vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
^ {fluent Guide lines Division
WH-552
Washington DC 204£
Water and Waste Management
Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
"•«**,-«
Standards for the
Petroleum Refining
440174009A
Proposed
Point Source Category
-------
-o/-/*>
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for Proposed
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES,
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,
and
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
for the
PETROLEUM REFINING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Douglas M. Costle
Admin istrator
Robert B. Schaffer
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
John M. Cunningham
Project Officer
John Lum
Project Officer
December 1979
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
II INTRODUCTION 7
Purpose and Authority 7
Prior EPA Regulations 7
Overview of the Industry 7
Preliminary Industry Profile 8
Industry survey 8
Wastewater Sampling Program 9
Control and Treatment Technology, 9
Cost Analysis
III WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 13
General 13
1977 EPA Petroleum Refining Industry 13
Survey
Survey Data Related to Wastewater 14
Characterization
Wastewater Sampling Program Results 15
RSKERL and B & R Sampling Program 16
Pretreatment Sampling Program 18
IV SUBCATEGORI ZATION 87
Introduction 87
Flow Modeling Effort 89
Data Screening and Evaluation 89
Regression Analysis 89
BPT Model 90
Current Flow Model Development 91
Effluent Flow Model 94
Use of the Flow Model 95
V SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 97
Introduction 97
Pollutants From Petroleum Refining 97
Industry
Selection of Regulated Pollutants 97
for Direct Dischargers
Selection of Regulated Pollutants 98
for Indirect Dischargers
1X1
-------
Page
VI CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 109
Introduction 109
In-Plant Source Control 109
In-Plant Treatment Options 109
Sour Waters 110
Cooling Tower Slowdown 111
Chemical Substitutions 112
Wastewater Reduction and Reuse 112
End-of-Pipe Treatment 116
Biological Treatment 117
Filtration 117
Granular Activated Carbon 118
Powdered Activated Carbon 119
Metals Removal 121
RSKERL Carbon Studies 121
Ultimate Disposal Methods 122
Existing Technology 124
Effluent Concentrations 126
VII COSTS, ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS 189
Introduction 189
Cost and Energy Requirements of Technologies 190
Considered
Biological Treatment 189
Filtration 191
Granular Activated Carbon 191
Powdered Activated Carbon 192
Low Flow Rate System 192
In-Plant Control 193
Non-Water Quality Aspects 194
Solid Wastes 194
Air Pollution 195
Cost and Effectiveness of Technology 195
Options
Effectiveness of Guidelines 199
VIII BAT 247
IX BCT 253
X NSPS 255
XI PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 257
XII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 259
XIII BIBLIOGRAPHY 261
XIV GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS 275
IV
-------
Page
Appendix
1. 1977 Petroleum Refinery Industry 281
Survey Form and
Supplemental Flow Question
2. EPA Regional Surveillance and 315
Analysis Sampling Surveys,
Analytical Results for Priority
Pollutants
3. American Petroleum Institute 341
Sampling Results
-------
TABLES
Number Title Page
1-1 Effluent Limitations Based on Best Avail- 3
able Technology Economically Achievable
(BATEA)
1-2 Effluent Limitations Based on Best Con- 4
ventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
1-3 Pretreatment Standards for Existing and 5
New Sources (PSES and PSNS)
1-4 Pretreatment Standards for Existing and 6
New Sources Discharging to POTW's with
304(h) Waivers
II-1 List of Toxic Pollutants 11
III-1 Recommended List of Priority Pollutants 19
III-2 Summary of Responses to Portfolio B of 1977 21
Survey (Number of Refineries)
III-3 Petroleum Refining Wastewater Flow Data 26
III-4 Priority Pollutant Discharge Monitoring Report 38
Data Reported in the 1977 Survey
III-5 Analytical Results for Traditional Parameters 41
for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program
III-6 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 48
for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program -
Volatile Organics
III-7 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 51
for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program -
Semivolatile Organic
III-8 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 56
for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program -
Pesticides
III-9 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 59
for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program -
Cyanides, Phenolics and Mercury
VI
-------
Page
III-10 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 69
for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program -
Metals
III-11 Analytical Results for Traditional 75
Parameters in the Pretreatment Sampling
Program - Week 1
111-12 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 76
for the Pretreatment Sampling Program -
Week 1, Volatile Organics
III-13 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 77
or the Pretreatment Sampling Program -
Week 1, Semivolatile Organics
111-14 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 79
for the Pretreatment Sampling Program -
Week 1, Pesticides
III-15 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 80
for the Pretreatment Sampling Program -
Week 1, Metals
III-16 Analytical Results for Traditional Parameters 81
for the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 2
111-17 Analytical Results of Priority Pollutants 82
for the Pretreatment Sampling Program -
Week 2, Volatile Organics
III-18 Analytical Results of Priority Pollutants 83
for the Pretreatment Sampling Program -
Week 2r Semivolatile Organics
III-19 Analytical Results of Priority Pollutants 85
for the Pretreatment Sampling Program -
Week 2, Pesticides
111-20 Analytical Results for Priority Pollutants 86
for the Pretreatment Sampling Program -
Week 2, Metals
V-1 Toxic Pollutants Not Detected In Treated 100
Effluents (Direct Dischargers)
V-2 Toxic Pollutants Found In Only One Refinery 102
Effluent (at Concentrations Higher Than Those
Found in the Intake Water) and Which Are
vii
-------
Page
Uniquely Related to the Refinery at Which It
Was Detected (Direct Discharge)
V-3 Toxic Pollutants Detected in Treated Effluents 103
of More Than One Refinery or Detected in the
Treated Effluents of One Refinery But Not
Uniquely Related to the Refinery at Which It
Was Detected (Direct Discharge)'
V-4 Toxic Pollutants Detected in Discharges 104
To POTW's (Indirect Discharge)
V-5 Toxic Pollutants Not Detected in Discharges 105
to POTW's (Indirect Discharge)
V-6 Toxic Pollutants Found to Pass Through 107
POTW1s With Only Primary Treatment
(Indirect Discharge)
VI-1 Sour Water Treatment In Petroleum Refineries 130
VI-2 Effect of California Crudes on Reuse 134
of Sour Waters
VI-3 Reuse of Sour Waters - Industry Status 135
VI-4 Cooling Tower Make-up Flow Rates in the 137
Petroleum Refining Industry
VI-5 Profile of Plants At or Below 48 Percent 142
of Model Flow (Level 2 Plants)
VI-6 Geographical Breakdown of Level 2 Plants 144
VI-7 Summary of Crude Capacities for Level 2 145
Plants
VI-8 BPT Subcategory Breakdown of Level 2 146
Plants
VI-9 Refineries That Utilize, or Plan To 147
Utilize Filtration Systems
VI-10 Analytical Results For RSKERL Granular 148
Activated Carbon Study, Traditional Pollutants
VI-11 Analytical Results For RSKERL Granular 151
Activated Carbon Study, Priority Pollutants
Vlll
-------
Page
VI-12 Analytical Results For RSKERL Powdered 155
Activated Carbon Study, Traditional Pollutants
VI-13 Analytical Results For RSKERL Powdered 156
Activated Carbon Study, Priority Pollutants
VI-14 Zero Discharge Refineries 158
VI-15 Treatment Operations and Water Usage For 162
1973 and 1976
VI-16 Summary of Treatment Technologies For 174
1973 and 1976
VI-17 Planned Wastewater Flow Reductions 175
VI-18 Future Wastewater Treatment Modification 181
VI-19 Refinery Flow vs. Final Effluent Concen- 187
tration For 17 Screening Plants
VI-20 Refineries Included In The Development of Waste- 188
water Flow Reduction Factor
VII-1 Cost Basis 189
VII-2 Raw Wastewater Equalization Systems 202
Capital and operating Costs
VII-3 Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC's) as 203
Roughing Systems Equipment Cost Basis and
Energy Requirements
VII-4 Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC's) as 204
Roughing Filters Capital and Operating
Costs
VII-5 Powdered Activated Carbon Equipment Cost 205
Basis and Energy Requirements 80 mg/1
Dosage Rate
VII-6 Powdered Activated Carbon Capital Costs 206
80 mg/1 Dosage Rate
VII-7 Powdered Activated Carbon Annual Operating 207
Costs 80 mg/1 Dosage Rate
IX
-------
Page
VII-8 PACT Comparison of Operating Costs Carbon 208
Regeneration vs. Throwaway 80 mg/1
Dosage Rate
VII-9 Powdered Activated Carbon Equipment Cost 209
Basis and Energy Requirements Including Costs
for Sludge Disposal 80 mg/1 Dosage Rate
VII-10 Powdered Activated Carbon Capital Costs, 210
Including Costs for Sludge Disposal,
80 mg/1 Dosage Rate
VII-11 Powdered Activated Carbon Annual Operating 211
Costs Including Credit for Sludge Disposal
80 mg/1 Dosage Rate
VII-12 Tertiary Filtration Equipment Cost Basis 212
and Energy Requirements
VII-13 Tertiary Filtration Capital and Operating 213
Costs
VII-14 Granular Activated Carbon Equipment Cost 214
Basis and Energy Requirements
VII-15 Granular Activated Carbon Capital Costs 215
VII-16 Granular Activated Carbon Annual 216
Operating Costs
VII-17 Powdered Activated Carbon Equipment Cost 217
Bases and Energy Requirements 150 mg/1
Dosage Rate
VII-18 Powdered Activated Carbon Capital Costs 218
150 mg/1 Dosage Rate
VII-19 Powdered Activated Carbon Annual Operating 219
Costs 150 mg/1 Dosage Rate
VII-20 PACT, Comparison of Operating Costs, 220
Carbon Regeneration vs. Throwaway, 150 mg/1
Dosage Rate
VII-21 Powdered Activated Carbon, Equipment Cost 221
Bases and Energy Requirements, Including Costs
for Sludge Disposal, 150 mg/1 Dosage Rate
-------
Page
VII-22 Powdered Activated Carbon, Capital Costs, 222
Including Costs for Sludge Disposal, 150 mg/1
Dosage Rate
VII-23 Powdered Activated Carbon, Annual Operating 223
Costs, Including Credit for Sludge Disposal,
150 mg/1 Dosage Rate
VII-24 Supplemental Economic Cost Information 224
Capital and Operating Cost for 10,000
Gallons Per Day Treatment Systems
VII-25 Cooling Tower Slowdown Rates Petroleum 225
Refining Industry (Million Gallons Per Day)
VII-26 Chromium Removal Systems Equipment Cost 227
Basis and Energy Requirement
VII-27 Chromium Removal Systems Capital and 228
Operating Costs
VII-28 Wastewater Recycle - Capital and Operating 229
Costs
VII-29 Water Softening of Recycled Wastewater 230
VII-30 Capital and Operating Costs by Refinery 231
Number
VII-31 Capital and operating Costs, Indirect 236
Discharge - Option 1
VII-32 Capital and operating Costs, Indirect 240
Discharge - option 2
VII-33 Effectiveness of BAT Options for Direct 242
Dischargers, Pounds Removed from BPT to
Level 1
VII-34 Effectiveness of BAT Options for Direct 244
Dischargers, Pounds Removed from BPT to
Level 2
XI
-------
FIGURES
Number Title Page
IV-1 Process Wastewater Flow vs. Refinery Size 96
VI-1 Flow Diagram of a Granular Activated 127
Carbon System
VI-2 Carbon Regeneration System 128
VI-3 Flow Diagram of One PACT Treatment Scheme 129
VII-1 Pumping Capital Cost vs. Pumping Distance 200
VII-2 Refinery Size vs. Pumping Distance 201
xi i
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This development document presents the technical data base developed
by EPA to support effluent limitations guidelines for the petroleum
refining point source category. Technologies to achieve these
limitations are defined as best available technology economically
achievable (BAT), best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT)f and best available demonstrated technology (BADT). This
document outlines the technology options considered and the rationale
for selecting each technology level. These technology levels are the
basis for the proposed effluent limitations.
The rationale by which the Agency selected the technology option for
each of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines is presented in
Sections VIII, IX, X, and XI. Effluent limitations guidelines based
on the application of BAT and BCT are to be achieved by direct
dischargers by July 1, 1984. New source performance standards (NSPS)
based on BADT are to be achieved by new facilities. Pretreatment
standards for both existing sources (PSES) and new sources (PSNS)
(based on application of BAT to those pollutants which are
incompatible with a POTW) are to be achieved by indirect dischargers.
These effluent limitations guidelines and standards are required by
sections 301, 304, and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L.
95-217) .
The petroleum refining industry discharges significant quantities of
toxic, conventional, and non-conventional pollutants. The Agency is
proposing to control the toxic pollutants chromium (both total and
hexavalent) and phenol (total 4AAP) ; and the conventional pollutants
oil and grease, total suspended solids (TSS), and biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD). Non-conventional pollutants such as ammonia, sulfite,
and chemical oxygen demand (COD) are also regulated under existing
BPT.
EPA is proposing BAT effluent limitations based on reduced flow
through greater recycle and reuse of wastewaters; or based on the use
of powdered activated carbon and/or rotating biological contractors as
pretreatment before BPT. Table 1-1 lists these limitations.
EPA is proposing BCT effluent limitations based on BAT technology.
These limitations are listed in Table 1-2.
For NSPS, EPA is proposing to prohibit the discharge of pollutants to
navigable waters. This standard is based on existing industry
practice at exemplary facilities and demonstrated technologies.
-------
EPA is proposing PSNS and PSES based on removal of metals and existing
PSES control technology for oil and grease and ammonia. Table 1-3
lists these limitations.
EPA also is proposing separate PSES and PSNS for those refineries
discharging into a POTW which has received a waiver under Section
301(h) of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Such waivers would exempt
POTW's from achieving effluent limitations based on secondary
treatment. These pretreatment standards are listed in Table 1-4 and
are based on the same technology as that for the proposed BAT
guidelines. These standards, however, set explicit numerical values
on the concentration of regulated pollutants. Informational mass
limitations are also provided for POTWs wishing to limit total mass
discharge.
EPA estimates the annual costs for the petroleum refining industry to
comply with the proposed regulation to be $53.9 million.
-------
TABLE 1-1
Effluent Limitations Based on Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BATEA)
(Effluent Limitation= Basic Allowance
+ Cracking Adjustment
+ Asphalt and Lube Adjustment)
Metric Units (kilograms per day)
Pollutant or Average of daily
Pollutant Maximum for values for 30
Property any one day consecutive days
English Uni^ts (pounds per day)
Average of daily
Maximum for values for 30
any one day consecutive days
Basic Allowance
Cracking Adjustment
Asphalt and Lube
Adjustment
Phenol (4AAP) 0.0031C
Total Chromium 0.0332C
Hexavalent Chrom.O.0028C
Phenol (4AAP) 0.0351K
Total Chromium 0.3812K
Hexavalent Chrom 0.0326K
Phenol (4AAP) 0.0365AL
Total Chromium 0.397SAL
Hexavalent Chrom 0.0340AL
0.0015C
0.0194C
0.0013C
0.0170K
0.2234K
0.0147K
0.0177AL
0.2332AL
0.0154AL
0.0011C
0.0116C
0.0010C
0.0123K
0.1336K
0.0114K
0.0005C
0.0068C
0.0005C
o.ooeoK
0.0783K
0.0052K
0.0128AL
0.1393AL
0.0119AL
0.0062AL
0.0817AL
0.0054AL
Notes: The folowing terms are defined in metric units as thousand cubic meters per day and in English units as thousand barrels per day:
AL= sum of ashphalt and lube processes (throughput)
Asphalt Production
Asphalt Oxidizer
Asphalt Emulsifying
Hydrofining, Hydrofinishing, Lube Hydrofining
White Oil Manufacture
Propane Dewaxing, Propane Deasphalting, Propane Practioning,
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
SO£ 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 Mfg. V. Allied Products
Misc. Blending and Packaging
K= sum of cracking processes (throughput)
Hydrocracking
Visbreaking
Thermal Cracking
Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Moving Bed Catalytic Cracking
C= sum of crude processes (throughput)
Atmospheric Crude Distillation
Crude Desalting
Vacuum Crude Distillation
-------
TABLE 1-2
Effluent Limitations Based on Beat Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
(Effluent Limitation** Basic Allowance
+ Cracking Adjustment
+ Asphalt and Lube Adjustment)
Basic Allowance
Cracking Adjustment
Asphalt and Lube Adjustment
Metric Units (kilograms per day)
Pollutant
or Pollutant
Property
BODS^
TSS
Oil and Grease
BODS
TSS
Oil and Grease
BODS
TSS
Oil and Grease
Maximum for
any one day
2.195C
1.509C
0.686C
25.24K
17.35K
7.89K
26.33AL
18.10AL
8.23AL
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
1.166C
0.9601C
0.366C
13.41K
11 . 04K
4.21K
13.99AL
11.S2AL
4.39AL
English Units (pounds per day)
Average of daily
Maximum for values for 30
any one day consecutive days
0.7691C
0.5288C
0.240C
8.84SK
6.081K
2.76K
9.229AL
6. 34SAL
2.88AL
0.4086C
0.3365C
0.128C
4.699K
3.870K
1.47K
4.903AL
4.038AL
1.54AL
Notes: Refer to notes on Table 1-1 for definition of terms.
-------
TABLE 1-3
PRETREATMEMT STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES, PSES AND PSNS
(Unless the POTW has a waiver from achieving effluent
limitations based on secondary treatment)
a. The following standards apply to the total effluent flow:
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
Pollutant
or Pollutant Maximum for
Property _ any one day
Oil and Grease 100
Ammonia (as N) 100
b. The following standard is applied to the cooling tower blowdown portion of the effluent flow or may
be applied to the total effluent flow by multiplying the standard by the ratio (R) of the cooling
tower blowdown flow to the total effluent flow:
milligrams per liter
Total Chromium 1.0
Informational mass limitations for the total effluent flow are as follows:
Majcimum for any one day
Pollutant
or Pollutant
Property
Oil and Grease
Ammonia (as N)
Total Chromium
Metric Units
(kilograms per day)
9.50C + 109. 5K + 114. 3AL
9.50C +• 109. 5K + 114. 3AL
Rx(0.095C + 1.095K + 1.143AL)
English Units
(pounds per day)
3.33C + 38.39K + 40.06AL
3.33C + 38.39K + 40.06AL
Rx(0.033C + 0.3839K + 0.4006AL)
Notes: R is defined in section (b) above. Refer to notes on Table 1-1 for definition of terms.
-------
TABLE 1-4
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES, PSES AND PSNS
WHICH DISCHARGE TO POTW'a WITH 304 (h)WAIVERS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
Phenol (4AAP) 0.07
Total Chromium 0.73
Hexavalent Chromium 0.06
0.03
0.43
0.03
CT>
Informational mass limitations are as follows:
Basic Allowance
(Effluent Limitations = Basic Allowance
+ Cracking Adjustment
+ Asphalt and Lube Adjustment)
Metric Units (kilograms per day)
Pollutant or Average of daily
Pollutant Maximum for values for 30
Property any one day consecutive days
Phenol (4AAP)
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chrom.
0.0031C
0.0332C
0.0028C
0.0015C
0.0194C
0.0013C
English Units (pounds per day)
Average of daily
Maximum for values for 30
any one day consecutive days
0.0011C
0.0116C
0.0010C
0.0005C
0.0068C
0.0005C
Cracking Adjustment
Phenol (4AAP) 0.0351K
Total Chromium 0.3812K
Hexavalent Chrom. 0.0326K
0.0170K
0.2234K
0.0147K
0.0123K
0.1336K
0.0114K
0.0060K
0.0783K
0.0052K
Asphalt and Lube
Adjustment
Phenol (4AAP) 0.0365AL
Total Chromium 0.3975AL
Hexavanent Chrom. 0.0340AL
0.0177AL
0.2332AL
0.0154AL
0.0128AL
0.1393AL
0.0119AL
0.0062AL
0.0817AL
0.0054AL
Notes: Refer to Table 1-1 notes for definition of terms.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
This development document details the technical basis for the Agency's
proposed effluent limitations reflecting BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
for the petroleum refining industry. These limitations are proposed
under authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 33 USC 1251 et seg., as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977,
P.L. 95-217) (the "Act"). These regulations are also proposed in
response to the Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9,
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
point source category on May 9, 1974 (39 FR 16560, Subparts A-E). A
Development Document was published in April 1974 (EPA-440/1-74-014-a) .
This document provided the bases for the 1974 regulations and is
henceforth referred to as the 1974 Development Document. The BPT,
BAT, and NSPS regulations were challenged in the courts by the
American Petroleum Institute and others. Both BPT and NSPS were
upheld by the court, but BAT was remanded for further consideration.
Interim final PSES were promulgated on March 23, 1977 (42 FR 15684) in
response to the Settlement Agreement.
OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY
The petroleum refining industry is defined by Bureau of the Census
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2911. The raw material in
this industry is petroleum material (generally, but not always, crude
oil). Petroleum refineries process this raw material into a wide
variety of petroleum products, including gasoline, fuel oil, jet fuel,
heating oils and gases and petrochemicals. Refining includes a wide
variety of physical separation and chemical reaction processes. The
1974 Development Document lists over one hundred processes used in the
petroleum refining industry. 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 barrels of
oil per day (one barrel equals H2 gallons), while the largest can
refine 665,000 barrels per day.
The U.S. refining industry processes a total of about 15 million
barrels per day. However industry growth has slowed in recent years
due to a number of factors including efforts to conserve petroleum
supplies and competition from foreign suppliers. Growth has averaged
about five percent per year and has resulted largely from additions to
existing refineries rather than by construction of new ones. The
ratio of growth in U.S. refining capacity by additions to existing
refineries to the growth by construction of new refineries has been
approximately 3.5 to 1.
Additional information can be found in the 1974 Development Document.
PRELIMINARY INDUSTRY PROFILE
One of the initial efforts on this project was to review and evaluate
existing industry-wide data on such factors as refinery
characteristics, production capacities, wastewater handling
techniques, and wastewater characteristics. A contractor's report
which summarizes the results of this effort was previously prepared
and submitted to EPA (76). This report covered:
(1) Industry distribution (geographic);
(2) Intake water characteristics;
(3) Wastewater treatment techniques;
(4) Refining capacities;
(5) Water usage characteristics;
(6) Discharge permit identification;
(7) In-plant control techniques; and
(8) Cooling service characteristics.
The preliminary industry profile was based on the published
literature, government reports, contacts with the industry, and
contacts with various State and EPA regional offices. In order to
develop new regulations, however, the Agency needed to supplement this
existing data base with more recent information in the areas of
wastewater characteristics and toxic pollutants.
INDUSTRY SURVEY
To acquire up-to-date information for use in the establishment of BAT
guidelines for the petroleum refining category, a comprehensive
questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was developed and sent to all
refineries throughout the United States and its territorial
possessions. This questionnaire sought information necessary to
8
-------
generate a profile of the petroleum refining industry. The
questionnaire is henceforth referred to as the 1977 EPA Petroleum
Refining Industry Survey or the "1977 survey."
In addition to updating the industry profile, The information gathered
from this survey was used to aid in the selection of plants for a
nationwide wastewater sampling program, and develop a flow model for
the analysis of refinery wastewater production.
WASTE WATER SAMPLING PROGRAM
The Settlement Agreement cited above required the Agency to consider
the potential limitations of the discharge of 65 "toxic" substances
(Table II-1). The Agency undertook a sampling and analysis program to
obtain information on the 65 "toxic" substances from the refinery
industry. The program was designed to do the following: (a) analyze
for the presence of the "toxic" substances in the plants' intake water
source; (b) analyze the plants' raw wastewater to determine the net
production of "toxic" substances resulting from refinery process
operations; and (c) analyze the plants' final effluent for the
presence of "toxic" substances and determine the removal efficiencies
of BPT-type wastewater treatment systems for these substances (See
Section III for details) .
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY, COST ANALYSIS
Three major efforts were undertaken to identify and evaluate available
control and treatment technologies:
(1) A literature search compiled the available information on the
advances being made by the industry relative to wastewater handling
and disposal.
(2) A review of the responses to the 1977 EPA Petroleum Refining
Industry Survey determined the status of the industry with regard to
in-plant source control and end-of-pipe treatment.
(3) Petroleum refineries were visited to review in detail the
sources of wastewater production, as well as to review wastewater flow
reduction practices, reuse, and in-plant and end-of-pipe treatment
operations.
These studies established a range of control and treatment
technologies available to this industry. Section VI discusses them in
detail.
The study next determined the cost of the various control and
treatment technologies; these are outlined in Section VII.
-------
The results of the above described programs are presented in the
subsequent sections of the document. A thorough discussion of the
industry processes, the source of wastewater and the BPT end-of-pipe
treatment technologies appears in the 1974 Development Document.
10
-------
TABLE II-l
LIST OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Antimony and compounds*
Arsenic and compounds
Asbestos
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium and compounds
Cadmium and compounds
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)
Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane, and hexachloroethane)
Chloroalkyl ethers (Chloromethyl, chloroethyl, and mixed ethers)
Chlorinated naphthalene
Chlorinated Phenols (other than those listed elsewhere; includes
trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols)
Chloroform
2-chlorophenol
Chromium and compounds
Copper and compounds
Cyanides
DDT and metabolites
Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-,1,3-, and 1,4-dichlorobenzenes)
Dichlorobe nzidene
Dichloroethylenes (1,1-and 1,2-dichloroethylene)
2,4-dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane and dichloropropene
2,4-dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylhdrazine
Endosulfan and metabolites
Endrin and metabolites
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere; includes chlorophenylphenyl
ethers, bromophenylphenyl ether, bis(dischloroisopropyl)
ether, bis-(chloroethoxy) methane and polychlorinated
diphenyly ethers)
Halomethanes (other than those listed eleswhere; includes methylene chloride
methylchloride, methylbromide, bromoform, dichloro-
bromomethane,trichlororfluoromethane, dichlorodifluoro-
methane)
Heptachlor and metabolites
Hexachlorobutadiene
11
-------
TABLE II-l (Continued)
Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Naphthalene
Nickel and compounds
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols (Including 2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)
Nitrosamines
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (Including benzanthracenes,
benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthene, chrysenes,
dibenzanthracenes, and indenopyrenes)
Selenium and compounds
Silver and compounds
2,3,7,8,- Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Tetrachlorcethylene
Thallium and compounds
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc and compounds
* As used throughout this table the term "compounds" shall include
organic and inorganic compounds.
12
-------
SECTION III
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
GENERAL
The Agency had considerable data available characterizing the
discharges of "traditional" pollutant parameters (BOD, COD, TSS, NH3,
sulfide, oil and grease, etc.)- These parameters have been measured
in wastewaters for years (1,3,8). With few exceptions, however, data
on the 65 pollutants or classes of pollutants (Table II-1) are almost
non-existent.
The Agency conducted a sampling program to determine the presence and
concentrations of the 65 toxic substances in refinery wastewater and
the effectiveness of candidate treatment technologies to reduce
discharges of toxic pollutants. The list of 65 toxic pollutants and
classes of pollutants potentially includes thousands of specific
pollutants. The Agency has selected 129 specific toxic pollutants
(Table III-1) for analysis in this rulemaking.
The Agency also requested data from the industry ("1977 survey") on:
(1) toxic pollutants purchased, manufactured, and analyzed in
wastewater; (2) treatability data on toxic pollutants; and (3)
wastewater flow from each of the refinery processes. Measuring
concentrations of these pollutants is difficult, requires very
expensive equipment, and requires highly qualified operators.
1977 EPA PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY SURVEY
To acquire the up-to-date information needed to establish effluent
guidelines for the petroleum refining category, EPA developed a
comprehensive questionnaire for all refineries throughout the United
States and its territorial possessions. This survey was made under
section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The questionnaire is referred to
as the 1977 EPA Petroleum Refining Industry Survey or the "1977
Survey." More detailed information also was requested of the industry
in a subsequent mailing, referred to as the "Supplemental Flow
Question" (See Appendix 1). Finally, because of extensive industry
comments on the accuracy of the data collected, the Agency made a
third mailing to verify the reported data—this mailing is referred to
as the "Verification Report."
The information from this survey was combined with existing
information to develop an industry profile, including number of
plants, their size, geographic location, and manufacturing processes
and the wastewater generation, treatment, and discharge methods at
refining facilities. Questionnaire data also aided in the final
13
-------
selection of plants for wastewater sampling. Flow data from the
questionnaire were 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 129 specific substances.
Survey Data Related to Wastewater Characterization
Toxic pollutant data contained in the 1977 survey have been
summarized. The following toxic pollutants were not included in the
survey because they were added to the toxic pollutant list after the
questionnaire mailing in February of 1977:
di-n-octyl phthalate
PCB 1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCS 1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB 1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB 1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB 1016 (Arochlor 1016)
Table III-2 lists the number of refineries with positive responses
regarding priority pollutants as:
a. Chemicals purchased as raw or intermediate materials; and
b. Chemicals manufactured as a final or intermediate material;
Seventy-One toxic pollutants were listed as being purchased as a raw
or intermediate materials; 19 of these toxic pollutants were
individual purchases by single refineries, while at least ten percent
of the refineries purchased the following toxic pollutants:
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
1,1,1-trichloroethane
phenol
toluene
zinc and compounds
chromium and compounds
copper and compounds
lead and compounds
Zinc and chromium were purchased by 28 percent of the refineries,
while lead was purchased by nearly 48 percent of the plants.
14
-------
Forty-five toxic pollutants were manufactured as final or intermediate
materials; 15 of these toxic pollutants were manufactured at single
refineries, while benzene, ethylbenzene, phenol, and toluene were
manufactured by at least ten percent of the refineries. Eight percent
of the refineries manufacture cyanides; greater than 20 percent of the
refineries manufacture benzene/toluene.
Table III-3 presents industry data on wastewater generated in 1976 and
the discharge flows reported in the NPDES permit in 1976 on a plant by
plant basis. Also included for comparison is the calculated flow for
each plant, which was determined on the basis of the process data
supplied for each plant and the original 1974 EPA flow model (see
Section IV for details) .
The 1977 survey has also requested data on daily average discharge
concentration of priority pollutants for the month of December in 1975
and 1976. These data are summarized in Table III-4. Pollutants for
which data were reported include cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead,
mercury, zinc, arsenic, nickel, silver, selenium, and free cyanide.
Phenol and chromium are limited by existing BPT regulations, and
therefore do not appear in the table. About ten percent of the
industry currently has effluent limits for zinc and cyanide.
WASTEWATER SAMPLING PROGRAM RESULTS
EPA determined the presence and magnitude of the 129 specific toxic
pollutants in petroleum refining wastewaters in a sampling and
analysis program involving 23 refineries and two POTWs. The sampled
plants were selected to be representative of the manufacturing
processes, the prevalent mix of production among plants, and the
current treatment technology in the industry. Seventeen plants were
direct dischargers and six were indirect dischargers.
Sampling visits were made to correspond to three consecutive days of
plant operation. Raw wastewater was sampled prior to biological
treatment; treated effluent was sampled subsequent to biological
treatment. In some instances, samples were taken after polishing
(i.e., polishing pond, sand filter). The intake water also was
sampled to determine the presence of toxic pollutants prior to
contamination by refining processes.
Samples for conventional, nonconventional and toxic pollutants came
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. Prior to the plant visits, sample containers were carefully
washed and prepared by specific methods, depending upon the type of
15
-------
sample to be taken. Samples were kept on ice prior to 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, total phenols, 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 with
confirmation and quantification of all priority pollutants by mass
spectrometry (GC/MS). Total phenols were analyzed by the 4-AAP
method. GC was employed for analysis of pesticides with limited MS
confirmation. Toxic heavy metals were analyzed by atomic adsorption
spectrometry (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. Analyses for conventional pollutants (BOD_5,
TSS, pH, and Oil and Grease) and nonconventional pollutants (TOC and
COD) were accomplished using "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes," (EPA 625/6-74-003) and amendments.
Three sampling programs were conducted in this project: (1) the Robert
S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL) Sampling Program
(12 refineries) ; (2) the Burns and Roe (B&R) Supplemental Sampling
Program (5 refineries) and (3) the Burns and Roe Indirect Discharge
Sampling Program (6 refineries and two POTW's). In addition, eight
refineries were sampled by the U.S. EPA regional surveillance and
analysis field teams in conjunction with their routine S&A work. This
sampling was performed after the RSKERL and Burns and Roe sampling
program and generally followed the same screening procedure.
Analytical data from refineries 1, 83, 131, 132, 133, 134, 157 and 181
for S6A sampling of raw water supply, raw wastewater, final effluent,
and some in-plant sampling, are included in Appendix 2 of this report.
RSKERL and B &_ R Sampling Program
The PSKERL and B&R sampling program was designed to do the
following: (a) analyze for the presence of the 129 toxic pollutants in
the plants' intake water source; (b) analyze the plants' raw
wastewater to determine the net production of priority pollutants
resulting from refinery process operations; and (c) analyze the
plants' final effluent for the presence of toxic pollutants and
measure the effectiveness of in-place treatment in removing toxic
pollutants.
-------
The program was undertaken in two parts: The RSKERL sampling included
12 refineries selected according to the following criteria:
a. They should be meeting the July 1, 1977, effluent limitations
specified in the NPDES permit;
b. They should have single discharge points for their treated
process wastewater.
c. Their process types, geographic locations, and wastewater
treatments were representative of the industry and provided the
broadest coverage on a national basis.
The selection procedures is detailed in two Burns and Roe reports
(S1 - Analysis of Self Reporting Data From Refineries to Determine
Compliance with July 1, 1977, Effluent Limitations (78) and S2 -
Selection of Refineries for RSKERL Sampling Program (79)).
The RSKERL program involved two segments: segment A sampled six of the
selected plants; segment B covered the remaining six refineries and
also tested the toxic removal efficiency of carbon adsorption
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 plants. These pilot test results are included in section V
of this report.
The B & R program was initiated to supplement the RSKERL sampling and
studied five refineries. This program did not include any pilot
carbon testing.
Tables III-5 through III-10 present the analytical results from the
RSKERL and B 6 R sampling programs. The traditional parameters
analyzed include BOD5, COD, TOC, TSS, oil and grease, ammonia,
sulfides, hexavalent chromium, and pH. Each of the three, consecutive
24-hour, composites collected at each sampling location in a given
refinery was tested for the traditional parameters other than oil and
grease. Grab samples collected at the end of each sample day were
used for the oil and grease analyses. Table IV-5 summarizes the
traditional pollutant analytical results reported for all 17
refineries.
Sources of asbestos in the petroleum refining industry are, in all
probability, the same as in other point source categories: (a)
insulation materials that have deteriorated; and (b) residues from the
brake linings of equipment and vehicles used in the processing areas.
Because EPA believes that these may not be significant sources of
asbestos, and because of the expense of asbestos analyses and the
liklihood of similar data within other point source categories,
samples from only four petroleum refineries were analyzed.
17
-------
Since asbestos contributions to wastewater streams could be affected
by rainfall (i.e., runoff could wash fragmented insulation into the
sewer), EPA sampled two refineries for asbestos during dry weather
condition and two during or shortly after a significant rainfall. The
Agency sampled refinereies in which treatment detention time did not
affect significantly the rainfall criteria. Composites of three daily
grab samples from Refineries I, L, M and P were analyzed for asbestos.
Rainfall data also were collected and analyzed. The analytical method
for asbestos includes the use of an electron microscope for
verification of each fiber and confirmed by nondispersive x-ray
fluorescence. All of the samples had low concentrations of suspended
solids, and an absence of vegetal and biological debris.
Abestos was not detected in the intake or final effluent from the four
refineries. Asbestiform mineral fibers of 3.4 million fibers per
liter were observed and verified in only one sample, the API
separator effluent from Refinery L. It had been raining during the
time that samples were collected at Refinery L.
During this RSKERL/Burns and Roe sampling program, the American
Petroleum Institute and some individual plants were provided with
replicate samples for their own analysis. The results of these
analyses are presented in Appendix 3 of this report.
Pretreatment Sampling Program
Burns and Roe conducted a sampling program at two Los Angeles county
Sanitation District municipal treatment plants and refineries which
contribute wastewater to these plants. A three day sampling period,
similar to the RSKERL and Burns and Roe sampling program, was utilized
at the final effluent points of six refineries, and at various points
in the municipal treatment plants. Analytical results of this
sampling program are presented in Tables 111-11 thru 111-20.
18
-------
TABLE III-l
RECOMMENDED LIST OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
* No. Compound
IB acenaphthene
2V acrolein
3V acrylonitrile
4V benzene
5B benzidine
6V carbon tetrachloride
TV chlorobenzene
8B 1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
9B hexachlorobenzene
10V 1,2-dichloroethane
11V 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12B hexachloroethane
13V 1,1-dichloroethane
14V 1,1,2-trichloroethane
1SV 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16V chloroethane
17B bis(chloromethyl) ether
18B bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19V 2-chloroethylvinyl ether
20B 2-chloronaphthalene
21A 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22A parachlorometa cresol
23V chloroform
24A 2-chlorophenol
25B 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26B 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27B 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28B 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29V 1,1-dichloroethylene
30V 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31A 2,4-dichlorophenol
32V 1,2-dichloropropane
No. Compound
33v 1,2-dichloropropylene
34A 2,4-dimethylphenol
3SB 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36B 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37B 1,2-diphenyIhydrazine
38V ethylbenzene
39B fluoranthene
40B 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41B 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42B bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43B bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
44V methylene chloride
45V methyl chloride
46V methyl bromide
47V bromoform
48V dichlorobromomethane
49V trichlorofluoromethane
50V dichlorodifluoromethane
51V chlorodibromomethane
52B hexachlorobutadiene
53B hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54B isophorone
55B naphthalene
56B nitrobenzene
57A 2-nitrophenol
58A 4-nitrophenol
59A 2,4-dinitrophenol
60A 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61B N-nitrosodimethylamine
62B N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63B N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64A pentachlorophenol
19
-------
No. Compound
65A phenol
66B bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67B butyl benzyl phthalate
68B di-n-butyl phthalate
69B di-n-octyl phthalate
70B diethyl phthalate
71B dimethyl phthalate
72B benzo(a)anthracene
73B benzo(a)pyrene
74B 3,4-benzofluoranthene
75B benzo(k)fluoranthane
76B chrysene
77B acenaphthylene
78B anthracene
79B benzo(ghi)perylene
SOB fluorene
81B phenanthrene
32B dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83B ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
84B pyrene
85V tetrachloroethylene
86V toluene
87V trichloroethylene
88V vinyl chloride
39P aldrin
90P dieldrin
91P chlordane
92P 4,4'-DDT
93P 4,4'-DDE
94P 4,4'-ODD
95P a-endosulfan-Alpha
96P b-endosulfan-Beta
97P endosulfan sulfate
98P endrin
99P endrin aldehyde
100P heptachlor
101P heptachlor epoxide
TABLE III-l (Cont.
No.
102P
103P
104P
105P
106P
107P
108P
109P
HOP
HIP
112P
113P
114M
11SM
116
117M
118M
119M
12 OM
12 1M
12 2M
12 3M
124H
125M
126M
127M
128H
129B
,)
Compound
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
r-BHC-Gamma
g-BHC-Delta
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
toxaphene
antimony (total)
arsenic (total)
asbestos (fibrous)
beryllium (total)
cadmium(total)
chromium ( total )
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury ( total )
nickel (total)
selenium (total)
silver (total)
thallium (total)
zinc (total)
2,3,7, 8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
* V - volatile organics
A - acid extractables
B - base/neutral extractables
P - pesticides
H - metals
20
-------
TABLE III-2
Summary of Responses to Portfolio B of 1977 Survey
(Number of Refineries)
Priority Pollutants
acenaphthene
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
hexachloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
dieldrin
benzidine
p-chloro-m-cresol
3 respondents summarized)
(1)
Chemicals
purchased
as a raw or
intermediate
material
9
1
2
42
30
0
6
26
1
2
4
ane 1
1
1
9
2
2
0
1
0
0
(2)
Chemicals
manufactured
as a final or
intermediate
material
8
0
0
62
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
(3)
Chemicals
for which
analyses have
been performed
in wastewater
1
0
1
6
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
21
-------
TABLE III-2 (Continued)
Summary of Responses to Portfolio B of 1977 Survey
(Number of Refineries)
Priority Pollutants
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
2,4-dimethylphenol
asbestos
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
methyl bromide
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorodifluoromethane
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
pentachlorophenol
4-nitrophenol
methyl chloride
isophorone
3 respondents summarized)
(1)
Chemicals
purchased
as a raw or
intermediate
material
0
6
lene 2
0
6
3
9
18
24
13
2
1
12
e 9
18
1
10
1
1
0
(2)
Chemicals
manufactured
as a final or
intermediate
material
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
31
11
0
0
0
0
18
0
1
0
0
1
(3)
Chemicals
for which
analyses have
been performed
in wastewater
1
1
0
2
1
1
14
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
22
-------
TABLE III-2 (continued)
Summary of Responses to Portfolio B of 1977 Survey
(Number of Refineries)
Priority Pollutants
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
1,2-benzanthracene
benzo (a)pyrene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
11,12-benzofluoranthene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
1,12-benzoperylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
respondents summarized)
(1)
Chemicals
purchased
as a raw or
intermediate
material
32
late 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
14
10
• 10
16
11
16
14
10
16
(2)
Chemicals
manufactured
as a final or
intermediate
material
32
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
12
12
12
12
14
12
14
12
12
14
(3)
Chemicals
for which
analyses have
been performed
in wastewater
154
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
23
-------
TABLE III-2 (continued)
Summary of Responses to Portfolio B of 1977 Survey
(Number of Refineries)
Priority'Pollutants
1,2:5,6-dibenzanthracene
indeno (1,2,3-C,D)pyrene
pyrene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodib
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
antimony and compounds
arsenic and compounds
zinc and compounds
beryllium
cadmium and compounds
chromium and compounds
copper and compounds
cyanides
lead and compounds
mercury and compounds
3 respondents summarized)
(1)
Chemicals
purchased
as a raw or
intermediate
material
ne 11
ne 11
16
enzo-p-dioxin 0
2
53
12
0
3
6
71
0
4
80
26
1
121
5
(2)
Chemicals
manufactured
as a final or
intermediate
material
12
12
14
1
1
53
0
0
1
1
6
0
0
5
1
20
9
0
(3)
Chemicals
for which
analyses have
been performed
in wastewater
1
1
2
0
2
7
2
1
15
65
98
16
75
156
87
94
94
63
24
-------
TABLE III-2 (continued)
Summary of Responses to Portfolio B of 1977 Survey
(Number of Refineries)
(253 respondents summarized)
(1) (2) (3)
Chemicals Chemicals Chemicals
purchased manufactured for which
as a raw or as a final or analyses have
intermediate intermediate been performed
Priority Pollutants material material in wastewater
nickel and compounds 21 6 71
selenium and compounds 2 \ 27
silver and compounds *> 1 ^6
thallium and compounds 11 5
25
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
8
3
13
.04
4
4
4
11
14
35
192
31
7
5
9
7
14
3
22
4
13
4
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
35
13
89
13
30
13
39
23
78
58
89
40
14
20
32
47
47
78
47
13
43
13
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
8
3
13
0
4
4
0
11
14
35
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
.06
22
0
0
0
26
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
24
25
26
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
7
10
9
37
12
.6
70
10
15
3
31
37
11
34
36
5
62
25
43
22
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
15
43
16
56
13
22
51
20
13
40
79
39
13
27
55
13
53
30
47
81
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
7
0
0
0
12
0
40
0
0
0
31
0
0
34
36
0
46
0
0
22
27
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
112
5
10
67
107
19
6
2
29
129
26
24
11
17
19
36
68
29
UNKNOWN
65
41
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
24
28
24
49
78
47
33
14
24
32
25
33
31
38
89
33
43
35
13
58
27
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
0
5
5
67
107
19
6
0
29
129
0
24
13
17
19
36
68
29
0
64
41
28
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
70
71
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
30
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
17
13
23
25
10
56
12
26
UNKNOWN
5
22
281
35
21
25
15
18
6
22
25
3
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
13
22
51
23
41
75
20
23
14
34
28
13
51
21
38
33
13
13
34
89
13
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
17
13
23
0
10
56
12
0
0
5
22
0
35
21
25
0
18
6
22
18
3
29
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
44
15
23
29
25
3
13
3
9
32
2
30
30
18
4
19
21
7
24
36
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
89
13
25
13
54
19
31
20
13
17
13
41
12
38
40
89
12
13
43
13
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
42
8
23
0
22
3
12
3
9
32
2
24
28
14
4
19
21
7
0
36
3-0
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
13
12
27
21
36
9
16
38
17
72
14
9
163
30
4
23
31
24
35
86
45
0
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
25
20
56
49
30
88
78
89
27
47
36
28
36
43
13
16
20
38
41
60
32
13
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
12
12
27
21
36
7
13
35
17
72
14
9
54
30
0
23
0
24
35
36
45
0
31
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
11
2
26
2
9
.09
26
38
14
5
24
9
10
27
24
25
83
35
209
13
20
16
13
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
13
13
17
13
29
13
42
43
20
13
14
49
43
23
22
41
40
29
89
35
29
35
26
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
38
4
0
24
9
0
27
24
25
83
19
23
7
17
16
13
32
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
172
173
174
175
176
177
179
180
181
182
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
15
8
14
30
20
6
5
16
33
19
56
98
224
109
81
14
134
12
46
47
27
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
20
17
16
85
26
13
47
89
31
31
31
66
89
89
67
31
89
45
53
37
37
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
14
8
8
27
20
0
5
0
31
18
55
98
224
109
78
11
134
12
46
4
0
33
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
13
22
11
13
16
27
3
5
9
201
.2
43
1
61
16
24
24
14
1
44
34
24
3
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
16
47
24
24
43
30
13
13
43
13
13
60
13
50
13
13
36
20
13
47
29
23
13
NFDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
13
22
0
13
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
47
0
61
16
24
0
14
0
0
34
24
0
34
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
218
219
220
221
222
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
Wastewater Calculated
Generated in 1976 BPT Flow
(gal/bbl) (gal/bbl)
2
18
8
3
7
13
4
DATA NOT SUBMITTED
DATA NOT SUBMITTED
54
.1
17
2
29
42
12
35
8
37
16
3
30
13
41
20
13
21
20
13
-
-
45
13
28
85
17
10
14
36
13
25
14
27
40
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
0
18
0
.2
7
13
4
0
0
35
0
17
0
29
42
0
0
8
16
0
0
30
35
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
169
22
10
18
21
28
10
27
10
130
76
147
6
54
26
53
12
.01
21
0
0
21
DATA NOT SUBMITTED
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
13
29
33
53
36
33
89
20
19
89
89
89
18
28
29
41
14
13
16
13
13
20
-
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
169
22
10
18
21
28
10
27
10
130
50
147
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
36
-------
TABLE III-3
PETROLEUM REFINING WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Refinery
No.
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
264
265
266
278
291
292
295
296
298
302
303
305
307
308
309
310
Wastewater
Generated in 1976
(gal/bbl)
.7
4
11
16
15
4
13
14
5
12
25
0
12
UNKNOWN
129
0
1
.04
0
4
0
0
18
.9
Calculated
BPT Flow
(gal/bbl)
89
13
17
31
110
19
89
14
13
25
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
18
13
NPDES Discharge
in 1976 (gal/bbl)
0
4
11
16
15
4
13
14
0
12
25
0
0
UNKNOWN
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
37
-------
TABLE III-4
Priority Pollutant Discharge Monitoring Report
Data Reported in the 1977 Survey
Cadmium
Refinery
Number
018
025
071
182
029
038
043
045
December 1975
DMR Daily Average
(mg/1) (Ib/day)
0.035
NO
ND
December 1976
DMR Daily Average
(mg/1) Ib/day)
0.015
ND
Copper
013
018
096
153
182
0.072
ND
ND
6
0.63
ND
0.042
ND
2.0
31.3
018
057
059
060
065
068
071
073
151
153
029
038
043
045
061
062
063
064
208
0.005
0.008
0.037
0.086
0.0
0.30
0.03
0.081
0.03
0.01
10.4
0.49
0.036
0.129
0.006
0.036
0.0
0.64
0.007
0.047
0.03
0.64
23
0.13
2.75
22.2
Lead
013
057
096
153
182
029
038
043
045
061
062
208
0.067
NO
0.052
0.017
ND
4
0.59
ND
0.018
ND
0.008
3.35
ND
4.0
0.36
ND
0.03
7.9
3 8
-------
TABLE III-4 (Cont.)
Arsenic
Refinery
Number
058
096
182
029
038
043
045
061
013
020
024
032
041
050
057
060
065
093
096
108
114
153
182
242
029
037
038
043
045
061
062
208
295
013
182
242
029
038
043
045
208
December 1975
DMR Daily Average
(mg/1) (Ib/day)
.
_
0.056
-
_
_
_
-
ND ND
1.5
0.30
1.0
18
0.59
-
0.15
0.23
0.0024
12
0.32
0.43
0.131 1.1
31.2
0.32
-
(0.98 kg/day)
_
_
-
-
•CO.l
7.35
1.6
ND ND
ND ND
0.53
_
-
-
_
2.16
December 1976
DMR Daily Average
(mg/1) Ib/day)
0.14
0.04
0.31
0.193
NO
ND
ND
0.11
0.10
5.1
22
0.0011
8
0.22
3.96 ,
27.9^'
0.22
(0.45 kg/day)
10.5
0.57
ND
ND
0.20
0.78
39
-------
TABLE III-4 (Cont.)
Nickel
Silver
Refinery
Number
182
029
038
043
045
182
029
December 1975
DMR Daily Average
(mg/1) (Ib/day)
ND ND
-
-
-
-
ND ND
-
December 1976
DMR Daily Average
(mg/1) Ib/day)
ND ND
-
-
-
-
ND ND
-
Selenium
Cyanide (Free)
045
153
0.81
ND ND
0.002 0.03
NOTES: ND - Not Detectable
(a) - Data are maximum values.
40
-------
TABLE II1-5
4s.
Sample - Day
Refinery 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
Intake - 3
DAF effluent - 1
DAF effluent - 2
DAF 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
Analytical Results for Traditional Parameters for the RSKERL and BS.R Sampling Program
Concentration (og/l)
BOD-l
L2
LI
2
20
20
25
L2
L2
3
L3
L3
2
130
170
270
15
9
30
2
L3
2
150
160
78
28
34
40
37
40
45
BOD- 2 BOD- 3 COD
L2 4
LI 4
4 8
24 130
18 91
30 99
L2 36
L2 40
2 28
L3 9
L3 9
L3 9
140 420
110 440
220 500
14 150
7 120
7 120
1
1
2
11C 380
120 370
85 220
130
120
120
130
130
100
TOC
1
2
2
36
25
26
11
11
11
13
25
18
100
110
110
47
39
43
12
8
5
88
75
49
44
39
41
42
37
36
TSS
5
4
LI
490
390
260
44
30
42
9
13
11
38
50
38
22
24
20
LI
LI
LI
22
36
26
20
18
28
20
22
16
NH3
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
18
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
52
50
13
8.4
5.6
4.5
7.8
17
3.9
+6
Cr
L.02
L.02
L.02
.09
.03
.05
.04
L.02
L.02
L.02
.02
L.02
L.02
.10
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.05
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
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.5
L.5
.3
L.5
3.8
.3
L.5
L.5
.2
.5
.5
.4
Oas
19
7
6
33
18
11
53
24
15
8
10
4
150
100
28
8
15
11
7
11
11
7.6
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
9.0
6.9
7.4
7.0
6.2
8.1
8.3
a.2
8.6
9.5
7.2
"1.6
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
flow (MGD)
.433
.427
.432
3.91
3.86
4.12
1.78
1.81
1.81
1.69
2.07
1.48
.0715
.0848
.1526
.1787
.1411
.2357
Note: L - Less than
G •- Greater than
BOD-l indicates analytical method used seed from a domestic sewage treatment plant.
BOD-2 indicates analytical method used seed from refinery final effluent.
BOD-3 indicates analytical method where no seed was used.
-------
TABLE III-5 (Continued)
*>•
ro
Sample - Day
Refinery D
Intake - 1
Intake - 2
Intake - 3
DAF effluent - 1
DAF effluent - 2
DAP effluent - 3
Final effluent - 1
Final effluent - 2
Final effluent - 3
Refinery E
Intake - 1
Intake - 2
Intake - 3
DAF effluent - 1
DAF effluent - 2
DAF effluent - 3
Final effluent - 1
Final effluent - 2
Final effluent - 3
Refinery F
Intake - 1
Intake - 2
Intake - 3
Cooling tower blowdown-1
Cooling tower blowdown-2
Cooling tower blowdown-3
Final effluent - 1
Final effluent - 2
Final effluent - 3
Concentration (mg/1)
BOD-1
L5
1
3
160
140
120
SO
210
150
3
2
2
54
52
45
18
2
LI
40
40
42
25
130
47
18
36
20
BOD- 2
20
4
6
L220
L360
4
3
3
56
41
44
50
52
42
G160
36
BOD-3 COO
20
4
4
1000
500
390
40 820
62 670
90 490
43
59
39
160
160
150
18 47
LI 75
LI 55
340
350
35 340
210
300
350
18 260
36 270
18 260
TOC
10
5
8
300
150
100
290
220
150
15
15
15
48
42
39
10
7
13
96
110
97
62
78
95
iio
75
82
TSS
24
32
16
60
36
32
64
60
60
14
19
28
17
13
16
9
20
13
68
68
40
64
76
80
110
96
100
Nil,
• •— J
Ll.O
2.2
2.0
36
29
40
36
42
39
1.0
7.8
7.8
13
12
15
35
11
13
1.7
68
63
3.9
10
19
3.9
2.8
3.9
.
CE.
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.O2
.03
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.02
L.02
.05
.09
.41
L.02
L.02
.03
-2
S_ OSG
L.I
L.I
L.I
15
18
15
1.7
1.1
.8
L.I
L.I
L.I
1.8
1.5
1.5
.3
.5
.6
1.6
.9
.7
1.0
L.I
2.0
L.I
7.3
7.4
7.3
6.9
8.5
8.6
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.5
8.2
8.1
8.0
7.3
8.1
6.8
8.6
8.5
8.6
Flow (MGD)
.932*
.932*
18.00
16.56
18.00
5.02
4.59
4.61
1.5*
0.17*
0.017*
* Average flow during 72-hour sampling period.
-------
TABLE III-5 (Continued)
Analytical Results for Traditional Parameter^ for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program
Refinery G
Intake - 1
Intake - 2
Intake - 3
Separator effluent - 1
Separator effluent - 2
Separator effluent - 3
DAF effluent - 1
DAF effluent - 2
DAF effluent - 3
Final effluent - 1
Final effluent - 2
Final effluent - 3
Refinery H
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 I
Intake - 1
Intake - 2
Intake - 3
Separator effluent - 1
Separator effluent - 2
Separator effluent - 3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Concentration (mg/1)
BOO-1
L3
L3
L3
240
250
2bO
240
280
220
15
10
6
L2
L2
2
60
20
30
L6
L6
3
L3
L3
L3
88
76
55
LI 2
L12
LI 2
BOD- 2
L3
L3
L3
280
240
290
270
280
260
L2
L2
2
80
L15
31
32
66
BOD-3 COD
L3 20
28
24
260 820
860
250 860
900
1200
12 200
L10 220
L14 210
12
23
200
180
« 40
M 36
3 48
4
5
" 260
260
250
88
L" 76
L12 72
TOC
12
16
8
240
220
200
360
290
60
64
56
9
14
57
50
20
18
21
5
4
89
80
75
34
29
29
TSS
LI
18
16
54
252
112
64
152
176
36
76
64
14
113
167
120
66
121
8
10
8
LI
LI
2
38
46
32
6
8
10
NH3
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
20
8.0
14
12
10
15
15
12
Ll.O
Ll.O
7.3
6.2
6.2
5.0
5.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
3.4
4. 5
5.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
1.7
c/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.02
L.02
L.02
-2
S
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
.5
.4
.5
.6
.7
.4
0(.G
23
7
8
130
56
110
190
250
220
24
9
10
31
13
8
80
51
24
37
13
3
2
4
5
30
25
42
5
3
9
OJ.G pH
7.6
7.6
7.7
10.2
10.3
10.6
9.9
10.2
10.4
8.3
8.0
8.0
8.2
8.5
7.9
7.3
8.6
7.4
8.4
7.8
7.8
8.6
7.6
5.7
9.1
8.9
7.1
7.2
7.5
3.22
3.13
3.20
2.50
2.27
2.04
5.04*
1.2*
3.53
3.53
3.53
2.99
3.26
3.29
2.75
2.27
2.44
•Average flow during the: F:amplir,g period.
-------
TABLE III-5 (Continued)
Analytical Results for Traditional Parameters for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program
Concentration (mg/l)
e t7 inery j
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Separator 1 effluent-1
Separator 1 effluent-2
Separator 1 effluent-3
Separator 2 effluent-1
Separator 2 effluent-2
Separator 2 effluent-3
Separator 3 effluent-1
Separator 3 effluent-2
Separator 3 effluent-3
Separator 4 effluent-1
Separator 4 effluent-2
Separator 4 effluent-3
Separator 5 effluent-1
Separator 5 effluent-2
Separator 5 effluent-3
Bio-pond influent-1
Bio-pond influent-2
Bio-pond influent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
BOD-l
L5
2
51
76
85
G84
15
20
G80
70
10
12
96
G84
6
6
BOD-2 BOD-3
3
39
78
50
G84
GB4
G84
58
22
32
100
55
60
10
10
18
G84
6
COD
16
40
20
210
160
160
310
690
660
160
180
220
310
270
430
83
75
92
610
570
480
87
87
92
TOC
14
19
10
60
39
55
57
200
230
52
45
63
66
58
97
23
22
31
50
100
120
34
26
32
TSS
10
3
1
54
82
22
64
196
108
62
38
34
36
26
94
26
16
48
24
16
18
20
7
8
NH
2.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
2.0
1.0
1.7
8.4
14
8.4
3.0
6.2
4.5
3
7.3
8.4
2.0
1.0
Ll.O
22
24
20
6.8
5.0
5.6
+6
Cr
L.02
.02
L.02
.02
L.02
.03
L.02
.04
.02
.02
.02
.04
L.02
L.02
.05
.14
.13
.09
.08
.10
.08
L.02
L.02
L.02
-2
S
L.I
L.I
.3
.7
1.8
1.8
5.5
11
15
1.8
5.3
1.5
6.8
9.1
5.1
L.I
1.0
12
14
49
3.5
.2
1.0
.9
o&a
16
11
11
74
120
36
84
140
250
25
23
54
65
34
150
7
9
25
11
9
20
20
6
16
7.5
7.8
7.3
8.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
8.2
8.2
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.7
7.3
7.6
8.1
8.1
7.1
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.0
7.3
7.9
.464
.122
.572
2.70
2.55
2.73
-------
TABLE III-S (Continued)
(Ji
Ref inery K
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
DAF effluent-1
DAF effluent-2
DAF effluent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Refinery L
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Separator 1 effluent-1
Separator 1 effluent-2
Separator 1 effluent-3
Separator 2 effluent-1
Separator 2 effluent-2
jeparator 2 effluent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Refinery M
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
DAF effluent-1
DAF effluent-2
DAF effluent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
BOD-1
4
4
L6
L120
220
L120
8
L6
11
2
L2
100
180
32
40
3
11
L6
L6
L6
51
50
36
LI 2
L6
L6
BOD-2
U20
210
L120
3
L5
L3
130
100
1.70
38
31
42
25
52
40
suits foi
BOD-3
4
4
L6
80
200
L120
7
6
10
2
L3
L5
120
98
150
34
42
40
3
L4
8
L6
L6
34
40
34
L12
L6
L6
" Traditi
COD
27
23
24
530
1000
540
96
130
140
56
20
24
390
350
530
200
210
170
75
44
71
10
9
8
260
220
220
92
86
73
.onal Parameter
Concentration
TOO ',
11
10
180
350
180
39
42
13
10
6
110
110
140
49
56
46
19
15
14
6
10
4
72
62
66
18
16
14
s for the
(ing/1)
KS
12
14
10
260
380
210
21
16
32
290
220
120
140
110
120
36
48
34
21
LI
LI
LI
18
9
7
8
15
11
RSKERL and
HH3
Ll.O
Ll.O
1.0
6.7
6.7
6.2
2.2
3.4
3.9
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
6.2
10
20
7.8
15
9.0
Ll.O
3.4
3.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
13
9.5
12
Ll.O
Ll.O
1.0
BSR Sampling
4-G
Cr
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.04
.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.25
L.02
.05
L-02
L.02
.07
.05
L.02
L.02
L.02
.11
.01
L.02
L.02
L.02
.75
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
Proyram
S-2
.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
OSG
9
6
14
590
190
98
31
15
12
4
8
11
16
18
18
13
12
14
7.4
7.8
7.3
7.7
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
3.88
3.86
4.28
7.15
5.37
4.98
11.03
9.23
9.26
1.64
1.52
1.47
* Average flow cmring 72-hour sampling period.
