• MANUAL ON DISPOSAL OF REFINERY WASTES

VOLUME ON ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

• CHAPTER 6-DISPERSION OF GASES

•
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
Division of Refining
1801 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
 Nothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any
right, by implication or otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use in connection
I
with any method, apparatus, or product covered by letters patent, nor as insuring
anyone against liability for infringement of letters patent.
API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so, and every effort
has been made by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data
contained in them. However, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or
guarantee in connection with API publications and hereby expressly disclaims
any liability or responsibility for loss or damage resulting from their use; for any
violation of any federal, state, or municipal regulation with which an API publica-
tion may conflict; or for the infringement of any patent resulting from the use
of an API publication.

Copyright © 1974 American Petroleum Institute

•
 FOREWORD

This chapter describes environmental conditions at the probable site of refinery

construction and the effects of these conditions on plume rise, atmospheric dis-
persions, and ground level concentrations. Meteorological aspects are discussed
at some length. Ground level concentrations of pollutants should be determined
from the most accurate existing predictive techniques prior to actual construction.
This will ensure that specific requirements are not exceeded.
In evaluating plume rise and atmospheric dispersion, an eclectic approach is
used. The result is one formula for the determination of plume rise and one set of
formulas for the determination of ground level concentrations. For refineries
located where abnormal conditions are not encountered, these equations represent
a suitable tool for the design engineer to use in estimating ground level concentra-
tions and thereby determining the required stack heights. (High-velocity vents
are not covered by these equations.)
The predictive techniques presented herein are applicable to estimating atmos-
pheric dispersion at a single source of emission over uncomplicated terrain, when
mean wind speed and direction can be determined. The equations enable determina-
tion of ground level concentrations for an elevated source and for a ground level
source. Predictive techniques for estimating atmospheric dispersions of emissions
from multiple sources are also included. Dispersion coefficients are most applicable
to ground level releases, but they have been applied to stack releases as well. Within
the layer in which diffusion occurs, it is assumed that stability characteristics
remain constant.
When designing a refinery facility, neither this approach nor any textbook
approach is sufficient in cases of unusual atmospheric conditions or irregular
topography. Handling these conditions requires a high degree of expertise and
may involve the use of other predictive aids, such as wind tunnels .

• iii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6-DISPERSION OF GASES

PAGE
6. J Typical Regulatory Requirements .... 6-1
6.2 Environmental Conditions at Construction Site ................. . 6-1
6.2.1 Temperature ..... 6-1
6.2.2 Wind Motion and Turbulence .. 6-2
6.2.3 Lapse Rate....... ..................... . 6-3
6.2.4 Stable and Unstable Air ..... 6-3
6.2.5 Inversions ... 6-4
6.2.6 Influence of Local Terrain .. 6-4
6.3 Behavior of Plumes .. 6-5
6.3.1 Plume Types and Characteristics ... 6-5
6.3.2 Influence of Wind Fluctuation .... 6-6
6.3.3 Plume Dilution and Diffusion .. 6-6
6.3.4 Effects of Obstructions, Eddies, and Downwash ... . 6-7
6.3.5 Plume Rise and Plume Rise Formulas ................... . 6-7
6.3.6 Limitations and Reliability of Predictive Techniques .............. . 6-8
6.3.7 Behavior of Flare Plumes .. . ............ . 6-9
6.4 Atmospheric Dispersion Theories 6-11
6.4.1 Background ... 6-11
6.4.2 Basic Formulas .................................. . 6-11
6.4.3 Parameters and Dispersion Coefficients ..... 6-13
6.4.4 Influence of Atmospheric Conditions ... 6-13
6.4.5 Dispersion of Aerosols and Particulate Matter ... 6-14
6.4.6 Multiple Sources.......... ...... ...... ........ . 6-16
6.4.7 Wind Tunnel and Other Studies ...... .... . 6-16
6.4.8 Limitations and Reliability of Predictive Techniques ... 6-17
6.5 Cooling Tower Plume Rise.. ............... . 6-\8
6.5.1 B a c k g r o u n d . . . ............ ... 6-18
6.5.2 Analysis of Plume Rise and Plume Behavior... 6-18
6.5.3 Plume Condensation and Precipitation. 6-20
6.5.4 Minimizing Visible Plumes... ......... . 6-21
6.6 Sample Calculations .... 6-24
6.6. J Refinery Boiler Stack ... 6-24
6.6.2 Process Heaters and Stacks .... 6-24
6.6.3 Catalytic Cracking Units ... 6-27
6.6.4 Flares...... .... . 6-28
6.6.5 Storage Tanks .... . 6-29
6.6.6 Product Loading .. . 6-30
6.6.7 Roof Vents .... 6-33
REFERENCES ... 6-33
APPENDIX-ABBREVIA nONS AND SYMBOLS .. 6-35

• v
 ',1ANUAL ON DISPOSAL OF REFINERY WASTES
VOLUME ON ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

CHAPTER 6-DISPERSION OF GASES

Typical Regulatory Requirements These publications define the contaminants and describe
their properties and their effects on human health and
1': i,'c!cr~d Air Quality Standards, or the current welfare, animals, and vegetation. The human health
_,::1"011[\, are outlined in the Federal Register. I * category includes toxicology data and effects on the
',,' .1."C standards appear in tabular form in the Air respiratory and nervous systems. Standard test methods
.\ " r \ ('irS of May 3,1971, and are reproduced in are also included.
i ,doic 6-1 also gives the levels at which the
.. ""'1,111 contaminants affect human health and

6.2 Environmental Conditions at Construction

"
Department of Health, Education and Site
,,",,: .• :,' '.1' ",ued a series of six publications on the

."If',,[ " \ i r l)uality Criteria, t The subject of each

".~, "';:"1 I', olle of the six common contaminants:

The three most important factors of weather in all
parts of the world are temperature, wind, and precipita-
tion. For our purpose, however, the primary concerns
. !!\ ilks.
are temperature and wind.
:1 ,']l)Jl0xide.
"!;lil'al Oxidants, 6.2.1 TEMPERATURE
Temperature can vary widely because it is influenced
by geographical location and seasonal change. The
i ',(IS on pages 6-33 and 6-34,
rI, 'Tl1 :)'Jperintendent of Documents. U.S. Govern~ lowest and highest recorded readings in the United
: ';lIi,':, Washington, D,C, 20402. States are - 66 F and + 134 F at Yellowstone Park and

