EPA-450/3-76-041
December 1976

            SCREENING STUDY
                             FOR
    MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
            OF HYDROCARBON
                      EMISSIONS
 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-450/3-76-041
        SCREENING STUDY
FOR MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
 OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
  IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES
                     bv
           R.F. Boland, T.E. Ctvrtnicek. J.L. Delaney,
               D.E. Earley,and Z.S. Khan

             Monsanto Research Corporation
                 1515 Nicholas Road
                 Davton, Ohio 45407
                Contract No. 68-02-1320
                   Task No. 23
            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. 23.  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 Protec-
tion Agency.  Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
                     Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-041
                                 11

-------
                            ABSTRACT
Background information on miscellaneous sources of hydrocarbons
in the petroleum refineries is summarized.  The information is
used to estimate the expected atmospheric emission reduction of
potential new source performance standards (NSPS)  for the petro-
leum refining industry.  Miscellaneous sources of emissions in-
cluded in the study were pipeline valves and flanges, pressure
relief valves, blowdown systems, pump and compressor seals, and
process drains and wastewater separators.  Additionally, the
background information includes a general review of the petroleum
refining industry, a discussion of pertinent emission control
methods, and a summary of pertinent available air pollution regu-
lations.

New source performance standards requiring application of best
available control technology will result in an estimated 1985
hydrocarbon emission level of 750 Gg/yr, a reduction of 67%
from 1985 emissions estimates for a condition of no controls
and a reduction of 41% from 1985 emissions estimated under appli-
cation of existing state regulations to both new and existing
sources.
                                111

-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
Figures
Tables



Acknowledgment
I
II
III




IV









V






Introduction
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Petroleum Refining Industry
A. General Descriptions of the Petroleum Refin-
ing Industry
B. Refining Process
C. Refining Process Utilization
D. Current Trends in Refining Capacity
Miscellaneous Sources of Hydrocarbon Emissions
A. Introduction
B. . Source Descriptions
1. Valves
2. Flanges
3. Pressure Relief Valves
4. Slowdown Systems
5. Pumps
6. Compressors
7. Process Drains and Wastewater Separators
Best Available Control Technology
A. Valves
B. Flanges
C. Pressure Relief Valves and Slowdown Systems
D. Pump and Compressor Seals
E. Process Drains and Wastewater Separators
F. Refinery Maintenance
iii
vii
viii
X
1
2
4
4
4
5
5
16
16
19
19
21
22
26
27
30
33
34
34
36
36
37
38
39
     V

-------
                      CONTENTS (continued)


VI        Air Pollution Regulations                            40

VII       Estimated Emission Reduction                         44

          A.   Industrial Prime Variables                      44

               1.   Normal Fractional Utilization, "K"         44

               2.   Production Capacity, "A"                   45

               3.   Increase in Industrial Capacity Over
                    Baseline Year Capacity - P                 45
               4.   Replacement Rate of Obsolete Production
                    Capacity - P,                               47

          B.   Emission Factors                                49

               1.   Uncontrolled Emission Factor - E           49

               2.   Controlled Emission Factor - E             49
                                                  n
               3.   Estimated Allowable Emissions Under
                    1975 Regulations - E                       49

          C.   Intermediate Variables                          50

               1.   Production Capacity from Construction and
                    Modification to Replace Obsolete
                    Facilities - B                             50

               2.   Production Capacity from Construction
                    and Modification - C                       50

               3.   Total Emissions in Baseline Year  (1975)
                    Under Baseline Year Regulations - Ta       50
               4.   Total Emissions in 1985 Assuming No
                    Control - TU                               50

               5.   Emissions in 1985 Under Baseline Year
                    Control Regulations - T                    51
                                           s
               6.   Emissions in 1985 Under New or Revised
                    Standards of Performance - T               51
                                                n
          D.   Summary of Emission Reduction                   51

VIII      Modification and Reconstruction                      54

References                                                     55

Appendices
          A.   Summary of Petroleum Refineries in the
               United States                                   60

          B.   Number of Miscellaneous Sources for Some
               Refineries and Refinery Operations              75

          C.   Regulations for the State of Colorado,
               Miscellaneous Source Emissions                  79

                                vi

-------
                             FIGURES
Number                                                      Page
  1       Block flow diagram of typical petroleum refinery
            operation                                        10
  2       Typical packed seal configuration                  28
  3       Typical mechanical seal configurations             29
  4       Liquid-film shaft seal with cylindrical bushing    32
  5       Basic elements of flare gas recovery system        37
  6       Dual shaft seal with barrier fluid                 38
  7       Petroleum refining production capacity,
            1965-1975                                        46
  8       Refinery obsolete capacity 1966-1975               48
  9       Applicability of NSPS to construction and
           .modification                                     53
                                VII

-------
                             TABLES
Number                                                      Pac
  1       Summary of Refinery Operations                      6
  2       Utilization of Refining Processes                  11
  3       Summary of January 1976 Refineries and Crude
            Throughput by State                              12
  4       Operating Refineries and Crude Throughput,
            1965-1975                                        13
  5       Refinery Obsolescence Rate for the Period
            1965 to 1975                                     15
  6       EPA Recommended Emission Factors for Petroleum
            Refineries                                       16
  7       Miscellaneous Hydrocarbon Emissions from
            Petroleum Refineries                             18
  8       Contribution of Miscellaneous Hydrocarbon Emis-
            sions from Petroleum Refining to National
            Hydrocarbon Emissions                            18
  9       Summary of Pipeline Valve Testing                  20
 10       Pressure Relief Valve Inventory                    23
 11       Summary of Pressure Relief Valve Testing           24
 12       Summary of Refinery Pump Survey                    30
 13       Los Angeles Refinery Compressor Census             31
 14       Summary of Refinery Compressor Emission Testing    31
 15       Summary of Best Available Technology for Control
            of Miscellaneous Sources of Hydrocarbon Emis-
            sions in Petroleum Refining Industry             35
 16       Units Identified as Leaking in Los Angeles
            County Refineries                         .       39
 17       Summary of State Air Pollution Regulations         41
 18       Emission Reduction Under State Regulations and
            Best Available Control Technology                42
 19       1976 Refinery Throughput Affected by State
            Regulations                                      43
 20       Refinery Obsolete Capacity                         47
                               Vlll

-------
                       TABLES (continued)

Number                                                      Page

  21      Estimated Emissions Under Current State Emis-
            sion Regulations (National Basis)                49

  22      Summary of Estimated Emission Reduction            52

  23      Percent Reduction Over Uncontrolled Emissions
            Through Application of Control Technology, 1985  53

 A-l      Survey of Operating Refineries in the U.S. as of
            1 January 1976                                   62

 B-l      Quantity of Pumps and Compressors, Atmosphere-
            Vented Pressure Relief Valves, and Valves
            for Refinery A                                   76

 B-2      Quantity of Pumps and Compressors, Atmosphere-
            Vented Pressure Relief Valves, and Valves
            for Refinery B                                   77

 B-3      Quantity of Pumps and Compressors, Atmosphere-
            Vented Pressure Relief Valves, and Valves
            for Refinery C                                   78
                                IX

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge cooperation of Exxon Research
and Engineering, Florham Park, New Jersey, and The Standard Oil
Company of Ohio, Lima, Ohio.  Assistance in summarization of
state standards and regulations by the Rossnagel & Associates,
Inc., Cherry Hill, New Jersey, is also acknowledged.

-------
                            SECTION I

                          INTRODUCTION
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act charges the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency with the responsibility of
establishing Federal standards of performance for new stationary
sources which may significantly contribute to air pollution.
These new source performance standards (NSPS) will reflect the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application
of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account
the cost of achieving such reduction)  the administrator determines
has been adequately demonstrated.

This document identifies available data to allow determination of
the emission levels that can be achieved with the most effective
demonstrated control systems, and estimates the emission reductions
that would result through promulgation of new source performance
standards for miscellaneous sources of hydrocarbon emissions in
petroleum refineries.  Miscellaneous sources of hydrocarbon emis-
sions were defined for the purposes of this study as pipeline
valves and flanges, pressure relief valves, blowdown systems, pump
and compressor seals, and process drains and wastewater separators.

-------
                           SECTION II

                 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


New source performance standards requiring application of best
available control technology to the miscellaneous sources con-
sidered in this study will result in an estimated 1985 hydrocar-
bon emission level of 740 Gg/yr (8.16 x 105 tons/yr),  a reduction
of 67% from 1985 emissions estimates for a condition of no cor-
trols and a reduction of 41% from 1985 emissions estimated under
application of existing state regulations to both new and existing
sources.

Technology currently exists for control of hydrocarbon emissions
from miscellaneous sources.  The best available control tech-
nologies include:  improved maintenance and use of best available
packing materials for valve stem emissions, closed manifold sys-
tems for pressure relief valve and blowdown system emissions,
dual seals with barrier fluids for pumps and compressor seal
emissions, and liquid traps used in conjunction with sealed sewer
openings and covered wastewater separators for process drain sys-
tems.  Estimated efficiencies for these technologies are 50%, 98%,
98%, and 90%, respectively.  These technologies are currently being
employed in petroleum refineries and the chemical process industries
for a number of reasons, including product recovery, plant safety
and hygiene, and air pollution control.

An extensive review of the literature and contact with represen-
tatives of petroleum refining companies and equipment vendors
indicated that little effort is currently being made by industry
to quantify emissions from miscellaneous sources of hydrocarbon
emissions.  The emission factors currently employed by EPA are
based on refining technology, equipment, and practices of the late
1950's.  These factors are being employed by both industry and
air pollution agencies to estimate emissions from miscellaneous
sources, with little or no modification to reflect current refin-
ery equipment, technology, and practices.  Therefore,  a need exists
to determine the adequacy of these emission factors for estimation
of miscellaneous source emissions in light of current refining
technology and equipment.  At a minimum, emissions from refinery
equipment employing both the control technologies mentioned above
and those technologies prescribed by state regulations should be
determined in order that more realistic and defensible estimates
of both emissions and achievable emissions reductions can be formed.

-------
urrent state air pollution regulations are not adequate to ensure
hat emission reduction will be achieved even if the regulations
re implemented.  This arises from a lack of specificity in re-
uired control device performance.  It is recommended that new
ource performance standards, if formulated, specify equipment or
laterials of prescribed performance.

-------
                           SECTION III

                 THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY


A.   GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY

The petroleum refining industry is involved primarily in the
conversion of crude oil into more than 2,500 products including
liquefied petroleum gas, gasoline, kerosene, aviation fuel, die-
sel fuel, a variety of fuel oils, lubricating oils, and feedstock
for the petrochemical industry.1  Petroleum refinery activities
start with crude oil storage and terminate with storage of the
refined products.

B.   REFINING PROCESS

A petroleum refinery is a complex combination of interdependent
operations and processes, which can be divided into six major
groups:

     1.   Storage; e.g., of crude oil, intermediates, and
          final products

     2.   Fractionation; e.g., distillative separation and
          vacuum fractionation

     3.   Decomposition; e.g., thermal cracking, catalytic
          cracking, and hydrocracking

     4.   Hydrocarbon rebuilding and rearrangement; e.g.,
          polymerization, alkylation, reforming, and
          isomerization

     5.   Extraction; e.g., solvent refining, and solvent
          dewaxing

     6.   Product finishing; e.g., drying and sweetening,
          lube oil finishing, blending, and packaging
ioickerman, J. C., T. 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.

-------
Twenty separate operations have been selected as the fundamental
steps for production of final products from crude oil.  They are
presented in Table I,2 with brief definitions, in a sequence as
close to a refinery process flow as such a complex combination
permits.  Figure 1 is a block flow diagram of typical petroleum
refining operations.3

C.   REFINING PROCESS UTILIZATION

The degree of application or use of the various fundamental re-
finery processes and subprocesses is prerequisite to the develop-
ment of any meaningful industry profile.  Since an exhaustive
compilation of every process in every refinery would be imprac-
tical, the analysis of process utilization in this report is
confined to the major subprocess alternatives under each of the
selected processes.  Table 22 summarizes the trend in the refinery
process utilization between the years 1950 and 1972 and estimates
the trend for the year 1977.

In a number of cases, the fundamental process figure and the sum
of the listed subprocesses do not agree.  There are two reasons
for such apparent discrepancies.  A single refinery may use two
or more subprocesses in a given fundamental process area, such as
Thermal Cracking, or all the applicable subprocesses may not be
listed; e.g., Hydrotreating, which comprises many alternatives.

D.   CURRENT TRENDS IN REFINING CAPACITY

As of 1 January 1976, 256 refineries, with a total throughput of
28.9 m3/s  (15,687,321 bbl/sd)a were operating in the United States
This January 1976 refinery count and production capacities are
presented for each state in Table 3.4  A detailed state listing
of refineries, and refining operations production capacities, is
presented in Appendix A.
 Barrels per stream day.


2The Cost of Clean Water.  Vol. Ill, Industrial Waste Profile
 No. 5, Petroleum Refining.  PWPCA Publication No. I.W.P.-5
 (PB 218 222), U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
 November 1967.  197 pp.
3Atmospheric Emissions From Petroleum Refineries; A Guide for
 Measurement and Control, PHS-Publication 763  (PB 198 096) .
 Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio.  Division of Air Pollu-
 tion, 1960.  64 pp.
^Cantrell, A.  Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas Journal,
 74(13):124-156, 1976.

-------
                                    TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF REFINERY OPERATIONS2
         Operation
                                 Description
   Crude Oil and
     Product Storage
   Crude Desalting
   Crude Oil Fractionation
CTi
   Thermal Cracking
   Catalytic Cracking
Tanks of varying size are used to provide adequate supplies of crude oils for
primary fractionation runs of economical duration, to equalize process flows and
provide feedstocks for intermediate processing units, and to store final products
prior to shipment in adjustment to market demands.  Water separates out during
storage and is drawn off to the sewer.
Electrostatic and chemical processes are used for removing inorganic salts and
suspended solids from crude oil prior to fractionation.  The crude oil is mixed-
with water to form an emulsion, which is broken by the action of an electrosta-
tic field or specific demulsifying chemicals; the water sequesters the salts and
other impurities from the crude oil, settles out, and is discharged to the sewer.
                          *
This is done by distillation where the heated crude oil is separated into light
overhead products, such as:  gases and gasoline; kerosene, heating oil, gas oil,
lube oil and other sidestream distillate cuts; and reduced crude bottom products.
The trend is toward more complex combinations of atmospheric and vacuum towers
with more individual sidestream products.  The crude oil fractionation still or
stills provide feedstock for the downstream processing units and also some final
products.

Thermal cracking operations may include visbreaking and coking as well as regular
thermal cracking.  In each of these operations heavy oil fractions are broken
down into lighter fractions such as domestic heating oil, catalyst cracking stock,
etc., by the action of heat and pressure; heavy fuels or coke are produced from
the uncracked residue.  Regular thermal cracking, which was an important process
before the development of catalytic cracking is being phased out, but visbreaking
and coking units are installed in a significant number of refineries, and their
application is expected to increase.
Like thermal cracking, the catalytic cracking process breaks heavy fractions,
principally gas oils, into lighter fractions.  Catalytic cracking is the key pro-
cess in production of large volumes of high-octane gasoline stocks; furnace oils
and other useful middle distillates are also produced.  The use of a catalyst
permits operations at lower temperatures and pressures than with thermal cracking
and inhibits the formation of undesirable polymerized products.  Fluidized
catalytic cracking processes, in which the finely-powdered catalyst is handled as
a fluid, have largely replaced the fixed-bed and moving bed processes, which use
a beaded or pelleted catalyst.
                                                   (continued)

-------
                                           TABLE 1.   (continued)
      Operation
                                 Description
Hydrocracking
Reforming
Polymerization
Alkylation
Isomerization
Solvent Refining
Hydrocracking is basically catalytic cracking  in the presence -of hydrogen with
lower temperatures and higher pressures than fluid catalytic cracking.  The pro-
ducts are similar to catalytic cracking, but hydrocracking has greater flexibility
in adjusting operations to meet changing product demands.  It is one of the most
rapidly growing refinery processes.

Reforming is a molecular rearrangement process to convert low-octane feedstocks
to high-octane gasoline blending stock or to produce aromatics for petrochemical
uses.  Multi-reactor, fixed-bed catalytic processes have almost completely re-
placed the older thermal process.  There are many variations, but the essential,
and frequently the only difference, is the composition of the catalyst involved.

Polymerization is a process to convert olefin  feedstocks  (primarily propylene)
into a higher molecular weight polymer gasoline.  This is a marginal process be-
cause the product octane is not sufficiently higher than that of the basic gaso-
line blending stocks to provide much help in up-grading the overall motor fuel
pool, and because alkylation yields.per unit of olefin feed are much better than
polymerization yields.  Consequently, the current polymerization downtrend is
expected to continue.
Alkylation involves the reaction of an isoparaffin  (usually isobutane) and an
olefin (propylene, butylene, etc.) in the presence of a catalyst to produce a
high octane alkylate, which is one of the most important components of automotive
fuels.  Sulfuric acid is the most widely used  catalyst, although hydrofluoric
acid and aluminum chloride are also used.  Alkylation process capacity is ex-
pected to continue to increase with the demand for high-octane gasoline.

Isomerization is another molecular rearrangement process very similar to reform-
ing.  The charge stocks generally are lighter and more specific (normal butane,
pentane,  and hexane).  The desired products are isobutane for alkylation feed-
stocks and high-octane isomers of the original feed materials for motor fuel.

Operations here include a large number of alternative subprocesses designed to ob-
tain high-grade lubrication oil stocks or aromatics, from feedstpcks containing
naphthenic, acidic, organo-metallic or other undesirable materials.  Basically, it
is a solvent extraction process dependent on the differential solubilities of the
desirable and undesirable components of the feedstock.  The principal steps are
countercurrent solvent extraction, separation of solvent product by heating and
fractionation, removal of traces of solvent from the product, and solvent recovery.
                                                 (continued)

-------
                                                TABLE 1.  (continued)
          Operation
                                 Description
    Dewaxing
    Hydrotreating
oo
    Deasphalting
    Drying and Sweetening
Dewaxing is removal of wax from lube oil stocks, generally after deasphalting and
solvent refining to produce lubricants with low pour points, and to recover micro-
crystalline wax.  Except for Pressing and Sweating, a strictly physical process
now used very little, the various dewaxing processes use solvents,  (principally
methyl ethyl ketone, MEK) to promote wax crystallization.  Solvent is introduced
into the waxy distillate stream at selected points in chilling equipment, and the
wax is recovered in vacuum filters.  Through selection of feedstocks and variation
of operating conditions the emphasis can be shifted from dewaxing of a lube oil
stock to deoiling of a wax stock.

Hydrotreating is a process for the removal of sulfur compounds, odor, color and
gum-forming materials, and other impurities from a wide variety of petroleum frac-
tions by catalytic action in the presence of hydrogen.  In most subprocesses the
feedstock is mixed with hydrogen, heated, and charged to the catalytic reactor.
The reactor products are cooled, and the hydrogen, impurities, and high grade
products are separated.  Hydrotreating was originally applied to blending feed-
stocks, but with more operating experience and improved catalysts, it has been
applied to increasingly heavy fractions such as lube oils and waxes.  Along with
hydrocracking, it is one of the most rapidly growing refinery processes.

Deasphalting involves removal of asphalt or resins from viscous hydrocarbon frac-
tions, such as reduced crude, to produce stocks suitable for subsequent lube-oil
or catalytic cracking processes.  This is a solvent extraction process, generally
with propane as the solvent for the asphaltic materials.  After contacting pro-
pane and the pipe still bottom products or other heavy stock in an extraction
tower, the deasphalted oil overhead and asphaltic bottom products are processed
to remove and recover propane.
This is a relatively broad process category which primarily involves removal of
sulfur compounds, water, and other impurities from gasoline, kerosene, jet fuels,
domestic heating oils, and other middle distillate products.  "Sweetening" pertains
to the removal of hydrogen sulfide, mercaptans and elemental sulfur, which impart
a foul odor and/or decrease the tetraethyl lead susceptibility of gasoline.  The
major sweetening operations are oxidation of mercaptans to disulfides, removal of
mercaptans, and destruction and removal of all sulfur compounds  (and elemental
sulfur).  Drying is accomplished by salt filtcrc or adsorptive clay beds.  Elec-
tric fields are sometimes used to facilitate separation of the product and the
treating solution.
                                                    (continued)

-------
                                         TABLE 1.  (continued)
      Operation
                                 Description
Wax Manufacture
Grease Manufacture
Lube Oil Finishing
Blending and Packaging
Hydrogen Manufacture
The current widely used fractionation process for production of paraffin  (and at
times microcrystalline) waxes of low oil content is similar in most respects to
MEK Dewaxing.  The principal differences are the selection of a solvent or solvent
mixture more suitable to the crystallization and separation of paraffin wax, and
a more complicated crystallization-filtration flow involving redissolving and
recrystallization.
This process for the manufacture of various lubricating greases involves prepara-
tion of a soap base from an alkali earth hydroxide and a fatty acid, followed by
addition of oil and special additives.  The major equipment consists of an oil
circulation heater, a high-dispersion contactor, a scraper kettle, and a grease
polisher.  Because of developments in sealed grease fittings and longer lasting
greases, grease production is expected to continue to decline.
Solvent refined and dewaxed lube-oil stocks are further refined by clay or acid
treatment to remove color-reforming and other undesirable materials.  Continuous
contact filtration, in which an oil-clay slurry is heated and the oil removed by
vacuum filtration, and percolation filtration, wherein the oil is filtered through
clay beds, are the most widely used subprocesses.  Percolation also involves
naphtha washing and kiln-burning of spent clay to remove carbonaceous deposits
and other impurities.

