DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

             FOR PROPOSED

   EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES,

  NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,

                 AND

        PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

               FOR"THE

            STEAM ELECTRIC

        POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
          Douglas M. Costle
            Administrator
          Robert B. Schaffer
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
              John Lum
       Senior Project Officer
           Teresa Wright
          Project Officer
          September 1980
     Effluent Guidelines Division
 Office of Water and Waste Management
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Washington, D.C.  20460

-------

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                                             Page
                            • •,"-".^'       "'•'•,"'-'
I         CONCLUSIONS		     1

II        RECOMMENDATIONS	     3

III       INTRODUCTION	    15

          BACKGROUND	,    15

                  OF THIS SUPPLEMENT	    15 .

          INFORMATION AVAILABILITY, SOURCES AND
          COLLECTION	,	    23

          INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION	    27

          PROCESS DESCRIPTION	  .  31

          ALTERNATE PROCESSES UNDER ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT	    39

          FUTURE GENERATING SYSTEMS	    40

IV        INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION.	    43

          STATISTICAL ANALYSIS	'.....	    44

          ENGINEERING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS		    47

V         WASTE CHARACTERIZATION	    51

          INTRODUCTION		    51

          DATA COLLECTION. ..:	    51

          COOLING WATER	    59

          ASH HANDLING		   116

          LOW VOLUME WASTES			   173

          METAL CLEANING WASTES	   192

          COAL PILE RUNOFF	   212

VI        SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS		   233

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (CONTINUED)

                                                            Page
VII       TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.	.		  249
          INTRODUCTION.		.......	  249
          COOLING WATER.	  249
          ASH HANDLING	,	  305
          LOW-VOLUME WASTES	,	 .  401
          METAL CLEANING WASTES	  406
          COAL PILE AND CHEMICAL HANDLING RUNOFF	  419
VIII      COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS.....  421
          COOLING WATER	  421
          ASH HANDLING	  432
          LOW VOLUME-WASTES	  445
          COAL PILE RUNOFF	.... •	  449
IX        BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY  ECONOMICALLY
          ACHIEVABLE GUIDELINES AND  LIMITAITONS, AND
          NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS  AND
          PRETREATMENT STANDARDS	  455
          ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER	  455
          COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN.		  460
          ASH TRANSPORT WATER	  463
          METAL CLEANING WASTES	  469
          LOW-VOLUME WASTES	  469
X         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	,	  471
XI        REFERENCES	  475
XII       GLOSSARY	  487
                               ii

-------
                  TABLE OF' CONTENTS  (CONTINUED)
APPENDIX
   A      TVA RAW RIVER  INTAKE AND ASH  POND  DISCHARGE
          DATA ....... ............ .. ........................   513

   B      CHLORINE MINIMIZATION PROGRAM FOR  ONCE-
          THROUGH COOLING WATER. .............. ---- . .......   572

   C      STATISTICAL EVALUATION  OF  CHLORINE MINIMIZA-
          TION AND DECHLORINATION . ---- ...... ... ...........   584
                               iii

-------
                          LIST OF TABLES
Number

II-1      RECOMMENDED BAT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT
          STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES	     4

II-2      TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED AS CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING
          RECOMMENDED LIMITATIONS	     8

II-3      EXISTING BPT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT
          STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES	    10

III-l     LIST OF SIXTY-FIVE CLASSES OF POLLUTANTS
          CONTAINED IN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
          EPA. AND NRDC	    16

III-2     LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS	    18

III-3     DISTRIBUTION OF THE STEAM SECTION RELATIVE TO
          THE ENTIRE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY AS OF 1978.    28

III-4     YEAR-END 1978 DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM ELECTRIC
          PLANTS BY SIZE CATEGORY	    29

III-5     PRESENT AND FUTURE CAPACITY OF THE ELECTRIC
          UTILITY INDUSTRY	    30

III-6     NUMBER OF EXISTING STEAM-ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS
          BY FUEL TYPE AND SIZE	    32

III-7     CAPACITY OF EXISTING AND NEW STEAM-ELECTRIC
          POWERPLANTS BY FUEL TYPE AND SIZE.......	    33

III-8     EXISTING AND PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM
          ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS BY FUEL TYPE	    34

III-9     DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM-ELECTRIC CAPACITY BY
          PLANT SIZE AND IN-SERVICE YEAR	    35

IV-1      VARIABLES FOUND TO HAVE A STATISTICALLY
          SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE ON NORMALIZED FLOW
          DISCHARGES			.	    45

IV-2      PERCENT OF THE VARIATION IN NORMALIZED
          DISCHARGE FLOWS THAT IS EXPLAINED BY THE
          INDEPENDENT VARIABLES	    46

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number

V-l       CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED  IN  THE
          SCREEN SAMPLING PHASE OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM...    54

V-2       CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED  IN  THE
          VERIFICATION PHASE.	,.    56

V-3       SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
          DETECTED IN ANY OF THE WASTE STREAMS  FROM
          STEAM ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS  BASED ON THE ANALYSIS
          OF THE COMPLETE COMPUTERIZED DATA  BASE	    60

V-4       ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER  FLOW RATES	    62

V-5       COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN	    67

V-6       COPPER CORROSION DATA........	.'..'	    79

V-7       ONE YEAR STEADY STATE CORROSION RATES FOR
          ALLOY 706 DETERMINED EXPERIMENTALLY		    81

V-8       SELECTED PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
          IN SEAWATER BEFORE AND AFTER PASSAGE  THROUGH
          ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER  SYSTEM.	    82

V-9       SOLUBLE COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN RECIRCULATING
          COOLING WATER SYSTEMS	    83

V-10      COMMONLY USED CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL
          CHEMICALS	    84

V-ll      SOLVENT OR CARRIER COMPONENTS THAT MAY BE USED
          IN CONJUNCTON WITH SCALING  AND CORROSION
          CONTROL AGENTS		    88

V-l2      POLLUTANTS REPORTED ON 308  FORMS IN COOLING
          TOWER SLOWDOWN	    89

V-13      ASBESTOS IN COOLING TOWER WATERS	    90

V-14      RESULTS OF SCREENING PROGRAM FOR ONCE-THROUGH
          COOLING WATER SYSTEMS	    93

V-15              OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM
          AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR
          ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER  SYSTEMS	    94

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number                                                       Page

V-16      RESULTS OF THE SCREENING PHASE  OF  THE  SAMPLING
          PROGRAM FOR COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN	   103

V-17      SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR
          RECIRCULATION COOLING WATER  SYSTEMS	   107

V-18      FLY ASH POND OVERFLOW	   117

V-19      BOTTOM ASH POND OVERFLOW	   118

V-20      VANADIUM, NICKEL, AND SODIUM CONTENT OF
          RESIDUAL FUEL OIL	   120

V-21      AVERAGE PRODUCT YIELD OF A MODERN  UNITED
          STATES REFINERY	   121

V-22      SULFUR CONTENT IN FRACTIONS  OF  KUWAIT  CRUDE
          OIL		   122

V-23      MELTING POINTS OF SOME  OIL/ASH  CONSTITUENTS	   124

7-24      MEGATONS OF COAL ASH COLLECTED  IN  THE
          UNITED STATES	   126

V-25      VARIATIONS IN COAL ASH  COMPOSITION WITH
          RANK.	   127

V-26      RANGE IN AMOUNT OF TRACE ELEMENTS  PRESENT  IN
          COAL ASHES		   128

V-27      COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN BOTTOM  ASH
          AND FLY ASH BY TYPE OF  BOILERS  AND METHOD  OF
          FIRING			   133

V-28      MAJOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS  OF  FLY ASH AND
          BOTTOM ASH FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
          REGIONS	.,	   134

V-29      COMPARISON OF FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH FROM
          VARIOUS UTILITY PLANTS.	   135

V-30      CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED TRACE ELEMENTS  IN
          COAL AND ASH AT PLANT 4710.......	   137

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number                                                       Page
V-31      ELEMENTS SHOWING PRONOUNCED  CONCENTRATION
          TRENDS WITH DECREASING PARTICLE  SIZE	   140

V-32      CHARACTERISTICS OF ASH POND  OVERFLOW WITH
          TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS  LESS
          THAN 30 mg/1	   141

V-33      SUMMARY OF ASH POND OVERFLOW DATA  FROM
          DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS		   142

V-34      SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TVA  TRACE METAL DATA FOR
          ASH POND INTAKE AND EFFLUENT STREAMS	   143

V-35      SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATION CONDITIONS  AND ASH
          CHARACTERISTICS OF TVA COAL-FIRED  POWER
          PLANTS	   149

V-36      NUMBER OF ASH PONDS IN WHICH AVERAGE EFFLUENT
          CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED TRACE ELEMENTS
          EXCEED THOSE OF THE INTAKE WATER	•	   15°

V-37      SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TRACE METAL DATA  FOR ASH
          POND INTAKE AND EFFLUENT  STREAMS	   151

V-38      SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS  AND ASH
          CHARACTERISTICS OF TVA COAL-FIRED  POWERPLANTS	   154

V-39      ASH POND EFFLUENT TRACE ELEMENT
          CONCENTRATIONS	   156

V-40      SCREENING DATA FOR ASH POND  OVERFLOW	   157

V-41      SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE  VERIFICATION  PROGRAM
          AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND  ANALYSIS  REPORTS FOR
          ASH POND OVERFLOW	   160

V-42      CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ARSENIC IN  ASH  POND
          OVERFLOW EXCEEDS 0.05 mg/1.	   171

V-43      ARSENIC CONCENTRATIONS IN ASH POND
          EFFLUENTS	 .	   172

V-44      RECOMMENDED LIMITS OF TOTAL  SOLIDS IN  BOILER
          WATER FOR DRUM BOILERS	   174
                               vii

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Contimied)
Number

V-45      CHEMICAL ADDITIVES COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH
          INTERNAL BOILER TREATMENT		   175

V-46      STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF BOILER SLOWDOWN
          CHARACTERISTICS...........		   176

V-47      BOILER SLOWDOWN FLOWRATES	   178

V-48      SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS  DATA FOR  BOILER
          SLOWDOWN		   179

V-49      COAGULATING AND FLOCCULATING AGENT
          CHARACTERISTICS		.   182

V-50      CLARIFIER SLOWDOWN FLOWRATES	   183

V-51      FILTER BACKWASH FLOWRATES	   184

V-52      ION EXCHANGE MATERIAL TYPES AND REGENERANT
          REQUIREMENT	   186

V-53      ION EXCHANGE SPENT REGEN1RANT CHARACTERISTICS....   187

V-54      ION EXCHANGE SOFTENER SPENT REGENERANT
          FLOWRATES			   188

V-55      LIME SOFTENER SLOWDOWN FLOWRATES	   189

V-56      EVAPORATOR SLOWDOWN CHARACTERISTICS		   190

7-57      EVAPORATOR SLOWDOWN FLOWRATES		   191

V-58      REVERSE OSMOSIS BRINE FLOWRATES		   193

V-59      EQUIPMENT DRAINAGE AND LEAKAGE.	   194

V-60      SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS  DATA FOR
          DEMINERALIZER REGENERANT	   195

V-61      ALLOYS AND CONSTITUENTS OF BOILER SYSTEMS	   201

V-62      WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIATED CITRIC ACID
          SOLUTIONS	   203

V-63      WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIATED EDTA
          SOLUTIONS	   204


                               viii

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number

V-64      WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIACAL  SODIUM
          BROMATE SOLUTIONS	   205

V-65      WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID WITHOUT
          COPPER COMPLEXER  SOLUTIONS	   207

V-66      WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID WITH
          COPPER COMPLEXER  SOLUTIONS	'.....   209

V-67      WASTE CONSTITUENTS ;OF HYDROXYACETIC/FORMIC
          ACID SOLUTIONS	,	   210

V-68      AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM  CONCENTRATIONS AND  LOADING
          IN EAW WASTEWATER FROM FIRESIDE WASHES  AT
          PLANT 3306.	   213

V-69      WASTE LOAD DATA FOR  BOILER  FIRESIDE WASH	   214

V-70      FIRESIDE WASH WATER  FLOWRATES	   215

V-71      AIR PREHEATER WASH WATER.	   216

V-72      WASTE LOAD DATA FOR  AIR PREHEATER WASH	   217

V-73      AIR PREHEATER WASHWATER FLOWRATES	   218

V-74      CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL PILE RUNOFF	   221

V-75      CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS  IN COAL  PILE
                	   222

V-76      SUMMARY OF NEW AND RETROFIT FGD SYSTEMS BY
          PROCESS	o	„	   224

V-77      COMPOSITION OF EFFLUENT FROM ONCE-THROUGH
          MIST ELIMINATOR WASH UNIT AT WET  LIMESTONE
          SCRUBBER SYSTEM.	   226

V-78      RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS OF  CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS
          IN FGD SLUDGES       LIME/LIMESTONE, AND DOUBLE-
          ALKALI SYSTEMS	   229

V-79      FLUE GAS SCRUBBER SLOWDOWN	   230

V-80      FLUE GAS SCRUBBER SOLIDS  POND  OVERFLOW......	   231
                                 ix

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number

¥1-1      PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN THE  SAMPLING
          PROGRAM BY WASTE STREAM SOURCES	   235

VI-2      NUMBER OF PLANTS REPORTING VARIOUS PRIORITY
          POLLUTANTS AS       OR SUSPECTED TO  BE PRESENT
          IN VARIOUS WASTE STREAMS ...		,	   240

VI-3      PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING PROPRIETARY
          CHEMICALS USED BY POWER PLANTS	   243

VI-4      WATER QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA USED
          IN ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
          POWER PLANT EFFLUENTS	   246

VII-1     TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE DATA REPORTED IN
          CHLORINE MINIMIZATION STUDIES	, .   262

VII-2     SULFUR DIOXIDE DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS IN USE OR
                CONSTRUCTION AT U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC
          PLANTS	,		   269

VII-3     CHLORINATED CONDENSER OUTLET FIELD DATA FROM
          PLANT 0611	   270

VII-4     UNCHLORINATED CONDENSER OUTLET FIELD DATA  FROM
          PLANT 0611			   271

VII-5     DECHLORINATED EFFLUENT DATA FIELD DATA FOR
          PLANT 0611	.		   272

VII-6     DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS  IN USE OR
          UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC
          PLANTS	   277

VII-7     CHLORINATION/DECHLORINATION PRACTICES	   278

VII-8     EFFECT OF DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION ON PH
          OF THE COOLING WATER...		   280

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number      "                                                •Page

711-9     EFFECT OF DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION  ON
          DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN COOLING WATER...........	   281

VII-10    CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL MIXTURES KNOWN
          TO CONTAIN PRIORITY POLLUTANTS.......	..	..   299

VII-11    COMMONLY USED OXIDIZING BIOCIDES	   300

VII-12    COMMONLY USED NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES.	   302

VII-13    ASH CONVEYING CAPACITIES OF VARIOUS  SIZE  PIPES...   315

VII-14    PLANTS WITH RETROFITTED DRY FLY ASH  HANDLING
          SYSTEMS		......	^	   336

VII-15    ARSENIC REMOVAL FROM MUNICIPAL WASTEWATERS	   351

VII-16    SUMMARY OF NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS  IN  METAL
          PROCESSING AND PLATING WASTEWATERS.'...'	 .   352

VII-17    SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS       '   .
          AFTER PRECIPITATION TREATMENT			   353
  \-         •
VII-18    CONCENTRATIONS OF ZINC IN PROCESS WASTEWATERS	  '355

VII-19    SUMMARY OF PRECIPITATION TREATMENT RESULTS  FOR
          ZINC.	   356

VII-20    COPPER CONCENTRATIONS  IN WASTEWATER  FROM  METAL
          PLATING AND PROCESSING OPERATIONS		   356

VII-21    COPPER REMOVAL BY. FULL-SCALE INDUSTRIAL
          WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS	   357

VII-22    COMPARISON OF INITIAL  TRACE METAL  CONCENTRATIONS
          CITED IN STUDIES REPORTED IN THE  LITERATURE AND
          TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ASH  POND
          DISCHARGES	   361

VII-23    TRACE METAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES  FOR LIME
          PRECIPITATION TREATMENT OF ASH POND  EFFLUENTS....   362

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number
Page
VII-24    TRACE METAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES  FOR  LIME  PLUS
          FERRIC SULFATE PRECIPITATION TREATMENT OF  ASH
          POND EFFLUENTS	   363

VII-25    DATA SUMMARY OF PLANTS REPORTING  ZERO DISCHARGE
          OF BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER....................   375

VII-26    TRACE ELEMENTS/PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
          CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 3203	   385

VII-27    MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATION AT  PLANT  3203	   386

VII-28    TRACE ELEMENTS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
          CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 0822...;	   391

VII-29    MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 0822.......   392

VII-30    TRACE ELEMENTS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
          CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 1811		   397

VII-31    MAJOR SPECIES POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATIONS
          AT PLANT 1811	   398

VII-32    TRACE ELEMENTS/PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
          CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 1809			.   402

VII-33    MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 1809	   403

VII-34    TREATMENT OF ACID CLEANING WASTEWATER SUMMARY
          OF JAR TESTS		   416

VII-35    EQUIVALENT TREATMENT OF INCINERATION  TESTS...	   418

VII-36    PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES AND
          EFFICIENCIES		   420

VIII-1    SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
          FOR CHLORINE MINIMIZATION IN ONCE-THROUGH
          COOLING WATER SYSTEMS	   422

VIII-2    SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
          FOR DECHLORINATION IN ONCE-THROUGH COOLING
          WATER SYSTEMS	   422
                              xii

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number

VIII-3    SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
          FOR BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH CHLORINE  DIOXIDE
          IN ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER  SYSTEMS	   424

VIII-4    SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS
          FOR BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH BROMINE CHLORIDE
          IN ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER  SYSTEMS	   424

VIII-5    SUMMARY COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
          FOR BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH OZONE  IN  ONCE-
          THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS	   425

VIII-6    SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS
          FOR DECHLORINATION OF RECIRCULATING COOLING
          SYSTEM DISCHARGE (SLOWDOWN)	 .   425

VIII-7    SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS
          FOR VAPOR COMPRESSION DISTILLATION OF COOLING
          TOWER SLOWDOWN.	...	.	   427

VIII-8    SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS
          FOR BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH CHLORINE  DIOXIDE
          IN RECIRCULATING COOLING SYSTEMS		   427

VIII-9    SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS
          FOR- BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH BROMINE CHLORIDE
          IN RECIRCULATING COOLING SYSTEMS..,		.   428

VIII-10   SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS
          FOR BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH OZONE  IN
          RECIRCULATING COOLING SYSTEMS...		   428

VIII-11   SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS
          FOR SWITCHING TO NON-PRIORITY  CONTAINING
          NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES	 ...	   430

VIII-12   SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS
          FOR SWITCHING TO NON-PRIORITY  POLLUTANT
          CONTAINING CORROSION AND SCALE CONTROL
          CHEMICALS	   430

VIII-13   COOLING TOWER FILL REPLACEMENT COSTS.............   431
                               xa.il.

-------
                    LIST OF  TABLES  (Continued)
Number

VIII-14   CAPITAL COSTS FOR  DRY FLY ASH  HANDLING  SYSTEMS...   434

VIH-15   ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE  COST FOR DRY
          FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS	 t	   434

VIII-16   ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR DRY FLY ASH HANDLING
          SYSTEMS		   436

VIII-17   LAND REQUIREMENTS  FOR DRY FLY  ASH HANDLING
          SYSTEMS	   436

VIII-18   CAPITAL COSTS FOR  PARTIAL RECIRCULATING AND
          CHEWMICAL PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-THROUGH FLY
          ASH SLUICING SYSTEMS	   437

VIII-19   OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PARTIAL
          RECYCLE AND CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-
          THROUGH FLY ASH SLUICING SYSTEMS	   438

VIII-20   ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECIRCULATING
          AND WET CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-THROUGH
          FLY ASH SLUICING SYSTEMS	 .•	   439

VIII-21   LAND REQUIREMENTS  FOR PARTIAL  RECIRCULATING
          AND CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION OF  ONCE-THROUGH
          FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS	   440

VIII-22   CAPITAL COSTS FOR  COMPLETE RECYCLE BOTTOM
          ASH HANDLING SYSTEM		   440

VIII-23   OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR COMPLETE
          RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM	   443

VIII-24   ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE  RECYCLE
          BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM	,	   443

VIII-25   LAND REQUIREMENTS  FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE  BOTTOM
          ASH HANDLING SYSTEM			...   444

VIII-26   CAPITAL COSTS FOR  PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
          HANDLING SYSTEM	 .   444

VIII-27   OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PARTIAL
          RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM	   446
                                xiv

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
Number

VIII-28   ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR  PARTIAL  RECYCLE
          BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM,	   446

VIII-29   LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM
          AHS BALDING SYSTEMS		..   447

VIII-30   IMPOUNDMENT COST.	.. . .	   447

VIII-31   COST OF VAPOR COMPRESSION EVAPORATION SYSTEM.....   448

VIII-32   COST OF EVAPORATION PONDING		   448

VIII-33   COST OF SPRAY DRYING SYSTEM	   450

VIII-34   COST OF IMPOUNDMENT FOR  COAL PILE  RUNOFF..».	   450

VIII-35   COST OF LIME FEED SYSTEM	   451

VIII-36   COST OF MIXING EQUIPMENT.		   451

VIII-37   CLARIFICATION	   452

VIII-38   COST FOR LIME FEED  SYSTEM.	   452

VIII-39   COST OF POLYMER  FEED SYSTEM		   454

VIII-40   COST OF ACID FEED SYSTEM	   454

A-l       TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER  INTAKE  AND FLY  ASH
          POND DISCHARGE DATA	   514

A-2       TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER  INTAKE  AND BOTTOM  ASH
          POND DISCHARGE DATA		   518

A-3       TVA PLANT B RIVER WATER  INTAKE  AND FLY  ASH
          POND DISCHARGE DATA		,.	   522

A-4       TVA' PLANT B RIVER WATER  INTAKE  AND BOTTOM  ASH
          POND DISCHARGE DATA.	   525

A-5       TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER  INTAKE  AND COMBINED
          ASH POND (EAST)  DISCHARGE DATA	   528

A-6       TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER  INTAKE  AND COMBINED
          ASH POND (WEST)  DISCHARGE DATA		   532

-------
                    LIST  OF  TABLES  (Continued)
Number             •                                         Page

A-7       TVA PLANT  D RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
          ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA	   536

A-8       TVA PLANT  E RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
          ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA	   540

A-9       TVA PLANT  F RTVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
          ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA	   544

A-10      TVA PLANT  G RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
          ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA	   548

A-11      TVA PLANT  H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
          ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA	   552

A-12      TVA PLANT  H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH
          POND DISCHARGE  DATA	   555

A-13      TVA PLANT  H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH
          POND DISCHARGE  DATA	   556

A-14  -    TVA PLANT  I RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
          ASH POND (SOUTH)  DISCHARGE	   557

A-15      TVA PLANT  J RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
        '  ASH POND DISCHARGE	   561

A-16      TVA PLANT  K RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
          ASH POND DISCHARGE	   565

A-17      TVA PLANT  L RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
          ASH POND DISCHARGE	   569

C-l       RECOMMENDED STANDARDS:   TRC  (mg/1)	   585

C-2       THE NUMBER OF OF  CHLORINATION        .............   586

C-3       PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE  (X) AND  MAXIMUM (MAX.)
          VALUES EQUALING ZERO	   587

C-5       WEIGHTED MEAN:  TRC (mg/1)	   591

C-6       STANDARD DEVIATION	   595
                                xva.

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number                   .                                   Page


C-7       WEIGHTED MEANS AND MEDIAN OF ESTIMATED

          STANDARD DEVIATION FOR TREATMENT TYPE

          (PLANT INDEPENDENT)	   5»6


C-8       COMPUTATION OF ?   .99nl	   597
                         x                       .

C-9       99th PERCENTILE ESTIMATES FOR A DAILY MAXIMUM...   597

-------
                          LIST OF  FIGURES



Figure                        >                               Page

III-l     TYPICAL COAL-FIRED  STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT..........    37

V-l       SOURCES OF WASTEWATER  IN A FOSSIL-FUELED
          STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANT	    52

V-2       SHELL AND TUBE CONDENSER.-	...	    61

V-3       MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS	    64

V-4       NATURAL DRAFT EVAPORATIVE COUNTERFLOW  COOLING
          TOWER		..	    65

V-5       EFFECT OF pH ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF HYPOCHLOROUS
          ACID AND HYPOCHLORITE  ION IN WATER	    69

V-6       EFFECT OF IMPURITIES IN  WATER ON TOTAL
          AVAILABLE CHLORINE  RESIDUAL	    72

V-7       FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HALOGENATED  ORGANICS
          IN RAW AND FINISHED DRINKING WATER.	    73

V-8       EFFECT OF WATER TEMPERATURE ON THE CHLOROFORM
          REACTION.	.. ..	    75

V-9       EFFECT OF pH ON THE CHLOROFORM REACTION..........    76

V-10      EFFECT OF CONTACT TIME ON THE CHLOROFORM
          REACTION	    77

V-ll      PULVERIZED-COAL FIRING METHODS	,.   132

V-12      GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION  CURVES FOR BOTTOM ASH
          AND FLY ASH	   139

VII-1     LIQUID SUPPLY CHLORINATION SYSTEM	   253

VII-2     SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL CHLORINATOR	   254

VII-3     PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING A SET OF SCREENING
          TRIALS TO CONVERGE  ON  THE MINIMUM VALUE FOR
          TRC LEVEL, DURATION OF CHLORINATION, AND
          CHLORINATION FREQUENCY	   260

VII-4     FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DECHLORINATION BY SULFUR
          DIOXIDE (S02) INJECTION		   265
                               xviii

-------
                    LIST OF FIGURES  (Continued)
Figure                           '                           Page

VII-5     FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DECHLORINATION BY DRY
          CHEMICAL INJECTION	   275

VII-6     DECHLORINATION BY NATURAL CHLORINE DEMAND  IN A
          ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEM		   283

VII-7     SIMPLIFIED, SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM OF A CHLORINE
          DIOXIDE BIOFOULING CONTROL FACILITY  BASED  ON
          THE CHLORINE GAS METHOD	.	   287

VII-8     SIMPLIFIED, SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM OF A CHLORINE
          DIOXIDE BIOFOULING CONTROL FACILITY  BASED  ON
          THE HYPOCHLORITE METHOD	   288

VII-9     SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CORONA  CELL	   291

VII-10    EFFECT OF OZONATION FACILITY CAPACITY ON
          PROCESS CHOICE - OXYGEN VS.  AIR	   292

VII-11    OZONATION FACILITY USING AIR TO GENERATE
          OZONE	   294

VII-12    OZONATION FACILITY USING OXYGEN TO GENERATE
          OZONE	. . .. .	   295

VII-13    SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT  OF AMERTAP TUBE CLEANING
          SYSTEM.	   297

VII-14    SCHEMATIC OF M.A.N. SYSTEM REVERSE FLOW
          PIPING	   298

VII-15    DRY FLY ASH HANDLING - VACUUM SYSTEM	   308

VII-16    DIAGRAM OF A HYDRAULIC VACUUM PRODUCER..	   310

VII-17    TYPE "E" DUST VALVES		   311

VII-18    SEGREGATING VALVES	   313

VI1-19    TYPICAL PIPES AND FITTINGS FOR ASH CONVEYING.....   314

VII-20    DRY FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM  - PRESSURE  SYSTEM	   317

VII-21    TYPICAL AIR LOCK VALVE FOR PRESSURE  FLY ASH
          CONVEYING SYSTEM	  319
                               XXX

-------
                     LIST  OF FIGURES  (Continued)



Figure

VII-22    FLY ASH  SILO  AND  HOPPERS/PLANT 1811	  322

VII-23    FLOW  DIAGRAM  FOR  PLANT 0822	  323

VII-24    PRESSURE FLY  ASH  HANDLING  SYSTEM FOR PLANT 3203..  326

VII-25    DISTRIBUTION  OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
          MAJOR FUEL TYPES..........	.......		  328

VII-26    DISTRIBUTION  OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
          COAL  TYPE			  329

VII-27    DISTRIBUTION  OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
          MAJOR BOILER  TYPES		  330

VII-28    DISTRIBUTION  OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
          EPA REGION	  331

VII-29    EPA REGIONS	  332

VII-30    DISTRIBUTION  OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
          VARIOUS  PLANT SIZES	  334

VII-31    DISTRIBUTION  OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS AS A
          FUNCTION OF INTAKE WATER QUALITY	  335

VII-32    GENERALIZED,  SCHEMATIC  DIAGRAM OF A  PARTIAL
          RECIRCULATION FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM	  338

VII-33    A TYPICAL METHOD  OF SLUICING FLY ASH FROM
          COLLECTION POINTS	  339

VII-34    TYPICAL  AIR SEPARATOR  IN A PARTIAL RECIRCULATING
          FLY ASH  HANDLING  SYSTEM	  340

VII-35    ASH HANDLING  SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM AND SAMPLING
          LOCATIONS FOR PLANT 1809	  343

VII-36    FLOW  DIAGRAM  OF A TYPICAL PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
          TREATMENT SYSTEM  FOR METALS REMOVAL  USING  LIME...  345

VII-37    TYPICAL  LIME  FEED SYSTEM		  346

VII-38    DEEP  BED FILTER.	  348

-------
                    LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)


Figure      ^                            '                  . Page

VII-39    LANDFILL METHODS	.	   365

VII-40    VARIOUS STAGES OF A CLOSED-LOOP REGIRCULATING
          SYSTEM	   367

VII-41    PONDING RECYCLE  SYSTEM FOR BOTTOM ASH	   372

VII-42    WATER FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PLANT 3203		   381

VII-43    BOTTOM ASH RECYCLE SYSTEM AT PLANT  3203	   382

VII-44    BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FOR PLANT 8022.	   388

VII-45    PLANT 1811 FLOW  DIAGRAM FOR BOTTOM  ASH HANDLING..   394

VII-46    SIMPLIFIED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM  OF A  VAPOR
          COMPRESSION EVAPORATION UNIT	   405

VII-47    TYPICAL PIPING DIAGRAM AND LOCATION FOR
          INCINERATION OF  BOILER CHEMICAL CLEANING
          WASTES	   408

VII-48    COMPLEXING OF Fe(III)	   411

VII-49    THE CHELATE EFFECT ON COMPLEX  FORMATION OF
          Cu-aq2+ WITH MONODENTATE, BIDENTATE AND
          TETRADENTATE AMINES	   412

VII-50    TREATMENT SCHEME FOR METALS REMOVAL BY
          PRECIPITATION FROM WASTE BOILER CLEANING
          SOLUTION.	   414

VII-51    THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF METAL IONS AS
          A FUNCTION OF pH.	   415

C-l       HISTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2608	   588

C-2       HISTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2607		   589

C-3       HISTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2603.	   590

C-4       EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS FOR PLANT 2608..   592

C-5       EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS FOR PLANT 2607..   593

C-6       EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS FOR PLANT 2603..   594
                                xxa.

-------

-------
                              SECTION I

                             CONCLUSIONS

In revising effluent limitations  guidelines  and  standards  of  per-
formance  as  well  as  pretreatment  standards for the steam electric
power generating industry, separate consideration has  been  given  to
heat and to chemical pollutants.  In this regulation review, only non-
thermal-related  pollutants  :were  considered.   Another document will
address thermal discharges when thermal regulations are proposed.

The analysis of pollutants and the technologies  applicable  to  their
control  has  been  based on specific waste streams of concern.  These
waste streams are  primarily  a  function  of  fuels  used,  processes
employed,  plant  site characteristics, and intake water quality.  The
major waste streams have been defined as direct or  indirect  products
of  the treatment system, power cycle system, ash handling system, air
pollution  control  system,  coal  pile,  yard  and  floor   drainage,
condenser  cooling  system  and  miscellaneous sources.  Virtually all
steam electric facilities have one or more  waste  streams  associated
with these systems and sources.

This  review  of  effluent  guidelines  focused  primarily  on the 129
priority pollutants, although other pollutants were  also  considered.
In  general,  very  few  of  the  organics in the list of  129 priority
pollutants were detected in quantifiable amounts.  Inorganic  priority
pollutants, however, are found  in most waste streams.  The review also
found  that  the chlorine  (non-conventional pollutants) limitations in
the original guidelines were not sufficiently stringent.

Treatment  and  control  technologies  currently  in  use  by  certain
segments of the power industry  could be applied to a greater number of
powerplants,    reducing   the  discharge  of  pollutants.   The  best
practicable control technology  currently available (BPTCA) will not be
changed with exception to provisions relating to boiler blowdown.  The
best available technology  economically achievable (BATEA), new  source
performance standards (NSPS) and pretreatment standards for new  (PSNS)
and  existing  sources   (PSES)  will  be  changed  to  reflect updated
information on control technology, waste  characterization  and  other
factors.

Although   zero  discharge  of bottom and fly ash handling waters can be
achieved by  the  use  of  complete  recirculatirig  or  dry  transport
systems,   the Agency  is not  requiring zero discharge of bottom and fly
ash  handling waters for existing facilities.  However, zero  discharge
of   fly  ash water will be required for new sources.  The  discharge of
priority pollutants   as   the  result  of  the  use  of  cooling  tower
maintenance  chemicals  (which contain the 129 priority pollutants) can
be   eliminated  through  proper  selection  of   chemical   additives;
discharge  of  chlorine residuals can be also reduced significantly by
chemical treatment and   implementation  of  proper  chlorine   addition
procedures.

-------
Pretreatment  standards  for  new  and  existing  sources will require
control of discharges resulting from metal  cleaning  operations,  ash
transport, and blowdown from cooling tower operations.

EPA  has  Teviewed  all  powerplant  waste  stre*ams in this regulation
review effort with the exception of ash pile,  chemical  handling  and
construction area runoff and discharges from wet scrubbing systems for
air pollution control.  Regulations for these streams will be proposed
when additional data become available.  Additional data are also being
compiled  on  bottom and fly ash transport water.  Regulations for .ash
transport streams may be revised upon review of the information.

-------
                              SECTION II

                           RECOMMENDATIONS

The effluent limitations guidelines and standards of  performance  and-
pretreatment  standards  for the steam electric power generating point
source category  are  summarized  in  table  II-l.   The  technologies
available  to  achieve  these  guidelines are presented in table II-2,
These limitations are based on the findings and conclusions  presented
in  this report, and are proposed in compliance with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1977 (Clean Water Act).

For comparison, the current BPT guidelines are presented in Table  II-
3.                           •

-------
                                         Table II-1

                   RECOMMENDED BAT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT  STANDARDS
                                FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES
Wastestreams

All Waste-
streams Except
Once Through
Cooling Water
  Proposed BAT:
Existing Sources

pH 6-9
  Proposed
Standards of
Performance:
NewSources

pH 6-9
   Pretreatment
    Standards:
Existing Sources (1)

pH not less than
5, unless special
case
Pretreatment
 Standards:
New Sources (1)

pH 6-9
All Waste-
streams
No Discharge
PCB's
No Discharge
PCB's
  No pollutants
  may be introduced
  to a POTW that
  shall interfere
  with operation or
  performance of
  that facility
  No discharge of
  PCB's
  Copper (total)
  1.0 mg/1
  Oil and Grease
  (O&G) 100 mg/1
  No pollutants
  may be intro-
  duced to a
  POTW that
  shall inter-
  fere with ope-
  ration or per-
  formance of
  that facility
  No discharge
  PCB's

-------
                                      Table  II-1  (Continued)

                      RECOMMENDED BAT GUIDELINES  AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
                                   FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES
  Wastestreams

  Once-Through
  Cooling Water
Ul
  Proposed BAT;
Exi s t ing Source s

Zero discharge'of
TRC except demon-
stration of need,
then not to exceed
0.14 mg/1 and dis-
charge of TRC lim-
ited to 2 hours
per day per dis-
charge point (un-
less crustacean
control is needed)
   Proposed
 Standards of
 Performance:
 New Sources

 Zero discharge
 of TRC~ except
 demonstration
 of need,  then
 not to exceed
 0.14 mg/1 and
 dicharge, of
 TRC limited to
 2 hours per day
 per discharge
 point (unless
 crustacean con-
 trol is needed)
  Pretreatment
   Standards:
ExistingSources  (1)

As described under
all wastestreams
category
Pretreatment
 Standards:
New Sources (1)

As described
under all •
wastestreams
category
  Cooling Tower
  Slowdown
TRC not to exceed
0.14 mg/1 (max);
No discharge of
the 129 priority
pollutants result-
ing from chemical
additives
 TRC not to ex-
 ceed 0.14 mg/1
 (max);  No dis-
 charge  of the
 129 priority
 pollutants re-
• suiting from
 chemical
 additives
No discharge of
the 129 priority
pollutants result-
ing from chemical
additives.
No discharge of
of the 129 pri-
ority pollutants
resulting from
chemical addi-
tives

-------
                                      Table  II-1  (Continued)

                     RECOMMENDED BAT  GUIDELINES  AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
                                   FOR NEW AND  EXISTING SOURCES
  Wastestrearns

  Bottom Ash
  Transport
  Water
  Proposed BAT:
Existing Sources

Same as BPT
  Proposed
Standards of
Performance:
Hew Sources

Same as BPT
  Pretreatment
   Standards:
Existing Sources (

As described under
all wastestrearns
category
Pretreatment
 Standards:
New Sources (1)

As described
under all
wastestrearns
category
cy*
  Fly Ash
  Transport
  Water
Same as BPT
Zero discharge
As described under
all wastestreams
category
Zero discharge
  Metal Cleaning
  Wastes
Same as BPT
Same as BPT
1 mg/1 Cu (max)
and as described
under all waste-
streams category
- Copper  ("total)
  1.0 mg/1
  Low Volume
  Wastes  (to
  include boiler
  blowdown)
Same as BPT
Same as BPT
As described under
all wastestreams
category
As described
under all
wastestreams
category

-------
                                   Table II-1 (Continued)

                   RECOMMENDED BAT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT  STANDARDS
                                FOR NEW AND EXISTING  SOURCES
Wastegtreams

Ash Pile/
Construction
Runoff
  Proposed BAT:
Existing Sources

Reserve for future
consideration
  Proposed
Standards of
Performance:
NewSources

Reserve for
future con-
sideration
  Pretreatment
   Standards:
Existing Sources  (1)

Reserve for future
consideration
Pretreatment
 Standards:
New Sources (1)

Reserve for4
future con-
sideration
Coal Pile/
Chemical
Handling
Runoff
Same as BPT
Same as BPT
pH not less than
5; No discharge
that would cause
process upset
pH 6-9 (ex-
cept for 10-
year , 24-hour
rainfall event)
Slowdown for
Wet Air Pollu-
tion Control
Systems (other
than for partic-
ulate control)
Reserve for future
consideration
Reserve for
future con-
sideration
Reserve for future
consideration
Reserve for
future con-
sideration
NOTE;  (1) - All indirect dischargers must comply with  the  general  pretreatment
             standards (40 CFR 403) in addition to the  limitations  specified
             below,

-------
                                        Table II-2

         TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED AS CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING RECOMMENDED LIMITATIONS
  Wastestreams

  Once-Through
  Cooling  Water
   Cooling Tower
   Slowdown
c»  Bottom Ash
   Transport
   Water

   Fly  Ash
   Transport
   Water

   Metal  Clean-
   ing  Wastes
   Low Volume
   Waste
   (includes
   boiler
   blowdown)
 Proposed BAT:
Existing Sources

Chlorine Minimiza-
tion-Dechlorina-
tion

Dechlorination/
Use of alternative
chemicals
Sedimentation
Sedimentation
Chemical
Precipitation


Sedimentation
 Proposed
Standards of
Performance;
New Sources

Chlorine Mini-
mization-
Dechlorination

Dechlorina-
tion/Use of
alternative
chemicals
  Pretreatment
   Standards:
Existing Sources

No treatment
required
Use of alternative
chemicals
Sedimentation   Sedimentatipn
Dry transport
and disposal
Chemical
Precipitation
Sedimentation
Chemical Precipi-
tation
Sedimentation   Sedimentation
Pretreatment
 Standards:
New Sources

No treatment
required
Use of
alternative
chemicals
                    Sedimenta-
                    tion
Dry trans-
port and
disposal

Chemical
Precipita-
tion

Sedimenta-
tion
                                                                     :c

-------
                               Table II-2 (Continued)

       TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED AS CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING RECOMMENDED LIMITATIONS
Wastestreams

Ash Pile/
Construction
Runoff

Coal Pile/
Chemical
Handling
Runoff

Slowdown from
Wet Air Pollu-
tion Control
Devices
 Proposed BAT:
Existing Sources

Reserved for
future considera-
tion

pH adjustment,
sedimentation
Reserved for
future considera-
tion
 Proposed
Standards of
Performance;
New Sources

Reserved for
future con-
sideration

pH adjustment,
sedimentation
Reserved for
future con-
sideration
  Pretreatment
   Standards:
Existing Sources

Reserved for
future considera-
tion

pH adjustment,
sedimentation
Reserved for
future considera-
tion
Pretreatment
 Standards;
New Sources

Reserved for
future con-
sideration

pH adjust-
ment, sedi-
mentation
Reserved for
future con-
sideration

-------
                                        Table II-3

                    EXISTING BPT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT  STANDARDS
                               FOR NEW ANa EXISTING  SOURCES
Wastestrearns
  Current BPT:
Existing Sources
All Waste-     ,pH 6-9
streams Except
Once Through
Cooling Water
All Waste-
streams
No Discharge PCB's
Low Volume
Wastes
- TSS 100 tng/1 (one
      day max.)
      30 mg/1 (30 day
      avg.)
- O&G 20 mg/1 (one
      day max.)
      15 mg/1 (30 day
      avg.)
  Pretreatment
   Standards:
Existing Sources(2)

pH not less than 5,
unless special case
- No pollutants may be
  introduced to a POTW
  that shall interfere
  with operation or per-
  formance of that
  facility
- No discharge of PCB's
- Copper (total) 1.0
  mg/1
- Oil and Grease (O&G)
  100 mg/1

As described under all
wastestreams category
Pretreatment
 Standards;
New Sources (2)

For incompatible pol-
lutants (heavy metals,
toxic organics), the
pretreatment standards
for new sources are
identical to BPT

- No pollutants may
  be introduced to a
  POTW that shall
  interfere with ope-
  ration or perfor-
  mance of that
  facility
- No discharge of
  PCBs
As described under all
wastestreams category

-------
                                  Table II-3 (Continued)

                    EXISTING BPT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT  STANDARDS
                               FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES
Wastestrearns

Combined Ash
Transport
Water
Bottom Ash
Transport
Water
Fly Ash
Transport
Water
  Current BPT;
'Existing Sources

- TSS  100 mg/1  (one
       day max.)
       30 mg/1  (30
       day avg.)
- O&G  20 mg/1  (one
       day max.)
       15 mg/1  (30
       day avg.)

- TSS  100 ing/1  (one
       day max.)
       30 mg/1  (30
       day max.)
- O&G  20 rag/1  (one
       day max.)
       15 mg/1  (30
       day avg.)

- TSS  100 mg/1  (one
       day max.)
       30 mg/1  (30
       day max.)
- O&G  20 mg/1  (one
       day max.)
       15 mg/1  (30
       day max.)
  Pretreatment
   Standards:
Existing Sources  (2)

As described under  all
wastestrearns category
As described under  all
wastestreams category
As described under  all
wastestrearns category
Pretreatment
 Standards:
New Sources (2)

As described under all
wastestrearns category
As described under all
wastestreams category
No discharge of TSS
or O&G (Note: This
portion of the fly
ash regulation was
remanded but is being
reproposed as in
Table I1-1)

-------
                                    Table II-3  (Continued)

                      EXISTING BPT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT  STANDARDS
                                 FOR NEW AND EXISTING  SOURCES
  Wastestrearns

  Metal Clean-
  ing Wastes
K5
  Once Through
  Cooling Water
  Current BPT;
Existing Sources

- TSS 100 mg/1 (one
      day max.)
      30 mg/1 (30
      day avg.)
- O&G 20 mg/1 (one
      day max.)
      15 mg/1 (30
      day avg.)
- Copper (total)
  1.0 mg/1 (one day
  max. and 30 day
  avg.)
- Iron (total)
  1.0 mg/1 (one day
  max. and 30 day
  avg.)

Free Available Chlo-
rine - 0.5 mg/1 (max.)
0.2 mg/1 (avg.) and may
not be discharged from
any one unit more than
2 hours per day and BO
more than one unit at
a time may discharge
FAG (unless plant can
show reason why more
is needed)
  Pretreatment
   Standards:
Existing Sources (2)

As described under all
wastestreams category

- Copper (total)
  1.0 mg/1
As described under all
wastestreams category.
No chlorine limitation,
Pretreatment
 Standards:
New Sources (2)

As described under all
wastestreams category

- Copper (total)
  1.0 mg/1
As described under
all wastestreams
category.  No chlo-
rine limitation.

-------
                                  Table II-3 (Continued)

                    EXISTING BPT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
                               FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES
Wastestrearns

Cooling Tower
Blowdown
Boiler
Blowdown
  Current BPT;
Existing Sources

Free Available Chlo-
rine - 0.5 mg/1 (max.)
0.2 mg/1 (avg.) and may
not be discharged from
any one unit more than
2 hours per day and no
more than one unit at
a time may discharge
FAC (unless plant can
show reason why more
is needed)

- TSS 100 mg/1 (one
      day max.)
      30 mg/1 (30
      day avg.)
- O&G 20 mg/1 (one
      day max.)
      15 mg/1 (30
      day avg.)
- Copper (total) 1.0
  mg/1 (one day max.
  and 30 day avg.)
- Iron (total) 1.0
  mg/1 (one day max.
  and 30 day avg.)
Note; The new proposed
regulations place this
stream under the low
volume wastes category
where only TSS and O&G
are regulated.
  Pre treatment
   Standards ;
Existing Sources
As described under all
wastestreams category.
No chlorine limitation,
As described under all
wastestreams category.
Note: The new proposed
regulations place this
stream under the low
volume wastes category.
Pretreatment
 Standards;
NewSources (2)

No discharge of
materials added  for
corrosion inhibition
including but not
limited to zinc,
chromium, phosphorus
Note; The new proposed
regulations place  this
stream under the low
volume wastes category
where only TSS and O&G
are regulated

- Copper (total)
  1.0 mg/1

-------
                                  Table II-3 (Continued)

                    EXISTING BFT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT  STANDARDS
                               FOR HEW AND EXISTING SOURCES


                                          Pretreatrnent            Pretreatment
                 Current BPT:              Standards:             Standards:
Wasteatrearns   Existing Sources         Existing Sources  (2)      New Sources (2)

Coal Pile/     TSS not to exceed 50     pH not less than  5,       As described  under all
Chemical       m§/l» pH 6-9 (except     No discharge that would   wastestreams  category
Storage Area   for 10-year, 24-hour     cause process upset
Runoff         rainfall events)
NOTE:  (2) - All indirect dischargers must comply with the general pretreatment
             standards (40 CFR 403) in addition to the limitations specified
             below.

-------
                             SECTION III

                             INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The  primary effluent guidelines document for the steam electric power
industry (1) was  prepared  by  Burns  &  Roe  and  published  by  the
Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) in October 1974.  This document
still serves as the fundamental source of information for the industry
as  to   its   process   descriptions,   wastewater   quantities   and
compositions,  treatment  and  control  technologies,  and  achievable
pollutant levels for conventional and nonconventional  pollutants.   A
supplemental document (2) prepared by Hittman Associates and published
by  EPA provided information on pretreatment for wastewater discharged
by the steam electric  industry  to  publicly  owned  treatment  works
(POTW).

Subsequent to the publishing of the Burns & Roe document, three events
which  have  implications  for the effluent limitations guidelines for
the  steam  electric  power  industry  have  occurred,    First,   the
Settlement  Agreement  on  June  7, 1976 between the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) and EPA  (3)  requires  that  EPA  develop  and
promulgate  effluent  limitations guidelines reflecting best available
technology economically achievable (BATEA), standards  of  performance
for  new  sources,  and  pretreatment  standards  for new and existing
sources for 21 major industries, taking into  account  a, list  of   65
classes  of  toxic pollutants.  This list has now been modified to 129
specific priority pollutants.  The original  list  of  65  classes   of
pollutants  appears  in table III-l.  The present list of 129 priority
pollutants is presented in table  III-2.   Second/  the  U.S.Court   of
Appeals  ruling  of  July  16,  1976  (4) remanded for reconsideration
various parts of the October 1974 effluent limitations guidelines  for
the steam electric industry.  Third, the Clean Water Act Amendments  of
1977 require the review and, if appropriate, revision of each effluent
standard periodically.

PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENT

This  supplemental  document  provides  a  basis  for  the revision  of
effluent limitations guidelines for the steam electric power industry.
It forms the technical basis for  the  revised  steam  electric  power
generating  effluent  limitations  based  on  the  BATEA,  new  source
performance standards (NSPS) and pretreatment standards  in conformance
with the June 7, 1976 Consent Decree.

The  steam  electric  power  •industry  covered  in  this  document   is
classified   in Standard  Industrial Classification  (SIC) Codes 4911 and
4931(5).   Code  4911  encompasses  establishments  engaged   in   the
generation,  transmission,   and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale.  Code  4931  encompasses  establishments  primarily  engaged   in
providing  electric  service  in combination with other services, with
electric services as the major part though less than  95 percent of the


                                 15

-------
                           Table III-1

      LIST OF SIXTY-FIVE CLASSES OF POLLUTANTS CONTAINED IN
          SETTLEMENT                   EPA AND NRDC (3)


Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Antimony and compounds*
Arsenic and compounds
Asbestos
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium and compounds
Cadmium and compounds
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)
Chlorinated ethanes (included 1,2-dichlorethane,
    1 ,1 ,1-trichlorethane, and hexachloroethane)
Chloroalkyl ethers (Chloromethyl, chlorethyl, and mixed ethers)
Chlorinated naphthalene
Chlorinated Phenols (other than those listed elsewhere; includes
    trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols)
Chloroform
2-chlorophenol
Chromium and compounds
Copper and compounds
Cyanides
DDT and metabolites
Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-,1,3-, and 1,4-dichlorobenzenes)
Dichlorobenzidene
Dichloroethylenes (1 ,1-and 1,2-dichloroethylene)
2,4-dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane and dichloropropene
2,4-dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylhdrazine
Endosulfan and metabolites
Endrin and metabolites
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere; includes
    chlorophenylphenyl ethers, bromophenylphenyl ether, bis
    (dischloroisopropyl) ether, bis-(chloroethoxy) methane and
    polychlorinated diphenyly ethers)

-------
                     Table III-1 (Continued)

      LIST OF SIXTY-FIVE CLASSES OF POLLUTANTS CONTAINED IN
          SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN EPA AND NRDC (3)


Halomethanes (other  than those listed elsewhere; includes
    methylene chloride methylchloride, methylbromide, bromoform,
    dichlorobromomethane, triehlororfluoromethane,
    dichlorodifluoromethane)
Heptachlor and metabolites
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Naphthalene
Nickel and compounds
Nitrobenzene                                    «
Nitrophenols (Including 2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)
Nitrosamines                                      ,        •....•
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PBCs)                              ,
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (Including benzanthracenes,
    benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthene, chrysense,
    dibenzanthracenes» and indenopyrenes)
Selenium and compounds
Silver and compounds
2,3,7,8,-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin  (TCDD)
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium and compounds
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc and compounds
*As used throughout this table the term "compounds" shall include
 organic and inorganic compounds.
                                17

-------
                           Table III-2

               LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
Compound Name
  1.   *acenaphthene   (B)***
  2.   *acrolein       (v)***
  3.   *acrylonitrile  (V)
  4«   *benzene        (V)
  5.   *benzidene      (B)
  6.   *earbon tetraehloride (tetrachloromethane)   (V)

   *Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)

  7.   chlorobenzene   (V)
  8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene   (B)
  9.   hexachlorobenzene   (B)

   *Chlor_inated ethanes (including 1 ,2-dichloroethane,
   T,1,1- trichloroethane and hexachloroethane)

 10.   1,2-dichloroethane   (V)
 11.   1,1»1-trichlorethane   (V)
 12«   Kexachlorethane   (B)
 13.   1,1-dichloroethane  (V)
 14.   1,1,2-trichloroethane   (V)
 15.   1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane   (V)
 16.   chloroethane   (V)

   *Chloroalkyl ethers (chlqromethyl, chloroethyl and
   mixed ethers)

 17.   bis (chloromethyl)  ether   (B)
 18.   bis (2-chloroethyly)  ether   (B)
 19.   2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)   (V)

   *Chlorinated naphtalene

 20.   2-chloronaphthalene   (B)

   *Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere;
   includes trichlorophenols  and chlorinated cresols)

 21.   2,4,6-trichlorophenol   (A)***
 22.   parachlorometa cresol   (A)
 23.   *chloroform (trichloromethane)    (V)
 24.   *2-chlorophenol   (A)
                               13

-------
                    Table III-2 (Continued)

              LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
  frpichlorobenzenes

25.  1,2-diehlorobenzene   (B)
26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene   (B)
2*7.  1 ,4-dichlorobenzene   (B)

  *Dichlgrobenz idine    "           •     '-....

28.  3,3f-dichlorobenzidine   (B)                    .

  *Diehloroethylenes (1,1-dichloroethylene and
   1,2-dichloroethylene)

29.  1,1-dichloroethylene   (V)
30.  1,2-trans-dischloroethylene   (V)
31.  *2,4-dichlorophenol   (A)

  *Dichloropropane and' dichloropropene

32.  1 ,2-diehloropropane   (V)               ,
33.  1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)    (V)
34.  *2,4-dimenthylphenol   (A)

  *Dinitrotoluene        .              .

35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene   (B)
36.  2,6,-dinitrotoluene   (B)
37.  *1,2-diphenylhydrazine   (B)
38.  *ethylbenzene   (V)                . • .
39.  *fluoranthene   (B)

  *Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere)

40.,  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether   (B)
41,  4-bromophnyl phenyl ether   (B)
42,  bis(2-ehloroisopropyl) ether   (B)
43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane   (B)

  *Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere)

44.  methylene chloride (dichloromethane)   (V)
45.  methyl chloride (chloromethane)   (V)
46.  methyl bromide (bromomethane)    (V)
47.  bromoform (tribramomethane)   (V)
48.  dichlorobromomethane   (V)
                              19

-------
                    Table III-2  (Continued)

              LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (2)
49.  trichlorofluoromethane    (7)
50.  dlchlorodifluoromethane    (V)
51 .  chlorodibrocaome thane    (V)
52.  *hexaehlorobutadiene    (B)
53.  *hexachlorocyclopentadiene    (B)
54.  *Isophorone    (B)
55.  *naphthalene   (B)
56.  *nitrobenzene    (B)

  *Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol and dinitrocesol)

57.  2~nitrophenol    (A)
58.  4-nitrophenol    (A)
59.  *2,4-dinitrophenol   (A)
60.  4»6-dinitro-o-cresol    (A)

  *Hitrosamines

61.  N-nitrosodimethylamine    (B)
62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine    (B)
63.  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine    (B)
64.  *pentachlorophenol   (A)
65.  *phenol   (A)

  *Phthalate esters

66.  bis(2-3ethylhexyl) phthalate    (B)
67.  butyl benzyl phthalate    (B)
68.  di-n-butyl phtalate   (B)
69.  di-n-octyl phtalate   (B)
70.  diethyl phtalate   (B)
71.  dimethyl phthalate   (B)

  *Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

72.  benzo (a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)   (B)
73.  benzo (a)pyrene  (3,4-benzopyrene)    (B)
74.  3,4-benzofluoranthene    (B)
75.  benzo(k)fluoranthane (11,12-benzofluoranthene)    (B)
76.  chrysene  (B)
77.  acenaphthylene   (B)
78.  anthracene   (B)
79.  benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)    (B)
80.  fluroene   (B)
81.  phenathrene    (B)

-------
                     Table III-2 (Continued)

               LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
 82.   dibenzo (a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)   (B)
 83.   indeno (1,2,3-cd)(2,3,-o-phenylenepyrene)   (B)
 84.   pyrene   (B)
 85.   *tetrachloroethylene   (V)
 86.   *toluene   (V)
 87.   *trichloroethylene   (V)
 88.   *vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)   (V)

   Pesticides and Metabolites

 89.   *aldrin   (P)
 90.   *dieldrin   (P)
 91.   *chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)    (P)

   *PDT and metabolites

 92.   4,4'-DDT   (P)
 93.   4,4'-DDE(p,p'DDX)    (P)
 94.   4,4'-DDD(p,p'TDE)  9   (P)

   *endosul£an and metabolites

 95.   a-endosulfan-Alpha   (P)
 96.   b-endosulfan-Beta   (P)
--97.   endosulfan sulfate   (P)

   *endrin and metabolites

 98.   endrin   (P)
 99.    endrin aldehyde   (P)

   *faeptachlor and metabolites

100.   heptachlor   (P)
101.   heptachlor epoxide   (P)

   *h.exachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)

102.   a-BHC-Alpha    (P)  (B)
103.   b-BHC-Beta   (P) (V)
104.   r-BHC (lindane)-Gamma   (P)
105.   g-BHC-Delta    (P)
                                21

-------
                      Table III-2 (Continued)

                LIST OF 129 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
   %>olychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)

106.  PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)  "(P)
107.  PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)   (P)
108.  PGB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)   (P)
109.  PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)   (P)
110.  PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)   (P)
111.  PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)   (P)
112.  PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)   (P)
113.  *Toxaphene  , (P)
114.  *Antiraony (Total)   (P)
115.  *Arsenic (Total)
116.  *Asbestos (Fibrous)
117.  *Beryllium (Total)
118.  *Cadmiura (Total)
119.  *Chromium (Total)
120.  *Copper (Total)
1 21 .  *Cyanide (Total)
122.  *Lead (Total)
123.  *Mercury (Total)
124.  *Niekel (Total)
125.  *Seleniura (Total)
126.  ^Silver (Total)
127.  *Thallium (Total)
128.  *Zinc (Total)
129.  **2»3»7,8-tetrachlorodiben2o-p~dioxin (TCDD)
  *Specific compounds and chemical classes as listed in the
consent degree.
 **This compound was specifically listed in the consent degree.
   Because of the extreme toxicity (TCDD), EPA recommends that
   laboratories not acquire analytical standard for the compound,
***B » analyzed in the base-neutral extraction fraction
   ¥ =» analyzed in the volatile organic fraction
   A « analyzed in the acid extraction fraction
   P =• pesticide
                               22

-------
total.   The SIC Manual (5) recommends that, when available, the  value
of  receipts  or  revenues  be  used  in  assigning industry codes for
transportation-, communication, electric, gas, and  sanitary  services.
This  study  was  limited to powerplants comprising the steam electric
utility industry and did not include  steam  electric  powerplants   in
industrial,  commercial  or  other  facilities.   Electric  generating
facilities other than steam electric, such as combustion gas turbines,
diesel engines, etc., are included to the extent that power  generated
by  the  establishment in question is produced primarily through steam
electric processes.  This report covers effluents  from  both  fossil-
fueled  and  nuclear  plants, but excludes the radiological aspects  of
effluents.

The Clean Water Act  (6) requires EPA to consider  several  factors   in
developing effluent  limitation guidelines and standards of performance
for  a  given  industry.   These  include the total cost of applying a
technology in relation to the effluent  reduction  benefits  realized;
the  age  of  equipment  and  facilities;  the processes employed; the
engineering aspects  of applying various types of  control  techniques;
process  changes;  nonwater  quality  environmental impacts (including
energy  requirements);  and  other  factors.    For   steam   electric
powerplants,  a formal subdivision of the industry on the basis of the
factors mentioned in the Act was inapplicable.  The two basic  aspects
of  the  effluents   produced  by  the industry—chemical and thermal—
involve such divergent considerations that a basic distinction between
guidelines for chemical wastes and thermal discharges  was  determined
to   be   most:   useful , in  achieving  the  objectives  pf  the  Act.
Accordingly, this report  covers  waste  categorization,  control  and
treatment technology, and recommendations for effluent limitations for
chemical and other non-thermal aspects of waste discharge.

INFORMATION AVAILABILITY, SOURCES AND COLLECTION

Since  the  publication  of  the Burns & Roe document in 1974, EPA has
collected additional information on the industry  profile,  its  waste
characteristics,  and applicable treatment technologies.  In addition,
the NRDC settlement  agreement  focused  attention  on  the  need  for
information  concerning pollutants in the wastewaters.  As a result  of
this attention, there  have  been  various  studies  on  the  priority
pollutants  as  to   their  occurrence  in  wastewater  from  the steam
electric power industry.

The data base for effluent limitations and  standards  for  the  steam
electric    industry   was  revised  on  the  basis  of  the  following
information sources:

1.  A profile of the Steam  Electric  Power  Generating  point  source
category  which  lists  the name of each plant; its location, age, and
size;  its  wastewater  characteristics;  and   its  pollutant  control
technologies.

2.    Available   data  from  published  and   unpublished   literature;
demonstration project reports;  the  steam  electric  industry;  manu-


                                23

-------
facturers  and  suppliers  of  equipment  and  chemicals  used  by the
industry;  various  EPA,  federal,  state,  and  local  agencies;  and
responses to EPA's 308 letter (1976).

3.  Engineering plant visits.

5.  Result of sampling program at selected plants.

The  current  effluent guidelines are divided into four subcategories:
generating units, small units, old units, and area  runoff.   Economic
considerations,  rather  than chemical discharge characteristics, were
the  determining  criteria  for  differentiating   the   first   three
subcategories.   Available  information  indicates  that  the types of
pollutants discharged by powerplants do not differ significantly among
plants of varying age and size; the chemical waste characteristics are
similar  for  similar  waste   sources.    Limitations   within   each
subcategory  were  therefore  specified for each of the in-plant waste
sources.  These included:  (1) cooling water; (2) ash-bearing streams;
(3) metal cleaning waste; (4) low volume waste;  (5) area  runoff;  and
(6) wet flue gas cleaning blowdown.

Section 308 Data Forms

In  order  to  carry  out  the  Settlement  Agreement  with  NRDC, EPA
collected additional information  on  the  production  processes,  raw
waste  loads,  treatment methods, and effluent quality associated with
the steam electric industry.  This information was obtained via a data
collection effort pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act  (6).
Section  308  letters  and data collection questionnaires were sent to
approximately 900 powerplants in the United States of which a total of
812 responded.  The data in the responses were coded and  subsequently
keypunched  onto  data cards and loaded into a computerized data base.
The data base was instrumental in supporting selection of  plants  for
the  sampling  visits,  as well as a valuable tool in establishing how
many plants employ what technologies relevant to pollution  generation
or control.

Data Gathering and Analysis

Initial  historical  data  gathering  consisted of visiting the 10 EPA
regional  offices  and  several   state   environmental   departments,
contacting other EPA offices and governmental agencies, and conducting
an  extensive  literature  search.   The  initial  phase  of  the data
gathering effort occurred during the latter part  of  1976  and  early
part of 1977.  This was followed by the tabulation of each set of data
corresponding  to  an  outfall  of  a  particular  plant  in  terms of
pollutant parameters monitored against the  date  of  analysis.   This
information  consisted  of  the  list  of  the  various  streams being
discharged  through  this  particular  outfall  and  the  control   or
treatment technology to which these streams are subjected.
                                24

-------
Screen Sampling Program                                 ,

A  screen  sampling program was developed to determine  the presence of
the  129  priority  pollutants  in  steam  electric   power    industry
effluents.   EPA selected eight plants for the screen sampling.  These
plants had indicated in their 308'responses that their  discharge  was
known  to  contain  one  or  more  of  the  129  priority  pollutants.
Selection was also based upon  various  plant  variables  which  could
affect  plant  discharge  and  effluent composition.  The eight plants
selected for the screen sampling program were Plants 4222, 2414, 0631,
1720, 3404, 2512, 3805, and 4836.

The screen sampling procedures followed the  Environmental  Protection
Agency  Screen  Sampling  Procedure  for  the  Measurement of  Priority
Pollutants (7).  Grab and continuous composite samples  were  collected
over  24-hour  sampling  periods.  The continuous  24-hour samples  were
collected by automatic samplers and maintained .at  4 C,  while the   grab
samples  were  maintained  at ambient temperature  levels which did not
exceed 4 C.  At the end of the 24-hour sampling period,  samples   were
preserved according to protocol.

Representatives  of  both  EPA  and  the  electric power industry  were
present during all sampling.  Parallel sampling  (two separate  samples)
and analysis were  conducted.   Samples  of  all   waste streams   were
analyzed  by  both  EPA-contracted  laboratories   and   power industry-
contracted laboratories.

The EPA-contracted analytical laboratory  used   analytical  procedures
derived   from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water.   Organics
were analyzed by first extracting the sample  into  base, neutral, acid,
and volatile  fractions  and  then  analyzing  each  fraction  by  gas
chromatography with a mass spectrometer detector  (GC/MS).  Cyanide was
analyzed  by  steam distillation  followed by  the standard  colorimetric
method.   Samples were analyzed for heavy metals  by atomic  adsorption
spectrophotometry.

Although  the  screen  sampling program, was  intended only  to determine
the presence or  absence of the 129 priority pollutants, the methods  of.
analysis  did yield numerical  concentrations   for   detected  compounds.
Thus,  the  screening  data   provided  quantified   values  for  detected
priority  pollutants.

Verification Sampling Program

A  verification program followed screen sampling  in order   to   quantify
further   the  pollutant   loadings from  the power  generating  industry.
This sampling program was used to verify  the   results   of   the  screen
sampling   program   for   both   organic    and    inorganic   analyses.
Verification  involved more plants and  was   a more   intensive  effort
compared   to  the screening study.  The sixteen plants  selected for the
verification  sampling program were   Plants   2718,   1716,,   3414,   4826,
 1742,   1245,  1226,  4251,  3404, 4602,  3920,  3924,  3001,  1741,  5410, and
2121.

                                  25

-------
Representatives of both EPA  and  the  electric  power  industry  were
present  during  all  the  verification  sampling.  Splits of a single
collected sample were used; one half of the original  sample  went  to
the  EPA-contracted  analytical  laboratory and the other half went to
the power industry-contracted laboratory.

Two additional plants were added to the verification data base as data
became available from another contractor using the methods and  format
of  the  sixteen  earlier verification studies.  These are Plants 5409
and 5604.

Sampling and preservation procedures were  similar  to  those  of  the
screen  sampling program, except that identical, not parallel, samples
were collected for shipment to the EPA and power  industry  analytical
laboratories.

In  total,  samples  from  eighteen  plants  were  analyzed by several
different EPA-contracted laboratories.  Analytical procedures included
gas  chromatography  (GO  or  gas  chromatography-mass   spectrometry
(GC/MS) for the organics, and spark source mass spectrometry  (SSMS) or
atomic  absorption  (AA)  for  most  of  the   inorganics.  Mercury was
analyzed by cold-vapor atomic adsorption.  Selenium  was  analyzed  by
fluorometry and cyanide by a colorimetric procedure.

Surveillance and Analysis Sampling Program

Additional   data   were   provided   through   several  EPA  regional
Surveillance and Analysis (S&A) programs conducted by  those  regions.
S&A  programs  involve  periodic visits to powerplants by EPA sampling
teams to collect data to determine if the plants  are  complying  with
NPDES permits.  During some of these visits arrangements were made for
the  sampling of priority pollutants.  Eight plants are represented in
this data base; they are Plants 1002, 1003, 4203,  2608,  2603,  2607,
2750, and 5513.

The sampling, preservation, and analytical procedures used by S&A were
similar  to  those  employed  in  both  the  screening  study  and the
verification study.  Analytical methods  included  gas  chromatography
mass spectrometry  (GC/MS) for organics or ICAP for inorganics.

Waste Characterization Data Base

After  evaluation  of  all  the data from the  three sampling  efforts—
screening, verification, and S&A sampling—the Agency decided that all
three sets of data  were  useful  in  establishing  the  presence  and
quantifying  the   concentration  of  priority  pollutants in discharges
from steam electric powerplants.  All three sets of data  were  stored
in  computerized   files  such  that they could be analyzed as a single
data base representing 34 plants.
                                 26

-------
Engineering Visits to Steam Electric Plants

Eight steam electric plants were visited from March to April   1977   to
obtain  information  on  specific  plant  practices  and   to develop a
sampling and analysis  program  to  verify  collected  data,   to  fill
existing  gaps,  and  to  provide  additional   information.    Specific
information gathered included data on  raw  waste  loads,  water  use/
treatment   technology,  fuel  handling  systems,  and  general  plant
descriptions.   Additional  engineering  visits  were  conducted  from
August  through September 1979.  These visits were to collect  data  and
water samples from plants with recycling bottom . ash  sluice   systems.
Fly ash handling methods also were evaluated during these  visits.

INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION         :

Steam  electric powerplants produce electric power.  The industry also
transmits and distributes electric energy.  The industry   is   made   up
of  two  basic ownership categories—investor owned and publicly owned
— with the latter further divied into Federal  agencies,  non-Federal
agencies,  and cooperatives.  About two-thirds  of the 3,400 systems in
the United States perform only the  distribution  function,  but  many
perform  all  three  functions:  production   (generally referred to as
generation), transmission, and distribution.  In general,  the  larger
systems  are vertically integrated, while the smaller systems,  largely
in the municipal and cooperative categories, rely on purchases to meet
all  or  part  of  their  requirements.   Many  of  the  systems    are
interconnected  and can, under emergency conditions, obtain power from
other systems.

The industry started around 1880 with  the  construction   of   Edison's
steam  electric plant  in New York City. ' For the next 60 years,  growth
was continuous but unspectacular due to the fairly limited despand   for
power;  since  1940,   however,  the  annual  per  capita production of
electric energy has grown at a rate of about 6  percent  per  year   and
the  total  energy  consumption  by  about 7 percent  (1).  As  of 1978,
there were over 2,600  generating plants in the  United  States.   These
systems  had  a combined generating capacity of 573,800 megawatts  (MW)-
and produced 2,295 billion kilowatt hours  (MWh) of energy  (8).   Table
III-3  shows  the number of plants, capacity, and annual generation of
the total electric utility industry as  well  as  the  steam   electric
sector.   Non  steam   electric  generation sources include principally
hydroelectric, diesel, and combustion gas turbines.  Table II1-4 shows
the number of plants and their capacity for various size categories.

The addition of new plants will alter  the  1978  plant  and   capacity
distribution.   By 1985, SPA projects that there will be an  additional
161,100 megawatts of   capacity  added  by  new  plants   in  the steam
electric  sector.   In the.  period 1986-1990, the addition of 81,300
megawatts is expected.  These projections were  derived  from   Temple,
Barker   and   Sloane,  Inc.   (TBS)  projections  of  future   capacity
requirements  (8).  Table III-5 shows the present and  future   capacity
of the industry.
                                 2-7

-------
                           Table  III-3

        DISTRIBUTION OF THE  STEAM SECTION  RELATIVE TO THE
       ENTIRE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY AS OF  1978* (8,  9)


                  Capacity          Generation           Number
                  (gjLgawatts)  (billion kilowatt  hours)  of  Plants


Total Industry      573.8             2,295              >2,600


Steam Sector        453.3             1,951                  842


Percent of
Total Industry
Included in
Steam Sector         79%               85%               <32%
*The number and capacity of plants in  each  category  is  based  on
 the 1979 DOE Inventory of Powerplants data base.  Plants  listed
 in the DOE Inventory as having a net  dependable capacity  of
 zero were excluded.
                                28

-------
                                          Table III-4

                      YEAR-END 1978 DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM ELECTRIC PLANTS
                                   BY SIZE CATEGORY* (8, 9)
                 0-25 MW  26-100 MW  101-200 MW  201-350 MW  351-500  MW  Over 500 MW    TotaL
Total MW in
Category

Percent of
Total MW in
Category

Number of
Plants in
Category

Percent of
Total Plants
in Category
1,273     9,466      16,777      24,125
 0.3%
   98
2.1%
 172
11.6%     20.4%
                      4.0%
                        115
          13.7%
5.3%
   87
                                 10.3%
                                             33,282
7.0%
   79
            9.4%
                                               368,342     453,265
81 .3%
   291
            34.6%
100.07*
   842
           100.0%
*The number and capacity of plants in each category is based on  the  1979  DOE  Inventory of
Powerpiants data base.  Plants listed in the DOE Inventory as having a  net  dependable
capacity of zero were excluded.

-------
                           Table III-5
       PRESENT AND FUTURE CAPACITY OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY
                         INDUSTRY (8, 9)
               (capacity in gigawatts at year end)
                              1978     1985     1990     1995
Generating Capacity
     Total Industry          573.8    750.3    834.9   1003.8
     Steam Sector            453.3    614.4    695.7    855.4
Source:  DOE Inventory of Powerplants (1979) and projections
         made by Temple,Barker and Sloane, Inc.
                                30

-------
The  U.S.  Department of Energy provided information on  the number  and
capacity of existing steam electric powerplants by size  category   and
fuel  type (9).  The fuel mix of future plants was determined from  the
fuel types of the announced plant additions, adjusted to  account   for
some  expected  fuel  shifts,,  especially from oil or gas to coal (8).
This infromation is presented in tables III-6 and III-7.  A summary of
existing and projected total capacity versus fuel type is presented in
table II1-8.                                             •     .

Steam electric powerplants  discharge  waste  heat  with  once-through
cooling  systems,  recirculating  cooling systems, or a  combination of
both.  The type of cooling system  is  important  in  determining   the
values   of  a  plant's  effluent  discharge  and therefore the  cost of
treating  the  discharge.   Plants  with  once-through   cooling water
systems  discharge  the  cooling  water  after  only one or two passes
through  the plant. . The waste heat is dissipated to a  receiving  body
of  water.   Plants  with  recirculating cooling water systems  in most
cases use cooling towers, either forced draft or  natural  draft,   and
recirculate  the  water  through  the  plant.   A  blowdown  stream is
typically discharged  from  a  recirculating  system  to  control   the
buildup  of  dissolved  solids.   The  cooling mechanism, evaporation,
results  in  the  discharge  of  waste  heat  to  the  atmosphere   and
evaporation  of  water concentrates dissolved solids.  Of the existing
plants approximately 65 percent or 547 plants use once through  cooling
and 35 percent or 295 plants use recirculating cooling water systems.

The distribution of plants by age and size category appears  in table
III-9.   Plants  built  since 1971 represent about 40 percent of steam
electric capacity.  Plants built before 1961 represent only  about  26
precent  of the existing capacity.

PROCESS  DESCRIPTION

The  "production"  of electrical energy always involves  the conversion
of some  other form of energy.  The three  most  important  sources  of
energy   which  are  converted to electric energy are the gravitational
potential energy of water, the atomic energy of nuclear  fuels,  and  the
chemical energy of fossil fuels.  The use of water power involves   the
transformation  of one form of mechanical energy into another prior to
conversion to electrical energy and can  be  accomplished  at   greater
than  90 percent of theoretical efficiency.  Therefore, hydroelectric
power generation produces only a minimal amount of waste heat   through
conversion inefficiencies.  Current uses of fossil fuels, on the other
hand,  are based on a combustion process, followed by steam generation
to convert the heat first into mechanical energy and then  to   convert
the  mechanical  energy  into electrical energy.  Nuclear processes in
general  also depend on the conversion  of   thermal  energy   (heat)   to
mechanical energy via a steam cycle  (1).

Hydroelectric Power

Hydroelectric  power  uses  the  energy  of  falling  water to  produce
electric power.  Although the facility  construction  and  development

                                 31

-------
                                            Table III-6

                           NUMBER OF EXISTING STEAM-ELECTRIG  POWERPLANTS
                                    BY FUEL TYPE AND SIZE  (8, 9)

                                         (number of plants)
u>
fsi
      Total
                                                      Plant Size  Categories
Fuel Type
Existing (1979)
Coal
Oil/Gas
Nuclear
Other
0-25 MW

35
48
0
15
26-
100 MW

63
102
2
5
101-
200 MW

36
76
2
1
201-
350 MW

38
48
0
1
351-
500 MW

35
44
0
0
More Than
500 MW

145
111
34
1
Total

352
429
38
23
98
172
115
87
79
291
842
   Source;  DOE Inventory ofPowerplants (1979).

-------
                                         Table III-7

     CAPACITY OF EXISTING AND NEW STEAM- ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS BY FUEL TYPE AND SIZE  (8, 9)
                                          1978-1995
                                         (gigawatts)


                        _ Plant Size Categories
                                     __.       __      __
                        _
                                     __.      T_T_      _j_      35^    More Than

   Fuel Type            0-25 MW    100 MW    200 MW    350 MH    500 MM     500 MM    Total

Existing (1979)

Coal
Oil/Gas
Nuclear
Other"  "       '          _____    _     ___        _    ___    __
   Total                  1.27      9.47      16.78     24TT2     33.29     368.33    453.37

Additions (1978-1985)
    .......   .....      '  '

Coal                                                                                   79.20
Oil/Gas                                                                                19.80
Nuclear                                                                                85.40
.46
.67
0
.14
3.46
5.69
.16
.16
5.59
10.71
.35
.13
10.47
13.33
0
.32
14.77
18.52
0
0
192.61
121 .16
53.31
1.25
227.37
170.07
53.83
2.10
   Total                                                                               184.40

Additions (1986-1995)

Coal                                                                                   187.30
Oil/Gas                                                                                   .20
Nuclear                                                                                142.10
   Total                                                                              329.60

Total Additions (1978-1995)                                                           514.00
Source:  DOE Inventory of Powerplants.

-------
                           Table III-8

      EXISTING AND PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM ELECTRIC
                 .POWERPLAOTS BY FUEL TYPE (8, 9)

                     (capacity in gigawatts)
                        1978a    1985b .   1990b     1995b

Coal Capacity           227.4    301.8    365.1     473.9
Number of Plants        352      467      565       734
Oil/Gas Capacity        170.1    173.5    157.4     100.4
Number of Plants        429      438      397       253
Nuclear Capacity         53.8    139.0    173.1 ,    281.0
Number of Plants         38       98      122       198
Sources:

aDOE, Inventory of Powerpiants, (1979).

^Electrical World; September 15, 1979; and projections by
 Temple,Barker,and Sloane, Inc.
                                34

-------
                                         Table III-9



        DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM-ELECTRIC CAPACITY BY PLANT SIZE AND IN-SERVICE YEAR  (9)





                                     Plant Size Category

Plant Age
Category
Pre-1960 MW
Percent of
Age Category
1961-1970 MW
Percent of
Age Category
Post-1970 MW
Percent of
Age Category
Total MW
Percent of
Age Category


0-25
1,154

1
344

.3
20

.01
1,518

.3


26-100
6,656

5.6
2,157

1.6
1,135

.6
9,948

2


101-200
12,926

10.8
4,052

3.0
1,543

.8
18,521

4


201-350
17,362

14.5
6,570

4.8
3,942

2
27,874

6


351-500
16,749

14
9,630

7.1
7,539

3.8
33,918

7


>500
64,968

54
112,844

83
184,502

93
362,314

80


Total
119,815

100
135,597

100
198,681

100
454,093

100
Percent
of Total
Capacity


26


30


44


100
, • . .
Source:  DOE Inventory of Powerplants,  1979.

-------
costs   are  high,  the  fuel  itself  is  not  an  operational  cost.
Unfortunately, the availability of hydroelectric power is  limited  to
locations  where' nature has created the opportunity of providing both
water and elevation differences to make the energy  extractable.   The
total  hydroelectric capacity installed at the end of 1975 amounted to
about 5 percent  of  the  total  installed  United  States  generating
capacity.   This  share  of power is projected to decline to less than
0.1 percent by  1983  (8),  primarily  because  the  number  of  sites
available   for  development  have  already  been  developed  and  the
remaining sites are either too costly or too far  from  urban  centers
(10).

Another  form  of  hydroelectric  power is produced by means of pumped
storage projects.  The process involves pumping water into an elevated
reservoir during off-peak load hours, and then generating  electricity
at  peak  load  periods by conventional hydroelectric means.  Although
not as  efficient  as  once-through  hydroelectric  power  facilities,
pumped  storage  projects are favorable for the peak load periods when
power demands are very high and additional power  generation  capacity
is needed to supplement the normal load generators.

In  general,  hydroelectric  power  represents a viable alternative to
fossil-fueled or nuclear  steam  cycle  generation  where  geographic,
environmental, and economic conditions are favorable (1).

Steam Electric Powerplants

Steam  electric  powerplants  are  the  production  facilities  of the
electric power industry.  The process to produce  electricity  can  be
divided  into four stages.  In the first operation, fossil fuel (coal,
oil, or natural gas) is burned in a boiler furnace.  The evolving heat
is used to produce pressurized and superheated steam.  This  steam  is
conveyed  to  the second stage—-the turbine— where it gives energy to
rotating blades and, in the process, loses pressure and  increases  in
volume.   The  rotating blades of the turbine act to drive an electric
generator or alternator to convert the imparted mechanical energy into
electrical energy.  The steam leaving the  turbine  enters  the  third
stage—the  condenser—where  it is condensed to water.  The liberated
heat is transferred to a  cooling  medium  which  is  normally  water.
Finally, the condensed steam is re.introduced into the boiler by a pump
to complete the cycle.

Historically, powerplants were categorized in accordance with the type
of  fuel they burned.  Recently, however, because of the energy crisis
and other cost factors, powerplants have modified their  equipment  to
enable  them to use more than one fuel.  Based on 308 data, 78 percent
of the steam electric powerplants have the capability of using two  or
more  fossil  fuels,  which  indicates  that the majority, of all steam
electric plants have the capability to burn  more  than  one  type  of
fossil fuel.

Figure  III-l  shows a simplified flow diagram of a typical coal-fired
powerplant.  The figure depicts  features  which  are  common  to  all

                                36

-------

- „ B1 r~' ' ' 	 - . --
	 , WiHtir Plow 1 • .,
— t Air EiuiattjUma - i
-*x»^a- cool I Collection J
j t
L.- 	 .. .. ..L L .... .
i 	 	
• * toiiaeiisate
I
I Boiler Ganawtoc^j f
FueJ- Stem _I Steam fn f

uttr . . . *" Tceutwent *~ Ueiwruting -\^ \^
, ^^-^.
i ' w Blowdoun '
Eluudown
1 Oiice-Tliiroiigli Cooling j ,
.;•-»-- J - r - - . j
1 I
1 ' BoCtomABli Boiler Tube Cleanina,
. 	 j ' Handling Fireside and Air

Coal £ 1

*— - • • i ' • •
. ' -:!1__ _ _'!___„ "'._



—.
-^j
:nse
'-~s






\
)

Sanitary uaace laliuracory
ti unmpling tiaatca, intake
caullng uat^r ayutcma con-
struction, Activity















f
B^iving


t w

             Figure  III-l
TYPICAL COAL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT

-------
powerplants  as  well  as  features  which  are  unique  to coal-fired
facilities.  Features unique to coal-fired plants include coal storage
and preparation  (transport,  beneficiation,  pulverization,  drying),
coal-fired  boiler,  ash  handling  and  disposal system,, and flue gas
cleaning and desulfurization.  A brief description of  tttlse  features
and their environmental results is presented in subsequent sections of
this  document.   EPA  anticipates  that future designs will emphasize
recovery and reuse of resources, in particular recycle  of  water  and
use of fly ash as a resource.

Combustion Gas Turbines and Diesel Engines

Combustion  gas turbines and diesel engines are devices for converting
the chemical energy of fuels  into  mechanical  energy  by  using  the
Brayton and Diesel thermal cycles as opposed to the Rankine cycle used
with  steam.   In  a  combustion  gas  turbine,  fuel is injected into
compressed air in a combustion chamber.  The fuel ignites,  generating
heat  and  combustion  gases,  and  the gas mixture expands to drive a
turbine, which is usually located on the same axle as the  compressor.
Various  heat  recovery  and staged compression and combustion schemes
are in use to increase overall efficiency.  Aircraft jet engines  have
been  used to drive turbines which, in turn, are connected to electric
generators.  In such units, the entire jet engine may be  removed  for
maintenance  and  a  spare  installed  with  a minimum of outage time.
Combustion gas  turbines  require  little  or  no  cooling  water  and
therefore  produce no significant effluent.  Diesel engines, which can
be operated at partial or full loads, are capable of being started  in
a  very  short time, so they are ideally suited for peaking use.  Many
large steam electric plants contain diesel  generators  for  emergency
shutdown  and  startup  power  (1).   In 1975, gas turbine and diesel-
powered electric generation plants  represented  6.8  percent  of  the
total  United  States  generating capacity.  By 1983 the number of gas
turbine and diesel-powered electrical generation plants  is  projected
to  decline  to  less  than  0.1  percent  of  the total United States
electric generating capacity (2).

Nuclear Powerplants

Nuclear powerplants utilize a cycle similar to that  used  in  fossil-
fueled   powerplants   except  that  the  source  of  heat  is  atomic
interactions rather than combustion of fossil fuel.  Water services as
both moderator and coolant as it passes through  the  nuclear  reactor
core.   In  a  pressurized water reactor, the heated water then passes
through a separate heat exchanger  where  steam  is  produced  on  the
secondary  side.  This steam, which contains no radioactive materials,
drives the turbines.  In a boiling water reactor, steam  is  generated
directly  in  the  reactor  core  and  is  then  piped directly to the
turbine.  This arrangement produces some radioactivity  in  the  steam
and  therefore  requires  some shielding of the turbine and condenser.
Long term fuel performance and thermal efficiencies  are  similar  for
the two types of nuclear systems (1).
                                  38

-------
Alternative Processes Under Active Development

    Future Nuclear Types

At the present time almost all of the nuclear power-plants  in,.operation
in  the  United  States  are  of  the  boiling  water reactor  (BWR) or
pressurized water reactor (PWR) type.  Some technical aspects  of  these
types of reactors limit their thermal efficiency to about  30   percent.
There  are  potential problems in the area of fuel availability  if  the
entire future nuclear capacity is  to  be  met  with  these  types  of
reactors.   In  order  to  overcome  these problems, a number  of  other
types of nuclear reactors are in various stages of  development.    The
objective  of  developing  these  reactors  is  two  fold:  to improve
overall efficiency by being able to produce  steam  under  temperature
and pressure, conditions similar to those being achieved  in fossil fuel
plants  and  to assure an adequate supply of nuclear fuel  at a minimum
cost.  Included in this group are  the  high  temperature,  gas-cooled
reactor  CHTGR),  the seed blanket light water breeder reactor (LWBR),
the liquid-metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR), and the gas-cooled fast
breeder reactor (GCFBR).  All of these utilize a steam   cycle   as  the
last  stage  before  generation of electric energy.  Both  the  HTGR  and
the LMFBR have advanced sufficiently to be considered  as  potentially
viable, alternate processes.

The  HTGR  is  a  graphite-moderated  reactor  which  uses helium as  a
primary coolant.  The helium is heated to about 750 degrees Centigrade
(1,400 degrees Fahrenheit) and then gives up its heat to a steam cycle
which  operates  at  a  maximum  temperature  of  about  550    degrees
centigrade.  (1,000  degrees Fahrenheit).  As a result, the HTGR can be
expected to produce electric energy at an overall  thermal efficiency
of  about 40 percent.  The thermal effects of its discharges should be
.similar to those of an equivalent capacity fossil-fueled  plant.    Its
chemical  wastes  will  be provided with essentially similar treatment
systems which are presently being provided for BWR and PWR plants.

The LMFBR will have a primary and secondary loop  cooled  with  sodium
and  a  tertiary  power  producing loop utilizing a conventional  steam
system.  Present estimates are that  the  LMFBR  will  operate  at  an
overall  thermal  efficiency  of  about  36  percent,  although higher
efficiencies are deemed to be ultimately  possible.   The  circulating
water  thermal discharges of, the LMFBR will initially be about halfway
between those  of  the  best  fossil-fueled  plants  and  the   current
generation  of  nuclear  plants.   Chemical  wastes will be similar to
those of current nuclear plants (1).

Coal Gasification

Coal gasification involves the production of fuel gas by the   reaction
of  the  carbon  in  the coal with steam and oxygen.  The  processes of
this energy technology are divided into two groups depending upon  the
heating  value  of the product gas.  Low Btu gasification  utilizes  air
as the oxygen source and produces a CO and H2 rich gas with a   heating
value  of   150  -  450  Btu/scf.   High Btu gasification utilizes pure

                                39

-------
oxygen in the gasification process and produces a fuel gas of pipeline
quality with a heating value of approximately 1,000 Btu/scf.  The main
difference between high and low Btu processing  is  the  inclusion  of
shift  conversion and methanation processes in the processing sequence
for high Btu gasification.                               &*.

The Federal Government and  a  number  of  private  organizations  are
supporting  research  and  development of coal gasification complexes.
Estimates  indicate  that  low  Btu  gasification  of  coal   can   be
accomplished for less than twice the current natural gas price paid by
electric  utilities.   As natural gas and fuel oil become increasingly
short in supply, gasification of coal could well turn into a factor in
steam electric power generation.

Combined Cycle Powerplants

Combined cycle power systems combine gas  turbine  and  steam  turbine
cycles  to increase thermal efficiencies of power generation.  The hot
exhaust gases from a gas turbine are used  to  generate  steam  in  an
unfired  boiler.   The steam generated is used to drive a conventional
steam turbine.  Combined cycle systems might consist of  a  number  of
gas  turbines  exhausted  into  a  single  steam  turbine with its own
electric generating capacity.  Another combined  cycle  concept  is  a
pressurized  bed  system.   The concept is to burn coal in a fluidized
bed environment of dolomite at 10 atmospheres of pressure.   Steam  is
produced in the conventional manner of using boiler heat for the steam
cycle   but   cleaned  combustion  gases  are  also  used  to  produce
electricity by use of a gas turbine.  Waste heat is used to  economize
the cycle through preheating of boiler feed water.

FUTURE GENERATING SYSTEMS

Natural Energy Sources

Geothermal Energy.  Geothermal energy is the natural heat contained in
the  crust  of  the  earth.   While  ubiquitous throughout the earth's
crust,  only  in  a  few  geological  formations  is  it  sufficiently
concentrated  and  near  enough  to  the  surface to make its recovery
economically viable.  Geothermal energy involves  six  major  resource
types  of  which  two  are currently capable of being utilized for the
generation of electricity.  Vapor-dominated reservoirs, such as  those
utilized  at The Geysers, California, obtain steam directly from wells
drilled into the geothermal reservoirs.  The steam  is  then  used  to
drive a steam turbine.  Liquid-dominated reservoirs contain geothermal
fluids  consisting of hot water and steam.  The geothermal fluids must
first be flashed to steam or used to evaporate  some  other  types  of
working fluid, which is then used to drive a steam turbine.

The advantage of geothermal power generation is that the energy source
is  essentially  free  after  the  initial  exploration, drilling, and
facility costs are paid off.  The disadvantages  of  geothermal  power
generation  are that the costs of facility siting and construction are
                                 40

-------
high,  and geothermal fluids must be cleaned prior to use and  disposed
of by reinjection tp the subsurface geothermal reservoir.

