EPA-450/3-77-003c
August 1977
IMPROVEMENTS
TO SINGLE-SOURCE MODEL
VOLUME 3:
FURTHER ANALYSIS
OF MODELING RESULTS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-77-003c
IMPROVEMENTS
TO SINGLE-SOURCE MODEL
VOLUME 3: FURTHER ANALYSIS
OF MODELING RESULTS
*>>
Michael T. Mills
GCA Corporation
GC A/Technology Division
Burlington Rd.
Bedford. Massachusetts 01730
Contract No. 68-02-1376
Task Order 23
EPA Project Officer: Russell F. Lee
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
August 1977
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library Services Office (MD-35) , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Burlington Road, Bedford,
Massachusetts 01730, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1376, Task
Order 23. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received
from GCA Corporation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No . EPA-450/3-77-003c
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents an evaluation of the model performance stratified by
six stability classes, three wind speed classes, and three mixing height
classes. The model accuracy is found to be dependent on stability class.
For stabilities A and B, the model shows some tendency to overestimate con-
centrations, especially near the plant. For stabilities D, E, and F, the
model greatly underestimates concentrations at all but the most distant
sampler- For stability C, the model tends to agree with the measurements.
Higher wind speeds result in a trend toward overestimates at the Muskingum
plant, and a trend toward underestimates at the Canal plant. Fot the Canal
plant, there does not appear to be a definite pattern between the accuracy
of the model estimates and mixing height. However, at the Muskingum plant,
large underestimates occur for the lowest mixing height class. This implies
that the model is treating the plume as penetrating the top of the mixed
layer (with resulting concentration estimates of zero) more frequently than
actually happens.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract i:Li
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Project Summary viii
Sections
I Introduction 1
II Site and Data Base Description 4
III Model Validation Procedures 13
IV Model Validation Results 16
V Conclusions and Recommendations 22
VI References 24
Appendix
A Cumulative Frequency Distributions 25
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
1 Map of Eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island Showing
Locations of the Canal Plant 5
2 Sketch of the Canal Plant Area Showing the Locations of
the Four Automatic S02 Stations by the Symbol© 8
3 Sketch of the Muskingum Plant Areas Showing Locations of
Four Automatic S02 Monitoring Stations 11
4 Determination of Hourly Mixing Heights 17
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1 Plant Characteristics 6
2 Monthly Percent Sulfur Content of Fuel 7
3 Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Stations for the Canal and 9
Muskingum Plants
4a Percentile for Wind Speed (Adjusted to 7 meters) and
Mixing Height Stratification 15
4b Percent Occurence of Different Stabilities for Canal
and Muskingum 15
5 Stability Class as a Function of Net Radiation and
Wind Speed 18
6 Model Validation Results for all Plants, Receptors and
Meteorological Conditions (0 - Overprediction, U =
Underprediction, A = Agreement) 21
VII
-------
PROJECT SUMMARY
This is a summary of the results and conclusions made in the three parts
of this study, with some relevant interpretive comments.
The first part of the study deals with analyses of ratios of peak 1-hour
to mean 3-hour, and peak 1-hour to mean 24-hour concentrations. Some
work had been done in previous studies; however, those results seemed to
be biased by the presence of a large number of very low concentrations.
In the present study this problem is avoided by analyzing only the peak-
to-mean ratios whose peak 1-hour value exceeds some arbitrary threshold
concentration. Actually three such threshold concentrations are selected,
corresponding to the 95th, 98th and 99th percentile values of the 1-hour
concentration distribution. The use of this restricted data set results
in more nearly log-normal frequency distributions of peak-to-mean ratios,
arid lower "standard geometric deviations of the peak-to-mean ratios. The
geometric means and the medians increase slightly. A comparison of the
50th and 95th percentile values of the peak 1-hour to mean 3-hour, and
peak 1-hour to mean 24-hour ratios is shown in Table S-l below, for both
the complete data set (from earlier studies) and the restricted data
set (the present study). The results of a TVA study at the Paradise
power plant in Kentucky are also included for comparison.
Conservative estimates of maximum 24-hour concentrations have often been
calculated by dividing the estimated maximum 1-hour value by a factor of
four. This factor was originally chosen from the 95th percentile ratio
found around the Paradise plant (see Table S-l). The peak 1-hour to peak
24-hour ratio (over a year's time) should occur somewhere between the
50th percentile and the 95th percentile values. The value (assuming the
Vlll
-------
same approximate degree of conservatism) is generally supported by the
peak-to-mean ratio distribution of the restricted data set (Table S-l).
The second part of the study involves testing and evaluation of several
possible model improvements. Specifically, the following cases are
tested for the Canal power plant and the Muskingum River power plant:
1. Base Case--Pasquill-Turner stability assignments with
Pasquill-Turner dispersion curves;
2. Pasquill-Turner stability assignments with Gifford-Briggs
dispersion curves;
3. Smith-Singer stability assignments with Smith-Singer dispersion
curves (one plant only);
4. Pasquill-Turner stability assignments with F.B. Smith a
curves and Pasquill-Turner a curves;
5. F.B. Smith fractional stability assignments with F.B. Smith
a curves and Pasquill-Turner a curves;
z y
6. Base case stability assignments and dispersion curves, but
with buoyancy flux (for plume rise calculations) made pro-
portional to emission rate.
The net outcome is that the proposed changes yield neither signifi-
cantly better nor significantly worse results than the base case.
Based upon the results of this study it is recommended that the methods
currently used for the calculation of dispersion coefficients and the
selection of stability classes not be replaced by alternate techniques,
at least until further model validation studies are conducted. Since
data from only two power plants are used in this study the results should
not be considered definitive. Nevertheless, even from these limited
results, a number of conclusions can be drawn:
1. The similarity between the Pasquill-Turner and Gifford-Brig^s
dispersion coefficients (except for stability A) requires
that a large number of model validation exercises be carried
out to determine which method is more accurate.
ix
-------
2. The use of the Smith-Singer stability assignment and
dispersion calculation methods in the Single Source Model
may yield unrealistic frequency distributions of 1-hour
concentrations. This observation must be qualified,
however, by the fact that the validation is carried out
only for the Muskingum plant. Since the rather subjective
stability assignment scheme may have been carried out
differently at the Muskingum plant, the use of the
Smith-Singer dispersion coefficients with the Single Source
Model may give better agreement with measured concentra-
tions if applied elsewhere.
3. Due to the strong variation of calculated concentrations
as a function of stability, the use of fractional stability
assignments should, in principle, lead to more accurate
model predictions. The F.B. Smith stability classification
method does not, however, provide better agreement between
measured and calculated concentration frequency distributions,
primarily because of its tendency to select slightly more
unstable conditions.
4. The use of a variable buoyancy flux in the Single Source
Model does little to improve the agreement between measured
and calculated concentration frequency distributions. This
conclusion is similar to others reached when more detailed
or applicable emissions or meteorological data have been
used in model validation exercises. The success or failure
of the model in any given application is much more a function
of the assumptions regarding plume rise, dispersion, and
terrain effects that form the theoretical basis for the
model.
The third part of the study consists of an evaluation of the model per-
formance stratified by six stability classes, three wind speed classes
and three mixing height classes.
The model accuracy is found to be dependent on stability class. For
stabilities A and B, the model shows some tendency to over estimate
concentrations, especially near the plant. This indicates that vertical
dispersion is overestimated in the model, and a values are too large.
x
-------
For stabilities D, E, and F, the model greatly underestimates concen-
trations at all but the most distant sampler. This indicates that
vertical dispersion in the model is underestimated for these stabili-
ties. For stability C, the model tends to agree with the measurements.
Higher wind speeds result in a trend toward overestimates at the Muskingum
plant, and a trend toward underestimates at the Canal plant.
For the Canal plant, there does not appear to be a definite pattern
between the accuracy of the model estimates and mixing height. However,
at the Muskingum plant, large underestimates occur for the lowest mixing
height class. This implies that the model is treating the plume as
penetrating the top of the mixed layer (with resulting concentration
estimates of zero) more frequently than actually happens. Thus, either
the mixing heights are underestimated, or the concept of complete plume
penetration may be in error.
xi
-------
Table S-l. COMPARISON OF PEAK-TO-MEAN RATIOS FOR COMPLETE AND RESTRICTED
DATA SETS
Plant name
Canal
Stuart
Muskingum
Philo
Paradise
Averaging
times of ratios
1-3 hourc
1-24 hourd
1-3 hour
1-24 hour
1-3 hour
1-24 hour
1-3 hour
1.24 hour
1-3 hour
1-24 hour
Complete
50th
percentile
of ratios
1.50
5.37
1.55
5.95
1.74
6.65
1.77
6.98
1.63
12.4
data set
95th
percentile
of ratios
1.02
1.69
1.00
1.93
1.00
2.38
1.04
2.47
1.00
4.00
Restricted
50th
percentile
of ratios
1.89
8.25
1.58
7.70
1.73
6.90
1.89
7.79
--
Q
data set
95th
percentile
of ratiosb'e
~1.20
~3.8
~1.00
~2.7
~1.15
~3.7
~1.20
~3.8
--
Restricted to peak-to-mean ratios whose peak values exceed the value of the
99th percentile of the 1 hour concentrations.
b
Percentile values given in terms of cumulative percent of ratios greater than
the given values.
c
Peak 1-hour to average 3-hour ratio for measured minus background SO?
concentration.
Peak 1-hour to average 24-hour ratio for measured minus background SOo
concentration.
g
These values wete estimated from the appropriate figures in Volume 1 of this
series.
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
This is the third in a series of reports dealing with possible improve-
ments to the EPA Single Source Model. The evaluation of these model
improvements is based upon earlier model validation studies for four
1 2
fossil-fueled power plants. ' The first volume of this series examined
in detailed the peak to mean concentration ratio distributions (1- to 3 hour
and 1- to 24 hour) constructed by use of hourly S02 measurements taken in
the vicinity of the four plants. The main objective of this study was to
investigate the properties of these peak to mean frequency distributions
as the 3 or 24-hour periods with peak 1-hour concentrations below various
threshold values were excluded. The purpose of this exercise was to develop
representative peak to mean concentration ratios which could be used to
extrapolate model predictions of peak 1-hour concentrations to peak 3-hour
and 24-hour values. During the second phase of our study we compared
different sets of dispersion curves (Pasquill-Turner, Gifford-Briggs,
F.B. Smith and Smith-Singer) and stability assignment methods (F.B. Smith
and Smith-Singer) with respect to their ability to yield accurate predic-
tions of 1-hour SOo concentration frequency distributions at two of the
power plants used in earlier studies. The basic conclusion reached during
this phase of the study was that the Single Source Model, as it now stands
gives the best agreement with measured concentrations. This result must
be qualified by the fact that only two plants were used and that not all
model formulations were tested. Even after the second phase of the study
was completed, there still remained the question whether the Single Source
Model was providing reasonable estimates of ground level concentrations on
an hour by hour basis. Up to this point, all of our model validation
-------
studies had been based upon a comparison of cumulative frequency distri-
butions of calculated concentrations and measured concentrations corrected
for background. In principle one should be able to make hour by hour
comparisons of predicted and measured concentrations, but in practice even
a local wind direction measurement is not a reliable indicator of the
plume trajectory- One can, however, carry out a more detailed model eval-
uation by comparing observed and calculated frequency distributions of
concentrations for specific types of meteorological conditions. Of special
interest is the comparison of observed and calculated distributions for
the different atmospheric stability classes.
For a test of this stratified comparison of measured and calculated con-
centration frequency distributions we chose the Canal Power Plant in
Massachusetts and the Muskingum Power Plant in Ohio. Results of an earlier
Single Source Model validation study at the Canal Plant^- showed an under-
prediction at all four receptor locations. Through a comparison of model
predictions with measured concentrations for each stability we hoped to
gain a better understanding for the reasons for the underprediction at
Canal. Also this procedure would help determine whether the relatively
good model agreement obtained for 1-hour concentrations at the Muskingum
plant was physically reasonable or simply due to a fortuitous combination
of over and underpredictions. In addition to developing comparisons of
measured and calculated concentration frequency distributions for each
stability, we have also stratified the comparison according to selected
wind speed and mixing height ranges. The comparison by wind speed could
point out difficulties with the plume rise formulation or the inadequate
treatment of terrain effects. The model validation by mixing height range
should reveal, especially for the lower range of mixing heights, any
problems with the way inversion penetration or plume reflection is currently
handled in the model.
In the next section we shall describe the data base used in the stratified
comparison of measured and calculated concentration frequency distributions.
