Refinery wastewater

e
7

treatment and reuse

Familiarity with the latest technology and with current regulations
is necessary to remain competent in the area of process design.
Although petroleum refineries are specifically singled out in this
article, the processes described apply to many other industries as well.
Kenneth E. Bush. The Frank Co.

0 A tremendous amount of material has been written

about wastewater treatment and reuse in recent years.
This is partly due to the constantly changing technology in the field. Controversy surrounding the promulgation of regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and subsequent revisions, have
added to the confusion. The purpose of this article is to
attempt to tie this mass of information together for the
engineer who is not involved in this field on a day-today basis, but still needs to be knowledgeable.

Rules and regulations

The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which is
the primary motivating force in current effluent-treatment programs, requires the application of: best practicable control technology currently available
(BPCTCA) by July 1, 1977; best available technology
economically achievable (BATEA) by July 1, 1983;
best available demonstrated technology (BADT) for
all new sources; and a national goal of zero discharge
of pollutants to navigable waters by 1985. Congress left
it to EPA to define these technologies and to formulate
the effluent-limitation guidelines.
EPA published the effluent limitation guidelines for
each degree of technology [ I ] , as well as the current revised guidelines [Z],which are expressed in pounds of
each particular pollutant per 1,000 bbl of feedstock.
The pollutant parameters selected are: BOD:, (five-day
biochemical oxygen demand); TSS (total suspended
solids); COD (chemical oxygen demand); oil and
grease; phenolic compounds; ammonia as N; sulfides;
total chromium; hexavalent chromium; and pH.
TOcalculate the effluent limitation for a particular
refinery, first select the category of technology that is
applicable to the refinery. For a n existing refinery,
BPCTCA is satisfactory until July 1, 1983, after which
BATEA is necessary. For a new refinery, it is necessary
to apply BADT guidelines.* The pounds of each pollutant are read from a table provided in the guidelines,
and mul&+pliedby the capacity of the refinery in 1,000
bbl/d. These numbers are then multiplied by a size factor and process factor to obtain the final allowable effluent composition in lb/d of pollutant discharge.
Each of t h c x guidelina i s found in the May 20, 1975, Ftdcrol R t p r i n

/
The size factor varies from 1.02 for capacities of less
than 24,900 bbl/d to 1.57 for refineries of 150,000
bbl/d or larger. Tables listing the size factors are also
provided in the guidelines. Process factors-listed as a
function of the process configbration-are calculated by
taking into account the various processes, as well as the
relative throughput for each pr0cess.t

Waste-treatment processes
One of the functions of a process engineer is to decide
which treatment process, or combination of processes,
will best perform the necessary job of cleaning up the
wastewater effluent involved, because waste-treatment
facilities contribute significantly to the total cost of a
capital project. Since the cost involves also land and
manpower, future needs must also be considered.
This is often difficult to do, because regulations
change or new regulations come into effect. For this
reason, it is wise many times to institute a development
program, so that as wastewater-quality requirements
become more stringent, treatment processes can be
modified, or new ones added to improve the water
quality. As a refinery expands, a similar program may
be followed to increase wastewater-handling capacity.
An effluent-treatment system involves one or more
stages, depending on the quality of the raw efRuent and
the required pollutant reduction. The various unit processes are categorized in the following manner [3]:
Intermediate

Secondary/tertiary

Sulfidejammonia
stripping

Flotation

Activated sludge

Tilted-plate
separators
Liquid-liquid

Equalization

Primary

extraction

Ponds

Aerated lagoons
Filtration

Filtration for
oil removal

Carbon adsorption

p H control

Chemical oxidation

t A sample calculation is provided on p. 16570 of the May 9, 1974. Ftdcral

Rtgirm.

Originally published April 12, 1976.

13

14

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the primary and intermediate procesSeS is to remove certain pollutants from wastewater
before the water goes to the secondary- and tertiarytreatment processes, because high concentrations of suspended solids or oil may be harmful to the processes.

