A METHOD TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM STACK HEIGHT_CPCB.pdf

i
..
.
CONTROL OF URBAN P01..L'J1'10N SERl E'S
CUPS/13f 19'84-65
AMETHOD TO DETERMINE THE
M
.INIMUM STACK HEIGHT
-
c:
·-
(.)
·-
c:.
CJ)
>
c
Q)
..c
(.)
a..
(.)
~
~
......._
0)
()
0...
()
~
Q)
~
+J
c
Q)
()
(/) .
>
z
w
~ - CENTRAL BOARD FOR THE PREVENTION
s;i5;;i AND ·
l.SiiW CONTROL OF WATER POlLUTION
,... .
NEW DElHI
,- ·- - - -· -- - -~ _.. _.._--- - - - ·· - ---- ---
· .. - ~ ·- - ~ . -· -· •• -,t

1
·
FOREWORD
The Emission Regu.1a1ions (Part I) printed m July, 19&4 had the
guideJines on the minimum stack he11,ht for industries. The method
for arri'ling at those values are given m1rus document.
1be usefulness of a modej for £egulatoct purposes depends: on
how weU the pr-inclp1es of pollutant dispersion are used in a methgd
that is free from rigorous computation. ft must also be straight9
focward
for adm.in.istrauve simpJicity. The present method is documented keepin_g
these points in view.
1t shouJd aJso be recognized that 1he imprnvement ol a model
depends en testing and changing the same with additional growth oi
knowledge acqui.red through practices. J hope this document wHJ serv~
ih specific PtJrpose and the greater objective of a clean env.U-onment.
The effort. of the Air PoHutjoo Control Cell on this doo.Jf(lent
is appredated•.
~~(Jl...,_,g_,
(NILAY cti°!UDHURI)
Chairman
-r-
-.....
t' 4
........._"'_ __ ____ - - ·
-
c::
·-
(.)
c::
Cf)
·:;
c
Q)
.c
(.)
Cl.
(.)
~
~
...._....
ca
(.)
0...
(.)
-
Q)
s.....
+J
c
Q)
(.)
(/)
>
z
w

<
-
~
·.
.
:
.,
..
...
·•
~
.
'
:
. ;
.•
~
;,
i
.
..
..
.
~
-
I
A Method to Determine the Minim.um Stade
Hejght I
Diurnal V~riatlon. of Mean Mixing Depths at
Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi Annemnt':'l. 3
'
Stade: Helgh1 as a Function of the !mission
Rate of Sulphur Dioxide and Partkulate
Matter Annexure II 6
Comparison of iormuJa developed with
those of 'other countries · Annexure Ill U
Criticism of Experu · Annexure IV 14
-
c
.
(.)
c.
(/)
>
c
Q)
..c
(.)
0..
(.)
~
~
..._....
CD
0
a..
0
~
Q)
,_
+J
c
Q)
0
en
>
z
w

I
U5T OF FIGURES
1. Range of Diurnal Variation of M;txing Height -
Bombay
Calcutta
lle.
lhl
Figures 1 to 4
Figures 5 to &
Figura 9 t-0 12
2. Maximum Gr:-OUld Lev~i CON:entration of Sulphur
Dioxide Versus Stack Height Figures A
1
to A
3
3. Maximum Ground Lever Con(:enfra.t.ion of
PartkuJate Matter fpr"'rn~ ~tack Height - Figures s
1
to B
3
4. S1,.11phur Dioxide Em!sslon Rate Versus Stade
Height Figuru c
1
to c
3
'· Particulate Matter Emission Rate Versus
Stade Height Figures C,. to c,
-
c:
(.)
c
(/)
·-
>
c
Q)
..0
(.)
0...
(.)
~
~
...........
CD
0
a..
0
~
Q)
,_
+-'
c
Q)
0
en
>
z
w

A METHOD TO DETERMINE TifE MINIMUM STACK HEIGHT
OBJECTIVE
As a part of the implementation programme for ambient Alr
Quality Control, a guideHne was needed for determining the 5tack height
as a function of the emjssion rates of pollutants.·
MEillOD
Two pollutants were considered, nameJy, par-ticulate matter and
sulphur dioxlde. The approach was to first determine the diurnal variation
of mixing depth and the method and results -are given in Annexure-1.
The diurnal variation was determ~ned by tephigrams using the data publish-
ed by the Indian Meteorological Department. Coastal areas were found
to have atleast a few hours of night-t1me ground level inlension in winter.
Therefore, even smaH factories: should have stacks taller than this height
to prevent local fumigation of pollutants. Thermal power stations, however1
should have stacks taller than the inversion layer during the night-time
of other seasons to avoid a buiJd-up of sulphur dioxide released from
a high coal consump.tion. The diurnal variation was less in the monsoons
because of cloud cover, and the JeveJ of the mean mixing depth was
fair~y high. Frequent wash out would prevent any build-up of pollutants
in this season.
The second part was to determine the dependance of stack height
on- the Ground Le/el Concentration (GLC} at different emi5sjon rates
for both the poJJutants. Details of the method, the graphs plotted and
the values obtained are given ln Annexure-11 .Maximum GLC for different
values of emi5sion rates and for different stack heights were calculated
by using the Gaus5ian Plume ModeJ for both the poButants. Graphs were
plotted between GLC and stack height for each value of emissjon rate.
As per the National Air QuaHty Standards {N AQS) for industrial areas,
a cut-off point for maximum GLC of 120 and 500 micrograms per cubic
metre was taken for sulphur dioxide and particulate matter respectively~
-
c:
.
(.)
c:.
CJ)
>
c
Q)
..c
(.)
a..
(.)
~
~
......._
0)
()
0...
(.)
~
Q)
~
+J
c
Q)
()
(/)
>
z
w

I
- 2 -
The stack heights (H) Wef"e obtaiMd from the above plot for the
said cut-off point for the two pollutants. Subsequently, the obtained
stack heights and emission rates wer~ pJoued and a suitabJ~ mathematical
equation was fit to the curve. Calculations were made for 2 coastal
cities Caku11a and Bombay and one inland cityt namely Delhi. Finally
two simp1e equations were obtained, one ior each pollutant, by c:ombining
the equations of the three different cities for each pollutant.
RESULTS
On the basis of this approach, of using ml!teorological data and
dis~rsion of pollutants, certaln stack heights were proposed. These
were' reviewed by three ~rts. Coruequem fo their comments, the
following has been adopted;
1. Mln;mum Stack Height
a) GeneraJ
b) Therma~ power stations
i) Above 200 MW and Jess
than JOO MW
ii) Above .500 MW
220 metres
275 metres
2. Stack Heights, H in metres for different emission Rates1
Q
a) Sulphur Dloxid~ H : J4(Q)0.3
(Q in kg/hr)
b) Particulate matter H =71/{,Q)0.27
(Q in T/hr)
The stack hejghts obtained using the abov.e formula were compiited
with those obtained using methcxis developed in other countries. This
is shown in Annexure-m. The crittcism o! e-xperu is given in Aonexure-IV.
•
-
c:
·-.
(.)
·-
c:.
en
>
c:
Q)
..c
(.)
0..
()
~
~
__..
a:l
(.)
a..
(.)
~
Q)
~
~
c:
Q)
(.)
CJ)
-
>
z
w
1

- 3 -
Annexure-L
DIURNAL VARIATION OF MEAN MIXING DEPn-ts AT BOMBAY
CALCUTTA AND DELHI
OBJECTIVE
l t"Le diurnal variation of the mean mixing depth (MMD) was determin-
ed to estimate the minimum stack height under certain meteorological
conditions.
INTRODUCTION
C1imatologicai data was studied to determine the mean minimum
mixing depth and to get an idea of the dispersive capacity of the atmosphere.
The minimum mixing depths in coastal areas are a result of ground level
inversions · that cause coricentration o( pollutants. lt was necessary to
find out this depth so that . the minimum stack height would be higher
than this, to avoid build-up of pollutants· a.t the ground level, from fumi-
gation.
PROCEDURE
Five years data was used in this study. The variation of MMD
for different seasons was studied by taking representative months for
the three cities. For Bombay and Calcutta, the months of Janl!ary,
April, July and October were taken to represent wintert summer, monsoon
and post-monsoon seasons respectively. For Delhi, a set of
results have been adopted in this study (M~ Kumar11
l 985)*.
published
,._.l!xing depths were determined using the method of Holzworth
(Holzworth, 1967). Tephigrams were used as aerologica.l diagrams for
the work. Ten year climatological mean surface temperatures and five
year (1963-67) monthly averaged rad!osJnrie data from iMD' have been
used (Mani, l 980)Z'"*
*Manju Kurnari {19&5): Mausum, Vo1.36t No.4, pp.71-74.
**Mani, A ( 1980}: Handbook of Solar Radiation Data for India.
Allied Publisher, New Delhi.· '
-
c:
.
()
·-
c.
en
·-
>
c:
Q)
.0
()
0..
()
~
~
..._....
al
(.)
a..
(.)
~
~
+J
c:
Q)
(.)
Cf)
-
>
z
w