Solar  Energy.   The  conversion  of  solar energy to electricity at a
large scale via a steam cycle involves the use of  a.  large  .array  of
reflective  focusing  collectors which concentrate the.solar radiation
on a heat collector which heats water to steam.  The steam is used  to
drive  a  steam turbine to produce electricity.  The systems currently
in use are developmental, and it is projected that, in the future,  as
fossil  fuels  become  increasingly  short in supply and high in cost,
solar systems will be developed  in  areas  which  are  geographically
suited to maximum solar collection and conversion.

Biomass  Conversion.   This  involves the production of photosynthetic
materials {wood, sugar cane, and other similar high Btu content crops)
for use as a fuel.   The  photosynthetic  materials  can  be  directly
combusted  in  coal-fed  type boilers or converted into low Btu gas by
gasification of the biomass.  The technology behind biomass production
and  utilization  closely  resembles   agricultural   techniques   and
techniques  evolved  from  the  handling  of  coal.   As a result, the
utilization of biomass materials as a heat source for  steam  electric
generation will increase as demands are placed on the coal industry to
provide cleaner fuel at low prices.

Other Natural Energy Sources., Other major energy conversion processes
(ocean  thermal  gradiant  to electricity, wind  energy to electricity,
photovoltaics, and solar heating and cooling of  buildings  and  water)
involve  mechanical  conversion  or  the  transfer of heat without the
production of steam for use as a working fluid.

Maqnetohydrodynami cs

Magnetohydrodynamics  (MHD) power generation consists of passing a  hot
ionized  gas  or  liquid  metal  through  a magnetic field to generate
direct current.  The concept has been known for  many  years,  although
specific  research  directed towards the development of viable systems
for generating significant quantities of electric energy has only  been
in  progress  for   the  past  10  years.   Magne.tohydrodynamics    have
particular  potential  as  a  "topping" unit used in  conjunction with  a
conventional  steam  turbine.  Exhaust  from  a   MHD   generator   is  hot
enough  to  be utilized  in a waste  heat boiler  resulting  in  an overall
system efficiency of  50  to 60 percent.  The  problem  associated   with
MHD    is   the  development  of  materials  which   can  withstand   the
temperature generated.   Despite  its high  efficiency,   development  of
MHD to a commercial operation  is not expected  to occur  within  the  next
several years  in  the  United States  (1).

Electroqasdynamics

Electrogasdynamics   (EGD)  produces  power   by  passing  an  electrically
charged gas through an   electric   field.    The   process   converts   the
kinetic  energy   of  the  moving   gas   to   high voltage  direct  current
electricity.   The promise of  EGD  is similar  to   the   promise  of   MHD.

-------
Units  would  be  smaller, would have a minimum of moving parts, would
not be limited by thermal cycle efficiencies, and  would  not  require
cooling water.  The system could also be adapted to any source of fuel
or   energy   including   coal,   gas,   oil   or   nuclear  reactors.
Unfortunately, the .problems of developing commercially practical units
are also similar to those associated with MHD (1).

Fuel Cells

Fuel cells are electrochemical devices, similar to storage  batteries,
in  which  the chemical energy of a fuel such as hydrogen is converted
continuously into low voltage electric current.  The prospect of  fuel
cells is for use in residential and commercial services.  However, the
fuel  cell  is  not  expected  to replace a significant portion of the
central powerplant generator facilities within the next several  years
due  to  expense  of  manufacturing  and  the  significant quantity of
electric power needed to produce the cells.
                                 42

-------
                              SECTION IV

                       INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION

The  1974  Development  Document  (1)  presented  the  framework   and
rationale  for  the  recommended  industry  categorization  which  was
subsequently used in the development of chemical-type  waste  effluent
limitations  under best practicable control technology, best available
technology economically achievable, and standards of  performance  for
new  sources.  Factors which were considered in the development of the
industry categorization included analysis of the  processes  employed;
raw  materials  used;  the  number  and size of generating facilities;
their age, and site characteristics;  mode  of  operation;  wastewater
characteristics;   pollutant   parameters;   control   and   treatment
technology; and cost, energy and  non-water  quality  aspects.   As  a
result,  it was recommended that the industry be categorized according
to the origin  of  individual  waste  sources,  including:   condenser
cooling  system;  water  treatment;  boiler  or  PWR  steam generator;
maintenance cleaning; ash handling; drainage;  air  pollution  control
devices; and miscellaneous waste streams.

Since  the  issuance  of the 1974 Development Document (1), additional
information has been collected through  questionnaire  surveys,  plant
visits,  and  sampling  and analysis programs for priority pollutants.
The steam electric power generating point  source  category  has  been
reevaluated  in - light  of  this  new information to determine whether
categorization  and  subcategorization  would  be  required  for   the
preparation  of  effluent  guidelines  and standards for  the industry.
The reevaluation consisted of: .  (1) the statistical analysis  of  308
questionnaire  data  to  assess  the influence of age, size (installed
generating capacity), fuel type, and geographic location  on wastewater
flow; and  (2) engineering technical analysis to assess  the  influence
of  these  and other variables on wastewater pollutant loading and the
need for subcategorization.

On the basis of the  reevaluation  studies,  EPA  concluded  that  the
existing categorization approach (by chemical waste stream origin) was
adequate,  but  that  a  new  format  would  be  an  improvement.  The
recommended categorization for the  steam  electric  power  generating
point source category includes:

    1.  Once-Through Cooling Water

    2.  Recirculating Cooling System Slowdown

    3.  Fly Ash Transport Discharge

    4.  Bottom Ash Transport Discharge

    5.  Metal Cleaning Wastes

        -  Air preheater wash
        -  Fireside wash

                                 4-3

-------
        -  Boiler tube cleaning
        -  Cleaning rinses

    6.  Low Volume Wastes
                    = '         '      '                    '•>*-
        -  Clarifier blowdown
        -  Makeup water filter backwash
        -  Lime softener blowdown
        -  Ion exchange softener regeneration
        -  Demineralizer regeneration
           Powdered resin demineralizer back flush
        -  Reverse osmosis brine
        -  Boiler blowdown
        -  Evaporator blowdown
        -  Laboratory drains
        -  Floor drains
        -  Sanitary wastes
        -  Diesel engine cooling system discharge

    7.  Ash Pile, Chemical Handling and Construction Area Runoff

    8.  Coal Pile

    9.  Wet Flue Gas Cleaning Blowdown

The  following  subsections  of  this section describe the statistical
analysis and engineering technical analysis performed as a part of the
categorization reevaluation.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Flow data from the steam electric 308  questionnaire  data  base  were
obtained  for once-through cooling water, recirculating cooling system
blowdown, ash transport discharge, and low  volume  waste  discharges.
Flow values were normalized by installed plant generating capacity and
expressed in gallons per day per megawatt.

Four  independent  variables were studied to determine their effect on
waste flow discharge.  They were:  principal  fuel  type  (oil,  coal,
gas);  EPA  region; generating capacity; and age.  The effect of these
four variables on normalized waste flow  discharge  was  tested  using
analysis  of  covariance.   Results  of  the  analysis indicated those
independent variables which have a statistically significant effect on
waste flow discharge and therefore warranted further consideration  as
a  basis  for  subcategorization.  Table IV-1 presents the independent
variables which were found  statistically  to  have  an  influence  on
normalized  waste flow discharges.  In general, fuel type was found to
have the greatest influence on normalized discharge  flow.   This  was
expected  because  water requirements for ash transport and other uses
normally vary among oil, coal, and gas-fired plants.

Although some statistically significant influences were  found,  their
practical significance requires further, examination.  Table IV-2 lists

                                44

-------
                            Table IV-1
             ^VARIABLES FOUND TO HAVE A STATISTICALLY
        SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE ON NOBMALIZED FLOW DISCHARGES
                                    Independent Variable
Normalized Discharge Source  Fuel Type - Capacity  EPA Region  Age

Once Through Cooling Water                 x
lecirculating Cooling Water
  Slowdown                       x
Ash Transport Discharge          x
Low Volume Waste Discharge       x                    x
                               45

-------
                            Table I?-2

         PERCENT OF THE VARIATION IN NORMALIZED 'DISCHARGE
       FLOWS THAT IS EXPLAINED:BY THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
                                          Percent of the Variation
                                           in Normalized Discharge
                                          Explained by the Inde-
         Discharge Source	       pendent Variables	
Once Through Cooling                              9.6

Recirculating Cooling Water Slowdown             16.5

Ash Transport Discharge                          18.6

Low Volume Waste Discharge                       18.3
                               46

-------
the  percent  of  the  variation in normalized flow discharge which  is
explained  by  the  four  independent  variables   investigated.     in
statistical  terminology,  these  percentages  are  the  square of the
multiple correlation coefficient (R&),  expressed as  a  percent.   The
relatively   ^ow   R2  values  indicate  that  although  some  of  the
independent variables were shown to statistically influence discharge:,
their importance is largely overshadowed by  other  influences.   Less
than 20 percent of the variation in normalized ash transport discharge
was  explained  by  the  influences  of fuel type, plant capacity, EPA
region and plant age.  The Agency therefore concluded that  there  was
no   strong   statistical  basis  for  establishing  discharge  source
subcategories by fuel type, plant capacity, EPA region, or plant age.

ENGINEERING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The objective in developing any System of  industry  subcategorization
is  to  provide logical groupings of discharges based on those factors
which affect the waste loading from the  plant.   The  effect  on.  the
waste loading must be of sufficient magnitude to warrant imposition  of
a   different   treatment   technology  or  to  affect  radically  the
performance of an existing technology.

The following  characteristics  of  steam  electric  power  generating
plants   were  considered  in  establishing  the  basis  for  industry
subcategorization:

    1.  Age

    2.  Size (Installed Generating Capacity)

    3.  Fuel Type

    4.  Intake Water Quality

    5.  Geography

    6.  Source of Raw Waste                 -   =          •

These factors were selected as having the greatest potential effect  on
powerplant waste loading.
Previous analyses  (1) have shown that older  plants   (defined   by   the
year the oldest currently operating boiler was placed  in  service)  tend
to be smaller, tend to have urbanized locations, and are  somewhat  more
likely  to  discharge  plant  wastewaters  to publicly  owned treatment
works (POTW's).  Of these factors only the size of the  facilities  is
likely  to  impact  wastewater  quality or loading.  Smaller plants do
have smaller discharges compared to large plants but   the  quality  of
the discharge  is not appreciably different.
                                 47

-------
The  biggest  influence  of  plant  age  is  on the economics of power
generation.  Older plants are less efficient than  new  ones  and  the
cost  of  producing  electricity is generally higher.  It  is therefore
logical that capital investment in, as well as operating expenses  of,
pollution  control  equipment  in  older  facilities  can* cause  more
economic hardship as compared to newer more efficient facilities.  The
economic  issues  are  addressed   in  the  economic  evaluation  being
prepared as a companion document to this one.

The  influence  of  age  was  judged  not to be of a nature to warrant
future subcategorization  beyond   the  division  by  wastewstreams  as
presented earlier.

Size

As   noted   above  station  size  (commonly  expressed  as  installed
generating capacity in megawatts)  is an important  factor  influencing
the volume of effluent flow.  Discharge flows of cooling water, boiler
feed  water,  ash handling water,  and other waste streams.all increase
with  increasing  installed  capacity.   In  general,  small  stations
produce  about  the  same  quality of wastewater as compared to larger
stations.

Fuel Type

The type of fuel  (coal, oil, gas,  nuclear)  used  to  fire powerplant
boilers  most  directly  influences  the  number  of  powerplant waste
streams.  The influence comes principally from the effect  of  fuel  on
the ash transport waste stream.  Stations using heavy or residual oils
such  as  no.  6 fuel oil generate fly ash in large quantities and may
generate some bottom ash.  This ash must be handled either dry or wet.
Wet handling produces a waste stream.  Stations which use  wet  removal
methods  have an ash sluice water  stream that typically contains heavy
metals including priority pollutants..  Stations which burn coal create
both fly ash and bottom ash.  As in the case of oil ash, both types of
coal ash can be removed either by  wet or by dry methods.   Those  power
stations using wet ash removal methods have an ash sluice  water stream
containing  inorganic  toxic  pollutants  such  as  arsenic, selenium,
copper/ etc.

Since  fuel  can  affect  both  the  presence  and  concentration   of
pollutants,  fuel  type  does have a strong influence on waste loading
and could serve as  a  potential   basis  for  subcategorization.   The
existing  categorization by waste  stream source, however,  does include
the effect of fuel type by establishing limitations for ash  transport
water  and  further  subcategorization  of those waste streams by fuel
type is not necessary.

Intake Water Quality

Quality of the intake water has both a direct and an  indirect  effect
on  the  waste  loading  and  discharge  flow of a power station.  The
direct effect is that pollutants coming into  the  plant   tend  to  be

                                48

-------
eventually  discharged  by  the  plant.  The  indirect effects are mote
complex,  High concentrations of dissolved solids in. the intake  water
can  require  more  frequent  regeneration  of,  boiler water treatment
systems.  High dissolved solids content may also limit the  amount  of
recycle  of cooling water from the cooling towers, thus increasing  the
flow of cooling tower blowdown.  High  organic  loadings  in  the   raw
water"" intake  require larger doses of chlorine or other chemicals  for
cooling water treatment.  Water quality is normally divided into three
types:  fresh, brackish, and salt, depending  on the  concentration  of
dissolved  solids.  The different types of water are .believed to react
differently  with  chlorine  and  other  biocidal  agents  to  produce
different types and different concentrations  of reaction products.

Intake   water   quality  can  affect  both   the  flow  and  pollutant
concentration in water discharges.  However,  its influence on  cooling
water  flows  is  mostly  dependent on the type of cooling used by  the
station.  The influence of intake water quality is  accounted  for   in
the   present   categorization   and  was  rejected  as  a  basis   for
subcategorization.

Geographic Location

Geographic location can have  an  influence   on  power  station  waste
concentrations  and flows primarily through the affect of intake water
availability and quality.  The  effect  of  intake  water  quality   is
described  above.   Other  geographical  oriented  considerations have
small to no effect on wastewater flow or quality.

Waste: Stream Source

Steam electric  powerplant  waste  stream  source  has  the  strongest
influence  on  the presence and concentration of various pollutants as
well  as on flow, - Waste stream source effects all  aspects  of  waste
loading.  Power stations  commonly have several wastewater sources,  but
rarely  are all possible sources present at any single station.  All of
the   sources   present   fit   into  one  of   the  general  categories.
Categorization  by  waste  source  provides   the  best  mechanism   for
evaluating and controlling waste  loads.  It was concluded that  current
categorization by waste stream source should  be retained.
                                 49

-------
50

-------
                              SECTION V

                        WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

INTRODUCTION

This   study   addresses  only  the  chemical  aspects  of  powerplant
wastewater discharge.  A  number  of  different  operations  by  steam
electric  powerplants  discharge  chemical  wastes.   Many  wastes are
discharged  more  or  less  continuously  as ' long  as  the  plant  is
operating.   These  include  wastewaters  from  the following sources:
cooling  water  systems,  ash  handling  systems,   wet-scrubber   air
pollution  control  systems,  and  boiler  blowdown.   Some wastes are
produced at regular intervals, as in water treatment operations  which
include  a .cleaning  or regenerative step as part of their cycle  (ion
exchange, filtration, clarification, evaporation).  Other  wastes  are
also  produced intermittently but are generally associated with either
the shutdown or startup of a boiler or generating unit such as  during
boiler  cleaning  (water  side),  boiler  cleaning  (fire  side),  air
preheater cleaning, cooling tower  basin  cleaning,  and  cleaning  of
miscellaneous  small  equipment.   Additional  wastes  exist which are
essentially unrelated to production.  These depend  on  meteorological
or'  other factors.  Rainfall runoff, for example, causes drainage  from
coal piles, ash piles, floor and yard drains,  and  from  construction
activity.   A  diagram  indicating  potential  sources  * of wastewaters
containing chemical pollutants  in  a  fossil  fueled  steam  electric
powerplant is shown in figure V-l.

DATA COLLECTION               '                      -

Data  on  waste  stream characteristics presented in this section  were
accumulated from the following sources:

1.  The 1974 Development document for the Steam Electric Industry  (1);

2.  Literature data available since 1974 supplied by various  sources,
including the steam electric industry;

3.   Individual  plant  information  available  from approximately 800
steam electric plants responding to  an  EPA  data  collection  effort
(under authority of section 308 of the FWPCA);

4.   Data  from  monthly  monitoring  reporting  forms,  EPA  regional
offices, state agencies, and other Federal agencies;

5.   Results  of  screen  sampling  and  analysis  of  steam  electric
facilities;

6.  Results of verification sampling and analysis  of  steam  electric
facilities; and         '    ]

7.  Miscellaneous data sources.
                                 51

-------
                         CIKHICAll
MU tMfl*
iMHTomr VASTH,
UlOMfOMf C SAMfllKC
WASTCS, INfMt SCftCCH
IMSUAIM, CICStt
COOtlKC UAt£K SmtKS
CONSIRUCf IOH ACflVlflf



HI5C. WAJH-
WAICN S1KMIS

                                                                   t"giotpai«r~|»
                                                                1.CCEHII
                                                           , 	 itquii riow
                                                           -»- __ _ US ( StlAH flOW
                                                           ll,l« :f  CHtHICAU
                                                           -.	OMIOHAl ftW
                                                            4   UMfi IOWCC
                              Figure  V-l
             SOURCES OF  WASTEWATER  IN A FOSSIL-FUELED
                  STEAM  ELECTRIC POWER  PLANT  (1)
                                   52

-------
Most  of  the  historical  data  available cover conventional and non-
conventional non-toxic pollutants such  as  total  residual  chlorine,
free  available  chlorine,  temperature,  non-priority metals, oil and
grease, total suspended solids  (TSS),  and  pH.   Data  covering  the
organic  priority pollutants were practically  nonexistent. A two fold
sampling program was conducted to fill the  data  void.   The  initial
"screening"  phase  served  to identify the presence of pollutants and
the  "verification"  phase  to   quantify   them.    Five   analytical
laboratories   were   involved  in  the  sampling  program.   All  the
laboratories used gas chromotography with a mass spectrometer detector
(GC/MS) in analyzing for the organics  (with one exception) and   atomic
adsorption  for the metals (with two exceptions).  One laboratory used
a GC with a Hall detector for organic  analyses.  Two laboratories used
the Inductively  Coupled  Argon  Plasma  Atomic-Emission  Spectroscopy
Method  (ICAP)  for metal analyses.  The sampling protocol outlined  in
the document entitled, "Sampling and Analysis  Procedures for Screening
of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants—April 1977   (2),  was
used  with  some  minor revisions.  The revisions are described  in the
subsections on each waste stream.

Methylene chloride and phthalates were detected in almost all samples.
The potential sources of contamination for  these  pollutants  include
sampling  and analytical equipment  (phthalates are used as plasticizer
in tubing), and reagent  used  to  clean  and   prepare  sample  bottles
(methylene  chloride).   For  these  reasons,  phthalates and methylene
chloride are excluded from consideration as pollutants from powerplant
operation.

Screen  Sampling Efforts

Eight plants were chosen for example under the screen sampling   phase.
These   plants were representative of the pollutant sources encountered
in the  industry; the selection of plants was  based on plant   variables
known   to   affect  effluent  composition.    The  selection  criteria
included:   fuel  type,  plant  size,   cooling   type,  and  feed   water
quality.    The characteristics of these eight  plants are summarized  in
table V-l.

Verification Sampling Efforts

The verification sampling phase was developed' to  quantify   pollutant
loadings   from  the power-generating  industry. Plants were  chosen  for
this   phase after  consultation  with  industry   representatives  and
computer   scans  of   the  308  data   base.    The   rationale   for plant
selection  was based on  chemical discharge  waste  characteristics.  This
phase   focused  primarily  on  the  following  streams:    once-through
cooling water,  cooling  tOwer   blowdown,   and   ash   handling  waters.
Although this sampling  effort  emphasized  these  major  waste   sources,
other  waste streams were  also  sampled.

Pollutants  discharged   from   once-through  cooling   water  can   be
attributed to  corrosion  of  construction materials,  and  to  the reaction
of  elemental  chlorine  as  hydrochlorite with   organics   in   the  intake

                                 53

-------
                                        Table V-1

             CHAEACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED IN THE SCREEN SAMPLING PHASE
                                 OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM
Plant

4222


0631


2414
1720
3805
3404
2512
4836
        Capacity
          (MW)

         1641.7
          169
         1329
         1107
          660
         1120
          495
Fuel Type

Bituminous
Coal

Oil/Gas
Bituminous
Coal
Bituminous
Coal

Lignite
Coal
          475.6    Coal/Oil
Oil
Gas
              Fly Ash
             Collection

             ESP
                                Cyclones
Units 1,2:
   ESP
Unit 3:
   Scrubber
             ESP
             ESP
                                               Fly Ash Hand1ing

                                               Once-Through
                                               Sluicing
                            Dry Handling
                                                            Dry
                            Units 1,2:
                              Handling
                            Unit 3:  Partial
                              Recirculation
                              Sluice System

                            Once-Through
                            Sluicing

                            Partical Reeir-
                            culating Sluice
                            System

                            Reinjection of
                            Fly Ash Into
                            Boilers
                            Partial Recir-
                            culation of Fly
                            Ash Sluice
                                                Cooling Water System/
                                                    Type of Water

                                                Cooling Towers/Fresh
                                                Water

                                                Cooling Towers/Fresh
                                                Water

                                                Units 1»2;  Once-
                                                  Through/Fresh Water
                                                Unit 3:  Cooling
                                                  Tower/Fresh Water
                                                Once-Through/Fresh
                                                Water

                                                Once-Through/Saline
                                                Water
                                                                   Units  1,2:   Cooling
                                                                     Towers/Saline Water
                                                                   Unit 3;  Once-Through
                                                                     /Saline Water
                                                                                  i>
                                                                                  3
                                                                   Once-Through/Saline
                                                                   Water
                                                Cooling Towers/Fresh
                                                Water

-------
water.   Primary   emphasis   for  cooling  waters was placed on organics.
Plants  sampled  during  the verification program were  selected  on  the
basis   of   intake  water  quality.   Powerplants with fresh water intake,
brackish water  intake, and  saline  water  intake were  selected  because
reaction   kinetics  for  chlorinated  organics  formation are known to
differ  with  the nature of the  water source.

Pollutants in cooling  tower blowdown  may  be  the  result  of  chlo-
rination,  chemical additives,  and  corrosion  and erosion of the piping,
condenser,   and   cooling   tower  materials.    The  Agency  therefore,
considered materials of  construction   (in  particular  cooling  tower
fills)   in  plant   selection.    Plants   using the three most prevalent
types   of   cooling  tower   fill  were  sampled.   Plants  with  fresh,
brackish,   and  saline  water   intakes   were  selected for chlorinated
organics sampling.  Since most of  the powerplants were chlorinating on
an   intermittent   basis,  cooling   tower  and   once-through   cooling
effluents  were  sampled only during periods of chlorination.

.Ash   handling   streams contain   dissolved  material  from  J:he  ash
particles.   The. chemical nature of the ash material is a  function  of
fuel  composition.  The four basic fuels considered were: coal, oil,
natural gas, and nuclear.   Natural gas-fired and nuclear-fired  plants
do  not  generate ash.  Responses from the 308 letters indicate that few
oil-fired   plants   have  wet ash-sluicing systems.  Only one plant with
oil  ash handling waters  was sampled.  As a result, the  ash  transport
waters   from coal-fired powerplants  were  the  primary focus.  Four
factors were determined  to  have the greatest impact  on  this  stream:
 (1)   sulfur content; (2) type  of coal  (bituminous, lignite, etc.); (3)
origin  of  coal; and (4)  type of boiler.   Plants  were  selected  under
these   criteria.    Most  coal-fired facilities have ash ponds or other
means of  treatment for total suspended solid  removal.   Samples  were
taken   from the   ash  pond effluent.  Table V-2 lists the powerplants
sampled  during the  verification phase  of  the  sampling  program.
 Information regarding plant fuel  type,  installed generating capacity,
ash  handling systems,  and cooling  system type  are  provided  in  this
table.

Sampling  Program Results                           .'  • •  •

The  results of   the  screening and verification sampling programs are
discussed  by specific  waste stream in  the following subsections:

     1.   Cooling Water                                   :

        -  once-through
           recirculating

     2.   Ash Handling

        -  combined ash ponds
        -  separate fly ash  and bottpm  ash ponds

     3.   Boiler  Blowdown

                                 5-5

-------
                                             Table V-2

                    CHARACTERISTICS OP PLANTS SAMPLED IN THE VERIFICATION PHASE
in
Plant
No.
2718
1716
4826
1742

1226

Capacity
MW
136.9
648.5
826.3
22
117
I I /
1,229
ooc
OJ J
Fly Ash
Fuel Type Handling System
Lignite Coal Dry
Bituminous Dry
Coal /Gas
n-i i 	
Gas N/A
Bituminous Dry
Coal /Oil
Hi T /facj
Ul-i./ Ijctb _____
Bituminous Wet Once-Through
Coal/Oil/Gas

Bottom Ash Cooling Water System/
Handling System (Fill*)/Type of Water
Dry Once-Through and
Cooling Tower (Wood)/
Fresh
Wet Once-Through Once-Through/Fresh
N/A Once-Through/Brackish
Wet Once-Through Once-Through/Fresh
Cooling Tower/Fresh
Wet Once-Through Once-Through and
Cooling Tower (P¥C)/
Fresh
(Asbestos) /Fresh
   NA   = Not Applicable
   	 s Insufficient Information
   *Type of Fill in Cooling Towers; given where appropriate,

-------
                                      Table V-2  (Continued)

                    CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED  IN  THE VERIFICATION PHASE
u»
Plant
No.
3404
5409
5604
4602
3920
3924
3001
Capacity
"MW
475.6
2,900
750
22
544
87.5
50.0
Fuel Type
Bituminous
Coal/Oil
Bituminous
Coal/Oil
Bituminous
Coal /Oil
Subbitumi-
nous Coal
Bituminous
Coal/Oil
Bituminous
Coal
Lignite
Coal /Gas
Fly Ash
Hand ling. Sy s t em
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
Dry/Wet Recycle
Dry
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once -Through
and Wet Recycle
Bottom Ash Cooling Water System/
Handling System Type of Water _
Wet Once-Through Once-Through and
Cooling Tower
(Asbes tos ) / Brackish
Wet Once-Through Cooling Towerw( 	 )/
Fresh
Wet Once-Through/ Once-Through and
Wet Recycle Cooling Tower ( 	 )/
Fresh
Wet Once-Through Cooling Tower (Wood)/
Fresh
Dry/Wet Once- Once-Through/ 	
Through
Wet Once-Through Once-Through/ 	 •-
Wet Once-Through Once Through/ 	
   NA
       Not Applicable
       Insufficient Information
*Type of Fill in Cooling Towers; given where appropriate.
   — •— •» SSS

-------
                                      Table V-2  (Continued)

                    CHARACTERISTICS OF  PLANTS  SAMPLED  IN  THE  VERIFICATION PHASE
Plant
No.
1741
5410
2121
Capacity
MW Fuel Type
99.0 Bituminous
Coal
675 Bituminous
Coal
1,002.6 Bituminous
Coal
Fly Ash
Handling System
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
Bottom Ash
Handling System
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once -Through
Wet Recycle
(Bottom Ash
Cooling Water System/
Type of Water
Cooling Ponds/ 	
Once-Through/ 	
Cooling Tower ( 	 )/
Ul
OQ
Sluice Water
Recycled for Fly
Ash Sluicing)
   NA   = Not Applicable
   	 = Insufficient  Information
   *Type of Fill in  Cooling Towers; given where  appropriate.

-------
    4.  Metal Cleaning Wastes

    5.  Boiler Fireside Washing

    6.  Air Preheater Washing

    7.  Coal Pile Runoff

A listing of the pollutants detected in the various  powerplant  waste
streams is given in table V-3.

COOLING WATER
                                                 i
In a steam electric powerplant, cooling water absorbs the heat that  is
liberated  from  the  steam  when  it  is  condensed  to  water  in the
condensers.  A typical type of  condenser  for  steam   electric  power
applications  is  the shell and tube condenser.  A crosssectional view
of this type of condenser is provided  in figure  V-2.   Cooling  water
enters  the  condenser  through  the   inlet box and passes  through the
condenser tubes to the outlet box.  As the water  passes  through  the
tubes, heat is transferred across the  tube  walls to the cooling water.
from  steam  contained in the condenser shell.  The steam in  the shell
is the turbine exhaust.  The transfer  of heat  to  the  cooling  water
results  in  condensation  of  steam   on  the  condenser  tubes.   The
condensate falls from the tubes to the bottom of the shell  forming   a
pool  in the hot well.  The condensate  is then pumped from the hot well
through   the  feedwater  train  to  the  boiler.   Cooling  water   is
discharged from the condenser through  the outlet box (3).

Once-Through Cool ing Water Systems

In a once-through cooling water system, the cooling water is  withdrawn
from  the  water  source,  passed  through  the  system,  and  returned
directly  to  the  water source.  The  components of the system are the
intake structure, the circulating water pumps, the condensers, and the
discharge conduit.  The components of  a typical intake  structure  are
the   intake  cowl,  the  conduit,  and the wet well.  Each  intake cowl
contains a bar rack to remove large objects from the water  in order  to
protect the pumps.  The  wet  well  contains  the  pumps,   called  the
circulating  water  pumps, and screens for removing smaller objects  in
the water which could damage the pumps.  The relative location of  the
components  in  a  particular application depends on the type of water
source and various physical characteristics of the water source.   The
discharge from the recirculating water pumps  enter  a  manifold  that
distributes  the cooling water to the  condensers.  A manifold collects
the heated water from all of the condensers and transfers the water  to
a conduit.  The cooling water is discharged from the conduit  into  the
receiving  water body.  Based on 308 data, approximately 65 percent  of
the existing steam  electric  powerplants  have  once-through cooling
water  systems.   Table  V-4  presents a statistical analysis of once-
through cooling water flow rates reported in 308  responses  from  the
industry.

                                 59

-------
                            Table V-3

        SUMMARY TABLE OF ALL PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS  DETECTED
         IN ANY OF THE WASTE STREAMS FROM  STEAM ELECTRIC
        POWERPLANTS BASED ON THE ANALYSIS  OF  THE  COMPLETE
                      COMPUTERIZED DATA
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Triehloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform *
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Diehlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Diehloroethylene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Bromoform
Diehlorobromomethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
4,4-ODD
Antimony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Asbestos (Total-Fiber's/Liter)
Beryllium (Total)
Cadmium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Copper (Total)
Cyanide (Total)
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Thallium (Total)
Zinc (Total)
                                60

-------
      Cooling
      liquid Intel
         1
 Noncondanubli
' get outl«t
                                                                  Vapor Inlet
      Cooling
      liquid ouiiet
                                          Figure  V-2

                                  SHELL  AND TUBE CONDENSER
Reprinted from  Handbook of  Chlorination by G.  C.  White  by permission of  Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company^Year of  first publication:   1972.

-------
                                       Table V-4

                         ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER FLOWRATES
                                  (308 Questionnaire)

                   Number
                     of                                       Minimum
 Variable          Plants   Mean Value   Standard Deviation    Value    Maximum Value

Fuel:  Coal*

  Flow:  GPD/plant   239     298,048,949     358,035,167.6     50.0     1,662,900,000
  Flow:  GPD/MW      239   1,140,619,218   5,030,338,485        0.347      55,430,000


Fuel:  Gas*

  Flow:  GPD/plant   105     206,671,665.8   539,322,309.7     79.2     1,905,000,000
  Flow;  GPD/MW      104     636,267,895         573,486.38     1.8     3,658,536,585


Fuel:  Oil*

  Flow;  GPB/plant   138     393,313,121.5   687,433,085.8      1.91     7,056,000,000
  Flow;  GPD/MW      137       1,385,121.179   4,991,663.852    0.013   58,074,074.07
*Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for power
generation for the year 1975.

-------
Recirculatinq Cooling Water Systems

In  a  recirculating  cooling  water  system,  the  cooling  water   is
withdrawn from the water source  and  passed  through  the   condensers
several,  times  before being .discharged to the receiving water.  After
each pass through the condenser, heat is removed from the water.    The
heat  is  removed  from  the  cooling  water  by  three major methods:
cooling ponds or cooling canals, mechanical draft evaporative   cooling
towers, arid natural draft evaporative cooling towers.

Cooling  ponds  are  generally  most  appropriate   in  relatively   dry
climates and in locations where large land areas  are  available.    In
some  cases where land area is not readily available, spray  facilities
have been installed to reduce the  needed  pond  size.   Approximately
half  of  the  steam  electric  industry's  cooling  ponds   are in  the
Southwest (Texas and Oklahoma), a quarter in the  Southeast,  and   the
remainder  mainly in the Midwest.  Cooling ponds normally have  a water
retention time of 10 days or more and,  for  a  large  steam electric
plant,  usually  have  a  surface  area  in  excess  of  500 hectares.
Chemical addition requirement for cooling ponds is  significantly  less
than for cooling towers.

The  mechanical  draft  evaporative  cooling  tower is by far the  most
popular, cooling method for recirculating cooling water in large steam
electric powerplants.  The mechanical draft towers, shown in figure V-
3,  use  fans  to  move  air past the droplets or films of water to be
cooled.  Evaporation of water into the air stream provides the  primary
mechanism for cooling.

Like the mechanical draft towers, the natural  draft  towers rely  on
water  evaporation  for cooling effect.  However, fans are not  used to
induce air through the tower.   Instead, the tower is designed so  that
air  will  naturally flow from  the bottom to the top of the  tower  as a
result of density differences between ambient air and moist  air inside
the tower and the  chimney  effect  of  the  tower's  tall   structure.
Natural  draft  towers are often selected over mechanical draft towers
in areas where low wet bulb temperatures and .high humidity prevail.  A
sketch of this type of tower is shown in figure V-4.

More than 120 natural draft cooling towers were installed  or   planned
by  1976  (6).   The  first  towers   installed  in  this  country  were
concentrated in the Appalachian Mountains as a solution to the  problem
of getting plumes up and out of local valleys.  As  of  1976, however,
towers  were  in operation or on order in 23 states.  While  the number
of units may represent as little as 20 percent of the total  number  of
cooling towers at powerplants,  the megawatt capacity they represent is
far  higher since natural draft towers usually are  constructed  for the
larger, newer plants.  Natural  draft  cooling towers are  expected  to
account  for  almost  50  percent of  new generating capacity requiring
cooling towers.  All of the hyperbolic natural  ^draft  cooling   towers
built  in the United States to da'te have been of concrete construction.
Cooling tower fill can be made  of polyvinyl chloride, asbestos  cement,
ceramic or wood.

                                 63

-------
             AIR
           OUTLET
WATER
INLET
FAN

 WATER
 WLET
   MECHANICAL  DRAFT
   CROSS-FLOW TOWER
                                       AIR
                                      OUTLET

                                     t     t
                                                                       FAN
                             «<«««««<
                             "JH^'"" >^ V"^
                             t	vr.NJ  sX
                                                                  DRIFT
                                                                   FILL
                                               WATER  OUTLET
                             MECHANICAL  DRAFT
                             COUNTER-FLOW TOWER
                                                                           WATER

                                                                           INLET
                                                                           INLET
                                      Figure V-3

                        MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS (4)

-------
   DRIFT
 ELIMINATOR
    FILL

 HOT
WATER
INLET
               HOT WATER
             DISTRIBUTION
 AIR
INLET
         COLD WATER
            BASIN
                     Figure V-4

     NATURAL DRAFT EVAPORATIVE COUNTEWLOW COOLING TOWER (5)
                        65

-------
The water that evaporates from a recirculating cooling water system in
cooling  ponds  or  cooling  towers  results  in  an  increase  in the
dissolved solids content of the water remaining in the  system;  thus,
the dissolved solids concentration will tend to build up over time and
will  eventually, if left unattended, result in the formation of scale
deposits.   Scaling  due  to  dissolved  solids  buildup  is   usually
maintained at an acceptable level through use of a bleed stream called
cooling  tower blowdown.  A portion of the cooling water in the system
is discharged via this stream.  The  discharged  water  has  a  higher
dissolved  solids  content  than  the intake water used to replace the
discharged water, so the dissolved solids content of the water in  the
system   is  reduced.   Table  V-5  presents  a statistical analysis of
cooling  tower blowdown based on 308 data.

In some  recirculating systems, chemical additives that  inhibit  scale
formation  are  added to the recirculating water.  These additives are
discharged in the cooling tower blowdown.

Chlorination

Biofouling occurs when an insulating layer of slime-forming  organisms
forms  on  the  waterside  of the condenser tubes, thus inhibiting the
heat exchange process.  The slime-forming organisms consist of  fungi,
bacteria,  iron bacteria, and sulfur bacteria.  The exact mechanics of
blofouling are not fully understood, but the  steps  are  believed  to
consist  of a roughening of the metal surfaces by abrasion; attachment
of bacteria and protozoa; entrapment  of  particulate  matter  by  the
slime growth; and the deposition of successive layers of slime-forming
organisms and particulate matter (3).

Chlorination is the most widely practiced method of biofouling control
for  both once-through and recirculating cooling water systems.  Based
on the '308' data and Federal Power Commission data, about 65  percent
of  the  842 steam electric plants use chlorine for biofouling control.
The remaining plant  either  do  not  have  a  significant  biofouling
problem  or use a method of control other than chlorine.  If the intake
water    has  certain  characteristics,  e.g.,  high  suspended  solids
concentration or low temperature, biofouling is  not  a  problem  with
once-through  cooling water systems.  With recirculating cooling water
systems, Chlorination may still be required in order  to  protect  the
cooling  tower.   The alternatives to chlorine include other oxidizing
chemicals, nonoxidizing biocides, and mechanical  cleaning.   None  of
these  alternatives  are  widely used at this time, so Chlorination is
clearly  the predominant method of biofouling control.

The properties of  chlorine  that  make  it  an  effective  biofouling
control  agent  are precisely the properties which cause environmental
concern.  The addition of chlorine to water causes  the  formation  of
toxic  compounds  and  chlorinated  organics  which  may  be  priority
pollutants.  The available information on the reaction mechanisms  and
products of chlorine with fresh and saline waters is summarized in the
following two subsections.


                                 66

-------
                                       Table V-5

                                COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
                                  (308 Questionnaire)
Number
of
Variable Plants
Fuel:
Flow:
Fuel:
Flow:
Flow:
Flow:
Coal*
GPD/ plant
GPD/MW
Gas*
GPD/ plant
GPD/MW
Oil*
GPD/ plant
GPD/MW
82
82
120
119
47
47
Mean
2,232
2
315
3
274
1
Value
,131
,973.251
,951.9
,080.131
,193.2
,862.413
Minimum
Standard Deviation Value
5,452
7
505
4
584
3
,632
,308
,504
,851
,273
,428
.6
.87
.6
.049
.3
.478
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Maximum Value
40,300
63
2,882
26
3,200
16
,000
,056.68
,880
,208.00
,000
,712.00
*Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for power
generation for the year 1975.

-------
Fresh Water

When   chlorine   is   dissolved   in  water,  hypochlorous  acid  and
hydrochloric acid are formed:

         C12 + H20  £    HOC1 + HC1               (1)

The reaction occurs very rapidly.  In dilute solutions with pH  levels
greater  than  4,  the  equilibrium  is  displaced  far  to the right;
therefore, very  few  chlorine  molecules  (C12)  exist  in  solution.
Hypochlorous  acid  is  a  weak  acid that particularly dissociates in
water to the hydrogen ion and the hypochlorite ion:

         HOC1  *   H+ + OC1-                      (2)

The equilibrium of this reaction is a  function  of  pH  as  shown  in
figure  V-5.   As  pH  increases,  the  ratio  of  hypochlorite ion to
hypochlorous acid increases.  The concentrations of hypochlorous  acid
plus hypochlorite ion in solution is termed free available chlorine.

Chlorine  may  be  applied  to water not only in the pure C12 form but
also in compound form, usually  as  hypochlorite.   Hypochlorites  are
salts  of hypochlorous acid.  The two most commonly used hypochlorites
are calcium hypochlorite, a solid, and sodium hypochlorite, a  liquid.
When  sodium hypochlorite is dispersed in water, hypochlorous acid and
sodium hydroxide are formed:

         NaOCl + H20  $   HOC1 + NaOH             (3)
                  *

Hypochlorous  acid  then  partially  dissociates  in  accordance  with
Equation  2; therefore, whether chlorine gas or hypochlorite are added
to water, the end chlorine-containing products are  hypochlorous  acid
and hypochlorite ion.

Both  hypochlorous  acid  and  hypochlorite  ion  are potent oxidizing
agents.  The source of this oxidizing potential is the chlorine  that,
at  a oxidation state of +1, can accept two electrons in being reduced
to the -1 state.  Hypochlorous acid is superior to hypochlorite ion as
a biocide.  The primary reason for this superiority  is  the  relative
ease  with which hypochlorous acid can penetrate biological organisms.
As a result of  the . biocidal  efficiency  of  hypochlorous  acid,  an
equilibrium  shifted  to  the  left in Equation 2 is preferred in most
applications.  The achievement of  such  an  equilibrium  position  is
aided   by   using  chlorine  since  one  of  the  reaction  products,
hydrochloric acid, lowers the pH of the water; but the achievement  of
this equilibrium position is impeded when using hypochlorite since one
of  the  reaction  products,  sodium  hydroxide,  raises the pH of the
water.

Since hypochlorous acid is an oxidizing agent, a  considerable  amount
of   free  available  chlorine  may  be  consumed  in  reactions  with
inorganic-reducing materials in water before any  biocidal  effect  is
accomplished.   Cyanide,  hydrogen  sulfide,  iron,  and manganese are

                                 68

-------
HJU
90
80
70
EO
50
40
30
20
10
n




j-














\
\
1









\
\
\\
\\
20-C\\
\









\09C
\\
%









^










u
10
20
30
40
•50^
;
SO
80
90
t^n
                                PH
                          Fig-ure V-3         -   .

     EFFECT OF pH ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF HYPOCHLOROUS ACID

               AND HYPOCHLORITE ION IN WATER

Reprinted from Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers by C. N. Sawyer
and P. L. McCarty by permission of McGraw-Hill, Inc., Year of
first publication:  1967.
                               69

-------
among the substances which can be oxidized by  hypochlorus  acid.   In
these  reactions  the  Cl+ in hypochlorus acid is reduced to Cl- which
has no biocidal capability.  The consumption of hypochlorous  acid  by
inorganic-reducing  materials  is  termed chlorine demand.  The demand
for chlorine by these substances must be satisifed before hypochlorous
acid is available for biocidal activity.

When sufficient  hypochlorous  acid  is  present  to  exceed  chlorine
demand,  the  acid will react with ammonia and organic materials.  The
reaction of ammonia with hypochlorous acid  forms  monochloramine  and
water:

         NH3 + HOC1  2   NHjCl + H20              (4)

This  reaction  occurs when the weight ratio of chlorine to ammonia is
less than or equal to 5:1.  Monochloramine is  a  weak  biocide.   The
reactions  of  organic materials with hypochlorous acid can be divided
into two groups:  reactions with organic nitrogen and  reactions  with
all other organic compounds.  Compounds which contain organic nitrogen
are  complex;  therefore,  the  chemistry  of  chlorination of organic
nitrogen compounds is complex.   The  products  of  the  reactions  of
diverse organic nitrogen compounds with hyprochlorous acid are grouped
under  the general term complex organic chloramines.  The chemistry of
chlorination of other organic compounds is also complex.  The products
of chlorination of other  organic  compounds  are  grouped  under  the
general term chlorine substitution and addition products.  The organic
chloramines  and  the  chlorine substitution and addition products are
weak biocides.  The chlorine  contained  in  these  compounds  and  in
monochloramine   is  called  combined  chlorine  residual.   The  word
"residual"  denotes  that  this  is  the  chlorine   remaining   after
satisfaction  of  chlorine  demand,  while the word "combined" denotes
that the chlorine is tied up in compounds.

Further addition of hypochlorous acid so  that  the  weight  ratio  of
chlorine  to  ammonia exceeds 5:1 results in the conversion of some of
the monochloramine to dichloramine:

         NH2C1 + HOC1  2  NHC12 + H20            (5)

As the weight ratio of chlorine to  ammonia  increases  to  10:1,  the
dichloramine and the organic chloramines and chlorine substitution and
addition  products  begin  to  decompose.   The  exact  mechanism  and
products of this decomposition are still  incompletely  defined.   The
decomposition  consumes  hypochlorous  acid,  so  a chlorine demand is
again exerted.  The decomposition also decreases the combined chlorine
residual level.  Decomposition ceases at a weight ratio of chlorine to
ammonia of 10:1.  At  this  point,  the  combined  available  chlorine
residual consists of approximately equal amounts of monochloramine and
dichloramine.  Like monochloramine, dichloramine is a weak biocide.

As  the  weight  ratio of chlorine to ammonia proceeds  to 20:1  through
addition of hypochlorous acid, the  conversion  of  monochloramine  to
                                  70

-------
dichloramine  is greatly speeded and some dichloramine is converted  to
trichloramine, also called nitrogen trichloride:

         NHC12 + HOC1  2   NCI3 + HZ0              (6)

Regardless of the form of the combined  available  chlorine  residual,
the  amount of the residual remains constant at the level present when
the chlorine to ammonia  weight  ratio  was  10:1.   The  quantity   of
hypochlorous  acid  added  that  is  not  involved  in  the chloramine
reactions is, therefore, present as free available chlorine  residual.
Hypochlorous acid is, as previously stated, a powerful biocide.

The effect of various impurities in water on the disinfecting power  of
hypochlorous  acid, described by the preceding series of equations,  is
illustrated in figure V-6.  Total available chlorine  residual,  which
includes  both combined available chlorine residual and free available
chlorine residual,  is  the  measure  of  total  biocidal  power.    As
hypochlorous  acid  is  added  to  water, the total available chlorine
residual passes through four stages.  In the first stage, no  residual
is  formed, because  chlorine is being reduced by  inorganic materials.
In the second stage, a residual, consisting of only combined available
chlorine, is formed  and  continuously  increases  as  monochloramine,
organic  chloramines,  and  chlorinated organics are formed.  In stage
three, the residual,  still  consisting  of  only  combined  available
chlorine, decreases as monochloramine is converted to dichloramine and
the  dichloramine and the organic compounds undergo further reactions.
In  the  fourth  stage,  the  residual  increases  continuously.   The
residual  in  this  stage consists of both combined available chlorine
and free available chlorine.   In  most  water  treatment  operations,
sufficient  hypochlorous  acid is provided to operate in stage  four  in
order to take advantage of the biocidal power of hypochlorous acid.

A great deal of research  has  been  conducted  on  the  formation   of
chlorinated organics in fresh water.  Some of the  chlorinated organics
are  in  the  list  of  129  priority  pollutants  (i.e., bromoform and
chloroform).  One  of  the  experiments  to  examine  chlorination   of
organics  resulting  from  chlorinated cooling waters was performed  by
Jolley, et al (7).  Over 50 chlorinated organics   were  isolated  from
concentrates of.Watts Bar Lake water and Mississippi River water which
were  chlorinated  at  concentrations of 2.1 mg/1  (75 minutes reaction
time) and 3.4  mg/1  (15  minutes  reaction  time).   The  chlorinated
organics formed were in ppb concentrations.

In  view of the finding of the National Organics Reconnaissance Survey
that halogenated organics in  raw  and  finished   drinking  water  are
widespread  and  distributed with a frequency shown  in figure V-7, EPA
Municipal Environmental Research Labs (8) sought   to  investigate  the
mechanism  for  the  formation.  Suspecting humic  substances to be the
precursors, they tested this hypothesis.  At concentrations  of humic
acid  representing  the  non-volatile  total  organic  carbon   (NVTOC)
concentrations  found in the Ohio River (3 mg/1),   they  observed  that
the  rate  of trihalomethane formation was similar to that observed  in
Ohio River water.

                                 71

-------
             OS-
         O
         I
             0.4
             Q3-
02


0.1
                         FOftUATiONOF ntErCHUMINE JkW
                         PRESENCE OF CHIOMO-ORSANIC
                          COMPOUNDS NOT DESTROYED
                o   ai   &2  03  0.4   as  os  0,7   oa ^S
                CHLORINE ADDED AS BZPOCHLOROUS ACID
                                                     LO
                            Figure ?-6

         EFFECT OF  IMPURITIES  IN WATER ON  TOTAL AVAILABLE  .

                         CHLORINE RESIDUAL

Reprinted from Manual af Instruction for  Water Treatment Plant
Operators by New York State Department of Health by	permission
of New York State  Health. Education Service.   Year of  first
publicat ion:  unknown.
                                  72

-------
       300
           2 5 10  30 50 70 9Q   99
          PERCENT EQUAL TO OR LESS
         THAN GIVEN CONCENTRATION
                 Figure V-7':
JRIQUEN8Y'DISTRIBUTION OF HALOGENATED ORGANICS
    IN RAW AND FINISHED DRINKING WATER (8)
                      73

-------
The major mechanism for trihalomethane reactions in natural waters  is
the  haloform  reaction  (9)  that  is  a  base  catalyzed  series  of
halogenation and  hydrolysis  reactions  which  occur  typically  with
methyl  ketones  or compounds oxidizable to that structure.  Humic and
fulvic   substances   have   been   postulated   as   precursors    to
trichloromethane  formation.  Humic materials are composed of aromatic
and alicyclic moieties containing alcoholic, carbonyl carboxylic,  and
phenolic  functional  groups,  which can participate in trihalomethane
formation by ionizing to form carbonions rapidly.

Unfortunately, data on the formation  of  trihalomethanes  in  cooling
water  effluents  is  not readily available.  Several of the variables
which influence chloroform formation have  been  investigated  by  the
Louisville  Water  Company   (10).  A conventional treatment process of
sedimentation, coagulation with alum, softening, recarbonization,  and
filtration  is  practiced.   Primary  disinfection  is accomplished by
chlorination at the head of  the  coagulation  process.   The  chlorine
residual  leaving the plant  is approximately 2.0 ppm.  The correlation
between total trihalomethanes and water temperature is shown in figure
V-8.   It  is  evident  that  seasonal  variation  in  influent  water
temperature  could  vary  the  effluent  chloroform concentration by a
factor of  2-3  times.   There  are  marked  increases  in  chloroform
formation  with  increases   in pH as shown in figure V-9.  Figure V-10
shows the effect of contact  time on chloroform formation.

Saline Water

When chlorine gas is dissolved in saline water, the chemical reactions
which occur initially are identical to the reactions which occur  when
chlorine  gas is dissolved  in fresh water.  Once hypochlorous acid and
hypochlorite ion are in equilibrium in solution, the  bromide  present
in  saline water is oxidized and hypobromous acid and hypobromite ion,
respectively, are formed:

         HOC1 + Br  £ .  HOBr + Cl                  (7)

         Br- + 3C10  $   BrQ-3 + 3C1-              (8)


The  oxidiaation  occurs  because  chlorine  has  a  higher  oxidation
potential  than  bromine.    The  equilibriums   in  these reactions are
normally  displaced  to  the right;  hence,  hypobromous   acid   and
hypobromite  ion are more prevalent in solution  than hypochlorous acid
and hypochlorite ion.

The four oxidizing compounds:  hypochlorous  acid,   hypochlorite  ion,
hypobromous acid, and hypobromite  ion are  believed to behave  in saline
water  similar-ly  to  hypochlorous  acid and hypochlorite  ion  in  fresh
water.  The reactions and the reaction products  in each  of   the  four
stages  described  for  fresh  water  are  not conclusively defined for
saline water.  The presence in  saline  water   of   numerous   chemical
species  not  found   in  fresh  water   leads,  to  many  side  reactions
triggered by the  four  oxidizing  compounds.    These  side   reactions

                                  74

-------
      •5  200

      C  /GO
                    Figure V-8

        EFFECT OF WATER TEMPERATURE ON THE

             CHLOROFORM REACTION
Reprinted from Hubbs, S.A., et al., "Trihalomethane Reduction
at the Louisville Water Company," Louisville Water Company,
Louisville, KY,"undated.'

-------
       5   »
&   7
                                  10   //
                     Figure V-g

    EFFECT OF pH ON THE CHLOROFORM REACTION
Reprinted from Hubbs, S. A., et al., "Trihalomethane Reduction
at the Louisville Water Company," Louisville Water Company,
Louisville, KY, undated.
                         76

-------
                      Figure V-10

 EFFECT OF CONTACT TIME ON THE CHLOROFORM REACTION
Reprinted from Hubbs, S. A., et al.,  "Trihalbmethane Reduction
at the Louisville Water Company," Louisville Water Company,
Louisville, KY, undated.
                          77

-------
obscure  the main reactions which result in the difficulty in defining
the primary  reactions  and  reaction  products.   In  spite  of  this
difficulty, some progress has been made in defining reaction products,
particularly  in  Stage  4.  In this stage, the free residual probably
contains the  four  oxidizing  compounds  and  the, combined  residual
probably contains chloramines, bromamines, chloro-organics, and bromo-
organics.                                       ;

Bean, et al. (11), chlorinated Seguim Bay waters at a rate of 1-2 mg/1
chlorine for approximately 2 hours.  This is relatively pristine water
with  approximately  1  mg/1  TOG.   Principle  reaction products were
bromoform  (30 mg/1) with  smaller  quantities  of  dibromomethane  and
traces of dichloromethane.

Carpenter   (12)  found  that  bromoform,  and  to  a  lesser  extent,
chlorodibromomethane were formed upon  chlorination  of  Biscayne  Bay
waters.  Typically, organic constituents range from 9-12 ppb dissolved
organic  carbon.   Chlorination  to  1  mg/1  produced 36 ppb CHBr3  in
unfiltered water and 43 ppb CHBr3 centrifuged water.  It is postulated
that  chlorine  reacts  with' the  particulate  matter  and   prevents
oxidation of bromine to a certain extent in the former case.

Corrosion Products

Corrosion  is  an  electrochemical  process  that occurs when metal  is
immersed in water.   A  difference  in  electrical  potential  between
different  parts  of  the  metal  causes a current to pass through the
metal between the anode,  the  region  of  lower  potential,  and  the
cathode,   the  region of higher potential.  The migration of electrons
from the anode to the cathode results in the oxidization of the  metal
at the anode and the dissolution of metal  ions  into the water  (13).

Most  metals  rely  on  the  presence  of a corrosion products film  to
impart corrosion protection.  In the case of copper alloys, which  are
used  extensively in powerplant condensers, this film is usually Cu20.
As a result, copper can usually go into the corrosion product film   or
directly   into  solution  as  an  ion  or a precipitate in the initial
stages of  condenser tube corrosion.  As corrosion  products  form  and
increase   in thickness, the  corrosion rate decreases continually until
steady state conditions are  achieved.  The data presented  in table V-6
lend support to the  corrosion  product  film   theory  as  applied   to
condenser  tubes.  The plant that was sampled had  three units.  Unit 3
had  just begun operation  and  contributed  the  most  copper  to  the
cooling  water.   Unit  1 had been in operation for a longer period  of
time and contributed the least amount of copper to the cooling  water.
Unit  2  was  not  considered  in  the  comparison  because mechanical
cleaning was used to control biofouling which   artificially   increased
the  copper contribution to the cooling water  (14).

Waters high in dissolved solids are more conductive; therefore, plants
using   saline   water   for   cooling   should    have  higher  metals
concentrations  in the cooling water discharge than plants  using  fresh
water.   Popplewell  and  Hager   (15)  observed  that  the   long   term

                                 7-8

-------
                                     Table V-6

                            COPPER CORROSION DATA (14)
Condenser
Material
Comment
Copper Added to Cooling Water by
 Passing Through the Condenser*
   Soluble             Particulate
    (UR/1)                (Ug/l)
Unit 1     Aluminum-brass
           76-79 percent
           copper

Unit 2     90/10 copper
           nickel alloy
Unit 3     90/10 copper
           nickel alloy
              Considered to be
              equilibrated with
              the environment

              Mechanical anti-
              fouling system
              was used

              Had been operating
              intermittently for
              only a few months
                  No statistically
                  significant addition
                       6.70
                      11.8
                           1.28
                           7.76
                           1.8
^Average of hourly samples over a 24 hour sampling period; corrected for copper
 concentrations at the intake.

-------
corrosion rate of alloy  706  (90/10-copper/nickel)  does  not  differ
significantly  in  different environments.  A summary of these results
is shown in table V-7.  Copper release is more a function of flow rate
than it is of salt content of makeup water.  A study was undertaken by
a utility (16)  to  determine  concentrations  of  cadmium,  chromium,
copper, nickel, lead, and 2inc in the influents and effluents of eight
coastal  generating stations.  The composite data  in table V-8 for all
eight plants sampled shows that in 11 of the 12 available comparisons,
the median difference between effluent and influent concentration  was
positive,  suggesting  a net addition of trace elements as a result of
corrosion.  However, only copper in the dissolved  state  and  zinc  in
the  suspended  were  increased  in  excess of 0.1 ppb.  The data from
these two studies do  not  indicate  higher  metal  concentrations  in
saline  cooling  water compared to fresh cooling water and, regardless
of the type of water, do not indicate that  significant  increases  in
metals   concentrations   are   occuring  because  of  cooling  system
corrosion.

Data on soluble copper concentrations  in  the  recirculating  cooling
water  systems  at  three  plants  are  summarized  in table .V-9.  The
soluble copper concentrations in the intake water  are also provided as
a baseline.  Copper concentrations  increase  markedly  in  the  tower
basin  and  the drift and increase dramatically in sludge in the towe^
basin (155.  Based on this data, it appears  that  corrosion  products
are  more of a problem in cooling tower blowdown (tower basin in table
V-9) than in once-through cooling water discharge.  The  concentration
of  pollutants  (via  evaporation)  in  recirculating systems probably
accounts for most of the difference in the level   of  metals  observed
between once-through discharge and cooling tower blowdown,

Products ofChemical Treatment

Chemical  additives  are  needed  at  some  plants  with recirculating
cooling water systems in  order  to  prevent  corrosion  and  scaling.
Chemical  additives  are  also  occasionally used  at plants with once-
through cooling water system for corrosion control.

Scaling occurs when the concentration of dissolved materials,  usually
calcium  and  magnesium  containing  species, exceeds their solubility
levels.  Solubility levels are  influenced  by,  among  other  things,
water  temperature  and pH.  The addition of scaling control chemicals
allows a higher dissolved solids concentration to  be  achieved  before
scaling  occurs; therefore, the amount of blowdown required to control
scaling can be reduced.  Control of  scaling  is   an  important  plant
cooling   systems   operational  consideration.    Severe  scaling  can
drastically alter  cooling  systems  fluid  flow   characteristics  and
result  in  reduced  heat  transfer,  high  pressure  drops, and other
undesirable effects.

Chemicals added to once-through cooling water to control corrosion  or
to  recirculating  cooling water to control corrosion and scaling will
usually be present in the discharges.  A list  of  chemicals  commonly
used to control corrosion and scaling is presented in table V-10 (17).

                                 ao

-------
                            Table V-7

              ONE YEAR-STEADY'STATE-CORROSION RATES
           FOR ALLOY 706 DETERMINED EXPERIMENTALLY (15)
New Haven
Tap Water
Brackish Water
  0.1%. NaCl
       Salt Water
       3.4% NaCl
0.1 mils/yr
0.1  tnils/yr
0.1  mils/yr    0.2 mils/yr
at velocity
of 7 ft/sec
at velocity
of 7 ft/sec
at velocity    at velocity
of 7 ft/sec    of 12 ft/sec
                                81

-------
                            Table V-8

          SELECTED PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
            SEAWATER BEFORE AND AFTER PASSAGE THROtJGH
             ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEM (16)
             Median Influent
              Concentration
    Net Concentration
Change (Effluent-Influent)
(PPb)
Metal
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
Dissolved
0.06
0.16
0.80
" o;44
0.14
0.20
Particulate
0.006
0.200
0.320
0.160
0.24
0.48
. (ppb) ;
Dissolved
0.034
(0.010)*
0.21
0.10
0.04
0.09
Particulate
0.005 •
0.097
0.10
0.004
0,07
0.17
*Negative value.
                               82

-------
                            Table V-9
                SOLUBLE COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN
            RECIRCULAT1NG COOLING WATER SYSTEMS (15)
Location of
  sample
River influent
Tower Basin
Tower basin mud
Tower drift
   Plant 1
   2 years
  operation
                    .23
        PPb
7.0     1.8
6.45    88
 -*   560,000
6.43    76
   Plant 2
   1  year ,
  operation
 pH
6.§
6.6
 .*
6.5
  PPb
   1
   35- ;
670,000
   34
              Plant 3
              1 week
             operation
pH
 _*
6.9
 .*
 _*-
PPb
 _*
 75
 _*
 _*
*Measurement not taken.
                               83

-------
                            Table V-10
    COMMONLY USED CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL CHEMICALS (17)
Benzotriazole and its sodium salt
*Chromic Acid
Nitrilo-tris acetic acid and its alkali metal and ammonium salts
Organophosphorous Antiscalants including 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,
    1-diphosphonic acid, Nitrilo-tri (methy1enephosphonic acid)
    (and the alkali metal and ammonium salts of each),  and
    Polyolphosphate esters of low molecular weight
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium bisulfate
Sodium carbonate
*Sodium dichromate
*Sodium chrornate
Sodium hexatnetaphosphate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium mercaptobenzothiazole
Sodium molybate
Sodium nitrate
Sodium nitrite
Sodium phosphate (mono-, di-, tri-)
Sodium silicates
Sodium tetraborate
Sodium tripolyphosphate
Sulfamic acid
Sulfuric acid
Tetrasodium pyrophosphate
Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate
Ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid and its alkali metal and
    ammonium salts
Tolyltriazole
*Zinc chloride
                               84

-------
                      Table V-10.(Continued)
            **v
    COMMONLY USED CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL CHEMICALS  (17)
*Zinc oxide
*Zinc sulfate
Tannins
Sodium Boro-polyphosphate
*Sodium Zinc Polyphosphate
*Calcium Zinc Polyphosphate
Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate
Phosphoric acid
Ethylene diamine tetrakis (methylene phosphonic acid) and its
    alkali metal and ammonium salts
Hexamethylene diamine tetrakis  (methylene phosphonic acid) and
    its alkali metal and ammonium salts
Diethylene triamine pentakis (methylene phosphonic acid) and
    its alkali metal and ammonium salts
Sodium polystyrene sulfonate and copolymers
Carbon dioxide
Monobutyl esters of polyethylene - and polypropylene glycols
Acrylamide polymers and copolymers
Polyoxypropylene glycols (min. tnol. wt. 1,000)
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose
Sodium lignosulfonates             .
Sodium polyacrylates and polyacrylic acids
Sodium polymethacrylates
Styrene - inaleic anhydride copolymers
Polyethyleiiimines
Sodium citrate
Alkyphenoxy polyethoxy ethanols
Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate
                               85

-------
                      Table V-10 (Continued)

    COMMONLY USED CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL CHEMttfALS (17)



Poly - (amine-epichlorohydrin) condensates

Poly - demethyl, diallyl ammonium chlorides

Poly - (amine-ethylene dichloride) condensates
NOTE:  In many cases either sodium or potassium salts are in use.


*Indicates that the compound is known to contain a priority
 pollutant.  Some of the other compounds may contain or may
 degrade into priority pollutants but no data was available to
 make a definite determination.
                                86

-------
Those  compounds  which  are  priority  pollutants  are marked with an
asterisk to the left of the compound name.  Chromium and zinc ace  the
active  components  of most of the popular corrosion inhibitors.  Both
these metals  are  inorganic  priority  pollutants.  The  solvent  and
carrier  components  which may be used in conjunction with scaling and
corrosion  control  agents  are  listed  in  table  V-ll  tl7).    The
pollutants  which  were  reported  as present in recireflating cooling
water on the 308 data base forms are found in table V-12.  In addition
to the chemicals listed in this table, acrolein and asbestos have been
reported.

Products o_f Asbestos Cooling Tower Fill Erosion

The fill material  in  natural  draft  cooling  towers  is  frequently
asbestos  cement.  Erosion of the fill material can cause discharge of
asbestos in cooling water blowdown.  Table V-13 shows the test results
for detection of asbestos fibers in the waters of  18 cooling  systems.
Baseline  data  on  chrysotile asbestos concentrations  in makeup water
are also contained in the table.  Seven  of  the   18  sites  contained
detectable  concentrations of chrysotile asbestos  in the cooling tower
waters at the time  of  sampling.   Most  of  the  samples  containing
detectable  chrysotile  were samples of basin water.  Data in the last
three columns of the table for Site 3 indicate that a settling pond or
lagoon interposed between the cooling towers and the  receiving  water
removes asbestos since it was not detectable in the effluent  (4).

Sampling Programs Results

Once-Through Cooling Water Systems

Three  plants   that  use  only once-through cooling water systems were
sampled during  the screening phase of the sampling program.  Table  V-
14  present  trace  metal  data  for  these  plants from the screening
program.  The duration of chlorination at all  three  plants  .did  not
exceed  2  hours  per  day.  Net increases were observed for antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,  nickel,  selenium,
thallium, and phenol.  However, net increases were greater than  10 ppb
only  for arsenic, cadmium, nickel, selenium, and  phenol.  Only  in the
case of arsenic was the net increase greater than  25 ppb.

Eleven plants with once-through cooling water systems were sampled  as
part  of  the   verification  program and  the surveillance and analysis
sampling efforts.  The analytical results are presented in Table V-15.
Four of these plants have estuarine or salt  water  intakes,  and  the
remaining  seven  plants  have  fresh  water   intakes.   Samples were
collected only  during  the period of chlorination.   The samples were
analyzed   for   all   the  organic  priority  pollutants  except  the
pesticides, and for total organic carbon  and total residual   chlorine.
Only  the  organic  priority pollutants which were detected  are  shown.
Analysis for total residual chlorine  (TRC) was performed  at  nine  of
the plants.
                                  87

-------
                            Table V-ll
         SOLVENT OR CARRIER COMPONENTS THAT MAY BE USED
   IN CONJUNCTION WITH SCALING AND CORROSION CONTROL AGENTS (17)
Dimethyl Formamide
Methanol
Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Glycols to Hexylene Glycol
*Heavy aromatic naphtha
Cocoa diamine
Sodium chloride
Sodium sulfate
Polyoxyethylene glycol
Talc
Sodium Aluminate
Monochlorotoluene
Alkylene oxide - alcohol glycol ethers
*Indicates that the compound is known to contain a priority
 pollutant.  Some of the other compounds may contain or may
 degrade into priority pollutants but no data was available
 to make a definite determination.
                               88

-------
                            Table,V-12

    POLLUTANTS REPORTED ON  308  FORMS  IN COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
    :     -it;   .    '•' •: '    ,:    '     '•      •,:',:       • .  •    •  ••'•'.


                                                 Number of Plants
     Compound Name                               Reporting Presence

Antimony and compounds                                  3

Arsenic and compounds                                   2

Cadmium and compounds                                   3

Chlorinated phenols                                     7

Chloroform                                              1

Chromium and compounds                             .36

Copper and compounds                                    8

EDTA                                                    6

Lead and compounds                                      3

Mercury and compounds                                   2

Nickel and compounds                                    3

Pentachlorophenol                                       9

Phenol                                                  2

Selenium and compounds                                  2

Silver and compounds                                    2

Thallium and compounds                                  2

Vanadium                                                2

Zinc and compounds                                     31
                                89

-------
               Table V-13

ASBESTOS IN COOLING TOWER WATERS (4)
                  Anbeatos, fIbera/llCer ofMS/8 («ed)*
Kokeup Hater
Site Snapllng
Ho. Date
I 26 Hay 77




2 26 Hay 77







3 26 May 77



4 25 May 77



5 13 Nay 76
6 Oct 76

6 25 Hay 77




7 6 Jul 76


7a 15 Aug 77


Repli-
ca teg
a

b

c
a


b

c


a

b
c
a

b
c
a
a
b
a

b

c
a


a
b
c
Lower Unit
of Detection
6.3xl04

6.3xl04

6.3xl04
6.3x10*


6.3xl04

6,3xl04


8.4x10*
L
8.4x10*
8.4xl04
8.4x107 sup
7x10° sed
8.4x10, sup
8.4x10° aed
8.4x10* sup
7x10° aed
1,2x1 05
1.57xl05

6.3x10

6.3x10

6.3xl04
6.3xl05


4
6.3x10, sup
6.3x10^ sup
6.3x10 sup

Cone.
B.D.L.

B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.


B.D.L.

B.D.L.


B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
O.SxlO6
B.D.L.

B.D.L.

B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.


B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
Basin Hater
Lower Ll«lt
of Detection
4
6.4x10, oup
5.2x10° tied
6.3x10; sup
4.8x10? eed
6.3x10* sup
83x10 sed
6.3x10* sup
6
11x10. oed
6.3x10*! eup
9.1xlfl| aed
6.3x10, a up
7x1 0° ged


8.4x107. sup
5.2x107 aed
8.4x10"! sup
6.4x10° sed
8.4x10 aup
6.3x10? sup
220x10° sed
8.4x10 sup
LH 4 sed
8.3x10, sup
140x10 sed
O.SxlO6
1.57xlo!
1.57x10
8.4xl04

8.4x1 04

8.4xl04
1.26x10°


6.3x10*


Slowdown
Louer Limit
Cone.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L
44x1 08
B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.


B.D.L.
B.D.L
B.D.L
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
8,D.Lh
130xl08
B.D.L.
<0.5Z,
1.9x10**
78xl09
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.

B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.


All B.D.L.


of Detection
6.3stl04
6.4x107
6.3x107
6.4x10?
6.3x10:!
7.5x1 O6








8.4x1 0J
8.4x10?
8.4x10
7x10°
2.6x10
8.7xl04

3.4x10*
1.7x10*
LH
0.8x10°
1.51.X105

6.3xl04
4.0x10*
6.3x1 o:
7.0x10?
l.SxlO3
2.1xl06


6.3x10,
6.3xlo!
6.3x10*
•up
aed
sup
aed
•up
sed








sup
sed
sup
Bed
sup



sup
sed



6 Up
sed
sup ,
aed






,
Cone.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.








B.D.L.
B.D.L.
0.92x10
B.D.L.
110x10°
1.3xl06

160xl06
B.D.L.
<0.5Z
B.D.L.
B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.


B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
Other

Lower Lille
SaBple of Detection





Settling-pond 6.
effluent
4.
6.
5.
" " 6.
4.
Sediment from 2.
sump
Lagoon effluent 8.
** "
8.
8.




Potable water 0.







Basin water from 1.
MDCT that cools
NDCT blowdova
2.
" 6.
** 6.





3x10 sup
A
9x10° sed
3x10? sup
6x1 0| aed
3x10, sup
8x10? sed
1x10 sed

4xl04
L
4x10^
4xl04




12xl06







26x10°


9x10^
3x107
3x10
Cone.





B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.

B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.




B.D.L.




1


B.D.L.


B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.

-------
                     Table V-.13  (Continued)

          ASBESTOS  IN  COOLING  TOWER WATERS   (4)
                                    Asbestos,  fibers/liter of  Ma/g .(sed)*'

Site
No.
8


9»


10



Sampli ng
Date
S Jul 76


2 Sep 76


31 Aug 76



Repli-
cates
8
b
C
a
b
c'
a
b
c
Makeup
Lower Limit
Water Basin Hater Slowdown . . Other
Lower Limit
of Detection Cone. of Detection
ljdQ5
1x10

1.88xlo!
1.88x10;
1.88x10
4.2x10?
6.3x10?
6.3x10
B.D.L. 2x10^
B.D.L. I.IxlOr
1x10
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
.88x10*
.88x10?
.88x10
.26x1 of
.26x10*
.26x10
Lower Limit Lower Limit
Cone. of Detection Cone. Sample of Detection Cone,
B.D.L. Towers had circulating
B.D.L. water but no hlowdown ,
B.D.L. (towers not yet "on line")
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
.88x10, 37x10
.88x10? B.D.L.
.88x10 B.D.L.
.26x10* B.D.L.
.26x10? B.D.L.
.26x10 B.D.L.
8


9b


10


11



11


12


12


13
13
14C



15


16


S Jul 76


2 Sep 76


31 Aug 76


15 Aug 77
(1 of 2
towers)

15 Aug 77
(2nd of 2
towers)
16 Aug 77
(Unit 3
tower)
16 Aug 77
(Unit 4
tower)
17 Feb 76
28 Apr 76
7 Hay 76



20 Jun 77


26 Aug 77


8
b
C
a
b
c'
a
b
c
a

b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
a
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
a
b
c
2.3xl0
2.5x10,
2.9x10*
6.3x10;
2.3x10^
1.2x10
1.2x10
B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.
             B.D.L.
             B.D.L.
             B.D.L.
             B.D.L.


                 n5
                        6,38xl0
                        6.47x10°
                        2.9x10;
                        2.5x10 ,
                        6.36x10

                        2.5x10?
                        1.3x10
                        5.1x10

                        2.5x10,
                        2.3x10,
                       2.5x10
            1.4xlOJ     2.5x10
           (amphlbole)
     5                        6
5.9x10, raw   B.D.L.      1.04x10
1.2x10  trtd  B.D.L.
                       6.3x10"
                       6.3x10*
                       6.3x10*
6.3x10,
6.3x10*
6.3x10
8.4xlo| sup
8.4x10 sup
8.4x10* sup
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
                                    370x1 0
                                    330x10
                                     B.D.L
                                     B.D.L,
                                    210x10
 B.D.L.
 B.D.L,
 24xl06

 B.D.L.
 B.D.L.
 B.D.L.

4.3xl06
                                    2.5xl0
                                     B.D.L.
                                     B.D.L.
                                     B.D.L.
                                     B.D.L.
                                  Settling-basin
                                     effluent
                  1.8x10

                  2.5x10
                  6.3xl04
                                                         Ash-pond effluent 6.3xlO<
                                                                          6.3x10,
                                                                          2.8x10
                                              4.7x10
                                 1.04x10"
                                 1.04x10)!
                                 1.04x10°
                                 1.04x10°

                                 6.3x10?
                                 6.3x10*
                                 6.3x10

                                 6.3x10* sup
                                 6.3x10, sup
                                 6,3x10  sup
                                                            B.D.L.
                         B.D.L.
                         B.D.L.
                         B.D.L..
                         B.D.L.

                         B.D.L.
                         B.D.L.
                         B.D.L.

                         B.D.L.
                         B.D.L.
                         B.D.L.
Cooling-toner
  " •• riser
                                                                                       2.5x10
                                                                                       2.5xl0
                                                                      Park reservoir
                 6.3x107
                 6.3x10
                                                                      Discharge canal   6.3x10,  sup
                                                                                  "     6.3x10,  sup
                                                                         "        "     6,3x10  sup
                                                                                         LM    sed
B.D.L.

B.D.L.
B.D.L.
                                 B.D.L.
                                 B.D.L.
                                 B.D.L.
                                                                                        1.5x10
                                                                                                       B.D.L.
                                                                                                       B.D.L.
                                                                                                       B.D.L.
                                                                                                       B.D.L.
                                                                                                       B.D.L.
                                                                                                       B.D.L.
                                                                                                       0.5Xd

-------
                                                Table V-13   (Continued)
                                     ASBESTOS  IN  COOLING TOWER  WATERS  (4)

                                                              AebestoB, fibcra/liter of UB/K (acd)*

Site
No.
17

17


Sampling
Date
21 Hay 76

Aug 76


teplt-
cates
a

a
b
Makeup Hater
Lower Limit
of Detection Cone.
1.2xl05 »5xl06
5
1x1 Of B.D.L.
1x10 B.D.L.
Basin Mater
Lower Limit
of Detection Cone.
6x10* B.D.L.



Slowdown
Lower Unit
of Detection Cone.
6x10* B.D.L.
5
1x1% B.D.L.
1x10 B.D.L.
Other
Lower Llnit
Saaple of Detection Cone.




IB-  21 Hay 76
                          1.2x10
B.D.L.
1.2x10
B.D.L.
^Concentrations are listed aa fibers/liter for bulk water samples  (no postscript).   In caeca where the bulk samples contained appreciable amounts
 of suspended solids, the samples were  shaken, allowed to stand  4  hours, and che supernatant analyzed by electron microscopy; results are Hated
 in fibers/liter  (sup).  The sedinent was analyzed either by electron Microscopy or light microscopy (LH);  the  results of sediment analysis by
 electron microscopy are listed as Mg/g (sed), and by light nicroacopy as a percent of the sedinent mass by weight.  Concentrations (Cone.) below
 detection limits are Indicated by B.D.L.  Except as otherwise noted, all asbestos  wna identified as chryaotlle.

''"Replicates teken at a given sampling date.

"Site 7 has four  natural-draft towers.   For basin-water analyses,  two samples Here  taken froa each of the four  tower basins.  The lower  limit
 of detection range from 6.3x10^ to  3.0x10-" for all eight samples.

''The lower limit  of detection is relatively high due to high salt  content in the water.

C81oudown saaples are froa four separate mechanical-draft toners,  one of which contains redwood fill.

dC!brysotile was found by light ulcroscopy in the sediment suspended in the bulk water sample.  Fibers were 2-5  pa in diameter, 60-130 [im in
 length, in small bundles.

-------
10
                                          Table V-14



              RESULTS OF SCREENING PROGRAM FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER  SYSTEMS



                                      (parts per billion)
                          Plant #2512
Plant  #3805
Plant
Compounds
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Phenol
Intake
<5
6
<5
<10
<5
22
<20
<5
0.21
7
35
<5
<5
<5
100
Discharge
10
70
<5
30
8
24
<20
<5
0.17
25
58
<5
13
<5
100
Intake
<5
<5
<5
<5
39
6
<20
19
0.23
<5
11
12
<5
<5
<10
Discharge
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
<20
<5
0.32
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<10
Intake
7
18
<5
<5
24
16
20
8
0.42
29
20
<5
<5
42
30
Discharge
<5
25
<5
<5
17
20
20
14
0.42
26
18
<5
<5
26
50

-------
                                                        Table V-15
   Plant
   Code
   2718
   1716
VO
   3414
   4826
Pollutant
                          SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
                                 ANALYSIS REPORTS  FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING  WATER SYSTEMS
Concentration (ppb)
Zinc
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Residual Chlorine
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Phenolics, 4AAP
Total Residual Chlorine

2,4-Dichlorophenol
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Phenolics, 4AAP
Total Residual Chlorine

1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Phenolics, 4MP
Total Residual Chlorine
1,2 or 1,3 or 1,4 Dlchlorobenzene
Intake
340
230,000
3,000
11,000
D < 10
5
250,000
7,000
34,000
12
D < 10
ND
23,000,000
16,000
25,000
15
D < 10
ND
12,200,000
17,000
12,000
8
D < 10
18
Discharge
	
380,000
4,000
17,000
20/20/20/20
5
360,000
10,000
15,000
7
400/7100/5100/D<10
4/8
24,000,000
8,000
26,000
7
250/320/310/280
30
12,300,000
21,000
30,000
18
1200/2000/1900/800
	

-------
                                                 Table V-15  (Continued)

                          SUMMARY  OF  DATA  FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND  EPA  SURVEILLANCE  AND
                                ANALYSIS  REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH  COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
vO
un
            Pollutant
1245     Total Dissolved Solids
         Total Suspended Solids
         Total Organic Carbon
         Phenolics,  4AAP
         Total Residual Chlorine

1002     Bromofonn
         Chlorodlbromomethane
         Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)  Pthalate
         BHC(Lindane)~Gamma
         Antimony, Total
         Cadmium, Total
         Chromium, Total
         Copper,-Total
         Lead,  Total
         Mercury, Total
         Nickel,  Total
         Silver,  Total
         Zinc,  Total
         Total  Dissolved Solids
         Total  Suspended Solids
         Total  Organic Carbon
         Total  Residual Chlorine
         Free Residual Chlorine
         Iron,  Total
                                                     	Concentration (ppb)
                                                     Intake              Discharge
                                                        35,000,000
                                                             6,000
                                                            14,000
                                                            D <   5
                                                            D <  10
                                                               420
                    16
                    17
                    13
                    22
                    10
                ND
                   120
                    30
                   - 32
            11,488,000
                38,400
                 8,150
0/0/200/300/400/540/900
200/1000/700/500/700/300/500
                   600
33,000,000
    14,000
    25,000
    D <  5
D<10/200/120

        31
         2.6

    D <  0.1
        14
        16
        14
        24
        11
         1
       120
        36
        24
13,437,000
    49,800
     7,930
800/310/200/250/170/ISO/150
500/600/180/200/250/170/150/150
       760

-------
                                                  Table V-15 (Continued)

                          SUMMARY OF DATA. FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
                                 ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
\o
            Pollutant
1742     Cadmium,  Total (Dissolved)
         Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
         Copper, Total (Dissolved)
         Lead, Total (Dissolved)
         Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
         Silver, Total (Dissolved)
         Zinc, Total (Dissolved)
         Total Dissolved Solids
         Total Suspended Solids
         Total Organic Carbon
         Aluminum, Total
         Barium, Total (Dissolved)
         Boron, Total (Dissolved)
         Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
         Cobalt, Total
         Manganese Total
         Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
         Molybdenum, Total
         Phenolics, 4AAP
         Total Residual Chlorine
         Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
         Tin, Total
         Titanium, Total
         Iron, Total
         Vanadium, Total (Dissolved)
                                                           Concentration (ppb)
Intake

        40(5)
24/20(ND/30)*
21/20(ND/9)*
9/NK20(ND/90)*
17/ND<5(ND/40)*
(ND/10)*
ND/70(30/ND<60)*
   340,000
   100,000
    10,000
     2,000
        60(30)
        90(200)
    51,000(44,000)
        10
       200
    23,000(22,000)
         9
         6

    21,000(20,000)
        30
        40
     4,000
ND/ND<10(ND/20)*
                                                                              Discharge
                                                                               1,200,000
                                                                                  90,000
                                                                                   9,000
                                                                                     260
                                                                              330/890/800/860
   *These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
   OValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                               Table V-15 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
                              ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
- Plant
 Code    Pollutant
 2608   Benzene
                   Concentration (ppb)
        2-Chloronaphthalene
        Chloroform

        1,1-Dichloroethylene
        Ethylbenzene
        Methylene Chloride
        Bromoform
        Phenol  (GC/MS)
        Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
        Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
        Toluene

        Trichloroethylene
        Antimony, Total
        Arsenic, Total
        Chromium, Total
        Copper, Total
        Mercury, Total
        Selenium, Total
        Zinc, Total
        Total Dissolved Solids
        Total Organic Carbon
        Barium, Total
        Calcium, Total
        Manganese, Total
                                          Intake
ND
MD/26*
ND
D < 10
     7
     3
    13
     7
     1.2
   < 2
   < 60
 ND
 ND
229,000
  6,000
     10
 39,600
     53
                             Discharge
Chlorinated

30/70/100/50/ND/1QOO

DOO/ND
D<8/10/D<10/D<9/D<8/D<8

ND/10/ND/40/ND/D<10
ND/ND/ND/ND/ND/D<10
210/350/1Q/100/ND/370
ND/ND/ND/ND/ND/ND
ND/17*
      120
       10
ND/ND/ND/ND/ND/D<10

D<10/D<10/D<10/ND/D<10/ND
        3
        3
       13
        9
        0.7
        3
ND < 60
  225,000
    6,000
       13
   42,200
       71
                                        Dechlorinated

                                        D<10/D<10/D<10/40/D<10/D<10
                                        D<10/130/D<10
                                             ND
                                        D<6/4/D<10/D<5/D<10/D<6.5
                                        D<6/D<3/10
                                        ND/ND/ND/D<10/ND/ND/ND/ND/ND
                                        ND/ND/D<10/D<10/ND/ND/ND/D<10/ND
                                        106/190/240/40/100/20/20/140/50
                                        ND/ND/D<10/ND/ND/ND/ND/ND/ND
                                        ND/11*
                                        ND
                                        D < 10
                                        ND/ND/D<10/D<10/ND/ND/ND
                                        D<10/ND
                                        ND/ND/ND/ND/ND/D<10/ND/ND/ND
                                                 5
                                                 6
                                                12
                                                11
                                             0.1
ND
ND
                                          222
                                            6
        64
       000
       000
        11
    42,200
        59
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions*

-------
                                                  Table V-15 (Continued)
   Plant
   Code   Pollutant
                          SUMMARI OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
                                 ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Concentration (ppb)
   2608   Magnesium,  Total
   (Cont) Total Resdual Chlorine
          Sodium, Total
          Iron, Total

   2603   Benzene
          1,1,1-Triehloroethane
          Chloroform
          1,1-Dichloroethylene
          Ethylbenzene
^        Methylene Chloride
          Pentachlorophenol
          Phenol (GC/MS)
          Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
          Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
          Di-N-Butyl  Phthalate
          Diethyl Phthalate
          Tetrachlete ethylene
          Trichloroethylene
          Arsenic, Total
          Chromium, Total
          Copper, Total
          Mercury, Total
          Nickel, Total
          Silver, Total
          Zinc, Total
          Total Dissolved Solids
          Total Organic Carbon

   *These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
   Qvalues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake

13,100
	
D<15,000
248
D < 10
ND
D < 10
ND
ND
D < 10
ND
ND/9*
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
50
D < 10
D < 10
ND < 2
10
22
0.2
8
ND < 1
88
292,000
9,000

Chlorinated
13,000
0/40/40/40
15,000

D < 10
ND
D < 10
ND
ND
20
D < 10
4/ND*
D < 10
ND
20
20
D"< 10
D < 10
ND < 2
13
23
0.1
ND < 5
ND < 1
68
271,000
6,000
Discharge
Dechlorinated
13,000
0/0/0/0
23,000

D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
35
ND
4/D < 10*
D < 10
ND
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
3
11
22
0.1
ND < 5
2
ND < 60 .
247,000
6,000

-------
                                                  Table V-15 (Continued)

                          SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
                                 ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
   Plant
   Code   Pollutant
Concentration
   2603   Aluminum,  Total
   (Cont) Barium,  Total
          Boron,  Total
          Calcium, Total
          Manganese, Total
          Magnesium, Total
          Total Residual Chlorine
          Sodium,  Total
          Tin, Total
          Titanium,  Total
vo        Iron, Total
          Free Residual Chlorine

   2607   Benzene
          Chloroform
          1,1-Dichloroethylene
          Methylene  Chloride
          Phenol  (GC/MS)
          Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
          Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
          Toluene
          Trichloroethylene
          Arsenic. Total
          Chromium,  Total
          Copper, Total

   *These multiple results represent analyses  by multiple  analytical labs.
   OValues  in parentheses indicate dissolved  fractions.
Intake

497
t 7
11
m < so
48,700
65
15,300
. 	
23,600
36
18
842
. — . —
20
ND
10
ND
ND/D<10*
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
ND
5
7
14
Discharge
Chlorinated
445


140
45,300
61
13,900
D<30/200/240/270/300
20,700
ND < 5
ND < 15
715
40/140/10
D < 10
D < 10
ND
10
ND/D<10*
D < 10
ND
ND
D < 10
5
10
14
<•
Dechlorinated
689


53
44,900
65
14,000
D<30/D<30/D<30/1 10/D<30
18,300
ND < 5
20
921
	
20
ND
ND
10
ND/D<10*
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
ND
4
7
14

-------
                                                  Table V-15 (Continued)

                          SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
                                 ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
   Plant
   Code   Pollutant
                                                                Concentration (ppb)
o
o
2607   Selenium, Total
(Cont) Thallium, Total
      .Zinc, Total
       Total Dissolved Solids
       Total Organic Carbon
       Aluminum, Total
       Barium, Total
       Boron, Total
       Calcium, Total
       Manganese, Total
       Magnesium, Total
       Molybdenum, Total
       Total Residual Chlorine
       Sodium, Total
       Titanium, Total
       Iron, Total

5513   Benzene
       Benzideae
       1,1,1-Trichloroethane
       Chloroform
       1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
       2,4-Dichlorophenol
       Ethylbenzene
       Methyl Chloride
       Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
       Di-N-Butyl Phthalate

*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake

3.8
3
ND < 60
260,000
14,000
2,440
32
70
44,800
98
14,200 ;
ND < 5
	
20,500
51
2,560
A A
HU
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D < 10
50
D < 10
D < 10

Chlorinated
8.3
ND < 2
ND < 60
263,000
9,000
2,180
31
56
35,400
86
11,700
10
0/0/0/0/0/0
15,500
58
2,260

"""
ND/30/40
ND/D<10/ND
ND/20/10
ND/D<10
1./ND
ND
400/50/50
ND
10
Discharge
Deehlorinated
2.7
ND < 2
73
294,000
6,000
2,090
31
89
43,400
97
13,700
ND < 5
0/0/0/0/0/0
19,800
58
2,340


ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND

-------
                                               Table V-15  (Continued)
Plant
Code   Pollutant
                       SUMMARY OF DATA  FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
                              ANALYSIS  REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Concentration (ppb)
5513   Toluene
(Cont) Trichloroethylene
       Ant imony, Total
       Arsenic, Total
       Chromium, Total
       Copper, Total
       Cyanide, Total
       Lead, Total
       Mercury, Total
       Selenium, Total
       Silver, Total
       COD
       Total Dissolved Solids
       Total Suspended Solids
       Total Organic Carbon
       Aluminum, Total
       Barium, Total
       Boron, Total
       Calcium
       Cobalt, Total
       Manganese, Total
       Magnesium, Total
       Molybdenum, Total
       Phenolics, 4AAP
       Sodium, Total
       Tin,  Total
       Titanium, Total
       Iron, Total
       Total Solids

*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs,
OValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake

ND
ND
10
4
19
8
. 10
ND < 20
1
3
m < i
35,000
545,000
10,000
13,000
283
24
83
84
D < 5
66
33,000
	
13
49,000
30
ND < 15
675
AIO Ann

Chlorinated
ND/ND/D<10
ND/ND/K10
10
ND < 10
25
11
ND < 5
34
0.8
ND <• 2
3
33,000
526,000
10,000
14,000
245
18
51
73
D < 5
63
30,200
16
15
35,000
ND < 5
19
537

Discharge
Dechlorlnated
ND
ND
9
4
24
10
ND < 5
41
1.9
3
ND < 1
33,000
506,000
10,000
14,000
289
21;
50
76
D < 5
62
30,900
14
19
39,700
ND < 5
18
646


-------
The  jdata  in Table V-15 indicate that there were net increases in all
of the following compounds:  total dissolved solids,  total  suspended
solid,s,  total organic carbon, total, residual chlorine, free available
chlorjine,    2,4-dichlorophenol,    1,2-dichlorobenzene,    phenol ics,
chroniium,  copper, lead, mercury, silver, iron, arsenic, zinc, barium,
calcium, manganese, sodium, methylene chloride,  aluminum,  boron  and
titanium.   However, the net increase was greater than  10 ppb only for
l,2-c|ichlorobenzene,  total  phenolics,  lead,  zinc,   and   methylene
chloride.   Only  for 1,2-dichlorobenzene and total phenolics were the
increases greater than 25 ppb, and in one case an increase of slightly
more then 250 ppb was observed for total phenolics.

