Refiners have several options to overcome FCCU opacity limitations

Oil and Gas Journal

Volumn 97, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 40-44

  Salbilla, Dennis L ^a,b,c  

^a Akzo Nobel Chemicals 13000 Bay Park Road   (United States)

^b UOP LLC   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CATALYSTS; FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING; OPACITY; PETROLEUM REFINERIES;

STACK OPACITY LOSSES;

PETROLEUM REFINING;

EID: 0032786042     PISSN: 00301388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. UOP Fluid Catalytic Cracking Process Technology Handbook, Section XIV, 1997, p. 3.
2. Environmental Protection Agency, Method 5 -Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources, Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 247, Dec. 23, 1971, pp. 24888-90.
3. American Petroleum Institute, Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume on Atmospheric Emissions, Chapter 11 - Cyclone Separators, Appendix 11D, 1975, p. 34.
4. American Petroleum Institute, Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume on Atmospheric Emissions, Chapter 11 - Cyclone Separators, Section 11.7, 1975, p. 16.
5. Zenz, F.A., and Othmer, D.F., Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, 1960, p. 203.
6. Weeks, S.A., and Dumbill, P., "Method speeds FCC catalyst attrition resistance determinations," OGJ, Apr. 16, 1990, pp. 38-40.
7. Thomas, R.C., "The FCC Power Recovery Expansion Turbine," Ingersoll-Rand Turbo Machinery Marketing Literature, 1985, p. 2.
8. Wright, R., Wilhelm, Environmental Technologies Inc. correspondence to Diamond Shamrock, Sept. 12, 1996, p.2.
9. "Lowering catalyst resistivities raise precipitator efficiencies," OGJ, Aug. 10, 1998, pp. 78-79.