                                                          NO
4
23
    Benzene
    Chloroform
44  Hethylene chloride
Intake Water

   DU 10)d
                                                     Refinery B"

                                                     OAF Effluent
           11?
           30^
Final Effluent

    0(L 10)J?
    D(L 10)a
    NO5
                                                     Refinery Ca

                       Intake Water  Separator Effluent  Treated Effluent  Final Effluent
4   Benzene
10  1,2-Oichloroethane
23  Chloroform
38  Ethylbenzene
44  Hethylene chloride
4   Benzene
38  ethylbenzene
86  Toluene.
4   Benzene
38  Ethylbenzene
44  Methylene chloride
85  Tetrachloroethylene
86  Toluene '
87  Trichloroeehylene
6   Carbon tetrachloride
11  1,1,1-Trichloroethaae
44  Hethylene chloride
4   Benzene
44  Methylene chloride
36  Toluene
4   Benzene
23  Chloroform
44  Hethylene chloride
36  Toluene
                           ND
                           ND
                           oft,:
417b
16
ND
                                    Intake Water

                                       ND
                                       ND
                                       ND
                                    Intake Water

                                       ND
                                       ND.
                                       50d
                                       SO
                                       ND
                                       20



                                    Intafce Water

                                       G(50)
                                       0(50)   A
                                       D(L 10)
                           ND
                           ND
                           ND

                           2

                 Refinery Da

              Separator Effluent

                   G(IOO)
                   G(IOO)
                   G(IOO)

                 Refinery E

                 DAT Effluent

                   G(100)
                   G(IOO)

                   ND
                   a(loo)
                   NO

                 Refinery F

              Cooling Tower Slowdown

                     ND
           ND
           ND
           ND
           NO.
           20a
                          final Effluent

                              ND
                              ND
                              NO
                          Final Effluent

                              NO

                              10d
                              ND
                              ND
                              ND
                              Final Effluent

                                   ND

                                   D(L 10)d
                                                     Refinery G

                             Intake Water  Separator Effluent  OAF Effluent  Final Effluent
                                 D(L 1)
                                 22fi
                                 D(L 1)
        409,,
        293b
                               2,005,.
                                 563b
Intake Water


   D(L 10)d
   ND
   ND
         96           76,405

         Refinery Hc

      Separator Effluent
                                                       55
                                                       NO
                                                       ND
           0(L 1)
           12a
           D(L 1)
                                                                       Final Effluent
                               66
                               70°
                               D(L 10)
                                        B-9

-------
                                    TABLE  B-2
                                                   Page 2 of  3
                                                        Refinery I

                                     Intake Water   Separator Effluent  Final Effluent
4   Benzene
23  Chloroform
38  Ethylbenxene
44  Mathylene chloride
86  Toluene
        D(L 1)/OJ[L 1)
        8/d(L 1)B
        NO/NO
        12/73
        ND/ND
             243*
             NO
                  ,
             11767°
           Refinery K
                      2
                      HD
                      HDb
                      7«b   J
                      D(L 1)
                                     Intafce Water   Separator Effluent  Final effluent
4   Benzene
10  1,2-Cichloroethane
15  1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
23  Chloroform
30  1,2-trana-Oicaloroethylene
38  Ethylbenzene
44  Methylene chloride
85  Tetraehloroethylene
86  Toluene
            HD
            ND
            HO     d
            D(t 10)
            m  '
            SO
            ND
  $"   b
  0(L 10)

Mfinery L*
                                 D(L 10)
                                 OIL 10),
                                 0(L 10)
                                 0(L 10)
                                 0(L 10)
                                 MO
                                 DU. 101
                                 HO
                        Intake Water  Separator 1 effluent  Separator  2 effluent   effluent
4   BWUUM
23  Cftlorofora
38  Ethylb«n*«n«
44  M«thyl«n« eblerid*
86  Tolu«n«
HO
MD
40
SO
0(100)
10
QdOOlv
0(100)°
0(100)
            0(100)
            10
            5(100)
            SO6
            0(100)
   HO
   HO
   NO
   60°
   HD
•>   3OHXUM
6   Carbon tctraehlorida
23  CJilorofora
44  lUthylaM ehlorid*
86  Tolu
                                     Intalc* Mat«r

                                         14b
            91
            0(L 10)
                                                        R«fin«rv MC

                                                      OAT Bfflj«nc
             0(L 10)
             SS A
             180d
             0(1. 10)

           »«fin«rv s*
                                                                        Final effluent
                      D(t 10) .
                      0(1 101?
                      0(1. 10)
                      0(1. 10)
                        Intake M«t«r  Ch«m.Plant Effluent  Separator effluent final Effluent
23  Chloroform
38  Bthylbentene
44  iiethylene ehlorid*
86  Toluene
•D
HO
HO    K
S(100)D
MO
90
10
20    b
0(100)
S(IOO)
         G(100)
         15
         S(100)b
         o(ioo);;
         6(1001°
6°
HO
HO
0(100)
35
4
6   Carbon tetraenloride
23  Chloroform
44  nethylene chloride
86  Toluene
        Intake Water

            HO
            D(L 10)
            55
            130
            0(L 10)
           Itefinery o"

           T Effluent

             OIL 10)°
             HD
             13
             HD
             16
                final effluent

                      0(1.  10) f
                      Dtlj  10)
                        A
4   Bensene
6   Carbon tetraclxloride
15  l,l,2,2-Tetrac&loroetnaae
23  Chloroform
30  1,2-trans-oieliloroetbylene
38  Ethylbensene
44  Metnylene chloride
85  Tetraehloroetaylene
86  Toluene
37  Trichloroethylene
        Intake Hater

            0(1. 10)b
            MO
            D(L 10),.
            0(1. 10)
            11
            MD
            HD
            OIL 10)
            0(L 10)
            0(1. 10)
                                                         Refinery p"

                                                   Separator  Effluent  Final Effluent
             1,100
             RD
             HO b
             100
             HD
             28   b
             l.SOO
             HD
             655
             NO
                     oa  loir
                     0(1.  10)
                     D(L  10)„
                     OIL  10)
                     HD
                     MD
                     41
                     HD
                     ND
                     D(L  10)
                                        B-10

-------
                                   TABLE B-2
                                           Page 3  of  3
4   Bens
23  Chloroform
44  Methylene chloride
48  DichlorobromoinethaQe
86  Toluene
                    Refinery Q

Intake Water  Separator Effluent  final Effluent

    D(L 1)            894                HD
    NO
    ND
89
6°
5*
24
167
SO
HD
Ngtesi
     Volatile organic compounds not lifted for a refinery were not detected in samplee
     taken at that refinery.

     MO - Compound was not detected.

     0(Lx) - Compound was detected at some concentration less than x, but the concentration
     could not be quantified.

     G(x) - compound wae detected at a level greater than x.

     a)  Midwest Research Institute conducted the analyses for volatile organic compounds
     ia samples from Refineries A, 0, E, P, L, H.  See Reference Ho. 149.

     b)  Compound was detected in sample blank.

     c)  NUS Corporation conducted the analyses for volatile organic compounds in samples
     from Refineries 3, H, K, M, 0, P.

     d)  Compound was detected at a greater level in sample blank than in sample.

     e)  Gulf South Research Institute conducted the analyses for volatile organic
     compounds in samples from Refineries C, G, I, Q.  These data represent results
     from one-time grab samples collected during revisits to these refineries.
     Additional sampling was necessary because the initial volatile organic results
     had been considered invalid due to improper analytical techniques.  Since the
     revisit to Refinery J was conducted by an EPA regional surveillance and analysis
     sampling team, the results are not presented in this table.
                  %
     f)  Concentrations presented are for unpreserved/preserved samples.
                                                  B-ll

-------
                                        TABLE  B-3
                          ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

                            FOR THE RSKERL AND BtR SAMPLING PROGRAM

                                        QBGANICS fCONggMTSATTOHS.  iia/11
                                                Page  1  of 5
Compound                                Intake Water
Ba«e - Heutral Extractable*

  X  Acenaphthene                            HD
 55  Naphthalene                             NO
 77  Acenaphthylene                          NO
 31  Phenantnrene/78 Anthracene               O(LO.l)
 63  Di-n-butyl phthalat*                    0.2
 70  oiathyl phthalate                       NO

Acid Extraetablea
"73  Phenol                                  HD
                          Refinery A

                       Separator Effluent13
                              37
                              68
                               4
                               5
                              1.3
                              12
                              13
                             Final Effluent
                                NO
                                NO
                                MO
                                NO
                                0.7
                                HO
                                                  HD
Baae-Neutral Extractablea

Acid Extractablea

 22  Parachlorometa er««ol
 34  2,4 - Dimathylphenol
 58  4- Nitrophenol
 65  Phenol
Baae-Neutral Extractabla«

 55  daphthalan*
 81  Ph«nanthr«n«/78 Anthracene
 56  Bis(2-«thylh«xyl) phthalate

Acid Extractablea

 65  Phenol

Intake Water
ttD
HD
HD
NO
HD
Intake Separator
Water Effluent
HD 950
HO 190
ISO 290
Refinery Ba
DAT Effluent
NO
HD
10,000
NO
HD .
Refinery C-l
Treated
Effluent
ND
HD
900

Final Effluent
HD
0 (L 10)
0 (L 10)
D (L 10)
0 (L 10)
Final
Effluent
ND
NO
310
  NO
2200
Base-Neutral Extraetables

Acid Extractablea
Final Effluent

     NO

     NO
                                                              Refinery C-21
Base-Meutral Sxtractablea

 39  Fluoranthene
 55  Naphthalene
 73  Benzo  (a) pyrene
 76  Chrysene
 31  Phananthrana/78 Anthracene
 84  Pyrene

Acid Sxtra'ctablaa
                                   Intake Water
     NO
      2
     HD
     NO
      DC.Q.1)
     ND

     NO
                           Refinery Da

                       Separator Effluent^
             3
           190
            ND
           0.1
           140
            11

            HD
                                                                                 Final Effluent
 HD
 ND
  3
1.4
 ND
  7

 HD
                                                 B-12

-------
                                        TABLE B-3
                                                 Page 2  of 5
                                                            Refinery Ea
                                   IntaJce Water   DAT Effluent"
                               Final Effluent   Final Effluent
Base-Neutral Sxtractablaa
1
25
27
39
55
76
30
31
34
68
Acid
34
65
Acenaphthene
1 , 2-Oichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Oichlorobenzene
Fluor an th«n«
Naphthalene
Chrysene
Fluor ene
Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
Pyrene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Extractables
2 , 4-Oiinethylphanol
Phenol
1.3
0(1.0.5}
D(LO.S)
D(L0.2)
ND
ND
NO
ND
O(LO.l)
0.4

ND
ND
150
ND
ND
NO
106
0.3
110
50
5
ND

G<100)
G<100)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D(LO.l)
ND
ND
D(LO.S)
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0(1,0.1)
O(LO.S)
MD

ND
ND
                                                            Refinery F
Base-Neutral Extraetablea

 39  Pluoranthene
 73  Benzo  (a) pyrene
 76  Chryaene
 31  Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
 84  Pyrsne

Acid Sxtractablea
                                   IntaJce Water1  Cooling Tower Blov/downb  Final Effluent
    29
    33
    49
   160
   140

    ND
ND
10
 7
 2
10

ND
ND
1.3
0.3
ND
ND

ND
Baae-Neutral Extraetablea

 39  Fluoranthene/94 Pyrene
 35  Naphthalene
 76  Chrysene/72 Benzo (a)
       Anthracene
 91  Phenanthrane/78 Anthracene
 66  Bis (2-ttthylhexyl)phthalate

Acid Sxtraetables

 65  Phenol
                                                            Refinery G-l*
IntaJce Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
1100
Separator Effluent
40
1100
40
1100
700
DAT Effluent
ND
700
ND
600
1100
Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
350
                                       10
                                                        4900
                                       2400
                                                       ND
Base-Neutral Sxtractablea
 70  Diethyl phthalate

Acid Extraetablea
Final Effluent


     1

     ND
                                                            Refinery G-2*
Baae-Neutral Extractablas

 66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Acid Extractablas

 31  2,4-Oichlorophenol
 34  2,4-Diroethylphenol
 65  Phenol
Intake Water

     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     Refinery H

Separator Effluent


        ND
     ND
     175
     440
Final Effluent

    D (L 10)
     10
     ND
     ND
                                                  B-13

-------
                                         TABLE  B-3
                                                 Page  3 of 5
Baae-Neutral Extractable»

 55  Naphthalene
 (6  Bia(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate

Acid Extractable*

 65  Phenol
                                   Intake Water
     ND
    950
     30
                                        ND
                              Refinery  I-Ia

                    Separator Effluent        Final Effluent
     290
     300
      ND
                                                            390
                              ND
                              600
                              10
                                                                  Refinery I-2f
 Acid Extractable
final Effluent

     ND

     HO
 Baae—Neutral  Extractanlee'

   1  Acenaphthena
  39  rluoranth«ne/84  Pyrene
  55  naphthalene
  76  Chryiene/72 Benzo  (a)
        anthracene
  81  Phenanthrene/7 8  Anthracene
  30  Fluoreae
  66  8i»(2-ethyllJ«xyl)phthalate
  70  Oiethyl  phthalate
  71  Dimethyl phthalate

 Acid Extractable*

  34  2,4-Diaethylphenol
  64  Pentachlorophenol
  65  Phenol
                                    Intake  Water
     ND
     NO
     ND
     ND

     ND
     NO
     110
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     HD
                                                    Separator
                                                     Effluent
 ND
 30
 ND
 30