r
I
- 4. -
The average !!ffect of urban heat island from the January data
of Delhi has been us.ed for the year for Bombay and Calcuua. The heat
island effect would ~ maximum foe Delhi m thf!' winter. However, the
increased building density for Bombay and Calcuqa would give an increased
heat isJand effect. This. wouJd be compensated by cJoud cover , Jand
and sea breeze which wovld reduce the diumaJ variation of the heat
island effect.
DISCUSSION
The diurnal vadat &
on of the mean rn.ixing dept h is given In FJgUres 1
·through 12. A difference of upto 100 metres may occur in th:e !v"iMD
because of an error of 0.65°C in the heat island temperature effect.
A Jurther error of 100 metres is pOM.ible due to an. inaccuracy of 5 mb
in reading the tephigramp To account for both 1hese errors,, a totaJ
deviation of JOO metres, from the mean value:, has be-en recognized ~
being possible. Therefore, the MMD will lie within a range of values
and has been shown as a band in the Figu.res l through 12.
In lhe MMD value's for the three cities, the· lowest were found
to be iri winter because of the lowest ·temperatures. In the monsoons,
the diurnal variation was much reduced rnainly due to cloud cover. Calcutta
was found to have higher mixing depths than Bombay.. Delhi, bemg inland,
had a much larger diumal variation man both the coutal cities.
Taklng an average value for the heat island may tend to jncrease
the maximum and decreese the' minimum and henc~ sUghd)I enlarge the
range. This is became 1he maximum temperature which should probably
get the minimum value of heat isJand will OOIW get an average value which
wrn be more than the minim.um. The reverse would be the case for
the minimum t.empera1ure.
•

- 5 -
CONCLUSIONS
A knowledge of the MMD is lmportant in specifying the stack
heights in order to avoid fumigation and 1capp.ing of pollutams re•eased
from chimneys. This is spec laUy true in the winter. Since· the pattern
c:>'f the MMD .is simHar for all coastal areas, namely those within 200 l<m
from the shore Jine, the minimum stacks heights for these two regions
wouJd vary from those in the jnland areas.
1.
1)
ii)
Coastal areas:
The mean minimum mlxlng depth was found to be 20 metr~s m
winter. A minimum stack height ·Of 20 metres 1s recommend~
in this region.
The mean minimum mlxing depth was found to be 210 metres
in summer. A rninlmum stack height of 210 metres is, thereforet
.-ecomrnended for highly polluting industr-ie s, e.g. thermal power
stations with boilers of 200 MW capacity or more.
2. lnland areas:
i) Inland areas generally have high MMD and it does not seem relevarp
to use this data f« small industries. Howe~r, building heights
of 15 metres are common in industrial areas. The minimum stack
height ls, therefore, recommende<i as twice this or 30 metres,
to avoid pollutants being drawn in the wake of such buildings.
mThe mean minimum mixing depth was found to be 220 metres.
n is, ~<re, recm m:nded that highly polluting industries, e.g. thermaJ
power stations havlng boilers with a capacity of 200 MW or more
should have stacks of atleast 220 metres.
3. Thermal power stations with boilers of 500 MW capacity should
have stacks of 275 m to prevent build· up of ambient sulphur diox1de.
SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER WORK
A study of low leveJ inversions should be taken up. This can
be first done 'for Delhi and later for B<:>mbay and Cakutta.
-
c
·-
u ·
·-
c:
en
>
c
Q)
..c
u
0..
(.)
~
~
....._
(()
()
a_
()
~
Q)
i.....
+J
c
Q)
()
(j)
>
z
w

- 6 -
Annexure-H
STACK HEIGHT AS A FUNCTION OF THE EMISSION RATE OF
SULPHUR DIOXIDE AND PARTICULATE MATTER
1. OBJECTIVE
2.
3.
3.1
To develop a methodology and subsequently derive an equation
for the stack _height as a func:tion of the emission rates of sulphur
dioxide and of particulate matter.
INTRODUCTION
The present guidelines on stack height in the industry is based
on the required draught needed for combustion. A tall stack
creates a greater air flow and this is controned by a damper.
Using pollution control e<juipment may not always be economically
justified~ for instance in sulphur dioxide control f rorn thermal
power stations. The ambient air quaJjty can~ in such cases1 he
preserved by specifying a minimum stack height.
PROCEDURE
Prediction of Poliutant Concentratiom
The dispersion of the pollutants in the atmosphere is a function
of severaJ meteorological Parameters viz. temperature, wind
direction and speed, mixing depth, inversion level, etc. A number
of modeJs have been developed for the prediction of pollutant
concentration at any point t rom an. emitting source. The Gaussian
Modei is most widely accepted for its interpretabHit y. It gives
reasonabJy correct values bec:us.e this obeys the equation of continuity
and it aJso takes care of diffusion which is a random proce::;s.
For the present study this rnodeJ is used for prediction of ,'viaid mum
Ground Level Concentration (tV1ax GL C) and is given by
c = ___,Q..____
""ijify cf z
J (1)
.
CJ)
>
c
Q)
..c
(.)
a..
(.)
~
~ -
......._
0)
()
0...
()
~
Q)
~
+J
c
Q)
()
(/)
>
z
w

·--·--·. -----
Whert·
c = GLC
Q = Pollutant emission rate
H = Stack height
- average wind speed at stack height
u =
o'"y = dlUusion coefficients in Y direction
d"z = diffusion coeUidem in Z direction
The loUowing assumptions and data are used in 1he present study:
}.
. 2.
3.
5.
Max Gl.C of the pollutant will be obtalne<f when the vertical
diffusion coefficient, d'z i.s 0.7 times the stack height.
The effective emission height is the same as the 5tack·. height •
Temperature of the _
.flue 1s t.be same as the ambient.
The wind velocity at different heights have been cakulated
by using pow.er taw, wh.ich is1
= (
wnere, U a.no U . an~ veio<:ity at heig,hts z1
and z2
respectively
Z 1 Zz
aoo ra is a coefficient depencnng on the stabHity of the atmosphere.
The night time wW be the worst in vr~ of atmospheric dispersive
capacity and stabHity. The, stabllit.y at night in <lifleirent seasons
ls taken on the basts of mean night wind speed and a~erage
low doud cover. Cioud cover data has been taken from 1931-1960
and horizontal wind speed' data from 1963 to 1967 (Mani 1980).
6. Chemical transformation, precipitation and absorption have
not been considered.
7. A single stack is considered 1n the present ~t: 11v.
3.•2 Selection of Emission Rates:
Two poUutanu have been considered, these are sulphur dloxide
and partic:u!a.te matter. E'..m~ss.ion cat~ have been determined
using the factors developed by United States, Env1ronmental
Pollution Agency (EPA) or from actual monitoring data of the
Central Board,
-
c:
.
(..)
c:.
Cf)
·-
>
c:
Q)
..c
(..)
a..
(.)
~
~
..._
ca
(.)
a..
(.)
~
Q)
~
+J
c
Q)
(.)
en
>
z
w

I
- 8 -
3.2.1 Sulphur Dioxide (S0
2
) Emission rate:
so2
is a pnme poUutant from coal burning. Most lncban indust ries
use coal as fuelt th.erefore, a wide range o{ so2
emission has
been consi<lcr ed. The different emission rates assumed for
so2
are 0.1, 1, 5, 1O, .SO, 100, 200, ·500, 1000, 1.500 and 2000 kg/hr.
This range covers baby boilers burning 10 T coal/month to super
thermal power planta burning 6000 T PD.
3.2.2 Particulate Matter Emission Rate:
The major industry contributing to ooly particulate matter is
cement plants. The different. emission rates assumed aTe o.ol,
O.l , 0.3, 0.7, 1.0 and 1•.5 T/hc. This range covers uncontrolled
particulate matter eml$$ion from a vertical s.haft kiln, mini-cement
plant with a 101
0 TPD kUn emitting 250 mg/m3 at l,JOOO
O Nm
3
/hr
air quantity to a 300 TPD wet process kiln wlth a 12 percent
stack loss.
3.2.3 Parameter selection:
Industries which emit S0
2
and particulate matter simultaneously
the deciding factor tor stack height will be the quantity of
So
2
because these units generally have a dust COUll!ctiorl unit.
3.3 Methodology
The current study has been can-ied out for two coastal citie s,
Calanta an<t Bombay and one inland cit},. Delhi. lnitiaUy January,
April, July and October months for coastai cities aMd February>
June, September, October months for Delhl were considered
but for further studies- only the worst month for each clty has
been taken ~nto accourit.
First o! all Max GLC for prefixed values of emission
rates for different stack heights (IO, 20, JO ••••••. 120, DG m)
were calculated by using equation (I) f oe both the pollutants.
The calcuJated vaJues are presented in Tables I to 18. Then
graphs were plot ted between max GLC and stack height for
each value of an emission ra1e for diJferent cities f or the worst
months. These are shown in Figures Bl, B2 and B3 for partic.llate
matter for Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi respectively.
t
!
t
r
~
r

