United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Washington DC 20460
EPA-340/1-83-019
April 1983
.Stationary Source Compliance Series
Envirotech/
Chemico Pushing
Emissions
Control System
Analysis
Final Report
-------
EPA-340/1-83-019
Envirotech/Chemico Pushing Emissions
Control System Analysis
Final Report
Prepared by
Peter Spawn
Michael Jasinski
GCA CORPORATION
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Bedford, Massachusetts
Contract No. 68-01-6316
Technical Service Area 3
Assignment No. 8
John R. Busik, EPA Project Officer
Laxmi Kesari, EPA Assignment Manager
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
April 1983 U.S. Environmental Protection Sgencj
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, XL 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
This Final Report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts
01730, in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-6316, Technical Service
Area 3, Assignment No. 8, Change No. 1. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of
the Environmental Protection Agency or of cooperating agencies. Mention of
company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATUS
This report was reviewed by each steel company mentioned herein
Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, Republic Steel, J&L Steel and Shenango. No
confidential claims were asserted on any information contained in this report,
PEER REVIEW
This report was peer reviewed by several EPA personnel, and each
individual's comments were addressed by GCA and/or the Assignment Manager
during preparation of this Final Report.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report summarizes a 3-month study of the 21 Envirotech/Chemico
one-spot, mobile pushing emissions control systems currently installed at coke
plants operated by five domestic steel companies. The study investigated;
(1) design differences between cars; (2) startup, operational and maintenance
problems reported by each steel company; (3) mass and visible emissions test
data; (4) car availability; and (5) solutions to operating problems
implemented and/or under consideration. Information in the report was
developed through detailed discussions and field inspections at four steel
companies; discussions with EPA engineers and review of EPA, state and local
regulatory agency files; office discussions with the equipment vendor; and
review of the technical literature. The objective of this report is to
factually present information available through the above sources.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ill
Figures v
Tables vi
Acknowledgment viii
1. Introduction 1
Project Background and Approach 1
Report Organization 2
2. Envirotech/Chemico Push Control Car Development and History. 3
Halcon Car Development 3
Car Orders 5
Background and Current Status of Envirotech/Chemico. . 5
3. System Description 9
Introduction 9
General System Description . 12
Scrubber Car Design and Operation 13
Description of H-III Land-Based Hot Water System ... 15
Description of the H-II Land-Based System 16
4. Emissions Data Summary 17
Mass Emissions Data 17
Visible Emissions Data Summary 17
5. Summary of H-III Problems and Solutions Reported by Steel
Companies 41
Introduction 41
H-III Land-Base Problem Summary 42
H-III Quench Car and Coke Guide Problems 46
H-III Scrubber Car Problem Summary 52
6. Maintenance Programs and Availability Data 59
Maintenance Programs 59
Availability Data 63
References 82
Appendices
A-E Tables From Trip Reports Listing H-II and H-III System
Problems Reported by Steel Companies 83
F Method D: Procedure for Observing Visible Emissions Equal
to or Greater than 20% Opacity During Pushing ...... 101
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Availability data for H-III serving Batteries 1, 2 and 3
at U.S. Steel/Clairton. Average shown for 7 months
operation, March 1981 through December 1981, excluding
hot idle downtime 64
2 Availability data for H-III serving Batteries 7,8 and 9 at
U.S. Steel/Clairton 65
3 Availability data for H-III serving Battery 15 at U.S.
Steel/Clairton 66
4 Availability data for H-III serving Batteries 19 and 20 at
U.S. Steel/Clairton 67
5 Availability data for H-III serving Batteries 21 and 22 at
U.S. Steel/Clairton 68
6 Availability of all operating H-III systems (combined) at
U.S. Steel/Clairton (supplied by U.S. Steel) 69
7 Plant production at Clairton Works (supplied by U.S. Steel) 70
8 Availability data for H-III at J&L/Indiana Harbor Works
(two cars, two batteries) 71
9 Availability data for H-III at Republic/Warren (two cars
serve one battery) 72
10 Availability data for H-II at Bethlehem Steel's battery
No. 5 at Bethlehem (one car, one battery) 73
11 Availability data for H-II at Shenango (one car, two
batteries) 74
12 Availability data for H-II at J&L/Pittsburgh Battery P-4
(one car, one battery) 75
-------
TABLES
Number Pa6e
1 H-II and H-III Car Order Summary 6
2 Description of Batteries Served by Envirotech/Chemico Push
Control Systems 10
3 Summary of Particulate Mass Emissions Data For the
Envirotech/Chemico H-II Push Control Cars 18
4 Additional Mass Emissions Data for the Envirotech/Chemico
H-II Cars 21
5 Particulate Mass Emissions Test Data for H-III Cars (Push and
Travel Combined) 23
6 Summary of Visible Emissions Data for the Envirotech/Chemico
H-II Cars 26
7 Summary of Visible Emissions Data for the Envirotech/Chemico
H-III Cars 34
8 H-III Land-Based Hot Water System Problems and Corrective
Action Taken, as Reported by Companies Visited 43
9 Status of H-III Land-Base Problem Resolution 47
10 H-III Quench Car and Coke Guide Problems and Corrective
Action Taken, as Reported by Companies Visited 48
11 Status of H-III Quench Car and Coke Guide Problem Resolution 51
12 H-III Scrubber Car Problems and Corrective Action Taken, as
Reported by Companies Visited 53
13 Status of H-III Scrubber Car Problem Resolution 58
14 Maintenance Program Details Obtained From Plant Visits ... 60
VII
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
15 H-II Downtime Reported for Bethlehem/Bethlehem Battery No. 5
in April and May 1979 77
16 H-II Downtime Reported by Bethlehem/Bethlehem Battery No. 5
in 1980 (entire year) 78
17 Monthly Availability Data for H-II on Battery No. 5 at
Beth lehem/Beth lehem 79
18 J&L/Pittsburgh Chemico H-II Breakdown Report Summary for
2/14/80 - 2/23/81 on Battery P-4 80
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A number of individuals within EPA and the steel industry contributed to
this study. A high level of cooperation from staff members of each steel
company visited is gratefully acknowledged. Messrs. T. Maslany, E.
Wojciechowski, R. Ida, R. Craig, R. McCrillis and D. Hlustick, all with EPA,
reviewed the report, and provided comments which have been incorporated into
this Final Report.
IX
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND APPROACH
At the request of EPA1s Division of Stationary Source Enforcement in
Washington, D.C. (DSSE), GCA/Technology Division conducted an engineering
assessment of the 21 Envirotech/Chemico pushing emissions control cars
operated by five domestic steel companies. The study objectives were defined
by EPA as follows:
Investigate design and construction parameters of the cars;
Investigate startup, operational and maintenance problems
encountered by each company;
Document solutions to problems implemented by Envirotech/Chemico and
each steel company;
Review maintenance programs at each company;
Summarize available mass and visible emissions test data;
Assemble data to describe car availability; i.e., number of pushes
caught and scrubbed divided by total number of pushes occurring
during the same period.
The primary source of information in this report was office discussions
and field inspections held between GCA and four of the five steel companies
that operate Envirotech/Chemico cars. Office discussions were also held
between GCA and Envirotech's Vice President and one of their Project
Engineers. Bethlehem Steel Corporation declined to participate in the plant
visits due to pending litigation. Some data for the Bethlehem plant were
available from regulatory agencies.
Each EPA engineer responsible for steel mills in Regions II, III and V
(all Envirotech/Chemico cars are in these three EPA regions) was contacted to
obtain all available information relative to study objectives. Additionally,
the technical literature including published and informal EPA reports were
reviewed, especially for emissions test data.
-------
The overall study objective was to provide a factual reporting of problem
areas and solutions as described to GCA by each steel company. Two companies,
Republic Steel and Shenango, reviewed GCA's trip reports describing
discussions held at the plants, and their review comments were incorporated
into this report. Trip report review comments were not received from U.S.
Steel and J&L Steel.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The background and development history of the Envirotech/Chemico push
control cars are described in Section 2. A process description and status of
each installed system as of Spring 1982 appears in Section 3. Mass and
visible emissions data appear in Section 4.
A summary of problem areas described by the steel companies visited
appears in Section 5, based on the detailed trip reports prepared for each
plant visit. Section 6 provides available information on car availability and
maintenance programs.
-------
SECTION 2
ENVIROTECH/CHEMICO PUSH CONTROL CAR
DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY
HALCON CAR DEVELOPMENT
Early History
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISl) commissioned J.E. Allen
Associates in the early 1970s to investigate pushing emissions control
techniques. The so-called Allen hooded quench car/trailer control car concept
was developed which eventually evolved into the current Envirotech/Chemico
Halcon-II (H-Il) and Halcon-III (H-III) designs.1
The original concept called for a three-car train consisting of: (1) a
conventional electric locomotive, (2) an enclosed quench car, and (3) an
equipment (scrubbing) car. The equipment car was envisioned to contain large
rotating exhaust fans and conventional wet scrubbers. AISI did not readily
accept this early design concept because gyrational and vibrating effects
inherent to large rotating fans were not considered practical for continuous
shuttle service.
Development of Halcon Car
The direct forerunner of the current design was developed in 1972 by John
Allen and John Hanley (Hanley-Allen Pollution Control Services) in conjunction
with Interlake Inc.'s technical center and the Aeronetics Division of
Thermotics, Inc. Interlake suggested that the original concept be redesigned
to use Aeronetic's Adtec static, jet-type exhauster/air cleaner device instead
of conventional fans and scrubbers. The Aeronetics exhauster, developed
during the NASA program, was operating at a ferroalloy electric furnace at
Chromasco, Inc. in Memphis, TN with apparent success. Interlake agreed in
April 1972 to finance development and testing of the new concept at
Interlake's Chicago coke plant.
A prototype unit, termed the Halcon system, was designed and tested at
Interlake during the summer and fall of 1973. Initial tests suggested the
concept was viable but significant difficulties still existed. Modifications
to the entrainment separator and quench car design during the winter of
1973-74 led to a demonstration of the system to EPA in November 1974. In
December 1974, the system became the property of Chemico Air Pollution Control
Corporation which became a division of Envirotech Corporation in 1978.
-------
Design details of the Halcon prototype demonstrated at Interlake in 1974
appear in a technical paper by R.S. Patton of Interlake.1 Major design
differences between this prototype and the commercial Envirotech/Chemico H-II
and H-III configurations are as follows:
Flat water sprays were provided in the prototype to curtain the hood
opening where coke first enters the system. The commercial version
does not use water sprays.
Equipment (scrubber) car was not enclosed at Interlake, while the
commercial installations placed equipment inside an enclosed car.
Interlake prototype was designed to quench coke in hooded quench
car, eliminating the quench tower. This concept was eliminated in
the commercial version, and a conventional quench tower with
modified water sprays was used.
An electric locomotive was used to propel the Interlake prototype,
while the existing H-II and H-III cars are self propelled via
on-board electric motors.
Conventional quench car (not one-spot) on prototype was used with a
plenum-type hood and exhaust duct. A one-spot quench car was
developed by Chemico for the commercial installations.
Development of the Envirotech/Chemico H-II Car
After acquiring the Halcon design in 1974, Chemico further developed the
system into the H-II configuration. The H-II is described in detail later in
Section 3. Refinements to the Halcon prototype included the following:^
Duplicates of key equipment were added, except for large and heavy
components such as the diesel generator, water heater and separator.
Equipment car was enclosed, pressurized and heated.
Self-powering of control car eliminated need for locomotive and
reduced overall system length from 165 to 100 feet.
Onboard sump pumps were eliminated by providing gravity drain of
dirty scrubber water.
Number of wheel trucks were increased to reduce track loading.
Diesel generator was isolated and soundproofed.
Stainless steel ducts and rubber-lined pipe were added.
Integral cab and control room were air conditioned with filtered air.
One-spot quench car was developed.
Coke guide hood configuration was improved.
4
-------
Development of the H-III
The H-III car was developed in the late 1970s in response to concerns
over fuel oil consumption of the H-1I. The primary differences between the
H-II and H-III cars are the elimination of the onboard diesel generator and
fuel oil fired hot water heaters (H-Il), relying instead on hot rail electric
power and a land-based water heater designed to fire coke oven gas and water
transfer system (H-III). Details are provided in Section 3, System
Description. In discussions with GCA, Envirotech/Chemico emphasized that the
H-III cars were sold and installed without the benefit of a prototype unit
upon which to base final design.
CAR ORDERS
In November 1975, negotiations between EPA Region III and J&L Steel led
to a commitment by J&L to select a push emissions control system by January
1976. On 1 February 1976, J&L became the first buyer of the Chemico H-II
system when J&L announced selection of the H-II for battery P-4 at the
Pittsburgh Works.
Also in 1976, the Pennsylvania DER was engaged in litigation with
Bethlehem Steel relative to pushing emissions at the Johnstown and Bethlehem
plants, among other issues. In February 1977, Bethlehem Steel ordered four
Envirotech/Chemico H-II cars for the Bethlehem, Lackawanna and Sparrows Point
plants. By 1978, 26 cars were sold; however, the last five car orders placed
by Bethlehem Steel were cancelled before car delivery.
Table 1 summarizes H-II and H-III car orders as described by
Envirotech/Chemico.
BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS OF ENVIROTECH/CHEMICO
The Halcon system was acquired from John Hanley by Chemico Air Pollution
Corporation in December 1974. At that time, 15 to 20 Chemico staff members
were assigned to the task of commercializing the prototype system demonstrated
at Interlake. In February 1975, John Hanley, the co-developer, became an
independent representative of Chemico. Mr. Hanley was involved in development
work, and later, marketing and car startup.
Chemico became a division of Envirotech Corporation in 1978. Mr. Anthony
Fazio, the current (1982) Envirotech Vice President, became involved with the
program in April 1978. By the summer of 1978, 200 Envirotech/Chemico
employees were working on the project, of which about 75 were employed in
Envirotech/Chemico1s assembly shop. (Some construction was subcontracted to
other organizations.)
In January 1980, Envirotech/Chemico announced they were withdrawing from
the pushing emissions control market and no new orders would be accepted. The
company announced they would continue to fulfill existing contract obligations.
-------
TABLE 1. H-II AND H-III CAR ORDER SUMMARY
Company
J&L/Pittsburgh (P4)a>b
Bethlehem/Bethlehem (No. 5)
U.S. Steel/Clairton (Nos. 19,20)
Bethlehem/Lackawanna (Nos. 7,8)
Bethlehem/Sparrows Pt.
(Nos. 11,12)
Shenango/Neville Island
Republic/Warren (No. 4)
U.S. Steel/Clairton (Nos. 21,22)
Bethlehem/Bethlehem (Nos. 2,3)
J&L/Ind. Harbor (Nos. 3,4)
Republic/Youngstown (Nos. B,C)
U.S. Steel/Clairton (Nos. 1,2,3)
No. of
cars
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Type
H-II
H-II
H-II
H-II
H-II
H-II
H-III
H-III
H-II
H-III
H-III
H-III
Order
date
2-76
2-77
3-77
4-77
4-77
9-77
10-77
1-78
2-78
2-78
6-78
6-78
Delivery
date
10-77
9-77
5-79
6-79
6-79
9-79
7-79
9-79
12-79
12-79
9-79
11-79
Chemico
job
No.
3014-W
3086-W
309 3-W
3100-W
309 7-W
3121-W
3124-W
3154-W
3150-W
3152-W
3124-Y
3154-W
Assembly
location
Buell
Atlas
Buell
Buell
Buell
Buell
Niles
Niles
Atlas
Niles
Niles
Niles
Frame
builder
Atlas
Atlas
Easton
Maxson
Max son
Maxson
Atlas
USS
Atlas
Maxson
Atlas
USS
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
Company
U.S. Steel/Clairton (Nos. 13,
14,15)
Republic /Cleveland (Nos. 6,7)
J&L/Ind. Harbor (No. 9)
U.S. Steel/Clairton (Nos. 19,20)
Beth lehem/Lackawanna (No. 9)
U.S. Steel/Clairton (Nos. 1,2,3)
U.S. Steel/Clairton (Nos. 7,8,9)-
Bethlehem/Bethlehem
Bethlehem/Sparrows Pt. (Nos. 1,
2,4,5)
No. of
cars
2
2
1
1
lc
1
1
lc
30
Type
H-III
H-III
H-III
H-III
H-II
H-III
H-III
H-II
H-II
Order
date
11-78
11-78
2-79
2-79
2-79
4-79
5-79
6-79
6-79
Delivery
date
1-80
3-80
2-80
3-80
12-80
6-80
6-80
1-81
3-81
Chemico
job
No.
3154-W
3198-W
3152-W
3154-W
3219-W
3154-W
3154-W
-
323-1
Assembly
location
Niles
Niles
Niles
Niles
-
Niles
Niles
-
"
Frame
builder
USS
Morgan
Maxson
USS
-
USS
USS
Maxson
Maxson
aBatteries served shown in parenthesis.
bH-II on P-4 replaced with Minister Stein in 1981.
cCancelled orders; cars never completed.
-------
In 1981, General Electric Company purchased ongoing business of the
Chemico and Buell Divisions of Envirotech Corporation in order to enter the
pollution control equipment market. However, the new company, General
Electric Environmental Services Inc. (GEESl) does not have responsibility for
the push control project according to Mr. Fazio, Envirotech Vice President,
and a Project Engineer, Mr. Sandor Kaldor who were the only two personnel
assigned to the project in 1982. Messrs. Fazio and Kaldor continue to work
out of GEESI's New York offices in order to complete Envirotech/Chemico1s push
control car contracts.
-------
SECTION 3
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
Background data describing each battery served by an H-II or H-III system
appears in Table 2. The basic operating principles of the scrubbing system
are equivalent between the H-II and H-III cars since each design uses the
Aeronetics hot water scrubber. The primary differences between the H-II and
H-III systems are as follows:
The H-II has an on-board hot water heater, while the H-III cars
receive hot water from a land-based heating system.