 30
 ND
180
 NO
 ND
 ND
 ND
420
                              Refinery J

                              Separator 2
                                Effluent
               ND
               ND
               350
                 30

                 90
               HD
               300
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
               160
                          Separator 3
                            Effluent
ND
ND
ND
50

ND
ND
SO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                  Refinery J   (continued)
                                    Separator  4
                                     . Effluent
Base^Neutral Extraetablea
  1  Aeenaphthene                       so
 39  riuoranthene/84 Pyrene             20
 55  Naphthalene                        ND
 76  Chry*ene/72 Benso(a)anthracene     40
 81  Phenaathrene/78 Anthracene        230
 80  Fluorene                           80
 66  Bia(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate        600
 70  Diethyl phthalate                  NO
 71  Dimethyl phthalate                 ND
Acid Extractabla«

  34  2.4-Oiaathylphenol
  64  Pentachlorophenol
  65  Phenol
    650
    850
 16,000
               Separator
                Effluent
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
            Bio-Pond
            Influent
                ND
                ND
                ND
                NO
                ND
                ND
                210
                ND
                ND
               750
               ND
           G(12,000)
                           Final
                          Effluent
                              MD
                              ND
                              HD
                              ND
                              ND
                              ND
                              190
                               30
                                3
ND
ND
Ba«e-Neutral Extraetabla*

Acid Bxtractables

 24  2-Chlorophenol
 34  2,4-oinethyIphenol
 58  4-Nitrophenol
 59  2,4-Dinitrophenol
 65  Phenol
Intake Water

     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
          Refinery

Separator Effluent

     ND
      315
    1,150
    5,300
   11,000
      105
                          Final Effluent

                               ND
                              ND
                              ND
                              ND
                              HD
                                         B-14

-------
                                        TABLE- 8-3
                                                 Page  4  of 5
Ba«e-Neutral Extraetaftlea

  1  Acenaphthene
 39  Fluoraathene
 55  Naphthalene
 76  Chrysene
 77  Acenaphthylene
 80  Fluorena
 81  Pheaanthrene/78 Anthracene
 94  Pyrene

Acid Extractablei

 34  2,4-Dioethy Iphenol
 65  Phonal
                                   Intake
                                   Water
 29
0.2
  1
ND
0.2
  1
  1
0.3
 ND
 ND
             Separator
              Effluent
  HO
  ND
  500
   20
  ND
  270
  230
  HO
5(100)
0(100)
                 Refinery I.

                 Separator 2
                  Effluent
       ,000
          9
        280
          2
         ND
        300
         HO
          7
      G(IOO)
      GUQO)
                 Final
                Effluent
 D(LO.l)
    0.1
    0.3
   ND
   ND
    1
 0(1.0.1)
   ND
   NO
                                                                 Refinery
Ba»e-Heutral Bxtractalale*

Acid Extractablee

 22  Parachloroneta cre*ol
 34  2,4-DioethyIphenol
 58  4-Nitrophenol
 59  2,4-Olnitrophenol
 S3  Phenol
                                   Intake Water

                                        HO
     ND
     ND
     NO
     ND
   DU. 10)
                    DAT Effluent

                         ND
            ND
           18,300
            1,400
            2,660
           33,500
                           Final Effluent

                                ND
                10
                ND
                ND
                ND
              DU, 10)
                                                                 Refinery Na
Ba«e-Neutral Extractable«

  1  Acenaphthene
 39  Fluoranthene
 55  Saphtha,lene
 76  Chryiene
 77  Acenaphtnyl«ne
 81  Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
 84  Pyrene

Acid Extractable*

 22  Paraohloroo«ta creeol
 34  2,4-Dimethylphenol
 65  Phenol
Ba«e-M«utral Extractable*

  1  Acenaphthene
 39  Fluoranthene
 54  Isophorone
 55  Naphthalene
 68  Di-n-bueyl phthalate
 71  Dimethyl phthalate
 76  Chrysene
 77  Acenaphthylene
 78  Anthracene
 80  Fluorane
 31  Phenanthrene
 34  Pyrene

Acid Extractabla«
 34  2,4-Dioethylphenol
 65  Phenol
                                   Intake
                                   Water
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
          Che*. Plant
            Effluent
  NO
  27
0(1,0.1)
  ND
   1
   1
  10
G(100)
  40
             Separator'
              Effluent
 522
   8
 302
   6
  87
 140
  16
  ND
  71
G(IOO)
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HO
                                                                 Refinery  0
                                   intafce water
     NO
     ND
     NO
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
     MD
     ND
                                                       OAT Effluent
            390
             ND
          2,500
          3,750
             ND
             ND
             ND
            530
          1,750
            495
          1,750
             ND
          2,000
          1,900
                                                                            Pinal  Effluent
                HO
                ND
                ND
                ND
                ND
                ND
                NO
                HO
                HO
                ND
                NO
                ND
                ND
                ND
                                           B-15

-------
                                           TABLE  B-3
                                              Page  5 of 5
                                               Watar
Base-Neutral Extractablaa

  1  Acanaphthene
 54  Isophorone
'55  Naphthalene
 77  Acenaphthylena
 79  Anthracene
 91  Phenanthrene

Acid Extractables

 57  2-Nitrophenol
 S3  4-«itrophenol
 59  2,4-Dini erophenol
 60  4,6-Oinitro-o-cresol
Bage-Nautral Extractablaa

 66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
 71 Dimethyl phthalata

Acid Extractablaa

 65 Phenol
Base-Neutral Extractables

 70  Diethyl phthalata

Acid Extractables

MOTES:
     ND
     NO
     ND
     ND
     ND
     ND
  D (L 10)
  D (L 10)
     ND
     ND
                                        Intaxe Watar
   1,100
      20
      20
      10



Final Effluent



       1

      ND
                                                              Refinery P

                                                          Separator Effluent
       315
     3,550
     3,200
       665
       660
       660
     1,350
        20
       110
        60

     Refinery Q-la

Separtor Effluent
       320
       NO
       ND
                                                                  60

                                                                Eefinery Q-2f
                                                                                Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
KD
ND
ND
                                                                                Final Effluent
2,000
ND
ND
                                                                                     NO
     Semivolatile organic compound* not listed for a refinery were not detected in samples taken
     at that refinery.

     ND - Compound was not detected.

     D(LX) - compound was detected at some concentration lea* than X, but the concentration could
     not be quantified.

     G(X) - Compound was detected at a level greater than X.

     (a)  Midwest Research Institute conducted the analyses for semivolatile organic compounds in
          samples from Refineries A,0,E,P,I,,N.  See Reference No. 149.

     (b)  Base-neutral extract was diluted 1:10 before analysis.
     (c)  Concentrations represent sums for these two compounds which elute simultaneously and
          have the same major ions for GC/MS.

     (d)  NUS Corporation conducted the analyse* for semivolatile organic compounds in samples
          from Refineries 3, H, K, H, 0, P.

     (a)  Ryckman, Edgarlay, Tomlinson s Associates and Gulf South Research Institute conducted
          the analyses for semivolatile organic compounds in sample* from Refineries C,G,I,J,Q.

     !f)  Gulf South Research Institute conducted the analyses for semivolatile organic compound*
          in additional samples from Refineries C,S,I,Q.  These data represent results from one-
          time grab samples collected during revisits to these refineries.  Since the revisit to
          Refinery J was conducted by an EPA regional surveillance and analysis sampling team, the
          results ara not presented in this table.

     (g)  Both acidic and base-neutral extracts  wera diluted 1:10 before analysis.

     (h)  This sample was stored for 6 weeks prior to extraction for base-neutral and acidic
          organic compounds.

     (i)  Base-neutral extract was diluted 1:5 before analysis.
                                              B-16

-------
                                     TABU B-4

                        ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

                          FOR THE R3KERL AMD BSR SAMPLING PROGRAM

                              PESTICIDES (COMCgHTRATIOMS, ug/1)
                                                Page  1  of 3
Compound

109  PCB-1239
 94  4,4 -ODD
 97  Endosulfan «ulfata
100  Heptachlor
103  b-BBC-Mta
104  r-BHC-
106  PCB-1242
107  PCB-12S4
108  PCB-1221
109  PCB-1232
110  PCS-12 48
111  PCB-1260
112  PCa-1016
Pesticide*
10«  PCS-1242
108  PCB-1221
106  PCB-1242
 91  Chlordane
103  b-BBC-Beta
108  PCB-1221
 95  a-Endo>ulfan-Alpha
106  PCB-1242
109  PCB-1232
112  PCS-1016
 39  Aldrin
 93  4,4 -ODE
105  g-SHC-Oelta
106  PCB-1242
107  PCB-12S4
108  PCB-1221
109  PCB-1232
llO  PCS-1248
111  PCB-1260
112  PCB-101S
                       Refinery A

        Intake Water   Separator Effluent

             NO                0.9

                       Refinery Bb
        IntaJce Water

             em
             ND
             NO
             HD
             ND
             ND
             ND
             HD
             ND
             HD
             HD
             HD
                                                           DAF Effluent
                 D(L
                 0
-------
                                       TABLE B-4
                                                     Page  2 of  3
                                                       Refinery Ia

                                        Intake Water   Separator Effluent
Pesticides
106  PCB-1242
109  PCB-1232
112  PCB-1016
106  PCB-1242
109  PCB-1232
112  PCB-1016
101  Heptachlor epoxide
106  PCB-1242
107  PCS-1254
108  PCB-1221
109  PCS-123"
110  PCS-1248
111  PCB-1260
112  PCS-1016
106  PC8-1242
106  PCB-1242
107 ' PCS-1254
108  PCB-1221
109  PCB-1232
110  PCS-12 4 8
111  PCS-1260
112  PCB-1016
101  Heptachlor apoxida
108  PCB-1221
109  PCB-1232
112  PCB-101S
102  a-BHC-Alpha
 89  Aldrin
 96  b-Endosulfan-Beta
 100  Haptachlor
 103  b-BHC-Bata
 105  g-BHC-Oelta
                                             ND
                                                                ND

                                                       Refinery Ja
Intake
Water

  ND
  NO
  ND
                              Separator 4
                                Effluent
     ND
     ND
                                               Separator 1
                                                 Effluent
      ND
      NO
Separator 2
  Effluent

    0.5
    0.5
    0.2
                                               Final Effluent

                                                     ND
Separator 3
  Effluent

     ND
     NO
     ND
                                                       Refinery Ja(continued)
                 Separator 5
                   Effluent
       ND
       ND
 Bio-Pond
   fluent

    0.1
     ND
     ND
                                                       Refinery ic"
                                        Intake Water   Separator Effluent
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
                 0(1  5)
                 0(1 10)
                 D(L 10)
                 D(L 10)
                 D(L 10)
                 D(L 10)
                 Q(L 10)
                 D(L 10)
                                                       Refinery la
                                Intake
                                water

                                 0.2
                 Separator 1
                   Effluent
                                                    5.2
Separator 2
  Effluent

    ND
                                                       Refinery
          Intake Water

               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
               ND
              OAF Effluent

                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 D(L 10)
                 0(L 10)
                 0(L 10)
                 D(L 10)
                 0(L 10)
                                                       Refinery Na
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
Chemical Plant
   Effluent

     4.6
      ND
     0.1
     1.3
 Separator
  Effluent

     ND
     0.1
     0.5
     1.9
                                        Intake Water

                                             ND
           Intake Water

                ND
                OT5
                ND
                ND
                ND
          Refinery O°

              DAF Effluent

                 Da 10)

          Refinery Pb

          Separator Effluent

                   12
                   13
                 D(L  5)
                 0(1  5)
                   12
   Final
  Effluent

     ND
     ND
     NO
             Final Effluent

                   ND
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                                    Final
                                   Effluent

                                      ND
             Final Effluent

                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
                 0(1 10)
     ND
     ND
     ND
     HO
             Final Effluent

                   ND




             Final Effluent

                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                                          B-18

-------
                                    TABLE B-4                                Page 3  of  3
                                                       Refinery Qa

                                        Intake Water   Separator  Effluent    Final Effluent

Pesticides                                   ND                 NO                 ND


Notes;  Pesticide compounds not listed for a  refinery were not detected in samples
        taken at that refinery.

        No-Compound was not detected.

        D(Lx)-Compound was detected at some concentration less than  x, but the
        concentration could not be quantified.

        a)   Ryckman, Edgerley,  Tomlinson and  Associates conducted the analyses for
        pesticide compounds in samples from Refineries  A,C,D,E,F,G,I,J,L,N,Q.  Since
        these results have not been verified  by  GC/MS,  the reported  identifications
        must be considered tentative.

        b >NUS Corporation conducted the analyses  for pesticide compounds in samples
        from Refineries B,H,!C,M,0,P.
                                        B-19

-------
        TABLE  B-5
Page  1  of  10
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
FOR THE RSKEHL
CYANIDE, PHEHOLICS,
S ample- Oaya
Refinery A
Intake-1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-3
tntake-ooapoaite
Intake-conpoaita
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-2
Separator ef£luent-3
Separator effluent-3
separator affluent-coapoeite
Separator effluent-conpoaite
final effluent-1
final effluent-1
final effluent-2
final effluent-2
final affluent- 3
final effluent-3
final eff luent-conposite
final affluene-coapoeite
Jtef inery a
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-coupoeita
OAF effluent-1
OAF effluent-2
OAF effluent-3
OAF eff luent-compoeite
final effluent-1
final effluent-2
final effluent-3
Final affluent-composite
AMD B&R
MERCURY
Lab

2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SAMPLING 990GSAW
CONCENTRATIONS
Cyanide
K
L.01

L.01

L.01



.OS

.06

.04



L.03

L.03

L.03




L.02
L.02
L.02

.04
.05
.04

L.02
L.02
L.02

, B9/1 )
Phenolics

L.010

L.010

L.011



L.S2

.14

.15



L.021

.010

L.011




L.010
L.OQS
L.OOS

32.
34.
22.

