EPA-450/3-80-014
Source Category Survey:
Ammonia Manufacturing
Industry
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Contract No. 68-02-3063
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
August 1980
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air, Noise,
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement
by EPA. Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit
from the Library Services Office, MD-35, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; or may be obtained, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-80-014
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi
CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY ' 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Industry Description 1
1.3 Process Description/Emissions 2
1.4 Surrmary and Significance of Emissions 7
CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION 9
2.1 Approach and Activities 9
2.2 The Ammonia Industry ., 10
2.3 Background and Authority for Standards 10
2.4 Procedure for Development of Standards of Performance. 12
2.5 Revision of Standards of Performance 13
2.6 Current State Regulations Relative to the Ammonia
Industry 13
CHAPTER 3. CONCLUSIONS 14
3.1 Conclusion 14
CHAPTER 4. THE AMMONIA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY 15
4.1 Population 15
4.2 Industry Production 15
4.3 Process Description 25
-------
Page
CHAPTER 5. AIR EMISSIONS 30
5.1 Desulfurization 30
5.2 Catalytic Steam Reforming 30
5.3 Regeneration of C02 Sorbent 31
5.4 Emissions from Process Condensate Treatment .... 31
5.5 Fugitive Emissions 32
5.6 Summary and Significance of Emissions 32
CHAPTER 6. EMISSION CONTROL 34
6.1 Desulfurization 34
6.2 Reformer 34
6.3 C02 Sorbent Regeneration 34
6.4 Process Condensate Stripping 34
6.5 Control of Fugitive Emissions 35
CHAPTER 7. EMISSION DATA 36
CHAPTER 8. STATE AND LOCAL EMISSION REGULATIONS 37
REFERENCES 38
APPENDIX A INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 41
APPENDIX B HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 52
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Process Flow Diagram of a Typical Ammonia Plant 4
4-1 Annual United States Production of Ammonia 16
4-2 Nitrogen Fertilizer Consumption 19
4-3 Process Flow Diagram of a Typical Ammonia Plant 26
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Summary of Emissions 8
4-1 United States Production of Anhydrous Ammonia 17
4-2 United States Consumption of Nitrogen Fertilizers ... 18
4-3 Ammonia Production Costs 21
5-1 Summary of Emissions 33
A-l U. S. Ammonia Plants and Capacities (1980 Year-End) . . 42
A-2 Ammonia Plants Closed 49
A-3 Location of Synthetic Ammonia Facilities by State ... 51
vi
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The United States Congress has mandated that the Environmental
Protection Agency promulgate new source performance standards for major
source categories; a ranking of 59 such sources was recently published
in the Federal Register. The standard-setting process involves three
principal activities: information gathering, analysis of information, and
development of standards. This report comprises the results of the first
phase as applied to the ammonia manufacturing industry. The report describes
the industry, the process, emission sources, and available control technology.
1.2 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
The domestic ammonia manufacturing industry is entering a sustained
period of no growth in production capacity. While there will be an increase
in demand for ammonia, particularly in the form of nitrogen fertilizers,
the domestic industry has sufficient excess capacity to meet demands at
least through 1985.
In 1979 a total of 101 synthetic ammonia plants with a rated production
capacity of 22.5 Tg (24.8 x 10 tons) per year were reported in 30 states.
Production in 1979 was 16.4 Tg (18 x 1C) tons), or 73 percent of capacity.
Twenty-seven plants were reported idle in March 1980, representing 3.5 Tg
(3.9 x 10 tons) of capacity. Currently, the heaviest concentration of
production in the United States is in the natural-gas producing states of
Texas and Louisiana which contain 17 and 15 sites, respectively. The
five states of Texas, Louisiana, California, Iowa, and Oklahoma contain
70 percent of the total production capacity.
Approximately 75 percent of the ammonia produced in the United States
is used as fertilizer, either directly as ammonia or indirectly after
-------
synthesis as urea, ammonium nitrate, and monoammonium or diammonium
phosphates. The remaining ammonia is used as a raw material in the
manufacture of polymeric resins, explosives, nitric acid, and other products.
The production of ammonia increased an average of 2.9 percent annually
during the 1970's. This rate was substantially less than in the 1960's when
ammonia production increased 165 percent over the decade. Demand for
fertilizer is expected to increase at an annual rate of 3 percent through
the 1980's. The reserve idle capacity in the United States ammonia industry
plus an increase in ammonia imports is expected to meet this demand without
new plant expansion. In addition, improvements in facilities can significantly
increase production capabilities of existing facilities. Many plants are
now able to achieve production rates of 10 percent or more over rated
capacities without an increase in emissions. Uncertainty over the price and
availability of natural gas would discourage new plant construction even
under a more promising demand scenario. Worldwide ammonia production will
most likely shift to areas where inexpensive natural gas is available such
as Mexico and Trinidad.
A major conclusion of this examination of ammonia production is that
the industry is entering a sustained period of no growth. In addition,
production of feedstock from coal gasification will not be available in the
foreseeable future because of the untested nature of this technology and
the high capital investment needed for this change in methods.
1.3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION/EMISSIONS
Ninety-eight percent of the ammonia produced in the United States is by
catalytic steam reforming of natural gas. The gas is converted to hydrogen,
purified, and reacted with nitrogen to produce ammonia. In consideration of
the increasing cost and decreasing availability of natural gas, many have
contemplated gasifying coal to produce synthesis gas. This approach would
double the cost of an ammonia plant, and would increase energy consumption
by 30 percent and necessitate coal handling and preparation as well as ash
disposal. Accordingly, the discussion that follows is based on the synthesis
of ammonia using natural gas as a feedstock.
-------
1.3.1 Overall Process
Figure 1-1 is a generalized flow diagram of a typical ammonia plant.
The production of ammonia from natural gas comprises six major steps:
1. Desulfurization (to prevent poisoning the nickel reformer catalyst)
2. Reforming of CH4 to H2 and CO
3. Shifting of CO with H,,0 to produce additional H2
4. Absorption of CO,,
5. Methanation of residual C02 prior to NH3 synthesis
6. Synthesis of NH- from H2 and N2
1.3.2 Desulfurization
Natural gas contains sulfur in the form of H9S which must be reduced to
3
below 280 yg/m to prevent poisoning the nickel reforming catalyst. There
are two common desulfurization methods: activated carbon and zinc oxide.
Regeneration of carbon is accomplished by passing superheated steam
through the bed. Newer plants are tending to use a zinc oxide bed which
has basicially three advantages: energy in the form of steam regeneration
is not required, there are no air emissions, and higher molecular weight
hydrocarbons are not removed (which would reduce the heating value of the
gas). Heavy hydrocarbons tend to nullify the effectiveness of the carbon.
Also, carbon does not remove carbonyl sulfide. Emission factors for S02,
CO, and VOC are 6, 6900, and 3600 g/Mg (grams per megagram of ammonia
produced), respectively. Based on a nominal 900 Mg per day ammonia plant
using carbon desulfurization, annual emissions for S02, CO, and VOC are
1.8 Mg, 2100 Mg, and 1100 Mg, respectively. A few plants have installed
incinerators, despite the added cost, to combust the CO and VOC. Industry
consensus is that new ammonia plants will use zinc oxide rather than
activated carbon, which would eliminate the desulfurizer as an emission point.
1.3.3 Catalytic Steam Reforming
Steam reforming proceeds in two steps. In the primary reformer
(the radiant section of the reformer), methane reacts with steam in the
presence of a nickel catalyst to produce hydrogen and C02. Partially
reformed gas flows to the refractory-lined secondary reformer where it is
mixed with air (the amount of which is fixed by the ultimately-required
H,j/N2 ratio of 3 to 1). Fuel for the primary reformer consists of 7/8
natural gas and 1/8 purge gas from the ammonia synthesizer.
-------
NATURAL GAS
PURGE GAS
EMISSIONS -fr- -
-HDESULFURIZATION
i
PRIMARY
REFORMER
SECONDARY
REFORMER
EMISSIONS
PROCESS
CONOENSATE
STEAM
STRIPPER
STEAM EFFLUENT
NH,
HIGH TEMP. SHIFT
-4 LOW TEMP. SHIFT
I
CO2 ABSORBER
I
METHANATION
EMISSIONS DURING CARBON
-^-REGENERATION (NONE
WITH ZINC OX IDE I
STEAM
AIR
EMISSIONS
i
CO2 SORBENT
REGENERATION
t
STEAM
COMPRESSION
I
AMMONIA
SYNTHESIS
T
PURGE GAS VENTED TO
-*- PRIMARY REFORMER
FOR FUEL
NH3
Figure 1-1. Process flow diagram of a typical ammonia plant.
-------
The emission factors for the primary reformer, as listed in AP-42,
are as follows:
NOX 2.7* kg/Mg
SOX 0.0024
CO 0.068
TSP 0.072
VOC 0.012
1.3.4 Carbon Monoxide Shift
The gas now enters the high and low temperature shift converters,
where CO reacts with steam to form C02 and H2- Unreacted steam is condensed
and separated from the gas in a knock-out drum. A typical ammonia plant
recovers approximately 40 m /hr of process condensate for a 900 Mg per day
plant.
