Assessment of Eskom Coal Fired Power Stations for ......1 Assessment of Eskom Coal Fired Power...

1

Assessment of Eskom Coal Fired Power Stations for compliance with their 1 April

2015 AELs over the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016; and ranking of their

pollutant and CO2 emission intensities

Eugene Cairncross

19 May 2017

2

Contents 1 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 5

3 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7

4 The reporting requirements of the MES .............................................................................................. 8

5 Methods used to analyse the available data to estimate monthly average pollutant concentrations10

6 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 11

6.1.1 Compliance with AEL limit values ......................................................................................... 11

6.1.2 PM10, SO2, NOx and CO2 emissions intensities ...................................................................... 12

Addendum 1: Estimated monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL limit values ......... 15

A. Camden monthly average stack concentrations........................................................................... 15

B. Duhva monthly average stack concentrations .............................................................................. 15

C. Grootvlei monthly average stack concentrations ......................................................................... 16

D. Hendrina monthly average concentrations .................................................................................. 16

E. Kendal monthly average concentrations ...................................................................................... 17

F. Komati monthly average concentrations ...................................................................................... 17

G. Kriel monthly average concentrations .......................................................................................... 18

H. Lethabo monthly average concentrations .................................................................................... 18

I. Majuba monthly average concentrations ..................................................................................... 19

J. Matimba monthly average concentrations .................................................................................. 19

K. Matla monthly average concentrations ........................................................................................ 20

L. Tutuka monthly average concentrations ...................................................................................... 20

Addendum 2: Eskom’s current average emission intensities ................................................................... 21

Addendum 3: Analysis of Kendal monthly reports for PM10emissions exceedences: May to September

2015 .......................................................................................................................................................... 22

Summary: Analysis of Kendal monthly reports ......................................................................................... 22

Graphs of PM10daily emissions during non-compliant months ................................................................ 22

Unit 1: Non-compliant: 1 May and 18 July............................................................................................ 22

Unit 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

Unit 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

Unit 4: .................................................................................................................................................... 23

Unit 5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 25

Unit 6 ..................................................................................................................................................... 27

3

List of Tables

Table 1: Comparison of monthly average pollutant concentrations with AEL limit values, and flagging of

power stations that may have been non-compliant with the limit values during 2015/16 ......................... 11

Table 2: Eskom CFPSs pollutant emissions intensities, sorted by PM10 emissions intensities, based on

2015/16 Annual Report data, highest to lowest ........................................................................................... 12

Table 3: Eskom CFPSs pollutant emissions intensities, sorted by SO2 emissions intensities, based on


Table 4: Eskom CFPSs pollutant emissions intensities, sorted by NOx emissions intensities, based on


Table 5: Eskom CFPSs pollutant emissions intensities sorted by CO2 emissions intensities based on


Table 6: Camden monthly average concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values .............. 15

Table 7: Duvha monthly average concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ................. 15

Table 8: Grootvlei monthly average concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ............ 16

Table 9: Hendrina monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ... 16

Table 10: Kendal monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ..... 17

Table 11: Komati monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values .... 17

Table 12: Kriel monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ........ 18

Table 13: Lethabo monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ... 18

Table 14: Majuba monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ... 19

Table 15: Matimba monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values . 19

Table 16: Matla monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ...... 20

Table 17: Tutuka monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values ..... 20

4

1 Summary Based on their estimated monthly average PM10 concentrations, seven (Duvha, Grootvlei, Kendal, Komati,

Kriel, Matla, Lethabo) of 12 power stations were very likely or likely non-compliant with their PM10

licensed limit values in 2015/16. In addition, Komati and Kriel are likely to have experienced non-

compliance with their NOx limits during this period.

The Kendal May to September 2015 monthly reports show specific instances, 37 in total, of violations of

licenced PM10 limit values. (Addendum 3)

The Duhva audit report notes that the AEL PM10 limit of 100 mg/Nm3 was regularly exceeded during

2014/15. The Hendrina audit report noted one instance of non-compliance – the south stack had not

been calibrated at the time of the audit. The Komati audit report noted four non-compliances, including

one instance of the PM10 limit value being exceeded.

The PM10 emission intensities, expressed as tons of PM10 emitted per GWhSO, for Tutuka, Kriel, Grootvlei,

Matla, Lethabo, Kendal and Komati all exceed 0.4 tons per GWhSO compared with Eskom’s overall

average PM10 emission intensity (relative particulate emissions) of 0.36, and compared to its planned

2015/16 relative particulate emissions of 0.33. The ratio of the average emissions of the highest three

PM10 emitters to that of the lowest three PM10 emitters is 10:1.