.064
.048
.045

                                                 Mercury



                                                  .0001

                                                  .0001

                                                  .0001
                                                 L.OOOS
                                                  .0001

                                                  .0002

                                                  .0002


                                                 L.OOOS
                                                  .0008

                                                  .0002

                                                  .0002

                                                  .0002
                                                 L.OOOS
                                                  .0003
                                                 L.OOOS
                                                 L.0005
                                                 L.0005
                        B-20

-------
                            TABLE  B-5
                                          Page 2 of  10
Sample-Day
          2
Refinery C
  IntaJce-1
  IntaJce-1
  IntaJce-2
  Intake-2
  Intake-3
  Intake-3
  Intake-conpoaite
  Separator effluent-l
  Separator effluent-l
  Separator effluent-2
  Separator effluent-2
  Separator effluent-3
  Separator «ffluent-3
  Separator affluent-3
  Separator effluent-3
  Separator effluent-coBpoeit*
  Treated effluent-l
  Treated effluant-1
  treated affluent-1
  Treated «ffluent-2
  Treated affluent-2
  Treated affluent-2
  Treated effluent-3
  Treated effluent-3
  Treated effluent-3
  'Treated «ffluent-compo«ite
  Final affluent-!
  Final effluent-i
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluent-co«po«ita
  Intake-4
  Separator effluent-4
  Treated «ffluent-4
  Final effluent-4

Refinery 0
  Intake-1
  Intake-L
  Intake—2
  Intake-2
Lab     Cyanide
                    Phenolica
                                  Mercury
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
1

L.01

t.Ol

L. 01


1.1

.12

.07
.07



• 12


.17


• 08



• 03

• OS
.04

.06

L.02
L.02
• OS
.07
L.02

I.. 02


.004

.006

.004


12.

3.2

1.6
1.4



I,. 001


.011
.016

L.001



.002

.006


.002









.0014
.0010
.0016
.0060
.0013
.0010
.0013
.0011
I.. 0010
.0012
.0060
.0015
.0020
.0050
.0780
.0012
.0008
.0020
.0006
.0010
.0050

.0010
.0090
.0060
.0012
.0011
.0010
.0014
.0010

.0013
.0060
.0013
I,. 0001
L.0004
L.0002
.0005

.0001

.0002
                                         B-21

-------
                           TABLE  3-5
Page  3  of  10
Sample- Pay

aafinery D (Cant.)
  lntafce-3
  Intake- 3
  Intake-compoeite
  OAF effluent-1
  OAF ef fluent- 1
  DAF effluent-2
  OAF effluent-2
  OAF affluent-3
  OAF affluent- 3
  OAF affluent-co«po«ite
  OAF eff luent-conpocite
  Final e££luant-l
  Final effluent-1
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent- 3
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluent-coBpoeite
  Final eff luent-coapoeita

R*f in«ry E
  Inealca-1
  lneak«-l
  Intaka-2
  Intalca-2
  Ineaka-3
  Intake- 3
  Intalo- eoapo»i,t«
  OAF <££lu«nt-l
  DAF •£fluant-l
  OAF •ffluant-2
  OAF •ffluant-2
  OAF affluant-3
  OAF cffluant-3
  DAF
  OAF «fflu«nt-coBiposit»
  Final «ffln«nt-l
  Final e£flu*n«-l
  Final affluont-2
  Final affluent- 2
  Final affluent- 3
  Final affluent-3
  Final affluent-coopoaita
  Final a£fluant-conpo»ita
Ub
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Cyanide
I,. 02



.OS

.06

.04



.03

.03

1. 02



.03

L.03

L.03



L.03

L.03

L.03



L.03

L.03

L.03



Phenolio
0.23



3.7

5.1

8.0











L.011

.015

L.010



6.3

9.9

11.0



.013

.011

L.010



Mercury

.0001
L.OOOS
.0002

.0002

.0001

.0002
L.OOOS
L.0001

.0002

.0002

.0002
L.OOOS
.0002

L.0001

L.0001

L.0001
L.OOOS
L.OOO1

L.0001

L.0001

L.0001
L.OOOS
L.0001

.0001

L.0001

.0001
L.OOOS
.0001
                                            B-22

-------
                             TABLE  B-5
3arola-Day                           Lab     Cyanide     Phenolica

Refinery F
  Intake-1                             2        L.03           .21
  Intake-1                             1
  Intake-2                             2        L.03           .21
  Intake-2                             1
  Intake- 3                             2        L.03           .21
  Intake-3                             1
  Intake- eoapoaita                     2
  Intake-cogpoeite                     1
  Cooling tower blowdown-L             2         .32           .037
  Cooling tower blowdown-1             I
  Cooling tower blowdown-2             2         .83           .041
  Cooling tower blowdown-2             1
  Cooling tower blowdONn-3             2         .33           .037
  Cooling toiwr blo«da«n-3             1
  Cooling towr olowdown-co«po»it«      2
  Cooling tovu; blowoown-coopoait*      1
  Final ««lu«nt-l                     2         .06           .022
  Final •ffltMnt-1                     1
  Final «fflu«nt-2                     2         .07           .024
  Final •fiCluant-2                     1
  Final •fflun«-3                     2         .08           .026
  Final «fflu«nt-3                     1
  Final «f flu«it-coapo«it«             2
  Final «fflu«nt-coc5)o«it«             1
 .010

L.001

 .008


  23.
  24.

  23.

  23.


  22.

  26.
            Page  4  of 10

          Mercury
  IntAka-l
  Intalu-i
  lneafca-2
  Intak*-2
  Intaka-3
  Xntak*-3
  S«paracor •ffluant-1.
  S«paraeoc «£flu«nt-l
  Separator «££luant-l
  Separator «fflu«nt-2
  Sapaxacor «fCluant-2
  Saparaeoc «fflu«nt-3
  Separator •£flu«ne-3
  Separator effluent-conpoait*
  OAF «ffliwnt-l
  OAF afflu«nt-l
  OAF attluant-2
  OAF ezfluent-2
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
3

L.01

L.01

L.01

1.2
1.2

1.2

1.5


1.9

2.0
            .0002

            .0007

            .0009
           I.. 0005
            .0006

            .0004

            .0005

            .0007
           I.0003
            .0003

            .0003

            .0003

            .0003
           L. 0005
            .0004
 .0013
 .0005
 .0021
 .0004
 .0023
I.. 0005
 .0008
 .0017
L.0002

 .0009
L.0002
 .0018
 .0002
 .0003
 .0011
L.0002
 .0011
 .0005
                                           B-23

-------
                             TABLE. B-5
                                           Page  5  of 10
Sample-Pay"

Refinery G (Cont. )
  OAF ef£luent-3
  OAF effluent- 3
  OAF ef f lu«nt-ccnpo»ita
  Final effluent-1
  Final affluent-1.
  Final affluent-!.
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluant-2
  Final effluane-2
  Final effluent- 3
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluent-coopo«ite
  Intake-4
  Separator aff luent-4
  OAF affluent-4
  Final eff luent-4

Refinery H
  Intake-l
  Ineak«-2
  Incak«-3
Lab     Cyanide
  S«para«or «fflu«nt-l
  Separator •f£la«nt-2
  Separator «££luant-3
  Separator e££luent-coivo«ite
  Final efflueot-1
  Final effluent- 2
  Final «££luent-3
  Final affluent-composite

Refinery I
  Intake-1
  Intake-1
  Intake- 2
  Intake-2
  Intake- 3
  Intake- 3
  Separator effluent-l
  Separator ef£luent-l
  Separator effluent-1
  Separator affluent-2
  Separator effluent-2
  Separator affluent- 3
  Separator affluent- 3
          3.0
          .09
          .07
          .09

          .30

         L.02
          .60
          .13
          .17
         L.02
         L.02
         L.02

          .16
          .07
          .08

          .02
          .01
          .02
                    Phenolic*
                        22.
                       .047
                       .020
 .032
 .011
L.005
L.005

  2.3
  2.2
  1.9

L.010
 .010
 .012
                                  Mercury
 .0010
 .0010
 .0003
 .0008
 .0010
 .0007
 .0018
L.0002

 .0008
 .0005
 .0004
                                                                       L.0005
L.OOOS
                                  L.0005
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3

L.005

L.005

L.005

.010


.015

L.005

L.001

L.001

.004

6.0
5.6

4.4

S.O
.0013
.0007
.0011
.0005
.0014
.0007
.0012
L.0002
L.0002
.0028
.0008
.0011
.0003
                                           B-24

-------
                            TABLE.  B-S
                                Page  6  of  10
Sampl«-0ay

Refinery I (Cont.)
  Separator effluent-3
  Final effluent-1
  Final efflu*nt-l
  Final efflu«nt-l
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-2
  Final affluent-3

Refinery J
  Intalc*-!
  Intake-1
  Intake-!
  Intaka-2
  Intakat-2
  Intate-3
  Intake-3
  Intak«-3
  Intakav-3
  Intaka—coapoait*
  Separator-1 «£flu«nt-l
  3«parator-l cffluant-1
  Separator-1 cffluant-2
  Saparator-1 «ffluent-2
  Separator-1 «ffluent-2
  Separator-1 effluent-3
  Separator-! «ffluent-3
  Separator-1 effluent-conposite
  Separator-2 affluent-1
  Separator-2 effluent-1
  Separator-2 effluent-1
  Separator-2 effluant-2
  Separator-2 effluent-2
  Separatoc-2 effluent-3
  Separator-2 effluent-3
  Separator—2 effluent-coBposite
  Separator-3 effluent-!
  Separator-3 effluent-1
  Separator-3 effluent-1
  Separator-3 effluent-2
  Separator-3 effluent-2
  Separator-3 affluent-3
  Separator-3 effluent-3
  Separator-3 effluent-composite
                                     Lab     Cyanide
                                                         Phenolies
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3


L.OOS
L.005

L.OOS
L.OOS
L.OOS
5.2

.018


.014

.012
 .01


 .01

L.01





 .01

 .01
 .01

 .01


 .01


 .01

 .01


 .01


 .01

 .01
.017


.024

.002





 1.0

 1.0


  .2


 1.0
 1.0

 2.0

 2.5


.690
  .5

 1.3

.270
                        Mercury
                          .0042
                         L.0002

                          .0012
                         L.0002

                          .0010
 .0007
 .0001
 .0004
 .0009
 .0002
 .0019
 .0020
 .0070
 .0070
 .0005
 .0001
 .0030
 .0012
L.0001

 .0012
 .0010
 .0005
 .0028
 .0001

 .0016
 .0050
 .0003
L.0010
 .0006
 .0002
L.0001

 .0006
 .0010
 .0009
 .0006
 .0010
                                         B-25

-------
                               TABU  B-5
                           Page  7  of 10
                                     Lab     Cyanide
                                                         Phenolica
                                                                      Marcurv
Refinery J (Cant.)
  Separator-* effluent-1
  Separator-4 efflueat-1
  Separator-4 effluent-2
  Separator-4 «f fluent-2
  Separator-4 «ffluent-2
  Separator-4 effluent-3
  3epvfator-4 effluent-3
  S«parator-4
  S«p«rator-4
  S«p«zmtor-5 •ffluant-1
  S«p«rmtar-S •ffluaot-1
  Separator-! •£fliMot-2
  3«paxator-5 «fflu«nt-2
  S«paxacar-5 «fflu«nt-3
  Separator-! affluent-3
  S«parator-S «fflu«nt-coapo«it«
  Bio-pond influaat-1
  Bio-pond lnflvMnd-2
  Bio-pond influ«nt-3
  Final •ffluwvt-l
  Final «ffluent-1
  Final •fflunt-2
  Final «fflu«mt-2
  Final *ffluant-3
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluent-coapoaite

Refinery,K
  mtake-1
  IntaJce-2
  Intake-3
  Intake-coapoaite
  OAF effluent-1
  OAF effltnnt-2
  OAF effluent-3
  OAF effluent-coBposite
  Final affluent-!
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluant-conpoaite
 .06

 .05


 .06




 .02

 .02

 .02

 .22
 .34
 .26

 .07

 .08

 .08
 .08
L.02
L.02
L.02

9.5

2.0
2.0

1.5
1.5


.294

.214

.246

120.
110.
83.

