Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
LW, Thiol-SAMMS
, Mar System
Sorbster
(Polyamide), Koch membranes, Memtek
, GE ZeeWeed
, Siemens Memcore
CP 240,
JelCleer
.
2
2
Blue PRO is not strictly a filtration technology but utilizes a hybrid reactive filtration technology that combines
filtration, adsorption, and co-precipitation to reduce both particulate and dissolved mercury.
April 10, 2012 Draft 14 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Microfiltration [GE Osmonics (PVDF)], ultrafiltration (Koch), nanofiltration [GE Osmonics
(thin film)], reverse osmosis [GE Osmonics (Polyamide)], and a hybrid reactive filtration
technology (Blue PRO) have been shown to be effective in achieving mercury concentrations
below 1.3 ppt at the bench scale using wastewater with mercury primarily in the particulate form
(Argonne 2011; Purdue 2010). Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis technologies, however,
required lower operating pressures (300 psi) to improve flux and fouling rates and meet the 1.3
ppt limit; this finding suggests that pretreatment may be required to remove potential foulants,
maintain stable operations, and obtain higher flux rates (Argonne 2011).
A few filtration products have been tested at the pilot scale for the ability to remove mercury to
levels below 1.3 ppt. As part of the multi-year study conducted by Argonne National Laboratory
and Purdue University, pilot tests using refinery wastewater were completed with Blue PRO and
ZeeWeed (using PVDF for ultrafiltration). Results of the Argonne/Purdue pilot tests confirmed
the ability of Blue PRO and ZeeWeed to remove particulate mercury from refinery wastewater to
levels below 1.3 ppt (Purdue 2012). In the pilot tests, ZeeWeed consistently met the 1.3 ppt limit
with influent mercury concentrations ranging from approximately 2 ppt to 19 ppt. Blue PRO met
the 1.3 ppt limit 92% of the 97-day trial period with influent mercury concentrations ranging
from approximately 2 ppt to 24 ppt. A spike in mercury levels occurred with the Blue PRO
technology, which appeared to be controlled by the addition of chemical reagent (Nalmet 1689).
Further testing of Blue PRO technology is needed to confirm whether chemical addition can
consistently maintain effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt (Purdue 2012).
Pilot tests using the same technologies, ZeeWeed and Blue PRO, on municipal wastewater
provided the opposite results. Neither technology was effective in meeting the 1.3 ppt limit in
pilot tests conducted at the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) in Duluth,
Minnesota (Ballavance 2012).
3
The difference in results between the Argonne/Purdue pilot tests
and the pilot tests at WLSSD can be explained by the difference between the industrial and
municipal wastewaters tested. WLSSD wastewater contains dissolved mercury whereas the
refinery wastewater does not. WLSSD wastewater also contained a higher concentration of
colloids that caused the membranes to foul more frequently. The different characteristics of
industrial and municipal wastewaters may require different technologies to effectively remove
mercury to levels below 1.3 ppt. Filtration technologies are primarily effective at reducing
particulate mercury and may not be effective when dissolved mercury is present in municipal
wastewater.
Additional pilot tests using Blue PRO technology were conducted at municipal wastewater
treatment plants in northeast Minnesota (Hibbing, North Koochiching Area, and Virginia). The
pilot tests demonstrated the effectiveness of Blue PRO technology in achieving effluent mercury
levels on the order of 1 ppt (Ballavance 2012).
4
In addition to bench-scale and pilot tests, information collected from vendors for this report
indicate that commercially available technologies are capable of meeting the 1.3 ppt standard.
Blue PRO technology has been reported to achieve effluent mercury concentrations below 1 ppt
3
Details of the pilot tests at WLSSD are governed by non-disclosure agreements and require written permission
from the technology vendors to disclose publicly.
4
Details of the pilot tests are governed by non-disclosure agreements and require written permission from the
technology vendor to disclose publicly.
April 10, 2012 Draft 15 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
at full-scale installations. ZeeWeed technology has been reported to achieve metal removal
efficiencies greater than 99% depending on influent levels and forms of mercury present. With
99% removal efficiency, ZeeWeed units treating water containing mercury at concentrations of
100 ppt or less would achieve effluent mercury levels of 1.0 ppt or less, depending on the forms
of mercury present. However, the achievement of 1.3 ppt by full-scale ZeeWeed units in
operation could not be confirmed in this investigation. No data on the effectiveness of other
filtration products in full-scale operation were obtained.
Filtration Costs
Several filtration products are commercially available to remove mercury from wastewater.
Many vendors have variants of filtration systems that use different filtration products or
pretreatment steps to reach low levels of mercury in effluent at a wide variety of flow size
operations. Filtration technology costs in this analysis include filtration products whose primary
treatment step is filtration. The cost components for installing and operating a filtration
technology system for the treatment of mercury include:
Cost of construction or purchase of filtration housing infrastructure.
Initial purchase of filtration media, normally priced by unit area.
Pretreatment steps that are included in hybrid systems.
Cleaning and/or replacement of filtration media during operation.
Waste disposal of filtered material and spent media.
Some treatment plants may have the necessary infrastructure to install modern filtration media
for immediate use, making capital expenditure costs more variable than for adsorption systems,
depending on initial site conditions. Costs also vary by type of filtration technique used for
example, costs for upgrading from standard filtration to microfiltration may not scale in the same
way as upgrading to nanofiltration. One advantage to filtration systems is that they incur
significantly lower power consumption costs than other technologies. However, filtration
systems carry the risk of potentially higher repair expenses when filters are fouled or damaged
by larger debris. In this analysis, filtration costs include pretreatment steps or other treatment
methods when they are part of a hybrid filtration system. Depending on the characteristics of a
specific wastewater stream, additional treatment methods may be needed to achieve 1.3 ppt
mercury levels, with an associated impact on costs.
Cost data on a variety of filtration systems from the literature were aggregated with quotes from
filtration technology vendors. In addition to the initial cost of the filtration system and media,
capital costs include necessary installation, construction, or retrofit costs for the system, as
quoted from vendors, cited in the literature, or estimated using EPA industry standard cost curves
(USEPA 1979). Based on the aggregated data, cost curves for filtration were estimated using
fractional polynomial regression. The relationship between facility flow size, measured in
MGD, and estimated average capital costs of filtration systems is shown in Figure 4 with a 95%
confidence interval around the predicted costs. Predicted capital costs were estimated over the
range of available facility sizes where cost data for filtration systems were available. The costs
April 10, 2012 Draft 16 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
estimated in Figure 4 should be considered approximate values for the flow ranges provided.
Note that costs in Figure 4 are presented on a larger scale ($100 million increments) than the
capital costs for adsorption systems in Figure 1.
Similarly, estimated O&M costs for filtration systems by facility size are shown in Figure 5.
O&M costs are presented in terms of millions of dollars per calendar year of operation. Both
capital costs and O&M costs exhibit exponential increases as facility flow size increases. This is
largely due to decreasing marginal reductions of mercury as the number of required filters or the
media size increases for larger installations, resulting in increasingly large estimated costs. For
small facility sizes (less than 20 MGD), however, costs are relatively inexpensive compared to
other mercury removal methods. Estimated capital and O&M costs of filtration systems for a
region of interest (0-20 MGD) are presented in Appendix C. Figure 6 presents combined total
annual capital and O&M costs annuitized over 20 years. All estimated costs should be
considered approximate values for the flow ranges provided.
Figure 4. Estimated average capital costs of filtration systems in millions of dollars,
by facility flow size (MGD)
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
1
1
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
0 20 40 60 80
Facility Flow Size (MGD)
95% Confidence Interval Predicted Capital Expenditures
April 10, 2012 Draft 17 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Figure 5. Annual O&M costs for filtration technologies by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation
Figure 6. Estimated total annual capital and O&M costs for filtration systems
annuitized over 20 years, by facility flow size
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
0 20 40 60 80
Facility Flow Size (MGD)
95% Confidence Interval Predicted Annual O&M Expenditures
April 10, 2012 Draft 18 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process that removes ionic substances from liquid media through the use of
charged resin saturated with an exchangeable ion (Purdue 2010). Removal is accomplished by
exchanging a mercury ion for an ion from the resin medium. Once the resin is saturated with
mercury, the resin medium is either regenerated with an appropriate solution containing
exchangeable ions or disposed using appropriate methods. Ion exchange waste is concentrated
and may require special disposal depending on the contaminant removed (NDWC 1997).
Ion exchange and chelating resins capable of removing mercury from wastewater include:
DOWEX
XUS-43604
DOWEX
21K XLT
DOWEX
MARATHON MSA
DOWEX
G-26H
KeyleX
Ambersep
GT74
Amberlite
IRC 748
Amberlite
IRC 718
ResinTech SIR-200
ResinTech SIR-400
Amberlite
/Duolite
GT-73
Lewatit
MonoPlus TP 214
Purolite
S-920
Ionac
SR-4
Ionac
ASB-2
Bench-scale testing of DOWEX MARATHON MSA, KeyleX, Ambersep GT74, and Amberlite
IRC 748 demonstrated removal of mercury from wastewater at a ppt level, though none below
1.3 ppt. DOWEX MARATHON MSA, KeyleX, and Amberstep GT74 removed greater than
95.6% of mercury present in the bench-scale samples; Amberlite IRC 748 removed an average of
89% of mercury present (Purdue 2010). Bench- and full-scale ion exchange treatment of other
resins did not assess the capability to achieve mercury removal to ppt levels (ORNL 2010,
USEPA 1997).
Thiol-based ion exchange resins can be cost-effective at removing mercury because they have
faster mercury sorption rates and potentially higher capacity than other materials (ORNL 2010).
Thiol-based materials have specific and strong binding ability toward cationic mercury (ORNL
2010). Thiol-based resins include DOWEX XUS-43604, KeyleX, Ambersep GT74, ResinTech
SIR-200, ResinTech SIR-400, and Amberlite/Duolite GT-73.
Electro-deionization is a combination of ion exchange and electrodialysis that shows promise for
mercury removal. In electro-deionization, ionic components of a solution are separated with
semi-permeable ion-selective membranes placed between two electrodes (Argonne 2011).
Experimental testing demonstrated that an electro-deionization technique developed by The
Water Company was effective at removing mercury to ppt levels, and in one test the process met
the 1.3 ppt limit (Purdue 2010). However, at least five years of technology development is
needed for the process to reach commercial viability, and high power consumption requirements
may impact the cost-effectiveness of this technology (Purdue 2010).