1.3.5 CO? Removal
The gas at this point contains around 17 to 19 percent COg which must
be removed since it can poison the ammonia synthesis catalyst. Two scrubbing
systems are mainly used in the United States to absorb CO^: monoethanolamine
and hot potassium carbonate. The scrubbing solution is regenerated by
heating with steam which generates a 98.5 percent C0? stream. Approximately
20 percent of ammonia producers use the carbon dioxide as a chemical feed-
stock in urea production, thus eliminating the effluent as an air emission.
The COp can also be used in tertiary oil recovery. Emission factors are:
Ammonia 1.0 kg/Mg
CO 1.0
VOC 0.48
1.3.6 Me tha nation
As noted above, C0? is a synthesis catalyst poison; therefore, all
traces must be removed from the synthesis gas. This is best accomplished
by methanation, which is simply a reverse of the catalytic steam reforming
of methane.
1.3.7 Emissions From Process Condensate Treatment
Process condensate contains approximately 600 ppm to 1000 ppm ammonia,
200 ppm to 1000 ppm methanol, and 200 ppm to 2800 ppm carbon dioxide.
Current practice is for the condensate to be steam stripped and for the
*AP-42 lists 2.9, a misprint.
-------
methanol and ammonia that are removed to be vented to the atmosphere.
The stripped condensate is then disposed of. Emission factors for the
vented gas are:
Ammonia 1.1 kg/Mg
C02 3.4
Methanol 0.6
The least-cost control approach is to inject the overhead from the
steam stripper into the reformer furnace stack. At a stack temperature of
200°C to 260 C, ammonia and methanol largely decompose.
1.3.8 Ammonia Synthesis
Synthesis gas is compressed and then fed to the ammonia synthesizer.
A small amount of the gas is purged to prevent buildup of inert gas in
the reaction cycle. The purge gas is refrigerated to remove ammonia and
then fed to the primary reformer along with natural gas. Typical
purge gas has the following composition:
Hydrogen 60 mole percent
Ni trogen 20
Argon 3.5
Methane 16.5
Ammonia 50 ppm
1.3.9 Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions arise from leaking compressor and pump seals, ammonia
storage tank vents, and pressure relief valves. The ammonia synthesis section
of the plant operates at pressures in the range of 3 MPa (400 psi), and
leaks are quickly identified and sealed, particularly since the first
perceptible odor of ammonia is 20 ppm.
1.3.10 Possible Future Process Improvements
Pullman Kellogg recommends cryogenic recovery of hydrogen from the
purge gas. Hydrogen is just too valuable to use as a fuel and, when removed
and added to the synthesis gas, recovered hydrogen can increase plant
capacity by 6 percent. A membrane separation technique has been developed
by Monsanto for the removal of hydrogen from the purge gas. A test unit
was installed at Monsanto's 545 Mg/d (600 t/d) ammonia plant in Luling,
Louisiana, followed by a commercial unit that started up in September 1979.
-------
Pullman Kellogg has also reportedly succeeded in reducing the
synthesis pressure from 14 to 8 kPa which reduces natural gas requirements
3 3
from 1100 m /Mg to 750 m /Mg of ammonia produced.
1.4 SUMMARY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF EMISSIONS
Emission factors are summarized in Table 1-1 for both controlled and
uncontrolled cases. Also shown in the table are annual emissions from a
typical 900 Mg ammonia plant (900 "metric tons" which is about 1000
tons). Finally, the table gives calculated annual emissions for the entire
industry based on 1978 NhL production of 16.4 Tg. (Annual emissions combine
methanol and MEA with VOC as CH. equivalent.) Furthermore, uncontrolled
emissions assume no controls exist in the existing population, which would
tend to over-estimate existing emissions. The controlled situation for the
existing population shows that NO emissions would increase since reduction
A
of emissions from the C09 absorber raises reformer NO by 41 percent. The
£ /\
reader should not interpret the difference in emissions between the
uncontrolled and controlled existing population as being a possible result
of any EPA standard-setting activities since NSS would only apply to new
sources. The table also shows the relative contribution of the ammonia
industry to the total stationary source emissions.
-------
Table 1-1. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS
00
Emission factors, g/Mg NH,
......_.. r* , J
Desulfurizer (carbon)
Controlled (ZnO)
Reformer
A for stripper overhead to stack
Steam stripper
Controlled (to reformer stack)
CCL absorber
If feedstock for urea plant
Annual emissions: 900 Mg plant, Mg
(MeOH and MEA on ChL equivalent and
included with VOC)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Controlled, with on-site urea production
National annual emissions
S09 NOV CO TSP VOC MeOH MEA NH.
L, X 0
6.0 6,900 3,600
0 00
2.4 2,700 68 72 12
+ 1,100 + 150 + 440
600 1,100
0 0
1,000 ' 470 50 1,000
0 000
2.5 826 2,438 22 1,346
0.7 1,163 327 22 175
0.7 1,163 21 22 27
(based on 16.4 Tg produced in 1979), Gg
Uncontrolled 0.14 44.3 130.7 1.2 72.2
(Percent of all stationary sources) (0.0005) (0.34) (0.75) (0.01) (0.42)
Controlled 0.04 62.3 1.1 1.2 1.2
(Percent of all stationary sources) (0.00015) (0.48) (0.006) (0.01) (0.007)
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
The United States Congress has mandated that the Environmental Protection
Agency promulgate new source performance standards for so-called major
source categories; a ranking of 59 such sources was recently published in
the Federal Register (44 FR 49222-49226). The standard-setting process
involves three principal activities: information gathering, analysis of
information, and development of standards. This report comprises the results
of the first phase as applied to the synthetic ammonia industry. The report
describes the industry, the process, emission sources, and available control
technology.
2.1 APPROACH AND ACTIVITIES
The objective of this Source Category Survey Report of the synthetic
ammonia industry is to determine the feasibility of setting performance
standards for control of air emissions in new sources. Crucial to this task
were determinations of growth potential in the industry, location of facilities,
production methods and possible process modifications, emission points,
quantity of pollutants, and available control technology. To accomplish
these tasks several approaches were taken. Authorities in the design,
construction, and operation of synthetic ammonia facilities were consulted
and several plant site-visits were made. Current status and future
prospects of the industry were assessed with the assistance of the
Tennessee Valley Authority's National Fertilizer Development Center and The
Fertilizer Institute. Air pollution control agencies in states with most of
the ammonia facilities were consulted for information on current regulatory
controls on the industry. Extensive surveys were made of literature pertaining
to production methods and possible emissions from ammonia synthesis. Based
on information gathered during these various surveys, judgments were
made concerning the future of the industry and the significance of air emissions
during the synthesis process.
-------
2.2 THE AMMONIA INDUSTRY
In 1979, there were 101 synthetic ammonia plants reported in the United
States, located in 30 states. Of the 101 facilities (a production capacity
of 22.5 Tg), 27 are reported idle (a production capacity of 3.5 Tg). In
1979, 16.4 Tg of ammonia was produced.
The industry is not growing and growth is not expected at least through
1985. In addition, a shift to the use of coal gasification to produce a
feedstock will not be available in the foreseeable future.
2.3 BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY FOR STANDARDS
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 USC 7411) directs
the Administrator to establish standards of performance for any category of
new stationary source of air pollution which "... causes, or contributes
significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare."
The Act requires that standards of performance for stationary sources
reflect, "... the degree of emission reduction achievable which (taking
into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated for that category
of sources." The standards apply only to stationary sources, the construc-
tion or modification of which commences after regulations are proposed by
publication in the Federal Register.
The 1977 amendments to the Act altered or added numerous provisions
that apply to the process of establishing standards of performance.
1. EPA is required to review the standards of performance every
4 years and, if appropriate, revise them.
2. EPA is authorized to promulgate a standard based on design,
equipment, work practice, or operational procedures when a standard based on
emission levels is not feasible.
3. The term "standards of performance" is redefined, and a new term
"technological system of continuous emission reduction" is defined. The new
definitions clarify that the control system must be continuous and may
include a low- or non-polluting process or operation.
4. The time between the proposal and promulgation of a standard under
Section 111 of the Act may be extended to 6 months.
10
-------
Standards of performance, by themselves, do not guarantee protection of
health or welfare because they are not designed to achieve any specific air
quality levels. Rather, they are designed to reflect the degree of emission
limitation achievable through application of the best adequately demonstrated
technological system of continuous emission reduction, taking into consideration
the cost of achieving such emission reduction, any non-air-quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
Congress had several reasons for including these requirements. First,
standards with a degree of uniformity are needed to avoid situations where
some states may attract industries by relaxing standards relative to other
states. Second, stringent standards enhance the potential for long-term
growth. Third, stringent standards may help achieve long-term cost savings
by avoiding the need for more expensive retrofitting when pollution ceilings
may be reduced in the future. Fourth, certain types of standards for coal-
burning sources can adversely affect the coal market by driving up the price
of low-sulfur coal or effectively excluding certain coals from the reserve
base because their untreated pollution potentials are high. Congress does
not intend that new source performance standards contribute to these problems.
Fifth, the standard-setting process should create incentives for improved
technology.
