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
















-------