-------
Section III will deal with the techniques used in the stratification
of measurements and Single Source Model predictions according to stability
wind speed and mixing height. Results of the validation study will be
presented in Section IV followed by a summary and conclusions in Section V.
-------
SECTION II
SITE AND DATA BASE DESCRIPTION
In this section we shall describe the site characteristics, S09 monitoring
program and meteorological data base for the two power plants (Canal and
Muskingum) included in the detailed model validation study. Each topic
will be covered on a plant-by-plant basis. Although this site and data
1 2
base description has been presented in previous model validation reports ' ,
it is repeated here to provide a quick reference for physical site para-
meters such as source-receptor distance, which are needed for the analysis
of the model prediction for different ranges of meteorological parameters.
CANAL PLANT
Site Description
The Canal Plant is located on the south side of the Cape Cod Canal about
1.6 kilometers from the entrance on Cape Cod Bay (Figure 1). The
surrounding terrain is gently rolling with elevations generally less than
60 meters above mean sea level. The highest elevations in the area are
about 90 meters above sea level in the western end of the Cape. Most of
the area is covered with scrub pine forests and low vegetation.
Data for the study were collected in 1971. During that year, the plant
consisted of a single oil-fired unit with a generating capacity of 560
megawatts. The top of the stack was about 91 meters above grade and 5.6
meters in diameter. The main power plant structure to the north of the
stack totally enclosed the turbine generator and boiler. The roofs of the
turbine and boiler rooms were about 30 meters and 59 meters above grade
-------
20
MASSACHUSETTS
I R H O 0 E . \
1 P8OVIDENCE
Figure 1. Map of eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island showing locations
of the Canal Plant. Meteorological observations were used from
Quonset Point Naval Air Station and Chatham
-------
respectively. Stack and boiler data are given in Table 1. The 1971
monthly percent sulfur content of the fuel used at the Canal Plant is
given in Table 2.
Table 1. PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic
Stack height, m
Diameter , m
Velocity, m/sec
Temperature, F
Number of boilers
per stack
Maximum generating
capacity per
stack, MW
Average per stack,
MW
Plant total, MW
Plant average, MW
Plant
Canal Muskingum
Stack
1
91
5.6
-
1
560
-
560
-
Stack
1
251
7.6
28.5
430
4
876
748
- — -
Stack
2
251
6.7
24.8
425
1
591
487
-• — — - -
1467
1235
-------
Table 2.
MONTHLY PERCENT
SULFUR CONTENT
OF FUEL
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Canal
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
Muskingum
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.7
5.0
4.7
4.7
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.4
Overview of Canal Plant Monitoring Program
S09 concentrations are measured at four locations on a continous basis
with Ultragas S02 Analyzers manufactured in Germany by H. Wosthoff.
These instruments measure sulfur dioxide by the increase in conductivity
of an acidified hydrogen peroxide solution and have a full scale reading
of 0.4 ppm. The instruments do not conform to the reference method for
sulfur dioxide or to any of the specified equivalent methods. They have,
however; been extensively studied and one comparison noted a correlation
coefficient of 0.99 with the West-Gaeke method. The instruments used
provide a continuous real-time chart trace and a tape printout giving
data, times and average concentration over consecutive 30 minutes. The
sensitivity- of the instrument in combination with the chart recorder is
approximately 0.005 ppm. The locations of the SO^ monitors with respect
to the Canal Plant are given in Figure 2 and Table 3.
-------
RTE 3 O
(AFTER
10/30/73)
\
SAGAMORE
BEACH
\
\
\
CAPE COO BAY
O4 (PRIOR TO
10/30/73)
N
Q5 I
km
SANDWICH
HARBOR
Figure 2. Sketch of the Canal Plant area showing the locations of the four automatic
S0~ stations by the symbolO
-------
Table 3. SULFUR DIOXIDE MONITORING STATIONS FOR THE CANAL
AND MUSKINGUM PLANTS
Plant
Canal
Muskingum
Station
No.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
-
Name
Beverly
Hackney
Rich Valley
Caldwell
Top of stacks
Distance,
km
4.7
2.3
1.4
2.0
5.3
4.3
8.3
19.6
-
Heading,
degrees
119
138
224
312
140
40
35
35
-
Elevation above
stack base, m
10
4
40
20
64
82
101
128
251
Meteorological Data for Canal Plant
Bendix-Friez Aeorovanes are used to provide local wind speed and direction
data. Through July 1971, the principal source of wind data was the
Aerovane mounted on a 12.2 meter mast located on the 58.8 meter boiler-
room roof. Since July 1971, wind data are obtained from a second Aerovane
installed on a 44 meter tower near the top of Telegraph Hill approximately
5 kilometers south-southwest of the Canal Plant. This hourly wind data
was used to define upwind receptor locations for calculation of hourly
background concentrations. A station was considered to be a background
receptor if it was located outside the boundaries of a 90 degree sector
centered about the wind flow vector. The concentrations for these back-
ground stations were then averaged and subtracted from the hourly concen-
trations at all stations. Any resultant negative concentrations were set
equal to zero. The on-site wind speed, wind direction and ambient tem-
perature data were also input to the Single Source Model after proper
conversion to a wind measurement height of 7 meters. These stability
dependent wind speed corrections were based upon hourly atmospheric
-------
stabilities derived from a Single Source Model Preprocessor run using sur-
face meteorological data for 1971 collected at Quonset Point Naval Air
Station. Hourly mixing heights for 1971 were based upon surface data from
Quonset Point, Rhode Island and upper air observations taken at Chatham,
Massachusetts. In this way a "hybrid" Preprocessor output file was generated
containing on-site wind speed, wind direction and temperature measurements
and nonlocal stability and mixing height assignments.
MUSKINGUM PLANT
Site Description
The Muskingum Plant is located in southeastern Ohio on the Muskingum
River about 6 kilometers northwest of the town of Beverly. Figure 3
indicates the location of the plant, the S09 monitoring sites, and the
surrounding towns. The plant is in the river valley about 500 meters from
the valley walls which rise about 75 meters above the valley floor. The
two 251 meter stacks are 640 meters apart and extend about 185 meters
above the surrounding terrain. During 1973 the plant consisted of five
coal-fired units with a total capacity of 1467 megawatts (Table 1).
Percent sulfur content of the fuel for 1973 is given in Table 2.
Overview of the Muskingum Monitoring Program
Four sulfur dioxide monitoring stations make up the monitoring network
(Figure 3 and Table 3). Data were available from all stations
for January 1 to November 21, 1973. During the entire year of 1973,
Station 1 missed 57 days and the other three stations missed approximately
41 days. Instruments at Muskingum were Leeds & Northrup Company, Catalog
No. 7860-SW, Aeroscan Air Quality Monitors. The sample was obtained by
passing ambient air taken from 5 feet above ground level, through an ab-
sorption column along with an absorption solution. The sample analysis
method was by electrolytic conductivity. Data were taken continuously
and listed every hour. Each instrument was automatically zeroed once a day.
10
-------
RICH VALLEY
CENTERVILLE
HACKNEY #2
RT 76
MUSKINGUM PLANT
STACK I
O
STACK 2
N
KILOMETERS
12345
j i i i i
^WJ
77,
BEVERLY
*l
Figure 3. Sketch of the Muskingum Plant area showing locations of
four automatic S02 monitoring stations
11
-------
The manufacturer's performance accuracy specifications for this instru-
ment are as follows. In a typical ambient atmosphere which includes
the normal interfering gases, this instrument has:
• Zero drift = 2 percent of full scale per week
• Sensitivity drift < 1 percent of full sfiale per week
• Reproductibility < 1 percent of full scale
• Sensitivity = 0.01 ppm
• Recorder error < 0.5 percent of full scale
• Range = approximately 0 to 1 ppm
Meteorological Data for Muskingum Plant
There were two wind monitoring stations at the Muskingum Plant consisting
of Bendix-Friez Aerovane wind speed and direction devices. One station
was located 24 meters above ground at Beverly, and the other at the
Hackney S0« monitoring station, where the wind monitors were also located
24 meters above ground. The data from Hackney was used in this study, as
it was higher and common to more stations, but Beverly data was used when
the Hackney system was not recording. On-site hourly wind direction
data was used for the assignment of upwind receptor locations whose
concentrations were then used in a background subtration procedure iden-
tical to the one described for the Canal plant. Wind speeds at these
two meteorological stations were converted to the 7 meter height by means
of the stability dependent power law currently used in the Single Source
Model and hourly stabilities based upon Huntington, West Virginia sur-
face observations for 1973. A hybrid Preprocessor output file was then
constructed using local wind direction and corrected wind speed data in
conjunction with ambient temperature and stability assignments from
Huntington. Hourly mixing heights were based upon surface and upper air
data both collected at Huntington.
12
-------
SECTION III
MODEL VALIDATION PROCEDURES
As was pointed out in Section II, local tneteoroligical data was used for
model input in the Canal and Muskingum validation studies. Unfortunately
observations of ceiling height and percent cloud cover were not obtained
on site but had to be taken from observations made at stations over a
100 kilometers distant. Wind speeds measured on site could not be used
in conjunction with off site ceiling height and percent cloud cover obser-
vations to calculate the atmospheric stability index since the on site
wind speeds were measured on towers higher than the standard 7 meter
height used in the Pasquill-Turner stability assignment scheme. The on
site wind speed was still used in the calculations of plume rise and plume
dilution after they were converted to stack top wind speeds by means of a
stability dependent power law profile. On site wind directions were used
both for model calculations and background subtraction. It should be
noted that hourly wind direction inputs to the model are only specified to
the nearest 10 degrees. The model chooses the location of the plume axis
within the 10 degree interval by means of a random number routine. For
the Canal Plant validation, on site temperature measurements were used.
3
Since the Single Source Model was described in Volume II of this series,
we will deal briefly with those aspects of the model most pertinent to the
present model validation study. The basis for the selection of wind speed
and mixing height intervals for the Canal and Muskingum plants was an anal-
ysis of the Meteorological Preprocessor Program output for each of these
facilities. Input to this program consists of wind speed (knots), wind
direction sector (1 to 36), temperature (°F), total cloud cover (tenths),
ceiling (hundreds of feet), and twice daily mixing heights (meters). The
13
-------
output file contains hourly values of stability index, mixing height (meters);
temperature ( K), windspeed (meters/sec), flow vector (wind direction plus
180 degrees), and randomized flow vector. The randomized flow vector is
equal to the flow vector minus 4 degrees plus a random number between 0 and
9 degrees. The procedure for the determination of hourly "rural" mixing
heights from the twice daily mixing height measurements is decribed in
3
Volume II . Hourly stabilities are specified according to the system
4
given by Turner employing Pasquill's classification scheme with the
addition of a stability class 7 (i.e., G) for which the assumption is
made that the plume does not reach the ground. Pasquill-Turner dispersion
curves for stabilities A through F are used in the calculation of ground
level concentrations. Plume rise is calculated on an hourly basis using
f\ 1 ft
the method of Briggs ' ' . If the plume rise calculation indicates that
the plume axis will rise above the mixing layer, then a zero concentration
contribution is specified. If the final plume height is below the top of
the mixing layer, the presence of the top of the layer is accounted for
by the introduction of image plumes to satisfy the zero flux conditions
at ground level and at the top of the mixing layer. Source inputs to the
model include stack height, diameter, gas exit velocity and gas temperature.
Emission rates are input for each hour of the year.
The Meteorological Preprocessor Program output files for the Canal and
Muskingum plants were analyzed to determine the frequency distributions of
hourly wind speeds and mixing heights at each location. These distributions
were then divided into three equal parts with the 33-1/3 and 66-2/3 per-
centile values given in Table 4a. Each of the three wind speed and mixing
height classes represent one-third of the 8760 hours included in the simu-
lation. The percentage breakdown of hours by stability class for each
plant is given in Table 4b. Stability G was not included in the stratified
breakdown of data. The preprocessor output file was then reread for both
plants so that hourly values of stability (1 to 6), wind speed class (1 to 3)
and mixing height class (1 to 3) could be calculated. These values were
in turn used to generate subsets of measured and calculated concentration
files for each of the stability, wind speed and mixing height classes.
14
-------
Cumulative frequency distributions of measured and calculated concentra-
tions were then generated for each of the data subsets and plotted on a
log-probability scale.