Promulgation of standards of performance does not prevent state or
local agencies from adopting more stringent emission limitations for the
same sources. States are free under Section 116 of the Act to establish
even more stringent emission limits than those established under Section 111
or those necessary to attain or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) under Section 110. Thus, new sources may in some cases be
subject to limitations more stringent than standards of performance under
Section 111, and prospective owners and operators of new sources should be
aware of this possibility in planning for such facilities.
A similar situation may arise when a major emitting facility is to be
constructed in a geographic area that falls under the prevention of signi-
ficant deterioration of air quality provisions of Part C of the Act. These
provisions require, among other things, that major emitting facilities to be
constructed in such areas are to be subject to best available control
technology as defined in Section 169(3) of the Act.
11
-------
2.4 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
Standards of performance must (1) realistically reflect best demon-
strated control practice, (2) adequately consider the cost, the non-air-
quality health and environmental impacts, and the energy requirements of
such control, (3) be applicable to existing sources that are modified or
reconstructed as well as new installations, and (4) meet these conditions
for all variations of operating conditions being considered anywhere in the
country.
The objective of a program for developing standards is to identify the
best technological system of continuous emission reduction that has been
adequately demonstrated. The standard-setting process involves three
principal phases of activity: (1) information gathering, (2) analysis of
the information, and (3) development of the standard of performance.
During the information-gathering phase, industries are queried through
telephone conversations, letters of inquiry, and plant visits by EPA
representatives. Information is also gathered from many other sources, and
a literature search is conducted. From the knowledge acquired about the
industry, EPA selects certain plants at which emission tests may be conducted
to provide reliable data that characterize the pollutant emissions from
well-controlled existing facilities.
In the second phase of a project, the information about the industry
and the pollutants emitted is used in analytical studies. Hypothetical
"model plants" are defined to provide a common basis for analysis. The
model plant definitions, national pollutant emission data, and existing
state regulations governing emissions from the source category are then used
in establishing "regulatory alternatives." These regulatory alternatives
are essentially different levels of emission control.
EPA conducts studies to determine the impact of each regulatory alter-
native on the economics of the industry and on the national economy, on the
environment, and on energy consumption. From several possibly applicable
alternatives, EPA selects the single most plausible regulatory alternative
as the basis for a standard of performance for the source category under
study.
In the third phase of a project, the selected regulatory alternative is
translated into a standard of performance, which, in turn, is written in the
12
-------
form of a Federal regulation. The Federal regulation, when applied to newly
constructed plants, will limit emissions to the levels indicated in the
selected regulatory alternative.
2.5 REVISION OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
Congress was aware that the level of air pollution control achievable
by any industry may improve with technological advances. .Accordingly,
Section 111 of the Act provides that the Administrator ". . . shall, at
least every 4 years, review and, if appropriate, revise ..." the standards.
Revisions are made to assure that the standards continue to reflect the best
systems that become available in the future. Such revisions will not be
retroactive, but will apply to stationary sources constructed or modified
after the proposal of the revised standards.
2.6 CURRENT STATE REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE AMMONIA INDUSTRY
Air pollution control agencies of the five states with the largest
number of ammonia plants were contacted for information on state regulatory
stance toward synthetic ammonia plants. All contacts indicated that their
respective states had no specific regulations regarding emissions from the
ammonia synthesis (Spuhler, 1980; Brasher, 1980; Wall, 1980; Argentine,
1980; Cullen, 1980). No control technology for air emissions from existing
facilities is currently required by any of these states. State agencies
indicated that permit requests for new sources would be handled on a
case by case basis. Items of concern would include the impact of the source
on National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as outlined in the State
Implementation Plans (SIP). Where necessary, emissions would be controlled
by best control technology available within economic constraints.
13
-------
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 CONCLUSIONS
3.1.1 Growth
The domestic ammonia manufacturing industry is entering a sustained
period of no growth in production capacity. While there will be an
increase in demand for ammonia, particularly in the form of nitrogen
fertilizers, the domestic industry has sufficient excess capacity to
meet demands at least through 1985.
3.1.2 Significant Emission Sources/Control Technology
A typical nominal size 900 Mg per day ammonia plant will have the
following annual emissions:
Species Mg/Year Source
N0¥ 1163 Reformer
J\L
CO 327 Reformer and C02 Absorber
VOC 175 Reformer and C02 Absorber
These emissions assume that natural gas is desulfurized with zinc oxide and
that condensate steam stripper overhead is fed to the reformer stack. If
the C02-rich stream from the C02 sorbent regeneration is used for urea
production or tertiary oil recovery, CO and VOC are reduced to 21 Mg and
27 Mg per year, respectively. Historically, plants have employed activated
carbon to desulfurize the natural gas. The carbon is regenerated with
steam which, when vented to the atmosphere, increases the plant's CO and
VOC emissions to 2438 Mg and 1346 Mg per year, respectively. The recent
trend and future approach is to use zinc oxide which is disposed of as a
solid rather than being regenerated. In addition to removing this emission
point, steam requirements are eliminated. Also, carbon adsorbs higher
molecular weight hydrocarbons, thus reducing the heating value of the gas.
14
-------
4. THE AMMONIA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
4.1 POPULATION
In 1979 a total of 101 synthetic ammonia plants with a rated production
capacity of 22.5 Tg (24.8 x 10 tons) per year were reported in 30 states.
Production in 1979 was 16.4 Tg (18 x 106 tons), or 73 percent of capacity.
Twenty-seven plants were reported idle in March 1980, representing 3.5 Tg
(3.9 x 106 tons). Currently, the heaviest concentration of production in
the United States is in the natural-gas producing states of Texas and
Louisiana which contain 17 and 15 sites, respectively. The five states of
Texas, Louisiana, California, Iowa, and Oklahoma contain 70 percent of the
total production capacity.
Appendix A contains a list of United States ammonia plants, their
location, nameplate production capacity, and status as furnished by TVA
(Harre, 1980). A state-by-state listing of plant locations is included.
4.2 INDUSTRY PRODUCTION
Domestic production of anhydrous ammonia has followed a pattern of
decelerating growth during the 1970's following rapid growth during the
1960's. As shown in Figure 4-1, increase in production during the early
1960's approximated an exponential rate. During the 1970's the growth rate
slowed to an average increase of 2.9 percent per year. As shown in Table
4-1, production of ammonia in 1970 was 12.6 teragrams (14.0 x 10 tons) as
NH3. In 1979, the figure was 16.4 Tg (18.0 x 106 tons).
This steady increase in production masks the highly variable market
conditions for ammonia during the same period. As shown in Table 4-2 and
Figure 4-2, the actual consumption of nitrogen fertilizers varied as much
as 10 percent from year to year in the 1970's. Since fertilizer accounts
for the largest single use of ammonia in the United States, agricultural
demand patterns have a great impact on the industry.
15
-------
o
•o
I
M
o
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Figure 4-1. Annual United States production of ammonia.
-------
Table 4-1. UNITED STATES PRODUCTION OF ANHYDROUS AMMONIA3
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Annual production
Tg (106 short tons) as NH3
12.56
13.22
13.74
13.82
14.30
14.92
15.19
15.98
15.40
16.40
(13.82)
(14.54)
(15.17)
(15.21)
(15.73)
(16.42)
(16.72)
(17.57)
(16.95)
(18.00)
aBridges, 1979 and U. S. Department of Commerce, 1979.
17
-------
Table 4-2. UNITED STATES CONSUMPTION OF NITROGEN FERTILIZERS3
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
?974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Annual consumption
Tg (106 short tons) as NH3
8.27
9.02
8.89
9.20
10.15
9.53
11.54
11.80
11.04
11.80
(9.10)
(9.91)
(9.78)
(10.12)
(11.16)
(10.49)
(12.68)
(12.98)
(12.14)
(12.98)
aBridges, 1979.
18
-------
4>
0*
-* O
<° «
2
O)
(0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Figure 4-2. Nitrogen fertilizer consumption
-------
Prices for anhydrous ammonia have fluctuated widely in response to
demand. In 1975, ammonia was in short supply worldwide and prices ranged
from $220 to $440 per megagram ($200 to $400 per ton) (Wett, 1979). To
meet the demand the industry increased production capacity by about 20
percent or 14 Tg (15 million tons) per year worldwide (Wett, 1979). Faced
with an eventual abundance in supplies and a lessening in demand, ammonia
prices plummeted to less than $100 per ton in 1978 (United States Department
of Agriculture, 1979; Wett, 1979). The price squeeze has caused the
closure or delayed start-up of many facilities. Over 3.5 Tg (3.9 x 10
tons) of the 22.5 Tg (24.8 x 106 tons) of United States capacity was
reported closed as of February 28, 1980 (Johnson, 1980a).
The future of the synthetic ammonia industry in the United States will
be determined by such factors as import competition and regulation, fertilizer
demand, and natural gas price and availability.
Currently, over 95 percent of the ammonia produced in the United
States uses natural gas as a feedstock. The cost of natural gas is a
significant factor in the production cost of ammonia. Table 4-3 shows the
ammonia production cost based on data from Wett (1979) as provided by M. W.
Kellogg. At $2/GJ ($2/MBtu) the cost of natural gas represents over half
of the production costs of ammonia.
