Document ppNqGyXNKRNw9eR179L5xybkw

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 1975 MANUFACTURING IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PLANT INCINERATOR DEPARTMENT 790 Prepared By: ydt.fccurL K,-1, Boucher ' 73. B. C. Bosse Issue Date: 3/5/75 E. L. Chrisman SCA <3. /I W. A. Kuhn DSW 329632 STLCOPCB4076275 M.I.P. DISTRIBUTION D. C . Armstrong E . . R. Billen B. C. Bosse K. E. Boucher P . L. Brewer R. E. Bunge E. E . Chrisman T. W. Cummins C. N. Deubner w. C. . Engman R. L. Fields R. W. Flint R. L. Harness R. L, Heider F. Helmer H . J . Horner J . C . Hume G. L. Johnson J. J . Kaiman E. H. Kimb all R. M. Kount z - F4WA W. A. Kuhn - B3NA A. E. Leisy D. K. Lynch R. H. Munch - TIB C . Paton - B2SC E . M. Potter - B2NK W. R. Richard - T3A J . R. Savage L. W . Sprande1 R. B . Spanholtz R. Timme G. W. Watson DSW 329633 STLCOPCB4076276 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary Work Plan Capac i ty. Requi rement Cost Capacity Improvement Pollution Control Process Control Plant Improvement Safety Energy Pas.e 1 2 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 STLCOPCB4076277 MANUFACTURING IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PLANT INCINERATOR DEPARTMENT 790 Pag e 1 1/7 5 . WGK SUMMARY The incinerator was originally built for the disposal of returned Aroclor. With the closing of the plant landfill to liquid organic wastes in 1974, plans were made to use the excess incinerator capacity for liquid waste disposal. The Manufacturing Improvement Plan has now been expanded to include burning of plant waste in the existing plant incinerator. However, the M.I.P. does not include other methods of disposal for wastes that cannot be.burned because of limited incinerator capacity. Capacity of_the plant incinerator is not adequate to burn the projected 5M pounds of residue in. 1975. Initially the incin erator was targeted for 6.3M pounds in 1975, but was revised after experiencing excessive downtime and reduced hourly rate while burning plant residues during the last six months. Incineration rate in 1974 averaged about 870 pounds j>er hour with a 44% on-stream-time equal to_a capacity of 3.4M pounds per year. To meet the projected 5M pounds in 1975, on-stream time must be increased to at least 70%. Such a high on-stream time has never been consistently achieved since the June, 1971, start-up. Nor is there any reason to believe the rate can be increased from 870 pounds per hour to the design rate of 1250 pounds per hour. Residues not burned in the incinerator must be taken care of by displacement. Adequate storage- to handle the excess residue is not available. While capacity has decreased below expecta tions in 1974, the amount of residue wastes to be incinerated has increased from 6.3M pounds to 8.8M pounds. Outlets are now being sought for all residues except those containing Aroclor. Technical effort totals 19-1/2 man-months of which 9-1/4 are process engineering. The major effort will consist of:. 1. Increasing the incinerator capacity initially to 4M pounds per year by following through with our existing program of operating at lower temperatures, reduced solids in the waste feed and maintaining the physical condition of the incinerator. 2. Further increasing capacity to 5.5M pounds per year by modi fying the incinerator burner. 3. Minimizing corrosion of the steel storage tank when handling plant residues from ONA, PNA, and 4-NDPA departments by installing neutralization facilities. The steel wall of the tank is believed to be the catalyst that allows the iron-acid reduction of nitro groups to occur. Total capital for all projects with defined costs is $118,800. DSW 329635 STLCOPCB4076278 CM 0) m tn r-~ w <d i o Q) I--I X} H tO oc a <tou ps. j-i --' a> a) m x S 2 4-> oa -cP o co 2id 2 m w coa <3) O O Eh U Pm a 33 oO u3 o3 3 3 a) 3 3 s o rl 3 4J 2 U 3I O 3' 3 uU c3 33 ' 33 3 a) 4-1 3 O 3? *3 Oo n3 3 *3 o H o o 4m Pm co H 3 2 to 3 H2 CO. 4m E-i Pm CO H O O T--I om o o O. t-H o CM CM * t>1 4-> "rl D 0 H Pi 2 in <--T\I Pi id 2 O -D tr> Pm H 3 2 iDdm O Pi C U~ 1-3 Pm -3--3- Eu H 3 4-1 3 4m 23 ' 3 2 o) X ' on ' <oC/M> U 40-1) Q) 32 23 O *3rl HE id to H 2 -P -H Cd) 3M-l 4-> C O3 33 3 O 4-1 2 3 H 33 aE 3 22 Pm 2 33 2 pi 3 <ti Pm H 2 W 2 W Pi >o OH - Pi <jJ Pm Pi . 