Embed
Email

fate

Document Sample

Shared by: hedongchenchen
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
1
posted:
11/24/2011
language:
English
pages:
13
DRAFT





Fate of Mercury in Cement Kilns

Paper #1203

C.L. Senior, A.F. Sarofim

Reaction Engineering International, Salt Lake City, UT

E. Eddings

Chemical and Fuels Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

ABSTRACT

Mercury is one of a number of pollutants (like dioxins) that persist in the environment

and bioaccumulate in the food chain. Because of its toxicity and the potential for

bioaccumulation, mercury emissions to the environment are the subject of environmental

regulation. U.S. EPA estimates that 87% of the man-made emissions of mercury come

from point sources of combustion. There are currently emission limits on mercury from

certain categories of combustion sources, including cement kilns and incinerators burning

hazardous waste. Cement kilns that do not burn hazardous waste are not subject to these

emission standards. However, EPA is currently reviewing the need for emission

standards for mercury and other pollutants from cement kilns. In this paper, we review

the chemistry of mercury in the cement-making process and develop a simple model for

understanding the distribution of mercury among various streams in different types of

cement kilns.

INTRODUCTION

EPA, in its Mercury Study Report to Congress1 in 1997, put the amount of mercury

released into the atmosphere from human activities between 50 and 75 percent of the total

yearly release from all sources. According to this estimate, 158 tons of mercury was

emitted annually from all human activities in the U.S., most of this (87%) from

combustion point sources. Hazardous waste combustors, including Portland Cement

facilities that burn wastes, contributed 7.1 tons per year or 4.4% of the total.

Manufacturing sources contributed 10% to this estimate. The Portland Cement

manufacturing industry (excluding facilities burning hazardous waste) was estimated to

contribute 4.8 tons per year, or 3.1% of the total.

Only a fraction of Portland Cement kilns in the U.S. burn hazardous waste. In a survey

of cement plants in 20002, only 8 plants were identified as burning waste as a primary

fuel (Table 1). The capacity of these plants corresponds to about 5% of the total

manufacturing capacity in the U.S. However, a larger number of plants identified waste

as an alternate fuel, corresponding to about 50% of the total manufacturing capacity.

There are currently emission limits on mercury from certain categories of combustion

sources, including facilities burning hazardous waste. Table 2 summarizes the current

mercury emission standards for existing hazardous waste combustors in the U.S. and

Europe, compared with those for municipal waste combustors in the U.S. The EPA uses

a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard to specify control

technologies for specific pollutants. For mercury emissions from hazardous waste





1

DRAFT



combustors, the MACT standard is feed rate control, based on input feed rates to the

combustor.

Table 1. Portland Cement Plants in the U.S. Using Waste as Fuel (Reference 2).



Plants using waste as a primary fuel

Capacity

Process Plants tons/day 1000's tons/yr

Dry 1 2,130 680

Wet 7 11,654 3,889

Total 8 13,784 4,569

Plants using waste as an alternate fuel

Capacity

Process Plants tons/day 1000's tons/yr

Dry 7 13,498 4,295

Dry(Preheater) 8 13,444 4,334

Dry(Precalciner) 19 54,941 17,694

Wet 17 31,139 9,951

Total 51 113,022 36,274







Table 2. Mercury emission standards for existing sources in µg per dry standard cubic meter

in µg/dscm at 7% O2 (Reference 3).



Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Large

Waste Waste Cement Waste Waste Municipal

Incinerators Kilns Lightweight Combustors Waste

Aggregate (Europe) Combustors

Kilns

130 120 47 130 80

Cement kilns that do not burn hazardous waste are not subject to these emission

standards. However, EPA is currently reviewing the need for emission standards for

mercury and other pollutants from cement kilns.

MERCURY BEHAVIOR IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS

Coal is a common fuel used in cement kilns. Mercury is present in coal in low

concentrations, on the order of 0.1 µg/g. Mercury concentrations in petcoke and tires,

which are often burned in kilns, are lower.