Blending is the final step in producing finished petroleum products to meet quality
specifications and market demands.  The largest volume operation is the blending
of various gasoline stocks (including alkylates and other high-octane components)
and anti-knock (tetraethyl lead), anti-rust, anti-icing, and other additives.  Diesel
fuels, lube-oils, waxes, and asphalts are other refinery products which normally
involve blending of various components and/or additives.  Packaging at refineries
is generally highly automated and restricted to high-volume, consumer-oriented
products such as motor oils.
The rapid growth of hydrotreating and hydrocracking has increased the newer re-
fineries ' demand for hydrogen beyond the level of by-product hydrogen available
from reforming and other refinery processes.  Hydrogen is also in demand as a
feedstock for ammonia and methanol manufacture.  The most widely used subprocess
is steam reforming, in which desulfurized refinery gases are converted to hydro-
gen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide in a catalytic reaction; generally there
is an additional shift converter to convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide.

-------
                                                                              DRY GAS
                     WET GAS
CRUDE
 OIL
                   LIGHT NAPHTHA
                                                                                       POLY GASOLINE
                                                                           STRAIGHT RUN GASOLINE
                                                                           dJGHI HYPROCRACKED GASOLINE
                           HEAVY
                         NAPHTHA:
               MIDDLE
             DISTILLATES
                                           HYDROGEN
                                            'PLANT
                                                  HEAVY
                                              HYbROCRACKEb
                                                GBOUNt
            HEAVY GAS OIL
                     HYDROGEN SULFIDE'
                CRACKED GAS
CATALYTIC
GASOLfNE
                                                      GASOUNE
                                                      GREATER!
      CATALYTIC
        A-CKI
        ufiirt
                                                                  LIGHT FUEL OIL
          REDUCED
          CRUDE
            OIL
      CRUDE OIL
  LSEPARATJON_UNn_
LUBE DISTILLATES

 RESIDUUM
COKER GASOLINE



ASPHALT

.LUBE '
PROCESSING
t

                                                     STILL
                                                                                     FUEL GAS

                                                                                     LPGAS
                                                                                      MOTOR
                                                                                     GASOLINE
                                                                                     AVIATION
                                                                                     GASOLINE
                           OLEFINSTQ
                           CHEMICAL
                           KEROSENE
                           LIGHT FUEL OIL

                           DIESEL FUEL
;SULFUR

LUBES
WAXES
GREASES

HEAVY FUEL
   OIL

ASPHALT

COKE
         Figure  1.   Block  flow  diagram of typical  petroleum  rifinery  operation.3

-------
          TABLE 2.   UTILIZATION OF REFINING PROCESSES2
              Process
   Percentage of refineries
  utilizing process,  by year2

1950  1963  1967  1972  1977
56
45
12
4
8
4
2
0.8
0.4
60
50
10
2
25
11
8
3
1
65
60
6
0
34
15
12
3
1
Thermal cracking, all processes      59    48    45    40    35
  Thermal cracking - regular               28    18     8     1
  Coking                                   14    16    20    25
  Visbreaking                              13    16    18    22

Catalytic cracking, all processes    25    51
  Fluid catalytic cracking                 39
  Thermofor catalytic cracking             13
  Houdriflow                                3

Hydrocracking, all processes          0     2
  Isomax
  Unicracking
  H-G Hydrocracking
  H-Oil

Reforming, all processes
  Platforming
  Catalytic reforming-Engelhard
  Powerforming
  Ultraforming

Polymerization, all processes        25    42    33    26     7

Alkylation, all processes            10    38    47    54    62
  Sulfuric acid                            22    26    32    38
  HF                                       16    21    22    25

Hydrotreating, all processes               47    56    70    80
  Unifining                                22    23    30    35
  Hydrofining                               3358
  Trickle hydrodesulfurization              0.3   2     4     5
  Ultrafining                               3     5     8    10

Lube oil finishing, all processes          19    19    20    20
  Percolation filtration                   11     7     5     2
  Contin. contract filtration               6     7     7     7
  Hydrotreating                             2     5     8    11
        0.3
       62    67    74    79
       37    40    44    47
        5     9    11    12
        1233
        6678
                               11

-------
         TABLE 3.  SUMMARY OF JANUARY 1976 REFINERIES
                   AND CRUDE THROUGHPUT BY STATE^

Crude throughput*1
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
Plants
3
4
1
4
35
3
1
1
2
2
11
7
11
3
19
2
6
3
5
1
7
1
4
7
2
3
7
12
1
11
1
46
7
1
7
3
1
11
256
m3/s
0.10
0.14
0.01
.0.11
3.67
0.12
0.28
0.01
0.04
0.20
2.27
0.97
0.86
0.31
3.36
0.06
0.28
0.41
0.64
0.20
0.30
0.01
1.04
0.20
0.21
0.11
1.13
1.03
0.03
1.47
0.08
7.63
0.29
0.10
0.70
0.04
0.09
0.36
28.86
(bbl/sd)
(53,000)
(78,158)
(4,211)
(62,425)
(1,993,503)
(65,000)
(150,000)
(6,000)
(19,400)
(107,000)
(1,232,958)
(527,300)
(486,940)
(169,500)
(1,827,031)
(31,211)
(151,395)
(223,905)
(346,842)
(108,000)
(164,016)
(5,500)
(562,764)
(106,305)
(114,500)
(60,163)
(614,500)
(559,719)
(14,737)
(796,415)
(44,800)
(4,144,778)
(158,878)
(55,000)
(383,105)
(20,200)
(46,800)
(194,557)
(15,687,321)
m3/sb
0.09
0.14
0.01
0.11
3.50
0.11
0.26
0.01
0.03
0.19
2.16
1.03
0.83
0.30
3.23
0.05
0.27
0.40
0.61
0.20
0.29
0.01
0.99
0.19
0.20
0.11
1.09
1.00
0.03
1.39
0.08
7.30
0.28
0.10
0.68
0.04
0.08
0.34
27.73
(bbl/cd)
(49,875)
(74,250)
(4,000)
(60,786)
(1,903,935)
(62,125)
(140,000)
(5,700)
(18,000)
(101,750)
(1,176,050)
(561,160)
(451,180)
(164,000)
(1,753,095)
(28,500)
(147,200)
(216,800)
(329,500)
(107,000)
(156,181)
(5,000)
(539,000)
(104,230)
(111,385)
(58,658)
(589,770)
(545,775)
(14,000)
(757,020)
(43,900)
(3,966,330)
(152,000)
(53,000)
(366,900)
(19,450)
(45,400)
(187,340)
(15,074,845)

Calendar-day (cd) figures were converted to a stream-day  (sd)
basis, using a factor of 0.95 for crude and vacuum units, and a
factor of 0.09 conversion for all other purities.
Values have been rounded.
                               12

-------
The total number of U.S. refineries and throughput for the period
between 1965 and 1975 is presented in Table 4.1+~1't  Over this
period, crude throughput has increased at an average compound
rate of 3.9% per year.

      TABLE 4.  OPERATING REFINERIES AND CRUDE THROUGHPUT,
                1965 -



Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

Operating
refineries
265
261
269
263
262
253
247
247
247
259
256
Crude


m3/s
19.7
20.2
21.5
22.2
23.3
24.5
25.2
25.8
27.4
28.5
28.9
throughput


(bbl/sd)
(10,721,550)
(10,952,495)
(11,657,975)
(12,079,201)
(12,651,375)
(13,284,985)
(13,709,442)
(13,991,580)
(14,876,650)
(15,463,650)
(15,687,321)


 5Cantrell, A.  Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas Journal,
  73(14):96-118, 1975.
 6Cantrell, A.  Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas Journal,
  72(13):82-103, 1974.
 7Cantrell, A.  Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas Journal,
  71(14):99-121, 1973.

 8Cantrell, A.  Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas Journal,
  70(13):135-156, 1972.
 9Cantrell, A.  Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas Journal,
  69(12):93-120, 1971.
10Lotven, C.  Annual Refining  Survey.  The Oil  and Gas  Journal,
  68(14):115-141, 1970.

•^Stormont, D. H.  Annual  Refining  Survey.  The Oil and Gas
  Journal,. 67(12) :115-134,  1969.
12Stormont, D. H.  Annual  Refining  Survey.  The Oil and Gas
  Journal, 66 (14) :130-153,  1968.
13Stormont, D. H.  Annual  Refining  Survey.  The Oil and Gas
  Journal, 65(14):183-203,  1967.

14Stormont, D. H.  Annual  Refining  Survey.  The Oil and Gas
  Journal, 64 (13) :152-171,  1966.

                                 13

-------
Obsolescence rates of refinery crude capacity for the period
1965 to 1975 are presented in Table 5 in terms of the percent of
total operable crude capacity determined to be inoperable and
requiring extensive reconditioning for the year specified.15"24
Obsolete capacity ranged from 0.32% in 1969 to 1.58% of total
operable crude capacity in 1968, with an average value of 1.02%
of total operable crude capacity for the ten-year period.
15Mineral Industry Surveys.  Petroleum Refineries in the United
  States and Puerto Rico.  U.S. Department of the Interior,
  Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1 January 1975.  17 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., 1 January 1974.  21 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., 1 January 1973.  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., 1 January 1972.  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., 1 January 1971.  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., 1 January 1970.  15 pp.

21Mineral Industry Surveys.  Petroleum Refineries in the United
  States and Puerto Rico.  U.S. Department of the Interior,
  Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1 January 1969.  15 pp.

22Mineral Industry Surveys.  Petroleum Refineries in the United
  States and Puerto Rico.  U.S. Department of the Interior,
  Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1 January 1968.  15 pp.

23Mineral Industry Surveys.  Petroleum Refineries in the United
  States and Puerto Rico.  U.S. Department of the Interior,
  Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1 January 1967.  13 pp.

21
-------
TABLE 5.  REFINERY OBSOLESCENCE RATE FOR
          THE PERIOD 1965 to 197515~2lf
              Obsolescence rate,3
        Year  .         %
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
0.34
0.95
0.95
1.58
0.32
0.44
1.24
1.09
0.97
0.89
1.39

         Percent of.total oper-
         able capacity.
                     15

-------
A.
                      SECTION IV

    MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS


INTRODUCTION
Sources of hydrocarbon emission addressed in this screening .study
are the following:

               • Pipeline valves and flanges
               • Pressure relief valves
               • Slowdown systems
               • Pump seals
               • Compressor seals
               • Process drains and wastewater separators

EPA recommended factors for hydrocarbon emissions from miscella-
neous sources in petroleum refineries are presented in Table 6.25

         'TABLE 6.  EPA RECOMMENDED EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                   PETROLEUM REFINERIES25
No.
     Miscellaneous source
        (uncontrolled)
Hydrocarbon emission factor
     refining capacity

kg/103 liter   (lb/103 bbl)
1
2
3
4
5
6

Pipeline valves and flanges
Vessel relief valves
Pump seals
Compressor seals
Blowdown systems
Process drains and wastewater
separators
0.080
0.031
0.049
0.014
0.860
0.570

(28)
(11)
(17)
(5)
(300).
(200)°


 kg hydrocarbons/103 liters wastewater.

 Ib hydrocarbons/103 bbl wastewater.
2 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.

                                 16

-------
These emission factors were derived in an extensive survey of Los
Angeles County refineries conducted 'in the late 1950's.26"30  As
such, they represent emissions based on sampling of a limited
number of refineries employing refining technology and practices
which may be out of date by today's standards.

In order to determine the adequacy of these factors for estimating
emissions from current refining technology, extensive contacts
were made with petroleum refineries, state air pollution agencies,
trade associations, and selected equipment manufacturers, and a
rigorous review of the technical literature was undertaken.  It
was determined that the factors presented in Table 6 are univer-
sally applied and factor modifications to reflect emission control
practices or plant or process changes are rarely made.  Only in
rare instances could the sources investigated supply information
which could be used to assist in emission factor updating.

The emission factors were applied to total refinery calendar
throughput as of 1 January 1976  (7.74 m3/s [15,074,845 bbl/cd])
and 1 January 1973  (7.18 m3/s [13,991,580 bbl/cd]) to determine
total uncontrolled miscellaneous hydrocarbon emissions for re-
fineries in 1972 and 1975  (Table 7).
26Emissions 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, Cali-
  fornia, 1958.  136 pp.

27Palmer, R. K.  Hydrocarbon Losses from Valves and Flanges.
  Report No. 2,  (PB 216 682), Joint District, Federal and State
  Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions.  Air Pollu-
  tion Control .District, County of Los Angeles, California,
  March 1957.  17 pp.
28Steigerwald, B. J.  Hydrocarbon Leakage from Pressure Relief
  Valves.  Report No. 3,  (PB 216 715), Joint District, Federal
  and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions.
  Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, Cali-
  fornia, May 1957.  27 pp.
29Steigerwald, B. J.  Emissions of Hydrocarbons to the Atmosphere
  from Seals on Pumps and Compressors.  Report No. 6,  (PB 216 582)
  Joint District, Federal and State Project for the Evaluation of
  Refinery Emissions.  Air Pollution Control District, County of
  Los Angeles, California, April 1958.  37 pp.

30Emissions to the Atmosphere from Eight Miscellaneous Sources
  in Oil Refineries.  Report No. 8  (PB 216 668) , Joint District
  Federal and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emis-
  sions.  Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles,
  California, June 1958.  57 pp.

                                17

-------
          TABLE 7.  MISCELLANEOUS HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
                    FROM PETROLEUM REFINERIES
                                   1972 Total
                                   hydrocarbon
                                    emissions
                                     1975 Total
                                     hydrocarbon
                                      emissions
        Miscellaneous sources
                    metric tons/yr  metric tons/yr
No.
1

2

3

4

5

6

(uncontrolled)
Pipeline valves and flanges

Vessel relief valves

Pump seals

Compressor seals

Blowdown systems

Process drains and
wastewater separators
(tons/yr)
64,850
(71,497)
25,477
(28,088)
39,373
(43,409)
11,580
(12,767)
694,820
(766,039)
463,214
(510,693)
(tons/yr)
69,870
(77,032)
27,449
(30,263)
42,422
(46,770)
12,477
(13,756)
748,615
(825,348)
499,077
(550,232)
TOTAL
                      1,299,314
                     (1,432,493)
               1,399,910
              (1,543,400)
Though insignificant when inspected on an individual equipment
basis, miscellaneous hydrocarbon emissions from petroleum refin-
eries in 1972 (most recent national emissions summary) represented
5.2% of the total nationwide emissions of all hydrocarbon emis-
sions (Table 8) . 3 *

TABLE 8.  CONTRIBUTION OF MISCELLANEOUS HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM
          PETROLEUM REFINING TO NATIONAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS31
 Pollutant
National emissions,
106 metric tons/yr
  Emissions from
 refinery miscel-
 laneous sources,
106 metric tons/yr
                                                          Contri-
                                                          bution,
Hydrocarbon
      25.05
       1.30
5.2
311972 National Emissions Report.  Publication No. EPA-450/2-74-
  012.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
  Park, North Carolina, June 1974.  57 pp.
                                18

-------
The following paragraphs describe miscellaneous, sources of hydro-
carbon emissions, and the basis for determination of EPA emission
factors.  Also, the current refinery practices of miscellaneous
source emission control are presented.  An indication of the num-
ber of miscellaneous sources in some refineries may be found in
Appendix B.

B.   SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

1.   Valves

One of the most common pieces of equipment in petroleum refineries,
or in any fluid transport or processing system, is the valve.  It
is estimated that there are fifteen to twenty valves for each pump
and compressor in a petroleum refinery.32  Types of valves commonly
used in refinery applications include control valves for precise
flow regulation, globe and plug valves for both throttling and flow
regulation, gate and ball valves for complete flow stoppage, and
check valves to prevent fluid backflow.3 3

All of the above valves except check valves, are actuated by motion
of the valve stem, which penetrates the valve housing and moves
the surface (or surfaces) restricting the flow.  Valve stem motion
may be linear, rotational, or both depending on the specific valve
configuration.  A seal is maintained between the valve stem and
housing by a compressed packing which prevents fluid flow along
the stem from the valve interior to the atmosphere.  The degree
of compression in the packing is regulated by an adjustable collar.
Packing materials include asbestos fibers, graphite or graphite
impregnated fibers, and TFE, depending on the specific valve appli-
cation and configuration. 3lt

In 1956, eleven Los Angeles County refineries, with a total crude
throughput of approximately 1.29 m3/s  (700,000 bbl/day) were sur-
veyed to determine the magnitude of refinery valve stem leakage.27
These refineries contained an estimated 132,000 valves, with 23.6%
32Personal Communication.  W. H. Connell, A. M. Gerdman, M. S.
  Hamshd, J. B. Hermiller, D. D. Ray, R. T. Roffee, and P. C.
  Tranquill, The Standard Oil Company of Ohio, Lima Refinery,
  Lima, Ohio, 24 June 1976.

33Sims, A. V.  Field Surveillance and Enforcement Guide for Petro-
  leum Refineries.  EPA-450/3-74-042  (PB 236 669), U.S. Environ-
  mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
  July 1974.  369 pp.

3l*Lyons, J. L. , and C. L. Askland, Jr.  Lyons' Encyclopedia of
  Valves.  Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York,
  1975.

                                19

-------
Handling gaseous products and 76.4% handling liquid products.  Ap-
proximately 6% of the valves were inspected for leakage.  Results
of the inspection are presented in Table 9.

         ' TABLE 9.  SUMMARY OF PIPELINE VALVE TESTING27
                Valves handling gaseous products;

83.5% showed no leakage
11.3% had an estimated loss of 0.52 mg/s/valve (0.1 Ib/day/valve)
 5.2% had an average measured loss of 47.8 mg/s/valve
      (9.1 Ib/day/valve)

     Average loss = 2.57 mg/s/valve  (0.49 Ib/day/valve)

                Valves handling liquid products;

88.3% showed no leakage
10.6% had an estimated loss of 0.52 mg/s/valve (0.1 Ib/day/valve)
 1.0% had an average measured loss of 13.6 mg/s/valve
      (2.6 Ib/day/valve)
 0.1% had an average measured loss of 872 mg/s/valve
      (166.1 Ib/day/valve)

     Average loss = 0.21 mg/s/valve  (0.04 Ib/day/valve)
                    (excluding large leaks)
The average loss figure for all refinery valves was estimated to
be 0.79 mg/s/valve  (0.15 Ib/day/valve) or 79.9 kg/103m3  (28 lb/103
bbl)  of refinery throughput.26  This value is used by EPA in its
compilation of air pollutant emission factors.26

The American Petroleum Institute  (API) standards allow no leakage
from new valve packings,35 and properly maintained valves should
not leak in normal operations with good maintenance practices.32'33
From Table 7 it can be seen that  87% of all valves inspected
showed no evidence of leakage.

Valve leakage in refineries is not tolerated.  Two refining com-
panies contacted stated that their policies instructed operators
to adjust valve stem .packings upon detection at leakage.32'36
35Valve Inspection on Test.  American Petroleum Institute, Divi-
  sion of Refining, New York, New York, API Standard 598, Second
  Edition, September 1970.

36Personal Communication.  R. Fritz, K. Hanevaek, J. McKensie,
  and F. DeVine, Exxon Research and Engineering Company, 3 May
  1976.

                                20

-------
API consideres the EPA emission factor presented above "undoubtedly
high" in refineries where good maintenance is practiced.37  How-
ever, information was not available to allow updating of the EPA
recommended emission factor of 79.9 kg/103m3  (28 lb/103bbl) of
refinery throughput.

2.   Flanges

Flanges are employed wherever a pipe or component  (such as vessels,
pumps, compressors and valves) in the process may require isola-
tion or removal.

The primary cause of flange leakage is flange seal deformation
due to thermal stresses on the piping system.38  Thermal expan-
sion or contraction of piping on either side of the flange can
deform the seal between the flange faces, resulting in leakage
around the seal.

In 1956, 326 flanges in Los Angeles County were inspected; of these/
four were found to leak.  Three of the leaks detected were "small"
and therefore flange leakage was determined to be an insignificant
source of fugitive hydrocarbons and further investigations were
not performed.27  EPA does not list a unique emission factor for
flanges, but includes them in the category "pipeline valves and
flanges," with the emission factor for this combination of sources
identical to that previously presented for valves.25

Minor flange leakage can be controlled through tightening the
•flange bolts until leakage is stopped.32  Major flange leakage
requires replacement of the seal or application of a supplemen-
tal seal arrangement around the leaking flange.  If the line con-
taining the flange cannot be shut down to allow replacement of the
seal, one of the following methods can be applied:39'40
 37Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume on Atmospheric
  Emissions, Chapter 7 - Hydrocarbon Emissions.  American Petro-
  leum Institute, Refining Department, Washington, D.C., API
  Publication  931, February  1976.

 38McFarland, I.  Preventing  Flange Fires.  Chemical Engineering
  Progress, 65(8):59-61, 1969.

