&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory
P. 0 Box 15027
Las Vegas NV 89114
EPA-600/4-79-043
June 1979
Research and Development
Airborne Measurements
of Power Plant Plumes
in West Virginia
Kammer and Mitchell
Power Plants,
25 August —
11 September 1975
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad categories
were established to facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster
technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.This series
describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods and instrumentation
for the identification and quantification of environmental pollutants at the lowest
conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes studies to determine the ambient
concentrations of pollutants in the environment and/or the variance of pollutants as a
function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/4-79-043
June 1979
AIRBORNE MEASUREMENTS OF POWER PLANT PLUMES IN WEST VIRGINIA
Kammer and Mitchell Power Plants
25 August - 11 September 1975.
Frank G. Johnson*, John L. Connolly, Roy B. Evans and Thomas M. Zeller
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
*0n assignment from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory-Las Vegas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions that
are based on sound technical and scientific information. This information
must include the quantitative description and linking of pollutant sources,
transport mechanisms, interactions, and resulting effects on man and his
environment. Because of the complexities involved, assessment of specific
pollutants in the environment requires a total systems approach that
transcends the media of air, water, and land. The Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas contributes to the formation and enhancement
of a sound monitoring data base for exposure assessment through programs
designed to:
• develop and optimize systems and strategies for monitoring
pollutants and their impact on the environment
• demonstrate new monitoring systems and technologies by
applying them to fulfill special monitoring needs of the
Agency's operating programs
This report presents the results of an air quality study made in the upper
Ohio River Valley. Specifically, a helicopter-borne system was used to
measure the plumes of the Kammer and Mitchell power plants near
Wheeling, W. Va. In addition, a downward-looking LIDAR system was deployed
for the same purpose. Additional information, not contained in this report,
may be obtained from the Monitoring Operations Division of the Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory.
Geor$e/B. Morga^
Director
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Figures vi
Tables vi
Abbreviations and Symbols vii
Introduction 1
Summary 2
Description of Plants 9
Description of Aircraft and Instrumentation 11
Description of Flight Paths and Techniques 15
References 17
Appendix A. Description and Results of Flights 19
Appendix B. Wind Data 79
Appendix C. Determination of Horizontal and Vertical Dispersion
Coefficients 83
Appendix D. Flux Calculations from Plume Cross Sections 88
Appendix E. Helicopter System Description 90
Appendix F. Calibration Standards and Procedures 92
Appendix 6. Plume Rise Calculations 96
-------
FIGURES
Number
Page
1 Combined Kammer plume width vs. downwind distance 2
2 Mitchell plume width vs. downwind distance 2
3 Normalized Kammer plume height vs. downwind distance .... 3
4 Normalized Mitchell plume height vs. downwind distance ... 4
5 Comparison of observed and calculated plume rises for the
Mitchell plant, 27 August - 11 September 75 5
6 Comparison of observed and calculated plume rises for the
Kammer plant, 27 August - 11 September 75 5
7 Centerline flux vs. downwind distance for the Kammer plumes . 6
8 Centerline flux vs. downwind distance for the Mitchell plume. 6
9 Kammer power plant relative center!ine concentration
times wind speed vs. downwind distance 7
10 Mitchell power plant center!ine concentration times wind
speed vs. downwind distance 7
11 The Mitchell power station 10
12 The Kammer power station 10
13 Sikorsky S-58 helicopter 11
14 Helicopter data system 12
15 Airborne LIDAR system 14
Number
1
2
TABLES
Kammer and Mitchell power stations characteristics
Summation of aircraft missions
Page
9
16
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
o
A
A6L
bscat
BCD
BTU
°C
cfm
cm
DCS
DME
EMSL-LV
EPA
EST
F
ft
9
h
J
°K
kg
km
kn
L
LIDAR
m
mag
max
MOD
mm
MSL
MTE
MW
MWe
NBKI
NBS
nmi
NO-NOX
sec
Angstrom
above ground level
total light scattering
binary .coded decimal
British thermal unit
degree Celsius
cubic feet per minute
centimeter
Bendix dynamic calibration system
distance measuring equipment
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory-Las Vegas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eastern Standard Time
buoyancy flux
feet
gravitational constant
center!ine plume height
Joule
degree Kelvin
kilogram
k i1ometer
knot (nautical mile per
downwind distance where
mixing layer is 1/10 of
hour)
concentration
centerline
at top of
light detection and ranging
meter
magnetic compass heading or bearing
maximum
Monitoring Operations Division
mi 11i meter
mean sea level
maximum terrain elevation
molecular weight
megawatt electric
neutral buffered potassium iodide
National Bureau of Standards
nautical mile
nitrous oxide-total, oxides of nitrogen
second
sulfur dioxide
vn
-------
List of Abbreviations and Symbols (Continued)
SRM
STP
T
Td
u
UV
VFR
VORTAC
w
x
SYMBOLS
Ah
U9
p
e
oy
crz
X
standard reference method
standard temperature and pressure
temperature
dewpoint temperature
horizontal wind speed
ultra violet
visual flight rules
air navigation beacon
exit velocity
downwind distance
plume rise
microgram
density
potential temperature
standard deviation in the
standard deviation in the
centerline concentration
crosswind direction
vertical direction
vm
-------
INTRODUCTION
In response to a request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Regional Administrator for Region III, the Monitoring Operations
Division (MOD) of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory-
Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) conducted a field study between 25 August and 11 September
1975 to measure parameters of effluent plumes from two large coal -fired
electric generating stations near Wheeling, West Virginia. Concentrations of
sulfur dioxide (S02) in the plumes had previously been estimated by the H.E.
Cramer Company (1975) using standard Gaussian-type point source dispersion
models. The MOD study was intended to measure plume parameters to compare
with model calculations. Parameters of interest included plume
height-of-rise, horizontal and vertical plume spread, and concentrations of
at the plume center! ine and near the ground.
The two generating stations are located about 15 nautical miles (nmi)*
south of Wheeling, on the Ohio River. The larger of the two, the Mitchell
plant, has a capacity of approximately 1600 megawatts electric (MWe), a
365-meter stack and a maximum S02 emission rate of approximately 850,000
kilograms per day (kg/day). The Kammer plant has two 183-meter stacks, a
capacity of approximately 800 MWe, and a S02 emission rate of about 389,000
kg/day (Wai den 1973). Table 1 provides a more complete list of pertinent
plant characteristics.
Plume parameters were observed during the field study with two airborne
measurement systems.
1. A helicopter-borne air quality monitoring system measured gas
concentrations of sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, oxides of nitrogen, and ozone
along with aerosol light scattering (with a nephelometer), air temperature and
dew point, and location. This system was installed in a Sikorsky S-58
helicopter.
2. An airborne down-looking LIDAR system instantaneously measured
aerosol light scattering versus altitude above ground level (A6L). The LIDAR
was installed in a Beechcraft C-45 twin-engine airplane.
*Gases are reported in parts per million (ppm) by the helicopter data
processing system in order to make the data compatible with extensive ground
monitoring stations involved in the Regional Air Pollution Study, St. Louis,
Missouri (Allen 1973). The amount of data involved in this report makes it
impractical to convert concentrations to micrograms per cubic meter. In
addition, all altimetry and navigational data are reported in nautical miles
and feet, as those systems report directly in those units.
1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 nmi = 1.84 km; yg/m3 S02 = 2,667 X ppm S02
-------
SUMMARY
Seventeen helicopter flights were made during the period 25 August to
11 September 1975, to make measurements in the effluent plumes from the Kammer
and Mitchell generating stations. LIDAR measurements were obtained on 4 days
during the period. From the helicopter data, 16 sulfur dioxide plume cross
sections and three horizontal plume concentration maps were prepared.
Additional plume dimensions were obtained on occasions when plume cross
sections were not constructed. The LIDAR flights yielded four plume cross
sections and several long range measurements perpendicular to the regional
gradient winds. The LIDAR was hampered by adverse weather and equipment
problems. Three of the LIDAR cross sections were performed simultaneously
with helicopter cross sections, providing a check on the validity of such
cross sectional patterns prepared from successive helicopter passes.
Figures 1 and 2 summarize plume widths determined by helicopter
observations. In the majority of cases, the two Kammer plumes combined to act
as a single plume, and only such cases are included in the summaries.
24,000;
•
12,000
_ 6000
5 3000
i
5 1500
si
600
0
S
10,000-
_ 5000-
8 •§ 4000-
s S 300°-
N a
i 2000-
uj 1500-
s s s
N 3 1000-
S S=STABLE °-
S N=NEUTRAL
500-
KAMMER
5 10 50 1
« s
® s,
S=STABLE
®=HIGH FLUX
S
MITCHELL
5 10 50
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 1. Combined Kammer plume width
vs. downwind distance.
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 2. Mitchell plume width vs.
downwind distance.
-------
Figures 3 and 4 offer a comparison of normalized plume height,
h (meters) x u (meters/sec) = hu (meters2/sec)
to downwind distance. The stability associated with each observation is
noted. As shown in Figure 3, the Kammer plumes have for the stable cases, a
mean normalized plume stabilization height of 4,632 m^/sec with a standard
deviation of 1,308 m^/sec. In Figure 4, the mean normalized plume
stabilization height of the Mitchell plume is 5,069 m^/sec with a standard
deviation of 608 m^/sec. It is believed that this difference in variation
about the mean may be attributed to the fact that the Kammer plume,
originating from shorter stacks, exhibits a terrain-induced looping motion not
found to as great an extent in the higher Mitchell plume.
s
X
u
O9
"s»
X
t-
u
LU
LU
s
_l
Q.
a
LU
S
cc
0
7-
6
5
4
3-
2
1
s
S N
N N
N
UK
S
™
ATMOSPHERIC
KAMMI
S
N
S S 1
-s
N
UK
S
STABILITY: N=NEUTRAL
ER S=STABLE
UK=UNKNOWN
S
NEUTRAL MEAN
pm- IV k %lf • • I i^^ Ll IVI lp» i^^ 1 V
STABLE MEAN
S
s
V
10 15
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 3. Normalized Kammer plume height vs. downwind distance.
-------
o
o
o
X
u
W
M
CM
E.
"3"
X
M
10"
9-
8-
7
6
5
4
3
25 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 1975 N
NEUTRAL MEAN
s •
S s
s S STABLE MEAN
s" 1 s
S s S 5
ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY: N=NEUTRAL
MITCHELL S=STABLE ^
5 10 15
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 4. Normalized Mitchell plume height vs. downwind distance.
Figures 5 and 6 compare plume rise to the results obtained from use of the
following formulae to compute plume rise.
For the Mitchell plant:
Ah = 2.0 Fu--x, for periods of nominal loading, and
Ah = 980e'0«21u for periods of normal loading where
F = buoyancy flux (m^sec~3)
u = wind speed (m/sec)
x = distance where plume stabilization takes place
For the Kammer plant:
Ah = 0.66 (2.0 Fl/3u-1x2/3).
x was chosen arbitrarily as 1 km.
Appendix G presents details of the selection of these equations.
-------
UJ
UJ
3
LU
g2
RATIO
oc 2
LU '
C/»
00
o
'/3 -1 2/3
©=f(2.0F u x J)
-0.209U
0) =f(980.0e )
© g
®
©
©
O
MITCHELL
©
-------
Figures 7 and 8 represent an attempt to normalize plume center!ine sulfur
dioxide concentrations. Center!ine sulfur dioxide concentrations in ug/m
were multiplied by the observed stack height winds (m/sec) and the standard
deviations, ayaz (m2), of the plume concentration distributions in the
horizontal and vertical dimensions to normalize the diluting effects of these
two phenomena. The values of ay were obtained from actual plume
measurements. The values of ay measured for the Mitchell plant were nearly
those for flat terrain, while the ay for the Kammer plant were higher by a
factor of two. The az values were calculated based on ay values (see
Appendix C). These normalized concentrations were plotted against distance
from the plants. The product of center!ine concentrations, wind speed and the
standard deviations, xuayaz (jig/sec), represents the flux along the
centerline. This may be used to estimate the plume centerline concentrations
under a variety of wind and stability conditions. In order to eliminate the
effects of a few very high or low values skewing the mean value, the midmean
has been included. The midmean is defined as, "The arithmetic mean of all
observations between and including the lower and upper quartiles (Cleveland
et al., 1976). The midmean value for the Mitchell plume is 1.0 x 1(P
sec, and for the Kammer plumes, 1.8 x 109 yg/sec.
81
6:
4'
2-
1x10
9-
a 7:
c/»
s
I 3-
I 2"
X
1x10
0 0
0 2
-O ^0- MEAN-
Q MIDMEAN-
0
0 0
0
KAMMER
0
12345678 910111213141516
DISTANCE (km)
9
7
5
4
3
2
1x101
o
^ 6
N O
D 3
? 2
1xi
MEAN-®-
0 MITCHELL
O
1 2345678 910111213141516
DISTANCE (km)
Figure 7. Centerline flux vs. downwind
distance for the Kammer plumes.
Figure 8. Centerline flux vs.
downwind distance for the Mitchell
plume.
-------
Figures 9 and 10 present a more classical representation of center!ine
concentrations, i.e., the product of relative centerline concentration and
wind speed vs. downwind distance. With the exception of the low flux days for
the Mitchell plant, these data show a logical decrease with distance. The
only difference that was noted for the anomalous data was the fact that the
Mitchell plant was producing low volumetric emissions during the times of
observation.
ce
le
V
)
CM
I ,
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
a 5-
, I'
X
CM
'E
S =STABLE CONDITIONS
N=NEUTRAL CONDITIONS
KAMMER
III
o
%
• = HIGH Q DAYS
0= LOW Q DAYS
MITCHELL
o
5 10 15
KILOMETERS DOWNWIND
o
o
5 10 15
KILOMETERS DOWNWIND
Figure 9.
centerline
wind speed
distance].
