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 ------- |