Knowledge for the
Sulphuric Acid Industry
![]()
Sulphuric Acid on the Web
Introduction
General
Equipment Suppliers
Contractor
Instrumentation
Industry News
Maintenance
Acid
Traders
Organizations
Fabricators
Conferences
Used
Plants
Intellectual
Propoerty
Acid
Plant Database
Market
Information
Library
Technical Manual
Introduction
General
Definitions
Instrumentation
Plant Safety
Metallurgial
Processes
Metallurgical
Sulphur Burning
Acid Regeneration
Lead Chamber
Technology
Gas Cleaning
Contact
Strong Acid
Acid Storage
Loading/Unloading
Transportation
Sulphur
Systems
Liquid SO2
Boiler Feed Water
Steam Systems
Cooling Water
Effluent Treatment
Utilities
Construction
Maintenance
Inspection
Analytical Procedures
Materials of Construction
Corrosion
Properties
Vendor Data
DKL Engineering, Inc.
Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing
Order
Form
Preface
Contents
Feedback
Sulphuric Acid
Decolourization
Order Form
Preface
Table of Contents
Process Engineering Data Sheets - PEDS
Order
Form
Table of Contents
Introduction
Bibliography of Sulphuric Acid Technology
Order Form
Preface
Contents
Acid Plant Database August 9, 2011
| Owner | E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. Inc. |
|
||
| Location |
HC-66 400 Harris Road Wurtland, Kentucky USA |
|||
| Background | - | |||
| Website | www.dupont.com | |||
| Plant | Fort Hill Plant | |||
| Coordinates | 38° 33' 20" N, 82° 47' 21" W | |||
| Type of Plant | Sulphur Burning | |||
| Gas Source | Elemental Sulphur | |||
| Plant Capacity | 260,000 STPA | |||
| SA/DA | SA with H2O2 tail gas scrubber | |||
| Emissions |
SO2: 27.6 lb/ton Acid Mist: 0.5 lb/ton Opacity: < 20%
SO2: 248 ton (12 month rolling average) |
|||
| Permits |
Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection Division of
Air Quality Facility ID: 21-089-00001 Title V Air Quality Permit |
|||
| Permit No. | Issue Date | Expiry Date | Date Modified | |
V-03-007 |
- |
- | - | |
V-06-026 |
July 31, 2006 |
- | - | |
| V-06-026 Revision 1 | May 5, 2007 | - | - | |
| Status | Operating | |||
| Year Built | 1961 | |||
| Technology | - | |||
| Contractor | - | |||
| Remarks |
Site also produces 4.417 ton/h of chlorosulfonic acid (CSA) Oleum (65%) also produced on site 2011 - December - Hydrogen peroxide tail gas scrubber installed |
|||
| Pictures | |
|||
| General | - | |||
| References | ||||
| News |
July 14, 2009
- A jury has found chemical giant DuPont guilty of gross negligence in a
2004 leak at its Wurtland plant that released clouds of sulfuric acid over
large portions of Greenup County. Because of that negligence, those suing
DuPont for health problems they suffered as a result of the release are
entitled to 10 times the monetary damages they would have otherwise
collected, the jury ruled. The 10-member jury found in favor of the
plaintiffs on Monday after deliberating for about three hours and 40
minutes. The verdict concluded a civil trial that began June 26 in U.S.
District Court in Ashland. The lawsuit - actually a consolidation of several actions filed against DuPont following the Oct. 11, 2004, chemical release - is being tried in four phases. While acknowledging a chemical release did take place at the Wurtland facility on the date in question, DuPont continues to maintain that release was not the cause of the problems alleged by the plaintiffs, Campbell said. "We really don't believe our actions in the case warranted these awards," she said. We think our employees acted swiftly to stop the release and to inform the community." A number of those suing DuPont are police officers, firefighters and other emergency personnel who responded to the scene when the leak occurred. The leak, caused by a cracked pipe at the Wurtland facility, resulted in the release of sulfur trioxide, a chemical that formed billowing white clouds composed of droplets of sulfuric acid, which covered much of Wurtland, Worthington and Greenup. Plaintiffs' attorneys argued failure on DuPont's part to address issues raised by a 1995 chemical release at the Wurtland plant was largely responsible for the same type of incident occurring again nine years later. Following the 1995 incident, a safety team recommended DuPont institute a number of changes at the facility to ensure a spill of that nature never occurred again, according to testimony in the case. "Not only did DuPont ignore those recommendations in 1995, it continued to ignore them following the 2004 spill as well," plantiffs' lawyers said in bench memorandum filed in the case. "In other words, DuPont had known for nine years it needed to improve its Wurtland facility's safety practices, but simply chose not to." Also, testimony in the case revealed three months before the spill, a DuPont investigation revealed the tube bundle that ultimately failed was "dangerously corroded" and in need of replacement, but the company declined to do so, the memorandum states. |
|||
MTPD - Metric Tonne per Day
STPD - Short Ton per Day
MTPA - Metric Tonne per Annum STPA - Short Ton per
Annum
SA - Single Absorption
DA - Double Absorption
* Coordinates can be used to
locate plant on Google Earth