FULL SCALE STUDY OF
DISPERSION OF STACK GASES
A Summary Report
Reprinted by the
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Division of Health and Safety
and
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Division of Air Pollution
FULL-SCALE STUDY OF DISPERSION OF STACK GASES
A Summary Report
Principal Investigators:
Tennessee Valley Authority
F. E. Gartrell, Assistant Director of Health
Fred W. Thomas, Assistant Chief, Occupational Health Branch
S. B. Carpenter, Public Health Engineer, Occupational Health Branch
Public Health Service
Francis Pooler, Meteorologist, U. S. Weather Bureau Research Station,
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Bruce Turner, Meteorologist, U. S. Weather Bureau Research Station,
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Jack M. Leavitt, Meteorologist, U. S. Weather Bureau Research Station,
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Chattanooga, Tennessee
August
-------
INTRODUCTION
Description of the Study
During fiscal years 1958-1962 the Tennessee Valley Authority
conducted an air pollution research project entitled "Pull-Scale Study
of Dispersion of Stack Gases" under the sponsorship of the Public Health
Service. In this project advantage was taken of unique opportunities for
full-scale appraisal of dispersion of air pollutants from large coal-
burning, steam-electric generating plants. Advantages offered for
diffusion studies included: (l) large isolated sources where intermixture
with extraneous pollutants is not significant; (2) complete plant opera-
tional data and emission rates; (j) sufficient fly ash emission to provide
a visible plume aloft out to distances of 10-15 miles under meteorological
conditions of special interest; (^) a helicopter equipped with special
instruments for sampling and recording S02 concentrations, as well as
extensive auxiliary instruments; (5) tower-mounted meteorological
instruments for providing basic information on wind and temperature
parameters; and (6) computer facilities for data analysis.
Work Plan
The initial work plan envisaged the compilation of sufficient
field measurements for reasonably adequate definition of dispersion during
inversion conditions, high wind conditions, and low wind conditions. While
it is considered that dispersion was defined for inversion and high wind
conditions, sampling techniques employed proved unsuitable for effective
definition of dispersion during low wind and unstable conditions where
excessive variability was presented by looping of the plume.
ii
-------
In addition to the primary studies to determine diffusion
parameters, a limited investigation was made of plume rise or effective
stack heights. A reasonably accurate estimate of effective stack height
is required for useful application of diffusion parameters. Some corollary
studies were considered desirable for appraising the validity or reliability
of derived diffusion parameters. Principal among these corollary studies
was an extensive investigation of the oxidation of S02 in the atmosphere
after emission from the stack. Oxidation was studied with ground-based
facilities and also in the plume at various distances and travel times,
and under various weather conditions. In the course of this investigation
interrelationships among SOo, H^SO^, and fly ash also were studied.
Location of Field Studies
The Colbert Steam Plant (figures 1 and 2) located on the south
bank of the Tennessee River 8 miles west of Tuscumbia, Alabama, was the site
of most of the fieldwork. One flight used in the studies to define dispersion
from a single stack was made at the Gallatin Steam Plant near Gallatin,
Tennessee. The Colbert plant has four 200,000-kw units with four 300-foot
stacks. The Colbert plant was selected for study because the plant is
located in an area of reasonably flat topography, and the weather regime of
the area includes a wide range of wind speeds and environmental temperature
lapse rate conditions. The axis of the line of four stacks is oriented in
a northwest-southeast direction (figure 3)« This plant is located in a
broad, relatively flat valley with the exception of a range of hills beginning
about 3 miles southwest of the plant and extending 300-^00 feet above the
general valley floor.
iii
-------
Instrumentation
Helicopter and Auxiliary Equipment—Equipment used in the Bell
Model ^7-D-l helicopter (figure U) included:
1. A portable Model 26-103 Titrilog, with Esterline-Angus
recorder, for measuring continuous S02 plume concentrations.
The Titrilog was positioned on a cushion mount between the
pilot and the flight director.
2. A sample intake probe for the Titrilog extended about 12 inches
forward from left bottom of cockpit canopy. A constant sample
rate of about 1,000 cc per minute was maintained by utilizing
the manifold vacuum of the helicopter.
3. A Model 8^25 Cole-Parmer thermistor thermometer with interchangeable
probe for taking ambient air vertical temperature profiles, as
well as special temperatures in and out of the plume. The probe
extended about 12 inches immediately forward from center bottom
of the cockpit canopy.
k. A precision spring-wound clock for time documenting of flight
sampling and observing.
5. A standard aircraft-type altimeter for indicating and maintaining
desired heights aboveground.
6. A standard aircraft-type airspeed indicator for obtaining
desired sampling airspeeds.
7. A secretarial-type voice recorder for recording temperature, height
aboveground, and pertinent plume geometry observations.
Meteorological Facilities—A fixed meteorological station, common
to most TVA steam plants, was located. 0.?8 mile southeast of the Colbert
IV
-------
Steam Plant (figure l). Station instrumentation included: (l) a 220-foot
steel -bower; (2) an anemograph model wind system for continuous recording
of wind speed and wind direction at the 220-foot tower level; (j) a Brown
temperature instrument, with 3-channel, sequential-type recorder, for
continuous recording of ambient air temperature and wet-bulb depression
at the It-foot tower level and continuous temperature difference between
the 220- and U-foot tower levels; and (U) a standard cotton-region
temperature shelter with hygrothermograph and maximum-minimum thermometers.
Wind profiles, using single theodolite, were obtained at a
launching point near the fixed meteorological station. Hourly (later in
the study, half hourly) pibals, using 10-gram ceiling balloon, were
released during the sampling period for providing wind speed and wind
direction profile data between surface and 2,000 feet.
Ambient air temperature profiles, using helicopter, were made at
100-foot vertical intervals from surface to 500 feet above the plume at a
distance of about 1 mile from the plume. Temperature readings within the
plume were considered unreliable, as the flight time through the plume
generally was insufficient to allow probe readings to become stabilized to
conditions encountered in transecting the plume, e.g., traversing through
cooler ambient air into warmer plume air.
Aerial Sampling Plan
The procedural objective of the sampling plan was to provide
adequate definition of S02 distribution in plume cross sections while
allowing sufficient time for sampling and other essential measuring and
observational activities. During inversion conditions, replicate flights
were made across the plumes at the observed top and bottom elevations and
-------
at subjectively selected centerline and quarter section elevations
(figure 5). Cross-sectional flights were made at selected distances,
usually 1/2, 3/U, 1, 3, and 5 to 10 miles from the plant. During high
wind and neutral conditions, the flight plan was modified to take care of
the greater variations in plume geometry than were found during inversion
conditions. Replicate flights were made across the plume at the observed
top of the plume and at successively lower 100- to 200-foot elevations to
the bottom of the plume. Cross-sectional flights were made at selected
distances of 1/2, 1, 2, and 3 miles from the plant. During high wind and
neutral conditions, the SOg concentrations beyond 3 miles from the plant
had diminished to such low levels that plume definition, based on SOg
recorder registration, was not attainable.
Flight Speed and Sampling Rate
The flight speed for sampling was set at the minimum safe forward
speed of the helicopter, 30 mph or Mt fps. Because of the excessive
friction in the sample line and the fixed sample rate, it was not practical
to attain isokinetic sampling at this airspeed. The SOg sample was drawn
through a 0.075-inch-diameter orifice at the point of takeoff (figure 6),
which provided a sample flow of about 20 fps.
Laboratory tests made under simulated field conditions showed
that 90 percent of the average S02 concentration was being recorded. To
compensate for this factor, the instrument factor applied to all Titrilog
charts was increased by 10 percent.
Data Collection and Analysis
The project consisted of four principal activities: (l) field
sampling and observations, (2) reduction and consolidation of data, (3) data
vi
-------
analysis and formulation, and (U) summary of results and final reporting.
From table 1, which lists all helicopter flights in chronological order,
it will be noted that from September 10, 1957, to October 28, I960,
59 flights were made, totaling 1^9 hours of flight time. Classification
of flights included: 1^ for experimental developing and testing of
sampling techniques and special instrumentation, 12 for successful dispersion
definition of inversion plumes, 12 for successful dispersion definition of
:iigb, wind plumes, ^ for observing and recording plume rise, and 12 for
studying SOg oxidation. Because of sudden changes in meteorological
conditions, 2: flights were discontinued; 2. flights were of limited value
because of voice recorder failure; and 1 flight was made for tracking a
constant-volume tetroon.
To provide information on plant emission rates for correlation
with dispersion data, average SOg concentrations were obtained by concurrent
sampling of flue gas during all sampling flights. Sampling was obtained
for successive 30-minute periods using the iodometric titration procedure.
Representative samples of coal were taken concurrently from each plant
unit in operation for analysis of average sulfur content of coal. Additional
design and operational data included coal consumption per unit day, tempera-
ture of flue gas, exit velocity of flue gas, diameter and height of stack,
etc. (table 2).
Following each flight qii charts, recordings, data sheets, and
observations were labeled. Later the data were abstracted, compiled, and
tabulated or graphed for convenient use in the investigative studies of
plume dispersion. Data made available for these dispersion studies included:
vii
-------
1. Average and axial SQa concentration in cross section
2. Plume width and depth
3. Plume height aboveground
k. Average wind speed in plume
5. Vertical temperature gradient, °F./1,OOQ ft., in plume
environmental area
6. Plume cross-sectional area
7. Standard deviation along the y and z axes
8. Plume direction in relation to line of stacks
9. SOa (flux) in cross sections, expressed in arbitrary
units in a 1-foot plume segment
Following the establishment of suitable mathematical models, the
consolidated data were applied initially in manual calculation of diffusion
parameters. A program was developed in which the data were subjected to
more extensive analysis through use of TVA's computer facilities.
Analysis was limited to generalized dispersion equations. Data
are presented in sufficient detail and completeness for independent study
and use by others working in this field.
Order of Reporting
To facilitate review and appraisal of extensive data analysis,
tabulations, and illustrations, this report is arranged as follows.
Summary - Part I, Diffusion in Inversion Conditions
Summary - Part II. Diffusion in High Wind Neutral Conditions
Summary - Part III. Plume Rise
Summary - Part IV. Corollary Studies of SQa Oxidation
viii
-------
Because of the volume of tables and figures in the analysis
of data, only summaries of the four parts are being published. However,
a limited number of copies of the data analysis which has been summarized
will be made available to interested persons upon request.
ix
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Part I. Diffusion in Inversion Conditions ............. 1
Plume Geometry ........................ I
Perimeter ..... ................... 1
Cross-Sectional Area ................... 1
Plume S02 Data ........................ 1
Maximum Axial and Average S02 Concentrations ....... 1
Flux ......................... 2
Meteorological Data ...................... 2
Plant Operational Data .................... 2
Data Analysis ............... . .......... 2
Mathematical Diffusion Model ... ............ 2
Standard Deviation .................... U
Computer Program - Diffusion Parameters ......... 5
Parameters m.y and mz ................... 6
Coefficients Cy and Cz .................. 6
Modification of Line-Source Parameters to Point-Source
Parameters ......................... 7
Parameters my and mz ................... 8
Coefficients Cy and Cz .................. 9
Modification of Point-Source Parameters for General Diffusion
Problems .......................... 9
Comparison - Field Concentrations and Concentrations Derived
from Calculated Diffusion Parameters ............ 10
Part II. Diffusion in High Wind and Neutral Conditions ...... 11
Plume Geometry ........................ 12
Plume S02 Data ........................ 12
Meteorological Data ...................... 13
Data Analysis ......................... 1?
Parameters m, my, and mz ........ . . ....... Ik
Diffusion Coefficients Cy and Cz ............. ih
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Modification of Point-Source Parameters for General Problems . 15
Summary of Results ...................... 15
Part III. Plume Rise ....................... 16
Part IV. Corollary Studies of S02 Oxidation ............ 16
Oxidation Studies in Duct and Dilution Chamber ........ 18
Fly Ash Studies ........................ 19
Studies in Power Plant Plumes ................. 21
Appendix A. Tables
1. Helicopter Flights .................... 25
2. Plant Design and Operational Data ............ 26
3. Summary - Principal Data, By Sections (Field-Measured
Values) ........................ 27
k. Best Estimate of Average my, mz, Cy, and Cz By Ranges
of Stability (Field-Measured Values) .......... 28
5. Summary - Principal Data, By Sections, for Single Stack
Point Source ...................... 29
6. Best Estimate of my, mz, Cy, and Cz for Point Source
in Four Ranges of Temperature Gradient ......... JO
7. Calculated Point- and Line-Source Diffusion Parameters . . 31
8. Measured and Calculated Axial SOg Concentrations in
Plume (ppm) ...................... 32
9. Summary - Principal Data, By Sections - High Wind and
Neutral Conditions (Field-Measured Values) ....... 33
10. Summary - Principal Data, By Sections (for Single Stack
Point Source) ..................... 3^
m
11. Values of Cy and Cz (Ft.2) Calculated for Each Section
(Point Source) for Values of my = mz = 0.80, 0.75, and
0.70 or m = 1.6, 1.5, and lA ............. 35
XI
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
12. Wind Speed, Cy and Cz, and my and mz Values ....... 36
15. Diffusion Coefficients my, mz, Cy, and Cz - Point and
Line Sources ...................... 37
lU. Measured and Calculated Axial S02 Concentrations
in Plume ........................ 38
15. Chamber S02 Oxidation Studies .............. 39
16. Chamber S02 Oxidation Studies - Colbert Steam Plant ... UO
I?. Chamber SQ2 Oxidation Studies - Colbert Steam Plant ... **1
18. Effect of Dilution on Fly Ash pH ............. **2
19. S02 Oxidation Studies - Colbert Steam Plant Plume .... ^3
20. S02 Oxidation Studies - Colbert Steam Plant Plume .... bk
Appendix B. Figures
1. Map of Colbert Steam Plant Site - Near Tuscumbia,
Alabama ........................ ^6
2. Colbert Steam Plant
3. Separation and Orientation of Stacks - Colbert Steam
Plant ... ...................... U8
*4. Air Sampling and Auxiliary Instruments in Helicopter ... U9
5. Sample Plan - Inversion Conditions ............ 50
6. Schematic Plan - Helicopter Air Sampling Equipment .... 51
7. Titrilog Chart Illustrating S02 Distribution, Day 2 ... 52
8, Typical Plume Cross Section, 9/2V57, Day 1 ....... 53
9. Temperature Profiles, Day 2 ............... 5^
10. Relation - Wind Speed and Wind Direction to Elevation,
Day 2 ............. ............ 55
11. Distribution of S02 in Plume, Day 2
xii
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
12.
13.
lit.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19-
20.
21.
22.
23-
2>4.
25-
26.
27.
28.
29-
30.
31.
Distribution of Points for Calculated S02 Concentration
Calculated S02 Distribution Along y and z Axes, Day 2 . .
Relation - Measured and Calculated Plume Width and Depth .
Relation - Maximum Axial Concentration to Average
Concentration Along Plume Axes (As Measured)
Relation - Calculated Axial and Average Concentrations . .
Relation - my, mz, Cy, and Cz to Temperature Gradient
(Line Source)
Relation - Plume Width and Depth to Wind Direction and
Stack Alignment
Relation - Plume Width and Depth to Wind Direction
(From Two or More Stacks)
Best Estimate my, mz, Cy, Cz - Point Source
Relation - Ratio of my to Ay ; Relation - Ratio of mz
to Az n
zn
Relation - Ratio of Cy to Ayn; Relation - Ratio of Cz
to A.,
zn
Plume Cross Section, Temperature Profile, and Wind Speed
Profile, Day 7
Titrilog Charts Illustrating S02 Distribution, Day 7 . • .
