of pan linings, and scaling. In spite of these problems, we have had 99% availability and 90% removal of SO2. All in all, some 27 scrubbers have been in operation and are working successfully. There is no question that reuse or resale of trapped pollutants is a desirable objective. However, this objective does not always meet the test of pricing in the marketplace. Our work in the National Association of Manufacturers' Solid Waste Committee shows that we face a problem of even greater proportions when we talk about recovering materials from municipal solid waste. A prime factor in the sluggish expansion of resource-recovery activities is that the resources recovered are not always salable in the open marketplace. A second factor in the open-marketplace concept of selling recovered pollutants is that the pollution source becomes involved in a "scrap" business that he knows nothing about. This is just one more reason pollution sources resist pollution control so vehemently. To summarize, then, we believe SO2 limestone scrubbers are a proven concept, design, and commercially-operative system. There is no question that there will be third-, fourth-, and fifth-generation systems which in the final analysis will become more efficient and more cost effective. Next, throw-away in many cases is more economical then recovery. Coupled with a safe disposal site, it becomes the more desirable system. Very often, invention takes place in the fourth or fifth generation to force a decision as to which direction to go. What comes to mind is the invention of stainless steel razor blades which, after some 75 years, have made it desirable to use throw-away razors. In the case of SO2 scrubber systems, we can expect to see invention take place in the future that will cause one or more currently-available systems to become the most desirable or to be obsolesced by a new technology. T. A. Delgiudice Research-Cottrell Bound Brook, N.J. 08805
Nuclear radiation Dear Sir: Reference is made to your recent Current (€S&T, August 1976, p 730) on our study of atmospheric tellurium-132 and iodine-132. The initial radionuclide sampling was performed in Pullman, Washington, a site distant from any obvious sources, to determine the background environmental levels of 132Te and 1321 in both air and precipitation. These early measurements were used to calculate washout coefficients and to verify the appropriateness of our sampling and analysis procedures. Once the overall technique was experimentally tested, air samples were collected at several monitoring stations located in the lower Yakima River Valley of south-central Washington. The proximity of the Hanford nuclear facility also provided an opportunity
to determine if the reactor and chemical reprocessing operations are a significant source of radiotellurium. During the sampling period of April 18 to June 18, 1976, atmospheric concentrations of 132Teranged from 0.20-21.20 pCi/m3. However, dispersion modeling with the available meteorological data for the Hanford area and the measured concentrations did not implicate the Hanford Atomic Products Reservationas a significant source of radiotellurium. In fact, the experimental 132Te/1311 ratios indicated that the source was a Chinese atmospheric nuclear test conducted last January. Therefore, the source of the radiotellurium and its iodine-I 32 daughter during the study period was stratospheric
fallout from the latest Chinese nuclear test in the atmosphere. It should be emphasized that this investigation was performed over a relatively short period of time. Consequently, further studies will be required to assess more accurately the relationships between specific sources of radiotellurium and concomitant atmospheric levels. Although neither 132Tenor 1321 is present at high enough levels to be a short-term health hazard, both of these radionuclides should be considered when evaluating the chronic effects of nuclear atmospheric contamination. S. 0. Farwell, S. J. Fernandez Washington State University Pullman. Wash. 99163
Everybody's bugging you to solve your emissions problem. But who can you bug? Bug us. A lot of people in the aluminum, chemical, glass, steel and p u l ~ and paper industries have! Other applicat i o n s i n c l u d e i n d u s t r i a l c o a l - f i r e d power b o i l e r s and c h e m i c a l waste incinerators.
Air Pollution Control System The "HYDRO-PRECIPITROL" system combines the advantages of wet scrubbirg technology with the advantages of an integrated, wettedwall electrostatic precipitator. This highly efficient system removes large particulates first in a low-energy scrubbing process. Simultaneousiy the wet electrostatic precipitator collects particulates in the submicron range and acid mists from the emission stream.
-
Light Compact T h e s y s t e m i s s o l i g h t w e i g h t a n d compact that it can be assembled and statically tested at the factory before delivery. Test units are available for on-site evaluation. Call or w r i t e F l u i d - I o n i c Systems now and bug us f o r answers to your specific emissions control problem. It could save you money in the long run.
Fluid-Ionic Systems a division of Dart Industries Inc. Chemical Group 2525 East Magnolia P.O. Box 2 0 6 8 4 , Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Phone: 602-275-6301 "HYDRO-PRECiPiTROL" is a trademark of Dart industries Inc., which I S the soie and exclusive licensed manufacturer and distributor of the "HYDRO-PRECIPITROL" from Seversky Electronatom Corooration of New York. CIRCLE 19 ON READER SERVICE CARD
Volume 10, Number 13, December 1976
1185
