EPA-450/3-76-040
December 1976
SCREENING STUDY
FOR VACUUM
DISTILLATION UNITS
IN PETROLEUM
REFINERIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-76-040
SCREENING STUDY
FOR
VACUUM DISTILLATION UNITS
IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES
bv
T.E. Ctvrtnicek, Z.S. Khan, J.L. Delaney,
'and D.E. Earley
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1320
Task No. 24
EPA Project Officer: Kent C. Hustvedt
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1976
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library Services Office (MD-35) , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Monsanto Research Corporation, 1515 Nicholas Road, Dayton, Ohio 45407,
in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1320, Task No. 24. The contents of
this report are reproduced herein as received from Monsanto Research
Corporation. The opinions , findings , and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-040
n
-------
ABSTRACT
'his program developed background information on vacuum distil-
ation and used that information to estimate the atmospheric
mission reduction expected from potential new source performance
;tandards (NSPS) for the petroleum refining industry. The poten-
:ial of available methods to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from
efinery vacuum distillation units is discussed. A summary of
.vailable air pollution regulations is presented. If no new
iource performance standards are established, hydrocarbon emis-
;ions from vacuum distillation could increase to 12.87-14.50
;g/yr by 1985. Should new performance standards go into effect,
:hese 1985 emissions could be limited to 7.61 Gg/yr.
'his report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No.68-02-1320,
?ask 24, by Monsanto Research Corporation under the sponsorship
>f the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers
i period from 1 March 1976 to 30 June 1976, and work was completed
is of 30 June 1976.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Figures vii
Tables viii
Acknowledgments x
I Introduction 1
II Conclusions and Recommendations 2
III Vacuum Distillation in the Petroleum Industry 3
IV Source Description and Types of Emissions 15
A. Process Description 15
1. Petroleum Refining Process 15
2. Vacuum Distillation Process 17
B. Vacuum Distillation 19
1. Preflash Tower, Vacuum Still and
Steam Strippers 20
2. Vacuum Producing Systems 20
a. Steam Ejectors with Barometric
Condenser(s) / 24
b. Steam Ejectors with Surface
Condensers 26
c. Mechanical Vacuum Pumps 26
C. Emissions 29
1. Locations and Descriptions 29
a. Sources of Atmospheric Pollution 29
b. Sources of Wastewater Pollution 32
2. Emission Factors 33
V Best Applicable Systems of Emission Reduction 36
A. Vapor Recovery or Disposal 36
B. Vapor Adsorption 36
VI State and Local Air Pollution Regulations 38
A. Category I 40
1. Volatile Organic Compound Water Separation 40
.2. Waste Gas Disposal 40
B. Category II 40
C. Category III 40
VII Estimated Emission Reduction 41
A. Industrial Prime Variables 41
1. Normal Fractional Utilization, "K" 41
2. Production Capacity, "A" 42
3. Increase in Industrial Capacity Over
Baseline Year Capacity, "Pc" 42
a. Using Simple Growth (Pca) 42
b. Using Compound Growth (Pck) 44
v
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
4. Replacement Rate of Obsolete
Production Capacity, "Pb" 44
B. Emission Factors 46
1. Uncontrolled Emission Factor, "Eu" 46
2. Controlled Emission Factor, "En" 46
3. Estimated Allowable Emissions Under
1975 Regulations, "Es" 47
C. Intermediate Variables 47
1. Total Emissions in Baseline Year (1975)
Under Baseline Year Regulations, "Ta" 47
2. Total Emissions in 1985 Assuming
No Control, "Tu" 48
a. Using Simple Growth 48
b. Using Compound Growth 48
3. Emissions in 1985 Under Baseline Year
Control Regulations, "Ts" 48
a. Using Simple Growth 48
b. Using Compound Growth 48
4, Emissions in 1985 Under New or Revised
Standards of Performance, "Tn" 48
5. Production Capacity from Construction
and Modification to Replace Obsolete
Facilities, "B" 49
6. Production Capacity from Construction
and Modification to Increase Output
Above Baseline Year Capacity, "C" 49
a. Using Simple Growth 49
b. Using Compound Growth 49
7. Impact 49
a. Using Simple Growth 50
b. Using Compound Growth 50
VIII A. Utilizing Full Capacity of the Vacuum Still 53
B. Installing a Second Vacuum Unit in Parallel 56
C. Constructing a Second Complete Refinery 56
References 58
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Vacuum distillation capacity, 1965-1985. 9
2 Total refineries and refineries with vacuum
distillation units. 10
3 Change in vacuum distillation capacity due to
plant modifications, new plants, and phaseouts. 13
4 Change in the number of refineries with vacuum
distillation due to plant modifications, new
plants, and phaseouts. 14
5 Block flow diagram of typical petroleum refining
operations. 16
6 Typical crude oil separation unit employing
atmospheric and vacuum distillation. 18
7 Crude distillation, two-stage vacuum. 21
8 Examples of most economical pressure for vacuum
tower operation, for 1.84 x 10~3 m3 (1,000 b/d)
topped crude. 23
9 Two stages of steam jet ejectors with a
barometric condenser. 25
10 Booster ejector, barometric condenser and two or
more steam jet ejector stages for low-vacuum systems. 27
11 Noncondensable removal - vacuum pump and steam
jet ejector. 28
12 Vacuum pump efficiency. 31
13 Vacuum distillation capacity, 1965-1975. 43
14 Refinery obsolete capacity, 1965-1975. 45
15 Applicability of NSPS to construction and
modification. 50
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 U.S. Refineries using Vacuum Distillation Units 4
2 U.S. Total Crude and Vacuum Distillation Capacity 7
3 Number of Refineries using Vacuum Distillation,
1965-1975 11
4 Refinery Modification, New Plants and Phaseouts
for Vacuum Distillation Units 12
5 Total Steam Required (Approximately) in Vacuum
Distillation for 2.15 x 10~3 m3/s (1,000 b/d)
Topped Crude 22
6 Approximate Steam Consumption of Condensing Steam
Jet Ejectors Operating with 791 kPa (100 psig) Steam 24
7 Vacuum Pump Energy Requirements 30
8 Comparative Costs 30
9 Typical Noncondensable Vapor Composition 34
10 Current Emission Rate from a Typical Uncontrolled
Refinery Vacuum Distillation Unit 35
11 Achievable Hydrocarbon Emission Levels with Best
Control Techniques 37
12 State Hydrocarbon Regulations 39
13 Refinery Obsolete Capacity 46
14 Summary of Input/Output Variables for Vacuum
Distillation " 51
15 National Emission Reduction in 1985 52
16 Atmospheric and Vacuum Distillation Capacity for
Standard Oil Company of Kentucky, 1965-1975 54
Vlll
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
17 Atmospheric and Vacuum Distillation Capacity for
The Amoco Oil Company, 1965-1975 55
18 Atmospheric and Vacuum Distillation Capacity for
Cities Service Oil Company, 1965-1975 56
19 Atmospheric and Vacuum Distillation Capacity for
The Sohio Oil Company, 1965-1975 57
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation of Exxon Research
and Engineering, Florham Park, New Jersey, and Standard Oil Com-
pany of Ohio, Lima, Ohio. The assistance of Rossnagel & Associates,
Inc., Cherry Hill, New Jersey, in summarizing state standards and
regulations is also acknowledged.
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
This study on vacuum distillation in the petroleum refining indus-
try was conducted to develop basic background information and to
estimate the reduction in atmospheric hydrocarbon emissions that
can be achieved by implementing new source performance standards.
The results of this study will be used as part of the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division's assessment of numerous in-
dustries for the purpose of establishing priorities for setting
standards.
A review of existing state and local air pollution regulations
indicates that even the best defined and most stringent hydro-
carbon emission regulations are too subjective to assure that
hydrocarbon emissions from refinery vacuum distillation opera-
tions will be limited to the level achievable by application of
the best available control technology.
It has been estimated that presently 83.3% (by number) of the
operating refineries, which have 91.7% of the total vacuum dis-
tillation capacity, obtain complete control of hydrocarbon emis-
sions from their vacuum distillation units. Current (1975)
emissions from the vacuum distillation units (8.3% of the total
vacuum distillation capacity) have been estimated to be 9.62 Gg/yr
(10,622 tons/yr). If no new source performance standards are
established, hydrocarbon emissions from vacuum distillation could
increase to 12.87 Gg/yr (14,202 tons/yr) assuming simple growth
or 14.50 Gg/yr (16,013 tons/yr) assuming compound industry growth
by 1985. Should new performance standards go into effect, these
emissions could be limited to 7.61 Gg/yr (8,390 tons/yr) by 1985,
achieving an atmospheric hydrocarbon emission reduction of 5.26
Gg/yr (5,812 tons/yr) assuming simple growth or 6.89 Gg/yr
(7,623 tons/yr) assuming compound growth.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Vacuum distillation units used in the petroleum refining industry
are closed systems under vacuum. The only source of hydrocarbon
emissions to the atmosphere is the vacuum generation system.
These emissions can be effectively reduced by techniques that are
being practiced such as vapor recovery or disposal, or vapor
absorption.
Vapor recovery has been reported to be the most commonly used
method for reducing atmospheric emissions from vacuum distilla-
tion units. Noncondensable gas recovered by vapor recovery is
burned in the nearest refinery boiler or heater, thus preventing
atmospheric pollution while providing useful heat.
At present, state and local air pollution regulations are not
specific to hydrocarbon emissions from vacuum distillation.
An estimated 83.3% of all refineries, representing 91.7% of total
vacuum distillation capacity, prevent hydrocarbon emissions to
the atmosphere from vacuum distillation units for safety and eco-
nomic reasons. This is an indication that vapor recovery or
disposal, or vapor absorption systems can be practical means for
reducing hydrocarbon emissions from refinery vacuum distillation
units. Essentially complete control of hydrocarbon emissions for
vacuum distillation units is achievable if these available hydro-
carbon emission control techniques are implemented.
The development of standards of performance could considerably
reduce atmospheric hydrocarbon emissions (by 41% assuming simple
growth or by 54% assuming compound industry growth) in 1985.
-------
SECTION III
VACUUM DISTILLATION IN THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
A summary of petroleum refinery vacuum distillation units is pre-
sented in Table I.1 This table lists 172 refineries in the United
States operating vacuum distillation units, and gives the location
(state and city), crude processing capacity, and vacuum distilla-
tion capacity of each one. The total number of refineries in the
United States as of January 1976 was 256.l The total capacity for
vacuum distillation was 10.44 m3/s [5.67 million barrels per day
(b/sd)]. This represents 36.2% of total U.S. crude capacity. The
percent of crude oil being vacuum distilled has remained constant,
averaging 35.54 ± 1.3% from 1965 through 1975 (see Table 2).1"11
Vacuum distillation capacity has been increasing at an average
annual rate of 4.2% since 1965 (see Table 2). Assuming this rate
^antrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas Journal,
74 (13):124-156, 1976.
2Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas Journal,
73 (14):96-118, 1975.
3Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas Journal,
72 (13):82-103, 1974.
^Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas Journal,
71 (14) :99-121, 1973.
5Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas Journal,
70(13):135-156, 1972.
6Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas Journal,
69 (12):93-120, 1971.
7Lotven, C. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas Journal,
68 (14):115-141, 1970.
8Stormont, D. H. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 67 (12):115-134, 1969.
9Stormont, D. H. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 66(14) : 130-153, 1968.
10Stormont, D. H. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 65 (14) : 183-203, 1967.
^Stormont, D. H. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 64(13) : 152-171, 1966.
-------
TABLE 1. U.S. REFINERIES USING VACUUM DISTILLATION UNITS1
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Company
Hunt Oil Co.
Arizona Fuels Corp.
Cross Oil & Refining Co.
Lion Oil Co.
Macmillan Ring-Free Oil Co.
Atlantic Richfield Co.
Champlin Petroleum Co.
Douglas Oil Co.
Edgington Oil Co.
Exxon Co.
Golden Bear Division
Witco Chemical Corp.
Gulf Oil Co.
Gulf Oil Co.
Lunday-Thagard Oil Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Newhall Refining Co. ,. Inc.
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Shell Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co. of
California
Toscopetro Corp.
Union Oil Co. of California
Continental Oil Co.
Refinery Corp.
Getty Oil Co. , Inc.
Seminole Asphalt
Refining, Inc.