 39Hutton, B.   Repair Flange  Leads-Onstream.  Hydrocarbon Pro-
  cessing, 52(l):75-76, 1973.

 1+0Brown, G. W.  Valve Problems:  Causes and Cures.  Hydrocarbon
  Processing,  53(6):97-99, 1974.

                                 21

-------
   • A metal band is cold-welded around the flange circum-
     ference and the space within the band is filled with
     a setting sealant.

   • A vapor-tight box is cold-welded around the flange and
     piping.

   • Commercial flange covers are applied and the interior
     is filled with a setting sealant.

The current trend in refinery construction is to eliminate pipe
flanges where possible through use of welded connections.32'36'40
In situations where flanges must be used,  "delta" type joints which
minimize thermal flange distortion have been suggested,40 but the
reference gave no indications of refinery experience with thir.
equipment.

3.   Pressure Relief Valves

Engineering codes require pressure-relieving devices or systems
in applications where overpressure, i.e.,  pressure above the
vessel maximum allowable working pressure, is likely to occur.

Pressure relief valves are the most common pressure-relieving
devices used in petroleum refineries.  Pressure relief valves
are typically spring-loaded valves designed to open at a set
pressure, allow flow until system pressure is reduced to.toler-
able levels, and then reseat, reforming the seal.  Relief valves
are installed singly or in parallel depending on the volume of
product requiring venting in the event of a vessel overpressure.28

Pressure relief valves will emit hydrocarbons under the following
circumstances:3 3'41

(a)  Vessel overpressure, resulting in valve opening and vapor
     blowoff at valve set pressure;

(b)  Valve "simmering," due to proximity of vessel operating
     pressure to valve set pressure;
(c)  Improper sealing upon valve reseating, due to valve seat
     corrosion and abrasion, resulting in continuous leakage
     around valve seat; and

(d)  Leakage around valve seat due to seat corrosion or abrasion
     (API specifications allow a finite amount of leakage from
     properly operating valves.
 Bright, G.  Halting Product Loss Through Safety Relief Valves,
  Chemical Engineering Progress, 68(5):59-68, 1972.


                                22

-------
Emissions due to a, b, and c above can be reduced through process
control, choice of valve set pressure, choice of valve materials,
and valve inspection and maintenance.41  The above practices, how-
ever, will control emission with certainty only to the levels
allowed for properly operating and maintained valves (case d above).

In 1955, seven Los Angeles County refineries, with a combined
crude throughput of approximately 0.59 m3/s  (320,000 bbl/day) were
surveyed to determine an inventory of refinery relief valves and
to estimate hydrocarbon emissions from valve leakage.28  Quantifi-
cation of emissions from relief valve blowoff was not attempted.

The relief valve inventory from this survey is presented in
Table 10.28  Relief valves on lines carrying liquid products
showed no evidence of leakage and therefore were removed from
further consideration.

          TABLE 10.  PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE INVENTORY28'3


    _ , . ,.   ,          Venting to atmosphere        T7  . .    .
    Relief valve     	_	     Venting to
	application	Vapor systems  Liquid lines  recovery systems

Operational units        1,113          400             1,589
Pressurized storage
  Single type              237          290               179
  Dual type                115          	             	

TOTAL                    1,465          690             1,768


 Seven Los Angeles refineries with a total throughput of approxi-
 mately 0.59 m3/s  (320,000 bbl/day) crude  (1955).

Approximately 29% of the relief valves venting vapors to the
atmosphere from operational units and pressurized storage were
inspected for leakage.  The results of the leakage inspection
are presented in Table II.28  The average emission from all
pressure relief valves venting vapor to the atmosphere was de-
termined to be 12.6 mg/s/valve  (2.4 Ib/day/valve) or 31.4 kg/103m3
(11 lb/103 bbl) of refinery throughput.  The latter emission factor
is currently used by EPA in its Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors,(see vessel relief valves, Table 6).25

The emission factor contained in AP-42 represents the average
emission from pressure relief valves venting to the atmosphere.
However, only 45.3% of the relief valves on operational units
and process vessels  (excluding those on liquid lines) vented to
the atmosphere while 54.7% vented to vapor recovery systems
(Table  10).  As a result, this factor actually represents con-
trolled emissions, with an average efficiency of control of  54.7%.
                                23

-------
     TABLE 11.  SUMMARY OF PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE TESTING28
Operational Units

  81.8% showed no leakage
  13.3% had an average estimated loss of 4.72 mg/s/valve
    (0.9 Ib/day/valve)
   3.6% had an average measured loss of 133 mg/s/valve
    (25.3 Ib/day/valve)
   1.2% had an average measured loss of 808 mg/s/valve
    (154 Ib/day/valve)

  Average loss =15.2 mg/s/valve (2.9 Ib/day/valve)


Pressurized Storage

  All Valves

  73.5% showed no leakage
  21.7% had an average estimated loss of 4.72 mg/s/valve
    (0.9 Ib/day/valve)
   9.7% had an average measured loss of 46.7 mg/s/valve
    (8.9 Ib/day/valve)

  Average loss =3.15 mg/s/valve (0.6 Ib/day/valve)


  Single    (67.3% of total)

  81.0% showed no leakage
  16.7% had an average estimated loss of 4.72 mg/s/valve
    (0.9 Ib/day/valve)
   2.3% had an average measured loss of 39.4 mg/s/valve
    (7.5 Ib/day/valve)

  Average loss =1.57 mg/s/valve (0.3 Ib/day/valve)


  Dual  (32.7% of total)

  57.0% showed no leakage
  32.9% had an average estimated loss of 4.72 mg/s/valve
    (0.9 Ib/day/valve)
  10.0% had an average measured loss of 49.3 mg/s/valve
    (9.4 Ib/day/valve)

  Average loss =  6.51 mg/s/valve  (1.24 Ib/day/valve)


Average loss, all valves =  12.6 mg/s/valve  (2.4  Ib/day/valve)
                               24

-------
An emission factor representing a condition of no control may be
determined as follows:


          ,_  , , j '   .   •     AP-42 factor
     Uncontrolled emission = -p= - = — ,.-. —

                             0.031
                             45.3

                           = 0.068 kg/103 liter

Hydrocarbon releases from pressure relief valve blowoff and
leakage present several hazards in refineries, including forma-
tion of flammable mixtures at grade level or on elevated struc-
tures, exposure of personnel to toxic vapors or corrosive chemi-
cals, possible ignition of relief streams at point of emission,
excessive noise levels, and air pollution.42

Several practices are currently being employed to reduce hydro-
carbon emissions from relief valve leakage.  These include the
   • Periodic maintenance to prevent foreign material buildup
     or corrosion on seat

   • Installation of rupture disks upstream of relief valve

   • Manifold systems to convey relief valve discharges to
     vapor recovery, fuel gas, or flare systems.

The last practice above is the most efficient system for control
of pressure relief valve blowoff and leakage because it is a
closed system with hydrocarbon incineration in process heaters
or flares before release to the atmosphere.  From Table 10, 45%
of Los Angeles County's relief valves were being manifolded to
some kind of recovery or flare system.

The degree to which a refinery will manifold pressure relief
valves to flare or other systems depends upon the capacity of
42Guide for Pressure Relief and Depressurizing Systems.  Ameri-
  can Petroleum  Institute, Washington, D.C.  Publications No.
  API RPS21, September 1969.  28 pp.

43Elkin, H. F.,  and R. A. Constable.  Control of Air Pollution
  in Petroleum Refineries.  Recent Advances in Air Pollution
  Control.  AIChE Symposium Series, 70(137):26-36, 1974.

44Bock, J. D., and J. H.  Raidl.  Relief Valve Reliability is
  Upgraded.  The Oil and  Gas Journal, 71 (5) : 74-76, 1973.

45Kayser,  D. S.  Rupture  Disk Selection.  Chemical Engineering
  Progress, 68(5):61-64,  1972.

                                 25

-------
the manifold system to handle the volume of material released
during a process upset.  Sohio's Lima refinery, which is under
no state or federal regulations  limiting its hydrocarbon emis-
sions from relief valves, vents  to a central flare all its
pressure relief valves except those on the catalytic cracker and
regenerator because the flare system currently in place could not
handle the volume resulting from an upset in these two pieces of
equipment.32

In a recent completed expansion  of Texaco's refinery at Heide,
Germany, all pressure relief valves on units releasing gases or
vapors are connected to a vapor  recovery or flare system.  Re-
leased gases are either compressed and fed into the plant fuel
gas system or incinerated in the waste gas flare.46

4.   Slowdown Systems

Refinery units are periodically  shut down and emptied for inter-
nal inspection and maintenance.   The process of unit shutdown,
repair, and restart is termed a  unit turnaround.  The purging of
the contents of a vessel to provide a safe interior atmosphere
for workmen is termed a vessel blowdown.  A typical vessel blow-
down procedure is as follows:30

   • Liquid contents of the vessel are pumped to an opera-
     ting unit for storage.

   • Vapors are purged from the  vessel.

   • The vessel is flushed with water, steam, or nitrogen.

   • The vessel is ventilated for workmen.

Depending on the specific refinery configuration, the vapor con-
tent of the vessel may be vented to vapor recovery or fuel gas
systems or flares, or be released directly to the atmosphere.30'32'34
A blowdown stack is often employed when vapors are released direc-
tly to the atmosphere.  The blowdown stack is typically located
in such a manner as to ensure that combustible mixtures will not
be released within the refinery.26'32

The current EPA emission factor  for uncontrolled refinery blow-
downs is 856 kg/103m3  (300 lb/103bbl) refinery throughput.25'30  .
This factor is based on a one-year  (1956) record of refinery
turnarounds in Los Angeles County.30
46The Expansion of the Refinery at Haig.  Erdol Kohle  (Itamburg),
  26(9):500-502, 1973.


                                26

-------
In this one-year period, eight refineries reported 382 turnarounds
with blowdown; 56% of these resulted in emission to the atmosphere,
while 44% resulted in no emissions, due most probably to the mani-
folding of blowdown vapors to recovery, fuel gas, or flare systems.
Two refineries reported no emissions in 47 turnarounds.

It has been estimated that the current status of control for blow-
down systems will result in an average emission reduction of 51%,
with a resulting national average blowdown emission of 456 kg/103m3
(160 lb/103bbl) refinery capacity.'t7  Information supporting this
estimate could not be identified; hence, its validity could not
be determined.

5.   Pumps

Refinery pumps fall into two broad categories depending on the
method of generating .flow and pressure in the fluid being pumped.
Centrifugal devices generate flow and pressure through centrifu-
gal forces generated by a rotating impeller.  Centrifugal devices
include centrifugal pumps, axial pumps, and turbine pumps.  Shaft
motion in all centrifugal devices is rotational.  Positive dis-
placement devices generate flow and pressure through fluid dis-
placement by a piston or other surface.  Positive displacement
devices include reciprocating piston pumps, plunger pumps, dia-
phragm pumps, and rotary vane and rotary gear pumps.  Shaft
motion for reciprocating, plunger, and diaphragm pumps is linear
while motion is rotational for rotary vane and gear pumps.33

In all cases except shaftless pumps, such as canned pumps, and
diaphragm pumps, a shaft seal is required to isolate the pump
interior from the atmosphere at the point where the shaft pene-
trates the pump housing.  Shaft seals fall into one of two
general categories:  packed seals and mechanical seals.  Packed
seals can be used in most pump services, and can. be applied to
both rotating and linear shaft motions.  Mechanical seals are
limited to applications with rotating shaft motion.  Current
mechanical seal technology will allow their use in applications
up to approximately 589 K (600°F).30

In normal service both packed and mechanical seals can leak hydro-
carbons.  These losses may be vapor or liquid and occur when shafts
become scarred or move eccentrically, or through failure of the
packing or seal faces.  The rate at which this destruction of
seal efficiency progresses depends upon the abrasive and corrosive
properties of the product handled and the degree of pump and seal
maintenance.2^
47Burklin, C. E., E. C. Cavanaugh, J. C. Dickerman, S. R. Fernandes,
  and G. C. Wilkins.  Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Petro-
  leum Liquids.  EPA-600/2-75-042  (PB 246 650), U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
  September 1975.   245 pp.

                                27

-------
Packed seals,  also referred to as stuffing  boxes,  consist  of
rings of semiplastic packing which are placed  in  the  pump  gland
and compressed,  forming a seal around the shaft.   Packing  mater-
ials include asbestos,  TFE, and graphite, either  molded  into
rings or impregnated in fiber bundles.   Packings  must be lubri-
cated to prevent overheating, and lubrication  is  typically pro-
vided by slight leakage of the product being pumped.   A  typical
packed seal arrangement is shown in Figure  2.   In this seal
configuration, a slotted metal lantern ring is placed approxi-
mately halfway down the packing.  The lantern  ring allows  leakage
through the packing for lubrication and reduces pressure on the
outside packing rings.   Lantern rings are also used to inject
lubrication into the packing.  The lubricant will travel in both
directions through the packing and hence must  be  compatible with
the fluid being pumped.  This type of packing  lubrication  has  the
distinct advantage of preventing damage due to abrasive  particles
in the pumped liquid.4^  If a lubricating liquid  with low  vapor
pressure is used, this lubrication method will also reduce emis-
sions from evaporation of leaked product.
        PACKING RINGS
  PUMP CASING

                                                     TAKE-UP
                                                      COLLAR
                  LANTERN RING
          Figure 2.  Typical packed seal configuration.
 48Walker, R.  Pump Selection:  A Consulting Engineer's Manual.
  Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan,  1972
  pp. 30-31.

                                28

-------
Mechanical seals for pump  applications are of various designs
and configurations, but  all  consist of two primary parts:  a sta-
tionary member secured to  the  pump casing and a rotating member
secured to the pump shaft.   A  seal is created between the sta-
tionary and rotating members by  contact in the case of face seals
and by viscous drag between  two  closely spaced moving surfaces in
the case of bushing seals.   In the refinery pumps, the face type
seal is typically employed.49  Typical face and bushing seals are
shown in Figure 3.49
                                             NOSE
                                             COLLAR
                             FACE SEAL
                                          ELUIOJNtE*
                                    ••'•••"*:..• ' '_:••• .;.%:"••'•. !. ./ ..'•'
                           BUSHING SEAL
       Figure  3.   Typical  mechanical seal configurations
49Personal Communication.   R.  Schmall, Stein Seal Company,
  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania.   28 April 19.76.
                                 29

-------
In 1956 Los Angeles  County refineries,  with a total crude  through-
put of approximately 1.27  m3/s (690,000 bbl/day),  were surveyed  to
determine pump seal  applications and emissions.  The survey  iden-
tified a total of  1,985  pumps and 2,786 seals.  Seventeen  percent
of the seals were  inspected for leakage.  The results of the sur-
vey are summarized in Table 12.29  Average emission rates  were
determined to be 22.0 mg/s/seal (4.2 Ib/day/seal), 31.5 mg/s/pump
(6.0 Ib/day/pump), or 48.5 kg/103m3 or  (17 lb/103bbl) of refinery
throughput.  The latter  estimate is used by EPA in its Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors.25

              TABLE 12.  SUMMARY OF REFINERY  PUMP SURVEY29
                                            Average loss
    Pump,  seal type
                    Percent
                    of total

                 Seals   Pumps   mg/s   (Ib/day)   mg/s   (Ib/day)
                                       Per seal
   Per pump
Centrifugal, mechanical   42.2    45.6   16.8     3.2     22.6    4.3
Centrifugal, packed       34.7    32.2   25.2     4.8     37.3    7.1
Reciprocating, packed     23.0    22.2   28.3     5.4     40.4    7.7

Average                              22.0     4.2     31.5    6.0
In order to estimate  total uncontrolled emissions from pump  seals
under a condition  of  no control,  it was assumed that packed  seals
represent a condition of no control.  Using the information  con-
tained in Table  12, it can be determined that the AP-42 emission
factor includes  an effective degree of control of:

       [(0.222) (40.4)  + (1 - 0.222) (37.3)] - 31.5
           [ (0.222) (40.4)  + (1 - 0.222) (37.3)]        u.i/l

or 17.1%.  The AP-42  emission factor may therefore be adjusted
to yield an uncontrolled emission factor as follows:
     Uncontrolled  emission =
                        AP-42  factor = 48.5
                         (1  -  0.171)     0.829
=58.5 kg/103m3
The current trend  in seal application is to employ mechanical
seals whenever  the specific application will allow their use.
Current mechanical seal technology will allow seal application
in situations where temperatures below approximately  589 K (600°F)
are encountered.8   Approximately 75% of refinery pumps  are in
applications  in which mechanical seals may be used.32'36'1*9
6.
Compressors
Like refinery  pumps,  refinery compressors are of two basic  types:
centrifugal and  positive displacement, with the specific compressor

                                 30

-------
and seal configuration dictated by the service requirements and
operating conditions.  Historically, reciprocating compressors
have dominated refinery compressor installations.  In 1957, most
of the compressors in operation in Los Angeles County were of
the reciprocating type. 9  The current trend, however, is toward
centrifugal units.32'50'51

In 1957, Los Angeles County refineries, with a total crude
throughput of approximately 1.10 m3/day (600,000 bbl/day) were
surveyed to determine compressor installations and emissions.29
Most of the compressors were reciprocating units equipped with
packed seals or throttle bushings, however, no numerical break-
down of compressor or seal types was presented.  The results of
the compressor inventory are presented in Table 13.29  Of the
seals venting to the atmosphere, 326 were tested for leakage.
The results of these are presented in Table 14. 29

       TABLE 13.  LOS ANGELES REFINERY COMPRESSOR CENSUS29

Number of Number
Classification compressors % of seals %
Units venting to 162
atmosphere
Units venting to 20
recovery systems
89.0 345 88.5
11.0 45 11.5

     TOTAL                   182      100.0     390    100.0
   TABLE 14.  SUMMARY OF REFINERY COMPRESSOR EMISSION TESTING29


                   45.7%    showed no leakage
                   26.7%    had an average estimated loss
                            of 21.0 mg/s  (4.0 Ib/day) per
                            seal
                   27.5%    had an average measured loss
                            of 141 mg/s  (26.9 Ib/day) per
                            seal
         Average loss = 446 mg/s  (8.5 Ib/day) per seal
         	= 0.014 kg/m3  (5 lb/103 bbl)	
50Dencer, F. C.  Compression Equipment  for Hydrocracking and
  Similar Processes.  American Society  of Mechanical Engineers,
  New York, New York.  Paper No.  67-PET-41.  4 pp.

51 Personal Communication.  E. D.  Opersteny,Corporate Engineering
  Department, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri.   26 April
  1976.

                                31

-------
Eighty-nine percent of the units inspected were vented  to  the
atmosphere, while the remaining 11% were vented to vapor recovery
systems.  The emission factor presented in AP-42 represents  an
average, based on emissions from all compressors.  The  emission
factor in AP-42 can therefore be adjusted to yield a  total un-
controlled emission factor as follows:
   Uncontrolled emission =
                             AP-42
                            (1 - 0.11)
     0.014
     0.89
= 0.016 kg/103 liter
It was mentioned above that the current trend  in compressor  in-
stallations is toward use of centrifugal compressors.   For cen-
trifugal compressors in the petrochemical industry, almost
exclusive use is made of liquid film seals in  which oil provides
the seal between the rotating shaft and the stationary  gland.
In this case the oil leaves the machine from a chamber  on each
of the two sides of the gland through two separate pipes.  Thus,
the inside of the gland is under gas pressure  and the outside is
under atmospheric pressure.  The two oil pipes are kept separate
because gas is present in the pipe connected to the inside of
the gland.52  A typical film-riding seal is shown in Figure  4.53
                                   CLEAN OIL IN
              INTERNAL
             GAS PRESSURE
                       CONTAMINATED
                        OIL OUT
OIL OUT
  Figure 4.  Liquid-film  shaft  seal with  cylindrical  bushing.53
52Bauermeister, K. J.  Turbocompressors  in  Process  Plant.   Chemi-
  cal and Process Engineering,  50(9):79-81,  1969.

53API Standard 617, Centrifugal  Compressors for  General  Refinery
  Services, Third Edition, American  Petroleum Institute,  Wash-
  ington, D.C., October  1973.
                                 32

-------
7.    Process Drains and Wastewater Separators

Contaminated wastewater originates from several sources in petro-
leum refineries including, but not limited to, leaks, spills, pump
and compressor seal cooling and flushing, sampling, and equipment
cleaning.  Contaminated wastewater is collected in the process
drain system and directed to the refinery treatment system where
oil is skimmed in a separator and the wastewater undergoes addi-
tional treatment as required.30

Refinery drains and treatment facilities are a source of emis-
sions due to evaporation of the volatile hydrocarbons contained
in the wastewater.  Hydrocarbons will be emitted wherever the
wastewater is exposed to the atmosphere.  As such, emission points
include open drains and drainage ditches, manholes, sewer out-
falls, and the surfaces of the separator and treatment ponds.