Ion exchange technologies remove dissolved phase mercury. Current ion exchange resins can
remove anion and cationic forms of dissolved mercury, as well as mercury complexes in waste
streams containing high organic content. Electro-deionization technology developed by The
Water Company is capable of removing particulate forms of mercury (Purdue 2010).
April 10, 2012 Draft 19 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Ion Exchange Costs
A typical ion exchange system is comprised of prefiltration, ion exchange, disinfection, storage,
and distribution elements (NDWC 1997). Cost components for ion exchange systems include:
Cost of construction or purchase of infrastructure to house ion exchange media.
Systems used for the treatment of mercury are often self-contained within one unit.
Initial purchase of ion exchange media/resin, generally sold as discrete units that
integrate directly with the system.
Regeneration and/or replacement of ion exchange media/resin during operation.
Waste disposal of spent media and any byproducts.
Based on available literature data, costs for ion exchange systems are highly variable. Purchase
prices for systems at both extremes of the cost spectrum for similarly sized facilities were
observed for a number of treatment systems, making it difficult to generate capital investment
costs for a range of facility flow sizes. Newer mercury removal systems tested at the bench scale
tend to estimate very large O&M costs for full-scale applications (Argonne 2011). It is clear
from literature data that the key driver of costs is the replacement cost of ion exchange media or
resin, which loses efficacy over time, depending on many site-specific water properties such as
pH and temperature. Due to extreme variability in the cost data collected and the fact that much
of the available cost data apply to small facility size operations, it is difficult to estimate actual
costs of installing and operating ion exchange systems. Also, as discussed above, currently
available ion exchange technologies have not been demonstrated to achieve mercury
concentrations below 1.3 ppt.
3.2 Pollutant Minimization Programs
PMPs represent voluntary pollution prevention programs for dischargers to achieve mercury
reductions. PMPs involve efforts to identify and reduce sources of mercury entering a
wastewater stream. PMPs typically involve monitoring programs to identify mercury sources,
outreach to industry sectors known to discharge mercury, reduction efforts targeting the use of
mercury-containing products, and public awareness campaigns. For example, as part of a PMP,
wastewater treatment plants may initiate community recycling programs to collect mercury-
containing products or approach dentists offices about ways to capture dental mercury amalgam
and prevent it from being released to the wastewater system. Industrial plants might investigate
sources of mercury within the plant such as commodity chemicals and, where mercury levels are
high, acquire chemicals with low mercury levels from alternative suppliers (AMSA 2002;
Huber 1997; WLSSD 2002).
In some states, regulatory source reduction efforts have assisted wastewater treatment plants
pollution prevention efforts. For example, regulations in New York require dentist offices to
install amalgam separators that remove waste amalgam from dental facilities wastewater
(NYDEC 2012). In Wisconsin, dentist offices are not regulated statewide, but municipalities
with wastewater treatment plants discharging mercury at levels above 1.3 ppt must ensure that
dentist offices pretreat their mercury waste through the use of amalgam separators (WDA 2012).
April 10, 2012 Draft 20 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
In addition, wastewater treatment plants in Wisconsin that are permitted an alternative mercury
effluent limit above 1.3 ppt are required to implement a PMP, which often involves outreach to
dentist offices and other facilities that use mercury or mercury-containing products (Wisconsin
Adopted Mercury Rule Order 2002).
A range of mercury sources and influent concentrations impacts the effectiveness of PMPs in
reducing mercury levels. Pollution prevention and source control or regulatory efforts have
shown limited effectiveness in meeting the 1.3 ppt limit for mercury (AMSA 2002). Data
collected for this report indicate that wastewater treatment plants in Wisconsin reduced mercury
effluent concentrations through PMPs, but for many treatment plants, levels were already below
1.3 ppt. One wastewater treatment plant reported achieving average mercury effluent
concentrations below 1.3 ppt approximately 8 years after a PMP was initiated. Other treatment
plants reported achieving average mercury effluent concentrations in the 1-2 ppt range as a result
of PMP implementation, but not below 1.3 ppt. Despite diligent pollution prevention efforts, in
some cases PMPs are not sufficient to meet the 1.3 ppt limit for mercury (WLSSD 2011).
PMP Costs
PMPs are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing mercury in wastewater, in some
cases eliminating the need for end-of-pipe treatment options. Costs for PMPs are highly variable
depending on the site location, known sources of mercury influents, the population served by the
treatment plant, and available financial and labor resources. PMPs generally include
expenditures for initiatives that target mercury reductions from one or more potential upstream
sources of mercury contamination. PMP activities may include:
Outreach to local businesses/industries.
Assistance to schools for clean-out events.
Collection programs for consumer products containing mercury.
Support for mercury legislation.
Public outreach and education.
General testing and monitoring to identify sources.
The cost of PMP initiatives can involve a combination of labor, materials, and services that are
highly variable depending on the service area of a local treatment plant. One of the difficulties in
characterizing a standard cost for PMPs is determining a unique cost rate for each type of
initiative because the target audience for each initiative varies by treatment plant (e.g., number of
dentists, vehicle service shops, etc.). No standard amount of public outreach has been
established as a baseline for successful implementation of a PMP. Each PMP is uniquely
tailored to suit the needs of an individual site, sometimes within guidelines established at a state
level.
Examples of the different types of PMP efforts and their associated costs were compiled by the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (2002) based on a review of the cost of effective
April 10, 2012 Draft 21 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
pollution prevention programs and the cost to develop demonstration pollution prevention
projects. Examples of PMP efforts and their associated costs are presented in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Examples of PMP initiatives and associated costs (Source: AMSA 2002)
Information on PMPs collected for this report indicated that PMPs were conducted on a site-
specific basis. PMPs for municipal wastewater treatment plants were typically conducted at a
city level, and costs varied by the size of the municipality. Industrial facilities generating their
own wastewater streams typically have more limited PMP activities with lower costs, but there is
a high degree of variability in the scope of industrial PMPs, which can include costs for the
limited site surroundings up to an entire service area.
A variety of estimates of PMP costs obtained from individual wastewater treatment plants,
industrial facilities, and the literature were utilized to construct a range of potential per-facility
annual costs of PMP implementation. This cost range aligns with the estimated costs for
different combinations of the activities shown above in Figure 7. The cost ranges were split into
large-scope and small-scope PMPs. Large-scope PMPs were typically employed at facilities
April 10, 2012 Draft 22 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
with flows greater than 5 MGD, addressed local medical and business dischargers, and included
extensive public outreach components. Small-scope PMPs were typically employed at facilities
with flows less than 5 MGD, addressed source components only in the immediate site area, and
included limited public outreach components. PMP costs were assumed to include costs incurred
by wastewater treatment facilities implementing the PMP and not costs incurred by dischargers
who are the target of PMPs, such as dentist offices. Approximate endpoints for PMP cost ranges
for large-scope and small-scope PMPs are presented in Table 3 in 2011 dollars.
Table 3. Range of reported PMP costs for large-scope and small-scope PMPs
PMP Scope Minimum Cost Maximum Cost
Large (>5 MGD) $150,000 $350,000
Small (<5 MGD) $16,500 $65,000
Sources: Data collected by Battelle from individual treatment facilities; AMSA 2002.
4.0 Findings
Treatment technologies are currently available to achieve effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt.
However, the effectiveness of mercury treatment technologies in reducing effluent
concentrations of mercury below 1.3 ppt depends on influent concentrations of mercury, the
fraction of dissolved mercury, and other characteristics of the wastewater stream.
Adsorption, filtration (including the hybrid technology reactive filtration), precipitation/co-
precipitation combined with filtration, and PMPs have demonstrated the ability to reduce effluent
mercury levels below 1.3 ppt. In this investigation, PMPs were observed to remove effluent
mercury levels below 1.3 ppt in full-scale operation. In addition, in October 2011, a combination
of Captur technology (adsorption) and filtration was implemented in full scale to treat water
collected from a contaminated site in Michigan and demonstrated achievement of mercury levels
below 1.3 ppt (CMS Land 2011). No other full-scale units were observed to meet the 1.3 ppt
standard in this investigation.
However, bench-scale and pilot tests performed in recent years have demonstrated the
effectiveness of several treatment technologies to meet the 1.3 ppt standard. The state of
mercury treatment technology is expected to advance considerably in the next few years as
technologies are implemented at full scale. For example, a municipal wastewater treatment plant
in Minnesota is scheduled to install filtration technology in 2012 after a pilot test demonstrated
effectiveness in meeting mercury standards (Ballavance 2012).
The form of mercury present in wastewater is an important consideration in removing mercury.
Particulate mercury correlates with the percentage of total suspended solids. For waste streams
that contain primarily particulate mercury, controlling suspended solids through filtration is a
relatively inexpensive method of meeting mercury discharge limits (WLSSD 2011). However,
technologies that remove particulate mercury such as filtration may require pretreatment to
remove dissolved mercury or transform it into particulates that are removed by filtration. The
effectiveness of other technologies also improves with pretreatment. However, even with
pretreatment, dissolved mercury can be difficult to capture. Processes that remove dissolved
mercury, such as adsorption and precipitation/co-precipitation, are typically combined with other
April 10, 2012 Draft 23 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
mercury removal technologies, such as filtration, to capture particulate mercury. While PMPs
are effective in reducing mercury in effluent, depending on the level of dissolved mercury
present, levels below 1.3 ppt may not be possible without combining the PMP with additional
treatment. See the case study of WLSSDs efforts to remove dissolved mercury, below.
Influent levels of mercury are another important consideration in reducing effluent mercury
levels below 1.3 ppt. Higher influent mercury levels (for example, greater than 20 ppt) are more
difficult to reduce below 1.3 ppt (Purdue 2010). Technologies with a removal efficiency of 99%,
for example, require influent mercury concentrations of 100 ppt (or 0.1 ppb) or less to achieve
mercury levels on the order of 1.0 ppt.
The characteristics of individual wastewater streams, such as suspended solids and nutrients, also
impact the cost and effectiveness of mercury treatment technologies. Municipal effluents have
very different characteristics from industrial wastewaters, and municipal wastewater may contain
organic matter with a high potential to foul treatment technologies or otherwise interfere with the
chemistry of treatment technologies. To properly evaluate treatment potential and cost,
prospective treatment technologies must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the treatment
plan under consideration (Dean and Mason 2009). The difference between industrial and
municipal wastewater was demonstrated by the contrary results observed when the same
technologies were tested using industrial wastewater (by Argonne/Purdue) and municipal
wastewater (WLSSD).