Mercury is also present in certain wastes burned in cement kilns, in various

concentrations. In the high temperature combustion, all the mercury in the fuel is

vaporized as elemental mercury. Coal and liquid wastes are injected through the primary







2

DRAFT



kiln burner and any mercury contained in them is exposed to flame temperatures, which

will convert all the mercury to the gaseous, elemental form.

Mercury is also found in the raw materials that enter the kiln. The range of mercury in

limestone, the largest component of the raw material, is reported to be 0.005 to 0.45 ug/g,

but measurements are scanty.4

In high temperature combustion systems, mercury exits the flame region in the elemental

gaseous form (Hg0). Subsequently, mercury can be oxidized homogeneously, oxidized

heterogeneously or adsorbed by ash or activated carbon. Gas-phase thermodynamic

equilibrium calculations suggest that HgCl2 is the dominant oxidized species in flue gas

at temperatures below 900-1100 F. Equilibrium predictions of mercury speciation do not

agree with measured mercury speciation at the inlet to particulate control devices in coal-

fired power plants5 nor with the speciation of mercury in medical waste incinerators

utilizing a water quench after the combustion chamber, which suggests that mercury

species are not in equilibrium as the flue gas cools.

At moderate temperatures in a flue gas environment, mercury is thought to react with

chlorine atoms, which are formed by the interaction of HCl with free radicals. Kinetic

calculations have been carried out on simulated combustion flue gas containing

chlorinated compounds.5 These calculations showed that equilibrium was not achieved

for chlorinated compounds in a rapidly cooling gas with cooling rates typical of the

convection section of a coal-fired power plant waste-to-energy plant. Thus, it seems

reasonable to conclude that the oxidation of mercury via chlorinated compounds does not

reach equilibrium under conditions of rapid quenching.

In incinerators that use a water quench, cooling is even more rapid than in combustion

systems that generate steam. There is indirect evidence of the inability of wet scrubbers

on incinerators with water quench to capture mercury,6 presumably because in those

systems, the mercury is still predominantly in the elemental form at the scrubber.

Elemental mercury, as discussed below, is not removed by wet scrubbers, unlike oxidized

forms of mercury. Experiments carried out on the speciation of mercury in a reactor that

mimicked the flue gas composition and residence time of a typical incinerator6

demonstrated that even at high (3000 ppmv) levels of HCl in the flue gas, mercury was

not oxidized if the gas was quenched too rapidly.

Mercury can be also oxidized heterogeneously or adsorbed by fly ash or activated carbon.

Ash plays a role in both the adsorption of mercury and the oxidation of elemental

mercury in flue gas at temperatures characteristic of particulate control device. Unburned

carbon in ash has been suspected of adsorbing mercury in coal-fired power plants.

In a dry process kiln, the gas exits the kiln at much high temperatures such that mercury

will exit the kiln in the gaseous form. But in the preheater tower, mercury may be

adsorbed on the raw meal, enriching both the kiln feed and the CKD. As with wet

process kilns, concentrations of mercury in the kiln itself should be higher than predicted

from the mercury content of the input streams.









3

DRAFT



Detailed measurements of mercury within Portand cement kilns have not been made.

However, the behavior of thallium has been studied. Thallium is reported by Sprung7 to

have the highest volatility of the trace metals that were assayed in cement kilns; the other

metals were Zn, Pb, As, Ni, Cr, Cd. Figure 1 shows the concentrations of thallium and

other metals measured in solids collected from various stages in a preheater kiln. Volatile

metals (e.g.,

Figure 1. Distribution of selected metals in stages of preheater thallium) condense

7

kiln. at lower

temperatures on the

10000

Stage: I II III IV

solids than other

9000 metals. Since the

solids are being

Hourly quantity in feed material, g/h









8000



7000 Pb preheated before

introduction into the

6000

kiln, the condensed

5000

metal will be

4000 recycled back into

3000 K2O x10 -3 the kiln. The

2000

Thallium concentration of

1000

Cl x10 -3 volatile metals will

build up in kiln over

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

time.

Temperature, F

The example of

thallium suggests

that mercury will have similar behavior; the boiling point of mercury is considerably

lower than that of thallium.