Sulfidejammonia stripping, oil removal

Significant amounts of H2S and NH3 are found in
refinery wastewaters due to the breakdown of organic
sulfur and nitrogen compounds during the various refining processes. These compounds can be removed by
air or steam stripping. Details of design parameters are
provided by Ref. 4 and 5.
A 20-tray stripper using two pounds of steam per
gallon of feed removes 99% of the H2S, 75% of the
NH3, and 40% of the phenol present in a sour-water
stream. This stripped water is normally utilized as feedwater to the crude-oil desalters.
For refineries that are large enough to justify recovery of the H2S and NH3 as products, Ref. 6 provides reported capital and operating costs for the process,
where a rate of return of 25% on total investment is
said to result. However, there is a 75% return on the incremental investment over a conventional stripper and
incinerator. Also reported are commercial units ranging in capacity from 23 to 280 gal/min of sour-water
feed, in which a rate of about 150 gal/min is probably
necessary to justify product recovery. Examples of several sour-water strippers are provided in Ref. 7.
The traditional method of oil separation in refinery
wastewater is via the API gravity separator, which is
sized to allow most of the free oil to float to the surface,
and the heavier solids to fall to the bottom. These separators are normally an integral part of the operation,
due to the amount of recoverable oil in refinery wastewaters.
Several parameters determine the effectiveness of the
separator, among which are water temperature; density
and size of the oil droplets; and the type of solids in the
water. However, only free oil will be separated; emulsions are not broken. Removal efficiencies of 60-99%
for oil and 10-50% for suspended solids have been reported [8].Details of design of API separators are provided in Ref. 9.
Another type of gravity separator finding increased
use in the refining industry is the tilted-plate separator.
This unit is made up of one or more modules consisting
of several corrugated plates tilted at a 45" angle. As the
water flows between the plates, the oil droplets collect
on the underside and move to the top of the module.
Improved efficiencies at less cost and space than those
needed by the API separators have been reported.
Wastewaters that contain a high amount of free oil
are normally treated in the gravity separator before
they mix with other, non-oily streams. This allows the
separator to be sized for a smaller throughput volume.
Sometimes, the addition of chemicals improves the separat ion.
TWO
other processes that have more-limited utilization for oil and solids removal are liquid-liquid extraction and filtration. These processes are. normally applicable to the treatment of certain particular types of
wastewater.

Contr

pH, dissolved-air flotation

Since many waste streams are highly acidic or alkaline-and would therefore be detrimental to biological
processes-it is necessary to control the pH of refinery
wastewaters before they proceed to biological treatment. Sometimes, phosphoric acid or ammonia addition is beneficial for the dual purpose of controlling p H
and supplying the necessary nutrients for downstream
biological processes (see further on, where biological
processes are discussed).
Dissolved-air flotation is normally considered an intermediate or secondary treatment process for further
removal of oil and suspended solids from API-separator
effluents, prior to biological treatment. Ref. 10 reports
how the American Oil refinery at Whiting, Ind., used a
flotation unit-whih included a series of bioflotation
ponds-to treat effluent from secondary treatment.
Apparently, chemical coagulation and air flotation of
the effluent from the aerated lagoon produced a final
effluent that met tertiary-treatment goals.
EPA reports [8] removal efficiencies of 70-85% for
oil, 50-85% for suspended solids, 20-7076 for BOD, and
10-60% for COD, for dissolved-air flotation units.
However, the API Manual [f I] refers to a technical article where better removal efficienciesare reported.
Pilot-plant tests on flocculation-flotation have shown
97% removal OF oil, 75% of solids, and 80%of BOD and
COD. Chemical flocculating agents used to aid flotation are activated silica, and aluminum and ferric salts.
These agents also improved the effectivenessof the flotation unit in removing oil emulsions.
Since the effectiveness of dissolved-air flotation units
varies substantially with the characteristics of the particulate matter, it is imperative that laboratory and pilot tests be run to obtain the necessary design criteria.
Small pilot units can be rented from vendors. Instructions and illustrations for laboratory tests are provided
by the API Manual [If].
In the dissolved-air flotation process, the waste
stream is saturated with air under a pressure of several
atmospheres. This is done by pumping the stream to
40-50 psig, and feeding compressed air a t the pump
suction. The stream is then held in a retention tank for
several minutes so that the air will dissolve. As the
stream exits from the retention tank, it flows through a
pressure-reducing valve-which drops the pressure to
atmospheric-and then into a flotation tank.
When the pressure is released, the air comes out of
solution, forming minute bubbles within the liquid.
These bubbles, which are about 30-120 microns in
diameter, form oii the surfaces of the suspended particles. An aggregate is thus formed, which rapidly rises
to the surface and is skimmed from the flotation tank.
Design details are provided in the API Manual [II]
and in Ref. 12.
Package units are available from various vendors.
Ref. 10 cites the use of surplus boxes in the API separator as flocculation chambers, and indicates that coagulant concentration proved to be important. For instance, a concentration of 30-50 ppm of alum was
sufficient to promote coagulation without deterioration
of effluent quality due to excessive coagulant.

REFINERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE

Equalization
Refinery wastewater flowrate may vary significantly
from time to time. It is very important for the effectiveness of biological processes that the volume and
composition of the feed be fairly constant. Therefore, a
holding point with sufficient residence time to even out
major fluctuations is needed. This not only attenuates
normal process variations but helps to minimize the
shock of a major spill.

Secondary and tertiary treatment

T h e following wastewater-treatment processes are
those that improve the quality of wastewater to the
point where it can be reused within the refinery, or discharged without any adverse environmental reaction.
The extent to which the process is used depends on the
quality of the raw effluent, the pollutants contained in
the raw effluent, and the method of ultimate disposal
or reuse of this water.

Activated-sludge process
Activated-sludgeproceduresare used extensively for
coagulating and removing nonsettleable colloidal solids, as well as to stabilize organic matter. EPA reports
/8] removal efficienciesof 80-99% for BOD, 50-95% for
COD, 60-85% for suspended solids, 80-99% for oil,
95-99+% for phenol, 33-9976 for ammonia, and
97-100% for sulfides. Thus, a high-quality effluent is
obtainable from a properly designed and operated activated-sludge system.
This particular process is an aerobic biological procedure containing, within a reaction tank, a high concentration of microorganisms, which is maintained by recycling activated sludge. Oxygen is supplied to the
wastewater in the reaction tank either by mechanical
aerators or a diffused-air system. Inasmuch as the microorganisms remove the organic materials by biochemical synthesis and oxidation reactions, the converted organic matter must be removed by sedimentation, prior to final discharge.
The main components of the process are the aeration, or reaction, vessel and the sedimentation tank.
Sludge removed from the sedimentation tank is recycled to the aeration vessel to maintain the required
concentration of microorganisms. Since a portion of the
sludge must be discarded, it is first dewatered and then
used as landfill.
Nutrients-primarily nitrogen and phosphorus-are
required to maintain a healthy growth of microorganisms within the system. These elements are
needed in minimum amounts of 5 Ib nitrogen and 1 It,
phosphorus for every 100 Ib of BOD to be removed
[13]. Generally, refinery wastewater contains enough
ammonia to supply adequate nitrogen, but it may be
deficient in phosphorus. Some of the sources of these elmerits are [ 141:
Water condensate from catalytic cracking units
and normally containing ammonia and other nitrogen
compounds.
Spent phosphoric acid catalyst from polymerization units; the phosphates can be leached from the
catalyst with water.

15

Boiler or cooling-tower blowdown, which contains

phosphates.
Now and then, it may also be necessary to adjust the
pH of the waste stream and add nutrients. Nitrogen
and phosphorus in acid or alkaline compounds can
achieve both of these purposes.
An inadequate supply of nutrients results in poor
stabilization of the wastes and will stimulate fungi
growth. This results in poor sludge-settling characteristics, and longer periods of aeration.
The oxygen required by the activated-sludge system
varies between 0.6 and 1.5 Ib Oz/lb of BOD removal.
For design purposes, a n oxygen demand of about 1.0 lb
Oz/lb of BOD is often used; however, this should be
determined experimentally before designing a particular system.

