Iowa Fertilizer Company (IFCo) Ammonia Plant Uses

First Application of the KBR Shift Effluent Scrubber

for Reduced Methanol Emissions

Methanol is a byproduct produced from side reactions in the front-end of ammonia plants, mainly
across the Low Temperature Shift (LTS) catalyst. Some of this methanol passes through to the CO2
Removal System where it eventually comes out with the CO2 product and atmospheric vent.

Methanol is classified as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) in the US. New plants emitting more than
10 ST/year of methanol qualify as a major HAP source, generally requiring the use of Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) to limit the emission. For ammonia plants with significant
process CO2 venting, limiting emissions below the trigger for MACT regulations is challenging.

The IFCo 2200 MTPD Ammonia Plant represents the first application of the KBR Shift Effluent
Scrubber system for controlling methanol emissions. This paper presents the system in detail and
reviews performance of the unit as measured during the plant’s first year of operation.

Harrie Duisters
OCI N.V.

Stephen Noe and Stephen Lang

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR)

Introduction 315 thousand metric tons of diesel exhaust fluid

T
he Iowa Fertilizer Company (IFCo) com-
plex in Wever, Iowa (Figure 1) was com-
missioned in 2017 and is the newest site
owned by OCI N.V., a global producer of
natural gas-based fertilizers and industrial chem-
icals with headquarters in the Netherlands.
Orascom Construction Limited was the overall
EPC company and responsible for construction
of the plant site. IFCo’s diversified nitrogen fer-
tilizer product portfolio includes design annual
capacities of 1.5 million metric tons of UAN, 875
thousand metric tons of ammonia, and 420 thou-
sand metric tons of granular urea, in addition to
(DEF). Ammonia production is provided by the
KBR PurifierTM Process with a design capacity of
2200 MTPD (2420 STPD).
While securing permits for the new complex, the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
placed strict environmental requirements on the
plant’s emissions. These requirements necessi-
tated the installation of several state-of-the-art
emission reduction technologies in the plant:
• Special scrubber for the granulator ex-
haust to reduce the urea dust emission
(particulate matter <0.1 kg/t or 0.2 lb/ST
urea)

