# OAR Box 1127 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 10 ) ll-C- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-84-4 4

Printed 4/18/20082:39:33 PM Sheet 10of 95 p. 1P. 2

'" ir 

### IDENTICA L LETTER S SEN T T O CURREN T ROSTE ROF COMMITTE E (LIS T ATTACHE DT O OFFICA L FILE )



# \ 

# A- B4- 44- Augus t 5 , 198 6 

# %-t-s

Dea r Committe e Member : A s indicate dinm

y lette r o f Jul y

31 , 1986 , th e nex t meetin g o f th e Nationa l Ai r Pollutio nContro l Technique s Advisor y Committe e (NAPCTAC ) i s schedule dfo r Septembe r 1 7 an d18 , 1986 , a t th e Sherato nUniversit y Cente r i nDurham , Nort hCarolina . A copy o f th e agend a fo r th e meetin g i s enclosed ; th e curren t roste r fo r th e NAPCTAC i s show no nth e bac ko f th e agenda . I f yo uhav e any change s t o th e roster , pleas e cal l Mar y Jan e Clark . Enclose dar e th e draf t preamble/regulatio nan dbackgrounddocumen t fo r th e revisio no f th e asbesto s nationa l emissio nstandard s fo r hazardou s ai r pollutants . Also , enclose dar e th e draf t Federa l Registe r notice s an dbackgrounddocument s fo r th e review s o f th e new sourc e performanc e standard s fo r primar y

aluminu m an drefiner y

fue l gas . Th e remainde r o f th e material s t o b e discusse da t th e meetin g wil l b e maile dnex t week . Your trave l informatio nwa s maile do nJul y 31 , an d I sugges t tha t yo umak e you r fligh t reservation s a s soona s possibl e i n orde r t o tak e advantag e o f specia l ai r fares . Fo r you r information , a bloc ko f room s i s bein g hel da t th e Sherato n unti l Septembe r 7 fo r us e b y thos e wh o wis ht o stay wher e th e meetin g i s bein g held ; th e telephon e numbe r i s (919 ) 383-8575 . Th e Sherato ndoe s provid e a courtes y

airpor t limousine . Pleas e cal l Mar y

Jan e Clar ka t (919 ) 541-557 1 i f yo unee dadditiona l informatio no r wil l be unabl e t o attend . Sincerely ,



# A \ Jac kR . Farme r Chairperso n Nationa l Ai r Pollutio nContro l Technique s Advisor y

Committe e 7 Enclosure s OAQPS : ESED : OD : MJClark : mjclark , r m 741 , NCM , x557 1 (MD-13) : 7/31/8 6 bcc : Bil l Maxwell , ISB/ESE D Debbi e Stackhouse , SDB/ESE D( 3 copies : SD B fil e an d2 fo r docket ) JohnCopeland , ISB/ESE D Sims Roy , SDB/ESE D( 4 copies : SD B file , contractor , an d2 fo r docket ) Larry Elmore , ISB/ESE D Gai l Lacy , SDB/ESE D( 3 copies : IS B fil e an d2 fo r docket )P. 3 Augus t 198 6 U.S . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NATIONA L AI RPOLLUTIO N CONTRO L TECHNIQUE S ADVISOR YCOMMITTE E Chairperso n Mr . Jac k R . Farme r Director , Emissio nStandard s an d Engineerin g Divisio n(MD-13 ) Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standard s U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 2771 1 (919 ) FTS : 541-557 1 629-557 1 COMMITTE E MEMBER

S Mr

. Thoma

s M

. Allen , P.E

. Associat e D i recto r Divisio n o f Ai rResource s Ne wYor k Stat e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Conservatio n 5 0 Wol f Road - Roo

m 12 8 Albany , Ne

wYor k 12233-000 1 (518 ) 457-723 0 Mr

. Rober t H

. Co l lorn , Jr

. Chief , Ai rProtectio n Branc h Environmenta l Protectio n Divisio n Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s Floy d Towers Eas t - Roo m 116 2 20 5 Butle rStreet , S.E

. Atlanta , Georgi a 3033 4 (404 ) 656-690 0 Dr . Thoma s H . Goodgam e Presiden t Environmenta l an d Chemica l Consultin g Engineers , Inc

. Pos t Offic e Bo

x91 4 Alamogordo , Ne

wMexic o 8831 0 (505 ) 434-435 3 Ms

. Lind a E

. Gree r Staf f Scientist , Toxi cChemical s Progra m Environmenta l Defens e Fun d 161 6 P Street , N.W.-Suit e 15 0 Washington , D

. C

. 2003 6 (202 ) 387-350 0 Ms
. Kare n M
. Hanzevac k Universit yo f Nort h Carolin a 3 Dartfor d Cour t Chape l Hill , Nort h Carolin a 2751 4 (919 ) 493-743 8 Mr . Rober t P . Mille r Chief , Ai r Qualit y

Divisio n Michiga nDepartmen t o f Natura l Resource s Steven s T . Maso nBuilding , Bo x3002 8 Lansing , Michiga n4890 9 (517 ) 373-702 3 Mr . Rober t M . Morfor d Vic e Presiden t an

d Genera l Manage r Wester nPrecipitatio nDivisio n Joy Manufacturin g Company Pos t Offic e Bo

x2744-Termina l Anne x Lo s Angeles , Californi a 9005 1 (818 ) 240-2300 , extensio n 50 2 Mr

. Andre wH

. Nickolau s Senio rEnvironmenta l Contro l Consultan t Engineerin g Divisio n E . I . du Pon t d e Nemour s & Company , Inc . Pos t Offic e Bo

x262 6 Victoria , Texa s 7790 2 (512 ) 572-127 7 Mr

. Roge rD

. Randolp h Supervisor , Ai rQualit yContro l Progra m Tuls a City-Count yHealt h Departmen t 461 6 Eas t 15t h Stree t Tulsa , Oklahom a 7411 2 (918 ) 744-1000 , extensio n 32 0 Mr

. Willia m M

. Reite r Presiden t Cap e Environmenta l Associates , Inc

. Pos t Offic e Bo

x216 2 Ocea n City , Ne

wJerse y0822 6 (609 ) 398-650 6 Dr

. Edward S

. Rubi n Director , CEES Professo ro f Mechanica l Engineerin g an d Publi cPolic y Carnegie-Mello n Universit y Schenle yPar k Pittsburgh , Pennsylvani a 1521 3 (412 ) 268-249 1P. 4 

# DRAF T

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y 4 0 CFRPar t 6 0 [AD-FR L ] REVIEW O F STANDARD S O F PERFORMANC E FO RNE W STATIONARYSOURCE S PETROLEU M REFINERIE S AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) ACTION : Review

o f Standard s fo r Petroleu m Refiner y

Fue l Ga s SUMMARY : Unde r Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Act , EP A i s require dt o review standard s o f performanc e fo r new , modified , o r reconstructe d stationar y

source s ever y

4 years . A

review o f th e existin g standard s o f performanc e fo r petroleu m refinerie s (4 0 CF R60 , Subpar t J ) ha s bee n completed . Th e revie w indicate s tha t n o revisio nt o tha t portio no f th e standar drelatin g t o refinery fue l ga s i s necessar y a t thi s time . However , th e Agenc y

i s investigatin g th e applicatio no f a continuou s emissio nmonito r fo r measurin g th e sulfu r concentratio ni ntreate drefinery fue l gas . Whe nthi s measuremen t techniqu e i s decide dupo nanda FEDERAL REGISTE Rnotic e i s propose dfo r th e continuou s monitoring , an y necessar y change s t o th e subpar t (resulting from us e o f th e continuou s monitors ) wil l b e accomplishe dconcurrently . ADDRESSES : Document : Th e documen t "Review o f New Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r Petroleu m Refiner y

Fue l Gas " (EPA

repor t No . EP A

)
may b e obtaine dfrom

th e U.S . EP A

Librar y

(MD-35) , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina , 27711 , telephon e numbe r (919)541-2777 .P. 5

Docket . A

docket , number A-84-44 , containin g informatio

nconsidere

d b y EP A durin g th e review , i s availabl e fo r publi c inspectio

nbetwee

n 8:0 0 a.m . an

d4:0 0 p.m. , Monda

y throug hFriday , a

t EPA' s Centra l Docke t Sectio n(A-130) , Wes t Towe r Lobby , Galler y 1 , 40 1 M

Street , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20460 . A reasonabl e fe e ma

y b e charge

dfo r copying . FO RFURTHE

RINFORMATIO

N CONTACT : Fo

r further informatio nan d interpretation s of applicability , complianc e requirements , an dreportin

g aspect s of th

e standards , contac t the appropriat e Regional , State , or loca l Offic e contac t a s liste di n4 0 CF R60.4 . For further informatio n concernin

g th e technica l aspect s of thi s review , contac t Mr . Wm . Larr y Elmore , Industria l Studie s Branch , Emissio nStandard s an

dEngineerin

g Divisio n(MD-13) , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc

hTriangl e Park , Nort

hCarolin

a 27711 , telephon

e (919 ) 541-5595 . For further informatio n concernin

g th e polic y aspect s o f thi s review , contac t Ms . Gai l K . Lacy , Standard s Development Branch , Emissio nStandard s an

dEngineerin

g Divisio

n (MD-13) , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc

hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin

a 27711 , telephon

e (919)541-5578 . SUPPLEMENTAR

YINFORMATION : I . Backgroun

d Ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) fo r petroleu m refinerie s
wer e propose

db y th e EP A o nJune 11 , 197 3 (3 8 F R15406 ) an

dpromulgate

d
o nMarc h8 , 197 4 (3 0 F

R9308) . One portio nof thes e standard s regulate s sulfu r dioxid

e (SO2 ) emission s fro m combustio

ndevice s capabl e of burnin gP. 6

refiner yfue l gas . Refiner yfue l ga s i s define d a s an yga s whic h i s generate d a t a petroleu m refiner yan d whic h i s combusted

. Fue l ga s als o include s natura l ga s whe n th e natura l ga s i s combine d an d combuste d i n an yproportio n wit h a ga s generate d a t a refinery

. Thi s NSP

S allow s th e owner/operato rtw o option s t o contro l SO 2 emission s fro m combustio n device s capabl e o f burnin g refiner yfue l gas . On e optio n i s t o contro l th e hydroge n sulfid e (HgS ) concentratio n i n refiner yfue l ga s t o 23 0 milligrams/dr ystandar d cubi cmete r(mg/dscm ) [0.1 0 grains/dr ystandar d cubi cfoo t (gr/dscf) ] prio rt o bein g burne d i n a combustio n device

. Th e othe roptio n allow s fo rcontro l o f SO 2 emission s fro m th e refiner yfue l ga s combustio n devic e withou t controllin g th e H2 S concentratio n i n th e refiner yfue l gas . Th e Agencyi s no t awar e o f an y refiner ytha t utilize s thi s latte roption

. A s require d b ySectio n 111(a)(1 ) o f th e Act , th e promulgate d standard s reflec t applicatio n o f "th e bes t technologica l syste m o f continuou s emissio n reductio n whic h (takin g int o consideratio n th e cos t o f achievin g suc h emissio n reduction , an ynon-ai rqualit yhealt h an d environmenta l impac t an d energ yrequirements ) th e Administrato rdetermine s ha s bee n adequatel ydemonstrated. " Fo rconvenience , thi s i s referre d t o a s "bes t demonstrate d technology " o r"BDT. " Sectio n 111(b)(1)(b ) o f th e Ac t require s th e EP At o revie wand , i f appropriate , revis e NSPS , a t leas t ever y4 years . Th e principa l purpos e o f suc h revie wan d appropriat e revision s i s t o ensur e tha t th e standard s reflec t a curren t assessmen t o f BDT

.P. 7



### Th e revie

w o f th e refinery

fue l ga s standar dha s bee nconducte db y contactin g EP A

regiona l offices , Stat e agencies , th e America nPetroleu m Institute , companie s subjec t t o th e NSPS , an dcontro l equipmen t vendors . Informatio nwa s collecte do nth e numbe r an

dlocatio no f facilitie s subjec t t o th e NSPS , contro l equipmen t performanc e an dcosts , an

dtestin g an

d monitorin g data . Fro m thes e sources , a documen t wa s prepare dcoverin g th e curren t statu s o f contro l technology wit hemphasi s onunit s subjec t t o th e NSP S complianc e tes t data , monitorin g system s employed , an dcost s
an dcos t effectivenes s fo r a contro l system . II . Finding s A . Industry

Informatio n Th e "affecte dfacility " i s define da s an y combustio ndevic e tha t i s capabl e o f burnin g refinery fue l gas . Th e exac t numbe r o f fue l ga s combustio n device s subjec t t o thi s standar di s unknow nbecaus e th e contro l device s trea t ga s distribute dt o man y fue l ga s combustio ndevices . Accordin g t o informatio nobtaine db y EPA' s Stationar y

Sourc e Complianc e Division , 5 4 petroleu

m refinerie s hav e become subjec t t o tha t portio no f th e standar drelatin g t o combustio no f refinery fue l ga s sinc e 1975 . Trad e journal s wer e als o reviewe dfo r informatio no nne w refinery constructio nprojects . Durin g th e 1980-198 5 period , ther e wer e 4 2 constructio nproject s tha t involve dH2 S contro l system s at petroleu m refineries . Th e overal l petroleu

m refinery

industry

ha s experience dnegativ e growth . From Januar y 198 1 t o Decembe r 1985 , a tota l o f 11 2 refinerie s hav e bee n" " !



### shu t dow nbringin g th e tota l o f operabl e refinerie s t o 191 . Th e petroleu m refinin g industr y

continue s t o mak e long-term adjustment s i nrespons e t o th e slo w dow ninproduc t demand , shift s i nth e produc t mix , an dth e declinin g qualit y

o f crud e oi l supplies . Thes e adjustment s hav e resulte d i nth e expansio no f existin g refinerie s whic hmay lea dt o new , modified , o r reconstructe dfue l ga s combustio ndevices . Inorde r t o compl y wit hth e NSPS , refinerie s ar e continuin g t o instal l ne w H2 S contro l system s o r expandexisting H2 S contro l capacity . B . Emissio nContro l Technology . Inorde r t o compl y

wit hth e refinery

fue l ga s H2 S concentratio n limit , th e owner/operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit y ha s th e optio no f eithe r reducin g th e H2 S concentratio nprio r t o burnin g th e refinery fue l ga s inth e affecte dfacilit y o r treating th e SO 2 emission s fro m th e affecte dfacility . Presently , al l know naffecte dfacilitie s contro l SO 2 emission s b

y reducin g th e H2 S concentratio ni nth e refinery fue l ga s prio r t o bein g burned . Tw o processe s ar e bein g use dt o compl y wit hthi s NSPS : th e alkanolamin e proces s an dth e LO-CAT ®process . (Mentio no f trad e
name s o r commercia l product s i s no t intende dt o constitut e endorsemen t o r recommendatio nfo r use. ) Th e vas t majorit y

o f th e contro l unit s use dt o remov e H2 S ar e alkanolamin e systems . I nthi s process , refinery fue l ga s containin g H2 S contact s th e alkanolamin e i na nabsorbe r unit . Th e H2 S i s remove dfrom th e refinery fue l ga s an

dth e treate dga s i s the nuse da s fue l elsewher e i nth e refinery . Th e alkanolamin e solutio ni s regenerate db y steam strippin g i nP. 9



### a regenerator . Th e stea m i s condense dan

dth e separate dH2 S i s pipe dt o
a sulfu r recovery

unit . Th e regenerate dalkanolamin e i s recycle dt o th e absorbe r unit . Th e LO-CAT ®

proces s remove s H2 S from refinery

fue l ga s b

y usin g a

n aqueou s catalys t whic hi s circulate di na close dloo pbetwee nth e absorbe r
an dth e oxidize r vessel . I nth e absorbe r th e H2 S ga s i s absorbe dvery rapidl y int o th e catalys t solutio nwher e i t i s immediatel y oxidize dt o precipitat e elementa l sulfur . Partiall y reduce dcatalys t solutio ni s regenerate di nth e oxidize r vesse l b y direc t contac t wit hcompresse dair . Sulfu r forme di nth e absorbe r vesse l circulate s wit hth e catalys t solutio n
an dth e particle s gro

w t o th e 10-2 0 micromete r range . Th e large r sulfu r particle s settl e ou t o f th e catalys t solutio ni nth e oxidize r vesse l an d
ar e pumpe dt o a melte r the nt o a storag e vessel . Th e revie

w di dno t fin

dan y demonstrate dtechnologie s fo r controllin g emission s tha t achiev e bette r contro l tha nth e technologie s jus t described . Analyse s o f th e cos t o f th e technologie s upo nwhic hth e standar di s base d showe dtha t th e cost s remai nreasonable . Therefore , th e EP A conclude s tha t th e technology

o nwhic hth e standar di s base di s stil l appropriate . C . Achievabilit y Dat a for'fiftee ncomplianc e test s wer e obtaine dfro m nin e differen t refineries . Al l o f th e tes t dat a tha t wer e submitte dwer e fro m refinerie s tha t us e a

nalkanolamin e proces s system t o remov e th e H2 S from th e refinery fue l gas . Complianc e tes t result s fo r th e H2 S concentratio ni nrefiner y fue l ga s range s fro

m 2.9 7 mg/dsc m

t o 119.4 3 mg/dsc m

(the NSP S i s 23 0 mg/dscm) ,P.1 0

No complianc e tes t dat a wer e obtaine d fo ra LO-CAT ® system ; however , on e refiner ywit h suc h a syste m ha s installe d a continuou s H2 S monitor

. Accordin g t o informatio n submitte d b yth e refinery , th e H2 S concentratio n o f th e refiner yfue l ga s treate d b yth e LO-CAT ® syste m range s fro m 28. 4 mg/dsc m t o 7 1 mg/dscm

. Th e H2 S concentratio n limi t fo rrefiner yfue l ga s was originall y base d upo n th e alkanolamin e technology

. A s alread ydescribed , thi s revie w foun d tha t alkanolamin e system s ar e stil l applicabl e t o al l plant s an d ca n achiev e th e emissio n limi t a t a reasonabl e cost
. Th e LO-CAT

® technolog yha s bee n installe d a t tw o refinerie s an d als o i s capabl e o f complyin g wit h th e standard

. Revie wo f th e complianc e dat a sugges t th e possibilit yo f lowerin g th e emissio n limit

. However , wit h th e presen t emissio n limit , owner s an d operator s wil l continu e t o us e th e technolog ydesig n o n whic h th e standar d i s base d i n orde rt o sta ybelo wth e limit

. Also , sinc e EP Aha s no t propose d an d promulgate d specification s fo rth e continuou s monitors , ther e i s n o long-ter m dat a fro m certifie d continuou s emissio n monitor s t o determin e whethe ra lowe rH2 S concentratio n limi t ca n b e maintaine d o n a continuou s basis

. Therefore , th e EP Aha s conclude d tha t retainin g th e curren t NSP S emissio n leve l i s appropriate , a t thi s time

. D

. Cos t Impact s Informatio n o n th e capita l an d annualize d cost s o f contro l unit s use d t o remov e H2

S wa s supplie d b yrefinerie s subjec t t o th e NSP S an d a vendo ro f th e contro l equipment

. Th e cos t effectivenes s o f controllin g th e H2S concentratio nP.1 1

i n refiner yfue l ga s wa s estimate d fo rfou rmode l uni t size s [amin e treatment : 5.08 , 10.16 , 50. 8 an d 101. 6 megagram/da y(Mg/D) ; LO-CAT ® 1.02 , 2.03 , 5.0 8
an d 10.1 6 Mg/D ] a t thre e H2 S concentration s (1% , 5 % an d 10

% H2S ) fo rbot h type s o f contro l systems
. Fo rth e alkanolamin e syste m wit h a Clau s sulfu r recover yunit , th e cos t effectivenes s (Januar y198 5 dollars ) range s fro m $222/M g o f SO

2 fo rth e 5.0 8 Mg/ D plan t t o a credi t o f $11.5/M g o f SO 2 fo rth e 101. 6 Mg/D plant

. Th e cos t effectivenes s (Januar y198 5 dollars ) fo r th e LO-CAT

® syste m range s fro m $98/M g t o $440/M g o f SO 2 remove d fo rth e 10.1 6 an d th e 1.0 2 Mg/D plan t respectively

. E

. Tes t Requirement s Th e regulatio n require s facilitie s subjec t t o th e H2S concentratio n limi t t o monito rth e pollutan t wit h a continuou s emissio n monitor

. However , thi s requiremen t i s no t presentl yi n effec t becaus e th e EP Aha s no t establishe d performanc e specification s fo rH2 S continuou s emissio n monitors

. I n 1980 , th e EP Astudie d H2S continuou s emissio n monitor s bu t di d no t fin d an ytha t wer e acceptable

. Recently , th e Agencycontacte d variou s Stat e an d loca l agencie s an d petroleu m refinerie s i n a n attemp t t o collec t an yexistin g dat a fo rH2 S continuou s emissio n monitors

. Th e conclusio n o f thi s stud ywas tha t insufficien t dat a exis t t o establis h performanc e specification s fo rH2S monitors

. Arecommendatio n resultin g fro m thi s NSP

S revie wi s tha t EP Adevelo p a n alternativ e metho d o f contin
uousl ymeasurin g th e sulfu rconcentratio n i n treate d refiner yfue l gas . On e method.tha t EP

Awil l conside ri s th e us e o f continuou s SO 2 monitors

.P.1 2



### III . Conclusion s Base do nth e abov e findings , th e EP A conclude s tha t the.leve l o f contro l require db

y th e NSP S fo r petroleu m refinery

fue l ga s reflect s BD T considerin g economi c impacts . Therefore , n o change s i nth e standard s
ar e bein g made . Revision s t o th e monitorin g requirement s o f th e standar d
ar e appropriat e an

dEP A wil l investigat e alternative s fo r measurin g th e sulfu r concentratio ni nrefiner y fue l gas . I f th e investigation s revea l tha t a nalternativ e techniqu e i s reasonable , th e Agenc y wil l propos e thi s techniqu e an

dan y change s i nth e regulatio nnecessitate db y th e continuou s monitorin g techniqu e i nth e FEDERAL REGISTER . IV . Miscellaneou s Publicatio no f thi s review wa s precede db

y consultatio nwit happropriat e advisor y committees , independen t experts , andFedera l department s and agencies . Thi s regulatio nwil l b e reviewe dagai ni n4 year s a s require db y th e Clea nAi r Act . Thi s review wil l includ e a

nassessmen t o f suc hfactor s a s th e nee dfo r integratio nwit hothe r programs , th e existenc e o f alternativ e methods , enforceability , improvement s i nemissio ncontro l technology , andreportin g requirements . Th e informatio ngenerate db y th e monitorin g recordkeepin g an dreportin g requirement s o f th e standard s i s necessar y andreasonabl e an

dwil l continu e t o b e use db

y EP A t o ensur e complianc e wit hth e NSPS . Th e tota l annua l burde nassociate dwit hthes e requirement s i s estimate dt o b e 12,59 9 person hour s pe r yea r fo r al l respondents . Unde r th e standards , th e dat a collecte dP.1 3

b y th e affecte dindustr y woul db e retaine da minimu m o f 2 year s an

dmad e availabl e fo r inspectio na s necessary . Th e reportin g an

drecordkeepin g associate dwit hth e reviewe dstandard s hav e curren t approva l o f th e Offic e o f Managemen t andBudge t (OMB ) unde r Sectio n3504(h ) o f th e Paperwor k Reductio nAc t o f 1980 , 4 4 U.S.C . 350 1 et
_ seq. , an

dhav e bee nassigne dOM B contro l numbe r 2060 - . Expiratio n dat e o f th e informatio ncollectio nrequirement s i s . Th e Regulator y

Flexibilit y

Ac t o f 198 0 require s tha t th e advers e impac t o f Federa l Regulation s o nsmal l businesse s b e identified . Th e Ac t require s th e completio no f a Regulator y Flexibilit y

Analysi s i nthos e instance s whe nsmal l busines s impact s ar e possible . Non e o f th e refinerie s presentl y

subjec t t o th e refiner y fue l ga s NSP S ar e unreasonabl y affecte d b y th e standard . Base do nth e cos t analysis , economi c impact s o nnew smal l refinerie s ar e expecte dt o b e small . I t i s th e Administrator' s determinatio ntha t th e standar dwil l no t hav e a significan t economi c impac t o

na substantia l numbe r o f smal l businesses . Accordingly , a smal l busines s impac t analysi s ha s no t bee nprepared . V . Lis t o f Subject s i n4 0 CFRPar t 6 0 Ai r pollutio ncontrol , reportin g an drecordkeepin g requirements , intergovernmenta l regulations , an dpetroleu

m refineries .