Kammer power plant
concentration times
(-£ u) vs. downwind
Figure 10.
centerl i ne
wind speed
distance.
Mitchell power plant
concentration times
(• u) vs. downwitid
LIDAR and helicopter cross sections were simultaneously constructed on
5 and 8 September 1975. Good general agreement was observed between the S02
and particulate distribution. However, the length of time required for the
helicopter to construct its cross section (about an hour) and the LIDAR shot
spacing (about one-half nautical mile) resulted in less than perfect agreement
in some cases. A wide skew is shown for the S02 cross section (Figure A-42)
due to lateral plume shift during the relatively long helicopter measurement,
while a quick cross section by LIDAR measurement (Figure A-43) during the
helicopter measurement shows a more "true picture" but with less structure
detail and measurement precision.
-------
LIDAR passes for a number of miles once again demonstrate the ability of
this instrumentation to give relative particulate distribution over a large
area (Eckert et al., 1975) (See Figures A-31, A-32, A-33, and A-55).
The Kammer plumes were observed to contact the ground surface on a number
of occasions (27 and 29 August and 2, 3, 7 and 11 September). The Mitchell
plume was visually observed at the surface on the afternoon of 9 September.
Estimates of sulfur dioxide fluxes in the Kammer plume were prepared from
three separate cross sections and the associated transport wind data; all
three cross sections were measured on 29 August under stable atmospheric
conditions with moderately strong winds (17 knots at 2,000 ft, or 610 m, MSL).
The three flux estimates from helicopter data agree within 10 percent with
flux estimates derived from coal consumption and sulfur content data for the
Kammer plant (See Appendix D).
-------
DESCRIPTION OF PLANTS
The Kammer and Mitchell power plants are located on the east bank of the
Ohio River in Marshall County, West Virginia. Within several kilometers,
terrain elevations extend up to 180 meters above plant grade (See Figures 11
and 12). These two plants are described in Table 1.
TABLE 1. KAMMER AND MITCHELL POWER STATIONS - CHARACTERISTICS (WALDEN 1973)
MITCHELL
KAMMER
Stack 1
KAMMER
Stack 2
Power production =;1600 MWe
Plant grade (m MSL) 201
Stack height (m) 365.8
Inside diameter (m) 10.06
Exit velocity (m sec"1) 30.3
Exit temperature (°K) 441.3
Rated capacity (BTU hr'1) 1.3446x1010
Rated capacity (J hr'1) 1.4xl013
Fuel (coal) (kg yr-1) 3.0x1O9
% Sulfur 3.7
S02 Emission rate (kg sec-1)
Max. load 9.8
Norn, load 5.4
^800 MWe
(Total)
195
183
4.75
34.6
441.3
3.871xl09
4.1xl012
9.5xl010
4.0
3.0
2.3
195
183
3.35
34.7
441.3
1.936x1O9
2.0xl012
4.2xl08
4.0
1.5
1.3
Both of these plants have high stack exit velocities. The Mitchell Power
Plant has one of the tallest smoke stacks in the world.
-------
Figure 11. The Mitchell Power
Station.
Figure 12. The Kammer Power Station
(Mitchell in background).
10
-------
DESCRIPTION OF AIRCRAFT AND INSTRUMENTATION
A Sikorsky S-58 helicopter was used for in-piume measurements (See
Figure 13). Its normal sampling speed is 60 knots (kn); its cruising speed is
approximately 80 kn; its flight duration, at 80 kn, is approximately 4.0
hours, and its ceiling is approximately 9,000 feet (2,745 m) M.SL. The
helicopter was instrumented to measure the following parameters: ozone (Rem
216B), nitric oxide and oxides of nitrogen (Monitor Labs ML 844), and sulfur
dioxide (Meloy SA160). Aerosol light scattering was measured with an
integrating nephelometer (MRI 1550). Measurements were also made of
temperature and dew point (CS-137), position (Collins DME-40), and altitude.
Position was determined by continuous triangulation against two air navigation
beacons (VORTAC's) and is accurate to +_ 0.1 nmi. In addition, magnetic
heading and indicated airspeed are recorded. Figure 14 is a block diagram of
the instrument package. Analog and digital voltages are processed by an on
board data acquisition system (Monitor Labs ML7200) at selected rate of scan
of 2 to 5 seconds. The data system converts the output voltages to Binary
Coded Decimal (BCD) characters recorded on magnetic tape (Gopher 70). The
magnetic tape is then processed by a digital computer and a printout of
calibrated engineering units is obtained. In addition, any four analog
outputs may be recorded on a strip chart recorder. Calibration procedures are
described in Appendix F.
Figure 13. Sikorsky S-58 helicopter.
11
-------
CAMBRIDGE
137
TEMP-DP
STRIP CHART
RECORDER
(A-G)
ANALOG INPUTS
••••••I
MOMTOR LABS
DATA
ACQUISITION
SYSTEM
COLLINS
DME-40 X&Y
POSITION
MAG HEADING
&
IND AIRSPEED
Figure 14. Helicopter data system.
-------
A twin-engine Beechcraft (C-45) was used to carry the LIDAR. Its normal
cruising speed is 155 kn with a flight duration of 6 hours. The normal
sampling speed is 100 kn. The LIDAR system is composed of a laser which
generates a pulse of monochromatic light downward and a detection system to
measure the returned scattered light. When the particles, whose largest
dimension is small compared to the wavelength of the incident light, are
measured, the volume of the particle is the most important consideration.
Under these conditions, the amount of scattered flux varies directly to the
square of the volume and the number of scatterers per unit volume (Johnson
1954). The laser must be fired through a cloud-free atmosphere from at least
7,500 feet above ground level (AGL) to protect ground based observers from
possible eye damage.
The LIDAR includes a Q-switched ruby laser operating at a wavelength of
6934A and a 38-centimeter (cm) fresnel lens receiving telescope. The
returned signals are detected by a photomultiplier tube and digitized with an
analog-to-digital converter with a storage capacity. This system has a
vertical resolution of 15 m (Eckert et al., 1975) and a horizontal resolution
dependent on the aircraft speed, LIDAR cycle time, and navigation data
precision. Shot spacings averaged approximately one-half mile.
The data were recorded on board on a strip chart. These data were
subsequently digitized and corrected for a 1/R^ (R is the range of the
particle from the telescope) light divergence factor and placed on magnetic
tape. The value given to the strength of a return from one altitude was given
a relative value comparing it to returns from other altitudes. In this manner
a series of vertical profiles was constructed and cross sections were drawn.
The bar graphs for the constant heading flights represent a subjective
evaluation of the total return signal associated with a shot to the strength
of other returns received during the flight. This was done by plotting each
profile on graph paper and measuring the area between each return and its
baseline. Figure 15 is a block diagram of the LIDAR system.
13
-------
Biomation
Analog To
Digital Converter
Telescope
Digitizer
& Magnetic
Tape
Plot
CDC 6400
Strip
Chart
Laser
Figure 15. Airborne LIDAR system.
14
-------
DESCRIPTION OF FLIGHT PATHS AND TECHNIQUES
The following types of missions were flown:
1. Plume dimensionalization flights were made under various atmospheric
conditions. These consisted of slow spirals down through the plume at a known
distance from the plant to determine the height of plume center!ine. These
were followed by traverses at the center!ine height to determine the plume's
lateral extent and to determine the centerline concentration.
2. Plume cross section flights were made. These flights consisted of a
series of traverses through the plume, normal to the wind flow and over a
given path, at various altitudes in order to determine the horizontal and
vertical distribution of the various pollutants. Some of these cross sections
were integrated and combined with wind speed to determine flux from the plant.
(Appendix D)
3. "Zigzag" helicopter flights were made along the plume at constant
altitudes to determine the axial and radial gradient of S02 within the
plume. These flights extended for a number of miles and were accomplished by
flying obliquely through the plume until the helicopter reached the plume
edge. The helicopter would then change course 90° to re-enter the plume as
quickly as possible.
4. Low altitude helicopter measurements were made to determine near
ground-level concentrations of S02 during periods when the plumes were
observed impating upon the surface.
5. Helicopter and LIDAR aircraft flights were made simultaneously along
an identical radial from a VORTAC station. The radial was chosen so that it
would be as normal as possible to the orientation of the plume. The
helicopter S0£ cross section was developed so that it could be compared with
the particulate cross section obtained from an integration of the LIDAR
soundings.
6. Long range LIDAR flights were made to determine particulate
variations across the larger air mass. Flights were made along selected
radials from various VORTAC stations for a number of miles. The radials were
chosen to be as normal to the flow as possible. The fact that the aircraft
was flying along a known radial allowed for precision navigation when distance
measuring equipment (DME) information was recorded.
7. Flights were made to test equipment, aircraft, or weather effects
problems.
15
-------
The following table is a summation of the various types of missions flown:
TABLE 2. SUMMATION OF AIRCRAFT MISSIONS
Aircraft Type of Mission
S-58 1
2
3
4
5
Total for S-58
C-45 5
6
7
Total for C-45
Number of Missions
^l^^^m^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^mtm^^llm^^m*^^*^*!^*-^*^**************!!**
3
8
2
2
2
17
2
1
2
5
Hours Flown
6.0
19.1
6.1
2.1
7.4
40.7
8.6
5.0
3.1
16.7
16
-------
REFERENCES
Allen, D.W. "Regional air pollution study - an overview." Paper No. 73-21.
Proceedings of the 66th Annual Meeting, Air Pollution Control Association
(1973).
Briggs, G.A. Plume Rise. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Safety
Information Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oakridge, Tennessee,
TID-25075. (1969).
Briggs, G.A., L. Van der Hoven, R. J. Englemann, and J. Holitsky. "Chapter 5.
Processes other than natural turbulence affecting effluent
concentrations." Meteorology and Atomic Energy. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Office of Information Services, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1968).
Cleveland, W.S., B. Kleiner, and J.L. Warner. "Robust statistical methods and
photochemical air pollution data." Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association (1976).
Cramer, H.E. Characteristics of the Stack Plumes from the Mitchell and Kammer
Plants. Preliminary report for Region III, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1975).
Eckert, J.A., J.L. McElroy, D.H. Bundy, J.L. Guagliardo, and S.H. Melfi.
"Downlooking LIDAR studies." Proceedings of the International Conference
on Environmental Sensing and Assessment, Las Vegas, Nevada. IEEE (1975).
Johnson, J.C. Physical Meteorology. J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
New York (1954).
McElroy, J.L., and F. Pooler, Jr. St. Louis Dispersion Study, Volume II -
Analysis. National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No.
AP-53, Arlington, Virginia (1968).
Nickola, P.W., and G.H. Clark. "Estimation of mean crosswind concentration
profiles from 'instantaneous' crosswind traverses." Pacific Northwest
Laboratory Annual Report for 1973 to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research. Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington (1974).
Ramsdell, Jr., J.V., and W.T. Hinds. "A systematic error in the measurement
of plume crosswind concentration distribution with moving samplers."
Pacific Northwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1974 to the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington (1975).
17
-------
Schiermeier, F.A. "Study of effluents from large power plants." Presented at
the American Industrial Hygiene Association Conference, Toronto, Canada
(1971).
Sutton, O.G. "A theory of eddy diffusion in the atmosphere." Proceedings of
the Royal Society, Series A, vol. 135. pp. 143-165 (1932).
Turner, D.B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio (1969).
Wai den Research Corporation. "Modeling analysis of power plants for
compliance extensions." Report for the Source Receptor Analysis Branch,
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Water Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1973).
18
-------
APPENDIX A - DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS OF FLIGHTS
The following are descriptions and the results of each flight. Included
are maps, temperature soundings, cross sections and other geographical
presentations as applicable. The primary pollutant of interest was sulfur
dioxide (SOa). The cross sections of S02 concentrations have been
visually adjusted to compensate for the lag time of the sampling system and
the rise and fall times of the instrument. Figure A-l is an example of an
unadjusted cross section, while Figure A-2 illustrates the magnitude of the
adjustments that have been made. In addition, the response time will result
in conservative measurements of maximum concentrations and increase the
apparent width of the plume profiles. However, any mean or integrated
measurements should show a higher degree of representativeness. It has been
demonstrated by Nickola and Clark (1974) that the standard error in
measurements made by aircraft can be reduced by repetitive sampling and that
peak values are much more stochastic than integrated values. In addition,
Ramsdell and Hinds (1975) have shown that concentration fluctuations become
greater at greater distances from the plume axis, although the absolute
intensity of fluctuations decreases as the distance from the axis is
increased.
4000 ft MSL
•••B^M^BBMIi
3700
1600
Figure A-l. Example of an unadjusted SOg cross section.
19
-------
4000 ft MSL
0.025
0.275
Figure A-2. Example of an adjusted S0£ cross section.
The plant emissions and plume data tables show both the known plant
emission rates and the measured plume dimensions for reader convenience. A
separation is made in these tables to show that correlation is not expected.
The tables of pibal wind information show the number of balloon soundings,
under the heading "Number of Observations", over which the presented data were
averaged.
25 AUGUST 1975, 0739-0921 EST
The purpose of this flight was to obtain information on the height and
concentration of the Mitchell plume at 2, 5, and 12 nautical miles (nmi). In
addition, values for plume width were measured, with plume width being defined
as the distance through the centerline and between two points on opposite
edges of the plume where one tenth of the centerline concentration is
measured. No S02 information was obtained due to a malfunction of the
instrument; dimensional information was obtained from the N0-Nox instrument.
A weak inversion was noted at the beginning of the flight; by 0833 EST
near-isothermal conditions existed, indicating stable conditions. No wind
measurements were available.