The uncontrolled emission factor for process drains and wastewater
separators, 571 kg/103m3  (200 lb/1,000 bbl) of wastewater processed,
is based on 1957 estimates of uncontrolled emissions from both
process drains and wastewater separators by Los Angeles County
refineries and the local air pollution control agency, and was
not determined through source sampling.30

Owing to the safety hazards associated with hydrocarbon-air mix-
tures in refinery atmospheres, the current refinery practice is
to seal sewer openings and use liquid traps downstream of process
drains, thus minimizing hydrocarbon emissions from drainage
within the refinery proper.  Hydrocarbons evaporated from re-
finery wastewater will be emitted when the system is exposed to
the atmosphere at the sewer outfall.  Further evaporation will
take place from the water surface in the wastewater treatment
system.
                                 33

-------
                            SECTION V

                BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Table 15 summarizes the best available technology for the control
of hydrocarbon emission for miscellaneous sources in petroleum
refineries and provides estimates of the emission reduction
achievable with these technologies.  The technologies applicable
to individual sources of miscellaneous hydrocarbon emissions are
discussed below.

A.   VALVES

A conscientious program of valve stem and packing maintenance
combined with use of the best available packing materials are
the best available methods of controlling emissions from refin-
ery valves.  Valves leak due to failure of the stem packing;
hence, packing materials maintenance is essential in controlling
leakage.

Packing failure is due to two causes:

   • Mechanical abrasion from roughened stems, and

   • Packing degradation under heat and pressure of
     operation

Valve stems may become roughened or scored through corrosion and
careless handling, and the roughened stem will damage the packing
each time the valve is operated.  The stem must be kept smooth
and clean through valve maintenance programs.54

Graphite packings are currently available for use in refinery
valves, and it appears that these packings have good performance
and maintenance characteristics in refinery service.32'55  These
packings are self-lubricating, and they do not contain resins,
51+Selection, Maintenance Can Cut Valve Failure.  The Oil and Gas
  Journal, 73(24):72, 1975.

55A11 Graphite Packaging Stops Leakage of Hydrocarbon from 89
  Gate Valves.  Chemical Processing, 39(7) :75, 1976.

                                34

-------
        TABLE  15.  SUMMARY OF BEST AVAILABLE  TECHNOLOGY  FOR  CONTROL  OF  MISCELLANEOUS
                   SOURCES OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS  IN PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
       Emission  source
Available techniques
of emission control
 Estimated
efficiency
of control,
   %a
Emission achievable after
   control application

  kg/103m3   (lb/103bbl)
to
Ln
   Pipeline valves
   Flanges
   Pressure relief valves
   Slowdown  systems
   Pump  seals
   Compressor  seals
   Process drains/         .
     wastewater separators
Valve and packing
  maintenance, use
  of improved packing
  materials

Maintenance, flange
  elimination where
  possible, proper
  flange and piping
  network design

Rupture disks
Manifolding to fuel
  gas, recovery, or
  flare system

Manifolding to fuel
  gas, recovery, or
  flare system

Mechanical seals
Dual seals with
  barrier fluid

Mechanical seals
Dual seals with
  barrier fluid

Liquid traps for
  drains covered
  separator
                                                         50
    90


    98



    98

    90

    99

    90

    99



    90
                 40.0
     6.8


     1.4



    17.1

     5.9

     0.59

     1.6

     0.16



    57
               (14)
 (2.4)


 (0.49)



 (6.0)

 (2.1)

 (0.21)

 (0.56)

 (0.06)



(20)
    In reference to no control conditions.

    ^Assuming 1 bbl wastewater is generated  in  refining  1 bbl crude oil.43

-------
binders, or inorganic fillers which can char, harden, or other-
wise deteriorate and impair the ability of the packing to maintain
an adequate seal.55

Since maintenance practices will vary widely from one refinery to
another, the achievable emission reduction due to a valve main-
tenance program is not easily determined.  However, it should not
be overly optimistic to assume that improved maintenance and the
use of improved packing materials will result in emission reduc-
tion approaching 50%.

B.   FLANGES

As discussed in Section IV, thermal stresses in refinery piping
systems often result in flange seal deformation and product leak-
age.  In order to minimize flange leakage, therefore, it is
necessary to design the facilities in such a way as to reduce
piping deflection due to thermal stresses.  Flanges should also
be eliminated wherever possible through use of welded connections.
It can be assumed that proper refinery design, operation, and
maintenance practices could effectively eliminate hydrocarbon
emissions from flange leakage.

C.   PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES AND BLOWDOWN SYSTEMS

The best available technology for the control of emissions from
pressure relief valves and blowdown systems is to manifold emis-
sions from relief valve horns and vessel vents to vapor recovery,
fuel gas, or flare systems.  Figure 5 presents a conceptual
design of an integrated recovery system.36  In such a design,
relief valve leakage and vessel blowdown are collected in the
header system, compressed, and routed to the refinery fuel gas
system.  In the event of vessel overpressure and relief valve
blowoff, gas in excess of recovery system capacity is vented to
the refinery flare and incinerated.

A closed vent system as described above is the only technology
identified in the literature for control of hydrocarbon emissions
during vessel blowdown, and when properly operating, should effec-
tively eliminate emissions from this source.  It is estimated that
emission reductions of 98% are achievable in controlling relief
valve and vessel blowdown in this manner.36

In situations where relief valves are not integrated into a re-
covery system as described above, rupture disks may be installed
upstream of the relief valve.  Rupture disks will effectively
control relief valve leakage until vessel overpressure, at which
time the disk will rupture and allow flow.  After rupture, the
disks must be replaced.  It is estimated in the literature that
the use of rupture disks alone will reduce relief valve emissions
by 90%. 37
                                36

-------
   P'r
 FLARE
     WATER
     SEAL
  MAIN FLARE
   HEADER(S)
                         COMPRESSOR
                KO
                DRUM
                                          PURCHASE
                                          OR AUX. C4
                                            GAS
                                                           FURNACE
D.
     Figure 5.  Basic elements of flare gas recovery  system.
PUMP AND COMPRESSOR SEALS
As discussed in Section IV, mechanical  seals  are  superior  to
packed seals in preventing leakage  from pumps and compressors.
In the Los Angeles survey of refinery pumps,29  the mechanical
seals tested emitted, on the average, 33%  fewer hydrocarbons
than did packed seals.  Other sources have estimated  that  current
available mechanical  seals are 90%33 to 99%50 more effective than
packings in reducing  emissions from pump and  compressor  seals.
For the purpose of this report it is estimated that  90%  reduction
is achievable through application of currently available mechani-
cal seals to centrifugal refinery pumps and compressors.   Due  to
linear shaft motion,  mechanical  seals cannot  be applied  to recip-
rocating pumps and compressors.  For these types  of  equipment,
dual seals, described below, represent  the best available  control
equipment.

The most effective system for control of shaft seal  emissions  is
the use of dual seals (either mechanical or packed)  with a bar-
rier fluid as shown in Figure 6 . l ' ** 7 ' k 9 ' 5 *  In this  seal arrange-
ment, a nonvolatile barrier fluid flushes  away leakage from the
primary shaft seal.   Leakage of  the barrier fluid through  the
secondary seal will be minimal,  because the barrier  fluid  can  be
at a relatively low pressure.  Dual seals  with barrier fluids
                                37

-------
           SEAL
                                       BARRIER
                                       FLUID IN
                                         \
SEAL
                      BARRIER

                     FLUID OUT

         Figure 6.   Dual shaft seal with barrier fluid.

can be applied to both rotating and reciprocating shafts.   They
are being successfully employed in the chemical process  industry
in situations where obnoxious or toxic substances are being pumped
and compressed.51

It is estimated that dual seals and barrier fluids will  result
in emission reductions of 99%.
                        *
E.   PROCESS DRAINS AND WASTEWATER SEPARATORS

Current EPA emission factors for hydrocarbon evaporation from
refinery wastewater are based on estimates of emissions  from both
process drains and wastewater separators.  In reducing emissions
due to hydrocarbon evaporation, controls must be applied to both
process drains and wastewater separators.

Control of emissions from process drains requires that the hydro-
carbons evaporated from the wastewater in the refinery sewer
system be contained within the sewer while wastewater is allowed
access.  All sewer lines should be closed and placed underground.
At drain openings,  control can be achieved by isolating  the vapor
space in the sewer system from the atmosphere by liquid  seals or
traps similar to traps currently employed in household plumbing
systems.  In addition, all sewer vent lines and manholes should
be sealed.4 3

To reduce emissions from the wastewater separator, covers — either
fixed or floating — should be installed, and untreated wastewater
should not be exposed to the atmosphere.  It has been estimated in
the literature24 that the above controls will reduce emissions
from 90% to 98%.  A conservative estimate of 90% reduction is
assumed to be achievable.
                                38

-------
F.   REFINERY MAINTENANCE

In discussing emissions control for miscellaneous sources in
petroleum refineries, mention must be made of the importance of
inspection and maintenance programs and the possible effect of
these programs on refinery emissions.

Pressure relief and pipeline valves, pump seals, and compressor
seals maintain their sealing effect through proper mating of two
sealing surfaces.  If these seals are not properly maintained, be
they compressed packings, finely machined surfaces  (as in mechani-
cal seals), or seats (as in pressure relief valves), they can
degrade to the point where their capability to seal is reduced.
The net result of this degradation is that the seals and seats
become a source of emission.

Table 16 shows the percentage of total units inspected in the
Los Angeles County which were determined to be sources of emis-
sion.  In all cases, except for blowdown systems, less than 50%
of the equipment inspected was found to be leaking.   If, for
example, improved maintenance and inspection procedures could
eliminate leakage from only an additional 6% of the valves in a
refinery  (on the average), the average emission rate for all
pipeline valves would be reduced by 50%.  Similarly, elimination
of leakage from only an additional 11.5% of the total pressure
relief valve population would result in a 50% reduction in the
average loss emission from these sources.

            TABLE 16.  UNITS IDENTIFIED AS LEAKING  IN
                       LOS ANGELES COUNTY REFINERIES


                                       Units identified
          	Emission source	as leaking, %

          Pipeline valves                    12
          Pressure relief valves             23
          Blowdown systems                   56
          Pump seals                         36
          Compressor seals                   46


           99% of blowdowns did not result in emissions
           to the atmosphere.

Not only can refinery inspection and maintenance reduce emis-
sions from miscellaneous sources, they can also benefit refinery
safety.  As such, routine equipment inspection and maintenance
should be an integral part of refinery pollution control programs,
                                39

-------
                           SECTION VI

                    AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS
State regulations were obtained and reviewed, and those applicable
to emissions from miscellaneous sources in petroleum refineries
were extracted and summarized.  No states were found to have emis-
sion regulations specific to petroleum refineries.  However, some
state regulations have been promulgated to limit hydrocarbon emis-
sions from the following sources:  wastewater separators, pumps,
compressors, blowdown systems, and pressure relief valves.  These
regulations are not industry specific but nevertheless should
apply to petroleum refineries.  No states are currently restrict-
ing emissions from valves, flanges, or process drains.

Table 17 summarizes the current status of state and selected
local regulations pertinent to hydrocarbon emissions from miscel-
laneous sources.  To indicate the wording, the text of Colorado
regulations is detailed ,in Appendix C.

Reviewing the state hydrocarbon emission regulations indicates
that no regulations are comprehensive enough to assure reduced
refinery hydrocarbon emissions from all miscellaneous sources.
The state regulations typically require the use of available
control devices with no specifications for the device performance
and/or permissible hydrocarbon emission levels.

Table 18 presents a comparison of emission reductions achievable
through the application of the state regulations and those achiev-
able through application of the best available control technology.
It can be seen that in certain instances, state regulations will
result in emission reductions equal to those obtained through
application of best available control technology.  Table 19, pro-
viding a breakdown of refining throughput affected by state regu-
lations, indicates that the national emission reductions achievable
through application of current state regulations will be below
those indicated in Table 18.  Average emission factors for miscel-
laneous sources are presented in Section VII.B.3, Table 21.
                                 40

-------
                 TABLE  17.  SUMMARY OF STATE AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL U.S.
Number of
refineries
3
4
1
4
35
3
0
1
1
2
2
0
11
7
0
11
3
19
0
2
0
6
3
5
1
7
1
0
0
4
7
2
0
3
7
12
1
11
0
0
0
1
46
7
0
1
7
3
1
11
256
1976 Refinery _. ,
Slowdown,
throughput
3 Wastewater oressure
m3/s
0.10
0.14
0.01
0.11
3.67
0.12
0
0.28
0.01
0.04
0.20
0
2.27
0.97
0
0.86
0.31
3.36
0
0.06
0
0.28
0.41
0.64
0.20
0.30
0.01
0
0
1.04
0.20
0.21
0
0.11
1.13
1.03
0.03
1.47
0
0
0
0.08
7.63
0.29
0
0.10
0.70
0.04
0.09
0.36
28.86
(bbl/sd) separators. Compressors relief systems
(53,000) x x
(78,158)
(4,000) x
(62,425)
(1,993,503) xx x
(65,000) xx x

(150,000)
(6,000) x
(19,400)
(107,105) xx x

(1,232,958) x3 x "x
(527,300)
,
(468,940) x
(169,500) x x
(1,827,031) x x
b
(31,211) x

(151,395)
(223,905)
(346,842)
(108,000)
(164,016) x
(5,500)


(562,764) .
(106,305) x
(114,500) x x

(60,163) x x
(614,500) x x
(559,719) xx xc
(14,737) x x
(796,415) x x



(44,800)
(4,144,778) x
(158,878)

(55,000) xx xC
(383,105)
(20,200)
(46,800)
(194,557) x
(15,687,321)"

 Control in excess of 85% is required.
b.
 Designated areas only.
 Excludes emergency relief valves.
 Actual total 45 15,672,621 and does not agree with the original  reference.
                                          41

-------
                                 TABLE 18.   EMISSION REDUCTION UNDER STATE REGULATIONS AND BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
NJ
Control required by state
Emission source
Pipeline valves
and flanges
Pressure relief
valves
Slowdown systems
Pump seals
Compressor seals
Process drains
and wastewater
separator
Description
None
Flare or
equivalent
Flare or
equivalent
Mechanical seals
or equivalent
Mechanical seals
or equivalent
Covered separa-
tor
Estimated
reduction.
0
98
98
90
90
85b,c
regulations
Achievable control with
Allowable emission
g/m3
80
1.4
17.1
5.9
1.6
86
(lb/103 bbl)
(28)
(0.49)
(6.0)
(2.1)
(0.56)
(30)
Description
Conscientious maintenance
Manifold to fuel gas, re-
covery, or flare system
Manifold to fuel gas, re-
covery, or flare system
Dual seals with barrier
fluid
Dual seals with barrier
fluid
Liquid traps for drains,
covered separator
best available
Estimated
reduction ; a
50
98
98
99
99
90
control
technology
Allowable emission
g/m3
40
1.4
17.1
0.59
0.16
5"1
(lb/103 bbl)
(14)
(0.49)
(6.0)
(0.21)
(0.06)
(20)
        From Table 15.
        Minimum efficiency required by State of Illinois.
        Wastewater generation of 1 bbl/bbl crude throughput is assumed.

-------
         TABLE 19.  1976 REFINERY THROUGHPUT AFFECTED
                    BY STATE REGULATIONS
     Emission source
 1976 throughput
  in states with
   regulations

m3/s  _ (bbl/day)
                                                     Total
                                                   throughput
                                                 "controlled,'
Wastewater separators
Pumps and compressors
Slowdown and pressure
relief systems
Blowdown systems, excluding
pressure relief systems
20.66
11.53

8.72

1.13
(11,225,863)
(6,265,216)

(4,739,726)

(614,719)
72
40

30

4

Assuming regulations pertain to both new and existing sources.
Whether or not the existing specific state regulations apply to
both new and existing sources cannot be determined from the text
of these regulations.
                               43

-------
                           SECTION VII

                  ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTION


Model IV was developed by the EPA to be used by the Emission
Standards 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.56

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 ten 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 under
controls required by NSPS in 1985.  Similarly, another set of
emission Bevels is determined for 1985 by applying to the current,
new, and modified capacity the current levels of emissions.  Both
sets of emission levels represent maximum values based on capacity.
The capacity utilization factor is used to convert emission levels
from operation at capacity to operation at production rates an-
ticipated in 1985.  The difference between the two values of emis-
sion levels represents the control effectiveness of NSPS.

Certain variables needed to develop the relationship between pro-
jected emissions under baseline year levels of control and con-
trols required under NSPS for miscellaneous sources of emissions
in petroleum refineries will be defined under three groups:  in-
dustrial 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.
56Hopper, T. G., and W. A. Marrone.  Impact of New Source Perfor-
  mance Standards on 1985 National Emissions from Stationary
  Sources, Volume I.  EPA Contract 68-02-1382, Task 3, U.S. Environ-
  mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
  24 October 1975.  178 pp.

                                44

-------
By applying this factor to the capacity-based values A, B, and C,
actual production output can be determined.56

The purpose of "K" is to convert design capacity to production
capacity.   Production figures are then applied to emission fac-
tors to calculate actual emissions.  Petroleum refineries report
production figures in either barrels per calendar day or barrels
per stream day.1*""1'*

Calendar day figures are refiners' yearly averages for the number
of barrels processed by a refinery or refinery operation.  The
basis for calculating calendar day production is the total refin-
ery or refinery operation throughput per year divided by 365 days.
Stream day figures represent the sum of the number of barrels a
refinery or refinery operation processes each day, divided by the
number of operating
Production figures used in this report were obtained from the
American Petroleum Institute  (API) .   API reports production fig-
ures for crude capacity in barrels per stream day  (bbl/sd) 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 pro-
duction capacity to design capacity and does not satisfy the above
definition of "K".  But for this report, API production data re-
ported in barrels per stream day were used and, therefore, "K"
was given the value of 0.95.

2.   Production Capacity, "A"

The variable, "A," is defined as the industrial production capac-
ity in the baseline year.56  For 1975 the crude capacity has been
reported in the literature to be 28.90 m3/s  (15,687,321 bbl/sd).3
Therefore, "A" was given the value 28.90 m3/s  (15.69 x 106 bbl/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. 56

Production capacity data for crude processed from  1965 through
1975 shown in Table 4 were plotted (Figure 7).1+~'ll+  Assuming the
yearly rate of increase in capacity to remain constant through
1985, P  was calculated using compound growth.
                 P  = x-y /Capacity in year "X"
                  c      fCapacity in year "y"
                         /Capacity in year "y1

where  x > y
                                45

-------
                                                            16.0
                                                          -  15.5
    65    66    67    68    69    70    71    72    73    74    75
                                                          -  10.5
Figure  7.   Petroleum  refining production capacity,  1965-1975,
                                46

-------
letting x = 1973 and y = 1966
            P  =
 V27.4
 20.2
- 1.0
876,050
952,495
- 1.0
               = 4.45 x 10~2 decimal  fraction of baseline
                 capacity/yr
4.   Replacement Rate of Obsolete  Production Capacity - P,

The variable, Pt>/ is defined  as  the  average rate at which obsolete
production capacity is replaced  during the period between the base-
line year and 1985.56

Table 20 lists total yearly refinery obsolete capacities between
1965 and 1975.15~21t  These data  are  also plotted in Figure 8.15~2Lf

            TABLE 20.  REFINERY  OBSOLETE CAPACITYl5~2k
                      Inoperable
                       shutdown
                      Total  obsolete
                      capacity  since
                        Jan.  1966
          Year
m3/s
  (bbl/sd)
 m3/s
  (bbl/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)
(209,100)
0.181
0.368
0.698
0.767
0.864
1.15
1.42
1.67
1.90
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 8 it  is  seen  that the rate of obsolescence between
the years of 1965 and  1975  has remained fairly constant.  Assum-
ing this will continue through 1985,  P,  was calculated using the
equation:
       Obsolete capacity  up to  year "x" - obsolete capacity up to year "y"
    b                    (x -  y) Capacity in 1975

where  x > y

Letting x = 1974  and y =  1967
                                 47

-------
2.4


2.2


2.0


1.8


1.6
    1.4
o
5  1.2
UJ
UJ

Q  1.0



    0.8



    0.6



    0.4
DO
O
    0.2


      0
                                       I	I
       65    66   67   68   69
                             70    71

                             YEAR
                                                                1.3
                                                                1.1
                                                                       "55-

                                                                0.9    5
                                                                0.7
                                                            0.5
                                                                0.3
                                                             0.1
72   73    74    75   76
                                                             0
                                                                    o
                                                                    <
                                                                    Q_
                                                                    
-------
                  1.91 - 0.37  / 1,034,650 - 200,100 \
                   7 x 10.44   I    7 x 5,672,898    /
                               \                    i
                = 2.10 x 10~2 decimal fraction of -baseline
                              capacity/yr
B.   EMISSION FACTORS

1.   Uncontrolled Emission Factor - E

The variable, E , is the emission factor representing a condition
of no control.  Uncontrolled emission factors for miscellaneous
sources have been presented in Section IV.

2.   Controlled Emission Factor - E
     	n

The variable, E , is the emission factor representing the condi-
tion of the best available control applied to new sources.  Emis-
sions under the best applicable systems of control have been
presented in Table 15.

