U.S.
EMISSION TEST REPORT
STEEL - CLAIRTON COKE WORKS
COKE OVEN BATTERY 17
CLAIRTON, PENNSYLVANIA
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
-------
EMISSION TEST REPORT
U.S. STEEL - CLAIRTON COKE WORKS
COKE OVEN BATTERY 17
CLAIRTON, PENNSYLVANIA
OCTOBER 1980
Prepared by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-3546
Task No. 5
PN 3530-5
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH
EMISSION STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING DIVISION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
Roy Neulicht, Task Manager
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Sample Location and Test Method 2-1
3.0 Summary of Results and Statistical Analysis 3-1
4.0 Lighting Survey 4-1
Appendices
A. Derivation of Estimated Values for Missing Data A-l
B. Bartlett's Test for Homogeneity of Variance B-l
C. Field Data Sheets C-l
D. Project Participants D-l
E. Communication Between U.S. Steel and Roy Neulicht
Regarding Lights Under the Shed E-l
F. Test Method 109 Introduction and Part C
(5/7/80 Draft) F-l
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On October 16 and 17, 1980, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., per-
sonnel participated in a series of emission tests at Clairton
Coke Works, U.S. Steel Corporation, Clairton, Pennsylvania. The
purpose of the test program was to determine if EPA test Method
109, Part C is applicable for determining door emissions at coke
oven batteries with coke side sheds.
Battery 17 at Clairton coke works is equipped with a pushing
shed that is closed on the coke wharf side except for a single
large opening to permit access for a front-end loader.
This report presents the results of the test series and dis-
cusses the applicability of Method 109 Part C at a coke oven
battery with a coke side shed.
1-1
-------
2.0 SAMPLE LOCATION AND TEST METHOD
Procedures for determining emissions from coke oven doors
are detailed in EPA Test Method 109, Part C. These procedures
require the observer to traverse each side of the battery from
ground level. For safety reasons, the method recommends that the
traverse be conducted outside of the pusher machine and quench
car tracks. Figure 1 presents a diagram of a coke oven battery
showing observer positions for the traverses.
Battery 17 is equipped with a shed that is closed on the
coke wharf side except for a single opening to permit front-
end loader access to the quench car tracks. Figure 2 presents a
diagram of the shed arrangement of battery 17. The physical
layout of the shed does not allow an observer to traverse the
coke side of the battery as detailed in the method (e.g., from
the ground outside the quench car tracks). Furthermore, safety
regulations prohibited traversing on the coke car tracks.
Therefore, the procedures used in this test program resulted in a
modification to the procedures specified in Method 109, Part C.
This modification consisted of conducting the traverses on both
sides of the oven from the bench. The emissions on the push side
were also observed from the ground level (per Method 109 proce-
dures) so that results from both locations (bench and ground)
could be compared.
2-1
-------
COKE
1
1
.— |
1
! a — a
OBSERVER COKE CAR
TRAVERSE TRACK
ZONE
SIDE
BENCH
^
'/,
COKE
SIDE
DOOR
PUSH SIDE
^n
PUSH
SIDE
//
\
BENCH [
1
PUSHER OBSERVER
TRACK TRAVERSE
ZONE
Figure 1. End view of coke oven battery showing recommended traverse zone,
2-2
-------
SHED LIGHTSV"
SHED
BENCH
I
U)
COKE CAR
TRACK
BENCH
-t f-r
WHARF
WHARF
ACCESS FOR FRONT-END LOADER
Figure 2. Coke oven battery 17, Clairton Coke Works.
-------
To determine door leaks at this facility, the following
specific procedures were used:
The test crew was comprised of four members who were divided
into two teams. Each team traversed the same side of the
battery simultaneously. This was accomplished by starting
the teams at opposite ends of the battery, which required
the teams to cross during each traverse. Each observer
started his traverse approximately one minute after his
teammate.
Each test consisted of each team completing a push side
traverse from the bench, a coke side traverse from the bench,
and a push side traverse from the yard.
Additionally, several runs included each team observing door
leaks from ground level on the coke side while standing
stationary at the access opening in the shed side.
2-4
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Four individuals each reported the number of leaking doors
observed on coke oven battery 17. A series of eight runs were
made over a two-day period. The four individuals were separated
into two teams; however, the makeup of the two teams was not the
same on the two days. A run consisted of counting the number of
leaking doors from the Push Side Yard, the Push Side Bench, and
the Coke Side Bench. For an individual run there was an average
time lapse of about one minute between the observations made by
the two teams. The results of the emission tests are presented
in Table 1.
