1、 API DR*353 96 O732290 0553632 T43 Proceedings: Workshop to Identify Promising Technologies for the Treatment of Produced Water Toxicity HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENTAL REPORT NUMBER DR351 JUNE 1996 American Petroleum Institute API DR+35L 96 W 0732290 0553bL3 9BT One of the most signi
2、ficant long-term trends affecting the future vitality of the petroleum industry is the publics concerns about the environment. Recognizing this trend, API member companies have developed a positive, forward-looking strategy called STEP: Strategies for Todays Environmental Partnership. This program a
3、ims to address public concerns by improving our industrys environmental, heaith and safety performance; documenting performance improvements; and communicating them to the public. The foundation of STEP is the API Environmental Mission and Guiding Environmental Principles. API ENVIRONMENTAL MISSION
4、AND GUIDING ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES The members of the American Petroleum Institute are dedicated to continuous efforts to improve the compatibility of our operations with the environment while economically developing energy resources and supplying high quality products and services to consumers. T
5、he members recognize the importance of efficiently meeting societys needs and our responsibility to work with the public, the government, and others to develop and to use natural resources in an environmentally sound manner while protecting the health and safety of our employees and the public. To m
6、eet these responsibilities, API members pledge to manage our businesses according to these principles: 9 To recognize and to respond to community concerns about our raw materials, products and operations. d, To operate our plants and facilities, and to handle our raw materials and products in a mann
7、er that protects the environment, and the safety and health of our employees and the public. d, To make safety, health and environmental considerations a priority in our planning, and our development of new products and processes. 9 To advise promptly, appropriate officials, employees, customers and
8、 the public of information on significant industry-related safety, health and environmental hazards, and to recommend protective measures. d, To counsel customers, transporters and others in the safe use, transportation and disposal of our raw materials, products and waste materials. 9 To economical
9、ly develop and produce natural resources and to conserve those resources by using energy efficiently. 0. To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the safety, heaith and environmental effects of our raw materials, products, processes and waste materials. 9 To commit to reduce overa
10、ll emission and waste generation. 6 To work with others to resolve problems created by handling and disposal of hazardous substances from our operations. O To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and envi
11、ronment. Q To promote these principles and practices by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of similar raw materials, petroleum products and wastes. API DR*351 96 m 0732290 0553bl19 816 Proceedings: Workshop to identify Promising Techn
12、ologies for the Treatment of Produced Water Toxicity Health and Environmental Sciences Departmental Report No. DR351 PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT BY: PARSONS ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC. JOHN Bons, PROJECT MANAGER JAMES SALISBURY, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST 1052 1 ROSENHAVEN STREET FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030 JANU
13、ARY 1995 American Petroleum 11 Institute API DR*353 96 = 0732290 0553636 699 FOREWORD API PUBLICATIONS NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. API IS NOT UNDERTAKING To MEET THE DUT
14、IES OF EMPLOYERS, MANUFAC- TURERS, OR SUPPLIERS TO WARN AND PROPERLY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTAKING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY API PUBLICATION IS TO BE CONST
15、RUED AS GRANTING ANY RIGHT, BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE MANU- FACTURE, SALE, OR USE OF ANY METHOD, APPARATUS, OR PRODUCT COV- ERED BY LETTERS PATENT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LETERS PATENT. THE PUBLICATION BE CONSTRUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABIL- C
16、opyright O 1996 American Petroleum institute ii API DR*353 9b 0732290 O553637 525 W ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS OF TIME AND EXPERTISE DURING THIS STUDY AND IN THE PREPARATiON OF THIS REPORT. API STAFF CONTACT Alexis Steen, Health and Environmental Scie
17、nces MEMBERS OF THE API W, WORK GROW Joe Smith (Chairman), Exxon Production Research Company Kris Bansal, Conoco Stanley Curtice, Texaco Philip Dom, Shell Development Company Tracy Fowler, Exxon Production Research Company Jerry Hall, Texaco Research and Design Sung-I Johnson, Phillips Petroleum Com
18、pany Zara Khatib, Shell Development Company Gary Rausina, Chevron Research and Technology Company Lawrence Reitsema, Marathon Oil Company Grateful thanks are also extended to the workshop facilitator, Dr. Eric Snider, P.E. (Clemson University), and to the expert speakers and other workshop attendees