The H-II has an on-board diesel AC generator to power scrubber
system equipment and the traction drive motors. The H-III is
powered by DC current drawn from battery hot rails.
The H-II is substantially heavier than the H-III due to the above
differences.
All H-III systems were originally designed to use coke oven gas (COG) in the
land-based heating building to heat hot water, except at Clairton. The
Clairton system uses plant steam heating in lieu of COG heaters. Water
treatment systems for land-based removal of solids were supplied to all steel
companies as part of the Envirotech/Chemico package, except at Clairton where
U.S. Steel provided their own water treatment facilities.
Coke guide hoods and one-spot quench cars are essentially identical
between the H-II and H-III systems, except for minor design changes made prior
or subsequent to startup.
Envirotech/Chemico indicated to GCA that design and construction details
of each H-II and H-III system were essentially identical. Scrubber car
frames, wheel truck assemblies, and the basic cab structure were purchased
from suppliers by Envirotech/Chemico with the exception of the eight Clairton
cars. U.S. Steel built their own frames and operator's cab structures for
Clairton and Envirotech/Chemico installed the internal equipment. For all
other H-II and H-III cars, Chemico or their subcontractor(s) built the system
internals into the purchased car frames and wheel assemblies. All single-spot
quench cars were built to Envirotech/Chemico"s specifications by
subcontractors except for the Clairton quench cars which were designed and
built by U.S. Steel.
-------
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF BATTERIES SERVED BY ENVIROTECH/CHEMICO PUSH CONTROL SYSTEMS'
No. of
cars
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
18
Facility/
location
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem, PA
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem, PA
Bethlehem Steel
Lackawanna, NY
Bethlehem Steel
Sparrows Pt. , MD
J&L Steel/
E. Chicago, IN
J&L Steel
E. Chicago, IN
J&L Steel
Pittsburgh, PA
Republic Steel
Cleveland, OH
Republic Steel
Warren, OH
Republic Steel
Youngstown, OH
Shenango Inc .
Neville Isl. , PA
Battery
served
Nos. 2,3
No. 5
No. 7
No. 8
No. 11
No. 12
No. 4a
No. 9a
P-4C
No. 6
No. 7
No. 4
B
C
No. 3f
No. 4
Most recent
Battery battery
startup rehabilitation
date date
1941
1942
1953
1952
1961
1955
1957
1956
1961
1953
1952
1952
1979
1950
1960
1948
1951
-
1977 (rebuilt)
1979 (rebuilt)
-
1976b
1979b
1977b
1979d
1981d
-
1962 (rebuilt)
1971-19726
1974-19756
Battery
design
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Wilputte
Wilputte
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers
Koppers
Koppers
Koppers
Koppers
Battery Total
heating number
system of ovens
Gun-flue
Gun-flue
Gun-flue
Underjet
Underjet
Underjet
Underjet
Underjet
Underjet
Underjet
Gun-flue
Gun-flue
Gun-flue
Gun-flue
Gun-flue
Underj e t
Underjet
102
80
7b
76
65
65
75
87 '
79
63
63
85
65
59
35
35
Oven height
3-meter
4-meter
(12 ft. -6 in.)
12 ft. -2 in.
4-meter
13 ft-0 in.
13 ft-0 in.
13 ft-0 in.
13 ft-2 in.
(4-meter)
13 ft-0 in.
(4-meter)
13 ft-2 in.
(4-meter)
4-meter
Number of
pushes per Tons of
day (all coke per
units listed) push
? :
96 (avg.) 11
210 11
143 11
105 i:.l
110 11. i
(116-max)
111 ?
126 11.7
(174-max)
110 12.7
(120-max)
120 11.5
(144-max)
808 15
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
Most recent Number of
Battery battery Battery Total pushes per Tons of
No. of Facility/ Battery startup rehabilitation Battery heating number day (all coke per
cars location served date date manufacturer system of ovens Oven height units listed) push
2
1
2
2
1
U.S. Steel
Clairton, PA
U.S. Steel
Clairton, PA
U.S. Steel
Clairton, PA
U.S. Steel
Clairton, PA
U.S. Steel
Clairton, PA
Nos.
Nos.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1,2,3
7,8,9
15
19
20
21
22
1955
1954
1953
1951
1951
1947
1946
1979h
-
1979 (rebuilt)
1977
1978 (rebuilt)
1972b
19731
Wilputte
Koppers
Koppers
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Koppers-Becker
Gun- flue
1
?
Underjet
Underjet
Underjet
Underjet
192
192
61
87
87
87
87
13 ft-0 in.
4-meter
4-meter
5-meter
5-meter
5-meter
5-meter
240 11.3
? ?
? ?
171 14.5
201 14.4
aBattery No. 4 pushed empty in October 1981, Battery No. 9 pushed empty in March 1982.
^End-flue rehabilitation.
cH-2 car was permanently removed from service July 3, 1981.
dEnd-flue, and some through-wall rehabilitation.
eEnd-flue, and some end-wall rehabilitation.
fBattery No. 3 scheduled for replacement with new 56 oven battery in June-July 1982. H-II car will then serve only Battery No. 4 (shed on
new battery).
^System designed for three battery operation (Nos. 1, 3 and 4)total of 105 ovens, 140 pushes/day.
hPartial rehabilitation (standpipes, doors, etc.)
'Complete rebuild from the bench up.
-------
Although both Envirotech/Chemico and the steel companies visited reported
all cars are identical, several minor differences were noted by GCA during
plant inspections. The impact of the following differences on car reliability
is further described later in Section 5.
The U.S. Steel-supplied car frames at Clairton, and Republic's
Warren car (all H-III) use wooden power pick-up arms. The cars
supplied to J&L at Indiana Harbor use a steel pickup arm arrangement.
The U.S. Steel-supplied scrubber car and quench car frames at
Clairton, and the two cars at Republic/Cleveland were supplied with
"stucki bearings". The other, Chemico-supplied car frames at plants
visited by GCA used solid wear plates instead of stucki bearings.
GCA was informed by Envirotech/Chemico that minor changes were made
by Envirotech/Chemico during car production. Some changes were also
made based on field experience with systems already on-line. Other
minor differences may have resulted from the fact that cars were
assembled at several different locations.
All systems have been modified by each steel company, accounting for
additional minor differences.
Design and operation details are discussed below, drawn primarily from a
Chemico paper published in Iron and Steel Engineer magazine.^ Differences
between H-II and H-III systems are also described.
GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Both H-II and H-III systems consist of a control car that houses
scrubbing equipment, a one-spot, enclosed quench car, a hooded coke guide and
a land-based water treatment and transfer station. The heart of the scrubber
car is the Aeronetics hot water scrubber which also provides the draft for gas
movement. The H-II scrubber car contains an AC diesel generator to power
on-board equipment, and an oil-fired hot water heater to supply the Aeronetics
scrubber jets. The HIII cars are powered by DC current from benchmounted
hot rails, eliminating the onboard diesel generator. Additionally, the H-III
draws hot water from a land-based heating and transfer system, eliminating the
on-board heater used on the H-II.
For both H-II and H-III systems, a one-spot enclosed quench car travels
with the scrubber car. The tilting stainless steel coke box (original
Chemico-supplied coke boxes were stainless steel) is enclosed on three sides
and the top to contain emissions. The side facing the oven is partially open
to receive coke. After the push, quench water is introduced through this
opening via modified quench tower nozzles.
Closure plates added to the plant's existing coke guide on both sides of
the coke discharge opening align with the quench car opening to contain
emissions. Other guide modifications in the H-II and H-III design close small
openings on both sides, the top and the bottom of the guides.
12
-------
A land-based water treatment system and gravity feed transfer system
supply cold (or slightly heated) water to the H-II. The H-III receives
heated, pressurized water from a land-based heating and transfer station.
Quench tower portals (openings) and water spray nozzles usually required
modifications to accomodate the one-spot quench cars. The water treatment
system processes the raw water supply to a quality level required by the
scrubber. Scrubber water is blown-down from the car at the quench tower and
discharged to plant wastewater handling systems.
SCRUBBER CAR DESIGN AND OPERATION
Basic scrubbing functions are similar for the H-II and H-III cars. Two
Aeronetics jet nozzles operating in parallel receive 400°F, 400 psi water from
the onboard storage tank on the H-III, and either from an onboard storage tank
or directly from the onboard heater on the H-II. The nozzles exhaust gas from
the coke guide hood and quench car, through the scrubbing section, into an
entrainment separator and out a short, rectangular, vertical stack at the same
elevation as the battery top level.
A temperature sensor upstream of the Aeronetics jets controls hot water
flow to the jets, thus regulating exhaust flowrates. The system was
originally designed to operate at approximately 60,000 scfm during a "normal"
push, with up to 90,000 scfm available for green pushes. Quench sprays in the
duct between the quench car and the scrubber car were designed to prevent
excessive temperatures during very green pushes. Exhaust flow is
automatically reduced to 35,000 scfm during travel to the quench tower.
As designed, approximately 40 to 50 percent of the water supplied to the
Aeronetics jets evaporates. The remaining water is removed in the
multicyclone entrainment separator. Dirty water drains by gravity at the
quench tower.
The scrubber car consists of two integrated sections on both the H-II and
H-III, an operators cab and the equipment room. The entire scrubber car is
air conditioned and pressurized to prevent dust entry. The H-II is propelled
by two 150-hp, DC traction drive motors mounted on wheel trucks under the
scrubber car. DC from hot rails can be used for emergency movement of the
H-II in the event of generator failure. The H-III is propelled by four 75-hp
DC traction drive motors, supplied with DC current from hot rails mounted
along the battery bench. The H-III cannot propel itself if DC power is lost.
Onboard Equipment - H-II and H-III
The scrubber car houses all AC starters, DC contactors, switch gear,
overload protection devices, relays, programmable control devices and a
rectifier.
Two onboard rotary air compressors (one operating, one spare) rated at
125 cfm and 100 psig discharge pressure provide air for the brakes,
instruments and in the case of the H-II only, fuel atomization in the water
heater. Brake and instrument air is cooled; only instrument air is dried via
a water separator and twin-tower, regenerative air dryer.
13
-------
Two onbbard hydraulic pumps (one operating, one spare) provide pressure
for the twin hydraulic dump cylinders that tilt the coke box for dumping to
the wharf. The prime hydraulic pumps and air compressors are AC powered. On
some li-II and H-III cars, the spares are L)C powered so if one power source
fails, the other maintains braking and coke box dump capability. (The U.S.
Steel quench cars use air cylinders to empty the coke box; all
Envirotech/Chemico-supplied quench cars use hydraulic cylinders).
Programmable controllers consisting of banks of removable, printed
circuit boards control car sequence operations, i.e. , the scrubbing cycle and
safety interlocks. For example, the car was designed so the car won't move
when the coke box is in the dump position, hot water transfer won't occur
unless the car is properly aligned at the charge station, etc.
The onboard AC diesel generator on the H-II cars is rated at 400 kw
prime, and provides 460V, 3-phase, 60 Hz power at 1200 rpm for scrubbing
system equipment. The standard 400 kw generator can move the scrubber car
with gas cleaning equipment turned off if DC hot rail power is lost.
Envirotech/Chemico also offered a 600 kw generator capable of scrubbing and
moving the car simultaneously, eliminating the need for hot rail power.
The water heaters in the H-II cars are fired with No. 2 fuel oil and
sized at 8, 10 or 12 mm Btu/hr depending on length of duty cycle (i.e.,
elapsed time between pushes). The larger heater sizes fill much of the
available space inside the H-II car.
After the scrubbing section, scrubbing liquor and particulate are removed
from the exhaust gas in a two-chamber entrainment separator. Exhaust gas
first enters an open chamber in the separator where the gas decelerates and
water droplets and particulate drop out by contact with internal surfaces.
The gas then enters a bank of small cyclones in the second section of the
separator for final gas/liquid separation. Design pressure drop across the
entire separator at maximum exhaust gas flow is 8 in. WC.
Exhaust Flow Rate Selection
The 6 to 9 inch gap between the coke guide closure plates and the quench
car was selected to handle elevation differences between the track and ovens.
No sealing material was originally envisioned for this 6 to 9 inch gap,
although some steel companies have attempted to find a suitable sealing
material. A seal was provided by Envirotech/Chemico for at least one system
(Shenango).
Exhaust flow rate selection was based on achieving adequate fume capture
and maintaining combustion of volatiles and fixed carbon contained in the
exhaust stream. Design intake velocity at the 6 to 9 inch gap between the
coke guide closure plates and the quench car opening is 20,000 fpm at the
maximum design flowrate of 90,000 scfm. Chemico selected this indraft
velocity to contain emissions based on the Interlake prototype and fume
capture design principles.
-------
Maintaining combustion of volatiles and fixed carbon provided another
basis for design flowrates. Envirotech/Chemico reports that discussions with
coke oven experts indicated that 10 Ib of fixed carbon and 5 Ib of volatile
matter per ton of coke are typically evolved. The total amount of air
necessary for complete combustion was determined stoichiometrically at 60,000
scfm for a 30-second push duration. A maximum design flowrate of 90,000 scfm
was selected to handle green pushes.
Aeronetics Scrubber Details
The jet ejector effect of expanding water through the Aeronetics nozzles
transfers momentum from the water to the gas, thereby increasing gas pressure.
This provides a particulate removal capability that Chemico reported to be
equivalent to a venturi scrubber operating at over 100 inches WC pressure
drop. Because of the momentum transfer, the Aeronetics scrubber only has to
overcome duct and separator pressure drops of approximately 12 in WC.
Scrubbing efficiency is proportional to water velocity and droplet size.
The greater the velocity difference between the water and particulate, and the
more droplets available, the higher the scrubbing efficiency. The water
velocity is dependent on hot water temperature (and pressure), i.e., higher
velocities (and better scrubbing) are achieved with hotter water and
pressure. Also, finer droplets are formed with higher water velocity,
enhancing scrubbing efficiency. The H-III system has interlocks to prevent
hot water transfer to the car if temperature and pressure are too low, thus
maximizing control device efficiency.
DESCRIPTION OF H-III LAND-BASED HOT WATER SYSTEM
The Envirotech/Chemico-supplied land-based equipment for the H-III system
consists of a water treatment system, hot water heaters and storage tanks, and
the transfer mechanism which feeds hot water to the control car. (The only
exception is Clairton Works where U.S. Steel provided water treatment.)
Incoming river or lake water is filtered to remove suspended solids,
softened to remove hardness, and chemically treated. Chemical treatment
consists of: (a) oxygen scavenging; (b) dispersant addition to prevent
scaling in the heat exchanger; and (c) corrosion inhibitor addition to protect
all steel components. Treated water, stored in a service water tank, is
pumped into the heater system via one of two high pressure pumps that
maintains system pressure. A portion of the water passes through the heater;
a by-pass picks up heat from the charge tank cooling loop. Both streams are
mixed and discharged to a 4400 gallon hot water charge tank located in the
transfer building. When the charge tank is full, flow through the heater
stops and the heater goes into a low fire, "soak" mode.
When full, charge tank water is at 460°F and the equilibrium vapor
pressure is 467 psig. The pressure differential between the land-based charge
tank and the H-III car tank provides the driving force for water transfer to
the car. Prior to entering the H-III, water from the charge tank is cooled to
approximately 430°F in a second tank containing a shell and tube heat
15
-------
exchanger. This is necessary to prevent flashing in the transfer line since
water in the charge tank is at its equilibrium vapor pressure. The system was
designed to transfer water to the car every other quench (push) cycle.
Hot water transfer is accomplished during quenching when the H-III car is
aligned with the transfer station located at the side of the transfer
building. The charge arm on the car extends outward and mates with a nozzle
on the transfer building. A number of limit switches must be satisfied by
precise charge and alignment before transfer can occur. The transfer line is
pressurized with water from the land-base cooler tank, and isolation valves on
either side of the coupling open to allow water transfer. After transfer, the
isolation valves vent and drain the coupling prior to disengagement.
Vapor pressure in the car tank provides the driving force for water flow
through the jets when the jet isolation valves are opened. When full, car
tank water is at approximately 430°F and 366 psia. To prevent flashing in the
line between the jets and the car tank, water flows through a heat exchanger
for subcooling prior to entering the jets.
DESCRIPTION OF THE H-II LAND-BASED SYSTEM
The H-II land-based system is simple relative to the H-III land-base
because the water is unheated and unpressurized when transferred to the car.
The H-II water treatment system discharges to an overhead storage tank near
the quench tower. Cold or slightly preheated scrubber water fills the H-II
during the quench via a simple gravity flow arrangement.
16
-------
SECTION 4
EMISSIONS DATA SUMMARY
This section summarizes mass and visible emissions (VE) data available
through regulatory agencies. When available, information useful for
interpreting test results is included herein; i.e., coking time, VE observer
position and observation techniques, deviations from test procedures and
problems. However, it is important to note that background information was
often not available in the test reports.
MASS EMISSIONS DATA
Mass emissions data available for H-II cars appears in Tables 3 and 4.
Mass data for the H-III cars appears in Table 5. Generally, pushing and
travel emissions were measured together. Front-half and back-half catches
were reported for most H-II tests, while only front-half data were reported
for the H-III cars. Additionally, it should be noted that all front-half
results for both H-II and H-III cars were performed in accordance with EPA
Reference Method 5. Back-half analysis must be performed in accordance with
the requirements of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(PADER) for all H-II and H-III cars located in the State of Pennsylvania. All
mass data were drawn from stack test reports unless otherwise noted.
Information contained in test reports pertinent to interpreting test results
appear in the comments section of each table, if available.
VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA SUMMARY
Available VE data for emissions escaping capture by the hot car - coke
guide hood assembly appears in Tables 6 and 7 for the H-II and H-III,
respectively. Most data were collected by recording the number of seconds of
VE >20 percent opacity escaping the hood during the push using a cumulative
stopwatch. A typical methodology appears in Appendix F. Unless otherwise
noted, all data represent emissions during the push itself, defined as the
time period between start of ram movement and the time all coke is in hot car.
The background used for observing VE is listed in the comments section if
this information was available. Most of the VE data were compiled from test
reports or letters and reports to regulatory agencies from steel companies.
Often, data describing the observation background (i.e., sky, collector main,
battery) were not available. The table headings vary somewhat between pages,
reflecting the different types of VE data summaries available from EPA.
17
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE MASS EMISSIONS DATA FOR THE
ENVIROTECH/CHEMICO H-II PUSH CONTROL CARS
Exhaust flow
rate mea-
sured during
push3
Push and travel
emissions, combined
r acuity/
location
Bethlehem Steel/
Bethlehem, PA
Battery No. 5
iest
date(s) ACFM
7/27/78
8/15/78
8/16/78
i«ront nair
°F (gr/dscf)
0.043
0.034
0.017
Da.CK.-na.il.
(gr/dscf)
0.038 ^
0.036
0.015 J
Comments
1 Tests by Bethlehem Steel
S» Particulate exiting the cyclonic
' separator noted by test crew.
oo
8/30/78
152
153
10/11/78 120,700 151
10/12/78 120,700 150
10/26/78 100,000 147
10/27/78 105,000 150
0.0327
0.0226
0.051
0.031
0.021
0.026
0.0305
0.0445
0.058
0.083
Tests by Buell
Modifications by Buell (before these
tests) included false bottom to
prevent creeping of separated
water.
Tests by Buell during the following
modifications: stabilizing system
pressure cycling and modifying
\ heater controls to allow higher
water temperature and prevent
local pipeline flashing.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
Facility/
location
Test
date(s)
Exhaust flow
rate mea-
sured during
pusha
ACFM
Push and travel
emissions, combined
Front-half Back-half
°F (gr/dscf) (gr/dscf)
Comment s
Bethlehem Steel 11/1/78 105,700 148 0.0318
Bethlehem, PA
Battery No. 5 11/2/78 116,900 150 0.017
11/3/78 123,500 150 0.013
\e>
11/14/78 107,000 151 0.0206
11/15/78 99,500 149 0.0144
1/16/79 122,000 139 0.0424
1/17/79 132,000 127 0.0316
1/18/79 122,000 107 0.0274
0.037
0.057
0.041
0.104
0.103
All following tests after above
mentioned changes made.
Tests by Buell with unheated probe
(11/1/78).
Tests by Buell with two high
pressure pumps to scrubber nozzles
operating simultaneously
(11/2-3/78).
Each test consisted of ~15 push-
travel cycles per run.
Tests by Buell
Each test consisted of ~15 push-
1 travel cycles per run.
Stopcock grease noted in back-
half samples (first time checked).
Tests by Betz-Converse-Murdoch
Results questionable according to
test report.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
Exhaust flow
rate mea-
sured during
Push and travel
emissions, combined
Facility/
location
pusu
date(s) ACFM
°F (gr/dscf)
Back-half
(gr/dscf)
Comment s
Bethlehem Steel, 3/7/79
Bethlehem, PA
Battery No. 5
3/8/79
3/9/79
to
O
126,000 150 0.0423
122,000 150 0.0295
122,000 150 0.0319
0.079
0.100
Compliance tests by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch.
Each test consisted of 16 push-
travel cycles per run. Average
coking time = 20 hours. Approxi-
mately 11.3 tons coke pushed per
oven.
No detectable stopcock grease in
back-half.
*Test data at saturated conditions.
-------
TABLE 4. ADDITIONAL MASS EMISSIONS DATA FOR THE ENVIROTECH/CHEMICO H-II CARS
Push emissions
Exhaust
Facility/ Test Front-half flow rate, Temp.
location date(s) (gr/dscf) acfm °F
Bethlehem Steel/ 10/13-17/ 0.016
Sparrows Ft., MD 1980
(Batteries 11
and 12) 0.008* 134,029 150
0.011 128,275 148
0.010 133,145 153
J&L Steel/ 8 - 9/ - 166,646 149
Pittsburgh, PA 1979
Battery P-4
159,993 149
164,868 151
163,517 154
173,580 142
178,792 125
190,963 140
Travel emissions Push and travel combined
Exhaust
Front-half flow rate Temp. Front-half Back-half Full-train
(gr/dscf) acfm °F (gr/dscf) (gr/dscf) (gr/dscf)
0.025 - - (0.0154 lb/
ton coke)
0.013 43,660 143 (0.0140 lb/
ton coke)
0.018** 44,754 143 (0.0179 lb/
ton coke)
0.016 58,362 143 (0.0179 lb/
ton coke)
85,385 145 0.0855 0.0158*
100,827 146 0.0373 0.0110
98,344 147 0.0210 0.0059
98,466 150 0.0187 0.0063
100,666 139 0.0253 0.0425
88,619 122 0.0234 0.0354
92,856 138 0.0209** 0.0405**
Convents
Compliance tests by Bets-
Converse-Murdoch.
First run conducted over I days.
48 pushes per run, 532. S cons
coke pushed/test run tnassd or.
11.1 tons coke/oven).
*Percent Lsokinetics = 1..1.0-+.
**Percent isokineti<-s * U0.92.
Allowable concentration v:xish) =
0.015 gr/dscf.
Allowable concentration ^travel)
= 0.010 gr/dsc£.
Allowable emission rate vpusn
and travel combined) = 0.015 lb>'
ton coke pushed.
Compliance tests by Betr-
' Converse-Murdoch.
Each test consisted of If push-
travel cycles per run.
*Back-half results represent
back-naif catch minus Jack-naif
sulfates. Back-half sulfates
ranged from 0. 0000-0. Oi*J
gr/dscf.
**Percent isokinetics = J9.o5.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Facility/
location
Push emissions
Travel emissions
Push and travel combined
Test
date(s)
Exhaust Exhaust
Front-half flow rate Temp. Front-half flow rate, Temp. Front-half Back-half Full-train
(gr/dscf) acfm °F (gr/dscf) acfm °F (gr/dscf) (gr/dscf) (gr/dscf)
Comments
S3
S3
Shenango, Inc./
Neville Is., PA
Batteries 3
and 4)
U.S. Steel/
Clairton, PA
(Batteries 19a
and 20)
2/10-13/
1981
08/30/79
09/05/79
09/06/79
08/23/79
08/29/79
08/31/79
82,844 (dscfm)
81,276 (dscfm)
80,043 (dscfm)
77,630 (dscfm)
50,148 (dscfm) 0.061
50,892 (dscfm) J.015
49,371 (dscfm) 0.091
51,092 (dscfm) 0.032
0.056
3.144
0.593
1.078
0.286
0.955
2.200
0.0194* -\
0.0234
0.0098
3.205
0.608
1.169
0.310
Compliance tests by Betz-
Converse-Murdoch.
First run consisted of 48 push-
travel cycles, remaining two
runs consisted of 24 push-travel
cycles per test.
First run isokinetics » 115.+1
*Full-train results consist of
front-half, and filterable
back-half catch.
Allowable concentration (push-
travel combined) » 0.020
gr/dscf.
Compliance tests by U.S. Steel.
1st and 3rd run consisted ot 24
push-travel cycles per test
run, 2nd run consisted of <»8
push-travel cycles.
Allowable tull-train = 0.020
gr/dscf (July 10, 1979 Consent
Decree) .
Additional tests conducted by
U.S. Steel.
1st run isokinetics = 75.5*.
\» 2nd run isokinetics = 124.5*.
1st and 2nd runs consists of Z~
push-travel cycles per test
run, 3rd run consisted of 13
push-travel cycles.
Car also tested in April 1980; results were not available.
-------
TABLE 5. PARTICULATE MASS EMISSIONS TEST DATA FOR H-III CARS (PUSH AND TRAVEL COMBINED)
Facility/Location
Test Front-half Front-half
date(s) (gr/dscf) Ib/ton coke
Comments
<*>
JiL Steel/ 04/30/81
E. Chicago, IN
(Battery 4) 05/01/81
J&L Steel/
E. Chicago, IN
(Battery 9)
Republic Steel/
Cleveland, OH
(Batteries 6&7)
Republic Steel/
Cleveland, OH
(Batteries 6&7)
05/05/81
11/06/80
01/20/81
03/17/81
03/25/81
03/26/81
3/27/81
04/07/81
04/08/81
04/09/81
04/14/81
04/15/81
04/16/81
0.025
0.066
0.105
NA
NA
NA
0.012
0.024
0.032
0.014
0.019
0.017
0.012
0.011
0.015
0.040
0.099
0.158
0.080
0.093
0.052
0.024
0.040
0.068
0.026
0.032
0.028
0.020
0.021
0.027
Compliance tests run by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch.
Each run consisted of 24 push-travel cycles
per test run, 12 tons coke per push, and
288 tons coke per test run.
i Allowable front-half emission rate (push and
travel combined) = 0.040 Ib/ton coke.
No additional data available
Complaince tests run by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch.
Each run consisted of 24 push-travel cycles
per test run, 12 tons coke per push,
288 tons coke per test run.
Allowable front-half emission rate (push and
travel combined) = 0.040 Ib/ton coke.
Compliance tests run by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch on car No. 21.
Each run consisted of 24 push-travel cycles
per test run, 11.7 tons coke per push, 280.8
tons coke pushed per test run.
Allowable front-half emission rate (push and
travel combined) = 0.03 Ib/ton coke.
Compliance tests run by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch on car No. 22.
Each run consisted of 24 push-travel cycles
per test run, 11.7 tons coke per push, 280.8
tons coke pushed per test run.
Allowable front-half emission rate (push
and travel combined) - 0.03 Ib/ton coke.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5 (continued)
NJ
P-
Facility /Location
Republic Steel/
Warren, OH
(Battery 4)
Republic Steel/
Warren, OH
(Battery 4)
Republic Steel/
Youngstown, OH
(Batteries B&C)
Test Front-half Front-half
date(s) (gr/dscf) Ib/ton coke Comments
10/13/81 0.0302 0.0586
10/14/81 0.0106 0.0206
10/15/81 0.0122 0.0254
>
10/20/81 0.0147 0.0258 ""
10/21/81 0.0152 0.0271
10/22/31 0.0141 0.02^8
10/27/81 0.0149 0.0370 >
10/28/81 0.0117 0.0309
10/29/31 0.0107 0.0293
^
» Compliance tests run by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch on car No. 1.
Each run consisted of 24 push-travel cycles
' per test run, 12.65 tons coke per push,
303.6 tons coke per test run.
Allowable front-half emission rate (push and
travel combined) = 0.03 Ib/ton coke.
Compliance tests run by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch on car No. 2.
. Lach run consisted of 2t push-travel cycles
' per test run, 12.65 tons coke per push,
303.6 tons coke per test run.
Allowable front-half emission rate (push and
travel combined) = 0.03 Ib/ton coke.
Compliance tests run by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch.
Each run consisted of 2-* push-travel cycles
\ per test run, 11.5 tons coke per push, 275.5
tons coke per test run.
Allowable front-half emission rate (push and
travel cotabined) = 0.03 Ib/ton coke.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5 (continued)
NS
Facility /Locations
United States Steel/
Clairton, PA
(Batteries 19 and 20)
Test
date(s)
03/24/81
03/26/81
04/04/81
Back-half
Front-half insoluble
(gr/dscf) (gr/dscf)
0.0248 0.0022
0.0416 0.0077
0.0380 0.0016
Front-half plus
Back-half back-half
soluble insoluble
(gr/dscf) (gr/dscf) Comments
0.0957 0.0270 >
0.0846 0.0493
0.0877 0.0396
s
Compliance tests by Betz-Converse-
Murdoch.
Runs No. 1 and 3 each consisted of 16
push-travel cycles per test run,
i 14.25 tons coke per push, 228 tons
coke per test run.
Run No. 2 consisted of 24 push-
travel cycles per test run, 14.25
tons coke per push, 342 tons coke
per test run.
TABLE 5 (continued)
Facility /Location
United States Steel/
Clairton, PA
(Battery 15)
Test
date(s)
08/17-
19/81
08/20-
21/81
08/24-
27/81
Full-train
(gr/dscf)
0.026
0.025
0.042
Full-train
(Ib/ton coke) Comments
0.070
0.066
0.114
Compliance tests by U.S. Steel on
H3-6 car.
24 pushes per test run, one
) traverse point per push
Isokinetic range: 90.9 - 95.3%
Average composite gas flowrate -
84,445 dscfm.
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA FOR THE ENVIROTECH/CHEMICO H-II CARS
Facility /Location
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem, PA
Battery 5
No. of
pushes
Date observed
01/16/79
2
Range of
seconds
VE >202
14-26
Avg. seconds
per push
VE ^20%
20.
0
Maximum
opacity
(Z)
50
Avg . max .
opacity
(Z)
40.0
Comments
- Observations by
EPA
inspectors
} during stack tests.
01/17/79
01/30/79
01/31/79
03/08/79
8
4
2
11*
0-7
0-2
0-12
0-11
2.
0.
6.
1.
5
75
0
9
30
30
-
75
13.1
15.0
- J
26.8
- Push data only.
- Observations by
^ during nonstack
- Push data -only.
EPA
test
- Observations during
inspectors
periods.
BCM stack
03/08/79
0-5
1.7
70
33.7
03/09/79 13*
0-6
03/09/79
3+
1.1
1.0
70
30
19.2
18.3
tests (7 out of 11 pushes showed
VEs _>20%).
- ^Observations during nonstack
test periods (2 out of 4 pushes
showed VEs ^20%).
- Sun visible (40% cloud cover).
- Observations by PADER;3 back-
ground unknown.
- Push data only (20-hr coke)
- Company reported scrubber valve
problems during tests.
- Observations during BCM stack
tests (5 out of 13 pushes showed
VEs 2:20%).
- ^Observations during nonstack test
periods (2 out of 3 pushes showed
VEs Z20Z).
- Sun visible - clear sky.
- Observations by PADER; background
unknown.
- Push data only (20-hr coke).
- Scrubber valves adjusted before
tests.
04/02/79
04/03/79
04/06/79
04/09/79
05/21/79
05/29/79
05/30/79
14(13)
3(3)
17(17)
1(1)
22
24
19
0-6(0-19)
0(0-5)
0-3(0-13)
0(0)
0-37
0-50
0-36
0.711.2.0)
0.(2.67)
0.41(2.18)
0(0)
- JACA observations during
^ test periods. (Data in
7.73
12.0
6.53 - - J
theses represent VEs >0%
~ Sky used for background.
- Push data only.
nonstack
paren-
opac ity)
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Facility/Location
Bethlehem Steel/
Bethlehem, PA
(Battery 5)
(continued)
Bethlehem Steel/
Sparrows Pt . , MD
(Batteries 11
and 12)
Date
05/21/79
05/29/79
05/30/79
10/U/80
10/15/80
10/10/80
10/17 -'SO
No. of
pushes
observed
r
25
19
18---
11*
21*
7-
Range ot
seconds
VE >20°,
0-32
0-42
0-19
0-45
0-90
0-106
3-12
Avg. seconds Maximum Avg. max.
per push opacity opacity
VE >20X (%) CO
- ]
I
5.b - >
- J
13.2 - - -|
36.5 - - I
23.1 - - >
6.0 - -
J
Corame n t s
- JACA observations during nonstack
test periods.
- Coke guide hood tor background.
- Push data only.
- BCM observations during stack
cests.
-*Push and travel VE data combined.
- Slue sky for background.
- Sun in front of observer during
all observations.
t.cont inued)
ISJ
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Facility /Location
Bethlehem Steel/
Lackawanna, N.Y.
(Battery 7)
Bethlehem Steel/
Lackawanna, N.Y.
(Battery 8)
Dateb
02/20-21/80
08/12/80
12/02/80
03/16/81
09/15/81
02/09/82
05/11/82
02/20-21/80
09/15/81
02/09/82
05/11/82
Average of 24
consecutive opacity
readings3 (%) Comments^'0
32.1
12.6
9.6
14.2
15.6
57.1 - H-car inoperative
7.9
31.9
12.7
42.7 - H-car inoperative
17.5
Observations were recorded at 15-second intervals, for a minimum of 24 consecutive opacity observations, at the point of
NJ greatest opacity and only during the coke pushing and transport periods.
00
^Visible emissions recorded in February and August 1980 were observed and documented in accordance with 6NYCRR, Part 21-t,
By~Product Coke Oven Batteries, effective August 23, 1979. Visible emissions recorded in December 1980 and in 1981-1982
were observed and documented in accordance with the Delayed Compliance Orders signed May 28, 1979 and proposed policies
submitted to the U.S. EPA, as required by the conditional approval of the New York State Implementation Plan.
cBoth the 6NYCRR, Part 214.2(b) regulation and the Delayed Compliance Order requires that visible emissions from coke
pushing and transport of coke to the quench tower shall be less than 20 percent opacity; determined by averaging the results
of a minimum of 24 consecutive opacity observations made at 15-second intervals.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
No. of Range of
pushes seconds
Facility/Location Date observed VE >0%
J&L Steel 8/16/79 16
Pittsburgh, PA (5)
(Battery P-4)
8/18/79 16
8/20/79 16
(10)
8/22/79 16
(12)
Note: VEs observed by Weston emanated
emissions also observed during
to
vO
0-30
(0-24)
0-17
0-20
(0-6)
0-45
(0-22)
Avg. seconds
per push
VE >0%
13.2
(8.4)
3.2
5.5
(1.1)
12.3
(7.8)
from between quench car and
stack tests
(not summarized
C cont i rvu
Range of
maximum
opacity
(%) Comments
0-90 "\ Data taken by Weston Environmental during
(0-100) BCM stack testing.
\ Data in ( ) taken by County for VEs ^20%.
