### From: "Wilkins, James R. (MPC)" <jrwilkins@marathonpetroleum.com > To: Brenda Shine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Sent: 11/07/2011 08:54 AM Subject: Requested Information Brenda As requested, enclosed please find documentation and basis regarding installation of steam eductor de-pressuring system on the cokers at our refinery in Garyville, LA. We (Marathon Petroleum Company) installed the steam eductor on the new (Unit 205) coker in 2010 at a total capital cost of less than $1 million. The system has worked so well that we (MPC) are in the process of installing similar system on the old (Unit 05) coker in lieu of continuing to operate the existing liquid ring compressor(s) to de-pressure its drums. We (MPC) have accepted enforceable conditions on Garyville’s Unit 5 and 205 Coking units (each 45,000 BPD )as follows:

Open the coke drum vents at a pressure equal to or less than two (2) psig before venting to atmosphere
Inject at least 270,000 gallons of quench water into the system per drum unless the high level alarm is reached
Recycle coker blow down water shall not be used as quench water during venting
Inject H2S scavenger at a rate of one-half gallon per minute starting at least thirty minutes prior to and after opening the Coker Drum Vents (i.e. one hour in duration) Please note that the addition of the H2S scavenger was done in conjunction with agreement with LDEQ /EPA (Region VI) to mitigate hydrogen sulfide em issions from the coker vents in conjunction with permitting activities associated with a major expansion project at the refinery. In addition, MPC has accepted enforceable emission limits for each the Unit 5 and 205 Cokers as follows:

VOC – 24.2 tons per year
H2S – 2.8 tons per year
PM – 1.26 tons per year
PM2.5 – 0.42 tons per year Please let me know if you have any questions. James Wilkins ES&S Manager, Refining Division Marathon Petroleum Company LP Phone: (419) 421-3287 Cell: (419) 348-6471 << Garyville - Steam Eductors.pdf >>Marathon Petroleum Company LLC REFINING INITIAL CAPITAL BUDGET ($000's) Yea r : 20 10 Initial Budget O rganizati on: L ouisiana Ref i ning D ivi sion G-955 Coker Drum Depressuring Project Project Summary Sheet A
. Project Titl e: G-955 Coker Drum Depressuring Project B. Objective:

C
. Capital Amount: Estimate Quality : A Environmen tal

Prior to 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Tot al : Capital Authorization Amount Exp ense Amount: N/A D. Project Description/Source of Benefits: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 20101N 2009 M Y Budget Budget 250 $ 250 750 $ 4,000



## - $ 

## -



# - $ 

### .



## - $ 

# -

- $ 

### - 1,000 $ 4,250 1,000 $ 250 Change $ $ (3.250) $ $ $ $ $ (3.250) $ 750

The c urren t operation of tile Unit 05 Coker includ es v en tin g th e coke drums direct ly to th e a tmosphere after w ater quenching to the blowdown tower. S[nce the S l owdown System operates at 15 psig, further depressuring of the coke drums is accomplished by venting the drums to atmosphere before un -heading
. This practice is not in compliance with Subpart Ja, which requires the coke drums to be depressured b e low 5 ps i g before they can be vented to the atmosphere
. A l tho ug h the existing Coker (Unit 05) i s not presently subjec t to Subpart Ja. subsequent modifications to the unit in th e near future could require the unit t o meet thi s regu lation.
In order to a ll o w the U ni t 5 Coker Unit to meet the Subpart Ja requ i rement th a t coke drums vent below 5 psig, the M a rathon Project Team first decided to install a Slowdown Vent Gas Compressor to lowe r the pressure of the blowdown system and hence the coke drums. A Decision Support Package for implement i ng th is concept was approved at the end of 2008, and the total estimated cost of the project was about $4MM
. The Project Team late r decided to explore a more cost effect iv e option and contracted ConocoPhillips to design a steam ejector system in place of a Slowdown Vent Gas Compressor. The ejector system designed by ConocoPhillips and Be c htel is capab l e of lowering the pressur e of the b l owdown system and the coke drums to below 3 psig in less than 45 minutes , and it discharges the recovered vapor at 22 psig into the inl et of the Fract ion ator Overhead Fin Fans. The system includes two ejectors that are sized to handle 50% of the n om i nal design flow. This was done to cover the potentially wide variation and uncerta in ty in the coke drum vapor flow rate. As a result, on l y one ejector may be required dur in g operation. The ejector system capacity is 1060scfm (40251b/hr) of water- saturated non condensable gas. a nd the motive fluid requirements are 150 pslg steam at 8700 lbs/hr
. After exp loration of this option, the Project Team recommends installing the steam ejector system desgined by ConocoPhi llip s in the Un i t 05 Coker for depressuring the coke drums down to about 3 psi after the quench step
. The system i ncludes two steam ejectors and the associated p ip ing, inst rumentation , and steel. The total estima ted cost to complete t he project is $1MM.