20
-------
nmi
Wheeling
Vortac
j Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville "| 2nmi
5nmi •
i i
2nmi;' /
/ / MTE=1400
MTE=1360
MTE=1280
traverses at 2,5,&12nmi
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-3. Helicopter flight, 25 August 75.
3000
2900-
2800-
2700H
g 2600
£ 2500-
2400
2300
2200
2100
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
\
21 22 23 24 25
Temperature (°C)
Figure A-4. Temperature sounding, 25 August 75,
0705-0710 EST
21
-------
TABLE A-l. MITCHELL PLANT EMISSIONS (CRAMER 1976)* AND PLUME DATA,
25 AUGUST 75, 0739-0921 EST
Volumetric
Emission Rate
(mvsec)
635
Volumetric emission
pressure.
S02
Emission Rate
(g/sec)
3,770
Distance
(nmi)
2
2
5
12
rates are under stack conditions
Plume
Width
(ft)
— —
1,520
4,050
8,100
Visual
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,400
2,500
2,250
2,800
of temperature and
*H.E. Cramer, 1976, personal communication.
26 AUGUST 1975, 0859-0959
The purpose of this mission was to obtain information on the Kammer plume.
The data system failed after measurements were made at approximately 2 nmi.
The temperature probe was not operational.
Cross Section
At 2 nmi
MTE=1 200
Wheeling
Vortac
Jl Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville
i Kammer
Mitchell
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-5. Helicopter flight path, 26 August 75.
22
-------
TABLE A-2. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 26 AUGUST 75, 0900-1000 EST
Number of
Observations
3
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
Wind speed and direction are
Direction
(degrees mag)
182
194
198
223
averages of the total
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
4.5
4.8
5.4
5.8
observations.
Speed
(knots)
9
9
11
11
TABLE A-3. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 26 AUGUST 75, 0859-0959
EST. The emissions are for both Kammer stacks.
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
950
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
4,970
Plume
Distance Width
(nml) (ft)
2 3,550
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,800
Centerline
Concentration
S02
(ppm)
0.93
27 AUGUST 1975, 1005-1318 EST
The purpose of this flight was to construct cross sections of the Kammer
and Mitchell plumes at 2 and 6 nmi. The temperature profile indicated near
neutral conditions to 2,300 ft MSL. Light northeasterly flow was observed to
4,000 ft MSL.
23
-------
nmi
Wheeling
Vortac
Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville
Kammer
Mitchell
MTE=1300 ijt Cross Sections
at 2&5nmi
MTE=1340
MTE-Maximum Terrain Elevation
2300-
1800-
1300-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
20 25 30
TEMP(°C)
Figure A-6. Helicopter flight,
27 August 75.
Figure A-7. Temperature sounding,
27 August 75, 1028-1033 EST.
3750
MAX=0.28
ppm at
3000ft MSL
Figure A-8. Sulfur dioxide cross section of the Kammer and Mitchell plumes at
5 nmi, 27 August 75, 1156-1244 EST.
24
-------
3500
Max =0.71 ppm
at 2,000 ft MSL
Figure A-9. Sulfur dioxide cross section of the Kammer and Mitchell plumes,
2 nmi west of the plants, 27 August 75, 1051-1131 EST.
25
-------
TABLE A-4. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 27 AUGUST 75, 1010-1210 EST
Number of
Observations
5
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
4,759
5,073
5,387
5,701
Direction
(degrees mag)
335
18
40
42
48
62
64
62
49
48
50
47
55
57
62
52
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
3.2
1.4
2.2
2.7
2.4
3.0
3.7
4.1
3.8
3.6
4.2
5.2
5.2
4.6
4.3
5.5
Speed
(knots)
6
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
7
7
8
10
10
9
8
11
TABLE A-5. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 27 AUGUST 75, 1005-1318 EST
Vol umetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
988
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
5,040
Distance
( nmi )
2
6
Plume
Width
(ft)
15,200
Unknown
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,600
2,000
1,600
2,000
Centerl i ne
Concentration
(ppm)
0.80
0.26
At 2 nmi, the Kammer plume was looping over the hills to the west of the
plant. This is the reason for the three plume heights recorded by the
helicopter. During the traverse at 1,500 ft MSL (as low as 50 ft AGL) a
maximum concentration of 0.52 ppm S0£ was recorded.
26
-------
TABLE A-6. MITCHELL PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 27 AUGUST 75,
1005-1318 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
205
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
1,960
Distance
(nmi)
3
6
Plume
Width
(ft)
14,000
Unknown
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
3,000
3,000
Center! ine
Concentration
S02
(ppm)
0.68
0.28
The plume widths were undeterminable at 6 nmi due to the low center!ine
concentrations and the high ambient S02 levels.
28 AUGUST 1975, 0914-1217 EST
The purpose of this flight was to investigate the horizontal gradients of
the Kammer plume. The plume was tracked for approximately 70 km by flying
through the plume at oblique angles. As quickly as possible after leaving the
plume, the helicopter changed course by 90° in order to reenter the plume. A
downstream track was completed at 2,200 ft MSL; this was followed by an upwind
track at 1,500 ft MSL, within 180 ft AGL. Both of these tracks have been
plotted for S02 concentrations (Figures A-10 and A-ll).
\
\
0.2
0.03
0.42
01 2345678 910
nmi
Figure A-10. Flight at 2,200 ft MSL along the plume of the Kammer power
station, 28 August 75, 1001-1046 EST.
27
-------
0.15
0.10
N
\
0.05
0.025 ppm SOa
• Kammer
0.04 0.05
0.07
0.09 0.10 0.14 0.18 I I*"'
0.16 0.07
012345678 9101112131415
nmi
Figure A-ll. Flight at 1,500 ft MSL along the plume of the Kammer power
station, 28 August 1975, 1050-1055 EST.
3000 n
2000-
1000-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
I I I
20 25 30°C
Temp. (°C)
Figure A-12. Temperature sounding,
28 August 75, 0931-0946 EST.
28
-------
Stable conditions were observed to 3,000 ft MSL at 0931 EST (See Figure
A-12). At 1,500 ft, the area equal to or greater than 0.15 ppm SO?
extended some 20 km from the plant. The highest concentration noted at
1,500 ft was 0.19 ppm $03. An attempt has been made to generalize these
data. Observed centerline concentrations, x(ug/m3), were divided by source
emission, Q(g/sec), and multiplied by wind speed, u(m/sec). The results were
plotted against distance. (See Figure A-13). The graph for 1,500 ft appears
to be a logical extension for taller stacks and greater distances of Turner's
graphs for estimating ground level concentrations. The Mitchell plant was not
in operation. The volumetric emission rate of the Kammer plant was
1,000 m3/sec and the SOg emission rate was 5,157 g/sec.
The average winds were as follows:
TABLE A-7. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 28 AUGUST 75, 1000-1100 EST
Number of
Observations
3
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
4,759
5,073
Direction
(degrees mag)
38
81
88
87
95
96
96
101
106
112
116
118
107
95
Speed
(knots)
7
4
9
11
15
21
19
20
17
17
11
8
8
12
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
3.3
2.0
4.5
5.6
7.9
10.8
9.9
10.1
8.8
8.6
6.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
TABLE A-8. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS, 0914-1217 EST, 28 AUGUST 75
Volumetric Emission
Rate
(m-Vsec)
Emission Rate
for S02
(g/sec)
1,000
5,157
29
-------
5-
CM
I
O 10-6-
X
5
10-7
5 10 25 50 100
Downwind Distance (km)
Figure A-13. Normalized centerline S02 concentration vs. downwind distance
at 1,500 ft MSL and at 2,200 ft MSL of the Kammer plume, 28 August 75.
10'5 -I
5-
O 10'6-
\
5-
10-7
10
25
50
I
100
Downwind Distance (km)
Figure A-14. Calculated normalized downwind S02 concentration using the
methods of Turner (1969) compared to measured parameter, 28 August 75.
30
-------
Referring to Figure 3 and recognizing an 8 m/sec wind speed and a stable
atmosphere, the plume centerline is estimated to be very close to the 2,200 ft
MSL altitude where the measurements were taken. The sounding (Figure A-12)
suggests that the top of the mixing layer is at approximately 2,500 ft MSL.
The method of Turner (1969) computes the distance downwind (2x|_) at which
vertical mixing should be complete to be 29 km (15.7 nmi), applying
Pasquill-Gifford stability category D. Therefore, at distances up to 29 km,
the diffusion condition equation applies, and downwind of 29 km, the equation
concerning vertical homogeneity should apply.
The data show excellent agreement for the determination of 29 km as the
point where complete vertical mixing occurs. Figure A-13 indicates that
mixing is complete at about 25 km, the point where the two curves assume the
same slope. The concentration discrepancy between 2,200 ft data and 1,500 ft
data at this point is not fully understood, but the measurements were not
corrected for altitude (pressure) and this consideration can propagate such
differences. With the exception of the 65 km data point for the 2,200 ft data
set, the 1,500 ft and the 2,200 ft curves appear to parallel each other,
downwind of 25 km, which indicates vertical homogeneity with probable
measurement discrepancy.
Calculation of expected downwind concentration using the Turner (1960)
diffusion condition equation shows excellent correlation to the measured data
from 2,200 ft MSL out to 25 km (Figure A-14).
X 2ir CTy a^. u
where X = downwind concentration at distance x,
Q = stack emission concentration,
u = wind speed, and
ay and 0^. = parameters from Turner (1969).
These data and the data from both flight levels downwind of 25 km agree very
well to calculated estimates, although a slope change is evident and the data
are beginning to depart the calculated curve.
At this point, Turner (1960) suggests an equation to apply during conditions
of vertical homogeneity.
X = /2lT 0y LU
where X, Q, cry, and u are as above, and
L = thickness of the mixing layer.
This calculation yields an approximation of downwind concentration with a
slope which agrees nicely with the measured data, but there is a noticeable
offset toward overestimation of downwind concentration (Figure A-14). In this
31
-------
case, it appears that the best estimate of downwind concentration is derived
using the diffusion equation exclusively even though vertical dispersion has
apparently ceased.
28 AUGUST 1975, 1430-1655 EST
The purpose of this flight was to construct a cross section of the Kammer
power plant plume at 2.5 nmi. The Mitchell plant was not in operation. Near
neutral conditions were observed. It is unknown whether the plume was
oscillating between 2,540 and 5,500 ft MSL, whether the plumes associated with
the two stacks had maintained their identities, or whether pollution from
another source was measured. There was, however, a definite core at 4,000 ft
MSL.
32
-------
nmi
10
Cross Section
at 2.5 nmi
MTE=1320
Wheeling
Vortac
Airport
Wheeling
Bellaire
Vortac
Moundsville
Kammer
1 Mitchell
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-15. Helicopter flight, 28 August 75, second flight.
4000-1
3000-
2000 -
1000 -
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
Figure A-16.
20 25 30°
Temp (°C)
Temperature sounding, 28 August 75, 1438-1449 EST.
33
-------
0.250
5500
0.025 ppm 0.050
Estimated
Centerline
Cone. =0.25 ppm
2000
0 nmi 1.0
1500
Figure A-17. S02 cross section of the Kammer plume at 2.5 nmi west of
the plant, 28 August 75, 1457-1550 EST.
TABLE A-9. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 28 AUGUST 75, 1430-1600 EST
Number of
Observations
Height
(ft MSL)
Direction
(degrees mag)
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
Speed
(knots)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
4,759
5,073
5,387
96
107
104
106
105
101
107
103
114
122
119
120
121
120
129
4.2
3.5
4.9
5.3
5.2
4.2
3.7
4.3
3.7
4.3
4.5
3.1
4.3
4.9
4.7
8
7
10
10
10
8
7
8
7
8
9
6
8
10
9
34
-------
TABLE A-10. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 28 AUGUST 7B
1430-1655 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(nvVsec)
1,020
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
5,160
Distance
(nmi)
2.5
Plume
Width
(ft)
18,240
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
4,000
Center! ine
Concentration
(ppm)
0.25
29 AUGUST 1975, 0750-1107 EST
This flight provided information which was used to construct three cross
sections of the Kammer plume, two at 2 nmi and one at 4 nmi. Two cross
sections were developed at 2 nmi because these cross sections were to be used
as a basis for calculations of the flux of S02 from the Kammer plant (See
Appendix E). Stable conditions were observed to 3,200 ft MSL. The Mitchell
plant was not in operation. Only one stack of the Kammer plume was operating.
nmi
9
Wheeling
Vortac
Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville
MTE=1220
Mitchell
Cross Sections
At 2&4 nmi
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-18. Helicopter flight, 29 August 75.
35
-------
3500
3000
2500
2000
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
20
25
Temp(C°)
Figure A-19. Temperature sounding,
29 August 75, 0825-0828 EST.
2750 ft MSL
Estimated Centerline
Cone. = 1.00 ppm at
2,200 MSL
Figure A-20. Sulfur dioxide cross section of the Kammer plume
at 2 nmi northeast of plant, 29 August 75, 0855-0913 EST.
36
-------
2750
2500
1750
Estimated Centerline
Cone.=0.60 ppm
at 2,250 ft. MSI
0.05 ppm
/ I
Figure A-21. Sulfur dioxide cross section of Kammer at 4 nmi
northeast of plant, 29 August 75, 0923-0943 EST.
2700
2400
Estimated Centerline
Cone.=0.86 ppm.
at 2,100 ft.
<2 2100
0
0.8
0.6
nmi 1.0
1500
0.2 ppm
\ \
Figure A-22. Sulfur dioxide cross section of Kammer at 2 nmi
northeast of plant, 29 August 75, 1022-1040 EST.