PMPs provide a cost-effective method of reducing mercury in wastewater. A PMP alone may or
may not be able to achieve mercury levels below 1.3 ppt, depending on influent mercury
concentrations and the forms of mercury present. However, PMPs can reduce influent mercury
concentrations to a level that makes treatment technologies more cost-effective in meeting the
1.3 ppt limit than if a technology were implemented alone. Treatment technologies are generally
less costly for lower influent mercury concentrations, and are more likely to achieve desired
levels.
Case Study of Efforts to Remove Dissolved Mercury from Wastewater Effluent
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) in Duluth, Minnesota, has maintained a
mercury source reduction program or PMP since the early 1990s. WLSSD reported
achieving average effluent mercury concentrations in the range 1 to 5 ppt during 2010 with
total mercury levels at times below 1.3 ppt (WLSSD 2011). Reductions achieved through
WLSSDs PMP appear to impact particulate mercury levels; WLSSD reported that dissolved
mercury content represents the majority of total mercury concentrations and remains
problematic (WLSSD 2011). To further reduce effluent mercury concentrations, WLSSD
conducted pilot tests of reactive filtration and ultrafiltration treatment technologies in 2010
and 2011, respectively. Neither technology was able to consistently capture dissolved
mercury to achieve the 1.3 ppt limit (B. Ballavance, personal communication 2012). Results
of the pilot tests underscore the variability of mercury treatment technologies and the
significance of the fraction of dissolved mercury and other characteristics of the wastewater
stream in designing systems to achieve effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt. Removing
dissolved mercury remains a challenge for WLSSD.
April 10, 2012 Draft 24 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
When a PMP is not effective, the main types of mercury treatment technologies currently
available for achieving effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt are filtration, adsorption, and
precipitation/co-precipitation. Bioremediation processes, including constructed treatment
wetland systems and microbial bioreactors, have achieved high levels of mercury removal but
have not demonstrated effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt. Likewise, ion exchange and
chelating resins have not been demonstrated to achieve mercury levels below 1.3 ppt.
Preliminary bench-scale testing of electro-deionization suggested that the technique could meet
the 1.3 ppt limit. However, the technology was several years from commercial viability
(Purdue 2010).
Of the three main mercury treatment technologies, filtration primarily removes particulate
mercury associated with solids, while precipitation/co-precipitation and adsorption technologies
remove dissolved phase mercury. The findings of this investigation suggest that a combination
of technologies is required to capture both particulate and dissolved forms of mercury to achieve
effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt.
Comparisons of filtration and adsorption technology costs are presented in Figures 8 and 9. Cost
data were collected primarily from pilot tests and the literature. Limited vendor data was
supplied. Costs obtained for chemical treatment systems were insufficient to compare with the
costs of filtration and adsorption technologies. Figures 8 and 9 compare the capital and annual
O&M costs, respectively, for filtration and adsorption technologies for facility flow sizes less
than 80 MGD.
For smaller facility sizes, estimated capital costs for filtration remain lower than adsorption
system costs. However, for sufficiently large flow sizes (beginning at approximately 40 MGD),
filtration systems experience exponentially higher cost-scaling to meet the same treatment
standard. This is reinforced by the literatures description of the physical limitations of the
technology and the increasing rate at which filters must be added for higher flow rate facilities to
achieve effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt.
The cost estimates presented in Figures 8 and 9 are not weighted to reflect the relative risks of
operating treatment systems outside the conditions under which the original data were collected.
In addition, the cost estimates contain a degree of uncertainty that is depicted by the shaded areas
(95% confidence interval) around the trend lines in Figures 1 through 6. The areas of uncertainty
in adsorption and filtration costs overlap across much of the estimated cost trend for lower
facility flow sizes, indicating that actual costs may be significantly higher or lower than the
predicted trend line. Actual costs and removal effectiveness will vary by facility depending on
influent levels of mercury, the fraction of dissolved mercury and suspended solids in influent and
effluent, and other characteristics of the wastewater being treated. The costs estimated in
Figures 8 and 9 should be considered approximate values for the flow ranges provided.
Additional costs may be incurred prior to purchase and installation for pilot testing to assess the
effectiveness of a particular technology at a treatment plant.
April 10, 2012 Draft 25 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Figure 8. Comparison of estimated capital costs for filtration and adsorption
systems in millions of dollars, by facility flow size
Figure 9. Comparison of estimated annual O&M costs for filtration and adsorption
systems in millions of dollars, by facility flow size
April 10, 2012 Draft 26 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Another way to compare the cost effectiveness of mercury treatment systems is to calculate the
cost per gallon of wastewater treated for each system observation and to summarize the
distribution of unit costs by system type. To assess this metric, capital investment costs for a
treatment system are annuitized across a finite system lifetime. A conservative estimate of
system lifetime of 20 years of active use was assumed for each observation, with a 7% discount
rate using standard costing analysis methodology (USEPA 1992). The annuitized yearly capital
cost was added to annual O&M expenditures to calculate a total yearly cost of system
implementation, which was then compared to the number of gallons treated per year. Table 4
summarizes the results of this calculation.
Table 4. Mean yearly cost per gallon of wastewater treated by adsorption and
filtration systems over a 20-year lifetime, across all facility flow sizes (0 to
80 MGD)
Technology Type
Mean Cost per Gallon
per Year
Standard Deviation
Filtration $0.026 0.077
Adsorption $0.018 0.042
Across the entire range of treatment system data for all facility sizes with available cost data,
adsorption technologies display the lowest cost per gallon of treatment. This is primarily due to
the increasing costs of filtration systems at high flow sizes. For smaller facilities, the cost per
gallon treated by filtration would likely be lower than the cost per gallon treated by adsorption.
5.0 References
Agarwal, H., Sharma, D., Sindhu, S.K., Tyagi, S., Ikram, S. 2010. Removal of mercury from
wastewater use of green adsorbents - a review. Electronic Journal of Environmental, Agricultural
and Food Chemistry 2010, 9, (9), 1551-1558.
Argonne National Laboratory. 2011. Emerging Technologies and Approaches to Minimize
Discharges into Lake Michigan. Phase 2, Module 3 Report. ANL-11/13. Available at
http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_Systems/Research/process_technology/PDFs/ANL_11-
13_Final.pdf.
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). 2002. Mercury Source Control &
Pollution Prevention Program Evaluation. Prepared by Larry Walker and Associates.
Ballavance, B., MPCA. Email communication to N. Sadoff, Battelle. February 2012.
Bhatnagar, A., Vilar, V.J.P., Botelho, C.M.S., Boaventura, R.A.R. 2010. Coconut-based
biosorbents for water treatment - A review of the recent literature. Advances in Colloid and
Interface Science, 160, (1-2), 1-15.
Cardno Entrix 2012. Constructed Treatment Wetlands. Available at
http://www.cardnoentrix.com/liability/constructed_treatment.
April 10, 2012 Draft 27 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
CMS Land. 2011. Fall 2011 Update. Available at
http://www.protectingourbay.com/Uploadedfiles/Protecting_Our_Bay/Newsletter/LTB%20Upda
te%2010-2011.pdf.
Cyr, P.J., Suri, R.P.S., Helmig, E.D. 2002. Water Research, 36: 4725-4734.
Dean, J.D. and R.P. Mason. 2009. Estimation of Mercury Bioaccumulation Potential from
Wastewater Treatment Plants in Receiving Waters: Phase I Final Report. Water Environment
Federation (WERF) 05-WEM-1CO.
Dzairi, F.Z., Zeroual, Y., Moutaouakkil, A., Taoufik, J., Talbi, M., Loutfi, M., Lee, K., Blaghen,
M. 2004. Bacterial volatilization of mercury by immobilized bacteria in fixed and fluidized bed
bioreactors. Annals of Microbiology, 54, (4), 353-364.
Farooq, U., Kozinski, J.A., Khan, M.A., Athar, M. 2010. Biosorption of heavy metal ions using
wheat based biosorbents - A review of the recent literature. Bioresource Technology, 101, (14),
5043-5053.
Feng, X., Liu, J., Fryxell, G.E., Gong, M., Wang, L.Q., Chen, X., Kurath, D., Ghormley, C.S.,
Klasson, K.T., Kemner, K.M. 1997. Self-Assembled Mercaptan on Mesoporous Silica
(SAMMS) Technology for Mercury Removal and Stabilization. PNNL-11691, September 1997.
Huber, K. 1997. Wisconsin Mercury Sourcebook: A Guide to Help Your Community Identify &
Reduce Releases of Elemental Mercury. Available at
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/04/03851/waste.pdf.
Laws, R.E., Byers, E., Dopatka, J., Mardini, R., McCarthy, J. 2008. Duke Energy Carolinas
WFGD Retrofit Program: Operation at Marshall and Belews Creek Stations. Presented at
MEGA Symposium 2008, Baltimore, MD.
MAR Systems product literature. Available at http://www.marsystemsinc.com/site.cfm/Case-
Studies.cfm. Accessed February 2012.
Mininni, R. and D. Graham. 2010. Report on the Pilot Plant Operations of the Captur Process:
CapturCMS Land Contract: Bay Harbor Project. Available at
http://www.littletraversebayrsg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
Miretzky, P. and A.F. Cirelli. 2009. Hg(II) removal from water by chitosan and chitosan
derivatives: A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 167, (1-3), 10-23.
Mooney, F.D. and C. Murray-Gulde. 2008. Constructed treatment wetlands for flue gas
desulfurization waters: Full-scale design, construction issues, and performance. Environmental
Geosciences, v. 15, no. 3 (September 2008), pp. 131141.
MWRA/MASCO (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority/Medical Academic and Scientific
Community Organization, Inc.) Mercury Work Group, Phase II, End-of-Pipe Subcommittee.
April 10, 2012 Draft 28 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
1997. Pretreatment Guidance Manual, Chapter 6 Wastewater Characterization. Available at
http://www.masco.org/system/files/downloads/programs/phase_ii_pretreatment_guidance_manu
al_11632.pdf.
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC). 1997. Tech Brief: Ion Exchange and
Demineralization. Available at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/techbrief.cfm.
Nelson, E.A. and J.B Gladden. 2008. Full-scale treatment wetlands for metal removal from
industrial wastewater. Enviro. Geosciences, v. 15, no. 1, pp. 39-48.
NYDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012. Subpart 374-4:
Standards for the Management of Elemental Mercury and Dental Amalgam Wastes at Dental
Facilities. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4377.html.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). 2010. Technology Evaluation for Waterborne Mercury
Removal at the Y-12 National Security Complex. December 2010.
Ohio EPA. 1997. Assessing the Economic Impacts of the Proposed Ohio EPA Water Rules on
the Ohio Economy. Prepared by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface
Water; Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation; and DRI/McGraw-Hill. April 24, 1997.
PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). 2008. Thiol-SAMMS information. Available
at http://samms.pnnl.gov/forms/thiol.stm.
Purdue University Calumet Water Institute. 2012. Community Briefing: Emerging Technologies
and Approaches to Minimize Discharges into Lake Michigan. March 20, 2012. Available at
http://webs.purduecal.edu/pwi/files/2012/03/community-briefing-final-031912.pdf.
Purdue University Calumet Water Institute. 2010. Emerging Technologies and Approaches to
Minimize Heavy Metal Discharges into Lake Michigan. Available at
http://www.purduecal.edu/pwi/emergtech/Purdue%20Phase%202%20Module%203%20Report%
20May%202011.pdf.
Sedlack, D.L., Bedsworth, W.W., Jenkins, D., Kang, S.J., Murin, J. 2000. Assessing Methods of
Removing Metals from Wastewater: A Review of Data and Methodologies. Water Environment
Research Foundation (WERF) Project 97-CTS-4.
Selective Adsorption Associates, Inc. 2012. Product data: Mersorb LW.
Soffel, B., Selective Adsorption Associates. Email communication to J. Simkins, Battelle,
February 22, 2012.
Sol-gel Solutions, LLC. 2007. Product literature: Technology for Removing Mercury from
Water to 1 - 10 ppt. Available at http://www.sol-gel-solutions.com/.
April 10, 2012 Draft 29 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
TetraTech. 2002. Technology Evaluation for the Big Spring Water Treatment System at the Y-12
National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Management, BJC/OR-1239.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Consumer Price Index. Available at
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Treatment Technologies for
Mercury in Soil, Waste, and Water. Available at http://clu-in.org/542R07003.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development.
1997. Capsule Report: Aqueous Mercury Treatment. July 1997, EPA/625/R97/004.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. 60 FR 15366. Final Water
Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes Systems.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory. 1979. Estimating Water Treatment Costs. Volume 2: Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to
200 mgd Treatment Plants.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). 1992. Circular A-94: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of
Federal Programs. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094.
Von Canstein, H., Kelly, S., Li, Y., Wagner-Dbler, I. 2002. Species diversity improves the
efficiency of mercury-reducing biofilms under changing environmental conditions. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 68, (6), 2829-2837.
Von Canstein, H., Li, Y., Leonhauser, J., Haase, E., Felske, A., Deckwer, W.D., Wagner-Dbler,
I. 2002. Spatially oscillating activity and microbial succession of mercury-reducing biofilms in a
technical-scale bioremediation system. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 68, (4), 1938-
1946.
Wagner-Dbler. 2003. Pilot plant for bioremediation of mercury-containing industrial
wastewater. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 62:124-133.
Wagner-Dbler, I., Von Canstein, H., Li, Y., Timmis, K.N., Deckwer, W-D. 2000. Removal of
Mercury from Chemical Wastewater by Microorganisms in Technical Scale. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 34, 4628-4634.
Walcarius, A. and C. Delacte. 2005. Mercury(II) binding to thiol-functionalized mesoporous
silicas: critical effect of pH and sorbent properties on capacity and selectivity. Anal. Chim. Acta
547, 313.
April 10, 2012 Draft 30 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Wan Ngah, W.S. and M.A.K.M. Hanafiah. 2008. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater
by chemically modified plant wastes as adsorbents: A review. Bioresource Technology, 99, (10),
3935-3948.
WLSSD (Western Lake Superior Sanitary District). 2011. Mercury Pollutant Minimization Plan
NPDES/SDS Permit MN0049786, Updated for Year 2010.
WLSSD (Western Lake Superior Sanitary District). 2002. Blueprint for Mercury Elimination:
Mercury Reduction Project Guidance for Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available at
http://www.wlssd.com/WLSSD_Blueprint_Mercury_Reduction.pdf.pdf.
Wisconsin Adopted Mercury Rule Order, 2 NR 106.145(7). Laws of Wisconsin. 2002.
Wisconsin Dental Association (WDA). 2012. Amalgam regulations: Statewide mandate or not?
Available at http://www.wda.org.
Yan, R., Yang, F., Wu, Y., Hu, Z., Nath, B., Yang, L., Fang, Y. 2011. Cadmium and mercury
removal from non-point source wastewater by a hybrid bioreactor. Bioresource Technology, 102,
(21), 9927-9932.
April 10, 2012 Draft A-1 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
APPENDIX A. RESOURCES AND KEYWORDS
USED IN LITERATURE SEARCH
Table A1. Resources Included in the Literature Search
Resource Description
SciVerse Scopus/Science
Direct (Elsevier)
http://www.hub.sciverse.com/a
ction/home/proceed
Multidisciplinary abstract and citation database
providing access to:
18,500 peer-reviewed journals (including 1,800 Open
Access journals).
425 trade publications.
325 book series.
250 conference proceedings
Millions of .edu, .org, .com, and .gov websites
Web of Knowledge/Web of
Science (Thomson Reuters)
http://www.isiwebofknowledge.
com/
Multidisciplinary abstract and citation database
providing access to:
23,000 high impact journals
23 million patents from 40 patent-issuing authorities
110,000 conference proceedings
9,000 quality websites
256 scientific disciplines
Google/Google Advanced and
Google Scholar
http://www.google.com
Web-based searches across diverse resources;
includes journal articles (Google Scholar), as well as
broad universe of professional societies/consortia,
online repositories, universities, state/local government
agencies, trade organizations.
Argonne National Laboratory
http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_
Systems/Research/process_te
chnology/
Research on advanced wastewater treatment,
including emerging technologies for minimizing
mercury pollutant discharges to Lake Michigan
(website and report bibliography review)
http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_Systems/Research/proc
ess_technology/PDFs/ANL_11-13_Final.pdf
Purdue University, Calumet
Water Institute
http://www.purduecal.edu/pwi/e
mergtech/
Research on advanced wastewater treatment,
including evaluation of technologies for the removal of
mercury and vanadium from refinery wastewater
(website and report bibliography review)
http://www.purduecal.edu/pwi/emergtech/Purdue%20P
hase%202%20Module%203%20Report%20May%202
011.pdf
Western Lake Superior
Sanitary District
http://www.wlssd.com/pollution
_mercury_prevention.php
Mercury pollution prevention information, including
WWTP mercury minimization plan
Water Environment
Federation/Water Environment
Research Foundation (WERF)
www.werf.org
Independent scientific research organization dedicated
to wastewater and stormwater issues
April 10, 2012 Draft A-2 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Table A2. Keywords Used in Literature Search
Key Search Terms
Mercury, Hg
Wastewater, effluent, discharge
Treatment/removal/reduction technology
Pollutant minimization plan
Source reduction
Technology-Related Search Terms
Ion exchange
Reverse osmosis
Biological treatment
Chemical precipitation/co-precipitation/reduction/flocculation
Adsorption
Membrane filtration, extraction
Treatment efficacy
Target Industry Terms
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)/Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Coal fired power plant (CFPP)
Oil refinery/producer
Pulp and paper
Metal fabrication/metal finishing/steel
Rubber fabrication
Chemical industry, chloralkali
Other Miscellaneous Search Terms
Cost (installation, operation, maintenance), economics, operational lifetime
Particulate, dissolved Hg
Screening Criteria for Literature Search Results
The search strategy identified several thousand potential articles related to technologies for
mercury removal from wastewater. To meet the objectives of this study, references that provided
specific information on the following parameters were targeted for further review.
Cost of technologies or approaches for the removal, reduction, or treatment of
mercury in wastewater from an industry or facility type of primary interest (see third
bullet below).
Efficacy of technologies or approaches for the removal, reduction, or treatment of
mercury in wastewater from an industry or facility type of primary interest.
Industries or facility types of primary interest were defined as: Wastewater treatment
plants (WWTP)/publically owned treatment works (POTW), coal fired power plants
(CFPP), oil refineries/producers, pulp and paper, metal fabrication/metal
finishing/steel, rubber fabrication, the chemical industry, and other industrial facilities
that release mercury in their wastewater. Large-volume facilities generating
wastewater in the million gallons per day (MGD) range were also considered to be of
highest relevance.
April 10, 2012 Draft A-3 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Due to the extensive body of research in the literature on mercury treatment, removal, and
reduction technologies for wastewater applications in general, literature results were prioritized
for relevance and inclusion in the final project report according to the following categories and
criteria:
1. Studies or reports that described costs and efficacy of technologies or approaches for
treatment of mercury in wastewater at the pilot scale or as fully-implemented
treatment systems were considered Key Studies (of highest relevance) for
inclusion in the final project report, cost analysis, especially studies that contained
information on installation, operation, and maintenance costs.
2. Studies or reports that described efficacy only of technologies or approaches for
mercury removal from wastewater at the pilot scale or as applied to an existing
facilitys effluents/wastewater were considered Relevant Studies (of intermediate
relevance).
3. Studies or reports that described theoretical efficacy of research-phase or bench scale
technologies for mercury removal from synthetic aqueous media were considered
Supporting Studies (of low relevance); these low relevance technologies were not
included in any cost or efficacy summaries.
4. Studies not meeting the criteria for any of the priority categories above were
considered Not Relevant for the purposes of this project.
Overview of Literature Search Results
The search strategy initially identified approximately 4,630 articles, reports, and other documents
related to technologies for mercury removal from wastewater. Approximately 2,830 results were
determined to be duplicates from across the two citation indexes. The remaining references were
screened according to the relevance criteria previously described, and approximately 1,210
results did not meet the minimum criteria for relevance to this project. The remaining 590
references were screened as shown in Table A3.
Table A3. Overview of Literature Search Results
Priority Designation Number of References in Category
Key Reference (includes cost information) 35
Relevant Reference (efficacy data only) 200
Supporting Reference (research phase) 355
Total 590
The results of the literature search included both peer-reviewed and gray literature. The peer-
reviewed literature included primary studies with original data and review studies. The gray
literature included industry reports, workshop or conference reports, pollutant minimization
plans (e.g., from local sanitary districts), wastewater management planning documents,
technology vendor documentation, and key government research reports.
April 10, 2012 Draft B-1 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS USED
IN DATA COLLECTION
Battelle is developing a report for the US Environmental Protection Agency that will evaluate
mercury treatment technologies to determine the level of mercury removal that is currently
achievable and affordable for a large group of dischargers, and whether new technologies exist to
remove mercury from wastewater. We are looking for the costs of existing and new technologies
and information on the effectiveness of available mercury treatment technologies. When it is
finished, the report will update a 1997 report that has been used as a basis for granting variances
from the Great Lakes mercury water quality standard for protection of wildlife of 1.3 nanograms
per liter (ng/L).