I able 6-1 ~Federal Air Quality Standards and levels at Which Effects Show in Humans
Federal Air Quality Standards Levels at Which Effects Show'
~~~--------"-~- .. ---~-
Primaryt Secondaryt Human Health Welfare§
fIn);.:uIJIt:\ .
Annu~l~ ~~llJl1t:tric mean, [J.g per ell m 75 60 80 60
'h., ... ·Ilr Cl)nc, :1.g per ell mt 260 150 200 150
. s.uur (h,des:
Annu.d ,lfIth aver. f.Lg per ell m 80 (0.03 ppm) 60 (0.20 ppm) 115 85
'h, ~-~-hr (llne, ag per ell mil 365 (0.14 ppm) 260 (0.1 ppm) 300 285
\f,l, ;-hr cune. tJ.g per ell m!1 1,300 (0.5 ppm)
C.l.t~·n \1t1no\l-l .'
,:,,u
\ . ut::.
~':lr ('{me, mg per ell ml!
J\ I'il[ ":unc, mg per ell mil
10 (9 ppm) 10 12
40 (35 ppm) 40 58
"x"'h,hcmical Oxidants'
0:- ' .
t'·nr l11ax. :1.g rer ell mi i 160 (0.08 ppm) 160 130 100
If • ..!r".Jrthln~'
"..1.\ -'·hr ('!.)·nc 6-9 am,
. ..:. per cu m 160 (0.24 ppm) 160 100
", -,
'''cn (hides:
,d .trith aver, iJ.g per eu m 100 (0.05 ppm) 100 117 4701J[
• '" 1\ ~l\'l'r, 'J..g per ell m 118
Fnkral criteria.
hv June I, 1975.
~ l'lllit unenforcement.
Ili,-,.lnd crops.
1 " h<' ~"<'<'cded more than once a year
'<cd \'1\ d,lIllagC to vegetation unly. .

(i-I
6-2 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
Death Valley, respectively. Temperature may also vary
considerably on a diurnal basis.
The most fundamental temperature variation is
caused by the annual change in the angle of incidence
of sun rays (i.e., the slow decrease in air temperature
when moving from the equator to a latitude of 90
degrees at the poles). One other fundamental variation,
apart from the seasonal variation, is caused by the
presence of large land masses or large oceans. Thus the
greatest seasonal and diurnal temperature variations
occur near the largest land masses, which absorb heat
rapidly in the summer and radiate (lose) heat rapidly in
the winter. This is especially true for most interior
sections of the United States and Canada.
The horizontal distribution of air temperature for
large or small areas is shown by isotherms (lines drawn
on maps to connect points of equal temperature). On
a world map, the isotherms show an irregular distribu-
tion, which varies greatly from summer to winter and
from one continent to another.
General weather data for the United States and
Canada (including temperature and temperature ranges,
precipitation, and wind velocities) are given in API
Bulletin 2513. 2 More complete climatological data
for a greater variety of locations are furnished by the
U. S. Environmental Data Service, Environmental
Science Services Administration (Commerce Depart-
ment). Data available include standard 30-year averages
of temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity.
Wind rose data are also available.
6.2.1.1 Seasonal Variations
At any location, seasonal temperature variations are
caused primarily by the angle of incidence of sun rays
to the earth. In the summer, sun rays are more nearly
perpendicular than in the winter. As the rays become
more perpendicular, the hours of daylight and the total
radiant energy received (insolation) increase.
Seasonal temperature variations range from a low at
the equator, where the monthly average temperature
variation may not exceed 5 F for the entire year, to a
high in northerly latitudes, where average monthly
temperature variations may exceed 100 F.
6.2.1.2 Diurnal Variations
Daily temperature variations are caused by radiant
energy received from the sun during the day and dis-
sipated by the earth surface at night. These variations
are usually greater in summer than in winter and are
naturally at a minimum when the sky is covered.
On land, the highest atmospheric temperatures are
usually experienced between I :00 I'm and 4:00 pm;
the lowest temperatures occur around sunrise. Diurnal •
variations are most pronounced in desert areas and
least pronounced in moist, wooded areas. Thus daily
temperature variations for wooded areas may not
exceed 10 F, while those for desert areas may be as
much as 120 F.
6.2.2 WIND MOTION AND TURBULENCE
Wind may be defined as the movement of air in a
more or less horizontal direction. Turbulence is
irregular air motion caused by eddies superimposed
upon a general flow. Air currents, as contrasted with
wind, denote vertically moving air columns.
The irregular heating of the earth produces irregular
heating of the air at the surface, which, in turn, causes
irregularity in pressure. Although these pressure varia-
tions are relatively small, they cause wind. The velocity
of the resultant wind is directly proportional to this
pressure differential.
Although pressure gradient is the predominant factor,
there are other factors that influence the magnitude and
direction of air movements in both a horizontal and
vertical direction. Vertical air movements, or air cur-
rents, are discussed in Paragraphs 6.2.3 and 6.2.4. •
In any locality and for any particular season the
frequency and intensity with which the wind blows from
any given direction are fairly constant. These data are
available as wind roses (wind charts) and will show, for
example, that the wind will blow from the Southwest
for 45 percent of the time at an average velocity of
15 miles per hour. The other 55 percent of the time
wind direction is distributed among the other 15 points
of the compass and includes a period of calm.
For control of air pollution, the following information
is valuable:
I. The constancy or persistency of the wind from a
given direction over a period of time.
2. The variation of the horizontal wind speed and
direction with height. (Where the ground is reasonably
level, the effects of ground friction on wind will nor-
mally cancel out at a height of 1,500 to 2,000 feet.
Figure 6-1 3 shows the effect of ground friction.)
Although horizontal changes are normally less
significant in areas a way from urban centers, this may
not be true in cases of irregular ground terrain or
unusual thermal effects. Since air is a fluid, its move-
ment in a horizontal direction is usually characterized
by laminar or streamline flow, unless disruptive influ- •
ences are present. Disruptive influences tending to
cause turbulence include:
 DISPERSION OF GASES
GRADIENT
'liND SPEED (m/sec.)
,'!(\I1:11 drag reduces the wind speed close to
'" "-,\ ! 11,lt ((lund at the gradient level. The profile
III I'> -..table is usually steeper than that found
<>-, - U"ln~e of Wind Speed Profile with Stability.
,C[,. lIillCh can be caused by natural
:"":trilles (hills or irregular ground
"rlilicial barriers (buildings and in-
"I'([,;)n. which occurs when the land
""leT I pr colder) than the air itself and
m.. "", "r Ir,'nts. which are usually indicative of
chane", I'rontal disturbances may be strong
.JnJ ,Ire qU11e common in some areas, relatively
.. (llhn,
tUrtluklll ;Ilr motion influences effective stack
Jill' [lossibility of turbulence should
C1:Je\.lt.!crl"d : 11 [ill..' "tack design.
1:~"" . ,:,' cdll he dclined as the vertical temperature
V ... "'~: ':: ck" tl) the vertical temperature distribu-
':O.t:r'l'.
::"""piJere, The temperature of the atmos-
I',tlls, or "Ia pses," with increasing
'" :",' ,,( the increasing distance from the
"'rface of the earth, The normal or
: Ie' is 3,5 F per 1,000 feet (6.5 C per
,:11 that is not in vertical motion. This
:','rCltllre gradient shows considerable varia-
6-3
tion from one locality to another and periodically shows
considerable variation within the same locality.
From the point of view of meteorology and of dis-
persion of gases, further classifications of the lapse rate
are required. These classifications refer to air that is in
vertical motion:
1. Dry adiabatic (constant heat content) lapse rate refers
to a change in air temperature due to a change in
pressure of the air in vertical motion. Rising air expands
due to decreasing pressure causing the temperature to
faiL Falling air compresses causing the temperature to
rise. This rate of temperature increase or decrease is
constant for air that is dry (not saturated) and has a
value of 5.5 F per 1,000 feet (10 C per kilometer).
2. Moist or wet adiabatic lapse rate refers only to
rising air saturated with moisture at that temperature.
This rate is 3.2 F per 1,000 feet (5.8 C per kilometer).
Descending air always warms at the dry adiabatic
rate. The occurrence of saturation in the atmosphere
modifies the adiabatic relationship between temperature
and pressure by the value of the latent heat of evapora-
tion (or condensation), which explains the lower
adiabatic lapse rate for moist air.
Typical examples of lapse rates for air that is not
in vertical motion are given by Donn. 4 These examples
also indicate the effects of inversion (increase in air
temperature with increasing altitude). An understand-
ing of lapse rate is important because the relationship
between the existing lapse rate and the adiabatic lapse
rate determines whether the atmosphere is stable or
unstable. It should be noted that the existing lapse rate
for air not in vertical motion can and does vary widely,
while the values for dry and moist adiabatic lapse rates
(as in vertical motion) are always constant.
6.2.4 STABLE AND UNSTABLE AIR
The atmosphere is either stable or unstable depending
upon its ability either to resist or to augment vertical
motion, Atmospheric stability or instability is directly
related to temperature gradients or lapse rates. If the
existing lapse rate is less than the adiabatic lapse rate,
the air is stable, if it is greater, the air is unstable. There
are various degrees of conditional stability and neutral
,t', bility in which the existing lapse rate is greater than
the moist adiabatic lapse rate, but less than the dry
adiabatic lapse rate. Also, if a rising parcel of unstable
air enters a new stratum where the existing lapse rate is
lower than the adiabatic rate, the previously unstable
air will become stabilized at that height.
In a mass of stable air there is little or no vertical
activity to sweep it aloft. Smoke, dust, minute water
 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

droplets, and other airborne prod ucts collect in the

lower atmosphere to limit visibility. The presence of
fog, smog, mist, or haze is indicative of stable air.
Under such conditions, smoke from industrial stacks,
after losing its initial heat and velocity, will trail off in
a horizontal plane. Automobile exhaust and other
lapse rate. This results in extreme air stability. Under
these conditions plumes generally tend to disperse
downward, thus decreasing effective stack height.
Since most elevated inversions are higher than 500 feet,
this would apply to most stacks. If a stack is designed
for a location with a condition favorable to inverSIOn,
•
fumes will lie close to the surface. two design possibilities should be considered:
In unstable air the vertical lifting sweeps aloft smoke,
dust, and other haze-producing products. Good I. Design the stack with sufficient height so that the
visibility is an indication of instability. stack exit will be above most inversion layers.
For the purpose of further estimating atmospheric 2. Design the stack exit gas velocity and exit gas
dispersion, atmospheric turbulence is categorized into temperature so that the plume will rise above inversion,
the following six types which are coded to correspond or will at least provide good penetration.
to Table 6-2:
Frequently the inversion layer is sufficiently high so that
I. Extremely unstable (A).
neither of these alternatives is possible.
2. Moderately unstable (B).
With most stacks a critical wind velocity causes
3. Slightly unstable (C).
maximum ground level concentrations of pollutants at
4. Neutral conditions (D).
moderate wind speeds. Under these conditions, in-
5. Slightly stable (E).
6. Moderately stable (F). creasing the physical stack height further elevates the
plume, thus reducing ground level concentrations.
Table 6-2 details the relationship of atmospheric Increasing stack gas velocity or temperature has no
turbulence to weather conditions. significant effect on these ground level concentrations.

Table 6-2-Relation of Turbulence Types to Weather

•
6.2.6 INFLUENCE OF LOCAL TERRAIN
Conditions
Daytime Insolation Nighttime Conditions
~-----.-~-.~-------... ,----~------... Local terrain can have a pronounced influence on
Surface Thin Over-
Wind cast or < 3/8 weather and weather characteristics such as air stability.
Speed Strong Moderate Slight > 4/8 Cloudiness' A wind proceeding over a level area changes direction
(m/sec) Cloudi- on reaching hills, high structures, or mountains so that
ness *
2 A A-B B the obstruction can usually be cleared. Air that is
2 A-B B C E F
4 B B-C C D E
forced to rise to pass over such obstructions mayor
5-6 C CoD D D D may not become unstable depending upon the speed of
6 C D D D D ascent, humidity conditions, and contrast between the
"'The degree of cloudiness is that fraction of the sky above the local apparent
horizon that is covered by clouds. The neutral class (D) should be assumed for cooling rate of the rising air and the lapse rate of the
heavy overcast conditions, day Of night.
surrounding air. In the Los Angeles area the incoming
cool marine air does not have sufficient momentum to
clear the mountains, resulting in inversion and very
6.2.5 INVERSIONS stable air.
As discussed previously, the type of terrain-rocky,
Temperature inversions occur when the temperature sandy, or wooded-influences the magnitude of daily
of the air increases with altitude. A common cause of temperature variations. The smaller the daily tempera-
inversion is rapid cooling of the ground at night by ture variation, the greater the tendency toward stable
radiation. The surface air is then cooled by convection air.
so that the air temperature some distance from the Areas of strong topographic relief also experience
ground is higher than the air temperature at or near air currents (breezes). These breezes are usually upward
ground surface. Inversion can also be caused by air during the day when the valley floor is relatively warm,
masses, or fronts, and occasionally by turbulence. and downward at night when the obstruction cools
In Los Angeles it is caused by cool marine air forcing faster than the sheltered valley below.
its way under warmer continental air. Both masses of The major effect of local terrain on weather is the

•
air are then trapped by the adjacent coastal mountains. extent to which it introduces instability into air move-
When an inversion occurs, the existing lapse rate is ments or promotes turbulence and eddy currents.
negative, and therefore always less than the adiabatic These in turn directly affect gas dispersion.
 DISPERSION OF GASES
TYP<S .l'IND CHARACTERISTICS
,'eel iously, atmospheric dispersion and
are dependent upon and gov-
"':I11CS
,l"'~ conditions in the atmosphere. The
':1l'rle conditions are stability, neutrality
, , 'II, "nU instability. These major conditions
" I hc relationship between the existing
,i 1:1" adiabatic lapse rate, as previously
. ,'I plumes can result from these atmos-
", 'Ii '. and it is possible to categorize the
'. I h,)ugh the following descriptions are
'I :lrc generally applicable, particularly
'.[.lllvely low plumes (e.g., below 1,000
I.,", ;lrc graphically portrayed in Figure
, :, ,",:lracteristic of unstable conditions. The
DISTANCE • DISTANCE
'''~'iG INSTABILITY ("LOOPING")
DISTANCE-
'l EAR NEUTRAL ("CONING")
I-
- -- -
'""
iii
"
SURFACE INVERSION-BELOW STACK("LOFTING")
Figure 6-2-Characteristic Forms of Smoke Plumes from Chimneys.
6-5
plume alternately ascends and descends or descends
and ascends after leaving the stack.
2. Coning is characteristic of neutral or near neutral
stability. This plume occurs at moderate wind speed
and has the shape of a narrow cone and a regular spread.
The horizontal centerline of the plume is usually
inclined slightly downward.
3. Fanning is characteristic of stable conditions. This
condition is desirable as there is little vertical diffusion,
even for long distances of plume travel.
