METHOD DEVELOPMENT TEST REPORT NO. 1
U.S. STEEL - CLAIRTON COKE WORKS
COKE OVEN BATTERIES 7, 8, AND 9
CLAIRTON, PENNSYLVANIA
AUGUST 1981
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
-------
METHOD DEVELOPMENT TEST REPORT NO. 1
U.S. STEEL - CLAIRTON COKE WORKS
COKE OVEN BATTERIES 7, 8, AND 9
CLAIRTON, PENNSYLVANIA
AUGUST 1981
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
John Brown, 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
Appendices
A Field Data Sheets A-l
B Project Participants B-l
C Test Method 109 Part C (January 1981 Draft) C-l
11
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On August 18-20, 1981, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., personnel
participated in a series of method development tests at Clairton
Coke Works, U.S. Steel Corporation, Clairton, Pennsylvania. The
purpose of the test program was to document the performance of
EPA Test Method 109, part C, in determining coke oven door area
emissions when traverses were conducted along the yard and from
the bench.
Results of an earlier test program, designed to determine
the applicability of EPA Method 109, Part C at coke batteries
with coke side sheds, revealed that there was a statistically
significant difference in the number of door area leaks detected
when traverses were conducted along the bench as opposed to,
along the yard.
This test program was designed to quantify and document any
difference in the number of door area leaks detected by traversing
along the bench as opposed to along the yard. Batteries 7, 8,
and 9 at Clairton Coke Works were selected for this test work.
These batteries do not have sheds and are similar in construc-
tion, performance, and door leakage history.
This report presents results of the test series and describes
the test procedures. The appendix contains a copy of the field
1-1
-------
data sheets, list of project participants, and a copy of the
regulation.
1-2
-------
2.0 TEST PROCEDURE
EPA Test Method 109, Part C details procedures for deter-
mining emissions from coke oven doors. These procedures requires
the observer to traverse each side of the battery from ground
level. For safety reasons, the method recommends 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. Figure 2 presents a plan
diagram of batteries 7, 8, and 9 and illustrates observer tra-
verse positions during this test program.
This test program was designed to quantify and document any
difference in the number of door area leaks detected by traversing
along the bench as opposed to along the yard. In an effort to
obtain accurate data and to minimize the bias created by process
and observer variance, the following test procedures were used.
All leak observations made during this development test were
conducted to include door area leaks as defined in the revised
method. Company door leak inspectors count door area leaks
similarly by noting all non-oven door or chuck door leaks in a
miscellaneous category.
The test crew was comprised of four members which were
divided into two teams. Each team traversed the same side of the
battery simultaneously. One team traversed along the bench while
the other team traversed along the yard.
2-1
-------
COKE SIDt
PUSH SIDE
1
1
-_ J
1
BENCH
i
^
/ >
' :
COKE
SIDE
DOOR
OBSERVER COKE CAR
TRAVERSE TRACK
ZONE
\
PUSH
SIDE
2
A
BENCH 1
|
1
PUSHER OBSERVER
TRACK TRAVERSE
ZONE
Figure 1. End view of coke oven battery showing recommended traverse zone.
2-2
-------
RR TRACKS AND SERVICE ROAD
OBSERVER LOCATIONS
to
I
U)
QUENCH
00—
BATTERY STACKS
•o
SCRUBBER CAR |l
t-^-f COKE BENCH
BATTERY
7
COAL
BUNKER
BATTERY 8
«•-£-•• PUSH
PUSH
CAR
BENCH
.*-
PUSH
CAR
BATTERY 9
A-*-
•«— &-••
OBSERVER LOCATIONS
GAS OFFTAKE PIPES
o_o
RR TRACKS
-STORAGE TANKS
MONONGEHELA RIVER
o o
Figure 2. Plan view of Batteries 7, 8, and 9,
U.S. Steel Corporation, Clairton, Pennsylvania.
-------
At the end of the traverse, the teams switched positions and
another traverse was conducted. Two traverses conducted in this
manner constituted a set.
At the conclusion of each set, the two most inexperienced
members of the test crew switched teams so that alternate sets
were conducted with different pairs of observers.