Relation - Maximum to Average S02 Concentration
Average Change of Temperature with Elevation - Each
Sampling Period
Profile of S02 Along z Axis, Day 7
Relation - ay and az
my and mz - Each Sampling Day
Statistical Analysis - Relation Cy to Wind Speed
Statistical Analysis - Relation C7 to Wind Speed
Page
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
6k
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
7*
75
76
Xlll
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
32. Statistical Analysis - Relation Cy and Cz to Wind Speed . 77
5
33. Relation - Cy, Cz, and Average C, Ft/', to Wind Speed . . 78
3*t. Relation - Ratio of rriy and mz for Line and I3oint Sources
to Ay and Az . . ............. . ..... 79
35- Relation - Ratio of Cy and C2 for Line and Point Sources
to Ay and AZ_ ............. . ....... 80
36, Relation of Calculated Axial S0£ Concentration to Measured
Axial SOg Concentration ................ 8l
37- Observed Plume Centerline Elevation with Distance -
Inversion Conditions ....... . .......... 82
38. Average Observed Plume Centerline Elevation with
Distance - Lapse Conditions .............. 83
39- Relation of Plume Rise to Wind Speed - Inversion
Conditions ....................... 8^
kO. Relation of Plume Rise to Temperature Gradient, Stack Top
to Plume Top - Inversion Conditions .......... 85
1+1. Relation of Plume Rise to Temperature Gradient,
in Plume - Inversion Conditions ............ 86
i+2. Relation of Average Plurr.e Rise to Wind Speed at 1/2 and
1 Mile from Source - Lapse Conditions ......... &7
1*3- Relation of Average Plume Rise at 1/2 and 1 Mile
to Temperature Gradient - Lapse Conditions ....... 88
ifU. Flue Gas Dilution and Sampling Facilities ........ 89
1*5. Relation of Autometer and Titrilog Data from Dilution
Chamber ........................ 90
h6. Relation of Autometer and Titrilog Data from Dilution
Chamber ........................ 90
1*7. Shift in pH of Fly Ash with Time ............. 91
kQ. Sample Assembly for SO^ and S03 Plume Components ..... 92
Nomenclature - Diffusion Equations . . ............... 93
xiv
-------
FULL-SCALE STUDY OF DISPERSION OF STACK GASES
A SUMMARY REPORT
Fart I. Diffusion in Inversion Conditions
Diffusion in inversion conditions was defined on 12 sampling
clays. S02 registrations, from Titrilog recorder charts, were obtained
daring repetitive plume transections from 1/2 mile to 10 miles from the
plant source (figure 7). From these sampling activities data shown in
table 3 were collected and compiled.
Plume Geometry
Perimeter—The plume transection widths were determined from the
length of the record trace registrations, s. g., chart speed of 1-1/2 inches
per minute and flight speed of i*U feet per second. The depth or vertical
distance of the plume was determined from altimeter readings at the top and
bottom of the plume. A typical plume cross section developed for day 1 is
shown in figure 8.
Cross-Sectional Area—The cross-sectional area, was determined
from the formula:
Area = n x Width x Depth
Flume SOg Data
Maximum Axial and Average SOg Concentrations—Maximum axial
concentration was determined from the flight transection through the center-
line of the plume. Average S02 concentration was determined from planimetric
analysis of the area under the SOg distribution curves.
-------
S02 Flux—S02 flux, expressed in terms of cubic feet of S02 per
linear foot of plume, was determined from the plume cross-sectional area
and average S02 concentration in the plume section.
Meteorological Data
Helicopter soundings provided data on vertical temperature gradient
at 100-foot intervals from surface to heights well above the plume top
(figure 9)- Pilot balloon observations provided vertical wind direction
and wind speed profile data from surface to 3,000 to 5>000 feet aboveground
(figure 10). Supplementary data, including wind direction, wind speed,
vertical temperature gradient, and wet bulb depression, were provided from
the fixed meteorological station near the plant area.
Plant Operational Data
Concurrently with field sampling activities, coal and flue gas
samples were taken and coal consumption rates were noted, thus providing
a measure of S02 and heat emission rates.
Data Analysis
The objectives of the analysis of diffusion data were to express
the results in terms of the mathematical model which best fits observed
dispersion patterns and to develop coefficient values appropriate to the
selected mathematical model.
Mathematical Diffusion Model—Examination of records or measured
distribution of concentrations about the plume centerline in these studies
indicates that Gaussian distribution is closely approximated. In a few
instances the distribution is slightly skewed, and two maxima occurred in
some instances when the plumes from separate stacks had not become uniformly
-------
blended. Where Gaussian distribution exists, a plot of the distribution
on normal probability paper yields a straight line. This test, applied to
data taken on day 2 (figure ?)> is illustrated in figure 11. While
skewness exists in a few instances, most of the points have a very good
straight-line fit.
The symmetry and results of the analytical test of distribution
about the plume centerline are considered to justify the use of Gaussian
distribution in mathematical analysis of diffusion of plumes in an inversion.
From the basic equation for Gaussian distribution,
-1/2 *
the following general equation for distribution at any single section of the
plume in both horizontal and vertical directions is developed:
X - Q
— ItayCTz1-
where the maximum concentration at the plume centerline is given by
4iax = 2rtova_u 5&
«y
Where the diffusion parameters Cy, Cz, and m are constants under fixed
meteorological conditions, the variability of the standard deviations,
a and az, along the y and z axes has the following relationship with x,
distance downwind from the source:
m
°y - V Y k
„ mz
az = c,x 5
** Z
-------
or when
or
+ mz =
= m
m
2
"y - V
m
2
Then the following equations express the distribution at any point in the
plume, along the x, y, and z axes.
X =
exp
8
or
X =
exp
cz2x2mz
General dispersion formulas 8 and 8a correspond to the Button equation for
distribution in an elevated plume when the diffusion coefficients Cy and GZ
are multiplied by •J 2 and the value of m or (niy. + nu) is set at 2-n.
Standard Deviation--Since SOg concentration was measured with a
continuous recording instrument at a known uniform rate of speed through
the plume, the curves show actual distribution in relation to time and
distance. The area under the curves representing SOg distribution along the
line of flight can be obtained by integrating equation 2 between the limits
of too which give
a _ Area
ax 2«
The area under the curve is equal to the base (width or depth in feet) times
the average height (average SOg concentration in ppm along the axis).
-------
Computer Program - Diffusion Parameters — A FORTRAN program was
developed for calculation of ay, az, m, my, mz, Cy, Cz, and X from
parameters measured in the plume and from SOg emission rates. These
values were determined as follows.
a _ (Plume width) (Average SQa concentration)
v (Peak S02 concentration) /TTif
a =
depth) (Average SOg concentration)
(Peak SOg concentration) /2n
12
my = logf!^)/ log f Ii\ 13
» i ^ i / i ....
1*
Cy and Cz from equations U, 5, 6, and 7> and
X at 36 points in the quarter section of the
plume illustrated "by figure 12 from equation 8a.
The computed values of S02 concentrations determined for field
conditions from the measured values of standard deviation and axial and
average SOS concentrations at points along the y and z axes (figure 12)
were plotted for each section sampled, and are illustrated for day 2 in
figure 13. From these plots, the values of average SQa concentration and
plume widths and depths were calculated. With the exception of two cases,
the calculated values of plume widths and depths agreed closely with
-------
field-measured values (figure 1^). The ratio of the measured axial
concentration to the average S02 concentration (figure 15) was approxi-
mately 2.53:1. For the computed values, the ratio was 2.18:1 (figure 16).
Parameters my and mz--Average values of the parameters my and mz
for each day (table 3) were determined for field conditions from the ratio
of the standard deviation along each axis to the distance. Average mz values
were much less than average niy values, indicating that the rate of diffusion
is much greater along the y axis and that separate m values for the y and z
axes would be required.
Since an appreciable range in the values of parameters my and mz
was evident for the 12 sampling days, values considered to be the most
representative of the more accurate dispersion data were grouped into four
ranges of decreasing stability (table U). Variation of these parameters
with stability is illustrated in figure 17.
Coefficients Cy and Cz--Values of my and mz (table *0 were
determined for the various ranges of stability and were used to develop
estimates of C and Cz for each cross section for days grouped according
«y
to stability, from which the average values of C and Cz (table U) were
obtained. The variation of these coefficients with stability is shown
in figure 17-
While the parameters my, mz, Cy, and Cz developed to this point
have a limited value for application to general diffusion problems, they
should provide reasonably accurate estimates of diffusion during the full
range of inversion conditions at distances of more than 1 mile from the
source.
-------
Modification of Line-Source Parameters to Point-Source Parameters
To provide broader application for use in general diffusion
problems, all measured plume dimensional data and axial and average plume
concentrations were modified to approximate a single stack or point source.
Modification was derived from the relationships between the wind direction
and the observed horizontal and vertical spread of the plume width and
depth with a line of stacks (figure 18).
Analysis of data measured in a plume from a line of two to four
stacks affirms that both the plume width and plume depth vary with respect
to the relation between plume direction and direction of the line of stacks.
Thus, wind direction, per se, may effectuate variations in the diffusion
coefficients for identical meteorological parameters. Minimum widths of
plumes from a line of stacks occur when the azimuth direction of the plume
is the same as the alignment axis of the stacks; and conversely, maximum
widths occur when the plume direction is at right angles to the alignment
axis of the stacks. On the other hand, minimum depths of plumes occur when
the azimuth direction of the plume is at right angles to the alignment axis
of the stacks; and conversely, maximum depths occur when the plume direction
is the same as the stack alignment axis. With the addition of one stack,
at a stack separation distance A (figure 19) > the plume width is increased
by an increment equivalent to distance A when the plume direction is at
right angles to the alignment axis of the stacks. As the plume direction
varies from 90° to 0° from the stack alignment, the increase in plume width
decreases from A to zero. The data plotted in figure 18 indicate that for
the Colbert Steam Plant the magnitude of increase in plume width is approxi-
mately four times the decrease in plume depth. Thus the process of
-------
8
converting line-source plume dimensions, plume width and depth, to
dimensions representative of one stack is approximated by:
1. Reducing the width by (n-l) A Sin 6
2. Reducing the depth by (n-l) ^ Cos 8
where n - Number of stacks
6 - Degrees plume direction varies from stack alignment
A = Linear separation between stacks
When a normal distribution exists for both point- and line-source
emissions, axial and average concentrations for the single stack point source
should have the same ratio as axial and average S02 concentrations for a line
source. This relation is confirmed from field data with 2-, 3-, and lj-stack
sources (figure 15)- On the basis of this relation, point-source concentrations
were estimated from line-source data by using the following formula.
SC>2 Concentration (point source) =
15
Plume cross-sectional area (line) Line- source S0g concentration
Plume cross-sectional area (point) Number of units on line
Thus the line-source values were adjusted according to this single stack
point-source formula. These data were then processed through the computer
in the same manner as the original f ield data for compiling estimates of
m
y, and Cz for a point source (table b).
z, y, z
Parameters nwand mz--In the same manner as for line sources, the
values of my and mz were determined from the combined values considered to
be most representative of the more accurate dispersion data and were grouped
into four ranges of decreasing stability from which the best estimates of the
average values (table 6) were obtained. The variation of the m^ and mz
parameters with stability is shown in figure 20.
-------
9
Coefficients C and Cz--Values of my and mz (table 6) derived
for the four ranges of stability were used to develop Cv and Cz values for
each cross section according to classification of stability. Average Cv
and Cz coefficients (table 6) were then determined for each of the groups
of stability. Variation of these coefficients with stability is given in
figure 20.
Modification of Point-Source Parameters for General Diffusion Problems
As the number of stacks is increased beyond one, the plume widths
and depths are increased (figure 19) in accordance with the following
equations.
A,, = (n-1) A Sin 0 16
^n
Az = (n-1) r Cos e 17
n H
Where:
n = Number of stacks
A^ = Increase along y axis
^n
Az = Increase along z axis
A s Distance between stacks
9 = Degrees plume off line of stacks
These relationships provided the means for estimating the rate of change in
parameters my and mz (figure 21) and Cv and Cz (figure 22) in relation to
A,, and A~ , as a point or single stack source is enlarged to a line of
yr\ n
two or more stacks.
To utilize the point-source parameter for line-source
determinations, the following steps are necessary.
-------
10
1. Determine the increase in plume widths, A.. , and plume
•^n
depths, AZ , due to additional stacks and plume
direction from equations 16 and 17-
2. Determine the line-source parameters my, mz, Cy, and C2
by multiplying the corresponding point-source parameters
by their respective ratios shown by the curves in
figures 21 and 22 for the increase in plume widths, Ay. ,
Jn
and plume depths, Az .
Table 7 shows the line-source parameters developed for each day
from the best estimate of the point-source parameters, and gives the field
values of the axial concentration shown in line B, table 8.
Comparison - Field Concentrations and Concentrations Derived from Calculated
Diffusion Parameters
Table 8 summarizes the results from field sampling and mathematical
analysis. A values in this table are axial concentrations measured in the
plume, and B values are concentrations calculated from point-source
parameters modified to simulate line-source field conditions.
Reasonably good agreement exists between measured and calculated
values for days 1, 2, J, and 9- The relation of measured A values and
calculated B values is evident in the following table. Data from these four
Percent
Measured Axial Concentration
Distance (Miles)
Day
1
2
3
9
iy2
117
101
82
_
2ZiL
106
95
79
_
1
90
95
10k
90
2
83
92
110
_
X
77
86
-
85
-------
11
days suggest that use of the calculated diffusion coefficients in the
general dispersion equation should yield concentrations within -2$ percent
of the actual field values and that SOg distribution should closely
approximate the actual plume geometry or dimensions.
Greater differences in measured and calculated concentrations
were evident for the other sampling days. These differences primarily are
attributed to use of diffusion coefficients 'based on a single fixed tempera-
ture gradient or stable condition to calculate diffusion over a 2- to
2-1/2-hour period. Actually, stability over such an interval may undergo
significant changes which affect both measured concentrations and diffusion
rates. Simultaneous sampling at two or more sections would be required
to overcome this problem.
Part II. Diffusion in High Wind and Neutral Conditions
Field instrumentation and sampling procedures used during high
winds and neutral conditions were similar to those used in the study of
dispersion during inversion conditions. Because of the greater variance in.
the plume configurations, in comparison to the relatively stable and unvarying
conditions of the inversion plume, the aerial sampling plan was modified
slightly. Additional horizontal flights across the plume from top to bottom
at successively lower elevations were made to determine the cross-sectional
areas. Some flights were made in the plume between 1/2 mile and 3 miles
from the source and along paths parallel to the x axis of the plume. The
purpose of these flights was to compare the SQ^ distribution along the
vertical axes with the concentrations determined from the cross-sectional
flights. In most cases the plume was widely dispersed in both horizontal
-------
12
and vertical directions within a relatively short distance or travel time.
Because of the larger cross sections and the increase in time required for
sampling each cross section, the maximum sampling distance from the plant
was restricted to 5 miles. Generally, SQa concentrations at this distance
had diminished to such a low level that plume definition from recorded
charts no longer was discernible.