Power station CO2 emission intensities range from 925 to 1262 tons of CO2 emitted per GWhSO, or

equivalently from 0.925 to 1.262 kg of CO2 emitted per kWh sent out. Eskom’s (2015/16) overall average

CO2 emission intensity is 1079 tons CO2 per GWhSO. The ratio of the average of the highest two CO2

emitters to that of the lowest two is about 1.3:1.

The SO2 emission intensities range from 6.92 to 13.0 tons of SO2 emitted per GWhSO. The two most SO2

polluting plants, Matimba and Hendrina, emit about 70% more SO2 per GWhSO than that of the least SO2

polluting plants (ratio 1.7:1).

The NOx emission intensities range from 2.34 to 6.17 tons of NOx emitted per GWhSO. The ratio of the

average of the highest two to that of the lowest two NOx emitters is about 2.6:1.

The emissions intensity of a process or facility, expressed as the mass of a pollutant emitted per unit of

power sent out, is not regulated, but it is a useful measure of the relative impact of different plants or

technologies with respect to climate change (GHG emissions) and air pollution (PM10, SO2, NOx

emissions). The prioritisation of plants for decommissioning on the basis of their relative GHG (mainly

CO2) emissions intensity may use GHG emissions intensity as the main consideration. If near field (area

close to the plant) and regional (area within several hundred kilometres of the plant) air pollution is the

immediate consideration, then emission reduction through the installation of improved emission control

technology, as envisaged in the ‘new plant’ standards of the MES, is possible. A short to medium term (5

to 10 years) decommissioning schedule of Eskom’s coal plants should include climate change impact, air

pollution and other relevant factors in the decision matrix.

5

2 Recommendations Obtain reports of daily average concentrations of PM10, SO2 and NOx, for each unit on each plant,

for 2015/16, for Duvha, Grootvlei, Kendal, Komati, Kriel, Matla and Lethabo, in graphical format

similar to that used in the Kendal monthly reports. (That is, the graphical format should be similar

to the example below but with the x-axis extended to cover the full year.)

Ascertain if the relevant local authorities have a management system in place for monitoring

compliance with the MES limit values, and for responding to reports of non-compliance.

Recommend to the NAQO that the reporting requirements of the MES (GN-37054-893) be

elaborated on, clarified and standardised through the drafting of a guideline, including templates

of the Annual Report and Monthly Reports, as apparently contemplated in paragraph 17 of the

MES, “in the form specified by the National Air Quality Officer”. While paragraph 19 (of the MES)

refers to and requires Annual Reports to be “in the format for the internet-based National

Atmospheric Emissions Inventory System”, the MES and the NAEIS have two distinctly different

air quality management objectives and functions, and the reporting requirements are

significantly different. The responsibility of implementing the MES, including compliance

monitoring and undertaking remedial action in the event of non-compliance, lies with the

licensing authority (usually the local authority). The reporting functions and requirements of the

MES should not be subordinated to those of the NAEIS. The reporting formats should therefore

be, as far as possible, reconcilable with each other rather than identical.

Amend all AELs to clarify reporting requirements, and to correct omissions (in current AELs) with

respect to reporting requirements. The annual reports should include (but not be limited to)

6

graphs of daily average pollutant concentrations similar in format to the Kendal monthly graphs

but with the x-axis extended to cover the full year.

7

3 Introduction Following various PAIA requests to Eskom, the following documents are available for perusal and

analysis:

Annual Reports (ARs) for 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 for Eskom’s 14 coal fired power stations

(CFPSs) (Arnot, Camden, Grootvlei, Hendriena, Kendal, Komati, Kriel, Lethabo, Majuba,

Mathimba, Matla, Medupi, Lethabo and Tutuka), the first cycle of annual reports submitted in

terms of AELs issued 31 March 2015. The Arnot annual report (AR) could not be analysed as data

are presented in graphical form only; the Medupi annual report covered the post-commissioning

months only and included insufficient data for analysis; the Tutuka 2015/16 report covered the

months April to September 2015 only. Kendal submitted May to September 2015 monthly

reports, in addition to its annual report.

AELs issued 31 March 2015, the first cycle of AELs issued under the MES.

Compliance Audit Reports for 4 CFPSs (Camden, Duhva, Hendrina and Komati) PSs;

13 CFPSs (Grootvlei is the exception) submitted flue gas monitoring instrument calibration (for

gas measurement) and/ or correlation (for PM10 measurement) reports, but a review and analysis

of these documents is not included in this assessment.

This assessment focuses on compliance with Section 7.2 of each CFPS AEL, the point source maximum

“emission rates” (for PM10, SO2 and NOx) under normal working conditions. [Note that although both the

MES and the AELs describe the prescribed limit values (for PM10, SO2 and NOx) as “maximum release

rates” and/ or “maximum emission rates”, the limit values are more properly described as “maximum

concentrations”. An “emission rate” or a “release rate” should have units of mass flow per unit time, for

example, tonnes per day or kg per hour.]