37
-------
TABLE A-ll. PIBAL WIND DATA, 29 AUGUST 75, 0800-1130 EST
Number of
Observations
8
• !!••«• ^•^^•••Ill llll m^^^^^^^
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
^••MVM^^HhMP-H-lhP-IIB^^M^H^MI^M^t^^^H^V
Direction
(degrees mag)
197
198
201
210
223
223
243
251
224
257
261
^amf^^^^mmmmmmmm*^^,^^^^^^^^*^*****^*^*^^****^^**^*^*
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
3.3
3.6
4.6
7.2
8.8
10.5
11.3
11.7
11.5
12.4
11.8
M^^^^^H^^^HHHIHBVVHIVIII__HBHHBBHBI^^^^H^H^MMI
Speed
(knots)
6
7
9
14
17
21
22
23
22
24
23
^^^••^^•^^^^•^•••MH^H^^^^H
TABLE A-12. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 29 AUGUST 75,
0750-1107 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
675
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
3,830
Distance
(nmi)
2
4
2
Plume
Width
(ft)
4,560
7,095
5,570
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,200
2,250
2,100
Centerline
Concentration
(ppm)
0.99
0.70
0.86
After the cross sections were completed, it was noted that the plume was
beginning to impact on a hill approximately 3.7 nmi north of the plant. The
helicopter was flown as close to the hill as possible. A maximum reading of
0.15 ppm S02 was recorded. An additional traverse was made at approximately
2 nmi from the plant and as close to the ground as possible (approximately 200
ft AGL). A maximum concentration of 0.67 ppm was noted. From the previous
measurements of the centerline concentration at this distance, it is concluded
that the centerline was near the surface at this time.
38
-------
2 SEPTEMBER 1975, 1024-1320 EST
A cross section of the Kammer plume was constructed at approximately
3.5 nmi east of the plant. Near neutral conditions coupled with flow normal
to the hills east of the plant were causing the plume to impact at the surface
at various distances from the plant. While constructing the cross section at
3.5 nmi, a traverse of the plume at 1,750 ft MSL (140-740 ft AGL), a maximum
S02 concentration of 0.46 ppm was noted. A series of six traverses made at
1,700 ft MSL and approximately 2.5 nmi east of the plant recorded S02
concentrations up to 0.16 ppm. The average maximum concentration was 0.08 ppm
with a standard deviation of 0.04 ppm. These six traverses were over the same
line. The standard deviation is a good indication that the plume was indeed
looping at 1,700 ft MSL. During additional passes, one at approximately
400 ft above the point of plume impact and 1.5 nmi from the plant and another
at about 300 ft AGL and 1 nmi from the plant, maximum S02 concentrations of
0.45 and 1.2 ppm were measured. An additional series of five passes was made
approximately 3.5 nmi from the plant at an altitude of 1,700 ft MSL. Values
as high as 1.6 ppm were recorded. The average peak value was 0.46 ppm and the
standard deviation was 0.65 ppm. One traverse was made at 3.5 nmi from the
plant at approximately 1,650 ft MSL, as low as safety factors would allow, and
a reading of 1.02 ppm $03 was obtained.
nmi
0 5 N10
e
Wheeling
Vortac
j Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville
Low Level Pass at ^ Cross Section
1 nmi & 300 ft AGL ^
^ Mitchell
MTE=1240
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-23. Helicopter flight, 2 September 75.
39
-------
3000-
2000-
Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate
20 25 30°C
Temp. (°C)
Figure A-24. Temperature sounding, 2 September 75, 1050-1058 EST.
3000
0.30
2800
2600
2400
Estimated Centerline
Conc.=0.51 at 2,000 ft MSL
0.20
2250
nmi 1.0
1750
0.2 0.1 ppm
/ I
Figure A-25. Sulfur dioxide cross sections of Kammer, 2 nmi east of plant,
2 September 75, 1115-1151 EST.
40
-------
TABLE A-13. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 2 SEPTEMBER 75, 1030-1300 EST
Number of
Observations
6
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,562
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
4,759
Direction
(degrees mag)
301
301
292
291
284
299
289
296
328
305
331
300
348
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
3.3
3.5
3.5
4.6
3.4
3.3
3.8
4.2
5.0
4.6
4.3
4.6
4.3
Speed
(knots)
6
7
7
9
7
6
7
8
10
9
8
9
8
TABLE A-14. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 2 SEPTEMBER 75
1024-1320 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
935
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
4,550
Plume
Distance Width
(nmi) (ft)
3.5 5.070
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,000
S02
Center! ine
Concent-ration
(ppm)
0.51
3 SEPTEMBER 1975, 0919-1234 EST
The purpose of this flight was to measure the Kammer and Mitchell plumes
at 3, 5 and 10 nmi. Stable conditions were observed at the begining of the
mission. The two Kammer plumes maintained their identity to 10 nmi. Three
maxima were found at this distance. No pibal wind information was available.
The following are winds derived from helicopter wind drift measurements (See
Appendix C).
41
-------
nmi
,10
e
Wheeling
Vortac
Bellaire
Vortac
•^Mitchell Centerline
,V/\ Moundsville
A=Kammer Centerline
o
Kammer//^ J
Mitchell Ito f > 5
c
3- ?
010
Figure A-26. Helicopter flight, 3 September 75, first flight.
3000-
2500
2000-
1500-
1000
Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate
15 20 25°
Temp (°C)
Figure A-27. Temperature sounding, 3 September 75, 0938-0944 EST.
42
-------
TABLE A-15. HELICOPTER WIND MEASUREMENTS
Direction
(Degrees mag)
Speed
(knots)
Altitude
(ft MSL)
257
279
6
8
2,260
1,900
TABLE A-16. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 3 SEPTEMBER 75,
0919-1234 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(m3/sec)
1,000
•f
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
4,490
Distance
(nmi)
3
3
5
5
10
10
Plume
Width
(ft)
30,130
9,630
10,640
10,640
13,680
12,670
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,750
3,000
3,000
2,850
3,100
2,850
S02
Center! ine
Concentration
(ppm)
5.05
3.21
3.52
3.12
1.09
0.86
TABLE A-17. MITCHELL PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 3 SEPTEMBER 75,
0919-1234 EST
Vol umetri c
Emission
Rate
(m-Vsec)
255
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
5,210
Distance
(nmi)
3
5
10
Plume
Width
(ft)
4,560
14,690
15,700
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
3,500
3,200
3,100
S02
Center! i ne
Concentration
(ppm)
2.48
1.62
43
-------
The plume was held by an inversion at 0943 EST; by 1213 EST the inversion
had dissipated. This may explain why the plume height at 10 nmi, which was
measured first, was lower than the other plume heights.
3 SEPTEMBER 1975, 1350-1531 EST
On the afternoon flight, near-neutral conditions were observed. A visual
estimate of both the Kammer and Mitchell initial plume heights was made as
3,900 ft MSL. In spite of this high initial plume rise, looping conditions
caused the Kammer plume to hit the ground further downwind. A series of low
level plume traverses was made east of the plant. The most significant of
these was a series of eight passes between 1449 and 1507 EST at 1,500 ft MSL,
within 380 ft A6L. Values as high as 0.80 ppm S02 were recorded, while the
mean maximum recorded for the eight passes was 0.50 ppm S02-
In the afternoon, the LIDAR aircraft made flights along selected radials
of the Clarksburg, Ellwood City, and Wheeling VORTACs. Each LIDAR return
signal was given a relative value compared with other returns dependent upon
the integrated value of the total return within the mixing layer and the
vertical baseline. These relative values have been plotted along the flight
paths and are presented as examples of the log range measurements of relative
particulate distribution along these tracks. No pibal wind information is
available.
nmi
Series of Low
Level Passes
Kammer
Mitchell
Wheeling
Vortac
Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville
MTE=1120
MTE=MAXIMUM TERRAIN ELEVATION
Figure A-28. Helicopter flight, 3 September 75, second flight,
44
-------
3000-
2000-
1000-
Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate
17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
Temp (°C)
Figure A-29. Temperature sounding, 1418-1422,
3 September 75.
1 0 11 0 11 0 110 1
1670ft MSL 1650ft MSL 1660ft MSL 1640ft MSL
CNI
o
nmi 1 0 110 11 01
1700ft MSL 1660ft MSL 1720ft MSL
1 0 1
1660ft MSL
Figure A-30. Series of low-level measurements of the Kammer plume,
3 September 75.
45
-------
Wheeling
Bellaire
Vortac
Figure A-31. LIDAR flight along
019°/199° radial of Wheeling VORTAC,
1352-1419 EST, 5 September 75.
Steubenville
Wheeling
Vortac
No Data
No Data
El I wood City
El I wood City
Vortac
Steubenville
Bellaire
Vortac 8
Figure A-32. LIDAR flight along 199°
radial of Ell wood City VORTAC, 1526-1622
EST, 3 September 75.
Washington
46
-------
Imperial 0
Vortac
Pittsburgh
ClairtonCoke Works
Washington &
0
Indianhead
Vortac
_ Pennsylvania
Maryland
Morgantown
0 5 10 20nmi
Clarksburg
^(/Clarksburg Vortac
Figure A-33. LIDAR flight along 019° radial of Clarksburg
VORTAC, 1626-1642 EST, 3 September 75.
TABLE A-18. PLANT EMISSIONS DATA, 3 SEPTEMBER 75, 1350-1531
Plant
Mitchell
Kammer
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
260
1,030
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
5,208
4,448
47
-------
4 SEPTEMBER 1975, 1215-1444 EST
A cross section of the Mitchell and Kammer plumes was constructed under
near neutral conditions at approximately 6 nmi south southeast of the plants.
Traverses of the plume were made 1,600 to 4,000 ft MSL where low visibility
prevented completion of the upper portion of the cross section. The traverse
at 1,600 ft MSL (300-920 ft AGL) measured a maximum value of 0.11 ppm $03.
After the cross section was completed, it was noted that apparent high levels
of pollutants were pooled in the sheltered valley associated with Fish Creek
which empties into the Ohio River south of the plants. The source of the
pollutants was not determined. The helicopter entered the valley
approximately 7 nmi upstream and flew well below the ridge line to the Ohio
River. Values as high as 0.66 ppm S02 were observed. Pibal wind data were
not obtained. However, the helicopter did determine the winds based on drift
i nformation.
nmi
e
Wheeling
Vortac
jl Airport
Wheeling
Background
Spiral —*"
Mound sville
Kammer
Mitche" Cross Section
at 6 nmi
MTE=1360
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-34. Helicopter flight, 4 September 75.
-------
3000-
2000-
1000-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
Temp (°C)
Figure A-35. Temperature soundings, 4 September 75,
1238-1244 EST.
3000-
2000-
1000-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
Temp (°C)
Figure A-36. Temperature soundings, 4 September 75,
1402-1404 EST.
49
-------
4000
3700
^-0.275 ^0.025
Estimated Centerline
Cone.=0.275 at
4,000 ft. MSL
Figure A-37. Sulfur dioxide cross section of Mitchell and Kammer
at 6 nmi southeast of plants, 4 September 75, 1307-1349 EST.
50
-------
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
O 0.4-
E
a 0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
6.6 nmi Upstream
4
1"=1nmi
i
5
Ohio River
Figure A-38. Low-level flight down Fish Creek Valley, 4 September 75, 1353-1358 EST.
-------
TABLF A-19. HELICOPTER WIND DATA, 4 SEPTEMBER 75
Altitude
(ft MSL)
Direction
(Degrees mag)
Speed
(knots)
2,000
2,200
345
328
9
9
TABLE A-20. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 4 SEPTEMBER 75,
1215-1444 EST
Vol umetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
640
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
3,720
Distance
(nmi)
6
6
Plume
Width
(ft)
18,750
18,750
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,200
3,700
S02
Centerline
Concentration
(ppm)
0.19
0.21
It is unknown whether the Kammer plume was looping between these two
levels or if the plumes from the two stacks maintained their identities.
5 SEPTEMBER 1975, 0903-1245 EST
This flight was a dual helicopter-LIDAR mission. Cross sections were
constructed along the 206° and 213° radials of the Bellaire VORTAC. At the
start of the mission, there was a temperature inversion based at 2,200 ft MSL.
This had burned off by 1230 EST. Figure A-42 is a helicopter cross section of
the S02 emissions of the Kammer, Mitchell and possibly the Burger power
plant plume which is north of the Kammer plant. Approximately 1 hour was
taken to collect the information. Figure A-43 is a cross section developed
from LIDAR data along the same radial. Approximately 3 minutes was required
to collect these data. The units assigned to the LIDAR data are once again
relative. The analogs of the LIDAR returns were plotted on rectilinear graph
paper with the vertical scale representing height and the horizontal scale
representing relative return signal strength at a given level. A series of
LIDAR soundings was plotted along the flight of the aircraft and isopleths of
equal relative values were drawn. Major features are in close agreement.
Both cross sections were drawn to the same scale. There is a possibility that
the left hand maximum at 2,900 ft MSL or Figure A-42 was missed due to the
25-second pulse repetition rate of the LIDAR system.
52
-------
An attempt was made to jointly construct a second cross section along the
213° radial of the Bellaire VORTAC. Formation of clouds below the LIDAR
aircraft prevented the accomplishment of its mission. Figure A-45 is the
cross section developed by the helicopter.
nmi
213° Radial
MTE=1300
206° Radial
MTE=1240
s
Wheeling
Vortac
Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville
Captina Valley
Kammer
Mitchell
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-39. Helicopter flight,
5 September 75.
3000-
2000-
1000
3000-
(0
2000-
1000
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5
Temp (°C)
Figure A-40. Temperature sounding,
5 September 75, 0925-0930 EST.
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
I I I '
20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5
Temp (°C)
Figure A-41. Temperature sounding, 5 September 75,
1227-1231 EST.
