Literature Review of Emissions and Environmental Effects of Coal

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Literature Review of Emissions and Environmental Effects of Coal Literature review on atmospheric emissions and associated environmental effects from conventional thermal electricity generation Prepared for: Clean Air Strategic Alliance Electricity Project Team Prepared by: Heidi Swanson March 12, 2008 Table of Contents 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Objective and summary of literature review....................................................... 4 1.2 Literature search methodology ........................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles.................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Grey Literature Reports .............................................................................. 5 1.3 Organization of the literature review document ................................................. 6 1.4 Summary of findings and key studies................................................................. 7 1.4.1 Mercury....................................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Sulphur dioxide........................................................................................... 8 1.4.3 Nitrogen oxides........................................................................................... 9 1.4.4 Particulate matter ........................................................................................ 9 1.4.5 List 2 substances (PAHs, particulate matter, trace metals, benzene, fluoride/fluoric acid, hydrochloric acid)................................................................... 10 2 Priority substances .................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Mercury............................................................................................................. 13 2.1.1 Emissions, atmospheric deposition, and modeling................................... 13 2.1.2 Environmental effects and biomonitoring ................................................ 29 2.1.3 Regulation, policy, and reduction technologies........................................ 38 2.2 Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides ................................................................ 47 2.2.1 Emissions, atmospheric deposition, and modeling................................... 47 2.2.2 Environmental effects and biomonitoring ................................................ 52 2.2.2.1 Acidification ......................................................................................... 54 2.2.2.2 Nitrogen saturation and eutrophication................................................. 58 2.2.3 Regulation, policy, and abatement technologies....................................... 67 2.3 Particulate matter .............................................................................................. 72 2.3.1 Emissions, atmospheric deposition, and modeling................................... 72 2.3.2 Environmental effects and biomonitoring ................................................ 81 2.3.3 Regulation, policy, and abatement technologies....................................... 82 2.4 Carbon dioxide.................................................................................................. 84 2.4.1 Emissions, regulation, policy, and reduction technologies....................... 84 2.5 Multiple pollutant studies ................................................................................. 88 2.5.1 Emissions, atmospheric deposition and modelling................................... 88 2.5.2 Environmental effects and biomonitoring .............................................. 105 2.5.3 Regulations, guidelines, and abatement technologies............................. 112 3 List 2 Substances..................................................................................................... 117 3.1 Emissions, atmospheric deposition, and modeling......................................... 117 3.1.1 Trace metals............................................................................................ 117 3.1.2 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)............................................. 132 3.1.3 Dioxins and furans.................................................................................. 140 3.1.4 Fluoride................................................................................................... 143 3.1.5 Hydrogen chloride .................................................................................. 144 3.1.6 Radionuclides.......................................................................................... 145 3.2 Envionmental effects, ecotoxicity, and biomonitoring................................... 149 3.2.1 Trace metals............................................................................................ 149 2 3.2.2 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.......................................................... 