The pollutant maximum concentration values (limit values) are expressed in the MES and the AELs as

daily average pollutant concentrations, measured continuously in the discharge duct of each boiler unit,

with units of mg/Nm3 under normal (that is, standardised) conditions of 10% O2, 273 Kelvin and 101.3 kPa

pressure. Thus, in a typical power station consisting of 6 units, the emissions from each unit are

monitored continuously in the duct between the boiler unit and the stack. The continuously-measured

pollutant concentrations, averaged over a one day period, must be compliant with the relevant limit

value. In some cases the licensed limit values may be different for different units of the power station.

Assessment of day-to-day compliance with the limit values prescribed in Section 7.2 of the AELs should

be a matter of comparing the continuously-measured concentrations, averaged over 24 hours (midnight

to midnight), with the prescribed maximum concentration values. The Annual Reports unfortunately do

8

not include tables or graphs showing measured daily average concentrations, for each pollutant, for the

reporting period. A fairly elaborate procedure had therefore to be developed to estimate monthly

average stack concentration values using the annual report monthly emission rate (tonnes of pollutant

per month) and aggregate monthly power sent out data, which provided that basis for indirectly

assessing compliance with the prescribed limit values.

4 The reporting requirements of the MES Sections 17 and 18 of the MES refer specifically to reporting requirements, although these clauses should

be read in the context (particularly the definitions) of the regulations as a whole. CFPSs are required to

install continuous emission monitoring systems. The wording in the MES relevant to reporting

requirements for CFPSs is as follows.

“Reporting Requirements

(17) Notwithstanding the compliance time frames established in terms of paragraphs (8); (9); and

(10), the Atmospheric Emission License holder shall submit an emission report in the form

specified by the National Air Quality Officer to the Licensing Authority -

(a) within one (1) year of the date of publication of this Notice; and

(b) annually thereafter unless otherwise prescribed in the Atmospheric Emission License.”

(18) The report contemplated in paragraph (17) shall include-

(a) The name, description and license reference number of the plant as reflected in the

Atmospheric Emission License.

…

(c) Where continuous emission monitoring is required for a listed activity, the report

contemplated

in paragraph (17) shall further include -

(i) results of the spot measurements or correlation tests carried out to verify the accuracy of the

continuous emission measurements;

(ii) the most recent correlation tests; and

(iii) the availability of the system as contemplated in (15)(b) in terms of the number of full hours

per annum that valid results were obtained.

(d) Following the compliance time frames established in terms of paragraphs (8); (9); and (10), an

9

explanation of all instances where minimum emission standards were exceeded and remediation

measures and associated implementation plans aimed at ensuring that the accidences do not re-

occur.”

The AEL template included in the AEL Manual for Licencing Authorities (DEA, 2010) includes the following

reporting requirements for the Annual Report.

“Annual reporting

The licence holder must complete and submit to the licensing authority an annual report. The

report must include information for the year under review (i.e. annual year end of the company).

The report must be submitted to the licensing authority not later than 60 (sixty) days after the

end of each reporting period.

The annual report must include, amongst others, the following items:

(a) Pollutant emissions trend;

(b) Compliance audit report(s);

(c) Major upgrades projects (i.e. abatement equipment or process equipment); and

(d) Greenhouse gas emissions.”

It would appear that, in the absence of more detailed reporting guidelines, licensing authorities have

mainly simply repeated the above broad outlines of the required content of Annual Reports contained in

the AEL template, without explicitly requiring the inclusion of a report of day-by-day compliance with the

licensed limit values. The MES, in addition to the above list of items that should be included in the Annual

Report, requires the annual report to include “an explanation of all instances where minimum emission

standards were exceeded and remediation measures and associated implementation plans aimed at

ensuring that the accidences do not re-occur” (s18 (d)). In this respect, the AELs are not compliant with

the MES reporting requirements.

The Annual Reports therefore currently report ‘monthly trends’ in emissions, generally interpreted as

monthly aggregate emissions (as tons of pollutant emitted per month) for each of the regulated

pollutants, over the reporting year. The ‘monthly trends’ cannot be used to determine whether or not

the licensed limit values have been complied with or not, because monthly total emission rates cannot be

disaggregated into daily average values and individual unit emission rates, and mass emission rates (tons

per month or tons per day) cannot be interpreted as concentrations without information on the

corresponding gas volumetric flow rates. (The limit values are expressed as mass per unit volume,

calculated at standard conditions, of gas flow. That is, as mg (of pollutant) per Nm3 of gas.)

10

5 Methods used to analyse the available data to estimate monthly

average pollutant concentrations The flow rate of gas, measured under standard conditions, discharged from the stack is approximately

proportional to the power sent out by each power station. Estimates of the ratio of stack flow rate to

power sent out are calculated, for each power station, using 2012/13 data submitted by Eskom in

support of their MES postponement applications.