At this point, predictions concerning the price of natural gas in 5
years are highly tentative. With the eventual deregulation of gas prices,
price will be more closely tied to market forces of supply and demand. As
the current gas contracts expire, any new contracts will be written with
flexible price arrangements. Estimates of the 1985 price of natural gas
have ranged from $3/GJ in 1978 dollars to $6/GJ. The lower price, which
was the worst-case price projection in the Energy Information Administration's
1978 Annual Report to Congress (United States Department of Energy, 1978),
is already outdated. Under the incremental pricing system imposed by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the price of industrial natural gas
in some states is currently as high as $3.80/GJ. As shown above, the
increase in natural gas price will have a significant effect on the price
of ammonia. If the price of natural gas rose to $6/GJ while holding all
other costs constant, the production cost of ammonia would be $260/Mg ($240
per ton). Of course, other costs have not held constant. The cost of a
new ammonia plant has doubled since 1978 to 120 million dollars (Scholer,
1980).
20
-------
Table 4-3, AMMONIA PRODUCTION COSTS9
Raw material
Unit cost
Unit rate
$/day
Natural gas feed
Utilities
Fuel
Power
Cooling water make-up
Boiler feed water make-up
Steam
Other
Catalyst and chemicals
Labor
Labor and plant overhead
Indirect charges and
pre-tax return on investment
Total cost
$2/GJ
$2/GJ
2<£/kWh
6.6<£/m3
26.4<£/nV:
1053 GJ/hr
534 GJ/hr
70 kW
3
5.6 m /min
1.7 m /min
In balance
$1.60/Mg
5 men/shift, $6/man-hr
100% labor
35% of investment
50,544
25,632
355
532
646
1,672
720
720
61,765
142,586
($136.45/Mg)
'Basis: 1045 Mg/day
Capital investment $60 million
Includes cooling tower, boiler feed water treating, and nominal product storage
Excludes spare parts
Indirect charges: 10% depreciation, 3.5% maintenance, 1.5% taxes and insurance, 20% return
on investment (pretax)
-------
The availability of natural gas at any price is increasingly crucial
to the ammonia industry. The-Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of
1978 and the subsequent regulations issued by the Department of Energy are
designed to restrict industrial use of oil and natural gas. Accordingly,
the use of natural gas and oil in boilers built after 1978 is prohibited
subject to provisions of technical and economic feasibility.
Most natural gas is supplied to industry on an interruptible basis.
Winter curtailment of natural gas supplies has had a definite impact on the
industry. Natural gas curtailments in fertilizer year 1977 (from July 1976
o
to June 1977) were said to represent a 680 Gg (760 x 10 tons) loss in
ammonia production that year (The Fertilizer Institute, 1979).
In anticipation of increasing curtailment of natural gas supplies,
several projects have investigated the feasibility of using coal as a fuel
and a source of gas feedstock for the production of ammonia. A TVA ammonia
production facility is being retrofitted to use coal gas as both a feedstock
and a fuel. This facility is tentatively scheduled for start-up in August 1980,
and will be used as an experimental system to investigate a variety of
operating conditions and feedstock mixtures (Waitzman et al., 1978).
A second, larger project investigating the feasibility of using coal
gas in ammonia production was initiated as a joint venture between W. R. Grace,
Inc., and the Energy Research and Development Administration (Savage,
1977). As originally planned, a demonstration plant would synthesize gas
from coal using the Texaco process. This gas would then be sold to
W. R. Grace for use in ammonia synthesis. After the design phase of this
project, funding was terminated by the Department of Energy in favor of a
project to convert coal to intermediate Btu gas for industrial use (Stewart,
1980). Given the experimental nature of "ammonia from coal" technology and
the cost of retooling the industry, it is unlikely that a significant shift
in production methods will occur in the next 5 to 10 years.
The major effect of natural gas availability and cost on ammonia
production will be on the siting of new production facilities. Several
developing countries with new-found oil and gas supplies have recently
begun to expand ammonia production capabilities. Conversion of natural gas
to ammonia provides a convenient use for excess gas supply that might
22
-------
otherwise be flared. Countries with this production potential include
Mexico and Trinidad as well as some of the older OPEC nations (The
Fertilizer Institute, 1979). Shields and Mclntyre (1979) predict that one-
fourth of the world's fertilizer will be produced in developing countries
by 1985 compared with 10 percent in 1969. Whether these new producers have
disruptive effect on the market will depend on trade agreements and orderly
market arrangements.
The current trade embargo with USSR could have a significant effect on
the ammonia market in both a direct and indirect fashion. Predictions made
in 1979 indicated that almost 10 percent of current United States demand
for ammonia would be supplied by imports from Russia by 1980 (Wett, 1979).
Current predictions from the United States Department of Agriculture are
that ammonia imports from Russia will be between 0.7 and 0.9 Tg in 1981
(Maxey, 1980). Curtailment of this source could result in a new demand for
domestic supplies. On the other hand, the grain embargo could soften the
market for agricultural products with a. subsequent reduction in demand for
fertilizer. In the short term then, the ammonia market appears certain to
follow a pattern of volatility and unpredictability.
Despite the short-term uncertainties, several conclusions can be drawn
on the direction of the industry for the next 5 years. Demand for nitrogen
fertilizers will continue to show steady growth spurred by the increasing
need for agricultural products. Increased agricultural production will
require the use of marginally productive lands which have a proportionally
higher fertilizer requirement. The domestic demand for nitrogen fertilizer
is predicted to increase from 1978 levels of 14.3 Tg (15.8 million tons) as
NH3 to 17.4 Tg (19.1 million tons) in 1985 (Shields and Mclntyre, 1979).
Worldwide demand is expected to climb from 58.0 Tg (63.8 million tons) to
80.1 Tg (88.2 million tons) in the same period (Shields and Mclntyre, 1979).
Douglas (1978) predicts a 3 percent annual growth rate in nitrogen
fertilizer consumption through 1990 in the United States.
Ammonia prices have recovered from levels of around $100/Mg ($90/ton)
to a more profitable level of $160/Mg ($145/ton) as of December 1979 (United
States Department of Agriculture, 1979). With the increase in ammonia
prices, several idle plants may come back on line; however, any new plant
23
-------
expansion is unlikely. Both domestic and worldwide production capabilities
are sufficient to handle predicted demand through 1985 (Bridges, 1979). The
most recent semi-annual survey of the ammonia industry conducted by The
Fertilizer Institute indicates that no domestic plants are planned for
construction throuqh 1984 (Johnson, 198C)b). Beyond that period it is
likely that the increased cost of feedstock will force nitrogen production
to shift from traditional producers such as the United States, Japan, and
Western Europe to areas of available low-cost natural gas (Shields and
Mclntyre, 1979).
The forms in which nitrogen fertilizer is marketed and used have been
changing. Consumption of urea is increasing fairly rapidly (10-20 percent
per year) while production of ammonium nitrate has leveled off. Urea is
favored because of its higher nitrogen content and production methods that
avoid the environmental problems associated with the use of nitric acid
in the production of ammonium nitrate. While urea production capability
may be retrofitted to existing ammonia plants, the increased demand for
urea is not sufficient to require new construction of ammonia plants.
Given the current and projected energy supply picture and the
relatively unprotected status of the industry, the long-term prognosis
for the United States ammonia industry would not appear favorable;
however, there is substantial pressure by industry groups to prevent a
significant deterioration of this production capacity. This position
was made apparent by all parties consulted during this study. Without
protection from inexpensive imports the domestic industry could well be
submerged by a flood of imports. Protectionist arguments can be based
on national security. Because ammonia supply is fundamental to agricultural
production, it would not be in the national interest to be held captive
by an ammonia cartel.
Despite this protectionist sentiment, it is unlikely that the
United States ammonia industry will see any expansion through 1985. The
idle and reserve capacity are sufficient to handle the demand for several
years. The uncertainties in market conditions, import competition, and raw
material supply all weigh against domestic industry growth.
24
-------
4.3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Ninety-eight percent of the ammonia produced in the United States is by
catalytic steam reforming of natural gas (Hincman and Spawn, 1979). The gas
is converted to hydrogen, purified, and reacted with nitrogen to produce
ammonia. In consideration of the increasing cost and decreasing availability
of natural gas, many have contemplated gasifying coal to produce synthesis
gas. This approach would double the cost of an ammonia plant (Waitzman et
al., 1978), and would increase energy consumption by 30 percent and necessitate
coal handling and preparation as well as ash disposal (Nichols and Blouin,
1979). Accordingly, the discussion that follows is based on the synthesis of
ammonia using natural gas as a feedstock. Appendix B contains a brief
discussion of the development of the ammonia synthesis process.
4.3.1 Overall Process
Figure 4-3 is a generalized flow diagram of a typical ammonia plant.
