EPA-450/3-76-002
December 1975
             MODEL VALIDATION
     AND TIME-CONCENTRATION
             ANALYSIS OF THREE
                  POWER PLANTS
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Office of Air and Waste Management
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
      Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
                              EPA-450/3-76-002
     MODEL VALIDATION
AND TIME-CONCENTRATION
     ANALYSIS OF THREE
         POWER PLANTS
           Miehael T. Mills unil Rog«-r Vt Stern

              (iCA/Teehnolog) l)i\ i»ion
                 Burlington Roiid
             liedford. MahMiehiiM-U). OI73O

         Conlrur No.
             Program Element No. 2ACI2')
           EPA Projeet Offieer: RiiMsell F. I.ee
                  Prepared for

         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           Offiee of Air and Waste Management
         Offiee of Air Quality Planning and Standards
        Reneareh Triangle Park, North Carolina 277 I I
                       • «^=r  EiiVixxtfnior.trii Prctactiua Agency
                 December 1975 - .' „ r -•-	.,
                           txf-1 v L ,.'.  , n * i ! ^ v '

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.  Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplier permit - from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina 27711;  or, for a  fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield,  Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730, in fulfillment
of Contract No. 68-02-1376.  The contents of this  report are reproduced
herein as received from GCA/Technology Division. The opinions, findings,
and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily
those of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Mention of company or
product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
                Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-002

-------
                                         ABSTRACT

          This  report  presents  an  analysis  of  the EPA  Single  Source Model  using SC«2
          concentration  and  meteorological  data  collected  in  the  vicinity  of  three
          Ohio  Power Plants:  J. M.  Stuart, Muskingum  River,  and  Philo.  The  model
          predicts  the upper percentile  of  the frequency distribution  of 1-hour and
          3-hour concentrations reasonably  well.  Concentrations  over  the  remainder
          of  the distribution are  significantly  underpredicted, due  in part  to the
"">
          errors in the  determination of background  concentrations.  The second
'^         highest 24-hour concentrations tend  to be  underpredicted by  the  model ex-
'~t>
          cept  at the  Philo  plant, where the model  is  less likely to account  proper-
          ly  for terrain influences.  Also  investigated during  this  study  were the
vs
          frequency distributions  of peak  1-hour to  average 3-hour and peak  1-hour
          to  average  24-hour concentration  ratios.   Statistics  of these distributions
          were  found  to  vary little  from one plant  to  the  next.
                                            ill

-------
                               CONTENTS
Abstract                                                           lii


List of Figures                                                    v


List of Tables                                                     xii


Acknowledgments                                                    xiii

                                                                     A
Sections


I      Introduction                                                1


II     Data Base Preparation                                       14


III    Data Reduction Methods                                      19


IV     Model Validation Procedure                                  22


V      Analysis of Concentration Ratio Distributions               94


VI     Further Analysis of Model Validation Procedures             103


VII    References                                                  137
                                 iv

-------
                                 FIGURES

No.                                                                PaSe

1      Map of Ohio and Surrounding States Showing Location of
       J. M.  Stuart Plant,  Philo Plant,  and Muskingum River
       Plant                                                        3

2      Sketch of the J.  M.  Stuart Plant  Area Showing Locations
       of Seven Automatic S0» Monitoring Stations                  ^

3      Sketch of the Muskingum Plant Area Showing Locations of
       Four Automatic SO  Monitoring Stations                      '

4      Sketch of the Philo Plant Area Showing Locations of Six
       Automatic S0? Monitoring Stations

5      J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 1                      2^

6      J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       3-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 1                      2o

7      J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour S00 Concentrations at Station 1                     2'

8      J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 2                      23

9      J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       3-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 2                      29

10     J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 2                     30

11     J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 3                      31

12     J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       3-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 3                      32

13     J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 3                     33

14     J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 4                       3*

15     J. M.  Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       3-Hour S0? Concentrations at Station 4                       35

-------
                         FIGURES (Continued)

No.                                                                Page

16     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 4                     36

17     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Pistribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 5                      37
18     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       3-Hour SO. Concentrations at Station 5                      3&

19     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 5                     39

20     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 6                      40

21     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       3-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 6                      41

22     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 6                     42

23     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 7                      43

24     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       3-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 7                      44

25     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO- Concentrations at Station 7                     45

26     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at All Stations                   46

27     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       3-Hour SO  Concentrations at All Stations                   47

28     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO  Concentrations at All Stations                  48

29     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 1                  49

30     Muskingum River Plant CamuiaLiv  frequency Distribution
       for 3-Hour S0~ Concentrate  *s at Station 1                  50
31     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
                                 tio

                                 vi
for 24-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 1                 51

-------
                           FIGURES (Continued)

No.                                                                Page

32     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 1-Uour SO  Concentrations at Station 2                  52

33     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 3-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 2                  53

34     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 24-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 2                 54

35     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 1-Hour SO. Concentrations at Station 3                  55

36     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 3-Hour S0~ Concentrations at Station 3                  56

37     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 24-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 3                 57

38     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 4                  58

39     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 3-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 4         '         59

40     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 24-Hour SO- Concentrations at Station 4                 60

41     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 1-Hour SO  Concentrations at All Stations               61

42     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 3-Hour S02 Concentrations at All Stations               62

43     Muskingum River Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution
       for 24-Hour SO  Concentrations at All Stations              63

44     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 1-Hour
       SO. Concentrations at Station 1                             6--

45     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 3-Hour
       SO  Concentrations at Station 1                             65

46     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 24-Hour
       SO- Concentrations at Station 1                             66
                                vil

-------
                          FIGURES (Continued)

No..                                                                ZSS

47  '   Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 1-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 2                             67

48     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 3-Hour
       SO, Concentrations at Station 2

49     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 24-Hour
       SO  Concentrations at Station 2

50     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 1-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 3

51     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 3-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 3                             71

52     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 24-Hour
       SO, Concentrations at Station 3                             72

53     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 1-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 4                             73

54     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 3-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 4                             74

55     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 24-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 4                             75

56     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 1-Hour
       SO  Concentrations at Station 5                             76

57     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 3-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 5                             77

58     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 24-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 5                              78

59     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 1-Hour
       SO. Concentrations at Station 6                              79

60     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 3-Hour
       S02 Concentrations at Station 6                              80

61     Philo  Plant Cumulative Frequency  Distribution for 24-Hour
        S0« Concentrations at Station  6                              81
                                 vili

-------
                          FIGURES (Continued)

No.

62     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 1-Hour
       SCL Concentrations at All Stations                          82

63     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 3-Hour
       SO  Concentrations at All Stations                          83

64     Philo Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for 24-Hour
       SO  Concentrations at All Stations                          84

65     J. M. Stuart Plant Log Probability Plot of Cumulative
       Ratio Distributions                                         95

66     J. M. Stuart Plant Linear Probability Plot of Cumulative
       Ratio Distributions                                         96

67     Muskingum Plant Log Probability Plot of Cumulative Ratio
       Distributions                                               99

68     Muskingum Plant Linear Probability Plot of Cumulative
       Ratio Distributions                                         100

69     Philo Plant Log Probability Plot of Cumulative Ratio
       Distributions                                               101

70     Philo Plant Linear Probability Plot of Cumulative Ratio
       Distributions                                               102

71     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO- Concentrations at Station 1                      104

72     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour S0_ Concentrations at Station 2                      105

73     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 3                      106

74     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 4                      107

75     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 5                      108

76     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 6                      109
                                 ix

-------
                          FIGURES (Continued)

No.                                                                Page

77     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 7                      110

78     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       SC-  Concentrations at All Stations                          111

79     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 1                     112

80     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 2                     113

81     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 3                     114

82     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 4                     115

83     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour S02 Concentrations at Station 5                     116

84     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO- Concentrations at Station 6                     117

85     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO- Concentrations at Station 7                     118

86     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       24-Hour SO. Concentrations at All Stations                  119

87     Background Cumulative Frequency Distribution  for  1-Hour
       SO.  Concentrations at J. M.  Stuart Plant, Muskingum River
       Plant and Philo Plant                                       121

88     J. M. Stuart Plant Cumulative Frequency Distribution for
       1-Hour Upwind  SO- Concentrations at  7 Stations              122

89     Background Cumulative Frequency Distribution  for  1-Hour
       SO   Concentrations at J. M.  Stuart Plant                    124

90     Stuart Plant Subtraction Technique #2 Cumul;<•<""  Frequency
       Distribution for  1-Hour  SO,  •         Lions  at Station  1     125

91     Stuart Plant Snhtractioi     .a.ique //2 Cumulative  Frequency
       Distribution i or  x-dour  SO   Conccntrcitions  at Station  2     126

-------
                          FIGURES (Continued)

No.

92     Stuart Plant Subtraction Technique #2 Cumulative Frequency
       Distribution for 1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 3     127

93     Stuart Plant Subtraction Technique //2 Cumulative Frequency
       Distribution for 1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 4     128

94     Stuart Plant Subtraction Technique #2 Cumulative Frequency
       Distribution for 1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 5     129

95     Stuart Plant Subtraction Technique #2 Cumulative Frequency
       Distribution for 1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 6     130

96     Stuart Plant Subtraction Technique //2 Cumulative Frequency
       Distribution for 1-Hour SO  Concentrations at Station 7     131

97     Stuart Plant Subtraction Technique #2 Cumulative Frequency
       Distribution for 1-Hour S02 Concentrations at All Stations  132

98     Stuart Plant Subtraction Technique //2 Cumulative Frequency
       Distribution for 24-Hour S02 Concentrations at All Stations 134
                                 xi

-------
                                TABLES


No.                 .                                               Page

1      Plant Characteristics                                       5

2      Sulfur Dioxide Monitor Stations                             9

3      J. M. Stuart Plant 1-Hour Concentration Distribution
       Statistics for Measurements and Model Validation Run
       (Pg/m3)                                                     85

4      J. M. Stuart Plant 3-Hour Concentration Distribution
       Statistics for Measurements and Model Validation (pg/m )    85

5      24-Hour Concentration Distribution Statistics for Meas-
       urement and Model Validation Run (pg/m )                    86

6      Muskingum Plant, 1-Hour Concentration Distribution Sta-,
       tistics for Measurements and Model Validation Fun (pg/m )   86

7      Muskingum Plant, 3-Hour Concentration Distribution Sta-
       tistics for Measurements and Model Validation Run (ug/m )   87
8      Muskingum Plant, 24-Hour Concentration Distribution Sta-
       tistics for Measurements and Model Validation Run (yg/m^)   87

9      Philo Plant, 1-Hour Concentration Distribution Statistics
       for Measurements and Model Validation I\un (pg/mr)           88

10     Philo Plant, 3-Hour Concentration Distrioution Statistics
       for Measurements and Model Validation Run (pg/my)           BL

11     Philo Plant, 24-Hour Concentration Distribution Statistics
       for Measurements and Model Validation Run (pg/m^)           85

12     Ratios of Measured Minus Background to Predicted 1-Hour
       Concentrations                                              90
    r                                                               ..
13     Correlations                                                92

14     Statistics for Ratio Distribution                            97

15     Concentration Distribution Statistics for Measurements
       and Model Validation Run Using Old and New Background
       Subtraction Techniques  (pg/m^)                               133
                                  xii

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The key data used in carrying out this study were made available to
GCA/Technology Division by the Dayton Power and Light Company, the Ohio
Power Company, and the American Electric System.  Project direction and
guidance were given by Mr. Russell Lee of the Source-Receptor Analysis
Branch, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, EPA, Durham, North Carolina,
who served as Project Officer, and by Mr. Michael Lazaro from the EPA
Region V Office.
                               xiii

-------
                                SECTION I
                              INTRODUCTION

 BACKGROUND

 Reliable  tools  for the estimation of SO- concentrations downwind from
 large power plants are urgently needed to guide environmental and energy
 related policy  decisions.  Most mathematical dispersion models for the
 prediction of S0_ concentrations provide estimates for averaging times
 which are either very short (up to 1 hour) or very long (seasonal or
 annual).  For example, the plume parameters given by Turner  and devel-
 oped principally from earlier work of Pasquill, Cramer, and Gifford are
 based on experimental data much of which was collected over 10- and 30-
 minute periods.  Power law relationships by which concentrations from
 point sources are linked to time are generally considered to be valid only
 over averaging  times which range from a few minutes to perhaps 1 or 2
 hours.  National ambient standards for SO., however,  include standards
 for annual and  24-hour time periods.  The method currently favored for
 estimating 24-hour concentrations is to average concentrations that have
 been predicted  for the component 1-hour periods.  A second method,  based
 on the development of peak-to-mean ratio statistics,  has been suggested
                                      2
by Montgomery, Carpenter, and  Lindley.    To date,  very few sets of field
data have been used to test the adequacy of either estimation technique.

-------
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study was twofold;
    1.  To conduct validation studies of an EPA concentration
        model designed to estimate concentrations Jue to a
        single source for averaging times of 1 hour, 24 hours
        and 1 year, with emphasis on the 24-hour value*
    2.  To analyze time-concentration relationships of
        measured air quality data in the vicinity of a large
        elevated point source, paying special attention to
        the ratios of 1-hour to 3-hour acid 1-hour to 24-hour
        concentrations.

The analytical procedures were to parallel those used by Klug  and
                 2
Montgomery et al.  in their analysis of TVA data.
SUITABILITY OF POWER PLANT DATA

J. M. Stuart Site and Plant Description

The J. M. Stuart plant is located in Southwestern Ohio on the Ohio River,
about 9 kilometers Southwest of Manchester, Ohio, and 4 kilometers East    ;;
of Maysville, Ohio (see Figures» 1).  The plant occupied a position centered
in the Ohio River Valley about 700 meters from the valley walls on either
side.  A detailed map.-of the plant, the SO. monitoring sites, and the
surrrounding towns is given in Figure 2.  The elevation of the top df thV
valley above the bottom is about 115 meters, so the 244 meter stack* rise
about 130 meters above the surrounding countryside.  The data used «ih this
study were collected during the 1-year period from January 1, 1973 to
December 31, 1973.  During this period, the plant consisted of four iden-
tical coal-fired boilers with a generating capacity of 610 megawatts each*
However, one boiler was down for repairs during the entire year so that
the total generating capacity was only 1830 megawatts, the yearly average
being 1318 megawatts, or 72 percent of the maximum.  Further characteristic*
of this plant can be found in Table 1.

-------
  MICHIGAN
z
o
         COAYTON
                       H
                                                          PITTSBURGK
                                                                 O
                           COLUMBUS  QZANESVILLE
                                           PHILO PLANT
                         MUSKINGUM
                         PLANT
                   ,MANCH
          •J.M.STUART PLANT
  KENTUCKY
                                  WEST   VIRGINIA
                                                               °
                                                          State Capitol
   Figure  1.  Map of Ohio and surrounding states showing location of
             J. M.  Stuart Plant,  Philo Plant,  and Muskingum River
             Plant

-------
Figure 2.  Sketch of the J.  M.  Stuart  Plant  area  showing location*
           of seven automatic S02 monitoring stations

-------
Table 1.  PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic
Stack height (M)
diameter (M)
velocity (H/S)
temperature (°K)
Number of
boilers per stack
Generating capacity:
Maximum per stack (MW)
Average per stack (MW)
Plant total (MW)
Plant average (MW)
Plant
Stuart
Four
similar
stacks
244
6.0
22.2
373
1 each

610
(each)
439
2440
1318
Muskingum
Stack
1
251
7.6
28.5
430
4

876
748
Stack
2
251
6.7
24.8
425
1

591
487
1467
1235
Philo
Stack
4
81
5.2
4.5
458
2

166
114
Stack
5
81
3.9
7.7
458
2

166
128
Stack
6
84
2.6
29
433
1

125
84
457
326

-------
Muskingum Site and Plant Description

The Muskingum Plant is located in Southeastern Ohio on the Muskingun
River about 6 kilometers Northwest of the Town of Beverly.  Figure 1
shows the geographical location of the Muskingum Plant in relation to
the major cities in Ohio and Figure 3 shows a detailed map of the pl
the SO, monitoring sites, and the surrrounding towns.  The plant is sl-
tuated in the Muskingum River Valley and is roughly centered about 500
meters from the valley walls to the north and south.  During 1973 !th«
                                                                 i
plant consisted of five coal-fired units feeding into two stacks.  Th*
boiler capacities and stack parameters for its two stacks are listed
in Table 1.  Stack 2 is approximately 640 meters to the southwest of
Stack 1.  The top of the valley rises about 75 meters above the hotton,
so the 251 meter stacks stand about 185 meters above the surrounding**

Philo Site and Plant Description                                  i

The Philo plant is located in eastern Ohio on the Muskingum River in th*
town of Philo, which is about 11 kilometers to the southeast of
Ohio.  The geographical location of the Philo plant in relation to thtt
major cities in Ohio is indicated in Figure 1.  Figure 4 shows a
map of the plant, the SO  monitoring sites, and the surrounding towns.
The plant Is located in the Muskingum River Valley and is roughly
about 500 meters from the valley walls to the east and west, although that
valley widens to the north.  The three stacks are relatively low in com-
parison to the other two plants, since they are approximately 82 meters
high and rise about 11 meters above the top of the valley walls.

Overview of J. M. Stuart Plant Monitoring Program

There are seven sulfur dioxide monitoring stations which comprise th* no-
                                                                 1
nitoring network.  These a e shown on the map in Figure 2 and their
elevations, distances, anJ bearings from the plant are listed in Table 2.