-------
TABLE II1-5 (Continued)
Refinery N
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-3
Cham, plant effluent-1
Chem. plant effluent-2
Chem. plant effluent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Refinery 0
Intake-l
Intake-2
Intake-3
DAF effluent-1
DAP effluent-2
DAF effluent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Analytical Results for Traditional Parameters
BOD-1
L2
L5
L3
120
100
85
6
L10
94
BOD-2 BOD- 3
LI
L5
L2
83
100
120
74
140
34
10
a
10
L5
L2
75
88
L10
L8
for the RSKERL and BSR
Concentration (mg/1)
COD
40
16
28
360
430
440
340
810
240
140
120
140
11
26
12
380
410
480
150
140
120
TOG
12
8
12
88
120
100
93
240
69
33
33
36
10
21
25
120
110
180
48
40
52
TSS
18
22
26
68
112
76
28
36
40
50
40
44
10
10
14
21
32
42
24
26
24
NH
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
12
15
13
1.1
Ll.O
2.0
6.2
6.7
3.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
5.3
6.4
18
2.5
3.1
2.5
Sampling Proqram
Cr
L.02
.07
.09
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.02
.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.02
L.02
S C&Q
.3
.3
1.1
2.9
8.1
9.2
.7
.9
.9
.6
.9
.9
.5
L.I
.1
3.9
4.1
2.9
.6
.5
.4
8.4
7.7
7.3
8.1
8.1
7.9
6.8
6.6
6.7
8.6
7.4
7.4
7.1
6.8
7.0
8.4
8.6
8.8
7.9
24.69
26.84
25.91
15.25
15.25
18.25
0.8
0.95
0.9
14.75
15.9
17.6
2.88*
2.88»
*Average flow during 72-hour period.
-------
TABLE III-5 (Continued)
Analytical Results for Traditional Parameters for the RSKERL and B&R Sampling Program
Concentration (mg/l)
Refinery P
In take-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Refinery Q
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
BOD-l
L2
L5
L2
320
210
150
L5
L5
L3
L2
L2
L3
80
40
66
28
20
30
BOD- 2 BOD-3 COL)
4
L5 6
L2 L4
600
220 540
160 470
64
L5 49
L3 41
4
4
24
50 370
70 330
64 260
260
250
230
TOG
3
7
7
170
140
140
16
24
31
8
11
9
91
84
65
59
78
60
OSS
LI
LI
LI
68
78
42
11
2
7
3
2
LI
28
10
12
38
22
26
SM3
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
11
16
18
1.4
2.0
2.0
Ll.O
Ll.O
Ll.O
45
48
39
53
49
42
Cr«
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.15
.05
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
S-2
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
OSG
5
9
13
62
38
45
45
37
OSG pH
7.0
6.8
10.1
9.9
7.7
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.5
9.2
9.3
9.8
8.8
8.3
8.7
.2783
.3086
.3186
-------
TABLE III-6
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
FOR THE RSKERL AND B&R SAMPLING PROGRAM
VOLATILE ORGANICS (CONCENTRATIONS, ug/1)
Compound
Refinery A
Intake Water Separator Effluent Final Effluent
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
29 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene chloride
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
44 Methylene chloride
Intake Water
4 Benzene ND
10 1,2-Dichloroethane ND
23 Chloroform D (L 1)
38 Ethylbenzene ND,
44 Methylene chloride 85
4 Benzene
38 Ethylbenzene
86 Toluene
4 Benzene
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene chloride
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
6 Carbon tetrachloride
11 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
44 Methylene chloride
Intake
NDb
70
ND
ND ,
G (100)
ND
ND
Intake Water
NDb ,
D(L 10)
G(100).
D(L 5)D
20
G(100)
G(100)D
G(50)
G(100)
Refinery Bc
DAF Effluent
b
30b
Refinery Ce
ND b
D (L 5)
ND
ND b
G(IOO)
D(L 10)
ND
Final Effluent
D(L 10)b
D(L 10)a
NDB
Separator Effluent Treated Effluent Final Effluent
417b
16
ND
3
Intake Water
ND
ND
ND
Intake Water
ND
ND,
50d
50
ND
20
Intake Water
G(50)
G(50) ,
D(L 10)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Refinery Da
Separator Effluent
G(100)
G(100)
G(100)
Refinery E
DAF Effluent
G(100)
G(IOO)
10d
ND
G(100)
ND
a
Refinery F
ND
ND
ND
ND
20d
Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
Final Effluent
ND
ND,
10d
ND
ND
ND
Cooling Tower Slowdown Final Effluent
ND
ND,
70b
Refinery G
ND
ND .
D(L 10)
Water Separator Effluent DAF Effluent Final Effluent
4 Benzene D(l 1)
44 Methylene chloride 22
86 Toluene D(L 1)
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
44 Methylene chloride
86 Toluene
Intake Water
NDb ,
D(L 10)
ND
ND
409. 2
293b
96 76
Refinery Hc
Separator Effluent
NDb
55b
ND
ND
,005, D(L 1)
563b 12d
,405 D(L 1)
Final Effluent
66b
70b
D(L 10)
48
-------
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene chloride
86 Toluene
TABLE III-6 (Continued)
Refinery I
Intake Water Separator Effluent Final Effluent
D(L
8/d(L
ND/ND
12/73
ND/ND
4 Benzene
10 1,2-Cichloroethane
15 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
23 Chloroform
30 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene chloride
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
b
2434°
ND
812
19 h
b
2
ND
ND,
74b
b
11767*
c
Refinery K
D(L 1)
Intake Water Separator Effluent Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
D(L 10)
ND
ND,
NDb
ND
ND
2°b
NDb
ND b
10D
ND
1100
NDB ,
D(L 10)
ND
D(L 10)
D(L 10) ,
D(L 10)°
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
ND
D(L 10)
ND
Refinery L
Final
Intake Water Separator 1 Effluent Separator 2 Effluent Effluent
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene chloride
86 Toluene
ND
ND
40b
ND
G(100)
10
G(100),
G(100)
G(100)
G(100)
10
G(100)
50b
G(100)
ND
ND
ND
60b
ND
Intake Water
Refinery M
DAF Effluent
Final Effluent
-, Benzene
6 Carbon tetrachloride
23 Chloroform
44 Methylene chloride
86 Toluene
14
ND,
44b
91
D(L 10)
12
10)
180
D(L 10)
Refinery N
11"
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
Intake Water Chem.Plant Effluent Separator Effluent Final Effluent
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene chloride"
86 Toluene
4 Benzene
6 Carbon tetrachloride
23 Chloroform
44 Methylene chloride
86 Toluene
ND
ND
ND
G(100)
ND
90
10
20 ,
G(IOO)
G(IOO)
G(100)
15
G(100)h
G(100)°
G(100)D
6d
ND
ND b
G(100)
35
Intake Water
ND
D(L 10)
55
130
D(L 10)
Refinery O
DAF Effluent
D(L 10)b
ND
13
ND
16
Final Effluent
D(L 10)b
D(L 10)
32?
44h
NDb
Refinery P
Intake Water Separator Effluent Final Effluent
4 Benzene
6 Carbon tetrachloride
15 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
23 Chloroform
30 1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene chloride
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
D(L 10)b
ND
D(L 10) ,
D(L 10)°
11
ND
ND
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
1,100
ND
ND b
100
ND
28 ,
1,600
ND
655
ND
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)fa
D(L 10)
ND
ND
41
ND
ND
D(L 10)
49
-------
TABLE III-6 (Continued)
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
44 Methylene chloride
48 Dichlorobromomethane
86 Toluene
Refinery Q
Intake Water Separator Effluent Final Effluent
D(L 1)
ND
ND
ND
894
6°
4d
24
167
ND
ND
ND
ND
Notes:
Volatile organic compounds 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 less 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 volatile organic compounds
in samples from Refineries A, D, E, F, L, N. See Reference No. 149.
b) Compound was detected in sample blank.
c) NUS Corporation conducted the analyses for volatile organic compounds in samples
from Refineries B, H, K, M, O, 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.
50
-------
TABLE III-7
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
FOR THE RSKERL AND B&R SAMPLING PROGRAM
SEMTTOLATILE ORGANICS (CONCENTRATIONS._uo/ll
Compound
Base - Neutral Extractables
1 Acenaphthene
55 Naphthalene
77 Acenaphthylene
81 Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
70 Diethyl phthalate
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Intake Water
ND
ND
ND
D(LO.l)
0.2
ND
ND
Refinery A
Separator Effluent
37
68
4
5
1.3
12
13
Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.7
ND
ND
Base-Neutral Extractables
Acid Extractables
22 Parachlorometa cresol
34 2,4 - Diraethylphenol
58 4- Nitre-phenol
65 Phenol
Base-Neutral Extractables
55 Naphthalene
81 Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Intake Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Intake Separator
Water Effluent
ND 950
ND 190
150 290
Refinery Bu
DAF Effluent
ND
ND
10,000
ND
ND
Refinery C-l
Treated
Effluent
ND
ND
900
Final Effluent
ND
D (L 10)
D (L 10)
D (L 10)
D (L 10)
Final
Effluent
ND
ND
310
ND
2200
ND
ND
Base-Neutral Extractables
Acid Extractables
Final Effluent
ND
ND
Refinery C-2
Base-Neutral Extractables
39 Fluoranthene
55 Naphthalene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Chrysene
Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
Pyrene
73
76
81
84
Acid Extractables
Intake Water
ND
2
ND
ND
D(LO.l)
ND
ND
Refinery D
Separator Effluent^
3
190
ND
0.1
140
11
ND
Final Effluent
ND
ND
3
1.4
ND
7
ND
51:
-------
Base-Neutral Extractables
TABLE III-7(continued)
Intake Water DAF Effluent
Refinery E
b
Final Effluent Final Effluent
1
25
27
39
55
76
80
81
84
68
Acid
34
65
Acenaphthene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
Fluor anthene
Naphthalene
Chrysene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
Pyrene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Extractables
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Phenol
1.8
D(LO.
D(LO.
D(LO.
ND
ND
ND
ND
D(LO.
0.4
ND
ND
5)
5)
2)
1)
150
ND
ND
ND
106
0.3
110
50
5
ND
G(100)
G(100)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D(LO.l)
ND
ND
D(L0.5)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D(LO.
D(LO.
ND
ND
ND
1)
5)
Base-Neutral Extractables
Refinery F
Intake Water1 Cooling Tower Slowdown Final Effluent
39 Fluoranthene
73 Benzo (a) pyrene
76 Chrysene
81 Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
84 Pyrene
Acid Extractables
29
33
49
160
140
ND
ND
10
7
2
10
ND
ND
1.3
0.8
ND
ND
ND
Base-Neutral Extractables
39 Fluoranthene/84 Pyrene
55 Naphthalene
76 Chrysene/72 Benzo (a)
Anthracene
81 Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
66 Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Refinery G-l
Intake Water Separator Effluent DAF Effluent Final Effluent
ND
ND
NE
ND
1100
40
1100
40
1100
700
ND
700
ND
600
1100
ND
ND
ND
ND
850
10
4900
2400
ND
Base-Neutral Extractables
70 Diethyl phthalate
Acid Extractables
Final Effluent
1
ND
Refinery G-2
Base-Neutral Extractables
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Acid Extractables
31 2,4-Dichlorophenol
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
65 Phenol
Intake Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
Refinery Hu
Separator Effluent
ND
ND
175
440
Final Effluent
D (L 10)
10
ND
ND
52
-------
Base-Neutral Extractables
55 Naphthalene
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Intake Water
ND
950
30
ND
TABLE III-7(continued)
Refinery I-le
Separator Effluent Final Effluent
290
300
ND
390
ND
600
10
Refinery 1-2
Base-Neutral Extractable
Acid Extractable
Final Effluent
ND
ND
Intake Water
Separator 1
Effluent
Refinery J
Separator 2
Effluent
Separator 3
Effluent
Base-Neutral Extractables
1 Acenaphthene
39 Fluoranthene/84 Pyrene
55 Naphthalene
76 Chrysene/72 Benzo (a)
anthracene
81 Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
70 Diethyl phthalate
71 Dimethyl phthalate
Acid Extractables
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
64 Pentachlorophenol
65 Phenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
30
ND
30
30
ND
180
ND
ND
ND
ND
420
ND
ND
350
30
90
ND
300
ND
ND
ND
ND
160
ND
ND
ND
50
ND
ND
50
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Refinery J (continued)
Base-Neutral Extractables
Separator 4
Effluent
1 Acenaphthene 50
39 Fluoranthene/84 Pyrene 20
55 Naphthalene ND
76 Chrysene/72 Benzo(a)anthracene 40
81 Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene 230
80 Fluorene 80
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 600
70 Diethyl phthalate ND
71 Dimethyl phthalate ND
Acid Extractables
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
64 Pentachlorophenol
65 Phenol
650
850
16,000
Separator 5
Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Bio-Pond
Influent
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
210
ND
ND
750
ND
G(12,000)
Final
Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
190
30
3
ND
ND
ND
Base-Neutral Extractables
Acid Extractables
24 2-Chlorophenol
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
58 4-Nitrophenol
59 2,4-Dinitrophenol
65 Phenol
Intake Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Refinery K
Separator Effluent
ND
315
1,150
5,800
11,000
105
.d
Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
53
-------
TABLE III-7(continued)
Intake
Water
Separator
Effluent
Refinery L
Separator 2^ Final
Effluent Effluent
Base-Neutral Extractables
1 Acenaphthene 29
39 Fluoranthene 0.2
55 Naphthalene 1
76 Chrysene ND
77 Acenaphthylene 0.2
80 Fluorene 1
81 Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene 1
84 Pyrene 0.3
ND
ND
500
20
ND
270
230
ND
3,000
9
280
2
ND
300
ND
7
D(LO.l)
0.1
0.3
ND
ND
1
D(LO.l)
Acid Extractables
34
65
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Phenol
ND
ND
G(100)
G(100)
G(100)
G(100)
ND
ND
Base-Neutral Extractables
Refinery M
Intake Water DAF Effluent Final Effluent
ND ND ND
Acid Extractables
22 Parachlorometa cresol
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
58 4-Nitrophenol
59 2,4-Dinitrophenol
65 Phenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
D(L 10)
ND
18,300
1,400
2,660
33,500
10
ND
ND
ND
D(L 10)
Refinery N
Intake
Water
Chem. Plant
Effluent
Separator'
Effluent
Final
Effluent
Base-Neutral Extractables
1 Acenaphthene ND
39 Fluoranthene ND
55 Naphthalene ND
76 Chrysene ND
77 Acenaphthylene ND
81 Phenanthrene/78 Anthracene ND
84 Pyrene ND
ND
ND
27
D(LO.l)
ND
1
1
522
8
302
6
87
140
16
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Acid Extractables
22 Parachlorometa cresol
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
65 Phenol
ND
ND
ND
10
G(100)
40
ND
71
G(100)
ND
ND
ND
Intake Water
Refinery O
DAF Effluent Final Effluent
Base-Neutral Extractables
1 Acenaphthene
39 Fluoranthene
54 Isophorone
55 Naphthalene
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
71 Dimethyl phthalate
7 6 Chrysene
77 Acenaphthylene
78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
81 Phenanthrene
84 Pyrene
Acid Extractables
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
65 Phenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
390
ND
2,500
3,750
ND
ND
ND
530
1,750
495
1,750
ND
2,000
1,900
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
54
-------
TABLE III-7(continued)
Base-Neutral Extractables
1 Acenaphthene
54 Isophorone
55 Naphthalene
77 Acenaphthylene
78 Anthracene
81 Phenanthrene
Acid Extractables
57 2-Nitrophenol
58 4-Nitrophenol
59 2,4-Dinitrophenol
60 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Base-Neutral Extractables
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
71 Dimethyl phthalate
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Intake Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D (L 10)
D (L 10)
ND
ND
Intake Water
1,100
20
20
10
Refinery P
Separator Effluent
315
3,550
3,200
665
660
660
1,350
20
110
60
Refinery Q-le
Separtor Effluent
320
ND
ND
60
Refinery Q-2
Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Final Effluent
2,000
ND
ND
ND
Final Effluent
Base-Neutral Extractables
70 Diethyl phthalate
Acid Extractables
1
ND
NOTES:
Semivolatile organic compounds 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 less 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,D,E,F,L,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 analyses for semivolatile organic compounds in samples
from Refineries B, H, K, M, O, P.
(e)
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson & Associates and Gulf South Research Institute conducted
the analyses for semivolatile organic compounds in samples from Refineries C,G,I,J,Q.
(f) Gulf South Research Institute conducted the analyses for semivolatile organic compounds
in additional samples from Refineries C,G,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 are not presented in this table.
(g) Both acidic and base-neutral extracts were 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.
55
-------
Compound
109 PCB-1239
94 4,4'-DDD
97 Endosulfan sulfate
100 Heptachlor
103 b-BHC-Beta
104 r-BHC-Gamma
106 PCB-1242
107 PCB-1254
108 PCB-1221
109 PCB-1232
110 PCB-1248
111 PCB-1260
112 PCB-1016
Pesticides
106 PCB-1242
108 PCB-1221
106 PCB-1242
91 Chlordane
103 b-BHC-Beta
108 PCB-1221
95 a-Endosulfan-Alpha
106 PCB-1242
109 PCB-1232
112 PCB-1016
89 Aldrin
93 4,4 -DDE
105 g-BHC-Delta
106 PCB-1242
107 PCB-1254
108 PCB-1221
109 PCB-1232
110 PCB-1248
111 PCB-1260
112 PCB-1016
TABLE III-8
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
FOR THE RSKERL AND B&R SAMPLING PROGRAM
PESTICIDES (CONCENTRATIONS, ug/1)
Refinery Aa
Intake Water Separator Effluent
ND 0.9
Refinery Bb
Intake Water DAF Effluent
ND D(L 5)
ND D(L 5)
ND D(L 5)
ND D(L 5)
ND D(L 5)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
Refinery Ca
Intake Separator Treated
Water Effluent Effluent
ND ND ND
Refinery Da
Intake Water Separator Effluent
ND 1.1
ND ND
Refinery Ea
Intake Water DAF Effluent
ND 0.2
Refinery Fa
Intake Water Cooling Tower Slowdown
2.8 ND
ND 0.7
ND 0.1
Refinery Ga
Intake Separator DAF
Water Effluent Effluent
ND ND 0.1
ND 0.5 0.5
ND ND 3.5
ND 1.8 7.9
Refinery IT
Intake Water Separator Effluent
ND D(L 5)
ND 7
ND D(L 5)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
ND D(L 10)
Final Effluent
ND
Final Effluent
ND
ND
D(L 5)
D(L 5)
ND
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
Final
Effluent
ND
Final Effluent
ND
D(L 5)
Final Effluent
ND
Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
Final
Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
56
-------
TABLE III-8(Continued)
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 PCB-1254
108 PCB-1221
109 PCB-1232
110 PCB-1248
111 PCB-1260
112 PCB-1016
106 PCB-1242
Intake Water
ND
Refinery I
Separator Effluent
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Refinery J
ND
.a
Intake
Water
ND
ND
ND
Separator 4
Effluent
ND
ND
ND
Separator 1
Effluent
Separator 2
Effluent
Final Effluent
ND
Separator 3
Effluent
ND 0.5
ND 0.5
ND 0.2
Refinery Ja (continued)
Separator 5
Effluent
ND
ND
ND
Bio-Pond
Influent
0.1
ND
ND
Refinery K
Intake Water Separator Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D(L 5)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
Refinery L
Intake
Water
0.2
Separator 1
Effluent
5.2
Separator 2
Effluent
ND
Refinery M
Intake Water DAF Effluent
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
Refinery N
101 Heptachlor epoxide
108 PCB-1221
109 PCB-1232
112 PCB-1016
102 a-BHC-Alpha
89 Aldrin
96 b-Endosulfan-Beta
100 Heptachlor
103 b-BHC-Beta
105 g-BHC-Delta
Intake
Water
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
Refinery 0
DAF Effluent
D(L 10)
Refinery Pb
Separator Effluent
12
13
D(L 5)
D(L 5)
12
ND
ND
ND
Final
Effluent
ND
ND
ND
Final Effluent
ND
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
Final
Effluent
ND
Final Effluent
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
D(L 10)
Final
Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
Final Effluent
ND
Final Effluent
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
57
-------
TABLE III-8(Continued)
Refinery Qa
Intake Water Separator Effluent Final Effluent
Pesticides ND ND ND
Notes: Pesticide compounds 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 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,K,M,O,P.
58
-------
TABLE III-9
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
FOR THE RSKERL AND BSR SAMPLING PROGRAM
CYANIDE, PHENOLICS, MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS, mg/1 )
Sample-Day
Refinery A
Intake-1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-3
Intake-composite
Intake-composite
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-composite
Separator effluent-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-*
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Final effluent-composite
Refinery B
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-composite
DAF effluent-1
DAF effluent-2
DAF effluent-3
DAF effluent-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Lab
Phenolics
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
L.01b
L.01
L.01
.05
.06
.04
L.03
L.03
L.03
L.02
L.02
L.02
.04
.05
.04
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.010
L.010
L.011
.,
L.52 •>
.14
.15
L.021
.010
L.011
L.010
L.005
L.005
32.
34.
22.
.064
.048
.045
.0001
.0001
.0001
L.0005
.0001
.0002
.0002
L.0005
.0008
.0002
.0002
.0002
L.0005
.0003
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
59
-------
TABLE III-9(Cont.)
Sample-Day
Refinery CC
Intake-1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-3
Intake-composite
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-composite
Treated effluent-1
Treated effluent-1
Treated effluent-1
Treated effluent-2
Treated effluent-2
Treated effluent-2
Treated effluent-3
Treated effluent-3
Treated effluent-3
Treated effluent-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Intake-4
Separator effluent-4
Treated effluent-4
Final effluent-4
Refinery D
Intake-1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Lab
Phenolics
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
L.01
L.01
1.1
.12
.07
.07
.12
.17
.08
.03
.05
.04
.06
L.02
L.02
.05
.07
L.02
L.02
.0014
.004 .0010
.0016
. 006 . 0060
.0013
.004 .0010
.0013
.0011
12. L.0010
.0012
3.2 .0060
.0015
1.6 .0020
1.4 .0050
.0780
.0012
.0008
L.001 .0020
.0006
.0010
.011 .0050
.016
.0010
L.001 .0090
.0060
.0012
.0011
.002 .0010
.0014
.006 .0010
.0013
. 002 . 0060
.0013
L.0001
L.0004
L.0002
.0005
.0001
.0002
60
-------
TABLE III-9(Cont.)
Sample-Day
Refinery D (Cont.)
Intake-3
Intake-3
Intake-composite
In take-composite
DftF effluent-1
DAF effluent-1
DAT effluent-2
DAF effluent-2
DAF effluent-3
DAF effluent-3
DAF effluent-composite
DAF effluent-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Final effluent-composite
Refinery E
Intake-1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-3
Intake-composite
Intake-composite
DAF effluent-1
DAF effluent-1
DAF effluent-2
DAF effluent-2
DAF effluent-3
DAF effluent-3
DAF effluent-composite
DAF effluent-composite
Final efflnent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Final effluent-composite
Lab
.05
.06
.04
.03
.03
L.02
Phenolics
0.23
3.7
5.1
8.0
.0001
L.0005
.0002
.0002
.0001
.0002
L.0005
L.0001
.0002
.0002
.0002
L.0005
.0002
.03
L.03
L.03
L.03
L.03
L.03
L.03
L.03
L.03
L.011
.015
L.010
6.3
9.9
11.0
.013
.011
L.010
L.0001
L.0001
L.0001
L.0005
L.0001
L.0001
L.0001
L.0001
L.0005
L.0001
.0001
L.0001
.0001
L.0005
.0001
61
-------
TABLE III-9(Cont.)
Sample-Day
Refinery F
Intake-1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Intake-3
In take-3
Intake-composite
Intake-composite
Cooling tower blowdown-1
Cooling tower blowdown-1
Cooling tower blowdown-2
Cooling tower blowdown-2
Cooling tower blowdown-3
Cooling tower blowdown-3
Cooling tower blowdown-composite
Cooling tower blowdown-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Final effluent-composite
Refinery G
Intake-1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-3
Intake-composite
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-composite
DAF effluent-1
DAF effluent-1
DAF effluent-2
DAF effluent-2
Phenolics
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
L.03
L.03
L.03
.52
.83
.83
.06
.07
.08
L.01
L.01
L.01
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.9
2.0
.21
.21
.21
.037
.041
.057
.022
.024
.026
.010
L.001
.008
23.
24.
25.
23.
22.
26.
.0002
.0007
.0009
L.0005
.0006
.0004
.0005
.0007
L.0005
.0005
.0003
.0003
.0003
L.0005
.0004
.0013
.0005
.0021
.0004
.0023
L.0005
.0008
.0017
L.0002
.0009
L.0002
.0018
.0002
.0003
.0011
L.0002
.0011
.0005
62
-------
TABLE III-9(Cont.)
Sample-Day
Refinery G (Cont.)
DAF effluent-3
OAF effluent-3
DAF effluent-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Intake-4
Separator effluent-4
DAF effluent-4
Final effluent-4
Refinery H
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-composite
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Refinery I
Intake-1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-3
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-1
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-2
Separator effluent-3
Separator effluent-3
Phenolics
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
3.0
.09
.07
.09
.30
L.02
.60
.13
.17
L.02
L.02
L.02
.16
.07
.08
.02
.01
.02
L.005
L.005
L.005
.010
.015
L.005
22.
.047
.020
.032
.011
L.005
L.005
2.3
2.2
1.9
L.010
.010
.012
L.001
L.001
.004
6.0
5.6
4.4
5.0
.0010
.0010
.0003
.0008
.0010
.0007
.0018
L.0002
.0008
.0005
.0004
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
.0013
.0007
.0011
.0005
.0014
.0007
.0012
L.0002
L.0002
.0028
.0008
.0011
.0008
63
-------
TABLE III-9(Cont.)
Sample-Day
Lab
Phenolics
Refinery I (Cont. )
Separator effluent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Refinery J
Intake-1
Intake- 1
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
In take- 3
Intake- 3
Intake-3
Intake- 3
Intake-composite
Separator-1 effluent-1
Separator-1 effluent-1
Separator-1 effluent-2
Separator-1 effluent-2
Separator-1 effluent-2
Separator-1 effluent-3
Separator-1 effluent-3
Separator-1 effluent-composite
Separator-2 effluent-1
Separator-2 effluent-1
Separator-2 effluent-1
Separator-2 effluent-2
Separator-2 effluent-2
Separator-2 effluent-3
Separator-2 effluent-3
Separator-2 effluent-composite
Separator-3 effluent-1
Separator-3 effluent-1
Separator-3 effluent-1
Separator-3 effluent-2
Separator-3 effluent-2
Separator-3 effluent-3
Separator-3 effluent-3
Separator-3 effluent-composite
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
L.005
L.005
L.005
L.005
L.005
.01
.01
L.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
5.2
.018
.014
.012
.017
.024
.002
1.0
1.0
.2
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
.690
.5
1.3
.270
.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
64
-------
TABLE III-9(Cont.)
Sample-Day Lab
Refinery J (Cont.)
Separator-4 effluent-1
Separator-4 effluent-1
3eparator-4 effluent-2
Separator-4 effluent-2
Separator-4 effluent-2
Separator-4 effluent-3
Separator-4 effluent-3
Separator-4 effluent-3
Separator-4 effluent-composite
Separator-5 effluent-1
Separator-S effluent-1
Separator-5 effluent-2
Separator-5 effluent-2
Separator-5 effluent-3
Separator-5 effluent-3
Separator-5 effluent-composite
Bio-pond influent-1
Bio-pond influend-2
Bio-pond influent-3
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Refinery K
Intake-1 2
Intake-2 2
Intake-3 2
Intake-composite 2
DAF effluent-1 2
DAF effluent-2 2
DAF effluent-3 2
OAF effluent-composite 2
Final effluent-1 2
Final effluent-2 2
Final effluent-3 2
Final effluent-composite 2
Phenolics
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
.06
.05
.06
.02
.02
.02
.22
.34
.26
.07
.08
.08
.08
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.0001
.0011
.0002
.0016
.0020
.0005
.0020
.0060
.0030
.0008
L.0001
.0013
.0060
.0009
.0040
.0005
L.02
L.02
L.010
.7
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
65
-------
TABLE IH-9(Cont.)
Sample-Day
Lab
Phenolics
Refinery L
Intake-L
IntaJce-1
Intake-2
Intake-2
Intake- 3
Intake- 3
Intake-composite
Intake-composite
Separator-1 effluent-1
Separator-1 effluent-1
Separator-1 effluent-2
Separator-1 effluent-2
Separator-1 effluent-3
Separator-1 effluent-3
Separator-1 effluent-composite
Separator-1 effluent-composite
Separator-2 effluent-1
Separator-2 effluent-1
Separator-2 effluent-2
Separator-2 effluent-2
Separator-2 effluent-3
Separator-2 effluent-3
Separator-2 effluent-composite
Separator-2 effluent-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
Final effluent-composite
Refinery M
Intake-1
Intake-2
Intake-3
Intake-composite
DAF effluent-1
DAF effluent-2
DAF effluent-3
DAF effluent-composite
Final effluent-1
Final effluent-2
Final effluent-3
Final effluent-composite
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
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
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.
L2.6
L.010
.010
L.010
L.0001
.0002
.0002
.0002
.0014
.0014
.0008
.0015
.0006
.0004
.0004
.0005
.0003
.0003
.0003
.0003
L.02
L.02
L.02
.01
.02
.03
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.010
L.010
L.010
4.7
4.2
4.3
L.010
L.010
L.010
66
-------
TABLE III-9(Cont.)
Sample-Day Lab
Refinery N
Intake-1 2
Intake-1 1
Intake-2 2
Intake-2 1
Intake-3 2
Intake-3 1
Intake-composite 2
Intake-composite 1
Separator effluent-1 2
Separator effluent-1 1
Separator effluent-2 2
Separator effluent-2 1
Separator effluent-3 2
Separator effluent-3 1
Separator effluent-composite 2
Separator effluent-composite 1
Chem plant effluent-1 2
Chem plant effluent-1 1
Chem plant effluent-2 2
Chem plant effluent-2 1
Chem plant effluent-3 2
Chem plant effluent-3 1
Chem plant effluent-composite 2
Chem plant effluent-composite 1
Final effluent-1 2
Final effluent-1 1
Final effluent-2 2
Final effluent-2 1
Final effluent-3 2
Final effluent-3 1
Final effluent-composite 2
Final effluent-composite 1
Refinery 0
Intake-1 2
Intake-2 2
Intake-3 2
Intake-composite 2
DAP effluent-1 2
DAF effluent-2 2
DAF effluent-3 2
DAF effluent-composite 2
Final effluent-1 2
Final effluent-2 2
Final effluent-3 2
Final effluent-composite 2
Phenolics
L.06
L.03
L.06
L.06
.04
L.06
L.06
L.03
L.06
L.06
L.03
L.06
L.010
L.011
L.010
6.2
6.5
4.7
L.260
.073
.074
L.015
L.011
.0002
.0001
.0002
L.0005
.0002
.0004
.0006
.0004
L.OOOS
.0005
L.0001
.0004
.0002
L.OOOS
.0002
.0004
.0002
.0001
L.OOOS
.0001
L.02
L.02
L.02
.21
.16
.13
L.03
L.03
L.03
L.010
L.005
L.005
11.
10.
11.
.052
.049
.036
L.OOOS
L.OOOS
L.OOOS
67
-------
TABLE III-9 (Cent.)
Sample-Day Lab Cyanide Phenolics Mercury
Refinery P
Intake-1 2 L..03 L.010
Intake-2 2 L.02 L.005
Intake-3 2 L.02 L.OOS
Intake-composite 2 L.0005
Separator effluent-1 2 .09 106.
Separator effluent-2 2 .06
Separator effluent-3 2 .04 29.
Separator effluent-composite 2 L.0005
Final effluent-1 2 L.03 .012
Final effluent-2 2 L.03 .011
Final effluent-3 2 L.03 .010
Final effluent-composite 2 L.OOOS
Refinery p_
Intake-1 1 .0021
Intake-1 3 L.01 L.001
Intake-2 1 .0012
Intake-2 3 .02 .004 .0010
Intake-3 1 .OO34
Intake-3 3 L.01 .010 .0060
Separator effluent-1 1 .0002
Separator effluent-1 3 L.01 .102 .0060
Separator effluent-1 3 .113
Separator effluent-2 1 .0003
Separator effluent-2 3 L.01 .116 L.0002
Separator effluent-3 1 .0003
Separator effluent-3 3 .03 .118 L.0002
Final effluent-1 1 .0003
Final effluent-1 3 L.01 .016 .0060
Final effluent-1 3 L.01 .0120
Final effluent-1 3 .0002
Final effluent-2 1 .0003
Final effluent-2 3 .32 .018 .0020
Final effluent-2 3 .32 .018 L.0002
Final effluent-3 1 .OOO8
Final effluent-3 3 .01 .014 L.0002
Intake-4 3 L.02 L.0001
Separator effluent-4 3 L.02 L.0002
Final effluent-4 3 L.02 L.0001
Notes: (a) If a value is not listed for a 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: 1 - EPA Region V Laboratory.
2 - Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA.
3 - Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates
68
-------
TABLE 111-10
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR THE
FOR PRIORITX POLLUTANTS
RSKERL AND BSR SAMPLING PROGRAM
METALS (CONCENTRATIONS. UO/1)
Sample-Day3
Refinery A
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-Composite
I-Composite
SE-1
SE-2
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery B
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
DAF E-l
DAF E-2
DAF E-3
DAF E-C
DAF E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery C-l
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-1
SE-1
SE-2
SE-2
SE-3
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
TE-1
TE-1
TE-2
TE-2
TE-3
TE-3
TE-C
TE-C
FE-1
FE-1
FE-2
FE-2
FE-3
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery C-23
I
SE
TE
FE
Concentration (uq/1)
Lab
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
L2S
L2S
L25
L25
LS
L25
L25
L25
L25
LS
L25
L25
L25
L2S
L5
LI
LI
2
2
L5
LI
LI
LI
LI
LS
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
L25
L25
L25
L2S
LI
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
Be
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
Cd
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L2
L2
7
L2
LI
L2
L2
3
L2
LI
a
L2
L2
L2
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
13
L20
9
L20
IS
L20
16
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
Cr
L24
L24
L24
L24
L5
L24
L24
1220
30
32
L24
L24
L24
L24
5
30
30
50
60
LS
50
50
60
60
LS
70
70
40
50
LS
L24
L24
L24
L24
2
575
770
518
820
669
940
574
880
133
940
128
470
770
1100
342
490
112
118
142
120
3
Cu
L4
L4
L4
L4
L5
26
23
39
23
17
L4
L4
6
5
LS
30
20
40
30
LS
L6
9
10
10
7
L6
L6
L6
L6
L5
12
9
11
21
2
231
151
140
182
190
27
100
26
190
51
260
59
230
19
50
24
27
10
Mi
L50
L50
LSO
L50
L15
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
23
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
L15
6
6
20
20
L15
L5
L5
LS
LS
L15
L5
LS
LS
LS
L15
LSO
L2
LSO
L2
LSO
L2
LSO
1
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
LI
LSO
9
LSO
6
LSO
44
LSO
18
LSO
7
LSO
7
LSO
7
LSO
15
Pb
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
147
109
224
114
64
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
60
60
50
70
L15
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L60
LI
L60
LI
L60
LI
119
1
71
L60
64
227
12
L60
66
L60
331
17
L60
26
113
58
L60
26
112
50
Zn
31
45
68
43
L10
253
239
329
272
220
64
65
77
51
30
L60
L60
100
100
15
L60
L60
L60
L60
30
L60
L60
LSO
L60
25
79
44
109
1450
20
607
630
517
670
614
550
3420
690
527
930
489
440
881
930
4780
780
478
590
565
620
526
590
1080
700
LI
679
519
543
As Sb Se
L10 L25 L10
12 L25 LlO
L10 L25 LlO
L20 L25 L20
L20 L25 L20
L20 L25 L20
4
13
4
415
11
8
9
8 LI 15
10
L6
8
6 1 15
13
10
19
5 3 19
Tl
L25
L15
L15
L15
L15
L15
LI
3
LI
L2
LI
LI
LI
LI
LI
LI
3
7
LI
L2
LI
LI
LI
LI
69
-------
TABLE 111-10 (Cont.)
Concentration (ug/I)
Sample-Day
Refinery D
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
DAF E-l
DAF E-2
DAF E-3
DAF E-C
DAF E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery E
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
DAF E-l
DAF E-2
DAF E-3
DAF E-C
DAF E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery F
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
CT B-l
CT B-2
CT B-3
CT B-C
CT B-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery G-l
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-1
SE-1
SE-2
SE-2
SE-3
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
DAF E-l
DAF E-l
DAF E-2
DAF E-2
DAF E-3
DAF E-3
DAF E-C
DAF E-C
FE-1
FE-1
FE-2
FE-2
FE-3
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
A
Lab
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
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
Agi
L250
L2SO
L250
L250
L5
L250
L25
L25
L25
L5
L25
L25
L25
L25
15
L25
L25
L25
L25
L5
L25
L25
L25
L25
L5
L25
L25
L25
L25
L5
L250
L250
L250
L250
L5
L250
L250
L25
L25
L5
L25
L2S
L25
L25
L5
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
Be
L20
L20
L20
L20
L3
L20
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L20
L20
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
L2
Cd
L200
L200
L200
L200
LI
L200
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
2
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L200
L200
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
24
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
Cr
L240
L240
L240
L240
L14
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
L240
L240
72
58
60
50
60
79
57
44
73
31
29
45
7
L24
L24
L24
L24
1
615
820
676
790
73
1200
606
1000
526
710
414
680
73
930
425
800
89
86
73
L24
1
Cu
L40
L40
L40
L40
L5
L40
15
6
7
L5
L4
L4
L4
L4
L5
5
8
15
10
8
L4
L4
L4
L4
L5
L4
L4
L4
L4
L5
50
190
184
151
210
278
350
510
405
50C
195
86
84
125
125
L4
L4
L4
L4
7
6
53
L4
8
7
L4
L4
L4
8
3
L4
L4
L4
L4
7
Ni
L500
L500
L500
L500
L15
L500
L50
L50
L50
L15
L50
L50
L50
L50
L15
L50
L50
L50
L50
51
L50
L50
L50
L50
28
L50
L50
L50
L50
19
L500
L500
57
62
58
64
101
134
88
77
68
74
71
64
58
L50
52
L50
L50
LI
L50
85
L50
93
LI
L50
L50
L50
104
1
57
63
L50
L50
11
Pb
L600
L600
L600
L600
L15
L600
L60
L60
L60
L15
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
L60
L60
L60
L60
23
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
L600
L600
L60
L60
L15
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
78
102
L60
L60
2
181
420
308
160
L60
430
181
278
159
270
115
320
L60
360
144
260
107
90
L60
L60
2
Zn As
1,250
L250
L250
L250
33 L10
410
242
181
262
280 L10
515
480
338
430
400 L10
141
102
130
127
110 L10
61
47
54
74
50 L10
49
77
59
44
30 L10
L250
L250
127
133
120 27
229
342
452
342
330 41
125
151
112
132
100 31
52
LI
72
LI
2f
LI
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 Se Tl
L25 L10 L15
L25 L10 L15
L25 L10 L15
L25 L10 L15
L25 HO L15
L25 12 L15
1.25 12 L15
L25 L10 L15
L25 L10 L15
LI
LI
LI
LI 3 L2
9 LI
10 LI
6 LI
LI 6 L2
5 LI
13 LI
7 LI
1 9 L2
32 6
9 12
7 5
LI 3 L2
70
-------
TABLE 111-10 (Cont.)
Concentration (ug/1)
Sample-Day1
Refinery G-T
I
SE
OAF E
FE
Refinery H
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-1
SE-2
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery I
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-1
SE-1
SE-2
SE-2
SE-3
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
FE-1
FE-1
FE-2
FE-2
FE-3
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery J
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
I-C
I-C
SI E-l
SI E-l
31 E-2
SI E-2
SI E-3
SI E-3
SI E-C
SI E-C
S2 E-l
S2 E-l
32 E-2
S2 E-2
S2 E-3
S2 E-3
S2 E-C
32 E-C
S3 E-l
S3 E-l
S3 E-2
S3 E-2
S3 E-3
S3 E-3
Lab
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
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
*a
Ll
LI
Ll
Ll
L5
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
L5
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
L5
L25
L25
L25
L25
Ll
L25
L25
L25
L25
Ll
L25
L25
L25
Ll
L25
L25
L25
L25
Ll
L25
L25
L25
L25
Ll
L2S
L25
L25
L25
Ll
L25
L25
L2S
Be
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
L3
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
L3
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
Ll
L2
L2
L2
L2
Ll
L2
L2
L2
Ll
L2
L2
L2
L2
Ll
L2
L2
L2
L2
Ll
L2
L2
L2
L2
Ll
L2
L2
L2
Cd
L2
L2
8
L2
Ll
L2
L2
L2
L2
Ll
L2
L2
20
L2
Ll
L20
L20
L20
L20
Ll
L20
L20
L20
L20
Ll
L20
L20
L20
Ll
L20
L20
L20
L20
Ll
L20
L20
L20
L20
Ll
L20
L20
L20
L20
Ll
L20
L20
L20
Cr
20
10
20
10
L5
10
7
20
10
L5
20
10
10
10
LS
L24
L24
L24
L24
1
98
91
102
98
3
L24
L24
L24
1
L24
L24
L24
L24
1
36
620
100
50
16
52
76
440
450
1050
1100
411
390
584
780
547
830
1010
1200
350
660
Cu
L6
9
10
7
L5
30
20
30
30
7
10
10
9
7
L5
L4
6
20
16
10
157
167
146
157
6
85
22
71
3
5
10
L4
4
1
L4
1370
33
25
2
L4
231
L4
55
7
14
16
16
Ni
L5
L5
L5
LS
L15
L5
L5
L5
L5
L15
L5
L5
L5
LS
L15
L50
L50
L50
L50
Ll
L50
7
L50
L2
L50
L2
L50
5
L50
L50
L50
Ll
L50
L50
L50
L50
1
L50
771
L50
L50
Ll
L50
69
L50
61
Ll
118
L50
L50
Pb
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
80
30
L20
30
L15
L60
L60
79
78
2
L60
L60
90
168
2
L60
L60
211
2
L60
L60
L60
L60
2
L60
958
L60
L60
4
190
190
2080
2000
876
380
810
870
123
L60
L60
Zn As Sb
L60
L60
L60
L60
15 L20 L25
L60
L60
70
L60
30 L20 L25
L60
60
L60
L60
25 L20 L25
69
52
S36
536
25 L4 Ll
172
110
237
100
1070
100
1120
100 5 Ll
69
69
2000
60 L4 Ll
72
54
62
62
54 3 Ll
150
120
499
250
432
420
257
320 3 Ll
316
290
1400
2100
790
680
658
740 5 Ll
194
150
245
210
280
280
Se
L20
L20
20
2
L4
L4
7
4
25
23
16
3
7
16
L4
5
16
12
14
8
17
13
31
Tl
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
L15
L15
L15
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
L2
Ll
Ll
L2
Ll
Ll
Ll
L2
Ll
Ll
Ll
L2
3
Ll
Ll
3
Ll
Ll
Ll
71
-------
TABLE in-io (cont.)
Sample-Day a Lab
Refinery J
S3 E-C
S3 E-C
S4 E-l
S4 E-l
S4 E-2
S4 E-2
S4 E-3
S4 E-3
S4 E-C
S4 E-C
S5 E-l
S5 E-l
S5 E-2
S5 E-2
S5 E-3
S5 E-3
S5 E-C
SS E-C
B-P 1-1
B-P 1-1
B-P 1-2
B-P 1-2
B-P 1-3
B-P 1-3
B-P I-C
B-P I-C
FE-1
FE-1
PE-2
FE-2
FE-3
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery K
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
DAF E-l
DAF E-2
DAF E-3
DAF E-C
DAF E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery L
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
SI E-l
SI E-2
SI E-3
SI E-C
SI E-C
S2 E-l
S2 E-2
S2 E-3
S2 E-C
S2 E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
(Cont. )
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
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
Concentration (ug/1)
*3L
L25
1
L25
L25
L25
L25
2
31
L25
L25
L25
LI
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
L25
L25
L25
L25
LI
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
LI
LI
LI
LI
LS
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
L2SO
L2SO
L25
L250
L5
L250
L250
L250
L250
LS
L25
L25
L25
L25
L5
L25
L25
L2S
L2S
LS
Be
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
1.3
L20
L20
L2
L20
L3
L20
L20
L20
L20
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
Cd
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
4
L20
5
L20
9
L20
7
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L2
L2
3
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
3
L2
L2
L2
L2
1
L200
L200
L20
L200
LI
L200
L200
L200
L200
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
Cr
626
570
835
1500
1210
1300
1860
1700
1300
1900
1580
2200
2790
4900
1500
1800
2010
3600
L24
9
L25
5
L24
6
29
22
96
150
94
27
102
27
82
54
20
10
10
20
5
1000
2000
1000
1000
1600
100
60
100
100
73
L240
L240
L24
L240
30
1000
L240
L240
L240
290
773
831
928
802
870
205
119
165
144
190
Cu
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
L40
20
170
L40
100
100
180
43
54
31
42
50
24
19
31
24
39
Ni
63
LI
L50
L50
L50
L50
LI
189
L50
L50
79
1
L50
L50
L50
L50
LI
53
L50
7
65
6
L50
3
LS
LS
LS
LS
L15
9
20
L5
20
28
L5
L5
L5
L5
L15
L500
L500
L50
LSOO
21
LSOO
LSOO
LSOO
LSOO
70
L50
L50
LSO
LSO
16
LSO
LSO
LSO
LSO
15
Pb
71
2
80
L60
L60
69
12
164
L60
L60
101
2
72
L60
L60
L60
3
82
L60
L60
L60
9
70
40
80
40
L15
50
200
60
100
70
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L600
700
64
L600
40
L600
L600
L600
L600
45
L60
L60
L60
L60
17
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
Zn As
215
260 3
411
340
261
290
579
620
304
560 3
464
600
609
740
417
520
491
760 9
148
54
65
55
L2
130
51
46
62
62 L4
200
70
60
70
45 L20
1000
3000
1000
2000
1400 L20
100
70
100
1000
120 L20
810
L2SO
12S
L250
120 L20
490
290
290
360
370 L20
382
304
314
325
290 L20
174
157
161
174
140 L20
Sb Se Tl
LI 6 L2
25 LI
24 LI
4 LI
1 11 L2
7 LI
29 4
19 6
LI 23 L2
20 LI
10 LI
18 LI
LI 22 L2
20 LI
27 LI
16 LI
Lll 12 L2
L25 L20 L1S
L25 L20 L15
L2S L20 L1S
L25 L20 L15
L25 L20 L15
L25 L20 L15
L2S L20 L15
72
-------
TABLE 111-10 (Cont.)
Sample-Day a
Refinery M
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
DAF E-l
DAF E-2
DAF E-3
DAF E-C
DAF E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery N
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-1
SE-2
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
CPE-1
CPE-2
CPE-3
CPE-C
CPE-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery O
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
DAP E-l
DAF E-2
DAF E-3
DAF E-C
DAF E-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Refinery P
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-C
I-C
SE-1
SE-2
SE-3
SE-C
SE-C
FE-1
FE-2
FE-3
FE-C
FE-C
Concentration (ug/1)
Lab
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
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
A£
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
LI
LI
4
4
L5
L25
L25
L250
L25
L5
L250
L250
L25
L25
•L5
L25
L25
L25
L25
L5
L25
L25
L25
L25
L5
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
LI
LI
LI
LI
LS
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
LI
LI
LI
LI
L5
Be
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
2
2
2
2
L3
2
2
LI
LI
L3
L2
L2
L20
L2
L3
L20
L20
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L2
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
LI
LI
LI
L3
Cd
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
3
L2
L2
L2
LI
L20
L20
L200
L20
LI
L200
L200
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L20
L20
L20
L20
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
L2
L2
L2
L2
LI
Cr
30
10
20
20
L5
200
100
90
100
73
90
100
90
100
24
L24
L24
3000
L24
7
1000
2000
980
1280
1400
805
679
499
701
650
L24
159
131
137
120
L5
L5
L5
L5
8
200
300
300
200
240
50
50
50
50
110
L5
L5
L5
L5
40
900
50
700
600
72
L5
L5
L5
LS
40
Cu
300
100
100
200
180
10
10
9
10
6
10
10
20
20
8
L4
L4
L40
L4
L5
L40
L40
7
14
61
L4
8
7
L4
13
L4
L4
L4
L4
11
L6
L6
L6
L6
L5
30
10
8
20
30
L6
L6
L6
L6
L5
L6
L6
L6
L6
LS
L6
L6
L6
L6
LS
L6
L6
L6
L6
LS
Ni
10
LS
L5
L5
L15
LS
LS
L5
L5
LI 5
L5
L5
10
20
L15
L50
L50
790
L50
L15
L500
L500
L50
L50
16
L50
L50
L50
L50
L15
L50
L50
L50
L50
L15
L5
L5
L5
LS
L15
L5
L5
L5
L5
L15
LS
LS
L5
LS
L15
LS
L5
LS
LS
L15
LS
L5
L5
L5
L15
L5
LS
LS
LS
L15
Pb
200
L20
40
60
25
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L20
50
L20
30
L15
L60
L60
L600
L60
L15
L600
L600
L60
L60
18
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
L60
L60
L60
L60
L15
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L20
L20
L20
L20
27
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
L20
L20
L20
L20
L15
Zn
200
90
100
100
75
200
100
90
100
140
90
100
100
200
90
56
29
L250
36
19
480
760
573
603
570
6520
4110
4260
5210
4800
L25
118
61
104
35
L60
L60
L60
L60
L10
L60
L60
100
60
74
L60
L60
L60
L60
L10
L60
L60
L60
L60
61
L60
L60
L60
L60
55
L60
L60
L60
L60
43
As Sb Se Tl
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L2S L20 L15
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L2S L20 L15
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L2S L20 L15
L20 L25 L20 L1S
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 360 L20 L15
L20 370 L20 L15
73
-------
TABLE 111-10 (Cont.)
Concentration (ug/1)
Sample-Day Lab Ag Be Cd Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn As Sb Se Tl
Refinery Q-l
1-1 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 37 L50 L60 70
1-1 3 L6 LI
1-2 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 37 LSO L60 62
1-2 3 6 LI
1-3 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 20 LSO L60 329
1-3 3 10 LI
I-C 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 53 LSO 167 2820
I-C 3 LI LI LI 1 120 LI 2 35 7 LI 6 L2
SE-1 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 7 LSO L60 274
SE-1 3 60 330 480 9 LI
SE-2 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 L4 LSO L60 444
SE-2 3 140 470 460 7 LI
SE-3 1 L25 L7 L20 L24 6 LSO L60 511
SE-3 3 60 640 460 6 LI
SE-C 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 15 LSO 101 1460
SE-C 3 LI LI LI I 210 LI 10 470 440 LI 10 L2
FE-1 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 11 LSO L60 245
FE-1 3 380 790 11 LI
FE-2 1 1,25 L2 L20 L24 20 LSO L60 329
FE-2 3 LI 360 900 10 LI
FE-3 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 6 LSO L60 300
FE-3 3 LI 350 680 22 LI
FE-C 1 L25 L2 L20 L24 23 LSO 102 1270
FE-C 3 LI LI 5 2 180 LI 15 340 800 1 20 L2
Refinery Q~2
IE 3 240 LI 35
SE 3 380 262 350
FE 3 300 167 500
Notes: a) If a value is not listed for a particular sample location and time, then the indicated laboratory
did not test that sample for the specified pollutant.
b) These data represent results from one-time grab samples collected during revisits to Refineries
C, G, Q.
L - Less than
I - Intake
SE - Separator effluent
DM1 E - DAF effluent
TE - Treated effluent
FE - Final effluent
CT B - Cooling Tower blowdown
B-P I - Bio-pond influent
CPE - Chemical plant effluent
Labs= 1 - EPA Region V Laboratory
2 - Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA
3 - Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates
74
-------
TABLE IIJ-ll
Ul
Analytical Results
Sampling
Location
1. Refinery No. 25
Effluent
2. POTW 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
mg/1
19
45
25
316
290
524
1
2
2
21,200
39,160
12,450
1,948
3,536
3,000
for Traditional Parameters in the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 1
Sulfide
mg/1 S
<0.1
^0.1
<0.1
0.25
0.20
0.40
<0.1
4,930
8,920
1,230
745
1,460
5,680
COD
mg/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
mg/1
123
88
99
1.7
it
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
^0.02
<0.02
^0.02
<0.02
•CO. 02
•^0.02
«£ 0.02
•f- 0.02
NH3-N
mg/1 N
39.1
36.1
36.4
22.6
26.3
23.2
8.8
12.0
9.7
74.2
51.7
31.8
10.4
10.7
6.1
NOTE: Day 1 - 8/16/78; Day 2 - 8/17/78; Day 3 - 8/18/78
* in trace, but below detection limit
All samples were analyzed by the Water Quality Labs associated with POTM No. 1.
-------
TABLE II1-12
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING
PM6EAM-WEEK 1. VOLATILE OftfiANIC CflNCENTRAtlONS. uq/1
Pollutant
Pol
No.
Benzene 4
Chlorobenzene 7
1,1, 1-trichloro-n
ethane
1,1-dichloro- 13
ethane
Chloroform 23
1,2-trans- 30
dichloroethylene
Ethyl benzene
Methylene
chloride
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Toluene
Trichloro-
ethylene
38
44
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
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Ref.No. *
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
_
-
-
POTWX PrimaryX
Inf. Eff.
23
81
*
5
22
*
10
#
*
25
20
*
*
*
*
88
117
19
84
103
24
38
57
27
17
64
14
16
10
*
*
*
38
25
*
*
*
*
43
160
24
67
110
31
21
78
36
v y XX
Secondary Final Primary
Eff. Eff. Sludge
*
-
*
-
-
*
*
*
*
16
*
,
-
-
*
*
*
15
it
*
-
-
*
-
*
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.
Sample blank. Ho volatile organics detected in
other sample blanks.
x Analysis performed by West Coast Technical Service.
xx Analysis performed by Pomeroy, Johnston and Bailey.
Of the 30 volatile organics, only 11 were detected.
76
-------
TABLE 111-13
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
PROGRAM-WEEK 1 ,
Poll **
Pollutants .No.
2, 4 -Dimethyl- 34 AE
phenol
Pentachloro- 64 AE
phenol
Phenol 65 AE
1,2 dichloro- 25 BNE
benzene
1,3 dichloro- 26 BNE
benzene
1,4 dichloro- 27 BNE
benzene
Isophorene 54 BNE
Naphthalene 55 BNE
Nitrobenzene 56 BNE
Bis(2-ethyl- 66 BNE
hexyl)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
2
3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR
THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING
SEHIVOLATILE ORSANICS (CONCENTRATIONS, ug/1)
Ref.No.
25
Ef f . to
POTW
1,700
-
233
_
-
830
2,900
-
-
.
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
620
-
370
.
-
-
_
-
-
16
-
-
X
POTWX
Inf.
69
-
25
_
-
-
575
700
980
4
4
15
*
19
10
28
29
24
_
-
-
113
121
20
.
-
-
124
112
130
55
63
39
Primaryx
Eff.
72
-
34
_
-
-
520
700
1,100
„
17
11
_
17
11
23
30
30
_
23
-
93
156
35
,
-
-
94
56
150
59
43
68
Secondaryx
Eff.
*
*
-
_
*
-
*
*
*
*
*
*
_
*
*
*
*
10
_
-
-
*
*
-
.
-
-
*
*
-
_
-
*
Final*
Eff.
*
-
-
*
*
-
*
*
*
*
-
it
*
-
*
it
-
*
_
-
*
*
-
*
_
-
-
_
*
-
_
-
*
XX
Primary
Sludge
.
.
-
_
.
-
_
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
.
-
-
77
-------
TABLE 111-13 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING
PROGRAM-WEEK 1. SEHJVOLATILE ORGANICS (CONCENTRATIONS, ug/1)
Ref.No.x
25 xx x x xx xx
Pollutants
Di-n-butyl
Phthalate
Di-n-oc'tyl
Phthalate
Die thy!
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fl uorene
Phenanthrene*
Pyrene
Poll
No.
68
69
70
71
77
78
30
81
84
**
Day
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
BNE 1
2
3
Eff. to
POTW
40
*
-
-
-
_
14
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
60
51
30
_
63
32
60
51
30
_
21
-
POTW
Inf.
24
28
34
12
-
_
13
*
_
-
-
_
-
-
*
*
*
_
*
*
*
it
*
_
-
-
Primary Secondary Final
Eff. Eff. Eff.
19 * *
21 *
17 * *
* -
*
-
27 - *
17 *
* 15 *
* _ *
*
* *
_
-
*
*
*
* _ *
*
*
-
* ~ _
*
* _ *
_
-
-
Primary Secondary
Sludge Sludge
-
-
-
-
190 5
-
11
9
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
.
_
-
.
_
-
-
-
-
Of 59 semi-volatile organics, only 20 were detected.
* in traces, but below Detection Limit.
** AE - Acid extractable; BNE - 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.
78
-------
TABLE III-U
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATHENT
SAMPLING PROGRAM-WEEK 1, PESTICIDES(CONCENTRATIONS, ug/1)
Pollutant
4,4'-OOE
Heptachlor
b-BHC-Beta
r-BHC-Gamma
Refinery"
Poll. N°. 25 poTOx
No- Day Eff-to inf.
93 1
2
3 - 0.68
100 1
2
3 - 0.12
103 1 0.18
2
3 0.10 0.55
104 1
2
3 - 0.14
Primary*
Eff.
_
-
0.39
_
-
0.13
_
-
0.49
.
6.3
0.13
Secondaryx Finalx Primary* Secondary*
Eff. Eff. Sludge Sludge
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
.
-
-
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.
79
-------
Table 111-15
Analytical Results
for Priority
Pollutants for
the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 1,
Metals (Concentrations, ug/1)
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Poll. No.
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
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
1
2
3
Influent
X
_
-
-
27
-
26
-
-
-
61
29
42
335
357
241
263
248
202
251
218
324
_
1.50
0.41
204
123
92
31
38
32
_
11
11
_
-
-
336
911
857
POTW No.
Primary
Effluent
X
_
-
-
_
28
-
-
-
-
37
20
20
197
188
140
161
132
106
148
105
141
_
-
0.44
190
89
73
30
41
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
492
462
449
1
Secondary
Effluent
X
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
39
33
31
56
16
16
37
-
39
1.48
0.41
0.38
90
89
68
_
-
30
_
-
-
-
-
-
122
93
143
Final
Effluent
X
„.
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
18
16
15
34
-
32
29
-
38
0.52
1.06
0.51
81
86
69
„
-
35
_
-
-
-
-
-
58
64
69
Primary
Sludge
XX
1250
830
60
86
174
66
12
-
4
1590
610
180
17900
17900
2870
7800
11200
3300
15700
9000
2800
14
253
46
3220
3400
700
_
6
-
30
80
60
20
30
70
40000
15800
6340
Secondary
Sludge
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
850
750
_
6
9
50
60
60
20
-
10
6100
8400
3040
Effluent to
POTW from
Refinery No.