Table 4a. PERCENTILE FOR WIND SPEED (ADJUSTED TO 7 METERS)
AND MIXING HEIGHT STRATIFICATION
Plant
Percentile
Wind speed (m/sec)
Mixing height (m)
Canal
33 1/3
2.6
750
66 2/3
4.0
1250
Muskingum River
33 1/3
1.6
800
66 2/3
2.4
1200
Table 4b. PERCENT OCCURENCE OF DIFFERENT STABILITIES FOR
CANAL AND MUSKINGUM
Percent
Stability
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Canal
0.4
5.0
12.2
54.8
10.1
6.3
11.2
Muskingum
1.4
9.1
12.8
44.4
7.2
7.2
17.9
15
-------
SECTION IV
MODEL VALIDATION RESULTS
As an aid in the interpretation of the model validation results we should
point out some of the relationships among the three meteorological variables
used in our analysis-stability class, wind speed and mixing height. Atmo-
spheric stability class, determined according to Turner's method, is a
strong function of the wind speed as can be seen from Table 5 which gives
the stability class as a function of wind speed and net radiation index.
The net radiation index depends upon the solar elevation angle, cloud cover
and ceiling. Although the stability class is a function of the wind speed
at 7 meters, the wind speed at the stack top is calculated by use of a
stability dependent power law. The higher the stability class the greater
the increase in wind speed with height. This stack top wind speed is used
in the calculation of plume dilution and plume rise. The procedure for
determination of hourly mixing heights based upon maximum and minimum mixing
heights for the day is shown in Figure 4. For neutral and unstable condi-
tions (stabilities A-D), the hourly mixing height is based upon an inter-
polation between maximum daily mixing heights, while for other stabilities
the interpolation is carried out between minimum and maximum daily mixing
heights.
The model validation results are presented in detail in 30 series of figures
in Appendix A where cumulative frequency distributions of calculated and
measured concentration are compared. The first set of comparisons for dif-
ferent stability, wind speed and mixing height classes are made with data
from all receptor locations combined. This initial comparison provides a
rough picture of the effect of the three variables upon validation results.
It also increases the overall statistical significance of the results above
that of the detailed breakdown by receptor direction provided later.
16
-------
YESTERDAY
TODAY
TOMORROW
URBAN
MXDP-
j-j
X
0
LJ
X
MXDPj
MXDPj
MNDP
MNDPj+|
RURAL
MXDPj-i
X
o
UJ
X
MXDPj+|
SR
14 SS
TIME
Figure 4. Determination of hourly mixing heights
-------
Table 5. STABILITY CLASS AS A FUNCTION OF NET RADIATION
AND WIND SPEED
Wind speed,
knots
0,1
2,3
4,5
6
7
8,9
10
11
_>12
Net radiation index
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-1
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
-2
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
Model validation results at the Canal Plant (four stations combined) for
stabilities 1 through 6 are shown in Figures A-la through A-lf. The most
striking feature of these comparisons is the strong tendency of the Single
Source Model to underpredict 1-hour concentrations for stabilities D
through F. The same trend toward underprediction for the higher stabilities
was also found for the Muskingum Plant (Figures A-2a through A-2f) but the
overprediction for stabilities A through C is enough to achieve an overall
agreement. For the higher wind speed classes at the Canal plant the greater
degree of underprediction is probably due to the higher stabilities (see
Figures A-3a through A-3c). At the Muskingum Plant, on the other hand,
there is a tendency to overpredict for higher wind speed which may indicate
a problem with the plume rise estimates at this facility but the evidence
is far from conclusive (see Figures A-4a through A-4c). For the Canal
Plant there does not appear to be a definite pattern to the degree of
model underprediction and mixing height class (see Figures A-5a through
A-5c). For mixing height class 3 the calculated and measured concentration
18
-------
distributions agree reasonably well. This also was the case for stability
classes A through C. An analysis of the model validation results for the
Muskingum Plant for different mixing height classes (Figures A-6a through
A-6c) reveals a strong underprediction for mixing height class 1. This
result indicates that either the mixing height for this area is being
underestimated or that the assumption of complete plume penetration of
the top of the mixing layer is in error.
A more detailed picture of the model validation results for the strati-
fied concentration data may be obtained through an examination of
Figures A-7a through A-30d which give a receptor by receptor comparison
of measured and calculated concentration distributions for different
stabilities, wind speed classes and mixing height classes. Rather than
discuss the results shown in each figure, we have instead presented our
findings in Table 6. For each plant, receptor and meteorological para-
meter we have indicated whether the model overpredicted, underpredicted
or agreed with the measured concentration distribution. In this rather
qualitative classification of the model validation results, the compari-
son was made at the upper end of the frequency distribution (beyond the
99th percentile). Based upon these results we may summarize our findings
as follows:
• The frequency distributions for both Canal and Muskingum
plants show a tendency toward overprediction for stabili-
ties A and B, especially for those receptors closest to
the plant.
• At both the Canal and Muskingum plants there is a strong
tendency for the model to underpredict for stabilities D,
E and F. For stability C, the model predictions agree
relatively well with measured concentrations.
• The strong underprediction at Canal for stability D is
even more serious in light of the fact that the measured
concentrations, corrected for background, are the highest
for this stability assignment.
• At the Canal Plant there is a greater tendency for model
underprediction for higher wind speeds. This result is
consistent with the model underprediction for higher
19
-------
stabilities. On the other hand the opposite trend is
observed for the Muskingum Plant, which may indicate
that either plume rise or terrain effects are not being
handled properly.
No general trend could be discerned from the comparison
of measured and calculated concentration frequency dis-
tributions by mixing height. In the case of the Mus-
kingum Plant the agreement for the- second and third
mixing height classes was relatively good, while the
model definitely underpredicted concentrations for the
lowest group of mixing heights. This could point to a
problem with the assumption regarding complete plume
penetration of the top of the mixing layer or an error
in the mixing height assignment itself.
20
-------
Table 6. MODEL VALIDATION RESULTS FOR ALL PLANTS, RECEPTORS AND
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (0 = OVERPREDICTION, U =
UNDERPREDICTION, A = AGREEMENT, I = INCONCLUSIVE DUE TO
INSUFFICIENT DATA)
Meteorological
variable
Stability
Wind speed
Mixing height
Class
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Plant
Canal
Musk in gum
Canal
Muskingum
Canal
Muskingum
Receptor
1
I
U
A
U
U
U
0
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
A
U
U
U
U
A
A
2
I
U
A
U
U
U
0
0
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
0
U
U
U
U
0
0
3
0
A
U
U
U
U
A
A
A
U
U
U
0
0
U
U
A
A
U
U
0
U
A
A
4
I
I
U
U
U
U
U
A
A
A
U
U
U
U
U
A
A
A
U
U
U
U
A
A
All
0
A
A
U
U
U
0
0
A
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
A
0
U
U
A
U
A
A
21
-------
SECTION V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The most obvious conclusion of this study is that the dispersion curves and
stability assignment procedure currently used in the Single Source Model
leads to model overprediction for the unstable conditions and underpre-
diction for the more stable conditions. This trend is most clearly shown
in the model validation results for the Muskingum Plant where the upper ends
of the calculated and measured concentration frequency distributions cross
one another for stability Class C (Figure A-2c). For both Canal and
Muskingum plants, the model strongly underpredicts for stability D. At the
Muskingum plant the measured concentration frequency distributions for
stabilities C and D are quite similar while the predicted distribution curve
for stability D falls considerably below that for stability C. This effect
is even more pronounced for the Canal plant with the stability D concentra-
tion distribution actually rising above that for stability C. The under-
prediction at the Muskinghum plant for stabilities E and F does not appear
to be a serious problem since the characteristics of the distributions for
these lower concentrations are greatly affected by uncertainties in the
background subtraction procedure. At the Canal plant, however, the fre-
quency of stable conditions would appear to be much less than that deter-
mined through the Pasquill-Turner stability assignment procedure. Based
upon these results we would recommend that C and D stabilities be combined
into a single class with Oy and az dispersion curves closer to that cur-
rently used for stability C. At the same time the az values for stabilities
A and B should be reduced slightly to avoid model overprediction during un-
stable conditions.
22
-------
The conclusions based upon the model validation results for different wind
speed classes must be more tentative. The trend toward greater model
underprediction at Canal for higher wind speeds is probably directly re-
lated to a similar trend toward underprediction for the high stabilities.
The overprediction at Muskingum for the higher wind speeds is more difficult
to understand since the trend toward underprediction for higher stabilities
was also present for this plant. A possible explanation is that during
light winds the zero level displacement assumption used in the model is
valid but for higher winds this assumption breaks down. The only definite
conclusion which was reached based upon the model validation for different
mixing height classes was that the underprediction at Muskingum for the
lowest mixing height class was due either to an underestimate in the hourly
mixing height or a breakdown in the assumption of complete plume pene-
tration of the top of the mixing layer.
23
-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
1. Mills, M. T. and F. A. Record. Comprehensive Analysis of Time Con-
centration Relationships and the Validation of a Single Source Dis-
persion Model. Publication Number EPA-450/3-75-083. Prepared by
GCA/Technology Division for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March 1975.
2. Mills, M. T. and R. W. Stern. Model Validation and Time-Concentration
Analysis of Three Power Plants. Publication Number EPA-450/3-76-002.
Prepared by GCA/Technology Division for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1975.
3. Mills, M. T., R. W. Stern and L. M. Vincent. Improvement to the Single
Source Model. Volume II - Testing and Evaluation of Model Improve-
ments. Final Report. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1376, Task Order No. 23.
Prepared by GCA/Technology Division for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 1977.
4. Turner, D. B. A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area. J Appl Meteor
3:83-91. February 1969.
5. Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs. Publication
Number AP-26.
6. Briggs, G. A. Plume Rise USAEC Critical Review Series TID-25075,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22151. 1969.
7. Briggs, G. A. Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise Observation,
pp. 1029-1032, in Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air
Congress, edited by H. M. Englund and W. T. Berry. Academic Press,
New York. 1971.
8. Briggs, G. A. Discussion on Chimney Plumes in Neutral and Stable
Surroundings. Atmos. Environ. 6_, 507-510. July 1972.
24
-------
APPENDIX A
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
25
-------
CO
cn-
oo-
UD-
LO-
on-
CM-
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
89.89 98.8 88.5 88 89 80 80 60 70 BO SO 40 30 20 10 5
4—h—i 1—| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H-H 1 1 H
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01°cb
CE "
OC m-1
UJ
CJ co-
Z
ED
O r
-~
O
H—I—I 1—h
CflNflL STRB 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STRTION flLL
0CflLCULflTED
AMERSURED MINUS BACKGROUND
-j-
-i-
-+-
H—H 1 1 H
.01 .06 .1.2 .81
2 5 10 20 90 40 90 60 70 00 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
^-CO
1—I—t—I—I-
-O)
-00
-(O
uin
N
O
-
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREATER THRN INOICRTED VflLUE
t>M.9900.9 90.8999ft 98 90 80 700090 40 30 20 10 5
cn-
QD-
1/7-
(0-
00-
CE «>-
CC. m-
LU
CJ tn-l
U ru-
I 1—I
H
H 1 1 1 1 1
CANRL STRB 2
CUMULRTJVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRATIONS
RT STflTION ALL
^CALCULATED
^MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
I I ) I-H
H 1-
H 1 1 1 1 1
.01 .06 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 SO 80 70 80 80
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
98 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-lb.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for all
receptors for stability B
27
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTEO VflLUE
99.99 94.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
I I I »—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
in-
CO-
OD-
CC -
LU
CJ m-\
O
CM-
•fa
CflNflL STRB 3
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STflTION flLL
©CflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
HhH 1—I 1-
-i 1-
1
.01 .06 .1.2 .6 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
96 99 99.5 96.9 99.99
Figure A-lc.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for all
receptors for stability C
28
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
»»• a» w.a aa. s aa as as ao eo ?o BO so 40 90 20 10 s
00-
in-
(M-
2
CE
oc
t—
Z
LU
U
(M-
< I I
h
H
•4 1—(—I—I—I
CRNRL STRB 4
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION RLL
©CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
-i—f-H h
-f-
.01 .06 .1.2 .61
1 1 1—I—>-
2 5 10 20 90 40 50 SO 70 80 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-Id.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for all
receptors for stability D
29
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99.99 99.9 99.59998 95 90 80 70 80 90 40 SO 20 10 5
CO
oo-
Cs—
(0-
in-
co-
-------
cn-
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
°t)98.99 99.9 88.5 99 96 95 90 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
CD
CE
o
OD-
C —
CO-
in-
CQ-
(M-
co-
00-
LU
C-) CO-
f\J-
O
I I I—I—I—h
1 1 1 1 1
MUSK STRB 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION RLL
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I
H 1-
H 1-
O
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
95 96 99 99.5 99.8 99,99
Figure A-2a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for stability A
32
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
,99 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
H—I—t 1—h—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f-
MUSK STflB 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 502 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STflTION FILL
CRLCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 60 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
96 99 99.5 99.9 89. 99
Figure A-2b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for stability B
33
-------
. 88
cn-
oo-
CN--
CO-
CO
or>-
OJ-
CL to-
LU
co-
CM-
o
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
99.9 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
^—I—I 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h
21.5.2.1
H - 1 — I - I-H
MUSK STRB 3
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT-STRTION RLL
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
4-
4-
H 1 h
.01
.01 .OS .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VRLUE
-cn
-oo
-r»*
-co
-in
-co
-CM
•cn
-co
•to
•LD
^CO
K-C\J
on;
\
d
H
Z
LL
O
Z
O.