2018 33 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

 • A catalytic De-N2O reactor in the nitric
acid plant tail gas to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions (98% N2O reduction)
• A Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
unit in the primary reformer convection
section to reduce flue gas NOx emissions
(< 9 ppmv)
An additional challenge was presented by the
process CO2 vent. Methanol is a byproduct pro-
duced from side reactions in the front-end of am-
monia plants, mainly across the LTS catalyst.
While most of the methanol condenses with the
process condensate, some of the methanol passes
through to the CO2 Removal System where it
eventually comes out with the CO2 product and
atmospheric vent.
Methanol has been classified as a Hazardous Air
Pollutant (HAP) in the US since the 1990 Clean
Figure 1. IFCo Fertilizer Complex in Wever, Iowa
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
Air Act Amendments and is controlled under
both federal and state regulations. When OCI be-
gan the permitting steps for the new complex in
Iowa, KBR was consulted for the best approach
to achieve the permissible level of methanol
emission from the CO2 vent. This was a chal-
lenge that KBR had long been prepared for.
End-of-pipe technologies such as catalytic oxida-
tion are available but involve additional equip-
ment, expensive catalyst and energy penalties for
heating and pressure drop. Alternative source
control measures such as chilling the process
stream also require additional equipment and ex-
tra power for refrigeration.
The IFCo ammonia plant represents the first ap-
plication of the KBR Shift Effluent Scrubber sys-
tem for controlling methanol emissions. Let’s
take a closer look at why such an economical sys-
tem is needed and how it works.
34 2018
 best controlled similar source and which reflects
USA Regulation of Ammonia Plant the maximum degree of reduction in emissions,
Methanol Emissions regardless of cost. In other words, MACT is con-
cerned with what is “achieved in practice” by a
Before 1990, methanol was typically regulated in
benchmark source in that source category,
the USA as a non-specific volatile organic com-
whether through end-of-the-pipe technological
pound (VOC). Its source, presence or concentra-
controls or by other means, such as source con-
tion levels in ammonia plant CO2 vents were
trol. MACT for a given source may be stricter
generally not well known by regulators unless a
than what has been achieved in practice by the
state had a regulatory framework or ambient air
best controlled similar source, provided that in-
quality standards for hazardous or toxic chemi-
crease in stringency is economically feasible and
cals. After 1990 this all changed with federal
technologically achievable for that source.
HAP regulations specifying that either 10
ST/year (9.07 MT/year) of a single HAP or 25
If the major threshold triggers cannot be avoided
ST/year (22.7 MT/year) of all HAPs combined at
for a HAP, then the permit applicants’ MACT de-
a facility triggered designation as a major source,
termination and its proposed limits are incorpo-
potentially requiring the use of Maximum
rated into a Federal or State Title V Operating
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) to
Permit where conditions will be federally en-
limit HAP emissions. Such a major source must
forceable. There are a variety of options for per-
apply MACT as defined per its source categories
mit conditions, but they must provide a means of
or subcategory developed by the US Environ-
measurable assurance for record-keeping and re-
mental Protection Agency (EPA).
porting.
While the EPA has developed dozens of MACT
For large ammonia plants with significant pro-
standards and limits across many industrial sec-
cess CO2 venting, even the use of newer LTS cat-
tors, they have not directly addressed CO2 vents
alyst to minimize byproducts formation cannot
from steam-methane reforming (SMR) systems.
limit methanol emissions below the trigger for
Thus regulatory authorities are faced with the
MACT regulations. Additional steps to either
need to make case-by-case MACT determina-
control the emission at the source or limit the
tions unless a state’s regulatory framework oth-
emission with end-of-pipe treatment are there-
erwise covers the methanol emissions, e.g., Lou-
fore required.
isiana’s Toxic Air Pollutant (TAP) program.
For the IFCo ammonia unit, the challenge was to
Since there had been no recent new USA ammo-
streamline the permitting process by proactively
nia plants and only a few hydrogen plants built
reducing methanol emissions from the CO2 vent
for refineries prior to the IFCo project, these de-
below the threshold for triggering MACT regula-
terminations had not yet been developed for per-
tions. KBR’s recommendation for doing this in
mitting SMR systems as a category. However,
the most cost-effective manner possible was to
the recent surge in domestic SMR-based projects
apply untested technology developed by KBR 15
will likely trigger the EPA’s attention to formal-
years earlier. The successful application of this
ize limits and requirements under future HAP
technology would allow the plant to meet the fol-
regulations.
lowing emission requirement specified in the
IDNR permit:
It should be noted that MACT for HAPs is a far
stricter standard than the Best Achievable Con-
trol Technology (BACT) standard for VOCs. • CO2 vent, methanol < 0.019 lb/ST
MACT shall be at least as stringent as the emis- (<0.0095 kg/MT) ammonia product
sion control that is achieved in practice by the