25
X
_
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
1994
1473
1649
29
26
15
28
26
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
193
322
267
-
-
—
-
-
-
155
119
171
Notes: - Not Decteotad
x Analyzed by EPA Region IV Laboratory
xx Analyzed by Pomeroy, Johnston and Bailey
80
-------
TABLE 111-16
al Results for Traditional Parameters for the Pretreatment Sampling Program-Week 2, mg/1
CO
Sampling
Location
1. Effluent to POTW from
a. No. 13
b. Ho. 21
c. No. 45
d. No. 43 Direct Di:
No. 43
e. No. 16
2. POTW No. 2
a. Influent
b. Primary Effluent
c. Final Effluent
d. UHOX Influent
e. UNOX Effluent
f . Primary Sludge
g. Digested Sludge
h. Centrate
Day
Refinery No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
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
PH
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
7.00
6.38
6.00
+
7.20
7.01
+
7.59
7.58
-t-
ss
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
•f
28,210
27,254
-t-
13,970
13,940
»-
SulfldK
as S
<0.1
0.1
<0. 1++
<0.1
<0.1
5
450
4O2
361
83
202
90
169
159
132
46
57
12
508
528
556
89
102
168
311
330
324
190
198
180
181
203
187
188
195
278
3
6
6
14,200
14,950
+
3,100
3,270
+
2,060
2,350
+
COD
972
789
764
289
441
322
506
395
386
149
130
111
1,770
2,430
3,330
398
517
537
794
752
834
437
420
450
539
502
603
447
406
1,280
61
86
86
60,500
41,500
+
28,400
26,700
+
17,500
16,600
+
ON
0.13
o.i4
0.34
0.01
0.02
0.03
4.0
4.0
8.0
0.03
0.01
0.05
3.0
8.0
9.0
0.08
0.09
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.26
0.05
0.11
0.44
0.06
0.11
0.44
0.07
0.16
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.04
2.2
1.9
+
2.6
2.6
+
1.5
1.8
-t-
Phenol
51
60.6
106
1.2
2.1
1.1
20
14.3
14.8
0.21
0.04
0.06
133
151
148
3.6
3.2
4.3
2.64
3.01
3.81
3.16
3-11
4.35
2.79
3.07
4.14
2.99
4.00
4.29
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
2.67
3.94
+
1.27
1.00
+
0.88
0.77
•f
0 & G
774
83,6
13.9
36
34.5
32.7
21.2
11.7
10.9
4.0
3.8
3.1
144
142
117
24.9
35-3
52.2
113
82
82
29.3
32.3
34.7
38.7
47.3
52.0
28.0
34.0
29.0
l.l
3.1
1.0
3,100
6,580
+
2,420
2,640
•*-
1,660
1,680
+
Cr
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.06
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
+
<0.02
^0.02
+
<0.02
<0.02
+
NH3-N
as N
25.0
27.1
24.1
2.1
3.8
5.1
161
92.0
57.5
4.0
2.9
2.0
32.0
4l.O
56.5
20.5
30.4
22.7
35.8
4o.5
35.1
36.9
4o.o
33.0
39.1
43.9
37.5
32.1
37.9
34.0
35.9
34.9
29.1
39.9
40.1
+
870
436
+
414
420
+
NOTE: Day 1 - 8/23/78; Day 2 - 8/24/78; Day 3 - 8/25/78. All samples were analyzed by the Water Quality Labs associated with POTW No. 2.
0 & 0 were determined on grab samples. Remaining constituents were determined on 24 hour composites.
+ Mot sampled
++ Zinc Acetate added to remove interferences
Analyses for ON, Phenols and
-------
=>lflpl
ou
O/.R
IM
T9I
n? 7 01 h
.,«*)
•»q "101'ptp
ST.r-tpnoiot'pIp-j' ' \
-------
T.VUI ii-.-iii
t !:ui T:; >"•• ri.i.'i;r:y fvn : r,v. r.i !'"; nir PEKTH A:'';I KT s.wt.r;-'.
^vtV'ATlf OM..ANU';: 1. VN. . vri-AT 11 'SS>t, -/ 1?
TWW N.'..'
foil rYi~"i;"ox!nTi~Mr rn'.jix;~KT.icr[>"r.7.\Tvrifc7~~
No. tMy Inf.* ttt. Inf. E:f. E(f. x lVntv.it. -Mia.!.:.' S IcJ-n- i:'lk',' " 1JX
ParacKlororaft.icrcaol AE
2-Chloroylu.T.ol
1
2
3
AE 24 1
2
3
2,4-dinethylihenol AE 34 1 300 - 317
2 220 230 210
3 720 750 470
180
740
202
1300 434
3600 550
entachloropJienol
Acenaphthene
1,2,4-trichlrro
benzene
AE641--- --.
2 - ....
AE 65 1 700 8-10 620 7300 470 1900
2 150 210 190 ' 160
3 640 600 41'0 • 660 4600 - 1300
BSE 1 1 • • - ---
2 -
3««--- ...
1100
2200
218
6}
119
BNE 8 1 *
2
3 20
1,2 dichlorobenzene K'E 25 1 48 57 24 85 35 30
2 27 32 32 • 12
3 13 14 14 - 22 170 135 245 45
1,3-dichlorobenzene BNE 26
l,4-dichlorobenzen< BKE 27
20 • «
12 * •
17 17 12
20 16 17
3 12 • •
55 40 25
55 40 25
.
12 140 105 180 40
2,4-dinitrotcluene BNE 35 1
2
3
1,2-dipher.ylhydrazine B::E 37 1
2
3
Fluorathene BNE 39 1
2
3
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)BKE 42 1
ether 2
3
bis(J-chloroethoxy) BKE 43 1
nethane 2
3
Isophorone BKE 54 1
2
3
Naphthalene
SHE 55 1 28 23 23
2 * 35 33
3 27 25 16
340 70 125
55 480 305 565 90
235
140
92 62
H-Ditroso diphenyl BNE 62 1
•sine 2 -----
3 ------
bis(2-ethylhexyl) BNE 66 1 13 33 22
phthalate 2 30 29 17 •
3 43 23 23 14 61
Hutyl benzyl BNE 67 1 - 28 16
phthalate 2 21 13 10 *
3 • 14 16 13 27
di-n-butyl phthalate HIE 68 1 • 27 15
2 • • ...
3 17 11 • • 22
di-n-octyl phthalate BNE 69 1 •
2 - • . - -
3 -
440 250 300
810 - - 250
^,5X Direct
459
7?0 "
2JOO 16
4200
1000
2200
17
41
599
9300
305
250
944
1S5
425
91
170
€8
:a
83
-------
TABLE 111-18 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR THE PRETREATMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM - WEEK 2
00
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS (CONCENTRATIONS, ug/ 1)
POTW No. 2 Effluent to POTW from Refinery No.
Pollutant
diethyl phthalate
dimethylphthalate
benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Acenaphythylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Poll
** No.
BNE 70
BNE 71
BNE 72
BNE 76
BNE 77
BNE 78
BNE 80
BNE 81
BNE 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
lnf.x
-
*
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
*
*
*
-
*
*
*
*
-
-
-
Pri.x Unoxx
Eff. Inf.
10 *
* *
* *
* _
- *
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_ *
* *
* *
* *
-
* *
-
* *
* *
* *
* -
-
-
Unoxx Final" xx Pri.xx Dig.xx PUte**
Eff. Eff. Centrate Sludge Sludge Cake(mg/kg)13x
6 14 6 -
- - 38
- * 10 15 6 -
_
_
- -
_
_ _ *
- - 12
_
_ _ *
- - 12
-
_
_ _
_
36
* - 29
_
- - 14
- - *
_
- - 36
* - 29
_
_ *
_ - *
2 IX
_
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
*
*
-
-
-
*
*
*
-
-
-
43x
45X Direct
- *
-
-
_
-
-
_
* *
_ *
_
* *
_ *
-
-
-
81 *
39
54 *
_
-
-
81 *
39
54 *
_ *
16 *
*
43x 16X
11
-
_ *
-
-
* _
-
* _
-
-
* *
-
-
_ *
* *
-
-
_ *
Of 59 semivolatiles, only 31 were detected
* in traces, but below detection limit
** AE - Acid Extractable; BNE - Base/Neutral Extractable
+ Anthracene and Phenanthrene are unresolved
+4- Chrysene and Benzo (a) anthracene are unresolved
Not detected
x Samples analyzed by West Coast Technical Services
xx Samples analyzed by Pomeroy, Johnston & Bailey
-------
TABLE 111-19
Pollutant
Aldrin
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
00 4,4'-DDD
Ul
A-endosul fan-Alpha
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
epoxide
A-BHC-Alpha
B-BHC-beta
R-BHC-Gamma
G-BHC-Delta
Poll
No.
89
90
92
93
94
95
100
101
102
103
104
105
XX
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
Analytical Results of Priority Pollutants for the Pretreatment Sampling Program - Week 2
Pesticides (Concentrations ,ug/l)
PQTW No. 2
„ vv vv vv Effluent to POTW from Refinery No.
Primary Unox* Unoj^1 Finalx xx Primary Digested Filter 433,
Inf* Eff. Inf Eff Eff Centrate sludge Sludge Cake 13X 21X 45X Direct 43x 16X
(rag/kg)
-
----- ______
3.60 - 0.10 ----- - - l.o 0.29 0.82
___ _-__ ______
- - - - 0.08 -
- - -__ _ _ _ ___ __
--- ____ _- Q.30 _ 4.90
0.17 - - - 0.08 - 0.09 - -
0.11- - - - - - - -0.39- -0.83
0.09 0.35 --__ __-_
0.19 - 0.11 - - 0.17 - - - -
0.66 - 0.17 - - - _-_ _-
0.38 -- _ _ _ - -----
----- ______
_- -__ _ _ _ __- __
_-- ____ _____
----- ______
0.12 - 0.52 - 0.22 - - - -__ _-
0.47 0.10 0.45 ---_ -_-_
--1.75 -----
0.70- --_ _ _ _ -. , __
-_- --__ ____-
----- _-___-
2.10 - - - - - - - - - -0.32
--1.30 - - - - - - 0.52 -
0.24 - 1.5 1.62 - 0.17 0.27 0.36 2.21 0.41
0.88 - 1.20 1.40 0.76 - - - - Q.43 0.08
-0.16 0.76 - - - - - --
---- - - - Q.32 -
_- --_ _ _ _ ___ __
--0.27 --_ - _--_
----- ____--
-_ -_•_ _ - - ___ __
1.25 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 III-2U
Analytical Result a Cor Priority Pollutantsjor the Pretreatmcnt Sampling Program - Week 2
00
POTH No. 2
ions, uq/1)
Effluent to POTV from Refinery No.
Antimony
Arsenic
Berylliua
Cadmiura
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Notes i
Poll.
114 1
2
3
115 1
2
3
» 117 1
2
3
118 1
2
2
3
-;
122 1
2
3
123 1
2
3
124 1
2
3
125 1
2
3
126 1
2
3
127 1
2
3
12B 1
2
3
X
33
40
37
66
-
-
-
28
27
28
427
573
349
529
235
220
254
0.37
399
265
304
_
33
37
15
11
13
_
-
-
945
952
1593
Prim
X
33
_
_
-
-
-
-
12
20
13
154
164
153
176
62
62
70
0.25
0.49
208
228
_
_
-
_
-
-
_
_
-
274
375
385
ary Unox
-
26
-
49
-
-
~
13
14
77
1249
162
1019
M
50
277
0.43
220
743
35
36
66
_
_
40
_
-
-
232
452
2086
Unox Final
.
-
29
_
-
-
-
-
20
25
26
50 456
25 341
135
126
168
_
206 290
310 343
29
37
-
_
11
10
-
_
-
144 820
178 810
178 1027
XX
58
162
196
10
2
580
1040
6900
4200
7600
90
3200
5
5
70
60
20
50
25600
43400
Primary
1000
324
427
4
10
2020
1200
57000
29000
18600
18200
171
6650
5
5
80
100
SO
50
69000
52600
Digested
625
285
297
4
10
1050
1580
29600
13300
10800
15300
147
6300
6
7
50
90
10
50
47000
70000
Filter 43x
7 _
13 - - -
3 27 60
2 - 67
69
0.04 -
0.07 -
-
16 -
9 _
249 845 824 646 192 70
1133 1254 603 186 64
173 17 19 - 47
15 19 - 38
214 43 42 33 35
247 36
38
1.5 0.37 - 0.46
1.08 - - -
no _____
- - - - "
0.06 101 - 132 - 248
0.06 109 33 156 - 514
HO - 140 - 682
0.93 - - -
1 -
_ _
0.3 - - - -
0.3 _____
_
771 190 153 183 115 57
457 116 173 182 137 49
55 189 174 158 36
16
-
_
35
34
-
-
-
_
-
"
2196
1800
12
14
39
-
36
-
-
"
90
199
K9
.
-
-
-
-
~
196
405
398
- Not Do tec ted.
x Analyzed
xx Analyz
-------
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act requires EPA to take the following
factors into account in assessing best available technology: (1) age
of equipment and facilities involved; (2) the process employed; (3)
the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control
technology; (4) process changes; (5) the cost of achieving such
effluent reduction; (6) non-water quality environmental impact
(including energy requirements), and (7) such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate. The assessment for best conventional
pollutant control technology includes these same 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 has considered each of these factors in establishing the
proposed effluent limitations. Factors which significantly
differentiate groups of industry facilities generally serve as the
basis for industry subcategorization. Each subcategory then develops
its own technologies representative of BAT, BCT, or BADT.
EPA established effluent limitations and standards (other than
pretreatment standards) based on achievable values of three variables:
(1) total effluent flow (gallons/day); (2) long-term concentration of
each pollutant after BAT, BCT, or BADT treatment; and (3) short-term
variations in pollutant concentration after BAT, BCT or BADT treatment
which cannot be controlled by good operating practice. It should be
noted that short-term variations in flow rate were not considered in
establishing effluent limitations. These variations, in contrast to
final effluent concentrations, are controllable by good operating
practice and design. Flow equalization (collecting effluent in a
large tank or pond) is both an available technology (see section VII)
and a good operating practice since it minimizes upsets in the
treatment system which can cause unnecessary (controllable) variations
in final effluent concentration. Flow equalization was a part of BPT
model technology, and costs and economic impacts of flow equalization
were considered in assessing BPT. Effluent limitations were
established by multiplying the achievable values of each variable. In
general, an effluent limitation for a specific pollutant parameter is
obtained as follows:
87
-------
Limitation = (Achievable Flow) x (Achievable Concentration)
x (Achievable Variability)
The Agency analyzed each factor separately to determine whether it
significantly affects the ability of any group of refineries to meet
the achievable values of that variable. None of the factors
significantly affect the ability of different refineries to meet
achievable final effluent concentrations of selected pollutants or
achievable concentration variabilities. The only factor which affects
achievable effluent flow was factor number (2), "the process
employed." Consideration of the additional "cost reasonableness"
factor for establishment of BCT technology will be discussed later in
this section.
Since process employed was found to be a significant factor in
establishing the achievable effluent flow, the Agency considered
subcategorizing based on processes employed. Refineries, however, are
complex manufacturing facilities. Over one hundred distinct processes
are used in the petroleum refining point source category. Moreover,
sizes (throughputs) of the processes were found to affect effluent
flow. It is not practical to group refineries by both process and
size of process because each refinery would be a distinct subcategory.
The Agency then considered the possibility of developing a
mathematical model which would correlate achievable effluent flow with
a relatively small number of process variables. Such a mathematical
model (flow model) would insure that the "process employed" factor
would be considered on an industry-wide basis. Industry-wide effluent
limitations could be developed without establishment of subcategories
containing only a very few facilities (possibly one per subcategory).
Current BPT limitations are based on the approach of establishing a
flow model to account for the factor "process employed" (3). Five
flow models were established to determine achievable flow and each
model was applicable to a group of petroleum refineries (topping,
cracking, petrochemical, lube and integrated refineries). Thus, the
industry was divided into five subcategories. The flow model used as
a basis for BPT determined achievable flow based on two variables (one
related to the size of the plant and one related to the complexity of
the plant).
For the current flow modeling effort, the Agency used the effluent
flows and the process characteristics reported in the "1977 Survey".
The Agency reevaluated the BPT flow models based on the more current
data from the 1977 survey and found the BPT flow model to be very poor
in predicting the effluent flows which had been achieved by the
industry in 1976. Consequently, other flow models were explored.
88
-------
FLOW MODELING EFFORT
Pat. a screening and Evaluation
The data from the 1977 survey were reviewed and questionable
information was verified or corrected by subsequent telephone contacts
and additional mailings. The follow up mailings focused primarily on
the interpretation of process values and wastewater flows
("Supplemental Flow Questions and Verification Report") . The flow
modeling procedure uses only these supplemental flow values in its
analysis. Figure IV- 1 a plot of the wastewater flow values versus the
size of refinery, depicts the flow figures used in the analysis.
Regression Analysis
EPA has developed models of refinery wastewater flows based on a
statistical analysis of the verified 1977 EPA Petroleum Refining
Industry Survey data. This analysis was performed primarily through
the use of multiple linear regression techniques. With this approach,
an equation of the form
Y = Ao + AiXi Equation (1)
(Note: <£ means the summation from 1 to n.
For example, if 3 variables were used (n=3)
Y = Ao + AJXJL + A£X2 + A3X3_)
is used to explain the relationship between a dependent variable
(wastewater flow in this case) and a set of independent variables
(such as process characteristics). Regression analysis assumes that
the underlying relationships among the variables are linear as
expressed in the above equation.
The flow modeling analysis begins with the hypothesis that the
petroleum refining industry effluent flow data can be modeled by the
relationship
Kl
Y = Ao + ^ AiXi + Ei Equation (2)
where.
89
-------
Y = magnitude of the effluent flow
Ao,Ai = constants to be determined by the regression
analysis
Xi = characteristics of petroleum refineries and
the petroleum refining industry
Ei = random variable with a mean value of zero.
The independent variables are not restricted to representing a single,
unique physical characteristic; their functions take any form. For an
industry-wide relationship, the Ei term in the above model assumes its
expected value of zero.
The goal of the modeling procedure is to explain the variability of
wastewater flow among refineries as thoroughly as possible. Each
physical characteristic (variable) included in the model (i.e., the
unit processes within a refinery) account for some portion of the
total flow. Any flow not attributable to the specific variables of
the model can be attributed to some process represented by the Ei
variable. The larger the degree by which the model represents the
real world situation, the smaller will be the variability of the
random variable and the greater the accuracy of the model. If the
magnitude of the wastewater flow were entirely explained by physical
characteristics, the model would need no random component. Because an
infinite amount of information is not available, however, the model
assumes only that all unknown factors will average to a zero value
over the entire industry. A non-zero expected value of E.i is
indicative of a biased model and a failure of the modeling procedure.
BPT Model
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 + A1X3. + A2X2 Equation (3)
With components,
Y = Log^O (total flow/capacity)
Ao = Subcategory dependent constant
Al^,A£ = Regression coefficient constants (1.51 and
0.0738, respectively)
90
-------
XJL = Refinery throughput
X.2 - Sum of weighting factors for a particular
refinery.
For the development of BPT regulations, the equation was mathemati-
cally 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:
n
Z = Ao
AiXi
Equation (4)
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.
Current Flow Model Development
The development of the BAT effluent flow model differs in several
basic modeling assumptions from that of the BPT modeling effort. The
primary difference is the wastewater quantity predicted by the two
models.
The BPT flow model identifies the dependent variable (flow) in terms
of gallons of effluent discharged per barrel of raw input feedstock,
whereas the newly developed BAT model predicts only the gallons of
wastewater generated (not necessarily discharged. The total
wastewater generated from each refinery is the sum of the wastwater
associated with each in-plant process. The flow model does not
incorporate information on the reuse of wastewater.
Attempts were made during the modeling effort to develop a
relationship between the gallons of wastewater generated per barrel
unit of feedstock input and the process capacities. Such endeavors
91
-------
were unsuccessful. The Agency could develop no reasonable models by
which to identify a gallon per barrel wastewater flow.
From a theoretical viewpoint, the gallons per barrel figure is a
transformation of the total flow multiplied by the size of the primary
process. Realistically, however, although some water is generated at
this stage of the refining chain, the refinery effluent flow appears
more dependent on the configuration of the processes down stream from
the primary process.
Regression analyses using a gallons per barrel dependent variable
produced models which at best could explain only half the variability
of the effluent flow data.
Another major difference between the BPT and the BAT flow models is in
their forms. The BPT model is an exponential multiplicative model in
its two terms of size and complexity. The BAT model is linear and
additive in its terms.
The decision not to use an exponential form for the present model was
made after a careful study of the available facts. It was closely
related to the more general decision not to perform any transformation
to the data at all. Any transformation of data reduces the effect of
some of the data points. Although transformation at first appear
beneficial for this set of data, such an action tend to deemphasize
the larger size refineries, even though it is the larger size
refineries for which so few data points exist. Compromising
theoretical statistical purity to insured that the effects of all
refinery sites were equitably considered.
The endeavors to develop a viable flow model progressed through
several distinct stages, each one building on previous efforts. The
statistical measure of "goodness of fit" also increased at each stage.
Initially, the model assumed that effluent flows could be determined
based on all the known sources of wastewater in refineries and all the
known descriptive characteristics of refineries. This assumption
proved to be false.
Factors which impact wastewater generation is so numerous that data to
quantitatively describe their affect would be impossible to gather or
to analyze. The best that can be hoped in flow modeling is that a
reasonable approximation of what occurs in a refinery can be
formulated.
The first flow model attempted to identify individual refinery
characteristics related to wastewater production. Because nearly
every refinery characteristic is correlated to some degree with the
magnitude of wastewater produced, cause and effect relations were
92
-------
extremely difficult to separate from random relations. Moreover, a
given characteristic had different effects on wastewater generation
depending on the particular refineries under study.
The result of this stage of the model development process was the
realization that many refinery characteristics do not correlate well
with flow. The analysis established that only refinery process
characteristics should be included in the model. Because process
wastewaters account for only 70 percent of the total effluent
generated, the Agency had to accept the fact that a model based solely
on process information could not be 100 percent accurate. Remaining
variations would have to be included in the error term (E;L) , and error
terms from the resulting model would have to be analyzed for equity
among refineries.
The next model used only single ungrouped processes as the modeling
factors. A variety of these models were developed with differing
degrees of success. Examples of these may be found in the earlier
draft reports (125). The lack of real life physical correspondence
was the major drawback to these forms. One characteristic of these
models was that almost any combination of processes eventually
produced regression models with R2 values in the neighborhood of .70.
R2 values (also known as correlation coefficients) measure the degree
to which the model explains the variation in the dependent variable
(flow) .
After considerable experimentation with ungrouped processes, the
Agency next tried models based on processes grouped by distinguishing
characteristics.
The final flow model is a compromise among perfect statistical,
regulatory, and physical factors. This model contains the same
factors as the original BPT flow model, except for the size factor and
the coking effect. The general form of the model is as follows:
FLOW = industry average flow
+ Asphalt effect (Equation 5)
+ Crude effect
+ Cracking effect
+ Lube effect
The regression analysis from which this model is derived indicated an
R2 of .749 with an overall F-distribution test statistic of 166. A
total of 227 plants possessed valid data for the analysis. The
independent model variable statistics are as follows:
-------
Standard Error
Regression Coef.
Asphalt
Crude
Cracking
Lube
.02462
.00112
.00664
.01073
3.862
13.661
48.287
20.052
.04838
.00415
.04617
.04806
The proposed form of the model for use in guidelines administration is:
Effluent Flow Model
FLOW = .568 + .048A (Equation 6)
+ .004 (C-59.2)
+ .046 (K-7.2)
+ .048L
The simplified form of this equation is as follows:
FLOW = 0.004C + 0.046K + 0.048 (A + L) .
Constants are median values.
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
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
94
-------
Centrifuge and Chilling
MEK Dewaxing, Ketone Dewaxing, MEK-Toluene Dewaxing
Deoiling (wax)
Naphthenic Lubes Production
SO^ 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 Mfg. V. Allied Products
Misc. Blending and Packaging
Use of the Flow Model
The flow model presented above (equation 6) predicts current industry
flow on a refinery by refinery basis. The model is used for
regulatory purposes as representing the current wastewater generation
flow rate of the industry. This is analogous to using analytical data
(from section IV) as representing current concentrations of various
pollutants in final effluent discharges. If additional end-of-pipe
treatment (such as activated carbon) is applied as BAT, then lower
final effluent concentrations would be used in establishing BAT
limitations. Similarly, if flow reduction is established as BAT
technology (see CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY section VII), then
correspondingly lower flows than those predicted by the flow model
would be used in establishing BAT limitations.
The flow model does not, and is not intended to, exactly predict
current flows from each refinery. Some of these variations are purely
statistical variations. Much of the variation, however, is explained
by the fact that refineries discharging less effluent than the model
predicts are employing flow reduction technology (see CONTROL AND
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY Section VI) which is not employed by refineries
discharging more effluent than the model predicts. In considering
technology options for BAT and BCT, the Agency calculated compliance
costs on a plant-by-plant basis. For technology options which
included flow reduction, compliance costs were calculated for reducing
flow from actual flow (1977) to the flow required by that option.
Economic impacts also were assessed on a plant-by-plant basis.
95
-------
96
Effluent Process Wastewater Flow (MGD)
!
Q>
H TJ
M
T3 ff)
< M
»
» * *
» M
* *
-------
SECTION V
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
INTRODUCTION
EPA has studied petroleum refinery wastewaters to determine the
potential presence of toxic, conventional, and non-conventional
pollutants. The result of the study is provided in Section III of
this document.
The Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D,C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979, requires that
effluent limitations and standards be established for each of the
sixty-five (65) toxic pollutants or classes of pollutants (Table II-1)
unless the Administrator determines that it should be excluded from
rulemaking under Paragraph 8 of the subject Agreement.
POLLUTANTS FROM PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
EPA has conducted an extensive sampling and analytical program to
determine the presence of toxic, conventional and non-conventional
pollutants in petroleum refinery wastewaters. The program included
the sampling of seventeen (17) direct dischargers, six (6) indirect
dischargers, and two (2) POTWs. The American Petroleum Institute has
split samples with EPA for the above program at nine (9) direct
discharge refineries, three (3) indirect discharge refineries and one
(1) POTW sites. The analytical results from the EPA and API
laboratories are presented in Section III and Appendix 3.
The conventional and non-conventional pollutants analyzed were found
in all the effluent streams. The toxic pollutants were detected at
less frequent intervals. Table V-1 lists the seventy-six (76) toxic
pollutants that were not found in the treated effluents from direct
dischargers. Of the remaining forty-seven pollutants, seven were
found in the effluent of only one refinery and were uniquely related
to that refinery (not found in the raw wastewaters from any other
plants). These seven pollutants and the remaining pollutants are
listed in Table V-2 and V-3. A pollutant is considered detected if it
occurs at a concentration higher than its concentration in the plant's
source water.
SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
The pollutants insufficiently controlled by BPT include phenol,
chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), TSS, BOD and oil and grease.
These pollutants were selected on the basis of their environmental
97
-------
significance and/or the availability of treatment technology. Reasons
for not further regulating the other pollutants are provided below.
Paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement (as modified) provides for
excluding toxic pollutants from regulations and standards. Paragraph
8(a) (iii) of the Revised Settlement Agreement allows the Administrator
to exclude from regulation toxic pollutants not detectable by Section
304(h) analytical methods or state of the art methods. Pollutants
listed in Table V-1 are, therefore, excluded from regulation.
Paragraph 8(a) (iii) also allows the Administrator to exclude from
regulation toxic pollutants detected in the effluent from a small
number of sources and uniquely related to those sources. The seven
pollutants in Table V-2 satisfy this criteria. Pollutants which were
found in the treated effluent at only one refinery but which were
detected in the untreated effluent of a number of facilities are not
considered uniquely related to one plant.
Paragraph 8(a) (iii) also excludes from regulation toxic pollutants
which were detected but for which no known treatment technology exists
to reduce their discharge, or which are effectively controlled by the
technology upon which other effluent limitations are based. The
Agency believes that the technology upon which the proposed BAT
effluent limitations for phenol (4AAP) and chromium are based will
effectively control the organic and metallic toxic pollutants in Table
V-3 with the exception of cyanide. Cyanide with final effluent
concentration as high as 170 ppb is discharged by the petroleum
refining industry, but EPA is not aware of any end-of-pipe technology
which will reduce cyanide discharges beyond its current level. The
Agency plans to continue study of this problem to determine whether
cyanide discharges can be reduced by in-plant control.
SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS FOR PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Section 307(b) of the Clean Water 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 POTWs. 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.
EPA has sampled six indirect discharge plants and two POTWs API split
samples with EPA at half of these facilities. Toxic pollutants found
and not found in the effluents from these refineries and POTW's are
listed in Table V-4 and V-5, respectively.
98
-------
Ammonia and oil and grease at concentrations exceeding 100 mg/1 can
interfere with the operation of POTW's. Chromium from refineries will
accumulate in POTW sludges and will limit the sludge management
alternatives of the POTW.
Paragraphs 8 (a) (i) and 8 (a) (iii) of the Revised Settlement Agreement
allow the administrator to exclude pollutants from regulations under
pretreatment standards. The pollutants listed in Table V-5 are
excluded from pretreatment regulations because they were not found in
the refineries' discharges to the POTW's. Toxic pollutants other than
chromium are excluded from regulation because they are controlled
adequately by existing PSES if the refinery discharges into a
secondary POTW. Refineries which route their wastes to primary POTWs
require additional control. Table V-6 lists those priority pollutants
which pass through primary POTWs.
99
-------
TABLE V-1
Toxic Pollutants Not. Detected In
Treated Effluents (Direct Discharge)
1. Organics
acrolein
acrylonitrile
chlorobenzene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
chloroform
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
bromoform
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorodifluoromethane
chlorodibromomethane
vinyl chloride
acenaphthene
benzidine
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(chloromethyl) ether
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2-chlorophenol
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
2. Pesticides
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4'DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
a-endosulfan-Alpha
b-endosulfan-Beta
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
4-chlorophynyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadien e
isophorone
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
pentachlorophenol
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthane
acenaphthylene
dibenzo (a,h)anthracene
ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
r-BHC-Gamma
g-BHC-Delta
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
100
-------
3. Metals
None
4. Others (Asbestos, 4AAP Phenol)
asbestos (fibrous)
101
-------
TABLE V-2
Toxic Pollutants Found in
Only One Refinery Effluent
(at concentrations higher than those
found in the intake water) and which
are Uniquely Related to the Refinery at Which
it was Detected (Direct Discharge)
1. Organics
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-dichloropropylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
di-n-butyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
2. Pesticides
None
3. Metals
None
4. Others (Asbestos, 4AAP Phenol)
None
102
-------
TABLE V-3
Toxic Pollutants Detected in Treated Effluents of
More Than One Refinery or Detected in the Treated
Effluents of One Refinery but Not Uniquely Related
to the Refinery at Which it Was Detected (Direct
Discharge)
1. Organics
Benzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
parachlorometa cresol
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2,U-dimethylphenol
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
di chlorobromometha ne
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
phenol
2. Pesticides
None
3. Metals
antimony (total)
arsenic (total)
chromium (total)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
4. Others (Asbestos, 4AAP Phenol)
None
bis(2-ehtylhexyl) phthalate
diethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
anthracene
benzo(ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
selenium (total)
silver
thallium (total)
zinc (total)
103
-------
TABLE V-4
Toxic Pollutants Detected in
Discharges to POTWs (Indirect Discharge)
1. Organics
benzene naphthalene
chlorobenzene N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1,2-dichloroethane pentachlorophenol
1,1,1-trichloroethane phenol
chloroform butyl benzyl phthalate
ethylbenzene di-n-butyl phthalate
methylene chloride di-n-octyl phthalate
tetrachloroethylene diethyl phthalate
toluene benzo(a)anthracene
acenaphthene chrysene
2,4-dimethylphenol anthracene
2,4-dinitrotoluene fluorene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine phenanthrene
isophorone pyrene
2. Pesticides
aldrin
4,4'-DDT
4,H•DDE
heptachlor epoxide
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
3. Metals
arsenic (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
selenium (total)
zinc (total)
H. Others (Asbestos, 4AAP Phenol)
Not analyzed
104
-------
TABLE V-5
Toxic Pollutants Not Detected in
Discharges to POTW (Indirect Discharge)
1. Organics
acrolein
acrylonitrile
carbon tetrachloride
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-dichloropropylene
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
bromoform
dichlorobromomethane
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorodifluoromethane
chlorodibromomethane
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
benzidine
1,2,a,-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(chloromethyl) ether
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-ch1oronaphtha1ene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2. Pesticides
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4* -ODD
a-endosulfan-Alpha
b-endosulfan-Beta
endosulfan sulfate
parachlorometa cresol
2-chlorophenol
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,6-dinitrotoluene
fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitropheno1
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a) pyrene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
acenaphthylene
benzo(ghi)perylene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
2,3f7r8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
g-BHC-Delta
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
105
-------
endrin PCB-1260
endrin aldehyde PCB-1016
heptachlor toxaphene
r-BHC-Gamma
3. Metals
antimony (total)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
silver (total)
thallium (total)
cyanide (total)
H. Others (Asbestos, 4 AAP Phenol)
Not analyzed
106
-------
TABLE V-6
Toxic Pollutants Found to Pass Through POTW
with Only Primary Treatment (Indirect Discharge)
1 . Organics
benzene 2,4-dimethylphenol
1 , 2 -dichloroethane naphthalene
1, 1 , 1-tr ichloroethane phenol
chloroform butyl benzyl phthalate
ethylbenzene di-n-butyl phthalate
methylene chloride di-n-octyl phthalate
tetrachloroethylene diethyl phthalate
toluene
2. Pesticides
4,4' -DDE
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
3 . Metals
arsenic (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
selenium (total)
zinc (total)
U. Others (Asbestos, UAAP Phenol)
Not analyzed
107
-------
-------
SECTION VI
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the control and treatment technologies that
apply to petroleum refining wastewaters. Petroleum refinery
wastewaters vary in quality and quantity. Nevertheless, they all were
readily In identifying available treatment technologies, the Agency
assumed that each refinery had or would install treatment equipment to
comply with limitations based on best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT) (3). The treatment technologies described
below are those which can reduce further the discharge of toxic
pollutants to navigable waters. They are divided into two broad
classes -- in-plant source control and end-of-pipe treatment.
In-Plant Source Control
In-plant source control affords two major benefits afforded (1) the
overall reduction of pollutant load that must be treated by an end-of-
pipe system; and (2) the reduction or elimination of a particular
pollutant parameter before dilution in the main wastewater stream.
In developing an in-plant control schemes the source of each
particular pollutant must be identified, evaluated as to whether it
can be eliminated, or reduced. This can be accomplished by sampling
the wastewater at various points within the refinery sewer, beginning
at the end-of-pipe treatment system, and ending at the process units.
This procedure produces a profile of the refinery sewer showing the
origin and flow path of the pollutant in question.
Once the source of the particular pollutant is identified, the next
step determines if the pollutant: (a) can be removed with an in-plant
treatment system; (b) can be eliminated by substitution, if it is a
purchased item; or (c) can be reduced by the recycle or reuse of the
particular wastewater stream. Discussions of each of these in-plant
treatment options, as they relate to a particular waste stream or
pollutant parameter, are presented below.
In-Plant Treatment Options
All in-plant treatment options require the segregation of the process
waste streams under consideration. If there are multiple sources of
the particular pollutant or pollutants, they all require segregation
from the main wastewater sewer. However, similar sources can be com-
bined for treatment in one system. Sour waters illustrate a type of
109
-------
wastewater that is produced at various locations within a refinery
complex, but that can be treated as one combined wastewater stream.
Sour waters and cooling tower blowdown are the two waste streams for
which in-plant treatments are being practiced or are available.
Sour Waters.
Sour waters generally result from water brought into direct contact
with a hydrocarbon stream. This occurs 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 waters contain sulfides,
ammonia, and phenols.
The most common in-plant treatment schemes for sour waters involve
sour water stripping, sour water oxidizing, or combinations of the
two. Table VI-1 summarizes the extent of this technology in the
refining industry. The operation of sour water strippers and sour
water oxidizers has been discussed at great length in numerous
technical publications (3, 6, 18, 20, 24, 28, 48) ; there is no need to
discuss these treatment units in detail. However, it should be
emphasized that these systems can greatly reduce sulfides and ammonia
levels, and also can afford some removal of phenols (24). A sour
water stripping study was undertaken in 1972 by the American Petroleum
Institute (24). The results of this survey showed that 17 out of 31
refluxed sour water strippers and 12 out of 24 non-refluxed sour water
strippers achieved greater than 99% removal of sulfides. An
additional nine refluxed and three non-refluxed units achieved greater
than 99% removal of sulfides and greater than 95% removal of ammonia.
The data thus suggests that refluxed columns afford better overall
removals of both pollutants. It should be noted that of five
two-stage units reported, only one unit achieved high removals of both
parameters. Six out of seven strippers operating with flue or fuel
gases removed over 99% of the sulfides. However, none of these units
achieved high ammonia removals.
The average effluent of all refluxed, non-refluxed, and flue gas units
which achieved greater than 99% sulfide removal was 6.7 mg/1 of
sulfide. The average effluent from all units which achieved greater
than 95% ammonia removal was 62.5 mg/1 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 (d) adding a second column in series
(107). All of these methods are available already to the refining
industry.
110
-------
Biological treatment to remove total phenols is also a demonstrated
technology in this industry (48). Biological treatment of stripped
sour waters may prove cost-effectiveness for the removal of any
biodegradable organic priority pollutants that may originate in this
waste stream.
Phenol removal from the sour water waste stream can also be
accomplished by the addition of oxidizing agents, such as ozone (51),
hydrogen peroxide (11), chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and potassium
permanganate (113).
A recent research project has demonstrated that activated carbon will
also removes phenolic compounds. The experiment showed that activated
carbon has a high affinity for phenolic compounds, so that relatively
short detention times are required. Activated carbon treatment in
sour water streams also may remove other organic priority pollutants
that may be present. Refinery No. 237 uses activated carbon for
treatment of the sour water waste stream, and the Agency is
investigating this particular system further.
Cooling Tower Slowdown.
Removal of metals (such as chromium and zinc) and phosphate can be
achieved by precipitation and clarification at a relatively high pH (8
10). Hexavalent chromium, however, must be first reduced to the
trivalent state before it can be precipitated and removed by
clarification. This usually is accomplished by the addition of 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); clarification of the
wastewater stream follows. 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 causes
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 apply to the treatment of cooling tower blowdown streams
at petroleum refineries.
None of the 259 refineries in the 1977 survey indicated in-plant
treatment schemes designed specifically for chromium removal;
treatment equipment vendors, however, indicate that several refineries
have installed such treatment.
Ill
-------
Chemical Substitutions
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, as well as other potential pollutants.
Using organic chemicals to replace for zinc and chromium solutions is
also a viable alternative (53,54). Molybdates are also a practical
alternative (55) . (Molybdates are compounds containing the anion
Wastewater Reduction and Reuse
Reduction. Reduction in water usage sometimes may be more cost
effective in reducing the quantity of wastewater discharge than water
reuse or recycle. Good housekeeping is one inexpensive method of
reducing wastewater production. It may include: (a) shutting down
pump gland cooling water lines on pumps that are out of service; (b)
shutting down wash down 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 commonly
are practiced throughout the industry.
Many new and modified refineries incoporate reduced water use and
pollutant loading into their design. Some of these modifications
include:
1. Substitution of improved catalysts that require less
regeneration .
2. Replacement of barometric condensers with surface condensers
or air fan coolers.
3. Replacement of surface condensers with air fan coolers.
4. Newer hydrocracking and hydrotr eating processes which produce
lower wastewater loadings than the older processes.
5. Increased use of improved drying, sweetening, and finishing
procedures to minimize spent caustics and acids, water washes, and
filter solids requiring disposal.
6. Recycle of wastewwater at the process units, to reduce the
amount of wastewater leaving the process area.
A major process change that can reduce wastewater production is the
substitution of air cooling devices for water cooling systems. Many
refineries have installed air cooling systems with their new process
112
-------
installations, thereby reducing the additional wastewater production
associated with increased refinery complexity.
Of the 78 refineries for which data are available for comparison
between 1972 and 1976, the percentage use of air cooling systems has
increased at 39 refineries, has decreased at 26 refineries and has
rendered the same at 13 refineries. Increasing use of air cooling
systems can reduce the quantity of cooling tower blowdown discharges
that require treatment.
Another method of wastewater reduction is the elimination of cooling
water from general purpose pumps (117). In certain instances the
elimination of water can increase machinery reliability, reduce
capital expenditures for piping and water treatment facilities, and
save operating costs guidelines are available for implementation of 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).
Reuse. Many of the streams, such as treated sour waters, cooling
tower blowdowns, and utility blowdowns, are suitable for use as wash
waters and fire system water. However, reuse of wastewaters for these
purposes requires investigation on a plant-by-plant basis to
determine the technical and economic feasibility.
Wastewaters emanating from end-of-pipe BPT facilities are generally of
such quality that reuse can be quite attractive. Uses for treated
refinery wastewaters include make-up to cooling towers, pump gland
cooling systems, wash-down waters, and fire water systems.
A number of articles in recent years have described actual reuse
practices at one refinery (41, 57, 58). This plant reuses most of its
treated wastewater as make-up to the cooling tower and fire water
systems. In practice, the cooling towers act as biological treatment
units, and remove in excess of 99% of the phenols present (41). The
refinery reuses approximately 4.5 million gallons of process
wastewater per day in their cooling towers; about 2.2 million gallons
of cooling tower blowdown per day are sand filtered and discharged to
the receiving stream. The difference, in excess of 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
make-up 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. The refinery has concluded that cooling
tower reuse is an economically sound practice, paying significant
dividends in terms of both pollution abatement and water conservation
(57) .
113
-------
Two recent articles discussed the reduction of wastewater generation
by the use of: (a) side stream softening to - reduce cooling tower
blowdown flow; and (b) reuse of properly treated wastewater as make-up
to a cooling tower system.
Reed, et al. report that side stream softening can greatly reduce
cooling tower blowdown. They conclude that by-pass lime softening
appears to be a realistic technique applicable to both new and
existing cooling tower systems. Cooling water systems in high
dissolved solids applications can be expected to be adequately
protected through the use of corrosion inhibitors. The authors
present a method for designing for zero blowdown applications and for
predicting steady state conditions. A pilot cooling tower was
operated with a recirculating water chemistry designed to simulate the
ultra-high TDS levels, representative of conditions expected for zero
blowdown systems. Low corrosion rates on mild steel and copper alloy
specimens were reported after application of a proprietary synergistic
chromate corrosion inhibitor. These low corrosion rates were
especially pertient to the application of zero blowdown systems at
existing installations having considerable amount of mild steel and
copper plumbing and process equipment (127).
Finelt and Crump (128) report that refiners faced with increasing
fresh water costs may direct their water management policies toward
the recirculation of treated water. Properly treated wastewater can
be recycled as make-up to the cooling tower system. At new
refineries, it is possible that the recycle system could be justified
economically over a non-recycle system. There are a number of factors
to be considered, most notably the cost of fresh water, determing the
least costly system. At existing well-operated facilities, only at
very high fresh water costs can the recycle system prove to be less
costly than a non-recycle system. However, application of recycle
technology can reduce effluent discharge by up to ninety percent and
possibly help to establish "zero discharge" facilities.
The use of sour waters as make-up 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 VI-2 identifies those refineries with California crudes which
recycle; the table also lists the percent of crude capacity made-up of
California crudes and the percentage of reused sour waters. These
data show that refineries processing California crudes do not use
114
-------
large percentages of sour water in the desalter. In fact, the
refineries that use a large percentage of California crudes appear to
reuse less sour water than those refineries that process a small
percentage of California crude. However, Table VI-3 shows that five
of the six plants in this analysis do reuse sour water elsewhere in
the refinery.
Sour water stripper bottoms have other demonstrated uses in the
petroleum refining industry (36). These include reuse as cooling
tower make-up and as process wash water, both of which afford
additional phenol removal due to either oxidation or extraction. The
biological environment in most cooling systems is conducive to removal
of 90 percent or more of the phenols present (36).
The 1977 EPA Petroleum Refining Industry Survey shows that 36
refineries reuse 100% 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% of their treated sour waters as make-up to cooling towers.
Table VI-3 summarizes the extent of industry reuse of treated sour
waters.
The American Petroleum Institute published a document entitled "Water
Reuse Studies" in August 1977 (150). This document presents methods
for achieving zero discharge, including:
1. Recycle and reuse of treated effluent as well as other
wastewaters;
2. Recovery and reuse of condensate streams;
3. Evaporation of wastewater with waste heat; and
4. Use of brine concentrators to eliminate high TDS streams.
The API report concludes that for grass roots 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 make-up or for other
uses is certainly a viable treatment alternative and must be
considered as an available BAT technology. Significant reductions in
wastewater generation can decrease the quantities of pollutants
discharged to navigable waters. In some cases where refinery
personnel already have significantly improved their present wastewater
management system (i.e., minimized cooling tower blowdown), the
115
-------
treated effluent to be recycled may require further treatment (i.e.,
softening) prior to recirculation.
In order to determine an upper limit of how much treated wastewater
can be reused as cooling tower make-up, the amount of cooling tower
make-up required in the industry on a plant-by-plant basis is
summarized in Table VI-U. The percentage of cooling tower make-up
water in the total wastewater discharged also is shown. This table
has been derived from the 1977 idustry survey data base.
Approximately half of the facilities have a cooling tower make-up
water requirement equaling or exceeding the total refinery discharge
flow.
EPA analyzed the flow informations from the 1977 survey to determine
the degree of flow reduction achievable. The petroleum refineries
were divided into two categories: plants presently generating
wastewater equal to or less than their model flow; and those with flow
rates higher than the model flow. The average of the percent flow
reductions for all refineries meeting their model flow has been
determined to be 52%. 36% of the refinereies have wastewater
generation equal to or less than 52% of the model flow. Table VI-20
lists the refineries that are generating wastewater equal to or less
than their model flow.
Refineries with wastewater generation equal to or less than their
model prediction and greater than 52% of the model flow were anlayzed.
The average of the percent flow reduction for these refineries is 27%.
Approximately 50% of the industry is achieving this reduction.
In order to check whether the "low flow" plants (i.e. plants with
discharge flow rates at or below 0.48 of BAT model flow) represent a
special segment of the industry, the data from these plants have been
reviewed and analyzed. Table VI-5 presents the capacities, BPT
subcategories, and EPA regions for the 93 plants presently at or below
0.48 of their model flow. Tables VI-6 through VI-8 summaries the data
included in Table VI-5. These data show that the size, geographical
location and complexity of this segment is very similar to the
industry as a whole.
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT
This document defines end-of-pipe treatment as all wastewater
treatment systems that follow an API separator or a similar oil/water
separation unit. The treatment schemes described below were
considered for application as BAT, BCT, and BADT in conjunction with
BPT treatment and water reuse and recycle.
116
-------
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment is the basic process by which at most refineries
in meeting existing BPT guidelines. Excellent removal of oxygen
demanding compounds (as measured by the BODf>, COD, and TOC test
methods) is being achieved at many refineries through the application
of well-designed and well-operated biological treatment systems (146).
This is the first step toward compliance with future BAT guidelines,
regardless of their basis. This will be particularly true for those
refineries which have complied with BPT requirements by drastically
reducing flow while only minimal improving the treatment system.
Where it is necessary to upgrade present biological systems, there are
many options available. These include compartmentalized oxidation
ponds to provide preliminary mechanical aeration; revamping aerated
lagoon systems into activated sludge systems; and the converting
standard activated sludge systems to pure oxygen systems. Other
modifications can improve the operating efficiency of particular
biological treatment unit, but these require investigations on a
plant-by-plant basis.
The sampling data presented in Section III indicate that biological
treatment can remove organic priority pollutants to low levels (i.e.
10-100 micrograms per liter). These removals were obtained from both
industrial and POTW samples as part of this study. It should be noted
that the removal mechanisms have not been determined. Removals may be
accomplished by air stripping and waste sludge settling as well as
biological degradation.
Filtration
Filtration, a polishing step after biological treatment, also was
considered as part of the model BPT treatment technology (3). The
survey results indicate that 27 of the 259 respondents use filtration
as part of their existing treatment scheme, including those plants
where filtration precedes biological treatment. Sixteen other
refineries plan to install filtration systems in the near future.
Table VI-9 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 the BOD and
COD associated with suspended material, and by removing carry-over
metals that already have been precipitated and flocculated. Filtration
can also improve overall treatment plant performance (130, 132, 133),
The removal of solids through filtration techniques can reduce the
effluent variability of biological treatment systems. One study (30)
showed that the percentage of suspended solids removed did not
deteriorate with high feed content; in fact, the percent removals
often increased with feed concentration. Concentration of suspended
117
-------
solids in the effluent rose during these situations, but not in
proportion to the feed increase. Thus, one conclusion of the report
was that granular media filters may be used to clarify refinery
wastewaters, including occasional surges.
Another study (99) showed that filtration of refinery effluent was
able to reduce the suspended solids to less than 5 mg/1 for "all feed
concentrations" (8-91 mg/1 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 presently remove some suspended as well as dissolved
materials. However, if filters are used prior to the biological unit
to remove the suspended material not removed in primary treatment, the
biological system can afford better removal of the dissolved organics
with less solids generation (50). Another advantage of pre-filtration
is that it allows the biological system to operate at increased sludge
ages (greater than 20-40 days). High sludge ages can produce higher
treatment efficiencies, fewer system upsets, and less sludge.
Granular Activated Carbon
Granular activated carbon has been used in the potable water industry
for many years and has been used to remove dissolved organics in
industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants in recent years
(U9). 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, so that 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 VI-1. Smaller refineries may only
require one or two vessels, operated manually, without the
sophisticated piping arrangement shown in Figure VI-1, This simpler
system serves as the basis for EPA's development of installation costs
of this technology at refineries having low effluent flow rates.
EPA expects that all but the smallest systems would require on-site
regeneration of carbon. Figure VI-2 is a flow diagram of one possible
carbon regeneration system. Some instances may require filtration
prior to the carbon units to remove suspended solids and prevent
plugging of the carbon pores.
118
-------
One refinery (No. 168) treats all of its wastewater with activated
carbon. At this refinery, granular activated carbon has been used as
the main treatment process, in that there is no biological treatment
system used for organic and BOD removal before the adsorbers. 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. The
carbon treatment facilities will be preserved in case they are needed
to meet future guidelines. The poor performance record at this
facility should not be considered reflective of carbon systems
operating as polishing units to biological treatment systems.
Powdered Activated Carbon
A new technology developed over the past several years consists of the
addition of 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 spring of
1977 (61). This system, which includes carbon regeneration, is the
basis for the cost analysis presented in section VII. A simplified
flow diagram is presented in Figure VT-3. 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 prior to 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 make-up
to replace the carbon lost in the overflow from the activated sludge
process or in the regeneration system.
The powdered activated carbon system described above is a very
comprehensive treatment system that includes operations which may not
be required at all installations. The need for a filter press system
or acid cleaning system as well as a carbon regeneration furnace
should be determined on a case-by-case basis, in that these treatment
steps may not be required at every refinery. Low metals content and
good sludge settleability may reduce the need for the filter press or
acid cleaning systems even at refineries that would regenerate the
carbon on-site.
Several tests of powdered activated carbon added to petroleum refinery
activated sludge systems have been reported. Rizzo reported on a
119
-------
plant test of carbon addition to an extended aeration treatment at the
Sun Oil Refinery in Corpos Christi, Texas (150). This test tried
three carbon dosages; 24 ppm, 19 ppm, and 9 ppm were tried. Test
results showed that even the very small carbon dosages significantly
improved BOD, COD, and TSS removals, as well as producing uniform
effluent quality, a clearer effluent, and elimination of foam.
Grieves, et. al., (153) reported on a pilot plant study at the Amoco
refinery in Texas City where the addition of activated carbon to the
activated sludge process was evaluated in 37.9 liter (10 gallon) pilot
plant aerators. Significant improvements in soluble organic carbon
(53 percent), soluble COD (60 percent), NH3-N (98 percent), and
pehnolics were observed through the addition of 50 mg/1 of high
surface area carbon. Improvement increased with increasing carbon
dosage.
Exxon researchers tried adding activated carbon to bench scale
activated sludge units with somewhat less success (154). Their tests
evaluated three carbon dosages which produced aerator equilibrium
carbon levels of 25 to 2000 mg/1. At aerator carbon levels of 25
400 mg/1, no improvement was seen in the performance of the activated
sludge process. However, since this represents carbon dosages of
about 1-10 ppm, this result is not surprising, and not inconsistent
with most other studies. This low dosage is usually an inadequate
amount of carbon, which gets lost or overwhelmed in the system.
At higher carbon dosages, giving aerator carbon levels of 1000 mg/1 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 to process stability.
Increased removals of TOC and COD averaged 10 percent.
Another powdered activated carbon scheme has been studied (60, 145)
that uses very high sludge ages (60 days or more); this allows the
carbon to accumulate to high concentrations in the mixed-liquor, even
though only small make-up amounts are added to the system. This
approach may eliminate the costly regeneration scheme described above
due to the low carbon addition rates, allowing for the disposal of
spent carbon with the sludge. Considerable pilot work has been done
with this concept but no full-scale system is currently operating.
Pilot tests (62) also have shown that powdered activated carbon can be
used successfully with rotating biological contactors ( RBC'S).
Refinery No. 32, has constructed a full-scale system based upon the
results of the pilot testing. EPA is investigating this system
further.
120
-------
Metals Removal
Metals such as copper, zinc, lead, arsenic and cadmium, may originate
from many sources within a refinery and may therefore requrie 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 industrial
category. The best plants in that industry obtained the following
long-term average effluent concentrations for selected metals:
Cu 0.2 mg/1
Ni 0.5 mg/1
Cr6+ 0.055 mg/1
Cr(T) 0.3 mg/1
Zn 0.3 mg/1
CN 0.04 mg/1
The results of the RSKERL and Burns and Roe supplemental sampling
programs (see section III) show that BPT technology in the refining
industry achieves metal discharges similar to or lower than the values
shown above; therefore, end-of-pipe chemcial precipitation and
clarification generally will not improve significantly the effluent
metals concentrations in petroleum refineries over existing BPT
technology. Further reductions in the concentration of metals would
require advanced wastewater treatment schemes, such as ion exchange,
reverse osmosis, or activated carbon (147).
With regard to chromium removal, since the chemical treatment scheme
described earlier is applied as an in-plant measure, the actual
discharge concentration of chromium will be lowered by the dilution of
the cooling tower blowdown in the final effluent stream. Therefore,
concentrations of total chromium on the order of magnitude of 0.02-
0.05 mg/1 may be achievable with this type of technology. (0.02-0.05
mg/1 is based upon a dilution to 10-25 percent of its original
concentration in the cooling tower blowdown stream, and a long-term
average concentration in the blowdown streams of 0.2 mg/1 as shown in
the electroplating industry).
RSKERL Carbon Studies
The Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL) studied
carbon treatment at six refineries as part of their overall sampling
program.
The granular carbon tests used four columns operating in parallel.
Each column contained a different type of carbon to determine
differences in performance. One column contained previously exhausted
and then regenerated carbon. The other three columns contained
121
-------
different types of virgin carbon. Field tests were undertaken to
determine which of the virgin carbons had the highest TOC removal
capacity, using the isotherm testing method. The effluents from the
"best" virgin carbon and the "regenerated" carbon were then tested to
evaluate their removal capabilities. The inlet wastewater to the
carbon columns was treated using multi-media filtration.
Tables VT-10 and VI-11 present the operating data, where available
prior to the preparation of this report, for the filter and two carbon
columns tested at the six refineries. RSKERL is preparing a detailed
report on the process operations at each refinery with a more detailed
discussion of the carbon testing program.
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.
Tables VI-12 and VI-13 present the operating data, where available
prior to the preparation of this report, for the pilot powdered
activated carbon system.
It should be noted that these pilot tests are only short-term
feasibility studies, due to the limited testing period and lack of
repeated carbon exhaustion and regeneration. These factors tend to
limit the usefulness of the tests as predictors of full-scale systems.
However, this information coupled with that being generated within the
petroleum refining industry (60,62) is expected to be useful in
determining the potential for applicability of granular carbon and
powdered activated carbon systems to remove toxic pollutants.
Ultimate Disposal Methods
The use of flow reduction and recycle methods described above will
reduce the quantity of water discharged or subject to end-of-pipe
treatment. None of the above described techniques willl eliminate the
discharge of water. Zero discharge of water is technically
achievable, however; 55 existing refineries have reported zero
discharge. Table VI-14 presents information on the capacities and
disposal methods employed by these 55 refineries. Out of the 55
plants, 32 use evaporation or percolation ponds, 10 use disposal
wells, five use contract disposal, two use leaching beds, one uses
surface spray, and six reported no wastewater generation at all.
In order to highlight the geographical and process distribution of the
zero discharges, the following breakdown is provided:
122
-------
Distribution by
EPA Region
Distribution by
BPT Subcategory
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Number of
Refineries
1
0
0
1
1
20
2
14
14
2
Subcategory
A
B
C
D
E
Number of
Refineries
34
15
1
2
0
Total
55
Percolation and evaporation ponds cbe an attractive disposal methods
when evaporation losses exceed rainfall. These ponds can be sized
according to the annual flow, so that the inflow plus the incidentally
added water (i.e., rainfall) are equal to percolation and evaporation
losses. This technique is in operation at many petroleum refineries
in the continental United States.
The petroleum refinery industry also practices deep-well injection.
This method can be recommended only with the stipulation that
extensive studies be conducted to insure 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. One petroleum
refinery (No. 26) already employs this or a similar technology.
The various ultimate disposal methods discussed above are viable
treatment alternatives. However, their application is highly
dependent on local conditions (i.e., rainfall, availability of a
suitable deep-well, availability of land, availability of land
suitable for irrigation). Plants which are not located in an area
with the above described conditions can also achieve zero discharge.
Technology for ultimate disposal for these plants is based on force
evaporation. Heat is used to evaporate the water. The steam is
condensed and reused as make-up 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 Reprot (150). The cost of this end-
of-pipe treatment scheme is related to the flow. In costing this zero
discharge technology, the plant is assumed to implement the various
recycle/reuse scheme discussed earlier. Although the forced
123
-------
evaporation system is not used currently in the refining industry, it
is being used in power plants which have compatible flow rates.
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY
Existing BPT guidelines are based upon end-of-pipe treatment systems
consisting of biological treatment, followed by rapid sand or multi-
media filtration or an equivalent polishing step, and in-plant control
practices widely used within the petroleum refining industry that
include the following:
1. Installation of sour water strippers to reduce the sulfide
and ammonia concentrations entering the treatment plant.
2. Elimination of once-through barometric condenser water by
using surface condensers or recycle systems with oily water cooling
towers.
3. Segregation of sewers so that unpolluted storm runoff and
once-through cooling waters are not treated normally with the process
and other polluted waters.
4. Elimination of polluted once-through cooling water, by
monitoring and repair of surface condensers or by use of wet and dry
recycle systems.
The National Commission on Water Quality had a contractor's report
(65) prepared in 1975 on the petroleum refining industry that included
a status of the treatment technology and water usage of most of the
refineries in the United States. The data were obtained for the year
1973, and present a picture of the industry as it appeared at the time
the EPT guidelines were promulgated.
The 1977 EPA Petroleum Refining Industry Survey obtained data for the
calendar year 1976. Table VI-15 presents a comparison of the
industry's wastewater treatment practices for 1973 (National
Commission Data) and 1976 (1977 survey). The following is a list of
treatment processes included in Table VI-11:
Corrugated Plate Separator (Corr. Plate Sep.)
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)
Other Flotation Systems (OAF)
Chemical Flocculation (Chemical Floe.)
Pre-Filtration
Stabilization Pond (Stab. Pond)
Aerated Lagoon (Aerated Lag.)
Activated Sludge (Act. Sludge)
Trickling Filter (Trick.Filter)
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC)
124
-------
Other Organics Removal (Other Org. Rem.)
Filtration
Polishing Pond (Pol. Pond)
Carbon Adsorption (Act. Carbon)
Evaporation or Percolation Pond (Evap. or Perc. Pond)
Table VI-16 summarizes the treatment systems listed in Table VI-15,
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 refinery's wastewaters, and
many treatment schemes may be pretreatment systems for discharge to a
POTW.
The word "none" where indicated in Table VI-15 refers to refineries
that do not have any of the treatment operations considered in this
analysis. However, these plants may treat their wastewaters through
gravity oil separation techniques.
A definitive list of refineries that have filtration or activated
carbon operations is significant. Those 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 has reduced the total number of refineries
listed as having these types of treatment to just those plants which
treat a significant portion of their wastewater through the
application of this technology.
Table VI-16 shows that there has been a marked increase in the number
of refineries having BPT-type technology in-place in 1976. The number
of pretreatment operations, such as DAF, other flotation systems, and
chemical flocculation shows a significant increase, indicating the
importance of these unit operations in meeting BPT limitations.