3.   Estimated Allowable Emissions Under 1975 Regulations - E
                '  """ "•••"                            —,—           j^

The variable, E , is the emission factor which represents the
1975 level of control required under state regulations.  Emission
reduction under application of state standards to both new and
existing sources has been presented in Table 18.  The 1975 refin-
ing throughput in states requiring controls has been presented
in Table 19.  E  was therefore calculated by assuming that the
refining capacity of Table 19 is controlled to the extent iden-
tified in Table 18 and that the remaining refining capacity is
uncontrolled.  The values for E  are presented in Table 21.
                               s

       TABLE 21.  ESTIMATED EMISSIONS UNDER CURRENT STATE
                  EMISSION REGULATIONS  (NATIONAL BASIS)

Emission source

g/m3
E
s
(lb/103 bbl)
        Pipeline valves and flanges    80         (28)
        Pressure Relief valves         48         (17)
        Slowdown systems              573        (201)
        Pump seals                     38         (13)
        Compressor seals               10          (3.6]
        Process drains and waste-
          water separators            221         (77)
                                 49

-------
C.   INTERMEDIATE VARIABLES

1.   Production Capacity from Construction and Modification to
     Replace Obsolete Facilities - B

The value, B, represents the capacity added to replace facilities
for the period 1975 to 1985.  Assuming simple growth, it is repre-
sented by the equation:

                    B = AiP,
                           b

                      = 6.07 m3/s  (3.29 x 106 bbl/sd)

where   A = 1975 production capacity - 28.9 m3/s  (15.69 x 106 bbl/sd)
        i = number of years in period 1975-1985 = 10
       P,  = replacement of obsolete production capacity

2.   Production Capacity from Construction and Modification - C

The value, C, is defined as the production capacity from construc-
tion and modification added in the period 1975-1985 to increase
output above the 1975 baseline capacity and is given  (assuming
compound g'rowth) by the formula:

                      C = A[(l + Pc)i - 1]

                        = 15.77 m3/s (8.56 x 106 bbl/sd)

where   A = baseline production capacity 28.9 m3/s  (15.69 x 106 bbl/sd)
        i = number of years in period 1975-1985 = 10
       P  = increase in production capacity over baseline
            capacity = 4.45 x 10~2

Figure 9 provides a graphical representation of estimated petro-
leum refinery growth and obsolescence for the period  1975-1985.

3.   Total Emissions in Baseline Year (1975) Under Baseline
     Year Regulations - T
     	:—a

The variable, T , is defined as the total emissions in 1975 under
current (1975) regulations  and can be calculated using the equa-
tion:

                            T  = E  KA
                            a    s
4.   Total Emissions in 1985 Assuming .No Control - T

The variable, T , for 1985  can be calculated using the equation:
                                50

-------
                 T  = E  K(A - B) + E  K(B + C)
                  u    u        '    u

                    = E  K(A - B + B + C)


                    = E  K(A +C)


5.    Emissions in 1985 Under Baseline Year Control Regulations - T
      -------                      n  -. .   -           -             .-

The variable, T ,  for 1985 is calculated by using the equation:
               o

                 T  = E  K(A - B) + E  K(B + C)
                  s    s             s

                    = E  K(A - B + B + C)
                       S

                    = E  K(A + C)
                       S

Implicit in this definition is the assumption  that state regu-
lations will apply to both new and existing sources.

6.    Emissions in 1985 Under New or Revised Standards of
     Performance - T
     	n

The variable, T ,  for 1985 is calculated by using the equation:

                 T  = E  K(A - B) + E  K(B + C)


D.    SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTION

Table 22 summarizes the input variables, emission factors,  and
intermediate variables, forming the basis for  determination of
the impact of New Source Performance Standards  (NSPS) requiring
application of the best available control technology in reducing
emissions from miscellaneous sources in petroleum refineries.  It
is seen from the bottom row of values in this  table that NSPS as
described above will reduce total emission from 24%  (in the case
of pipeline valves and flanges) to 48%  (in the case of pump and
compressor seals)  over those emissions anticipated under the
strictest interpretation of the state standards currently in
force (application to both new and existing sources).

Reductions over uncontrolled emissions achievable through imple-
mentation of both state regulations and NSPS,  are compared  in
Table 23.
                                51

-------
                                                  TABLE 22.  SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTION
M

Emission source
Normal fractional utilization factors K
Emission rate, g/m3 (lb/103bbl) E
Es
E
n
Growth rates, decimal/year P
Pb
Industrial capacity, m3/s (105bbl/sd) A (1975)
B (1985)
C (1985)
Emissions, Gg/yr (103 tons/yr) T
a
T
u
T
T
n
Impact, Gg/yr (103 tons/yr) Tg - Tn
Reduction, %
Pipeline valves
and flanges
0.95
80
(28)
80
(28)
40
(14)
4.45 x 10~2
2.10 x 10" 2
28.90
(15.69)
6.07
(3.29)
15.77
(8.56)
69.3
(76.4)
107
(118)
107
(118)
80.9
(89.2)
26.2
(28.9)
24
Pressure
relief valves
0.95
68
(24)
48
(17)
1.4
(0.67)
4.45 x KT2
2.10 x 10-2
28.90
(15.69)
6.07
(3.29)
15.77
(8.56)
41.6
(45.9)
91.0
(100)
64.2
(70.8)
33.8
(37.3)
30.5
(33.6)
47
Slowdown
systems
0.95
856
(300)
573
(201)
17.1
(6.0)
4.45 x ID" 2
2.10 x 10~2
28.90
(15.69)
6.07
(3.29)
15.77
(8.56)
496
(547)
1,151
(1,269)
767
(845)
403
(444)
363
(401)
47
Pump
seals
0.95
59
(21)
38
(13)
0.59
(0.21)
4.45 x 10"2
2.10 x 10~2
28.90
(15.69)
6.07
(3.29)
15.77
(8.56)
32.7
(36.1)
79.0
(87.1)
50.6
(55.8)
26.2
(28.9)
24.4
(26.9)
48
Compressor
seals
0.95
16
(5.6)
10
(3.6)
0.16
(0.06) .
4.45 x 10"2
2.10 x 10~2
28.90
(15.69)
6.07
(3.29)
15.77
(8.56)
8.83
(9.73)
21.4
(23.6)
13.7
(15.1)
7.08
(7.80)
6.57
(7.24)
48
Process drains
and wastewater
separators
0.95
570
(200)
221
(77)
57
(20)
4.45 x 10~2
2.10 x ID" 2
28.90
(15.69)
6.07
(3.29)
15.77
(8.56)
192
(212)
763
(841)
296
(326)
189
(208)
107
(118)
36

-------
3U
45

40



_,/, 35
. "E
± 30
O (
Q_
^
" 25
0

o
20


15

10


5
Q
44.7
^^

P • 4. 45 x 10 ^>^
c ^^
^^ c
^^
^^
r^^ BASELINE YEAR CAPACITY

	 	 _.
" 	 —- — "
P=2.10xlO"2 " ' 	 1

22.8
-


.

- ( A - B ) CAPACITY AFFECTED BY EXISTING REGULATIONS
( B + C ) CAPACITY REGULATED BY NSPS

•
i i i i i i i i i i
-
_


, 	
O

DO

-


_


-


-
CO
i -




25.0
22.5


20.0


17.5 ^
1
15. 0 ~°S
^
>-
12.5 i
a.
o
10.0 S
a:
o
7.50

5.00

2.50

n
1975 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
YEAR



























Figure 9. Applicability of NSPS to construction and modification
TABLE 23. PERCENT REDUCTION OVER UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
THROUGH APPLICATION OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY,
1985

Required by Required
Emission source states,9 % NSPS,^ -
Pipeline valves and flanges 0 24
Pressure relief valves 29 63
Slowdown systems 33 65
Pump seals 36 67
Compressor seals 36 67
Process drains/wastewater 61 75
All miscellaneous sources 41 67
by
5







Applied to both new and existing capacity.
For new sources only, with existing sources regulated
by state regulations.
                          53

-------
                          SECTION VIII

                 MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
The miscellaneous sources addressed in this report can be con-
sidered common to all aspects of the petroleum refining industry.
Valves, pumps, and compressors will be found in all processing
systems where liquids and gases are handled, processed, and stored.

Increases of total refinery production will require either that
the plant capacity factor be increased, or that the total refinery
capacity be increased through construction of new facilities, or
that additional capacity be installed at existing facilities.
The expansions of total installed refinery capacity through con-
struction of new facilities will require the installation of
additional valves, pumps, compressors, drains, etc., and will
therefore result in increased emission from these miscellaneous
sources.

There will obviously be differences in the application and per-
formance of these miscellaneous sources in the various phases of
the refining process, but determination of the factors affecting
application and performance of these sources was beyond the
scope of this project, and their quantification was not attempted.
                                54

-------
                           REFERENCES
 1.   Dickerman,  J.  C.,  T.  D.  Raye,  and J.  D.  Colley.   The Petro-
     leum Refining  Industry.   EPA Order No.  5-02-5609B,  U.S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
     North Carolina,  20 May 1975.  139 pp.

 2.   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.

 3.   Atmospheric Emissions From Petroleum Refineries;  A Guide
     for Measurement and Control, PHS-Publication 763  (PB 198 096)
     Public Health  Service, Cincinnati, Ohio.  Division of Air
     Pollution,  1960.  64  pp.

 4.   Cantrell,  A.  Annual  Refining Survey.   The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 74 (13):124-156, 1976.

 5.   Cantrell,  A.  Annual  Refining Survey.   The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 73 (14):96-118,  1975.

 6.   Cantrell,  A.  Annual  Refining Survey.   The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 72 (13):82-103,  1975.

 7.   Cantrell,  A.  Annual  Refining Survey.   The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 71 (14):99-121,  1973.

 8.   Cantrell,  A.  Annual  Refining Survey.   The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 70 (13):135-156, 1972.

 9.   Cantrell,  A.  Annual Refining Survey.   The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 69 (12):93-120,  1971.

10.   Lotven, C.   Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas Journal,
     68(14):115-141,  1970.

11.   Stormont,  D. H.   Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 67 (12):115-134, 1969.

12.   Stormont,  D. H.   Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 66(14):130-153, 1968.
                                55

-------
j. j .   o i_u.niiuin_,  L>.  n.
     Journal, 65 (14):183-203,  1967.

14.   Stormont,  D.  H.  Annual Refining Survey.  The Oil and Gas
     Journal, 64 (13):152-171,  1966.

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., 1 January 1975.
     17 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., 1 January 1974,
     21 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., 1 January 1973.
     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., 1 January 1972.
     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., 1 January 1971.
     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., 1 January 1970.
     15 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., 1 January 1969.
     15 pp.

22.   Mineral Industry Surveys.  Petroleum Refineries in the
     United States and Puerto Rico.  U.S. Department of the
     Interior,  Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1 January 1968,
     15 pp.

23.   Mineral Industry Surveys.  Petroleum Refineries in the
     United States and Puerto Rico.  U.S. Department of the
     Interior,  Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1 January 1967,
     13 pp.
                                56

-------
24.   Mineral Industry Surveys.   Petroleum Refineries in the
     United States and Puerto Rico.   U.S. Department of the
     Interior,  Bureau of Mines,  Washington,  D.C.,  1 January 1966.
     11 pp.

25.   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.

26.   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.

27.   Palmer, R. K.  Hydrocarbon Losses from Valves and Flanges.
     Report No. 2,  (PB 216 682), Joint District, Federal and
     State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions.
     Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles,
     California, March 1957.   17 pp.

28.   Steigerwald, B. J.  Hydrocarbon Leakage from Pressure Relief
     Valves.  Report No. 3,  (PB 216 715), Joint District, Federal
     and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions.
     Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles,
     California, May 1957.  27 pp.

29.   Steigerwald, B. J.  Emissions of Hydrocarbons to the Atmo-
     sphere from Seals on Pumps and Compressors.  Report No. 6,
     (PB 216 582), Joint District, Federal and State Project
     for the Evaluation of Refinery Emissions.  Air Pollution
     Control District, County of Los Angeles, California, April
     1958.  37 pp.

30.   Emissions to the Atmosphere from Eight Miscellaneous Sources
     in Oil Refineries.  Report No.  8 (PB 216 668), Joint District
     Federal and State Project for the Evaluation of Refinery
     Emissions.  Air Pollution Control District, County of Los
     Angeles, California, June 1958.  57 pp.

31.   1972 National Emissions Report.  Publication.No. EPA-450/
     2-74-012.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, North Carolina,  June 1974.  422 pp.

32.   Personal Communication.   W. H.  Connell, A.  M. Gerdman,
     M. S. Hamshd, J. B. Hermiller,  D. D. Ray, R. T. Roffee,
     and P. C. Tranquill, The Standard Oil Company of Ohio, Lima
     Refinery, Lima, Ohio, 24 June 1976.
                                57

-------
33.   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.

34.   Lyons, J. L. , and C. L. Askland, Jr.  Lyons' Encyclopedia of
     Valves.   Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York,
     1975.

35.   Valve Inspection on Test.  American Petroleum Institute,
     Division of Refining,  New York, New York,  API Standard 598,
     Second Edition,  September 1970.

36.   Personal Communication.  R. Fritz, K. Hanevaek, J. McKensie,
     and F. DeVine, Exxon Research and Engineering Company,
     3 May 1976.

37.   Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume on Atmospheric
     Emissions,  Chapter 7 - Hydrocarbon Emissions.  American
     Petroleum Institute, Refining Department,  Washington, D.C.,
     API Publication 931, February 1976.

38.   McFarland,  I.  Preventing Flange Fires.  Chemical Engineer-
     ing Progress, 65(8):59-61, 1969.

39.   Button,  B.   Repair Flange Leads-Onstream.   Hydrocarbon
     Processing,  52(l):75-76, 1973.

40.   Brown, G. W.  Valve Problems:  Causes and Cures.  Hydro-
     carbon Processing, 53(6):97-99, 1974.

41.   Bright,  G.   Halting Product Loss Through Safety Relief
     Valves.   Chemical Engineering Progress, 68 (5):59-68, 1972.

42.   Guide for Pressure Relief and Depressurizing Systems.
     American Petroleum Institute, Washington,  D.C.  Publica-
     tions No. API RPS21, September 1969.  28 pp.

43.   Elkin, H. F., and R. A. Constable.  Control of Air Pollu-
     tion in Petroleum Refineries.  Recent Advances in Air
     Pollution Control.  AIChE Symposium Series,  70 (137) : 26-36,
     1974.

44.   Bock,  J. D., and J. H. Raidl.  Relief Valve Reliability is
     Upgraded.  The Oil and Gas Journal, 71(5):74-76, 1973.

45.   Kayser,  D.  S.  Rupture Disk Selection.  Chemical Engineer-
     ing Progress, 68(5):61-64, 1972.

46.   The Expansion of the Refinery at Haig.  Erdol Kohle
     (Itamburg),  26 ( 9) :500-502, 1973.


                                58

-------
47.   Burklin,  C.  E.,  E. C. Cavanaugh,  J.  C.  Dickerman,  S.  R.  Fer-
     nandes,  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.

48.   Walker,  R.  Pump Selection:  A Consulting Engineer's Manual.
     Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.,  Ann Arbor, Michigan,
     1972.  pp. 30-31.

49.   Personal Communication.  R. Schmall, Stein Seal Company,
     Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania.  28 April  1976.

50.   Dencer,  F. C.  Compression Equipment for Hydrocracking and
     Similar Processes.  American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
     New York, New York.  Paper No. 67-PET-41.  4 pp.

51.   Personal Communication.  E. D. Opersteny, Corporate Engineer-
     ing Department,  Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
     26 April 1976.

52.   Bauermeister, K. J.  Turbocompressors in Process Plant.
     Chemical and Process Engineering, 50(9):79-81, 1969.

53.   API Standard 617, Centrifugal Compressors for General
     Refinery Services, Third Edition, American Petroleum Insti-
     tute, Washington, D.C., October 1973.

54.   Selection, Maintenance Can Cut Valve Failure.  The Oil and
     Gas Journal, 73(24):72, 1975.

55.   All Graphite Packaging Stops Leakage of Hydrocarbon from
     89 Gate Valves.   Chemical Processing, 39(7):74, 1976.

56.   Hopper,  T. G., and W. A. Marrone.  Impact of New Source
     Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions from Sta-
     tionary Sources, Volume I.  EPA Contract 68-02-1382, Task 3,
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, North Carolina,  24 October 1975.   178 pp.
                                59

-------
                           APPENDIX A

      SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM REFINERIES IN THE UNITED STATES
Calendar-day figures reported in this survey (Table A-l) are re-
finers'  averages for how many barrels each day a refinery unit
yields on the average, including downtime used for turnarounds.
These figures are actual yearly throughputs divided by 365.

Stream-day figures represent the potential a refinery unit can
yield when running at full capacity.

Operating plants in this survey are restricted to facilities
charging whole crude, plus lube plants not charging whole crude.

The total figures for most plants are given in barrels per stream
day.   However, a few companies reported only calendar-day figures.
Therefore, to keep consistent stream-day totals for states or
provinces, calendar-day figures were converted to a stream-day
basis, using a 0.95 factor for curde and vacuum units, and a 0.90
conversion for all other processes.  This explains what may appear
to be discrepancies in the addition of some columns.

The term NR means not reported.  When this term is noted in the
crude columns, the totals show figures to have been converted to
either a stream-day or calendar-day basis to make each column
complete.

In the case of cat-cracking, if a recycle figure was not reported,
then state or province totals include figures converted on an
estimate of 30% of the fresh feed reported.
                                60

-------
                               LEGEND   FOR  TABLE  A-lc
LEGEND

Processes in table are
identified by numbers
CAT HYDROREFININ6
  1.  Residual  desulturizmg
  2.  Heavy gas-oil  desulfurizing
  3.  Residual  visbreaking
  4.  Cat-cracker and cycle-stock
     feed pretreatment
  5.  Middle distillate
  6.  Other
CAT HYDRO-TREATING
  1.  Pretreating cat-reformer
     feeds
  2.  Naphtha  desulfurizing
  3.  Naphtha  olefin or
     aromatics saturation
  4.  Straight-run distillate
  5.  Other distillates
  6.  Lube-oil  "polishing"
  7.  Other
AROMATICS/ISOMERIZATION
  1.  BTX
  2.  Hydrodealkylation
  3.  Cyclohexane
  4. C. feed
  5.  Cs feed
  6.  Cs and C« feed
CAT REFORMING
  Semiregenerative:
    1. Conventional catalyst
    2. Bimetallic catalyst
  Cyclic:
    3. Conventional catalyst
    4. Bimetallic catalyst
  Other:
    5. Conventional
    6. Bimetallic
CAT HYDROCRACKIN6
  1.  Distillate upgrading
  2.  Residual upgrading
  3.  Lube-oil manufacturing
  4.  Other
THERMAL PROCESS
  1.  Gas-oil cracking
  2.  Visbreaking
  3.  Fluid coking
  4.  Delayed coking
  5.  Other
ALKYLATION
  1.  Sulfuric acid
  2.  Hydrofluoric acid
CAT CRACKING
  1.  Fluid
  2.  Thermofor
  3.  Houdriflow

HYDROGEN
  1.  Steam methane reforming
  2.  Steam naphtha reforming
  3.  Partial oxidation
  4.  Cryogenic
  5.  Other

NR—not reported

SHUT DOWN but  still in  operating  condition
(capacities  are given in  barrels  per  stream
day):

C & H Refinery, Lusk, Wyo. 500.
Imperial Oil Co., Calgary, Alta., Canada,
     22,315.
Imperial Oil Co.. Winnipeg, Man., Canada,
     22,526.
Imperial Oil Co., Regina, Sask., Canada,
     32,316.
Jet Fuel Refinery, Mosby,  Mont., 200.
Mobil Oil Corp., East Providence, R.I., 10,000.
Pioneer Division, Witco Chemical Co.,
     Hammond, Ind., 10,000.
Texas Fuel & Asphalt, LaCoste, Texas,  1,500.
 "Reprinted  from  The  Oil   and   Gas  Journal,   12  March  1976.
                                                       61

-------
TABLE A-l.    SURVEY  OF  OPERATING  REFINERIES  IN  THE U.S.  AS  OF  1  JANUARY
State
Alabama 	
Alaska
Arizona 	
Arkansas 	
California 	
Colorado 	
Delaware 	
Florida 	
Georgia 	
Hawaii 	
Illinois 	
Indiana 	
Kansas 	
Kentucky 	
Louisiana 	
Maryland
Michigan . ......
Minnesota 	
Mississippi 	
Missouri 	
Montana 	
Nebraska 	
New Jersey 	
New Mexico ....
New York
North Dakota
Ohio 	
Oklahoma 	
Oregon
Pennsylvania . .
Tennessee .
Texas 	
Utah . . . .
Virginia 	
Washington 	
West Virginia
Wisconsin ....
Wyoming
No. , — Crude capacity — ,
plants b/cd b/sd
. . 3
.. 4
1
4
... 35
. . 3
1
. 1
... 2
... 2
11
... 7
11
3
.. 19
2
... 6
... 3
... 5
... 1
7
... 1
. . 4
... 7
2
3
. 7
. 12
1
11
. . 1
.. 46
. 7
1
7
... 3
1
11
49,875
74,250
4,000
60,786
1,903,935
62,125
140,000
5,700
18,000
101,750
1,176,050
561,160
451,180
164,000
1,753,095
28,500
147,200
216,800
329,500
107,000
156,181
5,000
539,000
104,230
111,385
58,658
589,770
545,775
14,000
757,020
43,900
3,966,330
152,000
53,000
366,900
19,450
45,400
187,340
53,000
78,158
4,211
62,425
1,993,503
65,000
150,000
6,000
19,400
107,105
1,232,958
527,300
468,940
169,500
1,827,031
31,211
151,395
223,905
346,842
108,000
164,016
5,500
562,764
106,305
114,500
60,163
614,500
559,719
14,737
796,415
44,800
4,144,778
158,878
55,000
383,105
20,200
46,800
194,557