2018 35 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

 The Shift Effluent Scrubber
A new source control technology was developed
and patented by KBR in 2000 for removing meth-
anol upstream the CO2 absorber [1]. The tech-
nology required no new equipment but simply in-
creased the size of existing equipment along with
some modification of the equipment operating
conditions for minimal cost impact. Energy pen-
alty was also small compared to other methods.
A bit of history provides context to its develop-
ment.
In 1997 KBR had anticipated future permitting
difficulties with methanol emissions from the
CO2 vent and studied available technologies for
reducing emissions below the 10 ST/year limit
required to avoid classification as a major source
falling under MACT regulations. Source control
scenarios using cooling and chilling of the CO2
Absorber feed to drive more methanol into the
process condensate were examined as well as
Figure 2. Conventional Separator Flowsheet
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
end-of-pipe catalytic oxidation upstream the
CO2 vent. These methods were effective but
generally included a considerable cost penalty
for the new equipment as well as an energy pen-
alty for additional pressure drop, refrigeration
power or lost heat.
In a conventional flowsheet, process condensate
is separated from the raw synthesis gas in the
Raw Gas Separator and treated with steam strip-
ping in the High Pressure Condensate Stripper
(HPCS) before sending the stripped condensate
to the off-sites water treatment facilities (Figure
2). The raw synthesis gas entering the CO2 Ab-
sorber contains methanol at equilibrium with the
process condensate, and the condensate may
have up to 1000 ppmw methanol. Process steam
is used for stripping in the HPCS, so methanol
stripped out of the condensate is recycled and dis-
associated in the Primary Reformer. Methanol in
the stripped condensate is typically reduced to
around 30 ppmw.
36 2018
 A new approach for reducing methanol emis-
sions in the CO2 vent was developed by KBR us-
ing water scrubbing of the CO2 Absorber feed to
capture most of the methanol into the process
condensate. In this system, the Raw Gas Separa-
tor drum immediately upstream the CO2 Ab-
sorber is “stretched” to include a packed bed and
associated internals (Figure 3). A portion of the
stripped process condensate from the HPCS is re-
cycled to the converted scrubbing column and
used to wash methanol out of the raw synthesis
gas. Exiting the packed bed, the used scrubbing
water with absorbed methanol combines with the
process condensate and is sent back to the HPCS,
completing the scrubbing/stripping circuit.
Methanol and other VOCs are then stripped out
and disassociated in the Primary Reformer.
If the packed bed provides a sufficient number of
stages, gas exiting the scrubbing column will be
near equilibrium with the stripped condensate.
Figure 3. Shift Effluent Scrubber Flowsheet
2018
Simulations indicated that with a reasonable col-
umn design and stripped condensate purity,
methanol carried to the CO2 Absorber could be
reduced by over 90%, reducing the emission in
the CO2 vent below the MACT trigger. The
“Shift Effluent Scrubber” was born.
The energy penalty is very low since the addi-
tional packed bed has a low pressure drop. Flow
for the condensate pump feeding the HPCS in-
creases, but this is a low-head pump so the power
penalty is also small. The cost penalty is also
much lower than with other scenarios examined
since no new equipment is required. The separa-
tor grows in height when converted to a scrub-
bing column and the Process Condensate Pump,
HPCS Feed-Effluent exchanger and HPCS all in-
crease in size due to the condensate flow increase
of about 40%. Increasing the size of existing
equipment is generally cost effective compared
to adding new equipment.
37 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
 The new scrubber system is relatively benign for
operators and maintenance personnel. There are
no new catalyst systems to monitor. There are no
additional pollutants to process in the plant off-
sites. Additional captured methanol is decom-
posed in the primary reformer. Compared to op-
eration with a conventional separator drum, the
only added task is setting the scrubbing water
flow to the new column.
employed ARI Environmental Inc. (ARI) to per-
form the first test which was conducted on Sept.
14, 2017. Plant rate was about 99% of design.
The test result for the CO2 vent was as follows:
• Methanol = 2.97 x 10-6 lb/scf (dry)
(50.3 mg/Nm3 dry) vent flow
• Methanol = 0.033 lb/ST
(0.0165 kg/MT) ammonia product

The Shift Effluent Scrubber system is KBR pro-
prietary technology detailed under US Patent
6,015,450A. However, prior to the recent surge
in domestic projects, there had been little interest
in such emission control systems for ammonia
plants as most new facilities and revamp projects
since the late 1990’s had been installed overseas.
The system had therefore not yet been demon-
strated commercially when offered for the IFCo
ammonia plant.
The test result was at first disappointing until it
was discovered the flow of stripped scrubbing
water had not been tuned for operation at full ca-
pacity. A sample of the stripped process conden-
sate (scrubbing water) taken during the test also
showed the concentration of methanol was
slightly high, indicating the flow of stripping
steam to the HPCS was slightly low during the
test.

Simulations of the scrubber column were key to

OCI and KBR’s confidence in the new system.
The KBR proprietary property package used to
simulate the system had been developed and
tuned over decades using vapor-liquid equilibria
(VLE) data from raw gas separators and HPCS
systems operating in scores of ammonia units
provided by KBR. Trace components such as
methanol and ammonia being modeled in the
new water scrubber were the same as those in the
HPCS, so the new aqueous system could draw on
KBR’s wealth of experience in modeling HPCS
systems. With such a solid technical foundation,
the risk from being untested was considered low
and OCI decided to incorporate the unit in the
IFCo plant (Figure 4).