.008

.024

.002
.0002
.0002
.0013
.0050
.0070
.0016
.0020

.0004
.0003
L.OO01
.0011
.0002
.0016
.0020
.0005
.0020
.0060
.0030
.0008
L. 0001
.0013
.0060
.0009
.0040
            L.010
               .7
             .029
                          .0005
                         L.0005
                        L.OOOS
                        L.0005
                                             B-26

-------
                              TABLE  B-5
3apple-Pay                           Lab

Refinery L
  Intake-1                            2
  Intake-1                            1
  Intak«-2                            2
  Intak«-2                            1
  Intake-3                            2
  Intake-3                            1
  Intafca-compoaite,                    2
  Intalce-conponte                    1
  Separator-1 efflueat-1               2
  Separator-1 effliurnt-1               1
  Separator-1 affluent-2               2
  Separator-1 effluent-2               i
  Separator-! affluent-3               2
  Separator-! «fflue«t-3               1
  Separator-JL effluent-composite       2
  Separator-1 effluent-composite       1
  Sep«rator-2 affluent-1               2
  Separator-2 efflueot-1               1
  S«parator-2 «£flueMt-2               2
  Separator-2 effluent-2               1
  Separator-2 effluent-3               2
  Separator-2 affluent-3               1
  3eparator-2 affluent-composite       2
  Separator-2 effluent-composite       1
  final affluent-1                    2
  Final affluent-1                    1
  final effluent-2                    2
  Final affluent-2                    1
  Final affluent-3                    2
  Final* effluent-3                    1
  Final «ffluent-co«ipo«ita             2
  Final effluent-composite             1

Refinery M
  Intake-1                            2
  Ineake-2                            2
  Intake-3                            2
  Intake-composite                    2
  OAF effluant-1                       2
  OAF efflvwnt-2                       2
  OAF effluent-3                       2
  OAF affluent-composite               2
  Final effluent-1                    2
  Final affluent-2                    2
  Final affluent-3                    2
  Final effluent-coraposito             2
L.02
L.02
L.02

 .01
 .02
 .03

L.02
L.02
L.02
                                                         Phenolic*
                          Page  8  of 10

                        Mercury
L.06

L.06

L.06


.19

.36

.58


.16

.21

.08


.08

.08

.08


L.010

L.010

L.010


51.

52.

61.




22.

U.6


L.010

.010

L.010



L. 0001

.0002

.0002
.0002

.0014

.0014

.0008
.001S

.0006

.0004

.0004
.0005

.0003

.0003

.0003
.0003
L.010
L.010
L.010

  4.7
  4.2
  4.3

L.010
L.010
L.010
                                             B-27

-------
Bafinery N
  Intake-1
  Intake-1
  Intake-2
  IntaJca-2
  Intake-3
  Intake-3
  Intake-composite
  Intake-composite
  Separator efflu«nt-l
  Separator effluent-!
  Separator afflu«nt-2
  Separator «fflu«nt-2
  Saparaeor affluent-3
  Separator afflu«nt-3
  Separator «fflu«nt-compo»ita
  Separator effluejit-conpoait*
  Qien plant affluent-1
  Ch«m plant affluent-!
  OMB plant affluent-2
  Qua plant «fflu*nt-2
  Oaoi plant «fflu«nt-3
  diem plant «ffluent-3
  OMB plant «ifluant-co«ipo«it»
  Chea plant •£flu*nt-coBpo>ita
  Final affluent-I
  Final »ffluent-l
  Final affluent-2
  Finai affluent-2
  Final «ffluent-3
  Final affluent-3
  Final effluent-composite
  Final affluent-composite

Refinery O
  Intake-1
  Intake-2
  Intake-3
  Intake-composite
  DAF effluent-1
  OAF affluent-2
  OAF affluent-3
  DAF effluent-composite
  Final effluent-1
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluent-composite
TABLE B-5
Lab
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
> 2
1 1
2
1
2
1
2
1
:• 2
:e 1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Cyanide
L.06

L.03

L.06



L.06

.04

L.06



L.06

L.03

L.06


L.06

L.03

L.06



L.02
L.02
L.02

.21
.16
.13

L.03
L.03
L.03

                                                                                 Page  9  of  10
Phsnolics


  L.010

  L.011

  L.010



    6.2

    6.5

    4.7



  L.260

   .073

   .074



  L.01S

  L.011
  L.010
  X.. 005
  L.005

   " 11.
    10.
    11.

   .052
   .049
   .036
Mercury



  .0002

  .0001

  .0002
 L.OOOS
  .0002

  .0004

  .0006

  .0004
 L.OOOS
  .0005

 L.0001

  .0004

  .0002
 L.Q005
  .0002

  .0004

  .0002

  .0001
 L.OOOS
  .0001
 L.OOOS
 L.0005
                                                                        L.OOOS
                                            B-28

-------
                              TABLE  B-5
                                             Page  10  of 10
Seaple-Day*
Lab     Cyanide
Hettnery F
  Intake-1
  Intake-2
  Intake-3
  Xntake-coevosita
  Separator effluent-1
  Separator effluent-2
  Separator effluent-3
  Separator e<£luent-ccaposite.
  Final effluent-1
  Final effluent-2
  Final, affluent-3
  Final effluent-coaposita

aginary gc
  Intake-1
  Intake-1
  Intake-2
  Iatake-2
  Intake-3
  Intake-3
  Separator effluent-1
  Separator effluent-1
  Separator affluent-1
  Separator effluent-2
  Separator effluent-2
  Separator «ffluent-3
  'Separator effluent-3
  Final effluent-1
  Finkl effluent-1
  Final effluent-1
  Final effluent-I
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-2
  Final effluent-3
  Final effluent-3
  Iatake-4
  Separator efflueat-4
  Final effluent-4
          L.03
          L.02
          L.02

           .09
           .06
           .04

          L.03
          C..03
          L.03
          L.01

           .02

          L.01

          L.01



          L.01

           .03

          L.01
          L.01
           .32
           .32

           .01
          L.02
          L.02
          L.02
                    PhenoUcs
L.010
L.005
L.OOS

 106.

  29.

 .012
 .011
 .010
L.001

 .004

 .010

 .102
 .113

 .116

 .113

 .016
 .018
 .018

 .014
                                                                       Mercury
L.OOOS
L.OOOS
                                    L.OOOS
 .0021

 .0012
 .0010
 .0034
 .0060
 .0002
 .0060

 .0003
L.0002
 .0003
L.0002
 .0003
 .0060
 .0120
 .0002
 .0003
 .0020
L.0002
 .0008
L.0002
L.0001
L.0002
L.0001
Notes:
        (a)  If a value i»  not listed for  * particular sample location and time,
            then the indicated laboratory did not  test that sample for the
            specified pollutant.
        (b)  L - less than.
        (c)  Grab samples collected during revisits  to Refineries, c, G, Q are
            indicated as Day 4.
Labs:
         !•  - EPA Region v Laboratory.
         2  - Robert S.  Kerr Environmental  Research Laboratory,
         3  - Ryckman*  Edgerley,  Tomlinson  and Associates.
                          EPA
                                          B-29

-------
TABLE B-6
Page  1 of 6
FOR THE RSKEBL AMD BtR SAMPLING P
MEIALS (COH

s«^n-°«r*
RafliwxT A
1-1
1-2
1-3
l-camfomt.t»
l-Caapotit*
SE-l
SE-2
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
rt-i
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
taflnuy B
I- 1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
DAT E-l
OAT E-2
OAF S-3
OAT E-C
OAT S-C
FE-l
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
MCiaacy C-l
1-1
1-1
i-:
1-2
i-j
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-l
SE-l
SE-2
SE-2
SE-3
SE-3
SE-C
SS-C
TS-1
TE-l
TE-2
TE-2
TE-3
TE-3
TE-C
TB-C
rs-i
re-i
FB-2
FE-2
FE-3
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
R««ln«ry 0-2"
I
SE
TE
FE

L«b

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3.
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3

3
3
3
3

a

us
us
us
us
LS
us
us
us
us
LS
us
us
us
us
LS

u
u
2
2
LS
U
u
u
u
LS
u
u
u
u
LS

us

us

us

us
u
us

us

us

us
u
us

us

us

us
u
us

us

us

us
LI






Si

u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
L3
u
u
u
u
u

u

LZ

u

u
u
u

u

u

u
u
u

u

u

u
u
u

u

u

u
u






£&.

uo
uo
uo
uo
u
L20
uo
uo
uo
u
uo
uo
uo
uo
u

u
u
7
u
u
u
u
3
u
u
a
u
u
u
u

L20

uo

uo

uo
u
uo

uo

uo

uo
u
uo
13
uo
9
uo
IS
uo
16
uo

uo

uo

uo
LI






S.

U4
U4
L24
U4
LS
U4
L24
1220
30
32
U4
U4
U4
U4
S

30
30
SO
60
LS
SO
so
60
60
LS
70
70
40
SO
LS

U4

L24

U4

L24
2
375
770
513
820
669
940
574
880
133
940
128
470
770
1100
342
490
112

119

142

120
3






'OHS . ua/
BOGBAK
Ti



CU

L4
L4
L4
L4
LS
26
23
39
23
17
L4
L4
6
S
LS

30
20
40
30
LS
LS
9
10
10
7
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

12

9

11

21
2
231

1S1

140

182
190
27
100
26
190
SI
260
59
230
19

50

24

27
10





Ml

LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
L1S
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
23
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
US

6
6
20
20
US
LS
LS
LS
LS
US
LS
LS
LS
LS
L15

LSO
U
LSO
U
LSO
U
LSO
I
LSO

LSO

LSO

LSO
U.
LSO
9
LSO
6
LSO
44
LSO
IB
LSO
7
LSO
7
LSO
7
LSO
IS





Pb

LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
L1S
147
109
224
114
64
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
US

60
60
SO
70
L1S
UO
UO
UO
UO
us
uo
uo
uo
uo
us

LSO
u
LSO
U
LSO
U
119
1
71

LSO

64

227
12
LSO

66

LSO

331
17
LSO
26
113
58
LSO
26
112
50





sa Ji Si

31
45
68
43
UO UO US
253
239
329
272
220 12 US
64
65
77
SI
30 UO US

LSO
LSO
100
100
IS UO US
L60
LSO
LSO
LSO
30 UO US
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
25 UO US

79

44

109

1450
20 4 1
607
630
517
670
614
sso
3420
690 8 LI
527
930
489
440
381
930
4780
780 6 1
478
590
565
620
326
590
1080
700 5 3

U.
579
519
543
3. Tl





UO US




uo us




uo us





uo us




uo us




L20 US


4 U

13 3

4 U

5 U

11 U

8 U

9 U

IS

10 LI

LS U

3 U

IS

13 3

10 7

19 LI

19 U

U
LI
U
U
   B-30

-------
TABLE  B-6
Page 2  of 6
        Concentration (aa/ll
SMTI.-D.V*
tefiawr 0
I-l
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
OAT E-l
OAF E-2
OAT E-3
OAF E-C
OAF E-C
FS-1
Ft-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
f*l iauy E
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
OAF E-l
OAF E-2
OAF E-3
OAF E-C
OAF E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
I-l
1-2
>3
I-C
I-C
cr a-i
CT B-2
CT B-3
CT B-C
CT B-C
FS-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
a»fln.ry 0-1
I-l
I-l
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
I-C
I-C
51-1
51- 1
SB- 2
SI- 2
SI-3
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
OAF E-l
DAF E-l
OAF E-2
DAF E-2
OAF E-3
OAF E-3
OAF E-C
OAF E-C
FE-1
FE-1
FE-2
FE-2
FE-3
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
J*»

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
I
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
tO.

USO
uso
uso
uso
LS
uso
us
us
us
LS
us
us
us
us
IS

us
us
us
us
LS
us
us
us
us
LS
us
us
us
us
LS
uso
uso
uso
uso
LS
uso
uso
us
us
LS
us
* us
us
us
LS

us

us

us

us
u
us

us

us

us
u
us

us

us

us
u.
us

us

us

us
LI
a*

uo
uo
uo
uo
u
uo
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
L3

u
u
u
u
L3
u
u
u
u
L3
u
u
u
u
u
uo
uo
u
u
L3
u
u
u
u
L3
u
u
u
L2
13

u

u

u

u
u
u

u

a

u
u
u

u

u

u
u
u

L2

L2

u
L2
Si

uoo
uoo
uoo
uoo
u
uoo
uo
uo
uo
u
uo
uo
uo
uo
u

uo
uo
uo
uo
2
uo
uo
uo
uo
u
uo
uo
uo
uo
u
uoo
uoo
uo
uo
u
uo
uo
uo
uo
u
uo
uo
uo
uo
u

uo

uo

uo

uo
u
uo

uo

uo

uo
u
uo

uo

uo

24
u
uo

uo

L20

uo
u
SS.

U40
U40
U40
U40
114
1020
681
479
719
730
1230
1160
875
1080
1000

25
58
35
42
35
104
86
89
89
76
42
52
44
42
36
1240
U40
7Z
58
60
SO
60
79
57
44
73
31
29
45
7

124

U4

L24

124
1
615
320
676
790
73
1200
SOS
1000 .
526
710
414
680
73
930
425
300
39

36

73

124
1
Cu

L40
L40
140
L40
LS
L40
IS
6
7
LS
14
14
U
L4
LS

S
8
IS
10
8
L4
14
L4
U
LS
L4
L4
L4
L4
LS
50
190
184
1S1
210
278
350
510
40S
500
199
36
84
125
125

14

L4

14

L4
7
S

53

L4

3
7
14

L4

L4

a
3
14

U

14

U
7
Si.

