REPORT NO. 77-BAT-5
CD
'
O
ESB, INCORPORATED
ALLENTQWN, PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
-------
Environmental Consultants
TEST REPORT
SULFURIC ACID EMISSIONS
from
ESB Battery Plant-Forming Room
Allentown, PA
by
Jonathan Gardner
York Research Corporation
One Research Drive
Stamford, Connecticut 06906
Contract No. 68-02-1401, Task 34
Project No. 77-BAT-5
YRC Job No. 4-8479-34
prepared for
Daniel Bivins
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
July 27, 1977
York Research Corporation
One Research Drive, Stamford, Connecticut 06906 • Telephone: (203) 325-1371-TWX: 710-474-3947
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF RESULTS iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH I
2.1 Sampling Locations 1
2.2 EPA Method 8 2
3.0 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS 5
APPENDIX
A. Detailed Test Data 7
B. Field Data Sheets 32
C. Analytical Data 66
D. Calibration Data 71
E. Standard Calculations 80
-------
TABLES
Page
S-l Test Log v
S-2 Test Day 1 - With Foam xii
S-3 Test Day 2 - With Foam xiii
S-4 Test Day 3 - Without Foam xiv
S-5 Test Day 3 - Continued xv
S-6 Test Day 4 - With Foam xvi
11
-------
FIGURES
Page
S-l S03 Removal Efficiency vs Time vi
S-2 PPM SOo vs. Time - With Foam Tests vii
S-3 PPM S03 vs. Time - Without Foam Tests viii
S-4 PPM S03 vs. Time - Test Day 1 ix
S-5 PPM S03 vs. Time - Test Day 2 x
S-6 PPM S03 vs. Time - Test Day 4 xi
2-1 Sampling Locations 3
2-2 Method 8 Sampling Train 4
111
-------
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Tables S-l through S-12 summarize the results of the sulfuric
acid mist emission test program conducted on the Plate Forming
Room at ESB, Incorporated in.Allentown, Pennsylvania. Sulfuric
acid mist, sulfur trioxide, and sulfur dioxide concentrations
were measured at the inlet and outlet of a scrubber through
which the fumes from the plate forming were vented. Tests were
conducted during the forming cycle (1:00 PM to 5:00 AM); with
and without a soapy foam covering the vats to reduce emissions.
The values designated as 503 represent sulfuric acid mist plus
sulfur trioxide and the values presented as SC>2 represent only
sulfur dioxide. Figures S-2 and S-3 summarize the with foam
and without foam test data. The data points on all the graphs
are the 503 concentration levels plotted at the time representing
the midpoint of that particular test. The plots are the best fit
lines derived by linear regression analysis. Figures S-4 through
S-6 present the data from each day separately. Tables S-2 through
S-6 present the data from each test day. The various problems
encountered during the testing of this process are discussed in
the text. Additional test data are provided in the computer data
printouts in Appendix A.
IV
-------
TABLE S-l
TEST LOG
Test Day 1
4/18, 19/77
With Foam
Test Day 2
4/20/77
With Foam
INLET
TEST NO./TIME
1/1930-2305
2/0005-0505
3/2119-2313
4/0100-0315
5/0420-0522
OUTLET
TEST NO./TIME
1/1930-2320
2/0100-0427
3/2105-2255
4/0055-0240
5/0405-0450
Test Day 3
4/20,21/77
Without Foam
Test Day 4
4/22/77
With Foam
6/1311-1506
7/1615-1804
8/1839-2023
9/2100-2244
10/2310-0110
11/0150-0445
12/0130-0450
6/1325-1550
7/1800-2125
8/2230-0155
9/0230-0500
10/0170-0455
-------
FIGURE S-l
S03 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY vs TIME
100'
99
-P
S
u
98
96
95
3J_
\L
OA:
^
L!L
TT
Jd
\t
1300 1500 1700
1900 2100 2300
TIME (HOURS)
0100 0300 0500 0700
• WITH FOAM
O WITHOUT FOAM
VI
-------
PPM SO-
FIGURE S-2
WITH FOAM
Days 1, 2 and 4
U- Inlet
O - Outlet
Ul
O
O
LH
O
O
O
O
O
O
NJ -'
M
O
O
NJ
u;
O
O
O
O
O
u>
O
O
O
o
O
•=>
TIME (HOURS)
vii
-------
FIGURE S-3
WITHOUT FOAM
PPM SO-
100.