I
I
-3.4
3.lf.l
- 9 -
As. per the National Air Quality S1andards {NAQS) for indu:sulaJ.
area, a cut oH point for Max GLC of 120 )Jg/rn3 and of 500 ).!g/Nm 3
was taken for S02 and particuJate matter .respectiveJy. The stack
heights were obtained from the above plot fQf' the said cut off
point for both 1he p0Hu1ants. The obtained s:tacl< height:s; were
then plotted with corresponding emi!'.ision rates (Fig C 1 and through
C6). These plots are very useful and the re~uired stack height
for a particular emission rate can be found. Further, a. mathematical
equation for s.tack ~ight (H) in tenn.s of e·rnission rate (Q) is present-
ed below.
Development of Equat.ioru
Differen1 equations were fiU.ed to the curves. {Fig Cl to C6) p!ou.ed
between reciulred stack height and emlssjon rate. It was found
that the equation that fits all the curves well is .
given by
(2)
Determination of Constantsi
Taking log of both the sides in equation (2), we get
Log H = Loge ~ b Log Q OJ
This is the equatjon of a straight Hne, a is the intercept on Y axis
and b is th.e slope of the line. The values are computed by 'Lea.st
Square PrJnciplet. The equations obtaJned are as follows-:
For so2
for Calcutta .....04.(4)
H =[ Q JO.J!
3.59 x 10-4 for Bombay •••••••••{~)
H -= [ Q ~0.30
-"'
1.78 x 10
for Delhi .............:(6)
····~--- ~ -··· .
-
c:
·-
(.)
c::
CJ)
>
c
Q)
..0
(.)
0..
()
~
~
-
(!)
()
0...
()
~
Q)
"-
+J
c::
Q)
()
U)
>
z
w

r
1
...... ~..........·------···· -·
- lO -
he-rt H i$ the required stack heigh1 in metres and Q, the so2
emission io kg/hr.
" 10.?7
H f~--~
~
....- -
' . [ -8
4.7}x JO
for Ca!cun.a ...............(7}
for Bomba.y ................(8)
for Dellil ....................(9)
Where H is the required stack height m m and Q the emission
in T/hr.
3•.
5 f ocmation of a General Equation:
A genera! equation is proposed based on the above equations
for each poHutant. For partlculate matter , taldng the arithmatical
average of powers
Ii 0.266 .. o.314 + 0~2:JJ
1 0 2
-7
IL ) ~ •
and taking the a:vera,ge of constants, i..e.
Thus,, for pa.rt!cuJate matter emissiont 1he stack height is given by
H = 74 Q0.27 ...............
............( 10)
Where, Q is in T/hr
Similarly, for so2
emission the equation obtained ls
H = 14 Q
· O.) ....................................( 11}
Where, Q is in Kg/hr
The coefficient of correlation {r) was found to be between 0.98
and 0.99 for the curves plotted a nd the equations derived.
'·
I
r
f
!
'

- 11 -
4. DlSCUSSION
5.2
The assumptions in this study that would give a 'safe' stack
height ace:
(i} The ambient concentration is 1he maximum for the
assumed emission ra,te because t he vertical diffusion
coef'ficient has been taken as 0.7 times the stiJcl< height.
(li)
(Hi)
~ wocst meteorological conditions have ~n asume<J.
Plume rise has not been considered.
This has been offset by taking the NAQS for industrial areas.
This is for making it realistic smce it is expected that industries
will be allowed in the future only in such areas from an air
management pomt of view. Also the background concentration
has been taken as zero. It is, therefore, felt that the values
for stack height which wrn be obtained would be appropriate
for the t ime bemg.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed equation for the stack height, H for so2
emission is
H -= l lf Qo.3
where Q is the emission tn kg/hr
For particulate matter emission, the stack height is
H = 14 Q
0
•
27
where Q is the em.1SSion in T/hr
Jn case the ambient alr quality standards are different from
those considered, the stack height can be estimated from the
f igures A l, A2t A3, and Bl , B2, 83.
.5.3 The heights obtained from the formu la in ,5, t are the physical
heights of the stack. The effective heights may t>e more depending
on the plume rise and thermal buoyancy•
.5.4 Weather caps .should not be permitted on top of st acks because
they cut down the plume r ise and hence dispersion of pollutants.
Further, these aid in drawmg in pollutants 10 ihe wake of buildings.
-
c:
0
c:.
en
·-
>
c.:
Q)
.0
0
a..
(.)
~
~
...._..
en
(.)
a_
(.)
~
Q)
s-
~
c:
Q)
(.)
(/)
>
z
w

t_ ......_. _
............... ., .. < __....._____.i..
- 12 -
6. SUGGESTJONS FOR FURTHER WORK
A zero background level of pollutant has been considered in
this study. Also a single emission source has been assumed.
Refinement on both these points should be done when more
data is available.
6.2 This work uses the Gaussiari Plume ModeJ with a number of
assumptiCMls. Better modeJs can be used later on~ which may
be specially suit~d for a particular place such as speciflc coastal
or inland areas of the country.
CD
0
a..
0
~
Q)
'-
.....,
c
Q)
0
en
>
z
w

r
I
- LJ -
ANNEXURf.-111
Comparison of formuJa deveJoped for stack height with 1hose
of other countries. (Ref: EPA the worJd's Air Quality Management Standards,
EPA-650/9-75-001-a)
Country
Central
Boatd,lndia
West
Germany
USSR
France
Eau
Germany
Japan
Czecho-
sJovakia
Belgium
---·--··· ..
Method for stack Height Stac:k Hei hts m for different emissicris
SuJphur ParticuJate SO~kghr Pariticulate T hr
Dioxide Matter
1600 500 100 l.5 1 0.1
Formula Formula 12.S 90 56 83 74 40
Nomo-- Nomogram 114 30
gram
63 85 70 46
FormuJa Formula l46 98 57 125 109 5l
Formula Forrnula 10J 69 ~o 100 88 41
Tabie TabJe 160 96 43 180 1.50 49
Formula 178 103 46
TabJe 12.5 102 55
Table 75 45
Note: The formula for Japan gives the effective stack he ight,
i.e. the physical stack height plus the plume rise. ln
aJJ other cases, the result i:s the physical stack height.
-
c
·-
u
c::.
Cf)
·-
>
c
Q)
..c
u
0..
(.)
~
~
..._....
c:o
()
CL
()
~
Q)
'-
+J
c::
Q)
()
(j)
>
z
w

I
I
ing:
1.
2.
3.
- 14 -
ANNEXURE-tv
CRITICISM OF EXPERTS
The report was sent to "three experts con1isting of the foUow-
Dr. 5.P. SinghaJ, Nadonal Physical Laboratof'y, New Delhi.
Dr. 8. Padmanabhamurthy, Indian UeteorologicaJ Department:,
New Delhi.
Professms S. Neogy and H. Guha, Jadavpur University, CaJcutta.
The following suggestions were received from them and the response(R)
for each is given along with each suggestion(S):
(i)(S) The drawbacks of t~ Holzworth mode! can be oveTcome
by using the acoustic echo .soundef" (SOOAR) or by monitor-
ing temperature by sensors on tall TV towers. These would
give more accuTate meaStJremefts compared to t~ obtajned
in the present study.
(i)(R) St~ps have been ta.ken by the Central Board to study the
ve-rtical temperature profi1e using the SODAR and a TV
tower.
(ii)(S)
(ii)(R)
(iii)(S)
(iii)(R)
The model should be cali.OCated using actual data and should
be used for land use pJannjng.
This suggestion has bttn kept m view and wiJJ be utilized
when enOllgh data is avaHable for testing the model.
The details for calculation of the 5tack height of 210m,
220m and 275m for thermal power stations should be given
when the mjxJng dq1h is beyond the stack hr.i,ght, l!'.g. during
day time hours..
The basic awoacn in this case has been 10 keep the stack
abcve the mixing ~tfi ducing stab•e conditiou. This is
mainly to avo.id fomigation and ground level build-up of
pollu1a-r. ·<
~l

r
I
- 15 -
Howevert the Gaussian equation was used to check
the maximum ground level concentration with the recommend-
ed stack heightst these a.re given below:
Ground level max. concentration of So
2
due to Thermal Power Plant.
i) Ground level max. concentra;ion {l!g/M
3
) using 500 MW Plant
Plant with 275 meters stack height
Months
Feb.
June
Sept.
Oct.
A
149.0
84•.5
182.94
252.56
B
92.2
52.3
113.2.5
l .56.3.5
Sta,bi1i1y Classes
c D E F
48.42 l 7.61 6.62 0.662
27.'J 9.98 3.68 0.368
59.5 21.62 8.21 0.821
82.1 29.85 ll.61 1.16
ii) Ground level max. concentration (pg/ M3 ) due to 3 x . 200
MW power plant boHers connected to a muHiflue, single
stack oJ 220 metres height.
Feb. 277.8 196.1 133.2 47.6l 21.28 2.28
June l 57.23 103.8 7.5.J9 26.94 11.82 1.26
Sept. 34-1.n 240.8 163.59 58.47 26.4 2.82
Oct. 471.99 333.3 256.5 80.91 37.35 3.99
It is apparent that the maximum GLC value goes beyond t he NAQS
under stable conditions. This will be offset by the inversion leveJ being
below the stack height.
However, using Cen.tra! Electricity Author ity•s c apacit y ut ilization figures
(from letter No. l 5/2/g475/284-& to the Central Board dated , 13.9.1984)
of about 40% for Thermal Power Stations in India, we can assume tha."'l
when three boilers are connected to the same stac.!< oniy one boiler will
be in opeTation. Hence, the ~tual · maximum GLC due to 3 x 200 MW
boilers will be as follows:
Feb. 92.}9 65.36 44.4 15.87 7.093 0.76
June j2~~1 34.}9 25.13 8.98 3.94 0.42
Sept. l ll.71 80.27 54.H l 9.tt9 8.799 0.94
Oct. 1s1.:
n UL.1 75.45 26~97 12.45 1.33
-
c
·-.
u
c.
en
·-
>
c
Q)
..c
u
0..
(.)
:s:
~
..._....
en
()
(l_
()
-
Cl)
'-
+J
c
Q)
()
(j)
>
z
w