19、 without whose participation the workshop would not have been possible. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The American Petroleum Institute (API) sponsored a workshop (October 1 1-1 2, 1994) to address produced water toxicity limits and potential treatment methods. Organized by APls Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
20、 (TRE) workgroup, the workshop brought together experts in the fields of toxicology and engineering to: 0 identify technologies that could potentially be used to reduce the toxicity of produced water (Pw) discharges; and o review and evaluate the technical feasibility and economics of using these tr
21、eatment technologies on offshore platforms. The first day of the workshop consisted of presentations on (I) the characteristics and toxicity of produced water, (2) results of tests to identify the causes of PW toxicity using Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) procedures, and (3) engineering co
22、nstraints impacting offshore produced water treatment. In addition, technical information was presented on five candidate treatment technologies: membrane filtration, carbon adsorption, chemical oxidation, stripping/extraction, and ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. The Day 1 presentations included the f
23、ollowing major points: Produced water is variable in composition and flow, but typically has high salinity (9% or greater) and high temperature (up to 14OOC) and contains a variety of compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, hydrocarbons, carboxylic acids, phenols, heavy metals and radium. Ph
24、ase I TIE procedures have been applied to produced water to characterize the properties of the major fractions contributing to toxicity. This testing indicated that the causes of PW toxicity vary depending on the source. TIE procedures have identified a variety of components contributing to PW toxic
25、ity including: particulates, salinity; volatile compounds; extractable organics (acidic, basic, neutral); and compounds affected by pH adjustment. Some individual components were tentatively identified, including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. The integrity of the sample is a concern when testing tre
26、atment technologies, because PW characteristics (reduced materials, high pressure, high temperature) may change when exposed to the atmosphere. ES-1 API DRa351 96 = 0732290 0553619 3T8 = o Offshore platforms, as sites for water treatment, have more stringent space, weight, and logistical limitations
27、 than onshore treatment facilities. o Each of the technologies being considered for treatment of produced water toxicity has been successfully applied to onshore treatment of industrial wastes, which are sometimes similar to produced water in composition. On the second day of the workshop, workgroup
28、s evaluated each candidate technology, including a sixth potential technology, biological treatment, identified on Day 1, The workgroup findings and recommendations were summarized in a discussion session at the end of Day 2. The Day 2 workgroups considered information provided on Day 1 during their
29、 evaluations of each technologys applicability for the offshore treatment of produced water. A technology checklist centered attention on the primary areas of interest, including the types of toxicants that might be removed, equipment specifications, operational status and potential for improvement,
30、 costs, and recommendations for research. Strengths of the technologies include their efficiency in removing potential produced water toxicants and, in some cases, the ability to handle variable feed streams. Weaknesses include the generation of waste streams that may require disposal, large size an
31、d weight requirements of the technologies, power requirements, and fouling and scaling potential. Treatment costs were compared primarily to the costs of reinjecting the produced water. Recommendations for additional research were summarized in a final discussion session on the second day of the Wor
32、kshop. Testing of the effect of emerging treatment technologies on PW toxicity was cited as a primary research need. A closer alignment between TIE procedures and treatability studies of the technologies was recommended. An approach was recommended for testing on several produced waters in the Gulf
33、of Mexico to develop case study information. The suggested approach involved adapting the TIE procedures to more closely approximate the treatment technologies, offshore pilot testing to confirm toxicity reduction, and final testing to develop design and operating criteria. In summary, the Workshop
34、reviewed technologies potentially capable of treating produced water toxicity in offshore applications. All of the technologies discussed have the potential to be used for produced water toxicity treatment; but, in all cases, further research and bench- and pilot-scale testing is necessary to invest