Recifculating Cooling Water Systems                           :

Four powerplants with  cooling  towers  were  sampled   at  intake  and
discharge  points  during the screening phase of the sampling program.
The results of the priority pollutants analyses of these  samples  are
presented  for  each  plant  in table V-16.  The metal, organic (other
than I the  volatile  organics),  and  asbestos  samples  were  24-hour
composites.

Eight  powerplants  with  cooling  towers  were  sampled at intake and
discharge points during the verification sampling program.   As  noted
in  table  V-2,  plants  using fresh, salt or brackish  water  included.
The results of the verification sampling  program  for  cooling  tower
blowdown are presented in table V-17.

The  data  presented in tables V-16 and V-17 indicate that there was  a
net  increase  from  the  influent  concentration  to   the   effluent
concentration  for  the  following  compounds: trichlorofluoromethane,
bromoform,    chlorodibromomethane,    bis(2-ethylhexyl)    phthalate,
antimony,  arsenic,  cadmium,  chromium,  mercury,  nickel,  selenium,
silver,  thallium,  benzene,  tetrachloroethylene,  toluene,   copper,
cyanide,  lead,  zinc,  chloroform,  phenol, asbestos,  total dissolved
solids, total suspended solids, total organic carbon,   total  residual
chlorine,  1,2-dichlorobenzene,  2,4-dichlorophenol,  boron,  calcium,
magnesium, molybdenum, total phenolics, sodium, tin, vanadium, cobalt,
iron," chloride, 2, 4, 6-trichlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol.  It must
be recognized, however, that recirculating  cooling  systems  tend  to
concentrate  the  dissolved  solids  present in the make-up water and,
thus/ a blowdown stream with many  different  compounds showing  con-
centration  increases  is  to be expected.  Of the priority pollutants
detected as net discharges, the  concentration  increase  was  greater
than- 10  ppb only for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, cadmium,  chromium,
nickel,  selenium,  silver,  toluene,  copper,  cyanide,  lead,  zinc,
phenol,  1,2-dichlorobenzene,  total  phenolics, and 2,4,6,-trichloro-
phenol.  Net increases of greater than 25 ppb were observed for all of
the  'following:  bis  (2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate,  cadmium,    chromium,
nickel,  selenium,  silver,  toluene,  copper,  cyanide,  lead,  zinc,
1,2-dichlorobenzene, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.  The net concentration
increase exceeded 100  ppb  only  for  bis   (2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate,
cadmjLum, chromium, copper, cyanide,  lead, and zinc.
                                102

-------
                            fable V-16
                     -• %i               ' -              -

              RESULTS OF THE SCREENING PHASE  OF  THE
           SAMPLING PROGRAM FOR COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
                            Plant 3404
Pollutant
Benzene
Chloroform
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Brotaoform
Chlorodibromomethane
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Toluene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total.
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Thallium, Total
Cone et^tr at ion ( ppb )
Intake
1
3/1
ND < 1
1/1
20/1
ND < 1
ND<1/ND<1
ND<1/ND<1
ND<1/36
11
4
3/3
11
<5
15
16
25
'. • 5
.0.34
21
55
40
<5
Discharge ,
1
1/1
1
2/ND<1
10/4
1
4/4
3/3
1/<10
62
ND < 1
6/2
14
8
40
23
13
- , <5 - '
0.58
29
87
64
9
                                103

-------
                      Table V-16  (Continued)

              RESULTS OF THE SCREENING  PHASE OF  THE
           SAMPLING PROGRAM FOR COOLING TOWER  SLOWDOWN
                            Plant 0631
Pollutant
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Toluene
Benzene
Chloroform
Tetraehloroethylene
Toluene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Cyanide, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Zinc, Total
  Concentration (ppb)
IntakeDischarge
     20.6
3.9/20
     24.4
ND < 1
      5.7
ND < 1
     47.8
     <5
     <5
     10
     37
     25
    130
     <5
      0.41
      8
     <5
      9
     41
ND
     1.5.
34/40
     21
      1 ,
   < 1
      1
    115
      6
     13
     25
     75
    150
    360
     17
      0,
    100
     23
     32
     67
        0
        91
                                104

-------
                      Table V-16 (Continued)

           l   RESULT^ OF THE SCREENING PHASE OF THE
           SAMPLING PROGRAM FOR COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
                            Plant 2414
Pollutant
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhe3tyl) Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Toluene
Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Asbestos (fibers/liter)
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Cyanide, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Thallium, Total
Concentration (ppb)
intake
2/1




2/1



1/1
10/



28









.3
2
1
2
1

10
105
5

15
1
<5
5
,400
<5
21
<20
7
0.88
8
15
45
6
Discharge
2/1
ND < 1
ND < 1
3 ;
ND <1
3/ND<1
25
262 '
ND < 1
7/10
20/ND<1
1
7
9
147,000
11 .
70
50
8
1 .02
58
22
65 .
5
                                105

-------
                      Table V-16  (Continued)

              RESULTS OF THE SCREENING PHASE OF THE
           SAMPLING PROGRAM FOR COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
                            Plant 4836
Pollutant
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Bromoform
Trichlorofluoromethane
Ghlorodibromoform
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Bromodichloroethylene
Antimony, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Cyanide, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Zinc, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
9/6
ND<1/
49/8

ND <
1/1

ND <

:
1/2
6/3











M

1
1

3
1
1
2


1
2
<5
6
8
62
0,15
6
<5
23
Discharge
ND< 1/1
1/1
4/4
ND < 1
1
ND<1/ND<1
1
1
ND < 1
ND < 1
ND<1/ND<1
3/3
ND < 1
ND < 1
10
11
95
75
0.29
10
8
19
                               106

-------
                                                  fable V-17

              SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
        Pollutant
                                                           Concentration  (ppb)
o
•xj
2718     2,4-Dichlorophenol
         Pentachlorophenol
         Cadmium, Total
         Chromium, Total
         Copper, Total
         Lead, Total
         Nickel, Total
         Thallium, Total
         Total Dissolved Solids
         Total Suspended Solids
         Total Organic Carbon
         Barium, Total
         Boron, Total
         Calcium, Total
         Cobalt, Total
         Manganese, Total
         Magnesium, Total
         Molybdenum, Total
         Phenolics, 4AAP
         Total Residual Chlorine
         Sodium, Total
         Tin, Total
         Titanium
         Iron, Total
         1,1,2,2-Te trachloroe thane

*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs,
()Values in parentheses Indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake
3
4
8
ND/400*
14/10
ND < 20
ND/200*
20
370,000
2,000
9,000
100
80
59,000
10
60
33,000
20
— . —
ND < 10
ND < 15,000
30
20
2,000
ND < 5
Discharge
ND
ND
4
ND/300*
53/20
40
ND/124*
20
27,000,000
17,000
46,000
100
ND < 50
35,000
10
60
20,000
20
ND < 5
350/280/90/10
ND < 15,000
30
20
1,000
	

-------
                                             Table V-17 (Continued)

               SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
1245
i-1
o
00
Pollutant
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Nickel, Total
Silver, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Boron, Total
Calcium, Total
Manganese, Total
Magnesium, Total
Molybdenum, Total
Phenolics, 4AAP
Total Residual Chlorine
Sodium, Total
Tin, Total
Vanadium, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
ND
3


ND < 2
83/20*
12/ND<6*
ND/ND<5*
ND < 1
900,000
2,000
22,000
500
53,000
8
22,000
ND < 5
7
1,170
170,000
ND < 5
ND < 3
Discharge
26
8
4
5
55/40*
70/30*
ND/10*
2
2,240,000
4,000
76,000
2,000
140,000
ND < 3
48,000
40
20
0/0/0/0/0
350,000
30
10
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-17 (Continued)

               SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
1226
 i-1
 o
         Pollutant
Chloroform
Bromoform
Dlchlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Ant imony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Lead, Total (Dissolved)
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
Silver, Total
Zinc, Total (Dissolved)
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Aluminum, Total (Dissolved)
Barium, Total (Dissolved)
Boron, Total
Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
Cobalt, Total
Manganese, Total (Dissolved)
Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
Phenolics, 4AAP
Total Residual Chlorine
Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
                                                  Concentration (ppb)
                                                  Intake
                                                                  Discharge
ND/7*
ND/3*
2.1/ND<2*
ND/7/7*
10/12/10*(10)
12/10/ND<20*(7/ND/20)*
ND<1/0.5*
27/1.5/ND<5*(29/ND*)
ND/1.3/ND<1*
ND/9/70*(50/ND<60)*
   190,000
    14,000
    10,000
       700(100)
        20(20)
ND < 50
     6,900(D<5000)
         7
       200(200)
     4,500(5000)
        12

    33,000(36,000)
D < 1
                                                                                  154
                                                                                    8.
                                                                                   58
                                                                                    7
ND/4*
1.8/ND<2*
28/5/20*
47/50*
3/ND<20*
         0.2
6/6/ND<5*
0.7/ND<1*
50/26/ND<60*
 1,050,000
     8,000
    11,000
       400
        20
        60
     6,900
         8
       100
     4,900
         8
D<10/D<10/D<10/D<10/D<10/D<10/90/D<10
   210,000
*These multiple results represent analyses  by multiple  analytical labs.
OValues in parentheses indicate dissolved  fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-17 (Continued)

               SUMMARY Of RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULAIING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
Pollutant
                                                           Concentration (ppb)
1226     Titanium, Total
(Cont'd) Iron, Total (Dissolved)
         Vanadium, Total
         Lead (Dissolved)

4251     1,2-Dichlorobenzene
         2,4-Dichlorophenol
         Cadmium, Total
         Chromium, Total
         Copper, Total
,_,       Lead, Total
g       Nickel, Total
         Zinc, Total
         Total Dissolved Solids
         Total Suspended Solids
         Total Organic Carbon
         Barium, Total
         Boron, Total
         Calcium, Total
         Cobalt, Total
         Manganese, Total
         Magnesium, Total
         Molybdenum, Total
         Phenolics, 4AAP
         Total Residual Chlorine

         Sodium, Total
         Iron, Total
                                                  Intake

                                                          20
                                                       2,000(1,000)
                                                  ND/40/ND<10*
                                                  (7/ND<20*)
                                                  ND
                                                          11
                                                           9
                                                  42/500*
                                                  55/20*
                                                          30
                                                  24/200*
                                                  340/ND<60*
                                                     227,000
                                                      10,000
                                                      34,000
                                                          40
                                                          60
                                                      29,000
                                                          10
                                                         200
                                                       7,600
                                                          20
                                                          16
                                                  D < 10

                                                      17,000
                                                       2,000
                                                                  Discharge

                                                                          20
                                                                       3,000
                                                                  27/ND<10
                                                                          20
                                                                  ND
                                                                  m < 2
                                                                  10/10*
                                                                  81/40*
                                                                  ND < 20
                                                                  42/10*
                                                                  40/OTK60*
                                                                     430,000
                                                                      53,000
                                                                      15,000

                                                                          70
                                                                  ND/53,000*
                                                                  ND < 5
                                                                         70
                                                                      8,900
                                                                  ND < 5
                                                                          8
                                                                  100/4100/6500/6200/5200/4300/3950/
                                                                  3400/2800/2500/2000/1550/1300/750
                                                                     52,000
                                                                        300
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-17 (Continued)

               SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER  SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
3404
Pollutant
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Nickel, Total
Silver, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Aluminum, Total
Boron, Total
Calcium, Total
Cobalt, Total
Manganese, Total
Molybdenum, Total
Phenolics, 4AAP
Totai Residual Chlorine
Sodium, Total
Tin, Total
Titanium, Total
Iron, Total
Vanadium, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
18
12
12
100
78/800*
33/ND<60*
500
34/100*
40
26,000,000
110,000
26,000
2,000
4,000
340,000
ND < 50
200
80 . "
5
ND< 1 0/ND< 1 0/ND< 1 0/ND< 1 0
6,000,000
300
200
4,000
200
Discharge
ND
8
4
200
110/1000*
24/60
800
78/200*
80
34,000,000
90,000
9,000
2,000
4,000
460,000
80
100
100
	
230/190/390/170
7,000,000
500
200
4,000
200
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-17 (Continued)

               SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
5409
         Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
         Benzene
         Carbon Tetrachloride
         Chloroform
         1,2-Dichlotobenzene
         Dichlorobromomethane
         Chlorodibromoraethane
         Toluene
         Trichloroethylene
         Cadmium, Total
         Chromium, Total
 P      Copper, Total (Dissolved)
 *°      Cyanide, Total
         Lead, Total (Dissolved)
         Mercury, Total
         Nickel, Total
         Selenium, Total
         Silver, Total
         Thallium, Total
         Zinc, Total (Dissolved)
         Total Suspended Solids
         Total Organic Carbon
         Chloride
         Vanadium, Total
         1,3 and 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake

D < 1


	
	



ND < 2

15

ND < 0



ND < 1


20
	



2.4

1.4
5.3
-
-
2
4
1.4

27
,000
8
.2
1.7
2
1.6

15
5
,000
_
13
2.4
Discharge
1.5
__^__
2.4
	
2.6
D < 1
	
4
1
37
3,800(620)
5
130(70)
1
4
ND < 2
14
8
290(61)
460,000
21,000
110,000
17
• 	

-------
                                             Table V-17  (Continued)

               SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM  FOR  RECIRCOLAfING COOLING WAfER SYSTEMS
         Pollutant:
Concentration (ppb)
5604     Benzene
         Toluene
         Antimony, Total
         Arsenic, Total
         Chromium, Total
         Copper, total
         Cyanide, Total
         Lead, Total
         Nickel, Total
         Selenium, Total
i         Silver, Total
         Zinc, Total
         Total Suspended Solids
         Total Organic Carbon     *
         Chloride
         Vanadium, Total

*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical  labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
latake


ND
ND



ND

ND

-



1.2
9.1
4
< 1
< 2
700
4
6
< 0.5
2
< 3
53
	
5,500
14,000
11
Discharge
D < 1 •""•'"•'
23
5
7
2
180
.' .3
ND < 3
6
ND.< 2
3
780
42,000
14,000
54,000
24

-------
                                             Table V-17  (Continued)

               SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATIBC COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
.4602
Pollutant
2,4,6-Tr ichlor ophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Nickel, Total
Silver, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Barium, Total
Boron, Total
Calcium, Total
Cobalt, Total
Manganese, Total
Magnesium, Total
Molybdenum, Total
Phenolics, 4MP
Total Residual Chlorine
Sodium, Total
Tin, Total
Titanium, Total
Iron, Total
Vanadium, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
ND
ND
ND < 20
73/100*
21/50*
30
98/ND<5*
2
NB/70*
190,000
2,000
D < 1000
300
300
260,000
8
90
100,000
20
D < 5
D < 10
95,000
60
30
1,000
20
Discharge
35
4
5
130/400*
62/400*
ND < 30
60/200*
ND < 1
210/200*
880,000
2,000
9,000
200
60
110,000
10
50
57,000
60
D < 5
7340/4730/190/50
33,000
60
ND < 20
2,000
20
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical  labs.
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
Additional Data Sources

Another  source  of  useful  data  is a study on the chlorinationiof  a
fresh water once-through cooling system  that  found  that   chloroform
levels  in  the  outlet  from the condenser during periods of  chlorine
addition ranged between 1.4 and 8.7 ppb  (47).   The  mean   chloroform
concentration, in the condenser outlet during chlorination was  S.Ojppb.
The intake in this same study, had chloroform levels consistently below
1.0 ppb with the exception of one sample point at 1.2 ppb.   ,,     f

Samples were also analyzed for dichlorobromomethane in  this.same study
(47).  Condenser outlet dichlorobromomethane levels ranged from 049 to
4.6   ppb   during   .the   period  ,of  chlorine  addition.   The  ,'mean
dichlorobromomethane  level   was   2.0   ppb.    Intake   water  ' had
dichloromethane levels consistently below 0.2 ppb.

Analysis  was  also  done  for  dibromochloromethane  (47).  Condenser
outlet dibromochloromethane levels ranged from less than  0.2  ppo  to
1.5   ppb   during   the   period  of  chlorine  addition.   The  'jmean
dibromochloromethane level was 0.. 77 ppb but in three samples the  level
of dibromochloromethane could not be quantified;  these samples  -'were
not used in calculating the mean.  Intake water was consistently below
0.2 ppb dibromochloromethane.                        -..    •   •     I   '


Summary  of  the Results of Cooling Water Sampling and  Data  Collecting
Efforts                                                      ~      ••  •
	                                                           I
An  examination  of  all  the  available  data,  including   screening,
verification, surveillance and analysis, and literature data,  lea<3s to
several major conclusions.  First, net discharges of metals  other I than
chromium and zinc are the result of- corrosion of metal  surfaces within
the  cooling  water  system.  Net discharges from once-through systems
are typically less than 20 ppb.   Net  discharges  from recirculating
cooling  systems  may  be  higher  because of the concentrating effect
these systems have on dissolved solids.  Net  discharges  of  chromium
and  zinc  from recirculating systems may be as high as 1,000  ppb'Zinc
and 200 ppb chromium as the result of the  use  of  corrosion  control
additives(13).                                                    |

Second,  the  organic  pollutants  that  were detected  in the  sampling
efforts may result from several sources.  Methylene chloride may  be   a
product  of  chlorination or, since it is a common  lab  solvent, may be
an analytical error.  Bis  (2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate  is probably  the
result  of  the  loss  of  plasticizers from plastic sampling  tubes or
bottles.  2,4-dichlorophenol, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, bromoform,  chloro-
dibromomethane,  and  chloroform  all  may  result  from cooling  tyater
chlorination.  Net discharges of these compounds  were  always at  or
below 30 ppb, often only a few ppb.  The concentration  scale up effect
of  recirculating cooling systems may account for increases  in some of
the organics.  The use  of  non-oxidizing  biocides  may  explaint' the
presence  of  compounds  like  phenol, benzene, toluene, 1,2-dichloro-
benzene, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol and pentachlorophenol  (13,17).     '

                                 115

-------
A third major finding was a net dscharge of asbestos  in  the  cooling
tower  blowdown of plant 2414.  Since asbestos was also present in the
make-up water, it is not clear whether fill erosion is occuring.   The
introduction of asbestos into cooling tower blo.wdown from fill erosion
has already been demonstrated by the data presented in table V-13.

Finally,  net  discharges  of total residual chlorine were observed  in
both once-through and recirculating systems.  Net discharges  as  high
as 7,100 pph were observed.

ASH HANDLING

Steam  electric powerplants using oil or coal as a fuel produce ash  as
a  waste  product  of  combustion.   The  total  ash  product  is  the
combination  of  bottom  ash  and  fly ash.  Bottom ash is the residue
which accumulates on the furnace bottom, and fly ash  is  the  lighter
material which is carried over in the flue gas stream. In coal-burning
boilers,  some  of  the  fly  ash  or  carryover  ash  settles  in the
economizer section of the boiler.  This ash is called  economizer  ash
and is typically the larger particles of the fly ash.

The  ash  composition of oil, on a weight percent basis,  is much  lower
than that of coal.  Oil ash seldom exceeds 0.2  percent  whereas  coal
ash comprises from 3 to 30 percent of the coal.  As such, the presence
of  ash  is  an  extremely  important consideration in the design of a
coal-fired boiler and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  an  oil-fired  boiler.
Improper  design could lead to accumulation of ash deposits on furnace
walls and tubes, leading to reduced heat transfer, increased  pressure
drop, and corrosion.

Ash  handling  or transport is the conveyance of the accumulated  waste
products to a disposal system.  The method of conveyance may be either
wet (sluicing) or dry (pneumatic).   Dry  handling  systems  are  more
typical for fly ash than bottom ash.  The method of disposal for  a dry
ash  is  commonly  by  landfill  but the ash can also be  sold as  a by-
product for a variety of uses such as an ingredient for road  pavement
or  for portland cement (alkaline ashes).  Ash from oil-fired-units  is
often sold for the recovery of vanadium.

Wet ash handling  systems  produce  wastewaters  which  are  currently
either  discharged  as  blowdown  from  recycle  systems  or discharged
directly to receiving streams in a once-through  manner.   Statistical
analyses  of  fly ash and bottom ash wastewater flow rates reported  in
308 responses from the industry are presented in tables V-18 and  V-19.
The chemical characteristics of ash handling wastewater are  basically
a  function  of  the  inlet  or  makeup water, composition of the fuel
burned, and the composition of other wastewaters discharged  into the
ash  settling  ponds.   These  characteristics  are  discussed  in this
section.
                                 116

-------
                                       Table V-18
 Variable

Fuel:   Coal*
  Flow:  GPD/plant   167
         GPD/MW      166
                                 FLY ASH POND OVERFLOW
                                  (308  Questionnaire)
Number
  of
 Plants   Mean Value
                    Minimum
Standard Deviation    Value    Maximum Value
         2,610,724.6    3,397,528.7
             3,807.976      3,608.152
                     0.00     23,000,000
                     0.00         16,386.91
Fuel:  Gas*

  Flow:  GPD/plant    21
         GPD/MW       21

Flow:  Oil*

  Flow:  GPD/plant    47
         GPD/MW       47
           322,170.0
             1,899.28
   764,538.7
     3,026.676
           487,996.2    1,607,619.2
               828.552      1,652.856
0.00
0.00
                     0.00
                     0.00
3,250,000
   11,535,049
          9,750,000
              7,485.76
*Fuel designations are determined  by  the  fuel  which contributes the most Btu for power
generation for the year 1975.

-------
                                            Table V-19
      Variable

     Fuel;   Coal*
            BOTTOM ASH POND OVERFLOW
               (308 Questionnaire)

Number
  of                                       lliriimum
 Plants   Mean Value   Standard Deviation    Value
       Flow;   GPD/plant   219    2,600,998.7    5,072,587.5
              GPD/MW      218        3,880.983      5,147.284
                                            0.00
                                            0.00
                            Maximum Value
                           33,600,000
                               38,333.33
06
     Fuel:   Gas*

       Flow:   GPD/plant    25
              GPD/MW       25
     Flow.   Oil*

       Flow;  GPD/plant    40
              GPD/MW       40
           417,345.2    1,026,066.7
             1,804.65       3,229.089
           322,913.6
               622.696
907,839.3
  1,698.706
                  0.00      4,020,000
                  0.00         11,535.049
0.00      4,900,000
0.00          9,902.53
     *Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for power
     generation for the year 1975.

-------
Fly Ash From Oil-Fired Plants

The ash from fuel oil combustion usually is in the form  of   fly   ash.
The  relatively small quantity of ash  (compared to coal) is capable  of
causing severe problems of external deposits and corrosion  in boilers.
The many elements  which  may  appear  in  oil  ash  deposits  include
vanadium, sodium, and sulfur.  Compounds containing these elements are
found  in  almost  every deposit in boilers fired by residual fuel oil
and often constitute the major portion of these deposits.

Origin of Crude Oil Ash

Some of the ash-forming constituents in the crude oil had their origin
in animal and vegetable matter from which the oil  was  derived.   The
remainder  is  extraneous material resulting from contact of  the  crude
oil with rock structures,and salt brines pr picked up during  refining
processes, storage, and transportation.

In  general,  the  ash  content  increases  with  increasing  asphaltic
constituents in which the sulfur acts  largely  as  a  bridge  between
aromatic  rings.   Elemental  sulfur   and  hydrogen  sulfide  have been
identified in crude oil. 'Simpler sulfur  compounds,  including   thio-
esters,  disulfides,  thiophenes,  and  mercaptans,  are  found in the
distillates of crude oil.

Vanadium, iron, sodium, nickel, and calcium in fuel oil are common  in
rock strata, but elements including vanadium, nickel, zinc, and copper
are  believed to come from organic matter from which the petroleum was
created.  Vanadium and nickel are  known  to  be  present   in  organo-
metallic  compounds  known  as  porphyrins which are characteristic  of
certain forms of animal life.  Table V-20 summarizes  the   amounts  of
vanadium,  nickel,  and  sodium  present  in  residual  fuel  oils from
various crudes.

Crude oil, as such, is not normally used as  a  fuel  but   is  further
processed  to  yield  a  wide  range   of  more valuable products.  For
example, in a modern  United  States   refinery,  the  average  product
yield,  as  a  percentage of total throughput, is given in  table  V-21.
Virtually all metallic compounds  and  a  large  part  of   the  sulfur.
compounds are concentrated in the distillation residue, as  illustrated
for  sulfur  in  table  V-22.  Where low-sulfur residual fuel oils are
required, the oil  is  obtained  by  blending  with  suitable  stocks,
including  both  heavy  distillates  and  distillation from low-sulfur
crudes.  This procedure  is used occasionally if a  residual   fuel oil
must meet specifications such as vanadium, or ash content.

Release of Ash During Combustion

Residual fuel oil  is preheated and atomized to provide enough reactive
surface  to  burn  completely within the boiler furnace.  The atomized
fuel oil burns  in  two  stages.   In  the  first  stage,  the  volatile
portion  burns  and  leaves  a porous  coke residue; and, in the second
'stage, the coke residue burns.  In general, the rate of combustion  of

                                 119

-------
              Table V-20

VANADIUM, NICKEL, AND SODIUM CONTENT OF
         RESIDUAL FUEL OIL (18)

     (parts per million by weight)
Source of
Crude Oil
Africa
1
2
Middle East
3
4
5
United States
6
7
8
Venezuela
9
10
11
12
13

Vanadium

5.5
1

7
173
47

13
6
11

«».**
57
380
113
93

Nickel

5
5

«w» <*•
51
10

— —
2.5
_.

6
13
60
32
-_

Sodium

22
--.

1
_ -
8

350
120
84

480
72
70
49
38
                 12.0,

-------
                       Table V-21
            AVERAGE PRODUCT YIELD OF A MODERN
               UNITED STATES REFINERY (18)
  Product:              - Percentage of Total Throughput
Gasoline                           44.4
Lube oil fraction                  16.4
Jet fuel                            6.2
Kerosine                            2.9
Distillates                        22.5
Residual fuel                       7.6
                           121

-------
                           Table V-22
       SULFUR CONTENT IN FRACTIONS OF KUWAIT CRUDE OIL (18)

                             Distillation Range     Total Sulfur
Fraction                '           (°F)	(% by Weight)
Crude Oil                           —                  2.55
Gasoline                          124-253               0.05
Light naphtha                     257-300               0.05
Heavy naphtha                     307-387               0.11
Kerosene                          405-460               0.45
Light gas oil                     477-516               0.85
Heavy gas oil                     538-583               1.15
Residual oil                      588-928               3.70
                               122

-------
tfce"  coke  residue  is  inversely  proportional  to  the square of  its
diameter, which, in turn, is related to the droplet  diameter.   Thus,
small  fuel  droplets  give  rise  to  coke  residues  which burn very
rapidly, and the ash-forming constituents are exposed to  the  highest
temperatures  in  the  flame  envelope.   The ash-forming droplets  are
heated more slowly, partly in association with carbon.  Release of  the
ash from these residues is determined by the rate of oxidation of   the
carbon (18).

During combustion, the organic vanadium compounds in the residual fuel
oil  thermally  decompose  and oxidize in the gas stream to V203, V204
and finally V?0S.  Although complete oxidation may not occur and there
may be some dissociation, a large  part  of  the  vanadium  originally
present  in  the  oil exists as vapor phase V20S in the flue gas.   The
sodium, usually present as a chloride in the oil, vaporizes and reacts
with sulfur oxides either in the gas stream  or  after  deposition  on
tube  surfaces.   Subsequently, reactions take place between the vana-
dium and sodium compounds with  the  formation  of  complex  vanadates
which  have  melting  ppints lower than those of the parent compounds.
An example is shown in equation 9.  The melting point of each compound
is given below as well as the'formula for the compound.

         Na2SQ* + V20S  2   2NaVO3 + S03          (9)
         (1625 F)  (1275 F)    :(1165 F)

Excess vanadium or sodium in the ash deposit, above that necessary  for
the formation of the sodium vanadates (or vanadyl vanadates),  may  be
present as V20S and Na2S04, respectively (18).

The   sulfur   in  residual  fuel  is  progressively  released  during
combustion and is promptly oxidized to sulfur dioxide (SO2).  A  small
amount  of sulfur dioxide is further oxidized to SO3 by a small amount
of atomic oxygen present in the hottest  part  of  the  flame.   Also,
catalytic  oxidation  of  S0?  to SO3 may occur as the flue gases pass
over vanadium rich ash deposits on high-temperature superheater  tubes
and refractories  (18).

Characteristics of Fuel Oil Ash

With  respect to fuel oil ash characteristics, sodium and vanadium  are
the most significant elements  in  fuel  oil  because  they  can  form
complex  compounds  having low melting temperatures, 480 to 1250 F, as
shown  in table V-23.  Such temperatures fall within the range of tube-
metal temperatures generally encountered in  furnace  and  superheater
tube banks of many oil-fired boilers.  Because of its complex chemical
composition, fuel-oil ash seldom has a single sharp melting point,  but
rather  softens and melts over a wide temperature range (18).  Oil  ash
(especially from plants using Venezuelan and  certain  Middle  Eastern
oil) can contain significant amounts of nickel.
                                123

-------
                           Table V-23
         MELTING POINTS OF SOME OIL/ASH CONSTITUENTS (18)
              Compound
Aluminum oxide ,
Aluminimu sulfate,
Calcium oxide, CaO
Calcium sulfate, CaS04
Ferric oxide ,  Fe203
Ferric sulfate,  Fex (80^)3
Nickel oxide,  NiO
Nickel sulfate,  NiS04
Silicon dioxide,
Sodium sulfate,
Sodium bisulfate, NaHS04
Sodium pyrosulfate,
Sodium ferric sulfate,
Vanadium trioxide, ¥203
Vanadium tetroxide,
Vanadium pentoxide,
Sodium metavanadate,
Sodium pyrovanadate,
Sodium orthovanadate,
Sodium vanadylvanadates , Na20.V204.V205
Melting Point
    (°F)
  3720
  1420*
  4662
  2640
  2850
   895
  3795
  1545*
  3130
  1625
   480*
   750*
  1000
  3580
  3580
  1275
  1165
  1185
  1560
  1160
   995
*Decomposes at a temperature around the melting point.
                               124

-------
Ash From Coal-Fired Plants

Coal Ash Formation

More  than 90 percent of the coal currently used by  electric  utilities
is burned in pulverized coal boilers.    In  such   boilers,  65   to  80
percent  of  the  ash  is  produced   in  the form  of fly  ash, which  is
carried out of the combustor in the  flue .gases  and is  separated  from
these   gases   by   electrostatic    precipitators  and/or  mechanical
collectors.  The remainder of the ash drops  to   the  bottom  of   the
furnace  as  bottom  ash  or  slag.   The  amounts of each  type of ash
produced in the United States during several recent  years  are   listed
in  table  V--24.  The percentage of  ash  collected  as fly  ash  has risen
from 65 percent in 1971 to 71 percent in 1975.

The ash residue resulting from the combustion   of   coal  is  primarily
derived  from the inorganic matter in the coal.  Table V-25 provides a
breakdown of several of the major ash constituents for different ranks
of coal.  The overall percent  ash   in   the  coal   varies  from 3  to
approximately  30 percent.  These major  ash components can  vary widely
in concentrations within a particular rank as well as  between   ranks.
Relatively significant concentrations of trace  elements are also found
in  the coal ash.  Many of these elements, are listed in table V-26 for
various ranks of  coal.   These  elements  can   range  from  a   barely
detectable   limit  to  almost  14,000 ppm as the  maximum measured for
barium  in some lignites and subbituminous coals.

During  the combustion of coal, the   products  formed  are  partitioned
into  four   categories:   bottom  ash,   economizer  ash,  fly ash, and
vapors.  The bottom  ash is that part of  the  residue  which  is fused
into particles heavy enough to drop  out  of the  furnace gas  stream  (air
and combustion gases).  These particles  are collected in  the  bottom of
the  furnace.   The  economizer  ash particles  are sized  approximately
between those of bottom  and  fly  ash.   This   ash  is  collected  in
economizer   hoppers  just beyond the  boiler flue gas pass.  The  fly ash
is that part of the  ash which  is  entrained   in  the  combustion   gas
leaving  the  boiler.   While  most   of   the  fly   ash is collected in
mechanical collectors, baghouses, or electrostatic  precipitators,   a
small quantity of this material may  pass through the collectors and be
discharged   into  the  atmosphere.   The  vapor  is that part  of the  coal
material which  is volatilized during combustion.   Some of these vapors
are discharged  into  the atmosphere;   others  are  condensed  onto   the
surface of  fly  ash particles and  may  be collected in one of  the fly
ash collectors.  Certain of the trace elements  are more volatile  than
others.    The   more  volatile  elements, . e.g.,   mercury,  fluorine,
thallium,  and antimony, will have a  strong tendency  to  vaporize   and
perhaps condense  on  the  fly ash  particles.   Some of the vapors may
also be trapped  inside larger sized  bottom ash  particles  resulting  in
condensation there as well.

The  distribution  of  the  ash  between  the   bottom  ash  and  fly ash
fractions  is a  function of  the boiler type  (firing method),  the  type
of  coal   (ash  fusion  temperature),  and  the type of boiler  bottom  (wet

                                 125

-------
                           Table V-24

     MEGATONS OF COAL ASH COLLECTED IN THE UNITED STATES, (19)



    Type             1971   1973 '""1974   1975   1980*   1985**

Fly ash              27.7   34.6   40.4   42.3

Bottom ash           10.1   10.7   14.3   13.1

Boiler slag           5.0    4.0    4.8    4.6
    Total            42.8   49.3   59.5   60.0    75.0    120.0

    Coal consumed     -      -    390    403

    Calculated
    average ash
    content           -      -    15.3%   14.9%     -        -
 *Projection by R. E, Morrison, American Electric Services Co.

**Projaction based on expected doubling in coal-fired power
  generation, 1975 to 1985.
                               126

-------
                           Table V-25
        VARIATIONS IN COAL ASH COMPOSITION  WITH RANK (19)

Component	    Rank	.	.
            Anthracite   Bituminous    Subbittiminous    Lignite
Si02          48-68         7-68          17-58         6-40
Al203         25-44         4-39            4-35         4-26
F62CJ3          2-10         2-44            3-19         1-34
Ti02           1-2        0.5-4           0.6-2           0-0.8
CaO          0.2-4        0.7-36         '2.2-52      12.4-52
MgO          0.2-1        0.1-4           0.5-8         2.8-14
Na20            -         0.2-3              -          0.2-28
KaO             -         0.2-4              -          0.1-1.3
S03          0.1-1        0.1-35            3-16       8.3-32
                               127

-------
                           Table V-26

   RANGE IN AMOUNT OF TRACE ELEMENTS PRESENT IN COAL ASHES  (19)

                               (ppm)
                    Anthracites
High volatile bituminous
Element
Ag
B
Ba
Be
Co
Cr
Cu
Ga
Ge
La
Mh
Ni
Pb
Sc
Sn
Sr
v
Y
Yb
Zn
Zr
Max.
1
130
1340
11
165
395
540
71
20
220
365
320
120
82
4250
340
310
120
12
350
1200
Mln...
1
63
540
6
10
210
96
30
20
115
58
125
41
50
19
80
210
70
5
155
370
Average
*
90
866
9
81
304
405
42
*
142
270
220
81
61
962
177
248
106
8
*
688
Max.
3
2800
4660
60
305
315
770
98
285
270
700
610
1500
78
825
9600
840
285
15
1200
1450
Min.
1
90
210
4
12
74
30
17
20
29
31
45
32
7
10
170
60
29
3
50
115
Average
*
770
1253
1253
64
193
293
40 ,
*
111
170
154
183
32
171
1987
249
102
10
310
411
* » Insufficient data to compute an average value.

  » Figures encircled indicate the number of samples used to
    compute average values.


                              128

-------
                   Table V-26 (Continued)
 RANGE IN AMOUNT OF TRACE ELEMENTS PRESENT IN COAL ASHES (19)
                            (ppm)
            Low volatile bituminous  Medium volatile bituminous
Element
Ag
B
Ba
Be
Co
Cr
Cu
Ga
Ge
La
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sc
Sn
Sr
V
Y
Yb
Zn
Zr
Max.
1.4
180
2700
40
440
490
850
135
20
180
780
350
170
155
230
2500
480
460
23
550
620
Bin.
1
76
96
6
26
120
76
10
20
56
40
56
23
15
10
66
115
37
4
62
220
Average
*
123
740
16
172
221
379
41
*
110
280

89
50
92
818
278
152
10
231
458
Max.
1
780
1800
31
290
230
560
52
20
140
4400
440
210
110
160
1600
870
340
13
460
540
Min.
1
74
230
4
10
36
130.
10
20
19
125
20
52
7
29
40
170
37
4
50
180
Average
*
218
396
13
105
169
313
*
*
83
1432
263
96
56
75
668
390
151
9
195
326
- Insufficient data to compute an average value.
- Figures encircled indicate the number of samples used to
  compute average values,
                             129

-------
                     Table 7-26 (Continued)
         IN AMOUNT OF TRACE ELEMENTS PRESENT IN COAL ASHES  (19)
                               (ppm)
                      Lignites and Subbituminous
Element
Ag
B
Ba
Be
Co
Cr
Cu
Ga.
Ge
La
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sc
Sn
Sr
V
Y
Yb
Zn
Zr
Max.
50
1900
13900
28
310
140
3020
30
100
90
1030
420
165
58
660
8000
250
120
10
320
490
Min.
1
320
550
1
11
11
58
10
20
34
310
20
20
2
10
230
20
21
2
50
100
Average -
*
1020
5027
6
45
54
655
23
*
62
688
129
60
18
156
4660
125
51
4
*
245
* «• Insufficient data to compute an average value.
  * Figures encircled indicate the number of samples used  to
    compute average values.
                               130

-------
or dry)-   The first factor, boiler type, is significant  in determining
ash distribution.  The boiler types which are  currently  in  use  are
pulverized  coal,  cyclone,  and spreader stoker.  Most modern boilers
are the  pulverized  coal  type.   The  different  methods  of   firing
pulverized-coal  boilers  are  shown in figure V-ll.  Table V-27 shows
the relative distributions of bottom ash and fly ash by boiler   firing
method.   The smallest amount of fly ash, approximately  10 percent,  is
emitted by the cyclone furnace because the ash fusion  temperature   is
exceeded  and  80-85  percent  of  the ash is collected as slag  in the
bottom ash hopper.

A wet or dry bottom boiler  influences  the  distribution  of  ash   in
pulverized  coal-fired  boilers.   Most of the modern pulverized units
utilize a dry bottom design.,  This type of furnace allows the  ash   to
remain  in  a  dry, or non-molten, state and drop through a grate  into
water-filled hoppers used to collect the ash.  Ash in a dry state  may
reflect  either  a relatively low boiler design combustion temperature
or the  ash  may  contain  constituents  .which  are  characterized   by
relatively  high  melting points.  Since the dry ash does not fuse,  it
can be fairly easily entrained in the combustion gas stream  resulting
in  higher  fly ash/bottom ash ratios than in wet bottom boilers.  The
wet-bottom boiler collects bottom ash in  a  fused  or   molten   state.
This  furnace  is  referred  to  as  a slagging furnace.  The relative
distributions of bottom ash and fly ash by type of boiler  bottom  are
also shown in table V-27.

Chemical Characteristics of Coal Ash

The  chemical  compositions  of both types of bottom ash, dry or slag,
are quite similar.  The major species present in bottom  ash are  silica
(20-60 weight percent as  SiOa),  alumina  (10-35  weight  percent   as
A1Z03), ferric oxide (5-35 weight percent as Fe2O3), calcium oxide  (1-
20  weight percent as CaO), magnesium oxide  (0.3-0.4 weight percent  as
MgO), and minor amounts of sodium and  potassium  oxides   (1-4   weight
percent).  In most instances, the combustion of coal produces more fly
ash  than  bottom  ash.   Fly  ash  generally  consists  of  very  fine
spherical particles, ranging in diameter from 0.5 to 500 microns.  The
major species present in fly ash are silica  (30-50 weight  percent   as
Si02),  alumina   (20-30  weight percent as A120), and titanium dioxide
(0.4-1.3 weight percent as Ti02).  Other species which may be  present
include  sulfur  trioxide,  carbon,  boron,  phosphorous, uranium, and
thorium.  Tables V-28 and V-29 provide some  ranges  for  these  major
species.  Species concentration differences  between fly  ash and  bottom
ash can vary considerably from one site to another.

In  addition to these major components, a number of trace elements are
also found in bottom ash and fly ash.  Tables V-29  and  V-30  present
data concerning concentrations of these trace elements for both  bottom
and   fly  ash  for  various  utility  plants.   The  trace  elemental
concentrations can  vary  considerably  within  a  particular  ash   or
between  ashes.   Generally,  higher  trace  element concentrations are
found  in the fly ash than bottom ash; however, there are several cases
where bottom ash exceeds fly ash concentrations.

                                 131

-------
             «f
                •^»  i——

                  J. T
                       T«rtiory  air
                              i     Primary air
                              \  i   and  eaal
                              \.k
               Poirtoil
          (X)
                                                    F1RINC
                    Primary air
                    and cadi
                   \  4&
                         \
                 "%.
 \
                                air
                Ren Vfew of  F«rnoc»
         (BJ TANCENTlAt, HRINS


             air
                                               HORtZOMTAL FJIHMC
                                                  air
CO.] -CTO.ONE  EJR1H6
(£.) OFTO8E&-IHO.JNEB
                    Figure V-ll

    PULVERIZED-COAL FIRING  METHODS  (19)
                          132

-------
                           Table V-27
          COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN BOTTOM ASH
     AND FLY ASH BY TYPE OF BOILERS AND METHOD OF FIRING (19)
                                           Bottom Ash   Fly Ash
Type of Firing*  Type of Boiler Bottom**   (typical%)  (typical%)
    PCFR                  W                    35          65
    PCOP                  W                    35          65
    PCTA                  W                    35          65
    PCFR                  D                    15          85
    PCOP                  D                    15          85
    PCTA                  D                    15          85
    CYCL                  -                    90    '      10
    SPRE                  -                    35          65
*PCFR - Pulverized coal front firing
 PCOP - Pulverized coal opposed firing
 PCTA - Pulverized coal tagential firing
 CYCL - Cyclone
 SPRE - Spreader stoker
**W - wet bottom
  D - dry bottom
                                133

-------
                           Table V-28             ^
      MAJOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH
         FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA REGIONS  (19)
Constituent
Sulfur trioxide
Phosphorus pentoxide
Silica
Iron oxide
Aluminum oxide
Calcium oxide
Magnesium oxide
Sodium oxide
Potassium oxide
Titanium oxide
  Fly Ash
(% by weight)
 0.01-4.50
 0.01-0.50
 20.1-46.0
  7.6-32.9
 17.4-40.7
  0.1-6.1
  0.4-1.2
  0.3-0.8
  1.2-2.4
  1,3-2.0
 Bottom ash
(% by weight)
 0.01-1 .0
 0.01-0.4
 19.4-48.9
 11 .7-40.0
 18.9-36.2
 0.01-4.2
  0.5-0.9
  0.2-0.8
  1.7-2.8
  1.3-1 .8
                               134

-------
UJ
                                          Table V-29



             COMPARISON OF FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH FROM VARIOUS UTILITY PLANTS  (19)
Compound
or
Element
Si02, %
A1203, %
Fe203, %
CaO, .%
S03, %
MgO, %
Na20, %
K2°. %
P205, %
Ti02, %
As , ppm
Be , ppm
Cd , ppm
Cr , ppm
Cu, ppm
Mg, ppm
Plant 1
FA BA
59
27
3.8
3.8
0.4
0,96
1.88
0.9
0.13
0.43
12
4.3
0.5
20
54
0.07
58
25
4.0
4.3
0.3
0.88
1.77
0.8
0.06
0.62
1
3
0.5
15
37
0.01
Plant 2
FA BA
57
20
5.8
5.7
0.8
1.15
1.61
1.1
0.04
1.17
8
7
0.5
50
128
0.01
59
18.5
9.0
4.8
0.3
0.92
1.01
1.0
0.05
0.67
1
7
0.5
30
48
0.01
Plant 3
FA BA
43
21
5.6
17.0
1.7
2.23
0.4
1.44
0.70
1.17
15
3
0.5
150
69
0.03
50
17
5.5
13.0
0.5
1.61
0.5
0.64
0.30
0.50
3
2
0.5
70
33
0.01
Plant 4
FA BA
54
28
3.4
3.7
0.4
1.29
1.5
0.38
1.00
0.83
6
7
1.0
30
75
0.08
59
24
3.3
3.5
0.1
1.17
1.5
0.43
0.75
0.50
2
5
1.0
30
40
0.01
Plant 5
BA BA
NR
NR
20.4
3.2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
8.4
8.0
6.44
206
68
20.0
NR
NR
30.4
4.9 .
0.4
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
5.8
7.3
1.08
124
48
0.51
Plant 6*
BA BA
42
17
17.3
3.5
NR
1.76
4 ft £•
I .JO
2.4
NR
1.00
110
NR
8.0
300
140
0.05
49
19
16.0
6.4
NR
2.06
0.67
1.9
NR
0.68
18
NR
1.1
152
20
0.028

-------
                               Table V-29 (Continued)

        COMPARISON OF FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH FROM VARIOUS UTILITY PLANTS  (19)
Compound
or
Element
Mn , ppm
Ni , ppm
Pb , ppm
Se, ppm
V, ppm
Zn , ppm
B, ppm
Co , ppm
F, ppm
Plant 1

FA
267
10
70
6.9
90
63
266
7
140

BA
366
10
27
0.2
70
24
143
7
50
Plant 2

FA
150
50
30
7.9
150
50
200
20
100

BA
700
22
30
0.7
85
30
125
12
50
Plant 3

FA
150
70
30
18.0
150
71
300
15
610

BA
150
15
20
1.0
70
27
70
7
100
Plant 4

FA
100
20
70
12.0
100
103
700
15
250

BA
100
10
30
1.0
70
45
300
7
85
Plant 5

BA
249
134
32
26.5
341
352
NR
6.0
624

BA
229
62
8.1
5.6
353
150
NR
3.6
10.6
Plant 6

BA
298
207
8.0
25
440
740
NR
39
NR

BA
295
85
6.2
0.08
260
100
NR
20.8
NR
KEY:  FA = Fly Ash
      BA = Bottom Ash

-------
                           Table V-30
            CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED TRACE ELEMENTS
            •*•   IN COAL AND ASH AT PLANT 4710 (19)
                             Element Concentration
Element Coala Bottom ash Inlet fly ashb Outlet
As
Ba
Br
Cd
Ce
Cl
Co
Cr
Cs
Cu
Eu
Ga
Hf
Hg.
La
Mn
Ni
Pb
Rb
Sb
Sc
Se
Sm
Sr
Ta
Tn
U
V
Zn
4
65
3
0
8
914
2
18
1
8
0
4
0
0
3
33
16
4
15
0
2
2
1
23
0
2
2
28
46
.45

.7
.47
.2

.9

.1
.3
*1
.5
.4
.122
.8
.8

.9
.5
.5
,2
.2
.0.

.11
.1
.18
«5

18
500
2
1
84
<100
20
152
7
20
1
5
4
0
42
295
85
6
102
0
20
0
8
170
0
15
14
260
100



.1 .


.8

.7

.1

.6
.028



.2

.64
.8
.08
.2

.95.

.9


110
465
4
8
84
<200
39
300
13
140
1
81
4
0
40
298
207
80
155
12
26
25
10
250
1
20
30
440
740



.0






•3'

.1
.050








.5

.4

.1


                                                       440
                                                       750
                                                        51
                                                       120
                                                        65
                                                       900
                                                        27
                                                          1.3
                                                          5.0
                                                        42
                                                       430
                                                       650
                                                        55
                                                        36
                                                        88
                                                        36
                                                      '•   9
                                                          1.8
                                                        26
                                                      1180
                                                      5900
aMixture of coals from southern Illinois and western Kentucky,
 Ash content 12%.
^Collected tipstream from electrostatic precipitator.
cCollected downstream from electrostatic precipitator.
                                137

-------
Figure V-12 presents the size distribution  curves  for  fly  ash  and
bottom  ash.   The  difference  between  the 50 percent grain sizes of
bottom ash and fly ash is approximately two orders of  magnitude  with
bottom   ash   being   the   larger.   Fly  ash  demonstrates  various
concentrations of trace elements in various size ranges o!f  particles.
More  specifically, there exists an increased concentration trend with
decreasing particle sizes as shown in table V-31.

Those data on  the  composition  of  ash  particles  demonstrate  that
priority  pollutants  are  present  in the dry ashes and therefore can
dissolve into water when ash sluicing  methods  are  used.   The  next
section  addresses  observed  concentrations of these materials in ash
handling waters.  The purpose is to assess the extent to  which  these
materials  enter  the ash sluicing waters and therefore are discharged
from the plants.

Characterization of Ash Pond Overflows.

Data From EPA Regional Offices

Table V-32 is a compilation of data obtained for  ash  pond  overflows
from  various  EPA  regional  offices.   These data summarize ash pond
effluents where the total suspended solids values  are  less  than  30
ppm.  This data was studied to determine whether a correlation existed
between  TSS  values  and the corresponding heavy metal concentrations
(20).  The results from this study of  five  different  metals,  i.e.,
arsenic,  nickel,  zinc,  copper,  and  selenium,  indicated  that  no
correlation existed  between  these  concentrations  and  TSS  values.
Additional  data  on  ash  pond  overflow  are  available  in the 1974
Development Document (1).

Discharge monitoring report  data  for  17  plants  from  various  EPA
regional  offices  have  been  summarized.   Table  V-33  lists metals
concentrations for fly ash ponds, bottom ash ponds, and combined  pond
systems.   These  metal concentrations are discharge values only; they
do  not  reflect  a  net  discharge  based  on  intake  water   metals
concentrations.

Tennessee Valley Authority Data

Combined Ash Ponds.   In  1973,  the  Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
began collecting ash pond effluents and water intake samples quarterly
for trace metals; calcium, chloride, and silica analyses.   A  summary
of  these  data for 1973 through 1975 for plants with combined fly ash
and bottom ash ponds appears in table V-34.  The  complete  data  from
which  the  summary  tables where prepared is presented in Appendix A.
The  summary  consists  of   the   average,   maximum,   and   minimum
concentrations  for  each  element.   The  average  was  calculated by
substituting a value equal to the minimum  quantifiable  concentration
(MQC)  when  the  reported  value  was  less  than the MQC.  Thus, the
average may be biased upward if  there  is  a  significant  number  of
values less than the MQC.  Those elements most likely affected are As,
Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni, and Se.

                                 138

-------
  100
   BO
   eo
   TO
             U. ft. Slondaid Sim Optnlng In
              «   4 9  MJ/2 | V4 I/Z
                   Inch**
             11.8. SlomfarJ SUv* llumbtit
I  *o
ir
   90
  40
   20
              1
                   9/09 4  3  610 1418 203040 BO TO 100 MO ZOO
                                                                                                       M|OO
   900
100   BO
10    0             I    0.5
           Oral* 9li» Mllllmilm
0.1  0.09
0.01  O.009
0.001
Cohkli*
Olov»l
CtOflt | Fin*
Soml
Coafi» 1 Mtdlum 1 Fin*
SHI or Clotf
                                                  Figure V-12
                 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION  CURVES  FOR BOTTOM ASH AND FLY ASH  (19)

-------
                           Table V-31

        ELEMENTS SHOWING PRONOUNCED CONCENTRATION TRENDS
                WITH DECREASING PARTICLE SIZE (19)

                  (ppm unless otherwise noted)
Particle
Diameter
(mm) Pb
A. Fly
1 .
74
44-74
2.
40
30-40
20-30
15-20
10-15
5-10
5
Tl
Ash Retained in
Sb
Plant
Cd

Se

As

Ni

Cr

Zn

Sieved fractions
140
160
7
9
Aerodynamically
90
300
430
520
430
820
980
5
5
9
12
15
20
45
1.5
7
sized
8
9
8
19
12
25
31
10
10
12
20
180
500
100
140
100
90
500
411
fractions
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
30
30
50
50
120
160
200
300
400
800
370
300
130
160
200
210
230
260
70
140
150
170
170
160
130
730
570
480
720
770
1100
1400
B.
        Analytical method*
Airborne Fly Ash
1.  Data
11.3
7.3-11.3
4.7-7.3
3.3-4.7
2.1-3.3
1.1-2.1
0.65-1 .1
1100
1200
1500
1550
1500
1600
* * *
29
40
62
67
65
76
* *
17
27
34
34
37
53
* *
13
15
18
22
26
35
• *
13
11
16
16
19
59
» *
680
800
1000
900
1200
1700
* «
                                                 460   740
                                                 400   290
                                                 440   460
                                                 540   470
                                                 900  1500
                                                1600  3300
    2.  Analytical method*

               d     a     a
                                                         8100
                                                         9000
                                                         6600
                                                         3800
                                                        15000
                                                        13000
* - (a)  DC arc emission spectrometry.
    (b)  Atomic absorption spectrometry.
    (c)  X-ray fluorescence spectrometry,
    (d)  Spark source mass spectromety.
                               140

-------
                      Table V-32

   CHARACTERISTICS OF ASH POND OVERFLOWS WITH TOTAL
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS LESS THAN 30 mg/1 (19)

                        (mg/1)
Plant
Code
3711
3708
4234
0512
1226
3713
3701
2105
2102
3805
2103
* c -
o -
g -
Capacity
(MH)
781
466
598
1,341
1,229
2,000
421
511
132
660
694
coal
oil
gas
Fuel*
c/o
c/o
c/0
c
c/E
C/O
c/o
c
c/o
c
c


No. of
Samples
18
6
1
7
22
9
3
5
2
1
3


TSS
24.5
14.7
6.0
16.5
9.4
5.2
18.0
4.4
10.9
15
20


Fe
0.36
0.12
0-38
0.63
0.92
0.20
0.47
0.11
0.2
-
0.52

Cu Cd
0.1 0.02
0.1 0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.1 .02
0.05 0.01
0.006 0
0.009
0.11 0.002
0.15

Ni
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.01
-
0.1
0.05
0.0004
0.0045
-
0.005

As
0.06
0.14
0.011
0.19
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.21

H>
O.I
0.1
0.05
0.14
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.004
0.04
0.01
0.007

"g
0.002
0.003

0.001
0.0006
0.002
0.001
0
0.0004
0.0001
0.0001

Zn
0.14
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.005
0.06
0.04
0.02

Se
0.007
0.005
-
0.011
-
0.03
0.10
0.004
0.018
-
0.01

P Cr
0.05
0.05

0.01
0.10 0.01
0.05
0.05
0.004
0.003
0.02
0.005

Oil &
Grease
0.23
0.16
1 .71
4.0
1.2
0.17
1.0
1.3
0.26
-
0.79


-------
                           Table V-33
             SUMMARY OF ASH POND OVERFLOW DATA FROM >
                   DISCHARGE MONITORING         (21)
                              (ppb)
Trace
Metal Fly
Ash
Ponds1

Mln. Max. Ave.
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Zn
10
3.5
5
20
1055
10
0.1
33
2
50
66
26
15
209
8138
200
1
100
7
1139
29
.9 11
.2 10
84
4011
59
.8 0
61
.8 4
358
.2
.8
.2
.8

.4
.6
.1
.4
.4
Bottom
Min.
7
2
4
5
657 1
10
0.4
13.3
2
10
Ash
Ponds2
Combined Ponds 3
Max . Ave .
70
16
41
70
0950
60
1
1345
10
302
21
.3 9
.7 15
36
3410
25
.7 0
191
6
131
.1
.7
.6
.9

.5
.8
.4
.7
.9
Min. Max.
3.5
0
2.5
0
80
0
0
0
1 .7
10
416
82
84.2
130
2600
100
65
100
68.3
293
Ave
67'
18.7
30.4
59
664.6
40.1
3.9
49
23.6
94.9
Data for 4 facilities
     for 9 facilities
     for 20 facilities
                              142

-------
                          Table V-34

SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TVA TRACE METAL  DATA FOR ASH POND INTAKE
                   AND EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)

Aluminum
Ammonia as N
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
I-* Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel

EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
Minimum
0.3
0.6
0.02
0.03
<0.005
<0.005
8:!

-------
                    Table V-34 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY T?A TRACE METAL DATA FOR ASH POND INTAKE
                   AND EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)

Selenium
Silica
Silver
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
SulCate
Zinc
Mlniraun
EFF <0.001
RH <0.001
EFF 4.7
RH 5.5
EFF <0 .01
RH <0.01
EFF 260
RU 160
EFF 3
RW 11
EFF 110
RU 0.07
EFF 0.02
RH 0.03
Plant C
Average
0.010
0.002
7.4
6.1
0.01
0.01
345
205
18
46
158
23
0.13
0.08
Plant F
Minimum Average
Aluminum
Ammonia as N
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
EFF 0.8
RH <0.1
EFF 0.03
RU 0.02
EFF <0.005
RH <0.005
EFF <0.1
RH <0.1
EFF <0.01
RU <0.01
EFF <0,001
RU <0.001
EFF 67 '
RU 19
EFF 4
RU 3
1.7
1.4
0.17
0.08
0.008
<0.005
0.2
0.1
<0.01
<0.0t
0.001
0.001
107
27
5
4
Maximum
0.080
0.004
11
7.9
0.03
<0.01
460
240
37
150
200
52
0.27
0.13
Maximum
3.1
3.6
.42
0.26
0.040
<0.005
0.3
0.1

-------
                                         Table V-34   (Continued)

                  SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY  TVA TRACE  METAL  DATA  FOR ASH POND INTAKE
                                        AND EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)
                            Plant F
                     Minimum Average Maximum
       Plant G
Minimum  Average  Maximum
       Plant H
Minimum  Average  Maximum
     Plant I South
Minimum Average  Maximum
Ui
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Icon
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silica
Silver
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Sulfate
Zinc
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RW
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.10

-------
                                   Table V-34 (Continued)
OV

Aluminum
Ammonia as H
Araenlc
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel

EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RW
EFF
RH
Hinitaua
0.4
0.3
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.005
8:!
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
20
4
2
2
<0.005
<0.005
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
0.26
<0.010
<0.010
3.9
1.2
0.05
0.03
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.05
Plant J
Average
2.6
0.7
0.05
0.04
0.041
0.018
0.2
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
0.001
0.001
34
15
5
2
0.005
0.005
0.11
0.08
<0.01
2.4
0.7
0.015
0.010
6.7
4.5
- 0.38
0.07
0.0003
0.0003
0.05
<0.05
Haxinum
7.6
1.4
0.08
0.23
0.130
0.110
0.3
0.4
<0.01
<0.01
0.002
0.002
57
30
21
4
0.007
0.006
0.73
0.13
<0.01
9.4
1.2
0.038
0.018
9.3
8.3
0.79
0.18
0.0008
0.0009
0.08
<0.05
Hinlraum
0.5
0.6
0.02
0.04
0.005
0.005
8:!
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
44
12
6
4
<0.005
<0.005
0.01
<0.01
<0.0)
0.11
0.66
0.010
0.01
0.4
2.5
0.01
0.07
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.05
Plane K
Average
1.8
2.0
0.06
0.09
6.033
0.009
0.2
0.1
<0.01
<0.01
0.001
<0.001
76
20
10
7
0.019
0.009
0.05
0.07
<0.01
0.39
1.9
0.017
0.01
1.6
4.3
0.02
0.10
0.0003
<0.0002
0.06
<0.05
Maximum
3.1
3.4
0.16
0.24
0.100
0.024
0.3
0.3
<0.01
<0.01
0.002
<0.001
130
28
19
10
0.036
0.027
0.10
0.12
<0.0t
1.2
3.3
0.048
0.03
3.6
6.9
0.04
0.18
0.0008
<0.0002
0.22
<0.05
Minimum
1.3
0.3
0.06
0.04
<0.005
<0.005
8:i
<0.01
<0.01

-------
                           Table V-34  (Continued)

  SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TVA TRACE  METAL  DATA  FOR  ASH  POND INTAKE
                          AND EFFLUENT STREAMS  (22)
                       Plant J
               Minimum  Average  Maximum
        Plane K                  Plant L
Minimum  Average  Maximum  Minimum  Average  Maximum
Selenium

Silica

Silver

Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Sulfate

Zinc

EFF
RH
EFF
RH
EFF
RH
EFF
RH
EFF
RW
EFF
RW
EFF
RW
<0.001
xo.oot
3.5
1.0
<0.01
<0.01
140
30
1
5
56
9
0.02
0.03
0.004
0.003
6.4
3.9
<0.01
<0.01
202
89
15
13
119
22
0.07
0.06
0.008
0.008
8.7
5.0
<0.01
<0.01
250
210
81
35
180
80
0.25
0.09
<0.002
<0.001
4.0
2.5
<0.01
<0.01
180
80
3
17
54
12
0.01
0.04
0.010
0.002
6.7
4.6
<0.01
<0.01
240
106
8
29
83
20
0.05
0.07
0.016
0.002
8.8
5,9
<0.01
<0.01
310
150
26
60
110
31
0.11
0.11
0.002
<0.001
4.5
3.6
<0.01
<0.01
140
70
3
4
6
9
0.02
0.03
0.010
0.002
5.7
5,t
<0.01
<0.01
211
88
12
14
80
!3
0.04
0.06
0.020
0.002
9.1
5.8
<0.01
<0.01
260
100
50
43
110
16
0.06
0.09
HOTEs  Effluent data based on years 1973-1975
      Raw water intake data based on years 1974 and 1975

KE¥t   EFF - effluent
      RH  - raw water (Intakes)

-------
The  average concentrations of calcium, chloride, iron, magnesium, and
manganese varied considerably from one effluent to another, while  the
average  concentrations  of  aluminum,  arsenic,  silica,  and sulfate
varied only slightly.  The average concentrations of barium,  cadmium,
chromium,  copper,  lead,  mercury,  nickel,  selenium, ""and zinc were
approximately the same in all the ash pond  effluents.   The  combined
ash  pond  effluent at Plant D had a considerably higher concentration
of selenium (70 ppb) than the rest of the  effluents,  while  the  ash
pond  effluent from Plant H had a considerably higher concentration of
arsenic (123 ppb) than the others.  The plants, other  than  Plant  H,
had less than 50 ppb arsenic in the effluents.

TVA  statistically  compared the intake water characteristics to those
of the effluents for Plants E, G, H, and J.  Of particular  importance
was  the  evaluation  of  a  potential  relationship  between priority
pollutants (metals) and suspended solids.   Essentially no correlation
existed between suspended solids in the ash pond effluent  and   intake
water quality characteristics.

Relationships  between  the  ash pond effluent and the plant operating
conditions were also studied by TVA.  Table V-35 provides a summary of
the TVA plant operating conditions during collection of the  ash  pond
effluent  data.   No bottom ash characteristic data were available for
this study.  Statistical correlations of the data show the pH  of  the
ash  pond  effluent is influenced mainly by the calcium content  of the
fly ash and by the sulfur content-of the coal.   As  the  percent  CaO
goes  up,  the  alkalinity  of  the  ash pond effluent increases.  The
number of ash ponds in which the average concentration of  each  trace
element  shows  a  net  increase  from  the  ash  pond influent  to the
overflow is presented in table V-36.  More than half of the ash  ponds
increase  the  concentrations  of Al, NH3, As, Ba, Cd, Ca, Cl, Cr, Pb,
Hg, Ni, Se, Si, SO4 and Zn over that of the intake  water.   According
to  studies  completed  by  TVA  (22),  the range over which the trace
metals vary in the ash pond  effluent  appeared  to  be  as  great  or
greater than that in the intake water.

Separate Bottom Ash and Fly Ash Ponds.    Certain   utilities  utilize
separate fly ash and bottom ash ponds for handling the sluice water in.
their ash pond effluent systems.  Table V-37 provides  both  ash  pond
effluent  and raw water trace element and solids data for the separate
fly ash and bottom ash ponds for .two TVA plants.   The  complete  data
from  which the summary table was prepared is presented in Appendix A.
Most of the elements appeared in greater concentrations in the fly ash
effluent than in the bottom ash effluent for Plant A.  On the average,
the concentrations observed in Plant A fly ash effluents are at  least
several times as great as the observed bottom ash concentrations.  For
Plant  B,  the  fly  ash  and  bottom  ash effluent concentrations are
approximately equal.  Comparison of ash effluent concentrations  to the
raw water concentrations for Plant  A  reveals  that  the  bottom  ash
concentrations    are   approximately   equal   to   the   raw   water
concentrations.  The Plant A fly ash concentrations  generally   exceed
the  raw  water  concentrations.   For Plant B, the bottom ash and fly
ash  effluent  concentrations   generally   exceed   the   raw   water

                                148

-------
                                                 Table  V.-35
             SUMMARY  OF PLANT OPE1ATIOM CONDITIONS AND  ASH  CHAMCTERISTICS
                                OF TVA  COAL-FIRED  POWER PLANTS (22)
Paraneters
Method of Firing
Coal Source M.
, Ash Content in Coal, X
* Fly Aah of Total Ash, X
Botcoa Ash of Total Ash, %
Sulfur Content In Coal, %
Coal Usage at Full Load
(tons/day)
Number of Unit a
ESP Efficiency, %
Mechanical Ash Collector
Efficiency, Z
Overall Efficiency, %
Sluice Hater to Ash Ratio
(gal/ ton)
pll of Intake Hater
Suspended Solids Concentration
of Intake Hater (rag/1)
Alkalinity of Intake Water
(»e/l «a CaC03)
Z 3102 In Fly Ash
I CaO In Fly Aah
I Fe203 in Fly Ash
X Al2«3 in Fly Ash
X lljO in fly Asii
I S03 In Fly Ash
I Holstuve In Fly Ash
pli of Fly Ash
Ash Pond Effluent
Ash Fond Effluent Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
Plant C
Cyclone
Kentucky
11
30
70
3.0
7848
3
-
90-99
-
23065
7.*
81
S3
47.6
1.72
11.3
22.7
0.93
2.2
1.04
2.9
2.1
30
Plant D
Tangential
E. Kentucky
15.5
75
25
1.2
8420
1
99
~
99
10770
7.5
15
95
HA
HA
NA
HA
HA
HA
NA
HA
8.4
19
Plant E
Cl rcular
Wall Burner
H. Kentucky H.
S.
15.J
67
33
4.1
12897
5
74
80
95
9585
7.0
17
53
46,9
4.66
14.9
18.6
1.33
1.5
0.32
11.8
11.1
<10
Plant F
Opposed
Kentucky
Illinois
16.3
80
20
3.7
24525
: - 2 ' '
99
-
-
19490
7.4
24
69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.1
10 '
Plant G
Tangential
N. Kentucky
isi.7
80
20
3.5
10503
4
60
—
98-99
12345
7.3
12
63
53.7
2.36
9.6
26.4
1.12
1.09
-0.37
4.5
9.5
20
Plant H
Tangentla
Virginia
E. Kentucl
E. Tennesi
15
67
33
1.8
8057
•• -4
-
-
99
11425
7.0
21
73
52.5
2.19
10.2
25.5
1.42
1.9
0.63
3.6
8.7
19
                                                                                Plant I
                                                                                Circular
                                                                               Hall Bitruar
                                                                                  14
                                                                                  70
                                                                                  30
                                                                                   3.7
                                                                                14460

                                                                                  10
                                                                                  75
                                                                                  75.5
                                                                                42430

                                                                                   7.4
                                                                                  15

                                                                                  58

                                                                                  58.7
                                                                                   3.17
                                                                                  10.7
                                                                                  23.9
                                                                                   1.24
                                                                                   1.2
                                                                                   0.22
                                                                                   4.6
                                                                                  11.0
                                                                                  19
Plant J
Tangential
E. Kentucky
E. Tennessee
19.1
75
25
2.1
16193
9
70
95
98
9520
7.6
15
55
50,4
1.92
11.6
25.2
1.29
0.54
0.21 '
4.0
7,5
25
Plant K
Circular
Sail Burner
S. Illinois
M. Kentucky
15.6
75
25
2.8
15304
10
60
95
98
17265
7.6
38
66
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.8
17
Plant L
Clrculai
Wall Bun
U. Kentm
N. Alabat
16
75
„ 25
2.8
17691
8
60
99
70
15370
7.5
6
63
45.3
4.91
17.0
27.0
1.22
1.16
0.87
6.5
10.1
15
NOTE: Intake water characteristics based on 1974 and 1975 weekly samples.
     Ash pond effluent characteristics based on 1970-1975 weekly samples.
     All plants, use combined fly ash/bottom ash ponds.

-------
                           Table V-36
          NUMBER OF ASH PONDS IN WHICH AVERAGE EFFLUENT
        CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED TRACE ELEMENTS EXCEED
                  THOSE OF THE INTAKE WATER (22)
            Element
            Aluminum
            Ammonia
            Arsenic
            Barium
            Beryllium
            Cadmium
            Calcium
            Chloride
            Chromium
            Copper
            Cyanide
            Iron
            Lead
            Magnesium
            Manganese
            Mercury
            Nickel
            Selenium
            Silica
            Silver
            Sulfate
            Zinc
No« Exceeding
     10
      9
     15
      7
      1
      7
     15
      8
     10
      5
      3
      4
      8
      6
      5
     12
     10
     14
     12
      2
     15
      7
NOTE:  The total number of ash ponds is 15.
                               150

-------
                          Table V-37

SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TRACE METAL DATA FOR ASH POND INTAKE AND
                     EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)

Aluminum
Ammonia as N
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium

EFF
RH
EFF
RH
EFF
RW
EFF
RW
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
IFF
RU
EFF
RU
Minimum
0.5
0.5
0.04
0.02

-------
                                           Table V-37  (Continued)

                  SUMMARY  OF QUARTERLY TRACE METAL DATA  FOR ASH  POND INTAKE AND
                                            EFFLUENT STREAMS  (22)
Ui
                             Plant A
                            Sotton Ash
                     Minimum  Average Maximum
                                          Plant A
                                          Fly Ash
                                  Minimum  Average Maximum
        Plant B
       Bottom Ash
Hlnintun  Average  Maximum
        Plant B
        Fly Ash
Minimum  Average
Maximum
Silica
Silver
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Sulfate
Zinc
EFF
RH
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RU
EFF
RH
EFF
RH
5.6
1.7
<0.01
<0.01
140
120
5
14
23
6
0.02
0.06
7.4
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
185
154
52
60
45
21
0.08
0.09
9.3
8.0
<0.01
<0.01
260
200
200
190
80
30
0.16
0.14
9.3
1.7
<0.01
<0,0»
470
120
1
14
240
6
0.82
0.06
13
5.6
<0.01
<0.01
593
154
6
60
346
21
1.4
0.09
20
8.0
<0.01
<0.01
700
200
17
190
440
30
2.7
0.14
3.7
3.2
<0.01
0.01
110
90
2
8
20
9
0.02
0.01
6.4
5.4
<0.01
0.02
229
93
23
It
102
12
0.13
0.02
22
7.2
<0.01
0.05
710
100
78
14
470
18
0.55
0.04
3.1
3.2
<0.01
0.01
40
90
2
8
17
9
0.01
0.01
7.1
5.4

-------
concentrations.    In   both   plants,   iron   was  found   in  higher
concentrations in the bottom ash than the fly ash.  Selenium, mercury,
and cyanide were found in very low concentrations.  Arsenic  was  below
0.05  mg/1  in  all  four ponds.  In both plants, the dissolved solids
were higher in the fly ash  ponds  while  the  suspended  solids  were
higher in the bottom ash ponds.

Table  V-38  provides  plant operating  information for Plants A and B.
Plant A has a cyclone furnace that produces approximately  70  percent
bottom  ash and 30 percent fly ash, while Plant B has pulverized coal-
fired boilers which produce 50 percent  bottom ash and 50  percent  fly
ash.

NUS Corporation Data.   Table  V-39 provides trace element information
for separate fly ash and bottom ash ponds.  These data  were compiled
by  NUS Corporation  (23).  Nickel and manganese was evenly distributed
between both types of ash ponds; zinc was slightly higher in the  fly
ash  ponds;  copper  was slightly higher in the bottom ash ponds.  The
fly ash pond of southeastern Ohio was the only pond that  demonstrated
arsenic levels which exceeded 50 ppb.

Sampling Program Results

Screening Phase.   The  purpose of the  screening phase of the sampling
program was to identify the pollutants  in the discharge streams.   The
screening  phase for the ash transport  stream included the sampling of
five ash pond overflows.  Table V-40 presents the  analytical  results
for sampling for the 129 priority pollutants.

Verification Phase.   The  verification phase involved the sampling of
nine facilities for  ash  pond  overflow  to  further  quantify  those
effluent  species  identified   in  the  screening  program.   The data
reported as a result of this effort are summarized in table  V-41.  One
of the plants  (1226) was sampled by two laboratories and both sets  of
results are reported.

Arsenic Levels

Table V-42 presents  data for plants in  which arsenic concentrations  in
the  ash  pond  discharge  streams  exceed  the  Interim Drinking Water
Standard of 50 ppb.  The maximum arsenic level  is  416 ppb.   Other data
concerning arsenic levels in ash pond effluents  are given in table  V-
43.   Two plants exceed the 50  ppb level.   Intake  water concentrations
for arsenic  are  provided  in  tables  V-40,  V-41,  and  'V-43.   The
increases  in  arsenic  concentrations, from the plant  intake water  to
the ash pond overflow, range from no  increase at all for a   number  of
plants  to a 300 ppb increase  for plant 2603 in  Table V-41.   The range
of arsenic levels  in ash pond  effluents is  from  less than 1  ppb to 416
ppb.
                                 153

-------
                           Table V-38
          SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS AND ASH
         CHARACTERISTICS OF TVA COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
    Parameters
Method of Firing

Coal Source
Ash Content in Coal, %
Fly Ash of Total Ash, %
Bottom Ash of Total Ash, "k
Sulfur Content in Coal, %
Coal Usage at Full Load (tons/day)
Number of Units
ESP Efficiency, %
Mechanical Ash Collector Efficiency,
Overall Efficiency, %
Sluice Water to Ash Ratio (gal/ton)

pH of Intake Water
Suspended Solids Concentration of
    Intake Water (mg/1)
Alkalinity of Intake Water
    (mg/1 as CaCOs)
% Si02 in Fly Ash
% CaO in Fly Ash
% Fe£03 in Fly Ash
% A1203 in Fly Ash
% MgO in Fly Ash
   Plant A
   Cyclone

W. Kentucky
     18.8
     30
     70
      4.1
  22901
      3
     97
   Plant B
   Circular
Wall Burners
 W. Kentucky
      14.8
    ,  5.0
      50

    3314 '
       4
98
98
12380f
981 Ob
7.7
60
-
-
7.5
41
      56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
                               154

-------
                     JTable V-38 (Continued)


          SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS AND ASH

         CHARACTERISTICS OF TVA COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
    Parameters                          Plant A        Plant B


Ash Pond Effluent pH     '                  4.4f          9.8f
                                           7.2b          8.0b
Ash Pond Effluent Suspended Solids        25f           85f
    (tng/1)                                55b           64b
     Ash Pond Only

bBottom Ash Pond Only

NOTE:  Intake water characteristics based on 1974 and  1975
       weekly samples.  Ash pond effluent characteristics
       based on 1970-1075 weekly samples.
                               155

-------
                                    Table V-39

                ASH POND EFFLUENT TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS* (23)

Station Location
Western W. Virginia
Eastern Ohio
Southern Ohio
Eastern Michigan
Southeast Michigan
i— i
i
Ui
cy> , Southeast Ohio
Eastern Missouri
Central Utah
Western W. Virginia
Southern Ohio

Ash Pond Type
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Fly
Fly
Bottom
Bottom
Ply
Fly
(PPb)
Arsenic
<5
7
<5
30
40
200
20
<5
8
10

Copper
<1
10
60
<1
<1
6
3
6
5
4

Nickel
11
30
30
20
20
30
20
1
30
<1

Zinc
10
90
40
270
240
50
50
5
40
. 80

Manganese
130
300
180
70
5
4
240
5
550
10
*Minimum Quantifiable Concentrations/Arsenic (5 ppb), Copper  (1 ppb), Nickel
 (1 ppb), Zinc (1 ppb), Manganese (1 ppb).

-------
                            Table V-40

               SCREENING DATA FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code      Pollutant
4222      Methylene Chloride
(Combin-  Trichlorofluoromethane
ed Fly    Phenol
Ash and   Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Bottom    Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Ash)      Toluene
          Methylene Chloride
          Antimony, Total
          Arsenic, Total
          Beryllium, Total
          Chromium, Total
          Copper, Total
          Mercury, Total
          Nickel, Total
          Selenium, Total
          Zinc, Total
2414      Benzene
(Combin-  Chloroform
ed Fly    Methylene Chloride
Ash and   Phenol
Bottom    Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Ash)      Diethyl Phthalate
          Toluene
          Gis 1,2-Dichloroethylene
          1,1,1-Trichloroethane
          1,4-Dichlorobenzene
          Ethylbenzene
          Arsenic, Total
          Asbestos (fibers/liter)
          Chromium, Total
          Copper, Total
          Cyanide, Total
          Lead, Total
          Mercury, Total
          Nickel, Total
          Selenium, Total
          Silver, Total
          Thallium, Total
          .Zinc, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
12
ND<1/1
2/<100
2
1
3/2
8
<5
<5
^ <5
<5
16
0.26
6
<5
14
6/13
2
4/1
45/<100
12
3
21/1
ND<1/15
ND < 1
ND < 1
1
5
28,400
<5
21
<20
7
0.88
8
15
45
6
<5
Discharge
27
6/ND<1
1/260
1
1
3/4
18
29
160
20
11
6
0.2.1
8
32
10
3/2
ND < 1
ND<1/2
NDO/31
40
ND < 1
11/70
30/ND<1
1
1
2
50
0
14
66
80
8
0.63
144
22
52
8
41
                                157

-------
                      Table V-40  (Continued)

               SCREENING DATA FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code      Pollutant
3805      Benzene
(Combin-  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ed Fly    Chloroform
Ash and   1,1-Dichloroethylene
Bottom    Ethylbenzene
Ash)      Methylene Chloride
          Trichlorofluoromethane
          Phenol
          Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
          Tetrachloroethylene
          Toluene
          Trichloroethylene
          Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene
          Chromium, Total
          Copper, Total
          Lead, Total
          Mercury, Total
          Selenium, Total
          Silver, Total
          Zinc, Total
3404      Benzene
(Bottom   Chloroform
Ash)      1,1-Dichloroethylene
          Methylene Chloride
          Phenol
          Bis(Z-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
          Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
          Toluene
          Antimony, Total
          Arsenic, Total
          Cadmium, Total
          Chromium, Total
          Copper, Total
          Lead, Total
          Mercury, Total
          Nickel, Total
          Selenium, Total
          Silver, Total
          Zinc, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
1/6

1/3
ND

22/1


ND <

42/1










3/1
1/1
20/1
ND<1


3/3












2

20
0
40
2
1
1
4
2
3
39
6
19
0.23
11
12
5
1



/36
11
4

11
<5
15
16
25
5
0.34
21
55
40
<5
Discharge
ND<1/2
ND < 1
2/4
ND < 1
8/15
1
3
6
ND < 1
4/6
ND < 1
ND < 1
<5
5
<5
0.32
<5
<5
5
1
NDO/1
1/NIX1
4/ND<1
1/20
9
1
3/2
12
14
13
20
29
5
0.32
33
42
19
8
                                158

-------
                      Table V-40  (Continued)

               SCREENING DATA FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code      Pollutant                     Cone en t r a t ion  <| ppb)
    "                 '                 Intake      Discharge

2512      Benzene                      NIK 1/1      1/ND<1
(Fly Ash) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane        ND<1/ND<1   2/3
          Chloroform                   2/3         1/ND<1
          1,1-Dichloroethylene         1/2         ND<1/2
          Ethylbenzene                 ND<1/1      1/ND<1
          Methylene Chloride           23/12       35/5
          Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate        1          27
          Di-N-Butyl Phthalate         ND < 1            1
          Toluene                      2/7         4/3
          1,4-Dichlorobenzene                7     ND < 1
          Antimony, Total                   <5           5
          Arsenic, Total               .      6           7
          Copper, Total                     22          14
          Lead,  Total                       <5          12
          Mercury, Total                     0.21        0.22
          Nickel, Total                      7       1,500
          Selenium, Total        ,           35          32
          Zinc,  Total                       <5          17
                                159

-------
                                                   Table V-41

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
           Pollutant
 1742        Cadmium,  Total  (Dissolved)
 (Combined   Chromium,  Total (Dissolved)
 Fly Ash    Copper, Total  (Dissolved)
 and Bot-    Lead,  Total  (Dissolved)
 torn Ash    Mercury,  Total  (Dissolved)
 Pond)       Nickel, Total  (Dissolved)
            Zinc,  Total  (Dissolved)
            Total  Dissolved Solids
            Total  Suspended Solids
r_i          Total  Organic Carbon
^          Aluminum,  Total
            Barium, Total  (Dissolved)
            Boron, Total (Dissolved)
            Calcium,  Total  (Dissolved)
            Cobalt, Total  (Dissolved)
            Manganese, Total (Dissolved)
            Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
            Molybdenum,  Total (Dissolved)
            Phenolics, 4AAP
            Sodium, Total  (Dissolved)
            Tin, Total (Dissolved)
            Titanium,  Total
            Iron,  Total
            Vanadium,  Total (Dissolved)
            Silver (Dissolved)
Concentration (ppb)
                                                  Intake

                                                          40(5)
                                                  24/20*(ND/30)*
                                                  2l/20*(ND/9)*
                                                  9/ND<20*(ND/90)*
                                                  ND < 0.5
                                                  17/ND<5*(ND/40)*
                                                  ND/70*(30/ND<60)*
                                                     340,000
                                                     100,000
                                                      10,000
                                                       2,000
                                                          60(30)
                                                          90(200)
                                                      51,000(44,000)
                                                          10(7)
                                                         200(10)
                                                      23,000(22,000)
                                                           9(40)
                                                           6
                                                      21,000(20,000)
                                                          30(60)
                                                          40
                                                       4,000
                                                  ND/ND<10*(ND/20)
                                                  (ND/10)*
                Discharge

                        10(9)
                23/2000*(ND/30)*
                106/50*(54/7)*
                9/ND<20*(3/100)*
                         1.5(1)
                39/900*(1/40)
                ND/ND<60*(20/ND<60)*
                   370,000
                    15,000
                   150,000
                ND < 50
                        50(50)
                       200(400)
                    51,000(53,000)
                        50(10)
                       300(ND<5)
                    20,000(22,000)
                        50(50)
                        12
                    26,000(25,000)
                        30(60)
                ND < 20
                     8,000
                ND/20*(ND/30)*
                (ND/10)*
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs*
OValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-41 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
           Pollutant
1741       Cadmium, Total (Dissolved)
(Bottom    Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Ash)       Copper, Total (Dissolved)
           Lead, Total (Dissolved)
           Mercury, Total
           Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
           Zinc, Total (Dissolved)
           Total Dissolved Solids
           Total Suspended Solids
i—          Total Organic Carbon
2          Aluminum, Total
           Barium, Total (Dissolved)
           Boron, Total (Dissolved)
           Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
           Cobalt, Total (Dissolved)
           Manganese, Total (Dissolved)
           Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
           Molybdenum, Total (Dissolved)
           Phenolics, 4AAP
           Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
           Tin, Total (Dissolved)
           Titanium, Total
           Iron, Total
           Vanadium, Total (Dissolved)
           Beryllium, Dissolved)
           Silver, (Dissolved)
Concentration (ppb)
                                                  Intake

                                                  ND < 2(3)
                                                  ND/4,000*(ND/20)*
                                                  ND/90*(ND/9)*
                                                  ND/20*(ND/100)*
                                                  ND
                                                  ND/2000*(ND/20)*
                                                  ND/ND<60*(20/ND<60)*
                                                     130,000
                                                      10,000
                                                       5,000
                                                         200
                                                          30(30)
                                                          70(ND<50)
                                                      10,000(13,000)
                                                          40(6)
                                                         800(ND<5)
                                                       9,800(5,100)
                                                          60(30)
                                                  ND
                                                  D<15,000(D<15,000)
                                                  ND < 5(30)
                                                          30
                                                      20,000
                                                  ND/10(ND<10/ND)*
                                                  (3)
                                                  (ND/6)*
                Discharge

                         10(8)
                9/ND<5*(ND/20)*
                35/10*(13/7)*
                14/ND<20*(ND<4/100)*
                         1
                15/ND<5*(ND/50)*
                ND/70*(ND/100)*
                     4,000
                   160,000
                    17,000
                ND < 50
                        60(60)
                        80(100)
                    21,000(24,000)
                ND < 5 (8)
                       100(700)
                     5,600(5,800)
                         8(30)
                        11
                D<15,000(D<15,OQO)
                        20(20)
                ND < 30
                       200
                ND/ND<10(ND/10)
                (2)
                (ND/9)*
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-41 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH FOND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code
1741
(Fly
Ash)
Pollutant
Cadmium, Total (Dissolved)
Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Lead, Total (Dissolved)
Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
Zinc, Total (Disslved)
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Barium, Total (Dissolved)
Boron, Total (Dissolved)
Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
Cobalt, Total (Dissolved)
Manganese, Total (Dissolved)
Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
Molybdenum, Total (Dissolved)
Phenolics, 4AAP
Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
Tin, Total (Dissolved)
Titanium, Total
Iron, Total
Beryllium, (Dissolved)
Silver (Dissolved)
Vanadium (Dissolved)
Yttrium (Dissolved)
Concentration (ppb)
                                                  Intaket
                Discharge

                        90(70)
                12/6*(ND/20)*
                15/9*(4/7)*
                120/ND<20*(6/80)*
                100/50*(58/90)*
                1400/1000*(ND/1000)*
                   790,000
                     6,000
                    18,000
                       100(100)
                     3,000(5,000)
                   140,000(160,000)
                        10(20)
                     1,000(1000)
                     9,500(10,000)
                       200(300)
                         9
                D<15,000(D<15,000)
                        30(20)
                        20
                       900
                         2
                (ND/10)*
                (8D/20)*
                (40)
tSame intake as for Plant 1741, Bottom Ash Pond.
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-41 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code       Pollutant
1226       Antimony, Total
(Combined  Arsenic, Total
Fly Ash    Cadmium, Total
and Bot-   Chromium, Total
torn Ash    Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Pond)      Lead,  Total (Dissolved)
           Mercury, Total
           Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
           Selenium, Total
 M         Silver, Total
 P^         Zinc,  Total (Dissolved)
           Total  Dissolved Solids
           Total  Suspended Solids
           Aluminum, Total (Dissolved)
           Barium, Total (Dissolved)
           Boron,  Total (Dissolved)
           Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
           Cobalt, Total
           Manganese, Total (Dissolved)
           Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
           Molybdenum, Total (Dissolved)
           Phenolics, 4AAP
           Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
           Titanium, Total
           Iron,  Total (Dissolved)
           Vanadium, Total (Dissolved)
                                                           Concentration (ppb)
                                                  Intake

                                                  ND/7*
                                                  ND/3*
                                                  2.1/ND<2*
                                                  ND/7/7*
                                                  10/12/10*(10)
                                                  12/10/ND<20*(7/ND<20)*
                                                  ND<1/0.5*
                                                  27/1.5/ND<5*(29/ND<5)*
                                                  ND/ND<2*
                                                  ND/1.5/ND<1*
                                                  ND/9/70*(50/ND<60)*
                                                     190,000
                                                      14,000
                                                         700(100)
                                                          20(20)
                                                  ND < 50(70)
                                                       6,900(D<5,000)
                                                           7
                                                         200(200)
                                                       4,500(5,000)
                                                  ND <  5(ND<5)
                                                          12
                                                      33,000(36,000)
                                                          20
                                                       2,000(1,000)
                                                  ND/40/ND<10*(ND/ND<10)*
                                                                           Discharge

                                                                           ND/7*
                                                                           ND/9*
                                                                           2/ND<2*
                                                                           ND/6/10*
                                                                           18/14/10*(13/9)*
                                                                           9/4*(4/ND<20)*
                                                                           ND<0.5/ND<0.2*
                                                                           ND/5.5/5*(ND/ND<5)*
                                                                           ND/8*
                                                                           ND/0.5/ND<1*
                                                                           ND/7/ND<60*(ND/ND<60)*
                                                                            2,350,000
                                                                               12,000
                                                                                  300(500)
                                                                                   60(60)
                                                                                  400(900)
                                                                               34,000(32,000)
                                                                           ND < 5
                                                                                   30(6)
                                                                                7,300(7,500)
                                                                                  100(100)
                                                                                   17
                                                                               66,000(72,000)
                                                                           ND < 20
                                                                                  600(ND<200)
                                                                           ND/78/50*(ND/40)*
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-41 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code       Pollutant                              	Concentration  (ppb)	
                                                  Intake                   Discharge

5409       Benzene                                         2.4                       2
(Fly Ash)  Carbon Tetrachloride                   D < 1                      	
           Chloroform                                      1.4               	
           1,2-Dichlorobenzene                             5.3	
           Ethylbenzene                             	                  D <  1
           Toluene                                         2                         3.5
           Trichloroethylene                      D < 4                      	
           Antimony, Total                                 3                         6
           Beryllium, Total                       ND < 0.5                           2.5
 t-*         Cadmium, Total                                  1.4                       1.0
 f.         Chromium, Total                        ND < 2                             4
           Copper, Total                                  27                       80
           Cyanide, Totl                              15,000                       22
           Lead, Total                                     8               ND < 3
           Nickel, Total                                   1.7                       9.5
           Selenium, Total                                 2.0                       3.0
           Silver, Total                                   1.6                       5.5
           Thallium, Total                                 1               ND < 1
           Zinc, Total                                    15                      300
           Total Suspended Solids                          5                    15,000
           Total Organic Carbon                   D < 20,000                    7,600
           Chloride                                 	                       37,000
           Vanadium, Total                                13                       27
           1,3 and 1,4-Dichlorobenzene                     2.4                       2.4

*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-41  (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM TEE VERIFICATION  PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS  FOE ASH  POND OVERFLOW
2603
(Combined
Fly Ash
and Bot-
tom Ash
Pond)
 cr>
 ui
           Pollutant
Benzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol (GC/MS)
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Total Organic Carbon
Aluminum, Total
                                                Concentration (ppb)
Intake
» < 10
D < 10
ND
ND
D < 10
ND/9*
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
50
ND
D < 10
ND < 2
ND < 20
ND < 2
10
22
07
*£.
8
ND < 2
ND < 1
88
292,000
	 	
	
9,000
497
Discharge
» < 10
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
10
ND/4*
D < 10
ND
D < 10
10
D < 10
ND
10
300
3
12
10


10
13
4
ND < 60
455,000
D < 5000
1,000
6,000
131
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues in parentheses Indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V~41 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OP DATA. FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code
Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
2603       Barium, Total
(Cont'd)   Boron, Total
           Calcium, Total
           Manganese, Total
           Magnesium, Total
           Molybdenum, Total
           Sodium, Total
           Tin, Total
           Titanium, Total
           Iron, Total
           Vanadium, Total

5604       Benzene
(Combined  Ethylbenzene
Fly Ash)   Toluene
           Antimony, Total
           Beryllium, Total
           Cadmium, Total
           Chromium, Total
           Copper, Total
           Cyanide, Total
           Lead, Total
           Mercury, Total
           Nickel, Total
           Silver, Total
           Zinc, Total
           Total Suspended Solids
           Total Organic Carbon
           Chloride
           Vanadium, Total

*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake

ND



ND




—




ND
ND
ND



ND
ND
ND

-



17
< 50
48,700
65
15,300
< 5
23,600
36
18
842
	
1.2
	
9.1
4
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 2
700
4
6
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 3
53
	
5,500
14,000
11
Discharge
92
209
62,100
10
15,500
143
32,000
36
ND < 15
170
22
2.0
D < 1
3.5
6
2.5
1.0
4
80
22
ND < 3
0.2
9.5
5.5
300
15,000
7,600
37.000
27

-------
                                             Table V-41 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA PROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code
3920
(Ply Ash)
 01
Pollutant
Beryllium, Total (Dissolved)
Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Lead, Total (Dissolved)
Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
Zinc, Total (Dissolved)
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Aluminum, Total (Dissolved)
Barium, Total (Dissolved)
Boron, Total (Dissolved)
Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
Cobalt, Total (Dissolved)
Manganese, Total (Dissolved)
Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
Molybdenum, Total (Dissolved)
Phenolics, 4AAP
Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
Iron, Total
Cadmium (Dissolved)
Silver (DIssolvedO
Tin (Dissolved)
         Concentration  (ppb)
Intake

ND (ND)
20/2*(10/ND<5)*
ND<6/8(4/ND<6)*
20/ND<20*(18/40)*
25/ND<3*(14/ND<5)*
ND/ND<60*(ND/ND<60)*
   220,000
    12,000
     5,000
ND<50(ND<50)
        30(30)
        80(90)
    28,000(27,000)
ND<5(ND<5)
        50(50)
     7,200(7,400)
ND<5(6)
        40
    18,000(17,000)
       500
(ND<3)
(ND/ND)*
(20)
Discharge

         2(2)
50/9*(41/8)*
ND/30*(ND/40)*
8/ND<20*(14/30)*
16/20*(ND<9/40)*
180/100*(ND/200)*
   880,000
    73,000
     3,000
     5,000(6,000)
        60(ND<5)
     1,000(5,000)
   120,000(120,000)
         7(7)
       300(500)
     6,700(9,700)
        10(8)
        40
    35,000(47,000)
     2,000
(10)
(ND/5)*
(20)
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs,
QValues In parentheses Indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-41 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code
3924
(Fly Ash)
 oo
3001
(Combined
Fly Ash
and Bot-
tom Ash
Pond)
Pollutant
Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Lead, Total (Dissolved)
Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
Zinc, Total (Dissolved)
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Barium, Total (Dissolved)
Boron, Total (Dissolved)
Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
Manganese, Total (Dissolved)
Magnesiumi Total (Dissolved)
Molybdenum, Total (Dissolved)
Phenolics, 4AAP
Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
Iron, Total
Aluminum (Dissolved)
Tin (Dissolved)

Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Lead, Total (Dissolved)
Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Aluminum, Total (Dissolved)
         Concentration (ppb)
Intake

7/ND<5*(ND/ND<5)*
18/10*(16/9)*
10/ND<20*(5/ND<20)*
18/ND<5*(ND/ND<5)*
20/ND<60*(20/ND<60)*
   480,000
    15,000
    21,000
        40(40)
       100(100)
    57,000(55,000)
       100(50)
    13,000(14,000)
ND<5(ND<5)
        38
    43,000(44,000)
       500
ND < 50
(20)

ND/10*(ND/10)*
ND/10*(22/ND<6)
ND/ND<20*(ND/ND<20)*
ND/6*(ND/ND<5)*
   532,000
   170,000
    25,000
       500(ND<50)
Discharge

27/70*(49/ND<5)*
32/ND<6*(42/ND<6)*
23/ND<20*(l/ND<20)*
23/40*(10/6)*
20/ND<60*(ND/ND<60)*
   670,000
    16,000
    16,000
       200(200)
     1,000(4,000)
   110,000(110,000)
        80(70)
    14,000(14,000)
       300(300)
        35
    38,000(39,000)
       300
        60
(ND<5)

190/ND*(93/40)*
ND/ND<6*(20/ND<6)*
3/ND<20*(4/ND<20)*
35/ND<5*(33/ND<5)*
   490,000
    30,000
    24,000
     2,000(200)
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs,
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.