Trickling filters

The trickling filter is an aerobic biological device

that is used extensively in the refining industry. It may
be used as a secondary treating system by itself, whenever a high-quality effluent j s not required. This filter
may also be used upstream of a n activated-sludge unit,
to reduce the loading or to attenuate the organic loading on the unit.
A trickling-filter system consists of the filter bed with
a wastewater distributor and a sedimentation tank.
The filter is usually a bed of broken m k or coarse aggregate; recently, plastic sheets have come into use as
filter media.
Rocks ranging in sue from 2-4 in are best, so as to
get a maximum amount of surface while maintaining
good ventilation through the bed.
Beds are normally from 3-4 ft deep, and can be either circular or rectangular. If plastic media are used,
they can be up to 40 ft deep. Sprinklers are used to
evenly distribute the wastewater being fed to the filter
over the beds surface.
A sedimentation tank is needed for clarification of
the efiiuent, due to the biologic growth that sloughs
from the filter bed.
EPA reports removal efficiencies of 60435% for BOD,
30-7076 for COD, 60-8596 for suspended solids, and
5040% for oil. The efficiency of a particular filter depends significantly on its loadings.
There are two general groupings of trickling filters,
based on their organic loadings. Low-rate filters have
organic loadings less than 15 Ib of BOD/ 1,000 ft3 of filter volume per day, and hydraulic loadings of 2-4 million (MM) gal/(acre)(d). High-rate filters have organic
loadings greater than 15 lb of BOD/1,000 ft3 of filter
volume per dajj, with a hydraulic loading of 10-44
MM gal/(acre)(d).
The API Design Manual [I51reports a relationship
between organic loading and BOD removal efficiency.
Only at very low loadings can a high-quality effluent
be obtained, and it is at such loadings that the a x t of
the trickling filter is higher than other comparative
processes. Consequently, this filter is feasible only as a
roughing device, rather than as a complete treating
system. Design equations that have been proposed by
several investigators for trickling filters arc provided in
Ref. 18.

16

INTRODUCTION

Storm-water
retention

Oily
water
sewer

API
separator

Equalization
basin

Dissolved-air
flotation

Aerated
lagoon

Wastewater-treatment facility for crude-oil-toppingpetroleum refinery

Waste-stabilization ponds
A stabilization pond is simply a large shallow pond
in which bacteria stabilize the wastewater fed to the
pond. Stabilization ponds are classified as aerobic, aerobic-anaerobic, and anaerobic, depending on the type
of biological activity. Since refinery wastes are not normally suited to anaerobic treatment, we will discuss
only aerobic, or oxidation, ponds.
Oxidation ponds are normally about 4 ft deep. Shallow ponds tend to have excessive weed growth, and
deep ponds do not get adequate oxygen transfer to
maintain aerobic conditions. Oxygen-supplied by natural surface aeration and by the photosynthetic action
of the algae present in the pond-is used by bacteria for
the aerobic degradation of organic matter. In turn, algae utilize the nutrients given off by bacteria.
Organic loadings of oxidation ponds reported in the
API Design Manual [f6] range from 20-100 lb
BOD/(acre)(d). Recommended loadings for ponds
handling raw wastes are about 40 lb BOD/(acre)(d).
For ponds downstream of other treatment processes,
loadings as low as 10 lb/(acre)(d) should be used. Retention times range from 1 to 90 days. However, the
API Manual points out that for a pond to be effective,
it should have a retention time of at least 7 days. A p
proximately 30 days is recommended for an organic
loading of 50 Ib BOD/(acre)(d).
EPA reports [8] the following removal efficiencies for
oxidation ponds: 40-35% for BOD, 30-65% for COD,
20-70% for suspended solids, and 50-90% for oil. The
differences in removal efficiencies are due to the wide
variations in loadings and retention times reported
above. Consequently, it is difficult to develop any general design parameters for oxidation ponds. Any parameter must be functionally related to temperature,
solar intensity, wind, organic loading, and the nature
of the waste. Methods for relating these factors are provided in Ref. 17.
The effectiveness of oxidation ponds is also influenced by other factors such as temperature and tur-

- $Ad
filters

Effluent

Fig. 1

bidity of the water, as well as by emulsions present.