3.1 CONCLUSIONS
The average number of leaking doors reported by all observ-
ers was 9.7 for measurements made from the Coke Side Bench, 8.8
for measurements made from the Push Side Bench, and 6.3 for mea-
surements made from the Push Side Yard. For the Push Side the
average number of leaking doors observed from the Bench was 40
percent higher than that observed from the yard.
Based upon the results of an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of
observations reported by the four observers, the following
conclusions were obtained.
3-1
-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF LEAKING DOORS
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8
Observer
Avg.
Positior
Avg.
1
6
4
2
9
6
10
4 (10)
7
6.8
[6.3]a
Push Side Yard
Observer
2
4
3
1
9
6
8
8
10
6.1
3
1
1
2
8
3
6
7
4
4.0
4
8
5
3
10
8
10
12
TO
8.2
6.3
1
6
8
6
10
12
12
(8)
7
8.6
Push Side Bench
Observer
2
6
8
6
11
13
13
(9)
9
9.4
3
2
8
5
11
7
9
7
8
7.1
4
7
8
7
11
15
12
10
12
10.2
8.8
1
11
9
5
9
14
10
(8)
8
9.2
Coke Side Bench
Observer
2
8
7
6
8
10
11
(7)
10
8.4
3
5
10
5
7
8
7
7
8
7.1
4
16
16
11
12
16
16
11
13
13.9
9.7
U)
to
a[6.3] Average based upon the questionable results originally reported by Observer 1.
(*) Estimate of missing or questionable value.
-------
1. There was a statistically significant difference
between the average number of leaking doors reported by
the four observers.
2. The results reported by two of the four observers dis-
played a statistically significant bias. For the
average number of leaking doors reported over all runs
and for the average reported for each position, Ob-
server No. 3 was always lowest and Observer No. 4 was
always highest.
3. The difference between the average number of leaking
doors observed from the three positions was not sta-
tistically significant when compared with the variation
between the averages reported by the four observers.
4. The difference in observer variance for the three
positions was not statistically significant.
5. The observer variance, which includes the process
variance, was 7.24 with a corresponding standard devia-
tion of 2.69.
While Observers Nos. 3 and 4 each introduced a bias into the
results of the emission tests, the results reported by Observer
No. 4 appeared to be more erratic than that for Observer No. 3.
The ANOVA was repeated using the data for Observers Nos. 1, 2,
and 3 only. Based upon this second analysis, the following
conclusions can be made.
1. The difference between the average number of leaking
doors reported by the three observers was not statis-
tically significant.
2. The difference between the average number of leaking
doors observed from the three positions was statisti-
cally significant.
3. For the push side the average number of leaking doors
observed from the Bench (8.4) was 50 percent higher
than that observed from the Yard (5.6).
4. The difference in the average number of leaking doors
observed from the Bench for the Push Side (8.4), and
the Coke Side (8.2) was not statistically significant.
3-3
-------
To further assess the difference in the number of leaking
doors reported from the Bench and Yard on the Push Side, the
results reported by each observer were analyzed separately. The
following conclusions can be made.
1. On the average Observer No. 1 reported 26 percent more
leaking doors from the Bench than the Yard; however,
the difference was not statistically significant.
2. Observers Nos. 2 and 3 reported 54 and 78 percent more
• leaking doors, respectively, from the Bench compared
with the Yard. For both observers the difference was
significant.
3. On the average, Observer No. 4 reported 24 percent more
leaking doors from the Bench than from the Yard; how-
ever, the difference was not statistically significant.
3.2 METHOD OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Based upon the hierarchial design of the emission tests the
components of variance include: (1) the difference in the number
of observed leaking doors as a result of the position of the
observer with respect to the coke ovens, (2) the difference
between observers for the same position of the observer, and (3)
the difference between runs for the same observer for the same
position. The difference between runs for the same observer for
the same position is assumed to be an estimate of the variance of
an individual observation. As such it includes the variance due
to the observer and the variance due to the process. These data
were analyzed by the method of Analysis of Variance based upon
the model:
x.., = y + £. + B
M s
3-4
-------
where:
y = overall mean
£ . = effect due to position (i.e., Push Side Yard,
1 etc.)