The data that you provide will remain confidential and will be aggregated in the report. Please
answer the following questions to the best of your ability. If you have data for more than one
type of technology, please fill out a separate copy of this document OR enter your answers into
the accompanying spreadsheet with a row for each type of treatment technology.
1. What type of mercury treatment technology is being used?
2. Who is the vendor of the technology?
3. Does the technology treat mercury in the particulate or dissolved form?
4. What is the maximum system capacity of the technology in place? (in terms of MGD (millions of
gallons per day))
5. What is the average system usage of the technology in place? (in terms of MGD)
6. When was the system installed? Or approximate number of years in operation?
7. What is the expected system operational lifetime (in years)?
8. What level of mercury does the technology achieve (effluent concentrations)?
9. What is the average treatment efficacy of the technology system? [How effectively does the
technology reduce influent levels of mercury?] Or, what are influent levels of mercury?
April 10, 2012 Draft B-2 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
10. Does the facility have any kind of advanced filtration step to remove phosphorus?
11. What was the mercury treatment systems acquisition, or capital, cost? Did this include
installation? If not, what was the installation cost?
12. What are the operation costs for materials? Labor? Energy? (on an annual basis, if possible)
13. What are the system maintenance costs (on an annual basis)?
14. Does the system generate waste? [If no, skip to Q19.] If yes, how much disposable waste is
generated (kilograms per year)?
15. Is this waste treated as hazardous?
16. What are the waste disposal costs (per year, per gallon or per kg)?
17. Does the facility have a pollutant minimization program in place? [If no, skip to the end.]
18. Do you have any information on the effectiveness of the pollutant minimization program in
removing mercury from wastewater effluent?
19. What is effect of the pollutant minimization program on the average treatment efficacy of the
mercury treatment technology, if any? Is the efficacy of the technology measured independently
of any upstream reductions in mercury levels?
20. What are the pollutant minimization programs costs? Labor? Materials?
Lastly, could you provide contact information or the names and locations of facilities that are
currently using mercury treatment technologies? We might need to contact individual facilities
to obtain cost information and mercury levels being achieved.
Thank you very much for your time. Your assistance on this project is very much appreciated.
April 10, 2012 Draft C-1 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
APPENDIX C. ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS FOR 0-20 MGD
FACILITY FLOW SIZES
To provide better clarity of estimated costs for facilities in the 0-20 MGD range, the following
graphs are presented on a lower resolution scale.
Figure C-1. Estimated average capital costs of adsorption systems in millions of
dollars, by facility flow size (MGD)
April 10, 2012 Draft C-2 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Figure C-2. Annual O&M costs for adsorption systems by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation
Figure C-3. Estimated average capital costs of filtration systems in millions of dollars,
by facility flow size (MGD)
April 10, 2012 Draft C-3 DRAFT Do not cite or quote
Figure C-4. Annual O&M costs for filtration technologies by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation
BP WHITING REFINERY
COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE
DOCUMENTATION
Prepared For
BP Whiting Business Unit
BP Products North America Inc.
2815 Indianapolis Blvd.
Whiting, Indiana 46394
Prepared By
TETRA TECH
1 S. Wacker Drive, 37th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
August 2012
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
INTRODUCTION
As part of the NPDES permit renewal process, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) is evaluating the BP Whiting Refinery cooling water intake structure (CWIS) for compliance
with the Clean Water Act Section 316(b) rule. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requires the permit issuing authority to conduct a best professional judgment (BPJ) evaluation of the
CWlS to establish that the CWlS is equivalent to the best technology available (BTA). Therefore, IDEM
is requesting that the BP Whiting Business Unit provide a description of the CWlS that includes the
average velocity of the inflow through the intake screens, as well as engineering drawings of the CWlS.
The following sections present the CWlS configuration, water station description, and average through-
screen velocity.
CWIS CONFIGURATION AND DRAWINGS
General
Lake Michigan is the water source for both water stations. At the present time, there are two water
intakes located approximately 1,330 and 1,440 feet offshore, about 300 feet apart. Buoys are strategically
placed over each intake and painted in accordance with Coast Guard specifications to protect both water
intakes from Lake Michigan water craft. This protects the intakes during the shipping season (April to
November). During the winter season (December to March) they are changed out with alternate buoys.
Although grating exists on the intake system to exclude large debris, no intake screen system exists.
One water intake supplies water to the 1911 tunnel; the other intake supplies water to the 1942 tunnel.
These tunnels are tied together near the water stations, so that both tunnels serve both water stations (see
Figure 1 of the Appendix). Although each water station can be isolated for maintenance, the current
configuration does not allow either tunneVintake to be isolated. The tunnels terminate in the suction well
located below the floor of each station. All pumps in each station take suction from the station well.
1911 Tunnel and Intake
In 1911 a brick tunnel was constructed into the lake and connected to the "old" pumping station.
The inside dimensions of the brick tunnel are 5 feet 0 inches wide by 5 feet 6 inches high; while
the wall thickness data is not known. See Figure 4 in the Appendix for a typical cross section.
The length of this tunnel is 2,400 feet from the lake intake to the land shaft located adjacent to the
tunnel flush tank. (A land shaft is used during the construction of a tunnel.) The invert of this
tunnel is approximately 60 feet below the lake water level. See Figure 2 of the Appendix for
details on the tunnel profile. A suction well was connected to the land shaft to provide suction for
the pumps in the "old" water station (this station has been replace during construction of the No.
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
1 Water Station and 1929 Flume). This tunnel is still in operation and is connected to the tunnel
constructed in 1942 and to the two water stations as shown in Figure 1 of the Appendix.
Details of the water intake structure to the 1911 tunnel are not as clear. A recent diving
inspection provided the details shown in Figure 4 of the Appendix. The intake was originally
designed with what appear to be three arms capped with cylindrical screens which fed into a
central pipe 8 feet 4 inches in diameter. Over time, modifications have been made to maintain the
intake structure in operable condition, but much ofthe original structure remains intact. One of
the screened arms is no longer present and the central pipe is now an open pipe receiving vertical
water flow. This intake provides a small proportion of the total design intake flow and is located
approximately 1,330 feet offshore.
1929 Flume
The No.1 Water Station was constructed in 1929. A reinforced concrete tunnel, sometimes
called a "flume", also was constructed to connect the land shaft of the 1911 tunnel with the
suction well of the No.1 Water Station. The inside dimensions of this rectangular flume are 10
feet 0 inches wide by 11 feet 0 inches high. The invert of this flume is approximately 27 feet
below the lake water level. There is a gate well and a sluice gate (manual or electric motor
operated) inside No.1 Water Station to block off the water supply for necessary repairs inside the
suction well of No. 1 Water Station. This will not bypass the 1911 intake as flow will continue to
No.2 Water Station.
1942 Tunnel and Intake
The No.2 Water Station was constructed in 1942. Also constructed at this time was a second tunnel into
the lake. The length of this tunnel is 2530 feet from its water intake to the 10 feet 0 inch inner diameter
reinforced concrete land shaft located northwest of No. 1 Water Station. The inside dimensions of the
"egg shaped" tunnel connecting the water intake to the land shaft are 6 feet 8 inches wide by 7 feet 5
inches high (see Figure 3 of the Appendix). The invert of this tunnel is 60 feet below the lake water level.
See Figure 2 of the Appendix for tunnel profile details.
The reinforced concrete rectangular tunnel constructed between the land shaft and the flume to No, 1
Water Station has internal dimensions of 8 feet 0 inches wide by 9 feet 0 inches high. The invert of this
tunnel is approximately 26 feet below the lake water level. A gate well (but no sluice gate) is located in
this tunnel section.
2
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
The reinforced rectangular tunnel constructed between the land shaft and the suction well in No.2 Water
Station is 7 feet 0 inches wide by 7 feet 0 inches high. The invert of this tunnel is approximately 26 feet
below the lake water level. There is a gate well and a manually operated sluice gate to block off this
tunnel for necessary repairs inside the suction well of No. 2 Water Station. This gate has a gearbox for
easier operation, and it is located outside and northwest of No. 1 Water Station close to the land shaft.
Details of the water intake structure to the 1942 tunnel are shown in Figure 3 of the Appendix. The 10
feet 0 inch inner diameter inlet shaft is reinforced concrete construction. The intake structure is welded
steel construction, except for yellow pine wood slats which are bolted to the structure to keep out large
debris. The intake structure has an internal steel framework that is not shown in the sketch and has a
velocity cap which directs inlet water towards a more horizontal angle. In the early 1980s, a frazzle ice
and biological fouling prevention system was put in place. Hot water and chlorine solution are pumped
out to manifolds running the circumference of the intake in order to reduce ice and biological growth.
This intake provides the majority of the total design intake flow and is located approximately 1,440 feet
offshore.
WATER STATION DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Water Station Nos. 1 and 2 receive water via both intake tunnels to a wet well located under each water
station. All pumps in each station take suction from the station well. No.1 Water Station houses five
pumps (including one smaller firewater pump) with a design capacity of 117.8 million gallons per day
(MGD). One pump was removed, but equipment is still in place for it to be re-installed to satisfy future
needs. No.2 Water Station houses four pumps with a design capacity of 146.3 MGD. A recent upgrade
to the firewater system included a new pump house for three firewater pumps with a design capacity of
17.3 MGD. This pump house's suction well is tied into the land shaft. The four fIrewater pumps in No.1
Water Station and the new firewater pump house operate on demand and are not often in use. The
capacity of all three pump houses combined is 281.4 MGD
Pumps are generally operated by maintaining a pressure of approximately 34 to 35 psig in the main
header and the number and combination of pumps turned on at a given time depends on refmery water
demand. Therefore, the actual flow at individual pumps or water stations is variable. Flow meters are
located at the Lakefront Waste Water Treatment Plant to measure discharge to the lake. Water intake
values are, therefore, back-calculated, incorporating losses incurred within the refmery. The calculated
total average intake flow from 2009 to 2011 was 91.9 MGD. A theoretical analysis of intake tunnel
volumes and frictional impacts estimated that 67 percent of the total water intake flows through the 1942
3
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
tunnel and 33 percent through the 1911 tunnel. Estimated flows for the 1942 and 1911 tunnels based on
this percentage split are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
AVERAGE ACTUAL INTAKE FLOW FROM 2009-2011
Time Period
Intake 1942 Flow Intake 1911 Flow Combined Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
2009 67.4 33.1 100.5
2010 61.8 30.3 92.1
2011 55.9 27.4 83.3
2009-2011 (Average) 61.7 30.3 92.0
A VERAGE THROUGH-SCREEN VELOCITY
Average through-screen velocity was measured on November 13,2009, during a routine intake
inspection. Divers used a hand-held velocity meter and positioned it along the intake plane at specified
locations, orienting the meter until the greatest velocity at each location was observed. Fifteen locations
were measured at the 1942 intake and one measurement was taken at the 1911 intake. Figure 5 of the
Appendix, indicates the locations of each velocity observation for both intakes and the corresponding
values. Average intake flow on November 13 was calculated at approximately 85 MGD. During the
period when the diver was taking velocity measurements, pumps were operated at 35 psig to simulate
high refinery water demand and increased intake water velocities. The average velocity observed at the
1942 intake was 0.26 feet per second (fps) with a maximum velocity of 0.35 fps. The single velocity
measurement for the 1911 intake was made at the center of the intake pipe and had a value of 0.56 fps.