4. Fumigation is characteristic of inversion above stack
level. Under these conditions the plume tends to dis-
perse downward but is prevented from upward disper-
sion by the inversion layer.
5. Lofting is characteristic of inversion below stack
level. It is the reverse of fumigation and somewhat
similar to fanning, although it occurs at a lower wind
velocity.
1"'"
""'
•
SURFACE STABILITY ("FANNING")
r
I-
'""iii
"
DISTANCE_
INVER310N ALOFT-ABOVE STACK ("FUMIGATION")
- - --- ---- ---- ---
DISTANCE-
6-.6 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

Analyses of these plume types indicate that in-

stability is usually less desirable than stability or near-
neutral stability. This is true because air turbulence
may cause plume concentrations to appear on the
ground in relatively close proximity to the stack.
Fumigation involving a high inversion is probably the
•
least desirable condition because vertical upward
dispersion is inhibited and light to heavy ground
concentrations may appear over large areas. NOTE: A plume in a hypothetical field of small turbulent
Complete analyses cannot be based on atmospheric motions will move in a relatively straight line, with a gradual
increase in its cross section.
conditions alone but must include an evaluation of the
effluent gas and other parameters such as wind speed Figure 6-3-Plume Dispersing in a Field of Small Eddies.
and wind shear and the effect of any obstructions.

6.3.2 INflUENCE OF WIND FLUCTUATION

The previo'i~ discussion of plume characteristics is

presented in terms of atmospheric condition (stability
or instability). Although this property is probably the
most important overall indicator of plume character-
istics (particularly for conditions such as fanning or
fumigation), wind movement and any associated
turbulence constitute other important variables. Wind NOTE: If the eddies are all very large compared to the plume
shear, a measure of change in horizontal wind speed dimensions, the plume will grow very little in size, but it will

•
meander wildly.
and direction with height, must also be considered.
Wind and associated characteristics affect plume Figure 6-4-Plume Dispersing in a Field of Large Eddies.
dilution, plume diffusion, and plume rise, although
these terms are to some extent interrelated.

6.3.3 PLUME DILUTION AND DIFFUSION

Bosanquet 5 states that plume dilution caused by

wind is an important factor in overall dilution and
varies directly as a function of the wind velocity. The
wind speed serves to alternate the concentration of
particles as they are released from the stack. If other
parameters remain constant and the wind s peed doubles,
the number of particles in a given downward direction NOTE: The typical daytime atmosphere has eddies of an
is halved. infinite variety of sizes, and a dispersing plume both grows and
meandero;; as it moves downwind.
In addition to dilution, wind turbulence and its
effect on diffusion must also be considered. The eddy Figure 6-5-Plume Dispersing in a Field of Varied Eddies.
diffusion coefficient is proportional to the product of
wind velocity and a function of the existing turbulence.
A plume increases in diameter as a result of turbulence Various mathematical equations for diffusivity have
acting on its outer circumference. As the eddies result- been proposed notably by Bosanquet. However, these
ing in turbulent motion increase in size, a point is are usually of little practical value because the degree
reached where they affect the entire plume, causing and type of turbulence and the various parameters
irregular motion downwind while having little effect on involved do not permit accurate evaluation. Smith
plume diameter. In normally turbulent air where notes that "a statistical evaluation of the problem is
various sizes of eddies coexist, a combined effect is
experienced. These three conditions are illustrated
in Figures 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5. I
often satisfactory if care is taken in choosing the
parameters." 3 Even this representation applies only
for relatively short distances downwind.
•
 DISPERSION OF GASES
OF OBSTRUCTIONS, EDDIES, AND
',[ruction can play an important role in deter-
<> ::c !,lllme rise and dispersion because it can disturb
,d the air flow. This disturbance or deflection
, ,.1' :'!ll me dilution and diffusion.
" ,iiscussion, obstructions include not only tall
,.II! r,', and natural irregularities in the earth surface,
','''graphical features such as valleys and shore-
"HI-water effect). Natural irregularities include
HI depressions and unusual ground roughness.
,,::,wres located in large urban areas not only
.I",'C Il)pographic effects, but can produce thermal
" \'.cli. Generally, the effects of obstructions are
" "I ilat is, they tend to result in down wash and
,:<1 '!round concentrations. Further, the degree
'\ :'''IV is a function of the ratio of stack height to
''',,':,on height; increasing ratios decrease the
I, "1' the obstruction.
II'liLtions produce two separate effects-down-
"'1 Ind downwash-both of which bring a portion
:., lline to ground level while it is still in fairly
II'll ted form. Downdraft is usually associated
<>
,,'," ,upported by, or closely adjacent to, build-
,!I,d involves a downward flow of exit gases on
"ie of the building. Downwash occurs when
, 'L'~ is the obstacle and refers to the downward
':t" icC Side of the stack. Tall, narrow fractionat-
'\1 crs or other nearby stacks can also cause
",\ 11 \\ ,l '.:/1.
I" '" oid these dual effects, Hawkins and Nonbebel 6
ro'tliialc that there should be a minimum stack height
.HId that stack effluent velocity should be greater than a
'''tIC,t! \cioeity, which is a function of the wind velocity.
1 he rule regarding stack height is that minimum stack
height should be two and one-half times the height of
,.dpeent structures. Further, when there are many
,trllLtures and obstructions that can produce severe
dects. stack height calculations should be checked by
"'can, of 1\ ind tunnel tests.
()n 'tack effluent velocity, the rule states that stack
,'liluent 'elocity should be 1.3 to 1.5 times the wind
\ CloeHy, Because wind velocity is a variable function,
:1 ;,',In he assumed that a stack velocity of 1.4 times the
"·IIIe! ,clocity for 98 percent of the time provides
•
"ite-icilt protection against downwash. To obtain this
Till,':1i stack exit velocity, either a venturi nozzle design
:1 Ihe stacK exit or an inward coning of the stack at the
·t.tck exit can improve velocity at the expense of a
'!""11 I'rcssurc drop.
6-7
6.3.5 PLUME RISE AND PLUME RISE FORMULAS
Under normal conditions a plume will rise above
stack height because of its kinetic and thermal energy.
This energy is expended in moving the plume in a
vertical direction upward. The kinetic energy is the
stack gas velocity, while the temperature differential
(above atmospheric temperature) provides the thermal
energy, imparting the effect of buoyancy. These energy
factors and the corresponding heights may be described
by the symbols H, and H., respectively, and together
as :1 H, also termed the plume rise. The effective height
of a stack can be measured by the following equation:
H = Hs + t!.H (I)
Where:
H = effective height of stack.
Hs = stack height.
t!.H = plume rise.
The plume rise is affected by many parameters and is
usually inversely proportional to the wind velocity.
The effective height of a stack is a convenient tool
and one parameter for measuring atmospheric dis-
persion. In some cases it can also be used in determining
penetration into stable air masses. This is not true,
however, if the air mass is extremely stable (e.g., an
inversion) partially because many of the parameters
involved are difficult to measure accurately.
Almost all plume rise formulas show that plume rise
is inversely proportional to wind speed although the
degree of proportionality varies with atmospheric con-
ditions and with the particular authority. A typical
plume rise formula is given by Lucas, Moore, and
Spurr, 7 in which the plume rise (:1H) in feet (Z ''',,)
is inversely proportional to the wind velocity ([1.) in feet
per second and is expressed by the equation:
J:Q!4
Zmax = -- (2)
[1.
Where:
:x = a constant with a value of 5700 in neutral
atmosphere.
Q = heat emission, in megawatts.
iJ. = wind velocity, in feet per second.
It is evident that the greater the wind shear, the more
rapidly the plume assumes horizontal characteristics,
while vertical rise practically ceases.
Several authorities 8.9 such as Moses and Stram have
compared, calculated, and observed plume heights
(the calculated height being obtained from various
empirical and theoretical formulas). In general, these
comparisons indicate that all formulas are approxima-
tions at best and no one formula is universally applic-
able.
Briggs 9 found that buoyant plumes follow the "¥3"
Law for a considerable distance downwind of the stack

6-8 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
(but not exceeding ten stack heights). This can be
expressed as:
Where:
t..H = (l.6F)li(x)%
I'-
(3)
F = value proportional to the rate of buoyancy
(heat) emission.
x = horizontal distance downwind of the stack.
I'- = wind velocity.
A regression formula 4 was developed to which the
other formulas were compared. This regression formula
is generally applicable to the total data available, most
of which involved wind speeds in the range of 9 to
22.5 mph (4 to 10 m/sec). This formula is not generally
applicable to wind velocities outside this range nor to
a wide variety of stacks where local conditions have a
pronounced or predominate effect.
Anderson, et al., conclude that "no rational choice
can be made between various proposed empirical
plume rise formulas" 10 for the determination of effec-
tive stack height. It is the consensus that this observa-
tion is valid for all formulas, empirical and dimensional,
that have been published to date.
Nevertheless, the quest for accurate formulas con-
tinues apace so that the engineer can design in com-
pliance with applicable specifications. The most precise
dimensional analysis is that presented by the U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission II (these formulas have
been reproduced by Anderson, Hippler. and Robin-
son 10 in their work for API). These formulas treat
momentum-dominated plumes and buoyancy-domi-
nated plumes separately. In each category. for both
calm days and windy days, the values of parameters
are given for stable conditions and unstable conditions.
Most of the constants contained in the formulas have
not been determined. These determinations must be
made experimentally on the basis of actual observation
of plume rise.
The formula by Holland 12 involves a less rigorous
approach thaI' most formulas for an ctl"ective stack
height determination. Several authorities 10.13, recom-
mend this formula on the basis of reasonable accuracy
under various conditions. This formula is for neutral
or slightly unstable conditions:
wd [ 1.5 + 2.68
I1H = iJ: (I0-'p) (T.' --i,-T") I]
I ( 4)
Where:
,\' stack exit velocity. in meters per second.
d stack diameter. in meters.
I'- wind velocity at stack height. in meters per
second.
atmospheric pressure. in millibars.
atmospheric temperature. in degrees Kelvin.
stack temperature. in degree, Keh in.
1
I
This formula is on the conservative side, thus pre-
senting a slight safety factor. It should be reasonably
accurate for unstable conditions by using a factor of
1.1 or 1.2 and for stable conditions by using a factor
of 0.8 or 0.9. These factors are recommended by
•
Holland. 12 Conditions of extreme stability (inversion)
or extreme instability (turbulence) present the usual
problems.
The critical wind speed for any given atmospheric
stability condition is that speed which causes a maxi-
mum ground level concentration of the pollutant.
Equation (4) and formulas of other authorities indicate
that the plume rise (t..H) is an inverse function of wind
speed, conversely, the greater the wind speed, the greater
the effect of dilution. These two forces are counter-
acting. There is a point of equilibrium between these
two counteractive effects where the maximum ground
level concentration occurs. This intermediate wind
speed-the critical wind speed-varies with conditions
of atmospheric stability. This wind should be used for
design purposes. A method for determining critical
wind speed is indicated in Paragraph 6.6.2.
6.3.6 LIMITATIONS AND RELIABILITY OF
PREDICTIVE TECHNIQUES
All authorities generally agree that none of the plume
rise formulas presented in the literature are uniformly
applicable. As will be shown, the degree of applica-
bility is related to the parameters in the equation, but
•
accuracy is largely determined by local meteorological
conditions, which are not adequately expressed in the
available formulas. In the following table,lo a com-
parison is made between observed and theoretical
plume rise.
Formula Range of Ratios of Calculated
to Observed Rise
Bosanquet, et al. 0.44 to 1.13
Sutton 1.21 to 1.85
Priestley 0.60 to 1.32
Meade 0.77 to 1.21
NOTE: Buoyant source, windy day.
Variations of ±50 percent between calculated and
observed values of :lH can occur, especially for adverse
meteorological conditions (e.g., a strong inversion).
This does not necessarily signify that the parameters in
the equations are in error, although constants and
•
exponential values do vary. It can indicate inadequate
or inaccurate measurement of the parameters or that
the measurements changed with distance downwind.
Ideally, dimensionalized or empirical formulas with
 DISPERSION OF GASES
,'onstants should be developed for the area
," consideration.
". 'c·lop equations with suitable constants, con-
,I [h~ accuracy of the plume rise equations with
::,'" to wind velocity in neutral or near-neutral
1"115 of >lability. Generally, the equations are
,,'lW[[C in low to moderate wind velocities-that
,:',1 lllPh (2.3 to 9.1 m/sec). The accuracy tends
cI ':11 'e somewhat for lower or higher wind veloci-
!" is not generally important because t1H is a
"I" Ilii'h figure for low wind velocities, thus
'" II" '! !!round concentrations. At high wind
:', dilution effects preclude high concentrations,
1 "line of the plume is occasionally swept to
,l:lnd.
III,' rl'asoning with reference to wind velocities
IIp[llleS to unstable air except that the factor
I ".,jiIV usually produces an increase in average
'. !'!'I~ilt. This is reflected in equation (4) by use of
:111' ;'1 1,1 or 1.2 applied to t1H. Unfortunately,
., ,':I;,rl\, with strong instability, the higher stack
'I ""'1' 'lot overcome the effect of looping, which
"'[lei uce undesirable ground concentrations at
I',ilort distances downwind from the stack.
It a I reg uent occurrence.
,',:[I"t deviation from these equations is
", '1',','0 wilen there is an inversion above the stack
, :.ilion) where the most precise results should
""hlC, 1'<0 formula wiII accurately indicate the
"c!1elration or breakthrough of an inversion
.. '.IClllon (4) recognizes this by use of a factor
I ',lJ, I r inversion conditions are frequent or
II 'C'. ,'1,' 1IIIersions are occasionally experienced, the
u,-" III '.\ hat may be termed an inversion factor is
tr..:"mmencied. Such a factor would depend on local
mctenr,)loglcal conditions and cannot be quantified,
t-ut IIllulJ involve an increased stack height or increased
\t~,·~ ,'\il velocity, or both. If these factors are such
that the plume rises above the inversion layer, the layer
",II act II> a protective shield.
63.7 BEHAVIOR OF FLARE PLUMES
I,.: Illalor potential contaminant from a flare is
''':iur dio\idc (SO,), and this contaminant is related to
"'t ;'I,)rngen sulfide (H,S) content of the flared gas.
I'H[I"ulllk matter (smoke), odor, and plume visibility
,i,,) contribute to pollution. These pollutants can
1,1111 he eliminated to a large extent by proper
•
.. """ion techniques and by the use of steam to effect
""'k",e combustion. Infrequently heavier hydro-
r "IIlh. ,uch as phenolics, and alkylation residues
