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

-------