Since the microbial activity in the pond is decreased at
low temperatures, if ice forms over the water surface,
this further aggravates the problem by decreasing both
the oxygen and light transmission into the water. If this
condition is prolonged, the bacteria will convert to
anaerobic metabolism, which may result in an odor
problem whenever the ice melts. Any turbidity or
emulsion in the water also reduces the light transmission, thereby inhibiting the photosynthetic action of
the bacteria.
Because a large land area is required for an oxidation pond, such ponds are impractical, unless land is
plentiful and cheap. Their primary advantage is lack of
maintenance or operator attention, because there is no
mechanical equipment involved.

Aerated lagoons
Aerated lagoons operate generally by the same basi
principles as do oxidation ponds. Mechanical-aeratio
equipment, associated with aerated lagoons, results in
higher concentration of bacteria than is present
dation ponds. Consequently, land requirements
for aerated lagoons than for oxidation ponds
equal loadings. Retention time is usually 3-10 d.
moval efficiencies are 75-95% for BOD, 60435%
COD, 40-65% for suspended solids, 70-9076 for
90-99% for phenol, and 95-10076 for sulfides [SI.
Aeration of the lagoon keeps most of the solids in
pension. One method of decreasing th
ids in the effluent is to have a sedimentatio
the lagoon, where the water is calm enou
residence time is adequate to allow sedimentatio
the solids. Otherwise, it may be necessary to include
settling tank.
Since, like the oxidation pond, an aerated lag
sensitive to temperature, in colder climates the
formance is hampered during the winter months.
sources [f9]recommend that solids be
lagoon during the winter to improve pe
to operate the lagoon essentially the same as

REFINERY WASTEWATERTREATMENT AND REUSE

17

Stormwater
retention

Oily
water
sewer

separator

basin

flotation

filters

system

Effluent

1
Fig. 2

Wastewater-treatment system for a crude-oil-cracking petroleum refinery

vated-sludge process. In a development program, it is

very convenient for the aerated lagoon to be the first
step, so that simply by adding clarifiers, sludge-return
pumps, and additional aeration equipment, the lagoon
becomes an activated-sludge system.

Filtration
Filtration is used only when it is necessary to obtain
a very high-quality effluent or recycle stream. The effluent from activated-sludge systems contains organic
matter in suspended or colloidal form that can be filtered; typically, the effluent ranges in content between
5 and 50 mg/l, which can be even further reduced to
around 3 to 20 mg/l in a granular-media filter.
The results of filtering an activated-sludge effluent
through a dual-media filter containing anthracite and
sand are reported in Ref. 20. The solids in the effluent
from a pilot-activated sludge unit are said to have a bimodal particle-size distribution. T h e smaller particles
were in the 1-5-micron range, while the larger ones
were in the 50-180-micron range. This makes the dualor tri-media filters superior to the single-medium sand
filter, where the larger particles tend to plug the filter,
running times are shortened, and smaller particles are
allowed to pass. With a dual-media filter, much more
efficient solids removal and longer filter runs are experienced.
Typical dual-media filters are: anthracite and sand;
activated-carbon and sand; resin beds and sand; and
resin beds and anthracite. Filtration rates are in the
2-10-gpm/ft2 range, with 5-6 gpm/ft2 being typical. It
is recommended that a pilot study be done for a particular system, because filter performance is very dependent on the particular characteristics of the specific
liquid feed.

Carbon adsorption
There has been a tremendous amount of development in recent years in the use of activated carbon for
the removal of dissolved organic material from wastewater. Carbon adsorption is normally used for final

polishing of the effluent from a biological-treatment

process, but it is feasible only if a very high-quality effluent is needed. Typically, the effluent from a n activated-sludge system might be treated in an adsorption
unit to further reduce the BOD to 3-10 mg/l, the oil
content to less than 1 mg/l, and phenol to almost zero.
For most commercial-scale adsorption units, it is economical to regenerate the spent carbon for reuse. It is
reported [21] that whenever more than 500-1,OOO lb/d
of carbon are used, a thermal regeneration system
(1,300-1,800"F) is justified.
A carbon-adsorption unit consists of the adsorbers in
which the wastewater stream contacts the activatedcarbon bed; a transport system for moving the carbon
from the adsorbers to the regenerator and back; and a
regeneration system. The adsorben may be arranged as
fixed beds in parallel, or a moving carbon bed in which
carbon is periodically removed from the bottom of the
bed, and fresh carbon is added at the top. The API Design Manual [22] refers to the following design parameters for adsorben: flowrate, 5-10 gpm/ftz; bed depth,
10 ft minimum; and contact time, 15-38 min.
Of the various methods of carbon regeneration that
have been used, thermal regeneration is the most
widely applicable, because it may have multiple-hearth
furnaces, rotary kilns, or fluidized-bed furnaces. Other
types include chemical, solvent and biological regeneration [23].
Operating a carbon-adsorption unit is reported [ 2 / ]
to be about 30-35C / 1,000gal. The variation in cost is
due to ranges in carbon dosage, carbon makeup rate,
and the price of carbon. Reported ranges of carbon
dosages are 800-2,000 Ib/MM gal, with carbon
makeup r a t a ranging from 5-IO%, and the delivered
price of carbon being between 26a and 32C/lb. Typically, direct operating costs are about 12C/ 1,000 gal.