"l,lllllll~ hydrofluoric acids may also be present.
6-9
It should be noted that under normal flare operation,
sulfur dioxide emission is negligible when compared
with emissions from refinery stacks in which sulfur-
containing residual fuel oils have been used. Sulfur
dioxide assumes serious proportions only when there
is an emergency condition such as the loss of a com-
pressor or the shutdown of the sulfur pidnt.
This discussion is concerned with lighted flare
operation under design conditions. If the flare is
unlighted, dispersion is governed by the criteria dis-
cussed in this section and in the subsequent section
(see Paragraphs 6.4. I through 6.4.8).
The calculations of plume rise and atmospheric
dispersion from stack effluents are relatively com-
plicated. These calculations are even more complex for
flared gas, in which case the stack effluent gas is burned
prior to final dispersion and heat release is external
to the flare stack.
An empirical approach to the problem of plume rise
is given in the following equation:
H = Hs + t1FL + t1H (5)
Where:
H effective height of plume rise.
Hs = actual stack height.
t1FL = vertical component of flare length.
t1H = plume rise after burning is complete.
The following paragraphs show that the accuracy of
determination of t1FL and t1H is su bject to question.
Practically, the flare length can be assumed to be
120 times the flare stack diameter, as indicated in
API RP 521. 14 This figure is directly applicable at
0.2 sonic velocity, which is the usual basis of design.
The flare length varies with velocity and flame tempera-
ture, which is related to the material being burned.
The flare length also varies with the value of Cp/C,
the ratio of specific heats. It is apparent that the true
flare length may be greater than or less than the value
shown.
To determine the vertical component of flare length
(t1FL) a correction must be made for the horizontal
component, which is related to the angle of incidence
of the flare to the horizontal. This angle is influenced
by the relation of wind velocity to exit gas velocity.
Two methods are presented in API RP 521,14 and the
recommended method involves the use of the graph
shown in Figure 6-6, from which ~t1 Y (vertical com-
ponent) can be obtained.
The second determination is that for t1H, the burned
flare gas plume rise. This is calculated by using
Holland's formula: 12
t1H = :d [1.5 + 2.68 (IO-ap ) (T.:';:-, T}/J (6)
This formula is applicable at the theoretical or imagi-
6-10 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

1.0
f
0.9 ./
.-- ~.6.LX
~

0.8 / b,L
b,X - 5~;; (i-t)
X
<J
--l 0.7
/
T
b, Y =
[I
b,J.,

+E~~12J 0.5 11
L
W

lr~YIIt<;y
b,X= b,!

[I +E ~~)2J
0:
0
0.6

~I--l 0.5
\\ b,1=
n
L
0.5
1"-
d-'~
L:.X
j
W WHERE:
I E.6.X
0 0.4 \ !lW= LATERAL WIND VELOCITY FLAME GEOMETRY
i= IN STILL AIR

'"
<[
0: !lO= EXIT GAS VELOCITY FROM STACK
AND LATERAL WIND
n = NUMBER OF INCREMENTS
~
0.3
"'-.
0.2

0.1
'" ?L
B- ---- ~

•
o
o 0./ 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 /.2 1.3

RATIO E !lw
!lo
Figure 6-6-Approximote Flame Distortion Due to lateral Wind on Jet Velocity from Flare Stack.

nary stack height, Hs + : ,. FL, as shown in Figure 6-7. He = heat of combustion.

It is apparent that 11', the stack exit velocity, is con-
siderably less than at flare stack elevation, while d, the
flare diameter at the imaginary stack height, may be
three or more times larger than at the original stack
height. Equation (6) is applicable to neutral or slightly
unstable conditions with suitable corrections for sta-
bility or instability (see Paragraph 6.3.5).
It is apparent that the parameters in equation (6),
when applied to a flare plume, are difficult to determine
accurately (except i~. wind velocity). Thus,
T" = TI + He - Hr
Where:
Tn = imaginary stack exit temperature.
TI = temperature of combined inlet gases prior to
combustion.
Hr = heat losses by radiation.
The complexities involved in this method of determina-
tion are obvious; therefore, T" is normally determined
by measurement or approximation.
Research data over a considerable period of time
have produced no cohesive or comprehensive data and
no real basis for a reasonable approximation of relevant
parameters at imaginary stack height. These parameters
include stack flare diameters and velocity, as well as
stack exit temperature. Thus, it was stated in 1967
(7) that the considerable effort and expenditure "to develop
a calculation procedure for predicting dispersion from
elevated flares cannot be justified." )5
Although equation (6) may have serious limitations
as to accuracy, it is the only one available. If future
•
 DISPERSION OF GASES
....._ _ . " ~ .. r'f~ctive Stack Height, H.
','111.t he method may
,I ,'1 concentrations
,,'\
,,""tltute a problem).
"!llur dioxide or other
',"'''Ied ,n the following
_ - ,. . ",,;' ,'! ,II'"~ by using effective
,1'1.111 "n ( I ).
. -• • • UI\Dl!r510n 1 neories
,;; c 1',lS,il fuel contains
.. "mitted into the
, "II' concern with these
,II, " primarily at what
" lliey come in contact
"111 ,hurt-term and long-
, •• 1 i'IC\ iously, these con-
,,'ceI certain prescribed
,I ',lirly predictable tra-
,'"" hoth downwind and
",'IIIi\. however, it is sub-
'1l1l1 forces resulting in
" 'ill'cading of contam-
""lined somcwhat impre-
'c' \ lliues of a frequency
"lilt concentration) from the
',' "liues. Dispersion is
",Ill, Whcn diffusion occurs,
,I Ill\)\'C from a region of
"I' lower concentration.
III"table atmospheric con-
k IIlCtlC energy and thermal
i,,~ pluille-all of which con-
6-11
tribute to the vertical component of rise. Turbulence
is defined as "the random character of the velocity of a
fluid-in contrast to the constancy of such a velocity
in steady streamlined flow." 16 Wind turbulence is
always present with eddies varying from small to large
scale. The strength and time intervals of these eddies
range from large in highly unstable regions to small in
highly stable meteorological regions. It is apparent that
no mathematical derivation (formula or set of formulas)
yields an absolutely accurate value for ground level
concentrations. Also the dispersion parameters that are
available in the literature are average values for a
definite period of time. These parameters can become
less accurate if modified to another time base .
Even if all parameters could be accurately deter-
mined, a physical impossibility, the relationship of
these parameters to time and distance is variable rather
than fixed. The predictive calculations of the ground
concentrations (on which design is based) must not
represent either overestimations, which result in
unnecessarily expensive design, or underestimations,
which may result in ground concentrations above the
accepted standards.
Reasonable accuracy can be obtained, particularly
when practical limitations are applied to time involved
and distance downwind. Wind tunnel models and other
meteorological studies can be useful under certain
conditions to augment calculated results (see Paragraph
6.4.7). This is particularly true for complex situations,
such as the disturbance of plume flow resulting from
structural obstructions or topographic irregularities.
6.4.2 BASIC FORMULAS
The basic formulas have been well presented by
various authorities including Sutton and Bosanquet,
while modifications to these formulas have been in-
dicated by Pearson, Pasquill, Turner, and Gifford. In
general, these formulas do not vary greatly and involve
expressions of the probability curves developed by
Karl Gauss. The so-called Gaussian curves were
originally applied to indicate deviations from presumed
known values, involving either experimental or
statistical studies.
The Gaussian curve has been found applicable under
most conditions for the determinations of downwind
atmospheric concentrations resulting from a stack
plume. The dispersion equations herein assume a
Gaussian distribution in both horizontal and vertical
planes-that is, the equations incorporate deviations
on a probability basis, ~!I (horizontal) and ~, (vertical),
and have been developed from the work of Ogura,
 T,
6-12 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

Frenkiel, Pasquill, and Gifford. The major differences

in the various dispersion formulas involve the dispersion
coefficients and the way they vary with atmospheric
stability and distance downwind. The formulas herein
are recommended since the standard deviations are
related graphically to a more comprehensive definition
Where:
X

x
y
z
Q
concentration at any particular point In
space, in grams.
distance downwind.
distance crosswind from x-axis.
vertical distance above ground.
uniform rate of emission, in grams per
•
of atmospheric conditions and only two dispersion second.
parameters are involved.
cr y = standard deviation of plume diffusion in the
horizontal.
The Gaussian distribution curve as applied to the cr, = standard deviation of plume diffusion in the
distribution of atmospheric contaminants is shown in vertical.
Figure 6-8, in which y (value of the relative concentra- tL = wind velocity, in meters per second.
°
tion) varies from to 100 percent when plotted against
values of x - x/cr. The deviation values or dispersion co-
For concentrations calculated at ground level,
equation (8) simplifies to:
efficients, cry and cr" are discussed later in this section.
The value of x represents any point directly downwind
of the plume flow, and x represents the distance in
X(x,y,O;H) = ~L
cry cr, tL
exp [ - !
2
(l')'J
cry

~ (~),J
meters from x. Characteristics of the Gaussian dis-
tribution curve are described in greater detail by exp [ - (9)
Turner. IJ
The Gaussian curves retain the same general bell- A still simpler equation can be applied to ground
shape at any distance downwind, but with increasing level concentrations calculated along the centerline of
distances downwind the curves become flatter and the plume (i.e., y = 0):
wider. It should be noted that these curves refer to
distribution of contaminants only, as induced by
X(x,O,O;H) = _(l~ exp [ - !2
cry cr, tL
(.l!)']
cr,
(10)
dispersion-that is, the dispersion coefficients.

•
For a ground-level source with no effective plume
The equations for determining the concentration of
rise, the resulting equation is:
gas or particles are given below. The effective stack
height (H) is determined by estimating plume rise and Q
X(x,O,O;O) = r. - - (II)
adding the physical stack height. All equations are for cr 11 cr z [J.
particles equal to or less than 20 microns in diameter.'
The accuracy of the mean value of X so determined is
The equations are for a single source of emission at
proportional to the accuracy of the mean value of the
effective stack height (H)t when there is no particle
wind velocity (tL) and is also directly related to the pre-
deposition or reaction at the surface. The equations
cision involved in choosing the diffusion coefficients.
are as follows:
Since diffusion (or dispersion) coefficients are based on
X(x,y,z;H) = _ .Q (Y)']
-
7:2 cru cr~ (1.
exp [- '-
2 cr"
a 10-minute sampling time, shorter sampling times
yield somewhat higher values for ground level con-

[ 2'(2-H)'] + exp [1(-+H)'Jl

centration, while longer sampling times result in
{exp- ~-;:- - 2 f ~:- (8) decreased concentrations. For slightly unstable and
neutral conditions, the higher values approximate
'See Paragraph 6.4.5 for discussion of particles up to 44
microns and 60 microns in diameter.
°
I percent for 3 minutes, while longer sampling times
may yield lower concentrations approximating 50 per-
tNote that when H ~ 0, as for a ground level release source,
value for H is equal to the plume rise (tlH). cent for 4 hours. These variances occur because a
plume meanders and increases in diameter as it travels
10 downwind. As a result, cry increases with sampling time.
0.9
0.8
The concentrations given previously are averages
0.7 and can be exceeded under certain conditions. It can
Y
0.6 be shown that maximum concentrations occur when
0.5
OA
cr, = Hh/f. This maximum value is obtained by the
0.3 equation:
0.2

•
01
0.0 Xmax
2Q ) (cr,)
= ( e 7r.~H2 ;.-;:
(12)
Where:
Figure 6-8-Gaussian Distribution Curve. e = the base of the natural logarithm, 2.718.
 DISPERSION OF GASES
l11e value of the effective stack height varies with wind
,pecd and stability conditions. Inversion lids, especially
,ct appreciable heights (2,000 feet or over), do not
",Jrmally present a problem since their effect on plume
",persion is negligible except at appreciable distances
'rom the source. This is not true in the special case of
,,". crsion break-up fumigation.
I nversion break-up fumigation can occur on sunny
"l1omings following cool nights; this produces a mild
','.crsion. The radiant heat absorbed by the earth heats
.,Ir adjacent to the ground by convection so that the
"lire layer under the inversion is mixed vertically.
,oer these conditions, relatively high concentrations
•:"e found at ground levels for periods ranging up to
'Ile hour.
,he ground fumigation concentration at a near
':lXimum value can be approximated by:
z,(x.)"O;H) =
V2
Q
IJ.crylh l
exp [ - ~ (_L)]
cr"1
(13)
: Vlrere:
0'0 = the value of cry for stable conditions plus
the effective height of emission.
ill H + 2:J. = h + !:J.H + 2cr •.
Turner's term :J II! is used in equation (13) rather
Ikm cr" so that estimated calculations for XI will not be
",,,htly higher than actual concentrations. Under
""nigation conditions, additional horizontal spreading
.:curs when vertical diffusion is limited by an inversion
layer. Equation (13) is applicable to conditions down-
wind of the stack, but not for areas close to the stack
base. Its greatest applicability is for relatively long
downwind distances, perhaps greater than 5 or 6
kilometers.
Equations (I) through (13) can be programmed for
the computer to provide both rapid and accurate
solutions to problems. There are many advantages of
this modern technology; probably the most important
is savings in time particularly, when dealing with
multiple sources. In turn, the time saving permits
better economic evaluation of the processing options
available (e.g., whether a reduction in the number of
stacks is economical or enables the refiner more readily
to meet air quality standards). Complicated economic
studies of this type are not practical when computer
programs are not available.
For relatively simple problems, Turner 13 has devel-
oped a solution for exponents, in which the exponential
function is reduced by table to a simple mathematical
multiplier. This method is recommended when a
-' computer program is not available or for occasional
usage of the equations.
6-13
In concluding this section on equations, it should
again be emphasized that for practical purposes there
is little difference in the various proposed equations.
6.4.3 PARAMETERS AND DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
The parameters in equation (13) are the determinants
of the calculated concentrations at any point in space
downwind of the source. The parameters are Q, H,
IJ., X, y, z, and cr u and cr,; all except cry and cr, have been
previously defined. It is obvious that the accuracy of
the calculated concentrations depends on the accuracy
with which these parameters are determined. Param-
eters x, y, and z can be accurately determined: Q and
IJ. should present no serious problem, although H can
be troublesome as previously indicated.
Probably the most difficult parameters to determine
accurately, particularly if atmospheric stability con-
ditions are not precisely known, are the standard
deviations (dispersion coefficients) of plume concentra-
tion distribution, :J y (horizontal) and cr, (vertical).
In addition to varying with atmospheric turbulence,
Ys these factors also vary with wind speed and surface
topography and increase with distance from the source.
The data presented later assume relatively open country
and a height not exceeding several hundred meters
above the ground. The values plotted are more accurate
