November
2016
89
HYDROCARBON
ENGINEERING
T
he first section of this article, which appeared
in the September 2016 issue of
Hydrocarbon Engineering
, discussed the impact of
iron contamination on fluid catalytic cracking unit
(FCCU) operations, introducing two of Philadelphia Energy
Solutions' (PES) FCCUs that had experienced iron poisoning:
868 (Point Breeze) and 1232 (Girard Point). This section will
discuss all of the methods that PES used to overcome the
effects of iron poisoning at both units. These methods are
a combination of preventative, routine monitoring, and
actions to help lessen the detrimental effects. The article
will discuss routine feed and Ecat testing, optimum catalyst
selection, and iron reduction methods.
Methods for combating iron
contamination
Feed testing
There are two common ASTM methods for determining
iron content in hydrocarbon streams. ASTM D5708 utilises
inductively coupled plasma (ICP) while ASTM D5863 utilises
flame atomic absorption spectrometry. Both methods give
Pat Salemo, Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC,
USA, and Doc Kirchgessner and John Aikman, Grace Catalyst Technologies,
USA,
explain how Philadelphia Energy Solutions tackled the negative impacts
of iron contamination in its fluid catalytic cracking system.