The production of ammonia from natural gas comprises six major steps:
1. Desulfurization (to prevent poisoning the nickel reformer catalyst)
2. Reforming of CH^ to H2 and CO
3- Shifting of CO with H^O to produce additional H«
4. Absorption of CO™
5- Methanation of residual C0? prior to NHL synthesis
6. Synthesis of NH3 from H,, and Np
4.3.2 Desulfurization
Natural gas is delivered to the plant at above 3.5 MPa (500 psi)
(Mayes, 1980). Natural gas contains sulfur in the form of H9S which must be
3
reduced to below 280 yg/m (Raw!ings and Reznik, 1977) to prevent poisoning
the nickel reforming catalyst (LeBlanc et al., 1978). There are two common
desulfurization methods: activated carbon and zinc oxide. With activated
carbon two tanks are commonly used so that when one is being regenerated the
other is on stream. Regeneration is accomplished by passing superheated
steam through the bed. Newer plants are tending to use a zinc oxide bed
which remains in the gas stream until it has adsorbed about 20 percent of
its weight in sulfur at which time it is discarded (LeBlanc, 1978). There
are basicially three advantages to the zinc oxide bed: energy in the form
of steam regeneration is not required, there are no air emissions, and
25
-------
NATURAL GAS
PURGE GAS
EMISSIONS -*
-HDE SULFUR IZATION
PRIMARY
REFORMER
1
SECONDARY
REFORMER
EMISSIONS
PROCESS
CONDENSATE
JL
STEAM
STRIPPER
STEAM EFFLUENT
NH3-«-
HIGH TEMP. SHIFT
-4 LOW TEMP. SHIFT
I
CO2 ABSORBER
METHANATION
EMISSIONS DURING CARBON
-^-REGENERATION (NONE
WITH ZINC OXIDE)
STEAM
AIR
EMISSIONS
I
CO2 SORBENT
REGENERATION
T
STEAM
r
COMPRESSION
t
AMMONIA
SYNTHESIS
4
\
NH3
PURGE GAS VENTED TO
PRIMARY REFORMER
FOR FUEL
Figure 4-3. Process flow diagram of a typical ammonia plant.
26
-------
higher molecular weight hydrocarbons are not removed, (which would reduce
the heating value of the gas). According to Finneran et al. (1972), heavy
hydrocarbons tend to nullify the effectiveness of the carbon. Also, carbon
does not remove carbonyl sulfide.
According to CF Industries (Carville, 1980) and Triad Chemicals (Crochet
and Torres, 1980) regeneration of the carbon bed occurs once a week and
takes twelve hours. Rawlings and Reznek (1977) on the other hand report
that regeneration occurs monthly and takes ten hours.
4.3.3 Catalytic Steam Reforming
Steam reforming proceeds in two steps. In the primary reformer (the
radiant section of the reformer), methane reacts with steam in the presence
of a nickel catalyst to produce hydrogen and CCL as follows:
CH4 + H20 -»• CO + 3H2
CO + H£0 - C02 + H2
Gas exits the primary reformer at 750 to 850°C and 2900 to 3600 kPa (LeBlanc
et al. 1978), and contains about 10 percent unreacted methane (Mayes, 1980).
Partially reformed gas flows to the refractory-lined secondary reformer
where it is mixed with air (the amount of which is fixed by the ultimately-
required \\J^2 ratio of 3 to 1). Fuel for the primary reformer consists of
7/8 natural gas and 1/8 purge gas from the ammonia synthesizer (Mayes,
1980). The oxygen from the air is combusted with the fuel to provide
additional heat in the secondary reformer. Reformed synthesis gas leaves
the secondary reformer at around 1000°C and is cooled to around 370°C,
which produces sufficient heat to supply from 50 to 100 percent of the 10.3
MPa steam required in the plant (Rawlings and Reznik, 1977). Methane content
at this point is 0.34 percent (Mayes, 1980).
4.3.4 Carbon Monoxide Shift
The gas now enters the high temperature shift converter, which is
filled with chromium-oxide-promoted iron oxide shift catalyst (Rawlings and
Reznik, 1977) where the shift reaction occurs.
CO + H0 C0 + H
27
-------
The forward reaction proceeds more rapidly at higher temperatures; however,
the forward reaction is only partially completed under these conditions.
Most of the reaction takes place at high temperature (330 to 550°C) to take
advantage of higher rates. At the point that C02 builds up to where the
reverse reaction can proceed at an appreciable rate, the gas is fed to the
low temperature shift reactor (200°C) to take advantage of higher equilibrium
C02/hL concentrations. The CO concentration is reduced from 12.8 percent to
3 percent in the high temperature shift reactor and from 3 percent to 0.5
percent in the low temperature shift reactor. Unreacted steam is condensed
and separated from the gas in a knock-out drum. A typical ammonia plant
3
recovers approximately 40 m /hr of process condensate for a 900 Mg per day
plant.
4.3.5 C0? Removal
The gas at this point contains around 17 to 19 percent CQ* which must
be removed since it can poison the ammonia synthesis catalyst. Two scrubbing
systems are mainly used in the United States to absorb C0?: monoethanolamine
and hot potassium carbonate (Rawlings and Reznik, 1977). C02 is absorbed by
monoethanolamine as follows:
2NH2-C2H4-OH + C02 -> (NH2-C2H4)2C03 + H20
and by potassium carbonate solution as follows:
CO^ + C02 + H20 -* 2HCO~
The scrubbing solution is regenerated by heating with steam which generates
a 98.5 percent C02 stream.
4.3.6 Methanation
As noted above, C02 is a synthesis catalyst poison; therefore, all
traces must be removed from the synthesis gas. This is best accomplished by
methanation, which is simply a reverse of the catalytic steam reforming of
methane. Specifically, the synthesis gas passes over a nickel catalyst
where the following reactions take place:
C02 + H2 -»- CO + H£0
CO + 3H2 -* CH4 + H20
C02 + 4H2 -»• CH4 + 2H20
Exit gas from the methanator contains less than 10 ppm CO and C02 and about
1.3 percent methane and argon. The H2 to N2 ratio is 3 to 1.
28
-------
4.3.7 Ammonia Synthesis
Synthesis gas is compressed in two steps. After the first step, water
is removed and the gas is cooled to increase volumetric efficiency. Also,
the synthesis gas is combined with recycle from the ammonia synthesizer.
Recycle contains 12 percent NH, which is reduced to 9.9 percent when mixed
o
with fresh feed. Following final compression, the gas is cooled to -23 C
and the ammonia product is removed as is water plus any residual
Synthesis gas is reheated to 140°C. It is then fed to the ammonia synthesizer
which operates around 14 kPa. The gas exiting the reactor is recycled as
described above. A small amount of the gas is purged to prevent buildup of
inert gas in the reaction cycle. The purge gas is refrigerated to remove
ammonia and then fed to the primary reformer along with natural gas (Raw! ings
and Reznik, 1977; LeBlanc et al . , 1978; Quartulli et al . , 1977; Mayes,
1980). Haslam and Isalski (1975) reported that typical purge gas has the
following composition:
Hydrogen 60 mole percent
Nitrogen 20
Argon 3.5
Methane 16.5
Ammonia 50 ppm
4.3.8 Possible Future Process Improvements
Pullman Kellogg recommends cryogenic recovery of hydrogen from the
purge gas (Ricci, 1979). Hydrogen is just too valuable to use as a fuel and
when removed and added to the synthesis gas, recovered hydrogen can increase
plant capacity by 6 percent (Ricci, 1979). Maclean et al . (1980) recently
reported on a membrane separation technique developed by Monsanto for the
removal of hydrogen from the purge gas. A test unit was installed at
Monsanto's 545 Mg/d (600 t/d) ammonia plant in Luling, Louisiana, followed
by a commercial unit that started up in September 1979.
Pullman Kellogg has also reportedly succeeded in reducing the synthesis
pressure from 14 to 8 kPa which reduces natural gas requirements from
1100 m3/Mg to 750 m3/Mg of ammonia (Savage, 1977).
29
-------
5. AIR EMISSIONS
5.1 DESULFURIZATION
Sulfur content in natural gas comprises a broad range; however, gas in
the southeast where the majority of NH, is synthesized is in the range of
•5 3
300 to 400 yg/m (as H0S). United States Environmental Protection Agency
3
(1979) gives a typical national H2S content of 4600 ug/m , which will be
used in this analysis. Based on a feedstock natural gas requirement of
700 m /Mg NH~, the emission factor for S09 is 6 g/Mg NH-. Furthermore
3 -4
4600 yg/m corresponds to approximately 1.2 x 10~ g sulfur per MJ (3 x
10 lb/10 Btu) which is four orders of magnitude less than Federal
emission standard for the combustion of fossil fuels. Emission factors
for S02, CO, and VOC are 6 g/Mg, 6.9 kg/Mg and 3.6 kg/Mg, respectively
(Rawlings and Reznek, 1977). Based on a 900 Mg per day ammonia plant,
annual emissions for SOp, CO, and VOC are 1.8 Mg, 2100 Mg, and 1100 Mg,
respectively. According to Hincman and Spawn (1979), a few producers
have installed incinerators, despite the added cost, to combust the CO and
VOC. Industry ^ojisensus is that new ammonia plants wijl use zinc_oxide
rat_her_than carbon which would eliminate the desulfurizer as an emission
point (Finneran et al., 1972; Carville, 1980; Crochet and Torres, 1980;
and Lukes et al., 1980). According to Buividas (1980), it is more cost
effective to use zinc oxide where sulfur content is below 10 ppm (12 mg/m ).
