METHOD DEVELOPMENT TEST REPORT NO. 2
U.S. STEEL - GENEVA COKE WORKS
COKE OVEN BATTERIES 3 AND 4
PROVO, UTAH
SEPTEMBER 1981
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
-------
METHOD DEVELOPMENT TEST REPORT NO. 2
U.S. STEEL - GENEVA COKE WORKS
COKE OVEN BATTERIES 3 AND 4
PROVO, UTAH
SEPTEMBER 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 Test Procedure 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 September 22-24, 1981, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., person-
nel participated in a series of method development tests at U.S.
Steel Corporation, Geneva Works, Provo, Utah. 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 3 and 4
at Geneva Coke Works were selected for this test work. These
batteries do not have sheds and are similar in construction,
performance, and door leakage history to Batteries 7, 8, and 9 at
Clairton Coke Works which were tested in an earlier program.
1-1
-------
This report presents results of the test series and
describes the test procedures. The appendix contains a copy of
the field 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 3 and 4 and illustrates observer traverse
position during this test program.
This test program was designed to quantify and document any
difference in the number of door area leaks detected by tra-
versing 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 method.
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 SIDE
OBSERVER
TRAVERSE
ZONE
BENCH
3 DOOR
COKE CAR
TRACK
PUSH SIDE
»>USH
SIDE
BENCH
PUSHER
TRACK
OBSERVER
TRAVERSE
ZONE
Figure 1. End view of coke oven battery showing recommended traverse zone.
2-2
-------
NJ
U>
BENCH
BATTERY 3
COAL
BUNKER
BENCH
GAS OFFTAKE PIPES
OBSERVER LOCATIONS
CARE:
GUIDE
CAR
BATTERY 4
RECYCLE
WATER
TANK
o
QUENCH
TOWER
' Figure 2. Plan view of Batteries 3 and 4, U.S. Steel Corporation, Provo, Utah.
-------
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 and the next set com-
pleted.
The testing procedure for the coke side of battery No. 4
follow the above procedure except that the teams remained the
same for all runs. The hot coke car tracks extend the full
length of Batteries No. 3 and No. 4 so there is no safe place to
cross the tracks. Plant safety requirements prohibit crossing
the hot coke car tracks so yard and bench observers could ex-
change positions only by walking to the end of the tracks beyond
the quench tower. Therefore, a set of 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. No individual observer switches were made.
The door area leak observation sets were planned to be
conducted at 15-minute intervals to avoid repetitive recording
of the same leaks. The actual observation times were dependent
upon battery processing operations. Whenever possible, the ob-
servation traverses were made when the bench was clear. In those
instances when the pusher, door, or coke cars blocked part of the
battery from the view of the observers the affected ovens were
not read.
2-4
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Four observers divided into two teams, counted the number of
door area leaks on coke oven Batteries Nos. 3 and 4. For Battery
No. 3, 7 sets of observations were made from the Yard and the
Bench on the Pusher Side. On Battery No. 4, 10 sets of observa-
tions were made from the Yard and the Bench on the Pusher Side
and 13 sets of observations were made from the Yard and the Bench
on the Coke Side.
Tabulations of the number of door area leaks reported by
each observer are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 for Batteries
Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. A summary of these results is
presented in Table 4. The average number of leaks observed from
the Bench was higher than that observed from the Yard for 29 -of
the 30 sets. Leaks observed from the Bench were equal to the
leaks observed from the Yard for 1 set. For observations made
from the Pusher Side the Bench to Yard ratio of the total leaks
for Battery Nos. 3 and 4 were each 1.2. Because of concerns over
the safety of the observers, the number of leaking doors on the
Coke Side were counted for Battery 4 only. For the 13 sets of
Coke Side observations the Bench to Yard ratio was 2.2.
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
3-1
-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF COKE OVEN DOOR AREA LEAKS
Pusher Side Battery No. 3
U.S. Steel, Provo, Utah
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yard
Observer
1
5
5
8
8
7
10
10
2
8
9
11
10
12
11
11
3
7
8
11
10
9
10
8
4
7
8
11
10
9
11
8
Average
Ave
6.8
7.5
10.2
9.5
9.2
10.5
9.2
9.0
Bench
Observer
1
8
8
14
14
12
11
11
2
9
6
14
15
12
14
12
3
9
8
11
12
11
13
11
4
10
9
11
14
14
10
12
Average •
Ave
9.0
7.8
12.5
13.8
12.2
12.0
11.5
11.3
3-2
-------
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF COKE OVEN DOOR AREA LEAKS
Pusher Side Battery No. 4
U.S. Steel, Provo, Utah
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
Yard
Observer
1
2
2
4
3
3
3
4
2
2
4
2
5
2
6
5
1
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
5
4
1
4
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
5
4
2
3
3
2
2
3
Average
Ave
3.0
2.2
5.0
4.0
1.8
3.2
3.2
2.2
1.8
3.5
3.0
Bench
Observer
1
5
4
7
5
2
4
3
2
1
3
2
3
5
5
5
4
5
7
3
2
4
3
3
4
6
3
2
4
5
2
2
4
4
5
3
5
5
2
4
3
3
1
4
Average
Ave
4.0
4.0
5.8
4.5
2.5
4.2
4.5
2.5
1.5
3.8
3.7
3-3
-------
TABLE 3. NUMBER OF COKE OVEN DOOR AREA LEAKS
Coke Side Battery No. 4
U.S. Steel, Provo, Utah
Set
No.
