(REPORT NUMBER)
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TEST
Bensenville, Illinoi:
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 Project No. 74-VAR-3
STRESS EN-REUTER
Bensenville, Illinois
Project Officer:
Carl D. Bell
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
January 1974
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number(s)
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AMD DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2-5
TABLE I - Inlet to Catalytic Afterburner .... 4
TABLE II - Outlet to Catalytic Afterburner ... 5
III. PROCESS DESCRIPTION 6-9
Figure 1 - Process Equipment 7
TABLE III - Process Data 8
TABLE IV - Batch Process 9
IV. CONTROL EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION 10
V. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 11-13
Figure 2 - Samnling Equipment. 13
VI. SAMPLE PORT LOCATION ..._... 14
VII. APPENDICES •• A . . 15-21
FIELD DATA SHEETS 16-17
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS 18-19
TEST LOG , . . . 20
TEST PARTICIPANTS 21
-------
INTRODUCTION
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Environmental Protection
Agency is given the responsibility of establishing performance standards
for stationary sources that contribute significantly to air pollution.
A performance standard is established using the best emission reduction
systems which have been shown to be operable and economically feasible.
In order that realistic performance standards can be set, accurate
data on pollutant emissions must be gathered from the stationary source
under consideration. The Stressen-Reuter Paint Company in Bensenville,
Illinois, was considered a well-controlled stationary source in the paint
and varnish industry and was, therefore, selected by the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) for the emission testing program.
The emission testing was conducted at the inlet and outlet of a
catalytic afterburner which served as a pollution control device for a
cooking kettle at the plant. These sites were sampled for total hydro-
carbons, NO , methane, and 0?. The sampling was conducted by personnel
/\ t.
from Scott Research Laboratories and the Environmental Protection Agency
on September 26, 1973.
1
-------
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Because of an unforeseen and unfortunate series of occurrences,
the originally-planned three day test ended up being only.one working
day making only one test run on only one batch of Kettle production.
This series is as follows:
1. Testing equipment was delayed in shipping by almost two
working days. All of day was lost.
2. Plant personnel advised that there will be no third day.
The one and only batch would be the evening of the second day.
3. Outlet stack was actually two concentric stacks for recycling
of the spent afterburner gas. The directions of flow in the two concentric
stacks were in the opposite direction.
4. The equipment testing the inlet to the afterburner was rendered
non-functional early on in the test. An attempt was made to use one set
of equipment to test both sides of the control device.
5. Halfway through the first outlet traverse, the actual exit of
the stack was tested to try to gain a more representative flow rate,
as the only port was made at the interface of the opposite flows.
Tables I and II seem to show some increases in some gas constituents
across the afterburner. This would definitely indicate problems with
the testing method. Some error could have been due to the switching back
and forth from inlet to outlet, using one set of instruments. Other
reasons for the difference might include the fact that the numbers do not
represent the exact same times but are staggered back and forth. At best,
any conclusions derived from examination of this data should be considered
highly questionable.
-------
It is regretful that no more than a rough idea of gaseous
concentrations of alkyd batch process can be derived from these
four days. It was totally a misfortunate experience, serving as an
excellent example on what to be aware of on a presurvey and test. The
concentration values for the inlet and outlet may serve some value
as background information on this type of varnish process. However,
in evaluation of this data, one should keep in mind the technical
problems encountered and, therefore, the questionable validity of
the results.
-------
TABLE I
Stressen-Reuter Paint & Varnish
Inlet to Catalytic Afterburner
ppm (by vol)
Time THC NQ2 NO..2 CH4 ' C02 ' Percent 02 '
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
19:00
19:45
20:45
20:50
21:55
22:45
22:50
606
1393
1725
2427
1995
576
592
268
140
A
0.2 0.3
0 0
1.3 1.4
0.4
0 0
60
40
111
586
2011
1613
20.7
20.7
21.2
1 Wet basis
2 Dry basis
3 Grab samples takai at each specific time.
-------
TABLE II
Stressen-Reuter Paint & Varnish
Outlet to Catalytic Afterburner*
ppm (by vol)
1 2 2.23 23 23
Time THC NO NOM CH. ' C09 ' Percent Og '
X *r t c.
75 1842
18.2
18.5
18.5
90 4«9
18.2
18.2
18.5
18.6
18.5
134 39118 18.8
18.4
*Probe moved from port to actual stack outlet due to inner stack
with opposite flow at port.
1 Wet basis
2 Dry basis
3 Grab samples taken at each specific time.
18:45
19:00
19:15
20:00
20:15
20:30*
20:45
21:00
21:30
21:45
22:15
22:20
22:30
22:45
23:00
360
376
384
344
328
296
288
232
240
224
212
—
244
248
240
6.0
4.5
3.5
1.2
4.1
4.1
3.6
5.4
5.8
7.4
4.9
7.2
6.2
5.6
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.0
8.4
-------
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Various ingredients are mixed and cooked in a batch fashion
and in a closed, but not sealed, kettle for approximately 6-8 hours
at 400-500°F. For this alkyd-type varnish we might expect around 160
pounds of hydrocarbon emission per ton of product. Although attempts
were made to do velocity checks and assign flow to the stack, an actual
pollutant mass rate could not be accurately assigned because of the
types of problems which were encountered.