Chemical oxidation
The primary application of chemical oxidation is for
the reduction of phenols and cyanides in waste streams,
b y oxidants such as chlorine or ozone. Thcse processes,

18

INTRODUCTION

however, are applicable only to small, concentrated

streams, where conventional biological oxidation processes are not feasible.

Factors affecting treatment systems

The complexity of a treatment system varies with the
complexity of the refinery. A simple case would be a
treatment facility for a small refinery having a crudeoil unit with a desalter, a small reformer, and a desulfurization unit, as shown in Fig. 1.
Inasmuch as the storm-water retention pond stabilizes the flow to the separator, it also serves as a source
of makeup water for the cooling tower and boiler. The
API separator and the dissolved-air flotation unit remove free oil and suspended solids. Effluent from the
dissolved-air flotation is treated in an aerated lagoon to
reduce dissolved organic materials. T h e final effluent is
then filtered for suspended-solids removal.
A refinery having topping, reforming and cracking
operations is the next order of complexity. Fig. 2 shows
a typical wastewater-treating facility for a cracking refinery. Note that the only change from Fig. 1 is that the
aerated lagoon has been replaced by the activatedsludge system. An aerated lagoon can be modified to
operate as an activated-sludge system by adding a sedimentation tank and sludge-recycle pumps. This might
be a consideration for a refinery having an aerated lagoon, and needing to increase the efficiency of organicmaterial removal.
Another step in improving effluent quality might be
the addition of carbon-adsorption facilities. This is usually justified only in cases where an effluent of the highest quality is required, or if total recycle and reuse of
wastewater is being practiced.
Any design of wastewater-treatment facilities has to
consider the national goal of zero discharge of pollutants to navigable waten by 1985. Theoretically, effluent streams can be treated for reuse within a refinery, but eventually something must leave the system,
either as a liquid brine or as dry salt. For a zero-discharge system, a demineralization process must be
used. Current technology available for this purpose is
the use of either multiple-effect evaporation or solarevaporation ponds.
Because solar-evaporation ponds require a large
amount of land, they arc not feasible in many cases.
And since multiple-effett evaporation has a high
energy demand, it is not particularly attractive. Three
processes currently in the developmental stage show
considerable promise for future water treatment: reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, and ion exchange.
A zero-discharge refinery has been proposed [24] in
which the final effluent would be recycled back as cooling-tower makeup. The cooling-tower blowdown
would be treated for hea\y-metal removal before going
to an evaporator, and finally to an incinerator. The final discharge from the incinerator would be dry salt
and ash.
Other changes within a refinery are included in this
proposal. One is the addition of a preliminary, crudeoil desalting step, where the crude oil is initially contacted with neutralized spent caustic. The spent caustic
dissolves a portion of the salt from the crude oil. The

effluent water from this desalter then combines with

the cooling-tower blowdown for concentration of the
salt.
Although each wastewater-treatment problem is
unique, similar cases can be compared and ideas obtained as to what treatment process can be used to
solve a particular problem. i n many instances, it may
be necessary to set up a pilot plant to determine what
process can best do the job. Some equipment suppliers
have portable pilot-plant facilities that can be rented.
Such facilities are quite beneficial for determining the
optimum system for a special pollution problem.

