1、API PUBLX324 93 O732290 0516484 447 = GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RESIDUAL MATERIALS Petroleum Refining Performance API PUBL*324 93 = 0732290 0536485 383 Generation and Management of Residual Materials Petroleum Refining Performance 1990 Survey Health and Environmental Affairs Department API PUBLIC
2、ATION NUMBER 324 PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT BY: GAIL LEVINE SUMMATIONS WASHINGTON, D.C. WENDALL CLARK WC CONSULTANTS HOPEWELL JUNCTION, N.Y. RALPH MITTL CONSULTANT AUGUST 1993 American Petroleum institute API PUBLU324 93 W 0732290 05Lb4Bb 2LT W FOREWORD AFI PUBLICATIONS NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF
3、A GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT To PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. API IS NOT LJNDERTmG To MEET THE DUTIES OFEMFLOYERS, -AC- TURERS, OR SUPPLIERS TO WARN AND PROPERLY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEALTH AN
4、D SAFETY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTmG THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY API PUBLICATION IS To BE CONSTRUED AS GRANTING ANY RIGHT, BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE MANU- FACTURE, SALE, OR USE OF ANY METHOD, APPARAWS, OR PRODUCT COV- THE PUBLICA
5、TION BE CONSTRUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABIL- ERED BY LETTERS PATENT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LETIERS PA“T. Copyright 0 1993 American Petroleum Institute ii API PUBLX324 93 m 0732290 O536487 356 m ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THE
6、IR CONTRIBUTIONS OF TIME AND EXPERTISE DURING THIS STUDY AND IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REmm Barbara Bush, Health and Environmental Affairs Department Genevieve Laffly Murphy, Manufacairing. Distribution Mark Hopkins (Chairman), Chevron Corporation J.M. Joyce, Phillips Petroleum Company John Lemen,
7、Texaco, Inc. Richard Lindsmm, Ashland Petroleum Company Mary Speannan, Amoco Corporation iii API PUBL+324 93 O732290 051b488 O92 W PREFACE To improve the quality of the data collected, and its relevance to current developments, each year the Americal Petroleum Institute (API) reviews all data collec
8、ted in this survey, and evaluates and revises, as necessary, the data collection forms and instructional materials. Consistent with this ongoing effort to promote the integrity of the sukey findings and its utility to the industry, API is implementing a deliverate change in the terminol- ogy used in
9、 this survey. Henceforth, in this report and all future docu- ments developed in conjunction with this survey, API will use “residual materials or residuals“ to refer to what has previously ben called “wastes and secondary materials.“ This change in terminology reflects industry practices-the use of
10、 many of these materials as feedstocks or for recy- cling, reuse, and reclamation. This change helps to reconcile the utiliza- tion of these materials in our industry with the regulatory usage of the term “waste.“ iv API PUBLS324 73 m 0732290 05Lb489 T29 = TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . s-1 I
11、NTRODUCTION . 1 METHODOLOGY . 3 Data Collection Forms 3 Data Analysis 5 RESULTS 8 Response Rate . 8 Respondent Characteristics 8 Total Management Quantity . 12 Residual Generation . 12 Treatment Additives 14 Storage . 15 Total Quantity Managed . 16 Source Reduction and Resource Recovery 20 Source Re
12、duction . 20 Resource Recovery 24 Management of Residual Materials 26 Recycling . 26 Treatment . 29 LandTreatment . 32 Disposai 34 Waste Minimization Programming 36 DISCUSSION . 38 Residual Generation . 38 Resource Recovery and Source Reduction 41 Residual Management Practices 44 APPENDICES A . Ques
13、tionnaire 6 . Summary of Source Reduction Practices C . Computer Printouts Summarizing Management Practices D . Bar Charts of Managment Practices for Each Residual Stream TABLES Table 1 . Refining Residual Streams . 5 Table 2 . RCRA Permit Status . 11 Table 3 . Estimate of Residual Materials Generat
14、ed by the U.S. Refining Industry . 13 Table 4 . Number of Refineries Reporting Each Stream 14 Table 5 . Top-five Residual streams Removed from Storage . 15 Table 6 . Top-five Residual streams Placed into Storage 15 Table 7 . Estimated Quantities of Residual Materials: 1990 16 Table 8 . Total Amount
15、of Residual Material Managed (Estimated Quantities) . 17 21 Table 1 O . Summary of Source Reduction Activities . 1990 22 Table 11 . Incentives for Source Reduction Activities 23 Table 12 . Summary of Resource Recovery Data . 25 27 Table 15 . Location of Recycling Activities 28 Table 16 . Summary of
16、Treatment Methods . 30 Table 17 . Estimated Quantities of Residuals Treated 31 Table 18 . Location of Treatment Activities 32 Table 19 . Estimated Quantities of Land Treated Residuals 33 Table 20 . Summary of Disposal Practices 34 Table 21 . Estimated Quantities of Residuals Eliminated by Disposal .