LSOO
LSOO
LSOO
LSOO
115
LSOO
LSO
LSO
LSO
115
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
us

LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
SI
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
28
'LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
19
LSOO
LSOO
57
62
58
64
101
134
38
77
68
74
71
64
sa

LSO

52

LSO

ISO
U
LSO

35

LSO

93
U
ISO

LSO

LSO

104
1
57

63

LSO

LSO
U
&

LSOO
LSOO
LSOO
LSOO
US
LSOO
LSO
LSO
LSO
US
LSO
LSO
L60
LSO
US

LSO
160
LSO
LSO
23
LSO
160
LSO
L60
US
LSO
LSO
LSO
L60
US
LSOO
LSOO
LSO
LSO
115
160
LSO
L60
LSO
US
LSO
L60
160
LSO
US

78

102

LSO

LSO
2
181
420
308
160
160
430
181
278
159
270
115
320
160
360
144
260
107

90

160

160
2
Zn A>

USO
USO
USO
uso
33 UO
410
242
181
262
280 UO
SIS
480
338
430
400 UO

141
102
130
127
110 UO
61
47
54
74
50 UO
49
77
59
44
30 UO
uso
uso
127
133
120 27
229
342
4S2
342
330 41
125
151
112
132
100 31

52
LI
72
U
28
U
30
36 5
125
60
117
24
170
110
179
66 5
93
44
94
87
64
92
139
53 L4
51

46

64

30
36 5
Sb. S. Tl





US UO US




us uo us




us uo us





us uo us




us uo us




US 12 US




US 12 US




us uo us




r.?; UO US


u

u

u

U 3 U

9 U

10 U

6 U

U « U

5 U

13 U

7 U

1 9 U

32 6

9 12

7 5

U 3 12
       B-31

-------
TABLE  B-6
      Conc«ntr«tion (ug/11
Page  3  of 6
Miin«r? G-f
I
sx
DAT I
R
Mf iMzy a
l-l
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
SB-l
n-2
SC-3
st-c
ss-c
R-l
R-2
R-3
R-C
R-C
ttmtiMff I
-1
-I
-2
-2
-3
-3
I-C
I-C
SX-1
SK-1
SI-2
SC-2
St-3
SE-3
Sl-C
3I-C
R-l
Fl-1
R-2
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-C
R-C
«•< inwcy >J
1-1
l-l
t-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
I-C
I-C
SI E-l
U 1-1
SI t-2
SI 1-2
SI 1-3
SI 1-3
SI E-C
SI E-C
12 E-l
32 E-l
S2 E-l
S2 E-2
32 1-3
12 C-3
S2 I-C
32 I-C
S3 S-l
33 S-l
S3 «-2
S3 E-2
S3 1-3
S3 E-3
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3

1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
\
3
1
3
1
3
1
3


Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
LS
U
Ll
U.
Ll
LS
LL
Ll
U
Ll
LS

US

US

US

us
Ll
US

US

us

us
Ll
US

us



us
Ll
*
us

us

us

us
u.
us

us

us

us
u
us

us

us

us
Ll
us

us

us



Ll
u
Ll
Ll
u
Ll
Ll
Ll
U.
L3
Ll
U
U
U
u

u

u

u

u
Ll
u

u

u

u
Ll
U

u



u
u

u

u

u

u
u
u

u

u

u
u
u

u

u

u
Ll
U

U

U



U
u
8
U
u.
u
u
u
u
Ll
U
U
20
U
U

UO

UO

UO

UO
Ll
UO

UO

UO

uo
u
UO

UO



UO
u

UO

UO

UO

UO
Ll
UO

UO

UO

UO
Ll
UO

UO

UO

UO
u
UO

UO

UO

Or

20
10
20
10
LS
10
7
20
10
LS
20
10
10
10
LS

U4

L24

U4

U4
1
98

91

102

98
3
U4

U4



L24
1

L24

U4

L24

U4
1
36

620
100
50
16
52
76
440
4SO
1050
1100
411
390
384
780
547
830
1010
1200
3SO
660
Cu

L6
9
10
7
LS
30
20
30
30
7
10
10
9
7
LS

L4

6

20

16
10
1S7

167

146

1S7
6
85

22



71
3

S

10

L4

4
1
L4

1370

33

25
2
L4

231

L4

55
7
14

16

16

Ni

L5
LS
LS
LS
L1S
LS
LS
LS
LS
US
LS
LS
U
LS
US

LSO

LSO

LSO

LSO
U
LSO
7
LSO
U
LSO
U
LSO
5
LSO

LSO



LSO
Ll

LSO

LSO

LSO

LSO
1
LSO

771

LSO

LSO
U
LSO

69

LSO

61
Ll
118

LSO

LSO

gb

UO
UO
UO
UO
US
UO
UO
UO
UO
us
30
30
UO
30
L1S

LSO

LSO

79

78
2
LSO

LSO

90

1M
2
LSO

LSO



211
2

LSO

LSO

LSO

LSO
2
LSO

9S8

LSO

LSO
4
190
190
2080
200O
976
380
810
970
123

LSO

LSO

Zn

LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
IS
LSO
LSO
70
LSO
30
LSO
SO
LSO
LSO
25

69

52

336

S36
25
172
110
237
100
1070
100
1120
100
69

69



2000
60

72

54

62

62
54
ISO
120
499
2SO
432
420
2S7
320
316
290
14OO
2100
790
680
6S8
740
194
ISO
24S
210
280
280
Aj Sb S«





UO US UO




UO US UO




UO US 20








L4 U 2

L4

L4

7

5 Ll 4

25

23



L4 Ll 16








3 Ll 3

7

16

L4

3 Ll 5

16

12

14

S Ll 9

17

13

31
Tl
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll





L1S




L1S




L1S


U

Ll

Ll

Ll

Ll

Ll

U

U

Ll

Ll



U


U.

Ll

Ll

U

U.

U

U

U

3

Ll

Ll

3

Ll

Ll

Ll
        B-32

-------
TABLE  B-6
Page 4  of 6
       Concentration (uq/1)
3«apl«-0ay *
!4*
a
SS.
Si
Cr
21
Mi.
Pb
Zn
A* Sb
§2.
li
R>f intry J (Cone* )
S3 E-C
S3 E-C
34 E-l
54 E-l
S4 E-2
34 E-2
34 E-3
34 E-3
34 E-C
34 E-C
SS E-l
SS E-l
SS S-2
SS E-2
SS E-3
SS E-3
SS E-C
SS E-C
S-P 1-1
B-P I-l
B-P 1-2
B-P 1-2
B-P 1-3
B-P 1-3
B-P I-C
B-P I-C
PE-1
PK-1
fS-2
P*-2
PS-3
PS- 3
PE-C
FS-C
fmtintrr x.
I-l
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
OAT E-l
DAT E-2
DAT E-3
OAT E-C
OAT E-C
rs-i
PI-2
FE-3
Pl-C
PE-C
R*f iMTT L
I-l
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
31 E-l
31 S-2
SI E-3
SI S-C
Si E-C
32 E-l
32 S-2
32 8-3
32 S-C
32 S-C
PE-l
FE-2
PE-J
FE-C
PB-C
1
3
1
3
1
3
I
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
us
I
us

us

us

us
2
31

US

US

US
U
us

us

us

us
LI
us

us

us

us
u

u
u
LI
u.
u
LI
u
LI
u
u
LI
LI
U.
LI
•u

uso
uso
us
uso
u
uso
uso
uso
uso
u
us
us
us
us
u
us
L25
US
US
u
u
u.
u

u

u

u
LI
2

U

U

u
u
u

u

u

u
u
u

u

u

u
u.

u.
LI
u
LI
U
U
U
u
LI
U
U
u
u.
u
u

uo
uo
u
uo
u
uo
uo
uo
uo
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
uo
LI
uo

uo

uo

uo
u
uo
4
uo
5
uo
9
uo
7
uo

uo

uo

uo
u
UO

uo

uo

uo
u.

u
u
3
u
u
u
u
u
u
3
u
u
u
u
1

uoo
uoo
uo
uoo
u
uoo
uoo
uoo
uoo
LI
uo
uo
uo
uo
u
uo
UO
uo
uo
LI
626
570
335
1500
1210
1300
1860
1700
1300
1900
1580
2200
2790
4900
1500
1800
2010
3600
L24
9
US
5
L24
6
29
22
96
ISO
94
27
102
27
82
54

20
10
10
20
S
1000
2000
1000
1000
1600
100
60
100
100
73

U40
U40
U4
U40
30
10OO
U40
L240
U40
290
773
831
928
802
370
205
119
165
144
190
25
2
38

21

77

42
10
51

47

51

45
182
41

7

L4

17
2
9

L4

6

L4
32

10
10
10
10
6
200
400
200
300
280
60
10
20
30
18

L40
L40
22
MO
20
170
L40
100
100
ISO
43
54
31
42
50
24
19
31
24
39
63
LI
UO

UO

UO

LSO
LI
139

LSO

UO

79
1
LSO

UO

uo

LSO
U
53

LSO
7
65
6
UO
3

U
U
u
u
L1S
9
20
U
20
28
U
U
u
u
us

uoo
uoo
LSO
uoo
21
uoo
uoo
uoo
uoo
70
LSO
UO
UO
UO
16
UO
UO
uo
LSO
IS
71
2
80

UO

UO

69
12
164

UO

UO

101
2
72

UO

uo

uo
3
82

L60

UO

UO
9

70
40
80
40
US
50
200
60
100
70
UO
UO
UO
UO
L1S

UOO
700
64
UOO
40
UOO
UOO
UOO
uoo
45
UO
UO
UO
LSO
17
UO
UO
UO
uo
us
215
260
411
340
261
290
579
620
304
560
464
600
609
740
417
520
491
760
148

54

65

55

130

51

46

62
62

200
70
60
70
45
1000
3000
1000
2000
1400
100
70
100
1000
120

810
USO
125
USO
120
49O
290
290
360
370
382
304
314
32S
290
174
157
161
174
140

3 LI







3 1







9 LI







U LI







M LU





UO US




uo us




uo us





uo us




uo us




uo us




uo us

6

25

24

4

11

7

29

19

23

20

10

18

22

20

27

16

12





UO




UO




uo





uo




uo




uo




uo

U

LI

U

LI

U

LI

4

6

U

LI

LI

LI

U

U

U.

U

U





us




L1S




US





US




L15




U5




US
         B-33

-------
TABLE  6-6
Page  5  of 6
      Concentration (uq/11
3«nol«-O«Y *
R»fin«ry N
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
DAT 2-1
OAF S-2
DAF E-3
OAF E-C
OAF S-C
FE-I
FE-2
re- 3
FE-C
FE-C
S»t in«ry H
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-l
SB- 2
SI- 3
SI-C
SE-C
CJE-I
CTE-2
CPE-3
CTE-C
CPS-C
FE-I
FE-2
rz-3
FE-C
FE-C
!Uf in*ry 0
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
OAF E-l
oar s-2
SAF E-3
OAF E-C
DAT E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
R«f in«ry f
I-l
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-l
SE-2
SZ-3
SE-C
SE-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Lib

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
2
I
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
I
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
1
1
1
2
1
1
I
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
£9.

u
u
LI
LI
LS
U.
U.
u
u.
LS
U
LI
4
4
LS

US
L2S
L2SO
L25
LS
L2SO
L2SO
L2S
L2S
•LS
US
L2S
US
L2S
LS
US
us
us
us
LS

u
u.
LI
U
LS
LI
U
LI
U
LS
U.
LI
LI
U.
LS

LI
U.
U.
LI
LS
LI
U
LI
LI
LS
LI
LI
LI
U.
LS
is.

u
LI
LI
LI
L3
2
2
2
2
U
2
2
U
U
U

u
u
uo
u
u
uo
uo
u
u
L3
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

LI
u
LI
U
L3
U
U
U.
u.
L3
LI
LI
U
U
L3

U.
U
U.
U
U
U.
u
LI
U.
U
LI
LI
U
U
U
Si

U
U
u
u
LI
L2
U
U
U
LI
3
U
U
U
u

uo
uo
uoo
uo
u.
uoo
uoo
uo
uo
LI
uo
L20
UO
uo
u
uo
uo
uo
uo
u

u
u
u
u
LI
u
u
u
u
LI
u
u
u
u
LI

u
u
u
u
LI
U
u
u
u
LI
U
u
u
u
Li
21

30
10
20
20
LS
200
100
90
100
73
90
100
90
100
24

U4
U4
3000
U4
7
1000
2000
960
1380
1400
SOS
679
499
701
650
U4
159
131
137
120

LS
LS
LS
LS
8
200
300
300
200
240
SO
SO
90
SO
110

LS
LS
LS
LS
40
900
SO
700
600
72
LS
LS
LS
LS
40
Cu

300
100
100
200
180
10
10
9
10
6
10
10
20
20
3

L4
L4
L40
L4
LS
UO
L40
7
14
61
L4
8
7
L4
13
L4
L4
L4
L4
11

LS
L6
L6
L6
LS
30
10
a
20
3O
L6
L6
L6
L6
LS

LS
L6
LS
L«
LS
LS
LS
L6
L6
LS
L6
LS
LS
L6
LS
Si.