I
- If> -
(iv)(S) The minimum height of the chimney to avoid downwash is kept
at 2- .
1/2 t imes the heigh't of the building.
(ivXR) The build i~g heights in both coastal and inland regions is the
same (12 to 1~. Th.
erefore,. a. 30 m stack height is being kept
uniformly, which is more important than the mlnimum mixing
de·pth.. Simnarly, for the thermaJ power sta1ion stacks~ me
heights are kept uniformly at 220 m and 275 m for bollen of
the r ange 200 to less than :mo MV and from 500 MW and above,
respectiveJy.
(v)(S) The terrain has been assumed as flat.. A correction for uneven
terrain should be consjdered., where necessary.
(v)(R) In view of the effec~ of a rough surface terram, the standard
pcocedure of changing the stability class to the next high.er
revel was followed. The resuit is given below for cme case
in Oelh• where the class ls changed from F to E, .keeping the
wind vefoc h:y the same.
kglhr
Q:: 200,
Q : JOOO,
Q = 1500,
Q ::. 2000,
H;:;
H =
H ~
H=
Class E
62 meters
101 rneters
l J l meters
120 meters
Oass f
68 meters
tJ. & meters
125 meters
136 meters
Since the lower stability gives a safer height, this was not
changed.
(vi)(S) The background concentration of pollutants has been ignored.
(vi)(R) The background concentration has been ignored because of a
lack of data. A counteracting .
effect wilJ be irom the plume
rise from buoyancy and exit velocity from the stack, which
have also been ignored.
(vii){S) The worst case condition hills been studied by Nochumson (r A
screening Methodology for cak:ula.ting worst-case concentrations.
Downwlnd from a large, Isolated, Alr PoUutant~Emission Source r,
LM Alamos National laboratocy, Los Alamos, USA).. Since
this uses a method using dispersion coefficients which in turn
depend on stability, the method would gjve mor,e accurate results.

I
I
.,
,I
·'
.,
- 17 -
(vii)(R) The maximum CLC calculated earlier (Previous) were compared
from those using Nochumson1
·:s methoo (Present) for various
stack heig,h1s(H) and emission ra1e~(Q). This is reproduced below.
The dillerence between the two we~e statistically tested and
were not found to- be significant at 5 per-ce nt level (or the three
classes of stability, A, D and F.
Calculated Value$ of Maximum Ground LeveJ Concentration
Previous. Present
(meted (Qkgfhr) A D F A D F
30 lO 176.l 1.58.'.5 10,,6, 120.71 179.4 102.6
40 100 887.9(i 66.5.97 391).5 670.71 742. l ! 368.35
50 100 -'39.1 373.76 168.86 4)0.99 374.~6 167.14
60 100 Jq.s.;s :2.09.1.5 7,..7 297.89 ·214-.17 87.2&
7(; zoo 4&0.8·
9 261.61 93.J ~)6..63 267.13 100.96
80 200 352.3 165.14 S2.7 333.6 177.97 62.83
90 500 6&3.2) 2S7.68. 91.5 6,6.85 30&.78 103+25
100 IGOQ 10&7.04 f!l.'4-0.0 83.8 1062.47 '4-47•.3.5 lll-i.04
110 1500 1352.2' .506.l/- 781.l l) Jf+.77 500.~ 5 l.51.79
120 2000 i'oo.o 530.9 68.8 1471.0 511.,, l f+g.52
!'-"' I - ~ * F~ ,__,"'....._..... -~--
-
c:
·-
(.)
.
CJ)
·-
>
c:
Q)
.c
(.)
0..
(.)
~
~
...._....
co
(.)
0...
(.)
-
Q)
s....
+J
c
Q)
(.)
(/)
>
z
w

-
•·
. t,
~'
···::
..
··:
-.~1
.:·f
~
~
~~·~"t~--· ~
·~ ·,
;:~~EEF+ IIII 11-1- I1 : J3 IT-~~ --~~
--t--i--··+-------i---+---+----<1----f
·- - ·· .. - 1-· --"'-___.___---I
1700--l--l ....... .. l .. _J .i.... l- ..j ....-l--.. 1 .. ~ .......!.. ··-~--~····-+--~---····~--.+----!
;~~~Fi HI·.1 J_I.! _
[_ [l__Wf Iflfj----
.i. - .... -
--4----i---+-~-l-~~-+~-+-~+---I
130 0-1---1-
.:: 1100
~ 1===~~1~t-~~t-~~~-=r==t==~~
- 10001 i
~ sooill·r-t-+~~+--+~==r!
- 120Q"1 I ...... __. •·
tri
-~ soQ...,--1-- I
C> 700 !
z
x 600 !
i 500 ~- ·· -
400-+·· - .+---..+-·-'"----+-...........+
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 10 , , l2 l3 1i. 1s 16 17 18 19 20 2 l 22 23 24
TIME {Hour;) <=>
FIGURE-1 RANGE OF DIURNAL VARIATION OF MIXING HEIGHT (1963-67I
ENVIS Centre, CPCB (www.cpcbenvis.nic.in)
-

ENVIS Centre, CPCB (wWw.cpcbenvis.nic.in)
BOMBAY-APRIL
2000
1900Fl+tt,- ,-~ . ~· ..... ~ .,
ma I I I · t _ ~- - ~ - · · - -· · . __
11001 ,=;1T .. t --J -t]1111111 _
1600-t--i~I+~ I _j_.,_,___
,_,__..._, I I I ........,
1s.oo+- r-+---t--+-t-+-L :::_r__ t-CIr·
trttr
1400 . ; l I I- ! -+ I I- I - I - i -1 --;
1300 1 1 r r -i-+ - +- · I--->·-- - ·-
~ 1 200 t- ' t- ---· ... --- l j
~ 1l00 -+---1---~~~-+--+-~f--..,..._-+-~r---+--+--ir---t---f
-
! 1000 -------'---l---'-'-------'----4-
r-
3 900 .-~
- I f I
w 800 ' ' -t- ' -t--t
::::t -
C> 700 . .
~ soo I
~ 500
400 -
JOO
200+--k· ~ . ' .-
-- ti
wo . . f J I . _,__
0 - ~
0 i· 2 3 E. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tl 12 TJ l t. l 5 l6 17 lB 19 20 21 22· 23 21..
T!ME (Hours }
DfUA RAY - JULY ' - ·-- -