Plume Geometry
Constant shifting of the plume along the vertical axis, primarily
attributed to cyclical variations in wind speed, interfered with precise
definition of plume cross sections. As a result of continuous vertical
shifting, the measured depth of the plume (table 9)< based on the difference
in elevation between the bottom of plume and the first higher elevation
when no SQg was recorded, may have varied slightly with the true depth of
the plume. Such discrepancies were dependent upon vertical shifting and the
progression status of the sampling flight. The transit widths, deteimined
from the recorder chart speed and flight speed, indicated that during the
sampling of a single cross section it could be possible to traverse the plume
centerline (figure 25) more than once. The plume width used in this analysis
(figure 23) was the maximum width determined by several transection flights
through a representative plume segment which was selected to best define
the plume depth.
Plume SOg Data
Maximum and average SOa concentrations (table 9) associated with
each cross section were determined from S02 charts (figure 21*), as they were
in the analysis of data taken in inversion conditions. The SOg distribution
-------
13
determined from these Titrilog charts was similar to that observed in
inversion conditions and approximated a Gaussian distribution. The average
ratio of maximum to average concentrations (figure 25) was about 2.00:1.
To estimate S02 flux, a true cross section was required. This
condition was unobtainable because of plume fluctuation during the
sampling period (figure 23).
Meteorological Data
The same type of meteorological information obtained under inversion
conditions was obtained for high wind and neutral conditions.
In the 11 sampling days average temperature change with elevation
(figure 26) closely approximated the adiabatic lapse rate from the surface
to elevations well above the plume. The average vertical temperature
gradient in the plume during all sampling periods varied from -h° F. to
-6.5° F. per 1,000 feet.
Average wind speed in the plume section (table 9) based on pibal
observations (figure 23) varied from 8 to 23 miles per hour.
Data Analysis
The same approach and procedures as those used in the analysis of
data for inversion conditions were followed in the analysis of field data
for high wind and neutral conditions (table 9)j with the exception of the
determination of standard deviation about the z axis. Here the value of a_
£i
was determined indirectly from av through the general dispersion equation Ja-
y
This indirect determination is considered preferable to the determination
of az from the variable SOg distribution along the z axis (figure 2?). While
there is only 7-percent variability in the average of values by the two
methods, significant variability exists in individual sections.
-------
Ik
To facilitate the application to general problems, values of the
parameters for line-source field conditions (table. 9) were modified as
outlined in Part I to approximate values representative of a single stack
point source (table 10). Thus field values of standard deviation were
modified to approximate the standard deviation along the y and z axes and
were used in calculation of the diffusion parameters m, nu., mz, Cy, and Cz
for a single stack point source (table 10). Finally, the values of
parameters developed for a single stack point source were modified to
approximate line-source field sampling conditions. The modified parameters
were used to calculate SOg concentrations for comparison with field-measured
values.
Parameters m, my, and mz—The values of m, my, and m^ determined
for each sampling day show a range of 0-500 to 0.8U7 with an average of
0.686 for my and a range of 0.800 to 0.968 with an average of 0.759 for mz
(table 10). The relationship of cry values to az values (figure 28) indicates
that the average values of my and mz probably were equal. The maximum
average values for ny and mz (line it, figure 29) for all days were about 0.75-
Diffusion Coefficients Cy and Cz—The values of C and Cz are
determined from formulas k and 5 for each plume cross section for each day,
using values of my = mz = 0.80, 0.75, and 0.70 (table ll). The values 0.80
and 0.70 selected to bracket the average value 0.75 show a significant
variation among the days. Analyses of Cy and Cz values plotted against
average wind speed (figures 30, 31, and 32) reveal a slight scatter; also
the relationship reveals a trend for decreasing Cy and Cz values with increas-
ing wind speed. The best estimate of Cy and Cz values at wind speed, intervals
of 2 miles per hour is given in table 12. The variation of the coefficients
Cy, Cz, and C for niy = mz = 0-75 to wind speed is given in figure 33-
-------
15
Modification of Point-Source Parameters for General Problems
As the number of stacks is increased, plume widths and plume
depths are increased (figure 19) in the amount of A., and A- in accordance
^n • ^n
with equations 16 and 17. These increases in plume widths and depths were
used in estimating the change in my and mz (figure 3*0 and Cy and Cz
(figure 35) in relation to Ay and Ag^ as plant units were added.
To utilize the point-source parameters for line-source
determinations, the following steps are necessary.
1. Determine the increase in plume widths, A,, , and plume
Jn
depths, A_ , due to additional stacks and plume direction
^n
from equations 16 and 17-
2. Determine the line-source parameters my., mz, Cy, and GZ
by multiplying the corresponding point-source parameters
by their respective ratios shown by the curves in
figures 3U and 35 for the increase in plume widths, A... ,
yn
and plume depths, Az .
The point-source values for my = mz = 0.75 (table 12) modified
to represent line-source field conditions outlined above are shown in
table 13 for each cross section sampled.
Summary of Results
Final ny, mz, Cy, and Cz values estimated for field line-source
conditions (table 13) were employed in equation 8a to calculate axial concen-
trations. Field-measured and calculated concentrations are summarized in
table lU and are plotted in figure J>6. Good agreement is indicated in most
of the sections sampled. The variation for individual points is attributed
to application of a steady-state mathematical model to the relatively
variable plume pattern.
-------
16
Part III. Plume Rise
This over-all project was concerned primarily with the
investigation of diffusion rates in steam plant smoke plumes. While
detailed data on plume rise were obtained (on a limited basis) during
each plume diffusion sampling period, the scope of data collections,
restricted by project objectives, was not considered expensive enough to
support a comprehensive study designed specifically to improve present
analytical procedures for determining plume rise.
Plume rise observed during each sampling day for temperature
inversion and lapse conditions is shown in figures 37 and 38- During
inversion conditions maximum plume rise usually was attained within the
first 1/2 mile from the emission source. During lapse conditions most of
the plume rise was attained in the first 1/2 mile, but a slight continuous
increase in plume height occurred beyond this point.
The average observed relationships of plume rise to wind speed and
stability for cases occurring within the first 2-mile section of the plume
during inversion conditions and within the 1/2- and 1-mile sections during
lapse conditions are given in figures 39 through kj>. The wide variation
of plume rise with wind speed during inversion conditions (figure 39)
probably is due to the variance in stability for comparable wind speeds.
Part TV. Corollary Studies of S0g Oxidation
In the analysis of data taken in inversion conditions, some
variability of SOg flux was noted in progressive plume cross sections. The
apparent consistency in a trend of decreasing SOg flux with distance, along
with published information on BOZ oxidation, indicated a need for study
-------
17
of oxidation of SOg in a steam plant plume. The following principal
phases of the SOg oxidation studies were defined.
1. Develop equipment and techniques for the collection
of representative samples of flue gas and fly ash from
steam plant ducts or stacks.
2. Collect and analyze sufficient samples of flue gas and
fly ash to establish the relative proportions and
concentrations of SQ2 and SOa, as well as pertinent
physical and chemical characteristics of fly ash.
J. Develop facilities for controlled dilution and cooling
of flue gas simulating atmospheric dispersion and cooling.
U. Develop instrumentation for evaluating changes in sulfur
oxides and fly ash subjected to controlled dilution
and cooling.
5. Modify instrumentation and techniques developed in the
preceding step for study of sulfur oxides and fly ash
in the dispersed plume.
6. Collect and analyze sufficient plume samples to establish
the relative proportions of SOa and SC^.
7- Interpret and analyze data and observations.
In steps 1 through U, flue gas and fly ash samples were taken at
ground level from the duct section connecting the mechanical fly ash
collectors and the induced draft fan, or from a dilution chamber adjoining
this duct. A report on these studies follows.
-------
18
Oxidation Studies in Duct and Dilution Chamber
Gas samples were collected from the duct for S02 and SOa analyses.
The tests considered to yield the most reliable values for 30-minute
average concentrations of S02 and SOa are tabulated below.
SQa-SOa Analysis
Colbert
Date
7/10/59
7/15/59
7/21/59
7/21/59
7/21/59
7/29/59
7/29/59
Steam Plant
S03
ppm as S02
1*2
66
18
12
17
17
17
Flue Gas
S02
ppm
2317
1886
2J88
22Ul
2192
2258
2312
These data suggest that only 1 to 2 percent of sulfur in coal
exists as SOa in flue gas at the Colbert plant.
Fly ash samples were collected directly from the duct for size
consist, identification of principal physical characteristics, and chemical
analysis.
Concurrent with the collection of samples directly from the duct,
flue gas was aspirated into a large dilution chamber (figure kk) where it
was held for 2 to 5 hours. Gas samples were taken from the chamber for S02
and SOa analyses and fly ash samples were taken for other chemical analysis.
While exceptions and unexplained events were noted, the data suggest an
increase in S02 oxidation with holding time. In these tests, data from the
Titrilog and autometer indicate that 10 to 30 percent of S02 in the trailer
was oxidized in 2 to 3 hours (table 15).
Using the difference in recorded values for the same sample on an
autometer and a Titrilog as a measure of oxidation is not a recommended
-------
19
technique. However, data taken with and without a filter for removal of
acid aerosol indicate that the technique has some validity. In figure U5
where acid aerosol is removed, Titrilog and autometer values are approxi-
mately equal. In figure U6 where the acid is not removed and is presumably
registered on the autometer, a significant difference exists.
In a second series of tests, oxidation in the dilution chamber
was evaluated by direct sampling of SOfe and S03. While results are random
(table 16), the extent of oxidation was similar to that derived indirectly
from autometer-Titrilog data and was as high as 50 percent on two tests.
Fly Ash Studies
Fly ash may influence the;oxidation of SOs in coal flue gases
because of its catalytic, and nucleating properties. Therefore, concurrent
with the estimate of SOs oxidation in the dilution chamber, studies were
made of the physical and chemical characteristics of fly ash. Principal
data are presented in table 17. ,
Because of deposition in the transfer line and aspirator system,
fly ash transfer from the duct to the dilution chamber was only 25-75 .percent
efficient. However, a number of factors were indicative of oxidation of
1. Large crystals of aluminum sulfate were identified on the
aluminum foil electrostatic precipitator liners. This is
attributed to the reaction of precipitated HgSO^ aerosol
with the aluminum foil lining.
2. Sulfate content of fly ash increased from about 2.5 percent
in the duct to 5 to 10 percent in the chamber. This increase
is attributed \to deposition of sulfuric acid mist or aerosols
on fly ash particles.
-------
20
3- The pH of fly ash generally decreased with holding time
in the chamber—from about neutral in the duct to a low
of U.5.
Peripheral fly ash studies included size analysis, study of
acid-alkaline characteristics, and microchemical-petrographic studies.
While the information disclosed by these studies is of general interest
from an operational and industrial hygiene viewpoint, its relation to S02
oxidation is indirect. However, the acid-alkaline characteristics of fly
ash are of particular interest.
Fly ash taken in the duct remained essentially neutral for all
dilutions. However, the pH of fly ash from the chamber increased with
increasing dilution and time. Investigation suggested that the low pH with
minimum dilution was due to rapid solution of acid aerosol on the fly ash
surface. As dilution was increased, the solubility of calcium oxides
increased, and a part of the initial acidity was neutralized with resultant
higher pH values. Data on these tests are provided in table 18. Figure ^7
illustrates a change in the pH of a fly ash sample taken from the mechanical
collector from h.h to 12.0 in about 2 hours. The heterogenous acid and
alkaline fly ash characteristics were clearly demonstrated when colorimetric
acid indicator on fly ash samples revealed random distribution of acid sub-
samples. Microchemical-petrographic tests indicated that the minor component
responsible for the alkalization of fly ash is a dehydrated form of calcium
sulfate, probably calcium oxide-calcium hydroxide formed during brief
retention in the fire chamber.
-------
21
Studies in Power Plant Plumes
While the S02 oxidation studies were "beset with numerous problems
and limitations, some useful information was disclosed; and, through
elimination, the most satisfactory sampling and analytical procedures were
identified. ' Thus, for sampling in the plume, filter paper was used to
collect the acid aerosol, and SOa was collected in a subsequent series
HgOa scrubber (figure k8). SOa concentrations were based on the sulfate
content of the filter.
Samples were taken in an inversion plume on 8 days from 1/2 mile
to 10 miles from the steam plant. Plume travel time from the source ranged
from 5 to 108 minutes. Data from the 8 samp'ling days are compiled in
tables 19 and 20. Data for 5 sampling days (August 2, September 2, and
October lU, 26, and 28, 1960) do not indicate significant oxidation of SOg.
Oxidation of this magnitude, 1 to 3 percent, approximates that determined
for undiluted hot flue gas. Relatively high oxidation, 8 to 55 percent,
was observed on 3 days (May 3, August 19, and October 11, 1960).
More tests of this type are needed for confirmation of these
limited data. However, the data derived with these sampling and analytical
techniques suggest that in periods of 1 to 2 hours, oxidation of S02 in the
plume may range from almost none to 50 percent. Moisture within the plume
or ambient strata apparently is the factor which exerts predominant control
over the rate of oxidation. When relative humidity is below 70 percent,
oxidation is very slow. Atmospheric moisture above this level but at less
than saturation conditions produces a maximum initial rate of oxidation.
A primary reason for initiating a study of atmospheric oxidation
of SOg was to appraise its effect on diffusion parameters based on data
-------
22
from the Titrilog which does not record acidified SOg. Analysis suggests
that S02 oxidation may not have significantly affected the values of
diffusion parameters during most days when field dispersion measurements
were taken. On most days the observed variation may be ascribed to
limitations of the field sampling procedure rather than to the sampling
instrument. Also, meteorological criteria established for dispersion
measurements excluded high humidity conditions favorable to a high rate
of SQa oxidation.
-------
APPENDIXES
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Division of Health and Safety
and
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Division of Air Pollution
APPENDIX A
TABLES
Chattanooga, Tennessee
August 196U
-------
Table,1
HELICOPTER FLIGHTS
Duration
Date
9/10/57
9/11/57
9/12/57
9/17/57
9/23/57
9/2U/57
9/25/57
9/26/57
9/27/57
10/V57
10/7/57
10/8/57
10/9/57
10/10/57
10/11/57
10/1U/57
10/15/57
3/27/58
3/28/58
3/31/58
V'2/58
VV58
V7/58
V9/58
V'10/58
Vll/58
V16/58
3/27/59
VV59
V2/59
Hr.
0
3
3
l
0
1*
3
2+
3
1
1*
4
U
3
2
0
0
0
3
2
3
2
1*
3
1
2
2
6
3
5
0
Min.
U5
20
0
10
15
35
to
5
U5
0
50
»*0
20
0
0
35
20
35
<45
55
20
15
30
30
15
30
10
15
15
0
25
Type
of Flight
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Inversion
Inversion
Inversion
Inversion
Experimental
Inversion
Inversion
Inversion
Inversion
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
High wind
High wind
High wind
Temp. checks
High wind
High wind
Experimental
High wind
Experimental
High wind
High wind .
High wind .
High* wind
Date
V3/59
V7/59
V17/59
V20/59
V23/59
V2V59
1/26/60
2/2/60
2/3/60
2/2V60
V12/60
5/3/60
8/2/60
8/19/60
9/2/60
10/V60
10/11/60
10/13/60
10/114/60
10/17/60
10/18/60
10/19/60
10/20/60
10/2V60
10/25/60
10/26/60
10/27/60
10/28/60
Duration
Hr.
2
3
2
it
1
3
0
i
i
i
i
i
;-..
