API PUBL 300-1991 Generation and Management of Wastes and Secondary Materials in the Petroleum Refining Industry 1987-1988《石油炼制业废物和2次物料生成和管理 1987年-1988年》.pdf

《API PUBL 300-1991 Generation and Management of Wastes and Secondary Materials in the Petroleum Refining Industry 1987-1988《石油炼制业废物和2次物料生成和管理 1987年-1988年》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《API PUBL 300-1991 Generation and Management of Wastes and Secondary Materials in the Petroleum Refining Industry 1987-1988《石油炼制业废物和2次物料生成和管理 1987年-1988年》.pdf（120页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、API PUBL*300 71 0732290 0530424 529 M THE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF WASTES AND SECONDARY MATERIALS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY : 1987 - 1988 API PUBL+300 91 = 0732290 05110425 4b5 THE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF WASTES AND SECONDARY MATERIALS IN THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY: 1987 - 198

2、8 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT February 1991 API Publication 300 This report has been printed on RECYCLED PAPER API PUBLX300 93 W 0732290 0530426 3T3 D FOREWORD API PUBLICATIONS NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, A

3、ND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. API IS NOT UNDERTAKING TO MEET DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS, MANUFACTURERS, OR SUPPLIERS TO WARN AND PROPERLY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTAKING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LO

4、CAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY API PUBLICATION IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS GRANTING ANY RIGHT, BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR USE OF ANY METHOD, APPARATUS, OR PRODUCT COVERED BY LETTERS PATENT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE PUBLICATION BE CONST

5、RUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LETTERS PATENT. API PUBLX300 91 m 0332290 0510427 238 D ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was performed within the API through the combined efforts of staff members, consultants and company representatives. Barbara Bush, a Senior Regulatory A

6、nalyst in APIs Health and Environmental Affairs Department (HEAD), served as the Project Director, providing the technical leadership, management guidance-and enthusiasm-to keep the project on track. Nikki Koch, also a Senior Regulatory Analyst in HEAD, assisted in the administrative aspects of the

7、survey. Paul Wakim from the Statistics Department contributed to the development of the questionnaire and report. Ralph Mitt1 directed the data analysis effort, including the data verification, the development of modeling procedures and the generation of estimates and data tables. Mike Robey and Wen

8、dy Sams of Information Systems provided computer support and were instrumental in automating the database. Administrative support over the two years of preparation was ably provided by Cheryl Hawkins. Wendall Clark (W. C. Consultants) manned the central clearinghouse throughout the project, answerin

9、g respondent questions, reviewing all returned questionnaires and claritj4ng ambiguous responses. Gail Levine (SUMMATIONS) served as Project Manager, providing expertise in survey design and administration, as well as coordinating the data handling and analysis, and assumed responsibility for report

10、ing the research. Oversight for the project was provided by company representative members of the Waste Minimization Survey Workgroup. Mark Hopkins from Chevron sewed as Chairman of the group; his committment to the effort and technical guidance in defining the objectives and scope of the survey ass

11、ured the successful completion of the project, Curt Beyer from Exxon and John Lemen from Texaco provided additional oversight and refining expertise which facilitated completion of the job. API PUBL*300 91 = 0732290 0530428 374 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION . 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY

12、 3 2.1 SURVEY DESIGN . 3 2.2 DATA COLLECTION . 3- 2.3 SURVEY ADMINISTRATION . 5 2.4.1 Data Verification . 5 2.4.2 Non-respondent Estimation Procedures 6 2.4.3 Estimation of Waste Generation Quantities 8 2.4 DATA ANALYSIS . 5 3.0 RESULTS 9 3.1 RESPONSE RATE . 9 3.2 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 10 3.3 T

13、OTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT QUANTITY . 14 3.3.1 Waste Generation . 14 3.3.2 Treatment Additives 18 3.3.3Storage 19 3.3.4 Total Quantity of Waste ManagedAnput 20 3.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT . 22 3.4.1 Recycling 22 3.4.2 Treatment . 25 3.4.3 Land Treatment 28 3.4.4 Disposal . 30 4.0 DISCUSSION . 33 4.1 WASTE GENER

14、ATION 33 4.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT . 34 4.3 COMPARISONS TO PREVIOUS SURVEYS 38 4.4 WASTE MINIMIZATION . 40 APPENDIX A . QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B . SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES APPENDIX C . WASTE MANAGEMENT DATA TABLES APPENDIX D . SUMMARY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR INDIVIDUAL WASTE

15、STREAMS API PUBL*300 91 0732290 0510Y29 O00 Table 1 . Table II . Table 111 . Table IV . Table V . Table VI . Table Y I I . Table VIII . Table IX . Table X . Table XI . Table XII . Table XII1 . Table XIV . Table XV . Table XVI . Table XVII . TABLES Refining Waste Streams 4 Summary of Outlier Values 7

16、 Estimate of Wastes Generated for the Total US Refining Industry . . 17 Number of Refineries Responding to the Survey that Reported Generating Each Waste Stream 18 Estimated Net Waste Quantities Removed From Storage for the Total US Refining Industry . 19 Estimated Net Waste Quantities Placed Into S