In a wet process kiln, the gases cool to 400oF or less at the kiln exit. Mercury may be

oxidized and/or it may condense on the raw material. In the latter case, the mercury will

move along the kiln in the solid bed and then vaporize in mid-kiln after the solids dry and

begin calcining. This will result in the gaseous mercury concentration within the kiln to

build up to high levels, setting up a recycle loop for mercury within the kiln. As

discussed below, some of the mercury will adsorb on the cement kiln dust (CKD) and be

removed in the particulate control device and some will leave the kiln in gaseous form.

When CKD is reinjected into the kiln, as is commonly done, levels of mercury in the kiln

itself will be considerably higher than one would predict from looking at the content of

mercury in the fuel and raw materials.

MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM PORTLAND CEMENT

MANUFACTURE

Sources of mercury in cement kiln feed streams

Coal is a primary fuel for many cement kilns, whether or not they burn hazardous waste.

Coal contains very small amounts of mercury; typical values of mercury in bituminous

coals of economic importance in the U.S. are 0.05 to 0.25 µg/g coal (dry basis). When

translated into concentration in the flue gas, this corresponds to 4 to 20 µg/DSCM at 7%

O2.





4

DRAFT



Figure 2 shows the cumulative distribution of mercury in solid fuels. These data come

from EPA’s Information Collection Request (ICR) and represent multiple fuel samples

from every coal-fired power plant in the US taken during the fourth quarter of 1999.8

The figure demonstrates the range of mercury concentrations in solids fuels.



Figure 2. Distribution of mercury concentrations in solid fuels from ICR, Part 2 data

for fourth quarter, 1999.8

100%

Petcoke



80%

Lignite

Tires

%Less than value









60% Bituminous





Subbituminous

40%









20%









0%

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Hg content, ug/g



Cement kilns in the United States have been co-firing hazardous waste with other fuels

for 30 years. Most kilns that burn hazardous waste are wet process kilns. The reason for

this has more to do with economics than process, however. Wet process kilns require

more energy per ton of clinker than dry process kilns. Since fuel costs are an important

part of the cost of cement production, burning a “fuel” that generates income helps wet

process kilns reduce operating costs. Liquid hazardous wastes are most commonly fired

in cement kilns through the primary burner. Liquid wastes include the following:

• Residues from industrial or commercial painting operations;

• Metal-cleaning fluids and lubricants;

• Electronic industry solvents;

• Solvents from automotive aftermarket operations.

Some of these wastes contain trace metals, including mercury. Many of them also

contain significant amounts of chlorine, which can affect the chemistry of mercury in the

flue gas.

The kiln feed materials also contain measurable amounts of mercury as illustrated in

Table 3 using data from EPA’s database of emissions from hazardous waste combustors

(HWCs)9 as part of the process of setting maximum achievable control technology

(MACT) standards for HWCs. This database contains emissions data from 13 different





5

DRAFT



wet process cement kilns that burn hazardous waste. In some cases, metals and/or

organics were spiked into the feed for testing purposes. In Table 3, a subset of the data is

shown for samples taken without spiking of metals in the feed and presumably (from the

low percentage of mercury in the raw material) without recycle of CKD into the raw

material. All the mercury concentrations have been converted to the equivalent of

µg/DSCM at 7% O2 in the flue gas. The amount of mercury entering the kiln in the raw

material appears to be on the same order as that in the coal, for these particular kilns. The



Table 3. Mercury in feed streams to select wet process kilns expressed as µg/DSCM

at 7% O2 in the flue gas (Reference 9).

Source

ID Haz. Raw

Number Waste Mat’l Coal Total

203 17.6 6.2 6.6 30.4

302 17.1 2.1 19.2

302A 17.1 2.1 19.2

319 18.9 0.8 0.8 20.5

319 5.9 0.7 0.3 7.9

322 71.4 1.2 72.5

323 3.1 3.6 6.7

323 152.9 5.4 158.2

323 24.0 3.1 27.0

323 112.8 3.4 114.5

404 86.9 8.0 7.5 98.4

404 27.8 8.8 5.9 42.5

473 456.8 456.8

hazardous waste typically has more mercury than either the coal or the raw material and

there is a very wide range of mercury in the hazardous waste.