Standard Oil Co. of
California
Amoco Oil Co.
Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Marathon Oil Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Shell Oil Co.
Texaco , Inc .
Union Oil Co. of California
Yetter Oil Co.
Amoco Oil Co.
Atlantic Richfield Co.
• Indiana Farm Bureau
Coop. Association, Inc.
Laketon Asphalt Refining,
Inc.
Rock Island Refining Corp.
American Petrofina, Inc.
Apco Oil Corp.
CRA, Inc.
Derby 'Refining Co.
Mid America Refinery Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
National Cooperative
Refinery Association
North American Petroleum
Corp.
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Skelly Oil Co.
Ashland Petroleum Co.
Louisville Refining, Division
of Ashland Oil, Inc.
Location
Tuscaloosa
Fredonia
Smackover
El Dorado
Norphlet
Carson
Wilmington
Paramount
Santa Maria
Long Beach
Benicia
Oildale
Hercules
Sante Fe Springs
South Gate
Torrance
Newhall
Martinez
Martinez
Wilmington
El Segundo
Richmond
Bakersfield
Los Angeles
Rodeo
Denver
Commerce City
Delaware City
St. Marks
Barbers Point
Wood River
Blue Island
Hartford
Robinson
Joliet
Wood River
Lawrenceville
Lockport
Lemon t
Colmar
Whiting
East Chicago
Mt. Vernon
Laketon
Indianapolis
El Dorado .
Arkansas City
Coffeyville
Phillipsburg
Wichita
Chaute
Augusta
McPherson
Shallow Water
Kansas City
El Dorado*
Catlettsburg
Louisville
(continued)
Charge capacity.
Crude capacity, vacuum distillation,
b/cda b/sdb b/sdb
29,000
4,000
5,850
47,000
4,400
181,500
30,600
46,500
9,500
29,500
88,000
10,500
27,000
51,500
5,400
123,500
11,500
110,000
100,000
96,000
230,000
190,000
39,450
180,000
111,000
32,500
20,425d
140,000
5,700d
40,000
105,000
66,500d
42,750d
195,000
175,000
283,000
84,000
72,000
150,000
1,000
360,000
126,000
18,500
8,075d
32,000
25,000
46,230
48,000
25,000
26,500
3,100
50,000
54,150
9,500<>
85,000
78,700
135,800
25,200
30,000
4.211C
6,000
48,300
4,500
193,000
31,500
48,000
10,000
30,000
97,000
11,000
28,300
53,800
4,300
130,000
12,1051=
115,790C
103,000
101,000
242.105C
200.000C
40,000
111,000
117,000
33,500
21,500
150,000
6,000
42,105C
107,000
70,000
45,000
205,000
186,000
295,000
88.421C
97,789C
157,895<=
1,053<:
375,000
140,000
20,000
8,500
33,000
26,316C
47,200
50,000
26,000
27,650
3,300
52,000
57,000
10,000
89,474C
80,000
140,000
26,000
17,500
2,500
3,100
17,000
3,000
93,000
20,000
28,000
7,800
15,000
54,000
9,500
5,900
25,000
2,150
95,000
6,000
74,000
55,300
60,000
103,000
150,000
19,000
83,000
38,500
7,000
3,500
90,700
3,400
15,000
40,000
27,000
18,000
62,000
82,000
95,500
24,000
14,000
55,000
1,000
167,000
70,000
7,000
6,000
17,000
8,000
12,750
14,500
9,000
8,800
1,800
18,300
18,000
5,500
15,000
27,000
55,000
13,000
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
State
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Company
Atlas Processing Co.,
Division of Penzoil
Bayou State Oil Corp.
Calumet Refining Co.
Cities Service Oil Co.
Continental Oil Co.
Exxon Co.
Good Hope Refineries, Inc.
Gulf Oil Co. - Alliance
Refineries
Murphy Oil Corp.
Shell Oil Co.
Tenneco Oil Co.
Texaco , Inc .
Chevron Asphalt Co.
Marathon Oil Co.
Total Leonard, Inc.
Continental Oil- Co.
Koch Refining Co.
Northwestern Refining Co.,
Division of Ashland
Oil, Inc.
Southland Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co. of
Kentucky
Amoco Oil Co.
Big West oil Co.
Cenex
Continental Oil Co.
Exxon Co.
Phillips Petroleum Co.
CRA, Inc.
Chevron Oil Co.
Exxon Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Texaco, Inc.
Nevajo Refining Co.
Shell Oil Co.
Ashland Petroleum Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Ashland Petroleum Co.
Gulf Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co. of Ohio
Sun Oil Co. of
Pennsylvania
Allied Materials Corp.
Apco Oil Corp.
Chaplin Petroleum Co.
Continental Oil Co.
Kerr-McGee Corp.
Midland Cooperatives, Inc.
OKC Refining, Inc.
Sun Oil Co.
Texaco, Inc.
wickers Petroleum Corp.
Standard Oil Co. of
California
Atlantic Richfield Co.
BP Oil Corp.
Gulf Oil Co.
Pennzoil Co., Wolf's
Head Division
Quaker State Oil Refining
Corp.
Sun Oil Co.
United Refining Co.
Valvoline Oil Co. ,
Division of Ashland
Oil, Inc.
Location
Shreveport
Hosston
Princeton
Lake Charles
Lake Charles
Baton Rouge
Metairie
Belle Chasse
Meraux
Norco
Chalmette
Convent
Baltimore
Detroit
Alma
Wrenshall
Pine Bend
St. Paul Park
Sander sville
Yazoo City
Pascagoula
Sugar Creek
Kevin
Laurel
Billings
Billings
Great Falls
Scottsbluff
Perth Amboy
Linden
Paulsboro
Westville
Artesia
Ciniza
Tonavanda
Buffalo
Canton
Findlay
Cleves
Toledo
Lima
Toledo
Toledo
Stroud
Cyril
Enid
Ponca City
Wynnewood
Cushing
Okmulgee
Duncan
Tulsa
West Tulsa
, Ardmore
Portland
Philadelphia
Marcus Hook
Philadelphia
Rouseville
Emlenton
Farmers Valley
Marcus Hook
Warren
Freedom
(continued)
Charge capacity.
Crude capacity, vacuum distillation,
b/cd» b/ad° b/sdb
45,000
3,500
2,280<*
268,000
83,000
455,000
42,275
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Company
Location
Crude capacity,
b/cda b/sdb
Charge capacity,
vacuum distillation,
b/sdb
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
^
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Delta Refining Co.
American Petrofina, Inc.
Amoco Oil Co.
Atlantic Richfield Co.
Champlin Petroleum Co.
Charter International Oil Co.
Chevron Oil Co.
Coastal State Petrochemical
Co.
Cosden Oil & Chemical Co.
Crown Central Petroleum Corp.
Diamond Shamrock Oil &
Gas Co.
Exxon Co.
Gulf Oil Co.
Marathon Oil Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Shell Oil Co.
Southwestern Refining
Co., Inc.
Suntide Refining Co.
Texas City Refining, Inc.
Three Rivers Refining, Inc.
Onion Oil Co. of California
Winston Refining Co.
Caribou Four Corners, Inc.
Chevron Oil Co.
Husky Oil Co. :'
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Western Refining Co.
Amoco Oil Co.
Atlantic Richfield Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Shell Oil Co.
Sound Refining, Inc.
Standard Oil Co. of
California
Texaco , Inc .
U.S. Oil s Refining Co.
Pennzoil Co., Elk Refining
Division
Quaker State Oil Refining
Corp.
Murphy Oil Corp.
Amoco Oil Co.
Husky Oil Co.
Little America Refining Co.
Pasco, Inc.
Texaco , Inc .
Memphis
Mt. Pleasant
Port Arthur
Texas City
Houston
Corpus Christ!
Houston
El Paso
Corpus Christ!
Big Spring
Houston
Sunray
Bay town
Port Arthur
Texas City
Beaumont
Sweeny
Deer Park
Odessa
Corpus Christ!
Corpus Christi
Port Arthur
Port Heches
Texas City
Three Rivers
Nederland
Fort Worth
Woods Cross
Salt Lake City
North Salt Lake
Woods Cross
Woods Cross
Yorktown
Cherry Point
Ferndale
Ferndale
Anacostes
Tacoma
Richmond Beach
Anacortes
Tacoma
Falling Rock
Newell
St. Marys
Superior
Casper
Cheyenne
• Cody
Casper
Sinclair
Casper
43,900
26,000
84,000
333,000
213,000
67,700
64,000
71,000
185,000
65,000"
100,000
51,500
390,000
312,100
64,000
325,000
85,000
294,000
32,000
120,000
57,000
406,000
47,000
76,500
4,750d
120,000
20,000
5,000
45,000
23,000
23,000
10,000
• 53,000
96,000
71,500
91,000
4,500
4,500
78,000
21,400
4,900
9,700
4,850
45,400
43,000
23,600
10,800
24,500
49,000
21,000
44.800
. 27,368C
88,42lC
347,000
233,500
68,800
70,000
74.737C
194,737C
68.421C
103,000
53,500
405,000
319,000
66,000
335,000
89,474C
305,000
34,000
124,000
60,000
427,368C
49.474C
80,000
5,000
. 126,316C
20,500
5,500
47,368<=
24,000
24,2llc
10,000
55,000
100,000
75,000
94,000
4,737<=
4,737<=
82,105C
22,526C
5,200
10,000
5,000
46,800
44,500
24,600
11,300
25,789C
50,000
22,105
15,000
15,000
28,000
164,000
70,000
10,000
22,000
24,000 '
45,000
25,000
38,000
16,500
180,000
147,400
20,000
103,000
17,000
125,000
10,000
24,000
10,000
142,000
26,000
27,500
3,000
43,000
3,500
1,000
35,500
3,800
3,000
750
28,000
55,000
7,000
33,000
4,500
5,000
25,000
4,800
2,500
4,000
2,175
15,500
13,800
14,000
6,500
5,800
16,100
10,000
Calendar-day figures reported are refiner's averages for how many barrels each day a refinery unit yields on the
average, including downtime used for turnarounds. These figures are what refiners actually run in a year, divided
by 365.
Stream-day figures represent the potential a refinery unit can yield when running full capacity.
°Few companies reported only calendar-day figures. To keep consistent stream-day totals, calendar-day figures were
converted to a stream-day basis, using a 0.95 factor for crude and vacuum units.
If companies reported only stream-day figures, calendar-day figures were obtained using a 0.95 factor for crude
vacuum units.
-------
TABLE 2. U.S. TOTAL
'CRUDE AND VACUUM DISTILLATION CAPACITY1-11
Year
19751
19742
19733
19724
19715
19706
19697
1968s
19679
196610
196511
Percent of
Crude capacity, Vacuum distillation crude vacuum
m3/s (b/sd) capacity, m3/s (b/sdj distilled9
28.9
(15,687,321)
28.5
(15,463,650)
27.4
(14,876,050)
25.8
(13,991,580)
25.2
(13,709,442)
24.4
(12,284,985)
23.3
(12,651,375)
22.2
(12,079,201)
21.5
(11,657,975)
20.2
(10,952,495)
19.7
(10,721,550)
10.4 36.2
(5,672,893)
10.1 35.6
(5,497,143)
9.75 35.6
(5,300,006)
9.48 36.8
(5,150,703)
8.93 35.4
(4,852,005)
8.72 35.7
(4,740,918)
8.37 35.9
(4,546,680)
7.58 34.1
(4,119,048)
7.52 35.0
(4,084,985)
7.15 35.5
(3,886,585)
6.92 35.1
(3,762,745)
Percent increase
in vacuum
distillation
capacity b
3.2
3.7
2.9
6.2
2.3
4.3
10.4
0.8
5.1
3.3
— — —
Average percent of crude feed vacuum distilled is 35.54 ± 1.3%.
Average percent increase was determined to be-4.2 ± 44%.
-------
of increase will remain constant through 1985, vacuum distillation
capacity in 1985 will be 13.96 m3/s (7.6 x 106 b/sd) assuming sim-
ple growth or 15.75 m3/s (8.6 x 106 b/sd) assuming compound in-
dustry growth. This is also illustrated in Figure 1.