5.2 CATALYTIC STEAM REFORMING
Emission factors for the primary reformer were calculated by Rawlings
and Reznik (1977) for both natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil based upon lab
tests and reported emissions at four ammonia plants. These emission factors,
which are those listed in AP-42, are as follows:
30
-------
Species Natural Gas. kg/Mg Fuel Oil. kg/Mg
N0x 2.7* 2.7
SO 0..0024 1.3
CO 0..068 0.12
TSP 0.072 0.45
VOC 0.012 0.15
5.3 REGENERATION-OF C02 SORBENT
The scrubbing solution is regenerated by heating with steam which
generates a 98.5 percent COp stream. Approximately 20 percent of ammonia
producers use the carbon dioxide as a chemical feedstock in urea production
thus eliminating the effluent as an air emission (Hincman and Spawn,
1979). Emission factors, which are based on the work of Rawlings and
Reznik (1977), are listed in AP-42 as follows:
CO 1.0
VOC 0.48
5.4 EMISSIONS FROM PROCESS CONDENSATE TREATMENT
Most of the process condensate arises from the low temperature
shift where unreacted steam is condensed and separated from the gas in a
knock-out drum. This water contains approximately 600 ppm to 1000 ppm
ammonia, 200 ppm to 1000 ppm methanol, and 200 ppm to 2800 ppm carbon
dioxide (Romero et a!., 1977). Additional condensate is removed from
the cooled gas that leaves the methanator. Current practice is for the
condensate to be steam stripped and for the methanol and ammonia that
are removed to be vented to the atmosphere. The stripped condensate is
then disposed of (Rawlings and Reznik, 1977). At least one plant uses
the unstripped condensate directly as feed to a low-pressure boiler
(Lukes et a!., 1980). Emission factors for the vented gas are listed in
AP-42 as follows:
Ammonia 1.1 kg/Mg
CO 34
V*Wo *^ • '
Methanol 0.6
*AP-42 lists 2.9, a misprint.
31
-------
According to Romero et al. (1977) the least-cost and most acceptable
control approach is to inject the overhead from the steam stripper into the
reformer furnace stack. At a stack temperature of 200°C to 260°C, ammonia
and methanol largely decompose. Actual stack analysis showed that ammonia
and methanol were reduced by 59.3 and 74.7 percent, respectively. This may
not be a particularly efficacious control technique since the result of
NFL decomposition is a 41 percent increase in NO (Rawlings and Reznik,
o x
1977).
5.5 FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
As noted above, fugitive emissions arise form leaking compressor and
pump seals, ammonia storage tank vents, and pressure relief valves. The
ammonia synthesis sections of the plant operates at pressures in the range
of 3 MPa (400 psi), and leaks are quickly identified and sealed, particularly
since the first perceptible odor of ammonia is 20 ppm (LeBlanc et al.,
1978). One plant (Crochet and Torres, 1980) reported NO emissions while
X
flaring ammonia from the storage tank. They reported 2 tons of ammonia
flared per day for about 15 days per year. Most plants, however, use a
small compressor to recompress NH3 off-gas from the storage tank when the
plant is down (Johnson, 1980c).
5.6 SUMMARY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF EMISSIONS
Emission factors are summarized in Table 5-1 for both controlled and
uncontrolled cases. Also shown in the table are annual emissions from a
typical 900 Mg ammonia plant (900 "metric tons" which is about 1000 tons).
Finally, the table gives calculated annual emissions for the entire
industry based on 1978 NHL production of 16.4 Tg. Annual emissions combine
methanol and MEA with VOC as CH. equivalent. Furthermore, uncontrolled
emissions assume no controls exist in the existing population, which would
tend to over-estimate existing emissions. The controlled situation for the
existing population shows that NO emissions would increase since reduction
X
of emissions from the C09 absorber raises reformer NO by 41 percent. The
L. X
reader should not interpret the difference in emissions between the uncon-
trolled and controlled existing population as being a possible result of
any EPA standard-setting activities since NSS would only apply to new sources,
The table also shows the relative contribution of the ammonia industry to
the total stationary source emissions.
32
-------
Table 5-1. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS
oo
OJ
Emission factors, g/Mg NH,
- i . j
Desulfurizer (carbon)
Controlled (ZnO)
Reformer
A for stripper overhead to stack
Steam stripper
Controlled (to reformer stack)
COp absorber
If feedstock for urea plant
Annual emissions: 900 Mg plant, Mg
(MeOH and MEA on ChL equivalent and
included with VOC)
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Controlled, with on-site urea production
National annual emissions
"(based on 16.4 Tg produced in 1979), Gg
Uncontrolled
(Percent of all stationary sources)
Control led
SO, NOV CO TSP VOC MeOH MEA
t« A
6.0 6,900 3,600
0 00
2.4 2,700 68 72 12
+ 1,100 + 150
600
0
1,000 470 50
0 00
2.5 ' 826 2,438 22 1,346
0.7 1,163 327 22 175
0.7 1,163. 21 22 27
0.14 44.3 130.7 1.2 72.2
(0.0005) (0.34) (0.75) (0.01) (0.42)
0.04 62.3 1.1 1.2 1.2
NH3
+ 440
1 ,100
0
1,000
0
(Percent of all stationary sources)
(0.00015) (0.48) (0.006) (0.01) (0.007)
-------
6. EMISSION CONTROL
6.1 DESULFURIZATION
As noted in Chapter 5, activated carbon will not be used in future
plants to desulfurize the natural gas feedstock. Since the zinc oxide is
not regenerated, there are no air emissions from this step in the process.
6.2 REFORMER
Process heat for the primary reformer is supplied by burning natural
gas or, in a few isolated instances, fuel oil. Emissions are the combustion
products, mainly NO , which can be reduced by combustion modification or
)\
ammonia injection into the combustion zone.
6.3 C02 SORBENT REGENERATION
The 98 percent COp gas stream is commonly vented to the atmosphere.
Since the gas contains CO and VOC (which corresponds to annual emissions of
306 Mg and 148 Mg, respectively, for a 900 Mg per day ammonia plant), an
alternative is desirable. It was noted that approximately 20 percent of
the ammonia producers use the C0? stream in urea production. Since there
is significant growth in urea production, existing ammonia plants are being
retrofitted with urea plants. It may be reasonably expected that any new
ammonia plants constructed beyond* 1985 will be in conjunction with urea
production, thus eliminating the C0? stream as an emission point in the
process.
6.4 PROCESS CONDENSATE STRIPPING
Methanol contained in the overhead gas from the condensate stripper
results in an annual VOC emission of about 92 Mg from a 900 Mg per day
ammonia plant. This is reduced to about 23 Mg per year when the gas stream
is injected to the base of the reformer stack.
34
-------
6.5 CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
As was noted in Chapter 5, the ammonia synthesis section of the plant
operates at high pressure such that any leaks are quickly identified and
sealed, particularly since ammonia is the product which the owner does not
wish to lose.
35
-------
7. EMISSION DATA
This study is based on emissions reported in a 1977 EPA survey report
on the ammonia manufacturing industry (Raw!ings and Reznik, 1977). In
addition, process condensate treatment at seven ammonia plants was examined
in 1977 and was published in an EPA report (Romero et al., 1977). No
source testing was performed under the current study. Indeed, the plants
that were visited during this study base their emission estimates on
AP-42 (USEPA, 1979). There is no evidence that any independent emission
data exist in the industry. "
36
-------
8. STATE AND LOCAL EMISSION REGULATIONS
Air pollution control agencies of the five states with the largest
number of ammonia plants were contacted for information on state regulatory
stance toward synthetic ammonia plants. All contacts indicated that their
respective states had no specific regulations regarding emissions from the
ammonia synthesis (Spuhler, 1980; Brasher, 1980; Wall, 1980; Argentine,
1980; Cullen, 1980). No control technology for air emissions from existing
ammonia manufacturing facilities is currently required by any of these states,
State agencies indicated that permit requests for new sources would be
handled on a case by case basis. Items of concern would include the
impact of the source on National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
as outlined in the State Implementation Plans (SIP). Where necessary,
emissions would be controlled by best control technology available
within economic constraints.
37
-------
REFERENCES
Appl, M. 1976. A Brief History of Ammonia Production from the Early Days
to the Present. Nitrogen, 100:47-58.
Argentine, M., California Air Resources Board. 1980. Telephone con-
versation with Edward Monnig, TRW. April 2. State regulation of
ammonia industry.
Blue, T., SRI International. 1980. Letter and attachments to Edward Monnig,
TRW. February 13. Listing of Ammonia Production Facilities from the
files of SRI International.
Brasher, A., Air Quality Section, Louisiana Health and Human Resources
Administration. 1980. Telephone conversation with Edward Monnig, TRW.
March 28. State regulation of the ammonia industry.
Bridges, J. D. 1979. Fertilizer Trends 1979. National Fertilizer Develop-
ment Center, Tennessee Valley Authority. Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
Buividas, L. J., Pullman Kellogg. Telephone conversation with Edward Monnig,
TRW. April 30. Economics of ZnO desulfurization.
Carville, T. E., CF Industries. 1980. Trip Report submitted to EPA by
C. J. Chatlynne, TRW. Ammonia Plant in Donaldsonville, LA, March 19.
Crochet, K., and H. Torres, Triad Chemicals. 1980. Trip Report submitted to
EPA by C. J. Chatlynne, TRW. Ammonia Plant in Donaldsonville, LA,
March 18.
Cull en, R., Air Quality Service, Oklahoma State Department of Health.