Table VI-15 also presents data on water usage, including once-through
cooling water, during the two one-year periods surveyed. The
comparison used water usage, rather than wastewater production because
data on wastewater production were not available for the year 1973.
For those refineries with data available for both survey years, there
was an overall flow reduction of approximately 16%. This percentage
would undoubtedly be greater if conditions remained constant.
However, many refineries have expanded their operations or increased
their complexity by adding additional process units between 1973 and
1976; this would minimize the effect of water reduction on a unit
basis. Many of the flow reductions appear to result from a reduction
in the use of once-through cooling water.
Tables VI-17 and VI-18 summarize the future modifications planned by
the survey respondents. Table VI-17 indicates planned wastewater
125
-------
reduction techniques along with expected flow reductions. Table VI-18
presents a summary of future modifications to wastewater treatment
plants.
Effluent Concentrations
The effluent concentration achievable by BPT treatment technologies is
discussed in the 1974 Development Document. The sampling results from
the 17 screening plants are in agreement with the original findings
with exception to phenol. The concentrations and variability factors
used in the BPT regulations are:
Concentration Variability Factors
mq/1 daily monthly
Phenol .1 3.5 1.7
Chromium (total) .25 2.9 1.7
Chromium (hexavalent) .02 3.1 1.4
BOD 15 3.2 1.7
TSS 10 3.3 2.1
O&G 5 3.0 1.6
The screening sampling results indicate an average reduction of
phenols to 19 ug/1. Additional data are being gathered to better
define the variability factors for phenol at the 19 ug/1 level.
The 1974 development document concluded that the influent
concentrations do not affect the effluent quality of the BPT
wastewater treatment system. This conclusion is indirectly supported
by the screening sampling results. The flow rate and the effluent
concentration from each screen sampling refinery were analyzed.
Table VI-19 presents a detailed summary of the discharge data from 16
screening plants; including the percentage of actual discharge flow to
model flow, as well as effluent concentrations for BOD, TSS, TOC and
Oil and Grease. The table also presents analysis of the correlations
of these factors. These data show that there is no correlation
between discharge flow and final effluent concentrations after BPT
treatment.
126
-------
FIGURE VI-1
Flow Diagram of a Granular Activated Carbon System
Backwash out
to
Effluent
To other carbon trains
Piping Explanation
(1) Main influent header (to 1st tank in series)
(2) Main effluent header (from 3rd tank in series)
(3) Influent header to 2nd tank in series
(4) Influent header to 3rd tank in series
(5) Effluent header from 1st tank in series
(6) Effluent from 2nd tank in series
(7) Connection between #3 and #5 headers
8) Connection between #4 and #6 headers
9) Backwash inlet header
10) Backwash outlet header
-------
Make-up carbon
Regenerated
Carbon
Holding
Tank
r ';iN"~7K
v ^
c •
^ .".' .}
V J
i.. -- --i i
Carbon Adsorption
Tanks
Spent Carbo
Holding
Tank
to
00
Furnace
FIGURE VI-2
Carbon Regeneration Systerr
-------
N)
VO
Wastewater Influent
r
Powdered
Activated
Carbon
Inlet
Carbon Make-up
Activated Sludge
Units
Treated Effluent
J-
Sludge
Thickener
Filter Presses
Carbon
Regeneration
Furnace
Acid Wash
System
FIGURE VI-3
Flow Diagram of One PACT Treatment Scheme
-------
TABLE VI-1
SOUR WATER TREATMENT
IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES
REFINERY SINGLE STAGE TWO STAGE
NUMBER STRIPPING STRIPPING OXIDIZING OTHER
3 X
3 X
10 X
13 X X
15 X
16 X
18 X
20 X
24 X
25 X X
29 X XX
30 X
31 X
32 X
33 X X
36 X
37 X
33 X XX
39 X
40 X X X
41 X X X
42 X
43 X X
45 X
46 X X
49 X
50 X
51 X X
53 X
55 X
56 X X
57 X
59 X
60 X
61 X
62 X
63 X X
64 X
65 X
67 X
68 X
70 X
71 X
72 X
73 X
74 X
76 X
77 X
78 X
30 X
81 X
83 X X
130
-------
TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
SOUR WATER TREATMENT
IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES
REFINERY
NUMBER
84
85
86
87
88
94
96
98
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
112
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
152
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
131
-------
TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
SOUR WATER TREATMENT
IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES
REFINERY
NUMBER
166
167
143
169
174
175
176
179
180
182
183
184
185
186
187
183
190
194
195
196
197
200
203
204
205
208
209
210
211
212
213
216
221
222
224
225
226
227
228
230
232
233
234
235
237
238
241
243
245
244
252
255
256
257
SINGLE STAGE TWO STAGE
STRIPPING STRIPPING OXIDIZING
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
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
OTHER
132
-------
TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
SOUR WATER TREATMENT
IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES
REFINERY SINGLE STAGE TWO STAGE
NUMBER STRIPPING STRIPPING OXIDIZING OTHER
258 X
259 X
261 X
265 X
309 X
133
-------
TABLE VI-Z
Effect of California Crudes on
Reuse of Sour Waters
Ref. No.
13
32
37
38
40
41
State
CA
CA
CA
CA
Crude Source
CA
CA
L.A. Basin
California
San Joaquin Val, CA
Coalinga, CA
California
California
California
California
California
California
CA Midway Waxy
CA Mid Spec.
Percent
Crude
Capacity
17
49
39.6
23.0
28.1
20.2
15.7
1.2
20
10
35
10
Percent
Sour Water
to Desalter
26
12.5
17
ST30
60
25
134
-------
TABLE VI-3
REUSE OF SOUR WATERS
INDUSTRY STATUS
REFINERY PERCENT PERCENT
NUMBER REUSE IN DESALTER OTHER REUSE
2 100.00 0.0
13 26.00 13.00
20 0.0 29.10
24 100.00 0.0
29 0.0 30.00
30 0.0 UNKNOWN
32 12.50 18.90
37 17.00 17.00
38 UNKNOWN 0.0
40 60.00 22.00
41 25.00 27.00
49 100.00 0.0
51 10.00 20.00
52 UNKNOWN 0.0
53 0.0 100.00
55 100.00 0.0
57 0.0 28.50
59 90.00 10.00
60 48.00 15.00
61 51.00 10.00
62 70.00 0.0
65 55.60 25.40
67 100.00 0.0
68 74.00 26.00
71 100.00 0.0
72 0.0 59.00
73 0.0 100.00
76 100.00 0.0
80 0.0 100.00
81 37.00 0.0
83 100.00 0.0
85 59.00 0.0
86 100.00 0.0
94 100.00 0.0
98 88.00 12.OO
104 10.00 0.0
111 UNKNOWN 0.0
114 60.00 0.0
115 85.30 0.0
116 60.00 0.0
121 0.0 9.00
122 58.00 0.0
126 0.0 30.00
130 30.00 0.0
131 62.00 28.00
132 0.0 6.00
142 100.00 0.0
143 100.00 0.0
144 100.00 0.0
145 0.0 100.00
147 100.00 0.0
149 100.00 0.0
150 100.00 0.0
151 95.00 0.0
135
-------
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
REUSE OF SOUR WATERS
INDUSTRY STATUS
REFINERY PERCENT PERCENT
NUMBER REUSE IN DESALTER OTHER REUSE
153 20.00 30.00
155 35.00 0.0
156 50.00 50.00
157 0.0 8.20
159 50,00 0.0
160 100.00 0,0
161 90.00 10.00
163 100.00 0,0
165 100.00 0.0
169 87.00 0.0
179 100.00 0.0
132 0.0 15.00
183 100.00 0.0
184 66.00 0.0
186 80,00 0.0
187 100,00 0.0
138 73.00 27.00
194 80,00 0.0
196 40,00 0.0
200 100.00 0.0
203 40.00 0.0
204 100.00 0.0
205 100.00 0.0
209 100.00 0.0
211 100.00 0.0
216 18.00 0.0
224 100.00 0.0
225 100.00 0.0
227 75.00 25.00
228 100.00 0.0
230 100.00 0.0
232 60.00 40.00
233 50.00 0.0
234 UNKNOWN 0.0
241 35.00 0.0
243 99.99 0.0
252 30.00 0.0
256 100.00 0.0
257 100.00 0.0
258 100.00 0.0
259 100.00 0.0
265 100.00 0.0
305 20.00 30.00
136
-------
TABLE SECTION VI-4
COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP FLOW RATES
IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
REFINERY
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
&
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
18
IV
20
21
T">
23
24
25
26
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
MAKE-UP FLOW
0.0
4.969995
0.650000
NOT APP.
0.036000
6.808996
3.290996
0.165000
6.614997
6.621992
0.030000
3.769996
0.0
> 4.348996
1.462999
0.140500
0.650000
> 0.235000
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.050000
0.030000
NOT APP.
1.600000
9.699997
1.514149
1.825500
MAKE-UP FLOU
DIVIDED BY TOTAL
EFFLUENT FLOU
0.313684
2.125925
0.0
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.648485
2.000000
0.694444
0.400000
1.939999
0.723589
1.446336
1.446336
0.554099
1 .179320
0.557229
0.473684
3.037382
0.759162
4.382351
1.049999
NOT APP.
1.166666
1.791321
1.993288
0.914438
0.814277
> 0 . 0
0.842372
1.633164
NOT APP.
1.090908
2.885168
1.073734
1.092714
0.848076
0.705969
0.874126
1.314045
0.0
> 1.363321
1 .116793
0.231848
UNKNOWN
> 1.525973
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.200000
1 .764706
NOT APP.
1.225115
0.941747
1.058845
1.659544
PERCENT COOLING
BY BTU BY
COOLING TOWERS
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
40.0000
UNKNOWN
100.0000
30.0000
UNKNOWN
73.0000
0.0
15.0000
58.0000
79.0000
75.0000
100.0000
UNKNOWN
76.8000
100.0000
0.0
98.5000
43.0000
30.0000
UNKNOWN
90.0000
4,5000
UNKNOWN
62.9000
95.0000
53.6000
50.0000
95.0000
65.0000
80.0000
0.0
0.0
98.0000
100,0000
0.0
81.0000
89.0000
99.0000
47.8000
137
-------
TABLE VI-4 (Continued)
COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP FLOW RATES
IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
REFINERY
NUMBER
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
71
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
97
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
MAKE-UP FLOW
(MGD>
3.052498
4.599999
5.659997
1.355000
4.308998
2.484499
0.000050
8.829994
8.348999
0.0
0.359000
0.021000
0.463000
0.471500
1.933998
0.630000
0.075500
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
19.014994
0.014040
4.289999
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.0
> 0 . 025000
8.384995
NOT APP.
2.250000
0.045000
0.126000
0.2OOOOO
NOT APP.
2.842497
0.302500
0.529500
0.320000
1.983199
0.364000
MAKE-UP FLOW
DIVIDED BY TOTAL
EFFLUENT FLOW
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
2.282607
0.111029
UNKNOWN
9.260860
0.641735
0.375000
1.197373
1.304730
1,639756
1.274422
NOT APP.
3.223682
0.0
0.377773
0,416667
> 0.587186
0.0
0.941176
0.0
1.605995
UNKNOWN
1.656370
NOT APP,
NOT APP.
0.0
> 0.396825
1 .128531
NOT APP.
1.069391
1.499999
2,863636
0.833333
NOT APP.
1.799048
1.490147
0.957505
1.280000
0.708285
0.720000
PERCENT COOLING
BY BTU BY
COOLING TOWERS
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
95.0000
86.5000
59.0000
90.0000
UNKNOWN
85.4000
100.0000
100.0000
60.0000
75.0000
80.0000
97.0000
0.0
39.2000
28.0000
60.0000
UNKNOWN
56.0000
UNKNOWN
86.5000
100,0000
100.0000
UNKNOWN
39.4000
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
138
-------
TABLE VI-4 (Continued)
COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP FLOU RATES
IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
REFINERY
NUMBER
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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
172
173
MAKE-UP FLOU
(MOD)
1.450000
0.036500
0.100500
0.175000
4.250000
3.323500
0.975999
0.766000
0.400000
0.090000
NOT APR.
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
0.759500
0.004500
0.300000
1.695000
> 0.126500
0.740000
NOT APP.
4.150000
3.070000
5.792998
0.063000
0.391700
1.697997
4.119996
0.570300
0.199500
0.323000
2.114997
2.115499
2.732998
0.030000
0.595400
0.050000
3.864999
1.240000
6.794998
0.772000
0.0
MAKE-UP FLOU
ruviriEn BY TOTAL
EFFLUENT FLOU
1.435642
1.013887
0.670000
1.590908
0.944444
0.519297
2.054735
1.725224
0.061728
0.520231
NOT APP.
0.665999
NOT APP.
0.114583
0.156648
0.650819
0.0
UNKNOWN
1.321678
0.0
0.647222
> 5.071427
2.018131
0.0
0.317235
0.025000
1.161314
UNKNOWN
3.225806
2.942707
> 0 . 790625
0.627650
NOT APP.
1.044288
0.366348
1.489202
0.063000
2.266782
1 .697997
2.049748
1.041605
0.720216
1.874285
3.253841
0.863469
2.635486
1 .363636
2.053102
0.454545
0.757843
0.430555
0.733737
0.339130
0.0
PERCENT COOLING
BY BTU BY
COOLING TOUERS
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
85 . 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
88.9000
71.5000
60.0000
100.0000
90.0000
UNKNOWN
88.0000
100.0000
49.3000
67.0000
70.0000
200.0000
90.0000
91.3000
UNKNOWN
139
-------
TABLE VI-4 (Continued)
COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP FLOU RATES
IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
REFINERY
NUMBER
174
175
176
177
179
ISO
1 9 1
122
183
1.3-1
185
186
137
138
189
190
191
192
193
1.94
195
196
197
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
2 1 0
2 1 1
2 1 2
213
2 1 -)
2.15
216
2.13
219
220
221
OT"*
224
225
226
•TO ~>
228
229
230
231
MAKE-UP FLOU
(MOD)
NOT AFP.
10.787498
0.086000
0.028000
0.632700
1.870998
20.376480
6.599497
2,169648
4.675997
1 .771300
2.574697
3.244994
> 4.653500
0.0
0.085000
2.545500
:> 0.028000
0.0
11.303490
0.0
16.445465
0.002000
0.017200
1.694998
2.156999
0.009500
10.209991
5.268191
2.818796
12.500000
0.180000
2.844998
0.413500
0.137000
0.679049
1 .763000
0.038880
0.0
0.0
16.502472
7.300000
1 .939999
0.022000
0.0
0.860000
0.0
1 .679999
0.0
1 ,483199
0.364500
0.113500
1.150000
NOT APP.
MAKE-UP FLOW
DIVIDED BY TOTAL
EFFLUENT FLOW
NOT APP.
0.364521
0. 184986
0,036601
2,243616
0.676183
1 .301526
1 .031171
3.390075
3.438233
2.116487
1 .418566
4.203360
> 1.911087
0.0
2.560240
5.606828
> 0.198582
0.0
0.664911
0.0
0.888944
0.250000
UNKNOWN
2.769604
2,270524
95.000000
0.789026
1.560205
1 ..'.56192
134.408600
^.535^11
0.570140
1 .759574
3.512819
0.834726
2.507322
0.762353
0.0
0.0
0.808945
UNKNOWN
1 .616665
0.916667
0.0
2.457141
0.0
1 .411764
0.0
1.167872
1 .752403
5.456731
1.642357
NOT APP.
PERCENT COOLING
BY BTU BY
COOLING TOWERS
0.0
UNKNOWN
33.0000
75.0000
32.0000
98.7500
49.0000
70,0000
59.7000
75,0000
95.0000
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
47.5000
40.0000
79.9000
UNKNOWN
65.0000
35.0000
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
78.0000
100.0000
63,0000
100.0000
99.5000
100.0000
UNKNOWN
97.9000
29.8000
30.0000
100.0000
100.0000
88.0000
0.0
140
-------
TABLE VI-4 (Continued)
COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP FLOW RATES
IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
REFINERY
NUMBER
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
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
303
309
MAKE-UP FLOW ]
(MOD)
0.0
2.450000
0.0
2,149999
0.016000
0.016000
1.999999
0.055000
0.180000
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,
0.61O600
NOT APP.
> 0 . 0
NOT APP.
0.0
> 0.040000
> 0.0
0 . 0
> 0.720000
MAKE-UP FLOW
DIVIDED BY TOTAL
EFFLUENT FLOW
0.0
2.450000
0.0
1 .433332
0.133333
0.571428
1.044931
0.436509
0.300000
0.490909
0.703125
3. 119045
0.334426
1.173332
0.323009
2.696910
0.0
0.456731
UNKNOWN
NOT APP.
0.064748
0.0
UNKNOWN
0.0
0.109589
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
> 0.743301
PERCENT COOLING
BY BTU BY
COOLING TOWERS
2.5000
45.0000
UNKNOWN
83.0000
UNKNOWN
90.0000
34.5000
47.0000
UNKNOWN
100.0000
95.0000
69,0000
99,0000
99,6000
UNKNOWN
100.0000
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 % COOLING BY COOLING TOWERS
341
-------
TABLE VI-5
PROFILE OP PLANTS AT OR BELOW
48 PERCENT OF MODEL FLOW (LEVEL 2 PLANTS)
Crude Fraction
Refinery Region BPT Capacity of
No. No. Subcategory (HBP) Model Flow
176 3 B 52. .483
98 6 B 202.3 .480
62 5 D 295.0 .480
144 8 B 49.9 .478
33 9 A 44.0 .477
185 6 B 75.0 .477
53 4 A 14.0 .476
15 9 B 32.0 .473
86 4 B 25.0 .472
113 5 B 42.0 .471
37 9 E 103.0 .470
60 5 B 195.0 .468
305 6 A 13. .467
106 6 B 154.9 .464
9 6 A 3.5 .458
207 6 A 46. .455
23 9 A 16. .452
259 2 C 655.0 .451
161 6 B 51. .449
119 4 A 11. .444
14 9 B 12.4 .439
16 9 A 48.0 .438
114 5 B 24.0 .432
206 6 A 36.5 .431
77 7 B 23.2 .430
6 10 A 22.0 .427
124 8 B 42.0 .404
2 4 A 20.0 .399
26 9 B 17. .393
158 6 B 54.6 .388
233 10 B 100. .372
210 6 B 18.1 .361
264 5 A 23. .358
298 1 A 15. .349
195 6 A 1.0 .332
187 6 C 56.0 .332
18 9 A 10. .329
90 6 A 2.2 .329
125 8 - B 56. .322
160 6 B 23.5 .312
55 9 A 60.3 .311
1 4 A 30.0 .310
213 6 A 21.6 .301
209 6 B 35.0 .299
74 7 B 22.5 .297
155 6 B 14.5 .295
148 5 A 20.0 .285
142
-------
TABLE VI-5 (Continued)
Crude Fraction
Refinery Region BPT Capacity of
No. No. Subcateqory (MBD) Model Flow
137 6 A 4.5 .283
147 5 B 65.0 .283
108 3 A 13.5 .279
22 9 A 11. .270
260 4 A 3. .267
140 6 B 19.0 .253
50 8 B 21.5 .251
202 6 A 3.5 .250
118 4 A 6.0 .248
179 6 B 26. .244
243 5 B 42.0 .232
8 9 A 5.0 .227
103 6 A 36. .226
25 9 B 53.8 .222
310 8 A 3.0 .217
191 6 B 53.5 .207
36 9 A 17.0 .203
3 4 A 1.2 .192
54 4 A 3. .179
10 6 D 6.0 .174
237 10 A 5.0 .165
165 6 B 60. .153
17 9 A 9.5 .151
220 6 A 10.0 .149
49 8 B 33.5 .141
80 7 B 52.0 .139
99 6 B 28.7 .136
107 3 A 17. .096
97 6 B 50.0 .085
254 8 A 1. .083
229 8 B 5.6 .075
19 9 A 2.5 .055
193 6 A 3.2 .050
218 6 A 6.0 .029
31 9 A 12. .029
141 6 A 4.0 .022
4 10 A 13.0 .011
302 6 A 2.2 .010
248 8 A 1. .003
135 6 A 2.5 .000
250 8 A 1. .000
251 8 A 0.5 .000
278 4 A 3. .000
296 6 A 10.0 .000
303 6 A 1. .000
307 10 A 0.8 .000
308 8 A 0.1 .000
143
-------
TABLE VI-6
GEOGRAPHICAL BREAKDOWN OF LEVEL 2 PLANTS
PERCENT OF PLANTS
DISCHARGING LESS THAN PERCENT OF
43 PERCENT OF PLANTS IN
EPA REGION MODEL FLOWS TOTAL INDUSTRY
1 11
2 14
3 36
4 11 6
5 9 13
5 37 34
7 35
3 13 12
9 17 14
10 55
144
-------
TABLE VI-7
SUMMARY OF CRUDE CAPACITIES FOR LEVEL 2 PLANTS
CRUDE
CAPACITY
(MBD)
PERCENT OF PLANTS
DISCHARGING LESS THAN
48 PERCENT OF
MODEL FLOW
PERCENT OF PLANTS
IN
TOTAL INDUSTRY
0-25
25 - 100
100 - 200
> 200
63
31
3
3
47
34
12
7
145
-------
TABLE VI-8
BPT'SUBCATEGORY BREAKDOWN OF LEVEL 2 PLANTS
PERCENT OF PLANTS
DISCHARGING LESS THAN PERCENT OF PLANTS
48 PERCENT OF OF
SUBCATEGORY MODEL FLOWS TOTAL INDUSTRY
A 57 38
B 38 40
C 2 9
D 2 8
El 4
0 0 1
146
-------
TABLE VI-9
Refineries that Utilize, or Plan to
Utilize Filtration Systems
Presently Installed
12 134
23 153
44 168
50 181
53 187
60 199
92 201
100 211
107 219
115 225
118 227
119 232
120 255
133
Future Installations
11 105
32 122
42 132
44 152
57 168
67 204
70 212
102 232
147
-------
TABLE VI-10
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR
RSKERL GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON STUDY, TRADITIONAL POLLUTANTS
BOD-1
BOD-3
COD
Concentration (rag/1)
TSS NH,
TOC
Cr
,-2
00
Refinery B
Filter
Filter
influent
effluent
Virgin carbon
effluent
Reg. carbon
effluent
-6
-9
-12
-15
-6
-9
-12
-15
-6
-9
-12
-15
-6
-9
-12
-15
L15
L30
10
L30
L15
L30
15
L30
L6
L12
L12
L12
L6
L12
L12
LI 2
L15
L30
L30
L30
L15
L30
L30
L30
120
110
110
100
99
120
100
84
16
31
13
16
16
31
24
28
53
43
37
40
45
45
37
33
17
11
9
10
18
12
11
15
22
36
32
26
12
34
28
10
4
4
6
4
4
4
5
4
22
15
16
12
22
15
16
11
44
16
16
12
22
16
16
12
L. 02
L.02
.02
L.02
L.02
.02
L.02
L.02
L. 02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.1
.5
.4
L.I
.1
.4
.3
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.2
L.I
.1
6
4
7
14
14
6
7
7
7
9
5
7
17
4
6
5
7.3
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.9
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
Refinery H
Filter influent -6 L6
-9 L12
-12 1,12
-15 L12
Filter effluent - 6 L6
-9 1,12
-12 1,12
-15 L12
Virgin carbon
effluent
-6 L3
-9 L6
-12 L12
-15 4
24
35
40
39
20
31
32
33
12
12
12
15
40
13
21
15
36
14
18
8
10
6
10
8
5
4
5
15
4
1
3
7
2
2
4
7
5.
4.
3.
17
5.
4.
3.
2.
5.
3.
4.
2.
6
5
9
6
5
9
2
6
4
5
8
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
.1
.2
.2
.2
.1
_ 2
.1
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
5
11
19
5
5
5
10
13
8
8
6
10
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
7
.5
.4
.5
.2
.4
.4
.7
.3
.3
.5
.2
.4
-------
TABLE VI-10 (Continued)
Concentration (mg/1)
Sample - Day
Refinery H - Cont'd
Reg.carbon effluent
Refinery K
Filter influent -6
-9
-12
Filter effluent -6
-9
-12
Virgin carbon effl.-
Reg.carbon effluent
Refinery M
Filter influent -6
-9
-12
Filter effluent -6
-9
-12
Virgin carbon effI.-
Reg, carbon effluent-
BOD-1 BOD- 3 COD
TOC
TSS
NH
-6
a'2
0(,G
3
-6
-9
-12
-15
6
9
12
-6
-9
-12
6
9
•12
6
9
12
L3
L6
L12
L6
L30
L30
L6
L12
L12
L12
L6
L6
L6
L6
L6
120
L12
L12
L12
L6
L3
L6
L6
L3
L3
L6
L6
L6
11
11
10
11
170
96
140
60
56
52
1
13
12
15
16
15
96
75
150
56
67
42
11
10
14
8
13
10
3
13
14
58
32
40
25
18
23
7
6
11
9
8
12
17
19
19
15
22
15
5
7
4
10
5
2
1
6
7
66
33
52
7
1
4
2
LI
2
2
1
LI
10
11
7
6
2
1
2
LI
LI
2
1
1
5.
3.
4.
3.
6.
11
10
5.
11
9.
5.
11
9.
5.
11
9.
LI.
LI.
LI.
LI.
LI.
LI.
LI.
LI.
LI.
LI.
LI.
6
9
5
4
2
6
0
6
0
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L .
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
.1
.2
.2
.2
.7
.8
.6
.5
.5
.5
.2
.5
.6
.3
.5
.6
.6
.5
.5
.5
.3
.4
.5
.3
.4
.5
.4
.4
9
2
7
7
42
21
42
5
8
6
6
9
5
LI
8
7
17
14
5
9
17
10
9
13
6
10
11
3
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.3
-------
Sample - Day
BOD-1
BOD-3
TABLE VI-10 (Continued)
Concentration (mg/1)
COD TOC TSS
NH
—3
+ 6
Cr
_ -J
OS.G
£H_
Ul
O
Refinery O
Filter influent -6
-9
-12
-15
Filter effluent -6
-12
-15
Virgin carbon effl.-
Reg.carbon effluent
Refinery P
Filter influent -6
-9
-12
Filter effluent -6
-9
-12
Virgin carbon effI.-
Reg, carbon effl.-6
-9
-12
6
9
12
15
-6
-9
-12
-15
12
10
10
10
30
10
L15
L30
9
8
4
6
11
8
3
7
13
10
6
8
30
L5
L15
L30
8
5
3
L6
10
5
3
L6
130
120
130
120
120
120
120
120
61
73
80
88
77
88
88
20
55
41
38
41
53
39
44
36
25
23
34
28
29
34
42
28
34
22
18
30
20
6
16
52
24
8
24
24
24
6
1.4
2.5
3.4
1.7
1.4
2.5
2.2
2.8
LI
2.5
3.4
2.5
2.5
2.8
12
.02
L.02
L.02
.02
.04
L.02
.03
.02
.02
L.02
L.02
.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.02
.8
.4
.3
.3
.7
.5
.4
.4
.2
.7
.1
.3
.3
.4
.1
.3
18
6
30
18
11
7
13
12
25
12
16
8
25
6
16
8
7.
8.
8.
8.
7.
8.
8.
8,
8.
8.
8.
7.
7.
8.
8.
,9
.2
.2
.4
.9
.2
6
.0
.0
.2
.3
.7
.8
,2
,5
6
9
12
8
8
27
5
8
30
4
4
24
4
2
14
4
4
23
4
9
23
4
L5
23
5
L5
6
85
100
120
110
160
110
69
81
56
28
81
68
22
54
37
20
70
44
16
52
25
14
70
19
23
16
11
11
21
11
13
7
4
11
7
4
5.9
7.0
10
5. 3
7.0
13
5.3
7.0
9.5
5.3
6.4
11
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
L.
L.
L.
L.
.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
5
40
20
4
26
14
5
20
20
4
16
7.
7
7
7,
7.
6,
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7,
.2
.4
.3
.1
.3
.8
.3
.3
.1
.3
.4
.2
-------
TABLE VI-11
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR RSKERL
3RANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON STUDY, PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Concentration (mg/1)
Sample - Day
Refinery B
Filter influent - 6
Filter influent - 9
Filter influent - 15
Filter influent - Comp.
Filter effluent - 6
Filter effluent - 9
Filter effluent - 15
Filter effluent - Comp.
Virgin carbon effluent - 6
Virgin carbon effluent - 9
Virgin carbon effluent - 15
Virgin carbon effluent - Comp.
Reg. carbon effluent - 6
Reg. carbon effluent - 9
Reg. carbon effluent - 15
Reg. carbon effluent - Comp.
Refinery H
Filter influent - 6
Filter influent - 9
Filter influent - 15
Filter influent - Comp.
Filter effluent - 6
Filter effluent - 9
Filter effluent - 15
Filter erfluent - Comp.
Virgin carbon effluent - 6
Virgin carbon effluent - 9
Virgin carbon effluent - 15
Virgin carbon effluent - Comp.
Reg. carbon effluent - 6
Reg. carbon effluent - 9
Reg. carbon effluent - 15
Reg. carbon effluent - Comp.
L.02
.01
.12
.02
.01
.12
L.02
.01
.01
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
Phenolics
.024
.024
.012
.022
L.01
L.01
.017
.019
.014
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
Samples were not analyzed because filter influent contained lower limits ot
detection.
151
-------
TABLE VI-11 (Continued)
Sample - Day
Refinery K
Filter influent - 6
Filter influent - 9
Filter influent - 12
Filter influent - 15
Filter influent - Comp.
Filter effluent - 6
Filter effluent - 9
Filter effluent - 12
Filter effluent - 15
Filter effluent - Comp.
Virgin carbon effluent - 6
Virgin carbon effluent - 9
Virgin carbon effluent - 12
Virgin carbon effluent - 15
Virgin carbon effluent - Comp.
Reg. carbon effluent - 6
Reg. carbon effluent - 9
Reg. carbon effluent - 12
Reg. carbon effluent - 15
Reg. carbon effluent - Comp.
Refinery
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
M
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
6
9
12
15
Comp .
6
9
12
15
Comp.
L.
L.
L.
.02
.02
.02
.10
.04
L.02
L.
.02
.09
Concentration (mg/1)
Cyanides
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
10
04
Phenolics
.027
.018
.018
.031
.029
.017
.018
.029
L.012
L.012
L.012
L.01
L.012
L.012
L.012
L.01
L.012
L.012
L.010
L.012
Mercury
.0008
L.0005
.0013
.0016
.0008
L.02
L.
02
09
Virgin carbon effluent -6 L.02
Virgin carbon effluent - 9
Virgin carbon effluent - 12
virgin carbon effluent - 15 .03
Virgin carbon effluent - Comp.
Reg. carbon effluent - 6 L.02
Reg. carbon effluent - 9
Reg. carbon effluent - 12
Reg. carbon effluent - 15 .02
Reg. carbon effluent - Comp.
L.0005
L.0005
152
-------
TABLE VI-11 (Continued)
Concentration (mg/1)
Sample - Day
Refinery O
Filter influent - 6
Filter influent - 9
Filter influent - 12
Filter influent - 15
Filter influent - Comp.
Filter effluent - 6
Filter effluent - 9
Filter effluent - 12
Filter effluent - 15
Filter effluent - Comp.
Virgin carbon effluent - 6
Virgin carbon effluent - 9
Virgin carbon effluent - 12
Virgin carbon effluent - 15
Virgin carbon effluent - Comp.
Reg. carbon effluent - 6
Reg. carbon effluent - 9
Reg. carbon effluent - 12
Reg. carbon effluent - 15
Reg. carbon effluent - Comp.
Refinery P
Filter influent - 6
Filter influent - 9
Filter influent - 12
Filter influent - 15
Filter influent - Comp.
Filter effluent - 6
Filter effluent - 9
Filter effluent - 12
Filter effluent - 15
Filter effluent - Comp.
Virgin carbon effluent - 6
Virgin carbon effluent - 9
Virgin carbon effluent - 12
Virgin carbon effluent - 15
Virgin carbon effluent - Comp.
Reg. carbon effluent - 6
Reg. carbon effluent - 9
Reg. carbon effluent - 12
Reg. carbon effluent - 15
Reg. carbon effluent - Comp.
Cyanides
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
L.02
.05
.04
.04
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.07
.04
.04
.05
.07
Phenolics
.038
.029
.025
022
.039
.028
.023
.040
.005
Mercury
L.0005
L.0005
L.005
L.
L .
L.
L.
L .
L.
L.
L.
005
005
005
005
.005
007
.013
.028
.058
,090
.013
.016
.084
.092
005
.005
.005
.005
.005
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
L.005
L.
L.
.005
.005
L.0005
153
-------
tAI'.U Vl-ll
Refimrry B*
Filter i-.flu.-at
Filter tf:fluc:.t
Virgin cirbon etfluc-t
Reg. c«rtv-:i effluent
Refinery H*
Filter ir.fjue-t
Ulter e:£luc.-.t
Virgin carbon effluent
Reg. carbon effluent
Refinery K*
Filter ir.fluer.t
Filter effluent
Virgin carbon effluent
Reg. carton effluent
Refinery K«
Filter ir.flucnt
Filter effluent
Virgin carbon effluent
Reg. carton effluent
Refinery 0«
Filter influent
Filter effluent
Virgin carbon effluer.t
Reg. carhon effluent
Refinery P"
Filter ii.fluc.it
Filter effluen"
Virgin carbon effluent
Reg. carbon effluent
LI
1,5
LI
LS
LI
1.5
LI
L5
LI
L5
1.1
LS
LI
1.5
LI
L5
LI
L5
LI
L5
LI
L5
LI
LS
5
L5
5
L5
10
L5
7
L5
LI
L5
LI
L5
LI
L5
LI
L5
LI
L5
LI
LS
LI
LS
LI
L5
I]
LJ
L3
L3
LI
L)
LI
LI
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
LJ
LI
L3
LI
13
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
vM
5
U
1.2
LI
L2
LI
1.2
LI
10
LI
L2
LI
L2
LI
1.2
LI
L2
LI
1.2
LI
L2
LI
L2
LI
7
LI
L2
LI
L2
LI
L2
LI
L2
LI
L2
LI
L2
1
L2
6
L2
1
L2
1
L2
4
L2
1
ft
5.1
11
40
21
30
10
30
5
10
LS
9
L5
Li
1.5
10
Lr,
200
196
40
28
10
10
20
10
100
24
SO
17
50
8
60
10
30
110
20
100
L5
70
60
80
L5
60
L5
50
L5
46
L5
40
Cu
,;,
5
*
L5
9
1.5
10
32
10
14
L6
L5
7
L5
30
26
10
L5
LG
L5
1,6
L5
20
L5
10
L5
10
L5
10
L5
L6
13
L6
9
16
18
L6
14
L6
13
L6
11
L6
20
L6
20
i~. M. .MX r »
M
1.^
Ll'j
L5
1.15
L5
L15
Lf-
L15
Lf>
1.15
L5
LI 5
1.5
L15
L5
L15
L5
L15
L5
L15
1.5
LI 5
8
L15
9
L15
50
LI 5
30
LI 5
L5
Lt5
LS
L15
L5
115
L5
L15
L5
16
L5
16
L5
42
LS
L15
-.,-„ y, 1)
— .. -f ~
fi-
lls
I.:.'
L15
L20
LI 5
L20
L15
20
L1S
L-0
2C
L20
L15
L20
L15
L20
L15
1.20
L15
L20
L15
L20
L15
60
LI 5
30
L15
70
LI 5
50
L15
L20
L15
L20
L15
L20
L15
L20
L15
L20
LI 5
L20
L15
L20
L15
L20
LI 5
LCO
7j
60
Llkl
35
160
"
L60
15
Lf.O
20
L60
20
LCO
20
200
210
100
85
L60
30
L60
35
100
65
300
110
100
100
100
100
L60
L10
L60
L10
L60
17
L60
12
L60
17
L60
30
L60
27
LCO
30
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
120
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
Eh
L25
1.34.
L2S
1.25
L25
L25
1.20
L25
1.25
L25
L25
L25
L25
L25
L25
L25
L25
L25
L25
L25
470
430
450
410
62
56
50
50
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
25
26
26
23
L20
1.20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
L20
Tl
L15
L15
L15
L15
IIS
1.15
Llf.
L15
L15
LI 5
L15
L1S
LI 5
LI 5
1.15
L15
LI 5
LI 5
L15
L15
L15
LI 5
L15
L15
1 - EPA F.-cion V
KOTES: L - Less than
• - ihc ?1-h.o\'.r c'.r-;io:,i
154
-------
Ul
cn
Sample - Day
Refinery B
Pilot plant influent
Pilot plant effluent-
Refinery K
Pilot plant influent
Pilot plant effluent-
Refinery M
Pilot plant influent-
Pilot plant effluent-
Refinery P
Pilot plant influent-
Pilot plant effluent-
TABLE VI-12
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FOR
RSKERL POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON STUDY, TRADITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Concentration (tng/1)
•6
•9
•12
•15
6
9
•12
•15
•6
-9
•12
•6
•9
•12
6
•9
•12
•6
•9
-12
•6
9
12
6
9
•12
BOD-1
170
110
110
160
L6
L12
L12
L12
110
80
L60
L6
L12
L12
95
63
16
8
13
LI 2
180
130
200
14
5
10
BOD- 3
160
110
110
220
L6
1.12
L12
LI 2
160
110
170
6
6
16
COD
480
350
400
450
63
100
120
130
1400
480
840
76
36
48
280
360
260
84
95
140
340
460
140
190
150
TOC
160
58
98
120
28
20
32
39
450
110
200
29
12
19
78
87
66
17
21
32
90
160
28
45
56
TSS
22
28
36
56
30
42
58
94
860
150
280
30
6
14
22
32
24
58
35
62
68
78
40
140
58
50
Nir
3
7.8
3.9
6.7
3.9
20
15
22
16
6.2
5.6
10
2.2
3.4
2.0
19
20
16
10
15
11
8.1
10
3.6
4.2
13
+ 6
Cr
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
.09
.05
.02
.06
.02
.02
.02
.02
.11
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
-2
S
3.
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
5.
1.
1.
5.
7.
11
2.
1.
1.
7
1
6
8
8
7
7
8
7
8
5
7
6
7
7
0
3
7
5
7
5
6
3
7
0
O&G
24
38
23
16
6
5
14
12
240
470
98
10
11
13
19
36
28
12
9
25
80
81
20
11
26
8.9
9.3
8.4
9.2
8.2
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.3
7.1
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.5
8.7
8.3
8.8
5.6
5.8
5.8
8.2
8.2
8.3
7.0
7.7
7.6
-------
TABLE VI-13
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR RSKERL
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON STUDY, PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Concentration (mg/1)
Sample - Day
Refinery B
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Refinery K
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Refinery M
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Refinery P
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
effluent -
e'ffluent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
influent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
effluent -
6
9
15
Comp.
6
9
15
Comp.
6
9
12
15
Comp.
6
9
12
15
Comp.
6
9
12
15
Comp.
6
9
12
15
Comp.
6
9
12
15
Comp.
6
9
12
15
Comp.
Cyanides
.05
.06
.07
L.02
L.03
L.02
.01
L.02
.02
L.02
L.02
.01
.02
.28
L.02
.07
.05
.06
.05
.01
.02
L.02
L.02
.02
Phenolics
L
L
24
18
31
.010
.010
Mercury
L.0005
L.010
3
L
t.
L
6
6
6
5
.23
.8
.95
.53
.012
.012
.012
.014
.0
.4
.2
.2
L.0005
L.0005
.0006
L.0005
L.012
L
L
.012
.018
.010
39
42
80
58
.065
.039
.099
.027
L.0005
L.0005
L.0005
155
-------
TABLE VI-13 (Continued)
Concentration
Ul
Sample
Refinery B*
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Refinery K*
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Refinery M*
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Refinery P
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
influent
effluent
influent
effluent
influent
effluent
influent
effluent
Lab
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
M
LI
L5
LI
L5
LI
LS
LI
L5
2
L5
LI
LS
LI
L5
LI
L5
Be
LI
L3
LI
L3
2
L3
LI
L3
2
L3
2
L3
LI
L3
LI
L3
Cd
L2
LI
L2
LI
L2
3
L2
LI
L2
LI
20
LI
L2
7
L2
6
Cr
100
81
30
18
2000
1700
70
49
500
393
60
33
700
620
70
110
Cu
L6
L5
L6
LS
400
370
20
8
20
17
9
LS
L6
14
L6
52
Ni
L5
L15
L5
15
20
27
L5
L1S
10
L15
L5
L15
L5
16
L5
39
1
Pb
L20
L15
L20
LI 5
100
65
L20
LI 5
L20
L15
60
L15
L20
L15
L20
LI 5
Zn
L60
30
L60
30
10000
1800
100
120
300
250
100
170
100
110
70
85
As Sb Se Tl
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L25 40 L15
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 L25 23 L15
L20 L25 L20 L15
L20 430 L20 L15
L20 410 L20 L15
LABS: 1 - EPA Region V
2 - RSKERL
NOTES: L - Less than
* - The 24-hour composites were composited into one sample for analysis.
-------
Refinery
C&H Refinery, Inc.
Lusk, WY
TABLE VI-14
it
Zero Discharge Refineries
Capacity
(1000 bbl/stream day)
.05
.75
Southwestern Refining Co., Inc.
LaBarge, WY
United Independent Oil Co.
Tacoma, HA
Yetter Oil Co.
Colmer, IL
Dorchester Gas Producing Co.
Amarillo, TX
Mountaineer Refining Co., Inc. 1.
LaBarge, WY
Glenrock Refinery, Inc. 1.
Glenrock, WY
Thriftway, Inc. 1.
Graham, TX
Sage Creek Refining Co. 1.
Cowley, WY
Pioneer Refining, Ltd. 2.2
Nixon, TX
Oxnard Refinery 2.5
Oxnard, CA
Caribou Four Corners, Inc. 2.5
Kirtland, NM
Kenco Refinery, Inc. 3.
Wolf Point, MT
Kentucky Oil and Refining Co. 3.0
Betsy Layna, Ky
Wastewater
Disposition
Evap/perc pone
No wastewater
generated
No wastewater
generated
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond
No wastewater
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 stormwater, ballast water, once-thru non-contact cooling
water, and sanitary wastewater) is not discharged directly via an
NPDES permit nor is discharged to a POTW. This table also includes
those refineries which do not generate production wastewater.
158
-------
TABLE VI-14 (Continued)
Capacity
(1000 bbl/stream day)
3.5
3.5
4.
Refinery
Sabre Refining, Inc.
Bakersfield, CA
Mid-Tex Refinery
Hearne, TX
Bayou State Oil Corp.
Shreveport, LA
Thriftway Co.
Farmington, NM
Southern Union Refining Co., 4.5
Monument Refinery, Hobbs, NM
Arizona Fuels Corp. 5.
Fredonia, AZ
Tonkawa Refining Co. 5.
Arnett, OK
Plateau, Inc. 5.6
Roosevelt, UT
Texas Asphalt and Refining Co. 6.0
Euless, TX
Sunland Refining Corp. 7.
Bakersfield, CA
Plateau, Inc. 7.5
Farmington, NM
Douglas Oil Co. of CA 9.5
Santa Maria, CA
Gary Western Co. 10.
Fruita, CO
E-Z Serve, Inc. 10.
Scott City, KS
Husky Oil Co. 10.8
Cody, WY
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
Evap/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)
159
-------
TABLE VI-14 (Continued)
Refinery
Witco Chemical Corp.
Oildale, CA
Newhall Refining Co., Inc.
Newhall, CA
Atlantic Richfield Co.
Prudhoe Bay, AK
Atlantic Terminal Corp.
Newington, NH
Kern County Refinery, Inc.
Bakersfield, CA
San Joaquin Refining Co.
Bakersfield, CA
Texaco Inc.
El Paso, TX
Shell Oil Co.
Gallup, NM
Texaco, Inc.
Amarillo, TX
Texaco, Inc.
Casper, WY
Mohawk Petroleum Corp. , Inc.
Bakersfield, CA
CRA, Inc.
Phillipsburg, KS
Husky Oil Co.
Cheyenne, WY
Southern Union Refining Co.
Lovington Refinery, Hobbs, NM
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.
Wastewater
Disposition
Contract
disposal
Contract
disposal
Evaporation
Leaching bed
Surface spray
Evap/perc pond,
recycle
Evap/perc pond ,
recycle
19.
Evap/perc pond
20.
21.
22.8
23.2
24.2
25.1
25.5
26.
Disposal well,
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond ,
recycle
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond
Evap/perc pond
Disposal well
Evap/perc pond
Contract dispos
recycle
160
-------
TABLE VI-14 (Continued)
Refinery
Navajo Refining Co.
Artesia, NM
Champlin Petroleum Co.
Wilmington, CA
Shell Oil Co.
Odessa, TX
Lion Oil Co.
Bakersfield, CA
Amoco Oil Co.
Casper, WY
Sinclair Oil Corp.
Sinclair, WY
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Sunray, TX
Cosden Oil and Chemical Co.
Big Spring, TX
Capacity
(1000 bbl/stream day)
29.9
32.
35.
40.
44.5
50.9
53.5
56.
Hawaiian Independent Refininery 60.3
Ewa Beach, HI
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 75.
El Paso, TX
Wastewater
Disposition
Evap/perc 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
161
-------
TA3LE VI-15
bJtf
RorT
au.
001
002
003
oo;
09*
-••07
GJ8
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
1973
DAP
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
DAF
Stab, pond
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Stab. PonJ
Stab. Pond
DAF
DAP
1376
Corr. Plate Sep.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Chemical Floe.
RBC
None
DAF
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Aerated lag.
Aerated Lag.
I'oi. I'otui
Stab. Pond
Pre-Filtration
Stab. Pond
Chemical rloc.
DAF
w.iter
Mill '-on
1973
0.61
0.291
0.144
0.2DO
0.26
0.44
2.92
0.23
12.35
0.062
L'naae
122S.
1.E7
0.186
0.125
0.144
0.243
10.0
0.09
0.14
3.52
0.72
10.96
O.lVi
y» Rod , • i - it.
-207 015
36 016
017
018
0.0 019
-22 020
021
02 J
«5
023
68
024
-21
025
•••213
026
11
027
-150
Treatment
1973
DAF
Filtration
None
None
Nona
DAF
Act. Sludgo
None
DAP
Aerated Lag.
DAF
None
Operations
1976
Chemical Floe.
OAF
Nona
Chemical Floe.
Evap. or Perc. Pond
None
Norm
Chemical Floe.
D/.F
Act. Sludge
!'ol. Icri
None
OAF
Filtration
Evap. or Perc. pond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Other Org. Rem.
DAF
Other Org. Rom.
Other Org. Ren.
Million
1073
4.79
0.15
rjal/Lj.-/
r>Ii
0.270
0.5%
'J.OC
o.to
4.51
0.22
0.11
.475
0.54
1.4
0.35
-------
TABLE V!-15 (Continued)
U)
£-,
N'c- .
o:s
O-'J
030
031
032
o:-3
034
035
OJi-
037
033
039
04 fl
Treatmen
1073
None
None
None
DAP
.V'rateJ L.UT.
Stab. Pond
Evap. or Pore. Pond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Corr. Plate Sep.
DAF
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Noni*
Operations
1076
OAF
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAP
DAF
AorateJ tag.
Stab. Pond
None
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAP
Aerated Lag.
IVl. I'OIVl
Corr Plate Sep.
DAP
rhomiral Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Ollinrn Or'l. nnln.
Water
Million
1073
16.80
0.71
7.6
7.73
r>7.0
Usnqo
Gal/oav
,.5
0.33
1.10
16.2
.0
3.12
.6
,.34
1
).35
11.2
JtSei^. ^
041
042
043
044
14 045
046
047
048
049
0.0 050
18 051
052
2(1 053
Trcatmen
1973
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Pore. Pond
None
DAF
DAF
Stab. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Act. Sludge
Evap. or Perc. Pond
None
: Onoration^
I'nr,
Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated L.TI.
Stnb. Pond
lol. ror.d
Chemical Floe.
Aerated Lag.
Evop. or Pore. Pond
DAF
Stab. Pond
Filtration
£vap. or Perc. Pond
Chemical Floe.
DAF
OAF
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag,.
hjl. I-ond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Stob. Pond
Filtration
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Pol. Ion!
Stab. Pond
Pi HrnHon
Wntir
) '*7 J
29.71
55.60
1.27
1.51
0.40
1.25
• I-.*.:.
I'.?-,
126.2
0.10
4.96
..72
"•»
44.
0.65
0.77
0.47
321.
0.34
O.JI
* '"''
2.7
21
33
50
-IS
Eita
-------
TABLE,V!-15 (Continued)
atment Operations »rii
-------
TABLE VMS (Continued)
Treatment Operation. «id «
-------
TABLE VI-15 (Contli.ued)
Pef.
107
108
109
Water usaqe
1973
None
DAF
DAF
Act. Sludge.
Trick. Filter
i
i
110 Stab. Pond
111
'
112 1 Filtration
i
H 113
CFv
cr>
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Aerated Lag.
Aorated Lag.
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
PAF
Aerated Lag.
Stab, pond
•Hone
Filtration
None
i
1
1976
Filtration
OAF
Chemical Floo.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Pol. Pond
Chemical Floo.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Pre-Filtration
Act. Sliidee
Pol. Tond
Stab. Pond
OAF
Aerated Lag.
Vol. Foi.J
Aorated Lag.
Filtration
Aerated Lag.
Filtration
Aerated Lag.
riltrntlun
1973
.39
0.31
83.25
1.22
0.75
1.14
0.72
5.05
2.06
2.01
0.13
1.17
1.35
v.lli/ uav
1976
.39
.34
6.22
.0
.8
.51
.90
.59
3.92
.77
Z.10
1.94
1.23
1.29
^ &
0.0 121
-9.7 "2
20 ««
IB 125
32 126
21 127
18 128
22 129
-34 »0
-4.5
131
-623
132
-35
133
17
1.14
W.ltor >Jr:,v>o
Treatment Operations Million r.-U/n-iv
1973
Corr. Pl?te Sep.
DAP
Stab, pond
Aerated Lag.
None
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Aorated Lag.
Stab. Pond
DAP
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Bvap. or Perc. Pond
None
Stab. Pond
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Mini), l>w<1
ii/6
Corr. Plate Sep.
DAF
Other Orcj. Hem
Pol. lon-1
Aerated Lag.
ChoTical Floo.
DAF
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Othor Org. Rom.
I'ol. Ic.nl
;.crat^d Lag.
lol. :-ond
Chemical Floe.
DAF
A^rntr.-J f.ng.
Jol. 'ori'l
Rvnp. or I'orc Pond
Aorntcd L-tg.
Evcp. or Pore. Pond
>'ol. icr.i
None
OAF
RBC
OAF
Activated Sludge
DAF
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Filtration
AC*. tUidr*
Filtration
ivn
34,5
12.08
1.23
33.0
0.31
3.13
74.01
174.5
35.28
11. (.4
1276
4.0
5.
.87
1.28
0.6
0.25
J.01
J.15
2.67
->6.6
1.91.5
19.3
i.'il
^
59
Cueationable
Data
-4.1
-24
10
15
24
-4.0
45
-i.O
-------
IAMI I VI Vi (i.uiiMii'ii!.!)
'•r-T.
155
136
Tr..i)m,.nf o-«-r-iU'»in
1073
fJ7 riono
»,
m
:.«
141
»,
141
144
145
146
147
t:ono
Stab. Pond
K-vr.o
DAF
D/.F
Aerated Lag.
Stab, pond
DAP
1076
Corr. Plate Sep.
None
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Evap. or Pore, pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Evap. or Pore, pond
Chemical ploc.
DAF
Chemical Floe.
DAP
Aerated Lag.
i'ol. 1'ort'l
None
Stab. Pond
Chemical ploc.
DAF
Act. Sludge
W.i tor Unagc
Million CaJ./lj,iv
1073
18.35
28.85
15.02
1.32
1.40
1-I7C,
0.6
0.06
1.03
0.168
0.5
0.03
21.67
13.7
L.77
1.014
1.3
..94
***• if"
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
-18 155
-17 156
Questionable 157
Data
158
6.3 15»
-39 "0
Treatment Ooornu*
Z073
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Other Organic* Rem.
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
None
DAF
Act. Sludge
Filtration
1076
DAF
Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated Lag.
Corr. Plate Sep'.
Act. Sludvje
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Other Organics Rem.
Filtration
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Stab. Pond
Vol. ro.i.1
Chemical Fioc.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Fol. i'ond
Act. Sludge
Aoratcd Lag.
Other Organica Rem.
Act. Sludge
Pol. PonJ
Stab, pond
Pol. Pond
Checical Floe.
OAF
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
Pol. l'on.l
ii«»i'. of rurc, rnwl
K.ltor I'.x.inn
Mil lion 'Vj]/:>.jv
1-113
1.78
04.44
6.50
122.1
5.43
0.31
0.59
2.47
7.65
1.40
0.75
0.53
IvVu
3.47
..„
1,0.14
7.59
-1-1.05
4.7
O.B5
0.65
2.17
7.33
1.49
0.69
0.65
13
-------
TABLE VI-15 (Continued)
ssU
^
161
lo- i
i
I
163 1
i
i
i
i
164 i
Water Usage
I27A
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
i
i
165 i
i
Stab, pond
i
,,,
167
li-d
lb'1
17 J
17.'
173
174
NOIU-
DAP
Other Orttanic-P R«*m.
Filtration
Act. carbon
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
None
None
None
None
VJ* <3 1 a \-iUiia
1976
Aerated Lag.
Other Organics Rem.
lol. loud
DAP
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
rol. .'oiid
Evap, or Perc. Pond
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Stab. Pond
Vol. Fonl
NtJIlO
Chemical Floe.
OAF
Act. Sludge
1 ro-Klltration
Act. carbon
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
None
None
Aerated Lag.
nJ.x4.Aun
1973
L.72
S.84
1.48
0.73
9.84
81.4
51.2
7 84
5.43
28.8
i9V6.
.12
>.3
.5
3.80
j.2
11.8
123.
19.23
.58
3.07
3.08
•***. ^
-81 175
-7.9 I'*
22 1"
178
-9.6 "»
180
-20 "I
-51 1«
3.8 1"
184
185
43 186
72 187
Treatment
19J3.
Nona
Nona
None
DAP
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aoratod Lng.
Aerated Lag.
DAP
Aerated Lag.
Act. Sludge
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAP
Act. Sludge
Evap. or Pare. Pond
water I'saoe
OoerationB pillion r.-tl/n;.%3
.91
*7.5
14.53
'..Of.
i.4
i.U
!.35
^
14
-79
48
0.0
11
-3.0
12
-H.5
-18
-------
1AULL VI-15 (Continued)
Truatgent Operatlon|i_*nd_j(!aj;_er UaaqCL 1973 and 1976
ID
Pcf..
lee
169
lid
191
152
193
194
1»S
197
199
200
TiSJ.U"."'
iiil
Kone
None
DAF
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Hone
AerateJ Lag.
Stab. Pond
JJor.e
OAF
Act. sludcje
Ftab. pond
None
Kona
-lU".1/.-"'.,1!'*"1.
Corr. Plate Sep.
Aerated Lag.
lot. Joml
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Fond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
None
Aerated Lag.
I'ol. Poiul
None
Corr. Plated Sep.
Chcnical Floe.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pcnd
Aerated Lag.
I'ol. Pond
Pre-Piltration
Aerated :.ag.
Filtration
None
„,,„,,,,„„,„
£M 1 1 1 Mil
1973.
6.22
0.05
0.40
0.039
44.25
130.0
2.00
.'-•" '/"''r
1976
i.23
3.03
0.12
2.89
0.035
0.053
32.7
010011
16.38
0.012
0.05
1.43
•* M,,,l. ^
16 201
40 202
70 203
204
205
-36 206
26 207
208
64 209
210
211
212
29 213
1973
DAF
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Act. Sludge
DAP
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
None
TricX. Filter
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
DAF
Act. Sludge
DAF
1976
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Act. sludge
Filtration
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Chemical Floe.
DAF
Act. 'Sludge
Pol. Pond
DAF
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
None
Corr. Plate Sep.
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Stab. Pond
DAF
Stab. Pond
Tol. Ford
Evap. or Pero. Pond
ttuno
Chemical ploc.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
Filtration
DAF
Act. sludije
OAF
Aerattul Lag.
Stab. Pond
I'ol, Hail
1973
2.02
52.4
12.66
0.05
15.25
1.2S
3.57
"•'* "-'y
1976
J 9
).004
29.14
J.07
9.05
3.14
23.2
3.76
L.98
1.14
/•» Red.
-44
44
29
-lao
-52
-58
-------
TABU VI-15 (Continued)
Trgatmsnt Ow rat long andj*«!tgr Ua ago ,1973 and 1976
i;,»f.
"* ' 4
215
216
213
2»
2:3
-J
o
222
223
224
225
226
Tre.itmen
1973
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Pere. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
DAP
DAP
Stab. Pond
. OoerationR
1976
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Chemical Floe.
Act. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
i'pi. ton*
Filtration
Other Organic* Rem.
Aerated Lag.
Pol. Pond
None
Chemical Floe.
DAP
DAP
Filtration
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
Water
Million
1973
672.
14.33
0.40
0.04
TTsacre
' '"
Cal/DilV
1976
53.24
0.68
3.45
0.087
8.15
0.89
0.413
2.52
0.084
?f. Red. ""*'
7 ' NO.
227
228
Questionable 229
Data
230
231
232
43 2"
234
235
-3.3 »6
237
-no 238
iiJO
Trcatircn
1973
Stab. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Mono
Stab. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Filtration
DAF
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Act. Sludge
Filtration
Corr. Plate Sep.
Trick. Filter
Act. Sludge
I'l in a I luii
Stab. Pond
i Onorattons
1976
OAF
Aerated Lag.
RHC
loX'. l-onii
Filtration
Stab. Pond
F'Ol. Fon-1
nvap. or Perc. Pond
Stab. Pond
Chemical Floe.
Filtration
Act. Sludge
Trick, Filter
fol. !-ond
DAF
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Pol. I-on-1
Act. Sludgo
Trick. Filter
Pol. Fond
Corr. Plate Sep.
OAF
Act. Carbon
Act. Sludge
Trick. Filter
Aerated Lag.
Stab. Pond
ll.l, l»l|.|
Curr Plato Sep.
KI3C
l-ol. JwiU
Water
Million
• 1973
2.56
0.48
1.80
72.22
5.59
2.30
4.40
0.13
3.72
0.23
irraao
Gal /nay
1076
2.59
0.55
0.15
1.5
••.3.65
3.75
3.»«
0.15
0.038
4.2
a. 216
-1.2
0.1
-------
TABU VI-15 (Continued)
Treatment Operations and Water Usage 1973 and 1976
R-^j.
N-o.
2-10
241
242
243
244
245
24C.
247
JJ3
D49
250
:si
252
Wnt«r Usaao
1973
None
Other Organics Rem.
None
Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Stab. Pond
DA?
Stab. Pond
Eva p . or PC re Pond
Evap . or Perc . Pond
DAP
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Stab. Pond
1976
Act. Sludge
Pol. Pond
None
Aerated Lag.
J'ol. Fond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
terS^.8"'
I'ol. 1'ond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Aerated Lag.
Evap. or Perc. Pond
i'ol. Fotlii
Evap. or Perc. Pond
Evap. or Perc. Pond
DAP
Evap. or Perc Pond
Stab. Pond
1973
1.58
2.47
0.95
0.86
2.16
0.24
1976
1.34
0.96
0.86
0.77
3.19
2.84
0.84
0.32
•"-. K*
15 253
61 254
9.5 255
10 256
257
2511
-31 259
260
261
264
265
-33 266
Water usane
TreBtlTtOn • On*»t-:»H«n« uj 1 1 { *._ «-«ty^~..
1973
Evap. or Pore. Pond
DAP
Aerated Lag.
Aerated Lag.
None
Nona
1-J76
Evap. or Pore. Pond
None
Pre-Flltration
AcrawOd Lag.
I'ol. Pond
Corr. Plate Sep.
Stab. 'Pond
Stab. Pond
OAF
Act. Sludge
Pol. 1'onl
CAP
7kCt. Sludge
Aerated Lag.
DAP
Trick. Filter
RBC
Evap. or Pore, Pond
Corr. Plate Sep.