E. Financial Benefits: N/A F
. Economics: N/A G. Attachments: 1. Design and Cos t Estima t e Last Revision Date: 08/18/2009 R/1/RYear: 2010 Initial Budget G-955 Coker Drum Depressuring Project Approved Date: 0712912009 Marathon Petroleum Company LLC REFIN I NG I N I TIAL CAPITAL BUDGET ( $0 00's)

Organization : Louisiana Refi nin g Division

R/2/R

### D & 

### E
- Decision Support Package Approval Form


# fM...Menrthon**~.Oil** 

## Company
Pro ect Title/ Oescrl tlon : 

### Page I of I



## Lo uisiana Refin in g Division
Date : Oeslgr• of Ejector Sys tem fo r the**Cok~r** · H i re Co n oco-Phlllips to 

### < 11 2/11/2008 Unit Nam e: 

# l o5

-**D~ ay~** **d C~ker'-**  Do'!' 7 

# Conceptual: r Approval 

### R:ole Accounting Representative Area Environmenta l Area s.tety Representative Procea Area Coordinator Proc::esa Engineer Project Area Coordinator Project Engineer Project Sponsor TA Pl a n n ing Supe rv i sor 

### Team Leader E RTS Number: Work Ore 

# I DECIS ION SUPPORT PACKAGE 

# Feasibility: P" 

## Definition: r

--- - ··· 

## --·-- -- - -· 

# - - .. .

- ·-----·· Ap proval Date Approved**Review~** 

# _ _.__ 

### __....... .. .._.. . 12/12/2008 

### Yes BETH DURON 12/ 15/2008 

### Yes N G (NICOLE) BRIEN



### - - - 12/12/200 8 

### Yes MARK BAILEY



## - 12/ 1 2/2008 

### Yes MlotAEL ODELL 12/11/2008 

### Yes ANDREW SMITH 1 2/ 12 /2008 

### Yes PETER TALAVERA 12/11/2008 

### Yes WENDAL VINCENT



# -- --- 12/11/2008 

### Yes RICHARD HERNANDE Z JR



## -**--- --~** **--** 12/12/2008 

### Yes MICHAEL HENSCHEN J R 

## ·-- · 12/1 5/ 2008 

### Yes K N (KfVIN N
. ) BASHAM



## -
- Project Cost Summ ary

_ ($000's) ,_ ___ _**....; :....** **:..: o::.~j** **L..:: ct** **-=-= -=** **:::. :..:.** **no :::.** **:..:. :..:.** **ic ..:::** **=-- --·--**  Tota J Costs ( $000's)

### ~ 

## CaP-ital**~xpense ~**  

### 0 Q ROI ( 0 ,-b)**~9: ~**  Q 

### H NVP @ 15o/o .Q 

### 1JUQ 

### 0 0 Simple Payout ( yrs).Q 

### B.tmAinlnt Q Q



### Total 0 ZQ Ell Im ct Date Approved : 

### P-[1 1 [o8 Divioion

### 'lJI'•o~**";.~H)** BEDELL

IDistr ibution OFF ICE : LA Refining Divis ion 

### S UBJEC T: DESIGN & 

### CO ST ESTIMATE
Project#: 

# Marathon Petroleum 

# Company, LLC Louisiana 

### Refining Division 

### Design & 

### Cost Estimate DATE : 12/16/2008 FROM : 

### A. Sm ith 

### I W
. Vince nt

Project Till ;., D.:: s i g n o f E j ect or**m** for the Coke r SCOPE The purpose o f this project i s to e valuate usi ng a steam ej ecto r s yst e m i n p l ace o f t h e proposed li quid ring**rnpr essor**  

### <;ys 1Am for 

### redu c ing pressu re a t which th e 

### coke d rum ::; now ve nt to thn 

### ;;tmnsrhF-re
. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended t o con tr ac t Conoco- Phillips t o design a stea m ejecto r sys tem for ou r exis ting Co ker to reduce the ven ting press ure o f th e coke drums from the cu rrent 1 6 - 18 psi t o a 3 psi. The cos t o f thi s work will be $70,000 to be spent in the first and second quarters of 2009. This price includes design man hours as well as trav el expenses . FI NANCIAL BENEFITS T he proje ct to insta ll liqu id ri ng com p res sor systems on b oth Co kers is es t imated to be $7.6 MM. 