53
-------
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
2300-
.6 0.4 ppm 1 ft
x - 1.6
v
2 nmi
W^V^N
^ofcm
2100-
1900
1700
Figure A-42. SC>2 cross section of Kammer and Mitchell plumes along the 206'
radial of the Bellaire VORTAC, 0936-1040 EST, 5 September 75.
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
2300
2100
1900
1700
58 Units
nmi
38 Units
Figure A-43. LIDAR cross section of Kammer and Mitchell plumes on a radial of
213° of the Bellaire VORTAC, approximately 7.5 nmi northwest of the plants
1030 EST, 5 September 75. pi-nis,
54
-------
Estimated Centerline
~ Conc.=0.75 ppm
at 3,000 ft. MSL
0.05 ppm
Figure A-44. Sulfur dioxide cross section along 213° radial of Bellaire
VORTAC, 5 September 75, 1157-1207 EST.
TABLE A-21. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 5 SEPTEMBER 75, 1030-1300 EST
Number of
Observations
6
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
4,759
Direction
(degrees mag)
162
123
124
149
136
141
149
165
170
156
196
200
205
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
1.9
2.1
3.2
3.2
5.6
6.7
5.1
5.7
6.3
5.0
4.1
5.5
4.9
Speed
(knots)
4
4
6
6
11
13
10
11
12
10
11
1 f\
10
-------
TABLE A-22. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 5 SEPTEMBER 75,
903-1245 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(m3/sec)
657.5
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
3,638
Plume
Distance Width
(nmi) (ft)
4.5 12,660
4.5
5.0
Not determined
5.0
Not determined
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,700
2,350
(LIDAR)
2,600
2,000
Centerline
Concentration
(ppm)
1.52
0.33
TABLE A-23. MITCHELL PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 5 SEPTEMBER 75,
0903-1245 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(m^/sec)
280
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
5,880
Distance
( nmi )
4.5
4.5
5.5
PI ume
Width
(ft)
13,980
10,350
14,690
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,900
2,800
(LIDAR)
3,000
Centerline
Concentration
•(ppm)
1.71
7 SEPTEMBER 1975, 1015-1545 EST
This mission was flown using the LIDAR equipped aircraft. The atmosphere
was fairly clean and particulates were uniformly distributed through an
approximate 3,000-ft mixing layer. However, one portion of the flight was of
special interest. A pass was made over the Kammer and Mitchell plumes at 1015
EST. This portion of the flight was along the 226° radial of the Bellaire
VORTAC and intercepted the plume approximately 7.5 nmi northwest of the
plants. The returns from these sources strongly suggested that the Kammer
plume was at the surface at this time. Visual observations confirmed this
fact. Figures A-46 and A-47 are a representation of this portion of the
flight. The vertical lines on Figure A-46 are the relative LIDAR returns at
and near the surface, associated with both plant plumes and Figure A-47 is a
contour plot of the relative signal strengths. No wind data or plant emission
data are available for this flight.
56
-------
57751
4975-
Ground Surface
4 nmi
Figure A-45. LIDAR cross section along the 226° radial of the Bellaire
VORTAC, 7 September 75, 1038-1044 EST.
4125
3300-
2475-
1650i
825 J
Figure A-46. LIDAR returns along the
226° radial of the Bellaire
VORTAC, 7 September 75, 1015 EST.
• = Ground Surface at
Lidar Data Locations
nmi
5.0
57
-------
to
4125-
3300-
2475-
1650-
825-
36 Units
Figure A-47. LIDAR aerosol light-
scattering cross section of the
Kammer and Mitchell Plumes 7.5 nmi
northwest of plants along the
226° radial of the Bellaire
VORTAC, 7 September 75, 1015 EST.
= Ground Surface at
Lidar Data Locations
4
5 nmi
8 SEPTEMBER 1975, 0905-1247 EST
Radials of 157° and 135° were flown from the Bellaire VORTAC by both the
helicopter and LIDAR aircraft. At 0938 EST, an inversion between 2,200 and
2,500 ft MSL was observed; nearly neutral conditions were measured above. The
Kammer plume was trapped near the surface. By 1236 EST, neutral conditions
had developed to 3,700 ft MSL. Visual centerline height of the Mitchell plume
was estimated as 2,700 ft MSL.
58
-------
ninn
e
Wheeling
Vortac
135 Radial
MTE=1360
'•.
157 Radial
MTE=1300
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-48. Helicopter flight, 8 September 75.
3000 H
(A
!§ 2000
1000-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
Temp (°C)
Figure A-49. Temperature sounding, 8 September 75,
0934-0939 EST.
59
-------
4500-1
3500-
*- 2500-
1500-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
T I r • i i
15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5
Temp (°C)
Figure A-50. Temperature sounding, 8 September 75,
1226-1236 EST.
3300-
2475-
1650-
SFC
850-
Ground Surface
Figure A-51. LIDAR cross section along the 157° radial
of the Bellaire VORTAC, 8 September 75, 0950 EST.
60
-------
2
£
1600
1500
Figure A-52. Sulfur dioxide cross section along the 157°
radial of the Bellaire VORTAC, 8 September 75, 0944-1040 EST.
4125-r
co
3300-
2475-
1650-
825-
Lidar
135° Radial
Ground Surface
5 nmi
Figure A-53. LIOAR cross section of Kammer and Mitchell along
the 135° radial of the Bellaire VORTAC approximately 8 rmn
northwest of the plants, 8 September 75, 1048-1220 EST.
61
-------
4400
5 nmi
Estimated Centerline
Cone.-0.26 ppm at
,700 ft. MSL
2000
Figure A-54. Sulfur dioxide cross section of Kammer and
Mitchell along the 135° radial of the Bellaire VORTAC
approximately 8 nmi northeast of the plants, 8 September 75,
1048-1220 EST.
330
Steubenville /] Wheeling
Vortac
0 MIMTN
Wheeling
0 Bellaire Vortac
1 Wind Direction
Pittsburgh
Allegheny Vortac
150C
0 5 10 nmi
Figure A-555 LIDAR pass along the 150/330° radials of the
Allegheny VORTAC, 8 September 75.
62
-------
TABLE A-24. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 8 SEPTEMBER 75, 1015-1315 EST
Number of
Observations
7
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
4,759
5,073
— • • _
Direction
(degrees mag)
229
223
226
235
233
243
244
247
249
251
254
252
251
263
— — ^ _^__
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
3.3
4.6
5.9
6.4
6.6
7.6
10.2
10.0
11.3
10.7
9.5
10.7
9.8
9.2
^^^^^^^^^^••••••V^^^B^MMIM
Speed
(knots)
8
9
11
12
13
15
20
19
22
21
19
21
19
18
TABLE A-25. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 8 SEPTEMBER 75,
0905-1247 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
1,670
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
2,260
Distance
(nmi)
4.5
8.0
Plume
Width
(ft)
15,200
__
Plume
Height
S02
Centerline
Concentration
(ft MSL) (ppm)
2,400
2,475
2,700
2,475
0.50
(LIDAR)
—
(LIDAR
63
-------
TABLE A-26. MITCHELL PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 8 SEPTEMBER 75,
0905-1247 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
309
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
4,486
Plume
Distance Width
(nmi) (ft)
5 12,540
9 Not
Determined
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,600
2,550
LIDAR
3,300*
2,500
LIDAR
S02
Centerline
Concentration
(ppm)
1.17
0.26
*During the time the helicopter was constructing the second cross section,
the inversion dissipated and the plumes began to rise rapidly.
9 SEPTEMBER 1975, 0617-0852 EST
This was an early morning flight under stable conditions. An isothermal
layer existed between 1,500 and 2,000 ft MSL. Cross sections of the Mitchell
plume were constructed at 2 and 5 nmi. The Kammer plume was included in the
5-mile cross section as it was directly under the Mitchell plume. Only one
Kammer stack was in operation.
64
-------
nmi I
Wheeling
Vortac
MTE=1060
Cross Section t
at 5 nmi
Moundsville
Cross Section
at 2 nmi
MTE=1200
Figure A-56. Helicopter flight,
9 September 75, first flight.
3400.
3200
Estimated Centerline Conc.=1.86 at 3,000 ft. MSL
2600
Figure A-57. Sulfur dioxide cross section of Mitchell plant at 2 nmi south of
the plant, 9 September 75, 0710-0745 EST.
65
-------
3000
CO
2000
1000-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
12.5 15.0
Temp (°C)
Figure A-58. Temperature sounding, Q September 75, n656-0700 EST.
3500
.Estimated Centerline Conc.=1.2
ppm at 2,500
CO
1500
Figure A-59. Sulfur dioxide cross section of Kammer and Mitchell
at 5 nmi southwest of the plants, 5 September 75, 0816-0826 EST.
66
-------
TABLE A-27. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 9 SEPTEMBER 75, 0715-0915 EST
Number of
Observations
5
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,953
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
Direction
(degrees mag)
31
18
33
36
34
39
33
25
14
342
343
341
•
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
3.3
3.8
4.6
5.4
6.8
5.5
5.6
4.5
5.2
6.6
6.1
8.7
•^ ^_ ^^M
Speed
(knots)
6
V
7
9
11
13
11
11
9
10
13
12
17
TABLE A-28. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 9 SEPTEMBER 75,
0617-0952 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(m3/sec)
628.0
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
3,854
Distance
( nmi )
5.5
PI ume
Width
(ft)
6,590
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,200
S02
Center! ine
Concentration
(ppm)
1.15
A traverse of the Kammer plume at 1500 ft MSL (740 ft AGL) and
approximately 4 nmi from the Kammer plant indicated a maximum S02
concentration of 0.19 ppm S02-
67
-------
TABLE A-29. MITCHELL PLANT CHARACTERISTICS AND PLUME DATA, 9 SEPTEMBER 75,
0617-0952 EST
Vol umetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
1717.2
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
8,343
Distance
(nmi)
2
5
Plume
Width
(ft)
5,520
9,120
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
3,000
2,700
S02
Centerline
Concentration
(ppm)
1.86
0.87
9 SEPTEMBER 1975, 1027-1331 EST
This flight was flown under slightly unstable conditions. A zigzag
pattern (much the same as that of 28 August 75) was flown at 1,300-1,500 ft
MSL through the lower portion of the Mitchell plume from approximately 24 nmi
back to the plant. There is a possibility that other sources cross-polluted
these data.
10 nmi
Figure A-60. Helicopter measurement of the horizontal distribution
of S02 associated with the Mitchell plume, 9 September 75
1130-1212 EST.
68
-------
300(H
2
£ 2000-
1000.
Dry
Adiabatic
Lapse
Rate
The flight path was at an altitude of
approximately 100-300 ft AGL. An
absolute maximum of 0.86 ppm was
recorded at 1,500 ft MSL, 1 nmi from
the plant. A traverse of the plume
approximately 3 nmi and 300-900 ft AGL
recorded a maximum of 0.62 ppm $03.
It is noted that the plant had nominal
loading at this time. Light winds were
observed throughout the mission. A
temperature sounding indicated
near-neutral conditions.
10.0 12.0 15.0 17.5 Temp (°C)
Figure A-61. Temperature sounding
taken at 1055-1059 EST, 9 September 75.
TABLE A-30. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 9 SEPTEMBER 75, 1130-1400 EST
Number of
Observations
6
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
4,759
Direction
(degrees mag)
21
18
16
25
18
21
12
19
23
21
16
339
339
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
4.5
4.5
3.9
3.8
4.4
4.0
2.6
2.5
2.9
3.6
3.7
5.1
6.3
Speed
(knots)
9
9
8
7
9
8
5
5
6
7
7
10
12
69
-------
TABLE A-31. PLANT EMISSION DATA, 9 SEPTEMBER 75, 1039-1330 EST
Volumetric Emission S02 Emission
Plant Rate Rate
(m3/sec) (g/sec)
Kammer 661 3,855
Mitchell 1,720 8,345
10 SEPTEMBER 1975, 0924-1255 EST
The purpose of this mission was to construct joint helicopter LIDAR cross
sections along selected radials of the Bellaire VORTAC. Unfortunately, the
LIDAR data were lost during processing. In addition, the helicopter data
system failed from 1000-1134 EST. It was possible to construct one cross
section along the 232° radial. This track was approximately 7.5 nmi from
Kammer and 8 nmi from Mitchell. Near-neutral conditions were observed. Light
winds produced highly concentrated plumes. Four relative maxima were found.
The two maxima at 2,800 arid 3,200 ft MSL may be the result of the Kammer plume
changing altitudes during the helicopter sampling period or the two Kammer
plumes may have maintained their identities. At 0955 EST, visual inspection
of the plumes indicated that the Kammer plumes had combined and had a plume
stabilization height of 2,800 ft MSL at 1104 EST; it was noted that the
Mitchell plume was rising and was topped at 4,000 ft MSL. A spiral through
both the Mitchell and Kammer plumes at 1237 EST indicated that the Mitchell
plume center!ine was then at 3,700 ft MSL and the Kammer plume had a single
maximum at 3,300 ft MSL. At 1224 EST, a traverse was made under the Kammer
plume at altitudes ranging from 140-800 ft AGL. A maximum concentration of
0.20 ppm S02 was observed.
70
-------
nmi
10
Bellaire
Vortac
232° Radial
MTE=1320
Wheeling
Vortac
jl Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville
Kammer
Mitchell
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-62. Helicopter flight, 10 September 75.
4000
CO
2 3000
2000
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
C/J
17.5 20.0 22.5
Temp (°C)
Figure A-63. Temperature sounding, 10 September 75,
1238-1247 EST.