Emissions of mercury from cement kilns

In order to get an idea of the range of mercury emissions from cement kilns, we will look

at two sets of data, one for kilns burning hazardous waste and one for kilns that do not

burn hazardous waste.

The Portland Cement Association compiled a database of cement kiln emissions,10

including emissions of mercury for kilns that do not burn hazardous wastes. The mercury

measurements are from 35 different sampling reports with a total of 50 measurements.

Various types of kilns, fuels, and particulate control devices are represented in the

database. Figure 3 shows a frequency distribution of the measured mercury emission.

Mercury concentration is reported in µg per dry standard cubic meter (DSCM) at 7% O2.

Statistical analysis of the data did not reveal significant differences between the

emissions as a function of type of process, but the mean mercury emission was higher for

kilns with fabric filters as compared to those with electrostatic precipitators. One group

of measurements falls into the expected range for coal-fired boilers; this might not be





6

DRAFT



surprising since many of these kilns burn coal as the primary fuel. What is surprising,

however, is the number of measurements above 50 µg/DSCM.





Figure 3. Distribution of stack concentrations of mercury (in µg/DSCM at 7%

O2) for selected kilns that do not burn hazardous waste (Reference 10).





Range of Range

Coal-fired boilers of MWCs

Number of Tests in Range









20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0.01- 0.1-1 1-10 10-20 20-50 50- 100- >500

0.1 100 500

Mercury, ug/DSCM





Figure 4. Distribution of stack concentrations of mercury

The EPA database of

(in µg/DSCM at 7% O2) for selected kilns that burn

emissions from hazardous

hazardous waste (Reference 9).

waste combustors

(HWCs)10 previously

Range of Range mentioned contains

Coal-fired boilers of MWCs emissions data from 13

different wet process

Number of Tests in Range









18 cement kilns that burn

16 hazardous waste. In some

14

cases, metals and/or

12

10 organics were spiked into

8 the feed for testing

6 purposes. Figure 4

4 summarizes the distribution

2 of mercury emissions based

0 on 60 different samples.

0.01- 0.1-1 1-10 10- 20- 50- 100- >500 The mercury emission for

0.1 20 50 100 500 each sample represents an

Mercury, ug/DSCM average of three

measurements.







7

DRAFT



Table 4 compares the two datasets. The non-hazardous waste dataset represents all types

of kilns and the hazardous waste dataset, only wet process kilns. However, there was no

statistically significant difference noted in the former dataset among various kiln types.

The dataset of hazardous-waste burning kilns has a mean and median that are about twice

that of the dataset from the kilns that don’t burn hazardous waste. Since the compositions

of wastes vary, no absolute comparison can be made. However, we can get an idea of the

range of mercury emissions from cement kilns, whether or not they fire hazardous

wastes.

There is an inherent recycle of a volatile

Table 4. Mercury emissions from metal such as mercury within the kiln,

cement kilns burning hazardous waste9 both due to recycle of mercury-containing

and not burning hazardous waste10 (in cement kiln dust and to large temperature

µg/DSCM at 7% O2). gradients (in wet process kilns), it may

take a long time for mercury to reach

steady state in a cement kiln. This makes

Kiln type Wet All it difficult to make accurate mass balance

HW non-HW measurements of mercury, particularly

Median 17.4 8.3 when mercury is only spiked in the feed

for short periods of time or where mercury

Mean 66.4 28.0

concentrations are changing rapidly in the

Standard deviation 201.2 62.7 feed stream. To illustrate the difficulties

Minimum 0.2 0.0 in closing the mercury mass balance, we

Maximum 1237.7 385.6 compare the mercury in the feed streams

to the mercury in the stack for selected

samples from the EPA HWC database.9

We have excluded any measurements in which mercury was spiked into the feed, with

the understanding that it can take a long time to come to steady state when metals are

spiked into the feed. The data on mercury in the raw material appear to include both

CKD and raw meal in some cases, which suggests that CKD was being recycled for those

cases. We have adjusted the concentration of mercury in the raw material in those cases

either to reflect the mercury level in the absence of recycle (if those data are available for

that kiln) or the mercury level in typical raw material. Figure 5 shows the ratio of

mercury in the stack emission to mercury in the feed. There was generally a significant

amount of mercury in the stack, relative to the feed concentration. In many cases, the

amount of mercury in the stack was greater than the amount of mercury in the feed. As

discussed above, this illustrates the inherent difficulty of obtaining a steady state

measurement of mercury in cement kilns.









