(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

-------