2U M2 MO OUP 22 . t-H w Pi H 2 H 53 H2 W U< 2 <ti iJ H 2 <Pm Pm Pi 2 Pi 2 <ti O Pi 2 Pm Q 3 4-1 M 3 3o 2 to 2 H H 3 E M 4m 4m H 3 O O 3 rH 3 4m 4-1 3 33 S 44 U > 2 4-1 4m O O- E rH 43 O 33 4-1 3 2 3 43 4m 3 3 I*4m 2 rl H 4-1 3 to 3B 3 >3 to 4m 3 U 2 3 O 4-1 3 D* HW < O 4J 2 3 Pi 3 H to ! o CQ U PI Pm to 2 O to MM o 3> . 1 3 M 3 2 3 3 rH 2 33 >3 W Mm O m tr> o om co CM <J> 2< H O H DSW 329636 STLCOPCB4076279 PPPrr rii iooo rrriiitttyyy 1- 2 3 -- D esign D esign ww ii ll ll be be com pleted com pleted in in . 1975 1975 . manpower p e rm ittin g . B acklog ro G in tpr- K G i O- 0(HS G rH P H 10 c o Ci. in a) os p-- G to -G O -P ac GO G PG gs & o 3 O s o H 3 3 o a * >1l -p H p o H p a in CTl P OS G 4S o P tH Cn H 3 ao X G OS o OH 3 3 10 33 3B rl 3 rl O 3 CJ 3 M w' 3 3- 3 H pd <: Pm PS Ms w55 MO O U d\ 3 3 rH O iH Cm 4m U B 33 3 *H 10 p3 o N 3 4m X X r- Pd B> H u c Pm > !a < X pd >.43 O H 53 3 3 O 3 -3 O u 3 3 rl 3 x 4d in 3. o 33 N w 3 P0 *rl 310 4d 3 3 U .3 3 rl 53 to & 3 CJ 3 3 3 33 3a 33 H 3 3 X 3 3 3 3 n H CO H H Sf IN P m CM . CM m CM CM O O O o \D </> I o 3 CO 3 3 4d 333 O3 3 3 &3 3 4m 3 BOM 3 3 O 3 (3 3 3 o o o o. p <ry 3O 3 CT. rH f 3 3 3 3 3 & 33 CM 3 CM 4M 3 P3 3 P - 4S k, 3 6 3 Zi 3 "030 O 3 4M 3 3o o ON 3 N H rH cd J-i 4-J 3 a) a iH tH <d P U O CO Pd CJ H X O X* o cd CO CO w CJ 60 i-HH u H *H o co a Pd 0) Cd a P M-* 4-J P OJ Q M. 0) JJ a) 6 o M aG) Js 4J O CO iH SS ^ CO 4J rH 0 iHCd 0CJ) 4J iH CO M-l a m-i m a) o o o ON r** </> s o H tP G H P P rl G a p G o a c G E in in i" i" (Ti CTi PP GG rl -H 'O T) CD ID -P -P GG PP aa EE oo oo GG Q 43 i--I i--1 r-l -rl tr> GG0 tn tnP H P ^ wwo GGG ppm III rlwn >1 >1 >1 -P -P -U rl rl -rl PPP ooo rl rl rl PPP aaa * DSW 329637 STLCOPCB4076280 MANUFACTURING IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PLANT INCINERATOR DEPARTMENT 790 . ' Page 1-75 WGK <D H 'H (/) C oCM tn 0J Pi u i-l --' QJ aj w x: S x5 -p Oa. -cP'O ao (TJ Q Ui Eh in CTi res x: -HP 2tr fcOt Poi uw iH (ti in H 4-> C 4-1 QJ 0) P C O Q) P-t e QJ +j M .X Im proved house ke e p in g and p o llu tio n con tro l ,< Expense -- $ 7,500 OJ CJ e id d QJ QJ pa dH id d cd d QJ p Q d iH to H . CM *>' r"t QaJ QJ CJ d id idd d QJ aj u d QJ p d id Hd iS d0) id p a CO d H cPo HH ' ' 1 ' 1 /2 1/2 1 /2 1 -1 /2 b 0 o oo iH i--1 tn ' CH . T~l ' 'J Expense - $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $7,800 oo 00 rx </> manpower p e rm ittin g 1975 1975 . ii nn com pleted com pleted R eduction o f p o te n tia l s a fe ty hazard. E lim in a tio n o f 1 p o te n tia l s a fe ty hazard I S afety . R eplacem ent expense. be be dpJ o d oo dJ .d dJ u >c id o. QJ QJ p x: p *d d 4-1 id o x.-p p co d QJ U& d 1--I ou Xo3 d QJ d cr p m0 .-J <H pH OH QJ & 1 ts m ii ll ll ww B acklog D esign D esign -- l iH CO 00 Xi td d id d oo P o d H QJ to P 00 Wd a) cd pp K QJ d d o p <d aj p co !on d QJ d . to 13 QJ QJ . aJ H P CO CO 00 iH P <0 00 cd QJ > d P> 6 aj id a> 0) iH o> od *d p d qj co co ON 0>H) d p po cd p d cd O *H QJ TJ CO iH pci o P <4 o W 1 2 3 PPr ri ioo rriitt yy P rio rity DSW 329638 STLCOPCB4076281 m 0) in tnr- i< (0 l O (U ,0 H in Co a m 0) Pi P M -- <D o) w a s r: -p o -p o ac oc (0 a a p in EH P Q in H CM CM rH I * >i| -P P 0 rH P fa in r~ <Tv Pi id A O -P tp fa H 2 a, o a< m Pi uw PI cu o o o in </> o o or. 00 {/> Z <kJ . Pm Pi iH o id in & rH 4-) -P -H C M-l a) a) op ca> fa m a) 13 13 o H qj a> o> > o