10
L5
LS
LS
L1S
LS
LS
LS
LS
L1S
LS
LS
10
20
L1S

LSO
uo
790
LSO
L1S
LSOO
LSOO
LSO
LSO
16
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
L1S
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
L1S

LS
LS
LS
LS
us
LS
LS
LS
U
us
LS
LS
LS
LS
US

LS
LS
LS
LS
US
LS
LS
LS
LS
L1S
LS
LS
LS
LS
US
Pb

200
UO
40
60
25
UO
uo
uo
uo
us
uo
so
uo
30
us

LSO
LSO
LSOO
UO
US
LSOO
LSOO
LSO
LSO
18
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
US
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
US

UO
uo
uo
uo
us
uo
uo
uo
uo
27
uo
uo
uo
uo
us

uo
uo
uo
uo
us
uo
uo
uo
uo
us
uo
uo
uo
uo
us
Zn

200
90
100
100
75
200
100
90
100
140
90
100
100
200
90

56
29
uso
36
19
48O
760
S73
603
570
6S20
4110
4260
S210
4800
US
118
61
104
35

LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
UO
LSO
LSO
100
60
74
LSO
LSO
LSO
160
L10

LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
61
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
55
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
43
i! 5S. 5i li.





uo us uo us




uo us uo us




uo us uo us





uo us uo us




uo us uo us




uo us uo us




uo us uo us





uo us uo us




uo us uo us




uo us uo us





uo us uo us




UO 360 UO US




UO 370 UO US
B-34

-------
                                              TABLE  B-6
                    Page  6  of 6
Sa»Pl«-OaY*   Lab
                                                       Concentration (ug/1)
                               a.     Cd
                                                      cu     Mi      Pb
                                                                                                    Sa      U
MflMry S-l
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
t-J
I-C
I-C
St-1
SI- 1
SI-2
St-1
SC-3
SI- 3
SC-C
SI-C
ra-i
ra-i
f»-2
n-2
ra-3
n-3
ra-c
ra-c
Mfiamy 9*2b
IS
ss
n

i
3
1








3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
]
1
3

3
3
3
                      US

                      us

                      L25

                      US
                       U
                      US

                      US

                      US

                      us
                       LI
                      us

                      us

                      us

                      us
                       U
U
L2
U
L2
U
U

LI

n

L2
LI
U

U

U

L2
U
L20
UO
LZO
UO
U
UO

UO

UO

UO
U
UO

UO
U
UO
U
UO
3
U4
L24
L24
U4
1
L24

U4

L24

U4
1
U4

L24

L24

U4
2
37
37
20
S3
120
7
«0
L4
140
6
60
IS
210
U

20

«

U
180
LSO
L50
UO
LSO
U.
LSO

LSO

LSO

LSO
LI
uo

uo

uo

uo
U.
L60
L60
L60
167
2
LSO

UO

L60

101
10
LSO

L60

LM

102
IS
70
62
329
2820
33
274
330
444
470
511
640
1460
470
24S
380
329
3«0
300
310
U70
340




7

480

460

460

440

790

900

680

800
                U
 6

10

 &

 9

 7

 6

10

11

10

22

20
                        U

                        LI

                        U

                        U

                        U.

                        U

                        LI

                        L2

                        U

                        U

                        U.

                        L2
                                                     240
                                                     380
                                                     300
 U.
2*2
 35
350
SOO
nataai
        a)   If « nOua U not Uatad for • particular Minla  loot ton and tiaw.  than tha iadicatad laboratory
            old not taa-t tfaac saavla Car tha aaaeifiad pollutant.
        b>   OMM daea rapm*nt raavlts froa <
            c. a, g.

        L   •   Lua than
        I   -   Intata
        If  -   Mparator «Mlu«t
        OAF s - DAT affluaat
        TI  -   Tr*at*d »ttloant
        n  -   final «Kluant
        CT 1 - Cooling Tovar blovdoim
        B-f I - alo-oond influaat
        CPK ~   Qua^cal plant affluant
                                               -tia* grab
                                                            plaa collaetad dociag r*riaa.ti to Raflaariaa
Uba;   1 - SP» Kaqtoa V Laboratory
        2 - aobart S. Karr Envirnn»»ntal Banana Laboratory,
        3 - RyeJoun, Sdoarlay, ToaOinaon and Aaaoelataa
                                           B-35

-------
                                                                 TABLE  B-7




                             Analytical Results for Traditional Para»eters  in the PretreaUaent Sampling Program - Week  1.
Sampling
Location
1. Refinery No. 25
Effluent

2. POTH No. 1
a. Raw Influent

b. Final Effluent


c. Primary Sludge


d. Secondary Sludge


Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
PH
8.9
8.7
8.68
7.50
7.50
7.30
7.40
7.55
7.80
5.9
8.5
6.78
7.3
7.45
7.60
SS
19
45
25
316
290
524
1
2
2
21.200
39.160
12.450
1.948
3.536
3.000
Sulfide
mg/1 S
<0.1
< 0.1
<0.1
0.25
0.20
0.40
< 0. |
<0. 1
< 0. 1
35.0
110.0
33.0
0.25
0.80
0.50
BODg
mg/1
310
320
355
212
240
235
3
4
5
>4.930
8.920
1.230
745
1.460
5.680
COO
ing/1
690
710
700
505
580
580
34
30
35
28.600
39.700
30.100
2.070
42.300
15.800
CN
mg/1
3.0
2.6
3.0
0.1
*
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.24
*
0.05
0.15
*
0.17
Phenol
*g/l
123
88
99
1.7
*
0.113
0.003
0.011
0.012
2.30
*
0.622
0.074
*
0.169
O&G
mg/1
41.4
42.3
61.8
54.1
59.0
22.4
1.3
1.0
0.9
2.660
5.260
1.044
29.5
59.5
42.0
Cr*6
mg/1
0.26
0.48
0.22
< 0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02

-------
                                TABLE  B-8
        AHALYTICAl RESULTS FOR PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING
                 PROGRAM-WEEK I.  VOLATILE ORGANIC  CDNCENTRAT
uq/T
Po1
Pollutant No.
Benzene


Chlorobenzene


4


7


1,l,1-tr1chloro-n
ethane

1,1-d1chloro-
e thane

Chloroform


1 ,2-trans-
dlchloroethylene

Ethyl benzene


Methylene
chloride

Tetrachloro-
ethylene

Toluene


Trichloro-
ethylene



13


23


30


38


44

35


36


87


Oay
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Ref.No. x
25
Eff .to
POTW
4,200
5.800
1,600
„
31
-
.
.
-
.
.
-
_
21
17
.
.
-
9,000
5,600
4,000
-
-
*
.
18
15,000
9,900
5,700
.
.
-
POTW*
Inf.
23
81
*
.
•
-
5
22
*
.
•
-
.
10
*
.
-
*
25
20
*
*
*
*
88
117
19
34
103
24
38
57
27
Primary* Secondary* Final* Primary
Eff. Eff. Eff. Sludge
17
64
14
.
.
-
. •
16
10
.
-
-
.
* .
• *
.
•
*
38 *
25
*
* *
* *
» *
43 *
160 16
24
67
no
31
21
78 *
36 *
.
.
-
.
-
-
.
-
15
.
-
-
.
*
*
.
-
-
.
*
-
*
23
*
10
23
.
.
-
*
*
*
9
13
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
16
-
-
-
-
-
60
-
50
50
20
•
30
(11) *
(11) •
-
-
-
30
30
10
150
-
20
^ xx
Secondary
Sludge
_
»
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
10
120
18(15)
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
7
-
NOTE:   -   Not  detected.
       *   In traces,but below detection limit.
     (  }   Sanpla blanfc.  Ho volatile orgaaics detected in other  sample blanJts.
       x   Analysis  performed by West Coast Technical  Service.
      xx   Analysis  performed by Pomeroy, Johnston and 8a-iley.
          Of the 30 volatile organics, only 11  were detected.
                                    B-37

-------
                     TABLE -B-9
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING
Page  1  of 2
PR06RAH-HEEK 1 ,
Poll **
Pollutants No.
2,4-Oliwthyl- 34 AE
phenol

Pentachloro- 64 AE
phenol

Phenol 65 AE


1,2 dlchloro- 25 BNE
benzene

1,3 dlchloro- 26 BNE
benzene

1,4 dlchloro- 27 BNE
benzene

Isophorene 54 BNE
t

Naphthalene 55 BNE


Nitrobenzene 56 BNE


B1s(2-«thyl- 66 BNE
hexy1)phthalate

Butyl benzyl 67 BNE
phthalate

Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
Z
3
SEWVOLATILE ORGAN ICS (CONCENTRATIONS, uq/1)
Ref.No. x
25 - ,, * * xx
Eff. to POTW* Primary* Secondary* Final* Primary
POTW inf. Eff. Eff. Eff. Sludge
1,700 69
-
233 25
_ —
-
330
2,900 575
700
980
- *
4
15
*
19
10
28
29
24
.
-
-
620 113
121
370 20
^ .
-
-
124
112
130
16 55
53
39
72 »
. *
34
_ .
*
-
520
700 *
1.100 *
*
17 *
n *
* »
17 *
n *
23 *
30 *
30 10
. ,
23
-
93 *
156 *
35
_ m
.
-
94 *
56 *
150
59
43
68 *
* ..
.
-
* .
* .
•
*
* 355
* 180
* 13
7
* 10
* 30
15
*
• 30
15
* 9
» ^
-
*
* 440
30
* .
5
.
-
_ _
* 130
240
170
25
* 14
XX
Secondary
Sludge
.
-
-
„
.
-
_
405
1,200
20
9
-
»
5
-
^
5
-
.
-
-
_
.
-
—
.
-
75
180
140
_
.
.
                                  B-38

-------
                                     TABLE B-9                                     Page  2  of 2
       ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS  FOR THE PRETREATHENT SAMPLING

             PROGRAM-WEEK 1. SEHIVOLATILE  OP.SAHICS  (COMCEXTRATIOHS. ug/11
                                 Ref.NO.*
                                  25         xx         x       x      xx         xx
Pol 1 utants
Dl-n-butyl
PhthaJate

01-n-ortyl
Phthalate

Diethyl
Phthalate

Dimethyl
Phthalate

Acenaphthylene


Anthracene


F1 uorene


Phenanthrene*


Pyrene


Poll
Ho.
68

69

70


71


77


78


30


81


84


Day
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
3NE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
8NE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
3NE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
Eff. to
POTW
40
#
-
-
-
.
14
-
m
.
-
*
.
-
60
51
30
.
63
32
60
SI
30
_
21
-
POTH
Inf.
24
28
34
12
-
,
13
*
^
.
-
.
.
-
*
*
*
w
*
*
*
*
*
^
.
-
Primary
Eff.
19
21
17
*
*
-
27
17
*
*
*
-
.
,
*
*
*
*
—
*
-
' *
*
*
—
.
.
Secondary Final
Eff. Eff.
* *
* .
* *
-
.
. *
* .
15 *
*
_ »
* *
m ^
.
-
.
. »
*
*
— ^
-
.
.
*
.
. ^
.
Primary Secondary
SI udge SI udge
-
-
-
-
190 5

11
9

-
— —
. _
-

.
-

^ —
-
.
^ ^
-
.
_ —
.
    Of  59 semi-volatile organlcs, only 20 were detected.
 *  in traces, but below Detection Limit.
 ** AE -  Acid extractable; 8NE - Base/neutral  extractables.
 +•  Anthracene and Phenanthrene are unresolved.
 -  Not detected.
 x  Samples were analyzed by West Coast Technical  Services.
xx  Samples were analyzed by Pomeroy, Johnston and Bailey.
                                                    B-39

-------
Pollutant
                                    TABLE.B-10

              ANALYTICAL ^gSULTS  FOR PRIORITY PguUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATHENT
                          PROGRAM-WEEK 1. PESTICIDES(CONCENTRATIONS,  ug/1\
              Poll.
                No.
                     Day
                          f'Z5r      POTW*  Primary* Secondary*  Final* Primary* Secondary"
                          Eff.to
                          POTW
Inf.     Eff.
                  Eff.
Eff.   Sludge    Sludge
4,4'-OOE
                93     1
                      2
                      3
Heptachlor     100     1
                      2
                      3

b-8HC-Beta     103     1
                      2
                      3

r-BHC-Gamma    104     1
                      2
                      3
                                     0.68     0.39



                                     0.12     0.13

                             0.18

                             0.10    0.55     0.49
         6.3
0.14     0.13
                                                                 1.1
                                                                 1.2
NOTE:     Of 25  pesticides only 4 were found; none of the four were confirmed by GCMS.

       - Not detected.

       x Samples were analyzed by West Coast Technical  Service.

      xx Samples were analyzed by Pomeroy, Johnston and Bailey.
                                      B-40

-------
                                          TABLE  B-ll
                                          Metal» (Ceneeotratioiu,  un/1)
                                          a. 1
feUutut fell. He.
Unftxgny 114
anenie 115
Beryllium 117
^•^^^ ne

OiroBitai 119


Sapper 120


Lead 122


Mercury 123


Viekel 124


Swleaiiai 125


Silver 126


Th«Uiu» 1.27


Zinc 128


Oar Influent
X
1
2
3
1 27
2
3 26
1
2
3
1 61
2 29
3 42
1 335
2 357
3 241
1 263
2 248
3 202
1 251
2 218
3 324
1
2 1.50
3 0.41
1 204
2 123
3 92
1 U
2 38
3 32
1
2 11
3 11
1
2
3
1 336
2 911
3 357
MriMcr
tffluent
X
28
37
20
20
197
188
140
161
132
106
148
105
141
.
.
0.44
190
89
73
3O
41
-
_
_
-
_
.
-
492
462
449
Secondary
Effluent
X
-
-
39
33
31
56
16
16
37
.
39
1.48
0.41
0.38
90
89
68
.
.
30
_
_
-
.
_
-
122
93
143
Cffluant
X
;
*
IB
16
IS
34
*
32
29
-
38
0.52
1.06
0.51
81
86
69
_
.
35
_
_
-
.
.
-
SB
64
69
Priaexr
Sludge
XX
1250
830
60
86
174
66
12
4
1590
610
180
17900
17900
2870
7800
11200
3300
15700
9000
3800
14
253
46
3220
3400
700
_
6
-
30
80
60
20
30
70
40000
15400
S340
Secondary .
XX
830
210
23
73
76
60
6
10
240
320
310
4080
5560
5140
2500
3300
3000
1200
1500
1600
17
23
20
710
350
750
.
6
9
SO
SO
60
20
-
10
6100
9400
3040
UXMleBE CO
PQTV flUH
Uflnerjr HO.
25
X
30
-
1994
1473
1649
29
26
15
28
26
30
.
•
-
_
_
-
193
322
267
_
~
-
.
-
-
155
119
171
nee o»ot«ot«d
Analyzed by OA-Region IV Laboratory
Analyzed by Pi^wroy, Johnnon and Bailey
                                            B-41