0-65 J Data by Weston only during BCM stack tests.
0-20 ^ Data taken by Weston during BCM stack
(0-40) J Data in ( ) taken by County for VE ^2(
0-80 ^ Data taken by Weston during BCM stack
(0-100) 1 Data in ( ) taken by County for VE >2(
the capture hood. Background - coke oven battery.
above). VEs observed by Allegheny County.
Pdl
tests.
)S.
tests.
)i.
Travel
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Facility/
Location
J&L Steel/
Pittsburgh,
PA (Battery
P-4)
No. of
pushes
Date observed
09/19/79 9
(9)
Range of
seconds
VE j>20%
0-3
(0-7)
Avg. seconds
per push
VE >20%
0.56
(1.1)
Range of
maximum
opacity
0-35 ^|
(80)
Comments
Data taken by BCM
tests.
y Data in ( ) taken
during stack
by County
( simultaneously with BCM
09/20/79 12
(12)
0-9
(0-14)
1.4
(1.8)
J
0-30 ""
(30)
observations.
I Data taken by BCM
tests.
) Data in ( ) taken
during stack
by County
f simultaneously with BCM
11/05/79 11
11/06/79 11
11/07/79 32
0
0-3*
0-1**
0
0.27*
0.03**
s
0-10 ""
0-30*
0-20**
1 observations.
BCM observations,
stack tests.
y *0nly one push had
scrubber turned on
not during
VEs >20%,
late.
**0nly one push had VEs _>20%.
Note: Travel emissions also observed during above dates (not summarized above)
tions during observations not included with data.
(continued)
Background and condi-
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Facility/
Location
Shenango Inc. ,
Neville Isl.
(Batteries
3&4)
No. of No. of
pushes pushes
Date(s) observed ' >20%
2/10-11/81
2/12
2/13
31 19(61.
23 10(43.
24 14(58.
Total Avg. sec.
sec. >2Q'i >_20%
per test per push Comments
3%) 229 7.4 -\ Data taken by BCM during
1 stack tests (Method 9 VE
5%) 455 19.8 \ copies difficult to read).
{
3%) 243 10.1 J
Note: From February 9 to July 1, 1981 a total of 130 pushes were observed at Shenango by EPA and Allegheny
county inspectors; average seconds VEs >_20% opacity = 12.9.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Facility/
Location
USS/Clairton, PA
(Batteries #19
and 20)
Date(s)
08/30/79
09/05/79
09/06/79
08/23/79
08/29/79
08/31/79
Test No./
Battery
3/19
3/20
5/19
5/20
6/19
6/20
1/19
1/20
2/19
2/20
4/19
4/20
Avg . sec a
per push,
fugitive
VEs >20%a
20.5
18.1
3.7
3.5
3.8
15.2
2.3
10.8
12.0
10.2
11.9
13.0
Avg. sees
per push,
scrubber
stack
VEs >20%b Comments
^1 (No details available)
8.8
0.4
0.1
0.5
6.5
2.6
4.5
6.3
22.4
2.8
6.1
aFugitive emissions observed from quench car and/or door machine during push only.
"Scrubber stack emissions averaged for push and travel combined.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Facility/
Location
USS/Clairton, PA
(Battery 19)
Avg. maximum
No. of Range of Avg. sees Maximum opacity
pushes seconds per push opacity per push
Date observed VEs J»20% VEs >20% U) ' (%) Comments
4/02/80 2 7-19 13 25 22.5
4/07/80 4 0-30 19 65 31.25
4/08/80 6 12-37 26.8 85 56.7
4/28/80 12 20-3b 28.2 100 81.7
4/29/80 11 22-39 31.6 100 93.2 )
Observations by County
during testing of car.
Travel data also avail
able, but not sum-
\ marized in this taole.
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA FOR THE ENVIROTECH/CHEMICO H-III CARS
Facility/
Location
Date(s)
Total
No. of No. of No. of
pushes Method 9 readings
observed readings <20%
No. of No. of No. of
readings readings readings
>20%,but <40% >40%,but <60% ^60%
Comment s
J&L Steel/ 11/05/80 18 105
E. Chicago, IN
(Battery 9)
01/20/81 16 80
61(58.1%)* 23(21.9%)
48(60.0%)
10(12.5%)
13(12.4%) 8(7.6%) -v BCM observations.
I Clear sky (background unknown).
/ 15 of 18 pushes observed during
J stack tests.
6(7.5%) . 16(20.0%)~\ BCM observations.
01/20/81 15
03/17/81 24
03/26/81 2
Clear sky (7 obs.); 100Z clouds
I (9 obs.)
/ 15 of 16 pushes observed during
stack test.
I Unknown background.
53 36(67.9%) 8(15.1%) 2(3.8%) 7(13.2%)^ BCM observations during stack
1 tests.
) Generally clear (some clouds).
( All observations - background
J unknown.
212 182(85.9%) 19(9.0%) 3(1.4%) 8(3.8%) ^ BCM observations during stack
1 tests.
> Overcast sky.
1 All observations - background
J unknown.
11 8(72.7%) 3(27.3%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) <\ BCM observations during stack
I tests.
/ Conditions/background unknown.
J Emissions from top of hot car.
aData in parentheses represents the percentage of readings (of the total number of Method 9 readings) that were in the category shown.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
u>
Ol
Facility/
Location Oate(s)
J&L Steel/ 3/26/81
E. Chicago, IN
(Battery 9)
3/27/81
Facility/
Location
J&L Steel/
E. Chicago, IN
(Battery 4)
J&L Steel/
E. Chicago, IN
(Battery 9)
No. of
pushes
observed
23*
24*
Date
4/30/81
5/1/81
3/25/81
3/26/81
3/27/81
Range of Avg. seconds Maximum
seconds per push opacity
>.220% U)
0-35 13.1
4-60 19.9 100
TABLE 7 (continued)
No. of Range of Avg. seconds
pushes seconds per push
observed >20% >20%
15 8-80 29.0 "^
14 4-108 37.0 }
1
J
22 0-29 17.4 ^
25* 0-38 16.9 \
f
21* 9-62 26.0
J
Avg. max.
opacity
(%) Comments
"^ BCM observations during stack
I tests.
I VEs observed from top of hot car
/ *Includes VE data from three (3)
76.0 pushes noted as "green" coke on
\ each day.
Comments
> EPA observer.
Background: overcast sky on 4/30;
battery on 5/1.
Observations taken during stack
tests.
EPA observer.
During stack tests.
Excludes one sticker on 3/26.
Overcast sky background.
*0bserver noted two (2) pushes
were "green" coke on each day.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
u>
Facility.'
Location
J&L Steel/
£. Cnicago, IN
(Battery 4)
No of
pushes
Date(s) observed
i/JO/.Sl 24
Range of
seconds
>20%
1-59
Avg. seconds
per push
>20%
27.0
Max iraura
opacity
U)
-
Avg . max .
opacity
U)
-
Comments
1« BCM observations during stack
tests.
Observer on top of ovens.
5/01/81 1-
5.'05.81 2-
5-6-+
J7.0
32.8
Overcast skies.
Background unknown.
15 of 24 pushes used a
conventional open coke guide.
HOI observations during stacK.
tests.
Partly cloudy skies.
Background - position unknown.
9 of 14 pushes used a conventional
open coke guide.
BCM observations during stacK
tests.
Overcast skies, background
unknown.
Observer positioned on ovens.
15 of 24 pushes used a
conventional open coke guiJe.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Total
No. of No. of No. of No. of
Facility/ pushes Method-9 readings readings
Location Date(s) observed readings <20% >20% Comments
Republic Steel/ 04/07/81 24* 12 12 0
Cleveland, OH
(Car No. 21) 04/08/81 25** 6t 64 0
04/09/81 25+ 81 81 0
J
Republic Steel/ - 04/15/81 24 14-* 144 0 ^
Cleveland, 0*il
(Car No. 22) OA/lo/81 23 U2 U2 0
^
BCM observations during stack tests.
*0nly 3 out of 24 pushes observed with
sun obscured or in correct Method-9
position.
**0nly 9 out of 25 pushes observed
with sun obscured or in correct
Method-9 position.
+-0nly 17 out of 25 pushes observed
with sun obscured or in correct
Method-9 position.
Skies generally clear; observation
background unknown.
BCM observations during stack tests.
Observations recorded from above coke
> ovens using blue sky for background.
| Clear skies prevailed throughout
1 observations.
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
oo
Facility/
Location Date(s)
Republic Steel/ 10/13/81
Warren, OH
(Car No. 1) 10/14/81
10/15/81
No. of Range of
pushes seconds
observed >20%
22 0-29.1
19 0-34.8
20 0-14.1
Avg. seconds
per push
>20%
9.5
7.1
3.0
Average
Maximum maximum
opacity opacity
(%) (%) Comments
45 20.5 ] BCM observations during stack tests.
Skies relatively clear (0-10'i c
35 20.3 V cover).
f Sun in observer eyes during all
observations.
j Observation background. unknown.
25 16.0 A Same as above, except 90% cloud
I with drizzle.
/ Observations taken from top of
J collector main.
loud
cover
Republic Steel/
Warren, OH
(Car No. 2)
10/20/813
10/21,/81a
10/22/813
21
21
22
0-8
0-lb
0-13
3.0
1.9
2.0
25 25.7 1 BCM observations during stack tests.
Background unknown, 50% cloud cover.
Sun in observers' eyes when out.
90 17.1 ^ Same as above, except 10/, cloud cover.
23 13.9 / Same as above, except 100X cloud cover,
J (white/gray clouds).
aNote: VE data labeled in test report indicates seconds of Vbs _30 ', opacity, however, maximum opacities do not reflect these
data.
(continued).
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Facility/
Locat ion
Republic Steel/
Youngstown, OH
Date(s)
10/27/81
10/28/81
10/29/81
No. of
pushes
observed
23
22
21
Total
No. of
Method-9
readings
110
105
112
No. of
readings
<20%
110
105
109
No. of
readings
>20%
° 1
0 \
1
3
J
.
Comments
> BCM observations during stack tests.
Sky conditions generally cloudy in
morning with clearing, blue skies in
afternoon.
Sun in observers' eyes when out.
Background unknown.
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY OF H-III PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
REPORTED BY STEEL COMPANIES
INTRODUCTION
Frequently-reported problems affecting H-III system availability are
summarized in this section. Problems that were reported by only one plant are
not generally included herein, but are described in the Trip Reports. Tables
listing each problem described in the Trip Reports appear in Appendices A-E.
Trip reports are on file at EPA.
Available data describing H-II problems appears later in Section 6 and in
the Shenango Trip Report. Detailed analysis of H-II problems was not
conducted primarily because GCA was able to discuss H-II problems with only
one plant (Shenango). However, company-supplied malfunction data are
available from Bethlehem/Bethlehem and J&L/Pittsburgh.
The data shows that many problems affecting H-III car availability are
either solved, or being brought under control as plants gain operating
experience. However, several major problems affecting car reliability were
.reported as only partly solved. Several companies noted that as existing
problems are solved and the cars operate longer, new problems are expected as
equipment ages and wears.
Overall, the steel companies visited indicated that the Envirotech/
Chemico cars are inherently difficult to maintain. Envirotech/Chemico
responded (to GCA) by stating that the cars are not complicated compared to
other steel mill equipment, but are complicated compared to the relatively
unsophisticated process equipment in a coke plant. Envirotech/Chemico felt
strongly that the primary problem was the reluctance of the steel companies to
assign experienced technical personnel to assist car maintenance crews.
Several important points to consider when reviewing the data in this
section became evident during this study, i.e.:
Steel companies were responsible for supplying Envirotech/Chemico
with up-to-date plant drawings (for clearance and design work), raw
water samples for water treatment system design (except for U.S.
Steel who supplied their own water treatment). Steel companies were
also responsible for modifications to quench car tracks and hot
rails prior to car installation.
41
-------
Envirotech/Chemico designed and installed the H-car (scrubber and
control car), the one-spot quench car and modified the coke guide
(installed hooding).
Subcontractors to Envirotech/Chemico built all one-spot quench cars,
based on Envirotech/Chemico1s design specifications, except at
Clairton where U.S. Steel designed and constructed the quench cars.
Envirotech/Chemico purchased H-car frames, wheel truck and basic cab
assemblies from vendors except the Clairton frames and cabs which
were supplied by U.S. Steel. Envirotech/Chemico or their
subcontractors constructed the internal components of each car.
Several additional observations should also be considered when reviewing
these data, i.e. :
USS/Clairton attempted to debug seven H-III cars almost
simultaneously; the company reported in September 1981 that the
overwhelming number of cars and problems led them to conclude that
debugging efforts should be confined to one car at a time. During
an April 1982 status meeting held at Clairton, U.S. Steel reported
that solutions to all but two problems (drive motor bore elongation
and ductwork erosion) were developed and would be implemented on all
cars when currently idle batteries returned to service.
Republic Steel had previous experience with H-III cars at the Warren
and Youngstown plant prior to starting-up and debugging the
Cleveland cars, where less problems were reported for Cleveland.
Availability data submitted to EPA by J&L, Indiana Harbor Works
shows very low availability of their two H-III systems, and thus,
these systems have not been operated as long as others.
H-III LAND-BASE PROBLEM SUMMARY
Table 8 summarizes problems reported by each company for the H-III
land-based hot water heater system and transfer station. Frequently-reported
land-base problems that reduced car availability may be summarized as:
Coke oven gas combustion problems in the land-based heater;
Heater system malfunctions (generally, heater controls);
Scrubber water treatment system malfunctions;
Hot water transfer (to car) failures.
42
-------
TABLE 8. H-III LAND-BASED HOT WATER SYSTEM PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN, AS
REPORTED BY COMPANIES VISITED
u>
Problem
Poor COG combustion
Heater controls malfcn.
Undersized combustion
air fans
No water flow through
tubes during low-fire
Water treatment
malfunction
Water line corrosion
Transfer arm failure
Transfer line valve
failure
Charge arm support
bolt failure
Steam hammer in lines
FEMCO radio coramunicat ion
difficulty
Pressure sensor failure
Effect
Low heat , burner
flame-outs
Back-up heater failure
Low heater output
Poor temperature control
tube damage
Filter and piping
plugging
Pitting, corrosion of
lines, valves
Water transfer failure
Accidental discharge,
leakage
Alignment problems
Damaged valves
Water transfer failure
Water transfer failure
U.S. Steel
Clairton
NAa
NAa
NAa
, NAa
Adding
deaerator
Adding
deaerator
Varied problems
(see text)
NR
Stainless bolts
and keepers
modified
NR
Many problems
Testing new
sensor
Republic Steel,
Warren, Youngstovn
Switched to natural gas,
improved controls
NRb
Installed larger fans
Installed recirculation
line
Switched to city water
Added nitrogen
Varied problems
(see text)
NR
Air motor modified
NR
Some problems
NR
Republic Steel,
Cleveland
Switched to natural gas,
improved controls
Redesigned controls
Installed larger fans
Installed recirculation
line
New system controls
installed
NR
Limit switch failures
corrected by moisture
control
Valves upgraded
NR
Installed bypass line
Some problems
NR
J&L Steel,
Indiana Harbor
Switched to natural gas,
improved controls
Redesigned controls
Installed larger fans
Installed recirculation
line
Planning system
improvements
NR
Varied problems
(see text)
Additional limit awitche
installed
NR
NR
Minor problems, typical
of other plant machinery
NR
aNA = Not Applicable - i.e., U.S. Steel uses different system (plant steam) for hot water treatment and heating.
°NR = Plant did not report this problem area.
Note: Problems not listed in any order.
-------
Note that U.S. Steel uses plant steam to provide hot water heating, and not
the gas burners and heaters used at all other plants. Also, U.S. Steel
supplied their own water treatment capability whereas all other plants
purchased a system supplied by Envirotech/Chemico.
Many land-base problems have been either completely or partially solved
during start-up and debugging. However, several minor problems, and the
general problem of hot water heating and transfer still affect car
availability at several plants as discussed below. More details are available
in the Trip Report for each company.
COG Combustion Problems
All three plants using gas-fired hot water heaters reported that
maintaining steady COG combustion in the hot water heaters was nearly
impossible. Poor gas flow and burner/pilot flameouts restricted hot water
availability. A pressure sensor prevents hot water transfer to the car at
temperatures below about 450°F. (Water pressure and temperature are directly
proportional). Each company reported that heater systems were designed to
burn COG, and noted that few problems were encountered with other COG-burning
equipment at their plants. (Recall that Clairton uses steam heating and
reported no problems).
After 6 months of attempting to solve COG combustion problems, RSC/Warren
and Youngstown converted to natural gas (NG). RSC/Cleveland also converted to
NG, and J&L is planning NG conversion. Although NG was originally intended as
a backup fuel at all three plants, the conversion to a primary fuel reportedly
requires changing gas lines and process controls and instrumentation to
accomodate the higher Btu content and lower feed pressures associated with NG.
Heater System Malfunctions
The hot water heater switches to a low-fire mode ("soak") once the charge
tank in the transfer building is full. The Envirotech/Chemico-supplied system
did not provide for water circulation in heater tube bundles during soak
periods, according to steel companies, and overheating problems were reported
by all three plants using this system. RSC/Cleveland reported that two tube
bundles were destroyed due to this problem. (The Clairton steam heat system
does not have these hot water heaters).
Recirculation lines installed at Republic's three plants reportedly
solved most overheating problems. However, hot spots from flame impingement
on heater tubes remains a major concern relative to tube life. J&L also
installed a recirculation line to control overheating and also increase the
low water temperature encountered during normal fire periods. The
newly-installed line was untested in actual operation as of January 1982 since
the push control systems were out of service.
All three companies using the COG heater system reported that undersized
combustion air fans prevented attaining adequate water temperature. Larger,
new fans were installed which partially corrected the problem.
