the nature and extent thereof, and upon the finding by the Chief on investigation by him of the facts, that said complaint is well grounded, the Chief is authorized to permit the operation of such plant, fuel burning, combustion or process equipment or device, or apparatus, for a reasonable period of time within which period the necessary equipment, process, device, appliance, means or methods, or control equipment, is to be acquired and installed; provided, however, that the Chief is empowered to grant further reasonable extensions of time upon proof of extenuating circumstances, and that an order of the Chief denying a complaint for a period of grace or an extension of time shall be subject to review by the Air Pollution Advisory Committee. During any such granted period, such persons shall not be subject to the fines and penalties heretofore provided for the non-compliance sought to be remedied. If, however, such person wilfully fails in the time allowed to conform with the applicable provision or provisions of this ordinance, or to comply with his assurance and agreement, he shall be subject to all applicable fines and penalties herein provided dating from the date of the beginning of the said period or periods.

It shall be the duty of such person to notify the Chief immediately of the completion of such installation.

SECTION 14. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph or part of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, firm, corporation or circumstances, shall for any reason, be adjudged by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, said judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance, and the application of such provision to other persons, firms, corporations or circumstances, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered and to the person, firm, corporation or circumstances involved. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of this body that this ordinance would have been adopted had such invalid provisions not been included.

SECTION 15. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage and publication according to law.


PHILANTHROPY, INC. This statement is submitted by Profitable Philanthropy, a corporation chartered under Illinois' General Not-For-Profit Corporation Act in 1959. Its mailing address is at 36 South State Street, Chicago, Ill., 60603. Its directors and officers are residents of Chicago and the Chicago metropolitan area. The registered purpose of the corporation is "to advise major fuel oil suppliers in the Chicago area and civic, health, educational, religious, and welfare institutions purchasing fuel oil, of the significant savings realizable by employing fundamentals of combustion."

Because in 1960 its efforts were highly complimented by the Department of the Interior as a potential aid in conservation of oil and by the U.S. Public Health Service as a potential aid in reducing air pollution, these objectives have been made its primary basis of appeal.

Because of contention by the Public Health Service and Chicago's Air Pollution Control Department that they were without authority to request cooperation from Federal agencies and city departments, Profitable Philanthropy has been seeking to persuade the General Services Administration in region 5 and departments of the city of Chicago responsible for the boiler plants in city buildings and schools to make necessary corrections to existing oil-fired boilers as the example for the other civic, health, educational, religious, and welfare institutions it seeks to serve.

Congress, in enacting section 7(a) in the Clean Air Act approved December 17, 1963, assures the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare authority to obtain the cooperation of Federal agencies.

Chicago's Air Pollution Control Department remains without apparent authority. Every department of the city of Chicago including, finally, the mayor of Chicago have been pleaded with to no apparent avail.

Therefore, the Senate subcommittee is asked to consider the adrisability of recommending that the city of Chicago's own efforts to correct its own plants that are contributing significantly to air pollution be carefully weighed in any request by the city of Chicago for Federal assistance under the Clean Air Act. STATEMENT OF MRS. MORRIE KAPLAN, GARY LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am Mrs. Worrie Kaplan, representative of the Gary League of Women Voters. Air pollution has been a subject for study and continued interest on the part of the Gary League since 1959. The position reached was “Support of measures to establish and maintain effective air pollution control in the city of Gary." With this consensus the league supported the air pollution ordinance passed by the city council in 1963.

The carrying out of the ordinance is in the embryonic stages, and I'm sure you will hear more about its particuiars from Mr. Angelidis. Gary is fortunate to have the services of a qualified sanitary engineer in Mr. Chris Angelidis, chief of air pollution control. He will need technical assistance, however, as well as funds for monitoring and laboratory equipment, or the ordinance implementation will move slowly. Technical assistance and equipment for air sampling have been loaned to Gary by the State of Indiana. Gary's Air Pollution Advisory Board, recently appointed, has voted to work closely with the State agency. Both the local and the State board of health are handicapped in this field by the shortage of two ingredients: (1) money and (2) qualified people.