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
3
MirK
30
1+5
50
55)
0)
30)
l+l
35
5
16
ll+
31*
J.6
18
25
0
1*5
25
55
1+5
1+0
50
15
55
0
30
50
10
Type
of Flight
High wind
Inversion
Inversion
Voice recorder out
S02 - S03
S02 - S03
S02 - S03
S02 - S03
S02 - S03
S02 - S03
S02 - S03
S02 - S03
S0i? - S03
Inversion
S02 - S03
Plume observation
Plume observation
Plume observation
Plume observation
Discontinued
Experimental
High wind
Inversion
802 - S03
Tetroon
S02 - S03
and tetroon
release
ro
VJI
-------
26
Table 2
PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL DATA
Total rated capacity, kw
Number of units
Unit rated capacity, kw
Unit capability, kw
Total capability, kw
Number of stacks
Spacing of stack
Height of stack, feet
Diameter of stack, feet
Steam
Colbert
y, kw 720,000
h
, kw 180,000
200,000
w 800,000
It
feet, approximately 100
et 300
feet 16.5
.ue gas, fps ^7
• gas, °F. 290
T unit day, tons 1,800
:oal, percent 1-5-5
Plant
Gallatin
1*50,000
2
225,000
250,000
500,000
1
-
500
25
M*
290
1,928
3.2
-------
Table 3
SUMMARY - PRINCIPAL DATA, BY SECTIONS (FIELD-MEASURED VALUES)
Plume
Day
1
2
3
l*
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
Dist.
(Mi.)
1/2
1
2
6
9-1/2
1/2'
1
2
8
1/2
3/1*
1
2
1/2
3/1*
1
2
8
1/2
3/1*
1
2
1C-1/2
1/2
3/1*
1
2
9
1/2
3/1*
1
2
9
n 1/2
?'
1
l»-l/2
1
o
1/2
5-3A
1/2
/
5
Time
0636
061*9
0700
0716
071*1
0801
0655
0701*
061*5
071*0
0752
0623
0631
0638
0657
0637
061*7
0657
0707
0737
0638
061*6
0655
0703
0809
0805
0757
071*8
0731*
0638
0712
0720
0731
071*1*
0618
071*0
0727
0708
061*8
0810
0815
081*5
0659
0738
0706
071*6
Units
Operating
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2; 3, & ^
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & i*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & U
2, 3, & U
2, 3, & i*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & 1*
2, 3, & it
2, 3, & U
1, 2, 3, & U
1, 2, 3, & i*
1, 2, 3, & it
1, 2, 3, & it
1, 2, 3, & it
1, 2, 3,'&i*
1, 2, 3, & 1*
1, 2, 3, & i*
1, 2, 3, &i»
1, 2, 3, & 1*
1, 2,1 3, & 1*
1, 2, 3, & i*
1, 2, 3, & i+
1, 2, 3, & i*
1, 2, 3, & i*
1, 2, 3, & 1*
1, 2, 3, & 1*
1, 2, 3, & «»
1, 2, & 3
1, 2, & 3
1 & 2
1 & 2
1 & 3
1 8e 3
1 & 2
1 & 2
Plume
Dir.a
81*
81*
81*
81*
81*
81*
3
3
3
3
3
15
15
15
15
39
39
39
39
39
89
89
89
89
89
67
67
67
67
67
71*
71*
71*
71*
7i*
71*
7i*
69
69
0
0
71
71
33
33
Elev.
(Ft.)b
680
680
680
660
660
680
720
820
7ltO
800
1080
670
680
680
600
720
750
720
750
7l*0
750
750
700
720
850
1300
1350
1050
100O
560
950
1050
850
900
550
850
850
1000
650
700
, 1100
1800
550
550
600
500
Width
(Ft.)
1660
1856
2188
2837
31*1*1
381*8
1026
101*1
1192
1373
2173
875
1328
2037
22l*8
1117
11*18
11*91*
2233
1*901*
1388
1551*
1766
2113
5116
Ul*7
ll»03
11*61*
1750
57l»9
1660
1509
2082
2381*
1»90U
181*1
2792
1*101*
2501
5009
2022
2983
172U
3903
1188
3392
Depth
(Ft.)
1*60
1*60
1*20
1*00
1*1*0
1*80
530
5UO
575
575
625
550
525
515
560
550
650
720
750
820
850
750
870
825
1050
780
900
950
950
700
900
900
900
290
680
700
820
510
1+70
900
1200
500
U80
1*1*0
335
S02
(PF
Max.
18.1
16.0
16.3
12.3
7-9
6.1
28.7
2l*.l
20.1
12.9
5-6
25.1*
21.1
13-9
9.0
17.2
16.9
15.2
9-. 6
!*.!»
2l*.l*
18.2
19.1
16.8
l*-5
20.1
15.2
11*. 5
16.8
13.2
20.1
19.1
22.1*
20.5
11.2
25.1
6.6
1*.6
8.0
3.3
2.2
0.9
12.1
7-5
17.5
9.1
Cone.
im)
Avg.
8.5
7.5
7.1
5.5
3.1*
2.3
12.8
9-8
7.1*
5.9
3.0
11.6
10.1
. 6.1*
U.7
6.9
6.5
5-9
3.8
1.6
10.7
8.6
8.0
6.0
1.8
9-2
7.0
6.1*
7.3
5.0
11.2
10.1
10.9
6.6
1*.5
7.7
3.1
1.8
2.8
1.1*
1.2
0.1*
5.1*
3.0
8.7
3.8
V/ind
Speed
(mph)
tc
9-8
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.1
10.0
7.8
7.6
7.3
6.8
6.6
12.0
12.0
11.9
11.6
13.2
13-it
13.7
ll*.0
12.8
9-1*
9-2
9.0
8.9
9-5
7.6
7.5
7-1*
7.2
6.6
6.8
6.1*
5-9
6.1
9.5
7.3
8.0
8.3
13.8
11.5
lU.O
11.0
9.6
8.2
13.7
11.5
Temp .
Gradient
°F. /I, 000'
Plumed
8-3
7.1*
7-1*
6.8
5.0
U.O
i*.3
1*.6
2.6
3-0
i*.o
9.3
7.8
7.U
8.1*
U.2
3-5
2.6
2.0
0.7
5-7
2.9
2.3
1.8
0.8
-2.6
-2.3
-2.7
-2.1
+8.7
2.7
i*.9
5.3
20.7
3-1
3-3
0.6
5.3
2.3
-2.1
-2.1*
*
*
15.7
11.0
Standard Diffusion Parameters
Deviation
(Ft.
Oy
299
331*
39i*
511
619
693
181
183
210
2l*2
382
168
255
391
1*32
173
220
232
31.6
760
232
260
295
353
85!*
200
2l*l*
255
305
1000
300
287
377
1*32
888
287
1.36
61*0
388
776
1*00
591
288
652
217
621
nv
.) (Dimensionlessj (Ft.2)
' °z my
83 0.3U6
83
76
72
79
86
93 0.262
95
101
101
110
106 0.81*9
101
99
108
85 0.1*93
101
112
116
127
ll*2 0.380
125
ll*5
138
175
136 0.1*32
157
165
165
91*
127 0.1*28
163
163
163
52
106 0.579
109
128
79 0 . l*6l
73
178 0.563
238
81* 0.335
80
81 0.1*57
6l
mz Cy
0.053 19.62Q
19.059
20.355
20.774
17-213
-
0.081 23-OUi
20.951
22.299
21.1*36
23.51*3
0.069 0.208
0.221*
0.269
0.165
0.197 3.51*5
3.690
3-376
3-577
3-961*
0.152 11.589
11.131
11.321
10.1*07
13.1*00
0.199 6.650
6.809
6.281*
5-571
9-538
0.385 10.286
8.272
9.607
8.182
8.833
0.136 3-009
3.061
3.009
o.o 7.1*69
7.»»69
0.1*19 3.201*
3.201*
0.0 20.61*0
20.6UO
o.o 5.91*1*
5.9iti»
mz
(Ft. 2)
Cz
?!*. 6>5
53. U 92
ub.239
i»l*. 051
1*5.596
1*9.021
1*8.1*52
50.322
U7.565
1*6.281*
6l.l*9U
56. 971*
51*. 71*7
56.930
18.058
19.813
20.763
18.765
15.61*3
1*2.761*
35.390
39-292
33.6U8
33-11*5
28.317
30. 151*
29.925
26.067
11.006
6.107
6.705
6.002
U.595
0.821
36.29!*
33-963
36.29!*
79.000
73.000
U.901
U.901
81*. 000
80.000
81.000
61.000
Plume
Cross-
Sectional
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
599,1*26
670,202
721,384
890,818
1,188,521
1,1*1*9,926
1*26,867
1*1*1,280
538,039
619,738
1,066,128
377,781
5l»7,302
823,508
988,221
1*82,265
723,535
81»1»,1*09
l,3ll»,679
3,156,705
926,11*3
91l»,9l8
1,206,090
1,368,1*32
l*, 216, 863
702,308
991,220
1,091,778
1,305,063
2,1*37,001
912,170
1,119,096
1,1*70,933
1,681*, 296
1,116,396
982,726
1,531*, 201*
2,61*1,71*5
14001,510
1,81*8,071
1.1*28,51*3
2^809,986
676,670
1,1*70,650
itlo,335
892,011
S02
Emission
Rate
(cfs)
1*1.6
1*7.1*
1*8.3
1*6.3
69.2
70.1
55.1*
71*. 7
33.6
39-1*
37.1
29.1*
Measured
SQs Flux
(Cu. Pt.
per
Lin. Ft.)
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.0
1.7
2.8
2.2
2.2
1.9
1.6
2.2
2.8
2.7
2.3
1.7
2.1*
2.5
2.5
2.6
5.0
U.O
lt.8
l*.l
3-8
3-3
3-5
1*.5
l*.8
6.1
5.1
5-3
8.0
5.6
2.5
3-8
2.U
2.U
1.1*
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.9
2.2
1.8
1.7
fDegrees off line of stacks.
Elevation of flight where maximum concentration was recorded.
cAverage wind speed along elevation of maximum concentration.
dFrom approximately bottom to top of plume.
*No data.
-------
28
Table U
BEST ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE my, m7., Cy, AMD C* BY RANGES OF STABILITY
(FIELD-MEASURED VALUES)
Temperature Gradient
0F./1,000'
Group
1
2
3
1+
Range
(6
(2
(-0
13. u
.5 to
.3 to
.2 to
8.2)
3.8)
-2.3)
Av.
13-
7.
3-
-1.
1+
1+
0
3
at
.396
.1*30
.1+58
.531
raz
0
.090
..171*
.273
i
11
8
.5
3
n
:z
.067
.667
.710
.255
76
U8
23
ll+
n
.500
.323
.976
.606
-------
29
Table 5
SUMMARY - PRINCIPAL DATA, BY SECTIONS
Day
1
10
11
12
1/2
1
2
1
14-1/2
1/2
5-3/4
1/2
i-j-ume
'Depth
[Ft.
1461
1657
1989
2638
3242
1016
1031
1182
1363
2163
823
1276
1985
2196
991
1292
1368
2107
4778
1088
1254
1466
1813
4816
871
1127
1188
5473
1372
1221
1794
2096
4616
1553
2504
3816
2314
4822
2022
2983
1629
3808
1134
3338
455
455
415
395
435
4oO
490
525
525
575
502
477
467
512
511
611
681
711
781
849
749
869
824
1049
751
871
921
921
5H
679
879
879
879
269
659
679
799
492
452
900
1200
492
472
419
314
FOR
SINGLE
STACK POINT
SCfe Cone.
(ppm)
Max.
6.9
6.0
6.0
4.5
2.8
11.1
8.9
7.1*
4.7
2.0
9-8
8.1
5-2
3.4
6.9
6.6
5.8
3.6
1.6
7.8
5.7
5.8
4.9
*1.2
6.9
4.9
4.6
5.1
3-7
6.3
6.1
6.7
6.0
3.2
7-7
1.9
1.3
3.0
1.2
2.2
0.9
6.6
3-9
9-7
4.9
Av.
3-3
2.8
2.6
2.0
1.2
4.8
3.6
2.7
2.2
1.1
4'. 5
3-9
2.4
1.8
2.8
2.5
2.3
1.4
0.6
3.4
2.7
2.4
1.8
0.5
3.2
2.3
2.0
2.2
1.4
3-5
3.0
3-3
1.9
1.3
2.4
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.2
0.4
2.9
1.5
4.8
2.1
°y
(Ft.;
263
2Q8
358
475
584
179
181
208
240
381
158
245
381
422
154
200
212
327
741
182
209
245
303
804
152
196
207
256
952
248
221
325
379
835
253
U08
622
359
747
400
591
272
636
208
611
°z
L (Ft--)
32
82
75
71
78
84
86
92
92
101
96
92
90
98
79
95
106
110
121
142
125
145
138
175
131
152
160
160
89
123
159
159
159
49
107
111
130
76
70
178
238
82
79
77
57
SOURCE
Diffusion Parameters
my
(Dimensionless) (Ft."5')
niy nig ^y
0.381 0.054 13.111
12.731
13-708
13-971
11.307
0.264 0.089 22.280
20.246
21.561
20.712
22.789
0.883 0.067 0.151
0.163
0.197
0.118
0.529 0.209 2.385
2.500
2.276
2.453
2.648
0.447. 0.152 5.388
5.162
5.321
4.828
6.108
0.506 0.206 2.831
2.974
2.716
2.366
4.113
0.524 0.396 3.989
2.874
3.635
2.947
2.951
0.649 0.140 1.524
1.567
1.524
0.487 0.0 5.515
5.515
0.563 0.419 3.204
3.204
o.348: o.o 17.563
17.563
0.468 0.0 5.210
5.210
rr.z
(Ft."2")
CZ
53.696
52.538
47.316
43.155
44.692
41.529
'41.004
42.751
40.182
38.970
56.457
52.647
50.513
52.494
15.225
16.820
17.673
15.867
13.063
42.764
35-390
39-292
33.648
33-145
25-846
27.586
27.367
23.725
9.681
5.422
5.969
5.326
4.047
0.687
35.385
33.303
35-385
76.000
70.000
4.901
4.901
82.000
79.000
77.000
57.000
Emission
(cfs)
13.9
15.8
16.1
15.4
17-3
17-5
13.9
18.7
11.2
39-4
18.6
14.7
-------
30
Table 6
BEST ESTIMATE OF my, mz, Cv, AMD Cz FOR POINT SOURCE
Group
1
2
3
1+
IN FOUR RANGES
Average
Temperature Gradient
13. 1+° F./l,000'
7.1*° F./l,000'
3.0° F./l,000»
-1.3° F./l,000'
OF TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
.1+08
.U66
.505
.606
0
.096
.182
.279
9.578
5-708
3-1+59
1.1+90
c
73.750
1+5.91+5
22.110
15.090
-------
Table 7
CALCULATED POINT- AND LINE-SOURCE DIFFUSION PARAMETERS
Day
1
2
3
1*
5
' 6
7
8 -
9
10
11
12
Temperature
Gradient
°F./1,000'
6.5
3.7
8.2
2.6
2.7
-0.2
7.6
2.3
3.8
-2.3
.
13.1*
Point Source
.1*66
.505
.1*66
• 505
.505
.606
.1*66
.505
• 505
.606
.1*08
.1*08
.096
.182
.096
.182
.182
.279
.096
.182
.182
.279
0
0
5.9
3.9
5-9
3.9
3-9
1.7
5-9
3.9
3-9
1.7
9-5
9.5
cz
1*1.0
;25.5
1*1.0
25.5
25.5
15.0
1*1.0
25.5
25.5
15.0
75.0
75.0
Added Distance
(Ft.)