DAF
Act. Sludge
Stab. Pond
Pol. Pond
None
1973
0.25
0.94
1976
1.0
0.13
0.04
99.5
1.96
Z1.55
1.0
3.0
2.07
0.83
X r*4.
12
-------
TABLE VI-15 (Continued)
Operations
1973
.283
284
-o
to
Water Uaaqa
Million Gal/Dnv
1973
1976
0.024
* Red' NoT*"
295
.
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
30U
305
306
307
Trentment Operations
1973.
Evap. or Perc, Pond
Wntor Usage
Million Gal/Say X Red.
1076
-------
TABLE VI-15 (Continued)
oo
R»g,
No.
30d
309
Watnr U-iaqp
1973
1976
Evap. or Pere. Pond
Chemical Floe.
Act. Sludge
1973
1976
JLSS^s. NO,."
1973.
1976
121
1221
-------
TABLE VI-16
Summary of Treatment Technologies
For 1973 and 1976
Treatment Systems
Corrugated Plate Separators
Chemical Flocculation
Dissolved Air Flotation
Other Flotation Systems
Prefiltration
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Aerated Lagoon
Stabilization Pond
Rotating Biological Contactor
Other Organics Removal
Filtration
Polishing Ponds
Activated Carbon
Evaporation or Percolation Ponds
Number of Refineries
1973
4
r
56
1
Unknown
30
7
63
44
0
4
10
Unknown
1
26
1976
20
46
68
15
6
50
10
73
35
5
10
23(D
75
2
37
(1) Two refineries have both prefiltration and post filtration,
so that a total of only 27 refineries had filtration systems
in 1976.
174-
-------
TABLE VI-17
PLANNED WASTEWATER FLOW REDUCTIONS
Refinery
No.
3
7
9
11
12
13
18
22
31
35
39
40
42
44
45
46
50
53
57
59
Expected Flow Effective
Reduction (MGD) Date Reduction Technique
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
5.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
-
115
023
72
0014
-
0462
021
050
89
-
2
0
230
93
450
052
100
0
11
1978
1977
-
1977
1977
-
1977
1978
-
1977
-
1978
-
1979
1977
1977
1977
1978
1977
1930
Upgrade piping and installing air
coolers
Stripping steam to crude unit
In plant modifications
Better cooling tower controls and
waste water supervision
Recycle
Cascading of sour water
Sour water stripper effluent to
desalter or cooling towers
(50-50)
Recycle
Waste water to cooling tower
Replace once-thru condensers with
recycled water
Reuse
Discontinue selected quench
streams
Recycle
Recycle cooling tower water and
boiler blowdown
Stripped sour water to desalter
Stripped sour water to cooling
towers and recycle cooling water
and desalter water
Sour water used for desalting
Reuse and increase cooling water
cycles
Recycle cooling water and control
blowdown s
Water management within refinery
175
-------
TABLE VI-17
PLANNED WASTEWATER
(Continued)
FLOW REDUCTIONS
Refinery
No.
63
64
Expected Flow
Reduction (MGD)
0.240
2.37
Effective
Date
1977
1983
67
71
72
74
76
77
78
82
87
88
90
92
96
102
106
107
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
.04
.020
-
.5
-
.063
-
.00001
.16
.002
.270
.1
.417
.259
.04
-
1977
1977
1977
1978
1977
^
1982
1977
1977
1978
1978
1977
-
1977
1977
113
0.072
1977
Reduction Technique
Reroute cooling tower blowdown
and new storm water handling
facilities
Closed system for pump cooling;
eliminate once-thru cooling;
cooling cycles increase via acid
injection
Recycle and make-up for firewater
Storm water segregation
Larger cooling capacity for lower
blowdown rates
Improved condensate recovery
Fin fan air condensing
Runoff to be used as cooling tower
make-up
Stripped sour water used as de-
salter make-up
Treated sour water to desalter
Switch to Fin fan cooling
Reuse of wastewater in gas hand-
ling system
Non-refinery runoff eliminated
Closed loop cooling loops and
some recycle
Cooling towers replacing once-thru
cooling
Treated wastewater for firewater
system
Recycled treated wastewater
Stormwater segregation
Recycle wastewater effluent to
cooling tower make-up
Reduce once-thru cooling and tower
blowdown
176
-------
TABLE VI-17
PLANNED WASTEWATER
(Continued)
FLOW REDUCTIONS
Refinery
No.
115
117
122
132
138
144
150
152
153
156
162
163
169
172
Expected Flow Effective
Reduction (MGD) Date Reduction Technique
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
.08
.200
.700
.7
.538
.08
.072
.4
.0
.216
.0
.166
.55
.156
1978
1977
1977
1978
-
1977
1978
1978
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
Recycle process wastewater to cok<
cooling
Pump gland cooling to cooling
towers
Coker recycle water system
Uncontaminated stream segregation
Recycle to cooling towers
Two series desalter
Segregated once-thru pump gland
cooling and plant wastewater con-
servation program
Firewater use reduction and me-
chanical pump seal replacement
Recycle treated wastewater to
cooling towers
Cooling tower cycle increases
(blowdown decreases)
Recycled wastewater to process
units
Segregation of Uncontaminated
runoff
Reuse of process water
Replacement of barometric conden-
173
181
0.180
3.0
ser with surface condensers and
treated sour water recycle to
desalter
1977 Segregate Uncontaminated runoff
and replace barometric condenser
with on-contact condensing system
1978 Reduce boiler blowdown via better
control; Increase cooling tower
cycles; Cascade boiler blowdown
from high pressure boilers to low
pressure boilers; Use boiler blow-
down as desalter water; Use clarifier
overflow and regeneration water
177
-------
TABLE VI-17 (Continued)
PLANNED WASTEWATER FLOW REDUCTIONS
Refinery
No.
181 Cont'd.
Expected Flow
Reduction (MGD)
Effective
Date
182
183
184
185
196
200
202
207
208
210
0.94
0.080
0.144
0.837
0.022
0.0005
1977
1977
1978
1981
187
191
194
0.72
0.140
3.0
1977
1979
1977
1983
1977
1977
1977
1980
0.003
Reduction Technique
from condensate polisher as cool-
ing tower make-up; Recycle filter
backwash to clarifier; Reuse coke
cutting water and coke drum cool-
water in delayed coking units;
Reuse treated wastewater in fire-
water system
Treated wastewater used as utility
water and greater reuse of stripper
bottoms
Recycle desaltars effluent
Steam condensate collection &
reuse
Effluent reuse and solar evapora-
tion
Recycle effluent to cooling towers
Sour water stripper
Replacement of barometric conden-
sers; Utilization of recycled fire
waters in cat cracker; Cooling
tower blowdown atomation
Recyle of waotewater to cooling
tower and segregation of storm
waters
Stripped sour water to desalter
Total recycle
Increase heat recovery at reformer
to reduce cooling requirements
Increase cooling tower cycles;
Reuse of boiler blowdown; Recovery
of condensate; Recycle demineral-
izing regenerants to fire system;
reuse appropriate water as cooling
water
Boiler blowdown and stripped sour
water to be used in desalter
178
-------
TABLE VI-17
PLANNED WASTEWATER
(Continued)
FLOW REDUCTIONS
Refinery
No.
216
220
227
229
231
Expected Flow Effective
Reduction (MOD) Date
4.56
1.0
0.0432
0.0125
0.300
1977
1977
1978
1978
1977
232
236
240
242
247
249
252
254
259
265
0.
0.
0.
0.
14.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-
026
37
36
652
4
016
500
072
537
-
1977
1977
1977
-
1977
1977
-
1977
_
298
Reduction Technique
Reuse of effluent, stormwater and
sludge blowdown decant as intake
and activated sludge effluent as
service water intake
Condensate from tower over heads
to desalter feed
Sour water treatment to reduce
volume requiring stripping
Strip ammonia from cat cracking
condensate to release water for
desalter
Once-thru cooling to become cool-
ing towers
Program being developed
Contact cooling to non-contact
cooling
Contact cooling to non-contact
cooling
Non-contact cooling water segrega-
tion
Find market for spent phenolic
caustic
Reroute cooling tower blowdown
to spray pond
Additional wastewater evaporation
Recycle boiler blowdown
Ballast water bottoms, desalter
water, and zealite regeneration
brine to disposal well
Install water softeners to reduce
cooling tower blowdown
179
-------
TABLE VI-17 (Continued)
PLANNED WASTEWATER FLOW REDUCTIONS
Refinery Expected Flow Effective
No. Reduction (MGD) Date Reduction Technique
308 - — Study underway
309 0.15 1978 Replacement of two vacuum jet
ejecters on solfolane unit with
vacuum pumps.
180
-------
TABLE VI-18
FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS
Refinery
No. Modifications
3 Steam stripper to be added
10 DAF unit to be installed
11 Sour waters to be stripped; Separator effluent to equal-
ization, pH adjustment, floceulation, DAF, bio-reactors,
clarification and filtering
15 API effluent to CPI and then to detention pond
16 DAF unit to be installed
25 API sludge handling system to be installed
32 Replace stabilization with bio-disc, and effluent to pass
through clarifier carbon and filtration
37 DAF sludge thickener to be installed
38 Chemical floculation and DAF unit to be added
39 Final effluent to be used as boiler feed water
40 DAF effluent to equalization, activated sludge, and clari-
fication
42 Detention pond effluent to oxidation pond, then percolation
ponds;Clarifier effluent to filter before recycle to cool-
ing tower
44 Desalter effluent to separate separators; Two CPI and sand
filter at deep well; two stage sour water stripper; Warm
lime treatment for boiler and cooling water; Equipment for
SS removal or wet scrubbers blowdown
45 Tie in to POTW
46 Segregated streams to trickling filter where effluent
to combine with DAF effluent to activated sludge and
clarifier
50 Separate stabilization pond for sludge recirculation
51 Additional foul water stripping; IAF for ballast water
57 Activated sludge unit with pre-and post-filtration to
be added along with surge pond
62 DAF units being added
181
-------
TABLE VI-18 (Continued)
FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS
Refinery
No. Modifications
67 Activated sludge plant to be added
70 Segregate process and non-process wastewater and add
oil to skimmer and filter
71 Segregate storm water; New API units and equalization
pond; Increase lagoon aeration
72 Total renovation of barometric recycle water system
74 Possible addition of pH adjustment, chemical flocu-
lation, and DAF
76 Equalization after API; Two new DAF units; Activated
"sludge unit; Final clarifier
77 Adding DAF, equalization,. pH adjustment, activated sludge
unit, and clarification
78 Add sour water stripper effluent and coker effluent
to desalter
83 New equalization, bio-discs, and clarifiers after DAF,
and sludge to be treated and digested
86 Storm water surge basin
87 All sour water to be evaporated
88 Adding two additional oil separators, and by-passing off-
property water
90 Segregation of storm sewers and boiler blowdowns, and
installation of bio-discs
92 Aerated lagoons to be converted to activated sludge;
Biological treatment of storm runoff and ballast water;
Cooling towers will be replaced by once-thru cooling water
95 Adding API separator
97 Adding activated sludge plant
98 Storm water segregation and overall plant modifications
102 New activated sludge plant including pH adjustment,
chemical flocculation and settling, DAF unit, two
parallel sludge reactor tanks and clarifiers, and final
dual media filters; Also partial effluent recycle
182
-------
TABLE VI-18 (Continued)
FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS
Refinery
No. Modifications
104 New impounding basin before aerated lagoon
105 Areated lagoon to be converted to activated sludge basins
and to be followed by sand filters
106 Storm water segregation
107 Tie in to POTW
110 Boiler blowdown, sour water, desalter condensate, water
treatment system blowdown, and spent caustic to be routed
to new separator and into city sewer
114 Tie in to POTW
115 Storm water segregation; Separator effluent to pH adjustment,
equalization, chemical floculation, DAF unit, activated
"sludge and clarification
120 Additional API separators and enlargement of aeration ponds;
Activated carbon to be added if necessary
121 Plant source control programs
122 Stormwater segregation; Extra aerators to aeration basins;
Mixed media filter for final effluent; Some recycle of
final effluent to cooling water
124 Storm water retention pond
125 DAF unit to be installed
127 Baffles added to final polishing pond
132 Water treatment systems blowdown to clarifier; Segregate
once-thru cooling water and un -contaminated runoff;
Additional sour water stripper to allow reuse of stripped
sour water; Effluent from separator, stripper, and clarifier
to go to equalization, activated sludge, and filtration
142 Tie in to POTW
143 Tie in to POTW
150 Bio-discs to be added
151 Additional ammonia removal facilities; Bio-discs studies
on aerated lagoon effluent
183
-------
TABLE VI-18 (Continued)
FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS
Refinery
No. Modifications
152 Downflow sand filter to be added prior to final discharge
154 API separator to be added with new holding pond
163 API effluent to equalization pond with skimmer, four stage
bio-disc unit, two parallel clarifiers, and final pond-
ing with skimmers
.65 Storm water runoff retention basin
168 Oily process wastewater, stripped sour water, and con-
taminated runoff to receive pH adjustment, oil water
separation, sand filtration , equalization.nutrient
addition, bio-disc treatment, ana tinal clarification;
ballast water to be held, fed to an IAF unit, passed
through cooling water guard basin and discharged
172 Adding IAF, equalization, bio-discs, and clarification
173 API effluent to equalization, chemical addition, DAF,
activated sludge,and clarification
175 To join regional treatment plant
177 Installation of bio-discs and clarifiers
181 API effluent to primary clarifiers before _equalization
182 Expanded reuse of stripped sour water; Increased rainfall
collection and retention facilities; All wastewater to
POTW
184 Addition of chemical f locculation, DAF units, and cooling
towers, and modification of aeration basin and clarifier
185 Add secondary treatment, effluent reuse, and, in 1981,
solar evaporation
187 Larger API separator
190 Increase lagoon size
194 Improve API and polishing pond
199 Additional API separator
204 Modify DAF for recycle pressurization; Aerators in equali-
zation pond; Dual media filters for bio-treator effluent;
Improve cnlorination; Better storm water segregation
184
-------
TABLE VI-18 (Continued)
FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODIFICATION
Refinery
No. Modifications
205 Sour water stripping systems; Larger API separator; Pond-
ing or biological systems
208 Existing two parallel plate interceptors and three API
separators to be replaced by five CPI units
212 Sand filtration for plant effluent
216 Aerated lagoon to be converted to activated sludge; New
contaminated runoff impoundment facilities; Sour water
oxidizer to be replaced by single stage stripper
219 Storm sewer effluent treatment to be improved; New CPI
and equalization basin to be installed; Filter backwash
to be dewatered in settling ponds and supernatant sent
back to treatment plant intake
221 Equalization before aeration, and storm water segregation
222 Increase surge pond size; Chemical Floculation and
clarification to be added; Effluent recycle facilities
installed
230 IAF provided for AVI separator and equalization basin
enlarged for grit removal
232 Storm water retention, activated sludge, aid filtration
under construction
236 New system to include API separator, holding tank,CPI,
aerated equalization bapj.n. four stage bio-disc unit, and
final clarifier
240 New oil-water separator and existing pond to be sub-
divided into primary settling, aeration, and final settling
241 New parallel separator to combine with old separator and
go to two parallel DAF units, activated sludge pond,
clarifier, and final chlorination
242 Adding equalization basin after API separators, then
chemical floculation, DAF, activated sludge, and final
clarification
246 Total impoundment for all but once-thru cooling water
225 New API separator Additional treatment pond, DAF, new
aeration basin, and phenolic treatment
185
-------
TABLE VI-18 (Continued)
FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT MODIFICATION
Refinery
No. Modification
256 Additional CPI to operate in parallel with existing one;
Continuous solids removal to be added prior to API
separator; Equalization basin capacity to be increased
257 Additional API separator, air flotation unit, and aerated
lagoon
298 New system including primary separator, DAF, and secondary
separator
186
-------
TABLE VI-19
REFINERY FLOW VS. FINAL EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATION FOR 17 SCREENING PLANTS
Percent of
Refinery Actual Discharge
Code Flow
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
Slope
Intercept
(Correlation)
to BPT Flow
40.8
37.8
36.7
49.7
143.3
.96
121.7
72.5
69.4
58.0
89.4
173.9
35.0
69.1
121.3
*
28.0
Average
BOD,
mg/1
< 2.5
18.5
41.0
125.0
< 9.5
27.0
<12.5
4. 4.5
<' 12.0
6.0
< 8.5
•* 7.5
<-12.0
9.0
<.51.0
-r 5.0
25.0
- .11
31.27
.03
Average
TSS,
mg/1
37.0
22.0
19.0
62.0
14.5
103.0
56.0
9.0
8.0
13.5
24.0
27.5
11.5
45.0
25.0
6.5
30.0
- .15
42.40
.08
Average
TOC,
mg/1
11.0
43.0
39.0
220.0
10.0
92.5
60.0
19.5
31.5
30.0
40.5
16.5
16.0
34.5
46.0
23.5
68.5
- .31
70.96
.08
Average
Oil and Grease,
mg/1
*
34.0
9.0
*
*
*
16.5
20.0
6.0
13.0
21.5
*
13.0
*
*
*
41.0
- .11
26.03
.09
Note: * - NO DATA
187
-------
TABLE VI-20
REFINERIES INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF WASTEWATER FLOW REDUCTION FACTORS
Refineries Meeting Model Flow Only
Refineries Keetiny Level 1 Only
00
00
Refinery
Code No.
127
211*1
239
227
73
129
204
92
..?25
BB
1 88
1 ;.! :l
Ii6
15)1
245
lot
205
31
153
249
149
1 1 5
236
186
84
110
245
13
142
200
45
58
41
59
24
189
96
257
U9
11
1 - R
0.004832
O. 010752
o. oi3:>08
0.022324
0.024390
0.043977
0.046543
0.073705
0 . 07809 1
0.081330
0.106946
0.109219
0. 110031'
0. 113357
O.I 13475
0.114422
0.118716
0. 120256
0.122688
0.135178
0.143167
0.151155
0.154930
0.160180
0.165102
0.166667
0.170161
0.197342
0.197578
0.211340
0.211372
O. 22 17 26
0.237844
0.240990
0.247366
0.250000
0.257829
0.259934
0.260304
0.264403
Notes:
Of the 262 refineries included in the
project data base, 175 refineries are
known to have generated wastewaters
in 1976 at a rate less than their model
flows based upon crude throughputs.
Refinery Refinery
Code No .
II 1
168
150
252
2.i2
183
190
116
115
73
163
156
224
134
256
226
162
121
228
91
159
247
235
20
157
61
219
255
44
7
258
208
212
109
128
139
71
211
201
46
.
1 - R Code No.
0.265799
0,269221
0.273572
0.277233
0.277396
0.291458
0.297861
0.302376
•'.3083:53
•,'..510503
,313123
• .325362
0.331140
0.338431
0.357085
0.365553
0.369167
0.371728
0.382311
0.396491
0.399538
0.400000
0.407621
0.407631
0.419953
0.422332
0.432812
0.438513
0.444599
0.451475
0.452902
0 . 457237
0.462064
0.463856
0.473802
0.477875
0.479167
0.483395
0.490506
0.496587
0.502878
0.510246
Wastewater Generated in 1976
Model Flow based upon Crude
Throughput in 1976
176
98
62
144
33
185
53
15
86
113
37
60
305
106
9
207
23
259
161
119
14
16
114
206
77
6
124
2
26
158
233
210
264
298
195
137
13
90
125
160
55
1
213
209
.74
155
148
Refineries Meeting Level 2
I - R
0.516635
0.519890
0.520057
0.522209
0.522553
0.523294-
0.523628-
0.526985
0.527967
0.529121
0.530348
0.532319
0.533266
0.536462
0.542311
0.544872
0.548148
0.548640
0.551402
0.555687
0.561105
0.562280
0.568072
0.569444
0.569981
0.572893
0.595636
0.600592
0.607326
0.612115
0.628336
0.638888
0.641834
0.650538
0.667500
0.666071
0.670520
0.6/1052
0.678214
0.687500
0.688612
0.690352
0.699307
0.701322
0.703493
0.705220
0.715018
Refinery
Code No.
137
147
108
22
260
140
50
202
118
179
243
8
103
25
310
191
36
3
54
10
237
165
17
220
49
80
99
107
97
254
229
19
193
218
31
141
4
302
248
135
250
251
278
296
303
307
1 - R
0.716590
O. 717381
0.720812
0.729892
0.733088
0.746777
0.748891
0.750000
0.752066
0.755548
0.768084
0,772727
0.774355
0.778185
0.783333
0.792902
0.795792
0.807692
0.820523
0.826075
0.835294
0.846560
0.848736
0.850649
0.858620
0.861077
0.864288
0.903723
0.915076
0.916667
0.925180
0.945128
0.949884
0.970833
0.971374
0.978270
0.989423
0.990476
0.997499
1 .000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1 . 000000
1.000000
RL for Level 1 = 0.73
R7 for Level 2 = 0.48
-------
SECTION VII
COST, ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the costs, energy requirements and non-water
quality environmental impacts associated with the control and
treatment technologies presented in Section VI. As such, the cost
estimates represent the incremental expenditures required over and
above the capital and operating costs associated with attainment of
BPT effluent limitations. These differential costs, therefore, relate
to specific control and treatment alternatives that could be necessary
to comply with BAT limitations.
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. It should be noted
that these land requirements are minimal compared to the land
requirements for refinery process equipment and land at the refinery
for wastewater treatment systems exists in most cases. All costs
presented in this section are based upon January 1977 values.
The cost data presented in this section are based on flow rates.
basis. The following table outlines the cost basis used for calcu-
lating the major capital and operating costs presented in this
section:
Table VII-1
COST BASIS
Item Unit Cost
1. Tank Steel $1.40 - 2.00/pound
2. Tank Lining $3.00 - I.OO/ft*
3. Carbon, granular (capital cost) $31.00/ft3
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,
189
-------
etc. were derived from the contractor's (Burns and Roe) in-house
experience and expertise in the design and construction of major
facilities.
The depreciation factor and the cost of capital have not been included
in these cost presentations but will be considered in the economic
impact analysis.
COST AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED
Biological Treatment. Cost analyses developed for BPT regulations
were based on activated sludge or equivalent BPT systems (3). Very
limited number of refineries may need to upgrade their existing
biological treatment systems inorder to comply with BAT limitations.
One method of upgrading a biological unit is to install a raw
wastewater equalization system (143). Table VTI-2 presents capital
and operating costs for this type of modification. These costs are
based upon 12 hours detention and include the necessary pumps and
controls for equalization of flow as well as 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. It is assumed either that pumping is
not required on both sides of the tank, or there is one set of
existing pumps 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 (RBC's) are an applicable treatment alternative for use as
a roughing system.
Tables VII-3 and VII-1 present equipment sizes and energy
requirements, as well as capital and operating costs for RBC units.
This study assumes that this treatment alternative will be used if
aerated lagoons or oxidation ponds are used as 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 also is assumed that the RBC units will precede the present
biological system. Clarifiers, or additional sludge handling
capabilities, will not be required, since the amount of solids
carry-over from the RBC units to the present lagoons is assumed to be
the same order of magnitude as that presently entering the lagoons
from the raw wastewater.
Refineries with activated sludge or trickling filter systems can
improve their effluent quality with powdered activated carbon
190
-------
treatment. Powdered activated carbon may also improve the effluent
quality of trickling filter systems. Tables VII-5 through VII-7
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
determine when the use of carbon regeneration would become cost
effective when sludge handling is included as a cost factor. This
analysis is included in Table VII-8. Tables VTI-9 through VII-11
present cost data for powdered activated carbon systems based upon the
inclusion of sludge handling costs.
Table VII-10 includes the costs for purchase of solids dewatering
systems, whereas Table VII-11 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/1 dosage rate. This number is based upon one year of operating
data at the DuPont Chambers works facility.
Filtration. Filtration was also discussed in Section VI. BPT
regulations were 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 the model BPT technology. It may be
necessary for certain refineries to install granular media filtration
to comply with BAT limitations. Tables VII-12 and VII-13 include the
associated cost data for tertiary filtration systems.
Granular Activated Carbon. Table VII-14 presents the equipment sizes
and energy requirements used to estimate the capital and operating
costs for granular activated carbon systems. The sizes are based upon
the design concept described in Section VI, with the system consisting
of tanks that can be shipped in one piece, thereby minimizing field
construction. This results in an unusually large number of tanks for
the larger systems. In reality, a more cost-effective design (with
cost savings on the order of 5 to 15%) for a given refinery could use
field constructed steel tanks, concrete tanks, or other construction
techniques determined on a plant-by-plant basis. The use of similar
sized, shop fabricated tanks allows for uniformity in cost estimating,
especially in regard to the development of construction and design
engineering estimates. This approach also results in a conservative
(e.g., larger) estimate, and is considered preferable when considering
general industry-wide costs.
191
-------
Table VII-15 presents the capital costs for the systems outlined in
Table VII-14. Table VII-16 provides the operating costs, excluding
depreciation, for these granular activated carbon systems. The
capital costs for carbon regeneration systems are based upon an
equipment manufacturer's quotations.
The manhour estimates used in carbon regeneration calculations were
based on the following: Manpower requirements for the operation of the
granular carbon adsorbers were obtained from the EPA Technology
Transfer Series, Carbon Adsorption Manual (6U); the manpower estimates
for operating powdered carbon feed systems were assumed to be half of
those for the granular systems. The estimates presented in this
reference for the operation of carbon regeneration systems appear to
have significant errors (on the order of 5 to 10 times too large), so
that they were not used in this analysis. Based on other experience
in operating a system of this type, it is estimated that one operator
around the clock would be required for the operation of a carbon
regeneration system, and this value has been used in the analysis.
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:
I. 380 M3/day (0.1x10* gal/day) - $75,000 - $100,000/year
Foundation and Hook-up - $5,000
II. 3800 M3/day (l.OxlO6 gal/day) - $U50,000/year
Foundation and Hook-up - $15,000
These estimates are based upon 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,
Powdered Activated Carbon. Powdered activated carbon treatment can
also be used for the removal of organic toxic pollutants, but may
require higher carbon dosages. Tables VII-17 thru VII-19 present
costs for powdered activated carbon systems based upon a carbon dosage
of 150 mg/1. Tables VII-20 thru VII-23 present the analyses and
associated results when the costs for sludge hauling and recognized.
Low Flow Rate Systems. Table VII-24 presents capital and operating
costs for the systems discussed above at a design flow rate of 10,000
gal/day.
192
-------
In-Plant Control
Chromium Removal. The treatment technology described in Section VI is
the basis for estimating the costs of chromium removal. Most
refineries also can take advantage of the reducing environment in
refinery sewers and the removal capabilities of secondary treatment
systems.
Table VII-25 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 treat-
ment systems. Table VII-26 presents equipment cost bases and energy
requirements for selected flow rates from Table VII-25; Table VII-27
presents the capital and operating costs for these same systems.
Flow Reduction. Section VI describes a number of in-plant control
measures designed to reduce or elminate wastewater flow. Many of
these measures, however, require a piant-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 a national basis very
difficult.
The Agency has selected one in-plant flow reduction measure, however,
that can be applied at most refineries in the country, and whose cost
can be readily estimated on a national scale. This flow reduction
scheme consists of the recycling of treated refinery wastewaters for
use in such process related applications as cooling tower make-up,
pump gland cooling water, wash down 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, the
salinity of the wastewater to be recycled, etc. EPA has chosen this
wastewater reduction technique for estimating purposes because it is
both definable and representative of the costs that would be incurred
by other similary effective in-plant control measures.
Table VII-28 presents the capital and operating costs per mile for
recycling various amounts of treated wastewater. Figure VII-1 shows
this data in curvilinear form, projecting the cost values in Table
VII-28 over a wide range of pumping distances.
Determining the costs incurred at a particular refinery requires
information on the distance between the treated wastewater collection
point and the actual point of reuse. Since this data is not generally
available, it is necessary to estimate based upon refinery size.
Figure VII-2 presents a curve of refinery size vs. pumping distance.
This figure is presented to permit an estimate of the cost for reuse
.193
-------
of treated wastewater. EPA expects that the costs developed using
Figures VII-1 and VII-2 will be higher than the actual cost
experienced at most refineries. This is because the distances derived
from Figure VII-2 probably will be higher than the actual distances
involved at most petroleum refineries.
Treatment of Recycled wastewater. In some cases, particularly for
cooling tower make-up, the recycled wastewater may require treatment
for the removal of calcium and magnesium hardness. This type of
treatment may involve the use of lime or lime-soda ash softening,
followed by filtration. Table VII-29 presents the capital costs for
softening systems that correspond to the flow rates utilized in Table
VII-28. Operating costs cannot be readily determined on a national
basis because they are heavily dependent on the concentration of
calcium and magnesium in the recycled wastewater. Lime costs can
range from roughly $0.025/1000 gal. of treated water, for an influent
hardness of 100 mg/1 (as CaCO.3) , to $0.12/1000 gal. for an influent
hardness of 500 mg/1 (as CaCO2[). These costs can vary depending on
the desired effluent quality and on the influent water quality,
especially in regard to alkalinity.
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Solid Wastes
In general, the treatment systems described in Section VI produce
relatively small amounts of solid waste with regard to large powdered
activated carbon systems, the sludges may be incinerated, which
actually reduces or eliminates the solid wastes produced by these
biological treatment facilities. For smaller powdered activated
carbon systems that do not include regeneration, the inclusion of
powdered carbon in the sludge has been shown to improve sludge
settleability (61), so that the volume of sludge requiring disposal
should not increase significantly, and in fact, may decrease.
Sludge is produced from lime softening systems and from the
application of chromium removal techniques. The Agency anticipates,
however, that only a limited number of refineries would require these
types of treatment. The cost of handling this sludge has not been
included in the cost estimates presented in this section. These
sludges would require land disposal, because they are not
biodegradeable. However, the cost and environmental impact of this
type of disposal is assumed to be minimal on a national basis,
especially when compared to the large quantities of sludges produced
by BPT type technology. The cost and environmental impact on a plant-
by-plant basis cannot be determined, because the quantity of sludge is
heavily dependent on the hardness of the water being treated and on
the chromium concentration in the wastewater.
194
-------
Air Pollution
The carbon regeneration furnaces associated with both granular and
powdered activated carbon systems will produce airborne contaminants.
However, the equipment costs and operating requirements presented in
this section for regeneration systems include after-burners for
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide removal and air scrubbing equipment
for particulate removal.
COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
EPA is presently considering six regulatory options for direct
dischargers and two regulatory options for indirect dischargers.
Plant-by-plant costs for two of the six direct discharge alternatives
and both of the indirect discharge alternatives are presented below.
Direct Discharge Options
Costs are presented in Table VII-30 for the following options:
Option 1 - Set BAT regulations based upon BPT end-of-pipe
treatment with an average reduction in effluent flow of 27% (refer to
discussion on reuse in Section VI).
Option 2 - Set BAT regulations based upon 52% pollutant loading
reductions. This level of reduction can be achieved via 52% flow
reduction (refer to discussion on reuse in Section VI) or a
combination of limited flow reduction and end-of-pipe treatment such
as powdered activated carbon or rotating biological contactors
(RBC's). Cost for this option is based upon 27% flow reduction (same
as Option 1) with biological enhancement using powdered activated
carbon or rotating biological contactors.
The following general assumptions have been made in developing the
costs:
1. In order to comply with a given BAT option, it is assumed
that the refinery must reduce its flow and install a "model" end-of-
pipe treatment system. Refineries already having these technologies
or planning to install them have no costs. It is assumed that all
refineries have some type of biological treatment already in place.
2. Although there are many methods to reduce flow, recycle of
treated wastewater is easily definable in terms of developing costs
and will be the assumed technique for each refinery that requires
effluent reduction. Although a given refinery may choose a different
method, the costs allocated are expected to be conservatively high.
195
-------
3. Although a refinery may choose to upgrade its biological
treatment system in other ways, rotating biological contactors (RBC)
and powdered activated carbon can be readily priced as add-on systems.
Costs for these systems also are expected to be conservatively high
estimates.
4. Although the costs are based on one approach to achieving
effluent quality, there are many alternatives available to this
industry. A given refinery may choose to add sophisticated end-of-
pipe treatment systems, rather than reduce flow. Alternatively, a
refinery may choose to drastically reduce its flow and install minimal
end-of-pipe treatment. However, in order to produce conservatively
high costs within a reasonable manhour expenditure, the costs rely
heavily on end-of-pipe treatment alternatives, which can be directly
defined. The cost procedures include reducing flow to Option 1
requirements only. Beyond this, sophisticated end-of-pipe treatment
(biological polishing with RBC's or powdered activated carbon) were
used to represent the costs associated with meeting Option 2
requirements.
5. Effluent flow is considered to be the flow indicated in the
NPDES permit. All other forms of disposal (i.e., evaporation, deep
well, etc.), except indirect discharge, were considered flow reduction
techniques.
6. Some refineries discharge partly to POTW's and partly to
surface waters. Only those plants that directly discharge the
majority of their wastewaters were included in this analysis. For
these plants, the wastewater discharged to a POTW was assumed to be
included with the direct discharge flow.
The costs were developed using a model technology for each regulatory
option, as follows:
Option Flow Reduction End-of-Pipe Treatment Reqd
1 27% Bio Treatment
2 52% activated carbon or RBC's
The costs for each refinery were generated by adding those treatment
operations that did not exist in 1976, and were not listed as planned
for the future. Since biological treatment is essential to meeting
the BPT guidelines, this level of treatment was assumed to exist at
all direct discharging refineries, whether or not they were in-place
or were planned for the future.
Therefore, a plant was assumed to be meeting BPT with their system as
it existed in 1976, with the inclusion of planned treatment
196
-------
improvements. Costs were then calculated for those additional
treatment techniques necessary for completing the "model treatment11
train.
Planned flow reductions also were included in this analysis where they
were applicable to the costs for meeting the BAT limitations. A
detailed description of those flow reductions considered and those
ignored are presented in the March 1979 Cost Manual (151).
The energy requirements for meeting these two options are as follows:
Option Industry Energy Requirements, Kwh/yr
1 5,500,000
2 5,800,000
These estimates were calculated using four model plant sizes, which
represent four equal segments of the direct discharge segment of the
industry, as follows:
Capacity, Discharge Flow Rate,
Model Plant BBL/day 10* gal/day
1 10,000 0.052
2 50,000 0.3
3 65,000 0.86
H 200,000 5.1
Each model plant represents approximately 20 plants in its size range.
Estimates of the additional sludge generated by these technologies are
as follows:
Sludge Generation, Pounds
Option of Dry Solids Per Year
1 0
2 31,000,000
The estimate for Option 2 is based upon the installation of powdered
activated carbon at all plants. This allows for a conservatively high
estimate since plants that choose to use RBC's will only have a minor
increase in sludge generation.
Indirect Discharge Options
There are two indirect discharge options being considered by EPA.
These are as follows:
197
-------
Option 1 - Set standards based upon the treatment of chromium in
the cooling tower blowdown stream.
Option 2 - Set standards equal to BPT end-of-pipe treatment
technology, namely flow reduction, equalization, biological treatment,
and filtration.
Table VII-31 presents the costs associated with meeting Option 1.
Where the cooling tower blowdown rate was not known, it was assumed to
be one-fourth of the total effluent flow. The analysis also included
the cost of combining the effluents from multiple tower installations.
The costs presented for recycle of treated effluents (Table VII-28 and
Figure VII-1) were used to obtain the estimates for the necessary
pumps and piping.
Table VII-32 presents the costs associated with meeting Option 2.
Costs for the installation of in-plant control measures were assigned
to plants whose wastewater flow was greater than their calculated BPT
flow. These costs were obtained from the National Commission on Water
Quality (20), which included the following control measures:
Sour Water Stripping
Conversion of Barometric Condensers
Collection and Treatment of Contaminated Storm Water
Collection and Treatment of Contaminated Ballast Water
Spent Caustic Neutralization, Oxidation, or Disposal
Reuse of Sour Water in Desalter
Reuse of Coker Cutting Water
The costs presented in this document were updated to January 1977 by
using a correction factor of 1.18U. This factor is based upon the
Engineering News-Record index.
Costs for end-of-pipe treatment were obtained from the 1974
development document (3), using alternatives B and C, as follows:
B. Biological treatment, consisting of activated sludge units,
thickeners, digestors, and dewatering facilities.
C. Granular media filtration, consisting of filter systems and
associated equipment.
These costs also were corrected to January 1977 values using a factor
of 1.22 derived from the Engineering News-Record index.
Industry-wide energy consumption and sludge generation estimates have
been prepared for Option 1, chromium removal. These estimates are as
follows:
198
-------
Energy consumption, Kwh/yr - 1,900,000
Sludge generation, pounds per year - 2,200,000
EPA developed these costs by estimating the values for each plant
requiring chromium removal.
New Sources
The Agency expects that grass roots refineries built in the next five
years will be in the size of 150,000 bbls/day, with at least topping
and cracking processes. It is assumed that such a refinery will
generate a flow of 3,340,000 gallons per day. Based upon the flow
rate, the costs over BPT for meeting BAT Option 2 for this model size
plant include:
Capital Costs $615,000
Operating Costs $284,000
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 grass roots refinery. This
document estimates an additional investment, over BPT, of $9.5 million
with an annual cost of $3.5 million, including interest and
depreciation (1977 dollars).
Effectiveness of Guidelines
Tables VII-33 and VII-34 present the estimated pollutant removal from
BPT to the two BAT options for the direct discharging refineries.
Pollutant removals for BOD, TSS, Oil and Grease, chromium (hexavalent
and total), and phenol are presented.
Option 1 for pretreatment standards requires the removal of chromium
from cooling tower blowdown to a daily maximum level of 1 mg/1. In
addition, the Agency is proposing a maximum concentration of 100 mg/1
for oil and grease and ammonia. However, the data collected during
this study indicate that these values are of the same order of
magnitude found in raw refinery wastewater; therefore, the
effectiveness of these limitations cannot be quantified.
Proposed NSPS for the model size plant of 150,000 bbls/day will remove
2.46 Ibs/day phenol, 3.9 Ibs/day hexavalent chromium, 6 Ibs/day total
chromium, 308 Ibs/day total syspended solids, and 381 Ibs/day BOD.
199
-------
O
O
zoo
fcoo 6OO
CAPITAL COST
looo
|OOO
FIGURE VII-1
1400 Ifcoo
Pumping Capital Cost vs. Pumping Distance
1800
-------
6 T
N)
O
H
ul
f
oJ
£
A
V?
QL
700
IOOO
FIGURE VII-2
Refinery Size vs. Pumping Distance
-------
O
to
TABLE VII-2
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 '3/dax
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/d
$ 30,000
8,000
$ 38,000
5,700
$ 43,700
6,650
6,650
$ 57,000
585
$ 140
1,700
3800 /day 19
(1.0 x 106)
gal/d
$ 116,000
30,000
$ 146,000
22,000
$ 168,000
26,000
26,000
$ 220,000
5,780
Annual
$ 1,400
6,600
,000 3/day
(5 x 10b)
gal/d
$ 346,000
87,000
$ 433,000
65,000
$ 498,000
75,000
75,000
$ 648,000
28,200
Operating
$ 7,000
19,500
38,000 3/day
(10 x 10B)
gal/d
$ 595,000
149,000
$ 744,000
117,000
$ 861 ,000
129,500
129,500
$1,120,000
57,600
Costs, Dollars
$ 14,000
33,600
76,000 3/day
(20 x 10B)
gal/d
$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
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 VII-3
to
o
LO
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
Total Square Feet of Surface Area
Manpower Requirements, hours
Power Requirements, kWh/yr
380 m3/day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/d
50
1
15
75,000
500
33,000
3800 m3/day
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/d
50
6
20
630,000
Annual
750
294,000
19,000 m3/day 38
(5 x 10 )
gal/d
50
24
25
3,200,000 6,
Operating and Energy
1,000
1,180,000 2,
,000 m3/day
(10 x 10 )
gal/d
50
48
25
400,000
Requirements
1,500
360,000
76,000 »3/day
(20 x 10 )
gal/d
50
96
25
12,800,000
2,000
4,720,000
-------
TABLE VI1-4
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS (RBC's)
AS ROUGHING FILTERS
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
Capital Cost, Dollars
KJ
O
Description
RBC Units, Steel Shell,
Fiberglass Cover
Piping
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (50%)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Land Required, ft2
Power
Labor
Maintenance (3% of Total Capital Cost)
380 ra3/day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/d
$ 46,000
5,000
51 ,000
25,500
76,500
11,750
11,750
$100,000
420
$ 1,500
5,000
3,000
3800 rt3/day
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/d
$340,000
35,000
375,000
187,500
562,500
84,750
84,750
$732,000
2,800
$ 12,000
7,500
22,000
19,000 in3/day 38
(5 x 10 )
gal/d
$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
.000 ro3/day
(10 x 10 )
gal/d
$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
76,000 m3/day
(20 x 10 )
gal/d
$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
Total Annual Cost
$ 9,500 $ 41,500
$ 161,000 $ 314,000
$ 798,000
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 VI1-5
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
EQUIPMENT COST BASIS
AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
80 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Equipment Size
to
o
Ul
Description
Powdered Carbon Feed Tanks (2 each)
Capacity , gallons (Based on feed
concentration of one pound
carbon/gallon water)
Feed Rate pounds/day
380m /day 3800m /day 19
(0.1 x 10 ) (1.0 x 10 )
gal/d gal/d
700 7,000
67 670
Annual Operating
, 000 m /day
(5 x 10 )
gal/d
35,000
3,350
and Energy
38,000 m /day
(10 x 10 )
gal/d
70,000
6,700
Requirements
76,000m 3/day
(20 x 10 )
gal/d
140,000
13,400
Manpower Requirements, hours
Miscellaneous Power Requirements,
kWh/yr
400
540
25,000 50,000
940
125,000
1,240
200,000
1,940
375,000
-------
TABLE VII-6
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
CAPITAL COSTS
80 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
to
Total Capital Cost
Capital Costs, Dollars
Description
Powdered Carbon Feed System
Piping
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (50%)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
380 m /day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/d
510,000
1,000
11,000
6,000
17,000
9,000
9,000
3800 m3/apy
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/d
530,000
3,000
33,000
16,500
49 , 500
10,000
10,000
19,000 m3/day
(5 x 10 )
gal/d
545,000
4,500
49,500
24,800
74,300
11,350
11,350
38,000 ">3/day
(10 x 10 )
gal/d
560,000
6,000
66,000
33,000
99,000
15,500
15,500
76,000 m /day
(20 x 10 )
gal/d
5100,000
10,000
110,000
55,000
165,000
25,000
25,000
535,000
569,500
597,000
5130,000
5215,000
Land Requirements, ft
100
200
1,300
1,700
-------
to
o
TABLE VII-7
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
80 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Annual Cost, Dollars
Description
Carbon Make-up
Miscellaneous Power Requirements
Labor (510/manhour)
Maintenance (3% of total Capital Cost)
380m3/day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/d
5 7,400
1,000
4,000
1,000
3800 m 3/day
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/d
$74,000
2,000
5,400
2,000
19, 000 m 3/day
(5 x 10 )
gal/d
$370,000
5,000
9,400
3,000
38, 000 m /day
(10 X 10 )
gal/d
5740,000
8,000
12,400
4,000
76 , 000 m /day
(20 X 10 )
gal/d
$1,480,000
15,000
19,400
6,600
Total Annual Cost $13,400 $83,400 $387,400 $764,400 $1,521,000
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.
-------
to
o
00
TABLE VII-8
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTS
CARBON REGENERATION VS. THROW-AWAY
80 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Regenerated
Item
380 m
(0.1
3/day
x 10 )
gal/d
Capital Cost
Carbon Make-Up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power
Labor
Maintenance (3%)
(15%)
Depreciation (27%)
Total Annual Cost
$735
$ 2
5
1
91
1
105
200
$405
,000
,200
,000
,000
,600
,000
,000
,000
,800
3800 m
(1.0 x
3/day 19,000 m3/day
10 )
(5
gal/d
51,000
$ 22
19
2
93
2
140
270
$ 548
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
$1,
$
$
x 10")
gal/d
650,000
110,000
44,000
5,000
97,000
3,000
233,000
446,000
938,000
38,000 m
(10 x
3/fJay
10C)
76,
000 m /day
(20 x 10")
gal/d
52
$
SI
,300
220
76
8
100
4
328
621
,357
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
S3
S
$2
gal/d
,250,000
440,000
132,000
15,000
108,000
6,600
455,000
878,000
,034,600
Non-Regenerated
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
$ 35
$ 7
4
1
1
9
$ 22
$ 20
$ 42
4
$ 46
,000
,400
,000
,000
,000
,500
,900
,000
,900
,000
,900
$ 39
$ 74
5
2
2
17
$ 101
$ 76
$ 177
40
5 217
,500
,000
,400
,000
,000
,600
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
97,000
370,000
9,400
3,000
5,000
26 , 200
413,600
137,000
550,000
200,000
750,000
$
$
S
S
SI
SI
130
740
12
4
8
35
799
226
,025
400
,425
,000
,000
,400
,000
,000
,100
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
5
SI
SI
$
$1
52
215,000
,480,000
19,400
6,600
15,000
58,000
,579,000
335,000
,914,000
800,000
,714,000
-------
TABLE VII-9
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
EQUIPMENT COST BASIS
AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
INCLUDING COSTS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
80 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Equipment Size
NJ
O
Description 380 m /d
(0.1 x 10^]
gal/d
Powdered Carbon reea Tanks (2 each) 700
Capacity, gallons (Based on feed
concentration of one pound
carbon/gallon water)
Feed Rate, Ib/d 67
Sludge handling and/or regeneration 290
system, Ib/d dry solids
Carbon make-up Ib/d 67
Turnace power requirements
Fuel, Btu/h N.A.
Connected np N.A.
3800 m /d
1 (1.0 x 10 )
gal/d
7,000
670
2,900
Annual
670
N.A.
N.A.
19,000m3/d
(5 x 10 )
.gal/d
35,000
3,350
14,600
Operating and
3,350
N.A.
N.A.
38,000 m 3/d
(10 x 10 )
gal/d
70,000
6,700
29,000
Energy Requirements
2,000
2,500,000
100
76,000 m /d
(20 x 10 )
gal/d
140,000
13,400
58,000
4,000
4,500,000
140
Manpower requirement, hours
400
540
940
10,000
10,700
-------
TABLE VII-10
to
I-1
o
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
CAPITAL COSTS
INCLUDING COSTS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
80 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Capital Costs, Dollars
Description (0.
Powdered Carbon Feed System
Solids Dewatering System
Regenerated Carbon Acid Wash
System
Subtotal
Piping (10%)
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (50%)
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
380 m3/d
. 1x10 gal/d)
510,000
-
10,000
1,000
11,000
5,500
16,500
9,000
9,000
35,000
--
$35,000
100
3800
(1.0x10
530
30
3
33
16
49
10
10
69
569
g3/d
gal/d)
,000
—
,000
,000
,000
,500
,500
,000
,000
,500
"
,500
200
19,000 m3/d
(5x10 gal/d)
545,000
—
45,000
4,500
49,500
24,800
74,300
11,350
11,350
97,000
—
597,000
900
38,000 m3/d
(10x10 gal/d)
$60
397
40
497
49
546
273
820
119
119
1,060
900
190
150
52,300
3
,000
,000
,000
,000
,70O
,700
,400
,100
,950
,950
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
76,000 m3/d
(20x10 gal/d)
5100
585
60
745
74
819
410
1,229
185
IBS
1,600
1,200
250
200
53,250
4
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
,500
,000
,500
,250
,250
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
-------
ro
TABLE VII-11
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
INCLUDING CREDIT FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
80 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Annual Cost, Dollars
Description
Carbon Make-Up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power Requirements
Labor ($10/manhour)
Sludge Disposal Credit
Maintenance
380 m3/day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/6
57,400
1,000
4,000
1,000
3800 m3/day
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/d
$74,000
2,000
5,400
2,000
19,000 m3/day
(5 x 10 )
gal/d
5370,000
5,000
9,400
3,000
38,000 m3/day
(10 x 10 )
gal/d
5220,000
76,000
8,000
100,000
(-)400,000
332,000
76,000 m /day
(20 x 10 )
gal/d
' 5440,000
132,000
15,000
108,000
(-)800,000
461,600
Total Annual Cost 513,400 5 83,400 5387,000 5336,000 S 356,000
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 VII-12
TERTIARY FILTRATION
EQUIPMENT COST BASIS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
to
Equipment Cost Basis
Description
Filter Description
(all units are
automatic and
air scoured)
Bed depth, ft
Operation type
Media type
Pumping,
kWh/yr
Labor,
Manhours/year
380 m3/ day
(0.1 X 106gal/d)
2 units
5' diam., steel
4
Gravity
Dual media
3,440
400
3800m 3/day
(1 X 106gaVd)
2 units
11 ' diam., steel
4
Gravity
Dual media
Annual Operating
34,400
500
19,000 flrVday
(5 X 106gal/d.)
1 unit, 4-35 'square
cells, concrete
4
Gravity
Dual media
38,000 nrVday
(10 X 106gal/d)
1 unit, 4-47 'square
cells, concrete
4
Gravity
Dual media
76,000 niVday
(20 X 106gal/d>
2 units, 47' square
cells, concrete
4
Gravity
Dual media
and Energy Requirements
172,000
600
344,000
700
688,000
800
-------
TABLE VII-13
NJ
TERTIARY FILTRATION
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
Capital Cost, Dollars
tescription
Filtration Units Installed
interconnecting Piping, Installed
Pumps, Installed
Total Installed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Land Requirement, ft
Pumping
Labor
Maintenance_£3% of Capital Costl
Total Annual Cost
Note: The Depreciation factor das
380 m /day
(0.1 x 10 )
gal/d
$ 25,000
3,000
5,000
33,000
6.000
6,000
$ 48,000
200
$ 140
4,000
1,400
$ 5,540
3800 m3/day
(1.0 x 10 )
gal/d
$100,000
10,000
15,000
125,000
20,000
20,000
$165,000
700
Annual
$ 1,400
5,000
5,000
$ 11,400
19,000 m3;(day
(5 x 10 )
gal/d
$250,000
25,000
42,000
317,000
49,000
49,000
$415,000
5,000
Operating Cost,
$ 7,000
6,000
12,500
$ 25,500
38,000 in /day
(10 x 10°)
gal/d
$350,000
35,000
60,000
451 ,000
69,500
69,500
$590,000
9,000
Dollars
$ 14,000
7,000
18,000
$ 39,000
been omitted from this analysis due to the fact that it will
76,000 m3/day
(20 x 10°)
gal/d
$600,000
60,000
100,000
770,000
115,000
115,000
$1,000,000
18,000
$ 28,000
8,000
30,000
$ 66,000
be included
separately in the Economic Impact Analysis Supplement.
-------
TABLE VII-14
Granular Activated Carbon
Equipment Cost Basis
to
r-1
Description
Activated Carbon Units
Carbon, ft3 Total
Automatic Controls Included
Furnace size, Ib/d
of carbon
Carbon Make-up, Ib/d
(10% make-up)
Furnace Power Require-
ments
Fuel, Btu/hr
Connected lip
Pumping Power Require-
ments kWh/yr
Manpower Requirements,
hours
380 m3/day
(0.1x106 gal/d)
Three-4'diam.
x 13' high
281
1 No
N.A.
125
N.A.
N.A.
and Energy Requirements
Equipment Size
3800 mj/day 19,000 nrVdTy 38,000 m3/day 76,000 m3/day
(l.OxlO6 gal/d) (5xl06 gal/d) (10x10° gal/d) (20xl06 gal/d)
Three-111 diam. Nine-121 diam. Fifteen-12' diara. Thirty-121 diam.
x 18' high x 25' high x 30' high x 30' high
2800 14,000 28,000 56,000
Yes Yes Yes Yes
1250 6,250 12,500 25,000
Annual Operating and Energy Requirements
125 625 1,250 2,500
500,000 800,000 1,500,000 2,800,000
40 50 60 80
11,400
2,100
114,000
9,800
570,000
10,500
1,140,000
11,500
2,280,000
12,500
-------
TABLE VII-15
to
M
(Jl
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
CAPITAL COSTS
Capital Costs, Dollars
Description
Activated Carbon Units
Pumping £ Misc. Equip. (10%)
Piping (10%)
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (50%)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Subtotal
Activated Carbon Regeneratior
System (Installed)
Contingency (For utility hook-
up, etc.)
Engineering for Carbon Regeneration
System
380 m3/day
(0.1 X10 )
gal/d
$50,000
5,000
5,000
60,000
30,000
90,000
40,000
20,000
150,000
3800 m3/day
(1.0 X10 )
gal/d
$325,000
32 , 500
32,500
390,000
195,000
585,000
85,000
80,000
750,000
300,000
60,000
SO, 000
19,000 B3/day
(5 X10 )
gal/d
$1,500,000
150,000
150,000
1,800,000
900,000
2,700,000
400,000
400,000
3,500,000
450,000
100,000
50,000
38,000 m3/day
(10 X10 )
gal/d
$2,600,000
260,000
260,000
3,120,000
1,560,000
4,680,000
710,000
710,000
6,100,000
600,000
120,000
80 , 000
76,000 m3/day
(20 X10 )
gal/d
$5,000,000
500,000
500,000
6,000,000
3,000,000
9,000,000
1,350,000
1,350,000
11,700,000
750,000
150,000
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
12,000
-------
TABLE VII-16
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
NJ
M
CT>
Total Annual Cost
Annual Costs. Dollars
Description
Carbon Make-Up
Furnace Power
Pumping
*
Labor ($10/manhour)
Maintenance (3% of total
Capital Cost)
380 m3/day
(0.1 X106)
gal/day
$28,000
—
500
21,000
4,500
3800 m /day
(1.0 X106)
gal/day
$28,000
19,000
5,000
98 , 000
35,000
19,000 m3/day
(5 X106)
gal/day
$137,000
27,000
25,000
105,000
123,000
38,000 m /day
(10 X106)
gal/day
$275,000
46,000
50,000
115.000
208,000
76,000 »3/day
(20 X106)
gal/day
$550,000
82,000
100,000
125,000
381,000
$54,000
$185,000
$417,000
$694,000
$1,238,000
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.
The manpower requirements were obtained from the "Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption,"
Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Series, October 1973. Labor includes operation,
maintenance, and laboratory personnel requirements.
-------
TABLE VII-17
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
EQUIPMENT COST BASES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
150 rag/1 DOSAGE RATE
NJ
Description
Equipment Size
380 g3/d 3800 g3/d 19,000 m3/d
(0.1x10 gal/d) (1.0x10 gal/d) (5x10 gal/d)
38,OOp m3/d 76,000 m3/d
(10x10 gal/d) (20x10 gal/d)
Powdered Carbon Feed Tanks 1,000
(2 each) Capacity, gallons
(Based on feed concentration
of 1 Ib carbon/gal water)
Feed Rate Ib/d 125
Sludge Handling and/or 335
Regeneration System,
Ib/d dry solids
10,000
1,250
3,350
43,000
6,250
16,700
87,000
12,500
33,500
175,000
25,000
66,700
Carbon Make-Up Ib/d
(25% make-up)
Furnace Power Requirements
Fuel, Btu/h
Connected hp
Annual Operating and Energy Requirements
125 1,250 6,250
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
12,500
N.A.
N.A.
8,350
4,500,000
140
Manpower Requirements, hours
1,240
10,700
-------
TABLE VII-18
H
00
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
CAPITAL COSTS
150 rag/1 DOSAGE RATE
380 g3/d 3800 m3/d
Description (0.1x10 gal/d) (1.0x10 gal/d)
Powdered Carbon Feed System $15,000 $45,000
Solids Dewatering System
Regenerated Carbon Acid Wash
System
Subtotal 15,000 45,000
Piping (10%) 1,500 4,500
Total Equipment Cost 16,500 49,500
Installation (50%) 8,500 24,500
Total Constructed Cost 25,000 74,000
Engineering 9,000 13.000
Contingency 9,000 13,000
Subtotal 43,000 100,000
Activated Carbon Regeneration
System (Installed)
Contingency (For Utility
Hook-up, etc.)
Engineering for Carbon
Regeneration System
Capital Costs, Dollars
19,000 m3/d 38,000 m3/d 76, OOP m3/d
(5x10 gal/d) (10x10 gal/d) (20x10 gal/d)
$65,000 $90,000 $150,000
615,000
60,000
65,000 90,000 825,000
6,500 9,000 83,000
71,500 99,000 908,000
35,500 49,500 454,000
107,000 148,500 1,362,000
16,500 22,250 207,500
16,500 22,250 207,500
140,000 193,000 1,777,000
1,300,000
280,000
200,000
Total Capital Cost $ 43,000 $ 100,000
Land Requirements, ft loo 800
$140,000
2,000
$193,000
3,000
$3,557,000
4,500
-------
TABLE VII-19
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
150 tag/I DOSAGE RATE
Annual Cost, Dollars
Description
Carbon Make-Up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power
Requirements
Labor ($10/man-hour)
Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
380 g3/d
(0.1x10 gal/d)
$13,900
—
1,000.
4,000
1,000
$19,900
3800 m3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
$139,000
—
2,000
5,400
2,000
$148,400
19,000 m3/d
(5x10 gal/d)
$694,000
—
5,000
9,400
3,000
$711,400
38,000 m3/d
(10x10 gal/d)
$1,388,000
—
8,000
12,400
4,000
$1,412,400
76,000 m3/d
(20x10 gal/d)
$ 825,000
132,000
15,000
108,000
491,000
$1,571,000
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 VII-20
to
to
o
PACT
COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTS
CARBON REGENERATION VS. THROW-AWAY
150 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Regenerated
Description (0.
Capital Cost
Carbon Make-up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power
Labor
Maintenance (3%)
(15%)
Uepreciation (25%)
Total Annual Cost
380 g /d
.1x10 gal/d)
$743,000
4,130
5,000
1,000
91,600
1,000
105,000
200,000
5407,730
3800 m /d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
SI, 035, 000
41,300
19,000
2,000
93 , 000
2,000
140,000
280,000
$577,300
19,000 m /d
(5x10 gal/d)
$1,743,000
207,000
44,000
5,000
97,000
3,000
240,000
471,000
$1,067,000
38,000 m /d
(10x10 gal/d)
$2,463,000
413,000
76,000
8,000
100,000
4,000
343,000
665,000
$1,609,000
76,000 m /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 (3%)
Miscellaneous Power
Depreciation (27%)
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
$ 31,500
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
37,800
$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 VII-21
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
EQUIPMENT COST BASES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
INCLUDING COSTS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
150 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Equipment Size
Description (0.
Powdered Carbon Feed Tanks
(2 each) Capacity, gallons
(Based on feed concentration
of 1 Ib carbon/gal water)
Peed 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 m3/d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
10,000
1,250
3,350
Operating and Energy
1,250
N.A.
N.A.
19,000 m3/d
(5x10 gal/d)
43,000
6,250
16,700
Requirements
2,100
1,300,000
80
38,000 m3/d
(10x10 gal/d)
87,000
12,500
33,500
418
2,500,000
100
76,000 m /d
(20x10 gal/d)
175,000
25,000
66,700
8,350
4,500,000
140
Manpower Requirements, hours 400 540 9,700 10,000 10,700
-------
TABLE VII-22
ro
to
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
CAPITAL COSTS
INCLUDING COSTS FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
150 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Capital Costs, Dollars
Description (0.
Powdered Carbon Feed System
Solids Dewatering System
Regenerated Carbon Acid Wash
System
Subtotal
Piping (10%)
Total Equipment Cost
Installation (50)
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
380 m3/d
. 1x10 gal/d)
$15,000
—
15,000
1,500
16,500
8,SOO
25,000
9,000
9,000
43,000
—
543,000
100
3800
(1.0x10
5 45
45
4
49
2±
74
13
13
100
5100
g3/d
qal/d)
,000
—
,000
,500
,500
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
—
,000
800
19,000 B3/d
(5x10 gal/d)
5 65
250
20
335
34
369
185
554
82
82_
718
750
160
115
$1,743
2
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
38,000
(10x10
5 90
415
40
545
55
602
300
900
131
131
1,163
950
200
150
$2,463
3
m3/d
gal/d)
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
76,000 mj/d
(20x10 gal/d)
$150
615
60
825
83
908
454
1,362
207
207
1,777
1,300
280
200
53,557
4
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
-------
NJ
to
TABLE VII-23
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
INCLUDING CREDIT FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL
150 mg/1 DOSAGE RATE
Annual Cost, Dollars
Description
Carbon Make-up
Furnace Power
Miscellaneous Power
Requirements
Labor (510/man-hour)
Sludge Disposal Credit
Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
Note:
380 m /d
(0.1x10 gal/d)
513,900
—
1,000
4,000
—
1,000
519,900
3800 m /d
(1.0x10 gal/d)
5139,000
—
2,000
5,400
—
2,000
5148,400
19,000 m /d
(5x10 gal/d)
$207,000
55,000
5,000
97,000
(-1250,000
243,000
5357,000
38,000 m /d
(10x10 gal/d)
5413,000
95,000
8,000
100,000
(-)500,000
347,000
5463,000
76,000 m /d
(20x10 gal/d)
5825,000
165,000
15,000
108,000
(-11,000,000
491,000
5604,000
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 VII-24
SUPPLEMENTAL ECONOMIC COST INFORMATION
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
FOR 10,000 GALLON PER DAY TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Treatment System
Equalization
Rotating Biological
Contactors
Filtration
Powdered Activated
Capital Cost,
Dollars
$ 12,000
50,000
35,000
35,000
Annual Operating Cost
Dollars*
$ 400
6,100
3,000
4,300
Carbon
Granular Carbon 60,000 10,000
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.