-------
                                             Table V-41 (Continued)

                       SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
                                   AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code
3001
(Cont'd)
 o\
 vo
5410
(Combined
Ely Ash
and Bot-
tom Ash
Pond)
Pollutant
Barium Total (Dissolved)
Boron, Total (Dissolved)
Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
Manganese, Total
Cadmium (Dissolved)
Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
Molybdenum, Total (Dissolved)
Phenolics, 4AAP
Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
Tin, Total (Dissolved)
Iron, Total
Vanadium, Total
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Zinc (Dissolved)

Cadmium, Total (Dissolved)
Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Lead, Total (Dissolved)
Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
Silver, Total (Dissolved)
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Aluminum, Total
Barium, Total (Dissolved)
Boron, Total (Dissolved)
         Concentration  (ppb)
Intake

       40(60)
       60(200)
   38,000(48,000)
       40
ND < 2
   23,000(27,000)
ND < 5(ND<5)

   57,000(66,000)
ND < 5(20)
      200
ND/NDOO*
       24
(ND/ND<60)*

        9(6)
7/70*(9/7)*
15/6*(9/ND<6)*
17/ND<20*(9/ND<20)*
22/30*(9/6)*
ND/ND
-------
                                               Table V-41  (Continued)

                         SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA  SURVEILLANCE
                                     AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
  Plant
  Code
           Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
o
                                                    Intake

                                                        27,000(27,000)
                                                    ND < 5
                                                            40(ND<5)
                                                         7,700(7,300)
                                                    ND < 5
                                                             9
                                                       18,000(17,000)
                                                            10(ND<5)
                                                    HD < 20
                                                          400
                                                    ND/ND<10*
                                                    ND < 20
                                                    ND
5410       Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
(Cont'd)   Cobalt, Total
           Manganese, Total (Dissolved)
           Magnesium, Total (Dissolved)
           Molybdenum, Total
           Phenolics, 4AAP
           Sodium, Total (Dissolved)
           Tin, Total (Dissolved)
           Titanium, Total
           Iron, Total
           Vanadium, Total
           Yttrium, Total
           Arsenic (Dissolved)

4203       1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(Combined  Chloroform
Fly Ash    Methylene Chloride
and Bot-   Pentachlorophenol
torn Ash    Tetrachloroethylene
Pond)      Trichloroethylene
           4,4'-ODD (P.P'-TDE)
           Arsenic, Total
           Cadmium, Total
           Chromium, Total
           Copper, Total
           Lead, Total
           Nickel, Total
           Selenium, Total
           Silver, Total
           Zinc, Total
           Iron, Total

*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
OValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
                Discharge

                    40,000(38,000)
                        20
                       100(200)
                     9,100(8,200)
                         8
                         6
                    22,000(24,000)
                        10(6)
                        50
                     2,000
                ND/10*
                        20
                        14
                                                                                      0.25
                                                                                     32
                                                                                      6.5

-------
                                 Table V-42
CONDITIONS  UNDER WHICH ARSENIC IN ASH POND OVERFLOW EXCEEDS 0.05 mg/1  (19)
                                    (mg/D
Plant  Plant
                                                                       Oil and  No. of
Code
3711
3708
0512
3710
4218
3701
2103
3805
*c -
0 -
Capacity
781
466
1341
290
1163
421
694
660
coal
oil
Fuel*
c/o
c/o
c
c/o
c/o
c/o
c
c

PH
6.48 '
8.48
8.29
9.07
6.63
-
8.4
-

TSS
24.5
14.7
16.5
127
36.8
18.0
20
15

As
0.06
O.Ki
0.19
0.416
0.131
0.09
0.21
0.06
Cu
0.1
O.I
0.01
0.12
0.075
0.05
0.15
0.11
Cr
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.05
0.005
0.02
Cd
0.02
0.02
-
0.02
-
o.oi
-
0.002
Ni
O.I
O.I
0.01
O.I
0.038
0.05
0.005

Fe
0.36
0.14
0.63
0.3
0.74
0.47
0.52

Pb
O.I
O.I
0.14
O.I
0.002
0.05
0.007
0.01
"8
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.0023
0.0005
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
Zn
0.14
0.01
0.04
0.11
0.087
0.05
0.02
0.04
Se
0.007
0.005
0.011
0.05
-
0.10
0.01

Grease
0.23
0.16
4.0
0.13
0.9
1.0
0.79

Sainj
18
6
7
3
1
3
3
1

-------
                                          Table V-43



                    ARSENIC  CONCENTRATIONS  IN ASH  POND EFFLUENTS  (23,  24)
N>
Station

Location
Western W. Virginia
Eastern Ohio
Southern Ohio
Eastern Michigan
Southeast Michigan
Southeast Ohio
Eastern Missouri
Central Utah
Western W. Virginia
Southern Ohio
Wyoming
Florida
Upper Appalachia

Size
(MW)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
750
948
2900
Ash Pond
Effluent Plant Water
Type Concentrations intafce uonc.

Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Fly
Fly
Bottom
Bottom
Fly
Fly
Combined
Combined
Combined
(ppb)a
<5
7
<5
30
40
200
20
<5
8
10
<1
9
74
(ppb)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1
3
<1
Data
Sources

23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
     aDetection limit for NUS is 5 ppb/for Radian, 1 ppb.



     NA - Not Available

-------
LOW VOLUME WASTES

Low volume wastes include boiler blowdown, waste  streams  from  water
treatement, and effluent from floor and yard drains.

Boiler Blowdown

Power-plant  boilers  are  either  of  the  once-through  or  drum-type
design.  Once-through designs are used  almost  exclusively   in  high-
pressure,   supercritical  boilers  and   have  no  wastewater streams
directly associated with their operation.  Drum-type boilers,  on   the
other hand, operate at subcritical conditions where steam generated in
the drum-type units is in equilibrium with boiler water.  Boiler water
impurities  are,  therefore,  concentrated  in  the liquid phase.   The
concentration of impurities  in  drum-type  boilers  must  not  exceed
certain limitations which are primarily a. function of  boiler  operating
conditions.    Table   V-44   presents  recommended  limits   of  total
(dissolved and suspended) solids in drum-type boilers  as a function of
drum pressure (25).  Boiler blowdown, therefore,  serves  to  maintain
specified  limitations for dissolved and suspended solids.  In response
to the 308 questionnaire, 544 powerplants put of a total 794  indicated
presence of boiler blowdown at their facilities.

The  sources  of  impurities  in  the  blowdown  are the intake water,
internal corrosion of the boiler, and chemicals added   to  the  boiler
system.    Impurities  contributed  by  the  intake  water  are usually
soluable   inorganic  species  (Na+,  K+,   C1-,   So42,   etc.)     and
precipitates containing  calcium/magnesium cations.  Products  of boiler
corrosion  are soluble and insoluble species of  iron, copper,  and other
metals.    A  number  of  chemicals are added to  the boiler feedwater to
control scale formation, corrosion,  pH,  and   solids   deposition.    A
summary  of types of chemicals used for these purposes is presented in
table V-45.  In addition, the following   proprietary   chemicals  which
may  contribute  chromium,  copper,  and  phenol species to  the boiler
blowdown were identified:

         NALCO 37 - contains chromium
         NALCO 75 - contains phenol
         NALCO 425L - contains copper
         CALGON CL35 - contains sodium dichromate.

The boiler blowdown is usually of high quality  and  even  may  be  of
higher  quality  than  the  intake  water.   It  is usually suitable for
internal reuse  in the powerplant, for example,  as cooling water makeup
(26, 27).  Tcible V-46 presents a statistical  analysis  of regional   EPA
data   on the quality of  boiler blowdown.   It  should  be noted that  mean
concentrations of phosphorous are computed on  the   basis  of  19   data
points.    Phosphorous  is evidently  contributed  by phosphate-containing
chemicals  used  for  solids  deposition   control.     Under   certain
conditions,  the  concentrations  of corrosion  products such as  copper
and  iron may be  high.   One  power  company   in  Southern   California
reported   maximum   concentrations   of copper  and  iron  as  2  and  20  ppm,


                                173

-------
                          Table V-44
             RECOMMENDED LIMITS OF TOTAL SOLIDS IN
               BOILS! WATER FOR DRUM BOILERS (25)
        Drum Pressure
    (atmj
     0-24.4
 20.41-30.5
 30.51-40.8
 40.18-51.0
 51.01-61.0
 61.01-68.0
 68.01-102.0
102-01-136
    >136
  Tpsi)
   0-300
 301-450
 451-600
 601-750
 751-900
 901-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
  >2000
Total Solids (mg/1)
        3500
        3000
        2500
        2000
        1500
        1250
        1000
         750
          15
                              174

-------
                           Table V-45

           CHEMICAL ADDITIVES COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH
                  INTERNAL BOILER TREATMENT (25)
 Control
Objective
Scale
Corrosion
pH
Solids
Deposition
Candidate Chemical Additives

di— and tri-sodium phosphates

Ethylene diaminetetracetic
acid (EDTA)

Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA)

Alginates
Polyacrylates
Polymethacrylates

Sodium sulfite and catalyzed
Sodium sulfite

Hydrazine
Morpholine

Sodium hydroxide
Sodium carbonate
Ammonia
Morpholine
Hydrazine

Tannins
Lignin derivitives

Starch
Alginates
Polyacrylamides
Polyacrylates
Polyme thacry1ate s
Phosphates
Residual Concentration
  .in Boiler Water
 3-60 mg/1 as

 20-100 mg/1


 10-60 mg/1
 up to 50-100 mg/1



 less than 200 'mg/1

 5-45 mg/1
 added to adjust
 boiler water pH to
 the desired level,
 typically 8.0 - 11.0
                                            <200 mg/1
                                            20-50 mg/1
                                175

-------
                                    Table V-46

              STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF BOILER SLOWDOWN CEARACTERISTICS

                (Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)
                          Mean
            Number of  Concentration
Pollutants   Points      (mg/1)	  Log. Mean  Standard Deviation  Log. Deviation
Copper
Iron

Oil & Grease
Phosphorous
Suspended
258
273

151
19
230
.14
.53

1.74
17.07
66.26
2.9615
2.3486

.0276
1.8363
1.2198
.2888
2.0609

4.5311
12.5154
500.3967
1.2845
1.6351
k
.9807
2.3911
1.9421

-------
respectively.  These  high  values  were  observed  immediately  after
boiler chemical cleaning (26).

Boiler  blowdown  may  be  discharged  either  intermittently  or con-
tinuously.  Table V-47 contains a statistical analysis of  flow  rates
reported in the 308 responses from industry.

Three  plants were sampled for boiler blowdown during the verification
phase of the sampling program.  The results are summarized in; Table V-
48.  Pollutants not listed were not detected.                l

Water Treatment

Boiler feedwater is treated for the removal of suspended and dissolved
solids to prevent  scale  formation.   The  water  treating  processes
include  clarification,  filtration,  lime/lime  soda  softening,   ion
exchange, reverse osmosis, and evaporation.

Clarification

Clarification is»the process of agglomerating the solids in  a  stream
and  separating  them  by  settling.   The  solids  are coagulated, by
physical and chemical processes, to form  larger  particles  and  ttten
allowed  to  settle.  Clarified water is drawn off and may be> filtered
to remove any traces of turbidity  (1).  Chemicals  commonly  added  to
the  clarification  process  are   listed  in table V-49.  As the table
shows, none of  these  chemicals   contain  any  of  the  129 .priority
pollutants.   Table  V-50 presents a statistical analysis of clarifier
blowdown flow rates reported by the industry in response  to  the   308
questionnaires.   Table V-51 presents a statistical analysis of filter
backwash flow rates reported by the industry in response  to  the   308
questionnaires.

Ion Exchange

Ion  exchange processes can be designed to remove all mineral salts in
a one-unit operation and,  as  such,  is  the  most  common  means  of
treating  supply  water.   The  ion  exchange  material  is an organic
resinous material manufactured in  bead form.  The resin may be one  of
two  types:   cation  or  anion.   The  ion exchange process generally
occurs in a  fixed bed  of  the  resin  beads  which  are  electrically
charged.   The  beads  attract chemical ions of opposite charge.  Once
all of the available sites on the  resin beads have been exhausted,  the
bed must be  regenerated.  During regeneration, the bed  is  b^ckwashed
(the  normal  flow  throughout the  bed is reversed), causing the bed to
erupt and the solids to be released.  A regenerant  solution   is  then
passed   over  the   resin  bed, for approximately 30 minutes for cation
resins and 90 minutes for anion resins.  The bed is then  rin$ed  with
water to wash the remaining voids  within the bed.

The  resulting  exchange  wastes are generally acidic or alkaline with
the exception of sodium chloride solutions which are  neutral!   While
these    wastes  do  not  have significant amounts of suspended solids,
                                                              i    •   .
                                177

-------
                                        Table V-47

                                 BOILER SLOWDOWN FLOWRATES

                                 (308 questionnaire data)
      Variable
co
Number      Mean     Standard     Minimum    Maximum
  of Plants    Value    Deviation     Value      Value
Fuel:
Flow:
Fuel:
Flow:
Fuel:
Flow:
coal*
GPD/ plant
GPD/MW
gas*
GPD/platit
GPD/MW
oil*
GPD/ plant
GPD/MW
231
230
189
189
148
148
33,259
148
19,346
163
66,173
287
71,682
392
60,933
669
320,106
1,237
0.11 650,000
3,717
4 700,000
0.08 8,470
2=7 3,810,000
0.12 14,066
   *Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for
   power generation for the year 1975.

-------
                                          Table V-48

                      SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA FOR BOILER BLOWDOWN
   Plant
   Code

   1003
                                                      Concentration  (ppb)
V0
Pollutant

Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Arsenic, Total
Copper, Total
Mercury, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Total Organic Carbon
Phenolicss 4AAP
Intake

     68
     23
      3.8
      3
      9
      1
    104
207,000
  2,800

  2,280
D < 20
Discharge
ND
ND
ND
                                                                         2
                                                                         8
     10
100,000
    800
  5,000
  1,250
D < 20
   4203      1,1,2-Trichloroethane
             Chloroform
             Bromoform
             Dichlorobromomethane
             Chlorodibroraoinethane
             Phenol, GC/MS
             Trichloroethylene
             Antimony, Total
             Arsenic, Total
             Cadmium, Total
             Copper, Total
             Lead,  Total
             Mercury, Total
             Zinc,  Total
             Iron,  Total
                                      ND <
                                      ND <
      0,
      4.
      0,
      0.
      0,
      4.
      0.
     1
      2
      4
     22
     20
      1,
     10
     10
                                              23
                                              4
                                              0?
                                              87
                                              17
                                              2
                                              13
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
0.12
6.4
      6
      2
      5
    520
     40
      1,
     68
     60

-------
                                    Table V-48 (Continued)

                      SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA FOR BOILER SLOWDOWN
   Plant
   Code

   2603
   Unit 11
                                                      Concentration (ppb)
00
o
Pollutant

Benzene
1,1,1-Triehloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol, GC/MS
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Antimony, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Calcium, Total
Manganese, Total
Magnesium, Total
Intake
    10
                                                       10
D <
ND
ND
D <
ND
ND
D < 10
ND/9
                                                   D
                                                   D
D <

D <
ND
D <
ND <
                                                   ND <
                                                   ND <
10
10
10
 50
10

10
; 2
 10
 22
 20
  0,
  8
 2
                                                   292,000

                                                     9,000
                                                    48,700
                                                        65
                                                    15,300
                Discharge
                D <
                D <
                D <

                D <
    290
    10
    10
    10
     60
    10
    910
ND/15
D < 10
ND
    10
    10
    10
    10
                D <
                D <
                D <
                D <
                ND
                     10
                      6
                     26
                     36
                ND < 0.1
                      1.3
                      5.7
                     72
                 11,000
                D < 5,000
                D < 3,000
                D < 5,000
                ND < 5
                ND < 1,000

-------
                                    Table V-48 (Continued)

                      SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA FOR BOILER  SLOWDOWN
   Plant
   Code
          Pollutant
   2603      Molybdenum, Total
   Unit #1   Sodium, Total
   (Cont'd)  Titanium, Total
             Iron, Total
   Concentrat ion (ppb)

Intake          Discharge
                                                ND < 5

                                                     18
                                                    842
                     61
                D < 15,000
                ND < 5
oo
2603*     Benzene
Unit #2   1,1-Diehloroethylene
          1,3-Dichloropropene
          Ethylbenzene
          Methylene Chloride
          Br OHIO form
          Phenol, GC/MS
          Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
          Diethyl Phthalate
          Tetrachloroethylene
          Toluene
          Ant imony, Total
          Copper, Total
          Total Dissolved Solids
          Total Suspended Solids
          Total Organic Carbon
          Aluminum, Total
          Calcium, Total
          Molybdenum, Total
          Sodium, Total
                                                                    D  <
                     30
                    10
                    10
                    10
                     30
                    10
                                                                   ND/10
                                                                    D
                                                                    D
                                                                    D
                                                                    D
                                                                    D
                  7,

                  3,
                                                                   D <

                                                                   D <
10
10
10
10
 20
  8
000
5,000
000
213
5,000
 55
15,000
   *Intake data for Plant 2603, Unit #2 is the same as that for Plant 2603,  Unit  f1 .

-------
                                    Table V-49

              COAGULATING AND FLOCCULATING AGENT CHARACTERISTICS  (25)
Coagulant/Flocculant:
Alum
A12(S04)3 .


Aluminate
               H20
   Ferric Chloride
   FeCl2 • 6 H20

co  Copperas
         * 7 H20
Weighting Agents
(bentenite, kaolin,
 mon tmor illonite)

Absorbents
(powdered carbon,
 activated alumina)

Polyeleetrolytes
(inorganic activated
 silica and organic
 polymers)
Purpose

Main Coagulant
To assist coagulation with
  aluminate

Main Coagulant
To assist coagulation with
  alum

Main Coagulant
                               Main Coagulant
Coagulant Aid
Coagulant Aid
Coagulant Aid
                                                                Normal Dosage  (mg/1)

                                                                    5-50
                                                                    2-20
                                                                 5-15
                                                              (0.1 to 0.5 of
                                                                 alum dosage)

                                                                 5-50
                                  5-50
                                                                    <2

-------
                                     Table ¥-50

                            CLARIFIER BLOWDOWN FLOWRATES

                              (308 questionnaire data)
   Variable

Fuel:    coal*

Flow:    gpd/plant
        gpd/MW

Fuel;    gas

Flow:    gpd/plant
        gpd/MW

Fuel:    oil

Flow:    gpd/plant
        gpd/MW
                            Number      Mean     Standard     Minimum    Maximum
                              of Plants    Value    Deviation     Value      Value
                                88    29,966      74,518.4      7
                                87        64.8       200.9      0.04
                                26    57,653     234,909       10
                                26       210.8       914        0.11
                                14    19,779       29,820       20
                                14       107.9        196.8      0.15
  605,000
    .1,208
1,200,000
    4,678
  100,420
      697
*Fuel designations are determined by the  fuel  which  contributes  the most Btu
 for power generation for the year 1975.

-------
                                     Table V-51

                              FILTER BACKWASH FLOWRATES

                              (308 questionnaire data)
   Variable
Number      Mean     Standard     Minimum    Maximum
  of Plants    Value    Deviation     Value      Value
Fuel : coal*
Flow: gpd/plant
gpd/MW
Fuel: gas*
,_. Flow: gpd/plant
£ gpd/MW
Fuel : oil*
Flow: gpd/plant
gpd/MW

155
154

58
58

58
58

25,460
71

7,827
41

25,003
168

42,027
258

15,153
87

58,410
677

1.6
0.013

40
0.1

30
0.13

300,000
2,400

94,200
404

250,000
4,528
*Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for
power generation in the year 1975.

-------
certain chemicals such as calcium sulfate and calcium   carbonate   have
extremely  low  solubilities  and  are  often  precipitated because of
common ion effects.

The wastes may*be collected in  an  equalization  tank  or  basin  and
neutralized  with acid or alkali or slowly mixed with other nonprocess
wastes prior to treatment.  In the cases where the  wastes  are  mixed
with   other   non-process   water,   there   may  be   the  effect  of
neutralization by the natural alkalinity or acidity of  the non-process
stream.  In any of the treatment cases discussed  above,  the  treated
water is suitable for reuse as non-process makeup water.

Spent  regenerant  solutions,  constituting  a significant part of the
total flow of wastewater from ion exchange regeneration, contains  ions
which are eluted from  the  ion  exchange  material  plus  the  excess
regenerant  that is not consumed during regeneration.   The eluted  ions
represent the chemical species which were removed  from water  during
the  service  cycle  of the process.  Table V-52 presents a summary of
ion exchange material  types  and  regenerant  requirements  of  each.
Historical raw waste load data for ion exchange regenerant is shown in
table  V-53.   Table  V-54  contains  a  statistical  analysis  of ion
exchange spent regenerant flow rates reported in the industry response
to the 308 questionnaire.

Lime/Lime Soda Softening

In lime softening, chemical precipitation is applied to hardness  and
alkalinity.   Calcium  precipitates  as  calcium carbonate (CaC03) and
magnesium as magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2).  The  softening  may   take
place  at ambient temperatures, known as cold process softening, or at
elevated temperatures (100 C or 212 F), known as hot process softening
(1).  The hot process accelerates the formation of the  carbonates  and
hydroxides.   Hot  process softening is commonly employed for treating
boiler feed water in facilities where steam is generated  for  heating
processes  as  well  as  electric power generation.  Since lime and/or
soda ash are the only chemicals added in this  process,  none  of  the
priority  pollutants  will  be  introduced  in the system.  Table  V-55
presents a statistical analysis of lime softener blowdown  flow  rates
reported by the industry in response to the 308 questionnaires.

Evaporator Blowdown                               i:-

Evaporation  is  a  process of purifying water by vaporizing it with  a
heat source and condensing the vaporized water.   The   influent  water
evaporates  arid  is  ducted  to an external product condenser.  In the
lower portion of the evaporator, a pool of boiling water is maintained
at a constant  level to keep the heat source (steam tubes) immersed in
liquid.  Water is periodically blown down from the bottom to lower the
contaminant  levels.   Table  V-56  presents historical raw waste  load
data for  the  evaporator  blowdown.   As  indicated   in  this  table,
suspended solids in the blowdown may reach very high  levels.  Table V-
57  presents   a statistical analysis of evaporator blowdown flow rates
reported by the industry  in response to the 308 questionnaires.

                              • •  185     •

-------
                                               Table  V-52

               ION EXCHANGE MATERIAL TYPES  AND REGENERANT  REQUIREMENT  (25)
Ion Exchange Material

Cation Exchange
Sodium Cycle
Hydrogen Cycle
Weak Acid
Strong Acid
Anion Exchange
Weak Base
Strong Base
 Description of Operation

 Sodium cycle ion exchange is used as
 a water softening process.  Calcium,
"magnesium, and other divalent cations
 are  exchange for more soluble sodium
 cations, i.e.,
                  (Rc)2 - Ca + 2 NA*

                  2   2 - 804 + 2HOH

Strong base Ion exchange removes
anions of all soluble salts in water
i.e.,
                         Regenerant Solution

                         10% brine (NaCl) solution or
                         some other solution with a
                         relatively high sodium con-
                         tent such as sea water.
                         112SO4 or HC1 solutions with
                         acid strengths as low as
                         0.5%.
                         H2S04 or 1IC1 solutions  with
                         acid strengths ranging  from
                         2.0-6.07..
                         NaOH, NH^OH, ^82003 solutions
                         of variable strength
                         NaOH solutions at approximate
                         4.0% strength.
   Regenerant
   Requirement
Theoretical Amount
  110-1201
  200-400%
   120-140%
   150-300%
                          RA - OH + H2C03   RA -  HC03 + HOH

-------
                                       Table V-53



                      ION EXCHANGE SPENT REGENERANT CHARACTERISTICS



                   (Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)
'»
Pollutant
pH (122 entries)
Suspended solids (mg/1)
(88 entries)
Dissolved solids (mg/1)
(39 entries)
Oil and Grease (mg/1)
Mean
Value
6.15
44
6,057
6.0
Standard
Deviation
2.45
60.14
2,435
6.7
Minimum
Value
1.7
3.0
1,894
0.13
Maximum
Value
10.6
305
9,645
22
     (29  entries)

-------
                                         Table V-54

                      ION EXCHANGE SOFTENER SPENT REGENERANT FLOWRATES

                                  (308 Questionnaire Data)
00
oo
       Variable
Number      Mean .    Standard     Minimum    Maximum
  of Plants    Value    Deviation     Value      Value
Fuel:
Flow:

Fuel:
Flow:

Fuel:
Flow:

coal*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
gas*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
oil*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW

104
104

86
86

42
42

9,290
79

11,142
84

19,358
226

16,737
264

32,663
247

32,965
764

14.4
0.12

7
0.12

16
0.43

107,143
2,028

164,000
2,058

132,000
4,633
    *Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes  the most Btu for
    power generation in the year 1975.

-------
                                         Table V-55.

                              LIME SOFTENER BLOWDOWN FLOWRATES

                                  (308 Questionnaire Data)
VO
       Variable
Number      Mean     Standard     Minimum    Maximum
  of Plants    Value    Deviation     Value      Value
Fuel:
Flow:

Fuel:
Flow:

Fuel:
Flow:

coal*
gpd/ plant
gpd/MW
gas*
gpd /pi ant
gpd/MW
oil*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW

37
37

40
40

15
15

26,228
56

30,937
154

15,808
216

85,069
117

144,642
558

57,099
818

29
0.28

15
0.17

75
0.62

, 50,000
625

900,000
3,508

222,180
3,174
    *Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for
    power generation in the year 1975.

-------
                                         Table V-56

                             EVAPORATOR SLOWDOWN CHARACTERISTICS

                     (Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)
•JD
O
                               Mean
                 Number of  Concentration
Pollutants Points
Copper 9
Iron 9
Oil & Grease 9
Suspended
Solids 31
(IHR/I)
.39
.54
2.1
28.4
Log . Mean
-.9671
-.6198
.7085
2.4499
Standard Deviation
.0875
.0831
.4841
36.7079
Log . Deviation
.2080
.1543
.2404
1.5392

-------
                                     Table V-S7

                            EVAPORATOR SLOWDOWN FLOWRATES

                              (308 Questionnaire Data)
   Variable
Number      Mean     Standard     Minimum    Maximum
  of Plants    Value    Deviation     Value      Value
Fuel:
Flow:
Fuel:
Flow:
Fuel:
Flow:
coal*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
gas*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
oil*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
104
104
83
83
57
57
29,310
126
13,647
74
320,293
4,781
96,221
810
34,312
222
2,111,836
34,796
•" 2 '
8
0.02
15
0.11
962,800
8,292
215,000
1 ,512
15,900,000
262,809
*Fuel designation are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for
power generation in the year 1975

-------
Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis is a  process  in  which  a  semipermeable  membrane—
generally cellulose acetate or a polyamide—separates two solutions of
different  concentrations.   In  the case of a salt solution, use of a
membrane impermeable to salt  will  allow  only  water  to  leave  the
solution,  producing one stream with a greater salt concentration than
the feed and one, more dilute.  The concentrated stream is called  the
reverse  osmosis  brine  and  constitutes  the  waste  stream from the
process.  Table  V-58  presents  a  statistical, analysis  of  reverse
osmosis  brine  flow rates reported by the industry in response to the
308 questionnaires.  In the water treatment schemes  reported  by  the
industry,   reverse  osmosis  was  always  used  in  conjunction,  with
demineralizers  and  sometimes  in  conjunction  with   clarification,
filtration, and ion exchange softening.

Drains and Spills

Floor and Yard Drains

There  are  numerous sources of wastewater in the nature of piping and
equipment drainage and leakage throughout a steam  electric  facility.
The list in table V-59 is a representative compilation of the sources,
showing  major  contaminants,  the likelihood of occurrence, potential
severity, and control techniques which might be employed.  There  have
been  no  data  reported  for  this  stream,  however,  the  pollutant
parameters which may be of concern would be oil and  grease,  pH,  and
suspended solids.

Laboratory Streams

Many  steam  electric  powerplants  maintain  laboratory, facilities to
carry out chemical analyses as a part of controlling the operation  of
the  plant.   This  would include elemental analysis and heating value
analysis of coal, analysis of treated boiler water,  and  boiler  tube
cleaning chemical analysis.

The  wastes  from  the laboratories vary in quantity and constituents,
depending on the use of the facilities and  the  type  of  powerplant.
The  chemicals  are usually present in extremely small quantities.  It
has been common practice to combine laboratory drains with other plant
plumbing.

Sampling Results

Demineralizer regenerants were sampled in three facilities during  the
verification  phase  of  the sampling program.  Analytical results are
presented in Table V-60.

METAL CLEANING WASTES

Metal cleaning wastes include wastewater  from  chemical  cleaning  of
boiler tubes, air preheater washwater, and boiler fireside washwater.

                                192

-------
                                     Table V-58

                                   OSMOSIS BEINE FLOWRATES

                              (308 Questionnaire Data)
   Variable
Number      Mean     Standard     Minimum    Maximum
  of Plants    Value    Deviation     Value      Value
Fuel:
Flow:

Fuel:
Flow:
•
coal*
gpd/ plant
gpd/MW
gas*
gpd/ plant
gpd/MW

3
3

11
11

10,674
31

18,179
55

18,192
53

27,437
42

3
0.25

465
23

31,680
92

95,000
165
*Fuel designations are determined  by  the  fuel  which contributes the most Btu for
power generation in the year 1975.

-------
                                              Table V-59

                              EQUIPMENT DRAINAGE AND  LEAKAGE (1)
Source

Oil-water Heat
   Exchangers
Oil Tank, Lines &
  Transformer
  Rupture

Floor Spills
Oil Drips and
  Tank Leakage
Sump Discharges
  from Service
  Bldg. & Yard

Chemical Tank
  Rupture
Chemical Tank
  Leakage
Major Contaminanta

Oil
Frequency
Potential
Severity
Oil
Suspended Solids or Oil
Oil
Remote         Severe
Possibility
Remote         Severe
Possibility
Daily
Daily
Oil and Suspended Solids    Often
Slight
Slight
               Slight
Regenerant and cleaning     Remote         Severe
chemicals                  Possibility
Regenerant and cleaning     Occasional     Slight
chemicals
Potential. Control Techniques

1. Continuous Gravity Separation
2. Detection and Batch Gravity
     Separation
3. Detection & Mechanical
     Separation
4. Maintain pressure of water
     greater than oil

1 . Isolation from Drains
2. Containment of Drainage
1, Plug Floor Drain
2. Route Floor Drainage Through
     Clarifier & Gravity or
     Mechanical Separation

1. Isolate from Floor Draina
2. Route to Gravity or
     Mechanical Separation

1. Isolate and route ciarifier
     and gravity or mechanical
     separation

1. Containment of Drainage
2. Isolation from Drains
3. Route drains to Ash Pond or
     Holding Pond for
     Neutralization

1. Isolate from Floor Drains
2.  Route drains to Ash Pond or
     Holding Pond
NOTE:  Oil Spill Contingency  Plans would apply to significant oil releases.

-------
                                          Table V-60

                  SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA FOR DEMINERALIZER  REGENERANT
   Plant
   Code

   1003
                                                      Cone en t r a tion  ( ppb)
Ul
   4203
Pollutant

1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Bromoform
Dichlorofluoromethane
Arsenic, Total
Copper, Total
Mercury, Total
Selenium, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon

Chlorobenzene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
V,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-DichlorobenEene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Bromoform
Dichlorobrornotnethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Nitrobenzene
Phenol, GC/MS
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Intake
ND
68
23
^ ft
3 « O
•J
•j
9
i
i
1
104
207 ,000
2,800
2,280
ND
0.23
4.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.07
0.87
0.17
ND
4.2
ND
0.13
o
£.
4
ND<2
Discharge
2
1.8
. ' 	




_____

«. w. — — .*
	
4,584,000
9,250
4,810
0.67
0.68
38
39
0.3
5.2
>220
ND
ND
ND
81
3.8
22
0.38

35
26

-------
                                 Table V-60 (Continued)

               SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA FOR DEMINERALIZER REGENERANT
Plant
Code
                                                   Concentration (ppb)
Pollutant
4203      Copper, Total
(Cont'd)  Cyanide, Total
          Lead, Total
          Mercury, Total
          Nickel, Total
          Silver, Total
          Zinc, Total
          Iron, Total
          Acetone

2603      Benzene
          Chloroform
          1,1-Dichloroethylene
          Methylene Chloride
          Broraoform
          Diehlorobromomethane
          Chlorodibromomethane
          Phenol, CC/MS
          Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
          Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
          Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
          Diethyl Phthalate
          Tetrachloroethylene
          Trichloroethylene
          Antimony, Total
          Cadmium, Total
          Chromium, Total
          Copper, Total
          Cyanide, Total
          Mercury, Total
Intake
22
0
ND<20
1.5
ND<20
ND<2
10
10


D<10
ND<10
ND
D<10
ND
ND
ND
ND/9
D<10
D<10
D<10
50
D<10
D<10
ND<2
ND<2
10
22
ND<5
0.2
Discharge
65
0.04
24
1.6
230
58
54
5,000
ft 7
o * /
ND
140
D<10
60
D<10
70
30
ND/4
D<10
_____
D<10
D<10
D<10
ND
20
5
14
27
47
6

-------
                                    Table V-60  (Continued)

                  SURVEILLANCE  AND ANALYSIS  DATA FOR DEMINERALIZER REGENERANT
  Plant
  Code
                                                      Concentration (ppb)
          Pollutant
*-*
2603      Nickel, Total
(Cont'd)  Selenium, Total
          Thallium, Total
          Einc, Total
          Total Dissolved Solids
          Total Suspended Solids
          Total Organic Carbon
          Aluminum, Total
          Barium, Total
          Boron, Total
          Calcium, Total
          Manganese, Total
          Magnesium, Total
          Molybdenum, Total
          Sodium, Total
          Titanium, Total
          Iron, Total
Intake
8
ND<2
ND<20
88
292,000
9,000
497
17
ND<50
48,700
65
15,300
ND<5
18
842
Discharge
200
4
182
ND
3,010,000
1 7 nnfl
I / , UUU
8,000
277
ND<5
63
169,000
9
17,400
15
1 "\Q ftAH
I .jy , uuu
ND<15
793

-------
Chemical Cleaning of Boiler Tubes

Chemical  cleaning  is designed to remove scale and corrosion products
which accumulate on the  boiler  tubes  in  the  boiler's-, ' steam-side.
There  are—a number of factors affecting the selection of^'the cleaning
method. Among the major factors are:

    1.  Type of deposit,

    2.  Type of metals (alloys) cleaned,

    3.  Type of boiler,                                           •

    4.  Economics,

    5.  Prior experience,

    6.  Hazards associated with cleaning agents, and

    7.  Ease of waste disposal.

Boiler Cleaning Chemicals

Hydrochloric Acid Without Copper Complexer.  Hydrochloric acid  is  the
most  frequently  used  boiler  tube  cleaning  chemical.   It  has the
ability to handle a wider range of deposits  than  any  other   solvent
available today.  This ability, combined with its relatively low cost,
availability, and the extensive experience associated with its  use for
boiler  cleanings,  is  the  reason for its popularity  in the chemical
cleaning of utility boilers (28).

Hydrochloric acid, which is usually used  in  solutions  of  5  to   10
percent, forms soluble chlorides with the scale and corrosion products
in  the  boiler  tubes.   Its  strength  makes  it  very effective for
removing heavy deposits; however, due to this strength,  an  inhibitor
is  mandatory  to  reduce  attack to boiler tube metal.  This strength
also allows the use of either the soaking  or  circulation  method   of
boiler cleaning.

The high chloride content makes the use of hydrochloric acid solutions
infeasible  for  austenitic  steels  due to the potential for chloride
stress  cracking  (29).   Hydrochloric  acid  is   highly   corrosive.
Hydrogen  gas  will  be  liberated  during cleaning operations.  Large
amounts of water are required for rinsing.

Hydrochloric Acid With Copper Complexer.   Hydrochloric  acid   with   a
copper  complexer is used in boilers containing copper  to prevent the
replating of dissolved copper  onto  steel  surfaces  during  chemical
cleaning  operations.   The  two  most  prominent  complexers   are Dow
Chemical's Thiourea and Halliburton's Curtain II. If  a  complexer   is
not  used,  copper  chlorides, formed during cleaning operation, react
with boiler tube iron to form soluble iron chlorides while the  copper


                                 198

-------
is  replated  onto  the  tube  surface.   Use  of  a  copper  complexer
interrupts this reaction by complexing the copper  (30,31).

Alkaline Deoreaser.  Alkaline cleaning  (flush/boil-out)   is  commonly
employed  prior  to boiler cleaning to remove oil-based compounds from*11"
tube surfaces.  These solutions are composed  of   trisodium   phosphate
and  a  surfactant  and  act  to  clear  away  the materials  which may
interfere with the reactions of  the  boiler  cleaning  chemicals  and
deposits (32, 33).

Ammoniated Citric Acid.   Citric acid cleaning solutions  are  used by  a
number of utilities for boiler cleaning  operations   (34).    Utilizing
the  circulation  method,  this  weak  acid  is usually diluted to a  3
percent solution and ammoniated to a pH of 3.5 for cleaning   purposes.
This  solution  is  used  in  a  two-stage  process.   The first stage
involves the  dissolution  of  iron  oxides.   In  the  second  stage,
anhydrous  ammonia  is  added! to  a  pH of 9 to 10 and air is bubbled
through the solution to dissolve copper deposits.  Halliburton markets
this as the Citrosolv Process  (35).   This  "one  solution"  cleaning
process  affords  some advantages due to the minimal  cleaning time and
water requirements.  The hazards associated with this solution are not
as great as with other acids due to its  lower  corrosivity;  however,
there is potential for hydrogen gas liberation.

Ammoniated EDTA.   The  most  widely  known  ammoniated   EDTA cleaning
chemical is produced by Dow Chemical Company and   marketed under  the
name,  "Vertan  675."   This  boiler  cleaning  agent  has been  used
successfully  in a wide variety of  boiler  cleaning   operations. ,  The
cleaning involves a one solution, two-stage process.  During  the first
stage,  the   solution  solubilizes iron deposits and  chelates the iron
solution.  In the second stage, the solution is oxidized  with air  to
induce  iron  chelates  from  ferric  to ferrous and  to oxidize copper
deposits into solution where the copper is chelated  (36).

The most prominent use  of  this  cleaning  agent  is in circulating
boilers  which  contain  copper  alloys.   It  has gained increasing
popularity for use in cleaning utility boilers due to its low  hazard
(no  hydrogen  gas  formation  and not highly corrosive)  and  low water
usage (normally only one rinse required).

Ammonic-al Sodium Bromate.   Occasionally,  large   amounts of  copper
deposits  in  boiler tubes cannot be removed with hydrochloric acid due
to  copper's  relative   insolubility.   When  such conditions  exist,
solutions  of  ammonia-based  oxidizing compounds  have been effective.
Used in a single separate stage  the  ammonical  sodium   bromate  step
includes  the introduction  of  solutions containing ammonium bromate
into the boiler system to rapidly oxidize  and  dissolve   the copper.
This  stage   may  be  completed  pre- or post-acid stage.  It has been
found to be  effective on units which contain large amounts of  copper
metals  (37).

Hydroxyacetic/Formic Acid.   The  use  of hydroxyacetic/formic acid  in
the chemical  cleaning of utility boilers is common.   It   is  used   in

                                 199

-------
boilers  containing austenitic steels because its low chloride content
prevents  possible  chloride  stress   corrosion   cracking   of   the
austenitic-type  alloys.   It  has  also  found  extensive  use in the
cleaning  operations  for  once-through  supercritical  boilers   (38).
Circulation  of  this  solvent  is  required  i^order to.keep desired
strength in all areas of the boiler system.  Hydroxyacetic/formic acid
has chelation properties and a high iron pick-up capability,  thus  it
is used on high iron content systems.  It is not effective on hardness
scales.   If  water  requirements are low, generally only one rinse is
required. The corrosiveness of the solvent is not as high as  that  of
inorganic acids, yet there is potential for hydrogen gas release.

SuIfuric Acid.  Sulfuric acid has found limited use in boiler cleaning
operations.   It is not feasible for removal of hardness scales due to
th© formation of highly insoluble calcium sulfate (39).  It has   found
some  use  in  cases  where  a  high-strength, low-chloride solvent is
necessary.   As  with  other  acids,  potential  hazards  involve  the
liberation of hydrogen gas and the chemical's highly corrosive nature.
Use  of  sulfuric acid requires high water usage in order to rinse the
boiler sufficiently.

Waste Characteristics

The characteristics of  waste  streams  emanating  from  the  chemical
cleaning  of  utility boilers are similar in many respects.  The  major
constituents consist of boiler metals; i.e.,  alloy  metals  used  for
boiler  tubes,  hot  wells,  pumps,  etc.  Although waste streams from
certain cleaning operations which are used to remove certain deposits;
i.e., alkaline degreaser to remove oils and organics/ do  not  contain
heavy  concentrations  of  metals,  the  primary  purpose of the  total
boiler cleaning operation  (all stages combined)  is  removal  of  heat
transfer-retarding  deposits,  which  consist  mainly  of   iron oxides
resulting from corrosion.  This removal of  iron  is  evident  in  all
total  boiler  cleaning  operations  through  its  presence  in boiler
cleaning wastes.

Copper is the next most  prevalent  constitutent  of  boiler  cleaning
wastes due to wide use as  a boiler system metal.  Based on  information
on  nearly 2,500 utility boilers, EPA estimates that copper alloys are
used in 91 percent of the  steam condenser tubes,  85  percent  of  the
highpressure feedwater heater tubes, and 83 percent of the  lowpressure
feedwater  heater  tubes (40).  Table v-61 shows a few of these alloys
and corresponding constituents.

The presence of boiler metal constituents in chemical cleaning  wastes
is  further  illustrated   by  examining  the characteristics of wastes
emanating from boilers in  which admiralty metals were used  for   steam
condenser  tubes  and  low-pressure feedwater heater tubes.  Admiralty
metal contains aproximately 25 percent zinc.

The  wastewaters  from  a  boiler  cleaning  operation  on  a   boiler
containing  such  an alloy contained 166 mg/1 of zinc.  The relatively
                                 200

-------
                            Table V-61
         M.LOYS  AND  C&NSTITUENTS OF BOILER SYSTEMS (41)
                             (Percent)

    Alloy                           Constituent
. Admiralty
Arsenical Admiralty
Phosphorized  Admiralty
Brass
Aluminum brass
Copper-nickel 90/10
Copper-nickel 80/20
Copper-:nickel 70/30
Cupro-nickel  (10%)
Cupro-niekel  (20%)
Monel
Copper
71
71
71
,65
65 .
90
80
70
89
79
23
Iron Nickel





10
20
30
1 .0 1:0
1.0 20
3.5 60
Zinc Other ,
25 Sn-4
27 As-0.04
27 P-0.1
35
30 A1-5
*




Mn-3.5
                               201

-------
high value of zinc was due to the presence of zinc in the boiler  tube
metal (1).

A  number  of  cleaning  agents use completing agents in order to keep
dissolved deposits in solution and thus remove them  from  the  boiler
system when the solution is drained.-  Ammoniated solutions of bromate,
citrate,  and  EDTA  have been used for this purpose.  Ammonia forms a
complex with -copper while citrate and  EDTA  chelate  iron  and  other
heavy  metals.   Ammonia  is  a  monodentate  complex  former since it
contains only one ligand.  Citrate and EDTA are  multidentate  complex
formers.   Multidentate  complexes  may  be  referred  to as chelates,
whereas monodentate complexes are referred to only as complexers (42).
These complexes and chelates are stable  compounds  and  pose  greater
difficulty in treatment.

Other  waste constituents present in spent chemical cleaning solutions
include wide ranges of pH, high dissolved solids  concentrations,  and
significant  oxygen  demands  (BOD  and/or  COD).   The  pH  of  spent
solutions ranges from 2.5 to  11.0  depending  on  whether  acidic  or
alkaline cleaning agents are employed.

Waste  characteristics  for  the  above  mentioned  cleaning solutions
appear in tables V-62 through V-67.   A  brief  description  of  those
wastes by chemical cleaning solvent type follows.

Alkaline Degreaser.   Alkaline  cleaning  is  used  to remove oil con-
taminants which may have entered  the  boiler  system.   The  cleaning
solution waste will contain sodium phosphates, and some boiler metals.
In  some  cases,  if  chelating  agents and sodium hydroxide have been
added to the original cleaning solution, these materials  and  related
compounds  may  be present.  Volume of waste solutions will exceed two
boiler volumes due to intermittent blowdowns and a  final  rinse  with
condensate.

Ammoniated Citric Acid.   This  waste  stream  consists of a number of
complexed boiler metals.  Their presence is dependent upon  their  use
in  boiler  metals  alloys.   Citrate,  a  multidentate ligand, is the
chelating  agent  in  this  solution,  while  ammonia  forms   soluble
complexes  with  copper.   Various  other  constituents  of this waste
stream will include  dissolved  deposit  components  and  BOD.   Waste
volume is generally equivalent to two boiler volumes, which includes a
rinse.

Ammoniated EDTA.   Ammoniated  EDTA  wastes  are alkaline (pH = 9.0 to
10.0) and contain amounts of iron and  copper  which  are  present  as
ferric  and  cupric chelates.  Although this type of cleaning agent is
used generally for removal of copper, the copper content will vary  in
concentration in proportion to the amount of copper used in the boiler
system.  Similarily, the content of other boiler metals present in the
waste  will  generally be-a function of their presence.  The volume of
waste from this type of cleaning is usually two  boiler  volumes.   One
volume  consists, of  the  cleaning  solution while the second will be
rinse water.

                                 202

-------
                            Table V-62
      WASTE "CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIATED CITRIC ACID SOLUTIONS (48)
                              (mg/l)
CONSTITUENTS
Silica
Phosphorous
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Zinc
C-1


220
8,300
130
390
C-2
40
200
20
9,800


C-3


8
10,800


NOTE:  (1)  The absence of concentration value denotes informa-
            tion is not available.
       (2)  C-1,  C-2, C-3 denote wastes from independent boiler
            chemical cleaning operations.
                               203

-------
                                     Table V-63

                WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIATED EDTA SOLUTIONS (48)
                                       (mg/1)
CONSTITUENTS

Waste Volume,
  million gallons
pH, units
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Silica
NH3 - N
Phosphorous
Aluminum
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
V-1
9.2
V-2
8.8
V-3
9.0
V-4
9.5
V-5
9.5
                                  93.69
   V-6
19,000
   9.2
59,549
   V-7
  10.0
73,800
    24
    41

 5,200
260.25
31.23
20.82
10.41
11,700 30 53 413 124.92
2,250 4,600 7,900 7,000 8,328
20.82
72.87
135.33

124.92
45.3
26.50
707
6,867
11.12
49.93
68.40
371.87
143.75

11.6
0.17
6,900


- 11.8

79
NOTE:  (1)  The absence of concentration value denotes information is not
            available.
       (2)  V-1 through V-7 denote wastes from independent boiler chemical
            cleaning operations.

-------
                                     Table V-64

           WASTE  CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIACAL  SODIUM BROMATE  SOLUTIONS (48)
                                        (mg/1)


 CONSTITUENTS            AB-1      AB~2       AB-3      AB-4       AB-5      AB-6

 Waste Volume,
  million gallons                                            •   0.217     0.165
 pH,  units                         10.5       10.2
 Dissolved Solids                           1,015                  340     1,400
 Suspended Solids                               77                    8        71
 COD                                                                24       120
 Oil  & Grease                                                       <5        <5
 Silica                                                           7.2        14
 NH3  - N                                                           700     2,000
 Org.  - N                                                           40       <10
 N02  + N03 - N   •                                                 0.04      0.51
 Phosphorous                                                        10        30
 Bromide                                                            52        <5
 Chloride                                                           60
 Fluoride                                                          1.5       6.1
 Aluminum                                                         <0.2      <0.2
 Arsenic                  307                                    0.048    <0.005
barium                                                          <0.1       <0.1
 Beryllium                                                       <0.01      <0.01
 Cadmium                <0.02                                   <0.001     <0,001
 Calcium                                      0.0                  3.0       0.4

-------
                               Table ?~64 (Continued)

           WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMQNIACAL SODIUM BROMATE SOLUTIONS  (48)
                                       (mg/1)
CONSTITUENTS

Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
 AB-1

<0.05
  409
 1 .92
  0.1
 14.9
  255

 23.6
 1.03
AB-2
 750
AB-3
          AB-4
AB-5
AB-6
0.0
117
0.15

0.0
0.01

0.08



59
<0.005
334 100
0 1.7
<0.01
2.9
0.03
<0.0002
0 0.52
70
1 <0.002
<0.01
3.7
<0.005
790
4.9
<0.01
0.67
0.04
<0.0002
2.5
220
<0.002
<0.02
15
0.41
                     0.5
                    0.06
          0.54
NOTE:  (1)  The absence of concentration value denotes information is not
            available.
       (2)  AB-1 through AB-6 denote wastes from independent boiler chemical
            cleaning operations.

-------
                                       Table V-65

    WASTE CONSTITUENTS  OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID WITHOUT COPPER  COMPLEXER SOLUTIONS (48)
   CONSTITUENTS            H-1     H-2     H-3     K-4     K-5     H-6      H-7

   Waste Volume,
    million  gallons
   pH,  units
   Suspended  Solids
   COD
   TOC
   Oil  & Grease
   Phenols
   Silica
   NH3   - N
o  N02   + N03   - N
"^  Phosphorous
   Sulfate
   Aluminum
   Arsenic
   Barium
   Beryllium
   Cadmium
   Calcium
0.200
3.3
57
9,900
4,600
23
0.05
19
325
225

1.2


0.008


<0.001
16
0.217
0.8
8
1 ,200
240
<5
0.065
66
140
0.06
0.07
30
<1
6.5
0.06
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
42
0.099
0.7
120
1 ,500
90
11
0.070
120
80
140
<0.01
50
10
6.6
0.01
0.4
<0.01
0.051
70
0.087
0.7
18
1 ,200
1,800
7.6
0.035
240
220
75
<0.01
35
<1
7.0
0.03
0.1
<0.01
0.032
53
0.070
0.5
35
1,900
220
20
0.020
31
290
10
<0.01
50
<1
8.2
0.055
0.3
<0.01
0.1
64
0.090
0.7
33
1 ,500
120
23
0.025

150
870

45


0.035


<0.001
74

-------
                               Table V-65 (Continued)

  WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF HYDROCHLORIC ACIP WITHOUT COPPER COMPLEXER SOLUTIONS (48)
                                       (mg/1)
  CONSTITUENTS

  Chromium
  Copper
  Iron
  Lead
  Magnesium
  Manganese
  Mercury
  Nickel
  Potassium
  Selenium
N Silver
o Sodium
  Tin
  Zinc
                        H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7

43
1,125




150





15.8
<0.005
0.69
4,200


19

110





0.94
1.5
2.2
1,300
0.4
8.7
6.9
<0.002
77
1.4
<0.004
0.02
31
<1
5.9
6
7.6
3,820
3.8
6.5
29
<0.002
260
2.3
<0.002
0.02
74
7.3
170
1.1
18
1,420
0.86
5.7
10
<0.002
170
1.5
<0.002
0.07
40
<1
34
8.8
13
3,720
5.2
8.8
28
<0.002
300
1.8
<0.002
0.03
49
2.8
53
<0.005
47
2,780
<0.01

22

150





24
NOTE:  (i)  The absence of concentration value denotes information is not
            available.
       (2)  H-1 through H-7 denote wastes from indenpendent boiler chemical
            cleaning operations.

-------
                                     Table V-66

    WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID WITH COPPER COMPLEXER SOLUTIONS (48)
                                       (mg/1)
CONSTITUENTS

Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Silica
Phosphorous
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
HC-1
HC-2
HC-3
HC-4
HC-5
                                                                           HC-6
280
100

20
4,600

3


30
300

460
1,900

410

680


110
2,100

20

10


960
3,200

500

840
30,980
2,375
980 66.6
16.8
270 530
6,200 6,470
8.16
267
9.2
.132
NOTE:  (1)  The absence of concentration values denotes information is not
            available.
       (2)  HC-1 through HC-6 denote wastes from independent boiler chemical
            cleaning operations.

-------
                                     Table V-67

           WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF HYDROXYACETIC/FORMIC ACID SOLUTIONS (48)
                                       (mg/l)


CONSTITUENTS                   HFA-1        HFA-2       HFA-3       HFA-4

Copper                                                                  2
Iron                           9,800        3,600       6,300       2,900
Nickel                                                                  5
Zinc                                                                    8
NOTE:  (1)  The absence of concentration value denotes information is not
            available,
       (2)  HFA-1 through HFA-4 denote wastes from independent boiler chemical
            cleaning operations.

-------
AnmoniacaJ Sodium Bromate.  Ammoniated sodium  bromate   solutions   are
used  to remove large amounts of copper  from boiler  systems.  Nitrogen
compounds will be present in large  quantities  due   to   the  ammonia.
This  cleaning  step  is followed by a rinse which makes the  volume of
this chemical cleaning waste equivalent  to  two boiler volumes.

Hydrochloric Acid Without Copper Complexer.     These    wastes     are
generally  high  in  total iron contentration  (100 mg/1),  low in total
copper (100 mg/1) and vary with low to medium  concentrations  of nickel
and  zinc,  depending  on  boiler  metal  alloys.  Other   significant
constituents  of  this  type  of  waste  stream consist  of solubilized
deposit materials, such as calcium, silica, phosphorous,  and  oil   and
grease.   Some  rather  low  quantities  of  arsenic,  cadmium,  chromium,
manganese, and tin are also present due  to  slight   acidic attack   on
boiler  metals.   The  volume  of  wastes associated with this type of
cleaning is generally four times the boiler capacity.    This  accounts
for  rinses  and neutralization steps  in addition to the acid cleaning
step.

Hydrochloric Acid With Copper Complexer.    The  use   of    the  copper
complexer  implies  that  copper  is present in the  system as a boiler
metal and therefore must be removed to prevent  replating  onto  steel
surfaces.    This   copper  is  present  as a  complex,   as  are   the
concentrations of nickel and zinc which  are present  mainly at moderate
levels.  As with waste  hydrochloric   acid  solutions without  copper
complexer,  iron  concentrations are very high, generally ranging from
2,000 to  6,000  mg/1,  while  other   constituents   consist  of  lower
quantities  of  other  boiler metals.  Volume  of waste associated with
this cleaning process is generally four  to  five boiler volumes due   to
rinses and neutralization steps.

Hydroxyacetic/Fotrmic Acid.   Hydroxyacetie/formic  acid   has  chelating
properties which, at times, may enable a 3  percent solution  of  these
mixed  acids to exceed a dissolved iron  content of 1.3 percent.  Other
metals generally  do  not  have  high  concentrations  in  this  waste
cleaning  solution  due  to  absence   in boiler metals.  As  with most
organic solvents, the total volume will  be  twice the boiler  capacity
because  a rinse must follow the cleaning step.  The organic  nature of
the solvent will also result in elevated BOD levels.

Sulfuric AcjLd.  This boiler cleaning agent  is  not  widely  used.    The
waste  characteristics  are  probably  similar  to those of hydrochloric
acid without copper complexer.  Sulfuric acid  is a strong  acid  which
may  find  use  in  austenitic steels  due to its low chloride content.
Metal  constituents will vary with their  use in boiler metals.  Volume
of  the  waste, including rinses and neutralizing steps, will approach
four to five boiler volumes.

Sampling Results

A boiler cleaning effluent was analyzed  for the presence  of  priority
organics.   None  of  the  organics  met or   exceeded   the  limit   of
quantification.

                                211

-------
Boiler Fireside Washing

Boiler firesides are commonly washed by spraying  high-pressure  water
against  boiler  tubes while they are still hot.  Waste effluents from
this  washing  operation  contain  an  assortment  of  dissolved   and
suspended solids.  Acid wastes are common for boilers fired with high-
sulfur  fuels.   Sulfur  oxides absorb onto fireside deposits, causing
low pH and a high sulfate content in the waste effluent   (25).   Table
V-68  presents  average  and  maximum  concentrations of pollutants in
fireside washes from Plant 3306 (43).   Table  V-69  shows  historical
waste  load data for boiler fireside wash waters.  Table V-70 presents
a statistical analysis of fireside wash flow  rates  reported  by  the
industry.   The  daily  average  flow  was computed by multiplying the
frequency of cleaning per year  times  the  volume  per  cleaning  and
dividing the product by 365.

Air Preheater Washing

Air  preheaters  employed  in power stations are either the tubular or
regenerative types.  Both are periodically washed to  remove  deposits
which  accumulate.   The  frequency  of  washing is typically once per
month; however, frequency variations ranging from 4  to  180  washings
per  year  are reported (1).  Many air preheaters are sectionalized so
that heat transfer areas may be isolated and washed  without  shutdown
of the entire unit (25).  Higher wash frequencies are expected for air
preheaters employing this design feature.

Fossil  fuels  with  significant  sulfur  content  will produce sulfur
oxides which adsorb on air preheater deposits.  Water washing of these
deposits produces an acidic effluent.   Alkaline  reagents  are  often
added  to  wash  water  to  neutralize  acidity,  prevent corrosion of
metallic surfaces, and maintain an  alkaline  pH.   Alkaline  reagents
might  include  soda  ash  (Na2C03),  caustic soda/NaOH), phosphates,
and/or  detergent.   Preheater  wash  water  contains  suspended   and
dissolved  solids  which  include sulfates hardness, and heavy metals,
including  copper,  iron,  nickel,  and  chromium  (1,   25).    Waste
characteristics  data for these waste waters are presented in table V-
71.  In table V-72, the EPA raw waste load data for air preheater wash
water is shown.  Table V-73 presents a  statistical  analysis  of  air
preheater  wash flow rates reported by the industry in response to the
308 questionnaire.

COAL PILE RUNOFF

In order to ensure a consistent supply of coal for  steam  generation,
plants  typically  maintain  an  outdoor  reserve.  A 90-day supply is
generally maintained to provide  a  sufficient  safety  factor.   This
correlates  to  approximately 600 to 1,800 m3 (780 to 2,340 yards3) of
stored coal per megawatt of required capacity  (1,20).   Four  factors
which may preclude maintaining a large coal reserve are (20):

    1.  Cost of land required for storage,


                                212

-------
                                    Table V-68
                  AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADING
             IN RAW WASTEWATER FROM FIRESIDE WASHES AT PLANT 3306 (43)
Const ituent

Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Zinc
Nickel
Copper
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Sulfate
TDS
TSS
Oil and Grease
     Concentration
         (mg/1)
15 max.,  1.5 ave.
<1,0 max.,  Q«02 ave.
40 max.,  4.0 ave.
900 max.,  70 ave.
250 max.,  6.0 ave.
21 max.,  2,0 ave.
14,000 max., 2,500 ave.
40 max.,  3.5 ave.
10,000 max., 1,000 ave.
50,000 max., 5,000 ave.
25,000 max., 250 ave.
                 Virtually
      Loading
   (kg/cleaning)
 6.8 ave. (15 Ib)
 0.09 ave. (0.2 Ib).
 18 ave. (40 Ib)
 317 ave. (700 Ib)
 27 ave. (60 Ib)
 9 ave. (20 Ib)
 11,340 ave. (25,000 Ib)
 16 ave. (35 Ib)
 4,540 ave. (10,000 Ib)
 22,680 ave. (50,000 Ib)
 1,135 ave. (2,500 Ib)
Absent

-------
                                    Table V-69

                     WASTE LOAD DATA FOR BOILER FIRESIDE WASH

                (Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)

                                      (mg/1)
Pollutant

Suspended solids
  (7 entries)

Copper (7 entries)

Iron (7 entries)
Mean
Value
15,387
47.82
9,630.86
Standard
Deviation
19,905
46.56
14,699.10
Minimum
Value
1,914
2.02
966
Maximum
Value
49 , 680
127.00
40,938

-------
                                     Table V-70

                            FIRESIDE WASH WATER FLOWRATES

                              (308 Questionnaire Data)
   Variable
Number      Mean     Standard     Minimum    Maximum
  of Plants    Value    Deviation     Value      Value
Fuel: coal*
Flow: gpd/plant
gpd/MW
Fuel : gas*
M Flow: gpd/plant
C gPd/MW
Fuel : oil*
Flow: gpd/plant
gpd/MW

42
42

40
40

81
81

2,658
2.9

512
3.4

3,426
7

4,500
4.6

662
7

6,058
11.8

2.7
0.03

0.3
0.006

13.7
0.1

20,295
19

2,739
38.6

35,616
70
*Fuel designations are determined  by the  fuel  which contributes the most Btu for
power generation in the year 1975.

-------
                            Table V-71
                   AIR P1EHEATER WASH WATER (1)
                           (Plant 3410)
COD (mg/1)
SS
TDS
Oil
pH
01
S04
Cond.
Hard.
Ca
Mg
Fe (soluble)
Ni
Or
Na
Zn
Case #1
50
34
733
.25
3.5
18.5
2,480
2,700
1 ,600
37.8
333
515
20.8
1 .45
360
1 .06
Case 92
70
83
606
8.5
3.2
16.6
1 ,920
2,700
1,400
29.4
257
335
18
1 .0
375
1 .19
Case #3
60
29
746
.25
3.3
27
2,720
3,250
1 ,460
34.4
330
460
34.8
1.25
368
1.45
                               216

-------
                                    Table V-72
                      WASTE LOAD DATA FOR AIR PREHEATER WASH
                (Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)
                                      (mg/1)
Pollutant
Suspended Solids
  (78 entries)
Copper (77 entries)
Iron
Mean
Value
1,268.52
148.03
1,953.28
Standard
Deviation
1,663.14
815.37
2,023.79
Minimum
Value
40
0.1
0.05
Maximum
Value
10,211
6,000
8,250

-------
                                        Table V-73

                             AIR PREHEATER WASHWATER FLOWRATES

                                 (308 Questionnaire Data)
oo


Variable
Fuel:
Flow:
Fuel:
Flow:
Fuel:
Flow:
Coal*
gpd/ plant
gpd/MW
Gas*
gpd/ plant
gpd/MW
Oil*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
Number
of Plants
148
147
56
56
110
110
Mean
Value
10,844.4
14.5
980.1
3.8
10,666.7
17.6
Standard
Deviation
22,234.04
31.8
1,922.8
6.2
50,872.6
62.2
Minimum
Value
2.7
0.01
0.27
0.002
1.4-
0.02
Maximum
Value
156,164.4
320.2
9,863
25.9
526,027.4
618.8
   *Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which eontributes the most Btu for
   power generation in the year 1975.

-------
    2.   Labor force and equipment required to maintain coal
       storage area,

    3.   Cost of larger inventory, and

    4.   Loss in heating value of coal due to oxidative
       degradation.

The  quantity  of  runoff  is  dependent on the amount of rainfall.  A
correlation developed by TVA to predict the runoff in inches per  acre
for a given storm event when the total inches of rainfall are known is
given in equation 10 (44).

         Runoff = 0.855 * Rainfall * 0.0082           (10)

The  following generalizations may be made with regard to emergence of
contaminants in coal pile drainage (44):                  :

1.  For a coal pile of a given size and configuration, the  amount  of
contaminants  generated and flushed depends upon the residence time of
the water within the coal pile.

2.  The time required to complete the flushing  of  contaminants  from
the  coal  pile  depends  upon  the volume of water applied (hydraulic
head) and the duration of the application.

3.  Before flushing is complete, concentrations  of  contaminants  are
inversely proportional to the flow rate of drainage runoff.

4.  Upon completion of flushing, there is  no  significant  change  in
contaminant levels with changes in flow rate.

The  contaminants  and their respective amounts can be classified into
specific types according to chemical characteristics.  The first  type
relates  to  pH  of  the coal pile drainage.  The pH tends to be of an
acid nature, primarily as a result of the oxidation of iron sulfide in
the presence of oxygen and water.  The reaction is 'believed  to  occur
in  two  steps  (20,  44).  The products of the first step are ferrous
iron and sulfuric acid as shown in equation 11.
         2FeSa + 702 + 2H20  #   2FeS04 + 2H4S04   (11)

The ferrous iron (Fea+) then undergoes oxidation to the  ferric  state
(Fe3+) as shown in equation 12.

         4FeSQ* + 2H2SO* + 02   *  2Fe2(S04)3 + 2H*0   (12)

The  reaction  may  proceed  to  form ferric hydroxide or basic ferric
sulfate as shown in equations 13 and 14, respectively.
         Fez(SO«)3 + 6H20  ^   2Fe(OH)3 + 3H2SO*      (13)

         Fe2(SO*)3 + 2H20  *   2Fe(OH(S04) + H2SO<,    (14)

                                219

-------
The ferric iron can also  directly  oxidize  pyrite  to  produce  more
ferrous iron and sulfuric acid as shown in equation 15.
         FeSj, + 14Fe+3 + 8H20  #   ISFe+a + 2SO4~2 +  16H+   (15)

Thus/  the  oxidation  of  one  mole  of iron pyrite  yields 2 moles of
sulfuric acid.

As  the  pH  of  the  pyritic  systems  decreases  below   5,   certain
acidophilic, chemoauto trophic bacteria become active.  These bacteria,
Thiobacillus  ferroxiduns,  Ferrobacillus  f erroxidans, Metal loqenium,
and similar species are active at pH 2.0 to 4.5 and use COZ  as  their
carbon  source (45).  These bacteria are responsible  for the oxidation
of ferrous iron to  ferric  state,  the  rate  limiting  step  in  the
oxidation  of  pyrite.   Their  presence is generally an indication of
rapid pyrite oxidation and is accompanied by waters low in pH and high
in iron/ manganese, and total dissolved solids.

The potential influence of pH on  the  behavior  of   toxic and  heavy
metals  is  of  particular concern.  Many of the metals are amphoteric
with regard to  their  solubility  behavior.   The  factors  affecting
acidity, pH and the subsequent leaching of trace metals are  (44): |

1.  Concentration and form of pyritic sulfur in coal;

2.  Size of the coal pile;

3.  Method of coal preparation and clearing prior to  storage;

4.  Climatic conditions, including rainfall and temperature;

5.   Concentrations  of CaC03 and other neutralizing  substances  in the
coal ;

6.  Concentration and form of trace metals in the coal; and

•?.  The residence time in the coal pile.

Table V-74 contains results of analysis of samples from coal piles  at
two  TVA  plants.   Both  facilities  exhibited  very low pH values;
however/ the acidity values were quite variable in each of the   cases,
which  demonstrates  that acidity is not a measure of hydrogen  ion but
rather a measure of available protons.  The  suspended  solids   levels
observed  went  up  to 2,500 mg/1 .  Elevated levels of total suspended
solids result when rainfall/runoff suspends coal fires  in  the  pile.
Most of the total dissolved solids concentrations are a consequence of
enhanced  pyritic  oxidation via equations 11-15.  Table V-75 displays
data on the concentrations of metals in coal pile runoff from two  TVA
plants.  An  examination  of  the  data  reveals that there is a large
degree of variability among the values.  The  metals  present   in  the
greatest  concentrations  were  copper,  iron,  aluminum,   and nickel.
Others present in trace amounts include  chromium,  cadmium,  mercury,
arsenic/ selenium, and berillium.

                                 220

-------
                                     Table V-74



                      CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL PILE RUNOFF (44)

Plant

J


E


E*



Range
Mean
N
Range
Mean
N
Range
Mean
N

El
2.3-3.1
2.79
19
2.5-3.1
2.67
6
2.5-2.7
2.63
14
Acidity
(mg/1
CaCO )
300-71 OQ
3400
18
860-2100
1360
6
300-1400
710
14
Sulfate
(mg/1)
1800-9600
51 60
18
1900-4000
2780
6
870-5500
2300
14
Dissolved
Solids
(mg/1)
2500-16000
7900
18
2900-5000
3600
6
1200-7500
2700
14
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
8.0-2300
470
18
38-270
190
6
69-2500
650
14
Fe
ipig/1)
240-1800
940
19
280-480
380
6
62-380
150
14
Mn
(mg/1)
8.9-45
28.7
19
2.4-10.0
4.13
6
0.88-5.4
2.3
14
*Discrete Storm

-------
                                     Table V-75

                 CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN COAL PILE RUNOFF (44)
                                       (mg/1)
Plant
Range
J Mean
ND*
N+ •
Range
0=24-0.46
E Mean
ra
K> M+
to "

Range
J Mean
ND*
N+
Range
E Mean
ND*
N-l-
Cu
0.43-1.4
0.86
0
19
0.01-0.46
0.23
0
6
Cr
<0.005-.011
.007
1 1
17
<0.005-.011
0.007
3
6
Zn
2.3-16 <
6.68
0
19
1.1-3.7
2.18
0
6
H&
<.0002-.0025
.0004
12
20
0.003-.007
0.004
0
5
Cd
.001-C001
<.001
19
19
<. 001-0. 003
0.002
2
6
As
.005-0.6
0.17
0
19
0.006-0.046
0.02
0
4
Al
66.0-440
260
0
19
22.0-60.0
43.3
0
6
Se
C001-.03
0.006
4
18
<.001-.001
0.001
3
4
Ni
0.74-4.5
2.59
0
19

0.33
0
6
Be
0.03-0.07
0.044
0
1-8
<. 01-0. 03
0.014
3
4
*Nft = Number of samples.below detection limits.

-------
Wet Flue Gas Cleaning Processes
•"•«—^i^««^••—••—^—                             ,
                                                            \
Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems

In  1977  there were approximately 34 powerplants in the United States
having operational FGD systems.  In addition,  42  such  systems  were
under  construction (49).  The breakdown of existing, constructed,  and
planned FGD systems by the type of process used for desulfurization of
the stack gases is given in  table V-76.

In all of the existing FGD systems the main task of absorbing  S02 from
the stack gases is accomplished by scrubbing the exiting gases with an
alkaline slurry.  This may be preceded by partial removal of   fly   ash
from  the stack gases.  Existing FGD processes may be divided  into  two
categories:     nonregenerable    (throwaway)     and     regenerable.
Nonregenerable   flue  gas   desulfurization  processes  include  lime,
limestone, arid lime/limestone combination and double  alkali   systems.
The   following    is   a   short  description  of  each  process  with
characterization, where applicable or available, of the liquid wastes
generated in the processes.

Nonregenerable Processes

Lime and Limestone Scrubbing Processes.  In the lime or limestone flue
gas  desulfurization  process  S02 is removed from the flue gas by  wet
scrubbing with a slurry of calcium oxide (lime) or  calcium  carbonate
(limestone).   The principal reactions for absorption of SO2 by slurry
are:

         lime: SOj, + CaO + 1/2H20  -?  CaSO3 . 1/2H20

         limestone: SO2 + CaCO3 + 1/2H2O  -?   CaSO3 . 1/2H2O + CO2

Oxygen absorbed from the flue gas or surrounding atmosphere causes  the
oxidation  of  absorbed  SO2.   The  calcium  sulfite  formed  in   the
principal  reaction  and  the calcium sulfate formed through oxidation
are precipitated as crystals in a  holding  tank.   The  crystals   are
recovered  in  a  solid/liquid  separator.   Waste  solids disposal is
accomplished  by  ponding  or  landfill.   The  clear  liquid  can   be
recycled.

A  bleed  stream   is taken off the effluent hold tank to be dewatered.
This step, necessary to minimize  the  land  area  needed  for sludge
disposal, varies depending on the application and type of disposal.

For  systems with on-site pond disposal, solids may be pumped  directly
from the effluent hold tank  to the pond area.  Clean  overflow liquor
from  the  pond  may  then be returned to the system.  :If necessary,  a
thickening device such as a  clarifier or centrifuge  can  be   used   to
increase  the  solids content.  Additional dewatering to 60-70 percent
solids can sometimes be achieved by various systems  including vacuum
filtration.
                                223

-------
                       Table ¥-76
SUMMARY OF NEW AND RETROFIT. FGD SYSTEMS  BY PROCESS (49)
Operational

Proeaaa T7P«
Lisa

Lin«/allcaline tlyash
Lino/ 1 tee s con*

Limestone

Subcocal-lime/lir.escone

Aqueous

Aqueous earbonaca/fiab.
ftlctr
Double alkali

Magnesium oxide

Hoc solacced

Reganerablt noc selected
Sodiurn carbonata

W«llc»n Lord

Heltaen Lord/ Allied
Chemical
TOTALS

Line/lineacona I o£
total MW
Mew or
Recrotic
8
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
M
R
S
R
H
S
M
R
H
R
N
R
H
R
•H
R
N
R
S
R
M
R
N
R

Mo.
4
8
3
0
0
2
8
3
15.
13.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
, 0
0
1
z
0
Q
1
1 ,
17.
17.
94
84

5W
2,450
1 ,650
1,170
o -
0
20
4,443
790
8,963.
2,46&.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
0
0
0
0
125
250
0
0
375
115
8,563.
2,945.


Under
Construction

Mo.
10*
0
1
0
Q
0
23
..:,,„.
34.
1.
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
-„:. „
38.
4.



MN
4,565
0
500
0
0
0
9.620.
	 1 A??! 1
14.685.
425.
0
0
0
0
825
277
0
0
0
0
0
0
509
0
soo
180
0
	 .r:.140.;
16,,519,
1,222-
89
35

NO
0
2
1
3
0
0
5
-2
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
18
4
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
_0
26
13


Planned

. UN
0
660
527
579
0
0
2,880
	 0_
. • 3,407.
1,239.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
726 '
9,500
2,100
0
650
125
0
500
0
0
_ 	 o
. 13,532.
4,715.
25
26
Total. So.
of Planes

Ho.
16
10
7
3
0
2
45
5
68.
20.
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
4
19
4
0
1
3
2
2
1
1
A,
96.
36.



MM
8,440
2,310
3.597
579
0
20
21,726
1 ,790
33,763
4,699
0
100
400
0
825
277
0
846
9,800
2,100
0
650
759
250
1 ,000
180
375
455
46 , 922
9,557
72
49
R - racrofie
                          224

-------
      or  limestone  systems typically recycle overflow water  from  the
thickener or settling pond.  If all  the  overflow   is  recycled,   the
system  is  a  closed loop system  (no discharge).  Many of  the lime or
limestone  systems  discharge  scrubber  waters  usually  to    control
dissolved solids levels.

Another  source  of  discharge  not  common to all systems  is  the mist
elimination wash.  This  involves the practice of either continuous   or
intermittent  wash  of   the  demister vanes of the scrubber.   Scrubber
slurry carryover (material carried from the contactor  with the  flue
gas)  is  retained  in   the  system by impacting the demister  section.
Cleaning of  the  demister   is  then  accomplished   by  washing.    The
resulting  wash  water   is   then either sent to the  thickener,  recycle
tank, or the settling pond.  A  summary  of  composition  data for  a
typical demister wash is presented in table V-77.

Double Alkali Wet Scrubbing.   A number of processes can  be considered
double  alkali  processes.   In  the  United  States,,  most   of    the
developmental  work  has emphasized sodium-based double alkali systems
using  lime  for  regeneration.    Double  alkali  systems  using    an
ammonia/calcium  ' base   have   been   tested,  but  they  suffer   the
disadvantage of potentially  producing a visible  ammonium  salt plume
from  the scrubbing system.  The following process description will be
limited to sodium/calcium-based processes.
                                          /        /  • ./
Flue gas is pretreated  in a  venturi or tray type prescrubber   to  cool
and  humidify  the  gas  and  to   reduce  fly  ash and chlorides.   The
humidification and cooling step prevents the evaporation  of excessive
amounts  of  water  in   the  absorber.   The potential for  scaling  and
plugging problems  is   reduced  by the  removal  of fly  ash which,
containing  vanadium and iron  compounds, can catalyze the oxidation of
'Na2O3 to Na2SO4.

Cool and  humidified  gas  from  the  prescrubber  passes  through   an
absorption  tower,  where  SOZ   is removed by absorption  into  a sodium
hydroxide or sodium sulfite  scrubbing solution.  The scrubber  effluent
liquor is regenerated with lime or limestone in a reaction  tank.

The  calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate solids formed  in  the   reaction
tank  were  withdrawn   from  the   system   in a solid/liquid separator.
After make-up  alkali and water  are  added,  the  separator   effluent
liquor   is  recycled  to the scrubbing  loop.  A  liquid purge stream is
required to remove soluble   sodium sulfate.   Failure   to   allow   for
sulfate  removal  from  double  alkali  systems will  ultimately result in
(1)  precipitation of sodium  sulfate somewhere  in  the system if active
sodium   is  made  up  to  the  system; or  (2)  in  the  absence of makeup,
eventual deterioration  of  the  SO2  removal  capability due  to the   loss
of  active sodium  from the  system.

Discharges  From  Non-Reqenerable  Scrubbing  Systems.    All   the  non-
regenerable scrubbing systems  have a  disadvantage  in that they produce
large  amounts  of  throwaway   sludges  which  may   pose  • problems   in
disposal.   Onsite  disposal is  usually performed  by sending  the waste

                                 225

-------
                                       Table V-77
                COMPOSITION OF EFFLUENT      ONCE-THROUGH MIST ELIMINATOR
                     WASH UNIT AT WET LIMESTONE SCRUBBER        (50)
Water quality parameter
Acidity (methyl orange), as
Acidity (total), as CaC03, mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Calcium, nig/1
Chloride, mg/1
Conductance, umho/cm
Dissolved solids (total), mg/1
Hardness as CaC03, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
pH, unit
Phosphate (total), mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Turbidity, JTU
      Concentration at indicated wash rate
40.7 1/min/m2   20.35 1/min/m2   10.18 1/min/m2
    49                -              120
64
0.21
220
24
1,300
1,000
580
6.5
3.1
0.11
2.2
8.1
700
<1
-
0.25
440
40
1,600
1,900
1,100
8.2
.
0.03
3
8.8
1,000
<1
150
0.34
430
120
2,700
2,200
1,100
18
2.7
0.03
2.6
11
1,200
2

-------
                COMPOSITION OF
                     WASH UNIT
Water quality parameter
Aluminum, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Bariuflf, mg/1
   *   I
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
  Table V-77 (Continued)
EFFLUENT FROM ONCE-THROUGH MIST ELIMINATOR
AT WET LIMESTONE SCRUBBER SYSTEM (50)
          Concentration at indicated wash rate
    40.7 1/min/m2   20.35 1/min/m2   10.18 1/min/m2
        <0.2             <0.2             <0.2
         0.002            0.002            OoOl
0.01
0.0042
<0.05
0.02
<0.01
5.8
0.033
0.16
<0.0002
<0.05
0.012
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
0.0013
<0.05
0.02
<0.01
0.07
0.011
0.14

-------
solids to a large pond.  After  settling,  the  supernatant  from  the
ponds  may  be  recycled back into the scrubbing process.  However, in
1977 only 6 of the total 34 plants (308 data) having  operational  FGD
systems  reported  closed loop mode of operation.  Actual practices at
these facilities has not been  confirmed  at  this  time.   Thus,  the
supernatant  from  the  majority of plants was directed to the surface
waters.

Table V-78 presents  range  of  concentrations  of  chemicals  in  the
scrubber  liquors  before settling.  Liquor analyses were conducted on
13 samples from seven powerplants burning eastern or western coal  and
using lime, limestone or double alkali absorbents.

Wastewater Flows.   Statistical  analysis  of wastewater flows from 28
powerplants indicating  flue  gas  scrubber  blowdown  (308  data)  is
presented  in  table  V-79.  It should be noted that the corresponding
question in the questionnaire  reads  "Flue  Gas  Scrubber  Blowdown."
Statistical  analysis  of  wastewater  flows  categorized as "Scrubber
Solids Pond Overflow" is presented in table V-80.

Regenerable Processes

Wellman-Lord  Sulfite  Scrubbing  Process.  The  Wellman-Lord  Sulfite
Scrubbing  Process  is  a regenerable flue gas desulfurization process
marketed by Davy Powergas.  It is based on the  ability  of  a  sodium
sulfite  solution  to  absorb  S02  and  form  a  solution  of  sodium
bisulfite.  The sodium bisulfite solution can be thermally regenerated
to produce a concentrated  stream  of  SO2  and  the  original  sodium
sulfite  solution.   The  concentrated  S02 stream can be processed to
produce elemental sulfur, sulfuric acid, or recycled to the  absorber.
In  the  absorption phase of the process, sulfates formed by oxidation
of sulfites are removed from the system in a purge of  sodium  sulfate
and sulfite solids.

About  15  percent  of  the  absorber  product liquor is sent to purge
treatment.  The product  resulting  from  the  purge  treatment  is  a
chrystalline  mixture  of  anhydrous  sodium  sulfate (70 percent) and
sodium sulfite   (30  percent)  with  small  amounts  of  thiosulfates,
pyrosulfites  and chlorides.  The supernatent liquor is recycled (51).
There is no planned wastewater or sludge streams associated with   this
process.

Magnesia  Slurry  Absorption  Process.  The Magnesia Slurry Absorption
Process is a regenerable flue gas  desulfurization  process.   S02  is
removed  from  the  flue  gases  by  wet  scrubbing  with  a slurry of
magnesium oxide.  Magnesium sulfite is the predominant species  formed
in the absorption reaction below:

         Mg(OH)2 + S02  •£   MgS03 + H2

The "absorber effuent is centrifuged.  The liquor is sent to the slurry
tank  for  combination  with makeup water, makeup MgO, and regenerated
MgO to form the slurry feed for the scrubber.  The  magnesium  sulfite

                                 228

-------
                            Table V-78
     EANGE 0F CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN FGD
   SLUDGES FROM LIME/LIMESTONE, AND DOUBLE-ALKALI SYSTEMS (52)
 Scrubb er .Cons tituent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
Chemical oxygen demand
Total dissolved solids
PH
Liquor, mg/1
 (except pH)
  0.03-2.0
 0.004-1.8
 0.002-0.18
 0.004-0.11
   180-2,600
 0.015-0.5
 0.002-0.56
  0.01-0.52
   4.0-2,750
0.0004-0.07
   5.9-100
0.0006-2.7
  10.0-29,000
  0.01-0.59
   420-33,000
   0.6-58
   600-35,000
   0.9-3,500
     1-390
 2,800-92,500
   4.3-12.7
 Solid, mg/kg

    0.6-52
   0.05-6
   0.08-4
105,0.00-268,000
     '10-250
      8-76
   0.23-21

   0.01-5

      2-17
       -48,000
     45-430
 35,000-473,000
  1 ,600-302,000
                                 229

-------
                                          Table V-79

                                  FLUE GAS SCRUBBER  SLOWDOWN
                                      (308 Questionnaire)

                      Number
                         of                                       Minimum
     Variable           Plants   Mean Value   Standard  Deviation    Value    Maximum Value

    Fuel;   Coal*

      Flow:   GPD/plant    34       671,364.7    2,572,498.5         0.00      15,000,000
             GPD/MW      34          811.27   1,877,799           0.00          8,823.53
to                       i
o   *Fuel  designations are determined by  the fuel which contributes  the most Btu  for power
    generation for  the year  1975.

-------
                                       Table V-80
                        FLUE GAS SCRUBBER SOLIDS POND OVERFLOW
                                  (308  Questionnaire)
 Variable

Fuel:   Coal*
Number
  of
 Plants
  Flow:  GPD/plant    28
         GPD/MH       28
Mean Value
           210,724.6
             3,973.31
                    Minimum
Standard Deviation    Value
                580,849.9
                 19,814.926
                     0.00
                     0.00
Maximum Value
2,310,000
  195,000
*Fuel designations are determined by the fuel  which contributes the most Btu for^power
generation for the year 1975.                                                   W

-------
cake is dried to remove free and bound water.  Magnesium oxide is then
regenerated  in  a  calciner by thermal decomposition of the magnesium
sulfite according to the equation below;

         MgS03  •?  - MgO + S02                           f"

The concentrated SO2 gas stream can be used to promote  sulfuric  acid
or elemental sulfur.

Summary.    In  general, data sufficient to characterize waste loadings
resulting from flue gas cleaning processes are not available.  No  net
discharge  data,  i.e.,  influent  and  effluent  data,  are currently
available for those systems.  Additional studies  will  be  needed  to
provide  this  data  and to confirm the current discharge practices in
the industry.
                                232

-------
                              SECTION VI.
                  SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Section 502 of the Clean Water Act (I) defines; a pollutant as" follows;
The term "pollutant" means dredged  spoil,  solid  waste,,  incinerator
residue,  sewage,  garbage, sewage sludge, munitions-, chemical wastes,
biological  materials,  radioactive  materials,   heat,   wrecked   or
discharged   equipment,   rock,  sand,  cellar  dirt  and  industrial,
municipal and agricultural waste discharged into water.
The  selection  of  pollutant  parameters  for  the  1974  Development
Document  (2) was based on a list of 71 pollutant parameters published
by EPA  (3) and supplemented by the following pollutant parameters:
    -   free available chlorine,
    -   polychlorinated biphenyls, and
 .   -   pH.
The pollutant parameters selected and subsequently addressed  in
the 1974 Development Document  (2) werer
       total solids,
       total suspended solids,
       total dissolved solids,
                              •
       biochemical oxygen demand  (BOD),
       chemical oxygen demand (COD),
       chlorine residuals,
       alkalinity,
       acidity,
       total hardness,
       fecal coliform,
       surfactants,
       oil  and grease,
       ammonia,

                                 233

-------
    -  total phosphorous,

    -  phenols/

    -  sulfate/

    -  sulfite,

    -  flouride,

    -  chloride,

    -  -bromide/

    -  iron/

       copper,

    -  mercury,

    -  vanadium/

    -  chromium/

    -  zinc/

    -  magnesium/ and

    -  aluminum.

