Re: Coal Burning Power Plant

[Mr Jo <mjo@scs.unr.edu>]

Dr. Weiner,

The word "soot" was copied directly from the newspaper. I wasn't sure what it
exactly meant by "soot". Regarding fly ash, I thought a concern of fly ash is
that it is used as an additive to cement and concrete products which bring NORM
much closer to population. M. Jo

"Weiner, Ruth" wrote:

> 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

--
========================================================
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