-------
                                                             RT 77
RT78    |0         H         I
                    REIN'ERSVILLE
                                                         0
                         \
                               RICH VALLEY
                               CENTERVILLE
                         HACKNEYtfZ
                   RT  7«

          MUSKINGUM  PLANT
               STACK I
          'ACK 2
                                              N
    KILOMETERS
0   I   2  3  4   5
Figure 3.  Sketch of the Muskingum Plant area showing locations of
           four automatic SC>2 monitoring stations

-------
         KU.OWCTCM
    ?   !   !   ?  1
Figure 4.  'sketch of the Philo  Plant  area showing locations of
           six. automatic S02  monitoring stations

-------
          Table 2.  SULFUR DIOXIDE MONITOR  STATIONS
Plant
Stuart








Muskingum






Philo









Station
No.
1
2«
3
4*
5
6
7C
M
.
1
2
3
4
M
M
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
H
M
H
-
Name
Boone
Brudysville
Bentonville
Manchester
Maysvillc
Rectorville
Sono
Wind instrument
Top of stacks
Beverly
Hackney
Rich Valley
Caldwell
Beverly
Hackney
Top of stacks
Philo
Fox Run
Irish Ridge
Duncan Falls
Salt Creek
Indian Run
Irish Ridge (L)
Irish Ridge (U)
Duncan Falls
Top of stack*
Distance
(km)
2.398
6.550
13.350
8,733
3.830
8.411
5.011
-
-
5.275
4.284
8.264
19.628
5.275
4.284
-
1.710
4.839
4.981
1.319
5.9SS
A. 214
-
-
-

Bearing
(degrees)
34.64
14.95
27.60
48.50
279.11
155.84
220.07
-
-
140.35
39.52
35.35
34.93
140.35
39.52
•>
174.
166.
235.
343.
25.
334.
-
-
•

Elevation above
stack base
(M)
115
85
121
- 7
- 4
115
115
40
244
64
82
101
128
97
104
251
3
2
99
12
26
63
104
140
14
81
'station in operation  for about the first quarter of the year only.
 Station in operation  for about the last three quarters only.
CStat ion in operation  for about the first two quarters only.
Mote:  M s Meteorological data station.

-------
The monitor at Station 2 was moved to Station A on March 10,  1973, and
the monitor at Station 7 was discontinued on June 17, 1973.   Therefore
no data is available at Station 2 for 9 months, Station 4 for 3 months,
and Station 7 for 6 months.  The instruments were all Leeds" & Nbrthrup
Company, Catalog No. 7860-SW,* Aeroscan Air Quality Monitors,  purchased
in 1968.  The sample was obtained by passing ambient air taken from
5 feet above ground level, through an absorption column along with an
absorption solution.  The sample analysis.method was by electrolytic
conductivity.  Data was taken-continuously and listed every hour.
Electrical calibration tests were performed weekly for zero and half
scale operation.  Overall calibration tests were made every six months
at 0.2 ppm using the permeation tube method whose accuracy is traceable
                                               r ^
to the U.S. Bureau of Standards.  There^ were some additional hours of
missing data due to loss of electrical power; periods of calibration
and maintenance; and system failures caused by presence of foreign ma-
terial in the sample flow, pump failure,  loss of ink supply, failure of
the conductivity cell, etc.                 :   "
                             ,, '              >  , ;  ; >
The manufacturer's performance accuracy specifications are as follows.
In a typical ambient atmosphere which includes the normal interfering
gasses, this instrument has:
                        """-     » • *f
    •   £ero drift         *  2 percent pf_r(full  scale per week
    •   Sensitivity drift     <'l percent of full scale per week
    •   Reproducibility       < 1 percent of full scale
    •   Sensitivity        *  0.01  ppm
                                           , V. ,
    •   Recorder error        <, 0.5  percent of full  scale
    •   Range              a  approximately 0-1 ppra

Overview  of MusXingu™ Plant .Monitoring Program.. ,,         .   ,   "
                   '                   '        J* a". *'         * •
There are  four  sulfur dioxide •tflonitt>rin^ stations whfrch  comprise  the
monitoring network.  These are  shown on  the map  in  Figure 3  and their
elevations, distances,  and bearings  from  the plant  are  listed  in  Table 2.
                                  10

-------
The monitoring station was established in 1969 to monitor the ambient
changes when the new stacks were installed.   Data were available from
all stations for January 1 to November 21, 1973.  During the entire year
of 1973, Station 1 missed 57 days and the other three stations missed
approximately 41 days.  The monitors were the same type used at the
Stuart Plant, with the same calibration procedure, except that they were
automatically zeroed once a day.

Overview of Philo Plant Monitoring Program

There were six automatic S0_ monitoring stations which comprised the mo-
nitoring system in 1974.  These are shown on the map in Figure 4 and
their elevations, distances and bearings from the plant are listed in
Table 2.  Data was recorded for all of 1974 except the following:

                             Station Outages
           Station 1    First 91 days of year
           Station 4    First 91 days of year
           Station 6    Second  91 days of year    April-July

The monitoring system maintenance and data acquisition were performed by
Environmental Research and Technology in Lexington, Massachusetts.

The instruments were calibrated every 6 months  in Lexington and zeroed
every night  by computer.  These monitors were made by Malloy and have
the following specifications:

                    Malloy SCL  Sensor Specifications
           Range                           0-1  ppm
           Sensitivity                     0.005 ppm
           Noise                         + 0.5  percent FS
           Response lag                  < 15 seconds
           Rise time  to 90 percent       < 30 seconds

                                  11

-------
           Fall time to 90 percent        < 30 seconds
           Precision                     + 1  percent FS
           Accuracy                      + 1  percent FS
           Zero drift                    ± 0.01  ppm/day
                                         + 0.02  ppm/3  days
           Span drift                    +0.01  ppra/day
                                         +0.02  ppm/3  days
           Linearity                     + 1  percent FS

Fuel Analysis

The following fuel analysis procedures were employed  for all three
plants.  Each barge of coal from a specific vendor was sampled during
the unloading process.  Analysis was performed on all  samples.  In the
process of determining the caloric value of the coal  by bomb calorimeter,
the bomb washings were titrated using tetra-hydroxyquionone to determine
the acid content which indicates the sulfur level. This is known as the
THQ colorimetric method and is a typical loaboratory  procedure practiced
by the Dayton Power and Light Company, the Ohio Power Company and the
American Electric Power System.  It has been shown to be in excellent
agreement with the standard ASTM method.  Average monthly sulfur content
of coal for all of 1973 was tabulated in the FPC-67 report.

On-Site Meteorological Measurements

The only type  of on-site meteorological data employed in this modeling
study was  the wind direction, which was used to identify upwind stations
for hourly estimates  of SO  background concentrations.  Meteorological
input data for  the Single Source Model was obtained from the nearest
surface and upper air weather stations.  The on , meteorological  instru-
mentation  at  the J. M. Stuart Plant was a Bendix-Friez wind speed and
direction  device, mounted 40 meters above  the ground  on the coal  stacking
tower.  Hourly atmospheric  stability  estimates were determined according
                                  12

-------
to a "Gustincss Classification" method.  These stabilities were not used,
however, in this particular modeling study.  There were two wind moni-
toring stations consisting of Bendix-Friez Aerovane wind speed and direc-
tion devices at the Muskingum Plant.  One station was located 33 meters
above ground at Beve;. ly, and the other at the Hackney S02 monitoring
station, where the wind monitors were located 22 meters above ground.
The data from Hackney was used in this study, as it .was higher and com-
mon to more stations, but Beverly data was used when the Hackney system
was not recording.  There were three meteorological stations at Philo:
    1.  Irish Ridge Upper - elevation 140 meters above plant base,
        (50 meters above ground).  This station monitored wind
        speed and direction, and temperature difference from the
        lower station.
    2.  Irish Ridge Lower - elevation 104 meters above plant base,
        (11 meters above ground).  This monitor measured wind speed
        and direction, and temperature.
    3.  Duncan Falls - elevation 14 meters above plant base, (6
        meters above ground).  Only wind speed and direction were
        recorded here.
The  •>' -strumentation system components included:

     •   Climet WD-012-IO Vane and WS-011-1 Anemometer
     •   Climet 015-2 and 3 Thermister
     •   Bendix T20-510072-6  3 blade Impeller

The  system was maintained by ERT.  The first 100 days of meteorological
data were not recorded for 1974.  The primary station for wind direction
measurements was Irish Ridge Upper.  If this station was not operating,
wind direction data was  taken  from  Irish Ridge Lower or Duncan Falls.
                                  13

-------
                              SECTION II
                        DATA BASE PREPARATION
DATA INPUT TO MODEL
Meteorological Data

Hourly surface observations from airport log sheets were keypunched onto
cards.  The airports were:

Plant
J. M. Stuart
Muskingum
Philo
Surface observations
airport
Cincinnati, Ohio
Huntington, W. Va. .
Columbus, W. Va.

Year
1973
1973
1974
Mixing heights
Airport
Dayton
Huntington
Dayton
The surface observations included:
                        •    station
                        •    date and  time
                        •    ceiling height
                        •    ambient temperature
                        •    wind direction
                        •    wind speed
                        •    percent cloud cover

Daily mixing  heights  from  radiosonde observations were  supplied  on  cards,
A few missing observations were  filled in  as  500 meters for minimum
mixing heights and  1000 meters  for  maximum mixing heights.
                                  14

-------
Figure 1 shows the locations of the airports and the plants.

PLANT PARAMETERS

The stack parameters are listed in Table 1 for the three plants.  The per-
cent sulfur from the fuel analysis is:
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Stuart % S
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.1
Muskingum % S
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.7
5.0
4.7
4.7
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.4
Philo 7. S
3.9
4.8
4.7
4.4
3.3
3.2
2.6
3.2
3.2
2.4
2.6
3.7
 These monthly average  percent  sulfur  values  were  applied  to hourly fuel
 consumption rates  to obtain hourly S02 emissions.

 J.  M. Stuart Plant

 An average annual  plant  capacity factor of 71.8 percent was found by
 averaging the factors  given for the three boilers in FPC-67 Schedule B
 line 20.   This capacity  was used to find the average stack exit velocity
 and temperature, by interpolating between the 50  percent  and 75 percent
 load figures given in  FPC-67.
                                   15

-------
Fuel consumption was keypunched from copies of the hourly fuel consump-
tion log computer printouts for each of the three boilers.   The copies
which were supplied were sometimes illegible and often had  data missing
due to computer equipment failure.  If an hourly consumption figure was
illegible but the individual loader components of this consumption were
readable, they were added to find the consumption.  If the  component
loadings were also missing or illegible, the readable hourly consumptions
were subtracted from the daily consumptions, and the remainder was used
to find the missing average consumptions.  If the daily consumption was
missing in addition an interpolation between the previous and next read-
able consumption figure was used.  There were a few instances, however,
where a good "guess" had to be used.  It is felt that any errors thus
encountered have an insignificant effect on the model output, but ques-
tionable cases were logged for future reference.

Muskingum Plant

The average stack exit temperature and velocity for the Munskingum Plant
were supplied by the Ohio Power Company.  Hourly values for generated
megawatts were keypunched for each unit from computer log sheets.  These
values were then multiplied by an average yearly conversion factor of
pounds of coal per net generated megawatt hour to find the hourly coal
consumption figure.  The conversion factors were:
                   Muskingum Unit 1  0.95 Ib/KWH
                             Unit 2  0.94 Ib/KWH
                             Unit 3  0.92 Ib/KWH
                             Unit 4  0.93 Ib/KWH
                             Unit 5  0.88 Ib/KWH

The generation data was checked by computer program iur data inconsis-
tencies and also checked against a tape of hourly gross generation data
supplied by the Smith-Singer Company.  Several errors were discovered
                                  16

-------
in the generation log sheets and the Smith-Singer tape,  and  have been
logged for future reference.

Philo Plant
The Philo Plant parameters were supplied by the Ohio Power Company and
are listed in Table 1.   Fuel consumption was calculated from 1974 hourly
gross generated megawatt data purchased on tape from Environmental Re-
search and Technology.   Ohio Power supplied conversion factors for 1973
hourly net generation data so new factors had to be calculated for 1974
gross generation data.

Philo Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
1973
1.23 Ib/KWH*
1.26 Ib/KWH*
1.11 Ib/KWH*
1974
1.376 Ib/KWH*
1.344 Ib/KWH*
0.983 lb/KWH+
RECEPTOR PARAMETERS

The J. M. Stuart receptor locations were measured from a USGS topogra-
phical map supplied by the Dayton Power and Light Company.  The Muskingum
and Philo receptor locations were supplied by the Ohio Power Company.  The
spatial parameters for these receptors are listed in Table 2.
MEASURED AMBIENT S02 CONCENTRATIONS
J. M. Stuart Plant

Ambient concentrations were keypunched from supplied copies of the mon-
itoring station network computer printouts.  All the data was readable,
 1973 conversion factors for net generation data.
 1974 conversion factors for gross generation data.
                                  17

-------
and missing data was entered as "999."  Wind data was  also included  on
these printouts.  Again,  missing data was entered as  "999" and  wind
direction during calms as "888."

Muskingum and Philo Plants

Ambient concentrations were supplied on tape from the  Smith-Singer
Company for the Muskingum Plant, and purchased on tape from Environmental
Research and Technology for the Philo Plant.
                                  18

-------
                               SECTION III
                         DATA REDUCTION METHODS

QUALITY CONTROL IN DATA MANAGEMENT

Wiu-r. keypunching and handling large volumes of data, Quality Contr.ro!  is
very important.  The data supplied in written form was keypunched with
the date and time preceding the measured values.  The keypunched cares
-./ere verified by re-keying them on a verifying machine or by reading
both the original and punched numbers.  A computer program  then decked
lor missing hours, cards out of chronological order, input  .';ia outs  de
iJints, and extreme changes between consecutive data values.  The cards
were stored on  tape with each record prefixed by  a plant co.le to prevent
the unlikely mixup of plant tapes.  All programs  which modify the dat.a
have •  Jl checking routines to assure that  they  read the correct data,
and the output  from each program  was spotchecked  by manual  calculations.
Previous experience with similar  programs and processing have also  con-
tributed to the overall Quality Control.

DATA FLOW  AND MODIFICATION

3. M.  Stuart Plant

Due  to the  similarity in  stack  parameters,  the  hourly  fuel  consumption  of
 all  three  boilers was added  together  to  yield  a total  hourly consumption.
 The  monthly  sulfur  content was  then multiplied  by this  con.-. - ,.  .. .TV  and  a
 conversion coefficient  to  yield  the hourly  sulfur dioxide  emission  rate
                                   19

-------
from the plant.  These data,  along with the Cincinnati meteorological da-
ta, were used in the Single Source Model to predict hourly S02 concen-
trations.  Local S0? concentration measurements and on site wind direc-
tion data was used to estimate hourly background concentrations.  The
background was assumed to be the average of thos'- concentrations from
stations outside of a 90° sector centered about the wind flow vector, as
measured by the plant wind vane.  This average background concentration
was subtracted from the concentration measurements for all stations for
that hour.  Any negative concentration values resulting from the back-
ground subtraction were set equal to zero.  In the case of missing data
or calms, the last recorded wind direction was assumed to persist until
a station reported a concentration over 0.1 ppm, in which case the wind
was assumed to blow towards that station until a wind direction was re-
corded or another station reported a concentration over 0.1 ppm.  The
resultant concentration measurements, corrected for background were then
processed by a cumulative frequency program and plotted by computer.

Muskingum Plant

The source data available for  the Muskingum Plant  existed  in a  format
different from that used for Stuart,  in that,  instead of hourly coal
tonnage  figures,  only hourly generation figures could be obtained.  These
hourly  load values were  then converted  to  a  fuel consumption rate  for
each  boiler by means of  a set  of  conversion  constants supplied  to  us by
the utility.   Hourly SO  emission rates were  then  obtained  from monthly
percent  sulfur values.   Emission  rates  for boilers 1-4 were combined
since they  feed  into a common  stack.   Boiler  5 was treated  as  a separate
source.   The  model  application and background subtraction  procedures were
identical  to  those  used  for  the Stuart  Plant.
                                  20

-------
 Philo Plant

 Since all  three  stacks had different  parameters,  they were  treated  as
 three separate sources.  The hourly generated megawatt data was converted
 to  an S02  emission  rate by the  following procedure.  A program was  written
 to  total the megawatts per year per unit.  The tons coal per year per
 unit  figure was  divided by the  total megawatts per year to find an  aver-
 age conversion coefficient of pounds coal per gross kilowatt.  The  SO
 emission rate was this coefficient multiplied by  the hourly megawatts and
 the monthly percent sulfur in the coal.

 The plant wind direction data for background subtraction was chosen in
 the following way.  The wind direction was taken from Irish Ridge Upper
 since  it was the highest station.   If that data was not recorded it was
 taken  from Irish Ridge Lower and if that data was not  recorded it was
 taken  from Duncan Falls.   If that  data was not recorded it  was filled in
as  '999.'  Since the first  100 days were missing they  were  ell listed as
 '999,  ' so that the alternate background subtraction technique,  described
during our  discussion of  the Stuart Plant data reduction, was  employed.
                                21

-------
                                SECTION IV
                         MODEL VALIDATION PROCEDURE

MODEL DESCRIPTION

The diffusion model used in this validation study was a gaussian type
model developed by EPA Division of Meteorology.  The code (known as
CRSTER) was written to calculate maximum daily concentration of S02 for
a year, meteorological conditions which can lead to these maxima, and
hourly and daily concentrations for an array of receptor locations.
These concentrations are written on tape for the 252 receptor positions
situated at each of 36 directions from the source and seven different
distance ranges (as was the case for the J. M. Stuart Plant).  The model
can handle from 1 to 19 sources but treats all of them as if they were
at the same physical location.