Vacuum
distillation
17,500

2,500
23,100
944,650
10,500
90,700
3,400

15,000
420,499
267,000
138,650
68,000
502,342
13,800
42,000
137,000
156,000
40,000
49,250
2,400
286,653
12,400
43,000

207,500
173,863
15,000
328,378
15,000
1,348,241
44,050
28,000
135,616
8,675
15,500
66,726

*
Thermal • — Cat cr
operations Fresh feei




473,083
22,000
44,000



145,300
24,000
36,400
4,000
141,333


23,000
6,700
10,000
14,950

38,144
2,250

1,100
28,600
51,866

2,750

317,188
18,500
14,000
36,000


4,444



15,000
485,611
22,500
62,000


14,100
429,277
193,000
163,700
54,000
617,778

39,500
71,500
70,500
41,000
46,300
2,400
229,444
12,400
41,000
23,000
202,460
191,200

206,000
13,500
1,257,166
53,600
27,000
91,500

9,700
58,778
Iharge capacity— b/sd-
licking — , Cat
t Recycle reformin



3,000
135,600
1,400
15,000


8,900
94,000
10,800
42,750
1,000
59,950

7,400
3,000
6,350
12,000
26,200
500
40,000
5,160
6,000
11,000
46,040
40,475

18,300

270,405
16,560
5,000
27,100

1,000
15,300
5,500
6,000

5,750
495,339
13,100
42,000


„ 11,000
315,377
127,100
104,200
30,500
377,033

29,500
30,100
70,700
14,000
42,550
1,100
118,944
10,920
24,000
10,200
162,500
131,147

221,708
10,000
1,009,542
23,800
9,000
93,222
6,160
10,000
30,794



Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Cat hydro-
g cracking refining treating




319,822

17,000



66,500

3,100

80,500



71,000

5,020





83,000
4,500

53,700

153,167
1,000

35,000



9,000



149,244





108,000
30,160
3,000

114,500

12,500
20,000
53,000

14,000

110,000

20,000

45,000


161,000

374,500
5,500

20,500
4,440
5,800
16,644
11,400
6,000

13,100
681,622
18,500
110,000


12,400
494,243
210,500
145,700
43,000
415,311

33,200
72,100
53,450
53,000
89,900

314,945
11,550
41,500
11,600
157,500
160,803

278,250
11,000
1,478,143
29,500
24,000
155,667
7,510
10,000
59,194
. 	 Production capacity— b/sd 	 ,
Alkyla- Aromatics/
tion isomerization Lubes Asphalt



4,500
90,028

8,000


4,130
105,822
30,200
39,100
6,400
131,089

4,900
11,500
9,200
4,500
10,200

17,133
2,925
2,800
2,600
35.300
44,133

38,100
4,000
222,751
10,450

25,333

1,200
7,840




22,490




1,350
10,100
3,200
3,400
18,500
26,800



6,000

4,600



3,000


15,606

11,300

201,516
2,550

2,900


1,500



4,250
22,300



200

5,600
11,300
4,000

24,750







6,400



2,100
11,100

29,575

93,922


1,900
6,700

1,470
10,500
300

7,700
109,760
3,300

2,400
11,600
1,300
42,500
56,600
18,800
23,500
39,850
21,700
11,450
57,000

6,500
24,425

73,000
700
18,000

30,400
33,000
8,600
36,500
8,000
64,900
4,700

6,600

12,000
14,817
Hydrogen Coke
(MMcfd) (t/d)



2.9
734.1
1.0
72.0


2.5
82.0

4.2

73.0



109.0

16.7





24.0
59.5

45.0

159.0


60.0
1.2






15,233
30
1,500



3,933
885
1,500

5,850


1,300
320
550
250

975



1,280
1,655



6,257
350
710
1,500


139
     Total
               256  15,074,845  15,687,321  5,672,893  1,459,608 4,744,914 930,190 3,592,786  893,309 1,276,788 5,211,888  874,134  334,812 225,567  760,402 1,446.1  44,217
                         1Reprinted  from The Oil  and Gas Journal,  12 March 1976.

-------
                                        TABLE  A-1  (continued)4'3
CTi
U)
Company and location
Hunt Oil Co.— Tuscaloosa 	
Marion Corp. — Theodore 	
Warrior Asphalt Corp. — Tuscaloosa
Total . . . 	
Atlantic Richfield Co.— North Slope
British Petroleum Co.— North Slope
Standard Oil Co. of California — Kenai
Tesoro-Alaskan Petroleum Corp. — Kenai
Total
Arizona 'Fuels Corp.— Fredonia
Total . . 	
Cross Oil & Refining Co.— Smackover
Crystal Oil Co.— Stephens 	
Lion Oil Co. — El Dorado 	
Macmillan Ring-Free Oil Co.— Norphlet
Total 	
Atlantic Richfield Co.— Carson ....
Beacon Oil Co. — Hanford 	
Champlin Petroleum Co. — Wilmington
Douglas Oil Co. — Paramount 	
Santa Maria 	
Edgington Oil Co.— Long Beach
Edgington Oxnard Refinery — Oxnard
Exxon Co. — Benicia 	
Fletcher Oil S Refining Co. — Carson
Golden Bear Division, Witco
Chemical Corp.— Oildale 	
- — Crude capacity — ,
b/cd b/td
29,000
18,000
2,875
49,875
13,000
1,250
22,000
38,000
74,250
4,000
4,000
5,850
3,536
47,000
4,400
60,786
181,500
12,300
30,600
46,500
9,500
29,500
NR
88,000
19,200
10,500
30,000
20,000
3,000
53,000
NR
NR
NR
40,000
78,158
NR
4,211
6,000
3,625
48,300
4,500
62,425
193,000
12,400
31,500
48,000
10,000
30,000
2,500
97,000
20,000
11,000

Vacuum
distillation
17,500

17,500

2,500
2,500
3,100
17,000
3,000
23,100
93,000
20,000
28,000
7,800
15,000
54,000
9,500

Thermal
operationt









'12,500
•42,000
•30,000
. '500
"2,750
•10,500

•24,600
ni 	 I4_ ^^j

, — Cat cracking — , Cat Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Alkyla- Aromatics-
Fnshfeed Recycle reforming cracking refininj treating . lion liomerizattor
ALABAMA
	 -5,500


	 5,500
ALASKA

	 '6,000
	 6,000
ARIZONA

ARKANSAS
'15,000 3,000 '5,750

15,000 3,000 5,750
CALIFORNIA
'57,000 8,000 '34,000 '19,700
	 '1,650
.'.'.".'.' .'.'.'.' '12,000 '.'.'.'.

'45,000 13,000 -24,000 '23,000
	 ;.. "4,700
*9,000 '5,900
•5,500


9,000 11,400


	 '6,000 	
	 6,000 	
	 "1,200 ' 	
	 '7,500 '4,500
'3,300
•1,100 :

13,100 4,500
•'•18,000 '34,000 7,200 '2,490
•18,000 '10,000
'io,ooo =12,666 '.'.'.'. '.'.'.'.
•9,800

'23,000 '47,200 '11,500
=23,000
	 '4,700 	
acity— b/sd 	 ,
Hydrogen Coke
I Lubes Asphalt (MMcfd) (t/d)
9,000
'.'.'.'. 1,500
. . 10,500
300
300
1,500 • 1,400
1,050
800 3,750
1,950 1,500
4,250 7,700
'.'.'.'. 18,000
6,800
... 12,000
4,000 3,200



'2.9
2.9
•50.0 1,800
650
104.0 900
                             Reprinted from The Oil and Gas Journal,  12 March 1976.

-------
          TABLE  A-1  (continued) ** >a
Company and location
- — Crude capacity — .
b/cd b/id
Golden Eagle Refining Co. — Carson . . NR
Gulf Oil Co.— Hercules 	 27,000
Gulf Oil Co.— Santa Fe Springs 	 51,500
Kern County Refinery Inc. — Bakersfield 15,900
Lunday-Thagard Oil Co.— South Gate 5,400
MacMillan Ring-Free Oil Co.— Signal Hill NR
Mobil Oil Corp.— Torrance 	 123,500
Mohawk Petroleum Corp. Inc.—
Bakersfield 	 22,100
Newhall Refining Co. Inc.— Newhall . . 11,500
Phillips Petroleum Co.— Martinez . . . 110,000
Powerine Oil Co.— Santa Fe Springs 44,120
Road Oil Sales Inc.— Bakersfield .... 1,500
Sabre Refining Inc.— Bakersfield . . . 3,500
San Joaquin Refining Co. — Oildale . . 29,300
Shell Oil Co.— Martinez 	 	 100,000
Wilmington 	 96,000
Standard Oil Co. of California—
Bakerslield 	 26,000
El Segundo 	 230,000
Richmond 	 190,000
Sunland Refining Corp. — Bakersfield 14,250
Texaco Inc.*— Wilmington 	 75,000
Toscopetro Corp.— Bakersfield 	 39,450
Union Oil Co. of California— Los Angeles 108,000
Rodeo 	 111,000
West Coast Oil Co.— Bakersfield .... 15,000
Total
1,876,935
13,000
28,300
53,800
15,595
4,300
12,200
130,000
22,800
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
27,600
103,000
101,000
NR
NR
NR
15,000
NR
40,000
111,000
117,000
NR
1,965,503
"All figures are calendar day. Stream-day figures not reported.
Continental Oil Co.— Denver 	 32,500 33,500
Gary Western Co.— Fruita 	 9,200 10,000
Refinery Corp.— Commerce City ... NR 21,500
Total . . .
62,125
65,000

Vacuum
distillation
5,900
25,000
2,150
95,000
6,000
74,500

55,300
60,000
103,000
150,000
19,000
83,000
38,500
938,750
7,000
3,500
10,500

Thermal
operations


'13,800
•6,500

•16,000
•46,000
'42,000


'37,000
"9,800
•54,000
•48,666
•6,700
'20,000
•42,500
•2,000
473,083
'6,000
•10,000
•6,000
22,000

, — Cater
Fresh tee


'13,500

'56,000
'47,000
'11,000


'46,000
'35,000
'43,500
•43,500
•28,666
•12,000
•45,000
harge capa
1 Recycle


300

NR
NR
1,000


40,000
5,000
11,000
11,000
"NR
None
7,000

n_
Cat Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Alkyla-
reforraing cracking refining treating tion

'15,800 '21900
19,000 '11,000
•2,500


•36,000 '18,000
•2,600
•32,500 '22,000
•6,300

"25;666 '2o;666
•21,000
•5,400
•60,000 '49,000
•70,500 '41,500
'26,000
•1,100
•35,000 '20,000
'14,400 '13,500
•42,000 '21,000
•26,000 '30,000
485,611 135,800 479,539 316,922
COLORADO
'15,000 1,000 '6,500
	 "2,800
•7,500 400 '3,800
22,500
1,400
13,100

	 '15,400
	 	 '12,000 "3,000

	 '23,000 =10,000
•15,000
=25,000
	 '2,600
	 '34,500 '10,500
•8,000 '7,000 '2,300
•8,000
"8,000

•sojooo '17,666 '7,6oo
•11,000
•16,000
•6,300
'11,000
	 -26,000 '8,600
•11,000
"28,700
	 '5,400
	 '40,000 '5,900
•12,000
'18,000
	 '44,000 '9,200
"3,200
	 '2,000
•13,000 '20,000 '4,400
	 '5,400 '1,940
	 '52,000 '8,000
=33,000
	 '21,000
•9,000
'14,000

149,244 666,222 90,028
	 '7,000
•8,500
	 '3,000
	 18,500
iduction capacity— b/sd 	 >
Art mattes-
tomertaatlan lubes Asphalt
'.'.'. '.'.'.'. 4,000
	 2,150

3,000
•2,700 200
	 5,000
1,300

	 3,360
4,500 10,400
•3,800 	
	 1,100
•1,500 ... 8,300
'2,000 10,000 11,000
.'.'.'.' 10^666
3,600 6,150
4,000
22,490 22,300 109,760
	 3,300
	 3,300
Hydrogen Coke
MMcfd) (t/d)
•12.6
'55.6
'65.6
'67.5
•57.5
'135.0
•48.6
'20.0
'49.4
'70.0
734.1
'1.0
1.0
2,800
1,200
1,800
2,200
1,650
200
1,850
15,233
30
30
Reprinted  from The Oil and Gas Journal, 12 March  1976.

-------
                                      TABLE A-1  (continued)4'9
en
Company and location

Getty Oil Co. Inc.— Delaware City . .



Total 	 	

Seminole Asphalt Refining Inc. —
St. Marks 	
Total 	

Amoco Oil Co. — Savannah 	
Young Refining Corp. — Douglasville
Total

Hawaiian Independent Refinery Inc. —
Barbers Point, Oahu 	
Standard Oil Co. of California —
Barbers Point 	
Total . . 	

Amoco Oil Co.— Wood River 	


Clark Oil & Refining Corp.— Blue Island
Hartford 	

Marathon Oil Co.— Robinson 	

Mobil Oil Corp.— Joliet 	
Shell Oil Co.— Wood River 	




Texaco Inc.' — Lawrenceville .. . .

Lockport 	

Union Oil Co. of California— Lemont




Wireback Oil Co.— Plymouth
^-Cnidei
b/cd

140,000



140,000


NR

5,700

13,000
5,000

18,000


NR

40,000
101,750

105,000


NR
NR

195,000

175,000
283,000




84,000

72,000

150,000




1,800
apKlfc->
b/td

150,000



150,000


6,000

6,000

14,000
5,400

19,400


65,000

NR
107,106

107,000


70,000
45,000

205,000

186,000
295,000




NR

NR

NR




1,800

Vacuum Thinul
diitlllatlon operations

90,700 '44,000



90,700 44,000


3,400 	

3,400









15,000 	 .
15,000 .....

40,000 	


27,000 	
18,000 '13,000

62,000 '2,800
'19,000
82,000 '30,000
95,500 "21,000




24,000 '9,000

14,000 -27,000

55,000 -19,500







i— Cat cracking — , Cat Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Cathydro-
FrsrttterJ Recyclo reforming cradling refining treating
/DELAWARE
'62,000. 15,000 '42,000 ' M>,000
,''••'•'• .


62,000 15,000 42,000 17,000
FLORIDA




GEORGIA




HAWAII

	 '11,000

'14,100. 8,900 	
14,100 8,900 11,000
ILLINOIS
'38,000 4,000 '12,300


'24,000 1,000 '30,500 '11,000
'26,000 1,000 '9,200

'36,500 8,000 '14,000 '22,000
• '33,300
'85,000 NR '47,000 	
'94,000 NR "22,000 '33,500
•68,000 '•



'31,000 NR '12,000
•12,000
'30,000 NR '9,000
•10,000
•58,000 8,000 '31,300






• ,.:... '45,000
'10,000
'25,000
•30,000
	 110,000












	 '11,000

	 '1,400
	 12,400

	 '15,600
'17,000
'3,000
	 '20,500
	 '9,200
'10,000
"6,000 '22,000

•75,000 '74,000
•27,000 -64,000
=50,000
•7,000
'35,000
'6,000
	 '24,000
'17,000-
	 '19,000
"17,000
	 '31,300
•2,200
'4,500
•35,000
'2,500

. 	 Production capacity— n/sd 	 >
Alkyla- Aromatic* Hydrogen Coke
tion isomerlzation Lubes Ainhalt WWcfd) (t/dl
.
'8,000



8,000














•4,130 '1,350
4,130 1,350

'5,500


'6,000
'8,000

'7,600

'24,000
•22,000 '3,200
•4,000



'6,600

'8,000

: 16,500 '2,900






	 '72.0 1,500



	 72.0 1,500


2,400 	

2,400

9,000
200 2 600

200 11,600




1,300 '2.5 ....
1,300 2.5 ....

. ... 10,800 	


4,500 	


	 '25.0 900

	 1,700
5,600 21,000 '57.0 ....




2,700 	

	 300

3,200 . ... 1,000





                            Reprinted from The Oil and  Gas Journal,  12  March 1976.

-------
                                       TABLE A-1  (continued)4'3
CTl
CTl

Company and location
Yetter Oil Co. — Coltnar
Total 	
/ — Crude capacity — >
b/cd b/sd
1,000
1,176.050
NR
1,232,958
'All figures are calendar day. Stream-day figures not reported.
Amoco Oil Co.— Whiting 	 360,000 375,000
Atlantic Richfield Co-East Chicago 126,000 140,000
Crystal-Princeton Refining Co. —
Princeton 	 NR 4,300
Gladieux Refinery Inc.— Fort Wayne 12,500 12,500
Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative
Association Inc.— Mt. Vernon ... 18,500 20,000
Laketon Asphalt Refining Inc.— Laketon NR 8,500
Rock Island Refining Corp. —
Indianapolis 	 32,000 33,000
Total 	
American Petrofina Inc. — El Dorado
Apco Oil Corp. — Arkansas City ....
CRA Inc.-Coffeyville 	
Phillipsburg 	
Derby Refining Co. — Wichita 	
Mid America Refinery Co. — Chanute
Mobil Oil Corp. — Augusta 	
National Cooperative Refinery
Association— McPherson 	
North American Petroleum Corp. —
Shallow Water 	
Phillips Petroleum Co.— Kansas City
Skelly Oil Co.— El Dorado 	
Total 	
Ashland Petroleum Co.— Catlettsburg
Louisville Refining, Division of
Ashland Oil Inc. — Louisville 	
Somerset Refinery Inc.— Somerset .
Total 	
561,160
25,000
46,230
48,000
25,000
26,500
3,100
50,000
54,150
NR
85,000
78,700
451,180
135,800
25,200
3,000
164,000
527,300
NR
47,200
50,000
26,000
27,650
3,300
52,000
57,000
10,000
NR
80,000
468,940
140,000
26,000
3,500
169,500
Vacuum
distillation
1,000
420,499
167,000
70,000
7,000
6,000
17,000
267,000
8,000
12,750
14,500
9,000
8,800
1,800
18,300
18,000
5,500
15,000
27,000
138,650
55,000
13,000
68,000
Thermal - — Cat cracking — , Cat Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Catbytfro-
operattoiu Fresh feed Recycle reforming eracMng refining treating


145,300 429,277
'24,000 ' '123,000
	 '48,000

	 '6,000
	 '16,000
24,000 193,000
	 '11,000
	 '9,400
'8,500 '14,500
	 '8,000
'3,800 '10,800
''4^100 '2i',5'66
'17,000 '20,000
•3,000 '5,500
	 '32,000
	 '31,000


94,000
INDIA
• 7,000
2,000

NR
None


315,377 66,500
JSA -
. •21,000
'73,000
'20,000
'1,500
•3,000
•8,600
10,800 127,100
KANSAS .
500 '4,000
800 '16,300 '3,100
1,500 '8,600
600 '5,300
1,700 '5,000
2^666 'ib',5'66
'10,000
1,000 '7,000
NR 	
16,000 '16,000
17,000 '21,500
36,400 163,700 42,750 104,200 3,100
KENTUCKY
'4,000 '54,000 1,000 '26,500 ....
	 "3,000
	 '1,000
4,000 54,000
1,000
30,500


108,000 494,243
°3,800 '111,000
•500 '39;000
•860 '20,000
"25,000 '20,000
•2,000
•3,500
..:... '1,500
	 =3,000
	 '10,500
30,160 210,500
. . . "'4,000
	 '17,000
'3,000 '11,800
	 '6,600
	 '5,000
'.'.'.'.'.'. '10,000
	 '8,000
'.'.'.'.'.'. '28,566
=27,500
	 '23,000
•4,300
3,000 145,700
	 '26,500
'6,500
•4,500
•1,500
	 '3,000
	 '1,000
	 43,000
/ 	 Production capacity— t/sd 	 ,
Alkyla- Aromatlcs- 1
tion Isomeiiation Lubes Asphalt


105,822 10,100
'20,000 '3,200
'6,000
=4,200
30,200 3,200
"2,000 i. . . .
•2,600
'4,500
'1,800
'3,000
'3,800 '.'.'.'.
" '6,000 '2,000
ul,000
'7,500
'6,900 '1,400
39,100 3,400
'6,400 '4,000
=2,500
"12,000
6,400 18,500

5,600 42,500
7,900 40,000
3,400 10,400
'.'.'.'. 3,666
3,200
11,300 56,600
..... 2,000
2,800
1,500
2,000
. : . .. i. .....
'.'.'.'. ' 8,000
1,000
2,500 . 3,000
4,000 18,800
.... 20,000
3,500
. 23,500
tydrogen Coke
MMcfd) (t/d)

82.0 3,933
885

885
'4.2 '.'.'.'.
300
'.'.'.'. 160
425
615
4.2 1,500

                             Reprinted from The Oil and Gas Journal,  12 March 1976.

-------
                                                TABLE  A-1  (continued) **»a
(Tl
Company and location

Atlas Processing Co., Division of
Pennzoil— Shreveport 	


Bayou State Oil Corp. — Hosston
Calumet Refining Co.— Princeton . . .
Canal Refining Co.— Church Point . .
Cities Service Oil Co.— Lake Charles

Claiborne Gasoline Co. — Lisbon
Continental Oil Co.— Lake Charles . .