Test Day 3 - 4/20/77
Inlet Tests 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Outlet Tests 6, 7, 8, 9
D - Inlet
O - Outlet
viii TIME (HOURS)
-------
FIGURE S-4
WITH FOAM
Test Day 1 - 4/18,19/76
Tests 1, 2
D - Inlet
O - Outlet
PPM SO-
100.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
6.
5.
4.
.1
TIME (HOURS)
IX
-------
FIGURE S-5
WITH FOAM
Test Day 2 - 4/20/77
Tests 3, 4, 5
D ~ Inlet
O - Outlet
PPM SO-
x
TIME (HOURS)
-------
FIGURE S-6
WITH FOAM
Day 4 - 4/22/77
Inlet Test 12
Outlet Test 10
n - Inlet
O - Outlet
100.
PPM S03
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
10.
7.
4.
33=
u> Ln
OO
oo
O
o
O
o
O
o
N>
uJ
O
o
O
o
O
o
O
o
O
o
XI
TIME (HOURS)
-------
TABLE S-2. DAY 1 - WITH FOAM
INLET
Test NO.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
SOj ppm
S03 Ib/hr
863 mg/cu.m
S02 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
OUTLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
503 ppm
S03 Ib/hr
803 mg/cu.m
S02 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
1*
1930-2305
3094.0
87.56
2883.0
81.59
1.97
0.070
6.56
0.12
0.32
1*
1930-2320
4014.0
113.60
3794.0
107.37
0.17
0.0080
0.57
0.010
0.026
2
0005-0505
2996.0
84.79
2775.0
78.53
16.57
0.57
55.21
0.066
0.18
2
0100-0427
3418.0
96.73
3269.0
92.51
0.26
0.011
0.87
0.0
0.0
* Questionable results
xn
-------
TABLE S-3. DAY 2 - WITH FOAM
INLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
563 ppm
SO 3 Ib/hr
803 mg/cu.m
SO 2 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
OUTLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
303 ppm
S03 Ib/hr
503 mg/cu.m
SO 2 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
3
2119-2313
3250.0
91.98
2938.0
83.15
16.01
0.58
53.34
0.0
0.0
3
2105-2255
i
3290.0
93.11
3079.0
87.14
0.09
0.0034
0.30
0.0
0.0
4
0100-0315
3078.0
87.11
2784.0
78.79
22.86
0.79
76.17
0.49
1.31
4
0055-0240
3409.0
96.47
3241.0
91.72
0.66
0.027
2.20
0.0
0.0
5
0420-0522
3293.0
93.19
2969.0
84.02
32.86
1.21
109.49
0.55
1.47
5
0405-0450
3521.0
99.64
3338.0
94.47
1.57
0.065
5.23
0.0
0.0
Kill
-------
TABLE S-4. DAY 3 - WITHOUT FOAM
INLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
S03 ppm
S03 Ib/hr
503 mg/cu.m
SO 2 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
OUTLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
503 ppm
SO 3 Ib/hr
S03 mg/cu.m
SO 2 ppm
SOo mg/cu.m
6
1311-1506
3273.0
92.63
3005.0
85.04
6.55
0.24
21.82
0.54
1.44
6
1325-1550
3585.0
101.46
3390.0
95.94
0.19
0.0080
0.63
0.073
0.19
7
1615-1804
2885.0
81.65
2641.0
74.74
4.03
0.13
13.43
0.17
0.45
7
1800-2125
3800.0
107.54
3595.0
101.74
0.18
0.0080
0.60
0.050
0.13
8
1839-2023
3126.0
88.47
2861.0
80.97
16.4
0.58
54.64
0.034
0.091
XIV
-------
TABLE S-5. DAY 3 - WITHOUT FOAM (CONT.)
INLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
503 ppm
503 Ib/hr
503 mg/cu.m
S02 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
OUTLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
503 ppm
S03 Ib/hr
803 mg/cu.m
SO 2 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
9
2100-2244
3032.0
85.81
2775.0
78.53
16.4
0.56
54.64
0.0
0.0
8
2230-0155
3468.0
98.14
3286.0
92.99
0.41
0.017
1.37
0.0
0.0
10 11
2310-0110 0150-0445
3105.0 2957.0
87.87 83.68
2837.0 2697.0
80.29 76.33
26.1 19.57
0.92 0.66
86.96 65.21
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
9
0230-0500
3342.0
94.58
3158.0
89.37
0.48
0.19
1.60
0.0
0.0
XV
-------
TABLE S-6. DAY 4 - WITH FOAM
INLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
S03 PPm
S03 Ib/hr
S03 mg/cu.m
S02 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
OUTLET
Test No.
Time
ACFM
ACMM
SCFMD
DNCMM
803 ppm
S03 Ib/hr
803 mg/cu.m
S02 ppm
S02 mg/cu.m
12
0130-0450
3067.0
86.80
2744.0
77.66
7.33
0.25
24.42
0.0
0.0
10
0120-0455
3114.0
88.13
2905.0
82.21
0.27
0.0097
0.90
0.0
0.0
xvi
-------
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
York Research Corporation was contracted by the Emissions Measure-
.ment Branch of the Environmental.Protection Agency to perform a
source emission survey on a lead acid battery plate forming room
at ESB, Incorporated, located in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The
objective of the test program was to measure the concentrations
of H2S04 mist vented to the atmosphere from the forming room.
The forming room operates between approximately 1300 hours and
0500 hours on a five day per week schedule. The battery plates
are immersed in a sulfuric acid solution and an electrical current
is applied. The process releases hydrogen bubbles through the
solution, causing the emission of H2S04 mist.
Emissions are controlled by two techniques:
o Covering the vats with a soapy foam to contain the mist.
o Venting the room through a scrubber to the atmosphere.
Tests were conducted during the week of April 18, 1977. The in-
let and outlet of the scrubber were tested simultaneously during
the forming cycle (with and without foam applied).
Those present during the test program were:
Lee Beck U.S. EPA Emissions Standards and
Engineering Division
Daniel Bivins U.S. EPA Emissions Standards and
Engineering Division
Jonathan Gardner York Research Corporation
John Gale York Research Corporation
Richard Keith York Research Corporation
William Cesareo York Research Corporation
Louis Millspaugh York Research Corporation
Michael Ziskin York Research Corporation
James Cassermere York Research Corporation
Stephen Wahlig York Research Corporation
Stephen Creaturo York Research Corporation
2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH
2.1 Test Locations
The inlet sampling ports were located in a horizontal section
of ductwork connecting the forming room to the scrubber (Figure
2-1). Two ports (90° apart) were installed approximately 2
diameters upstream from the scrubber. The inside diameter of
this duct measured 20% inches. Ten points were sampled per
port resulting in a total of 20 separate points. The sampling
time for each point varied as the test duration was changed.
-------
The outlet sampling ports were located in the stack (ID 20%
inches) approximately two diameters from the exit. The two
ports were 90° apart. Ten points were sampled per port
simultaneously with the inlet test location.
2.2 EPA Method 8
Sulfuric acid mist, sulfur trioxide and sulfur dioxide con-
centrations were measured in accordance with EPA Method 8^.
This method requires isokinetic sampling of the gas stream
in order to collect a representative sample of sulfuric
acid mist.
The sampling train consisted of a glass-lined heated probe,
four Greenburg Smith impingers immersed in an ice bath, and
a Pyrex glass filter holder. An umbilical cord connected
the probe and impingers to the control console. The control
console contained a vacuum pump, dry gas meter, calibrated
orifice, and dual manometers. A Type "S" pitot tube and
thermocouple were attached to the probe to provide gas stream
pressure differential and temperatures at each point.
Velocity pressure ( A p) and the pressure drop across the
orifice ( A H) were observed from the dual manometer as
inches of water.
Isokinetic sampling was maintained by the use of a nomograph
which correlated velocity pressure ( A p) , and orifice pressure
drop (AH).
The front half of the train (probe, first impinger, and
filter) removed sulfuric acid mist and sulfur trioxide from
the gas sample. The first impinger (which was a Greenburg-
Smith design) contained 100 ml of 80% isopropanol. Mist which
was not collected in the isopropanol was trapped by the filter.
At completion of the test, the isopropanol (with filter and
wash of the front half) was placed in a glass sample jar for
subsequent analysis. This sample was designated as the 803
sample.
The back half of the train consisted of the second and third
impingers. Each contained 100 ml of 3% ^2°2 to absorb sulfur
dioxide from the gas sample. The contents of the two impingers,
plus washes, were designated as the SC>2 sample.
The samples were analyzed at the test location titrametrically
utilizing barium perchlorate. The percent moisture content in
the sampled stream was determined by means of a separate moisture
train because Method 8 proved unsuitable for measurement of
moisture content.
Two moisture tests were performed at each location, and the
results averaged.
1 Federal Register, Voo. 40; 36 FR 24876, Dec. 23, 1971
-------
20k"
B
T
Traverse
PT. #:
1
'2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Scrubber
In. From
Stack Wall
1.36
2.39
3.58
5.06
7.19
13.06
15.19
16.67
17.86
18.89
5'
u
A
10. 9.8 7 6
t » f » -»
5 4 .3. 2 JL
*+*•}*
16
GAS FLOW
From Forming
Room
FIGURE 2-1 - H2SO4 SCRUBBER SAMPLING
POINTS A & B
-------
PITOT
DRY GAS METER
MANOMETER
PYROMETER
ES -089
EPA METHOD 8
SAMPLING TRAIN
FIGURE 2-2
-------
Gas analysis was determined in accordance with EPA Method 3.
An integrated gas sample was collected in a flexible Tedlar
bag and analyzed with an Orsat Analyzer. The gas composition
was found to be characteristic of ambient air.
3.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Various problems were encountered during the testing; some of
which may affect the test results.
Upon completion of the first test run, it was apparent that most of
the isopropanol had evaporated from the first impinger; leaving only
10-20 ml. A similar problem had been observed in previous testing,
however to a lesser degree (only 10-20 ml had been lost). It was
decided that the increased amount of isopropanol loss was due to
the abnormally long test duration of four hours as compared with
the usual one or two hour tests. The response to the evaporation
difficulties was to add isopropanol whenever the level was in
danger of exposing the impinger tip. Considering this circumstance,
the results from Test No. 1 should be viewed with suspicion.
Another testing difficulty which resulted in a deviation from the
prescribed method was related to the ambient .concentrations of
sulfuric acid mist. The forming rooms at ESB are located inside
the general plant building.- Acid mist leaking out of the •
various cracks and holes in the room under test, and out of the
two other forming rooms in the building resulted in high ambient
concentrations of acid mist which caused discomfort to the test
engineers even when respirators were worn. When three test
engineers on the first night shift (when the ambient concentrations
were the worst) produced disturbing medical symptoms, it was de-
cided to modify the inlet test procedure so that the test engineers
would not have to remain in the high ambient concentrations of
sulfuric acid mist. To., accomplish this, the sample train was
placed at a point of average velocity and operated for the desig-
nated test time, recording test data only at the beginning and end
of the test. This allowed the engineers to stay in an uncontamin-
ated area during the test period. The even gas flow conditions at
the inlet permitted representative samples to be obtained with this
modification, although the volumetric flow rates from these tests
(8-12) should not be considered as accurate as those measured with
a full traverse.
The concentrations of 803 measured, ranged from a maximum of 33
ppm at the inlet to a minimum of 0.1 ppm at the outlet. Method
8 was designed to measure higher concentrations, therefore, by
extending the test duration (4 hours on the outlet) to obtain a
larger sample volume, it was possible to measure very low 803
concentrations with this method.
-------
Prepared by:
/^Jonathan
//Project D|
Gardner
rector
Reviewed by:
A. Kniskern
Manager Emissions Measurement
Approved by:
,es W. Davison
be President Operations
------- |