The selection of pollutant parameters for this document  is  based  on
the court approved list of 129 priority pollutants.  The assessment of
the  priority  pollutants  that  may be discharged from steam electric
powerplants was based on the  analytical  results  from  the  sampling
program,  data  from  the 308 survey, and information published in the
literature.  The priority pollutants detected in the sampling  program
are  listed  in table VI-1 by waste stream source.  Since the sampling
program did not include all the  plants,  pollutants  which  were  not
detected  at  the  sampled  facilities  may  be  discharged from other
facilities.  Pollutants at or below the level of quantification may be
present at very  low  concentrations.   The  number  of  plants  which
reported  various  priority  pollutants  as  known  or suspected to be
present in their waste streams are presented in table  VI-2  by  waste
stream  source.  In the 308 survey, powerplants were also requested to
provide information regarding proprietary chemicals used during  plant
operations  and  their  points  of application.  Table VI-3 provides a
listing of those proprietary chemicals, reported which contain  one  or
more  of  the  priority  pollutants.   The specific priority pollutant
contained in each chemical was identified from  the  literature.   The
addition  of  any proprietary chemical containing a priority pollutant
during operation of a plant would result  in  the  discharge  of  that
pollutant  in  the  plant's wastewater streams, thus, knowledge of the
chemical  nature  of  proprietary  chemicals  and   their   point   of

                                 234

-------
                                           Table VI-1

                     PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN THE SAMPLING  PROGRAM BY
                                      WASTE STREAM SOURCES
    Priority Pollutant
                                                Waste  Stream  Source
LO
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis(Chloromethyl) Ether
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chlorbethyl Vinyl Ether
  (Mixed)
2-Chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Parachlorotneta Cresol
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
Once
Through
Cooling
Water
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
X
0
X
0
Cooling
Tower
Blowdown

0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
Combined
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
Bottom
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Fly
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
Volume
Waste

0
0
0
X
0
0
X
0
0
X
X
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
X
X
X
0
Coal
Pile
Runoff
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, 0
0
0
0
0

-------
                                    Table VI-1  (Continued)

                    PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN THE SAMPLING PROGRAM BY
                                     WASTE STREAM SOURCES
   Priority Pollutant
                                                Waste Stream Source
u>
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1f1-Diehloroethylene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine  .
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
Bls(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Bromoform
Dichlorobromomethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Once
Through
Cooling
Water
0
0
X
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
X
0
0
0
X
0
Cooling
Tower
Slowdown

0
0
X
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
Combined
Ash
Sluice
Water
X
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
Bottom
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fly
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
Volume
Waste

X
0
0
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
X
X
0
0
X
0
Coal
Pile
Runoff
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
^ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-------
                                 Table VI-1  (Continued)

                 PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS DETECTED  IN  THE SAMPLING PROGRAM BY
                                  WASTE STREAM SOURCES
Priority Pollutant
Waste Stream Source
Hexaehloroeyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
214-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-Q-Cresol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodi~N-Propylamine
Pentaehlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Di-H-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Behzo (A) Pyr ene
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Benzo(K) Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene
Once
Through
Cooling
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cooling
Tower
Slowdown

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Combined
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
Bottom
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Fly
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
Volume
Waste

0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Coal
Pile
Runoff
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:-; 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-------
                                     Table VI-1  (Continued)

                     PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN THE SAMPLING PROGRAM BY
                                      WASTE STREAM SOURCES
    Priority  Pollutant
                                                Waste Stream Source
ro
W
oo
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene
Indeno(1,2,3,-C,D)Pyrene
Pyrene
Tetraehloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE
4,4-ODD
Endosulfan-Alpha
Endosulfan-Beta
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
BHC-Alpha
BBC-Beta
BHC(Lindane)-Gama
BHC-Delta
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
Once
Through
Cooling
Water
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cooling
Tower
Slowdown

0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Combined
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bottom
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fly
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
Volume
Waste

0
0
0
0
0
V
A
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Coal
Pile
Runoff
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-------
                                     Table VI-1  (Continued)
Ui
                     PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN THE SAMPLING PROGEAM BY
                                      WASTE STREAM SOURCES
    Priority  Pollutant
                                                Waste Stream Source
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
Toxaphene
Antimony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Asbestos(Total-Fibers/Liter)
Beryllium (Total)
Cadmium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Copper (Total)
Cyanide (Total)
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Thallium (Total)
Zinc (Total)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
  P-Dioxin
Once
Through
Cooling
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
* X
0
0
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X .
X
X
Cooling
Tower
Slowdown

0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Combined
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bottom
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
Fly
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
Low
Volume
Waste

0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
O
0
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
Coal
! Pile
Runoff
* .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
X
X
X
X
0
X
0
X
0
0
0
X
                                    0
0
0
0
0
0
0
   Note:
   X = Present in greater  concentration  in  the  effluent than in the influent at least once.
   0 = Never present  in greater  concentration in the effluent than in the influent.
   * = Since coal pile runoff has no  influent stream (except rainfall), this column
       reflects whether or not the  pollutant was ever detected in the coal pile effluent
       stream.

-------
                           Table VI-2
            OF PLANTS REPORTING VARIOUS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
  AS KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO BE PRESENT IN VARIOUS WASTE STREAMS
                    (308 questionnaire data)
Priority Pollutant
Acenaphten
Acrolein
Acryloni trile
Aldrin-dieldrin
Antimony and Compounds
Arsenic and Compounds
Asbestos
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium and Compounds
Cadmium and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated Benzenes
Chlorinated Ethanes
Chlorinated Phenols
Chloroalkyl Ethers
Chloroform
Chromium and Compounds
Copper and Compounds
Cyanides
DDT and Metabolites
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichloroethylenes
Diphenylhydrazine
EDTA
 Number of Plants Reporting by
          Waste Stream*
1     .2     3     45     6
9
0
0
0
108
155
5
0
0
96
124
0
0
1
0 1
0
0
0
145
132
18
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
• o
0
0
4
38
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
40
8
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
2
32
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
20
1
0
0
3
9
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
11
9
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
36
4
19
0
15
25
9
0
0
2
1
0
19
45
69
12
0
0
0
0
39
                               240

-------
                     Table VX-2 (Continued)
     NUMBER OF PLANTS REPORTING VARIOUS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
  AS KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO BE PRESENT IN VARIOUS WASTE STREAMS
                    (308 questionnaire data)

                                  Number of Plants Reporting by
                                           Waste Stream*
Priority Pollutant               1	2	3	4    5	6
Flouranthene                     000000
Haloethers                       000000
Halomethanes                     000000
Heptaehlor and Metabolities      0     0     0     00     0
Isophorone                       1      00000
Lead and Compounds             132     9     3    12    8    37
Mercury and Compounds          137    11     2    13    0    43
Naphthalene                      0     0     0     0    0    14
Nickel and Compounds           137    14     3     3   65    48
Nitrosamines                     600000
PCBS                             400200
Pentachlorophenol                109001
Phenol                           5     6     2     1    2    19
Phthalate Esters                 000001
Polynuclear Aromatic
  Hydrocarbons                   1      0000      0
Selenium and Compounds         120     0     20    1    20
Silver and Compounds            83     3     2     0    0    26
Tetrachloroethylene              0     00     10     0
Thallium and Compounds          34     0     2     0    0     2
Toluene                          0     00     0    0    18
Trichloroethylene          '      000500
Vanadium                        94     0     2     00     6
Vinyl chloride                   0     0     0     01     0
Zinc and Compounds             142     7    22     9   59    49
                               241

-------
                     Table VI-2 (Continued)

            OF PLANTS REPORTING VARIOUS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
  AS KNOW OR SUSPECTED TO BE PRESENT IN VARIOUS WASTE STREAMS

                    (308 questionnaire data)


                                  Number of Plants Reporting by
                                           Waste Stream*
Priority Polutant                1	23456

2-chlorophenol                   00     0     00     0
2,4 Dichlorophenol               000000
2,4 Dimethylphenol               0     0     0     107
*Waste Streams:

    1  - ash transport water
    2 - water treatment wastes
    3 - cooling system wastes
    4 - maintenance wastes
    5 - construction wastes
    6 - other wastes
                               242

-------
                          . Table VI-3

       PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING PROPRIETARY CHEMICALS*
                      USED BY POWER PLANTS

                    (308 questionnaire data)
 Proprietary Chemical
(point ofapplication*)

NALCO CHEMICALS

  25L (CT)*
  37  (BW)
  38  (CW)
  75  (BW)
  201 (CT)
  344 (CT)
  375 (CW)
  425L(BW)

CALGON CHEMICALS

  CL-70 (CT)
  CL-35 (BW)
  CL-68 (CW)

DEARBORN CHEMICALS

  71 2  (CW)

BETZ CHEMICALS

  BETZ 4OP  (CW)
  BETZ 403  (CW)
 . DIANODIC 191  (CW)

DOW CHEMICALS

  DOWICIDE GB (ALGACIDE)

HERCULES CHEMICALS

  CR 403   (CT)

DUPONT -

  KARMEX   (CW)
Specific Priority Pollutant
 Contained in Product (4,5)
COPPER
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
PHENOL
CHLORINATED PHENOLS
ACRYLONITRILE
CHROMIUM
COPPER
ZINC CHLORIDE
SODIUM DICROMATE
SODIUM DICHROMATE, ZINC CHLORIDE
CHLORINATED PHENOLS
CHROMATE AND ZINC SALTS
CHROMATE AND ZINC SALTS
CHROMATE AND ZINC SALTS
CHLORINATED PHENOLS
ZINC DICHROMATE, CHROMIC ACID
CHLORINATED PHENOLS
                              243

-------
                     Table VI-3 (Continued)

       PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING PROPRIETARY CHEMICALS
                      USED BY POWER PLANTS

                    (308 questionnaire data)
 Proprietary Chemical
(point of application*)

DREW CHEMICALS

  BIOSPERSE 201  (CW)

ASHLAND CHEMICALS

  1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE (FA)

BURRIS CHEMICALS

  SODIUM DICHROMATE  (CT)
Specific Priority Pollutant
 Contained in Product (4,5)
CHLORINATED ETHANES
CHLORINATED ETHANES
SODIUM DICHROMATE
*Point of Application:

    BW - BOILER WATER
    CT - COOLING TOWER
    CW - COOLING WATER
    FA - FUEL ADDITIVE
                               244

-------
application  was  an additional way of identifying priority pollutants
in powerplant wastewater discharges.

At the time  of  the  preparation  of. this  document,  water  quality
criteria  for "the 65 families of toxic pollutants were not available.
Proposed criteria, however, were available for  27  of  the  pollutant
families.   The  criteria  used  are  presented  in table VI-4.  Water
quality criteria are not an absolute constraint on effluent guidelines
development; they are one of many factors considered.
                                 245

-------
                                       Table ?I~4

               WATER QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA USED IN ASSESSMENT
                 OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF POWER PLANT  EFFLUENTS

                                          (ppb)
to
   Pollutant
Benzene
1,2-dichloroethane
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-triehlorophenol
chloroform
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-diehloroethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
methylene chloride
bromoform
chlorodibromomethane
2,4-dinitrophenol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
trichloroethylene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
ethylbenzene
isophorone
bromodichloromethane
tetrachloroethylene
                               WaterQuality Criteria
Freshwater
FT
3100
52
500
44
310
190
530
620
0.4
4000
840
6.2
600
1 50'0


310
FX
7000
150
1200
99
700
440
1200
1400
110
9000
1900
14
3400
3400


700
Marine
MT
920

620
15
22
15
1700


1900
180
3.7


38
97
79
MX
2100

1400
34
49
34
3900


4400
420
8.5


87
220
180
Human Health Criteria
    15



   2.1

   270 Total

  0.48

   0.5
                                                                    140

                                                                     21
                                                                    2.2

-------
                              Table VI-4 (Continued)

            WATER QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA USED IN ASSESSMENT
              OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF POWER PLANT EFFLUENTS

                                       (ppb)
Pollutant
 Water Quality Criteria
Freshwater        Marine
FT      FX      MT      MX
                                   Human Health Criteria
  antimony
  arsenic
  asbestos
  chromium
  copper
  cyanides
^.mercury
~J nickel
  selenium
  silver
  thallium
  zinc
  beryllium

  cadmium
lead
                              57
       130
                   29
 7-10  35-400
FT=e exp (1 .24
-FX=e exp (1.24
FT-e exp (0.867
FX=e exp (1 .30
MT=1
MX=16
FT=e exp (1.51
FX=e exp (1 .51
                                              48
67
5
0.3-15
1.4
0.003
2-100
9.7
0.009
280
3.5-60
42
3.2
45-600
22
1.9
25
0.88

0.089

4.4
0.26
260
2

1.6

10
0.58
                       110
                                          In(hardness)-6.65)
                                          ln(hardness)-1.46)
                                           In(hardness)-4.38)
                                          ln(hardness)-3.92)
            ln(hardness)-3.37)
            ln(hardness)-1 .39)
0.02
            10
            20
             4

         0.087

            10



            50

-------
248

-------
                             SECTION VII
                   TREATMENT AND.CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses treatment and control technologies judged to be
effective in reducing or eliminating pollutants  from  steam  electric
power  wastewaters.   Wastewaters from steam electric powerplants vary
in both quality and quantity from one plant to  another.   Control  of
pollutants,  however,  can  be  achieved  in  a  uniform  manner.  The
treatment and control technologies described in this section are those
technologies which are available or currently  in  use  in  the  steam
electric  power industry to decrease the discharge of toxic pollutants
to navigable waters.  The discussion of technologies is  organized  by
major  waste  streams and waste stream categories:  cooling water, ash
handling, low volume wastes, metal  cleaning  wastes,  and  coal  pile
runoff.
COOLING WATER
The  variety  of  pollutants  which  may  be  present in cooling water
discharges from steam electric powerplants were identified in  Section
V.   In  Section VI the major pollutants of concern were identified as
total residual chlorine (TRC) and certain priority pollutants.
The technologies which have been evaluated for control of TRC include:
    -  chlorine minimization,
       dechlorination,
       alternative oxidizing chemicals,
    -  mechanical cleaning,
    -  biocidal soak,
       antifouling coatings,
       heat treatment,
    -  gamma irradiation and ultraviolet radiation,
       ultrasonic vibration,
    -  modified water velocity,
    -  osmotic shock, and
       anoxic water.
EPA evaluated each of these technologies.  Many were eliminated
                                 249

-------
from further consideration for various reasons including:

    -  The technology was not believed to be applicable to a
       large population of plants;
                                             j  .        j
    -  The technology was judged to be too complex to be reliably
       operated and maintained at a steam electric plant; or

       No data was available to establish the effectiveness of
       the technology in use at steam electric power plants or in
       similar biofouling control applications.         ;

The technologies chosen for full consideration were:

       chlorine minimization,

    -  dechlorination,

    -  alternative oxidizing chemicals, and

    -  mechanical cleaning.                                    ,

Several of the 129 priority pollutants have been observed  in  cooling
tower blowdown.  The sources of these priority pollutants are  chemical
additives  used  for  corrosion,  scaling,  and biofouling control and
asbestos fill material from the cooling  towers.   The  only   feasible
technology  for priority pollutant control is substitution of  products
not containing priority pollutants for products that do contain  these
pollutants.   Chemical mixtures not containing priority pollutants can
be substituted for scaling and corrosion .control  chemicals  and  non-
oxidizing biocides.  Replacement of asbestos cement cooling tower fill
with another type of fill eliminates the release of asbestos fibers  in
cooling tower blowdown.

A  process  description, an effectiveness evaluation, and a discussion
of the limitations for each of these  technologies  are  presented   in
this subsection.

Total JResidual Chlorine Control with Chlorine Minimization

Chlorine  minimization  is  defined  as  any modification of a current
cooling  water  chlorination  program  that  reduces  to  the  minimum
possible  level the loading of total residual chlorine  (TRC) placed  on
a receiving water by the once-throgh cooling water system of   a  steam
electric  powerplant.   Loading  is  the  product  of  three   factors:
cooling  water  flowrate,  TRC  concentration  in  the  .cooling  water
discharge,  and  the  length  of time TRC is present in the discharge.
Reduction of cooling water flow rate  is  not  practical  in   a  once-
through  system;  therefore, chlorine minimization can be accomplished
by reducing any of the following:

       Dose of chlorine added; where dose is defined as the total
       weight of chlorine added per unit volume of cooling water,

                                250

-------
       i.e.,  1 mg/1, 2 mg/1, etc./

    -  Duration of chlorination period; where duration is defined
       as the length of time between the start and end of a
       single period of chlorine addition; or

    -  Frequency of chlorination; where frequency is defined as
       the number of times per day that chlorination periods
       occur.

In addition,  combinations of  dose,  duration  and  frequency  may  be
reduced  simultaneously  to  bring about a reduction in net loading of
TRC to the environment.

Some plants add chlorine continuously in order to  control  biofouling
from  barnacles or fresh water clams.  Often a low dose of chlorine is
applied continuously for control of the hard shelled  organisms—which
can  close  their shell and endure intermittent chlorination periods—
a.nd a higher dose is  applied  intermittently  at  some  duration  and
frequency  for  the  control of biological slimes.  Thus, plants which
chlorinate continuously may be able to apply chlorine minimization  by
reducing their chlorine dose-for continuous chlorination—and reducing
their dose, duration or frequency for intermittent chlorination.

Chlorine  minimization was considered only for plants with oncethrough
cooling water systems.  For plants  with  recirculating  systems,  the
cooling   towers   as  well  as  the  condensers  are  susceptible  to
biofouling.  The need to control biofouling in the cooling towers  not
only  greatly complicates chlorine minimization but also increases the
risk of serious biofouling during a chlorine minimization program.

Description of a Chlorine Minimization Program

A  chlorine  minimization  program  as  described   here   has   three
components:   upgrading the existing chlorination facility, conducting
a minimization study, and  implementing  the  recommendations  of  the
study.

Upgrading  Existing  Chlorination  Facility.  An adequate chlorination
facility includes an equipment module, an instrumentation module,  and
a structural module.             ^

The  equipment  module contains the chlorine supply system.  Two types
of chlorine supply systems are used;  chlorine gas systems and  sodium
hypochlorite  generation  systems.   Sodium  hypochlorite  systems are
considerably more expensive  than  gas  feed  systems  and  have  seen
limited  application,  primarily  at  plants which needed to avoid the
necessity for regular deliveries of  chlorine  gas  cylinders,  or  at
plants  where  safety considerations suggested the use of a system,not
involving  chlorine  gas.   Since  the  use  of  sodium   hypochlorite.
generators   is  limited,  the  analysis  does not consider these units
further; nevertheless, the concepts of chlorine minimization developed


                                 251

-------
for  gas  feed  chlorination  systems  can  be  similarly  applied  to
hypochlorite generation systems.

In  gas  feed  chlorination systems, chlorine is manufactured offsite,
compressed in steel containers, and shipped to the  plant  site  as  a
liquid.   Containers  with  a  wide  range  of  capacities  are  used.
Cylinder capacity  commonly  ranges  from  150  pounds  to  1  ton  of
chlorine.   Selection  of  container  size  is primarily a function of
average daily  chlorine  consumption.   Selection  of  the  number  of
containers  is  primarily  a  function of facility design;capacity and
method  of  withdrawal  (1).   Generally,  systems  with  a   chlorine
withdrawal  requirement  of  more  than  17  pounds per hour per 1 ton
container  use  liquid  withdrawal  systems.   Most   steam   electric
powerplants  fall  into  this category.  Some small plants may use gas
withdrawal systems.

Transmission of the chlorine  from  the  containers  to  the  metering
system  differs  for  gas  withdrawal  and liquid withdrawal.  For gas
withdrawal, the gas passes through a filter  and,  in  some  cases,  a
pressure-reducing   valve.   The  filter  removes  impurities  in  the
chlorine gas which might inhibit the functioning of some equipment  in
the  metering system.  When there is a danger of reliquefaction of the
gas between the  containers  and  the  metering  system,  a  pressure-
reducing  valve  is  used  to  lower the pressure of the gas which, in
turn, lowers the temperature at which liquefaction would occur.

For liquid withdrawal, the liquid passes through an  evaporator  which
converts  the liquid to chlorine gas and then the gas passes through a
filter and, in some cases, a pressure-reducing valve just  as  in  gas
withdrawal.   A flow diagram of a liquid withdrawal system is shown in
figure VII-1.  The evaporator consists of  an  inner  liquid  chlorine
chamber  surrounded  by  an electrically heated water bath.  Expansion
chambers are usually provided on the liquid chlorine line between  the
containers  and  the  evaporator to prevent rupture of the pipe in the
event of capture of liquid in  the  line  and  subsequent  temperature
rise.   Whether  gas or liquid withdrawal is used, chlorine gas enters
the  metering  system  si'nce  liquid  is  converted  to   gas   during
transmission from the containers (1).

The  metering system—usually referred toc as the chlorinator—is shown
in figure VII-2.  The chlorinator is activated by a vacuum created  by
the  injector system.  The vacuum opens the diaphragm check valve, the
vacuum regulating valve, and the pressure-vacuum  relief  valve  which
allows  air  to  enter  the  system.   The  vacuum  also opens the gas
pressure regulating valve so that when the chlorine supply  system  is
opened,  chlorine gas will flow through to the injector.  When the gas
flow satisfies the vacuum, the pressure-vacuum  relief  valve  closes,
stopping  the  flow  of air into the system.  The rate of chlorine gas
flow is controlled by the feed rate valve, and  the  vacuum-regulating
valve.  By adjusting the feed rate valve, the flow of chlorine gas can
be limited to values less than the capacity of the rotameter.
                                  252

-------
Ul
                  LEGEND:
                  IXJ
PIPE LINE SHUT-OFF
VALVE (GLOBE OR BALL TYPE)

FLANGE UNION (TONGUE
a GROOVE. AMMONIA TYPE!
                                                  LIQUID
                                                 CHEMICAL
                                                                                            EXPANSION TANK
                                                                                            PRESSURE SWITCH


                                                                                            DIAPHRAGM PflOTECTOfl (IF SWITCH
                                                                                            IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH SELF-
                                                                                            CONTAINED PROTECTION)
                  VENT
                BLOW-OFF
                  VALV
                                         PRESSURE
                                          RELIEF
                                          VALVE
   AUTOMATIC
 SHUT'OFF VALVE
(PRESSURE REDUCING
TYPE RECOMMENDED
                                                                                            RUPTURE DISC AND
                                                                                            INTEGRAL SUPPORT HOUSING
                                                                     PRESSURE- SAUCE

                                                                     DIAPHRAGM PROTECTOR
                                       LIQUID CHEMICAL TRAP
                                          (RECOMMENDED
                                         LENGTH IS INCHESl
                                                 SUPERHEAT
                                                  BAFFLE
                      PRESSURE
                       VESSEL
                                                                                      LIQUID SUPPLY TO HEADER
                                                                                (MINIMUM OF TWO SERVICE CONNECTIONS)
                                                         Figure  VII-1

                                             LIQUID  SUPPLY CHLORINATION SYSTEM

           Reprinted  from Instruction  Bulletin  70-9001 by  Fischer and  Porter  Co.,  April,   1977

-------
                          -^OXIU KUV VUMt
                          Figure VII-2             |

           SCHEMATIC DIAGEAM OF A TYPICAL CHLORINATOR

Reprinted from Handbookof Chlorination by G.  C. White  by per-
mission of Van tNostrand. Reinhold Company.  Year of .first
publication:  1972.
                               254

-------
The  last  component  of  the  equipment module is the  injector  system
which consists of a booster pump, an injector, and  a   diffuser.    The
injector  is  the  key  component  of the system.  It is essentially a
constriction in the pipe carrying the water  in which the chlorine   gas
is  dissolved.  The constriction causes an increase in  water velocity,,
thus creating the vacuum that  activates  the  metering system.    The
chlorine  gas  from  the metering system enters the injector system at
this point and is dissolved in the water in  the turbulent discharge of
the injector (1).

In order for the injector to operate properly,  an  adequate   flow  of
water  at  the  proper  pressure must be supplied by the booster pump.
The flow must be ample enough to limit the concentration  of   chlorine
in  solution to 3,500 ppm and to create a vacuum of about 25 inches of
mercury.  If the concentration of chlorine in solution  exceeds  3,500
ppm,  chlorine  gas  will  come  out of solution causing fuming  at  the
point of application and gas binding in the  chlorine   solution  line.
If  the  vacuum  falls below 25  inches of mercury, the  metering  system
will .not operate properly.  The  flow of water required  to avoid  these
problems  can  be  determined  from manufacturer's injector efficiency
curves.  The pressure  must  be  high  enough  to  overcome  the back
pressure  on  the injector and the pressure  loss through the injector.
The back pressure on the injector is the sum of the static pressure at
the point of injection and friction losses in the piping  between   the
injector  and  the  point of injection.  The pressure loss through  the
injector  can  also  be  determined   from   manufacturer's    injector
efficiency  curves.  Given the required discharge volume and pressure,
the proper booster pump can be selected (1).

The hypochlorus acid solution from the injector is  dispersed   in   the
cooling  water  with  a  diffuser.   Two  basic types of diffusers  are
available.  For pipelines flowing full, the  diffusers are  essentially
pipes  mounted  on the cooling water conduit perpendicular to  the flow
of cooling water and discharging at the center of  the  conduit.    Fpr
open  channel  flow, the diffusers are perforated pipes mounted  in  the
open channel.  In steam electric  powerplant applications,  the open
channel  condition exists when the hypochlorous acid solution  is added
to the cooling water before it enters the circulating water pumps,  and
the full pipeline condition exists when the  hypochlorous acid  solution
is added to the cooling water before it enters the condensers  (1).

The instrumentation module consists of  timers.,  a  chlorine   residual
analyzer/recorder,  a scale, and a chlorine  leak detector.  Timers  are
applicable   to   intermittent   chlorination,   not    to   continuous
chlorination.   The  timers  automatically   start and stop the booster
pump which in turn activates and deactivates  the  equipment   module.
The  timers are set so that chlorination occurs with the frequency  and
duration • desired.    The   chlorine    residual    analyzer/recorder
continuously analyzes for total  residual chlorine in the cooling water
discharge  and  overrides  the   timers to stop the booster pump  if  the
total residual chlorine concentration exceeds a  predetermined  level.
The scale is\ used to weigh the chlorine containers in service  in order
to  track  consumption  and  to  determine   when containers need to be

                                 255

-------
replaced.   The  chlorine  leak  detector  monitors  the  air  in  the
chlorination  building  for chlorine gas and sounds an alarm if any of
the gas is detected (2).

The structural module consists of a building  for  the  equipment  and
instrumentation modules.  The building must be properly ventilated and
heated.   When  1 ton chlorine containers are being used, a hoist must
be provided with the building (1).

Chlorine Minimization Study.  The chlorine minimization study consists
of  three  phases.   The  first  phase   establishes   the   following
relationships:

    -  condenser performance and dose of chlorine added to the
       cooling water,

    -  condenser performance and duration of chlorination period,
       and

    -  condenser performance and frequency of chlorination.

Condenser  fouling  is  commonly  measured  in  terms  of turbine back
pressure.  The second phase consists of screening trials in which  the
chlorine  residual in the cooling water discharge, the duration of the
chlorination events, and the frequency of the chlorination events  are
each  reduced  below  the  baseline  level until condenser performance
drops below the baseline levels.   The  screening  trials  define  the
minimum  chlorine  dose,  duration  and  frequency  levels  which  can
maintain adequate condenser performance.  The third phase is  a  long-
term  trial of the chlorine minimization program defined in the second
phase.   The  minimum  chlorine  dose,  duration,  and  frequency  are
maintained  and condenser performance is monitored.  If performance is
satisfactory over the long term, the chlorine minimization program  is.
instituted permanently  (3,4,5).

Almost  all of the data required to conduct the study are collected as
part of the normal operation and maintenance procedure in plants  with
an   adequate   chlorination   facility.   The  normal  operation  and
maintenance procedure for the  chlorination  facility  includes  daily
logging  of  the  chlorine  scale  readings,  daily  logging  of timer
settings, changing the chart on the chlorine  residual  analyzer,  and
weekly  checks  of.  the  analyzer using an amperometric titrator.  The
normal operation and maintenance procedure for the plant is assumed to
include daily logging of cooling water flow, changing  charts  on  the
turbine  back  pressure  recorder, and sampling and analysis of intake
water quality.   The  only  data  not  collected  as  part  of  normal
operation and maintenance procedure is a qualitative evaluation of the
degree  of  biofouling  in the condensers.  A visual inspection of the
condenser can be conducted at the conclusion of each screening  trial.
The inspection, however, requires taking the condenser out of service,
which is very costly in terms of lost power output from the plant.
                                  256

-------
The  performance  data are analyzed.  The analyses  include  correlating
intake water quality and chlorine demand, relating  chlorine demand   to
chlorine  dosage,  and  plotting  turbine  back  pressure/   TRC  level,
duration of chlorination, and frequency of chlorination   versus   time.
The  analyses  are  performed at different intervals  for  each  phase  of
the study.  The frequency of analysis is greatest  in  the  second   phase
since the results of the analyses are used to  operate the chlorination
facility.

The  study  procedure  is  applicable  not   only to a plant practicing
intermittent'chlorination but also  to a  plant practicing   continuous
chlorination with the addition of a parallel set of steps to determine
the  minimum  dosage  required  to  control  biofouling   in the  intake
structure and the pipeline.

Implementing Study Recommendations.  The final step  in   the  chlorine
minimization program is implementing, the recommendations  of the  study.
Assuming  that  reductions   in  duration  of  chlorination, dose,   or
frequency of chlorination are recommended, the minimum values  become
the permanent basis of chlorination facility operation.

Application to a Model Plant

The model plant  is assumed to have  the following characteristics:

       two baseload generating units of equal  capacity;

    -  once-through cooling  water system for both  units;

    -  separate circulating  water pumps for  each unit;

       same cooling water flow rate through  the  condensers  of
       each unit;

    -  chlorine  addition on  the  intake side  of the circulating
       water pumps;

    -  chlorination of the units  in series,  not  in parallel;

        intermittent chlorination  only;

    -  chlorination required during all seasons  of the year;

    -  chlorination requirements  varying with  season  of  the year;

    -  existing  chlorination equipment, structural, and
        instrumentation modules;  and

  •  •-   in operation for  several  years  sp  that  baseline levels of
        chlorination are  well defined.

 As  the  first  step  in  the minimization  program, the existing chlo-
 rination facility  is  evaluated.   Assume  that the existing equip-

                                  257

-------
ment, structural, and instrumentation mcxtules are adequate.
The first phase of the study consists of establishing the fol-
lowing baseline relationships:
    -  water quality and chlorine demand of the cooling water,
    -  chlorine demand of the cooling water and dosage of
       chlorine required to obtain'a given chlorine residual,
    —  condenser performance and chlorine residual in the
       cooling water,
    -  condenser performance and duration of chlorination events,
       and
    -  condensor performance and frequency of chlorination
       events.
Condenser performance is measured by condenser back pressure or,
in some cases, turbine back pressure.  In order to establish the
baseline relationships, the following measurements are taken with
the specified frequency:
    -  relevant intake water quality parameters once per week;
    -  chlorine demand of the intake water once per week;
    -  flow rate of cooling water to each unit once per week;
    -  weight of chlorine container(s) in use once per week;
    -  turbine back pressure once per shift;
    -  TRC at the plant discharge continuously, change chart on
       recorder once per day;
    -  settings of timers that start and stop chlorination once
       per day, and
    -  check of TRC analyzer once per week with an amperometric
       titrator and adjustment of the analyzer, if necessary.
Each season, or once every 3 months, the data are analyzed as
follows:                                            ;
    -  correlations between intake water quality parameters and
       chlorine demand of the intake water are checked;
    -  the flow rate of cooling water pumped to each unit and  the
       consumption' of chlorine are used to calculate the chlorine
       dosage;
    -  a graph of chlorine demand versus chlorine dosage is made;
                                 258

-------
       and

       graphs of turbine back pressure, TRC level, duration of
       chlorination, and frequency of chlorination versus time
       are made. The unit, of time used should be 8 hours or one
       shift.

Throughout  the  18  month long study, screening trials are conducted.
Throughout all of the screening trials, the TRC  level  and  frequency
and duration of chlorination for Unit 1 are maintained at the baseline
levels  for  the appropriate season of the year in order to detect any
shifts in the baselines.  A visual inspection may be held at  the  end
of one or more of the screening trials.

The  information from the visual inspections of the condensers is used
to qualitatively confirm the turbine back pressure readings.  A set of
screening trials is conducted for each chlorination parameter:   dose,
duration, and frequency of chlorination.  The objective of each set of
trials  is  to  converge  on the minimum value for the parameter under
consideration.  The other  two  parameters  are  held  constant.   The
procedure  for conducting a set of screening trials is shown in figure
VII-3.  The set of screening trials for TRC level are conducted  first
using  the  baiseline levels for duration and frequency of chlorination
for the appropriate seasons of the year.  After the minimum TRC  level
has  been  determined,  the  set  of  screening trials for duration of
chlorination are conducted using the seasonally adjusted  minimum  TRC
level  and  the  baseline  level  of  chlorination  frequency  for the
appropriate season of the year.  At the  completion  of  this  set  of
trials,  the  set of screening trials for frequency of chlorination is,
conducted using the seasonally adjusted  minimum  TRC  level  and  the
seasonally  adjusted minimum duration of chlorination.  When all three
sets of screening trials have been completed, the  minimum  values  of
TRC level, duration of chlorination, and frequency of chlorination are
known.

The  final  step  in the chlorine minimization program is implementing
the recommendations of the study.  Assuming that the study recommended
reductions in TRC level, duration of chlorination,  and  frequency  of
chlorination,   the  four  sets  of  seasonal minimum values become the
permanent  basis  of  chlorination  facility  operation.    The  .same
measurements  which were made in the minimization study become part of
the data base   on  plant  operation  that  is  generated  as  standard
operating procedure.  The analysis of the data is also assigned to the
plant  operating  staff  with the assistance of appropriately designed
calculation  sheets  and  graph  paper.   In  essence,  the   chlorine
minimization  program  loses  its identity in this final step as it is
completely integrated into the  normal  operation  of  the  plant.    A
detailed  discussion  of  the necessary steps in conducting a chlorine
minimization program is provided in Appendix B.
                                  259

-------
                            Figure VII -3                     '_

 PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING  A  SET OF SCREENING TRIALS
    TO  CONVERGE ON THE  MINIMUM VALUE  FOR TRC  LEVEL,
DURATION  OF  CHLORINATION,  AND CHLORINATION FREQUENCY
            Sat TEC Level/Duration/Frequency at 1/2 of Baseline Value for Unit 2
                        Ploc Turbine Backprossure Readings Daily
                 Has Turbine Backpreasura Fallen Below the Baseline Level?
        Ecs  th« Staady-SCaca Biotouling
            Condition Been Achieved
               for tfiis Trial?
                                                                tea
Ses»t ISO
   at Baseline Laval or Higher,
          if necessary
                       Yes
      Is Degree of Converganca on Mlnianim
         Value of TE.C Level/Duraclon/
      	Frequency Maquata?	
            Inspect Condensers'for
            Biofilm Accumulation
    Plot Turbins Backpressure
    	Readings Daily	
                                                  Has Turbine Backpregaura Risen
                                                       Co Baseline Level?
        Redoes tha TRC Laval/Duracion/
        Frequency Iron the Level in she
       Pricaediag Trial by 1/2 ch«
            in the Pracaeding Trial
                                                               ,, fes
                                                  Inspect Condensers for Biofilm
                                                          Accumulation
                                                 Increase th« TRC Level/Duration/
                                                  Frequency from the Level in che
                                                 freceediog Trial- by 1/2 tha Level
                                                     la the Proceeding frial
                                    260

-------
Effectiveness                                 .

The objective of a chlorine minimization  program   is  to  reduce   the
loading  of  total residual chlorine  (TRC) into the receiving water as
much as possible without impairing condenser performance.  The  degree
to  which  this  objective  is achieved—'the effectiveness of chlorine
minimization—is measured in terms of the TRC level at "the  point   of
cooling  water discharge and the length of time that chlorine is added
to the  cooling  water  per  day.   Data  on  these  two measures   of
effectiveness  were compiled from various studies of efforts to reduce
the quantity of chlorine discharged at  operating  powerplants.   Very
little data from efforts to reduce the length of time that chlorine is
added  to  the cooling water were found.  It should.be noted, however/
that the currsmt limitation was not exceeded in any  of  the  studies.
An adequate amount of data from efforts to reduce TRC level was found,
therefore, an assessment of the effectiveness of chlorine minimization
was conducted by analyzing data on TRC levels only.

The  TRC  data which were extracted from the chlorine minimization  and
reduction studies are presented in table  VII-1.    Twenty-two  plants,
all  with  once-through cooling water systems, are  represented.  Seven
out of the 11 nuclear  plants  shown  in  table  VII-1   were  able   to
maintain  adequate  biofouling control at plant discharge levels below
0,1 mg/1.  The NEC studies were among the most carefully conducted; it
is believed they represent levels that should be achievable  for  many
fossil fuel plants.

A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of chlorine minimization
at  three  Michigan  power  plants is presented in  Appendix C.  On  the
average, the three plants were  able  to  reduce  their  effluent   TRC
concentrations   by   40   percent  through  the  use  of  a  chlorine
minimization program.

Potential Operating Problems

A chlorine minimization  program  requires   close   monitoring  by   the
operating  staff of a steam electric  powerplant to  insure that several
problems do not arise.  First,  the   likelihood  of  severe,  condenser
biofouling is  increased.  If this biofouling does occur, the condenser
has  to  be treated with very high dosages of chlorine or be taken  out
of service for manual cleaning.   Severe  biofouling  • is more   likely
because   there    is   no   measure   of  condenser performance   that
unambiguously reflects the formation  of biofilm  on condenser   tubes.
The  measure  of   condenser  performance  selected  for the recommended
minimization program, turbine back pressure,  is  affected  by   factors
other   than  biofilm  formation,  principally,  debris  blocking   the
condenser tubes.   The other measures  of   condenser  performance,   heat
transfer  efficiency  and  pressure   drop  across   the   condenser,  are
similarly afflicted and require more  data to calculate   (5).    Second,
the  units  on  which  screening  trials  are  being  conducted  for  the
minimization study have to be shutdown  for visual   inspection   of   the
condenser  tubes   at  the  end of each  screening  trial.  The  shutdowns
reduce  the power output of the plant  and  require  more   operator  time


                                 261

-------
                                     Table VII-1
           TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE DATA REPORTED  IN CHLORINE MINIMIZATION
                                       STUDIES
       Recommended*
Plant   TRC Level
Number   (mg/1)    Sampling Point
4223
0.5
4229
4225
5513
4704
1719
1713
1825
4206
0512
2630
5519
5514
1221
0905
3608
0904
2506
1248
0629
2705
2708
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.2
Condenser outlet

Condenser outlet

Condenser outlet

Condenser outlet
Condenser outlet
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Plant discharge
Comments

Condenser performance declined at
  0.2, but not 0.5
Condenser performance declined at
  0.5, but not 1 .0
Condenser performance declined at
  1.0, but not 1 .5.
                                      .Level frequently exceeded.
                                      Level exceeded 73% of  the  time.
                                      Level cannot be consistently met,
                                      Six violations in  three years
                                      One violation in  three years

                                      Two violations in  three years
Reference

     6

     6

     6

  .   3
     7
     8
     8
     9
    10
    11
    11
    11
    11
    11
    11
    11
    11
    11
    11
    11
    12
    13
*Recommended level represents the maximum TRC concentration  expected  to  be  used
during worst case plant conditions.  Lower TRC levels often  produce adequate
biofouling control.

-------
     the  shutdown  and  startup  procedures.  Unfortunately,  no  ot/ie,r
method of evaluating turbine back pressure readings  is available   (5);.
Some  of  the  inspections may be required at times  when  the  units  arie
shutdown  for  other  reasons,  thus  minimizing  the  impact  of  the
inspections.   Third,  the total residual chlorine measurements may bje
in error when the cooling water is drawn from an estuary.   Errors   to
the  high  side  could  cause,  premature  shutdown of the chlorination
facility and thus increase the potential for severe  biofouling of  the
condensers.   Errors  to the low side could create toxic  conditions ijn
the receiving stream as a result  of  the  chlorination   facility  not
shutting down when a predetermined level of TRC is exceeded.

The  potential  operating problems which have been mentioned  should be
known to the operators of  a  plant  before, a  chlorine   minimizatioin
program  is  begun so that the operators can deal with the problems as
effectively as possible.

Total Residual Chlorine Control with Dechlorination

Dechlorination is the process of adding a chemical-reducing   agent   to
the  cooling  water  which  reduces  chlorine  to chloride, a  nontoxic
chemical.  There are  numerous  reducing  agents  available   for   this
purpose.   Only a few have shown themselves to be practical for use iln
the water and wastewater treatment industry (15):

1.  Sulfur Dioxide (S02)

2.  Salts Containing Oxidizable Sulfur
    a.   Sodium Sulfite (Na2S03)
    b.   Sodium Metabisulfite (Na2S2Qs)
    c.   Sodium Thiosulfate (Na2S203)


3.  Natural Chlorine Demand

4.  Ferrous Sulfate  (FeS04)

5.  Ammonia (NH3)

6.  Activated Carbon (C)                                        .

7.  Hydrogen Peroxide (H202)

The use of ferrous sulfate, ammonia,  activated  carbon,   or   hydrogen
peroxide  for  dechlorination  at  powerplants  has  been  evaluated  and
found to be technically  and/or  economically  infeasible  (15).    Any
dechlorination  systems  in  which  these  chemicals are used   were,
therefore, not given further  consideration.   Dechlorination  systems
using  sulfur dioxide, salts of oxidizable sulfur and natural  chlorine
demand are discussed in detail in the following subsections.

Sulfur Dioxide System


                                 263

-------
Chemical Reactions.   The  most  common  form  of  dechlorination   as
practiced  in the water and wastewater treatment industry is injection
of sulfur dioxide (S02) (1).  When injected into water, sulfur, dioxide
reacts instantaneously to form sulfurous acid (H2S03):

         S02 + H20  4-  H2S03                   (13)

The sulfurous acid, in turn, reacts instantaneously with  hypochlorous
acid (HOC1):

         H2SO3 + HOC1  «*•   H2S04 + HC1          (14)

Monochloramine also reacts with sulfurous acid:

         H2S03 + NH2C1 + H20  £   NH4HSO4 + HC1  (15)

Both  dichloramine and nitrogen trichloride are also reduced by sulfur
dioxide in similar reactions.  -The reaction  of  sulfur : dioxide  with
hypochlorous  acid  (HOC1) is virtually instantaneous.  Reactions with
monochloramine and the other  combined  forms  proceed  slightly  more
slowly (16).

Equipment.   The  equipment  required  for  dechlorination  by  sulfur
dioxide injection is shown in  figure  VII-4.   As  indicated  in  the
figure, a complete system includes the following pieces of equipment:

    -  S02 storage containers,

    -  expansion chamber-rupture disk,

    -  S02 evaporator,

    -  SO2 gas regulator,

    -  sulfonator,

    -  ejector;

    -  ejector pump,

    -  building for system housing, and

    -  required timers and control system.

The  equipment required for dechlorination by sulfur dioxide injection
is identical to the  equipment  required  for  chlorination,  and  the
description of chlorination equipment  is also applicable to the sulfur
dioxide  dechlorination system.  Equipment manufacturers sell the same
equipment for both  chlorination  and  sulfur  dioxide  dechlorination
applications.   The  capacities of the equipment are different in each
application due to differences in the properties  of  the  two  gases.
Also shown  in figure VII-4  is a typical diffuser assembly  installation
in  a discharge conduit.  The number of diffuser installations"and the


                                264

-------
Ch
Ui
                                                                           Chanber-
                                                                           Rupture
                                                                           Disk
                                                                     "Electric         SO,
                                                                                   Containers
                                                              Evaporator
                                                              Makeup Hater
          Intake
           Hater
          Source
                                                        To additional
                                                      Discharge Conduit*
                                                        • Afl Required
                                                                          Diffusers
                                                                                           Discharge Conduit
                                                                                           Structure
                                                      FIGURE VII -  4
                      FLOW DIAGRAM  FOR DECHLORINATION BY SULFUR DIOXIDE  (S02>  INJECTION

-------

-------
pipe run required to each of the diffusers can vary significantly  from
plant to plant.  If- the water in the discharge conduit  is  in  turbulent
flow,  mixing  of  the  injected  solution  should  be   complete    in
approximately  ten  discharge conduit diameters.  In some  plants,  this
length of pipe may not be available between the point at which  sulfur
dioxide,  can  be  injected and the point at which the effluent cooling
water enters the receiving source.  Adequate mixing can be provided  in
even  these  cases  by  the  Use  of  multiple  injectors  which   are
commercially available (17).

As  stated earlier, the number of diffusers required and the  length  of
the pipe runs to each diffuser vary significantly from plant  to plant.
Proper diffuser placement is essential  for  complete  dechlorination.
In  order  to provide adequate time for mixing and reaction of the S0?
with the residual chlorine, it is desirable  to  locate  the  diffuser
assembly  as  far  upstream  from  the  point  of  final cooling water
discharge as possible.  However, no biological fouling control can  be
expected  downstream  of  the  diffuser  assembly  so   in  cases where
biofouling control is  required  in  the  discharge  conduit   (due  to
presence  of  inollusks,  asiatic  clams, etc.), the diffuser  should  be
located as close to the point of  final  discharge  as  possible.    In
theory, these two opposing constraints are balanced in determining the
location  of  the  diffuser assembly.  In reality, the  location of the
diffuser assembly is often fixed  by  the  location  of  the  existing
access  points  in  the  discharge  conduit.   Installing  the diffuser
assembly in an already existing access point (stop  log  guides,   gate
shafts) is far less expensive than installing the diffuser assembly  by
creating a new access point.

A  second  reason  to  dechlorinate  as far upstream as possible is  to
minimize the contact time of  chlorine  with  organic  matter in  the
cooling  water.  Although the kinetics of the formation of chlorinated
organics has not been completely defined, it is likely  that  reducing
the  chlorine-hydrocarbon  contact  time  will reduce the  formation  of
chlorinated organics.

Chemical Consumption.  The amount of S02 required  to  dechlorinate   a
given  cooling" water  will vary from plant to plant. A stoichiometric
analysis of the sulfur dioxide-chlorine residual reaction  reveals  that
0.9 milligrams of sulfur dioxide are required to remove 1.0 milligrams
of residual chlorine   (1).   Actual  operating  experience at  sewage
treatment  plant  suggests  that  a  sulfur  dioxide  dose rate of 1.1
milligrams of sulfur dioxide per milligram of total residual   chlorine
will  result   in  proper  system  performance   (16).  As was  discussed
earlier, the concentration of total residual chlorine in   the cooling
water effluent will depend on the chlorine dose added and  the chlorine
demand  of  the influent water.  A high quality influent cooling water
will  require  only  a  small  dose  of  chlorine   to   provide   the
approximately  0.5  mg/1  of  free  available  chlorine   (FAC) that  is
required to control biofouling  in the condenser.  Since a  small   dose
of chlorine was added to the cooling water to begin with,  a small  dose
of sulfur dioxide will be required for dechiorination.
                                 267

-------
On  the other hand, when a poor quality influent cooling water is used
(high ammonia concentration), a large chlorine dose will  be  required
to achieve the necessary amount of free residual chlorine.  This large
chlorine   dose   may   result  in  a  high  total  residual  chlorine
concentration which, in turn, would require a  large  dose  of  sulfur
dioxide to remove the chlorine residual.

In  summary,  high  quality  influent water will require small chlorine
doses and, in turn, small sulfur dioxide dosages.  Low  quality,  high
ammonia  influent  cooling   water is likely to require a high chlorine
dose and, therefore, a high  sulfur dioxide dose.

Effectiveness.  The effectiveness of sulfur dioxide dechlorination has
been demonstrated at water and wastewater treatment plants  where  the
technology  has  been  in  use  since  1926 (17).  Municipal treatment
plants are able to consistently reduce effluent TRC concentrations  to
the limit of detection (0.02 mg/1 TRC).  Of course, a sewage treatment
plant is generally dealing with a much lower water flow rate so that a
dechlorination  contact  basin  may be used to insure adequate contact
time.

Sulfur dioxide dechlorination systems have also been installed or  are
currently  being  installed  in  several  United States steam electric
plants.  A list of these facilities is shown in table  VII-2.   Plants
using  both  once-through  and recirculating cooling water systems are
included.  At Plant 0611, an involved study was done to determine  the
effectiveness  of  dechlorination  by  sulfur  dioxide injection (18).
This plant  has  a  once-through  cooling  system  using  salt  water.
Samples   were  collected  from  three  streams  in  the  plant:   the
chlorinated condenser outlet, the unchlorinated condenser  outlet  and
the  dechlorinated  effluent from the S02 dechlorination system.  The
data are presented in tables VII-3, VII-4 and VII-5.   In  all  cases,
the  total  oxidant  residual  (TOR) in the dechlorinated effluent was
below the limit of detection of 0.03 mg/1.   Total  residual  oxidants
(TRO), as compared to total  residual chlorine  (TRC), measures all free
oxidants because the bromine in salt water reacts upon chlorination to
form  bromine   residuals  which  are also active oxidizing compounds.
Amperometric titration  does not  distinguish  between  chlorine  and
bromine residuals.


The sampling program conducted at Plant 0611 also included analysis of
samples  for  trihalomethahes.   Samples  were collected from the same
three streams as the TOR samples: the  chlorinated  condenser  outlet,
the  unchlorinated  condenser  outlet,  and  the  dechlorinated  final
effluent.  The data  indicate  that  chlorination  of  a  once-through
brackish  cooling  water  did  result  in very small but statistically
significant increases in  total  trihalomethane  (THM)  concentration.
The  data  also  indicated   that the dechlorinated effluents contained
smaller concentrations of THM's than  the  non-dechlorinated  samples.
No   mechanism   for   the   decomposition   of   trihalomethanes   by
dechlorination is known to exist; the lower THM concentrations  in  the
dechlorinated  samples  were attributed  to  sampling  error.   Thus,

                                268

-------
                            Table VII-2   •
          SULFUR DIOXIDE! DECHLQRINATION SYSTEMS  IN USE  OR
      UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC  PLANTS  (23)
Plant Code
Plant 4251
Plant 4107
Plant 0611
Plant 0604
 Plant
Capacity
  (MW)
  130
  400
  278
  371.4
 Cooling
Discharge
  Type	
Slowdown
Slowdown
Qnce-Thrti
Once-Thru
 Cooling
Discharge
Flowrate
  (MGD)
Not Available
Not Available
372.2x106
348.9x1O6
                                269

-------
                           Table VII-3

             CHLORINATED CONDENSER OUTLET FIELD DATA
                      FROM PLANT 0611 (18)
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Chlorine
Dose*
(mg/1)
0.85
0.82
0.85
0.83
0.72
0.83
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.89
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.82
0.85
0.42
0.85
0.81
0.81
0.83
TOR
(mg/1)
0.052
0.027
0.093
0.200
0.269
0.178
0.122
0.168
0.213
0.217
0.206
0.225
0.243
0.265
0.315
0.281
0.320
0.339
0.331
0.277
0.289
0.259
0.304
0.140
0.306
0.270
0.256
0.322
pH •
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.3
7. .6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.0
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
D.O.
(mg/1)
3.9
3.7
4.9
4.7
5.4
5.0
5.8
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.4
7.0
5.4
5.5
5.1
5.2
4.8
5.1
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.0
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.0
, 5.4
5.2
^Calculatedbased on. ctilorine and cooling  water flow rates.

                              270

-------
               Table VII-4
UNCHLORINATED CONDENSER OUTLET FIELD DATA
          FROM PLANT 0611 (18)
                                   D.O.
                                   Qns/1).
                                    3.5
                                    3.4
                                    5.2
                                    5.4
                                    5.5
                                    5.6
                                    5.3
                                    5.9
                                    5.9
                                    5.7
                                    6.0
                                    5.8
                                    5.8
                                    5.4
                                    5.4
                                    5.3
                                    5.7
                                    5.5
                                    5.5
                                    5.5
                                    5.8
                                    5.4
                                    5.7 :
                                    5.5
                                    5.6
                                    5.4 '
                                    5.8
                                    5.8
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 '
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TOR
(mg/1)
<0.03
<0.03
<0 . 03
<0.03
<0 . 03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
pH
7.6
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7,4
7.4
7.0
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.7
                  271

-------
              Table VII-5

DECHLORINATSD EFFLUENT DATA FIELD DATA
          FOR PLANT 0611  (18)
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TOR
(mg/l)
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
pH
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.7
D.O.
(mg/l)
3.7
3,9
4.7
5.8
5.2
4.8
5.3
5.5
5.1
5.4
5.0
5.4
5.5
4.9
5.1
5.1
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.6
5.5
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.6
5.4
4.9
5.6
                 272

-------
dechlorination is not expected to have a significant effect on  the  THM
concentrations found in once-through cooling water effluent.

In summary, the available  data  indicate  that  state-of-the-art   SO2
dechlorination  systems  can bring effluent TRC concentrations  down to
the detection.limit  (approximately 0.03 mg/1).  Additional  data  will
be   presented   shortly   on   the   effectiveness  of  dry  chemical
dechlorination systems.

Potential Operating  Problems.  There are several  potential  operating
problems with sulfur dioxide dechlorination systems.  First, since  the
vapor  pressure  of  sulfur dioxide is lower than chlorine at the same
temperature, the sulfur dioxide has a tendency to  recondense   in   the
feed  lines  between  the evaporator and the sulfonator.  This  problem
can be controlled by  installing  continuous  strip  electric   heaters
along the feed line  piping.

A  second  potential  problem  is  pH  shift in the effluent.   The  end
products of the reaction of sulfur dioxide with hypochlorous acid   are
sulfuric  acid  and  hydrochloric  acid.  Both these compounds  tend to
lower the pH of the  effluent water.  Since the total  dose  of  sulfur
dioxide is, in most  cases, quite small and since the water usually  has
some  natural  buffering  capabilty,  the  pH  shift  is  usually   not
significant.  A statistical analysis of the  pH  data  collected  from
each  of  the  three streams at Plant.0611  (tables ViII-3, VII-4,  and
VI1-5) did not  indicate  that  S02  dechlorination  was  causing   any
statistically significant change in pH.

Excess  sulfur dioxide may also react with dissolved oxygen present in
the effluent cooling water.  This  could  present  a  serious   problem
since  dissolved  oxygen must be present in water in concentrations of
at least 4 mg/1  to  support  many  kinds  of  fish.   Sulfur   dioxide
dechlorination  has  been practiced at wastewater treatment plants  for
many years and dissolved oxygen depletion has not been  a  problem   at
plants  where proper sulfur dioxide dosage control has been practiced.
The data collected for dissolved oxygen levels at Plant  0611   (tables
VII-3,  VII-4,  and  VII-5)  do  not   indicate  that  any  significant
depletion of dissolved oxygen is occurring due to SO2 dechlorination.

Although  some  problems  exist  with  sulfur  dioxide  dechlorination
systems,   it  appears  that, with proper equipment maintenance and good
process control, sulfur dioxide  dechlorination  offers  an  effective
method  of  reducing  the  discharge  of  residual  chlorine from most
powerplants.

Dry Chemical  Systems

Several sodium salts of sulfur can be  used in  dechlorination.   These
compounds  are  all  purchased in bulk volumes as dry chemical  solids.
They will, therefore,  be referred to hereafter  by  the  generic  term
"dry chemicals."
                                  273

-------
Chemical Reactions.   One of the dry chemicals commonly used is sodium
sulfite (Na2S03).  Sodium sulfite reacts  with  hypochlorous  acid  as
shown in equation 16.

         Na2S03 + HOC1  4*-  Na2S04 + HC1              (16)

The  stoichiometry of this reaction is such that 1.775 grams of sodium
sulfite are required to remove 1.0 gram of residual chlorine.   Sodium
sulfite will also react with the chloramines.

A second dry chemical useful in dechlorination is sodium metabisulfite
(Na2S205) which dissociates in water into sodium bisulfite as shown in
equation 17.

         Na2S205 + H20  -fr  2NaHS03                 (17)

The  sodium bisulfite then reacts with the hypochlorious acid as shown
in equation 18.

    NaHSO3 + HOC1  •**•  NaHS04 + HC1                 (18)

Stoichiometrically,  1.34 grams of sodium metabisulfite are required to
remove 1.0 gram of residual chlorine.   Sodium  metabisulfite  reduces
chloramines through  a similar sequence of reactions.

The   third  commonly  used  dechlorination  dry  chemical   is  sodium
thiosulfate (Na2S203).  It reacts with hypochlorus acid  as  shown  in
equation 19.

         Na2S203 + 4HOC1 + H20   •&  2NaHS04 + 4HC1    (19)

The  stoichiometric  reaction ratio is 0.56 grams of sodium thiosulfate
per gram of residual chlorine.  Sodium thiosulfate  will  also  reduce
chloramines.    White  (1)  does  not  recommend  the  use   of  sodium
thiosulfate for dechlorination because it reacts through a   series  of
steps and requires significantly more reaction time than the other dry
chemicals.   However,  sodium  thiosulfate has been used at  full-scale
steam electric plants so it will be discussed here.

Equipment.  The equipment required for dechlorination by dry chemical
injection  is  shown in  figure VII-5.  As indicated in the figure, a
complete system includes the following pieces of equipment (11):

       loading hopper - dust collector unit,

    -  extension storage hopper,

    -  volumetric feeder,

    -  solution makeup tank and mixer,

    -  metering pump,


                                 274

-------
  Loading Hopper and
  Oust Collector
                         Dry Cheaicsl Stored
                         On-nice in 100 Ib. bag*.
                         Manually loaded into
                         hopper.
       Extension
       Uopper

      - Volumetric
        Feeder
    n
                 	O	tKl—
                    •C3   Presaure
                  Metering  Relief
                   Pump      Valve
C
   Solution Makeup Tank and Miner
Control
Valve
                                         To additional
                                      Discharge Condulta
                                          A» Required
-tfa-
                             Diacharge
                             Conduit
                             Structure
                                  Figure VII-5
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DECHLORINATION BY DRY  CHEMICAL  INJECTION

-------
    -  pressure relief valve, and

    -  required timers and control system.

Also shown in figure VII-5 is a typical diffuser assembly installation
in a discharge conduit.

The chemicals are typically received and  stored  in  100-pound  bags.
When  necessary,  bags  are  opened and manually dumped into a loading
hopper dust collector unit.  An extension storage hopper  is  provided
so  that  bags of chemical need only be loaded on a periodic basis.  A
volumetric feeder then adds the chemical at a preselected rate into  a
solution  mixing  tank.   The  chemical  is mixed with water to form a
solution which is then pumped by  a  metering  pump  to  the  required
points  of  injection.   If  the  water in the discharge conduit is in
turbulent flow, mixing of the injected solution should be complete  in
approximately  10  discharge  conduit  diameters.   The dechlorination
reaction is generally very rapid but the rate can  vary  significantly
depending  on  which  dry  chemical  is  used.  All of the points made
earlier about the location of the point of  sulfur  dioxide  injection
apply  to  the  point of dry chemical injection.  The same is true for
the relationship between influent water quality and the required  dose
of dechlorination chemical.

Effectiveness.   Dry  chemical  injection  systems  have  been  or are
currently being installed at a number of United States steam  electric
plants.   A  list  of  these  facilities  is  shown  in  table  VII-6.
Additional data on the operational practices applied at three of these
plants is provided in table VII-7.

These three plants were selected for detailed statistical analysis  of
their  effluent TRC levels over a period of two years.  During the two
year period, three different chlorination programs were in effect,  as
follows:

    No Controls - 1/77 through 5/77
    Chlorine Minimization - 6/11 through 10/77
    Dechlorination - 11/77 through 12/78

Thus,  dechlorination  data  from discharge monitoring reports (DMR's)
are available for each of the three plants (2603, 2608,  2607)  for  a
period  of  slightly  over  one  year.  As detailed in Appendix C, the
dechlorination data were analyzed to determine the 99th.percentlie  of
the  distribution  of daily effluent TRC concentrations.  The analysis
found 0.14 mg/1 TRC to be the concentration below which 99 percent  of
all grab samples taken during periods of simultaneous chlorination and
dechlorination   would  fall.   It  is  concluded  that  dry  chemical
dechlorination  can  effectively  limit  the  discharge  of   TRC   to
concentrations of 0.14 mg/1 or lower with 99 percent reliability.

It  is  important to note that the dry chemical dechlorination systems
in use at Plants 2603, 2608, and 2607 are  all  "make-shift"  systems.
The  equipment used is generally a 55 gallon drum (used as a mix tank)

                                276

-------
                           ' Table VII-6
           DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS  IN  USE  OR
            CONSTRUCTION AT U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC  PLANTS*  (23)
    Plant Code (Capacity)
Plant 5513 (272 MWe)
Plant 2601 (615 MWe)
Plant 2607 (325 MWe)
Plant 2608 (510 MWe)
Plant 2623 (34 MWe)
Plant 2603 (1135 MWe)
    Cooling System
Once-thru
Once-thru
Once-thru
Once-thru
Once-thru
Once-thru and
Recirculating
    Agent
Sodium bisulfite
Sodium sulfite
Sodium thiosulfate
Sodium sulfite
Sodium bisulfite
Sodium sulfite and
Sodium thiosulfate
*In some cases, temporary make shift units were used.
                                277

-------
                                        Table VII-7

                        CHiORINATION/DECHLORINATION PRACTICES (23)
  Practice

  Deehlorination
  Chemical

  Dose of dechlo-
  rination chemical
  fed per chlorina-
  tion period
  (concentration)

  Chlorination
,0 Chemical
oo
  Dose of chlorina-
  tion chemical fed'
  per chlorination
  period (concentra-
  tion of available
  chlorine)

  Flow rate of
  discharge

  Reaction time
  condenser outlet
  to headwall)
Plant 2603

Sodium Sulfite
Sodium Thiosulfate

winter ,9ppm
summer .9 ppm
Chlorine Gas
winter .22 ppm
summer 1.06 ppm
150,000 gpm
calculated-5 min,
actual-4.5 min.
Plant 2608

Sodium Sulfite
winter .07 ppm
summer .2 ppm
Plant 2607

Sodium Thiosulfate
winter .14 ppm
summer .3 ppm
Sodium Hypochlorite   Sodium Hypochlorite
winter .04 ppm
summer .11 ppm
winter .22 ppm
summer .22 ppm
405,000 gpm
214,000 gpm
calculated-1-2 min.   calculated-6 min.

-------
with a pump and a hose leading to the  condenser  outlet.   Thus,   tne
apparatus  constitutes  a  minimum of sophistication.   It would follow
therefore, that  properly  designed  and  instrumented  dechlorination
systems  should  be  capable  of achieving much better  performance, as
demonstrated "in other data presented in this section.   The  data  from
Plant   0611  (tables  VII-3,  VII-4,  VII-5)  which  has.  a  properly
instrumented S02 dechlorination system supports this conclusion.    TRC
levels  in the final effluent from Plant 0611 were consistently  below
the level of detection.

Potential Operating Problems.  Potential problems  with dry  chemical
dechlorination  systems include pH shift, and oxygen depletion.  Table
VI1-8 presents  pH  data  from  four  powerplants  with dry  chemical
dechlorination  systems.   In  these  four  plants,  pH shift was  not
significant  and  may  have  been  within  the  error   limits  of   the
instrumentation.

Table  VI1-9  presents additional data from the same four plants using
dry chemical dechlorination.  The data indicate that dissolved  oxygen
depletion  in the effluent cooling water is not a problem.  In no case
was the dissolved oxygen lowered by more than 0.6 mg/1.

In summary, dry chemical dechlorination  is  an  effective  method  of
reducing  the  discharge  of residual chlorine from powerplants.  Good
process control and proper equipment maintenance are necessary for  the
system to perform optimally.

Dechlorination by Natural Chlorine Demand

Another form of dechlorination does not require  the   injection  of  a
reducing  agent  but,  instead,  makes  optimal  use  of  the reducing
compounds naturally present  in  raw  water.   These  natural  dechlo-
rinating  agents  include  all  the  components of the  chlorine demand
except ammonia.

Once-Through Cooling Systems.   Dechlorination  by  natural   chlorine
demand  is  applied  differently  for  once-through  and recirculating
plants.  In once-through plants the technology essentially consists of
placing the point of chlorine injection directly in front of or inside
of the condenser inlet box.  In an existing plant, this often involves
moving the current points of injection from the suction (low pressure)
side of the cooling water circulating pumps to the new   location  near
the  condenser  inlet box (where the water is at high pressure).  In  a
new plant, the chlorination system can be designed  to   feed  into  or
near the condenser inlet box from the start.

Feeding  the  chlorine  into or near the condenser inlet box may offer
any of three distinct advantages depending on  plant  design.   First,
less  reaction  time  with  the natural chlorine demand of the cooling
water will be available before the cooling water reaches the condenser
tubes where biofouling  control  is  required.  This   is  because   the
residence  time  between the traditional point of chlorine injection—
the suction side of the cooling water pumps— and  the   new  point  of


                                 279

-------
                            Table VII-8

               EFFECT OF DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATlCl
                    ON PH OF THE COOLING WATER
          (EPA Surveillance and Analysis Regional Data)


                  	EH	

Plant Code        Intake        Chlorinated ,       Dechlorinated

  2603              8.0             8.4                 7.2

  2608              7.5             8.1                  7.9

  2607              8.0             7.9                 8.0

  5513              7.3             7.3                 7.2
                               280

-------
                            Table VII-9

            ''"EFFECT OF DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION ON
                 DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN COOLING WATER
          (EPA Surveillance and Analysis Regional Data)
                               Pi s s oIved Oxygen(mg/I)'
Plant Code
2603
2608
2607
5513
Intake
5.8
8.1
7.0
2.2
Chlorinated
NA
NA
NA
2.1
Dechlorinated
7.2
7.5
6.6
1.9
NA - Data not available.
                               281

-------
chlorine  injection—into  or  near  the inlet condenser box—has been
eliminated.  A shorter residence  time means less of the free chlorine
will react with ammonia—to form chloramines of low biocidal activity-
-and less of the free chlorine will react with other  chlorine  demand
compounds—to  form  compounds  containing  no  residual^chlorine and
having little or  no  biocidal  activity.   Since  less  of  the  free
chlorine  is  being  lost to chlorine demand reactions before reaching
the condenser tubes, a lower dose of  chlorine  will  be  required  to
achieve  the  same  concentration  of  free  available chlorine in the
condenser tubes.  Thus, moving the point  of  chlorine  injection  may
allow  a  reduction in the chlorine dose required to maintain adequate
biofouling control.  For this reason, some reports  have  referred  to
moving  the  points of injection as a chlorine minimization technique.
The definition of chlorine minimization  contained  in  this  document
does not include moving the points of injection.

The  second  major advantage of locating the points of injection at or
near the condenser inlet box is that chlorination  can  then  be  done
sequentially;  each  condenser  or  condenser  half  is chlorinated by
itself, one at a time.  The effect of chlorinating sequentially is  to
provide  non-chlorinated  water  for dilution of the chlorinated water
stream.  Figure VII-6 illustrates a  hypothetical  powerplant  cooling
water  system;  the points of chlorine injection (before and after the
movement of the points) are shown.  In this  example,  there  are  two
condensers,  each  is  split into two separate halves.  If the cooling
water flow rate through each of the condenser halves  is  equal,  then
only  one quarter of the cooling water flow will be chlorinated at any
one time; three quarters of the flow is available for dilution.   From
simple  dilution  then,  the concentration of residual chlorine in the
final discharge effluent will only be one quarter of the concentration
present in the exit line from the chlorinated condenser half.

The third major advantage of locating the points of chlorine injection
at or near the condenser inlet box is that  the  nonchlorinated  water
being  used for dilution will also bring about some dechlorination due
to  the  presence  of  natural  chlorine  demand  compounds   in   the
unchlorinated  water.   The extent to which dechlorination removes the
remaining free chlorine (after dilution) is a function of the  quality
of  the  cooling  water  and  the  residence time in the cooling water
discharge conduit.  Any chloramines formed  by  reaction , of  chlorine
with  ammonia  will  not  be decomposed by any of the natural chlorine
demand compounds so some residual chlorine will still  be  present  in
the final effluent.

In  summary,  the  application  of  dechlorination by natural chlorine
demand in once-through cooling water  systems—moving  the  points  of
chlorine injection—offers three potential advantages:

1.  Less natural dechlorination before the condenser.

2.  More unchlorinated water available for dilution.
                                 282

-------
DO
CO
                   SHORELINE
                   BOUNDARY
                                OLD CHLORINE INJECTION LINE;
                                ONE CONTROL VALVETv
COOLING WATER
INTAKE SOURCE
                   INDIVIDUAL TIMERS AND
                   CONTROL VALVES; EfcfiH
                   LINE OPERATES AT A \
                   DIFFERENT TIME
                   INTERVAL











} *-









1
J










1
1


	 CONDENSER #la

CONDENSER #lb







COMMON DISCHAKU£
CONDUIT •* 	

	 ^~~ 	 1 	 '. 	
-^ 	 "I.... 	
IT 	 	 !. 	
T.f 	 —

"" CONDENSER #2a


CONDENSER jf2u
'

•IEOUSLY
CHLORINATIO
BUILDING
: ! b-

1
_ I 	
Jr 	

N
1 |
>-
\
NEW
CHLORINE
INJECTIOb
LINES
i i i I I


1
8
1


$

1
1


1
2
1


J
3
1


             TO FINAL POINT
             OF DISCHARGE
                                                FIGURE  VII  - 6

                                DECHLORINATION  BY NATURAL CHLORINE DEMAND
                                  IN A  ONCE  - THROUGH COOLING  WATER SYSTEM
                            OLD
                            CHLORINE
                            SOLUTION
                            DIFFUSERS
                        INTAKE
                        SCREENS

                        PUMP
                        HOUSE


                        PUMPS

-------
3.   Some  natural  dechlorination  after  the cooling water exits the
condenser outlet box.

Recirculatinq Cooling Systems.  In recirculating cooling systems,  the
application  of  dechlorination by natural chlorine demand consists of
simply modifying the chlorination procedure currently in  use  at  the
plant  such  that  blowdown  is not discharged during the chlorination
period nor during the period of time  after  chlorine  addition  stops
that  residual  chlorine is still present in the recirculating cooling
water.  Once chlorine addition ceases/  the  natural  chlorine  demand
reactions  will bring about a rapid reduction in the residual chlorine
concentration present in the recirculating stream.  For example, in  a
study  conducted  at  Plant 0609, it was found that the total residual
chlorine concentration in the recirculating water of a  cooling  tower
dropped  to  zero  one  and  one'  half hours after chlorine dosage was
ceased (20).  A program of chlorination  was  adopted  such  that  the
cooling   tower  blowdown  valve  was  closed  during  the  period  of
chlorination and left closed for the*following three hours.   A  three
hour  no-blowdown time period was selected in order to insure complete
degradation of the total  residual  chlorine  present  in  the  recir-
culating  cooling  water. .  It  is  expected  that  this  same kind of
operation procedure could be,  successfully  applied  to  recirculating
cooling systems using cooling ponds or canals.

Effectiveness.    The   effectiveness  of  dechlorination  by  natural
chlorine demand is extremely site specific.  For once-through  plants,
three factors will tend to increase the effectiveness:

1.   The  longer  the  residence  time  between  the present points of
chlorine addition and the new points of addition,  the  more  reaction
time  will  be  eliminated  by  moving  the points; thus,;the larger a
reduction in chlorine loss to pre-condenser demand reactions.

2.  The larger the number of  condensers  and  the  larger  the  plant
megawatt  capacity, the more unchlorinated water will be available for
dilution, provided all the condenser exit streams are combined  before
final discharge.

3.  The higher the chlorine demand (except ammonia) of the raw cooling
water,  the  more  dechlorination  will  occur upon combination of the
chlorinated condenser exit stream with the nonchlorinated streams.

In recirculating cooling systems the following factors play a role  in
determining  the  effectiveness  of  this  technology:  . the amount of
chlorine demand in the makeup water, the amount of  sunlight  entering
the tower, and the quality of the air being scrubbed by the tower.

If  the implementation of dechlorination by natural chlorine demand is
possible at a given plant, there  may  be  very  substantial  economic
advantages  to  using  this  technique as opposed to either of the two
other dechlorination methods.
                                 ,284

-------
Potential Operating Problems.   Two potential  operating  problems  are
immediately   apparent  when  considering  dechlorination  by  natural
chlorine demand.  First, in once-through cooling systems, there may be
a need for biofouling control in the inlet  cooling  water  tunnel(sj.
If the points^of chlorine injection are moved from the entrance to the
cooling  water  tunnels  to  the  condenser  inlet box, there may be a
problem with biofouling in the inlet cooling water tunnels.

Secondly, in recirculating cooling systems, it may not be possible  to
shut  the  blowdown  valve  for  long  periods of time on the order of
several hours due to the system hydraulic  .characteristics.   This  is
especially likely to be a problem in large plants using cooling towers
where  the  blowdown  flow rate may be on the order of several million
gallons per day.

Total Residual Chlorine Control Through Alternative Oxidizing
Chemicals   -

Oxidizing chemicals, other than chlorine, which have been proposed for
biofouling control include:

       chlorine dioxide,

       bromine,

    -  ozone,

       bromine chloride, and

       iodine.

Substitution of the chemicals for chlorine would reduce  or  eliminate
TRC  in  the  cooling water discharge.  These chemicals were evaluated
and only chlorine dioxide, bromine chloride, and ozone  were  selected
for further consideration.

Chlorine Dioxide

Chlorine  dioxide  is  a  gas  under  standard conditions.  At concen-
trations exceeding 15 to  20  percent,  gaseous  chlorine  dioxide  is
unstable and,  therefore, not suitable for handling in bulk form.  As a
result, chlorine dioxide is generated on site.

Facility Descriptions.   Two  methods, the chlorine gas method and the
hypochlorite method, are commonly used.

When chlorine  gas  is  dissolved  in  water,  hypochlorous  acid  and
hydrochloric acid are formed:

         C12 + H20  .#  HOC1 + HC1  .                    (20)

This  is  the  reaction  that occurs in the injector of a chlorination
system.  The chlorine dioxide biofouling control  facility  takes  the

                                 285

-------
chlorinated  water  stream  from  the injector and passes it through a
packed column in which it reacts with a sodium  chlorite  solution  to
form chlorine dioxide:

         HOC1 + HC1 + 2NaCl02  *   2C102 + 2NaCl + H20  "(21)

The  resulting chlorine dioxide solution then enters the cooling water
through a diffuser.

A simplified, schematic  diagram  of  a  chlorine  dioxide  biofouling
control  facility  based  -on  the  chlorine  gas  generation method is
presented  in  figure  VII-7.   The  facility  contains   a   complete
chlorination  system  as  described in the chlorine biofouling control
facility  section.   In  addition,  the  facility  includes  a  sodium
chlorite  solution  storage  container, a metering pump for the sodium
chlorite solution, and the packed column.  The major component of  the
chlorine dioxide facility is the chlorination system.

The  feed  rate of chlorine dioxide to the cooling water is controlled
by adjusting the feed  rates  of  the  chlorine  gas  and  the  sodium
chlorite solution to the packed column.  The feed rate of chlorine gas
is controlled by the chlorinator in the chlorination system.  The feed
rate  of  the  sodium  chlorite solution is controlled by the metering
pump.  Since the flow of water through the packed column  is  provided
by  the  booster  pump  in  the  chlorination system, the flow remains
constant; therefore, changes in the feed rates  of  chlorine  gas  and
sodium  chlorite  solution  result  in changes in the concentration of
chlorine dioxide gas in the water entering the diffuser.

When sodium hypochlorite is dissolved in water, hypochlorous acid  and
sodium hydroxide are formed:

         NaOCl + H20  *   HOC1 + NaOH                   (22)

Reaction  of  the  hypochlorous  acid  with a sodium chlorite solution
produces chlorine dioxide:                              ;

    2HOC1 + 4NaC102 + H2S04  -?   4C102 + Na2SO4 + 2NaCl + 2H20   (23)

The sodium hydroxide formed in the reaction represented by equation*22
raises the pH of the solution above the optimum for  the  reaction  in
equation  23;  therefore,  sulfuric  acid  is  added  to  the reaction
represented by  equation  23  to  lower  the  pH.   The  reactions  in
equations 22 and 23.are the basis of the hypochlorite method.

A  simplified,  schematic  diagram  of  a  chlorine dioxide biofouling
control facility  based  on  the  hypochlorite  generation  method  is
presented  in  figure VI1-8.  A side stream of cooling water is pumped
to a packed column.  Sulfuric acid and sodium hypochlorite  are  added
by  metering  pumps  to the water in.the pipe between the pump and the
column; thus, the rea'ction in equation 22 has occurred and the  pH  is
at  the optimum for the reaction  in equation 23 when the water reaches
the column.  At this point, a sodium chlorite solution  is added  by  a

                                286

-------
                             CL02 SOLUTION TO
                              COOLING WATER
 PACKED
 COLUMN
 SODIUM
CHLORITE
SOLUTION
                     CHLORINATED WATER
                                                CHLORINATION
                                                   SYSTEM
I
5
Ti
                                Figure VII-7
     Simplified, Schematic Diagram of a Chlorine Dioxide Biofouling Control Facility
                     Based on the Chlorine Gas Method (21)
                                   287

-------
                                CL02 SOLUTION
                             "fO COOLING WATER
 PACKiD
 COLUMN

                                                                  COOLING
                                                                   WATER
                                                                 SIDESTREAM
 SODIUM
CHLORITE
SOLUTION
   SODIUM
HYPOCHLOR1TE
SULFURIC
  ACID
                               Figure VII-3
    Simplified, Schematic Diagram of a Chlorine Dioxide Biofouling Control Facility
                    Based on the Hypochlorite Method (21)
                                  288

-------
metering  pump to the water, and the reaction in equation  23  occurs  in
the column.   The  resulting  chlorine  dioxide  solution  enters  the
cooling  water  through a diffuser.  The feed rate of chlorine dioxide
to the cooling water is controlled by adjusting the feed rate of  the
sodium hypochlorite and sodium chlorite solution metering  pumps.

Effectiveness.   The  substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine  in
biofouling control should eliminate all total residual chlorine  in the
cooling water;  however,  the  addition  of  excess  chlorine in  the
generation  of chlorine dioxide to insure maximum yield could create a
total chlorine residual in the cooling water.   The  determination   of
the  presence or absence of this residual and the concentration  if the
residual   is  present,  is  not  possible.   All  of  the  methods   of
determining  total  residual chlorine are based on the oxidizing power
of both free and combined chlorine residuals (14).   Chlorine dioxide
residuals  are also oxidizing agents, though.  As a result, any attempt
to  measure  total  residual chlorine results in a measurement of both
total residual chlorine and chlorine dioxide residuals.  No officially
accepted   method  of  eliminating  the   chlorine   dioxide   residual
interference is available (14).

In  the  absence  of  data on total residual chlorine in cooling water
treated with chlorine dioxide, it was assumed that  the  concentration
of  total  residual chlorine is zero.  The basis for this assumption  is
fairly sound.  The quantity of chlorine dioxide added to   the cooling
water  is  much  greater  than  the  quantity  of  chlorine added, and
chlorine is a  more  powerful  oxidant  than  chlorine  dioxide   (22).
Therefore,  the  limited  amount  of  chlorine is probably consumed  by
inorganic  reducing agents and the biological fouling organisms   before
chlorine   residuals  are  formed.  Although total residual chlorine  is
probably not present,  chlorine  dioxide  residuals,  which   are also
toxic, are present.

Chlorine   dioxide  is currently being used for biofouling  control in a
limited number  of  steam  electric  powerplants  with  once- through
cooling  water  systems  and  in  a  single plant with a recirculating
cooling water system  (23).

Bromine Chloride

Facility Description.  A bromine chloride biofouling control  facility
is  identical  to  a  chlorine  biofouling control facility except for
minor changes required by differences in  the  physical  and  chemical
properties of  bromine  chloride  and  chlorine.  Bromine chloride  is
denser than chlorine, so. the handling equipment  and  scales  for  the
containers are  of  higher  capacity.   Bromine  chloride exists   in
equilibrium with bromine and chlorine   in  both  the  liquid  and  the
gaseous  phases  in . containers.   The  vapor  pressure of chlorine  is
higher than the vapor  pressures  of  bromine  and  bromine   chloride;
therefore,   a   chlorine-rich  vapor   exists  in  the  gas   phase   in
containers.  As a result, bromine chloride is  always  withdrawn from
containers as  a  liquid,  and  an  evaporator  is used to convert the
liquid to  gas.  Bromine chloride condenses  at   a  higher  temperature

                                  2S9

-------
than  chlorine,  so  the evaporator is designed to operate at a higher
temperature in a bromine chloride facility than in a chlorine facility
to prevent condensation  of  bromine  chloride.   The  design  changes
consist  of  using  steam or direct electric.resistence heating rather
than hot water.  Bromine chloride attacks  both  steel  and  polyviriyl
chloride, the materials used in chlorination facilities.  As a result,
nickel  or Monel is substituted for steel and Kynar is substituted for
polyvinyl chloride in all parts which are in contact  with  liquid  or
vapor bromine chloride (23, 24).

Effectiveness.   The  substitution of bromine chloride for chlorine in
biofouling control should eliminate all total residual chlorine in the
cooling water.  Although total residual chlorine will not be  present,
bromine residuals, which are also toxic, will probably be present.

Bromine  chloride  has been used on a trial basis at three plants with
once-through cooling water systems (25, 26, 27), but is not  currently
being  used  for  biofouling control at any steam electric powerplants
(24).

Ozone

Facility Description.  An ozone biofouling control  facility  consists
of"threesystems:   the  ozone  generating  system, the gas treating
system/ and the gas-liquid contacting system.

Ozone is generated on site by passing an oxygen-bearing gas through   a
high frequency electric field called a corona.  A schematic diagram of
a  corona  cell  is  shown  in figure VI1-9.  The cell consists of two
electrodes separated by a narrow gap.  One electrode is  grounded.    A
high  voltage  alternating  current is applied to the other electrode.
This electrode discharges to the grounded electrode  creating  a  high
intensity  corona  discharge  in  the gap between the electrodes.  The
dielectric on the discharging electrode stabilizes the discharge  over
the  entire  electrode so that it does not localize in an intense arc.
The corona discharge in the gap converts some of  the  oxygen  in  the
oxygen-  bearing  gas  passing through the gap to ozone.  A relatively
small amount of the energy in the. discharge  is  utilized  to  convert
oxygen  to  ozone;  consequently,  a  substantial  amount  of  heat is
produced.  The low volume  of  gas  passing  through  the  gap  cannot
dissipate the heat, so the electrodes are cooled by either a liquid or
a gas in contact ,with the side .of the electrode opposite the discharge
gap.    The  configuration  of  the  corona  cell,  the  materials  of
construction, and the cooling method vary with manufacturer (28,  29).

Ozone can be generated from either air or oxygen.   In  cooling   water
biofouling  control applications, the choice between air and oxygen is
based primarily on  facility  design  capacity.   For  small  capacity
facilities,  air  is  more economical.  For  large capacity facilities,
oxygen is more economical.  The breakpoint between air and  oxygen  is
shown in figure VII-10 as a function of facility capacity expressed as
flow and dosage.


                                290

-------
High Voltage
Alternating
Current
ELECTRODE
DIELECTRIC
                                              (grounded)
                           Figure VII-9

               SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF  CORONA CELL (28)
                                 291

-------
      80
1

0)
co
o
fi
•o
a)
•H
H
                                   Economics

                                     Favor

                                    Oxygen
10
                 Economics

                   Favor

                   Air
                                                                         I	I
                                                            100
                                   Plow Treated  (MGD)
                                       Figure VII-10           	


                        EFFECT OF  020NATION FACILITY CAPACITY ON


                          PROCESS  CHOICE - OXYGEH  VS. AIR  (28)

-------
Whether  air or oxygen is used, the gas entering the generator must be
dry.  Moisture is removed from air by lowering its temperature,  which
causes  the  water  to  condense  and  then  passing the air through a
desiccant drier.  Makeup oxygen comes directly from the oxygen source.
Recycled oxygen is extracted from the waste gas  from  the  gas-liquid
contacting  system.   Moisture  is removed from the recycled oxygen in
the same way it is removed from air.

The  three  basic  methods  of  supplying  makeup  oxygen  for   ozone
generation  are  on  site liquid oxygen storage, on site generation by
the pressure-swing adsorption process, and on site generation  by  the
cryogenic , air  separation  process.   On  site  liquid oxygen storage
requires an insulated tank, an evaporator, and the appropriate  piping
and  valves.   The  stored liquid is withdrawn and vaporized to gas on
demand.  The supply of liquid oxygen is  replenished  periodically  by
tank  truck  deliveries  from local suppliers.  On site storage is the
preferred method when makeup requirements are less than 1 ton per day.
On  site  generation  by  the  pressure-swing  adsorption  process  is
generally  used for oxygen requirements from 1 to 30 tons per day.  In
this process, air  is compressed, cooled to condense moisture, and then
passed through an  adsorbent that removes carbon dioxide, water  vapor,
and nitrogen to produce a 90 to 95 percent oxygen gas stream.  On site
generation  by  the cryogenic air separation process is generally used
for oxygen requirements in excess of 30 tons per day, so this, process
is rarely used in  ozonation systems  (28).

The gas-liquid contacting system consists of a closed tank, diffusers,
and  an  ozone  decomposition  device.   Ozone  is  dispersed in water
through diffusers  which  release  the  ozone  as  fine  bubbles.   The
bubbles  are dispersed in the water  in a closed tank so that the ozone
in the gases released from the  water  can  be  collected  and  passed
through  the ozone decomposition device before release of the gases to
the atmosphere or  recycle of the gases to the ozone generator.   Ozone
is  fairly  insoluble  in  water; therefore, contacting system designs
must optimize the  tradeoff between contact time and ozone utilization.

A typical ozonation facility using air to generate ozone is  shown  in
figure  VII-11.  A typical ozonation facility using oxygen to generate
ozone  is shown in  figure VI1-12.  The gas treating system,  the  ozone
generating system, and the gas-liquid contacting system are delineated
on  the diagrams.

Effectiveness.   The  substitution of ozone for chlorine in biofouling
control should eliminate all total residual chlorine  in  the  cooling
water.   Although  total  residual chlorine will not be present, other
oxidant residuals, which are also toxic, will probably be present.

Ozone  is not currently being used for biofouling control at any  steam
electric  powerplant.   Ozone  has   been  used  on  a  trial basis for
biofouling  control at one plant  (23).
                                 Z93

-------
N>
CHILLED '
WATER |
AIR /" "SI.,, 1 ... .r ^.| \\^ | >

COMPRESSOR!
1 *
1 HjO
1
1
1
1
Gas Treating Syst
1
WATER
,,. 	 fc. O2OMATOR

••" ""•! 1 r~
|| CONTACTOR
V ^
J 1 TREAT
CLEAN
DISCHA
I
Jr
FED
AIR
RQE
DEC
DRYER 1 WATER
1
i
:em Ozone ' Gas -Liquid
Generating 1 Contacting
1 System | System
                                                                                OZONE
                                                                                DMPOSIT
                                                                                DEVICE
                                            Figure VII-11

                        OZONATION FACILITY USING AIR TO GENERATE OZONE (28)

-------
to
Ul
t PURGE ' ..— — ,. 	 	 .,«
. OXYGEN RECYCLE LINE ^ | OZONE DECOMPOSITION
* ' DEVICE
i 1 ,. 	 _„. 	 	 „„,
I '
I OXYGEN i WATER
1 GENERATOR • 	 	 	 vSi.lc5 	 .
' • ^f i ' • ' 1
I ~~ -|— "" 	 ' 	 ''**'. UtUINAIUH 	 " 	 *""" 	 "
x^~*5ri 1 . f \^\ ifc, 1 - ' 	 1 j
/ | **1 y\ J *" xK xk I i
^-^ ! CWL^D V ' CONTACTOR
COMPRESSOR I WATER J I
i t V V I
1 H20 A.l .
. I TR
i DRYER | v\
i 1 .
I Gas Treating System ' Ozone Generating . Gas
, | System « Cc
! ! £

j

t

k

1
EATED
(ATER
i -Liquid
mtacting
>ystem
                     Figure VII-12



OZONATION FACILITY USING OXYGEN TO GENERATE OZONE (28)

-------
Tot.a.l Residual Chlorine Control Through Mechanical Cleaning

Mechanical means of cooling system cleaning can be used  in  place  of
chemical  antifoulants.   The  most  obvious method is manual cleaning
which requires long plant downtime.  Two types of automatic mechanical
condenser cleaning systems, which can  be  used  during  normal  plant
operations,  are  the  Amertap  and American M.A.N. systems.  Diagrams
showing the major components of each of these systems are presented in
figures VI1-13 and VI1-14.  The Amertap system is the most common type
of automatic mechanical  cleaning  system.   By  circulating  oversize
sponge  rubber  balls  through  the  condenser  tubes with the cooling
water, the inside of the condenser tubes are  wiped.   The  balls  are
collected  in  the  discharge water box by screens and repumped to the
inlet of the condenser for another pass through the system.  They  can
be  used  on  an intermittent or continuous basis. The American M.A.N.
system uses flow drive brushes which are passed through the  condenser
tubes intermittently by reversing the flow of condenser cooling water.
The brushes abrasively remove fouling and corrosion products.  Between
cleaning cycles, the brushes are held in baskets attached at both ends
of each tube in the condenser.

The  Amertap  and, to a lesser extent, the American M.A.N. system have
been reasonably successful in  maintaining  condenser  efficiency  and
reliability.   Some  problems  are  abrasion and grooving of condenser
tubes, and, in some cades, the systems themselves  become  fouled  and
must be cleaned.

Priority  Pollutants Control Through Alternative Corr.osion" and-• Scaling
Control Chemicals

The principal control technology available to eliminate the  discharge
of  priority  pollutants as a result of the use of corrosion and scale
control agents is the substitution of corrosion  and  scaling  control
agents  which  do  not  contain priority pollutants.  Most powerplants
usually purchase the chemicals they need  for  corrosion  and  scaling
control  from  vendors as prepackaged mixtures.  The exact composition
of these "proprietary" mixtures is confidential but a partial  listing
of  some  of  the  commonly  used  mixtures • which do contain priority
pollutants is given in table VII-10 (31).  At least one vendor is  now
offering a corrosion and scaling control mixture that contains neither
zinc  nor chromium and has proven very effective in several full scale
test programs in various  industrial applications  (32).

Priority pollutant Control Through Alternative Non-Oxidizing Biocj:des

Many steam electric powerplants use non-oxidizing biocides  instead  of
or  in  conjunction  with  the  oxidizing biocides.  The non-oxidizing
biocides are also  effective  in  controlling  biofouling  but  do  so
through mechanisms other  than direct oxidation of  cell walls.