The testing procedure for the coke side of the battery
followed the above procedure except that the teams remained the
same for all runs in order to comply with plant safety require-
ments. The hot coke car tracks extend the full length of bat-
teries No. 7, 8, and 9 and there is no safe access across the
tracks from the quench tower at the south end of battery No. 7 to
the north end of battery No. 9. Safe access for observer switch-
ing from the bench to the yard position was available only by
walking around the south end of the quench tower. Therefore, a
set on the coke side consisted of two runs from the yard by the
same team while simultaneous runs were being conducted from the
bench by the other team. At the conclusion of a set, the teams
switched positions in preparation for the next set.
Observation sets were designed to be made at fifteen minute
intervals in order to avoid frequent repetitive recording of the
same leaks. Actual run times were worked around door machine and
pushing operations. Typically, there was an elapsed time of
fifteen minutes in order for the pushing cycle to be completed.
Whenver sections of the batteries were blocked from view by
operational equipment no leaks were read by the observers from
2-4
-------
either the bench or yard positions during the door area leak
traverses.
2-5
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Four observers divided into two teams, counted the number of
door area leaks on coke ovens Batteries Nos. 7, 8, and 9. On
Battery No. 7, 4 sets of observations were made from the Yard and
the Bench on the Pusher Side and the Coke Side. For Battery No.
8, 13 sets of observations' were made from the Yard and the Bench
on the Pusher Side. Finally, for Battery No. 9, 4 sets of
observations were made from the Yard and the Bench on the Pusher
Side.
Tabulations of the number of door area leaks reported by
each observer are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 for Batteries
Nos. 7, 8, and 9, respectively. A summary of these results is
presented in Table 4. In all instances, the number of leaks
when observed from the Bench is greater than when observed from
the Yard. The Bench to Yard ratio of total leaks for observa-
tions from the Pusher Side ranged from 1.9 for Battery 9 to 3.6
for Battery 7. While observations from the Coke Side were made
for Battery No. 7 only, the Bench to Yard ratio was 1.4 compared
to 3.6 for the Pusher Side.
In order to determine the statistical significance of the
difference between the number of leaks observed from the Yard and
the Bench the data presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 were further
investigated using Analysis of Variance. The model was of the
form;
3-1
-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF COKE OVEN DOOR AREA LEAKS
Pusher Side
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
Yard
Observer
1
5
2
1
0
2
5
3
3
0
3
3
2
3
0
4
5
2
3
0
Ave
4.5
2.2
2.5
0.0
Bench
Observer
1
14
5
10
4
2
16
12
10
7
3
8
7
3
2
4
17
7
8
1
Ave
13.8
7.8
7.8
3.5
Coke Side*
Set
No.
5
6
7
8
Yard
Observer
1
6
8
9
8
2
7
8
9
11
3
6
5
10
8
4
5
5
10
10
Ave
5.2
.2
9.5
9.2
Bench
Observer
1
8
8
11
11
2
10
11
14
16
3
7
10
14
12
4
11
10
14
12
Ave
9.2
.5
13.0
13.0
U)
I
NJ
Because of concern over safety, the teams could not switch positions for the runs in a given set.
-------
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF DOOR AREA LEAKS
Pusher Side Battery No. 8
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Yard
Observer
1
3
3
5
8
4
2
2
5
3
3
4
0
2
2
3
1
6
10
6
2
3
4
5
5
5
0
2
3
4
1
0
8
6
3
1
4
2
3
3
0
1
4
3
3
0
8
8
3
6
7
2
5
4
0
1
Ave
3.2
2.0
2.8
8.5
6.0
2.5
3.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
0
1.5
Bench
Observer
1
6
5
3
10
9
6
6
7
6
9
11
5
7
2
6
8
10
9
11
6
5
6
10
16
11
6
7
3
3
6
4
3
3
4
4
3
9
13
7
5
4
4
6
6
3
14
8
8
9
8
9
8
5
4
4
Ave
5.2
6.2
5.0
9.0
7.8
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.5
11.5
8.5
5.0
5.5
3-3
-------
TABLE 3. NUMBER OF DOOR AREA LEAKS
Pusher Side Battery No. 9
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
Yard
Observer
1
4
5
2
3
2
7
11
1
2
3
3
5
3
2
4
2
8
2
4
Ave
4.0
7.2
2.0
2.8
Bench
Observer
1
12
11
8
8
2
10
10
7
7
3
6
4
2
4
4
8
10
6
9
Ave
9.0
. 8.8
5.8
7.0
3-4
-------
TABLE 4. AVERAGE NUMBER OF DOOR AREA LEAKS
Battery
No.