### By using ej ectors in place of the compresso rs, there will be an es timated savings o f o ver $4.0 MM in ca pital e xpenditu res . The steam ejectors although consumi ng 18,000 lbs per d ay of 150 lb steam will result in net

nergy savings o f $131M
. There will also be saving s i n maintenan c e co sts s ince the eject o r system will requi re m u c l 1 les s rnaint en an c e than the co mpresso r system
. 

### DISCUSSION T he Team decided to ex plore the possibility of using ejectors i nstead 

### o f liquid ring co mpressors after l ea rning that the s tandard design for Foster Wheeler Co ker Units is no w to u se s team ejec tors to reduce the coke drum pressure prior to venting. Steam eje c tors were not considered for GME as the Conoco Phillip's standard de s ign is to use liquid ring vent gas c ompre sso rs. Since then Co noco Phillip s has designed an ejector system for Suncor in Canada however this system has not yet been installed
. Based on the new NSPS Subpart Ja requirements other refineries are also designing steam ejectors to red uce drum venting pressure such as Hovensa, U.S 

### Virgin Is lands and C ITGO , Lake Charles. The proposed steam eje ctor design will educt the coke drum gas and discharge in to the Blow down system. A conserva tive estimate by Graham Corp. is that the steam ejector will require 11 mpph of 150 psig motive steam for an approximate vent gas suction load of 21 mpph at 16-18 psig
. The coke drum pressure will be reduced to 3 psig therefore the ejector suction pressure will be <1ps ig to account for any line losses and the discharge at 18 - 20 psig so that vent gas stream ca n get into the blow down sys tem
. Based on these preliminary numbers the additional steam requirement and sour water genera t i on will not be significant. Conoco Phillips was co ntacted and they proposed a des i gn package that will contain the following deliverab les : 1
. Design Basis Description • Elapsed time. s tart and end press ures

# ~ .... ... ....

'\ 

# ............ 

# - 

# •

### Distribution DESIGN 

### & COST ESTIMATE December 12 , 2008**~ge** 

### 2

• Basis for generated s tea m a nd va po rs " Description of intended operation 

### 2
. Hand marked 

### P&IDs 

### 3 E je c tor Data Sheet 

### 4 Control System data for sizing • Motive steam flow rate controller, if applicable

.. S pill ba c k fl ow ra te cont r o ll er , 

### i f app li ca bl e 

### 5. Line De sign a tion table • Pipe class, metallurgy, 

### size • Insulation requirements • Piping design te mpe ra ture , p ress u re 6. 

### interloc k Des c rip ti on

PRO J ECT EXECUTtON 

### T be p roj ect 

### cao 

### be co mp l eted on t h e ru n and sh o u l d n ot r cqn ire a 

### lHJ it shutdo w n .

. CCOUNTING ANALYSIS 

# ,·'h e co s ts assoc i ated w ith 

### tr1e Des ign of the Ejector Sys tem fo r the Co ker ( - $70,0 0 0} 

### s h ou l d be expens e d s in ce its con c e pt u a l proce ss s t u d y w ork to d ete r min e a v i a ble desig n so l u tion
. Solomon Exclusion Information : Excl udable ; 100% Environmen tal Cos t Info rm ation: F u n d s a s socia ted with t hi s p roje ct w i ll be accoun ted for from wi thi n the T ec h S e rvi c e s outside engineering department budget. ENERGY ANALYSIS There will be a net savings of $131M annually if the steam ejectors are installed instead of the 400hp compressor motor
. The Garyville Ell will also be reduced by 0
.002
. The steam ejectors will require 18MPPD of 150# steam costing $46M while the 400HP compressor motor will cost $177M annually. This assumes an electricity cost of $0.0679/kwh and $7/Mibs for 150# steam. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Reduction of the coker drum venting pressure in order to reduce atmospheric emissions is required for Subpart Ja compliance and should be implemented as soon as possible
. Prior LDEQ approval is not required for the design pha se but will be r equire d prior to installation of any e quipment.

DISTRIBUTION 

### R. D. Bedell, S. H. Baker, W. E
. Dows, 

### R. J. Dussold, D. L. Ehrhart, 

### R. A Hernandez, 

### R. G.

### ·Distribution DESIGN 

### & COST 

### ESTIMATE**'~ec mber**  

### 12 , 2008 Je 

### 3 Kasubinski, W
. M
. Kepner, B. 

### J. Levi. D
. Ro l and, N. G
. Orien, M. W
. O dell, P. G. Talavera Team 

### Leaders