95 96 99 99.5
). 9 99. 99
Figure A-2c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for stability C
-------
OT-
oo-J
t^-
(£>-
LD-
^j»-
ro-
oj-
C!)
"b
O
in-
UJ
o
u
oo-
O
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
,99 99.8 98.5 99 96 95 90 60 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
f—fH 1—\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—
MUSK STRB 4
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION RLL
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
i i
H—I h
i 01 .05 . 1.2 .51
H 1 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
O
96 98 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-2d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for stability D
35
-------
89-
00-
r^-
(JD-
LO-
or>-
CO
2 «
CE CM-l
^H
o
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
99 98.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
1—hH 1—I > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *
2 1 .5 .2.1
H 1—I 1—f—
MUSK STRB 5
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT SIRTION RLL
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
H 1—H
H
-I f-
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 60 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICRTED VRLUE
O
88 98 99.5 99.8 99.99
Figure A-2e.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for stability E
36
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTEO VRLUE
99.99 98.9 99.5 98 86 95 90 60 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
I | | 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !•
00-
fv-
(D-
in-
m-
k ^
CD
=>
-------
CD-
00-
c^-
CD-
in-
00-
OJ-
"fa
cn-
en
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIGNS
GRERTER THflN INDICATED VflLUE
9.98 99.9 99.5 99 98 95 90 60 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
00-
r^-
to-
C\J-
Tb
D
CE
LU
U
Z
D
cn-
oo-
O
I I I 1—I h
H 1-
1
4-
•4-
CflNflL WIND 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 502 CONCENTRRTIONS
flT STflTION flLL
©CflLCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
-t-H 1—I—l-
H 1 1
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
PERCENTfiGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
O
98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-3b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for all
receptors for wind speed class 2 (2.6 to 4.0 m/sec)
39
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
99.99 99.8 88.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
H—I—I 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—
OT-
00-
r^-
(D-
LO-
oo-
r\i-
cr to-
UJ
<-> CD-I
OJ-
o
CRNRL W.IND 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION RLL
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
O
4-
-+—I h
.01 .05 . 1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 00 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INOICRTED VRLUE
88 99 99.5 99.9 99.98
Figure A-3c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for all
receptors for wind speed class 3 (4.0 m/sec)
40
-------
CO
00-
C^
(O
in
co-
CM-
O
a:
-------
. 99
00-
t^-
(0-
•<*-
co-
CM-
b
cn *o-
QC m-
h-
z •«*«-
LU
U cr>^
o
c\»-
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88.8 89.5 99 88 95 90 80 70 BO 50 40 30 20 10 5
I I I 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J
HUSK MIND 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION flLL
gCRLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
1—I
-f
H 1 1 K
.01 ,06 .1,2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 60 80 70 80 90
PERCENTflGE CF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
96 88 86 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-4b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for wind speed class 2 (1.6 to 2.4 m/sec)
42
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
•£388.88 88.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 80 70 80 50 40 80 20 10 5
I I I HH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I—
CO
O
03-
tn-
ov
CM-
O)-
cc
QC
LU
O crH
CM-
HUSK MIND 3
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION RLL
OCRLCULRTED
AHERSUREO MINUS BRCKGROUNO
i t >—I—I—}-
.01 .08 .1.2 .51
H 1 1—I-
2 5 10 20 SO 40 50 60 70 BO 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
90 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-4c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for wind speed class 3 (2.4 m/sec)
43
-------
«*•
00-
c^—
to-
in-
T)-
CM-
o
CE ")-
OC m-
h-
LU
O 00-1
CN-
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INOICRTED VRLUE
88 88.8 88.8 88 86 85 80 60 70 BO SO 40 90 20 10 6
—t—f—I 1—I 1 » 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \
CRNRL HIXH 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION RLL
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
-»—i—I—i—i-
H
H 1 \r
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 80 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88 98 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-5a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for all
receptors for mixing height class 1 (0 to 750 m)
-------
98
cn-
00-
OJ-
CO
z:
v.
OOH
CM-
"b
cr
cc
K
2
LU
O
U
f\j-
o
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THftN INDICRTED VflLUE
89 88.9 99.5 88 96 85 80 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
II) I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h—I 1 J
CflNflL MIXH 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STflTION flLL
oCRLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I—I 1—»-
•4-
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1
-t 1 1 1 1
2 S 10 20 30 40 90 60 70 SO 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
O
96 99 98.5 tt.8 88.88
Figure A-5b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for all
receptors for mixing height class 2 (750 to 1250 m)
-------
»«
CO
ZI
O)-
OD-
r^—
(£>-
m-
ro-
c\i-
fl" (f>—
LU
O crH
Z
o
<-> (M-i
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
99 88.8 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 SO 20 10 5
1—KH 1—I 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CflNflL MIXH 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
RT STRTION RLL
OCRLCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
t I I—I—I—«-
-f-
-l-
H 1 h
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INOICRTED VflLUE
O
98 99 98.8 99.8 99.99
Figure A-5c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the-Canal Plant for all
receptors for mixing height class 3 (1250 m ->•)
46
-------
*t) W, |6
OD-
tv-
co-
in-
C!)
CO-
CM-
"b
. *-i
i o>-
LU
<-)
D
(0-
OH
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INOICflTED VflLUE
B.8 89,5 99 89 98 90 60 70 60 SO 40 SO 20 10 5
-4-H hH 1 1 1 1 1 I I—I 1 1 1 1
2 1 .8 .2.1 .01*23
H—HH H
MUSK HIXH 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION flLL
0CflLCULflTED
^MEASURED MINUS 8RCKGROUND
I I i—»-H
.01 ,05 .1.2 .51
1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
99 99 99.6 98.9 99.99
Figure A-6a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for mixing height class 1 (0 to 800 m)
-------
99.
00-
(O-
in-
CD
OD-
CE
OC
LU
CJ
O
<->
CM-
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 88.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 80 70 80 50 40 SO 20 10 5
—I t 1 1—I 1 1 1 1 »—I 1 1 1 1 1—
MUSK MIXH 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
flT STRTION RLL
oCflLCULRTED
AHERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
i t >—h-t-
1—I—I
. 01 . OS . 1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 88 88.8 88.8 88. 88
Figure A-6b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for mixing height class 2 (800 to 1200 m)_
-------
89.99
00-
r^-
(O-
in-
(0-
Cvl-
cc
z
UJ
z
o
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
88.8 88.5 89 88 85 80 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
I-+H KH 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 KH 1 1 J
HUSK MIXH 3
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
AT STATION ALL
©CALCULATED
^MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
I I I—I—I—i-
h
H H
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 80
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
98 88 88.5 88.9 98.89
Figure ,A-6c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
all receptors for mixing height class 3 (1200 m -
49
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INOICRTED VRLUE
88.8888.8 88.88888 88 80 80 708080 4090 20 10 5 2 1 .6 .2.1
CD-
flO-
CO""
U)M
•*-
co-
co
£ CM-
(5
"Z. *~"L~
CD 0>-
03-
1—4 W
cn co-
cc. m-
h-
2 •*-
LU
CJ -
-jr
o
CJ (v^.
•fa
i i i i i i i r i i i r i r r i i i i i i i
CRNRL STRB 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
A
1
'
, . . — , . ,
- -J
\
k
-
'
Mil 11
rO)
-03
-CO
-in
-•««
r(T)
ffl
-CM 5|
c
^
-0) G
•03 H
•^ h
-OD a
-in E
1-
-<« 2
LU
-(O CJ
2
c
-CM U
"fa
?— I
.01.08.1.2 .512 5 10 20 3040808070 80 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88 88 88 88.8 88.8 88.88
Figure A-7a. Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for stability 'A
50
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THflN INDICATED VRLUE
99.99 99.9 99.59998 95 90 80 70 00 50 40 90 20 10 5 21 .5 .2.1 .01
00-
(0-
in-
*f-
CO-
2 "-
c!)
2 — •-
flO**
l_ ^^^™
r~
d (0-
QC m_
h-
2 -*-
UJ
U fo-
2
o
CJ pj-
«— t
t t i t t r t t t t i t i i i i i i i i i i
CANAL STAB 1
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
AT STATION 2
©CALCULATED
^MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
^^
• i t — i— i — \— \ 1 1 t 1— i — i— i — i 1 1 — A4^ryi i i 1 — i
-O)
-GO
-03
-in
-<«
-co
-CM 2
cB
^i
-(O CE
-in QC
UJ
-co o
O
-CM U
"fa
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 90 40 50 80 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THflN INDICATED VALUE
Figure A-7b. Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for stability A
51
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
t) 99.99 99.9 99.59908 95 90 80 708050 4030 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2.1 .01 "fa
O>—
00-
co-
in-
^._
co-
rn
L: CM-
*x.
=3
Z^JL.
£ ^:
cc ton
QC m-^
h-
^^^ *?J'"™
UJ
CJ en-
z^
D
O CM-
*fa
^_l
.
CflNflL STflB 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR i HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION 3 j^— r
©CflLCULflTED J
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND .^
S
JO
0
/
— '
1 ,— — • '
y' //
/ f
/
/
/ y
/ /
-O)
-CD
-CD
-in
-<*
-en
n\
-CM ll
Z
N
O
^^
-ts. £
-
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
9.99 88.9 88.5 88 90 95 90 00 70 00 50 40 90 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2 .1
0>-
o>
tw-
(0-
LO-
^•_
(0-
2 cj-
= fc
Is
MCENTRRT
3 456:
1 L I 1
CD
U c\j_
t
t — t— I > t > t t i i i t i — r— i 1 t i i i T r
CflNflL STflB 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS <
flT STflTION 4
0CflLCULflTED
ANEflSURED MINUS BACKGROUND
^^
1 — i — i 1 — i — i 1 1 1 — i — i — i — i — i — ( 1 A^T -i — i — t i i
-0)
-00
-CD
ru>
-•*
*
-~2
C5
32
1 III
3 456:
^ICENTRfiT
«M»
o
-CM u
'b
w_>— •
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 B 10 20 9040500070 00 90 86 888888.5 88.8 88.88
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
Figure A-7d. Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for stability A
53
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INOICflTEO VRLUE
99.99 99.9 99.58990 99 90 90 709050 40 90 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .flit)
tn-
f\l-
cr
-------
88.
O)-
OD-
CD-
m-
CO-
C5
HH (D~
h- ^
CE «
Z •»*
LU
<-> CO
D
CJ
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 88.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 DO 70 60 50 40 80 20 10 5
I I I I-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—H 1 1 *
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
H I-H I-H
CflNflL STflB 2
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 2
QCflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I 1 I-H h
H 1-
H H
+
.01.06.1.2 .512 5 10 20 8040508070 60 80 95 989999.5 99.9 88.98
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VRLUE
Figure A-8b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for stability B
55
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREATER THflN INDICATED VALUE
'£399.8888.8 99.5 89 99 85 90 80 706050 4090 20 10 5
OD-
r>—
co-
oo-
CMH
O
CC "H
CC. ,oJ
UJ
coH
o
O ro-4
I I I I I
H - 1
1 - 1 — I — I — I — I
1
2 I .8 .2 .1 .01
HH
CANAL STAB 2
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
AT STATION 3
©CALCULATED
^MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
I I I—I—I—»-
1—I—I
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 SO 40 50 80 70 80 80
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
88 88 88.8 88.8 88.88
Figure A-8c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for stability B
56
-------
'£399
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICATED VflLUE
99 99.9 99.5 99 99 95 90 90 70 80 60 40 30 20 10 5
.01
(X
QC
z
Lu
<_)
z
D
CJ
co-
CO-
in-
co-
CM-
Tb
10-
m-
•«#-
cn-
CM-
p~i
o
Ill til 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CflNflL STflB 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED i
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND (
(
<
1
>
>
)
( ^^*
A^
\ 1 — \—\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1— 1 1 \ X \ 1 1 A—I J--I
-en
-CD
-co
-in
-
•fa
»— i
.01 .06 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 SO 40 50 80 70 00 00
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
95 90 90 00.5 00.0 00.00
Figure A-8d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for stability B
57
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
t> 88.8*88.8 88.89998 98 90 80 706080 4080 20 10 8
I I I >
(O-
LO-
"fa
* I
; OH
cr
oc m-
UJ
o
z
o
—h
H 1—I-
I 1-
CRNRL STRB 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
i i i—i—H
.01 .08 .1.2 .5 1
1—I—I—I—I-
2 8 10 20 80 40 SO 80 70 80 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
t>
98 99 99.8 99.9 99. 99
Figure A-9a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measur.ed concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for stability C
58
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
99.99 99.9 99.8 88 96 96 90 80 70 80 SO 40 80 20 10 8
I i I 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *
(O-
l/)-
CO-
cr
GC
UJ
u to-
D
U
CflNRL STRB 3
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
0CflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BACKGROUND
H—HH 1—I h
-+•
•+•
H h
H 1 1 h
.01 .08 .1.2 .8 1 2
10 20 30 40 80 80 70 80 90
98 98 88.8 M. 9 99.98
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
Figure A-9b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for stability C
59
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
^90.99 99.9 99,5 99 99 95 90 00 70 90 50 40 90 20 10 5
I I I KH 1 1
+
1 — I — I — I — I - 1
1 - 1
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01
-\—I—I J
00-
t^.-
to-
10-
CM-
o
OD-
CE
CC m-
LU
<->
~ZL
O
CRNRL STRB 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 3
OCRLCULRTED
AHERSUREO MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I—»—I—h
-l-
H—I—I—I—h
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 SO 40 50 90 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-9c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the 'Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for stability C
60
-------
•*.