B • / •x = effect due to difference between observer within
-^ position
e. ., = random error (i.e., between runs within observer
1-1 within position)
For Run No. 7, Observers Nos. 1 and 2 did not report any
results for the Push Side Bench and the Coke Side Bench. Also
the number of leaking doors reported by Observer No. 1 for the
Push Side Yard was questionable. The number of leaking doors (4)
was substantially fewer than that reported by any of the other
observers. In order to maximize the amount of data available for
the statistical analysis, a procedure was used to derive esti-
mated values for the four missing and one questionable values in
Run No. 7.* The procedure estimates the missing value so as to
minimize the residual variance. As such the estimated values
have no effect upon the statistical analysis other than to
balance the experimental design necessary to apply the Analysis
of Variance. The application of this procedure to estimate the
two missing values for the Push Side Bench is illustrated in
Appendix A. The estimated values used in the analysis are shown
in Table 1 in parentheses.
The data presented in Table 1 were statistically analyzed to
determine the following:
1. Observer variance (includes process variance).
2. Variance between observers.
Bennett, C.A., and N.L. Franklin. Statistical Analysis in
Chemistry and the Chemical Industry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1954, pp. 379-385.
3-5
-------
3. Whether or not observer precision for Yard and Bench
readings are significantly different.
4. Whether or not the number of leaking doors measured at
the Push Side Bench and Push Side Yard are signifi-
cantly different.
3.3 RESULTS
The Analysis of Variance of the number of leaking doors
reported by the four observers is presented in Table 2. The mean
square error between runs within observer within position of 7.24
2
is assumed to be an estimate of the variance (6 ) of an individ-
ual observation. For the three positions from which observations
were made, the variances of an individual observation (i.e., the
observer variance) were:
2
Push Side Yard S, =8.96
Push Side Bench S2 =7.77
2
Coke Side Bench S_ =4.89
Based on Bartlett's Test* the differences in observer variance
between the three positions is not statistically significant
(see Appendix B).
Analysis of Variance is a procedure for testing one or more
null hypotheses. With respect to the study of leaking doors,
Analysis of Variance is used to test two null hypotheses. The
first is that the mean numbers of leaking doors over a series of
eight runs are the same for all four observers. The second is
that the mean number of leaking doors is the same for all ob-
servation positions. If the null hypothesis is rejected, it is
*
Bennett, C.A., and N.L. Franklin. Statistical Analysis in
Chemistry and the Chemical Industry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1954, pp. 379-385.
3-6
-------
TABLE 2. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NUMBER OF LEAKING DOORS ON COKE OVENS
Source of variation
Between position
Between observer within position
Between runs within observer within
position
Total
Degrees of
freedom
2
9
79
90
Sum of
square
198.58
323.91
572
1094.49
Mean
square
99.29
35.99
7.24
F
ratio
2.76 N.S.
4.97**
Average value of
mean square
a2 + 80^ + 32a^
'i 2
a +8a6
2
O
U)
I
Variance of an individual observation
2
Variance between observers SD = 3.59
P
= 7.24
Variance between position
= 1.98
N.S. = Not statistically significant - p > 0.10
** = Statistically significant - p < 0.01
-------
then concluded that there is a statistically significant differ-
ence between the several means in question.
Testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference in
the mean number of leaking doors reported by the four observers
involves a comparison of the between observer mean square (35.99)
and the within observer mean square (7.24). If there is no
difference between the means of the four observers, the ratio of
the two mean squares (referred to as the F ratio) would be about
one. Because of sampling errors, the F ratio can deviate from
one. An F ratio much greater than one may be sufficient evidence
to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a
statistically significant difference between the means of the
four observers.
The distribution of F is dependent upon the number of
degrees of freedom associated with the two mean squares. Table 2
shows that the number of degrees of freedom for the between
observer mean square is 9 and that for the within observer mean
square is 79. Tables of the distribution of F for varying
numbers of degrees of freedom for the numerator and denominator
mean squares for risk levels (a) are included in nearly all
statistics test books. If the value of F calculated from the
mean squares in the analysis of variance table exceeds the
critical value of F taken from the table of the F distribution,
the null hypothesis is rejected. The critical value of F with
degrees of freedom of 9 and 79 for a = 0.01 is about 2.67. Since
3-8
-------
the calculated value of F (4.97) exceeds 2.67, it is concluded
that the difference between the mean number of leaking doors
reported by the four observers is highly significant.