71
-------
3400
3200
Estimated Centerline
^vT Cone.=1.86 ppm at
-^^-3,550 ft MSL
0.1 0.2
ppm
Figure A-64. Sulfur dioxide cross section of Kammer and
Mitchell at 8 nmi northwest of the plants, 10 September 75,
1039-1227 EST.
TABLE A-32. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 10 SEPTEMBER 75, 1030-1330 EST
Number of
Observations
7
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
4,446
Direction
(degrees mag)
139
107
69
81
120
140
147
143
140
164
192
221
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
1.6
0.9
1.2
1.6
1.5
2.6
3.1
4.1
3.3
2.2
1.6
2.8
Speed
(knots)
3
2
2
3
3
5
6
8
6
4
3
5
72
-------
TABLE A-33. KAMME-R PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 10 SEPTEMBER 75,
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
910
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
4,020
Distance
(nmi)
7.5
7.5 Not
.11^^— »^-^».
Plume
Width
(ft)
17,226
Determined
—••• .^— i —
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,800
3,200
SO?
L.
Center! i ne
Concentration
(ppm)
0.84
TABLE A-34. MITCHELL PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 10 SEPTEMBER 75,
0924-1255 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
1740.4
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
11,214
Di stance
( nmi )
8.0
Plume
Width
(ft)
9,120
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
3,550
S02
Centerline
Concentration
(ppm)
1.86
11 SEPTEMBER 1975, 0831-1109 EST
A flight was made by the helicopter to measure the Mitchell and Kammer
plumes at 2 and 5 nmi. A cross section was constructed at 10 nmi of the
Kammer, Mitchell and Burger plumes. The strong winds, 4-15 m sec, were
measured along with surprisingly stable conditions.
73
-------
nnv
e
Wheeling
Vortac
jl Airport
Wheeling
Cross Section
***••* at 10 nmi
MTE=1160
Rammer
Mitchell
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-65. Helicopter flight,
11 September 75, first flight.
3000 -|
£
2000-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
(Composite)
7.5
i
20
22.5
Temp (°C)
Figure A-66. Temperature sounding,
11 September 75, a.m. composite.
74
-------
0.30
2800
\ \ 0.30
0 nmi IXJX.
Figure A-67. 862 cross section of Kammer and Mitchell plumes
10 nmi northeast of plants, 11 September 75, 0958-1047 EST
(Estimated center!ine concentration equals 0.3 ppm at 2800 ft MSL),
TABLE A-35. PIBAL WIND INFORMATION, 11 SEPTEMBER 75, 1015-1145 EST
Number of
Observations
4
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,307
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
Direction
(degrees mag)
200
199
201
204
214
224
225
230
230
233
282
Measured
Speed
(m/sec)
4.5
6.1
7.3
9.6
11.9
13.6
15.6
15.5
18.4
13.7
15.2
Speed
(knots)
9
12
14
18
23
27
30
30
36
27
30
75
-------
TABLE A-36. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 11 SEPTEMBER 75,
0831-1109 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(m3/sec)
910
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
4,020
Distance
( nmi )
2
5
10
Plume
Width
(ft)
8,100
Not
Determined
12,160
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
1,950
1,900
2,000
S02
Center! ine
Concentration
(ppm)
1.20
0.54
0.35
TABLE A-37. MITCHELL PLANT EMISSIONS AND PLUME DATA, 11 SEPTEMBER 75,
0831-1109 EST
Volumetric
Emission
Rate
(m-Vsec)
1763.5
S02
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
10,720
Distance
( nmi )
2
5
Plume
Width
(ft)
3,540
12,160
Plume
Height
(ft MSL)
2,350
2,050
S02
Center! ine
Concentration
(ppm)
1.10
0.36
11 SEPTEMBER 1975, 1346-1423 EST
Nearly neutral conditions with moderately strong winds, 3.5-10 m/sec, were
observed during this flight. Upon arriving at Kammer, it was noted that the
plume was hitting the hills to the northwest of the plant at a distance of
approximately 1.5 nmi. A series of 22 passes was made along the side of the
hill. The mean value of the maxima was 0.15 ppm S02 during the 32 minutes
required to collect the data. It then began to rain and the helicopter
returned to base.
76
-------
TABLE A-38. PIBAL WIND DATA, 11 SEPTEMBER 75, 1315-1415 EST
Number of
Observations
2
Height
(ft MSL)
993
1,301
1,621
1,935
2,249
2,563
2,876
3,190
3,504
3,818
4,132
Direction
(degrees mag)
192
197
196
197
194
197
196
204
207
211
212
Measured
Speed
(m sec)
5.3
4.4
6.6
6.8
9.0
9.5
10.8
11.8
13.2
15.0
16.9
Speed
(knots)
10
9
13
13
15
19
21
23
27
29
33
TABLE A-39. KAMMER PLANT EMISSIONS, 11 SEPTEMBER 75, 1234-1336 EST
Volumetric Emission
Rate
(mVsec)
S02 Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
10,403
3,829
77
-------
nmi
e
Wheeling
Vortac
j Airport
Wheeling
Moundsville
Series of Passes
Kammer
Mitchell
MTE=Maximum Terrain Elevation
Figure A-68. Helicopter flight, 11 September 75,
second fl ight.
3000-
2000-
Dry Adiabatic
Lapse Rate
20.0 22.5 25.0
Temp (°C)
Figure A-69. Temperature sounding, 11 September 75,
1346-1350 EST.
78
-------
APPENDIX B. WIND DATA
Single theodolite wind measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
Kammer and Mitchell plants. An effort was made to take these observations
1 to 2 miles downwind from the smoke stacks. These locations were between 610
and 680 ft MSL, with most of the observations being taken at 680 ft MSL. The
mean of all the soundings taken during the period of each flight is included
in the discussion of each flight so that the winds may be computed for
effective stack heights and so that the mixing layer heights may be estimated.
To supplement these data and to verify their accuracy, helicopter drift
measurements were made during sampling missions to determine wind speed and
direction. Table B-l provides a comparison of data for similar altitudes
obtained from these two methods.
TABLE B-l. COMPARISON OF HELICOPTER AND PIBAL WINDS
Date
(1975)
Helicopter
Wind
Direction
Degrees (mag)
Helicopter
Wind
Speed
(knots)
Pibal Mean
Wind
Direction
Degrees (mag)
Pibal Mean
Wind
Speed
(knots)
2 Sep
5 Sep
8 Sep
9 Sep
10 Sep
3 Sep*
4 Sep"
321
303
203
271
299
034
021
029
070
102
257
279
10
5
17
23
20
16
6
12
12
290
284
149
243
246
039
025
036
025
143
6 (at 2258 ft MSL)
8 (at 1900 ft MSL)
9 (at 2000 ft MSL)
9 (at 2000 ft MSL)
9
7
15
19
11
9
11
7
8
-------
The average directional difference between the two measurement methods was
±28 degrees while the average difference in speed was 3.8 kn. These are
equivalent to a graphically determined average vector difference of 6.2 kn.
It must be noted that the pibal and helicopter wind measurements were not
taken in juxtaposition. Pibal measurements were taken in the Ohio River
Valley, while the helicopter was sampling; the helicopter drift measurements
were generally taken coming from or returning to the airport during flights
between 2,000 and 3,200 feet MSL over undulating terrain. Taking this into
account, it is felt that the helicopter drift measurements offer
substantiation of the quality of the pibal wind measurements.
The helicopter drift calculations for wind speed and direction were made
using position data obtained from VORTAC stations in Bellaire, Ohio, and
Wheeling, West Virginia. Heading and air speed were obtained from helicopter
instruments. In Figure B-l, point A is the Wheeling VORTAC and point B is the
Bellaire VORTAC. Coordinates for these two points can be determined in
relation to some distant coordinate axes positioned so that all points for
consideration in any problem would be in the first quadrant of that set of
axes. Point (X]_, YI) is the beginning point of the measured flight.
Values for X} and YI can be obtained using distances a^ and b^
obtained from the VORTAC stations and c, the distance between A and B, in this
manner, using the law of cosines. This law is:
= cos
-1
j2 + c2 - a12)
The line through A and B makes an angle of 36 degrees to true north so
that Z_F1 + 36 is the angle of bl to true north. Then:
Xj = X4 + b1 sin (Z_F1 + 36)
Y = Y + b cos (Z_F + 36)
Similarly, to determine value's for X and Y the coordinates of the end
point of the measured flight, the following equation applies.
= cos
-1 b2 + 2 _
Then:
80
-------
sin (Lfz + 36)
cos (£F + 36)
Using true heading, TH, which in this case is the indicated heading minus
5 degrees for magnetic correction, X3 and YS can be determined.
X3 = Xx + SZ(sin TH)
X3 = Yj_ + SZ(sin TH)
where S = airspeed*
Z = length of time of the measured flight
The magnitude of the wind vector can then be found using the distance
formula:
Wind Speed = /(Xg - X3)2 + (Y2 - Y3)2
The wind direction is found using the following equation.
= tan
2 " 3
From this,
Wind Direction = FS + 180, if Y2 - YS > 0
= F3 + 360, if X2 - X3 > 0, and
T *\ •* Y*\ N U
, if X - X < 0 > Y -Y
3
81
-------
MN
(X2,Y2
Figure B-l. Representation of wind calculations.
*Pressure and temperature corrections were applied to the helicopter-indicated
airspeed to obtain true airspeed.
82
-------
APPENDIX C. DETERMINATION OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL
DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
The values of the standard deviations, oy and az, used in the summary
were calculated from actual plume measurements. Values of the horizontal
standard deviation, 0y, were determined from plume width measurements using
the well-known relationship, 2.15 ay equals the distance to one-tenth the
center!ine concentration in a horizontal direction, or by our definition of
plume width, plume width is equal to 4.3 oy. Values of the vertical
standard deviation, cz, were estimated assuming the relationship:
gy (Measured) az (Computed)
ay (Flat Terrain) 0Z (Flat Terrain)
This estimation was necessary because of the frequency of less than Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) conditions near the upper extent of the plumes and because
the helicopter was not always able to fly low enough to ascertain the lower
limits of the plume. In addition, the Kammer and Mitchell plumes were
frequently stacked in the vertical, making it impossible to determine in the
vertical where one plume ended and the other began.
In a very limited number of cases it was possible to measure az in the
downward direction. The downward direction was chosen so the effects of
possible stable layers above the plumes would not be measured. JTable C-l
presents a comparison of the mean vertical standard deviation, Fz, for flat
terrain for computed and measured cases.
TABLE C-l. DOWNWARD STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FLAT TERRAIN, COMPUTED AND
MEASURED
Plant
Flat Terrain
Computed
Measured Downward
Kammer
(3 cases)
Mitchell
(4 cases)
76 m
74 m
125 m
156 m
92 m
138 m
83
-------
Although no firm conclusions can be drawn from these limited data, it
would appear that the actual values of az are closer to the computed values
than they are to the values for flat terrain. Typically, the vertical
distribution of the effluent is with the maximum portion in the upper half of
the plume (Schiermeier 1971). This would mean that the upward az values
should be smaller than the downward values of az.
It is of interest to note that the values of 0y associated with the
Mitchell plume are on the average 1.1 times greater than the values for flat
terrain (Turner 1969), while a comparison of the measured values of ay
associated with the combined Kammer plume with the values associated with flat
terrain shows that the Kammer ay values are on the average 2.0 times
greater.
Figures C-l and C-2 give a comparison of the measured values with the flat
terrain values. The difference between the behavior of the two plumes can be
explained by the fact that the Mitchell station has a 336-meter stack, while
the two stacks of the Kammer station are 183 meters in height. The very high
release altitude of the Mitchell station resulted in a plume stabilization
height which was frequently above the effects of surface roughness and
topography.
0>
E
1000
0= STABLE • = NEUTRAL
1:2
1:1
(T
KAMMER
OBSERVED
RATIO .
/' ^y FLAT TERRAIN
t /• jsr jz~
fc£-~"*
Figure C-l. Comparison of
observed horizontal dispersion
coefficients for the Kammer
plume with those developed for
flat terrain, 25 August -
11 September 75.
10-
cr,
V OBSERVED
10
(mxlOO)
< 5
Figure C-2. Comparison of computed
vertical dispersion coefficients for
the Kammer plume with those developed
for flat terrain, 25 August -
11 September 75.
$=NEUTRAL
0A ^- • n i r ^
= STABLEi:2 a
/ z
/
/
/
/ /
//<
az COMPUTED
FLAT TERRAIN
1:1
510
COMPUTED (mxlOO)
84
-------
Figures C-3 through C-6 offer a comparison of the ratios of the measured
ay values to the flat terrain 0y values and downwind distance. The ratio
for the Mitchell plant is fairly constant with distance, reinforcing the idea
that the Mitchell plume is frequently high enough to be unaffected by the
effects of topography.
The mean value of the ratio is higher at 3.7 kilometers (2 nmi) than at
greater downwind distances (see Figures C-5 and C-6). It is hypothesized that
the terrain-induced scale of turbulence in the horizontal is near the
effective eddy size at this distance (Sutton 1932). This same enhancement of
dispersion close to the source has been observed by McElroy and Pooler (1968),
who investigated dispersion over metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri. They
concluded that when the plume becomes much larger than the eddies associated
with mechanical turbulence, the extent of the dispersion approaches that of
open country.
0r observed
-
1000-
f
c
1
~ 500-
(0
E
kT
I CT flat terrain
j.^N. Mitchell
/ \
/ 1:1
/ o / •
/ / • V
! / /''
x -^ O
/> / x^
/ / g' 0- Stable
fz/^'Q ®- Neutral
500
; Observed (m)
Figure C-3. Comparison of observed horizontal
1
11 September 75
85
-------
1000
c
1
o>
£
u.
