1950's LOX plant process/maintenance 1

[Toxick]

I am doing environmental review of a former liquid oxygen plant that operted during the 1950s and 1960's. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about the plant. We don't even know if freons were used in the manufacturing process. It is my understanding that tanks and pipelines used to store and transport the LOX might have been cleaned using TCE. If anyone has information on how this plant might have operated, what types of chemicals were used, and how they were handled, your help will be greatly appreciated. A photos of the site as it looked in 1985, after structure demolition, is available at the accompanying link. Any information about what activities might have occurre at each area of this site will also be helpful. My thanks to all.

 

[786392]

Its not a bad idea if you try at

http://www.cheresources.com

forums as well.
Hope this should be helpful.

Best Regards
Qalander(Chem)

 

[davefitz]

likely built by Linde, now Praxxair ( Tonawanda NY). Might call and ask for archived manuals .

Also , try NASA.

LOX piping and tanks cannot have any traces of carbon of any sort, due to explosive hazard. So no chemical which may leave traces of carbon can be used.

 

[Toxick]

786329, Thanks for the suggestion, I will try it.

davefitz, Thanks to you also. Actually this plant was constructed specifically to provide LOX for NASA rocket motor tests (if you click the photo link attached to my original post, you can get the URL for vastly more info about the site than you will be interested in). I am new to the project but the (unsubstantiated) story I heard was the the plant owner (I don't know who) was approached years ago and refused to provide any information on operations.

Getting specific information isn't necessary, but hopefully it would help us do a better job at less cost so I appreciate the input.

Toxick

 

[786392]

Also visit

http://www.csb.gov

and see Praxxair accident reported there.
May be you find something useful,or some links guiding you,I suspect!

Best Regards
Qalander(Chem)

 

[davefitz]

rocket motor-brings to mind all the superfund sites out west with contaminated groundwater due to rocket fuel- it is so common in Kalifornia that the lettuce usually shows traces of hydrazine and other propellants when tested. Could be a good reason to stay silent and reap a nice pension.

 

[Toxick]

7896392, I will try the link. Thanks.

davefitz, The rocket fules have been a big issue out here, particularly perchlorate because of its solubility and the large volumes used. It was relatively easy at first because it was assumed all of the perchlorate was man made, with the exception of perchlorate in fertilzer imported from Chile (long story). However, once people started looking for perchlorate they found it everywhere. It has been found in significant concentrations in deep groundwater dated by isotope to be 40,000+ years old. Definately not man made.

Toxick

 

[davefitz]

You are right Toxick, but it seems there are forensic test to demonstrate the ultimate source.

<

http://www.msrc.sunysb.edu/inst_fac/LIGWS/Bohlke.pdf>

 

[Montemayor]

Toxick:

I don’t know to what extent you are knowledgeable in the air separation process used to produce Liquid Oxygen (LOX), but it is essential if you are to try to identify if any toxic or hazardous materials could have been used or abused during the lifetime of the producing plant.

Rocket propellants – particularly any perchlorate – would centainly have had no business entering an air separation environment. However, this is not to say that someone in the past could have brought in a couple of barrel of Guano (Chilean nitrate – also known as seagull poo) in his pickup truck into the plant site in order to ferilize his tomato plants at home later.

I am using levity to illustrate the fact that any hazardous or explosive chemical substance would certainly not be allowed inside the plant premises. This is not because persons were so-called “environmentally conscience” in the 1950 -60’s, but because we had more common sense than most people today. I operated air separation plants in the early 1960’s, so I can relate from a factual and experienced point of view. The reason 1950-era air separation plants were usually immaculately clean was due to the fact that we knew we were working with a scarcity of back-up technology and basic, detailed engineering in the area of cryogenics and, quite frankly, we were apprehensive of what we knew. We were producing the same cryogenic fluids then that are being produced today, but with much less knowledge and controls over the possible hazardous scenarios and situations that we KNEW were potentially possible in our environment. We also had a level of instrumentation that didn’t compare with what we have today. Therefore, to put it quite bluntly, we protected our own sweet backsides by making sure that all precautions were taken in avoiding any contamination of the cryogen fluids and in the process operations.

You state that it is your “understanding that tanks and pipelines used to store and transport the LOX might have been cleaned using TCE”. I assume that by “TCE” you mean Trichloroethylene - a chlorinated hydrocarbon commonly used as an industrial solvent. I doubt that very seriously. I doubt it because it doesn’t make for common engineering sense. No air separator operator would make allowances for having to go in and “clean” the tanks and pipelines used to store and transport the LOX. That would mean that the tanks and pipelines would have been previously contaminated with grease or hydrocarbons – something that simply could not be allowed for the basic fact that if it were to occur, the entire site would have been air-transported to Cape Canaveral via a tremendous explosion.

There simply was no room or allowance for permitting anything coming remotely close to pure Oxygen to be contaminated with a hydrocarbon – or anything else for that matter. Our very lives depended on that strict policy being enforced around-the-clock. Since we weren’t stupid, we simply carried that rule to the nth degree because we wanted to personally collect our paycheck every payday – instead of our widows. We knew all too well exactly what we were dealing with and our limitations at that time.