1980. Telephone conversation with Edward Monnig, TRW. April 9.
State regulation of the ammonia industry.
Douglas, 0. 1978. Musings on the United States Fertilizer Industry, 1990.
In: Proceedings of the World Fertilizer Conference. Sponsored by
The Fertilizer Institute, September 13-16, San Francisco, California.
Finneran, 0. A., L. J. Buividas, and N. Walen. 1972. Advanced Ammonia
Production. Hydrocarbon Processing, 51(4):127-130.
Harre, E., Tennessee Valley Authority. 1980. Letter and attachments to
C. J. Chatlynne, TRW. February 14. Listing of U. S. ammonia facilities
as provided by TVA.
38
-------
Has!am, A. A., and W. H. Isalski. 1975. Hydrogen from Ammonia Plant Purge
Gas. Ammonia Plant Safety, 17:80-84.
Hincman, Philip S., and P. Spawn. 1979. An Evaluation of Control Needs for
the Nitrogen Fertilizer Industry, EPA-600/2-79-186. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
88 pp.
Johnson, K., The Fertilizer Institute. 1980a. Letter and attachments to
Edward Monnig, TRW. March 21. List of closed ammonia plants.
Johnson, K., The Fertilizer Institute. 1980b. Telephone conversation with
Edward Monnig, TRW. April 24. Survey of ammonia manufactures: present
capacity and future construction plans.
Johnson, K., The Fertilizer Institute. 1980c. Telephone conversation with
Edward Monnig, TRW. June 2. Comments on ammonia source category
survey report.
LeBlanc, Jr., J. R., S. Madhaven, and R. Porter. 1978. Ammonia. In:
Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd Edition, Volume 2,
pp. 470-516.
Lukes, A., P. Noel, and A. Arseneaux, Air Products. 1980. Trip Report
submitted to EPA by C. J. Chatlynne, TRW. Air Products Ammonia
Plant in New Orleans, LA, March 17.
Lyon, S. D. 1975. Development of the Modern Ammonia Industry. Chemistry
and Industry, September 6. pp. 731-739.
MacLean, D. L., C. E. Prince, and Y. C. Chae. 1980. Energy-Saving Modifications
in Ammonia Plants. Chemical Engineering 76(3):98-104.
Maxey F., U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Telephone conversation with
Edward Monnig, TRW. March 11. Ammonia imports and impacts of Russian
trade embargo.
Mayes, J. H., Consulting Engineer. 1980. Personal Communication with
C. J. Chatlynne, TRW. March 14. Detailed Ammonia Plant Designs and
Operating Information.
Nichols, D., and G. M. Blovin. 1979. Ammonia Fertilizer from Coal, Chem
Tech, 9(8):512-518.
Quartulli, 0. L., W. Turner, and K. W. Padgett. 1977. Ammonia. In:
Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design, J. J. McKetta and
W. A. Cunningham eds. Vol 3, pp. 256-278.
Raw!ings, G. D., and R. B. Reznik. 1977. Source Assessment: Synthetic
Ammonia Production, EPA-600/2-77-107m. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. C., 83 pp.
39
-------
Rlcci, L. J. 1979. Tightening the Loop on Ammonia Production. Chemical
Engineering, 86(3):54,56.
Romero, C. J., F. Yocum, J. H. Mayes, and D. A. Brown. 1977. Treatment of
Ammonia Plant Process Condensate Effluent, EPA-600/2-77-200. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. C., 93 pp.
Savage, P. R. 1977. New Feeds and Processes Perk Ammonia Production.
Chemical Engineering, 84(23):79-82.,
Scholer, C. E., Pullman Kellogg. Telephone conversation with Edward Monnig,
TRW. April 24. Construction costs of new ammonia plants.
Shields, J. T. and I. Mclntyre. 1979. The World Fertilizer Market and Its
Changing Structure. In: Situation 79, Proceedings of TVA Fertilizer
Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, August 23-24.
Spuller, F., Texas Air Control Board. 1980. Telephone conversation with
Edward Monnig, TRW. March 28. State regulation of ammonia industry.
Stewart, R., W. R. Grace, Incorporated. 1980. Telephone conversation
with Edward Monnig, TRW. March 24. Status of ammonia from coal project.
The Fertilizer Institute. 1979. Fertilizer Reference Manual, I. Washington,
D. C. June. 91 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. 1980 Fertilizer Situation FS-10.
Washington, D. C. 34 pp.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1980. Current Industrial
Reports, Inorganic Fertilizer Materials and Related Products. December
1979. M28B(79}-12. Washington, D. C. February. 8 pp.
U. S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration. 1978. Annual
Report to Congress 1978, Volume III. DOE/EIA-0173/3. Washington, D. C.
pp. 55-91.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors, Supplement 9. AP-42, July.
Waitzman, D. A., D. E. Nichols, P. C. Williamson, and D. R. Waggoner. 1978.
Fertilizer From Coal. In: Proceedings of Faculty Institute Symposium
on: Coal Production, Technology and Utilization. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
August 10.
Wall., J., Iowa Department of Environmental Quality. 1980. Telephone
conversation with Edward Monnig, TRW. April 10. State regulation of
ammonia industry.
Wett, T. 1979. Little Aid Seen for Ammonia Industry. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 77:36-38.
40
-------
APPENDIX A. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
Table A-l is a list of ammonia plants, location, capacity, and status
(Harre, 1980; Blue, 1980). The designation "closed" indicates that the
facility has been shut down with little prospect for reopening. The
designation "idle" indicates that the plant has been shut down in a non-
routine fashion but may be brought back up if conditions improve. The date
following the designation indicates the year in which the plant was shut
down. Production data are presented as daily production capacity. Annual
production capacity is typically figured by assuming 340 production days
per year.
Table A-2 lists all ammonia plants that were shut down as of March 1980
(Johnson, 1980a). Table A-3 provides a distribution of ammonia plants by
state.
41
-------
Table A-l. U. S. AMMONIA PLANTS AND CAPACITIES (1980 YEAR-END)
Company, location
Status
Daily capacity
Mg* (tons)
as NH,
Agrico
Blytheville, Arkansas
Donaldsonville, Louisiana
Verdigris, Oklahoma
Air Products
Pace, Florida
New Orleans, Louisiana
Allied
Helena, Arkansas
Geismar, Louisiana
Omaha, Nebraska
South Point, Ohio
Hopewell, Virginia
American Cyanamid
Avondale, Louisiana
Amoco
Texas City, Texas
Texas City, Texas
Ampro (First Mississippi Corp.)
Donaldsonville, Louisiana
Apache Powder
Curtiss, Arizona
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Closed (1978)
Operational
Operational
Operational
Idle (1977)
Operational
Idle (1979)
1,090 (1,200)
1,250 (1,375)
2,250 (2,500)
250 (290)
560 (610)
560 (610)
900 (1,000)
460 (500)
530 (580)
910 (1,000)
820 (2,000)
1,400 (1,500)
540 (600)
1,070 (1,176)
34 (38)
(continued)
42
-------
Table A-l. (Continued)
Company, location
Status
Daily capacity
Mg* (tons)
as NH3
Atlas Chemical
Joplin, Missouri
Beker
Conda, Idaho
Carlsbad, New Mexico
Borden
Geismar, Louisiana
Car-ren
Columbus, Mississippi
CF Industries
Terre Haute, Indiana
Donaldsonville, Louisiana
Fremont, Nebraska
Tunis, North Carolina
Tyner, Tennessee
Chemical Distributors Corp.
Chandler, Arizona
Chevron
Fort Madison, Iowa
Pascagoula, Mississippi
Richmond, California
Columbia Nitrogen
Augusta, Georgia
Augusta, Georgia
Cominco (Camex)
Borger, Texas
Operational
Operational
Idle (1977)
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Closed (1978)
Operational
Closed (1978)
Operational
360 (400)
260 (290)
460 (500)
900 (1,000)
180 (200)
400 (440)
4,250 (4,700)
128 (141)
561 (610)
454 (500)
105 (115)
280 (308)
1,400 (1,500)
290 (320)
1,400 (1,500)
310 (350)
1,070 (1,200)
(continued)
43
-------
Table A-l. (Continued)
Company, location
Status
Daily capacity
Mg* (tons)
as NH,
Diamond Shamrock
Dumas, Texas
Dow
Freeport, Texas
Du Pont
Beaumont, Texas
Victoria, Texas
Belle, West Virginia
El Paso
Odessa, Texas
Enserch (Nipak)
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Closed (1978)
Operational
430 (470)
307 (340)
910 (1,000)
270 (300)
825 (906)
280 (310)
Kerens, Texas
Pryor, Oklahoma
Esmark (Swift Chemical)
Beaumont, Texas
Empire Nitrogen (Georgia Nit.)