A list of most of the commonly used oxidizing biocides is  presented in
table  VII-11   (33,  34).   Note  that  there  are really  two kinds of
oxidizing biocides.  The  first group are appropriate for use  in  large

                                 296

-------
Ni
\O
           OUTLET MATER
           MX
        COOLING
        WATER
        OUTLET
              STRAINER
              SECTION
                                                          TURBINE EXHAUST
                                                          STEAM
                                                                              CONDENSE!
                                                                              DGXE
,INLET HATEI
 MX
4 *
».",!,",'.=
'•^
1
x*
P
„•"•"»•,
,1 1
3 ' f
r~' JL \r
dh II
RECIRCULATION
PUMP
a
^ «
44
1
ATCH FOR INSERTIN6
R REMOVINQ BALLS
U~ BALL COLLECTING
BASKET
^ BASKET SHUTOFF
• FLAP xp>4 ;:;:', ',;;

|>c^ »p>» ^
\>>T>^f '" 	 '
BALL
ELECTOR
4

1
L— j
V
r>
                                                                                              SPONGE,RU88ER t
                                                                                              SALLS  (TYPICAL)
                                                                                              COOLIMB WATER
                                                                                              INLET
                                                    FIGURE VII -13

                        SCHEMATIC  ARRANGEMENT OF AMERTAP        CLEANING SYSTEM (30)

-------
    NORMAL ROW PI PING
    BACKWASH FLOW PI PING
    OPEN              0
    CLOSED             C
Ni
<^>
00

L i
i
    /c
/c
     /o
 Xo
                 SECTION OF
                 CONDENSER BEING
                 BACKWASHED	
              FROM INTAKE »-
              FROM INTAKE *-
              TO OUTFALL  -
              TO OUTFALL  ~
                                       0
                                     HxH
                             F
                                   c
                                 H'H
Xo Xc
Xo XC
Xc Xo
T^
 Xo xc
                                    FIGURE VII -14
                  SCHEMATIC OF M.A.N. SYSTEM REVERSE FLOW PIPING  (30)

-------
                           Table VII-10
             CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL MIXTURES
                TO CONTAIN PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (31, 32)
Compounds Known to Contain
   Priority Pollutants
NALCO CHEMICALS
  25L
  38
  375
Specific Priority Pollutants
   Contained in Product
Copper
Chromium
Chromium
CALGON CHEMICALS
  CL-70
  CL-68

BETZ CHEMICALS
  BETZ 4QP
  BETZ 403
  Dianodic 191
Zinc Chloride
Sodium Dichromate, Zinc Chloride


Chrornate and Zinc Salts
Chrornate and Zinc Salts
Chromate and Zinc Salts
HERCULES CHEMICALS
  CR 403

BURRIS CHEMICALS
  Sodium Dichromate
Zinc Bichromate, Chromic Acid
Sodium Dichromate
                               299

-------
                          Table VII-11
            COMMONLY USED OXIDIZING BIOCIDES (33, 34)
Group A - Appropriate for Use in Large Scale Applications,
          RequireExpensive Feed Equipment	
          Bromine chloride
          Chlorine
          Chlorine dioxide
          Ozone
Group B - Appropriate for Use on Intermittent Basis or in Small
          Systems_, May Not Require Expensive Feed Equipment:	
          Ammonium persulfate
          Bromine
          Calcium chlorite
          Calcium hypochlorite
          Dibromonitrilopropionamide
          2,2-dichlorodimethyl hydantoin
          Iodine                {
          Potassium hydrogen persulfate
          Potassium permangnate
          Sodium chlorite
          Sodium dichloroisocyanurate
          Sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione
          Sodium hypochlorite
          Trichloroisocyanuric acid

NOTE:  None of these compounds are priority pollutants.
                               300

-------
Scale  applications  and  require  expensive  feed  equipment.    These
compounds have all been thoroughly discussed earlier  and  no  further
discussion will be presented here.

The  second  group  of  oxidizing biocides are commonly purchased from
suppliers as a liquid or solid in small containers  (i.e.,   50  gallon
drums,  100  pound  bags).   These  biocides  are fed using  relatively
simple feed equipment (solution tank,.mixer, pump,  diffuser)  and   in
some  cases  are  simply dumped into  the influent lines to the cooling,
system.  Note that many of these compounds contain chlorine  which   is
released  upon  solution  in  water   to  form  hypochlorous  acid  (free
available chlorine).  The use of chlorine in this form will  create the
same problems as injection of chlorine gas, the only difference   being
the method in which the chlorine was  introduced to the system.  Plants
using  the  "chlorine  bearing"  compounds  will have to meet the same
effluent standards as plants injecting chlorine  gas.   Both  chlorine
minimization  and  dechlorination are technologies available to help a
plant meet total residual chlorine limitations.

A third possible technology is  the   substitution  of  a   "nonchlorine
bearing"  oxidizing biocide which may offer similar biofouling control
but will not result  in  the  discharge  of  residual  chlorine.   For
example,  a plant currently using calcium hypochlorite could switch  to
dibromonitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) and avoid the discharge of residual
chlorine altogether.

Another substitution available to the plant is to use  a   nonoxidizing
biocide  instead of an oxidizing biocide.  A list of the commonly used
non-oxidizing biocides is presented in table  VII-12.   as   the   table
shows,  a large diversity of products have been used for this purpose.
An advantage that non-oxidizing biocides  have  over  their  oxidizing
counterpart  is  their slow decay.  Oxidizing biocides are,  by design,
very reactive compounds. As a result,  the  oxidizing  biocides   react
with  many contaminants present in the cooling water and rapidly  decay
to relatively non-toxic compounds.  The non-oxidizing biocides are,  by
design,  very   toxic   materials   which   react   selectively   with
microorganisms  and other life forms.  They may decay very slowly once
released to the environment and thus  pose a substantial  environmental
hazard.

Many  of  the  non-oxidizing  biocides  are priority pollutants.  If a
compound is a known priority pollutant it is marked with   an  asterisk
to  the  left of the compound name.'   Since there are many  non-priority
pollutant,  non-oxidizing   compounds  readily   available   on   the
marketplace,  it  is  not recommended that priority pollutants be used
for this purpose.

Before searching for a substitute for the current biocide  a  plant   is
using, careful examination should be  given for the need of biocides  at
all,  especially non-oxidizing biocides.  Once-through cooling systems
located in areas where biofouling is  a  problem  should   be able   to
achieve  adequate  biofouling  control with chlorine or perhaps one  of
the other "large-scale" oxidizing  biocides.   If  additional  control

                                 301

-------
                          Table VII-12
          COMMONLY USED NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES (33, 34)


*Acid copper chrornate
*Acrolein
n-alkylbenzyl-N-N-N-trimethyl ammonium chloride
n-Alkyl (60% C14 ,  307, C16, 5% C12 • 57° C18 ) dimethyl bensyl
  Ammonium chloride
n-Alkyl (50% C12 ,  30% C14 , 17% C16 , 3% C18) dimethyl ethylbenzyl
  ammonium chloride
n-Alkyl (98% C12»  ^^ C14^ dimethyl-1-naphthylmethyl ammonium
  chloride
alkylmethylbenzylaramonium lactate
Alkyl-9-methyl-benzyl ammonium chloride
n-Alkyl (C6 - C^g) - 1,3-Propanediamine
*Arsenous Acid
^Benzenes
Benzyltriethylammonium chloride
Benzyltrimethylammonium chloride
Bis-(tributyltin) oxide
Bis-(trichloromethyl) sulfone
Bromonitrostyrene
Bromos tyrene
2-bromo-4-phenylphenol
*Carbon tetrachloride
Cetyldimethylammonium chloride
Chloro-2-phenylphenol
2-chloro-4-penylphenol
*Chromate
*Copper Sulfate
*Cromated copper arsenate
*Cresote                                           :
*Cyanides
3,4-dichlorobenzylammonium chloride

                               302

-------
                    Table VII-12 (Continued)
          COMMONLY USED NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES  (33, 34)


*2,4-dichlorophenol
Dilauryldimethylainmonium chloride
Dilauryldimethylammonium oleate
Dimethyltetrahydrothiadiazinethione
Disodium ethylene-bis-(dithiocarbainate)
Dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride
Dodecyl .dimethyl ammonium chloride
Dodecyl guanidine acetate and hydrochloride
Isopropanol
*Lactoxymercuriphenyl ammonium Lactate
Lauryldimethyl-benzyldiethylammonium chloride  (7573)
Methylene bisthiocyanate
Octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride
*PhanyImercurie triethanol-ammonium lactate
*Phenylmercuric trihydroxethyl ammonium lactate
o-phenylphenol              ,
Poly-(oxyethylene (dimethylimino) ethylene-(dimethylimino)
  ethylene dichloride)                               ,
Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
*Sodium pemtachlorophenate  ,                              .
*Sodium trichlorophenate
2-tertbutyl-4-chloro 5-methyl phenol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
Trimethylammonixim chloride
*Zinc salts
In addition to the above chemicals the following may be present
as solvents or carrier components:
Dimethyl Formatnide
Methanol

                               303

-------
                    Table VII-12 (Continued)
          COMMONLY USED NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES (33, 34)


Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Glycols to Hexylene Glycol
*Heavy aromatic naphtha
Cocoa diamine
Sodium chloride
Sodium sulfate
Polyoxyethylene glycol
Talc
Sodium Aluminate                                   I
Mono chlorotoluene
Alkylene oxide - alcohol glycol ethers
NOTE:  *Indicates the compound is known to contain a priority
        pollutant.  Some of the other compounds may degrade
        into priority pollutants but no data was available
        to make a definite determination.
                               304

-------
seems  needed,  the  plant  should  first attempt modifications of  its
current biocide program, i.e.,  change  the  dosage,  frequency,  etc.
Another  possibility  is the periodic use of a dispersant or  "chlorine
helper" which is a specially formulated mixture designed  to   increase
the  penetration  of  chlorine,  especially  into existing thick slime-
films.  A study was conducted at Plant 5004 over a three  year  period
during  which the dosage rate of chlorine and a "chlorine helper" were
varied.  The  "chlorine helper" was found to significantly increase  the
cleanliness factor of the condenser tubes and helped to keep  mud"   and
silt  from  settling  out in the cooling systems (35).  The success of
the use of a  "chlorine helper" is likely to be extremely site specific
and depend on water quality, system design and other factors.

Recirculating plants also often  operate  with  the  use  of  chlorine
alone.   In   those recirculating plants using cooling towers  with wood
fill, a special biofouling  problem  exists.   It  is  only   in  these
systems in which the use of non-oxidizing biocides is really  justified
(23).   The   problem  is  that  the wood fill is susceptible  to fungal
attack in the center of the boards.  Chlorine  doses  high  enough  to
provide  microbial control at the center of the boards would  result in
the delignification of the lumber and destroy  the  wood's  structural
strength.   Thus,  a  , nonoxidizing  biocide offers a perfect  solution.
For this reason, lumber used in  cooling  tower  fill  is  often  pre-
treated  with a non-oxidizing biocide.  Pentachlorophenate and various
trichlorophenates are frequently used for  this  .purpose  (33).   Both
pentachlorophenate and the trichlorophenates are priority pollutants.

Vendors  of   non-oxidizing  biocides  have  indicated that nonpriority
pollutant non-oxidizing biocides are available  at  approximately   the
same  cost  as  their priority pollutant analogs (33).  Thus,  when  the
use of a non-oxidizing biocide is required, there is no  cost penalty
in using a compound that is not a priority pollutant.  The use of non-
oxidizing  biocides   in  once-through  cooling systems is likely to be
prohibitively expensive and represents a serious environmental  hazard
and is therefore, not recommended.

Priority Pollutant Control Through Replacement of Asbestos
Cooling Tower Fill                          .

The   technology  evaluated to control the discharge of asbestos fibers
in cooling tower blowdown is replacement  of  existing  asbestos  fill
material.  Existing asbestos cement fill is taken out of the  tower  and
replaced  with wood,  PVC, or ceramic tiles.  This is a straightforward
disassembly and reassembly construction procedure.  The tower  is,  of
course, out of service during .this construction activity.

Ash Handling


Systems  for  handling the products of coal combustion by hydraulic or
pneumatic conveyors have been used for 50 years  or  more.    With   the
advent  of  larger steam generation units,  larger ash handling  systems
have  been built with  heavier components to  cope  with  the   increased


                                 305

-------
loads.   Powerplant refuse, which can be classified as ash, falls into
four categories (36):

    1.  Bottom ash (dry or slag)—material which drops out of the
       main furnace and is too heavy to be entrained with the
       flue gases;

    2.  Fly ash—finer particles than bottom ash which are
       entrained in the flue gas stream and are removed
       downstream via dust collecting devices such as
       electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, and cyclones;

    3.  Economizer and air preheater ash—coarser particles which
       drop out of flue gases as a result of changes in direction
       of the flue gas; and,

    4.  Mill rejects, or pyrites—variety of coarse, heavy pieces
       of stone, slate, and iron pyrite which are removed from
       coal during preparation stages (at plants which clean the
       coal prior to use).

Economizer and air preheater ashes are usually  collected  in  hoppers
and  transported in conjunction with fly ash to a disposal site; thus,
fly ash transport systems are considered to apply  to  the  economizer
and  preheater  ash  as  well.  Mill rejects are wastes encountered  in
coal preparation which is usually performed off site; therefore,  mill
reject  transport  systems  are treated as off site operations and are
not addressed in this discussion.  As a result, only  bottom  ash  and
fly ash handling systems are considered in this subsection.

Statistics  for  1975  indicate that approximately 410 million tons  of
coal were burned, producing nearly 41 million tons of fly ash  and   22
million  tons  of  bottom  ash  and  boiler  slag  (37).   As coal use
increases to replace the dwindling supplies of other  fuels  used  for
generating  electric  power,  the  amounts  of  fly ash and bottom ash
requiring proper  disposal  will  also  increase.   Perhaps  the  most
environmentally  acceptable  and  economically  attractive  method   of
disposal is through utilization as a raw material  in  the  manufacture
of  new products.  Recently fly ash and other coal residues have found
uses such  as  lightweight  aggregates  for  construction,  structural
fills, embankments, or low-cost highway base mixes.  'Ash also has been
successfully  used  as  a  soil  amendment,   in  fire-control or fire-
abatement procedures, and  for treatment of acid mine drainage.   Since
ash is typically high in concentrations of many metals such as copper,
vanadium, aluminum, chromium, manganese,  lead, zinc, nickel, titanium,
magnesium, strontium, barium, lithium, and calcium,  it may serve as  an
important  source  of these metals in the near future  (38).  Thus far,
however, the use of fly ash and bottom ash in manufacturing  has  been
relatively small, only 16.3 percent  in 1974  (38);  therefore, the major
portion  of  the fly ash and bottom  ash resulting  from coal combustion
must  be disposed of.
                                 306

-------
Fly Ash

The treatment and control technologies applicable to fly ash   handling
systems are:

    1.  dry fly ash handling;

    2,  partial recirculation fly ash handling; and

    3.  physical/chemical treatment of ash pond overflows  from
       wet, once-through systems.

Dry Systems

Dry  fly  ash  handling systems are pneumatic systems of the  vacuumor
pressure type.  Vacuum systems use a vacuum, produced by   ejectors   or
mechanical  blowers,  to  provide the necessary air flow to convey ash
from the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) hoppers to  its  destination
point, i.e., a dry storage silo or landfill.  Pressure  systems,  on the
other  hand,  make use of pressure blowers to provide the  required air
flow for ash conveying.  In general, a vacuum system is more  limited
in conveying distance than a pressure system; thus, vacuum systems are
generally  not used for systems covering  distances greater than  500  to
700 feet (39).  Controls for a vacuum  system  are  generally  simpler
than  those  for  a  pressure  system.    This  can be advantageous for
systems which have a large number of ash  hoppers,  e.g.,  35  to  40.
Because dry fly ash systems eliminate the need for an ash  sluice water
discharge, they represent a means of achieving zero discharge.

Vacuum Systems.   In  this  type  of  system, fly ash is pneumatically
conveyed to a dry  storage  silo  by  means  of  a  mechanical  vacuum
producer.   An  example of a vacuum system for dry fly  ash is shown  in
Figure VII-15.  Fly ash is drawn from the bottom  of  the  ash  hopper
through  the  dust  valves  and  segregating valves to  the primary and
secondary collectors above the dry storage silo.   The  dust-free  air
from  the  collectors  is sent through a  cartridge filter  before it  is
allowed to pass through the mechanical blowers where it is vented   to
the atmosphere.

Vacuum  systems  are  limited  in conveying distance.   The distance  to
which material can be conveyed depends on the  configuration  of  the
system  and plant altitude above sea level.  The application  of  vacuum
systems is generally limited from 500 to  700 feet of distance from the
ash hoppers to the dry storage silos (39).  The simplicity of  vacuum
systems  makes them particularly advantageous in systems with 35 to  40
ESP hoppers.

Equipment.  The  following  list  of  equipment  comprises the major
components of a vacuum system:

    1.  vacuum producers—mechanical or hydraulic;

    2.  valves—type "E" Dust Valves and  segregating valves;


                                 307

-------
                                                        Cartridge, Filter
  Burnt Valves
Type "E" Outlet
Segregating
  Valvea A
                                         Primary
                                        Collector
Secondary »
Collector
.(Bag Filter)
                                                               Vent
                                                  Storage Silo
                                                   Aeration
                                   Silo Unloader-
                                                                    Vacuum
                                                                    Blower
                         Figure VII-15
           DRY  FLY ASH HANDLING  - VACUUM  SYSTEM
                                308

-------
    3.   conveying pipe;

    4.   dry storage—silo, dust collectors, and vent filters;

    5.   dust conditioners (or unloaders); and

    6.   controls.

Many vacuum systems use mechanical exhausters to provide the necessary
vacuum  to  convey  fly  ash to the dust collectors.  These mechanical
exhausters are 300- to 400-hp blowers (39), which are similar to those
used in pressure systems.  Vacuum production may also be  provided  by
mechanical  vacuum  pumps  motor  driven machines of either the dry or
water-injected positive displacement type or the water  sealed  rotary
bucket  type.   Experience  has  shown  that  water-injected lobe type
positive displacement vacuum producers cannot be used in  cases  where
flue gases are high in sulfur dioxide (40).  In such cases, dry vacuum
pumps  or  watersealed  machines must be used to avoid corrosion.  The
use of  any  mechanical  vacuum  pump  requires  the  installation  of
collecting  equipment  of the highest possible efficiency ahead of the
pump.

Figure VII-16 presents a diagram of a hydraulic vacuum producer.  This
particular unit, marketed  under  the  trade  name  "Hydrovactor,"  is
manufactured  by the Allen-Sherman-Hoff Company. The hydrovactor makes
use of high-pressure water (from 100 to 300 psi) discharged through an
annular ring of nozzles into a venturi throat to create the vacuum  to
convey  dust  to  the  collectors  (40).   A  similar unit, known as  a
"Hydroveyor," is manufactured by  United  Conveyor  Corporation.   The
amount of water required, the pressure of the water, and the extent of
the  vacuum  produced  are  a  function of the ash  generating rate and
distance to the storage silo.  Typical values might be  1,500  gpm  of
water  through  the venturi to draw 100 pounds per  minute of air at 13
inches of mercury (39).

Figure VII-17 illustrates the type "E" dust valve which  is  installed
under  the  fly  ash   collection  hoppers.  This valve is air-electric
operated and is designed  to  admit  ambient  air .  through   integrally
mounted  inlet  check  valves.  As the slide gate is opened, air drawn
through these valves and  from the interstices in the dust becomes  the
conveying  medium  which  transports  the  fly ash.  Valve opening and
closing is controlled  by  fluctuations in the vacuum at  the  producer.
A drop in vacuum indicates an empty hopper, so that an operator, or an
automatic control device, is alerted to move to the next point of dust
collection.

When  the  fly  ash  is   conveyed  from  two  or  more  branch   lines,
segregating values are used to block off any branched lines  which  are
not  in use.  By  isolating the lines in this manner, the full energy of
the  conveying  air can be applied to one  branch at a time without the
possibility of  loss of  conveying  capacity  due  to  leaks  in  other
branches.  Segregating valves may be provided with  chain wheel or hand

                                 309

-------
                          I/*"PIPf MI'S
                        (VACUUM ft PMES5.0AUSE CSNH*S)
                                     •IMLET LINER
                                          taecTon HEAO wtrw
                                          IZSIfe. OM Z3OI&, WttTCM
                                          PKC3S.INt.ET FLANGE
                                          CCESS PLUGS
                                          (BOTH sioesj
                                       NOZZLE Tll»

                                       THROAT CASINO


                                       TMM01T USERS
                            Figure VII-16

              DIAGRAM OF A HYDRAULIC  VACUUM PRODUCER

Reprinted from A Primer for Ash Handling by Allen-Sheman-Hoff
Company by permission of Allen-Sherman-Hoff Company,  A Division
of Ecolaire.   Year  of first publication:  1976.
                                  310

-------
   SYUNO6R
                                     **•
                                                            S.S. SLIDE SATE
                                            VALVE SEAT
                                        INLET CHECK VALVC
                                                         OUTI.IT
                                     VALVE 800Y


                                    S.S.SU8C 3ATC
                                      8*X**TYP6*E*MATERIAl.S  HANOUN6 VACVC
                                      	( CTUNOSH OPgBATEO )	
                          . Figure VII-17

                        TYPE' "E"  DUST VALVES

Reprinted from APrimer for Ash Handling  by Allen-Shennan-Hoff
Company by permissionof Allen-Sherman-Hoff Company,  A Division
of Ecolaire.  Year  of first publication:   1976.
                                 311

-------
wheel  operators  as well as air-electric operators as shown  in figure
VII-18.

There are three types of pipe generally used in ash handling:

    1.  carbon steel pipe,

    2.  centrifugally cast iron pipe, and

    3.  basalt-lined pipe.

In general, the carbon steel and centrifugally  cast  iron  pipes  are
most commonly used for dry handling  (39).  Basic pipe for ash handling
service  have  a  Brinnell  Hardness Number (BHN) of 280; fittings are
harder (approximately 400 BHN) to combat the added abrasive action  at
bends  in  a conveying line (40).  Typical pipe and fittings  are shown
in figure VII-19. Integral wear back, tangent end fittings  are  used.
A line of fittings with replaceable wear backs is available for vacuum
systems.   These  wear  backs are reversible so that each provides two
points of impact where abrasion is most  severe.   In  addition,  each
wear  back, for a given size pipe fitting, can be.used on all fittings
of that size.  Some typical line sizes which may be used  for  varying
system capacities are provided in table VII-13.   Experience  has shown
that  one  line should handle no more than 50 TPH fly ash and that two
lines with cross-over provision should be run to the silo (40).

Dust caught by the collectors is continuously  dropped  into  fly  ash
storage silo where it is held until disposed.  Storage silos  may be of
carbon steel or hollow concrete stave construction.  Flat bottom silos
are  equipped  with  aeration  stones  or  slides to fluidize dust and
induce flow to the discharge outlets.  Motor driven blowers supply the
fluidizing air.  Silos are also provided  with  bag  vent  filters  to
prevent  the discharge of .dust along with displaced air as the silo is
being filled.  Alternately, venting can be provided by a duct from the
silo roof back to the precipitator inlet.   It  may  be  necessary  to
supply  lowpressure  blowers on the vent duct to pvercome losses which
may prevent release of the conveying  air,  resulting  in  a  pressure
build up in the silo and drop-out of the fly ash in the duct.

Fly ash is normally deposited in trucks or railroad cars for  transport
to  a  dump  area.   In such cases,  it is necessary to wet the dust to
prevent it from blowing off conveyances during  transportation.   This
is  accomplished  by  means  of  conditioners  which  may  be of  the
horizontal rotary pug-mill type or the vertical type.

The horizontal type is suitable for  conditioning a maximum of 180 tons
of dust per hour with water additions as high as 20 percent by  weight
(40).   This  unit  requires  a  rotary  feeding  device  between  the
discharge point and the unloader inlet to feed dry  ash  at   a  steady
measured  rate.   Dust  is fed by means of the star  (rotary)  feeder to
the inlet of a screw feeder which carries the dust to  the  end  of   a
rotating  drum.   Water   is  added at the discharge point of  the screw
feeder and at various points along the drum as the dust is tumbled and
                                 312

-------
I
  TV
             _ .V*L«e  tQSf,
               IrLMIM 6NO OR
                  _  .ACCESS COV6R
           ROUL fin "* PISTOI*' *OO
                             JU8IMS
                    LIMIT
             iuoe SATS
                      (TMO CAP

                      AC7UAT1HC PIN
    SECTION, "a-a"%
                                                           1/2* N.P.T. CONDUIT CONM,
SECTION  ""A-A"
                                                                             Lgven
                    LIMIT


             LIMIT SWITCH OPERaTING
                                                  SLIDE  SATE
                   T. COWOUIT CONH.   «
                                                                            •A'
                                                                  AIR CONTNOL VALVE
                             sea RESATI no  su o s ir ...ryA uyET
                                 CA»R-€L£CTRIG OPeRATSOl
                                  Figure ¥11-18

                               SEGREGATING VALVES  '

     'Reprinted from A_Primer for Ash Hand!ing by  Allen-Sherman-Hoff .
      Company,  by permission of, Allen-Sharman-Hoff Company, A Division
      of Ecolaire.  Year of  first publication:  1976.
                                        313

-------
           STANDARD COUPLINGS, ADAPTORS * BLIND FtANGIS

                                        Hi
                      fouowcni
               CCTJPUNS
    BUND RANGE
                                   Views !   S
                                        5S
                                            fut.if.fcn v
                                           fs! M*K. /on iar > i*"
                                                  THilli"
                                                ASKCeUTI
          n& iou*
            ADAPTORS 4" ttru 9*
litnoLE- n«-r—
 HIH9 '	 '
 SINGLE COUPLING & filler
          ^UfflBCT;
                     -f
-------
                         Table VII-13

     ASH CONVEYING CAPACITIES OF VARIOUS SIZE PIPES (39)



        Pipe Size                   Ash Generating Rate
(inside diameter in inches)              (tons/hour)

            6                            15-20

            8                            25-50

           10                            50-75
                            315

-------
rolled past a series of scrapers toward the discharge point.  Operator
attention  is  essential  to  the  satisfactory  functioning  of  this
conditioner.

The vertical conditioner is more adaptable to automatic operation with
20  percent  water  addition  (40).   This  unit  is  supplied  with a
fluidizing feeder and metering cut off gate to provide  uniform  feed.
Dust  enters a chamber on the top of the vertical conditioner where it
falls onto a rotating distributing cone.  This creates  a  cylindrical
curtain  of  dust  which  is sprayed from numerous directions by high-
velocity fog-jet nozzles.  The wetted dust, which is driven  onto  the
walls  of  the  bottom  chamber,  is moved toward the bottom discharge
nozzle by means of a pair of motor-driven scraper blades.

Both units require water at a minimum pressure of 80  psi  to  achieve
intimate  mixing.  Water supplied at a lower pressure cannot penetrate
the mass of dust passing through in a very short period of time  (40).

Controls for vacuum fly  ash  systems  are  activated  by  changes  in
vacuum.   When  a hopper is emptied of fly ash, the system vacuum will
drop,  A pressure switch then activates a rotary step switch to  close
the  dust  valve under the hopper and to open the valve under the next
hopper.  This procedure continues until all the hoppers are empty.

Maintenance.  There are several high-maintenance areas associated with
vacuum systems:

    1.  Vacuum Blowers - Problems may arise if the conveying air
       is insufficiently filtered upstream of the blower.  Dust
       in the conveying air would then pass through the blower,
       and erode the blades.

    2.  Bag Filter - Bag filter breakage is a common maintenance
       problem, creating a fugitive dust problem usually just
       within the confines of the silo area.

    3.  Leakage - Leaks in the couplings of the pipe system can
       reduces the conveying power of the system.  Maintenance
       problems for leakage are much less severe for vacuum
       systems as compared to pressure system leakage because
       all leaks are inward.

    4.  Vacuum Silo - Since the silo is generally outside the
       plant area, maintenance may be less frequent.  For the
       vacuum silo, this can be more of a problem because it is
       more complex than a pressure silo due to the need for
       collectors.

Pressure Systems.  This  system  conveys  fly  ash  from  individually
controlled  air  locks   (at  the  bottom  of the ESP hoppers) to a dry
storage silo by means of pressure provided  by  positive  displacement
blowers.   A  schematic diagram of a pressure system appears in  figure
VI1-20.  The mechanical blowers supply compressed air at pressures  of
                                316

-------
                                      To
 Fly Ash Hoppars with
   Air £oek Valves
                                    •fed-
                                              Blower
HXJ-
          V  V  V  V
   Prosaure Blower
Segregating
  Valves
   Oust
   Conditioner"
   (Unloader)
                                                         fl Vent
                                                         [  {"Filter
                  Storage Silo
                                                 Aeration
                         Figtire  VII-20
       DRY FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM - PRESSURE SYSTEM
                               317

-------
up  to  32  psi  (40).   The  main  difference  between the vacuum and
pressure systems is that the pressure system does not require  cyclone
collectors  at  the  storage silo; instead, a vent filter relieves the
silo of the air displaced by the incoming dust as well as the expanded
volume of the conveying air.  In some systems, a return  line  is  run
from the vent filter back to the ESP hopper to avoid possible fugitive
dust  emissions from the vent filter.  A blower is usually required on
this line to overcome draft losses.

Equipment.  The major components of a pressure system are  essentially
the same as those of a vacuum system with the following exceptions.

Air  locks  are used to transfer fly ash from a hopper at one pressure
to a conveying line at a higher pressure (figure VII-21).   These  are
available  in  a  wide  range  of capacities to meet any handling rate
required of a pressurized conveying system.   Air-  electric  operated
cylinders  control  the  positioning  of upper and lower feed gates in
proper sequence with the equalizing valves  between  upper  and  lower
chambers.   Manual  cut  off  gates  are  supplied  at  the  inlet and
discharge of each air lock to permit its removal without  interrupting
operation of the rest of the system  (40).

Silo  storage  is  the  same  as  for  vacuum systems except that dust
collectors are not required; however, a self-cleaning vent bag   filter
is  required.   Air-to-cloth ratio should be no greater than 2.5 cubic
feet per minute to 1 square foot of bag cloth area (40).   Vent  ducts
provide an alternate means of relieving air from silos.

Controls  for  pressure systems operate on a timed basis determined by
the  amount  of  dust  stored  in  each  row  of  collector   hoppers.
Individual  air  .locks on any given row are carefully interlocked with
the other air  locks to prevent discharge of more than one hopper at   a
time.   Programmable  controls are available to permit changing  of air
lock cycling where dust loading fluctuations are expected.

Maintenance.   There  are  several  areas  of  high  maintenance  in   a
pressure system.  The blowers, in general, are high-maintenance  items.
However,  the  risk  of  erosion  of  fan  blades  due  to dust  in the
conveying air  is not as great in the pressure system as it is   in  the
vacuum  system.   Leakage, on the other hand, represents a more  severe
problem in the pressure system than  it  does  in  the  vacuum   system.
Leaks  in  the pipe couplings can cause greater fugitive dust problems
because of the positive pressure  in  the lines.   In  this  sense,  the
pressure system is not as  "clean" as the vacuum system.

Fugitive Dust  Emissions.   Dry  fly  ash   handling systems potentially
have significant dust emission problems.   These  dust  emissions  can
occur at various locations within  the ash  handling system.   Fly  ash  is
a  very  abrasive material so problems generally arise  in maintenance.
Positive pressure fly ash  transport  systems generally   incur  problems
in  the  pipe  joints.  One of the major maintenance problem  areas  with
vacuum systems is with the  bag   filters   used  in  the  secondary   or
tertiary  collectors  on top of the storage silo.,   If these bags  break,
                                 318

-------
                         'Figure ¥1-1-21

         TYPICAL AIR LOCK VALVE FOR PRESSURE FLY ASH

                     -  CONVEYING SYSTEM

Reprinted from APrimer for Ash Handling by Allen-Sherman-Hoff
Company by permTssion of A11en-Sherman-Hoff Company, a Division
of Ecolaire.  Year of first publication:  1976.
                              319

-------
the dust-laden air stream will continue through  the  vacuum  producer
and  into  the  atmosphere.  If the vacuum producer is hydraulic,  then
the fly ash will be slurried with high-pressure water, eliminating  the
dusting problem.  Dusting problems also arise from bag breakage   if  a
mechanical exhauster is used.  Another problem area is the unloader  at
the bottom of the silo where spray nozzles are used to wet the fly  ash
before  it  is  dumped  into  the  truck.   These  spray  nozzles  need
continuous  maintenance  to  avoid  pluggage  and  subsequent  dusting
problems.   Even  with  proper  maintenance  of  the nozzles, the  area
around the unloader is  still  exposed  to  excessive  dusting.    Some
facilities  use  roll-up doors to close off this area and vent the  air
back to the precipitator.

EPA conducted a telephone survey to determine the types of regulations
on fugitive dust emissions which exist among different federal, state,
and local authorities.  In general, there  are  no  regulations  which
apply  specifically  to  dry  fly ash handling systems. , Fugitive  dust
emissions are usually covered by a more general  regulation  regarding
particulate  emissions  such as a general opacity reading at the plant
boundary.  Regular monitoring or  inspection  for  dust  emissions   is
generally not required.  Enforcement is based primarily on complaints.

Retrofitting.   The  motivation  for retrofitting dry fly ash handling
systems may stem from a variety of circumstances:

    1.  A shortage of water may exist for sluicing the fly ash to
       ponds,

    2.  State or local regulations for certain aqueous discharges
       may result in a retrofit, and

    3.  A marketable use for the fly ash such as an additive for
       making cement.

Very little, if any, equipment could be reused in retrofitting to
a dry fly ash system from a wet handling system.  The equipment
needing removal would be:

    -  Valves allowing flow from the ESP hopper into the sluice
       line, if the sluice line runs into the hopper;

    -  Pumps for carrying fly ash to the pond; and

    -  The line used for conveying the ash slurry.

In some cases, fly ash is pneumatically conveyed via a hydrovactor  (or
hydroveyor) to a mixing tank  where  it  mixes  with  bottom  ash   for
sluicing  to  a pond.  The piping and vacuum producers, in these  cases
are potentially reusable.  It would be  necessary  to  shut  down   the
existing equipment during installation of the new equipment.
                                 320

-------
Trip  Reports.    EPA visited several plants in order to define various
bottom ash and fly ash handling practices.  This subsection  discusses
dry fly ash handling systems encountered at some of these plants.

Plant  1811.   This  plant  is  a  615-MW  coal-fired  electric  power
generating station located in Northern Indiana.  The ash is  generated
by  two  cyclone  type  boilers  of  194 and 422 MW each.  The coal  is
characterized as low sulfur with an ash content of 10  to  12  percent
with  11  percent  as  the  average.   This bituminous coal  comes  from
Bureau of Mines Coal Districts 10 and 11.

The fly ash handling system currently in use at the  plant   is   a  dry
vacuum system that was retrofitted in early 1979.  The previous  system
was  a wet sluicing operation that used a hydroveyor and ponding.  The
major equipment for this dry  system  is  presented  schematically  in
figure  VI1-22.   This  is  a  dual system in terms of the separators,
i.e., cyclones and bagfilters, and the mechanical  exhausters.   There
are  separate  lines  which run from Unit 8 ESP hoppers and  Unit 7 ESP
hoppers.  These lines feed separate cyclone collectors and bagfilters,
but one silo is used to store the ash transported by  the  two   lines.
The  storage silo has a diameter of 35 feet.  Sixteen hoppers feed the
Unit 8 line (10-inch diameter pipe) and eight feed Unit  7   line.  The
distance  from  the hoppers to the silo is approximately 300 feet.   No
major problems occurred in the changeover from hydroveying the ash  to
ponds to vacuum handling of the ash to a storage silo.

The  fly  ash system was fairly new at the time of the site  visit, and
no  major  operating  difficulties  had   been   encountered.    Early
experience  showed that the optimum operating procedure was  to run the
mechanical exhausters continuously; intermittent operation had   caused
some   difficulty  in  achieving  a  sufficient  vacuum  for fly  ash
transport.  Minor erosion of the exhausters had occurred.

In 1978, the plant generated 38,100 tons of  fly  ash.   This  ash  is
currently  trucked to a landfill site for disposal by an outside firm.
Closed cement trucks are used; the ash is not conditioned at the silo.

Plant 1164.  This plant is a 447-MW coal-fired powerplant  located  in
Northwestern  Colorado.   The  plant  consists  of  two units:   Unit 1
completed in 1965 and Unit 2 in 1976.   Thie  facility   is  a baseload
plant  which  uses  cooling towers for condenser heat dissipation, dry
fly ash transport, and a zero discharge bottom  ash  sluicing  system.
The  plant  burns a bituminous coal from Bureau of Mines Coal District
17.  The plant is sufficiently close to the coal mine  (9 miles)  to  be
considered a mine-mouth operation.  Plant water is drawn from a  nearby
river.   The  facility  uses  a vapor compression distillation unit  to
recover  recycleable  water  from   cooling   water   blowdown.    All
wastewaters   are  ultimately  handled  by  an  evaporation  pond.   A
generalized flow scheme for the plant appears  in figure  VI1-23.  The
water  system,  as  currently  in  operation, was designed by Stearns-
Rodgers.
                                321

-------
                                  HEQUHICAL
                                  EXHAUSTER
                        COMTUTOOOS
                        OPERAT1HG
                       SEPARATOR $
9 10
O O
°- Pnn
u- ^ y l,
O O O v
O Q 0 C
* S ^
i
5 e o y
                            BAG FILTER
MECHANICAL
EXHAUSTER.
   t7
                                                                tACOBB
                                                                SWITCHES
                                                                 FILTER 91

                                                                    TOIT FILTER
      COHXIOTOOS
      OPERATING-
     SEPARATOR 117
I  2
           5678
           Q _O	f>.._Q_
                                                                      _Q_Q_Q_Q_
                                                                       1234
                                   Figtire VII-22
                    FLY ASH  SILO AND  HOPPERS/PLANT  1811
                                          322

-------
                 21
               tVAPOHATKJN

                  i
j. ^ / \ "^ aoj^m "i
	 "7 T* ^^ r<
L / HAWWAl-i-mietWVOW
i zrjAcms

\ gra MWWATfH j
VJ. \ »««»»««•« \ n
;!UKN 	 """ 	
u
1 f 1 l- 1 fc M.OHMXJWNTO •_
| ~ 5VAK>K»nON PONO \
cUMunin eoouNa\
~*N^ _s*J TOWM \
^N^s^ s^**^ ' yiwt V

A», 1«« (VAT. 1(11
M»T 17 omnir
1 Mi A
1 HAKHP ' |
*u» / \iiMoo /«^"»«>
AM / \ OW< / f°WW
_14 •„„ „ ,», _,js — ;_«•«
1 MW
n WATIM
JL , MocwAwro HJJVWCWN 1°
m.TCT IH/-> 	 '»• HK»QUAUT» HW-HH-W f
'N/ WMB X~ ^s
*1 . eoAioui
iupMtm
eUAWMU.
.T3
OftHN
typpw
IAHK
,31
1 13
s?
UWfl
BO4LOI
riLovnoowN i
LIAXAtMt 	
SAXPUNO
FWQM w
TnMTUINT
SIWAOI ,
WFU
10
W.TW . 2
lACKWAIM"
fWUVMMHo*** —— 1
IHIMOMi. 	
«.«m
-\ * / — "\
>» 1«
cUNKmaguNOW
,. t AIM WATIN
WMPMAU
^.v MWMIITHi*f»
WllTMUtWAnil ' TOMMMOttAXlTT
TANK ,0
UMCnUUMOlM
^*^4a,AH4t»aii»

in
r 01IHK ^ j 	 »HtN.TO
\amiij IW.NMO
*ii !
ST-a-.«-«
gum ww'
11

oooyna
raww 4 »


mcreuTo
eoeuNOTOwm '«
iom WM
. t- f
~7aC«5S"A5it*"
. STORAOf
9H " OTOMI
M

1 1 n
CVA» n.y SOT WAS
M AIM ASM TOI
INT ID 2 K)
K3NO
to
|
i»
WAtTEWAm
FAQUTT
I
Iftl
4 moouerra
HKmouAun
WATMMOyillM1
KHD
(xetsa
«n
•isvciiTO
WASTIWATIR
TMAraiMr
H M
HANI IVAA
1
4
._-J 1M
134
awwoowM

9
tns
VAT
Na
4
in
9
«•*••
m
W»M>
I4MH
t
f
                                                                                -jsvstm
                                                                                  WAins
                                                                                 . CMHMI?
                                                                                 - OMIN
CONOtnONS;
AU. AOWC IM AViMAaK Q
AVDUMI ANIWMU. COC'UltO TOW1II (VAKMTION
caouMOTOwmeoMeiKnunoM ti crctt*
COOUMO TOM* owr a«» OP et ne. WATW nan
mnvaii * w«o tar ANWAI AVUWOI
                                     Figure  VII-23

                           FLOW  DIAGRAM FOR PLANT  0822
                                             323

-------
The dry fly ash handling system for the plant removes fly ash from the
boiler economizer hoppers and precipitator hoppers on Units  1  and   2
and  transports  the  ash  to  a  common fly ash silo where the ash  is
loaded into trucks.  The trucks then transport the  ash  back  to  the
mine  site  for burial.  The system is pressurized and uses air as the
conveying media.  Ash conveying blowers supply the conveying air.  Fly
ash is fed into  the  system  from  the  economizer  and  precipitator
hoppers  by  "nuva"  feeders in a programmed sequence and the air flow
carries the ash to the plant fly ash silo.  Exhaust air from the  silo
is  vented  by  the  fly ash silo vent fans to the Unit 2 precipitator
flue gas inlet manifold.

Three positive displacement blowers are used to drive the fly ash from
the ESP and economizer hoppers  to  the  plant  storage  silo.   These
blowers  include  one  spare.  Blower 1 serves Unit 1; blower 3 serves
Unit 2; and blower 2 is the spare.  These blowers each have^ a capacity
of 2,900 ACFM at 13.5 psig and are driven  by  250  hp,  480-volt,   3-
phase,  60-hertz,  1,800-rpm  electric  motors.  A 10-inch  line is run
from the Unit 2 blower to  the  Unit  2  precipitator  and  economizer
hoppers.  Each of the two precipitatbrs contain 16 ash hoppers and the
economizer  contains  four . hoppers.   The  conveying  air  is piped  to
service nine groups of hoppers, each group  containing  four  hoppers.
Fly ash from each group of four hoppers is automatically fed by "nuva"
feeders  in  a  programmed  sequence  contained in the fly  ash control
system which empties the hoppers in each group one at a time.

The fly ash system for Unit 1 consists of one four-branched  conveyor,
which, automatically  conveys  fly  ash  from  24  precipitator "nuva"
feeders.  The "nuva" feeders are essentially  airlocks  which  utilize
fluidizing stones to achieve better dust flow characteristics from the
hopper  to  the  pressure  pneumatic conveyor.  "Nuva" is a trade name
used by United Conveyor for their air.locks.  The air displaced by  ash
in  the  precipitator  feeders  is  vented through a bag filter to the
atmosphere.  Air displaced by the economizer ash is vented  back  into
the hopper.

From  the  hoppers  the fly ash and conveying air travel through a 10-
inch line into the plant fly ash silo.  The conveying  air  is  vented
from  the silo through a 16-inch line by three fly ash silo vent fans.
The air is piped through one of two 14-inch lines leading to the  Unit
1  and 2 precipitators.  The three silo vent fans are driven by 50-hp,
480-volt, 3-phase, 60-hertz, 1,800-rpm electric  motors.    The  rotary
unloaders  condition  the fly ash which is then hauled to the mine for
disposal.  Ash water from the bottom ash surge tank is pumped  to  the
fly ash silo by two fly ash unloader pumps through a 6-inch line.

The  most  significant  maintenance  item  is the blowers.  These have
required two mechanics full time  due  to  the  erosion  of  the  com-
pressors.   Other problems occur with pipe fitting leakage  due to pipe
expansion.  The pipe expands because of the high temperature   (700   F.)
fly ash which is being conveyed.
                                 324

-------
This  system was installed along with the bottom ash system  in  1974  as
a retrofit to Unit 1 and as new to Unit  2.   No  particular  problems
were  encountered  in  this  retrofit.   Some downtime was required  to
hookup the fly  ash  conveying  pipe  and  airlocks  to  the  ESP  and
economizer  heppers.   Also,  the  old  wet sluicing pipe needed to  be
taken out.  No pipe was reusable for fefee*^f4y-ash system.

Plant 3203.  This plant is a 340-MW western bituminous  coal-   burning
facility  which  fires  a  moderately  low-sulfur  coal  (average  0.6
percent) with an average ash content of 12 percent.  The  availability
of the three boilers has historically averaged 86 percent annually.

The  dry fly ash handling system currently in use is a pressure system
designed and installed by United Conveyor  Corporation.   Fly   ash   is
generated  by three pulverized dry bottom coal-fired units.  Operating
conditions at the plant indicate that ; .80  percent  of  the  coal  ash
leaves . the  boilers  via  the  flue  gas stream.  This corresponds  to
approximately 385 TPD of fly ash being generated.   Approximately  0.3
percent  of  this  fly ash is collected -in the  economizer hopper; the
ash collected there is sluiced to the bottom ash handling system at   a
rate  of  1  TPD.   The  majority  of  the remainder of the  fly ash  is
collected  in  mechanical  collecting ..devices,  cyclones,   with    an
efficiency  of  75  percent.  The remaining 25 percent is collected  in
the air preheater and stack hoppers.  The fly ash  collected  is  then
conveyed  under  pressure  to  a  storage  silo  for commercial use  or
disposal.  Approximately 250 TPD of  the  fly  ash  is  sold  dry,   or
unconditioned, to a cement company as an additive for $1 per ton.  The
remainder is conditioned and trucked to an on site landfill.

The  pressure  system  is  diagrammed in figure VII-24.  There  are six
hoppers per.mechanical collector which feed through an airlock  device
into a pressurized  (8-10 psig) pneumatic conveying line which leads  to'
the  storage  silo.   The  distance  from  the  cyclone hoppers to the
storage silo is approximately 500 feet.  The volume  of  the  silo   is
30,000 cubic feet and the pneumatic lines leading to the silo are 6  to
7 inches in diameter.  This silo volume provides approximately  a 2-day
storage capacity and therefore requires dumping several times a week.

The  equipment  which  required the most maintenance during  the past 4
years of operation of the unit were (1) the blowers and (2)  valves and
elbows.  There were no real problems with the rest of the system.

The motivation for retrofitting this system was  twofold:    a   general
water  shortage  problem  existed and approximately 250 TPD  of  the fly
ash was a saleable product at a rate of $1 per ton.  At the  time  the
pressure  dry  fly  ash. system was installed in 1975, a dewatering bin
system and a third unit boiler were also installed..  A  2-week  outage
for  Units  1  and  2  was  incurred  when these retrofit systems were
installed.                   :

Utilization of the Systems.  Data from the 308  survey  were  used   to
evaluate  the  distribution  of  fly  :ash  handling  systems  for  the
following parameters:                 ;
                                325

-------
                         6 hoppers per mechanical collector
Air prelieater
   hopper   stack
            hopper
           blowers
ov
                          VVVVVV       V    V
                                                           Vent   r-j
                                                           Filter! * '
                                                                  storage
                                                                   silo
                                                                                     6 and 7-lnch
                                                                                     lines
                                                 Figure VII-24
                              PRESSU1E FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FOR PLANT 3203

-------
    -  fuel type,

       boiler type,

    -  location,
                                      9-~
       size, and

       intake water quality.

Fuel Type.  The most important fuel type  is  coal.   This  fuel  type
accounts  for  74  percent of the fly ash handling systems as shown  in
figure VI1-25.  Dry fly ash handling systems  are  as  common  as  wet
once-through  systems  for  coal-burning  facilities  and represent  34
percept of all  ash  handling  systems.   Wet  recirculating  systems,
however,  are much less common, representing only  2 percent of all ash
handling systems.  This distribution  does  not  change  significantly
among coal, gas, and oil-burning facilities. .Thus, it seems that fuel
type has little effect on the type of ash handling system used.

The distribution of ash handling systems among different coal types  is
shown  in  figure  VII-26.   Coal  type does not seem to significantly
affect the distribution of systems.  Bituminous  coal  facilities,   by
far  the  most  common  of  the three coal  types considered, are split
between dry and wet once^-through systems.   Wet  recirculating  systems
are rare.

Boiler  Type.   Three  major  boiler  types are   considered  in  this
analysis:   cyclone,  pulverized  coal,  and  spreader  stoker  units.
Figure  VI1-27  indicates  that  the type of boiler does influence the
distribution of fly ash handling  systems.   Dry   fly  ash  units  are
outnumbered  three-to-one  by  wet  once—through   systems  for cyclone
units.  Eighty to  90 percent of the ash produced by a  cyclone  boiler
is  bottom  ash.   Since  the cyclone boiler is a  slagging boiler, the
bottom ash  is usually handled wet; thus, it is not surprising that the
remaining  10 to 20 percent of the ash  is more frequently handled  wet.
Wet recirculating  systems are rare (less than 2 percent of the systems
reported)   for  cyclone  boilers, as well as for pulverized.and stoker
boilers.   Pulverized coal units seem to have the same distribution   of
fly  ash handling  systems as discussed previously  for fuel types.  Dry
systems are very common (almost equal  in number to wet  once-  through
systems),   and  wet  recirculating  systems are rare.  Spreader stoker
units use  a much larger proportion  of  dry systems  than  wet  once-
through systems.   Wet recirculating systems are rare.

Location.   The  distribution  of fly  ash handling systems for each  of
the 10 EPA regions is shown  in figure  VII-28.  A   map  displaying  the
EPA  regions  is provided  in  figure VII-29.  The distribution  indicates
that there are some regional variances  in the distribution of fly  ash
handling systems.

Regions  I  through  III show  a slightly  greater frequency of dry systems
(as  opposed  to   wet  once-through)   and   very  few   instances of wet
                                 327

-------
u
03
?s
M

eo
R
*O

§
W


«
<
 0
 SO
 CO
 4J

 %
 O
    30
    20
id
                           •M
                           **
                           »*
                           *»
                           t*
                                4*

                                11

                                «*

                                **
*
*
*
*
*
7
II







0 1)
/ t
VI U
o n
T



H U W I*
/ o i« n
* t /
u
it
T
«•*
*4
44
*»
4:
4 *4
• **
ft !»
y
w
o
T

i
i

U M
/ /
U A
R


»*
k»
4
#
*
*
* »*
H M W
o H n
T /
W
0
f
** **
i* 4*
n o n M M
/ / / o
u u A r
0 ,H
T



u u
R H
/
H
U
T
t*
** »»
• *• **
*» *« *«
n • u n N w u i)
.///ORB
w y ft T /
OR i H
T 0
T
                                  Major Fuel Type
      Keys  D:  Dry Fly Ash Handling System
         WOT:  Wee Once-Through Fly Ash Handling  System
          WR;  Wee Reeirculating Fly Ash Handling Syscem

         NOTE:  Plants  which could not be identified under a sub-
               group appear in a subgroup on the  far left o£ the
               chart,  designated by a "," or by "	"..
                                     Figure VII-25

                 DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING

                               BY  MAJOR FUEL TYPES
                                         328

-------
30
4- t
i1 ;
4J f
S, 25 <
M *
I i
d an <
c *
a :
43 *
« 15 +
> * **
*-l t »*
* **
 **
»«
** ' '
- »
t
*
• t
, *
. * **
,» » 4* **
,, • 4 »» *«
Tt ' * *• ** -*» *« **
ifiuNHUw uuutiwwti uunuuwy
/ / / 0 (. ft ///OP« / / / 0 R K
MKAT / HHAf / MyAT /
Oii U OH M U« W X2901
1 0 T 01 0
T T J.
 Key:  Ds
    WOT:
      WE:'
                              nir	*  *—	U"
                                   Type of Coal
Dry Fly Ash Handllmg System
Wec_ Once-Through Fly £sh Handling System
Wetf Recirciilating Fly. Aah'Haii'dl'ing System
                                                                    SUII
                                                                               CTP
    NOTE:  Plants which could not be  identified under a sub-
          group appear in a subgroup on the- far left of the
          chart, designated by-a "." or by "	".
                          ..-.v .    Figure ¥11-26

       DISTRIBUTION  OF"  ILY  ASH  HANDLING SYSTEMS BY COAL TYPE
                                        329

-------
ra
m
g
H
•a
a
cB
»
rG
SI
<
3>
09
«


a>
u
M
41
3(1
t
20 +
*
x
in *
*
*
je
* **
0 U
/
U
0
T








D
/
U
n






»»
, f
• 4
U U
0 R
T










U
R
/
V
Q
T
*4
• *
4*
it-
44
44
« (
**
*»
4*
4*
44*
4*
**
n










44
4*
n
/
u
0
T

4*
»*
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
*»
4*
44
44
4*
*•
44
44
n w
/ 0
U T
R








»*
H hi
n R
/
u
a
T

44
44
44
4*
44
44
D











4*
0 0 U
/ / 0
U W T
U A
T








U U
R R
, /
U
0
T
                Cyclone
                    Pulverized Coal
Spreader Stoker
    Kay:  D:
       TOT:
        WR:
                             Major Boiler Type
Dry Fly Ash Handling System
Wet Once-Through Fly Ash Handling System
Wat Recirculatzng Fly Ash Handling System
      NOTE: * Plants which could not be identified under a sub-
             group appear in a subgroup on the far left of the
             chart, designated by a "." or by "-—".
                                 Figure  VII-27

             DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING  SYSTEMS

                        BY MAJOR BOILER TYPES
                                    330

-------
CO
CO

t
I*6*
w *
M *
M2B *
if *
•H /
1 '
.3 IS »
33 i
.C <
ca >
jf
>i 10 1

m j
•1 1 j
0 1
dT 1 »
00 # f . *
-S * i r * j «


|jj U 11 it V -M i) «I U M M U II (i U U
A< //OH / / U « / / 0 fl
U U r DM! « W T
it n OH o a
r T i









*
*
*
f
*
*
t
*
9
*
^
1 t
» 	 f -
* 4


4- * f1 $
11 !) 0 ti y U Jl ti M M
//OR //on
U U 1 H W 1
on u it
i i




t
t
f -
^
*
1
t
4
|
* *
*
t
*
*
t
* *
4 t
* t
1 t
» 4
* * t

£ A K * 4 «
* f ¥ f v
UPOUM OUrHUUU r
//Of. / , / o n it
U U 1 W t' ft I /
o ft ON ti
I I «
i
t -9 -f
4:
*
* , *
- * *
4 *
4 *
* *
*
*• I
* *
*
t
« r
*
*
*
* .
; *
*
*
t
. - » . . .- . t . . .
* *
4 4 * 4 44 *


1 1) U li V H H II |> b M U M U U II O H W U U 0 O U H H U U
/ / / Jl H H / / / 0 (1 N ///OB « / / / b H H
U II A 1 / WUAI ./ *UUAI / UUftT /
U H U 0 It U O It U 0 ft ti
I 01 01 0 T D
II f t

                                                           EPA Region
           Key;  D:  Dry Fly Ash Handling System
              WOT:  Wet Once-Through Ply Ash Handling System
               WR:  Wet Recirculating Fly Ash Handling System

             NOTE:  Plants which could not be identified under a sub-
                    group appear in a subgroup on the far left of. the
                    chart, designated by a "." or by "	".
                                                           Figure  VII-28

                              DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS.BY  EPA  REGION

-------
  Figure VII-29
EPA REGIONS

-------
recir ciila ting systems.  Oil-burning facilities are more common  in   the
Northeast.   The  low ash production rate of oilburning facilities  may-
be one explanation for the increased use of dry fly ash  systems.    In
addition,  insufficient  land  for  ponding may also contribute to  the
choice of dry^over wet handling.

In Region IV, wet once-through systems are most  commonly  used.    Dry
fly  ash systems represent 3 percent of all ash handling systems.   Wet
once-through systems account  for  18  percent  of  all  ash  handling
systems.   The  high occurrence of wet once-through systems may be  due
in part to the greater availability of land for  ponding   rather  .than
some restriction on the use of dry systems.

In  Regions V, VI, and VII, dry systems are competitive with wet once-
through systems.

In Regions VIII and IX, the proportions of dry and  wet  recirculatirig
systems  are considerably higher than those of any other region.  This
reflects the need to conserve water in these areas.  The only   systems
reported in Region X are dry fly ash systems.  Again,  this is a result
of the scarcity of water in the West.

Plant Size.  Plant size is expressed in plant nameplate capacity.   The
distribution  of  fly  ash  handling  systems  by  various plant size
catagories is presented in figure VII-30.  Category 1  is dominated   by
dry  fly  ash systems.  This probably reflects the dominance of stoker
boilers among low capacity plants.  As plant capacity  increases  above
100  MW,  wet once-through systems become competitive  with dry  fly  ash
systems.  For plants greater than 500 MW, the percentage of wet  once-
through  is slightly greater than the percentage of dry systems.

Intake  Water  Quality.   Intake  water  quality was measured as total
dissolved solids  (TDS).  The distribution of fly ash handling   systems
by intake water quality is presented in figure VII-31.  No significant
differences   in the distribution of fly ash systems are apparent among
any of these  categories.

Retrofitted Dry Fly Ash Systems.  Table  VII-14  presents  a  list   of
plants   which  have   been identified as having retrofitted dry  fly  ash
systems.

Partial  Recirculating  Systems.   The  wet  handling   of   fly   ash   is
achieved  by  sluicing  the fly ash from the collection device,  ESP or
cyclone  hopper, to a  pond.  Settling of the fly ash  typically   occurs
in  primary   and  secondary ponds.   A  third  settling  area,  usually
referred  to  as a  clear pond,  is used  if the  sluice  water  is   to   be
recycled.    Total  recirculation  of the ash pond  transport  water  is a
zero discharge system.  If  less than  total  recycle occurs, the   system
is defined as a partial recirculating system.
                                 333

-------
teasf
03
CO

60
•H
i-l
T3

fd
m
15
(0
^5
>»
i-i
fw
*4
O
01
60
ra
1
M
0.




18 4>
$
*
i
IS *
*
a
£

12 +
*
t
*
9 +
jt
*
, *
6 +
£
* *«
* **
34-**
* »*
* i*
* »»
0






**
**
**
**
**
• *«

»*
'4* • »«
** **•'
«« **
4i **
** **
«» **
••* *»
»* »«
** **
4* 4* **
»* 4*' *«
4* 4* »»
44 » t t«
»t ** 4* ** 4*
*» ** ** ** *«
DDHUUU II DUN MUM DDU
/ / *; o R H xxxonn xx
u u ; r / WHAT / uu
OR H 0 K u 0 l<
T 01 0 T
T T
*4
**
**
<*
»4
it
4- 4

**
*4
4*
**
**
**
**
4*
**
• *
4*
**
44
4* 4*
4* **
N U U
/OR
A T





44
4.*
4*
**
^ ^

** ,
**
*4
**
•»» "
»*
4* .
**
**
4-4
*t
«4>
*4
*4 ' •«
44 44
44 44 4«
« o u n
B XX
X H U
u on
0 I
T
*»
*4
**

<*
4*
*»
4*
**

**
4*
4*
**•
«*
4t
*4
**
«4
0*
*4
4*
4*
4+ t*
4* *4
4* **
M « «
X* 0 H
A T


























y
H
/
y
0
T
      /_..—,—». ,	,.  »	2 -—	/  *	.	3	.	1  i	H	——t
             <25              25-100           100-500            >500
                          ,  Nameplate Capacity (MW)
K*y;  Ds  Dry Fly Ash Handling System
   WOT:  Wet Once-Through Fly Ash Handling System
    WR:  Wee Recirculating Fly Ash Handling System

   HOTS:  Flanta which could not be identified under a sub-
         group appear in a subgroup on the far left of the
         chart, designated by a. "." or by "	"",
                                  Figure  VII-30

               DISTRIBUTION  OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

                          BY VARIOUS PLANT SIZES
                                      334

-------
0)
OT *
ap i !i t
•H *

T3 ,
g»» *
a • *
_ *
•s *
"^J *J *
I
rt >
fa »•
b *
0 »
/
U *
aa t *

U f
a *
y *
^J u & a it u u u
/ / / u H K
M ' A T /
u • u
T o
i

t '
* *
* »
* *
* »
* » *
* » •- *
« » » +
+ * * *
* 4 » *
» » »
• » »
* |
* *
* *
t *


+ *
* *
» »' » » « *





*
f
V

* T
f t
T t
* * f . *

II 11 «i U U M M U it U M U U U IJ U 0 N U U U 0 0 0 M W U W
///oui< / / / a a n /-//OUR ///OBH
UllAT / MMAf / U U A T / M«4f /
OK U U H U 0 H U 0 K U 1290)
T u T u 1 0 T 0
T T T T
                        400
io-3o        o-6
                                                            >600
                        Total Dissolved Solids  (ppm)
Key.  DJ  Dry Fly Ash Handling System
   WOT:  Wet Once-Thzough Fly Ash Handling System
    WE,:  Wet Reeirculating Fly Ash Handling System

   NOTE:  Plants which could not be .identified-under  a sub-'
         group appear in a subgroup on Che far left  of che
         chart, designated by a "." or by "---".
                                  Figttre VII-31

              DISTRIBUTION OF  FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

                 AS A  FUNCTION  OF INTAKE  WATER QUALITY
                                     335

-------
                          Table VI1-14
      PLANTS WITH RETROFITTED DRY FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
Plant/Utility
Gallatin/TVA
John E« Amos/
Appalachian Power Co.
Kirk/Black Hills
Power & Light Co.
Ben French/Black
Hills Power & Light Co.
Fisk/Commonwealth
Edison Co.
Bailly/No. Indiana
Public Service Co.
Ashtabula/Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Co.
Avon Lake/Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Co.
Eastlake/Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Co.
Lake Shore/Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Co.
Coffeen/Central
Illinois Public Service
Reid Gardner/Nevada
Power Co.
Hayden/Colorado-Ute
Cherokee #3/Publie
Service of Colorado
Bowen/Georgia Power
Company
Arkwright/Georgia
Power Co.
McDonough/Georgia
Power Company
Port Wentworth/
Savannah Electric & Light
   Location
 (EPA  Region)
 Summer, TN  (IV)

 Kanawha, WV  (III)
 Lead,  3D  (VIII)

 Rapid City, SD  (VIII)

 Cook,  IL  (V)

 Porter, IN  (V)

 Ashtabula, OH  (V)

 Lorain, OH  (V)

 Lake,  OH  (V)

 Cuyahoga, OH  (V)

 Montgomery, IL  (V)
Capacity (MW)
    1255.2

    2932.6
      31 .5

      22.0

     547.0

     615.6

     640.0

   1 ,275.0

   1,257.0

     514.0

   1,005.5
 Moapa Clark  Co., NV  (IX)     340.8
 Hayden,  CO  (VIII)
 Adams, CO  (VIII)

.Bartow,  GA  (IV)

 Bibb, GA (IV)

 Cobb, GA (IV)

 Chatham, GA (IV)
     447.0
     801.3

   2,547.0

     181 .0

     598.0

     333.9
                               336

-------
Partial Recircula'ting Systems

Process Description.   A  generalized  schematic  of a typical partial
recirculating system is shown in figure VI1-32.  Sluiced ash  is pumped
to the primary and secondary pond and flows to  the  clear  pond  from
which  water  is  recirculated  by the main recirculation pumps to the
main sluice pumps to be used as dilution  water.   A  portion  of  the
clear pond overflow is discharged.

There  are various methods of sluicing the fly ash from the collection
point.  A typical method is illustrated in  figure  VI1-33.   Fly  ash
from  the  ESP  hoppers is vacuum conveyed through the vacuum producer
where it is slurried with the high-pressure water used to  create  the
vacuum  for  conveying.   This  slurry  is  discharged  through an air
separator.  From the air separator, the sluiced fly ash  may  flow   by
gravity  to  the pond or to a mix tank before it is pumped to the pond
site.  Slurry pumps are necessary when the  ash  slurry  is   pumped   a
great  distance  to the pond, which is often the case.  Many  ponds are
typically 1,000 to 3,000 feet from the hoppers.

Equipment.  The equipment associated with  dry  conveying,  i.e.,  all
equipment up to and including the vacuum producer, is discussed in the
sections  on  dry  fly ash handling.  The major equipment discussed  in
this section includes:

       air separator,        :

    -  pumps,

    -  conveying pipe, and

       ponds.

Air Separator.  A typical air separator is shown in figure VI1-34.    A
wide  variety  of  separators,  unlined  or  with  basalt linings, are
available for single and multiple systems.

Pumps.  Slurry pumps may be centrifugal pumps or ejectors  (jet pumps).
Either pump  requires considerable dilution at the suction in  order   to
provide  a slurry that can be pumped.  For the same discharge quantity
and discharge head, a  centrifugal  pump  is  about  40  percent  more
efficient  than  a  jet  pump  without  considering  the efficiency  of
auxiliary pumping equipment which supplies the  ejector  nozzle   (40).
Jet  pumps   are   generally  more  favorable  for slurry handling than
centrifugal  pumps because of the relative ease with which-they can   be
serviced,    even  though  such  service  may  be  required  much  more
frequently   than  for  a  comparable  centrifugal  pump.  - The  higher
maintenance  requirement  is  due  to higher operating pressure in the
ejector nozzles.

Hard metals  are employed in the construction of both types of pumps  in
areas where  abrasion is most severe.   It  is  desirable  to  maintain
velocities   as low as possible within the limits of pump efficiency  to
                                 337

-------
                                                Sluiced Fly Ash
                                                         Main Sluice Pump
                             Main
                             Recirculation
                             Pump
oo
        Discharge
I
                                      Final Pond
                                     (Clear Pond)
                                                                       Settling Ponds
                                                Figure VII-32
                    GENERALIZED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A PARTIAL RECIRCULATION FLY ASH
                                               HANDLING SYSTEM

-------
VO
              Fly Ash Hoppers
          V    V    V
          V     V    V
                                              X
 Vacuum
Producer
                                                                          Option 1
                                                                  Mix
                                                                  Tank
                                                         To Ponds
                                                                                         Air
                                                                                          Air
                                                                                          Separator
                           Option 2
                                                                                                 Flow by
                                                                                                 Gravity to
                                                                                                 Pond Area
                                                                                Slurry Pump
                                                Figure  VII-33
                       A TYPICAL METHOD OF SLUICING FLY ASH FROM COLLECTION POINTS

-------
                 CUTLTT-*.
                                    4. SUPPORTS
                                          VENT OPCHIN8
                                        IMUT
                                           INLET VOLUTE
                                           CASTING
                          Figure VII-34
       TYPICAL AIR SEPARATOR  IN A PARTIAL RECIRCULATING

                     FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM

Reprinted from A Primer forAsh Handling by Allen-Sherman-Hoff
Company by p ermi s s ion o f "AH en - Sherman- Ho f f Company,  a Division
of Ecolaire.   Year of first publication:  1976.
                                340

-------
reduce abrasion.  A veloctiy of 40  to  50  feet  per  second  maximum
through  a  jet  pump is desirable.  In the case of centrifugal pumps,
the impeller peripheral speed should not exceed 4,500  to  5,000  feet
per minute (40).

When  system  heads  exceed  about  100  feet, jet pumps are generally
ineffective since series pumping is not practical.  Centrifugal pumps,
on the other hand, can be conveniently placed  in series for  high-head
requirements (40).

Centrifugal  pumps  are  generally used for recirculation.  Clarity  of
recirculated water does not present a wear problem  to  a  centrifugal
ash handling pump.

Pipe.  The pipe conveying an ash slurry is similar to that used  in dry
fly  ash  systems.  Basic pipe for ash handling service has a Brinnell
Hardness Number (BHN) of 200; fittings have a  BHN around 400.  Various
hardnesses are  available with cost usually increasing in proportion  to
hardness (40).  Centrifugally cast iron pipe  is by far the most  widely
used pipe for wet systems because of  its  ability  to  withstand  the
corrosive  and  erosive  condition  often  encountered in ash handling
(39).  . This  type  of  pipe  is  available   from  a  number  of  pipe
manufacturers.   Basalt- lined pipe is another fairly common pipe used
in ash handling systems.  The basalt lining is formed  from  volcanic
rock  which  is  melted  and shaped into a liner for the pipe.   Basalt
provides improved protection from abrasion; however, it   is  generally
less  resistant  to   impact caused by turbulent conditions at bends  in
the pipe.  In fact, some  plants  have  used   basalt-lined  pipes   for
straight  sections  and  cast ,  iron  for  bends.  Basalt  also protects
against corrosion by  sealing the pipe from  the  corrosive  conditions
within.   One   drawback from this pipe is that it is more expensive  to
install because it requires a lot of shaping  and cutting.  Some   firms
are  marketing  a  ceramic pipe for use in ash handling systems.  This
type of pipe is fairly new and  has not been   universally  accepted   by
the  utility  companies.   Fiberglass  pipe   has also been used  in  ash
handling systems.  Like basalt- lined pipe, fiberglass pipe has  fairly
high  installation costs because it requires cutting  and shaping.

Ponds.  The primary pond or settling area may  not   necessarily   be  a
pond,  per se,  but can be a run-off area  for  removal of the  larger  ash
particles.  The sluice water  may  then   overflow   via  gravity   to  a
secondary  pond  for   further settling.   Overflow from the second pond
would  flow to  a clear pond  which  serves  as  a   holding  basin  for
recirculation water.   To be effective, ponds  must cover a considerable
area  to allow  sufficient retention time for settling of the ash  in  the
conveying  water.   For bottom  ash, volume  in the storage basin  should
be  sufficient  to  provide at  least  1 day's  retention time.  Because   of
 its   slow  settling   rate,  fly  ash requires a  larger pond  to  provide
 longer  retention  time than  for  bottom  ash.

Maintenance.   For  those sections  of  a  partial   recirculating   system
which   involve  dry  conveying, maintenance of  the equipment  is  the same
 as  for  vacuum  and pressure  dry  fly ash  handling  systems.   Abrasive  and
                                 341

-------
corrosive wear on the pumps  and  conveying  lines  handling  the  ash
sluice is a major source of maintenance problems.  Most of the wear on
pipe  lines  occurs along the bottom because most of the solids in the
slurry are carried along the bottom.  To distribute the wear along the
bottom, many plants rotate their cast iron pipe lines regularly.   The
other  area  of  major maintenance are the settling ponds.  Generally,
these ponds must be  dredged  regularly  to  remove  settled  ash  for
landfill disposal.

Retrofitting.  The motivation for retrofitting a partial recirculating
system onto an existing ash pond system may be either a water shortage
or   regulations   governing  wastewater  effluents.   Essentially  no
equipment must be removed in order to retrofit a partial recirculating
system other than rerouting of old pipe near the sluicing pumps  where
hook  up  would  occur.   Old  pipe  in  the plant may be used in some
instance  to  help  defray  the  capital  cost  of   the   new   pipe.
Recirculation  pumps  may  be  required  to move the pond water to the
existing ash sluice pumps. Some downtime may be required for  hook  up
of the recycle line to the main sluice water conveying pumps.

Trip Report.   One  of  the  plants  visited  in  the effort to define
various bottom ash and  fly  ash  handling  practices  had  a  partial
recirculating  system  for  fly  ash.  Plant 1809 is a 736 MW electric
power generating station.  Four of  the  seven  boilers  currently  in
operation  burn  bituminous coal from Bureau of Mines Districts 10 and
11 with an ash content of 10 to 12 percent.  The boilers  are  of  the
wet  bottom,  cyclone  type  and  produce a relatively large amount of
bottom ash slag.  The  plant  utilizes  a  wet  recirculating  ponding
system  to handle both fly ash and bottom ash.  Water is obtained from
a nearby creek for use  in  the  sluicing  operation.   Figure  VII-35
presents  a  flow  diagram  indicating separate fly ash and bottom ash
holding ponds.  There are two primary, two secondary,  and  one  final
pond.

The  fly  ash  is jet sluiced from the ESP hoppers from Units 4, 5, 6,
and 12 to one of two fly ash settling ponds.  The  sluice  water  from
the  fly  ash  pond  is  overflowed  by  gravity to the final pond for
holding and recirculation to the jet pumps and ESP hoppers.  The final
pond also contains bottom ash sluice water.  The same discharge  point
exists  for  the fly ash system as for the bottom ash.  The final pond
and recycle lines were retrofitted in 1974 in  order  to  collect  the
discharge  streams  in  one  location  for  treatment  purposes.   The
distance from the ESP hoppers to the fly ash  ponds  is  approximately
1,500  feet.   The  fly  ash  is  sluiced  six  times a day in 12-inch
diameter sluice  lines  of  cast  basalt  construction  for  45-minute
sluicing intervals.  Thirty fly ash hoppers collect the fly ash at the
ESP for Unit 12 and 12 hoppers collect for Units 4, 5, and 6.

Since  the coal-fired boilers are all cyclone type, a small percentage
of fly  ash  is  produced  relative  to  the  bottom  ash.   In  1978,
approximately  48,600 tons of fly ash was produced which represents 26
percent of all the ash produced.  This fly ash is cleaned out  of  one
pond annually and is trucked to a landfill site by an outside firm.
                                342

-------
co
                                                      Sample 2
                                   Overflow
                        (2) Fly Aah Ponds
  Botto* Aali
Storage Ground
                                                         (2 primary, 1 secondary pond)
                                                        >Diacliarge (f)
                                        EJ  * ii  j   Sample 3
                                        Final Pond
                                                Illgll Pressure
                                                (200 psig)
                                                (2 pumps)
                                        Lou Pressure
                                          (50 palg)
                                          (2 pimps)
                    NOTE: Approximately 1/4 mile from alag tanks
                         and ESP' hoppers to the pond area.
                                                                                               i Jet pumps
                                                                                                (200 pslg)
                                                           Figure VII-35
                    ASH HANDLING SYSTEM  FLOW DIAGRAM AND SAMPLING  LOCATIONS FOR PLANT  1809

-------
The  sluicing jets-and recirculation pumps are the primary maintenance
items for this system.  Minor  erosion  has  caused  some  maintenance
problems.  Scaling and corrosion have not been found to be prevalent.

Physical/Chemical  Treatment of Fly Ash Pond Overflows from Wet, Once-
Through Systems                                            '

Wet, once-through systems with  ponding  are  commonly  used  for  ash
handling.  Typically, sluiced fly ash is sent to primary and secondary
ponds  arranged  in  series  where  settling  of  the larger particles
occurs.  The overflow from the  secondary  pond  is  then  discharged.
Physical/chemical  treatment  of the ash pond overflow may be employed
to remove trace metals before the sluice water  is  discharged.   This
section   describes  physical/chemical  treatment  and  the  equipment
involved and assesses the effectiveness of physical/chemical treatment
in removing arsenic, nickel, zinc, copper, and selenium from ash  pond
overflows.

Process Description.   Metals typically are removed from wastewater by
raising  the  pH  of  the  wastewater  to  precipitate  them  out   as
hydroxides.  Lime is frequently used for pH adjustment. A flow diagram
of  a  typical  physical/ chemical treatment system for metals removal
using lime is shown  in  figure  VII-36.   The  major  equipment  items
include   a   lime   feed   system,  mis  tank  polymer  feed  system,
flocculator/clarifier, deep bed filter, acid feed system, and  another
mix  tank.   The  underflow  from the clarifier may require additional
treatment with a gravity thickener and  a  vacuum  filter  to  provide
sludge  which  can   be transported economically for landfill disposal.
Typically, wastewater pH's of 9 to 12  are  required  to  achieve  the
desired  precipitation  levels.   Lime dosage rates, flocculant dosage
rates, and clarifier design parameters are determined by jar tests and
onsite pilot test on the ash sluice water discharge.

Equipment.  Typically, hydrated or pebble lime is used to raise low pH
systems to the desired pH.  Hydrate lime feed systems  are  used  when
lime  feed  rates are less than 250 pounds per hour (41).  Pebble lime
feed systems are used for lime feed rates greater than 250 pounds  per
hour.  A typical pebble lime feed system is illustrated  in figure VII-
37.   For  larger  systems,  the  reduced  chemical  cost  and ease of
handling of pebble lime make the pebble lime systems more desirable.

Wastewaters which have a pH greater than 9 after  lime   addition  will
require  acid  addition  to reduce the pH before final discharge.  The
system differs from  lime feed systems  in that the acid is delivered to
the plant as a liquid.  The feed system equipment must be  constructed
of  special  materials, typically rubber or plastic-lined carbon steel
or stainless steel alloys.  Acid addition rates for pH adjustment  are
highly  dependent  upon  wastewater flow, pH, alkalinity, and  type and
strength of acid.  Dosage rates are determined by laboratory or onsite
testing.
                                 344

-------
            Initial  pH
            Adjustment
 Clarification
Filtration
Final pH
Adjustment...
           lime Feeder
Polymer Feeder
                 Acid Feeder
Ul
Waste
Water
                 M
                                            P
''
	 ^

1


1

a


1


* *
1
^
Clar

f -•• -
Ifier

..





i
Det
Bee
Fll

*P
i
t<
                                                Underflow to
                                                Thickener and
                                                Vacuum Filter
                                             D
                                                CO
                                                                                 Mix Tank
                                            Figure VII-36

                  FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR

                                      METALS REMOVAL USING LIME

-------
                                   .OUST COLLECTOR

                                          •FILL  PIPE
                               8ULX STORAGE
                                   BIN
                                 \
                                 BIX GATE
                                 FLEX ISLE
                                 CQHNECT1QH
SOLEHOIO
 VALYEx
           SCALE
           OR SAMPLE CHUTE

   ROTAMETERS

SLAKIH6 WATER

 DILUTION WATER
                                    UXEK
\ PRE5
**\ ' . • «
\t *
y
i—

-LEVEL j
PROSES '
f 1 	 " 	 f*
SURE
:EO
it
                            HOLDIHG
                                                HCTERIMG
                                                                  PRESSURE
                                                                    YALYE
                              Figure VII-37
                    TYPICAL LIME  FEED  SYSTEM  (41)
                                     346

-------
For wastewaters which have a pH'of less  than  6,  mixers  and  mixing
tanks  are  made of special materials of construction  (stainless steel
or lined-carbon steel).  For wastewaters with  pH's  greater  than   6,
concrete tanks are typically used.

Polymer  addition  may  be  required  to  enhance the  settling charac-
teristics of the metal hydroxide precipitate.   Typical  polymer  feed
concentrations in the wastewater are 1 to 4 ppm.  The  required polymer
addition rate is determined using laboratory or onsite testing.

The  metal  hydroxide  precipitate is separated from the wastewater  in
the clarifier.  Unlike settling ponds, these units continually collect
and remove the sludge formed.  To  determine  the  size  of  the  unit
required,  laboratory  settling  tests are required.   These tests will
define  the  required  surface  area.   Typically,  a  2-  to   3-hour
wastewater  retention time will be required  (39).  Clarifier diameters
range from 10 to 200 feet with average depths of 10 to 15 feet (39).

Filters are typically used  for  effluent  polishing   and  can  reduce
suspended  solids  levels  below 10 mg/1.  Figure VI1-38 illustrates a
typical deep bed filter.  Sand or coal  are  the  most common  filter
media.   Hydraulic loading rates of 2 to 20 gpm per square foot of bed
cross sectional area are common.  High  removal  efficiencies  require
lower  hydraulic  loading  rates.   For  general  design  purposes,   a
hydraulic loading of 5 gpm per square foot of filter area is  typical.
As  the  filter  medium  becomes  plugged  with  suspended solids, the
pressure drop  across  the  bed  increases.   At  10   to  15  psi  bed
differential  pressure, the bed is automatically backwashed with water
and air to remove the trapped suspended solids.   Typically,  6  to   8
scfm  of air and 6 to 8 gpm of water are required to backwash a square
foot of bed  cross  section.   Total  backwash  water  consumption   is
usually  in  the range of 150 to 200 gallons per square foot of filter
surface area.  Backwash frequency can range  from 1 to  6 times per  day
for  normal  operations.  For backwash systems using only water, 15  to
20 gpm per square foot of filter area is requred with  a backwash water
rate of 400 to 500 gallons per square foot of filter area (39).

Gravity thickeners are essentially identical to clarifiers in  design.
Sludge enters the middle of the thickener and the solids settle into a
sludge  blanket at the bottom.  The concentrated sludge is very gently
agitated by a moving rake which dislodges gas bubbles  and  keeps  the
sludge  moving  to  the  center well through which it  is removed.  The
average retention time of solids in the thickener is between 0.5 and 2
days  (42).  Most continuous thickeners are circular and  are  designed
with  depths  of 10 feet (42)r.  In thickening of lime  sludge from  lime
tertiary treatment, incoming sludge of 1 to  2 percent  solids has   been
thickened to 8 to 20 percent solids at solids loadings

Vacuum  filtration  is  a  common  technique  for dewatering sludge  to
produce a cake that has good handling properties and   minimum  volume.
The  vacuum  filter  typically  consists  of  a  cylindrical drum  that
rotates with the lower portion of  the  drum  submerged  in  the   feed
sludge.  The drum is covered with a porous filter medium.  As the  drum
                                347

-------
      RAW
    WATER
 STABILIZING
     LAYS?
    MEDIUM
SUPPORTING
     LAYER
       AIR
DISTRIBUTION
      PIPES
CLEAR WATER

 WASHWATSR
   CONDUITS

        CLEAR
        WATER
        FILTERING
                                                               FILTER 3E0
        FINE
        SUPPORTING
        LAYER
        COARSE
        SUPPORTING
        LAYER
                                                               M-aLOCXS
                                                               COVER
                                                               PLATES
          FILTRATE  OUT «-{
WATER IN
                            Figure -VII-38'
                          DEEP  BED  FILTER
                                  348

-------
rotates,  the feed liquor is drawn onto the filter surface by a vacuum
that exists on the drum  interior.   The  liquid  passes  through  the
filter  and  the  sludge forms a cake on the surface of the drum.  The
cake is separated from the filter by  a  scraper.   Generally,  vacuum
filters  are  capable  of dewatering a 2 to 4 percent solids feed to a
filter cake with a concentration of 19 to 36 percent solids.   Typical
solids  loading rates may vary from 3 to 14 pounds per hour per square
foot for lime sludges.

Effectiveness.  A review of the literature  on  trace  metals  removal
from   various   wastewaters  using  physical/chemical  treatment  was
conducted for  arsenic,  nickel,  zinc,  copper,  and  selenium.   The
results  of  this  literature  review  and  the results of bench-scale
studies of trace metal removals in ash pond overflows are discussed in
this subsection.

Arsenic.  Arsenic and arsenical compounds have been reported as  waste
products   of   the   metallurgical  industry,  pesticide  production,
petroleum refining, and  the  rare-earth  industry.   High  levels  of
arsenic  also have been reported  in raw municipal wastewater.  Arsenic
occurs  in four oxidation states, but it  is  found  primarily  in  the
trivalent (arsenite) and pentavalent (arsenate) forms.  It is found in
organic   and   inorganic  compounds.   The  inorganic  compounds  are
generally more hazardous than the organic compounds, and the trivalent
form is generally more toxic than the pentavalent  form.   Information
on  the  conventional coagulant and lime-softening processes indicates
that removal is valance dependent (44).

While only limited information  is available on  the  concentration  of
arsenic  in  industrial wastewater and on current treatment processes,
more up-to-date information is  available on the removal of arsenic  in
municipal  wastewater.   One  study (45) of the lime softening process
indicates removals of approximately 85 percent.   In  particular,  the
lime  softening  process  was   found  to  reduce  an  initial  arsenic
concentration of 0.2  mg/1  down  to  0.03  mg/1.   Simple  filtration
through  a charcoal bed reduced the same initial arsenic concentration
to  0.06 mg/1.  Results from another pilot plant study (45) for removal
of  arsenic in municipal wastewaters indicate removal  efficiencies  of
96  to  98  percent   (final effluent concentration =  0.06 mg/1).  The
treatment involved addition of  coagulant (ferric sulfate), followed by
flocculation, settling, dual media filtration, and carbon adsorption.

The Water Supply Research Division (WSRD) of  EPA  recently  completed
pilot   plant  studies  on  arsenic removal  (44).  In one study,  sample
effluents were pumped  to a  rapid-mix  tank  then  flowed  by  gravity
through  coagulation,  flocculation, and sedimentation steps to  filter
columns.  WSRD  reported removals as high as 96 percent for an  initial
concentration of 0.39 mg/1 of arsenate and  82 percent for  an   initial
concentration of 0.12 mg/1 of arsenite.  The study confirmed that:

    -   Arsenic V is more easily removed than Arsenic III by alum
        and ferric sulfate coagulation.
                                349

-------
    -  Ferric sulfate is more effective for removal of Arsenic
       III.

The  average  removal  efficiency  of  Arsenic  V was approximately 69
percent (minimum removal = 11 percent, maximum removal = 96  percent).
The  average  removal  efficiency  of Arsenic III was approximately 48
percent (minimum removal = 1 percent, maximum removal =  82  percent).
WSRD also investigated the use of lime softening techniques.  Removals
of  71  percent  for  Arsenic  III  and  99 percent for Arsenic V were
reported  after  settling  and  dual-media  filtration.   The  average
removal  efficiency  for  Arsenic  III  was  about 50 percent; and for
Arsenic V, about 76 percent.

In pilot plant studies in  Taiwan,  the  only  technique  continuously
capable  of  high  arsenic  removal  was  ferric chloride coagulation,
preceded by chlorine  oxidation   (for  oxidation  of  Arsenic  III  to
Arsenic  V),  followed by sedimentation and filtration (44).  Based on
these studies, a full-scale arsenic removal  plant  for  treatment  of
municipal  wastewater,  handling  150  m3/day,  was  built  in Taiwan.
During the first 59 days of operation, 82 to 100 percent  removal  was
achieved (with initial concentrations from 0.60 to 0.94 mg/1).

In  a  bench  scale  study  conducted for EPA of priority heavy metals
removal, chemical precipitation was evaluated for arsenic removal from
three ash pond effluents (48).  This treatment method proved effective
in reducing arsenic to the analytical detection limit.  The results of
this study are presented in greater detail later in this section.

A summary of arsenic treatment methods and removals is shown in  table
VII-15.

Nickel.   Wastewaters  containing  nickel  are  found primarily in the
metal industries, particularly  in  plating  operations.   A  list  of
industries and their average wastewater nickel concentrations is given
in  table VII-16.  Nickel exists  in wastewater as the soluble ion.  In
the presence of complexing agents such as cyanide, nickel may exist in
a more soluble complexed form; therefore, pretreatment to remove these
agents may be necessary.  The formation and  precipitation  of  nickel
hydroxide  is  generally the basis for destructive treatment of nickel
wastes  (as opposed to carbonates  and sulfates, which are used  in  the
recovery  of  nickel).   Table  VII-17  summarizes  actual  full-scale
results of lime precipitation.  The theoretical solubility  limit  for
nickel  is  approximately 0.001 mg/1  (46).  Complete removal of nickel
has been reported  with  ion  exchange  treatments.   Though  this  is
generally  more  expensive,  the  cost  is  offset by the value of the
recovered nickel.  Since recovery of nickel from ash pond effluents is
not practical, such a treatment would  probably  be  uneconomical  for
steam electric powerplants.

Pilot  plant  studies   (45)  have been conducted on the use of reverse
osmosis for removal of nickel from wastewater.  The  studies  indicate
removals  of  greater  than  99 percent.  It should be noted, however,
that reverse osmosis units typically blowdown 10 to 40 percent of  the
                                350

-------
                          Table VII-15

       ARSENIC REMOVAL FROM MUNICIPAL WASTEWATERS (44, 45)
Treatment Method

Lime Softening

Lime Softening

  As V
  As III

Coagulation with
Ferric Chloride

Coagulation with
Ferric Chloride

  As V
  As III

Chlorine Oxidation
and Ferric Chloride
Coagulation

Charcoal Filtration
Initial Arsenic
 Concentration
    (mg/1)

      0.2
      0.58
      0.34

   1.5-3.0
      0.39
      D.12

  0.06-0.94
      0.2
Final Arsenic
Concentration
    (mg/1)

      0.03
      0.10

      0.06
      0.02
      0.02
Percent
Removal

85
99
71

96-9.8
      0.06
96
82

82-100
70
                               351

-------
                          Table VII-16
            SUMMARY OF NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS IN METAL
             PROCESSING AND PLATING WASTEWATERS (45)
                             Cmg/1)
    Industry

TablewarePlating

  Silver bearing waste
  Acid Waste
  Alkaline waste

Metal Finishing

  Mixed wastes
  Acid wastes
  Alkaline wastes
  Small parts fabrication
  Combined degreasing, pickling and
    Ni dipping of sheet steel

Business Machine Manufacture

  Plating wastes
  Pickling wastes

Plating Plants

  4 different plants
  Rinse waters
  Large plants
  5 different plants
  Large plating plant
  Automatic plating of Zinc base
    castings
  Automatic plating of ABS type
    plastics
  Manual barrel and rack
 Nickel Concentration

Range          Average
0-30              5
10-130           33
0.4-3.2           1.9
17-51
12-48
2-21
179-184         181
3-5
5-35             11
6-32             1.7
2-205
2-900
up to 200        25
5-58             24
88 (single
  waste stream)
46 (combined
    flow)
45-55

30-40

15-25
                               352

-------
                                        Table VII-17

                       SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS AFTER
                                  PRECIPITATION THREATMENT (45)
CO
Ul
     Source
     Tableware Plating
Appliacne Manu-
facutring

Office Machine
Manufacturing

Non-Ferrous Metal
     Plating
     Record Changer
     Manufacturing
                       Nickel Concentration (mg/1)

                       Initial             Final
21
                              35
                              39
                         46
0.09-1.9



   0.4


   0.17


0.5-0.13


   0.8



0.1-0.2
                            Precent Removal   Comment
                                                        91-99.6
                                98.9
                                99.6
                                                                            Sand Filtra-
                                                                            tion
                                              6 hour Works
                                              settling

                                              6 hour
                                              detention in
                                              clarifier

-------
volume  of  wastewater  treated.   Reverse osmosis simply concentrates
materials in a dilute stream.

Zinc.  Waste concentrations of zinc range from  1  to  1,000  mg/1   in
various  waste streams described in the literature, but average values
fall between 1 and 100 mg/1 as shown in table  VII-18.   Table  VII-19
summarizes published precipitation treatment results.  As with nickel,
cyanide forms a more soluble complex ion with zinc; therefore, cyanide
treatement may be required before precipitation of zinc.

A  treatment  combining  hydroxide  and sulfide precipitation of heavy
metals, known as the "Sulfex" process, has reported effective  removal
of  zinc,  chromium,  and  other trace metals.  The Sulfex process has
been used to treat water rinses following carburetor-casting treatment
tanks in an automotive plant in Paris, Tennessee.  The waste stream  in
this plant has  a  zinc  concentration  of  34  mg/1.   Treatment  has
resulted  in  a filtered effluent concentration of less than 0.05 mg/1
of zinc (47).

Copper.  Primary sources of copper in  industrial  waste  streams  are
metal process pickling and plating baths.  For a given bath, the rinse
water  concentration  will  be  a  function  of  many factors, such  as
drainage time over the bath, shape of the parts, surface area  of  the
parts,  and  the  rate  of  rinse water flow.  Untreated process waste
water concentrations of copper typical of plating and metal processing
operations are summarized in table VI1-20.

As with most heavy metal wastes, treatment processes  for  removal   of
copper  may  be  of  a destructive nature, involving precipitation and
disposal of resulting solids, or  of  a  recovery  nature,  e.g.,  ion
exchange,  evaporation,  and  electrolysis.  Ion exchange or activated
carbon are appropriate treatment methods  for  wastewaters  containing
copper   at  concentrations  less  than  200.  mg/1;  precipitation   is
applicable for copper levels of 1.0 to 1,000  mg/1,  and  electrolytic
recovery  is advantageous for copper treatment at concentrations above
10,000 mg/1 (45).