The Annual Reports include monthly total emissions for each pollutant (PM10, SO2, NOx, CO2 and in some

cases N2O) as well as monthly GWh sent out (GWhSO). The monthly GWhSO values combined with the

stack flow rate to power sent out (as GWhSO) ratio derived from the 2012/2013 data are used to

estimate flow rates and thus corresponding monthly average pollutant concentrations. The uncertainty in

the estimated monthly average concentrations has not been estimated, but it is probably +- 10%.

The estimated monthly average pollutant concentrations are compared with the 31 March 2015 AEL limit

values. If monthly average pollutant concentrations exceed the AEL limit values this indicates that at least

several daily average values for the corresponding month were non-compliant with the AEL. Since the

monthly average values are the average of 29 to 31 (the number of days per month) days’ values, even if

the monthly average concentration is less than the AEL limit value, this does not exclude the possibility

that one or more daily average values is non-compliant with the AEL daily average limit values. The

likelihood of one or more daily average values exceeding the limit value increases, the closer the monthly

average value is to the AEL limit value, but it is also dependent on the day to day variability in the data.

This day-to-day variability is different for each of the pollutants. It is greatest for PM10 because the

control of PM emissions is primarily dependent on the efficient function of unit emission control devices

– electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or fabric filters (FFs). If the PM emission control device malfunctions,

PM emission rates may increase substantially over a short period of time. The day-to-day variation in SO2

flue gas concentrations are primarily due to variation in the sulphur content of coal, a factor that

generally varies relatively slowly and within limits, unless the source of coal and/ or the sulphur content of

the coal change significantly. The variation in NOx concentrations is due to both variations in coal

composition (‘fuel NOx’) and in combustion conditions (‘thermal NOx’), the latter remaining relatively

constant.

Based on estimates of day-to-day variability, different criteria are used for each of the pollutants to

assess possible non-compliance. In Table 1, monthly average PM10 concentrations that are more than

60% of the AEL limit are highlighted (in red font) as indicating that one or more non-compliances with AEL

limit values may have or are likely to have occurred during corresponding months. (Monthly estimates

11

are presented in Addendum 1.) For both SO2 and NOx, monthly average values greater than 75% of the

AEL limits value may indicate possible or likely non-compliance.

The four available Compliance Audits, which are of variable quality, were perused for specific citations of

non-compliance.

While emission intensities, pollutant emissions per unit of power sent out, are not regulated, they

provide a measure of the relative climate change impact or relative ‘dirtiness’ of each power station. The

relative emission intensities may be used as additional criteria for prioritising the phasing out of

individual power stations. Power stations are ranked by CO2, PM10, SO2 and NOx emissions intensities in

Tables 2 to 5, and the calculated values are compared with Eskom’s average values (Addendum 2)

published in its 2015/16 Integrated Annual Report.

6 Results

6.1.1 Compliance with AEL limit values

Table 1: Comparison of monthly average pollutant concentrations with AEL limit values, and flagging of power stations that may have been non-compliant with the limit values during 2015/16

31 March 2015 AELs Period April 2015 to March 2016

Power station

Rated capacity (MW)

PM10 24h limit value [mg/Nm3]

SO2 24h limit value [mg/Nm3]

NOx 24h limit value [mg/Nm3]

Highest monthly

average PM10 values

[mg/Nm3]

Highest monthly

average SO2

values [mg/Nm3]

Highest monthly

average NOx values

[mg/Nm3]

Arnot 2100 100 3500 1200 Insufficient data available

Camden 1600 100 3500 1300 less than 40 less than 1600 less than 850

Duhva 3600 100 3500 1100 63-75 less than 1600 less than 800

Grootvlei 1200 350 3500 1100 182-237 less than 1900 less than 750

Hendrina 2000 75 3500 1200 less than 30 less than 2100 less than 750

Kendal* 4116 100 3500 1100 80-114* less than 1500 less than 710

Komati 1000 100 3500 1300 73-155 less than 1600 less than 1000

Kriel 3000 125 3500 1600 128-172 less than 1550 less than 1350

Lethabo 3708 100 3500 1100 64-70 less than 1000 less than 600

Majuba 4110 100 3500 1500 less than 20 less than 1050 less than 800

Matimba 3990 100 3500 1100 less than 20 less than 1600 less than 300

Matla 3600 100/200 3500 1200 61-90 less than 1000 less than 760

Medupi** 4800 50 3500 750 Insufficient data available

Tutuka** 3654 350/200 3400 1200 189-204 Insufficient data available

Notes to Table 1:

a) ** indicates a partial monthly data set.

