An Assessment of Substances in European Refinery Effluents Research Proposal to the Petroleum Enviro

1
An Assessment of Substances in European Refinery
EffluentsResearch Proposal to
thePetroleum Environmental Research Forum
(PERF)ExxonMobil July 2007
2
Regulatory Drivers

• European Water Framework Directive (WFD)
• Sets ambitious goals to achieve good status of
  surface and ground water for Member States by
  2015
• Ensure reduction and control of pollution from
  all source sectors
• Biological Good ecological status of receiving
  waters
• Chemical Controlled via specific list of
  substances
• Priority Hazardous Substances
• Targeted for emission cessation or phase-out
• Priority Substances
• Subject to emission controls to achieve numerical
  environmental quality objectives
• New substances to be periodically reviewed added

3
Substances Targeted by the WFD
4
Regulatory Drivers (Contd)

• European Pollutant Release Transfer Register
  (EPRTR)
• Annual emission reporting of specific substances
  to air, water and land from operators of listed
  facilities (all refineries)
• Mass-based reporting thresholds
• Required to report only if thresholds exceeded
• Aims to inform public regarding pollutant
  emissions
• Oslo-Paris Commission for the Protection of the
  Marine Environment
• Government consortium
• Pursue hazardous chemical approach
• Focus on persistence, bioaccumulation toxicity
  (PBT)
• Extending efforts to whole effluent
  assessment/controls
• CONCAWE advocacy to promote practical analytical
  tools
• passive sampling methods to address narcotic
  toxicity

5
Substances Targeted by the EPRTR
Organics
Inorganics
Other Substances Included on Annex II not
listed here
6
Implications Challenges for EU Refineries

• Action required by facilities for effluent
  monitoring / emission reporting of specific EPRTR
  WFD substances
• Education and notification of effluent quality
  requirements within refinery network
• Standardization of sampling practices, analytical
  test methods, and reporting parameters.
• Need for reproducible analytical methods with low
  detection limits
• Methods may be complicated
• Not readily available via commercial labs
• Potential for inconsistencies
• Varying detection limits Different standards
• Total vs. Dissolved measurements
• A consistent set of effluent quality data across
  EU refineries is possible with industry and
  member state involvement and coordination.
• Develop an industry strategy for meeting
  regulatory requirements guiding future science
  advocacy of effluent quality issues
• Would further support efforts to register and
  authorize the manufacture of major marketed
  petroleum and petrochemical products under REACH

7
Expected Project Benefits

• Comprehensive database of PRTR substances and
  comparable (size, type, treatment, etc.) refinery
  effluent data (based on results of Phase 1
  CONCAWE effort)
• Obtain ion balance data
• Provide SPME results on effluent data testing
• Laboratory - Institute for Inland Water and
  Management in Amsterdam RIZA (http//www.rijkswa
  terstaat.nl/rws/riza/home/english/index.html)
• Data to assess if whole effluent could pose
  ecotoxicity concerns based on emerging passive
  sampling techniques
• Publish report for advocacy within refining
  industry and organizations
• Practical generic guidance for refineries
• What substances/methods are available for
  compliance?
• What substances/methods are likely to be targeted
  in the future?
• What are the available lab resources and costs?
• Opportunity for refineries to benefit from
  industry-sponsored program
• Use of reliable, consistent, state-of-the science
  analytical methods
• Leveraged monitoring program that supports
  compliance
• Individual sites limited to sample collection by
  staff
• Consistent data set for benchmarking and
  prioritization for effluent quality improvement

8
Expected Project Benefits (Contd)

• Inform petroleum industry RD and provide basis
  for advocacy
• Identification of substances of regulatory
  concern that are consistently not present in EU
  refinery effluents
• Provide rationale to preclude future routine
  monitoring
• Identification of substances of regulatory
  concern that are consistently detected and will
  be focus of future regulation / emission
  reductions
• Prioritize advocacy related to derivation of
  substance-specific environmental quality
  standards
• Improve understanding of the sources (natural
  background vs. anthropogenic) and form (total vs.
  dissolved) and how this information can be
  integrated into science-based regulations
• Prioritize research needs for effluent source
  control / treatment technologies
• Proactively demonstrate petroleum industrys
  commitment to water quality improvement in Europe