7
8
9
No.
of
sets
4
8
5
T3
4
Dates
of
tests
8/20/81
8/18/81
8/19/81
8/19/81
Pusher Side
Yard
2.3
4.1
2.5
3.5
4.0
Bench
8.2
6.4
7.8
6.9
7.6
Bench
Yard
3.6
1.6
3.1
2.0
1.9
Coke Side
Yard
7.8
Bench
11.2
Bench
Yard
1.4
3-5
-------
Yijk = v + \ +-n
where
y = the overall mean number of leaks . •
\. = the effect due to the position on the side from
which observations were made (i.e., Yard, Bench)
n.,. v = the effect due to the variation of the coking
1 J process
e.., = the random error associated with an observation
1-J (this is the observer error)
The results of the analysis of variance of the data for
Battery No. 7 are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Separate analyses
were performed for observations made from the Pusher Side and the
Coke Side, because of the difference in the test procedures.
This difference in procedure was made necessary due to plant safety
requirements. The average number of leaks observed from the
Bench was higher than that observed from the Yard for the Pusher
Side and the Coke Side. This difference between the number of
leaks observed from the Yard and the Bench is statistically
signficant (p < 0.05) for observation made from the Pusher Side
and the Coke Side. The variance of an individual observation was
determined to be 5.67 for observations made from the Pusher Side
and 2.04 for observations made from the Coke Side. This differ-
ence in variance is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
The results of the analysis of variance of the data for
Batteries Nos. 8 and 9 are presented in Tables 7 and 8, respec-
tively. For both batteries the difference between the number of
leaks observed from the Bench is significantly greater than that
3-6
-------
TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DOOR AREA LEAKS
Pusher Side
Battery No. 7
Source of variation
Between position
Between set within
position
Observer error
Total
Degrees
of
freedom
1
6
24
31
Sum
of
squares
276
254
136
666
Mean
square
276
42.3
5.67
F-ratio
6.52
7.47
P
<0.05
<0.01
3-7
-------
TABLE 6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DOOR AREA LEAKS
Coke Side
Battery No. 7
Source of variation
Between position
Between set within
position
Observer error
Total
Degrees
of
freedom
1
6
24
31
Sum
of
squares
129
100
49
278
Mean
square
129
16.7
2.04
F-ratio
7.74
8.17
P
p <0.05
p <0.01
3-8
-------
TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DOOR AREA LEAKS
Battery No. 8
Source of variation
Between positions
Between sets within
position
Observer error
Total
Degrees
of
freedom
1
24
78
103
Sum
of
squares
308
403
347
1058
Mean
square
308
168
4.45
F-ratio
18.34
3.78
P
<0.01
<0.01
3-9
-------
TABLE 8. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DOOR AREA LEAKS
Battery No. 9
Source of variation
Between positions
Between sets within
position
Observer error
Total
Degrees
of
freedom
1
6
24
31
Sum
of
squares
105
93
129
327
Mean
square
105
16.5
5.37
F-ratio
6.39
3.06
P
<0.05
<0.05
3-10
-------
observed from the Yard (i.e., p < 0.01 for No. 8 and < 0.05 for
No. 9). Referring again to Table 4, the number of leaks observed
from the Bench was approximately twice that from the Yard for
both batteries.
The test results for each battery provide an estimate of the
error of an individual observation.
Battery No. Variance Standard deviation
7
Pusher side 5.67 2.38
Coke side 2.04 1.43
8 4.45 2.10
9 5.37 2.31
Based upon Bartlett's Test* the variation between these
individual estimates of the error of an individual observation is
statistically significant (p < 0.10). The observer variance of
2.04 for observations made from the Coke Side of Battery No. 7 is
less than that for observations made from the Pusher Side for all
three batteries (i.e., 5.67, 4.45, and 5.37 for Nos. 7, 8, and 9,
respectively). This low variance and the low bench to yard ratio
seen on the coke side of battery 7, as compared to the push side,
should be investigated in more detail. One factor was noted
during the testing of batteries 7, 8, and 9 which could have an
affect on observer performance when traversing along each side of
the battery. This factor consists of the following:
Bartlett, M.S. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Supple-
ment, 4:137 (1937) .
3-11
-------
The observer traverse zone on the pusher side of the battery
is approximately 3 times farther from the bench than the traverse
zone on the coke side. This is due to the width of the pusher
machine and the additional distance from the machine required to
make a safe traverse.
3-12
------- |