12

b) The PM10 values in red font indicate that one or more non-compliances with AEL limit values may have or are

likely to have occurred during the corresponding month (monthly estimates are presented in Addendum 1). Thus

Duvha, Grootvlei, Kendal, Komati, Kriel, Matla, Lethabo were very likely or likely non-compliant with their PM10

licensed limit values in 2015/16.

c) The NOx values in purple font indicate Komati and Kriel power stations may have or are likely to have

experienced one or more non-compliances with AEL limit values during the corresponding month (monthly

estimates are presented in Addendum 1).

(The Kendal May to September 2015 monthly reports show specific instances, 37 in total, of violations of licensed

PM10 limit values. Details are presented in a separate report.)

6.1.2 PM10, SO2, NOx and CO2 emissions intensities

The emissions intensity of a process or facility, expressed as the mass of a pollutant emitted per unit of

power sent out, is not regulated, but it is a useful measure of the relative impact of different plants or

technologies with respect to climate change (GHG emissions) or air pollution (PM10, SO2, NOx). The

prioritisation of plants for decommissioning on the basis of their relative GHG (mainly CO2) emissions

intensity may use GHG emissions intensity as the main consideration. If near field (area close to the

plant) and regional (area within several hundred kilometres of the plant) air pollution is the immediate

consideration, then emission reduction through the installation of improved emission control technology,

as envisaged in the ‘new plant’ standards of the MES, is possible. A short to medium term (5 to 10 years)

decommissioning schedule of Eskom’s coal plants should consider both factors, climate change and air

pollution impacts, as well as other relevant factors.

Tables 2 to 5 present the emissions intensities of Eskom’s coal plants, ranked for each emission.

Table 2: Eskom CFPSs pollutant emissions intensities, sorted by PM10 emissions intensities, based on 2015/16

Annual Report data, highest to lowest

Coal fired

power

station

Rated

capacity

(MW)

PM10

emissions

tons/

GWhSO

SO2

emissions

tons/

GWhSO

NOx

emissions

tons/

GWhSO

CO2

emissions

tons/

GWhSO

Tutuka 2015 3654 1.053

1014

Kriel 3000 0.714 8.06 6.17 1096

Grootvlei 1200 0.667 8.57 4.28 1262

Matla 3600 0.488 6.92 5.42 1030

Lethabo 3708 0.462 8.03 4.53 987

Kendal 4116 0.452 7.31 2.94 1047

Komati 1000 0.410 8.47 5.86 1213

Duhva 3600 0.320 7.82 4.37 1057

Camden 1600 0.167 8.70 5.10 1122

Hendrina 2000 0.101 10.85 4.46 1191

Matimba 3990 0.078 13.02 2.34 925

Majuba 4110 0.057 7.27 5.70 1115

The monthly values used to calculate the annual values are listed in Addendum 1.

13

The ratio of the most polluting to the least polluting, by PM10 emissions intensity, of 1.053/ 0.057 = 18:1

should be noted. The ratio of the highest three PM10 emitters to the lowest three emitters is 10:1.

Table 3: Eskom CFPSs pollutant emissions intensities, sorted by SO2 emissions intensities, based on 2015/16


Coal fired power station

Rated capacity (MW)

PM10 emissions

tons/ GWhSO

SO2

emissions tons/

GWhSO

NOx emissions

tons/ GWhSO

CO2 emissions

tons/ GWhSO

Matimba 3990 0.078 13.0 2.34 925

Hendrina 2000 0.101 10.9 4.46 1191

Camden 1600 0.167 8.70 5.10 1122

Grootvlei 1200 0.667 8.57 4.28 1262

Komati 1000 0.410 8.47 5.86 1213

Kriel 3000 0.714 8.06 6.17 1096

Lethabo 3708 0.462 8.03 4.53 987

Duhva 3600 0.320 7.82 4.37 1057

Kendal 4116 0.452 7.31 2.94 1047

Majuba 4110 0.057 7.27 5.70 1115

Matla 3600 0.488 6.92 5.42 1030

In the absence of emission control technology, the differences in SO2 emission intensities are mainly due

to differences in coal sulphur content. The two most SO2 polluting plants, Matimba and Hendrina, emit

about 70% more SO2 per GWhSO than that of the least SO2 polluting plants.

Table 4: Eskom CFPSs pollutant emissions intensities, sorted by NOx emissions intensities, based on 2015/16


Coal fired power station

Rated capacity (MW)

PM10

emissions tons/

GWhSO

SO2

emissions tons/

GWhSO

NOx emissions

tons/ GWhSO

CO2 emissions

tons/ GWhSO

Kriel 3000 0.714 8.06 6.17 1096

Komati 1000 0.410 8.47 5.86 1213

Majuba 4110 0.057 7.27 5.70 1115

Matla 3600 0.488 6.92 5.42 1030

Camden 1600 0.167 8.70 5.10 1122

Lethabo 3708 0.462 8.03 4.53 987

Hendrina 2000 0.101 10.85 4.46 1191

Duhva 3600 0.32 7.82 4.37 1057

Grootvlei 1200 0.667 8.57 4.28 1262

Kendal 4116 0.452 7.31 2.94 1047

Matimba 3990 0.078 13.02 2.34 925

14

In the absence of post-combustion emission control systems, the differences in NOx emission intensities

may be due to differences in burner control technologies and /or differences in the nitrogen content coal.