Dat e Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an dRadiatio n 

### 1 0« • >

* Unite d State s Offic e o fAi r Quality Environmenta l Protectio n Plannin g an d Standard s JULY198 6 Agency Researc h Triangl e Par k N C 2771 1 Ai r l 

# Revie wo f Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r Petroleu m Refinery Fue l Ga s P 1 4



# Preliminary Draf t

.ra-r , "a f :wryrri.njMgain:T.s t •liEHi.'srrrg'E;
.P.1 5

NOTIC E Thi s documen t has no

t bee n formall y release d b y EP A an d shoul d not nowb e construe d t o represen t Agency policy . I t i s bein g circulate d fo r commen t o n it s technica l accuracy an d polic y implications . 

# Preliminar y Draf t Revie wo fNe wSourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r Petroleu m Refiner y Fue l Ga s

Emissio n Standard s an d Engineerin g Divisio n

U.S . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY

Offic e o fAi r an d Radiatio n Offic e o fAi r Quality Plannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1

Jul y 198 6P.1 6



### TABL E O F CONTENT S Pag e 1 . SUMMAR

Y1- 1 1. 1 CONTRO L TECHNOLOGY1- 1 1. 2 ECONOMI C CONSIDERATION S AFFECTINGTH E NSP S 1- 1
2 . CURREN T STANDARD2- 1 2. 1 NE W SOURC E PERFORMANC E STANDARD S 2- 1 2. 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY2-1 2 2. 3 STAT E REGULATION S 2-1 5 2. 4 OTHE RFEDERAL REGULATION S 2-1 6 2. 5 REFERENCE S 2-1 8
3 . INDUSTR

YDESCRIPTION 3. 1 BACKGROUNDINFORMATIO N 3- 1 3. 2 INDUSTRYCHARACTERIZATION 3- 4 3. 3 EMISSION S FROM

COMBUSTION

O F REFINERYFUE L GA S 3- 8 3. 4 SELECTION

O F REFINERYCOMBUSTION DEVICE S FORNSP S CONTRO L 3-1 0 3. 5 REFERENCE S 3-1 0
4 . STATU S O F CONTRO L TECHNOLOGY4- 1 4. 1 ALKANOLAMIN E PROCES S SYSTEM 4- 1 4. 2 TH E LO-CAT ®HYDROGEN SULFID E OXIDATION

PROCES S 4- 8 4. 3 FACILITIE S SUBJEC T T O TH E NSP S 4-1 2 4. 4 COMPLIANC E TES T RESULT S 4-1 3 4. 5 EMISSION

MONITORING4-1 5 4. 6 REFERENCE S 4-1 6P.1 7



### Pag e 5 . MODE L PLANT S 5- 1 5. 1 MODE L PLANT S AN

D CONTRO L SYSTEM S 5- 1 5. 2 EMISSIO NREDUCTION S 5- 2
6 . COS T ANALYSI S 6- 1 6. 1 INTRODUCTION6- 1 6. 2 AMIN E TREATMENT WIT H CLAU S SULFU R RECOVERY 6- 2 6. 3 LO-CAT ®PROCES S 6- 6 6. 4 COST-EFFECTIVENES S 6-1 6 6. 5 COS T COMPARISO N6-2 3 6. 6 REFERENCE S 6-2 4P.1 8

1 . SUMMAR

Y
1. 1 CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y Currently , petroleu m refinerie s ar e usin g tw o type s o f contro l technologies , th e alkanolamin e o r th e LO-CAT ®system , t o compl y wit hth e hydroge nsulfid e (H2S ) concentratio nlimi t (23 0 mg/dscm ) o f thi s ne w sourc e performanc e standar d(NSPS) . Dat a fo r fiftee ncomplianc e test s wer e obtaine dfro

m nin e differen t refineries . Al l o f th e tes t dat a ar e fro m refinerie s tha t us e a nalkanolamin e system . Th e complianc e tes t result s rang e fro

m 2.9 7 mg/dsc m

t o 119.4 3 mg/dscm . No complianc e tes t dat a wer e obtaine dfro m a LO-CAT ®system ; however , on e refiner y

wit hsuc ha syste

m ha s installe da continuou s H2 S monitor . Accordin g t o informatio nsubmitte db y th e refinery , th e H2 S concentratio n range s fro

m 2 0 ppm v t o 5 0 ppm

v an daverage s 3 0 ppm

v (NSP S i s 16 2 ppmv) . Th e revie w

di dno t findan

y demonstrate dtechnologie s fo r controllin g emission s tha t achiev e mor e contro l tha nth e alkanolamin e o r th e LO-CAT ® systems . 1. 2 ECONOMI C CONSIDERATION S AFFECTINGTH E NSP S Anothe r primar y

issu e involvin g review o f th e NSP S i s the cos t o f controls . Th e cos t effectivenes s o f controllin g th e H2 S concentratio ni n refiner y

fue l ga s wa s estimate dfo r fou r mode l plan t size s a t thre e H2 S concentration s fo r bot htype s o f contro l systems . Fo r mos t o f th e new NSP S units , th e cost s o f contro l pe r uni t o f sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 ) remove dwil l b e les s tha nthos e discusse dinthi s section . Th e cos t effectivenes s range s fro

m $20 1 pe r tono f SO 2 t o a credi t o f $23. 9 pe r tono f SO 2 fo r th e alkanolamin e syste m wit ha Clau s sulfu r recover y unit . Th e cos t effectivenes s fo r th e LO-CAT ®syste m range s fro

m $8 9 pe r tont o $39 9 pe r tono f SO 2 removed .P.1 9

2 . CURREN T STANDARD S
Thi s chapter present s an ddiscusse s the curren t regulation s fo r ai r pollutan t emission s fro m refiner y

fue l ga s combustio ndevices . Federa l regulation s fo r new sources , othe r Federa l regulations , andStat e regulation s (fo r exis i ting an

dnew sources ) ar e al l addresse dinorde r t o giv e a noveral l pictur e o f the regulator y structur e fo r thi s emissio nsourc e category . Th e focus , however , i s onth e new sourc e performance , standard s (NSPS ) fo r sulfu r dioxid e emission s fro m refiner y

fue l ga s combustio ndevices . A summary

o f th e NSP S i s firs t presented , followe db y detaile ddiscussion s
o f the specifi c requirements , definitions , an dspecification s o f th e NSPS . Thi s i s followe db

y a brie f descriptio no f othe r Federa l an dStat e regulation s tha t ma y

als o affec t existin g an dnew source s i nthi s category .
2. 1 NE W SOURC E PERFORMANC E STANDARD S 2.1. 1 Backgroun d Ne w sourc e performanc e standard s regulat e emission s o f ai r pollutant s fro m new , modified , an

dreconstructe dfacilitie s i nvariou s industria l categories . Th e regulation s establis hemissio nlimit s an drequir e emissio nperformanc e testing , continuou s monitoring , an dperiodi c reporting . The authorit y fo r th e NSP S regulation s i s grante dt o the U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) unde r Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Act. 1 The regulatio nfo r fue l ga s combustio ndevice s inpetroleu m refinerie s i s liste di nSubpar t J o f 4 0 CF R60 , (Code o f Federa l Regulations ; Titl e 4 0 - Protectio no f Environment ; Par t 6 0 - Standard s o f Performanc e fo r NewP.2 0



### 2- 2
Stationar y

Sources ; Subpar t J- Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Petroleu m Refineries ) Subpar t Jaddresse s specifi c requirement s fo r thi s sourc e category , bu t Subpar t Jals o incorporate s th e genera l requirement s fo r an y NSPS . Thes e genera l requirement s ar e liste dinSubpar t A (Genera l Provisions ) o f 4 0 CF R60 . Othe r source s o f ai r pollutio nemission s fro m petroleu

m refinerie s ar e als o regulate dunde r th e new sourc e performanc e standar dregulator y program . Subpar t Jals o regulate s sulfu r dioxid e emission s fro m Clau s sulfu r recover y plants , an

dsulfu r dioxide , carbo nmonoxide , an dparticulat e emission s fro m flui dcatalyti c crackin g uni t catalyst regenerators . Subpar t H regulate s sulfuri c aci dmis t an dsulfu r dioxid e emission s fro m sulfuri c aci dplants . Volatil e organi c compoun d(VOC ) emission s fro m storag e vessel s fo r petroleu m liquid s ar e regulate dunde r Subpart s Kan dKa . Subpar t GGGregulate s VO C emission s du e t o leak s fro m proces s equipment . 2.1. 2 Summary

o f th e NSP S fo r Refiner y Fue l Ga s Combustio nDevice s New sourc e performanc e standard s wer e promulgate db y th e EPA onMarc h8 , 1974 , limitin g emission s o f sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 ) fro m new , modifie dand reconstructe dfue l ga s combustio ndevice s a t petroleu m refineries . N

o signif ican t change s hav e occurre dsinc e then . Thes e standard s appl y t o anaffecte d facilit y whic hcommence s constructio no r modificatio nafte r Jun e 11 , 1973 . Th e affecte dfacilit y fo r thi s standar di s an y fue l ga s combustio n devic e ina petroleu

m refinery . Thes e device s ar e define da s an y equipmen t
use dt o bur nfue l gas , suc ha s proces s heaters , boilers , an dflares , bu t som

e combustio nsource s ina refiner y ar e specificall y

exempte dinth e definition . Th e regulate dai r pollutan t i s SO2 . Sulfu r dioxid e emission s fro m fue l ga s combustio ndevice s ca nb e controlle db y reducin g th e hydroge nsulfid e (H2S )P.2 1

2- 3

conten t o f th e fue l ga s prio r t o combustio no r b y flu e ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD ) afte r combustion . Th e standar dwa s writ'te nwit hth e inten t t o limi t th e H2 S conten t o f fue l gas , althoug hth e owner/operato r ha s th e optio no f usin g FGD . Th e standar dprohibit s th e burnin g o f fue l ga s containin g mor e tha n23 0 m

g H2S/dsc m

(0.1 0 gr/dscf ) inan y fue l ga s combustio ndevice ; however , th e standar ddoe s no t appl y t o unusua l situations , suc ha s emergenc y ga s release s o r proces s upsets . Complianc e i s demonstrate db y a ninitia l performanc e tes t usin g EP A Metho d11 . Subsequen t continuou s monitorin g o f H2 S inth e incomin g fue l ga s i s required ; however , sinc e monito r performanc e specification s hav e no t bee nestablishe dyet , thi s monitorin g requiremen t i s
no t ineffect . A nalternativ e complianc e optio ni s included . Instea do f controllin g th e H2 S inth e incomin g fue l gas , th e SO 2 emission s ma y b e controlle ddirectl y b y treatin g th e effluen t gase s resultin g fro m th e combustio no f fue l gas . However , i t mus t b e show ntha t treatin g th e effluen t combustio ngase s wil l contro l SO 2 emission s a s effectivel y a s controllin g th e H2 S i nth e incomin g fue l gas . Complianc e fo r thi s optio ni s demonstrate db y a ninitia l performanc e tes t usin g EPA

Metho d6 , an

dcontinuou s monitorin g o f SO 2 i nth e effluen t ga s i s required . Th e regulatio nals o specifie s a serie s o f reportin g an drecordkeepin g requirements . A

refiner y

tha t ha s combustio ndevice s subjec t t o th e NSP S i s require dt o kee precords , submi t report s t o EPA , andnotif y EPA o f particula r plan s an

doccurrence s a s describe dinsectio n2.1.8 .P.2 2

2- 4
2.1. 3 Applicabilit y o f Standards ? 2.1.3. 1 Affecte dfacilities . Th e NSP S i s applicabl e t o an y new , modified , o r reconstructe dcombustio n devic e whic hcommence dconstructio nafte r Jun e 11 , 1973 , an dwhic hburn s fue l ga s ina petroleu

m refinery . Petroleu

m i s define das , "th e crud e oi l remove dfro m th e eart han

dth e oil s derive dfro m ta r sands , shale , andcoal. " A petroleu

m refiner y

i s define das , "an y facilit y

engage dinproducin g gasoline , kerosene , distillat e fue l oils , residua l fue l oils , lubricants , o r othe r product s throug hdistillatio no f petroleu m o r throug hredistillation , crackin g o r reformin g o f unfinishe dpetroleu m derivatives. " Th e EPA' s definitio no f a petroleu m refiner y

i s thu s interprete dbroadl y t o encompas s shal e oi l refineries , solven t refine dcoa l plants , one-ste ptoppin g plants , andsmal l re-refinin g operations . Fue l ga s i s define das , "an y ga s whic hi s generate da t a petroleu m refiner y

an dwhic hi s combusted . Fue l ga s als o include s natura l ga s whe nth e natura l ga s i s combine dandcombuste di nan y proportio nwit ha ga s generate da t a refinery . Fue l ga s doe s no t includ e gase s generate db

y catalyti c crackin g uni t catalys t regenerator s an d flui dcokin g burners. " Th e specifi c exemptio ni s include dfo r gase s generate db y thes e particula r processe s becaus e i t i s impractica l t o contro l th e SO 2 emission s tha t woul d resul t fro

m burnin g th e H2 S i nthes e gases . Thes e off-gase s contai nrelativel y low level s o f H2 S andcontai nver y highlevel s o f carbo ndioxide , makin g i t difficul t t o reduc e th e H2 S concentratio nfurthe r inconventiona l amin e treatin g units . However , i f thes e exempted , off-gase s ar e combine dwit hfue lP.2 3

2- 5

ga s fro m anothe r par t o f a refinery , the nth e combine dga s strea m woul db e subjec t t o th e NSP S limi t i f i t i s combuste di na ne w combustio ndevice . Natura l ga s refer s t o pipelin e standar dnatura l ga s (meetin g specification s
o f < 0.2 5 grain s H2 S / 10 0 scf) . Thus , i f natura l ga s i s purchase dan dburne d exclusivel y

i na combustio ndevice , the nH2 S conten t o f the ga s wil l necessaril y b e below

th e NSP S limit . I f natura l ga s i s mixe dwit hrefiner y generate d fue l gas , the nth e combine dstrea m i s considere d"fue l gas " an dit s H2 S concentratio nmus t b e unde r th e NSP S limi t prio r t o combustio ni na ne w source . A fue l ga s combustio ndevic e i s define das , "an y equipment , suc ha s proces s heaters , boiler s an dflare s use d t o combus t fue l gas , excep t facilitie s i nwhic hgase s ar e combuste dt o produc e sulfu r o r sulfuri c acid. " Ther e ar e tw

o reason s fo r includin g th e specifi c exemptio nfo r combustio n device s use dt o produc e sulfu r o r sulfuri c acid . First , th e combustio ni n thi s cas e i s a ste pinth e chemica l conversio nprocess , andth e resultin g post-combustio nstrea m i s considere da proces s strea m tha t undergoe s furthe r processing , no t a

neffluen t stream . Second , ther e ar e separat e NSPS' s limitin g ai r emission s fro

m thes e processes . (Sulfuri c aci dplant s ar e regulate d unde r Subpar t G ; Clau s sulfu r recover y plant s unde r a differen t par t o f Subpar t J. ) 2.1.3. 2 Applicabilit y date . Th e NSP S applie s onl y i f th e constructio no r modificatio ncommence d afte r Jun e 11 , 1973 , (the dat e o f th e origina l proposa l o f th e regulation) . Th e ter m "commenced " i s define di nth e Genera l Provision s t o 4 0 CF R60 , (Sectio n60.2) ,P.2 4



### 2-6

"Commence dmean s tha t a nowne r o r operato r ha s undertake na continuou s progra

m o f constructio no r modificatio no r tha t an owne r o r operato r ha s entere dint o a bindin g agreemen t o r contractua l obligatio nt o undertak e an dcomplete , withi na reasonabl e time , a continuou s program o f constructio no r modification. " Thus , a fue l ga s combustio ndevic e tha t existe dprio r t o th e proposa l o n Jun e 11 , 1973 , an

dha s no t bee nsignificantl y change do r altere dsinc e the n woul dno t b e regulate dunde r th e NSPS . 2.1.3. 3 Modification . Whil e NSP S ar e intende dprimaril y fo r newl y

constructe dfacilities , existin g source s ca nbecome subjec t t o a nNSP S throug heithe r "modification "
o r "reconstruction. " Thes e term s ar e define dindetai l inth e Genera l Provi sion s fo r Par t 60 , (4 0 CF R60.1 4 an d4 0 CF R60.15) . A nexistin g fue l ga s combustio ndevic e become s subjec t t o th e NSP S unde r the modificatio nprovisio ni f ther e i s an y physica l o r operationa l chang e tha t cause s a

nincreas e i nth e emissio nrate . A numbe r o f clarifications , exemptions , an

dexception s t o th e modificatio nprovisio nar e listed . Th e followin g action s b y themselve s ar e no t considere dt o b e modifications :

° routin e maintenance , repair , an dreplacemen t

° productio nincrease s achieve dwithou t an y capita l expenditur e
° productio nincrease s resultin g fro m a nincreas e inthe hour s o f operatio n

° us e o f analternativ e fue l i f th e existin g facilit y wa s originall y

designe dt o accommodat e suc hanalternativ e us e

° additio no r replacemen t o f equipmen t fo r emissio ncontro l (a s long a s th e replacemen t doe s no t increas e emissions )

° relocatio no r chang e o f ownershi po f a nexistin g facility .P.2 5

2- 7
Also , th e additio no r modificatio no f on e facilit y a t a sourc e wil l no t caus e othe r unaltere dfacilitie s a t tha t sourc e t o become subjec t t o th e NSPS . Specifically , fo r petroleu m refineries , i f on e fue l ga s combustio ndevic e i s adde do r modified , the nonl y tha t particula r devic e mus t mee t th e NSPS ; th e othe r existin g combustio ndevice s throughou t th e refiner y ar e no t affected . 2.1.3. 4 Reconstructio n A nexistin g facilit y become s subjec t t o th e NSP S upo nreconstructio n regardles s o f an

y chang e inth e rat e o f emissions . Reconstructio ni s define d
a s th e replacemen t o f component s o f a nexistin g facilit y t o th e exten t tha t th e cumulativ e fixe dcapita l cos t o f th e new component s exceed s 5 0 percen t
o f th e cos t tha t woul db e require dt o construc t a comparabl e entirel y ne w facility . 2.1. 4 Controlle dPollutan t Th e NSP S limit s emission s t o th e atmospher e o f SO 2 fro m th e exhaus t o f refiner y

combustio ndevice s whic hbur nfue l gas . Althoug hth e regulate dai r pollutan t i s SO2 , th e SO 2 emission s t o th e atmospher e ar e no t regulate ddirectly , Instea dSO 2 emission s ar e controlle dindirectl y b y regulatin g th e amoun t o f H2 S i nth e incomin g fue l gas . 2.1. 5 Exception s t o th e Emissio nStandar d Th e standar dprohibit s th e burnin g o f fue l ga s containin g mor e than23 0
mg H2S/dsc m

(0.1 0 grain/dscf ) i nan y new , modified , o r reconstructe dcombustio n device . Th e H2 S conten t o f th e incomin g fue l ga s ca nb e reduce di nthre e way s - b

y usin g sweete r crud e wit ha lowe r sulfu r content , b y pretreatmen t o f th e fue l ga s befor e combustio ni na naci dga s treatin g unit , andb y blendin g natura l ga s wit hth e fue l gas . Althoug hthi s mixin g dilute s th e H2 S concentra tio nwithou t reducin g overal l SO 2 emissions , th e blendin g o f natura l ga s wit hP.2 6

2- 8
fue l ga s i s no t considere da circumventio no f th e standard , becaus e thi s i s ofte nnorma l an

dnecessar y

refiner y

operatin g practice . Natura l ga s i s use d
a s auxiliar y

fue l sinc e many

refinerie s requir e mor e ga s thanthey generate . Also , natura l ga s i s use dt o ensur e a constan t flo w o f fue l t o processes , whil e th e amoun t o f refiner y generate dfue l ga s ma y var y wit hoperatin g condition s o r upset s inothe r proces s units . Th e standar ddoe s no t appl y t o unusua l situations , suc ha s emergenc y ga s release s du e t o proces s upsets . Proces s upse t ga s i s define das ,

"an y ga s generate db

y a petroleu

m refiner y

proces s uni t a s a resul t o f start-up , shut-down , upset , o r malfunction." 3 Start-up , shut-down , upset , an dmalfunctio nconsideration s ar e define dinth e Genera l Provision s fo r 4 0 CF RPar t 60 . Th e combustio no f proces s upse t ga s i na flare , o r th e combustio ni na flar e o f proces s ga s o r fue l ga s whic hi s release dt o th e flar e a s a resul t o f relie f valv e leakag e i s specificall y exempte dfro

m thi s regulation . However , flare s whic hbur na continuou s proces s ga s strea

m ar e subjec t t o th e NSP S regulations . 2.1. 6 Testin g Requirement s Th e owne r o r operato r o f a fue l ga s burnin g devic e subjec t t o NSP S i s require dt o conduc t performanc e test s withi na specifie dperio dafte r start-up , an

dthereafte r fro

m tim e t o tim

e a s ma y

b e specifie db

y th e EPA . Thes e performanc e test s ar e require di norde r t o demonstrat e tha t th e standard s
ar e bein g me t b

y th e ne w device . Genera l testin g an dreportin g requirement s
ar e liste dinth e Genera l Provisions , (Sectio n60.7) , whil e testin g detail s specifi c t o thi s sourc e categor y ar e foundi nSubpar t J , (Sectio n60.106) . Th e initia l tes t o f performanc e o f a facilit y mus t b e conducte dwithi n 6 0 day s afte r th e facilit y firs t achieve s it s maximu m intende drat e o f operation .P.2 7