The F ratio for testing the hypotheses that the average
number of leaking doors is the same for all observation positions
is F = 99.29/35.99 = 2.76. Referring again to the table of the F
distribution for 2 and 9 degrees of freedom, the critical value
for a risk level a = 0.10 is 3.01. Thus, when the between
position mean square is compared with the between observer mean
square, the ratio is not sufficiently greater than one to reject
the null hypothesis. It is therefore concluded that there is no
difference in the average number of leaking doors as observed
from the three positions.
The conclusions from the analysis of variance should be
interpreted along with the results presented in Tables 1 and 3.
While the overall average number of leaking doors as observed
from the Coke Side Bench (9.7) is higher than that from either
the Push Side Bench (8.8) or the Push Side Yard (6.3), in rela-
tion to the significant variation between observers this differ-
ence between averages for the different positions is not statis-
tically significant.
For each position the average number of leaking doors re-
ported by Observer No. 4 was higher than that for any of the
other observers (see Table 1). The impact of the bias associated
with Observer No. 4 is even more apparent from the results pre-
sented in Table 3. On the first day Observer No. 4 was a member
3-9
-------
TABLE 3. AVERAGE NUMBER OF LEAKING DOORS
First
day
run
1
2
3
Average
Second
day
run
4
5
6
7
8
Average
Push Side Yard
Team
A
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
B
7.0
4.5
2.5
4.7
Team
C
9.5
7.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.1
D
8.5
4.5
8.0
8.5
5.5
7.0
Run
average
4.8
3.2
2.0
3.3
Run
average
9.0
5.8
8.5
9.2
7.8
8.1
Push Side Bench
Team
A
4.0
8.0
5.5
5.8
B
6.5
8.0
6.5
7.0
Team
C
11.0
14.0
12.5
9.5
10.5
11.5
D
10.5
9.5
10.5
7.5
7.5
9.1
Run
average
5.2
8.0
6.0
6.4
Run
average
10.8
11.8
11.5
8.5
9.0
10.3
Coke Side Bench
Team
A
6.5
8.5
5.5
6.8
B
13.5
12.5
8.0
11.3
Team
C
10.0
13.0
13.5
9.0
11.5
11.4
D
8.0
11.0
8.5
7.5
8.0
8.6
Run
average
10.0
10.5
6.8
9.1
Run
average
9.0
12.0
11.0
8.2
9.8
10.0
U)
Team A - Observer Nos. 2, 3
Team B - Observer Nos. 1, 4
Team C - Observer Nos. 2, 4
Team D - Observer Nos. 1, 3
-------
of Team B, and on the second day he was on Team C. In each case
the team that included Observer No. 4 reported the highest number
of leaking doors. The apparent bias of Observer No. 4 has no
doubt had a significant impact upon the results of the emission
tests and the analysis of variance.
Duncan's Multiple Range Test* was used to determine whether
or not the average for an individual observer (or group of
observers) differs significantly from the average of another
individual observer (or group of observers). Because of the
suspected difference in the average number of leaking doors
observed from the Bench and the Yard, Duncan's Test was applied
separately to the results reported for the three positions (see
Table 4). Duncan's Test compares the range of pairs of averages,
and sets of three averages with a least significant range (LSR).
When the calculated range exceeds the LSR it is concluded that
the means differ significantly.
The LSR was calculated for sets of two and three means using
the variance of an individual observation (7.24) as determined
from the analysis of variance (see Table 2). Referring to Table
4, the ranges of averages of pairs and triplicate observers that
are underlined do not exceed the LSR. Based upon Duncan's Test,
the differences in averages are not statistically significant.
From this analysis it is again apparent that Observer No. 3
consistently reports the lowest and Observer No. 4 the highest
number of leaking doors. In all cases, except for Observer No. 4
*
Miller, I. Probability and Statistics for Engineers, 279.
3-11
-------
TABLE 4. DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST COMPARING
AVERAGE NUMBER OF LEAKING DOORS
REPORTED BY FOUR OBSERVERS
Push Side Yard Average
Push Side Bench Average
Coke Side Bench Average
Observer No.
3
4.0
7.1
7.1
2
6.1
8.6
8.4
1
6.8
9.4
9.2
4
8.2
10.2
13.9
Least Significant Range = (Sx)(Pi)
where 2 1/2
Sx = N"
and S2 = 7.24 (Table 1)
N = 8 runs per position
P, = 2.82
Pg = 2.97
LSRp = 2.68 (pairs of observers)
LSR3 = 2.83 (3 observers)
3-12
-------
for the Coke Side Bench, the difference between averages of
adjoining pairs was not significant. The average of 13.9 re-
ported by Observer No. 4 was more than 50 percent higher than
that reported by Observer No. 1.