-------
                                                                                TABLE  B-12
Sampling
Location
1. Effluent to POTU fro" gefli
a. No. 13

I). No. 21


c.1 No. 45

d. No. 43 Direct Din


No. 43


e. No. 16

to
| 2. PO1V No. 2
^ a. Influent
M

b. Primary Effluent


c. final Effluent
d. UNOX Influent


e. l«OX Effluent

f . Primary Sludge


g. Digested Sludge


h. Centrate
Day
usry Mo.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3


1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
a
*•'

10.80
10.00
11.42
8.75
8.56
8.65
7.32
6.90
7.13
8.24
7.60
7.29
7.68
7.84
7.52
7.51
7.10
8.13


7.50
7.57
7.51
7.50
7.58
7.51
7.68
7.77
7.55
7.51
7.71
7.20
6.91
6.98
7.OO
6.38
6.OO
»
7.20
7.01

7.59
7.58
S3

84
86
56
20
26
24
22
24
6
14
36
36
58
30
8
29
23
14


390
324
552
82
112
92
188
184
232
78
82
791
7
16
9
43.510
39.220
t
28,210
27.254
t
13,970
Sulfldu.
aa S

o!i
^O.X
Ko.x
^0. X
XO. X
^O.X
Ko, i
^0. J7
^0. X
fo.x**

-------
                                                                                                   1 of  2
                                       TABLE B-13
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM - WEEK 2
VOLATILE ORGANICS (Concentrations, ug/L)
POTW NO. 2
Pollutant
Benzene


Carbon Tetra-
chloride

Chlorobenzene


1 , 2-dichloroethane

ra
1 1,1, l-trichloro-
Oi> ethane
IjO
1 , 1-dichloroe thane


1,1,2, 2-tetrachloro-
e thane

Chloroform


1 , 1-dichloro-
ethylene

1 , 2-trans-dichloro-
ethylene

Poll.
No.
4


6


7


10


11


13


15


23


29


30


Day
**
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
x
Inf.
62
57
24
-
Ill
100
_
_
-
30
-
500
200
535
230
-
-
_
_
-
_
13
11
21
*
30
-
-
-
-
Primary
Eff.
71
67
27
-
-
-
_
-
-
30
19
714
98
95
252
-
_
_
_
-
-
13
14
111
-
-
-
-
_
-
UnoxX
Inf.
79
77
45
-
-
. -
-
-
-
-
_
-
306
159
482
*
-
*
-
-
_
10
12
14
*
-
32
-
_
_
Unoxx
Eff.

*
_

-
-

-
_

-
*

231
370

*
11

-
_

15
14

-
16

-
_
Finalx xx
Eff. Centrate
.
62
31 35
-
_
184
-
-
_
_
14
621 11
-
97
364

_
* 10

51
-
_
12
19
-
-
-
-
-
25
XX
Primary
Sludge
40

130
5

6
-

_
7

-
-

50
30

25
_

_
13

-
-

_
-

_
XX
Digested
Sludge
17

19
-

_
-

_
12

-
-

-
6

12
_

-
_

-
-

-
30

-
Effluent to POTW from Refinery No.
XX X X
Filter 13 21 45X
Cake
(rag/kg)
6 1200 226
* * 240
349 198 319
_ _
_ _
_
_
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
5 -
54 -
* 33 -
- - - -
14
_ * _ _
_
_
_
_
_
_
18 *
9 21 *
* 19 *
-
_
_
_
_
_
43x
Direct 43x 16X
* 380
* 47 140
_
_ _
_
_
* _ -
_
_ _
* _ _
18
24
- - -
15
-
_
_ _
_
_ _
_
_
* _ *
* _ _
*
- - -
_
-
- -
_ _
_

-------
                                                                                                                                      2  of  2
                                                                        TABLE B-13  (Continued)
                                        ANALYTICAL RESULTS  OF  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM - WEEK 2
W
 I
VOLATIU5 ORGAMICS (Concentrations, ug/L)
POTW No. 2
Pollutant
1,2-dichloro-
propylene

Ethylbenzene


Methylene Chloride


Dichlorobromo-
me thane

Chlo>-odibromo-
me thane

Tetrachloro-
ethylene

Toluene


Trichloroethylene


Poll.
No.
33


38


44


48


51


85


86


87


Day
**
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
X
Inf.
_
-
-
33
59
53
24
221
37
-
-
-
-
-
-
73
64
63
161
127
61
12
14
12
Primary
Eff.
_
-
-
41
51
46
44
15
14
-
-
-
-
-
-
70
65
61
197
156
72
15
21
12
Unox*
Inf.
_
3
-
31
47
47
67
11
-

-
-
-
*
_
85
67
98
202
174
86
29
26
24
UnoxX Final*
Eff. Eff.

-
-

* 53
48

44
40
-
* -
*

-
-

129
133 76

* _
80

22
* 15
XX
xx Primary
Centrate Sludge
— _

-
70

35 150
(6)* (7)*450

540
-

-
- .

-
9

-
140

65 260
250

380
XX
Digested
Sludge
_

->
55

75
-

6
-

-
-

-
-

-
60(6)

75
-

10
Effluent to POTW from Refinery
XX X X
Filter 13 21
Cake
(mg/kg)
_ _
-
_
25 18000
* *
15 410 220
- *
-
13 - -
_
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
35 48000
* *
8 4600 7500
-
-
_
43x
45X Direct 43x
_ _ —
_
-
108
130
76
- - 12
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
426 - *
420 - *
457
_
_
-
No.
16X
_
-

383
170

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

870
370

-
-

                              Note:    -  not detected;  *  in  traces but below detection limit;  () sample blank.  No volatile organics detected for other sample
                                         blanks;  x  -  analysis performed by West Coast Technical Services; xx - analysis performed by Pomeroy, Johnston s
                                         Bailey;  priority pollutants not listed were not detected; **Day 1, 2, S 3 are respectively August 23, 24, and 25
                                         of  1978.

-------
                                                                                   TABLE B-14
                                              ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM - WEEK 2
Cd
 I
£»
CD
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS (CONCENTRATIONS, ug/1)

Pollutant **
Parachloronetacresol AE


2-Chlorophenol AE


2.4-dlBethylphenol AE


Pentachlorophenol AE


Phenol AE


Acenaphthene BNE


1,2,4-trichloro BNE
benzene

1 , 2-dlchlorobenxene BNE


1,3-dlchlorobenzene BNE


1,4-dlchlorobenzene BNE


2,4-dlnltrotoluene BNE


J ,2-diphenyJhydraline BNE



Poll
No.
22


24


34


64


65


1


8


25


26


27


35


37



Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3


Inf.*
.
-
-
_
-
-
300
220
720
-
-
-
700
ISO
840
*
-
*
*
-
20
48
27
13
*
20
12
17
20
12
_
-
-
-
-
-


Prt.«
Eff.
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
230
750
-
-
-
840
210
600
*
-
*
29
-
-
57
32
14
*
*
*
17
16
*
_
-
-
-
-
-

POTW No. 2
Filter
Unoxx Unoxx Final* xx Prl.** Dig.** Cake *x
Inf. Eff. Eff. Generate Sludge Sludge (mg/kg)
- _ - -. _
_
96
_
_ _ -
- - -
317 -
210 - 180
470 - 740 - -
_
_ _ -
- _ _
620 7300 470 1900
190 * 160
420 * 660 4600 - 1300
_
_
_ _ _
_
*
_ _ -
24 85 35 30
32 * 12
14 - 22 170 135 245 45
* 55 40 25
* - *
* 21 - - -
12 55 40 25
17 * *
* * 12 140 105 180 40
_
_
_ - -
-
_ _ _
_ - _

Effluent to POTW from Refinery No.
43x
13X 21X 45X Direct 43x 16x
j _ -
_ _ _
_
* - -
_ _ _ _ -
- - -
202 459 - 599 385
1300 430 720 * 9300 250
3600 550 2000 16
_ _ -
- - - - - *
-----
218 4200 - - 944
1100 63 1000 - 14,000 185
2200 119 2200
17 *
18-41 * - -
* *
_ _ -
_ _ -
- - -
_ - _ _
_ _ _
- - -
_ _ _ _
_ _ -
- - - - - -
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ -
- - -
20 -
_ _ _
-
23
- _ _
_

-------
                                                                                TABLE B-14
                                                                                                                                                          Page 2 of  3
                                             ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PRIOR ITT POLLUTANTS FOR THE FRETREATMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM - WEEK 2
w
 I
8EMIVOLATILE ORGANIC8 (CONCENTRATIONS, ug/1)

Pollutant **
Fluorathene BNE


bl8(2-chlorolaopropyl) BNK
ether

bls(2-chloxoethoxy) BNE
•ethane

laophorone BNE


Naphthalene BNE


N-nltroao dlphenyl BNE
aaine

bls(2-ethylhexyl) BNE
phthalate

Butyl benzyl BNE
phthalate

dl-n-butyl phthalate BNE


di-n-octyl phthalate BNE


Poll
No. Day
39 1
2
3
42 1
2
3
43 1
2
3
54 1
2
3
55 1
2
3
62 1
2
3
66 1
2
3
67 1
2
3
68 1
2
3
69 I
2
3


Inf."
—
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
28
*
27
-
-
-
13
30
43
_
21
*
*
*
17
_
-
-

Pri.«
Eff.
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
23
35
25
-
-
-
33
29
23
28
13
14
27
*
11
_
*
-
P01W No. 2
Filter
Unoxx Unoxx Final* xx Prl." Dig." Cake xx
Inf. Eff. Eff. Centrate Sludge Sludge (ag/kg)
_ _ — _ •
_
_ _ _
-
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
_ - -
_
- - _
- - - -
23 340 70 125
33
16 * 55 480 305 565 90
_
-
- - _
22 440 250 300
17 *
23 14 61 810 - - 250
16 -
10 *
16 13 27 - - -
15 -
* *
* * 22 - - -
* _
*
- _ _

Effluent to P01W

13X 21X 45X
„ _
*
_
_
. _
*
_
_
_ * _
_
12
- - -
285 425
140 91
92 62 170
_
_
-
-
* it *
* * -
_
*
* 10
* *
*
-
-
_
_

from Refinery No.
43x
Direct 43x 16x
_ — _
- - *
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
- _
_
-
- 88
18
-
_
_
41
it *
* *
*
* - *
* it _
*
*
14 *
*
-
_
-

-------
                                                                     TABLE B-14


                                ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PUOUTT POLLUTANTS POt THE PUTREATtBNT SAMPLING PROGRAM - WKEK 2
Page 3 of 3

Pollutant **
dlethyl phthalate BNE


dlattthylphthalate BNB


benco(a)aothracenett BNB


Chryaenett BNE


Acenaphythylene BNE


Anthracenet BNE


Fluorene BNE


Phenanthrenet BNB


Pyrene BNE



Poll
No.
70


71


72


76


11


78
.

80


81


84



Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3


Inf."
_
*
*
„
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
*
*
*
«
-
*
*
*
*
_
-
-
SEN


Prl."
Eff.
10
*
*
*
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
—
-
•
*
*
_
*
-
*
*
*
*
-
-
IVOLATILE ORGAJIICS (CONCENTRATIONS, ttg/1)

POTW Ho. Z
Filter
Unoxx Unoxx Final" xx Prl." Dig.*" Cake ""
Inf. Eff. Eff. Centrate Sludge Sludge (««/kg)
* 6 14 6 -
* - -
* - * 10 15 6
-. _ _ _ _
*
_ - _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
. — _ _ —
-
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ — —
* - - - • - - -
* -
* - -
* - » - _ _ _
— — — — —
» - -
- - - -
* - - - -
* - -
* - * - - -
— — _ — —
_ _
_ _ _


Effluent to POTH
13Z

38
-

-
-

*
12

*
12

-
-

36
29

14
*

36
29

*
*
21X 4SX
__ _
12
7
_ _
- -
-
_ _
*
-
_ _
*
-
_ _
~ —
-
* 81
* 39
* 54
_ _
- -
-
* 81
* 39
• 54
_ _
16
*

from Refinery
43x
Direct 43x
* 11
- -
-
_ _
-
-
__ _
* *
*
_ _
* •
*
_
- -
-
* *
- -
*
_ _
-
-
* *
-
*
«
*
-

Ho.
16x
_
-

*
-

_.
-

_
-

_
-

*
-

_
*

*
-

_
*

NOTE:     Of 59 »e«tvolatlle», only 31 were detected
       *  In trace*, but below detection Halt
      **  AE - Acid Extractable; BNE - Base/neutral Extractable
       t  Anthracene and Phenanthrene are unresolved
      tt  Chrysene and Benro  (a) anthracene art unresolved
       -  Not detected
       x  Sanplea analyzed by Weit Coast Technical Service*
      xx  Sample* analyzed by Pomeroy, Johnston t Bailey

-------
                                                     TABLE  B-15
               Analytical Results of Priority Pollutants  for  the  Era treatment Sampling Program -  Meek  2

Pollutant
Aldrin


Diuldrin


4,4' -DDT


4,4'-DDE


4, 4 '-ODD


A-endosulfan-Alpha


Heptachlor
Cd
I
*? Heptachlor
epoxide

A-BHC-Alpha


B-BHC-beta


R -Bile-Gamma


G-BIIC-Delta



Poll
No.
89


90


92


93


94


95


100


101


102


103


104


105




XX
Day Inf*
1
2
3 3.60
1
2
3
1
2
3 0.11
1
2 0.19
3
1 0.38
2
3
1
2
3 0.12
1 0.47
2
3 0.70
1
2
3
1
2
3 0.88
1
2
3
1
2
3
1 1.25
2
3
Pesticides (Concentrations ,ug/l)