Table 31"21 lists the total number of refineries in operation as
well as the number of refineries using vacuum distillation during
the period from 1965 through 1975. The data from Table 3 were
used to plot the graphs in Figure 2, which show that the number
of refineries operating vacuum distillation units ranged between
a minimum of 162 in 1970 and a maximum of 178 in 1971. During the
same period, the total number of refineries ranged from a minimum
of 250 in 1971 to a maximum of 270 in 1967. Based on these data,
it can be concluded that during the past 10 years, the number of
refineries using vacuum distillation, and the percent of operating
12Mineral Industry Surveys. Pertroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1975. 17 pp.
13Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1974, 21 pp.
^Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1973. 15 pp.
15Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1972. 15 pp.
16Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1971. 15 pp.
17Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1970. 15 pp.
18Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1969, 15 pp.
19Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1968. 15 pp.
20Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1967. 13 pp.
21 Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1966. 11 pp.
8
-------
fc
o
o
15.00
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
. O
! S
o 9.00
-------
f):NUMBER OF REFINERIES
F) NUMBER OF REFINERIES USING
• VACUUM DISTILLATION
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Figure 2. Total refineries and refineries with vacuum
distillation units.
10
-------
TABLE 3. NUMBER OF REFINERIES USING VACUUM
DISTILLATION, 1965-19751-21
Year
Number of
refineries in
operation
Number of
refineries in
operation that
use vacuum
distillation
Operating refineries3
using vacuum
distillation, %
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
256
262
257
253
250
253
262
264
270
260
267
172
168
171
177
178
162
174
170
175
168
172
67.2
64.1
66.5
70.0
71.2
64.0
66.4
64.4
64.8
64.6
64.4
Percent average of operating refineries using vacuum distil-
lation was determined to be 66.0 ± 2.2%.
refineries using vacuum distillation, have remained fairly constant.
By number, about 66% of refineries have used vacuum distillation.
Data from The Oil and Gas Journals's annual surveys1"11 and
Mineral Industry Surveys12"21 were used to develop Table 4. The
table lists yearly changes in vacuum distillation capacity due to
plant modification or expansion, new capacity put on stream, and
phaseout, and the number of plants involved in each case. The
data developed for Table 4 were used to plot Figures 3 and 4. It
should be noted that the major increases in vacuum distillation
capacity are due to plant modifications. New plants represent
only about 15% of the vacuum distillation capacity increases.
11
-------
TABLE 4. REFINERY MODIFICATION, NEW PLANTS AND PHASEOUTS FOR VACUUM DISTILLATION UNITS1"21
Increase in capacity , .
due to expansion .
or modification
Year
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
Average
Capacity
increase, Number of
m3/s (b/sd) refineries
0.293
(159,600)
0.374
(203,500)
0.384
(208,700)
0.381
(207,140)
0.181
(98,550)
0.673
(366,050)
0.371
(201,800)
0.130
(70,900)
0.292
(158,700)
0.258
(140,000)
0.173
(94,500)
0.286
' ' * '
12
.23
33
22
1
17
27
16.
•.' 19
1 i '
' 20
'• • ' •
"15
11
18.1 ± 23%
• Increase in capacity
due to new plants
placed on stream
Capacity
increase/ Number of
m3/s: (b/sd) .refineries.
; o.ooia '-•• i- '.''•''•''••:
'(750) .. ', ..,;..: ....
o.ooi .. i "/• •
(5,900) ;•''.•>.•;•:•
0.065 3 ,
(35,5,00). [;• ;:
'0 0 •'•' • •
(0) . . •'. ., .;•
0.223 . 3 X'-VV
(i2i,5po) ' , ;'••;;•;>
• ' 0.188 4. - ,;.:','
(102,150):'- 'i''.'' • -v--^- :
o ';•:'..•; •' o'. -?C'.--\
, ' • i • .'"•'*. '•
0 \ : ,',- > '•'" 0 '•• '"''••''
.; - •,.;r(o),.':v"^' . _'; .; :.-,"
0.005 v /. • !;•' , '"' •
(3,ooo). :.'• . ";V'->;.
0.064 • 1. .,"";? ';
(35,000) -". , ;
0 ,0'
(0) '•' • ;•
. 0.044 1.1 ±77%
Decrease
due to
Capacity
decrease,
m3/s (b/sd)
0.014
t7,,800)
/ 0.023
(12,500)
0.181
(98,400)
0.171
(93,000)
0.029
(15,900)
•• 0.040
(22JOOO).
0.045 :;
(24,600) :
: .0.162 •.'
'• (55,900).
! 0.063 •
^ (34 ; 275 )••.'
0.163 . :
(89,000)
i 0.088 X
(48,050)
0.081
in capacity
phaseout
; ' 'Number of
.-;{;, '..refineries
'••^Vv...^''!4
• •'//.• '•'• ..Si'
'.&''. ,'' '• 4
.;'•$.. .•^•^••-i
'.'• • " !•'.'•'* '
':'; , . ;' 10
•" ' •"• ' ,3
.',' ' ' ' '. 4
'?..',.' ''•'"' ' :
$'''' -i''."1'5
*-'-•• ' ''•... '
,'" " '• ''''. ', -
'.'• ' .:')'';/ -.6
•^ '", ' '• •: ; /'•.,' '•
',{•'• '"-'.'• ;'' - '
'•'.Vi ' - '8
''\\ '' '.,•"••
'&:/'•• *
5.*5 ± 33%
Change
in vacuum
distillation
capacity,
m3/s (b/sd)
+0.280
(+152,550)
+0.362
(+196,900)
+0.268
(+145,800)
+0.210
(+114,140)
+0.375
(+204,150)
+0.821
(+446,200)
+0.326
(+177,200)
+0.028
(+15,000)
+0.234
(+127,425)
+0.158
(+86,000)
+0.085
(+46,450)
+0.286
(155,600 ± 33%)
(23,830 ± ,10,7%)
(44,131 ± 48%) . : ..
(+155,620 ± 48.3%)
-------
30 -
to
20 -
O£-
LJ_
o
LXI
OQ
MODIFICATION
PHASEOUT
NEW PLANTS
YEAR
Figure 3. Change in the number of refineries with vacuum
distillation due to plant modifications, new
plants, and phaseouts.
13
-------
0.720-
O.MO-
0.600-
0.560-
0.520-
i •'
3
0.400-
0.320-
0.280
0.240-
0.200-
0.120-
0.040
EXPANSION CAPACITY
NEW PLANT CAPACITY
PHASEDUT CAPACITY
•—• FINAL INCREASE OR
DECREASE IN CAPACITY I
460,000
440.000
420,000
400,000
380,000
360.000
340,000,,- .
320.600" ."'
300.000
280,000
260,000 •
- •"-
220,000 .
200,000.
iSQ.000
160.000
140, ODD
120.000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40.000
20.000
63 M 65 66 67 68 M . 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
YEAR
Figure 4. Change in vacuum distillation capacity due to plant
modifications, new plants, and phaseouts.
14
-------
SECTION IV
SOURCE DESCRIPTION AND TYPES OF EMISSIONS
A. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
1. Petroleum Refining Process
Crude oil, the charge stock for a refinery, is a mixture of many
different hydrocarbons varying in chemical composition and physi-
cal properties. Physically, crude oil ranges from a thick, tar-
like material to a light, colorless liquid.
The major constituents of crude oil are carbon and hydrogen, but
impurities such as sulfur, sodium chloride, oxygen, nitrogen, and
various metals (Fe, V, B, Mg, Si, Cu, Ni, Sr, Al, Ti, Ca, Mo,
etc.)22 are also present. Before the crude oil can be processed,
some of the impurities, such as salts (chiefly sodium Chloride),
are removed. Salts are separated out by washing the crude with
water and breaking down the resulting emulsion, either chemically
or electrically. Removal of the salt and other foreign material,
referred to as "desalting," reduces both corrosion of equipment
and plugging of heat exchangers.22
The desalted crude oil is separated by distillation into a narrow
range of boiling products.23 Distillation separates the crude oil
into a number of predetermined fractions, depending on the desired
feeds for processing in downstream units. Through cracking, re-
forming, treating, redistilling, air-blowing, and, if necessary,
blending, the crude distillation products are then converted into
finished products.22 Figure 5 shows the unit operations involved
in deriving the refinery products.
22Laster, L. L. Atmospheric Emissions from the Petroleum Refining
Industry. EPA-650/2-73-017 (PB 225.040/5), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
August 1973. 58 pp.
23Nack, N., K. Murthy, E. Stambaugh, H. Carlton, and G. R.
Smithson, Jr. Development of an Approach to Identification of
Emerging Technology and Demonstration Opportunities. EPA-650/
2-74-048 (PB 233 646), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May 1974. 273 pp.
15
-------
DRY GAS
WET GAS
CTl
LIGHT NAPHTHA
POLY GASOLINE
STRAIGHT RUN GASOLINE
LIGHT HYDROCRACKED GASOLINE.
HEAVY
NAPHTHA
MIDDLE
DISTILLATES
HEAVY
HYDROCRACKED
GASOLINE
HEAVY GAS OIL
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
CRACKED GAS
CATALYTIC
GASOLINE
LIGHT FUELOIL
REDUCED
CRUDE
LUBE DISTILLATES
GRUDE^
OIL
CRUDEOIL
SEPARATION UNIT
o
-------
Figure 6 shows a typical crude separation unit employing atmo-
spheric and vacuum distillation. There are several possible
equipment combinations to produce the required fractions from
crude distillation. The combinations used at any particular re-
finery depend upon the type of crude being processed and upon the
feedstocks required in further processing.2^
In the crude oil atmospheric distillation unit, gasoline is the
overhead product, and the intermediate products are naphtha, kero-
sene, light fuel oil, gas oil, and bottoms (or topped crude). In
a very simple refinery, naphtha and lighter streams are obtained
at the tower overhead, gas oil is obtained from a side stream, and
topped crude is obtained from the still bottom. In a complex re-
finery, three to five side streams may be withdrawn.23
The gas products, including butane, propane, and methane, are
used in refinery fuel gas systems, or they are sent to gas treat-
ing units. The overhead gasoline is condensed and then debutanized
or depropanized to produce straight run gasoline.21* The naphtha
is blended into motor fuel or any of the several refinery products,
or it is further processed to produce fractions to improve gasoline
octane rating and/or reduce sulfur content. The kerosene may be
chemically sweetened or hydrogen treated and sold. It also can be
used in blending. The fuel oil may be sold as diesel fuel, or it
may be hydrogen treated, hydrocracked, catalytically cracked, or
blended. The gas oil may be sold as fuel oil, or it may be hydro-
gen treated, hydrocracked, catalytically cracked, or blended. The
topped crude is usually fed to vacuum distillation although it may
be also sold as heavier fuel oil, or it may be blended into fuels,
hydrogen treated, or catalytically cracked.23
2. Vacuum Distillation Process
Vacuum distillation separates the residue from the atmospheric
still into a heavy residual oil and one or more heavy gas oil
streams.23'24 Distillation carried out under vacuum allows the
separation of these heavy distillates at reduced temperatures
such that the oil does not thermally crack.25 The atmospheric
2l+The Cost of Clean Water. Vol. Ill, Industrial Waste Profile
No. 5, Petroleum Refining. FWPCA Publication No. I.W.P.-5
(PB 218 222), U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
November 1967. 197 pp.
25Benedict, Q. E. The Technique of Vacuum Still Operation.
Petroleum Refiner, 31(1) : 103-106, 1952.
17
-------
STEAM AND
UNCONDENSEO
HYDROCARBONS
GAS TO
Q REFINERY
FUEL GAS
SYSTEM OR
IS TREATING
UNITS
1EAT
EXCHANGER
CRUDE
OIL
STORAGE
ATMO-
SPHERIC
TOWER
BAROMETRIC WATER STEAM
CONDENSER
BRINE
TO SEWER
VACUUM
DISTIL-
LATION
TOWER
GASOLINE
KEROSENE
>LIGHT FUEL
OIL
GAS OIL TO
CATALYTIC
CRACKING
-UNIT
CONDENSER
SUMP
TO
SEPARATOR
. STEAM
EJECTOR
>LUBESTOCK
RESIDUUM
ISfflff
PLANT
Figure 6. Typical crude oil separation unit employing
atmospheric and vacuum distillation.23
18
-------
residue is distilled at reduced pressures by using vacuum, steam,
or a combination of the two.26'2'
Depending mainly upon the crude feedstock and partially upon the
individual refinery, the residual oil intermediate produce from
the vacuum distillation unit may be sent to the asphalt plant,
thermally cracked in a coker to make gasoline, cracked in a vis-
breaker to make distillate fuel oils, blended into a fuel oil, or
hydrogen treated to remove sulfur and then blended into a fuel oil.