### 2- 9

However , i f th e intende drat e o f operatio ni s no t achieve dwithi n12 0 day s o f initia l start-up , th e initia l tes t mus t nevertheles s b e conducte dwithi n18 0 day s o f start-up . Thirt y day s mus t b e allowe dfo r prio r notic e t o th e EPA , t o allow th e Agenc y

t o designat e a

nobserve r t o witnes s the test . T o demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e standar dlimitin g th e amoun t o f H2 S inthe fue l ga s prio r t o combustion , EPA Referenc e Metho d1 1 i s use dt o determin e th e concentratio no f H2S . A performanc e tes t consist s o f 3 runs , wit heac hrunconsistin g o f 2 samples . Sample s ar e take na t approximatel y one-hou r interval s wit ha minimu m samplin g time o f 1 0 minute s pe r sample . Th e arithmeti c mea no f th e thre e run s constitute s th e valu e use dt o determin e whethe r th e facilit y

i s incompliance . (Necessar y modification s i nth e detail s o f th e tes t method s ma y b e made , i f approve dinadvanc e b y th e EPA. ) A writte nrepor t o f th e tes t i s t o b e furnishe dt o th e EPA . 2.1. 7 Monitorin g Requirement s Th e regulatio nrequire s a continuou s H2 S monito r onth e fue l ga s lin e a t th e inle t t o eac hcombustio ndevic e tha t i s subjec t t o th e NSPS . Whe na refiner y ha s severa l fue l ga s combustio ndevice s havin g a commo nsourc e o f fue l gas , monitorin g ma y b e don e a t on e locatio ninstea do f eac hcombustio n devic e havin g a separat e monitor . Thi s situatio ni s commo ni nmany refinerie s wher e a centralize daci dga s treatmen t plan t treat s H2 S ric hgase s fro m severa l refiner y

proces s unit s an

dthe nroute s th e treate dexi t gase s t o combustio ndevice s throughou t th e refinery . Exces s emission s ar e define da s an y 3 hou r perio dwhe nth e integrate d(o r arithmetic ) averag e concentratio n o f H2 S i nth e fue l ga s exceed s the standar do f 23 0 mg H2S/dscm .P.2 8

2-1 0
Th e monitorin g syste m mus t continuousl y

monito r an

drecor dth e H2 S concentration . Unde r th e Genera l Provision s (Sectio n60.13) , "continuous " i s define dt o mea ntha t th e monitorin g system mus t complet e a t leas t on e cycl e
o f operatio n(sampling , analysis , an ddat a recording ) fo r eac hsuccessiv e 15-minut e period . Th e owne r o r operato r mus t install , calibrate , maintain , an doperat e th e continuou s monito r accordin g t o th e requirement s whic har e detaile di nth e subpar t an dth e genera l provisions . Also , th e continuou s monitorin g syste

m mus t satisf y

th e performanc e specification s i nAppendi xB
o f 4 0 CF R60 . Th e EPA ha s no t ye t develope dinstrumen t performanc e specification s fo r H2 S continuou s monitorin g systems . Therefore , refiner y combustio ndevice s subjec t t o th e NSP S ar e effectivel y exemp t fro

m th e H2 S monitorin g requirement s unti l EPA

establishe s performanc e specification s fo r anH2 S monitor . 2.1. 8 Recordkeepin g an dReportin g Requirement s A refiner y

tha t ha s combustio ndevice s subjec t t o th e NSPS , i s require d t o kee precords , sqbmi t certai nreport s t o EPA , an dnotif y

EPA o f certai n plan s an

doccurrences . One-time "notification " report s concernin g th e star t o f constructio no r reconstruction , anticipate dan dactua l startu pdates , an dphysica l o r operationa l change s t o existin g facilitie s ar e require ds o tha t th e EPA wil l b e abl e t o identif y

affecte dsources . I naddition , othe r record s an dreport s ar e necessar y t o enabl e th e EPA

t o identif y

source s tha t ma y

no t b e i ncomplianc e wit hth e standard . Thes e includ e initia l performanc e tes t results , quarterl y report s
o f exces s emissions , andretainin g record s o f plan t upset s an dexces s emission s fo r 2 years . Detail s o f thes e requirement s ar e liste dinth e Genera l Provision s (4 0 CF R60.7) .P.2 9

2-1 1

2.1. 9 Optio nfo r anSO pEmissio nLimi t Sulfu r dioxid e emission s fro m fue l ga s combustio ndevice s ca nbe controlle d b y reducin g th e H2 S i nth e incomin g fue l ga s o r b y reducin g th e SO 2 i nth e exhaus t gases . Th e standar dwa s writte nwit hth e inten t to limi t th e H2 S conten t o f fue l gas , an dal l o f th e refiner y source s subjec t t o th e NSP S t o dat e ar e currentl y

reducin g SO 2 emission s b y pretreatmen t o f th e fue l gase s t o remov e th e H2S . However , th e regulationinclude s a second , alternativ e provisio nwhic h allow s th e burnin g o f fue l ga s wit ha highe r H2 S conten t provide dth e effluen t gase s ar e treate dt o reduc e th e SO 2 emissions . Thi s flu e ga s desulfurizatio n woul dprobabl y

b e accomplishe dwit ha nadd-o nai r pollutio ncontro l device . Incas e thi s emissio ncontro l optio ni s selected , the regulatio nset s fort ha paralle l se t o f emissio nstandard s andtesting , monitoring , reporting , an d recordkeepin g requirements . Becaus e no refiner y ha s ye t electe dth e FGD options , th e alternativ e provision s i nth e regulatio nwil l no t b e discusse d i ndetai l i nthi s report . Th e NSP S doe s no t se t a specifi c SO 2 emissio nlimi t i f thi s alternativ e approac hi s followed . Instead , th e sourc e mus t calculat e an ddetermin e an equivalen t SO 2 emissio nleve l tha t woul dcontro l SO 2 emission s a s effectivel y
a s complyin g wit hth e standar dfo r H2 S concentratio ninth e fue l gas . Becaus e th e inle t fue l ga s streams , operatin g conditions , an dparameter s may

vary fo r
eac hcombustio ndevice , a nequivalen t SO 2 emissio nlimi t woul dprobabl y nee d t o b e calculate dfo r eac haffecte dfacilit y ona case-by-cas e basis . Th e informatio nmus t b e submitte dt o th e EPA fo r approval .P.3 0

2-1 2 Complianc e fo r thi s optio ni s demonstrate db y a performanc e tes t usin g EP A Method s 1 , 2 , an

d6 fo r determinin g th e samplin g site , volumetri c flowrate , an dSO 2 concentration . Continuou s monitorin g o f th e SO 2 concentratio ninth e effluen t i s als o require dinth e regulation . Sinc e EPA ha s liste dperformanc e specifications fo r continuou s SO 2 instrument s (i nPerformanc e Specificatio n2
o f Appendi xB t o 4 0 CF R60) , thes e monitorin g requirement s ar e ineffec t an d must b e carrie dout . Exces s emission s ar e define da s a 3-hou r perio dwhe n th e averag e SO 2 concentratio nexceed s a predetermine dleve l tha t wa s previousl y calculate dan

dapprove dfo r tha t particula r combustio nsource . Th e testing , monitoring , recordkeeping , andreportin g requirement s ar e simila r t o thos e discusse dfo r th e H2 S concentratio nstandard , an ddetail s ar e liste din Subpar t J an

dth e Genera l Provisions . 2. 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Standard s o f performanc e fo r ai r emission s fro m petroleu

m refinerie s
wer e firs t propose do nJun e 11 , 197 3 (3 8 F R15406 ) andpromulgate do n Marc h8 , 197 4 (3 9 FR9308) . Sinc e then , ther e hav e bee n3 propose dan d 8 fina l rulemaking s whic haffecte dth e standar dfo r sulfu r dioxid e emission s fro m fue l ga s combustio nsource s inrefineries . Thes e rulemaking s consiste d
o f mino r clerica l corrections , change s t o th e monitorin g requirements , an d change s t o th e definitio no f fue l gas . A listin g an

dbrie f summary

o f thes e i s give ni nTabl e 2.1 . 2.2. 1 Change s t o Definition s Th e definition s o f "fue l gas " an d"fue l ga s combustio ndevice " wer e change dt o clarif y

th e origina l inten t o f th e regulatio nan dt o matc hth e conventiona l nomenclatur e use dinth e industry . Thes e forma l change s t oP.3 1



### 2-1 3

TABL E 2. 1 LIS T O F RULEMAKING S AFFECTIN G NSP S FO R REFINER Y FUE L GA S COMBUSTIO NDEVICE S

DAT E
06-11-7 3 03-08-7 4
09-11-7 4 10-06-7 5 FEDERA

L REGISTE R CITATIO N
3 8 F R 1540 6 3 9 F R 930 8
3 9 F R 3285 2 4 0 F R 4625 0 TYP E OF

ACTIO N
Proposa l Fina l
Proposa l Fina l 

### SUMMAR Y O F ACTIO N

07-25-7 7

08-17-7 7
03-03-7 8

10-04-7 6 03-15-7 8
03-12-7 9 4 2 F

R 3793 6

4 2 F R 4142 4
4 3 F R 880 0

4 1 F R 4386 6 4 3 F R 1086 6 * 4 4 F R 1348 0 Fina l

Fina l
Fina l

Proposa l F i na l
Fina l

03-03-8 0 12-01-8 0 4 5 F

R 1399 1 4 5 F R 7945 2 Proposa l

Fina l 

### Origina l regulatio n limitin g SO 2

emission s an d includin g testing , monitoring , an d reportin g requirements
. 1 

### Adde duniversa l monitorin g andreportin g requirement s t o Genera l Provisions , (4 0 CF R60. 7 &

60.13) . \ Eliminate dmonitorin g requirement s fo r H2 S infue l gas ; revise d monitorin g requirement s fo r SO 2 i n exhaus t gas . Clarification , addin g applicabilit y dat e t o th e definitio no f th e affecte dfacility . Clerica l chang e t o revis e statuator y authorit y

citation s fo r clarity . Clerica l chang e t o amendstatuator y authorit y

citation s pe r Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1977 . Re-adde dmonitorin g requirement s fo r H2 S i nfue l gas . Chang e definitio no f "fue l gas " and "fue l ga s combustio ndevice " t o clarif y whe na nincinerator-wast e hea t boile r i s affecte dby ! th e NSPS . Chang e definitio no f "fue l gas " t o clarif y whic hgaseou s fuel s ar e covere db

y NSPS , particularl y

whe n

' • ....*.._•. ! _._• • • : ~ « iif,,. i ««« n 

### "natura l gas " i s a "fue l gas 1P.3 2

2-1 4
th e regulatio nwer e initiate di npar t a s a respons e t o severa l question s whic hhadarise nconcernin g applicabilit y determinations . Sinc e the change s
wer e merel y

clarifyin g th e origina l inten t o f th e regulation , thes e change s di dno t hav e a significan t impac t onemissions . 2.2. 2 Monitorin g Th e origina l standar dinclude drequirement s fo r th e monitorin g o f the H2 S a t th e inle t o r SO 2 a t th e outle t o f a fue l ga s combustio ndevice . A t th e time , however , n o guidanc e o r instruction s wer e provide donhow t o conduc t th e monitoring , an

ds o source s wer e temporaril y exempte dfro

m monitoring . (Incidentially , thi s approac hwa s take nfo r al l o f th e earl y NSP S regulation s coverin g severa l industrie s becaus e no monitorin g guideline s hadbee nse t b y EPA a t th e time fo r an y pollutant. ) Majo r change s an

daddition s t o monitorin g requirement s wer e issue da shor t time late r (propose d9/11/7 4 andpromulgate d10/6/75) . Thes e change s adde doveral l monitorin g an dreportin g requirement s t o th e Genera l Provision s fo r al l NSPS' s andse t fort hdetaile dperformanc e specification s fo r SO 2 monitorin g instruments . Concurrently , ther e wer e coordinatin g revision s t o th e SO 2 monitorin g requirement s inSubpar t J fo r the exhaus t gase s fro m refiner y

combustio ndevices . A t th e same time , al l monitorin g requirement s fo r H2 S level s i nth e inle t gase s wer e eliminate dbecaus e specification s fo r thos e instrument s hadno t ye t bee nset . Then , thi s approac hwa s reverse din
a late r rulemakin g (propose don10/4/7 6 an dpromulgate don3/15/78) , whe n monitorin g requirement s fo r H2 S inth e fue l ga s wer e reinstated ; however ,P.3 3



### 2-1 5
sinc e detaile dperformanc e specification s fo r H2 S monitor s hav e no t bee n promulgated , th e H2 S monitorin g requirement s stil l do no t hav e t o b e carrie d out . Th e overal l resul t o f thes e action s an dcurren t statu s o f requirement s fo r H2 S monitorin g i s tha t universal , genera l monitorin g requirement s an d guideline s ar e inplac e bu t specific , detaile drequirement s fo r H2 S monitor s hav e no t ye t bee ndetermined . Thus , no H2 S monitorin g i s require da t thi s time . 2. 3 STAT E REGULATION S 2.3. 1 Stat e Regulation s fo r Existin g Source s A revie w o f Stat e regulation s ha s show na wid e variatio ninth e type s o f regulations , degre e o f stringency , an dmethod s o f enforcin g the limitations . Many State s hav e severa l form s o f regulations , eac happlyin g t o a differen t fue l o r typ e o f source , an ddo no t necessaril y

conform t o o r paralle l th e NSPS format . Fo r example , wit hregar dt o sourc e category , th e NSPS specifie s fue l ga s combustio ndevice s inpetroleu m refineries , wherea s a Stat e regulatio n ma y specif y a differen t sourc e category : petroleu m refiner y

combustio n sources ; a combustio nsourc e inan y industria l facility ; combustio nsource s tha t bur ngaseou s fuels . Stat e regulation s ma y limi t emission s o f SO 2 b y limitin g th e H2 S i nthe fue l ga s (a s doe s th e NSPS) , th e tota l SO 2 emission s fro m the combustio n device , o r th e tota l SO 2 emission s fro m th e petroleu

m refinery . I

ngeneral , SO 2 emission s ar e limite db y a regulatio nrestrictin g th e quantit y o f SO 2 emitte dpe r uni t quantit y o f hea t inpu t o r b

y limitin g the sulfu r conten t o f th e fuels . Insome States , th e regulatio nspecifie s th e maximu m allowabl e groundleve l SO 2 concentratio nresultin g fro m th e emissions .P.3 4

2-1 6
Sulfu r dioxid e regulation s fal l int o on e o f th e followin g regulator y formats : 1 . pp m SO2 , b y volume , inth e effluen t 2 . Pound s o f SO 2 pe r millio nBtu' s o f hea t inpu t 3 . Requirement s o nth e sulfu r conten t o f th e fuel , suc ha s pp m H S S i n th e fue l ga s o r weigh t percen t sulfu r infue l oi l 4 . Ambien t ai r qualit y level s simila r o r th e sam e a s th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standar d(NAAQS ) fo r SO 2 2.3. 2 Stat e Regulation s fo r New Source s Fo r new sources , mos t State s hav e bee ndelegate denforcemen t authorit y fo r th e NSP S fo r th e petroleu m refinin g industry , an dmos t hav e adopte dth e NSP S a s written . No Stat e ha s adopte danemissio nlimi t more , stringen t tha n th e NSP S limi t o f 0.1 0 g r H2S/dscf ; althoug hsom e State s o r loca l ai r pollu tio ncontro l agencie s hav e adopte dmor e stringen t monitorin g requirements . Th e Puge t Soundagenc y (i nWashingto nState ) andthre e countie s i nsouther n Californi a hav e require dcontinuou s emissio nmonitorin g wit ha continuou s automate dinstrument eve nthoug hthi s requiremen t i s officiall y no t i neffec t unde r th e NSP S unti l instrumen t performanc e specification s ar e promulgated . 2. 4 OTHE RFEDERAL REGULATION S Ther e ha s bee nadditiona l regulator y activit y

sinc e th e promulgatio no f th e curren t NSP S whic haffect s th e emission s fro m refiner y

fue l ga s combustio n
sources . I

nadditio nt o Stat e regulation s (fo r existin g an dnew sources ) an

d th e NSPS , some petroleu m refinerie s ma y

b e require dt o achiev e mor e stringen t emissio nlevel s fro m fue l ga s combustio ndevice s unde r regulation s fo r th e Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD) 4 o r unde r Stat e Implementatio n Plan s (SIP ) whic har e subjec t t o nonattainmen t revie w b y EPA. 5 2.4. 1 PS D Regulation s I f a new

facilit y

i s buil t ina nare a whic hi s attainin g th e NAAQ S fo rP.3 5



### 2-1 7 SO2 , the ni t fall s unde r th e PS Dregulation s an dmus t us e th e bes t availabl e contro l technolog y

(BACT) . I

ngeneral , BAC T determinatio ni s applie dona case-by-cas e basi s an dmus t b e a t leas t a s stringen t a s th e NSP S level . Fo r thi s sourc e category , th e BAC T emissio nleve l ha s bee ndefine da s equa l t o th e NSP S level. 6 

### Som e Stat e an

dloca l enforcin g agencie s hav e als o use dth e PS Dregulation s a s a mean s o f requirin g som e for m o f emissio nmonitorin g an d correspondin g emissio nmonitorin g reports . 2.4. 2 Nonattainmen t Are a Regulation s I f a new sourc e i s locate dina nonattainmen t are a fo r NAAQ S fo r SO2 , the nemissio ncontro l technolog y capabl e o f th e lowes t achievabl e emissio n reductio n(LAER ) i s required . Ingeneral , LAE Ri s a t leas t a s stringen t
a s th e NSPS , bu t fo r thi s sourc e category , LAE Rha s als o bee ndefine da s equa l t o th e NSPS. 7 

### 2.4. 3 Othe r NSP S Regulation s Th e NSP S unde r revie w inthi s stud

y limit s th e SO 2 emission s fro m al l
new , modified , o r reconstructe dfue l ga s combustio ndevices , whic hinclud e proces s heaters , boilers , an dflare s use dt o combus t fue l gas . Th e ai r pollutio n emission s fro

m thes e combustio nsource s may als o b e regulate db

y othe r NSPS' s (eithe r curren t o r unde r development) . Th e additiona l requirement s an drestriction s impose db y thes e othe r NSPS' s d o no t affec t o r conflic t wit hth e emissio nreduction s require db y th e fue l ga s NSPS , bu t they ma y affec t th e plannin g an ddesig no f new

combustio nsource s b y refiner y

owners . A ne w o r modifie dboile r whic hha s a hea t inpu t greate r tha n25 0 millio n BT Upe r hou r ma y

als o b e subjec t t o th e provision s o f Subpar t Do r Subpar t Da o f 4 0 CF R60 ; th e applicabl e subpar t i s base donth e dat e o f constructio n o f th e sourc e an

dwhethe r th e sourc e i s classifie da s a nindustria l boile rP.3 6

2-1 8

o r a utilit y

boiler . Thes e subpart s limi t opacity , particulat e emissions , andN0 Xemissions , a s wel l a s SO 2 emissions . Similarly , a medium-sized , new
o r modifie dboile r (10 0 t o 25 0 millio nBTUpe r hour ) ma y b e subjec t t o th e provision s o f Subpar t Db , whic hi s currentl y unde r development . 2. 5 Reference s 1 . Clea nAi r Ac t A s Amended , Augus t 1977 . 4 2 U.S.C . Titl e I—Ai r Pollutio nPreventio nandControl . Par t A--Ai r Qualit y andEmissio n Limitations ; Sectio n111—Standard s o f Performanc e fo r New Stationar y Sources . Washington , D.C . 2 . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . Cod e o f Federa l Regulations . Titl e 40 , Par t 60 . Section s 60.101 . Offic e o f th e Kedera l Kegister . Washington , D.C . Jul y 1 , 1985 . 3 . Same a s referenc e #2 . 4 . Referenc e 1 . Par t C--Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio no f Ai r Qual i ty . 5 . Referenc e 1 . Par t D--Pla nRequirement s fo r Nonattainmen t Areas . 6 . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . BACT/LAE RClearinghous e - A Compilatio no f Contro l Technolog y Determinations . U.S . EPA , Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . EP A 450/3-85-01 6 (a-d) . Jun e 1985 . 7 . Same a s referenc e #6 .P.3 7