The ratio of the highest two to the lowest two NOx emitters is about 2.6:1.

Table 5: Eskom CFPSs pollutant emissions intensities sorted by CO2 emissions intensities based on 2015/16


Coal fired

power

station

Rated

capacity

(MW)

PM10

emissions

tons/

GWhSO

SO2

emissions

tons/

GWhSO

NOx

emissions

tons/

GWhSO

CO2

emissions

tons/

GWhSO

Grootvlei 1200 0.667 8.57 4.28 1262

Komati 1000 0.410 8.47 5.86 1213

Hendrina 2000 0.101 10.85 4.46 1191

Camden 1600 0.167 8.70 5.10 1122

Majuba 4110 0.057 7.27 5.70 1115

Kriel 3000 0.714 8.06 6.17 1096

Duhva 3600 0.320 7.82 4.37 1057

Kendal 4116 0.452 7.31 2.94 1047

Matla 3600 0.488 6.92 5.42 1030

Tutuka 2015 3654 1.053 1014

Lethabo 3708 0.462 8.03 4.53 987

Matimba 3990 0.078 13.02 2.34 925

Differences in CO2 emission intensities may be due to differences in coal quality and overall plant energy

efficiency. The ratio of the highest two CO2 emitters to the lowest two is about 1.3:1.

15

Addendum 1: Estimated monthly average stack concentrations compared with

AEL limit values

A. Camden monthly average stack concentrations

Table 6: Camden monthly average concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Camden daily limit values

Month PM10 stack

concentration

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 stack concentration

[mg/Nm3]

NOx stack concentration

[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 29 1594 784 100 3500 1300

May 2015 19 1181 727 100 3500 1300

June 2015 20 1356 834 100 3500 1300

July 2015 20 1373 750 100 3500 1300

August 2015 19 1184 728 100 3500 1300

September 2015 15 1336 657 100 3500 1300

October 2015 21 1178 725 100 3500 1300

November 2015 21 1025 720 100 3500 1300

December 2015 27 1205 741 100 3500 1300

January 2016 34 1414 773 100 3500 1300

February 2016 37 1238 761 100 3500 1300

March 2016 29 1152 708 100 3500 1300

None of the Camden monthly average PM10values exceeds 60% of the daily average limit value, implying

that the plant was very likely compliant with the licensed limit value throughout the period.

B. Duhva monthly average stack concentrations

Table 7: Duvha monthly average concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Duhva daily limit values

Month PM10 stack concentration

[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 56 1280 719 100 3500 1100

May 2015 68 1464 731 100 3500 1100

June 2015 63 1416 707 100 3500 1100

July 2015 44 1158 744 100 3500 1100

August 2015 63 1279 718 100 3500 1100

September 2015 75 1338 751 100 3500 1100

October 2015 59 1285 721 100 3500 1100

November 2015 46 1259 707 100 3500 1100

December 2015 49 1426 712 100 3500 1100

January 2016 41 1600 799 100 3500 1100

February 2016 42 1143 733 100 3500 1100

March 2016 44 1085 697 100 3500 1100

16

C. Grootvlei monthly average stack concentrations

Table 8: Grootvlei monthly average concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Grootvlei daily limit values

Month

PM10 stack concentration

[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 237 1734 736 350 3500 1100

May 2015 85 1897 725 350 3500 1100

June 2015 77 1369 581 350 3500 1100

July 2015 33 1319 630 350 3500 1100

August 2015 16 1264 689 350 3500 1100

September 2015 39 974 532 350 3500 1100

October 2015 42 1424 680 350 3500 1100

November 2015 51 1216 664 350 3500 1100

December 2015 60 927 590 350 3500 1100

January 2016 217 1256 685 350 3500 1100

February 2016 95 1158 737 350 3500 1100

March 2016 182 1146 625 350 3500 1100

The two PM10 monthly average values, highlighted in red, are more than 60% of the AEL limit value,

implying that one or more of the daily average values during the corresponding month may have

exceeded the licensed limit value (i.e. may have been non-compliant during these months).