With suitable feedstocks, the residual oil is sent to the lube oil
process for manufacture into lubricating oil. The heavy distil-
late fraction from a paraffinic crude charge is sent to the lube
oil plant either directly or through a hydrogen treating process.
Other distillates are treated in the same way as the gas oil
stream from the crude still, and may be catalytically hydrocracked,
catalytically cracked, or used as fuel oil. The vacuum gas oil may
be processed to remove sulfur by hydrogen treatment before cata-
lytic cracking, or it may be used as a fuel oil.23
B.
VACUUM DISTILLATION
Vacuum distillation is accomplished in one or two fractionation
stages.23'28"32 The major equipment items in a vacuum distilla-
tion unit are the preflash tower, the vacuum still, the steam
strippers, and the vacuum producing system.23"29
26Final Report - A Program to Investigate Various Factors in
Refinery Siting, Revised Edition. Submitted to Council on
Environmental Quality and Environmental Protection Agency by
Radian Corporation (Radian Contract # 100-029), Austin, Texas,
24 July 1974. 620 pp.
27Petroleum Refinery Processes. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia
of Chemical Technology, Second Edition, Vol. 15. Interscience
Publishers, New York, New York, 1968. .pp. 1-76.
28Foster Wheeler Corporation. Crude Distillation, Two Stage
Vacuum. Petroleum Refiner, 39 (9):279, 1960.
29Dickerman, J. C., R. D. Raye, and J. D. Colley. The Petroleum
Refining Industry. EPA Order No. 5-02-5609B, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
20 May 1975. 139 pp.
30Foster Wheeler Corporation. Crude Distillation, Three Stages.
Hydrocarbon Processing, 45 (9):271, 1966.
3 Foster Wheeler Corporation. Crude Distillation. Hydrocarbon
Processing, 53(9) :106, 1974.
32Wharton, G. W., and E. P. Hardin. Three Stage Unit Improves
Crude Split. Petroleum Refiner, 37 (10):105-108, 1958.
19
-------
1. Preflash Tower, Vacuum Still and Steam Strippers
Reduced crude from the atmospheric distillation unit is heated in
a direct-fired furnace. In a two-stage vacuum unit, the heated
crude is then charged to a preflash tower where a small quantity
of distillate is produced as an overhead product. The bottom from
the preflash tower in such a unit is charged to the vacuum frac-
tioner for separation of additional distillate from the charge
stock.23'28'29 For a single-stage vacuum unit, the heated reduced
crude from the atmospheric unit is charged directly to the vacuum
fractionator. Vacuum residuum is recovered as the fractionation
bottoms product. Steam stripping may or may not be used for sep-
aration of the distillate products.26 The separation of well-
fractionated distillate, such as lube oil stocks, utilizes steam
stripping, whereas separation of heavy catalytic cracking feed-
stocks, such as vacuum gas oil, does not require steam stripping.23
Figures 6 and 7 (pages 18 and 21) are flow diagrams of typical one-
and two-stage vacuum units. When steam stripping is used, the
steam mixes with the vaporized hydrocarbon fractions and is re-
ferred to as process steam.
Vaporization within the vacuum still is accomplished by reducing
the partial pressure of the crude oil, primarily by the use of
vacuum but also by the use of process steam. At a specific vac-
uum, the sum of the jet steam and process steam is a minimum.33'34
Table 5 and Figure 8 illustrate how the total steam consumption
varies with vacuum still temperature, condenser cooling water
temperature, and pressure. They are based on the processing of
2.15 x 10"3 m3/s (1,000 bd) of a conventional Midcontinent topped
crude oil for the vaporization of material distilling up to about
510°C (950°F) . 33'31+
2. Vacuum Producing Systems
Three types of vacuum producing systems may be used for refinery
distillation:
• Steam ejectors with barometric condenser(s)
• Steam ejectors with surface condenser(s)
• Mechanical vacuum pumps26
33Nelson, W. L. Petroleum Refinery Engineering, Fourth Edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1958. pp. 252-
261.
3LtNelson, W. L. Questions on Technology: Noncondensable Gases
Handled During Vacuum Distillation. The Oil and Gas Journal,
49:100., April 5, 1951.
20
-------
TO TWO - STAGE
JET VACUUM
TO ATM. , .
COLUMN * y—
REDUCED
CRUDE FROM
ATM. COLUMN
U
STEAM
TO THREE-STAGE
"JET.VACUUM
LIGHT LUBE
DISTILLATE
MED. LUBE
DISTILLATE
HEAVY MED.
DISTILLATE
HEAVY LUBE
DISTILLATE
.VACUUM
"RESIDUUM
Figure 7. Crude distillation, two-stage vacuum.21
-------
TABLE 5. TOTAL STEAM REQUIRED (APPROXIMATELY) IN VACUUM DISTILLATION FOR
2.15 x 10~3 m3/s (1,000 b/d) TOPPED CRUDE34'35
to
Pressure produced by vacuum
system," Pa (mm Hg)
Temperature at vaporizer if no
process stream is used, °C (°F)
Process stream, kg (lb)a
Vaporizer at 382°C (720°F)
Vaporizer at 360°C (680°F)
Jet steam, kg (Ib)
26°C (80°F) cooling water
21°C (70°F) cooling water
Total steam required, kg (Ib)
360°C-26°C (680°F-80°F) water
360°C-21°C (680°F-70°F) water
382°C-26°C (720°F-80°F) "waterr. .
?' .- '., " ,"•'. •• ••• f
382°C-21°C (720?Ef70°F) water* -
101
4
(10
10
(24
16
(24
.$
'" ':4
dp
->• v-4
.(10
,325
(760)
510
(950)
,682
,300)
,9io
,000)
(->
M
,9id
;6oo)
K910
•Mi.
',300)
,682
;300)
•* • *
26,664
(200)
443
(830)
1,132
(2,490)
2,827
(6,220)
68
(150)
66
(146)
2, .895
(6,370)
2,894
(6,366)
1,200
(2,640)
1,198
(2,636)
13
(i
'i
-(i
,
i
(3
1
(3
(1
(1
,332
(100)
415
(780)
486
,070)
,373
,020)
! ;
105
(232)
101
(222)
•
,478
,252)
,519
,342)
591
,302)
587
,292)
8,000
(60)
399
(750)
209
(460)
818
(1,800)
172
(378)
142
(312)
990
(2,178)
960
(2,112)
381
(838)
351
(772)
6,666
(50)
390
(735)
147
(325)
609
(1,340)
224
(492)
167
(368)
833
(1,832)
776
.(1,708)
371
(817)
315
(693)
5,332
(40)
385
(725)
86
(190)
473
(1,040)
377
(830)
218
(48.0)
850
(1,870)
691
(1,520)
463
(1,020)
304
(670)
4,666
(35)
379
(715)
55
(122)
402
(885)
727
(1,600)
273
(600)
1,129
(2,485)
675
(1,485)
783
(1,722)
328
(722)
4,000
(30)
375
(708)
27
(54)
333
(733)
<:>
389
(857)
(->
685
(1,509)
414
(911)
3,333
(25)
371
(700)
.<:>
2,672
(580)
M
914
(2,010)
(")
1,177
(2,590)
914
(2,010)
In addition, a pressure drop of about 1,333 Pa (10 mm) to the vaporizer for the lower pressures, and a larger
pressure drop at higher pressures.
-------
to
U)
en
co
fc
CO
on
o
on
Q.
ABSOLUTE PRESSURE IN VAPOR LINE, mm Hg
20 30 40 50 80 100 . 200 300 400
600 800 1000
0.126
0.101
0.076
0.050
co
Hi
oo
oo
UJ
O
O
2.7
400
4.0 5.3 6.7 10.7 13.3 26.6 40.0 53.3 80.0,106.7 133.3
ABSOLUTE PRESSURE IN VAPOR LINE, Pa ,
Figure 8. Examples of most economical pressure for vacuum tower operation,
for 1.84 x 10~3 m3/s (1,000 b/d) topped crude.33'31*
-------
a. Steam Ejectors with Barometric Condenser(s)--
Vacuum is created within the vacuum distillation unit by removal
of noncondensables and process steam by steam jet ejectors.
Table 6 indicates the amounts of steam required to operate the
ejectors.33 Noncondensables consist primarily of the (1) tail of
lower boiling material associated with distillation of any feed-
stock, (2) gases produced by cracking or overheating of the feed-
stock, and (3) air dissolved in the charge stock and in the water
used in the generating steam.35
TABLE 6. APPROXIMATE STEAM CONSUMPTION OF CONDENSING STEAM
JET EJECTORS OPERATING WITH 791 kPa (100 psig)
STEAM33'3U
Pressure,
kPa
26.
13.
9.
6.
5.
4.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
7
3
33
67
33
00
67
33
933
667
533
(mm Hg)
(200)
(100)
(70)
(50)
(40)
(30)
(20)
(10)
(7)
(5)
(4)
System
2-stage
2-stage
2-stage
2-stage
2-stage
2-stage
3-stage
3-stage
3-stage
3-stage
3-stage
kg (Ib) Steam per kg Xlb)
of total mixture" ' ®
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
12.
16.
20.
23.
25.
3
0
0
2
0
2
3
8
0
0
5
(2.
(3
(4
(4.
(5
(6
(7
(10
(12
(14
(16
5 - 11)
- 17)
- 23)
5-27
- 30)
- 35)
- 40)
- 50)
- 58)
- 64)
- 70)
)
aNoncondensables and water vapor.
The wide range is due primarily to the various cooling
water temperatures encountered, and the average values
(nonparenthesized) are very low ones that can be attained
only under the most favorable conditions.
Two or more stages of steam jet ejectors, Figure 9, may be used,
each following a condenser. If pressures lower than 2.67 kPa
(20 mm Hg) to 3.2 kPa (24 mm Hg) are needed, a booster ejector
35Jones, H. R. Pollution Control in the Petroleum Industry.
Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1973. 322 pp.
24
-------
CONDENSER WATER
INCOMING f
NONCONDENSABLES
AND PROCESS
STEAM
BAROMETRIC LEG
BAROMETRIC^
CONDENSERS
T JET STEAM
2nd STAGE
I
f
TO ATMOSPHERE
OR TO A
CONDENSER FOR
JET STEAM
Figure 9. Two stages of steam jet ejectors with a
barometric condenser. 3 3f 3I+
25
-------
and two or three stages of steam jet ejectors are usually required,
Figure 10. The booster ejector is simply a large steam ejector
that is installed between the vacuum still and the first condenser.
A booster ejector enormously increases the amount of jet steam
required because it must handle all the process steam as well as
noncondensables.33 The steam requred to operate the booster
ejector is included in the values shown in Table 6 in the pressure
range of 0.533 kPa (4 mm Hg) to 2.67 kPa (20 mm Hg).
Barometric condensers are used for maintaining a vacuum by con-
densing jet and process steam. In the barometric condenser, non-
condensables and process steam from the vacuum still and jet
steam are intimately mixed with cold water. Cooling takes place
by conduction, and steam and some organics are condensed. In the
past, barometric condensers were commonly used because of their
relatively low investment and maintenance costs, and efficient
heat transfer, even though they have a high water consumption and
generate large amounts of wastewater.36 Because wastewater must
now be treated, the barometric condenser is no longer economically
very attractive.
b. Steam Ejectors with Surface Condensers—
Modern refineries favor the use of surface condensers instead of
barometric condensers. In a surface condenser, noncondensables
and process steam from the vacuum still, mixed with steam from
the jets, do not come in contact with cooling water.24 This is a
major advantage since it considerably reduces the quantity of
emulsified wastewater that must be treated in the wastewater
treating system.36
A disadvantage of surface condensers is their larger initial in-
vestment and maintenance expense.37
c. Mechanical Vacuum Pumps—
Steam jets have been traditionally favored over vacuum pumps.38
Recently, however, due to higher energy costs for generating
steam, and the cost for disposing of the cooling water from
barometric condensers where organics are present in the vacuum
steam, mechanical pumps are being used.38 Figure 11 shows the
36Hydrocarbon Emissions from Refineries. Publication No. 928.
American Petroluem Institute, Committee on Refinery Environ-
mental Control, Washington, D.C., July 1973. 63 pp.