3 . INDUSTRYDESCRIPTIO N
Thi s chapte r describe s a typica l petroleum refinery , it s variou s productio nprocesse s an dth e rang e o f product s produce db y a refinery . Also , th e curren t numbe r o f operatin g refinerie s an dthei r geographica l locatio nar e discusse da s wel l a s th e industr y growt hrate . Finally , emission s from

combustio no f refiner y fue l ga s an

dth e rationa l fo r choosin g refiner y

fue l ga s fo r ne

w sourc e performanc e standar dcontro l
ar e discussed . 3. 1 BACKGROUN DINFORMATION A petroleum

refiner y

transform s crud e oi l into a variet y o f usefu l products . Th e petroleum refinin g industr y

produce s mor e tha n250 0 product s tha t ca nb e categorize dinto th e followin g classes : fue l gas , gasoline , kerosene , fue l oil , lubricatin g oil , grease , wax , asphalt , coke , chemicals , an dsolvents . Ther e i s n o "typical " refinery , sinc e th e numbe r o f product s
an dth e produc t mi xvarie s widel y withi na refiner y

a s wel l a s betwee n refineries . Th e manufacturin g processe s also vary dependin g o

nrefiner y age , typ e o f technology , capacity , location , an dtyp e o f crud e processed . Petroleum

refiner y

operation s involv e physica l separatio no f component s
o f th e crud e oi l (e.g. , crud e distillation ) an dchemica l conversio n processe s whic htransfor m som e o f th e les s usefu l component s o f th e oi l into mor e usefu l product s (e.g. , crackin g o f hig hmolecula r weigh t oil s int o lowe r molecula r weigh t product s suc ha s gasoline) . Th e processin g sequenc e o f a refiner y i s illustrate di nFigur e 3-1 . Th e crud e oi l i s heate dan dcharge dt o a

natmospheri c distillatio n

### FIGUR E 3- 1 PROCES S PLA

NFO R AREFINER Y 

### 1

DR T CA S •-FUE L CA S

C M I C O OLEFIR S T O CTDUCAL * - KEROSEN

E •-LICH T FUEL OI L DIESE L FUEL

HEAV T FUE L

•-COK EP.3 9

3- 3 towe r wher e i t i s separate dint o severa l light , intermediate , an dheav y fractions . Th e bottom s fro m th e towe r ar e sen t t o a vacuu m distillatio n uni t fo r furthe r separation . Th e bottom s fro m th e vacuu

m stil l ar e thermall y

cracke di na coke r t o produc e a we t gas , coke r gasoline , an dcoke . A

portio no f th e bottom s fro m th e vacuu

m stil l ma y

b e processe d int o asphalt . Ga s oil s fro m th e atmospheri c andvacuu m distillatio n unit s ar e use da s feedstock s fo r th e catalyti c crackin g andhydrocrackin g units . Thes e unit s conver t th e ga s oil s t o gasolin e anddistillat e fuel . Th e gasolin e fro

m thes e unit s i s fe dt o a catalyti c reforme r t o improv e th e octan e numbe r an dthe nblende dwit hothe r refiner y stream s t o mak e gasoline s fo r marketing . Th e we t ga s stream s fro m th e distillation , coker , andcrackin g unit s
ar e combine dandfractionate dint o fue l gas , liquifie dpetroleu m gas , and unsaturate dandsaturate dbranche dchai nandstraigh t chain , ligh t hydrocarbon s containin g fro m thre e t o fiv e carbo natoms . Th e fue l ga s i s
use da s fue l i nth e refiner y furnaces . Th e straigh t chai nsaturate d hydrocarbon s ar e blende dint o gasoline . Th e unsaturate dhydrocarbon s and th e branche dchai nhydrocarbons , primaril y isobutane , ar e processe di nan alkylatio nunit . Inth e alkylatio nuni t th e unsaturate dhydrocarbon s
reac t wit hisobutan e t o for m isoparaffin s whic har e blende dint o gasolin e t o increas e th e octane . Th e middl e distillate s fro m th e crud e unit , th e coke r unit , andth e crackin g uni t ar e blende dint o diese l andje t fuel s andfurnac e oil . Heav y vacuu m ga s oil s an

dreduce dcrud e oi l fro m some crude s ca nb e processe dint o lubricatin g oils , waxes , andgrease .P.4 0

3- 4
3. 2 INDUSTR YCHARACTERIZATIO N A s o f Januar y

1 , 1985 , ther e wer e 19 1 operabl e refinerie s i nth e Unite dState s wit htota l crud e oi l distillatio ncapacit y o f 15. 1 millio n barrel s pe r calenda r dayf / an d15. 9 millio nbarrel s pe r stream day.j V Tabl e 3. 1 list s th e numbe r o f operatin g refinerie s alon g wit hth e tota l crud e capacit y

locate di neac hState . Thes e refinerie s ar e distribute d
amon g 3 5 states , wit h7 9 refinerie s (4 1 percent ) bein g concentrate din th e thre e majo r refinin g State s o f Texas , California , andLouisiana . Thes e thre e State s accoun t fo r a neve nhighe r percentag e (5 7 percent ) o f th e tota l U.S . crud e oi l refinin g capacity . Texa s alon e account s fo r approximatel y

2 7 percen t o f th e tota l crud e oi l refinin g capacity , whil e Louisian a an

dCaliforni a accoun t fo r abou t 1 5 percen t each . Inaddition , ther e ar e fou r operatin g refinerie s i nPuert o Rico , Virgi n Islands , Guam , an

dth e Hawaiia nForeig nTrad e Zon e wit ha combine dcrud e capacit y

o f 771,00 0 barrel s pe r calenda r day. 2 Becaus e thes e ar e territorie s
an dno t formall y

par t o f th e Unite dStates , thes e refinerie s ar e usuall y
no t include di nindustr y studie s an

dfigure s fo r th e U.S. ; however , thes e refinerie s ar e regulate dunde r federa l EP A new sourc e performanc e standards .

£ / Barrel s pe r calenda r da y (b/cd) : th e averag e volume a refiner y uni t processe s eac hda

y includin g downtim e use dfo r turnarounds . Thi s i s actua l tota l volum e fo r th e yea r dividedb y 365 . ] V Barrel s pe r stream day (b/sd) : th e amoun t a uni t ca nproces s runnin g a t ful l capacit y unde r optima l crud e an dproduc t slat e condition s fo r shor t periods .P.4 1

OPERATIN

G

Stat e Alabam a Alask a Ar i zon a Arkansa s Californi a Colorad o Delawar e Georgi a Hawai i Illinoi s
• Indian

a Kansa s Kentucky . Louisiana Marylan d Michigan Minnesot a Mississipp i Montana Nevada NewJersey NewMexic o Nort h Dakot a Ohi o Oklahom a Orego n Pennsylvani a Tennesse e Texa s Uta h Virgini a Washingto n Wes t Virgini a Wisconsi n Wyoming

Tota l REFINERIE S

No . Plant s 

### 1 4 1 4 3 0 

### 3 1 2 2 8 5 7 2 1 6 

### 1 4 2 5 6 1 5 3 2 5 5 1 8 1 3 3 

### 6 1 7 2 1 6
19 1 3- 5

TABL E 3. 1 I NTHE U.S . (A

S O F JANUAR

Y

b/cd 80,00 0 138,93 0 5,00 0 69,17 0 2,265,09 8 94,70 0 140,00 0 28,80 0 109,50 0 946,00 0 431,30 0 338,00 0 218,90 0 2,188,79 3 14,20 0 119,40 0 204,14 3 362,40 0 147,50 0 4,50 0 503,00 0 63,05 0 62,80 0 515,70 0 374,00 0 15,00 0 658,70 0 57,00 0 4,145,90 0 154,95 0 51,00 0 410,55 0 16,50 0 39,00 0 162,77 8
15,136,26 2 : : ,- p " •

1 , 1985) 3
Crud e Capacit y b/s d

81,30 0 142,91 0 5,26 3 70,95 0 2,381,41 7 98,50 0 150,00 0 32,00 0 118,42 6 1,003,55 0 445,50 0 352,38 3 226,00 0 2,280,95 8 14,94 7 126,09 4 211,22 0 383,10 4 154,14 7 4,70 0 533,21 0 66,00 0 65,40 0 540,00 0 390,39 4 15,78 9 691,30 0 60,00 0 4,385,27 3 161,86 8 53,00 0 427,54 3 17,00 0 40,00 0 168,05 2
15,898,19 8P.4 2

3- 6 Sinc e Januar y

1 , 1981 , a ne t tota l o f 10 1 refinerie s hav e bee nshu t dow nwit ha tota l capacit y o f 2. 5 millio nbarrel s pe r calenda r day . (Tabl e 3- 2 an

dTabl e 3-3) . Durin g 1984 , a tota l o f 2 6 refinerie s wer e shu t dow

nan d2 refinerie s wer e starte du presultin g i na ne t decreas e o f 2 4 plant s wit ha

nassociate dlos s i ncrud e distillatio ncapacit y o f 0. 5 millio nbarrel s pe r calenda r day . Th e majorit y o f thes e closing s
occurre da t refinerie s wit hcrud e distillatio ncapacit y o f 30,00 0 barrel s pe r calenda r day

o r less . Thes e closing s accounte dfo r a ne t reductio n
o f 1 9 facilities . Refinerie s wit hcrud e distillatio ncapacit y greate r tha n30,00 0 barrel s pe r calenda r day showe da ne t reductio no f 5 facilitie s durin g 1984 . Refiner y

utilizatio n(actua l productio nvs . productio ncapacity ) peake da t 78. 2 percen t i nAugus t 1984 ; th e averag e rat e fo r th e yea r ros e t o 76. 2 percent , fro m th e previou s year' s averag e o f 71. 7 percent. 4
Tota l downstream

charg e capacit y

o nJanuar y

1 , 1985 , stoo da t 28. 3 millio nbarrel s pe r strea m day , a ne t decreas e o f 0. 4 millio nbarrel s pe r stream day . Downstream

chargin g capacit y

include s th e followin g processes :
vacuu m distillation , therma l operation , catalyti c crackin g (fres han d recycled) , catalyti c reforming , catalyti c hydrocracking , an dcatalyti c hydrotreating . Ne

w constructio na t existin g refinerie s an dth e start-u p
o f previousl y

close drefinerie s wa s mor e tha noffse t b y th e nearl y

0. 7 millio nbarrel s pe r stream day capacit y

close ddurin g 1984 . Th e mos t significan t decline s wer e i nvacuu m distillatio nan

dcatalyti c reforming , droppin g 2 percen t and4 percent , respectively . However , durin g th e year , downstream

charg e capacit y

increase d3 percen t fo r catalyti c crackin g (recycled ) andnearl y 1 1 percen t fo r catalyti c hydrocracking. 5P.4 3



### 3- 7

TABL E 3- 2 Numbe r o f Operabl e Refinerie s i nthe U.S. 6 > 7 » 8 » 9 > 1 0

Yea r 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 Tota l 30 3 27 3 22 5 22 0 19 1

TABL E 3- 3 Crud e Oi l Distillationll,12,13,14,15,1 6 (Thousand s o f Barrel s pe r Calenda r Day )

U.S . Capacit y Puert o Ric o Virgi nIsland s an

dGua m Hawaiia nForeig nTrad e Zon e 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 18,46 5 17,66 9 16,15 7 15,86 2 15,13 6 22 8 25 5 24 4 12 1 12 1 71 4 74 4 55 9 55 8 58 8 6 8 6 8 6 0 6 0 62_ _ _P.4 4

3- 8 Refiner s projec t tha t tota l downstrea m charg e capacit yma ydro p t o 28. 1 millio n barrel s pe rstrea m da yby1986

. However , th e downstrea m processin g mi xi s no t projecte d t o chang e appreciabl yfro m Januar y1 , 1985 , levels

. Al l majo rdownstrea m refiner yprocesses , excep t catalyti c hydrotreating , ar e expecte d t o fal l belo wcurren t yea rlevels.l ' Refiner yreceipt s o f crud e oi l average d 12. 2 millio n barrel s pe rday durin g 1984 , u p 0. 5 millio n barrel s pe rda yfro m 1983

. Thi s increas e represente d a reversa l o f th e downward tren d tha t starte d i n 1979

. Receipt s o f domesti ccrud e oi l average d 8. 8 millio n barrel s pe rdayan d foreig n average d 3. 3 millio n barrel s pe rday

. Mos t o f th e increas e i n refiner yreceipt s o f crudi e oi l was fro m domesti csources , risin g fro m 8. 6 millio n barrel s pe rdaydurin g 198 3 t o 8. 8 millio n barrel s pe rday durin g 1984

. Foreig n crud e receipt s als o ros e durin g 1984 , reachin g 3. 3 millio n barrel s pe rdayfro m 3. 2 millio n barrel s pe rdaydurin g 1983.1 8
3. 3 EMISSION S FRO

M COMBUSTIO

N O F REFINER

YFUE L GA

S A n integrate d refiner yuse s energ yequivalen t t o abou t 1 0 percen t o f th e tota l energ yconten t i n th e crud e oi l i t processes.* 9 Th e fue l requirement s o f an yon e refiner ydepend s o n th e natur e o f th e feed , th e fina l produc t yiel d an d th e leve l o f th e individua l produc t quality

. Al l o f th e refinery' s energ yneed s coul d b e derive d fro m it s ow n crud e oi l feed , usuall yrefiner yfue l gas an d residua l oil , bu t mos t refinerie s ar e designe d t o us e availabl e supplementa l fuel s suc h a s natura l gas . Figur e 3- 1 illustrate s a moder n refinery , th e variou s processe s an d thei rrespectiv e products

. A s indicate d i n Figur e 3-1 , severa l refiner y processe s produc e refiner yfue l ga s as a by-product

. Afte rremovin g th eP.4 5



### 3- 9

H2S , th e refiner y

fue l ga s i s burne di nvariou s combustio ndevice s (boiler s
an dheaters ) locate dthroughou t th e refinery . Base do nfiv e plan t survey s
an dtri preports , ther e d o no t appea r t o b e an y particula r processe s o r combustio ndevice s i nwhic hrefinerie s utiliz e refiner y fue l ga s a s a fuel . Th e numbe r o f combustio ndevice s an dth e variou s processe s i nwhic hrefiner y fue l ga s i s burne dvarie s greatl y from on e refiner y

t o another . Sinc e al l crud e oi l contain s some amoun t o f sulfur , th e refiner y fue l ga s produce db y th e variou s processe s wil l als o contai nsulfur . Th e sulfu r conten t o f crud e oi l range s from les s tha n0. 1 percen t t o greate r tha n5 percen t sulfu r b y weight . Sulfu r i nth e refiner y fue l ga s wil l b e i nth e form

o f hydroge nsulfid e (H2S) , carbony l sulfide , mecapta nsulfu r plu s C i an dC 2 sulfides . A s th e sulfu r concentratio no f th e crud e oi l increases , s o doe s th e concentratio no f H2 S an dothe r sulfu r compound s i nth e refiner y fue l gas . Combustio no f refiner y fue l ga s containin g H2 S produce s sulfu r dioxid e (SO2) . Thus , whe nuntreate drefiner y fue l ga s derive dfrom crud e oi l wit ha hig hsulfu r conten t i s burne di nth e variou s proces s combustio n
sources , substantial quantitie s o f SO 2 wil l b e emitte dt o th e atmosphere . A s discusse di nChapte r 2 , th e ne w sourc e performanc e standar d prohibit s th e burnin g o f refiner y fue l ga s containin g mor e tha n23 0 m g H2S/dsc m

(0.1 0 gr/dscf ) i nan y combustio ndevic e tha t burn s refiner y fue l gas . Th e combustio no f proces s upse t ga s i na flare , an dproces s ga s o r refiner y

fue l ga s release dt o a flar e from relie f valv e leakag e i s exemp t from thi s standard . Th e alternativ e t o th e 23 0 m g H2S/dsc m

refiner y

fue l ga s standar di s tha t a nowne r o r operato r may elec t t o trea t th e gase s resultin g from th e3-1 0

combustio no f refiner y fue l ga s s o a s t o limi t th e releas e o f SO 2 t o th e atmosphere . Th e EP A Administrato r mus t b e satisfie dtha t treatmen t o f th e combustio ngase s control s SO 2 emission s a s effectivel y a s complianc e wit hth e H2 S standard . Th e standar di s equivalen t t o a SO 2 conten t o f approximatel y 2 0 gr/10 0 sc f o f refinery fue l ga s burned . Burnin g suc hfue l wil l resul t i na concentratio no f 1 5 t o 2 0 part s pe r millio nSO 2 i nth e combustio n products.^ O 3. 4 SELECTIO N

O F REFINER YCOMBUSTIO N DEVICE S FORNSP S CONTRO L Combustio ndevice s tha t bur nrefiner y fue l ga s wer e originall y selecte d fo r NSP S developmen t becaus e o f thei r potentia l t o emi t sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 ) i nsignifican t quantities . At th e tim e o f th e NSP S development , (i nth e earl y 1970's ) th e nationwid e emission s o f SO 2 wer e estimate dt o b e 2 8 millio n ton s pe r year . I t wa s estimate dtha t i n197 0 approximatel y 0. 8 millio nton s
o f sulfu r dioxid e wer e emitte dfro m petroleum

refineries.2 1 Th e backgroun d stud y fo r th e origina l NSP S predicte da noveral l emission s reductio nfo r controlle dsource s o f 9 5 percent . 3. 5 REFERENCE S 1

. Laste rL.L. , 1973

. Atmospheri cEmission s fro m th e Petroleu m Industry

. Nationa l Environmenta l Researc h Center , Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C

. 27711

. NTIS , Springfield , Virginia

. PB-224-040

. 2

. Nationa l Petroleu m Refiner s Association

. U.S

. Refinin g Capacity

. Washington , D.C

. Jul y1 , 1985

. 3

. Contrell , A

. Annua l Refinin g Survey

. Oi l an d Ga s Journal

. Pag e 122

. Marc h 18 , 1985

. 4

. Sam

e as referenc e #2

. Pag e iii

. 5

. Sam

e a s referenc e #2

. Pag e iii

. 6

. Contrell , A

. Annua l Refinin g Survey

. Oi l an d Ga s Journal

. Pag e 112

. Marc h 30 , 1981

.P.4 7

3-1 1

7 . Contrell , A . Annua l Refining Survey . Oi l an d Ga s Journal . Pag e 130 . Marc h 22 , 1982 . 8 . Contrell , A . Annua l Refining Survey . Oi l an d Ga s Journal . Pag e 130 . Marc h 21 , 1983 . 9 . Contrell , A . Annua l Refining Survey . Oi l an d Ga s Journal . Pag e 112 . Marc h 26 , 1984 . 10 . Same a s referenc e #3 . Pag e 123 . 11 . Same a s referenc e #6 . 12 . Same a s referenc e #7 . 13 . Same a s referenc e #8 . 14 . Same a s referenc e #9 . 15 . Sam

e a s referenc e #3 . Pag e 123 . 16 . Same a s referenc e #2 . 17 . Same a s referenc e #2 . Pag e V . 18 . Same a s referenc e #2 . Pag e V . 19 . 198 5 HP I Marke t Data . Hydrocarbo n Processing , pag e 26 . 20 . Backgroun

d Informatio n fo r Propose d NewSourc e Performanc e Standards : Asphal t Concret e Plants , Petroleu mRefineries , Storag e Vessels , Secondar

yLead Smelter s an

d Refineries , Bras s o r Bronz e Ingo t Productio n Plants , Iro n an d Stee l Plants , an

d Sewag e Treatmen t Plants . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C . Publicatio n Numbe r APTD-1352a . Jun e 1973 . Pag e 27 . 21 . Nationa l Ai r Pollutan t Emissio n Estimates , 1940-1982 . U.S . EPA , RTP , N.C . EP

A450/4-84-028 . Decembe r 1984 .4 . STATU S O F CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y

Thi s chapte r discusse s th e contro l technique s bein g use dt o mee t th e
ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS) . Inorde r t o compl y wit hth e hydroge nsulfid e (H2S ) emissio nrequirement s (23 0 mg/dscm , 0.1 0 gr/dscf )
o f thi s NSPS , th e owner/operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit y ha s th e optio n
o f eithe r reducin g th e H2 S concentratio nprio r t o burnin g th e refiner y fue l ga s i nth e affecte dfacilit y o r treatin g th e sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 ) emission s from

th e affecte dfacility . A t thi s time , al l know naffecte d facilitie s contro l SO 2 emission s b y reducin g th e H2 S concentratio ni nth e fue l ga s prio r t o bein g burned . A review o f th e literature , th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) complianc e dat a system , discussion s wit hrefinery personnel , trad e organizations , local , State , an dEP A regiona l agencie s reveal s tha t two processe s ar e bein g use dt o compl y wit hth e NSPS . Thes e two system s ar e th e alkanolamin e proces s system an dth e LO-CAT ®system . Thes e processe s
ar e discusse dbelow . 4.1 . ALKANOLAMIN E PROCES S SYSTE M Th e firs t commerciall y availabl e alkanolamin e wa s tr i ethano l amin e (TEA ) whic hwa s use di nearl y natura l ga s treatin g plants . A s othe r member s o f th e alkanolamin e famil y wer e introduce dint o th e market , the y wer e evaluate d
a s possibl e aci dga s absorbents. ^ Alkano l amine s ar e categorize da s bein g primary , secondary , o r tertiary , dependin g upo nth e degre e o f substitutio n
o f th e centra l nitroge nato m b y organi c groups . Structura l formula s fo r th e variou s alkanolamine s ar e presente di nFigur e 4-1 . Tw o commerciall y utilize dprimar y

amine s ar e monoethanolamin e (MEA ) an ddiglyco l amin e (DGA) ,P.4 9



### 4- 2
eac hshow s singl e substitutio no f organi c group s a t th e centra l nitroge n atom . Two commerciall y availabl e secondar y

amine s ar e diethanolamin e (DEA )
an ddiisopropanolamin e (DIPA) . Th e tw o secondar y

amine s sho

w doubl e substitutio no f organi c group s a t th e centra l nitroge natom . A tripl e substitutio no f organi c group s a t th e centra l nitroge nato m i s possible , henc e the tertiar y

amines : triethanolamin e (TEA ) an dmethyldiethanolamin e (MDEA) . Alkanolamine s ar e wea korgani c base s wit heac hon e o f th e amine s illustrate di nFigur e 4- 1 havin g a t leas t on e hydroxy l group(OH ) an don e amin o group . I

ngeneral , i t ca nb e considere dtha t th e hydroxy l grou p serve s t o reduc e th e vapo r pressur e an dincreas e th e wate r solubility , whil e th e amin o grou pprovide s the necessar y alkalinit y

i nwate r solution s t o caus e th e absorptio no f acidi c gases. 2 A s crud e oi l i s processe dth e followin g aci dgase s ar e forme dan dca nb e foundinuntreate drefiner y fue l gas : hydroge nsulfid e (H2S) , carbo ndioxid e (CO2) , an dcarbony l sulfid e (COS) . Thes e compound s ar e considere dt o b e aci dgase s becaus e whe ndissolve di na

naqueou s medium , they dissociat e t o for

m wea kacids . Th e aci dga s an

damin e bas e wil l combin e chemicall y t o for m anacid-bas e comple xcalle da salt , thu s removin g the aci dga s fro m the proces s stream. 3 Th e principa l reaction s o f th e alkanolamine s wit hH2 S ar e liste di n Tabl e 4-1 . Th e reaction s show ni nTabl e 4- 1 procee dt o th e righ t a t lo w temperature s an

dt o th e lef t a t highe r temperatures . Thi s i s th e reaso n tha t H2 S ca nb e absorbe db y alkanolamin e solution s a t ambien t temperatures . A t elevate dtemperature s (a s exis t i nth e strippe r column) , th e reaction s ar e reverse dwit hth e sulfid e an dcarbamat e salt s bein g decompose dan dth e aci dgase s release di nth e strippe r column. 4Pjj Q



### 4-3

FIGUR E 4- 1 MOLECULA

RSTRUCTURE S O F COMMO N GA S TREATINGAMINES 5

Primar y Amines : singl e substitutio no f organi c groupa t th e nitroge nato m Monoethanolamin e (MEA ) Diglycolamin e (DGA ) M W = 6 1 M W = 10 5 H . H :N-CH 2 -CH 2 -0 H J>-CH2-CH2-0-CH 2 -CH 2 -0 H H '

Secondar y

Amines : doubl e substitutio no f organi c grou pa t th e nitroge nato m Diethanolamin e (DEA ) Diisopropanolamin e (DIPA ) M W = 10 5 M W = 13 3
HO-CH2-CH2-N-CH2-CH2-O H H0-CH-CH 2 -N-CH 2 -CH-0 H