224
-------
TABLE VII-25
COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN RATES
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
(MILLION GALLONS PER DAY)
REFINERY
NUMBER
10
SLOWDOWN
0.009000
0.014400
UNKNOWN
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.030000
UNKNOWN
0,001440
0.015000
1.794998
0.002000
1 .01499?
0.023200
0.069300
0.005000
0,021440
0.001500
0.320000
0.011250
0.010500
NOT APP.
0.065000
0.167000
0,074500
0.330000
0.033200
10.000000
0.340000
0.110000
NOT APP.
0.005500
1.834998
0.702000
0.060000
UNKNOWN
1 .013998
0.012000
0.550000
UNKNOWN
0.316999
0.145000
0.141000
0, 170000
0.025500
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.035500
UNKNOWN
NOT APP.
0.650000
REFINERY
NUMBER
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
71
72
73
74
76
77
73
79
SO
81
32
83
84
85
86
87
38
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
SLOWDOWN
6.300000
0.268600
50.167191
0,850250
1 . 400000
1.024999
0.298500
1.000999
0.943500
UNKNOWN
3 > 229999
2.447998
UNKNOWN
0.095500
0.022000
0.138200
0. 157000
0.826000
0.198000
0.015000
> 0 . 0
0.370000
0.242000
6,000000
1 .014999
UNKNOWN
2.539797
0.147700
NOT APP.
0.072500
UNKNOWN
0.007000
0.003600
2.023998
0.021040
0.43200O
UNKNOWN
6.011999
0.008354
0.775000
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
UNKNOWN
0.005000
2.589997
NOT APP.
0.524000
0.010000
UNKNOWN
0.135000
REFINERY
NUMBER
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
SLOWDOWN
NOT APP.
1,106499
UNKNOWN
0.109000
0,128000
0.520600
0.283000
0,500000
0,011500
0,031000
0.022500
0.740000
1.362500
0.135000
0.113500
0.120000
0.025000
NOT APP.
0.066600
MOT APP.
0,120000
0.750000
1.830997
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
0 , 0
0 ,0
0.153000
0.006000
0.055500
0.0
0.110000
UNKNOWN
0.143500
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
0.490000
0.055000
0.150000
NOT APP.
1.504999
1.779999
3.306993
0.050000
34.663391
0.564000
0.925000
0.066710
0.066000
0,042000
225
-------
TABLE VII-25 (Continued)
COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN RATES
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
(MILLION GALLONS PER DAY)
REFINERY
NUMBER
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
172
173
174
175
176
177
179
130
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
199
200
201
SLOWDOWN
1.128999
0.356250
0.641500
0.015000
0.168000
0.025000
1.189999
0.620000
1,659999
0.149000
UNKNOWN
NOT APP.
4.360797
0.002600
0.014000
0.149200
0.38600O
5.218994
1.858498
0.340650
0.521320
0.322000
0.515399
0.983000
1.005500
0.0
0.005000
0.485000
0.011000
UNKNOWN
2.987994
UNKNOWN
3.507991
0.000500
0.006500
0.395000
0.483000
REFINERY
NUMBER
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
21S
216
218
219
220
O*!> 1
222
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
SLOWDOWN
UNKNOWN
2.034996
1.536595
0.345550
2.500000
0.036500
0.859999
0.095000
0.014500
0.279100
0.374000
0.012960
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
2.420487
1.000000
0.565000
0.012000
UNKNOWN
0.200000
UNKNOWN
0.711000
UNKNOWN
0.388500
0.122000
0.008500
0.370000
NOT APP.
UNKNOWN
0.307000
UNKNOWN
0.230000
> 0.0
0.750000
0.325000
UNKNOWN
0.072000
REFINERY
NUMBER
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
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
0.109500
0.305000
0.125000
31.500000
0.931000
0.042500
0.556700
UNKNOWN
0.015000
UNKNOWN
NOT APP.
0,001500
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
0.000800
NOT APP,
0.633500
NOT APP.
NOT APP.
0.200000
UNKNOWN
0.259000
NOT APP.
UNKNOWN
1.259999
NOT APP.
0.158000
NOT APP.
0.0
NOT APP.
UNKNOWN
0.010000
UNKNOWN
0.0
0.302000
> - DUE TO UNKNOWN VALUES IN ONE OF THE COOLING TOWERSr
THE VALUE IS GREATER THAN SHOWN
NOT APP. - DUE TO A ZERO RESPONSE TO PERCENT COOLING
BY COOLING TOWERS
226
-------
TABLE VII-26
Chromium Removal Systems
Equipment Cost Basis and Energy Requirements
to
Ni
Description 3.8
(1x10
Detention Tank, gallons
Mixer, hp
Mixing Requirements , krth/yr l
Solids Contact Clarifier, diam
S02 Feed Rate, Ib/d
Acid Feed Rate, Ib/d
Caustic Feed Rate, Ib/d
Pumping Requirements, kWh/yr
Manpower Requirements, h/yr
,m3/day
J gal/d)
32
0.25
,650
8
0.4
0.2
2
23
520
38 «3/day
(1x10 gal/d)
320
0.25
1,650
8
4
2
20
230
520
380,-m3/day
(IxlO3 gal/d)
3,200
1.5
9,900
15
40
20
200
2,300
520
3800 m3/day
(1x10° 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 VI1-27
NJ
to
00
Chromium Removal Systems
Capital and Operating Costs
Capital Costs, Dollars
Description
Detention Tank
Chemical Feed Systems
Automatic Controls
Solids Contact Clarifier
Pumps
Total Equipment Lust
Installation (50$)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
SO
Acfd
Caustic
Mixing
Pumping
Labor
Maintenance (3% of
Total Capital Cost)
3.8,m3/day
(1x10 gal/day)
$ 100
5,000
--
25,000
30,100
15,000
45,100
6,950
6,950
$59,000
$ 16
4
130
70
Negligable
b,200
1,780
38,m3/day
(1x10 gal/day)
$ 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
380,m3/day
(1x10 gal/day)
$ 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
3800 m3/day
(IxlO6 gal/day)
$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
19,000 m3/day
(5x10° gal/day)
$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
1.782,000
*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.
-------
Description
TABLE VI1-28
Wastewater 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 gpm) (700 qpm) (1400 qpm) (3500 gpm)
Piping:
Piping,installed,per mile
Misc. Costs (15%)
Total Constructed cost,
per mile
Engineering (15%)
Contingency
Piping-total capital costs
per mile
$32,000 $53,000
5,000 8,000
$100,000 $135,000 $175,000 $243,000
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 installed (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 5,000 6,000 12,000 18,000 24,000 40,000
regardless of distance)
Pumping costs per mile,
per year
Maintenance (1.531 of capital
costs) per mile,per year
Annual Operating Costs, Dollars - Per Mile
$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.
229
-------
TABLE VI1-29
Water Softening of Recycled Wastewater
Description
Capital Costs. Dollars
2.3 nvVhr 16 m3/hr 80 m3/hr 160 m3/hr 320 m3/hr 800 m3/hr
(10 gpm) (70 gpm) (350 qpm) (700 gpm) (1400 gpm) (3500 gpm]
Solids Contact Clarifier
(Diameter, ft)
Chemical Feed System(s)
Filter Unit
(Diameter, ft)
Subtotal
Auxiliary Equipment
Total Capital Cost
Installation(50«)
Total Constructed Cost
Engineering
Continqency
$ 25,000
(8)
5,000
15,000
(3)
45,000
5,000
50,000
25,000
75,000
15,000
15,000
$ 30,000
(11)
7,000
25,000
(8)
62,000
8,000
70,000
35,000
105,000
20,000
20,000
$ 45,000
(23)
10,000
30,000
(ID
85,000
10,000
95,000
50,000
145,000
25,000
25,000
$ 65,000
(32)
15,000
40,000
(15)
120,000
15,000
135,000
70,000
205,000
30,000
30,000
$ 80,000
(45)
25,000
80,000
(two-151
185,000
20,000
205,000
100,000
305,000
45,000
45,000
$125,000
(72)
50,000
150,000
(three-201
units)
325,000
35,000
360,000
180,000
540,000
80,000
80,000
Total Capital Costs
$105,000 $145,000 $195,000 $265,000 $395,000 $700,000
230
-------
TABLE VII-30
CAPITA!, AND OPERATING COSTS BY REFINERY NUMBER
ECONOMIC COSTS, DOLLARS
REFINE RY
NUMBER
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
68
70
Capital
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO COSt
No cost
0
0
180,000
0
0
No cost
435,000
0
0
0
0
0
865,000
0
0
0
195,000
530,000
0
0
0
0
0
235,000
370,000
2,610,000
385,000
12 , 500
OPTION 2 Level 1
Annual Operating
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- considered presently indirect
- insignificant flow
0
0
10,500
0
0
- considered presently indirect
17,975
0
0
0
0
0
567,000
0
0
0
14,300
91,000
0
0
0
0
0
16 , 000
27,000
275,000
39,000
8,500
OPTION
Capital
Costs
50,000
50,000
35,000
85,000
70,000
52,000
70,000
60,000
441,000
discharger only
75,000
240,000
230,000
4,000,000
1,600,000
discharger only
555,000
6 , 400 , 000
2,100,000
60,000
120,000
565,000
3,140,000
240,000
35,000
35,000
1,100,000
630,000
75,000
75,000
80,000
100,000
1,900,000
310,000
470,000
5,860,000
485,000
160,000
2 LEVEL 2
Annual Operating
Costs
21,500
9,000
5,000
8,000
7,000
6,200
7,000
67,000
27,000
150,000
16,000
34,500
192,000
84 , 000
528,000
290,000
102,000
73,000
10,000
34,000
904,000
16,000
18,000
11,000
62,000
653,000
84,900
145,000
'-05,000
373,000
49,000
209,000
309,000
635,000
415,000
26,500
231
-------
TABLE VII-30 (Cent.)
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS BY REFINERY NUMBER
ECONOMIC COSTS, DOLLARS
REFINERY
NUMBER
71
72
73
74
76
77
80
81
83
84
85
87
88
89
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
OPTION 2 Level 1
Capital
Costs
0
0
No Cost
0
180,000
0
0
160 , 000
0
0
0
125,000
0
0
0
0
480,000
0
228,000
0
0
0
0
0
230,000
0
0
305,000
0
No Cost
0
0
No Cost
160,000
0
NO COSt
0
0
355,000
Annual Operating
Costs
0
0
- Will Discharge to POTW in
0
11,400
0
0
9,100
0
0
0
8,400
0
0
0
0
30,900
0
12,400
0
0
0
0
0
13,600
0
0
22,200
0
- Will Discharge to POTW in
0
0
- Mill Discharge to POTW in
9,700
0
- Will Discharge to POTW in
0
0
8,600
OPTION
Capital
Coats
200,000
35,000
Future
170,000
1,430,000
40,000
90,000
1,040,000
85,000
75,000
95,000
220,000
175,000
77,000
60,000
35,000
2,810,000
35,000
303,000
2,480,000
35,000
1,600,000
83,000
35,000
305,000
78,000
4,100,000
380,000
1,100,000
Future
35,000
40,000
Future
330,000
330,000
Future
90,000
900,000
945,000
2 LEVEL 2
Annual Operating
Costs
15 ,000
17,000
13,000
77,400
28,000
9,000
57,100
192,000
139,000
264,000
17,400
13,000
9,000
7,000
4,000
367,000
6,000
157,000
343,000
11,000
80,000
8,000
9,500
32,600
8,000
180,000
203,000
60,000
8,000
25,000
22,700
21,000
216,000
48,000
42,600
232
-------
TABLE VII-30 (Cont.)
REFINERY
NUMBER
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
126
127
129
131
132
133
134
142
143
144
146
147
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
167
168
169
172
173
Capital
Costs
0
0
0
0
520,000
0
0
260,000
0
120,000
0
740,000
660,000
350,000
No cost -
No cost -
0
125,000
0
170,000
0
330,000
630,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
575,000
0
720,000
185,000
160,000
OPTION 2 Level 1
Annual Operating
Costs
0
0
0
0
83 , 500
0
0
25,200
0
8,300
0
108,000
135,000
34,000
will discharge to POTW in future
will discharge to POTW in future
0
8,300
0
11,400
0
18,500
118,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'
0
0
0
59,000
0
96,300
14,100
9,700
OPTION
Capital
Costs
55,000
115,000
100,000
3,100,000
4,920,000
365,000
340,000
4,660,000
150,000
220,000
90,000
3,070,000
785,000
450,000
113,000
220,000
40,000
970,000
52,000
3,030.000
745,000
100,000
700,000
95,000
475,000
75,000
40,000
225,000
35,000
275,000
75,000
700,000
234,000
675,000
80,000
845,000
23,500
200,000
2 LEVEL 2
Annual Operating
Costs
6,500
10,000
9,000
151,000
288,000
23,000
21,500
236,000
12,000
17,300
236,000
454,000
735,000
348,000
10,000
17,300
51,100
53,400
81,000
151,000
730,000
300,000
40,000
9,000
28,500
161,000
49,000
15,500
20,500
18,000
198,000
42,000
16,100
455,000
228,000
765,000
79,100
52,700
233
-------
TABLE VII-30 (Cont.)
REFINERY
NUMBER
174
175
176
177
179
180
181
183
184
186
189
190
194
196
197
199
201
204
205
208
210
211
212
213
216
219
221
222
226
227
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
OPTION
Capital
Costs
135,000
No cost - will
0
175,000
0
315,000
980,000
0
0
0
0
0
750,000
1,280,000
0
125,000
0
268,000
270,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300,000
155,000
0
0
0
No cost - will
0
0
0
0
0
0
243,000
2 Level 1
Annual Operating
Costs
8,300
discharge to POTW in
0
12,300
0
28,100
106,000
0
0
0
0
0
44,500
193,000
0
8,300
0
18,700
16,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,300
9,800
0
0
0
discharge to POTH in
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,500
OPTION
Capital
Costs
565,000
future
285,000
225,000
225,000
390,000
3,540,000
420,000
75,000
75,000
53,000
60,000
10,100,000
4,380,000
50,000
197,000
60 , 000
358,000
1,970,000
100,000
35,000
60,000
50,000
73,000
3,250,000
350,000
390,000
430,000
65,000
60,000
520,000
future
60,000
60,000
60,000
75,000
35,000
35,000
318,000
2 LEVEL 2
Annual Operating
Costs
34,300
19,000
77,300
15,800
245,000
448,000
24,900
100,000
146,000
6,200
6,400
541,000
549,000
6,000
15,300
80,000
283,000
101,000
390,000
5,000
69,000
61,000
7,000
358,000
48,000
281,000
27,800
7,000
96,000
31,000
90,000
85,000
85,000
120,000
13,000
6,000
168,000
234
-------
TABLE VII-30 (Cont.)
REFINERY
NUMBER
239
240
241
242
243
252
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
265
266
292
295
309
Capital
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180,000
0
130,000
No cost
170,000
220,000
OPTION 2 Level 1
Annual Operating
costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,300
0
8,300
- insignificant flow
10,800
473,000
OPTION
Capital
Costs
35,000
40,000
45,000
40 , 000
145,000
115,000
115,000
285,000
1,400,000
60,000
75,000
58,000
228,000
48 , 000
190,000
210,000
265,000
2 LEVEL 2
Annual Operating
Costs
16,500
24,500
40,000
28,000
11,500
10,000
10,000
19,000
72,000
84,000
169,000
6,300
50,300
51,000
66,300
35,800
513,000
235
-------
TABLE VII-31
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
INDIRECT DISCHARGE - OPTION 1
to
U)
Cooling
Refinery Tower
Code Slowdown
No. gal/day
Chromium Removal, $
Capital Annual
Cost operating Cose
Piping Cost, $
Capital Annual
Cost Operating Cost
Total Cost, $
Capital Annual
Cost Operating Cost
8
13
14
16
18
21
23
25
29
31
33
38
45'
58
73
78
1,250**
1,020,000
7,700
69,300
21,500
11,300
Does Not
167,000
325,000
10,000
110,000
702,000
817,000
269,000
139,000
15,000
63,000
300,000
94,000
143,000
115,000
102,000
Have Cooling
172,000
207,000
100,000
156,000
265,000
280,000
194,000
165,000
108,000
7,300
17b,000
8,000
20,000
12,500
10,000
Tower +
40,000
70,000
9,800
28,000
130,000
150,000
60,000
35,000
10,000
*
320,000
20,000
45,000
30,000
A
60,000
150,000
*
5u,OoO
160,000
200,000
90,000
60,000
35,000
*
11,000
400
90O
400
*
1,600
4,200
-
1,100
5,000
6,500
2,500
1,300
500
63.000
620,000
114,000
188,000
145,000
102,000
232,000
357,000
10u,000
206,000
425,000
480,000
284,000
225,000
143,000
7,300
186,000
8,400
20,900
12,900
10,000
41,600
74,200
9,800
29,100
135,000
157,000
62,500
36,300
10,500
-------
TABLE VII-31 (Cont.)
to
Refinery
Code
No.
78
79
86
107
110
111
114
128
130
142
143
145
148
166
175
182
188
Cooling
Tower Chromium Removal, $
Slowdown Capital Annual
gal/day Cost Operating Cost
15,000 108,000 10,000
No Cost - Unknown Flow
148,000 166,000 35,000
10,000 100,000 10,000
No Cooling Tower +
1,110,000 310,000 188,000
Non Chromium Treatment ++
No Cooling Tower +
No Cooling Tower +
110,000 156,000 28,000
Non Chromium Treatment ++
1,000** 59,000 7,200
Non Chromium Treatment ++
25,000 118,000 12,000
4,360,000 487,000 628,000
1,860,000 370,000 285,000
1,010,UOO 300,000 175,000
Piping Cost, $ Total
Capital Annual Capital
Cost Operating Cost Cost
35,000 500 143,000
45,000 1,100 211,000
* * 100,000
160,000 5,600 470,000
60,000 1,400 216,000
* * 59,000
* * 118,000
485,000 34,200 972,000
630,000 28,700 1,000,000
200,000 7,000 500,000
Cost, $
Annual
Operating Cost
10,500
36,100
10,000
194,000
29,400
7,200
12,000
662,000
314,000
182,000
-------
TABLE VII-31 (Cont.)
Cooling
00
Refinery
Code
No.
193
195
200
203
206
207
220
224
225
228
229
231
264
291
305
TOTAL
Tower
Slowdown
gal /day
130**
Chromium
Capital
Cost
59,000
Removal , $
Annual
Operating Cost
7,200
Piping Cost, $ Total Cost, $
Capital Annual Capital Annual
Cost Operating Cost Cost Operating Cost
* * 59,000 7,200
No Cooling Tower +
395,000
2,040,000
2,000
36,500
220,000
382,000
70,000
126,000
80,000
308,000
8,000
15,000
65,000 2,000 285,000 82,000
680,000 31,800 1,062,000 340,000
* * 70,000 8,000
40,000 700 166,000 15,700
Non Chromium Treatment ++
Non Chromium Treatment ++
Non Chromium Treatment ++
122,000
8,500
No Cooling
No Cooling
126,000
11,600**
5
166,000
98,000
Towers +
Towers +
162,000
103,000
,916,000
30,000
9,400
30,000
11,300
2,633,000
50,000 1,000 216,000 31,000
* * 98,000 9,400
40,000 800 202,000 30,800
* * 103,000 11,300
3,675,000 150,000 9,591,000 2,783,000
-------
TABLE VII-31 (Cont.)
NOTE: * These Refineries have only one cooling tower and so piping cost is excluded.
** Actual Cooling Tower blowdown data were not available; the blowdown rate is assumed to be
25% of total wastewater generated.
+ These Refineries do not have any cooling towers.
++ These Refineries do not use Chromium in the cooling towers.
to
U)
10
-------
TABLE VII-32
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
INDIRECT DISCHARGE - OPTION 2
Refinery
Code No.
3
13
14
16
18
21
23
25
29
31
33
38
45
58
73
78
79
86
107
110
111
114
128
130
Capital
Costs, 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 -
300,000
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
84,100
119,000
Unknown Flow
104,000
57 , 900
56,700
211,000
103,000
29,700
421,000
240
-------
TABLE VII-32 - Continued
Refinery
Code No.
142
143
145
148
166
175
182
188
193
195
200
203
206
207
220
224
225
228
229
231
264
291
305
Capital
Costs, S
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
13,800,000
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, $
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
241
-------
TABLE VII-33
EFFECTIVENESS OF BAT OPTIONS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
POUNDS REMOVED FROM BPT TO LEVEL 1
Refinery
No. BOD TSS Oil s Grease Chromium (Hex.) chromium (Total) Phenol
I 67 56 21 .074 1.12 1.29
2 27 22 8 .030 0.45 0.33
3 12 10 4 .013 0.20 0.14
6 32 26 10 .035 0.53 0.80
7 58 48 18 .064 0.97 0.64
9 44 1 .004 0.07 0.10
10 33 27 10 .036 0.55 0.58
11 213 175 67 .234 3.55 3.41
12 24 20 8 .026 0.40 0.49
19 22 19 7 .024 0.37 1.33
20 344 283 108 .378 5.73 5.84
24 101 83 32 .111 1.68 1.05
30 49 41 16 .054 0.82 0 40
32 502 414 158 .551 8.37 7.06
31 560 461 176 .615 9.33 10.05
40 970 799 304 1.065 16.17 13.81
41 1720 1417 540 1.889 28.67 25.29
43 390 321 122 .428 6.50 5.37
46 502 414 158 .551 3.37 e'.74
49 210 .002 0.03 1.08
50 00 0 .000 0.00 0.00
51 741 610 232 .814 12.35 9.42
52 00 0 .000 0.00 0.00
53 50 41 16 .055 0.83 0.82
54 541 .005 0.08 0.12
56 00 0 .000 0.00 0.00
57 116 95 36 .127 1.93 4.08
59 104 85 32 .114 1.73 2.29
60 553 456 174 .607 9.22 7.67
61 659 542 207 .724 10.98 9.58
62 3250 2677 1020 3.569 54.17 34.30
63 67 56 21 .074 1.17 3.54
64 267 220 84 .293 4.45 4.19
65 502 414 158 .551 8.37 6.85
67 2400 1976 753 2.635 40.00 28.42
68 00 0 .000 0.00 0.00
70 19 16 6 .021 0.32 0.22
71 00 0 .000 0.00 0.00
72 41 33 13 .045 0.68 0.55
74 36 30 11 .040 0.60 1.10
76 337 278 106 .370 5.62 4.09
77 00 0 .000 0.00 0.00
80 55 46 17 .060 0.92 2.11
81 114 94 36 .125 1.90 1.98
33 271 224 85 .298 4.52 5.62
84 36 30 11 .040 0.60 1.98
85 336 277 105 .369 5.60 6.47
37 11 9 3 .012 0.18 0.09
88 75 62 24 .082 1.25 0.77
89 13 11 4 .014 0.22 0.17
90 11 0 .001 0.02 0.23
91 97 3 .010 0.15 0.07
92 3030 2495 951 3.327 50.50 31.49
93 12 10 4 .013 0.20 0.11
94 108 89 34 .119 1.80 2.58
90 3050 2511 957 3.349 50. °3 36.64
97 97 3 .010 j 1.10
98 491 404 154 .539 o.ld 7.80
99 97 3 .010 0.15 0.67
100 16 14 5 .018 0.27 0.18
102 130 107 41 .143 2.17 1.93
103 55 46 17 .060 0.92 0.61
104 390 733 279 .977 14.83 15.17
105 44 1 .004 0.07 2.15
106 262 216 82 .288 4.37 7.08
108 100 83 32 .110 1.67 1.54
109 00 0 .000 0.00 0.00
112 24 20 8 .026 0.40 0.22
113 86 70 27 .094 1.43 1.32
115 1043 859 327 1.145 17.38 9.80
116 311 256 97 .341 5.18 4.28
117 86 70 27 .094 1.43 1.15
118 71 58 22 .078 1.18 0.69
119 122 100 38 .134 2.03 1.14
120 45 38 15 .051 0.77 0.49
121 793 653 249 .871 13.22 10.18
242
-------
TABLE VII-33 - Continued
Refinery
No.
122
124
125
126
127
129
131
132
133
134
144
146
147
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
167
168
169
172
173
174
176
177
179
180
181
183
184
186
189
190
194
196
197
199
201
204
205
208
210
211
212
213
216
219
221
222
226
227
230
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
252
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
265
266
292
295
309
BOD
644
144
155
48
4
0
629
810
660
18
0
0
190
3
0
781
198
35
34
10
63
392
51
0
0
0
853
0
186
604
377
390
83
8
18
75
49
51
486
710
58
185
526
11
16
4905
1490
9
21
0
8
65
960
27
291
32
33
1710
49
0
0
8
33
54
52
294
517
114
9
40
10
20
29
61
23
12
2
43
25
293
1482
1691
0
64
614
9
2
10
211
TSS
530
119
127
40
4
0
518
667
544
IS
0
0
157
2
0
644
163
28
28
9
52
322
42
0
0
0
703
0
153
498
310
321
68
6
15
62
41
42
400
584
48
152
434
9
14
4039
1227
7
17
0
6
53
791
22
240
26
27
1408
41
0
0
6
27
44
43
242
426
94
7
33
9
16
23
51
19
10
1
36
21
241
1220
1392
0
53
505
7
1
9
174
Oil & Grease
202
45
48
15
1
0
197
254
207
6
0
0
60
1
0
245
62
11
11
3
20
123
16
0
0
0
268
0
58
190
118
122
26
2
6
24
16
16
152
223
18
58
165
3
5
1539
467
3
7
0
2
20
301
8
91
10
10
536
16
0
0
2
10
17
16
92
162
36
3
13
3
6
9
19
7
4
0
14
8
92
465
530
0
20
192
3
0
3
66
Chromium (Hex.)
.707
.158
.170
.053
.004
.000
.691
.889
.725
.020
.000
.000
.209
.003
.000
.858
.217
.038
.037
.011
.069
.430
.056
.000
.000
.000
.937
.000
.204
.663
.414
.428
.091
.009
.020
.082
.054
.056
.534
.780
.064
.203
.578
.012
.018
5.386
1.636
.010
.023
.000
.009
.071
1.054
.030
.320
.035
.036
1.878
.054
.000
.000
.009
.036
.059
.057
.323
.568
.125
.010
.044
.011
.022
.032
.067
.025
.013
.002
.047
.027
.322
1.627
1.857
.000
.070
.674
.010
.002
.011
.232
56.358
Chromium (Total)
10.73
2.40
2.58
0.80
0.07
0.00
10.48
13.50
11.00
0.30
0.00
0.00
3.17
0.05
0.00
13.02
3.30
0.58
0.57
0.17
1.05
6.53
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.22
0.00
3.10
10.07
6.28
6.SO
1.38
0.13
0.30
1.25
0.82
0.85
8.10
11.83
0.97
3.08
8.77
0.18
0.27
81.75
24.83
0.15
0.35
0.00
0.13
1.08
16.00
0.45
4.85
0.53
0.55
28.50
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.55
0.90
0.87
4.90
8.62
1.90
0.15
0.67
0.17
0.33
0.48
1.02
0.38
0.20
0.03
0.72
0.42
4.88
24.70
28.18
0.00
1.07
10.23
0.15
0.03
0.17
3.52
855.48
Phenol
6.59
1.92
2.00
1.97
0.33
0.00
3.14
15.17
7.75
3.81
0.00
0.00
3.90
1.17
0.00
9.36
5.76
4.21
0.60
0.60
1.92
5.74
1.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.38
0.00
3.48
7.73
6.53
7.19
1.02
0.37
0.75
1.95
0.84
1.41
5.49
16.34
1.23
3.86
5.77
0.09
0.16
34.19
.20.25
0.08
0.17
0.00
3.44
2.81
15.85
0.30
3.39
1.42
0.37
26.99
2.66
0.00
0.00
0.12
1.34
1.22
1.90
4.17
5.23
4.04
0.18
0.56
1.81
0.52
0.60
1.30
0.56
0.88
0.25
0.50
o.ai
5.72
12.72
16.45
0.00
0.72
6.56
0.10
0.02
0.07
1.41
699.26
243
-------
TABLE VII-34
EFFECTIVENESS OF BAT OPTIONS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
POUNDS REMOVED FROM BPT TO LEVEL 2
Refinery
No.
1
2
3
6
•7
9
10
11
12
19
20
24
30
32
37
40
41
43
46
49
50
51
52
53
54
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
68
70
71
72
74
76
77
80
81
83
84
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
96
97
98
99
100
102
103
104
105
106
108
109
112
113
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
BOD
120
37
16
69
74
8
56
338
45
29
570
124
54
738
961
1433
2600
566
717
70
26
1025
11
81
11
69
324
205
804
987
4050
263
420
724
3190
262
25
32
58
91
454
30
165
192
514
147
605
12
92
19
15
9
3750
14
225
4080
75
778
47
21
197
71
1470
138
600
156
10
28
133
1224
449
122
85
143
57
1104
790
206
216
TSS
99
31
14
57
61
6
46
278
37
23
469
103
44
608
792
1180
2141
466
590
58
21
844
9
67
9
57
267
169
662
813
3335
216
346
597
2627
216
21
26
48
75
374
25
136
158
424
121
498
10
75
16
12
7
3088
11
185
3360
62
641
38
17
162
58
1211
114
494
128
9
23
110
1008
369
100
70
117
47
909
651
169
178
Oil & Grease
38
12
5
22
23
2
17
106
14
9
179
39
17
231
302
449
816
177
225
22
8
321
3
25
3
22
102
64
252
310
1271
82
132
227
1001
82
8
10
18
29
143
9
52
60
161
46
190
4
29
6
5
3
1176
4
71
1280
24
244
15
7
62
22
461
43
188
49
3
9
42
384
141
38
27
45
18
346
248
64
68
Chromium (Hex.) chromium (Total) Phenol
.132 2.00 1.36
.041 0.62 0.34
.018 0.27 0.15
.076 1.15 0.84
.081 1.23 0.66
.009 0.13 0.10
.061 0.93 0.61
.371 5.63 3.57
.049 0.75 0.52
.032 0.48 0.26
.626 9.50 6.12
.136 2.07 1.08
.059 0.90 0.41
.810 12.30 7.36
1.005 16.02 10.56
1.573 23.88 14.40
2.855 43.33 26.41
.621 9.43 5.59
.787 11.95 7.01
.077 1.17 1.17
.029 0.43 0.63
1.125 17.08 9.78
.012 0.18 0.37
.089 1.35 0.86
.012 0.18 0.13
.076 1.15 1.19
.356 5.40 4.35
.225 3.42 2.42
.883 13.40 7.98
1.084 16.45 10.00
4.447 67.50 35.32
.289 4.38 3.79
.461 7.00 4.39
.795 12.07 7.13
3.503 53.17 29.42
.288 4.37 4.68
.027 0.42 0.23
.035 0.53 0.57
.064 0.97 0.57
.100 1.52 1.17
.499 7.57 4.24
.033 0.50 0.57
.181 2.75 2.24
.211 3.20 2.08
.564 8.57 5.93
.161 2.45 2.12
.664 10.08 6.81
.013 0.20 0.09
.101 1.53 0.79
.021 0.32 0.18
.016 0.25 0.25
.010 0.15 0.07
4.118 62.50 32.40
.015 0.23 0.11
.247 3.75 2.73
4.480 68.00 37.95
.082 1.25 1.19
.854 12.97 8.17
.052 0.78 0.72
.023 0.35 0.19
.216 3.28 2.01
.078 1.18 0.63
1.614 24.50 15.90
.151 2.30 2.32
.659 10.00 7.51
.171 2.60 1.61
.011 0.17 0.58
.031 0.47 0.22
.146 2.22 1.38
1.344 20.40 10.03
.493 7.48 4.40
.134 2.03 1.19
.093 1.42 0.71
.157 2.38 1.17
.063 0.95 0.50
1.212 18.40 10.58
.867 13.17 6.78
.226 3.43 2.00
.237 3.60 2.08
244
-------
TABLE VII-34 - Continued
Refinery
No.
126
127
129
131
132
133
134
144
146
147
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
167
168
169
172
173
174
176
177
179
180
181
183
184
186
189
190
194
196
197
199
201
204
205
208
210
211
212
213
216
219
221
222
226
227
230
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
252
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
265
266
292
295
309
BOD
153
24
5
881
1430
873
253
66
5
358
75
79
1043
479
288
58
43
158
590
137
27
20
3
1119
99
328
841
632
682
112
28
58
167
82
119
628
1450
112
351
669
12
19
3370
2140
10
23
88
223
216
1560
35
382
109
42
2690
198
69
5
12
104
109
151
435
630
323
17
59
120
44
54
118
49
63
17
56
66
532
1663
2020
1
83
770
11
2
10
211
TSS
126
20
4
725
1177
719
209
54
4
295
62
65
859
394
237
48
36
130
485
112
22
16
2
922
82
271
693
520
562
93
23
48
137
68
98
518
1195
93
289
551
10
16
2776
1763
9
19
73
184
178
1285
28
315
90
35
2215
163
57
4
10
85
90
125
358
519
266
14
48
99
36
44
98
41
52
14
46
54
439
1370
1664
1
68
634
9
1
9
174
Oil & Grease
48
8
1
276
448
274
80
21
1
112
24
25
327
150
90
18
14
49
185
43
8
6
1
351
31
103
264
198
214
35
9
18
52
26
37
197
455
35
110
210
4
6
1057
672
3
7
28
70
68
489
11
120
34
13
844
62
22
1
4
32
34
48
136
198
101
5
18
38
14
17
37
16
20
5
17
21
167
522
634
0
26
241
3
0
3
66
Chromium (Hex.)
.168
.026
.005
.967
1.570
.959
.278
.072
.005
.393
.082
.087
1.145
.526
.316
.064
.047
.173
.648
.150
.030
.022
.003
1.229
.109
.360
.923
.694
.749
.123
.031
.064
.183
.090
.131
.690
1.592
.123
.385
.735
.013
.021
3.700
2.350
.011
.025
.097
.245
.237
1.713
.038
.419
.120
.046
2.954
.217
.076
.005
.013
.114
.120
.166
.478
.692
.355
.019
.065
.132
.048
.059
.130
.054
.069
.019
.051
.072
.584
1.826
2.218
.001
.091
.845
.012
.002
.011
.232
Chromium (Total)
2.55
0.40
0.08
14.68
23.83
14.55
4.22
1.10
0.08
5.97
1.25
1.32
17.38
7.98
4.80
0.97
0.72
2.63
9.83
2.28
0.45
0.33
0.05
18.65
1.65
5.47
14.02
10.53
11.37
1.87
0.47
0.97
2.78
1.37
1.98
10.47
24.17
1.87
5.85
11.15
0.20
0.32
56.17
35.67
0.17
0.38
1.47
3.72
3.60
26.00
0.58
6.37
1.82
0.70
44.83
3.30
1.15
0.08
0.20
1.73
1.82
2.52
7.25
10.50
5.38
0.28
0.98
2.00
0.73
0.90
1.97
0.82
1.05
0.28
0.93
1.10
8.87
27.72
33.67
0.02
1.38
12.83
0.18
0.03
0.17
3.52
Phenol
2.10
0.35
0.10
8.46
15.96
8.02
4.11
1.23
0.08
4.11
1.26
1.39
9.69
6.11
4.53
0.64
0.64
2.04
6.00
1.80
0.47
0.48
0.94
10.22
1.68
3.66
8.03
6.85
7.56
1.05
0.39
0.80
2.06
0.88
1.50
5.67
17.28
1.30
4.07
5.96
0.09
0.16
32.24
21.07
0.08
0.17
1.63
3.72
3.00
16.61
0.31
3.50
1.52
0.38
28.03
2.85
2.62
0.16
0.13
1.43
1.29
2.03
4.35
5.37
4.30
0.19
0.59
1.94
0.55
0.63
1.38
0.60
0.95
0.26
0.51
0.87
6.02
12.95
16.87
0.31
0.75
6.75
0.10
0.02
0.07
1.41
73172
245
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
BAT
The factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes, non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and the
costs of application of such technology (Section 30t(b)(2)(B)). In
general, the BAT technology level represents, at a minimum, the best
economically achievable performance of plants of various ages, sizes,
processes or other shared characteristics. Where existing performance
is uniformly inadequate, BAT may be transferred from a different
subcategory or category. BAT may include process changes or internal
controls, even when not common industry practice.
The statutory assessment of BAT "considers" costs, but does not
require a balancing of costs against effluent reduction benefits. In
developing the proposed BAT, 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 costs and economic impacts of the required
pollution control levels.
Despite this expanded consideration of costs, the primary determinent
of BAT remains effluent reduction capability. Effluent limitations
for the petroleum refining industry are expressed as mass limitations,
i.e., restrictions on the total quantity of pollutants which 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 six options considered for BAT include
various combinations of flow reduction and improved performance of
waste treatment technology.
BAT OPTIONS CONSIDERED
OPTION ONE - Require effluent limitations based on an average flow
reduction from model flow of 27 percent achieved through greater reuse
and recycle of wastewater. This option would not require additional
end-of-pipe treatment since limitations would be based upon the
performance of BPT end-of-pipe technology; phenol (4AAP) limitations,
however, would be based on a long term achievable concentration of 19
ug/1. (See Section III).
This level of flow is now achieved by 50 percent of the facilities in
the industry. $19.3 million additional investment would be required
247
-------
with an annual cost of $7.7 million including interest and
depreciation.
OPTION TWO - Require effluent limitations based on an average 52
percent flow reduction achieved through greater reuse and recycle of
wastewater. This option would not require additional end-of-pipe
treatment since limitations would be based on the performance of BPT
end-of-pipe technology. Mass limitations on 4AAP phenol would be
based on the 19 ug/1 currently achieved by industry.
This option was based on an average of the flows of all refineries
which are achieving flows lower than those predicted by the proposed
flow model. This produces limitations based on flows now achieved by
38 percent of the industry; an average reduction of 52 percent would
be required throughout the industry.
Although precise costs have not yet been calculated for this option,
EPA has concluded, based on its technological evaluation of the
industry, that the costs for Option Two approximate those projected
for Option three below. $113.0 million additional investment would be
required with an annual cost of $48.7 million including interest and
depreciation. This amounts to $0.0002 per gallon of product.
In order to confirm its assessment of costs EPA intends to conduct an
engineering field survey of the costs associated with Option Two.
This survey will be completed and a report prepared prior to final
promulgation of these regulations. EPA will publish a notice in the
Federal Register when the report is available to the public.
OPTION THREE - Require effluent limitations based on a combination of
OPTION ONE flow reduction and improved end-of-pipe treatment.
Improved end-of-pipe treatment was evaluated with the use of powdered
activated carbon (PAC). This combination of treatment produces mass
limitations equivalent to those produced by flow reduction alone under
Option Two.
$113.0 million additional investment would be required with an annual
cost of $48.7 million including interest and depreciation. This
amounts to $0.0002 per gallon of product.
OPTION FOUR - Require mass limitations based on Option Two plus
segregation and separate treatment of cooling tower blowdown. Cooling
tower blowdown would be treated for metals (reduction of hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium, pH adjustment, precipitation and
clarification). Limitations for other process streams would be based
on treatment in existing BPT treatment systems.
Treatment of segregated streams may remove more toxics than would
biological treatment of a combined, more dilute, waste stream.
248
-------
Potential contamination of biological sludges by cooling tower
biocides (generally containing chromium and zinc) would be reduced.
Removal of organic toxic pollutants in the biological treatment system
may be increased since the wastewater would not be diluted with
cooling tower water prior to treatment.
EPA has not made a detailed cost analysis for this option. While the
cost of metals treatment can be estimated, the cost of segregating
cooling tower blowdown from other process streams cannot be estimated
with available data. The engineering survey, described above (See
Option 2) also will collect data on the technical requirements and
cost of cooling water segregation.
OPTION FIVE - Require effluent limitations based on Option One flow
reductions plus the addition of granular activated carbon (GAG) to
control residual toxic organic pollutants dissolved in the wastewater
discharged from Option 1 technology.
Although results of the Agency study were inconclusive (see Section
V), it can be generally stated that toxic pollutant removal increases
with the use of GAG. This removal, however, appears to be only
marginally better than with PAG (Option Two) and the cost of GAG is
much greater than PAG.
EPA estimates that this option would require direct discharging
refineries to incur an annualized cost of $363 million.
OPTION SIX - Prohibit discharge from existing refineries. This could
be achieved by further reuse and recycle, evaporation, or reinjection
of wastewaters. Fifty-five existing refineries already have
eliminated discharge.
This is a demonstrated technology, but costs were not calculated for
this option. While additional costs for building a new refinery to
eliminate discharge can be calculated (150), the costs of retrofitting
an existing refinery are highly site specific. Costs, however, would
be significantly higher than costs for applying any of the other
options.
BAT SELECTION AND DECISION CRITERIA - EPA has selected Option Two as
the basis for proposed effluent limitations. This option was selected
because it was best supported by available data and because it reduces
total pollutant discharges through the use of proven technology.
Since this level represents the average of the best in the industry
EPA believes that it demonstrates reasonable further progress towards
the clean Water Act's goal of the elimination of the discharge of
pollutants. Further, these limitations are also technologically and
economically achievable through the use of Option Three. Thus, all
facilities have several ways to achieve this limitation. They may
249
-------
meet it totally through flow reduction or through a combination of
flow reduction and improved treatment.
Available data show that existing treatment already reduces the
concentration of 4AAP phenols to 19 ug/1 (See Section III).
Consequently mass limitations on phenols will be based on that
achievable concentration. In order to validate this decision, EPA is
presently requesting, under section 308 of the Act, that approximately
37 refineries believed to have installed BPT model technology send
data to EPA for further evaluation of what constitutes a proper
achievable concentration of UAAP phenols based on BPT treatment
technology. That data also will allow EPA to determine whether the
variability factors used to establish daily and monthly fluctuations
should be changed as a result of the lower concentrations. Mass
limitations on all other pollutants are based on those final
concentrations already part of the BPT limitations (3):
Option Four still remains a serious candidate for the basis of final
regulations. EPA has data establishing that greater quantities of
metals and toxic organics can be removed when introduced into separate
treatment systems at higher concentrations. EPA has only limited data
on the costs required to segregate flows from cooling towers. This
matter is presently under study.
Option Five was not selected because GAC allows only slightly better
pollutant removal than PAC (Option Three) and because the cost of GAC
is considerably higher than the cost of PAC.
Option Six was not selected because, in the Agency's judgement, the
costs of retrofitting to eliminate discharge on a uniform national
basis would be significantly higher than the selected option and would
result in a substantial number of plant closures. Nevertheless, this
option still remains a serious candidate for any subsequent revisions
of BAT limitations, especially for certain sizes and/or types of
plants.
The following derivation presents the development of mass limitations
for phenol, based upon Option 2, from the flow model discussed in
Section IV.
1) Mass = Flow x concentration x variability (equation 1)
BAT Mass = .48 x Mass (based on average 1976 industry flow)
2) Flow (see Section IV) = 0.004C + 0.046K * 0.048(A+L) (equation 2)
where Flow = million gallons per day
C = summation of the crude oil and fed natural gas
liquids to the atmospheric distillation, vacuum
distillation, and crude desalting (in units of
1,000 bbls/day)
250
-------
K = summation of the petroleum liquids fed to the
catalytic cracking processes (in unit of
1,000 bbls/day)
A = summation of the petroleum liquids fed to the
asphalt processes (in units of 1,000 bbls/day)
L = summation of the petroleum liquids fed to the
lube processes (in units of 1,000 bbls/day)
3) Concentration and variability factor
phenol = 19 ug/1 (concentration)
1.7 (variability factor for 30 day averages)
4) Sample Calculation
Mass = Flow x concentration x variability factor x .48
= . 004C + .046 K + .048 (A+L) x .019 mg/1
x 1.7 x 8.34 x .48
Mass (Ibs of phenol) = (0.0005C) + (0.0060K) + (0.0062 (A+L)
The following example presents the derivation of a phenol effluent
limitation for typical refinery.
Refinery X Y Z
Refinery Refinery
Processes Capacity 1000 bb/day
Atmospheric Crude Distillation 100
Vacuum Crude Distillation 75
Desalting 50
total crude processes(C) 225
FCC 25
Hydrocracking 20
Total cracking processes(K) 45
Asphalt Production 5
Hydrofining 3
Wax processing J
Total asphalt and lube processes (AL) 9
Using the equation given in item 4 above:
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days of
phenol discharge, (Ibs/day) = .0005 (225) + .0060 (45) +
6.2 x 10-3 (9) = .nn
251
-------
-------
SECTION IX
BCT
The 1977 amendments added Section 301(b)(4)(E) to the Act,
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Conventional pollutants are those defined in Section
304(b) (4) - BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, and pH - and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as "conventional." On
July 30, 1978, EPA designated oil and grease as a conventional
pollutant (44 Fed. Reg. 44501).
BCT is not an additional limitation; rather it replaces BAT for the
control of conventional pollutants. BCT requires that limitations for
conventional pollutants be assessed in light of a new "cost-
reasonableness" test which involves a comparison of the cost and level
of reduction of conventional pollutants from the discharge of publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) to the cost and level of reduction of
such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources. As a
part of its review of BAT for certain "secondary" industries, the
Agency has promulgated a methodology for this cost test. (See 44 FR
50732, August 29, 1979). The Agency compares industry costs with that
of an "average" POTW with a flow of 2 mgd and costs (1977 dollars) of
$1.18 per pound of pollutant removal (BOD and TSS).
EPA applied this methodology to the costs for removing conventional
pollutants in the petroleum refining industry and concluded that BCT
limitations based on a 52 percent reduction in total effluent flow by
greater recycle and reuse of wasterwaters (BAT Option Two, See section
IX) or a 52 percent reduction in pollutants discharged by a
combination of flow reduction and powdered activated carbon
enhancement of activated sludges (BAT Option three) are reasonable.
This is based upon a cost of depreciation and interest of 25 percent
of capital costs. At this level, the total annualized cost for BCT
technology is $48.7 million and EPA projects that 123.3 million pounds
of BOD and TSS will be removed throughout the industry by Option Two
technology (See Tables VII-30 and VIII-32). Based on these figures,
the cost to pollutant reduction ratio for Option Two is $1.00 per
pound of BOD and TSS removed (compared to a POTW cost of $1.18 per
pound of BOD and TSS). Therefore, EPA proposes BCT effluent
limitations at the proposed BAT (OPTION TWO) level.
253
-------
-------
SECTION X
NSPS
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section
306 of the Act is the best available demonstrated technology. New
plants have the opportunity to design the best and most efficient
petroleum refining processes and wastewater treatment technologies;
Congress therefore directed 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
OPTION ONE - Require performance standards based on the same
technology proposed for BAT (see Section IX), including wastewater
flow control by recycle and reuse of wastewaters after BPT treatment.
As discussed under BAT Option Two, application of this technology will
ensure a high degree of removal of toxic pollutants. Similar
reductions in pollutant mass discharge can be achieved by BAT Option
Three.
OPTION TWO - Require performance standards based on granular activated
carbon (BAT Option Five). As discussed under BAT Option Five, GAC
allows somewhat better pollutant removals than NSPS Option One, but is
considerably more expensive.
OPTION THREE - Require a performance standard to eliminate discharge.
Unlike BAT Option Six, there is no cost of retrofitting to comply with
such a requirement. No discharge of refinery wastes is a demonstrated
technology; EPA has identified fifty-five refineries which do not
discharge. The American Petroleum Institute (API) has published a
technical report (150) which evaluates the technologies capable of
eliminating discharge of refinery wastes. The water reuse schemes and
end-of-pipe technologies described in the API Report are being used in
the refining industry, used by other industries, or successfully
tested on a pilot scale. The report also calculates the costs to be
expected if those technologies were designed into a new refinery (i.e.
without the need to retrofit existing equipment). This option would
require a new source of the size and configuration likely to be built
in the 1980's to incur additional investment over BPT of $9.5 million
with an annual cost of $3.5 million including interest and
depreciation (1977 dollars).
NSPS SELECTION AND DECISION CRITERIA - EPA has selected Option Three
as the basis for proposed new source performance standards. No
discharge is a demonstrated technology in the petroleum refining
industry and, based on available data, can be economically achieved.
Consequently, EPA believes that the Act requires that Option Three be
the basis for NSPS.
255
-------
-------
SECTION XI
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for both existing sources (PSES) and new sources (PSNS) of
pollution which discharge their wastes into publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs). 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's. In addition, the
Clean Water Act of 1977 adds a new dimension to these standards by
requiring pretreatment of pollutants, such as heavy metals, that limit
POTW sludge management alternatives. The legislative history of the
Act indicates that pretreatment standards are to be technology based
and, with respect to toxic pollutants, analagous to BAT. The Agency
has promulgated general pretreatment regulations which establish a
framework for the implementation of these statutory requirements.
(See 43 Fed. Reg. 27736 June 26, 1978).
A determination of which pollutants may pass through or be in-
compatible with POTW operations, and thus be subject to pretreatment
standards, depends on the level of treatment employed by the POTW. In
general, more pollutants pass through or interfere with a POTW
employing primary treatment (usually physical separation by settling)
than one which has installed secondary treatment (settling plus
biological stabilization) (See Section IV) .
Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires most POTW's to have installed
secondary treatment by July 1, 1977. There are, however, two groups
of POTW's which have not yet met this requirement. One group remains
subject to the obligation and contains POTW's which are scheduled to
install secondary treatment within the next few years. A second group
of POTWs will be exempt from the requirement to install secondary
•treatment. Under Section 301 (h) of the Act, POTWs which discharge
into marine waters may, under certain circumstances, receive a waiver
from this requirement. EPA has proposed regulations dealing with the
issuance of section 301 (h) waivers. 43 Fed. Reg. 301 Vol. 44 No. 117,
Friday, June 15, 1979.
OPTION ONE - Establish pretreatment for all refineries based on metals
removal (pH adjustment, precipitation, and clarification) and existing
PSES controls. Metals removal would be required only for cooling
tower blowdown, since that is the major source of the heavy metals of
concern — chromium and zinc. (Under this option, organic priority
pollutants would pass through primary POTWs which have not yet
complied with Section 301 (b) (1) (B) of the Act and those POTWs which
are granted waivers under Section 301(h)).
257
-------
The regulation would require the 53 affected indirect discharging
refineries to incur $9.6 million additional investment with annual
costs of $5.2 million including interest and depreciation. A new
indirect discharging refinery of the size and configuration likely to
be built in the 1980«s would incur additional investment of $0.3
million with annual costs of $0.2 million including interest and
depreciation.
OPTION TWO - Establish two pretreatment standards. Pretreatment for
those refineries discharging into POTWs which have been granted
waivers under Section 301 (h) would be based on concentrations
achievable after application of BPT technology. Pretreatment for
other indirect discharging refineries would be the same as Option 1.
The cost of this option cannot be specifically calculated since there
are no POTWs which have been granted waivers under section 301 (h).
Costs were developed, however, for each indirect discharging refinery
to install biological treatment (See Section VI).
SELECTION OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND DECISION CRITERIA - EPA has
selected Option Two as the basis for pretreatment standards. Based on
its sampling and analysis program, EPA has determined that pollutants
found in petroleum refining wastes after present PSES treatment do not
pass through secondary POTWs and that only metals limit the POTW
sludge management alternatives (See Section III). Consequently, for
metals only, EPA is proposing additional pretreatment standards for
indirect dischargers whose wastes go to POTWs employing secondary
treatment.
The Agency additionally proposes that this limitation apply to those
indirect dischargers whose wastes go to a primary POTW which is
scheduled to install secondary treatment. Although EPA has determined
that petroleum refining wastes pass through primary POTWs, the Agency
believes that it would be improper to require industrial sources
discharging into such POTWs to install treatment systems which will be
unnecessary when the POTWs come into compliance with the requirement
of secondary treatment.
EPA is, however, proposing specific pretreatment standards based on
application of BAT technology for those indirect dischargers whose
wastes go to POTWs which have been granted 301(h) waivers. Since
POTWs with 301 (h) waivers will remain at primary treatment, only
specific limitations on indirect dischargers will ensure that their
wastes do not pass through into waters of the United States. Such
standards, however, will apply only where a valid 301(h) waiver has
been granted. Those sources discharging into a POTW which has a
pending application for a 301(h) waiver will be subject to the
generally less stringent pretreatment standards based on secondary
treatment in the POTW until such time as the waiver is finally
approved.
258
-------
SECTION XII
AC KNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document is based largely on a contractor's report, the purpose
of which was to present the technical data base developed to meet
EPA's requirements for further development and review of BAT effluent
limitations for new source performance standards and pretreatment
standards for the petroleum refining point source category. Burns and
Roe of Paramus, New Jersey, under contract to EPA, submitted their
report in December of 1977 (125).
The following members of the Burns and Roe technical staff made
significant contributions to the overall project effort and the
development of this report:
Arnold S. Vernick, P.E.
Paul D. Lanik, P.E.
Barry S. Langer, P.E.
Roy Ehlenberg
Tom H. Fieldsend
Gary C. Martin
Gerald Smit, P.E.
Project Manager
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Systems Designer
Environmental Engineer
Civil Engineer
Operations Research Specialist
Acknowledgment is made to all Environmental Protection Agency
personnel contributing to this effort, including Robert W. Dellinger,
William A. Telliard, Dennis C. Ruddy, Martin P. Halper, Jaye Swanson,
Harold Coughlin, W. Lamar Miller, Carl J. Schafer, Robert B. Schaffer,
Effluent Guidelines Division; Leon H. Myers, John E. Matthews, Fred M.
Pfeffer, Thomas E. Short, Jr., Ph.D., Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory; Jeff Gaba, Office of General Counsel; Michael
Callahan, Monitoring and Data Support Division; Martin Wagner, Office
of Planning and Evaluation; Louis DuPuis, Gary Liberson, Maurice
Owens, Charles Cook, and Henry Kahn, Office of Analysis and
Evaluation; George Keeler, Office of Research and Development;
Madeleine Nawar and Gregory Kew, Office of Water Enforcement; T. N.
Hushower, Office of Water Supply; W. L. Polglase, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division; Gerald Fontenot, Region VI; and Harvey
Lunenfeld, Region II.
We would also like to thank David G. Button and Francis L. Robertaccio
of E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company for their assistance and review
relative to powdered activated carbon bio-enhancement technology.
The assistance of all personnel at EPA Regional Offices and at State
environmental departments who participated in the data gathering
efforts is greatly appreciated.
The assistance of Mrs. S. Frances Thompson of Burns and Roe and of Ms.
Kaye Starr, Ms. Nancy Zrubek, and Ms. Carol Swann of the Effluent
259
-------
Guidelines Division in the typing and preparation of this report is
specifically noted.
Ryckman, Edgerly, Tomlinson, and Associates are acknowledged for their
assistance in the sampling and analysis phase of this study.
The efforts of personnel employed at the petroleum refineries listed
in Table III-2 of this report are appreciated with regard to the
furnishing of data via the 1977 EPA Petroleum Refining Industry
Survey. In addition, the representatives of the following oil
companies are acknowledged for their assistance during U.S. EPA and
contractor visits:
Amoco Oil Company, Yorktown, VA
B.P. Oil, Inc., Marcus Hook, PA
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Perth Amboy, NJ
EXXON Company, U.S.A., Linden, NJ
Getty Refining and Marketing Co., Delaware City, DE
Mobil Oil Corporation, Paulsboro, NJ
Sun Oil Co., Marcus Hook, PA
Texaco, Inc., Westville, NJ
The refineries that were included in the RSKERL and Burns and Roe
supplemental sampling programs, as listed below, are specifically
noted:
Asamera Oil (U.S.) Inc., Commerce City, CO
Atlantic Richfield Co., Philadelphia, PA
Clark Oil and Refining Corporation, Hartford, IL
Coastal States Petrochemical Co., Corpus Christi, TX
Continental Oil Company, Ponca City, OK
EXXON Company, U.S.A., Baytown, TX
EXXON Company, U.S.A., Benicia, CA
EXXON Company, U.S.A., Billings, MT
Getty Refining and Marketing Company, El Dorado, KS
Gulf Oil Company, Philadelphia, PA
Hunt Oil Company, Tuscaloosa, AL
Mobil Oil Corporation, Augusta, KS
Phillips Petroleum Company, Sweeny, TX
Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation, Congo, WV
Shell Oil Company, Anacortes, WA
Sun Oil Company, Toledo, OH
Texaco, Inc., Lockport, IL
The American Petroleum Institute and its contractor. Brown and Root,
Inc., are also acknowledged for their efforts relative to this
project.
260
-------
SECTION XIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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 and
New Source Performance Standards for Petroleum Refining",
April, 1974, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
4. Bush, Kenneth E.f "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 Sour
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. Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petrochemi ca1 Plants,
Beychock, M. R., 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, Thomas E., Jr., et al_., "Controlling Phenols in
Refinery Waste Waters", The Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 119-124,
November 25, 1974.
13. Congram, Gary E., "Refiners Zero In On Better Desalting", The
Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 153-154, December 30, 1974.
14. Beychock, M. R. , "Wastewater Treatment", Hydrocarbon
Processing, pp. 109-112, December, 1974.
261
-------
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, Ronald 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
PetrochemicaIs Session of the National Pollution Control
Exposition and Conference, April 4 and 5, 1968.
23. congram, GaryE., "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. Brown & Root, Inc., "Analysis of the 1972 API-EPA Raw Waste
Load Survey Data", API publication No. 4200, July, 1974.
27. Diehl, Douglas S.r 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
262
-------
by Environmental Services Department, Bechtel Corporation,
API publication No. 946, June, 1975.
29. "Petroleum Refining Industry, Technology and Costs of Waste-
water Control", prepared for the National Commission on Water
Quality, by Engineering Science, Inc., June, 1975.
30. "Granular Media Filtration of Petroleum Refinery Effluent
Waters", prepared by the EIMCO BSP Division of Envirotech
Corporation, for the American Petroleum Institute, API
publication No. 947, October, 1975.
31. "Economics of Refinery Waste Water Treatment", prepared by
Brown 6 Root, Inc., for the American Petroleum Institute API
publication No. 4199, August, 1973.
32. "Economic Impact of EPA's Regulations on the Petroleum
Refining Industry", by Sobotka & Company, Inc., for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, April, 1976.
33. Mitchell, G. E., "Environmental Protection - Benecia
Refinery", API 35th Midyear Meeting, Division of Refining,
Houston, May, 1970.
34. Ewing, Robert C., "Shell Refinery Uses Pollution-Abatement
Units", The Oil and Gas Journal, March 8, 1971.
35. Aalund, Leo A., "Cherry Point Refinery - A Story of Air,
Water, and Fuel", The Oil and Gas Journal, January 24, 1972.
36. Maguire, W. F., "Reuse Sour Water Stripper Bottoms", Hydro-
carbon 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, EPA, EPA-660/2 - 75-020.
39. "Assessment of Hazardous Waste Practices in the Petroleum
Refining Industry", June 1976, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, prepared by Jacobs Engineering Co., Contract No. 68-
01-2288.
40. "Report to Congress - Disposal of Hazardous Wastes", U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No. SW-115,
1974.
263
-------
41. Elkin, Harold F., "Biological Oxidation & Reuse of Refinery
Wastewater for Pollution Control and Water Conservation",
Division of Refining, Vol. 36, No. Ill, p. 340, 1956.
42. Elkin, Harold 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, Morris 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, 71 pages, August, 1975.