There WAS contamination of our process from time-to-time, and it was something that we all feared. This became a stark reality when more than one cold box suddenly exploded. The incidents were identified as the contamination of the crude LOX in the distillation column with what were identified as “acetylides” – compounds of acetylene in the ppm range that were introduced into the process by contaminated atmospheric air (the process raw material). The American Institute of Chemical Engineers started a crash program of investigating how to cope with this reality and resolve it. Various reports and studies were done and it was discovered that the introduction of fixed-bed adsorbers in the cold box could selectively adsorb any acetylides from the crude LOX and subsequently be regenerated to return to service. This is now a standard practice in all air separation plants. Another issue that also haunted us was the contamination of the compressed air feed by the use of reciprocating compressors with oil-lubricated cylinders. Remember, this was an era prior to the common use of centrifugal compressors. Non-lubricated and mini-lubricated cylinders were incorporated to combat this source of contamination.

The air separation process is a process-simple one – but a mechanically difficult one. Sophisticated and high pressure compressors were used to generate 1,000 to 3,000 psig feed air. Materials of construction had to withstand cryogenic temperatures, expansions, contractions, and stresses inside a “cold box” – a process containment structure wherein all the major cryogenic heat transfer and distillation took place, without access by human vision. The chemical process was relatively simple because all that was being done was that we were liquefying and distilling common, atmospheric breathing air. To do that we were only required to compress and dry the air. The “chemicals” used throughout the process were:

1) air;
2) compressor lubricating oils;
3) solid adsorbents – Activated Alumina and Molecular Sieves (later);
4) common greases – for lubricating pumps are other utility equipment;
5) common refrigerants – sometimes Freon was used as a pre-coolant for the air;
6) Trichloroethylene was sometimes used – as well as carbon tetrachloride – to degrease or clean any tools or other equipment that could conceivably come into contact with pure oxygen. These were small and diminimous quantities.

Any equipment coming into contact with a contaminant was enough reason to shut it down. Needless to say, it was virtually impossible for any external contaminant to enter the Cold Box and make it through the cryogenic process and into the storage and product transport system. Acetylides were able to enter the system because they originated as a gaseous substance in the air - in the ppms.

Because of the above lengthy and nostalgic description, I really doubt you should put any credence on the story of Trichloroethylene being used to clean the LOX equipment. If the TCE was used, it was for other, much less and remote reasons. And no one in there right mind would have poured the TCE onto the ground as waste – it was much too expensive and easy to recover or redistill. Besides, the amount of any degreasing solvent always used in an air separation plant can be measured in pints per year – something that goes virtually undetected because of its minimal use.

The above is my personal experience and opinions based on that same experience.

 

[Toxick]

Montemayor,

Thanks so much for your info. You have exactly the background I was hoping to tap into, and you have confirmed a big part of what I was trying to verify - i.e. it is unlikely there were large volumes of other chemicals used in the process (except possibly Freons).

We have three reasons to think TCE (you are correct, trichloroethylene) was used at the plant:

1) We can't find anyone with actual expereince at the plant, but there has been an interview with an engineer who work at the rocket motor test stands shortly after the LOX plant was removed (and they started trucking it in). According to the engineer, there was a black soot material that would build up in all LOX tanks on occasion. It was a very fine powdery substance that would coat the inside of the walls of the tanks. Once a year, they would open the tanks and swab down the walls using cloths dampened in TCE.

2) We don't know of any one with historic knowledge of how they cleaned the pipes, but the current process at NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center is to flush the LOX pipes with TCE. I haven't been given specific information, but I presume that for both the pipes and the tanks they would have had a followup process to clean out the TCE (explosions can be so messy).

3) There is TCE in groundwater underlying the plant and no other logical source except the plant.

If you are intrested in helping further, could you look at the photo (site after building demo) at the attached link and take your best shot at figuring out what the various parts of the plant were used for? For examle, there are circular pads for vertical tanks and concrete cradles for horizontal tanks. I am guessing the horizontal tanks were for the LOX, but what would have been stored in the vertical tanks? Or do you have any idea what the tiny building in the upper part of the photo might have been used for?

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Toxick

 

[davefitz]

The circular pads may be the footings for the coldboxes. These are usually vertical structures- the internal conmponents are configured for rail transport as shop assembled assemblies, so rail clearances of 14' are typically a design factor in the dtermining the diameter of the cold box. Much larger units may be field assembled, but I doubt that design method was used in the 40's-50's.

Somewhere ther must be a plot plan or area photo from the days when the unit was in service. I think you may need to look harder.

 

[Toxick]

davefitz,

I agree that it seems hard to believe that there isn't more infomation about this plant. However, I think the cost researching and cataloging historic documents for this large and complex site (the LOX plant is just a tiny part) is now in the millions of dollars.

There are a few air photos from when the plant was is existence but they are all high altitude and there is not much to be seen.

As always, I appreciate the input.

Toxick

 

[davefitz]

Toxick;

There might not be easy to find historical data on the plant, but at the time they were operating they likley submitted a plot plan and other data to the county fire district , and based on its nat'l defense importance, the army or nat'l guard. If those sources have archives, I would start there.

If the overall site was desinged by an architect engineer that is still in existence, they might have archived data as well.

And, as odd as it sounds, if it was part of NASA, then the layout may have been public documents, and if urban legends have any truth to them, the first copy of all NASA public documents were copied by the russian embassy- they might have a copy for you as well.

 

[Compositepro]

Have you checked Google for "Rocketdyne LOX plant"?
The second hit is

http://www.rocketdynearchives.com/nasalox.html

which contains a 1965 aerial photo of the plant with the buildings on it.
There is lots of information available.

 

[Toxick]

Compositepro,

Thanks for the tip but yes, I have seen this site and photo. It is blown up from one of the high altitude photos I mentioned. For me, it tells me less about the site than the low altitude photo of the foundations.

Toxick