H CH 3 H CH 3

Tertiar y

Amines : tripl e substitutio no f organi c grou pa t th e nitroge nato m Triethanolomin e (TEA ) Methyldiethanolamin e (MDEA ) M W -- - 14 9 M W = 11 9
HO-CH2-CH2-N-CH2-CH2-O H HO-CH2-CH2-N-CH2-CH2-O H

CH 2 -CH 2 -0 H CH 3P.5 1



### 4- 4

TABL E 4- 1 PRINCIPA L REACTION S O

F ALKANOLAMINE S WIT H HYDROGE N SULFIDE 5


### Primar y Amine s

2RNH 2 

### + H 2 S 

### <:::::::::: > (RNH 3 ) 2 S (RNH 3 ) 2 S 

### + H 2 S 

### <::;:::::: > 2RNH 3 H S



### Secondary

Amine s

2 R 2 N H

### + H 2 S 

### <::::::::: > (R 2 N H 2 ) 2 S ( R 2 N H 2 ) 2 S 

### + H 2 S 

### <::::::::: > 2R 2 N H 2 H S


### Tertiary Amine s

2 R 3 N 

### + H 2 S 

### <::::::::: > (R 3 NH) 2 S ( R 3 NH) 2 S 

### + H 2 S 

### <::::::::: > 2R 3 NHH S



### R= C2H4OHP.5 2

4- 5 Variou s literatur e source s indicat e tha t a s alkanolamine s wer e develope dan

dfiel dtested , th e primar y an dsecondar y

amine s displace d TEA . Triethanolamin e wa s displace dlargel y becaus e o f it s low H2 S capacit y (resultin g fro

m highe r equivalen t weight) , it s lo w reactivit y

(a s a tertiar y

amine) , an

dit s relativel y

poo r stability. 7 Informatio nobtaine d vi a plan t visit s an dcontact s wit hpetroleu m refinerie s indicat e tha t primar y an dsecondar y

amine s ar e indee dth e principl e type s o f amine s
use di nalkanolamin e proces s systems . However , on e refiner y responde d tha t i t use dMDEA , a tertiar y amine . Also , tw

o o f th e fiv e refinerie s tha t wer e visite dar e considerin g switchin g fro m DEA t o MDEA

becaus e
o f it s selectivit y

fo r removin g onl y

H2 S andth e associate dreductio ni n energ y neede dt o regenerat e th e MDEA.8, 9 Th e genera l proces s flo w fo r analkanolamin e processin g plan t i s show ni nFigur e 4-2 . Th e proces s flo w scheme varie s little , regardles s
o f th e aqueou s amin e solutio nuse dt o remov e H2S . Th e primar y piece s o f equipmen t o f concer nar e th e absorbe r colum nan dstrippe r column , togethe r wit hth e associate dpiping , hea t exchange , an dseparatio nequipment . Th e sou r refiner y

fue l ga s containin g H2 S wil l nearl y alway s ente r th e alkanolamin e proces s plan t throug ha separato r (no t shown ) t o remov e
an y fre e petroleu

m liquid s and/o r entraine dsolids . Th e sou r ga s the n enter s th e bottom

o f th e absorbe r colum nan dflow s upwar dthroug hth e absorbe r i nintimat e counter-curren t contac t wit hth e aqueou s amin e solution . Th e H2 S i s remove dan dsweetene dga s leave s th e topo f th e absorbe r an

dflow s t o anothe r separato r (no t shown ) t o remov e an y amin e solutio nand/o r entraine dsolid s tha t ar e carrie dove r wit hth e exitin g refiner y

gas .P.5 3



## 4-6

FIGUR E 4- 2 ALKANOLAMIN E TREATIN G UNI T 

### 1 0

SOU R PROCES S GAS
WATE R
AMIN EP.5 4



### 4- 7 Lea namin e solutio nfro m th e botto

m o f th e strippe r colum ni s pumpe d throug ha

namine-amin e hea t exchange r an dthe nthroug ha wate r o r air coole dexchange r befor e bein g introduce dt o th e toptray o f th e absorbe r column . Th e amin e move s downwar dthroug hth e absorbe r counter-curren t t o th e sou r gas , andabsorb s H2 S fro m the ga s stream . Richamin e solutio n flow s fro

m th e botto

m o f th e absorbe r throug hth e amine-amin e hea t exchange r an

dthe nt o th e topo f th e strippe r column . Th e amine-amin e hea t exchange r serve s a s a hea t conservatio ndevic e an dlower s tota l hea t requirement s fo r th e process . Th e ric hsolutio n flow s downwar dthroug hth e strippe r incounter-curren t contac t wit hvapo r generate dinth e reboiler . Th e reboile r vapo r (primaril y steam ) strip s th e aci dgase s fro

m th e ric hsolution . Th e aci dgase s an dstea m leav e th e topo f th e strippe r andpas s throug h a condenser , wher e th e majo r portio no f th e stea

m i s condense dan

dcooled . Th e aci dgase s ar e separate d ina separato r an

dsen t t o th e sulfu r recover y unit . Th e condense dstea m i s returne dt o th e topo f th e strippe r colum na s refluxo r a sli pstrea m i s ble dof f t o contro l th e ammoni a concentratio ninth e topo f the strippe r colum nt o hel pmaintai nth e amin e system wate r balance . Ric hamin e solutio nleave s th e botto m o f th e absorbe r a t a nelevate d temperatur e du e t o th e hea t o f reactio nrelease dwhe naci dgase s reac t wit hth e amine . Th e amin e coole r serve s t o lowe r th e lea namin e temperatur e t o th e 100° F range . Highe r temperatur e onth e lea namin e solutio nwil l resul t inexcessiv e amin e losse s throug hvaporizatio nan dals o lowe r aci d ga s carryin g capacit y inth e solutio nbecaus e o f temperatur e effects .P.5 5

4- 8 4. 2 THE LO-CAT

® HYDROGE

N SULFID E OXIDATIO N PROCES S Th e LO-CAT

® process , a proces s base d o n a liquid-phase-oxidatio n techniqu e originate d byHumphreys an d Glasgo w(London) , wa s develope d t o provid e a n isotherma l proces s fo rcarryin g ou t th e modifie d Clau s reaction. H

H 2 S + 1/2 0 2 > H 2 0 + S ° Th e LO-CAT

® proces s has tw o basi cdesigns : aerobic , whic h absorb s H2 S fro m ai rlade n streams , an d anaerobic , use d whe n th e ga s strea m ha s littl e o rn o oxyge n present
. Th e anaerobi capplicatio n i s use d i n treatin g refiner yfue l gas . Figur e 4- 3 i s a flo wdiagra m o f a n anaerobi cLO-CAT ® H2 S oxidatio n proces s use d t o trea t refiner yfue l gas . Th e LO-CAT

® proces s remove s sulfu rbyusin g a proprietar ycatalys t tha t consist s o f a n aqueou s solutio n o f chelate d iron , buffere d wit h sod a as h (Na2C03) , potassiu m hydroxid e (KOH ) o ran yothe rcommo n alkal i t o a p H o f abou t 8

. Th e LO-CAT ® catalys t solutio n i s circulate d i n a close d loo p betwee n th e absorber s an d th e oxidize rvessel

. Sou rgas passe s throug h a n inle t ga s scrubbe rt o remove entraine d liquid s an d enter s th e absorbe r a t lin e pressur e throug h a speciall ydesigne d ventur i prescrubber

. Th e ga s passe s upwar d throug h a lo wliquid-fille d vessel , a n absorber , i n whic h th e sou rga s contact s th e LO-CAT ® catalys t solutio n flowin g downward

. I n th e absorber s th e H2 S ga s i s absorbe d ver yrapidl yint o th e catalys t solutio n wher e i t i s immediatel yoxiidize d t o precipitat e elementa l sulfur

. Th e followin g chemica l reaction s tak e plac e i n th e absorbe rvessel: ^ (1 ) H2 S Absorptio n H2 S + H2 O —> H£

S (aqueous ) + H2

O (2 ) Firs t Ionizatio n

H 2S (aqueous ) > H + + HS "

## 4- 9

FIGUR E 4- 3 FLO W DIAGRAM O F ALO-CA T SYSTE M 

## 13P.5 7



### 4-1 0 (3 ) Secon d Ionizatio n

HS * > H + 

### + S

= (4 ) Oxidatio no f Sulfid e

2Fe + + + + S = > 2Fe + + + S ° Swee t ga s wit hles s than10 0 pp m H2 S leave s the absorbe r vesse l an d passe s throug ha swee t ga s scrubbe r (no t show ni nFigur e 4-3 ) t o guar d agains t mis t carryove r befor e enterin g th e fue l system . Activ e LO-CAT ®catalys t solutio nenter s th e absorbe r colum na t th e to p
an dflow s downwar dthroughthe vesse l counter-curren t t o th e ga s flow . Th e spen t solutio nleave s a t the botto m o f th e vessel . Partiall y reduce d solutio ni s regenerate dinthe oxidize r vesse l b y direc t contac t wit h compresse dair . Regeneratio no f th e LO-CAT ®solutio ni nth e oxidize r vesse l involve s th e followin g reactions;! 4 (5 ) Oxyge nAbsorptio n

O 2 + H2 O - — > 2(0 ) (aqueous ) + H2 O (6 ) Regeneratio no f Iron

2Fe + + + 0 (aqueous ) + H 2 0 — > 2 Fe + + + + 2 (0H) _ Overall , th e reactio ni s (7 ) H 2 S + 0. 5 0 2 > H2 O + S °
Th e ai r usedt o generat e the catalys t solutio ni s supplie db y anai r blowe r t o anai r sparge r gri dnea r th e botto m o f th e oxidizer . Th e spen t air , wit ha smal l fractio no f th e oxyge nremoved, leave s th e to po f th e oxidize r vesse l an

ddischarge s t o th e atmosphere .P.5 8

4-1 1 Th e circulatin g catalys t solution , whic hcontain s elementa l sulfu r ina slurrie dform , flow s fro m th e absorbe r bac k t o th e oxidize r throug h
a solutio ncoole r whic hremove s hea t generate db y th e exothermi c reaction s i nth e absorber . Sulfu r forme dinth e absorbe r vesse l circulate s wit h th e solutio nan

dth e particle s grow t o th e 10-2 0 micromete r range . Th e large r particle s settl e ou t o f th e bul k solution , flow i nth e botto

m o f th e oxidize r vessel , andar e flushe dou t th e oxidize r vesse l a s a slurr y
o f 1 0 t o 2 0 percen t b y weigh t o f sulfur . Th e sulfu r slurr y i s pumpe da t approximatel y

10 0 psi g throug ha specia l non-pluggin g hea t exchange r o r melter , wher e i t i s heate dt o 270° F b y 5 0 psi g steam . Th e aqueou s catalys t solution/molte nsulfu r mixtur e forme dinth e melte r i s fedthroug hstea m jackete dpipin g t o a stea m jackete dseparato r vessel . Molte nsulfu r i s withdraw

nfro m th e separato r vesse l t o a molte nsulfu r storag e tank o r a sulfu r pi t wher e i t i s store dfo r ultimat e shipmen t b y truc k o r rai l car . Th e clarifie dcatalys t solutio nleave s th e sulfu r settle r throug ha bac k pressur e contro l valv e se t a t abou t 7 5 psig . Th e bul k o f th e solutio ni s returne dt o th e settle r vesse l an dthe nt o th e absorber/oxidize r circuit . Inth e oxidatio no f H2 S t o sulfur , som e sid e reactio ntake s plac e whic h
ma y b e represente db

y th e equation:1 5 (8 ) 2HS ~ .+

• 1. 5 0 2 > H 2 S 2 0 3 Thi s reactio nreduce s th e pH o f th e scrubbin g solution , an dNa2C0 3 , KOH , o r othe r alkalin e sal t mus t b e adde dt o maintai nth e pH o f th e solutio n

v i nth e 8-8. 5 pH range . Thi s lead s t o a gradua l buildu po f sodiu m thiosulfat e (Na2S203 ) o r simila r water-solubl e sulfur-containin g salt s inth e solution . Thes e hav e no deleteriou s effec t a t concentration s below 3 0 percen t b

y weight . Whe nth e thiosulfat e concentratio nexceed s 3 0 percen t b y weigh tP.5 9

4-1 2
som e o f th e spen t catalys t solutio n i s withdraw n t o a holdin g tan k fo r disposal

. Th e thiosulfat e ha s a commercia l value ; thus , thi s solutio n ca n b e sol d an d th e thiosulfat e reclaimed

. Anothe rmeans o f disposa l i s t o trea t thi s solutio n i n th e refinery' s biologica l wastewate rtreatmen t system
. 4. 3 FACILITIE S SUBJEC TT O THE NSP

S I n Chapte r2 th e ter m "affecte d facility " was discusse d an d defined

. A s noted , th e affecte d facilit yi s define d a s th e combustio n devic e tha t i s capabl e o f burnin g refiner yfue l ga s an d no t th e H2 S contro l system
. Informatio n obtaine d fro m plan t trip s an d survey s indicate s tha t refiner y fue l ga s i s burne d i n combustio n device s tha t ar e use d i n a wid e variet y o f productio n processe s withi n a refinery

. Ther e doe s no t appea rt o b e a tendenc yfo rrefinerie s t o us e refiner yfue l ga s a s a n energ ysourc e i n an yparticula rproductio n process . Thu s th e utilizatio n o f refiner yfue l ga s wil l var yfro m on e refiner yt o another

. Accordin g t o informatio n supplie d b yth e EPA' s Stationar ySourc e Complianc e Divisio n (SSCD) , fifty-fou r(54 ) petroleu m refinerie s hav e becom e subjec t t o th e H2

S portio n o f thi s NSP S sinc e 1975

. Unfortunately , a n accurat e numbe ro f affecte d facilitie s withi n eac h refiner ycoul d no t b e determined

. Th e informatio n supplie d b ySSC D i s considere d t o underestimat e th e numbe ro f refinerie s an d affecte d facilitie s subjec t t o thi s NSPS

. Thi s lo westimat e i s attribute d t o th e fac t tha t som e Stat e agencie s tha t hav e authorit yt o enforc e th e Clea n Ai rAc t d o no t repor t al l th e refinerie s an d affecte d facilitie s t o SSCD

. Trad e journal s wer e als o reviewe d fo rinformation

. Thes e source s repor t ne

wrefiner yconstructio n project s plu s modificatio n an d reconstructio n4-1 3

project s tha t ar e occurrin g a t petroleu m refineries

. Unfortunately , th e manne ri n whic h th e modificatio n an d reconstructio n project s ar e reporte d doe s no t indicat e whethe rthes e project s wil l b e subjec t t o th e H2 S portio n o f thi s NSP

S no rho

wman ycombustio n source s ar e involved

. Arevie wo f variou s trad e journal s fro m 198 0 t o 198 5 indicate s ther e hav e bee n constructio n project s a t 4 2 petroleu m refinerie s tha t involv e eithe ra n amin e treate r unit , a LO-CAT

® unit , o runspecifie d refiner yfue l gas recovery . 4. 4 COMPLIANC

E TES TRESULT

S Th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yregiona l offices , Stat e agencies , an d petroleu m refinerie s wer e contacte d t o obtai n complianc e tes t informa
tio n fo rnew , modified , o rreconstructe d facilities

. Al l o f th e tes t dat a tha t wer e submitte d wer e fro m refinerie s tha t us e a n alkanolamin e proces s syste m t o remov e th e hydroge n sulfid e (H2S ) fro m th e refiner yfue l gas . N o complianc e tes t dat a wer e obtaine d fro m a refiner ytha t use s th e LO-CAT ® syste m t o trea t sou rrefiner yfue l gas . 4.4.1

. Alkanolamin e Proces s Syste m Complianc e Data 1 6 > 1 7 » 1 8 > 1 9 » 2 0 » 2 1 > 2 2 » 2 3 Dat a fo rfiftee n (15 ) complianc e test s wer e obtaine d fro m nin e (9 ) differen t refineries

. Th e result s o f thes e test s ar e liste d i n Tabl e 4-2

. Th e ne wsourc e performanc e standar d (NSPS ) fo rH2 S i s 23 0 mg/dsc m (O.lOgr/dscf)

. Complianc e tes t result s fo rth e H2 S concentratio n i n refiner yfue l ga s range s fro m 2.9 7 mg/dsc m t o 119.4 3 mg/dscm

. Th e dat a indicat e tha t refinerie s ar e abl e t o meet th e NSPS

. Also , non e o f th e refinerie s tha t wer e contacte d indicate d tha t the ywer e experiencin g an y problem s complyin g wit h th e NSPS

.P.6 1

4-1 4

TABL E 4- 2 COMPLIANC E TES T RESULT S FO R ALKANOLAMINE PROCES S SYSTEM S

Ref i ner y

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I Dat e o f

Tes t 2/8 1 4/8 2 10/8 2 3/8 4 7/8 4 Typ e o f

Alkanolamin e Used MEA/primar

y
• 1 H

• 1 i t

• 1 I I I I u
7/7 6
8/8 4 8/8 4
11/8 0
11/8 1 1/8 4

10/8 4
8/8 1
6/8 5 DEA/secondar y MEA/primar

y
• I i t
DEA/secondar

y
DEA/secondar

y i i i i MEA/primar

y MEA/primar

y DEA/secondar

y DGA/primar

y Avg.H2 S Concentratio n (mg/dscm ) 10 1 3 2 1 2 5 7 7 7
119.4 3
2.9 7 8.0 9
12. 5
89. 2 63. 3
105. 6
18. 1
27. 7
3. 1

NSP S = 23 0 mg/dscm

### 4-1 5

4.4. 2 LO-CAT ®Proces s System 2 4 

### Currently , th e LO-CAT ®treatmen t syste m i s use di

nonl y tw o (2 ) refinerie s withi nth e Unite dState s t o remov e H2 S fro m refiner y

fue l gas . Onl y on e o f thes e refinerie s wa s operatin g a s o f Januar y 1985 . Bot ho f thes e LO-CAT ®system s ar e smal l units , les s tha n2 0 LT/D . Complianc e test s hav e no t bee nperforme dfo r eithe r o f th e tw o LO-CAT ®systems . Thus , ther e ar e
n o dat a fo r thi s typ e o f system . However , on e refiner y ha s installe da continuou s H2 S monitor . Accordin g t o informatio nsubmitte db y th e refinery , th e H2 S concentratio no f th e refiner y ga s treate db

y th e LO-CAT ®

system range s fro

m 2 0 ppm v t o 5 0 ppm

v an daverage s 3 0 ppmv . Th e refiner y reporte d
no exces s emission s hav e occurre dsinc e th e LO-CAT ®syste m became operational . 4. 5 Emissio nMonitorin g Th e NSP S require s anH2 S continuou s monitorin g devic e t o b e installe d i norde r t o determin e complianc e wit hth e H2 S standar do f 23 0 mg/dscm . However , th e EP A

ha s no t ye t develope dperformanc e specification s fo r H2 S continuou s monitorin g systems . InApri l 1979 , th e EP A initiate dwor kt o establis hspecification s an dals o t o determin e th e durability , maintenanc e requirements , an ddat a validit y o f commerciall y

availabl e H 2 

### S continuou s emissio nmonitors. 2 5 

### Fiv e (5 ) H2 S monitor s wer e selecte dfo r evaluation . Selectio ncriteri a include doperatin g principles , engineerin g judgmen t abou t suitabilit y fo r us e a t petroleu

m refineries , an

dtota l cost . Th e performanc e o f th e fiv e (5 ) H2 S monitor s teste dwa s disappointing . Th e absolut e agreemen t betwee n referenc e Metho d1 1 an dal l monitor s wa s poo r an dvariabl e ineigh t ou t
o f te nrelativ e accurac y tests . Thus , a conclusio no f th e tes t programP.6 3

4-1 6

wa s tha t th e us e o f H2 S monitor s fo r complianc e purpose s coul dno t b e recommende dat tha t tim e no r coul dperformanc e specification s fo r H2 S monitor s b e written . Eve nthoug hperformanc e specification s fo r continuou s H2 S monitorin g device s hav e no t bee npromulgate db y th e EPA , some refinerie s hav e bee nrequire db y Stat e agencie s to instal l a nH2 S continuou s monitorin g device . Refinerie s subjec t t o th e H2 S portio no f thi s NSP S tha t d o no t hav e a continuou s H2 S monito r ar e usin g manuall y collecte dgra bsample s (Draege r Tubes ) t o tes t th e refinery fue l ga s fo r H2 S concentration . Th e frequenc y wit hwhic hthes e sample s ar e collecte dvarie s fro m on e refiner y

to anothe r
an dca nrang e fro

m 1 manua l sampl e pe r shif t to 3 manua l sample s pe r shift . 4. 6 REFERENCE S 1 . Kohl , Arthu r L . an dFre dC . Riesenfeld . Ga s Purificatio n(Thir d Edition) . Houston , Gul f Publishin g Company . 1979 . Pag e 28 . 2 . Sam e a s referenc e #1 . Pag e 29 . 3 . Butwell , K . F. , D . J . Kubek , an dP . W . Sigmund . Alkanolamin e Treating . Hydrocarbo nProcessing . Pag e 108 . Marc h1982 . 4 . Maddox , Dr . R . N . Ga s an dLiqui dSweetening . Norman , Oklahoma . Campbel l Publishin g Series . 1974 . Pag e 47 . 5 . Sam e a s referenc e #3 . 6 . Same a s referenc e #4 . Page s 45-47 . 7 . Sam e a s referenc e #1 .P.6 4

4-1 7 8 . Memo fro

m Elmore , William

Larry , EPA , t o Kennet hR . Durkee , EPA . Januar y 27 , 1986 . Tri prepor t fo r plan t visi t t o Allianc e Refinery , B.P . Oi l Incorporated , Bell e Chasse , Louisiana . 9 . Memo fro

m Elmore , William

Larry , EPA , t o Kennet hR . Durkee , EPA . Januar y 22 , 1986 . Tri prepor t fo r plan t visi t t o Tennec o Oi l Refinery , Chalmette , Louisiana . 10 . Backgroun dInformatio nfo r Propose dNew Sourc e Performanc e Standards : Asphal t Concret e Plants , Petroleu m Refineries , Storag e Vessels , Secondar y