17、torage for the Total US Refining Industry . 20 Estimated Waste Quantities in Wet Tons for 1987 2) evaluate historical trends in the management of waste by comparing 1987 and 1988 data to the data gathered for 1981; and 3) establish baseline information on current waste rrianagement practices from wh

18、ich future industry progress can be evaluated. SURVEY PROCEDURES A census approach was used wherein all U.S. refineries were sent survey materials. These data collection forms requested quantitative information on the generation and subsequent recycle, treatment and disposal of 28 possible refining

19、waste streams. Refineries were also asked to supply information on their facilities, including age, size, complexity and segregation of wastewater system. Survey materials requesting data for 1987 and 1988 were sent out in September 1989. All survey responses were initially reviewed and questionable

20、 answers were followed up with telephone calls to respondents to verify the data. To generate estimates of the waste management quantities for the entire U.S. refining industry, two regression models were developed: one for facilities with capacities greater than 200,000 barrels per stream day and a

21、nother for smaller refineries. All waste quantities contained in this report represent estimates for the entire refining industry generated by these models. RESULTS There was an excellent response to the survey: 115 refineries out of the total U.S. population of 176 refineries participated. These re

22、spondents represent 80 percent of the domestic crude refining capacity. This outstanding response aided in making confident estimates of the amount of waste managed by the entire U.S. refining industry. i API PUBL+300 93 m 0732290 0530432 bT5 m - Waste Generation The amount of waste managed by the r

23、efining industry in a given year includes the amount generated, any pre-treatment additives used and the net amount removed from/placed into storage. Total Quantity - Quantity + Treatment + Net From Waste Managed Ge ne rated Addit ives Sto rag e The total amount of waste generated by the 176 U.S. re

24、fineries is estimated to be: o 16.1 million wet tons in 1987 and o 16.0 million wet tons in 1988. When the data is arrayed according to the six refining waste stream categories used in the survey (Figure 1 ), the Aqueous Waste category represents approximately 76 percent of all wastes generated in b

25、oth years. This is due to the fact that four refineries generated extremely large amounts of the individual waste stream, “Other Aqueous Wastes NOS (Not Otherwise Specified).“ (The large quantities of these waste streams are directly related to the facilities use of deep well injection disposal tech

26、niques-a practice that does not necessitate pre-treatment to reduce the quantity of waste.) Among the other waste categories, Oily Sludges/Other Organic Wastes was the largest, followed by Chemicals/lnorganic Wastes and Contaminated Soils/Solids. As noted in Figure 1, the relative proportion of the

27、six waste categories remained coinparable over the survey period. Similarly, the quantities of the 28 individual waste streams that comprise each category (e.g., API Separator Sludge is a waste stream in the Oily Sludge/Other Organic Waste category) that are generated in the two survey years also re

28、mained relatively constant. The use of treatment additives and the amount of wastes removed from or placed into storage did not significantly change the amount of waste managed in either survey year. Comparison of the total amount of waste generated to the total crude throughput provides an appropri

29、ate context for viewing the quantities of waste generated in the petroleum refining industry: Waste Generated (Million wet tons) Crude Throughput (Million tons) WasteCrude Throughput (%) 1987 16.1 631 2.56 - 1988 16.0 650 2.47 - As indicated, the amount of waste is less than 3 percent of throughput.

30、 When the API PUBLX300 93 W 0732290 0530433 531 = FIGURE 1 - COMPARISON OF WASTE GENERATION : 1987 - 1988 1987 Total Waste Quantity Non-Aqueous Wastes /- Other Wastes 203 /- Chemicals 1 139 Spent Catalysts 246 Oily Sludges 1944 Aqueous Wastes All Other Wastes 12303 3841 - - - Contaminated Soil 309 1

31、6,144 Wet Tons 3,841 Wet Tons Thousands of Wet Tons 1988 Total Waste Quantity Non-Aqueous Wastes /- _/- Other Wastes 41 2 Chemicals 1032 Aqueous Wastes Ail Other Wastes Spent Catalysts 266 121 24 3921 Oily Sludges 181 1 - Contaminated Soil 400 - - - 16,045 Wet Tons Thousands of Wet Tons 3,921 Wet To

32、ns API PUBLt300 91 D 0732290 0510434 478 D generation rates are adjusted to control for the four outlier facilities that generated unusually large quantities of waste relative to the balance of the refining industry, the ratio of waste to throughput is reduced to less than 1 percent! - Waste Man aqe

33、me nt The total quantity of waste managed is equal to the amount of waste recycled, treated, land treated and disposed. Total Quantity = Quantity + Quantity + Quantity + Quantity Waste Managed Recycled Treated Land Treated Disposed Figure 2 summarizes the management of refining waste. In order to di

34、splay the typical relationships among the various waste management practices within the industry, the outlier values-the 11 million wet tons of dilute aqueous wastes generated by the four facilities that inject these wastes-were not included in this summary. As illustrated, 21 percent and 23 percent