47. Donaldson, W. T., "Trace Organics in Water", Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 11, No. 4, April, 1977.
48. "Draft Supplement for Pretreatment to the Development
Document for the Petroleum Refining Industry, Existing Point
Source Category", EPA 400/1-76/083, December, 1976.
49. Davis, John 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", Proceedings of the Open Forum on Management of
Petroleum Refinery Wastewaters, January 26-29, 1976.
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
264
-------
International Water Conference of the Engineers* Society of
Western Pennsylvania, October 31, 1974.
54. Zecher, D. C., "Corrosion Inhibition by Surface - Active
Chelants.", The International Corrosion Forum, Toronto,
Canada, April 14-18, 1975.
55. Robitaille, D. P. 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", The Oil and Gas Journal, September 10, 1973.
59. Crame, L. W., "Activated Sludge Enhancement: A Viable
Alternative to Tertiary Carbon Adsorption", Proceedings of
the Open Forum on Management of Petroleum Refining
Wastewater, June 6-9, 1977.
60. Grieves, C. G., et al., "Powdered Activated Carbon Enhance-
ment of Activated Sludge for BATEA Refinery Wastewater
Treatment", Proceedings of 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 to Symposium on Industrial Waste Pollution Control
at A.C.S. National Meeting, March 24, 1977.
62. Dehnert, J. F,, "Case History - The Use of Powdered Activated
Carbon with a Biodisc-Filtration Process for Treatment of
Refinery Wastes", Proceedings of 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", Proceedings of 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.
265
-------
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 Material Spills", University of Houston, March 21-
23, 1972.
67. "Spill Prevention Techniques for Hazardous Polluting
Substances", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared
by Arthur D. Little, Inc., Contract No. 14-12-927, February,
1971.
68. "Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use: Chapter
3. Petroleum Refining Industry", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, prepared by Radian Corporation, Contract
No. 68-02-1319, January, 1977.
69. Rizzo, J. L. and Shepard, A. R., "Treating Industrial
Wastewater with Activated Carbon", Chemical Engineering,
January 3, 1977.
70. Dewalle, 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, Kenneth H. and Paulson, Edgar G., "Treatment of
Heavy Metals in Wastewater", Pollution Engineering, October,
1976.
73. "Petroleum Refineries in the United States and Puerto Rico",
Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of The Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, January 1, 1977.
74. "Petroleum Refineries in the United States and Puerto Rico",
National Petroleum Refiners Association, Washington, DC, 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", Burns and Roe submittal
to EPA, Effluent Guidelines Division, Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category, December 30, 1976.
77. "Worldwide Directory, Refining and Gas Processing, 1976-
1977", Oil and Gas Journal, 34th Edition 1976.
266
-------
78. "S-l, Analysis of Self Reporting Data from Refineries to
Determine Compliance with July 1, 1977 Effluent Limitations"r
Burns and Roe submittal to EPA, Effluent Guidelines Division,
February 22, 1977.
79. "S-2, Selection of Refineries for RSKERL Sampling Program",
Burns and Roe submittal to EPA, Effluent Guidelines Division,
February 22, 1977.
80. "Analytical Variability of Five Wastewater Parameters,
Petroleum Refining Industry", Prepared by the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, 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", Proceedings of 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", Proceedings of the Ninth Mid-
Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, August 8-9, 1977.
84. "Injections Pep Up Cat Crackers", Chemical Week, April 13,
1977.
85. Schwartz, R. D., and McCoy, C.J., "The Use of Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Catalyst in Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment",
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. Congram, G. E., "Biodisk Improves Effluent - WaterTreating
Operation", The Oil and Gas Journal, February 23, 1976.
88. "From Refinery Wastes to Pure Water", Prepared by Hydro-
technic Corporation, New York, NY, undated.
89. Siegal, B. A., and Harrel, 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.
267
-------
91. Reedr 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-Systems 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.
100. Porter, J.W. et al., "Zero Discharge of Wastewater From
Petroleum Refineries", Presented at 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", Presentation to 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 Industry-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, EP -230/1-73-020, September, 1973.
268
-------
105. Huber, L.J., "State and Development in Refinery Effluent
Purification", Proceedings of 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," Proceedings of the Open Forum on Management of
Petroleum Refinery Wastewater, June 6-9, 1977.
108. "Screening Survey for Priority Pollutants, Petroleum Refining
Industry" prepared by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Draft Report, 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.
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," March 1974, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-440/1-74-003-a.
115. Grulich, G., et al., "Treatment of Organic Chemicals Plant
Wastewater with DuPont PACT Process," Presented at 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
269
-------
Wastewater," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 11,
No. 9, September, 1977.
120. Knowlton, H.E., "Biodisks Work in Waste-Water Treating," 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
Manufacturing Process Options: Vol. IV. Petroleum Refining
Industry Report," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/7-76-034d, December, 1976.
123. Dellinger, Robert W., "Incorporation of the Priority
Pollutants into Effluent Guidelines Division Documents,"
presented at the Open Forum on Management of Petroleum
Refinery Wastewater, Tulsa, Oklahoma, June 7, 1977.
124. "S-3, Selection of Refineries for B S R Supplemental Sampling
Program," Burns and Roe submittal to EPA, 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 Petroleum Refining Point Source Category,"
Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corporation, Paramus, N.J.,
December, 1977.
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 of Side
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, William A., "Rationale for the Development of 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.f "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.
270
-------
133. Mohler, E.F. , Jr., "Removing Colloidal Solids Via Upflow
Filtration," Chemical Engineering Progress, April, 1S77.
134. Bardone, L., et al., "Costs of Reducing S
-------
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, B.L. Sr.f 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"
prepared by GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Final
Report, December 1977.
149. Analysis of Petroleum Refinery Effluents for Organic Priority
Pollutants" prepared by Midwest Research Institute, Draft
Final Report, March 1978.
150. Water Reuse Studies., American Petroleum Institute, API
Publication 949, August, 1977.
151. U.S. EPA and Burns & Roe, "Cost Manual for the Direct
Discharge Segment of the Petroleum Refining Industry," March
1979.
152. Rizzo, Joyce A., "Case History: Use of Powdered Activated
Carbon in an Activated Sludge System", Paper Presented at the
First Open Forum on Petroleum Refinery Wastewaters, Tulsa,
OK, Jan. 1976.
153. Grieves, C. G., M. K. Stenstrom, J.D. Walk, and J.F. Grutsch,
"Effluent Quality Improvement by Powdered Activated Carbon in
Refinery Activated Sludge Processes", Paper Presented at API
Refining Department, 42nd Midyear Meeting, Chicago, Illinois,
May 11, 1977.
154. Thibault, G.T., K.D. Tracy and J.B. Wilkinson, "Evaluation of
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment for Improving Activated
Sludge Performance", Paper Presented at 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", paper Presented at the 50th Annual Water Pollution
Control Federation conference, Philadelphia, PA, October 3,
1977.
272
-------
156. Robertaccio, F.L. , "Combined Powdered Activated Carbon -
Biological Treatment: Theory and Results", Paper Presented at
Second Open Forum on Management of Petroleum Refinery
WastewatERS, Tulsa, OK, June 8, 1977.
157. Spady, Ben, and Alan D. Adams, "Improved Activated Sludge
Treatment with Carbon", Deeds j> Data, Water Pollution Control
Federation, January 1976.
273
-------
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Glossary
Act: The October 18, 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, P.L. 92-500.
Administrator; Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, whose duties are to administer the Act.
Appendix A Pollutants: Those pollutants listed in Appendix A of the
Settlement Agreement of June 7, 1976 (see Table III-l) .
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 Practicable Control Technology Currently Achievable (BPCTCA 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 which can change the rate of a chemical
reaction, but which is not itself involved in the reaction.
Cluster Analysis: A statistical procedure which solves the problem of
separating objects into groups so that each object is more like
objects in the same group than like objects in other groups.
Cross-check Editing; The determination of a value's validity based on
the occurrence of a value of some other variable.
Data Validation: An operation performed to insure the accuracy and
reliability of raw input information.
Dependent Variable: A variable whose value is a function of one or
more independent variables.
Deterministic Variable: A variable whose values are purely determined
to be a function of physical facts.
Discriminant Analysis; A statistical procedure to assign an entity
whose population identity is not known to a population of known
characteristics.
Dummy Variable: A symbol representing the statistical encoding of a
qualitative value.
275
-------
Economics Survey; Survey to be mailed by the Office of Analysis and
Evaluation of EPA to the petroleum refining industry, pursuant to
Section 308 of the Act. Data on the economic status of petroleum
refineries will be requested.
End-of-Pipe Treatment (control); Those treatment technologies that are
used after gravity oil separation.
Flow Model; A mathematical model of the effluent wastewater flow,
developed through the use of multiple linear regression techniques.
Forward stepping Multiple Linear Regression: A multiple linear
regression procedure in which the order that the independent variables
enter into the regression model is determined by the respective con-
tribution of each variable to explain the variability of the dependent
variables.
Independent Variable: A variable whose value is not dependent on the
value of any other variable.
In-plant Control: Those treatment techniques that are used to reduce,
reuse, recycle, or treat wastewater prior to end-ofpipe treatment.
Linear Regression; A method to fit a line through a set of points such
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.
Listvdse Deletion of Missing Data; A procedure to handle the absence
of some of the information in a regression analysis by eliminating any
data point with absent information from all calculations.
Magnitude of Entry Editing: The determination of a value's validity
based solely on size of the figure, and is a test typically performed
on raw input data.
Mathematical Model: A quantitative equation or system of equations
formulated in such a way as to reasonably depict the structure of a
situation and the relationships among the relevant variables.
Mean Value: The statistical expected or average figure.
Multicollinearity: A regression analysis situation in which some or
all of the independent variables are very highly intercorrelated. The
presence of this situation may cause model development to be extremely
difficult or impossible.
Multiple Linear Regression: A method to fit a plane through a set of
points such that the sum of squared distances between the individual
observations and the estimated plane is a minimum. This statistical
276
-------
technique is an extension of linear regression in that more than one
independent variable is used in the least squares equation.
Normalized Coefficients: Regression constants whose magnitudes are
referenced to some value.
Pairwise Deletion of Missing Data; A procedure to handle the absence
of some of the information in a regression analysis by eliminating £he
data point from only those calculations which use the absent figures.
Portfolios A^ B: The two sections of the 1977 U.S. EPA Petroleum
Refining Industry Survey (see "The Survey").
Priority Pollutants: Those pollutants included in Table III-3.
Probabilistic Variable; A symbol whose values vary with some
likelihood of occurrence distribution. The values cannot be
determined "a priori".
Process Conf igurat ion: A numerical measurement of a refinery's process
complexity; developed for use in calculating BPT guidelines for this
industry.
Process Factor; A factor based upon process configuration, used in
calculating a petroleum refinery's BPT limitations.
Random Process; A procedure which varies according to some probability
function.
Random Variable : A variable whose values occur according to the dis-
tribution of some probability function.
Regression Statistics: Values generated during a regression analysis
which identify the significance, or reliability, of the regression
generated figures.
Regression Model: A mathematical model, usually a single equation, de-
veloped through the use of 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.
277
-------
Size Factor: A factor, based upon a petroleum refinery's size, used in
calculating a petroleum refinery's BPT limitations.
Sour Waters; Those wastewaters containing sulfur compounds, such as
sulfides and mercaptans.
Statistical Stability; A condition whereby if a process were to be
repeated over time, differences would occur 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 (The 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, referred to as Portfolio A and
Portfolio B, and requested data on various aspects of process
operations, wastewater production, and wastewater treatment.
Tolerance Limits; Numerical values identifying the acceptable range of
some variable.
Traditional Pollutant Parameters: Pollutant parameters considered, and
used, in the development of BPT guidelines. These parameters include,
but are not limited to BOD, COD, TOC, TSS, and ammonia.
278
-------
Abbreviations
API:
BATEA (BAT) :
bbl(Bbl):
BPCTCA (BPT) :
B & R:
DMR:
EPA:
gal:
MGD:
mg/L:
POTW:
RETA:
RSKERL:
S & A:
SPSS:
ug/1:
American Petroleum Institute
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Barrel
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
Burns and Roe
Discharge Monitoring Report
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gallon
Million gallons per day
Milligrams per liter
Publicly Owr.ed Treatment Works
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Surveillance and Analysis
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
Micrograms per liter
279
-------
-------
APPENDIX 1
Petroleum Refinery Industry
Survey Form and
Supplemental Flow Question
281
-------
CODE NO.
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY SURVEY
FOR REVISION OP "BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY" (BAT)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
PORTFOLIO A
NOTES
(1) Portfolio A is to be mailed within 30 days of receipt and Portfolio B within
60 days of receipt to:
Robert B.' Schaffer, Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (WH-552)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(2) All flow rates requested in this survey are annual average values (for calendar
year 1976) and in units of million gallons per day (MGD), unless otherwise specified.
I GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Name of Refinery_
B. Street Address
C. Refinery Contact
D. Telephone Number
II REFINERY PROCESS DATA
Definitions for Following Table:
1. "First Generation Petrochemicals" are compounds such as BTX, olefins, Cyclohexane,
etc. which are produced through processes normally associated with refineries such
as isomerization or distillation.
2. "Second Generation Petrochemicals" are compounds such as alcohols, ketones,
cumenes, styrenes, etc. which are produced through more complex chemical
reactions.
3. "Treating and Finishing Processes" should include only those processes that
are used to upgrade the intermediate or final product streams, or other
product streams that are blended to result in final products.
282
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
II REFINERY PROCESS DATA (Continued)
CODE NO.
Please include a simple process block flow diagram of the refinery operations
with the completed survey form.
Indicate which of the processes listed below are utilized at your refinery, and
the respective process rates for the period 1/1/76 - 12/31/76.
Process
A. 1976 Stream
Day Capacity
Units: 1000 bbl/day
B. Calendar Day Year Process
Rate 1976 Avg. Installed
Units: 1000 hbi/day
1. Atmospheric Crude
Distillation
2. Crude Desalting
3. Vacuum Crude Dis-
tillation
4. Visbreaking
5. Thermal Cracking
6. Fluid Catalytic
Cracking
7. Moving Bed Catalytic
Cracking
8. H2SO4 Alkylation
9. HF Alkylation
10. Hydrocracking
11. Hydroprocessing
12. Catalytic Reforming
13. Catalytic Polymerization
14. Aromatic Petrochemicals
15. Delayed Coking
16. Fluid Coking
17. Isomerization
18. Asphalt Production
19. Ammonia Petrochemicals
20. Alkylate Production
Lube Oil Processes
21. Hydrofining, Hydro-
finishing, Lube Hydro-
fining
22. White Oil Manufacture
283
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued) CODE NO.
A. 1976 Stream B. Calendar Day Year Process
Process Day Capacity Rate 1976 Avg. Installed
Oil Processes Units: 100° bbl/day UnitS: 10°° bbl/day
23. Propane Dewaxing, Propane
Deasphalting, Propane
Fractioning, Propane De-
resining
24. Duo Sol, Solvent Treat-
ing, Solvent Extraction,
Duotreating, Solvent De-
waxing, Solvent Deasphalt
25. Lube Vac Twr, Oil Fraction-
ation. Batch Still (Naptha
Strip), Bright Stock Treating
26. Centrifuge s Chilling
27. MEK Dewaxing, Ketone Dewaxing,
MEK-Toluene Dewaxing
28. Deoiling (wax)
29. Naphthenic Lubes
30. SO Extraction
31. Feed Preparation
32. 200°F Softening Point
Unfluxed Asphalt
3 3. Compounding
34. Wax Pressing
35. Wax Plant (with Neutral
Separation)
36. Furfural Extracting
37. Clay Contacting -
Percolation
38. Wax Sweating
39. Acid Treat
40. Phenol Extraction
Treating & Finishing
41. Bender Treating
42. Petreco Locap Gasoline
Sweetening
284
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
CODE NO.
A. 1976 Stream B. Calendar Day Year Process
Process Day Capacity Rate 1976 Avg. Installed
Treating s Finishing Units: 100° bbl/day UnitS: 100°
43. Asphalt Oxidizer
44. Caustic or KOH Treating,
For example: Caustic or
KOH Treating for (1),
H2S (2), Mercaptan (3),
Cresylic Acid (4) Naphenic
Acid (5), PWS MEA for COS
Removal, etc.
45. Water Wash
46. Mercapfining, Pentane
Mercapfining
47. Merox Treating (i.e.
Liquid-Liquid Extraction,
Liquid-Liquid Sweetening,
and Fixed Bed
48. C & C Scrubbing,
Girbitol Treating
49. Linde
50. Doctor Treating
51. Sulfuric Acid Treating
52. Unisol Treating
53. SO Treating
54. Hydro Treating
55. Perco (copper chloride).
Copper Slurry
56. Inhibitor Sweeting
57. KCr
58. Clay Treating, Bauxite
Treating
59. Hypochlorite Sweetening
60. Salt Brightening or
Drying
61. Sulfinol
62. Unclassified Treating
and Finishing
285
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued) CODE HO.
A. 1976 Stream B. Calendar Day Year Process
Process Day Capacity Rate 1976 Avg. Installed
Units: 1000 bbl/day Units: 1000 bbl/day
Petrochemicals
63. Isobutane Production
64. Carbon Black
65. Heptene
66. Sulfolane
67. OxoAlcohol
68. Napthalene
69. Butadiene
70. Aliphatics
71. Cumene
72. Paraxylene Charge
73. Xylene Fractionation
74. Polypropene, Polyiso-
butylene, Poly Feed
Preparation, Trimer-
Te trainer
75. Phenol, Oxonation Addi-
tives Mfg., Polystyrene
Resin, Lube Oil De-
pressant
76. Detergents Alkylate
77. Cresylic Acid
78. Styrene
79. Naphthenic Acid
80. Alpha Olifins
81. Nitric Acid
82. Phthalic Anhydride
83. Butyl Rubber
84. Polyproplene
85. Cyclohexane
86. Solvent hydrotreater
87. HHU
88. Unclassified Petrochem
286
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued) CODE NO.
A. 1976 Stream B. Calendar Day Year Process
Process Day Capacity Rate 1976 Avg. Installed
Units: 1000 bbl/day Units: 1000 bbl/day
Other Processes
89. Asphalt, Asphalt Oxi-
dizing, Asphalt Emulsi-
fying
90. Sulphur Recovery, Sulphur
Production
91. Hydrogen, Reformer Feed
Prep, Steam Methane Re-
former, Partial Oxidation
92. Gas Plant
93. DBA Treating
94. CO Recovery
95. Furfural
96. Dubbs Pitch
97. Solvent Decarbonizing
98. Hydrodemethylation
99. Catalyst Manufacture
100. Gasoline Additives
101. Linear Paraffins
102. Butadiene Concentration
103. Nonene
104. Ammonia Plants
105. Other
287
-------
CODE N0._
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
c.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
D.
Description of Feedstocks Processed
#1 #2
Nitrogen content, %
Sulfur content, %
API Gravity
Source (Country or U.S.
geographical Region)
Type (e.g. asphaltic,
napthenic, paraffinic, gas)
Percent of yearly crude
capacity
Trace metals content, %
a . Antimony
b. Beryllium
c . Cadmium
d. Chromium
e . Copper
f . Lead
g . Mercury
h. Nickel
i. Selenium
j . Silver
k . Thallium
1 . Zinc
Product Yield (% of 1976 Feedstock Intake)
1. Leaded gasoline
2. Unleaded gasoline
3. Naptha jet fuel
All
#3 Others
288
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
CODE NO.
Ill IN-PLANT TREATMENT
A. Crude Vacuum Unit:
1. Barometric condenser,annual average flow, MGD
B. Sour Water
1. Treated Sour Water, annual average flow, MGD
2. Method of Treatment Check Method Used
a. Single stage stripping
b. Two stage stripping
c. Oxidizing
d. Others (List)
Annual Average Flow, MGD
Sour Water Sources
a. Condensate from catalytic cracking
b. Condensate from petroleum coking
c. Condensate from hydrocracking
d. Condensate from other hydroprocessing
e. Desalter water
f. Crude unit condensate
g. Flare drum knock-out
h. Other
Total Sour Water Flow
4. If certain sour water streams are not treated, list them, and describe dis-
position (e.g. discharged, reused, etc.)
(1) Removal of hydrogen sulfide carried out by steam stripping in a single stage with
or without the removal of ammonia.
(?.) Removal of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia carried out separately. Hydrogen sulfide
is removed in the first stage followed by ammonia removal in the second stage.
289
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
CODE NO.
Ill B. 5. Disposition of Treated Sour Waters
a. Desalter make-up
b. Other reuse (describe)
Percent
c. Non-recycled (e.g. sent to: tr
discharged, POTW, etc.)
6. Are sour water treatment units to be upgraded in the future? Explain and
describe. Give expected completion date.
C. Spent Caustic Disposition
1. Sulfidic
a. Amount oxidized
b. Amount neutralized
c. Amount sold
d. Other, explain
2.
Phenolic
a. Amount sold
b. Acid oil sold
c. Other, explain
Annual Average Flow in Gallons per Day
Use the spaces below for descriptions of additional in-plant treatment systems
existing at your refinery. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)•
290
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
IV PLANT WATER MANAGEMENT
A. Intake Waters
1. Fresh water-
river/lake
2. Brackish or salt
3. Well
4. Recycled treated
wastewater
5. Municipal supply
6. Municipal sewage
effluent
7. Rainwater
8. other
CODE NO.
Annual Average
Flow, MGD
Where Used
(process)
Treated
Prior to use?
Yes/No.
9. For those intake waters treated prior to use:
a. Average total annual discharge of blowdowns from these treatment systems
b. Describe treatment systems by intake source:
B. Wastewaters
1. Refinery process wastewaters
2. Ballast water
3. storm water treated in the main treatment
system
4. Water treatment systems blowdown
5. Boiler blowdowns
Annual Average Flow, MGD
291
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued) CODE
B. 6. Other wastewaters from non-refinery production operations (e.g. catalyst
manufacturing). List sources and give flow rates
C. Utilities
1. Do you produce your own steam? (yes/no)
2. Do you produce your own electricity? (yes/no)
D. Cooling Service
1. Cooling Water Uses
Estimate your refinery's percent by volume of cooling water in each cate-
gory. (Total in each category should add up to 100%.)
a. Pump Gland Cooling Percent
(1) Closed cycle cooling system
(2) Once-thru segregated discharge (i.e. not in
process sewer
(3) Once-thru non-segregated (i.e. in process sewer)
(4) Others (List)
Total 100%
b. Compressor Cooling
(1) Closed cycle cooling system
(2) Once-thru segregated discharge (i.e. not in
process sewer)
(3) Once-thru non-segregated discharge (i.e. in
process sewer)
(4) Others (List)
Total 100%
Once-Through, if applicable
(1) Segregated
(2) Non-segregated
Total 100%
292
-------
CODE NO.
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
IV D. 2. Cooling Towers Summer Winter
a. Source of make-up water
b. Make-up water flow rate, MGD
c. Make-up water quality
(1) Chlorides, mg/1
(2) TDS, mg/1
(3) Sulfates, mg/1
(4) Silica, mg/1
(5) Hardness, as CaCO , mg/1
d. No. of cycles of concentration
e. Corrosion inhibitor(s) used
(1) Type
Concentration
(2) Type
Concentration
(3) Type
Concentration
f. Slowdown rate, MGD
g. Slowdown quality
(1) Chlorides, mg/1
(2) TDS, mg/1
(3) Sulfates, mg/1
(4) Hardness, as CaCO , mg/1
h. Cooling range,A F
i. Recirculation rate, MGD
j. Evaporation rate, MGD
(1) Note: One copy of this sheet should be used for each cooling tower. Therefore,
an adequate amount of copies of this sheet should be made before data is entered
on Lho original. All copies should then be included with your response.
293
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued) CQDE NQ
IV D. 3. Overall Summary
% of Total
Flow, MGD Cooling (by BTU)
a. Once-through water
b. Recycled, using cooling towers
or ponds
c. Air cooling N.A.
E. 1. Are any wastewater flow reduction techniques planned or under construction?
a. Yes
b. No
2. If the answer to 1 is yes,
a. What is expected flow reduction, MGD
b. When will these changes become effective, (give date)
c. Describe technology planned
294
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued) CODE NO.
V EFFLUENT DISCHARGE INFORMATION
A. Wastewater Monitoring, Direct Dischargers and Dischargers to Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Grab or
Sampling Parameters Composite
Frequency Measured Sample
1. Intake Water
a. Fresh water river/lake __
b. Brackish or salt
c. Well
d. Treated wastewater -
recycled ^^
e. Municipal supply
f. Municipal sewage
effluent
to
^Q g. Rainwater
01 h. other
2. Discharges
a. Main treatment plant
b. Other non-stormwater
discharged
-------
CODE NO.
NJ
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
V B. Wastewater Effluent Limitations - Direct Dischargers (NPDES Values) and Dischargers to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works. (Pretreatinent Limitations)
Final July 1, 1977 - BPT Limitations (in pounds and/or concentration units - give units ) for main waste-
water treatment system.
d.Dec. 1975 e.Dec. 1976
a. Daily b- Daily DMR* Daily DMR* Daily
Average Maximum c.Other Avg. Values Avg. Values
1. Parameter
(1) Oil & Grease
(2) BOD _______
(3) COD ______ _______
(4) TOC _________
(5) TSS ________
(6) Phenolic
Compounds
(7) Chromium,
Total
(8) Chromium,
Hex.
(9) Ammonia
(lO)Sulfides
(11)Others
(13)
* EPA Discharge Monitoring Report Form
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
CODE NO.
V C. Additional Information
1. If your refinery is a direct discharger, please give your:
a. NPDES permit number
b. NPDES permit expiration date
c. Refuse Act/NPDES application number
d. Permitting authority receiving compliance data
e. Give process configuration factor* used for permit development
2. Are wastewaters discharged to the same water body used for process intake
waters? If yes, are discharges upstream or downstream of process intake waters?
a. Yes Up Down
b. No
c. If yes, which wastewaters?
3. Are "net discharge" values used in the NPDES permit limitations?
a. Yes
b. No
4. If your refinery is an indirect discharger, please give name of the muni-
cipal sewage authority receiving your wastewater.
*Ref: Federal Register (40 CFR Part 419)
297
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued) CODE NO.
VI WASTEMATER TREATMENT
A. Attached is a block diagram showing most of the effluent treatment unit
operations utilized in oil refineries. Please use this diagram to indicate
those treatment processes used in your facility. Use lines with arrows
to explain your refinery system. For clarity, cross out those boxes not
applicable. Join all other boxes with lines indicating system connections.
In addition, please include any available flow diagrams that can supplement
this information.
B. Additional Clarifications
Please use the following page to present a narrative that will supplement
the attached block flow diagram. This narrative should include a sequential
listing of the applicable waste treatment processes, including flow rates
where available and number and letter designations, as listed on the
block diagram. The narrative should also present clarifications where
the block diagram cannot adequately describe your system. Also describe
all processes indicated as "other" on flow diagram.
An example of a typical response is as follows:
Intake water
I. Water from Lake Michigan (l.a.) is used for segregated,
once-thru cooling (2.a.) at a rate of 3.0 MGD.
II. Water from a municipal supply (I.e.) goes to all process
uses (0.8 MGD). Other miscellaneous uses of municipal
supply total 0.02 MGD.
Industrial wastewater
I. Segregated, once-thru cooling water (2.a.) is discharged
directly (3.0 MGD) to Lake Michigan (9.b.).
II. Boiler blowdown (2.d.) at 0.04 MGD, blowdown from water
treatment system (2-j.) at 0.03 MGD, sour water (2.1.) at
0.02 MGD, and contaminated runoff (2.g.) go to one API
separator (4.b.).
III. Oily process water (2.e.) at 0.02 MGD and ballast water
(2-f.) are discharged to another API separator (4.C.).
All wastewater from the two API separators are then combined in an
equalization basin (5.e.), fed to a dissolved air flotation unit
(6.b.), and discharged to a stabilization pond (7.d.).
Sanitary sewage (0.02 MGD) is treated in an activated sludge unit
(10.b.), and then pumped to the stabilization pond (7.d.).
Effluent from the pond is discharged directly to Lake Michigan
(9.b.) at a rate of 1.30 MGD.
298
-------
662
fr
'
,
5
r>
|
r
j
:
A
£
•
i
S
w
I
S
3
1
1
1
1
P.
H
i
P
i
f!
Is
i
0
if"
„
OiLorlnatlon
-
S
1
3
r
a
,
y
f
8
.-
il
II
Contaminated
Runoff
1,. ,
r 4
S i
.
p
.
i
.
1
,
I 6{
«
|
iB F
i
"t
ff
^
^
1
,
D
S
^
IJI
» 0
r
^
2
i
Municipal
Supply
** -e
s
8
^
f
1
.
St
S i
£
.
""
it
!?
"I
8 **
(other
lOxidliing
fProctaa
p
"f
.&
StabiliEAtion
Pond Without
Aerator*
»
=!
a
Sl
n
[cooling Towr
Slowdown
£
1
0
s
1
8
»
f!
0
p
ft
Trickling
Filter
'il
V
1 Noil -Segregated
|Cfic*-Thru
1 Cooling Water
r
s
CT
i
r
i
,
1
^
!!
£
I'si
!"l
Segregated
Once -Thru
Cooling Utter
r
r
Adju» trout
f
f
»
ff
r
i
^
lf
3
I
S
fg
!!
u.
If
II
i
w
» A
»,
Addition*!
Oil & Solids
.,
||
CE
II
«
IE
g
PI
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
VI B. Additional Clarifications
300
-------
PORTFOLIO A (continued)
CODE NO.
VI C. Future Modifications
Please use the following spaces to describe wastewater treatment plant
modifications presently under construction or planned for the future.
Include flow rates, detention times, and expected operational dates.
In addition, please use the code numbers on the block diagram in your
description.
301
-------
CODE NO.
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY SURVKY
FOR REVISION OF "BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY" (BAT)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
PORTFOLIO B
NOTES
(1) Portfolio B is to be mailed within 60 days of receipt to:
Robert B. Schaffer, Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (WH-552)
Washington, D.C. 20460
I GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Name of Refinery_
B. Street Address
C. Refinery Contact_
D. Telephone Number_
II ADDITIONAL POLLUTANT INFORMATION
Part of our scope of work, as specified in the U.S. District Court settlement
agreement of June 7, 1976 (8 E.R.C 2120 D.D.C. 1976), requires that we obtain
analytical data and other information on the presence and removal of the priority
pollutants included in Table IIA. The questions listed in this portfolio are
general in nature, and are meant to serve as a guide for future contacts to obtain
more detailed information.
302
-------
PIMM t
Sim yM
fill in th« table balow, shgwinf what inCamtion your r»fln*ry »»• wtllabl* on 1
SynooyM («yn) and trad* i
Dat* SyitM of tlM Oil t i
i (txd> «r* fro* UM Oil c Hazardous Material* •
Lai MtwUl* Control Division, U.*.«->.*.
acmaphthM.
•craldahyda
syn: propMMnitxil*. viny
.Tdrin
*yni octalena, co^eund I
trdi HKPM
•ynt compound 497, oetalo
•yn: b«nu>l, cyciobwwtri
bantidina
carbon t*tr«ohlocid«
trds Hacatorina, Banzlnaf
ehlordan*
•yni V«lsicol-1068, CD-M
trd: Ortho-klox (Chavronl
(valaicol) Oaw-Kloc
synt MMochloto-MncaiM,
phanyl-cttlorid*
r.2,4-tjficlilorob«.««»
h.«chlorob.nMn.
I , 2-dichloro«tban«
1 , 1 . 1- trichloKMthan*
h«cachl0ro«tham
1 , l-dichloro*than«
l,l,i-trichloro.thwa
1,1,2, l' tatrachlorovthan*
chioroethaft.
bUtefeiemMkirll •««»
bi»(2*chloroatliyl} athar
2-chloroathyl vinyl *th*r
2-l
4,4'-OOT
4,4'-ODt
4,4'-000
1 , 2-
-------
for which
yow h*w
2,6-dinitrotolimw
1 , 2-diph»ny Uiydr»in*
-»"-«ndo«ulf«n
•b--.ado.iUf.,,
.ndo.ulfM «Uf.»
•ndrin
•yni compound -269, iMivtrln
•ndrin *ld*hyd«
UbMto.
»yn: piwnylcehvw
Cluoru)Ch*n«
4-chlaropn*nyl phmyl «tb*x
•yn: p~chloro-diph*nyl *t)wr
4-browph*nyl phuiyl *th«r
bi..2-chl«r0i«proWl).th.r
bi.(2-chloro.tAoxy) MthM.
••Chylwi* chlorid*
•yn: B«thMM dichlorid*,
iwthy«n« blchlorid*.
dlichlorid*
trd, solAMthln
Mthyl chlorid*
•yn: chloro*MtAAtM, «onoc
••thyl broMid*
•yni brow-^-^M. broooMt
•• Uf WM , bronxon* ,
trd: Zytox, ProfUM, ftsto
DowfuM HC-J3, DoMfu
dich loroMthAn* ,
moEoa«chwMi
hui*, broaovol,
i»cot>roM
•• HC-2, C«Ki»«,
ircton-9, fluoroc*rtaoft-ll
trd: G«n*tron •-dlnitroBMnal, »ld
4 . 6-Jinitro-o 'crtaoi
IfM
M-ni 1 1 ii»niiip*rhyl Milr>«
H-nitrof^U-n^zowl^iM
M-nltro^dlph^y!-^
•ynt pwiM, M0t»p(iM-M,
tr4) DowiCid^-G IDOMI, DOi
PCf
iioid*-T (Oow)
'
304
-------
l
-J»S
•3 Z -i •
i
lali
i!H
I I !
3l°
S S
s s s
in
o
S 3 3
333353
-------
CODE N0._
II B. Priority Pollutant #
Priority Pollutant Name
Directions: For each substance that you have analyzed for in wastewater (i.e.
for each substance checked in Column 3 in Table IIA) please fill
out one copy of this page. DUPLICATE THIS SHEET FOR EACH SUBSTANCE
AS REQUIRED BEFORE ENTERING ANY INFORMATION ON THE ORIGINAL.
Please indicate yes/no to the following questions:
a. Is plant data available on the removal efficiency by biological treatment for
this substance?
b. If yes, please indicate treatment type, e.g. bench scale, pilot, or full scale.
c. Is plant data available on the removal efficiency by sorption type treatment
systems (e.g. carbon, clay, sludge, etc.) for this substance?
d. If yes, please indicate treatment type, e.g. bench scale, pilot, or full scale.
e. Is plant data available on the removal efficiency of this substance by air or
steam stripping processes (or any system which includes removal to the atmosphere,
e.g. DAF)?
f. If yes, please indicate treatment type, e.g. bench scale, pilot, or full scale.
g. Is plant data available on the removal efficiency by solvent extraction processes
for this substance?
h. If yes, please indicate treatment type, e.g. bench scale, pilot, or full scale.
i. Is plant data available on the removal efficiency by any other process for this
substance? Specify process
j. If yes, please indicate treatment type, e.g. bench scale, pilot, or full scale.
k. Is plant data available regarding health affects (acute or chronic) of this
substance?
1. Specify the analytical procedure
-------
Supplemental Flow Question
307
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL FLOW QUESTION
The following data request does not relate to economics directly, but is added
here because of comments made by the American Petroleum Institute that your
responses to Question IV.B.of Portfolio "A" of the 1977 Petroleum Refining
Industry Survey need further clarification. This is a follow-up to the original
308 questionnaire sent to refineries in February or August of 1977 by Mr.
Robert B. Schaffer, Director of the Effluent Guidelines Division.
Please submit your completed response (page 3) within 14 days to:
Robert W. Dellinger (WH-552)
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Hastewater Discharge Data
The attached figure includes a block flow diagram depicting various possible
wastewater flows present at petroleum refineries. Please fill in the annual
average dry weather flow, for calendar year 1976, for each flow line applicable
to your refinery. Do not supply additional data sheets. The units for these
flow rates should be presented in million gallons per day only.If your
refinery has multiple streams of each type, the total of these streams should
be used; i.e., assume your system is similar to the simplified block flow
diagram attached.
Excluded Selected Wastewaters
It should be noted that the flow rates asked for may not correspond to actual
streams in the refineries. For example, the physical influent to your end-of-
pipe treatment system may include storm water or ballast water. However, the
flow rates to be reported should not include storm water, ballast water,
sanitary wastewater, once-through non-contact cooling water, other non-refinery
related wastewater, nor any raw (untreated) wastewater reused within the
refinery complex.
The following definitions apply to each flow line:
1. Total Refinery Wastewater Excluding Selected Wastewaters - Excluding the
selected wastewaters above, this "flow line" includes non-segregated cooling
water, cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, oily process water, sour water.
water treatment system blowdown and "other refinery-related wastewaters". It
includes all of the above mentioned wastewaters regardless of disposition.
Oily process water by implication includes all wastewaters generated at the
refinery and which are not covered under any other above-mentioned specific
categories (i.e., sour water). Oily process water includes, but is not
limited to, such wastewaters as contact process water, non-sour process con-
densates, vent scrubber water, tank drains, flare seal water blowdown, lab-
oratory drains, maintenance shop drains, hydrotest waters, maintenance de-
contamination waters, pad wash waters, fire waters and system test waters, and
barometric condenser water blowdowns. The above "other refinery-related waste-
waters" would include, but are not limited to, wastewaters from blowdown from
air pollution control equipment and wastewaters originating at the wastewater
treatment plant. Additionally, this stream is based on net flow and includes
308
-------
each wastewater only once. For example, if the sour water stripper blowdown is
used in the desalter then only the desalter water would be included to avoid
double accounting the sour water.
2. Untreated Refinery Wastewaters Excluding Selected Wastewaters to POTW
Excluding the selected wastewaters listed on page 1, this flow line includes
untreated (by an EOPS) refinery wastewater that is discharged to a POTW
(Publicly Owned Treatment Works). For the purpose of this survey , oil/water
separation is considered an end-of-pipe treatment but sour water stripping is
not.
3. Untreated Refinery Wastewater Excluding Selected Wastewaters to Other
Disposal - Excluding the selected wastewaters listed on page 1. this flow line
includes untreated (by EOPS) refinery wastewater that is not disposed of via an
NPDES permit, nor discharged to a POTW. This type of discharge includes deep
well disposal, land application, contract disposal, evaporation, percolation,
etc.
4. Wastewater Treatment Influent Excluding Selected Wastewaters - Excluding
the selected wastewaters listed on page 1, this flow line includes the dry
weather refinery wastewater flow which receives end-of-pipe treatment. Please
note that flow line 4 should equal flow line 1 less flow lines 2 and 3.
5. Recycled Treated Wastewater Excluding Selected Wastewaters - txcluding
the selected wastewaters listed on page 1, this flow line includes that portion
of the dry weather, end-of-pipe treatment effluent that is recycled for use in
refinery operations.
6. Treated Wastewater Excluding Selected Wastewaters to POTW - Excluding the
selected wastewaters listed on page 1, this flow line includes that portion of
the dry weather, end-of-pipe treatment effluent which is discharged to a POTW.
7. NPDES Discharge Excluding Selected Wastewaiers - Excludiny the selected
wastewaters listed on page 1, this flow line includes that portion of the dry
weather end-of-pipe treatment effluent which is a direct discharge under an
NPDES permit.
8. Treated Wastewater Excluding Selected Wastewaters to Other Disposal -
Exc1uding the selected wastewaters listed on page 1, this flow line includes
that portion of the dry weather, end-of-pipe treatment effluent which is not
covered in flow lines 6 and 7. This type of disposal includes deep well
injection, land application, contract disposal, evaporation, percolation, etc.
Please review the attached example, which is given in two steps, before answering
the questions. Step 1 (pages 4 and 5) is a calculation of required flow rates
and Step 2 (page 6) is essentially the example summary answer sheet that upon
completion would be transmitted back to EPA.
NOTE: The main purpose of the attached example is to clarify the above defini-
tions. In Step 2 of the example it may become apparent that only certain
flows are needed to determine the required flow rates. j_t should be noted
that the calculation procedure would vary from refinery to refinery because
the required flow rates could~be obtained by_ either adaitfons or_ subtractions
of various required flows. Thus for each refinery one should determine what
TTows are required to answer the given questions. We do not require that you
submit your work sheets; you need only submit the completed summary
page (page 3).
309
-------
Refinery Name_
Location
(city, state)
Recycled Treated Wastewater
\
Refinery
i
To PC
2
TW Tc
01
3
Ott
spos
Refinery
EOPS
er
al
To PC
« ,
TV NPDE
Disc
Disonsal
•7
S
harge
Flow
Line
Number
1
Flow Line Identification
(a)
Annual Average
Dry Heather
Flow
Calendar Year
1976(d)
(million gallons/day)
Flow Basis
(0
Total Refinery Wastewater Excluding
Selected Wastewaters
Untreated Production Wastewater
Excluding Selected Wastewaters to
POTH
Untreated Refinery Wastewater
Excluding Selected Wastewaters to
Other Disposal
Specify Other Disposal
Wastewater Treatment Influent
Excluding Selected Wastewaters
Recycled Treated Wastewater
Excluding Selected Wastewaters
Treated Wastewater Excluding
Selected Wastewaters to POTW
NPOES Discharge Excluding
Selected Wastewaters
Treated Wastewater Excluding
Selected Wastewaters to Other
Disposal
Specify Other Disposal
In addition, please indicate the source
and flow rate for pump gland cooling water
Source
(a) These flow lines arc as defined in the narrative.
(b) Refinery EOPS refers to any end-of-pipe wastewater treatment
system (including oil water separation).
(c) Indicate whether flow value is measured, estlaated, or
calculated (To be considered a calculated flow, the calculation
oust be based on all measured flows.).
(d) Pleaae fill In all flow lines; i.e., indicate zeros where applicable.
310
-------
Calculation of Wastewater Flows at XYZ Refining Company:
Flow Line Identification
Wastewater Included or Excluded
Annual Average Dry
Weather Calendar Year
1976 Flow, Million
Gallons per Day
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total refinery wastewater
excluding selected waste-
waters
Untreated refinery waste-
waters excluding selected waste-
waters to a POTW
Untreated refinery wastewater
excluding selected wastewaters
to other disposal
Wastewater treatment influent
excluding selected wastewaters
Wastewater Balance
Total wastewater influent to EOPS
Ballast water
Storm water
Untreated refinery wastewaters to a POTW
Untreated refinery wastewater to other disposal
Total
Boiler blowdowns
Water treatment systems blowdown
Total
Spent caustic wastewaters
Air pollution control equipment blowdowns
Total
Total wastewater treatment influent
Ballast water
Storm water
Total
Flow Lines
1
-2
-3
-4
Difference should equal 0.0
5.97 (M)1
-0.05 (M),
-0.02 (Er
+0.9 (M)
+0.303 (M)
77103 (E)
0.2 (M)
0.7 (M)
q
0.9 (C)3
0.003 (M)
0.3 (M)
07353 (M)
5.97 (M)
-0.05 (M)
-0.02 (E)
TUT (E)
7.103
-0.9
-0.303
-5.9
0.0
J_/ Measured
2/ Estimated
3/ Calculated based on measured flows
4/ If dry weather flows are known, storm water contributions can be ignored.
-------
Step 1 Calculation of Wastewater flows at XYZ Refining Company (continued)
Annual Average Dry
Weather Calendar Year
1976 Flow, Million
Flow Line Identification Wastewater Included or Excluded Gallons per Day
5. Recycled wastewater excluding selected Recycled treated wastewaters 1.98 (E)
wastewaters
6. Treated wastewater excluding selected Treated wastewaters discharged to a POTW
wastewaters to POTW
7. NPDES Discharge excluding selected Total wastewater discharged to stream
wastewaters Ballast water plus storm water
lotal
^j 8. Treated wastewater, excluding selected Other disposal of treated wastewaters
i_j wastewaters to other disposal m
I
-O
r~
m
Wastewater Balance Flow Lines
5 1.98
+6 +0.0
+7 +3.92
+8 +0.0
Total +5.9
-4 -5.9
Difference should be close to 0.0 0.0
(May not be exactly 0.0 because of losses
in EOPS, such as blowdowns and evaporation)
jy A measured flow of 2.0 million gallons of treated effluent is recycled per day. Some storm water and ballast water
are recycled with the treated effluent. This equals (2.0/5.97)(0.05 + 0.02) = .0235 million gallons per day. Therefore,
the estimated value of 2.0 - .0235 or 1.98 is shown. If dry weather flows are known, and no ballast water is discharged
to the treatment system, this calculation is unnecessary.
2J Based on calculation of that portion of ballast and storm water that is recycled. Ballast water olus storm water
equals 0.07 - 0.0235 = 0.0465 or 0.047.
-------
Refinery Name Xyg Refining Co. Location BosfTon
(city, state)
Recycled Treated Wastewater
Flow
Line
Number
1
2
I
*"
Refinery
EOPS<">
3
I
nisoosal
,?
To POTW To Other To POTW NPDES
Disposal Discharge
Annual Average
Dry Weather
Flow
Calendar Year
(a) 1976 (c)
Flow Line Identification v ' (million gallons/day) Flow Basis1 '
Total Refinery Wastewater Excluding . , , ,
Selected Wastewaters 7-IO3 Ux\t£.\uA b^ \
Untreated Production Wastewater
Excluding Selected Wastewaters to
POTW
Untreated Refinery Wastewater
Excluding Selected Wastewaters to
Other Disposal
Specify Other Disposal aetp— nx-lj
Wastewater Treatment Influent
Excluding Selected Wastewaters
Recycled Treated Wastewater
Excluding Selected Wastewaters
Treated Wastewater Excluding
Selected Wastewaters to POTW
NPDES Discharge Excluding
Selected Wastewaters
Treated Wastewater Excluding
Selected Wastewaters to Other
Disposal
Specify Other Disposal ~~
i-18
0.0
0.0
In addition, please indicate the source
and flow rate for pump gland coaling water
Source
l.o
(a) These flow lines are as defined In the narrative.
(b) Refinery EOPS refers to any end-of-pipe vaatawater treatment
system (Including oil water separation).
(c) Indicate whether flow value is measured, estimated, or
calculated (To be considered a calculated flow, the calculation
must be based on ajj measured flows.).
(d) Please fill in all flow lines; I.e., indicate zeros where applicable.
(xtldtsf
313
-------
-------
APPENDIX 2
EPA Regional Surveillance and Analysis
Sampling Survey, Analytical Results
for Priority Pollutants
315
-------
EPA REGIONAL SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS SAMPLING SURVEYS
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS*
(Concentrations in ug/1)
Refinery 1
A. Intake water (all Day 1 grab samples)
1. Volatile organics
a Preserved:
b. Unpreserved:
chloroform
chloroform
methylene chloride
29
531
L 10
2. Semivolatile organics: not detected
3. Metals:
antimony L 5
arsenic L 5
beryllium L 5
cadmium L 10
chromium
copper
L 5
L 5
L 5
L 10
lead
nickel
selenium L S
silver L 5
thallium L
zinc
1
L 10
4. Phenolics
5. Cyanide:
6. Mercury:
7. Asbestos:
L 2
L 0.5
not sampled
B. Wastewater treatment system influent
1. Volatile organics (Day 1 grab sample/Day 2 grab sample)
Preserved:
b. Unpreserved:
benzene NA2/165
ethylbenzene NA/L 10
methylene chloride NA/L 10
toluene NA/L 10
vinyl chloride NA/L 10
benzene 27/230
1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane L 10/ND
chloroform L 10/L 10
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene L 10/L 10
ethylbenzene L 10/17
methylene chloride 32/ND
tetrachloroethylene L 10/14
toluene 43/180
(1) L - Less than
(2) NA - Not analyzed
(3) ND - Not detected
* Sampling and analysis conducted for volatile organics, semivolatile
organics and metals as listed on Table III-4, unless noted. Only
detected priority pollutants are reported.
316
-------
2. Semivolatile organics: (48 hour composite sample/blank)
acenaphthene
naphthalene
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
11/ND
47/ND
37/ND
17/ND
3. Metals: (48 hour composite sample/blank)
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
L 5/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 10/L 10
L 5/L 5
14/L 10
lead
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
46/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 5/L 5
C, 8/L 1
130/L 10
4. Phenolics:
37
(composite of 2 daily grab samples)
5. Cyanide: L 2
(composite of 2 daily grab samples)
6. Mercury: 2/L 0.5
(48 hour composite sample/blank)
7. Asbestos: not sampled
C. Wastewater treatment system effluent
1. Volatile organics (Day 1 grab sample/duplicate/blank)
a. Preserved: methylene chloride L 10/L 10/L 10
b. Unpreserved: methylene chloride L 10/L 10/L 10
Volatile organics (Day 2 grab sample/duplicate)
c. Preserved: methylene chloride
toluene
L 10/L 10
ND/L 10
d. Unpreserved: methylene chloride
2. Semivolatile organics: (48 hour composite sample)
L 10/L 10
4
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
phenol
11
76
(4) Sample bottle containing blank for Semivolatile organics was broken
and contents were lost.
317
-------
3. Metals: (48 hour composite sample/blank)
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
L 5/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 10/L 10
L 5/L 5
L 10/L 10
lead
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
12/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 5/L 5
L 10/L 1
19/L 10
4. Phenolics 113
(composite of 2 daily grab samples)
5. Cyanide: 3
(composite of 2 daily grab samples)
6. Mercury: L 0.5/L 0.5
(48 hour composite sample/blank)
7. Asbestos:
not sampled
318
-------
Refinery 83
A. Sour water stripper influent (all Day 1 grab samples)
1. Volatile organics
benzene G 4840
toluene G 7000
ethylbenzene 3030
2. Semivolatile organics
phenol 42000
2,4 Dimethylphenol 100
naphthalene 5410
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate L 50
fluorene L 50
phenanthrene and/or anthracene 210
di-n-butyl-phthalate L 50
3. Metals
copper 70.0
silver 8.1
zinc 70.0
4. Phenolics NA
5. Cyanide 14
6. Mercury 2
7. Asbestos not sampled
B. Sour water stripper effluent (all Day 1 grab samples)
1. Volatile organics
benzene G 4840
toluene G 7000
ethyl benzene 1750
2. Semivolatile organics
phenol 7000
2,4-dimethylphenol 230
naphthalene 700
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate L 100
acenaphthene L 100
fluorene L 100
phenanthrene and/or anthracene 700
di-n-butyl-phthalate L 100
(5) G x - Detected greater than x
(6) Values for copper should be viewed with caution due to new piping
on sample tap.
319
-------
3. Metals
cadmium 1
chromium 11
copper 150
lead 130
zinc 630
arsenic 50
4. Phenolics NA
5. Cyanide 120
6. Mercury ND
7. Asbestos not sampled
Q
C. Intake water #1 (all Day 1 grab samples)
1. Volatile organics ND
2. Semivolatile organics (grab sample/duplicate/blank)
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 10/40/L 10
di-n-butyl-phthalate L 10/L 10/ND
3. Metals
zinc 7
4. Phenolics 13
5. Cyanide ND
6. Mercury 0.7
7. Asbestos not sampled
g
D. Intake water #2 (all Day 1 grab samples)
1. Volatile organics (crrab sample #l/duplicate)
methylene chloride L 10/L 10
chloroform 150/80
bromodichloromethane 30/20
dibromochloromethane L 10/L 10
2. Semivolatile organics (grab sample)
bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 10
di-n-butyl-phthalate L 10
(7) Values for metals should be viewed with caution due to new copper
line on sample tap, with cadmium, brass and galvanized fittings.
(8) Well water intake.
(9) Municipal water intake.
320
-------
3. Metals
copper 30
zinc 80
4. Phenolics ND
5. Cyanide NA
6. Mercury 0.4
7. Asbestos not sampled
E. Wast-»'->ater treatment system influent
1. Volatile Organics (Day 1 grab sample/Day 2 grab sample)
chloroform 10/10
bromodichloromethane u 10/L 10
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10/10
toluene 340/430
ethylbenzene 20/20
2. Semivolatile organics (Day 1, 24 hour composite samples)
phenol 910
chlorophenol 50
2,4-dichlorophenol L 10
pentachlorophenol 40
naphthalene 230
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate L 100
fluorene L 100
3. Metals (Day I/Day 2 grab samples - Day I/Day 2, 24 hour
composite samples)
chromium (hex) NA/138-55/98
copper NA/40-130/30
lead NA/6-27/18
zinc NA/480-1700/530
arsenic NA/NA-35/ND
cadmium NA/NA-1.7/1.2
chromium (total) NA/2600-3600/1200
4. Phenolics (Day I/Day 2 grab sample) 11700/6050
5. Cyanide
(Day 1 grab sample/Day 2 grab sample) 16/36
6. Mercury (Day 2 grab sample) 0.6
7. Asbestos not sampled
321
-------
F. Wastewater treatment system effluent
1. Volatile Organics (Day 1 grab sample/Day 2 grab sample)
methylene chloride L 10/ND
chloroform L 10/L 10
toluene L 5/L 5
2. Semivolatile Organics (Day 1, 24 hour composite samples)
2,4 dimethylphenol L 10
pentachlorophenol L 20
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate L 10
fluorene L 10
phenanthrene and/or anthracene 80
di-n-butyl-phthalate L 10
3. Metals (Day 1, 24 hour composite sample/Day 2, 24 hour
composite sample/Day 2 grab sample)
chromium 320/370/480
copper 20/ND/20
lead 6/ND/ND
zinc 570/480/620
4. Phenolics
(Day 1 grab sample/Day 2 grab sample 75/125
5. Cyanide
(Day 1 grab sample/Day 2 grab sample) 8/3
6. Mercury (Day 2 grab sample) 0.5
7. Asbestos not sampled
322
-------
Refinery 131
A. Intake water #1 (all grab samples)
1. Volatile organics
1,1,1-trichloroethane 6.2
chloroform 11.6
1,2-transdichlorethylene 47.0
ethylbenzene 0.3
methylene chloride 0.3
dichlorobromomethane 3.5
chlorodibromomethane 1.0
tetrachloroethylene 0.3
toluene 0.02
trichloroethylene 0.03
2. Semivolatile organics
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.8
3. Metals
copper 6.0
lead 0.6
nickel 0.1
zinc 250.0
4. Phenolics 9.5
5. Cyanide ND
6. Mercury ND
7. Asbestos not sampled
B. Intake water #2 (all grab samples)
1. Volatile organics
1,1,1-trichlorethane 2.0
1,1-dichloroethylene 0.7
ethylbenzene 0.1
methylene chloride 3.7
2. Semivolatile organics ND
(10) Municipal water intake. 9% of total intake flow.
(11) Sample blanks at Refinery 131 analyzed for all semivolatile organic
samples. No parameters detected for sample blank analysis.
(12) Well water intake. 1% of total intake flow.
323
-------
3. Metals
antimony 4'514
beryllium 0.5
copper 7.0
lead 12.0
nickel 1.0
zinc 7.0
4. Phenolics ND
5. Cyanide ND
6. Mercury 0.3
7. Asbestos not sampled
C. Intake water #313
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
chlorobenzene 0.05
1,2-dichloroethane 2.10
1,1,1-trichlorethane 2.60
chloroform 15.30
1,1-dichloroethylene 0.10
methylene chloride 27.00
bromoform 0.80
tetrachloroethylene 2.30
trichloroethylene 2.30
2. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite samples)
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 35
3. Metals
antimony 100
beryllium 4
cadmium 10
chromium 61
copper 59
lead 180
nickel 54
zinc 130
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 8.6
5. Cyanide (grab sample) ND
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample) 0.3
7. Asbestos not sampled
(13) Salt water intake. 90% of total intake flow.
(14) Estimated value.
324
-------
D. Wastewater treatment system influent
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
benzene 110.0
1,2-dichloroethane 7.2
1,1,1-trichloroethane 7.8
1,1-dichloroethane 0.2
chloroform 3.5
ethyl benzene 4.4
methyl chloride 3.4
toluene 250.0
2. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite samples)
naphthalene 106
phenanthrene 72
2,4-dimethylphenol 460
phenol 140
3. Metals (24 hour composite samples)
antimony 82.0
beryllium 4.0
cadmium 7.5
chromium 280.0
copper 12 5.0
lead 140.0
nickel 54.0
zinc 290.0
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 3290
5. Cyanide (grab sample) ND
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample) ND
7. Asbestos not sampled
E. Waste treatment system effluent
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
1,2-dichloroethane 2.6
1,1,1-trichloroethane 2.7
chloroform 0.4
ethylbenzene 0.1
methylene chloride 0.7
2. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite samples)
acenaphthylene 1.4
325
-------
3. Metals (24 hour composite samples)
antimony 64
beryllium 40i4
cadmium 5
chromium ^14
copper 18
lead 110
nickel 37
zinc 38
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 34
5. Cyanide (grab sample) ND
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample) ND
7. Asbestos not sampled
326
-------
Refinery 132 15
A. Intake water
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
1,2-dichloroethane 1.6
1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.8
chloroform 9.4
1,1-di chloroethylene 2.0
methyl chloride 4.7
bromoform 1.1
tetrachloroethylene 8.1
trichloroethylene 19.0
2. Semivolatile organics (grab sample/blank)
1,2-dichlorobenzene 4.8/ND
1,4-dichlorobenzene 0.4/ND
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 41/38
di-n-butyl phthalate 2.1/4.3
phenol 3.1/ND
14
3. Metals (grab sample/blank)
beryllium NA/0.5
chromium NA/3
lead NA/9
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 20
5. Cyanide (grab sample) NO
6. Mercury (grab sampie/blank) NA/0.83
7. Asbestos not sampled
(15) Fresh and municipally supplied intake waters were not sampled,
since they contribute only ten percent of the process water
usage. The saltwater intake was sampled.
Influent to the wastewater treatment system consists of the
refinery discharge and discharges from two chemical manufacturing
plants. Discharges from chemical plant #1, chemical plant #2
and influent to the wastetreatment were sampled. The refinery
discharge could not be sampled since it is mixed with chemical
plant #2 discharge prior to oil-water separation. Priority
pollutants that are attributable to the refinery discharge may
be calculated from reported sample concentration and flow values
at chemical plant #1 (1.65 MGD), chemical plant #2 (0.97 MGD) and
the influent (6.9 MGD) to the treatment system.