N
to
500
Ratio of
^computed
500 1000
°"z Computed (m)
Figure C-4. Comparison of calculated
vertical dispersion coefficients with
those developed for flat terrain,
25 August - 11 September 75.
V)
= 4J
£
§
O
(0
cc
\ ° O
\
\
e
o
© ©
Distance Downwind (km)
Figure C-5. Ratios of measured horizontal dispersion
coefficients to coefficients for flat terrain, Kammer
plume, 25 August - 11 September 75.
86
-------
(A
!•
i
o ®
o
o
vj~^ ©~
O i ©
© ®
5 10 15 20
Distance Downwind (km)
Figure C-6. Ratios of measured horizontal
dispersion coefficients to coefficients for
flat terrain, Mitchell plume, 25 August -
11 September 75.
87
-------
APPENDIX D. FLUX CALCULATIONS FROM PLUME CROSS SECTIONS
The three cross sections that were constructed on the morning of 29 August
1975 were chosen as the basis for calculations of the flux of S02 from the
Kammer power plant. The cross sections were chosen for the following reasons:
a) stable atmospheric conditions, b) moderately strong wind speeds, c) three
cross sections were available in a 2-hour period, and d) no other plumes were
in the area.
Flux is defined as follows.
Flux = Concentration x Area x Wind Speed
= ^ x m2 x ?iE
mo sec
= M
sec
The actual hourly flux from the plant was computed from the daily coal
consumption, the sulfur content, and the hourly power generation data. These
data were provided to EPA Region III by the Ohio Power Company on 5 October
1975. The hourly flux of S02 was computed as follows:
Hourly S0£ Generation =
0.11y Coa! x Percent SuUur x x 2
The factor of 2 was included because the molecular weight of S02 is
twice that of sulfur.
Flux was estimated from the cross sections as follows:
a. A plot of isopleths of concentration was made on rectilinear
coordinate paper representing vertical and horizontal distribution of S02.
b. A planimeter was used to measure areas of equal concentrations.
c. Concentrations were converted from parts per million to micrograms
per cubic meter by the relationship:
£2. - nnm v molecular weight
- ppm x
m3 0.024
88
-------
d. The areas of equal concentration were multiplied by the wind speed
and concentration to give flux.
e. These results were summed to give total flux.
The results of these calculations are given in Table D-l.
TABLE D-l. FLUX CALCULATIONS
Time
(EST)
Di stance
(nmi)
Actual
Flux
(kg/hr)
Calculated
Flux
(kg/hr)
% of
Actual
0831-0918
0923-0943
1021-1041
2
4
2
13,744
13,774
13,744
13,244
12,483
13,949
96
91
101
89
-------
APPENDIX E. HELICOPTER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
By: J. Jeffrey van Ee, EMSL-LV
Three probes located on the right forward side of the helicopter supply
air to the instruments (Table E-l) located in the helicopter cabin. One probe
is used for the gas-phase instruments; the other two probes are used for
particulates. One of these probes is used exclusively for the nephelometer;
the other probe is used to collect particulate samples for microscopic and
chemical analyses. All three 1-1/2-inch diameter aluminum probes are coated
with Kynar to minimize interactions with the walls. Air is forced through two
of the probes by ram-air pressure with the air exhausting to the rear of the
helicopter. One of these probes supplies air to the nephelometer. A heater
is used to minimize the effect of moisture on visibility measurement. All of
the gas phase instruments sample air from the other probe through Teflon
tubing and 5-micrometer Teflon filters. Air for the third probe is sampled
isokinetically using a special probe tip and an air pump.
Output voltages from the instruments are converted to Binary Coded Decimal
(BCD) characters using a Monitor Labs (ML 7200) data acquisition system.
These data are recorded on 7-track magnetic tape using a Cipher 70 tape deck.
Instruments are scanned by the ML 7200 at a selected scan rate of 2 to 5
seconds. The magnetic tape is processed by a digital computer and a printout
of calibrated engineering units is obtained.
Particulates are collected for laboratory analysis by either impaction or
filtration. For microscopic analysis, particulates are collected on
Nucleopore elements using a commercial six-stage Anderson impactor. A
membrane filter is used as the final filter. The required 1 cubic foot per
minute (cfm) flow rate is achieved using a limited orifice. For chemical
analyses of particulates, x-ray fluorescence is frequently used. Millipore
1-micrometer Fluoropore filters are used together with a high-capacity pump to
obtain high volumes of air samples in relatively short times. (The exact
sample time required to identify a certain pollutant depends on the
sensitivity of the analysis and the expected ambient air concentration.)
90
-------
TABLE E-l. HELICOPTER INSTRUMENTATION
TABLE E-l. HELICOPTER INSTRUMENTATION
PARAMETER
METHOD OF CALIBRATION
INSTRUMENT*
MEASUREMENT METHOD
CALIBRATION STANDARD '
CO
Beckman 7000
Dual Isotope Fluorescence
NBS traceable CO/N2 gas Dilution of gas with Bendix Dynamic Calibration
System
S02
Meloy SA160 with
HgS scrubber
flame phometric
NBS certified permeation Method described in Federal Register
Temperature/ Cambridge CS-137 thermistors
Dewpoi nt
fixed resistors
Procedure recommended by manufacturer
NO/NO
Monitor Labs 8440 NO:
Chemi luminescent reaction
with 03
Conversion of N02 to NO in
Moly converter; subsequent
reaction with 63
MO-NBS traceable NO/N2 gas Dilution of gas using Bendix Dynamic Calibration
N02- GPT of NO with 03 to System
generate NOg/NO mixture
03
Visibility
Altitude
Particulates
REM612B Chemi luminescence 03 source calibrated with A Dasibi 03 monitor is calibrated against a
Federal Register KI method standard ozone source. The Dasibi is used to
check the calibration of the field-based 03 source
MRI 1550B 90° light scattering Freon 12
nephelometer
Computer Instru- Pressure
ment Corp. ,
Model 8000
Anderson 6 stage Electron 8, Optical Microscopy
impactor X-ray fluorescence
37 mm, mil 11 pore X-ray fluorescence
1 micron fluoro-
pore filters
Procedure recommended by manufacturer
The airport altitude is compared to the
based altimeter reading
The 1 cfm flow rate is achieved using a
orifice
Sample flow is obtained by measuring the
drop across the filter
ground-
1 imiting
pressure
Position Collins DME 40 and Triangulation accurate to within
Bendix RVA-33-A 0.1 NM
VOR
-------
APPENDIX F. CALIBRATION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
By: J. Jeffrey van Ee, EMSL-LV
Nearly all of the gas-phase instruments used by the Monitoring Operations
Division of EMSL-Las Vegas are calibrated with National Bureau of Standards
(NBS) traceable gases. Secondary CO and NO standards are diluted to ambient
levels using a Bendix Dynamic Calibration System (DCS) Model 8851. Zero air
is provided by an AADCO 737 zero air generator. This instrument used a
molecular sieve process to generate dry, pure air. Dilution flows are
measured with a Hastings Mini-flow Calibrator (Model HBM-1). These soap
bubble flowmeters are traceable to NBS volumetric standards.
Sulfur dioxide is generated from an NBS permeation tube, maintained at
constant temperature, in the Bendix DCS. To ensure the existence of a stable
S02 source, dry air continuously flows over the tube during the whole time
of the project. When ambient source concentrations of S02 are expected to
exceed one part per million (ppm), an S02-in-aluminum-cylinder standard and
the Bendix DCS are used to calibrate the 1-10 ppm range of the Meloy SA-160.
Calibration of the S02 monitor is complicated by the fact that S02 is
a reactive pollutant, yet it is not all that difficult because an adequate
standard source (the NBS certified permeation tube) exists for this pollutant.
Calibration of an ozone monitor is made more difficult because it is a highly
reactive pollutant and no adequate standard source for 03 exists at this
time. A temperature and current controlled UV-lamp source is used to generate
ozone. Dry air is used in this process. Following the Neutral Buffered
Potassium Iodide (NBKI) method described in the Federal Register, a Dasibi-AH
ozone monitor (using an uncalibrated ozone generator in the process) is
calibrated. The Dasibi instrument uses an ultraviolet (UV) absorption process
that has proven to be quite stable over long periods of time (3-4 weeks).
With this instrument, the stability of an ozone source in the field can be
monitored and this source can be calibrated to a NBKI EPA reference method
performed in the laboratory. Using this calibration method, the
chemiluminescent ozone monitor can be effectively calibrated with the accuracy
inherent in the NBKI method itself. Unfortunately, many problems exist with
the NBKI method. For this reason, the calibration of the Dasibi must be
checked with an ozone source that has been calibrated using the gas-phase
titration of ozone with a National Bureau of Standards NO Standard Reference
Material (SRM).
PROCEDURES
Lab-oriented air pollution instruments, operating in an aircraft
environment, experience wide variations of temperature, pressure, humidity,
92
-------
and vibration during a helicopter flight. To ensure the collection of the
best possible data all instruments are zeroed and spanned daily. In addition
the gas-phase instruments are given zero gas during a fliaht with thP
instrument reading recorded on tape.
On the ground, after a flight, the instruments are first zeroed This is
a nands-off zero with no adjustments being made to the instrument "The
instrument reading is simply recorded. This operation is referred to as the
post-flight zero. Next, the 'nstruments are adjusted to give a zero output
value with a zero input. This \< the "pre-flight zero." Next, a "post-flight
span is performed. No instruments are adjusted at this time; the span value
is simply recorded. Finally all the instruments are adjusted to read the span
input value in the "pre-flight span." The instruments are now calibrated for
the next flight after checking the zero and span drift that occurred during
the preceding flight.
DATA REDUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
Several corrections are made to the data collected from the aircraft.
First, linear corrections are made to account for the zero and span drift that
occurs over a 1-day period. In many of the new electronic air pollution
instruments being marketed today, daily instrument drift is minimal.
Operation of these instruments in a helicopter environment tends to increase
this drift. To reduce the error associated with this drift, the inflight
zero, ground-level zero and span data (obtained from the calibration
procedures described above) are used. Electronic instrument drift is
presently accounted for using the inflight zero data. Instrument drift caused
by changes in flow rates and contamination of the sensor package is taken into
account with the daily zero and span calibrations. While this method of
correcting data is not perfect, it is the best practical method available to
account for the temperature, flow rate changes, etc., experienced by an
instrument during a flight.
All span calibrations of the helicopter instrumentation are referred to
standard temperature and pressure (STP) conditions (25°C, 760 mmHg). These
corrections are identical to the corrections normally made in the calibration
of a ground-based air pollution instrument. When the helicopter
instrumentation measures pollution at different temperatures and altitudes,
the required STP corrections become more complicated. Confusion often arises
when one speaks of correcting data reported in terms of parts per million
(ppm, a volume/volume rate) for changes in atmospheric temperature and
pressure. In reality, an instrument that is calibrated with a gas (the
concentration being reported in terms of ppm) actually measures the pollutant
on a mass per second basis. Thus, corrections for changes in temperature and
pressure must be made to the data. Unfortunately, these corrections are not
straightforward. Instrument manufacturers employ a variety of techniques to
stabilize their instruments. The use of thermoelectric coolers, temperature
compensated electronics, ovens, regulators, and critical orifices Prevents one
from using the ideal gas law to correct airborne-based data to STP conditions
At the present time, an environmental chamber is being used to obtain the true
variation in span response caused by variations in temperature and pressure.
93
-------
With this information, it will be possible to reduce the errors inherent with
the placement of lab-oriented instrumentation in an aircraft environment.
With the exception of the carbon monoxide instrument, all of the environmental
chamber work, up to this point, has shown the corrections for temperature and
pressure to be small when the helicopter samples air within a few thousand
feet of the ground. For example, the S02 instrument span value would
decrease by approximately 0.03 ppm if the helicopter sampled air 4,000 feet
above the ground. Thus, the complex span (gain) corrections for temperature
and pressure are not being made at this time.
Table F-l lists the lag and response times measured on the
instrumentation. Currently, a computer-based convolution integral technique
to correct the helicopter data for instrument response is being developed. In
the absence of such a technique no corrections are being made to the data
listed on the computer printout. Fortunately, response-time corrections can
be neglected (and little error results) when an aircraft flies through slowly
varying, widely dispersed pollution. In plume sampling these corrections
become more significant. With some of the graphic plume presentations,
graphical techniques have been subjectively used to obtain a truer picture of
the plume. Given the amount of uncertainty inherent with current modeling
methodology, it is not unreasonable to use the best available airborne plume
measurement data even though a sizeable, undefinable amount of uncertainty
exists with the data.
94
-------
TABLE F-l. AVERAGE RESPONSE TIMES AND MINIMUM DETECTABLE CONCENTRATIONS
Average Response Times^
Parameter Lag 0-90%
CO 5 sec 11 sec
S02 variable
Temperature/Dew point
VO
W NO/NOX 9.5 4
03 7.5 5
Visibility <1
Minimum Detectable2
Concentration
0.1 ppm
0.005 ppm
-60° F
10% Rel . Hum.
approx. 2 ppb
0.01 ppm
bscat - 0.1
1. These figures are typical for the instrumentation maintained by EMSL-Las Vegas.
2. These figures were obtained from the manufacturers' literature.
-------
APPENDIX G. PLUME RISE CALCULATIONS
An examination of the Mitchell data was begun in an attempt to normalize
the plume rise data. First, a comparison of the observed plume rises with
those derived by Briggs (1968) through dimensional analysis was made.
Table G-l (equations 1 through 3) considers the case of a windy day and
buoyancy-dominated plume.