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICflTED VRLUE
89 89. 8 88. 5 88 88 89 90 BO 70 BO 50 40 90 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
QTJ—
00-
(O-
in-
<*-
(O-
i~
CD
Z-1-
D JJl
h~
or to-
OC to-
t_
r~
UJ
2 **'
U (M.
t
lit t t I 1 1 1 i i 1 — ill ti i r !• i —
CRNRL STRB 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AHEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
i
/
/ /
— »— • — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — > jr i — i — i— i — u-JLi —
h
^x
f
-en
-co
-co
-in
-•*
-co
-CM ^
X.
O
"S §
-00
w 1— 1
-to a:
-LO OC
1
1 —
UJ
-co 0
-CM t~)
0
_»-»
.01 .08 .1.2 .6 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 60 00
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
86 86 M 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-9d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for stability C
61
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
"£399.9999.9 89.5 98 M 95 90 90 70 BO 50 40 90 20 10 9
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01
OD-
t^-
(O-
in-
oo-
OC i-
LU
0 co-
CMH
I I I I-H—I-
1—I—I—I
CRNRL STRB 4
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION I
0CRLCULRTED
AMFflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I i 1—I—h
.01 .05 .1.2 .51 2
-i—I—I
10 20 30 40 50 80 70 SO
99 99.5 M.9 99.99
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
Figure A-lOa.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for stability D
62
-------
99.
OT-
00-
C^-
(O-
tn-
(O-
(N-
-
CE
oc
UJ
U
O
OH
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 60 70 60 50 40 90 20 10 5
—•—I-H HH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
I-H K-+
CRNRL STRB 4
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
0CRLCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I 1—h
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1
I—I—I
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
96 M 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-lOb.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for stability D
63
-------
99.88
O)
00-
in-
oo-
CM-
CD
o X
1—4 **
h- CS
(X
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INOICRTED VRLUE
98.88 00.9 99.5 89 99 95 90 60 70 60 50 40 90 20 10 5
-I 1 1 1 1 1 1 K-H 1
00-
r-v
(O
U)
CO
21
\
CNJ-
UJ
<->
(OH
on
I I I I
CRNRL STflB 4
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR 302 CONCENTHflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
I I i—I—I
H
1 1 1 1 h
O
.01 .05 .1.2 .6 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 95 96 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
Figure A-lOd.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for stability D
65
-------
OD-
in-
co-
(M-
-, o°-
CC to-
ff: m-
LU
<-> 00-1
<-> (NlJ
O
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
.88 99.9 99.5 99 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
1—f-t I-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
2 1 .5 .2 .1
H—HH I-H—
CflNflL STRB 5
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCT DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 1
OCRLCULRTEO
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROJND
t i t—i—i
1-
-^—i—i
1—I k-f-
01
-O)
-03
-r^
-to
-in
PI
\
C
h
z
UJ
2
O
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 90 70 60 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VRLUE
98 98 99.5 99.9 99.98
Figure A-lla.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for stability E
66
-------
90.99
00-
r^-
to-
10-
co-
CM-
\
z
o
CE «>-
flC 10-
2 ^
UJ
o
CJ
(M-
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
99.9 99.5 99 99 95 90 90 70 90 50 40 90 20 10 5
<—HH h-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H—+
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .Ot
H—I-H J
CflNflL STflB 5
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUH 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION 2
0CflLCULflTEO
AMEflSURED MINUS BACKGROUND
i i )—i
H 1-
.01 .08 .1.2 .5 1
H 1 1 1 1 1 h
2 S 10 20 30 40 50 90 70 90 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
99 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-llb.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for stability E
67
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICRTED VRLUE
(D 89.99 99.9 99.59998 95 90 80 708050 4030 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2.1 .01 XD
00-
CO-
in-
•*-
X.
0
13 Tb
Z *""*"
0 V-
JH «**-
cr c°-
OC U>H
1—
Z '*-
UJ
CJ co-
"5*
o
C_) (vj-
•fa
«— 1
CRNRL Sf(\B 5
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 3
©CRLCULRTED
^HERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1 1— I 1— — 1 J 1 1 1 1~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ml 1 1 1 1 1
-O)
-00
-(0
-in
_^i
-co
N
0
cbD
"~~ Z
:S Q
1M* «j
r^
•^ h
-co a
-LO ff
h
-^ z
LU
-co CJ
z
o
-CM CJi
0
^-1
.01 .06 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 90 40 50 80 70 80 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
95 98 99 99.5 99.9 99.98
Figure A-llc.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at. the Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for stability E
68
-------
89. 88
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
89. 8 88.58896 88 80 80 706080 40 90 20 10 b
2 1 .8 .2 .1 .01
cn-
00-
(O-
LO-
•*-
co-
g CM-
\
z ^3
r—
a: to-
i —
CONCEN"
? ? f
0
—i
1 — It tit 1— — I 1 1 1 ti r— — i 1 1 1 1 — i 1 — i 1
CflNflL STflB 5
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AHERSUREO MINUS BRCKGROUND
x7
1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 4C^( 1 1 1— -1 1 — 1
-CD
-CD
""^^
— fr)
-to
-<*
-co
-CM £2
\
•§=
—[*•• t_
r~~
-if) °C
LU
-co 0
o
-CM <->
Tb
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 80 80 70 80 90 96 98 89 88.5 98.8 98.99
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
Figure A-lld.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for stability E
69
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
t> 99.99 98.8 89.59998 95 90 80 706050 4030 20 10
O)-
00-
CO-
ID-
(O-
CD
CC «>-
LU
<-> (0-1
<-> CM-i
I I I hH h
+
+
H 1—I—I—I—I h
H h
2 1 .5 .2 .1
H—I—I hH—
CRNRL STRB 6
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STflTION 1
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
I I I HH h
.01 .06 .1.2 .51 2
+
-»-
•+•
H—I—I—I—h
+
10 20 90 40 50 60 70 80
H 1—I H-»-
•O5
•00
•CO
•in
-en
-CM
Z
\
0
~CD d
-in E
* -z.
u
-co U
o
-CM O
95 98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
Figure A-12a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for stability F
70
-------
99
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99 89.8 88.5 89 98 95 90 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
CD
:D«
D
h-
Z
LU
(J
z
o
01
00-
(O-
tn-
«*-
00-
b
--L_
O}~"
00™
CO™
CM-
b
-1
ill 111 1 1 t i — i 1— i 1 r " i i i r
CRNRL STRB 6
1
r— i
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STflTION 2
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
1 1 1 1 i L_
.
I
/
/
— 1 1
t
— i
-0)
-00
-(0
-I/)
-•*
-co
-
-------
tt>98.
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 60 70 60 50 40 SO 20 10 5
.oi°b
00-
(D-
LO-
<<*-
(n-
O
CD o>-
CE «0-
OC m-
LU
<_> -
CJ (vj
•— I
•
ill ii 1 ii > i i i r i i ii 11111
CRNRL STRB 6
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 3
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
^
A
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Illllli •* 1 1 1 1 1 f- i
-0)
-00
-03
-IT)
-^
-CO
N
CD
32
H
-J33NQ3
' e z
0
»— 1
01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 60 90 85 989999.5 99.9 99.99
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED
Figure A-12c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at th-e Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for stability F
72
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THRN INOICflTED VflLUE
"cbft8.9999^9 99.59999 95 90 80 70 W 50 40 80 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2.1 .01 "£3
O)-i
GO-i
I —
(O-
in-
<«-
co-
£ CM-
cB
° S-
Q- (0-
cc m-
h-
2 •*-
LU
2 ^
U CM-
*
CflNflL STRB 6
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 802 CONCENTRflTIONS
FIT STflTION 4
0CflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUNO
/
/
1 — i — i — i — I — i 1 1 1 — i — i — i — i — i — mr \ 1 1 — i — i — i — i
-GO
-co
-in
-••*•
-en
-CM £
CD
-O) o
-co a:
-in OC
1—
LU
hCO C_>
0
-CM CJ
0
.01 .09 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
95 9d 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-12d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for stability F
73
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99. 99 99.9 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 105 21.5.2.1
,01
OD-
C —
(D-
tn-
cn-
£ ™-
IDCSI
— •• J ~T-_
I gf
• ^^^•~™
1
fT" tO —
OC m-
LU
o co-
0
C-^ CM-
"o
Ill 1 1 1 II 1 I' 1 III! '1 1
MUSK STRB 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND (
c
>
/
/
1 — 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-A — W
/
>
s
— r
7,
) *
) <
{
\
r
—i
1
I
(
1 — :
f
L
1 1 1 1
1
)
)
B, - — - - - «.
!- - ~~
— 1 1 — 1
-cn
-00
-to
-to
-00
-00 <»
*&=>
~z.
\—
-a) cr
-tn CC
i i
3 4
:ONCEN
-CNJ u
"o
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.99
Figure A-13a.
Cumulative frequency distribution of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for stability A
74
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
*fo ML«| «8.9 08.5 98 88 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
21.5.2.1 .01
MU$K STRB 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
86 89 99.5 98.9 89.99
Figure A-13b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for stability A
75
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99.5 99 98 95 90 60 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2.1
1—I 1—I
MUSK STRB 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 3
OCRLCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-13c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for stability A
76
-------
t)99.
00-
t^-
C£>-
LO-
X
CD
="b
z
o
cc
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
99 99.9 89.5 99 98 85 90 60 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
hH—I 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
2 1 .5 .2.1
H 1—I H—
MUSK STflB 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BftCKGRQUND
.01°^)
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
95 98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-13d
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for stability A
77
-------
t)98.
o
00-
c^-
co-
LD-
oo-
CM-
en "
QC in-l
LU
CJ 00-1
CM-
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88 88.8 88.5 88 88 95 80 80 70 BO 50 40 30 20 10 5
1—I—I 1—-I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h
MUSK STRB 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STflTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
H—I—I 1—I h
-f-
-I 1 1 1 h
01 .05 . 1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 60 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
I—h
-00
-CM
I
\
0
:£°
-to
-in
h
1
-co
88 88 88.5 88.9 99.88
Figure A-14a
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for stability B
78
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
9.99 89.9 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
CD
r»
co
CO
00-
Cxl-
"b
in-
LU
u
OJ-
o
I I I—I—I—•-
H h
H—I—I—I—I 1
2 1 .5 .2.1
I J .€0 IQI
MUSK STflB 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STRTION 2
©CflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
I I I—I—h
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
H 1 1 1
01
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
O
98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-14b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for stability B
79
-------
PERCENTflGE OF C0NCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
98. 89 99. 8 98.59990 85 90 60 708050 4030 20 10
MUSK STRB 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 3
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
.01 .05 . 1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INOICRTEO VRLUE
98 89 99.5 99.9 99.98
Figure A-14c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for stability B
80
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
99.99 99.9 99.5 98 86 95 90 60 70 SO 50 40 30 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2 .1
oo-
c^-
to-
in-
oo-
P\l-
1 1 1 1 1 1-
H 1—I
MUSK STflB 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STRTION 4
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSUREO MINUS BRCKGROUND
H 1-
H 1
-+-H-
.01
.01 .05 . 1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88 98 98.5 98.9 99.89
Figure A-14d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for stability B
31
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICRTED VRLUE
98.99 99.9 99.5 99 98 85 90 BO 70 BO 50 40 30 20 10 5
GO-
O—
(O-
LO-
CO-
o OT'
H-, °°-
J—
cr <*>-
UJ
CJ
<-> OJ-I
I I I 1—I
-+-
-4-
H 1 1 1 1 h
-H
MUSK STRB 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
H—I
-f-
4-
-f-
H 1
H 1 h
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
o
98 99 89.5 99.8 99.99
Figure A-15a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for stability C
82
-------
88.