This cooking kettle is heated by a circulating hot oil jacket.
Process temperatures were taken at the inlet and outlet of this oil
jacket as seen in Table iv and Figure 1. The ingredients mixed in
this batch are seen in Table
-------
7 ~~7"77~~7
a»r
g OO.
O»'lufi«i
fiir
7 7—7
Part
FdfJ
\Scrubloer
i««,
-------
TABLE III
Stressen-Reuter Company
Bensenville, Illinois
Process Data
Product RV-1637 - an alkyd base for ink or paint
Batch #BW-66
Prepared in Kettle #K-4
Total Batch Wt.: 19,831 pounds
Net Weight (percent): 18,903
Formula
Ingredient
Code
Linseed Oil 0217
Trimethylolpropane S-238
Lithium Acetate Dihydrate D-126
Isophthalic Acid D-120
Phthalic Anhydride D-21
Triphenyl Phosphate S-90
Antifoam
Manufacturer
Tenneco
Lithoca
Amoco
Tenneco
Monsanto
TOTAL
Weight, Ibs.
12,265
3,000
5
3,586
941
28
6
19,831
The linseed oil and trimethylolpropane were added at 0630 COT and
brought up to 320°F and 1330 CDT. The following table describes the
remaining steps in process. Emissions were measured between 1645 and
2300 CDT.
*A polyester resin type of varnish binder.
8
-------
TABLE IV
Batch Process
Time
[COT]
1200
1215
1330
1530
1730
1745
1800
1815
1830
1845
1900
1915
1930
1945
2045
2100
2130
2145
2200
2215
2230
2245
2300
Batch
Temp.
-80
100
320
455
480
480
480
455
435
425
430
440
440
450
475
480
485
490
495
500
500
505
510
Hot Oil Inlet
Temperature
(5F)
355
525
535
540
545
540
535
535
530
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
540
540
542
545
550
547
Hot Oil Outlet
Temperature
(5F)
325
500
515
525
530
525
515
515
505
510
515
515
510
515
515
520
520
522
525
528
530
530
Activity
Increase temp to 32C
Increase temp to 32C
Add S-238
Add D-126
Add D-120, D-21,
and S-90
Increase temp.
End emission samplir
-------
CONTROL EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
As the reaction takes place in the kettle, gases are given up
and vented into a scrubbing chamber, pulled by a fan. From there,
they are channeled to the inner stack of the afterburner which is
going down into the afterburner. The opening at the top of the inner
stack, level with the sampling port, allows a draft of recycled exit
gas to go back through the catalyst. These gases then go through a
preheater to 800°F and pass through the series of platinum plates and
are combusted in the afterburner. Combustion air is added here as well
as the dilution air near the exit of the stack (see Figure 1). The
gases are then pumped out the stack and released.
10
-------
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The gases emitted from this process were measured with several
continuous monitor type devices (see figure 2).
The hydrocarbons at both the inlet and outlet were measured with
a Scott Model 215 heated flame ionization detector. The hydrocarbon
analyzer was spanned with a propane in air standard. The flame formed
when pure hydrogen or hydrogen diluted with are inert gas, burns in air
contains an almost negligible number of ions. Introduction of mere
traces of hydrocarbons into such a flame, however, produces a large
amount of ionization. This effect is the basis of the flame ionization
method. The ppm was printed directly onto a stlrip chart.
A Scott Model 125 chemiluminescence analyzer and thermal converter
were used for nitric oxide and total oxides of nitrogen. EPA Method 7
was not used due to the low concentrations of 190 and the need for a
A
10-hour continuous sample. PPM for both NO awd NO were printed
A
directly onto a strip chart.
A Scott Model 150 paramagnetic analyzer was used for oxygen.
The analyzer was spanned with an oxygen in nitrogen standard and the
readout was in percent.
Carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxypn were measured using
an orsat analyzer according to Method 3 of the December 23, 1971,
Federal Register. Samples were taken about ewery two hours.
11
-------
Grab samples were collected in glass flasks and returned to
Scott Research Laboratories for methane analysis. The analysis
was performed on a Perkin-Elmer Model 900 gas chromatograph using
a molecular seive column at 120°C. The calibration gas used was a
methane in air standard. As a check against the very low Orsat readings,
CCL was also analyzed in the flask samples by gas chromatography using
a silica gel column and a thermal conductivity detector.
Inlet and outlet stack velocity patterns and temperatures were
measured with an "S" type pi tot tube and an fron-constanton thermocouple
and calibrated pyrometer.
Moisture was not tested but was assumed to be 5% at the inlet and
15% at the outlet, based on previous experience. As will be noticed
in Figure 2, the FID and 02 analyzer were working on a wet basis. Due
to the trap before the chemiluminescence meter, nitrogen constituents
were given on a dry basis, as was considered the Orsat analysis. These
corresponding concentrations are seen in Tables I and II.