17、 35 Table 22 . Location of Disposal Activities . 36 Table 23 . Comparison of Residuais Materials Generated in 1990 and O the amount of listed hazardous waste to land treatment and disposal continued to fall-a 57 percent decrease in quantity compared with 1987. Thus, the 1990 results show indications
18、 of continued progress by the petroleum refining industry. When API adds the fifth survey cycle to the database, additional analyses will be performed, which may enable further delineation of trends in the industry, perhaps even the identification of streams that are influenced largely by throughput
19、, and others that fluctuate due to other factors. ES-2 API PUBL+324 93 0732290 0536474 39b W INTRODUCTION This report for calendar year 1990 marks the completion of four annual surveys of generation and management of residual materials within the refining segment of the petroleum industry. This four
20、th year is also the last year of the baseline period that API declared as it started this data collection effort. In light of the expected fluctuations in the generation of many residual materials-that some process units are serviced every three years and that maintenance turnarounds may occur at ev
21、en longer intervals-this baseline period was imposed to ensure that information would be gathered on the natural fluctuation in generation rates. With this baseline data, subsequent between-year reductions (or increases) could be accurately attributed to either natural variation or to true changes i
22、n practices. During this baseline period analytic efforts have been held primarily to descriptive statistics. This has allowed API to simply monitor and document how the industry handles residual materials, to learn more about how materials are managed, and to trace how regulatory events influence p
23、ractices. During the baseline period several questionnaire items have been revised to improve the quality and consistency of the data collected, particularly with regard to the point of generation and its periodicity, and how the industrys recycling practices should be portrayed within the rubric of
24、 waste minimization, source reduction, and pollution prevention. This baseline period has also allowed API to contemplate the nature of progress. When this survey was initiated, the underlying presumption was that reductions in the quantity of residual materials generated would serve as indicators o
25、f progress. In many situations this is true. The collection of four years of data has documented variations in the generation patterns for different streams, and led to an understanding that even the detection of significant change may be no small feat. Indeed, only ten of the 28 streams reported in
26、 the survey are generated routinely by the industry as indicated by the consistently high number of refineries reporting these streams in each survey year. These, then, are the streams for which it will be easiest to detect a systematic change over time. There can be substantial flux, however, in th
27、e quantities of these routinely generated streams. Thus, it may be difficult to detect reductions even in these streams. Consequently, other indicators of progress need to be identified. In some circumstances, improvements in the way residual materials are handled constitute progress. Movement up th
28、e waste management hierarchy (source reduction, recycling, treatment, and finally disposal) should be recognized. Moreover, these changes address the entire continuum of the hierarchy: from disposal to treatment to recycling, in addition to source reduction. Ironically, in some situations, progress
29、may also be indicated by increases in generation quantities. For example, when refineries build new process units, or when they dismantle older units, they excavate soils. This increases the amount of contaminated soils and other waste generated. Similarly, while the installation of a segregated sew
30、er system for process wastewaters and stormwaters will eventually decrease the amount of oily wastewaters and residues, construction of the sewer system, as measured by this survey, results in an increase in certain residual materials. Compliance with regulatory initiatives designed to improve the 1
31、 protection of the environment, can also result in peak generation quantities. For example, many refineries have decided to limit their use of impoundments and ponds in an effort to minimize air emissions and reduce the generation of oily sludges. Closure of these ponds, many of which are quite larg
32、e, has resulted in the removal of millions of tons of sediments- an abnormal spike in generated residuals. Fortunately, the ongoing nature of this survey will provide an appropriate context for viewing the findings from an individual year. Beginning with the data for 1991 , API will perform a more e
33、xtensive analysis, testing to identify patterns in generation and to determine the strength of any trends observed. In addition to publishing this information in an annual project report, findings from the trend analysis will be incorporated in APls Environmental Performance Documentation Program (E