This location is likely the maximum velocity of the intake pipe velocity field and the average velocity
would therefore be less than this value.
4
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
APPENDIX
TUNNEL AND INTAKE FIGURES
FIGURE 1 CWIS PLAN VIEW
FIGURE 2 CWIS PROFILE VIEW
FIGURE 3 1942 TUNNEL AND WATER INTAKE SHAFT DETAILS
FIGURE 4 1911 TUNNEL AND WATER INTAKE SHAFT DETAILS
FIGURE 5 VELOCITY MEASUREMENT
i LAND sHAFT
r
r---r--
~ . . . , .
... '<W'7/R
b
nON
n
Q.
CONNECTKl N
()
1911 TUNNEL PROFILE
INTERMEDIATE SHAFT
SLUICE OATE '"'\..
/ LAND SHAFT
1--"
",rww;pr:r, 1J4.-1i#QC01!.,
I ~ : I \
1
rAlION
ION
1I
I
1942 TUNNEL PROFILE
lAKE MICHIGAN
II
~
~
II
bp
10 20
! I
SCALE IN rEEf
10 20
! !
SCAI.E IN FEET
TETRA TECH EM INC
WHITING REFINERY COOLING WATER
INTAKE STRUCTURE
FIGURE
CWIS PROFILE VIEW
2
loU! JO BZ &'23121)12
"
I I ~ 6'''' - - -I
.... !
1942 INTAKE TUNNEL
CROSS SECTION
"
REINFORCEMENT
CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL STEEL
FRAMEOORK
tSTEELIl.
REINFORCEMENT
CONCRETE
INLET SHAFT
1942 INLET STRUCTURE
~
I------- 10'-0" I.e
1942 INLET STRUCTURE
SIDE VIEW
t STEEL PLATE
lAKE&onow.
bpi
WHITING REFINERY COOLING WATER
INTAKE STRUCTURE
1942 TUNNEL AND WATER
INTAKE SHAFT DETAILS
M6 JG az
FIGURE
3
0I2J/2012
OLD4"PIPE
INTO BOnOM
INTAKE ARM -"
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
000000 0
0000000
0000000
100000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
1911 INLET STRUCTURE
PLAN VIEW
6" FLANGE AROUND TOP.
Z'THICK
OlD4"PIPE
,.
1911 INTAKE TUNNEL
CROSS SECTION
FLOW
1
1911 INLET STRUCTURE
SIDE VIEW
- ---
BRICK ruNNEL
--1
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
10000000000000000
000000000000
CYLINDERWrrH
HOLES ON
ALL SIDES
bp WATER FIGURE
O
1911 TUNNEL AND WATER 4
INTAKE SHAFT DETAILS
Me
%" STEEL PLATE
VELOCITY
MEASUREMENT
LOCATION
(TYP.)
INLET STRUCTURE ON
1942 WATER INTAKE SHAFT
PLAN VIEW
VELOCITY ZONE (V-1)
A 0.32 fps
8 0.34 fps
C 0.25 fps
D 0.19 fps
E 0.31 fps
VELOCITY ZONE (V-2)
A 0.33 fps
B 0.14 fps
C 0.28 fps
D 0.18 fps
E 0.19 fps
VELOCITY ZONE (V-3)
A 0.23 fos
B 0.30 fos
C 0.19 fps
D 0.35 fps
E 0.27 fps
o
o
INLET STRUCTURE ON
1911 WATER INTAKE SHAFT
PLAN VIEW
b
I
WHITING REFINERY COOLING WATER I FIGURE
P INTAKE STRUCTURE
VELOCITY 5
MEASUREMENT
a=f2.
Attachment #2
Commentors CWIS Review Calculation Sheet
1911 CWIS
Diameter of open intake end is 8.33 feet (Applicant submittal, figure 4)
Area of open circular intake of 1911 intake =pi*r*r
= 3.1416 * 4.17 * 4.17
= 55 square feet
1911 CWIS intake facial plane normal velocity from diver measurement =0.56 ft / sec
Volumetric rate of flux of flow through 1911 intake facial plain =
=(55 sq ft) * (0.56 ft/sec) * (3600 sec/hr) * (24 hr/day) * (7.48 gal/cub ft) * (MG/1E+06 Gal)
=19.9 MGD for November 13, 2009 Applicant Operations - 1911 intake flow volume.
1942 CWIS Intake area
Through geometric calculations on measurements taken from drawings in Applicants CWIS
documentation, Commentors determine that Applicants 1942 CWIS intake consists of eight
identical trapezoidal shaped area elements with the dimensions shown in area A in the attached
drawing.
Area of Area A of trapezoid =50.2 sq ft
Area of Area B from circular arc is estimated through calculating direct vertical view projection
area of arc = 10 sq feet
Total area of one of eight identical intake facial plane elements = 60 sq feet
Total area of all 1942 CWIS facial intake inlet facial plane elements = 480 sq feet
1942 CWIS intake facial plane normal velocity from diver measurement =
= 0.26 ft/sec (average); or 0.35 ft/sec (maximum); or 0.14 ft/sec (minimum)
Approximation of volumetric rate of flux of flow
through total area of 1942 intake facial plain under average
facial plane normal velocity of 0.26 ft/sec =
=(480 sq ft) * (0.26 ft/sec) * (3600 sec/hr) * (24 hr/day) * (7.48 gal/cub ft) * (MG/1E+06 Gal)
=80.7 MGD for November 13, 2009 Applicant Operations - 1942 intake flow volume
(Calculated at average normal facial velocity)
Approximation of volumetric rate of flux of flow
through total area of 1942 intake facial plain under maximum diver-measured
facial plane normal velocity of 0.35 ft/sec =
=(480 sq ft) * (0.35 ft/sec) * (3600 sec/hr) * (24 hr/day) * (7.48 gal/cub ft) * (MG/1E+06 Gal)
=109 MGD for November 13, 2009 Applicant Operations - 1942 intake flow volume
(Calculated at maximum detected normal to facial plane velocity)
I ~ - 'i, 'J -' ---'I
I
I
~ \
I
b, .1'>-.1
\
I ~ /-;).2 ~
\
.
,
'--
....
Michigan
Inlake
--
T ",."
Attachment 3. Water Flow Diagram
BP Products North America Inc. " Whiting Reflnery
(Flows In Million Gallona per Day)
City of Whiting J
I WCE I
I
Ptliqjr
Hammond
' .36
TO.
74
TO .
~ '0 . ...
BPWhiting
Refine
Once.ThfOugh Cooling
108.4"
I
O ~ z 100.65'
Water (Olew) Exehangef$
~
j"'
Procell Units
U '.65
0
" .00
0
0
3.' 0
. ,
11.16
r ..
7.' 0
0 0
0.4 0.33
Losses
INEOS PIS
Chemical Plant
Water 1.8
0 0
~
'---l
(
OtiIf.U E
0 0
0
orcw
~ -
0
Tr.atmenl 0.33
----- ' .-
+- ,
002 86.2 0 Seoll'ltar 0 Boile,.
0
0
0
0
0
0 . __ .. .. ........ ,
0
0
0
0
- : ; 0
0 0
:
0
Sleam Condensate
1
7
.
45 0 0
0.'
0 0
o 0
Ev. potIJlion
'- .. _ .. --- ----' , -- --_. -- ......... ~
0
0
C,"ONng 0
.. ---- T
r .....
Flfewaler
. _ ... ... -
0
"
2,45
Outfall E
(
19.9
Wastewlter 0 -
Treatment Plant OOS
I 1.97
Outfall' 1.120
Siormwater I
Ballast Watlr 0.'
003&004'
Nela: ~ given as maximum monlh1y avefilge (pre-WRMP)
"Future ProjeCllo indude additlona' stormwallr collldian and routing from tank dikes In
ITF, Stalg1itz part, STF, STFA, I nd Marina Ooc;k locations to outfa!1s 003 Ind 00..
See A1tlchment10. Outfall 003 and 004 flow based on pre' Projet1 rele858 data.
LIIIIM
un. available, but not normally used.
I..
;:;----1
Emergency
I Iklrage
0
0.7
.
.. --- . - - - - . - - - - - - - - - ~
Off-Rle
2.2
Facilities
(WCEJPraxalr4.PG
- -
CavornlTermlnal)
--
"'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'2.52
R ."" .... "
0
0
Groundwater
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
Canal . -_ .
Inlel
0.'
Sanitary
Wastewater
.-
,
ADVENT
ENVIRON
CASE-BY-CASE
ANTIDEGRADA TlON
ANALYSIS
Prepared for
d
BP
Whiting Indiana
Prepared by
ADVENT-ENVIRON
201 Summit View Drive, Suite 300
Brentwood, TN 37027
November 2005
TABLE 10, BP WHmNG LAKEFRONTWWTP CXHO NITROGEN EVALUATlON
Typical Relinefy CODIBOD"
AFU Effluent COD ..
estimated AFU Eft BODa
Effluent to L.a1I.e BOD:
BOD Removal"
BOD RelnOttd=
lbs N Jibs BOO Req'd for Bloa:
800 Removed"
Nitrogen Req'd for BIO'"
Mitch 200e SWS bottoms NHl-Na:
MlIdI200S SWS bortolnl low-
MIlCh 2008 SWS bott4mI NH3-N-
May 2008 SWS bOlOms NH3-H-
MIJ20G6 SWS
May 200e SWS boaoms NH3-N-
Avg SWS BoUomsNH).Nor
7 Sep emu.nt Nitrogen"
NfU.#4 frOIfI oller ro&.Iy pI'I)ClHMP
Nitrogen loading"
Nitnlgen Req'd ror BIo:
Available N for NitrifIcation=
NKrogen In Ef'ftulnt to Lake"
I
Percent NltriflcaUonIl
Nitrogen Nlb'lft.ct"
lb. Oxygen pet Ib 80Da
Oxygen Req'd fw 8la"
Oxygen Req'd for Nitrification ..