Width
199
10
52
126
300 -
276
288
288
187
.0
95
5!*
Depth
5
50
1*8
39
1
29
21
21
18
0
8
21
.1*19
.500
.1*52
.1*75
.1*31*
.527
.1*10
.1*39
.1*60
.606
.371
.396
Line
Viz
.095
.169
.090
.171
.182
.268
.093
.177
.178
.279
0
0
Source
SK
i*.o
6.6
5.3
7.7
3.2
11.3
7.5
6.0
1.7
lit. 7
10.7
1*1.8
29-3
1*7.2
28.6
25.5
16.2
1*3.5
27.0
26.8
15.0
75.0
75.0
-------
32
Table 8
MEASURED AMP CAI£ULAm> AXIAL SOg COEJCEaTRATIOMS II PLUME (PPM)
Distance (Miles)
Dajr
1
2
3
it
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
IS!
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
(B)*
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
U£
18.1
21.1
29.8
30.0
25.lt
20.9
17.2
15.3
2lt.lt
3^.7
20.1
37.6
20.1
31.lt
25.1
39.7
12.1
23.1
17-5
13.7
2£i
16.0
17.0
2lt.2
22.9
21.1
16.7
16.9
n.?
18.2
26.6
15.2
27.3
23.8
19.1
25.7
1
16.3
lit. 7
20.1
19.0
13.9
llt.lt
15.2
9.7
19.1
22.7
lit. 5
21.6
18.5
22.lt
22.U
6.6
26.0
8.0
7.2
2.2
6.8
2
12.3
10.2
12.9
11.9
9.0
9.9
9.6
6.2
16.8
lit. 8
16.8
12.lt
10.0
20.5
16.0
It. 6
16.9
0.9
3-7
X
7.9
6.1
5.6
lt.8
lt.lt
2.6
lt.5
5.3
13.2
3-9
12.5
11.2
7.7
3.3
2.8
7.5
9.5
9.1
(A) Field-measured values.
(B) Values calculated from point-source coefficients modified
to simulate line-source field conditions.
* Temperature gradient at 1/2, 3A, 1, and 2 miles = -2.1t° F./l,000 feet.
lemperature gradient at x miles = 8.7° F./l,000 feet.
-------
Table 9
SUMMARY - PRINCIPAL DATA. BY SECTIONS - HIGH WIND AND NEUTRAL CONDITIONS
(FIELD-MEASURED VALUES)
Elev. (Ft.) at
Day
1
2
3
14
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dist.
(Mi.)
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1/2
1
2-1/2
Units
Time
1229-1238
9 min.
12U2-1331
U9 min.
13UO-1UU9
69 min.
1315-1327
12 rain.
1329-13U2
.13 min.
13U6-1U17
31 min.
11U5-1155
10 min.
1159-1219
20 min.
122U-12U6
22 min.
1223-123U
11 min.
1236-12U9
13 min.
1255-1326
31 min.
1
0929-09U2
13 min.
09U6-1011
25 min.
1017-10U3
26 min.
1326-1337
11 min.
13UO-1U03
23 min.
1U07-1U27
20 min.
1021-1036
15 min.
10U2-1115
27 min.
1119- 11U6
27 min.
1U01-1500
1505-1638
0929-1000
1016-1037
1039-1105
1115-1UU5
1129-1506
1238-1300
1302-13UU
1U18-1519
Operating
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2, U
2, U
2, U
2, U
2, U
2, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
3, U
2, 3, U
2, 3, U
2, 3, U
2, 3
2, 3
2, 3
2, 3
2, 3
2, 3
2, 3
2
2
2
Degrees
Off Line
of Stacks
U-l/2
U-l/2
U-l/2
U
U
U
85-1/2
85-1/2
85-1/2
86
86
86
U5
U5
U5
2
2
2
5U
5U
5U
11
11
55
55
55
65
65
11
11
11
Maximum
Cone.
600
800
1800
600
800
1000
800
800
1000
1000
600
800-1600
1000
1000
800
600-1000
800-1600
Soo-iUoo
800
600
1200
1200
1200
500
1000
3oo
1000
lUOO
800
800
1200
Maximum
Plume
Width
800
800
1200
600
800
1000
1
800
800
1000
1000
600
1000
600-1000
800-1000
800-1000
600-1000
800-1600
8oo-lUoo
800
600-1000
6oo-iUoo
UOO-1200
1200
500
600
800
800
800
700
1000
1200
Plume
Wj.'th
(Ft.)
1U65
2020
2U95
910
1310
2U10
900
1575
1957
826
1200
2100
1186
1705
2520
957
1517
2U27
10U2
1U76
1770
880
1U52
1520
2162
2680
1012
1U08
lUo8
26UO
3U30
Depth
(Ft.)
800
1200
1800
600
850
1U50
650
1250
1300
800
1050
1650
800
1000
1100
900
1300
1500
1150
1U50
1500
1200
1800
800
1050
1300
1100
lUOO
1000
1500
2500
Average
S02 Cone. Wind Speed
(ppm)
Max.
10.0
U.O
2.0
15.3
7.9
3.2
12.9
U.3
2.7
13.9
3.5
U.o*
1.3
8.9
3.5
2.1
8.U
6.6
0.7
6.0
10.5*
5.1
l.U
2.8*
U.7
2.U
3.0
5.2*
1.6
1.5
6.2
2.7
U.9
2.2
0.7
Av.
U.8
2.2
0.9
7.8
U.I
1.3
5.8
2.U
1.3
7.1
2.1
0.9
U.6
1.9
1.1
U.6
2.8
O.U
3.2
2.6
0.8
2.3
1.3
1.5
0.8
1.0
2.7
1.1
1.7
1.3
O.U
in Plume
(mph)
8.2
8.0
10.7
13.1
11.5
9.1
1U.2
12.8
11.9
21.6
20. U
1U.9
13.9
1U.5
1U.O
9.9
6.6
8.5
11.5
12.9
17.3
16.1
lU.6
11.1
13,3
15.6
20.6
23.1
12.2
8.5
10. U
Temp.
Gradient
Plume
Bottom
to Top
°F./1,000'
-6.U
-5.8
-5.9
-5.8
-5-6
-5.9
-6.5
-6.3
-6.7
-5.U
-U.8
-5-5
-3.5
-U.7
-3.9
-6.0
-5.8
-6.0
-6.5
-6.1
-6.6
-U.6
-6.5
-5.5
-5.3
-5.U
-5-9
-6.1
-5.2
-5.0
-5.2
3y
(Ft.)
279
385
U75
173
250
U59
171
300
373
157
229
Uoo
226
325
U8o
182
289
U62
198
281
337
168
277
290
U12
510
193
268
268
503
653
DiffMsi->n Parameters
°z (Dimensionless)
(Ft.) ra ny
-------
Table 10
SUMMARY - PRINCIPAL DATA, BY SECTIONS
(FOR SINGLE STACK POINT SOURCE)
Plume
Day
1
2
3
1*
5
,_
6
7
8
9
10
n
Dist.
(Mi.)
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2 ,
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1/2
1 i
2-1/2
Width
(Ft.)
ll*l*2
1997
21*72
889
1289
•2389
601
1276
1658
527
901
1801
97*
1*93
2308
9*6
1506
2Ul6
799
1233
1527
81*2
lUll*
1356
1998
2516
831
1227
1389
2621
31*11
Depth
(Ft.)
725
1125
1725
525
775
1375
61*1*
121*1*
129*
795
101+5
16U5
7*7
9*7
101*7
825
1225
11*25
1106
11*06
11*56
1151
1751
771
1221
1571
1079
1379
979
1*79
21+79
SOj, Cone.
(ppm)
Max.
3-7
1.1+
0.7
6.0
2.9
l.l
6.5
1.8
1.1
7-3
1.6
0.5
3.9
1.1+
0.8
3.1
2.1*
0.2
2.0
1.6
0.1*
1.7
0.8
1.2
0.6
0.5
2.6
1.0
2.5
1.1
o.i*
Av.
1.8
0.8
0.3
3.0
1.5
0.5
2.9
1.0
0.5
3.7
1.0
0.3
2.0
0.8
o.i*
1.7
1.0
0.1
1.1
0.8
0.2
0.8
o.i*
0.6
0.3
0.3
1.1
o.i*
0.9
0.7
0.2
°y
(Ft.)
275
381
1*71
169
2l*6
*55
111*
2l*3
316
106
172
3*3
186
285
1*1+0
180
287
1+60
152
235
291
161
270
259
381
*79
159
23*
261*
1*99
61*9
OZ
(Ft.)
198
370
1*61*
113
179
313
ll*l*
27*
377
105
201
1+19
157
27*
321
157
31+6
1+01
215
281
390
318
1+18
265
3*6
37*
215
319
191
328
652
m
All
0.996
1.1+1*1+
1.1+76
1.896
1.123
1.35*
0.903
l.ll+O
1.186
1.11+7
1.365
Diffusion Parameters
m.
* All
1.1*11 0.388
1.1*1*1* 0.71*
1.1+76 0.735
1.806 0.81+7
1.31+8 0.621
1.383 0.677
1.007 0.1+68
l.ll+O 0.7*6
1.1*25 0.560
1.11+7 0.557
1,365 0.588
Y
*
0.500
0.71*
0.735
0.81*7
0.621
0.677
0.629
0.7*6
0.560
0.557
0.739
m
All
0.6ll*
0.735
0.69!*
0.998
0.516
0.676
0.1*30
0.39*
0.297
0.569
0.761*
z
*
0.758
0.735
0.811
0.968
0.660
0.676
0.500
0.500
0.500
0,569
0.761*
S02
Emission
(cfs)
1*.95
13.52
13.95
15.1*1
11+ . 36
13.9*
12.32
12.68
13.9*
16-59
11+ ,1+3
Average 1.29!+ 1.1+18 0.621+ 0.686 0.625 0.759
*m > 1.000 and <2.000
my and mz >0.500 and <1.000
-------
35
Table 11
VALUES OF Cv AND Cg (FT. g) CALCULATED FOR EACH SECTION (POINT SOURCE)
FOR VALUES OF mv
Day
1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dist.
(Mi.)
1/2
1
2
Average
1/2
1
2
Average
1/2
1
2
Average
1/2
1
2
Average
1/2
1
2
Average
1/2
1
2
Average
V2
1
2
Average
1
2
Average
1
2
3
Average
1
2
Average
1/2
1
2-1/2
Average
Average
All days
my = mz
Cy
.501*
.1*01
.285
(.396)
.309
.259
.275
(.281)
.209
.256
.191
(.218)
.191*
.181
.207
(.191*)
.31*1
.300
.266
(.302)
.330
.302
.278
(.303)
.278
.271*
.176
(.21*3)
.169
.163
(.166)
.272
.230
.209
(.237)
.167
.11*1
(.15U)
.1+83
.525
.328
(.1*1*5)
(.267)
= TOZ —
= 0.80
Cz
.363
.398
.280
(.31*7)
.207
.188
.186
(.191*)
.261*
.288
.228
(.260)
.192
.211
.253
(.219)
.287
.288
.191*
(.256)
.287
.361*
.21+2
(.298)
• 391*
.296
.236
(.308)
^
.252
(.293)
.279
.209
.163
(.217)
.226
.193
(.209)
.350
• 3U5
• 329
( .3*1)
(.267)
0.80, 0.75,
m _mz
Cy
.71+7
.616
.1+52
(.605)
.1+59
• 397
.1+37
.310
.393
• 303
(.335)
.288
.278
.329
(.298)
• 505
.1+60
.1+22
(.1*62)
.1*89
.1+61+
*' .1+1+1
(.1+65)
.1+13
.380
.279
(.357)
.260
.259
(.260)
.1+18
.366
• 339
(.371+)
.257
.225
(.21+1)
• 717
.806
• 527
(.683)
(.1*10)
AND 0.70
= 0.75
Cz
.538
.598
.1+1+5
(.523)
.307
.289
.300
(.299)
.391
.1+1+3
.361
( .398)
.285
• 325
.1+02
(.337)
.1+27
.1+1+3
.308
(.393)
.1+27
.559
.385
(.1+57)
.581+
.1+51+
• 371*
(.1*71)
.511*
.1*01
(.1*58)
.1*28
• 332
.265
(.31+2)
.31*7
.306
(.327)
.519
.530
.529
(•526)
(.1*12)
OR m = 1.
m - mz
Cv.
1.107
.91*1+
.719
(.923)
.680
.610
.69!*
(.661)
.1*59
.602
.1*82
(.511*)
.1*27
.1+26
.523
(.1*59)
.71*9
.706
.671
(.709)
.725
.711
.702
(.713)
.612
.582
.1*1+1*
(.5U6)
.399
.1*12
(.1*05)
.61*2
.581
.550
(.591)
.391*
.357
(.376)
1.063
1.237
.81*7
(1.01*9)
(.631)
6, 1.5,
, = 0.70
cz
.797
• 917
.708
(.807)
.1+55
.1+1*1*
.1*78
(.1*59)
.580
.679
.575
(.611)
.1*23
.1+98
.639
(.520)
.632
.679
.1+90
(.600)
.632
.857
.612
(.700)
.866
.696
.595
(-719)
.788
.638
(.713)
.657
.528
.1+30
(.538)
• 533
.1+87
(.510)
.769
.813
.852
(.811)
(.635)
AND 1.1+
Wind Speed
(fps)
12.1
11.8
15.7
(13.2)
19.2
16.9
13- 1*
(16.5)
20.8
18.9
17.5
(19.D
31.8
30.0
21.9
(27.9)
'20.1+
21.3
20.6
(20.7)
11*. 5
9.7
12.1+
(12.2)
16.9
19.0
25.1+
(20.lt)
23.6
21.5
(22.5)
16.3
19.6
22.9
(19-6)
30.3
31*. o
(32.2)
17.9
12.5
15.3
(15.2)
-------
Table 12
WIND SPEED, Cy AND Cz> AND %• AMD mz VALUES
m
Calculated Values Cy and Cz, Ft.
Wind
(mph)
8
10
12
11+
16
18
20
22
*mv =
Log
Log
Log
Speed
11.76
ll+,70
17.6U
20.58
23.52
26.1+6
29.1+0
32.30
mz = 0.80
Cy = -.287579
cz = -.322238
(Cy = C2) = -
mv = mz
.339
.305
.275
.21+8
.223
.201
.181
.163
- .0151+89
- .01211+2
.301+61+6 -
.3^3
.316
.291
.268
.21+7
.227
.209
.193
u
u
.013831+
= 0.80*
Cy = Cz
.3*1
.310
.283
.257
O^il
Pi li
.191+
.177
my = mz = .0.
-------
37
Table 13
DIFFUSION COEFFICIENTS my, mz> Cy, AMD; C2 - POINT AND LINE SOURCES
Point-Source Values
Day
1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dist.
(Mi.)
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1,
2
1/2
1
2
1/2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1/2
1
2-1/2
Wind
Speed
(fps)
12.0
11.7
15.7
19.2
16.9
13.U
20.8
18.7
17.5
31.7
29.9
21.9
20.3
21.2
20.1
ll*.5
9.7
12.1*
16.9
18.9
25.1*
23.6
21.1*
16.3
19.5
22.9
29.6
33-9
17.9
12.5
15.2
^y_
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
mz
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
uy
£.