Gordon, Georgia
Farmland
Fort Dodge, Iowa
Dodge City, Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas
Pollock, Louisiana
Hastings, Nebraska
Enid, Oklahoma
Felmont Oil
Olean, New York
Idle (1978)
Idle (1978)
Idle (1978)
Idle (1978)
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
(continued)
44
320
270
725
90
560
560
910
1,120
380
2,250
230
(350)
(300)
(800)
(TOO)
(620)
(620)
(1,000)
(1,240)
(420)
(2,470)
(250)
-------
Table A-l. (Continued)
Company, location
First Mississippi
Fort Madison, Iowa
FMC
S. Charleston, West Virginia
Gardinier
Tampa, Florida
Georgia Pacific
Plaquemine, Louisiana
Goodpasture
Dimmitt, Texas
Dimmitt, Texas
W.R. Grace
Big Spring, Texas
Memphis, Tennessee
Green Valley
Creston, Iowa
Gulf & Western (N.J. Zinc)
Palmerton, Pennsylvania
Hawkeye
Clinton, Iowa
Hercules
Louisiana, Missouri
IMC
Sterlington, Louisiana
Sterlington, Louisiana
Status
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Idle (1978)
Operational
Closed (1978)
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Idle (1978)
Operational
(continued)
45
Daily capacity
Mg* (tons)
as NH3
975 (1,070)
65 (70)
325 (360)
525 (575)
65 (75)
105 (120)
270 (300)
910 (1,000)
90 (100)
90 (100)
370 (400)
190 (200)
920 (1,000)
1,100 (1,200)
-------
Table A-1. (Continued)
Company, location
Jupiter
Lake Charles, Louisiana
Kaiser
Savannah, Georgia
Savannah, Georgia
Mississippi Chemical
Pascagoula, Mississippi
Yazoo City, Mississippi
Monsanto
Luling, Louisiana
N-Ren
E. Dubuque, Illinois
Hobbs, New Mexico
Pryor, Oklahoma
Plainview, Texas
Occidental (Hooker)
Hanford, California
Lathrop, California
Taft, Louisiana
Tacoma, Washington
Plainview, Texas
Oklahoma Nitrogen (Grace)
Woodard, Oklahoma
01 in
Lake Charles, Louisiana
Pennwalt
Portland, Oregon
Status
Operational
Idle (1979)
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Closed (1977)
Idle (1978)
Idle (1979)
Operational
Operational
Closed (1979)
Operational
Operational
Operational
(continued)
46
Daily capacity
Mg* (tons)
as NH3
320
122
265
470
1,050
2,270
640
180
250
140
100
320
240
65
135
1,100
1,300
21
(350)
(135)
(290)
(510)
(1,160)
(2,500)
(700)
(200)
(275)
(160)
(105)
(350)
(265)
(70)
(150)
(1,200)
(1,440)
(23)
-------
Table A-l. (Continued)
Company, location
Phillips Petroleum
Beatrice, Nebraska
Pasadena, Texas
Phillips Pacific
Finley, Washington
PPG
New Marti nsville, W. Virginia
Reichhold
St. Helens, Oregon
Rohm & Haas
Deer Park, Texas
Simplot
Pocatello, Idaho
Tenneco
Pasadena, Texas
Terra
Port Neal , Iowa
Tipperary
Lovington, New Mexico
Triad
Donaldsonville, Louisiana
TVA
Muscle Shoals, Alabama
Status
Operational
Idle (1977)
Operational
Operational
Operational
Closed (1978)
Operational
Idle (1978)
Operational
Closed (1979)
Operational
Operational
(continued)
47
Daily capacity
Mg* (tons)
as NH3
560 (620)
680 (750)
410 (450)
135 (150)
240 (260)
115 (125)
290 (320)
530 (480)
560 (610)
260 (290)
910 (1,000)
200 (220)
-------
Table A-l. (Concluded)
Company, location
Status
Deily capacity
Mg* (tons)
as NH0
Union Oil
Kenai, Alaska
Brea, California
USA Petrochem
Ventura, California
U.S. Steel
Cherokee, Alabama
Clairton, Pennsylvania
Geneva, Utah
Valley Nitrogen
Helm, California
Hercules, California
El Centre, California
Vistron
Lima, Ohio
Vulan Materials
Wichita, Kansas
Wycon
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Closed (1978)
Idle (1977)
Operational
Operational
Closed (1978)
Operational
2,700 (3,000)
750 (820)
130 (150)
470 (520)
910 (1,000)
185 (200)
440 (485)
185 (200)
560 (620)
1,270 (1,400)
90 (100)
450 (500)
*0ne megagram (Mg) equals 1000 metric tons.
48
-------
Table A-2. AMMONIA PLANTS CLOSED0
Company
Location
Capacity
(TRY)
Allied Chemical
Amoco (American Oil)
Apache
Beker Industries
Standard (Chevron Chemical)
Columbia Nitrogen
DtfPont
Duval
Estech Chemical
Ampro (First Miss.)
Goodpasture
W.R. Grace
IMC
Kaiser
N-REN
Enserch (Nipak)
Occidental
Phillips
Southpoint, OH
Texas City, TX
Curtiss, AZ
Carlsbad, NM
Richmond, CA
Augusta, GA
Belle, WVA
Hanford, CA
Beaumont, TX
Dona!dsonvilie, LA
Dimmit, TX
Big Springs, TX
Sterlington, LA
Savannah, GA
Plainview, TX
Kerens, TX (sold, Marsco)
Pryor, OK (sold, Kaiser)
Lathrop, CA
Plainview, TX
Pasadena, TX
240,000
200,000
15,000
210,000
130,000
122,000
340,000
42,000
300,000
400,000
31,000
100,000
370,000
50,000
60,000
115,000
105,000
160,000
52,000
230,000
(continued)
49
-------
Table A-2. (Concluded)
Company
Rohm & Haas
Tenneco
Tipperary
Valley Nitrogen
Vulcan Materials
Location
Deer Park, TX
Pasadena, TX
Lovington, NM
Hercules, CA (sold to
Hercules Properties)
Helm, CA
Wichita, KA
Capacity
(TPY)
45,000
210,000
100,000
70,000
176,000
35,000
3,936,000
aList provided by Karl Johnson, Vice President, The Fertilizer Institute,
and checked with TVA February 28, 1980.
Capacity is "nameplate" or equivalent. The above total is 16.0 percent
of U. S. capacity, 24.8 million tons in 1980 as reported by TVA.
50
-------
Table A-3. LOCATION OF SYNTHETIC AMMONIA FACILITIES BY STATE
State
Texas
Louisiana
California
Iowa
Oklahoma
Mississippi
Nebraska
Georgia
Kansas
New Mexico
West Virginia
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Idaho
Missouri
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Washington
Alaska
Illinois
Indiana
New York
North Carolina
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming
Number of
facilities
17
15
8
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
51
-------
APPENDIX B. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Between 1830 and the turn of the century, the requirements for fixed
nitrogen were satisfied by imports of nitrate from Chile (Appl, 1978).
Around the turn of the century, Wilhelm Ostwald offered BASF a process that
synthesized ammonia by passing nitrogen and hydrogen over a metallic iron
catalyst. Experimental errors produced the false impression that the
process did not work, however, and interest turned to the cyanamide process
(Appl, 1978; Lyon, 1975), in which ammonia is synthesized as follows:
CaO + 3C + CaC9 + CO
2000°C L
CaC9 + N9 -> CaCN9 + C
L 1000 C {L
CaCN9 + 3H90 -> CaCO~ + NH-,
£ L, sJ O
Energy consumption was 190 GJ per metric ton. In another approach, the
electric arc process, air was passed over an electric arc which raised the
temperature to 3000°C and produced NOp, at a penalty of 700 GJ per metric
ton. Frits Haber finally succeeded in synthesizing ammonia using an osmium
catalyst. While others, such as Nernst, were attempting to produce high
conversion, Haber's approach was to pursue high reaction rate with internal
process recycle at high pressure.
Carl Bosch in 1909 was given the job of extending Haber1s laboratory
results to commercial scale. He succeeded in developing an inexpensive,
efficient catalyst (which is essentially unchanged to this day) and in
developing suitable equipment for high-pressure synthesis. In 1913, a 30
TPD plant in Oppau (near Karlsruhe) began operation. Virtually all the
world's ammonia production is based on this technology.
52
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Source Category Survey Report:
Industry
5. REPORT DATE
Ammonia Manufacturing
August.
Aunt
6. PERF
ORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRW Energy Systems Group
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
27709
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3063
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The report described the ammonia manufacturing industry, the process, emission
sources, and available control technology. The domestic ammonia manufacturing
industry is entering a sustained period of no growth in production capacity. While
there will be an increase in demand for ammonia, particularly in the form of
nitrogen fertilizers, the domestic industry has sufficient excess capacity to meet
demands at least through 1985. In 1979 a total of 101 synthetic ammonia plants with
a rated production capacity of 22.5 Tg (24.8 x 106 tons), or 73 percent of capacity.
Approximately 75 percent of the ammonia produced in the United States is used as
fertilizer, the remaining ammonia is used as a raw material in the manufacture of
polymeric resins, explosives, nitric acid, and other oroducts.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Air Pollution
Pollution
Ammonia
Ammonia Manufacture
Fertilizer
Air Pollution Control
13 B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
53
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4—77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
53
-------
United States Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Environmental Protection Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Official Business Publication No. EPA-450 3-80-014 Pnc.ano and
Penalty for Private Use PeesTid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
If your address is incorrect, please change on the above iab':l,
tear off, and return to the above address
if you do not rinsire to continue receiving fi">is technical report
series, CHECK HCRF. H , tear off label' iind return it to '.he
ubove address
------- |