Meteorological input to the model consists of hourly surface observations
of wind speed (knots), wind direction sector (1-36), temperature (°F),
total cloud cover (tenths), and twice daily mixing depths (meters).
The format for most of these data is that used by the National Climatic
Center for WBAN-144 hourly surface observations.  These data are input
into a preprocessor program which in turn writes a tape containing hourly
values of stability index, mixing height, temperature, windspeed, flow
vector (wind direction plus 180°), and randomized flow vector.  The ran-
domized flow vector is equal to the flow vector minus '. uegrees plus a
random number between 0 and 9 degrees.  The preprocessor output tape is
then read by the Single Source Model which performs the actual concen-
tration calculations.
                                  22

-------
The preprocessor program generates hourly mixing depths from the twice  -
daily mixing depth measurements according to the interpolation scheme
lor rural areas given in the Single Source Model in the Interim User's
      4
Guide.   Hourly stabilities are determined according to the system given
by Turner  employing Pasquill's classification scheme with the addition
of a stability class 7 (i.e., G) for which the assumption is made that
the plume does not reach the ground.  Wind speeds u  measured at instrument
height h  (7 meters is common for weather stations) are adjusted by means
of a stability dependent power law (u = u  (h/h ) ) to correspond to values
one would expect at the stack height h.  Plume rise is calculated on an
hourly basis using the method of Briggs.   If the plume rise calculation
indicates that the plume axis will rise above the mixing layer, then a
zero concentration contribution is specified.  If the final height plume
is below the top of the mixing layer, the presence of the top of the
layer is accounted for by the introduction of image plumes  to satisfy
the zero flux conditions at ground level and at the top of the mixing
layer.
Source input to the Single Source Model may possess several degrees of
temporal resolution.  In the seasonal version of the model an annual
average S00 source strength is specified along with monthly variation
factors.  In addition to the seasonal factors, the diurnal version of the
model employs hourly emission variation factors for each month of the
year.  A modification made to the model used in our validation study
allowed actual hourly source strengths to be utilized.  A second modi-
fication made to the model allowed actual receptor elevations to be
accounted for.

VALIDATION RESULTS

The model results were plotted by computer with the actual measured con-
centrations and background subtracted measured concentrations for 1, 3,
and 24-hour concentrations.  The plots are shown for:
                                  23

-------
            Stuart Plant in Figures 5 through 28
            Muskingum Plant in Figures 29 through 43
            Philo Plant in Figures 44 through 64.

The ninety-fifth percentile, ninety-ninth percent lie,  second highest,  and
highest concentrations were calculated and listed for:

            Stuart Plant in Tables 3 through 5
            Muskingum Plant in Tables 6 through 8
            Philo Plant in Tables 9 through 11.

Average 24-hour concentrations were included in the frequency distribu-
tions only  if data for each hour was available.  In the calculation of
running three hour average concentrations, those hours with no concentra-
tion measurement were not  included in the average, so that for each hour
an average  was computed unless data for that hour and the two preceding
hours was missing.

Stuart Plant Validation Results

The most  striking feature  of  the  comparison between frequency distribu-
tions of  measured  and  calculated  S02  concentrations is the rather poor
agreement for  low concentrations.  This discrepancy is due primarily  to
errors  associated with the background  subtraction technique which does
not provide for  spatial variation in  hourly  background concentration.
For the high concentration end of the frequency distribution, the model
came  much closer to  predicting the actual 1-hour concentrations  than  the
 3-hour  and  24-hour concentrations.   It  overpredicted  for  three  stations,
 underpredicted for three  stations,  came very close  at  one static",  and
came  very close  to predicting the combined  data from  all  stations.  Over-
 or underpredicting does not seem to be correlated with station  elevation
 or direction,  though there is some correlation with distance  as seen  in
 Table 13.  Overpredicted  stations are over 5 km from  the  plant  and
                                  24

-------
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
               GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
            •t *•  t»  »o   to  TO to so 40 10  10
      J.  M.  STURRT PLPMT
      CUMULflTIVE FREOUENCr
      DISTRIBUTION FOR   I HOUR
      502 CONCENTflflTlONS OT  STflTION I
       AMEflSUREO MINUS BfiCKCROUNO
       j.CflLCULflTEO
 o.oi 0.0* OJ «LI o.s i
               i   a   10  jo jo  «o w «o ro »o  *o
                PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure 5.  J. M.  Stuart plant cumulative frequency distribution
           for 1-hour S02 concentrations at station 1.  Number of
           measured concentrations • 8173; number of calculated
           concentrations - 8760

-------
                       0>
                       CO
                       to
                       i/y
K>
                    OC
                    cc
                    UJ
                    O

                    O
                    O
                       01
                       CD
                       03
                       10
                            »—i
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
                                     •)•> ?*  »s  «o   ae ro to so 40 so
                                             10   S   2  I O.S 02 O.I   001 O
      J.  fl. 3TUPPT
      CUMULflTIVC FflEQUENCY
      OlSTniBUTIQN  FCP  3 HOUR
      SOe CGNCENTflRTIGNS flT 3TRTIQN 1
       QMEP3UPEO   '
       AnEP3UpEQ MINUS BACKGROUND
       4.CRLCU(.RTFO
                            > * *•
                                  i  t
                       0.01 O.OSOIO2 O.S I  I
                                             10
                                                20 10  40 50 60 70  60  SO  *S
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                          t*  tt  »»• *9*
Figure 6.
                                  J. M. Stuart  plant cumulative frequency distribution
                                  for  3-hour  S02  concentrations at station  1.  Number  of
                                  measured concentrations s 8300; number of calculated
                                  concentrations  *  8760

-------
   oo-
O
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
                         SO
                            •0 TO CO SO «O SO tO
                                               10
                                                         i o.»  0.1 o.t
                                                                   o.oi
                                I  t
         J.  H. STURRT PLRNT
         CUMULflTlVE FREQUEMCT
         DISTRIBUTION FOR  2t HOUR
         502 CONCEMTRflTIONS  flT STflTION  1
          O
            nEflSURF.0
                     MINUS  BflCKCROUNO
           ^.COLCULATEO
    0.01 0.05 04 OZ 0» t
                                                                    »*.»
                   I   9  10   20  30 40 90  »0 70  to  »O
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
   Figure  7.   J.  M.  Stuart plant cumulative  frequency distribution
              for 24-hour SC>2 concentrations at  station 1.   Number of
              measured concentrations • 288; number of calcula ;ed
              concentrations • 365

-------
                                      PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                      GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                          MJ
                                   »» »•  IS
                                            »0
                                                •O  TO *0 SO «O SO  20
                      cn-
                      co-
  ID-

  10-
00
                   CO
                   31
                   \
                   O
                    Z«
                    O

-------
ro
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                         GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                   80  TO CO SO 40 JO  20
                               J. H. 3TUPRT
                               CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY
                               DISTRIBUTION  FOR  3 HOUfl
                               502 CONCENTPflTION3 fit 3TBTION Z
                                 QMEP3UPEO
                                 AMEPSUREO MINUS 8BCKG30UNO
                                 ..CflLCULRTEO
                           O.O1 O.OJ 0.» 0-2 0.$ 1  2
      10   10  SO «0 50  «0 TO  00  »0  »»  »•  •»  »t • »»»   »9.»

PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
  LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                            Figure  9.   J. M.  Stuart  plant cumulative frequency distribution
                                        for  3-hour  S(>2 concentrations at station 2.  Number of
                                        measured  concentrations = 1650; number of calculated
                                        concentrations - 8760

-------
                        cn-
                        oo-
                        (D-

                        ID
                         tn-
u>
o
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER  THAN INDICATED  VALUE

                                      »» «•  »s  *o  *o  TO co so 40 so zo   to
                                             1  I O.S OJ 0-1  O.OI
                          aw
J. M. STUflRT  PLflMT
CUMULATIVE:  FREQUENT
OISTRIBUTIOM  FOR  I* HOUR
S02 CONCEHTRftTlOMS OT 5TRTIOM 2
  OMEOSURED
  AMERSUREO MINUS BRCKCROUNO
                                                                                   •!*•
                                               10
                                                   ZO 30 10 SO  *0 TO  »0  »O  M  •• •*
                                                                                  tt.i Mlt
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                           LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                            -00
-in
                                                                                          ••.I
                       Figure 10.  J. M. Stuart  plant  cumulative frequency distribution
                                   for 24-hour S02  concentrations at station  2.   Number of
                                   measured concentrations = 60; number of calculated
                                   concentrations * 365

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
       »».! 1* I
                             •O  TO (O SO 40 10  20
                                                10
                                                          I O-S 02 O.I
   cn-
   . co-
in-
CO
O
o:
a:
   en
   00'
   tO
   in
LU
O <•">
O
         J. M. STUflRT  FLflMT
         CUMULATIVE  FREOUEMCT
         DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1 HOUR
         502 CONCENlTRflTlCWS flT  5TRTION 3
        AMEflSUREO MINUS BfiCKCROUNQ
        ^.CflLCULRT'ID
      <  I )  I—I—I	1	t-
  O.01 0.0* 0.1 OJ 0.9 1   2   5   10   20  90 40 90  $0 70  BO  »0  t}
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                       *«  tt
                                                              »! • »»»
                                                                     •*.*
  Figure 11.   J. M.  Stuart plant cumulative frequency distribution
               for  1-hour S02 concentrations at station 3.  Number of
               measured concentrations  =  8444;  number of calculated
               concentrations = 8760

-------
             PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
             GREATER THAN INDICATED  VALUE
    J.  M.  3TUPRT PLPNT
    CUtlULPTIVE FREQUENCY
    DISTRIBUTION FOP  3 HOUR
    502 CONCENTPPTION3 flT  3TPTION 3
     QMEP3UPEO
     AMEP3UPEO MINUS 8PCKCPOUNO
     J.CPLCUUPTCD
0.01 OOSOJU 0.» 1
              I   j  10   20 JO 40 SO  *0 70  (0
              PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                 *• •»
                                                       »»• »9.»
                                                              **.*
Figure 12.   J.  M.  Stuart plant cumulative frequency distribution
            for 3-hour S02 concentrations at station 3.   Number of
            measured concentrations « 8561; number ofcalculated
            concentrations - 8760

-------
                 PERCENTAGE OF  CONCENTRATIONS
                 GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
     »».» »*.•
                          •O TO CO SO 4O  JO 20
                                             to
 00-
 (0
 m
J. M. STUflRT PLflMT
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION FOR  2t HOUR
302 CONCENTRflTlONS  flT STflTION  3
  oM£flSURED
  AttEflSUREO MINUS BflCKCROUNO
  ^CALCULATED
                                               I O.S O2 O.I
                                               II  II
                                                                o.oi
                                                                   CD
to
in
   O.Ot O.OSOJ&Z
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                    LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure 13.  J. M. Stuart plant cumulative  frequency  distribution
            for 24-hour S02 concentrations at  station 3.   Number of
            measured concentrations  =  300; number of calculated
            concentrations * 365

-------
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
      **.» »» •
                            «o  ro co  so «o
                                           20
   cr>-
   oo-
   to-
   m
(0
O

-------
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
in
                              J. H. 3TUPRT  PLPNT
                              CUNULPTIVE FREQUENCY
                              DISTRIBUTION  FOP  3 HOUR
                              508 CGNCENTRHTION3  flT 3TR7ION
                                At1EP3UPEO MINUS BOCKGROUNO
                                ^.CPLCULflTEO
                          0.01 0 01 01 OJ 0.9
                                                                                 »9» 59 »
                                                                                         999
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

                         Figure 15.  J. M. Stuart plant  cumulative frequency distribution
                                     for 3-hour S02 concentrations at station 4.  Number of
                                     measured concentrations • 6935; number of calculated
                                     conce.-trations r 8760

-------
  o
       993 »»-•
                PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE

              »» »•  »»  »o   ao  TO co so 40 10  20   to
                                                          i o.* o.z 0.1  0.01
O
10-

1/1-
o
Z)
o
(X
oc
CT>-
OP-
r—-
co-
1/1-
LU
o =»H
2
O 2  concentrations at station 4.  Number  of
             measured concentrations  - 250; number of calculated
             concentrations - 365

-------
  o
  o-
   {O.

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
       »».» »» f
                »» 9«   9»
                             60  TO SO SO 4O JO  ZO
                                                
-------
  O
CO
   to-
   «/•»-
   =>•-

   n-
                PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                GREATER  THAN INDICATED  VALUE

                *•  «   *0  M  70 CO »0 40 SO 20  IO
                                                      2  I O» O-2 OJ  O.OI
                                                                   >.OI O
       J.  M.  5TUORT PLONT
       CUMULflTIVE FREOUENCT
       OISTRIBUTIOfJ FOR  »* HOUR
       502 CONCENTRflTIONS  flT STflTICN  S
                                                                     -CO
•10
        AH£fl3UREO MINUS  BflCKCROUNO
         . CflLCULflTEO
        -»—t
     O.O1 O.OSOJA2 a> 1
                                                     »•
                                                                   99.»
Figure 19.
                 2   J   10  ZO 30  4O JO «0 70  *0  »O  »»
                  PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE .
               J.  M.  Stuart plant cumulative frequency distribution
               for 24-hour SC>2 concentrations at station 5.   lumber  of
               measured concentrations  s  295; number of calculated
               concentrations s 365

-------
00-
r~.
to-
O
   ta
   in
    O.OSOIAI o.» t
                                            »o
                   a   »   10  20  »o 2 concentrations at station 6.  Number of
                  measured concentrations  *  8334; number of -calculated
                  concentrations =  8760

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER  THAN INDICATED  VALUE
  "O
       **.* »» 9
                »» 98  93  »O  »0  TO *0  SO 40 SO *O
                                                to
   01-
   co-
   ta
   m
O
ID
   CJ-
cc
cc.
   P--
   <£>
   IO.
o =«••
•z.
O o
O
         J.  H. 3TUPRT
         CUMULRTIVE  FPEOUENCY
         DISTRIBUTION  FOR  3 HOUR
         303 CONCENTRATIONS flT  3TRTION 6
          0MEP3UREO
          AȣflSUREO MINUS BflCKGROUND
          ^.CflLCULRTED
        -»—*—*-
                 >  i
     e.ot o.o» 0.101 o.» i
                   i   »   10  10 10 40 1O  (0 TO  8O  >0
                    PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                    »5
                                                       ft *»
                                                              • *.• 19 •
    Figure  21.   J.  M.  Stuart plant cumulative  frequency distribution
                 for 3-hour SC>2 concentrations  at  station 6.   Number of
                 measured concentrations = 8403; number of calculated
                 concentrations • 8760

-------
                       oo-
                       to-
                       tn-
                    CO
                    z:
to
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                    t* »•  •»
                                             90   iO  TO «0 SO 40 JO  ZO   10
                                                                           I  I 0-» at 04  0.01
J. M. STUBRT  PLflNT
CUMULflTIVE  FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION  FOR ™ HOUR
502 CONCENTRATIONS flT STftTIOM 6
  0ME05UREO
  AMEB5UREO MINUS BflCKCROUND
  .COLCULflTEO
-co
-r~
-to
-\n
                            aotaiai o.» t  a
                                                  20
                                                                           M *»   »»•• ML*   **.»
                       Figure 22.
                        30 40 SO «O 70  M  »0
           PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
             LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

      J. M. Stuart  plant  cumulative frequency distribution
      for 24-hour S02 concentrations at station 6.  Number of
      measured concentrations * 300; number of calculated
      concentrations *  365

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
  O
       •».» *» t
                             •0  70 CO 50 40 SO 10
                                                10
                                                          I O.S  0201
                                                                    O.OI
   cn-
   oo
   cr>-
   =r
cn
31
v.
O
t- £
01 "'
01 ^
tU "*
-^- ID
LU
CJ 31
O
   o
   *—3L.
.). ft. 3TUPRT  PLRMT
CUMULflnVE  FREQUENC
DISTRIBUTION  FOR   1
502 COHCENTflflTIONS
  OMEPSUREO
  ^MEflSURED MINUS BflCKCROUNO
  ^.CflLCULflTEO
HOUR
T STflTIOW 7
        -i—i—»-
               i
     o.oi 0.010.102 o.s i
                                                                     «».*
                   I   i   10   2O V) 40 JO  60 70  80  «0  15  *• »»
                    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
   Figure  23.   J.  M.  Stuart plant cumulative frequency  distribution
                for 1-hour S02 concentrations at station 7.   Number of
                measured concentrations = 3715; number of calculated
                concentrations =  8760

