73-CHO-1
(REPORT NUMBER)
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TEST
TENNECO CHEMICALS
(PLANT NAME;
Fords, New Jersey
(PLANT ADDRESS)
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
-------
Emission Testing Report
EMB Test No.: 73-CHO-l
TENNECO CHEMICALS
Fords, New Jersey
Roger 0, Pfaff
Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
ftni r or- ^miTrm-
I r\UL.L- \JI V/UM I 1-IY I
Page Number(s)
I. INTRODUCTION 1-2
TABLE 1 - Summary o.f Results ; . . . . 2 •
II. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 3
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION 4-6
Figure 1 - Process Flow Diagram 5
Figure 2 - Location of Sampling Point .... 6
IV. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 7
-------
INTRODUCTION
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Environmental Protection
Agency is responsible for establishing Federal performance standards for
new stationary sources which contribute significantly to air pollution
or cause or contribute to the endangerment of public health or welfare.
Petrochemical manufacturing plants have been included in a listing
of such sources.
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards establishes
performance standards from emission data gathered from the best emission
control systems which have been shown to be operable and economically
feasible. .
The Industrial Studies Branch performs a study of all aspects of
the industry which are pertinent to the development of emission standards.
As part of the industry study for formaldehyde, one of the petrochemicals
for which a standard may be established, emission rates from well-controlled
plants were desired. TRW, Inc., under contract to the Emission Measurement
Branch, performed source tests at Tenneco Chemicals, Inc., in Fords,
New Jersey, during the week of July 30, 1973. Measurements were made
of formaldehyde, methanol, dimethyl ether, carbon monoxide, and total
hydrocarbons emitted from the process. Six test runs were performed
under normal process .conditions. A sample of scrubber water for each
test run was analyzed for formaldehyde.
The iron-oxide process for manufacture of formaldehyde is used at
this plant. Emissions are controlled by a five tray bubble cap water
absorber.
1
-------
Table 1. Summary of Results
Run Number
Stack Flow Rate, DSCFMa(Nm3/min)b 16,298(461.3) 16,380(463.6) 16,699(472.6)16,192(458.2)15,037(425.5) 16,151(457,1)
Stack Temperature, °F (°C) 80(27) 80(27) 80(27) 80(27) 80(27) 80(27)
THC as methanol', Ib/hr (Kg/hr) 235.2(106.8) 278.8(126.6) 288.2(130.8) 315.1(143.1) 279.0(126.7) 395.6(181,4)
THC as carbon, Ib/hr (Kg/hr) 88.2(40.0) 104.6(47.5) 108.1(49.1) 118.2(53.7) 104.6(47.5) 105.0(49.5)
Formaldehyde, Ib/hr (Kg/hr) ' 33.35(15.1) 35.39(16.1) 36.05(16.4) 32.56(14.8) 29.43(13.4) 34.13(15.5)
Methanol, Ib/hr (Kg/hr) 40.52(18.4) 30.04(13.6) 30.59(13.9) 32.52(14.8) 50,16(22.8) • 38.51(17.5)
Dimethyl ether, Ib/hr (Kg/hr) 10.80(4.90) 13.45(6.11) 10.68(4.85) 10.93(4.96) 11.51(5.231
Carbon monoxide, Ib/hr (Kg/hr) 258.5(117.4) 245.4(111.4) 249.7(113.4) 239.1(108.6) 228.8(103.9) 245.3(111.4)
Formaldehyde in scrubber water,
mg/ml 5.08 4.2 , 5.35 5.2 "5.65 6.25
3 Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 70°F and 29.92 in. Hg.
b Dry normal cubic meters per minute at 21.1°C and 760 mm. Hg. •
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Results of the six test runs compare favorably. Run 1 for
dimethyl ether was lost because of a bad bag sample. Runs 2 and 4
were slightly, below percent isokinetic limits (89.9 and 88.9). This
was caused by difficulty in pulling the high sampling rate required.
Preliminary test results were higher .than expected, so before
Run 5 was started the scrubber water flow rate was decreased. This was
an attempt to decrease pollutant-containing mist emissions. The
reductions had no effect on the emissions. However, after the tests
were completed, a change was made in plant operational procedure which
is expected to decrease emissions.
-------
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The chemistry of the formation of formaldehyde from methanol, via the
mixed (metal) oxide catalyst process may be shown as follows:
CH3OH + 1/2 02 f CH20' + H20 + 38 Kcal.
This differs from the classical silver-catalyzed process in that
(apparently) no hydrogen is produced, and the methanol molecule itself,
rather than the produced hydrogen, is oxidized.
Methanol is mixed with air and heated to between 220 and 350°F
in a steam jacketed vaporizer. The methanol will normally comprise about
7.5% (vol.) of the converter feed.
The super-heated vapors from the vaporizer pass into the converter,
where the oxidation reaction takes place, in tubes filled with a mixed
oxide catalyst, between 650°F and 800°F. The heat of reaction is removed
by the circulating Dowtherm fluid surrounding the catalyst tubes and is
used to produce steam. The converter effluent gases are cooled from
approximately 500°F to about 220°F in a heat exchanger prior to being
quenched to near 100°F in the absorber.
The converter effluent vapors are introduced into the bottom section
of the column and flow counter-current to the dilution/scrubbing water,
which is pumped onto the top tray and flows downward\ through the tower.
The formaldehyde vapors are absorbed by the water, forming a 46 to 53%
solution. This exits from the bottom of the tower.
The exit gases leave the absorber and pass through a demister pad into
the water scrubber.
- 4
-------
Vent
Water
c
-5
-a
o
n
n>
o
CD
U3
-I
OJ
3
Gas Sample Point
Scrubbe
Water
Air Flow
Air
Methanol
Reactor
Air
Reactor
->- Waste Water
t/)
o
~l
CT
n>
-s
Temperature of
top tray
Product
Methanol
Meter
gallons
Air Flow
-------
Distance to nearest upstream disturbance: 4 feet
Type of disturbance: Demister
Distance to nearest downstream disturbance:
Type of disturbance: End of stack
Inside diameter of duct:' 23.5 inches
Number'of traverse points: 32
6 feet
PoRT A
Figure 2
Location of Sampling Point
-------
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Formaldehyde and methanol were collected in water using a
modified EPA Method 5 participate train. Formaldehyde was analyzed
.by colorimetry after reacting the impinger solution with a
chromatropic-sulfuric acid reagent. Methanol. was analyzed by gas
chromatography. Details are in Appendix D.
Dimethyl ether was collected in an integrated bag sample and
analyzed by gas chromatography.
Carbon monoxide was collected by drawing a sample from the rear
of the probe on the test train. The sample was routed around the THC
combustor and to a non-dispersive infrared analyzer (NDIR) after being
passed through ascerite to remove CCu. Details are in Appendix D.
Total hydrocarbon sample was drawn from the same point as the
CO sample but passed through a catalytic combustor to combust all
hydrocarbons and CO to C0?. The sample then traveled through the same
tubing as the CO sample, but was routed to a second NDIR instead of
through the ascerite and CO analyzer. Background CO^ was measured (and
subtracted) by bypassing the combustor. It was also during the bypass
stage that the CO concentration was determined. Details are in Appendix D.
Problems with heating of equipment occurred throughout the test.
During half of runs 1 and 5, no heat was applied to the probe or the sample
box. During run 6, heat was applied to the probe only, and only during
the first half of the test. During the last portion of run 6, the
heated Teflon line from the probe to the combustor did not function.
------- |