Oxygen Req'd for Nitrification:
Tolat Oxygen Requllttd:
Alkalinity Req'd for Nitrif'icaUon"
Alkalinity Req'd for Nltriflcallon:o
Nitrogen NlWl6d-
Effluent Nitrate-Nltrogen=
Elffuent to Lake=
I.S
26,887 IbsId
17,825 1bsId
255 _
99%
17,888 Ibsld
O.05lbs
17,689 lWeI
883 .....
32 mgIl
700 ;pm
289 lbaid
2' mgIl
7S0gpm
228 .....
248 IbIId
1.868 IbSld
1,420 lbald
1,688 lblh:l
883' ....
784 IbsId
78 Ibsld
....
709 !blld
1.2 IbIIb
21,203 IbsId
4.57 Ibs 0zIfb
3,240 IbaId
24,443 /blld
7.14 Iblllb
6,082 Ibsnct
709 (bald
70lillblld
16.2 mgd
PoItCXHO
Typical Refinef)' COOIBOD=
2003-2005AFU Emusnt COO=o
Expected COO Increase wICXHO"
Eatimlted AFU Eft" CODa:
Estimated AFU Eft' BOD=
2OQ3.2005 SOD Removala:
Estimated EJfIuanllo Lake
Estimated BOD RefnO'ftd"
Ibs N Ilbs 800 Req'd for Blo-
Eltlmaktd BOD R.moved"
Nltttlgen Req'd Bloa:
NHrN from oth8f raflnary proces ... =
SWS botroma NHrN-
SVVS bottoms ftowo
SWS bottmns NHrNII
EstImated NH3-N loading-
E81Imated Nitrogen Loadlngo
Niltogen Req'd for
AV.IlRIe N for NilltftcaUono
2(1)3.2005 Perc&nt NltriftcaUorP
Estimated Nitrogen In Efftuent 10 take-
Nitrogen Nhrlfl&d"
Ibs Oxygen per lb BOO=
Oxygen R&q'd for Blo:
Oxy .... Req'd for NI1riIcaIJona
Oxygen Req'd fot NitrificaUone:
Total OXygen Required'"
Alkalinity for NitrificeUon-
AlkaJlnlty Req'd for NlltfftcaUon-
Nitrogen Nitrllied ..
Effluent Nitrate-Nitrogen'"
Effluent to take=
1 .
26,887 IbsJd
42%
38,169 Ibaht
25,448 Ibaht
....
362 IbsId
25,0&4 IbsId
O.05lbs
25,084 IbsId
1,254 IbIId
1,420 !bsld
30 mgll
2,500 gpm
........
2,320 IbsId
2,320 IbsId
1,254 IbSId
1,068 ' 1bI/d
90% , ....
103 !bald
993 _
1.2 Jbnb
30,100 IbsId
4.57 bs o,tIb
4,401 Iblid
34,501 IbaId
7.14 !blAb
8,878 IbaM
963 Ibald
983 'bold
21.4
I
T .... LE 11, 8P WHmNG L.AKEFRONTWWTP CXHO NITROGEM IYALUAnoN (MOOIFlED WITH 2ODt 2002 MAX MONTHLV "'VERAGE
2001acl20,.,.U_ PostCXHO
Typal Rellnely coomoo- 1.S TypICal RellneryCODlBOo- U
AFU EfDutnt COO 2.8.117 IbsId 20012002 AFU EIIIuent COO- 28.1'7 IbSld
EsUmIIed AFU Elf BOO- 17.m IbIId Expected COO IncruM wlCXH()co
.. "
EftIuIrd 10 L.aktI BOD 710 .... IEItlmaIecI NU EI coo- 38.189 !bald
800 ......... .... EsUmetH NU Elf BOD- 25,448 IbsId
BOD RIft'IO'IId8 17.135 Ibtld 20012002 BOO RemaVllt- ....
EsUmeced emuenllo LeJle BOO- 1,121.,1Id
ElIImIted BOO RIttnowda 24,325 Iblld
Ibl N IlbI BOO Req'd fOt 810- 0.051bt lb. N lib. BOD Req'd lor 110- 0.051bs
BOD Rel'l'lOVed- 17,135 IbIId EtUrnated BOD ~ ~ 24,325 Ibtht
NIIt." Req'1:I 101 BIOa 8571bofd NIttOQan Req'd tot BrOD 1.216 IbSid
M11U12OOI SWS ~ NH).fI-
,,-
NHyN fn::Im olhw ,.I\nery ptOC8I .... 1.420
""" MIfdI2COt sv.s o ~ fttMoo 700 ....
MardI 2001 sws bottoIN NteN- 28 ..... SWS boHoml NH.INa 3Q
-
SWS ....... _
.........
tMr 20CI SWS .... NH,....
.. -
SWS botIoms NH"N'" 900 .....
Mar 2001 SWS lICIOfI'II flow:>: 700 ....
Mar 200t SWS boIomI NH,<H_
.. 0_
Eslimeled HHs-N IoedIng- 2.320 IbIId
Awe IWS eoaomsHH$-H- 241 DsId
7 s.p Efluant NIttOgen- 1.688 IbtId
MO.H !MIn 0!Mr "a.y ,_ 1,420 lbald
NlltOgenl.oadlqJ- t,l588 IbIId Eatlmated NlUogen lOIdlng. 2.320 Iblld
Nltrogtn Req'd for Bl0- W .... NlItogen Req'd for Db- 1.216 Iblld
Available N ttt Nltrl1IcatlGn:o "1 IbIId AvlDlbfe H fot Nllrlticatlon- 1. 104 Iblld
NltrOgtn In Elluent 10 LIJcI- 502 Ib111S 301.2002 Percent NUrlIIClIJon:o 38% Iblid
Percent NlttttIcIIIons
,.,.
E. Utnaled NIIrOgen In Elnuint 10 L.akP 6131blld
Nitrogen NMIed- 3QO ,-
NUrogtn Nllllfiecp: 421 !!IlId
Iba Oxygen 1* Ib BOD- 1.2 IbIIb Ibi Oxygen per Ib BOO .. t.2 IbIIb
Oxygen Rtq'd for RIo- 20,562 IbSId OxyQtn Rtq'd for BIoa Zi,1iO IbIId
Oxygen Req'd rot NI&rIlcaIIona 4.57 Ibi O,IRI Oxygen Req'd for NllttftClllon2 4.57 IbI 0",
Oxygen Req'd lot N1triIIcI1Iono> 1,413 IbsId Oxygen Req'd fot NltrlftclVon- 1,11'22 IbIId
ToIII 0rivM "_"
2U75 DIId TOUI ~ RequlrecI - 31,112 !bald
MIDnIIy Req'd lot NIIriIcItIon- 7.14 IbIIIb AIIIIrtlIy Rtq'd for NIlrilcalJona 7.141bsM1
AIkIQtIhy Req'd fot NltrtllctUon- 2.207 IbIIId AlklII\IIy Req'd tor Nllrillcatlon- 3,003 ItISIId
................ 301 ltIlId NItrOg .... HItrffI8cI- 421 [blld
e ....... Nltral.-Nltmgen-
300' ....
Eflhlent Nhret.NJtrogeft" 421 IbsId
EDltnt to Lllle-
1 ~ ~ ... -
2 1 ~ :::.
TABLE 12. BP WffT1NO CXHO NITROOEN EVAl.UAnON (MODIAED Wmt 2OO,-2QOZ LONG TERM AVERAGE)
r
PostCXHO
Typical R.nnery CODIBOo- U Typlcal ReflNlry CODJBOD- . s
AFU Elftuent COOD 26.811 IbtId 20012002 AFU Eftluanl COO::: 28,187 IbtId
Est/matad AFU Elf BOOa 17.925 IbIId Expected COD lncr8ase wICXH()oo
.. "
EIJIIltIIt to LaIut BOOzo 489 IbsId EsUmBled AFU Elf CODa 38,189 IbsId
BOD RemovaJa
.,%
Ellfrnated AFU Err BOO= 25,448 IbsId
SOD Removed<> 17,438 1bsId 20012002 BOD Re/TlOYila
9'"
E5tIntlltd Etnuent to Lake BOt):> ........
EItImaItd BOO Removad" 24,152 Iblld.
Ib, N J Ibs BOD Req"d for Bios O.05lbs Ibt N Ilbs BOO Req'd for BiQa. O.OS Ibs
BOO Removed- 17,431 IbSld EatIrnated BOD Removed::: 24,752 IbsId
Nilrogltn Req'd for BIoD 872lbsld Nltmgltn Req'd for Bb<>" 1,231 IbsId
I
MarcfI 2OC8 SWS botIomi NJQ.H. 32 mgll NHrN from oIhtf' refinef)' processes.a 1,420 IbsId
YaId\ 2O(If SWS bottoms Bow- 1COopm
Mardl2C08 SWS boIomt NH).Noo zao llIaid SW5 boCtoms MirNa 30 mgll
SWS boIkImI ftO'oP 1,SOOgpm
May:lgQl SWS boUom. NH3N .. 24 m;ll.. SWS bottoms NHrN= ... m ...
May 20M SWS bcIttoIM ftowII 710gpm
MI)' 2006 SWS boIIorN NH3-N-
.,8 ""'"
Estlm.ted HH,-N loading'" 2,320 IbsId
Ayg SWS BoUomaHH).Hoo 2481blld
7 Sep Effiu8nt Nltrogeft8' USII IbsId
1,420 lb11d
Nltrogon Loactng= 1,888 IbSid E.tlmated Nltrugen Lm/nr 2.320 lbs1d
NItOgen Rtq'd for 8foa: 8721bsht NillO"e" Req'd for Bio= 1,238 lbsld
AvaDable N for Nl\rif"lCaIlon- 198m ... Available N for N1\ItflcaIiotP 1,0&2 Ibsfd
In Effluent to t..ke=: 117 Ibald 2001.2002 Percent Nltrfftcatlonu .. ,,-
Percent Nltriflcallonll
.'"
eatlmlled N!Zrog.n In em"nt to La. 1S$lbaId
Nl!rogen Ni1lffiad- e79lbald Nnl'Opln Nltrtfled .. 923 lbsfd
IbI Oxyglft per lb 800 .. 12 IbI1b IbI Oxypn p.r tb BOD= 1.2 IbIIl)
Oxypn Req'd for 8Joa 2O,92l1ba1d OxygIIn Req'd rot BIo<> 29,r02 lbald
Oxygen Raq'd rOt NitrificatIon- 4.57 ll)'Oi\lt Oxygen Req'd kit NltrtftcatlorF ".57 lbIo,Ab
Oxygen Rectd fot Nitrification .. 3,104 IbaId Ox)'gen Roq'd ror NlIrUlcatlona ",2t9 lbald
Total Oxygen Requinld. 2",02$ Ibald Tota1 Oxyglln RequJreda 33,921 !bald
AlkalInIty Req'd for NitrilcatJona AIkafInIy Req'd fw Nltrtnc:atlon=> 7.1" (bsII)
AlUllrtlty Req'd fer NltrtfiQUon= 4,&49 Iblild MalIni)' Req'd ror NHcatlon .. 1S,591 Q)aftj
NittO;tn NUri'Jed" 819lbs1d NitrtJg9n Nltrified=
on ""'.