8

DRAFT



Figure 5. Ratio of mercury in stack emission to mercury in feed stream for selected wet

process kilns with and without recycle of cement kiln dust (Reference 9).



8

No Recycle

7

Recycle

6

Number of Tests in Range

5



4



3



2



1



0

0-0.1 0.1-0.5 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-10

Hg in stack emission/Hg in Feed







The distribution of mercury in a dry process, preheater kiln is illustrated in Figure 6.

These data are taken from a large study of trace metals in many different kilns.11 In this

particular kiln, mercury was also spiked into the feed, but the amount of the spike has

been removed from the mass balance because of the uncertainty of the time needed to





Figure 6. Mercury flow rates in a dry process, preheater kiln; all flows in lb/hr

(Reference 11).

Main Stack: 0.0046



Feed:

0.0399

Bypass Stack: 0.0021 Cooler Stack: 0.0003

Preheater

Bypass Dust: 0.0009





Kiln Cooler Clinker:

0.0101



Liquid Waste:

Inputs: 0.0419 lb/hr

Tires: 0.0003

Outputs: 0.0179 lb/hr 0.00007

Coal:

Mass Balance Closure: 0.0016

43%









9

DRAFT



reach steady state. The mass balance closure is 43%.

MODELING MERCURY IN CEMENT KILNS

Models have been developed12 that can be used to predict the distribution of trace metals

including mercury in cement kilns. In this work, a model previously developed by

Reaction Engineering International was used to examine the effect of recycle on mercury

emissions from cement kilns.

The model for the long, wet kilns is illustrated in Figure 7. Table 5 gives the assumptions

used in the model. As shown previously, recycle of kiln dust back into the kiln has an

impact on mercury emissions. Figure 8 illustrates the predicted stack emissions with and

without recycle of cement kiln dust. Stack emissions are higher with recycle, which is

the behavior that has been observed (Figure 5).



Figure 7. Long, wet kiln process model for mercury.

Main Stack

Coo

Vent





M18 A M9

M15

C

M6 M5 M13

M19 Long Kiln

M14

M10 M11 M12

M1 M2 M3 M4

Raw Meal Clinker



M21

Kiln fuel









Table 5. Assumptions in long kiln process model.

Dust entrainment in kiln, g CKD/g

clinker 8.0%

Hg vaporization/recycle in kiln 90.0%

Dust entrainment in clinker cooler 10.0%

Collection efficiency, main ESP 95.0%

Collection efficiency, cooler ESP 30.0%

CKD recycle 0.0%

Hg concentration in fuel, mg/kg 0.10

Hg concentration in limestone, mg/kg 0.10

Fuel usage, kg fuel/kg clinker 0.20

Limestone usage, kg/kg clinker 1.52









10

DRAFT



The model for the long, wet kilns is illustrated in Figure 8. Table 6 gives the assumptions

used in the model. As shown previously, recycle of kiln dust back into the kiln has an

impact on mercury emissions.

In precalciner kilns, the preheater/precalciner can be bypassed. A portion of the flue gas

is often recycled through a separate stack. The bypass stream does not pass through the

preheater, where mercury can condense on the raw material and be recycled into the kiln.

Figure 9 illustrates the predicted emissions from the main stack and bypass stacks. The

percentage of flue gas that exits through the bypass stack has an influence on stack

concentrations of mercury. Bypass shifts mercury emissions from the main stack to the

bypass stack.



Figure 8. Precalciner kiln process model for mercury.

Bypass Stack





M7 M17

B





M16

Main Stack Preheater/Precalciner

Cooler

Vent





M18 A M9 M8

M20 M15

C

M6 M5 M13

M19 Kiln

M14

M10 M11 M12

M1 M2 M3 M4

Inputs Clinker

M22 M21

Precalciner fuel Kiln fuel









Table 6. Assumptions in precalciner process model.