9
Proposed Plan (Phased Approach With CONCAWE)

• PHASE 1 CONCAWE led project (no PERF
  involvement) on sampling practices and analytical
  test methods for PRTR substances
• PHASE 2 PERF project on refinery effluent data
  assessment
• Detailed plan on well known substances with
  existing test methods
• Further activity on difficult substances
• Conduct survey of EU refinery effluents (CONCAWE
  may be able to provide anonymous refinery
  effluent samples)
• Target constituents of EU regulatory concern
• Apply consistent, sensitive, state-of-science
  analytical methods from PHASE 1
• Metals (e.g. Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni,
  V, Zn)
• Total vs. Dissolved
• Reference elements (Fe, Mn, Al)
• Organics (e.g. BTEX, PAHs, Phenols, Alkyl
  Phenols, Solvents)
• Conventional parameters (e.g. TSS, pH,
  Conductivity, TN, TP)
• Passive sampling with SPME
• Screening method for whole effluent toxicity
• Ensure site representation across refinery types
  / regions

10
Proposed Schedule

• DRAFT proposal for comments, interests, needs of
  PERF and other parties (early August)
• Teleconference with interested parties to discuss
  proposal (late August)
• Scope Development (August/September)
• PERF Meeting update on proposal / status of
  project (October)
• Contract negotiation (4Q07)
• CONCAWE Phase 1 Results (1Q08)
• Refinery effluent collection (1Q08)
• Effluent parameter testing by lab RIZA using
  Phase 1 results (1Q08)
• Data analysis (2Q08)
• Report results, publish paper (34Q08)

11
Input / Interests Received to Date

• CONCAWE Task force meeting end of July to
  determine future of this effort within CONCAWE
  (Phase 1)
• Lab testing procedures methodology
• Detection limits
• Pros and cons of existing practices/methodology
• Timing Need deliverable for Phase 1 by end of
  year to influence legislation of laboratory test
  methods in Feb 2008
• Phased approach for lab testing and refinery
  effluent assessment.
• Accelerated lab testing/methodology report
  published by Feb08 - CONCAWE
• Refinery effluent assessment report published by
  3/4Q08
• Common Refinery effluent collection needed for
  lab testing

12
Project Proposal Sponsor Contact Information

• Frank Kerze
• Plant Engineering Division / Environmental
  Engineering / Water Wastewater
• 3225 Gallows Rd. 3A-0404 Fairfax, VA 22037-0001
• Tel [phone]
• eFax [phone]
• Frank.J.Kerze_at_ExxonMobil.com

13
Backup

• Backup information

14
CONCAWE led PHASE 1 Project Ideas (info only
not defined to date)

• PHASE 1 Development of Analytical Methods
  Guidance Document
• Timing of a PERF Project will not meet timing to
  influence legislation on analytical test methods,
  sampling procedures, detection limits, etc..
• Cover "quick-hit" constituents and provide new
  information for those constituents that are
  targeted that arent currently tested for and
  have little understanding about.
• RIZA (Institute for Inland Water and Management
  is a laboratory and institution associated with
  the University in Amsterdam) could provide
  guidance on these constituents for PHASE 1.
• What are the available/preferred methods for
  determining PRTR and priority hazardous/priority
  substances in refinery effluent samples?
• For which substances are reliable methods
  currently reliable?
• What is precision / detection limits of these
  methods?
• What are the advantages of total vs. dissolved
  measurements?
• What are the recommended sampling methods and
  storage times for the various compounds?
• What additional substances are likely to be added
  to the EPER or PS/PHS in the next few years?
• For which of substances are valid methods
  currently available?
• What emerging analytical methods are likely to be
  applied in the future to address whole effluent
  toxicity?
• What commercial labs are currently available to
  conduct these analyses?
• What are the approximate per sample analysis
  costs?
• Note This outline does not cover how emissions
  are actually calculated from analytical data
  (i.e. how D.L. are handled)