44
-------
Backup heater control system failures were reported for three of four
plants using this system. The control system either failed to start the
backup unit upon failure of the primary heater, or else both heaters were
fired simultaneously. Each company reporting these problems redesigned
controls to correct the situation.
Water Quality Problems
All three companies using the Envirotech/Chemico-supplied water treatment
system reported serious operational problems. Filter plugging with influent
solids, carbonate plugging of water lines, and pipe/valve corrosion were
reported. Treatment system design was based on water samples supplied by each
steel company.
After attempts by Envirotech/Chemico and Republic to improve system
performance failed, Republic switched to city water at Warren and Youngatown.
New process controls were installed at Cleveland, which reportedly solved
water quality problems. J&L was planning to improve their existing system
sometime in 1982.
U.S. Steel reported plugging and corrosion of the water system in the
transfer building and onboard the H-III car. Solutions to sparger tube
plugging were reportedly developed by April 1982, and a deaerator was to be
installed to eliminate storage tank corrosion onboard the H-III car. U.S.
Steel supplied their own water treatment for the push control system
Republic/Cleveland has what appears to be a unique hot water supply
problem because their hot water charge system was supplied without a building,
and the heat tracing on water lines didn't prevent freezing. RSC/Cleveland
installed a lean-to and applied "torches" to points prone to freezing.
Hot Water Transfer Problems
Maintaining charging arm alignment and poor limit switch performance were
commonly reported problems. Between 9 and 17 limit switches (depending on
plant) must be satisfied by proper positioning of the charge arm relative to
the land base transfer hub. Frequent switch malfunction was commonly
reported, causing inability to transfer hot water.
RSC/Cleveland reported limit switch problems consisting of winter
freeze-ups were solved by enclosing (the unenclosed) charge station and
adding a vent stack to divert steam discharges away from switches.
RSC/Cleveland was the only plant with an unenclosed charge station. No major
limit switch problems were reported by RSC/Warren and Youngstown. J&L
reported limit switch failures usually occurred once per shift, requiring
about 30 minutes to correct. USS/Clairton reported frequent limit switch
failures often caused downtime on the order of an hour or two. In April 1982,
Clairton also reported failures of the water pressure sensor that caused
inability of water transfer. A new sensor design was undergoing tests.
45
-------
Charge Arm Alignment Problems
Charge arm alignment problems occur between the horizontal faces of the
land-based hub and the car-based charge arm. These two faces must be aligned
to within 0.010 to 0.030 inches. Several inches of "misalignment" in the
vertical direction can be handled by the land-based guide rollers.
Misalignment is caused by track wear/deterioration, stucki bearing wear, weak
car springs, and wheel wear. Generally, the problem is differential wear
causing an elevation difference between the two sides of a car.
U.S. Steel reported major problems with charge arm alignment when the
cars were new. U.S. Steel developed an optical alignment technique that
reduced alignment time to less than 8 hours compared to a day or more for the
Envirotech/Chemico procedure. USS noted that total realignments are
infrequently required; i.e., only in cases such as total failure and major
repairs on a land-base system. Before a new car is placed in service at
Clairton, it is prealigned on the set-up tracks using reference points, and
checked at the land-base station. USS is planning to build a "dummy"
land-base station for standardizing car alignments between batteries and to
facilitate prealignment.
RSC/Cleveland installed a "dummy" charge station in their maintenance
shed to allow alignment (of the spare car) prior to returning to service.
RSC/Warren and Youngstown reported alignment problems of a minor nature have
largely been solved. J&L indicated that their charging arms required
realignment about once every three months.
Charge arm alignment is aggravated by serious track deterioration which
was reported by all plants. The heavy H-III combined with poor drainage of
quench water from battery tracks due to coke spillage from the coke box were
cited by several steel companies as the cause. Track improvements made by
each plant prior to H-III installation ranged from simple ballast cleaning
(Battery 4 at J&L) to installing an 18 inch thick concrete pad along the
entire battery length (RSC/Cleveland). Regardless of track modifications
already made, all companies report frequent track maintenance has been
required and they anticipate replacement in the near future.
Status of Land-Base Problem Resolution
Transfer arm failures, FEMCO problems and water treatment problems are
still affecting availability at some plants. Table 9 summarizes the status of
land-base problems as described by each company interviewed.
H-III QUENCH CAR AND COKE GUIDE PROBLEMS
Commonly reported quench car and coke guide problems are summarized in
Table 10. A few additional, apparently isolated problem areas at certain
plants are listed in the Appendix. Three continuing problems are apparently
only partially solved, i.e.:
46
-------
TABLE 9. STATUS OF H-III LAND-BASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION
Problem
Status of resolution1"
Solved byc
Comments
Poor COG combustion (3)a
Soak period overheating (3)
Undersized combustion air
fans (3)
Backup heater failures (2)
Water treatment problems (4)
Transfer arm failures (4)
FEMCO radio communication
difficulty (3)
Charge arm support bolt
failure (2)
Water line freeze-up, steam
hammer (1)
Mostly solved
Mostly solved
Mostly solved
Solved
Partly solved
Partly solved
Partly solved
Solved
Solved
Steel mills; some Poor performance of burners and controls
Chemico assistance used in system.
Steel mills and
Chemico
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills, some
Chemico assistance
Steel mills, some
Chemico assistance
Steel mills
Steel mill
(occurred at one
plant only)
Equipment or design problem.
Equipment or design problem.
Equipment or design problem.
Mills supplied raw vater samples for
system design. Chemico implied that
same companies ignored recommended O&M
procedures.
Aggravated by track deterioration,
moisture. Chemico suggests more
experienced maintenance personnel
needed; companies claim system is in-
herently difficult to maintain.
Some companies report FEMCO malfunc-
tions, others report problems no
greater than with other FEMCO
equipment. Chemico reports all
companies specified that FEMCO equip-
ment be used.
Original design; operational problems
likely aggravate problems.
Company reports Chemico advised en-
closure was not needed, winter
operations no problem.
aNumber of plants experiencing problems shown in parentheses; counting RSC/Warren and Cleveland as one, four plants
total.
"Terms "mostly, partly and solved" assigned by GCA based on comments made by steel companies during plant visits.
cBased on discussions between GCA and each steel company visited. Specific solutions were presented previously in
this section, and details appear in the Trip Reports.
-------
TABLE 10. H-III QUENCH CAR AND COKE GUIDE PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN, AS REPORTED
BY COMPANIES VISITED
Problem
Car rocking - track
deterioration, weak
springs
Coke spillage
Coke box warpage
Tilt limit switch
failure
Dump cylinder failure
t-
00
TV camera failure
Running light failure
Brake shoe wear
Effect
Derailment, collisions
Poor track drainage,
increased car
maintenance, damage
Repairs, possible
clearance problems
Clearance, dump
problems
Frequent malfunctions,
maintenance
Poor operator vision
Poor operator vision
Frequent replacement
U.S. Steel Republic Steel,
Clairton Warren, Youngs town
Installed sta- Track improvements and
bi liters, track maintenance
improvement 8 ,
new stuck! s
Enlarged box, Modified guide, hot box,
for better ram
distribution
Convert channel- Reinforced frame
floor to solid
plate
New switch Installed timer
design mechanism
Several NR
problems
Improved pro- NR
tection, purge
air, wire relo-
cation
Installed steel NR
shields
Converted to NR
conventional
design
Republic Steel,
Cleveland
Track improvements and
maintenance
Modified guide and ram
NR
Added backup switches,
third-rail control
Replace seals
NR
Installed plexiglass
enclosures
Installed pressure sensor
J&L Steel,
Indiana Harbor
Installed shock absorbers
track maintenance
Coke distribution improve-
ments, extended push ram
Unspecified design change
Reworked switches
Continued maintenance
Improved weatherproof ing
NR
New shoe design
*NR = Plant did not report this problem area.
Note: Problems not listed in any order.
-------
Coke spillage (also affects H-II) (all four plants);
Track deterioration, car rocking, potential derailment (also affects
H-II) (all four plants);
Coke box warpage (two of four plants).
Other quench car and coke guide problems reported by the mills substantially
affected car reliability during start-up periods but appear to be largely
solved or under control. Each problem area is discussed below, and additional
details are available in the Trip Reports.
Quench Car Rocking, Track Deterioration
All companies reported excessive quench car and H-car rocking due to weak
car springs and/or track deterioration. USS and J&L added stabilizers and
springs respectively to better support the car. USS is replacing the "stucki
bearings" that support cars on wheel trucks with a solid design. The stucki
bearings are a cylindrical roller-type bearing which lies between the wheel
trucks and the railroad car body with its primary axis in a horizontal plane.
The bearing supports the car on either side of the wheel truck vertical axis
while allowing for wheel truck movement on curves relative to the car body.
Quench car rocking and track deterioration problems cause potential for
car derailment and collisions with the coke guide, quench tower or combustion
stack due to close clearances. Track deflections exceeding one inch have been
observed (by GCA). The companies identified the cause as car weight and soggy
track beds due to poor water drainage from spilled coke. Track deterioration
problems have apparently not been solved by any steel company and remain a
problem. Details of track modifications already made at each plant appear in
the Trip Reports.
Coke Spillage
Coke spillage during the push was reported by all companies as a severe
problem when cars were first placed in operation. Substantial spillage during
the push resulted in daily track cleanup to prevent derailments and control
soggy track ballast. Coke spillage also damages the cars with burning coke
(i.e. hydraulic and electrical cable deterioration). Only USS reported
spillage problems were solved, although all other companies visited indicated
spillage had been reduced and brought under control. Spillage rates and track
cleaning frequency during conventional quench car operation were not provided
to GCA.
J&L reported the spillage problem was solved by extending the push ram
head, removing deflector plates inside the quench car, and other unspecified
improvements. Some improvements were reportedly made by Envirotech/Chemico
while others were made by J&L.
RSC/Warren reported that coke guide and quench car deflector plate
modifications by Envirotech/Chemico were ineffective. RSC extended the push
-------
ram face by 8 inches, affixed a shovel-type wedge to the ram bottom, and added
a tilting lip to the coke box. Some improvements were achieved, but daily
track cleaning is still required.
RSC/Cleveland1s experience was similar to RSC/Warren, except
Envirotech/Chemico's modifications (similar to those at RSC/Warren) reduced,
but didn't eliminate spillage. Track cleaning for 3 days per week is still
required.
RSC/Youngstown1s spillage problems occur primarily at the wharf, since
the quench car discharge is slightly misaligned with the wharf.
USS/Clairton reported severe spillage problems were not solved by adding
deflector beams and baffles to the quench car. A portion of the horizontal
plate covering the car opening was removed as an interim measure. Spillage
required track cleaning once every one or two days compared to weekly with a
conventional car. Spillage problems were reported to be solved at the April
1982 status meeting by enlarging the coke box by 50 cubic feet to achieve
better coke distribution during the push.
Coke Box Warpage
Three plants reported coke box warpage was eliminated by design changes
and reconstruction. One plant did not report warpage problems. Warpage was
due to thermal stresses from the pushing-quench cycle, sometimes aggravated by
a malfunction causing coke to be held in the quench car for a longer than
normal time.
Coke Box Tilt Limit Switches
The Envirotech/Chemico-supplied quench car contained two mechanical
switches to prevent car movement with a tilted box. This was important to
avoid hitting a tilted box on an adjacent stack or other structure.
All companies reported frequent limit switch failures contributing to car
immobility and/or concern over inadvertent dump problems and collisions.
Various modifications to limit switch design reported by each company solved
these problems.
Other Quench Car Problems Reported
Failure of the coke box dump cylinder, TV camera, and running lights, and
rapid brake shoe wear were commonly reported. Dump cylinders are replaced
and/or given increased maintenance. TV cameras and running lights necessary
for operator's vision suffer damage from water and coke spillage. Physical
protection, shielding and weatherproofing reportedly solves these problems.
Other minor problems that contribute to downtime appear in the Trip Reports.
Status of Quench Car and Coke Guide Problem Resolution
Table 11 summarizes the status of quench car and coke guide problems.
With the exception of the Clairton quench cars supplied by U.S. Steel, all
50
-------
TABLE 11. STATUS OF H-III QUENCH CAR AND COKE GUIDE PROBLEM RESOLUTION
Problem
Status of resolution
Solved byc
Comments0
Car rocking due to springs,
stuckis (all 4)a
Track deterioration (all 4)
Coke spillage (all 4)
Coke box warpage (3)
Dump cylinder failure (2)
TV camera, running light (2)
failure
Brake shoe wear (3)
Mostly solvedb
Partially solved;
high maintenance
Partially solved
Partially solved
Limit switch-box tilt (all 4) Mostly solved
Mostly solved; high
maintenance
Mostly solved
Mostly solved
Steel mills
Steel mills
responsibility
Chemico, partly;
Mills, primarily
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
USS designed, built Clairton boxes-
Other mills - Chemico subcontractor
supplied cars. Problem aggravated by
track deterioration.
Companies responsible for track
modifications. One company (RSC)
stated Chemico advised conventional
track ballast adequate.
Related to guide and box design/
construction.
Increased by equipment malfunctions
causing coke to be held for extended
periods. Original boxes of stainless
steel
USS supplied Clairton quench cars.
Chemico subcontractor supplied others.
Problems aggravated by quench and land
base moisture, coke spillage.
Supplied by Chemico except for
USS/Clairton.
Supplied by Chemico except for
USS/Clairton.
Supplied by Chemico except for
USS/Clairton.
aNumber of plants reporting problems shown in parentheses; counting RSC/Warren and Youngstown as one, four plants
total.
"Terms "mostly, partly and solved" assigned by GCA based on comments made by steel companies during plant visits.
cBased on discussions between GCA and each steel company visited. Specific solutions were presented previously in
this section, and details appear in the Trip Reports.
-------
quench cars were built to Envirotech/Chemico1s specifications by
subcontractors, according to Envirotech's Vice President.
H-III SCRUBBER CAR PROBLEM SUMMARY
Table 12 summarizes commonly-reported problems with the H-III scrubber
car.
The only two remaining problems for which no solution has yet been
developed at USS/Clairton involve the H-III car. Elongation of the bores in
the electric traction drive motors is accelerating. The supplier (General
Electric) is working on the problem but is reportedly unable to identify the
cause. Erosion and development of holes in the scrubber ductwork is the other
unresolved problem at Clairton.
At other plants, a multitude of problems seriously affecting car
reliability during startup and debugging were reported, as shown in Table 12
and in the Trip Reports. Most of these problems appear to be solved or under
control as discussed below.
Charge Arm Alignment/Track Deterioration
These problems affect the H-III scrubber car and were discussed
previously in the land base section and Table 8.
Jet Valve Leakage
Jet valve leakage and substantial water loss was reported by USS/Clairton
and RSC/Cleveland. Leakage developed at Clairton when Envirotech/Chemico
changed the 1.4 inch diameter jet valve needles to 2.0 inches to provide more
scrubbing water to the jets and improve gas cleaning. U.S. Steel was working
with Envirotech/Chemico in September 1981 to solve the problems, and reported
in April 1982 that their jet valve problem appears solved. The nature of the
solution was not disclosed by USS at the April 1982 meeting.
RSC/Cleveland reported in March 1982 that valve leakage is becoming
serious, approaching a quarter million gallons per week. No solution had yet
been developed at that time.
FEMCO Radio Communication System
FEMCO units are commonly used in coke plants to provide process-related
signals for coordinating machinery. Clairton reported serious problems with
all FEMCO units due to an inadequate number of transformer couplings in the
original units. New couplings were on order in September 1981 and planned for
installation.
RSC/Cleveland reported unreliable FEMCO operation relative to
coordinating quench car alignment with the coke guide. RSC solved the problem
by installing an infrared spotting device and a radio interlock mechanism.
52
-------
TABLE 12. H-III SCRUBBER CAR PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN, AS REPORTED BY
COMPANIES VISITED
Problem
Charge arm alignment
Track deterioration
Jet valve leakage
FEMCO communications
Tract ion drive motors
Power pickup ara damage
Ul
U>
Electrical inverter
failure
Air compressor overheat
Air dryers
Stucki bearing/wear
plate
Exposed, mixed wiring
Effect
(described in Table 11)
(described in Table 11)
Water loss
Occasional poor
conuunications
Car ionobility
Am, shoe failure, car
immbolity
Trip-out, car shutdown
Car shutdown
Weak air supply to
instruments
Excessive moisture,
freeze-up
Failure, car
instability
Damaged by coke,
troubleshooting diffi-
cult, shutdowns
U.S. Steel Republic Steel,
Clairton Warren, Youngstown
-
Appears solved as NR*
of 4/82
Increased number Increased signal
of transformer strength
couplings
Several serious Unspecified serious
problems; most problems at Youngstown
resolved
Redesigned arma, NR
added second set
Added additional NR
units to allow
repair while online
Manually open Installed exhaust fans
car vents
Converted pneuma- NR
tic controls to
electrical
Adding new NR
separator
Converting stuck- NR
is to solid
supports
Isolated, insu- Isolated and insulated
lated wiring
Republic Steel,
Cleveland
-
Rewelded flanges
Only affects quench car
spotting; infrared spot-
ting and radio interlock
added
Coil failure; unspecified
changes
Covered exposed wires
Delay installed to reduce
power surges
NR
Installed larger dryers
NR
Converting stuckis to
solid supports
NR
J&L Steel,
Indiana Harbor
-
NR
No changes; problems same
as other in-plant FEMCO
NR
Hot rail redesign to reduce
shoe wear
One failure; unit replaced
Installed cooling fans
Installed larger air dryer
NR
Teflon pads replaced
NR
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
Problem Effect
Hot rail icing Car shutdown
Oxygen release from Corrosion, pitting
hot water
TV camera reliability Poor/lack of vision
Water leakage into cab Control panel, wiring
malfunction
U.S. Steel
Clairton
Automatic car
restart equipment
added; steam
tracing of rails
successful
Adding deaerator
Protected, sealed
cameras. Cannot
operate without
cameras
NR
Republic Steel, Republic Steel,
Warren, Youngs town Cleveland
NR NR
Observed in linea, NR
valves. Added N£
NR NR
Attempting to seal cab Attempting to seal cab
J&L Steel,
Indiana Harbor
Heat tape; restart button
moved to operators cab.