D. Hendrina monthly average concentrations Table 9: Hendrina monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Hendrina daily limit values

Month


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 14 1790 735 100 3500 1200

May 2015 17 1755 721 100 3500 1200

June 2015 21 1566 643 100 3500 1200

July 2015 10 1786 667 100 3500 1200

August 2015 11 1439 657 100 3500 1200

September 2015 12 1928 720 100 3500 1200

October 2015 14 1938 663 100 3500 1200

November 2015 25 2055 703 100 3500 1200

December 2015 18 1552 708 100 3500 1200

January 2016 14 1336 686 100 3500 1200

February 2016 14 1405 641 100 3500 1200

March 2016 15 1294 664 100 3500 1200

None of the Hendrina monthly average PM10 values exceeds 60% of the daily average limit value, implying

that the plant was very likely compliant with the licensed limit value throughout the period.

17

E. Kendal monthly average concentrations

Table 10: Kendal monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Kendal daily limit values


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 47 422 132 100 3500 1100

May 2015 53 1347 485 100 3500 1100

June 2015 62 1362 500 100 3500 1100

July 2015 60 1130 487 100 3500 1100

August 2015 53 1386 499 100 3500 1100

September 2015 55 1165 527 100 3500 1100

October 2015 80 1406 500 100 3500 1100

November 2015 74 1093 494 100 3500 1100

December 2015 108 1238 537 100 3500 1100

January 2016 112 1295 502 100 3500 1100

February 2016 114 1497 708 100 3500 1100

March 2016 81 1290 500 100 3500 1100

F. Komati monthly average concentrations Table 11: Komati monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Komati monthly average stack concentrations Komati daily limit values

Month


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 155 1383 963 100 3500 1300

May 2015 52 1217 963 100 3500 1300

June 2015 73 1262 874 100 3500 1300

July 2015 46 1402 970 100 3500 1300

August 2015 59 1406 973 100 3500 1300 September 2015 55 1453 894 100 3500 1300

October 2015 43 1390 961 100 3500 1300

November 2015 56 1589 978 100 3500 1300

December 2015 50 1259 774 100 3500 1300

January 2016 61 1414 979 100 3500 1300

February 2016 58 1414 979 100 3500 1300

March 2016 62 968 894 100 3500 1300

The April 2015 monthly average PM10 concentration substantially exceeds the daily average limit value,

implying that PM10 emissions were non-compliant for many or most days during this month. In June 2015,

January and March 2016, the monthly average PM10 concentration exceeded 60% of the daily average

18

limit value, implying that one or more of the daily average values during these months may have

exceeded the licensed limit value (may have been non-compliant during this month).

G. Kriel monthly average concentrations

Table 12: Kriel monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Kriel daily limit values

Month


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 96 1356 1034 125 3500 1600

May 2015 79 1183 1023 125 3500 1600

June 2015 89 1340 981 125 3500 1600

July 2015 128 1353 1031 125 3500 1600

August 2015 172 1504 1019 125 3500 1600

September 2015 107 1266 916 125 3500 1600

October 2015 113 1315 987 125 3500 1600

November 2015 133 1178 830 125 3500 1600

December 2015 171 1288 908 125 3500 1600

January 2016 157 1539 1344 125 3500 1600

February 2016 75 1222 1051 125 3500 1600

March 2016 92 1347 1068 125 3500 1600

All Kriel monthly average PM10 values are above 60% (5 above 100%) of the AEL limit daily value.

H. Lethabo monthly average concentrations

Table 13: Lethabo monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Lethabo daily limit values


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3] SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 57 925 522 100 3500 1100

May 2015 54 954 538 100 3500 1100

June 2015 54 925 522 100 3500 1100

July 2015 55 936 528 100 3500 1100

August 2015 58 943 532 100 3500 1100

September 2015 50 971 548 100 3500 1100

October 2015 70 966 545 100 3500 1100

November 2015 57 955 539 100 3500 1100

December 2015 64 976 551 100 3500 1100

January 2016 48 944 532 100 3500 1100

February 2016 44 906 511 100 3500 1100

March 2016 41 957 540 100 3500 1100

19

I. Majuba monthly average concentrations

Table 14: Majuba monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Majuba daily limit values


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 6 871 691 100 3500 1500

May 2015 5 936 650 100 3500 1500

June 2015 4 784 544 100 3500 1500

July 2015 5 879 698 100 3500 1500

August 2015 5 919 729 100 3500 1500

September 2015 5 897 712 100 3500 1500

October 2015 6 852 676 100 3500 1500

November 2015 8 956 759 100 3500 1500

December 2015 7 695 552 100 3500 1500

January 2016 8 610 565 100 3500 1500

February 2016 12 886 704 100 3500 1500

March 2016 10 1015 805 100 3500 1500

J. Matimba monthly average concentrations

Table 15: Matimba monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Matimba daily limit values