Dust entrainment in kiln, g CKD/g

clinker 14.0%

Hg vaporization/recycle in kiln 70.0%

Dust entrainment in clinker cooler 10.0%

Kiln bypass 30.0%

Carryover from preheater to APCD 60.0%

Collection efficiency, main ESP 30.0%

Collection efficiency, bypass ESP 30.0%

Collection efficiency, cooler ESP 30.0%

Hg concentration in fuel, mg/kg 20.0%

Hg concentration in limestone, mg/kg 0.26

Fuel usage, kg fuel/kg clinker 0.11

Fraction of fuel burned in kiln 1

Limestone usage, kg/kg clinker 1.52





11

DRAFT





Figure 9. Effect of bypass ratio on the emissions of mercury from main and bypass

stack on precalciner kiln.



0.30



Main Stack

0.25 Emissions



0.20

Bypass Stack

Hg/Hg Input







0.15 Emissions



0.10







0.05 Bypass ESP Dust



0.00

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%



Bypass





CONCLUSIONS

There are currently emission limits on mercury from certain categories of combustion

sources, including cement kilns that burn hazardous waste. Cement kilns that do not burn

hazardous waste are not subject to these emission standards. However, EPA is currently

reviewing the need for emission standards for mercury and other pollutants from cement

kilns.

Mercury enters a cement kiln in the coal, in the raw material (kiln feed) and in hazardous

wastes (if they are burned). Mercury leaves the kiln in the clinker, CKD or via stack

emissions. The distribution of mercury within a cement kiln is difficult to measure

quantitatively because of the difficulty in reaching a steady state. There is an inherent

recycle of mercury between the hot and cold end of a kiln, and also from the reinjection

of mercury-containing CKD into the kiln. Models can be used to predict the distribution

of mercury in a cement kiln. In the future, such models might be used in conjunction

with control technology to minimize emissions of mercury from cement kilns.

REFERENCES

1 Keating, M.H., et al. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume I: Executive

Summary, EPA-452/R-97-003, December 1997.

2. Portland Cement Association, U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant

Information Summary, Data as of December 31, 2000 (Portland Cement Association,

2001).

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Combustion Frequently

Asked Questions, http://www.epa.gov/hwcmact/faqs.html (March 26, 2002).







12

DRAFT



4. Johansen, V.C, Hawkins, G. J., Mercury Speciation in Cement Kilns: A Literature

Review, PCA R&D Serial 2567 (Portland Cement Association, 2003).

5. Senior, C.L., Sarofim, A.F., Zeng, T., Helble, J.J., Mamani-Paco, R., “Gas-phase

transformations of mercury in coal-fired power plants,” Fuel Process. Technol.,

2000, 63, 197-213.

6. Gaspar, J.A., Widmer, N.C., Cole, J.A., Seeker, W.R., “Study of Mercury Speciation

in a Simulated Municipal Waste Incinerator Flue Gas,” paper presented at the

International Conference on Icineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies,

Oakland, California, May 12-16, 1997.

7. Sprung, S., Technological Problems in Pyroprocessing Cement Clinker: Cause and

Solution. (Beton-Verlag, 1985).

8. EPA Air Toxics Website - Utility Toxics HAP Study,

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html#DA4

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Combustion: NODA

Documents, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/comwsite/cmb-

noda.htm, December 19, 2002.

10. Richards, J. “Compilation of Cement Industry Air Emissions Data for 1989 to 1996”,

SP125, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois. .

11. Portland Cement Association, “An Analysis of Selected Trace Metals in Cement

Kiln Dust,” SP109T, Skokie, Illinois, 1992.

12. Owens, W.D., Sarofim, A.F., Pershing, D.W. “The use of recycle for enhanced

volatile metal capture,” Fuel Process. Technol., 1994, 39, 337-356.









13



Related docs
Other docs by hedongchenchen
spec_2_
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Life Expectancy Table
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
sbda tender document
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Momentum010111
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
PVK06_DesignAndCoding
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
80R4852 TAD-D
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
spring_06
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
The 451 Group
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!