37Thomson, S. J. Techniques for reducing refinery wastewater.
The Oil and Gas Journal, 68 (40) : 93-98, 1970.
38Monroe, E. S. Vacuum pumps can conserve energy. The Oil and
Gas Journal, 73 (5) : 126-128, 1975.
26
-------
ro
JET STEAM
I
CONDENSER WATER
INCOMING
NONCONDENSABLES
AND PROCESS STEAM
BAROMETRICtEG
3rd STAGE
TO ATMOSPHERE
OR A CONDENSER
OR TO OTHER
NONCONDENSING
" STAGES
Figure 10. Booster ejector, barometric condenser and two or more steam
jet ejector stages for low-vacuum systems.33'31*
-------
POLLUTED WATER
CUSTOMARY-VACUUM JETS
TO FUEL GAS
HEADER
OR FLARE
ALTERNATE - VACUUM PUMP
Figure 11. Noncondensable removal - vacuum pump
and steam jet ejector.37
28
-------
general arrangement for the use of vacuum pumps and steam jet
ejectors for removal of noncondensables.
Frictional, electrical, auxiliary cooling, and pumping losses,
vaporization of sealing liquids, and internal leakage prevent
vacuum pumps from approaching their theoretical energy require-
ments .
Actual data were collected for a number of commercial applications
(Table 7), and they were evaluated for purchased energy input at
the plant boundary line (Table 8). Overall thermal efficiency was
then plotted (Figure 12). Results clearly show that steam jets
are inefficient users of energy.38
C. EMISSIONS
1. Locations and Descriptions
Vacuum distillation units used in the petroleum refinery industry
are closed systems under vacuum. Although the only source of
hydrocarbon emission to the atmosphere is the fractionator's
vacuum system,39 vacuum distillation operations can cause both
atmospheric and wastewater pollution.29
a. Sources of Atmospheric Pollution—
The only source of atmospheric emissions from vacuum distillation
operations is the fractionator's vacuum system.23'26'29~33'39-46
In the vacuum distillation column, gases arise mainly from mild
thermal cracking of crude, dissolved air or gas within the crude,
and light ends present in the crude.34 These gases are removed
from the vacuum still by the vacuum system. Gases from the tower
are passed through a barometric or surface condenser, where steam
and some of the vapors are condensed.47 Hydrocarbons which do not
condense within such a condenser are called noncondensables. The
quantity of noncondensables is related to the final water tempera-
ture obtained in the condenser; the lower the temperature within
39Burklin, C. E., E. C. Cavanaugh, J. C. Dickerman, S. R.
Fernandes, and G. C. Wilkins. Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions
from Petroleum Liquids. EPA-600/2-75-042 (PB 246 650), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, September 1975. 245 pp.
4°Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries. A Guide for
Measurement and Control. Public Health Service Publication
No. 763 (PB 198 096), U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Washington, D.C., 1960. 56 pp.
4 Compilation of.Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Publication
No. AP-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1975. pp. 9.1-1 to 9.1-8.
29
-------
TABLE 7. VACUUM PUMP ENERGY REQUIREMENTS3/38
Initial absolute pressure, kPa (mm Hg)
Vacuum system
Steam jet
Liquid ring
Blower
Mechanical pump
66.7
(500)
7.9 x 105
(750)
7.2 x 104
(68)
3.1 x 104
(24)
4.8 x 104
(45)
33.3
(250)
3.2 x 106
(3,013)
1.6 x 105
(149)
1.3 x 105
(118)
1.0 x 105
(98)
16.7
(125)
8.0 x 106
(7,534)
3.2 x 105
(307)
1.9 x 105
(181)
1.9 x 105
(181)
8.3
(62.5)
6.9 x 106
(6,511)
6.1 x 105
(573)
3.9 x 105
(373)
2.9 x 105
(273)
1.3
(10)
2.2
(20
5.1
(4
1.3
(1
x 107
,508)
x 106
,835)
_
-
x 106
,195)
Joules (BTU) required to pump 454 g (1 Ib) of air to atmospheric pressure.
TABLE 8. COMPARATIVE COSTS3'38
(cents)
Vacuum system
Steam jet
Liquid ring
Blower
Mechanical pump
Initial
66.7
(500)
0.12
0.04
0.02
0.03
absolute
33.3
(250)
0.49
0.09
0.07
0.06
pressure
16.7
(125)
1.24
0.18
0.11
0.11
, kPa
8.3
(62.5)
1.07
0.34
0.22
0.16
(mm Hg)
1.3
(10)
3.36
2.83
•
0.7-0
Cost to pump 454 g (1 Ib) of air to atmospheric pressure
30
-------
10
20
SUCTION PRESSURE, mm Hg
30 40 50 60 708090100
300 400 500
50
40
o
UJ
O
rr 30
U)
a:
UJ
20
10
v\
JET
I I I
13.3
26.7 40.0 53.3 66.7 \
80.0
*BASIS
• CURVES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND WILL
VARY WITH COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZES.
• THERMAL EFFICIENCY IS RATIO OF THEORETICAL
PUMP WORK TO PURCHASED ENERGY.
• ALL MECHANICAL TYPES ARE MOTOR DRIVEN.
133.3
120.0
266.6 400.0 533.3 666.6
93.3 106.7
SUCTION PRESSURE, Pa
Figure 12. Vacuum pump efficiency.38
-------
the condenser, the lower the volume of noncondensables. If
emitted to the atmosphere, these noncondensables are a source of
atmospheric hydrocarbon emossions.36
b. Sources of Wastewater Pollution—
Wastewater from vacuum distillation operations comes from three
major sources.24'35'48 The first is water along with the non-
condensables present within the crude that is drawn from the
vacuum column by the steam jets to the barometric or surface con-
densers. In the condenser, water separates from the condensed
hydrocarbons and can be discharged to the Wastewater system.24'35
The hydrocarbon liquid is usually sent to a slop (oily water) tank
or recycled to the crude oil desalter.31 The water phase is a
major source of sulfides, especially when sour crudes are being
processed; it also contains significant amounts of soluble and
emulsified oils, chlorides, mercaptans, and phenols.24'26'29'35
The second source of aqueous waste is the very stable oil emul-
sions formed within steam ejectors or vacuum jets and barometric
^Emissions to the Atmosphere from Petroleum Refineries in Los
Angeles County. Final Report No. 9, Joint District, Federal
and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions.
Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles,
California, 1958. 136 pp.
43Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume on Atmospheric
Emissions, Chapter 7 - Hydrocarbon Emissions. Publication
No. 931. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.,
February 1976. pp. 7-1 to 7-17.
41*Personal communication with R. Fritz, Exxon Chemical Company,
Florham Park, New Jersey, 3 May 1976.
45Personal communication with A. Stesani, Foster Wheeler Corpora-
tion, New York, New York, May 1976.
46Personal communication with P. Hess, Bay Area Air Pollution
District, San Francisco, California, 1 April 1976.
47Emissions to the Atmosphere from Eight Miscellaneous Sources.
in Oil Refineries. Report No. 8, Joint District, Federal and
State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions. Air
Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, California,
June 1958. 51 pp.
't8Halper, M. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Petroleum Refining Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-014-a
(PB 238 612), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., April 1974. 207 pp.
32
-------
condensers used to create the reduced pressure in vacuum distil-
lation units.24'35 This problem is eliminated when barometric
condensers are replaced with surface condensers.24'35
Steam stripping to separate the distillation products37 is the
third source of wastewater.
Most of the oil entering the wastewater treatment facility may
be removed using API separators, but some residual hydrocarbon
remain dissolved in the wastewater. Due to the high air-water
contact occuring in waste treatment processes, these dissolved
hydrocarbons may be evaporated and emitted to the atmosphere.39
2. Emission Factors
The normal concentration of the noncoridensable vapors is in the
range of 43 to 368.5 g/m3 (15 to 130 lb/103b) of charge to the
vacuum furnace.22'26'33'34'36'39'41'43'49"51 The typical com-
positions of noncondensable vapors are given in Table 9.
The quantity and composition of noncondensable vapors is dependent
on many factors, including composition of charge to the vacuum
tower, operating conditions within the tower, products desired,
and types of condensers used.36
The refining industry has been increasingly dependent on imported
crude oil, which generally contains a higher percentage of sulfur
than domestic crude oils. These sulfur-bearing crudes generate
a higher concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the noncondensable
vapor. Refinery products vary with location, climate, and season.
In the operation of a vacuum distillation unit, there is usually
one product which has a higher value than the other products.
Operating variables are therefore adjusted to maximize the yield
of this product at the expense of less valuable products.25 All
these factors will have some influence on the amount and composi-
tion of the noncondensables.
Lowering cooling water temperatures within the barometric conden-
ser can reduce the amount of noncondensables emitted. However,
this would result in an increase in wastewater problems.36
49Nelson, W. L. Questions on Technonogy: What is an Economical
Vacuum to Use. The Oil and Gas Journal, 54:171-172, May 14, 1956.
50Chave, C. T. Vacuum Equipment in the Oil Refinery. Refiner
and Natural Gasoline Manufactorer, 15(2):45-50, 1936.
51Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, J. A.
Danielson, ed. Publication No. AP-40, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
May 1973. 987 pp.
33
-------
TABLE 9. TYPICAL NONCONDENSABLE VAPOR COMPOSITION44
Component, mole %
Dry gas
Hydrogen
Methane
Ethane
Ethylene
Propane
Propylene
n-Butane
Isobutane
Butenes
n-Pentane
Isopentane
Pentenes
Hexanes
Hexenes
Benzene
Toluene
Heptenes
Heptanes
Octenes
Octanes
Nitrogen
CO 2
Air
H2S
CH3SH
CO
2.9
17.3
7.9
0.6
9.4
0.0
14.6
5.0
2.4
5.3
7.1
3.3
1.4
0.6
0.1
Trace
Trace
0.0
0.0
6.0
1.3
0.9
8.7
4.8
100
Table 10 gives the current emission rate from a typical refinery
operating a vacuum distillation unit that is not using any
hydrocarbon emission reduction system.
34
-------
TABLE 10. CURRENT EMISSION RATE FROM A TYPICAL UNCONTROLLED
REFINERY VACUUM DISTILLATION UNIT
~ Gas volume, _ °" composition, ppm EMissioate,
Emission source m3/s (scfm) _ HC _ I^S _ CO _ K^ _ Air _ (lb/1,000 b)
Vacuum system 0.06 (130) 750,000 90,000 50,000 30,000 80,000 370 (130)
-------
SECTION V
BEST APPLICABLE SYSTEMS OF EMISSION REDUCTION
Available technology used in petroleum refineries for controlling
hydrocarbon emissions from vacuum distillation units has been
extremely effective.k2>k7 The petroleum industry has controlled
such hydrocarbon emissions primarily for safety and economic
reasons. The technology discussed earlier which would assure
minimum (zero) emission rates from vacuum distillation units has
been demonstrated by the refineries. It is estimated that 83.3%
(by number) of the refineries processing 91.7% of the crude have
achieved «100% emission control from vacuum distillation opera-
tions. Regulations emphasizing the requirement to use available
control systems can accomplish complete control.
There are currently two methods available by which noncondensables
may be effectively eliminated: vapor recovery or disposal, and
adsorption.29/36^39,52
A. VAPOR RECOVERY OR DISPOSAL
In the petroleum refining industry, vapor recovery is the most
commonly used method for controlling hydrocarbon emissions from
vacuum distillation units.36/52 Noncondensable vapor from the
vacuum still, mixed with steam from the steam jets, is condensed
in a barometric or surface condenser when its temperature is
lowered with cooling water. 3 3 / 36 /lt2 / ^ 7 > ^ 9 The portion of non-
condensable vapor that does not condense in the condenser is
vented to the nearest available firebox of a boiler or heater and
burned to provide useful heat. a / 26 / 29 / 36 / 3 9 , " ° / "2 / 4 3 / * 7 , 52
In the vapor disposal system, the noncondensables not condensed
in barometric or surface condensers are vented to an afterburner
to be flared.1,29/36/39,"0,"2^3,1*7
B. VAPOR ABSORPTION
Hydrocarbon emissions from vacuum .distillation stills can be con-
trolled by installation of an absorption system between the vacuum
52Sims, A. V. Field Surveillance and Enforcement Guide for
Petroleum REfineries. EPA-450/3-74-042 (PB 236 669), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, July 1974. 369 pp.