Evangeline Refining Co. Inc. — Jennings
Exxon Co. — Baton Rouge 	



Good Hope Refineries Inc.— Metairie
Gulf Oil Co.— Alliance Refinery,
Belle Chasse 	

Venice 	
Kerr-McGee Refining Corp.—
Cotton Valley 	 	 	 .
LaJet Inc.— St. James 	
Murphy Oil Corp. — Meraux 	
Placid Refining Co.— Port Allen 	
Shell Oil Co.— Norco 	

Tenneco Oil Co.— Chalmette 	
Texaco Inc." — Convent 	
Total 	 	 	 	
. — Crude capacity — .
b/cd b/sd


45,000 NR


3,500 4,000
NR 2,400
4,000 4,000
268,000 280,000

6,790 7,000
83,000 85,000

NR 5,000
455,000 475,000



NR 44,500

180,400 186.000

28,700 29,100

10,700 11,000
NR 16,000
92,500 95,400
36,000 NR
240,000 250,000

NR 100,000
140,000 NR
1,753.095 1,827,031

Vacuum
distillation


600


2,000
2,400
83,000


8,000


165,000



10,000

67,000





14,500

90,000

23,000
35,000
$02,342

Thermal , — Cat crickTng-A "' Cat Cat hydra-
operations Fnsafeeil Recycle reforming cracking
LOUISIANA

	 '10,000


•2,000 	

	 '1,500
•28,000 '125,000 20,000 '46,000

•2,200
'7,000 "27,000 5,000 '18,500

600
•48,000 '169,000 None -99,500 '23,000



	 '8,500 NR '3,000

'16,000 '78,000 2,300 37,500

	 18,000 '11,500



.'.'..'.' 'lols'dd '500 =19,660
	 '4,300 ' ....
•18,000 '100,000 2,000 '18,000 '28,000
'30,600
'9,000 '22,000 NR '35,000 '18,000
•12,000 '70,000 NR '30.000
141,333 817,778 59,950 377,033 80,500

Cat hydra- Catlwdro-
refinlnf treating


	 '10,000
•1,800
•4,800



'b\000 '46,666
•30,000 '14,000

.'.'.'.'.'.' ''19,666
'3,000

.'.'..'.'.' ''3,966
•80,000
•23,800
'2,200
	 '3,000

•16,000 '42,000
•22,000
	 '14,400



'15,500 '25,700
	 '6,000
'25,000 '30,600

	 '24,000
	 -S55,000
114,500 415,311
	 Production capacity— b/sd 	 .
Alkyla- Annuities- 1
tion isomerization Lubes Asphalt


'1,000 	


	 !. 1,250 500
	 1,500 450
'33,000 '2,300 7,000 '.'.'.'.


'4,600 '.'.'.'. '.'.'.'. '.'.'.'.


'29,800 '.'.'.'. 15,000 28,900





=28,400 '11,100 	
'5,400




=2,900 '.'.'.'.- '.'.'.'. '.'.'.'.

'13,500 .'.'.'.' .'.'.'.' 10',666

'5,000 '7,000 	
'12,500 	
31,089 26,800 24,750 39,850
Hydrogen Coke
MMcfd) tt/d)







'.'.'.'. 1,000


'.'.'.'. '500


'.'.'.'. 2,300





840







'Sl'.O 860

'22.0 350

73.0 5,850
'All figures are calendar day. Stream-day figures not reported.

Amoco Oil Co. — Baltimore .
Chevron Asphalt Co. — Baltimore . .
Total

Bay Refining— Dow Chemical U.S.A.—
Bay City 	
Crystal Relining Co.— Carson City .
Lakeside Refining Co. — Kalamazoo
Marathon Oil Co.— Detroit 	
Osceola Refining Co.— West Branch
Total Leonard Inc. — Alma 	



15,000 17,000
13,500 NR
28,500 31,211


NR 22,000
6,200 4,000
5,600 NR
65,000 67,000
9,500 9,500
40,000 43,000




13,800
13,800





25,000

17,000


MARYLAND



MICHIGAN

... =6,000 2,000 	

	 '2,666
	 '21,500 3,900 '16,000
	 '1,500
	 '12,000 1,500 -'10,000











•12,500 '16,500
	 '1,500
	 '10,000
•1,400
'3,800

10,700
	 11,000
	 21,700





•3,500 '.'.'.'. '.'.'.'. 8,650

=1,400 '.'.'.'. '.'.'.'. 2,800
















            Total
                              147,200   151,395   42,000
39,500   7,400   29,500
12,500   33,200   4,900
11,450
                                    Reprinted from The Oil and  Gas Journal,  12 March 1976.

-------
                                       TABLE A-l  (continued) ** >a
cc
Company and location
Continental Oil Co. — Wrenshall ....
Koch Refining Co.— Pine Bend 	
Northwestern Refining Co., Division of
Ashland Oil Inc.— St. Paul Park . .
Total 	 	 	
Amerada-Hess Corp. — Purvis 	
Southland Oil Co. — Lumberton 	
Sandersville 	
Yazoo City 	 	
Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky—
Pascagoula
Total 	
Amoco Oil Co. — Sugar Creek 	
Total 	
Big West Oil Co.— Kevin 	
Cenex — Laurel 	
Continental Oil Co.— Billings 	
Exxon Co. — Billings 	
Phillips Petroleum Co.— Great Falls
Tesoro Petroleum Corp.— Wolf Point
Westco Refining Co.— Cut Bank . . .
Total 	
CRA Inc.— Scottsbluff 	
Total 	
Chevron Oil Co.— Perth Amboy 	
Exxon Co.— Linden 	
, — Crude capacity — >
b/cd b/sd
23,500
127,300
66,000
216,800
28,500
5,800
11,000
4,200
280,000
329,500
107,000
107,000
5,123
40,400
52,500
45,000
6,000
2,500
4,658
156,181
5,000
5,000
88,000
265,000
24,000
131,905 .
68,000
223,905
30,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
348,842
108,000
108,000
5,500
42,500
56,000
46,000
NR
2,700
5,000
164,016
5,500
5,500
NR
277,000

Vacuum
distillation
9,000
90,000
38,000
137,000
5,500
2,500
148,000
156,000
40,000
40,000
750
14,000
14,500
18,000
2,000
49,250
2,400
2,400
50,000
143,000



Thimal , — C«t cracking — , Cat Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Alkyla- Aromatlcs-
operations Frtthfeed Recycle reforming cracking refining treating tlon Uomerlzatlon 1
MINNESOTA
	 '9,500 500 '3,600
•23,000 '41,000 1,000 '16,500 ..../
	 '21,000 1,500 '10,000
23,000 71,500 3,000 30,100
MISSISSIPPI
•6,700 =14,500 NR '5,700 '3,000

	 '56,000 2,000 '65,000 '68,000
6,700 70,500 6,350 70,700 71,000
MISSOURI
'10,000 '41,000 12,000 '14,000
10,000 41,000 12,000 14,000 	
MONTANA
T.250 	 '1,000 '20
	 '11,500 3,000 '12,000
	 '14,000 7,000 '13,500
"11,500 '19,000 15,000 '14,500 '4,900
	 '1,800 1,200 -600
'2^200 .....'. ..'.'.' "950 '100
14,950 46,300 26,200 42,550 5,020
NEBRASKA
	 '2,400 500 '1,100
	 2,400 500 1,100
NEW JERSEY
	 "30,000 8,000 '39,000
	 '130,000 20,000 '42,000
•20,000
20,000
•23,000
"30,000
53,000
"14,666
14,000
=60,000
=50,000
'3,600 	
'16,500 '8,500
•29,000
•8,000
'10,000 =3,000
"5,000
72,100 11,500
'5,450 	 :
'48,000 '9,200 '6,000
53,450 9,200 6,000
'20,000 '4,500
'33,000
53,000 4,500
'1,000 	 	
'10,000 =3,000 '2,000
'39,500 =3,800' '2,600
=15,500 '3,400 	
"20,000
'700 	
"1,000 	
'1,200
"1,000
89,900 10,200 4,600
•39,000 '3,000
•20,000
'42,000 '8,500 . .
•14,000
"99,000
HI/I* 	 ,
Hydrogen Coke
Lubes Asphalt (MMciA (t/d)
'.'.'.'. 35,666 '.::: uoo
.... 22,000 	
.... 57,000 .... 1,300
	 320
	 '109.0 ....
109.0 320
6,500 .... 550
6,500 550
325 	
6,000 	
4,300 	
13,000 "16.7 250
800 	
24,425 16.7 250
... 25,000 	
... 48,000 	
                             Reprinted from  The Oil and Gas Journal, 12 March 1976.

-------
          TABLE A-l  (continued)^>a
Company and location
Mobil Oil Corp. — Paulsboro 	
Texaco Inc * — Westville
Total 	
'All figures are calendar day. Stream-d;
Caribou Four Corners Inc. — Kirtland
Famariss Oil & Refining Co. — Lovington
Monument . . .
Navajo Refining Co.— Artesia 	
Plateau Inc. — Bloomfield 	
Shell Oil Co.— Ciniza 	
Thriftway Co.— Bloomfield 	
Total 	
Ashland Petroleum Co.— Tonawanda
Mobil Oil Corp. — Buffalo 	
Total 	 	
Amoco Oil Co. — Mandan 	
Northland Oil & Refining Co.—
Dickinson 	
Westland Oil Co.— Williston 	
. Total 	 	 	 	 	 	
Ashland Petroleum Co.— Canton . .
Findlay 	
Gulf Oil Co.— Cleves 	
Toledo 	
Standard Oil Co. of Ohio— Lima 	
Toledo 	
Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania — Toledo
Total 	
Allied Materials Corp.— Stroud 	
Apco Oil Corp.— Cyril 	
Champlin Petroleum Co. — Enid
Continental Oil Co.— Ponca City 	
< — Crude capacity — ,
b/ed b/sd
98,000
88,000
100,500
NR
539,000 562,764
ly figures not reported.
2,000 2,500
NR 37,000
NR 5,000
29,930 NR
8,400 8,800
18,000 19,000
6,000 2,500
104,230
68,385
43,000
111,385
49,000
5,000
4,658
58,658
64,000
20,370
42,100
50,300
168,000
120,000
125,000
589,770
NR
14,000
53,800
126,000
106,305
70,500
44,000
114,500
49,900
NR
5,000
60,163
66,000
21,000
43,500
51,000
177,000
126,000
130,000
614,500
5,500
14,274
56,000
131,000

Vacuum
distillation
62,600
29,500
286,653
' 4,500
7,900
12,400
25,000
18,000
43,000
33,000
8,000
13,000
12,500
51,000
68,000
22,000
207,500
5,500
4,400
18,000
32,000

Thtrmal
operations
•23,700
•13,000
38.144
'1,250
'1,000
2,250

'1,100
1,100
•16,666
'12,600
28,600
•5,666
•16,000

. — Cat cracking — , Cat Cat hydro-
Frathfeed Recycle reforming cracking
•25,000 None -23,500
'40,000 NR '13,000 ....
229,444 40,000 118,944
NEW MEXICO

•5,266 "NR vi,876 .'"
	 '2,250
'7,200 3,600 '6,800

12,400 5,160 10,920
NEW YORK
'22,000 None '11,500
'19,000 6,000 '12,500
41,000 6,000 24,000
NORTH DAKOTA
'23,000 11,000 '8,200
	 '2,000
23,000 11,000 10,200
OHIO
'24,460 740 '11,000
'I8,oo6 91666 16^600
'19,800 2,000 11,000
'37,700 7,800 '47,000 '21,000
'52,500 19,000 '42,500 '36,000
'50,000 7,500 '25,000 '26,000
•16,000
202,460 46,040 162,500 83,000
OKLAHOMA
'6,700 1,675 '1,125
'19,000 300 '15,000
•44,000 NR '31,000

Cat hydro- Cat hydro-
refining treating
	 '23,500
"33,000
	 '17,000
-23,000
110,000 314,945
:."'." ''2,566
	 '2,250
	 '6,800

	 11,550
•20,000 '27,000
	 '14,500
20,000 41,500
	 '10,000
.".'".' ''i',666
	 11,600
'22,500 '12,000
'12,000
'5,000 '11,000
•5,500 '11,000
'-'59,000
	 '-'37,000
	 '27,500
45,000 157,500
.'.'.'.'.'.' 'U25
	 '20,400
	 '31,000
•2,700
, 	 Production capacity— t/i
Alkyla- Aromatic*
tlon ItomerizaUon Lubes
•2,300
'3,000
17,133
•1,400 '.'.'.'.
•1,525 '.'.'.'.
2,925
•3,000
•2,800
2,800 3,000
'2,600
2,600
=7,000
'4,500 '.'.'.'.
•5,500 ....
•ll',306
•7,000
35,300
•1,700 : : "
=4,500 "6,000
•9,700 '4,000
6,400
6,400


2,i6o
2,100
1,200
1,100
2,000
Hydrogen
Asphalt MMctd)

73,000
'700 '.'.'.'.
700
10,500
7,500
18,000
12,000
6,500
2,900
2,000
7,000 ''24.6
30,400 24.0
1,500
1,600
1,800
3,000
Coke
(t/d)
975
975


'620
660
1,280
200
675
5Reprinted from The  Oil and Gas Journal, 12 March 1976.

-------
                                      TABLE  A-l (continued)4'3
o
Company and location
Kerr-McGee Corp.— Wynnewood 	

Midland Cooperatives Inc. — Gushing



OKC Refining Inc.— Okmulgee 	
Sun Oil Co.— Duncan 	
Tulsa 	


Texaco Inc.*— West Tulsa 	

Tonkawa Refining Co. — Arnett
Vickers Petroleum Corp. — Ardmore
Total
/ — trade capacity — .
b/cd b/id
50,000

19,000



25,000
48,500
88,500


50,000

NR
61,000

545,775
51,500

19,814



24,000
50,000
30,000


NR

5,000
60,000

559,719

Vtcuuin
distillation
10,000

7,000



3,200
17,000
31,500


14,500


30,000

173,883

Thermal , — Cat ci
operations Frath fee
	 '11,500

'4,000 '7,000



	 -8,000
•12,000 '25,000
'8,200 '30,000


'6,000 '18,000


'20,000

51,866 191,200
Charge capac
racking — >
d Recycle
2,000 .

3,000



2,000
10,500
1,400


NR


1,000

40,475
•itv h/irt
f>—
Cat Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Alkyla-
reforming cracking refining treating tion 1:
,'7,500 '4,500

.'4,500



'•7,866 .' : : :
•23,000
•7,000

'20,000


•12,000

131,147 4,500
	 '7,500 '3,500
'4,000
	 '4,500 '2;000
•2,000
•1,000
'1,000
	 '1,500
	 '7,800 '5,800
	 '28,000 '2,600
•8,500 '6,000

	 '8,000 '3,000
-17,000

	 '12,000 "5,000

.... 160,803 .44,133
iduction capacity— b/sd 	 ,
Aromatlct- Hydrogen Coke
lomerlzatlog Lobes Asphalt (MMcfd) (11 tl
	 3,500 '9.5 ....

	 80



	 1,800 	
	 .... '50.0 400
'2,000 6,800 4,800 .... 300
•950
•2,100
'500 	


	 15,000 	

15,606 11,100 33,000 59.5 1,655
'All figures are calendar day. Stream-day figures not reported. <
OREGON
Standard Oil Co. of California —
Portland 	
Total 	

14,000
14,000

NR
14,737

15,000
15,000













	 8,600 	
	 8,600 	
PENNSYLVANIA
Atlantic Richfield Co.— Philadelphia

BP Oil Corp.— Marcus Hook 	


Gulf Oil Co.— Philadelphia 	

Kendall-Amalie Division, Witco
Chemical Corp. — Bradford 	
Pennzoil Co., Wolf's Head Division —
Reno 	
Rouseville
Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. —
Emlenton 	

Farmers Valley 	
Sun Oil Co. — Marcus Hook 	


United Refining Co.— Warren 	
Valvoline Oil Co., Division of
Ashland Oil Inc.— Freedom 	
Total 	
185,000

143,000


174,300


. 9,000

2,100
10,000

3,320

6,500
165,000


52,000

6,800
757,020
195,000

150,000


180,000


' 9,500

2,220
10,400

3,495

6,800
180,000


52,000

7,000
786,415
106,000

60,000


65,000





3,328

1,700

2,750
48,000


38,000

3,600
328,378


•40,000


	 '80,000







•750 	
"600
•1,400 	
	 '75,000


	 '11,000


2,750 208.000


1,600


6,500










10,000


200


18,300
'60,000 '30,000

'46,000 '21,000


52,000 ;....


'2,000


•3,606 "2, 700

'1,250

'1,858
'29,400
=15,600

'10,000


221,708 53,700
'20,000 '54,000 . .
•41,000
'40,000 "'50,000 =9,700
•20,000
•17,000
•60,000 '52,000 "15,000


. .. '2,500


	 '4,500

...... '1,450

. ... '2,300
	 '35,000 '12,000
'10,000
:13,000
	 "15,000 =1,400
'1,500


161,000 278,250 38,100
... !9,500 '45.0 ....

•600 	


'3,800 	
'1,600

3,300 	

500 	
3,175

1,700 	

2,500 	
•5,300 17,000 12,000 	


	 	 5,000 	

1,400 	
11,300 29,575 36,500 45.0 . ...
                             Reprinted from The Oil and Gas Journal, 12 March  1976.

-------
           TABLE A-l (continued)^»a
Company and location
, — Cradt capacity — ,
b/cil b/td

Vacuum
distillation


..it., ki.j

Thermal , — Cat cracking — , Cat Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Cat hydro-
operations Freihfetd Recycle reforming cracking riflnlng treating
, 	 Production capacity— t/ id 	 ,
Alkyla- Aromatics- 1
tion liomerintion Lubes Asphalt
Hydrogen Coke
MMcfd) (t/d)
TENNESSEE
Delta Refining Co. — Memphis 	
Total

American Petrofina Inc.— Mt. Pleasant
Port Arthur 	

Amoco Oil Co.— Texas City 	
Atlantic Richfield Co.— Houston ....


Champlin Petroleum Co. —
Corpus Christi . 	 	


Charter International Oil Co. — Houston
Chevron Oil Co. — El Paso 	

Coastal States Petrochemical Co.—
Corpus Christi 	


Cosden Oil & Chemical Co. — Big Spring


Crown Central Petroleum Corp. —
Houston 	

Crystal Oil Co. — La Blanca 	
Longview
Diamond Shamrock Oil & Gas Co.—
Sunray 	


Dorchester Gas Producing Co.—
White Deer
Eddy Refining Co. — Houston
Exxon Co. — Baytown 	




Flint Chemical Co — San Antonio
Gulf Oil Co.— Port Arthur 	


Gulf States Oil & Refining Co. — Quit man
Howell Hydrocarbons Inc. — San Antonio
J & W Refining Inc. — Tucker
La Gloria Oil & Gas Co.— Tyler 	

Marathon Oil Co ~—Texas City
Mid-Tex Refiner — Hearne 	
43,900
43,900

26,000
84,000

333,000
213,000



67,700


64,000
71,000


185,000


65,000



100,000

5,462
8,318

51,500



1000
2800
390,000




1 200
312400


NR
NR
9700
29,300

64000
?!soo
44,800
44,800

NR
NR

347,000
233,500



68,800


70,000
NR


NR


NR



103,000

5,600
8,650

53,500



1000
NR
405,000




1400
319,000


4400
3',600
10000
29>00

66,000
1000
15,000
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

	 '13,500
13,500

	 -9,600
"10,000 '30,000

•22,600 '157,000
'27,000 '69,000



	 '13,000


'10,000 '24,000
	 '22,000


•12,000 '19,000


'10,000 '24,000



•9,500 '43,000




'2,500 "11,500
•11,500




	 '125,000





•30,000 ' 'WOOO





•3,000 '10,000
•12,000
'28,500

None

•10,000 ....
iniuin
TEXAS
2,200
2,000

47,000
5,000



105


5,000
8,000


600


1,000



9,000




2,000
. 2,000




21,000





6,000





5,000

4,500

•3,500
•22,000

•131,000 '40,000
'100,000 '4,500



•6,300
•25,000

'13,500
•25,000


'15,000
"20,000

•20,000



'8,000
•14,000

'1,500

•14,000



•980

•88,000 '20,000





65,000 '15,000



'750

•9,500

•8,000

	 '11,000
11,000

-»6,000 '-3,500
•30,000 '•'22,000

...... '130,500
"35,000 '100,000
•6,000
•8,000

	 '27,000
•6,300

"29,500 '15,000
•14,000 '25,000
•4,000

•25,000 '30,000
•10,000
"10.000
"8,000 -^S.OOO



	 '22,000




	 '14,000
•1,500
'4,500



•78,000 '90,000
"30,000 '15,000
"109,000
•41,000
'8,500

•65,000 '65,000
•1,200
"13,900



	 '7,000



•4,000
4,000

•2,200
'2,500

'30,000
•9,000



'3,300


•4,500
•5,000


•2,500


=6,000



'10,000




'8,700





•26,066





•5,500
'14,500




•3,000

'11,000





>3 666
•1,600
'37,500
'10,400



'2,100
•1,600
•7,510
'7,900
•1,500


•5,500
•5,000

'4,500
•2,000
•800

'2,000
•2,000



•1,400











'2,700
•2,500
"7,200





'2,000

8,000
8,000

8,000


5,300
6,500






4,000
5,000


500


8,000








.... '2,500





31,800 12,000





13,200 . '. '.