-------
      99 » '
cr>
CD
P--
(O-
\ri
   cn-
O
ID
CC
cc.
UJ
CJ
z:
O
O
CD-
CO
r-
to~
                  PERCENTAGE  OF  CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER  THAN  INDICATED VALUE
       I     99 98   95  90
       -t	1  4 I	1	1	
                               7O SO SO <0 JO
                                                10
                                                         I O.S 0.2 0 1  O 01
          J. fl. 3TUPRT PLPNT
          CUMULPTIVE  FPEQUENCY
          01 STP I BUT I Qs- F3P  3 HOUR
              CQNCeNTHPTIQNS flT  STflTIQN  7
                       MINUS 8RCKCOOUNO
           + CPL.CU-.OTEO
          -4—1—4—»-
  0.01 0 OS 04 OJ 0.1 I
     Figure 24.
                                                         99 • »99
                 *    s  jo  zo  jo  «o so «o TO  ao  so
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
              J.  M.  Stuart plant  cumulative frequency distribution
              for 3-hour SC>2 concentrations at station 7.  Number of
              measured concentrations  =  3779; number ofcalculated
              concentrations « 8760

-------
                        00-
                      o
                      ID
                        O
Wn
                                        PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER THAN INDICATED  VALUE

                                      »9 «(  »5  »O  *O TO tO SO 40 1O 29
 t 0.4 O.2 O.J   O.OI
-(	1  t  I	
                               J.  M.  5TUPRT PLRNT
                               CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
                               DISTRIBUTION FOR  2* HOUR
                               S02 CONCENTRATIONS flT  STflTION 7
                                                                                           CT>
                                                                                           -00
             -ID

             -IT)
                                AMEfl5URED MINUS BflCKGROUND
                                ^.CflLCULRTEO
                o
                ZD
                                                                                              O
                                                   20  X) 40 JO  tO 70  «0
                                                                     »0  ti
                                                                            I*  •»
                                                                                  »».• Ml*
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                           LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                       Figure  25.   J. M.  Stuart plant cumulative  frequency distribution
                                    for  24-hour S02 concentrations  at  station 7.   NrT.ber of
                                    measured  concentrations =  130;  number of calculated
                                    concentrations • 365

-------
   CD-
   00-
   tr>-
cn
o
ID
o
en
oc
er>
05
i—
10-
LU
O
O
   ru
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
       M.» ** I
        I  I	h
                  M   »5  90   »0 70 CO SO 40 JO  2O
                                               10
      J.  M.  STUflFU PLflMT
      CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY
      DISTRIBUTION FOR   I  HOUR
      502 COMCEMTRRTION5  PT flLL STflTIONS
       AMER3URED MIMUS  BflCKGROUNO.
       ^.CflLCULflTEO
         ( -- I
                         -4 O
  AM 04*0404 0-» 1
                   I   1   10  JO JO  «O JO iO 70 BO
                    PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                »0
                                                         »»
                                                             »(• *».»
                                                                    **•
      Figure 26.  J. M. Stuart  plant cumulative frequency distribution
                  for 1-hour S02  concentrations at all stations.   Number
                  of measured concentrations = 45,512; number  of  cal-
                  culated concentrations • 61,320

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER  THAN INDICATED  VALUE
       »».»
                   9«  93   90  ao  70 60 SO 40 JO 20
                                                IO
   CO.
   r*.
   to
   n-
O
ID
O
ee
a:
OD-
eo-

to-
to-

y-
O o-
o
            -4	1
       J. M.  3TUPPT PLPNT
      CUflULflTIVE FREQUENCY
      OI5TPI8UTION FOP  3 HOUR
      5QZ  CaNCENTRRTION3 flT  FILL 3TRTION3
           AMEP3UPEO MINUS 8PCKGROUNO
           4.CPLCULRTEO
    0,01 0.0} U OJ 0.4 I
                   *   3  10   JO  JO 40  30 60 70  60   90  »i  • 98 91   99 E »».»
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
    Figure 27.  J. M. Stuart plant  cumulative frequency distribution
                for 3-hour SC>2  concencrations at all stations.  Number
                of measured concentrations « 46,065; number of cal-
                culated concentrations  = 61,220

-------
*«
00
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                       en
                       GO
                       CO

                       IT)
                            w.i »» •
                           —i—i—»-
                  »3
                         •O 70 tO tO 40 JO  20
                                            10
                                                      1 O.S 0.2 0.1
                                                                0.01
o
     J. M.  STUflRT PLPMT
     CUMULflTlVE: FREQUENCr
     DISTRIBUTION FOR  2t HOUR
     502 CONCENT RflHONS  flT ALL STflTIONS
                               AMEfiSUREQ MINUS  BflCKCROUNO
                               +CfiLCULflTED
     ~*—'—'—»-
0.01 0,01 OJ(U O.S  I  I   4  10   20  SO 40 50 *0 70  »0   »0

               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                                           -co
                                                                                           -r—
                                                                                           -in

                                                                                           -3-
                                                                   ro
                                                                       ts
                                                                           t* ••  It* ML*
                                                                                         **.»
                       Figure  28.   J.  M.  Stuart plant cumulative frequency distribution
                                    for 24-hour S02 concentrations at all stations.
                                    Number of measured concentrations s 1623; number  of
                                    calculated concentrations  *  2555

-------
                  PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER THAN INDICATED  VALUE
       »t.t
                »9 »•
                     »»
                            •0 TO tO SO 40 SO
                                               19
   CD
   CD-
   la-
   in-
   n-
o
>- £~
£'
,_ io-
2 m-
LU
O =
O tn-
                                                i 0.1  0.2 01   ooi O
                                                H  )   t	1	1-*""
MU5KINGUM RIVER  PLflNT
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1  HOUR
508 CONCENTRflTIONS flT STflTlON  I
                     MINUS  BflCKGROUND
          ^.CfiLCULflTED
                                                             CD
                                                             CO
          n—i-
              -i
    O.Ol 0.0} OJ OJ 0 J I
                         10
                             20  JO 4O SO  60 TO  10
                                                      »e  »»
                                                            9S8 99 »
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

 Figure 29.  Muskingura River plant  cumulative frequency distribution
             for 1-hour  S02 concentrations at station 1.  Nurrber  of
             measured concentrations = 7356; number of calculated
             concentrations « 8760

-------
                                     PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                     GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
in
O
                                     RIVER  FLRNT
                           CUhULPTIVE FREQUENCY
                           DISTRIBUTION FOR  3 HOUR
                               CONCENTRATIONS f»T 3TRTION  I
                            0MER3UREO
                            At1EflSUPEO HIWU3  80CKGROUNO
                            j.CflLCULRTEO
                      o.oi
                                                                                      *»»
                      Figure 30.
   I  »  IO   20  JO 40 SO tO TO
    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

Muskingum River plant cumulative frequency distribution
for 3-hour S(>2 concentrations at station 1.  Number of
measured values s 7396; number of calculated values s 8760

-------
O
03-
r- -
43-
                PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
       »» •
                          •O  7O CO
                                    4O M  20
                                             10
           -»—I—I
                                                   2  I 0.1  0.2 O.I
                                                   III  II
                                                                00!
      MU5KINGUM RIVER FLflNT
      CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY
      DISTRIBUTION FOR 24 HOUR
      502  CONCENTflflTIONS OT  STfiTlON 1
        oMEflSUREO
        AMEflSUREO MINUS BfiCKGROUND
   0.01 0.0»OJOI 0.1 I  t
                                                    It •*   »»» »»»
O

en
CO
Figure 31.
                    S  10   ZO JO 40 50  80 TO  8O
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

            Muskingum River plant cumulative  frequency distribution
            for 24-hour S02 concentrations at station 1.   Number of
            measured values r 297; number of  calculated values = 365

-------
N>
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
                             I1U5KINGUM RIVER  PLflNT
                             CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
                             DISTRIBUTION FOR  1  HOUR
                             502 CONCENTRflTlCNS flT  STHTION 2
                               QMERSUREO
                               AMEOSUREO MINUS  BflCKGROUNO
                               .CflLCULflTlD
                         0.01 0.0»
-------
              PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
              GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
     fUJSKINGUM PIVEP PLRNT
     CUdULPTIVE FREQUENCY
     DISTRIBUTION FOP  3 HOUP
     302 CQNCENTPRTION3 flT  STfiTION 2
      ohEP3UPEO
      AMEP3UPEO MINUS BflCKGflOUNQ
      j-CRLCULRTEO
0.01 0.010.10.2 0.5 I  »   9  JO   20 30 4O SO 60 TO  BO  -»0
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE   .

Figure 33.  Muskingum River plant cumulative frequency distribution
            for 3-hour  S02 concentrations at station 2.  Number of
            measured concentrations  = 7740; number of calculated
            concentrations =  8760

-------
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
op-
r--
to-
      * 99. t
      t-H	1-
                          to TO CO >0 40 tO  tO
                         —I	1	1	H—»	1	•—
                                             to
t 0.1 0.2 at  0.01
ti   it
       MU5KIMGUM  RIVER PLfiNT
       CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY
       DISTRIBUTION  FOR 2U HOUR
       502 CONCEMTflflTIONS fiT STfiTlON  2
         oMEflSURED
         AHEfiSURED MINUS BflCKCROUND
         4.CflLCULfiTEO
      OAtOJOJ 0.1 I
                }   »   IO  20 SO  40 40 60 70
                 PERCENTAGE  OF  CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE .
             CO
             r-
             co
             10
                                                                  9*9
Figure 34.  Muskingum River plant  cumulative frequency distribution
            for 24-hour S02 concentrations at station 2.  Number  of
            measured concentrations  r 319; number of calculated con-
            centrations • 365

-------
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
  cn-
  CD
  co-
  in-
   (M-

21
LU
   ru
               »» *•
               —)	t—
                            •O  TO CO 90 4O SO  ZO
                                               10
MU5KINGUM R'VER  PLflNT
CUMJLflTI/£ FREQUENCT
DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1 HOUR
502 CONCENTRflTIONS flT STflTlON  3
  QMEfiSURED
  AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
  ^.CfiLCULflTEO
    O.M 0.05 01 M 0.» I
                                                  »3
                                                      «t »>
                                                            89 » »99
                                                                   9»*
                   I   5  JO   ZO  JO 4O 50  60 7O  BO
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
  Figure  35.  Muskingum River plant cumulative frequency distribution
             for  1-hour SOo concentrations at station  3.  Number of
             measured concentrations = 7765; number  of calculated
             concentrations = 8760

-------
O
T~i
oi-
       »».» 99 I
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE

                  98   S3  90   80  TO CO SO 4O SO  20
                                             IO
O
 io-
 =f-

 n-

 ra-
cr
a:
   01
   CO
   ta-
UJ
O 31
z
O r»
O

   CM
                    PIVEP PLPNT
         CUMULRTIVE FPEQUENCT
         DISTRIBUTION   OP  3 HQUP
             C3NCEMTRRTION3 flT 3TRTIQN 3
            .MER3UPEO  MINUS 8RCKGBOUNO
           ^.CPLCULRTEO
               •4—1—i-
    0.01 0.0*0402 O.S I
                 t   5  10  20  30 40 50 60  70 60
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                             99 • 99*
                                                                     999
  Figure  36.  Muskingum River plant cumulative frequency distribution
              for  3-hour 802 concentrations at station 3.  Number  of
              measured  concentrations = 7772; number of calculated
              concentrations = 8760

-------
      »».t 99 I
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE

                 »i  9J  *O   SO  70 CO SO 4O SO  10
  cr>
  
-------
   CO-
   to-
   in-
3C

O

z<
o
cc
a:
   en
   CD
   cr»
   in
O
Z
O
O
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
                »» *•  »»  »0   »O TO  «0 SO «O SO *O
                                               to
                                                      2  i as o.s o.i   o.oi
MU5KJMGUM  RIVER PLflNT
CUMULflTIVE  FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1 HOUR
502 COMCENTRflTIONS flT STOTION 4
          AMEflSUREQ MIUUS  BflCKGROUNO
     aoi aotwcu as i  >   »  >o   zo w 40 so  «o TO  so  »o  »»  •• ••  »»•• »»»   »»»
                    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE


   Figure 38.   Muskingum River plant cumulative  frequency distribution
                for 1-hour S02 concentrations at  station 4.  Number of
                measured concentrations  = 7769; number of calculated
                concentrations s 8760

-------
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
       flUSKINGUM RIVER  PLPNT
       CUMULPTIVE FREQUENCY
       DISTRIBUTION  FOR  3 HOUR
       303 CONCENTRATIONS flT 3TRTJON
                   MINUS  BPCKGPOUND
         j.CflLCULflTEO
   O.01 0-O> 04 03 0.»  I  X   5  10   20  3O 40 50  (O 70  80  »0
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE.

Figure 39.   Muskingum  River plant  cumulative frequency distribution
            for 3-hour S02 concentrations at station 4.   Nvmber of
            measured  concentrations  = 7775; number of calculated
            concentrations *  8760

-------
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                    O
»» X— k
O *».» *• • »> »• »5 tO 60 TO CO SO 40 M SO tO 9 * 1 O.S 0.1 0.1 0.01 V-*
, — . 	 . . ..... . 	 i 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 till 1 *•"
r--
\r>-
rj-
MUSKJNGUM RIVER PLflNT
CUMULRTIVE FREOUEMCY
DI5TRI8UTIOM FOR 24 MGUR
502 CONCENTRflTIONS flT STflTION 4
oM£flSURED
AMEfiSURED MINUS BfiCKGROUMD
+ CflLCULflTED

-co
-r~
-o
-in
-31
-fO
-r\j
CT*
o
                         o.oi 0.0} o^u a$ >
                                                                       »J
                                                                           tt t»
                                                                                            CO
                                                                                            o
I  »  10   10  >O 40 iO tO 70  §O  *0
 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
  LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                      Figure  40.   Muskingum River plant cumulative  frequency distribution
                                   for 24-hour S02 concentrations at  station 4.   Number of
                                   measured concentrations • 320; number  of  calculated
                                   concentrations = 365

-------
                  PERCENTAGE OF  CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER THAN  INDICATED  VALUE
       9».t 99 *
                99 98
                     95  90
                            «O 70 *0 SO 40 iO 20
                                               10
   CTi-
   OO-
   in-
fO
s:
\
o
   O

   m-
   CO-
cc
cc
UJ
O 3"
2
O CO
O
     MU5KINGUM RIVER PLfiNT
     CUMULHTIVE FREQUENCT
     DISTRIBUTION FOR   1  HOUR
     502 CQMCEhJTRflTIOMS RT  RLL STATIONS
      AMEfi5UREO MINUS  BflCKGROUND
      j.CfiLCULRTEO
                 -i  t
     0.01 0.0$ at u as i
                                                         99   ««» M9
               a   »   10  2O  90 40 50 60 70  10
                PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

Figure 41.  Muskingum River plant cumulative frequency distribution
            for 1-hour S02 concentrations at all stations.  Number  of
            measured  concentrations = 30,622; number of  calculated
            concentrations z  61,320

-------
                  PERCENTAGE  OF  CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER THAN  INDICATED  VALUE
                  flIVER
        CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY
        DISTRIBUTION FQfl  3 HOUR
        S02 CGNCENTRBTION3 flT  flLL STATIONS
                    HIKU3 8PCKCPOU»!Q
           CPLCULflTEO
   O.Ol 0.0»04O2 O.i 1
                        10
                           20 30  <0 30 60 TO «0
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                    LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

Figure 42.  Muskingum River plant cumulative frequency distribution
            for 3-hour S02 concentrations at all stations.   Number of
            measured concentrations = 30683; number of calculated
            concentrations = 35040

-------
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
     »t.t 9* f
                    95
                           60  7O CO 10  4O JO  2O
 CT>
 CO
 to-
 ro-
                                                1 0.3 0.2 0.1
                                               ->—I—-»—I—
                                                                 0.01
                                                                    o
MU5KINGUM RIVER  PLflNT
CUMULfiTIVE  FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION  FOR 24 HOUR
502 CONCENTRATIONS HT PLL  STflTlONS
  ^MEfiSUREO
  ^MEflSUREO MINUS BflCKGROUNQ
  .CflLCULOTEO
-03

-CO

-LO
   O.OJ O^SOJU 0.} 1
                                                 »»
                                                     S» *9
                                                           9K.3 40»
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure 43.  Muskingum River plant  cumulative frequency distribution
            for 24-hour SOo concentrations at all stations.  Number  of
            measured concentrations  = 1256; number of calculated
            concentrations «  1460

-------
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
               GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
      PHIIO PLflNT
      CUMULflTIVE FREOUEWCY
      DISTRIBUTION FOP   1 HOUR
      502 COfJCEWTRflTICWS flT  STflTION I
       oMEflSUREO
       AMEflSUREO MINUS 8RCKGROUMO
       4.CfllCULflTEO
 AM AMO104
Figure 44.
    I   9  10   20 »0  40 90 tO  70
    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution for
1-hour S02 concentrations at station 1.  Number of
measured concentrations = 4905; number of calculated
concentrations • 8760

-------
V/t
                      OD-
                      •
                    z
                    O tn
                    O
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                           99.9 fi 8
                                    99 98   »»
                                                 80  TO CO »O 40 SO  20
                                                                    to
                             fhlLO
                             CUMULPTIVE FPEQUENCY
                             DISTRIBUTION  FOR  3 HOUR
                             502 CQNCENTPflTIQN3 RT 3TRTION 1
                                ttEP3UREO  MINUS BACKGROUND
                         0.01 0.01O1OJ O.) t
                   I   »   JO   ZO JO *O iO  60 TO  60
                    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                              9»
                                                                                  >».6 99.9
                                                                                         S9.S
                        Figure 45.  Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution  for
                                    3-hour S02 concentrations at station 1.  Number  of
                                    measured concentrations = 4974; number of calculated
                                    concentrations  «  8760

-------
   cn
   oo
   co-
   in-
CO _

-------
  'o
      919 99*
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER  THAN INDICATED  VALUE
                99 98  »S   90  80 70 60 SO «0 JO ZO
   CD-
   CO-
   r--
   to-
   in-
o
   CJ-
 • (M
 ;  o
 _ 
     O.OJ 0-0*0.10-2 0.» 1  t
                          10
                             20  JO  40
                    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE   .

