DOCSLIB.ORG

POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 ........................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Description of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Coal Combustion Residual Activities to Occur with All Alternatives .................................. 8 2.1.2 Alternative A – The No Action Alternative ......................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Alternative B – Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .......................................... 9 2.1.3.1 Decommissioning, Deactivation, and Decontamination Activities .............................. 9 2.1.3.2 CCR Activities ........................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.1.2 Climate ...................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 15 3.1.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 15 3.1.2.2 Alternative B: Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .................................... 17 3.2 Surface Water ........................................................................................................................ 18 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 18 3.2.1.1 Surface Water – Green River and Jacobs Creek ..................................................... 18 3.2.1.2 Existing PAF Wastewater Streams ........................................................................... 19 3.2.1.3 Coal Combustion Residuals ...................................................................................... 21 3.2.1.4 Other Surface Runoff ................................................................................................ 22 3.2.1.5 Paradise Combined Cycle Plant ............................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 23 3.2.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 23 3.2.2.2 Alternative B: Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .................................... 23 3.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 24 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 24 3.3.1.1 Physiographic Setting and Regional Aquifer ............................................................ 24 3.3.1.2 Groundwater Use ...................................................................................................... 25 3.3.1.3 Groundwater Quality ................................................................................................. 26 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 26 3.3.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 26 3.3.2.2 Alternative B: Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .................................... 26 3.4 Aquatic Ecology ..................................................................................................................... 27 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 27 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 28 3.4.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 28 3.4.2.2 Alternative B: Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .................................... 28 Final Environmental Assessment i Potential Paradise Fossil Plant Retirement Environmental Assessment 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................... 28 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 28 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 32 3.5.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 32 3.5.2.2 Alternative B: Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .................................... 32 3.6 Solid and Hazardous Waste .................................................................................................. 32 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 32 3.6.1.1 Solid Waste ............................................................................................................... 32 3.6.1.2 Hazardous Waste ...................................................................................................... 33 3.6.1.3 Universal Waste ........................................................................................................ 34 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 34 3.6.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 34 3.6.2.2 Alternative B: Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .................................... 34 3.7 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................... 35 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 35 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 36 3.7.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 36 3.7.2.2 Alternative B: Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .................................... 37 3.8 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 37 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 37 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 38 3.8.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 38 3.8.2.2 Alternative B: Potential Retirement of Paradise Fossil Plant .................................... 38 3.9 Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 38 3.9.1 Affected Environment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Official Proceedings the International Water
    The Conference on Industrial Water OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS THE INTERNATIONAL WATER CONFERENCE® 71st ANNUAL MEETING October 24-28, 2010 The Crowne Plaza Riverwalk Hotel San Antonio, TX, USA Wayne E. Bernahl General Chair John T. Lucey, Jr., P.E. Michael C. Gottlieb Program Chair Marketing Chair Sponsored by Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania Incorporated 1880 Rights to reprint articles in this publication may be granted, provided that: written permission from the author and a statement of the prospective author’s intent are received by the IWC and that the IWC grants written permission to the prospective publisher. The opinions and findings expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the International Water Conference®, Advisory Council, or the Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania. © Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania Condensate Polishing Systems for Power Plants Session Chair: Robert Bartholomew, Sheppard T. Powell Associates LLC, Baltimore, MD Discussion Leader: Deborah Bloom, Nalco Company, Naperville, IL IWC Representative: David Simon, II, Cyrus Rice Water Consultants, Pittsburgh, PA Design Considerations for Condensate Polishing Off-Site Regeneration Gerald (Jerry) Alexander - Siemens Water Technologies, La Canada, CA IWC-10-01 Amine Form Operation of Deep Bed Condensate Polishing Ion Exchange Resins Lewis Crone - Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Waterford, CT IWC-10-02 A Report On Resin Separation and Backwash Efficiency of Mixed Bed Ion Exchange Resins William Moore - Aquatech, Canonsburg, PA; Bharathwaj Gopalakrishnan and Gary L. Foutch, School of Chemical Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK IWC-10-03 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Session Chair: Paul Pigeon, P.E., Golder Associates Inc., Lakewood, CO Discussion Leader: Ajit Ghorpade, N.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Smc Consortium Prequalification File
    _____________________ The Canadian Consortium Group SMC CONSORTIUM INC A Partner Of Choice April 20th, 2010 Subject : Pre-qualification document Dear Sirs, The present document is intended to demonstrate SMC Group’s renowned expertise in various fields. Accordingly, SMC Group wishes to express its keen interest in offering its technical assistance and would appreciate also, being considered for any future projects related to its expertise. SMC Group, a Canadian construction and consulting Strategic alliance teams, who has large experience in implementing projects worldwide. With a highly qualified professionals, SMC Group offers a wide scope of quality expertise with significant emphasis towards engineering, construction, transport, management and economics, agriculture&agri-food, power, chemical, oil&gas, pharmaceutical, environment, Water treatment, waste treatment, mining, telecommunication, infrastructure, financial analysis, training and other related fields. SMC Group offers its services in both English and French , enabling it to be very familiar with different situations in various parts of the world. Beside its strength in approach in project implementation whereby local partners are invited to fully participate in project activities . SMC Group is involved also in international networking as well in various new technology products supply as a trading activities. We hope that our pre-qualification document will eventually meet your approval and we wish to thank you for the opportunity to present you our credentials. With kind
    [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]
  • Filtration & Separation
    Filtration and Separation IIoT and Remote O&M Participants – Hot Topic Hour March 30, 2017 Overview Filtration and Separation IIoT and Remote O&M • Filtration and separation involves many variables. The applications are frequently critical to successful manufacturing of products and delivery of clean water. • The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) empowered by the Industrial Internet of Wisdom (IIoW) will have a $10 billion impact on the market size by 2026 and will divert another $10 billion from traditional market routes. • Sales of filtration and separation equipment and consumables will exceed $95 billion in 2026. Of this total $20 billion will be attributable to the impact of IIoT and Remote O&M. Filtration & Separation IIoT & Remote O&M Market Filtration & Separation IIoT & Remote O&M Market Segment $ billions Traditional Route to Market 75 New Route to Market 10 New Smart Revenues 10 Total 95 IIoT Impacted Market 20 Some Industries already moving Forward • There is already a substantial market in certain industries such as oil and gas, pulp and paper, and food processing. The IIoT & Remote O&M segment of the market will be growing by 13% per year over the next decade compared to just 3% for the rest of the industry. • There has been a great deal of analysis relative to the convergence of information technology and operations technology. Smart sensors, open platforms and improved data analytics are creating the equivalent of millions of continually updated white papers on the performance of individual components, sub systems, and systems. The use of subject matter experts has typically been addressed without regard to the importance of innovation.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Water Treatment for Fossil Fuel Power Generation
    WATER TREATMENT FOR FOSSIL FUEL POWER GENERATION Report No. COAL R300 DTI/Pub URN 06/705 January 2006 by Dr Alan Paton, Paul McCann and Nick Booth E.ON UK plc, Power Technology Centre, Ratcliffe on Soar, Nottingham, NG11 OEE Tel: 0115 936 2000 Fax: 0115 936 2711 www.eon-uk.com The work described in this report was carried out under contract as part of the DTI Cleaner Coal Technology Transfer Programme. The programme is managed by Future Energy Solutions. The views and judgements expressed in this report are those of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect those of the DTI or Future Energy Solutions First published 2005 © Crown copyright 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A ‘Technology Status Review of Water Treatment Associated with Fossil Fuel Based Power Generation and Related Processes’ has been completed for AEA Technology plc (AEAT), on behalf of the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The aims of the review were to:- • Assess objectively the current state of development and application of water treatment technologies relating to fossil fuel power generation world-wide. • Critically assess the strengths and shortcomings of existing technologies in relation to commercial or near-commercial needs and to provide information on manufacturers, suppliers, developers, consultants and major users. • Review current activities and capabilities of companies/organisations working in the water treatment technology sector, with particular emphasis on the UK. • Identify priority areas in which UK RD&D activities could/should be focused to meet future demands. • Recommend means for enhancing the market opportunities for UK companies and organisations specialising in water treatment technologies.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • International Water Conference®
    San Antonio Riverwalk International Water Conference® -TheThe 7373rdrrdd AnnualAAnnualnnuall - November 4-8, 2012 San Antonio, TX USA Earn more PRELIMINARY than 20 TECHNICAL PDH’s! PROGRAM www.eswp.com/water Welcome to the 73rd Annual IWC make it one of America’s most picturesque cities. Today, this seventeenth century metropolis is the To help you enjoy your stay in San Antonio, Texas during the 2012 IWC, we have many special seventh largest city in the nation with contemporary venues and lavish accommodations, all while events and activities planned for you. Join your fellow conference attendees at the annual Get maintaining an old world heritage exuded through diverse artistry, ethnic cuisine and an intimate Acquainted Reception, held on Sunday in the Exhibit Hall to welcome you to the Conference. If and exquisite culture. From the stones of the Alamo to the meandering paths of the River Walk, your spouse is accompanying you to the IWC please refer to the IWC home page for information on San Antonio takes you on a journey through a land as grand as its reputation. Walk the lines WELCOdrawn for independence whenM you visit the Alamo–oneE of five Spanish colonial missions. Stroll optional spouse programs to enjoy San Antonio. About the International Water Conference ® (IWC) the cobblestone sidewalks of the River Walk to uncover an outdoor theatre with flamenco dancers The IWC is the world’s premier conference for understanding and dealing with the technical and and mariachis, nationally acclaimed museums, luxury riverside hotels and sidewalk cafes that offer business challenges of industrial water treatment.
    [Show full text]