36
-------
still and the first stage vacuum jet.36'39 The absorption system
passes noncondensables from the vacuum still through a packed
absorber column where they are absorbed by cascading lean oil.39
Stripped air is vented from the top of the absorber column to the
first stage vacuum jet. The lean oil for the absorber is gener-
ated by evaporating off all the light ends from heating oil.39
An absorption system can only be used where the quantity of non-
condensables makes the cost of the installation economically
justifiable.27'39
Table 11 summarizes the hydrocarbon emission level that is achiev-
able with the best applicable emission reduction systems.
TABLE 11. ACHIEVABLE HYDROCARBON EMISSION LEVELS
WITH BEST CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Achievable hydrocarbon
emission level
Emission point Control technique ppm Ib/hr
Vacuum system Vapor recovery or
disposal wO «0
37
-------
SECTION VI
STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS
State regulations pertaining to air pollution were obtained and
reviewed, and those applicable to this task were extracted and
summarized.9 State regulations are frequently changed and/or
updated. The regulations reviewed for this task had been updated
to April 1976.
Regulations vary from state to state, but in most cases they were
found to be vague on emissions from specific refinery operations.
An attempt has been made to summarize the present status of the
state and local air pollution regulations applicable to petroleum
refineries.
In the state regulations, hydrocarbon emissions may be referred
to as hydrocarbon, volatile organic, organic material, organic,
and/or oxidant emissions.
Some states have general hydrocarbon emission regulations appli-
cable to the petroleum refining industry. Other states use
ambient air quality standards. Finally, some states have no
regulations that could be applied to hydrocarbon emissions from
the petroleum industry. Defining the extent to which the states
do or do not enforce any of these regulations for cases of petro-
leum refining was not attempted. States with similar regulations
were grouped into the following three categories:
I. States with hydrocarbon emission regulations
specific to refineries and/or those that can be
extended and applied to refineries.
II. States primarily utilizing air quality standards.
III. States with no applicable hydrocarbon emission
standards.
Table 12 lists each state and indicates its regulation category.
The full text of regulations considered under this task is not
All state and local regulations have been submitted separately,
38
-------
TABLE 12. STATE HYDROCARBON REGULATIONS
Category
Category
State
II
in
State
II
Ill
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Los Angeles
Colorado
Connecticut9'°
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho9'c
Illinois
Chicago
Indiana
Iowa9'0
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine9'0
Maryland
Baltimore
Massachusetts9'0
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada9 '°
New Hampshire9'0
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York City
North Carolina9'0
North Dakota9
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island9'°
South Carolina9'0
South Dakota9'0
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont9'°
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
District of
Columbia3'c
/b
States where no vacuum distillation operations exist.
States with some regulations for hydrocarbon emissions, but primarily in
the area of storage of organic material.
'States where no refineries exist.
States with some hydrocarbon emission regulations specifically spelled out
for petroleum refineries.
39
-------
presented in this report. The texts of all pertinent hydrocarbon
regulations for each state were extracted and furnished to the
EPA under separate cover.
A review of the state hydrocarbon emissions regulations indicates
that even the best regulations (Category I) are not comprehensive
enough to assure the reduction in refinery hydrocarbon emissions
from vacuum distillation operations that would be possible by the
use of available control technology.
A. CATEGORY I
This category covers those states with regulations for hydrocarbon
or organic emissions that can be extended to apply to refineries,
as well as those with regulations specific to refining operations.
Examples of regulations in this category follow.
1. Volatile Organic Compound Water Separation
Compartments that receive water containing volatile organic com-
pounds from processing, refining, treating, storing, or handling
these compounds must be equipped with one of the following:
• Sealed openings and gas-tight gauging and sampling devices
• Floating roof
•;Vapor recovery system
• Other system of equal efficiency
2. Waste Gas Disposal
Gas stream must be properly burned in a direct-flame afterburner
with an indicating pyrometer or its equal.
B. CATEGORY II
This category includes those states that use primarily hydrocar-
bon ambient air standards often supplemented with the Federal
Ambient Air Standards. An example of these kinds of regulations
for hydrocarbons is:
Three-hour average (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) - hydrocarbon
concentration limit of 160 micrograms per cubic meter
C. CATEGORY III
The states in this category have no regulations applicable to
hydrocarbon emissions.
40
-------
SECTION VII
ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTION
Model IV was developed by the EPA for use by the Emission Stand-
ards and Engineering Division. It is used to assess numerous
industries for the purpose of establishing priorities for setting
standards. The model mathematically expresses the differential
in atmospheric emissions that can be expected with and without
NSPS.53
The model by which emission differential was calculated uses 1975
capacity as the baseline to which estimated growth and obsoles-
cence rates over the next 10 years are applied. This gives the
new and modified capacity that can be regulated by NSPS in the
period 1975 to 1985. The best available level of control is
then applied to this capacity to determine the level of emissions
that may be achieved under controls required by NSPS in 1985.
Similarly, another set of emission levels is determined for 1985
by applying to the current, new, and modified capacity the current
levels of emissions. Both sets of emission levels represent maxi-
mum values based on capacity. The capacity utilization factor is
used to convert emission levels from operation at capacity to
operation at production rates anticipated in 1985. The difference
between the two values of emission levels represents the control
effectiveness of NSPS.
Certain variables needed to develop the relationship between
projected emissions under baseline year levels of control and
controls required under NSPS for petroleum refinery vacuum distil-
lation operations will be defined in three groups: industrial
prime variables, emission factors, and intermediate variables.
A. INDUSTRIAL PRIME VARIABLES
1. Normal Fractional Utilization, "K"
The variable "K" represents that fraction of total existing
capacity which is brought into service to produce a given output.
53Hopper, T. G., and W. A. Marrone. Impact of New Source Per-
formance Standards on 1985 National Emissions from Stationary
Sources, Volume I. EPA Contract 68-02-1382, Task 3, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, October 24, 1975. 178 pp.
41
-------
By applying this factor to the capacity-based values, of A, B, and
C, actual production output can be determined.53
The purpose of "K" is to convert design capacity to production
capacity. Production figures are then applied to emission factors
to calculate actual emissions. Petroleum refineries report pro-
duction figures either in barrels per calendar day or barrels per
stream day.1"11
Production figures used in this report were obtained from The Oil
and Gas Journal. The production figures for vacuum distillation
are reported in barrels per stream day, having used a conversion
factor of 0.95 to convert calendar day figures to stream day
figures. The factor 0.95 is not a ratio of production capacity
to design capacity and does not satisfy the above definition of
"K." But for this report production data reported in barrels per
stream day were used, and "K" was therefore given the value of
0.95.
2. Production Capacity, "A"
The variable "A" is defined as the industrial production capacity
in the baseline year.53 For 1975, the vacuum distillation
capacity has been reported in the literature to be 10.44 m3/s
(5,762,745 barrels per stream day).1 Therefore, "A" was given the
value 10.44 m3/s (5,672,893 b/sd).
3. Increase in Industrial Capacity Over Baseline Year
Capacity, "P"
The variable "Pc" is defined as the average anticipated growth
rate in industrial capacity during the period between the baseline
year and 1985.53
The production capacity data for vacuum distillation from 1965
through 1975 shown in Table 2 were plotted, Figure 13.1 :1 In-
crease in capacity over 10 years was 5.1% a year based on 1965
production. Assuming that the increase in capacity would remain
constant through 1985, P was calculated using simple and compound
growth.53
a. Using Simple Growth (P_ )--
ca—
P = Capacity in year "x" - capacity in year "y"
ca (x - y) Capacity in 1975
where x > y
42
-------
E
>-"
11.0
10.5
10.0
9.5
o
I 9.0
o
1/1 ,
O o n
-------
Letting x = 1975 and y = 1965:
10.44 - 6.92 /5,672,893 - 3,762,745\
ca 10 x 10.44 V 10 x 5,762,745 /
= 3.37 x 10~2 decimal fraction of baseline
capacity/yr
b. Using Compound Growth (P ,)—
_ Capacity in year "x" , _
cb x ~ X / Capacity in year "y" 1'U
where x > y
Letting x = 1975 and y = 1965:
P _ 10/10.44. 10/5,672,893
Pcb ^V 6.92 i'° ^V 3,762,745 lmQ
= 4.20 x 10~2 decimal fraction of baseline
capacity/yr
4. Replacement Rate of Obsolete Production Capacity, "Ph"
The variable "Pb" is defined as the average rate at which obso-
lete production capacity is replaced during the period between
the baseline year and 1985.53
From Table 2, it is seen that the percent of raw crude that was
vacuum distilled from 1965 through 1975 remained fairly constant,
averaging 35.54 ± 1.3%.1"11 This being the case, we have assumed
that the rate of obsolescence and replacement for vacuum distil-
lation capacity is proportional to the rate of obsolescence for
the total refinery capacity.
Table 13 lists total yearly refinery obsolete capacities from
1966 through 1975. These data are also plotted in Figure 14.54
51+Refining. Section VIII in: Basic Petroleum Data Book, Petro-
leum Industry Statistics. American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C., October 1975.
44
-------
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
(/>
"E 1-6
1.4
o
g 1.2.
LLJ
o 1.0
tn
QQ
O
£ 0.8
.UJ
i °-6
0.4
0.2
0
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
YEAR
0
Figure 14. Refinery obsolete capacity, 1965-1975.
45
-------
TABLE 13. REFINERY OBSOLETE CAPACITY
Year
Inoperable shutdown
m3/s (b/sd)
Total obsolete capacity
since Jan. 1966
m3/s
(b/sd)
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
0.181
0.186
0.330
0.068
0.097
0.294
0.267
0.243
0.235
0.382
(98,900)
(101,200)
(179,450)
(37,200)
(53,050)
(159,750)
(145,000)
(132,200)
(127,900)
(208,100)
0.181
0.368
0.698
0.767
0.864
1.15
1.42
1.67
1.91
2.29
(98,900)
(200,100)
(379,550)
(416,750)
(469,800)
(629,550)
(774,550)
(906,750)
(1,034,650)
(1,242,750)
From Figure 14, it is seen that the rate of obsolescence between
1966 and 1975 has remained fairly constant. Assuming this will
continue through 1985, P, was calculated using the equation:
Obsolete capacity obsolete capacity
_ up to year "x" - up to year "y"
b (x - y) Capacity in 1975
where x > y
Letting x = 1974 and y = 1967:
1.91 - 0.37
Pb =
7 x 10.44
/I,034,650 - 200,100\
V 7 x 5,672,898 /
= 2.10 x 10~2 decimal fraction of baseline
capacity/yr
B.
EMISSION FACTORS
1 . Uncontrolled Emission Factor, "E
__
The variable "Eu" is the emission factor representing the condi-
tion of no control.53 The uncontrolled emission factor for
vacuum jets has been reported in the literature to be 368.5 g/m3
(130 lb/103 b) of vacuum distillate.1*1
2. Controlled Emission Factor, "E ^
The variable "En" is the emission factor representing the condi-
tion of the best control applied to new sources.53 On the basis
of the study on control of emissions from vacuum distillation
units,. Section V, it can be concluded that emissions can be 100%
controlled. l*2~lt 7 Hence, E was given the value of zero.
46
-------
3 . Estimated Allowable Emissions Under 1975 Regulations , "E !l
• -- — — s —
The variable "Es" is the emission factor which represents the 1975
(the baseline year) level of control required under state, local,
regional, or federal regulations.53
A review of state hydrocarbon emissions indicates that even the
best regulations are not comprehensive enough to assure the re-
duction in emissions from vacuum distillation units that would be
possible by use of available control technology. For the purpose
of this task, "E " has been defined as:
s
E = (Uncontrolled emission factor for vacuum jets)
(fraction of industry not controlling emissions)
= E (fraction of industry not controlling emissions)
From data on 102 petroleum refineries processing 7.22 m3/s
(3,923,925 b/sd) of vacuum distillate, it was determined that 17
refineries processing 0.60 m3/s (326,150 b/sd) of vacuum distil-
late vented hydrocarbon emissions from vacuum distillation units
to the atmosphere.
Assuming these data to be typical of the petroleum refining indus-
try, it can be calculated that 16.7% of the refineries processing
9.3% of the vacuum distillate use no controls on vaccum distilla-
tion units.