TABLE G-l. DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS PLUME RISE RELATIONS
Type of Rise Plume Rise Formula
Transitional Ah = 2.0 F1/3u-!x2/3 (1)
Stable Ah = 2.6 (F/u)1/3 s'1/3 (2)
Neutral Ah = 103 Fu~3 (3)
where Ah = plume rise (m)
F = buoyancy flux (m^sec"3)
u = wind speed (m sec~l)
x = downwind distance (m)
s = stability parameter (see'2)
The buoyancy flux for the equations in Table G-l was obtained in the
following manner:
For a hot source—
F = 9Qn
irCp T
where g = gravitational constant
Qn = heat emission rate
Cp = specific heat, constant pressure
= density
T = temperature
96
-------
or,
F = 3.7x10-5 F* sec£ xn.|1A I
cal sec x ^hH/sec I (5)
and
Qh = WmtpAi (6)
where Cp = 1.42xl03 (m2-sec2-deg-l)
Qm = mass emission rate (kg-sec-1)
AT = temperature difference (°K)
and,
Qv - Z^xlO-SJj.^ (7)
where Qv = volumetric flow rate (m3-sec-l)
T = exit temperature (°K)
Mw = gram molecular weight of 1 mole of gas, or 0.029 kg
or,
QVMW 273
(8)
22.4 x 10-3 441
Therefore,
Qh = 166,156 Qv (9)
The stability parameter, s, was calculated in the following manner
(Briggs, 1969):
s - ?ff (10,
where |f = IT + 9.8°C/km, and Q = lapse rate
OL 3Z. of-
0 = potential temperature
T = mean ambient temperature through which plume rises
g = gravitational constant
The results obtained with either the second or third Briggs equation
(equation 2 or 3, as applicable) are shown in Table G-2.
97
-------
TABLE G-2. PLUME RISE CALCULATED FROM THE BRIGGS EQUATIONS
BASED ON DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
TABLE G-2. PLUME RISE CALCULATED FROM THE BRIGGS EQUATIONS BASED ON DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
Date
27 Aug
27 Aug
3 Sep
3 Sep
3 Sep
5 Sep
5 Sep
8 Sep
8 Sep
9 Sep
9 Sep
10 Sep
11 Sep
11 Sep
Stability
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
N
S
S
N
S
S
Stability
Parameter^ s)
-0.111
-0.111
0.000
0.000
O.OOj
0.000
0.000
1.000
-0.057
0.130
0.130
0.100
0.328
0.328
Buoyancy
Flux F
1,258
1,258
1,591
1,591
1,591
1,702
1,702
1,887
1,887
10,545
10,545
10,693
10,841
10,841
Wind
Speed
(m sec~l)
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.1
7.6
10.8
5.0
5.5
2.6
12.5
9.0
Calculated
Ah (m)
1,258
1,258
12,728
12,728
12,728
13,616
13,616
16
1,497
88
111
608,366
36
46
Observed
Ah (m)
386
347
378
408
500
317
341
226
438
347
356
569
149
58
These are, of course, not satisfactory calculations of plume rise.
The next calculations involve use of the formula for neutral conditions as
suggested by Briggs et al. (1968). Recognizing that there was only nominal
loading on the plant, unsatisfactory results were obtained for the neutral
cases using:
Ah =
400- +
u-3 u
where r = stack radius
w = exit velocity
The average of the calculated values for the period 27 August through 8
September (a period of nominal plant loading) agrees within 1% of the observed
plume rise values. However, the values obtained for the period 9 through 11
September are too high due to the extremely high buoyancy fluxes generated
when the Mitchell plant is in full operation.
98
-------
TABLE G-3. A COMPARISON OF COMPUTED TO OBSERVED PLUME RISE FOR NEUTRAL CASES
Date
27 Aug
3 Sep
5 Sep
8 Sep
9 Sep
10 Sep
11 Sep
Calculated
Plume Rise
(m)
•™ - - _
549
549
5,182
5,182
5,182
5,538
5,537
1,780
2.4 x 1Q5
796
1,692
884
867
Observed
Plume Rise
(m)
~ —
386
347
376
408
500
317
347
438
569
356
569
149
58
TABLE 6-4. VOLUMETRIC EMISSION RATES (Cramer 1976)* AND ASSOCIATED BUOYANCY
FLUXES FOR THE MITCHELL PLANT
Date
9 Sep
10 Sep
11 Sep
Time
(EST)
0617-0856
1027-1331
0924-1255
0831-1109
Volumetric
Emission Rate
(m3/sec)
1717
1720
1740
1764
Buoyancy
Flux „
(m4-sec-3)
10,545
10,555
10,693
10,841
*Cramer, H.E., personal communication, 1976
99
-------
These values are on the order of twice the volumetric emissions of the
Kammer plant. This fact, coupled with the high release altitude (366 m AGL),
the large stack diameter (10.06 m) and the high exit velocity (30.3 m/sec),
makes it not surprising that the formulae developed for smaller plants are not
applicable. An inspection of the formula given by equation 1 suggests that
the u~l term might be varied to give better results as the F and x terms are
nearly constant in this treatment. Therefore, various exponential values were
assigned to the value u with the results shown in Table G-5.
TABLE G-5. PLUME RISE CALCULATED USING VARIOUS EXPONENTS OF u COMPARED TO
OBSERVED PLUME RISE
Date
9 Sep
Calculated
PI ume Ri se
u-1
(m)
876
796
Calculated
Plume Rise
u-1-1
(m)
745
671
Calculated
Plume Rise
u-1. 5
(m)
391
339
Calculated
PI ume Ri se
u-1. 6
(m)
333
286
Observed
Plume Rise
(m)
347
356
10 Sep
1,692
1,537
1,049
953
569
11 Sep
884
861
686
695
250
289
194
231
149
58
This approach gives fair results for the observations taken on 9 September
when there were moderate wind speeds. However, the results for 10 September
(u = 2.6 m-sec"1) and 11 September (u = 12.6 and 9 m-sec"1) are less than
satisfactory. It was decided to develop a relationship between wind speed and
plume rise through a curve-fitting process. The assumption is that the data
may be fitted using an exponentially decreasing function. The possibilities
considered were:
and
f,(x) = Ae
-ku2
(12)
(13)
where u = wind speed (m/sec)
Parameters A and k were found using the values associated with the lower
wind speed (2.6 m/sec, 569 m) and a second value obtained by drawing a smooth
curve through a plot of wind speed versus plume rise. The second value (10.75
m/sec, 103.5 m) was halfway between the values associated with the higher wind
speeds (9 m/sec, 58 m and 12.5 m/sec, 149 m). The equations are:
100
-------
fjtii) = 980.0e-0-209u
and
f2(u) =
A comparison of the fit of these two curves is shown in Table G-6.
TABLE G-6. COMPARISON OF THE FIT OF TWO POSSIBLE CURVES TO DESCRIBE PLUME
RISE AS A FUNCTION OF WIND SPEED FOR HIGH FLUX CASES OF THE
MITCHELL PLUME
(m/sec)
2.6
5.0
5.5
9.0
12.5
Observed
Plume Rise
(m)
569
347
356
58
149
PI ume Ri se
from f,(u)
W1
569
345
311
149
72
Plume Rise
from f«(u)
(m)2
569
428
394
178
55
The standard deviation associated with f2 (u) is 49 m and the standard
deviation for fi(u) is 80 m. Therefore, f2(u) was selected. Figure 6-1
presents a comparison of the observed and calculated plume rises using
equation 1 for low flux cases and equation 14 for the high flux cases.
The Kammer plume rise was handled in a similar manner. The Briggs
formulae shown in equations 1, 2, and 3 were considered.
101
-------
RATIO
09
M
3-1
0
0
0=f(2.0F3U1X )
11
Figure 6-1. Comparison of observed and calculated plume rises
for the Mitchell plant, 27 August - 11 September 75.
102
-------
Table 6-7 presents the parameters used in these calculations. Once again,
x = 1 km was chosen as the downwind distance where stabilization takes place.'
The plume rise measurements for 8 September were not included since a strong
inversion capped the Kammer plume.
TABLE 6-7. PARAMETERS USED IN PLUME RISE CALCULATIONS FOR THE KAMMER PLANT
Date
27 Aug
28 Aug
29 Aug
2 Sep
3 Sep
4 Sep
5 Sep
8 Sep
9 Sep
10 Sep
11 Sep
Stability
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Stable
Stable
Stable
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Stable
Stable
Stable
Neutral
Stable
Stable
Stability
Parameter
(sec-2)
-0.11
0.08
0.08
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Inversion
Inversion
0.13
0.10
0.33
0.33
Wind
Speed
(m/sec)
2.7
5.3
5.3
8.8
8.8
8.8
4.6
3.5
4.5
5.B
6.0
6.6
6.6
4.4
3.1
9.2
9.2
Buoyancy
Flux
(mVsec3)
6.07 x 103
6.14 x 103
6.14 x 103
5.99 x 103
5.99 x 103
5.99 x 103
6.07 x 103
6.36 x 103
3.92 x 103
4.03 x 103
4.03 x 103
4.11 x 103
4.11 x 103
4.07 x 103
5.59 x 103
5.88 x 103
5.88 x 103
plant.
103
-------
TABLE G-8. COMPARISON OF CALCULATED TO OBSERVED PLUME RISE FOR THE KAMMER
PLANT
Date
27 Aug
28 Aug
29 Aug
2 Sep
3 Sep
4 Sep
5 Sep
8 Sep
9 Sep
10 Sep
11 Sep
Observed
PI ume Ri se
(m)
m^mMHm, »»^»»^»^^^T»^»»»^-^a^M»»»^^^^»
232
841
1,116
293
262
308
354
811
567
506
384
354
293
262
475
216
201
Plume Rise
Calculated
from Eq. 1
(m)
• 1 .. I....... •!-• •
1,348
690
690
414
414
414
791
1,057
702
578
530
Inversion
Inversion
727
1,142
391
391
Plume Rise
Calculated
from Eq. 2
(m)
BflHBH^^^Hi^^HH^^H^H^^H^^Bfl^H^BMIBBHBBBBIIBBBBBHBV
63
63
33
33
33
50
68
32
32
Plume Rise
Calculated
from Eq. 3
(m)
3.08 x 106
4.12 x 105
4.12 x 105
8.79 x 104
8.79 x 104
8.79 x 104
6.24 x 105
1.48 x 106
4.30 x 105
2.42 x 105
1.87 x 105
1.43 x 105
1.43 x 105
4.78 x 105
1.88 x 106
7.55 x 104
7.55 x 104
Equations 2 and 3 yield unsatisfactory results. Once again, equation 1
gives the best results. However, the average calculated value was 50 percent
too high. We therefore have introduced a factor of 0.66 to the equation.
Ah = 0.66(2.0 Fl/3u-lx2/3)
An application of this factor gives the results shown in Table G-9.
Figure G-2 is a graphical representation of these results.
104
-------
TABLE G-9. ADJUSTED CALCULATED VS. OBSERVED PLUME RISE FOR THE KAMMER PLANT
Date
27 Aug
28 Aug
29 Aug
2 Sep
3 Sep
4 Sep
5 Sep
9 Sep
10 Sep
11 Sep
Cal cul ated
Plume Rise
(m)
895
458
458
275
275
275
525
702
466
336
336
174
758
260
260
Observed
Plume Rise
(m)
232
841
1,116
293
262
308
354
811
567
506
384
262
475
216
201
105
-------
o
LU
K
LU
CO
O
<
0 i
LU J '
H-
O
— J
2 2
5
DATin 1
KAIIU 1
o
LU
h-
=>
u
u
.c
0
LU 2-
cc
LU
VI
CO
0
j= 3
a.
'/3 -1 2/3
0 h=0.66(2.0F U X )
©
0 0
$ © © ©
0 ©
©
27 29
AUG
3456
SEP
10
Figure G-2. Comparison of observed and calculated plume rises for
the Kammer plant, 27 August - 11 September 75.
106
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing) \
1. REPORT NO. 2
EPA-600/4-79-043
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
AIRBORNE MEASUREMENTS OF POWER PLANT PLUMES in
WEST VIRGINIA, Kammer and Mitchell Power Plants,
25 August-11 September 1975
7. AUTHOR(S)
Frank G. Johnson, John L. Connolly, Roy B. Evans, and
Thomas M. Zeller
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Las Vegas, NV
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
June 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 1
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. 1
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. I
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. 1
Project 1
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED I
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE I
EPA/600/07 I
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A field study was conducted during August and September 1975 to measure parameters
of effluent plumes from two coal-fired electric generating stations near Wheeling, West
Virginia. This data report presents plume heights, plume horizontal and vertical
dispersion, and plume centerline and maximum low altitude sulfur dioxide
concentrations. Plume parameters were observed with a helicopter-borne air quality
monitoring system and an airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system which
measured aerosol light scattering. Plume cross sections in terms of sulfur dioxide
concentrations and aerosol light scattering were simultaneously obtained with the
helicpoter and LIDAR systems and are presented for comparison. Estimates of sulfur
dioxide fluxed in the effluent plumes were prepared from the helicopter sulfur dioxide
plume cross sections and the transport winds. Sulfur dioxide flux estimates derived
from helicopter data agree within 10 percent with flux estimates derived from coal
consumption and sulfur content data for three cases in stable atmospheres with moderate
wind speeds. Plume rise formulas have been developed for the two plants.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/GlOUp
Electric power generation
Air pollution
Environmental surveys
Helicopters
Wind meteorology
Sulfur dioxide
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO IMF PUP-LIC
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rex. 4-77) PREV.OUS ED.T.ON >s OBSOLETE;
UrU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 - 683-091/21
Kammer and Mitchel1
electric power stations,
West Virginia
Helicopter air quality
measurements
19 SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
04B
07B
17H
20F
21 NO. OF PAGES
116
22. PRICE
A06
------- |