-,
-
TIME {Hours 1 - )
...._......;.··..~:'·'·~··· · ·
--...,...........-~ .......,
2000 T I I t t I r f I r I.._J__,I'..J___
j___J=r.~.....:l. ! l l-I i ,
1900 ...f,.,.......J .. ··-...1 · • -i ·· -----4- -·+-- •1--
...... . ··- -~ -
-- ·L ••-f--' ~- --+ - -
18oo--.............. -I- .. ....... ~ -4·---1- - --1·-- - ~-
I I I I
~ ~ I
oo-+-niJ
17 '
1~0] l
1500
L---- - I-·
.. ·-·+-----+---+---- - - -+---"1
-~-- -
I
. I I ! I I I ~ ·1 I I +------+--!-·- -f: ~
1400
. I I l I I
; I I
: ~ t r I 1
. I I ~ ··- -1- ···- 4
·--....-
~~~:J I ii
~ I I
.!: 11 o·:o~ ·
~ - ~
:: 100~
w 800
::z::
(.') 700
:::r 900 J - -r--
<.!) I S
-I ~ I
i ... ~-
z
600
-
x
-
~ 500 I~
400
lOO
I
l
200
I
lOO .......·---..
0
0 1 2 l 4 S S 7 8 9 10 11 12 t3 1/. 15 16' 11 t8 19 20 2] 22 Z3 24
TM: {Hourst JJ!lr'
FIGURE-3 RANGE OF D!URNAL VARIATION OF MIXING HEIGHT (1963- 67)
-

-
-
In
....
-
:l:
-
>-
I
l!>
-
w
:c:
C)
z
-
x
1
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
l200
11 00
1000
900
800
700
600
500
~00
300
200
100
0
BOMBAY- 0 CTOBE R
I
•
I
I ;
-- - -- -- - --- ~ --
- ~, .. - ·- .. ~ ..
)
- 1---- . ' . ... ·- ·
.
-.. ·-- It• ' " - .... .- - ·-·
,.___
-
: t
' i
'
_ ._ . ....__. ...... -
.
J I
- ~
···-· -
I
. I
....··-·-- ---
. 1
__ • .
-- - ·· ...
r- -......._
. v ->---- "
' - . . '
..~ . -· . - ; · -. - . "-... .- ~-- -··-
-. . ----- .. z ----~~ . .
- . ~-- v11I -- ·- ·-··- ·- "' ..... ·
-- ·--~-
I I I • - I ; I
. - . i'..
-"--- 1 I -- - -- ,.__ : • ~ . _ "
- ·- I--- . , "'-
---- -- ' ~ _- '-,...,........._
--- :-
YI--- , I ' ---~
~ I . , ......._
- - -.....___:_:: ·- • I../ _... • • ~ r-....... '
-~_ ) r -
-· ··· · i ·
I I 1
• ' l I l I
0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 0 11 i 2 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24
TIME {Hours~ •='-

. ';
'
l
•
TIME lHours)-----.-,,!-
20001...----.----.---.-~----.~.--..--.....---.-~---.-~~~~~~~~--.-~~~~~
·-1----1-- '---'--· ~~ - -
1800-1-+--+--+-+--+---+-l---I-__.;.· '''°"1¥I:' ~•!I.;;'
•..• - -......L..- - - - ·1•"·.~~~~'!·~~·- ..... -1--+--+----ll--+--+----I
j
t"~,,.~;;t.~t'J.l.•)k'»~
1700 -- ··-·- •---'1---1-----1-----li_,7/~(."i<' •:,'.~~···',-!-1---l-----l--1---l-----1--1----'
~:~~~:~:~-::~~---+~--t-.--~.-:-~-~---1----l----1---WI - ---- -- (~~~
140Q-4--+-+---l---+-:i---1--1----ll---1---l--~ ~), - - -- - - . ,,....__
_,_-=-_,_---·-====~:___,
..., 1300
1---~-~- ·- --- ;::. - - -· ··- - -
~ 1200-1---+--+--+---l----l----I-· -1-----1----1----1---l/·/.Xl~~--'- -- - ;" : '
- ,:.r l ~ ., . ·
~ 1100-'-- --+--+--+--+--+--11:·/ - - (.-·+1
~ I:::I'::=~-+=~--=~-_=:-I--=~-+-=~-+=~-_=:~_=:-I--=~:~·.I-.---W,;~; - - - ~'~r -+----1----1-
! ;-- :~_;::y· ! l~.-~:;i??~ -.--
7oo , --------- -- ::I-· ·· --r-- ... -- ---t-:.>.,.:...--i----1--1-
:~~-+--+--l--l-~
...--1-._=_:---!-l----ll-__,
..J/' : .::···: ~ -~--I
L,QQ--1--1---+----l-~>----1-----1---l--J,..../Lr:{J__·-- ---+---1--..-1--I--·-· --- ,,__ . __,...i ..--+-~ ~ - -
3Qt,fl.'-I.-- l:-."·;' i ~
!-~--1--+--+--+-+--ll,6-"·~~.f) f •.
:~~:=
z;'Mir>;:;i>'':.·JW,,.?r-J-+-+--+--+-l--+--+-ll-+--+-l--+---1--1-+_).,_
I I I ' 1 I
1900+--+---l-+--+---l----,.
'
··---__,____,__,____,_____.
_,____._,--+- .
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 l2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Tit-IE (Hours·---C!ll-
FIGURE-5 RANGE OF DIURNAL VARIATION Of MIXING HEIGHT <1963-67)
~
c
Q)
0
(/)
>
z
w
-

ENVIS Centre, CPCB (Www.cpcbenvis.nic.in) •
CALCUTTA h · APRIL
zaoo
1~· 00
1800
1700
1600
1500'·
,400
~ 1300
-
~ t200'
-
I- 1100
:I:
C) 100·
-
41
~ 900
C)
z 800
-
x 700
-
~
600
500
400
JOO ~
200
100 -t I I -l j---+ I J ---t----t-~r-...___,._
+-·+-·+ t ~ +-t i -+ I --t
0
0 2 J t. 5. 6 'J e s 1o 11 12 n 14. 1s 1& 11 1e 19 2a 21 21 23 24
T~ME: (Hours ) • ~
EE -. .....™ -- ~-g ~ANGE OF DIURNAL VARIATION OF MIXfNG HEIGHT 0963-671
M

. t='CUQE!.c. RANGE cw=" Dlt.JRHAI _ JIA~TION OF MIXING HE::."JGHt f 1963- 671
CALCUT TA ~JULY ' ~~--._,,,,.
:::fJfltL~Tc~·l-1~--is i , )JJJ i r
1800Tr: . 1-L L _
_, __,__ .l J.l -!.
1700
1600
-~ ·
i=
1500 J__J j j ---l-!-
11.oo
1300--f I
_,. , 200-1--J.
Ul
i...
i 1100
.: , 000
'~ 900 I I
-
.~ aoo- -------.+-
0 700~
z 600
x
~ 500
i.00
300
200 I I .1
- ~ ~
10
~ l I rITn=rTnT I l Irn I I~ I.TI ~
0 I 2 l 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 2'
TK tHours )_ __.....,.._
FIGURE-7 RANGE OF DIURNAL VARIATION OF MIXING HEIGHT (1963-67)

-
lif
...
...
::s::
~
,_...
:I:
!:2
IJJ
x
<:>
z
x
~
·
...
CAt.CUTTA-OCTOBER
2000~~~-.------.-----.-~l~.---,.--.---,---,--~,--,--,--.--t---,---,--,--,--,--,---,
1900->---- --+--+---+- . ·~ .. -+--1--4----1- -+-+---+-- " ·-+---I,___-+- -t-----1
.--- -·-I--+- -+--II---+---. f.--·..
1500
1400- I--
1300-
1200
11 00
-t.
1000
900
800-
i
700
i
600
i
~-
500- -·
400- --
300
...._.._:
··-
200 ;
'
, 00-r-···· ....
0
0 2
I --i - - ,...
i ; j
I I
18 19 2'0 21 22 23 21..
3 l 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
TIME (Hours) c;:!!ll
~'c.u..._-.,,-e. ~-GE oi= DIURNAL _VARIATION OF MIXING HE:IGHT (f963-67)
Jr-.,.:!"Jt - · - .... - . . . . "'...,.
m
()
Q_
(.)
~
c
Q)
()
(/)
>
z
w

-;x
....
-
~
:r
....
a..
w
Cl
(!)
~
~
~
1-.-GURE:- & RANGE Cl=" DIURNAL VARIATION OF MIXING H F.IGl-#T (19C...""l -,..YI
OIE~Hl-JANVART - -- - . .
2000
1900
800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300 '
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300 I '
200
100
O+--l--+-.__~-1!---4~.._,.~-..+---l---l----4---+---+---l--~l----l.---4~i--L-_J...-J.