for suburban than for urban areas.
Several authors relate these deviations to only three
sets of turbulent conditions (e.g., low, average, and
moderate) while others, including Sutton, recognize
four sets of stability conditions. The six stability or
turbulence conditions proposed by Pasquill are
described in Paragraph 6.2.4. This is a more sophisti-
cated approach (see also Table 6-1) and is used by
CONCA WE: 8 Anderson, Hippler, and Robinson; 10
~urner; 13 and many others. Obviously, the actual
stability conditions may be at any value (e.g. halfway
between moderately unstable and slightlY unstable).
The standard deviations, cr, and Gu , are expressed in
meters as functions of the distance downwind for each
of six different meteorological conditions. Graphs for
these conditions are shown in Figures 6-9 and 6-10.
These graphs represent diffusion caused by horizontal
forces (e.g., variations in wind direction) and vertical
forces (e.g., atmospheric stability and instability). The
accuracy of assessment of stability conditions and the
validity of the graphical representations determine
the accuracy of the calculated concentrations.
6.4.4 INFLUENCE OF ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
Atmospheric conditions and the methods of defining
and estimating them are of paramount importance in
6-14 DRW MANUAL--ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

~
f-!"
z
!!!
10

5
4

2
f-!"
z
3xl0 3 r--,--rTTTnn~~-,-rTY~,-~-,-rTTrrn
2

•
(.)
iL 103 UJ
LL
UJ
~ 2
LL
0 5 LL
(.)

z ~
(.)
10 2 ~-----,~~~~----~~~~~----~
Q
In 2 z
a: o
UJ In
0..
In 10 2 a:
UJ 2
C 0..
5 A· Extremely unstable !!!
...J A - E~trernely unstable
c 101 bL.,.,tC-.."c.--7C-+--
~ B • Moderately unstable
...J
B _ Mod.rately unstable
z C - Slightly unstable <t e- Slightly unstable
0 2 (.)
N 0- Neutral
t-
~ a: E· Slightly stable
:r 101 UJ
>
b>o b N 2
4 X 100 L.----1----1.....L.LLI.l.li.__-'--'-J-J..1..U-'"-_'--.J-J-W.J....L.I.J

102 2

DISTANCE FROM SOURCE. M

Figure 6-9-Loterol Diffusion, ~y, vs. Downwind Figure 6-10- Vertical Diffusion, cr" vs. Downwind
Distance from Source for Posquill's Turbulence Distance from Source for Posquill's Turbulence
Types. Types.

determining actual ground level concentrations and
in developing the equations used for predicting ground
level concentrations. This is apparent by the terms
used in the equations.
The predicted ground level concentration is affected
by the wind speed with which it varies inversely, by the
effective stack height (H), and by the dispersion co-
efficients, cry and ~,:
I. Effective stack height, H: The ground level con-
centration varies inversely as an exponential function
of the stack height. The parameter, H, in turn, is
related to atmospheric stability and instability as
discussed previously.
2. Dispersion coefficients, ~y and cr,: The ground level
concentration varies inversely with the dispersion co-
efficients, cry and cr,. These, in turn, are related to the
six atmospheric stability conditions (Figures 6-9 and
6-10) and to the distance downwind from the source.
In view of the importance of atmospheric stability,
it might be in order to review the stability factors A to
F, discussed previously (see Table 6-2). Pasquill has
categorized atmospheric turbulence into six types
accuracy, the use of six stability conditions provides
adequate coverage for the existing variations in atmos-
pheric stability.
All environmental sites (refineries) are subjected to
at least two of these conditions (e.g., slightly unstable,
C, and neutral, D) for a major period of time. At some
refineries, three or four of these conditions may be
frequently encountered. Atmospheric conditions at a
given location and time can change by one or more
classes when moving from ground level to a height of
perhaps 2,000 feet. If the condition changes by only
one class (e.g., slightly unstable, C, to moderately
unstable, B), the predicted ground level concentration
can change by a factor of 2 or more. Accordingly, it is
essential to determine accurately the stability condition
immediately above stack height at time of discharge.
Anderson, Hippler, and Robinson state that even
though these stability classifications are almost entirely
empirical, they represent the best known approach for
predicting the dispersion of pollutants. 10 Practically all
recent literature on this subject is in agreement.
6.4.5 DISPERSION OF AEROSOLS AND

•
ranging from A, extremely unstable with high turbulence, PARTICULATE MATTER
to F, stable with practically no turbulence. In view of
the large number of parameters in the dispersion An aerosol may be defined as a suspension of fine
equations and the difficulty in achieving quantitative solid or liquid particles. The Air Quality Criteria
 DISPERSION OF GASES 6-15

\lanual 17 defines particle as "any dispersed matter,

'0lid or liquid, in which the individual aggregates are
Llrger than single small molecules (about 0.0002 micron u
i" diameter) but smaller than about 500 microns." w
~102
I One micron, 1iJ" is one-thousandth of a millimeter.) ~'

In this chapter, aerosols and particulates are divided u

'iltO three size classifications related to diameter only:
LJIOI
....J
1. Small (arbitrarily defined as particles up to I 0iJ,): u
hsentially no fallout is experienced, and the standard I-
,tmospheric dispersion estimates are entirely applicable. ~IOO
a..
.'. Medium (arbitrarily defined as particles ranging from IJ..
! IJ," to 60iJ,): Some fallout may be experienced, par- o
10- 1
ticularly for stable atmospheric conditions and for long >-
I-
,;ownwind distances.
U
3, Large (arbitrarily defined as particles larger than 3/0-2
''(J:"l: Some fallout is predicted under all conditions.
w
>
',:lrge particles do not normally occur in stack emissions
:'rom refinery processes. (!) 10- 3
z
....J
The rate of free fall of any particle is defined by l-
Stokes' Law. Stokes' Law takes into consideration the I-
W
I'article density for the particle size involved. This (f)

,'tlnsideration is important but can be disregarded for

,he purposes of predicting ground level concentrations.
;tokes' Law is applicable only to spheres. Although
particle emissions are of many geometric configurations,
;he particles can be considered, for simplicity, to be
'oneres of the size that have the same settling rate as the
':clual particles. Utilizing this law, the settling velocities
of particles in still air at 0 C and 760 mm pressure and
with a density of I g/cu em can be plotted graphically
against the particle size as shown in Figure 6-11.
Figure 6-11 shows that a particle with a diameter of
10',J. has a settling velocity of only 0.3 em/sec, which is
cquivalent to a wind speed of approximately 0.007
mph. For a 60:J. diameter particle, the settling velocity
is approximately 10 cm/sec, which is equivalent to a
wind speed of 0.2 mph.
It is apparent from these data that small particles
have a minuscule fallout rate. Medium particles,
particularly those smaller than 44iJ" have a low fallout
ratc which can generally be disregarded. Thus Smith 3
uses a fallout factor of less that 20 percent for emissions
from elevated sources in which the mass median particle
diameter is less than 20iJ" even for long distances down-
wind. Csanady 18 has established that deviations of less
than 5 percent can be expected if particle diameters
arc smaller than 601".
In summary. some fallout is experienced in the
medium-sized range-small in the lower part and
significant in the higher part. Generally, particles 20iJ,
or smaller have negligible fallout, while particles 44iJ,
10-5~~~~~WL-W~~~~~~~
10- 1 100 10 1 10 2 103 104
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE,
MICRONS
Figure 6-11 -Settling Velocity of Porticle vs. Diometer
of Porticle.
or larger have significant fallout. The range of 20iJ, to
44iJ, has not been carefully explored.
With regard to refineries, particles resulting from gas
combustion can be assumed to be smaller than 5:J.,19
A considerable variation is noted for particles emitted
from oil-fired boilers (e.g., 10 to 99.5 percent by weight
of emissions is reported as smaller than 5iJ,). In this
case essentially 100 percent of the particles is smaller
than 44iJ,. Some oil-fired combustion processes may be
less efficient than oil-fired boilers. In other refinery
combustion processes (e.g., a CO boiler) the stack
emissions are usually subjected to particulate removal
processes, such as cyclones or precipitators, which
effectively reduce both emission and particle size.
It has been shown that occasionally for medium
particles (l0iJ, to 60iJ,) and usually for larger particles
fallout can occur. If vector analysis is applied to those
particles that may be affected, the combination of
convective velocity and terminal velocity results in
what has been described as a "tilted plume." If this
effect does exist and assuming similar particle densities,
~16 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
larger particles will fall out first, followed by particles
of decreasing size. Medium particles, even if present
as a small percentage of the total count in refinery stack
emissions, can assume a major role on a weight basis,
and thereby affect a "weight" calculation.
6.4.6 MULTIPLE SOURCES
Multiple sources, as defined in this context, include
only sources within the refinery. For multiple sources
outside the refinery, reference is made to Anderson,
et al. 10 and to Turner. 13
To determine the concentration at any given location,
a reasonably accurate method involves determining the
individual contribution made by each of the multiple
sources. For practical purposes, any source or stack
1,250 feet * or more removed at a perpendicular distance
from the x-axis (direction of wind flow) can be elimi-
nated from consideration since such contribution would
be negligible. The x-axis can also be defined as the line
joining the major source and the point of calculation.
A typical refinery area with seven stacks (location of
stacks arbitrarily chosen) is shown in Figure 6-12. The
three groups of stacks (S I and S2; S3, S4, and S5; and
S6 and S7) are more than 1,250 feet apart. It is assumed
that all stacks emit approximately equal amounts of the
pollutant under consideration. For a north wind, the
concentration at a location 5,000 feet due south of
SI and S2 involves the contributions of SI and S2 only.
Similarly for a location due south of S3, S4, and S5,
only these stacks are considered, and the same reasoning
applies for a location due south of S6 and S7.
"'For heavy contaminant sources emitting more than 25 tons
per day, this distance should be extended possibly to 3,000 feet
or more.
N stacks discharging above the layer of heavy ground-
T
,..:
...
0
OSI
OS3
OS6
0
'"'" OS4
1
OS2 OS7
OS5
1- 5000 FT.
Figure 6-12- Typical Refinery Area.
•
On the other hand, to determine the concentration
at a point due east or due west of any of the seven
stacks, the contributions from all seven must be
considered.
The contributions from each source are obtained by
the atmospheric dispersion equations, as previously
indicated. It is apparent that this method can involve a
varying number of calculations, depending on wind J
direction and velocity for each of three or more con-
taminants (particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen iJ
oxides). Such calculations, even if programmed on a
computer, can easily be time consuming, particularly
if the refinery is located in a populated area. Depending
on conditions, a calculation of this type is probably
reasonably accurate.
A less accurate method, more suitable for determining
ground concentrations further from the refinery (at
least I mile downwind), involves only one calculation
for any given wind direction and velocity for each
contaminant. With this method, the multiple sources
are considered as one source in the atmospheric dis-
persion equation. Again, only those stack sources are
considered that are at a horizontal distance (upwind)
of 1,250 feet or less from the x-axis. The variable Q
represents the total contaminant emission for all sources
•
involved and H, the effective stack height, is determined
as a weighted average for all individual effective stack
heights under consideration. The dispersion coefficients
ax, ail' and a, are determined for this weighted effective
stack height, the distance being the average distance of
all contributing stacks. The concentration so deter-
mined represents an estimate, which may be useful for
predictive purposes. In the extreme case, where there
are sufficient sources to consider the uniform area
source, these concentrations are dependent upon cr,
only, thus increasing the accuracy of the estimate.
The foregoing approximations are applicable only to
induced turbulence. Short stacks are unpredictable and
increasing their number increases the magnitude of
potential error.
6.4.7 WIND TUNNEL AND OTHER STUDIES
The continuing development of basic plume rise and
dispersion formulas (including methods of predicting
standard deviations of plume spread) provides increased
accuracy of calculated data, particularly where there are
no complications of terrain, however, this technique is
-I not infallible. Wind tunnel studies are a convenient
means for obtaining data on dispersion of stack
 DISPERSION OF GASES
b. c'[Jccially in those situations where theoretical
, produce the least accurate results, as in dealing
:,,'ulld-induced turbulence. The techniques and
.lil""' of this method are described elsewhere. 1o
-d l'lnnel studies can be used effectively for
~:,.'ted building structures, a mUltiplicity of stacks,
, i,>!'ographic effects, and wide ranges of stack
,;:i,\cllv-all of which can influence plume stability
,!;'rcr,ion. The relatively simple cases of single
,1I,charging at high exit velocities above the
laver are more accurately assessed when using
!cd :md empirical formulas, since performance
r-: I'cll:r than predicted.
""',c' I!,cre is no temperature gradient in most wind
lile buoyant effect produced by the thermal and
,'llcri!Y of an actual stack plume cannot be
.lte,1, rhus the wind tunnel studies are limited to
'" IIII,ch building configuration, stack structures,
:,,!','crarl1ical irregularities have a marked effect
Accordingly, every effort should be
"' IIlC scale model to reproduce the basic struc-
.."d lorographic effects.
h:liJcr. wind tunnel studies are more effective at
" Ililld ,peeds (i.e., speeds equal to or greater than
':Ic." ncr second) where thermal or convective
r.'.".:, ::, lile air streams are small compared with the
:·."",:Ii mass velocity effect. Structurally the wind
t",,,.: . !!\uid have a long test section with a distance
upwind equal to at least ten stack
studies are applicable to existing
which usually contain multiple stacks,
where additional construction is con-
These studies augment the basic formulas.
Jilliculty in using theoretical and empirical equa-
alone for calculating or predicting ground con-
,Ctnlralinns has been detailed in the literature.3
\I, IIlU tunnel techniques are used in determining the
c!frcl< of varying rates of wind velocity on stack velocity
tII<.i the etfects of unusual structural or topographical
C'OnJnions with specific reference to conditions of
Pound intercept. A recent wind tunnel model study
;""(,'rrned for a North American refinery visually
.!< C10 Il'lrated the foregoing. The study recommended
,~.Jnce, In stack heights to secure a down wash-free area
(
·"T the minimum desired radial extent. When these
''''''nln'endations were subsequently effected, the
". ':'dl'd results rroved to be satisfactorily accurate.
, '..'I' ,tudies, such as meteorological studies of the
""'cd site. may have a more practical impact than
.. I tllnnel studies, although standardization of these
'!C" rnav he more difficult.
6-17
6.4.8 LIMITATIONS AND RELIABILITY OF
PREDICTIVE TECHNIQUES
The equations for determining ground concentration,
'/., contain three terms-the effective stack height, H,
and the dispersion coefficients, a y and a, (standard
