Conversion of Calcium Sulfite to Calcium Sulfate. Will Be Able to Work
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
precipitate out so severely in your actual scrub- bing system so there is -- there are soma reasons why it worked out better, And one of the main reasons is in that they get a much more effective conversion of calcium sulfite to calcium sulfate. And there you can actually separate out the excess calcium sulfate quicker and not carry as much in excess. Is it therefore your opinion that scrubbers on low sulfur coal work better than scrubbers on high sulfur coal? It appears that the limestone-lime slurry scrubbers will be able to work better or will be able to work at a greater reliability than a -- on a low sulfur coal than a high sulfur coal. You would be getting into a more problematic operation with the higher sulfur coal. MR, FRAWXIEY: Thank you, that is all, COMMISSIONER DOWNIE: May 1 ask a question? Doctor Vickers, tell me j i I misunderstood you but I understood and I think in refere me to Item Three of your prepared testhciny and 1 may be rrong on that, in your answer you indicated to me I 1 that it w s totally jmpractical to tq to identifl the 4 percentag of pollution emitted by individual industries, paper mil s or power plants or any other.industry? rn WIrnSS: I There are emission studies that have c been done you know, there have been studies of how much, 1 how many ounds have been emitted and there are, ycu can E get pies ike they do on the tax dollars how much cf this 5 type indu try is responsible for and how much power genera- I( tion and 0: forth but these are roughly figure and for any 11 specific rea you really have to have -- the Pollution Ii Control C ,mission 3: understand has done this emission on 12 le emissi In in an article and puts out why but to say where 14 it goes a .d who is responsible for what particular damage 1s once it i done, that becomes a problem of allocating it ?E and then dentifying why your paint on the house has to be 17 redone gu cker instead of five years it has to be done every IE three yea s and who is responsible for it or why. There 1s are a who e bunch of things happening, but high levels of 2c pollution tends to cause deterioration on paint and other 21 things an it is just hard to pin it on anybody. SQ whoever 22 I 1 owns the tem that is damaged, pays the cost. Whoever owns I 23 1 the plant that is damaged, will pay the cost. They cantt 24 1 court and prove definitively that someone put 25 i go into a 3242 out poll ition that has caused the paint to go bad. It would be a ver r diEficult job. COMMISSIONER WWNIE: Well, assuming, Doctor Vickers, that you can .denti@ the souxce of a possible pollution emission that WOK .d damage the quality of air that we breathe, is it your opi kion that steps could be taken to prevent €urther po 1lu t i c t or should you go and just permit it and let it contribu ,e to the deterioration of the quality of the air? THE WITNESS: 1 You are -- well, when you get into 1 health a :fects and I think we should strive to do what is 1 best ava lable, best that we can do and even accept some 1 problems on trying to keep the levels low, Now whqt we 1 know abo t sulfur oxides is -- the fate of what happens to I I 1 .ot very clear and it indicates that they could do i emi is 1 ' or would do quite a bit of damage and therefore, it would 1 in my ow philosophy would be that we should take an extra 1 little m asure and try to reduce the amount and what really 2 concerns me more than anything else, is that if we continue 2 to go to tall stacks and law sulfur coal and if we continue 2 t to have great use of power we are giving our grandchildren I 2 I or our c ildren a tremendous headache in twenty yegrs, 2 e won't have a local pollution problem -- that we 2 i Because 3243 1 through the region. Some information says that s;zlfur 1 1 sulfates -- they take sulfates but the actual forrr. of sul- fate, thsy are not saying it is all sulfates but yet it might be a spezific sulfate problem but they don't know. And that'; where it is you know so it comes down to a point they Eind. the damage and they find that it is related to certain 3244 comes ou as a sulfate. It is pretty well that it: fs going I gets I to come dut in sane form of sulfate. Well how it there is not tl at well known. There are various oxidation rates, it is really not well defined and the atmosphere fis vexy complex and no one really has a good handle on it, COMMISSIONEX DOWNIE: Thank you for that long and ltmgthy and learred discourse but is the answer to my queskion "yes" or l'no''? THE WImss: what is the question, I think I have forgotter. it at this point? 1 am sorry. COMMISSIONER DOWNIE: Where you identify a Lsource of emission I in our air in your judgment, should you before goes into effect take steps to sae that are not made or should you let THE WITNESS: I I .thidc past history says if you want I to preve t damage or if you want to get control of damage I the most 1effective way of doing it is to prevent the emission. COMMISSIONER DOWNfE: Thank you, 3245 CHAIRMAN Mom: The hearing will be in recess for ten minu e9. (whereup n, a short recess was taken after which the hearing as resumed and testimony given as follows.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 3246 I I c i I I ! I i 1 i CHA RMAN MOM: 1 I A Let the hearing come to order, please. I Mr. Fur, do you have any questions? d MR. FURR: i I ! I No questions, Mr. Chairman. ! t CHAIRMAN MORAN: 1 will be e cused. Thank you. I (WITNESS EXCUSED) 11 CHAIRMAN MOW: 1 Mr. Goodloe, do you have another Witness? 1 MR, GOODLOE: 1 Yes, I have one Witness and I have some 1 additione . testimony that I believe by agreement there is n 1 cros s-ex: xination and I wish to submit the testimony of Mr. I 1 Brian Thr npsonmncerning the land-use map which I will intro- 1 duce too lihich is the preparation of the land-use map and the ! 1 land-use :lassification system, the number of acres for each 1 individu; L land-use as obtained from the U.S.G.S., the abstract 4 from the 1970 Census data of the twenty-five mile zadius of 4 White 311 €E and the existing pollution levels as obtained from 4 the Arka: sa6 Department of Pollution Control. There is one correctk n that needs to be made on the sheet: *ich is stating the poll tion levels from the pollution control. xt is the next to he last, third from the back sheet which is on Arkansi 3247 I Ecology c mter stationary wherein it lists sulfur dioxide level; for Pine Iluff on mrch 24 for stations one, two, and three and says 10.1 milograms and at the time I prepared this 1 thought n .crogram was mg and it should be ug for micrograms and so tk ! 30.1 should be micrograms per cubic meter for station c le, station two at 78.3 micrograms per cuhic meter and statj m three 89.5 micrograms per cubic meter. I submit this and :he land-use map, ----- (REPORTEE : NOTE: The following pages are the direct testimony of Mr. Br .an Thompson and so forth given the reporter to be copied ir :o the record as if given orally:) - '- I I 51 I i - DIRECT TI 3TIMONY OF MR. BRIAN THOMPSON BEFORE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SI WICE COMMISSION ON JUNE 17, 1974. My name : : Brian Thompson and 1 am employed by the Arkansas I Ecology ( ?nter, 1919 West 7th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. I: The purpc 3e of my testiaony is to present the chain of prepara t: >n of the pine tree samples obtained for the Dept. of Plann: ig and the preparation of the land-use map. -De tc ils of Pine Tree samples taken by the Arktinsas Ecology C inter at the request of the Dept. of Planning I On E :iday, May 3rd, 1974, at rhe request of the Dept. 1 of Plannj ig, Ted Goodloe, Tom Foti, and Brian Thompson I (staff m~ ibers of the Arkansas Ecology Center) collected 1 three pir ! tree limb samples from separece trees on the Whil-e 1 Bluff sit ! (AP&L's weather station), one pine tree limb sample 1 from a tr !e approximately 3 miles N/NE of the site, and 1 three pin ! tree limb samples from separate trees on the 1 per het ex of the Weyerhauser kraft paper mi11 on the outskirts 1 of Pine B uff, approximately 15 miles S/SE of the Fuhite Bluff L site.