00-
rv-
oo-
cn-
OJ-
CC
UJ
D
U
in-
or>-
OJ-
O
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
98 99.8 99.5 99 96 85 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
t—f-H 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f
MUSK STRB 3
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
H—J—» 1—t-
-I 1 1
.01 .05 . 1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
98 89 99.6 89.9 89.88
Figure A-15b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for stability C
33
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
98.99 99.9 09.5 99 96 95 90 80 70 80 SO
1 .5 .2.1
MUSK STRB 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTIQN 3
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
98.89 88.8 99.5 98 98 95 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
—I—I-H 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
00-
00-
r—
CD-
in-
00-
CM-
V
l!)
7b
I-
CE
UJ
D
LJ
CO-
00-
U">-
CNI-
O
MUSK STflB 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
-»—i—i—i—h
H 1 h
.01 .05 .1.2 .51 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 85
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
98 99 98.5 98.9 99.99
Figure A-15d
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for stability C
-------
99
03-
C^-
to-
LO-
00-
CM-
^ Tb
g^H
•"• S?"
cr crH
~z.
o
^ CVJ-J
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
90 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
h-+—I hH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h
21.5.2.1
H 1—I 1
.01
MUSK STRB 4
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
R^STRTION 1
OCRLCULRTED
AMER3UREO MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I 1—I
4-
-t-
H 1 1 1 1 h
+
•*-
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 95
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
H—\
96 99 96.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-16a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for stability D
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
09.99 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
00
00-
C£>-
u>
cn-
OJ-
O OT'
._, oo-
CC «0-
CL in-
UJ
U CO
Z
o
^> CMH
•fa
I I I—I—I—I-
+
+
4-
H « 1 1 H
+
-\ f
MUSK STRB 4
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
H—I—I 1—I h
-+•
•+•
H 1 1 1 1 »-
. 01 . 05 . 1. 2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-16b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for stability D
87
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
.99 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 90 70 BO 50 40 SO 20 10 5
MUSK STRB 4
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STRTION 3
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
O
.01 .06 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VRLUE
98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-16c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for stability D
88
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99.99 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 00 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
Z
cb
CO-
r-.-
10-
in-
oo-
(N-
cr
oc
LU
00-
(MH
O
( I I 1—I
+•
+
H—I—I—I—I h
H 1-
MUSK STRB 4
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
QCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I—h
1 1—h
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 6 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIQNS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
98 88 98.5 99.9 98.99
Figure A-16d. Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor A for stability D
89
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
t> 99. 99 99. 9 99.59986 95 90 80 708050 4030 20 10 S
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01 t)
OD-
IN-
CO-
in-
•<*«-
00-
O
CE to-
CC in-
UJ
O fr>-|
o
^ c\i-l
*-
0
t I I 1—I H
+
H 1 1 1 1 h
+
-t—\ 1—*
MUSK STRB 5
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
-I—I—I—I—I—h
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1
+
•+
H 1 1 h
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
95 98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-17a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for stability E
90
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
^_>fl9.99 99.9 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2 .1
*"*l-l
ffV-
oO-
t> —
10-
LO-
^«-
co-
g cv-
^ <*=>
z *~^2
^ —
CE to-
1
CONCEN1
234
i i i
*o
— h-f— i — i — i — i 1 1 1 — i — i — i — i — i — i 1 1 1 — ' — i — I—*
MUSK STflB 5
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION 2
QCflLCULflTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
"
r^
/
1 l__l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — A— 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-cn
-CD
-co
-LO
-^
-co
-CNJ 2
r— t ._
-cn o
-IN ~
-in oc
i
! 1 T
234
CONCENl
*o
.01 .05 .1.2 .51 2
10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 98.9 99.89
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THftN INDICflTED VflLUE
Figure A-l7b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant^ for
receptor 2 for stability E
91
-------
88
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88 89.8 88.5 88 86 85 80 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
1—4—1 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01
H - hH - hH-
O)-
00-
[N.-
to-
LO-
00-
MUSK STRB 5
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 3
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
-OD
-C^
-to
-m
-co
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
86 88 89.5 88.9 88.98
Figure A-17c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for stability E
92
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INOICRTED VRLUE
88. 88 88. 8 88.5 88 OB 95 80 80 70 BO 50 4030 20 10 5
00-
in-
on-
(JD
D
cr
oc
LU
(_>
Z
o
00-1
o
H 1 1 1 1
i i i—i—i
MUSK STRB 5
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 4
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
-t-
i t I—h-H—h
i—I—I
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 80
PERCENTHGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
98 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-17d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for stability E
93
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
t|89.88 88.9 88.5 88 86 85 90 BO 70 BO 50 40 30 20 10
00-
<£>-
in-
*#-
co-
? ""
S Q°""
1 —
CC co-
1—
LU
LJ CD-
<-> CM-
— i
O
1— — i — i i i 1 r T ii 1 i 1 1 1 i i till
MUSK STRB 6
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
A
A
/
/
/
i 11 til 1 1 1 1 1— —1 U— -1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
i
\
__i
-O)
-00
-to
-i/)
-^
-co
-CM
£2
1 Jill
3 4567
^CENTRflT:
4_
o
-(N 0
"o
r— 1
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 60 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
85 96 88 88.5 88.9 89.98
Figure A-18a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for stability F
94
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIGNS
GREflTER THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
99.99 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 60 70 BO 50 40 30 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01 t}
05-
00-
to-
LO-
^,_
co-
CD
z ^
i— i
h—
^r to—
QC LT,-
I -_-
2 ^-
UJ
C_) rr«
D
U (M-
"o
t — L
l til 1 i t 1 1 i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i i — i i i
MUSK STRB 6
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
r—~~
r
/
L L 1 I1L L L 1 lllll I A 1 1 111 II
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 95 96 99 99.5 99.9 99.
-05
-GO
-05
-in
-^
-co
J
-03 a:
1
r~~
UJ
L-
"0
*— i
99
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
Figure A-18b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for stability F
95
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
(t>98.89 99.8 98.5 89 98 95 90 80 70 00 50 40 30 20 10 5
CO-
00-
r^-
OD-
LH-
cn-
I—I 1—I h
-\ 1 1 1 1 1
h
2 1 .5 .2 .1
H 1—I 1—H-
MUSK STRB 6
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 3
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
.01
-O)
-GO
-IN
-(0
-LO
-CO
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 96 99 99.5 99.8 99.99
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTEO VRLUE
Figure A-18c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the, Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for stability F
96
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
88- 89 99.9 99.5 99 90 95 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
00
r-
oo
CO
z:
x
00-
CM-
<->
r\i-
I I I 1—I—»-
+
H
1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - h
+
MUSK STRB 6
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STRTIQN 4
QCflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
H 1—h
H 1 1-
.01 .06 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
PEPCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
99 99 99.5 99.9 89.99
Figure A-18d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for stability F
97
-------
88.
00-
r^-
to-
un-
co-
rsl-
^"b
i^H
•- "i
j—
-
LU
o
oo-
OJ-
o
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 89.8 88.5 88 86 85 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
1—I—I 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
H 1—I 1—I
CflNRL WIND 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 1
©CflLeULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
1—I—i-
4-
-»
4-
.01 .05 . 1.2 .51
2 S 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 60 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 88 98.5 88.9 98.88
Figure A-19a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for wind speed class 1 (0 to 2.6 m/sec)
98
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
09.89 99.9 98.5 99 90 95 90 60 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
—k-HH 1—I » 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h
oo-
r^-
(£>-
tn-
CO
X
O
CE
»—
LLJ
Z
u
CM-
CM-
21.5.2.1 .01
1—I
CRNflL WIND 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STflTION 2
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
III I—I
H 1 1 1 1 1-
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 60 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
99 99.5 98.8 98.98
Figure A-19b,
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for wind speed class 1 (0 to 2.6 m/sec)
99
-------
o
cr
oc
LU
o
z
o
u
00-
(0-
Lf>-
co-
(M-
00-
CM-
0
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 88.8 88.5 88 86 85 80 80 70 60 50 40 90 20 10 5
f—t—I 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 .5 ,2.1 .01*23
< 1—I h-+•
CflNflL MIND 1
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STflTION 3
oCflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
H 1—I 1-
H 1 1 1 1 1-
.01 .05 . 1.2 .61
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VRLUE
86 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-19c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the-Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for wind speed class 1 (0 to 2.6 m/sec)
100
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICRTEO VflLUE
.98 99.8 99.59988 95 90 80 706050 4030 20 10 5
21.5.2.1 .01
CJ)~
00-
CO-
UO-
^»-
cn-
£ CNJ-
t!)
Z "^
CE «>-
GC LD-
H-
UJ
0 oo-
O
o n-
»— L_
1 — t— \ 1— i — i 1 1 1 1 — i — i — i — i
CflNRL WIND 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTI
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
iii iii i i i i i i i i
.01 .05 .1.2 .51 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70
i r 1 1 ? T ii
ON
c
r
/
/
/
i »f i i i i i i i
-en
-03
-to
rin
-^
-co
-CM 2
C!)
-CD £3
-CO Q-
-in QC
LU
-00 CJ
-CM <->
*o
•• — 1
\m- ii i i i i i i
80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.9 98.98
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
Figure A-19d. Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background
at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for wind speed class 1 (0 to 2.6 m/sec)
101
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
"£399.99 99.9 99.5 99 96 95 90 60 70 BO 50 40 30 20 10 5
00-
C^
CO
LD
cn-
CO
"b
cr ID-
LLJ
o
I I I 1—I
H 1—I 1—I—h
•+•
CRNRL WIND 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I 1—h
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
-I 1 1 1 1
O
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 00 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
95
1—
98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-20a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for wind speed class 2 (2.6 to 4.0 m/sec)
102
-------
"£399.
cn-
03-
IN-
U3-
in-
CM-
cr
cc
UJ
U
(J
CM-
o
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
99 99.9 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
J—I-H 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 »
CRNRL MIND 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I i I—I—I—h
H—I—I—I—I—I—(-
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VRLUE
o
98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-20b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for wind speed class 2 (2.6 to 4.0 m/sec)
103
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INOICRTED VRLUE
99.99 98.9 89.59988 95 90 80 706050 4030 20 10 5
I I \ h—1—K
-f-
1 1 1 1 1
H
2 1 .5 .2 .t .01
H 1—I
OD
C^
(O
CO
(0-
(M-
CD—
*—1 ^
CE <0-
LU
O (0-1
Z
D
<-> oo-l
O
CRNRL WIND 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
HT STRTION 3
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I i I—I—i—h
4-
1 1 1
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
98 89 99.5 98.9 99.98
Figure A-20c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for wind speed class 2 (2.6 to 4.0 m/sec)
104
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
88. 99 W. 8 99.58990 95 90 60 708050 4030 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
OD-
03-
LO-
^f-
00-
g CM-
I|
cr to-
ff: L/>-
LU
0 co-
<-> CM-
»— 1
1 I • I t| 1 1 1 1— I 1 1 1— — I 1 r— i 1 1— i 1— i
CRNRL HIND 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
1 1
[
/
/
/ r
1 1 1 1 1 1— — I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- it 1 1 1 1 1 A— 1
-O)
-00
-to
-LO
— «*»
-CNJ 2
-^z
H—
-<0 a;
t—
LU
-CO U
O
»H
o
«— 1
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 90 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
85 96 89 98.5 98.8 98.99
Figure A-20d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for wind speed class 2 (2.6 to 4.0 m/sec)
105
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICATED VflLUE
"2388.89 98.9 99.5 89 90 95 90 90 70 60 50 40 90 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
00-
C* —
(D-
cn-
CM-
CE «0~
CC in-
LU
O
<-> oo-
»^
O
I I I 1—I
H—I
CflNflL WIND 3
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION 1
0CflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
en
H—t—f-
H
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
-t-
H 1 1 1 1 h
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
O
86 99 89.5 88.9 88.88
Figure A-21a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for wind speed class 3 (4.0 m/sec •>)
106
-------
99.