deviations of plume concentration). These three terms
play a major role in determining the accuracy of the
predicted results. * To the extent that errors occur in
these three terms for the six stability conditions, the
results in predicting ground concentrations will also be
in error. Reliability limitations of plume rise are also
related to errors in wind direction (i.e., the determina-
tion of the x-axis) and the variation of wind direction
with height. Reliability limitations for dispersion
coefficients were discussed previously in this section.
In Figures 6-9 and 6-10 the important horizontal and
vertical dispersion coefficients (a" and a,) are related
to distances downwind from the source. These curves
are intended to apply to open country, represent a time
period of about 10 minutes, and involve the assumption
that there is no fallout from the plume as it moves
downwind. It is generally conceded that no fallout
occurs with particles of 2011, although the presence of
some particles in the range of 20iJ. to 6011 does not
seriously affect predicted results.
The equations for these conditions are generally
believed to be the best estimates available. It is con-
ceivable that they may overestimate the actual ground
concentration (i.e., result in overdesign). Thus for
elevated sources under very light winds on a clear night,
it is possible that there will be no noticeable ground
concentration. Conversely, plume dispersion from low-
level sources and built-up areas will be higher than for
open, level country and actual ground concentrations
may infrequently exceed the predicted values.
Quantitative information that shows levels of ac-
curacy of prediction is scarce, particularly for tall
stacks. Also, tall stacks present the problem of deter-
mining wind velocity and dispersion parameters at the
elevation of the effective stack height. This has resulted
in some arbitrary assumptions and has precluded
rigorous treatment of the problem. Accordingly,
accuracy of prediction is questionable, especially under
unusual atmospheric conditions such as a strong
inversion above stack level. Research continues on the
development of new diffusion models, which are
anticipated to yield more accurate values for dispersion
coefficients.
Nevertheless, the predicted results obtained by these
equations are of a higher order of accuracy than would
have been possible ten or twenty years ago. Jn the
*To some extent, concurrent errors in opposite directions for
H on the one hand, cry and cr z on the other. tend to cancel out.
6-18 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
----------------~----------------
, ,
future even better accuracy can be anticipated as more
accurate values are determined for dispersion co~
efficients by means of suitable field experiments.
The use of wind tunnel and other meteorological
studies, especially for the purpose of augmenting pre~
dictive techniques, is also advisable and was previously
discussed. Wind tunnel studies properly conducted can
serve as excellent tools for new refineries or for complex,
existing refineries where new construction is proposed.
In existing refineries, whether or not new construction
is contemplated, there is no substitute for sampling and
analysis to determine actual ground level concentrations.
This serves to indicate the degree of error, if any, in
previous calculations and to indicate the magnitude of
any corrections that should be applied to the standard
dispersion coefficients. Sampling and analysis are valid
only to the extent that the refinery is the sole source.
Otherwise, it is difficult to predict the refinery con~
tribution to a definite ambient air concentration. Well
planned tracer studies can assist in these cases.
6.5 Cooling Tower Plume Rise
6.5.1 BACKGROUND
Petroleum industry cooling towers were originally
largely spray (atmospheric) towers of the counterflow
type. When induced-draft cooling towers were devel-
oped, they were originally the counterflow type, but
today crossflow towers are more common and are
finding extensive application in petroleum refineries.
Tall natural-draft towers (i.e., hyperbolic type) have not
been widely used in North America, and there arc no
known refinery installations.
In the operation of cooling towers, water cooling is
usually accompanied by the emission of a plume and
a water drift or spray. As the saturated warm air leaves
the tower and mixes with cooler ambient air, there is a
tendency to form a cloud (i.e., to condense the moisture
content into a visible plume of minute fog droplets).
The drift results from physical entrainment of liquid
particles or droplets into the rising saturated air.
While evaporation losses are approximately the same
for different types of towers. drift losses are higher for
mechanical-draft towers than for natural-draft towers
due in part to the higher velocities of ascending air.
As visible plumes travel downwind they increase the
humidity, and occasionally the precipitation, of the area
through which they travel. Eventually, dilution and
dispersion serve to evaporate the droplets and the
plume disappears some distance downwind of the
tower. Plume-induced fogs from cooling towers con-
stitute a visibility hazard and can represent an icing
hazard during the colder periods of the year. Thus a
low to moderate wind speed, an ambient air temperature
of 25 F to 60 F and a relative humidity of 70 percent
or above may cause fogging (and/or icing). Under
certain conditions, cooling tower plumes may merge
with stack plumes. This will affect downwind concen-
tration of contaminants, possibly in an adverse manner.
Mathematical models and actual experience have
indicated that plume rise is directly proportional to the
diameter of the plume discharge.21 On this basis, a
single large tower for a given capacity is more effective
in reducing visible plume formation than several smaller
towers, particularly if the latter are of relatively low
elevation. Also, mechanical-draft cooling towers dis-
charging small diameter plumes at low elevations and
at relatively low velocities are more prone to fogging
conditions than natural-draft towers.
Mathematical models designed to predict plume
behavior and concentrations have been correlated with
actual behavior and ground concentrations with reason-
able agreement. The data involved were based on tall
natural-draft towers and on mechanical-draft cooling
towers. The predictions herein should nevertheless be
applicable to refinery cooling towers because of the
lower effective emission height. As for industrial stacks,
suitable allowance should be made for topographic or
structural irregularities. .
6.5.2 ANALYSIS OF PLUME RISE AND PLUME
BEHAVIOR
There is a general similarity between the conditions
affecting plume rise and plume behavior for industrial
stack plumes and cooling tower plumes, although some
differences do exist. One important difference is that
t'"Ie larger plume from a cooling tower is related to a
large effective discharge diameter. A smoke plume
issues from a stack with a diameter ranging from 5 to
15 feet, while a vapor plume may be many times larger.
Further, a cooling tower plume contains no con-
taminants except possibly hydrocarbons and will
usually evaporate while traveling downwind.
Kaylor, Kangos, Petrillo, and Tsai 22 have prepared
two mathematical models for predicting plume behavior
based on low and high wind conditions. The low wind
model involves the turbulent jet method in which plume
buoyancy is a dominant factor. In the high wind
model, the mathematical model is based on the work
of Pasquill and Gifford and the Pasquill-Turner
stability categories previously considered. In this
method, plume buoyancy is considered low or negligible. f
 DISPERSION OF GASES 6-19

I h~," \,,0 set, of wind conditions, low and high,

I!1J' he further defined as follows:
iI,'" \',Ind: \""ind velocity is relatively low, so that
c:c ""leliC and thermal energy effects of plume rise
r.1\I,t be con,idered,
: High \,,1 nd: Wind velocity is relatively high and I
z z,
"lul11e rise (j. H) is relatively minor.
I

I ;:c line of demarcation between low and high wind is I

:1,'rl11ally a ratio of cooling tower exit velocity to wind
-t'ceu velocity or a ratio of 2: I. Higher ratios are low
'1I11d. lov.n ratio'> are high wind.
I I1def low wind conditions, the cooling tower plume
;i'C' oecau'>e of the kinetic energy supplied by natural

'I Induced drafts, because the plume temperature is
,!I'll\'e am bicnt. and because plume diameter is rela-
IlIl'ly large. Thi, is especially true in the case of a
L,,~e plume, which has a smaller surface-to-volume
r:tll,) than a small plume. In the large plume, there is
"'I1,idcrably less surface mixing, and hence a greater
1"l1dency to mamtain its temperature and reach a
c"ll1parallvely higher altitude.
6,5.2.1 Turbulent Jet Method for Low Wind Conditions
For the low wind condition, Kaylor, et aI., 22 utilize
t he work of Fan 21 and of Abraham 24 and postulate that
1 he cooling tower plume for low or moderate wind
'clocity a"sumes thc characteristics of a round, buoyant,
'1lrbulent jd.
The turbulent jet method involves the fol:owing
basic as,umptions:
I. Plume-induced turbulence prevails.
2. Round. buoyant, turbulent jet theory applied. *
3. Mixing and cntrainment mechanism takes place
of dispersion mechanism.
4. Gau"ian distribution for heat, moisture, density,
and velocity profiles.
5. Heat. moisture, buoyancy, and momentum con-
served.
The paramders shown in Figure 6-13 are obtained by
numerical solution of differential equations. The plume
under llIost cond itions (except certain types of inversion)
appears ,ullicj~lltIy buoyant so that it will not reach
the ground, except possibly in very low concentrations,
and will ultimately cvaporate. It is difficult to predict
the clfect of a low inversion (e.g., 500 to \,000 feet),
which IHay present some problems. Fortunately, an
illvcr,ioll at this height is an infrequent occurrence.
Figure 6-13-Cooling Tower Plume in Low Wind
Condition.
6.5.2.2 Dispersion Method for High Wind Conditions
The dispersion method is used for moderate or high
wind conditions and involves the Pasquill-Gifford
eq uations. This method generally disregards plume
buoyancy but assumes a Gaussian distribution of plume
in the vertical and horizontal planes and a conservation
of heat and mass within the plume boundaries. A sketch
of the dispersion model is shown in Figure 6-14.
The difference between H, the effective plume height,
and Hs, the cooling tower exit height, may be indicated
as j.h, which is not defined. In petroleum refineries,
where cooling tower exit heights do not exceed 60 to
80 feet, a fairly accurate estimate of j.h is 15 to 25
percent of Hs, or an average of 20 percent. The variable
j.h does not vary greatly but tends to decrease in pro-
portion to the ratio of cooling tower exit velocity to
wind velocity.
In the dispersicn method, equations (7) through (12)
are applicable for calculating travel and diffusion of
cooling tower plumes. The previous discussion of
parameters and standard deviations and the infl uence
u

>J<L"rl~(.; quantity of heat dispelled from tower increases impor- Figure 6-14-Cooling Tower Plume in High Wind
tam:c 01 huoyancy of plume. Condition.
6-20 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
of atmospheric conditions is also relevant (see Para-
graphs 6.4.3 and 6.4.4).
Kaylor, et aI.,22 verified the mathematical models
by observation of visible plume behavior. These com-
parisons show reasonable correlation which can, on
the average, be represented by: Observed plume length
+
= 35 (0.91) (predicted plume length).
The actual observations were taken from three sources
including a mechanical draft tower with five cells and
a natural draft cooling tower. This tower was a hyper-
bolic type but, as previously indicated, the general
conclusions should also be applicable to low or medium
height towers.
In an article by Westlin, Brenchley, and Smith, 25 the
PasquiIl-Gifford-Turner method, using Gaussian dis-
persion coefficients, is also used in developing a plume
length equation. Field test data indicate that an
excellent correlation is obtained with a multiple regres-
sion coefficient greater than 0.8. In this article, however,
high wind condition is defined differently and is related
solely to wind velocity-that is, to a wind velocity
greater than 1m/sec (7.5 mph). The Kaylor article
defines high wind condition in terms of a ratio. The
Westlin article is based on results from a crossftow-
induced cooling tower.
As previously indicated, wind tunnel studies are
advisable for complicated building structures, for a
multiplicity of smoke sources or plume sources, or both,
and for unusual topographic effects which might disrupt
the normal flow pattern. Wind tunnel studies usually
disregard any buoyant effect and are more effective at
higher wind speeds. Accordingly, wind tunnel models
seem to be ideally suited for predicting cooling tower
plume behavior in high wind conditions. Although the
cost of these studies normally precludes their use, they
should be considered when the possibility of hazardous
fogging or icing conditions exists.
6.5.3 PLUME CONDENSATION AND PRECIPITATION
Plume condensation is the transference from invisible
to visible plume and occurs when the saturated vapors
are cooled below the dewpoint. It is of practical
significance to deduce whether the condensate remains
in the atmosphere as a vapor plume or cloud, or
whether there is further condensation to form rain.
The evaporative cooling tower evaporates a small
percentage of the water to be cooled, thus releasing its
latent heat of vaporization and cooling the water. The
rate of evaporation can be quite high, and if only a
small portion of the evaporated water is condensed,
it will precipitate in the form of rain. In this discussion
it is assumed that the tower is equipped with a drift
eliminator, which substantially eliminates physical
carry-off of entrained water.
In the paper by Overcamp and Hoult,26 it is shown
that "the condensation of the water vapor cannot cause
rain unless the plume mixes with the aerodynamic
wash of the tower, bringing the droplets in contact
with the ground."
Basically, rain formation occurs when minute water
droplets condense. A raindrop reaches the ground
before it evaporates, while a cloud particle does not.
By this definition, a raindrop has a minimum size of
approximately 200 microns. In the effluent vapor
plume, condensation is the dominant process for water
droplets in sizes up to 40 microns. It can be shown
that the average length of residence in the plume is
100 seconds or less, which is insufficient time to form
droplets larger than 40 microns. Thus Overcamp and
Hoult conclude that the condensation process in a
vapor plume is not conducive to the formation of an
appreciable number of the larger raindrops. This con-
cl usion was also reached by earlier authorities, Blum
(1948), Bront (1952), and Chilton (1958).
The effect of wind velocity (cross-wind effect) is
important in determining whether interaction occurs
between the visible plume and the aerodynamic tower
wake. If interaction occurs, there will be ground f
precipitation; if no interaction occurs, the plume will
rise and ultimately disappear downwind. The critical
variables to determine whether interaction occurs were
found by Overcamp and Hoult to be:
1. Speed ratio, R.
R = U/IL
Where:
U = plume exit velocity.
IL = wind speed.
2. Froude number. (This may not be valid for Froude
numbers greater than 3.0.)
3. Reynolds number. (This may also be a factor but
can usually be disregarded.)
If the speed ratio, R, is below a critical value, inter-
action occurs. The critical value varies as a straight-
line relationship with the Froude number-that is, the
critical val ue decreases as the Froude number decreases.
For a given tower exit velocity, the higher the wind
speed the lower the speed ratio, thus the possibility of
interaction increases.
The conclusions reached include where the plume
struck the ground (2 to 4 tower heights downwind) and
•
 DISPERSION OF GASES 6-21

. ""c,w,tation, where applicable to tall natural- drift eliminators were assumed at 0.2 percent, but
;\"""" iOwers. It is reasonable to assume that this value is probably high).
.:.;.:.1::," d()\\nwind (in terms of tower height) and
,ro, li:c total precipitation would be approxi- 3. Increase the height of plume rise to the extent
:.c ,ame for lower height refinery cooling practical without heating effluent air.
'.111,' estimates of the severity of precipita- These methods are generally more applicable to new
_-:r" n"'lie for a 500 megawatt plant. These are tower construction.
I" I·igure 6-15.
Mathematical models indicate that aligning cooling
."1 n " relative humidity of 90 percent, an exit
towers with existing wind increases the effective stack
"",.llnrc elf 40 C (104 F), and an ambient tempera-
height and, hence, decreases fog concentration at ground
~ (. 125 F), the precipitation would be 0.1
level. A reduction in drift decreases the total amount
of water to be evaporated and therefore minimizes
"ne'L1sions are interesting apart from pre- fog-forming tendencies. The higher plume rise elevates
",l;sibilities. A noninteracting plume will the plume to an area of more stable wind, usually
'Ie'lind fog hazards will be minimized; an higher velocity and lower humidity, thus promoting
',:1"" plume will result in lowered visibility and plume dissipation .
."':"1I, cOllditions at or near the ground. Superheating the effluent air, thus increasing its
moisture-holding capacity, also results in a higher
MINlioAlZING VISIBLE PLUMES effective plume height. These two characteristics
facilitate dispersion before the formation of a visible
plume (i.e., before the air mixture is cooled to the dew
111" towcrs in high humidity conditions have a
. ~'.:,T,(\ I,) rrod LIce fog when the effluent air is cooled point). Various methods can be used to accomplish
", dew point. These visible plumes normally this dispersion. The use of burners represents one
., .[,"bient temperatures of 25 to 60 F and at a possibility, but probably the most practical method
. ,'. ,'i' 70 percent or higher, Temperatures below
involves a heat exchange with the incoming hot water .
, lI,ay cause icing, The return hot cooling tower water is passed through
finned heat exchangers, while the effluent air is passed
.,1 IlIdllOds can be used to minimize or even
around them. This is shown in Figures 6- I 6 and 6- I 7,
.. ·!;Ie Ihe plume, Probably the most positive method
which are taken from an article by Buss. 27
'C!Pcrheating the effluent air. This method is
·"d laler in greater detail. Other methods include
The principle involved is evident from an inspection
: ';\ii()\ving: of the psychrometric charts, in which dew point temper-
ature, represented as a curve, is related to dry bulb
\II~I) the length of the cooling tower with the direc- temperature and to the maximum moisture content of
(Wil ()f the prevalent winds. dry air. If an anticipated mixture of ambient air and
cooling tower effluent air is assumed, the heating
, Employ drift eliminators to reduce drift to a val uc required to maintain the mixture temperature above
"f n()5 percent or lower. (Values of drift loss with the dew point can be determined. The degree of mixing
depends upon many meteorological factors, and heat-
and mass-transfer values cannot be readily determined;
0.15 therefore, depending on the degree of fog elimination
cr: RELATIVE HUMIDITY desired, a factor of safety should be employed.
1:
.... 90% Using the incoming hot water as a source of heat has
~
u 010 --- 40% several disadvantages:
z-
0
;: I. Increases the capital investment.
<l:
f-
a: 0.05 2. Increases the operating expense.
u
:" 3. Increases the pressure drop through the tower.
0::
Q

0.0 An advantage of such an installation is that pre-

) -15
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE,oC
25 cooling the hot water will increase the cooling capacity
of the cooling tower or result in a lowered effluent water
Figure 6-15-Precipitation Estimates. temperature.
 1
,

•
75 F DISCHARGE AIR

CONVENTIONAL FILL
(

AMBIENT
AIR
WATER INLEf 15 F

WATER OUTLET 80F •

Figure 6-16-CounterAow Tower.

6-22 •
 FAN--'

DECK'"

FILL DECKS

COILS

DRAIN AND

Figure 6-17 -erossflow Tower.

6-23
 .--
6-24. DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

•
6.6 Sample Calculations 6.6.1.3 Problem 2

6.6.1 REFINERY BOILER STACK

In a refinery having a single boiler stack 75 meters
high and operating under the given conditions, what is
the effective height of the stack r'or stability condition C?
(See Problem 1.) Also, what is the point downwind of
maximum ground concentration (see Problem 2), and
what is the ground level concentration at this point for
three stability conditions-B, C, and D? (See Problem
3.) The contaminant is sulfur dioxide (SO,).
6.6.1.1 Assumptions
1. Fuel is fired at the rate of 120 bbl/hr (20 tons/hr).
2. Sulfur content of fuel is 1.0 percent by weight.
3. Stack exit velocity is 12 m/sec.
Determine the point of maximum downwind con·
centration. The following data are taken from Figure
c
6-18:
I. At stability condition B, the point of maximum down-
wind concentration is 0.8 km for an effective stack
height of 107.3 km.
2. At stability condition C, the point of maximum
downwind concentration is 1.3 km.
3. At stability condition D, the point of maximum
downwind concentration is 3.4 km.
6.6.1.4 Problem 3
Calculate the ground level concentrations at these
points. The value of Zmax can be determined from the
equation:

4. Diameter of stack is 3 meters. Zmax = QZiJ. X 2.[J.

max
5. Wind speed is 3.4 m/hr (6.0 m/sec). Where:
6. Atmospheric pressure is 1013 millibars. Q = uniform emission rate of pollutants.
iJ. = wind velocity.
7. Stack exit temperature is 540 F (561 K).
The value of Q is determined from the sulfur burned.
8. Ambient temperature is 68 F (293 K). Thus, (
20 tons/hr X 0.01(% sulfur) = 0.2 ton/hr
6.6.1.2 Problem 1 or 400 bbl/hr
Given the molecular weights of sulfur dioxide and
Calculate effective stack height by using Holland's
sulfur, 64 and 32, respectively:
formula:
Q = ~~ X 400 bbl/hr X 454 glIb
j.H = v/[1.5 + 2.68 (l0-3 p ) V" ~"Ta)dJ 32
= 101 g/sec of SO,
360 sec/hr

At stability condition B:
= ~)
6
[1 5 + 268 (10- 3)(1013) (561-=- 293) 3J
.. 561
Zm" = 1.35 X 10-5 X l~1 = 2.3 X 10-4 g/m' of SO,
= 6 [1.5 + 2.68 (10- )(1013) (~4)3 J
3

At stability condition C:

= 6 [1.5 + 8.145 (~~D J - I 15 X 10-5 X'

Zmax-. !Q
6I -- -I' 9 X 10 -g/mo
4 I 3 f SO 2

= 6 (1.5 + 3.98) = 32.3 meters At stability condition D:

Whence, effective stack height is:
. X 10 -6 X
Zm,"x = 70 lOl
6 12
= ' X10- 4 g./ m , 0 fSO 2
75.0 + 32.3 = 107.3 meters
6.6.2 PROCESS HEATERS AND STACKS
NOTE: For a clear. sunny day, at a wind speed of 6.0 mj
sec, stability condition is C. For unstable conditions Stack emissions from process heaters vary from
the value of j.H (32.3 m) should be multiplied by 1.15, those of boiler stacks, even though the same fuel is
whereas for stable conditions. it should be mUltiplied
by 0.85.
used, because of differences in operation and design.
Many process heaters use natural draft, whereas most f
 N

\2 ~
~
41
JJ
E
Z"
c
0
.;;;
.~

..-
u1
0
~
41
Gi
':'
.!
~
0 or:

'"
·iii
:r
41
~
v
41
It
w
..,c
0
~

">
~

~"
• >-
2 ~
1i
0
E ci;
..,;
cT ~
0
c
"
E
~v
c
a "
LL

"- 0
,..;i « ~

0
~.

:i.

'"
E
.;"
x
0

..,~c
0
c
.g
0
l:
c
41
v
c:
0
U
E
.;"
x
0
~
~
0
41
v
c:
E~

15
I
co

I -0
I

I ""
~

'"
i.i:
.I
i
1 i.!. •
'., ~ w~ 'xew x

6-25
1
6-26 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

large boilers use forced draft. Also, many refinery

boilers burn gas as well as fuel oil, while process heaters
are more often gas-fired and generally use a higher
percentage of gas. To allow for greater variation in the
combustion value of gas, more air is used in process
Q _ (\50,000) (0.25%) (0.129Ib/cu ft) (454 g/Ib) (29~\
- 60 sec/min
= (375L~8~) (0419)
60'
= 154 g/sec
700)
(375) (2~.6)
60
•
heaters; excess air may be as high as 40 percent.
Finally, process heater stacks are usually lower than
6,6,2,2 Problem I
boiler stacks because the lower height provides a
chimney effect and a slightly negative combustion box Holland's equation is used to determine effective
pressure. stack heights, which can be calculated for various wind
The concentration of nitrogen oxides (NO x ) is usually speeds as follows (see Table 6-3):
higher in a process heater stack because higher tempera-
tures enable the conversion of nitrogen to oxides. Com-
bustion box temperatures and stack temperatures are
~H = 1'/ [1.5 + 2.68 (lO-'p) C'~, Ta) d J
Where:
higher in process heaters than in boilers. Heater stacks 150,000
)', = stack exit velocity 2980 ft· mm
range in temperature from 700 to 1,000 F. 50.3
Sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide concentrations are
lower in process heaters primarily because of the 15.1 m/sec
dilution supplied by additional excess air. In the case
of carbon dioxide, an additional factor is the carbon: Substituting,
hydrogen ratio of gas, which is lower than that of
fuel oil. ~H = 15.1 ~2.44)[1.5 + 2.68G~~~)eO~~0293)2.44J
Consider a process heater with a stack height of
164 feet and a stack exit diameter of 8 feet. The stack 3~8 [1.5 + 2.71 (~~) 2.44J
emits 150,000 cubic feet per minute of gas at 800 F and
the gas analysis shows 0.25 percent NO x (as NO,)*,
2.9 percent 0" 77.5 percent N 2 ; the balance is water
vapor. The average wind speed is 15 mph (6.7 m/sec).
On a sunny day, the ambient temperature is 68 F. Thus
the stability category is C.
36.~ (5.3)
[1.
195
[1.

Table 6-3-Effective Stack Heights

j.H h + j.H
•
i'
Calculate the critical wind speed (problem I). For a (m/sec) (01) (m)
wind speed of 15 mph, calculate the maximum ground 1.0 195 245
2 98 148
level concentration of NO x and the point of maximum 3 65 115
concentration (problem 2). Calculate the ground level 5 39 89
6.7 29 79
concentration of NO x 1.25 miles downwind from the 8 24 74
stack (problem 3). 10 20 70

It is apparent that the critical wind speed is approxi-

6.6.2.1 Assumptions
mately 5 m/ sec, or 11 mph. A more precise critical
wind speed can be obtained by plotting maximum
I. Stack height is 164 fcet (50 meters). concentration vs. wind speed (see also Turner B). The
2. Stack temperature is 800 F (427 C) (700 K). critical wind speed corresponds to the highest maximum
concentration on the curve. (See Table 6-4.)
3. Ambient temperature is 68 F (20 C) (293 K).
4. Molecular weight of NO, is 46 grams per gram mole Table 6-4-Maximum Concentration as a Function
and weight is 0.129 pounds per cubic foot at N.T.P. of Wind Speed at Stability Condition C
5. Atmospheric pressure is 10 13 millibars. .... H Z'tJ./Qrnax QI . . ZIlH\X
(m/sec) (m) (m2) (g/m) (g/m:l)
1.0 245 2.4 X 10-" 154 3.7 X 10-'
*Jt is assumed that all oxides of nitrogen are included in the 2 6.4 X 10-"

•
148 77 4.9 X 10-'
0.25 percent NO" analysis. The primary components of NO" are 3 115 1.0 X 10-" 51 5.1 X 10-'
NO and NO, and are usually updated as NO" which has a molec- 5 89 1.8 X 10-" 31 5.6 X 10-'
ular weight of 46. To the extent that the average molecular weight 6.7 79 2.3 X 10-:' 23 5.3 X 10-'
of NO, differs from that of NO-, the solutions in Problems I. 2, 8 74 2.7 X 10- 5 19 5.1 X 10-'
and 3 would require modification. 10 70 2.9 X 10-" 15 4.4 X 10-'
 DISPERSION OF GASES 6-27

6.6.2.3 Problem 2 6.6.3.1 Assumptions

At a wind speed of 15 mph (6.7 m/sec), the maximum
concentration of NO x is 5.6 X 10-4 g/ml and will be
found at a downwind distance of 0.9 km (Figure 6-18).
6.6.2.4 Problem 3
To determine the NO x concentration at a distance of
2.0 kilometers (1.25 miles) downwind of the source at
the centerline of the plume and at ground level, the
equation is:
Z(x,O,O;H) = Q
7C'cr y cr z [J.
exp [ - 2!
154
Z(2000, 0,0 ;H) = (3.1416) (200) (lIS) (6.7)
I. Stack height is 200 feet (61 meters).
2. Stack temperature is 800 F (427 C) (700 K).
3. Ambient temperature is 68 F (20 C) (293 K).
4. Wind speed is 4 m/sec (8.9 mph).
5. Atmospheric pressure is 10\3 millibars (N.P).
6. Stack diameter is 12 feet (3.66 meters).
7. Gas discharge is 600,000 cubic feet per minute
(actual).
(H)'J
IJ
z 8. SO, in exit gas is 1,000 parts per million (0.1 per-
cent by volume).
9. S02 emitted is 0.1827 pound per cubic foot (N.T.P.)

exp [ - ~ C~~),J 10. Particulate emission with no precipitator is 154

Where: grains (10 g) per SCF.
x = 2000 meters at stability condition C
~ II = 200 meters II. Particulate emission with an electrostatic precipi-
cr. = 115 meters tator is 15.4 grains (1.0 g) per SCF.

z(2000, 0,0;79) =
154
(4.84)(10=5) exp [I
- 2 (0.69) 2J
6.6.3.2 Problem 1
z = (3.2 X 10-4) (7.88 X 10-')
Calculate maximum downwind concentration of
= 2.5 X 10-4 gicu m
SO, and the point of maximum downwind concentra-
This is equivalent to 250 micrograms per cubic meter. tion. Use Holland's formula to obtain the effective
stack height.
6.6.3 CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS
j,H = v~d [1.5 + 2.68 (10-'p) C-'-j.,Ia) dJ

I
In a catalytic cracking unit, the catalyst regulator is Where:
equipped with two stages of internal cyclones in the v., = stack exit velocity = 60,0.000 X __ L_
regenerator, and the catalytic off-gases are then pro- 113.1 60 X 3.28
cessed in a carbon monoxide (CO) boiler. In general, = 26.9 m 'sec
for all catalytic cracking units having CO boilers, the

II CO content in the tail gas will be essentially zero.

The CO boiler inlet gas will contain an average of
9.5 percent CO for a fluid bed and 6.0 percent CO for
an hourly bed. 28
Substituting,

j,H=

=
~6.9~3.66)[1.5 + 2.68 (1.013)C()().ffit93 )3.66J
24.6 [1.5 + 2.71(0.581) (3.66)] = 24.6 (7.26)
j Under the following conditions, assumed for a fluid
i bed unit during a 50,000-barrel day, calculate the maxi- 178.6 X 1.10 = 196 meters (at stability con-
mum ground level concentration of S02 at a wind dition B)
speed of 4 m/sec (8.9 mph) and determine the location. Thus,
(See Problem I.) The day is bright and sunny, stability H = H, + j,H = 61 + 196
category B. = 257 meters (effective stack height)
Under the same conditions, calculate the particulate
concentration at ground level at distances of 0.5 mile Determine Q, quantity of S02 emitted in g/sec.
and 2.0 miles, and displaced horizontally 0.25 mile
(0.25 mile from x-axis). Calculate these concentrations Q = ((>OQ.000)(O·20Il(0.1:~7 Ib/cuftl (4}_~lll)G~~)
for emissions if no electrostatic precipitator is present
(see problem 2) and if an electrostatic precipitator is
600 ~~.95) (0.419 829.5 (0.419) 347 g/sec
connected to the CO boiler (see problem 3).
6--28 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

e:
Where:

~
Xm.x = (QX:J (;) = 2.7 X

=
= 2.39 X 10- 4 glcu m

2.7 X 10-'sqm
10-'
7
) x (2000,400,0;257) = 0.049 exp [ - 1/2 (1.38)'J

exp [ - 1/2 (1.09)'J

= 0.049 (3.86 X 10-1) (5.52 X 10-1)

•
Qmax
1.1 X 10-2 g/cu m (at 2.0 km
The location of maximum downwind concentration downwind and 0.25 km from
of SO, at ground level, for stability condition Band x-axis)
an effective stack height of 257 meters, is 1.7 kilometers
(Figure 6-18).
6.6.3.4 Problem 3

6.6.3.3 Problem 2 As indicated in the preceding data, the precipitator

generally reduces particulates by approximately 90
Determine the particulate concentrations if no pre- percent overall, the reduction being greater for larger
cipitator is present. To calculate downwind concentra- size particles. The effective stack height, H, is still 257
tions, the effective stack height, H, and the total quan- meters and Q is only 10 percent of its former value
tity emitted, Q, must be known. H has been calculated (i.e., 4190 g/sec).
as 257 meters.
Therefore,
_ (600,000 cu ft/min)(10 g/cu ft) (?93)
Q - 60 sec/min 700 z(800,400,0; 257) = 2.74 X 10- 1 g/Cll m
= 100,000 (0.419) = 41,900 glsec x(2000,400,0; 257) = 1.1 X 10-3 g Icu m
In the preceding examples, it is assumed that par-
The eq uation to determine particulate concentration

•
ticulates behave as gases. This is substantially true