o pPp PM Pm Cm H Z W a W Pi >o oH pi fa 2 aW MZ MO O u cr> ZZ MM PS ZH HZ o< <3 Z fa fa Z Z<; Poi a fa 4J 13 <U 3 0 cu H P 4J o c 0) ip Oo U i-cHfl <PU CM -U ai to pi S s! H O H Ilk ; tn DSW 329639 STLCOPCB4076282 PPr ri ioo rriittyy 'P rio rity 1 2 3 --- D esign D esign ww ii ll ll be com pleted be com pleted in in 1975 1975 manpower p e rm ittim B acklog VO dtnj ri"n- id i U 0< H a) |H XI H in d o aP in i3 0) 05 P j-i --' a> qj in .d Z X5 -P O -P O CU d d0 O O a cad aC <u a) 4-) 4J .5a rl <0 ! * P CO CO HH ip. CM OO < to o A llow s ta b ility $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 te s ts on ' various re s i due m ixture s. Increase re s i $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 due handling ' c a p a c ity . P riva te o ffic e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 fo r supervisioi $50,000 ZC ' tJ IP H ZW SW e5 >o OH cd <; P P5 aM ws MO O U CT\ a a " P a E-I o c Id a a <c a 4-> H p mo e' en mH p (d n a o w m id .d 4-> cr H 3 P o Id O id 05 Id U a< id Id id in M H -P P O P -P d 44 S d) d> -P 5 0 (D Oh m O in H I0P) H rd n) P S uo to pp .o o ip P i-rHt ' C0C61d .0f1l p H 3C cr -h 01 . in u 01 to o P T3 H U01 i0n) ap ' CO3 c6d0 OOO #\ o cs iH OH tdi cd m. Pccn rMdc HP m aui d -P +1 -P P e p di a p di & o a. d id E in in r~ e' en <J\ iH i--I dd -P -P rd rd di ai 4-1 4-1 i--OJI i--dlI aa EE oo oo dl H P -P ^5 tn in u (U dl id cam lil rllNIO Ip tp I>1 -P -P -P H "H H ppp ooo H -H p pp P P Oi * osiv 32964o STLCOPCB4076283 MANUFACTURING IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PLANT INCINERATOR DEPARTMENT 790 _________ Page 7 1-75 WGK A. CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS 4 million pounds of wastes are targeted to be incinerated in 1975. This is based on achieving a 50% on-stream-time with a 900 lb/hr. average rate. Basis for the rate improve ment is completion of the following: 1. New refractory installed in plenum and oxidizer by third quarter 1974. 2. New weir (new design) by 2nd quarter 1975. 3. New burner by 4th quarter 1975. For 1976 and beyond a 5.5M lb/yr capacity is expected because of the new burner. This is equivalent to a 65% on-stream time and an average rate of 1000 #/hr. " The following table shows the amounts of wastes to be incinerated from each of the plant departments compared to what could be incinerated if the 10M pound/year design capacity were available. A backlog of, 2.9M exists of returned Aroclor now in storage. Note that no plans are made to incinerate residues from the ONA, PNA, and paraPhenetidine departments. The 4-NDPA residue (Dept. 255) can be incinerated in 1976 provided the neutralization facilities are installed by late 1975. Plans are to incinerate Chlorophenols/Santophen I residue as long as 4-NDPA can continue to be landfilled. PROJECTED INCINERATION CAPACITY ' 'M LB/YR.____________________________ _ DEPT . ' 219/222 226 A, 237 239 ) PROJECTED WASTEPRODUCT GENERATION IN 75 1975 ONA/PNA 0.37 0 Chlorophenols 2.90 1.6 " Santophen I 246 Aroclor 247 p-Phen 255 ' 4-NDPA TOTAL 2.4 .22 2.9 8.79 2.4 o o ANNUAL RATE 4.0 1976 0 2.9 2.4 0 0 5.5 1977 0 2.9 1978 0 2.9 2.4 2.4 00 00 5.5 5.5 1979 0 2.9 2.4 0 0 5.5 DSW 329641 STLCOPCB4076284 MANUFACTURING IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PLANT INCINERATOR DEPARTMENT 7 90 _________ - ' Page 8 1-75 WGK B. COSTS . Production cost_standard incineration cost is $0.0862 per pound for a 6.3M pound annual rate. Actual incineration cost is expected to be greater than $0.10 per .pound due to the lower operating capacity. The year-to-date cost through November, 1974, is $0,125. Because the incineratpr cannot operate at design rate, some residue must be displaced. Assuming all residues not con taining Aroclor are displaced the out-of-pocket costs to Monsanto would be roughly $317,000 as shown below: Dept; Amount/Year Disposal Cost/Lb. Total Cost ONA/PNA p-Phenetidine 370,000 # 220,000 # $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 26,000 15,000 Chlorophenol Santophen I 2,900,000 # $ 0.075 218,000 4-NDPA 2,900,000 # $ 0.020 58,000 $ 317,000 In the above list, only Chlorophenol/Santophen I wastes are now burned in the plant incinerator. Cost Improvement One cost improvement item has been included in the 1975 Plant CIP as follows: PROJECT Gross Annual Savings Rate Current Year Net Savings Unbudgeted Current Estimated Year Capital Expenses Required Estimated Odds Completion of Date Success Incinerator - Iraprove reliability of the waste feed pump - reduce repair cost. $ 2,084 $ 345 . -- $ 2,000 11/1/75 85% \ SW 329642 STLCOPCB4076285 M A NUFACTURING IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PLANT INCINERATOR DEPARTMENT .790 ' - ' Page 9 1-75 WGK C. CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT Current work to achieve a 4M pound per year rate includes: 1. Operating the incinerator at a lower temperature and rate to help prevent rapid destruction of the refractory. 2. Continued monitoring the corrosion rate of the atomizer in an effort to find better materials of construction; and making complete inspections of the interior when the incinerator is down to find better ways to maintain the incinerator. 3. Reviewing requirements for spare equipment. 4. Providing clean-up sprays up-stream of the Venturi scrubber to minimize plugging.. 5. Improving the reliability of the waste feed pump. Additional work planned to achieve a 5.5M pound per year rate depends upon the success of a new DBY burner tested at John Zink, the manufacturer of the plant incinerator. This new burner is designed to operate with solids in the waste feed, does burn with a lower flame temperature, is expected to require less maintenance and operate at higher rates. If such a burner cannot destroy PCB's, an alternate is to evaluate the use of a kiln to remove solids in the feed. These solids now deposit in the incinerator causing frequent shutdowns. . D. POLLUTION CONTROL A new stack HC1 analyzer is needed and sample lines should be winterized. Additional stack sampling will be required to determine the efficiency of PCB destruction while operating at lower incinerator temperature. E. PROCESS CONTROL Neutralization facilities will be designed and installed to prevent serious condition of the waste storage tanks when handling ONA, PNA, and 4-NDPA plant waste residues. A system to meter the department's total discharged effluent, already designed, will be installed. DSV\f 329643 STLCOPCB4076286 4 'os Jt MANUFACTURING IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PLANT INCINERATOR DEPARTMENT 790 __________ ", Page 10 1-7 5. WGK F. PLANT IMPROVEMENT The concrete west of the Incinerator will be repaved and curbed. The work will improve housekeeping and aid in controlling PCB losses to the environment. A new quencher weir will be installed above the downcomer because future repairs are not possible. - G. SAFETY ; Safety work required in 1975 will include: 1. Review of flange guarding because of the introduction of plant wastes.. 2 Installation of guards over side entering agitators on the waste storage tanks. 3 Installation of a second emergency exit on the oxidizer level. . 4. Replacement of well water with city water on the quencher spray nozzles. . '. Review of the function of the incinerator interlocks H. ENERGY Energy conservation will mainly result in the effort to increase the on-stream-time. Incineration of waste is self-sustaining, requiring no gas or oil once the incinerator has been heated to the desired temperature. Recovery of the waste heat is impractical because of the excessive internal corrosion and high solids levels. DSW 329644 STLCOPCB4076287