35、igate their effectiveness in this application. To date, none of the technologies have been specifically tested for their ability to reduce toxicity in produced water. ES-2 API DR*35L b 0732290 0553b20 OlT TABLE OF CONTENTS Pane EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . e5-1 1 . INTRODUCTION . 1-1 PURPOSE 1-1 ORGANIZATION
36、 OF THE PROCEEDINGS 1-2 2 . TECHNICAL BACKGROUND 2-1 PRODUCED WATER DISCHARGE 2-1 Toxicity Limits for Produced Water 2-1 Proposed Effluent Toxicity Targets 2-3 Produced Water Toxicants . 2-3 Produced Water Composition . 2-4 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS FOR OFFSHORE PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT 2-5 3 . PRO
37、CEEDINGS. DAY 1 . OCTOBER 11. 1994 . 3-1 OVERVIEW . 3-1 DERIVATION. COMPOSITION AND MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCED WATERS 3-2 Source of Produced Water . 3-2 Composition of Produced Water . 3-2 Properties and Characteristics of Produced Water 3-3 Chemical Additives . 3-3 Conclusions 3-4 TOXICOLOGICAL EVALUAT
38、ION OF PRODUCED WATEWEFFECTS OF ION COMPOSITION ON TOXICITY . 3-5 Why Toxicity is Used as a Monitoring Tool 3-5 How Toxicity is Measured 3-5 Toxicity Identification Evaluation . 3-6 Ion Composition of Produced Water . 3-7 API DRL351 96 = 0732290 0553b21 T5b m Section TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Pa
39、ae PROCEEDINGS. DAY 1 . OCTOBER 11. 1994 (Cont) RESULTS OF TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION STUDIES ON PRODUCED WATERS . 3-9 Background to the API TIE Study 3-9 Methods . 3-9 Results . Produced Water Toxicants 3-10 INTEGRATING TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION INTO TREATMENT SELECTION AND DESIGN 3-12 Caus
40、es of Toxicity . 3-12 Effluent Treatment and Toxicity 3-12 Effluent Characteristics 3-13 On-site Testing 3-13 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT: ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS ANDCONSTRAINTS 3-14 Background 3-14 Goals of Offshore Production Facilities . 3-14 Basic Treatment Requirements 3-15 Cost and space Limitat
41、ions on Typical Offshore Platforms . 3-16 Conclusions 3-17 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 3-18 MEMBRANE FILTRATION . 3-20 Background 3-20 Performance of Membranes 3-20 Membranes and Fouling . 3-20 Costs of Membrane Treatment 3-20 Experiences with Membranes and Produced Water . 3-21 Ideas for the Future
42、 3-21 CARBON ADSORPTION 3-22 API DRw351 96 0732290 O553622 992 = TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Paae PROCEEDINGS. DAY 1 . OCTOBER 11. 1994 (Cont) Background 3-22 Pretreatment Requirements . 3-22 Typical Specifications and Costs . 3-23 CHEMICAL OXIDATION 3-24 Background 3-24 Chemical Reactions 3-24 Ex
43、perimentation . 3-25 Economics of Chemical Oxidation 3-26 STRIPPING/EXTRACTION 3-27 Background 3-27 Removal Efficiency Data . 3-27 Problems with Air Stripping of Produced Water . 3-28 Design of a Packed Tower . 3-28 Costs of Air Stripping . 3-29 UV/OXIDATI ON 3-30 Background 3-30 Experience with UVl
44、Oxidation . 3-30 Design of a UV/Oxidation System 3-31 Problems with UV/Oxidation 3-31 Costs of UV/Oxidation . 3-31 TECHNOLOGY SELECTION AND COSTS . 3-33 Background 3-33 The Produced Water Management Options Model 3-33 Results of the Model 3-34 Miscellaneous Comments 3-34 Conclusions 3-35 ROUNDTABLE
45、DISCUSSION 3-35 API DR*351, 96 m 0732290 0553623 829 m TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 4 . WORKGROUP SESSIONS. DAY 2 . OCTOBER 12. 1994 . 4-1 OVERVIEW . 4-1 DEFINING THE TREATMENT SCENARIO . 4-1 COMPARISON OF THE TOXICITY TREATMENT CAPABILITIES OF THE TECHNOLOGIES . 4-3 How well does the
46、technology treat specific chemical groups? . . 4-3 Is additional chemical usage necessary to reduce toxicity? 4-5 COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGY SPECIFICATIONS 4-6 What are the equipment specifications? 4-6 OPERATIONAL STATUS AND POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT . 4-7 What is the technologys current operational
47、state? 4-7 Are there any toxicity reduction performance data? 4-9 What is the potential for technology improvement? 4-11 What are the advantages and disadvantages of the technologies? 4-13 Describe any side effects from the use of the technology . 4-14 Consider the appropriateness. or necessity. of
48、sequential use of treatment technologies 4-14 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE TECHNOLOGIES . . 4-1 1 Cost Evaluation . 4-15 5 . SUMMARY DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH . 5-1 SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS 5-1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS . 5-1 Incorporating Toxicity Reduction Testing in Tec
49、hnology . 5-1 Linking TIE Testing to Treatability Studies 5-2 Sampling Procedures . 5-3 WORKGROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 5-3 Section 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Pane REFERENCES . R-1 APPENDIX A DETAILED WORKGROUP SESSION DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 API DR*351 76 0732270 0553625 bT1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Relative Composition of Produced Water . 3-3 3.2 Schematic Diagram of a Fluid Processing System for Offshore Platform . . 3-15 3.3 Oxidation Pathways for Reaction of Hydrogen Peroxide Section 3 Presents the Day 1 proceedings, incl