00-
LO-
00-
X
c!)
en
LU
CJ
2
O
CMH
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
00 00.0 00.S 00 66 05 00 00 70 80 50 40 90 20 10 5
h—»—I 1—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
H 1—I KH
CRNRL HIND 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I 1—h
H 1 1 1 1 1-
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 60
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VflLUE
06 00 00.5 00.0 00.00
Figure A-21b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for wind speed class 3 (4.0 m/sec ->)
107
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
S8.99 99.9 99.5 99 99 95 90 80 70 60 SO 40 90 20 10 5
00-
t^-
CO-
LO-
CM-
.
"
cr to-
QC LO-
LU
CJ tn-
o
H—hH 1—I—h
+
+
H 1 1 1
+
+
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
H 1—I 1
CRNRL NINO 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 3
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I t I—i—i—h
•4-
1 1 1 1
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INOICflTED VflLUE
98 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Figure A-21c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for wind speed class 3 (4.0 m/sec -»•)
108
-------
t)89
CD-
CO-
00-
)
109
-------
PERCENTFOE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88.88 88.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 80 70 60 SO 40 90 20 10 5
00-
r^-
10-
in-
(O-
c\»-
CD
"b
CE
oc
LU
o
CJ
cn-
I I I »—I
1 1 1 1 1-
+
HUSK MIND i
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION 1
oCflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKCROUNO
I I I 1—I h
-I-
H 1 1 1 1 •—H-
.01 .05 .1.2 ,51 2 5 10 20 30 40 SO BO 70 90 80 85
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIQNS
LESS THRN INDICATED VflLUE
21.5.2.1 .01 °O
88 88.5 88.8 98.89
Figure A-22a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calcualted
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for wind speed class 1 (0 to 1.6 m/sec)
110
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88. 88 89.8 88.0 88 80 86 80 00 70 00 SO 40 90 20 105
00-
rv-
(O-
m-
CM-
"
LU
D
<-> OH
III II — I
1
H 1
H 1 1-
+
+
2 I .5 .2.1
-\—KH 1
.01
MUSK MIND 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
gCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
I 1 I I-H—h
H
.01 .OS .1.2 .6 1 2 6 10 20 90 40 50 60 70 00 80 85 88 88 88.6 88.8 88.88
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
Figure A-22b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Musklngum Plant for
receptor 2 for wind speed class 1 (0 to 1.6 m/sec)
111
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
t>88.98 89.8 88.6 88 88 85 80 80 70 80 60 40 90 20 10 6
MUSK MIND 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
flT STflTION 3
0CflLCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BACKGROUND
.01 .06 .1.2 .6 1
2 S 10 20 30 40 60 80 70 80 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED YflLUE
88 88 88.6 88.8 88.88
Figure A-22c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for wind speed class 1 (0 to 1.6 m/sec)
112
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
99.99 99.9 09.8 99 90 95 90 90 70 60 SO 40 90 20 10 8
-H—I 1 1 1 1—I—I—I—I 1 1 1
00-
(V,-
UJ-
Ift-
co-
z:
O
"b
o:
oc
LU
•z.
D
I I (
MUSK NINO 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AHERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
2 1 .8 .2 .1 .01
\—H-1 1—f-
I I I hH h
H 1 1
.01 .06 .1.2 .81
2 6 10 20 90 40 60 80 70 00 90
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRT10NS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
95 90 99 99.6 99.9 99.99
Figure A-22d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for wind speed class 1 (0 to 1.6 m/sec)
113
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
^388.8888.8 88.58886 85 00 60 706050 4090 20 10 5
-I—I 1 1 1 »
00-
UD-
co-
(M-
CE to-
ff! i/
LU
O
CJ
cn-
I I I
1—I—I—I—I h
2 I .5 .2 ,1 .01
H—HH
HUSK HIND 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
FIT STflTION 1
0CflLCULflTED
AMERSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
i i i
.01 .05 .1,2
I — »-
1 1 1 1 1 1-
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 88 88.6 88.8 88.80
Figure A-23a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for wind speed class 2 (1.6 to 2.4 m/sec)
114
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
98' 00 88- 8 88> 5 80 88 05 80 00 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
cn-
00-
LO-
cn-
CO
£3
CE <°-
OC LO-
h-
z ^
UJ
<->
1—I—I—H
I I 1 1—I—I-
MUSK WIND 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
RT STRTION 2
0CRLCULRTED
^HERSUREO MINUS BRCKGROUND
•4-
H H
2 I .6 .2.1
- I-H
I > I I-H \-
-I 1 1 1 1 1-
.01 .05 .1.2 .51 2
10 20 80 40 50 60 70 80
88 08 00.6 08.0 00.00
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
Figure A-23b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for wind speed class 2 (1.6 to 2.4 m/sec)
115
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THflN INOICRTED VflLUE
90.99 88.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 80 70 60 60 40 30 20 10 5
00-
tv-
10-
in-
eo-
(M-
"b
00-
f-
(D-
I I I 1—I—t-
-t-
1 1 1 1 1
H
2 1 .6 .2 .1 .01
H 1—I 1—H
HUSK WIND 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR i HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
flT STflTION 3
oCflLCULflTED
AHERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 00 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
85 88 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-23c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for wind speed class 2 (1.6 to 2.4 m/sec)
116
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRU INDICflTED VRLUE
88, 8888. i 08.68896 85 80 60 706050 4030 20 10 5
cn
oo
CO-
CM-
"b
o
cr
cc
LU
U
O
tMH
H 1—I—I—I—I If
I I I 1
HUSK HIND 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR S02 CONCENTRfiTIONS
flT STRTION 4
GjCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
I i i—t—H
H h
H 1—I—S-
.01 .05 ,1,2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 90 iO 50 60 70 60 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTED VfllUE
95 86 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-23d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for wind speed class 2 (1.6 to 2.4 m/sec)
117
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICRTEO VflLUE
99.99 88.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 BO 70 BO 50 40 90 20 10 5
OD-
in-
rsi-
2
U
£
5
j
(OH
I I I HH
I—I—I—I h
+
+
2 I .8 .2.1 .01
H—HH »—*
HUSK MIND 3
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
RT STRTION I
©CRLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I
4-
.01 .OS .1.2 .5 1
h-H—I—I H
2 6 10 20 90 40 60 80 70 BO 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
f—f-
-QD
-t^
-(O
-in
-(O
•~£
X
i
i
•0> Q
"CO
•fx» i
r™
•(o cr
i-
LU
•z.
o
-(M
<->
OB 88 88.8 88.8 88.88
Figure A-24a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for wind speed class 3 (2.4 m/sec ->)
118
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88. 88 88. 8 89.58880 86 80 80 70 00 SO 40 SO 20 10 6
00-
t^.-
(D--
(O-
f\H
en
oc
LU
U
! I I h-H—»-
-I 1-
H »—I—I—I I I
H 1-
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01
-t—H-+
HUSK MIND 3
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
flT STflTION 2
oCRLCULflTEO
AMEflSURED MINUS BACKGROUND
I 1 I »
.01 .06 .1.2 .81
H H
1—I—H—»-
2 6 10 20 90 40 50 80 70 80 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 88 88.6 88.8 88.88
Figure A-24b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for wind speed class 3 (2.4 m/sec ->•)
119
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
98.99 98.8 99.S 99 98 8S 80 00 70 80 SO 40 90 20 10 5
OV-
00-
1^-
(O-
in-
CNH
E
C
-+—I-H HH
1—I—I—I—I
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01°t>
> i I »
HUSK MIND 3
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
AT STATION 3
QCALCULATED
^MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
.01 .06 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 90 40 SO 80 70 80 90
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
90 99 99.6 99.9 88.88
Figure A-24c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for wind speed class 3 (2.4 m/sec •»•)
120
-------
PERCENTflGE Oh CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
"£388.8889.9 88.58888 85 80 80 705050 4030 20 10 5
I I I I-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 »-
in-
CO
rsi-
"fa
CQ-
H- ^
GC tf
oc m-J
LU
o )
121
-------
PERCENTRG6 OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VRLUE
99.98 89.8 88.5 89 90 85 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
00-
t—
-CM
-in
LU
1-fSJ
O
.01 .05 ,1.2 .512 6 10 20 90 40 §0 60 70 60 90 85 86 89 88.5 98.8 88.88
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VfllUE
Figure A-25a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for mixing height class 1 (0 to 750 m)
122
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88.88 88.9 88.5 88 86 85 80 80 70 60 SO 40 SO 20 10 5
I » * HH h 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 h
"j
r*w-l
CO-
0,-J
co-
CM-
CE
oc
LU
U co-
Z
O
CJ rvi-
*-
0
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
H HH KH
CflNftL MIXH 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION 2
0CflLCULRTED
AMEflSUREO MINUS BflCKGROUND
i I i—l—h
•+•
+
H 1 1 h
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
hO)
i"00
h-t^
k(0
-in
O
O
i-O)
r-O)
-1^
-CD
-in
LU
-
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INOICflTED VflLUE
8» 80.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 00 70 80 SO 40 90 20 10 5
2 1 .5 .2 .1
00-
•sf-
(O-
CD-
GO-
CE
CC
LU
u
z
o
<->
(M-
I I > H-1—H
h
1—I—I—I—I H
+
CflNflL MIXH I
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 3
©CRLCULflTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
I i I — I — i — f-
1
(
.01
.01 .05 .1.2 .61
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INOICRTEO VflLUE
88 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-25c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for mixing height class 1 (0 to 750 m)
124
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTEO VflLUE
t>88.89 W.8 88-5 88 80 85 80 80 70 00 SO 40 30 20 10 S
-J 1 1 1 I—
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01
0>
t^.-
(O-
21
\
CD
CM-
o 0)~
^ «-
\— ^
cr «
CC it
UJ
m-
o
<-> CMH
o
1 > I HH—I-
-h
1—I
CflNflL MIXH 1
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSUREO MINUS BRCKGROUND
I I I h-l h
»-
H 1-
.01 .06 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 30 40 SO 80 70 80 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICflTEO VflLUE
88 88 88. S 88.8 88.88
Figure A-25d. Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for mixing height class 1 (0 to 750 m)
125
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTEO VflLUE
88.88 88.8 88.5 88 86 85 80 90 70 00 SO 40 90 20 10 6
1 1 I H-l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
t—
CO-
l/>-
•M*-
oo-
0
CC CO-
CC m-
LU
0 co-l
o
CM-
o
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
H h-1 HH
CRNAL HIXH 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION 1
©CflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BflCKGROUND
> 1—I
H »-
.01 .05 .1.2 .6 I 2 5 10 20 3040606070 60 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
85 86 88 88.6 88.8 88.88
Figure 26a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for mixing height class 2 (750 to 1250 m)
126
-------
PERCENTflCE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
••• 88 00.8 88. 5 48 86 85 80 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 5
oo-
t^.-
(0-
in-
CO-
V
o o)~
•-, °°-
cc n-
LU
cn-
o
<-> ro-J
O
I I I
H
»-
H 1 1 1 1 h
+
CflNRL MIXH 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR t HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 2
©CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
I—HH
1—h
H—I
—I-
.01 .OS .1.2 .8 1 2 S 10 20 80 40 50 60 70 60 80 85
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTEO VflLUE
O
86 88 88.6 88.8 88.88
Figure A-26b
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor JZ for mixing height class 2 (750 to 1250 m)
127
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREflTER THflN INOICflTED VflLUE
88. 8888.8 98.58080 85 80 90 708060 4030 20 10 9
CO
2:
\.
CD
OD-
P^-
to-
in-
<«#-
co-
(M-
o O)~
KH °°-
cr <°-
LU
O mJ
O
o
-I—» HH
+
-J-
H 1—I—I—I
+
•+•
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01
< h
CRNRL HIXH 2
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
flT STflTION 3
oCflLCULflTED
AHERSURED MINUS BflCKGROUNO
I I I 1—I H
H 1 1 1 1
.01 .05 .1.2 .51
2 5 10 20 30 40 BO 60 70 80 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
88 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-26c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for mixing height class 2 (750 to 1250 m)
128
-------
PERCENTflfF OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER TMflN INDICRTED VflLUE
t> 88. 88 88. 8 88. S 88 88 85 80 60 70 BO SO 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .6 .2.1 .01
«— \ i i . i t . I- i 1 ii iiiilli It tttl — I 1
O>-
00-
t^-
IQ-
in-
,*-
00-
2-
\
O
^ b
1^
^ ®-
fx. --
h- ^
o:
j__
2 -si«-
LU
u to-
2.