Therefore,
E = E (8.31 x 10~2)
S \1
= 8.31 x lO-2 (368.5) _ 8.3i x i0-2 (i30)
= 30'6mT
m
C. INTERMEDIATE VARIABLES
1. Total Emissions in Baseline Year (1975) Under Baseline
Year Regulations, "T "
- .^ —
The variable "Ta" is defined as the total emissions in 1975 under
current (1975) regulations and can be calculated using the
equation: 5 3
T = E KA
3. S
47
-------
By using the previously defined variables, T is calculated as:
a
T =9.62 Gg/yr (10,622 tons/yr)
a
2. Total Emissions in 1985 Assuming No Control, "T "
u~~~
The variable "T " for 1985 can be calculated suing the equation:53
T = E K (A - B) + E K (B + C)
= EuK [(A - B) + (B + C)]
= E K (A + C)
u
a. Using Simple Growth—
By using the previously defined variables, T is calculated as:
T = 154.90 Gg/yr (170,949 tons/yr)
b. Using Compound Growth—
By using the previously defined variables, T is calculated as:
T = 174.50 Gg/yr (192,750 tons/yr)
3. Emissions in 1985 Under Baseline Year Control Regulations,
II rn ii
S—
The variable "T " for 1985 is calculated by using the equation:
5
T = E K (A - B) + E K (B + C)
S S S
= E K [(A - B) + (B + C)]
s
= ESK (A + c)
a. Using Simple Growth—
By using the previously defined variables, T is calculated as:
S
T = 12.87 Gg/yr (14,202 tons/yr)
S
b. Using.Compound Growth—
By using the previously defined variables, T is calculated as:
S
T =14.50 Gg/yr (16,013 tons/yr)
o
4. Emissions in 1985 Under New or Revised Standards
of Performance, "T "
n_
The variable "T " for 1985 is calculated by using the equation:53
T = E K (A - B) + E K (B + C)
n s n
48
-------
But, E = 0
Therefore, T = E K (A - B)
II o
=7.61 Gg/yr (8,390 tons/yr)
5. Production Capacity from Construction and Modification to
Replace Obsolete Facilities, "B"
Assuming simple growth, the variable "B" can be calculated using
the equation:
B = iAPb
where i = the number of years
B = 2.19 5£ (l, 911, 765
6 . Production Capacity from Construction and Modification to
Increase Output Above Baseline Year Capacity, "C"
a. Using Simple Growth —
Assuming simple growth, the variable "C" can be calculated using
the equation:53
Ca = iAPca
where i = the number of years
.
Ca = 3.52 jl (l, 911, 765 |g.
b. Using Compound Growth—
Assuming compound growth, the variable "C" can be calculated
using the equation:
Cb = A [(1 + P^)1 - 1]
where i = the number of years
Cb = 5.3 — (2,879,053 b-r
s \ sd
7. Impact
The additonal control potential, or impact, of new source per-
formance standards is expressed using simple and compound
growth. 5L|
49
-------
a. Using Simple Growth —
T - T = (12.87 - 7.61) Gg/yr [(14,202 - 8,390) tons/yr']
s n
=5.26 Gg/yr (5,812 tons/yr)
b. Using Compound Growth —
T - T = (14.50 - 7.61) Gg/yr [(16,013 - 8,390) tons/yr]
s n
=6.89 Gg/yr (7,623 tons/yr)
Figure 15 is a graphical representation of the growth rate and
rate of obsolescence from baseline year 1975 to the year 1985.
! O
£
i 5
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
15.75m3/s(8.56xl06b/sd)
8.24m3/s(4.48xl06b/sd)
< A- B ) CAPACITY AFFECTED BY EXISTING REGULATIONS
- (B + C) CAPACITY REGULATED BY NSPS
- A-B = 8.24 m3/s( 4.48x!06b/sd)
B + Ca = 5.70 m3/s ( 3.10 x 106 Wsd )
B + Cb = 7.48 m3/s ( 4.07 x 106 b/sd )
- Ca = 3.52 m3/s( 1.19 x!06b/sd)
Cb=5.31m3/s(2.88x 106 b/sd)
B = 2.19 m3/s( 1.91 xlO6 b/sd)
1975
77
79
81 83
YEAR
85
"S
Figure 15.
Applicability of NSPS to construction
and modification.
50
-------
Table 14 is a summary of factors used in the calculations.
Table 15 summarizes the total national emission reduction that
would occur annually 10 years from the date the standard would
be in effect.
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES FOR VACUUM DISTILLATION
Normal fractional utilization factor
Emission rate, g/m3 (lb/103 b)
Growth rates, decimal/yr
Industrial capacity, m3/s (b/sd)
Emissions, Gg/yr (tons/yr)
K
n
P (SG)a
C (CG)b
A (1975)
B (1985)
C (1985) (SG)a
(CG)b
T
Ta (SG)a
u -~,xb
(CG)'
Impact, g/s (tons/yr)
T (SG)a
S (CG)b
T
n
T - T (SG)a
5 n (CG)b
0.95
368.5 (130)
30.6 (10.8)
0 (0)
3.37 x 10~2
4.19 x 10~2
2.10 x ID"2
10.44 (5,672,893)
2.19 (1,192,213)
3.52 (1,911,765)
5.30 (2,879,053)
9.62 (10,622)
154.90 (170,949)
174.50 (192,750)
12.87 (14,202)
14.50 (16,013)
7.61 (8,390)
5.26 (5,812)
6.89 (7,623)
SG = Simple industry growth.
CG = Compound industry growth.
51
-------
TABLE 15. NATIONAL EMISSION REDUCTION IN 1985
Vapor recovery or disposal
Control technique Gg/yr (tons/yr)
Emission rate with best system 0 (0)
Current emission rate (1985) (SG) jj 12.87 (14,202)
(CG)b 14.50 (16,013)
Emission reductions (1985) (SG)a 5.26 (5,800)
(CG)b 6.89 (7,623)
SG = Simple industry growth.
CG = Compound industry growth.
52
-------
SECTION VIII
MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
In the petroleum refining industry, the vacuum distillation
process can be modified or reconstructed for the purpose of in-
creasing capacity and/or installing systems for the reduction of
atmospheric and/or water pollution.**"*'55~58 The best applicable
systems of emission reduction are discussed in Section V.
Modification and reconstruction of vacuum distillation processes
within the petroleum industry would affect atmospheric emissions
only if capacities were increased without the installation of
applicable systems of emission reduction. From conversations
with petroleum industry personnel and equipment manufacturers, it
appears that all newer refineries install systems to reduce both
air and water pollution. ttl+-1+6 » 55-59, 71, 72 control systems are
also usually installed, for safety and economic reasons, when
existing vacuum units are modified or reconstructed.
The capacity of a vacuum distillation unit can be increased in a
number of ways, including:
• Utilizing full design capacity of the vacuum still
• Installing a second vacuum unit in parallel
• Constructing a second, parallel refinery
A. UTILIZING FULL CAPACITY OF THE VACUUM STILL
Refinery equipment is usually designed to operate below maximum
capacity so that there remains room for expansion. Therefore,
the production capacity of the vacuum distillation unit can be
increased by simply replacing other process equipment that is
creating bottlenecks upstream from the vacuum unit.
55Personal communication with P. Tranquill, Sohio Oil Refinery,
Lima, Ohio, 24 June 1976.
56Personal communication with J. Gurawitz, Standard Oil Company,
Chicago, Illinois, 2 July 1976.
57Personal communication with Mr. Reed, Edgington Oil Company,
Long Beach, California, 2 July 1976.
58Personal communication with Mr. Brooks, Texaco Oil Company,
Westville, New Jersey, 2 July 1976.
53
-------
Table 16 lists the atmospheric and vacuum distillation capacities
from 1965 to 1975 for The Standard Oil Company of Kentucky located
in Pascagoula, Mississippi.59 The table shows that in 1970 the
capacity of the vacuum distillation unit increased by 0.125 m3/s
(68,000 b/sd). This is a typical example of increasing vacuum
unit capacity by replacing process equipment upstream. In this
case, the refinery added a new atmospheric crude distillation unit,
replaced heat exchangers, and modified furnaces, pumps, etc.59
The design capacity of the vacuum still remained unchanged.
TABLE 16. ATMOSPHERIC AND VACUUM DISTILLATION CAPACITY FOR
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF KENTUCKY, 1965-19751-n'60~70
Capacity
Year
Atmospheric distillation
m3/s (b/sd)
Vacuum distillation
m
3/8
(b/sd)
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
0.543
0.465
0.465
0.515
0.534
0.534
0.267
0.267
0.267
0.239
0.239
(295,000)
(253,000)
(253,000)
(280,000)
(290,000)
(290,000)
(145,000)
(145,000)
(145,000)
(130,000)
(130,000)
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.257
0.257
0.250
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.119
0.119
(148,000)
(148,000)
(148,000)
(140,000)
(140,000)
(136,000)
(68,000)
(68,000)
(68,000)
(65,000)
(65,000)
59Personal communication with J. Sullivan, Standard Oil Company
of Kentucky, Pascagoula, Mississippi, 1 July 1976.
6°World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore.
54(10, Section 2):3-16, 1975.
61World-wide HPI Construction Boxscore.
53(10, Section 2):3-12, 1974.
62World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore.
52(10, Section 2):3-10, 1973.
63WorId-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore.
51(10, Section 2):3-10, 1972.
64WorId-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore.
50(10, Section 2):7-15, 1971.
G5World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore.
49(10, Section 2):CR-5 to CR-18, 1970.
Hydrocarbon Processing,
Hydrocarbon Processing,
Hydrocarbon Processing,
Hydrocarbon Processing,
Hydrocarbon Processing,
Hydrocarbon Processing,
54
-------
Table 171-11,60-70 lists the atmospheric and vacuum distillation
capacities from 1965 to 1975 for the Amoco Oil Company located in
Whiting, Indiana. From Table 17 it is seen that the vacuum unit
capacity was increased a number of times. In 1968, it increased
by 0.011 m3/s (6,000 b/sd) and in 1973 it increased by 0.43 m3/s
(23,000 b/sd). These increases are typical examples of increas-
ing the capacity of the vacuum unit by modifying or replacing
"bottleneck" or process equipment downstream.71 Again, the de-
sign capacity of the vacuum unit was not changed.
TABLE 17. ATMOSPHERIC AND VACUUM DISTILLATION CAPACITY FOR
THE AMOCO OIL COMPANY, 1965-19751'1*• 6°~7°
Year
Capacity
Atmospheric distillation
m3/s (b/sd)
.Vacuum distillation
m3/s
(b/sd)
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
0.662
0.662
0.579
0.561
0.485
0.557
0.542
0.546
0.443
0.421
0.381
(360,000)
(360,000)
(315,000)
(305,000)
(264,000)
(303,000)
(295,000)
(297,000)
(241,000)
(229,000)
(207,000)
0.307
0.307
0.258
0.215
0.235
0.235
0.235
0.235
0.224
0.224
0.224
(167,000)
(167,000)
(140,000)
(117,000)
(128,000)
(128,000)
(128,000)
(128,000)
(122,000)
(122,000)
(122,000)
66HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Processing, 48(10,
Section 2): CR-13 to CR-25, 1969.
67HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Processing, 46(9,
Section 2):CR-9 to CR-28, 1968.
68HPI Construction Boxscore.
Section 2):56-68, 1967.
69HPI Construction Boxscore.
Section 2):75-88, 1966.
Hydrocarbon Processing, 46(9,
Hydrocarbon Processing, 45(9,
Hydrocarbon Processing, 44(9,
70HPI Construction Boxscore,
Section 2):56-68, 1965.
7 Personal communication with Mr. Harbison, Amoco Oil Company,
Whiting, Indiana, 1 July 1976.
55
-------
B.