35、 of waste was eliminated from the management system by recyclinq for 1987 and 1988, respectively. This recycle rate does not include the extensive recycling of hydrocarbon materials in the refining industry that is an in- process, source reduction step, prior to classifying those materials as waste

36、for survey pulrposes. The recycling practices illustrated here highlight that over 400 thousand wet toils of Spent Catalysts and Chemical/lnorganics (Spent Acids, Caustics) are reclaimed or regenerated. In addition, over 200 thousand wet tons of hydrocarbon containing wastes were recycled to crude u

37、nits or cokers. Figure 2 suggests that the petroleum refining industry relies equally on treatment, an intermediate waste management preference, and disposal to manage its wastes. Approximately 75 percent of the treatment category involves “dewatering“ of oily sludges and the “wastewater“ treatment

38、of dilute aqueous wastes. (The quantities of waste treated in the wastewater system represent less than 8 percent of the total water flow through this system.) Other treatments performed on petroleum wastes included chemical/physical techniques and incineration, but neither accounted for much more t

39、han 100 thousand wet tons in either survey period or 2 percent of the total amount of waste managed. Regarding disposal techniques, when the outliers have been excluded, approximately 85 percent of refining wastes that were ultimately disposed were placed in landfills, with most of this going to off

40、site landfills. When the outliers are included this typical profile is dictorted such that deep well injection becomes the leading disposal technique. iv API PUBL*300 91 W 0732290 0530435 309 W Figure 2. Summary of Waste Management Practices (Outliers Removed) RECYCLE RECLAMATION (L REGENERATKIN 447

41、 cRuuE;ly3 OTHER 41 1 TREATMENT DEWATER 704 WASTEWATER 466 CHEMICAL (L PHYSICAL 128 INCINERATION 107 i$ OTHER 176 1987 31 Yo - 17Vo 07 LANDTREATMENT 850 DISPOSAL 31 Yo LANDFILL 1070 5,072 WET TONS IMPOUNDMENT 281 (THOUSANDS) LANDSPREAD 11 1 OTHER 41 RECYCLE RECLAMATION 6 REGENERATION 433 CRUDE UNIT

42、87 COKER 185 p OTHER 475 TREATMENT DEWATER 536 WASTEWATER 504 CHEMICAL 8 PHYSICAL 147 INCINERATION 132 1988 - 23% OTHER 122 28% / - 16% 07 LAND TREATMENT 832 -1 33% DISPOSAL LANDFILL 11 99 IMPOUNDMENT 246 LANDSPREAD 160 INJECTION55 OTHER 2 5,114 WET TONS (THOUSANDS) wove o V API PUBL+300 91 0732290

43、05LOY3b 240 Land treatment was the management practice least used by the refining industry, accounting for 17 percent of the total quantity managed in 1987 and 16 percent in 1988. - Comparison to 1981 Survev The results from the 1987 - 1988 survey were compared to those obtained for 1981. Because of

44、 differences in survey procedures, the only comparable data were for “disposal“ techniques for the five RCRA listed hazardous wastes. (The 1987 and 1988 land treatment and incineration quantity estimates were added to the disposal quantities to facilitate comparison with the 1981 data which was coll

45、ected in that format. It also appears that recycle to coker may have been included in the 1981 definition of disposal, but quantitative information on how much material was handled in this manner was not cc) I lected .) The number of respondents reporting disposal of each hazardous waste stream were

46、 quite similar. For example, whereas 95 refineries reported API Separator Sludge in 1981, 90 and 93 reported for 1987 and 1988, respectively. The “disposal“ data for the five streams is provided below. As indicated, the reduction between 1981 and 1987 was over 20 percent and an even greater reductio

47、n was noted in 1988. This change between 1987 and 1988 was due to over 150 thousand wet tons of API Separator Sludge that was removed from storage for handling in 1987, compared to the 60 thousand wet tons removed from storage in 1988. Estimated “Disposal“ Quantities 1981 1987 1988 (Thousands of Wet

48、 Tons) API Separator Sludge DAF Float Slop Oil Emulsion Solids Leaded Tank Bottoms Heat Exchanger Bundle Cleaning Sludge 393 365 191 308 254 31 O 144 66 86 4 6 4 1 1 3 TOTAL 850 693 593 Crude Throughput (Thousand tons) 574,900 631,212 650,128 Disposed Hazardous Waste : Throughput 1 :676 1:910 1 :lo9

49、6 Disposed Hazardous Wasteflhroughput (%) 0.15 0.1 1 0.09 One difference noted between the two surveys involved the use of land treatment units. In 1981, 58 refineries reported use of onsite landfarms while only 43 reported use of landfarms in 1987 and 42 in 1988. vi API PUBLa300 91 W 0732290 0530437 387 W WASTE MINIMIZATION/FUTURE SURVEYS Given the variability noted in the responses between refineries (e.g., no two refineries reported the management of the same series of wastes or even the same management steps/removal efficiencies for the same waste streams), and th