Lea dSmelter s an

dRefineries , Bras s o r Bronz e Ingo t Productio nPlants , Iro nan dStee l Plants , an

dSewag e Treatmen t Plants . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . Publicatio nNumbe r APTD-1352a . Jun e 1973 . Pag e 27 . 11 . Hardison , L . C . Treatin g Hydroge nSulfide : A nAlternativ e t o Claus . Chemica l Engineering . Januar y 21 , 1985 . Pag e 62 . 12 . Lette r an

dattachment s fro

m L . C . Hardison , AR I Technologies , Inc . t o Elmore , Larry , EPA . Octobe r 18 , 1985 . 13 . Same a s referenc e #12 . 14. - Same a s referenc e #12 . 15 . Same a s referenc e #12 . 16 . Lette r an

dattachment s fro

m Thompson , J . E. , Citg o Petroleu m Corporatio n t o Farmer , J . R. , EPA . Marc h15 , 1985 . Respons e t o Sectio n11 4 lette r onpetroleu

m refineries . 17 . Lette r an

dattachment s fro

m Ballard , B . F. , Phillip s Petroleu m Company t o Farmer , J . R. , EPA . Marc h21 , 1985 . Respons e t o Sectio n11 4 lette r onpetroleu

m refineries . 18 . Lette r an

dattachment s fro

m Livermore , A . R. , L a Glori a Oi l an dGa s Company , t o Farmer , J . R. , EPA . Apri l 9 , 1985 . Respons e t o Sectio n11 4 lette r o npetroleu

m refineries . 19 . Lette r an

dattachment s fro

m Mul l ins , J . A. , Shel l Oi l Company , t o Farmer , J . R. , EPA . Apri l 9 , 1985 . Respons e t o Sectio n11 4 lette r o npetroleu

m refineries . 20 . Lette r an

dattachment s fro

m Cox , R . A. , Texac o USA , t o Farmer , J . R. , EPA . Marc h29 , 1985 . Respons e t o Sectio n11 4 lette r onpetroleu m refineries . 21 . Lette r an

dattachment s fro

m Dwing , E . C , Nationa l Cooperativ e Refijner y Association , t o Farmer , J . R. , EPA . Februar y 21 , 1985 . Respons e t o Sectio n11 4 lette r o npetroleu

m refineries .P.6 5

4-1 8 22 . Memo an

dattachment s fro

m McLaughlin , N . D. , EPA , t o Durkee , K . R. , EPA . Februar y

5 , 1985 . Tri prepor t o nplan t visi t t o Murphy Oi l Company , Meraux , Louisiana . 23 . Same a s referenc e #9 . 24 . Lette r andattachment s fro m Hullinger , T . T. , U.S . Oi l andRefinin g Company , t o Farmer , J . R. , EPA . Apri l 15 , 1985 . Respons e t o Sectio n11 4 lette r onpetroleu m refineries . 25 . A Study T o Evaluat e Carbo nMonoxid e an dHydroge nSulfid e Continuou s Emissio nMonitor s a t a nOi l Refinery . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . EPA-600/4-82-054 . Augus t 1982 .P.6 6

5

. MODE

L PLANT S AN D CONTRO

L SYSTEM

S
5. 1 MODE

L PLANT S AN D CONTRO

L SYSTEM

S Mode l plant s an d mode l plan t parameter s ar e selecte d t o represen t th e rang e o f facilitie s tha t hav e becom e subjec t t o th e NSP S sinc e it s promulgatio n i n 197 4 o rtha t ar e likel yt o b e constructed , modified , o r reconstructe d i n th e future

. Th e contro l system s applie d t o th e mode l plant s ar e selecte d t o represen t thos e contro l technique s tha t hav e bee n commonl yinstalle d t o meet th e NSPS

. Th e mode l plant s ar e define d i n thi s chapte ran d a cos t analysi s o f thes e mode l plant s i s presente d i n Chapte r6

. A s discusse d i n Chapte r4 , tw o type s o f contro l system s ar e commonl y use d b yrefinerie s t o contro l H2 S i n refiner yfue l gas . Thes e tw o system s ar e amin e treater/Clau s sulfu rrecover yunit s an d LO-CAT ® units

. Th e amin e treater/Clau s sulfu rrecover yuni t combinatio n i s th e most widel yuse d process . Th e LO-CAT ® syste m i s a relativel yne wproces s tha t ha s bee n introduce d sinc e th e las t revie wo f thi s standar d an d currentl y onl ytw o LO-CAT

® unit s (sulfu rcapacit y7 an d 17.3 5 LT/D ) hav e bee n installe d i n th e U.S

. fo rH2 S remova l fro m refiner yfue l gas . 5.1. 1 Mode l Contro l System s an d H? S Concentration s Th e selectio n an d sizin g o f mode l H2 S contro l system s i s base d o n th e tota l sulfu rloadin g i n th e untreate d refiner yfue l gas . Si xsize s o f contro l unit s wer e evaluate d fo rthi s review : 1 , 2 , 5.1 , 10.2 , 50.8 , an d 101. 6 Mg/D (1 , 2 , 5 , 10 , 50 , an d 10 0 LT/D)

. Thre e H2 S concentration s i n th e untreate d refiner yfue l ga s (1 , 5 , an d 1 0 percen t H2 S byvolume )
wer e analyze d fo reac h mode l plant

.P.6 7

5- 2 Table s 5- 1 an

d5- 2 lis t th e mode l plants . Th e amin e treater/Clau s sulfu r recover y

uni t wa s modele dfo r th e followin g sizes : 5.1 , 10.2 , 50.8 , an

d101. 6 Mg/ D (5 , 10 , 50 , an d10 0 LT/D) . Th e LO-CAT ®system wa s modele dfo r 1 , 2 , 5.1 , an d10. 2 Mg/ D (1 , 2 , 5 , an d1 0 LT/D) . 5. 2 EMISSIO N

REDUCTION S Thi s sectio npresent s th e sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 ) emissio nreduction s tha t ar e achieve db y eac hmode l contro l system . Th e emissio nreductio n fo r eac hmode l contro l system i s determine db

y comparin g th e emission s from a contro l system

meetin g th e ne

w sourc e performanc e standar d(NSPS )
versu s th e emission s fro m th e baselin e situatio no f n o control . 5.2. 1 Amin e Treater/Clau s Sulfu r Recover y Uni t Th e SO 2 emissio nreduction s fo r th e mode l amine/Clau s sulfu r recover y unit s ar e presente di nTabl e 5-3 . Al l incomin g sulfu r (i nth e form o f H2S ) i nth e untreate dfue l ga s i s eithe r route dt o fue l ga s combustio n devices , converte di nth e Clau s sulfu r recover y uni t t o elementa l sulfur , o r emitte dfro

m th e Clau s uni t t o th e atmosphere . Th e mode l amin e treater s
wer e designe dt o achiev e th e NSP S limi t o f 23 0 m g o f H2S/dsc m

i nth e fue l ga s stream

t o combustio nsources , whil e th e remainde r o f th e H2 S i s sen t t o th e Clau s unit . Th e mode l Clau s unit s wer e designe dt o achiev e a 96. 6 percen t sulfu r recovery efficiency . Fo r calculatin g emissio nreduction , i t wa s assume dtha t th e amin e treater/Clau s system wa s operatin g at th e capacit y

o f th e Clau s uni t fo r 35 0 operatin g day s pe r year .P.6 8



## 5-3

TABL E 5- 1 MODE L PLANTS : AMIN E TREATE R AN D CLAU S SRU

Mode l 1 Sulfur (Mg/D )
5.0 8

10.1 6

50. 8

101. 6 'lan t Siz e Processe d (LT/D ) 

### (5 )

(10 )

(50 )

(100 ) Fue l Ga s

H2 S Cone . (%b yVolume )
1 5 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 5 1 0 Amin e

Efficiency (%)
98.3 8 99.6 8 99.8 4 98.3 8 99.6 8 99.8 4 98.3 8 99.6 8 99.8 4 98.3 8 99.6 8 99.8 4 Clau s SR U Efficiency

96. 6

96. 6

96. 6

96. 6P.6 9



## 5-4

TABL E 5- 2 MODE L PLANTS : LO-CAT ®

Mode l Sulfu r (Mg/D )
1.01 6

2.03 2

5.0 8

10.1 6 Plan t Siz e

Processe d (LT/D ) 

### (1 )
(2 )
(5 )

(10 ) RF G

H2 S Cone . { * b yVolume )
1 5 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 5 1 0 Uni t Efficiency {%)
98.3 8 99.6 8 99.8 4 98.3 8 99.6 8 99.8 4 98.3 8 99.6 8 99.8 4 98.3 8 99.6 8 99.8 4P.7 0



### 5- 5

TABL E 5- 3 SO 2 EMISSIO

N REDUCTION

USIN GA AMIN E TREATER/CLAU S SULFU RRECOVERYUNI T

Mode l System (Mg/D ) Contro l

Size 3 (LT/D ) Uncontrolle dSO 2 Emission s D » c (Mg/yr ) SO 2 Emissio n Reductions 0 " (Mg/yr )
5.0 8 

### (5 ) 355 6 343 5 

### 10.1 6 

### 50. 8
01. 6 (10 )

(50 ) (100 ) 711 2
3556 0
7112 0 687 0
3435 0
6870 0

a Mode l contro l syste m siz e (i.e. , amoun t o f sulfu r processed ) i s base do nth e sulfu r loadin g int o the amin e treater/Clau s sulfu r recovery unit . D1 yea r = 35 0 operatin g day s

c 1 M g o f sulfu r (S 2 ) convert s t o 2 M g o f S0 2 emission s
dEfficienc y

o f the sulfu r recover y uni t wa s assume dt o be 96.6 %P.7 1



### 5- 6 5.2. 2 LO-CAT ®Uni t Th e SO 2 emissio nreduction s fo r th e mode l LO-CAT ®unit s ar e presente d i nTabl e 5.4 . A s indicate di nFigur e 4-3 , th e LO-CAT ®proces s ha s no emissio nstrea

m t o the atmosphere . Al l th e incomin g sulfu r (i nth e for m
o f H2S ) i s eithe r converte dt o elementa l sulfu r o r route dt o th e fue l ga s combustio ndevices . Th e mode l LO-CAT ®unit s wer e designe dt o achiev e th e NSP S limi t o f 23 0 m

g o f H2S/dscm

inth e outle t fue l ga s stream . Fo r calculatin g emissio nreductions , i t wa s assume dtha t th e LO-CAT ®uni t wa s operatin g a t capacit y fo r 35 0 operatin g day s pe r year .P.7 2



### 5- 7

TABL E 5- 4 SO 2 EMISSIO

NREDUCTIO

NUSIN G ALO-CAT

®UNI T

Mode l Contro l Syste mSize a (Mg/D ) (LT/D ) H 2 S Con e {%b yVol. ) Uncontrolle d SO 2

Emissions"> c (Mg/yr )
71 2 71 2 71 2
142 2 142 2 142 2
355 6 355 6 355 6
711 2 711 2 711 2 Contro l Syste m SOo Emission s (Mg/yr )
11. 5 2. 3 1. 1
2. 3 4. 6 2. 3
57. 6 11. 4 5. 7
115. 2 22. 8 11. . 4 SO 2 Emissio n

Reduction s ' (Mg/yr )
70 1 71 0 71 1
139 9 141 7 142 0
349 8 354 5 355 0
699 7 708 9 710 1 1.01 6

2.03 2

5.0 8

10.1 6 

### (1 )

(2 )

(5 )

(10 ) 1

5 1 0
1 5 1 0
1 5 1 0
1 5 1 0

a Mode l contro l syste msiz e (i.e
. amoun t o f sulfur processed ) i s base d on the sulfur loadin

g int o the LO-CAT

®unit
. D 1 yea r = 35 0 operating day s

c 1 M g o f sulfur (S 2 ) convert s t o 2 M g o f S0 2 emission sP.7 3

6

. COS TANALYSI S 6. 1 INTRODUCTIO N Thi s sectio n present s cost s (i n Januar y198 5 dollars ) o f mode l plan t contro l system s necessar yt o mee t th e hydroge n sulfid e (an d consequentl y th e sulfu rdioxide ) provision s o f th e curren t NSP S fo rrefiner yfue l gas . Tw o contro l system s ar e analyzed : (1 ) fo rlarg e source s o f refiner yfue l gas , a n amin e treatin g sectio n couple d wit h a Clau s sulfu rrecover yplant ; (2 ) fo r smalle rsources , a LO-CAT ® proces s whic h absorb s th e hydroge n sulfid e an d oxidize s i t t o elementa l sulfu rwit h th e ai d o f a n iron-base d catalyst

. (Amore detaile d discussio n o f th e contro l system s appear s i n Chapte r4. ) Capita l an d annualize d cost s ar e estimate d fo rth e followin g mode l plan t sizes , al l give n o n a nomina l sulfu rbasis : LO-CAT ® —1.01 6 M

g pe rda y ( 1 lon g to n pe rday) , 2.03 2 Mg/ D ( 2 LT/D) , 5.0 8 Mg/D ( 5 LT/D) , an d 10.1 6 Mg/ D (1 0 LT/D) ; amine-Clau s - - 5.0 8 Mg/D ( 5 LT/D) , 10.1 6 Mg/D (1 0 LT/D) , 50. 8 Mg/D (5 0 LT/D) , 101. 6 Mg/ D (10 0 LT/D) , 203. 2 Mg/D (20 0 LT/D) , 50 8 Mg/ D (50 0 LT/D ) an d a plan t expansio n fro m 10.1 6 Mg/D t o 10.66 8 Mg/D (1 0 t o 10. 5 LT/D)*

. (Amore detaile d discussio n o f mode l plant s i s presente d i n Chapte r5. ) Cost-effectivenes s i s calculate d fo ral l mode l plant s an d i s discusse d fo rth e tw o mode l plan t size s tha t ar e commo n t o bot h contro l systems
. Excep t fo rth e plan t expansion , al l estimate d cost s appl yt o ne wcontro l system s installe d a t ne wsource s o f refiner yfue l gas . Not e tha t th e cos t o f Clau s tai l ga s treatin g i s no t considere d i n th e analysis

. Th e cost s presente d fo rth e amine-Clau s proces s ar e base d o n ra wcos t dat a provide d i n Reference s 1 an d 2

. Cost s fo rth e LO-CAT ® proces s ar e base d o n informatio n fro m Reference s 3 , 4 , an d 5

. Capita l cost s ar e o n a *Note : 1 Mg/D = 1.102 5 shor t tons/ D = 0.984 4 LT/ DP.7 4

6- 2 turnke y basi s an

dthu s includ e th e purchas e cos t o f equipmen t an dauxiliaries , taxes , freight , an

dal l necessar y

installatio ncosts , a s wel l a s indirec t cost s suc ha s engineerin g an dsupervision , constructio nan dfiel dexpense , contracto r fee , an

dcontingency . Annualize dcost s includ e direc t operatin g cost s suc ha s operatin g labor , maintenanc e labor , utilities , an dmaterials , a s wel l a s indirec t cost s suc ha s capita l charges , overhead , propert y taxes , insurance , an

dadministration . Ne t annualize dcos t i s als o presented , representin g tota l annualize dcos t les s th e credi t fp r recovere dsulfu r wher e applicable . Th e cost s thu s obtaine dar e "order-of-magnitude"--i.e. , nominall y

+

_5 0 percen t inaccuracy . Becaus e mos t o f th e operatin g an d maintenanc e (O&M ) cost s hav e bee ncalculate ddirectly , thei r accurac y shoul d approac htha t o f a stud y estimat e (+^3 0 percent) . Finally , becaus e th e annualize dcost s ar e comprise do f O& M cost s andcapita l cos t components , thei r accurac y

shoul dfal l betwee n+

_3 0 an d+

_5 0 percent . 6. 2 AMIN E TREATMEN T WIT H CLAU S SULFURRECOVER Y 6.2. 1 Capita l Cost s Th e capita l cost s fo r thi s combinatio nproces s ar e estimate dfo r fiv e mode l plants—fou r ne w an don e expansio no f a nexistin g plant . (Detaile dmode l plan t parameter s ar e give ni nChapte r 5. ) Th e capita l cost s fo r th e amin e treatmen t sectio nwer e calculate dfro m cos t factor s give ni nReferenc e 1 fo r ga s sweetenin g operations . Th e proces s employ s diethanolamin e (DEA ) a s th e absorbent . Th e capita l cost s fo r th e Clau s sectio nwer e develope db y updatin g th e cost s i nReferenc e 2 vi a th e Chemica l Engineerin g (CE ) Plan t Cos t Index . Th e capita l cos t fo r th e 5.0 8 Mg/ D Clau s plan t wa s extrapolate dlogarithmicall y fro m th e 10.1 6 Mg/ D mode l plan t cos t i nReferenc e 1 (th e smalles t size ) usin g a 0. 2 exponent , i naccordanc e wit hcos t vs . capacit y formula s presente d6- 3

i nAppendi xA

o f Referenc e 1 . Th e 0. 2 exponen t wa s foundt o hol dinth e low siz e range , base do ndat a gathere dfo r Clau s plant s inReferenc e 1 . Cost s fo r th e 5 0 and10 0 LT/ Dplant s wer e update dfrom cost s inReferenc e 1 fo r thes e sizes . Capita l cost s fo r th e tw o section s wer e adde dtogethe r fo r eac hmode l plan t an

dar e presente dinTabl e 6-1 . Th e capita l cos t o f th e plan t expansio nwa s calculate da s th e incrementa l cos t o f a 10.66 8 Mg/ Dplan t over a 10.1 6 Mg/ Dplan t an ddoe s no t includ e an y retrofi t costs . Thi s approac hwa s take na s a nexpedien t t o arrivin g a t anorder-of-magnitud e
cos t fo r th e expansion ; i t mus t b e recognize dtha t suc ha nexpansio nwoul d b e a site-specifi c case , th e cos t o f whic hcoul dvary significantly . Th e capita l cost s fo r 20 0 and50 0 LT/ Dmode l plant s canb e estimate d b y multiplyin g th e cos t o f th e 10 0 LT/ Dplan t b y a facto r o f two o r five , respectively . Thi s result s fro m th e fac t tha t plant s abov e 10 0 LT/ Dcapacit y
ar e normall y

constructe da s trains , s o tha t thei r cost s var y linearl y

wit h size . 6.2. 2 Annualize dCost s Th e annualize dcost s associate dwit hownin g andoperatin g th e amine Clau s plant s ar e estimate dfo r eac hmode l plant . Th e direc t operatin g cos t include s operatin g an dsupervisor y

labor , maintenance , supplies , utilities , chemicals , andcatalysts . Fo r th e amin e section , direc t operatin g cost s
wer e calculate db

y mean s o f th e cos t factor s give ninAppendi xA . Fo r th e Clau s section , th e direc t operatin g cost s wer e develope db y combinin g consumptio ndat a wit huni t cos t data , bot hfrom Referenc e 2 . (Th e latte r
ar e liste di nTabl e 6-2. ) Th e uni t cos t dat a wer e update dslightl y b y us e
o f Burea uo f Labo r Statistic s factor s i nmos t cases , suc ha s th e Produce r Pric e Index .P.7 6



### 6-4

TABL E 6- 1 CAPITA L COS T SUMMAR

Y AMIN E TREATMEN

T WIT H CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVER

Y (Januar y198 5 Dollars )

Cos t in Thousand s o f Dol l Plant , Capacity , Mg/ D (LT/D )

5.0 8 Mg/ D ( 5 LT/D ) 1 % H 2 S 5 % H 2 S 10 % H 2 S 10.1 6 Mg/ D (1 0 LT/D ) 1 % H 2 S 5 % H 2 S 10 % H 2 S 50. 8 Mg/ D (5 0 LT/D ) 1 % H 2 S 5 % H 2 S 10 % H 2 S 101. 6 Mg/ D (10 0 LT/D ) 1 % H 2 S 5 % H 2 S 10 % H 2 S Expansio n o f 0.50 8 Mg/ D (0. 5 LT/D) d 1 % H 2 S 5 % H 2 S 10 % H 2 S Amine 3

11 0 88. 8 84. 6
22 0 17 8 16 9
110 0 88 8 84 6
220 0 178 0 169 0

10. 7 9. 2 8. 5 ar s

Sulfur
Claus 0
229 0 229 0 229 0
263 0 263 0 263 0
448 0 448 0 448 0
647 0 647 0 647 0

25. 8 25. 8 25. 8 Total c

239 0 237 0 237 0
284 0 280 0 279 0
557 0 536 0 532 0
867 0 824 0 816 0

36. 5 35. 0 34. 3

a Cos t develope d fro minformatio n i n Referenc e 1 . 0 Cos t develope d fro minformatio n in Referenc e 2 . c Total s ma

yno t ad

d du e t o rounding
. Thes e cost s represen t th e incrementa l cost s o f a 10.68 8 Mg/ D plan t ove r a 10.1 6 Mg/ D plant . 