(Ft. )
.510
-515
.1*50
.1*00
.1*30
.1*90
.378
.1*05
.1*20
.260
.270
.360
.380
.370
.385
.1*70
.550
.505
.1*30
.1*00
.320
.31+0
.370
.1*1*0
.390
.350
.275
.2Uo
.1*20
.505
.1*60
cz
m
(Ft-*)
.510
.515
.1*65
.1*25
.1*50
.1*90
.1*08
.1*30
.1*1*0
.305
.320
.395
.1*10
.1*00
.1*20
.1*80
.51*0
.505
.1+50
.1+25
.360
.378
.1+00
.1+60
.1+20
.385
.320
.285
.1+1+0
.505
.1*70
.
^n
(Ft.)
23
21
299
299
212
11
21*5
38
161*
181
19
Line-Source Field Values
ZH
(Ft.) % mz
75 .71* .71
75 .71* .71
6 .60 .7!*
5 .60 .71*
53 .61* .72
75 .71+ .71
1*1* .62 .73
1*9 .73 .72
29 .66 .7U
21 .66 .7!*
21 .7!* .?!*
Cy
9*
(Ft- )
.561
.567
.1*95
.1*1*0
.1*73
.539
1.550
1.661
1.722
1.066
1.107
1.1*76
1.102
1.073
1.117
.1*91*
.578
.530
1.1*19
1.320
1.056
.1*08
.1*1*1*
1.021
.905
.812
.688
.600
.1*62
.556
.506
cz
m
(Ft.g:
.71*0
.71+5
.671*
.616
.653
.711
.1*09
.1*30
.1*1*0
.305
.320
.395
.533
.520
.51*6
.696
.783
.732
.563
.531
.1*50
.1*76
.501*
.520
.1*70
.319
.352
.311+
.1*81*
.556
.517
-------
38
Day
(B
1 (A)
Table Ik
MEASURED AND CALCULATED
AXIAL S02
CONCENTRATIONS IN PLUME
Concentrations (ppm) at
1/2 Mi.
10.0
13.1*
15.3
11.6
12.9
11.1*
13.9
16.1
8.9
11.0
8.1*
12,5
10.0
12.1
a'l
1 Mi.
i*.o
5.8
7.9
U.9
5.1
5.3
7.1
3-5
5.0
6.6
6.2
5.1
5.6
i*.7
5.3
5.2
6.2
6.8
2.2
3.7
2 Mi. 2-1/2 Mi. 3 Mi.
2.0
2.0
3.2
1.8
2.7
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.1
1.9
0.7
2.0
2.3
2.1*
2.1*
1.9
1.6 1.5
1.9 1.5
2.7
2.9
0.7
0.9
3 (A)
(B)
k (A)
(B)
5 (A)
(B)
6 (A)
(B)
7 (A)
(B)
8 (A)
(B)
9 (A)
(B)
1Q (A)
(B)
11 (A)
(B)
(A) = Field-measured values.
(B) = Values calculated from point-source coefficients modified
to line-source field conditions.
-------
Table 15
CHAMBER S0g OXIDATION STUDIES
Date
(1959)
10/13
10/16
10/19
10/20
10/9
10/23
Type of Run
10/22 Fly ash and moisture
Percent SOg Oxidation - Successive 30-Minute Periods
Uniform SOg Supply
2a 1 2
No SOg Supply - Natural Decay
B
Fly ash and moisture 16.5
Fly ash and dry
Fly ash and moisture
Moisture
(Fly ash removal)
l. i 5_ 6 z
8.6 9.7 / 2U.O 25.8 27.0 / 3-7 -1.3
-2.1 -2.8 / 3.9 15.6 23.5 33.3 22..S 28.U / -2.1
-6.9 -1.8 / 12.2 11.5 9.5 / 19-2 lU.O 11.9 1^.3 . 15-3
-6.5 -6.9 / 11.3 13.2 17.3 12.3 / 11.8 7.6 9.9 2.U
2 10 11 12 13_
-1.2 1».3 / 13.5 15.6 / 6.9
7.7
Calibration Buns
S02 cylinder 7.8 0.0 2.7 6.3 /
(Not through chamber)
Qa cylinder
(Through chamber)
/ 0.8 -1.7 -U.9
3.9
Negative (-) Values (Titrilog concentration more than autometer concentration)
/ Instruments switched from controlled diluted sample to straight sample
8.5
It.6
-2.3
0
-U.O
9.7 8.8 8.1+ 10.U 10.5
-------
Table 16
CHAMBER S02 OXIDATION STUDIES
COLBERT STEAM PLANT
Date
(1959)
10/29
10/29
11/2
11/2
11/2
11/2
n/3
H/3
11/3
H/3
n/3
11/3
n/3
H/3
11/1*
n/i*
n/i*
n/i*
Time
Sampling
Period
1335-1^05
ll*06-ll+31
1310-1330
1337-1353
11+38-11+58
1528-151+8
Average
091*7-1007
101U-1031*
1051-1111
1131-1151
Average
1351-11*00
Il+l6-ll*36
1500-1520
151*6-1606
Average
0859-0920
0926-091*7
1022-101+2
1103-1123
Average
Dust Counts (mppcf )
Impinger
1.83
.98
2.9^
2.9^
6.37
6.28
3.18
5.1*
5.31
1.13
1.30
1.1*7
1.30
1.30
1.87
1.87
1.12
.75
1.1+0
Millipore
Filter
-
1.28
1.35
6.7
6.3
3.90
»».9
M
7.2
6.7
5.93
3.6
2.7
2.5
2.6
2.85
6.3
6.3
5.2
3.5
5.33
Geometric
Mean
Particle Size
(Microns)
.56
-.50
.63
-.29
.99
.71*
.714
.1*0
.1*0
.57
.51*
.51*
.91
.86
.71
.1+8
.1+8
.32
.32
.1*0
Relative
Humidity
(*)
96
96
95
98
99
95
97
98
96
95
97
97
57
58
56
56
57
100
100
99
98
Dry Bulb
Temp.
(°P.)
65
65
71
72
72
72
72
61+
66
69
71
68
79
80
81
81
80
73
73
73
73
99
73
S02
Titrilog
(ppm by Vol.)
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.6
2.1+
2.3
2.5
5-9
5.5
5.3
5-3
5.5
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.2
5.5
9.1*
9.6
9.1
9.2
9-3
Total
Sulfates
as S03
(ppm by Vol.)
.61+0
1.001+
1.03
1.22
.75
1.13
1.06
.88
1.00
.81
.69
.81+
2.81
1.07
.81+
.96
.59
.59
1.05
1.12
.85
Oxidation
2l*.2
27.6
31.9
23.8
32.9
29.8
13.0
15.U
13.3
11.5
13.2
16.3
13-9
1U.9
5.9
5.8
10.3
10.9
8.1*
^Average ratio impinger counts to millipore filter counts = 1:2.97.
Page 1 of 2
-------
Date
(1959)
11/1*
n/i*
11/1*
11/1*
11/5
H/5
n/5
11/5
n/5
U/5
n/6
11/6
n/6
11/6
n/6
Time
Sampling
Period
13UO-ll*10
ll*12-ll*UO
1UU2-1501*
1505-1530
Average
0958-1017
1027-10U7
Average
1300-1320
1327-13U5
lU20-ll*UO
11*57-1517
Average
090U-0921*
092U-09UU
1009-1029
noo-n20
Average
U56-1216
Dust Counts (mppcf)
Impinger*
8.72
3.10
1.U2
1.58
.83
1.15
.99
.61*
.51*
1.07
.91*
.9U
.13
.13
.22
.22
.18
1.1*6
Minipore
Filter
-
5.3
5.3
5.3
.91
1.58
1.89
1.37
l.UU
.5U
.5U
1.22
1.22
.88
U.8
Geometric
Mean
Particle Size
(Microns)
-
-
-
.32
.32
.32
1.06
.86
.U9
.U9
.73
1.07
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.07
.80
Table 16
(Continued)
Relative
Humidity
(*)
96
96
96
96
96
53
U9
51
U5
U3
U2
Uo
U3
90
96
97
97
95
86
Dry Bulb
Temp.
(°F.)
71
71
71
71
71
85
8U
85
81
81
81
81
81
U6
U6
U6
U7
U6
U7
S02
Titrilog
(ppm by Vol.)
6U.7
39.7
19.9
U.8
5.3
5.6
5.5
10.U
10.6
10.5
10.U
10.U
10.3
10.6
10.1
9.2
10.1
22.9
Total
Sulfates
as S03
(ppm by Vol.)
.9U
.31
.29
.60
.5U
1.08
1.28
1.19
.U5
.20
.36
.53
.39
.03
.03
.05
.05
1.15
Oxidation
(%)
l.U
0.8
l.U
U.8
1.6
16.9
18.6
17.8
U.I
1.9
3.3
U.8
3.6
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
O.U
U.8
Average ratio impinger counts to millipore filter counts = 1:2.97.
Page 2 of 2
o
P
-------
1*1
Table 17
CHAMBER S02 OXIDATION STUDIES
Scrubber
Electrostatic Precipitator Samples
Date
(1959)
9/30
10/1
10/2
10/12
10/13
10/16
10/19
10/20
10/22
Test
No.
1
o
3
h
5
c
1
2
3
It
5
6
1
2
3
1.
5
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
It
5
6
1
2
3
1*
5
6
1
2
3
it
5
6
1
2
3
U
5
6
1
2
3
5
6
Vit.
(ing. )
c,_
30.
6.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
68.
18.
8.
It.
3.
5.
2.
1.
17.
12.
10.
2.
26.
26.
1U.
6.
5.
1*5.
37.
11.
it.
2.
35.
11.
2.
7.
6.
•,
6
0
3
5
3
1*
5
6
3
5
2
1
7
2
2
7
2
2
1*
7
7
0
6
0
2
7
7
7
9
i,
5
9
7
6
Dil.
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
1:1
10:1
1:1
10:1
3:1
10:1
10:1
E
5
6
It
1*
It
6
5
6
it
it
l»
5
5
5
it
it
1*
6
6
5
5
6
1*
6
1*
6
1*
5
5
6
Resist. Est.
H (Ohms) SOi, (%)
.6 1»6.500 6.2
.it ltU,3OO b.u
.9 52,600 6.3
.3
.8
.,6 67,000 l*.i*
.6 1»1»,500 6.1*
.0 53,000 5.1*
.9 27,200 9.6
.7
.9 22,600 11.2 .
.0
.6
.2 1*9,000 5.8
.6
.8
.0
.6d 5.6e
.6 1*2,500 6.6
.5 37,000 7.6
.5
.1
.6
.3
.5
.0
.7
.It
.6
.7d 10.l*e
Minutes
Aa
COLBERT STEAM PLAHT
Samples
Bb
SOo
Operated (ppm)
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
50
50
30
29
29
50
55
29
29
28
30
30
57
58
58
30
150
58.3
50.1
29.6
16.9
8.9
1*.5
20.7
13.8
7.9
6.3
5.2
5-9
50.0
W*. 1
29.1
21.5
15.8
12.5
2l).9
5.2
0.8
1*1.1*
59.7
1*1.1
20.1
10.5
5.1
1*2.5
1*5.1*
58.8
27.9
16.1
11.6
36.2
38.5
19.9
9-9
6.7
5.2
1*2.0
1*2.8
2l*.l*
12.1
6.9
1*.7
32.8
25.1*
10.9
l*.7
2.7
2.0
(ppm)
62
56
32
20
13
8
6
1*
5
50
1*5
30
22
17
12
21*
3
0
1*0
1*0
37
20
10
6
1*1
1*6
58
22
17
10
31
35
16
10
6
1*
39
38
21
11
7
^
.9
.3
.2
.5
.2
.9
.2
.9
.6
.1
.0
.1*
.5
.1
.3
.2
.3
.5
.2
.6
.1*
.7
.0
.3
.0
.3
.1*
.8
.2
.8
.3
.9
.9
.1*
.1*
.9
.6
.8
.6
.2
.1
• 9
Filter Duct - Fly Ash Samples
B Wt. Resist. Est. <£ SOj,
(mgj (mg.)c Dil. pH (Ohms) SOU (%) Grav.
0.0 1287.1 10:1 6.5 52,000 5.6
0.0
0.0 2581*. 3 10:1 7.0 77,000 3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0 :
0.0
0.0
0.1 l61*l*.3 10:1 7.2 67,000 l*.l*
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6 2350.0 10:1 7.1 7(1,000 U.O
0.1* 1117.1*
0.2
1.1* 2750.2 10:1 6.7 53,000 5.1*
i.o 2336.1
0.8
1.2
0.7
1.1
0.8 92U.9 10:1 8.0 1*1,500 6.8
0.1* 507.3 6.6d
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6 2219.0 10:1 7.2 68,000 l».l*
6.2 2031.1 1.7* 2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5 2309.5
0.7 1530.6 3.5d 2.3
0.0
0.7
o.i*
0.7
2271.0 3.T^
Su£ -.uncer.tration
Autonete r
A:;tometer Titriio^ Minus Titrilop
1*5.19
1*5-29
31-52
15.1*0
9.08
1*8.81
52.21*
1*9.61
53-03
21.37
36.90
38.75
25.22
12.51
7.59
i*.59
39.87
38.81
28.22
13.87
7.80
1*.72
32.70
25.60
12.60
i*.50
2.1*5
1.95
1*1.31
1*0.90
56.52
25.96
11.1*2
6.65
1*9.85
55-72
it7.66
27.89
9^83
59.1*6
39.1*6
22. lU
11.07
6.87
3.71
1*2.1*7
1*1.51
25.01*
12.01*
6.1*5
33.10
2U.50
10.90
3.80
2.28
1.80
,21*
,56
5.98
2.1*5
-1.02
-1.1*8
1.95
5.11*
5.05
U.91
-2.56
-0.71
5,o8
1.1*1*
0.72
0.88
-2.60
-2.70
5.18
1.85
1.55
0.58
-0.1*0
l.io
1,70
0.70
0.17
0.15
Oxidation
8.59
9-69
16.51*
23.98
25.81*
26.98
-2.09
-2.83
3-95
15.56
23.51*
35-51
-6.91*
-1.85
12.21
11.51
19-17
-6.52
-6.96
11.27
15-19
17.51
12.29
-1.22
1*.30
13-1*9
15.56
6.9l»
7.69
a. Without filter
b. With filter
c. Sample period, 1*0-70 minutes
d. Soxhlet extraction entire sample, diluted to 250 ml. and refluxed for 2 hours
e. Gravimetric analysis
-------
Table 18
EFITECT OF DILUTION OS FLY ASH pH
Sample 1: Electrostatic precipitator No. 1 collected
from Colbert trailer on 10/20/59, weight
35.1+ mg.j and initially diluted to 1+5 cc.
Instrument check against standard solution pH - 7.00
la. Aliquot of initial dilution, unfiltered
Ib. Aliquot of initial dilution, filtered
lc. Aliquot, dilution increased to 10 cc.
per mg, , filtered
Id. Aliquot, dilution increased to 10 cc.
per mg,, unfiltered
Sample 2: Thimble fly ash sample collected inside unit 2
duct on 10/20/59 - 100 mg, diluted to 100 cc.
of distilled water
2a. Aliquot of initial dilution, unfiltered
Date
10/21/59
Time
0900
0903
0910
0909
0913
0912
0950
091+7
£H
7.00
1+.50
1+.1+9
6.20
6,22
5.82
5.80
7.18
7.20
10/21/59
Time
133*
1332
131+6
1335
1337
1339
pH
7.00
*t.55
1+.50
6.00
6.00
5.70
7.30
10/22/59
Time
081+2
081t3
08.5
0900
O8lt3
O81t9
£H
7.00
It, 50
U. 50
6.16
5.8U
5.90
7.22
2b. Aliquot of initial dilution, filtered
2c. Aliquot dilution increased to 10 cc.
per mg., filtered
2d. Aliquot, dilution increased to 10 cc.
per mg,, unfiltered
Inst. check against standard solution
pH distilled water, unfiltered
pH distilled water, filtered
*This was bottom sample, more visible fly ash
0958
1000
095*
0921+
0925
6.85
7.00
6.90
7.00
6.90
6.70
6.92 0852 6.88
13^3
7.00 085!+
6.99
131+5 6.99 0856 6.90
7.01 7.00
-ti-
ro
-------
1*1
Table 17
CHAMBER SOg OXIDATION STUDIES
COLBERT STEAM PLANT
Scrubber Samples S
Electrostatic Precipitator Samples
Date
(1959)
9/3U
10/1
10/2
10/12
10/13
10/16
10/19
10/20
10/22
Test
No.