    Figure 47.  Philo plant  cumulative frequency distribution for
                1-hour  S02 concentrations at station  2.   Number of
                measured  concentrations r 7365; number  of calculated
                concentrations « 8760

-------
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
                              9» e
   CO-
   r--
   co-
   to-

   3--

   n-
00
CC
oc
                       01
                       eo
                       t£>
                       to
                    O =»••

                    O <-»•
                    O
                 99 98
                 >  t
                                          • 9
                                                 •O 7O CO JO 4O JO
                                                  I   I  I  I	1  1
20
-»—
 IO
-+-
                                                                               O.J 02 0.1
                             THRO
                             CUMULPTIVE FREQUENCY
                             OI3TPIBUTION FOP  3 HOUfl
                             502 CONCENTRATIONS PT  3TPTIQN 2
                                          MINUS BRCKCROUND
                           o.oso.iaa
                                       I   S  IO   20  50 40  SO 60 TO BO  »0

                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                         LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                       »S
                                                                           81 •*
                                                                                 *»• »9»
                        Figure 48.  Philo plant  cumulative frequency distribution  for
                                    3-hour S02 concentrations at station 2.  Number  of
                                    measured concentrations = 7584; number of  calculated
                                    concentrations  «  8760

-------
o
CJ
   IO
r>
    0.01
                    PERCENTAGE OF  CONCENTRATIONS
                    GREATER THAN  INDICATED  VALUE
          PHILO PLflWT
          CUMULPTIVF. FRF.QUF.NCT
          DISTRIBUTION FOR 24 HOUR
          502  COMCEMTflflTlQNS RT STflTIOuJ 2
           QMEflSURF.0
           A«EflSUfl£D MINUS 80CKCROUND
          *•• '  *   »   10  10  JO 40 50 60 70  60   >0
                PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE


Figure 49.  Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution  for
            24-hour S02 concentrations at station  2.  Number of
            measured concentrations = 216; number  of  calculated
            concentrations = 365
                                                                  »*.»

-------
  "o
   cn-
   co-
03-
in-
O
ID
cc
   CTi
   CO
UJ
O
   en
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                  9*   »J
                             70
         PHILO
         CUfiULOTIVE FREQUEMCY
         OISTRIBL'TIQW FC5R   1  HOUR
         502  CQNCEMTRflTIQNS  flT
          AM£flSUREQ MIMU5  8RCKGROUND
              -(—i-
     o.oi to) oa at as i
                             -H
                              30
                 S   5  10   tO  SO 40 40 60 TO  80

                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                »o
                                                       »«  t9
                                                             9*.*
                                                                    1.0. O
                                                                     »».*
   Figure 50.   Philo plant cumulative  frequency distribution  for
               1-hour S02 concentrations  at station 3.  Number  of
               measured concentrations -  7954; number of calculated
               concentrations  »  8760

-------
              PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
              GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                        60 TO 60 50 40 JO  20
          PLPNT
    CUMULPTIVE FREQUENCY
    DISTRIBUTION FOP  3 HOUR
    503 CGNCENTRPTION3 flT STflTION 3
      QMEP3UREO
      Ah£R3UR£0  MINUS BPCKGP8UND
      4.CPLCULOTEO
O.Ol O0» 0.102 0.» I  t   S   JO  ZO JO  40 iO SO TO  80  SO  SJ  S» »»  99 * 99.9
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED  VALUE

 Figure 51.   Philo plant  cumulative  frequency distribution for
             3-hour  S02 concentrations at station 3.   Number of
             measured  concentrations = 8053; number of calculated
             concentrations  =  8760

-------
                        ov
                        co-
                        (£>•

                        to-
                        cn-
fs>
                     O
                     cc
                     cc
o

ov
CQ
r~
<£)

U)
                     Z
                     O
                     O
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                     »» 98  »5  to   tO  7O (0 SO 40 JO  20   IO
                                                                                           *J__^
                                                                         5   2   I O.»  O.t O.I   0.01 O
      PHILO  PLRNT
      CUMOLPTIVE FREQUEMCT
      OI5TRIBUTIOM FOR 21  HOUR
      502  CQUCEMTRflTI^MS  HT  3TRTION  3
                         BflCKGROUND
                               AMEflSUREO
                                . CflLCULPTEO
                              t i
                          o.oi aos ixi O4i o.s i  *
                                                                                   S».» W-t
                                                                                          *»»
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                           LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE


                         Figure  52.   Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution  for
                                      24-hour S02 concentrations  at station 3.  Number of
                                      measured concentrations  *  289; number of  Calculated

                                      concentrations « 365

-------
  CD
  CO
  to
  in
o
ID
O
   CTJ
   CO
   r-
   CD
 O  zr
 Z
 O
 o
      99.9 »» i
         ^—t-
                  PERCENTAGE  OF  CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE

                99 9«  95  »0  »0 TO 60 5O 40 10  tO   1O
                                              2  «  O.i O 2 0 «  00)
         PHILO PLfiMT
DISTRIBUTION!  FOR  1 HOUR
502 COMCEMTRRTnNS flT  STflTIOM
  QMEflSUREO
  AMErtSUREO  MINUS BflCKGROUNO
                                                        9C »*
                                                              9».t »*»
                                                                      *».*
     0.01 0.05 WW 0.8 I  1   5   .0  20  JO  40 50 60 TO  30  90   95
                     PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

     Figure 53.   Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution for
                 1-hour SC»2 concentrations at station  4.   Number of
                 measured concentrations = 6156; number  of calculated
                 concentrations  -  8760

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
       tt.t ?i a
                  98   99  90
                             SO
                                  CO 50  40 30  ZO   10
                                                         10.) 0701  00!
CD-
CO-
r--
ID-
to-J
   n-
O
ID
O
cr
a:
   OS-
   CD-
         fHll-0 FLHNT
         CUMULflTIVE  FPEGUENCY
         OI5TPIBUTION FQO  3 HOUR
         302 CONCENTRftTI3N3 flT  3TflTIQN
           AMER3UREO  MINUS BflCKGROUNO
    0.01 0.03 OJ O2 Q.»
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED  VALUE

   Figure  54.  Philo plant  cumulative frequency distribution for
               3-hour  S02 concentrations at station 4.  Number of
               measured concentrations  s 6210; number of calculated
               concentrations  =  8760

-------
0>-
oo-
r~-
CD-
in-
:»•-
     *9.a
 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
 GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE

*•  tS  «0   iO 70 CO 50 40 10 XO
                                             to
                                            —»—
                                                     I 0.9 0.2 0.1
                                                               0.01
    PHILO. PLflMT
    CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY
    DISTRIBUTION FOR 24 HOUR
    502  COMCEMTRfiTIONS flT  3TOTION
      oMEflSUREO
      ^MEflSUREO  MINUS BflCKGROUNO
      ,CPLCULflTEO
                                                                  cn
                                                                  00
                                                                  r-
                                                                      CO
                                                                      2:
                                                                      \
                                                                      O
0.01
                                                   »3 »»
Figure 55.
             lit   »  10   zo so 40 so  60 70  ao  to
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE  .

              Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution for
              24-hour S02 concentrations  at station 4.  Nu-rfcer of
              measured concentrations = 231; number of calculated
              concentrations = 365
                                                                91*

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
       »».» 99 i
                      »J
   ov
   eo-
   r--
   CO
o
   fM-
f- «
^ r
CC r
t- 
                                                            05 » 99*
      Figure 56.   Philo plant cumulative  frequency distribution  for
                  1-hour SC>2 concentrations  at station 5.  Number  of
                  measured concentrations  =  7209; number of calculated
                  concentrations = 8760

-------
              PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
              GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
           PLPNT
    CUMULPTIVE  FREQUENCY
    DISTRIBUTION FOR  3 HOUR
    303  CONCENTRPTION3 PT 3TPTION  S
      QMEP3UOEO
      Af1Efi3UflEQ MINUS BflCKGROUNO
      j.CflLCULftTEO
0.01 Ml M Oi 0.» I
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure 57.   Philo plant  cumulative  frequency distribution  for
            3-hour SC>2 concentrations  at  station  5.  Number of
            measured  concentrations  =  7452; number of calculated
            concentrations  «  8760

-------
oo
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER  THAN INDICATED  VALUE
                           »».t >9 I
                                     99 *•
                                              9O
                                                 so  TO eo so 40 10 20
                                                                              I O.S 0.2 0.1
                       05-
                       OD-
                       03-
PHILO
CUMULHTIVE  FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION FOR 24 HOUR
    COMCEWTRflTIOrlS ^  STflTION S
                                          MINUS  BACKGROUND
                                 CflLCULfiTCD
                         0.01 O.OJOJOJ P.»  I  t   »  »0   ZO  »0 40 50 60 70  »O   »0
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

                         Figure 58.   Philo plant  cumulative frequency distribution for
                                      24-hour  S02  concentrations at  station  5.   Number of
                                      measured concentrations = 219; number  of  calculated
                                      concentrations  = 365

-------
       »».» 9* I
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                99 91   »i  90   SO  TO SO SO 4O SO  20
O
 CD-
 CO-

 to-
 ur

 =r-

 en


 r\j-



•b

 05
 CO
 I-
 co
 in
O
O
        THILO  PLfiMT
        CUMULATIVE: FREQUENCY
        OI5TRI8UTI0^4 FOR   1  HOUR
        502  COt'JCEMTRflTia.N.S  flT STflTlOM  6
          oMEflSUREO
          AMEflSUREO MIMU5 BflCKGROUKiO
           .CRLCULRTtO
        -t—i—•-
     o.ot 0.0101 cu o.» t
                                30  40 50  «0 70  6O
                                                90  95
                                                             99i S59
                   I   5   10
                    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

    Figure 59.   Philo plant cumulative  frequency distribution for
                 1-hour S02 concentrations at station 6.  Number of
                 measured concentrations  = 4882; number of  ca .culated
                 concentrations  =  8760

-------
                                      PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                      GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
                          **.* »9 a
                                   93 98   »3  90   60 TO  SO 50 40 10 ZO  10
oo
o
                            PHILO PLRNT
                            CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
                            DISTRIBUTION FOR  3 HOUR
                            302 CONCENTRATIONS flT STflTION 6
                                         HINU3 BRCKGROUI4Q
                               CflLCULflTEO
                        0.0! 0 05 01 « 0.*
      10   20
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
  LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                        Figure 60.  Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution  for
                                    3-hour S02 concentrations at station  6.  Nunber  of
                                    measured concentrations r 5012; number of  calculated
                                    concentrations = 8760

-------
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                         GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
                             tf .* »* •
                                       1* *•
                                                    •0 70  CO SO 4O JO 20
                         r--
                         to-
                         in-
                          (V-
oo
                                                 i 0.5  o.t o.i
                                                 4	1	1—H-
PMILO PLPWT
CUMULflTIVE  FREQUENCY
OISTRIBUTIOhJ FOR £14 HOUR
soe cofJCErnRfiTiaws nr  STRTIOW 6
                                 AMEflSUREQ MIUU5 BRCKGROUNO
                                 4.CflLCULfiTEQ
                                                                                          o.oi
                           aot aotatoit at i
                                          Z   5  10   10  JO <0 50 «0 70  00   K)

                                          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                            LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                             »• *»
                                                                                    •».* »».»
                         Figure  61.   Philo plant cumulative  frequency distribution  for
                                      24-hour S02 concentrations  at station 6.  Number of
                                      measured concentrations  =  157; number of calculated
                                      concentrations = 365

-------
                                        PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
o>
ro
                              PHILO PLflNT
                              CUMULRTIVE FREQUF.NCT
                              DISTRIBUTION!  FOR  1  HOUR
                              5C2  C3MCENTRRTIOMS flT flLI STATIONS
                                           MINUS BfiCKGRQUNO
                                 CfiLCULfiTEO
                          0.01 0.05 OJ 0-J O.S
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

                         Figure 62.  Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution for
                                     1-hcur S02 concentrations at all stations.  Number of
                                     measured concentrations = 38471; number of calculated
                                     concentrations « 52560

-------
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER THAN  INDICATED  VALUE
00
                                     99 98   »»  9O   80 TO CO SO 4O JO 20
                              PhlUO PLPNT
                              CUHULflTlVE FREQUENCY
                              DISTRIBUTION  FOR  3 HOUR
                              502 CQNCENTRflTIONS OT fiLL 3TRTION3
                                          MINUS BACKGROUND
                                +CflLCULflTED
                         o.oi o.o»oioi as
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE.

                         Figure 63.  Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution for
                                     3-hour S02  concentrations at all stations.   Number of
                                     measured concentrations  = 39,285; number of calculated
                                     concentrations  = 52,560

-------
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
                            »».» !*•
                                     »•
oo
                              PHILO PlflNT
                              CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY
                              QISTBlBUTIOfJ FOR  34 HOUR
                              502 COMCENTRflTIOMS flT flLL STflTIOMS
                                          MIMU5  BflCKGROUNO
                                 COLCULflTEO
                         O.O1 OAS OJ ftl 0.5 1  t   5   1O  2O  JO 40 50 60 70  60
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

                         Figure  64.  Philo plant cumulative frequency distribution for
                                     24-hour  S02 concentrations at all stations.  Number of
                                     measured concentrations = 1290; number of calculated
                                     concentrations  =  2190

-------
Table 3.
                  J.  M.  STUART  PLANT  1-HOUR CONCENTKATTON DISTRIBUTION
                  STATISTICS FOR MEASUREMENTS AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All
Ninety-fifth
percentile*
Mb
140
80
lit
53
28
43
33
59
Pc
< 10
< 10
26
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
Ninety-ninth
perccntile8
M
270
445
200
180
80
ns
102
220
P
400
180
240
130
< 10
120
30
151
Second
highest
M
685
685
1022
750
495
980
325
1022'J
P
1372
814
565
515
823
595
976
n/?d
Highest
M
857
1014
1153
883
565
1053
'OS
3153
P
1393
948
1022
541
1219
693
1000
1393
            "Percent lie  values given In terms of cumulative percent of concentra-
            tions less than given values.

            Pleasured concentrations with subtracted  background.

            cPredicted concentrations.
            dHighest concentration not exceeded  more  than once per year by any given
            station.

Table 4.   J. M.  STUART PLANT 3-HOUR CONCENTRATION  DISTRIBUTION STATISTICS
            FOR MEASUREMENTS AND MODEL  VALIDATION

Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All
Ninety-fifth
percentile*
Mb
130
55
80
58
30
50
36
65
PC
11
15
50
10
< 10
< 10
< 10
13
Ninety -ninth
percentile*
M
270
420
160
150
83
130
120
190
P
260
330
140
110
53
107
100
150
Second
h i ghe s t
M
471
483
567
448
419
772
235
772d
P
762
415
355
315
415
275
505
762d
Highest
M
611
788
1048
883
470
981
389
1048
P
763
575
395
395
455
355
875
875
              "percentile  values given in terms of cumul.itivr f- _,...t of con-
              centrations  less than  given v'1
              Measured  concentrations with subtracted  background.
              'predicted .. onccntrat ions.
              Highest concentration not exceeded mor^.  '.nan once per year by
              any given  station.
                                         85

-------
Table 5.   J.  M.  STUART PLANT, 24-HOUR  CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION
            STATISTICS  FOR MEASUREMENTS  AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All
Ninety-fifth
percent lie*
Mb
83
46
50
40
31
42
45
47
PC
55
28
36
24
5
21
23
21
Ninety-ninth
percenttle*
M
245
160
110
63
52
133
69
115
P
128
52
75
41
50
46
60
63
Second
highest
M
25°
63
181
79
63
147
69
259d
P
149
75
91
45
3;
69
73
149d
Highest
M
277
159
225
83
77
195
77
277
P
161
98
102
49
75
83
120
161
        Percentilc values  given In terms of cumulative percent  of concen-
       trations  less than  given value*.

        Measured concentrations with subtracted background.

        Predicted concentration*.

        Highest  concentration not  exceeded  more than once per year by any given
       etation.
         Table  6.   MUSKINCUM PLANT, 1-HOUR  CONCENTRATION
                     DISTRIBUTION STATISTICS  FOR
                     MEASUREMENTS AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN
                                (yg/m3)
%
Station
1
2
3
A
All
Ninety-fifth
percentile*
Hb
27
57
130
72
72
c
P
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
Ninety-ninth
percentile*
M
150
270
350
200
250
P
160
150
210
160
180
Second
highest
H
857
786
996
735
996d
P
r 0
1304
873
465
1304d
Highest
M
925
786
1179
786
1179
P
1083
1310
933
6A5
1310
        Percentile values given  in teras  of cumulative percent of concentra-
       tions less than given valuea.

        Measured concentrations with subtracted back1"1"* " •*
        Predicted concentrations.