5
6
7
8
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Yard
Observer
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
1
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
3
3
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
0
2
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
Average
Ave
1.0
1.0
1.2
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.6
Bench
Observer
1
4
2
4
5
5
2
4
3
4
6
2
3
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
5
4
4
9
8
6
7
3
1
1
5
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
1
1
4
1
1
5
5
4
2
4
4
3
6
2
4
1
2
Average
Ave
3.5
1.0
3.8
4.8
3.2
3.5
3.8
3.5
4.8
6.0
2.8
3.8
1.8
3.6
3-4
-------
TABLE 4. AVERAGE NUMBER OF COKE OVEN DOOR AREA LEAKS
U.S. Steel, Provo, Utah
Battery
No.
3
4
Pusher Side
No.
of
sets
7
4
6
10
Date
of
tests
9/24/81
9/22/81
9/23/81
Average
No, of leaks
Yard
9.0
3.6
2.6
3.0
Bench
11.3
4.6
3.2
3.7
Bench
Yard
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
Coke Side
No.
of
sets
4
9
13
Date
of
tests
9/22/81
9/23/81
Average
No. of leaks
Yard
1.6
1.6
1.6
Bench
3.2
3.7
3.6
Bench
Yard
2.0
2.3
2.2
3-5
-------
were further investigated using Analysis of Variance. The model
was of the form;
Yijk = " + Xi + 1i(j) + eijk
where
y = the overall mean number of leaks
X. = the effect due to the position on the side from
1 which observations were made (i.e., Yard, Bench)
n-/-v = the effect due to the variation of the coking
•^ process
e.., = the random error associated with an observation
1^ (this is the observer error)
The results of the analysis of variance of the data for
these observations are presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7. Separate
analyses were performed for observations made from the Pusher
Side and the Coke Side, because of the difference in the test
procedures.
For Battery No. 3 the average number of door area leaks
observed from the Yard and Bench on the Pusher Side were 9.0 and
11.5 respectively. The results of the Analysis of Variance for
these data are presented in Table 5. The "Between position"
effect is statistically significant (i.e., p < 0.01). For these
data the estimate of the observer error (i.e., variance) of an
individual observation is 2.01.
Because of the difference in field procedures for observa-
tions made from the Coke Side of Battery No. 4, separate
Analysis of Variance were performed for the Pusher Side and Coke
Side results. As seen in Table 6, for the Pusher Side, the
3-6
-------
TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COKE OVEN DOOR AREA LEAKS
Pusher Side
Battery No. 3
Source of variation
Between position
Between set within
position
Observer error
Total
Degrees
of
freedom
1
12
42
55
Sum
of
squares
70.87
153.0
80.25
304.12
Mean
square
70.87
12.75
2.01
F-ratio
5.56
6.34
P
<0.01
<0.01
3-7
-------
TABLE 6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COKE OVEN DOOR AREA LEAKS
Pusher Side
Battery No. 4
Source of variation
Between position
Between set within
position
Observer error
Total
Degrees
of
freedom
1
18
60
79
Sum
of
squares
10.52
92.97
51.00
154.49
Mean
square
10.52
5.17
0.85
F-ratio
2.03
6.08
P
>0.10
<0.01
3-8
-------
TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COKE OVEN DOOR AREA LEAKS
Coke Side
Battery No. 4
Source of variation
Between position
Between set within
position
Observer error
Total
Degrees
of
freedom
1
24
78
103
Sum
of
squares
129.43
70.85
103.25
303.53
Mean
square
129.43
2.95
1.32
F-ratio
43.87
2.23
P
<0.01
<0.01
3-9
-------
"Between position" effect is not statistically significant (i.e.,
p < 0.10). Referring again to Table 4, note that the average
number of leaks observed from the Pusher Side was 3.0 from the
Yard and 3.7 from the Bench. The estimate of the observer error
for these results was 0.85.
The results of the Analysis of Variance of the data for the
Coke Side (Battery No. 4) are presented in Table 7. The "Between
position" effect is statistically significant (p < 0.01). Refer-
ring to Table 4 the average number of leaks observed from the
Bench was 3.6 compared to 1.6 for the Yard. The estimate of the
observer error was 1.32.
The test results for each Battery provide an estimate of the
error of an individual observation.
Battery No. Variance Standard deviation
3 2.01 1.42
4 Pusher Side 0.85 0.92
Coke Side 1.32 1.15
The difference in observer variance between the three sets of
results is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Based upon Bartlett's Test* the variation between these
individual estimates of the error of an individual observation is
statistically significant (p < 0.05).
The Bench to Yard ratio of total leaks for Batteries 3 and
4 were 1.2 on the Pusher Side and 2.2 on the Coke Side. The
Coke Side having a higher Bench to Yard ratio, at this plant, is
a reversal of the trend seen at Batteries 7, 8, and 9 at the
*
Bartlett, M.S. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Supple-
ment, 4:137(1937).
3-10
-------
Clairton works. Several factors were observed during the testing
of Batteries 3 and 4 which could have an effect on observer per-
formance. These factors consist of the following:
Batteries 3 and 4 were much less congested than Batteries 7,
8, and 9. With more open area around the batteries there ap-
peared to be less interference from coke breeze and dust on the
Pusher Side.
Steam from the coke wharf provided a constant interference
for the observers when traversing along the Coke Side of the
Battery 4.
3-11
------- |