1
3
U
c
1
2
3
1*
6
1
2
h
5
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
1*
5
6
1
2
3
I*
5
6
1
2
3
1*
5
6
1
2
i
j^
5
6
1
2
(4
t;
6
Vit.
(mg.)
50.6
6.0
2.3
2.5
1.3
0.1*
0.5
68.6
18.3
8.5
1*.2
3-1
5.7
2.2
1.2
17.7
12.2
10.2
2.U
26.7
26.7
lU.o
6.6
3.0
1*3.2
37.7
11.7
l*.7
2.9
35.1*
11.5
2.9
7.7
6.6
Dil.
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
1:1
10:1
1:1
10:1
3:1
10:1
10:1
Resist.
p_H (Ohms)
5.6 1^6.500
6.i* 1*1*, 300
1«.9 32,600
U.c
1*.8
6.6 67,000
5.6 1*1*, 500
6.0 53,000
1*.9 27,200
1*.9 22,600
5.0
5.6
5.2 1*9,000
i*.6
it.8
i*.o
6.6d
6.6 1*2,500
5.5 37,000
5.5
6.1
U.6
6.3
U.5
6.0
U.7
5.U
5.6
6.7d
Aa
B"
Est. Minutes SOa
s°l* (%) Operated (ppm) (ppm)
6.2 '30
6.4 ^0
b.3 30
30
30
30
30
30
U.-U 30
6.1* 30
5.U 30
9-6 30
60
11.2 30
30
30
5.8 30
30
30
30
30
30
30
5.6e 30
6.6 29
7-6 29
30
33
29
29
28
30
30
57
io.i*e 58
58
30
150
58.3
50.1
29.6
16.9
8.9
20.7
13.8
7.9
6.3
5.2
3.9
50.0
UU. 1
29.1
21.5
15.8
12.5
2U.9
3-2
0.8
1*1.1*
39.7
1*1.1
20.1
10.5
5-1
1*2.3
1*5.1*
38.8
27.9
16.1
11.6
36.2
38.5
19-9
9-9
6.7
5.2
1*2.0
1*2.8
2l*.l*
12.1
6.9
U.7
32.8
25. U
10.9
U.7
2.7
2.0
62.9'
56.3
32.2
20.5
13.2
8.9
6.2
3^6
50.1
1*5.0
30. U
22.5
17.1
12.3
2U.2
3.3
0.5
U0.2
Uo.6
37- U
20.7
10.0
6.3
1*1.0
U6.3
38. U
22.8
17.2
10.8
31.3
35-9
16.9
10.1*
6.1*
U.9
39.6
38.8
21.6
11.2
7-1
U.9
Filter Duct - Fly Ash Samples
B Wt. Resist. Est.
(mg.) (rng.jl0 Dil. pji (Ohms) SOU (%)
0.0 1287.1 10:1 6.5 52,000 5.6
0.0
0.0 258U.3 10:1 7.0 77,000 3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1 16UU.3 10:1 7.2 67,000 U.U
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6 2350.0 10:1 7.1 7!*;, 000 U.O
O.U 1117. U
0.2
l.U 2750.2 10:1 6.7 53,000 5.U
1.0 2336.1
0.8
1.2
0.7
1.1
0.8 92U.9 10:1 8.0 Ui,500 6.8
O.U 507.3 6.6d
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6 2219.0 10:1 7.2 68,000 U.U
0.2 2031.1 3.7d
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5 2309.3
0.7 1530.6 3.5d
0.0
0.7
o.U
0.7
2271.0 3.7d
% SOjj A;:tometer
Grav. (ppir.)
U5.19
U5. 29
U3.76
31.52
15. Uo
9.08
U8.81
52. 2U
Ug.6l
33.03
21.37
1U.7U
36.90
2.6 38.75
25.22
12.51
7-59
U.59
39.87
2.3 38.81
28.22
13.87
7.80
U.72
32.70
25.60
12.60
U.50
2.U5
1.95
u£ L':>ncer.tration .
Autometer
Titriicv. Minus Titrilo? 4
(pprr. ', (ppjn) Oxidation
1*1.31
Uo.90
36.52
23.96
11. U2
6.63
U9.83
53.72
U7.66
27.89
16. 3U
9.83
39.U6
39. U6
22. lU
11.07
6.87
3-71
1*2. U7
Ui.51
25. OU
12. OU
6.U5
U.1U
33-10
2U.50
10.90
3.80
2.28
1.80
3,88
U.39
7.2U
7.56
3.98
2.U5
-1.02
-1.U8
1.95
5.1U
5.03
U.91
-2.56
-0.71
3.08
l.UU
0.72
0.88
-2.60
-2.70
3.18
1.83
1.35
0.58
-o.Uo
1.10
1.70
0.70
0.17
0.15
8.59
9-69
16. 5U
23.98
25. 8U
26.98
-2.09
-2.83
3.93
15.56
23. 5U
33-31
-6.9U
-1.83
12.21
11.51
19.17
-6.52
-6.96
11.27
13.19
17.31
12.29
-1.22
U.30
13. U9
15.56
6.9U
7.69
a. Without filter
b. With filter
c. Sample period, 1*0-70 minutes
d. Soxhlet extraction entire sample, diluted to 250 ml. and refluxed for 2 hours
e. Gravimetric analysis
-------
Table 18
EFFECT OF DIKJTIOW OS FLY ASH pH
Sample
1: Electrostatic precipitator No. 1 collected
from Colbert trailer on 10/20/59, weight
35.1* mg.j and initially diluted to 1*5 cc.
10/21/59
Time
Instrument check against standard solution pH - 7.00
la.
Ib,
Ic.
*ld.
Sample
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
Inst
Aliquot of initial dilution, unfiltered
Aliquot of initial dilution, filtered
Aliquot, dilution increased to 10 cc.
per mg,, filtered
Aliquot, dilution increased to 10 cc.
permg,, unfiltered
2: Thimble fly ash sample collected inside unit 2
duct on 10/20/59 - 100 mg. diluted to 100 cc.
of distilled water
Aliquot of initial dilution, unfiltered
Aliquot of initial dilution, filtered
Aliquot dilution increased to 10 cc.
permg., filtered
Aliquot, dilution increased to 10 cc.
per mg, , unfiltered
. check against standard solution
pH distilled water, unfiltered
pH distilled water, filtered
0900
0903
0910
0909
0913
0912
0950
091*7
0958
1000
0951+
0921*
0925
EH
7.00
1+.50
l*.l*9
6.20
6,22
5,82
5.80
7.18
7.20
6.85
7.00
6.90
7.00
6.90
6.70
Date
10/21/59
Time pJH
7.00
133!+ 1+.55
1332 1+.50
131*6 6,00
1335 6.00
1337 5-70
1339 7*30
131+1 6.92
131+3 7.00
131+5 6.99
7-01
10/22/59
Time
081*2
08U3
081*5
0900
081*3
081*9
0852
085!+
0856
pH
7.00
l*,50
1+.50
6.16
5.81*
5.90
7.22
6.88
6.99
6.90
7.00
-c-
ro
*This was bottom sample, more visible fly ash
-------
Table 19
OXIDATION STUDIES - COLBERT STEAM PLANT PLUME
Date
(I960)
8/2
•9/2
10/lU
10/26
10/28
5/3
8/19
10/11
Sample
No,
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
Travel from
Time (Min.)
5
5
5
30
78
12
60
6
12
81*
13
13
13
108
23
12
96
Point of Emission
Distance (Mi.)
.25-1
.25-1
.25-1
1-1.5
2-3
8
.5-1-5
5-6
.25-1.25
8-9
•5-1.5
8-9
1.1
1.1
1.1
8-10
.75-2
.5-1.5
8
Relative Humidity S02
in Plume (%) Oxidation ($)
Low Rates:
0
0
1.20
0
3.70
2.20
62 2.15
51* 3 • 23
1*5 1.50
1+8 2.70
68 1.10
70 1* . 10
High Rates:
13.80
10.00
19.20
55-50
8.00
7*+ 21.60
73 32.00
-------
Table 20
50g OXIDATION STUDIES - COLBERT STEAM PLANT FLUME
Distance-: Plume
from Travel
Date
(I960)
5/3
8/2
8/19
9/2
10/11
10/lU
10/26
10/28
bar.pic
Nc.
1
3
1
2
3
1*
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
^
1
2
Plant
(Miles)
1.1
1.1
1.1
.25-1
.25-1
.25-1
1-1.5
8-10
-75-2
2-?
a
.5-1.5
8
-5-1.5
5-6
.25-1.25
8-9
.5-1-5
8-9
Time
(Min.)
13
13
--3
5
5
5
15
108
23
30
78
12
96
12
60
6
8U
12
8U
*Sanple
Time
Start
0526
0627
0719
0507
0555
061*1
0728
0511*
0630
0521
'0656
0633
0736
0630
072U
'0628
072U
061*7
0800
Stop
0553
0658
0750
0538
0627
0711
0811
0607
0655
0602
07U3
0708
082U
0652
08lU
070U
0820
0721
0855
Elev.
(Ft . )
812
713
800
660
700
730
920
950
950
850
1600
800
800
700
700
600
750
800
900
Approx .
wind
Speed
(raph)
5
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
Plume
Temp.
(°F. )
56
56
56
77
77
76
79
69
6?
7U
7U
65
65
68
70
62
60
50
U8
Ground
Temp.
(°K. )
45
35
7U
76
80
83
71
71
65
7U
57
60
58
6l
58
62
U7
56
Rel. Humidity
Ground
(%)
9?
86
80
73
+95
+95
96
96
99
98
96
89
89
75
99
83
Plume
(*)
7U
73
62
5U
U5
1+8
68
70
S03**
(ppm)
2.1*
2.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.07
0.06
1.0
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.03
O.OU
0.03
4Mf>
OQ ^**
(ppm;
15.0
18.0
16. 0
6.0
6.0
5.0
3.0
0.8
2.3
1.9
2.U
3.6
0.17
5.0
2.1
1+.6
1.1
3.6
0.71
•*-*•
TDtal
(ppm)
17. U
20.0
1Q.2
6.0
6.0
5.06
3.0
1.8
2.5
1.97
2.U6
1+.6
0.25
5.11
2.17
U.67
1.15
3.6U
0.7U
Oxidation
(%)
13.6
10.0
19-2
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
55.5
3.0
3.7
2.2
21.6
32.0
2.15
3.23
1.5
2.7
1.1
U.I
Weather Observations
Fair; slight fog at ground.
Fair; slight haze to the E and N of t>lant.
Fair.
No clouds; very hazy and smoky; no sunshine.
Very hazy and smoky; no sunshine due to haze and smoke.
Hazy and smoky; bright red sun visible through smoke and haze.
Mist and fog over general area; complete cloud cover.
Discontinued because of rain.
Haze; no mist.
Fair; sun shining.
.8 cloud cover; fog and haze in low areas.
.1* cloud -:over; haze in area.
.6 cloud cover; fog and haze in low areas.
.8 cloud cover; fog and haze in low areas.
High overcast of clouds; no sunlight.
High overcast of clouds; no sunlight.
Clear and sun shining.
Clear; slightly hazy near ground.
*Elevation above ground level at, point of emission.
**Based on soluble sulfate; first decimal determinations were gravimetric; second decimal determinations were colorimetric.
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Division of Health and Safety
and
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Division of Air Pollution
APPENDIX B
FIGURES
Chattanooga, Tennessee
August 196U
-------
Figurs 1. Me OF COLSEK? STEAM PLAMT SITE - HEAR TUSCUMBIA, ALABAMA
-------
Figure 2. COLBERT STEAM PLANT
-------
Figure 3, StS'ijMHG??' *ED CSiBSfMSIOST OF STACKS - C01SEBT STSAM PLA3K
-------
Figure h. AIR SAMPLING AND AUXILIARY INSTRUMENTS IN HELICOPTER
-------
SOURCE
.5 .75 1.0
j i i
MILES
FLIGHT PATH
2.0
i
FLIGHT PATH
PLAN
SECTION A-A
A
±10 MILES
Fig-are ?, SAMPLE ZLM » TivY£BSION GONDI'TIONS
-------
JL
SKID
ID
0.075 DIA. ORIFICE
SAMPLE PROBE
r 1.0.
LD-
TITRILOG
HELICOPTER
COCKPIT
SKID-
Figure 6. SCHEMATIC PLAN - HELICOPTER AIR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
-------
52
THE ts-irmjNr-ANGU'j Co.. INC.. inoiAN*»-wti^. IND .U.S.A. ES
v0 -'T-y.... •... >:...-a---3J—
--i^i~i±r-±^j.
THE ESTERLINE-ANGUS Co., INC .INDIANAPOLIS IMO.U.S.A CHART No. 4313-C
THE ESTFRLINE-ANGUS Co., INC., iNoi*N*nou's wv u.s A CHART No.
0)
Figure 7. TEDRIKG CHARE ILLUSTRATING S02 DISTRIBCTICM, DAY 2
Page 1 of 2
-------
JL
SKID
J>
0.075 DIA. ORIFICE
SAMPLE PROBE
I" 1.0.
TITRILOG
HELICOPTER
SKID'
Figure 6. SCHEMATIC PLAN - HELICOPTER AIR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
VJl
H
-------
52
THE E:.-rrm.iMr-ANGUS Co.. INC.. |"O.*N*«-OHS.INO.U.S.A ES
v- __\ _'.
v \ \\ \
THE ESTERLINE-ANGOS CO.. INC..INDIANAPOLIS (NO.U.S.A CHART NO. 4313-C
\ - \ ' \ i.m :'\.i__T_'V
\ • x\ rh .1 X., Ht'/Mi*:
THE E^TERLINE-ANGUSCO.. lNC..lNO.AN.roL.».l*v U.S » Clir.nl NO
. .{&.L /... -,' /0\- -M>
o>
Figure 7. TESSILCG CHART ILLUSTRATING S02 DISTRIBCTICM, DAY 2
Page 1 of 2
-------
52a
\
THE ESTCRLINE-ANGUS CO.,|NC.,INOIAN*POIIB.IND.,U.S.A. GHAUT NO, 43ia-c
.: \ \ U-n
-A—A-96- V
_._.! i v.-w
Ber
A
_
'
W£EM
r 2 A
60 ••-
M
'/f-f-S
&.etf.^6P'-
«*?/•-. --/-so.- /
J.-IQ.
J±
0)
IN u.r*. THE ESTERUINE-ANGUS CO.. INC., INOIANAPOM*, IND U.S. A ES
Figure 7. ETSBILOG CmBSJ
SCfe D1STRIBUT1OT, DiAJ 2
Page 2 of 2
-------
800
600 -\
400-7
800-
600-
400-
H
U d
w 800 H
•I---..