Generally, hydroxide precipitation is accomplished by lime addition  to
an acidic wastewater.  The theoretical solubility limit of  the  metal
ion  is  approximately  0.0004 mg/1 at a pH of approximately 9.0 (46).
Theoretical levels are seldom achieved due to colloidal  precipitates,
slow reaction rates, pH fluctuations, and the influence of other ions.
Reported  treatment levels achieved by full-scale industrial treatment
operations are presented in table VII-21.

Selenium.  Industries which use selenium include  paint,  pigment  and
dye  producers,  electronics,  glass  manufacturers,  and  insecticide
industries.  Selenium is similar to  arsenic  in  several  ways.   For
example, the two predominant oxidation states in water are Selenium  IV
(selenite)  and  Selenium  VI   (selenate)  and selenium appears  in the
anion form and thus has acid characteristics.  Very  little information
is available on  levels  of  selenium  in  industrial  wastewaters   or
treatment methods for selenium wastes.
                                 354

-------
                           Table V-18

       CONCENTRATIONS OF ZINC IN PROCESS WASTEWATERS (45)

                             (mg/1)


                                           Zinc Concentration
    Industrial Process     •                Range     '  Average

Metal Processing

  Bright dip wastes                        0.2-37.0
  Bright mill wastes                       40-1,463
  Brass mill wastes                        8-10
  Pickle bath                              4.3-41.4
  Pickle bath                              0.5-37
  Pickle bath,                              20-35
  Aqua fortis and CN dip                   10-15
  Wire mill pickle                         36-374

Plating

  General                                  2.4-13.8       8.2
  General                                  55-120
  General                                  15-20         15
  General                                  5-10
  Zinc                                     20-30
  .Zinc                                     70-150
  Zinc                                     70-350
- Brass                                    11-55
  •Brass                                    10-60
  General                                  7.0-215       46.3
  Plating on zinc castings                 3-8
  Galvanizing of cold rolled steel         2-88

S i1ver P1ating              ]

  Silver bearing wastes                    0-25           9
  Acid waste                               5-220         65
  Alkaline                                 0.5-5.1        2.2

Rayon Wastes                .

  General                                  250-1000
  General                   .               20
  General                               .   20-120
                               355

-------
                                   Table VII-19

            SUMMARY OF PRECIPITATION TREATMENT RESULTS FOR ZINC (45, 47)
     Source


     Zinc Plating

     General Plating

     General Plating

     General Plating

     Vulcanized Fiber

*-<•»    Brass Wire Mill



     Tableware Plant

     Viscose Rayon

     Viscose Rayon

     Viscose Rayon

     Metal Fabrication
Automotive Industry
(Sulfex Process)
                            Zinc (mR/1)
                       Percent Removal   Comment
Initial
	
18.4
	
55-120
100-300
36-374
Final
0.2-0.5
2.0
0-6
<1.0
<1.0
0.08-1.60

	
89
	
99
99
99

	

Sand Fi


Integra
16.1
20-120
70
20
	
0.02-0.23
0.88-1.5
3-5
1.0
0.5-1.2
0.1-0.5
99
	
93-96
95

34
                                         0.05
99
                                                                Treatment for
                                                                Copper Recovery

                                                                Sand Filtration
                                                                (1) Sedimentation
                                                                (2) Sand Filtration

-------
                          Table VII-20

     COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTEWATER FROM METAL PLATING
                    AND PROCESSING OPERATIONS

                             (mg/1)
   '  Process

Plating Rinse
Plating Rinse
Plating Rinse
Plating Rinse
Plating
Plating
Plating
Plating
Plating
Plating
Appliance Manufacturing
  Spent Acids
  Alkaline Wastes
Automobile Heater Production
Silver Plating
  Silver Bearing
  Acid Wastes
  Alkaline Wastes
Brass Plating
  Pickling Bath Wastes
  Bright Dip Wastes
Plating Wastes
Pickling Wastes
Brass Dip
Brass Mill Rinse
Brass Mill Rinse
  Tube Mill
  Rod and Wire Mill
Brass Mill Bichromate Pickle
  Tube Mill
  Rod and Wire Mill
  Rolling Mill
  Copper Rinse
  Brass Mill Rinse
Copper Cone entrat ion

20-120
0-7.9
20 (ave.)
5.2-41
6,4-88
2.0-36.,0
20-30
10-15
3-8
11.4

0.6-11.0
0-1 .0
24-33 (28 ave.)

3-900 (12 ave.)
30-590 (135 ave.)
3.2-19 (6.1 ave.)

4.0-23
7.0-44
2.8-7.8 (4.5 ave.)
0.4-2.2 (1.0 ave.)
2-6
4.4-8.5

74
888

13.1
27.4
12.2
13-74
4.5
                               357

-------
                     Table VII-20 (Continued)

             3 J ^ENTRATIONS IN WASTEWATER FROM METAL PLATING
                     AND PROCESSING OPERATIONS

                              (mg/1)
  Process

 IS  lad •  •
; S .. ,'1 '  •
 js  i id
 >e:  '. ill
              >'3r  Wire Mill
              Mr  Pickle
              i-ar  Bright Dip
*'oj >e:  'UD:-  "".'.„•.' •• •!
€01 >e: r 'ir   -1..~ -
Copper ure Extraction
Gold Ore Extraction
Acid Mine Drainage
Acid Mine Drainage
Acid Mine Drainage
Acid Mine Drainage
Copper Concentration

72-124
60-9
20-35
19-74
70 (ave.)
800 (ave.)
0.28-0.33
20
3.2
3.9
0.12
51.6-128.0
                                358

-------
                                        Table VII-21

                     COPPER REMOVAL BY FULL-SCALE  INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
                                   TREATMENT SYSTEMS  (45)
Ul
(a
     Source and Treatment

     Metal Processing (Lime)

     Nonferrous Metal Processing
       (Lime)

     Metal Processing (Lime)
Electroplating (caustic,
  Soda Ash t Hydrazine)

Machine Plating (Lime +
  coagulant)

Metal Finishing (Lime)

Brass Mill (Lime)

Plating

Plating (CN oxidation, Cr
  reduction, neutralization)

Wood Preserving (Lime)

Brass Mill (Hydrazine + NaOH)

Silver Plating (CN oxidation,
  Lime, Fe Cl3
                                   Initial
                                 Copper eonc,
                                    (mg/1)

                                   204-385
6.0-15.5
                                         10-20



                                         11.4


                                      0.25-1.1  (range)

                                        75-124

                                        30  (ave.)
Final Copper cone.
      (mg/1)

        0.5

0.2-2.3 (prior to
sand filtration)

1.4-7.8 (prior to
sand filtration)
0.0-0.5 (after sand
filtration)

0.09-0.25 (sol.)
0.30-0.45 (tot.)

        2.2
               0-12 (ave. 0.19)

                       1-2

                    0.02-0.2

                       2.0   ,
                           «   i

                     0.1-0.35

                    0.25-0.85

               0.16-0.3 (with sand
                  filtration)
                                                                               Removal
                                                                              Efficiency
                                      98.7-99.8
                       f '
                         99-99.5

-------
Secondary  municipal  sewage  treatment  plants  with  2  to 9 ug/1 of
selenium in the effluent have been reported  (45).  A tertiary sequence
of treatment which included lime treatment to  pH  11,  sedimentation,
mixed-media  filtration,  activated carbon adsorption and chlorination
yielded selenium removals of 0 to 89 percent.  In another study   (45),
various  advanced  treatments were tested for a sewage treatment  plant
effluent with a selenium concentration of 2.3 ug/1.  The investigators
concluded that efficient removal (99 percent) could be achieved   using
a strong acid-weak base ion exchange system  (45).

Jar  tests  and  pilot plant tests conducted by WSRD on the removal of
selenium from ground and surface waters  by  conventional  coagulation
showed  that  selenium  removal  is  dependent on the oxidation state,
initial  concentration  of  selenium,  pH,   and  types  and  doses  of
coagulation  (44).   Removals  range from 0  to 81 percent using ferric
sulfate and alum coagulants.  In  general,   ferric  sulfate  was  more
efficient  than  alum in removing Selenium IV. Both ferric sulfate and
alum yielded removals of 11 percent or less  for Selenium VI.   Initial
selenium  concentrations  ranged  from  0.03  to 0.10 mg/1.  With dual
media and granular activated carbon filters, removals as  high  as  80
percent  were  obtained  for  Selenium  IV.  WRDS also conducted  pilot
plant studies on lime-softening treatments for selenium removal.   The
results  indicate that this is not an effective treatment for selenium
removal (44).  WSRD conducted  studies  which  confirmed  removals  of
greater  than  99  percent  using  a  cation-anion  exchange system in
series.  Research on both laboratory and pilot plant scale  is  needed
before feasibility of this treatment technique can be determined  (44).

Ash   Pond  Overflows.   The  removal  efficiencies  which  have  been
presented for arsenic, nickel,  ziric,  selenium  and  copper  must  be
viewed  with  caution regarding application  of removal efficiencies to
fly ash  and  bottom  ash  pond  discharges.   Table  VI1-22  shows   a
comparison  of the range of initial concentrations associated with the
removal  efficiencies  which  have  been  presented  and  the  average
concentrations  of  trace  metals  in  fly   ash  and  bottom  ash pond
discharges.  The average concentrations in   fly  ash  and  bottom ash
ponds  are  much  lower  than  the  ranges   of   initial concentrations
contained in the literature; thus, the  removal  efficiencies  do not
necessarily reflect the efficiencies of such treatments for removal of
•trace  metals  in  the  ash  ponds of steam  electric powerplants. The
final effluent concentration, however, would probably be lower  for   a
powerplant because of the low initial concentration.
                                                        i
Bench  scale  studies of various removal technologies for treatment of
ash pond effluents from steam electric powerplants have been conducted
(48).  Results of chemical precipitation treatments of  the ; ash  pond
effluents  from  three  powerplants  located  in Wyoming, Florida, and
Upper Appalachia are shown in tables VI1-23  and  VI1-24  for  lime and
lime  and  ferric  sulfate  addition,   respectively.  Arsenic removal
appears to be reasonably  good,  ranging  from   67  to  less  than  99
percent.  Copper removals are variable, ranging  from  31:to 80 percent.
The  efficiency of nickel removal  is also uncertain.  Selenium removal
is, in general, fairly poor.  This is consistent   with  other  studies
                                 360

-------
                          Table VII-22
     COMPARISON OF INITIAL TRACE, METAL CONCENTRATIONS CITED
      IN STUDIES REPORTED IN THE LITERATURE AND TRACE METAL
              CONCENTRATIONS IN ASH POND DISCHARGES
                              (ppm)
Metal
As
Ni
Zn
Cu
Se
   Initial
Concentrations
   Treated
0.200 to 3.00
   18 to 374
 0.25 to 385
 0.01 to 0.08
    Average
;   Bottom Ash
 Coneentration s
     0.022
     0.079
     ,0.020
     0.012
     0.004
   Average
   Fly Ash
Concentrations
    0.055
    0.224
    0.014
    0.003
    0.008
                               361

-------
                          Table VII-23

     TRACE METAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR LIME PRECIPITATION
              TREATMENT OF ASH POND EFFLUENTS (48)
Arsenic

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia

Copper

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia

Nickel

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia

Selenium

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia

Zinc

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia
                          Inlet
                          (ppb)
  9
 74
 80
 14
 26
  9.5
  5.5
  2.5
  3
  8
 42
300
  7
 11
         Outlet
23
10
12
 0.5
 6.0
 2.2
 3
 8
52
31
 2
<2
        Removal Efficiency
               DL
               89
              >99
  71
  29
  54
 <95
OGTI
  12
  DL
 . NR
OGTI
  90
  57
 >82
KEY:    DL - Concentrations of both inlet and outlet are below
             the detection limit.
      OGTI - Outlet concentrations greater than inlet.
        NR - No removal.
                               362,

-------
                          Table VII-24

         TRACE METAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR LIME PLUS
       FERRIC SULFATE PRECIPITATION TREATMENT OF ASH POND
                         EFFLUENTS (48)
                          Inlet
                          (ppb)
          Outlet
           (ppb)
Arsenic

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia

Copper

  Wyoming
 • Florida
  Appalachia

Nickel

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia

Selenium

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia

Zinc

  Wyoming
  Florida
  Appalachia
 80
 14
 26
  9.5
  5.5
  2.5
  3
  8
 42
300
  7
 11
23
 7
18
10.5
 9.0
 2.0
 3
 7
32
25
 6
<2
         Removal Efficiency
                            DL
                            67
                           >99
  80
  50
  31
 >95
OGTI
  20
  DL
  12
  24
  92
  14
 >82
KEY:    DL - Concentrations of both inlet and outlet are below
             the detection limit.
      OGTI - Outlet concentrations greater than inlet.
        NR - No removal.
                               363

-------
cited  earlier  on removal of selenium by chemical precipitation.  The
efficiency of zinc removal varies significantly from 14 to 92 percent.
Though  this  study  may  indicate  that1 chemical  precipitation  has
potential  for  effective  removal of some trace metals from ash ponds
effluents/ other studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Ash/Sludge Disposal.  The two primary  methods  of  ash  disposal  are
landfill and utilization.  Only a few plants presently sell or use fly
ash.   Ash  which  has  been  collected  dry  or has been dewatered is
disposed of  by  landfill.   Figure  VII-39  illustrates  some  common
landfill  methods.   Equipment  requirements  include  closed  trucks,
graders, and bulldozers.  Disposal of dry fly ash poses some  fugitive
dust  problems.   Closed  trucks  are  used  to  prevent fugitive dust
emissions enroute to the landfill site.  At the site, the  ash  should
be wetted down after application to the  landfill.

Bottom Ash

The technologies applicable to bottom ash handling systems are:

    1.  dry bottom ash handling,

    1.  Hydrobin/dewatering bin systems, and

    3.  ponding with recycle.

Dry Systems

Dry  handling  of  bottom  ash  is  generally  typical of stoker-fired
boilers.  This method is used by 19  percent  of  those  plants  which
reported  a  bottom  ash  system type in the 308 survey  (including all
types  of  plants).   Stoker-fired  boilers  are  generally  used   in
relatively  small capacity installations where small amounts of bottom
ash are handled.  Since this technology  represents a  small  and  more
obsolete sector of the  industry, it is not addressed in  further detail
in this section.

Complete Recycle Systems

The  term  "complete  recycle" describes a system which  returns all of
the ash sluice water to the ash collecting hoppers for   recurrent  use
in  sluicing.  The key  concept of complete recycle is that there  is no
continuous discharge of sluice water from  the   system.  Virtually  no
system  is  zero  discharge  from the standpoint of  containing  all ash
handling water onsite because ash-laden  water does leave the  facility
in  a   variety  of  ways.  Water is occluded with the ash when  trucked
away to disposal.  Under  upset conditions,  it  is  often  necessary  to
discharge  water.   In  some cases, small amounts of  water from  the ash
handling system are needed  elsewhere   in  the   plant,   typically  for
wetting   fly ash handling trucks to prevent blowing  of dry fly  ash and
for servicing  the  silo  unloaders.   Makeup  water   is required  to
maintain  a  steady water balance despite  these  inherent losses  in the
                                 364

-------
                           Sidm Hill Landfill
                                Ucdfill
                           Caofiguracioa
                                FU1
                           DiapasaL
                           Configuracion
  Figure VII-39

LANDFILL METHODS
         365

-------
system.  The magnitude of the makeup water  requirement  depends  upon
the major equipment in the ash handling system.

Technology Descriptions.

Dewatering/Hydrobin  System  (36).  The various stages of a closed-loop
recirculating system  appear  in  figure  VII-40.   For  the  sake  of
clarity,  some details have been omitted. Initially, as illustrated in
figure VII-40a, the ash hopper is filled to its overflow line, and one
dewatering bin (bin A) is partially filled with water.   Enough  water,
remains  in  the  storage tank to start operating the system after the
ash hopper is filled with ashes.  In the next  stage,  illustrated  in
figure  VII-40b,  the  ash  hopper has been filled with ashes, and the
water displaced by them has been pumped into  the  settling  tank  and
overflowed  into  the storage tank.  In the next step, shown in figure
VII-40c, ash hopper cleaning is in progress in the right hand chamber.
Ashes are pumped to the Dewatering B.in A.  As ash-water slurry  enters
the dewatering bin, an equal amount of water overflows to the settling
tank  and then to the storage tank.  In figure VII-40d, the ash hopper
has been completely emptied.  All of the water that had  been  in  the
ash  hopper is now in the storage tank.  The water in the storage tank
is used to refill the ash hopper as  shown  in  figure  VII-4Qf.   The
water in the ash hopper is then available for filling Dewatering Bin B
as  shown  in  figure  VII-40g.  The water volume in the settling tank
remains constant while the volume in all other vessels  varies  during
different phases of operation.

Outside  makeup  water is necessary to restore the water lost with the
bottom ash discharged from the dewatering bins as well as  water  lost
through  evaporation  from  the  bottom ash hopper.  Makeup usually is
added at the storage tank.   An  emergency  bypass  can  be  installed
between the settling tank and the storage tank to provide needed water
in the event of temporary failure of outside makeup.

In  most  cases,  a  closed-loop  recirculating  system shows a marked
change in the pH of the recirculated water.  This ph shift is tempered
by the addition of makeup water if it is- added in sufficient  quantity
and  is  of  good quality.  A monitoring system and chemical additives
can maintain recirculated water at as neutral a level as  possible  in
order to keep pipe scaling or corrosion to a minimum.

Cases where pH adjustment is not sufficient for scale prevention, such
as  very reactive bottom ash or poor intake water quality, may require
side stream lime/soda ash treatment.  The equipment  for ' slip  stream
softening    has    been   described   in   the   section   concerning
physical/chemical treatment of  ash  pond  overflows  from  wet  once-
through  fly  ash handling systems.  The magnitude of the flow rate of
the slip stream is estimated to be  about  10  percent  of  the  total
sluice  stream.   The use of slip stream softening in a dewatering bin
system would create an additional solid waste stream  as  well  as  an
additional  water  loss  source which would require more makeup water.
Slip stream softening in a dewatering/hydrobin system is not a  proven
technology based on data from the 308 survey.
                                366

-------
                                                                   DEWATERIN6 BINS
                        OVERFLOW SIN

                        OVERFLOW PUMP
                        I      STORAGE TANK
                 RETURN WATER PUMP
                                                                             OEWATCRINO
                                                                            BINS
                                                     SYSTEM FILLED WITH WATER.
                                                           TO RECEIVE  ASH
                                                                   PEWATENING BINS
                           KTLOW BW
                                PUMP
                              STORAGE TANK
                                                                             OEWATERINO
                 NCTUKN WATS* PUMP
                                                  HOPPCT FILLED WITH ASH. WATCT DISPLACED
                                                  TO STORAGE TANK THRU OVERFLOW SIN AND
                                                  SCTTLtNC TANK.
                              Figure VII-40

VARIOUS  STAGES OF A CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING SYSTEM  (36)
                                     367

-------
                                                                   OEWATERIW; ems
                        OVERFLOW BIN
                        OVERFLOW PUMP
                        /     STORAGE TANK
                                                                           0 OEWATEHIMS
                                                                           BINS
                 RETURN WATER PUMP
                                                  ASH HOPPEft BEIM6 EMPTIED. OCWATERINO
                                                  flIN BEING FIU.CB. OVERFLOW TO SCTTUNG
                                                  TANK.
                                                                   OEWATEIHN6 BINS
                        OVERFLOW BIN

                           RFLOW PUMP
                              STORAGE TANK
                 RETURN «MTER PUMP
                                                                            0 OEWATCRINO
                                                                           BINS
                                                   ASH HOPPER EMPTIED, OEWAfEltlMO SIN PIU.EO.
                     Figure VII- 40 (Continued)

VARIOUS  STAGES  OF  A  CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING SYSTEM  (36)
                                    368

-------
                                                                OEWATERIM4 BINS
                          LOW BIN

                      OVERFLOW PUMP
                      /     STORAGE TAMIC
               RETURN WATER PUMP
                                                                        0 OeW&TCRINO
                                                                        BINS
                                                ASH HOPPER REFILLED  WITH WATER.
                                                                OEWATEHIHC BINS
                       VERFLOW BIN

                      OVERFLOW PUMP
                      /      STORAfie 'TANK
                                                                        TO DEWATCHINO
                                                                        BINS
               RETURN WATER PUMP
                                                 OEWATERING BIN BEING DRAINED.
                     Figure  VII- 40 (Continued)

VARIOUS STAGES OF A CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING  SYSTEM  (36;
                                   369

-------
                                                              OEWATeitlNS BINS
                      .OVERFLOW SIN
                         rFLOW PUMP
                           STORAGE TANK
               RETURN WATER PUMP
                                                                        DEWATEMINO
                                                                      BINS
                                                DEWATERING BIN ® UNLOAOINO. DEWATERIN8 «IN ®
                                                BEING fVKRTIAU.7 FIUXD WITH WATER.
                    Figure VII- 40 (Continued)
VARIOUS STAGES  OF  A CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING  SYSTEM. (36)
                                   370

-------
Bottom  ash  obtained from dewatering bins  is considered  "commercially
dry" by vendors of this equipment  (36, 39),  i.e., on the  order  of   20
percent  moisture.   This degree of moisture can vary widely depending
on the installation as well as within a particular plant.  The ash   is
wet  enough  for transport to a landfill site in an open  truck without
creating a fugitive dust problem, and at the landfill site,  there   is
no  need  to  wet  the  ash  down.   Some dust problems may occur with
certain western coal ashes since these tend  to contain relatively more
fines than eastern coal ashes (39).

A dewatering/hydrobin system which contains  a  slip  stream  softening
system  produces  a sludge waste stream which requires disposal.  This
waste is produced at a much lower rate than  is the bottom ash and   has
a higher moisture content.

Ponding  System.  Approximately 81 percent  of all plants  which replied
in the 308 survey designated ponding  as  their  bottom   ash  handling
method.   Of these, approximately  9 percent  designated either complete
or partial recycle.

A ponding recycle system for(bottom ash is  illustrated in figure  VII-
41.   The  ash  or  slag  collected  in the  bottom ash hopper which is
filled with water is ground down to a sluiceable size range by clinker
grinders at the bottom of the hopper.  Depending on the   size  of   the
boiler,  the  bottom  ash  hopper may have  two or three  "pantlegs," or
discharge points.  At each pantl-eg there may be  one  or   two  clinker
grinders.   Larger  facilities  usually  have  three  pantlegs and  two
clinker grinders at each pantleg  (39).  Smaller  facilities  have   two
pantlegs  and  one  clinker  grinder  at each leg. Double roll clinker
grinders can generally handle from 75 to 150 tons per hour of ash with
drives from 5 hp to 25 hp depending on the  material to be crushed   and
required  system  capacity.  A smaller grinder that can  handle 20  tons
per hour or less uses a single roll with a  stationary breaker plate.

After being crushed, the ash is fed into an adopter or sump from which
it is pumped by one of two types of  pumping devices,   a centrifugal
pump  or  a jet pump.  Pumps and piping have already been discussed in
the subsection on partial recirculating fly ash systems.

A series of ponds are usually used for bottom ash settling.  A primary
pond accumulates most of the sluiced bottom ash.   The   sluice  water
then flows by gravity to a secondary settling pond.  Overflow from  the
secondary  pond  goes  to  a  final  or  clear pond which is used  as a
holding basin for the recirculating water.   Pond sizes   cover  a   wide
range  depending  on the plant size, the amount of bottom ash produced
(boiler type), pond depth, required holding time  (which  is a  function
of  the  solids  settling  rate),  and  the amount of land available.
Typically, the primary and secondary ponds  are dual  systems  so   that
dredging does not interfere with operation.  For  instance, a plant  may
have  two  primary and secondary ponds.  One primary and one secondary
are dredged annually to remove the settled  solids while  the other   two
ponds are in operation.
                                 371

-------
CO
N>





f_ _s
V" ~
(Discharge
for
Partial
Recycle)
/
Makeup
Water
>
Alternate Alternate
Secondary Primary
Settling Settling
Pond Pond
_ | | j 1 |

Recycle Pumps — 	 i i 	 i i 	 —
. \l V/ \\ */
\ — ''1T\'< 	 / > S
}~\ ^\ ,(. Secondary Settling Primary Settling
V. 	 	 / PnnH Pond
Clear Pond
Bottom Ash Hopper
\. /^ClinkerV /
\-VxV Grinders 7-V*V _«. 	 -. 	 • 1
' (JO UU s/*s *
                                                 Ash Sluice Pumps
                                                Figure VII-41
                                    PONDING RECYCLE SYSTEM FOR BOTTOM ASH

-------
Facilities  may be made available to provide for a discharge of sluice
water.from' the recycle line.  A makeup water stream will be  necessary
due  to  water  losses  inherent  in the system.  The most significant
water losses occur in percolation through the floor of  unlined  ponds
and  evaporation of pond water.  A pond, system maintained at a steady-
state water balance without discharging is considered a zero discharge
or complete recycle system.  A  partial  recycle  system  maintains  a
discharge either on a continuous basis or for upset conditions.

Bottom  ash  recovered from ponds by dredging does not create fugitive
dust problems because  of  the .high  moisture  content  of  the  ash.
Disposal  of  bottom  ash  may  be achieved by any of the conventional
landfill methods discussed in the fly ash subsection.

Evaporation Ponds.  In cases, where pH adjustment  can  not  adequately
prevent  scale, an alternative to slip stream softening is the release
of some of the ash sluice water as a blowdown stream.  In cases  where
it  is  difficult  to  maintain  a  steady water balance in a complete
recycle system, occasional  discharge  of  ash  sluice  water  may  be
necessary.   The  use of evaporation ponds to contain blowdown streams
from dewatering bin systems is an option for achieving zero  discharge
under  these  conditions.  This option has been successfully exercised
in the western part of the United States where  high  net  evaporation
rates  are  indigenous.   Two  of  the  plants  visited  attained zero
discharge by using a blowdown to evaporation ponds from dewatering bin
systems.

Retrofitting.  The primary reasons for retrofitting  complete  recycle
systems are:

    1.  A shortage of water requiring minimal consumption,

    2.  State or local regulations governing, a reduction in
       wastewater pollutants, and

    3.  A market for dewatered slag.

Some  of the piping from the old system is reusable  in the retrofitted
system, although difficulties may  be  encountered   in  rerouting  old
pipe.   Of  course,  difficulty  may be encountered  in integrating any
other system discharge with the bottom ash recycle   loop,  e.g.,  sump
discharge  and  cooling  tower  blowdown.   Plant  downtime  would  be
required for the hook-up of the  retrofitted  dewatering  bin  system,
resulting  in  a   temporary  reduction   in  generating  capacity..   In
addition, some downtime may occur during  the  debugging  period.   For
some  plants,  debugging  may  last up to  a year.  The  land required  to
retrofit a dewatering bin system is:

    -  Approximately 1 acre to contain the dewatering  bins,
       settling tank, surge tank, and pump houses; and

    -  Landfill area for bottom ash disposal.
                                 373

-------
A plant that  used  a  pond  system  prior  to  the  retrofit  of  the
dewatering  bin system probably would have land available for disposal
of the dewatered bottom ash.

Utilization of Complete Recycle Systems.  Data  from  the- 308  survey
provided  a list of plants which reported wet recirculating bottom ash
handling systems and zero  discharge  of  ash  transport  water.   EPA
teleponed each of these 14 plants to confirm the data submitted on the
1976  data form. The results of the telephone contacts appear in table
VII-25.  Specific details of plant designs are discussed below.

This information has not been positively confirmed for all 14  plants.
The  only  method of positive confirmation is site inspection but time
and budget constraints precluded visitation of all 14 plants.  Four of
the plants were visited.

Plants 4813, 3203, 1811 and 0822, handle and  dispose  of  bottom  ash
completely  separately  from  fly  ash.  The plants employ dry fly ash
handling and complete recirculation of  bottom  ash  transport  water.
The  plants  are located in Texas, 'Indiana, Nevada, and Colorado.  The
facilities in Nevada and Colorado make use of high  evaporation  rates
in  those  locations to achieve zero discharge while allowing for some
blowdown from the systems.  The fuels burned at these  plants  include
lignite  and  bituminous  coals with the ash contents ranging from 9.7
percent to 11.5 percent.  The boiler  types  include  both  pulverized
coal boilers and cyclone boilers, giving a bottom ash to fly ash ratio
from  20:80  to 90:10.  These plants represent zero discharge designs;
while the absolute number  of  plants  identified  as  achieving  zero
discharge  from  this study is small, they do present a representative
mix of location fuel type and boiler type.

Plants 4813, 3203, and 0822  use  hydrobines  or  dewatering  bins  to
separate  the  bottom  ash  particles  from the sluice water.  In each
case, the sluice water overflows the weir at the top of  the  bin  and
gravity  flows  to a surge tank which supplies the suction side of the
recycle or  recirculation  pumps.   Makeup  water  to  compensate  for
evaporation,  water  lost  from  pump  seals,  water lost from the ash
hopper locks, water occluded with the bottom ash and other spills  and
leaks  is  added  at some point in each system depending on the plant.
Accurate control of makeup water is an important factor  in  achieving
zero discharge.  If the actual makeup rate exceeds the required makeup
rate,  a  system  upset occurs which causes discharge of ash transport
water.  Such upsets do occur in most systems from time to time, but do
not constitute normal operating procedure.  Plant  4813  has  settling
ponds  backing  up  the  hydrobins.   Bottom ash can be sent to either
system.  One pond serves as a recycle tank  from  which  recirculating
sluice water is drawn.

Plant  1811  uses a ponding system to separate the bottom ash from the
sluice water.  Once side of the settling pond is  wide  and  gradually
inclined.   The  ash  is  sluiced  to  this  open area where the heavy
material forms a pile.  The sluice water drains into a final  settling
                                374

-------
                                              Table VII-25

                          DATA  SUMMARY  OF  PLANTS  REPORTING ZERO DISCHARGE OF
                                      BOTTOM  ASH  TRANSPORT WATER
     Plant
     Code   Location

     2903   Missouri
      2705   Minnesota
Ul
     2413   Maryland
     4813   Texas
Fuel

Bituminous
(13.8% ash)
Subbituminous
(9% ash)
Bituminous
(14.6% ash)
Lignite
(10.4% ash)
Boiler Type  Ash Handling Systems
Pulverized-
Dry Bottom
Pulverized-
Dry Bottom
Pulverized-
Dry Bottom
Pulverized-
Dry Bottom
Fly Ash can be either
dry transported to
silo (for sale) or
or sluiced to pond
Bottom Ash is sluiced
to pond and water is
recycled

Fly Ash removed in
wet scrubber
Bottom Ash is sluiced
to pond and some
of sluice water is
recycled

Dry Fly ash handling
Bottom ash sluiced  to
hydrobins overflow  to
surge tank and
recycled

Dry Fly ash handling
Bottom ash sluiced
either to hydrobins or
primary settling ponds
all sluice water is
recycled
Comments

Not all sluice
water is recy-
cycled some is
discharged to
a river
The Bottom Ash
Sluice water
not recycled
serves as
scrubber makeup
Not all the
sluice water is
recycled some
reaches, central
treatment plant

Zero discharge
of bottom ash
sluice water

-------
                                       Table VII-25 (Continued)

                          DATA SUIMARY OF PLANTS REPORTING ZERO DISCHARGE OF
                                      BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER
     Plant
     Code   Location

     5102  Virginia
                    Fuel
u>
     4230  Pennsylvania  Bituminous
                         (10% ash)
Boiler Type  Ash Handling Systems
                    Bituminous     Pulverized-
                    (17.8% ash)    Dry  Bottom
4229  Pennsylvania  Bituminous     Pulverized-
                    (11.5% ash)    Dry Bottom
                                   Pulverized-
                                   Dry  Bottom
     2901   Missouri
                    Subbituminous  Pulverized-
                    (25% ash)      Wet Bottom
               Dry Fly ash handling
               Bottom ash is sluiced
               to a pond and all pond
               water is recycled
               Dry Fly ash handling
               Bottom ash is sluiced
               to a pond some of the
               water is recycled

               Wet Fly ash handling
               with recirculation of
               water
               Bottom ash sluiced to
               a pond, some of the
               water is recylced

               Fly ash is sluiced to
               settling pond water is
               recycled
               Bottom ash is sluiced
               to settling pond and
               water is recycled
Comments

Drains carrying
discharges from
ash hoppers and
pumps go to
central treat
ment facility
and are
discharged

Not a zero dis-
charge facility
Not a zero dis-
charge system
facility, ash
transport water
goes to treat-
ment facility

Combined ash
pond, all water
is recycled-
zero discharge
of ash trans-
port water

-------
                                  Table VII-25 (Continued)

                     DATA SUMMARY OF PLANTS REPORTING ZERO DISCHARGE OF
                                 BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER
Plant
Code   Location

3203   Nevada
1811
Indiana
1809   Indiana
3626   New York
             Fuel

             Bituminous
             (9.69% ahs)
Bituminous
(11.54% ash)
             Bituminous
             (13.721 ash)
             Bituminous
             (17.7% ash)
               Boiler Type  Ash Handling Systems
               Pulverized-
               Dry Bottom
Cyclone-
Wet Bottom
               Cy clone-
               Wet Bottom
               Pulverized-
               Dry Bottom
               Dry Fly ash handling
               Bottom ash is sluiced
               to dewatering bins and
               water is recycled
- Dry Fly ash handling
- Bottom ash is sluiced
  to a pond, water is
  recycled recycled
               Fly ash is wet sluiced
               to ponds overflow goes
               to recycle
               Bottom ash is wet
               sluiced to holding
               pond overflow to
               recycle
               Dry Fly ash handling
               Bottom ash wet sluiced
               to hydrobins, overflow
               to surge tank and
               recycled
Comments

Slowdown from
bottom ash
sluicing system
goes to evap.
ponds

Zero discharge
design however
blowdown is
removed at times
when water
balance problems
occur

Recycle serves
both fly ash and
bottom ash
sluicing opera-
tions, zero dis-
charges except
under upset
conditions

Some water is
discharged due
to water balance
problems

-------
                                      Table VII-25 (Continued)

                          DATA SUMMARY OF PLANTS REPORTING ZERO DISCHARGE OF
                                      BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER
     Plant
     Code   Location

     2415   Maryland
     0822   Colorado
Fuel

Bituminous
(14.58% ash)
Bituminous
(10.661 ash)
Boiler Type  Ash Handling Systems
Pulverized-
Dry Bottom
Pulverized-
Dry Bottom
oo
Dry Fly ash handling
Bottom ash wet sluiced
some of water is
recycled
Dry Fly ash handling
Bottom ash is wet
sluiced to hydrobins
and overflow goes to
recycle basin
Comments

Not a zero dis-
charge plant,
sluiced water is
treated prior to
discharge

Slowdown from
sluice system is
sent to evapora-
tion pond

-------
pond at the base of the incline.  The recircul at ion  pumps  dtav> suction
from this pond.  All system drains and  leaks  are  sent  to this  pond.

Plants  2901  and  1809 sluice both fly ash and bottom ash.  These two
sluice waters' are ponded prior to recycle.  In both  cases,  the primary
settling ponds for fly ash and bottom ash  are  separate   ponds.    The
overflow  from  these  ponds  gravity   flows  to a final settling  pond.
Both plants are zero discharge designs.  Only under  upset  conditions
is  ash handling water discharged.  The plants are located in  Missouri
and Indiana and burn a subbituminous coal with 25 percent   ash and  a
bituminous  coal  with  13.7  percent   ash.   Both plants  have cyclone
boilers which give a bottom ash  to fly  ash ratio  of  90:10.

The remaining plants employ some continuous blowdown or discharge from
the recirculating bottom ash sluicing systems.  These  plants have very
low discharge rates but are not  zero discharge facilities.   Only  one
plant, 4429, was designed to be  zero discharge but was unable  to  close
the  water balance due to problems in accurately  monitoring the makeup
water requirement.  An additional plant, 2750,  was  not intended  to be
a closed-loop bottom ash system  since the  scrubber  makeup  is  drawn
from  the  recycle  tank.   If   the scrubber  loop can  be operated in a
closed-loop or zero discharge mode, this plant could be considered  a
zero discharge facility from the standpoint of ash handling.  It  could
not,   however,  be  representative  of achievable  complete   recycle
technology for bottom ash handling.

Each plant contact was asked if  any scaling or corrosion problems  had
resulted  from  the recirculation mode  of operations.  . Only one plant,
2750, indicated that scaling in  the  recirculation .line   might,  be  a
problem.   No such problems have been encountered however.   The plants
in the survey produce both alkaline ash and  acid  ash covering  the
range of. chemical properties of  ash .handling  waters,

Trlg.:Jgejggrts.'   Four  plants  were  visited'   to confirm the bottom ash
handling practices as. zero discharge.   Only two   of  the   four plants
were  true  zero  discharge  plants:    3203 and 0822.   In  both cases a
blowdown from the bottom ash sluicing systems (with  dewatering.  bins)
was observed? however, this blowdown was directed to evaporation  ponds
on  plant  property.   The  purpose  of the  blowdown  was  primarily to
maintain a steady-state water balance.   The remaining  two  plants, 1811
and 1809, were confirmed as  having  discharges   and  were  considered
partial recycle plants.

Abridged  versions  of the trip  reports for these plants are contained
in this subsection.  A,description of the bottom  ash handling   system,
a discussion  of retrofitting problems, a discussion  of operating and
maintenance problems, and a .presentation of sampling and  analysis work
are provided for  each plant.

Plant 3203.  This plant  is a 340-MW western bituminous  coal-   burning
facility  that  uses  a  dewatering  bin (United  Conveyor  Corporation)
bottom ash sluice recycle system with a series  of  evaporation  ponds.
The  plant   fires  a  moderately low-sulfur  coal  (average  0.6  percent)
                                 379

-------
with  an  average  ash  content  of  12  percent  and  fluctuation  to
approximately  16  percent ash.  The availability of the three boilers
has historically averaged 86 percent annually.  Water comes  from  two
sources.  During the summer, water is pumped from wells and during the
winter,  from  a nearby river.  The water is pumped to a reservoir for
holding and then to the  three  cooling  towers.   Slowdown  from  the
cooling towers accumulates in a storage tank.  Water from this storage
tank  then  feeds  the  three  S02 scrubbers as well as the bottom ash
sluicing system.  The bottom ash storage tank receives water from  the
cooling tower blowdown storage tank and from the plant drain sump; the
drain sump receives water from the area drains and boiler blowdown.  A
generalized  flow  diagram  appears  in figure VII-42, which shows the
major equipment and associated typical flow rates.

The bottom ash sluicing system was designed and  installed  by  United
Conveyor  Corporation.   It  was  retrofitted to Units 1 and 2 and was
installed along with Unit 3.  The system was designed  for  7  percent
ash  coal with capacity to handle a fourth unit, which was to be built
at a  later  date.   The  bottom  ash  handling  system  is  currently
operating  at  a  greater-than-rated  capacity due to the higher-than-
average ash coal being burned in the three units.

The general flow scheme for this bottom ash recycle system is shown  in
figure VI1-43.  The bottom ash handling system processes approximately
77 tons per day of bottom ash as well as 1 ton per day  of  economizer
ash  for  all three units combined.  The bottom ash is pumped from the
hoppers to the dewatering bins for approximately 4 hours per day,  the
economizer ash for 1 hour each day.  It takes approximately 6 hours  to
dewater  the bottom,ash in the bin to yield an ash moisture content  of
about 20 percent  to  50  percent.   Approximately,  one  truckload   of
dewatered  bottom  ash  is hauled to the onsite disposal area per day.
The number of loads per month varies from 30 to 40.  The disposal area
is 1 mile from the plant.  The hauling and placement  of  the  ash   is
contracted to an outside firm.

The  major equipment for the bottom ash recycle system was bought,from
and installed by United Conveyor Corporation.  The dewatering bins are
30 feet in diameter, with 5,000 cubic feet  per  bin.   Two  bins  are
used*  one dewaters ash, while the other fills with ash.  The drained-
off water from the bins flows by gravity to a settling tank of 50 feet
in  diameter  and  a  capacity  of  145,000 gallons.  Sludge pumps are
provided beneath the settling tank to pump  any  settled  solids  back
into  the  top  of the settling tank.  Overflow from the settling tank
drains  into the surge  (or storage) tank, which  is of the same diameter
and capacity as the  settling  tank.   The  surge  tank   is  operated,
however,  at  19,108  cubic  feet,  or  135,000 gallons.  Sludge  pumps
beneath the surge tank pump any settled solids back  into  the  settling
tank.   From  the  surge  tank, water is pumped back to the bottom ash
hoppers for subsequent sluicing.  A jet pump provides the pressure for
transporting the ash to the dewatering bins.  The  length  of pipe  from
the  bottom ash hopper to the dewatering bin  is approximately 500 feet
for Unit 3 and,100 feet from Units 1 and 2.   The  pipe  diameter  for
this  system  is  typically 10  inches with  a discharge pressure  of  200
                                 380

-------
                                                                 Te Scrubber
                                                                 Settling tad
   fTOB Sh«
mils atsd river
                                                      (1 con per day of ash)
                                                       9>"To Dose Conditioners
                      Bonea Aah & Seaoaoixar
To Bvmporacion Pond*
50-100 gpn
                          Figure VII-42

             WATER FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PLANT 3203
                                 381

-------
LO
00
    To Fjly Ash
    Conditioner"
    To Evapora-
    tion FOB
                                 Froa Cooling Tower
                                Slowdown Storage Tank
                                                        From Jlant
                                                        Drain Sump
                                          «Sample |2
                                           Settling Tank
                                           Overflow
                            Recycle
                            Water     \Storage
                                                         Slu dee
                                                         fro
                                                 Sludge  Settlln
                                                 Pun»P    Tank
          Storage
          Tank
Units
1,2,3
                 Dewatered
                 Bottom Ash
                 to Disposal
Sludge to
Bump
                                              Economizer
             —i
            I   I Ash Hopper
            V
                                            Bottom Ash Sluice Water
                                            (1,250,000 gpd)
                               Overflown to
                             Plant Drain Sump
            Sample Location
                                                  Figure VII-43
                                   BOTTOM ASH RECYCLE SYSTEM AT  PLANT  3203

-------
psi.  The land area devoted to the dewatering bins, settling  tank,  and
surge tank is approximately one acre; this does not include   the  pump
house  or  pipe.rack.  The bottom ash is trucked to a  200-acre, onsite
landfill area.  Side streams are taken  from  the  bottom  ash  sluice
lines  which  feed  the  fly  ash dust conditioning nozzles and from  a
purge stream  to  the  evaporator  ponds.   The  purge  flow  rate   is
continuous and varies from approximately 50 to 100 gpm.

The  maintenance  of  the  sluicing  system  has  been  nominal   since
installation in 1975.  No chemical testing  for  scaling species  has
been  done and no scaling has been observed to the extent of  producing
a malfunction in equipment or line pluggage.  Some minor corrosion  on
valves  has occurred and some pump repair has been needed due to  minor
erosion.

There is a problem with solids plugging the  bottom  of  the  settling
tank.   This  is due to several inherent design aspects  of the system.
The settling tank is not designed to remove large amounts  of sludge.
In  this  system, the plant drain sump discharges to the settling tank
as well as the sludge from the surge tank.  Adding to  the  problem   is
the  fact  that  the  system  was  designed to remove  less ash than is
currently being generated.  : Generation  of  fines  is  indigenous   to
western  bituminous  coal ash. These fines can plug the  dewatering  bin
screens and overflow into the settling  tank.   A  platform   has  been
built  over  the  settling  tank to provide access for air lancing  the
solids in order to prevent sludge pump plugging.   The  settling  tank
sludge  pumping capacity is to be doubled in the future  to help reduce
the load on the current pumps.

The entire bottom ash system requires two men per day  for  maintenance
and one man per shift each day for operation of the system.

The  motivation  for  retrofitting the bottom ash recycle system  was  a
general water shortage problem associated with both wet  once- through
bottom  ash  and fly ash handling systems.  At the time  the bottom  ash
recycle system was installed, a pressure dry fly ash   handling  system
and  a  third unit were also installed.  Scaling .problems tended  to be
more prevalent in the wet once-through  system  than   in the current
bottom ash sluice recycle system.  Some of the wet once-through system
piping was reused in the installation, of the new bottom  ash system.   A
2-week  outage  for  Units  1 and 2 occurred when the  retrofit systems
were  installed  and  major  pipe  rerouting  was   done.     It   took
approximately  a  year  to debug the fly ash and bottom  ash systems as
well as the new Unit 3.     ' .

Samples were taken ,at three different  locations  in   the  bottom  ash
sluicing system.  These locations are shown in the bottom ash sluicing
system diagram in figure VII-43 and are described as follows:

1.   A sample was taken of a stream of water leaking through  the  slide
gate at the bottom of the dewatering bins,
                                 383

-------
2.  A sample was taken of the recycle system  makeup  water  from  the
cooling tower blowdown tank, and

3.   A  sample was taken at the recirculation pump which pumps the ash
transport water back to the bottom ash hoppers.

These samples provide an  indication  of  the  trace  elements,  major
species,  and  carbon  dioxide content of transport streams before and
after dewatering of the bottom ash and of  the  makeup  water  to  the
system.   The  trace  elements  which  were quantified include silver,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel,  lead,
antimony,  selenium,  thallium, and zinc.  Other metal elements  (major
species) were magnesium, calcium, and  sodium.   The  non-metal  major
species  quantified  were  phosphate, sulfate, chloride, silicate, and
carbon dioxide.  The results of the analyses are presented  in   tables
VII-26 and VII-27.

Of the three samples taken, the cooling tower blowdown had the highest
concentrations in arsenic, magnesium, sulfates, and silicates.   The pH
of  this  stream  was  8.2, and the temperature was 96 F.  Dilution of
this stream in the surge tank  with  the  plant  drain  sump  effluent
resulted  in lower concentrations of these species.  Species which had
the highest concentrations at the recirculation pump, i.e., downstream
from the surge tank, were phosphates, chlorides, carbon dioxide, zinc,
and sodium. The pH of this stream was 8.2, and the temperature was 126
F.  The third sample was taken from a leak beneath the dewatering  bin
during  an ash dewatering mode of operation.  The pH of this water was
10.4, and the temperature was ambient, 106 F.  The significant species
in this sample relative to the other two samples  were  copper,  lead,
and calcium.

On  the basis of the sampling results and the subsequent analyses, EPA
assessed the potential for precipitation of certain species  by  using
an  aqueous  equilibrium  computer  program.   The  results  from this
assessment indicated  that  the  calcium  carbonate  species  has  the
greatest   potential   for  precipitation  in  the  leakage  from  the
dewatering bin sample.  The  next  greatest  potential  for  the same
species was in the cooling tower blowdown. The lowest potential  was in
the recycle stream prior to the recirculation pump.  In this case, the
maximum precipitation potential occurred in the stream in contact with
the coal ash for the greatest period of time.

In  conclusion,  a  closed-loop bottom ash system  is feasible at Plant
7281 by  using  discharge  to  an  evaporation  pond.   The  technical
problems  associated with the equipment in the closed-loop system were
of a reconciliable design  nature.   The  only  significant  equipment
problem  exists  because  the settling tank was designed to handle all
the overflow fines from the dewatering bins.  More modern systems pipe
these overflow fines  back  to  dewatering  bins.   Chemically,  there
seemed  to  be  no  major  cycling of trace elements and major species
concentrations as a result of the closed-loop operation.  It  appears,
however,  that  the concentration of copper increases as a consequence
of sluice water being in contact with the coal ash.  Contact w.ith  the
                                384

-------
                           Table VII-26
               TRACE ELEMENTS/PRIORITY POLLUTANTS1
                   CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT  3203
                              (ug/1)
                    Cooling Tower    Leakage  from
                     Slowdown      Dewatering Bin
pH
Temp. (°F)
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
  8.20
 96

 71
 <0.52
 <0.5
 15
 21
 <2
 <0.5
 <3
  8
  5"  -.

160
                                        1 0 .40
                                   <0.5
                                       <0.5
                                       24
                                       49
                                       <2
                                       <0.5
                                        4

                                       <2

                                       40
 Recirculation
    Pump	
     8.20
    96

    26
<0.5
      i.5
    19
     5
    <2

    <3
     5
    <2

    40
^.5
     analyses were done for each sample  speciesj  the results
are. given as the average for each  element.
2<,5 refers to the fact that the measured concentration was
 less than 0.5  g/1, which is the  detection  limit for this
 species.
NOTE:  All concentrations reflect  dissolved  as opposed to total
       concentrations.
                                385

-------
                           Table VII-27

           MAJOR SPECIES  CONCENTRATION1  AT PLANT 3203

                                          ;V        -»-;.
                               (mg/1)


                    Cooling Tower    Leakage from    Recirculation

Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Phosphate^
Sulfate
Chloride
Silicate
Carbonate
Blowdown
395
190
645
0.40
2546
394
181
2520
Dewatering Bin
505
1
780
0,06
1773
601
27
60
Pump
310
105
770
2.30
1786
622
92
2760
     analyses were done for each  sample  for  Ca,  Mg,  Na;  the
 results are given as an aveage of  the  two values.

2A11 species except Ca, Mg, Na, were  analyzed  only  oncej  one
 number is reported for each  sample species.

NOTE:  All concentrations reflect dissolved  as opposed to total
       concentrations«
                                386

-------
coal ash also increased the concentrations of calcium and sodium.   The
potential  for  precipitation  of  CaCo3  exists  in all three sampled
streams based on the  scaling  tendency  calculations.   The  greatest
potential  exists  in  the  sluice  water in the dewatering bin.  This
means that increased recycle or continuous operation  of  the  current
system  can  cause  scale formation on pipes thereby reducing the flow
rate in the pipes.

Plant 0822.  This plant is a 447 MW coal-fired powerplant  located   in
northwestern  Colorado.   The  plant  consists  of  two units:  Unit 1
completed  in 1965 and Unit 2 in 1976.   The  facility  is  a  baseload
plant using cooling towers for condenser heat dissipation, dry fly  ash
transport, and a zero discharge bottom ash sluicing system.  The plant
burns  a   bituminous  coal  from  USBM Coal District 17,  The plant is
sufficiently close to the coal mine (nine miles) to  be  considered  a
mine-mouth  operation.  Plant water is drawn from a nearby river.   The
facility utilizes  an  RCC  vapor  compression  distillation  unit   to
recover  recycleable  water  from  cooling  tower blowdown.  All final
wastewaters are ultimately handled by an evaporation pond.  A  general
description  along  with  a flow diagram (figure .VI1-23'} of this plant
has been provided in the fly ash subsection.

The flow scheme for the bottom ash sluice  system  is  illustrated   in
figure .VII-44.   Bottom  ash  from the boiler  is jetted tp one of  two
United Conveyor dewatering bins (one bin is  in  operation  while   the
other  is  being drained).  The overflow from the dewatering bin flows
by gravity to a solids settling tank.  Sludge   from  the  settled   ash
material   is  pumped  back  to  the  hydrobin.   The overflow from  the
settling tank flows to the surge tank and then  to the two  centrifugal
pumps  which  supply  water to the ash jet pumps.  Makeup water, which
consists of cooling tower blowdown and some plant raw water, is  added
to  two  ash water storage tanks.  The makeup: water  is directed either
to the surge tank or to the high-  and  low-pressure  ash  water  pump
suction  headers.  Under normal operation, the  ash water makeup equals
the water  retained by the bottom ash after dewatering, the water  used
for  wetting  fly  ash  prior  to  unloading  and  small  losses  from
evaporation in the bottom ash hopper.  Any solids which settle to   the
bottom  of the surge tank are pumped as sludge back to the dewatering
b i ns.

Once the dewatering bin fills with bottom ash,  the bottom  ash  sluice
is  switched  to the other bin.  The filled bin is then drained of  the
sluice water.  When the bottom ash is  sufficiently  dewatered   (after
about 8 hours), it is dumped into an open truck and  hauled to the mine
for disposal.  The sluice water makeup from the cooling tower blowdown
is treated with a scale inhibitor (NALCO).  The cooling towers operate
between 8  and 10 cycles of concentration with a dissolved solids  level
of  1,200 mg/1.

The  current bottom ash sluice system was designed as a part of Unit 2.
Thus,  for Unit 2, the system is an original design while for Unit 1,
it  is a retrofit.  Prior to the construction of the  current system   in
1975, the  plant used a once-through sluice operation  in which both  fly
                                 387

-------
Ui
00
03
                                                                          (2) 2GO,000-g*lloi» *alt water itong*
                                                                 fr«w         tank* (cooling tower blowdoun)
                                                                 Cooling
                                                                                                    (2} centrifugal £ran«fer
                                                                                                        PU»P8, 1500 (MB,
                                                                                                        48' bead, 25 lip drive
                                     ¥     v
                                        Devttercd
                                        Bottom Aeh to
                                        Disposal
                                                                   To Ash S nidge
                                                                    Drain Suap
         Quantity of Bottom A»bl  Coal   3,000" tons/day
                                101 Aolt - 500 ton/day and
                                         101 Oottoa Aali -- SO tons/day
                                                                                                   •louilaun fco
                                                                                                Evaporation Fond
High
preaaura
ccatrt-  "
tugsl
feclrcu-
Intlon
                                                                                                                  3000 gp
                                                                                                                  7)0' be
                                                                                                                  TOO lip
                                                                                                                   drlv«
                                                              Figure  VII-44
                                          BOTTOM  ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FOR  PLANT 0822

-------
ash  and bottom ash were sluiced to a pond.  The solids resulting  from
these operations have since been removed and disposed of at  the  mine.
The pond now serves as a water storage pond to be used in  the  event of
drought conditions.
                        j,                                           •  ' •
The  bottom, ash  handling  system  supplier  for plant 0822 is United
Conveyor Corporation.   The  following  discussion  provides  specific
information concerning the major equipment for the bottom  ash  handling
system.

Two  ash water storage tanks hold the makeup water to the  ash  handling
system.  These tanks have volumes of 200/000 gallons each.   High  and
low  water  level switches are used to control the water level  in these
tanks.

Two Bingham horizontal end suction, back  pullout,  centrifugal  pumps
each  rated  at  150  gpm, 48 feet head are driven by 25 HP, 1,200 rpm
Westinghouse motors.  These pumps supply water to the surge  tank   from
the  ash water storage tanks and are automatically controlled  by surge
tank hi-low level switches.

Two high pressure pumps supply recirculation water to the  jet  pumps at
the bottom  ash hoppers from the surge tank.  These pumps   are  Bingham
horizontal,  single  stage,  axially split, double suction centrifugal
pumps each  rated at 3,000 gpm, 730 feet head and are driven  by 700 hp,
3,600 rpm Reliance motors.  Start-stop control switches are  located on
the bottom  ash panel.
                       ;                                             • .
Three low pressure ash water pumps supply ash  water  from  the  surge
tank  at a  pressure of approximately 50 psig to the surge  and  settling
tanks for sludge removal and flushing, and to the  bottom  ash hopper
for  fill,  seals,  flushing, i and  overflow  supply.  These pumps are
Bingham horizontal end suction, back pullout, single stage centrifugal
pumps each  rated at 1,000 gpm, 130 feet head and are driven  by 50  hp,
1,800  rpm  Westinghouse motors.  Automatic controls are located on the
bottom ash  panel and manual controls are locally placed.

The "jetpulsion" pumps are jet  pumps  located  beneath   the  cylinder
grinders.   These  pumps  create the force necessary to convey the ash
and water to the dewatering bins.  Water for the "jetpulsion"  pumps  is
supplied by the high pressure ash water pumps.  These   jet  pumps  are
controlled  on  and  off  by  associated  two-way  rotary  sluice gates
located in  the discharge  line of each  pump.   The  sluice  gates  are
solenoid  operated  from  the  bottom  ash control panel  by  OPEN-CLOSE
switches.

Each of the two dewatering bins  is designed  to provide  a   net  storage
volume  of  12,700   cubic  feet  or  approximately 48 hours  bottom ash
storage capacity with both 1 and 2 at full  load.  Also,   each  bin  is
fitted  with  a  12  kw   chromolox  electric  heater  and an ash  level
detector which activates  an alarm and a   light  on  the   control   room
panel  when maximum ash  level is reached.   At this point  the  conveyor
                                 389

-------
is stopped, the  diverting  gates  are  switched,  and  the  conveying
operation is then restarted by an operator.

Separate  settling  and  water surge tanks are provided to recover the
ash water used in  the  handling  of  bottom  ash  and  pyrites.   The
settling  tank  is  sized  to  provide  flow-through  water velocities
sufficiently low to precipitate most particulate  matter  larger  than
100  microns.   Sufficient  volume  is  provided  in the surge tank  to
absorb the severe imbalance between input and output flows that  occur
when  the  system  progresses through the ash transport and dewatering
cycle.

The manpower increase due to the retrofitted ash handling  systems   is
15.  This number includes both fly ash and bottom ash systems for both
maintenance and operation.

The  maintenance  problems  with  the  bottom  ash handling system are
nominal.  The most frequently recurring problem is the erosion of  the
impellers and casings of the high pressure recirculation pumps.  There
are  no  problems  with fines in the operation of the dewatering bins,
e.g., screen plugging or  overflow  into  the  settling  tank  causing
plugging of the sludge pumps.  Some problems arose in retrofitting the
bottom  ash  system;  the  usual  pipe rerouting, use of old pipe, and
outage time were required for the system installation.

Samples were taken at three different  locations  in  the  bottom  ash
sluicing system.  These locations were:

1.   A  sample  was taken of the system-makeup stream from the cooling
tower blowdown water,

2.  A sample was taken of the settling  tank  overflow  to  the  surge
tank, and

3.  A sample was taken from the surge tank.

These  samples  provide  an  indication  of  the trace elements, major
species, and carbon dioxide content of transport  streams  before  and
after  the  surge  tank, and of makeup water to the system.  The trace
elements which were  analysed   include  silver,  arsenic,  beryllium,
cadmium,  chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony, selenium,
thallium, and  zinc. . The  major  species  analyzed  were  magnesium,
calcium,  sodium,  phosphate,  sulfate, chloride, silicate, and carbon
dioxide.  The results of these analyses are reported  in tables  VII-28
and VI1-29.

The  sampling  results  indicate  that the contact of the sluice water
with the bottom ash,  as  reflected  in  the  settling  tank  overflow
species   values  relative  to  the  other  two  streams,  raises  the
concentrations of some species.  The trace elements,  which   increased
due  to ash contact are silver, cadmium, chromi'um, selenium, and zinc.
For the major species,  an  increase  in   carbonate   concentration   is
reflected  in  the  carbon dioxide values.  Decreases in concentration
                                390

-------
                          Table VII-28

     TRACE ELEMENTS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATIONS1.2
                          AT PLANT 0822             .
                   Cooling Tower
                    Slowdown
Settling Tank
 Overflow
Surge Tank

    6.7

  126.0



    3.0

   <0.5

   <0.5

   <2.0

   15.0

   <0.2

   <0.5

   <3.0

    5.0

    6.0



  410
    trace element analyses were done in duplicate; the two
values were averaged.
All concentrations are for the dissolved, not total,
concentration.
The value <0.5 indicates that the concentration was below the
detection limit which in this case is 0.5 ppb for beryllium.
pH
Temp. (°F)
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
8.0
89.0
<0.1
49 .0
<0.53
<0 .5
<2.0
47.0
<0.2
<0.5
<3.0
<1 .0
<2.0
<1 .0
95
6.3
130.0
0.4
3.0
<0.5
2.0
10.0
8.0
<0.2
<0.5
<3.0
<1 .0
5.0
<1 .0
145
                               391

-------
Calcium
Magnes ium
Sodium
Phosphate (P04>
Sulfate (804)
Chloride (C1-)
Silicate (Si02)
Carbonate
                           Table VII-29
                 MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS1*2
                           AT PLANT 0822
                              (mg/1)
Cooling Tower
 Slowdown
    365
    120
    210
      3.3
   1215
    211
     57
     60
Settling Tank
 Overflow
   365
    92
   145
     0.17
  1203
   112
    36
   120
Surge Tank
   370
    90
   150
     0.09
  1165
   125
    35
   360
1Ca, Mg, Na were analyzed in duplicate; values are averages.
2A11 values reflect dissolved, not total, concentrations.
                                392

-------
from the makeup source to the recycle loop are  observed  for  arsenic
and  copper  and  for magnesium, sodium, chloride, and silicate, which
indicates that a cycling effect does not  exist   in  this  system  for
these species.

On  the  basis  of  the  sampling  analyses, the  Agency determined the
tendencies for scaling for various species in the makeup  and  recycle
streams  by  using  an  aqueous  equilibrium  program.   The amount of
scaling which may actually exist is contingent upon the amount of  the
species  present  and  any  other  inhibitor  additives  which  may be
present.  Only one sample species represented any driving  force  for
precipitation.   This species was CaC03 for the cooling tower blowdown
makeup water stream.

In  summary,  this  plant  has  achieved  zero  discharge   by   using
evaporation  ponds.   No significant mechanical problems have occurred
since the installation of this bottom  ash  system  in  1974,  and  no
significant   problems   arose   during  the  retrofitting  procedure.
Chemically, some increase in trace  element  priority  pollutants  and
major species concentrations has been observed due to contact with the
ash.   The  potential  exists  for  scaling  CuCo3  in the makup water
stream.  However, neither scaling nor corrosion has, been a problem  in
the operation of this system.

Plant  1811.  This plant is a 615-MW electric power generating station
located in Northern Indiana.   The  plant  uses   a  wet  recirculating
ponding  system  to  handle  bottom ash.  This ash is generated by two
cyclone-type boilers of 194 and 422 MW each.  The coal ash content  is
10 to 12 percent with 11 percent as the average.  This bituminous coal
is obtained from Bureau of Mines Coal Districts 10 and 11.  The bottom
ash  sluicing recycle system was retrofitted in the early 1970's.  The
dry fly ash handling system was retrofitted early in  1979.   Both  of
these   systems   were  designed  and   installed  by  United  Conveyor
Corporation.

The bottom ash sluicing  system  is  characterized  by  a  bottom  ash
storage area, a series of settling ponds, and a recirculation or final
pond.   Figure  VII-45 presents the sluice system flow diagram for the
plant.  Only one  primary  and  one  secondary  pond  is  used  during
operation  of the sluicing system.  The sluice lines  shown, other than
the bottom ash sluice, are used to transport sump water to the  ponds.
Also,  the  discharge from a package sewage treatment facility  is sent
to the primary settling pond;

The hydroveyor line, which was  used to  sluice fly ash to the ponds,  is
used as a backup to the normal  ash  sluice  pipes.    The  main  sluice
pumps  for  the bottom ash are  jet pumps which discharge at a pressure
of 230 psig at the  runoff area.  The larger unit  8  has  two  10   inch
sluice  lines  (including one spare) which transport the ash one-quarter
of a mile to  the slag runoff area.  The smaller unit  7 has one  10  inch
sluice   line.   The  flow rate  used to  transport  the  bottom ash to the
runoff  area is approximately 2  MGD.  The ash  is sluiced  for  1   to   2
hours  each shift  (depending on the load) with  10 minutes of  flushing
                                 393

-------
LO
                              'Sample 3
                          Recycle
                          Pump
                          (260 pal)
                                               First
Forebay
(clear
oond)




secondary
Pond

Second
Secondary
Pond

                  r~^
 Sewage
Treatment
Discharge
  Line
                                                      (Unit
                                                                 (Old Hydroveyor Sluice \
                                                                   Lines Cor Fly Aeh  /
                                                                                                              Bottom
                                                                                                              Ash
                                                                                                              Sluice
                                                                                                              (1.99 mgpd)
                                                                                                           Lake Michigan
                                                                                                           Makeup
                                                Reclrculatlon Lines (2-16" lines)
                Discharge/Hi Level
                (Flow Rate Unknown)
                       A Sample location
                                                           Figure VII-45
                                    PLANT 1811  FLOW  DIAGRAM FOR  BOTTOM ASH HANDLING

-------
before and 15 to 20 minutes afterwards.  The surface areas of the two,
primary settling ponds are 4.2 acres (182,900  feet2)  and  4.4  acres
(192,200  feet2).  The areas of the two secondary ponds are 2.09 acres
and 3.66 acres.  The forebay or final pond has an area  of  0.1  acres
(5,188  feet2).   Three  centrifugal  pumps are located at the forebay
which are used to recirculate the sluice water back to the bottom  ash
pump  (a  distance  of  1/2  mile)  as well as the general plant water
system through one of two existing lines (16 inches diameter).   These
recirculation  pumps  supply  sluice water to the bottom ash pump at a
discharge pressure of 260 psig.  A single pipe exists   downstream  of
the  forebay  recirculation  pumps  which  allows for the discharge of
sluice  water  from  the  recirculating  system.   This  discharge  is
initiated during upset conditions but is under complete control of the
plant  operators.   This discharge is estimated to occur 2 days out of
7.  The water is transported to  Lake  Michigan.   Since  this  occurs
intermittently, the flow rate was difficult to quantify.  Makeup water
to  the  bottom  ash  sluicing  system enters the system at the sluice
pumps from Lake Michigan.  Makeup water is required  because  of  pond
evaporation,  pond  percolation,  and  water  losses by removal of wet
bottom ash.  The amount of ash handled  by  the  bottom  ash  sluicing
system  was  estimated  by  1978  FPC  figures  given  by  Plant  1811
personnel.

In 1978, the amount of bottom ash  collected  was  72,200  tons.   The
operating  and maintenance cost associated with the sluicing operation
was $67,300 for 1978.  The hauling and disposal of the bottom  ash  at
the  landfill  site was contracted out and cost $86,900 in 1978.  Some
of the bottom ash was sold which yielded $11,400.

Operating problems associated with  the  sluice  system  are  nominal.
Occasional  broken  lines  and  ruptured  slag  pumps require periodic
maintenance, but this  is  considered  normal.   One  major  operating
problem  is pond sluice water percolation.  The ponds are located at a
higher elevation than a nearby plant and national park.   These  ponds
are  not sealed and the sluice water seeps into offsite water systems.
The amount of percolation  increases  during  periods  of  high  water
levels in the pond.  Future plants are expecting to build a lined pond
to prevent this percolation.

The  operating manpower required to run the sluicing system is one man
part-time in the control room  each  shift  and  one  man  part-  time
monitoring  the  slag  sluicing operation.  This requirement totals to
one man full-time for equipment maintenance.  Most  heavy  maintenance
work is done during planned outages.

The  recycle  portion  of  the  sluice  system,  i.e., the forebay and
recycle line~T was retrofitted  in the early-1970's as  a  result  of  a
decision  to  collect all process waters at one location.  No problems
were incurred due to the retrofit of the system.

Samples were taken at three different  locations  in  the  bottom  ash
sluicing system.  These  locations, which are designated in figure VII-
45, are:
                                 395

-------
1.  the bottom ash discharge point,

2.  the primary pond overflow, and

3.  the forebay outfall.

These  samples  were  taken  to provide  an  indication  of  the  levels  of
trace elements and major species  in  the  recirculating/sluicing  system.
The trace elements assayed were silver,  arsenic,   beryllium,  cadmium,
.chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead,  antimony,  selenium,  thallium,
and  zinc.  The major species "assayed were  magnesium,  calcium,  sodium,
phosphate, sulfate,  chloride,  silicate,   and   carbon dioxide.   The
results of, these analyses are reported in tables VII-30 and VII-31.

The sampling results are inconclusive.   Most  of  the concentrations are
low,  except  for  the  sulfate   and zinc.   There  is essentially  no
indication of an effect on trace  metal concentrations  due to  contact
of the sluice water with the ash.

On  the  basis  of sampling results, EPA determined the tendencies for
scaling for various species in the recycle  streams by  using an  aqueous
equilibrium program.  The results of this analysis indicated  that the
potential  for scaling of four major species  was very  low in  all  three
sample streams.

The feasibility of zero discharge using  complete recycle  with  ponding
for  bottom  ash  cannot be confirmed by the  system used  at this  plant
because it requires intermittent  discharge  to maintain a   steady-state
water  balance  in  the  system/  however  there were  no  mechanical  or
chemical problems related to the  recycle operation.  The  problem  with
percolation could be alleviated by lining the existing ponds.

Plant 1809.  This plant is a 736  MW  electric  power generating station.
Four  boilers currently in operation burn bituminous coal which has  an
ash content of 10 to 12 percent.  The boilers are of  the wet  bottom
cyclone type and produce a relatively large amount of  bottom  ash  slag.
The  plant  utilizes a wet recirculating ponding -system to handle both
fly ash and bottom ash.  Water is obtained  from  a nearby  creek  for use
in the sluicing operation.  A flow diagram  of the ash  handling  system
appears in figure VII-35.

The  bottom ash sluicing system was  retrofitted  in 1974 along with the
fly ash sluicing  system  and  Unit  12, the  largest of the  steam
generators   (520  MW).   All  systems  were  designed and installed  by
Allen-Sherman-Hoff, retrofitted for  Units 4,  5,  and  6,   and  new for
Unit 12. The principal reasons for installing the ash  sluicing  recycle
system were the requirements of discharge regulations  and the decision
to collect and handle all process waters at one  location. The  fly ash
and  bottom  ash  is  produced  at a ratio  of 26 percent  fly  ash  to  74
percent bottom ash.   In 1978, approximately 48,600  tons   of  fly ash
were collected and 136,000 tons of bottom ash were collected.
                                 396

-------
                           Table VII-30
      TRACE ELEMENTS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATIONS1.2
                           AT PLANT 1811
                              (ug/1).
pH
Temp. (°F)
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Forebay
Outfall
6.5
77
<0 . 1 3
<1 .0

-------
                           Table VII-31
           MAJOR SPECIES POLLUTANTS  CONCENTRATIONS1
                           AT PLANT  1811
                              (mg/1)
Calcium
Magnesium
Soditm
Phosphate 
Sulfate (S04)
Chloride (Cl)
Silicate (Si02>
Carbonate (003)
Forebay
Outfall
69
14
40
<0.06
273
8
5
60
Primary Pond
Overflow
54
11
43
<0.06
241
8
<3
300
Bottom Ash
Discharge
74
19
36
<0.06
250
8
4
600
 Ca» Mg, Na were analyzed in duplicate;  the values  are
 averaged.
     values reflect dissolved, not  total,  concentrations.
                                398

-------
A  jet  pump  sluices the bottom ash from the slag  tanks  to  the bottom
ash runoff area.  Two 12-inch diameter pipes are used  to sluice   the
bottom  ash;  one from the Boiler 12 slag tank and  one from  Boilers 4,
5, and 6 slag tanks.   The  bottom  ash  sluice  water  flow  rate   is
approximately  3  MGD.   At t:he bottom ash runoff area, the  bottom  ash
slag is bulldozed into piles and  is  sold  'for  use  as   a  road   bed
aggregate.   The  runoff  area  is  composed  of  two  primary  ponds,
11,536,000 and 14,198,000 gallons capacity, and  one  small  secondary
pond.   Only  one  primary pond operates at a time.  The  bottom ash is
sluiced every 4 hours for 30 to  45  minutes.   The piping  used   for
conveying  the  bottom  ash  is  cast  iron in the  plant  area  and cast
basalt (Sch. 80) outside the plant area.  From the  secondary pond,  the
sluice water overflows into the final pond for recirculation  back   to
the jet pumps.

At  the  final  pond, facilities are available for  a discharge to Lake
Michigan.  These  facilities  consist  of  two  pipes  from  the main
conveying   lines   to   Lake  Michigan  for  intermittent  and upset
conditions.   The  discharge  is  actuated  by  gravity   overflow.    A
discharge  condition prevails when Unit 12 is operating.   Usually when
Units 4, 5, and 6 are operating and Unit 12  is  down,  the  discharge
condition does not exist.  The final pond also receives a large amount
of  water  from  the , miscellaneous  sump  system;  thus,  during heavy
rainfall periods, a discharge condition  often  exists.    Thus,  Plant
1809  is  not  strictly a zero discharge plant.  It does  provide for a
discharge  under  fairly  consistent  conditions  when  Unit   12    is
operating.    This  discharge  stream  was  not  quantified  by plant
personnel.  The discharge is not used to prevent scaling   of  the   ash
handling  components,  but  is used solely to remove the  surplus water
which accumulates.  This surplus water is .being considered for use   as
makeup to the cooling tower.

Operating  problems  associated  with  the  sluice  system are  nominal.
Occasional instances of  low  pH  have  caused  some  pipe  corrosion;
however,  lime  addition for pH adjustment has alleviated much of this
problem.  Scaling has historically not  been  a  maintenance  problem.
Suspended  solids have caused pump erosion problems on an intermittent
basis.  Currently, the creek is used as the makeup  water  source.  High
flow situations, e.g., after heavy rainfall, result in a  poor   quality
makeup water; also, incomplete bottom ash settling  caused some wear on
pumps.   Control  of final pond water flow and installation  of surface
booms for floating material  collection  has  mitigated   much   of   the
solids  problem.   The  piping  is rolled to maintain even wear on  all
inside sluicing surfaces.  This procedure is not  unusual.  One area
which  requires  significant  maintenance  is  the  sluicing  jets  and
recirculation pumps.  These pumps do not  have  spares  and  therefore
must  be  frequently  checked  and  maintained  so  as  not  to cause a
shutdown of the sluicing operation.

The primary ponds are cleaned annually and only one primary  pond   is
cleaned  per  year.   Ash hauling is contracted to  an outside  trucking
firm.
                                399

-------
The bottom ash is sold for commercial use, which provides a credit for
the ash.  According to  the  1978  FPC  data  provided  by  the  plant
personnel,  the cost for collection and disposal of the bottom ash was
$79,200 and the sale of the bottom ash provided a $29,900 credit.

The bottom ash ponding recycle sluicing  system  for  plant   1505  was
installed  in 1974.  At the same time the fly ash sluice water recycle
system and Unit 12 was installed.  Thus, the recycle  portion  of  the
pond  system  is  a retrofit system for units 4, 5, and 6.  The  reason
for retrofitting a recycle system, i.e., a final pond and return line,
was in part due to discharge regulations since the plant is bounded by
a National Park, a town, and Lake Michigan.  An additional motive  was
to  collect  all  discharge  streams  in  the  final  pond  for  common
treatment, if needed.

The retrofit of the recycle line did not enable the plant  to  achieve
zero   discharge   because   of  water  balance  problems •.    Water  is
accumulated especially when Unit 12 is operating.  The plant  is  in.  a
low   net   evaporation   climate.    When  the  plant  installed  the
recirculation system, the already-existing main sluicing jet  pumps and
the new recirculating pumps were not spared.   This  has  presented   a
maintenance  problem  and  a  need  for  redundancy  by  the  plant is
recognized.

The plant claims that it is difficult to  achieve  zero  discharge  by
retrofitting  a  recycle loop on a ponding system for two reasons:  it
is difficult to tie up all the streams into one collection point,  and
it  can  be  done  only if the already-existing systems can be totally
segregated.  There is also the effect on electricity generation  to  be
considered;  higher  auxiliary  power .requirements  reflect  lower net
power generation.  Plant 1809 personnel  indicate that  the  technology
to  retrofit  bottom  ash  systems  is  more  available  than that for
retrofitting fly ash recycle systems.  Cyclone boilers produce   mostly
bottom   ash;    however,  cyclones  are  no  longer  available  as   a
technology, primarily only way for plant 1809 to meet a zero  discharge
requirement  is  to  install  evaporators  which  would  increase  the
auxiliary power requirements.

Any new expansion of generating capabilities would have to be met with
pulverized  coal boilers.  No market for bottom ash from these boilers
has been found by plant 1809 personnel,  so   the  bottom  ash  handling
systems  would  have  to  be segregated.  Also, facilities to handle  a
larger percentage of fly ash would  be   installed  with  a  pulverized
unit.

Samples  were  taken  at  three  different  locations  in the bottom ash
sluicing system.  These locations are shown  in the bottom ash sluicing
system diagram in figure VII-35 and are  described  as  follows:

1.  A sample was taken of the miscellaneous  sump water,

2.  A sample was taken of the bottom ash pond overflow, and
                                400

-------
3.  A sample was taken of the recirculating water from the final pond.

These samples provide data on the trace element,  major  species,  and
carbon  dioxide content of transport streams at the settling ponds and
of the sump water before the ponds.  The trace elements  analyzed  for
were  silver,  arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,
nickel, lead, antimony,  selenium,  thallium,  and  zinc.   The  major
species  assayed  were calcium, magnesium, sodium, phosphate, sulfate,
chloride, silicate, and carbon dioxide.  The results of these analyses
are presented in tables VI1-32 and VI1-33.

Results from the sampling of trace elements  indicate  that  only  one
concentration  increased  due  to  exposure  to  the  bottom ash.  The
concentration of nickel in the bottom ash pond overflow is higher than
in the final pond effluent which serves as the  makeup  water  to  the
bottom ash sluicing system.

On the basis of this sampling and analysis, the tendencies for scaling
in  the  sluice streams were determined through an aqueous equilibrium
program.  Based on the aqueous equilibrium results, calcium  carbonate
theoretically  has  the  greatest  potential  for precipitation  in the
sluice water from the final pond; next greatest in the bottom ash pond
overflow, and the least potential in the  miscellaneous  sump  stream.
None of the streams indicated a high scaling potential.

The  feasibility  of  a closed-loop zero discharge operation cannot  be
established based on the information available from this  plant  since
there  is  fairly  continous  discharge.   This discharge is due to  an
inherent accumulation of  water  in  the  recyle  loop  under  certain
operating conditions.

LOW-VOLUME WASTES

One  treatment  technology applicable for the treatment of low-  volume
waste streams is vapor-compression evaporation  (VCE).   Although this
method  of   waste  treatment  is  energy intensive, it yields a high-
purity treated water stream and significantly reduces  the  wastewater
effluent  flow.  A number of the low-volume waste streams described  in
Section V are suitable for VCE treatment.  These streams are:

    1.  Water Treatment

       -  Clarifier blowdown^(underflow)
       -  Make-up filter backwash
       -  Lime softener blowdown
          Ion exchange softener regenerant
       -  Demineralizer regenerant
          Reverse osmosis brine
       -  Evaporator bottoms

    2.  Boiler blowdown

    3.  Floor and  laboratory drains.
                                 401

-------
                          Table VII-32

     TRACE ELEMENTS/PRIORITY POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATIONS'1 »2
                          AT PLANT 1809
                            (ug/1)
1
                Sluice Water from
               Recirculation Pond
    Bottom Ash
  Pond Overflow
Miscellaneous
   Sump
pH
Temp <°F)
Silver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
7.9
80
<0.13
66
<0.5
0.7
3
5
<1 .0
17
<2
9
4
62
70
7.9
85
<0.1
12
<0.5
1 .0
<2
3
<1.0
29
<2
8
<2
56
50
7
80
<0
12
<0
1
3
16
4
<3
3
<3
<2
6
100
.7

.1

.5
.0


.0






    samples were analyzed in duplicate, the  values were
averaged .
    analytical values are for dissolved concentrations ,  the
samples were filtered initially.
    value <.1 indicates that the concentration was below  the
detection limit which is 0.1  g/1*
                               402

-------
                           Table VII-33

                 MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS1^
                           AT PLANT 1809

                              (mg/D
 Sluice Water from
Recirculation Pond
  Bottom Ash
Pond Overflow
                                                     Miscellaneous
                                                         Sump
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Phosphate (PQ4>
Sulfate (804)
Chloride (Cl)
Silicate (Si02>
Carbonate (003)
125
60
50
0.06 '
633
16
6
1080 ;
115
58
48
<0.063
650
18
5
1020
63
24
19
0.11
149
14
5
1800
lCa, Mg, Na samples were analyzed in duplicate; the results
 were averaged.

2These concentrations reflect dissolved, not total,
 concentration.

3The value <.06 reflects a concentration below the detection
 limit which in this case is 0.06 tn'g/1.
                                403

-------
The  VCE  process  concentrates  non-volatile  effluents  from   these
sources.   This  produces a concentrated brine which is usually ponded
in arid regions or sent to a pond or treated in a spray dryer in  non-
arid regions (49).

Process Description

A  schematic  flow  diagram of a VCE system is shown in figure VII-46.
The wastewater is first treated in a feed tank to  adjust  the  pH  to
between  5.5  and  6.5  for  decarbonation.  The stream is then pumped
through a heat exchanger to  raise  its  temperature  to  the  boiling
point.   In  some  instances,  softening  may  be  required to prevent
scaling in the heat exchanger.   After  passing  through  a  deaerator
which  removes  dissolved gases, the hot waste stream is combined with
the slurry  concentrate  in  the  evaporator  sump.   This  slurry  is
constantly  recirculated  from  the  sump to the top of the evaporator
tubes.  The slurry flows as a thin film down  through  the  tubes  and
vaporizers.   The vapor is compressed and introduced to the shell side
of the tube bundle.  As this stream condenses, it transfers  its  heat
of  vaporization  to the brine slurry.  The cohdensate that results on
the shell side is pumped through the feed  preheater  to  transfer  as
much  heat as possible to the process before it is discharged from the
unit.  A portion of the brine slurry is continuously  drawn  off  from
the  sump  to  maintain  a  constant  slurry concentration (200,000 to
400,00 mg/1 solids) (51, 52).

The formation of  scale  is  avoided  on  heat  transfer  surfaces  by
preferential  precipitation of calcium sulfate silica on seed crystals
in the slurry.  In addition, a small temperature difference across the
heat exchanger tubing minimizes scale  formation  on  the  evaporating
surfaces (39).

Effectiveness

VCE  systems  have  taken  streams containing between 3,000 and 50,000
mg/1 of total dissolved solids  (TDS) and have yielded a  brine  stream
containing  200,000  to  400,000  mg/1  TDS  and  a  stream  of  water
containing less than 10  mg/1  TDS.   In  the  event  that  there  are
significant amounts of priority pollutants present in the feed stream,
it  may  be  necessary to attach additional treatment equipment to the
deaerator vent, e.g., carbon adsorption or incineration.

Brine Slurry Concentration and Disposal

Evaporation Ponds

For areas of the  country where the net annual evaporation rate   (gross
evaporation   minus  rainfall)  exceeds  20   inches  a  year,  use  of
evaporation ponds .for disposal of VCE waste brines  may  be  a  viable
disposal  method.   Evaporation  ponds  are used as a final wastewater
disposal method throughout the electric utility industry, primarily in
                                404

-------
   FEED
o
Ul
                 FEED
                 PUMP
          PRODUCT -*-
   HEAT
EXCHANGER
                                           VENT
                                                     EVAPORATOR
                                                                             STEAM
                                                                           COMPRESSOR
        TO WASTE
        DISPOSAL
WASTE
 PUMP
                                       PRODUCT
                                         PUMP
                                 RECIRCULATION
                                     PUMP
                                       Figure VII-46

            SIMPLIFIED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A VAPOR COMPRESSION EVAPORATION UNIT (50)

-------
the  southwestern  states;  however,  land   cost   and   governmental
regulations restrict the use of evaporation ponds at many plant sites.

Evaporation ponds use solar energy to evaporate wastewater and thereby
concentrate  dissolved  solids  in  the  wastewater.   The  ponds  are
constructed by  excavation,  by  enclosing  an  area  with  dikes,  by
building  dams,  or  by  a  combination  of  these methods.  Ponds may
require a liner to prevent seepage of wastewater into the natural pond
water supplies.  Typical liners are clay,  asphalt,  and  PVC  sheets.
The  area  required  for a single evaporation pond can be estimated by
equation 24:


         Area  (acres) *  19.5G                        (24)
                           V

where G is the wastewater flow rate in gallons per minute and V is the
effective net  evaporation rate in inches per year.

The effective  net evaporation rate of pond water is less than the area
net evaporation rate.  This occurs  because  of  the  decreasing  pond
water  vapor   pressure  with increased dissolved solids content of the
pond water.  Consequently, some systems use ponds in series where  the
effective  evaporation  rate  of  the  first ponds is greater than the
evaporation rate of the latter ponds.   The  pond  depth  required  is
equal to the wastewater flow rate in acre-feet per year divided by the
pond  area  in acres  required  for evaporation.  Additional depth is
required for solids build-up in the pond.

Spray Drying

For areas of the country where evaporation by ponding is not feasible,
thermal drying of the waste brine to produce a solid for  disposal  by
land  fill is  an option. Spray dryers have been proposed as a suitable
method for thermal drying of VCE waste brines.

In a spray dryer, the VCI waste brine is atomized either  by  a  spray
nozzle or a high-speed rotating disk. Hot combustion gases contact the
atomized  brine in the drying chamber and vaporize the water.  The hot
flue gases and dryed brine crystals pass through a baghouse for  brine
crystal  removal  before  being  vented  to  the atmosphere.  Moisture
content of the dried brine crystals is less than 5 percent (51).

METAL CLEANING WASTES

As explained   in  Section  V,  metal  cleaning  wastes  are,  periodic
discharges  that  may  occur only infrequently at many power stations.
Since they are infrequent, many plants prefer to have them hauled  off
and  treated   by  private  contractors.   Most  of  the  expertise for
treating  cleaning  wastes  has  been  developed   by   the   cleaning
contractors.   Current  treatment  methods   include   incineration, ash
basin  treatment,  and  physical-chemical  treatment. . In   addition,
treatment by vapor compression evaporation also has been considered.
                                 406

-------
Treatment Methodologies

Disposal by Incineration (Evaporation).  Incineration  (evaporation) of
boiler  chemical  cleaning  solutions has gained increasing popularity
since its first commercial application in  1971  (53).   A  number  of
utilities  have  used  such  a  process  for  disposal of waste boiler
cleaning  solutions  of  various  types,  including  ammoniated  EDTA,
ammoniacal   bromate,   citric  acid,  and  hydroxyacetic/formic  acid
containing ammonium bifluoride (54, 55, 56).  To date, well  over   125
such  incinerations  of  ammoniated  EDTA  waste  solutions alone have
occurred.

The incineration procedure involves the controlled injection of  spent
boiler  cleaning  chemicals  into the firebox of an operational boiler
(see figure VII-47).  As the solution is injected, water is  vaporized
and  the organics are combusted.  The organic materials are reduced to
such compounds as N2, C02, and H20 while iron and copper deposits from
the cleaning are transformed to oxides (57).   These   boiler  chemical
cleaning  wastes  are  combustible to some extent due  to these organic
molecules and metal compounds.  Ammoniated EDTA has been estimated  to
have a heat value of 2,000 Btu/pound.V

Injection  rates  are  dependent  on  the fan and fuel capacity of  the
boiler and must be determined on an individual  basis.   However,   the
gallon   per   minute   incineration   rate  has  been  equivalent  to
approximately 2 to 5 percent of the steam flow  of  the  boiler  in   a
number  of  cases  (58).  Injection rates range from 20 to 180 gallons
per minute.                           -,.

Solvent injection has been tested in coal, oil, and gas fired boilers,
both above and below the burners, and at various spray angles.   Tests
have   shown  that  disposal  through  incineration  has  successfully
captured metals.  At times, as high as 98 percent iron and 95  percent
copper  from  the  injected  waste solutions have been retained in  the
furnace;                                     .,  . „

The transition of metal ions to oxides is chemical in  nature.   These
oxides  are  then physically transformed to small particles and either
leave the stack or are  trapped  as  deposits  between  the  point  of
combustion  and  the stack outlet.  Since ash is primarily composed of
metallic oxides in various proportions,  it  would  be  expected  that
deposition  would  occur  along  with  bottom or fly ash, in pollution
control equipment or on walls of the furnace or stack.

Other  substances  which  are  of  concern ., were  also  evaluated   in
incineration studies.  Such cases concerned the disposal of .ammoniacal
bromate, and hydroxyacetic/formic acid containing ammonium bifluoride.
Thermogravimetric  analysis revealed that sodium bromate was converted
to sodium bromide and oxygen at 752 F and that no  obnoxious  products
were  formed  at temperatures up to 1,850 F (54).  Actual incineration
tests on these solutions in a 860 F boiler revealed no  liberation  of
halogen gas or other obnoxious gases.
                                 407

-------
                                   iSWWiiriifeSft^^tffiSisV'n
                                                            SEE DETAIL
                     Figure VII-47

TYPICAL PIPING DIAGl^M AND LOCATION FOR INCINERATION
       OF BOILER CHEMICAL CLEANING WASTES  (68)
                           408

-------
Some  tests  conducted  during  incineration of boiler cleaning wastes
have shown that sulfur dioxide (SO2) and the oxides of nitrogen   (NO  )
have  been  reduced  in stack emissions.  Explanation of the  lower NO
levels may stem from, the dissociation of water, which replaces  oxygen
supplied  by  air  thereby lowering the air and nitrogen supply to the
furnace (58).

Ash Basin Treatment.  A number of utilities employ ash ponds  for  the
treatment  of  boiler  chemical  cleaning wastes  (57, 59).  The theory
behind such a treatment scheme is that the chemical/physical  nature, of
the  ash  pond  environment  will  treat  those   wastes  as   well   as
conventional lime treatment.

A  number  of  basic  characteristics  of the ash pond are utilized to
treat these wastes.  The most important characteristic  is  pH,   since
metals  are  removed  as  precipitated  hydroxides above a certain pH.
Many ash ponds are naturally alkaline and thus have a  good   potential
for metal-hydroxide formation.

The  presence of fly ash in ash ponds also appears to be an aid in the
treatment scheme (60).  Fly ash has been used in  water  treatment  to
increase  the  rate  of  floe  growth  and  to  enhance  floe settling
properties.  Some studies have shown that ashes which raise the pH  of
ash sluice water can be expected to precipitate heavy metals  (60).

In one of the demonstration projects on ash basin treatment,  dissolved
oxygen  content  of  the  aslv pond was felt to, be an important factor
(60).  In theory, its presence1 provided  the  oxidizing  potential  to
convert  iron  ions  from  the ferrous to the ferric state, the latter
which could be precipitated at a lower pH than the former.

The dilution factor of the ash pond is also felt  to  be  important   in
breaking  the ammonia complex bond  in the ammoniacal. bromate  solution,
thus allowing the  precipitation  of  copper.   In  order  to achieve
equivalent  metal  removal,   the  increase in the concentration of the
metal in the ash pond effluent must be  equal  to or   less   than the
concentration achievable by lime precipitation divided  by  the dilution
factor.

Physical/Chemical  Treatment.  A number of treatment schemes  employing
physical/chemical  processes   have   been   tested,    designed,   and
implemented for the treatment of boiler chemical  cleaning  wastes.  The
basic mechanism behind these  treatment schemes involves neutralization
with  caustic or lime followed by precipitation of  the  metal  hydroxide
compounds  (57, 61,  62, 63,  64, 65).  However, there  are  a number   of
additional  unit  processes   which  have been employed on certain  waste
chemical solutions  in order   to   increase  the  degree  of attainable
reduction  of  certain  constituents.  These additional unit  processes
include:  mixing with other metal cleaning waste  sources,   oxidation,
sulfide addition, filtration, and carbon adsorption.