### d6- 5
TABLE 6- 2

ASSUME D UNI TCOST

S FO R OPERATING COS

TESTIMATIO N CLAU S SULFU R RECOVER

YPLANTS 3

. b » c
Operatin g Cos t Ite m Operatin g labo r Supervisio n labo r 430 0 K p stea m 176 0 K p stea m 35 2 K p stea m 10 6 K p stea m Stea m condensat e Boile rfeedwate r Electricit y Fue l ga s Sulfu r Uni t Cos t (Credit ) 

### $15.00/ h $20.00/ h $17.50/Mg d ($16.25/Mg ) ($14.00/Mg ) ($11.00/Mg ) ( $ 3.00/Mg ) $ 3.60/M g $15.28/G j $ 4.00/G j ($110/Mg) e Englis h Equivalen t

$ 7.94/103l b ( $ 7.37/103lb)

. ( $ 6.35/10 3 lb ) ( $ 4.99/10 3 lb ) ( $ 1.36/10 3 lb ) $ 1.63/103l b $ 0.055/KW h $ 4.22/M M BT

U (S111.8/LT )

3 Fo rClau s plan t operatin g cos t estimation , uni t cost s wer e multiplie d by consumptio n factor s give n i n Referenc e 2

. 0 Uni t cost s wer e no t use d fo roperatin g cos t estimatio n fo rth e amin e proces s o rLO-CAT

® process ; operatin g cost s fo rthes e processe s wer e give n i n Reference s 1 an d 3 , respectively , a s function s o f ga s flowrat e o rplan t capacity

. cTh e tota l cost s fo rcatalyst s give n i n Referenc e 2 wer e multiplie d b y1. 1 t o updat e the m t o Januar y198 5 dollars , d Cos t o rcredi t dependin g upo n mode l plant

. e Base d o n th e cos t give n fo rrecovere d (i.e. , Clau s plant ) sulfur , Housto n terminal , i n Chemica l Marketin g Reporter , Januar y21 , 1985

.6- 6

Mos t indirec t cost s wer e factore dfro m capita l cost s o r direc t operatin g cost s usin g appropriat e factor s fro m Reference s 6 an

d7 . Capita l recover y
wa s calculate dfro

m th e capita l cos t wit ha 1 0 percen t rat e o f retur nan da 15-yea r equipmen t lif e (Referenc e 2) . Ther e i s no wast e disposa l cost , becaus e spen t catalyst s ar e regenerated . Th e annualize dcos t include s a n estimat e o f th e credi t fo r recovere dsulfu r a t price s applicabl e i nJanuar y 1985 , a perio do f relativ e stabilit y fo r recovere dsulfu r prices . Not e als o tha t credi t fo r differen t pressure s o f stea m varie s inthat , in general , th e large r th e Clau s plant , th e greate r th e hea t recover y practice d
an dth e highe r th e pressur e o f stea m tha t i s recovered . Th e annualize dcost s fo r bot hsection s wer e adde dtogethe r fo r eac h mode l plan t an

dar e presente di nTable s 6- 3 throug h6-9 . Again , cost s fo r expandin g th e existin g 10.1 6 Mg/ D plan t t o 10.66 8 Mg/ D wer e calculate da s incrementa l costs . Al l annualize dcost s ar e base do n35 0 operatin g day s pe r year . Se e Appendi xB fo r a nexampl e o f annualize dcos t estimatio nfo r th e individua l processe s tha t mak e upth e contro l system (amin e treatin g
andClau s sulfu r recovery) .
6. 3 LO-CAT ®PROCES S 6.3. 1 Capita l Cost s Capita l cost s fo r LO-CAT ®mode l plant s ar e als o estimated . Althoug hth e mode l plant s envisio nincomin g hydroge nsulfid e concentration s o f 1 , 5 , an d1 0 percent , accordin g t o Referenc e 5 th e difference s i ncapita l cos t amon g th e thre e woul dno t b e significant . Therefore , th e cost s ar e develope dindependen t o f hydroge nsulfid e concentration . Th e purchase dequipmen t cos t wa s take ndirectl y from Referenc e 3 an

dinclude s al l primar y an dauxiliar y

equipmen t an

d instrumentation . Taxe s an dfreigh t cost s wer e obtaine dfro m Referenc e 6 .P.7 9



### 6-7

Tabl e 6- 3 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMARY 3 AMIN E TREATMEN

T WITH CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVER

Y 5.0 8 Mq/ D ( 5 LT/D ) PLATiT ' (Januar y198 5 Dollars ) Cos t in Thousand s o f Dollar s
1 % H 2 S 5 % H 2 S 10%H 2 S
Direc t Operating Cos t Operating labo r Supervisio n Maintenance , repair s Supplies , laborator y Utilitie s 430 0 K p stea m Boile rfeedwate r Electricit y Fue l Ga s Chemicals , catalys t Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d (5 0 percen t o f al l labo rcosts ) Capita l Recover y(1 0 percen t rat e o f return ,

1 5 year s equipmen t life ) Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Administratio n (tw o percen t o f capita l cost ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t Withou t Credi t Credit s 430 0 K p stea m 176 0 K p stea m 35 2 K p stea m 10 6 K p stea m Stea m Condensat e Sulfu r Tota l Credit s Ne t Annualize d Cos t ' 

### 21 0 6 1 7 0 1 7



### . 4 1 2 5 7 1 0 

### 3 21 0

6 1 7 0 1 7 

### 4 1 2 5 7 1 0 

### 3 21 0

6 1 7 0 1 7 

### 4 1 2 5 7 1 0 

### 3 15 3



### 1,00 7

24 4 76 2 

### 15 3



### 1,00 3

24 4 

### 75 9 15 3 1 5 2 4 2 4 4 8 

### 31 2

2 4 2 4 4 7 

### 31 2

2 4 2 4 4 7 

### 1,00 2


### 0 4 8 

### 0 3 5 18 9 

### 0

4 8 

### 0 3 5 18 9 

### 0

4 8 

### 0 3 5 18 9 24 4 75 8

Total s ma

yno t ad d du e t o roundin gP.8 0



### 6- 8

Tabl e 6- 4 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMARY 3 AMIN E TREATMEN

T WITH CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVER

Y 10.1 6 Mg/ D (1 0 LT/D ) PLAN T (Januar y198 5 Dollars ) Cos t in Thousand s o f Dollar s
1 % H 2 S 5 % H 2 S 10%H 2 S



### 21 0 6 1 8 2 1 7 

### 7 2 4 

### 11 4 1 9 

### 7 21 0

6 1 8 2 1 7 

### 7 2 4 

### 11 4 1 9 

### 7 21 0

6 1 8 2 1 7 

### 7 2 4 

### 11 4 1 9 

### 7 Direc t Operating Cos t Operating labo r Supervisio n Maintenance , repair s Supplies , laborator y Utilitie s 430 0 K p stea m Boile rfeedwate r Electricit y Fue l Ga s Chemicals , catalys t Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d (5 0 percen t o f al l labo rcosts ) 15 5 15 5 15 5 Capita l Recover y(1 0 percen t rat e o f return ,

1 5 year s equipmen t life ) Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Administratio n (tw o percen t o f capita l cost ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t Withou t Credi t 1,18 4 1,17 7 1,17 5 Credit s 430 0 K p stea m 176 0 K p stea m 35 2 K p stea m 10 6 K p stea m Stea mCondensat e Sulfu r Tota l Credit s 48 9 48 9 48 9 Ne t Annualize d Cos t 69 5 68 8 68 6 

### 37 4 2 8 2 8 5 7 

### 36 9

2 8 2 8 5 6 

### 36 7

2 8 2 8 5 6



### 0 9 5 

### 0 6 9 37 8 

### 0

. 9 5 

### 0 6 9 37 8 

### 0

9 5 

### 0 6 9 37 8

Total s ma

yno t ad

d du e t o roundin

gP.8 1



### 6- 9

Tabl e 6- 5 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMARY 3 AMIN E TREATMEN

T WITH CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVER

Y 50. 8 Mg/ D (5 0 LT/D ) PLAN T (Januar y198 5 Dollars ) Cos t i n Thousand s o f Dollar s
1 % H 2 S 5 % H2 S 10%H 2 S
Direc t Operating Cos t Operating labo r Supervisio n Maintenance , repair s Supplies , laborator y Utilitie s 430 0 K p stea m Boile r feedwate r Electricit y Fue l Ga s Chemicals , catalys t Indirec t Operating Cos t Overhead (5 0 percen t o f al l labo r costs ) Capita l Recover

y(1 0 percen t rat e o f return , 1 5 year s equipmen t life ) Taxe s (one percen t o f capita l cost ) Insuranc e (one percen t o f capita l cost ) Administratio n (tw

o percen t o f capita l cost ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t Withou t Credi t Credit s 430 0 K p stea m 176 0 K p stea m 35 2 K p stea m 10 6 K p stea m Stea mCondensat e Sulfu r Tota l Credit s Ne t Annualize d Cos t 

### 21 0 6 1 

### 15 1 1 7 5 8 

### 17 0 51 2 9 7 3 5 

### 21 0

6 1 

### 15 1 1 7 5 8 

### 17 0 51 2 9 7 3 5 

### 21 0

6 1 

### 15 1 1 7 5 8 

### 17 0 51 2 9 7 3 5 16 9

2,43 6 

### 16 9

2,40 0 

### 16 9 

### 73 3 5 6 5 6 

### 11 1 70 5

5 4 5 4 

### 10 7 70 0

5 3 5 3 

### 10 6 2,39 3


### 0 46 4 1 8 2 6 5 0 1,88 9 2,44 8 (11 ) 

### 0

46 4 1 8 2 6 5 0 1,88 9 2,44 8 (47 ) 

### 0

46 4 1 8 2 6 5 0 1,88 9 2,44 8 (55 )

Total s ma

yno t ad d du e t o roundin gP.8 2

6-1 0 Tabl e 6- 6 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMARY 3 > b AMIN E TREATMEN

T WITH CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVER

Y 101. 6 Mg/ D (10 0 LT/D ) PLAN T (Januar y198 5 Dollars ) Cos t i n Thousand s o f Dollar s
1 % H 2 S 5 % H 2 S 10%H 2 S
Direc t Operating Cos t Operating labo r Supervisio n Maintenance , repair s Supplies , laborator y Utilitie s 430 0 K p stea m Boile r feedwate r Electricit y Fue l Ga s Chemicals , catalys t Indirec t Operating Cos t
• Overhead (5 0 percen t o f al l labo r costs ) Capita l Recovery(1 0 percen t rat e o f return ,

1 5 year s equipmen t life ) Taxe s (one percen t o f capita l cost ) Insuranc e (one percen t o f capita l cost ) Administratio n (tw

o percen t o f capita l cost ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t Withou t Credi t Credit s 430 0 K p stea m 176 0 K p stea m 35 2 K p stea m 10 6 K p stea m Stea mCondensat e Sulfur Tota l Credit s Ne t Annualize d Cos t 

### 21 0 6 1 

### 22 7 1 7 

### 0 44 1 1,00 7 

### 19 4 7 1 

### 21 0

6 1 

### 22 7 1 7 

### 0 44 1 1,00 7 

### 19 4 7 1 

### 21 0

6 1 

### 22 7 1 7 

### 0 44 1 1,00 7 

### 19 4 7 1
18 4

3,89 7 184
.

3,82 5 18 4 1,14 0 

### 8 7 8 7 

### 17 3 1,08 4



### 8 2 8 2 

### 16 5 1,07 3



### 8 2 8 2 

### 16 3 3,81 0


### 30 7 10 1 32 2 5 2 3 9 3,77 9 4,60 0 (702 ) 

### 30 7

10 1 32 2 5 2 3 9 3,77 9 4,60 0 (775 ) 

### 30 7

10 1 32 2 5 2 3 9 3,77 9 4,60 0 (789 )

3 Total s ma

yno t ad d du e t o rounding

. 0 Note : Fo restimatin g th e cos t o f plant s wit h capacitie s i n exces s o f 10 0 LT/D , th e cost s i n thi s tabl e woul d b e use d a s cost s o f individua l trains

. Fo r example , a 20 0 LT/ D plan t woul d consis t o f tw o 10 0 LT/ D trains , an d th e cost s fo rth e plan t woul d b e twic e th e cost s i n thi s table

.6-1 1

Tabl e 6- 7 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMAR Y AMIN E TREATMEN

T WITH CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVER

Y EXPANSIO

NOF 10.1 6 Mg/ D (1 0 LT/D ) PLAN T T O 10.66 8 Mg/D " (10. 5 LT/D ) (Januar y198 5 Dollars ) 1 % H 2 S
10.6 6 Mg/ D 10.1 6 Mg/D Incre
menta l Direc t Operatin g Cos t Operatin g labo r Supervisio n Maintenance , repair s Supplies , laborator y Utilitie s 210,00 0 60,90 0 83,00 0 16,80 0 172,30 0 210,00 0

60,90 0 82,07 0 16,80 0 164,10 0 • 0



### 0 93 0 

### 0 8,20 0 Chemicals , catalys t Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d (5 0 percen t o f al l labo rcosts ) Capita l Recover y(1 0 percen t rat e o f return ,

1 5 year s equipmen t life)
- Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Administratio n (tw o percen t o f capita l cost ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t Withou t Credi t Credit s 430 0 K p stea m 176 0 K p stea m 35 2 K p stea m 10 6 K p stea m Stea mCondensat e Sulfu r Tota l Credit s Ne t Annualize d Cos t 7,26 8 155,30 0 6,92 2

155,30 0 34 6

379,60 0 28,87 0 28,87 0 57,74 0 200,60 0
0 100,10 0 0 6,60 1 9,76 7 396,80 0 513,26 8 687,33 0 374,80 0

28,50 0 28,50 0 57,00 0 1,184,90 0
0 95,36 0 0 6,28 7 9,30 2 377,90 0 488,84 9 696,05 0 4,77 5

37 0 37 0 74 0 15,70 0
0 4,74 0 0 31 4 46 5 18,90 0 24,41 9 (8,720 )6-1 2

Tabl e 6- 8 •

ANNUALIZE D COS

TSUMMAR

Y AMIN E TREATMEN

TWIT H CLAU S SULFU R RECOVER

Y EXPANSION O

F 10.1 6 Mg/

D (1 0 LT/D ) PLAN

TT O 10.66 8 Mq/

D (10. 5 LT/D ) (Januar y198 5 Dol l

5 % H 2 S

Direc t Operatin g Cos t Operatin g labo r Supervisio n Maintenance , repair s Supplies , laborator y Utilitie s Chemicals , catalys t Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d (5 0 percen t o f al l labo rcosts ) Capita l Recover y(1 0 percen t rat e o f return ,

1 5 year s equipmen t life ) Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Administratio n (tw o percen t o f capita l cost ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t Withou t Credi t Credit s ar s )

10.6 6 Mg/ D
210,00 0 60,90 0 83,00 0 16,80 0 172,30 0 7,26 8 155,30 0 373,85 0 28,43 0 28,43 0 56,86 0 1,193,14 0 10.1 6 Mg/ D
210,00 0 60,90 0 82,07 0 16,80 0 164,10 0 6,92 2 155,30 0 369,25 0 28,08 0 28,08 0 56,16 0 1,177,66 0 Incre
menta l
0 0 93 0 0 8,20 0 34 6
0 4,60 0 35 0 35 0 70 0 15,48 0 P.8 4

430 0 K p stea m 176 0 K p stea m 35 2 K p stea m 10 6 K p stea m Stea mCondensat e Sulfu r Tota l Credit s Ne t Annualize d Cos t 

### 0 100,10 0 0 6,60 1 9,76 7 396,80 0 513,26 8 679,87 0 0

95,36 0 0 6,28 7 9,30 2 377,90 0 488,84 9 688,81 0 0

4,74 0 0 31 4 46 5 18,90 0 24,41 9 (8,940 )P.8 5

6-1 3

Tabl e 6- 9 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMAR Y AMIN E TREATMEN

T WITH CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVER

Y EXPANSIO

NO F 10.1 6 Mq/ D (1 0 LT/D ) PLAN T T O 10.66 8 Mg/ D (10. 5 LT/D ) (Januar y198 5 Dollars ) 10 % H 2 S
10.6 6 Mg/D 10.1 6 Mg/D Incre
menta l Direc t Operatin g Cos t Operatin g labo r Supervisio n Maintenance , repair s Supplies , laborator y Utilitie s Chemicals , catalys t Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d (5 0 percen t o f al l labo rcosts ) Capita l Recover y(1 0 percen t rat e o f return ,

1 5 year s equipmen t life ) Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) Administratio n (tw o percen t o f capita l cost ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t Withou t Credi t Credit s 430 0 K p stea m 176 0 K p stea m 35 2 K p stea m 10 6 K p stea m Stea m Condensat e Sulfur

. Tota l Credit s Ne t Annualize d Cos t 210,00 0 60,90 0 • 83,00 0 16,80 0 172,30 0 210,00 0

60,90 0 82,07 0 16,80 0 164,10 0 

### 0

0 93 0 0 8,20 0 7,26 8 

### 155,30 0 6,92 2

155,30 0 34 6

372,58 0 28,33 0 28,33 0 56,66 0 1,191,47 0

0 100,10 0 0 6,60 1 9,76 7 396,80 0 513,26 8 678,20 0 368,07 0

27,99 0 27,99 0 55,98 0 1,176,12 0
0 95,36 0 0 6,28 7 9,30 2 377,90 0 488,84 9 687,27 0 . 4,51 0

34 0 34 0 68 0 15,35 0
0 4,74 0 0 31 4 46 5 18,90 0 24,41 9 (9,070 )P.8 6

6-1 4
Direc t andindirec t installatio nfactor s fro m Referenc e 7 wer e the napplie d t o eac hmode l plan t purchase dequipmen t cos t t o obtai ntota l installe dcost . Th e capita l cost s fo r th e fou r mode l plant s ar e presente di nTabl e 6-10 .
6.3. 2 Annualize dCost s Th e annualize d cost s fo rth e LO-CAT ® mode l plant s hav e als o bee n estimated

. Mos t o f th e direc t operatin g cost s wer e take n directl yfro m Referenc e 3 , interpolatin g value s fro m tabula rdat a therein

. Operatin g labo rwa s calculate d base d o n one-thir d o f a ma n pe rshif t fo ral l mode l plant s (Referenc e 5) , 35 0 day s pe ryear , an d a labo rrat e o f $1 5 pe rhou r(se e Tabl e 6-2)

. Supervisio n wa s figure d a t 1 5 percen t o f labo ran d maintenanc e labo rwa s assume d t o equa l operatin g labo r(Referenc e 6)

. Catalys t costs , obtaine d fro m Referenc e 7 , wer e foun d t o var yaccordin g t o th e metho d use d t o separat e th e recovere d sulfu rfro m th e catalys t solution

. Indirec t cost s wer e factore d fro m capita l cost s o rdirec t operatin g cost s usin g factor s fro m Reference s 6 an d 8

. A s wit h th e amine-Clau s contro l system , capita l recover yi s base d o n a 1 0 percen t rat e o f retur n an d a 15-yea requip
men t life

. Ther e ar e n o wast e disposa l cost s fo rspen t catalyst , i n accordanc e wit h Referenc e 3

. Produc t recover ycredit s fo rsulfu rhav e als o bee n calculated

. Not e tha t becaus e th e LO-CAT ® proces s directl yproduce s th e desulfurize d refiner y fue l gas , thes e mode l plant s ar e designe d t o mee t (o rbetter ) th e limi t o f 16 2 part s pe rmillio n (ppm ) H2 S i n th e gas . Th e desig n sulfu rremova l efficiencie s var ywit h H2

S inle t concentration , wit h a consequen t variatio n i n sulfu r recovery . Not e als o tha t ther e i s some questio n abou t th e qualit yo f sulfu r recovere d fro m th e LO-CAT ® process . T o b e conservative , therefore , eac h annualize d cos t tabl e include s a cos t fo rsulfu rdisposal , calculate d a t a uni t cos t o f $24.6 0 pe rlon g to n ($24.2 2 pe rMg)

. Th e tota l annualize dP.8 7

6-1 5

Tabl e 6-1 0 CAPITA L COS T SUMMAR

Y

Purchase d equipment D (A ) Taxe s an

d freight(0.08 c XA ) Bas e Cos t (B ) Direct/indirec t installatio n (0.50dxB ) Tota l Installe d Cos t 

### (J LO-CAT ®PROCES S anuar y198 5 Dollars )

I Cos t in Th

o Plan t Capacity 1.016(1 ) 

### 52 0 

# f l 56 2 28 1

84 3 2 .

usand s o f Dollars 3

, Mg/ D (LT/D ) Sulfur . 032(2 ) 

### 81 0 65
_ 87 5 43 8

131 3 5.08(5 )

146 0 

### 11 7 157 7 

### 78 9

236 6 10.16(10 )

238 0 

### 19 0 257 0 128 5

i 385 5

3 Cos t fo r each capacityapplie s fo r inle t hydroge n sulfid e concentration s o f 1 , 5 , o r 1 0 percent . D Cost s wer e develope d fro minformation i

n Referenc e 3 an

d includ e instru

mentation
. c Referenc e 6 wa s th e sourc e o f thi s factor . d Overal l installatio n facto r suggeste d b yReferenc e 7 fo r refiner yinstallations
.P.8 8

6-1 6

cos t fo r th e proces s i s therefor e brackete dbetwee na lo w figur e tha t include s ful l credi t an da highfigur e tha t include s th e ful l cos t o f disposal . I nreality , th e annualize dcos t woul dprobabl y fal l inbetween , dependin g onth e qualit y o f th e sulfu r produce dan dth e availabl e market s fo r sulfu r o f tha t quality . Th e annualize dcost s fo r th e mode l plant s ar e presente di nTable s 6-1 1 throug h6-14 .
6. 4 COST-EFFECTIVENES S Th e cost-effectivenes s value s ar e determine dfro m th e cost s develope d i nSection s 6. 2 an

d6. 3 an

dth e emissio nreduction s presente di nChapte r 5 . Th e cost-effectivenes s value s represen t th e estimate dcos t (i nJanuar y 198 5 dollars ) tha t woul db e incurre db y a refinery

fo r eac hto no f SO 2 emission s tha t i s controlled . Cost-effectivenes s value s fo r bot hcontro l system s an dal l mode l plant s
ar e show

ni nTable s 6-1 5 an d6-16 , fo r th e amine-Clau s andLO-CAT ®processes , respectively . Al l cost-effectivenes s value s ar e base do na baselin e o f
zer o control . Fo r bot hprocesses , th e C/ E rati o increase s a s th e mode l plan t siz e decreases . Th e amine-Clau s system' s cost-effectivenes s improve s t o a credi t o f $1 0 t o $12/M g a t th e 101. 6 Mg/ D mode l plan t size . Th e mode l plan t siz e a t wher e th e transitio nfro m cos t t o credi t occur s i s approximatel y 3 0 Mg/D . (Not e tha t becaus e cost s fo r th e 203. 2 and50 8 Mg/ D plant s ar e multiple s o f th e cos t fo r th e 101. 6 Mg/ D plant , th e cost-effectivenes s fo r al l plant s 101. 6 Mg/ D an

dlarge r i s exactl y equa l i nthi s analysis. ) Cost-effectivenes s i s no t a stron g functio no f inle t H2 S concentratio ninth e rang e o f concen tration s examine di nthi s analysis .P.8 9

6-1 7

Tabl e 6-1 1 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMARY 3 » b LO-CAT ®PROCES S 1.01 6 Mg/ D ( 1 LT/D ) PLAN T (Januar y 198 5 Dollars )

Cos t i n Thousand s o f Dollar s Direc t Operatin g Cos t Operatin g labo r 4 2 Supervisio n6 Maintenanc e labo r 4 2 Utilitie s (electricity ) 2 Catalyst s an

dchemical s 6 4 Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d(5 0 percen t o f al l labo r costs ) 4 5 Capita l Recover y

(1 0 percen t rat e o f return , 1 5 year s equipmen t life ) 11 1 Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) 8 Insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) 8 Administratio n(tw

o percen t o f capita l cost ) 1 7 Tota l Annualize dCos t Withou t Credi t 34 6 Sulfu r Credit 0 3 8 Ne t Annualize dCos t (Wit hCredit ) 308 ^ Sulfu r Disposal 0 8 Tota l Annualize dCos t wit hDisposa l 35 5

a Wit hth e exceptio no f th e sulfu r credi t an dsulfu r disposa l cost , th e cost s show nappl y fo r inle t H2 S concentratio no f 1,5 , an d1 0 percent . Se e Not e c . b To t al s may

no t ad ddu e t o rounding . c Th e sulfu r credi t an ddisposa l cos t show nar e fo r 1 percen t H 2 S . Fo r othe r inle t H 2 S concentrations , th e sulfu r credi t woul db e a s follows : 5 percen t H 2 S - - 39 ; 1 0 percen t H2 S - - 39 . Th e disposa l cos t woul dbe : 5 percen t H 2 S - - 9 ; 1 0 percen t H2 S - - 9 .P.9 0

6-1 8
Tabl e 6-1 2 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMARY 3 » b LO-CAT ®/PROCES S 2.03 2 Mg/ D ( 2 LT/D ) PLAN T (January 198 5 Dollars )