53
| MILE
I-
| MILE
Q
Z
3
oc 400 H
e>
UJ
O 800-1
<
O 600
^ 400
uj :
800-4
J
MILE
^
2 MILES
600-
^x
^
MILES
400--
-o-
0
400 800 1200
HALF WIDTH IN FEET
1600
2000
Figure 8, MPSO&L PlfflME CROSS SECTION 9/^/^1, MI 1
-------
3000
9-28-57
SOOO
2500
2000
1500
JOOO
500
SFC
TEMPERATURE - F.
Figure 9» TEMPERATURE PROFILES,, DAI 2
-------
55
stoo
sooo
ttoo
tooe
1800
1000
too
IFC
• -«8-8T
1
)
0.80^
\
1
/
1
/
1031
pM
\
\
\
/ /'
! /
A
!\
V
1100
1000
MOO
1000
1100
1000
100
10 It tO It SO M
WIND SPEED - MPH
••18-ST
ito too iw too no 040 oto i«o
WIND DIRECTION - DEGREES
Figure 10. RELATION - WIND SPEED AND WIND DIRECTION
TO ELEVATION, DAY 2
-------
56
1509
500
0.01 O.I
5 20 50 80 95 99 99.9 99.99
S02 CONC. - PPM - % S
Figure Ho DISTRIBUTION OF S02 IN PLUME, DAY 2
-------
57
Figure 12. DISTRIBUTION OF POINTS FOR CALCULATED S02 CONCENTRATION
-------
200 400 600
200 400 600
2 MILES
200 400 600
2OO 4OO 600 800
WIDTH OR DEPTH - FEET
Figure 13. CALCULATED S02 DISTRIBUTION ALONG Y AND Z AXES, DAY 2
00
-------
59
4000
3500
K-'
u.
I
x
a
UJ
o
o
i
5
O
UJ
r>
S
o:
3
V)
-------
60
aw
9<>
-------
61
•to
40
•ac
z
GL
O.
1 25
O
o
o
0 2O
V)
-I
X
** 15
5
r»
C
s?
O
o
o
o
cfb
o
o
o
^
8
rt
0
0°
'
o
o
o
ffr
^
0
o
o
o
o
10
15 2O 25
AV. S02 CONC. - PPM
Figure 16. RELATION - CALCULATED AXIAL AND AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS
-------
100.0
10.0
Ul
cc
Ul
I-
LJ
oc
<
a.
O.I
0.01
-2
62
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
TEMPERATURE GRADIENT, BOTTOM OF PLUME TO TOP OF PLUME - °F./1000'
14
Figure 17. RELATION - niy, mz, Cy, AND GZ TO TEMPERATURE GRADIEWI (LINE SOURCE)
-------
IOOO
10
20
3O 4O 50 6O
DEGREES OFF LINE OF STACKS
70
80
Figure 18. RELATION - PLUME WIDTH AMD DEPTH TO WiPFD DIRECTION AND STACK ALIGNMENT
-------
STACKS
2Z
90°
Figure 19, RSLAT1CM ~ PLUME WIDTH AND DEPTH TO WOT) DIRECTION
(FROM wo OR MORE STACKS)
-------
100
10
LU
CC
LU
OC.
O.I
m
O.OI
-2 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE (ibL'KIENT, 3.0TTOM OF FLUME TO TCP OF PLUME - °F./1000'
Figure 20, 3S3ST E3TIMA3E IP , B , C , C,, - POSiT SOORCE
c? •-• Jr **
-------
66
I
O
Q.8
0.6
2 0.4
0.2
Ayn- (n- I) A SIN 9
200
400 600
AYn - FEET
800
1000
RELATION - RATIO OF ni TO
^zn • (n-l) -f COS 9
LO
0.8
M
E 0.6
o
< 0.4
0.2
40 80 120
A*n - FEET
RELATION - RATIO OF mz TO
160
200
Figure 21
-------
o
I
o
0
Ayn • (n- I) A SIN 0
V
200
400 600
A - FEET
800
1000
RELATION - RATIO OF Cy TO Ay
-i COS 0
80
120
- FEET
RELATION - RATIO OF C, TO A-
Z Z-
Figure 22
n
160
200
-------
10
68
WIND SPEED - MPH
15 20 25
IOOO
J/g MILE
I
AV. WIND SP. 11.5 MPH
.LAPSE 6.5° 1/1,00)0' ,.
V
'•f
20OO
UJ
UJ
iL
z
o
I
u
_l
UJ
IOOO
AV. WIND SPEED 12.9 MPH
AV. LAPSE 6.1 ° ^1,000'
20OO
IOOO
2 MILES
'AV. WIND SPEED 17.3 MPH
AV. LAPSE 6.6° F/1,0001
COO IOOO 1500
1/2 PLUME WIDTH - FT.
55
6O 65
TEMP. - • F
TO
Figure 25. PLUME CROSS SECTION, TEMPERATUKE PROFILE,
AND V.'IED SPEED PROFILE, DAY 7
-------
69
rj i 4in r
u • A es
-\ * v_ V- \ V ^ \
\ \ ^ ~\
-------
THF. ESTERLINC-ANGUS CO., INC., INDIANAPOLIS. Inn .US A CM AMI NO. 4313-C
• THE EST
:-i-.-.-.\-..:-.V-..--:-V.:-- ''-\- " ' \ -"-A
:--.--..:V--"-.-.y.^.:\--.---.\"- -V- •-
Figure 2h. TITRILOG CHABTS ILLUSTRATING S02 DISTRIBUTION, DAY 7
Page 2 of 2
-------
20
5
Q.
QL
P
O
O
(O
15
10
o
5 10 15 20
AV. S02 CONC. - PPM
25
Figure 25. RELATION - MAXIMUM TO AVERAGE S02 CONCENTRATION
-------
3500
300O
\
(I) DAY NO.
25 OO
UJ
UJ
UL 2QOO
I
z
o
> I50O
UJ
_)
UJ
IOOO
(7)
4-11-58
4-16-58
3-27-59
(6)
3-31-59
(2)
• 4-2-58
4-1-59
4-7-58-
4-9-58-
(5)
(9)
-IO-24-60
(tO)\\
4-3-59A
V
5OO
\
\ \
\
V
SFC
\ ^
\
30 35
4O 45 50 55 6O 65
TEMP. - °F
70 75
8O
Figure 26, AVERSE CHABPS-S OF TSMFEMTUBE WITH ELEVATION - .EACH SAMPLING PERIOD
-------
2000
4-16-58
1000
g
M
E-i
§ 2000
1000
0
6 8
S02 CONCENTKATION - PHI
Figure 27. PROFIIE OF S02 ALONG Z AXIS, DAY 7
ro
-------
75
7OO
600
500
400
3OO
Ao
200
100
I
-13-18 MPH-
•8- 12 MPH
1
•19-24 MPH
I
O 8-12 MPH
A 13-18 MPH
+ I9-24MPH
100
2OO
300
4OO
500
600
TOO
Figure 28. RELATION - or AMD c?z
-------
I - my + mz AV. ALL VALUES 2- my + mz AV. ALL VALUES WHERE my OR mz fc O.5 SI.O
3 - MAX AV. OF my OR mz (ALL VALUES) 4 -MAX AV. OF my OR m, WHERE my OR mz £ O.5 S I.O
IO
II
Figure
-------
75
LOG CY « -0.101167 - 0.015439 X WIND SPEED
STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE = 0.054586
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT « 0.87
my = mz = 0.75
I.O
0.5
>•
o
O.I
+ I STANDARD ERROR
OF ESTIMATE
I STANDARD ERROR/
OF ESTIMATE- ^
95 % CONFIDENCE LIMITS
IO
14
18 22 26
WIND SPEED - FPS
3O
34
38
Figure 50. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS - RELATION Cy TO WIND SPEED
-------
LOG C? • -0.141965-0.011797 X WIND SPEED
STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE • 0.0561885
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT « 0.80
m - n\ s 0.75
I.O
0.5
CM
N
o
I STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE
STANDARD ERROR.
OF ESTIMATE-
95 % CONFIDENCE LIMITS
IO
14
18 22 26
WIND SPEED - FPS
30
34
38
Figure 31. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS - RELATION Cz TO WIND SPEED
-------
77
I
N
o
tr
o
>-
o
LOGCy OR Cz =-0.121340-0.013635 X WIND SPEED
STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE = 0.0578577
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT = 0. 82
my ? mz = 0.75
95 % CONFIDENCE LIMITS
22 26
WIND SPEED - FPS
Figure 52. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS - RELATION C AND Cz TO WIND SPEED
-------
78
m« =
= 0.75
1.0
0.5
u.
i
N
o
oc
o
o
O.I
IO
14
.6 £2 Z6 30
WIND SPEED - FPS
34
38
m
2
Figure 5'i. RELATION - Cy, C2 AND ATOP.AGE C, FT. , TO V.'IND SPEED
-------
79
O - fiyn AND my
X - Azn AND mz
500
Figure ?k. PEMTION - RATIO OF my AND nu FOR LINE AND POINT SOURCES
TO AV AND A7
^n zn
-------
80
100
N
O
CE
O
>>
O
u.
O
<
cc
|O
j
z
~7
/*
z
Z
X - FROM
O - FROM
z
100
200
300
Ayn OR
400
FEET
50O
6OO
700
Figure 35. RELATION - RATIO OF Cy AND Cz FOR LINE AND POINT SOURCES
TO Ay AND Aj,
-------
81
12
a.
0.
I
d
g 8
o
3 6
X
<
•
o
_J
<
o
4 6 8 IO 12
MEASURED AXIAL S02 CONC. - PPM
16
Figure j6. RELATION OF CALCULATED AXIAL S02 CONCENTRATION
TO MEASURED AXIAL S02 CONCENTRATION
-------
2000
456
DISTANCE IN MILES
8
10
Figure 37- OBSERVED FUJI® CENTERLINE ELEVATION WITH DISTANCE - INVERSION CONDITIONS
-------
2000
O
z
13
O
tr
P
UJ
>
o
to
<
UJ
_J
UJ
o*
111
5
D
_)
Q.
1500
1000
5OO
DISTANCE IN MILES
Figure 58. AVERAGE OBSERVED PLUME CENTERLESE ELEVATION
WITH DISTANCE - LAPSE CONDITIONS
-------
IOOO
*
u.
, 80O
Q.
O
CO
UJ
O
CD
.e-
-------
1000
80O
CL
O
O
2
CO
UJ
>
O
00
UJ
CO
60O
400
o
Ul
S
200
-4
2 0 ?, 4 6 8 IO
AV. LAPSE RATE. - "F/IOOO1 (STACK TOP TO PLUME TOP )
12
14
Fig-are 1*0o RELATION 0? FLUME RISE TO TEMPERATURE GRADIENT,
STACK TOP TO PUJME TOP - INVERSION CONDITIONS
CO
-------
10 OO
u.
I 800
Q_
O
O
£
en
ui
>
O
CD
CO
tr
UJ
6OO
400
V
200
-4
-2
0 2 4 6 8 IO 12
AV. LAPSE RATE - °F/IOOO' (BOTTOM TO TOP OF PLUME)
14
16
Figure Z*l. RELATION OF PLUME PISE TO TEMFERATlVEE GRAflIE3OTs
IN PLUME - INVERSION CONDITIONS
-------
1400
I20O
H
u>
I
CL IOOO
O
O
f
to
ID
>
O
CD
800
60O
(£
u 400
2OO
4
• AV. OBSERVED
O OBSERVED
6 8 IO 12 14 16 18 2O
AV. WIND SPEED - MPH (STACK TOP JO PLUME TOP)
22
00
Figure k2.. RELftTIOM 01 AVERAGE PiAME RISE TO WIND SPEED AT 1/2 AND 1 MILE FROM SOURCE -
LAPSE
-------
88
1000
eoo
H'
u.
HI
w
u
s
r>
6OO
400
O
O
ZOO
-8 -6 -4-2 0 2
AT/AZ -°F/IOOO( (BOTTOM TO TOP OF PLUME)
Figure Uj. RELATION OF AVERAGE PLUME RISE AT 1/2 AND 1 MILE
TO TEMPERATURE GRADIENT - LAPSE CONDITIONS
-------
1400
1200
H
LL
I
0. IOOO
O
O
8OO
O
GO
< 6OO
CO
cr
UJ 4OO
2OO
4
• AV. OBSERVED
O OBSERVED
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2O
AV. WIND SPEED - MPH (STACK TOP JO PLUME TOP)
22
Figure i+2, RELATION OF AVERAGE PLUME RISE TO WIHD SPEED AT 1/2 AND 1 MILE FROM SOURCE -
LAPSE CONDITIONS
GO
-------
\\J\J\J
800
u.
•
1 60O
UJ
E
UJ
s
3 4OO
CL
200
n
0
O
I
O
O
o
o
J
o
0
o
D O
0
-8 -6 -4-2 O 2
AT/AZ -°F/IOOOI (BOTTOM TO TOP OF PLUME)
Figure kj. RELATION OF AVERAGE PLUME RISE AT 1/2 AND 1 MILE
TO TEMPERATURE GRADIENT - LAPSE CONDITIONS
-------
69
STACK DUCT
INSULATED
ASPIRATORS
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
.rINTAKE LINE
IVHOT AIR INTAKE
HOT AIR RETURN
FLY ASH SAMPLER
(THIMBLE)
DILUTION
CHAMBER
HYGROTHERMOGRAPHS
IMPINGERS
AUTOMETER TRAILER
SEQUENTIAL
AUTOMETER
METERS
WATER SPRAY
Figure UU. FLUE GAS DILUTION AND SAMPLING FACILITIES
-------
90
70
0.
Q.
O
z
O
O
6O
50 —
40 -
3O -
20
IO -
WITHOUT FILTER
AUTOMETER
60
120
ISO
6O
12O
ISO
TIME - MINUTES
45
46
Figures '^5 and k6. RELATION OF AUTCMETER AND TITRILOG DATA
FROM DILUTION CHAMBER
-------
IOO
(ONE VOLUME AIR - DRY ASH TO APPROXIMATELY ONE VOLUME
OF DISTILLED WATER, TEMPERATURE OF 28° C.)
IO
10
TOTAL ELAPSED TIME IN MINUTES
100
Figure U?. SHIFT IN pH OF FLY ASH WITH TIME
-------
ro
g
if-l
TO
Cl
TEMPERATURE
-VACUUM
PUMP
DRY
METER
DRY
FILTER
GLASS FILTER
HOLDER
IMPINGERS
-------
93
NOMENCLATURE - DIFFUSION EQUATIONS
Symbol
z
exp
m
"V
mz
n
Q
u
X
inax
x
Xg
y
z
a
Diffusion coefficients along y axis
Diffusion coefficients along z axis
The value e
Stability parameter
Stability parameter along y axis
Stability parameter along z axis
Number of stacks (equations 16 and 1?)
S02 emission rate
Wind speed
SOg concentration
Maximum S02 concentration
Distance downwind from source
Distance from centerline along normal
distribution curve (Gaussian)
Crosswind distance from centerline of plume
Vertical distance from centerline of plume
Standard deviation of normal distribution
curve (Gaussian)
Standard deviation along y axis
Standard deviation along z axis
Angular difference between plume direction
and stack alignment
Distance between stacks
System of Units
I
ft. or ft.
m
m
ft. or ft.
2.718
dimensionless
dimensionless
dimensionless
ft.5/sec.
mph
ppm
ppm
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
degrees
ft.
GPO 896 296
------- |