159 3.2.3 Dioxins and furans.................................................................................. 164 3.2.4 Fluoride................................................................................................... 164 3.2.5 Radionuclides.......................................................................................... 167 3.3 Regulations, policies, and abatement tecnologies........................................... 168 4 Additional references on emissions........................................................................ 170 4.1 Primary publications....................................................................................... 170 4.2 Grey literature................................................................................................. 187 3 1 Introduction 1.1 Objective and summary of literature review The objective of this review is to report on recent research (published since January 2002) that addresses: 1) atmospheric emissions from thermal electricity generation; and, 2) the direct and indirect environmental effects of these emissions. As well, published changes in environmental standards, guidelines, and emissions abatement technology are presented. This information will be used by CASA (Clean Air Strategic Alliance) as part of a five-year review of the Air Emissions Management Framework that was published in November 2003. Although all of the abstracts presented in this report were screened for relevance, no attempt was made to critically evaluate the quality of the science. Some of the papers included in the report are quite broad in scope (e.g., include pollutant sources other than thermal electricity). In these cases, an attempt was made to highlight relvant portions of the abstracts in italics. The vast majority of papers published on thermal electricity generation since 2002 have been focused on pollutant reduction, pollutant monitoring, and regulatory evaluations. There has been considerable emphasis on research related to mercury emissions and abatement. Recent studies on direct and indirect environmental effects of air emissions from thermal electricity generation were primarily limited to local and regional studies (especially in eastern Europe and Greece) and to toxicity research on some List 2 substances. This was true regardless of the database or search engine employed (e.g., Web of Science, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Google Scholar, Science Direct). For certain pollutants, especially for particulate matter and PAHs, recent research was primarily directed toward human health effects; these abstracts were screened out of this report. Further investigation revealed that the bulk of research projects relating to environmental effects of thermal electricity generation were published between 1985 and 1999, and that these findings appear to be so well-documented that focus has now shifted to pollutant reduction. As such, part of this review is focused on technology and standard/guideline changes that have evolved since 2002. Many researchers are now conducting “life cycle” emissions studies, where the total emissions of electricity generation (including upstream processes such as mining and fuel transport) are accounted for and evaluated in economic and environmental terms. No attempt was made to search for new or “emerging” pollutants from thermal electricity generation. Despite this, a number of studies on radionuclide emissions were encountered during the course of the review; these are included in the section that presents results for List 2 substances. 1.2 Literature search methodology 1.2.1 Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles There are many search engines and databases available for searching peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, and book chapters. For environmental research, Scopus, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, and Web of Science are among the most popular search engines. To test the effectiveness of various search engines and databases within search engines, fixed sequences of Boolean operators (e.g., air emission* AND environ* effect* AND (thermal electric* OR coal-fired power plant* OR power plant*) were entered into the “advanced search” window of a variety of different search engine/database combinations. Results were evaluated for number of hits, relevance, ease of follow-on searching (e.g., linked cited reference search, related articles), and export options to reference software. The “biological sciences” database within Cambridge Scientific Abstracts was chosen as the primary vehicle for
Recommended publications
  • POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Potential Paradise Plant Retirement Project Number: 2018-34 POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky Prepared by: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Knoxville, Tennessee FEBRUARY 2019 To request further information, contact: Ashley Pilakowski NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-632-2256 E-mail: [email protected] This page intentionally left blank Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Related Environmental Reviews .............................................................................................. 4 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................................ 5 1.5 Public and Agency Involvement ............................................................................................... 5 1.6 Necessary Permits or Licenses and Consultation Requirements ............................................ 6 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Heavy Metal Pollution and Ecological Assessment Around the Jinsha Coal-Fired Power Plant (China)
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Heavy Metal Pollution and Ecological Assessment around the Jinsha Coal-Fired Power Plant (China) Xianfei Huang ID , Jiwei Hu *, Fanxin Qin, Wenxuan Quan, Rensheng Cao, Mingyi Fan ID and Xianliang Wu Guizhou Provincial Key Laboratory for Environment, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China; [email protected] (X.H.); [email protected] (F.Q.); [email protected] (W.Q.); [email protected] (R.C.); [email protected] (M.F.); [email protected] (X.W.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-851-8670-0996; Fax: +86-851-8670-2710 Received: 4 November 2017; Accepted: 13 December 2017; Published: 18 December 2017 Abstract: Heavy metal pollution is a serious problem worldwide. In this study, 41 soil samples and 32 cabbage samples were collected from the area surrounding the Jinsha coal-fired power plant (JCFP Plant) in Guizhou Province, southwest China. Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cu and Cr concentrations in soil samples and cabbage samples were analysed to study the pollution sources and risks of heavy metals around the power plant. The results indicate that the JCFP Plant contributes to the Pb, Cd, As, Hg, Cu, and Cr pollution in nearby soils, particularly Hg pollution. Cu and Cr in soils from both croplands and forestlands in the study area derive mainly from crustal materials or natural processes. Pb, Cd and As in soils from croplands arise partly through anthropogenic activities, but these elements in soils from forestlands originate mainly from crustal materials or natural processes. Hg pollution in soils from both croplands and forestlands is caused mainly by fly ash from the JCFP Plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Fossil Plant to Comply with the CCR Rule Requirements
    Cumberland Fossil Fossil Plant Plant CUMBERLAND CITY,CITY, TENNESSEETENNESSEE QUICKQUICK FACTSFACTS OH IN IL WV KY MO VA TN NC AR SC MS AL GA EPA CCR RULERule Groundwater GROUNDWATER Monitoring MONITORING for 2019 Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by TVA for the Output: 2,470 Megawatts TVACumberland as required Fossil Plant,by the as U.S. required Environmental by the U.S. Environmental Protection ProtectionAgency (EPA) Agency (16Output: billion 2,470 kilowatt-hours) Megawatts (16 billion Coal(EPA) CoalCombustion Combustion Residuals Residuals (CCR)(CCR) RuleRule. for The the 2019EPA calendar published year. the The EPA kilowatt-hours) published the CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- Number of homes powered: CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- 1.1 MillionNumber of homes powered: fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been released to fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been 1.1 Million groundwater from active, inactive and new CCR impoundments, as well as active Wet to Dry / Dewatered releasedand new CCR to groundwater. landfills. This fact sheet addresses the EPA CCR ConversionWet to Dry /Program: Dewatered Activities Rule groundwater monitoring only. underwayConversion Program: Complete The CCR Rule establishes multiple phases of protective groundwater monitoring for fly ash and gypsum. Bottom ash Inincluding addition baseline to ongoing sampling, groundwater Detection Monitoring monitoring and Assessment required under Monitoring. TVAdewatering Wide CCR tank-based Conversion solution Program Total Spend: Corrective action may be necessary at the completion of this process.
    [Show full text]
  • (2019) EPA's Final
    Attachment to Part B Comments of Earthjustice et al., EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0173 Assessment Monitoring Outcomes (2019) EPA’s Final Coal Ash Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 257.94(e)(3), requires the owners or operators of existing Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) units to prepare a notification stating that an assessment monitoring program has been established if it is determined that a statistically significant increase over background levels for one or more of the constituents listed in appendix III of the CCR Rule has occurred, without an alleged alternate source demonstration. This table identifies the CCR surface impoundments known to be in assessment monitoring and required to identify any constituent(s) in appendix IV detected at statistically significant levels (SSL) above groundwater protection standards and post notice of the assessment monitoring outcome per 40 C.F.R. § 257.95. The table includes the surface impoundments that were required to post notice of appendix IV exceedance(s), as applicable, or elected to do so as of the time of this assessment monitoring outcomes review (summer 2019). To the best of our knowledge, neither EPA nor any other entity has attempted to assemble this information and make it public. Note that this document is not confirming that the industry notifications or assessments were compliant with the CCR Rule or that additional units may not belong on this list. Assessment Monitoring Outcome # of Surface Impoundments Appendix IV Exceedance(s) 214 Appendix IV Exceedance(s), alleged Alternate Source Demonstration 16 No Appendix IV Exceedance Reported 64 Total 294 Name of Plant Appendix IV Operator CCR Unit or Site Exceedance(s) Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Ash Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Emergency Overflow Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Recirculating Pond Yes Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Substances in the Environment Toxse 2017
    Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry Al PAH Mn ? Cu Zn Cd Cr Pb Ni VIII International Scientific Conference TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT TOXSE 2017 Krakow, Poland, 14-15 September 2017 Book of Abstracts Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry University of Agriculture in Krakow VIII International Scientific Conference TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT Krakow, Poland, 14-15 September 2017 Book of Abstracts Edited by: Tomáš Lošák, Monika Tabak, Dawid Tabak, Jacek Antonkiewicz Computer type setting: Monika Tabak Copyright © 2017 by Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, University of Agriculture in Krakow Edition: 150 copies Printed by: AlejeStudio, Druk Cyfrowy/Druk Wielkoformatowy/Studio Graficzne, Al. Juliusza Słowackiego 1, 31-159 Kraków The abstracts have not been peer-reviewed; only minor editorial changes were introduced. Authors are responsible for the content and linguistic correctness of the abstracts. ISBN 978-83-948965-0-8 CONFERENCE ORGANISER Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry of the University of Agriculture in Krakow PATRONAGE Prof. Włodzimierz Sady, PhD, DSc, Eng. – Rector of the University of Agriculture in Krakow, Poland Paweł Ciećko, MSc – Inspector of Environmental Protection of Malopolska Province, Poland Commision "Soil and Human Health" – Polish Society of Soil Science PARTNERS Polish Society of Ecological Engineering Krakow Branch Department of Agroenvironmental Chemistry and Plant Nutrition, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Department of Environmentalistics and Natural Resources, Mendel University in Brno Department of Agrochemistry, Soil Science, Microbiology and Plant Nutrition, Mendel University in Brno Institute of Highway Technology and Innovation (IATI) - Competence Center: Technologies Helping Out Natural Management of Organic and Mineral Waste (TWPZO) SPONSORS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • EMISSIONS of MERCURY by PLANT (Based Upon Plant Reported Fuel Use and Mercury Tests)
    EMISSIONS OF MERCURY BY PLANT (Based upon plant reported fuel use and mercury tests) PLANT STATE PLANT TONS STATE TONS Monticello TX 1.04870 5.023 Martin Lake TX 0.68280 5.023 Limestone TX 0.48300 5.023 Big Brown TX 0.43450 5.023 Pirkey TX 0.40620 5.023 Sam Seymour TX 0.38640 5.023 J.T. Deely TX 0.25090 5.023 W A Parish TX 0.25080 5.023 Welsh TX 0.21940 5.023 Sandow TX 0.14470 5.023 Harrington Station TX 0.14190 5.023 Gibbons Creek TX 0.13210 5.023 J.K. Spruce TX 0.12040 5.023 Oklaunion TX 0.08839 5.023 Tolk Station TX 0.08001 5.023 Coleto Creek TX 0.07194 5.023 San Miguel TX 0.06693 5.023 TNP-One TX 0.01329 5.023 Hom er City PA 0.92600 4.979 Keystone PA 0.92570 4.979 Montour PA 0.60930 4.979 Bruce Mansfield PA 0.50400 4.979 Shawville PA 0.46400 4.979 Conemaugh PA 0.24730 4.979 Brunner Island PA 0.21820 4.979 Hatfield's Ferry PA 0.20700 4.979 1 EMISSIONS OF MERCURY BY PLANT (Based upon plant reported fuel use and mercury tests) PLANT STATE PLANT TONS STATE TONS Armstrong PA 0.15340 4.979 Cheswick PA 0.11860 4.979 Sunbury PA 0.11810 4.979 New Castle PA 0.10430 4.979 Portland PA 0.06577 4.979 Johnsonburg Mill PA 0.04678 4.979 Titus PA 0.03822 4.979 Cambria CoGen PA 0.03499 4.979 Colver Power Project PA 0.03459 4.979 Elrama PA 0.02900 4.979 Seward PA 0.02633 4.979 Martins Creek PA 0.02603 4.979 Hunlock Power Station PA 0.02580 4.979 Eddystone PA 0.02231 4.979 Mitchell (PA) PA 0.01515 4.979 AES BV Partners Beaver Valley PA 0.01497 4.979 Cromby Generating Station PA 0.00086 4.979 Northampton Generating Company L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Brochure About Rybnik and Lower Secondary School No 18 in Rybnik
    Zespół Szkół nr 2 Gimnazjum Dwujęzyczne nr 18 w Rybniku E-brochure about Rybnik and Lower Secondary School no 18 in Rybnik This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. There is a school in this building since 15th March 1935. At first, it was a primary school, but during the Second World War the building served as hospital for soldiers. After war, there was a primary and a sec- ondary school only for girls in the building. Since 1963, both boys and girls can attend the secondary school. Our school has existed since 2008. Then, a unit of two schools – Secondary School no 2 and Lower Secondary School no 18 was created. There are about 95 students in the lower secondary school. We learn in bilingual classes, where apart from five lessons of English a week, we have history and IT lessons taught partly in English. Apart from English language, we learn German as well. In the whole Unit of Schools there are about 50 teachers, 22 classes and 700 students. It is possible to learn English, German, French, Italian or Russian. High school classes have specializations, such as maths and physics, biology and chemistry, history and maths, maths and geography. Moreover, students of second year can choose classes of dancing or swimming as their PE lessons. Virtual tour of our school This is our assembly hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Return Receipt Requested the Hon. Regina Mccarthy, Administrator US
    January 14, 2016 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested The Hon. Regina McCarthy, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Mr. Robert J. Martineau, Jr., Commissioner Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd Floor Nashville, TN 37243 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Mr. Bill Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 RE: 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, for Violations of the Clean Water Act by Tennessee Valley Authority–TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant (CUF), NPDES No. TN0005789 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to notify the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) of ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) at the Cumberland Fossil Plant (“the Cumberland Plant”) in Cumberland City, Tennessee, owned and operated by 1371158_2 TVA-Cumberland Fossil Plant January 14, 2016 Page 2 of 35 TVA. The Sierra Club (“the Conservation Group”) and its members have identified serious and ongoing unpermitted violations of the CWA at the Cumberland Plant. TVA has caused and continues to cause unauthorized point source discharges to Tennessee waters and navigable waters of the U.S., and to cause unpermitted pollutant discharges to flow from the coal ash disposal areas at the Cumberland Plant directly into the Cumberland River, as well as into groundwater that is hydrologically connected to the Cumberland River.
    [Show full text]
  • Facts and Figures on a Fossil Fuel 2015
    1 COAL ATLAS Facts and figures on a fossil fuel 2015 HOW WE ARE COOKING THE CLIMATE 2 IMPRINT The COAL ATLAS 2015 is jointly published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, Germany, and Friends of the Earth International, London, UK Chief executive editor: Dr. Stefanie Groll, Heinrich Böll Foundation Executive editor: Lili Fuhr, Heinrich Böll Foundation Executive editor: Tina Löffelsend, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland Managing editor: Dietmar Bartz Art director: Ellen Stockmar English editor: Paul Mundy Research editors: Ludger Booms, Heinrich Dubel Proofreader: Maria Lanman Contributors: Cindy Baxter, Benjamin von Brackel, Heidi Feldt, Markus Franken, Lili Fuhr, Stefanie Groll, Axel Harneit-Sievers, Heike Holdinghausen, Arne Jungjohann, Eva Mahnke, Tim McDonnell, Vladimir Slivyak Editorial responsibility (V. i. S. d. P.): Annette Maennel, Heinrich Böll Foundation This publication is written in International English. First English edition, November 2015 Production manager: Elke Paul, Heinrich Böll Foundation Printed by Phoenix Print GmbH, Würzburg, Germany Climate-neutral printing on 100 percent recycled paper for the block and 60 percent for the wrapper. This material is licensed under Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported“ (CC BY-SA 3.0). For the licence agreement, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, and a summary (not a substitute) at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en. FOR ORDERS AND DOWNLOAD Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Schumannstraße 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany, www.boell.de/coalatlas Friends of the Earth International, Nieuwe Looiersstraat 31, 1017 VA Amsterdam, The Netherlands, www.foei.org Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Versand, Am Köllnischen Park 1, 10179 Berlin, www.bund.net/coalatlas INNENTITEL 3 COAL ATLAS Facts and figures on a fossil fuel 2015 4 INHALT TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 IMPRINT 18 HEALTH FINE DUST, FAT PRICE 6 INTRODUCTION Smoke and fumes from coal-fired power plants make us ill.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country
    September 2005 Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country NCPIRG Education Fund Made in the U.S.A. Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 NCPIRG Education Fund Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with NCPIRG Education Fund. © 2005, NCPIRG Education Fund The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director at NCPIRG Education Fund, and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at NCPIRG Education Fund, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website or contact us at: NCPIRG Education Fund 112 S. Blount St, Ste 102 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 833-2070 www.ncpirg.org Made in the U.S.A. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants ..................................................... 6 The Bush Administration’s Mercury Regulations ................................................................... 8 Findings: Power Plant Mercury Emissions ........................................................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by State........................................................................ 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by County and Zip Code ............................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Facility.................................................................... 15 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Company
    [Show full text]
  • 1A Lista Ref CBKK Ang 2005
    WORKS DONE IN THE YEARS 2005 – 2011 Page 1 Tarnowskie Góry Capital Group SEFAKO LIST OF MORE IMPORTANT PROJECTS’ REALIZED IN 2011 YEAR Boiler Department - Documentation workshop - mounting the boiler pressure parts CKTI 75 No. 3 for Soda Poland CIECH EC. Janikosoda - Documentation workshop - mounting replacement furnace and boiler funnel OP 650B No. 5 in the El. P ątnów associated with development of NOx reduction system. - The supervision of construction and installation of internal fittings of the boiler drum OP 650 in El. Łaziska - The supervision of construction and installation of internal fittings of the boiler drum 650- 060 OP No. 2 in El. Jaworzno III - Design and documentation workshop and assembly division bundles the water heater, boiler OP650 El. Łaziska associated with development of NOx reduction system. - Documentation of modernization BFB 100 boiler water heater in the EC Czechnica - Technical Analysis of the causes of failure of high pressure boilers installed in the plant Koksownia Przyja źń - Update DTR OP 650 boiler including biomass co-firing - for El. Ostroł ęka - Documentation upgrading the water heater boiler WP 70 No. 5 in the EC B ędzin - The project to modernize and adapt to natural gas combustion boiler OP 140 No. 7 in EC Będzin - Documentation workshop - installation of biomass boiler pressure of 90 t/ h for EC Elbl ąg - Documentation workshop and assembly, and the concession superheater bundle modernization of the K-11 in Siekierki - Workshop and assembly documentation and concession modernization of primary steam superheater III boiler No. 8 and a steam secondary superheater III boiler No. 5 El.
    [Show full text]
  • Tri-2008.By-State.Pdf
    Fluoride Action Network Hydrogen Fluoride Information from the Toxic Release Inventory – 2008 Available in html at http://fluoridealert.org/tri-2008.html It’s important to note that not all industries or sources that release fluoride or fluorine into the environment are included in the U.S. EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). For example, the toxic fluoridating agents used in public drinking water fluoridation schemes, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and silicofluoride (Na2SiF6), (or their various other names, fluosilicic acid, sodium fluosilicate, etc.), are not listed. These are toxic wastes captured in the ‘pollution controls’ from the mining of phosphate rock. The major use of the mined phosphate is for agricultural fertilizer. Also not listed in TRI are uranium and radionuclides, which are also in phosphate rock and their mined products. The 2008 TRI data for releases for hydrogen fluoride was 64,972,078 pounds, and for fluorine it was 91,874 pounds. The releases are generally self-reported, not measured, by industry. 2008 is the latest year with all data (the 2009 database is not complete). Below are the 2008 TRI data for Hydrogen Fluoride sorted by: Table 1. Industry category for releases Table 2. State ranking for releases Table 3. State releases (including Fluorine releases) by industry/town/county TABLE 1: Hydrogen Fluoride releases in 2008 as reported by the Toxic Release Inventory Category Pounds Released Coal-fired electric utilities (TRI code 221112) 50,917,693 Hazardous Waste/Solvent Recovery 5,303,483 Primary Metals 3,470,571
    [Show full text]