NU
Improved weatherproofing.
Can operate without
cameras.
NR
aNR « Plant did not report this problem area.
Note: Problems not listed in any order.
-------
'.RSC/Warren and Youngstown reported weak FEMCO contact between the land
base and H-car sometimes prevented water transfer. Hot rail power was used to
increase FEMCO signal strength, with some improvement, but problems are still
experienced.
J&L reported some FEMCO problems but noted that the problems experienced
were no greater than problems encountered with other coke plant FEMCO units
already in use.
Envirotech/Chemico noted that FEMCO systems were requested by the mills
for the push control cars since mill personnel are familiar with the FEMCO
system.
Air Compressor Overheating
Overheating air compressors and car shutdown due to high cabin
temperatures were commonly reported. Installation of cooling fans and opening
car sides/louvers were reportedly partially effective, but problems
occasionally still develop in warm months.
Traction Drive Motors
Several serious, debilitating problems experienced at Clairton were
traced to defective motor manufacture. Minor problems with an electrical coil
were reported by RSC/Cleveland. Serious, unspecified problems with drive
motors were reported for RSC/Youngstown. The other companies reported no
traction motor problems.
According to Envirotech/Chemico, the GE motors used at Clairton are
somewhat different than at other plants because U.S. Steel designed and built
the H-III frames and wheel assemblies.
An update of the Clairton motor problems was provided at the April 1982
status meeting. Remachining of motor housings by GE to eliminate field coil
shorting was complete on 60 percent of the 28 drive motors (four motors per
H-III car). USS reported 3 days are required to remove four defective motors
and replace four new (repaired) units.
Motor power lead shorting from rubbing on wheels was eliminated on all
Clairton cars by fixing leads to the car frame and reducing wire length. USS
indicated that their Johnstown shop designed the leads and Envirotech/Chemico
was responsible for the motors.
USS reported (April 1982) working with GE for 2 months attempting to
solve a serious motor "load problem". Motor bores which hold the motor main
shafts are elongating (wearing) much more quickly than normal due to high
mechanical strain from unknown causes. GE reportedly claims the motors are
well suited to the application, and has not yet discovered the cause or
solution. USS does not know when this problem will be solved.
55
-------
Electrical Inverter Failures
Three plants reported failure of the inverters which convert hot rail DC
power to AC for onboard equipment. J&L and RSC/Warren, and Youngstown each
reported one inverter failure. J&L replaced the inverter unit: RSC reported
long delivery time from the New Jersey-based supplier was experienced.
RSC/Cleveland reported that power surges frequently caused inverter
failure and car shutdown. A delay mechanism in the electrical line reportedly
solved the problem.
USS/Clairton reported electrical congestion in inverters frequently
caused failure of onboard AC equipment. Also, loss of hot rail power from ice
buildup caused inverters to trip-out and shut down the car. U.S. Steel noted
difficulty in working on inverters due to restricted access. In April 1982,
U.S. Steel reported that a third inverter unit was being added to each car to
allow repairs to a malfunctioning unit while the car remains in service. U.S.
Steel stated that the back-up unit supplied with the car could not be operated
while repairs were underway on the primary unit due to the wiring setup.
Power Pick-Up Arms
Broken power pick-up arms, excessive pick-up shoe wear and damaged wiring
from spilled coke caused downtime at three plants. These problems were
reportedly solved by various modifications.
According to Envirotech/Chemico, U.S. Steel built the power pick-up
system for the Clairton cars. GCA1s September 1981 inspection at Clairton
noted that the U.S. Steel design being retrofit to all cars at that time
appeared less complicated, less prone to damage, and easier to repair than the
original design.
J&L encountered excessive shoe wear with their Envirotech/Chemico-
supplied pick-ups. J&L redesigned the hot rails, and shoes are frequently
replaced. The pick-up arms were supplied with a steel housing for protection
against spilled coke.
RSC/Cleveland reported their system was supplied without a protective
shield, and unprotected wiring was exposed to spilled coke. The wiring and
pick-up arms were enclosed and shielded to solve the problem.
Stucki Bearing/Wear Plate Failure
Stucki bearings on the USS-supplied H-III car frames and quench cars at
Clairton wore rapidly, causing car instability, charge arm alignment problems
and potential for derailment. The company was replacing the roller-type
stucki bearings with a solid design in September 1981. The Envirotech/-
Chemico-supplied cars at RSC/Cleveland also had stucki bearings that wore
quickly and were replaced by RSC with solid supports.
No problems were reported at RSC/Warren and Youngstown. J&L reported
that the Envirotech/Chemico-supplied Teflon wear plates used on their cars
56
-------
wore quickly and required replacement. These systems were originally supplied
with solid-type wear plates instead of stucki bearings.
Summary of H-III Scrubber Car Problem Resolution
Table 13 summarizes the status of H-III car problems reported by the
steel companies. In assessing responsibility for problem areas, several
thoughts should be kept in mind when reviewing this table.
U.S. Steel designed and built the H-III frames, wheel assemblies,
drive motor supports, power pick-up assemblies and cab structures
while Envirotech/Chemico added the internal components, according to
Envirotech/Chemic o.
H-III frames and wheel truck assemblies for all other plants were
purchased by Envirotech/Chemico from a supplier, based on Chemico's
general specifications. The car internal components were added at
Envirotech/Chemico's or a subcontractor's shop. This arrangement
partially accounts for minor differences observed in car
construction.
57
-------
TABLE 13. STATUS OF H-III SCRUBBER CAR PROBLEM RESOLUTION
Problem
Status of resolution Solved byc
Comments0
oo
FEMCO communications (4)a
Jet valve leakage (2)
Traction drive motors (3)
Partly solved
Mostly solved
Partly solved
Air compressor overheating (3) Continuing problem
Inverter failure (3) Mostly solved
Stucki/wear plate failure (3) Solved
Air dryers inadequate (3)
Exposed, mixed wiring (2)
Hot rail icing (2)
Piping, tank corrosion (2)
TV camera reliability (2)
Water leakage into cab (2)
Solved
Solved
Partly solved
Partly solved
Under solution
Unsolved
Steel mills
Chemico, mills
investigating
Motor manufacturer
at Clairton; Repub-
lic at Cleveland
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Steel mills
Chemico reports FEMCO systems specified
by mills. Mills state units supplied
were inadequate.
Possible machining problems with valves.
Motor vendor (Clairton). Unspecified
at RSC.
Original units inadequate
USS supplied Clairton car frames.
Chemico1s vendor supplied others.
Mills responsible for hot rails
aNumber of plants experiencing problems shown in parentheses (4 plants total, counting RSC/Warren, Youngstown as
one.
bTerms "mostly, partly and solved" assigned by GCA based on comments made by steel companies during plant visits.
cBased on discussions between GCA and each steel company visited. Specific solutions were presented previously
in this section, and details appear in the Trip Reports.
-------
SECTION 6
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS AND AVAILABILITY DATA
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
Table 14 summarizes car maintenance program information obtained during
the plant visits. Each program is described below. Additional details appear
in the Trip Report for each plant visit.
All information presented below was obtained through discussions with
representatives of each company during the GCA plant visits. Representatives
of Envirotech/Chemico Corporation attended one meeting, the April 1982 status
meeting at USS/Clairton. All other discussions were held between GCA and
steel company representatives.
U.S. Steel/Clairton - Maintenance Program Described to GCA
During September 1981 Inspection
Checklists used for routine maintenance inspections at Clairton appear in
the Trip Report. The company was beginning to record malfunction and repair
data by computer in September 1981. An example computer printout also appears
in the Trip Report.
One maintenance foreman is assigned full time to manage the 20-member
maintenance crew that handles the cars. This foreman also has responsibility
for Clairton1s door program, but he stated that virtually all his time was
spent on the cars since experienced foremen in the door shop handled door
repair duties.
Four locations are used for maintenance of the Clairton cars. Sidings
near each battery are used for routine efforts; little permanent repair
equipment is available. A car set-up area near the maintenance office is used
for in-plant repairs. A concrete jacking pad/pit arrangement was under
construction at another location in September 1981. Finally, major repairs
are made off-site at a U.S. Steel car shop.
In September 1981, maintenance was reportedly conducted on an "as needed"
basis since the cars frequently broke down. GCA spoke with a number of people
involved with the cars at Clairton in September 1981, including maintenance
workers, operations foremen, the maintenance general foreman, environmental
control personnel and the plant general superintendent. All levels of U.S.
Steel personnel, including the general superintendent, impressed on GCA that
the company had made an honest commitment to debugging the cars and improving
car availability.
59
-------
TABLE 14. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM DETAILS OBTAINED FROM PLANT VISITS
(No.
Plant
of cars)3
Maintenance Maintenance Work area
frequency workers assigned description Spare parts
to cars
Comments
Clairton
(7 H-III, 1 H-2 cars,
several spares)
J&L/Indiana Harbor
(2 H-3 cars)
(no spare)
As needed, day
turns, 7 days/week
One 8-hr turn/week
20, total full-time
assigned to car
maintenance
Maintenance supervisor,
1 mechanical foreman,
1 electrical foreman,
Millwrights, motor
inspectors on rotating
basis.
Battery area, set up Inventory and orders
area. Concrete jacking pads tracked on computer.
under construction (out- spread around plant.
doors). Offsite car shop.
Proposed bui Id ing .
Parts
Outdoor siding. Designing
"pit" with utilities,
storage*
Company reported extensive
inventory. "Everything
recommended by Chemico."
Computer listing of repairs
planned. Management appears
fully supportive of main-
taining cars.
Experienced maintenance
personnel assigned only
to day turns.
Republic/Cleve land
(2 H-3 cars)
(one spare )
Republic /Warren
(2 H-3 cars)
(one spare )
Revolving , 10-day
schedule
Revolving, 14-day
schedule
Day turn 4 mechanical ,
2-4 electrical, 4 mill-
wrights, 2 pipefitters.
Backturns 2-3 workers
available.
6 maintenance
workers assigned to
entire coke plant .
Additional workers
available as needed.
Enclosed building with
jacking pad and mock trans-
fer station for alignment.
Additional jacking pad
on battery siding.
Outdoor siding with
utilities.
Extensive , reportedly much
greater than recommended
by Chemico.
Not reported
Republic /Youngs town One 8-hr turn /week
( 1 H-3 car, no spare)
Shenango One 8-hr turn/week
(1 H-2 car, no spare)
Not specified by
company.
18-worker crew, many
involved in startup.
Outdoor siding with
utilities available.
Outdoor siding with
utilities, some storage.
Not reported
All parts recommended by
Chemico.
aNuraber of spare cars a function of number of batteries on-line.
-------
U.S. Steel/Clairton - Maintenance Program Described to GCA
During April 1982 Status Meeting
USS described the recently-implemented Maintenance Information Management
(MIM) system for tracking car maintenance and repair. USS felt the
programmable controls were especially troublesome, but their ability to keep
the controllers operating was improving as the plant gained more experience.
USS commented that they (at Clairton) had no previous experience with
programmable control equipment which hindered troubleshooting during the first
year or so of operation.
Tony Fazio, Envirotech Vice President, noted that the Chemico system
components are interrelated and somewhat complicated relative to other coke
battery equipment. Envirotech/Chemico had always recommended that USS assign
one individual to be responsible for overall car maintenance and training of
operators and maintenance workers. Mr. Fazio also indicated they have always
recommended that problems be addressed immediately to insure spare car
availability.
The USS Maintenance Superintendent described the maintenance organization
as consisting of two departments, both reporting to himself. The water
treatment system and heating plant are maintained by the boiler house
maintenance department while the land base transfer unit and the cars are
maintained by another department. The two Department Heads reportedly meet
daily to plan work and coordinate outages.
The Envirotech/Chemico onsite coordinator left the plant in November
1981. The monthly car review meetings between Envirotech/Chemico and USS
reportedly stopped in August 1981.
J&L/Indiana Harbor
Each car (no spares) is scheduled for one 8-hour preventative maintenance
turn per week. Major problems that sideline the car are addressed on an as
needed basis during the week.
One maintenance supervisor was reportedly responsible for the two cars.
One mechanical foreman and one electrical foreman assigned to the cars on a
semi-permanent basis are assisted by several millwrights and motor inspectors
assigned on a rotating basis. J&L reported that the most experienced
maintenance workers are assigned to the day turn, and they usually work on
major problems that occur during second or third shifts. Minor problems
occurring during the second and third shift are usually addressed quickly, if
the cause of the problem can be found according to J&L. However, major
problems that develop during second and third shifts usually sideline the car
until the more experienced day turn workers are on duty.
Car maintenance is performed on a siding adjacent to the batteries. J&L
reported their engineering department was designing an unenclosed "pit" to
facilitate work underneath the car.
61
-------
Repub1ic/Cleve land
The maintenance area is enclosed with a building ("the barn") housing
utilities and repair equipment. A jacking pad system enables lifting the cars
for access underneath. Another jacking pad system is installed in the turnout
near the battery. A "dummy" transfer station in the barn allows prealignment
of the charging arm prior to set-out on the battery.
Routine maintenance to each car in the barn occurs on a revolving 10-day
schedule. Normal preventive maintenance is performed according to an
established checklist. Corrective maintenance of problems experienced during
recent car operation is also conducted.
Daylight turn maintenance personnel consist of four mechanical, two to
four electrical, four millwrights, and two pipefitters. Generally, at least
two to three maintenance personnel are available during back turns. Republic
noted that approximately 5 to 7 days (three people) are required to pre-stage
charging arm alignment with the "dummy" transfer station in the barn. Minor
maintenance is performed at the turnout area near the battery which has a
second jacking system.
Republic indicated that their spare part inventory is quite extensive,
containing far more spare parts than recommended by Envirotech/Chemico.
Republic/Warren, Youngstown
Limited maintenance information was available from RSC/Youngstown for
their single car. Generally, the car is run until a disabling breakdown
occurs according to plant representatives. The frequency of such breakdowns
was not reported by the company.
At Warren, Republic stated that six maintenance workers per turn inspect
and lubricate all coke plant machinery including the cars. After performing
these routine duties, all six are assigned to problem areas around the plant,
including the cars. The following additional maintenance workers are
available for the day turn as needed (for the cars or other plant equipment):
maintenance general foreman, electrical and mechanical foreman, millwrights
and pipe fitters.
Republic stated that during the two week period the spare car is off-line
at Warren, 2 to 4 coke plant maintenance workers generally spend approximately
2 to 4 hours per turn exclusively on the car.
Shenango
Routine maintenance on Shenango1s single H-II car is performed during one
8-hour turn per week (Wednesday) and involves examining each car system using
a check-list. Shenango indicated that if routine maintenance is not performed
weekly, disabling problems develop. The routine program consists of the
following:
62
-------
* Brakes and hydraulic system inspection;
Cleaning jets of foreign matter, inspecting jet isolation valves;
Debris removal from traction drives;
Tamping track ballast, removing spilled coke from rails;
Examining all electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation systems;
Check engine oil, filters, belts, etc.
The 18-worker maintenance crew available for car work consists of three
instrumentation personnel (two for the cars, one for water treatment system),
four millwirghts, two pipe fitters, two garage mechanics, two electricians,
and two to five laborers. Shenango indicated that many of the same people
involved in car startup currently perform car maintenance. The company noted
that maintenance worker turn-over was very low.
Car maintenance is performed in an open area to the northwest of battery
No. 4. The area contains a pit for access underneath the car. Utilities
(water, air, and electricity), and some storage are available at the site.
Shenango reported that their spare part inventory includes all parts
recommended by Chemico, excluding expensive items such as the heater coils and
diesel generator.
During the plant visit, Shenango emphasized that their maintenance
program was designed to maximize car availability in order to demonstrate that
a spare car was unnecessary.
AVAILABILITY DATA
Data describing car availability were requested from each company, and
EPA, state and local regulatory agencies. The data summarized herein are
based, on the number of pushes caught and scrubbed divided by the number of
pushes during that time period.
H-III Availability Data
Availability data for each Clairton H-III system appears in Figures 1
through 5. Monthly averages of all operating Clairton batteries combined
appears in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows production of the Clairton plant.
Availability data for H-III cars at J&L/Indiana Harbor and
Republic/Warren appear in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. All H-III
availability data were supplied by the respective steel company.
H-II Availability Data
Availability data for H-II cars for Bethlehem/Bethlehem Battery 5
Shenango and J&L/Pittsburgh Battery P-4 appear in Figures 10, 11 and 12
respectively. Consistent with the H-III data, the H-II data are based on the
number of pushes caught and scrubbed divided by the total number of pushes.
63
-------
X
(9
0
UJ
>
o
u.
o
z <
UJ
o
OL
UJ
0.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
BATTERIES 1,2 ond 3 OFF-LINE
STARTING JANUARY, 1982
HOT IDLE
AVERAGE AVAILABILITY
= 42%
o
o
00
_L
M
M
J J
1981 -
N
J F
1982
M
Figure 1. Availability data for H-III serving Batteries 1, 2 and 3 at
U.S. Steel/Clairton. Average shown for 7 months operation,
March 1981 through December 1981, excluding hot idle downtime.
-------
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT
AND SCRUBBED
n
ro
co w
CT1
H-
c/a M
n- H-
n> rt
(D «<
O PJ
H rt
P) pi
H-
rt o
O M
M
M
CO
(D
H
00
W
P
rt
rt
(D
CO
»j
V
oo
vo
-------
99
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT
AND SCRUBBED
ro o*
o o o
n
H-
CM
rt <
01
<=! H-
CO M
rt H-
fD rt
(U
H Hi
rt O
PC
I
CD
n>
t-t
(D
i-i
V!
i...