O
t-> CM-
•H
O
«-i.
CRNRL MIXH 2
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR t HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
OCRLCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
i
j
A l
r*~*
t \
1 1
r
i
/
1
/ ,
1 — i — t—— i — i 1 1 1 i 1 I I i 1.. > X \ 1 1 i i i r/
It)
r-<
-cn
-co
-r^
-<£>
-tn
-•#
-co
-„£
\
(±>
b^
-^T2
:S o
00 I-H
— f^*.
^ 1—
-(0 CE
-in QC
l_
1
-^ z
LU
-CO CJ
O
-(M <->
*fa
__»— «
.01 .05 .1.2 .51 2
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 60 80 86 08 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDJCfllED VRLUE
Figure A-26d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for mixing height class 2 (750 to 1250 m)
129
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INDICflTEO VflLUE
73 99.99 99.8 98.59996 95 90 90 706050 4090 20 10 5
00-
<0-
IO-
OD-
t—«
cc «>-
OC ,n-
D
-> -J
I I I 1—I—I-
1-
H 1
I
2 1 .5 .2.1
H I-H 1—h-
CRNflL MIXH 3
CUMULflTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR 302 CONCENTRflTIONS
flT STflTION 1
oCflLCULflTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
1—i—i
1 1 1 1
.01 .OS .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 90 40 50 60 70 90 80
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRftTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
h-t-
-00
-in
r-OT)
•CD o
•°° ^-,
-in "-
H-
• ^^f ^^^
LU
-co O
o
-CM
O
99 99 99,5 99.9 98.98
Figure A-27a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 1 for mixing height class 3 (1250 m -*•)
130
-------
88.88
00-
(—
co-
l/)-
CM-i
CE
OC
LU
o
2
O
0
O
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
88.8 88.5 88 80 85 80 80 70 BO 50 40 30 20 10 5
4—»—I I-H 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 h
2 I .5 .2.1 .01
CRNRL HIXH 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 2
OCRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS 6RCKGROUNO
H—I—I 1—I »-
4-
1 1 1 »-
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 80 85
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VflLUE
88 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-27b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 2 for mixing height class 3 (1250 m -»)
131
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
t) 88.88 88.8 88.58886 85 80 80 706050 4030 20 10 5
H 1 1 1 1 1
CD-
m-
(O-
OD
~ ™-
cr <0-
OC in-
LU
O CD-I
O
O /^iJ
I I 1 1—I
h
1
CflNRL MIXH 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 3
©CflLCULflTED
AHERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
I I I—I-H—»-
H—I
.01 .OS .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 90 40 50 60 70 60 80
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICRTEO VRLUE
86 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-27c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 3 for mixing height class 3 (1250 m ->)
132
-------
O)-
1/7-
(OH
CD-
CO-
_)
Z
D
_J
(0-
O
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INOICRTEO VRLUE
9.89 88.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 00 70 00 90 40 90 20 10 S
H 1 1 1 1 ^
2 1 .5 .2 .1 .01 t)
H H
+
+
-i—*
CRNRL MIXH 3
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
> I I—t—I—H
H »-
H 1 1 1 1 1-
.01 .OS .1.2 .51 2
10 20 30 40 50 80 70 00
o
80 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
Figure A-27d
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Canal Plant for
receptor 4 for mixing height class 3 (1250 m -^
133
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
6RERTER THflN INOICRTEO VRLUE
48.88 88.8 88.58880 85 90 80 708050 4090 20 10 5
cn-
oo-
t^-
(O-
in-
00-
(N-
O
cr to-
QC u)-
2 **-
UJ
o
u
CM-
t 1 I I-H—»-
-J
H
H—I—I 1-
•i 1-
2 1 .5 .2 .1
H—I-H 1—t—
MUSK HIXH 1
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY 01STRIBUTI8N
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 1
0CRLCULRTED
AHERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUNO
I I i 1—I h
1 1 1 1 1
H 1—I H-4-
01
.01 .05 .1.2 .51 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-*-
85 88 88 88. S 88.8 88.88
-cn
-to
-I/)
-(N
CO
CD
f-tfl
-CM
LU
Z
o
o
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICATED VflLUE
Figure A-28a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for mixing height class 1 (0 to 800 m)
134
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GREflTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
»«• 88 99.8 88.6 88 88 85 80 80 70 00 50 40 90 20 10 6
2 1 .9 .2 .1 .01
*£
0
z
0
1
r^
QC
UJ
O
0
CJ
0)-
oo-
(O-
•«*-
CO-
0,-
•b
o>-
03-
to-
U>-
on-
(NJ-
•fa
I t 1 1 — 1 — 1 1 1 I 1 t 1 1 — It II
MUSK HIXH 1
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRRTION.S
RT STRTJON 2
oCflLCULRTEO
AMERSURED MINUS BRCKGROUND
1
/
1 — i — i — i — i — i 1 1 1 — i — i — i — •— — i — 1-1 — i 1-
1 i i — i ?
S
/
/
/
)
/
i
!
1— i — ^ iffi i
(
(
(
J
<
<
<
/
pH
>
\
)
)
)
)
)
-O)
>-QD
-to
-LO
-CT)
-C\J
•b
-CO
-co
-03
-in
-en
HV
*O
QC
Lul
O
Z
O
.01 .05 .1.2 .51 2 5 10 20 90 40 50 80 70 BO 80 85 8d 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THflN INDICRTED VflLUE
Figure A-28b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for mixing height class 1 (0 to 800 m)
135
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GRERTER THflN INOICflTEO VflLUE
^388.8888.8 88.58886 85 80 00 700050 4090 20 10 5
HUSK HIXM 1
CUHULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STflTION 3
gCALCULRTED
AMEflSURED MINUS BACKGROUND
.01.05.1,2 .512 8 10 20 9040500070 00 80
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICATED VflLUE
80 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-28c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for mixing height class 1 (0 to 800 m)
136
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
. 8i S8.8 88.5 88 08 85 80 60 70 00 80 40 90 20 10 5
00-
r--
(O-
in-
CM-i
o:
cc
UJ
CJ
D
U
I I I I-H
•t-
+
-*•
-I—I—I—I
+
2 1 .5 .2.1
I > I I—f—
HUSK MIXH 1
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
AT STATION 4
0CALCULATED
^MEASURED HINUS BACKGROUND
I I I 1—H 1 1-
•+-H—i
.01
.01 .05 .1.2 .5 1 2 & 10 20 90 40 60 00 70 00 80
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
90 88 88.5 98.8 88.88
Figure A-28d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for mixing height class 1 (0 to 800 m)
137
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
GREflTER THflN INDICflTEO VflLUE
86.88 88.8 08.58986 85 80 80 706050 4030 20 10 5
00-
in-
C\J-
"b
cc m-
LU
<-> CD-I
O
c\H
I I I
-t 1
H—I—h
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
I I I I-H
HUSK HIXH 2
CUMULRTIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION I
OCRLCULRTED
AHERSUREO MINUS BRCKGROUNO
H—I—h
I h
-O)
-co
-l^
-(O
-in
-CO
3
-in
LU
rcn u
D
-CM
.01.05.1.2 .512 5 10 20 9040506070 60 80 85 888886.5 88.8 88.88
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRflTIONS
LESS THflN INDICflTED VflLUE
Figure A-29a.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 1 for mixing height class 2 (800 to 1200 m)
138
-------
0)-
00-
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
89.88 98.8 88.5 88 89 86 80 80 70 90 50 40 90 20 10 5
-I 111! 1 1
2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
l/)-
m-
co-
2 oE
-
UJ
D
<->
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
•£388.8888.8 88.88880 86 80 80 70 60 SO 4090 20 10 S
HUSK HIXH 2
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR I HOUR 502 CONCENTRATIONS
flT STATION 3
^CALCULATED
A.MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
.01 .05 ,1.2 .5 1 2 8 10 20 90 40 SO 60 70 80 80
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
86 88 88.5 88.8 88.88
Figure A-29c.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for mixing height class 2 (800 to 1200 m)
140
-------
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
GRERTER THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
88.8886.8 88.58886 85 80 80 70 60 60 40 SO 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2.1 .01
00-
1^-
(D-
W-
(O-
r
I j
03-
f--
(D-
U)-
J (OH
»
*
. )
> (NJH
-t-
•4-H
H 1—I—»-H—\r
HUSK HIXH 2
CUMULflTlVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
RT STRTION 4
0CRLCULRTED
AMERSUREO MINUS BRCKGROUNO
I I I—»-H—H
H 1-
I-H
-00
-in
-eg
X
^(O
-in
-co
-(M
LU
O
.01.05.1.2 .512 5 10 20 3040506070 60 80 85 668888.5 88.8 88.88
PERCENTRGE OF CONCENTRRTIONS
LESS THRN INDICRTED VRLUE
Figure A-29d. Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
.rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for mixing height class 2 (800 to 1200 m)
141
-------
PERCENTflGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
88.88 88.8 88.58888 8B 80 80 708080 4090 20 10 5
m-
03-
r«--
05-
="fa
CE )
142
-------
88. 99
cn-
00-
r*-
co-
in-
co-
(M-
CD °
2 «-
»- tv-
cc ">-
CC 10-
LU
O
O
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
88.8 88.5 88 88 85 80 80 70 80 60 40 30 20 10 5
h-HH H-l—» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I »—
2 I .5 .2.1 .01
MUSK HIXH 3
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
AT STATION 2
0CALCULATED
^MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
I I I—HH
.01 .OS .1.2 .S 1 2
1-
H 1 ! 1 1 1-
10 20 90 40 50 60 70
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
88.8 88.88
Figure A-30b.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 2 for mixing height class 3 (1200 m -*•)
143
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
'£388.8888.8 88.58988 85 80 80 708050 4030 20 10 5
2 1 .ft .2.1 .01
CO
0>-
CD-
r*.-
to-
in-
co-J
rs»-
O
"b
•*—HH hH—I 1 »
4—I—I—I—I—I 1-
< 1-
HUSK HIXH 3
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRATIONS
AT STATION 3
0CALCULATED
^MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
.01 .06 .1.2 .5 1
2 5 10 20 90 40 50 60 70 80 90
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
98 98 89.5 88.8 88.98
Figure A-30c.
Cumulative frequency distribution of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 3 for mixing height class 3 (1200 m •»)
144
-------
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN INDICATED VALUE
88.89 88.9 99. S 99 99 98 90 60 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 5
I I I HH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—I 1 1 1 1-
to-
co-
(M-
O
cc
UJ
O
z
o
O
2 1 .5 .2.1
-H - 1 — I - HH
.01
MUSK HIXH 3
CUMULflTJVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
FOR 1 HOUR S02 CONCENTRflTIONS
AT STATION 4
^CALCULATED
^MEASURED MINUS BACKGROUND
I I I HH—»-
H
.01 ,05 .1.2 .8 1 2
-J 1—I—1—h
10 20 90 40 SO 60 70
U.0)
-to
-ro
-CM
UJ
<->
o
o
90 85 96 89 99.5 89.9 88.98
PERCENTAGE OF CONCENTRATIONS
LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
Figure A-30d.
Cumulative frequency distributions of calculated
concentrations and measured concentrations cor-
rected for background at the Muskingum Plant for
receptor 4 for mixing height class 3 (1200 m ->)
145
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-77-003^
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
I I I I—C AAINLJ O W O I I I L_ C
Improvements to Single-Source Model Volume 3
Further Analysis of Modeling Results
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Michael T. Mills
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GCA-TR-76-6-G(3)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Tivision
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1376
Task Order No. 23
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report documents an evaluation of the model performance stratified
by six stability classes, three wind speed classes, and three mixing height
classes. The model accuracy is found to be dependent on stability class.
For stabilities A and B, the model shows some tendency to overestimate con-
centrations, especially near the plant. For stabilities D, E, and F, the
model greatly underestimates concentrations at all but the most distant
sampler. For stability C, the model tends to agree with the measurements.
Higher wind speeds result in a trend toward overestimates at the Muskingum
plant, and a trend toward underestimates at the Canal plant. For the Canal
plant, there does not appear to be a definite pattern between the accuracy
of the model estimates and mixing height. However, at the Muskingum plant,
large underestimates occur for the lowest mixing height class. This implies
that the model is treating the plume as penetrating the top of the mixed
layer (with resulting concentration estimates of zero) more frequently than
actually happens.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Air Pollution
Concentration
Turbulent Diffusion
Mathematical Models
Computer Models
Meteorology
Electric Power Plants
Sulfur Dioxide
Dispersion
Air Quality Simulation
Model
Point Sources
Model Validation
Air Quality Maintenance
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
159
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
147
------- |