327
-------
B. Chemical manufacturing plant #1 discharge
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
benzene
chloropenzene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
chloroform
ethylbenzene
methyl chloride
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
48.C
6.1
0.9
37.0
67.0
3.8
1.7
250.0
5.9
2. Semivolatile organics (grab samples/blank)
1,2-dichlorobenzene 450/ND
1,4-dichlorobenzene 850/ND
naphthalene 270/ND
di-n-butyl phthalate 9.7/4.3
anthracene 6.9/ND
3. Metals (24 hour composite sample/blank)
antimony 290/ND
beryllium 6/0.9
cadmium 2 /0,9
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
silver
58/6
55/ND
360/21
74/ND
15/ND
1500/ND
14
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 2480
5. Cyanide (grab sample) ND
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample/blank) 1.1
7. Asbestos not sampled
C. Chemical manufacturing plant #2 discharge
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
benzene
chloroform
toluene
trichlorethylene
36.0
1.4
15.0
1.3
2. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite sample/blank,
isophorone
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
anthracene
2,4-dimethylphenol
phenol
450/ND
170/38
5.1/4.3
1.5/ND
215/ND
10/ND
328
-------
3. Metals (24 hour composite sample/blank)
antimony
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
silver
zinc
170/ND
8{2.8
14
260/ND
350/3
140/ND
1.8/ND
950/ND
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 1000
5. Cyanide (grab sample) ND
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample/blank) 1.8/ND
7. Asbestos not sampled
D. Wastewater treatment system influent
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
benzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
chloroform
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
toluene
tri chloroethylene
1200.0
17.0
4.3
26.0
320.0
4.2
2960.0
8.2
2. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite sample/blank)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 1.5/ND
1,4-dichlorobenzene 1230/ND
fluoranthene 4.5/ND
isophorone 230/ND
naphthalene 240/ND
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 230/38
butyl benzyl phthalate 8/ND
anthracene 61/ND
2,4-dimethylphenol 3 80/ND
phenol 1150/ND
3. Metals (24 hour composite sample/blank)
antimony 130/Nlj>4
beryllium 10/1
chromium 56/6
copper 67/ND
lead 260/20^
nickel 55/3
silver 17/ND
zinc 480/ND
329
-------
4. Phenolics (grab sample)
5. Cyanide (grab sample)
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample/blank)
7. Asbestos
E. Wastewater treatment system effluent
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
n. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite
isophorone
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
3. Metals (24 hour composite sample/blank)
antimony
beryllium
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
silver
zinc
4. Phenolics (grab sample)
5. Cyanide (grab sample)
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample/blank)
7. Asbestos
23200
50
0.5/0.7
not sampled
ND
sample/blank)
270/ND
75/38
8.8/4.3
98/NIj>
7/1
14
40/514
16/ND
160/4J
1*
1.9/ND
140/ND
27
ND
1.2/0.5
not sampled
330
-------
Refinery 133
A. Intake water (all grab samples)
1. Volatile organics
benzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethylene
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
2. Semivolatile organics
3. Metals14
cadmium
chromium
copper
zinc
4. Phenolics
5. Cyanide
6. Mercury
7. Asbestos
B. Wastewater treatment system influent
1. Volatile organics (grab sample/blank)
benzene
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethylene
methylene chloride
toluene
14
2. Semivolatile organics
3. Metals (24 hour composite samples)
antimony
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
4. Phenolics (24 hour composite sample)
10
10
10
10
10
L 10
L 10
L 10
NA
11
5
6
190
4.2
ND
o.414
not sampled
220/L 10
L 10/ND
L 10/L 10
L 10/190
300/L 10
NA
93
90
160
21
110
38
420
1790
331
-------
5. Cyanide (24 hour composite sample) ND
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample) ND
7. Asbestos not sampled
C. Wastewater treatment system effluent before chlorination
1. Volatile organics (grab sample/blank)
chloroform
1,1-dichlorethylene
methylene chloride
toluene
L 10/L 10
L 10/L 10
L 10/470
L 10/L 10
2. Semivolatile organics not sampled
3. Metals not sampled
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 2.1
5. Cyanide ND
6. Mercury not sampled
7. Asbestos not sampled
D. Wastewater treatment system effluent after chlorination
1. Volatile organics
a. Preserved grab sample/blank
chloroform L 10/L 10
1,1-dichloroethylene L 10/L 1O
methylene chloride L 10/310
toluene L 10/L 10
chlorodibromomethane L 10/ND
b. Unpreserved grab sample/blank
chloroform L 10/L 10
1,1-dichloroethylene L 10/L 10
methylene chloride L 10/340
toluene L 10/L 10
chlorodibromomethane 13/ND
bromoform L 10/UD
dichlorobromomethane L 10/ND
1,2-dichloroethane ND/L 10
2. Semivolatile organics NA
332
-------
14
3. Metals (24 hour composite samples)
cadmium 35
chromium 4
copper 6
zinc 200
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 2.1
5. Cyanide (grab sample) ND
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample) 0.4
7. Asbestos not sampled
333
-------
Refinery 134
A. Intake Water tl
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
carbon tetrachloride 0.1
1,2-dichloroethane 1.2
1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.5
1,1-dichloroethylene 0.6
2. Semivolatile organics (grab samples) ND
3. Metals (grab samples)
14
cadmium 2
chromium '"1/1
copper 25014
lead 30
nickel s£
zinc 120
4. Phenolics (grab sample) 7.4
5. Cyanide (grab sample) ND
6. Mercury (grab sample) 0.4
7. Asbestos not sampled
B. Intake Water #218
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
1,2-dichloroethane 5.2
1,1,1-trichloroethane 2.2
chloroform 0.2
1,1-dichloroethylene 0.5
1,2-dichloropropane 40.0
methylene chloride 1.2
tetrachloroethylene 1.0
toluene 0.1
trichloroethylene 0.4
2. Semivolatile organics (grab samples)
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 635
di-n-butyl phthalate 23
di-n-octyl phthalate 74
(16) Well water intake.
(17) Sample blanks at Refinery 134 analyzed for all semivolatile
organic samples. No parameters detected for sample blank analysis.
(18) ' Iver water intake.
334
-------
14
3. Metals (grab samples)
lead
nickel
zinc
4. Phenolics (grab sample)
5. Cyanide (grab sample)
6. Mercury (grab sample)
7. Asbestos
C. Wastetreatment system influent
1. Volatile organics (grab sample)
benzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
chloroform
1,2-dichloropropane
methylene chloride
8
4
61
126
ND
0.4
not sampled
11.0
5.8
285.0
0.5
7.2
41.0
2. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite sample)
naphthalene
anthracene
fluorene
pyrene
3. Metals (24 hour composite/blank)
antimony
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
4. Phenolics (Day 1 grab sample)
5. Cyanide (Day 1 grab sample)
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample/blank)
7. Asbestos
D. Sand filter effluent
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
1,2-dichlorethane
1,1,1-trichlorethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
toluene
260.0
30.0
13.0
2.7
310/3
73/56^
10 /ND
714/N?4
410 /91*
3370
ND
0.2/ND
not sampled
0.6
9.7
0.6
0.1
4.0
0.2
335
-------
2. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite samples)
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
3. Metals (24 hour composite samples)
chromium
copper
nickel
zinc
4. Phenolics (grab sample)
5. Cyanide (grab sample)
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample)
7. Asbestos
Wastewater treatment system effluent
1. Volatile organics (grab samples)
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
chloroform
1,2-dichloropropane
methylene chloride
bromoform
chlorodibromomethane
2. Semivolatile organics (24 hour composite
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
3. Metals (24 hour composite sample/blank)
chromium
copper
zinc
4. Phenolics (grab sample)
5. Cyanide (grab sample)
6. Mercury (24 hour composite sample/blank)
7. Asbestos
43
210
69
22
14
14
27014
11.6
ND
0.3
not sampled
0.7
2.0
1.3
1.3
7.0
0.5
2.4
sample/blank)
38/ND
9 /514
270/5
7.4
ND
0.5/ND
not sampled
336
-------
Refinery 157
A. Intake water
1. Volatile organics: not sampled
19
2. Semivolatile organics: ND
3. Metals
antimony " L 100
arsenic 9
beryllium L 25
cadmium 4
chromium L 5
copper 17
lead 6
nickel L 25
selenium L 5
silver L 5
thallium L 100
zinc 237
4. Phenolics NA
5. Cyanide NA
6. Mercury 0.2
7. Asbestos not sampled
B. Bio-oxidation pond influent
1. Volatile organics not sampled
2. Semivolatile organics
phenol21 G 100
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 10-100
diethyl phthalate 10-100
dimethyl phthalate 10-100
(19) Not detected at 10 ug/1 or above (some substances may have
somewhat higher or lower detection limits).
(20) Other phenols or cresols (including o-cresol, p-cresol, and three
dimethyl phenol or ethyl phenol isomers) which are not among the
list of 129 priority pollutants were found in this sample.
(21) Phenol was present in this sample at about 100 mg/1, but is
reported as G 100 ug/1 in accordance with the analytical protocol.
337
-------
3. Metals
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
4. Phenolics
5. Cyanide
6. Mercury
7. Asbestos
C. Wastetreatment system effluent
1. Volatile organics
2. Semivolatile organics
3. Metals
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
4. Phenolics
5. Cyanide
6. Mercury
7. Asbestos
150
6
L 25
3
15
100
8
L 25
950
L 5
L 100
267
230,000
3,500
L 0.2
not sampled
not sampled
ND
L 100
28
L 25
8
20
12
3
30
18
L 5
100
242
34
7.5
0.2
not sampled
338
-------
Refinery 181
A. Intake water (sample/blank)
1. Volatile Organics
a. Preserved
benzene
chloroform
chlorodibromomethane
methylene chloride
dichlorobromomethane
b. Unpreserved
chloroform
chlorodibromomethane
methylene chloride
B. API Separator #1 effluent water
1. Volatile Organics (sample/blank)
methylene chloride
C. API Separator #2 effluent water
1. Volatile Organics (sample/blank)
benzene
toluene
ethylbenzene
methylene.chloride
D. API Separator #3 effluent water
1. Volatile organics (sample/blank)
benzene
toluene
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
E. Untreated Sour/Ammonia water
1. Volatile organics (sample/blank)
benzene
toluene
chlorobenzene
ehtylbenzene
L 1/L 1
11/1
8/ND
2/39
10/ND
48/1
19/ND
5/39
38/39
5330/L 1
4010/1
25/ND
527/39
4650/L 1
5560/1
829/ND
313/39
1060000/L 1
7580000/1
741000/ND
831000/ND
(22) Semivolatiles, metals, phenolics, cyanide, mercury, and asbestos
not sampled. Preserved blanks at Site A were composited with
other unpreserved blanks at sites B, C, D, E, F, G s H.
(23) m/p-xylene and o-xylene concentration reported.
339
-------
22
F. Wastewater treatment system influent
1. Volatile organics (sample/blank)
benzene
toluene
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
G. Wastewater treatment system effluent #1
1. Volatile organics (sample/blank)
benzene
toluene
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
H. Wastewater treatment system effluent #2
1. Volatile organics (sample/blank)
benzene
toluene
chloroform
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
I. Final wastewater treatment system effluent
1. Volatile organics (sample/blank)
methylene chloride
2. Semivolatile organics (sample/blank)
3. Metals
22
43800/L 1
266/1
368/ND
1350/39
113/L 1
99/1
77/ND
206/39
50300/L 1
3310/1
300/1
422/ND
2660/39
24
9/26
ND/ND
NA
(24) 69. di-n-octyl phthalate & 99. endrin aldehyde not reported but
analyzed as not detected. Blanks at Site I analyzed separately
from other sites. Phenolics, cyanide, mercury, and asbestos not
sampled.
340
-------
APPENDIX 3
American Petroleum Institute
Sampling Results
(As extracted from "Analysis of Refinery Wastewaters for
the EPA Priority Pollutants," Interim Report, API Publica-
tion 4296, May 1978.)
341
-------
CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTADLE OROAN ICS AT REFINERY I
PARAMETER
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACENAPHTHENa
FLUORENE
PHENANTHflENE/ ANTHRACENE
PHENAHTHAENE
ANTHRACENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
FLUCRANTHEKE
FYRENE
Dl-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
CHRYSENE/BENZf A)ANTHRACEN£
CHRYSENE
BENZ 4 A > ANTHRACENE
DENZQIA>*>YR£ME
BENZOCO.H. I )PE«n.EN£
PHENOL
a-4-DIM£THYLPHENOL
( 8)
(20)
1 29>
(30)
131)
(33)
(34)
(30)
(43)
(43)
(33)
(33)
DATE EPA
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
*
4
6
4
4
6
4
6
INT>
RADIAN
NDK. 1
NDK 1
N0«. 1
ND«. 1
MOK. i
-
-
3. 3
ND«. 1
ND« 1
1. 4
ND«. 1
-
14
-
ND«. 1
NDK 2
NDK. 1
N0« 2
WE WATER
COMPANY OTHER
(6)
1 0(0 >
> D«40 )
) DK40 )
) N0«. 1 )
>H
ND(C. 00)
NDK. 01 )
-
) ND«. 05)
) NDIC 02)
-
)H
NOK. 01 1
-
NDK. 01 >
) .04
) NDK. 07)
)
)
UA3TEUATER FEED TO 8IOTREATMENT
EPA RAD I AN COMPANY OTHER
(6)
22 300
NDK. 1 » 2OO
ND«. 1 ) 3O
3. 9 NDK. 1 ) C
6. 4 H
2. 7 C
NDK. Oil C
40
NDK. 1 > . 3 C
1 1 C -
a. a
. 3 H
- . 3
IB
.1C
NDK. 1 ) ,1 C
NOK. 2 ) . 2 C
1300O
3000
FINAL EFFLUENT
EPA RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
<6>
NDK. 1 ) 30
NDK. 1 > DK10 )
NDK. 1 > DK10 >
. 4 NOK. 3 >C
NDK. 1 IH -
NDK. 2 1C
NDK. OUC
NDK 3 ) -
NDK I ) 1 C
J.9 11C
2 - -
. 3 H
. 2 C
2. 4
. 08 C
.4 .1C
NOK. 2 ) 2 C
1.9
» 3
DIX) - COMPOUND MAS DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED.
C - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X.
ND(X>- COMPOUND WAS NOT DETECTED) X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE.
C - ONE OF TWO OR MORE REPORTED VALUES FOR THIS SAMPLE
H - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE IN THIS SAMPLE AS ANALYZED BY THE EPA PROTOCOL
4 - NAPHTHALENE. ACENAPHTHALENE. AND ACENAPHTHEN£ BY CROD GC HETHODi OTHER SPECIES BY CC-UV METHOD.
-------
CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY VOLATILE OROANICS AT REFINERY
INTAKE UATER
UASTEUATEH FEED TO BIOTREATMENT
FINAL EFFLUENT
PARAMETER
METHYLEME CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
1. 2-DICKLOROETHANE
TRANS-1 . 3-D 1 CHLOROPROPENE
TR I CHLOU OETHYLENE
C1S-1. 3-OICKLDROPROPENE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYL6EIIZENE
DATE EPA
( 6) I
2
3
6
(11) 1
2
a
t
112) 1
2
3
*
(17) 1
2
3
6
(18) 1
2
3
*
(20) 1
2
3
6
(23) t
126) 6
(28) &
RADIAN
_
-
-
l» I
_
_
-
NO K. 3 >
_
-
-
N0«3 I
_
-
-
ND«. 7 }
_
-
-
OKI )
_
-
-
NDK. 7 )
D«l )J
1 1
OKI )Z
COMPANY OTHER
<2>
D«. 3 )
6 C
-
ND«1 >
D«. 3 1C
-
_
D«. 3 )E
-
ND«1 )
ND«1 >
-
-
ND«1 )
N0«l >
- -
-
ND«1 )
ND«1 )
-
-
D«2 )
D«2 )
D«20 )
EPA RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
(2)
D«. 3 )
DK. 3 )C
-11-
9
_
- - NDKI ) C
NDK 31-
DK. 3 ) E
ND«1 ) CE
ND«S )
ND«1 )
( -
ND«1 )
3 -
N0«l >
NDK1 )
- 2 -
ND«1 )
— _ _ —
ND«1 .
20
53 1000
33 2000
3 100
EPA RADIAN COMPANY
(2)
DX. 3
OK 3
DK 9
IS Z
DK 3
DK 3
DK 3
NDK 3 )
DK 3
- NDK1
NDK1
NOK3 )
NDK1
- - NDK1
NDK1
1
HDK1
NDK1
NDK I
2
NDKI
— — ND( 1 DKIO
OKI II DKIO
OK) )Z DK40
OTHER
)
)
>
-
)
)
)
~
)E
)E
)£
~
1
> -
)
~
,
)
)
~
,
) -
)
~
»
)
D(X) - CDflPOUND HAS DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT DE QUANTIFIED.
C(X) - COMPOUND WAG DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X.
NDCX>- COMPOUND HAS NOT DETECTED! X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE.
C - ONE OF TUQ OH MORE REPORTED VALUES FOR THIS SAMPLE
E - MAXIMUM VALUE. REPORTfD VALUE MAY INCLUDE OTHER SPECIES UHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE MEASURED CONCENTRATION
I - BLANK DATA FOR THIS PARAMETER INDICATES CONTAMINATION
Z - ORCANOHAL1DES BY BELLAR GC METHOD! OTHER VOLATILE SPECIES BY CHOD CC METHOD.
-------
CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENTS AT REFINER V ue/L
U)
PARAMETER
ZINC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
BERYLLIUM
ANTIMONY
THALLIUM
NICKEL
ARSENIC
SELENIUM
SILVER
CADnlun
MERCURY
1
( 1)
( 2>
( 3)
( 4)
t 5)
( 6)
( 7>
( 8)
< 9)
< 10)
(11)
(12)
( 13)
DATE
6
1
2
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
&
INTAKE HATER
RADIAN
23
3.6
69
11
ND«I )
14
ND«2 >
3 9
ND«1 >
4
9
. 8
. 4
COMPANY OTHER
HAWHSLEY
10
10
32
9
NDK10 >
26
9
ND«10 )
ND(<30 >
-
ND«2 )
-
_
1
ND«1 )
_
HASTEUATER FEED TO BIOTREATMENT
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
HAHKSLEY
48 12
79
- 32
79 SO
62 6
a 26
ND«1 ) ND«10 )
37 ND(OO )
ND«2 )
4. 9 ND«2 )
10
9
63 3
19 ND«1 )
'
FINAL
RADIAN
27
94
32
3
ND«I :
36
NO «2
2 t
14
74
4. 2
1 1
a
EFFLUENT
COMPANY OTHER
HAUKSLEV
10
71
AS
30
3
46
1 ND«10 >
ND«30 )
NO «2 )
-
-
2
ND«1 1
-
DIX) - COMPOUND HAS DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED.
C(X> - COMPOUND UAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL CHEATER THAN X
NDCX>- COMPOUND HAS NOT DETECTEDi X EQUALS THE LOHEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE.
-------
CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENTS AT REFINERY ££ UO/L
INTAKE MATER UASTEUATER FEED TO BIOTREATMENT FINAL EFFLUENT
PARAMETER DATE RADIAN COMPANY OTHER RADIAN COMPANY OTHER RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
ZINC ( 1) 4 __- __- __
CHROMIUM I 3) 3 - NO«1O ) - - 820 - - 1110
COPPER I 3) 6
LEAD < 4} 4
•EflYLLIUtl I 3) 4
ANTIMONY ( 4) 4
THALLIUM ( 7) 4
NICKEL C 8) 4
ARSENIC ( 9) 4
SELEH1UH (10) 4
•1LVER <11) 4
CADniun (ia> 6
HEACVRY t!3> 1
DtX> - COMFOUWD UA3 DETECTED AT 3OHE CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED
G(X) - COMPOUND MAB DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X.
ND- COWOUKD MAS NOT DETECTED* X EQUALS THE LOVCST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE
3 - EPA DATA ON THIS SAMPLE POINT ALSO OBTAINED FROM ANALYSIS BY EPA BEG I ON V.
-------
CONCENTRATION OF MIOfllTV VOLATItE OACAN1CS >
LO
>'
PARAME1 CM DATE RAD 1 *
METMYLENE CHLORIDE ( 41
I, 1-OICHLOROETHANE ( *)
CHLOROFORM (111
1. 3-DICnLOHDCTHAHE (121
1, 1. 1 -TRlCMLOROeTNAMe (131
CARBON TETRACMLOHIDC (141
•ROnODlCHLOflOMCTHANE (131
1. a-DICHLCROPHOPAHE (141
TRICMLOROETHYLENE (IB)
BENZENE (22)
1. 1,2.2-TETRACH.OROETHtNe (24)
TOLUENE (26)
ETHVI.IENZENC (2B1
DOE! - COMPOUND WAS OET
2
3
6
2
3
4
1
2
6
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
1
a
a
4
i
a
3
*
1
a
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
ECTED AT SOME CONCE
TAKE WATER
iN COMPANY OTHER
(71 SPECTRIX
32 S
4O S
80 S
61
76
4
ND « 1 >
7
1 3
16
NDX1 k
3
33
3
ND«I 1
1
32
4
NO K 1 1
. 3
2
3
NO K 1 1
3 A
13 A
4 A
D ( -: i )
NO t < 1 >
ND«1 >
NOKI )
NOKI )
NOKI >
NDKl 1
) E
ND K 1 )
NDKl )
NDKI )
NDKl >
DKl 1
NDKl 1
DKl 1
DKl 1
DKl 1
NDKl 1
NTRATION LESS THAN X, BUT
UASTEWATER FEED TO D lOTf-t * rnnvT
RAD IAN COMPANY OTHER
(7) SPECTRIX
10 S
16 S
10 S
29 CZ
DKl )
DKl 1
DKl >
NOKI 1C
1 2
1 S
- 1
NDKl 1C
OKI >
DKl 1
NDKl >C
1
DKl I
15 C
DKl )
DKl 1
2 C/
DKl t
DKl )
O'DKl 1C
NDKl »
- 4O
NDKl 1C
NDKl )
NDKl >
NDKl )
NDKl 1C
43O
330
4BQ
240 C
NOKI )
NDKl I
NOKI >
NDKl 1C
330
730
64O
80 C
40
40
- 50
THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED.
RADIAN CCMPANV
33 S
10 S
DKl >
DKl 1
OKI 1
DKl 1
DKl )
OKI t
DKl 1
DKl i
D t -I 1 l
DKl »
DKl 1
S
NDKl 1
NDKl >
OKI 1
DKl i
NDKl >
NDKl )
NDKl )
OKI i
DKl >
DKl )
DKl >
OTHER
TECTRIX
~-_
;
\
\
\
\
;
\
D
-------
LO
PARAHETEfl
1- 2-DlCHLCSaUENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHtUE
FLUOR EN£
PMENANTHRENE/ ANTHRACENE
PHENANTHRENC
ANTHRACENE
FLUOR ANTHENE
PYRENE
CHRYSENE
PHENOL
2-4- D 1 ME THYLPHENOC
0(X) - OMPOUNO
01 X) - OF1POUND
MD(X>- OMFOUND
DATE
t 2> t,
(4) 6
( 8) 1
3
6
113) 1
3
6
(17) 1
3
6
<24> 6
123) 1
3
(2*) 1
3
(29) 1
3
6
<30) 1
3
A
(36) 6
(33) t
2
3
6
OS) 6
MAS DETECTED AT
B - HENOLS AND POLYNUCLEAR
INTAKE WATER WASTEWA
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
(8) SPECTRIX
ND«1 )
NDK1 )
ND(C1 )
NDKl )
NDI-:I >
NDK1 )
ND(C1 )
N0«l )
WHO )H
ND« 3 )
ND« 3 )
NDK2 >
N0«2 )
NDI-: s )
ND« 3 )
NO«1 >
ND« 3 1
ND(O )
-
ND«20 )
N0f<20 )
ND«20 )
ND«l )
ND«1 )
RADIAN COHPANY OTMEfl RADIAN COPiPANT LTHER
(8) SPECTRIX <8> SPEC TR IN
ND1-CI I - - NO-. '".I l
NDf-a > - - MDKl »
ND«1 ) - - NDI :i >
MOIO ) - - noi :i i -
NDtCl ) - - NO- ^1
NO « i ) - - c;o i •'. i i
ND ( < 1 } - - NO ( •: 1 )
ND«t> - - ND«C1)
HDK1 ) - - ND(-:i 1
NDKI » - - ND«1 >
ND«1 ) - - MD. - - NDI-; 5 '
N0<-: 3 ) - - ND« 3 )
ND(C2 ) - - N0«2 >
fl E - ND« 3 i
3E - - ND«3>-
ND«1 ) - ND
3 E NDt-r 3 )
3 E - ND(-C 5 )
NDC, »
-
3000 - - NO I • 70 > -
6OOO - ND I <2O )
30CO - - ND«20 >
NOK1 ) -
SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED
AROnATIC HYDROCARBONS ANALYZED BY HPLC METHODS
-------
CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEnCNTB AT NCF1MEMV
U)
^
00
INTAKE HATEft WAS! t WATER FEED TO BITLi. ?*NT FINAL f»:» l.UENl
PARAMETER DATE RADIAN confANV OTHER RADIAN CUMPATK 'jrnta MPIAN > -MPANV OTHER
I INC ( :
lot.
28
CHROniun i i
COPPER I 31 - 47 - - NOKS
LEAD ( 4>
BERYLLIUM « SI
- . 8 - -8 - -12
-.9 - -It- -SI
ANTINOMY < <
THAU-1UH | 7) - NDKS ) 8 4
- NDKS > - - A - - B
NDKS ) - 7 - NDKS
MICMEL. < •)
ARSENIC I 9) - NDKS > - - NDKS ) - - NDKS
NDKS 1 - - NDKS ) - - NDKS
NDKS 1 - NDKS ) - - NDKS
- 13 - 32 12
-3- -32- -30
BILVER til) 6 - - NO<<:S I - - 174
NDKS ) NDKS > • NDKS
- ND (C9 I - - ItO - NDKS
CADMIUM U2)
HERCURY (13)
SIX) - COMPOUND MAS DETECTED AT SOnE CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT DE QUANTIFIED
Oil) - COHPOUND WAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN I.
N0m- COMPOUND WAS NOT DETECTED, X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR TltAI SAMPLE
3 - EPA DATA ON THIS SAMPLE POINT ALSO OBTAINED FftOII ANALYSIS DV EPA REC1ON V,
-------
CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY VOLATILE ORCANICB AT REFINERY
MAKEUP MATER
UASTEWATER FEED TO BIOTREATMENT
FINAL EFFLUENT
OJ
PARAMETER
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
}. 1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
&ENZENE
TOLUENE
ETHYL8EN2ENE
DATE
( A) 1
2
3
6
(13) I
2
3
A
U4) 2
6
(22) 1
2
A
(26) 1
2
A
(26) 1
2
3
A
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
(7.9)
fc
- 3
3
- - -
- S3
- 38
31
- - _
NDK1 )
_
4
B
_
- 13
- 15
-
D«. 5 )
D«. 3 )
A
_
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
(7-9)
_
ND«1 )
_
-
_
ND«1 >
_ _ -
-
ND«I )
_
-
ND«I )
-.
_
ND«I )
_
-
ND«l )
_
_
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
(7. 9)
-
NDtCl )
_ - -
-
_
ND«1 )
— — _
-
ND«I )
-
_
ND«1 )
- - -
_
ND«1 )
_
-
ND«1 )
-
-
D - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED
C(X) - COMPOUND UAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X.
ND(X>- COMPOUND UAS NOT DETECTEDi X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE
Z - BLANK DATA FOR THIS PARAMETER INDICATES CONTAMINATION
7 - PURGE AND TRAP OC METHOD UTILIZING FID AND HALL DETECTORS.
9 - EPA AND COMPANY SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AND ANALYZED- DATA IS FROM COMPANY SAMPLES
-------
CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTABLE ORCANICS AT REFINERY
U)
en
o
PARAMETER DATE
NAPHTHALENE ( B) 6
ACENAPHTHENE < 1 3 ) 6
P HE N ANT HRENE/ ANTHRACENE (24) t>
FLUORANTHENE < 39 ) 6
PYRENE (30) 6
CHRYE£NE/8ENZ(A>ANTHRACENE (33) 6
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE (37) 6
BEN20 < B ) / 1 K >FLUORANTHENE ( 39 ) t
B£NZO 6
P-CHLOHO-M-CKESDL (3B> 6
MAKEUP WATER
WASTEWATER FEED TO BIOTREATMENT
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
3. 6
3
146 HC
3 4 C
63 C
76 CH
3 E
3 2 HC
8 CE
4 C
2. 3 C
- 4
3 E -
ND«13 )
D(X) - COMPOUND UAS DETECTED A7 SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X,
C(X) - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X.
HDm- COMPOUND WAS NOT DETECTED, X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF
C - ON£ OF TWO OR HOHE REPORTED VALUES FOR THIS SAMPLE
E - MAXIMUM VALUE. REPORTED VALUE MAY INCLUDE OTHER SPECIES
H - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE IN THIS SAMPLE AS
ND«10 )
NO«1O >
4 4 HC
ND«10 )C
2 9 C
16 CH -
2 2 E
.9 HC
7. 8 CE
5 C
1 2 C
- 6
HE
NDC-C13 >
BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED
SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE
WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE MEASURED CONCENTRATION
FINAL EFFLUENT
RAD I AN COMPANY OTHER
1
ND«10 )
4 HC -
S C
3 C
1 4 CH
10 E
- ' 2 HC
9 CE -
ND«10 >C
ND«10 1C
59
8 £ -
2
-------
CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENT* AT REFINERY
U>
MAKEUP MATER
PAMAfCTEM DATE RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
I IMC ( 1)
CHROMIUM | a)
COPPER < 31
LCAO | 4)
•CRYLLIUH { 31
ANTINOMY < 4)
THALLIUM 1 71
M1CKCL ( •)
AKSCM1C t V>
KLENIUH I|D1
• ILVCA Oil
CAOniun I
NDK 11
4
4
- 4
NDK )I
NDK )I
NDK II
- 33
SO
33
IB
10
-18
- It
- 19
- I»
NDK H
NDK II
NDK II
NDK II
NOK 11
NDK II
NO 1C II
NDK 11
NOK II
D - COMPOUND MAS DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. IUT
0<1) - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL CHEATER THAN X
I - CONCENTRATION REPORTED AS O 0
3 - EPA DATA ON THIS SAMPLE POINT ALSO OBTAINED FROM ANALYSIS BY
UASTEWATER FEED TO 1IOTREATHENT
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
220
320
- 23
33
- SB
33O
330
440
9
- 4
NDK 1 I
NOK >I
NDK t I
II
4
- 4
- 2
- a
NDK > I
IIS
49
119
87
- 22
22
21
- 24
- 39
NDK >1
NDK II
NOK II
NDK II
NDK II
NOK u
NDK II
NOK >I
NOK II
THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED
EPA REGION V.
FINAL EFFLUENT
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
170
17O
- 14
11
ao
- 7B
120
NDK II
NDK U
NDK II
NDK U
NOK 11
11
a
- 9
NDK 11
NDK II
NDK II
- 48
40
- 49
20
19
14
11
9
14
NDK H
NDK 11
Nt»K n
NDK II
NDK 11
NDK 11
NOK )I
NOK 11
NDK 11
-------
CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENTS AT REFINE.;
ifiY (
00
ui
to
INTAKE WATER UASTEMATER FEED TO BIDTREATMENT (Rl) WASTEWATER FEFD TO BIOTPEATUCNT ifi?t
PARAMETER DATE RADIAN COMPANY OTHER RADIAN COMPANY OTHER RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
till till
ZINC (Ml -__ - - _ .__
2 ___ _._ _ _ _
3 _ - _ ___ . _ .
A ___ --_ _ _ _
CMtoniun ( a> i - - 9*0 - -
a - - 940 - -
3 - - 13OO - -
* - N0«30 > - - -
COPPER < 3> t ___ _-_ _._
LEAD (4>t _ - _ ___ ___
2 ___ ___ _ _ _
3 __. _ - . -_ _ .
6 - - - .__ ___
lERYLLlUn (3) 6 _-- _-_ ___
ANTinONY (6>A ___ _-- ___
THALLIUM (7)1 ___ ___ _._
2 - - _ ___ __-
6 - - - _-_ ___
NICKEL (8) 6 ___ ___ ___
ARSENIC It) 6 ___ ___ ___
SELENIUM (10)1 ___ _-_ _ _ _
a ___ ___ _ _ .
a - . _ .
t, ___ , _ _ __-
SILVER (11)6 - - - ~_ _____"_
CADMIUM (12> 6 - - - - ...
flEHCUR* (1311 - _-- __.
2 _-- -__ _ . .
3 __- _-_ __.
(K) - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED.
(X) - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X
)- COMPOUND HAS NOT DETECTED. X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE
- PHENOLICS AND CYANIDE DATA FROM RSKERL.
- COMPOSITE OF 3 API SEPARATORS AND BIO POND INLET
-------
U)
U1
CO
(CONTINUED) CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEHENTS AT REFINERY/
RADIAN COMPANY
COPPER
LEAD
BERYLLIUM
ANTIMONY
THALLIUM
NICKEL
ARSENIC
SELENIUM
SILVER
CADtlluri
MERCURY
9(X) -
(3) 6 ___ ___
< 4> 6 __- __.
( 3> 6 ___ _ _ ..
(6) 6 -_- _-_
( 7> 1 - -
2 - -
3 _ _
6 - -
< e> & _._ _._
(7)6 _ _ - __-
(1O> t - _ _ _
a - _
3 _ _
4 - -
(11)6 - -
(12) 6 - -
113) 1 - -
2 - -
3 - -
-
-
-
-
: : :
_
-
: : :
-
-
: " :
-------
Ul
PARAMETER
ZINC
CMRoniun
COPPER
LEAD
BERYLLIUM
ANTIMONY
THALLIUM
NICKEL
ARSENIC
SELENIUM
SILVER
CACM,UM
( 1)
( 2)
1 3)
( 4)
{ S)
< fc>
( 7)
t B)
( 9)
( 1O)
<11 )
(12)
DATE RADIAN COMPANY OTHER RADIAN COOPANY OTHER
6 - -
1 - -
a - -
3 _ _
6 - - - - ISO
6 - -
6 - -
t - _
6 - -
1 - -
a - -
3 _ _
6 - _
6 - -
1 - -
6 _ _
6 - _
DIXI - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT SQHE CONCENTRATION LES3 THAN x. BUT THE. CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED
CtJO - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X
ND(X)- COMPOUND MAS NOT DETECTED. X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSlTWilf OF 1HE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE
4 - PHENOLICS AMD CYANIDE DATA FROM RSKEHL
-------
CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY VOLATILE OROANIC3 AT KCFINERV
U)
Ul
Ul
PARAMETER
r«TMYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
1. 1. I-TKICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLCWDETHYLEK
8ENZENE
1.1.2. 3-TETRACHLOROETHENE
TOLUErC
ETHYLBENZENE
o 6
<1B) 6
<22> 6
(34) &
(2i) 6
<20> 6
MS DETECTED
1A3 DETECTED
DATE
t 8) 6
<17) 6
(24) 6
(23) 6
(29) 6
(30) 6
(31 > t.
(35) 6
133) 6
(33) &
(37) 6
(62) 6
INTAKE UATEN
RADIAN COMPANY
19
1
1
1
D«J )
1
D«l )
D«l )
AT 3OHE CONCENTRATION LESS 1
AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X.
CONCENTRATION OF
INTAKE WATER
RADIAN COMPANY
, NDK. 1 >
ND«. 1 )
NDK. 1 )H
29
NDK. t )
2
22
NDK. 1 )H
OKI )
NDK. 1 )
NDK. 2 )
OKI )
OKI >
WA3TEWATEH FEED TO BIOTREATKENT
01H£R RADIAN COT1PANY OTHER
49
NDK. 3 )
1.8
OKI )
3IOOO
NDK. 4 >
44OOO
NDK 3 ) -
HAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED.
PRIORITY LIQUID/LIQUID EXTRACTABLE ORGAN IC3 AT REFINERY 11.
UASTEUATER FEED TO 010THEATMENT
OTHER RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
24O
21
49 H
16
3. 9
3 4
NDK. 1 > -
1. 8 H
NDK. 1 )
- 3O - -
BO
NDK. I )
NDK. A )
FINAL EFFLUENT
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
e - -
NDK. 3 >
NDK. 3 )
OKI )
PKI >
NDK. 4 »
DKl >
N0« 9 )
UO/L
FINAL EFFLUENT
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
NOK. 1 )
NDK 1 ) -
NDK- 1 )H
43
NDK. 1 »
NDK 1 >
DKl )
NDK. 1 )H -
NDK. 1 )
NDK. 1 )
22
NDK. 1 >
DKl )
01X) - COMPOUND UA3 DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED.
0- COMPOUND HAS NOT DETECTEDi X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE.
H - THESE COMPOUNDS ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE IN THIS SAMPLE AS ANALYZED BY THE EPA PROTOCOL.
-------
CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENTS AT REFINER V ,
U)
U1
PALTER
ZINC
CHRoniun
COPPER
LEAD
BERYLLIUM
ANTIMONY
7>iALL I UM
NICKEL
ARSENIC
SELENIUrl
SILVER
CADMIUM
MERCURY
( 1)
( 21
( 3)
t 4)
( 3>
( t)
( 7)
I B)
( 9)
110)
(11)
(12)
113)
DATE
A
6
6
6
&
6
6
6
*
6
6
&
6
INTAKE MATER
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
- JO
- a
NOX3O >
20
ND«t )
NDK30 )
NDK10 )
-a
- 22
NOK1O »
NDK3 )
NDKI )
- 3
UA3TEWATER FEED TO BIOTREATMENT
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
1 300
11OO
ND«20 >
- 73
NDK1 )
ND«30 )
NDK10 >
32
- 30
ND«1O )
MHO »
ND«I )
.3
FINAL EFFLUENT
RAD1AN COMPANY OTHER
3O
230
ND(C2O )
- IO
ND«I >
ND«30 t
NOK10 1
9
- 70
NO «10 )
ND1C3 )
ND«1 )
. 3
D(Xt - COMPOUND UA9 DETECTED AT SOriE CONCENTRATION LES3 THAN X. BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT DE QUANTIFIED
0:X> - COMPOUND UAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL CREATEft THAN X.
ND(I>- COMPOUND UAS NOT DETECTED) X EQUALS THE LOUEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE.
-------
CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY VOLATILE OR6ANKS AT REFINERY
PARAMETER
CHL OH (VC THANE
•ROnOnE THANE
•AMPLE - —
DATE
< 1) 1
2
3
6
< 3) 1
2
3
6
INTAKE MAT£R
RADIAN COW AN V OTHER
(2)
NDU1 I
NOIO >
Dl< S >
NDKIO >
ND<'.I >
HOI •!! I
NDK1 )
NOIO >
RADIAN
NDKIO )
ND4C1O >
MDKS >
NOK3 1
COMPANY OTHER
(2)
NPC;I >
NOKl
NO I -: 1 )
ND I < 1 »
ND«> 1
ND < '. 1 )
RADIAN COMPANY
(21
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>A ND
ND ( •: i )
NDiCI )
METMVLENE cn.O
U)
(J\
1. 1-DICMLOflCtTMYLENE
CHLOftOFORM
1.3-DICHLOROETHANt
1, 1, 1-TR1CHLOROCTHAMC
1 . 2-DICHLOROPROPANE
TRICHLORDETHYLENt
D I MOOCH. OR OME THANE
BENZENE
1.1.2. 2-TETRACHLOROETMENE
1.1.2- 2-TElRACHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
ETHCLIENZENE
(XI - COMPOUND
- POSSIBLE
- ONE Qf Tu
- MAXIMUM U
- BLAH* OAT
- ORCANOHAL
( 8) 1
3
3
*
lilt 1
2
3
*
(12) 1
2
3
*
I13> 1
2
3
A
(1*1 1
2
3
*
418) 1
2
3
*
(191 1
2
3
A
(22) 1
2
3
*
<24) 1
2
3
A
(23) 1
2
3
2
3
(2B1 I
2
3
6
WAS DETECTED AT SOME
1DE.NT IFICArlCN
|Q OR MCSE REPORTED V
ALUE. REPORTED 'VALUE
A FUR THIS PAPAMETER
NOU1 1
NDK1 >
NDK1 >
ND«1 1
ND«1 1
N0«t >
N0« 3 t
ND«1 IE
NOK1 IE
ND«1 »E
NDIO )
NDK1 1
NDK1 »
2 -
NDKl >
ND«1 >
ND(C1 1
NOK 4 1
ND«1 )
NDKl 1
NDKl J
NDK 21-
NOKI )
NDKl I
NDKl >
NOK 31-
1 3
NDKl )
NDKl 1
ND«I )
NDK 4 i
NDKl >
NDK1 >
NDK 3 >
63
^ " D)(.;
CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X.
ALUES FOR THIS SAMPLE
INDICATES CONTAMINATION
NO«1 )
ND « 1 )
NDf< 3 >
30
NDIO )
30
HOK. 3 t
ID
NO*-: 4 i
ND« 4 I
ND« 4 )
ND« 3 >
2
ND«. 3 1
ND1C 5 )
50
30
ND« 4 )
NDt< 4 )
2
13O
SO
7O
too
ND I < 1 '
ND « 1 )
NO t< 1 >
2? C
21 C
14 CE
96
31 CE
NDt<:i i
ND c -: i )
NOKl '
ND«1 -
ND ( •: i »
ND ( •: i i
ND K I >
ND«t >
ND«I )
NOKl )
30OO C
2 C
1
4 C
ND i ; i i
ND«1 )
NDK1 )
9OOO C
70 C
ND K 1 >
1C
ND K 1 )
9
10
A
A
NDIO I
ND(O )
ND
ND<0 )
ND«. 3 )
10
A
ND« 3 )
ND(C 4 1
NOK 4 )
NDK 4 1
NDK 4 t
NDK 2 >
NOK 2 I
2
OKI )
NDK 3 t
NDK 3 >
NDK 9 )
JO
40
1O
20
NOK 4
NDK 4
NDK 4
NDK. 4
NDK 3
NDK 3
2
4O
1 IO
30
50
10
6O
30
NOKl >
NDK1 1
ND K 1 >
14
7 C
NDK1 )E
NDK1 >E
A E
NDK1 )
NDK I >
ND K 1 )
NDK1 >
NDK1 >
NOKl )
NDK1 >
NDK1 )
NOKl )
NO K 1 >
ND K 1 1
4OOO C
ND K 1 )
ND K t )
DK 3 )
NDKI 1
ND K 1 )
700O C
DK70 >C
:
\
;
j
"
'-
\
BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT HE OUANTJMCD
FOR THAI SAMPLL
-------
LO
(Jl
00
FINAL EFFL'JENT
S*nPLE
PAftAnETER DATE RADIAW COWANY OTHER
>
CHLOftOnCTHANE ( 1) t NDKIO I D« 3 )
2 NDKIO 1 NflKl t
3 MD1C10 ) ND( I 1
t> -
DROnOMCTHAftE < 3) | ND'<3 ) M0«i )
3 NDKt t NO(-:i )
3 NDK3 > ND< :i )
6 -
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE I A) I 0X3 ) 1 Ct
2 D"'-S ) 6 E
a Di-:5 > 3 E
tf -
1. t -DI CHLOHOETHYLENE 10)1 10 ND (•; I >
2 ND«I > NtMO >
3 OKI > 1
t -
CHLOHOFOfin (111 1 ND(C 3 I OKI 1C
2 ND1C 3 1 D« 3 >
3 ND« 3 ) D« 3 I
4 - - -
l.a-DICHLOKOCTMAMC ( I2> 1 NDCCS 1 D<<: S )E
2 NDI13 t 0« S )E
3 ND«S I D« 3 IE
6 -
1. 1, 1-TH1CKORCXTHANC (13) 1 3 NB«l )
2 2 NDIC1 )
3 3 NOK1 <
fc -
l.8-DICH-(MOPROfAi< C16I 1 N0« 4 I NOK1 >
2 NO*< 4 ) H0((l >
3 ND« 4 ) NDKI )
t> -
Til ICHLOMOETHYLENC (18)1 1 NO«I )
3 3 NDK1 >
3 NCK 2 ) NDK1 t
6 -
DllMOnOCHLOROnCTHANG (19) 1 NDK 3 ) N0«l >
2 NDK9)NOc:i>
3 NO(C 9 t N0«t I
A -
•EftZENE (22) 1 1
2 I
3 30
6 3 C
i. i.z.a-mitACHLOftOEneNC <*«> i ND« 4 > NO« »
2 ND« 4 ) NOK )
3 N0«. 4 I ND(C >
4 -
1. i. 2.3-TCTRACMLOIIOETHANE (291 1 MD«. 5 ) NO« t
2 NDK 9 ) N0(-: )
3 ND« 3 ) NOtC >
A -
TOLUENE (2*1 1 3
2 3
A 10 C
CTHVLBENZENC <2i> 1 1
2 1 - -
3 20
A - OK 5 )C
pi4l - COfVOLiNO UAS DETECTCR AT E,0nfc CONCENTRATION LESS THAN K, BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT RE QUANTIFIED
COO - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED A> A LE.'FL CHEATER THAN X
NO(K>- COMPOUN& WAS NOT DETECTED. * EQUALS THE LOUEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE HETHOO FOR THAT SAMPLE
C ' ONE Of TWO OR nORE RCPORTE& VALICS FOR THIS SAMPLE
E - RAKIftUn VALUE. B€P(JRTED VALUC MAY INCLUDE. OTHER SPiCJES WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE nEASUAED CONCENTRATION
I - BLANK DAlA FOR THIS PARAMETER INDICATES CONT AnlNAT ION
T - DHCANQHALIDES BY BELLAS OC HETNOD. OTHER VOLATILE SPECIES BY CROB CC HCTHOO
-------
CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY LIOUID/L1OU10 EXTRACTAULE ORGANICS AT REFINERY fa VG/L
01
VD
PARAMETER
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYL C» C
AC EN APH THE ME
FLUCR6NE
PHENANTMRENE/ ANTHRACENE
PHtNANTMRENf
ANTHRACENE
DIETMYU PHTMALATE
FLUOfiANTHeNE
PYRENE
DI-N-flUTYL PHTHALATK
CHRYSENE
BENZ ( A > ANTHRACENE
VE.NZOI B > / < K IFtUCRANTHENC
IENZO ( B 1FLUCRANTHENE
»ENZQ(K>FLUOaANTH£NE
BENIO &
<14( A
(13) 6
(17) A
(24) 6
(25) 6
(26) 6
(20) 6
(29) 6
O0> &
(31) 6
O6> A
(37) &
OS) 6
(39) *
(4O> *
(41) 6
<42> 6
I43> A
(33) t>
(34) 6
O3> 6
(36) 6
07) 6
(»8> 6
(61) b
162) 6
163) 6
INTAKE
RADIAN
ND« 1 )
ND« 1 )
ND« 1 )
ND«. 1 )
3 H
-
-
20
ND« 1 }
2
20
2
3
8
1
NOK 2 }
-
-
ND«. 1 )
ND« 2 )
N0«. 3 )
N0« 2 I
NOK 1 )
NOK 1 )
NOK 2 >
OKI >
NOK 1 >
NDK 1 )
4
OKI )
D«l )
MATER
COMPANY
(6)
DK2 )
0«Z )
OK2 )
NOK. 4 >
-
NDK. 2 >
NOK 02)
-
NOK. 04)
NDK. 03)
-
-
NDK 02)
-
NO K 01)
-
NDK 06)
ND K 1 )
O7
NOK. Ol >
NOK. 02)
NO K 1 >
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OTHER RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
(6)
43O 4OO C
NDK 1 ) DK30 )
? 200
30 7 C
HO M -
28 C
1 C
2 - -
1 1 7 C -
3 4 1 C
10
NDK I )
9 2 C -
NDK 1 ) -
NDK 2 > 1 4 C
NDK 2 »
. 3 C
3 C
NDK. 1 ) B C
NDK 2 ) 02 C
HDK 3 ) . 07 C
NO t <. 2 ) 4 C
1300
NDK. 1 )
680
NDK 2 )
NDK. 11-
NDK 1 )
NDK 3 ) -
NDK 6 )
NDK 4 )
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
230 DK50 )
NDK 1 ) DK40 )
NOK 1 > D= :->0 >
NDK I ) NDK 4 )
2 H
NDK Ot )
NDK J I
NDK 4 >
2 04
OK. 1 ) 06
43
6 - -
NOK. 1 1 NDK 02)
6 -
NDK 1 > NDK 04)
NDK 2 ) -
NDK 09 1
NDK 3 .
NOK 1 ) 02
NOK 2 ) NDK Of )
NOK 2 ) NDK 03)
NOK 2 > NOK 2 1
13
1
a -
NOK 3 ) -
OKI )
OKI )
NOK 3 )
NOK 3 )
OKI )
-------
o
!-
5
<
J W
K
1
*
'
i
s
i
'
0
0
i
ACEfiAPHTHYLENE
•
*
5
*
•
»
*
*
1
Z
i
u
f
I
'
"
i
*
I
I
g
s
5
i
•
,
••
s
i
a.
I
3
'
i
s
FLUOAANTHCNC
'
-
a
s
S
'
,
-
K
Dl-N-OUTVL PHTHALATE
'
,
s
s
ur
<
I
fc
i
I
J
|
'
O
3
3
n
\
, i ,
1 O
s
1
1
i Z
1
!
n ! i
e:
||
5 JS
III
'
5
K
!
X
a
•
o
a
o
*
*
1
•
5
z
>
«
'
;
w
I
•
a
?
*
;
i
I
<
°
*
§
3
9
1
'
8
J
a
;
1
•
;
a
z
8
;
X
9
0
'
,
§
K
'
(
i
M
a-CHLOROPKNOL
•
,
§
|
•
,
i
f
V
1
J
'
,
i
K
S
5
a
•
,
*
s
s
c
0
s
Y
'
,
«
3
4-NITRDPHENOL
•
,
?
4
•
0
a
z
a
«
«
|
s
£
a.
3
•
in
j
5
Ul
*
3
w
5
2
! * I
O >- E
I * ?
3 5 *S
* § 2s
, S iS
I * :s
i * as.
* £ sg
pi
?sss=
360
-------
CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENTS AT REFINERV
CTl
PARAMETER
ZINC
CHRoniun
C OF PEA
LEAD
BERYLLIUM
ANTIMONY
THALLIUM
NICKEL
Aft SEN 1C
SELENIUM
SILVER
CADMIUM
MERCURY
SAMPLE
DATE
< t)
( 2)
< 3)
( 4)
( 9)
< AI
( 7)
t B>
I »l
tlO>
<11)
B
13OO
35
6. 6
.4
3
13
1. 2
13
17
1
.3
.4
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
1000 - - 9AOO
9OO - - 7OO
12O - 6OO
74O - - 360
780 - - BOO
39 2A
19 - - 20
3 - - 3
2. A 4 -
190 34 - -
31 - - I 3
29 21
17 13
.2 - - 31
41 - - 1.7 - -
4 - 39 - -
D(X) - COMPOUND UAS DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X, OUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT Of QUANT I
COO - COMPOUND MAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL OREATEI1 THAN X
N0<*)- COMPOUND UAS NOT DETECTED; K EQUALB THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAI SAMPLE
• - POSSIBLE TYPOGRAPHICAL. ERROR IN ORIGINAL DATA
3 _ EPA DATA ON THIS SAMPLE POINT ALSO OBTAINED FROM ANALYSIS BY £P« REGION w
-------
(CONTINUED) CONCENTRATION OF TNACE et-CHENTS AT
FINAL EFFLUENT
SAMPLE •
PARAMETER DATE RADIAN COMPANY 01 HER
ZIMC ( 11 6 S3
CHRonlun < 21 i -to
2 tO
3 - BO -
6 110
COPPER < 3) * 13O
LEAD 1416 * i.
BERYLLIUM (316 .2
{*) ANT1HONV ( t) A 33
tr\ -
THALLIUM < 7) 6 48
K>
NICKEL < B> fe 34
ARSENIC I 9J A 22
SELtNIUH 1101 6 It
SILVER till i 13
CAOnlUTI I 12) 6 II
nEftcun/ (13) l
C1 X I - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL CHEAIER THAN X
NDI11- COMPOUND WAS NOT DETECTED. * EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD f-QR THAI SAMPLE
3 - EPA DATA ON THIS SAMPLE PUINT ALSO QKTAIMED FROM ANALYSIS DV ETA HEQION v
-------
CONCENTRATION OF TRAC.: ELEMENTS AT REFINER V
00
O\
U)
PARAMETER
I INC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
BERYLLIUM
ANTIMONY
THALLlun
NICKEL
ARSENIC
SELENIUM
SILVER
CADniun
PERCUAY
( 1)
< 2)
< 3)
< 4)
( 9)
( A)
( 7)
( 8)
( V>
(10)
Ol)
112)
(13)
DATE
2
3
2
3
6
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
4
A
2
3
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
A
2
3
4
2
3
4
INTAKE UATER
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
- BO
- 10
ND«10 >
ND«10 )
20
- 20
- 10
ND«10 )
-
-
-
NDK10 >
ND«IO >
ND«10 )
NDK10 )
ND(OO )
ND«1O )
NDKS >
NDK3 >
ND«10 )
ND«10 )
N0«l )
ND«1 )
MASTEUATER FEED TO BlOTtE ATHENT
RADIAN COMPANY OTHER
120
14O
330
330
30
40
- 40
- 20
-
-
-
ND«10 )
ND«10 )
ND«10 )
- 10
ND«1O >
ND«10 )
ND«3 )
ND«3 >
ND«10 )
ND«10 )
NDK1 >
ND«1 >
FINAL EFFLUENT
IAD IAN COMPANY OTHER
40
- 10
130
130
10
NOK1O )
- 20
ND«1O )
-
-
-
ND«10 )
ND«10 )
ND«10 )
ND«IO >
NDKIO )
ND«3 )
NDK3 )
ND«10 )
N0«10 )
ND«1 )
»(X> - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED AT SOME CONCENTRATION LESS THAN X, BUT THE CONCENTRATION COULD NOT BE QUANTIFIED
ei» - COMPOUND UAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAN X.
ND(X)- COMPOUND UA3 NOT DETECTED* X EQUALS THE LOUEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE METHOD FOR THAT SAMPLE.
-------
OJ
PARAMETER
NAPHTHALENE
FLUCREME
PHENANTHRENE/ANTHHACENE
PHEUANTHREME
ANTHRACENE
FLUOAANTHCt^E
PYHEf.E
CHftYSCNE
81S<2-ETHYLMEXYLIPHTHALATE
OENlf AtANTHRACENE
OENZa«A)PVR£NE
01 9EN!0< A. H) ANTHRACENE
BENlCiC. H. I IPERYLENE
PtiCNCL
2-4-Din£THYL PHENOL
SAMPLE
DATE
t et 4
(17) A
12M 6
(25) 6
(26) *
I2ti> t
«2*t h
(30) 4
131) &
136) 6
(371 4
oa> A
(42) 6
144) 4
(43) 4
(33) 6
O9> 4
CtKI - COMPOUND WAS DETECTED
c - ONE of TWO
INTAKE
EPA RADIAN
NDK 1 )
NDK 1 I
NDK. 1 >H
-
-
4
N0« t )
NDK 1 >
I
NDK I )H
_
2
-
NOK. 1 )
NDK. 3 )
NDK S >
OKI )
NDK 2 )
AT A LEVEL Cl'EATER
WATER
COMPANY OTHER
EXXONOI
NDK1 )2
N01<1 J
NDK 1 >
-
.
NDKI >
NDKI > NDK 03)
NDKI 1 NDK. 02)
ND « 1 )
NO < O )
NDK 01)
NDKI >
NQK.01)
NDKI ) 03
NO K I )
NDKI > NDK. 1 k
NDKI tZ
NDKI )
THnU X
OH nORE REPORTED VALUES FOB THIS SAMPLE
5 - CC-UV METHOD.
CONTAHINA71ON
ff
EPA RADIAN COMPANY OTHER EPA RADIAN COMPANY O'HFR
EXXON! 31 C i tCNf 3 i
1100 fisoo cz - net : i t NDKI ••
t>3 NDKI ) 5 C - NDK 1 t NOK1 1 NDK 3 1
99 H ND 4 •: 1 > - - NO ( •: 1 I NO K 1 i
32 C - - ND<-: 2 i
- ND« 03)C - - - NDi : Ol)
5 3 not '.I ) 3 NUt .1 )
?3 NDKI 1 2 C - N0(v 1 ) NDKI • nOi-: OS)
69 NDKI ) 6 4 C - 3 NDKI ) 3
D K 1 > nD K t ) - - 32 ND K I >
) 3 H ND K 1 1 - - I H ND K 1 )
-C26 - - - NOi:C-^'
29 NDKI ) 13 NDKI
-14C - - - 01
44 NDKI > I I C - .4 NOKl . i3
NDK. 3 > NDKI ) 4 C - NDK 3 > NOl'Il ' NDi: O3>
NDK 2 ) NDKI t A C - NDK 2 > NDKI ' NP>' S t
15OOO 24000; - - NDK 1 ) SDKl i.
15OO 1200 - - NDK 2 > N0<;i »
-------
CONCENTRATION OF PRIORITY VOLATILE OK6AN1CS AT »Ef INEI
HI f UO/L
SAMPLE
PARAMETER DAT£
HETHYLENE CMLOR1DC ( A)
TRANS- 1. a-OlCHLOROETMYLENC (10)
CH.OROFORH Ml)
1. 1. I-TH1CHLOROETHANE 1131
TRAMS- 1. 3-DlCHLORDPRQPENE 117)
TRICHLONOETHVLCNC (10)
0£MZE"£ 122)
BROMOFQRM (33)
1. 1.2. 2-lETRACHLOROETHENE (24>
TOLUENE (2A)
CTHVLCEUlENE (28)
1
a
3
*
1
a
3
A
I
a
3
A
1
2
3
fc
1
a
3
A
1
2
3
A
1
2
3
6
1
a
3
*
i
2
3
A
1
a
3
A
1
a
3
A
INTAKE UATER
EPA
:
:
:
:
:
:
1
:
:
-
]
RADIAN
A I
» 1
10 I
t
4
3
29
31
37
2
a
NDK. 3 )
NDK. 7 1
NDK. 7 )
NDK 7 )
1
DK1 )
1
OKI )
DK1 )
NDK. 3 )
NDK 3 )
NDK 3 )
NDK. 4 )
NOK 4 }
NDK. 4 1
3
OKI )
OKI )
OKI >
OKI >
CQnPANY OTHER
NDKI >
NDKl I
NDKl 1
NDKl )
NDKl )
NDKl )
NDKl >
NDKl )
NDKl )
NDKl )
NDKl )
FINAL EFFLUENT
20
S3
NDI C 7
1
NDK. 7
7
3
NDK. 3
NDK- 3
NDK. 3
NDK. 7
a
NO K. 7
a
4
3
47OO
I BC 'J
3300
NDK. 3
OKI
DKt
3
A
420O
B20
2900
440
330
4&0
2
Z
I
NOKI )
>
j
NDKl >
NDKl >
)
>
)
NDKl )
>
)
NDKl >
NOKI >
0400
>
> -
>
NDKl >
6300
200 C
I
~
~'
-
:
^
~~
-
I
~-
-
4 2
4 2
NDK 7 >
NDK. 7 >
NDK. 7 )
1A
14
10
NOK 3 )
NDK. 3 t
NDK 3 »
NDK. 7 >
NDK 7 )
NDK 1 )
OKI >
1
DK1 )
DKt t
OKI )
NDI C 5 )
NDK 3 )
NDK. 3 >
NDK 3 >
NDK. 4 )
NDK. 4 )
NOK 4 )
DK1 I
DK1 )
OKI )
OKI 1
DK1 I
DK1 )
NOKI 1
NDKl >
NDKl )
NDKl )
NDKl t
NDKl )
NDKl )
NOKI I
NDKl )
NDKl >
NDKI i
NDKl 1
NDKl )
NDKl 1
NDKl 1
NUK1 )
NDKl 1
NDKl 12
NPKI )Z
NOKI n
NO K 1 )
NO K 1 )
NO K ) )
NOKI >
NDKl )
NDKI t
no K i n
NDKl >Z
NDKl H
NO t ^ 1 ) I
NDKI i;
NOKI n
\
•
]
~-
l
-
'-
-
-
-
:
CIX) - CDnPOUNO WAS DETECTED AT A LEVEL GREATER THAh X
t.D<»- COMPOUND WAS llOT DETEC1ED. X EQUALS THE LOWEST LIMIT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE HE1HQD FOR THAT SAMPLE.
c - ONE OF TWO OR ncne REPORTED VALUES FOR THIS SAMPLE
i - CLANK DATA FOR THIS PARAMETER INDICATES CONTAMINATION
-------
h-
J
U.
Si
i
2
_j
o *
C* g
i i
i •
0 S
t u
Z U.
t i
I i
S
<
S
i
«
i
I
z
i
o
>
a
u
4
Q
1
O
>
1
U
Z
i
u
o
1
1
u
5
a
<
->e
,s
5s
i
i
u
•0
o
1
o
0
,
-
8
s
s
,
1
§
,
i
=
5
$
I
y
2
i
r.
S
,
i
5
S
u
N
n
n
i
-
ND«1
^
,
Q
Z
n
a
3
«
,
-
n
n
,
i
-
**
V
a
z
BERYLLIUM
!
•4
1
n
3
,
i
*
i
-
i
n
,
-
n
n
i
z
•*
V
i
5
1
0)
4
n
,
n
n
i
a
z
-
NICKEL
ft
,
•4
n
i
o
a
ARSENIC
"
ND«1
,
CD
ft
,
§
n
SELENlun
1
-
NOIC1
,
-
§
ru
,
z
m
1I3ATI6
-
ND«1
t
-
!»ON
-0
,
o
z
n
I
<
U
-
NOKl
I
-
i
a
i
4
n
,
5
O
C
d
UJ
IL.
Z -J
S |
u
CQ K
^ S
i ^
Q O
J U.
O Q
••
3: »
H ^
i i
U)
* S
1 B3
Ul X %
UJ t- <
_J 2 Ul (0
5-1;
li^s
S « 01 ""
§J|
S jx1*
S< 2
d"
*• K U QC
< < t- O
u a.
a a u) 2
UJ Ul H- QC
t- H Id
W U Q UJ
S "i- 5
in IB u a
ii\%
o o o o
1 1 1 1
>< M v
a
a o z u
366
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1979 0 - 307-303
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Special
Fourth-Class
Rate
Book
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |