RE: Coal Burning Power Plant

["Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

1.  Carbon dioxide is not considered an air pollutant (it is a constituent
of clean air, after all).  No stationary facility uses emission controls to
trap CO2.

2.  I wonder if by "soot" you mean particulate matter (fly ash) which is of
course controlled, and improved particulate emission control is one of the
features of the proposed emission control scheme.

3.  On the average, US coal is <3% uranium oxide (>99% U238) and 75% of the
uranium oxides stay in the bottom ash because of the density.  Radioactive
material in fly ash is considerably less of a health concern than the fly
ash itself, and even the fly ash is more of an agricultural damage and
esthetic concern than a health concern.

4.  No, I don't have  (and never have had) any association with the
coal-burning utility industry or the coal industry. 

Clearly only my own opinion.

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Sandia National Laboratories 
MS 0718, POB 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov



-----Original Message-----
From: Mr Jo [mailto:mjo@scs.unr.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 10:42 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Coal Burning Power Plant


I read (with interest) a half page article in a local newspaper describing
how the
Mojave Generating Station (1,580 MW) will be the cleanest coal burning power
plant
in the Southwest. The plant will spend $300 million through 2006 to install
pollution control devices. This was the result of a lawsuit filed by the
Sierra Club
and the Grand Canyon Trust (it appears an out of court settlement is in
progress).
It appears that all the parties involved are happy.

The only pollutants discussed were sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and soot.
I
couldn't help thinking of other pollutants such as 22 million tons of carbon
dioxide
(assuming 70% carbon in coal), 7.8 tons of U, 19.2 tons of Th, numerous
daughters of
U and Th, use of fly ash from coal burning in building materials and more.

I wondered if these were not considered pollutants or if nothing can be done
about
them (and may not be effected by these pollution control devices) and,
therefore,
they are not negotiable and unworthy of any mention. Most of all, I wonder
if public
(or environmental groups) would reevaluate their positions if the unnamed
pollutants
were also included in the article (if the entire picture is shown instead of
partial
one).

Have a good weekend. M. Jo
========================================================
Myung Chul Jo, MS, CHP
EH&S, Mail Stop 328
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, Nevada 89557
(775)784-4540
(775)784-4553 fax
mjo@scs.unr.edu


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html