Through the results of the national monitoring service, you must know the Gary picture, as well as Chicago's--and as the air moves, we trade pollution. The situation is not a good one, and we must admit, metropolitan areas, or individual cities, we are all guilty. There has been a start on the part of Gary's industry toward genuine cooperation including technical assistance. With a strong air pollution department in the Gary Board of Health, this movement could be accelerated.

As an organization the league is eager to have the air pollution problem solved. Realizing at the same time, it is a complicated procedure and will take time. The Clean Air Act has some answers. Hopefully Gary will utilize them.

In answer to your specific questions: (1) The citizen's stake in air pollution control; the Gary citizen is not insensitive to the quality of the air he breathes, the dirt that falls on his home and into it, or the general effect on his family's health; (2) how civic organizations can assist in the control of air pollution. Civic groups can be aware of budgetary procedures, actions of the air pollution agency, and look to continual strengthening and improvement of the local air pollution ordinance Education on the many actual sources of air pollution, and the role of the homeowner, who burns leaves, as well as the small businessman who has a smoking furnace, could be done by interested groups and the news media. One of the league's activities is a speaker's bureau that gives its services whenever requested.

Thank you for your interest and your endeavors.


Chairman Muskie and members of the committee, the Gary Chamber of Commerce through its air pollution subcommittee of our health, recreation, and culture committee has for some years been cooperating with various local and State groups to establish fair and workable plans to improve the purity of our city's atmosphere.

It has been our position that first there must be equitable and enforceable law's so that guidelines will be established for industry, commerce, and homeowners alike.

It has been only a year or so since both the State of Indiana and the city of Gary enacted a statute and an ordinance to control the pollution of our air. We believe that steps to curb air pollution are long overdue. The cost of pollutant-laden air is really immeasurable, but can only be gaged in damage to property, increased maintenance of property, impaired health, and the worsening of the personal appearance of citizens plagued by excessive cleaning and laundering bills for home furnishings and clothing.

Gary now has a local ordinance and an air pollution board and administrator, and our position is that compliance should be more thoroughly programed for our community. New construction should rigidly adhere to antipollution restrictions. Existing firms and persons who find themselves in violation of the law should correct this as soon as possible. Changes requiring no unusual hardship should be made immediately. Changes involving unusually high costs should be made according to an established timetable.

One part of the antipollution battle that we feel most qualified, as a chamber of commerce to participate in is the area of public information and education. We recognize that the sources of pollution of a total community are much more numerous than those most obvious to the naked eye, and that a great share of the success of enforcement depends upon a well-informed public. In fact, pollutants respect no city or State boundaries and for that reason we have crossed both to present this statement.

The Gary chamber and its committees are available to continue to cooperate locally, and regionally in the proper steps necessary to rid our air of pollution.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our concern and our willingness to help.


MIDWEST COAL PRODUCERS INSTITUTE, INC. This statement is made on behalf of the Midwest Coal Producers Institute, Inc., an association of the coal operators of Illinois, Indiana, and west Kentucky. My name is James R. Jones. I am combustion engineer for Peabody Coal Co., a coal producer engaged in mining coal in Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Western Kentucky, Ohio, and Alabama. I have been engaged in air pollution control matters for the past 18 years, and currently am a member of various technical committees relating to the control of air pollution for American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Air Pollution Control Association, Midwestern Air Pollution Prevention Association, National Coal Association, and Bituminous Coal Research,

The coal industry supports the directive in the Clean Air Act relative to the need for research into means of reducing the sulfur content of fuels. Modern day coal preparation technology reduces sulfur but does not eliminate it. To date our cleaning or processing plants can only remove a portion of that sulfur in coal which is found in the heavy, banded pyritic form. We cannot remove that portion of sulfur which is chemically part of the coal structure itself.

The coal industry has for the past 6 years jointly sponsored with the Edison Electric Institute and the Association of Edison Illuminating Cos. research into means of decreasing sulfur in coal. We request that the attached documents ("Liberation of Pyrite from Steam Coals" by Richard A. Glenn and Robert D. Harris of Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Commodore Hotel, June 11-15, 1961, New York, N.Y., and “Progress Report on EEI-AEIC-BCR Cooperative Research Program on Control of Sulfur Oxides in Flue Gases” reprinted from Edison Electric Institute Bulletin, October 1963 issue, reprint distributed by Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.) be included in the minutes of this hearing. The other phase of this joint research project is an investigation into the methods for the removal of sulfur dioxide from flue gases (re: "Hearings Before a Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, 88th Cong., September 9, 10, and 11, 1963," pp. 270–278). Much basic knowledge has ben learned, but like others engaged in similar research, we have found no practical or economically feasible process for either reduction of sulfur in the coal or sulfur dioxide in the flue gases.

The effects of sulfur oxides (if any) on the health or welfare of persons should also be thoroughly investigated and the results made available.

The majority of coals mined in the Middle West and marketed in this area have sulfur content in the 2.5- to 3.5-percent range after cleaning in the preparation plant at the mine. Legislative restriction of sulfur content that precedes technical knowledge for compliance or development of effective and practical control devices would have a serious economic effect, not only on the consumer but on the mining area in which the coal is produced.

LIBERATION OF PYRITE FROM STEAM COALS ? (Richard A. Glenn, Manager, Chemical Division, and Robert D. Harris, Project

Engineer, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.) New methods are needed for reducing the sulfur content of steam coals below that now attainable by conventional coal cleaning processes. Such methods are

1 Presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Commo. dore Hotel, June 11-15, 1961, New York, N.Y.

of interest to powerplant operators because of the close relation of the sulfur content of steam plant fuels to thermal efficiencies, to plant maintenance costs, and to air pollution control.

At present, the methods available for the removal of sulfur dioxide from stack gases are based on wet scrubbing procedures and are economically unattractive to powerplant operators. Consequently, alternative methods for controlling sulfur dioxide emissions are being considered, particularly methods for reducing the amount of sulfur in coal prior to its being burned.

In a recent review of the possibilities for removing a greater proportion of the sulfur from steam coals, Rose and Glenn concluded that the scientific knowledge available on coal cleaning did not hold definite promise for new and economical processes for further reduction in the sulfur content of coal.

This paper presents a discussion of the progress being achieved in an effort to expand our knowledge of the nature and occurrence of sulfur in bituminous coals and to develop new methods for its removal.

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Sulfur occurs in coal in three principal forms: organic, pyritic, and sulfate. The amount of sulfate sulfur in freshly mined coal is normally small and of little significance. The organic sufur in coal is more or less uniformly distributed throughout the coal substance in molecular combination and cannot be removed even partially without materially altering the nature of the coal substance. The pyritic sulfur, however, exists primarily in the coal substance as discrete particles which vary in size from seam to seam and from mine to mine. In some coals, part of the pyritic sulfur can be removed by conventional coal cleaning processes. In others, most of the pyritic particles are so small and so well distributed throughout the coal substance that they cannot be removed appreciably by available commercial cleaning methods.


Pulverized coal (70 to 90 percent minus 200 mesh) is being burned by the electric utilities in increasing quantities.

Modification of the pulverization process offers a promising means of reducing the sulfur content of coal prior to its being burned. For this to be possible, however, practical methods are needed (a) for liberating the pyrite present in coals, and (b) for removing the pyrite once it has been liberated. This is believed possible if advantage is taken of the differences in properties of pyrite and of the coal substance.

Development of new methods for removing greater quantities of sulfur from coals is dependent upon an increased understanding of the nature and occurrence of the pyrite in individual coals. Modern microscopic techniques in conjunction with chemical analysis affords a means of expanding of our knowledge of pyrite in coals and should be of considerable value in the development of new and improved sulfur-removal processes.

Accordingly, a laboratory investigation of the nature and mode of occurrence of pyrite in five selected high-sulfur bituminous coals has been undertaken together with an experimental study of the liberation of pyrite by selective pulverization in various types of grinding equipment.


Selection of coals for laboratory investigation

In the selection of coals for use in this investigation, several factors other than sulfur content were considered. These included: the areal extent of the coal bed, the estimated reserves, the current production from that particular bed, and the life expectancy of the mine and of neighboring mines operating in the same bed. On the basis of these factors five coals were selected for study; they are listed in table I. Procedure for collection of coal samples for investigation

At least 1,000 pounds of run-of-mine coal, representing production of one full shift, were collected from each sampling location by a sampling team using standardized procedures. Each sample as collected was placed in polyethylene bags inside 50-gallon steel drums and shipped to the laboratory for analysis and crushing to minus one-half inch in size.

Characterization and analysis of coal samples

Each sample of coal collected for study was subjected to proximate analysis and to analysis for forms of sulfur. The resultant data are also presented in table I.

In addition, the size distribution of the pyrite particles in each coal sample was determined by microscopic examination of briquettes prepared under pressure at moderate elevated temperatures. The briquettes were prepared from 12 by 0 inches coal mixed with carnauba wax binder. The top surfaces of the briquette were polished and analyzed microscopically using a micrometer eyepiece. A mechanical stage permitted regular series of traverses to be made across the polished section. The percentage distribution of pyrite particles in various size ranges from less than 5 microns to greater than 250 microns was determined for each coal. The resultant data on the relative weight-percent of pyrite appearing in each size range are presented in figure 1. Experimental pulverization of coals

After each coal has been fully characterized by the common laboratory procedures and by microscopic examination, experimental pulverization tests were conducted. Each coal after initial crushing to 142 by 0 inch was subjected to further pulverization by (a) impact-shearing, (b) impact, and (c) air-jet impingement. Each product was then analyzed for degree of pulverization and for distribution of pyritic sulfur and for degree of liberation of pyrite.

Pulverization by impact-shearing.-Samples of each test coal crushed to 12 by 0 inch were further pulverized to about 60 percent minus 200 mesh in a laboratory-type hammer mill that is referred to in this report as the "Hammer Mill." In these tests, the mill was fitted with 59/16-inch T-head swing hammers and a herringbone screen having 0.013-inch slots separated by 116-inch bridges ; and the rotor speed was 14,000 revolutions per minute.

Pulrrrization by im pact.-Further pulverization of the 13- by 0-inch samples of experimental coals by impact was done in a commercially arailable "impact mill."

In the general operation of this type of mill, the material to be pulverized enters through an inlet onto the surface of a spinning rotor and rapidly slides outward between an upper and a bottom plate in a thin even stream. At the periphery of the spinning rotor each particle is struck by a row of impactors, the full shock of the impact shattering and accelerating the material to a high velocity. These particles having acquired high kinetic energy then shatter themselves against stationary impactors in the target area near the edge of the rotor.

The mill used in these experiments employed two concentric counter-rotating horizontal rotors. Vertical impactor pins were mounted on the periphery of each rotor.

Approximately 40 pounds of each coal were pulverized by one pass and by two passes through the impact mill with the 24-inch upper rotor operating at 3,000 revolutions per minute and the 27-inch lower rotor at 2,800 rernlutions per minute and at feed rates in the range of 2,160–8,820 pounds per hour, de pending upon the coal being pulverized.

Pulverization by air jet impingement.--Samples of the experimental coals were pulverized further by air jet impingement using an air jet pulverizing mill which is referred to below as "air jet mill."

In the regular operation of this fluid energy mill coal is pulverized by head-on collisions of particles against themselves at high speed. This is accomplished continuously by entrainment of coal in directly opposing streams of air issuing from nozzles. Through control of the air velocity downstream from the point of impact of the two opposing air streams, particles of desired size are carried upward into a classifier. Particles which are grossly oversize, since they do not more upward at the controlled air velocity, are returned to the pulverizing zone for further reduction. The smaller particles are further sized in the air classifier section of the mill; the over-sized particles are thrown to the outer periphery by centrifugal force, and returned to the pulverizing zone for further reduction. Particles of desired size are conveyed upward by the air and out of the mill. Control of particle size is achieved by control of the air pressure on the nozzles, the speed of rotation of the classifier blades, and the air velocity within the classifier.

In the present studies, pulverization tests were conducted using both two-gun and one-gun air jet mills.

« ForrigeFortsett »