        Highest concentration  nor
       given station.
e-i wore than once per year by any
                                 86

-------
   Table 7.   MUSKINCUM PLANT,  3-HOUR  CONCENTRATION
               DISTRIBUTION  STATISTICS  FOR
               MEASUREMENTS  AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN
Station
1
2
3
4
All
Ninety-Fifth
percent llea
Hb
28
70
130
71
73
PC
< 10
< 10
12
22
12
Ninety-Ninth
percentile*
M
130
225
325
170
225
P
180
150
150
100
UO
Second
highest
M
696
489
803d
410
803d
P
555
615
465
265
625d
Highest
M
823
489
838
707
838
P
645
625
495
285
645
   Percentile values given in terms of cumulative percent  of concen-
  tration.-, less thnn given values.
   Measured concentrations with  subtracted background.
   Predicted concentrations.
   Highest concentration not  exceeded more than once per year by
  any  given station.
  Table  8.   MUSKINGUM PLANT,  24-HOUR CONCENTRATION
             DISTRIBUTION STATISTICS FOR
             MEASUREMENTS AND  MODEL  VALIDATION RUN
                          (Mg/m3)
Station
1
2
3
4
All
Ninety-fifth
percentile*
Mb
32
55
98
52
66
Pc
32
32
31
24
28
Ninety-ninth
percent!!*"
M
100
100
130
95
120
P
69
80
58
41
66
Second
highest
M
133
131
165
109
170d
P
81
82
73
45
91d
Highest
M
170
137
227
115
227
P
97
91
74
47
97
                              of cimul'tive
b
 Measured concentrations with subtracted background.
 Predicted concentrations.

TUgheac concentration not exceeded more than once per year by any
given station.                                          '  '
                             87

-------
   Table 9.   PHILO  PLANT,  L-HOUR CONCENTRATION
               DISTRIBUTION STATISTICS  FOR MEA-
               SUREMENTS AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
All
Ninety-fifth
percentile"
Mb
50
37
47
27
35
118
53
PC
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
80
20
< 10
Ninety-ninth
pcrcentile«
M
170
163
163
190
134
253
183
P
98
222
920
88
555
650
443
Second
highest
M
525
735
745
665
575
565
745d
P
1295
945
4049
1945
1279
2369
4049d
Highest
M
893
891
917
695
675
595
917
P
1639
1059
4593
1981
1344
2482
4593
aPercentile values given  in terms of cumulative percent of concentra-
tions less than given values.
 Measured concentrations vith subtracted background.
Predicted concentrations.
 Highest concentration not exceeded more than once per year by any
given station.
   Table  10.   PHILO  PLANT,  3-HOUR CONCENTRATION
                DISTRIBUTION STATISTICS  FOR MEA-
                SUREMENTS AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN
                                (ug/m3)
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
All
Ninety-Fifth
percent lie*
Mb
51
39
44
34
35
100
53
Pc
< 10
28
111
< 10
130
110
57
Ninety-Ninth
percentllea
M
160
180
140
160
130
220
160
P
179
182
765
225
343
475
370
Second
highest
M
312
490d
451
377
399
381
490d
P
735
515
2572
1264
900
1175
2572d
Highest
M
466
70S
567
509
422
414
708
P
818
545
2572
1361
1078
1664
2572
 Percent lie values given  in terms  of cumulative percent of con-
centrations less than given values.
b
 Measured concentrations  with subtracted background.

 Predicted concentrations.

 Highest concentration not exceeded more than  once per year by
any given station.

-------
    Table  11.  PHILO  PLANT,  24-HOUR CONCENTRATION
                DISTRIBUTION  STATISTICS  FOR MEA-
                SUREMENTS AND MODEL VALIDATION RUN

Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
All
Ninety-fifth
percent il >.a
Mb 1
45
35
44
41
23
65
45
Pi:
29
39
143
47
81
107
73
Ninety- tirst
frarcentilo
M
134
60
92
60
78
121
116
P
139
69
368
111
207
217
207
Second
highest
M
132
67
127
62
87
121
132d
P
133
86
471
165
222
282
471d
HI shea t
M
133
110
132
158
94
138
158
P
147
104
541 '
220
226
356
541
APercentlle values given  in terms  of cumulative percent of concentra-
 tions less than given values.

^Measured concentrations  with subtracted background.

CPr«dicted concentration.

 Highest concentration not exceeded more than once per year by «ny
 given station.
                          89

-------
Table 12.   RATIOS OF MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND TO PREDICTED
           1-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
Plant
Canal



Stuart






Muskingum



Philo





Station
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Highest
1.55
3.45
1.44
1.33
0.62
1.07
1.13
1.63
0.46
1.52
0.44
1.08
0.77
1.00
1.39
0.54
0.84
0.20
0.35
0.50
0.24
Second
highest
1.72
3.18
1.00
1.35
0.50
0.84
1.80
1.46
0.60
1.65
0.33
1.12
0.80
1.08
1.40
0.41
0.78
0.18
0.34
0.45
0.24
Ninety. -ninth
percentile
16.8
72.0
9.0
31.0
0.68
2.47
0.83
1.38
8.0
1.13
3.4
7.5
1.29
1.17
1.00
1.73
0.73
0.18
2.16
0.24
0.39
                            90

-------
 underpredicted stations  are  under  5  km  away,  but  the  model  came  closest
 to predicting the farthest stations  from  the  plant  -  No.  3,  at 13  km.
 The 24-hour concentrations were  generally underpredicted  by  the  model
 except for Station 7 which it  overpredic«-c;a and Station 5 which  it pre-
 dicted very closely.  The predicted  and calculated  running  three-hour
 averages  are in reasonably good  agreement for the upper end  of the dis-
 tribution.  Four stations were underpredicted and,three were overpredicted

 Muokingum Plant Validation Results

 The highest predicted 1-hour concentrations closely agreed with  the mea-
 sured  concentrations for the Muskingum Plant.  Stations 1 and 4  were under-
 predicted.  Station 2 was overpredicted and Station 3 was very closely
 predicted, as  was  the combination of all-stations.  Station  2 showed close
 agreement between  measured and predicted  values for the 3-hour and 24-hour
 concentrations,  but all other  stations were underpredicted.  As  can be
 seen from Table 13, there appears to be a correlation between the  ratio
 of  the second  highest measured to predicted 1-hour  concentration and the
 plant-receptor distance, but due to  the small number of stations no
 statistical significance could be attached to this  result.

 Philo  Plant Validation Results

 Predicted  1-hour,  3-hour, and  24-hour concentrations were found  to exceed
 the  corresponding measured values at each  of  the six measurement stations.
Only at station  2 were the model predictions reasonably close to the mea-
 sured  values.  At  stations 3 and 6 this overprediction may be directly
 traced to  the  fact that the receptor is located at an elevation close to
 that of the top of the stacks.   Since the  model accounts for the effect of
 terrain by reducing the stack height by the difference between receptor
and stack base elevation, concentration^ will be overestimated for these
two stations unless a  further correction is made to account for  the effect
of terrain upon the plume itself.  This overprediction for small  source-
receptor elevation differences  is responsible for  the 0.74 correlation
                                  91

-------
               Table 13.  CORRELATIONS
Correlation of ratio of second highest measured to
  predicted 1-hour concentration versus distance
Plant
Canal
Stuart
Muskingum
Philo
All
Correlation
coefficient
estimate
0.16
0.89
0.88
0.15
0.25
95%
confidence
interval
-0.947 to 0.972
0.415 to 0.984
-0.526 to 0.997
-0.753 to 0.857
-0.204 to 0.615
Significance
none
significant to
none
none
none

1%



 Correlation of ratio of second highest measured to
 predicted 1-hour concentration versus elevation of
            top of stack above receptor
Plant
Canal6
Stuart
Muskingum
Philo
All
Correlation
coefficient
estimate
0.82
-0.30
-0.65
0.74
0.14
95%
v confidence
interval
-0.66 to 0.996
-0.859 to 0.585
-0.992 to 0.829
-0.179 to 0.969
-0.310 to 0.539
Significance
none
none
none
none
none
                       92

-------
coefficient given in Table 13.  Although at the other stations the over-

prediction problem is not as extreme, the method of stack height reduction

employed in the model is at least partially responsible for the poor

agreement.


Summary of Modeling Results


Based upon our model validation studies for these three Ohio power plants

we can make the following observations:


    •   Much better agreement is obtained between measured and cal-
        culated concentration frequency distributions for the higher
        concentrations.  The poor agreement at  lower concentrations
        is due largely  to uncertainties associated with the deter-
        mination of background concentrations.

    •   The best agreement between measured and predicted concen-
        trations was obtained for 1-hour and  3-hour concentrations
        with geometric  means  of measured to predicted second
        highest concentrations of 0.93 and 1.17 respectively.  The
        24-hour concentrations were  generally underpredicted with a
        geometric mean  of measured to predicted concentration of
        1.59.  In the determination  of these  ratios, data from  the
        Philo Plant was excluded due to the effect of low stacks
        and rugged  terrain which may have affected the accuracy of
        the model.

    •   The model has a tendency to  underpredict  concentrations at
        larger distances (Table  13). The  correlation between
        source-receptor distance and measured to  predicted second
        highest  concentration was, however, found to be  statistically
        significant  only for  the Stuart Plant.

    •   The  treatment of terrain effects  used by  the model was  found
         to be  inapplicable  for  those receptor locations  with  ele-
        vation near stack height.

    •   The  model  validation  results for  these three plants were
         quite  different than  those  obtained  from  the  initial  vali-
        dation stud>t> c..iducted  at  the  Canal  Plant  in Massachusetts.
        Concentrations  from this seacoast  facility were  considerably
         underpredicted  for  all  stations  and  averaging  times.
                                   93

-------
                               SECTION V
            ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRATION RATIO DISTRIBUTIONS

ANALYSIS OF PRESENT STUD*

The peak 1-hour to average 3-hour ratio must be between 1  and 3.
Likewise the peak L-hour to average 24-hour ratio has  a range of  1 to
24.  Since the cumulative distributions are bounded by a maximum  and
minimum value it is difficult to describe them in terms of standard types
of distributions such as normal or log-normal.  The distributions are
closer to being log-normal than normal, as can be seen when they  are
graphed on the log-normal probability paper in Figure  65,  for the J. M.
Stuart Plant, and the normal probability paper in Figure 66.  Distributions
for the Muskingum and Philo Plants are shown in Figures 67 through 70.  An-
other complication arises from the fact that ta,a original  concentration
values were recorded to the nearest 0.01 ppm.  This leads  to the  ratio dis-
tributions being discrete in nature.  The most obvious example of this can
be seen from the peak 1-hour to average 3-hour normal  plot in Figure 66.
There is a large jump in the curve as the ratio approaches 1.5.  This
is due to the large number of combinations of three discrete consecutive
1-hour concentrations which can cause a ratio of 1.5.   If the three con-
centrations are x. , x2, x  and x  is the concentration for the peak hour,
then if x2 + x_ = x  the ratio will be 1.5.  Examples  of this would be
(0.01, 0.01, 0), (0.01, 0, 0.01), (0, 0.01, 0.01), (0.02,  0.02, 0) etc.

The statistics associated with these ratio distributions are given in
Table 14.  In addition to the ratio distribution statistics for the three
Ohio power plants, we have also listed the results for the Canal Plant
     6                                                           2
study  and those obtained by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)  in the
                                  94

-------
vO
                        o
                        cc
                        o
90
BO
70
60
50

40

30
10
 9
 8
 7
 6
 5
       99
                                                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION RATIOS
                                                      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

                                         ? 9.8  9.5  9.°  8° 7060504030  20   10  3   2  I OJ 0.2  0.005 O.q
                                                          T	1	1	1	
                                 LEGEND
                                 	1-24 HOUR  CONCENTRATION
                                     RATIO
                                                          	1	1—IT
                                    •1-3  HOUR  CONCEN-
                                     TRATION  RATIO
                                  J.M.  STUART  PLANT
                                  LOG  PROBABILITY PLOT OF
                                  CUMULATIVE RATIO DISTRIBUTIONS
                                       J—i—i	1		
                                                                                 J	L.
                             0.01 0X35    OS I  2   5  10   20  30 40 5060 70 80  90  93 98 99   99.3

                                            PERCENTAGE OF  CONCENTRATION RATIOS
                                              GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                     99.99
               Figure  65.   J. M. Stuart Plant log probability plot of  cumulative  racio distributions

-------
vO
                          99.99 99.9
      PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION RATIOS
          LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
99 98  95  90  80 70 60 50 4030 20  10  5
                                                                                    03 0.2  0.005 0.01








2 3.0
(T
z 2>6
O
< 2.2
o:
z
| 1.8
o
o
a: '•«
X
it}
1 1.0
— <

LEGEND
	 1-24 HOUR CONCENTRATION
RATIO
	 1-3 HOUR CONCEN- J-M. STUART PLANT
TRATION RATIO LINEAR PROBABILITY PLOT OF
CUMULATIVE RATIO DISTRIBUTIONS

„ t
\ 1
1 1
\ \
1 \
1 1
\ \
\ \
\ J

\ \ *"
x \
x>. \_^^
^ x\
^N^. ^^
^^ "^ ^_
llllll I I Illlll IV 1 "~ j""~ ~-l l ii
XOI 0.05 a5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 506O 70 80 90 95 99 99 63.5 9







O
24.0 ^
z
o
19.4 jr
oc
H-
14.8 z.
Ul
o
z
10.2 S
f
c
5.6 X
M
i
i.o -
9.99
                                           PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION RATIOS
                                             GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                      Figure 66.   J.  M. Stuart  Plant linear probability plot of  cumulative ratio
                                   distributions

-------
              Table  14.   STATISTICS  FOR RATIO DISTRIBUTION
Ratios
Arith-
metic
mean
Arithmetic
standard
deviation
507>
957.3
997.a
b
Cor'-^iat ion
957.
Confidence
interval
                               J. M. STUART  PLANT
1-3 hourc
d
1-24 hour
1.86
7.71
0.76
5.94
1.55
5.95
1.00
1.93
1.00
1.40
-0.0584
0.00155
-0.07148 to -0.04530
-0.05081 to +0.05390
                                MUSKINGUM PLANT
1-3 hour
1-24 hour
1.99
9.23
0.76
6.79
1.74
6.65
1.00
2.38
1.00
1.77
-0.079
-0.151
-0.0949 to -0.0631
-0.2083 to -0.0927
                                 PHILO PLANT
1-3 hour
1-24 hour

2.00
8.77
0.72
5.77
1.77
6.98
1.04
2.47
1.01
1.92
-0.36
-0.40
-0.3720 to -0.3479
-0.4474 to -0.3503
CANAL PLANTb
1-3 hour
1-24 hour

1.81
7.84

0.70
6.31
1.50
5.37
1.02
1.69
1.02
1.23
-0.017
-0.008
-0.0283 to -0.0057
-0.0573 to -0.0414
PARADISE PLANT2
1-3 hour
1-24 hour
aPercentile
values.
1.80
15.9
-
1.63
12.4
0.99
4.00
.
-
-
values given in terms of cumulative percent of ratios greater than given
Correlation between ratio and peak 1-hour concentration.
°Peak 1-hour to  average 3-hour ratio for measured minus background S02 concentration.
Seak 1-hour to  average 24-hour ratio for measured minus background S02 concentration.
                                      97

-------
vicinity of the Paradise Power Plant with data taken over a  2-1/2 year
period from January 1968 through June 1970.   The ratio statistics do not
vary significantly except for the Paradise Plant where the peak 1-hour
to average 24-hour ratios are greater by a factor of 2.   The 1-3 hour
ratio means ranged from 1.80 at Paradise to 2.00 at Philo, and the
standard deviation associated with these ratio distributions ranged from
0.70 at Canal to 0.76 at Stuart and Muskingum.  With the exception of
the Paradise Plant the 1-24 hour ratio means ranged from 7.71 at Stuart
to 9.23 at Muskingum, and the standard deviations ranged from 5.77 at
Philo to 6.74 at Muskingum.

The discrepancy between the 1-24 hour ratio distribution statistics for
Paradise and the other power plants could be due to the fact that at the
peak concentrations reported for the Paradise network were actually 5-
minute averages which had to be converted to the 1-hour averaging time
according to the method outlined in Table 5.1 of Turner's  Workbook.  The
fact that concentrations less than 0.10 ppm were excluded from the analysis
of the Paradise data could also be responsible for this difference.