-------
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT
AND SCRUBBED
rv> oi 4.
oooo
a*
o
o
rt
rt
H-
(D
cn
V£>
B
Cu
«- c.
n
09
O
z
(O
00
ro
-------
89
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT
AND SCRUBBED
H-
OP
i-i
n>
pj >
rt <
(a
G H-
M
CO P
OQ
bd
(13
rt
rt
(D
en
NJ
N3
Is3
-------
100-1
g 90-
at
a 80-
g 70-
to
« 60-
5 50-
o
u.
o
%
40-
30-
20-
10-
POSHING EMISSION CONTROL CARS
PLANT TOTAL AVAILABILITY
1981
POSHING EMISSION CONTROL CARS
PLANT TOTAL AVAILABILITY
(69.1)
1982
J^N FE
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
, »
Figure 6. Availability of all operating H-III systems (combined) at
U.S. Steel/Clairton (supplied by U.S. Steel).
-------
NUMBER OF OVENS
09
C
fD
~j
Pi
3
rt
O
CL
O
rt
H-
O
3
Co
rt
rt
O
3
o
^
!^
cn
CO
fD
V
CJ
rt
fD
fD
M fr
O O
o o o
I I
" " ~ mm IM
09 O IS> * * 09 O
o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O
C-
O H
-------
u
+
Oi >£*
o n
0 0
0 H-
n d"
a. n>
H- 3
3 rt
09 CO
rt Oi
O rt
c-i a-
(^ o
f rt
*r3 O"*
h-1 01
pi rt
n rt
H- (D
0 ^
00 H-
ro
Cf CD
o
rt O
Zf O
o
o c
01 i-i
>-t i-!
CD (I)
o-
o
C H-
rt 3
O C_
Hi C
co n
n t-'
< \O
H- 00
0 t-
n>
' 1
rt
o
o
fl>
h^
01
rt
O
il
n>
^
h{
o
i-i
u
H-
OQ
H
fD
OO
p. <^
(X 01
H- H-
rt M
H* 01
o cr
3 H-
01 M
M H-
D--5
rt pa
Oi 01
rt
3 Oi
O
rt HI
O
Oi il
(11
rt
Hi
11 C_H
O (?^
S f*
'^^
M M
i-tf 3
> a.
H-
O 01
1 3
01
ffi p3
t-H 0)
jj-
O
H
5£J
O
n
CO
^v
rt
o
r>
01
hf
CD
rt
s:
o
cr
0)
rt
n>
H-
CO
to
00
(C
oo
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT AND SCRUBBED
0080080008
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
ox
£u>
VDu>
\
\
- k
x>
i -i
mx
»*
P
?5
Si
-
s
-------
ZL
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT AND SCRUBBED
H-
(TO
P5
cr
D-
Hi
O
M
M
(D
O
o
*r
fD
0
CT
«!
o
n
CO
n>
i-i
rt>
o
P
m
ro
O
OJ
O
tn
O
CD
O
00
0?
00
no
0)
-------
H-
s
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT AND SCRUBBED
* « 01 -«i a
o O o o c
T
T
T
ID
o
5
o
w-o
8S
5*0
x>
c
o
3
tt>
O
CO
p.
>
z
o
o
P *
-------
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT AND SCRUBBED
§-
c
ro
O
O
OB
O
OQ
C
3) C
C U>
0> X
ro o
cr
H-
u>
00
o
a.
rt
05
t-h
O
CO
S34
fD
0
01
3
00
O
O
0
fD
O
B)
i-t
cr
03
rt
rt
fD
t-l
H-
fD
cn
J ^_
/1
oo
-------
PERCENT OF OVENS CAUGHT AND SCRUBBED
H-
OQ
e
s
n>
sa
(B
D4 ^
PJ rt
rt PJ
rt
n> MI
M
M
Pi
rt
rt
rt
(D
-------
The Bethlehem data were compiled from daily plant records supplied to EPA
by the company. Some entries in the Bethlehem data package were illegible.
However, it was possible to fairly accurately compile a list of ovens not
caught and scrubbed, and the causes as shown in Tables 15 and 16 for 1979 and
1980, respectively. In addition, Table 17, supplied by Bethlehem Steel,
provides more car availability details for 1980.
Car breakdown data compiled from J&L reports to EPA regarding the H-II on
Battery P-4 in Pittsburgh appear in Table 18. Note that substantial downtime
was incurred from construction of the new Minister Stein system and
unspecified work on the door machine. For the 1-year period from 2/14/80
through 2/23/81, J&L reported an average availability of 22 percent based on
total operating hours.
Problem areas at Shenango are described in the Trip Report, and
summarized in tables shown in this report Appendix.
76
-------
TABLE 15. H-II DOWNTIME REPORTED FOR BETHLEHEM/BETHLEHEM
BATTERY NO. 5 IN APRIL AND MAY 1979.
Reason
Total pushes
not scrubbed3
Accumulator leaks
Isolation valve problems
Diesel fuel pump change
Seal pump and A/C problems
Leak in temperature well
Junction box ground
Heater flame failure
Air regulator line break
Low water levels
High storage tank level
Low water temperature
TOTAL DOWNTIME,
April-May 1979
947
173
22
15
12
8
4
3
2
1186 pushes
aTotal number of ovens pushed during the
2-month period not supplied by company.
77
-------
TABLE 16. li-II DOWNTIME REPORTED BY BETHLEHEM/
BETHLEHEM BATTERY NO. 5 IN 1980
(entire year)
Number of
Cause of downtime occurrences
High pressure pump failure
Diesel overheating
(radiator problem)
Brake failure, problems
Jet and high pressure pump
leaks
Isolation valve problems
Wheel bearing problems
Drive motor problem
Heater flame failure
Limit switch problem
TV camera problem
OVERALL 1980 DOWNTIME =
Total pushes, 1980 =
16
9
8
2
7
2
4
12
84
3
Total pushes
not scrubbed
1,110
769
643
393
312
236
194
163
2
80
4,081 pushes3
28,296 pushes
Note: 85% availability, subtracting out ovens not scheduled
to be scrubbed.
aDoes not agree with Table 17; data are reported herein as
supplied by company.
78
-------
TABLE 17. MONTHLY AVAILABILITY DATA FOR H-II ON
BATTERY NO. 5 AT BETHLEHEM/BETHLEHEM
Month
1980
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTALS
# ovens
pushed
2,848
2,749
2,916
2,690
2,711
2,098
2,039
2,046
1,953
2,046
1,980
2,220
28,296
# ovens
scrubbed
1,770
2,038
2,650
2,357
2,463
1,827
1,858
1,846
1,640
1,865
976
1,682
22,972
% ovens
scrubbed
62.1
74.1
90.9
87.6
90.9
87.1
91.1
90.2
84.0
91.2
49.3
75.8
81.2
# ovens
planned
"No Scrub"
64
74
124
185
195
95
77
79
120
80
22
167
1,282
# Ovens Not Scrubbed = # ovens pushed - # ovens scrubbed
28,296 - 22,972
5,324
# Unscheduled "No Scrub" = # ovens not scrubbed - # planned "no scrub"
5,324 - 1,282
4,042
(Planned "no scrub" represents ovens for which use of the system
was not planned for a variety of reasons).
79
-------
TABLE 18. J&L/PITTSBURGH CHEMICO H-II BREAKDOWN REPORT SUMMARY
FOR 2/14/80 - 2/23/81 ON BATTERY P-4
Date
2/15/80
2/16
2/21
2/22
3/6
3/7
3/9
3/11
3/14
3/15
3/16
3/17
3/18
3/19-20
3/21-22
3/22-23
3/22-23
3/24-28
3/30
3/31-4/4
4/5-7
4/8
4/8-12
4/13-15
4/16-17
4/18
4/20
4/20
4/21-5/1
5/2
5/2-3
5/3-4
5/4
5/5-6
5/6-7
5/7-7/18
7/18-19
7/20-26
7/28-29
7/30-8/2
8/2-6
8/6
8/8-9
8/9-10
8/11
Reason
Broken wire
Broken hydraulic line
Broken hose
Flame failure
(#5 door machine-broken shaft J
[#5 door machine-motor limit short]
Replace hydraulic fluid
Hydraulic problems
Maintenance '
[#5 door machine-straighten coke guide]
[#5 door machine-repairs]
Heater coil problem
Hydraulic & electrical short problem
[#5 door machine]
High pressure pump seal
[#5 door machine-burnt wiring)
Bad dump plungers
High pressure pump breakdown
Hydraulic pump problem
[#5 door machine-OSHA mods]
Diesel engine overheating
[#5 door machine]
Recirculatory pump failure
[#5 door machine]
Flame problem in heater
[#5 door machine]
[#5 door machine-OSHA J
I #5 door machine-door jack]
[#5 door machine-OSHA]
[#5 door machine-coke guide]
Water supply problem
Lost motor on diesel
[#5 door machine-coke guide]
Broken hydraulic line
Electrical failure
A.C. generator failure
Car travel problem
Tilt box trouble
Problem with quench
Work on P-4 Wharf
Broken air line
Broken hydraulic pipe
Work on l'-4 Wharf
Clean-up coke spillage P-4 Wharf
Broken hydraulic pipe
Total outage time, hrsa
0.5
120
4.5
13
6.75
0.75
1
2
11
6
2
6.2-S
11
18.25
25
26.5
26
80
14
50
46
17
88
46.23
37.5
8.75
11.75
2
134.5
12
11
6.25
5.5
17
39. 5
1781
(1.5 months)
23.5
155
32
71.25
82
4.75
12
19
15.5
(cont iuued)
80
-------
TABLE 18 (continued)
Date
8/12
8/12-14
8/15
8/16
8/16
8/21
8/22-23
8/24-28
8/29-30
8/30
8/31
9/1
9/3
9/4
9/5
9/6
9/7-8
9/9
9/10
9/11
9/11-27
9/29
9/29-30
10/3-5
10/10-14
10/14-11/14
11/15-19
11/19-22
11/22-23
11/24-27
11/27-2/18
2/18-20/81
2/20-21/81
TOTAL OUTAGE
Reason
Work on P-4 Wharf for Min. Stein system
Trouble with haul cable & R.R. switch
P-4 Screening Station
Broken hydraulic pipe
Trouble with dump box
[#5 door machine-air compressor]
Work on P-4 Wharf for M. S.
Work on P-4 Screen Station
[Battery problem-repair door on diesel
room struck by coke guide & repair #5
door machine]
Bad coil on dump box
l#5 door machine breakdown]
Flame failure
Clean-up P-4 Screen Station
Would not dump
Work on #5 door machine
Work on P-4 Screen Station
Pusher off tracks
High pressure pump failure
Work on P-4 Wharf Screen Station
Broken hydraulic pipe
Work on M.S. Push Control Station
Hole in heater tube & bad combustion fan
Work on #5 door machine
Problem w/ temperature control on heater
Track work
Hydraulic cylinder bearing
M.S. System work
Clearance problem with pillar at P-4
Wharf of M.S. System
[#5 door machine]
Broken hydraulic line
Flame failure
Flame failure, rec irculatory pump
problem, broken hydraulic cylinder
Water sprays, AC recirculat ing pump &
track problem
Hydraulic leak
REPORTED
TOTAL OPERATING TIME
AVAILABILITY
Total outage time, hrs.
9.5
46.75
4.25
22.25
17.5
8
24
96
5.5
6.5
14.25
8.5
1.5
10
9.5
6.5
23
8
11.5
8
382.5
10
9.5
63
96
744
(1 month)
99.5
57
19
64
2010
36.75
2b
7084 hrs
9072 hrs
22 percent
aActual ovens not caught and scrubbed is not available; battery P-4 is
normally operated at approximate 111 push/day, i.e., 4.6 pushes/hr, average,
81
-------
REFERENCES
1. Patton, R. S. Hooded Coke Quenching System for Air Quality Control.
Iron and Steel Engineer. 50(9):37. August 1973.
2. Rudolph, H. and S. Sawyer. Engineering Criteria for a Hooded Quench Car
System. Iron and Steel Engineer. 54(3):27. March 1977.
3. Hooded Quench Car System Controls Coke Pushing Emissions. Iron and Steel
Engineer. 55(3):83. March 1978.
4. Car order summary sheet provided by Envirotech/Chemico.
82
-------
APPENDICES A-E
TABLES FROM TRIP REPORTS LISTING H-II and H-III
SYSTEM PROBLEMS REPORTED BY STEEL COMPANIES
83
-------
TABLE A-l. HOT CAR PROBLEM SUMMARY DESCRIBED BY U.S. STEEL
IN SEPTEMBER 1981
Problem
Result
Solution
Coke spillage
SS clearance
TV camera reliability
Stucki bearing failure
Box tilt limit switch
Frequent track cleaning,
potential derailment
Lack of combustion stack
clearance limits inter-
changeability
Lack of vision, downtime
Excessive car rocking
Switch failure-operator can't
determine box position
Increase SS volume
(tests underway)
Remove portion of pro-
truding beam on SS
Increased physical pro-
tection, purge air lens
cleaning, wire relocation.
New design
New switch design
Weak springs
Ross valve modification
Standardize wiring
Dump cylinder line
Straight brake shoe
Separate 110 supply
Cover air receivers
Air receiver gauge
Excessive rocking
Poor performance of box
dump cylinders
DC circuit wiring plugs not
all interchangeable
Poor hose design, failure
of box dump cylinders
Excessive brake wear
TV and light wires in ex-
posed position, shorted
Falling coke damage
SS box dump cylinders
Install stabilizers
Modify cylinder controls
to improve reliability
Standardized plugs
Redesigned hose and
connections.
Convert to conventional
design; i.e., wrap-
around brake shoe
Moved wires inside
chassis for protection
Partial solution
Air pressure gauge in
operator's cab
Note: Items above double line were described to GCA/EPA by coke plant
management at 15 September meeting. Items below double line were
discussed on 16 and 17 September during plant inspection.
84
-------
TABLE A-2. H CAR PROBLEM SUMMARY DESCRIBED BY U.S. STEEL
IN SEPTEMBER 1981
Problem
Result
Solution
Quench tower limit switch
positions vary
Jet valve leakage
Electric inverter mal-
functions
Femco signal malfunction
Power rail icing
Power pick-up problems
Traction drive motors
Stucki bearing failure
Charging station
alignment
Track deterioration
Onboard hot water tank
corrosion
Different positions, poor.
interchangeability
Standardize switch
location
New valve to increase scrub- Ongoing discussion with
her flow are malfunctioning Chemico
Electric congestion causes
failure of AC-powered equip-
ment. Quick troubleshooting
and repairs difficult.
Pusher can't communicate
with hot car
Dead spots cause power loss
and inverter malfunction
Broken arms, long replace-
ment time, shoe wear
Several problems with motor
design-see text
Bearing failure causes car
rocking-charging arm mis-
alignment
Multitude of charging
station problems
New inverters on order
Increased number of
transformer couplings
Add second power pick-up,
steam trace rails
automatic inverter re-
activation equipment
Add pick-up arm, new
design
Motor supplier accepted
responsibility for
repairs
New design being tested
See text
Due to car weight, de- New track on 13, 14, and
railment possible, dif- 15 - temporary repairs
ficult to align charging arm on rest of plant
Ultimate tank failure
Investigating anti-
corrosion additive
Air compressor belt
covers
Set screw spring
cannisters
Poor access to onboard com-
pressor belts
Spring cannisters on hot
water transfer arm would
loose setting
Simplified cover removal
Teflon insert with set
screw added
(continued)
85
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Problem
Result
Solution
Standardize hydraulic
hoses
Insulate air lines
Different lengths on
charging arm caused break-
age, difficult replacement
Freezing-plugging
Convert to uniform length
for easier maintenance,
less wear
Temporary insulation to
be replaced with perm-
anent
Revise spotting lights
Malfunctioning air dryer
controls
Damaged by coke, difficult
location for replacement
Current pneumatic controls
unreliable
Lowered lights for better
access, steel shields
Converting to electric
controls
Electric timers-air
tanks
Pneumatic tank drains not
reliable
Converting to electric
controls
Duct expansion joint
Controls to avoid
stacks
Problems in maintaining
neoprene joint
Cars programmed to stop
if SS box tilted, but
need final hardware
Working with Chemico-
no immediate solution
Install hardware
Pivot bearing bolts
Bolts holding charging arm
loosen, loose alignment
Stronger bolts plus
keepers
Note: Items above double line were described to GCA/EPA by coke plant
management at 15 September meeting. Items below double line were
discussed on 16 and 17 September plant inspection.
86
-------
TABLE A-3. STATUS OF H-III CAR PROBLEMS AS REPORTED BY U.S. STEEL3 IN APRIL 1982 STATUS MEETING
Problem
Effect
Solution
Status as of
4/20/82
Traction drive motors
00
Power pickup problems
Inverter failure
Charge Ana Hoses/Cables
Hydraulic system solenoid
Hydraulic syste
Moisture in air lines
Hot rail freeze-up
Expansion duct
deterioration
Lead wire shorting
Field coil shorting
Bore elongation
Excessive shoe wear,
2-hr arm replacement time
Car must be removed from
service to repair
Damage from reversed
set-out cables
Too long, wore, non-
standard lengths,
custom fabricating
Solenoid failure
prevented fluid return
to reservoir
Difficult due to lack
of schematic, isolation
valves
Brake line and coke box
duxp cylinder freeze-up
Car shutdown due to
power loss
Safety problem,
car off-line for
replacement
Shorten wires,
fix to frame
Repairs by supplier
Unknown
Simplified 6-wire
design to 2-wire
Added 3rd inverter to
allow repairs while car
in service
Added diode to prevent
failure
Standardized hose lengths
to reduce replacement time
Rewired circuitry
Hew system schematics
drawn, valves installed
New filters, coalescers
only partially effective;
will add mechanical
separator
Steam tracing proven
effective
Working with Chemico
Complete
60 percent complete
Working with GE
Complete
Complete on one car -
Inverters back-ordered
Complete
Complete
Complete - two cars
Complete
Mechanical separator
tested, not yet installed
Complete
Several ideas, untested,
still a problem
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
Problem
Effect
Solution
Status as of
4/20/82
Separator support failure Fatigue due to vibrations
00
CO
Brake shoe wear
Charge arm alignment
Valve leakage
Land base pressure
sensor failure
Water quality problems
Jet valve leakage
Excessive wear, frequent
replacement
Excessive downtime
for realignment
Split body valves - poor
sealing
Cannot transfer water,
downtime to repair
Sparger tube plugging,
onboard tank corrosion,
valve problem
Water loss
Adding stiffners,
repairing supports
Converted to larger,
wraparound shoe
Developed quicker
realignment procedure
New gasket material,
improved torquing
procedure
Plan to test new pressure
sensor on LB No. 7
Will add deaerator for
corrosion control.