12
-------
Kettle
JD
_O
S-
o
Inlet
N,
Vacuum Pump
Pre-
leater
Catalytic
Afterburner
NO
Thermal Converter
To atmosphere
^Outlet
Heated line
Filter holder (heated)
Flame
[lonization!
Detector
C& 1
Figure 2. Sampling Equipment
Stressen-Reuter, Bensenville, Illinois
Knalyzer
t
-------
V
SAMPLING PORT LOCATION
The inlet sampling point was located about two feet after
the water scrubber in an eight-inch by eight-inch rectangular duct.
The velocity at this point was constant but somewhat lower than
expected.
The outlet port was locfv^d in the side of the exhaust stack.
The top of the inner stack was located level with this sampling port
creating great difficulty in measuring the correct velocity because the
flow in the inner stack was strongly downward. Midway through the test,
the probe was moved to the stack exit where it was felt more reliable
velocity and gas readings could be obtained.
The outer stack had a diameter of 34" while the inner stack's
diameter was 18". The stack exit had a diameter of 27".
14
-------
APPENDICES
15
-------
FIELD DATA
16
-------
ORSAT ANALYSES
Run 1
Run 2
• , Actual
Date: 9/26/73
Sampling Time (24-hr Clock): 1840 CDT
Sampling Location: Fume Scrubber Inlet
Sample Type (Bag, Integrated, Continuous):
Tedlar Bag
Analytical Method: Orsat
Date: 9/26/73
Sampling Time (24-hr Clock): 1904 CDT
Sampling Location: Fume Scrubber Outlet
_j
Date: 9/26/73
Sampling Time (24-hr Clock) :
2055 CDT
Sampling Location: Fume Scrubber -
Ttil p t*
J.11 JL C I*
Sample Type (Bag, Integrated,
Tedlar Bag
Analytical Method: Orsat
Date: 9/26/73
Continuous) :
Sampling Time (24-hr Clock) : . 2055 CDT
Sampling Location: Fume Scrubber -
Stack Outlet
Sample Type (Bag, Integrated, Continuous):
Tedlar Bag
Analytical Method: Orsat
Gas
co2
02 (Net is actual 02
Reading Minus Actual
CO Reading)
CO (Net is Actual CO
Reading Minus Actual
02 Reading)
C°2
02 (Net is Actual 0-
Reading Minus Actual
CO Reading)
CO (Net is Actual CO
Reading Minus Actual
0 Reading)
CO
£»
0_ (Net is Actual 0.
2 '2
Reading Minus Actual
CO Reading)
CO (Net is Actual CO
Reading Minus Actual
02 Reading)
CO
£-
0 (Net is Actual 0
Reading Minus Actual
C02 Reading)
CO (Net is Actual CO
Reading Minus Actual
0 Reading)
Reading
99
79
79
99
79
79
99
79
79
99
79
79
.8
.4
.4
.9
.3
.2
.8
.3
.3
.6
.4
.2
Net
0.2
20.4
0
0.1
20.6
0.1
0.2
20.5
0
0.4
20.2
0.2.
Actual
Reading
99
79
79
99
79
79
99
79
79
99
79
79
.7
.2
.2
.7
.2 .
.1
.8
.3
.3
.4
.3
.1 .
Net
0.3
20.5
0
0.3
20.5
0.1
0.2
20.5
0
0.6
20.1
0.2
Avg.
Net
Volume
0.
20.
0
0.
20.
0.
0.
20.
0
0.
20.
0.
25
45
2
55
1
2
5
5
15
2
-------
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
18
-------
Sample Calculations
Orsat - MM
Inlet Outlet
18:40 CDT 28.86
19:04 28.85
20:55 28.85
20:55 28.89
AVERAGE 28.85 28.87
Ml*
d
Ac
s
MW
P
.95
64"
28.30
30.58
*Assumed
.85
653" (port)
572" (stack exit)
27.23
30.65
19
-------
TEST LOG
September 25, 1973
September 26. 1973
8:00 a.m.
10:00
11:45
12:00
4:25 p.m.
5:30
6:00
6:30
7:00
8:30
10:15
11:00
12:00
Equipment lost in shipment so test delayed
by one day.
Pick up equipment and take to plant.
Equipment unloaded at plant. We find out
that plant is getting ready to start the final
batch of the week so we will set up and test as
long as possible.
Plant begins firing afterburner.
Begin heating kettle - 4 to 390°F.
Still not sampling due to many equipment problems
and a shortage of tubing.
Inlet is ready but outlet is still causing problems.
Plant is adding an ingredient to kettle causing an
increase in flow and much particulate.
Inlet is plugged and will not be serviceable for the
remainder of the test. Hope to use outlet equipment
for the inlet also.
Outlet is running okay.
Moved probe to stack exit where hopefully opposite
flow of inner stack will not affect numbers.
Kettle reaches 500°F. IMothing else will be added
or changed in the kettle.
Sampling completed.
Leave plant.
20
-------
TEST PARTICIPANTS
Scott Research
Tony Souza - Crew Chief
Four (4) technicians
Environmental Protection Agency
Doug Bell - Project Officer
21
------- |