Suggestions for Future Study

Since the primary application of. these concentration ratio distributions
would be the estimation of average 24-hour concentrations associated
with highest or second highest peak 1-hour concentrations, it would be
instructive to carry out the preceding time-concentration analysis for
those peak 1-hour concentrations above a given cutoff value.  This pro-
cedure would avoid the problem of the distributions being weighted toward
those low concentrations near the threshold of the sampler.  Another
approach which would prove useful in the extension of 1-hour concentra-
tions to longer averaging  times would be the  analysis of  the behavior of
ratio distribution statistics for different meteorological conditions.
A study of this type performed during the Canal Plant study  found a  sig-
nificant increase  in 1-3 hour ratios for the  lower stability classes  (A,B).
                                  98

-------
so
vo
                        100
                         90
                         BO
                         70
                         60
                         50

                         40

                         30
                           99.99 999
                       O
                       5
                       (E

                       O
                       8
         P
  - LEGEND
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION RATIOS
                      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

              S9 98  95  90  80  70 60 SO 40 30 20  10   5   ^  15 0.2  0.005 OX*
I " I
               T
                  T	P
                                         T	1	i  I  I
        1-24 HOUR  CONCENTRATION
        RATIO
  	1-3 HOUR  CONCEN-
        TRATION RATIO
10
 9
 8
 7
 6
 5
                   MUSKINGUM  PLANT
                   LOG PROBABILITY  PLOT OF
                   CUMULATIVE RATIO  DISTRIBUTIONS
                            0,01 OX>9   C5 I  2   5  10  20 30 40 5060 70 80  90  95  98 93   69.3
                                                                    99.99
                                           PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION RATIOS
                                             GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                            Figure 67,
              Muskingum Plant  log probability plot of cumulative
              ratio distributions.  Number  of 1-3 hour ratios =
              15,059; number of 1-24 hour rations = 1100

-------
                                               DOT
                   1-3 HR. CONCENTRATION   RATIO
     oo

     •t
     (D
     00
o  c^ 3;
Kl H- C
   a to
e-> rt ?T

to H- 3
4> cr OQ
O  H-
c  o ^

   co to
n  '  3
to    rt
rt
H-  2 t—'
O  C H-

   cr a>
i  (D to
>-« o "O
O H» i-l
o    o
   f cr
    i  to
   o
   C
   n-  o
   H-  rr
   O
   in  o
      Mi
   i
      n

   G  s
   -   c
   O  *-•
   in  to
   vO  rt
   w.  (->•

   3  (D
   cr
   ro












_
ERCENTAGE OF
GREATER THA
CONCENTRATION
N INDICATED VAL
™ >
Z—
O















_ — — to ro 01
Q •$* Q) ^} 0^ O

o
o
b
VI

P


N

W
O
8
Oi
o
o
Ol
o
8
a
o
to
o

w
w
<0
o>

<0
u>


^
i*'
Ol


<0
	 J 	 1 1 1 1










__,J
•/^^
1
1
. /
1
•1

•J
'
1
1
1




(till
£- p, 5 - - N





1
1
^* 1
•° w
H I
0°
z c

> o
i-
0 0
in
z
MUSKINGUM P
LINEAR PROB
CUMULATIVE
so >r
J* LIT
O _j H
S"*
3?
30 O
rn *"4
C
g?t

2
(A







	 1<0

f

1 O
3) T§ -

0 i
o
c
9
^N
II II
:ONCENTRATIO
Z
•















(O
g

*
0


S

»

«>
m
w
o
8
0
Ul
o
o
S
o

Ol

r»
^

o
Oi
p


p
8
1H
O
C













«B
ERCENTAGE OF
LESS THAN
CONCENTRATION 1
INDICATED VALUE
3a
6
















           ro     a>     -A     b

1-24 HR.  CONCENTRATION  RATIO

-------
     100
     90
     80
     70

     60

     50

     40


     30
      20
        93.99  999
   O
   K.
   \-
   •z
   O
   O
10
 9
 8
 7

 6

 5
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION RATIOS
                      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

              99 98  95  90  80  70 60 50 40 30 20  10   5   2  \ _.S 0.2 0.005 0.01
    LEGEND
     	1-24 HOUR CONCENTRATION

        RATIO

     ---H-3 HOUR  CONCFN-

        TRATION RATIO
PHILO  PLANT
LOG  PROBABILITY PLOT OF
CUMULATIVE RATIO DISTRIBUTIONS
                                            \
        0.01 0.05   OS I  2
                        10  20 30 40 5060 70  80  90  95 98  99   99.3

                  PERCENTAGE OF  CONCENTRATION RATIOS

                    GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                    99.99
Figure 69.  Philo  Plant log probability  plot of cumulative  ratio distributions.

            Number of 1-3 hour ratios  =  20,142; number of 1-24 hour ratios r 1,152

-------
o
ro
                        93.99 999
2  5.0

(C
                  z
                  o
                     2.6
                  < 2.2
S  1.8
o
o
   1.4
                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION RATIOS
                           LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                  99 93  95  90  80 70 60 50 40 30 20  10  5   21 0.5 0.2  0.005 0.01
                          LEGEND
                           	1-24 HOUR  CONCENTRATION
                               RATIO
                           	1-3 HOUR  CONCEN-
                               TRATION RATIO
                                       PHILO  PLANT
                                       LINEAR  PROBABILITY  PLOT OF
                                       CUMULATIVE  RATIO  DISTRIBUTIONS


tc
if)
—     0.0r0j05   a» I  2   5   JO   20 30 40SOGO 70 80  go  93  98  S3  99.3
                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATION RATIOS
                         GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                    H
                                                                                               24.0
                                                                             19.4
     Z
     o
     £C
14.8  g
     o

10.2  8
                                                                                               5.6
                                                                                                    cc
                                                                                                    CJ
                                                                                                    i
                                                                                             99.99
                 Figure 70.  Philo Plant  linear probability plot of cumulative ratio distributions.
                              Number of  1-3  hour ratios =  20,142; number  of  1-24 hour ratios  = 1,152

-------
                               SECTION VI
            FURTHER ANALYSIS OF MODEL VALIDATION PROCEDURES

A comparison of the frequency distributions of the model calculations
and the observed 1-hour concentrations shows that the model predicts the
upper percentile fairly well, but significantly underpredicts most of
the remainder of the distribution.  A similar effect occurs in the fre-
quency distributions of the 24-hour concentrations.  Part of the under-
prediction may be due to sampler errors since many of the lower concen-
trations are measured near the threshold of the sensing device.  Also,
much of the low concentration end of the distribution does not represent
pollution from the plant at all, but rather differences between the esti-
mated background and the actual background at the sampler.  For example,
if three samplers upwind of the plant recorded concentrations 10, 20 and
45 ng/m3, the "background" would be considered the average of the upwind
stations, in this case 25 ug/m3.  This "background" is subtracted from
each concentration recorded at that hour, so that, in this case, we have
two negative concentrations, and one positive value of 20 ug/m .  Corres-
ponding model predictions would, quite correctly, be zero.  When the
background is added to the predicted concentrations,  the  predicted and
measured concentrations appear to be in better agreement  for the lower
concentrations as shown in Figures 71 through 86 for the  J.  M.  Stuart
Plant receptor locations.  This apparent improvement in model predictions
at low concentrations is largely a cosmetic effect,  however, since for
the most part we are comparing background concentrations  with themselves.
                                 103

-------
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
               GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
        .  M.  STUflRT  PtflNT
       .UMULflTIVE FREQUENCY
       DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1 HOUR
       S02  CONCENTRflTIONS flT  STflTION  1
       C/lEflSUREO
       APfiEOICTEO PLUS BACKGROUND
0.01
                i   »   10  zo x> «o so «o TO eo

                PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                  LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure  71.  J. M.  Stuart Plant  cumulative frequency distribution for
           1-hour  S0? concentrations at station 1

-------
              PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS

              GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
    CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY
    DISTRIBUTION
                FOR  1
S02  CONCENTRATIONS
C/iEflSUflEO
APRE01CTEO PLUS BRCKGROUNO
HOUR
flT  STflTION
 0.01 &MOSO1 &» t
                                               •• t»  •••• Ml*
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS

                LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure  72.  J. M. Stuart  Plant cumulative frequency distribution for

           _ .     *, **.	^^_*.^.k£ A.MK. r* >fc^ ^»H**f"4 f\TF\  f
           1-hour S0» concentrations at station 2

-------
                        ot>-
                        in-
                     o
                        eit-
o
0»
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                    »» *•  ts  «o
                                                6O  7O CO SO 4O JO  ZO
                                                                 10
                                             I O.S O.2 0.1
                                                 » I •
J.  M.  STUflRT  PLRNT
CUMULflTIVE  FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1  HOUR
502 CONCENTRATIONS  RT  STflTION
mKEBSUBEQ
APREOICTtO PLUS BfiCKGROUNO
                          0.01 aos 04 u a> t
                                       z  s  10  zo  so 40 so  «o TO eo   »o

                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                         LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                        »* t»
                      Figure 73.  J. M. Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribution for
                                 1-hour S09 concentrations at station  3

-------
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                  GREAfER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
     t».» »«.!
               »» 98  »J   SO  80 TO tO 50 40 JO  ZO   >O   9   21 O.5 O.2 0.1  O.OI
        ^PREDICTED PLUS BflCKCHOUNQ
   o.o: o.o» 01
                      9   10   20  30 40 SO 60  70  *0  90

                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                    LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                    •»
                                                          t»
Figure 74.   J.  M. Stuart  Plant cumulative frequency  distrilution for
             1-hour SO,,  concentrations  at station 4

-------
                         01-
                         oo-
                         to-
                      cr>
O
00
                      LU
                      O =•-

                      O ro-
                      O


                         ru-
                                      »»
          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS

          GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE


         *•   tj  »0  »O  TO 60 iO 40 SO 20   10
                                                                            i as oz 01  o.oi O
J.  M.  STUflRT  PLRNT
CUMULRTIVE  FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1
502 CONCENTRRTIONS
OfiEHSUREO
^PREDICTED PLUS BflCKGROUND
                                                       HOUR
                                                       RT STRTION  5
                          O.OJ 0-OJ040J 0.9 I
                                       S  3  JO  20 SO 40 SO «0 10  80  »0

                                        PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                         LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                       ft  Vt
                                                •*.•
                                                       »**
                      Figure 75.  J.  M.  Stuart Plant cumulative  frequency distribution for
                                 1-hour SO. concentrations ac  station 5

-------
      »».» 99 8
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS

                 GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
               »» *R  95  90   BO 7O SO JO 40 30  20
        J.  M.  STUflflT  PLRNT
        CUMULflTIVE  FREQUENCY

                                 FIT  STflTION  6
         PREDICTED PLUS BflCKCflOUNO
    o.ot o.osoJOLt
                                                         99 8 99.9
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS

                    LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                999
Figure 76.   J. M. Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribution for
            1-hour SC2 concentrations at station 6

-------
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
               *» »«  »s  so   ao  ro co so «o so  to   10   »   21 o.s o.z o.i  o 01
         PREDICTED PLUS BRCKGROUNO
   O.Oi O.OS CU CU O.S
                                                                    »«.*
                  PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                    LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure 77.  J.  M.  Stuart Plant  cumulative frequency distribution  for
            1-hour S0? concentrations at station  7

-------
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
        J.  M.  STUflRT PLflNT
        CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY
        DISTRIBUTION FOR  1  HOUR
        502 CONCENTRflTIONS  flT  flLL
        CjMEfiSUREO
        ^PREDICTED PLUS BflCKGROUNO
STflTIONS
    0.01 0.03 04 O2 0.5 I
                                                       •».* »«.»
                                                             9»S
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure 78.  J.  M. Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribution for
           1-hour S0? concentrations at all  stations

-------
                    PERCENTAGE OF  CONCENTRATIONS
                    GREATER  THAN  INDICATED VALUE
  f*                                                                    «^

   <'~>  994 99.1     99 9*  91  9O  »0  7O  CO SO 4O SO  20   10   1   21 0-S 0.2 0.1  O.O1 O
OO-

r—

CO-

LO-
r_  03-
."Z.  m-
uj
C_)  s>*-
z
C»  co-
o

    (M-
           .  'M.  STURRT  PLRNT
           PREDICTED PLUS 8BCKCROUNO
     0.01 O.OS 0.1 O2 0.}  1
                              ZO 90 40 SO 60 70 *0   90  9S
                    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                      LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                         9«  »9
                                                                99.* 999
                                                                       9*9
   Figure 79.  J. M. Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribution for
               24-hour  SO  concentrations at station 1

-------
u>
                         o
                             *».» »».»
                                          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                       »» »S  93  90   »O 70 CO 10 4O 10  K>
                               CONyiR?!^RMcr
                           0.01 0.0)0102 0.» 1  2
                                                    20 30 40 50  60 70  SO
                                                                       90  «J
                                                                              •a «9
                                                                                    »».• »».»
                                          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                           LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                                           *»»
                       Figure  80.   J.  M.  Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribution for
                                    24-hour SO  concentrations at station 2

-------
                PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
       J.  M.  STUflRT  PlflNT
       CyMULRTIVE FREQUENCY
        ISTRI8UTIGN  FOR  24  H
       _G2  CONCENTRflTIONS flT
       QMEfiSUREO
       A.PBEQICTEO »LUS SfiCKCftOUMO
R
TflTION
  o.oi o.otaiu o.i i
               t   5  1O   10 X) 40 tO tO 70 SO   90

                PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure 81.  J.  M.  Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribution  for
           24-hour SO  concentrations at station 3

-------
                 PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
 eo-
 co-
 to-
              »* M  »5  1O  (O TO CO 90 4O JO
            -|	»_|	1	1    t  I	1  t  I  t
                                             to
                                                    X  1 0» OX 01  001
           M.  STUflRT PLflNT
            CONCENTRflTIONS fl

                 PLUS BflCKCROUNO
                                                                     o
  oxi ojjs t
                 s   »  10  20 so  40 so to TO w>   »o
                 PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
t».i ML*
Figure 82.   J.  M.  Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribution for
            24-hour SO  concentrations at station 4

-------
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
               GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
      J. M.  STURRT  PLflNT
      CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY
      DISTRIBUTION  FOR  24 HOUR
      502  CONCENTRflTIONS RT  STflTION  5
      ^PREDICTED
  o.oj 
-------
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
               GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
    »».»
             M *•
                     f
   0.01 0.0 J 04 04 0.5 1
          2   »  10   20 SO 40  50 60 70 (0
           PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
            LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure  84.  J. M.  Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribu .ion  for
           24-hour SCL concentrations at station 6

-------
00
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                         oo-
                         
-------
                                     PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                     GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
NO
                             .  M.  STUflRT  PLflNT
                             LJMULflTIVE  FREQUENCY
                            DISTRIBUTION  FOR  2U HOUR
                            502 CONCENTRATIONS
                            0ȣftSUflED
                                     PLUS BRCKGnOUKO
STflTIONS
                        O.OJ e,0»040L> 0.5 I
                                     PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                     Figure 86.  J. M.  Stuart Plant cumulative frequency distribution for
                                24-hour S0_ concentrations at all stations

-------
The method of determining background concentrations from plant wind di-
rection data was examined more closely since the local wind sensors were
seldom at the same height or location as the stacks.  The plots in Figure
87 of the background concentration at the three plants indicate some
rather high levels.  The high background concentrations apparently occur
when there is only a single upwind station reporting a high concentra-
tion, either due to a high local emission or a discrepancy between the
actual transport wind direction and the reported "ind direction.  The
highest background recording ac Stuart - 650 ug/m   - occurred on May 23,
1973 at 1400 hours, due to the following recording.
Station
1
4
5
2,3,6,7
Concentration
0.01 ppm
0.01 ppm
0.25 ppm
no report
Bearing of station
from plant
35°
49°
279°

The wind  was  recorded  as  blowing  from  247   and  toward  67  which  caused
stations  1  and  4  no  be considered within  the  90  sector of  the plumes
centerline.   Stations  1 and  4 were considered downwind of the plant and
not  used  for  background subtraction, while  statit?,.  T,  was considered up-
                                              3
wind  and  a  background  of  0.25 ppm or 650  ug/m  was  obtained.  The  plots
 in Figure 88  were made of the concentrations  when the stations were up-
wind  of the plant, to  determine if local  sources  were contributing to
 any particular  station.  All seven stations show  the  same  trend, although
 station 6 seems to have the  highest upwind  concentrations.   There is no
 simple  explanation for this  because station 6 is  one  of  the more remot-p.
 stations  (Figure  2)  although there may be local s-... ..-.>  not apparent on
 the IJSGS  map.  Since there were many cases  of high  upwind  concentrations,
 it was  decided  to try  a simple  background calculation technique  which
 was independent of wind direction.  The procedure adopted  was  to find
                                  120

-------
              PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
              GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
     BPCKGRQUNO
     CUMULPTIVE FREQUENCY
     DISTRIBUTION FGR   i HOUR
     SQ3 CQNCENTRflrlQNS flT
      OJ.  M.  STUflRT PLflNT
      AMU5KINGUM RIVER PLflNT
      +PHILQ  PLflNT
0.01 O.OJ040J at 1  I   5   10  10 JO  40 to tO  TO (0   »0  »i   «l t»   •«.( »»»  »»»
               PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

  Figure 87.   Background cumulative frequency distribution  for
              1-hour SO  concentrations at J. M.  Stuart Plant,
              Muskingum River  Plant and Philo Plant

-------
N>
                                          PERCENTAGE  OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
                                 J.  h.  STUPRT PLRN'T
                                 CUMULRTIVc FfiEQUEMCY
                                 DISTRiaUTJOM FOR   1  HOUR
                                 UPWIND '503 CC.slCENTRftTIONS
                                            57* 7 IOU3
                            O.Ol O.04 OJ OX 0.5 I
                                           t   »  10   20  JO 40 SO 60 TO  BO   »0
                                           PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                             LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                           •}  *• ••
                        Figure 88.   J.  M.  Stuart Plant cumulative  frequency distribution for
                                    1-hour upwind S0? concentrations  at 7 stations

-------
the mean and standard deviation of concentrations for all monitoring
stations every hour.  A station whose concentration was above the mean

plus one standard deviation was disregarded for that hour, and the back-

ground was taken to be the mean of the remaining stations.  The new back-

ground computed from this technique is shown with the old background in
Figure 89.  The new background has the same slope as the old, but does

not have the same high concentration values.


New measured minus background curves are shown in Figures 90 to 96 for

the 1-hour case, and in Figure 97 for the 1-hour "all station" case.
These results indicate that the two background subtraction methods yield

similar results except for the highest values.  As seen from Table 15,
the second technique shows better agreement with the highest predicted

values.  Since the alternate technique yields a smoother background
cumulative frequency distribution (Figure 98), is slightly closer to the

predicted values, and requires no plant wind data, it may be the better

of the two methods, and deserves future study.


SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY


There are several possible ways to improve the agreement between measured

and predicted concentrations.


    •   The model hourly output should only include those
        hours during which a monitoring station was operat-
        ing.  The predicted concentration plots shown are
        plots of all hours for the year, while the plots
        of the measured values have some missing hours.  For
        instance, at the J. M. Stuart Plant, Station 2 operated
        only from January to March, Station 4 operated only
        from March  to December, and Station 7 operated only
        from January to July.  Comparing predicted hours
        only to those actually measured may yield closer
        agreement,
                                123

-------
00-
r~
(O
IT.
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
               GREATER THAN  INDICATED VALUE
    « I
          -I	h
               98
              —t-
 • »
	t-
                         «0 7C  SO SO 40 10  20
     BflCKGflOUND
     CUML'LflTIVE FREQUENCY
     DISTRIBUTION FOR   1  HOUR
     S02 CONCENTRATIONS  flT
           «.  STUflflT PLflNT
                                                     2  1 0.9 01 0.1  0.01
                                                    -*—t	1	1  t.
                                                                   -CO
                                                 -to
                                                 -in
                                                                   -<0
o.oi o os 01 oj as t
               t   s  10  20  x> «o so to TO  »o
               PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                 LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                           »o  »s
                                  ft •*
                                               •*»
Figure 89.  Background cumulative  frequency distribution  for
            1-hour SO  concentrations  at J. M. Stua L Plant

-------
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                        GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
NJ
Ul
                                      «» »»  ti   »O  CO  TO iO  SO 40 JO  ZO
                               STUflRT PLflNT   SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE  «2
                               CUMULfiTSVE FREQUENCY
                               DISTRIBUTION  FOR   1  HOUR
                               S02 CGNCENTRflTIONS flT STflTION  1
                                 AHEftSUREO MINUS BflCKGROUNO
                                 +MEflS-BaCK  WITH NEW TECHNIQUE
                           O.Ol O.OS OJ 02 O.S 1
                                                                  80
                                                                               »»
                                                                                   »B » 99.9
                                                                                          »99
                                         £   i   10  20  JO 40 tO 60 70
                                          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                           LESS THAM INDICATED VALUE

               Figure 90.  Stuart Plant subtraction technique  #2  cumulative frequency distribution for
                           1-hour S0_ concentrations at station 1

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                             •O  70 £0 50 4O 30  20
         STUPRT  PLPMT  SUBTRflCTIOtf  TECHNIQUE
         CUMULflTIVE  FREQUENCY
         DISTRIBUTION! FOR  1 HOUR
         S02  COWCE^TRflTIONS flT STflTIOM 2
           QHEfiSUREO
           AMEfiSUREO MINUS BflCKGRGUND
           .MEflS-BflCK WITH NEU TECHMIOUE
     0.01 0.0} O4 07 0.5
t   5  10   20  30 40 50  60 70  60  SO

PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
  LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure 91.   Stuart Plant subtraction technique #2 cumulative frequency
            distribution for 1-hour SO. concentrations at station 2

-------
                   PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                   GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
                 99 98  93   SO  80  70 CO  SO 40 JO  ZO
          3TUPRT PLflNT  SUBTRftCTION TECHNIQUE *2
          CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
          DISTRIBUTION FOR   1 HOUR
          502 CONCENTRATIONS flT  STflTION 3
           QtlEfiSUREQ
           AMEfiSUREO MINUS BflCKCPOUND
           4-MEflS-BflCK WITH NEU  TECHNIQUE
     0.01 O.OS OJ OJ 0.9
                   I   S  10   20  JO 40  10 «0 70  eo   90
                    PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                     LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
9» 99
      99 • 999
             999
Figure 92.  Stuart Plant subtraction technique  //2  cumulative  frequency
            distribution for 1-hcur SO  concentrations  at  station 3

-------
NJ
00
                                          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                                I O.1 0,1 O.i
                                                                                           .0. O
                                                                                          0.01
»» »•   tt  90   SO TO «0 SO 40 SO 20
                                STUPRT PLfiMT   SUBTRACTION  TECHNIQUE «2
                                CUMULflTIVE  FPEQUENCY
                                DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1 HOUR
                                S02 CONCEKlTRflTIONS fiT STATIOM
                                  AM£RSUREO MINUS BflCKGROUNO
                                  +M£flS-eflCK WITH NEM TECHNIQUE
                           0.01 O.Oi 04 OJ O.i I
                                          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                            LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE

                      Figure 93.  Stuart Plant subtraction  technique #2 cumulative frequency
                                  distribution for  1-hour SO concentrations ?t station 4

-------
                             **.* »» a
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                         GREATER THAN  INDICATED  VALUE
                                      X 9«   94  »0  60 TO CO 5O 40  3D 20
N>
SO
                               STUPRT PLflNT  SUBTRRCTI3N TECHNIQUE «2
                               CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
                               DISTRIBUTION F3R   1  HOUR
                               S02 CONCEMTRftTIONS flT STRTIOW  S
                                0HEflSUREO
                                AHEflSUR:D MINUS  BflCKGROUNO
                                +MEflS-BflCK WITH  NEW TECHNIQUE
                          0.01 O-OSWOJ O.S t
                                            5  10   20 JO 40 SO  60 7O  60  »C
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                           LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                         55
                                                                                  »9.a 39.*
                                                                                         999
                       Figure 94.   Stuart Plant subtraction technique #2 cumulative  frequency
                                   distribution for 1-hour S02 concentrations at  station  5

-------
U)
O
                                       PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                       GREATER  THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                             I O.3 O.2 0.1  0.01
                                                                                        .01 O
                              STUflRT PLflMT  SUBTRflCTIQM TECHNIQUE «2
                              CUKULRTIVE FREQUENCY
                              OISTRIBUTIOM FOR   1 HOUR
                              SG2  CONCEWTflHTIOWS flT  STflTION 6
                               oMEflSURED
                               AMEflSURED MINUS BfiCKGROUWO
                               4.MEflS-BfiCK WITH KEW  TECHNIQUE
                         o.oi e.osoi&z  as a
                                       t   9   10  20  so  to ;o so  TO
                                        PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                         LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                                                                             t*
                                                                                 >*.• »*»
                                                                                        »*»
                       Figure 95.  Stuart Plant subtraction  technique #2 cumulative frequency
                                   distribution for  1-hour SO  concentrations at station 6

-------
                                          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                          GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
u>
                                       »» «8  »9  »0   80 70 CO SO 4O JO  20
                                STUPRT  PLflMT   SUBTRflCTIOM  TECHNIQUE
                                CUMULATIVE  FREQUENCY
                                DISTRIBUTION  FOR  1 HOUR
                                502 CONCENTflflTIONS RT STflTION  7
                                  QMEPSURED
                                  AM£flSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
                                  +MEflS-BflCK  WITH NEW TECHNIQUE
                            O.OS 0.05 01 Oi O.S 1
                                          t   S  1O  20  30 40 SO £0 70  80  >0
                                           PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                            LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                       Figure 96.  Stuart Plant subtraction technique #2 cumulative  frequency
                                   distribution for 1-hour SO  concentrations at station  7

-------
CO-
n--
to-
to
                       cr
                       tr.
                       UJ
                       CJ

                       O
                       O
                                           PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                           GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
                               »J 9» I

                                1- t  t
                                        »» »»
                          •O  TO SO  50 40 SO  ZO
                                             10
                                                      I  O.5 O.2 O.t
                                 STUflftT PLfl^T  SUBTRflCTION TECHNIQUE
                                 CUHULflTlVE FREQUEMCT
                                 OISTRiaUTIOM FOR   1  HOUR
                                 502  COMCEWTflflTICMS  flT flLL STftTICNS
                                  AHEflSUREO MINUS BflCKGROUNO
                                  +MEflS-BfiCK WITH NEW  TECHNIQUE
                               lit
                           0.01 0.01 0-S Oj 0.9 i  I   9
                            H	1	1
                            Jo 
-------
Table  15.
          J. H.  STUART, CONCENTRATIONS  DISTRIBUTION STATISTICS FOR
          MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS
          USING  OLD AND NEW BACKGROUND  SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUES
                               1-Hour
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All
Second highest
Measured
685
685
1022
750
495
980
325
1022d
b
Measured
685
665
1009
735
615
980
433
1009d
c
Predicted
1372
814
565
515
823
595
976
1372d
Highest
Measured
857
1014
1153
883
565
1053
435
1153
Measured
886
943
1132
817
625
1053
438
1132
Predicted0
1393
948
1022
541
1219
693
1000
1393
                               24-Hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All
259
63
181
79
63
147
69
259d
225
57
150
69
75
188
85
225d
149
75
91
45
57
69
73
149d
277
159
225
83
77
195
77
277
235
161
210
84
80
197
88
235
161
98
102
49
:75
83
120
161
Pleasured concentrations with subtracted background using old wind
dependent technique.

 Measured concentrations with subtracted background using new wind
independent technique.

 Predicted concentrations.

 Highest concentration not exceeded more than once per year by any
given  station.
                               133

-------
U)
                                         PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                         GREATER  THAN INDICATED  VALUE
                             *».» 99.8
                                      99 93  55  90
                                                   eO  70 CO 50 4C JO 20
                                                                      1O
                         Ol-
                         03-
                         t/i-
                      cn
                      O
                      en
                      cc.
Cj~
»3
r—-
                      UJ
                      O
                      2:
                      O
                      O
                         ru-
                                                      t o.s o.z o.)
                                                      -»—•	»  t ••
                                                                                          o.oi
      STUflRT PLflMT   SUBTRACTION  TECHMIOUE «2
      CUMULflTIVE  FREQUEMCT
      DISTRIBUTION!  FOR 21* HOUR
      502 CONCEMTRfiTIONS flT flLL  STflTIQfJS
       QMEflSUREO
       ^MEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUNO
       +HEflS-BfiCK  WITH NEW TECHNIQUE
                              H—I—I	1—h
                           O.OJ 0.05 010J  0.9 I   X
                                                    20  SO *0 iO  60 70  80   90  9S  98 »9
                                          PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
                                            LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
                      Figure 98.   Stuart  Plant subtraction technique  #2  cumulative frequency
                                   distribution for 24-hour SO,, concentrations at all stations

-------
The model used wind data from airports which are fairly
distant.  Running the model with wind data taken from
the plant wind instrumentation may yield better corre-
lation, although the plant wind instruments only
measured wind characteristics of the lower valley, and
not those at plume height or at the monitoring stations.

Wind direction may vary with altitude, so the wind
direction at the top of the stacks and at plume height
may be different than the measured wind direction.
Varying the measured airport wind by a constant angular
displacement may yield better agreement between measured
and calculated values, but still would not account for
the variation of wind direction with height which results
in a greater horizontal plume spread than that predicted
by the model.

The method of background subtraction by determining
plume direction from plant wind data may not be the best,
since the plant wind data is more characteristic of the.
lower valley.  An alternate method would be to choose
the lowest concentration among the monitoring stations
as the background concentration for the hour in question.

Buoyancy flux for each stack was assumed to be constant
while this parameter actually varies as a function of
the generation load for each boiler.  This effect could
be included in the model if the buyoancy flux were made
proportional to the firing rate.

The model was not designed to handle receptors level
with the top of the stack, so that it overpredicted the
high concentrations at the Philo sampling locations.
Assuming that the problem occurs in the model and not
in the receptors, the model could be altered to handle
cases of low plume rise and narrow spread.  First, an
initial dispersion such as a virtual source image could
be added to compensate for multiple stacks being treated
as a single stack,  or a single stack with multiple wind
directions could  be used.   Secondly, the method of de-
termining stability class could be modified.  The highest
predicted value at Philo occurred when a <~iass 4 stability
hour followed a class 7 hour.   To avoid rapid fluctuation
of stability, the program changed the class 4 to a class
6 which hao the narrowest plume spread.  Whether this hour
                         135

-------
was a class 4 as measured, or a class 6 as predicted
is hard to say, but perhaps allowing a class 5 in this
instance may have been closer to actual average con-
ditions.  Thirdly, Lhe modified model used for this
study allowed the receptor elevation to be subtracted
from the plume height, but did not allow the plume to
rise as the terrain did.  Allowing some rise for
neutral and unstable cases may prove wori-'awhile.
Fourthly, the wind during stable conditions usually
fluctuates, and the plume rise and spread coefficients
for stable classes should be looked at more closely to
ascertain whether or not  they actually hold for an
hour.

The Single Source Model should be modified to provide
for the incorporation of  other techniques for the de-
termination of horizontal and vertical dispersion co-
efficients.  Dispersion calculation methods which could
be tested with the data from this study include those
due to F. B. Smith,7 Smith-Singer,8 and G. A. Briggs,
                          136

-------
                               SECTION VII

                               REFERENCES
1.  Turner, D. B.  Workbook of Atmospheric  Dispersion  Estimates.
    Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of  Air Programs.
    Publication No. AP-26.   p. 84.

2.  Montgomery, T.  L.,  S.  B.  Carpenter,  and H.  E. Lindley.  The
    Relationship Between Peak and Mean S02  Concentrations.  Con-
    ference on Air  Pollution Meteorology of the American Meteoro-
    logical Society in Cooperation  with the Air Pollution Control
    Association. Raleigh,  North Carolina.   April 5-9,  1971.

3.  Klug, W.  Dispersion From Tall  Stacks.   Report on  Activities
    During Visit with Environmental Protection  Agency,  Division
    of Meteorology.  August 5 through October 5,  1973.

4.  Hrenko, J., D.  B. Turner, and J.  Zimmerman.  Interim User's
    Guide to a Computational Technique to Estimate Maximum  24-Hour
    Concentrations  from Single Sources.

5.  Briggs, G. A.  Some Recent Analyses  of  Plume Rise  Observation.
    Proceedings, Second International Clean Air Congress.   H. M.
    Englund and W.  T. Beerg (cds.).   Academic Press.   New York.
    p. 1029-1032.

6.  Mills, M.  T. Comprehensive Analysis of Time-Concentration Rela-
    tionships  and the Validation of a Single Source Dispersion Model,
    GCA/Technology  Division.   March 1975.

7.  Smith, F.  B. A Scheme  for Estimating the Vertical  Dispersion
    of a Plume From a Source Near Ground Level.  Proceedings, Third
    Meeting of the  Expert Panel on  Air Pollution Modeling.  A
    Report of  the Air Pollution Pilot Study, NATO Committee on
    the Challenges  of Modern Society.   Paris, France.   XVII, 1-14.
    October 2-3, 1972.
                                137

-------
8.  Siiu'.ri-, I. A., and M. E. Smith.  Relation of C.uslincss to
 -   Other Meteorological Parameters.   J. Meteorology, 10(2),
    121-126, 1953.

9.  Briggs, G. A.  Diffusion Estimation for Small Emissions.
    U.S. Department of Commerce.  NOAA-ERL-ARATDL Contribution
    No. 79  (draft).  Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  May 1973.
                                  138

-------
                                   TTCHNICAI. nr.roiu DATA
                            I'lfiitf rend //uj/ur/KiiM un Ilic mmr hr/orc coin/
                                                            >lc I in f)
 Ml I'OH J NO.
 El'A-4 50/ 3j-7 6-002	
7ll I LK AMU SUOTI TLE
 Model Validation and Time-Concentration Analysis
 of Three Power Plants
                                                            J. HLUt'ltNT'i;
                                                            G. PlflFCRMING ORGANIZATION COOE
. AUCHOM(S)
 Michael  T.  Mills, Roger W. Stern
                                                            J. PEHfORMING ORGANIZATION HT.POHT NO.

                                                             T3CA-TR-75-30-G
'. PLRFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 GCA/Technology Division
 GCA Corporation
 Bedford,  Massachusetts   01730
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAMT AND ADDRESS

  OAQPS, Environmental Protection Agency
  Research Triangle Park
  North Carolina  27711
                                                            j. Htf'OUT DATE
                                                              December 1975
                                                            10.^HOGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                              2AC 129
                                                            11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                                              68-02-1376, Task Order  No.  19
                                                            13. TYPC OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                              Final Report	
                                                            14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT

       This report presents an analysis of the  EPA Single Source Model using S02
  concentration and meteorological data collected  in the vicinity of three  Ohio
  Power Plants:  J. M.  Stuart, Muskingum River,  and Philo.  The model predicts
  the upper percentile  of the frequency distribution of 1-hour and 3-hour concen-
  trations reasonably well.  Concentrations over the remainder of the distribution
  are significantly underpredicted, due in part to the errors in the determination
  of background concentrations.  The second highest 24-hour concentrations  tend to
  be underpredicted by  the model except at the  Philo plant, where the model is
  less likely  to account properly for  terrain influences.  Also investigated dur-
  ing this study were  the frequency distributions  of peak 1-hour to average 3-hour
  and peak 1-hour  to average 24-hour concentration rac.ios.  Statistics of  these
  distributions were found to vary little  from one plant to the next.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                               b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                             COSATI Field/Group
IB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

   Release unlimited
                                               19. SLCUHITV CLASS (Hut Report)
                                                 Unclassified
21. NO. O» PACitS
  152
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (fill! page)
                                                 Unclassified
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA
      i 2<.lQ-\ (9-73)
                                            139

-------