at a finite distance is:
after the particulates pass through a precipitator
because the remaining particles are primarily small
X(x,y,O;H) = TO _Q- exp [ - I (l')'J
cr"O',1L 2 cry (under lOlL); although some medium-sized particles
(lOlL to 60IL) are present. If no precipitator is present,
exp [ - ~ (~YJ more particles are in the medium range, and possibly
some in the large range (over 60IL). The large particles,
For stability condition B, at 0.8 km downwind, cry = and to some extent the medium particles, suffer fallout
130 m and crz = 85 m. For 2 km, cry = 290 m and resulting in the so-called "tilted pI ume." Thus, down-
cr, = 235 m. wind readings without a precipitator are higher than the
values shown, especially for X(800,400,0 ;257), which
41,900 [ I (400)2J is now shown as 2.74 X 10- 5 g/Cll m
x(800,400; 257) = 7: (130) (85r (4) exp - 2 130

exp [ -1 e;n'J 6.6.4 FLARES

Calculate the total effective height of a flare plume

= 0.30 exp [ - 1/2 (3.08)'J under the following conditions:
I. Stack height is 150 feet (45.7 meters).
exp [ - 1/2 (30.2)2J
2. Stack diameter is 2 feet (0.61 meters).
= 0.30 (8 71) (l0- 3) (1.05) (10- 2)
3. Wind velocity is 15 mph (22 ft/sec) (6.7 m/sec).
2.74 X 10-' g leu m (at 0.5 km down-
wind and 0.25 km from x-axis) 4. Stack exit velocity is 0.2 sonic velocity or 1000 X
0.2 = 200 ft/sec (61 m/sec).
Z(2000,400,0 ;257) = 41,900 4) exp
(290)(235f( [I
- 2 (400)'J
290

•
7:
The total effective height of the plume, H, is determined
by:
exp [ -1 G~~YJ H = Hs + J.FL + J.H
 DISPERSION OF GASES 6-29

inaccurate, there is an indication that plume rise, after

! Is = stack height. burning is complete, is of a low order of magnitude.
'... fL vertical component of flare length (to To compute sulfur dioxide concentration, use the
yield imaginary stack height). example given in Paragraph 6.6.3, substituting 82.2
.~ f! = plume rise above imaginary stack height meters as the effective height of flare plume rise.
using Holland's equation.
;, has been shown that j.FL can be determined with 6.6.5 STORAGE TANKS
degree of accuracy, but j.H is an approximation
',)Ille
.;t hcst. regardless of the formula used. There is reason
Calculate total annual storage loss for regular
;. helieve that j.His a relatively low figure, numerically. (or premium) grade gasoline at I \.0 pounds Reid
Vapor Pressure when stored in a 125-foot by 48-foot
tank (97,700 barrels), comparing fixed-roof tanks
lis = 45.7 meters. (Problem I) with floating-roof tanks (Problem 2).
1"'
. L = constant X stack diameter (API RP 52 I)
120 X 2 = 240 feet (73.2 meters). 6.6.5.1 Assumptions

J.FL = FL (~~l). I. Annual average temperature is 52 F.

2. Annual throughput is 2,000,000 barrels.

i ,0 obtain ;::;~~, the ratio of wind velocity (IL".) to stack 3. Annual average wind velocity is 10 miles per hour.

. il velocity ([.I.,,) must be calculated: NOTE: The sources of loss and the formulas for
tankage loss are described in some detail in the API
~'W = ~ = 0.110 Manual on Evaporation Loss, specifically Bulletins
[.1.0 200 2517 29 and 2518. 30 These bulletins discuss evaporation
,d from Figure 6-6, loss from floating-roof and fixed-roof tanks, respec-
tively and also include relatively simple nomographs
'E..1y
L
= 044
. that can be used in lieu of the equations. The method
for determining true vapor pressure (TVP) from Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) for any given temperature is
.1FL = 240 (0.44) = 105.6 feet (32.3 meters) given in API Bulletin 2513. 2
,'" obtain .1H from the Holland equation, the
[,)llowing data were assumed for the imaginary stack 6.6.5.2 Problem 1: Evaporation Losses of Fixed-Roof
height: Tanks

I. Flare diameter is 7 feet (2.13 meters). a. BREATHING Loss

, T. (temperature of total gases) is 600 F (589 K).

L!/ = 0.024 C4./~P)'"" (D)'73 (H)051 (T)O '0 (FpHC)
3. Tn (ambient temperature is 40 F (278 K).
Where:
4. p (pressure) is 1013 millibars. L" breathing loss, in barrels per year.
P vapor pressure of liquid at bulk temperature,
=
5. Flare velocity is 22 ft/sec. in psia.
6. Flare velocity (vertical component) is 22 X 0.44 = D = tank diameter, in feet.
H = average outage, in feet.
9.7 ft/sec (2.96 m/sec). T = average daily ambient temperature change,

.1H = V~d[1.5 + 2.68 (lO-"p) C' t,J'n) dJ

in degrees Fahrenheit .
Fp = paint factor:

I = 26.'1 [l.~ + 2.68 (\.013) G~~) 2. \3 ]

\.39 for aluminum.
\.00 for white.
C = adjustment factor for small diameter tanks.
Assuming:
= 0.94 [1.5 + 2.72 (0.53) (2.13)1 P = 5.0 pounds.
0.94 (1.5 + 3.1) = 4.3 meters D = 125 feet.

•
=
H 24 feet.
H = 45.7 + 32.2 + 4.3 = 82.2 meters (270 feet) T 16 F.
Fp = 1.15 for white paint in poor condition.
Although some of the preceding assumptions may be C = 1.0.
 f
6-3.0 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS

Then, Thus,
L!I = 0.024 (9\)"'8 (125)173(24)0.51(16)050(1.15)(1.0) W = (0.OOO448)e'0~~5000) 7 bbl/yr t,
= 1495 bbl/yr Total loss of floating-roof tank is:
b. FILLING Loss 200 +7 = 207 bbl/yr
F = 0.OOO3PVK, 6.6.5.4 Conclusions
Where: The fixed-roof loss will be 4495 barrels per year.
F filling loss, in barrels per year. The floating-roof loss will be only 207 barrels per year.
P vapor pressure of light at bulk temperature,
in psia. 6.6.6 PRODUCT LOADING
V = volume of liquid pumped into tank, in
barrels per year. Determine the loading loss experienced when loading
K, turnover factor (t = throughput in turnovers a tank truck with 10,000 gallons of 1l.0-pound RVP
per year, V/tank capacity). gasoline at temperatures of 40 F and 60 F by splash
Then, loading, subsurface loading, and vapor recovery.
F = (0.0003)(5.0)(2,000,000)(1.0) Assume average saturation of truck vapor space of
= (0.0015)(2,000,000) = 3,000 bbl/yr 30 percent.
Total loss of fixed-roof tank is: Volumetric loading losses with relation to gasoline
TVP are shown graphically in Figure 6-19. 31
1495 + 3000 = 4495 bbl/yr
0.4

6.6.5.3 Problem 2: Evaporation Losses of Floating-

Roof Tanks

a. STANDING-STORAGE Loss

Where:
L" = K f (D)15 ( 14.7 _
P
P
)O.7( VW)0.7
<If
<J)o
o<{
...10
z...l
ou.
~~
0:
O.J
0.0
0
0.3

0.2
WARNING - LOSS BY ENTRAINMENT
DURING SPLASH LOADING
MAY EXCEED EVAPORATION
LOSS BY TWO OR
THREE FOLD •
::l>
L" = standing-storage loss, in barrels per year.
Kr = tank type factor: "'
0.1
0.045 for welded tanks.
0.13 for riveted tanks with pontoon roof and
single seal.
D tank diameter, in feet (for tanks less than 150
ft in diameter). 0.0
P vapor pressure liquid at bulk temperature,
in psia. 12
V". = average wind velocity, in miles per hour.
Thus, 10

= (0.045)(125)1'\ (5' 2)°7(10)07

0.
LI/ >
0:
9.7 8

= 200 bbl/yr (NOTE: Multiplying factor 1.0) "':::;z

0 6
<J)
<{ t:
b. WITHDRAWAL Loss '" !i
4
V
W = 0.000448 D ., .', r< '" ~p\li~id'V ...;i' I •.

2 .'1",; ~, 'linll'TLl! l'iUI;!I:=~

Where: o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TRUE VAPOR PRESSURE (TVP), PSIA
W= withdrawal loss, in barrels per year.

•
(BASED ON TYPICAL SLOPE OF 2.5 AT 10% PT. ON ASTM DIST. CURVE)
V volume of liquid withdrawn from tank. In
barrels per year. Figure 6-19 -Gasoline Correlation for Tank Cars and
D tank diamcter, in feet. Tank Trucks.
 III !!;
OUTBREATHING
FOR ALL STOCKS
_I_II ~IE 1I·1i
OVER 100°F
FLASH POINT
i,"-

t'1
INBREATHING ALL STOCKS
(j) Wt:t:;- t.= AND OUTBREATHING FOR STOCKS
--J
l1J UNDER 100°F FLASH POINT
0:
0:
« =
,
CD

>-
I-
U
ct
«
()

\) ~
z +-
«
I-
10,000-'

J J

1,000
o 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

REQUIRED CAPACITY-CUBIC FEET PER HOUR AT 60°F

I
Figure 6-20_ Thermal Breathing Requirements for Various Tank Capacities.

•
!

I
I 6-31

I
I
!
I
 •
a:
:;:)

~
a:
w
0..
en
...J
w STOCKS UNDER 100°F
a:
a: FLASH POINT
ca
TANK FILLING
STOCKS OVER 100°F

•
FLASH POINT

100

50
o 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

REQUIRED CAPACITY-CUBIC FEET PER HOUR AT 60°F

Figure 6-21_ Venting Capacity Requirements at Various Pumping Rates.

6-32 •
 DISPERSION OF GASES 6-33

I 'c following data are taken from Figure 6-19. All 6.6.7.1 Example
10""' tor splash loading have been arbitrarily in- Consider the specific case of a I OO,OOO-barrel welded
. : <d h\' 50 percent to allow for losses by entrainment.
cone roof tank flash below 100 F with a maximum
filling rate of 5,000 bbl/hr and a maximum emptying
Splash Loading Subsurface Loading
rate of 2,000 bbl/hr. The following estimates are taken
'.1' "nund')) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
"t"[-.Ilu[e F 40 60 40 60 from Figures 6-20 and 6-21.
· I' ,;'(lllnds) 3,8 5.6 3.8 5.6
IlflH.'tnc loss a. STEP 1
'"[(i.'nt) 0.100 0.175 0.042 0,062
Pressure Vacuum
i\ \ (d umetric (cu ft/hr) (cu ft/hr)
~ (:'t.'rcent) 0.150 0.263 0.042 0.062
:\1',..,
Thermal requirement, 100,000 bbl 60,000 60,000
.dlt)nq 15.0 26,3 4.2 6.2 Filling requirement 60,000
Emptying requirement 11,200
Total cu ft/hr 120,000 71,200
!"t!Om loading is slightly more efficient than sub-
.f I;ICCloading. Vapor recovery systems have efficien- b. STEP 2
to 95 percent of splash loading losses, ass um-
. ,,!' ')() Assume that the welded cone roof tank (100,000 bbl)
.. ,) entrainment. Therefore, losses approximate has a pressure setting of 0.75 ounces per square inch
,'lit i percent of the total splash loading losses. (OSI) and a vacuum setting of 0.50 OS!. (All vac-
uum settings are 0.50 OSI.)
~.6.7 ~OOF VENTS C. STEP 3
For a pressure setting of 0.75 OSI, the maximum
:, 'calculate vent sizing, determine the following: required capacity must be achieved at 0.50 OSI buildup
"!I1acity requirements for: above the pressure setting, or 0.75 + 0.50 = 1.25 OS!.
Similarly, the vacuum setting is 0.50 + 0,50 = 1.00
a. Pressure-thermal expansion plus maximum OSI. Therefore, the vent must be sized for:
filling rate. 1. Pressure setting of 0.75 OSI and 120,000 cu ft/hr
b. Vacuum-thermal contraction plus maximum at 1.25 OS!.
emptying rate. 2. Vacuum setting of 0.50 OSI and 71,200 cu ft/hr
at 1.00 OS!.
",'"ure and vacuum settings.
Vent ratings for these conditions are available from
1. Size of required vents, the manufacturer's data.

REFERENCES

• "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Siandards," Federal Register 36 [84] Environmental Protection
Agency (1971).
'API Bu/l, 2513, Evaporation Loss in the Petroleum Indus-
I'",'-C£l£lses and Conlrol (1959).
'M. E. Smith, Recommended Guide for the Prediction of
flit, Dispersioll 0/ Airborne Effluents, 1st ed., Am. Soc. Mech.
Engrs. (1968).
, W. L. Donn, Meteorology, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Inc., New York (1964).
· C'. H. Bosanquet, "The Rise of a Hot Waste Gas Plume."
1. I",,/ilute of Fuel 30 [322] (1957).
,; R. B. Hawkins and E. A. Nonbebel, "Chimneys and the Dis-
persal of Smoke," J. Institute of Fuel 28 [530] (1955).
, W, S. Lucas, 0, L. Moore, and C. H. Spurr, "The Rise of
Hot PI limes from Chimneys," Institute J. Air and Water Pol/u-
Ii"" 7 [473J (1963).
, The Calculation of Atmospheric Dispersion from a Stack,
CONCAWE (1966).
"Meteorology and Atomic Energy, ed D. Slade, U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information (1968),
" J. Z. Holland, "A Meteorological Survey of the Oak Ridge
Area," Atomic Energy Commission Rept ORO·99, Washington,
D.C. (1953).
'" 0, B. Turner, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Esti-
mates, Revision, U.S, Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service (1970),
H API RP 521 Guide for Pressure Relief a"d Depressuring
Systems, Sept. (1969).
I;, The Dispersion of Gases from Elevated Refinery Flares,
CONCAWE working group, presumably unpublished (1967).
'" F. Pasquill, Atmospheric Diffusion, D. Van Nostrand Co.,
New York (1962).
" Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, U.S. Dept. of
Health, Education, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Con-
trol Association, Washington, D.C., Jan, (1969).
'" G, T. Csanady, "Turbulent Diffusion of Heavy Particles in
the Atmosphere," J, Atm, Sci. 20, 201-08 (1963).
"R. L. Duprey, Compilation of Air Pol/utant Emission

•
" G. A. Briggs, "Plume Rise," USAEC, Division of Technical
II, [ormation, USAEC TIP 25075.
, .. G. E. Anderson, R. R. Hippler, and G, D. Robinson, "An
Evaluation of Dispersion Formulas," Final Rept. prepared by
Travelers Research Corporation for Am. Petrol. Inst. (1969).
Factors, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Environ-
mental Health Services (1968) .
,,, G. R. Lord and H. J, Leutheusser, Wind Tunnel Study of
Sarnia Refinery, Imperial Oil Enterprises, Ltd., Sarnia, Canada,
Dec, (1965).
6-3.4 DRW MANUAL-ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
"D. H. Brown and H. J. Sneck, "Cooling Tower Plume
Rise," Am. Power Conference, 33rd Annual Meeting, Chicago,
Illinois, Apr. (1971).
"F. B. Kaylor, J. D. Kangas, J. L. Petrillo, and Y. J. Tsai,
"Prediction and Verification of Visible Plume Behavior Asso-
ciated with Wet Plume Discharge," 65th Meeting, Air Pollution
Control Assoc., Miami Beach, Florida, June 18-22 (1972).
"L. N. Fan, "Turbulent Buoyant Jets into Stratified or
Flowing Ambient Fluid," Cal. lnst. Tech., Report No. KH-
R-15 (1967).
"G. Abraham, "The Flow of Round Buoyant Jets Issuing
Vertically into Ambient Fluid Flowing in a Horizontal Direc-
tion," 5th Inter. Water Pollution Research Conf., July-August
(1970).
"P. R. Westlin, D. L. Brenchley, and P. J. Smith, "An Em-
pirical Study of the Length of Cooling Tower Plumes." 65th
Assn. Mtg. APCA, Florida, June (1972).
"T. J. Overcamp and D. P. Haul!, "Precipitation in the
Wake of Cooling Towers," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 5,
751-65, Pergamon Press.
"J. R. Buss, "How to Control Fog from Cooling Towers,"
Power 112, 72-3, June (1968).
"Catalytic Cracking Emissions-An Industry Survey, Am.
Petrol. lnst., June (1972).
"API Bull. 2517, Evaporation Loss from Floating-Roof
Tanks (1962).
'" API Bull. 2518, Evaporation Loss from Fixed-Roof Tanks
(1962).
" API Bull. 2514, Evaporation Loss from Tank Cars, Tank
Trucks. and Marine Vessels (1959).
, .
•
 APPENDIX

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

constant in Lucas, Moore, and Spurr formula.' Tl = temperature of combined inlet gases prior to
stack diameter, in meters. combustion, in degrees Fahrenheit.
Briggs formula, a factor proportional to the I'- wind velocity, in feet per second or meters per
rate of buoyancy (heat) emission. second.
/ '/. flare length of flare plumes. I'- particle size, in microns.
cJL vertical component of flare length, FL. I'- = wind velocity at stack height, in meters per
If effective height of a stack. second.
if = effective height of plume rise. U plume exit velocity (cooling towers).
,II.\' stack height.
V" = stack exit velocity, in feet per minute.
plume rise above stack height.
w stack exit velocity, in meters per second.
!fe heat of combustion.
//r heat losses by radiation. Xmax maximum downwind ground level concentra-
i.[ heat emission, in megawatts (Lucas, Moore, tion, in grams per cubic meter.
and Spurr formula). XI'-) relative maximum concentration.
( Q
standard deviation of plume diffusion in the max

horizontal. X concentration in grams per cubic meter at any

= standard deviation of plume diffusion in the particular point in space. Usually used with
vertical. coordinates x, y, and z, and effective stack

•
atmospheric pressure, in millibars.
Q heat emission, in megawatts.
Q uniform emission rate of pollutants.
f? speed ratio of plume exit velocity to wind
speed (cooling towers).
atmospheric temperature, in degrees Kelvin.
stack temperature, in degrees Kelvin.
imaginary stack exit temperature, in degrees
Fahrenheit.
height, H.
XI ground fumigation concentration.
x = distance from source at any point directly
downwind of plume flow.
x distance from x, in meters.
y distance crosswind from x-axis.
z distance (vertical) above ground.
2 m" plume rise above stack height; similar to :1H.

NOTE: This appendix does not include symbols for evaporation loss equations for fixed- and floating-roof
tanks. These are defined separately in the loss calculations in Paragraph 6.6.5 .

• 6-35
 t)

3M-March 1974