INSTALLING A SECOND VACUUM UNIT IN PARALLEL
When the bottlenecks downstream from the vacuum still are removed,
the vacuum distillation unit itself eventually becomes a bottle-
neck. Possible solutions are to modify or replace the vacuum
unit, or install another unit in parallel. Replacing only the
vacuum unit is expensive and is very seldom practiced.72
Table 18 lists the atmospheric and vacuum distillation capacities
from 1965 to 1975 for the Cities Service Oil Company located in
Lake Charles, Louisiana.72 As shown in the table, in 1973 the
capacity increased from 0.079 m3/s (43,000 b/sd) to 0.110 m3/s
(60,000 b/sd). This is a typical example of increasing vacuum
distillation capacity by installing a new vacuum unit in parallel
to the existing one and then splitting the topped crude from the
atmospheric distillation unit for feed to the two vacuum units-.72
TABLE 18. ATMOSPHERIC AND VACUUM DISTILLATION CAPACITY FOR
CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY, 1965-1975 1-11' 60-70
Capacity
Year
Atmospheric distillation
m3/s (b/sd)
Vacuum distillation
m
3/8
(b/sd)
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
0.515
0.515
0.515
0.450
0.423
0.423
0.388
0.349
0.349
0.349
0.349
(280,000).
(280,000)
(280,000)
(245,000)
(230,000)
(230,000)
(211,000)
(190,000)
(190,000)
(190,000)
(190,000)
0.152
0.152
0.110
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.077
0.077
0.077
0.077
(83,000)
(83,000)
(60,000)
(43,000)
(43,000)
(43,000)
(43,000)
(42,000)
(42,000)
(42,000)
(42,000)
c.
CONSTRUCTING A SECOND COMPLETE REFINERY
Occasionally a refiner may feel the need to expand production,
but it may not be economically practical to replace or modify
process equipment within the existing refinery. If sufficient
space exists on site, a new refinery may be constructed to take
advantage of the existing support facilities. Typical example
of such a case is the Sohio refinery in Lima, Ohio.
72Personal communication with Mr. Murphy, Cities Service Oil
Company, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 1 July 1976.
56
-------
Table 19 lists the atmospheric and vacuum distillation capacities
from 1965 to 1975 for this refinery,55 and shows that in 1970 the
capacity of its vacuum distillation unit was increased from 0.020
n3/s (11,000 b/sd) to 0.087 m3/s (47,500 b/sd). This change in
rapacity occurred when a new refinery, with a vacuum distillation
rapacity of approximately 0.083 m3/s (45,000 b/sd), went on stream
lear the existing refinery within the same battery limits.55
TABLE 19. ATMOSPHERIC AND VACUUM DISTILLATION CAPACITY FOR
THE SOHIO OIL COMPANY, 1965-19751~l*'6°~7°
Year
Capacity
Atmospheric distillation
m3/s (b/sd)
Vacuum distillation
m3/s
(b/sd)
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
0.325
0.325
0.322
0.284
0.265
0.265
0.109
0.109
0.105
0.104
0.092
(177,000)
(177,000)
(175,000)
(154,500)
(144,000)
(144,000)
(59,600)
(59,600)
(57,500)
(56,500)
(50,000)
0.093
0.093
0.093
0.093
0.087
0.087
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
(51,000)
(51,000)
(51,000)
(51,000)
(47,500)
(47,500)
(11,000)
(11,000)
(11,000)
(11,000)
(11,000)
57
-------
REFERENCES
1. Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 74 (13):124-156, 1976.
2. Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 73(14):96-118, 1975.
3. Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 72 (13):82-103, 1974.
4. Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 71(14):99-121, 1973.
5. Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 70 (13):135-156, 1972.
6. Cantrell, A. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 69(12):93-120, 1971.
7.. Lotven, C. Annual refining suj.ve_y. The Oil and Gas Journal,
68(14):115-141, 1970.
8. Stormont, D. H. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 67(12):115-134, 1969.
9. Stormont, D. H. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 66(14):130-153, 1968.
10. Stormont, D. H. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 65(14):183-203, 1967.
11. Stormont, D. H. Annual refining survey. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 64 (13):152-171, 1966.
12. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the
United States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1,
1975. 17 pp.
13. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the
United States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1,
1974. 21 pp.
58
-------
14. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1973. 15 pp.
15. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1972. .15 pp.
16. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1971. 15 pp.
17. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1970. 15 pp.
18. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1969. 15 pp.
19. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1968. 15 pp.
20. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1967. 13 pp.
21. Mineral Industry Surveys. Petroleum Refineries in the United
States and Puerto Rico. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1966. 11 pp.
22. Laster, L. L. Atmospheric Emissions from the Petroleum Re-
fining Industry. EPA-650/2-73-017 (PB 225 040/5), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, August 1973. 58 pp.
23. Nack, N., K. Murthy, E. Stambaugh, H. Carlton, and G. R.
Smithson, Jr. Development of an Approach to Identification
of Emerging Technology and Demonstration Opportunities. EPA-
650/2-74-048 (PB 233 646), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May 1974.
273 pp.
24. The Cost of Clean Water. Vol. Ill, Industrial Waste Profile
No. 5, Petroleum Refining. FWPCA Publication No. I.W.P.-5
(PB 218 222), U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., November 1967. 197 pp.
25. Benedict, Q. E. The Technique of Vacuum Still Operation.
Petroleum Refiner, 31 (1):103-106 , 1952.
59
-------
26. Final Report - A Program to Investigate Various Factors in
Refinery Siting, Revised Edition. Submitted to Council on
Environmental Quality and Environmental Protection Agency by
Radian Corporation (Radian Contract # 100-029), Austin, Texas,
24 July 1974. 620 pp.
27. Petroleum Refinery Processes. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia
of Chemical Technology, Second Edition, Vol. 15. Inter-
science Publishers, New York, New York, 1968. pp. 1-76.
28. Foster Wheeler Corporation. Crude Distillation, Two Stage
Vacuum. Petroleum Refiner, 39(9):279, 1960.
29. Dickerman, J. C., R. D. Raye, and J. D. Colley. The Petro-
leum Refining Industry. EPA Order No. 5-02-5609B, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 20 May 1975. 139 pp.
30. Foster Wheeler Corporation. Crude Distillation, Three Stages.
Hydrocarbon Processing, 45 (9) : 271, 1966.
31. Foster Wheeler Corporation. Crude Distillation. Hydrocarbon
Processing, 53(9):106, 1974.
32. Wharton, G. W., and E. P. Hardin. Three Stage Unit Improves
Crude Split. Petroleum Refiner, 37 (10):105-108, 1958.
33. Nelson, W. L. Petroleum Refinery Engineering, Fourth Edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1958. pp. 252-
261.
34. Nelson, W. L. Questions on Technology: Noncondensable Gases
Handled During Vacuum Distillation. The Oil and Gas Journal,
49:100, April 5, 1951.
35. Jones, H. R. Pollution Control in the Petroleum Industry.
Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1973. 322 pp.
36. Hydrocarbon Emissions from Refineries. Publication No. 928.
American Petroleum Institute, Committee on Refinery Environ-
mental Control, Washington, D.C., July 1973. 63 pp.
37. Thomson, S. J. Techniques for reducing refinery wastewater.
The Oil and Gas Journal, 68 (40):93-98, 1970.
38. Monroe, E. S. Vacuum pumps can conserve energy. The Oil
and Gas Journal, 73 (5):126-128, 1975.
3-9. Burklin, C. E. , E. C. Cavanaugh, J. C. Dickerman, S. R.
Fernandes, and G. C. Wilkins. Control of Hydrocarbon Emis-
sions from Petroleum Liquids. EPA-600/2-75-042 (PB 246 650),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, September 1975. 245 pp.
60
-------
40. Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refineries. A Guide
for Measurement and Control. Public Health Service Publi-
cation No. 763 (PB 198 096), U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C., 1960. 56 pp.
41. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Publication
No. AP-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1975. pp. 9.1-1 to
9.1-8.
42. Emissions to the Atmosphere from Petroleum Refineries in Los
Angeles County. Final Report No. 9, Joint District, Federal
and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions.
Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles,
California, 1958. 136 pp.
43. Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume on Atmospheric
Emissions, Chapter 7 - Hydrocarbon Emissions. Publication
No. 931. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.,
February 1976. pp. 7-1 to 7-17.
44. Personal communication with R. Fritz, Exxon Chemical Company,
Florham Park, New Jersey, 3 May 1976.
45. Personal communication with A. Stesani, Foster Wheeler Cor-
poration, New York, New York, May 1976.
46. Personal communication with P. Hess, Bay Area Air Pollution
District, San Francisco, California, 1 April 1976.
47. Emissions to the Atmosphere from Eight Miscellaneous Sources
in Oil Refineries. Report No. 8, Joint District, Federal
and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions.
Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles,
California, June 1958. 51 pp.
48. Halper, M. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Petroleum Refining Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-014-a
(PB 238 612), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., April 1974. 207 pp.
49. Nelson, W. L. Questions on Technology: What is an Econom-
ical Vacuum to Use. The Oil and Gas Journal, 54:171-172,
May 14, 1956.
50. Chave, C. T. Vacuum Equipment in the Oil Refinery. Refiner
and Natural Gasoline Manufacturer, 15(2):45-50, 1936.
51. .Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, J. A.
Danielson, ed. Publication No. AP-40, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
May 1973. 987 pp.
61
-------
52. Sims, A. V. Field Surveillance and' Enforcement Guide for.
Petroleum Refineries. EPA-450/3-74-042 (PB 236 669), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, July 1974. 369 pp.
53. Hopper, T. G., and W. A. Marrone. Impact of New Source
Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions from
Stationary Sources, Volume I. EPA Contract 68-02-1382,
Task 3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
. Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 24, 1975. 178 pp;
54. Refining. Section VIII in: Basic Petroleum Data Book,
Petroleum Industry Statistics. American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C., October 1975.
55. Personal communication with P. Tranquill, Sohio Oil Refinery,
Lima, Ohio, 24 June 1976.
56. Personal communication with J. Gurawitz, Standard Oil Company,
Chicago, Illinois, 2 July 1976.
57. Personal communication with Mr. Reed, Edgington Oil Company,
Long Beach, California, 2 July 1976.
58. Personal communication with Mr. Brooks, Texaco Oil Company,
Westville, New Jersey, 2 July 1976.
59. Personal communication with J. Sullivan, Standard Oil Company
of Kentucky, Pascagoula, Mississippi, 1 July 1976.
60. World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, 54(10, Section 2):3-16, 1975.
61. World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Process-
ing 53(10, Section 2):3-12, 1974.
62. World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Process-
ing 52(10, Section 2):3-10, 1973.
63. World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, 51(10, Section 2):3-10, 1972.
64. World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, 50(10, Section 2):7-15, 1971.
65. World-Wide HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Process-
ing, 49(10, Section 2):CR-5 to CR-18, 1970.
66. HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Processing, 48(10,
Section 2):CR-13 to CR-25, 1969.
62
-------
67. HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Processing, 46(9,
Section 2):CR-9 to CR-28, 1968.
68. HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Processing, 46(9,
Section 2):56-68, 1967.
69. HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Processing, 45(9,
Section 2):75-88, 1966.
70. HPI Construction Boxscore. Hydrocarbon Processing, 44(9,
Section 2):56-68, 1965.
71. Personal communication with Mr. Harbison, Amoco Oil Company
Whiting, Indiana, 1 July 1976.
72. Personal communication with Mr. Murphy, Cities Service Oil
Company, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 1 July 1976.
63
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the revene before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-76-040
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Screening Study for Vacuum Distillation Units
in Petroleum Refineries
6 REPORT DATE
December 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
T. E. Ctvrtnicek, Z. S. Khan, J. L. Delaney
and D. E. Barley
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
MRC-DA-597
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1320, Task 24
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE Or REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, 3-1-76 to 6-30-76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer: Kent C. Hustvedt
16. ABSTRACT
This program developed background information on vacuum distillation and
used that information to estimate the expected atmospheric emission reduc-
tion of potential new source performance standards (NSPS) for the petro-
leum refining industry. The potential of available methods to reduce
hydrocarbon emissions from refinery vacuum distillation units is discussed
A summary of available air pollution regulations is presented. If no new
source performance standards are established, hydrocarbon emissions from
vacuum distillation could increase to 12.87 - 14.50 Gg/yr by 1985. Should
new performance standards go into effect, these 1985 emissions could be
limited to 7.61 Gg/yr.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1320,
Task 24, by Monsanto Research Corporation under the sponsorship of the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from
1 March 1976 to 30 June 1976, and work was completed as of 30 June 1976.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Control Equipment
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum Refining
Vacuum Distillation
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Hydrocarbon Emission
Control
c. COSATI Kield/Group
13 B
14 B
07 C
13 H
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Rrpnrt/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
73
20 SECURITY CLASS (Thttpage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-7J)
64
------- |