... 1,030
. . 1,300










500






300
















'28.6 1,390





:::: "so



Reprinted  from The Oil  and Gas Journal,  12 March 1976.

-------
                                                                     TABLE  A-l   (continued)
M
Company and location
Mobil Oil Corp. — Beaumont 	

Phillips Petroleum Co.— Borger ...


Sweeny 	 	


Pride Refining Inc.— Abilene 	
Quintana-Howell Joint Venture —
Corpus Christi
Shell Oil Co.— Deer Park 	



Odessa 	
South Hampton Co. — Silsbee 	
Southwestern Refining Co. Inc. —
Corpus Christi 	
Suntide Refining Co.— Corpus Christi

Tesoro Petroleum Corp. —
Carrizo Springs 	
Texaco Inc.* — Amarillo 	
El Paso 	
Port Arthur 	


Port Neches 	
Texas Asphalt & Refining Co. — Euless
Texas City Refining Inc. — Texas City
Three Rivers Refining Inc.—
Three Rivers 	
Union Oil Co. of California — Nederland


Union Texas Petroleum, Division of
Allied Chemical Co.— Winnie . .
Wickett Refining Co.— Wickett 	
Winston Refining Co.— Fort Worth . .
Total 	
, — Crude capacity — v
b/cd b/id
325,000

99,000


85,000


36,500

NR
294,000



32,000
18,100

120,000
57,000


28,000
20,000
17,000
406,000


47,000
6000
76,500

NR
120,000



9,425
8,500
20,000
3,966,330
335,000

NR


NR


37,960

44,500
305,000



34,000
NR

124,000
60,000


29,250
NR
NR
NR


NR
6000
80,000

5,000
NR



10,000
NR
20,500
4,144,778

Vacuum
distillation
103,000




17,000





125,000



10,000


24,000
10,000




142,000


26,000

27,500

3,000
43,000





3,500
1,348,241
1
Thermal , — Cat ci
operations Fresh fee
•33,000 '84,000
•24,000
	 '55,000


	 '30,000





'70,000 '70,000
•••20,000


	 '10,500


	 '9,500
•7,700 '20,000


•4,666 '8,666
•4,000 '7,000
'18,000 '135,000




=9,000 '27,000


.'....'.' '40^666





'.".'.'.I '3,400
317,188 1,257,166
iharge cap;
•acking —
t Recycle
NR
NR
15,000


5,000





NR



5,500


2,500
6,500


"NR
NR
NR




1,000


4'.o66





2,600
270,405
iritv h/ftrt

\ Cat Cat hydro- Cat hydro- Cat hydro-
i reforming cracking refining treating
'45,000 '29,000
•49,000
•26,000


•32,000





'15,000 '25,000
•20,000
•42,000

•11,000
'4,000

•15,000
•13,000
•11,000

•3,000
'5,000
•3,500
•60,000 '15,000




'11,000


•37,500



•6,200 -'3,000

•1,700
1,009,542 153,167
	 '83,000
•42,000
	 '25,000
•26,000
'12,000
	 '52,000





•50,000 "71,000
•17,500
•7,000
'85,000
	 =11,000
	 '4,000

	 '15,000
	 '15,500


'3,000
	 '5,000
	 '3,500
	 '60,000
•37,000
•18,000


	 '11,000


'.'.'.'.'.'. '37,56o
•6,500
'5,500

•270
	 '250

374,500 1,478,143
, 	 Production capacity— b/sd 	 >
Alkyla- Aromatics- Hydrogen Coke
tion isomerization Lubes Asphalt (MHcfd) (t/d)
'12,000

'14,500


•9,000





•7^50



•2,600


=2,400
=3,200


•1,500
•1,500
•15,000




•3,500


•4,000






222,751
•21,000

•2,900
•8,000
•12,000
'2,600
•3,600
•9,000



'USrJO



•750


'6,000
•4,500
•1,300


•500








'2,400
•2,100


'300


201,516
8,800 . ... '60.0 1,200










7^900 4,200 '71.6 ....







.'.'." '.'.'.'. '.'.'.'. 235


'.'.'.'. '.'.'.'. '.'.'.'. iw
.: 	 100
20,000 	


9,000 	




3,500 5,400 ".'.'. '.'.'.'.






93,922 64,900 159.0 6,257
            'All figures are calendar day. Stream-day figures not reported.
            Amoco Oil Co.—Salt Lake City ...
            Caribou Four Corners Inc.—
              Woods Cross	
            Chevron Oil Co.—Salt Lake City .

            Husky Oil Co.—North Salt Lake  ...

            Plateau Inc.—Roosevelt 	
            Phillips Petroleum Co.—Woods Cross
39,000    40,400
                                 UTAH
                         '18,000   4,000     '6,000
 5,000
45,000
5,500
  NR
23,000    24,000
 7,000
23,000
7,400
  NR
 1,000
35,500

 3,800


'3,006
                 '8,500
'10,000    1,000
 •8,000    5,000
 =4,400    2,500     '1,000
                 •5,000
 '5,200      NR    	
 •8,000    2,500     '4,500
'1,800   '1,000
=5,500
	    '6,000    '3,750    '1,800


S5',566    ''5,500    '4,300      '750

	    '6,000      '800
                                                                 '10,500    =1,600
                                                                  31,500
                                                                                                            2,500
                                                                                                            2,200
                                                                                                                           350
                                                 Reprinted  from The  Oil  and  Gas  Journal,  12  March  1976.

-------
           TABLE A-l  (continued) ': » a

Company and loution
Western Refining Co. — Woods Cross

Total 	
Amoco Oil Co. — Yorktown .'..
Total 	 	
Atlantic Richfield Co.—
Cherry Point, Ferndale 	
Mobil Oil Corp.— Ferndale 	
Shell Oil Co.— Anacortes 	
Sound Refining Inc.— Tacoma 	
Standard Oil Co. of California —
Richmond Beach
Texaco Inc.*— Anacortes 	

Total 	 : .
Pennzoil Co., Elk Refining Division-
Falling Rock 	
Quaker State Oil Refining Corp.—
Newell 	
St. Marys 	
Total 	
Murphy Oil Corp. — Superior 	
Total
Amoco Oil Co.— Casper 	
Husky Oil Co.— Cheyenne 	
Cody ' 	
Little America Refining Co.— Casper
Mountaineer Refining Co. Inc. —
La Barge 	
Pasco Inc.— Sinclair 	

, — Crude U|
o/cd
10,000

152,000
. 53,000
53,000
96,000
71,500
91,000
4,500
4,500
. 78,000
21400

366,900
4,900
9,700
4,850
19,450
45,400
45400
43,000
23,600
10,800
24,500
700
49,000

laeity— >
b/id
10,000

158,878
55,000
55,000
100,000
75,000
94,000
NR
NR
NR
NR

383,105
5,200
10,000
5,000
20,200
46,800
46800
44,500
24,600
11,300
NR
800
50,000

Vacuum
dUtlllation
750

44,050
28,000
28,000
55,000
7,000
33,000
4,500
5,000
25,000
4,800

135,816
2,500
4,000
2,175
8,675
15,500
15,500
13,800
14,000
6,500
5,800
16,100

Thtnnal , — Cat cracking — , Cat Cat hydra-
operations Frethfeed Recycle reforming cracking
•10,000 	

18,500 53,600 16,560 23,800 1,000
VIRGINIA
•14,000 '27,000 5,000 -9,000
14,000 27,000 5,000 9,000
WASHINGTON
'29,000 	 '35,000 '35,000
•7,000 "25,500 2,000 '13,000
	 '36,000 17,000 '20,000
	 	 '27,000 NR =20,000
'3,000

36,000 91.500 27,100 93,222 35,000
WEST VIRGINIA
	 	 '2,000
	 '2,860
	 '1,300
	 6,160
WISCONSIN
	 '9,700 1,000 '10,000
9,700 1,000 10,000
WYOMING
	 '9,500 1,500 S5,200
	 '10,000 2,500 '1,000
'5,200
	 '3,300 1,000 '1,500
	 '6,500 4,000 '3,750
.'.'.'.'.'.' '17700 liz'OO '9,700

Cat hydro- Cat hydro-
refining treating


5,500 29,500
	 '9,000
'15,000
24,000
'12,000 '27,000
	 '13,000
"21,000
'8,500 '24,000
'21,000
	 '25,000
'-'17,000
'3000

20,500 155,667
	 '2,500
.•500
•4,440 '3,060
	 '1,450
4,440 7,510
'5,800 '10,000
5,800 10,000
	 '6,600
	 '6,200
•4,900
	 '1,500
•1,800
	 '5,000
'3,750
•12,200 US.OOO
'12,000
n .A.-*! 	 I*.. kf.J
Alkyla- Aromatic!- Hydrogen Coke
tion isoDenzation Lubes Asphalt (IMIcfd) (t/d)


10,450 2,550 4,700 350
	 710
	 710
	 '60.0 1,500
•5,900 	
'12,100 '2,900 	
	 1,900 2,600 	
4,000 	
'6,600 	

25,333 2,900 1,900 6,600 60.0 1,500
	 1,400 	
	 3,600 .... • '1.2 ....
	 1,700 	
	 6,700 1.2 ....
'1,200 	 12,000 	
1,200 12,000
'1,190 1,470 1,550 	
'2,750 '1,500 .... 3,000 	
•800 	 i. 4,000 	
	 :. 2,000 	
•2,206 '.'.:' '.'.'.'. 2,6oo '.'". '.'.'.'.
Reprinted  from The Oil and  Gas Journal, 12  March 1976.

-------
                                                       TABLE  A-l   (continued)4'3
                                                .	Charge capacity—b/sd	N ,	Production capacity—b/id	,
                              ,—Crude capacity—.    Vacuum   Thermal  ,—Cit cracking—,    Cat    C«t hydro-Cat hydro-Cat hydro-   Alkyla-  Aroraatlci-                Hydrogen  Coke
Company and location               b/cd      b/sd    distillation operations  Fresh feed  Recycle  reforming  cracking   refining  treating     tion  Isomerization  Lubes  Asphalt  MMcfd)  (t/d)

Sage Creek Refining Co.—Cowley ...      NR      1,200     	     	     	      	
Southwestern Refining Co.—LaBarge     3,100        NR     	     	     ...      	
Tesoro Petroleum Corp.—Newcastle     10,500     11,000     	     '4,000    3,000    	     '900     	
Texaco Inc.*—Casper 	    21,000        NR     10,000     "4,000     '7,000      NR    '4,000     ....     '4,000     '4,000     ....     •	    1,500    ....     125
V-l Oil Co.—
  Glenrock       (possible start up this spring at 1,000 b/cdl

   Total       	  187,340    184.557     66,726     4,444    58,778    15,300    30,794     ....     18,644    59,194     7,840     1,500     1,470  14,817    ....     139

'All figures are calendar day. Stream-day figures not reported.
                                    a
                                      Reprinted  from  The  Oil  and  Gas  Journal,   12  March  1976.

-------
                          APPENDIX B

      NUMBER OF MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES FOR SOME REFINERIES
                    AND REFINERY OPERATIONS
Tables B-l, B-2, and B-3 summarize available information on
number of miscellaneous sources by processing unit along with
the unit feed rate.  Pumps and compressors are shown divided
based on liquid and gaseous service.  The number of pumps and
compressors with packed seals is shown in parentheses where data
were available.  The accuracy of the data in Tables B-l, B-2,
and B-3 could not be determined.  In addition to data in Tables
B-l through B-3, one rough estimate of 900 pumps, 65 compressors,
and 15 to 20 valves per pump or compressor was obtained from
Refinery D, which has 0.309 m3/s (168,000 bbl/d) crude capacity.
                                75

-------
TABLE B-l.  QUANTITY OF PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS,  ATMOSPHERE-VENTED PRESSURE  RELIEF VALVES,



            AND VALVES FOR REFINERY A

Pumps and compressors
Unit
No. 1 crude unit
No. 2 crude unit
No. 3 crude unit
No. 1 vacuum unit
No. 2 vacuum unit
Nos. 1 and 2 light end
fractionation unit
No. 3 hydrodesulfurizer
unit and No. 1 re-
former unit
No. 2 reformer
Fluid catalytic
cracking unit
Cumene unit
HF alkylation unit
Sulfolane extractor unit
BTX fractionation unit
No. 1 hydeal unit
No. 2 hydeal unit
No. 4 crude unit
No. 4 vacuum unit
Hydrobon and No. 4 .
reformer unit
Kerosene HDS unit
Diesel HDS unit
Gas-oil HDS unit
Delayed coking unit
Cat gasoline merox unit
No. 2 light ends unit
and light ends merox
units
Fuel gas amine
absorber unit
Amine regenerator column
Sour water stripper unit
Sulfur recovery unit
Liquid
service
33
35
10
5
4
11
16
5
67
22
19
13
11
12
15
19
7
24
6
6
17
22
7
7
_b
_b
_b
_b
Liquid
service
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
3
9
0
0
0
0
8
2
1
0
2
1
1
2
1
0
. 0
_b
_b
_b
_b
Pressure
relief valves
release to
atmosphere
2
2
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
12
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
Unit Feed Rate3
m3/s
0.099
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.006
0.024
0.014
0.003
0.032
0.003
0.006
0.012
0.010
0.0003
0.006
0.126
0.039
0.029
0.013
0.018
0.029
0.015
0.002
0.013
_b
_b
_b
_b
(bbl/d)
(53.900)
(8,100)
(5,500)
(8,300)
(3,500)
(12,975)
(7,827)
(1,380)
(17,580)
(1,500)
(3,405)
(6,340)
(5,540)
(140)
(3,200)
(68,380)
(21,375)
(15,650)
(6,870)
(9,610)
(15,808)
(8,140)
(1,190)
(7,050)
_b
_b
_b
_b

 Crude capacity, 0.340 m3/s (185,000 bbl/d).
 Not available.
                                          76

-------
     TABLE B-2.  QUANTITY OF PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS,  ATMOSPHERE-VENTED PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES,
                 AND VALVES FOR REFINERY  B

Pumps and compressors
Unit .
Nos . 1 , 2 , and 3 crude
units
Vacuum unit
Fluid catalytic cracking
unit
No. 4 unifiner unit
No. 4 platformer unit
No. 3 unifiner unit
No. 3 platformer unit
BTX unit
HF alkylation unit
Light ends unit
Butane splitter
Hydrar unit
Kerosene merox unit
Liquid
(packed
48'
5
20
5
5
3
3
16
11
3
3
9
_b
service
seals)
(22)
(4) .
(12)
(0)
(0)
(3)
(1)
(6)
(0)
(2)
(1)
(0)

Gaseous
(packed
0
0
3
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
_b
service
seals)
(0)

(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)




(0)

Pressure
relief valves
release to
atmosphere
9
1
7
_b
5
_b
_b
b
b
_b
_b
_b
b
Unit feed rate3
m3/s
0.110
0.022
0.018
0.032
0.032
0.017
0.016
0.019
0.007
0.002
0.002
0.012
_b
(bbl/d)
(59,800)
(11,700)
(9,600)
(17,300)
(17,200)
(9,200)
(8,400)
(10,100)
(3,800)
(1,000)
(1,100)
(6,700)
_b

aCrude capacity, 0.340 m3/s  (185,000 bbl/d).
 Not available.

-------
      TABLE B-3.  QUANTITY OF PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS, ATMOSPHERE-VENTED  PRESSURE  RELIEF VALVES,
                  AND VALVES FOR REFINERY C

Pumps and compressors
Unit
Old crude and
vacuum units
New crude and
vacuum units
Fluid catalytic
cracking unit
Unifiner unit
Platformer unit
Sulfolane (aro-
matics) unit
HF alkylation
unit
Light ends unit
Liquid
(packed
43
45
30
8
10
38
8
8
service
seals)
(5)
(0)
(10)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Gaseous service
(packed seals)
1 (0)
1 (0)
4 (0)
0
1 (0)
0
0
0
Pressure
relief valves
release to
atmosphere
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
of
valves
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
650
_b
Unit feed rate3
m3/s
0.099
0.105
0.022
0.032
0.031
0.014
0.008
0.005
(bbl/d)
(54,000)
(57,000)
(12,000)
(17 ,-200)
(17,000)
(7,700)
(4,100)
(2,900)

3Crude capacity, 0.340 m3/s (185,000 bbl/d).
 Not available.

-------
                           APPENDIX C
      REGULATIONS FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO, MISCELLANEOUS
                        SOURCE EMISSIONS
1.   WATER SEPARATION FROM PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

Single or multiple compartment oil and effluent water separation
equipment which receives effluent water containing 200 gallons
(760 liters) or more a day of any petroleum product or mixture
of petroleum products from any equipment used for processing, re-
fining, treating, storing, or handling of petroleum products having
a Reid vapor pressure of 0.5 pound or greater, shall be equipped
with one or more of the following vapor loss control devices,
properly installed, in good working order, and properly maintained:

   • A solid cover with all openings sealed and the liquid
     contents totally enclosed.  All gauging and sampling
     devices shall be vapor-tight except when gauging or
     sampling is taking place.

   . A pontoon-type or double deck-type floating roof, or
     internal floating cover, resting on the surface of the
     .contents and equipped with a closure seal or seals to
     close the space between the roof edge and container
     wall.  All gauging and sampling devices shall be
     vapor-tight except when gauging or sampling is taking
     place.
                                79

-------
   •  A vapor recovery system consisting of a vapor gathering
     system capable of collecting the hydrocarbon vapors
     discharged and a vapor disposal system capable of
     processing such hydrocarbon vapors so as to prevent
     their emission to the atmosphere.  All container gauging
     and sampling devices shall be vapor-tight, except when
     gauging or sampling is taking place.
   •  Other equipment of equal or greater efficiency, provided
     the design and effectiveness of such equipment as docu-
     mented is submitted to and approved by the Division.

2.   PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS

No person may build, install, or permit the building or installa-
tion of any rotating pump or compressor handling any type of
petroleum distillate unless said pump or compressor is equipped
with mechanical seals or other equipment of equal efficiency.  If
reciprocating-type pumps and compressors are used, they shall be
equipped with packing glands properly installed, in good working
order, and properly maintained so no emissions occur from the
drain recovery systems.

3.   WASTE GAS DISPOSAL

Any waste gas stream containing hydrocarbon compounds from a
polymer synthesis process emission source shall be burned at
1,300°F (704°C) for 0.3 second or longer, in a direct flame
afterburner or an equally effective device.  The emissions of
hydrocarbon vapors from a vapor blowdown system or emergency
relief shall be burned in smokeless flares, or equipment of
equal efficiency, provided the design and effectiveness of
equipment, as documented, is submitted to and approved by the
Division.
                                80

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the revene before completing}
V REPORT NO.
  EPA-450/3-76-041
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Screening Study for Miscellaneous Sources of
  Hydrocarbon Emissions  in  Petroleum Refineries
                                                          6. REPORT DATE
                                                           December 1976
                                                          e. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
  R.  F.  Boland, T. E. Ctvrtm'cek,  J.  L.  Delaney
 •D.  E.  Earley, and Z..S.  Khan
                                                           a. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                                           MRC-DA-635
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  23
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..TYP.E OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                           IJL.TYP.E OF REPORT AND
                                                           Final, March-June
                                                          14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

  EPA Project Officer:  Kent  C.  Hustvedt
16. ABSTRACT

  Background information on miscellaneous sources of hydrocarbons  in the  petroleum
  refineries is summarized.  The  information is used to estimate the expected
  atmospheric emission reduction  of  potential  new source performance standards (NSPS)
  for the petroleum refining industry.   Miscellaneous sources of emissions  included
  in  the study were pipeline valves  and  flanges, pressure relief valves,  blowdown
  systems, pump and compressor  seals,  and process drains.  Additionally,  the  background
  information includes a general  review  of the petroleum refining  industry, a  discussion
  of  pertinent emission control methods,  and a summary of pertinent available  air
  pollution regulations.

  New source performance standards requiring application of best available  control
  technology will  result in an  estimated  1985  hydrocarbon emission level  of 750 Gg/yr,  a
  reduction of 67% from 1985 emissions estimates for a condition of no controls and a
  reduction of 41% from 1985 emissions estimated under application of existing state
  regulations to both new and existing sources.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                      Pressure Relief  Valves
                      Pipeline Valves  and
                        Flanges
Air Pollution
Control Equipment
Hydrocarbons
Petroleum Refining
Blowdown Systems
Pump and Compressor Seals
Process Drains  and  Wastewater Separators
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Hydrocarbon Emission
  Controls
c. COSATI Kicld/Group
 .__

 14 B
 07 C
 13 H
>8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

            Unlimited
                                             19. SECURITY CLASS (Thti Krpnrl/
                                             Unclassified
                           21. NO. OF PAGES
                            91
                                               20 SECURITY CLASS (Thljpagf)
                                               Unclassified
                                                                         23. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-7J)
                                            81

-------