The entire analysis of variance was repeated using only the
data for Observers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (see Table 5). For this
reduced data set, the average number of leaking doors for ob-
servations made from the Push Bench (8.4) is nearly the same as
that for the Coke Side Bench (8.2). Again the number of leaking
doors observed from the Push Side Yard (5.6) was the lowest of
the three positions. The results of the Analysis of Variance
presented in Table 6 show that the difference between the average
number of leaking doors for the three positions is highly sig-
nificant (p<0.01). On the other hand the difference between the
average number of leaking doors reported by the three observers
is not statistically significant. The variance of an individual
observation of 7.39 as determined from the data for the three
observers agrees quite well with the variance originally reported
for all four observers.
3-13
-------
TABLE 5. NUMBER OF LEAKING DOORS ON COKE OVENS
AS REPORTED BY THREE OBSERVERS
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Observer
Avg.
Position
Avg.
Push Side Yard
Observer
1
6
4
2
9
6
10
10
7
6.8
2
4
3
1
9
6
8
8
10
6.1
3
1
1
2
8
3
6
7
4
4.0
5.6
Push Side Bench
Observer
1
6
8
6
10
12
12
8
7
8.6
2
6
8
6
11
13
13
9
9
9.4
3
2
8
5
11
7
9
7
8
7.1
8.4
Coke Side Bench
Observer
1
11
9
5
9
14
10
9
8
9.2
2
8
7
6
8
10
11
7
TO
8.4
3
5
10
5
7
8
7
7
8
7.1
8.2
U)
-------
TABLE 6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF LEAKING DOORS ON
COKE OVENS - THREE OBSERVERS
Source of variation
Between position
Between observers within position
Between runs within observer
within position
Total
Degrees of
freedom
2
6
60
68
Sum of
squares
115.75
7.25
415.25
603.5
Mean
square
57.875
12.0833
6.92083
F
ratio
7.83**
1.75
N.S
**Statistically significant p < 0.01.
N.S. - Not statistically significant p > 0.10.
Because the difference between observers is not significant, the Sums of
Squares for between observers is combined with that for between runs to
provide an estimate of the variance of an individual observation of s^ = 7.39.
3-15
-------
4.0 LIGHTING SURVEY
Battery 17 is equipped with a pushing control shed that is
closed on the coke wharf side except for an access opening. This
design allows very little ambient light to enter the shed.
Supplimental lighting is provided under the shed through the use
of 12 strategically located 1000-watt mercury vapor lamps.
During several emission tests traverses, illumination levels
were recorded at various locations under the shed at bench level.
A General Electric Model 214 triple-range color- and cosine-
corrected light meter was used to measure illumination levels.
This instrument has a reading range of 10- to 1000-foot candles
(fc) actual scale, and a lOx cell shield that extends the range
to 10,000 fc. The model 214 has an accuracy of +15 percent in
the 10- to 100- and 200- to 1000-fc ranges, and +10 percent in
the 100- to 200-fc range. Table 7 presents the results of the
lighting survey. Under the shed along the coke side bench,
illumination levels ranged from 2 to 28 fc with an average of 14
fc. Along the bench on the push side, illumination levels ranged
from 380 to 420 fc with an average of 403 fc. The illumination
level measured inside the shed at ground level adjacent to the
access opening was 16 fc. The illumination level under the shed
did not affect the ability of the observers to detect door leaks.
4-1
-------
TABLE 7. BATTERY 17 LIGHTING SURVEY
Date
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-17-80
10-17-80
10-17-80
10-17-80
10-17-80
Time
13:22
13:23
13:24
3:25
3:26
3:27
4:50
4:51
4:52
1:52
1:49
10:28
10:29
10:30
Position
A7
A28
B8
A9
Bl
B27
A3
Bl
B26
A31
B15
A9
B3
B29
Average
Coke side
bench Illumina-
tion, fc
28
14
5
16
5
12
24
2
12
5
5
28
5
30
14
Date
10-16-80
10-16-80
10-16-80
Time
4:42
4:43
4:44
Position
AS
Bl
B26
Average
Push side
bench illumina-
tion, fc
420
380
410
403
Date
10-16-80
Time
2:16
Position
Ground level In-
side access
opening in shed
Coke side
yard Illumina-
tion, fc
16
------- |