Other problem solutions
not discussed
Problem appears solved,
although early to tell
Complete - one car working
on two cars, will repair
rest
Complete
Complete
Future improvement
Future improvement
(dearator onsite)
(Complete)
aProblems appear in order of discussion at meeting.
-------
TABLE B-l. LAND BASE PROBLEM SUMMARY
H-III PROBLEMS DESCRIBED BY J&L/INDIANA HARBOR
IN JANUARY 1982
Problem
Result
Solution
Maintaining COG
combustion in
central heating
plant
Low water temperature
Intermittent water
overheating
Poor control of treated
water hardness
Ruptured boiler tubes
Poor control of
water temperature,
burner flameout
and overfiring
Controls prevent
transfer to H car
if temperature and
pressure are too
low
System shuts down
Occasional carbonate
plugging of sparger
tubes in land base
mixing tank
North boiler damaged
by freezing; south
boiler tube failure
under investigation
Switching to
natural gas
Installed recircu-
lation line
Recirulation line
(see above)
Planning to improve
coagulation system
controls, install
hardness monitor and
increase sparger
tube openings
Recent problem,
under study
89
-------
TABLE B-2. HOT CAR AND COKE GUIDE HOOD PROBLEM SUMMARY
H-III PROBLEMS DESCRIBED BY J&L/INDIANA HARBOR
IN JANUARY 1982
Problem
Result
Solution
Excessive car rocking
Coke guide hood warpage
Coke spillage
Hot box dump cylinder
High moisture coke -
poor hot car drainage
Hot car warpage
Hot car limit switch
tilt malfunctions
Hot car hit coke guide
Occasional repairs
Frequent track cleanup,
damage to cables, wires,
hoses
High maintenance of
valves and solenoid
Coke quality affected
Distortion of box
Box does not return
to proper position
Installed shock
absorbers
Designing water
cooling sprays
Extended push ram
head, coke distri-
bution improvement
Continued
maintenance
None reported
Unspecified design
changes
Reworked limit
switches
90
-------
TABLE B-3. H-CAR PROBLEM SUMMARY
H-III PROBLEMS DESCRIBED BY J&L/INDIANA HARBOR
IN JANUARY 1982
Problem
Effect
Solution
Charging arm alignment
and limit switch
Track deterioration
Brake shoe wear
Pickup arm shoe wear
Air dryer controls
malfunction
Realignment approxi-
mately 3 months.
Short-duration mal-
function approxi-
mately every turn
Charge arm alignment
problems, potential
car derailment
Original shoes
lasted 2 to 4 weeks
Rapid shoe wear
Moisture in system
Air compressor overheat Car shutdown
FEMCO communication
Power rail icing
Occasinal poor
communication
Power interruption
shuts car down
TV camera electrical
problems due to poor
sealing of protective
boxes
Poor camera
operation
Realign as necessary.
Improve limit switch
operation. Operator
and maintenance per-
sonnel improving
troubleshooting ability
Frequent rail shimming and
ballast tamping. In-
vestigating rail welding
and ballast impregnation
to stabilize
New shoes, last approxi-
mately 1-1/2 months
Hot rail redesign,
frequent shoe re-
placement
Installed larger
capacity dryer
Installed cooling fans,
some problems remain
None - problem no more
severe than with other
FEMCO units in coke
plant
Heat tape installed on
rails near quench tower.
Still a problem during
severe weather. Car
restart buttons moved
into operator's cab
Improve weatherproofing.
Can operate car without
cameras (according to
plant representatives)
91
-------
TABLE C-l. LAND BASE PROBLEM SUMMARY AS REPORTED BY RSC/CLEVELAND
Problem
Result
Solution
No water circulation in heater
tubes during low fire
Destroyed two sets of
heater bundles, flame
impingement
Partial solution,
blowdown system
with recirculation
installed
10
ro
Unreliable heater system
controls
Poor COG firing
Undersized combustion
air fans
Heater system control panel
melting
Standby air compressor
malfunction
Water treatment system
Temperature loss in
water linos
Simultaneous heater firing;
poor flame-out detection,
constant monitoring
Btu content of OOG low;
poor heating control
Low heater output
Heater inoperative
Failure to automatically
actuate; heater inoperative
Constant maintenance,
intermittent water
hardness problem
Difficulty in maintaining
design water temperature
Interlock system
installed, new
process controls
Converted to natural
gas, instrumentation
changes
New fans with increased
hp (partial solution)
Partial solution,
insulation added
Redesign, rewiring
interlock system
Micro-processor
controls installed
Discontinued use
of thermo-siphon
Steam hammer problems
Piping shifted, damaged
block valve flange and
seals
Installed bypass
valve
Charging arm limit switches
FEMCO communication system,
noise and heat
Limit switch freeze-up
from moisture fallout
Water transfer problems,
constant maintenance
Vent stack and lean-to
installedstill problems.
Cooling and shield
protection installed
-------
TABLE C-2. HOT CAR AND COKE GUIDE HOOD PROBLEM SUMMARY AS REPORTED BY R3C/CLEVELAND
Problem
Result
Solution
Coke spillage
Frequent track cleaning,
damage to hydraulic and
electrical cables
Partial solutions (see text)
Track deterioration
Hot box dump limit
switch failure
Brake shoe wear
Hot car TV camera
reliability
Running lights
poorly sealed
Potential car rocking,
increased charging arm
alignment
Inaccurate dump box position,
recurring maintenance
Numerous brake shoe
replacements
Difficult to maintain in
constant operation
Bulb life reduced, frequent
burn-outs
Partial solution, tie plates
redesigned and splice joints
constantly shimmed
Installed additional hot rail,
added back-up limit switches
Pressure sensor installed
None, considering new housing
Plexiglass enclosures
installed
Hot box dump cylinders
Seals worn
Replacement
-------
TABLE C-3. H-CAR PROBLEM SUMMARY AS REPORTED BY RSC/CLEVELAND
Problem
Result
Solution
Power pick-up arm and
shoe damage
Inverter failure
Resistor bank panel
failure
FEMCO communication
Operator cab water
leakage
Stucki bearing
failure
Traction drive motors
failure
Air compressor and
hydraulic motors
Jet isolation valves
Air dryers undersized
Power losses (coke production),
exposed wire destroyed
Protective cover added, conduit
installed
Power surge caused malfunctions Delay mechanism installed
Resistor shortcircuiting from
water and coke breeze
infiltration
Verbal communication inadequate
for hot box spotting
Damage to control panels and
cables/wiring
Inability to roll, flat spots
developed
Numerous holdout coil
replacement
Maintenance access to brushes
difficult
Intermittent, considerable
water leakage
Fluidic control of air valves
difficult
Redesigned seal and ventilation
added
Infrared spotting device and radio
interlock mechanism added
Continual problem
Partial solution; upper set
replaced with steel pads, lower
set to be replaced
Unspecified changes
None reported, continual problem
Rewelded flanges
New, larger dryers to be installed
-------
TABLE D-l. H-III LAND BASE SYSTEM PROBLEM SUMMARY FOR REPUBLIC STEEL/
WARREN AND YOUNGSTOWN
Problem
Result
Solution
Insufficient gas flow
and heat output with
COG combustion
Heater failures, burner
flameouts.
Converted to natural gas,
changed all gas lines and
instrumentation.
No water flow through
tubes during low fire
("soak")
Oxygen release with
high temperature water
Hot spots and tube
warpage.
Water lines and valves
became pitted and
corroded.
Installed recirculation
line.
Currently use nitrogen
purge.
Plugged filters; poor
control of water
hardness with river
water
Transfer mechanism
failure
Heater tube bundles
"blew-up", piping
deteriorated.
Bent hydraulic
cylinders, mechanism
drift.
Partial solution using
city water; scaling still
problem.
Installed additional limit
switches.
Isolation valve
leakage
By-pass valve leakage
Accidental turn-on.
Water loss.
Installed check valves;
replaced seat, stems, and
air operated valve.
Replaced valve seals.
95
-------
TABLE D-2. H-III HOT CAR AND COKE GUIDE HOOD PROBLEM SUMMARY FOR
REPUBLIC STEEL/WARREN AND YOUNGSTOWN
Problem Result Solution
Coke spillage Daily track cleaning, Partial solution; modifica-
equipraent damage, track tions to coke guide, hot
deteriorating. box, and pusher ram. (See
text for plant differences.)
Coke box warpage Excessive distortion to Partial solution; reinforce
box lines. frame. Experiments with
various liners-little
success.
Excessive car rocking Potential for collision Redesigned rail splicings
and charge arm alignment (Warren). Replaced steel
problems. pads on trucks (Youngstown).
Long hydraulic hoses Rubbed on car; coke Reduced hose lengths.
abrasion damage.
Hot box limit switch False indication to Changed limit switch to
tilt modifications operator, premature override timer mechanism.
tripping of switch.
96
-------
TABLE D-3. H-CAR PROBLEM SUMMARY FOR WARREN AND YOUNGSl'OWN
Problem
Result
Solution
Oxygen release from
water
Track deterioration
Charging arm alignment
Exposed wiring-junction
boxes
Water lines and valves
became pitted and eroded.
Charge arm alignment
problems.
Clamping mechnism
failure; storage tank
water shifting.
Moisture and coke
abrasion, failure.
Mixed wiring at junction Troubleshooting was time
boxes consuming; difficult to
interpret wiring
diagrams.
FEMCO communications
Cyclone separator
replacement
Water leakage into cab
Air compressors over-
heating
Weak signal from H-car
to land-based station.
Deterioration and
cracks developed.
Control panel, elec-
trical cable mal-
function.
Continuous maintenance.
Added nitrogen purge.
Replaced tracks twice;
reduced coke spillage (see
text).
Provided balance thrust to
feed air motor base; shimmed
battery side of car.
Placed junction boxes inside
car; replaced wiring with
covering material.
Isolated wiring; installed
fuses at key locations.
Increased signal strength.
FEMCO units still problem.
Converted unit into multi-
piece construction for
quicker maintenance.
None reported.
Installed exhaust fans.
97
-------
TABLE E-l. H CAR PROBLEM SUMMARY
SHENANGO H-II PROBLEM SUMMARY BASED ON GCA INSPECTION OF
FEBRUARY 1982
Problem
Result
Solution
High-pressure pump
cavitation
Jet isolation valve
wear
Jet plugging
Brake shoe holder/hanger
assembly failure
Spatial confinement
Heater failure
Erosion of pump housings
and seals.
Jet wear, and continued
leakage.
Poor scrubbing, can't
shut off water.
Broken assemblies,
derailment occurred.
Maintenance access
difficult.
Frequent flame-outs,
other malfunction causes
car shutdown.
None apparent. Using
stainless steel housing.
Partial solution, higher
maintenance (see text).
Remove bugles, blow out
jets.
New design installed.
Careful scheduling of
maintenance crews.
Increased pilot tube
length, added third
scanner for increased
detection.
High oxygen content of
water
Teflon pad wear
Radiator clogging
Poor location of traction
drives
FEMCO signal malfunction
Electric hot water
transfer valve
Ductwork abrasion
Pipe and high-pressure
pump corrosion.
Car rocking.
Diesel overheating.
Stainless steel pipe
now used, caustic added
to water, 02 scavengers.
Modified pads.
Steam clean radiator.
Clogging from coke breeze. Routine cleaning.
Slight communication
problems. Occasionally
prevents quench water
transfer.
Valve failure, numerous
rebuilds.
Buildup of coke breeze.
None reported.
Replaced with an air
valve system.
Frequent cleaning and
patching, complete
rebuild anticipated in
future.
(continued)
98
-------
TABLE E-l (continued)
Problem
Result
Solution
Camera and wire exposure
to heat
High influent solids
content to treatment
system
Duct expansion joint
Weather proofing
deterioration.
Replaced, and added
wrapping material.
Increased filter plugging. Additional maintenance
above normal. Changed
filters, added activated
carbon before main
filter.
Deteriorated seal.
Replaced neoprene seal.
altems above single line were described by Shenango as major, and those below
as minor areas of concern.
99
-------
TABLE E-2. HOT CAR PROBLEM SUMMARY
SHENANGO PUSHING PROBLEM SUMMARY BASED ON GCA INSPECTION
OF FEBRUARY 1982
Problem
Result
Solution
Brake shoe holder/hanger Broken assemblies,
assembly failure derailment occurred.
Coke guide hood/hot box
seal material
Destruction of original
material, escape of
emissions.
New design installed.
New material installed,
problem not solved.
Teflon pad design
Moisture on box limit
switch
Dump cylinder hoses
Brake cylinders
Wear of original pads. Modified pads.
Freeze-up in winter. Considering new switch
Broken hydraulic hoses Frequent hose replace-
from coke and vibration. ment.
Pin wear, freezing.
Replacement, maintenance.
altems above single line were described by Shenango as major, and those
below as minor areas of concern.
100
-------
APPENDIX F
METHOD D: PROCEDURE FOR OBSERVING VISIBLE
EMISSIONS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 20%
OPACITY DURING PUSHING
PRINCIPLE
The visible emissions equal to or greater than 20 percent opacity emitted
during the push cycle are timed by an observer located on the cokeside of the
battery. In addition, the maximum opacity observed during the coke fall
period is recorded.
DEFINITIONS
Push Cycle
The period of time commencing when the cokeside oven door is removed and
ending when the coke is quenched. Further, the push cycle is divided into
three periods, as follows:
A to B = 1: Period from time door comes off to time start of ram
movement.
B to C = 2: Period from time start of ram movement to time all coke
is in hot car.
C to D = 3: Period from time all coke is in hot car to time of
quench.
Coke Fall Period
The period of time B to C or 2, above. .
Quench
Cooling the red hot coke to a temperature below its ignition temperature
at the quench tower.
101
-------
Quench Tower
The structure where the quench is carried out, normally made of wood or
brick and designed to conduct the steam plume generated during the quench into
the a tmo sphe re.
Hot Car
The railroad car into which the coke is pushed; sometimes called the
quench car.
Opacity
The degree to which emissions reduce the transmission of light and
obscure the view of an object in the background.
PROCEDURE
Position
The observer makes the observation from the cokeside of the battery,
where a clear view of the push can be obtained. In general, a location on the
ground, in the cokeside yard, outside the hot car tracks approximately
perpendicular to the observed oven is acceptable. However, the observer is
not restricted to being on the ground level, but may make the observation from
some elevated level. If multiple observers are recording the same emissions,
the observers should be positioned as closely to each other as feasible.
Observer position is recorded on the data sheet.
Observations
During the push cycle, the observer watches all the potential emission
sources. These include the oven and the hot car. Upon observing any visible
emission with an opacity equal to or greater than 20 percent opacity, as
determined against any contrasting background, an accumulative stopwatch is
started. The watch is stopped when the visible emission goes below 20 percent
and is restarted when a visible emission equal to or greater than 20 percent
reappears. The observer continues this procedure for the entire push cycle;
using either separate stopwatches for each of the three periods of the cycle
or noting the time of each period and recording on the data sheet while
employing one or two stopwatches. The time recorded on the data sheet at the
end of each period is the total time on the stopwatch for that period. In
addition to the above, the observer also mentally notes the densest opacity
occuring during the coke fall period and at the end of the push cycle records
on the data sheet the maximum opacity observed.
The following visible emissions are not timed:
Steam vapor;
Visible emissions generated from jamb cleaning;
102
-------
Visible emissions from the removed door; or
Visible emissions from the pushside of the oven.
In some cases, coke battery operators will keep the standpipe cap open
during the push cycle. These emissions should be regarded as pushing
emissions. However, on some inspections emissions from the standpipe caps
will not be observed. In this situation, a note should be placed on the data
sheet indicating that the standpipe cap was open and not read.
103
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-340/1-83-019
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Envirotech/Chemico Pushing Emissions
Control System Analysis
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Peter D. Spawn and Michael R. Jasinski
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GCA-TR-82-32-G
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
2. SPONSORING ACFNCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stationary Source Compliance Division
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
REPORT DATE
April 1983
1
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-6316
ISA 1, WA 8
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
This report summarizes a 3-month study of the 21 Envirotech/Chemico one-spot,
mobile pushing emissions control systems currently installed at coke plants
operated by five domestic steel companies. The study investigated; (1) design
differences between cars; (2) startup, operational and maintenance problems reported
by each steel company; (3) mass and visible emissions test data; (4) car avail-
ability; and (5) solutions to operating problems implemented and/or under consi-
deration. Information in the report was developed through detailed discussions
and field inspections at four steel companies; discussions with EPA engineers
and review of EPA, state and local regulatory agency files; office discussions
with the equipment vendor; and review of the technical literature. The objective
of this report is to factually present information available through the above
sources.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Iron and Steel Industry
Air Pollution
Coking
Performance Tests
Availability
Maintenance
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Pollution Control
Envirotech/Chemico
COSATl Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
114
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«y. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |