United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600 2 80-109
May 1980
Research and Development
&EPA
Impact of a Primary
Sulfate Emission
Source on Air Quality
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-80-109
May 1980
IMPACT OF A
PRIMARY SULFATE EMISSION SOURCE
ON AIR QUALITY
by
K.R. BOLDT, C.P. CHANG,
E.J. KAPLIN, J.M. STANSFIELD, B.R. WUEBBER
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT 06906
CONTRACT NO. 68-02-2965
PROJECT OFFICER
JAMES B. HOMOLYA
EMISSION MEASUREMENTS AND CHARACTERIZATION DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Sciences
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or -recom-
mendation for use.
11
-------
PREFACE
As concern for the human health effects of pollution has grown,
so also has the response to that concern. Today, one of the
primary goals of environmentally related research is to further
quantify the relationship between pollution and human health
effects. As a result, Federal, State and Local agencies, as
well as the private sector, are directing resources into
studies that further clarify the nature of this relationship.
Research into the causes and effects of sulfate emissions is a
prime example of this effort. Sulfate has been linked in epi-
demiological and laboratory studies with adverse effects on hu-
man health. Such studies have, in fact, indicated that sulfate
may be more hazardous than sulfur dioxide or total suspended
particulates. Studies in Europe and the United States have
shown sulfates to be major contributors to reductions in visual
range caused by atmospheric aerosols. Studies of acid precipi-
tation in Scandinavia have implicated sulfuric acid in a vari-
ety of adverse ecological effects.
Several major studies are ongoing in the United States to as-
sess the atmospheric sulfate situation. Among these studies
are EPA's Project MISTT and Project MESO, which involve the
transformation and transport of sulfates in the atmosphere.
Project SURE, managed by the Electric Power Research Institute,
focuses effort on the distribution of Sulfates in the North-
east. MAP S is a study initiated by the Department of Energy
to evaluate present and future effects of energy production on
pollutant levels. EPA has initiated Project ACES to evaluate
presence and formation of sulfate and other aerosols in the at-
mosphere .
The formation of sulfates, the effect of an oil-fired utility
on ambient sulfate levels, and the relationships between sul-
fates contributed by a point source and background levels in
the vicinity of that point source are the subject of this
study. The effects of meteorology and source emission vari-
ables are also addressed in detail.
The data generated by this study adds significantly to the body
of knowledge being accumulated on sulfates, their origin and
their impact on the environment.
We at York Research Corporation are particularly pleased to
have the opportunity to carry out this program for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ABSTRACT
A specific point source of sulfate emissions was chosen in the
Northeastern United States to assess the impact of sulfate
emissions on air quality. A comprehensive particulate and
sulfur emission characterization was performed at the Albany
Steam Station, owned and operated by the Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation in Glenmont, New York. The plant has four operat-
ing 100 MW boilers, installed in the early 1950's and origi-
nally designed to burn coal and oil. During the assessment the
plant fired Venezuelan fuel oil containing 1.9% sulfur, 200 ppm
vanadium, and a fuel additive to inhibit corrosion.
Emissions of total sulfate varied from 22 ppm to 55 ppm (22
kg/hr. to 82 kg/hr. per boiler, using modified Method 6 tests);
sulfuric acid concentration averaged 74% of the total sulfate.
Particulate concentration ranged from 60 mg/Nm to 170 mg/Nm^
(12 kg/hr. to 70 kg/hr. per boiler; 32%-67% of the particulate
emissions were soluble sulfates. Mass median particle diameter
was 1.8 urn to 4.0 urn, as determined by in-stack cascade impac-
tors. Vanadium was implicated as the driving force in the mag-
nitude of the primary sulfate emissions.
Historical meteorological and air quality data for the local
area was examined. Meteorological and air quality parameters
were measured concurrently with emission measurements. The
presence of local sulfate sources was detectable by the moni-
toring network; however, the plume from the plant tended to
pass over or between the monitoring stations during most of the
sampling period. On the few days when the impact was observed,
5 km downstream from the plant, the sulfate impact was 34% to
60% of the total sulfate concentration. Daily ambient sulfate
concentrations were from 3 ug/m to greater than 40 ug/m ; long
term geometric mean concentration for the area was 10.4 ug/m .
The measurements discussed in this report were acquired during
the period September 18, 1978 to October 15, 1978.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number
68-02-2965 by York Research Corporation under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers a period from September 18, 1978 to October 15, 1978,
and work was completed as of September 10, 1979.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ii-l
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables -jx
Acknowledgement x
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Health and Welfare Effects 1
Sulfur Emissions from Manmade Sources 2
Concentration Distribution 4
Atmospheric Chemistry and Transport 5
Removal of Sulfur Compounds from the Atmosphere 7
Effect of Boiler Operating Conditions 9
Related Research Projects 10
Pertinent Issues 12
Sulfate Measurement at a Point Source 13
2. CONCLUSIONS 16
3. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 19
Description of the Study Area 19
Description of the Emission Source 24
Description of the Test Program 26
4. EMISSION MEASUREMENTS 38
Particulate Measurements 38
Total Sulfate and Sulfur Dioxide Measurement 42
Sulfur Oxides Characterization 52
Particle Size Distribution 54
Combustion Records 55
Emission Prediction Models 55
Diurnal Emission Profile 79
Investigation of the Relationship of Sulfate 79
Formation to Combustion Parameters
5. AIR QUALITY 96
Total Suspended Particulates 96
Particle Size 96
Sulfur Dioxide 99
Photochemical Pollutants 103
Carbon Monoxide 112
Sulfate Analysis 113
v
-------
6. METEOROLOGY
Climate
Daily Synoptic Situation
Winds
Upper Atmospheric Measurements
Visibility
7. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY 150
Daily Pollutant Distribution 150
S04 = Daily Isopleth Charts 150
Diffusion Modeling 150
Analysis of Air Quality Measurements 180
Air Quality Analysis of Upwind-Downwind Measurements 190
Statistical Ambient Sulfate Prediction Estimates 198
REFERENCES 202
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number Pag*
1. Hudson River Valley 20
2. Layout of Study Area 22
3. Sectional View of Sampling Network 23
4. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 1 High Load 58
5. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 1 High Load
Soot Blow 59
6. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 2 High Load 60
7. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 2 High Load
Soot Blow 61
8. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 3 High Load 62
9. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 4 High Load 63
10. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 4 High Load
Soot Blow 64
11. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 1 Low Load 65
12. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 2 Low Load 66
13. Particle Size Distribution-Unit 2 Low Load
Soot Blow 67
14. Particulate Emission Estimate 81
15. Paticulate Soluble Sulfate Emission Estimate 82
16. Total Soluble Sulfate Emission Estimate 83
17. Acid Sulfate Emission Estimate 84
18. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Estimate 85
19. Diurnal Analysis-Particulate 86
20. Diurnal Analysis-Particulate Soluble Sulfate 87
21. Diurnal Analysis-Total Soluble Sulfate 88
22. Diurnal Analysis_-Sulfur Dioxide 89
23. Vanadium vs. SO|:/SOX= 93
24. Additive Ratio vs. SO4/SO 94
25. Days of Operation vs. S04/S0? 95
26. SC>2 Diurnal Variation-Sites 1,3,4, Rennselaer 104
27. SC>2 Diurnal Variation-Sites 5,6, Base Station 105
28. Photochemical Pollutant Diurnal Variation-Sites
1 and 3 110
29. Photochemical Pollutant Diurnal Variation-
Rennselaer and Base Station 111
30. Long Term Sulfate Concentration Frequency 114
31. Daily Sulfate Concentrations-Sites 1,3,4 120
32. Daily Sulfate Concentrations-Sites 5,6,
Base Station 121
33. Wind Direction-Oct. 9 126
34. Average Diurnal Temperature Profiles 129
35. Typical Pibal Trajectory 136
36. Visibility vs. Relative Humidity-Newburgh, NY 145
vn
-------
Number
37. Diurnal Nephelometer Values 148
38. Sulfate vs. Scattering Coefficient-Site 5 and
Base Station 149
39. Daily SOJ Isopleth Charts 151-178
40. Sulfate vs. Vanadium-Site 5 186
41. Sulfate vs. Sulfur Dioxide-Site 5 187
42. Sulfate vs. Vanadium-Site 1 188
43. Sulfate vs. Sulfur Dioxide-Site 1 189
vm
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Particulate Tests In Specific Fuel Use Ranges
Combustion Parameters and Particulate Test Results
Compositional Analysis of Particulate Emissions
Combustion Parameters and Particulate Sulfate Test
Results
SOX Test Results
Combustion Parameters and SO Test Results
Sulfate Characterization Test Results
Combustion Parameters and Particle Size Test
Results
Summary of Mass Median Particle Diameter
Average Daily Combustion Parameters - Unit 1
Average Daily Combustion Parameters - Unit 2
Average Daily Combustion Parameters - Unit 3
Average Daily Combustion Parameters - Unit 4
Fuel Oil Specifications
Fuel Additive Analysis - Metals
Summary of Emission Prediction Models
Summary of Regression Analyses
Long Term Total Suspended Particulate
Concentrations
Cascade Impactor Results
Dichotomous Sampler Results
Long Term Sulfur Dioxide Concentration
Long Term Photochemical Pollutant Concentrations
NO, NO2, N0x Concentrations
Long Term Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Annual Variation in 304 _
Seasonal Variation in SO^, Albany
Seasonal Variation in SO^, Troy
Daily Synoptic Situation
Average Diurnal Temperature Aloft
Frequency Distribution of Stability Class
Upper Air Program Data Log
Summary of Mean Wind Directions and Speeds
Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed & Direction
Temperature Change With Height
Albany Airport Visibility
Ratio of Estimated to Observed (Less Site 6)
Concentrations
Site Analysis - Mean Concentrations
Ambient TSP Measurements Upwind -Downwind
Sulfur Dioxide Measurements Upwind-Downwind
Ambient Vanadium Measurements Upwind-Downwind
Ambient Sulfate Measurements Upwind-Downwind
Summary of Ambient Upwind-Downwind Measurements
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis
39
40-41
43-44
45-46
48-49
50-51
53
56-57
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
80
92
97
100
101
102
106
109
112
115
117
118
123-124
128
131
132-135
137
138-141
142-143
146
181
185
192
193
194
196
197
200
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The assistance and cooperation of Mr. Ben Madison and Mr. Ray
Cummings of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is gratefully
acknowledged. Mr. Madison, as Superintendent of the Albany
Steam Station, was helpful in the planning stages of the pro-
ject and rendered assistance throughout the field work. The
Project Coordinator, Mr. Cummings, paved the way for the acqui-
sition of valuable data and aided the pursuit of problems dur-
ing the transaction of this research investigation.
Technical editing was furnished by Ms. Barbara Drummond and
Mr. Barney Corcoran. Coordination of ambient air quality data
and meteorological studies was performed by Mr. Bruce Wuebber.
On behalf of York Research Corporation, I would like to express
our thanks and appreciation to Mr. James Homolya for his
thoughtful guidance as project officer. Without his invaluable
assistance this project could not have succeeded.
Peter L. Cashman
Executive Vice President
York Research Corporation
x
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The suspected adverse effects of atmospheric suspended sulfates
has been of increasing concern to the Environmental Protection
Agency. As a result of recent ambient atmospheric studies,
particularly in the Northeastern United States, the contribu-
tion of acid aerosol sulfates to the total ambient loading has
raised some serious questions. It has generally been accepted
that about one to ten percent of the sulfur in fuel is emitted
from the combustion process as S04 (sulfate) or acid. However,
during the transport process from the point of emission to the
point of effect, sulfur diox-ide can be transformed into various
sulfates. The ability to predict relationships between emis-
sions and ambient air quality—as influenced by physical, chem-
ical and meteorological parameters—is an essential ingredient
in the development of cost effective control strategies. This
has become increasingly important with the realization that
emissions affect not only the air quality in their immediate
vicinity, but may extend their influence for hundreds of kilo-
meters .
HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS
Toxicological studies provide evidence that S02, in the absence
of other pollutants such as ozone or particulates, is a mild
respiratory irritant, while certain specific sulfate compounds,
especially submicron-sized sulfuric acid aerosol, are more
severe respiratory irritants (National Research Counil, 1978).
Epidemiological studies conducted in several U.S. cities
-------
suggest that high daily or annual sulfate levels are associated
with increased attack frequency in asthmatics, worsened symp-
toms in cardio-pulmonary patients, decreased ventilatory func-
tion in school children and symptoms of acute and chronic
respiratory diseases in children and adults. The association
of these health indicators with sulfates was stronger than that
for SO2. When viewed together, the results of the toxicologi-
cal and epidemiological studies suggest that specific sulfate
compounds may also be responsible for the observed excesss
mortality associated with high S02 concentrations (National
Research Council, 1978).
Economic welfare effects associated with sulfates are ecologi-
cal and agricultural damage, materials damage, and visibility
degradation. Sulfates appear to be a major factor in producing
damaging acid rain in a large portion of the Eastern U.S.
SULFUR EMISSIONS FROM MANMADE SOURCES
Of the total emissions of sulfur from all sources in the United
States ( 17.7 Tg/yr.), about 89% is attributed to anthropogenic
emissions. Sulfur emissions from natural sources have been
estimated to be less than 2 Tg/yr. These anthropogenic sulfur
emissions are not uniformly distributed as 75% of the anthropo-
genic emissions have been estimated to occur east of the
Mississippi River (National Research Council, 1978). Power
plant emissions, which in 1973 accounted for about 60% of man-
made S02 emissions in the U.S., have been a rapidly growing
component of the SO2 emission complex (National Research
Council, 1978). While total manmade emissions increased by
approximately 46% between 1960 and 1970, power plant emissions
increased nearly 92% (EPA, 1973). During this period energy
production rose considerably along with the consumption of fuel
oil, while the consumption of coal increased only slightly.
-------
Sulfur in fossil fuel has long been a concern to utility com-
panies because it contributes to corrosion problems during com-
bustion, forming compounds such as SO3 (sulfur trioxide, H2SC>4
(sulfuric acid), and corrosive metallic sulfates. These same
by-products of fuel combustion are named in toxicological
studies as causing pulmonary dysfunction in human beings and
laboratory animals.
Sulfur is liberated from fuel during combustion, forming mostly
sulfur dioxide and a very small amount, perhaps 1%, sulfur tri-
oxide within the furnace flame. The furnace gas, containing
sulfur dioxide in concentrations less than 100 to greater than
several thousand ppm (parts per million), passes through con-
vective gas passages where heat is transferred from the gas to
steel tubes that carry steam for superheat and reheat. The
tubes generally are coated with ash deposits of low-melting
point metals; these deposits can be extremely active catalysts,
causing SC>2 to oxidize to SO^ which then reacts quickly with
H2O to form H2S04« Even the steel tubes themselves, coated
with an iron oxide layer, can be strong catalytic surfaces.
Barrett's studies (1966) have shown that reaction rates for
catalytic oxidation of SC>2 to 803 are very high at temperatures
of 1200°F. The temperatures found in a typical convective back
passage in a utility boiler is 1200°F to 2000°F, and intimate
gas-to-metal contact is very important to efficient operation
of these superheat-reheat steam loops.
Vanadium compounds are a big concern because of their catalytic
nature and their low-melting point characteristics. Residual
fuel oil contains vanadium in variable concentrations, depend-
ing on its source. Asphaltic-base crude oils, particularly
those from Venezuela, often contain more than 300 ppm vanadium
and 2.0% sulfur. The chemical nature of the crude oil ash is
such that the vanadium is stable up to 800°F, therefore it is
-------
not removed by refinery operations, and invariably ends up in
the residual fuel oil.
Vanadium pentoxide is an extremely active catalyst used in the
commercial production of sulfuric acid, converting SG>2 to SO3
prior to gaseous absorption in dilute sulfuric acid. Vanadium
pentoxide also has a melting point of 1247°F, and other vana-
dium compounds such as the sodium vanadates have melting points
from 1165°F to 1560°F (Babcock & Wilcox, 1978). When vanadium
is present in fuel, these low-melting point compounds are
formed and readily stick to superheat-reheat steam tubes.
Sodium is also troublesome because it forms complex alkali iron
trisulfate compounds with boiler metal.
Coal generally has a lower concentration of vanadium (usually
less than 50 ppm) and a higher overall ash content, resulting
in less concentrated vanadium deposits in the critical gas pas-
sages. The amount of sulfur converted to sulfate is usually 1
to 4% in coal fired boilers and 2 to 10% in oil-fired boilers.
The vanadium and sulfur content of the fuel are primarily re-
sponsible for the high sulfate emissions from oil combustion.
CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION
Based on National Air Surveillance Network data, a large por-
tion of the eastern United States has recorded sulfate concen-
trations significantly higher than concentrations generally
observed in other sections of the country. Urban levels range
from 10 to 24 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) and non-urban
levels range from 8 to 14 ug/m3 (annual average) in a 24-state
region east of the Mississippi, roughly bounded by Illinois and
Massachusetts to the north and Tennessee and North Carolina to
the south. In this 24-state region, the 1972 average of non-
urban concentrations exceeded 10 ug/m3 (annual average) with an
urban concentration average of about 13.6 ug/m3. The high
-------
sulfate levels in the 24-state area appear to be spatially cor-
related with high SC^ emission density, high rainfall acidity
patterns, and a high density of power plant locations. The
remainder of the country does not exhibit similar sulfate con-
centrations on a regional scale. The 1972 urban average out-
side the 24-state northeastern region was 7.9 ug/m ; whereas
the non-urban annual average was 4.4 ug/m . There are some
areas, however, such as the Southern California Coastal Basin
and Tampa, Florida, in which high sulfate levels are also
observed. Thus, while these areas do not exhibit the regional
concentration problems characteristic to the northeastern U.S.,
they do have high local sulfate concentrations.
ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND TRANSPORT
Sulfur dioxide is oxidized to sulfuric acid and other sulfur
oxide compounds by several mechanisms, most involving reactive
agents such as photochemical smog, ammonia, catalytic metals
(such as V, Mn, Fe and Ni) and fine particulates. Temperature
and humidity also influence the reaction. These agents can
complicate the relationship between SO2 and sulfates; for
example, reductions or increases in SO2 concentrations may not
result in proportional reductions or increases in sulfate
levels because of the presence of other agents that affect the
formation reaction. Inadequate knowledge concerning formation
mechanisms currently precludes quantitative assessment of
catalytic agent influences.
Studies of large point sources (i.e., power plants) before and
after unit start-up indicate measureable increases in sulfate
concentrations as far as 40 miles away (OAQPS, 1975). Investi-
gations of sulfate formation in plumes of coal-fired plants
with particulate control suggest that the oxidation rate of S02
is negligible for the first 10 to 20 miles but increases to
3%/hr. or more thereafter (Newman et al., 1974a). Similar
-------
studies on oil-fired plants tentatively indicate that the oxi-
dation rate may be more rapid in the first 10 miles (10 to
20%/hr.), with the rate then becoming comparable to that of a
coal-fired plant plume (Newman et al. 1974b). This potentially
rapid initial oxidation rate in the oil-fired plant plume is
most probably the result of certain components in the emitted
flyash that catalyze the reaction. Since sulfates formed in
plumes are very small particles, the removal rate for sulfates
by ground surfaces is much slower than the removal rate for
S02. Once formed, these sulfate particles may be transported
for hundreds of miles, although their downwind concentration is
diminished by dispersion.
Although urban SO2 levels have decreased substantially, no con-
sistent similar trend has been observed for urban sulfates.
Long-range transport and complex precursor relationships have
been hypothesized as explanations of this phenomenon. While
S02 emission reductions in cities resulted in less locally
formed sulfates, increases in non-urban SC>2 emissions (pri-
marily from power plants) may have caused regional sulfate
increases that, on balance, offset the local decreases. This
explanation is supported by the apparent increase in manmade
sulfates at a limited number of eastern non-urban sites for
which data are available. This increase roughly parallels the
increase in overall S02 emissions during that time. Although,
in aggregate, urban sulfate levels showed little change, vari-
able trends were observed for different cities. Variations in
both the spatial distribution of sulfur oxides emissions and in
atmospheric chemistry could affect the relative magnitude of
local versus imported sulfates and account for the variable
trends for individual cities.
Despite the uncertainties concerning the relationship between
S02 emissions and ambient sulfate concentrations, the available
evidence suggests that further increases in SC>2 emissions are
-------
likely to produce increases in regional sulfate levels. How-
ever, sulfate increases are not likely to be linearly propor-
tional to the total SC>2 emissions increase because of the
spatial distribution of the important sources and the complex
formation mechanisms.
REMOVAL OF SULFUR COMPOUNDS FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
Mechanisms of Removal
Mechanisms for the removal of sulfur compounds from the atmos-
phere may be classified as follows:
• Diffusion of sulfur dioxide to soil and vegetation
• Rainout and washout
• Dry removal of sulfate particles
The diffusion of sulfur dioxide to soil and vegetation is rele-
vant to the impact of the power industry on atmospheric sul-
fates because it constitutes a process whereby part of the
conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfates is circumvented.
Unfortunately, from overall environmental considerations, this
process has harmful effects on vegetation.
Rainout and washout are differentiated as follows: rainout
refers to processes initiated in clouds, and washout refers to
processes occurring as precipitation falls through the region
below clouds. These processes are probably significant as
mechanisms for the removal of both sulfates and sulfur dioxide
from the atmosphere. Once formed, sulfate particles may serve
as nuclei for the condensation of water as either liquid or
ice.
Sulfur dioxide in the presence of water is oxidized to sulfuric
acid and other sulfates through several mechanisms. These
-------
include photochemical oxidants, ammonia, and catalytic metals.
Ambient temperature is also thought to be an important factor
(OAQPS, 1975). A simplified example of one of these oxidation
mechanisms is the following reaction for ammonia, sulfur diox-
ide, and water (humidity). The resulting ammonium sulfate
would have atmospheric removal characteristics appropriate for
particulates .
NH3 + H2°
2S02 + 2H20 + 02
2NH4OH +
Just as sulfur dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere by
dif-fusion, sulfate aerosols can be removed by diffusion to the
surface of the earth. Insofar as the dry deposition of sul-
fates is concerned, diffusion is regarded as more significant
than the alternative process of gravitational sedimentation.
Except for the possibility of sulfate particles from sea salt,
sulfate particles are generally too small to undergo signifi-
cant sedimentation under the influence of gravity.
Residence Times
The residence times of sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are
not known with a great deal of certainty. Residence times of
14-33 hours have been estimated for sulfur dioxide and 3-5 days
for sulfate (National Researach Council, 1978).
Transport Effects
Bearing in mind that the residence times are related to the
exponential removal rates, one can easily comprehend the fact
that significant fractions of the sulfur dioxide and sulfate
persist in the atmosphere until they are transported by wind
for long distances. Thus, although deposition on the surface
8
-------
of the earth may be pronounced in the immediate vicinity of a
source of emission, long-range influences are also to be
expected.
EFFECT OF BOILER OPERATING PARAMETERS
The absorption of sulfur oxides, metal oxides, and chlorides by
deposits in the boiler results in the subsequent conversion of
these compounds to sulfates. Therefore, any effect aimed at
minimizing these deposits would reduce sulfate emissions. Soot
blowing removes some of this material but momentarily increases
emission of sulfates and particulates.
There is little evidence to indicate that combustion modifica-
tion will, in general, be an effective procedure for acid aero-
sol abatement although low excess air firing, where practical,
may be an exception. Existing data indicates that acid aerosol
can be reduced by operation with low excess air. The reduction
in NO and N02 is accompanied by reduced 803 formation in the
flame and the reduced availability of oxygen pertains through-
out the system. This implies extremely good combustion con-
trol. It must be kept in mind that in low excess air combus-
tion there is the risk of increased particulate formation which
might lead to an increase in catalytic oxidation of SO2« How-
ever, from the standpoint of controlling both NO/N02 Production
and acid aerosol formation, this appears to be a possible ap-
proach at the present time.
Another aspect of boiler operation is the use of additives,
which in effect change the metal content of the fuel. Gener-
ally, materials are used containing either Mg or Zn, both of
which readily form sulfates. The particles thus formed may be
removed by precipitators thereby reducing the potential for
acid aerosol emission. Various forms of the additive have been
shown to be effctive, i.e., metals, metal oxides, minerals, or
-------
organometallic compounds. There is evidence that suggests the
use of additives can deposit a coating of metallic oxide, such
as magnesium oxide, on the boiler tubes which then deactivates
the catalytic deposits and effects a reduction of sulfate aero-
sol emissions. Generally though, the use of additives is moti-
vated by the reduction of corrosion and acid particulate emis-
sion, through formation of neutral MgSO4 or ZnS04 or MgSO4.
RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS
A significant amount of research into the significance of the
effects of acid fallout and their quantitative relationship to
ambient levels of sulfates in the air is currently in progress
by numerous governmental agencies and industrial organiza-
tions. The more important projects to date include:
Project MISTT (Midwest Interstate Sulfur Transformation and
Transport)
The technical approach of Project MISTT, initiated by EPA's
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory in the summer of
1974, is to study the transformations of S02 to sulfate in
polluted air masses undergoing transport. The intent is to
measure pertinent chemical and meteorological parameters with
sufficient accuracy so that they may be used with physical and
mathematical models to derive rate parameters which character-
ize the transformation processes.
MISTT results to date suggest the existence of both homogeneous
and heterogeneous reactions. Homogeneous reactions, which pro-
bably involve the hydroxyl radical, predominate in dry daylight
conditions. The rates vary from 1/2 to 5 percent per hour, de-
pending on sulight intensity, water vapor concentration, ozone
concentration in the background air, background pollution
levels in general, and the extent of mixing of the plume with
10
-------
background air. On the other hand, heterogeneous reactions in-
volving liquid droplets may predominate during high relative
humidity, at night, and in clouds. These rates may be much
higher than the 1/2 to 5 percent for homogeneous reactions.
Good quantitative data on this are not yet available but it is
known that with very high sulfate and very high conversion
rates, liquid droplets do exist.
Project MESO (Mesoscale Sulfur Balance Project)
The mesoscale sulfur balance project, also managed by EPA's
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory, involves the deter-
mination of the proportion of aerosol in ambient rural air as-
sociated with sulfates formed during long-distance transport.
The relationship among high sulfate measurements, meteorolog-
ical conditions and SO2 input is also being examined. The pro-
ject is designed to test whether successive SO2 sources across
the Midwest cause an accumulation of sulfates at a rate sub-
stantially greater than overall removal rates. The hypothesis
being tested is that as air masses move across the country they
pass over successive sources of SC>2r generally large power
plants. Since sulfates are only slowly removed by natural pro-
cesses, a substantial build-up of sulfate can occur from re-
peated emissions of S02.
Project SURE (The Sulfate Regional Experiment)
Within the United States, the highest sulfate levels occur in
the Northeast. Concentrations ranging from 5-25 ug/m^ are
typical. (During "episodes" values up to 80 ug/m^ have been
recorded). This is in marked contrast to the 3-4 ug/m^ com-
monly measured in the West. Because of the high Northeast
values, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) decided to
initiate a regional sulfate study focusing the effort on the
populous Northeast. Project SURE is a scaled up version of
11
-------
EPA's Project MESO. It's two primary purposes are to define
ambient sulfate in terms of local SC>2 emissions and to assess
the contribution of the electric power industry to regional
sulfate levels. The basic elements of sure consist of a
ground-based and air-based measurement program, an emission
inventory and development of a model to predict regional con-
centrations as a function of local emissions.
Project MAP^S (Multi-State Atmospheric Power Production Pollu-
tion Study)
The goal of MAp3S, the Department of Energy (DOE) sulfate pro-
gram, is to improve simulation capability for use in evaluating
present and future effects due to power production emissions.
Project ACES (Aerosol Composition, Effects, and Sources)
The purpose of EPA's Project ACES is to determine the sources
of urban aerosol. Measurements of the composition and size of
ambient aerosols have been made in selected cities. The aero-
sol components are assigned to natural and anthropogenic
sources and classified as primary or secondary in nature.
These results are compared with emission inventory data.
Models, which include aerosol removal mechanisms and secondary
aerosol formation mechanisms, are used to relate primary
sources of aerosol and precursor gases to ambient aerosol con-
centrations. Thus, it becomes possible to identify those
sources that need to be controlled to provide reduction in
total aerosol loading or specific aerosol components.
PERTINENT ISSUES
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Administrator of EPA may
establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
"any air pollutant which in his judgment has an adverse effect
12
-------
on public health and welfare", and results from emissions of
"numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources." It is
concern for this responsibility that necessitates EPA's intense
interest in the sulfate issue. The possibility of an ambient
sulfate standard being promulgated by EPA is also a major con-
cern of the electric power industry as the impact would be
quite severe.
Promulgation of such a sulfate standard requires a considerable
supporting data base. Among the areas where research is war-
ranted (and in most cases already in progress) include:
1. Reliable monitoring methods for total sulfates, sulfuric
acid and specific sulfates.
2. Quantitative toxicological data regarding the relative
effects of sulfur dioxide and specific sulfates.
3. Investigation into sulfate precursor relationships.
4. Investigation into the mechanisms of acid aerosol forma-
tion and destruction.
5. Correlation between sulfate emissions and ambient air
concentrations as influenced by physical, chemical and
meteorological parameters.
Fortunately, an integrated interagency program of research to
address the numerous issues has already been formulated.
The discussion presented above is not intended to be a compre-
hensive review of this program, but rather identify some of the
issues which this study will address in a direct or indirect
manner.
SULFATE MEASUREMENT AT A POINT SOURCE
A growing concern over the emission and airborne transport of
sulfate materials stimulated this research investigation
13
-------
surrounding a specific point source. The point source for this
study was a representative oil-fired utility plant in the
Northeastern United States using residual fuel oil with 1.9%
sulfur, 200 ppm vanadium and 0.12% ash. The Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation cooperated in the four week field program
which consisted of meteorological, ambient air quality, emis-
sion and combustion data gathering. The investigation covered
the period from September 18, 1978, to October 15, 1978, and
centered around the Albany Steam Station in Glenmont, New
York.
A comprehensive emission characterization program was performed
on all four of the 100 MW rated boilers. Operating data were
collected continuously on all boilers, supplying information
necessary to assess the emissions on an hourly basis. Daily
ground-level total suspended particulate samples were collected
at five monitoring sites, ranging 3.0 km to 5.5 km from the
emission source. Ground-level particulate samples were also
collected at the emission source. Sulfur dioxide concentra-
tions were measured instrumentally at all sampling sites. Two
sampling sites included particle sizing capability, using cas-
cade impactors and virtual impactors (dichotomous samplers),
and visibility measurement capability using nephelometers.
Four sampling sites included NO/NO2 measurement capability.
Meteorological measurements included wind speed and direction
on the Hudson Valley floor and at an elevation above the stack
height. Atmospheric mixing height measurements were made con-
tinuously with an acoustic sounding device; calibration was
accomplished with helium-filled balloon sondes. The balloons
were tracked with theodolites in order to determine upper level
wind speed and direction.
The data were used to identify the contribution of sulfate
emissions from a known point source to the ground-level
14
-------
concentration of sulfate in the vicinity of that same point
source. The formation of primary sulfate was investigated as a
function of operational variables and the relationship between
primary sulfate emissions and the ambient ground-level concen-
tration was identified.
Wind speed and direction measurements were available from the
National Weather Service at Albany Airport. Wind speed and
direction, as well as air quality measurements, were available
from the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion's Rennsalaer monitoring site.
A map of the general area and the Hudson River is shown in
Figure 1, and a map showing the monitoring network is shown in
Figure 2.
15
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Total sulfate concentration in the plant effluent ranged from
22 ppm to 55 ppm as measured with a modified EPA Method 6 sam-
pling train. This resulted in emission rates of 22 kg/hr. to
82 kg/hr. from each operating boiler. Sulfur dioxide emission
concentration averaged 938 ppm and average emission rate was
856 kg/hr. Sulfuric acid concentration averaged 73.5% of the
total sulfate emission as determined using a controlled conden-
sation sampling train. However, a discrepancy exists between
the test results using the modified Method 6 train and the con-
trolled condensation train for total sulfate measurement. The
total sulfate results from the modified Method 6 tests were ap-
proximately twice those from the controlled condensation
tests. The results of the modified Method 6 tests were used in
the sulfate emission correlations because they are consistent
with data obtained from similar emission sources.
Particulate concentrations ranged from 60 mg/Nm3 to 170 mg/Nm3
and emission rates ranged from 12 kg/hr. to 70 kg/hr. Between
32% and 67% of the particulate collected at 160°C was in the
form of sulfate.
Mass median particle diameter was 1.8 urn to 4.0 urn during nor-
mal operation at high load. Slightly lower diameters were ob-
served at low loads and slightly higher diameters were observed
during soot blow.
A proportional relationship was observed between vanadium con-
centration in the stack gases and the emissions of sulfate. A
reduction in sulfate emissions was implicated by the time of
on-line boiler operations, using a fuel additive. However, the
relationship was not that strong.
16
-------
Local source/sink effects can be seen in the ambient sulfate
data from the Albany area. While the specific local sources
are not quantified, their presence is detectable.
The ambient sulfate data tend to indicate that the higher con-
centrations occur as pulses or spikes. These ambient pulses or
spikes last on the order of magnitude about one day with lower
sulfate values preceeding and following the 24 hour elevated
ambient concentrations.
Diurnal variations in both meteorological and air quality para-
meters were found to exist. These variations suggest that sul-
fate due to local sources would be minimally observed in the
Albany area. The night time surface stable areas would tend to
retard the dispersion of elevated sources to the ground. The
surface levels of ozone and sulfur dioxide tended to have day
time maximums but at different times of day. Thus, photochemi-
cal SC>2 to SC>4 conversions incorporating ozone were probably
minimal.
There were limitations in the air sampling network. During the
sampling period, the plume from the Albany Steam Station tended
to pass over or between monitoring stations resulting in little
or no impact at these monitoring stations.
Sulfate transported into the study area was higher during
periods of southwesterly flow aloft. Ambient sulfate measure-
ments demonstrated a high variability in sulfate levels. On
the three days when the winds were blowing directly towards a
monitoring site for at least 12 hours, the average increase of
downwind sulfate concentration over upwind concentration was
from 3 ug/m3 to 26 ug/m3 or from 34% to 60% of the total down-
wind sulfate concentration.
17
-------
In the study area during the study period, daily ambient sul-
fate concentrations ranged from 3 ug/m to greater than 40
ug/m3. Annual geometric mean sulfate concentrations for down-
town Albany range from 8.0 ug/m to 13.0 ug/ m3 and 7.1 ug/m3
to 11.0 ug/m3 for Troy.
18
-------
SECTION 3
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
General
The macrosphere of this investigation includes the greater
Adirondack Mountain Region, bordered on the East by the Hudson
River, on the South by the Mohawk River, and on the West and
North by Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Hudson
River Valley extends to the South, draining into the Atlantic
Ocean at New York City; the Hudson is bordered on the West by
the Catskill Mountain Region and on the East by gently rolling
terrain. The Catskill Mountain Region's Northern border is a
rolling area extending 50 miles to the Mohawk River.
Topography
The greater Albany area lies at the confluence of the Mohawk
and Hudson Rivers. These rivers lie in broad valleys sur-
rounded by the Catskill Mountains to the Southwest, the
Adirondack Mountains to the Northwest and the Green Mountains
to the East. These mountain-valley terrain features tend to
produce North-South surface winds. The topography in the study
area is shown in the terrain cross-sections in Figure 3. These
cross-sections illustrate the small river bottom valley within
the larger Hudson River Valley. The Hudson River bottom land
is confined in a shallow valley about 200 m deep and about 2 km
wide. The terrain on the East side of the river above the bot-
tom land is somewhat higher than that on the West side. The
West side above the river bluff is relatively flat compared to
the more rolling East side.
19
-------
FIGURE 1
THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY
VKBMONT
'/s & -r-
Aprox. 1000
foot contours
Aprox. 2000 ft. contours
20
-------
The Albany-Troy-Schenectady Metropolitan area is the reception
point for airborne materials carried by South winds from the
Newburgh-Kingston-Poughkeepsie industrial areas of the Mid-
Hudson Valley. The New York City-Philadelphia-Baltimore area
sources are still further South. Westerly winds transport air-
borne materials from Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse and from indus-
trial areas along the shores of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
Northwest winds may transport materials from the St. Lawrence
Valley area, a major paper manufacturing industrial center.
The three cities of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy and their
environs form one of the major metropolitan areas of the
country. This area, located near the juncture of the Mohawk
and Hudson rivers, is one of the nation's oldest industrial and
commercial centers. From early colonial days, ocean-going
ships ascended the Hudson River to Albany, which served as a
transhipment point to and from the interior. The opening of
the Erie Canal between Buffalo and Albany in 1825 provided
further incentive for growth.
The land between Albany and Troy is completely built up and the
area between Albany and Schenectady is nearly so. Manufactur-
ing employs about one-third of the total labor force. One of
the main industries is the manufacture of electrical equipment,
mostly in Schenectady. Other manufacturing in the area in-
cludes textile mills, locomotives, paper products, chemicals,
meat products and foundries. Albany, the State Capital con-
tains a sizeable number of professional and clerical workers
(Bogue and Beale, 1961). Between Albany and Poughkeepsie, to
the South, are several cement plants.
In addition to the present Port of Albany, other transportation
facilities include Interstate Highways 87 and 90. The Penn
Central maintains railroad tracks on both sides of the Hudson
River. There is a sizeable railroad marshalling yard to the
21
-------
FIGURE 2
LAYOUT OF STUDY AREA
22
-------
SECTIONAL VIEW OF SAMPLING NETWORK
NJ
U)
Site 01 Cross-Section
400-
Feet
200-
Emission Source
Cross-Section Met g
..Site 06 Tower
w
km 4
400-
Feet
200-
3 2
Site 05 Cross-Section
|l Emission
||+Source
O
W I
kr> 4
Site 05
Site 04
_Site.03.-
FIGURE 3
-------
South of Albany as well as another marshalling yard in the Port
of Albany area. The Albany airport is served by scheduled air
carriers, and airport services include an FAA Air Traffic
Control Tower, Flight Service Station, and an office of the
National Weather Service.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EMISSION SOURCE
General
The emission source under study is an oil-fired utility power
plant consisting of four boilers with a total net steam gener-
ating capacity of 400 MW, and 140 MW capacity using gas tur-
bines. The plant is part of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corpora-
tion's generating system, which serves the Northern section of
New York State, including the Syracuse and Albany areas and the
Adirondack Region, and a portion of the Western tip of the
State, including Buffalo. One component of the generating
system is an oil-fired plant with 1136 MW of net generating
capacity at Oswego in the Mohawk Valley. Also included in the
system are two coal-fired plants in the Buffalo area with a
combined total of 1040 MW of net generating capacity- Numerous
hydro-electric plants also supply power to the customers in the
Adirondack Mountain Region (Electrical World, 1978).
Albany Steam Station
Each of the four boilers at the Albany plant is a Combustion
Engineering unit with tangential combustion, rated at 675,000
Ibs. steam per hour and 100 MW net power output. During the
28-day time period under study, three boilers were operating
normally on 17 days, four boilers were operating normally on 10
days, and two boilers were operating on one day.
24
-------
The boilers are housed in a large brick building, approximately
50 meters high; each boiler exhaust is vented to an individual
stack, the base of which is supported by the power plant struc-
ture. The top of each stack is approximately 100 meters above
ground and has an inside diameter of 3.86 meters.
During the period of study the plant was firing residual fuel
oil of Venezuelan origin with an average sulfur content of
1.9%; vanadium and ash concentration was 200 ppm and 0.12%
respectively. Since the object was to study the point source-
related contribution sulfates have on ambient levels, this
plant was chosen because its fuel is likely to have a signifi-
cant effect on primary sulfate emissions. Fuel was transported
via ocean-going tank ships up the Hudson River to the plant
site. Two fuel handling circuits transported oil from the
three storage tanks to the four boilers as it was combusted.
Each fuel circuit was capable of drawing oil from any combina-
tion of the three storage tanks.
A fuel additive, consisting of magnesium and magnesium oxide in
a petroleum liquid, was added to the oil just prior to combus-
tion to inhibit corrosion caused by sulfuric acid. The addi-
tive was stored in a bulk tank outside the plant structure.
The liquid was periodically transferred from the main tank to
holding tanks from which it was drawn and injected into the oil
lines at a nominal ratio of 2500:1 (oil: additive by volu-
metric measure).
The operating boilers produced an average of 67 percent maximum
generation capacity from 2200 hours through 0500 hours during
the study period, with an average of 80 percent maximum genera-
tion capacity from 0900 hours to 1600 hours. Transition to a
peak 'approaching 90 percent maximum generation capacity oc-
curred in the intermediary time periods.
25
-------
The boiler plant operates on a rotating schedule with each
boiler out of service for four to six weeks to perform pre-
ventive maintenance at least once anually. During the outage
the various boiler-turbine-generator components are disas-
sembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired or replaced, and reas-
sembled. At the initiation of the study period, Boiler Unit 3
was out of service to perform a four-week maintenance program/-
Boiler Unit 4 had been in service for two weeks since its
annual overhaul; Boiler Unit 1 had been in service six weeks
since an outage for replacement of a transformer: and Boiler
Unit 2 had been in service ten weeks since annual overhaul.
Boiler Unit 3 was returned to service after the 18th day of the
study period.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST PROGRAM
Emission Measurement Boiler Operations
In order to quantify the rate of sulfate and other specific
materials emitted from the point source stacks, samples were
extracted from the stack effluent concurrent with the meteoro-
logical and ground-level concentration measurements. Through-
out the investigation, combustion and operational variables,
which can have a significant effect on the quantity of ejected
materials, were continuously documented by recording instru-
ments. Using statistical methods, the simultaneous operational
variables and emission test results were correlated in order to
assess the quantity of materials emitted on a continuous real-
time basis.
Samples of particulate matter were obtained by filtration of
the boiler exhaust gas according to EPA Particulate Test Method
5 (40 CFR 60 App. A). The glass fiber medium was kept at 160°C
to prevent condensation of sulfuric acid. The samples of flue-
gas were extracted isokinetically through an electrically
26
-------
heated glass-lined probe with a stainless steel nozzle pointing
into the gas stream. Discrete annuli were established at the
centers of concentric equal areas within the stack
cross-section.
Each annulus was sampled at the center of each of four quad-
rants. The particulate sample consisted of a sum of material
extracted from twelve representative points. The material was
analyzed for total weight and composition, including sulfate
and other water soluble ions, and specific metallic content,
i.e., nickel, calcium, sodium, potassium, vanadium, iron, mag-
nesium, and manganese.
The particulate sampling method was used to quantify the spe-
cific materials in terms of mass per unit volume of gas ejected
from the stack. Simultaneous measurements of the physical gas
characteristics (velocity pressure and temperature) and quanti-
tative analysis of the major gas constituents (water vapor,
oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide) resulted in an assessment of
the volumetric rate of total flue gas emission. Specific con-
centrations of ejected materials were then computed in terms of
mass per unit time.
The discharge of particulate sulfate materials was quantified
using the method described above. However, a large portion of
the sulfate materials leaving the stack can be in the form of
sulfuric acid, which may be gaseous at the filtration
temperature. An additional test method was used whereby the
flue gas was extracted through a heated glass-lined probe; par-
ticulate matter was removed from the sample stream with a
quartz wool plug prior to flowing into the probe. Collection
of the gaseous sulfate materials was accomplished by bubbling
the sample gas through an aqueous solution of isopropyl alco-
hol. Gaseous sulfate, a hygroscopic material, was absorbed in
the aqueous solution, while sulfur dioxide passed through
27
-------
solution, while sulfur dioxide passed through unchanged. A
second bubbling solution of hydrogen peroxide and water was
used to oxidize and absorb the sulfur dioxide. Both solutions
were immersed in an ice bath to enhance condensation and col-
lection.
The sampling and analysis was performed in accordance with EPA
Sulfur Dioxide Test Method 6 (40 CFR 60 App. A). The plug
filter, probe washings, isopropyl alcohol, bubbler exit plug
filter, and hydrogen peroxide solution were analyzed separately
for sulfate using barium-thorin titration with cation removal
pretreatment of the plug filter and probe washings. Results
were obtained in units of mass per unit volume and volume per
unit volume of total flue gas emission. Since these tests were
performed concurrently with the gas volumetric assessment, the
results could be converted to mass emission per unit time.
A sulfate characterization system was used by EPA personnel
during the field sampling to assess the quantity of primary
sulfate that was emitted as sulfuric acid. The system con-
sisted of a high-temperature heated quartz probe, followed by a
high-temperature quartz filtration device. The filtration de-
vice was enclosed with a custom made heating mantle, and had
a coarse quartz frit for support of the filtering pad. Follow-
ing filtration, the gaseous sulfuric acid was converted to the
aerosol form in the temperaturecontrolled Goksoyr-Ross conden-
sation coil (Cheney and Homolya, 1979).
The acid aerosol was collected in a Greenburg-Smith bubbler
containing an 80% solution of isopropyl alcohol and water.
Following this the sulfur dioxide was collected in an impinger
containing 3% peroxide and water. The recovered samples were
analyzed using the barium-thorin procedure described in EPA
Sulfur Dioxide Test Method 6 (40 CFR 60 App. A).
28
-------
The particle size distribution of ejected materials also be-
comes an important factor in the analysis due to air transport
considerations. Cascade impactors were used to obtain samples
of particulate matter within specific size ranges concurrent
with the samples of total particulate. The impactors each con-
tained eight fractionating jet plates in series, with collec-
tion substrates below them. The substrates were composed of
glass fiber material and served as impingement surfaces for the
particles exiting through the jet directly above. Each jet
plate has a design cut point with a 50% probability that a par-
ticle with that aerodynamic diameter will impinge on the sub-
strate below it. Smaller particles follow the gas streamlines
through the successive jets until the jet with the appropriate
size is reached. Particles below about .5 urn are collected on
the backup glass fiber filter. The filter and substrates were
analyzed for net particulate material and presented as the per-
centage of particulate per stage.
Samples of particulate size range, total particulate, sulfate
and sulfur dioxide were procured from each boiler concurrently
with the documentation of operational variables. No attempt
was made to modify the combustion controls from the normal
operational procedures. The load generation was purposefully
lowered on several days in order to obtain samples under this
type of normal operation, however no alterations were insti-
tuted. The normal soot blowing schedule was not changed, how-
ever each occurrence was documented and several samples were
obtained during soot blow conditions. Samples of fuel oil and
chemical oil additive were obtained on a daily basis. Fuel
sulfur content was determined daily with more detailed analyses
including metals content analyses performed weekly.
The volumetric concentration of gaseous sulfur dioxide, oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and gas temperature was measured continuously
29
-------
on two stacks using instrumental analyzers. These data pro-
vided a general representative profile of ejected materials on
a daily basis.
Ambient Air Quality Assessment
The distribution of sulfate materials in the ambient ground-
level atmosphere was determined concurrently with meteorolo-
gical air transport factors in order to ascertain the source of
such materials. A network of monitoring stations was necessary
to assess the impact of source-emitted materials on ground-
level concentrations. The emission source had been the subject
of previous and ongoing studies and was surrounded by several
satellite monitoring stations. Seven stations (see Figure 2)
were equipped with continuous sulfur dioxide analysis capabil-
ity: two stations to the North and one to the South in the
Hudson Valley; one station to the West above the West bank of
the river? two stations to the East above the East bank of the
river; and one station was located immediately to the North of
the plant.
Six of the monitoring sites were supplied with the capability
of measuring total suspended particulate concentration on a
24-hour basis. Throughout the time interval during which this
experiment was performed, a sample of total suspended particu-
late matter was obtained each day at each of these sites.
These samples were analyzed for sulfate composition, other
water-soluble constituents, and acid-soluble metallic constitu-
ents .
The mass fraction of airborne particulate matter within certain
size ranges was determined with the use of cascade impactors.
The impactors separate the particles according to individual
aerodynamic diameter by impaction upon a glass fiber material.
The impactors were located at the base site immediately North
30
-------
of the emission source, and at site 5 to the South of the emis-
sion source.
Two dichotomous samplers were used to discriminate between par-
ticles with aerodynamic diameters above and below a specific
diameter. The dichotomous sampler accelerates the particulate
matter through a nozzle; particles with an aerodynamic diameter
smaller than 3.5 urn follow the gas streamlines and are removed
by a Teflon micropore filter while the larger (greater than 3.5
urn) particles impact upon a separate filter medium. The dicho-
tomous samplers were also located at the base site and site 5.
One obvious factor concerning air quality is visibility.
Nephelometers were used to quantify the amount of light-scat-
tering particulate (other than condensed water vapor) present
in the atmosphere during the test program. These instruments
were located at the base site and site 5.
Nitrogen oxide analyzing instruments operated at sites 1, 3,
and the base site. Ozone analysis capability was included at
the base site. Most of the ambient measurement capability
mentioned above was also available at the NYSDEC station in
Rensselaer. Total suspended particulate historical data was
available from NYSDEC at downtown Albany, Schenectady, and Troy
on a one day in six basis.
Sulfate Artifact Experiment
Ground-level concentrations of sulfate as measured with high-
volume sampling apparatus can consist of primary sulfates
emitted from point sources plus secondary sulfate formed by the
conversion of sulfur dioxide during airborne transport. A pos-
sibility also exists for the formation of sulfate artifact to
occur during or after the sampling period by chemical reactions
with sulfur dioxide, metallic oxides, and moisture. A program
31
-------
was conducted to isolate the effects of sulfate artifact forma-
tion and to evaluate the contributory factors involved in meas-
urement error caused by this conversion. The results of this
series of tests are presented separately.
Filter media, handling procedures, and gas dosage with sulfur
dioxide were evaluated. Three types of filter media were in-
vestigated: 01-Gelman Type A/E glass fiber; 02-Gelman Type A
glass fiber; 03-Gelman Microquartz. A collection device was
designed and fabricated, consisting of a modified high-volume
sampler motor with four identical stainless steel inlet tubes;
each tube contained mating surfaces fitted between the two
halves of a 90 mm diameter filter holder, enabling a maximum of
four identical simultaneous samples of total suspended particu-
late. The openings of the four inlet tubes extended five feet
above the roof of the monitoring trailer.
An overhanging cap was designed so as to comply with specifica-
tions for collection of suspended particulate less than 100
urn. The exhaust of the high-volume motor was ducted outside
the trailer with flexible tubing.
As part of the operational procedure, at least two different
types of filters were simultaneously exposed during the sampl-
ing interval. After exposure, certain filters were placed in
glassine envelopes and sealed in air tight polyethylene enve-
lopes. The remaining filters were placed in glassine envelopes
and manila envelopes (standard procedure for all high-volume
sampling). The protected filters had minimum contact with the
atmosphere prior to removal for analysis, whereas the unpro-
tected filters were subject to such atmospheric conditions as
could penetrate the standard envelopes. These filters were
evaluated to determine if there were any significant contribu-
tions attributed to the handling and storage procedures.
32
-------
In addition, provisions were made on several test days to in-
troduce sulfur dioxide gas into the sampling tube. The sulfur
dioxide injection tests were performed on three separate days
using type 01 filters. All filters on these days were sealed
in air tight polyethylene envelopes until analysis.
Meteorological Assessment
In order to assess the impact of source emissions on the
ground-level concentration of sulfate materials, an understand-
ing of the local meteorology is essential. To a certain extent
the transport of airborne materials is dependent upon the topo-
graphy of the area under study, however the measurement of
physical characteristics of the atmosphere is the prime method
of understanding this airborne transport mechanism.
The emission source comprising the subject of this investiga-
tion is part of an area that has, on a continuous basis, exten-
sive meteorological documentation. The National Weather Ser-
vice has a station at the Albany County Airport located in the
center of the triangle formed by Albany, Schenectady, and
Troy. The New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion operates an air quality and meteorological monitoring sta-
tion at Rensselaer, across the river and in a north-north-
easterly direction from the emission source. The Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation maintains a meteorological tower on
the slope of the West bank of the Hudson River Valley bottom
land just above the emission source.
In addition to the existing meteorological network, two moni-
toring stations were added on the floor of the Hudson River
bottom land; one approximately three hundred meters North of
the plant and another approximately five and one-half kilo-
meters South.
33
-------
Significant knowledge of the air transport factors was avail-
able from the instrumented tower located on the slope above the
emission source. Wind factors on the floor of the river valley
may have been affected by the steep slopes on either side,
causing a wind-channel effect within the valley quite different
from the wind pattern above the slopes. The upper level in-
struments on the tower are one hundred meters above grade; the
grade on the slope is 33 meters above the grade of the valley
floor, resulting in measurements at a point that is 33 meters
above the stack exit. Wind and temperature are measured at
this point (top of the tower) and at a lower point (90 meters
below the top of the tower). In addition to wind speed and
direction, air temperature and the temperature difference
between the two instrument levels are obtained.
An acoustic sounder was used to determine the height at which
upward rise of pollutants terminates. An acoustic signal
directed upward rebounded from the atmospheric layer at which
the temperature change occurred. The length of time necessary
for the signal to return was proportional to the mixing
height.
The acoustic instrument operated continuously and was augu-
mented by the use of balloon-borne temperature sensors. While
a radio receiver-recorder plotted the signals from the sensor,
the balloon was tracked manually by two theodolites, precision
optical instruments capable of measuring both the elevation
angle and azimuth angle of the balloon at 15 second intervals.
A computer was used to translate angles into wind speed and
direction with height using the method of Norman Thyler
(1962).
34
-------
Meteorological and Ambient Air Quality Site Descriptions
Base —
The base site was located 600 feet North of the Albany Steam
Station. It consisted of one of the York Research trailers
equipped with ambient air intakes. These intakes included a
glass manifold for sampling of gaseous SO2, NO, N02, NOX and
03; a stainless steel sampling device for the multi-head high
volume sampler; and an air intake for use by the nephelometer.
The trailer was kept at a constant temperature (25° _+ 5°C).
Outside the trailer the solar radiometer was mounted at a
height of 5 feet; a 10 meter tower was erected with wind direc-
tion and speed at 10 meters and temperature and dew point at
the 8 meter height. Other instrumentation included a rain
gauge, an acoustic sounder with transceiver located within a
lead enclosure, and 2 high volume samplers located 8 feet above
the ground. On the roof of the trailer at a height of approxi-
mately 12 feet were the dichotomous sampler and the cascade
impactor with flow control. Balloon launchings were also
carried out at this location. Satellite stations surrounding
the plant were equipped as follows:
Site 1 —
Located at a Niagara Mohawk Substation on Delaware Avenue in
downtown Albany, it consisted of a Meloy SO2 monitor, a Teco
NO, N02, NOX monitor and two 24-hour high volume samplers.
Site 3 —
Located on Hays Road in a rural environment this site included
a Meloy S02 unit and a Teco NO, N02, NOX unit along with two
24-hour high volume samplers. (Site 2 designation was not used
35
-------
as it represents an inactive monitoring site owned by Niagara
Mohawk).
Site 4—
Located in the Greenbush Power Substation it contained a Thermo
Electron S02 monitor and two 24-hour high volume samplers.
Site 5—
This site was located in Bethlehem Park approximately 100 feet
from the shore line of the Hudson River. There were two
shelters located here, one contained the Meloy SC>2 and the
dichotomous sampler, while the other contained the recorders
for wind speed and direction located on a 30 foot tower as well
as temperature sensor, a nephelometer, and a multi-head high
volume particulate sampler. Also located here were two 24-hour
high volume samplers, a cascade impactor and flow control unit,
and a rain gauge.
Site 6—
Site 6 was located in the Bethlehem substation and contained a
Meloy S02 unit as well as two 24-hour high volume samplers.
Meteorological Tower—
The tower was located approximately 1,000 feet Northwest of the
plant. Wind speed and direction were taken from two levels:
upper level 462 feet above mean sea level, lower level 150 feet
above mean sea level. Delta-T was also measured here with a
height difference of 312 feet.
36
-------
Rensselaer (Port of Albany)—
The NYSDEC monitoring station in Rensselaer was located on the
Northern side of the ship turning basin for the Port of
Albany. To the South of this station on both sides of the
river are the docking facilities and tank farms of the port.
To the North of this monitoring station extends an industrial
district.
37
-------
SECTION 4
EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
PARTICULATE MEASUREMENTS
Samples of particulate matter were extracted on glass fiber
filters using EPA Particulate Test Method 5. The filters were
kept at 160°C or greater to prevent condensation of sulfuric
acid during sampling. Gas and particulate samples were ex-
tracted isokinetically from twelve sampling points through a
heated glass-lined probe. The particulate material was ana-
lyzed for total weight, water soluble ions, sulfate, nitrate,
ammonia, chloride, and specific metals, nickel, calcium,
sodium, potassium, vanadium, iron, magnesium, and manganese.
Measurements were made that permitted calculation of the volu-
metric rate of gas flow.
Test Schedule
Tests were performed at various points along an operational
line from 50% to 100% maximum load, with the majority of tests
performed at the upper end. No combustion optimization was
performed and the boilers operated routinely depending on
system demand. Only during specific periods when a boiler was
off the automatic load control for lowload tests did any insti-
tuted controls occur. A breakdown of the fuel use ranges and
the tests performed in those ranges is shown on Table 1.
38
-------
TABLE 1
PARTICULATE TESTS IN SPECIFIC FUEL USE RANGES
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
58-62
(7)
54
(3)
34
(3)
60-62
(8)
43-56
(3)
31-32
(6)
59-63
(7)
42
(1)
-
-
59-65
(14)
-
-
32
(2)
100 gal./hr.
(No. of tests)
100 gal./hr.
(No. of tests)
100 gal./hr.
(No. of tests)
Test Results
Results of individual particulate tests are presented with
simultaneous combustion parameters on Table 2. Results of
filterable particulate varied from about 60 mg/Nm3 at low load
conditions to about 170 mg/Nm3 at maximum load conditions. One
extreme occurred during soot blow when the particulate concen-
tration was in excess of 300 mg/Nm3 (Unit 2, 9-26,0950). This
may also have been contributed by blockage of ash in the
cyclone hoppers. Total (filterable plus condensible) particu-
late concentration ranged 70-225 mg/Nm3. Filterable particu-
late emission rate ranged 12-70 kg/hr. and total particulate
emission rate ranged 17-85 kg/hr.
A model of particulate emission was developed using oil con-
sumption, boiler oxygen concentration, and fuel additive ratio
as the independent variables. The model can be found in
Section 4.
Particulate Composition
The particulate samples were analyzed for water soluble SO^,
Cl~, N-NH4", N-NO~3 and for metals Na, K, Mg, Ca, Ni, Mn, Fe,
39
-------
TABLE 2
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS AND PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS
Date
Unit 1
9-18
9-19**
9-19
9-19
9-20
9-20**
9-20
9-29
9-29
9-29
9-30
10-01
10-01
Unit 2
9-21
9-21
9-22**
9-22
9-23
9-23
9-23**
9-24
9-24
9-24**
9-25
9-26**
9-26
9-26
9-27
* EOT
** Soot
Time *
1430
1040
1240
1515
1005
1210
1430
1110
1305
1500
1045
1015
1200
1300
1449
0955
1400
0951
1155
1416
0945
1130
1340
0950
0950
1155
1340
0940
Blow
Oil Flow
gal/hr
5900
6100
6100
6100
6000
6100
6200
5400
5400
5400
3400
3400
3400
6150
6100
6100
6050
3100
3100
3100
3200
3100
3100
6150
6000
6200
6100
5600
Test
Fuel
S-%
1.95
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.78
1.78
1.78
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.05
1.80
1.80
1.70
1.70
1.75
1.75
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.97
1.95
1.95
1.95
2.05
Boiler
0,.-%-
£,
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.6
3.0
2.5
2.5
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.2
3.2
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.2
4.6
4.6
4.5
3.6
3.5
4.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.2
Stack
0 -%
£.
5.8
5.6
5.9
5.4
5.6
5.7
5.8
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.6
7.7
5.5
5.6
5.4
5.3
8.1
8.3
8.2
7.6
7.8
7.4
6. 3
6.1
6.0
5.9
6.3
Stack
Temp-°C
161
166
161
160
160
160
159
163
159
161
154
152
150
188
188
179
177
148
148
153
150
149
157
177
170
177
185
165
Front-h
rag/Am
89.79
99.27
89.78
95.93
96.82
115.44
106.58
66.93
65.32
72.27
60.40
49.47
52.50
102.55
83.90
104.19
73.53
58.12
55.23
68.45
52.78
54.54
66.94
69.86
183.84
81.49
69.28
76.10
Total
mg/Am3
120.98
122.59
139.52
137.13
126.57
137.94
119.04
72.00
91.95
90.80
86.83
81.50
69.81
123.12
94.22
115.16
83.35
66.38
60.14
80.35
90.77
74.56
73.35
80.52
191.61
96.91
88.92
82. 14
Front-Jj
mg/Nm
146.26
160.06
146.55
156.75
159.24
189.09
174.45
107.81
106.72
115.10
96.74
79.13
84.88
181.38
150.08
178.84
124.05
89.99
85.83
107.41
84.02
86.60
107.51
119.47
302.14
136.42
118.84
125.51
Total
mg/Nm3
197.07
197.68
227.. 74
224.08
208.18
225.95
194.85
115.97
150.22
144.62
139.08
130.36
112.87
217 .77
168.54
197.67
140.62
102.79
93.46
126.08
144.29
118.40
117.80
137.70
314.91
162.22
152.52
135.48
Front-is
kg/hr
53.66
61.95
53.59
57.87
56.45
66.86
64.36
40.61
37.33
43.41
21.61
17.89
19.03
67.09
56.77
69.26
48.93
23.18
21.14
26.00
21.30
21.29
25.83
45.90
114.20
54.66
45.18
45.29
Total
kg/hr
72.30
76.50
83.28
82.72
73.80
79.90
71.89
43.68
52.54
54.54
31.07
29.48
25.30
80.55
63.75
76.56
55.46
26.47
23.02
30.52
36.64
29.11
28.31
52.91
119.03
65.00
57.98
48.88
-------
TABLE 2
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS AND PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS (CONTD.)
Date
Time* Oil Flow
gal/hr
Unit 2
9-27
9-28
Unit 3
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-12
10-13**
10-13
10-13
10-15
Unit 4
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-04
10-05
10-05
10-05**
10-06
10-06
10-06
10-07
10-07
10-08
10-08
10-09
10-09
* EOT
** Soot
(Contd.;
1145
0950
1002
1150
1335
1010
0930
1125
1315
1005
1010
1209
1410
1325
0940
1125
1330
0950
1145
1340
1025
1240
1105
1304
1055
1440
5600
4300
6300
6300
6300
5900
6200
6200
6300
4200
6300
6400
6300
6000
6150
5900
6300
6100
6000
6100
6200
6050
3200
3200
5950
6500
Fuel
S-%
2.05
2.25
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.28
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.14
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.20
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.70
1.70
1.96
1.96
BoiL
°2~
2.3
3.8
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.1
2.1
1.9
3.5
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.4
5.5
5.0
3.5
3.2
Blow Test
Stack
6.4
7.4
6.3
6.0
6.1
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.0
7.8
6.8
6.4
6.7
6.6
6.2
7.2
6.4
6.6
6.3
6.6
5.9
6.3
9.6
9.7
6.4
6.4
Stack
Front- !j.
Temp-°C mg/Am"*
166
158
145
148
149
146
146
143
146
119
157
160
156
153
157
150
155
157
158
160
166
161
131
133
157
160
73.42
60.41
94.73
79.07
92.87
107.99
93.81
77.23
101.75
39.23
70.38
64.96
53.76
74.16
75.57
60.65
87.22
79.37
79.63
72.48
63.65
65.67
43.83
39.87
66.47
95.74
Total 3:
mg/Am
101.45
83.63
102.82
105.71
115.53
127.22
112.47
87.56
108.28
56.96
98.01
84.60
64.51
97.70
96.01
85.89
126.31
88.96
89.98
77.99
89.17
72.25
51.27
42.51
102.64
103.81
Front-^- Total,, Front-Jj
mg/Nm
121.70
97.17
148.59
125.82
149.49
170.39
149.18
120.85
161.55
57.44
114.04
106.21
87.37
118.80
123.45
94.81
141.27
129.63
130.77
120.52
115.00
108.25
65.96
60.21
107.10
154.14
mg/Nm
168.17
134.52
161.28
168.23
185.97
200.75
178.85
137.01
171.93
83.39
158.82
138.33
104.85
156.52
156.82
134.27
204.58
145.29
147.77
129.68
149.38
119.11
77.16
64.19
165.37
167.51
kg/hr
45.12
30.98
58.26
47.58
54.75
64.38
52.97
48.08
59.56
12.11
47.67
43.45
32.78
41.58
43.94
28.95
51.67
45.70
48.32
43.42
43.81
40.31
17.52
15.75
39.85
60.58
Total
kg/hr
62.35
42.89
63.24
63.61
68.10
75.85
63.51
54.51
63.38
17.59
66.39
56.59
39.34
54.79
55.82
41.00
74.82
51.22
54.61
46.72
56.91
44.35
20.49
16.79
61.53
65.71
-------
and V. These results are shown in Table 3. An unusual set of
tests occurred on Unit 2, where very high levels of Na, K, Ca,
and Cl~ were observed. These elements are common in sea water,
indicating that some stratified water was present in the fuel
tanks during these tests. The abrupt decrease of the anomolous
elements on 9-27 indicates a fuel supply switch to a different
tank. Consistently high values of vanadium are present due to
the high vanadium content in the fuel oil (see Table 14).
Sodium and magnesium are also high, although not quite as con-
sistent as vanadium. The consistency with which vanadium is
present in the particulate emissions, combined with the fact
that vanadium is not a common element in airborne particulate,
makes it an excellent tracer when measured in the ambient air.
Magnesium and sodium do not share this distinction, being com-
mon elements of windblown dust.
Particulate Sulfate
The particulate sulfate results have been tabulated with simul-
taneous combustion parameters on Table 4. The emission of par-
ticulate sulfate ranged from less than 10 kg/hr. at 50% load to
somewhat less than 30 kg/hr. at full load with soot blowing.
Particulate sulfate fraction of filterable particulate ranged
from 32% to 67% and an inverse relationship with fuel consump-
tion was apparent.
A model of sulfate fraction of particulate was developed using
fuel consumption, boiler oxygen concentration, fuel oil
additive ratio, and days of operation since the last boiler
wash. The model can be found in Section 4.
TOTAL SULFATE AND SULFUR DIOXIDE MEASUREMENT
The particulate sulfate materials discharge was quantified by
analysis of EPA Method 5 samples. However, a large portion of
42
-------
TABLE 3
COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS OF PARTTCULATE EMISSIONS
co
Date
Unit 1
9-18
9-19*
9-19
9-19
9-20
9-20*
9-20
9-29
9-29
9-29
9-30
10-01
10-01
Unit 2
9-21
9-21
9-22*
9-22
9-23
9-23
9-23*
9-24
9-24
9-24*
9-25
9-26*
9-26
9-26
9-2V
9-27
9-28
Time**
1430
1040
1240
1515
1005
1210
1430
1110
1305
1500
1045
1015
1200
1300
1449
0955
1400
0951
1155
1416
0945
1130
1340
0950
0950
1155
U40
0940
1145
0950
Na
*_
2.95
2.45
2.40
1.85
1.77
2.38
1.70
2.16
2.96
2.29
2.68
3.94
4.14
3.27
3.14
3.39
3.58
4.63
6.27
5.28
6.86
7.44
7.60
4.75
3.17
4.46
4.38
7.59
5.22
3.86
K
%
.02
.04
.02
0.0
0.0
.02
.01
.02
.04
.02
.04
.03
.04
.18
.17
.14
.16
.20
. 33
.26
.31
. 42
. 33
.33
.12
. 22
.25
. 73
.29
.12
Mg
%_
1.91
4.70
3.11
2. 34
2.09
4.93
2.27
1.05
1.25
1.06
1.70
2.29
2.42
2.88
2.86
4.87
3. 18
2.93
3.64
3.71
2.83
4.08
4.78
3.45
4.60
2.27
2.64
2.76
1.92
1. 54
Ca
%_
.146
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.033
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.33
1.43
.76
1.47
1. 75
3.38
2.38
3.28
4.78
2.85
1.93
.19
1.04
1.98
2.15
0.0
0.0
Ni
%
1.84
1.47
1.14
.92
.93
.99
1.02
.927
1.27
.91
.99
1.13
1.27
1.13
1.00
1.59
1.24
1.13
1.29
1.39
1.11
1.08
1.61
1.31
1.47
1. 33
1.05
1.11
1.16
1.25
Mn
%
.03
.01
.05
.02
.02
.02
.01
.02
.02
.01
.02
.03
.03
.04
.03
.04
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
Fe
%
. 83
.69
. 33
.29
. 30
.60
1.25
.24
.12
.09
.47
.36
.18
.49
.29
.29
. 38
. 39
.59
.40
.28
.18
.24
.42
.29
.34
.18
. 30
.17
. 25
V
%
3.65
4.92
4.24
3.68
3.17
4.10
3.15
3.46
4. 32
3.65
4. 36
4.66
5.15
4.93
4.42
7.10
5.33
5.26
5.60
5.95
5. 32
4.94
7.83
5.85
8.24
6.06
4.57
5. 36
5.01
4.42
Cl
%
.21
.23
. 36
.19
.24
.18
.20
.03
.03
.03
.68
.46
.49
2.39
2.03
2.12
3.03
2.98
5.19
3.45
4.22
6.00
4. 13
3. 97
1.00
2.53
2.72
3. 31
.45
.41
S04
%
45.1
33.7
27.7
42.2
47.8
48.2
43.6
60.6
56.1
50.6
46.9
53.9
62.6
36.3
40.6
44.0
56.1
53.2
51.5
53.0
52.2
56. 3
50. 1
53.2
46.1
51.4
54. 5
48.8
43. 5
46.6
N
as NH4
%
1.98
1.62
.71
1.38
.80
.45
.38
.55
.68
.73
.48
.57
1.13
. 72
. 74
.67
.77
2.35
1. 80
.90
1.09
.68
.41
.63
.21
.57
.56
.52
.43
1. 27
N
as NO 3
%
.05
.05
.02
.02
.03
.05
.04
.02
.02
.01
.04
.02
0.0
.04
.03
.06
.07
.04
.06
.07
.05
.04
.07
.13
.04
.04
.02
.04
.06
.04
* Soot Blow Test
** EOT
-------
TABLE 3
COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Date Time
Unit 3
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-12
10-13*
10-13
10-13
10-15
Unit 4
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-04
10-05
10-05
10-05*
10-06
10-06
10-06
10-07
10-07
10-08
10-08
10-09
10-09
1002
1150
1335
1010
0930
1125
1315
1005
1010
1209
1410
1325
0940
1125
1330
0950
1145
1340
1025
1240
1105
1304
1055
1440
Na
%_
2.24
2.43
2.06
2.17
2.45
2.26
2.33
4.32
4.87
4.34
4.34
3.89
3.07
3.16
3.09
3.04
2.84
3.60
3.78
3.44
4.10
4.56
3.83
2.68
K
%
.02
.02
.02
.02
.04
.02
.02
.03
.06
.15
.06
.04
.11
.03
.07
.02
.03
.03
.03
.04
.04
.05
.04
.04
Mq
%_
4.01
3.94
2.41
4.00
5.07
4.43
4.53
2.88
3.61
4.03
2.56
3.68
3.16
2.21
4.20
3.55
3.97
3.57
3.22
3.46
3.28
2.18
2.47
5.37
Ca
%_
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.03
.02
.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.07
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.03
.05
0.0
0.0
Ni
L_
1.37
1.41
1.32
1.20
1.31
1.36
1.30
1.56
1.82
1.73
1.64
1.56
1. 37
1.33
1.61
1.55
1.68
1.59
1.52
1.40
1.12
1.20
1.54
1.95
Mn
%_
.02
.03
.0-2
.02
.03
.03
.03
.05
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.02
.02
.02
.03
.04
.03
.02
Fe
%
.35
.30
.27
.29
.43
.32
.34
.35
.44
. 31
.23
. 36
.17
.22
.24
.20
.29
.22
1.12
.19
.18
.27
.27
.34
V
%
5.60
5.82
5.00
4.99
6.07
5.23
5.17
6.62
7.33
6. 77
5.44
6.38
5.33
4.88
5.97
6.17
6.40
6.01
5.16
6.77
5.26
5. 39
6.77
7.96
Cl
%
.24
.29
.39
.36
.45
.27
. 32
.76
.07
.09
.11
.36
.27
.07
.04
.04
.10
.09
.28
.51
.72
.85
.47
. 37
SO4
%
36.0
37.8
34.0
29.0
34.4
26.6
32.3
60.6
48.8
53.2
61.7
46.7
50.7
50.2
40.3
47.0
41.4
43.5
51.2
52.7
66. 7
67.6
43. 3
45.3
N
as Nil 4
.27
.21
.21
.22
.25
.32
.27
.90
.55
.32
.62
.55
.52
.81
.39
.44
.33
.44
.81
.21
1.03
.81
.99
.41
N
as NO
.09
.05
.10
.07
.08
.08
.13
.05
.09
.08
.03
.04
.04
.05
.05
.08
.08
.07
.06
.04
.16
.07
.05
.11
* Soot Blow Test
** EOT
-------
TABLE 4
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS AND PARTICLE SIZE TEST RESULTS
Date Time Oil Flow Fuel Boiler Stack Stack Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Back
,01
Unit 1
9-18*1636
9-19*1202
9-19 1523
9-20 1150
9-20 1350
9-20 1615
9-29 1310
9-30 1128
10-01 1053
Unit 2
9-21*1246
9-21 1521
9-22*1000
9-22 1450
9-22 1554
9-23*1412
9-24 1035
9-24*1313
9-25 1030
9-26*1030
9-26*1145
9-26 1245
9-27 1028
9-27 1140
9-28 1008
gal/hr
S-%
0-,-%
£.
O0-%
z.
T.-°C
o-%
1 -%
2 -%
3 -*
4 -%
5 -%
6 -%
7 -%
1
Up
C1 -I 1 4-e* v
%
5900
5900
6100
6100
6150
6100
3500
3400
3400
6150
6100
6050
6150
6000
3100
3150
3100
6100
6100
6150
6100
5600
5600
4300
1.95
1.98
1.98
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.97
2.05
1. 80
1.70
1.70
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.90
1.50
1.50
1.97
1.95
2.00
2.03
2.05
2.05
2.25
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.4
3.6
3.7
3.2
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.2
2. 3
4.5
3.6
3.8
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.3
3.8
5.8
5.6
5.4
6.2
5.7
5.8
7.2
7.7
7.6
5.5
5.6
5.4
5. 3
5. 3
8.2
7.6
7.4
6.3
6. 1
6.0
6.0
6.4
6.4
7.4
161
161
160
160
159
159
159
152
150
188
188
179
177
177
J53
150
157
177
177
177
180
166
166
158
38.43
26.67
9.06
9.56
4.16
11.40
3.78
2.43
8J12
10.95
10.34
13.06
9.05
10.70
8.28
6.12
7.22
10.23
13.16
14.48
10.00
8.39
7.97
9.66
10.06
13.45
7.37
9.60
4.56
14. 34
8.05
2.63
7. 11
10.30
12.52
13.58
10.71
9.67
10.80
6.08
4. 11
10.23
8.70
14.95
10. 38
9.79
13.19
11.32
8.14
6.00
10.28
11.38
5.91
10.97
11.22
2.20
8.51
9.98
12.34
14.28
13.08
11.19
14.25
7.31
9.65
13.47
7.99
13.11
9.91
11.04
12.26
11.84
7.22
7.74
8.98
9.50
5.57
9.23
11.25
5.20
7. 39
11.17
10.47
11.13
9.83
8.60
9.66
5.02
9.40
10.01
9.36
11. 50
10.11
8.15
10.60
9.47
7.37
2.48
8.67
10.26
8.06
8.74
6.22
8.64
8.26
9.29
10.68
12. 18
8.80
11.13
11.00
6.43
8.80
10.31
12.70
11.70
10.03
7.18
9.43
9.05
8.55
8.21
5.83
8.95
10.93
6.16
16.70
7.04
9.15
9.40
7.84
8.10
7.14
7.27
7.99
8.19
11.91
9.15
14.65
8.69
9.95
7.18
7.93
8.60
5.35
5.69
5.59
6.60
7.01
4.43
10.17
4.30
6.24
6.74
5. 12
6.24
6.26
4.87
5.42
8.28
3.75
7.10
10.63
4.92
7.56
5.85
4.37
5. 32
3.31
9.67
6.23
4.57
8.10
2.35
7.33
8.60
7.16
5.46
4.59
4.95
4.43
3.89
3.50
8.94
7.26
5.27
6.32
4.09
6.56
3.98
3.97
3. 96
11.58
20.10
37.98
29.59
45.71
32.37
25.29
58.95
38.06
26.71
26.10
16.47
30.71
32.70
29.09
43.64
37.90
24.23
16.48
16.56
25.49
38.44
30.27
30.78
* Soot B.low Test
** EOT
-------
TABLE 4
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS AND PARTICLE SIZE TEST RESULTS (CONTD.)
Unit 3
10-11 1055
10-11 1208
10-11 1320
10-12 1021
Unit 4
10-03*1302
10-04*1440
10-05 1045
10-06 0955
10-06 1110
10-06*1230
10-07 1115
10-07 1235
10-08 1105
10-08 1335
10-09 1100
10-09 1440
gal/hr
6300
6300
6300
6100
6400
6200
5600
6100
6050
6050
6200
6100
3200
3200
5950
6600
S-%
2.10
2.10
2. 10
2.28
2.10
2.20
1.50
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.70
1.70
1.96
1.96
O0-%
£
2. 1
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.5
2.0
2.7
1.9
1.6
1.7
2.3
2.4
5.0
5.0
3.5
3.2
o2-%
£,
6.3
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.6
6.3
6.6
5.9
6.3
9.6
9.7
6.4
6.4
T.- C
145
148
149
146
156
152
154
157
157
160
166
160
135
135
157
157
0-%
25.62
22.01
22.68
31.85
11.39
11.66
16.19
19.23
16.93
20.73
10.71
13.90
6.15
4.48
13.31
13.70
1 -%
10.59
9.96
11.49
10.72
10.74
9.03
13.81
11.77
10.75
11.94
8.29
11.11
5.21
5.36
8.91
9.86
2 -%
6.23
7.71
7.56
8.45
11.12
10.36
12.16
7.56
11.71
9.64
2.64
10.92
5.96
5.97
8.38
9.60
3 _%
6.10
8.87
6.82
6.78
8.53
7.21
4.00
7.31
9.39
7.08
8.46
5.60
4.11
5.16
6.72
9.45
4 -%
6.51
6.33
9.38
7.90
10.90
9.25
3.85
5.52
11.01
7.40
9.72
9.61
8.68
8.49
8.05
10.30
5 -%
6.04
6.90
7.49
6.18
9.15
8.10
3.94
7.08
6.29
7.50
9.88
7.24
10.27
9.40
10. 13
10.07
6 -%
3.53
3.81
3.71
2.86
6.43
5.05
3.43
2.75
4.25
4.35
7.98
5.25
8.16
5.94
7.29
6.70
7 -%
5.02
2.93
3.72
3.26
5.71
3.86
2.14
3.10
2.71
2.87
7.58
2.88
7.48
10.39
6.47
5.26
Up
Pi 1 f- O T"
f -L j- Lt: -L
30.35
31.49
27.15
21.99
26.03
35.48
40.48
35.70
26.96
28.49
34.74
33.49
43.98
44.81
30.74
25.06
* Soot Blow Test
** EOT
-------
the sulfate materials leaving the stack can be in the form of
gaseous sulfuric acid. Total gaseous plus particulate sulfate
emissions were determined using a modification of EPA Sulfur
Dioxide Test Method 6 (40 CFR 60 App. A). The flue gas was
extracted through a heated glass-lined probe normal to the flue
gas flow; particulate matter was removed from the sample stream
with a quartz wool plug prior to flowing into the probe. Gas-
eous sulfate was collected by bubbling the sample gas through
an 80% solution of isopropyl alcohol and distilled water in a
midget bubbler. The aqueous solution absorbed the gaseous sul-
fate, while sulfur dioxide passed through unchanged. A 3%
solution of hydrogen peroxide and distilled water in a series
of two midget impingers oxidized and absorbed the sulfur diox-
ide. Both solutions were immersed in an ice bath to enhance
condensation and collection. The probe filter, probe washings,
bubbler exit plug filter, and hydrogen peroxide absorbing solu-
tion were analyzed separately for total sulfate using the pub-
lished barium-thorin titration with pretreatment of the plug
filter and probe washings for cation removal. The analysis
procedure is described in EPA Sulfur Dioxide Test Method 6 (40
CFR 60 App. A).
Sulfur Oxides Test Results
Sulfur oxides concentration are shown on Table 5; combustion
parameters and sulfur oxides test results are shown on Table
6. Total sulfate concentration ranged from 22 to 55 ppm and
the emission rate ranged from 22 to 82 kg/hr. Mean values were
37 ppm and 51 kg/hr. Sulfur dioxide concentration ranged from
700 to 1100 ppm with boiler oxygen concentrations slightly less
than 2% to greater than 5% and fuel sulfur content from 1.4% to
2.2%. Emission rate of sulfur dioxide ranged from 500 kg/hr.
to 1200 kg/hr; mean emission concentration was 938 ppm and mean
emission rate was 856 kg/hr.
47
-------
TABLE
SO TEST RESULTS
x
Date
Unit 1
9-19
9-20
9-20
9-20
9-29
9-29
9-29
9-30
10-01
10-01
Unit 2
9-21
9-21
9-21
9-22
9-22
9-22
9-23
9-23
9-24
9-24
9-24
9-25
9-26
9-26
9-26
9-27
9-27
Unit 3
10-11
10-12
10-13
10-13
10-15
Time *
1040
1005
1210
1430
1110
1305
1500
1045
1015
1200
1040
1249
1441
0941
1422
1539
1220
1400
0930
1050
1215
0949
0940
1119
1256
0929
1108
1154
0946
1049
1223
0950
SO
ppm/v
918.0
894.7
948.4
944.6
10 &8. 4
1032.1
1068.8
927.0
902.0
389.3
933.6
950.0
931.4
943.9
943.9
951.8
944.9
834.3
887.1
909.8
911.7
979.3
954.7
932.5
944.5
926.1
983.9
1068.2
1099.8
1155.7
1125.4
953.3
SO^
mg/flm
2435.2
2372.1
2512.9
2505.6
2869.9
2732.9
2840.6
2459.8
2389.6
2360.7
2476.7
2517.6
2472.7
2522.6
2509.2
2527.9
2502.2
2214.1
2355.8
2397.2
2413.0
2597.2
2529.8
2480.3
2509 .6
2459.7
2611.3
2834.1
2915.1
3068.6
2937.1
2533.2
T-SO(
ppm/v
26.696
42.790
44.267
44.198
55.309
44.023
49 .615
32.121
33.754
32.787
29.736
29.425
31.928
43.256
29.354
25.767
35.979
28.248
24.648
29.003
23.825
36.329
37.794
41.874
40.969
38.348
35.849
36.141
43.440
42.863
42.787
62.535
106.1
182.7
175.7
175.6
219.9
131.7
138.3
127.7
133.9
130.4
113 .2
116.9
127.1
171.9
117.9
102.5
144.3
117.7
101.4
114.5
94.6
144.3
150.0
166.8
163.0
152.5
142.5
143.6
172.4
170.4
170.1
245.9
S04/S0
v/v
2.83
4.56
4.46
4.47
4.84
4.09
4.44
3.33
3.61
3.56
3.09
3.00
3.31
4.36
3.02
2.64
3.67
3.24
2.70
3.09
2.55
3.58
3.31
4.30
4.16
3.93
3.52
3.27
3.80
3.53
3.66
6.16
S°4/SO
w/w
4.18
6.69
6.54
6.56
7.03
6.01
6.51
4.94
5.31
5.24
4.56
4 .44
4.39
6.40
4 .46
3.90
5.40
4.33
4.00
4.56
3.77
5.27
5.61
6.31
6 .11
5.85
5.18
4.83
5.83
5.26
5.40
8.96
SDT
Total Water Soluble Sulfate
48
-------
TABLE 5
SO TEST RESULTS (CONTD.)
X
Date Time *
1150
0950
1122
1253
0950
1127
1257
0957
1131
1313
1029
1202
1026
1421
10-03
10-05
10-05
10-05
10-06
10-06
10-06
10-07
10-07
10-07
10-08
10-08
10-09
10-09
so
2
pm/v
979
855
841
837
884
975
891
962
939
913
701
742
823
934
.6
. 4
. 7
. 4
.6
. 3
.9
.2
.3
.3
.8
.4
.3
.2
SO
2,
mg/Nm"1
2600
2272
2226
2221
2348
2590
2367
2554
2490
2429
1860
1971
2186
2485
.4
.0
.9
.6
.2
.9
.8
.7
.3
.2
.4
.3
.5
.8
**
T-S04
ppm/v
35.
44.
30.
35.
33.
43.
35.
41.
41.
35.
30.
22.
36.
47.
576
794
265
558
762
498
579
003
624
098
407
331
467
938
T-SO,
141.4
178.2
119.9
141.3
134.2
173.1
141.5
163.0
165.3
139 .8
120.7
88.8
145.0
191.1
SO
4/SC)
SO
v/v
50
98
3.47
4.07
3.68
4.27
3.34
4.09
4.24
3.70
4.15
2.92
4.24
4.88
4/SO.
w/w
5.17
7.28
5.12
99
41
6.27
5.65
6.01
6.23
5.45
6.10
4. 32
6.23
7. 15
* EOT
** Total Water Soluble Sulfate
49
-------
TABLE
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS AND SO TEST RESULTS
Date
Unit 1
9-19
9-20
9-20
9-20
9-29
9-29
9-29
9-30
10-01
10-01
Unit 2
9-21
9-21
9-21
9-22
9-22
9-22
9-23
9-23
9-24
9-24
9-24
9-25
9-26
9-26
9-26
9-27
9-27
Unit 3
10-11
10-12
10-13
10-13
Time*
1040
1005
1210
1430
1110
1305
1500
1045
1015
1200
1040
1249
1441
0941
1422
1539
1220
1400
0930
1050
1215
0949
0940
1119
1256
0929
1108
1154
0946
1049
1223
Oil Flow
gal/hr
6000
5800
6100
6200
540.0
5400
5400
3400
3400
3400 -
6200
6150
6100
6100
6150
5800
3000
3100
3300
3200
3100
6100
6000
6200
6100
5600
5600
6300
6200
6200
6100
Fuel
S -%
1.98
1.78
1.78
1.78
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.05
1.80
1.80
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.90
1.90
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.97
1.95
1.95
1.95
2.05
2.05
2.10
2.28
2.20
2.20
Boiler
_0
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
3
•J
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2- %
.0
.0
.8
.5
.8
.8
.8
.6
.3
.2
.4
.2
.0
.2
.2
.3
.6
.5
.6
.6
.5
. 1
.0
.0
.9
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.0
Stack
o2-%
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.8
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.6
7. 7
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.3
3.3
8.2
7.6
7 .8
7.4
6.3
6.1
6.0
5.9
6.3
6.4
6.0
6.4
6.2
6.0
Stack.
Temp-
166
160
160
159
163
159
161
154
152
150
183
188
188
179
177
177
143
153
150
149
157
177
170
177
185
165
166
148
146
143
146
o S02
°C ppm
V
918.0
894.7
948 .4
944.6
1088.4
1032.1
1068.8
927.0
902.0
889 .3
933.6
950.0
931.4
943.9
943.9
951.8
944.9
834.3
887.1
909.8
911.7
979.3
954.7
932.5
944.5
926.1
983.9
1068 .2
1099 .8
1155.7
1125.4
SO
kg/hr
942.4
840.9
888.5
924.4
1081.0
955.8
1071.2
549.5
540.4
529.2
916.1
952.3
935.3
954.1
989.6
997.0
616.4
536.0
597.3
589.4
581.0
997.9
956.3
993.8
954.0
887.4
968.3
1071,6
1101.4
1220 .7
1101.2
* it
so4
ppm
V
26.696
42.790
44.267
44.198
55.309
44.023
49.615
32.121
33.754
32.787
29.736
29.425
31.928
43.256
29.354
25.767
35.979
23.248
24.648
29.003
23.325
36 .329
37.794
41.874
40 .969
38.348
35.849
36.141
43. 440
42.863
42.787
**
SO
kg/fir
41.1
64.8
62.1
64.8
82.3
46.1
71.0
28.5
30.3
29.2
43.7
44.2
48.1
65.0
46.5
40.4
35.7
28.5
25.7
28.1
22.7
55.3
56.7
66 .3
62.0
55.0
52.8
54.3
65.2
67.8
62.7
EDT
* Total Water Soluble Sulfate
5Q
-------
TABLE 6
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS AND SOX TEST RESULTS (CONTD.)
Date
Unit 4
10-03
10-05
10-05
10-05
10-06
10-06
10-06
10-07
10-07
10-07
10-08
10-08
10-09
10-09
Time*
1150
0950
1122
1253
0950
1127
1257
0957
1131
1313
1029
1202
1026
1421
Oil Flow
gal/hr
6400
6000
5000
6300
6100
6100
6100
6200
6200
6000
3200
3200
5900
6400
Fuel
S- %
2.10
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.58
1.70
1.70
1.96
1.77
Boiler
0 -%
£.
2.7
2.1
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.4
5-5
5-3
3.2
3.1
Stack Stack, SO-
SO
SO*
°2
£,
6.
6.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
5.
6 .
6 .
9.
9.
6.
6.
-%
4
2
2
4
6
3
6
9
3
3
6
7
4
4
Temp-
160
157
150
155
157
158
160
166
161
161
131
133
157
160
C ppm
V
979
855
841
837
884
975
891
962
939
913
701
742
823
934
.6
.4
.7
.4
.6
.3
.9
.2
. 3
.3
.3
. 4
.3
.2
kg/fi
1063
808
680
812
827
957
853
973
927
904
494
515
814
975
r
.8
.7
.0
.6
.9
.4
.1
.2
. 4
.7
.0
.6
.2
.1
ppm k
35
44
30
35
33
43
35
41
41
35
30
22
36
47
.576
.794
.265
.558
.762
.498
.579
.003
.624
.098
.407
.331
.467
.938
g/Rr
57
63
36
51
47
64
51
62
61
52
32
23
54
75
.9
.4
.6
.7
.3
.0
.0
. 1
.6
.1
.1
.2
.0
.0
* EOT
** Total Water Soluble Sulfate
51
-------
Sulfur dioxide and total sulfate emission models were developed
and can be found in Section 4.
SULFUR OXIDES CHARACTERIZATION
A sulfate characterization was performed by EPA personnel dur-
ing the field sampling, using a controlled condensation sampl-
ing system. The system consisted of a high-temperature quartz
probe, followed by a quartz filter. The filter was enclosed
within a custom made heating mantle, kept at 260°C or greater,
and had a coarse quartz frit for support of the filtering pad.
Following filtration, the gaseous sulfuric acid was converted
to the aerosol form in a temperature-controlled Goksoyr-Ross
condensation coil, maintained at 60°C. Sampling rate was main-
tained at 10 1/min. or greater (Cheney and Homolya, 1979). The
acid aerosol was collected in a Greenburg-Smith impinger con-
taining an 80% solution of isopropyl alcohol and water.
Following this the sulfur dioxide was collected in an impinger
containing 3% hydrogen peroxide and water. The recovered sam-
ples were analyzed using the barium-thorin procedure described
in EPA Sulfur Dioxide Test Method 6.
Characterization Results
The results of the sulfate characterization using controlled
condensation are shown on Table 7. The percent of H2SO4 ranged
from 63.1% to 85.3% with a mean value of 73.5% of the total
sulfate. Total sulfate measurements obtained using the con-
trolled condensation technique averaged 19.5 ppm, which was
significantly below the 37 ppm average of the measurements made
with modified Method 6. The tests were performed under similar
conditions and at the same point in the flue gas flow stream,
therefore it is possible that there is an inherent interference
in comparing the test methods. The isopropanol used in the
52
-------
TABLE 7
SULFATE CHARACTERIZATION TEST RESULTS
(CONTROLLED CONDENSATION SYSTEM)
Date
Unit 1
9/19
9/19
9/19
9/20
9/20
9/20
*
Time
1139
1258
1350
0908
1033
1132
Oil Flow
gal/hr
6100
6000
6100
5900
6000
6100
Fuel
S-%
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.78
1.78
1.78
Boiler
o2 - %
3.1
3.1
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.7
so2
ppm
865
872
934
859
770
876
so4
ppm
20.0
23.5
21.0
23.9
16.8
19.9
H2S04
% of
so4
73.6
74.8
63.1
73.3
76.3
85.3
01
U)
Unit 2
9/21
9/21
9/21
9/21
9/21
9/22
9/22
9/22
9/22
Unit 4
10/5
10/5
10/5
10/5
10/6
10/6
10/6
10/6
10/6
1005
1107
1205
1312
1407
0915
1011
1103
1202
1010
1135
1239
1322
0817
0911
0952
1055
1154
6200
6150
6150
6150
6100
6100
6050
6000
5650
6000
5000
5000
6300
5900
6000
6100
6100
6000
70
70
70
70
70
75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.1
3.0
3.0
2.1
2.4
2.1
1.9
2.2
1.6
897
928
896
916
813
927
910
912
904
26.9
25.5
23.6
25.2
19.0
19.7
17.5
20.4
17.0
71.7
78.4
77.3
76.7
75.1
77.2
70.4
70.0
70.8
896
807
868
901
867
861
911
885
913
16
12
18
18
15
20
16
16
14
.3
.7
.5
.5
.1
.6
.6
.8
.1
69
67
77
67
71
77
77
65
76
.1
.9
.5
.4
.5
.1
.8
.1
.2
EOT
-------
modified Method 6 tests was checked for oxidants and found to
be free of oxidants. Quartz wool was used to filter the sample
gas so that an SC>2—glass wool reaction is not possible. A
possible explanation of the discrepancy lies in the sampling
rate; the controlled condensation system uses a large diameter
probe and a 10 1/min. rate while the modified Method 6 test
uses a small diameter probe and a 0.4 1/min. sampling rate.
Nozzles were not used and the samples were not extracted iso-
kinetically, therefore sampling velocity may have affected the
influence of particles and particulate sulfate, thereby modify-
ing the total sulfate measurements.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
In-situ cascade impactors were used to obtain segregated sam-
ples of particulate matter within specific size ranges. The
impactors each contained eight fractionating jet plates in
series, with collection substrates below them. The substrates
were composed of glass fiber material and served as impingement
surfaces for the particles exiting through the jet directly
above. Each jet plate had a design such that a particle with
unit density and a diameter equivalent to the design cut point
(DSQ) impinged on the substrate below it with a 50% probabil-
ity.
Smaller particles are able to follow the gas streamlines
through the successive jets until the jet with the appropriate
size is reached. Particles below about .5 urn are collected on
the backup glass fiber filter. The filter and substrates are
analyzed for net particulate material and presented as the per-
centage of particulate per stage. The filters and substrates
were transmitted to EPA for further analysis.
54
-------
Particle Size Test Results
The results of the individual particle size determinations are
shown in Table 8. The tests were also grouped by unit, (high
or low) load, and (normal or soot blow) operating conditions.
Each grouping is represented on a graph of cumulative particle
size less than the D5Q cut point on the ordinate and DSQ Par-
ticle size on the abscissa. The maximum, minimum, and mean
(average of all tests in that grouping) are plotted in Figures
4 through 13. The mass median diameter (or size where 50% of
the weight is greater and 50% is smaller) are summarized on
Table 9. Median particle size is inversely proportional to
load and is greater during soot blow than during normal opera-
tion.
COMBUSTION RECORDS
The chart recordings of several important combustion parameters
were reduced to hourly summaries for use in characterizing the
operating schedule of the boilers. These parameters are steam
flow, oil flow, fuel sulfur content, boiler gas-oxygen content,
air heater temperatures, and oil/additive ratio. The average
daily values for each of the boilers are presented in Tables 10
through 13. A summary of the weekly fuel oil analysis is pre-
sented on Table 14 and the summary of weekly additive analysis
is shown on Table 15.
EMISSION PREDICTION MODELS
Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative experiments were performed daily
on the source-emitted materials in concert with the valuation
of ground-level concentrations and meteorological factors.
Samples of gaseous and particulate materials were extracted
55
-------
TABLE
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS AND PARTICLE SIZE TEST RESULTS
Unit 1
9-18*1636
9-19*1202
9-19 1523
9-20 1150
9-20 1350
9-20 1615
9-29 1310
9-30 1128
10-01 1053
Unit 2
9-21*1246
9-21 1521
9-22*1000
9-22 1450
9-22 1554
9-23*1412
9-24 1035
9-24*1313
9-25 1030
9-26*1030
9-26*1145
9-26 1245
9-27 1028
9-27 1140
9-28 1008
gal/hr
S-%
0,,-%
Op-% T.- C 0-%
I -%
2 -%
3 -%
4 -%
5 -%
<"> -%
7 -%
t
Up
;' 4 1 4- rt v
%
5900
5900
6100
6100
6150
6100
3500
3400
3400
6150
6100
6050
6150
6000
3100
3150
3100
6100
6100
6150
6100
5600
5600
4300
1.95
1.98
1.98
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.97
2.05
1.80
1.70
1.70
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.90
1.50
1.50
1.97
1-95
2.00
2.03
2.05
2.05
2.25
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.4
3.6
3.7
3.2
2.2
2.0
2.3
2.2
2.3
4.5
3.6
3.8
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.2
2. 3
3.8
5.8
5.6
5.4
6. 2
5.7
5.8
7.2
7. 7
7.6
5.5
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.3
8.2
7.6
7.4
6.3
6.1
6.0
6.0
6.4
6.4
7.4
161
161
160
160
159
159
159
152
150
188
188
179
177
177
153
150
157
177
177
177
180
166
166
158
38.43
26.67
9.06
9.56
4. 16
11.40
3.78
2.43
8J12
10.95
10.34
13.06
9.05
10.70
8.28
6. 12
7.22
10.23
13.16
14.48
10.00
8.39
7.97
9.66
10.06
13.45
7.37
9.60
4.56
14.34
8.05
2.63
7. 11
10. 30
12.52
13.58
10.71
9.67
10. 80
6.08
4. 11
10.23
8.70
14.95
10.38
9.79
13. 19
11. 32
8.14
6.00
10.28
11. 38
5.91
10.97
11.22
2.20
8.51
9.98
12.34
14.28
13.08
11.19
14.25
7.31
9.65
13.47
7.99
13.11
9.91
11.04
12.26
11.84
7.22
7.74
8.98
9.50
5.57
9.23
11.25
5.20
7.39
11.17
10.47
11.13
9.83
8.60
9.66
5.02
9.40
10.01
9.36
11.50
10.11
8.15
10.60
9.47
7.37
2.48
8.67
10.26
8.06
8.74
6. 22
8.64
8.26
9.29
10.68
12. 18
8.80
11.13
11.00
6.43
8.80
10.31
12.70
11.70
10.03
7.18
9.43
9.05
8.55
8.21
5.83
8.95
10.93
6.16
16.70
7.04
9.15
9.40
7.84
8.10
7.14
7.27
7.99
8.19
11.91
9.15
14.65
8.69
9.95
7.18
7.93
8.60
5.35
5.69
5.59
6.60
7.01
4.43
10. 17
4.30
6.24
6.74
5. 12
6.24
6.26
4.87
5.42
8.28
3.75
7.10
10.63
4.92
7.56
5.85
4.37
5.32
3.31
9.67
6.23
4.57
8.10
2. 35
7. 33
8.60
7.16
5.46
4.59
4.95
4.43
3.89
3.50
8.94
7.26
5.27
6.32
4.09
6.56
3.98
3.97
3.96
11.58
20. 10
37.98
29.59
45.71
32 .37
25.29
58.95
38. OG
26.71
26.10
16.47
30.71
32.70
29.09
43.64
37.90
24 .23
16.48
16.56
25.49
38.44
30.27
30.78
* Soot Blow Test
** EOT
-------
TABLE
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS AND PARTICLE SIZE TEST RESULTS (CONTD.)
UI
Date Time Oil Flow Fuel Boiler Stack Stack Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Back
gal/hr S-% Q.,-% O,-%T.-C 0-% 1-% 2-% 3-% 4-% 5-% f, -% 7-% Up
- ^; i *-„,
Unit 3
10-11 1055
10-11 1208
10-11 1320
10-12 1021
Unit 4
10-03*1302
10-04*1440
10-05 1045
10-06 0955
10-06 1110
10-06*1230
10-07 1115
10-07 1235
10-08 1105
10-08 1335
10-09 1100
10-09 1440
6300
6300
6300
6100
6400
6200
5600
6100
6050
6050
6200
6100
3200
3200
5950
6600
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
10
10
10
28
10
20
50
40
40
40
40
40
70
70
96
96
2. 1
2. 1
2.3
2.6
2.5
2.0
2.7
1.9
1.6
1.7
2. 3
2.4
5.0
5.0
3.5
3.2
6.3
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.6
6. 3
6.6
5.9
6.3
9.6
9.7
6.4
6.4
145
148
149
146
156
152
154
157
157
160
166
160
135
135
157
157
25.
22.
22.
31.
11.
11.
16.
19.
16.
20.
10.
13.
6.
4.
13.
13.
62
01
68
85
39
66
19
23
93
73
71
90
15
48
31
70
10. 59
9.96
11.49
10.72
10.74
9.03
13.81
11.77
10.75
11.94
8.29
11.11
5.21
5. 36
8.91
9.86
6.
7.
7.
8.
11.
10.
12.
7.
11.
9.
2.
10.
5.
5.
8.
9.
23
71
56
45
12
36
16
56
71
64
64
92
96
97
38
60
6. 10
8.87
6.82
6.78
8.53
7.21
4.00
7.31
9. 39
7.08
8.46
5.60
4. 11
5. 16
6.72
9.45
6.51
6.33
9. 38
7.90
10.90
9.25
3.85
5.52
11.01
7.40
9.72
9.61
8.68
8.49
8.05
10. 30
6.04
6.90
7.49
6. 1R
9.15
8.10
3.94
7.08
6.29
7.50
9.88
7.24
10.27
9.40
10. 13
10.07
3.53
3.81
3.71
2.86
6.43
5.05
3.43
2.75
4.25
4.35
7.98
5.25
8.16
5. 94
7. 29
6.70
l
5.02
2.93
3.72
3. 26
5.71
3. 86
2.14
3.10
2.71
2.87
7.58
2.88
7.48
10.39
6.47
5.26
. -L. J- U'-: L.
30.35
31.49
27. 15
21.99
26.03
35.48
40.48
35. 70
26.96
28.49
34. 74
33.49
43.98
44 .81
30.74
25.06
* Soot Blow Test
** EOT
-------
00
98
95
90-
80-
o, 70~
Q
C
j? 60-
H
en 50
en
® 40 -
^ 20
3 10
5
2
FIGURE 4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Unit 1
High Load-Normal Operation
4 Tests
I
.5
1.0 2.0 5.0
*
Aerodynamic Particle Diamter- D
I
10.0
I—
20.0
-------
Ul
Q
C
01
98-
95-
90-
80-
70-
60
en 50
(0
Q)
J 40
20-
ID-
FIGURE 5 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Minimum
Unit 1
High Load-Soot Blow
2 Tests
I
l
5.0
5 1.0 2.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter- D
I
10.0
I
20.0
-------
O"!
o
Q
C
0)
w
d*>
0)
3
U
98 -
95 -
90 _
80 -
70 _
60
50
40
30 -
20
10
5
2
FIGURE 6 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Mean
Minimum
Unit 2
High Load-Normal Operation
7 Tests
.5
I
1.0
I
2.0
5.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter- D
10.0
pro
I
20.0
-------
rt
W
w
-------
ro
98-
95-
90-
80-
70-
W
50~
S 40-
a)
o,
0)
(0
iH
3
30
20-
FIGURE 8 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Minimum
Mean
Unit 3
High Load-Normal Operation
4 Tests
1.0 2.0 5.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter- D
—I
10.0
um
—,
20.0
-------
U)
Q
C
98
95
90 -
80
,70 -
60 -
co 50
CO
Q)
^ 40
> 30
(TJ .-| n
M 20
d
U
10 -
5
2
FIGURE 9 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Mean
Unit 4
High Load-Normal Operation
8 Tests
I I I I
1,0 2.0 5.0 10.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter- D ym
20.0
-------
nt
st
to
01
0)
a)
>
-M
4J
o
98
95
90 ~
80
70 -
60 -
50
40
30
20
10 H
5
2
FIGURE 10 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Minimum
I
.5
1.0
1
2.0
I
5.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter- D
T
10. 0
lam
Mean
Unit 4
High Load-Soot Blow
3 Tests
1
20.0
-------
Ul
Q
C
nj
to
in
0)
0)
>
-p
rH
a
u
98-
95-
90-
80'
70.
-i
60'
scr
40-
30"
20'
10-
5-
2-
FIGURE 11 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Unit 1
Low Load-Normal Operation
3 Tests
" 1 1 1 1
1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter- D pm
~T
20.0
-------
O1
CTl
Q
C
rtJ
.C
to
in
dp
0)
-U
rH
3
98'
95
90-
80-
70
60
50
40
30
20-
FIGURE 12 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Minimum
10-
5-
2-
T
I—
2.0
Unit 2
Low Load-Normal Operation
2 Tests
1
5.0
5 1.0
Aerodynamic Particle Diameter- D
10.0
1—
20.0
-------
98
95-
90.
80
Q
C 70-
CO
CO
-------
TABLE
SUMMARY OF MASS MEDIAN PARTICLE DIAMETER
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Operating
Conditions
High Load
Normal
High Load
Soot Blow
Low Load
Normal
High Load
Normal
High Load
Soot Blow
Low Load
Normal
Low Load
Soot Blow
High Load
Normal
High Load
Normal
High Load
Soot Blow
Number
of tests
4
2
3
7
4
2
2
4
8
3
Mass Median
Particle Dia-
meter urn
1.8
5.5
0.8
3.0
3.5
1.4
1.9
4.0
2.2
3.0
68
-------
TABLE 10
AVERAGE DAILY COMBUSTION PARAMETERS
UNIT 1
Date
9-18
9-19
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-23
9-24
9-25
9-26
9-27
9-28
9-29
9-30
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-12
10-13
10-14
10-15
Steam Flow
1000 Ib/hr
522
599
606
665
584
000
361
590
601
606
598
553
465
422
543
643
648
664
646
372
360
473
577
619
614
622
600
543
Oil Flow
gal/hr
4900
5254
5415
5867
5088
-
3625
5450
5488
5440
5325
4954
4190
3792
4871
5736
5796
5946
5673
3450
3400
4415
5244
5577
5467
5583
5442
4944
Sulfur
%
1. 94
1.94
1.82
1. 72
1.69
-
1.73
1.94
2.01
2.06
2. 11
2.01
2.00
2.01
1. 95
2.00
2.08
2. 10
2.04
2.09
2.04
1.99
2.03
2. 09
2.17
2.12
2.00
2.12
Boiler
o2-%
4. 33
3.15
2. 88
2. 29
3.53
-
4.36
2.89
2.98
3.23
3. 37
3.97
3.67
3.54
3.18
3.21
3.00
2.91
2. 79
4.63
5.30
4.40
3.21 .
2.84
3.00
3.11
3.13
3. 80
Temp. -In
OF
599
616
613
629
599
-
524
607
615
619
619
614
589
562
604
630
635
640
630
564
565
598
620
628
628
635
G29
615
Temp. -on
Op.
311
320
321
325
312
_
293
317
317
320
317
320
314
315
317
319
325
325
324
314
320
317
323
326
324
324
320
323
Adcli tive
Ratio
gal oi.l/gal add.
Days *
of
Operation
2] 30
2171
2216
2261
2327
2378
2408
2430
2443
2449
2446
2433
2413
2379
2347
2305
2257
2206
2151
2097
2044
1994
1922
1902
1922
1953
2012
44
45
46
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
G3
M
65
fir,
6 7
6R
09
70
71
*Since last holler wash
-------
TABLE
11
AVERAGE DAILY COMBUSTION PARAMETERS
UNIT 2
Date
9-18
9-19
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-23
9-24
9-25
9-26
9-27
9-28
9-29
9-30
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-12
10-13
10-14
10-15
Steam Flow
1000 Ib/hr
630
622
619
678
666
506
438
627
635
614
543
630
634
562
593
674
678
676
665
622
558
604
649
669
662
682
651
630
Oil Flow
gal/hr
5683
5604
5583
6050
5925
4638
4013
5658
5679
5500
4900
5619
5681
5029
5354
6129
6046
6117
5950
5602
5008
5615
5846
6067
5917
5992
5794
5337
Fuel
Sulfur
1.94
1.94
1.82
1.72
1.69
,76
.73
.94
.01
.06
2.11
2.01
99
90
95
00
08
10
04
09
04
99
03
09
2.17
2.12
2.08
2.12
Boiler
02-%
2.86
2.83
2.96
2.35
2.25
3.73
3.34
2.49
2.29
2.39
3.23
2.79
2.56
3.00
3.37
2.56
2.43
2. 33
2.53
3.06
3.38
3.12
2.78
2.52
2.60
2.66
2.72
3.39
AH
In- Temp.
OF
625
627
624
646
640
595
570
635
632
625
604
631
633
617
627
646
647
649
646
639
619
636
645
650
647
651
637
620
AH
Out-Temp .
OF
353
354
355
359
363
348
343
359
359
354
347
358
358
356
355
359
360
360
360
361
353
361
361
365
364
365
350
345
Additive
Ratio
gal oil/gal add.
2387
2406
2424
2440
2431
2471
2484
2496
2506
2516
2530
2642
2539
2542
2502
2550
2548
2444
2554
2554
2552
2550
2550
2628
2535
2527
2510
2499
Days*
of
Operation
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
*Since last boiler wash
-------
TABLE
12
AVERAGE DAILY COMBUSTION PARAMETERS
UNIT 3
Fuel
Date
10-6
10-7
10-8
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-12
10-13
10-14
10-15
Steam Flow
1000 Ib/hr
551
596
527
624
653
662
556
635
643
514
Oil Flow
gal/hr
5029
5415
4902
5704
5875
6092
5092
5708
5754
4826
Sulfur
%
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2 .
2.
2.
2.
52
54
67
83
97
09
24
20
15
18
Boiler
o2-*
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
'->
3.
33
21
37
01
51
25
11
74
62
34
AH
Temp. -In
bF
515
566
558
586
588
591
571
591
598
571
All Additive
Temp. -Out Ratio
°F gal oil/gal add.
307
318
316
325
331
335
334
331
328
318
2107
2118
2375
2385
2395
2502
2550
2597
2645
2691
1 \-v.-s*
of
Opt'rntion
1
2
3
4
r^
6
/
3
-•>
10
'Since last boiler wash
-------
TABLE 13
AVERAGE DAILY COMBUSTION PARAMETERS
UNIT 4
Date
9-18
9-19
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-23
9-24
9-25
9-26
9-27
9-28
9-29
9-30
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-0
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-12
10-13
10-14
10-15
Fuel
S team Flow
1000 Ib/hr
620
654
637
657
635
567
479
605
606
588
510
510
595
548
566
646
645
663
635
587
450
592
612
639
644
654
643
569
Oil Flow
gal/hr
5646
5908
5823
5950
5733
5225
4512
5533
5413
5500
4679
4767
5517
5058
5275
5971
5900
6096
5796
5400
4306
5908
5654
5879
5867
5946
5 796
5278
Sulfur
?
2 .
2.
2.
i.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
00
01
05
15
23
16
20
08
07
08
05
09
13
02
00
95
87
60
52
54
67
83
97
09
22
20
15
18
Boiler
02-%
2. 92
2.58
2.42
2.17
2. 75
3.26
4. 38
3.23
3.15
3.02
3.28
3.08
2.67
3.00
3.01
2.68
2.25
2.24
2.13
2. 39
4 .07
3.44
3.12
2. 40
2.11
2. 38
2,90
3.51
AH
Temp. -In
OF
595
602
597
597
607
592
582
599
595
594
586
587
594
582
610
613
608
605
593
609
579
604
610
607
606
603
625
624
AH
Temp. -Out
0F
333
334
339
353
355
340
329
342
337
331
327
329
327
338
338
330
338
348
355
362
332
348
351
359
359
367
363
351
Add Ltive
RaUo
gal oil/gal add.
1976
2070
2016
2176
2171
2092
2038
2006
2009
2002
2002
2021
3505
3630
3641
3846
3581
3404
3333
3337
3425
3497
3560
3793
2581
2557
2502
2419
of
Opera t i on
1 5
] 6
1.7
18
T<1
20
21
i.l
23
24
27
,'H
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
30
37
38
39
40
41
*Since last boiler wash
-------
TABLE
14
FUEL OIL SPECIFICATIONS
U)
9-18
9-18
9-18
9-19
9-19
9-19
9-25
9-25
9-25
10-02
10-02
10-02
10-09
10-09
10-09
10-09
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
BTU/lb
18,581
18,586
18,670
18,587
18,653
18,672
18,633
18,670
18,628
18,571
18,584
18,846
18,641
18,620
18,646
18,555
18,658
18,538
18,773
18,501
Ash
%
.14
.11
.13
.13
.11
.12
.14
.12
.11
.14
.10
.11
.13
.11
.15
.12
.11
.10
.09
.09
S
%_
1.91
2.00
1.99
1.96
1.99
2.00
2.01
1.93
2.00
1.91
2.02
1.94
1.94
1.96
1.92
1.96
2.04
2.05
2.11
2.14
C
%_
85.9
85.5
85.9
85.7
86.1
S6.2
85.1
84. 8
85.4
85.9
85.7
85. 8
85.8
85.5
85.6
85.4
86.0
86.0
85.8
86.0
H
%_
12.4
13.8
13.6
13.2
13.1
12.2
11.2
11.2
11.0
12.0
11.5
12.1
11. 8
12.2
11. 8
12.3
12.1
12.2
12.4
12.4
N
%_
.79
.40
. 30
.40
. 30
.24
.35
.20
.30
.27
.28
.27
.33
.34
. 33
.27
.21
.20
.18
.17
Cl
%
.01
.02
.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.02
.02
Na
ppm
64
72
59
55
48
47
-
-
-
66
41
61
53
50
56
36
42
36
39
40
K
ppm
2
1
2
1
7
1
-
-
-
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
Mg
ppm
153
110
133
136
113
129
-
-
-
160
160
110
190
130
260
180
170
140
150
120
Ca
ppm
8
6
8
7
6
7
-
-
-
8
5
5
7
6
9
6
7
5
5
6
Hi
ppm
48
45
45
35
49
35
-
-
-
5?
76
45
81
84
81
84
42
54
53
55
Mn
ppm
2
1
2
2
1
2
-
-
-
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Fe
ppm
9
7
6
8
7
6
-
-
-
8
q
6
S
7
3
1
5
8
7
9
V
ppm
212
203
207
231
203
223
-
-
-
235
212
216
165
169
224
182
160
14*1
175
176
-------
TABLE
15
FUEL ADDITIVE ANALYSIS - METALS
Date
9-18
9-20
9-25
10-02
10-09
10-15
Na
PJP"L.
1180
1130
1120
1000
900
1000
K
gpm
260
240
250
260
250
240
Mg
%
25.51
25.93
25.97
25.98
25.95
26.05
Ca
ppm
8390
6270
7210
7300
7700
7700
Ni
p_pm
3
8
4
2
3
3
Mn
ppm
2081
2008
1948
1930
1890
1980
Fe
ppm
923
1014
965
1160
1190
1190
V
ppm
N.D
N.D
N.D
N.D
N.D
N.D
N.D. - less than 1 ppm
74
-------
from the stack effluent near the point of discharge. Simul-
taneous documentation of the combustion parameters was accom-
plished, as well as the daily acquisition of oil and additive
samples.
Since the samples of emitted materials were taken over a short
time span with each 24-hour day, and the emissions from the
boilers varied over a wide range during each day, it was bene-
ficial to use these data to predict the quantity of ejected
materials on a continuous real-time basis. Statistical tech-
niques were used in making these predictions, in particular was
the multiple stepwise regression analysis using emission test
data and simultaneous operational combustion parameters. A
regression analysis was used to quantify the relationship
between a dependent variable, y, and one or more independent
variables, x • . The model with regression coefficients, P^, is
written as follows:
y = 60 + 61*! + 32X2 + • • • • + SpXp + E
A stepwise regression method was used for the analysis.
The stepwise regression procedure is a modification to forward
selection regression. Independent variables are entered until
a satisfactory regression equation is obtained. Independent
variables are inserted in order according to their partial cor-
relation coefficient. At each stage in the regression the in-
dependent variables previously entered are re-examined. The
test statistic or partial F criterion for each variable in the
regression is evaluated and compared with a pre-selected per-
centage point of the appropriate F distribution. Any indepen-
dent variable providing a non-significant contribution is
removed from the model. This process is continued until no
more independent variables are added or deleted. Through this
procedure, an independent variable important at an early stage
75
-------
can be dropped because of relationships between it and other
independent variables brought into the equation at a later
stage.
At each step the variables are removed and/or entered into the
equation according to the F value criteria. The variable with
the smallest F value is removed from the equation if the F-to-
remove is less than the chosen lower limit. If no value meets
this criterion, the variable with the largest F value is
entered into the equation if the F-to-enter is larger than the
chosen limit. This allows selectivity of the variables in the
equation in as many steps as there are variables.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to test the null hypo-
thesis that the regression coefficients are zero. That is, the
F value is used to test the statistical significance of the
regression equation.
The standard error of estimates, which is the square root of
the deviations mean square, provides a measure of how closely
the regression model fits the data. Since the purpose is to
find a more accurate method of predicting y, the size of the
standard error of estimates is of primary importance. The
smaller the standard error of estimates, the better the regres-
sion equation fits the data.
The correlation coefficient, r, for a simple linear regression
analysis indicates how closely the dependent variable, y, is
related to the independent variable, x. The range of cases can
be from r=0 where y is independent of x and there is no rela-
tionship between the variables to r=+1.0 where any change in x
is accompanied by a proportionate change in y. The multiple
correlation coefficient, R, is a measure of the joint relation-
ship of all the independent parameters, x-, to the dependent
parameter y.
76
-------
The adjusted R2 value is used to estimate the fraction of the
variance of y that is attributable to the regression. An ideal
regression model would have an adjusted R2 value equal to 1.0.
The adjusted R2 value is translated as:
Adjusted R2 = 1 - (MSD/MST)
A 0
Where MSD = Z(y-y)_
n-p-1
MST = E (y-y)_2_
Particulate Model
Multiple regression analyses were performed using emission
rates of specific materials derived from emission tests and
simultaneous operational and combustion parameters. Each emis-
sion test was considered to be one data point. For the parti-
culate discharge regression analysis, forty-six data points
were available. Independent variables consisted of: oil flow,
boiler oxygen content, fuel sulfur content, additive ratio,
(gallons of oil/gallons of additive), and days of operation
since the last boiler wash. Since this was a stepwise regres-
sion analysis, the results were documented after each parameter
was entered, with decreasing order of consequence. The lowest
standard error appeared after oil flow, gallons of oil/gallons
of additive, and boiler oxygen content had been entered.
Particulate Sulfate Model
Particulate sulfate emissions were correlated with the same
parameters as particulate emissions. Fiftyfour data points
were analyzed (soot blow test data were eliminated from the
particulate prediction analysis but not from the particulate
sulfate prediction analysis). The lowest standard error
appeared after oil flow, gallons of oil/gallons of additive,
77
-------
days of operation since the last boiler wash, and boiler oxygen
content had been entered.
Sulfur Dioxide Model
Sulfur dioxide emission rates were correlated with the weight
rate of fuel sulfur entering the firebox. Forty-six data
points were available.
Total Sulfate Model
Total sulfate emission data were correlated with oil flow,
boiler oxygen content, gallons of oil/gallons of additive, fuel
sulfur content, and days of operation since the last boiler
wash. Forty-six modified Method 6 test results were
available. The lowest standard error appeared after all the
parameters had been entered.
Summary of Regression Coefficients
The summary of regression coefficients for the prediction
models is shown on Table 16. Units are Ib./hr. for filterable
particulate, sulfur dioxide, and total sulfate; percent of
filterable particulate for particulate sulfate. The standard
error of estimates in each case is 15% or less of the mean
value, indicating reasonable, but not exceptional,
correlation.
Emission Estimates
The models were applied to the actual data in the form of
hourly averages. However, fuel sulfur content and gallons of
oil/gallons of additive were not available hourly, therefore
representative daily values were substituted. Since particu-
late emissions during soot blowing were approximately 40%
78
-------
higher than during normal operation, a factor was inserted into
the parameter data files which caused the particulate rate to
be multiplied by a 1.4 whenever soot blowing was performed.
The hourly emission rates were summed on a daily basis for cor-
relation with 24-hour ground-level concentration measurements.
The results of these summations are shown in Figures 14, 15,
16, 17, and 18 in the form of average hourly rates each day for
particulate, particulate sulfate, total sulfate, acid sulfate,
and sulfur dioxide, respectively. These graphical presenta-
tions reflect the day when Unit 1 was out of service due to an
economic outage (Day 6) and the period when Unit 3 came on-line
after an extended maintenance outage (following Day 19).
DIURNAL EMISSION PROFILE
The diurnal analyses of emission estimates for particulate,
particulate sulfate, total sulfate, and sulfur dioxide are
presented in Figures 19, 20, 21, 22, respectively.
INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF SULFATE FORMATION TO
COMBUSTION PARAMETERS
Several individual operational and combustion parameters were
investigated in order to gain knowledge of primary sulfate
formation in these combustion furnaces. The high variability
of sulfate emissions observed is probably due to a complex
interaction of specific variables. The most likely causes of
high sulfate emissions are high oxygen levels, high sulfur and
metals content of the oil, burner and boiler configuration,
cleanliness of boiler internals, degree of air leaks, and to a
certain extent, the collection efficiency of the particulate
collectors. In the case of these boilers, the burner and
boiler configurations, fuel sulfur and metals content, and
operation of the mechanical collectors are similar between
boilers. The oxygen levels are variable but in all cases are
79
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF EMISSION PREDICTION MODELS
Additive
Ratio Standard
Oil Flow Fuel Boiler oil/addi- Days of Multiple Adjusted Error of
Y-Intercept gal/hr S % 0? % tive Operation _R R^ Estimates
Filterable
Particulate
Mean,92.5 Ib/hr
-15.2
.028
+4.9 -.021
.91
.81
14 .1
00
Particulate
Sulfate
Mean,47.5%
of Particulate
+ 25.7
-.002
+2.0 +.009
+ .12
.72 .47
6.6
Sulfur Dioxide +492.3
Mean,1893 Ib/hr
+.145*
.89 .78
202.0
Total Sulfate +115.1
Mean,114.0 Ib/hr
+.033 +16.1 +20.1 -.008 -.18
.87
.73
17.5
Multiplied times % Fuel Sulfur
-------
PARTICIPATE EMISSION ESTIMATE
24-HOUR AVERAGE OF PLANT AGGREGATE TOTAL
00
•H
4J
in
w
o
•H
tn
in
w
0)
o
-H
4J
300 -
250 -
200 -
150 '
100 -
50
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Mean
Hourly
Average
Minimum
Hourly
Average
9-18
5 10 15 20
Day of Field Measurement Program
FIGURE 14
25
10-15
-------
M
si
3 150 -\
PARTICULATE SOLUBLE SULFATE EMISSION ESTIMATE
24-HOUR AVERAGE OF PLANT AGGREGATE TOTAL
00
NJ
VI
U
d
o
-,-t
in
ui
•o4
e
w
n)
>M
05
<0
O
W
125
100
75
50
25
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Mean
Hourly
Average
Minimum
Hourly
Average
-P
M
n)
tx,
-r
T — i — i
9-18
5 10 15
Day of Field Measurement Program
FIGURE 15
20
25 10-15
-------
TOTAL SOLUBLE SULFATE EMISSION ESTIMATE
24-HOUR AVERAGE OF PLANT AGGREGATE TOTAL
00
-P
m
w
w
o
W)
300
250
200 .
150
100
50
Max.
Hourly Ave.
Mean
Hourly Ave.
Min.
Hourly Ave.
o
EH
9-18
10 15 20
Day of Field Measurement Program
FIGURE 16
25
10-15
-------
00
200
175
150
125
I
«
* 100
•H
0)
W
4)
•P
n)
3
75
50 '
25
ACID SULFATE EMISSION ESTIMATE
24-HOUR AVERAGE OF PLANT AGGREGATE TOTAL
T 1 r~
9-18
10
-i 1 1—r
15
i — i — i
20
i — r
25
Day of Field Measurement Program
FIGURE 17
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Mean
Hourly
Average
Minimum
Hourly
Average
'—r
10-15
-------
00
Ln
I
-------
300 ~
DIURNAL ANALYSIS OF EMISSION ESTIMATE
PARTICULATE
28-DAY AVERAGE OF PLANT AGGREGATE TOTAL
I
c
o
•H
W
(n
•H
g
W
.H
3
O
(0
250
200
150
100 -
50 -
+a
Me an
i I T I
i i r
I I I 1 I I I I I
12 345 67 89 10 11 12 123 45 6 789 10 11 12
NOON
Hour — Eastern Standard Time
FIGURE 19
-------
00
d
o
•H
U)
•H
6
W
0)
-p
to
0>
0)
-P
03
O
•H
DIURNAL ANALYSIS OF EMISSION ESTIMATE
PARTICULATE SOLUBLE SULFATE
28-DAY AVERAGE OF PLANT AGGREGATE TOTAL
100 -
Cn
50 -
25 -
Mean
-1- J- -a
i I i i I i i i i i i i
I I
1 23 45 67 89 10 11 12 12 345 6 789 10 11 12
NOON
Hour — Eastern Standard Time
FIGURE 20
-------
DIURNAL ANALYSIS OF EMISSION ESTIMATE
TOTAL SOLUBLE SULFATE
28-DAY AVERAGE OF PLANT AGGREGATE TOTAL
CO
00
I
fl
tn
•H
e
i r i i 7 T
123 4 567 8 9 1011 12 123 4 567 8 9 1011 12
NOON
Hour—Eastern Standard Time
FIGURE 21
-------
00
I
fl
O
•H
W
cn
•H
e
w
<8
•H
X
O
•H
Q
DIURNAL ANALYSIS OF EMISSION ESTIMATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE
28-DAY AVERAGE OF PLANT AGGREGATE TOTAL
3000 -
2000 ~
1000 -
-r +0
Mean
— -a
CO
ii ii ii iiii if i i r i i
12 345 6 789 10 11 12 123 456 7 89 10 11 12
NOON
Hour—Eastern Standard Time
FIGURE 22
-------
too high to demonstrate a distinct change in sulfate emissions
from time to time. The ratio of sulfate emissions to total
sulfur oxides (100 x SO4/SO2 + SO4) was the indicator used
because it reduces bias caused by the variance of fuel sulfur.
Vanadium content of the fuel is known to be a contributory
cause of sulfate formation by catalysis. However, there is no
way of knowing how much vanadium is in the fuel continuously,
or even how much is in the boiler in the form of ash deposits
at any given time. Therefore, vanadium concentration in the
stack gas, measured simultaneously with the sulfate measure-
ments, determined the vanadium factor relating to sulfate
formation.
The number of days of operation since the last boiler wash is a
relative indicator of the condition of the boiler internal sur-
faces. The effect may be that longer operation confers more
ash buildup, therefore more sulfate formed by catalysis. How-
ever, a magnesium fuel additive is used in the boilers for cor-
rosion control; some literature cites that a magnesium oxide
layer on the boiler internals with the use of the additive
(Reid, 1971), will deactivate the catalytic ash deposits
(Barrett, 1966). Work has shown as much as 50% less sulfate
emitted when magnesium additives were used on boilers firing
low sulfur, low vanadium fuel oil that had previously not used
additives (Boldt and Laube, 1978).
The operational characteristics such as burner and atomizer
condition, air supply controls, boiler casing and duct condi-
tion affect the extent of sulfate formation. The investiga-
tions of sulfate ratio, compared to operational parameters, was
limited to 2 individual boilers to minimize interferences. The
boilers with the largest numbers of data points were Units 2
and 4; a sum of Unit's 2 and 4 data comprised a third set.
90
-------
The results of regression analyses which compare the opera-
tional parameters to the sulfate ratio are shown in Table 17
(explanation of the regression terms can be found in Section
4). The most significant relationship exists between sulfate
and the concentration of vanadium in the stack gas. Consistent
y-intercepts, slopes, correlation coefficients, and standard
error of estimates are observed between the three data sets
(see Figure 23). Obviously this relationship overshadows any
variations among the other parameters.
Weaker relationships appear with additive ratio (gallons oil/
gallons additive) and days of operation, but they are apparent
only when the data from two boilers are combined. These rela-
tionships are essentially straight lines between two data
points, since the data are clustered for each boiler (see
Figures 24 and 25). These data suggest that if more additive
is injected into the flame, less sulfate is emitted, all other
parameters remaining equal. The mechanism of this reduction
could be either enhanced collection of magnesium sulfate in the
mechanical collectors, or a long-term deactivation of catalytic
surfaces by magnesium oxide.
91
-------
TABLE 17
Independent
Variable
Fuel Sulfur
Unit 2
Unit 4
(Unit 2+4)
SUMMARY
(S04/'s04+S02>
Units of
Independent
Variable
%
%
*
OJF REGRESSION ANALYSES
C 100) AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Y-Intercept Slope
- .44
+4.28
+3.60
+ 2.15
- .18
+ .05
R
.69
.07
.02
Adjusted
R2
.45
-.08
-.03
Standard
Error of
Estimates
.43
.57
.64
Stack Gas Temperature
Unit 2
Unit 4
(Unit 2+4)
oc
oc
°c
+1.89
+ .66
+ 3.95
+ .01
+ .02
- .00
.23
.41
.04
-.01
.10
-.03
.53
.52
.64
Boiler Oxygen Content
Unit 2
Unit 4
Unit 2+4)
Additive Ratio
Unit 2
Unit 4
Unit 2+4)
Days of Operation
Unit 2
Unit 4
(Unit 2+4)
%
%
%
1000 gal/ gal
1000/gal/gal
1000 gal/gal
days
days
days
+4.02
+4.46
+4.23
-13.86
+ 5.06
+ 1.93
- 6.54
+ 1.77
+ 4.40
- .22
- .17
- .21
-7.00
- .30
+ .60
+ .13
+ .07
+ .01
.35
.28
.29
.40
.09
.46
.47
.21
.45
.07
-.00
.05
.10
-.07
.19
.17
-.04
.17
.55
.55
.61
.54
.57
.56
.52
.56
.57
Vanadium Concentration
Unit 2
Unit 4
(Unit 2+4)
mg/m
mg/m^
mg/m^
+ 2.02
+ 2.58
+ 2.20
+ .36
+ .31
+ .36
.77
.69
.73
.55
.41
.50
.42
.49
.47
92
-------
UNIT 2
5.00-
4.0CT
3.00-
2.00"
i.oo-
5.00
4.00 '
3.00
2.00 '
1.00 '
5.00 -
4.00
3.00 -
2.00
1.00 '
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 S.O 6.0 7.0
Regression
2.0202+.3563V
R=.7725
Adjusted R2=.5463
Std. Error=.4201
UNIT 4
Regression
2.5733-I-.3099V
R=.6872
Adjusted R =.4063
Std. Error=.4936
UNIT 2*4
Regression
2. 1994+.3550V
R=.7273
Adjusted R =.5028
Std. Error=.4716
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Vanadium Concentration in Stack Gas - mg/m
FIGURE 23
93
-------
5.00 -
UNIT 2
4.00
3.00 -
2.00 -
1.00 -
Regression
-13.8635+.0070R
R=.3960
Adjusted R =.1006
Std. Error=.5428
5.00
1000
2000
3000
4000
UNIT 4
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Regression
5.0596-.0003R
R=.0907
Adjusted R =-.0744
Std. Error=.5658
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1000
2000
3000
4000
UNIT 2+4
Regression
1.9340+.0006R
R=.4643
Adjusted R =.1885
Std. Error=.5641
1000 2000 3000 4000
Additive Ratio - R - Gal. Fuel Oil/ Gal. Additive
FIGURE 24
94
-------
5.00
UNIT 2
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Regression
-6.5428+.1280Days
R=.4715
Adjusted R =.1704
Std. Error=.5213
5.00 '
4.00
10
—I—
20
30 40 50 60
70
80
UNIT 4
3.00
2.00
1.00 -
Regression
1.7733+.0665Days
R=.2070
Adjusted R =-.0369
Std. Error=.5359
5.00 '
10 20
30 40 50 60
70 30
UNIT 2
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Regression
4. 3970+.0124Days
R=.4454 2
Adjusted R =.1707
Std. Error=.5703
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Days of Operation After Boiler '//ash
FIGURE 25
80
95
-------
SECTION 5
AIR QUALITY
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
For several years the New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation has operated a high volume sampler network
in the Albany area. The results of several of those stations
are shown in Table 18. The Cohoes Station is located across
the Hudson River from Troy; the Colonie Station is located at
the Albany Airport; the Castleton Station is located just South
of the Albany Steam Station on the East side of the river.
All reporting stations show a general declining trend in TSP
over the years. Particulate concentrations at the downtown
Albany Station decreased by 50% during the period (1966-1978).
Rensselaer,- Troy, and Schenectady show a slight increase, then
a continued decrease through the 1970's.
PARTICLE SIZE
Experiments to determine particle size were conducted through-
out the test period. They were operated at the base site and
site 5 (one day run at site 1) every even day beginning on
September 18 and concluding on the 14th of October.
The procedure for the collection of the various size particles
involved the use of a multi-stage cascade impactor manufactured
by Sierra Instruments, Inc. This separates suspended particu-
lates into six size fractions based on flow rates.
96
-------
TABLE 18
Long Term Total Suspended Particulate Concentrations
Annual Geometric Means (yg/m )
Station/Station Number
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Rensselaer
4101-02
-
-
-
66
72
75
77
74
62
54
46
42
40
Downtown
Albany
0101-03
82
87
73
64
70
67
59
57
51
50
41
42
37
Troy
4102-02
62
57
52
46
45
51
52
55
53
46
39
36
33
Cohoes
0102-01
-
69
68
53
61
-
-
61
-
63
56
-
-
Colonie
0153-03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
55
51
52
42
44
43
Schenectady
4601-02
87
-
62
59
60
64
62
72
64
52
46
45
41
Castleton
4124-01
-
72
59
-
51
-
43
34
39
39
32
31
30
Source: NYSDEC
-------
Stage Cut-off Size at 40 CFM (Microns)
1 >7.2 u
2 7.2-3.0
3 3.0-1.5
4 1.5-0.95
5 0.95-0.49
6 0.49>
The daily particle size distributions were plotted on lognormal
probability graph paper. The cumulative.weights (%) are plot-
ted against the cut-off size (urn) for that stage. The daily
mass median diameters were then read off the curve to give the
results shown in Table 19. The arithmetic averages of the mass
median diameter for the base site and site 5 were 0.59 microns
and 0.65 microns respectively. The one day operation at site 1
resulted in a mass median diameter of 0.70 microns. Various
scatter type plots were done. The variables being mass dia-
meter, total suspended particles on the back-up filter, SO^,
nephelometer values and total suspended particles on the high
volume sampler filter.
At site 5 a correlation between SO^ and the particle size range
of 0-.49u (6th stage) was observed. At the base site, however,
there does not appear to be any simple relationship between
these two. A possible explanation of this could be that the
downwash at the base site caused large particles of sulfate to
be retained on the hi-vol filters, thus increasing SO^ and
negating the correlation between SO^~ and particle size. A pos-
sible explanation for the correlation appearing at site 5 is
most likely due to the fact that the larger sulfate particles
would have dropped out before reaching the monitoring system,
indicating a very local plant effect. If this is the case
then site 5 was representative of the long distance transport
particles of small size and slow settling velocities.
98
-------
The results of the Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) laboratory
results of the dichotomous filters have not yet been provided
by the EPA's laboratory in Research Triangle Park. Thus, any
conclusions drawn betweeen cascade sizing and hi-vol filters is
tentative.
Studies by Mezaros (1970), Whitby (1978), Tanner and Marlow
(1977) have indicated that the great majority of airborne (804
is in the particulate size range of 0.01-0.5 urn. Mezaros
(1978) has reported the results of a field test in which 90% of
the total sulfate mass measured at a rural site had a diameter
less than 0.6 um.
The size data reported by these authors suggest two things.
First, they are of a size to affect visibility, and second,
they could be capable of being transported great distances be-
fore gravitational settling out occurs. In this study if the
association between hi-vol filter data and cascade filter mass
holds true, then a portion of the emitted SO^ particulate is of
sufficient size to settle out within short distances of the
plant. This is a tentative conclusion requiring further effort
to verify this.
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Long term SC>2 data is contained in Table 21. These data were
provided by NYSDEC; stations not previously identified are the
Town of Bethlehem, located on Highway 9W South of the City of
Albany and West of the Albany Steam Station and the Town of
Hudson, located about 23 miles South of Albany.
These long term data indicate there are geographical variations
in the data. The area along the Hudson River to the North of
the Albany Steam Station shows higher values of SC>2 than the
rural stations at Bethlehem and Hudson. For most of these
99
-------
TABLE 19
CASCADE IMPACTOR RESULTS
BASE SITE
Micrograms per cubic meter
DATE
Sept.
Oct.
18
20
22
24
26
23
30
02
04
06
08
10
12
14
1
4.995
4.327
0.799
0.000
2.143
1.133
2.102
1.392
0.917
3.018
0.443
0.480
5.324
1.010
0.
2.
2.
0.
6.
2.
3.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
s,
1.
2
000
308
542
124
017
644
,083
435
,975
,000
,448
.320
.659
.554
STAGE
3 4
0.000
2.019
1.452
0.000
2.225
2.853
2.102
1.739
1.482
0.000
0.179
0.080
5.058
1.243
0.000
2.308
1.162
0.000
5.852
1.740
2.102
2.157
1.834
0.000
0.089
0.160
5.977
1.243
0.
•>
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
4.
3.
0.
0.
0.
11.
1.
5
000
967
290
062
330
296
382
453
034
000
,089
,000
,494
,476
9.
9.
8.
0.
14.
11.
12.
13.
10.
44.
6
445
304
207
062
177
967
611
Oil
013
264
1.881
2.882
31.341
7.460
MASS MEDIAN
DIAMETER
(MICRONS )
-
0.88
0.56
1.00
1.10
0.41
0.49
0.42
0.54
-
0.32
0.14
0.72
0.55
CASCADE IMP ACTOR RESULTS
Micrograms
DATE
Sept.
Oct.
18
20
22
24
26
23
30
02
04
06
08
10
*12
14
1
0.644
0.851
1.556
0.000
1.C22
1.136
1.043
1.245
0.713
0.318
5.255
•7.307
0.136
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
7
*9
0
2
.611
.914
.738
.000
.294
.248
.780
.305
.485
.572
.434
.150
.327
3
1.095
1.276
0.549
0.000
0.749
1.748
0.798
1.866
1.069
0.000
3.204
*5.003
0.000
SITE 5
per cubic
STAGE
4
1. 353
1.701
0.091
0.000
2.520
2.060
0.859
2.173
1.604
0.254
2.627
•5.727
0.000
meter
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
4
•10
0
5
.933
.836
.914
.000
.681
.874
.412
.107
.000
.381
.101
.993
.340
* Located
3
2
12
0
0
10
7
9
9
3
15
•30
0
6
.157
.056
.438
.000
.000
.927
.120
.645
.360
.113
.124
.611
. 340
at Site 01
MASS MEDIAN
DIAMETER
(MICRONS)
0.94
1.20
0.13
0.00
2.20
0.44
0.42
0.56
0.26
0.20
0.94
•0.70
0.49
100
-------
DATE
Sept. 18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Oct. 02
04
06
08
10
12
14
TABLE 20
DICHOTOMOUS SAMPLER RESULTS
Micrograms per cubic meter
BASE SITE
<3.5y
33.7
12.8
15.0
11.1
16.7
12.8
12.3
13.2
5.0
0.0
14.6
27.4
3.6
>3.5y
16.8
9.8
05.0
16.5
17.8
06.1
12. 3
4.8
0.7
0.0
3.9
14.5
1.7
<3.5y
3.1
2.0
6.1
3.6
9.2
24.0
14.8
23.0
20.9
18.4
6.1
40. 3
*58.2
9.2
SITE 5
>3.5y
23.4
15.9
21.2
19. 3
24.8
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3. 3
0.0
* 0.0
1.6
* Located at Site 01
101
-------
TABLE 21
Long Term Sulfur Dioxide Concentration
Annual Means (ppm)
o
to
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Downtown
Rensselaer Albany
4101-02 0101-03
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.017
0.018
0.014
0.014
0.016
0.016
;
-
0.021
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.014
0.016
Troy
4101-02
-
-
-
0.008
0.007
0.005
0.007
0.011
Cohoes
0102-01
-
-
-
0.014
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.008
Schenectady
4601-05
-
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.015
0.014
Bethlehem Hudson
0151-01 1001-02
-
- -
-
0.006
0.006
0.008 0.003
0.004
0.005
Source: NYSDEC
-------
stations there is insufficient data available to ascertain long
term trends in the SC^ data.
The diurnal variation in ambient SO2 concentration during the
study period is shown in Figures 26 and 27. Two of the sites
(site 4 and 6) showed very little variation in SO2. This indi-
cates that these stations were not affected to a great extent
by nearby SO2 sources. The low levels at sites 4 and 6 also
sustain this conclusion.
The base site was affected by the Albany Steam Station's efflu-
ent but only to a limited extent. There was a slight maximum
around 0800. This was probably due to inversion breakup or
fumigation effects.
Four of the sites showed considerable diurnal variations.
These stations indicated a diurnal maximum before or during
noon. The increases generally began around 0800, or the time
of the morning inversion breakup. The diurnal decrease was
usually achieved by around 1600-1800 with the onset of the
evening stable conditions.
This sustains the supposition that the sites were influenced by
industrial sources only during part of the day. Until the time
of inversion breakup, most of the sites were not greatly af-
fected by the plant, as the surface stable conditions retarded
the dispersion of industrial SC>2 emissions. Either they were
contained in the surface stable layer or else there was suffi-
cient plume buoyancy to rise above the surface stable layer.
PHOTOCHEMICAL POLLUTANTS
Photochemical pollutants, nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide
(N0?), and ozone (O-^) were measured in the Albany area during
this study. Table 22 contains historical data collected in
103
-------
FIGURE 26
S02 DIURNAL VARIATION
0.030-
0.020-
0.010-
Site 1
24 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 13 20 22 24
HOUR OF DAY
0.030-
£ 0.020-
0.010-
Site 5
24 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 13 20 22 24
HOUR OF DAY
0.030-
0.020-
0.010-
Rensselaer Site
24 02 04 06
08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
HOUR OF DAY
10!4
-------
0.020-
0.010-
FICURE 27
S02 DIURNAL VARIATION
Base Site
24 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 IS 18 20 22 24
HOUR OF DAY
£ 0.020-
0.010-
Site 3
24 02 04 06
08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
HOUR OF DAY
£ 0.020-
0,
0.010-
Site 4
24 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
HOUR OF DAY
£ 0.020-
0.010-
Site 6
24 02 04 06
08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
HOUR OF DAY
105
-------
the Albany area by the NYSDEC. Also included in this table are
total hydrocarbons (HC) measured by flame ionization at
Rensselaer.
TABLE 22
LONG TERM PHOTOCHEMICAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
ANNUAL AVERAGE (ppm)
Rensselaer (4101-02) Schenectady (4601-05)
Year NO NO2 03 HC NO NO2 O3
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
-
.014
.015
.011
.010
.012
.013
.013
.018
.018
.015
.016
.014
.015
2.81
2.45
.022
.017 2.74
.022 2.83
.023 3.08
.022
.022
-
.027
.034
.024
.019
.018
.017
.023
.021
.019
.017
.016
.014
.017
-
.022
.019
.017
.020
.022
.029
Source: NYSDEC
The hydrocarbons could be emitted from the numerous tank farms
in the area, from leaks and tanker-to-bulk storage and transfer
operations. During the study period a small refinery on the
South side of the Port of Albany began start-up operations.
Thus, there could have been an additional source of hydro-
carbons. The Albany Steam Station itself is surrounded by
numerous bulk storage tanks for petroleum products. The NYSDEC
stopped monitoring for hydrocarbons in early 1977, therefore no
hydrocarbon-data was available for the test period.
106
-------
These pollutants have long been known to exhibit a character-
istic diurnal variation. This diurnal variation has been
observed at various locations by Renzetti and Romanovsky
(1956), Leighton (1961), U.S. Public Health Service (1965) and
by the California Department of Health (1966).
During the study period the NO and N02 concentrations exhibited
a double maximum double minimum diurnal variation at the four
monitoring stations with NOX monitoring equipment. These two
pollutants had maximums during the early morning near sunrise,
and later in the early evening after sunset. Ozone concentra-
tions did not begin to increase until after the morning NOX
maximum. Ozone decreased in the late afternoon with the
decrease in sunlight.
Various models have been published to explain this diurnal
relationship. A simplified model is:
N2 + 02- ^2 NO (Combustion)
2 NO + O2 ^-2 N02
NO2 + hy ^-NO + 0 (Sunlight)
0 + 02 + M—^~°3 + M (Non-methane hydrocarbons)
O2 + NO ^"NO2 + 02
The formation of N02 Proceeds directly from the plant emissions
of NO into the atmosphere. The presence of sunlight (hy), to-
gether with a suitable catalyst (M), usually taken to be reac-
tive hydrocarbons, results in the formation of O3. With the
decline in sunlight in the late afternoon, the formation of O3
decreases and available 03 reacts to form N02, thus decreasing
03 and causing a N02 Peak in the early evening.
These pollutant measurements showed a variation from one day to
the next. For the most part, the ambient concentrations could
be described as a series of consecutive pulses or spikes.
107
-------
While there was no significant change in the NO trend at three
of the sites, the base site showed a decreasing trend during
the study period. Both NO2 and O3 showed no change in trend
during the study period at any of the sites. A summary of the
data is contained in Table 23.
There is some indication by Larson et al. (1978) and Penkett et
al. (1978) that elevated 0^ levels can be influencial in the
conversion of 302 *"° ^04. Larson et al. reported the following
oxidation rate could be significant when 0^ ->0.050 ppm and pH
* 5:
d [sop = k4KRO PQ- [HSO~] [H+] -o.^pi +0.02
-J «j
with k4 = (4.4 ± 2.0) X 104 M~°-9S~1
KHO = °-0123 M atm"1, both at 298°K
108
-------
TABLE 23
NO, NO.,, O., Concentrations (ppm)
NO NO2 0-
Standard Standard Standard
Average Deviation Average Deviation Average Deviation
Site 1 0.020 0.035 0.022 0.025
Rensselaer 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.004 0.008
Site 3 0.012 0.043 0.013 0.010
Base 0.021 0.017 0.007 0.009 0.014 0.015
-------
FIGURE 28
0.030-
0.020-
0.010-
24 02 04 06 03 10 12 14 15 18 20 22 24
HOUK OF
0.030-
0.020-
0.010-
NO
NO,
SITE 3
24 02 04 06 03 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
HOUR OF
Photochemical Pollutant Diurnal Variation
110
-------
FIGURE 29
0.030-
£ 0.020-
0.010-
RENNSSELAER
NO
N02
24 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
HOUR OF DAY
0.030-
0.020-
0.010-
BASE STATION
24 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 IB 20 22 24
HOOR OF DAZ
Photochemical Pollutant Diurnal Variation
111
-------
The diurnal variation experienced in the ozone concentrations
suggests that if this were a factor in S02 to SO4 conversion in
the Albany area, it would be limited to a few hours of the
day. That is, O3 would most likely affect S04 levels during
the 1200 to 1800 time priod.
CARBON MONOXIDE
Carbon monoxide was not measured as part of this experiment.
However, some CO data is available from the NYSDEC. Table 24
contains long term CO data.
TABLE 24
LONG TERM CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
ANNUAL AVERAGE (ppm)
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Station/(Station Number)
Rensselaer (4101-02) Schenectady (4601-05)
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.5
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
Source:
NYSDEC
In a study by Kuhlman et al. (1978) it has been suggested that
the presence of CO decreases the rate of formation of airborne
S04 particulate. The CO was considered by Kuhlman et al. to
compete with S02 for the available OH~ radical thus retarding
112
-------
the formation of H2So4. There are insufficient data to test
this hypothesis in this study.
SQLFATE ANALYSIS
The long term (1975-1978) SO^ distributions for monitoring sta-
tions run by the NYSDEC in Troy and in downtown Albany are
shown in Figure 29. This figure indicates that the SO^ tends
to have a log-normal distribution as would be expected for
ambient particulate concentrations. The slopes of the two
curves appear to be the same, suggesting the same sample vari-
ance. The same variance suggests that the causes of variation
at these two locations may be the same. The geometric means
determined from these distributions are 10.4 ug/m for downtown
Albany and 8.1 ug/m^ for Troy. This difference of 2.3 ug/m^
suggests local source effect(s).
The long term trend in SO^ is contained in Table 25. This
table contains a summary of available 804 data collected over a
13-year period. In the Albany-Troy-Schenectady area there
appears to be a slowly changing oscillation with a wavelength
of about 8 or 9 years and an amplitude of about 4 ug/m • How-
ever, data from New Rochelle near New York City and Massena in
upstate New York near the Canadian border do not show this
oscillation. If this is true then this would suggest that the
Albany-Troy-Schenectady area possesses some uniqueness apart
from either downstate New York or Northern upstate New York.
A comparison of Albany to Troy and Schenectady indicates that
Albany has higher values of SO^ than either Troy or Schenec-
tady. The only exceptions being Troy in 1973 and Schenectady
in 1966. A comparison of Troy to Schenectady shows that Troy
was greater than Schenectady 4 times and Schenectady greater
than Troy 6 times. This suggests a local source/sink phenomena
113
-------
4(
3C
20
10
_ 9
m 8
P
— 6
T c
O D
Ul
4
3
1975-1978
Downtown Albany
• Troy
'.Jl 60 /O M)
95
98 99
998 999
•J999
Cununulative Frequency of Occurance
FIGURE 30
-------
TABLE 25
Annual Variation in 304"
Geometric Mean (ug/m )
0101-03
Downtown 4102-02 4601-02 5904-02 4402-05 1302-04
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Albany
10.9
10.2
8.9
9.1
8.9
9.6
12.0
10.5
11.7
13.0
11.6
9.9
8.3
Troy
10.3
8.5
8.4
7.7
7.1
7.8
10.4
11.0
10.2
10.7
9.2
7.9
6.8
Schenectady
11.4
-
7.3
8.1
7.3
8.3
10.9
10.0
11.0
9.8
9.1
8.6
7.0
New Rochelle
13.3
12.9
11.6
11.1
10.5
10.2
9.0
8.1
8.9
10.9
-
8.9
7.4
Massena
-
-
3.8
6.3
5.1
5.7
6.3
6.3
5.6
5.7
7.7
7.4
7.0
Poughkeepsie
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.8
10.3
11.0
8.9
7.6
_
Source: NYSDEC
-------
in the Albany area. Long range transport should not produce
consistently higher geometric means at Albany.
Tables 26 and 27 contain data on the seasonal variation of S04
for downtown Albany and for Troy- As might be expected, down-
town Albany has consistently higher values than Troy. There
appears to be a slight double maximum-double minimum seasonal
variation. The months of April and September are the minimum
months with the summer and winter periods being somewhat
higher. The 75% values indicate that large values of S04 are
more likely during the summer months than any other time of the
year. The differences between the 50 percentiles and the 75
percentiles are minimal during spring and fall and greater dur-
ing the summer and winter. This is especially true for Albany
during the summer. This suggests that there is more likely to
be greater differences from one day to the next in the summer
than in the winter.
Figure 30 and Tables 26 and 27 suggest that the data could be
described as an average level with pulses occurring from time
to time. Seasonally these pulses appear to be more frequent in
the summer rather than the rest of the year. It is these pul-
ses that account for the seasonal shift in the monthly average
level in SO4. These long term data are collected on the one
day in six cycle therefore it is difficult to discuss sustained
elevated SO^ episodes.
SO^ data collected during the test period shows a geometric
distribution similar to that observed for the longer period of
record. The pulse character of the data can be seen in Figures
31 and 32. The period of record from September 18 to October
15 contained two significant pulses as well as several lesser
pulses. The two main pulses occurred on September 21 and
October 12. In both cases the synoptic situation was similar.
There was an elongated high pressure area running along the
116
-------
TABLE 26
Seasonal Variation in SO.
(ug/m )
Downtown Albany
Period of Record: 1975 - 1973
Cumulative Frequency
Minimum 25% 50% 75% Maximum
Sample Size
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Period
4
5
5
3
3
5
2
4
4
5
4
4
4
.7
.6
.0
.8
.2
.2
.4
.3
.7
.2
.0
.5
.3
7
9
8
6
7
9
7
7
7
7
7
8
7
.7
.8
.5
.6
.9
.3
.8
.7
-0
.5
.8
.4
.8
10.
12.
11.
8.
11.
12.
12.
11.
9-
11.
10.
9.
10.
5
0
0
2
3
5
3
5
0
0
7
6
4
15
15
14
10
14
17
17
21
11
14
13
10
14
.0
.6
.0
.8
.7
.4
.8
.2
.6
.1
.1
.5
.0
57
23
19
26
20
68
24
31
35
20
16
14
68
.0
.1
.2
.2
.3
.6
.8
.5
.0
.4
0
*
-------
TABLE 2 7
Seasonal Variation in SOT (ug/m )
Troy, New York
Period of Record: 1975-1978
Cumulative Frequency
00
Minimum
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Period
4
6
4
4
5
3
3
5
3
3
4
5
3
.2
.6
.8
.9
.2
.7
.1
.6
.1
.3
.2
.6
.1
25%
6.
8.
6.
5.
7.
8.
5.
7.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
7
6
2
7
4
5
2
7
6
0
0
7
2
50%
9
9
8
7
9
10
9
9
6
7
7
7
8
.0
.7
.0
.0
.1
.0
.3
.9
.7
.6
.4
.6
.1
75%
11
12
10
9
11
12
12
16
8
11
8
8
11
.8
.0
.1
.2
.7
.4
.7
.8
.3
.0
.8
.5
.2
Maximum
18
19
16
20
17
25
23
32
30
14
14
10
32
.3
.0
.4
.3
.8
.3
.3
.7
.7
.7
.6
.2
.7
Sample Size
20
15
22
18
21
19
21
16
16
16
18
15
217
Source
NYSDEC
-------
Atlantic Coast with a cold front in the vicinity of the Great
Lakes. This was accompanied by a flow aloft of Southwest
winds. Local winds were from the South on both days. Thus,
while the Albany Steam Station might have influenced monitoring
stations to the North, it could not have influenced the
Southern stations and their pulse is obviously due to some
other source or sources. It is interesting to observe on the
October 12 case that the Southern stations had higher concen-
trations than the Northern sites.
This feature of elevated SO^ concentrations on the rear side of
anticyclones or high pressure areas has also been observed by
Y.S. Chung (1978). Chung noted these phenomena in Ontario and
in Western Canada. He specifically mentions the case of May
17-18, 1975 when Southern Ontario was under the influence of a
retreating high pressure area and an advancing cold front.
Maximum values of both S0^~ and 03 were observed.
119
-------
050-
040-
030-.
020--
010-
FIGURE 31
DAILY SO4 CONCENTRATIONS
Sep. 18 - Oct. 15, 1978
Site 1
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 23 29 30
September
10 11 12 13 U 15
October
01
31
0
1-1
o
030-.
020--
010-
Site 3
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2/ 28 29 301
September i
2 3 4 5 6 7 3 « 10 11 12 12 14 L!
October
020--
010-1
Site 4
IS 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 2B 29 30
September
1 2 34 5 S 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
October
120
-------
FIGURE 32
DAILY S04 CONCENTRATIONS
Sep. 18 - Oct. 15, 1973
020--
010-
Site 5
,3 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 J9 29 30
September i
3 i ; i 1 a J 10 11 12 13 14 15
October
z
35
030-.
020--
010-
Site 6
18 19 20 21 22 23 2« 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 i 6 7 3 J 10 11 12 13 U 15
September
October
020--
010-"
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 ] 4 5 5 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 It
September
October
12.1
-------
SECTION 6
METEOROLOGY
CLIMATE
The climate is representative of the humid continental type
prevailing in the Northeastern United States. The general cir-
culation of the atmosphere brings a variety of different air
masses into the region. Cold dry air masses are brought in
from the Northern interior of the continent. Warm, humid air
is transported from the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent waters. At
times air is transported in from the North Atlantic producing
cool, cloudy and damp weather conditions (NOAA, 1977).
Many storms and frontal systems moving eastward across the con-
tinent pass through or in close proximity to the State of New
York. Two principal storm tracks can be identified. One storm
track moves from the Great Lakes area Northeast along the St.
Lawrence River valley. The second storm track is offshore and
moves Northeast generally parallel to the coast (Klein, 1957).
A trough of cyclogenesis, centered over the Virginia capes
extends Northeastward offshore along the coast. During the
September-October time frame this activity is at a minimum.
Conversely, the Appalachian Mountains are a center for the
formation of high pressure areas, particularly in October
(Klein, 1957).
DAILY SYNOPTIC SITUATION
For the study period the daily weather maps prepared by the
National Weather Service were examined primarily with interest
in the Northeast United States. A summary of the synoptic
situation for each day is continued in Table 28.
122
-------
TABLE 28
DAILY SYNOPTIC SITUATION
Sept. 17 High pressure area centered over Quebec, Canada, with
a stationary front running from the Great Lakes
across Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Sept. 18 High pressure area centered over Quebec, Canada, with
a stationary front East-West over central Pennsyl-
vania .
Sept. 19 High pressure area in Canada with stationary front
from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic with cyclo-
genesis in Pennsylvania.
Sept. 20 Advancing cold front in Great Lakes with high pres-
sure area over New England.
Sept. 21 Advancing cold front along St. Lawrence River Valley
with retreating high pressure area centered over
Virginia and North Carolina.
Sept. 22 Frontal passage during night with cold front along
Eastern seaboard. High pressure area over Great
Lakes.
Sept. 23 High pressure area over New England.
Sept. 24 Advancing cold front over Great Lakes with high
pressure area over New England.
Sept. 25 Frontal passage during night with cold front along
the Atlantic seaboard. High pressure area over Great
Lakes.
Sept. 26 High pressure area over New England.
Sept. 27 Advancing cold front over Great Lakes with retreating
high pressure area over Nova Scotia.
Sept. 28 Cold front centered over New York State running from
mouth of St. Lawrence River Southwest through
Kentucky. High pressure area over Great Lakes.
Sept. 29 High pressure area over New England.
Sept. 30 High pressure area over New England. Advancing cold
front over Great Lakes.
123
-------
TABLE 28
Oct. 1 Advancing cold front over Eastern Great Lakes. High
pressure area retreating towards Iceland.
Oct. 2 Frontal passage during night with cold front over
Nova Scotia. High pressure ridge extending from
Hudson Bay South through Great Lakes.
Oct. 3 Advancing cold front over Great Lakes. High pressure
ridge along Atlantic seaboard.
Oct. 4 Advancing cold front over Eastern Great Lakes with
warm front over St. Lawrence River.
Oct. 5 Frontal passage with cold front in New England.
Advancing cold front vicinity of Great Lakes.
Oct. 6 Remnants of decaying cold front offshore in
Atlantic. Advancing cold front with front running
North-South over central New York State.
Oct. 7 Cold front passed with front over Quebec-Nova
Scotia. High pressure area over Great Plains.
Oct. 8 High pressure area centered over Mississippi River.
Oct. 9 Advancing high pressure area centered over West
Virginia.
Oct. 10 High pressure area centered over Virginia capes with
a cold front running East-West over Southern Canada.
Oct. 11 High pressure area over Maine. Weak front running
from Hudson Bay across New York State into the
Atlantic.
Oct. 12 High pressure ridge along Atlantic seaboard with
advancing cold front area Great Lakes.
Oct. 13 Cold front running Southwest from Maine to Arkansas.
Rain following frontal passage along entire front.
Oct. 14 Slow moving cold front running Southwest from Boston
to Atlanta accompanied by rain.
Oct. 15 Cold front offshore in Atlantic. Advancing low pres-
sure area approaching Great Lakes.
Oct. 16 Low pressure area over Ohio with high pressure area
approaching Great Lakes.
124
-------
During the study period the usual pattern was for a series of
cold fronts to advance generally westerly from the Great Lakes
through the study area. A series of seven such fronts were in
the area and/or passed through the Albany area during the study
period.
WINDS
The annual wind pattern as observed at the Albany airport shows
a prevailing southerly wind with secondary maximums in the
North and West Northwest. Seasonally there is a shift in this
pattern. During the winter months of December through March,
the prevailing winds are from the West Northwest. During the
months of April through November, the southerly winds are pre-
vailing. This is especially true during the summer months of
June, July and August.
The wind frequency distribution for Albany airport, Rensselaer
(Port of Albany), base station, and Niagara Mohawk meteorologi-
cal tower all show similar patterns for the study period. All
stations show a southerly maximum with secondary maximums
generally out of the North to Northwest.
Concurrent winds among these stations show a strong comparison
indicated by Figure 33. One of these figures was prepared for
each day during the study period. This indicates that wind
direction at one station is generally similar to wind direction
at another. Moreover, when the shift from essentially down
valley flow to up valley flow occurs, it occurs at all stations
at about the same time.
For the study period, valley winds, as a general rule, were not
observed. By valley winds, it is meant the diurnal shift in
wind direction from up valley during the day shifting to down
valley during the night. Most of the wind shifts that were
125
-------
FIGURE 33
date October 09
hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
upper
<
<
<
^
<.
^
"*"
N
\
f
(
f
r,
i
r
r
r-
r
___r
/
i
-f
.j
^
WIND DIRECTION
lower base REN ALB
X X -c-
-<-, ^-. \ ±-
_, \ (
— ^- ^ (—
— ^^ -<- L-
/ /- •*• 9
f f ^* ]~~"
\ / 1 L~'
X X ^ U-
-^ ^ ^ L,
N X ^ !_
\ \ <, k
\ \ ^ • C.
•<, \ ^ ^X
\ \ <. ^
t \ { \
\ ~^ \ s>
— t
^ J
/ / ^ ®
7 744
7 Y \ 4
^ y j -f
/ ./ -f /
site
^
/
S
^-
— •
^
^"
/-
I
-^
\
\
\
V
\
1
\
~^.
•^
i^
-^
-/
A
,/
126
-------
observed were associated with synoptic weather features. Dur-
ing frontal passages, the general pattern was for the wind
direction to shift from South to North. By about the second
day after a frontal passage, the winds would shift back to
South again. Local features tended to impose some perturbation
on this basic North-South flow.
UPPER ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENTS
The average diurnal temperature profile for the study period is
contained in Table 29 and Figure 34. There was only one tem-
perature sounding for the 0400 time frame, therefore, it is not
included. In addition, the 1300 sounding for September 23
appears to be an anomalous sounding and is not included in the
average diurnal presentation.
The upper air diurnal pattern appears to be similar to that
defined by the Niagara Mohawk meteorological tower. Stable
conditions are observed at night and unstable conditions during
the day. Radiation cooling at the surface results in the for-
mation of a surface stable layer by 1900. The diurnal AT data
indicates this surface inversion is during the 1700-1800 time
period. This surface inversion extends through the first 500
feet AGL as measured from the Hudson River bottom land.
Another stable layer also forms during the early evening. This
second layer lies immediately above the surface stable layer.
This second layer may be thought of as an extension of the sur-
face layer and extends from about 500 feet to 1500 feet AGL.
This layer is generally isothermal.
As indicated in Table 29, by shortly after sunrise the atmos-
phere has become almost isothermal up through 3000 feet AGL.
The Niagara Mohawk tower shows the transition from stable to
unstable takes place rather quickly (Table 30). During the
127
-------
TABLE 29
AVERAGE DIURNAL TEMPERATURE ALOFT (°C)
ALBANY STEAM PLANT
PERIOD OF RECORD: Sept. 22, 1978-Oct. 15, 1978
Height Above Ground (ft)
\->
NJ
00
Time (EST
0100
0400
0700
1000
1300
1600
1900
2200
Surface
11
-
7
13
16
16
13
11
.5
.9
.3
.0
.6
.5
.9
500
11.9
-
8.5
10.9
14.0
1 .3
14.7
13.7
1000
12.1
-
8.7
9.5
12.6
14.2
14.2
13.6
1500
12.1
-
8.4
8.3
11.1
12.8
14.2
13.0
2000
11.3
-
8.6
7.0
10.4
11.9
12.5
12.4
2500
11.0
-
8.1
5.7
9.8
11.0
11.4
11.5
3000
10
-
7
3
9
10
10
11
.5
.6
.9
. 9
.2
.7
.1
Number Soundings
6
-
6
6
5
9
7
7
-------
FIGURE 34
AVERAGE DIURNAL
TEMPERATURE PROFILES
3000-1
2500-
2000-
4J
0)
0)
-p
,c
1500-
1000-
Time Of Day
500-
05 06
07 08 09 10
Temperature (C)
129
-------
day the lower 3000 feet of the atmosphere is unstable once the
morning inversion breakup takes place.
The significance of this is that the plume is emitted into
stable air from early evening through the morning inversion
breakup. Consequently the contents of the plume would be dis-
persed slowly during the night and would have a minimal impact
during these hours.
From the pibal wind frequency tables it can be seen that the
wind did change in regard to height. The wind speed at the
ground had a very high percentage of occurrences at the lower
speeds (0-18 mph). The 1000 foot level had most of its wind
speeds in the 4-31 mph range, the 2000 foot in the 8-38 mph
range, and the 3000 foot level in the 13-38 mph range. The
wind direction remained constant with height during northerly
winds. During southerly winds, as height increased, the winds
shifted toward the West. This can clearly be seen from Figure
35. Tables 31, 32 and 33 summarize the upper air wind pat-
terns .
From Table 34 it can be observed that there were definite
diurnal patterns with regard to upper air temperatures. This
can be seen clearly by looking at the day of October 12. At
0100 a stable condition exists, by 1008 this stable condition
has become unstable allowing mixing of the atmosphere, at 1322
the atmosphere has become adiabatic, at 1533 it was becoming
stable, and, at 1906 it had become very stable. This condition
existed through 2155, and by 0100 the atmosphere had become
isothermal.
VISIBILITY
It has been recognized for many years that degradation of visi-
bility can be caused by air pollution. However, air pollution
130
-------
TABLE 30
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STABILITY CLASS
NIAGARA MOIIWAK METEOROLOGICAL TOWER
PERIOD OF RECORD: SETP. 17, 1978-OCT. 16, 1978
PASQUILL STABILITY CLASS (delta-T method)
Hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Totals
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
20
22
23
24
24
25
23
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
184
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
3
4
3
3
1
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
c
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
25
D
4
8
6
4
11
8
15
14
6
4
1
1
2
z
3
7
22
10
5
5
9
6
6
6
" 165
E
14
11
15
17
12
15
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
20
17
18
12
16
12
11
210
F
8
9
7
7
5
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
6
5
9
8
85
G
2
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
3
3
4
24
Missing
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Valid hours
29
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
718
NOTE: STABILITY CATEGORIES TAKEN FROM NRC SAFETY GUIDE 1.23
131
-------
DATE
9/22/78
9/22/78
9/23/78
9/23/78
9/24/78
9.25. 78
9/25/78
9/25/78
9/25/78
9/25/78
TIME
EST
1432
1555
1000
1300
1000
0735
1750
1006
1320
1540
9/29/78
9/29/78
9/29/78
9/29/78
0730
1015
1420
1608
TABLE 31
UPPER AIR PROGRAM DATA LOG
NIAGARA MOHAWK
OBSERVATION
PIBAL SONDE DOUBLE DIR
BASE
1000'
x
X
X
X
9/26/78 0720 x
9/26/78 0951
9/26/78 1314 x
9/26/78 1611 x
9/27/78 0726
9/27/78 1019 x
9/27/78 1338 x
9/27/78 1552 x
9/28/78 0731 x
9/28/78 1016
9/28/78 1255 x
9/28/78 1605
x
X
X
X
X
X
180
350
030
040
SPEED
08.0
06.0
04.0
04.0
194 05.0
DIR
037
046
019
*
238
2000'
SPEED
TOWC R
FASQUU.L
3000' STABILITY
DIR SPEED CLAPS
25.3
21.2
05.5
11.9
046
194
279
30. 9
07. 4
07. 4
A
B
X
X
X
X
150
180
290
315
270
360
050
360
-100
185
180
180
170
300
320
3CTO
320
340
330
360
090
04.0
03.0
20.0
12.0
12.0
03.0
05.0
05.0
05.0
03.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
03.0
20.0
11.0
14.0
03.0
02.0
03.0
02.0
*
306
334
348
319
019
045
034
234
195
197
265
*
237
324
324
037
334
349
059
133
*
09
35
09
40
06
06
01
04
18
24
17
*
04
40
23
39
12
07
07
03
.2
.6
.6
.6
.8
. 9
.9
.1
.4
.9
.9
. 4
.7
.9
.8
. 8
. 3
. 7
. 3
*
*
344
358
331
*
351
336
246
202
200
260
*
*
329
354
040
357
004
350
140
*
*
31.
08.
21.
*
04.
01.
05.
34.
20.
34.
*
*
14.
24.
56.
08.
11.
04.
03.
1
7
9
4
2
7
4
1
2
6
2
3
5
1
7
2
*
*
330
349
345
*
035
295
278
*
218
249
*
*
328
005
047
357
024
339
107
*
*
-10.
21.
26.
*
07.
10.
09.
*
14.
12.
*
*
42.
26.
26.
08.
10.
1.1.
07.
5
1
9
2
6
8
7
5
8
8
5
0
1
3
6
E
E
B
B
D
C
A
B
D
D
A
B
D
D
A
A
D
E
B
C
E
* INDICATES THAT THE PIBAL WAS OBSCURED FROM VIEW
-------
u>
TABLE 31
UPPER AIR PROGRAM DATA LOG
NIAGARA MOHAWK
DATE
9/30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
10/01/78
10/01/78
10/01/78
10/02/73
10/02/78
10/02/78
10/05/78
10/05/78
10/05/78
10/05/78
10/06/78
10/06/78
10/06/78
10/06/78
10/06/78
10/06/78
10/06/78
10/06/78
10/07/78
10/07/78
10/07/78
10/07/78
10/07/78
10/07/78
TIME
EST PIBAL
0730
1000 x
1350 x
0955 x
1316 x
1543
0730
1005 x
1306 x
1306
1619
1924
2215
0158
0415 X
0704 x
1005 x
1315 x
1532
1902
2210
0040
0430 x
0700
1003
1310
1615
OBSERVATION BASE
SONDE
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DOUBLE DIR
190
180
180
180
180
220
330
350
350
180
x 180
210
140
240
180
180
140
140
x 200
270
220
220
210
x 200
x 090
x 290
320
SPEED
04.0
15.0
18.0
13.0
13.0
05.0
07.0
10.0
08.0
09.0
08.0
04.0
04.0
03.0
Q5.0
05.0
04.0
11.0
06.0
02.0
02.0
04.0
03.0
04.0
03.0
08.0
12.0
1000'
DIR
194
206
196
101
212
236
009
014
010
240
268
165
167
169
*
167
189
203
077
310
235
254
*
295
078
002
334
SPEED
34. 8
19.0
12.1
04. 7
24.0
13.4
23.7
29.9
05.9
03.2
12. 7
19.9
26.0
15.1
it
25.0
08.5
07.0
12. 2
13.2
10. 7
09. 8
*
39. 3
07.0
18.2
23.3
2000'
DIR
210
*
212
212
221
251
*
018
009
*
262
183
173
162
*
170
*
*
078
299
272
279
*
#
013
020
333
SPEED
39.
*
17.
42.
26.
11.
*
34.
14.
*
23.
34.
39.
21.
*
34.
*
*
09.
14.
19.
18.
*
*
33.
16.
21.
1
5
2
2
2
5
1
2
0
2
7
3
2
7
2
4
5
9
8
3000'
DIR
*
*
222
211
236
281
*
019
006
*
251
186
194
*
*
202
*
*
081
289
301
302
*
*
*
012
338
SPEED
*
*
24
47
23
13
*
19
18
*
27
31
35
*
*
26
*
*
13
23
19
24
*
*
*
16
20
. 7
.3
. 7
. 7
.8
. 7
. 7
. 6
. 2
.5
. 9
. 4
. 8
.0
.4
.5
TOWER
PASQUIH.
STABILITY
CLASS
D
A
B
C
D
E
E
D
A
A
D
E
E
E
E
D
D
C
n
E
F
E
E
E
D
C
D
* INDICATES THAT THE PIBAL WAS OBSCURED FROM VIEW
-------
U)
TABLE 31
UPPER AIR PROGRAM DATA LOG
NIAGARA MOHAWK
DATE
10/07/7S
10/07/78
10/08/78
10/08/78
10/08/78
10/08/78
10/08/78
10/08/78
10/08/78
10/08/78
10/09/78
10/09/78
10/09/78
10/09/78
10/09/78
10/09/78
10/09/78
10/09/78
10/10/78
10/10/78
10/10/78
10/10/78
10/10/78
10/10/78
10/10/78
10/10/78
TIME
EST
1902
2154
0040
0433
0711
1002
1310
1602
1907
2225
0045
0430
0712
1006
1324
1604
1923
2205
0500
0455
0705
1006
1256
1611
1900
2206
OBSERVATION BASE
PIBAL SONDE DOUBLE DIR
x 330
x 210
x 240
x 300
x 330
x 330
x 290
x 300
x 330
x 300
x 280
x 230
x 210
x 300
x 330
x x 330
x 210
x 180
x 190
x 170
x 180
x 180
x 100
x x 300
x 280
x 200
SPEED
04.0
02.0
01.0
04.0
03.0
08.0
08.0
08.0
05.0
02.0
02.0
02.0
02.0
08.0
09.0
06.0
03.0
04.0
04.0
04.0
06.0
06.0
10.0
05.0
02.0
01.0
1000'
DIR
326
314
319
337
029
031
305
323
341
334
335
325
*
035
032
056
309
221
239
250
248
281
248
027
341
348
SPEED
27.5
15. 3
23.4
24.2
18.5
22.6
29. 3
22.4
26.8
28.1
25.4
25. 7
*
48.0
11.5
10.6
04.7
15.5
19. 2
13. 8
12.2
14.0
11.2
15.0
17.4
14.9
2000'
DIR
327
296
326
*
030
021
314
318
335
344
347
335
*
030
050
033
293
269
269
301
305
*
327
022
329
329
SPEED
35.5
30.6
24.4
*
68.5
17.9
29.1
35.6
24.8
27.4
23.9
27.9
*
57. 2
18.3
11.9
09.9
25.3
47.6
21.9
27.5
*
07.0
22.4
19.5
15.8
3000'
DIR
329
327
331
*
033
026
332
319
336
348
003
340
*
026
032
018
282
297
*
*
*
*
314
017
310
345
SPEED
65.
33.
30.
*
53.
32.
18.
35.
44.
31.
18.
27.
*
82.
19.
35.
15.
28.
*
*
•*
*
19.
29.
23.
23.
2
5
3
8
2
2
2
5
7
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
2
9
0
2
TOWE R
PASQUILL
STABILITY
CLASS
E
E
E
E
D
A
C
D
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
E
F
F
F
E
D
B
C
D
E
E
10/11/78 0050 x 250 03.0
*INDICATES THE PIBAL WAS OBSCURED FROM VIEW
037
15. 3
356
15.9
338
21. 5
-------
U)
Ul
TABLE 31
UPPER AIR PROGRAM DATA LOG
NIAGARA MOHAWK
TIME OBSERVATION BASE
DATE
10/11/78
10/11/78
10/11/78
10/11/78
10/11/78
10/11/78
10/11/78
10/12/78
10/12/78
10/12/78
10/12/78
10/12/78
10/12/78
10/12/78
10/12/78
10/13/78
10/13/78
10/13/73
10/13/78
10/13/78
10/13/78
EST PIBAL SONDE
0445 x
0651 x
1005 x
1336
1602 x
1905 x
2155 x
0100 x
0440 x
0710
1008 x
1322 x
1553 x
1906 x
2155 x
0100 x
0450 x
0719 x
1010
1327
1550 x
DOUBLE DIR
190
180
180
x 180
160
190
180
180
170
x 170
x 175
x 170
x 180
180
180
180
240
170
x 175
x 310
330
SPEED
03
03
12
14
14
06
05
03
07
07
12
13
14
06
04
06
05
08
14
07
04
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1000'
DIR
192
206
198
261
192
187
202
200
199
*
269
269
269
212
196
201
199
*
262
063
017
SPEED
25.
13.
10.
13.
13.
29.
27.
25.
27.
*
28.
26.
33.
33.
35.
31.
34.
*
20.
07.
14.
0
7
7
3
6
5
0
4
5
6
7
2
5
4
9
3
1
6
8
2000'
DIR
359
190
215
248
*
198
212
196
*
*
278
263
284
207
198
227
202
*
*
092
353
SPEED
17.
08.
17.
22.
*
34.
37.
32.
*
*
36.
21.
26.
18.
24.
26.
50.
*
*
07.
16.
3
4
7
5
0
0
7
7
6
3
4
0
1
6
0
4
3000'
DIR
*
204
197
*
*
201
208
213
*
*
*
270
302
216
233
240
*
*
*
322
316
SPEEI
*
07. 9
11 .4
*
*
32.1
35.8
37.5
*
*
*
22. 7
11.2
15.0
14.1
39. 3
*
*
*
04 . 0
13.G
10/14/78 1311
10/15/78
10/15/78
10/15/78
1020
1316
1520
x
X
210
300
310
337
03.0
15.0
12.0
24. 7
186
312
329
336
228
17.4
34.0
21.0
196
338
329
339
45. 9
14. 7
45.8
20.6
327 62.5
330 28.0
TOWER
PASOl'ILI,
STAB I!, I TV
CLASS
E
D
B
C
E
E
E
E
E
D
A
C
D
F
E
E
E
n
B
D
E
A
1.1
n
*INDICATES TIIE PIBAL WAS OBSCURED FROM VIEW
-------
TYPICAL PIBAL TRAJECTORY
1 minute intervals
6000
s
FIGURE 35
136
-------
TABLE 32
SUMMARY OF MEAN WIND DIRECTIONS AND SPEEDS
Direction
Direction S.D.
Speed
Speed S.D.
BASE 1000'
NORTHERLY
2000'
3000
341.4
24.5
7.9
6.1
10.2
31.5
18.3
12.0
001.6
26.0
21.8
18.5
349
49.4
27.2
18.8
Direction
Direction S.D.
Speed
Speed S.D.
SOUTHERLY
183.4
13.8
7.3
4.3
201. 3
63. 3
20.1
8.9
211.4
58.2
25.5
9.5
226.6
61.1
24.0
11.1
Direction
Direction S.D,
Speed
Speed S.D.
WESTERLY
68.9
36.5
6.2
5.0
324
55.5
21.2
10.2
331.2
51.3
23.17
11.5
336. 8
29.6
28.2
14.3
Direction
Direction S.D.
Speed
Speed S.D.
EASTERLY
96.6
5.7
5.7
4.0
205
62.7
6.2
4.3
237-7
93.7
5.3
1.9
233
110.6
12.2
6.2
Categories include summation of soundings coincident with
ground level wind direction within that quadrant.
137
-------
TABLE 33
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED & DIRECTION
PIBAL OBSERVATIONS
30 FEET
U)
00
WIND
DIRECTION
349-11 N
12-33 NNE
34-56 NE
57-58 ENE
79-101 E
102-123 ESE
124-146 SE
147-168 SSE
169-191 S
192-213 SSW
214-236 SW
237-258 WSW
259-281 W
282-303 WNW
304-326 NW
327-348 NNW
MISSING
WIND SPEED MPH
0-3
1.90
1.90
4.76
5.71
1.90
2.86
2.86
1.90
2.86
4-7
1.90
0.95
1.90
0.95
1.90
0.95
15.14
3.81
1.90
0.95
1.90
0.95
4.76
8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-28 39-46
1.90
0.95
1.90
0.95
7.61 7.61
0.95
4.76 0.95 0.95
2.86 0.95 0.95
1.90 0.95
47 MISS TOTAL
5-71
0.95
1.90
0.00
3.81
6.00
2. 85
1.90
35.24
9.52
3.81
3.81
3.81
10.48
5.71
10.48
TOTAL
26.67
38.09 21.90 10.48
2.86
100.00
-------
TABLE 33
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED & DIRECTION
PIBAL OBSERVATIONS
1000 FEET
WIND
DIRECTION
349-11 N
12-33 NNE
34-56 NE
57-58 ENE
79-101 E
102-123 ESE
124-146 SE
147-168 SSE
169-191 S
192-213 SSW
214-236 SW
237r258 WSW
259-281 W
282-303 WNW
304-326 NW
327-348 NNW
MISSING
TOTAL
0-3
4-7 8-12
WIND SPEED MPH
13-18 19-24 25-31
32-28 39-46
47
MISS TOTAL
0.95
0.95
0.95
2. 86
1.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12.
90
90
95
86
95
95
95
95
95
38
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
13.
90
95
95
95
90
95
86
95
95
95
33
0.
2.
1.
0.
2.
1.
0.
2.
2.
2.
20.
95
86
90
95
86
90
95
86
86
86
95
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
14.
95
95
95
95
86
95
95
95
90
86
28
1.
1.
0.
5.
1.
2.
2.
18.
90
90
95
71
90
86
86
09
4.76
9.52
0.95 0.95 6.67
4.76
0.95
0.00
0.95
2.86
4.76
3.81 18.09
4.76
6.67
0.95 7.62
0.95 1.90
1.90 11.43
1.90 11.43
6.67
6.67 3.81 0.95 6.67 100.00
-------
TABLE 33
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED & DIRECTION
PIBAL OBSERVATIONS
2000 FEET
WIND
DIRECTION
349-11 N
12-33 NNE
34-56 NE
57-58 ENE
79-101 E
102-123 ESE
124-146 SE
147-168 SSE
169-191 S
192-213 SSW
214-236 SW
237-258 WSW
259-281 W
282-303 WNW
304-326 NW
327-7348 NNW
MISSING
0-3
4-7 8-12
WIND SPEED MPH
13-18 19-24 25-31
32-28
39-46
47 MISS
TOTAL
0.96
0.96
1.92 2.88
0.96 0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96 1.92
0.96
0.96
3.85
1.92
0.96
1.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.88
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
1.92
0.96
2.88
0.96
0.96
4.81
0.96
1.92
0.96
1.92
1.92
2.83
1.92
1.92
3.85
1.92
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.88 0.96
0.96
0.96
9.62
7.69
3.85
0.96
0.96
0.00
1.92
0.96
3.85
11.54
2.88
3.85
7.69
4.81
3.85
12.50
21.15
TOTAL
1.92
5.77 8.65 14.42 16.34
10.58
11.54
4.31
4.81 21.15 100.00
-------
TABLE 33
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED & DIRECTION
PIBAL OBSERVATIONS
3000 FEET
HIND
DIRECTION
349-11 N
12-33 NNE
34-56 NE
57-58 ENE
79-101 E
102-123 ESE
124-146 SE
147-168 SSE
169-191 S
192-213 SSW
214-236 SW
237-258 WSW
259-281 W
282-303 WNW
304-326 NW
327-348 NNW
MISSING
0-3
4-7
8-12
WIND SPEED MPH
13-18 19-24 25-31
32-28 39-46
47 MISS TOTAL
0.
94
0
0
.94
.94
1.
0.
0.
0.
89
94
94
94
0.
1.
94
39
0.
0.
1.
94
94 0.94 1.89
89
0.94
1.
0.
0.
89
94
94
0
0
0
1
0
.94
.94
.94
.89
.94
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
83
94
94
94
94
1.
0.
2.
1.
2.
09
94
03
89
83
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
94
94 3.77 0.94
94 0.94
94
0.94
72 1.89 2.83 1.89
4.
7.
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8.
4.
2.
3.
6.
4.
16.
33.
72
56
77
00
94
94
00
00
94
49
72
83
77
60
72
04
96
TOTAL
0.00
5.66 7.54 11.32 13.20 12.26
7.54
3.77 4.71 33.96 100.00
-------
TABLE 34
TEMPERATURE (C°) CHANGE WITH HEIGHT @ BASE SITE
TIME
DATE
10/07/78 0040
10/07/78 1003
10/07/78 1310
10/07/78 1615
10/07/78 1902
10/07/78 2154
10/08/78 0400
GROUND
06.6
13.2
16.1
12.1
08.8
05.8
04.9
10/09/78 1604
10/09/78 1923
10/09/78 2205
10/10/78 0050
10/10/78 1611
10/10/78 1900
10/10/78 2206
10/11/78 0050
10/11/78 1905
10/11/78 2155
10/12.78 0100
10/12/78 1008
10/12/78 1322
10/12/78 1553
10/12/78 1906
10/12/78 2155
13.7
06.0
04.9
03.6
19.9
16.6
14.3
14.3
17.4
16.3
13.7
18.2
20.4
22.7
14.8
41.8
10/13/78 0100 16.1
10/15/78 1020 08.0
10/15/78 1316 09.0
500
07.3
11.6
13.0
10.1
07.9
09.0
08.8
12.0
11.7
07.0
05.2
19.2
19.5
16.2
16.0
17.7
15.7
13.2
15.0
18.7
21.6
17.6
16.2
16.1
05.9
08.0
1000
07.3
10.7
12.0
08.7
06.8
09.1
08.5
11.2
11.6
10.6
09.9
18.0
18.8
16.0
14.5
16.6
14.2
12.2
13.8
17.5
20.6
17.9
15.5
16.1
02.5
07.2
HEIGHT
1500
07.8
09.9
10.6
07.2
06.0
08.6
08.6
09.4
11.0
10.6
09.6
16.5
18.0
15.5
15.3
15.6
13.3
11.8
12.9
15.7
19.2
17.8
14.9
16.2
-0.2
06.0
(ft)
2000
06.4
08.6
09.8
06.8
05.0
07.7
07.4
08.4
10.0
09.9
09.1
16.
16.9
15.4
14.3
14.4
12.3
11.2
11.6
14.8
18.4
16.7
15.6
16.2
-2.9
04.7
2500
05.2
08.0
08.7
05.7
03.8
06.5
06.2
07.3
09.1
08.7
09.0
15.2
16.4
14.7
14.2
13.2
11.4
11.6
10.7
13.8
18.0
15.5
15.4
15.8
-5.7
03.9
3000
04.2
07,2
04.2
02.8
05.5
05.1
06.3
09.0
07.9
08.4
13.9
15.8
14.9
13.5
12.1
10.6
11.4
17.7
17.0
14.9
15.1
14.9
-7.3
03.0
142
-------
TABLE 34
TEMPERATURE (C°) CHANGE WITH HEIGHT @ BASE SITE
DATE
9/22/78
9/22/78
9/23/78
9/23/78
9/24/78
9/25/78
9/26/78
9/27/78
9/28/78
9/28/78
9/29/78
9/29/78
9/30/78
10/1/78
10/2/78
10/5/78
10/5/78
10/5/78
10/5/78
10/6/78
10/6/78
10/6/78
TIME
(EST)
1432
1555
1000
1200
0724
0735
0951
0726
1016
1605
0730
1608
0730
1543
0730
1306
1619
1924
2215
0158
1902
2210
HEIGHT (FT)
GROUND
16.0
15.2
13.5
21.0
01.8
11.5
07.9
07.1
18.8
15.0
03.8
15.8
09.5
17.8
13.9
18.6
16.0
15.6
14.8
14.8
' 15.6
12.3
500
15.1
15.. 4
12.1
13.5
07.1
11.4
04.7
07.3
16.0
13.2
04.3
14.0
08.0
17.0
13.0
15.5
14.7
14.2
14.5
13.6
15.0
17.0
1000
13.2
15.1
11.2
10.4
06.6
12.2
03.8
07.8
14.7
12.5
05.5
13.4
07.9
16.2
12.6
13.2
13.3
14.2
13.5
13.0
13.7
16.2
1500
11.8
15.4
10.6
08.6
05.4
12.3
02.5
07.0
14.1
11.3
06.0
12.0
08.6
15.4
11.2
11.4
11.9
13.9
13.0
11.8
12.4
14.9
2000
10.6
14.9
10.3
04.6
11.7
1.2
08.8
12.9
10.2
05.5
11.1
08.6
14.5
12.4
12.4
10.8
13.3
12.3
10.8
11.3
13.4
2500
10.4
14.1
10.2
04.1
10.4
-0.5
09.4
11.6
9.0
04.6
09.0
08.2
13.4
12.2
12.2
09.8
12.4
11.8
10.3
09.5
11.6
3000
10.8
14.8
09.2
03.6
09.6
-1.6
10.1
10.1
09.0
03.7
08.2
07.4
12.2
11.4
11.1
09.6
11.3
12.0
10.5
08.5
11.3
143
-------
is not the only cause for decreased visibility. Atmospheric
moisture is considered to play a significant role in visibility
reduction. This has been reported on by Wright (1935, 1939),
Junge (1963), Buma (1960) and Winkler (1973). Moreover, the
size of atmospheric particles likely to adversely influence
visibility is small. Horvath and Charlson (1969) reported the
optically important aerosols to be a narrow range centered
about a diameter of 0.50 um.
The importance of relative humidity on visibility can be seen
in Figure 36 representing measurements at Newburgh, NY (Reiss
and Eversole, 1978). This location is South of Albany along
the Hudson River about 80 km North of New York City.
Visibility data in the Albany area has the log-normal distribu-
tion mentioned by Reiss and Eversole (1978). The Albany data
also shows a seasonal variation as seen in Table 35. This
table was compiled from the 3-hourly observations contained in
the Local Climatological Data (LCD) for Albany and includes
observations with precipitation. This seasonal variance is a
widespread phenomena with much of New England experiencing low
visibilities during the summer months. This is partially due
to the shift to southerly winds brought about by the northward
shift of the Azores High.
This table shows a rather abrupt shift in visibility between
September and October. September is one of the worst months
for visibility and October is one of the better months.
During the study period, visibilities were measured at the Base
site and at Site 5 by nephelometers. The values presented here
are in units of bsca^. which is approximately inversely propor-
tional to visibility. The diurnal variation in bscat is shown
in Figure 37. The base site was found to have somewhat better
visibility than Site 5. This suggests that Site 5 was more
144
-------
FIGURE 36
50
40
JO
20
i i i i \ r
o +
•t-
o o
-t- + +•
+
o -»•
o
O Geometric mean H
+• Geometric mean lone standard
deviation
0 IO 20 JO «0 50 60 70 80 90 IOO
Relative humidity, '/.
Dependence of daytime (15Z, 18Z, 21Z) visibility
on relative humidity at Newburgh, NY (1948-1970) for
observations in which no precipitation was observed (all
wind directions). (Reiss and Eversole, 1978)
145
-------
TABLE 35
ALBANY AIRPORT VISIBILITY (Miles)
1977
Cumulative Frequency of Occurrence
25%
50%
75%
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
6.8
6.7
9.0
9.7
9.1
6.4
6.1
5.1
3.8
9.0
7.2
5.8
11.9
10.5
14.8
22.3
25.0
13.9
14.1
9.6
9.7
14.4
13.8
12.5
20.8
19.9
25.0
33.3
32.8
28.2
30.3
25.0
27.3
24.4
24.2
19.2
Annual
6.7
13.8
27.4
146
-------
likely affected by the fine particle emissions than the close-
in base site. Moreover both locations showed a diurnal vari-
ation consisting of a double maximum-double minimum. The
lowest minimum in visibility occurs about the time of the morn-
ing inversion breakup. The higher maximum in visibility occurs
in the mid afternoon. The other inflection points occur about
midnight and about 0400-0500.
Assuming that bscat is directly proportional to airborne par-
ticulate mass loading, then the dust loading experienced by a
monitoring station is not uniform throughout the day- This
suggests that the greatest impact to a 24-hour hi-vol filter
could occur about 0900 each morning. Moreover, the minimum
particulate loadings are experienced when 03 shows a diurnal
maximum. There appears to be an SC>2 maximum about the same
time as the maximum particulate loading and a minor SC>2 minimum
about the same time as the minimum particulate loading at Site
5.
The results of ground-level concentration of sulfate were com-
pared to simultaneous bgcat values for the base site and Site 5
(see Figure 38). The relationship is evident that sulfate con-
centration increases significantly as the scattering coeffi-
cient increases. Since kscat is the inverse of distance that a
specified amount of light can travel through a particulate sus-
pension, this indicates an inversely proportional relationship
between visibility and sulfate concentration.
147
-------
Figure 37
DIURNAL NEPHELOMETS3S
VALUES
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
0.90
0 .80
0.70
O
2 0.60
0 .50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Site 05
Base Station
24 02 04 06
03 10 12 14
Hour of Day
148
-------
FIGURE 38
SULEATE/SCATTERING COEFFICIENT
Cn
£[
»
is
.§
i
^3
OS
a.
i
r~\
BASE SITE AND SITE 5
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
,
•** * .*.**•
,* •** *•***
I
,1 .2
Site 5 -
I I I i | I i i I
.3 .4 .5 .6 .8 1.0 1.4 2.0
-4 -1
b , (10 777 ) 24-Hour1 Average
^
y.
0
i
i
5
-\
CJi
a.
o*
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
t"
•
•• * * * •
• .:••' •*'* . •" '
1 | 1 ( I 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 1.0 1.4 2.0
Base Site - b
4 -1
(10 m ) - 24-Hour Average
149
-------
SECTION 7
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY
DAILY POLLUTANT DISTRIBUTION
The 24-hour average S02 and 804 concentrations were plotted on
maps for each day and isopleths or lines of equal concentra-
tions were constructed. Sulfur dioxide was selected due to its
anthropogenic source implications.
These daily maps showed that gradients in the observed SO2 and
304 concentrations could be constructed. While the confidence
in these patterns could be subject to question, the fact re-
mains that gradient patterns could be constructed. The impli-
cations that can be drawn is there are local effects (sources
and sinks) in the SO2 and 804 in the Albany area. The fact
that at times the nature of the SO2 and 304 patterns were dif-
ferent indicates that other factors besides S02 alone is in-
volved in the resulting 304 concentrations. The fact that
gradients in SO2 could be constructed is not surprising as iso-
pleths have been constructed for such things as t>sca^ (Lutrick,
1971) and S02 (Turner, 1964).
DAILY so4 ISOPLETH CHARTS
The isopleths that are located on the following pages have been
drawn using the daily S04 (sulfate) values at the six monitor-
ing stations. The isopleths all represent observed sulfate
concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter.
DIFFUSION MODELING
A diffusion model was used to estimate the plant's contribution
to the ambient concentration measured at each of the monitoring
150
-------
FIGURE 39
151
-------
FIGURE 39
152
-------
FIGURE 39
153
-------
FIGURE 39
1 MILE
1
'SO 1 KILOMETER
TRUE Sept 21, 1978
NOBT11
154
-------
FIGURE 39
TTIL-E Sept 22, 1978
SOUTH
155
-------
FIGURE 39
TRUE Sept 23, 1978
MORTT1
156
-------
FIGURE 39
1 S 0 I KILOMETER
Sept 24, 1978
157
-------
FIGURE 39
158
-------
Fid I IRK
159
-------
FIGURE 39
n,UE Sept 27,1978
Nonm
160
-------
FIGURE 39
ISO 1 KILOMETER
TRUE Sept 28, 1978
sonni
161
-------
FIGURE 39
1 "I ° 1 KILOMETER
Sept 29,1978
162
-------
FIGURE 39
TRUE Sept 30, 1978
MORTTI
163
-------
FIGURE 39
164
-------
FIGURE 39
''
165
-------
FIGURE 39
166
-------
FIGURE 39
0 1 KILOMETER
TRUE Oct4,1978
167
-------
FIGURE 39
168
-------
FIGURE 39
TBUE Oct 6, 1978
MOBTII
169
-------
FIGURE 39
TRUE Oct 7, 1978
NORTH
170
-------
FIGURE 39
171
-------
FIGURE 39
172
-------
FIGURE 39
173
-------
FIGURE 39
<-;&-- i %^;-,
*&w. ' h'r. i
174
-------
FIGURE 39
I
-------
FIGURE 39
•mire Oot 13, 1978
MOBTII
176.
-------
FIGURE 39
177
-------
FIGURE 39
TRUE Oct 15, 1978
NORTH
178
-------
locations. The objective of this analysis was not model veri-
fication, but to obtain a general estimate of the plant's im-
pact at these locations during the study period.
The model used was a Gaussian model (Turner, 1970) that used
the Brigg's plume rise formulae (Briggs, 1969 and 1972). The
specific form of the Gaussian equation used was equation 3.1 by
Turner (1970). Topography and horizontal distances from cen-
terline were used. Stability was determined by the T measure-
ments taken on the Niagara Mohawk tower. The stability classi-
fication scheme in Safety Guide 1.23 (NRC, 1972) was used to
convert the AT measurements to stability classes. Wind speed
and direction measurements from the tower were also used. The
pollutant was considered as being chemically and physically
inert and that plume loss by deposition did not occur.
Hour-by-hour calculations were made for each of the ambient
monitoring locations other than the Base Station. These hourly
concentrations were then averaged to obtain the estimated 24-
hour average plant contribution at each monitoring station.
A difficulty was encountered in the modeling estimates. The
problem is determining a reliable estimate of the background
concentration. No unique method for estimating background was
considered to be universally applicable in this study. The im-
portance of background can be best understood if each observed
concentration is considered as a sum of its components. That
is:
179
-------
X obs =X plant + X ols + X lrt
where: x obs = observed ambient concentration
X plant = concentration increment due to source
X ols = concentration increment due to other
local sources
XIrt = concentration increment due to long range
transport
The background concentration at any station is the sum of x°ls
and xlrt. The value xlrt is probably uniform at the stations
used in this study, but Xols is not uniform at each station.
Therefore, a uniform background concentration is difficult to
apply to all stations.
In this study it was noticed that the winds rarely carried the
plant plume towards Site 6. Thus, one attempt of estimating
background was to consider the observed concentration at Site 6
as an estimate of the background concentration. Table 36 pro-
vides an analysis when Site 6 is used as an estimate of back-
ground. The values presented are values obtained from the fol-
lowing ratio:
X Plant
xobs = (xols + 'xlrt)
What Table 36 suggests is that the plant increment in this
study was a small value compared to the two relatively larger
values of observed and background. Thus, any reasonable error
in either of the two is probably of equal or greater magnitude
than the plant's increment. This is a condition that exists
for both S02 and 304 as indicated by the Site 1 data.
ANALYSIS OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
A statistical analysis of variance was performed, using the
combination of the (upper level) tower wind direction data and
the ground-level air quality measurements. The analysis of
18Q
-------
Range
Of Ratio
TABLE 36
RATIO OF ESTIMATED TO OBSERVED
(LESS SITE 6) 24-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS
CUMULATIVE PERCENT
Rensselaer
SO 2
Site 5
SO 2
Site 1
SO 2
Site 1
S04 =
<0.0001 50.0
0.0001-0.0099 54.1
0.01-0.09 70.8
0.1-0.9 100.0
>1.0 100.0
59.1
63.6
72.7
81.8
100.8
32.1
35.7
64.3
89.3
100.0
48.0
56.0
68.0
100.0
100.0
181
-------
variance tests is the difference between the means of two or
more groups for significance. The sulfate, vanadium, and sul-
fur dioxide measurements were used as observations (or data
points), while the site designation and the wind direction were
used as groups. The variance ratio Crx2/0y2 (or F value) was
the criterion for testing the null hypothesis: that the means
of the observations were the same in both groups.
Since the prevailing wind direction travelled the line of the
Hudson Valley, North to South or South to North on 21 days of
the 28 day program, the measurements made at the North and
South sites (Sites 1 and 5) were used exclusively. A site was
designated downwind when the wind blew toward that site (_+ 45°)
fourteen hours or more on a particular day. The complementary
site was designated upwind, and non-affected sites were desig-
nated neutral.
A two-way analysis of variance was performed on the observa-
tions using site designation and wind direction groupings. The
result of the analysis of variance is as follows:
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Degrees of Freedom F Value
Site 1 18.90**
Wind 2 3.33*
Site x Wind 2 1.61
Error 46
VANADIUM
Degrees of Freedom
Site 1 34.75**
Wind 2 10.29**
Site x Wind 2 9.52**
Error 44
182
-------
SULFATE
Degrees of Freedom F Value
Site 1 .13
Wind 2 .74
Site x Wind 2 6.04**
Error 44
*Significant at the 5% level
**Significant at the 1% level
The results of the analysis of variance for vanadium and sul-
fate are significant for the interaction of wind direction and
site designation. The results indicate sulfur dioxide signifi-
cance due to site designation and wind direction, but the
interaction does not indicate significance. This means that
the effects of site designation and wind direction are addi-
tive. To illustrate, the population mean of sulfur dioxide
concentration, without regard to site designation or wind
direction is u. When all sulfur dioxide values at a particular
site are grouped together, the mean value becomes u + a. When
all sulfur dioxide values are grouped under a particular wind
direction, the mean becomes u + B. If the effect is additive,
then the mean of all sulfur dioxide values at a particular
site, when the wind is in a particular direction, is u + a +
B. This leads one to the conclusion that sulfur dioxide fits a
relatively simple model, which shows that the concentration is
related to wind direction, regardless of whether the measure-
ment was made upwind or downwind of the plant.
The results of the interaction of site designation and wind
direction are significant with respect to sulfate and vanadium
concentration. This indicates a more complex relationship
between the population and the groupings than the one described
above. In order to assess the significance of this relation-
ship, a further one-way analysis of variance was performed
183
-------
for each designated site using the sulfate and the vanadium
populations. Results are as follows:
Site 1
Wind
Error
Degrees Of Freedom
2
25
F Value F Value
304 Vanadium
5.26*
16.15**
Site 5
Degrees Of Freedom
F Value F Value
Vanadium
Wind
Error
2
22
2.21
1.64
*Significant at the 5% level
**Significant at the 1% level
The significant F values at Site 1 indicate that a definite
repeatable relationship exists between wind direction and
ground-level sulfate and vanadium concentrations.
Non-significant F-values at Site 5 indicate that concentrations
on the upwind days are not necessarily higher or lower than the
concentrations on downwind days. The mean concentrations pre-
sented on Table 37 clarify these results.
184
-------
TABLE 37
SITE ANALYSIS
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
Site 1 Site 5
Sulf ate - ug/m^
Downwind 15.504 6.940
Upwind 6.063 12.410
Sulfur Dioxide -
Downwind 63.537 20.154
Upwind 28.352 13.727
Vanadium - ug/m^
Downwind .0605 .0099
Upwind .0162 .0085
It is clear that the concentration of sulfate is much higher at
Site 5 when Site 5 is the upwind site than at Site 1 when Site
1 is the upwind site. The implication is that a considerable
amount of sulfate material is carried from other, possibly dis-
tant, sources with the air movement from South to North. Both
sulfur dioxide and vanadium concentrations, however, are at
relatively low levels at Site 5 on both upwind days and down-
wind days. This indicates less contribution of sulfur dioxide
and vanadium than sulfate from other emission sources.
The distributions of these air quality measurements are re-
flected in Figures 40 through 43; also shown are the relation-
ships between sulfate and vanadium, and between sulfate and
sulfur dioxide. The high sulfate and low vanadium values at
Site 5-upwind (see Figure 41), show that while vanadium levels
are quite low, sulfate levels are moderate-to-high and are in-
dependent from vanadium levels. A similar relationship exists
between sulfate and sulfur dioxide measurements upwind at this
site (see Figure 42); these results show apparent independence
of sulfate from sulfur dioxide. Downwind measurements at Site
185
-------
CO
Cfc
FIGURE 40
SULFATE/VANADIUM AT SAMPLING SITE
SOUTH OF EMISSION SOURCE
t-o
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
40
30
20
10
O O
O
SITE 5
01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08
•2
Vanadium - y g/m - 24-Hour Average
Downwind Days
—i < 1 1 : r~
.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06
3
Vanadium - y g/m
.07 .08
24-Hour Average
Upwind or Neutral Days
186
-------
FIGURE 41
SULFATE/SULFUR DIOXIDE AT SAMPLING SITE
o
40 -
20 -
10 -
SOUTH OF EMISSION SOURCE
SITE 5
i i r i
i i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
3
- y g/m
Average
Dowmjind Days
1
1
o
^
^
1
5
3-
§f
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
O 0
O
0 g ° 0
0 °
i t i i i i i i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
SO* - y g/m - 24-Hour Average
Upwind OP Neutral Days
187
-------
8,
£
CXJ
to
40 1
30
20
10
FIGURE 42
SLLFATE/VANADIUM AT SAMPLING SITE
NNW OF EMISSION SOURCE
SITE 1 •
.105
•
i i i i i i i \
01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08
Vanadium - y g/m - 24-Eoia1 Average
Downuind Days
s
3
i§
oa
1
to
p.
1
0*
40 ~
30 '
20 -
10 -
0 °
0°
i ; i i i i i i
.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08
Vanadium - \\ g/m - 24-Hour Average
Upwind or Neutral Days
188
-------
FIGURE 43
SULFATE/SULFUR DIOXIDE AT SAMPLING SITE
NNW OF EMISSION SOURCE
03
1
s
o
&3
00
1
i
3.
1
•<*
CO
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
SI1E I w
^f
9 • 99«10-
9 0 * 122
1 r i i i ' \ > i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
?
SO _ - y g/m" - 24-Hour Average
£i
Downwind Days
SJ
^
o
i
^
1
CO
f>
3.
'^
O
CO
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 °
0 °
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
?
SO „ - y g/m" - 24-Hour Average
Ci
Upwind or Neutral Days
189
-------
5 result in proportional relationships between sulfate and
vanadium and between sulfate and sulfur dioxide. This supports
the conclusion that the downwind sulfate, vanadium, and sulfur
dioxide originate from the same source(s).
Upwind measurements at Site 1 reflect low-to-moderate sulfate
levels, quite low vanadium levels (see Figure 43) and moderate
sulfur dioxide levels (see Figure 44). Too few data points are
available to draw any conclusions about the relationship be-
tween parameters under these conditions.
Downwind measurements at Site 1 show moderate-to-high levels of
all three parameters, reflecting the high sulfate upwind values
(at Site 5) plus the plant contribution. A proportional rela-
tionship exists between sulfate and both sulfur dioxide and
vanadium on downwind days, suggesting that all three parameters
originate at the same source(s).
Sulfate materials are transported from other sources in moder-
ate quantities, while vanadium and sulfur dioxide are not.
Since vanadium is a solid metal, usually present in combustion
effluent in a higher oxide state, or as a vanadate combined
with sodium, its weight probably causes it to settle to the
ground soon after emission. Sulfur dioxide gas disperses with
time, at a rate strongly influenced by local meteorology.
Although it is not known exactly how far the background sulfate
observed in this experiment had travelled prior to reaching the
study area, it was of sufficient duration to cause dispersion
of any attendant sulfur dioxide and deposition of attendant
vanadium.
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS OF UPWIND-DOWNWIND MEASUREMENTS
The examination of (upper level) tower wind direction meas-
urements resulted in the determination that certain sites
190
-------
(primarily sites 1 and 5) could be assigned the status upwind
or downwind, relative to the plant, during a major number of
days. The following definitions were necessary in order to
assign the designations: (1) whenever the wind movement
travelled along a course from the plant to a particular site,
within tolerance limits, more than 12 hours in any day, that
site was termed downwind that day and (2) whenever the wind
movement travelled along a coarse from a particular site to the
plant, within tolerance limits, more than 12 hours, and the
downwind hours were zero, that site was termed upwind. Data
was reduced using wind directional tolerances of 45°, 20°, and
10°. The wide 45° tolerance resulted in fifteen days where the
criteria were met; 20° tolerance resulted in six days and 10°
tolerance resulted in three days.
Four measurement parameters were identified, because of their
emission qualities: particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide, vana-
dium, and sulfates. The upwind-downwind values of these para-
meters are shown on Tables 38, 39 and 40.
The mean downwind air quality measurements show a significant
increase over the mean upwind measurements; this increase will
be referred to as the "plant contribution" in this discussion.
The relationships between wind direction tolerance limits (45°,
20°, 10°) and plant contribution were significant for emission
parameters sulfate and TSP, but not for vanadium and sulfur
dioxide. In other words, the plant contribution of sulfate and
TSP was higher when the wind was less variable. The mean plant
contribution to downwind sulfate levels was 11.3% at a 45° wind
variance, and 53.4% at a 10° wind variance. The TSP trends
were similar although not quite as dramatic: plant contribu-
tion of 12.4% at a 45° wind variance and 20.7% at a 10° wind
variance.
191
-------
TABLE 38
AMBIENT TSP MEASUREMENTS UPW1ND-DOVJNWIND OF EMISSION SOURCE
NJ
Date
Wind
9-18
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-24
9-28
9-30
10-2
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-8
10-11
10-12
10-15
Moan
a
Wind
9-18
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-24
9-30
Mean
a
9-21
9-22
9-30
Mean
0
Downwind Upwind
Site Mrs. Site Hrs.
Directional
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
Directional
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
Tolerance
23
24
19
23
22
16
22
19
13
19
18
23
22
23
24
21
3
Tolerance
15
20
18
20
21
16
18
2
16
17
13
15
2
=
1
5
5
1
5
6
5
1
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
=
1
5
5
1
5
5
5
1
5
45°
24
24
17
24
22
16
22
21
15
19
19
24
23
23
24
21
3
20°
19
18
17
21
17
16
18
2
14
20
13
16
4
Downwind
TSP
(Ug/m3)
43.
45.
62.
36.
36.
34 .
41.
31.
39.
42.
25.
4 .
73.
76.
10.
40.
19.
43.
45.
62.
36.
36.
41.
44.
9.
62.
36.
41.
46.
14 .
0
8
9
5
2
9
1
4
8
8
7
0
9
0
3
3
9
0
8
9
5
2
1
3
9
9
5
1
9
1
Upwind
TSP
(lig/m3)
39
42
47
39
25
76
24
32
21
30
16
11
48
72
18
36
19
39
42
47
39
25
24
36
9
47
39
24
37
11
.4
.0
.6
.1
. 2
.2
.8
.3
.0
.1
.0
.4
.8
. 3
.2
. 3
.1
.4
.0
.6
.1
.2
.8
.4
.3
.6
.1
.8
.2
.5
Di f ference
(DW-UW)
(gg/m3)
3.
3.
15.
-2.
11.
-41.
16.
-0.
18.
12.
9.
-7.
25.
3.
-7.
5.
15.
3.
3.
15.
-2.
11.
16.
7.
7.
15.
-2.
16.
9.
30.
6
8
3
6
0
3
3
1
8
7
7
4
1
7
9
0
5
6
8
3
6
0
3
9
5
3
6
3
7
7
Difference £ of
Downwind
TSP
8.5
8.2
24.3
-7 .2
30.3
-119
39.7
-0. 3
47.2
29 .7
37.7
-] R6
-340
4 . 8
76 .2
R.5
8. 2
24. 3
-7.2
30.3
39 .7
24 . 3
-7.2
39.7
-------
TABLE 39
AMBIENT SULFUR DIOXIDE MEASUREMENTS UPWIND-DOWNWIND OF EMISSION SOURCE
vo
Da to
Wind
9-18
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-24
9-28
9-30
10-2
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-8
10-11
10-12
10-15
Mean
a
Wind
9-18
9-7.0
9-21
9-22
9-24
9-30
Mean
a
Wind
9-21
9-22
9-30
Mean
a
Downwind
Site Mrs. S
Directional
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
Directional
5
1
1
5
1
1
Directional
1
5
1
Tolerance
23
24
19
23
22
16
22
19
13
19
18
23
22
23
24
21
3
Tolerance
15
20
18
20
21
16
18
2
Tolerance
16
17
13
15
2
Upwind
ite Mrs.
=
1
5
b
1
5
6
5
1
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
=
1
5
5
1
5
5
=
5
1
5
45°
24
24
17
24
22
16
22
21
15
19
19
24
23
23
24
21
3
20°
19
18
17
21
17
16
18
2
10°
14
20
13
16
4
Downwind
so2
(lig/m3)
14
56
61
20
69
30
IS
25
39
21
44
00
26
70
1
33
22
14
56
61
26
69
15
40
24
61
26
15
34
24
.6
.5
.9
.1
.1
.6
.8
.0
.1
.5
. 3
.0
.5
.4
.1
.5
.8
.6
.5
.9
.1
.1
.8
.7
.6
.9
. 1
.8
.6
.2
Upwi nd
SO 2
(]ig/mj)
29
10
26
15
52
21
00
23
7
7
3
27
8
3
35
18
14
29
10
26
15
52
00
22
18
26
15
00
13
13
.2
. 3
.1
. 3
.1
.7
.0
.1
.6
.6
. 3
.1
.7
. 3
.1
.0
.4
.2
. 3
.1
.3
.1
.0
.2
.1
.1
. 3
.0
.8
. 1
Di r Cere nee
( DV; - uw )
(pg/m^)
-14
46
35
10
17
8
15
1
31
13
41
-27
17
67
34
20
23
-14
46
35
10
17
15
18
21
35
10
15
20
1 3
.6
.2
.8
.8
.0
.9
.8
.9
.5
.9
.0
.1
.8
.1
.0
.0
.8
.6
.2
.8
.8
.0
.8
.5
.1
.8
.8
. 8
.8
.2
Di Cfei r^ncv °- of
Downwi n
-------
TABLE 40
AMBIENT VANADIUM MEASUREMENTS UPWIND-DOWNWIND OF EMISSION SOURCE
Date
Wind
9-18
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-24
9-28
9-30
10-2
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-8
10-11
10-12
10-15
Mean
a
Wind
9-18
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-24
9-30
Moan
a
Downwind
Site Hrs.
Upwind
Site Hrs.
Directional Tolerance
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
]
5
23
24
19
23
22
16
22
19
13
19
18
23
22
23-
24
21
3
1
5
5
1
5
6
5
1
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
Directional Tolerance
5
1
1
5
1
1
15
20
18
20
21
16
10
2
1
5
5
1
5 '
5
Wind Directional Tolerance
9-21
9-22
9-30
Mean
o
1
5
1
16
17
13
15
2
= 45°
24
24
17
24
22
16
22
21
15
19
19
24
23
23
24
21
3
= 20°
19
18
17
21
17
16
18
2
= 10°
14
20
13
16
4
Downwind
Vanadium
(Vig/m3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.005
.063
.070
.01">
.061
.024
.058
.010
.041
.083
.029
.002
.071
.043
.004
.035
.028
.005
.063
.070
.017
.061
.058
.046
.027
.070
.017
.058
.048
.028
Upwind
Vanadium
(pg/m3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.033
.003
.008
.013
.003
.004
.008
.022
.012
.010
.008
.003
.004
.008
.005
.010
.008
.033
.003
.008
.013
.003
.008
.011
.011
.008
.013
.008
.010
.003
Difference
(DW - UW)
(pg/m3)
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
-0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.028
.060
.062
.004
.058
.020
.050
.012
.029
.073
.021
.001
.067
.035
.001
.029
.032
.028
.060
.062
.004
.058
. 050
.030
.036
.062
.004
.050
.038
.031
Difference * of
Downwind
Vanadium
-505
95.4
88.5
19 .7
94 .9
85.2
86 .6
-122
70.5
87.6
72.4
-50
93.8
81.1
-31.6
-505
95.4
88.5
19 .7
94 .9
86.6
88.5
19. 7
86.6
-------
Sulfur dioxide contribution was 45-60% and vanadium contribu-
tion was 65-80%, apparently independent of wind variance
degree. The summary of upwind-downwind measurements is shown
in Table 42.
Since the plant emission rates of total sulfates and particu-
lates were approximately equal, it is not surprising that the
mean contributions to the ambient levels were also approxi-
mately equal. Difference in TSP levels (downwind minus upwind)
was 5, 8, and 10 ug/m when the wind variance was 45°, 20°, and
10°, respectively. Likewise, difference in total sulfate
levels were 1.4, 6, and 12 ug/m3 at the respective wind vari-
ances. Difference in vanadium concentration was 0.030 ug/m3,
or beween 0.3% and 0.6% of the plant-contributed TSP. This
fraction is lower than the vanadium fraction in the plant par-
ticulate emissions by a factor of 10, possibly due to rapid
deposition of metallic vanadium. The downwind minus upwind
measurement of sulfur dioxide was 20 ug/m • Neither vanadium
nor sulfur dioxide measurements indicate a susceptibility to
increased ground-level concentrations due to low wind direction
variance.
The first consideration to these mean values is the observation
that sulfate and total particulates travel a narrow corridor
when wind direction is steady. The mean values do not, how-
ever, indicate the extreme variability in plant contribution
even with wind direction tolerance of 20° (-64% to +60% of
downwind sulfate levels). Less variability occurs at a wind
variance of 10° (34% to 60% of downwind concentration), but in
this case only three values are included. Wind tolerances of
45° show a negative plant sulfate contribution on 40% of the
days observed. Apparently upper winds and atmospheric stabil-
ity were important factors on those days.
195
-------
TABLE 41
AMBIENT SULFATE MEASUREMENTS UPWIND-DOWNWIND OF EMISSION SOURCE
CTi
Date
Wind
9-18
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-24
9-28
9-30
10-2
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-8
10-11
10-12
10-15
Hean
0
Wind
9-18
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-24
9-30
Mean
a
Wind
9-21
9-22
9-30
Mean
o
Downwind Upwind
Site Hrs. site Hrs .
Directional
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
Directional
5
1
1
5
1
1
Directional
1
5
1
Tolerance
23
24
19
23
22
16
22
19
13
19
18
23
22
23
24
21
3
Tolerance
15
20
18
20
21
16
18
2
Tolerance
16
17
13
15
2
=
1
5
5
1
5
6
5
1
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
=
1
1
5
1
1
5
=
5
1
5
45°
24
24
17
24
22
16
22
21
15
19
19
24
23
23
24
21
3
20°
19
18
17
21
17
16
18
2
10°
14
20
13
16
4
Downwind
so,-
(Vig/mJ)
5.
13.
43.
14.
11.
6.
8.
9 .
9.
13.
8.
2.
18.
18.
3.
12.
9.
5.
13.
43.
14 .
11.
8.
16 .
13.
43.
14.
8.
22.
18.
0
8
2
4
0
9
8
3
1
9
2
3
4
3
0
4
8
0
8
2
4
0
a
0
7
2
4
8
1
4
Upwind
(pg/m3)
8
12
17
7
8
7
5
8
8
11
8
3
25
25
4
10
6
8
12
17
7
8
5
10
4
17
7
5
10
6
.2
.0
. 3
.8
.8
.5
.8
.6
.0
.0
.9
. 3
.5
. 7
.4
.8
. 7
.2
.0
. 3
.8
.8
. 8
.0
.1
. 3
.8
.8
.3
.2
Difference P
(DW - IIW)
(Vig/m3)
-3.
1.
25.
6 .
2.
-0.
3.
0.
1.
2.
-0 .
-1.
-6.
-7.
-1.
1.
7.
-3.
1.
25.
6.
2.
3.
6.
10.
25.
6.
3.
11.
12.
2
8
9
6
2
G
0
7
1
9
7
0
1
4
4
/!
6
2
8
9
6
2
0
0
2
9
6
0
8
3
Difference * o f
Downwi nd
-63.6
12 .6
59.9
46.1.
1 9 .5
-8.9
33. 7
7 . 5
12. 7
30 .0
R. 5
-47.0
-33.0
-40 .2
-46.5
-63. 6
12.6
59.9
46. 1
19 .5
33. 7
59 .9
46.1
33.7
-------
TSP
Vanadium
SO-
SO,
TABLE 42
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT UPWIND-DOWNWIND MEASUREMENT;
Mean
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wind
Directional
Tolerance
45°
45°
20°
20°
10°
10°
45°
45°
20°
20°
10°
10°
45°
45°
20°
20°
10°
10°
45°
45°
20°
20°
10°
10°
Downwin
-------
These results reflect the concept that the plant does in fact
contribute sulfate and other materials to the ambient air
levels, but because of high background scatter and the use of
fixed monitoring sites, a very low confidence is assigned to
the magnitude of the contribution. In fact the standard devi-
ations in many cases (all cases of sulfate) exceed the mean.
STATISTICAL AMBIENT SULFATE PREDICTION ESTIMATES
Regression analysis was used to develop a statistic prediction
model for ambient sulfate concentrations. This methodology has
several advantages in that it allows available data to be used
to estimate ambient SO£ concentrations in the study area.
While there is some advantages that result from this, there are
some points to be kept in mind. Any such prediction scheme
that results has a statistical, not a physical basis. Second,
the prediction scheme may not necessarily be equally applicable
at another location due to the statistical nature of the
scheme.
The statistical model was developed using stepwise multiple
regression. This involved fitting a set of independent vari-
ables to a single dependent variable. That is;
/\ n
Y = b + .£, b. X. +6 £ -\> NID (o.a )
o i=l 11 e
In this case, the dependent variable, Y, was the measured 24-
hour ambient sulfate concentrations downwind from the plant.
The following is a list of independent variables, measured
hourly and converted to 24-hour averages:
198
-------
(1) Portion of 24-hour day that wind blew toward downwind
site, %
(2) Wind speed, mph
(3) Downwind SO2 concentration, ppm
(4) Downwind vanadium concentration, ug/m3
(5) Average temperature profile (from tower measurement),
°F/ft.
(6) Average wind persistence
(7) Average relative humidity
(8) Average nephelometer reading, bscat (10~4m~1)
(9) Distance from plant to downwind site, km
(10) Average mixing height, m
(11) Total sulfate emission, kg/day
(12) Particulate emission, kg/day
(13) S02 emission, kg/day
(14) Background sulfate concentration, ug/m3
A site was considered to be downwind if it was downwind from
the plant during any portion of a day. There could be more
than one downwind site during any day. The limits of daily
wind direction variability, designating a site as downwind,
were + 45° so that an adequate number of data points were
available. In this examination, background levels were taken
from the upwind or neutral site measurements.
The statistical model inserted the variables by priority, using
the most significant variables first, and so on in order of de-
creasing significance. The most significant variable in the
analysis was background sulfate; obviously the downwind sulfate
must be an incremental increase added to the background lev-
els. The most significant variable after background sulfate
was the percent of time the wind blew towards the downwind
site. In order of decreasing significance, the following vari-
ables were inserted: downwind SC^, downwind vanadium, nephelo-
meter reading, distance downwind from plant, and particulate
199
-------
TABLE 43
RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE — DOWNWIND S0=.
Parameter
Y-Intercept
Downwind
Hours
Downwind
so2
Downwind
Vanadium
Nephelometer,
24 - hour
average
Downwind
Distance
from plant
Plant Emission,
P articulate
Background
so=4
Downwind
so"
Units Coefficient Value Nee- Mean Individual
ssary to al- Value Correlation
ter S0=4 Coefficient
*1. Oug/m3
19.9
% of +.02 50.0 57.4 .22
24 - ho ur
ppm -301.6 -003 .017 .32
jig/m3 +55.8 -018 .038 .40
b -6.9 -145 .664 .79
scat
km +2.2 -45 5.05 .04
kg/day +.001 1000 3997 .05
jig/m3 +2.9 -345 7.95 .89
>ag/m3 - - 11.82 1.00
20.0
-------
emission. The remaining variables caused an increase of the
error term when inserted, therefore they were not included in
the statistical model.
The resulting regression has a multiple correlation coefficient
of .96, adjusted R2 .89, and a standard error of estimates
2.43. The regression coefficients are shown on Table 43, and
are presented with mean values, values necessary to alter down-
wind sulfate +1.0 ug/m3, and the individual correlation coef-
ficients. The inverse relationship between sulfate and S02
reflects the instances where high background sulfate levels
were observed with low SC>2 values. Mean downwind sulfate con-
centration was 11.82 ug/m3; mean upwind sulfate concentration
was 7.95 ug/m3. Standard deviation of the difference between
the predicted and actual downwind values was 2.43 ug/m3.
This statistical model uses the emission data and monitoring
sites designated in this experiment, under those meteorological
conditions that prevailed at the time. The statistical equa-
tion is not a universal relationship and may not be accurate
under any other conditions or applications. The model is an
accurate prediction of ambient sulfate concentrations within
the limitations imposed by the data.
201
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Altshuller, A.P., April, 1976, Regional Transport and
Transformation of Sulfur Dioxide to Sulfates in the U.S.,
J.A.P.C.A., 26 (4), pg. 318-324.
Amdur, M.O., Lewis, T.R., Pitzhand, M.P. and Campbell, K.I.,
July, 1972, Toxicology of Atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide Decay
Products, AP-111, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Babcock & Wilcox, 1978, Steam, 39th Edition, 161 East 42nd St.,
New York, NY 10017.
Barrett, R.E., July, 1966, "High Temperature Corrosion Studies
in an Oil-Fired Laboratory Combustor", ASME Paper 66-WA/CD-2.
Bogue, Donald J. and Beale, Calvin, L., 1961, Economic Areas of
the United States, The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc.
Boldt, K.R., McMillan, William, Laube, A.H., June, 1978, A
Study of Damaging Fallout from Oil-Fired Boilers, APCA Paper
78-65.5, 71st Annual Meeting.
Bolin, Bert, Editor, 1971, "Air Pollution Across National
Boundaries. The Impact on the Environment of Sulfur in Air
and Precipitation. Sweden's Case Study for the United
Nations' Conference on the Human Environment." Kungl
Boktryckeriert P.A., Norstedt & Soner 710396, Stockholm.
Briggs, Gary A., 1969, Plume Rise, TlD-25075, AEC Critical
Review Series Environmental Science Services Administration,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
, July, 1972, Discussion on Chimney Plumes in
Neutral and Stable Surroundings, Atmospheric Environment,
Vol. 6, pg. 507-516.
Bruckman, L., June, 1977, "Suspended Particulate Transport",
Paper 77-8.4, 70th Annual Meeting A.P.C.A., Toronto, Canada.
Buma, T.J., 1960, A Statistical Study of the Relationship
Between Visibility and Relative Humidity at Leeuwarden,
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 41,
pg. 357-360.
California Department of Public Health, Bureau of Air Sanita-
tation, 1966, Oxides of Nitrogen in Air Pollution.
Cass, Glen R., 1979, on the relationship between sulfate air
quality visibility with examples in Los Angeles, Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 13, No. 8, pg. 1,069-1,084.
202
-------
Chaikivsky, M., and Siegmund, C.W., June, 1964, Low-Excess-Air
Combustion of Heavy Fuel Oil - High Temperature Deposits and
Corrosion, ASME paper 64-WA/CD-2.
Cheney, J.L., and Homolya, J.B., May, 1979, Sampling Parameters
for Sulfate Measurement and Characterization, Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 13, No. 5, pg. 584-588.
Chung, Y.S., 1978, The Distribution of Atmospheric Sulphates in
Canada and its Relationship to Long-Range Transport of Air
Pollutants, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 12, pg. 1,471-1,480.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources, Appendix A, Reference
Method 5
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources, Appendix A, Reference
Method 6.
Delaware, W. , January, 1979, Personal Communication, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road,
Albany, NY 12223.
Electrical World, 1977, Directory of Electric Utilities, 1977-
1978, 86th Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1221 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10020.
EPA, January, 1973, Nationwide Air Pollutant Emission Trends,
1940-1970, AP-115, OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Galvin, P.J., et al., May 1978, Transport of Sulfate to New York
State, ENV. SCI. & TECH., 12(5), 580-584.
Glaubitz, F., March, 1963, The Economic Combustion of Sulfur-
Containing Heating Oil - Part II; An Accounting of the
Operating Experiences with 1.0 Percent Excess Air, Combustion.
Horvath, H., and Charlson, R., 1969, The Direct Optical Measure-
ment of Atmospheric Air Pollution, American Industrial Hygiene
Association, Vol. 30, pg. 500-509.
Junge, C.E., 1963, Air Chemistry and Radioactivity, Academic
Press, New York, NY.
203
-------
Klein, William H., 1957, Principal Tracks and Mean Frequences of
Cyclones and Anticyclones in the Northern Hemisphere, Research
Paper No. 40, U.S. Department Commerce, National Weather
Service, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.
Kuhlman, Michael R., Fox, Donald, L., and Jeffries, Harvey E.,
1978, The Effect of CO on Sulfate Aerosol Formation, Atmos-
pheric Environment, Vol. 12, pg. 2,415-2,423.
Larson, Timothy V., Harike, Neil R., and Harrison, Halstead,
1978, Oxidation of Sulfur Dioxide by Oxygen and Ozone in
Acqueous Solution: a kinetic study with significance to
atmospheric rate processes, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 12,
pg. 1,597-1,611.
Leighton, P.A., 1961, Photochemistry of Air Pollution, Academic
Press, New York.
Lutrick, D., 1971, MS Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
Meszaros, A., 1978, Size Distribution of Atmospheric Aerosol
Particles Under Regional Background Conditions, Proceedings,
9th International Conference on Atmospheric Aerosols, Con-
densation, and Ice Nuclei, 1977, Galway, Ireland.
Meszaros, E., 1970, Seasonal and Diurnal Variations of the Size
Distribution of Atmospheric Sulfate Particles, Tellus, Vol.
22, pg. 235-238.
National Research Council, 1978, Sulfur Oxides, National Academy
of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Newman, L., Forrest, J., and Manowitz, P.B., 1974a, The Applica-
tion of an Isotopic Ratio Technique to a Study of the Atmos-
pheric Oxidation of Sulfur Dioxide in the Plume from a Coal-
Fired Power Plant, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
1974b, The Application of an Isotopic Ratio
Technique to a Study of the Atmospheric Oxidation of Sulfur
Dioxide in the Plume from an Oil-Fired Power Plant, Brook-
haven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1976,
Air Quality Report, Annual 1976, DAR-77-1, Division of Air
Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12223.
1977, Air Quality Report, Annual 1977,
DAR-78-1, Division of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,
NY 12223.
204
-------
_, 1978, Air Quality Report, Annual 1978,
DAR-79-1, Division of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,
NY 12223.
NOAA, January, 1977, Climate of New York, Climatography of the
United States, No. 60, NOAA, National Climatic Center,
Asheville, NC.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February, 1972, Safety Guide
1.23, Onsite Meteorological Programs, Washington, DC.
OAQPS, September, 1975, Position Paper on Regulation of Atmos-
pheric Sulfates, EPA-450/2-75-007, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711.
Penkett, S.A., Jones, B.M.R., Brice, K.A., and Eggleton, A.E.J.,
1978, The Importance of Atmospheric Ozone and Hydrogen Perox-
ide in Oxidizing Sulfur Dioxide in Cloud and Rain Water,
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 13, pg. 123-137.
Reese, J.T., Jonakin, J., and Caracristi, V.Z., 1965, Preven-
tion of Residual Oil Combustion Problems by Use of Low Excess
Air and Magnesium Additive, Journal of Engineering for Power,
Transactions of ASME.
Reid, W.T., 1971, External Corrosion and Deposits - Boilers and
Gas Turbines, American Elsevier Publishing Co.
Reiss, Nathan, M. and Eversole, Rae Ann, 1978, Rectification of
Prevailing Visibility Statistics, Atmospheric Environment,
Vol. 12, pg. 945-950.
Renzetti, N.A. and Romanovsky, J.C., 1956, AMA Archives of
Industrial Health, Vol. 14, pg. 458.
Samson, P.J., et al., December, 1975, The Transport of Suspended
Particulates as a Function of Wind Direction and Atmospheric
Conditions, JAPCA, 25(12), 1232-1237.
Samson, P.J., 1978, Ensemble Trajectory Analysis of Summertime
Sulfate Concentration in New York State, ATMO5. ENV. 12,
1889-1893.
Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G., 1967, Statistical Methods,
The Iowa State University Press.
Tanner, R.L., and Marlow, W.H., 1977, Size Discrimination and
Chemical Composition of Ambient Airborne Sulfate Particles
by Diffusion Sampling, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 11,
pg. 1,143-1,150.
205
-------
Thyler, Norman, March, 1962, Double Theodolite Pibal Evaluation
by Computer, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 1, pg. 66-
68.
Turner, D.B., 1964, A diffusion Model for an Urban Area,
Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pg. 83-91.
, 1970, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Esti-
mates, AP-26 EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Waggoner, A.P., Vanderpol, A.H., Charlson, R.J., Granat, L.,
Tragard, C., and Laisen, S.f 1975, Sulfates as a Cause of
Tropospheric Haze, Report AC-33, Dept. of Meteorology,
University of Stockholm, Sweden, VDC 551.510 4:535.33.
Whitby, K.T., 1978, The Physical Characteristics of Sulfur
Aerosols. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 12, pg. 135-159.
Winkler, P., 1973, The Growth of Atmospheric Aerosol Particles
as a Function of the Relative Humidity - II: an improved
concept of mixed nuclei, Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol. 4,
pg. 373-387.
Wright, H.L., 1935, Visibility and Atmospheric Suspensoids at
Kew Observatory, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological
Society, Vol. 65, pg. 411-439.
206
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-109
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
IMPACT OF A PRIMARY SULFATE EMISSION SOURCE ON
AIR QUALITY
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
K.R. Boldt, C.P. Chang, E.J. Kaplin, J.M. Stansfield,
B.R. Wuebber
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
York Research Corporation
Stamford, CT 06906
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AA603A AA-91 (FY-79)
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2965
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory - RTP, NC
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/09
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A one-month study was carried out at an isolated oil-fired power plant in
New York State to assess the impact of primary sulfate emissions on air quality.
Emissions of total sulfate from the source varied from 22 kg/hr to 82 kg/hr
per boiler with the sulfuric acid concentration averaging 74% of the total
sulfate. Particulate emissions ranged from 12 kg/hr to 70 kg/hr per boiler
with between 32% and 67% of the particle mass as water soluble sulfate.
Vanadium was implicated as the driving force in the magnitude of the primary
sulfate emissions. Measurements taken 5 km downwind of the plant indicated
a source sulfate contribution of from 30% to 60% of the 24 hr average ambient
levels.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI E'ield/Group
*Air pollution
*Particles
*SulI fates
*Emission
Electric power plants
13B
07B
10B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
227
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
207
------- |