0 ' 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11. 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 21.
TIME (Hours) ~
FIGURE-9 DIURNAL VARIATION OF MEAN MIXING OEPTH (1961-67}
-

DELHI-JUNE
TIME (Hoursl--~-
FIGURE-10 RANGE OF DIURNAL VARIATION OF MIXING HEIGHT (l963.f1

DELH1-SEP1£MBER
~o--.,..-----r--1---.~-.,...~~_,....._-,.-_,..._.-,---~-r-.,.---r--"1111-----:------r-i
I
-'-__._ ·-+---+-.._~+--J-.-t--+--~~~~~
~--t---+---1:----+--f---t-~-t--------+--+-------f- I I I
~~ ·~--.1--1---i---1-"i----H- t-tli
8 9 lO 11 12 '3 u. 15 1
6 17 1
8 19 20 21 22 23 21.
TIME lHour$- ;::;:.rs
;FJGURE-11 RANGE OF DIURNAL VARIATl~ OF MtXlNG HEIGHT (1963-671

DE LH I- OCTOB ER
2800
2700
2600
2500
2400
2JOa
2200
2 100
2000
1 900
1BOO
1 700
l soo
,;. , 500
...
-
:E 1400
~
I-
1 300
:x::
0
1 200
-
w
I
11 00
C>
1 000
z
x
900
-
~
BOO
700
600
500
400·
.__
300·.__
200
100
Jl
..J..---l--l.--!--1--1----4---l~L-L-.J.--l--l--l---l.--1---l--1----l---"1--1--L--l--T'I
J!
0
0
-+--+--i--4--+-l----+~-1--~+--l--+--+--+---l---l--l-~~1--1--4.--1--.,...
l--!·:
22 2;?i ·
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 B 9 10 1l 12 13 lt. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Tft.1£ (Hours)1- -----.::::!!li-
FlGURE- 12 RANGE OF DIURNAL VARIATION CF MIXING ~IGHT (1963-67
1
I

""'ii
~-
i
I I
I
-I
I
-i
--!
I
•-
;
23
BOMBAY-OCTOBER
2soo----.--~~~_._----.-
, -.-,-----.
1--,-..------
1 ~--...----.!
I I
2GOO ............_._____--+-- -
1
---+-_____.,,·-
i !
---··---'- ' -
-~---1--~-- -1--1 ...,-- --+---+ +----
· - 1 - - -
2200 ..i.--1-
1
-----+-...
;----ti---!-, I ~-- T·--+--+:-----f.·- I
·____.
- -1---"'---+----+--.i+- J - - 1 - ---1--1-----i-----I-- t'.----f..-1-----1
-
----1-----+---+-----t-----t_ 1._
· _ ----i----1-------1-- ' l I
2000 - 11- -----1.----1.----1
! I
I
I
!
1
801......--...--!--~---------t-t---1-- t - -------+--~
'! :
~E
...... 1· -
--, --- I
C"1 i I I ' • ; !
~ lGOO-----_..--·-·- ---+I-
' , - - - - - ------- + -·---4---+---'--____..
... ---44
' --+------1 _ _
r _ __._ _..i-'"------+-+--j_ _.--:...---_._--1.
1
----1
~ : , i I · !
~ 1400 l - ' ~ -... -t·---+-'------1-- 1 - - ,
~ '1 I
~ 1200 :=:::~:-=-:::
..__
...._
-_
~
--
-+_-_-+_
--+
_ -__:=:=:=:=-......-·
.-----.j
~ i ' ' : j ! I
~ - : -f-+-_.__·+-+----~ ' i ~ ! .._._-I-_•
~ (100-----1---1--'-4-·--+- - _
____.............___.____..__. _ .,____
.• --+-
! - ---.i..-a.--
1.&J I I
...J - - - ~ -l-+--t--~------1---&-ll~ 1-1----1-1-----1-----1---1----1-----t---1--~
~
- 800~-::
':-+-_____.-+-
......+t>-+-'
' ----..+---
,_ - -
, - - -
':
0---1
<..............!~.- =
$ ~ ---+-----+"--""~+4-1,___4'---+---~ ,...._____,,.--l'-1-----1
~ ; X~
~ 600::.:_-:.1--t--_..-4'--·
-1-1:··.1&~~b.
~· 400 I ,1• ~b ' ~ ' I__ ~---- - ·----1
:- 1
' ~~,. '~-~~ '. ·-- '
l ~ ; ~I I , .•
, .....

--+'
,lllo."-'11
lil--
;~----4-
, --+----I---+-
. --'
,----1--.....
200 I ' ~ '~ , ~' ' ; ~·'io-~
·.....
,+-
~---+-----+-____,;...----i-----1.~
-- ~ _
_
________.
0 ~ :.._
,..._,' ~~ ~
...........
~."""1a'"'"--"•~::::iil.--__J_J_.LJ
C) 10 20 JO W 9'l 60 70 BO 90 1(1) 110 120 130 W) l9l 11iO
STACK HEIGH1 MTS. ~ ,
FIGURE- A1 MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATION OF SULPH.ll
DIOXIDE Vs STACK HEIGHT FOR DIFFERENT EMISSION
RATES
-
c:
.
(.)
c.
(/)
>
c
Q)
..0
(..)
0..
(.)
~
~
...........
CD
0
0...
0
~
Q)
,_
+-'
c
Q)
0
en
>
z
w

I
l
2GOO
' 2L.OO
?200
2000
0
gmoo
(.:.>
~ 800
::i
~
x
~ 600
LJJO
0
CALCUTTA-JANUARY
I
I I
I
j I I I
i l I Qi I
I I • -----=----- ~ ...·-1, ~. ' -
~
' I j I '
;
't~ . T .. ·- ···1
I
'
~·-M-4 -!-+t
r
--+--
; r
-L-f ; itrrtttl I
.
I I I
i+- -- I rt-
'
.
'
I
I -· 1
I +-1-T-1-+-trn
I ' I
I
- tt---l
-ri1--~-+-+- -
~
'
I
- --- ·
1
- I ; +[=i=1 i
! ·-
j
t -- - 1---tl=r-
'
I I
. . I
i . +-
~-I J i I i . '
I
I
I
.
I
!
I I
I I i • ·++ I
-- .- . .
r l r · '
i
l_
I I ' . .
l j
I
-
I ~ ~
' j i
I
I
!
- j ·-- -
l
.
I I
-
I ' , ~
I . . +
±J

'
v " <! j
j I
I
'
, ' ~1 ~~
-P--·
l '
...
~~ ~
i
l j
1
.
t
J~ -, --
I I
,,~
-.1.
.
I ''b '. I ;
•
!' ~a ~ '.!Ii. ~
~ ~~
~
. ;
L~~ ~
'
~~ '
' '""" ' ~~
'
-- ~- -... - I
'-..
' ' Ito...." ...... ~~ ~
~ ......._,_
' '
o 10 20 JD 40 SJ so iO ao so mo im 120 1JO ,m'1150 ,6U 170' 1&J
STACK HEJGHT1 M~ JI'
-
c
·-'•
(.)
·-
c.
CJ)
·-
>
c:
Q)
.c
(.)
0..
()
~
~
-
~
Q)
s...
+J
c
Q)
(.)
U)
>
z
w
FIGURE A MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRAllON OF SULPHUR
. .. - 2 DIOXIDE Vs STACK HEIGHT FOR DFFERENl EMISSIOH
RATES

. '
' DELMl----OCTOBER
2400
2200
iaoo
,..,E 1600
'r
...
2 1400
Q
to::
~ 1200
~ 1000
_,
~
~
~ ftJO
~
~ 600
~
~ 400
200
0
'
I -- -
'
-
~
-
I
,!
i
-
I
..
i
·-· -- '

..- ! .. .
I
I I
--
'
I
'
I
1
i
I
.
I ~
I I
· rr- - ..
! =
..
~
I

I
I
'
..
'

I : !
' l I I
, _
'
-
l
I
l
-·~-
' : I ~- '
l !
1
~~ , I
;
,
~ . l '
-----.--
L't.
I
-
- l. ~~
,~
i.'~
"'
'..i.ac:·
' . '-
' :
'-.'~-
. --r-"'
a a r
' - .. ....
'
:~" "~ '-...:~ !'.......
- l'--..
.........: ~-
.._ ......_ ....
iiiiii
...
• ·1
D lO 20 JO llJ SO 60 70 00 90 TOO 110 120 1
30 iztO
UR ' STACK 1-ElGHT MTS. ~ '
-
c:
.
(.)
c.
(/)
>
c
Q)
..0
(..)
0...
(.)
~
~
...........
CD
0
a..
0
~
Q)
,_
+-'
c
Q)
0
en
>
z
w
_
fll . r.·
:__ .E- A3· MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATION OF SULPHUR DIOXllE
-f· Vs STACK HIGHT- FOR DFFERENT EMISSION RATES
I
- _
_
_.,.

BOMBAY-OCTOBER
I
~.............~- ·-- - - - - - - - --+---ii
i l
- - _ ___
,_----"'f'i_j__]
.-t--1--t-t-i~ • ~ I
.
~ 2 ..+--1--+-o~--'--..-'A~~ +-_
I - --+--J
~ l
f. 1 _,_---t--i'if::~ ----- "' ~-
120 lL.0
ST
ACl< t-EIGH1, m1s. a;:!!lazs
-
c:
·-
(.)
c:.
CJ)
·-
>
c:
Q)
.c
(.)
0..
(.)
~
~
............
co
(.)
a..
(.)
-
Q)
s....
+J
c
Q)
(.)
(/)
>
z
w
FIGURE-81 MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENmAlfo,M
Vs STACK HEtGHT FOR DIFFERENT EMISSION RATES ~
I

CACUTTA~JANUARY
i T
9
~
E:
.......
~a
~
r"1$2"' 7
x
z
Q 6
~
Q:
t-
z
~ 5
2
0
u
ffi I.
I-
~
::E
. ~ u.J 3
. i ~
_,
( ::'.)
. u
. i - 2
I
~
0:
oJ...__~.l.-..::::~~~~::=:::::::t-.:::::=.l---~--~
0 20 L.O 60 80 lO
O 120 ll.O 160
JN '. STACK HEIGHi 1 mts. cJ!9-o-
-
c:
.
u
·-
c:.
en
>
c:
Q)
..c
u
0..
(.)
~
~
....._
co
()
a_
()
~
Q)
i.....
+J
c:
Q)
()
(j)
>
z
w
... RE- 81 MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL PARTIOJLATE MATTER CONCENTRATIOO
. : Vs STACK HEIGHT FOR DIFFERENT EMISSION RATES

DELHl----OCTIJBER _
I1
I
!
1.04~ '
Y.lQ,! . I i
I I
"1??• r
r
20408
I
I
l
~iL I ~
i
-=- .L - ·;
)
I I '
I
~ t
n
I
! I
'
9
I
I
!
-
'
.~
. '.
I
j
!
'
I
I
!
.. '
. - -
-
·~
' I t
~
I _
1 ~.~~-·
'
I

' .
.'? ~~ I
~~ "'-~~
. .
'
f :
.. "-~
- ~
4
0
0 20 40 ,
GO so 100 1
m 120
STACK HEJGHT, mts., eJr7
-
c:
·-
(.)
·-
c:.
CJ)
>
c
Q)
..0
(.)
0..
()
~
~
-
a:i
()
0...
()
~
Q)
s...
+J
c:
Q)
()
U)
>
z
w
FlGURE-8
3
MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRAllO't
1
Vs STACK HEIGHT FOR DIFFERENT EMISSION RATES
I

I
BOMBAY-OCTOBER
2000
1
900
1
~ t-~r ·
--1-f-
. ieoo...........__-i---!--+-+-~-· _ Ll-J
I ! ~ . '· { J I J
1700--i-~-+-·~--'-r- -+ -.i- -r
I i j I t- [ ·,
1600----___...,.
.-1--t1- ' - i
1 . I ' ! . I
lS00--.....1---4-
.l---'-t-+-4-,-- -+--l- 1
1400 .,......._--+-----+~---....
1
--+I r j__ ' ·
I ~ 1 tf I I
1300--,---it
- : i . ! . I I I 1
1200 ·-i-+
--t--L-f- ~ _J .
~ i l l I l j l
~:::_.__-+---1-l Ll-tJ=+-~ t-~
~-H-~__;_ i i ~-·+J
I I 1 ~ l -i-.~-+- i J
z 1 1 • • 1 r · i 1
~ ~o_.__--+·1-· I- ~ I -I *--+--1
~ &00 , I J_J l±± j -+. I
~ I 1 I I- I . I
I I · : .1
~o . t Ti- ,- -f-j!
r -t- I -I
3001-+--~~-+~+---+-~-~
1 __.~---·~l__;I
I I
200-+---i---~,~~..j---+--i~c._-__.~---~:---.ll
400 .·
100~_.__,___
1
o~~~~:::_l.-j_-L--L--!~L---L-~
0 10 20 30 40 50 GO 70 BO ~O lOO 110·
STACK HEIGH!, MTS.- ~
-
c
·-.
(.)
c.
(j)
·-
>
c
Q)
.0
(.)
c..
u
~
~
-
ca
()
a..
()
FIGURE<, SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSION RATE Vs STACK HEIGHT
.. -·····--·-
-
a

I
ll
~
2000
19.00
180D
·1700
1500
1400
l~OO
1200
1100
1000
900
±
~ 800
~
-..
~ 70U
<
er
z b.00
0
~ 50[)
~
LI.J
400
300
200
100
0
·----····------...._-
CALCUTTA~ANUARY
.-........... -·-.--
I
·--
I ,
--
i
I
f
I
I
l
l '
' I
,
i
- - I
i i ~
I
I
~ J_ i
I
I
I
i
1 I
I
! i
I
j i !
' I
! /.
'
I
I
I
I :
I
/+-··
'I
! I
; )
; i
1
1~
i
--+---· i .
!
.. -
I
I
i I I I
I
I
I !
. ··-- -· ~-
! i I I I
! :
I
;
---.,. . -
i
v--
I
·-- -- . ---
~
I
I
! I
i
i !
i ' I '
I ; i i
I I
/
1
: ;
I '
I l 1
j
v '
i
/
:
l
:
;
'
...... ·-- -·- ~ .
I L__-.-v
I
a 10 20 30 4D so 60 70 ao 90 no no 120 no 140
STACK HE[GHT, M1S. - ~
-
c:
.
(.)
c:.
CJ)
>
c
Q)
..c
(.)
a..
(.)
~
~
......_
0)
()
0...
()
..
Q)
~
+J
c
Q)
()
(/)
>
z
w
FIGURE-c
2
SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSION RATE Vs STACK HEIGHT
~l--------------------------------........

I
I.!
2100
20
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
u.o0
1300
1200
J: ~10
......
0
0,
~ rn
~ 9
<t
er
z
0
8
00
OD
00
oo-
00
0
40
JOo~
200
100
0
DEl HI-OCTOBER
--
- ....... -
-- -
.. ·--·
l
i
l
I
.........
---
l
-
'~
- ·.
I
- . -
~ · >--.
.~
-·-
/
-
v
,,.
~
r-
1 i
r
•
f
'
L
f
·--r- I
! I
t ~
t
i
...
L
.-.
'
"
· -
- , _
_
'
I
I I
I
Ji
- -·
I
!
:
I
t '.
'I
'
:
'./:-: ·~
--- ;.. ·-.
.. ~
' I
:
j
- -
j_
--
·--·-·
I//
...
0 10 2Cl 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110
STACK HE:IGHT, MTS. ---~~
FIGURE-C3 SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSION RATE Vs STACK HEIGHT
-
c
.
(.)
c.
en
>
c
Q)
..c
(.)
a..
(.)
~
~
-
ca
()
a..
()
~
Q)
~
+J
c
(3
Cl)
>
z
w

BOM9AY-«TOBER
1· l
~----4"· - - - - - - -
. 1
.2
~ ·
l
...._
Ul
2 I
z
~
0 1.a
t- .
~
LJJ I
~
l
er
.~ ·I
l
Vi
U'I
·~
w
O'.:
.,
uJ
~
~
~
UJ
'::{ ·4 -~
5
l.J
F
er:
·~ .2.
"
lO 20 30 ' ~ GO 00
STACK HEIGHT, MTS. - e;;!ai
FIGURE-c,_ PARTICll..AlE MATTER EMISSION RATE Vs STACK HEIGHT
I

CA CUTTA-JANUARY
:::-+----[_
.. +----J_1 _ 1---+--,-J__
l - _ j~
~ I I-~
1..1..~----------1-------+~-,-:·-! 1 ~
. I ' . I ' I g.
?1·1~-+--+---~;--,--
1--l-+ . . -1 ~
~10 -l-+-1--+-1- ~~----
1
- 1~
£
i"
ii
~
~ •b
~
;[
: j_ I . :CJ)
5 •t.-+--- - i - . - . - I_._
_!_ - - · - ! " " " - - , - -1·->
:> . . I . I I
; ~ . I l I ·
. I I i i , dJ
., -1·1·-~_L_i_ - r 1-t-·- 1
ol----'---~~~::±::::::=-~~J__~-l--~-+
' ~~.l-----+--~--J
0 10 20 30 40 so 00 70 ~o 100
RE.QUlREO STACK HEJGHT cJ!!-t
FIGURE-Cs PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION·RATE Vs STACK HEIGHT
. . .. . .
t

I
" -
~
1·6
.
C!
I
.......
UJ
z l-2
z
g
UJ
~ Ha
~
z
0
U1
Ul •I
z
1,.Ll
Ir
w
t: .,
<l
:E
-OELHI OCTOBER
- ,r-
.
.
·2
I
·o '
0
.
I I
,_J-~ -
+-
- +--· ·+- I
I i . I 11
I I 1--1.. I
I .
I
~
~
I
'
~
I '
I
.
I
I
/
i/
·- ,_ _.
~
-
30 so so
REQUIREO STACK .-eGHT - c: .,_
-
c:
·-
(.)
·-
c:.
CJ)
·-
>
c:
Q)
.c
(.)
0..
(.)
~
~
...._....
co
(.)
0...
(.)
-
Q)
s.....
+J
c
Q)
(.)
(/)
>
z
w
FfGURE-Cs PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION RATE Vs STACK HEIGHT

I
LIST OF PUBUCATIONS
CONTROL Of tJRBAN POLLUTION stRIES
I u • -a~ T1r··1~.,. "" P~lhi IP~~i...dl. cu PS/2.' 1~7a, 7'i.
) 110lutll••I ~o;l•tr Jll>(ltl T~mr<)t'( or Oelhi CUP5 ! J I, IJ?B·7ll.
I wuinl<ml!"C~ lp.:n;on, frNcm•nr~ D4;p(IHl •n CIH4~ c:11•• CUl'lll/411i~&..i~