34、PDP). As pari of the Strategies for Todays Environmental Partnership, the EPDP program is designed to provide a public record of the industrys environmental performance. This longitudinal analysis of the data will enable the industry, and the public, to recognize residual generation patterns and to
35、view these reductions, changes in practices, and peaks in generation quantities from an informed perspective that benefits from the serial analysis. The chapters of this report which follow, are structured similarly to those of the previous reports from the baseline period. Following a brief descrip
36、tion of the survey methodology, the results on generation quantities, source reduction practices, and handling procedures are presented and discussed. The appendices to the report contain copies of the data collection forms, summaries of qualitative data on source reduction practices, printouts from
37、 the estimation procedures, and graphics on the management practices for individual streams over time. 2 API PUBLs324 93 m O732290 O536496 369 m METHODOLOGY The same design, administrative, and analytic procedures used to collect 1987 - 1989 data were used for 19901. Using a census listing of the 18
38、3 operating refineries (developed by updating the 1989 list from the Department of Energys 1990 Petroleum Supply Annual), survey materials were sent in September, 1991, to the respective corporate offices for the refineries. The six week interval originally allowed for form completion was extended t
39、o increase the response rate; the last survey form returned was accepted some six months later. Contact was maintained with all refineries during the field administration, with three follow-up calls placed to refineries to encourage response and through a “HELP-line“ staffed by a refining expert. Th
40、e sections that follow briefly describe the data collection form and the analytic procedures used to create the population estimates. A copy of the data collection form is presented in Appendix A. Data Collectlon Forms APls survey questionnaire is comprised of a series of short-answer questions abou
41、t the age, size, and complexity of the refinery, questions on resource recovery and source reduction activities, and a series of “data sheets- one-page forms that collect empirical information on the quantities of residual materials2 generated and how they are managed. For more detailed discussion o
42、f the survey procedures, consult API Publications 300 and 303, the final reports for the previous surveys. As noted in the Foreword, use of the “residual material“ terminology was initiated with this report. When the 1990 data were collected, the “waste“ terminology was used in all data collection m
43、aterials and instructions. API did not explicitly define “waste and secondary materials“ when it initiated the survey, hoping that this discretionary power would encourage broad reporting of actual practices. The Instruction Manual contained the following statement: Although denominated as a “solid
44、waste“ survey, if should be understood that neither this title nor the references herein (e.g., “wastes“ and “residuals? are used in a statutory or regulatory sense. Whereas PA regulations implementing RCRA have given these terms special meaning, our usage here is in a broader, more generic sense. A
45、PI wants survey participants to report the management of all residual type materials (e.g., materials that are byproducts or residuals of petroleum refining opera- tions). This includes residuals that are beneficially recycled or reclaimed, as well as material that is discarded. This will allow repo
46、rting of industry data, wherever appropriate, according to the waste management hierarchy of source reduction, recycling, treatment, and disposal. (Instruction Manual) The intent of this strategy was to encourage broad reporting of residual handling as it actually occurs, without introducing the pot
47、ential bias of experimental or survey effects, such as arbitrary definitions of the point of generation. 3 The questionnaire was provided in both hard copy form and on an automated disk, written using Clipper, a commercially available compiler for dBase. Few changes in the forms were implemented for
48、 1990. In the short-answer series of questions, changes focused on improving the quality of information collected on Source Reduction. As noted in the reports on previous surveys, the refiners have had difficulty in applying the definition of Source Reduction to industry practices and distinguishing
49、 these from other improvements in residual management practices. Consequently, to assist refiners in classifying the types of management improvements they have instituted, a new question was developed to obtain information on Resource Recovery activities initiated in 1990. Resource Recovery was defined to include activities where residual materials are beneficially recycled in out-of-process on-site or by other users ofkite. This question was placed immediately before the Source Reduction question, in an effort to force respondents to make a distinction between various beneficia