References
I . Fcdcral Rrgisfn, Vol. 3p: No. 91, May 9.1914.
2. Fcdnol Regirfer, Vol. 44,No. 90,May 20, 1975.
3. Carnes, B.A., Ford, D.L., and Brady, S . , Treatment of Refinery Wastc-

waters for Reuse, National Conferma on Complete WateReux, Washington, D.C., Apr. 1973.
4. Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment, Disposal. pp. 638-644,
Mctcalf and Eddy, Inc., Ncw York.
5. Weisbcr , E., and Stockton, L).L., WateReusc in a Petrolcum Refinery,
Nationaf Conference on Complete WatcRcux. Apr. 1973.
6. Anncsen, R., and Could, G., Sour-Water Procruing Turru Pmblcm Into
Payout, C h n Eng., Mar. 22,1971, pp. 67-69.
7. API Manual on Disposal of Refinery Waste, Volume of Liquid Wastes,
Chap. 15, American Petroleum Institute ( M I ) , Washington, D.C.
8. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Ncw Source Performance Standards for Pctrolcum Refining, Dcc.
1973, p. 1 IO, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
9 . API Manual on Disposal of Refinery Waste, Volume of Liquid Waste,
Chap. 5 and 6, API, Washington, D.C.
IO. Franzcn, A,, Skogan, V., and Grutsch,J.. Chon. Eng. Prop., Vol. 68, No. 8,
Aug. 1972, pp. 65-72.
1 1 . API Manual on Disposal of Refinery Waste, Volume of Liquid Waste,
Chap. 9. API, Washington, D.C.
12. Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment, Disposal, pp. 299-301,
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., New York.
13. Dahlstrom, D., Lash, L., and Boyd, J., Biological and Chemical Treatment of Industrial Wastes, Chon. Eng. Bok..Voi. 66, No. 1 I , Nov. 1970,
pp. 41-48.
14. API Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume of Liquid Waste,
Chap. 13,pp. 13-14,API, Washington,D.C.
15. Ibid.,Chap. 13,pp. 13-41.
16. Ibid.,Chap. 13, pp. 13-54.
17. Wastovatcr Engineering: Collection, Treatment, Disposal, pp. 556-564,
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Ncw York.
18. Ibid., pp. 533-542.
19. Ibid., p. 543.
20. Ibid., pp. 644-650.
21. Hutchins. R.A., Chan Eng. Rogr., Vol. 69, No. I I . Nov. 1973, p. 48.
22. API Manual on Disposal of Rcfincry Wastes, Volume of Liquid Waste,
Chap. 10, pp. 1039, API, Washington, D.C.
23. Lovcn, A. W., C h n Eng. Roogr.,Vol. 69. No. I I , Nov. 1973, pp. 56-62.
24. Porter, J.W., Blake, J.H., and M i l l F , R.T., Zem Discharge of Wastewater fmm Petrolcum Rcfincries, ational Conferenoc on Complete WateRcuse, Washington,D.C.,Apr. 1973.

The author
Kenneth E. Bush is Manager, PrEngineering, for T h e Frantz Co., Suite
400, Bank of Woodlake Bldg.. 2600 South
Casncr, Houston, TX 77063. His
ruponsibilitia include moeu daign of
pctrolcum refincries anichcmical plants,
as wcll as wastcwatcr-treatment and
cncrgy-cfficiencystudies. A rcgisted
professional engineer in TCXM.
he is also
chairman of the State AtTain
Subcommittee of the Critical I u u n
Committee of the AlChE South Tcxar
Saction. He holds B.S. and M.S. degma in
chemical en imring. thc former from
Tcxas A&bfUnivcnity, thc l a t t a frum
the University of Houston.

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER AND

SOLID WASTE ENGINEERING

Edited by

Vincent Cavaseno
and the Staff of Chemical Engineering

McCraw-Hill Publications Co., New York, N.Y.

Copyright01980 by Chemical Engineering McGrawHill Pub. Co.

1221Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020
All rights reserved. No parts of this work may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, microfilm and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing
from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Industrial wastewater and solid waste engineering.
1. Factoryand trade waste. 1. Chemical
engineering.
TD897. I435
638.54
80-12608
JSBN 0-07-606663-0 (paper)
0-07-010694-0 (case)