4. 8t1,u1 o1 lfll-""r !O upply •rid Wos;ew.1cr. f:~ll&eri~r , Tl'Ulll'lt~, a DI-I 1n Cl!!<!ii I! T..,...r.~ at 1r.c11~
r.vl'$ 1n11t'rll· OO
& Inv" "1crr, • "'M'f!1ii1TJ1tm or P.-.111111'.ln ~IYl·~·fuOA ~n ..,,., A."(l"l'ld iA.Qr•·M11nuri1 Rittrt0" l,4.tlr1~1·
CU,8/'11 1U.1 e2
9. Jn• a~ T4rrMMO!Y Q! C1~N11~arh ~"'"min..-,. R~p<ll'l t:.Uf'S 1911M1 •12,
?. Jni-L., T«1rn.qry pf Pcr.:hc"'"''Y' CJP$.,~,-1~~3 .a.11
I . l;l..,·tcul•r All P~lytu;>n L" !l"lh-A ~'"! 'm' ""''Y $1~~, L919'.l·l3: .Cl.JP':S/ 10.1 S8l ~
; ;."*'1"~ tt-1li:in Coa:l!l:irv al· p,,,.,.. ~·01i.11a<1 tDo:G' T~1 A"'"' ~1m..11t. Ul , Iii Dlfli'll; Cl:.IPS.11 :µ~~· .a2:
PROGRAMME OBJ~CllVE sau.:s
' 'P'MfU ll1ill--,t.o:mrSl...,.UrmnT~ al a&..: ~·•l•l'J.«I
., ~<!l~WoR"-• e.u..,""'•-...... aod-tn ""°'_.~
~Evt'1~1
~ ~111 Oud~,.,.. Flo-"'""'"-"'lllL" ..... - - r~oi ~
l"l!l'UHV7J'lQZ.aJ
4 l!!!!m. ~-----' i:-..-_,-c;ii D<'-1i"11 mml ~ 0~$<
•l!Gl1'5!tl/ 1Hl~
! t.lmpt~ Du•da- C- ,..i P·rlSdic" lar 9..,...,, 11(N,M 'IC_."I t rld :
l'V!l!illDr! •iw.il••<:ll 1,.
! llCU!IPIU!l"I! lr>!l!!$1!'Y 1E"IJl ,,;hJ'H1r.Cl1~ ,..~O~f~ ,·3 ! 1 Ml ,92
& Wt~ll' 11',ol•u,'1!1' C1mt•o<-An o.~rv1ftV· i>AO e~s.. : 1/ , 9U·e3
11.,,..,.1 r,,11 C•~il "" Sod• Ur.• i:. lt•n1>11sta~ H~"'"I Cham1aol& Wil!SI Mntal 1'1!0131!~ 1 1 :v1 ge2 l:i3.
~ ~rAll'' fl' ~ AY1ll)Ml~n18I ?oll~ 1io•1. K<l•oro"' Rrrm, Y,·- lloln911 l'!l!Oltl'Jt 1Zt• IM!i!:·8~.
B l'crtMmal'C!! ~·~""or w~~;-:&• T•e&1rn~nt Pio~• Di Cl~nHl'I FIOOf MLlll l"l!IClll~~/] S 1] 116U~S
10. "'c~r~mu'" ~ 1 1 1~ Qr w~i;r~"'~1~' r.~~l•nO"'I Pl•1•L at M ~t-.f D•lrv ~Q(l,!>llf>,• l Ml-63
I ' ! •vir~• mlll'11~! S!l'1~~ ~u•pon, ~-. M..gh~I~~ PR08!6 t,~I IN:l•l3,
, :3 ..........""-""~ fl Geor.--l r~tiDi" Z!rlC C.an~rol IYI w.nar Pi;Ml1Jf10l"I ii' J ti;, pl41yrJn IMi.ttv, "9!!!1n"''"'
1•1U)9'~S I 1B 11"lli ·~
1~ ~hn.in C.:>1"1'~ '" 111~1;-r..o~.i.. fibr• lnduur, w1tM - •1•1 r6fi!PWMI 1g ol"'I' at tl4ril!~r PE>!¥ Fi'""',
~lr~ll~Y . A ~~H ~IW'~ PPOl!f.5.< , 9/ 1983 ·!14
14 "'x-•l'l91 ii" '·""· '"""""'' w~.~~l'"'P· Of" M.ar•.... c..11.1k 1~11 u .11 i lt!JA ~-~!!!ji'. c.....~
"9'01CS/10.l IM~.M '
t II; ~I l'l>!klllCll' ;,- s,;.,.,.,c:n.m.... iS<>I>"'• v....~ C•"'P. Cut- Dim Muwn.-
'1!0e!Sf11 r lw,J•M .
'81 !'Mtoi'JM<li:• i:i"'°"9"~~T1NU11U11 PIMO n Mi i Slw.,._, rlQID!k ~...i ~
IM.nill".U 1"'1;19U-ll'11111U-M
•7 &IM• otll'nlv'-!lf-~ ""Olle-•-P1111ut"°"~ i..o- "'-"" .,...,. _.,;u.
1~ "'IORS:lJ:''9&Wil§.
111 Q'~~. -~~ cfW- - IT-U ~~~_.... LI!-="
"1tCllUIJl.1'1ill~
OOMP'AEHEflSIVS IHDVSTflV DOOLJMEiNJ si=mES
1 ~l'l'lfl'fh•n•1... l l'l!lllstry DocumvitMor. M;o<t• F1br" ll'Outl"f, QOlNO!l/ 11it1t.9C!
2. 114'111mo111 14'1•01'•! :;~~dlrd• ,,.,,, N!.,:i. F1tff ln<lusttI' Cl)l~El~l11 ll?lll·IO
:I. CDm!lf"lll'!•Ni•V. 1!'¢uSlry Ooc;u,..,enl 011 R~fin...los: COINl>Q/ 3t1 M1 •H
• . M111m•I 1Mt1or>P~ =>r•""8·d~ 0;1 A~rin..1.... cc~~ Ds1•11sia1 &1
! C-11f11~Cn11y~ lr.!•1~1~ ~U"'~"L {;~lor·Al"'411 •1
'Abt'ldilodl lndUHl'I' C.:C:Jlfjl;Hj:/t/ 1~7~-llO
I MIJl l~1wl ~t1Q111 1 $bnci.n:i~ "°v8"ic s..oa !ndon~y COINDS/ &11 i?i IO
'1 ~~mptf~9~llvt' 1n01J..,r( Coou"1~n1 ~ tv.~(!(ul ,; l&uttt !r1du'tLry, C01r-i08n I ,1lllO·~ ,
g, M1n!ll!•I l't!l!lo:>l'!I: 5l!!nclor<I• ~~a• :""''~''f COIN PS,'~/ 1Oeo.I I
i . Cam!Y'tl•~•I.,, indll~ Oocum~nr """~mM'(ID IMolt•;,,.., 9•w-1" a!l!l 1l15f! l!•riQ•I IMvtl••
hl'1•: ~Q!tiQ~ •' 10119111 ·B2.
1
·0. M1r11rn•f !"l!!!il!tQn.t• ~·Jrr.,uTt. Fe-c1?11:rn~Dfl 1Wlolrc!t14!5_ i&t"""41t!:ti-j 1111!.d C1ttUll "1r·c~!
inllHll"I' S«t'IM·
''· t:~ Rl!l!j!Jlll~l"O''"• rJi;!f '9&1~ Pnt r COiikDSJ t ,, ' ""'""'
ASSESSMEHT &· DEVEL.OJ"MSfT s:TVOY Of RNER M$1tll SERll:S
I L,_ l111•1Wnf ........ _..I!~ ._,...,c,r.....,..~111Pli~
l. au.. e- ~j. _... w.-- i-.i;,...-. n. "-hill'Pu a.. ,...."-No
S•l:- ~:z;1~7!J
a Sc.hr 111· b ·lcom! >1 a."111 ~ a1 ...-. ii;-.~and ~.,,._$
(Pt. 'll1I: s-w,
mot: ADsmes,111~,.l'fl
4 ~'"""""lfllll1'11 ~ :
s.......,~ :S.~•5"' ~- ~1- e.tm-n"""K I~
AO$OlllllF'','!1"1..a,_
II. u- Tt!tl'llilll'Y ~Got. O..mon ar.d 01u 101n Gl>&I At>fo<lil*d• •D~llaS...511 ..a:.1·U
!, 5ttMi;l w- <l4i•l'l'f •~ M•i,... 11;....,,. 1G"'"'~ S"••I o,,.r:Ag l l•nni.,,,.. 1t'lt !kl su.....y·
ADl50llll~1 5>'1tU-lll
7 Utni;t 9H••' R1•p<11t ! P~n l~E~!i•~ Gin~• BuiN:,t,l)SOPl0171 l MZ·U
• IOIWG l•lllV:OI (14 'll'!PU!r 0...11'!'1 ~t Uu~ra-1.l'iitO'd (;91193 Fatml~ mbi.1~r 1" ,liQ'liOll!l.5(9/~ 982·83.
D. Qumj~y '"~ TN!ll!I 01 R;•..,. Yam...... ,~7~-e• AD~A8$t,0/19U al.
,o. IMlrl s~o-~ti,. '"""""'''r <)4 w...... l'<lnut101i: lh~ arU11M~i.1rr• ....." 11'.rM. Th• D11~-Dl,a"ll
S1o1~·U•1n "'~li:Oftas.n 1r 11163·8'4.
I 1 WIUll' O~•lltY ...OM~in1Jr An L-ri E"'"''"'~ce A.OSOfllHt , 211 ll•HNI
COASTAL PCl t.L.U'TICN COH't~OL SERIES
'· 111• Clttt:t"GtiliO" <it liodia.. couu.ud i:..,.t.o.-ts '••t LT"1i1ll ,..lliiiC..111 OOJ'OC1'/t;J!ta.1111:.
1 U• ~-fO" Ql1 r..di:.lnol''.t>11•••"1<l' C.,..._ P!lfolt l.,,..l(;i111•1
• Q" ~CS<'U'1114-illi.
"'•·lat
!!;•.f/JI·
~. ,001.
"' 1001·
"' 1ii·
"' »-·
Illa 100·
1'1~. 401·
Jiii 1001·
~. 401·
~, !IOI·
"' <IQ,•.
"' ~t·
Ml M),.,
Ra 1001
Ill IOOI'•
II& .-01•
-
c:
(.)
c
(/)
>
c:
Q)
..0
(.)
0...
(.)
~
~
....._....
CD
0
a..
0
Q)
,._
+-'
c
Q)
0.
(f)
>
z
w

A METHOD TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM STACK HEIGHT_CPCB.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to A METHOD TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM STACK HEIGHT_CPCB.pdf

Recently uploaded

A METHOD TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM STACK HEIGHT_CPCB.pdf