EfIlu.nl Nltrale-Hlttogon- 1S71l11tts1d Effluent NI1rale-NJtrogetP 923 .....
EmuuI I
Eftluont
10 uk, ..
ElfluInl ,emu.nt Lakea
..."'"
. .,...
,
Addendum to Cas&-by-Caae AntidegradaUon Anatyll.- Prepared for SP WhIUng, Indiana,
to IDEM November 30, 2005
EVALUA TlON OF AMMONIAoN MASS DISCHARGE AFTER REFINERY RECONFIGURATION
AND USE OF CXHO
The evaluallon has been conducted using:
monitoring data on BP Whiting Refinery Lakefront wastewater operations to define
ammonia removal efficiency
InfOfTlUlIion from EPA
1
InformatJon on BP \NhIung, BP Toledo, and BP Cheny Point Refinery sour water atrfpper
performance
information on Canadian heavy crudel.
J
To avoid overstating ammonia effluent concentrallonl. evaluation. of technology-based
discharge limits and VWIfP performance ata balld on long tenn averages and monthly
average., not mmdmum or minimum valulI,
WWTP Ammonl, Ramova'
The LakeflOnl WWTP Is nol .pec;r1C8lly dHlgned 10 dograde (nitrify) ammonia. h_
conditfons do exist in the aeration tank that Blow the growth of nltrine,. and the man of these
nftrifters has been effective In degrading ammonia." The removal effictancy und for thfl Anti-Oeg
Analysis has been devetcped 8. follow.' :
Innuent: 1.668 ibid Long Tenn Average (2003--2005 operational dala)
lnnuenl: Assume that the 20032005 Innuent man Is equIvalent to 20012002 Innuent
.
Effluent: 502 ibid Maximum Monlhly Averaga (2001-2002 OMR)
Ammonia Removal Elliclency (RE) '" = (1,668-S02) 11658 ' 70% (a. on 'average')
Post-CXHO Ammonl. Mu.
Add,lon" Coking. Hvdtplru.llna. Alkylalb!) [mP8d on affluent ammon" Inc!'88l' baled gn EPA
InfonnaUon. .
The current monthly average ammonia diSeharge limit Is 1,030 ibid, which was developed for the
refinery In 1974 and catrled I_ani 10 !he cu"",,1 ponnlt. The ELG limit or 2,9711bslday crable 2
of Anti-Oeg Analysis) for ammonia Is based on the existing refinery configuration at 420.600
bblsld, prIo'lo the CXHO roconIiguratlon. The ELG 11m" being raqunled (0, CXHO configurallon
is 3.358Ibslday (based on 420.000 bblsld) 81 summarized on Table 8 of Analysis. This
Ifmi Is beJow the Water QuaUty Based Etauant limits (WQBEl.) for
The 3,358 Iblday limit fot ammonia Is determined from the posl-CXHO raconfigufBlion aruf
prooall unit feedtales (n per Best Available Technology established In 40 CFR 419). As
described In the AnU-Oeg Analysis. since uUllzaUon of CXHO wm result In InCt885ed coker
production. Increased hydrolreatlng. and Increased akylatlon. the amu.nt mo. discharge of
ammonia Is expected to be Increased according to EPA ELGa fot "bear refiD8ly conltOl
lechnology.
1 DeYelopment Document for P8ltdeum Refining ELGt
2I'1t1p:llpubs.usgs.govIfslfs070-031fs070.03.hImI
, Aa ncMd In the Anti-Oeg AnaJylit, due to lnctaased "-qUincy of recyde 01 the emue"t prior to Outfal 001
In 2003 to 2005, efluent data from 2001 to 2002.re UNd.
ADVENT -ENVIRON:BP Whiting AnJl.{leg 1 12Doc.Q8
'-
Addendum to -Case-by-CsH AnUdegradatlon Anal)'ll.- Prepared for BP \Nhltlng, Indiana,
submitted to IDEM November 30, 2008
Using the EPA assessment of refinart.. employing Best AvaHable Treatment technology,
increasing aude proceulng and doubling cracklng and cckIng capacity should result In a 226
percent Increase In effluent ammonia mau from currently pennltted levela .
. The request to Increase ammonia UmllS to CXHO ELG levels (I.e., 3,358 Ibid monthly average
ammonla) Is also neeeasary given that crude alai, Nlltogen (N) lavals will change using Canadlan
crudes. Th' CXHO crude slate Is expeded to contain 4.5 times more N than the exlltlng crude
slale. Thla percent Increase Is determined from the nitrogen content of bitumen and the nitrogen
content of West Texas Inlennedlate (WTI) crude. Throughout our CXHO Investigation process,
BP, ADVENT-ENVIRON, and othera have used W11as the -C8tch-alr for the current crude slate.
The aU properties database from Envitonment canada's Environmental Technology Centre
reports WTI nitrogen content at 0.08 percent (800 ppm). Information from the OJ Sanda
OisGovory Can"" presents tho nillogon conlent 0' bilumon 0\ 0.36 percenl (3,800 ppm), a 350
pertent Inerun (or 4.5 Umes).'
The buk of the N will end up as ammo" In lOur waler. The primary functJon of the sour water'
system Is to remove/recover hydrogen sulfide. Since the I)'Stem Is not speefficaJly designed to
remove I recover ammonia, It is anticipated tl\at the ammonia In the stripped sour water will
increase al a result of the change In etude slate from existing configuration 10 CXHO
configuration. However, exact percent InCf8818S are not known. There are no data avsQabla on
whal porcanllnore ... could bo antlclpaled due to a cllango In crude etato, For IhI' analysis.
ADVENTENVIRON has assumed a lOur water stripper boUoms ammonla...,ttrogen concentration
of 80 mgIL' Using currently configured lourwaterttripperl with a flow of 750 gpm at 30 mgILl
ammonla-N end 0 posl-CXHO flow projodod \0 be 2500 gpm 0\ 80 mg/l. on Inc ..... of2,131.7
Jbld ammonla-N in process wasl8waler II anticipated due to the qua&ty of the CXHO CIUde slate.
ArJmooia=N Influan! Mass Calcylatlon
projected InOuant based on change In reflnary configuration, which la calculated based on the
lakefronl Long-Term Average Influent adJuatad for EPA ELG for BAT Monthly Average Percent
IDettaSe:
1,668 Ibid 226% Increase:l 5.437.7 Ibid ammonlaN
Additionallnnuent Ammonla-N based on CXHO crude slate:
2.131.7 Ibid ammonl.N
Projected post..cXHO Influent AmmonlaN (basad on refinery conflQuration + change In crude
$/a1O wilh CXHO)
6437.7 ibid + 2131 .7 Ibid = 7,689.4 Ibid
Environmenr.J T.chnology CenIN (www.'k1nIn!.otpId.,.bas.s.tIA'pmp8t'UesMel.ult" spxJ. on PrcperUes
Database. West TeQllnttmledlate. Envlmrvnent ClMdt. 2001.
'8Itumtn F.ct ShHt, 011 Sands Discowry Centre, AIbert8, canadl.
I Sow water atrtpplng performance relative to ammonia valle .,. function of capacity (e.g .. .. am.
temperature) Ind pH (e.g . poJnl of addition of cauadc:). B ed on Ihe lourWllbtreonflguration for the BP
refinelte 8l'TlmOfI48 content ceo vary tom 10 moIL to 80 mgIl.. Baed on ADVENTENVlRON operfeoce
with .lmlIlr sour water ttrlppar opareUona, ammonJa.N c:en vaty from 30mgll. to 100 mgIl..
1 CUmtnt 1'8&nerv SWS !lows and ammonl.N levela presented In Tibia 10 of Anti-Deg An.tylil.
ADVENTENVIRON:BP WhllJng AnII.Qog 2 12-0ec-OO
Addendum to -Case-by.case AntidegradaUon Analysis- Prepared for BP WhIUng, Indiana,
submitted to IDEM November 3D, 2008
Post-CXHO Prcioded effluent Mass
Pro}ected Influent =: 7.569.4 ibid
Removal Efficiency :t:I 70% (as an 8V8lBg8)
}> Emuent Mess = 2,270.8 Ibid
Historically. SP has operated tho Lakefront VI/tNrP to achieve an effluent quality for BOO, COO,
pheno1iCI, on & greale. and ammonia that is between 10 percent to 40 percent of monthly
8V8I'8gB discharge limits. Only TSS haa been maf1BgBd with a margin of safety, with an
effluent quality between 60 to 80 percent of monthly average dIscharge limits. The projected
post-CXHO ammonla of 2,271 ibId is 88 percent oflhe monthly average BAT discharge IImll
Lak.front WWTP Optlons to Attain Current Ammon II'" Olachlrga Limits
Technically fable trea\mant to further reduce ammonla-N to achieve 1,030 Ibid monthly average
discharge for petroJeum refinery wastewaters Is through conversion of the existing blo1oglcal
treatment to a nltrificatlon - denitriflCatlon activated sludge ptanL Baaed on AOVENTENVlRON'a
iniUal design calculations, two additional 1.14 MG tanks would have to be conatructed at tha
l.akeffont WWTP (or the anoxic portion of tha nkrificatlon - denitrification SYltem. WIth a 30'
helght. eaen of Ihese tanks would reqube approximately 5,000 ft3i of area per lank. as wen as
space for additional piping, pump., and aquipmenl O.e . estimated total 12,000 aq ft). The BP
lakefronl WWTP does not have the avaUabla spate to accommodate thU8 additional tanka. and
placement of these tanka separate of the WNTP woukf mutt In extensive piping, pumps, and
process InefficiencJes making this option extl8mety expensive, if not. Infeasible. As land lpac819
not available at the Lakefront. ills not appropriate to develop capital and operatIons co.ls.
ADVENTENVlRON:BP Whltlng AnlJ.lleg 3 12000-00
Attachment #6