Scrubber Performance
In order to comply with the emissions permit, the
plant would need to demonstrate during initial
operation that the methanol concentration in the
CO2 vent stack did not exceed the limit specified Figure 4. Item 120-D Shift Effluent Scrubber,
in the IDNR permit. An independent lab quali- dwarfed by the CO2 Removal System columns
fied for such testing would be required. IFCo

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 38 2018

 Note that other tests were being performed on the
vent stack at the same time as the test for metha-
nol, so the new scrubbing column was not yet the
primary focus.
A second test was quickly scheduled and per-
formed by ARI on Nov. 29, 2017 at a plant rate
of about 106% of design. Prior to the second test,
both the scrubbing water flow to the scrubbing
column and the stripping steam flow to the strip-
ping column (HPCS) were slightly increased
The second test result was as follows:
• Methanol = 0.046 x 10-6 lb/scf (dry)
(0.78 mg/Nm3 dry) vent flow
• Methanol = 0.0005 lb/ST
(0.00025 kg/MT) ammonia product
During both vent stack tests, the urea unit was on-
line and about half of the process CO2 was actu-
ally being vented. The reported values per ton
ammonia product include this benefit in lowering
the emission. Therefore, if all of the CO2 was
being vented, the reported emissions would have
been about double the above values. However,
for the second test, this would still only be about
5% of the limit in the IDNR permit.
The second test result clearly demonstrated the
new scrubber system would allow the plant to
meet its emission target of 0.019 lb/ST (0.0095
kg/MT) ammonia product and in fact showed that
during the test the column was being operated
more conservatively than required. Additional
testing has since been performed to better define
optimum scrubber operation.
Operating stability of the Shift Effluent Scrubber
has been very good during the first year of oper-
ation. There have been no instances of column
flooding, foaming or changes in pressure drop.
Should the column ever experience flooding and
carry-over, the main impact would be a slight di-
lution of the circulating solvent in the CO2 re-
moval system. In such a case, make-up water to
the system could be reduced for a short time to
restore the original concentration.
2018
Conclusions
Incorporating first-of-a-kind technology into ei-
ther a grassroots or revamp project is a difficult
decision which must weigh the potential benefits
against a long history in the industry of unwel-
come surprises with new concepts. OCI and
KBR candidly discussed these issues prior to in-
corporating the new design into the IFCo ammo-
nia unit. OCI’s confidence in the technology and
decision to use it has been rewarded with a new
emission control system with minimal energy
penalty that comfortably meets the IDNR permit
requirement.
The Shift Effluent Scrubber system has per-
formed very well during the first year of opera-
tion, allowing IFCo to easily pass the emission
test for methanol in the CO2 vent stack. To date
there have been no operational problems or up-
sets associated with the new system. OCI and
KBR are both pleased with the unit.
With successful operation now demonstrated, the
KBR Shift Effluent Scrubber system can be pre-
sented in permitting applications as a proven
MACT for limiting methanol emissions from the
CO2 vent stack in new and retrofit plants. The
system may also allow a plant to stay under the
EPA trigger for a MACT determination, simpli-
fying the permitting process. The system has suf-
ficient design flexibility to accommodate even
larger capacities being explored for the next gen-
eration of ammonia plants. The KBR Shift Ef-
fluent Scrubber is the model MACT technology
for Ammonia Plant CO2 Vent methanol HAP
control.
Acknowledgment
OCI and KBR are grateful to the personnel at the
IFCo Fertilizer Complex for their assistance in
collecting and analyzing plant data and sample
sets for evaluating the performance of this new
technology.
39 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
 References
1. Joshi, G.C. and Noe, S.A., “Reducing
Methanol Emissions from a Syngas
Unit”, U.S. Patent 6015450A, issued 18
January 2000

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 40 2018