POTH No. 2
„ „„ vl( „„ Effluent to POTW from Refinery No.
Primary Unox* Unox* Final" xx Primary Digested Filter 43^
Eff. Inf Eff Eff Centrate Sludge Sludge Cake 13X 21X 45X Direct Ajx 16X
(»8/kg)
-
-_-_ ______
0.10 - - - - - - 1.0 0.29 0.82
__ ____ _____
- - 0.08 _-_"-__
-__ - - _ __- _ _
0.30 - 4.90
0.17 - . 0.08 - O.O9 -
0.39 - - 0.83
0.09 0.35 --__ __-_
0.11 - - 0.17 - _ - _
0.66 . - 0.17 - - - .--- --
-_ _-__ _____
____ ______
___ _ _ _ ___ __
_- ____ _____
____ ______
0.52 - 0.22 - - - _-_ _-
0.1O 0.45 -_.- -_-_
1.75 _____
-__ _ _ _ __- __
-- -__- _____
--__ ______
2.10 --- - - _ ___ _ o.32
1.30 - - _ _ _ _ o.52
0.24 - 1.5 1.62 - 0.17 0.27 0.36 2.21 0.41
1.20 1.40 0.76 - 0.43 0.08
0.16 0.76 - - - - - --
0.32
--_ _ _ _ ___ -_
0.27 --._ -_._
____ ______
-__ _ _ _ ___ __
0.45 1.50 - - - - - --
____ ______
0.27 -- - - - -_- -_
NOTE:         Of  the  25 Pesticides, only 12 were  found) however, none of them were confirmed by GCMS
             not detected
         x   samples analyzed by West Coast Technical Services
         xx  samples analyzed by Pomeroy,  Johnston and Bailey

-------
                                                                             TABLE B-16


                                      ANALYTICAL RESULTS  FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM - WEEK 2
Page 1 of 2
 I
4^
VD
METALS (CONCENTRATIONS,








Ufl/1)





POTW No. 2

Pollutant

Antimony


Arsenic


Beryllium


Cadmium


Chromium


Copper


Lead


Mercury


Nickel


Poll.
No. Day

114 1
2
3
115 1
2
3
117 1
2
3
118 1
2
3
119 1
2
3
120 1
2
3
122 1
2
3
123 1
2
3
124 1
2
3

Influent
X
—
33
-
40
37
66
-
-
-
28
27
28
520
427
573
376
349
529
235
220
254
0.25
0.37
-
399
265
304
Primary
Effluent
X
_
33
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
12
20
13
151
154
164
141
153
176
62
62
70
1.69
0.25
0.49
208
190
228
Unox
Influent
X
_
-
-
26
-
49
-
-
-
13
14
77
162
177
1249
251
162
1019
58
50
277
1.82
0.43
-
220
246
743
Unox
Effluent
X
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
45
45
50
24
23
25
_
-
-
2.46
-
-
206
236
310
Final
Effluent
X
_
35
-
29
-
-
-
-
-
20
25
26
369
334
456
390
311
341
135
126
168
0.49
-
-
290
272
343

Generate
XX
58
1000

162
196

10
2

580
1040

17100
27600

6900
12300

4200
7600

94
90

3200
6500

Primary
Sludge
XX
1000
1000

324
427

4
10

2020
1200

57000
39600

29000
31000

18600
18200

124
171

6650
6950

Digested
Sludge
XX
625
625

285
297

4
10

1050
1580

29600
42500

13300
19200

10800
15300

232
147

6300
9810

Filter
Cake
xx(mg/kg)
7
13

3
2

0.04
0.07

16
9

461
249

243
173

214
247

1.6
1.5

119
67









Effluent to POTW from Refinery

13
X
—
-
-
27
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
1345
845
1133
22
-
-
43
-
-
0.79
0.37
1.08
_
-
-

21
X
—
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
^
-
-
747
824
1254
14
17
15
42
36
38
-
-
-
_
-
-
43x
45 Direct
X X
_ _
- -
-
_ _
- -
-
-
- -
-
_ _
-
-
670 233
646 192
603 186
25 10
19
19
33 35
- -
-
0.67
0.46
- -
_
- -
-

43
X
_
-
-
60
67
69
-
-
-
..
-
-
72
70
64
57
47
38
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
27
-


No.

16
X
_
-
-
_
35
34
-
-
-
_
-
-
1644
2196
1800
17
12
14
39
-
36
-
-
-
_
-
-

-------
                                                                       TABLE  B-16

                                ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETRBATMEMT SAMPLING PROGRAM - WEEK 2

                                                              METALS (CONCENTRATIONS,  ug/1)
Page 2 of 2
P01H Mo. 2
Pollutant
Selenium


Silver


Thallium


Cd Zinc
1
(Ji
0
Poll.
Mo.
125


126


127


128


Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Influent
X
_
33
37
15
11
13
_
-
-
945
952
1593
Primary
Effluent
X
^
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
274
375
385
Unox
Influent
X
35
36
66
_
-
40
_
-
-
232
452
2086
Unox
Effluent
X
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
144
178
178
Final
Effluent
X
29
37
-
_
a
10
_
-
-
820
810
1027
Centrate
XX
5
5

70
60

20
50

25600
43400

Primary
Slu'ge
XX
5
5

80
100

80
50

69000
52600

Digested
Sludge
XX
6
7

50
90

10
50

47000
70000

Filter
Cake
xx(mg/kg)
0.06
0.06

0.93
1

0.3
0.3

771
457

Effluent to POTW
13
X
101
109
110
_
-
-
_
-
-
190
116
55
21
X
_
33
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
153
173
189
45
X
132
158
140
_
-
-
_
-
-
183
182
174
from Refinery
43x
Direct
X
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
115
137
158
43
X
248
514
682
_
-
- •
_
-
-
57
49
36
No.
16
X
90
199
149
_
-
-
_
-
-
196
405
398
Notes:   -  Mot Detected.
         x  Analyzed by EPA Region IV Laboratory
        xx  Analyzed by Pomeroy, Johnston  and Bailey
            Centrate, primary sludge, digested  sludge and filter cake were not  sampled  for  on  day  3.

-------
                           APPENDIX C

                   GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Act;  The  Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act,  P.L. 92-500,
October 18, 1972.  As amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977.

Administrator: Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency whose duties are to administer the Act.

American Petroleum Institute et al.  v. EPA, U.S. Court of Appeals
- Tenth Circuit, August 11, 1976.  API challenged the regulations
promulgated in 1974.   The  Court  upheld,  BPT  and  NSPS,  while
remanding BAT and storm water effluent guidelines.


Appendix  A  Pollutants;  Pollutants  listed in Appendix A of the
Settlement Agreement of June 7, 1976.

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

Best   Conventional  Technology  Economically  Achievable  (BCT);
Treatment required by July 1, 1984 for  industrial  discharge  as
defined by Section 301(b)(2)(E) of the Act.

Best  Practicable Control Technology Currently Achievable 03PCTCA
or BPT); Treatment required  by  July  1,  1977,  for  industrial
discharge to surface waters as defined by Section 301 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act.

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

Catalyst;  A  substance  that  can  change the rate of a chemical
reaction but is not involved in the reaction.

Conventional  Pollutants;  Conventional  pollutants   are   those
defined   in   Section  304(a)(4)  including:  biological  oxygen
demanding pollutants  (BODM, total suspended solids  (TSS),  fecal
coliforming, and pH,  and any additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as "conventional" (oil and grease).

Data  Validation;  An  operation performed to ensure the accuracy
and reliability of raw input information.

Dependent Variable; A variable whose value is a function  of  one
or more independent variables.

Direct  Discharger;  A facility which discharges or may discharge
pollutants into waters of the United States.
                              C-l

-------
Economics Survey; Survey mailed by the  Office  of  Analysis  and
Evaluation of EPA to the petroleum refining industry,  pursuant to
Section  308 of the Act requesting data on the economic status of
petroleum refineries.

End-of-Pipe    Treatment    (Control);    Wastewater    treatment
technologies that are used after gravity oil separation.

F1ow Model; A mathematical model of the effluent wastewater flow.

Independent  Variable; A variable whose value is not dependent on
the value of any other variable.

Indirect  Discharger;   A  facility  which  discharges   or   may
discharge pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works.

In-plant Treatment Control; Treatment techniques that are used to
reduce,  reuse,  recycle,  or treat wastewater before end-of-pipe
treatment.

Linear Regression; A method to fit a line through a set of points
so that the sum of  squared  vertical  deviations  of  the  point
values from the fitted line is a minimum; i.e., no other line, no
matter  how  it  is  computed, will have a smaller sum of squared
distances  between  the  actual  and  predicted  values  of   the
dependent variable.

Mathematical   Mode1;   A  quantitative  equation  or  system  of
equations formulated so that the structure of a situation and the
relationships  among  the  relevant  variables   are   reasonably
depicted.

Mean Va1ue; The statistical expected or average figure.

Multiple Linear Regression; A method to fit a plane through a set
of  points  so  that  the  sum  of  squared distances between the
individual observations and the estimated  plane  is  a  minimum.
This  statistical  technique is an extension of linear regression
in that more than one independent variable is used in  the  least
squares equation.

Portfolios  Aj_ B; The two sections that make up the 1977 U.S. EPA
Petroleum Refining Industry Survey (see "1977 Survey").

Priority Pollutants; Pollutants included in Tables VI-5 and  VI-6
of this document.

Process  Configuration;  A  numerical measurement of a refinery's
process complexity that was developed for use in calculating  BPT
limitations for this industry.
                              C-2

-------
Process  Factor;  A factor that is based on process configuration
and  used  in  calculating  BPT  Limitations  for  a   particular
petroleum refinery.

Random  Process;  A  procedure  that  varies  according  to  some
probability function.

Random Variable ; A variable whose values occur according to  the
distribution of some probability function.

Regression  Statistics;  Values  generated  during  a  regression
analysis that identify the significance, or reliability,  of  the
regression-generated figures.

Regression   Modelj_   A  mathematical  model,  usually  a  single
equation, developed  using  a  least  squares  linear  regression
analysis.

Residuals; The differences between the expected and actual values
in a regression analysis.

Settlement  Agreement of_ June 7^ 1976; Agreement between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and  various  environmental
groups, as instituted by the United States District Court for the
District  of  Columbia, directing the EPA to study and promulgate
regulations for a list of chemical  substances,  referred  to  as
Appendix A Pollutants.

Significance;  A statistical measure of the validity, confidence,
and reliability of a figure.

Size Factor; A factor that is based  on  a  petroleum  refinery's
size   and   used  in  calculating  a  petroleum  refinery's  BPT
limitations.

Sour Waters; Wastewaters containing  sulfur  compounds,  such  as
sulfides and mercaptans.

Statistical  Stability;  A  condition  in which when a process is
repeated over time, differences occur  that  are  due  solely  to
random processes.

Statistical Variance; The sum of the squared deviations about the
mean  value  in  proportion  to  the likelihood of occurrence.  A
measure used to identify the dispersion of a set of data.

The 1977 EPA Petroleum Refining Industry Survey (1977 Survey);  A
survey  mailed  pursuant  to  Section  308  of  the  Act  to  274
refineries on February 11, 1977, and an additional 23  refineries
on  August  12,  1977.   The  survey  was issued in two sections,
Portfolio A and Portfolio B, requesting data on  various  aspects
of  process  operations,  wastewater  production,  and wastewater
treatment.
                              C-3

-------
Tolerance Limits; Numerical  values  identifying  the  acceptable
range of some variable.

Traditional Pollutant Parameters; Pollutant parameters considered
and used in the development of BPT limitations guidelines.  These
parameters  include,  but  are not limited to BOD, COD, TOC, TSS,
and  ammonia.
                              C-4

-------
                         ABBREVIATIONS
API:


BATEA  (BAT):

bbl:

BCTEA  (BCT):



BODJ5:

BPCTCA  (BPT);



B & R:

COD:

DMR:


EPA:

GC:

Kg/m3:


Ib/bbl:

MS:

MGD:


mg/L:

NPDES:


NSPS:



POTW:

ppb:

PSES:



PSNS:
American  Petroleum  Institute

Best Available Technology  Economically  Achievable

Barrel

Best Conventional Technology  Economically
Achievable  Under Section 304(b)(4)  of the  Act.

Five Day  Biochemical  Oxygen Demand

Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available Under Section 304(b)(1) of the Act.

Burns and Roe

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Discharge Monitoring  Report

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency

Gas Chromatography

Kilograms Per Cubic Meter

Pounds Per  Barrel (One Barrel Equals 42 Gallons)

Mass Spectrometry

Million Gallons Per Day

Milligrams  Per Liter

National Pollutant  Discharge Elimination System
Permit Issued Under Section 402 of  the Act.

New Source  Performance Standards Under Section 306
of the Act.

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Parts Per Billion

Pretreatment Standards for New Sources of  Indirect
Discharges Under Section 307(b) of  the Act.

Pretreatment Standards for New Sources of  Indirect
Discharges Under Section 307(b) of  the Act.
                              C-5

-------
                                 ABBREVIATIONS
                                  (Continued)
       RCRA:




       RSKERL:

       S & A:

       SPSS:

       TOG:

       TSS:

       ug/L:
Resources  Conservation and Recovery  Act (P.L.
94-580) of 1978f  Amendments to Solid Waste
Disposal Act.

Robert  S.  Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory

Surveillance and  Analysis

Statistical Package"for the Social Sciences

Total Organic  Carbon

Total Suspended Solids

Micrograms Per Liter
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1982 0-381-085/4-492
                                      C-6

-------