Cos t in Thousand s o f Dollar s Direc t Operatin g Cos t Operatin g labo r 4 2 Supervision6 Maintenanc e labo r 4 2 Utilitie s (electricity ) 3 Catalyst s an

dchemical s 12 9 Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d(5 0 percen t o f al l labo r costs ) 4 5 Capita l Recover y

(1 0 percen t rat e o f return , 1 5 year s equipmen t life ) 17 3 Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) 1 3 Insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) 1 3 Administratio n(tw

o percen t o f capita l cost ) 2 6 Tota l Annualize dCos t Withou t Credi t 49 3 Sulfu r Credit 0 7 7 Ne t Annualize dCos t (Wit hCredit ) 416
_ Sulfu r Disposal 0 1 7 Tota l Annualize dCos t wit hDisposa l 50 9

a Wit hth e exceptio no f th e sulfu r credi t an dsulfu r disposa l cost , th e cost s show nappl y fo r inle t H2 S concentratio no f 1,5 , an d1 0 percent . Se e Not e c . b Total s ma y

no t ad ddu e t o rounding . c Th e sulfu r credi t an ddisposa l cos t show nar e fo r 1 percen t H 2 S . Fo r othe r inle t H 2 S concentrations , th e sulfu r credi t woul db e a s follows : 5 percen t H2 S - - 78 ; 1 0 percen t H2 S - - 78 . Th e disposa l cos t woul dbe : 5 percen t H2 S - - 17 ; 1 0 percen t H2 S - - 17 .P.9 1

6-1 9

Tabl e 6-1 3 ANNUALIZE D COS T SUMMARY 3 > b LO-CAT ® PROCES S 5.0 8 Mg/ D ( 5 LT/D ) PLAN T (January 198 5 Dollars )

Cos t i n Thousand s o f Dollar s Direc t Operatin g Cos t Operatin g labo r 4 2 Supervisio n6 Maintenanc e labo r 4 2 Utilitie s (electricity ) 5 Catalyst s an

dchemical s 14 2 Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d(5 0 percen t o f al l labo r costs ) 4 5 Capita l Recover y

(1 0 percen t rat e o f return , 1 5 year s equipmen t life ) 31 1 Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) 2 4 Insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) 2 4 Administratio n(tw

o percen t o f capita l cost ) 4 7 Tota l Annualize dCos t Withou t Credi t 68 8 Sulfu r Credit 0 19 2 Ne t Annualize dCos t (Wit hCredit ) 496
_ Sulfu r Disposal 0 4 2 Tota l Annualize dCos t wit hDisposa l 73 1

3 Wit hth e exceptio no f th e sulfu r credi t an dsulfu r disposa l cost , th e cost s show nappl y fo r inle t H2 S concentratio no f 1,5 , an d1 0 percent . . Se e Not e c , D Total s may

no t ad ddu e t o rounding . c Th e sulfu r credi t an ddisposa l cos t show nar e fo r 1 percen t H2S . Fo r othe r inle t H2 S concentrations , th e sulfu r credi t woul db e a s follows : 5 percen t H2 S - - 195 ; 1 0 percen t H2 S - - 195 . Th e disposa l cos t woul dbe : 5 percen t H 2 S — 43 ; 1 0 percen t H2 S — 43 .P.9 2

6-2 0

Tabl e 6-1 4 ANNUALIZE DCOS T SUMMARY 3 . b LO-CAT ®PROCES S 10.1 6 Mg/ D(1 0 LTTD T PLAN T (Januar y 198 5 Dollars )

Cos t i n Thousand s o f Dollar s Direc t Operatin g Cos t Operatin g labo r 4 2 Supervisio n6 Maintenanc e labo r 4 2 Utilitie s (electricity ) 7 Catalyst s an dchemical s 28 4 Indirec t Operatin g Cos t Overhea d(5 0 percen t o f al l labo r costs ) 4 5 Capita l Recover y

(1 0 percen t rat e o f return , 1 5 year s equipmen t life ) 50 7 Taxe s (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) 3 9 Insuranc e (on e percen t o f capita l cost ) 3 9 Administratio n(two percen t o f capita l cost ) 7 7 Tota l Annualize dCos t Withou t Credi t 108 8 Sulfu r Credit 0 38 5 Ne t Annualize dCos t (Wit hCredit ) 7Ct t Sulfu r Disposal 0 • 8 5 Tota l Annualize dCos t wit hDisposa l 117 2

3 Wit hth e exceptio no f th e sulfu r credi t andsulfu r disposa l cost , th e cost s show nappl y

fo r inle t H 2 S concentratio no f 1,5 , an d1 0 percent . Se e Not e c . D Total s ma y

no t adddu e t o rounding . c T h e sulfu r credi t anddisposa l cos t shownar e fo r 1 percen t H 2 S . Fo r othe r inle t H 2 S concentrations , th e sulfu r credi t woul db e a s follows : 5 percen t H 2 S - - 390 ; 1 0 percen t H2 S — 391 . Th e disposa l cos t woul dbe : 5 percen t H 2 S — 86 ; 1 0 percen t H 2 S — 86 .6-2 1

Tabl e 6-1 5 COS T EFFECTIVENES S SULFU R DIOXID E CONTRO L AMIN E TREATMEN

T WITH CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVERY 3 (Januar y198 5 Dollars )

Annualize d Plan t Siz e Cos t (Credit ) S0 2 Remove d C/E ; Inle t Concentratio n Mg/da y(LT/D ) $10 3 /y r Mg/yr tons/y r $/M

q$/to

n 1 % H 2 S

5 % H 2 S

10 % H 2 S 5.0 8 10.1 6 50. 8 101. 6 •0.5 1 5.0 8 10.1 6 50. 8 101. 6 0.5 1 5.0 8 10.1 6 50. 8 101. 6 0.5 1 

### (5 )

(10 ) (50 ) (100 ) (0.50) b 

### (5 ) (10 ) (50 ) (100 ) (0.50) b 

### (5 ) (10 ) (50 ) (100 ) (0.50) b 

### 76 2

69 5 

## (ID (702 ) (8.7 ) 

### 75 9 68 8 (47 ) (775 ) (8.9 ) 

### 75 8 68 6 (55 ) (789 ) (9.1 ) 3,43 5

6,87 0 34,35 0 68,70 0 

### 34 4 3,43 5 6,87 0 34,35 0 68,70 0 

### 34 4 3,43 5 6,87 0 34,35 0 68,70 0 

### 34 4 3,78 7

7,57 3 37,86 7 75,73 4 

### 37 9 3,78 7 7,57 3 37,86 7 75,73 4 

### 37 9 3,78 7 7,57 3 37,86 7 75,73 4 

### 37 9 22 2

10 1 (0.32 ) (10.2) , (25.3 ) 

### 22 1 10 0 (1.37 ) (11.3 ) (26.0 ) 

### 22 1 10 0 (1.60 ) (11.5 ) (26.4 ) 

### 20 1

9 2 (0.29 ) (9.3 ) (23.0 ) 

### 20 0 9 1 (1.24 ) (10.2. ) (23.6 ) 

### 20 0 9 1 (1.45 ) (10.4 ) (23.9 )

3 Th e cost-effectivenes s ratio s fo r 20 0 LT/ D an d 50 0 LT/ D plant s woul d b e th e sam e a s show n fo r 10 0 LT/D , i n tha t th e annualize d cost s fo r thes e plant s ar e multiple s o f th e 10 0 LT/ D cost s in thi s analysis
. However , i f larg e plant s wer e t o b e custom-jdesigned , thei r C/ E ratio s woul d be expecte d t o b e lower , reflectin g economie s o f scal e in th e capita l costs . bExpansio n cas e (10.1 6 t o 10.66 8 Mg/D) . Al l value s show n o n thes e line s ar e incrementa l betwee n th e bas e an d expansio n capacities
.P.9 4

6-2 2

Tabl e 6-1 6 COS T EFFECTIVENES S SULFUR DIOXID E CONTRO L LO-CAT ® PROCES S (Januar y198 5 Dollars )

Inle t Concentra t 1 % H2 S

5 % H2 S

10 % H 2 S

*Fo r th e specia l Plan t Siz e

io n Mg/ D (LT/D ) 1.01 6 (1 ) 2.03 2 (2 ) 5.0 8 (5 ) 10.1 6 (10 )
1.01 6 (1 ) 2.03 2 (2 ) 5.0 8 (5 ) 10.1 6 (10 )
1.01 6 (1 ) 2.03 2 (2 ) 5.0 8 (5 ) 10.1 6 (10 ) Sulfu r

Statu s
recovered dispose d recovered dispose d recovered dispose d recovered dispose d
recovere d dispose d recovered dispose d recovered dispose d recovere d dispose d
recovered dispose d recovered dispose d recovere d dispose d recovered dispose d
cas e wher e neithe r a sulfu r Annualize d Cos t (Credi t $10 3 /yr * 

### 30 8 35 5 41 6 50 9 49 6 73 1 70 3 1,17 2 

### 30 8 35 5 41 5 50 9 49 3 73 2 69 8 1,17 3 

### 30 8 35 5 41 5 50 9 49 3 73 2 69 7 1,17 3 ) S0 2

Mg/y r 

### 70 0 70 0 1,39 9 1,39 9 3,49 9 3,49 9 6,99 7 6,99 7 

### 70 9 70 9 1,41 8 1,41 8 3,54 5 3,54 5 7,09 0 7,09 0 

### 71 0 71 0 1,42 0 1,42 0 3,55 1 3,55 1 7,10 1 7,10 1
recover ycredi t no r a <

Remove d tons/yr 

### 77 1 77 1 1,54 3 1,54 3 3,85 6 3,85 6 7,71 3 7,71 3 

### 78 1 78 1 1,56 3 1,56 3 3,90 7 3,90 7 7,81 5 7,81 5 

### 78 3 78 3 1,56 5 1,56 5 3,91 4 3,91 4 7,82 7 7,82 7 iisposa l cos t (

$/M q 

### 44 0 50 7 29 7 36 4 14 2 20 9 10 0 16 8 43 4 50 1 29 3 35 9 13 9 20 6 9 8 

### 16 5 43 4 50 0 29 2 35 8 13 9 20 6 9 8 

### 16 5
wer e 

### :/ E $/ton 

### 39 9 46 0 27 0 33 0 12 9 18 9 9 1 

### 15 2 39 4 45 5 26 6 32 6 12 6 18 7 8 9 

### 15 0 39 3 45 3 26 5 32 5 12 6 18 7 8 9 

### 15 0 taken , th e annualize d cos t woul d b e foun d i n Tabl e 6-11 , -12 , -13 , o r -14 . Th e cost-effective

nes s woul d the n b e th e quotien t o f thi s cos t (th e "Tota l Annualize d Cos t Withou t Credit" ) an d th e "SO 2 Removed " valu e i n colum n 5 .P.9 5

6-2 3
Th e mos t interestin g aspec t o f Table s 6-1 5 an d 6-1 6 i s th e compariso n o f cost-effectivenes s betwee n th e two contro l system s a t th e commo n mode l plan t sizes--5.0 8 an

d 10.1 6 Mg/D . At th e 10.1 6 Mg/ D size , th e cost-effectivenes s • ratio s o f th e amine-Clau s an d LO-CAT

®system s (sulfur recover ycase ) ar e essentiall yequal . Bu t a s the mode l plan t siz e decrease s t o 5.0 8 Mg/D , th e amine-Clau s syste mbecome s les s cost-effectiv e tha n th e LO-CAT

®syste m (sulfur recover

ycase) . Thi s indicate s tha t fo r thes e lowe r sulfur loadings , th e LO-CAT

®woul d b e th e preferre d contro l syste mt o use .
6. 5 COS T COMPARISO N T o determin e thei r representativeness , th e capita l cost s plu s th e operating
an d th e maintenanc e (O&M ) cost s i n Section s 6. 2 an d 6. 3 wer e compare d t o cos t dat a obtaine d fro

mrefinerie s tha t responded t o Sectio n 11 4 lette r requests . O f th e 1 3 plant s covere d i n thes e 11 4 responses , seven containe d enoug h cost / proces s dat a t o allowmeaningfu l comparisons
. Becaus e som e o f th e respondent s requested thei r cos t dat a t o be hel d confidential , no specifi c result s
ar e show

n herein
. However , som e genera l informatio n abou t th e cos t comparison s
can b e provided :
o Afte r escalating al l cost s t o January198 5 dollars , cost s wer e compare d fo r seve n amin e treating unit s (ATU's) , on e LO-CAT ® system , an

d on e combinatio n ATU-CLAU S system . (Note : som e refinerie s provide d dat a o n mor e tha

n on e system. )
o Al l bu t on e o f th e capita l cos t set s differe d b yles s tha

n +

_50% , th e nomina l accuracyo f th e tota l installe d cost s i n th e chapter , o Large r discrepancie s wer e seen i n th e O& M costs , du e t o difference s in uni t prices , cos t allocations , accounting methods , an d othe r factors . I

n al l bu t on e case , th e O&M cost s i n th e chapte r wer e highe r tha

n th e respondents' .

L. lP.9 6

6-2 4

o Detail s o f th e cos t compariso nhav e bee nplace dinth e confidentia l portio no f th e projec t docket .

6. 6 REFERENCE S FO

RCHAPTE R6

1 . Shumaker , Jeffre y L. , Memorandu

m t o Docke t A-80-20A , date dSeptembe r 11 , 1984 , concernin g sweetenin g plan t cos t factors . 2 . Revie w

o f New

Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r Petroleu m Refiner y

Clau s Sulfu r Recover y

Plants , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , EPA-450 / 3-83-014 , Augus t 1983 . 3 . Hardison , L.C , "Minimizin g Ga s Treatin g Cost s wit hLO-CAT ®fo r H2S . Removal" , fo r presentatio na t th e Panhandl e Plain s Regiona l Meetin g o f th e Ga s Processor s Association , Amarillo , TX , Octobe r 11 , 1984 . 4 . -Hardison , L.C , "G o fro m H 2 S t o S i nOn e Unit" , Hydrocarbo nProcessing , Apri l 1985 , pp . 70-71 . 5

. Telecons--Thoma s Begg s (JAC ACorporation , For t Washington , PA ) wit h Mr

. L.C

. Hardiso n (President , AR I Technologies , Inc. , Palatine , IL) : Apri l 1 , 1985 ; Ma

y21 , 1985 ; an d Jun e 10 , 1985

. 6

. Vatavuk , Willia m M

. an d Neveril , Rober t B. , "Estimatin g Air-Pollutio n Contro l Costs—Par t II : Estimatin g Capita l an d Operatin g Costs, " Chemica l Engineering , Novembe r3 , 1980 , pp . 157-162

. 7

. Lette rfro m L

. C Hardiso n (AR I Technologies , Inc. , Palatine , IL ) t o W

. L

. Elmor e (U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Research Triangl e Park , NC) , Februar y26 , 1986

. 8

. Peters , M.S

. an d Timmerhaus , K.D. , Plan t Desig n an d Economic s fo rChemica l Engineers , Thir d Edition

. McGraw-Hill , Ne wYork , NY , 1980 , pp . 203-209

.• f • r fy I ' P.9 7

APPENDI X A

Liste d belowar e th e cos t factor s tha t wer e obtaine d o r derive d fro m Referenc e 1 an

d use d in estimating capita l an d annualize d cost s fo r th e amin e treating process .

Componen t Cos t Facto r Capita l cos t (10 % H2S ) $0.5 1 pe r standard cubi c fee t pe r da y(SCFD ) o f aci d gas *
Capita l cos t (1 % H 2 S o r5 % H 2 S ) 0. 9 (cap

. cos t a t 10% ) +0. 1 (cap

. cos t o f 10%)| ~ 1 0 ~1 0

- 6 

## ij^ S cohc_

J Operatin g labo r(includin g som e maintenanc e $126,00 0 pe ryea r

Maintenanc e $0.0 1 pe ryea rpe rSCF D aci d ga s

Utilitie s (hea t an d electricity ) $0,27 4 pe ryea rpe rSCF D aci d ga s

Chemical s $0.018 7 pe ryea rpe rSCF D aci d ga s

Th e aci d ga s flowrat e i s relate d t o th e sulfu rloading , a s follows : Flowrat e (SCFD ) = 33,16 0 xS where : S = sulfu rfe d t o amin e treate r(LT/D ) Vi a thi s equation , th e abov e factor s ma yb e rewritte n i n term s o f the,sulfu r loading

.P.9 8

APPENDI X B
Thi s sectio n present s thre e example s o f lin e ite mannualize d cost s fo r th e contro l system s analyzed . Th e mode l plan t use d fo r illustratio n i s th e 5.0 8 Mg/ D ( 5 LT/D ) plan t wit h an inle t concentratio n o f on e percen t H 2 S . Th e example s ar e shown i n Table s B-l , B-2 , an d B-3 .P.9 9



## B- 2

Tabl e B- l

LIN E ITE M ANNUALIZE D COS T EXAMPLE 3 AMIN E TREATMENT , 5 LT/D , 1 % H? S (Januar y198 5 Dollars )

D i rec t Operatin g labor 0 Supervisio n Maintenanc e Utilitie s Chemical s Indirec t Overhea d Capita l recover y Taxe s Insuranc e Administratio n (direc t fro m Referenc e 1 ) $126,00 0 15 % o f above : $126,00 0 x0.1 5 18,90 0 $0.0 1 pe rSCFD : 165,80 0 x0.0 1 1,65 8 $0.274.pe rSCFD : 165,800x0.27 4 45,42 9 $0.018 7 pe rSCFD : 165,80 0 x0.018 7 3,10 0
50 % o f labor : (126,00 0 +.18,900 ) x0.50 ' 72,45 0 CR F (1 0 percent , 1 5 years ) = 0.1315 : $109,92 5 x0.131 5 cost : percen t o f capita l $109,92 5 x 0.0 1 percen t o f capita l cost : $109,92 5 x 0.0 1 percen t o f capita l cost : $109,92 5 x 0.0 2 14,45 5 1,09 9 1,09 9 2,19 9 $286,38 9

3 Direc t factor s fro m Referenc e 1

. (Se e Appendi xA)

. D Include s a n unspecifie d amoun t o f maintenanc e labor

.P. 1



### B- 3

Tabl e B- 2

LIN E ITEM ANNUALIZE D COS T EXAMPLE ^ CLAU S SULFU

R RECOVER

Y PLAN T 5 LT/D , 1 % H? S (Januar y198 5 Dollars )

D i rec t Operating Labo r Supervisio n
Maintenance , repair 0 Supplies , la

b
430 0 K p stea m Boile rfeedwate r Electricit y Fue l gas Catalys t
Indirec t Overhea d Capita l recover y

Taxe s

Insuranc e 560 0 hour s x$1 5 yea rhou r 210 0 hour s x$ 2 0 yea r hou r 3 percen t o f capita l cost : $2,285,00 0 X 0.0 3 2 0 percen t o f operatin g labor : $84,00 0 X 0.2 0 20 0 M g x$17.5 0 Yea r " M

g 326 7 M g x$3.6 0 Yea r M

g 76 4 G j x $15.2 8 Yea r G j 242 3 G j x$ i Yea r G j $65 5 x5 LT/ D x1. 1 1 0 LT/ D $84,00 0
42,00 0
68,55 0
16,80 0
3,50 0
11,76 0
11,67 0
9,69 0
36 1

5 0 percen t o f labor : 80,13 8 0.5 0 X (84,00 0 + 42,00 0 + 0. 5 X 68,550 ) CRF (1 0 percent , 1 5 years ) = 0.1315 : $2,285,00 0 X 0.131 5 1 percen t o f capita l cost : $2,285,00 0 X 0.0 1 1 percen t o f capita l cost : $2,285,00 0 X 0.0 1 300,47 8
22,85 0
22,85 0P. 2

B- 4

Tabl e B- 2 (cont'd )

Indirec t (cont'd ) Administratio n 2 percen t o f capita l cost : 45,70 0 $2,285,00 0 X 0.0 2 Tota l Annualize d Cos t w/ o Credi t 720,34 7

Credit s 176 0 K p stea m
10 6 K p stea m

Stea mcondensat e
Sulfu r ' 5.0 8

da y Tota l Credit s 

## M

g 293 4 M

g x yea r 28 6 M g x yea r 155 0 M g * yea r X 0.96 6 recove $16.2 5

M g $11.0 0 M g $3.0 0 Mg
r yx 35 0 day s yea r 

# x$n o

M g 47,68 0
3,14 4
4,65 1
188,93 0
244,40 5

NE TANNUALIZE D COS

T$475,94 2

a Consumptio n figure s derive d fro m cos t dat a i n Referenc e 2

. 0 Assume d t o b e equa l part s labo ran d materials

.P. 3

LIN E LO

Direc t Operating Labo r Supervisio n Maintenanc e labo r Utilities 0
Catalyst s an

d Chemicals 0 Indirec t Overhead Capita l recover

y
Taxe s

Insuranc e
Administratio n B- 5 Tabl e B- 3 ITEM ANNUALIZE D COS T EXAMPLE S -CAT ®PROCESS , 5 LT/D , 1 % H? S

8 hour s x 35 0 day s x $1 5 da yyea r hou r 15 % o f above : $42,00 0 X 0.1 5 Same a s operating $2.7 0 x5 LT x35 0 day s LT da

yyea r $81.2 0 x5 L T x 35 0 day s LT da

yyea r

5 0 percen t o f labor : (42,00 0 + 6,30 0 + 42,000 ) X 0.5 0 CR F (1 0 percent , 1 5 years ) = 0.1315 : $2,366,00 0 X 0.131 5 1 percen t o f capita l cost : $2,366,00 0 X 0.0 1 1 percen t o f capita l cost : $2,366,00 0 x 0.0 1 2 percen t o f capita l cost : $42,00 0
6,30 0 42,00 0 i 4,72 5
142,10 0

45,20 0
311,10 0
23,70 0

23,70 0 4 7 ,30 0 $2,366,00 0 X 0.0 2 Tota l Annualize d Cos t w/ o Credi t 688,10 0 Sulfu rCredi t 5.0 8 M g x0.983 8 recover yx35 0 day s x$11 0 192,40 0 dayyea rM g NE T ANNUALIZE D COS T (WIT H CREDIT ) $495,70 0 Sulfu r Disposa l 5.0 8 M g x 0.983 8 recover

yx 35 0 day s x $24.2 2 42,40 0 da yyea r M g TOTA L ANNUALIZE D COS T WIT H DISPOSA

L $730,50 0 ~* I n mos t cases , uni t consumptio n dat a wer e take n fro mReference s 3 , 4 , an d 5 . 0 Uni t cost s fo r utilitie s an d catalyst s ar e no t th e sam e fo r al l plan t sizes , a s th e quantitie s required o f steam , electricity , catalyst , etc. , var y nonlinearl ywit h capacity
.