Month PM10 stack

concentration [mg/Nm

3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 6 1495 276 100 3500 1100

May 2015 9 1545 286 100 3500 1100

June 2015 8 1461 270 100 3500 1100

July 2015 7 1537 284 100 3500 1100

August 2015 10 1420 284 100 3500 1100

September 2015 11 2248 245 100 3500 1100

October 2015 10 1420 284 100 3500 1100

November 2015 6 1424 285 100 3500 1100

December 2015 9 1308 262 100 3500 1100

January 2016 9 1547 286 100 3500 1100

February 2016 14 1543 285 100 3500 1100

March 2016 11 1321 264 100 3500 1100

20

K. Matla monthly average concentrations

Table 16: Matla monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Matla daily limit values


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

April 2015 45 760 681 100/200 3500 1200

May 2015 61 778 709 100/200 3500 1200

June 2015 55 662 636 100/200 3500 1200

July 2015 58 862 622 100/200 3500 1200

August 2015 50 874 631 100/200 3500 1200

September 2015 61 774 612 100/200 3500 1200

October 2015 68 659 621 100/200 3500 1200

November 2015 90 983 637 100/200 3500 1200

December 2015 59 939 664 100/200 3500 1200

January 2016 57 797 620 100/200 3500 1200

February 2016 44 968 627 100/200 3500 1200

March 2016 47 777 604 100/200 3500 1200

L. Tutuka monthly average concentrations

Table 17: Tutuka monthly average stack concentrations compared with AEL 24h average limit values

Monthly average stack concentrations Tutuka AEL limit values


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]


[mg/Nm3]

PM10 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3] SO2 AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

NOx AEL limit

[mg/Nm3]

Apr 2015 197 0 0 350 3400 1200

May 2015 189 0 0 350 3400 1200

June 2015 192 0 0 350 3400 1200

July 2015 198 0 0 350 3400 1200

Aug 2015 204 0 0 350 3400 1200

Sept 2015 199 0 0 350 3400 1200

Oct 2015 No data No data No data 350 3400 1200

Nov 2015 No data No data No data 350 3400 1200

Dec 2015 No data No data No data 350 3400 1200

Jan 2016 No data No data No data 200 3400 1200

Feb 2016 No data No data No data 200 3400 1200

March 2016 No data No data No data 200 3400 1200

21

Addendum 2: Eskom’s current average emission intensities These notes are intended to give context.

Eskom 2015/16 Integrated Report, p123:

Eskom’s overall average particulate emissions intensity (relative emission) for 2015/16 was 0.36 kg/MWh

sent out, or 0.36 tons of PM10per GWhSO. In 2015/16 Eskom’s CFPSs sent out 199888 GWh. Therefore

the emissions intensities for 2015/16 for CO2, SO2 and NOx were respectively 1079 (215600000/199888),

8.50 (1699000/199888) and 4.47 (893000/199888) tons/ GWhSO.

Eskom submitted the following ‘planned reduction in relative PM emissions’ target in its MES

postponement applications. Estimating the 2015/16 value from the graph, it is approximately 0.33

kg/MWhSO or 0.33 tons/ GWhSO.

22

Addendum 3: Analysis of Kendal monthly reports for PM10emissions

exceedences: May to September 2015

Summary: Analysis of Kendal monthly reports PM10: The limit value of 100 mg/Nm3 applies to all units.

Unit 1: Non-compliant: 1 May and 18 July.

2 days

Unit 2: Compliant throughout the period.

Unit 3: Offline.

Unit 4: Non-compliant: 23 May, 4, 12 and 13 June, 25 July, 6 and 14 August, 2 and 31 September.

9 days

Unit 5: Non-compliant: 23 May; 4, 5, 12, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 June; 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23 July;

(offline 24 Aug to 12 Sept); 13 August.

19 days

Unit 6: Non-compliant 1, 23, 24 29, 30 May; 23, 24 June; 2, 17, 31 July; 3, 5, 6, 17, 24, 29, 31 September

17 days

Total number (all units) of days non-compliant with the 100 mg/Nm3 limit value: 47.

SO2 (3500 mg/Nm3 limit); NOx (1100 mg/ Nm3 limit): Compliant with both limits, for all months.

Graphs of PM10daily emissions during non-compliant months

Unit 1: Non-compliant: 1 May and 18 July.

23

Unit 2: Compliant throughout the period.

Unit 3: Offline.

Unit 4: Non-compliant: 23 May, 4, 12 and 13 June, 25 July, 6 and 14 August, 2 and 31 September.

25

Unit 5: Non-compliant: 23 May; 4, 5, 12, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 June; 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23 July;

(offline 24 Aug to 12 Sept); 13 August

27

Unit 6: Non-compliant 1, 23, 24 29, 30 May; 23, 24 June; 2, 17, 31 July; 3, 5, 6, 17, 24, 29, 31 September

Assessment of Eskom Coal Fired Power Stations for ......1 Assessment of Eskom Coal Fired Power...

Documents

Transcript of Assessment of Eskom Coal Fired Power Stations for ......1 Assessment of Eskom Coal Fired Power...