In  the  treatment of. waste boiler  chemical cleaning solutions  the use
of  these unit processes, either alone or in combination with  others,
                                 409

-------
is  dependent  upon  which  waste  solution is being treated.  Various
characteristics of individual waste streams make the  use  of  certain
unit  processes feasible.  A description of the use of these processes
as they apply to boiler chemical cleaning wastes follows.

Ammoniated Citric Acid.  Ammoniated citric acid boiler cleaning wastes
contain amounts of complexed iron and copper.  Chelation  of   iron  by
citrate is the first step of the two step process which is followed by
ammonia   addition  to  complex  copper.   Dilution  is  necessary ' to
dissociate the ammonia-copper complex and will  aid  in  breaking  the
iron-citrate chelate.  Adjustment of pH upwards will further lower the
degree of complexation as figure VII-48 illustrates.

Aeration  of  this  waste  has  been  recommended  in order to oxidize
cuprous and ferrous ions to the eupric and ferric state, thus  lowering
the pH needed to precipitate the copper and iron (57).

Addition of sodium sulfide after aeration under acidic  conditions,  in
one   treatment   scheme  reduced  metal  concentrations  due  to  the
precipitation of metal sulfides.  In this treatment scheme,  clarif,'ier
overflow  was  filtered through a dual media gravity filter to produce
final effluent with iron and copper concentration below one  (I)  mg/1
(57).

Ammoniated EDTA.   Waste  ammoniated EDTA boiler and chemical  cleaning
solutions are difficult to treat due to the metal complexes which  are
present.   EDTA is a hexadentate ligand which chelates iron, .while the
ammonia forms  complexes  with  copper.   However,  these  wastes  are
effectively  treated   to  below  the  one   (1) mg/1 level for  iron and
copper using a combination of unit processes.

Dilution in plant wastes such  as  air  preheater  wastes  and boiler
fireside  wastes  have effectively achieved the dissociation  of these
complexes and subsequent removal of the copper  (57, 66).  The  presence
of sulfides in these wastes, resulting from burning  sulfur-containing
fuels,  helps  remove  copper  by  the  formation  of  insoluble copper
sulfide (57, 67).  When dilution is followed by lime   addition to  pH
levels  of approximately 13, reduction of iron and copper levels below
1 mg/1 may be  achieved  (57).   Addition  of  a  polymer  to  aid   in
flocculation  has" been  used  in  order to achieve maximum removal of
metals  (57).

Amtnonical  Sodium  Brornate.   Reduction  of  total  copper   in  waste
ammoniated sodium bromate solutions first requires the, dissociation of
the   ammonia-copper complexes.  This step is required  in order to  free
the  copper, thus allowing it to form insoluble hydroxide precipitates.

Figure VII-49 illustrates the degree of complexation of  NH3 on Cua+  to
be a function of dilution.   In  the   left  hand  graph,  pCu2*   first
increases  as  ammonia  equilibrium  forces   it to enter  into  solution
(thereby shifting the  copper species to  the   lower  ammoniated   form)
then decreases  as  dilution  effects  predominate.   The second  graph
shows the degree of complexation decreasing with dilution due  to   the
                                 410

-------
                          Figure VII-48

                   COMPLEXING OF Fe(III)  (69)

The degree of complexation is expressed in terms of pFe for
various ligands (10""%).  The competing effect of H+ at low pH
values and of OH at higher pH values explains that effective
complexation is strongly dependent on pH.  Mono-, di- and tri-
dent ate ligands (10~ZM) are not able to keep a 10~3M Fe(III)  in
solution at higher pH values.

-------
pCu
  6
  8
  IO
  12
10-
                           4[Cu(H)]«[lVl]
         H2NCH2CH2NH;
                10"*     !0"3     !0"4
                                    ApCu
                                 [CuOU]-
                           Figure VII-49

       THE CHELATE EFFECT ON COMPLEX FORMATION OF  Cu-aq2+
       WITH MONODENTATE,- BIDENTATE AND TETRADENTATE  AMINES.
      pCu IS PLOTTED  AS  A FUNCTION OF CONCENTRATION  IN THE
    LEFT-HAND DIAGRAM.   IN THE RIGHT THE RELATIVE  DEGREE OF
       COMPLEXATION AS MEASURED BY pCu AS A FUNCTION OF
                  CONCENTRATION IS DEPICTED (69)
                                412

-------
increase  in  the  Cu2+  species.   Although  other  factors  such   as
temperature and ionic activity affect solubilities, dilution will  aid
in the dissociation of the ammonia/copper complex.

Once   this  dissociation  is  accomplished,  aqueous  copper  may   be
precipitated with hydroxides.  Addition of lime  (Ca(OH2)) provides the
necessary hydroxides and precipitation will occur at approximately   pH
*  10.   Flocculation  may  be  enhanced  with   addition of an organic
polymer flocculating agent.  Sedimentation  may  be  followed  by  the
passage  of  the supernatent through a granular  media filter to  insure
effluent quality.  Reduction of iron and copper  to below the one mg/1
level  was  accomplished  using the overall treatment scheme in  Figure
VII-50.

Hydrochloric Acid Without Copper Complexer.  Many times  HC1  (without
coppercomplexer)is"used  inconjunction  with  ammoniated  sodium
bromate solutions, and will be incorporated with the treatment   scheme
for  that solution.  However, it may be used for removing heavy  scales
in boiler systems which do not contain  copper,  and  thus  the  waste
solution  will  not  contain  these  relatively  hard-to-break   copper
complexes.  Effluent levels for iron and copper  below  one  mg/1  are
expected  as  treatment  levels  attainable  for metals will approach
theoretical solubilities when pH is adjusted.

Figure VII-51 shows theoretical solubilities of  a number of metals   as
a  function  of pH.  From the diagram it may be  seen that those  metals
found in waste hydrochloric acid cleaning  solutions  may  be  removed
below  1  mg/1  with  pHs  adjusted  to  approximately  pH  =10.  The
adjustment of pH may be with the lime, or  sodium hydroxide,  although
sludge dewaterability  is best when lime is used.

The  treatment scheme employed for this waste stream is pH adjustment,
sedimentaiton, and (possibly) polishing of supernatent with some form
of filtration.

Hydrochloric  Acid  with Copper Complexer.  Thiourea and Cutain  II are
two copper complexing agents  which  have  been  employed  along with
hydrochloric acid for the cleaning of boiler systems containing  copper
alloys.   Successful  treatment of these wastes, to obtain total metal
residuals for iron and copper of below  1  mg/1  each   (61),  involves
breaking the copper complex and precipitating metal hydroxides.

Thiourea and Cutain II are multidentate ligands  and, as such, are more
stable  than  the  ammonia-copper complex, ammonia being a monodentate
ligand.  Therefore, the same degree of dilution  of these  hydrochloric
wastes  to dissociate the complex is not as effective as it is for the
degree of complexation.

In most cases, dilution occurs by combining  acid  stage  wastes with
rinse  waters  or  other  metal  cleaning  wastes.  The effect of such
dilution may be found  in bench-scale test data contained in table VII-
34.   In this case, wastes were diluted and pH  was  adjusted  to 9.5,
where metals were precipitated and then the samples were filtered.
                                413

-------
WASTE
BOILER
CLEANING
SOLUTION
DILUTION

I
J


' 1
                      SEDIMENTATION
                                             GRANULAR
                                             MEDIA FILTER
             Ca(OH)9 FLOC
                   z AGENT
                                                       EFFLUENT
                           WASTE
                           SOLIDS
WASTE
SOLIDS
                  Figure  VII-50
     TREATMENT SCHEME  FOR METALS REMOVAL BY
PRECIPITATION FROM WASTE  BOILER CLEANING SOLUTION

-------
  100
   10
   1.0
         Te
   0,1
     I  /


     7
  0.01
 0,001
          .Fe
O-OOOI
                       \
                     K
\
  \
                      Cu
             \

             \
               V
                                        An.
                                        (Cd
       *:
     Fe
Ni'
                                                   \
                              y
                             9


                            PH
                   IO
                                             ii       12
                   Figure VII-51



        THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF METAL

           IONS AS A FUNCTION  OF  pH (69)
                         415

-------
                          Table VII-34

              TREATMENT OF ACID CLEANING WASTEWATER
                    SUMMARY OF JAR TESTS (61)

                      Concentration (mg/1)
Dissolved
Metals
Zn
Ni
Cu
Fe
Mn
V
T^"i T iTf"n mn
LfjL -L wl U .L U tl
prior to
treatment
Before
Treatment
335
375
306
5,140
41
0.8



0.02
0.04
0.03
0.14
.01
.1
90 « 1
£.\J • I

After Ti
0.045
0.13
0.34
0.31
.01
.1
1 O ' 1
1 U . 1

reatment
0.2
0.31
0.32
0.60
0.04
.1
H • 1
J . i


0.74
2.9
0.35
0.52
0.12
0.5

pH adjusted to 9.5 with lime

Source:  Design Report Wastewater Treatment Facilities
         England Power Service Company
New
                               416

-------

-------
                          Table VII-35
           EQUIVALENT TREATMENT OF INCINERATION TESTS
Waste Characteristics
Volume
Iron
Copper
Nickel
90,850 liters
727.27 kg
163.64 kg
 36.36 kg
Volume  218,039 liters
Iron    4142.74 kg
Copper    69.77 kg
                        Percent     Equivalent Treated
                       Retained   Effluent Concentration
94            480 tng/1
88            216 mg/1
90             40 mg/1


81           3456 mg/1
94             19 mg/1
                               418

-------
Ash Pond Treatment.   The mechanisms believed to  be   incorporated  by
the  chemical/physical  nature  of  ash  ponds for treatment of boiler
cleaning wastes are the same as those which were found to be effective
in physical/chemical treatment processes (i.e.,  dilution,  oxidation,
pH  adjustment,  precipitation).  However, with the ash ponds, control
of these variables may be difficult (if not impossible) and  thus  the
question  of attainment of effluent limitations.  The  level achievable
in the ash pond must be equal to the original level in  the  ash  pond
prior  to  metal  cleaning waste addition plus the value determined by
dividing the effluent limitation (1  mg/1)  by  the  dilution  factor.
Because  of the accuracy and precision of the analytical methods, such
demonstration may not be possible in some cases.

Physical/Chemical Treatment.  Physical/chemical treatment methods have
been used successfully to treat  solutions  of  chelated  metals.   By
employing  various  unit  processes, it is possible to have control of
all reactions needed to reduce the levels of  heavy  metals  in  waste
boiler cleaning chemical solutions to below the one mg/1 level.  Table
VI1-36 shows the treatment levels of various treatment schemes.

COAL PILE AND CHEMICAL HANDLING RUNOFF

One treatment technology applicable to coal pile and chemical handling
runoff     is    chemical    precipitation/sedimentation.     Chemical
precipitation is discussed in the  ash  handling  subsection  of  this
section.  Sedimentation  is discussed in the 1974 Development Document
(46).

Flue Gas Cleaning Discharges,

In general flue gas cleaning processes employing  wet  scrubbing  make
maximum   use  of  recycle  of  slurry  water.   Typical  systems  use
thickeners which produce a high solids waste stream  which  is  ponded
and  a  supernatent  which  is  recycled  to the scrubber.  The solids
settling is typically accomplished in a pond where much of  the  water
is  retained  as  a  part  of  the  settled  sludge.   This water which
overflows the pond is either recycled or  discharged..  While  it  was
originally  believed that most, if not all, such systems could operate
in a closed-loop or zero discharge mode  supporting  data  to  confirm
this  is  not  available.   The Agency plans to continue research into
scrubber system discharges and their control.
                                419

-------
                          Table VII-36

              PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT  PROCESSES
                        AND EFFICIENCIES
 Waste Type and
Treatment Scheme

Hydrochloric acid with
copper complexer	

Dilution 4- precipitation
at pH =* 1 sedimentation
filtration (61)
Parameter
   Fe.
   Cu
   Zn
   Ni
   Mn
   Effluent
Concentration
    (mg/1)
    0.01
    0.14
    0.02
    0.04
    0.01
Ammoniated EDTA

H2S addition 4- precipita-
tion at pH « 13 4-
sedimentation (57)
   Fe
   Cu
    0.5
    0,61
Ammonical brornate 4-
hydrochloric acid

Dilution 4- precipitation
at pH - 8.2 sedimentation
4- filtration (66)
   Fe
   Cu
   Zn
   Ni
     *
     *
     *
     *
^Indicates that the value is below the detection  limit.
                               420

-------
                             SECTION VIII
                                                                  x
             COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS      ^
            -                            -                -   ^-**"^
The cost, energy, and land requirements, of the various  treatment  and
control  technologies  described  in section VII are presented  in this
section  for   typical   steam   electric   powerplants.    For   most
technologies,  the  costs  are  estimated  for  25,  100, and 1,000  MW
plants.  For some of the fly ash handling technologies, the costs  are
estimated for 25, 100, 200, 350, 500, and 1,000 MW plants, in order  to
provide  better   information  regarding the change in fly ash handling
costs  with  decreasing  plant  size.   Only  summary   information   is
provided  in  this  section.   A  discussion of the non-water quality,
environmental  effects  of   the   various   treatment   and    control
technologies is also provided in this section.

COOLING WATER

Once- Through Cooling Water Systems

The   capital   cost,   operating   and   maintenance   costs,   energy
requirements, and  land  requirements  have  been  evaluated  for  the
following technologies:

    -  Chlorine minimization,

    —  Dechlorination,

    -  Alternative oxidizing chemicals

       -  bromine chloride
       -  chlorine dioxide
       -  ozone,  and

    -  Non-oxidizing biocides.

Chlorine Minimization

Cost, Energy, and Land Requirements.   Summary  cost,   energy and  land
requirements for  chlorine minimization at both new and  existing plants
are presented in  table VIII-1.  The requirements for  retrofitting   an
existing plant are identical to the requirements for a  new. plant.

Non-Water  Qua! i tv  Aspects .  Chlorine minimization  is  not expected  to
have any non-^water quality environmental effects.

Dechlorination
       Energy.,  and  Land  Requirements.   Summary cost,  energy  and  land
requirements   at  both   new   and  existing  plants  for  dechlorination of
once-through  cooling water systems  are  presented  in table VI I 1-2.   The
requirements  for  retrofitting an  existing  plant are  identical  to   the
requirements  for  a  new plant.
                                 421

-------
                           Table VIII-1
        SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY, AND LAND  REQUIREMENTS  FOR
    CHLORINE MINIMIZATION IN ONCE-THROUGH  COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Capital Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)
Land Requirements  (acres)
        Plant Size (MW)
   25          100
 36,000       37,000
  9,200
9,100
                             1 ,000
                            38,700

                             8,500
negligible  negligible   negligible
  none         none         none
                           Table VIII-2
        SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS  FOR
        DECHLORINATION IN ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER  SYSEMS
  25
77,000
20,000
Capital. Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)
-and Requirements (acres)    none
        Plant Size (MW)
            UK)         1 .000
           91,500     127,000
           36,400
        84,900
           5.6x104    1.12K105
            none        none
                                422

-------
Non-Water Quality Aspects.  Dechlorination is not expected  to  have any
non-water quality environmental effects.

Alternative Oxidizing Chemicals                              ,
             *"*
Chlorine Dioxide.   Summary  cost,  energy  and  land requirements for
biofouling control with chlorine dioxide are presented  in table  VIII-
3.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.    Chlorine  dioxide  use  in  once-through
cooling water systems is not expected to have  any  non-water  quality
environmental effects.

Bromine Chlorine.   Summary  .cost,  energy  and  land requirements for
biofouling control with bromine chloride in once-through cooling water
systems are presented in table VII1-4.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.   Bromine  chloride  use  in  once-through
cooling  water  systems  is not expected to have any non-water quality
environmental effects.

Ozone.  Summary cost, energy and land   requirements  for  the  use   of
ozone  as  a  biofouling  control  agent in once-through cooling water
systems are presented in table VIII-5.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.  The use of  ozone in  once-through  cooling
water   systems   is  not  expected  to have  any  non-water  quality
environmental effects.  An ozone destruction system  is installed   as
part  of the ozonation facility which prevents the release  of  ozone  to
the atmosphere.

Recirculating Cooling Water Systems

The  capital  cost,  operatipnal   and   maintenance    costs,   energy
requirements,  and  land  requirements  have  been  evaluated  for the
following technologies:

    -  Dechlorination,

       Vapor Compression Distillation,

    -  Alternative Oxidizing Chemicals
          chlorine dioxide
       -  bromine chloride
          ozone,

    -  Non-Oxidizing Biocides,

       Corrosion and Scaling Control, and

    -  Asbestos  Cooling Tower  Fill Replacement.
                                423

-------
                           Table VIII-3

        SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS  FOR
     BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH CHLORINE DIOXIDE  IN ONCE-THROUGH
                       COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
                                     Plant Size  (MW)

                              25_         100          1 ,000

Capital Cost ($)             19,000       19,400      20,200

Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                   15,800       25,300      65,800

Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)               1.24x104      1.24x10^     1.24x10^

Land Requirements  (acres)  negligible    negligible    negligible
                           Table VIII-4

          SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS  FOR
     BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH BROMINE CHLORIDE  IN ONCE-THROUGH
                       COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
                                     Plant Size  (MW)

                             25         100          1.000

Capital Cost ($)            51,600      52,600       95,200

Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                  21,800      28,700       61,800

Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)                1x104      1.3x104     1.81x104

Land Requirements (acres)  negligible   negligible   negligible
                               424

-------
                           Table VIII-5
         SUMMARY COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS: FOR
                 BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH OZONE IN
                ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSEMS
                                     Plant Size (MW)
                            25         100         1.000
Capital Cost ($)           560,000     930,000   2,350,000
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                  12,500      16,200       31,600
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)               9.1x10^     1.66x10$    5.59x105
Land Requirements (acres)  negligible   negligible   negligible
                           Table VIII-6
          SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR.
     DECHLORINATTON OF RECIRCULATING COOLING SYSTEM DISCHARGE
                             (SLOWDOWN)
                                     Plant Size  (MW)
                              15          100          1.000
Capital Cost ($)            54,200      54,200      57,200
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                   6,100        6,100        6,300
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)                1.6x1o3      1.6x10^      1.6x103
Land Requirements  (acres)   negligible   negligible   negligible
                                425

-------
A discussion of the non-water quality aspects of  each  technology   is
also included.

Dechlorination               ,                  .

Cost, Energy, and Land Requirements.   Summary  cost,  energy and land
requirements for dechlorination at both new and existing plants  using
recirculating  cooling  water  systems  are presented in table VII1-6.
The requirements for retrofitting an existing plant are  identical   to
the requirements for a new plant.

Non-Hater Quality Aspects.   Dechlorination  of cooling tower blowdown
is not expected to  result  in  any  non-water  quality  environmental
effects.

Vapor Compression Distillation

Cost, Energy, and Land Requirements.   Summary  cost,  energy and land
requirements for  vapor  compression  distillation  of  cooling  tower
blowdown are presented in table VIII-7.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.   Vapor compression distillation of cooling
tower blowdown does  not  have  any  non-water  quality  environmental
effects.

Alternative Oxidizing Chemicals

Chlorine Dioxide.   Summary cost, energy and land requirements for  the
use of chlorine dioxide as a biofouling control agent in recirculating
cooling water systems are presented in table VIII-8.

Non-Hater Quality Aspects.   The  use  of  chlorine   dioxide   as    a
biofouling  control  agent at plants with recirculating systems is  not
expected to involve any non-water quality environmental effects.

Bromine Chloride.  Summary cost, energy and land requirements for   the
use of bromine chloride as a biofouling control agent are presented in
table VIII-9.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.    The   use   of  bromine  chloride  as  a
biofouling control agent at plants using recirculating cooling systems
is not expected to have any non-water quality environmental effects.

Ozone.  Summary cost, energy and land  requirements  for  the  use   of
ozone  as  a  biofouling  control  agent in plants using recirculating
cooling water systems are presented in table VIII-10.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.  The use of ozone as a  biofouling  control
agent  at  plants  using  recirculating  cooling  water systems is  not
expected to have any non-water quality environmental effects.
                                 426

-------
                           Table VIII-7

       SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR VAPOR
        COMPRESSION DISTILLATION OF COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
                                     Plant Size (MW)

                            11         100         t.OOO

Capital Cost ($)         1,620,000   2,280,000   10,200,000

Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                  46,500      51,000      124,000

Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)              2.61x1Q5     1.12x1Q7    7.25x107

Land Requirements (acres)    0.12         1.0         5.8
                          . Table VIII-8

          SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
            BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH CHLORINE DIOXIDE IN
                   RECIRCULATING COOLING SYSTEMS
                                     Plant Size  (MW)

                              25         100         1,000

Capital Cost ($)            19,100      19,100      19,300

Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                   8,500       9,500      18,500

Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)              ;l.24x1Q5     1.24x105    1.24x10^

Land Requirements (acres)  negligible  negligible   negligible
                                427

-------
                           Table VIII-9
          SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
            BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH BROMINE CHLORIDE IN
                   RECIRCULATING COOLING SYSTEMS  JD
                                     Plant Size  (MW)
                             25         JJD£          1 ,000
Capital Cost ($)            36,600      36,900       52,300
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                  15,800      17,100       26,600
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)               6.5x103      7.5x103      1.2x103
Land Requirements (acres)  negligible  negligible  negligible
                           Table VIII-10
          SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS  FOR
          BIOFOULING CONTROL WITH OZONE IN  RECIRCULATING
                          COOLING SYSTEMS
                                     Plant  Size  (MW)
                             25_          100          1 ,000
Capital Cost ($)            96,600     210,000     690,000
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                   7,800       9,000       13,800
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)                 1x104       2.2x104    1.06x104
Land Requirements  (acres)  negligible  negligible  negligible
                                428

-------
Non-Oxidizing Biocides

Cost, Energy> and Land Requirements.  As detailed in Section VII,  the
technology  evaluated  for  the  control  of the discharge of priority
pollutants  contained  in  non-oxidizing   biocide   formulations    is
substitution.   No  additional  cost,  energy or land requirements are
expected to be involved in the use of nonpriority  pollutant  mixtures
as shown in table VI11-11.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.    Switching   to  non-priority  pollutant-
containing, non-oxidizing biocides is not expected to  have  any  non-
water quality effects.

Corrosion and Scaling Control Chemicals

Cost, Energy, and Land Requirements.   As detailed in Section VII, the
technology evaluated for the control  of  the  discharge  of  priority
pollutants  contained in scaling and corrosion control formulations  is
substitution.  The  additional  cost,  energy  and  land  requirements
incurred  in  switching  from a priority pollutant-containing, scaling
and corrosion  control  mixture ' to  one  that  contains  no  priority
pollutants are presented in table VIII-12.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.    Switching   to  non-priority  pollutant-
containing, scale and corrosion control chemicals, is not  expected   to
have any non-water quality effects.

Replacement of Asbestos Cooling Tower Fill

The  technology evaluated for the control of the discharge of asbestos
in cooling tower blowdown is the  replacement  of  the  asbestos  fill
material  with  fill material of ceramic, PVC, or woods.  The cost for
asbestos cement fill replacement is extremely site-specific.   Factors
such  as  the  current fill configuration, plant location, fill chosen
for replacement, local labor  wages  and  availability,  proximity   to
appropriate  asbestos  fill  disposal site and time available for fill
replacement  (cooling tower must-be out of service) all affect the cost
of fill replacement.  The general range of the fill replacement  costs
can  be estimated from repair work done by cooling tower manufacturers
in the past.  In one such case, the existing asbestos cement fill  was
damaged  due to problems with the water chemistry of the recirculating
water.  This resulted in the leaching of calcium  carbonate  from  the
asbestos  cement  which  brought  about  rapid fill deterioration.   In
another case, water freezing in the fill brought about serious damage.
In both instances, complete fill replacement was necessary.  Cost data
from these two jobs is summarized in table VII1-13.

The  numbers which appear  in the table serve as only general guidelines
and may vary as much as 50 percent due to site-  specific  conditions.
The  costs  include the labor cost for removal of the old fill, the cost
of   the  new  fill  material  which  was of PVC or other asbestos-free
composition, and the  labor cost to  install the new fill.  They do  not
include  the cost of disposal of the old asbestos cement fill.   In the
                                 429

-------
                           Table VIII-11
     SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR SWITCHING
    TO NGN-PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES
Capital Cost (§)
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)
Land Requirements (acres)
         Plant Size (MW)
 25         100         1,000
None       None         None
The OSM cost (chemical purchase cost)
of non-priority pollutant non-oxidiz-
ing biocides is less than for chlori-
nated phenols.
None
None
None
None
None
None
                           Table VIII-12
     SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS  FOR  SWITCHING
        TO NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING CORROSION AND
                      SCALE CONTROL CHEMICALS
Capital Cost  ($)
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)
Land Requirements  (acres)
         Plant Size (MW)
    11          100
   None         None
   1 ,800
     5,200
     1 ,000
     None

    36,000
 negligible   negligible   negligible
 negligible   negligible   negligible
                                430

-------
            Table VIII-13
COOLING TOWER FILL REPLACEMENT COSTS
Size of Plant
Cooling Tower
Was Servicing
(MW)
700
900
Type
of
Fuel
Fossil
Nuclear
Cost of
Materials
(Million
Dollars
1979)
2
4
Cost of
Labor
(Million
Dollars
1979)
1
2
Total
Cost
(Million
Dollars
1979)
3
6
                4,31

-------
case of the 700- megawatt  plant,  some  additional  modifications  to
increase  the  thermal  capacity of the tower were done at the time of
the asbestos fill replacement.  This brought the total  cost  of  that
project  to  about  $3.5  million  while  effecting about a 15 percent
increase in thermal capacity.

Labor costs were estimated to run between one-third  and  one-half  of
the  total replacement cost.  This cost will vary depending on how the
labor force is scheduled (How much overtime  is  involved?   How  many
workers  are  onsite  simultaneously?).   At  the 700- megawatt fossil
unit/ it was estimated that the entire job could be  completed  in  10
weeks, with 120 to 200 workers on site simultaneously, working 10 hour
days, 5 days per week.  This works out to a total of about 75,000 man-
hours.   In  actuality, the replacement work at the 700-megawatt plant
is being done in two installments of 5 weeks each.  It is possible  to
break fill replacement work down such that as little as one quarter of
the  work  is  done  in one installment.  This allows most of the fill
replacement work to be done during normally  scheduled  plant  outages
thus  reducing  the otherwise enormous cost of plant shutdown for fill
replacement purposes.

The operational costs of the tower may  decrease  upon  asbestos  fill
replacement  if  the  new fill and other tower modifications increased
the  tower  efficiency.   Yearly  savings  amounting  from  this   are
extremely site-specific.

The  data  indicate  that  costs  in  the range of $1-9 million can be
expected for asbestos fill replacement allowing for  the  +50  percent
accuracy  of  the costs.  Nuclear plants place a higher heat load on a
cooling tower per megawatt of generated power when compared to fossil-
fueled plants.  As a result, the cost of fill replacement per unit  of
generated power will run higher for nuclear plants.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.  The asbestos fill removed from the cooling
tower  may  be  considered  a  hazardous waste and require appropriate
disposal.

ASH HANDLING

Fly Ash

Three treatment and  control  options  for  discharges  from  fly  ash
handling systems are costed in this section.  They ares

1.  Dry fly ash handling,

2.  Partial recirculation of sluice water, and

3.  Once-through sluicing with chemical precipitation. •

Use  of  dry  fly  ash  handling  includes dry vacuum and dry pressure
pneumatic conveying systems.  Partial recirculation   includes  ponding
and recycle of the sluice water with a continuous untreated discharge.
                                432

-------
The  once-through  sluicing system involves sluicing the ash to a pond
with the sluice water passing through a chemical precipitation  system
prior  to  discharge.   The  information  presented  for  the  fly ash
handling  systems  includes  capital  costs,  operating,  and   annual
maintenance costs, energy requirements, and land requirements.

Dry Fly Ash Handling

Both  pneumatic vacuum conveying and pneumatic pressure conveying were
evaluated.  Technical descriptions of these two systems can  be  found
in  chapter  VII.   The costs of each system were addressed separately
and then were combined into a "composite" cost for a.typical plant   by
consideration of the number of plants using each technology.

Dry  fly  ash  handling  capital  costs  are  presented  for these two
technologies in terms of new plants  and  existing  plants.   Existing
plants  have  an  additional  cost  factor included for each case, the
retrofit costs.  The  quantification  of  this  factor  was  estimated
because  retrofit  costs  are very site specific.  In all cases except
the chemical precipitation system, the retrofit cost  will  equal  the
cost,  to install the system.  The chemical precipitation retrofit cost
was estimated to be 10 percent of the installation  cost.   This  cost
reflects  a  number  of  items:  labor to take out existing equipment,
labor to reroute existing piping, resulting downtime  to  install  the
new  system, etc.  New plants will not have to contend with this added
cost.  The engineering and contingency estimate was 20 percent of  the
installed system with retrofit cost.

Capital Costs for Dry Fly Ash Handling Systems.  The capital costs for
dry  fly  ash  handling  systems  are presented in table VII1-14.  All
equipment, except for the dry storage silo,  was  costed  for  an  ash
conveying rate equal to twice the actual ash generating rate. The silo
was  sized based on a 72-hour storage capacity.  A factor of 2.5 times
the total equipment cost was used to estimate the total installed cost
of the system. In addition, for existing plants, the retrofit cost was
estimated  as  equal  to  the  cost  for  installing  the   equipment.
Engineering  and  contingencies  were  estimated  as 20 percent of the
installed system costs with retrofit penalties. Table VIII-14 presents
costs which include all of these factors.

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.  The nominal ash disposal  cost
assumed  for dry fly ash handling was based on the assumption that the,
plants would have to dispose of the ash  material  regardless  of  any
water  discharge regulations and the difference in operating costs for
disposal will be minimal.  These O&M  costs  are  presented  in  table
VIII-15.

Energy Requirements.  The energy requirements for either the vacuum  or
pressure  systems  involve,  for the most part, the power requirements
for the blowers.  The range of power requirements for these blowers  is
from 38 KWto 180 KW at 150 TPH of fly  ash.   Other  energy-consuming
equipment included were the silo aerators, unloaders, vent  return  line
                                 433

-------
                                   Table VIII-14
                   CAPITAL COSTS FOR DRY FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
Capital .Costs
(million dollars)
        Existing Plants
        New Plants
25
 2.33
 1.45
     Plant Size (megawatts)
100      200      350      500
 2.96
 .1.90
 3.35
 2.16
                         4.77
                         3.14
                          5.37
                          3.54
                                                                             1000
                                                                            10.05
                                                                            6.76
                                   Table VIII-15
               ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST FOR DRY FLY ASH
                                  HANDLING SYSTEMS
Operation and Maintenance
(million dollars /year)
        Existing Plants
        New Plants
25
     Plant Size (megawatts)
100      200      350      500
0.347
0.348
0.373
0.377
0.405
0.412
                        0.459
                        0.471
                         0.509
                         0.526
                                                                             1000
                                                                           0.690
                                                                           0.724

-------
blowers,  and  silo  heating coils,  Table VII1-16 presents the annual
energy requirements for the vacuum and pressure systems.

Land Requirements.  The land requirements for the dry fly ash handling
systems are given in table VIII-17.  Land is required to  contain  the
silo, blowers, and piping.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.   The  use  of dry handling and disposal of
fly ash over ponding will have, a direct impact from the standpoint  of
solid  wastes  disposal.   Landfilling  of  the  ash  material must be
conducted in an environmentally  sound  manner.   'If  proper  landfill
operations  are  used,  the  potential  problems  of fugitive dust and
leaching of ash into groundwater can be contained.

Partial Recirculating and Chemical Precipitation of Fly Ash

The technologies which are addressed in these two categories  are   (1)
ponding  of  the fly ash with partial recycle of the sluice water, and
(2) ponding of the fly ash with total discharge of sluice water  after
chemical precipitation.  The partial recirculating system includes the
addition of a clear pond and a recycle line back to the fly ash sluice
pumps.   The  second  system  includes  the  addition  of  a  chemical
precipitation system.  The costs and other requirements for these  two
systems  were addressed in the same manner as for the fly ash handling
systems.  Similar assumptions were utilized  for  addressing  new  and
existing plants, pulverized and cyclone-fired boilers.

Capital Costs.  The capital costs for the wet fly ash handling systems
are  presented in table VII1-18.  The equipment upon which the partial
recirculation capital costs were based are a clear pond,  piping,  and
pumps.   The  once-through  sluicing equipment is that associated with
the chemical  precipitation  system.   Further  description  of  these
systems can be found  in chapter VII.

Operating and Maintenance Costs.   The  O&M  cost  assumptions for the
once-through system were solely based on  the  chemical  precipitation
system operation.  These O&M costs are presented  in table VII1-19.

Energy Requirements.   The  energy  requirements for these two systems
are presented in table VIII-20.  The energy requirements  for  partial
recycle/fly  ash  were  based ,on the energy used by the recycle pumps.
The wet once-through  system requirements were based on those  for   the
chemical precipitation system.

Land Requirements.    The  land  requirements for these two systems are
presented in table VIII-21.  For the partial recirculating system,  the
land requirement was  based on a clear pond and piping from the pond  to
the sluice pumps.  For the wet  once-through  system,  only  the   land
needed  for the chemical precipitation system was  estimated.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.   The   use  of partial recirculation  is  not
expected to have any  impacts over  current  operations.   The  use   of
chemical  precipitation  will  result  in  a lime sludge which must  be
                                435

-------
                                   Table VIII-16
                ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR DRY FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
                                25
Energy Requirements
(million kilowatt-hours/year)
        Existing Plants
        New Plants
0.340
0.340
               Plant Size (megawatts)
          100      200      350      500
0.340   0.340    0.340    0.340
0.340   0.340    0.340    0.340
                                     1000
                           0.916
                           0.980
                                   Table VIII-17
                 LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR DRY FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
Land Requirements
(acres)
        Existing Plants
        New Plants
                                25
               Plant Size(megawatts)
          100      200      350      500
 0.75
 0.75
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
                                     1000
2.0
2.0

-------
                           Table VIII-18

       CAPITAL COSTS FOR PARTIAL.RECIRCULATING AND CHEMICAL
      PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-THROUGH FLY ASH SLUICING SYSTEMS

                        (million dollars)
1.   Partial Recirculation
      Existing
      New
                                      Plant Capacity (MW)

                                  25        100        1000
               0.845
               0.528
                 0.881
                 0.553
                    1 .700
                    1 .120
2.   Once-Through Sluicing
    with Chemical Precipitation
      Existing
      New
 25

0.369
0.348
                                 Plant Capacity (MW)
100

0.840
0.792
200

1 .272
1 .200
350

1 .781
1 .680
500

2.099
1 .980
1000

 3.31
 3.12
                                437

-------
                           Table VIII-19

      OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOE PARTIAL RECYCLE AND
  CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-THROUGH FLY ASH SLUICING SYSTEMS

                      (million dollars/year)
1 .  Partial Recirculation
      Existing
      New
                                      Plant Capacity (MW)

                                  25        100        1000
               0.331
               0.331
                0.331
                0.331
                    0.332
                    0.331
2.  Once-Through Sluicing With
    Chemical Precipitation
      Existing
      New
 25

0.105
0.105
100

0.185
0.185
                                 Plant Capacity (MW)

                                   200     350     500
0.326
0.326
0.510
0.510
0.693
0.693
1000

 1.12
 1.12
                               438

-------
                           Table VIII-20

  ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL ^CIRCULATING1AND WIT CHEMICAL
      PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-THROUGH FLY ASH SLUICING SYSTEMS

                  (million kilowatt-hours/year)
1.   Partial Recirculation
      Existing
      New
                                      Plant Capacity (MW)

                                  25        TOO        1000
              0.160
              0.160
                0.630
                0.680
                    8.13
                    8.94
2.  Once-Through Sluicing With
    Chemical Precipitation
      Existing
      New
"25 •

0.498
0.498
                                 Plant Capacity(MW)

                            100     200     350     500
0.566
0.566
0.641
0.641
0.753
0.753
0.857
0.857
1000

1.09
1 .09
                               439

-------
                           Table VIII-21

     LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECIRCULATING AND CHEMICAL
      PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-THROUGH FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

                              (acres)
1.  Partial Recirculation
      Existing
      New
                                       Plant Capacity  (MW)

                                   25        100       1000
              6.1
              6.1
                  5.4
                  6.4
                   10,32
                   10.32
2.  Once-Through Sluicing With
    Chemical Precipitation
                   25
      Existing
      New
0.3
0.3
100

 0.4
 0.4
             Plant Capacity (MW)

              200     350  "  500
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0,5
0.5
1000

  0.7
  0.7
                           Table VIII-22

  CAPITAL COSTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM

                        (million dollars)
      System

Complete Recycle with Softening

    Existing
    New
                   Plant Capacity (MW)

                25        100        1000
               1 .431
               0.882
                    1 .569
                    0.967
                      2.508
                      1 .381
                               440

-------
disposed  of  in  a  properly  operated  landfill.   Proper    landfill
operation  should  insure  against  the  possibility  of   leaching  of
material in the sludge which may otherwise enter groundwater.

Bottom Ash

The discussion of bottom ash handling systems will include  individual
presentations  of  capital  costs,  operating  and  maintenance annual
costs, energy requirements, and land requirements  for  25,   100,   and
1,000  MW  'typical' plants.  The specific technologies associated with
bottom ash handling  are  represented  in  the  contexts   of   complete
recycle  and  partial  recycle.   The  concept of complete recyclie, as
discussed  in chapter VII,  involves  the  elimination  of  any direct
discharge  from the sluice system.

Partial  recycle  allows  for  a  continuous direct discharge from  the
sluice system with the remainder of the sluice stream returned to   the
main sluice pumps.

Complete Recycle

The  technologies which are addressed  in the complete recycle category
include hydrobin/dewatering bin systems,  and  ponding  with  recycle.
Both  technologies  in  this case were considered in terms of complete
recycle by using slip stream  softening.   Costs  for  each   of  these
technologies  were composited>in order to generate typical costs for  a
given plant installing complete recycle  bottom  ash  handling.   Both
existing   and  new  facilities are addressed.  Existing plants have an
additional cost factor included for each case, the retrofit  costs.  In
all cases, the retrofit cost was assumed to equal the cost to  install
the  system,  This retrofit cost reflects a number of items:   labor to
take  out  existing  equipment,  labor  to  reroute  existing piping,
resulting  downtime  to   install the new system, etc.  New plants will
not have to contend with  this added cost.

Capital Cost.  The capital costs are, presented in  table   VIII-22.'.  for
the  bottom  ash  handling  systems  which are considered  for complete
recycle.   The dewatering  bins  system/slip  stream  softening  capital
costs  were the summation of the dewatering bin system and slip  stream
softening  system costs.   The slip stream  softening  system   cost   was
based  on   treatment  of   10  percent  of the ash sluicing  stream.   For
existing plants, an installation factor was  considered   to   yield  an
installed  system cost of  2.5 times the equipment cost.

The   retrofit  penalty  was  considered  to  be  equal   to the cost of
installation; the engineering and contingency were estimated to  be   20
percent of the  installed  system with retrofit penalty.   New  plants, of
course, were not penalized for retrofit costs.

The   second  major  system  that  was  costed  for  a  complete recycle
scenario was ponding with recycle.  The pond was assumed to  be built  1
mile  from  the bottom ash  sluice  pumps.   The  slip  stream   softening
                                 4A1

-------
system  was assumed to treat 10 percent of the recycle stream and used
the same equipment as presented above.

Operating and Maintenance Costs.  The maintenance  materials  criteria
were different for hydrobin systems and recycle systems.  For hydrobin
systems,  the maintenance materials cost was estimated to be 2 percent
of the equipment cost annually.  For recycle,  this  annual  cost  was
assumed  to be 1 percent of equipment cost.  The slip stream softening
O&M costs were calculated based on the amount of sluice water treated.
A nominal ash  disposal  cost  was  assumed  for  the  dewatering  bin
systems;  this  cost was $1 per ton of bottom ash produced.  This cost
was based on the assumption that the plants would have to  dispose  of
the ash material regardless of any water discharge regulations and the
difference in operating costs for disposal will be minimal.  Costs'for
both  alternative systems were composited  in order to generate typical
costs for  a  given  plant  installing  complete  recycle  bottom  ash
handling.   The operation and maintenance  costs are presented in table
VIII-23.

Energy Requirements.  The estimation of energy requirements  was  made
in  terms  of annual consumption of electricity.  The requirements for
the dewatering bin systems were based  on  the  pumping  requirements.
Energy  requirements  for  both  systems   were composited into typical
energy requirements for a  given  plant  installing  complete  recycle
bottom  ash  handling.  The energy requirements are presented in table
VIII-24.

Land Requirements.  The  land  requirements  for  a  complete  recycle
system  are  given  in table VIII-25.  For recirculating systems, land
requirements were for the clear pond and piping from the clear pond to
the bottom ash hoppers.  For  the  dewatering  bin  systems,  land  is
required for the bins, tanks and pumps and piping.

Non-Water  Quality  Aspects.   The use of  complete recycle may require
chemical softening of the recycle water.   This would result in a  lime
sludge  which  must  be disposed of in a landfill.  If proper landfill
operations  are  used,  the  potential  problem   of   leaching   into
groundwater can be contained.

Partial Recycle

The  technologies  which  are addressed for bottom ash partial recycle
systems are  the  same  basically  as  those  presented  for  complete
recycle.  The difference between the two scenarios is that the partial
recycle  bottom  ash  handling  systems will not include a slip stream
softening system.

The costs and other requirements were addressed in the same manner  as
for  the  complete recycle systems.  Similar assumptions were utilized
for addressing new and existing plants, pulverized  and  cyclone-fired
boilers.
                                442

-------
                           Table VIII-23
       OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE
                    BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
                      (million dollars/year)
                                        Plant Capacity (MW)
     System
Complete Recycle with Softening
    Existing
    New
25
0.440
0.440
100
0.445
0.445
1000
0.561
0.535
                           Table VIII-24
        ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
                         HANDLING SYSTEM
                            (kwh/year)
     System
Complete Recycle with
Softening
    Existing
    New
:       Plant Capacity (MW) -
   25        100        1000

1.19x105   1.96x105   1.48x106
1.12x105   1.53x105   1.04x1o6
                               443

-------
                           Table VIII-25

         LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
                         HANDLING SYSTEM

                              (acres)
                                        Plant Capacity  (MW)

     System                          25.        100        1000

Complete Recycle

     Existing                       3.55       3.8        5.4

     New                            3.55       3.8        5.4




                           Table VIII-26

   CAPITAL COSTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM

                        (million dollars)


                                        Plant Capacity  (MW)

      System                          Z5        100        1000

Partial Recycle                 :

    Existing                        1.260      1.262       1.59

    New                             0.787      0.814       1.41
                               444

-------
Capital Costs.   The capital costs for the partial recycle systems are
presented in table VIII-26.  The equipment upon which these costs  are
based,  i.e.,  dewatering  bins  without  slip  stream  softening  and
recirculation without slip stream  softening,  may  be  found   in  the
capital cost discussion of complete recycle systems.

Operating and Maintenance Costs.   The  O&M annual costs estimated for
the partial  recycle  systems  were  established  based  on  the  same
assumptions as for the complete recycle technologies.  The slip stream
softening  O&M costs were omitted in the partial recycle cases.  Table
VIII-27 presents the O&M cost requirements  for  the  partial   recycle
systems.

Energy Requirements.    The  energy  requirements  estimated   for  the
partial recycle systems were established based on the same assumptions
as for the complete recycle technologies.  The slip  stream  softening
energy  requirments  were omitted in the partial recycle cases.  Table
VII1-28 presents  the  annual  energy  requirements  for  the   partial
recycle systems.

Land Requirements.   The  land  requirements estimated for the partial
recycle systems were established based on the same assumption   as  for
the  complete  recycle  technologies.   The slip stream softening land
requirements were omitted in the,partial recycle cases.  Table VIII-29
presents the  land requirements for the partial recycle systems.

Non-Water Quality Aspects.  No  nonwater  quality   impacts  are anti-
cipated  as   a  result  of  requiring  partial recirculation of sluice
water.

Low Volume-Wastes           '

The technology costed for the treatment of  low-volume wastes  is vapor
compression evaporation  (VCE).  The sources of these wastes tend to  be
intermittent  and  batch  in nature, requiring a basin to equalize the
flow prior to treatment.  The cost for diked  impoundment of the water,
assuming $10,000 per impoundment acre, is shown  in  table VIII-30.

The installed battery limits costs for the  VCE   system  are  shown   in
table  VIII-31.   The  system ,  life  is  expected  to be 30 years.  The
materials of  construction for the system are  titanium, stainless steel
and special steel alloys.

The technologies costed  for the disposal  brine   (evaporator   bottoms)
are evaporation ponds and spray drying.  The  capital and operation and
maintenance   costs  for  a  typical diked clay-lined pond for  20 inches
per year net  evaporation are presented in table  VIII-32.  These costs
are based on  the following  items:

       dirt  and excavation  cost—$20,000 per  acre,  and
       clay  costs and installation—$20,000 per  acre.
                                 445

-------
                           Table VIII-27
        OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE
                    BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
                      (million dollars/year)
                                        Plant Capacity (MW)
      System                          25        100        1000

Partial Recycle
    Existing                        0.355      0.359       0.421
    New                             0.355      0.357       0.395
                           Table VIII-2S
     ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
                         HANDLING SYSTEM
                            (kwh/year)
                                Plant Capacity (MW)
      System                  25.        100        1000

Partial Recycle
    Existing               0.99x105    1.72x105   1.42x106
    New                    0.92x105    1.30x105   9.80x105
                                446

-------
                           Table VIII-29
         LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
                         HANDLING SYSTEMS
                              (acres)
      System

Partial Recycle
    Existing
    New
         Plant Capacity  (MW)
       25        100        1000
     3.55
     3.55
   3.8
   3.8
    5.4
    5.4
                           Table VIII-30
                         IMPOUNDMENT COST
                                    25
             Plant Size (MW)
               100        1000
Capital Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenace
  ($/year)
Land Requirements (acres)
   4,200
8,400
12,000
negligible  negligible  negligible
    0.35       0.7        1.0
                                447

-------
                           Table VIII-31
           COST OF VAPOR COMPRESSION EVAPORATION  SYSTEM

                                      Plant  Size  (MW)
                              11          J_00         1000
Installed Capital
  Cost ($)*               1,140,000   2,040,000    2,880,000
Operation and Maintenance^3
  ($/year)                    25,000     32,000       39,000
Energy Requirements
  (kwh/year)                  1.6x106   3.2x106      4.8x106
Land Requirements 
-------
The  capital and O&M costs as well  as  energy  and  land requirements are
presented in table VIII-33.

COAL PILE RUNOFF

For the treatment of coal pile  runoff,   two   treatment  and  discharge
options are presented:

     Option 1—equalization, pH adjustment, settling,  and
     Option 2—equalization, chemical,  precipitation  treatment,
               settling, pH  adjustment.

The  costs  of Option  1  include impoundment  (for  equalization),  a lime
feed system and mixing tanks for pH adjustment, and   a  clarifier  for
settling.

The  costs  for  the   impoundment  area  include diking and. containment
around each coal pile  and associated sumps and pumps and  piping  from
runoff  areas  to   impoundment   area.    The   costs  for  land  are not
included.  The cost of impoundment  for pH adjustment is shown in table
VIII-34.

•The lime  feed system employed for pH  adjustment   includes  a  storage
silo,  slaker,  feeder,  and lime   slurry  storage   tank  as  well as
instrumentation, electrical  connections,   piping   and  controls.   The
capital   and  O&M   costs for pH adjustment are shown in table VIII-35.
Rubber-lined steel  mixing tanks are employed  to  accommodate  wastes
with a pH of less  than 6.   The  capital and O&M costs as well as energy
and land  requirements  for mixing are presented in table VII1-36.

The  clarifier   is  assumed  to have  a 3-hour retention time.  The costs
of clarification are presented  in table  VII1-37.

The costs of Option 2  include, impoundment for  equilization,  a  lime
feed  system,  mixing  tank, and  polymer   feed   system  for chemical
precipitation, a clarifier  for  settling  and  an acid feeder and  mixing
tank to readjust the pH  within  the  range of  6 to  9.   The equipment and
system  design,  with  the exception of the polymer feeder, acid feeder
and final mixing tank, is essentially  the same as for Option 1.

The costs for  the  impoundment  area  are the same as for Option 1 (refer
to table  VIII-34).

The costs for  the  lime feed system are  presented  in  table  VII1-38.
The components of  this sysem are the same as  those for Option 1.

Two tanks are  required for  Option 2/ one for  precipitation and another
for  final  pH   adjustment  with acid.   The cost of mixing is therefore
twice  that  of  Option 1 (refer  to table VIII-36).

The polymer feed system  includes  storage  hoppers,   chemical  feeder,
solution   tanks,   solution   pumps,   interconnecting piping, electrical
                                 449

-------
                           Table VIII-33
                    COST OF SPRAY DRYING SYSTEM

                                       Plant Size  (MW)
                                25        100         1000

Installed Capital Cost (?)    600,000   648,000     744,000
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                     25,000    25,800       27,400
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr)  3.7x106   7.4x10^     1.0x10?
Land Requirements (ft2)           800       800         800
                           Table VIII-34
             COST OF IMPOUNDMENT FOR COAL PILE RUNOFF

                                            Plant Size  (MW)
                                    25         TOO         1000

Installed Capital Cost ($)       4,500       4,500      9,000
Operation and Maintenance ($)  negligible  negligible   negligible
                                450

-------
                           Table VI1I-35.
                     COST OF LIME FEED SYSTEM

                '  •         '            Plant Size  (MW)
                                 25        100        1000

Installed Capital Cost ($)     91,200    168,000     258,000
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                      3,800     7,000      11,500
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr)  3.6xl04    3.6x104     3.6x1Q4
Land Requirements (ft^)         5,000     5,000       5,000
                           Table VIII-36
                     COST OF MIXING EQUIPMENT
                                       Plant Size (MW)
                            ,25        100        1000
Installed Capital Cost ($)     43,200    60,000      76,800
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                  >    1,500     1,600       1,700
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr)  1.3x10^   3.3x10^     6.5x10^
Land Requirements (ft2)     ;    2,000     2,000       2,000
                               451

-------
                           Table VIII-37
                           CLARIFICATION

                                       Plant Size  (MW)
                                 25        100        1000

Installed Capital Cost ($)    120,000   156,000      186,000
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                      2,100     2,400       2,700
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr)  1.3x103   3.3x103      6.5x103
Land Requirements (acres)        0.07      0.11        0.16
                           Table VIII-38
                     COST FOR LIME FEED SYSTEM

                                       Plant Size  (MW)
                                 25        100         1000
Installed Capital Cost  ($)     91,200   168,000     258,000
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                      3,800     7,000       11,500
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr)  3.6x104   3.6x10^     3.6x104
Land Requirements (ft2)         5,000     5,000        5,000
                                452

-------
connections and instrumentation.  The costs of the polymer feed system
are shown in table VII1-39.

The cost of clarification is identical to that of Option 1   (refer  to
table VIII-37).

Option  2  requires the use of an acid addition system to readjust the
pH within the range of 6 to 9.  The components of this system  include
a  lined  acid  storage tank, <, two feed pumps, an acid pH control  loop,
and associated piping,  electrical  connections  and  instrumentation.
The specific costs as well as energy and land requirements of the acid
feed system are presented in table VIII-40.
                                453

-------
                           Table VIII-39
                    COST OF POLYMER      SYSTEM

                                       Plant Size  (MW)
                                25        100        1000
Installed Capital Cost ($)      1,200     1,500       1,500
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                      1,100     1,100       1,100
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr)•  2.2x1Q3   2.2x1Q3     2.2x1Q3
Land Requirements (ft2)           100       100          100
                           Table VIII-40
                     COST OF ACID FEED SYSTEM

                                       Plant Size (MW)
                                 25        100        1000

Installed Capital Cost ($)     22,800    36,000      51,600
Operation and Maintenance
  ($/year)                      1,500     1,700       2,000
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr)       75       180         360
Land Requirements (ft2)           100       100         100
                                454

-------
                              SECTION IX

               BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
           GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS, AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
                        STANDARDS AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS


The  technical  information  presented  in  the  previous sections was
evaluated in light of the Water Pollution Control Act   (P.L.   92-500)
as  amended  and the Settlement Agreement in NRDC vs. Train 8 ERC 2120
(D.D.C. 1976), modified at 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1976).   The Agency  has
determined,  from  the  list of technology options, the best available
technology  economically  achievable  and   new   source   performance
standards for the following waste streams:

1.  Once-Through Cooling Water

2.  Recirculating Cooling Water Slowdown

3.  Fly Ash Transport Water

4,  Bottom Ash Transport Water

5.  Metal Cleaning Wastes

6.  Low Volume Wastes

7.  Coal Pile Runoff

8.  Ash Pile, Chemical Handling Area and Construction Area Runoff

9.  Flue Gas Scrubber Discharge

The  BATEA  guidelines  and limitations and NSPS are summarized  in the
following  discussion  which  includes  a  brief  description  of  the
technology   based   limitations,  an  estimate  of  the  uncontrolled
pollutant loadings associated with the waste streams, and an  estimate
of  the quantity of pollutants removed following application of  BAT  or
NSPS,                                                          .:.
Rationale for Proposal b^ Waste Streams

A.  Once-Through Cooling Water

1 .  Pollutants Present

The Agency detected several pollutants  in once- through   cooling   water
discharges.   Table VI-1 lists those pollutants detected at  least once
in greater concentrations in the effluent than in  the   influent.    The
pollutants  present  as  a  result  of  plant  operation  are  copper,
chromium, nickel, sine, bromoform,  chloroform,  chlorodibromonethane,
and total residual chlorine (TRC).
                                 455

-------
2<  Need to control TRC

In  general,  chlorine  is  a  strong  oxidizing  agent  with  a  high
solubility in water.  Numerous reports are available that document the
toxicity   of  chlorine  and  its  byproducts  to  aquatic  organisms.
Chlorine in water may be present as  free  available  chlorine  (hypo-
chlorous  acid  or  hypochlorite  ion)  or  combined residual chlorine
(mono-, di-,  and  tri-chloramines)  or  other  chlorine  derivatives.
Studies  have  shown that the toxicity to aquatic life is dependent on
the concentration of total residual chlorine (TRC) . remaining  in  the
water,  including  both free available and combined residual chlorine,
as well as the duration of contact.  In estuarine/marine environments,
brominated compounds are formed instead.  The term "residual oxidants"
is more appropriate than "residual chlorine" in such cases.  Of  about
550  plants  with  once-through  cooling,  EPA  estimates that 335 use
chlorine for biofouling control.

3.  Available technologies and techniques

Because of current requirements in Part 423, and because of state  and
local  requirements,  many  power plants already are making efforts to
reduce their TRC discharges.  The principal ways in which  to  curtail
or eliminate TRC discharges include the following:

(a) no biocides —

The intake water  quality  at  many  plants  is  such  that  condenser
biofouling  is  not a problem.  Characteristics of this type of intake
water  include  high  turbidity,   low   dissolved   oxygen   or   low
temperatures.   Currently,  40 percent of the plants with once-through
cooling water do not chlorinate.

(b) use of alternative biocides Jto chlorine —

Some plants with biofouling problems use other biocides than chlorine.
The alternative biocides include chlorine  bromide,  chlorine  dioxide
and ozone.

(c) chlorine minimization —

In  the  past,  caution  has  dictated  the  liberal  chlorination  of
condenser  tubes.   Plant  operators are discovering, however, that by
following careful operating, monitoring, and  maintenance  procedures,
they  can  significantly  reduce  the use of chlorine without impeding
effective biofouling control.

In essence, "chlorine minimization" is nothing  more  than  a  program
designed  to  assure the most efficient use of chlorine and reduce the
amount of TRC discharged.  Such a program requires plant personnel  to
conduct  a number of tests to determine the minimum amount, of chlorine
necessary to control biofouling.  Chlorination practices then  can  be
adjusted  in  accordance  with the test results.  Continued monitoring
and inspection of the condensers on a periodic basis is also required.
                                456

-------
Many power  plants  undergoing  some  form  of  chlorine  minimization
program  find  that they do not need biofouling control at all; others
find that their current chlorine doses can be reduced significantly.

(d) dechlorination —

Some plants have installed chemical treatment devices  that  remove  a
significant  amount  of  TRC  from  the  cooling  water  before   it  is
discharged from the plant.  Most of these dechlorination  devices  use
sulfur dioxide or. sodium thiosulfate to accomplish TRC reduction.  The
reaction  products,  if  sulfur  dioxide  is  used,  are sulfate  ions,
chloride  ions  and  ammonium  bisulfate.   Each  is  present  in  low
concentrations  and  have  been  shown  to  have  insignificant pH and
dissolved oxygen shift effect.  This technology has been  demonstrated
to  be  effective both in fresh and salt water media.  This technology
reduces TRC  to  less  than  0.14  mg/1  at  any  time  (instantaneous
maximum).

(e) mechanical antifoulinq devices —

Some plants use mechanical devices/ either with chlorine or  in   place
of  chlorine,  to control biofouling.  Two types of on-line mechanical
devices are used.  One method uses sponge  rubber  balls  of   slightly
larger  diameter  than the inside diameter of the tubes to be  cleaned.
The balls are fed to the inlet of the exchanger,  forced  through  the
tubes under water pressure, removed at the downstream side of  the heat
exchanger,  and  recycled.   A  second  method  uses brushes which are
installed in each  tube.   Movement  of  the  brushes  is  induced   by
periodic changes in the direction of the cooling water flow.

4.  Proposed Regulation

a.  BAT

The Agency  is proposing to prohibit the discharge  of  total   residual
chlorine  (TRC);  however,  power  plants  that demonstrate a  need for
chlorine to control condenser biofouling  may  discharge  the  minimum
amount  of  TRC necessary  (chlorine minimization program).  In  no  event
may a TRC discharge exceed 0.14  mg/1  maximum  concentration  at the
point  of   discharge.   Moreover,  TRC  may not be discharged  from any
discharge point for more than two hours per day unless the plant  shows
that chlorination for a   longer  period  is  required  for  crustacean
control.    The  current  Part  423  provision prohibiting simultaneous
chlorination of several units would be  deleted.   This  provision   is
already  incorporated  into the chlorine minimization  requirements.

Section  301(b)(2)(A)  of  the  Act  requires  the   Agency  to develop
limitations that will result  in reasonable  further  progress  towards
eliminating all  pollutant .discharges.  This section states  that BAT
limitations must prohibit pollutant discharges   if   the  Agency   finds
this technologically  and  economically achievable.
                                 457

-------
The  Agency  has determined that at many plants, a prohibition against
TRC discharges is technologically  and  economically  achievable.   As
noted  earlier,  about  40 percent of existing power plants with once-
through cooling do  not  chlorinate  at  all.   Moreover,  the  Agency
believes  that  some  plants  now  using chlorine could discontinue it
without adverse effect.

Many plants, however, must use chlorine  or  other  means  to  control
biofouling  because  of  the  nature  of their intake water.  For such
plants, a total prohibition against  TRC  discharges  may  be  neither
technologically  nor economically achievable.  Mechanical anti-fouling
devices  are  expensive  to  backfit,  and  are  not  always  adequate
substitutes  for  chlorine.  There is insufficient data to demonstrate
that the alternative biocides can substitute for  chlorine  under  all
cases,  or  if  they  are more or less environmentally acceptable on a
national basis.  This is not  to  say  that  the  use  of  alternative
biocides  and/or  mechanical  systems might not be appropriate in some
cases.

Dechlorination  has  been  demonstrated  to  be  effective  from  both
technical    and    economic    standpoints.    While   dechlorination
significantly reduces the  amount  of  TRC  discharged,  it  does  not
eliminate it.

Accordingly,  the Agency has structured the proposed TRC regulation in
two basic parts.  First, the proposed regulation  contains  a  general
prohibition  against  TRC discharges.  This is BAT for the many plants
that do  not  need  chlorine  for  biofouling  control.   Second,  the
proposed  regulation  requires  that  any  plant  which  must  control
biofouling must use only the minimum amount of  chlorine  demonstrated
to be necessary at that plant (chlorine minimization).

Plants  needing  to  use chlorine to control biofouling in their once-
through cooling water must demonstrate  to  the  NPDES  permit-writer,
through the chlorine minimization study set forth in Appendix A of the
proposed  regulations,  how much chlorination  is actually necessary at
the plant.  Based on this study, the permit writer establishes  a  BAT
limitation  for  that  plant  (in  terms  of a TRC concentration level
(mg/1) as well as limits on the duration  and  frequency  of  chlorine
added)  reflecting  the  minimum  amount  of chlorination necessary to
control biofouling.  The limitations may vary seasonally or vary  with
intake water temperature.

The  proposed  regulation  specifies  that  in  no  event  may  a  TRC
limitation exceed 0.14 mg/1 concentration at the point  of  discharge.
The  Agency  believes  that  many  plants  can achieve this limitation
merely by following the minimization program.  In the  event  a  plant
cannot  meet  this  limit with minimization only, the plant could meet
the limitation by adding a dechlorination system.  Thus, the  proposed
BAT for plants that must chlorinate requires a minimization program in
all cases, and may require dechl'orination in some.
                                458

-------
The  Agency  considered  the  option  of merely requiring minimization
without specifying a maximum  TRC  concentration  level.   Under  this
option,  no  plant  would  be  required  by  BAT to dechlorinate.  The
Agency's conclusion, however,  is  that  this  approach  would  impede
reasonable  further  progress toward the elimination of TRC discharges
throughout  the  nation  because  some  plants  would  be  allowed  to
discharge  TRC  at concentrations much greater than those which- can be
achieved by a technology (dechlorination) that is both technically and
economically available.

Another option was to specify a maximum TRC concentration level (based
upon  dechlorination  technology  for  plants  that  must  chlorinate)
without  first  requiring  that  the  plants  minimize  their  use  of
chlorine.  The Agency has rejected this  option  because  many  plants
have  the  ability  with  economically  and  technologically available
procedures (chlorine minimization) to discharge a  lower  maximum  TRC
concentration  level  than is generally achievable on a national basis
by dechlorination (maximum  of  0.14  mg/1).   Further,  the  chlorine
minimization program is environmentally advantageous in that it always
reduces,  and  in  some  cases  eliminates, the discharge of chlorine.
Further, those plants that will be required to dechlorinate after  the
chlorine minimization program will use less dechlorination chemicals.

The  Agency believes that the proposed scheme best follows the mandate
of S301(b)(2)(A), which is that BAT should be no discharge  unless  it
is  not  technogically  or economically feasible.  The Agency's scheme
assures that there will be no TRC discharge at plants  where  this  is
technologically  and  economically  feasible, and limits discharges at
other plants to the maximum degree  technologically  and  economically
feasible.

The  Agency is also proposing to limit TRC discharges from plants that
must chlorinate to no  more  than  two  hours  per  day  unless  plant
personnel  can  demonstrate  that  discharges  for  longer periods are
necessary for crustacean control.  This limitation is essentially  the
same as that which is already in effect for free available chlorine.

Finally,  the  Agency  is  proposing  to relax current Part 423 in one
respect.  The current BAT regulation prohibits  simultaneous  chlorine
discharges  from more than one unit at any plant, even if each unit is
meeting the maximum concentration and hours-per-day limitations.   The
Agency  is proposing to eliminate this restriction because plants with
multiple units may not be able to comply with the one unit at  a  time
restriction.   The current Part 423 provision prohibiting simultaneous
chlorination of several units (unless a demonstration of need is made)
would be deleted.  This provision is  already  incorporated  into  the
chlorine minimization requirements.

This  change  is  necessary because the proposed discharge limitations
are more stringent than BPT and adequate biofouling control for multi-
unit plants, in some cases, may require multi-unit  chlorination.   It
should  be noted that BPT provides for exemption from the "one-unit-at-
a-time"  requirement  if  the  need for multi-unit chlorination can be
                                459

-------
demonstrated.  The minimization  program  required  by  this  proposed
regulation  is  equivalent to the demonstration of need required under
BPT.

b,  NSPS

The proposed NSPS is the same as the proposed BAT.

Section 306(a)(l) directs the Agency to set  a  NSPS  which  prohibits
pollutant  discharges  "where  practicable."   The  Agency  must  also
consider costs.  S306(b) (1) (B) .  For the  same  reasons  discussed   in
part 4a above, practical considerations and high costs are the reasons
for  not  imposing  an across-the-board prohibition on TRC discharges.
The Agency is accordingly proposing to make NSPS equivalent to BAT.

c.  PSES

The proposed PSES do not restrict the discharge of any pollutants from
this wastewater source.

For PSES, the Agency is proposing no limitations  on  TRC  because   no
plants currently discharge their once-through cooling water to POTW's.
In addition, TRC dissipates in the POTW system.

d.  PSNS

For PSNS, EPA  is  proposing  no  limitations  on  TRC  or  any  other
pollutants.   Because  of  the  massive flows, it is unlikely that new
plants will discharge to POTW's.  In addition, the TRC  dissipates   in
the POTW system.

S«  Cooling Tower Slowdown.

1.  P          Present
Several pollutants detected in cooling tower blowdown discharges  were
attributed  entirely  to  their  presence   in  the   intake water.  The
sampling data show that the following pollutants are being  discharged
as  a  result  of  power  plant  operations:   copper,  nickel,   zinc,
asbestos, benzene, chloroform, 2, 4-dichlorophenol,  total phenolics and
TRC.  Table VI-1 lists those pollutants that were   detected   at   least
once  in  the  EPA data base in greater concentrations  in the effluent
than in the influent.

2.  Need to control TRC and other chemicals added   for  cooling   tower
    maintenance

Chlorine is commonly added to cooling water to inhibit  organism growth
in  both  the  tower  and  the  condenser.   Of  about  300 plants with
recirculating cooling  systems,  approximately  75   percent   of   these
plants  use  chlorine.  The need to control TRC discharges was covered
in the previous discussion on once-through  cooling  water.  In addition
to  chlorine,  other  chemicals  may  be  added  to control   scaling,
                                 460

-------
corrosion,  and  biofouling  of the tower itself.  Scaling, corrosion,
and biofouling affect cooling tower  performance  and  are  the  major
maintenance  items  that  are  commonly handled by chemical treatment-
Some of these chemicals contain priority pollutants.

3.  Available technologies and techniques

(a) For control of TRC

The technologies and techniques for TRC control  are  essentially  the
same as discussed for once-through cooling  {Part IV  (A)(3) above).

(b) For control of 129  toxic  pollutants   discharged  from  chemicals
    added for cooling tower maintenance

Many  power  plants  can avoid or minimize  discharges of the 129 toxi.c
pollutants from the cooling tower blowdown  stream by  using  chemicals
that do not contain the 129 toxic pollutants.  Many plants are already
using some of these readily available chemicals.

(c) For control of all pollutants  from  recirculating  cool ing  water
    systems

Some  plants  (principally  in the southwest) do not discharge cooling
tower blowdown but use evaporation ponds to eliminate all  discharges.
In  areas  where  net evaporation is less than 20 inches/year, this  is
not a practical technology.  Vapor compression distillation   (VCD)   is
sometimes used to reduce the volume of wastewater to be evaporated and
to  provide  recovery  of  water  for  inplant   use.   VCD is a  forced
evaporation system which evaporates over 90 percent  of the water.  The
vapor is  condensed and reused by the plant  as make-up water,  and  the
remaining  10  percent  is a concentrated brine  that is disposed of  in
evaporation ponds or spray dryers.

(d) For control of heavy metals

An available option for removal of chromium and  zinc is precipitation.
This  treatment  method  involves  the  addition    of   chemicals    to
precipitate  the  dissolved  metals and sedimentation or  filtration  to
remove suspended solids.  This technology is required  under  existing
BAT.   This  treatment  method  is  effective   in   lowering amounts  of
dissolved metals.

4.  Proposed Regulation

a.  BAT

The  Agency   is  proposing  to  limit  TRC  discharges  to  a  maximum
concentration  of 0.14 mg/1 at any time.  The Agency is also  proposing
to prohibit   the  discharge  of  all   chemicals  used  for  tower   and
condenser maintenance  that   contain  any  of   the 129 toxic priority
pollutants.   Plants  with  cooling   towers are   not    required    to
                                 461

-------
demonstrate  the  need  to  chlorinate  or  to  undergo a minimization
program.

For Control of_ TRC: One technology that is available  to  achieve  the
.14  mg/1  TRC  limit is dechlorination.  In some cases, plants may be
able to meet this limitation without  dechlorination  by  using  other
good  management practices, i.e., discontinuation of discharge for two
to three hours until the TRC dissipates inside the system.

The Agency is not requiring a chlorine  minimization  program  because
such a program would be unduly complex for this stream  (as compared to
once-through cooling) since chlorine may be required for cooling tower
maintenance  as  well  as  biofouling  control in the condenser tubes.
Moreover, minimization is  not  as  important  in  this  waste  stream
because  the  daily  flow  is  commonly less than l/100th of the once-
through cooling water flow.

The Agency has rejected a no discharge  limitation  because  it  would
either  require the use of alternative biocides for biofouling control
or would  require  vapor  compression  distillation.    Some  of  these
alternative biocides may be as toxic as chlorine.  The  Agency does not
believe  vapor compression distillation is a viable technology for the
treatment of this waste stream since disposal of the brine  wastes  in
an  environmentally  acceptable manner may not be technically feasible
in  some  cases  and,  may  be  too  expensive  in  some  geographical
locations.

Thus,   because   dechlorination   is   clearly   technologically  and
economically achievable, the Agency has determined that the 0.14  mg/1
limit,  which  can be met by dechlorination, is BAT for the control of
TRC.  Meeting ,this limit will result in  reasonable  further  progress
toward the Act's no discharge goal.

For  control of. the 129 toxic pollutants; Many chemicals are available
for cooling tower maintenance that do not contain any of the 129 toxic
pollutants, and  these  chemicals  can  effectively  and  economically
protect  cooling  towers and system equipment from scaling, corrosion,
and biofouling problems.  High levels of chromium and zinc are present
in  cooling  tower  Slowdown  only  if  they  were  added  for   tower
maintenance.   Although  precipitation  reduces the discharge of these
chemicals, it will not be able to eliminate it as in the case of using
replacement material.  Therefore, BAT for this  stream  prohibits  the
use  of  chemicals  containing  the  129  pollutants  (no discharge of
chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance).

For Control of  Phosphorus;  Phosphorus  is  used   in   cooling  towers
primarily for scaling control.  The existing BAT requires treatment of
phosphorus to 5 mg/1.  The Agency has determined that this requirement
is  not  necessary because 1) the limited use of phosphorus in cooling
towers and 2) the environmental impact  is quite  site   specific.   The
Agency  has  determined  that  the  environmental  effect of this non-
toxic/non-conventional pollutant  is  adequately  addressed  by  water
                                 462

-------
quality  standards.   The  proposed BAT is, therefore, relaxed  in  this
respect, and the current limitation for phosphorus will not apply.   .

b.  NSPS

The proposed NSPS controls for cooling tower blowdown are  identical  to
the proposed  BAT  controls.   The  same  factors  and  considerations
discussed in the BAT section immediately above apply here.

c.  PSES and PSNS

For PSES and PSNS, EPA is proposing no limitations on TRC  because  most
of the TRC dissipates before reaching the POTW and the  remaining   low
levels  do  not  warrant control.  For the 129 priority pollutants and
phosphorus, EPA is proposing PSES  equal  to  BAT  because the Act's
legislative  history  indicates  that pretreatment standards should be
equivalent to BAT.  Moreover, these  pollutants   (primarily  chromium,
zinc,  and  pentachlorophenol)  are not compatible with POTW treatment
and may interfere with POTW operation or limit their  sludge  disposal
options.  For PSES and PSNS, the Agency is proposing no limitations on
phosphorus as in the case for BAT.

C.  Ash Transport Water

1.  Fly Ash

a.  Pollutants Present

Table  IV-1 lists those pollutants that were detected at least once  in
the  EPA  data base in greater concentrations in  the effluents  than in
the influents.  The following toxic pollutants are believed  to be  a
result   of   transporting  fly  ash:  arsenic,   antimony,  beryllium,
selenium, nickel,,  lead, chromium, copper, zinc, cadmium, mercury,   and
thallium.

These  materials enter the water primarily via dissolution of reactive
compounds on the surface  of  the  fly  ash  particles.    Only   plants
handling  fly  ash  with  partially  recirculating or wet  once-through
systems contribute to this problem.  Gas-fired and nuclear plants  do
not .generate  ash.   Further, out of approximately 850'steam electric
plants, only 43 oil-fired plants and 183 coal-fired  plants  currently
discharge  fly  ash  sluice water (many of the oil-fired facilities do
not collect fly ash and would not be affected by  regulations  for   fly
ash transport water).

b.  Need to control toxics from this stream

The sampling data  demonstrates that toxic pollutants  are  present  in
the  fly  ash transport water discharge stream; however, most of these
pollutants are also present  in the plants'  make-up  or   intake water
source.   Data on  concentrations of pollutants in the intake water and
fly  ash  transport  water  discharges  are   limited    to   seven    of
approximately  25  plants   (nationally)  with  separate fly ash ponds.
                                463

-------
These data do not demonstrate  a  consistent  pattern.   That  is,  at
certain plants the observed concentrations (or average concentrations)
of  some  toxics  are  higher in the intake water than in the ash pond
discharge while for other toxics the reverse is true.  In other cases,,
effluent concentrations are higher than intake concentrations but  the
observed  values  are  close  to  or  at  the detectable limit for the
pollutant.  The Agency's conclusion is that the present data  base  is
not  sufficient to support any reasonable estimation of net discharges
of toxic pollutants for the industry from  this  waste  source.   This
conclusion is based on the small numbers of observations and the large
variation in the data.


3.  Available technologies and techniques

(a) Dry fly ash transport

Currently 48 percent of the 352 coal-fired plants and  14  percent  of
the  429 oil-fired plants in the country use dry fly ash transport and
disposal systems.  Such systems of transport carry fly  ash  collected
in  precipitators  to  short-term storage vessels (silos) by vacuum or
pressurized air.  No water is used in the transport.  The ash  in  the
silos is trucked to landfill disposal sites.

A  number of these facilities retrofitted their systems—that is, they
replaced wet sluicing to ponds with the dry transport  systems.   This
method  of handling fly ash eliminates the discharge of all ash sluice
water and thus eliminates priority pollutant discharge.

The  motivation  for  retrofitting  dry  fly  ash  systems  for  these
facilities may be the result of a water shortage in the area, state or
local requirements, or a plant's desire to market the fly ash.

b«  Partial recirculation of fly ash sluice water

Currently 52 percent of coal fired plants and 10 percent of oil  fired
plants  wet  sluice  -their  fly  ash  to a disposal pond.  This method
carries ash from the fly ash hoppers to a settling pond or basin using
water as the transport medium.  Most plants operate in a  once-through
mode  since  they  do not pump any of the ash water back to be reused.
Of the plants wet sluicing fly ash, 9  percent  of  coal-fired  plants
partially  recirculate  the sluice water.  The sluiced ash is commonly
pumped to settling ponds and then flows to a clear pond where water is
recirculated to the main sluice  pumps.   In  partially  recirculating
systems,   a  portion  of  the  clear  pond  overflow  is  discharged.
Theoretically, partial recirculation reduces the flow of ash transport
discharge and therefore  the  mass  rate  of  discharge  for  priority
pollutants;  however,  data  to quantify the degree of toxic reduction
are not available at the present time.

Essentially no major equipment need be removed in order to retrofit   a
partially  recirculating  system from a wet once-through system, other
than the rerouting of old pipe.  The addition of  recirculation  pumps
                                464

-------
to  move  the  pond water, and a recirculation pond are required.  The
technology is in use today at some facilities and is available  to  all
plants.   The  degree  of  water  recycle/reuse  practiced by existing
facilities with recirculating systems  varies.   The  Agency  has  not
identified  any  plants  with  complete  recirculation  (no blowdown or
point source discharge).

c.  Chemical precipitation

Another available technology option is chemical precipitation   of  the
final discharge from the partially recycled ash sluice water.

Chemical  precipitation,  in  particular  lime precipitation, has been
demonstrated over many years as an effective method of removing heavy
metals  from  aqueous  solutions.   The  Agency  has  data to quantify
arsenic removal to 50 ppb although  the  removal  of  other  inorganic
priority pollutants was also studied.  The Agency has demonstrated the
effectiveness  of  lime precipitation for reducing levels of metals in
fly ash pond effluents in bench scale tests.

The Agency's data base indicates that approximately 10 percent  of  the
plants  discharging  fly  ash  sluice  water  will have high levels of
dissolved arsenic (exceeding .05 mg/1),

4.  Proposed Regulation

a.  BAT

The Agency is not  proposing  any  additional  controls  for  fly  ash
transport  water  beyond  those established by BPT at this time.  This
decision is the result of careful consideration of  factors  including
costs,  treatment  technology! availability,  quantity  of  pollutants
removed, and other factors.  The ash ponds generally used  to   achieve
BPT   limits  already  produce substantial reductions in the amounts of
toxic  pollutants discharged from fly ash transport water.

EPA seriously considered  proposing a no-discharge  limitation  for  all
plants larger than 200 MW based upon dry fly  ash -transport.  While EPA
found  this option to be technologically feasible.for these plants, EPA
has   concluded  that; the extremely high costs to the  industry ($3.19
billion in capital costs  for 1980-1985) could not  be justified  in view
of the inconclusive nature of the available data regarding the   degree
of  toxic pollutant reduction to be achieved  beyond BPT.  EPA does not
feel  that it would be responsible to  impose  such  costly  additional
requirements  in the face of such uncertainity..  Currently,  169 out of
the   352  existing  coal-fired  plants  already  use  dry  methods  of
transport.   EPA's  decision  is not based upon consideration of water
quality impacts.  The decision  is  based  soley  on  the   inconclusive
nature of  the  data   regarding the degree of effluent reduction that
would be achieved.

Another  option   to    eliminate   discharge   is   through   complete
recirculation  of  ash  transport  water.   However,   the   information
                                 465

-------
available to the Agency at this time is not sufficient to determine if
this system is technically achievable.

The Agency rejected partial recirculation (with blowdown) because data
are not available  at  this  time  to  support  a  specific  numerical
effluent  limitation  for  any  toxic  pollutant;  nor  can the Agency
conclude at this time that any non-toxic pollutant parameter (such  as
TSS)  could  serve  as  an  "indicator" for toxic control from partial
recirculation.   In   addition,   more   stringent   limitations   for
conventional pollutions based on partial recirculation are not imposed
because  the  cost will not pass the cost reasonableness test for Best
Conventional Technology.

Precipitation has been explored as a technology option  for  inorganic
priority  pollutant removal from ash pond overflows.  Precipitation is
rejected because the mean concentrations  of  most  of  the  inorganic
pollutants  from  the  untreated  ash ponds overflow are less than the
treated levels through precipitation from other industrial plants, and
thus no technology transfer can be made.  The Agency conducted a pilot
study  and  determined  that  precipitation   can   remove   inorganic
pollutants from ash pond overflows; but the data are not sufficient to
specify the removal level achievable at a full scale plant.

Precipitation is an option for treating arsenic at certain plants with
high  levels  of  arsenic.   Existing  data are available to specify a
removal level for arsenic of 0.05 mg/1.  This level is estimated to be
exceeded by 10 percent of the  coal-fired  facilities.   Although  the
precipitation  technology  option  was  not selected for proposal, it,
together with the dry fly ash transport requirements will be seriously
considered as an alternative BAT option in the future.

EPA has decided not to propose further control of  fly  ash  transport
water  beyond  BPT  for  existing  sources  at  this  time because the
available data does not support the need for further  control  EPA  is
considering  further  sampling and industry profile studies that might
allow the Agency to reasses its position.  The  Agency  is  publishing
all  available data and requesting public comment on how a program for
further sampling and analyses might be conducted.

b.  NSPS and PSNS

The proposed NSPS and PSNS prohibits all discharges of fly ash  water.
In  light  of  the  large  number  of plants already uisng dry fly ash
systems, the technology is clearly demonstrated and available.  Unlike
BAT, the costs for a dry fly ash handling system are  not  appreciably
different than costs for wet sluicing  fly ash in a new plant.  All new
sources  regardless  of  size  are prohibited from discharging fly ash
water.  The Agency does not anticipate  any  of  the  new  sources  to
discharge their fly ash. transport water to POTWs.

c.  PSES
                                 466

-------
For PSES, EPA is proposing no additional control beyond existing PSES.
This is equivalent to no control.

D.  Bottom Ash Transport Water

1 •  Pollutants detected ir\ sampling program

Similar pollutants were detected in bottom ash transport water and  fly
ash transport water but the  concentrations  detected  in  bottom   ash
sluice water discharges were typically lower.  Moreover, in comparison
to  the  fly ash sampling data, the data on bottom ash water discharge
displays a more consistent pattern  of  lower  concentrations  in   the
effluent  than  in the intake water.  This is because the surface area
of ash/unit weight available for leaching is greater for fly ash  than
bottom   ash.    Further,   certain  pollutants  with  low  volatility
temperature  would  be  present  in  the  bottom  ash  at   very    low
concentrations (i.e., arsenic, mercury, etc.).

At  most  plants  sampled,  the  concentrations  of priority inorganic
pollutants detected  in  the  bottom  ash  pond  were  less  than   the
concentrations detected in .the raw or intake water source.  The bottom
ash  data are still somewhat inconclusive due to small sample size  and
large variability.  The pollutants detected in  bottom  ash  transport
water are summarized in Table VI-1 of Section VI.

2..  Need to control toxics from this stream

The following priority inorganic pollutants  were  detected  at  least
once  in  bottom ash effluent in the EPA sampling data base: antimony,
nickel, arsenic, lead, beryllium, chromium, copper, cadmium,  mercury,
selenium,  and  zinc.   In  most cases, however, the observed effluent
concentrations of these pollutants are smaller thand the intake  water
concentrations.   Thus, the need to control toxic pollutants from this
waste stream beyond BPT is warranted on the basis of the sampling data
now available to. the Agency.

3.  Available technologies and techniques

(a) dry transport —

Approximately 70 plants currently transport their bottom ash  using  a;
dry  system  and  report  no  discharge  to the navigable waters.   Dry
transport of bottom ash entails the mechanical removal of  the  bottom
ash  from  the bottom ash bin and mechanical transport  (conveyor type)
to a temporary storage vessel.  The ash  from  the  temporary  storage
vessel   is  transported  by  truck to the permanent disposal site.   No
water is required in this transport system.  Dry  handling  of  bottom
ash  is  typical  of  plants  with stoker-fired boilers.  These plants
usually have small capacities, with relatively small amounts of bottom
ash generated.
                                 467

-------
(b) partial to complete recirculation --

Many plants recirculate  their  bottom  ash  transport  water  with  a
blowdown  stream  to  control  the  buildup  of  dissolved  solids.  A
completely recirculating system returns all of the ash sluice water to
the  ash  collecting  hoppers  for  repeated  use  in   sluicing.    A
recirculating system can be operated at partial recirculation, usually
12.5  or  25  times  recycle,  or  operated with a complete recycle of
bottom ash sluice water.  The Agency has  not  identified  any  plants
with   complete   recirculation  except  those  in  arid  areas  using
evaporation ponds to eliminate final discharge.

(c) precipi_tation .—

This is the same treatment method as discussed in part 3(c) of the f.ly
ash section.

4.  Proposed Regulation

(a) BAT

No further control beyond BPT is proposed.  The Agency has  considered
the   above   options  and  determined  that  in  view  of  the  waste
characteristics and costs of control options, adequate control methods
are imposed under BPT for this waste stream.

Dry transport of bottom ash for all plants is  rejected  because  this
technology  is known to be adequate for handling only small amounts of
bottom ash.  The Agency does  not  believe  that  this  technology  is
economically feasible and technically available on a national basis.

The  Agency  seriously  considered  the options of partial to complete
recirculation  of  bottom  ash  sluice   water.    Although   complete
recirculation  is  concluded  to  be  a  technically  feasible option,
although the Agency is not proposing it.  The high costs, and the fact
that the data to  quantify  the  effluent  reduction  beyond  BPT  are
inadequate,  are  the two major reasons for .not selecting this option.
The Agency may gather additional  information  on  this  waste  source
(through  the  sampling  program  discussed  above)  and  the Agency's
positon may be reassessed upon review of the new information.

The Agency is proposing the withdrawal of the current BAT  requirement
of  12.5  recycle  of  bottom ash sluice water based on the removal of
conventional pollutants because the "reasonableness"  of  this  option
using  the  cost  tests for conventional pollutants in 40 CFR Part 405
(August 23, 1978) was assessed and  for  all  plant  sizes,  the  12.5
recycle option did not pass the BCT test.

Precipitation is rejected because the effectiveness of this technology
in bottom ash wastewater is uncertain.  The mean concentrations of the
inorganic  priority  pollutants are lower than the treated levels from
other industries using this technology, and thus a technology transfer
cannot be established.  Bench scale studies applying  this  technology
                                 468

-------
to  ash  pond  effluents  indicate  effective removal of certain trace
metals, but more studies are necessary to confirm these results,,     .

(b) NSPS

For, the same reasons that EPA is not proposing any requirements beyond
BPT for existing sources, EPA is proposing  to  withdraw  the  current
NSPS  requirement  of  20  times  recycle and substitute the basic BPT
requirement in its place.  Unlike dry fly ash handling systems for new
sources (which are no more costly than other fly as handling  systems)
a  recycle  system for bottom ash is substantially more expensive than
other bottom ash handling systems.

(c) PSES and PSNS

The proposed PSES and PSNS  do  not  restrict  the  discharge  of  any
pollutants  from  this  wastewater  source.   The costs of  controlling
priority  inorganic  pollutants  and  the   low  levels  of  pollutants
detected  do not warrant the imposition of  effluent standards for this
waste stream at this time.

E.'  Metal Cleaning Wastes

This document supercedes all  previous  memoranda  on  effluent   limi-
tations  guidelines regarding the definition of.metal cleaning wastes.
Metal  cleaning  wastes  include  boiler  tube  cleaning  waste,   air
preheater  wash water and fireside wash water, with or without the use
of chemicals during the cleaning process.

The limitations for iron and copper of  1 mg/1  will  not  be  changed.
For  those  cases where chelating or complexing agents are  used  in the
cleaning process, the treatment  technology scheme  may  need   to   be
altered.   Lime  treatment of these chelated wastes, together with air
preheater and fireside wash water  (at the proper ratio),  will   result
in   the  achievement  of  the  1.0  mg/1   limitation.   An alternate
precipitation scheme using sulfide will  also  achieve   the 1.0. mg/1
limit.

F.  Low-Volume Wastes

The best practicable technology currently available   is  found   to   be
adequate for control and is being defined as best  available technology
economically   achievable.    Boiler    blowdown,   which   is currently
considered as a separate waste category, is required  to  be  treated  for
iron and  copper.   In   reexamination   of   the  waste  characteristics
information, boiler blowdown  is now redefined as  low-volume waste and,
therefore, is no  longer  subject to the  iron and copper  limitations.

Application of. Effluent  Limitations Guidelines  and SJbandards

A discussion of the application of the  effluent  limitations guidelines
was  presented  in the  1974 Development Document  (1).  Certain  aspects
relating  to  the   implementation  of   the  original   guidelines   and
                                 469

-------
recommended  revisions  are  discussed  below.   In-plant  dilution  is
permitted to achieve pH limitations.  Consolidation of  waste  streams
to  a  centralized  treatment .system is permitted and encouraged.  The
quantity of pollutant permitted to  be  discharged,  however,  is  not
always  equal  to  the  total  flow  times  the  effluent  limitations
guidelines.  It would equal the effluent limitations guidelines  times
total  flow  only  if  all  the  raw waste streams contributing to the
central treatment system have waste characteristics which  exceed  the
guidelines.  For cases where the dilution ratio would be so great that
the  analytical  method  is  not  accurate  enough  to distinguish the
difference (such as  low  volume  wastes  containing  oil  and  grease
exceeding  15  mg/1  are  discharged  to ash ponds)t monitoring at the
point prior to mixing (or  dilution)  would  be  required.   The  same
analogy can be used for any stream and any pollutant.
                                470

-------
                              SECTION X

             Ji.             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many   individuals   representing   numerous   agencies,   institutes,
organizations,  universities,   companies,   and   corporations   have
contributed  material,  time  and  energy  to  the  production of this
document.  Because of the large  number  of  individual  contributors,
only the organizations they represented will be mentioned.

This  document  was  prepared  under  the direction of John Lum of the
Energy and Mining Branch of the Effluent Guidelines  Division  of  the
EPA.   Assisting Mr. Lum were Ms. Barbara Menking (EGD) and Ms. Teresa
Wright (EGD).  Dr. William A. Telliard, Branch Chief of the Energy and
Mining Branch, also  provided  direction  and  assistance  during  the
course of the study.

This  version of the development document was developed and written by
Radian Corporation, McLean, Virginia.   An  earlier  version  of  this
document   (September   1978)   was   developed  and  written  by  the
Environmental Engineering Department of Hittman Associates,  Columbia,
Maryland.  Much of the information developed by Hittman Associates was
incorporated  into  this  draft.   Material  was  also  drawn from the
Development Document for the original BAT guidelines written by  Burns
and Roe  in 1974.

The  following  acknowledgements  for  cooperation,  assistance, data,
advice,  etc., are organized by type of organization.

Agencies—The following agencies and divisions of agencies contributed
to the development of this document.

    EPA  -   1.  All the regional offices
            2.  Industrial and Environmental Research Labs—
                Research Triangle Park
            3.  Industrial and Environmental Research Labs—
                Corvallis, Oregon
            4.  Office of Research and Development
            5.  Office of General Council
            6.  Office of Planning and Evaluation
            7.  Office of Enforcement
            8.  Office of Analyses and Evaluation
            9.  Monitoring and Data Support
           10.  Criteria and Standards Division
           11.  Office of Solid Wastes
           12.  Environmental Monitoring  and Support
           13.  Environmental Research Lab—Duluth, Minnesota
           14.  Office of Pesticide Program

    Federal Power Commission
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Oak  Ridge National Laboratories
                                 471

-------
Several  institutes  and  organizations,  primarily  representing  the
interests  of  the  industry,  were very helpful in providing data and
various forms of technical assistance.  These were:

    Cooling Tower Institutes
    Edison Electric Institute
    Gulf South Research Institute
    Utility Water Act Group  (UWAG)

Two state agencies, the State of California Resources Agency  and  the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, provided data and assistance
to  this effort.  The University of Delaware is acknowledged for their
assistance and data contributions.

Many private companies, primarily vendors doing business for  electric
utility   companies,   were  helpful  in  providing  equipment  costs,
engineering data and other assistance.  These  were  (in  alphabetical
order):

    Allen Sherman Hoff Company
    Amertap Corporation
    ANDCO
    Betz Laboratories
    Carborundum
    Dow Chemical Company
    Drew Chemical Corporation
    Ecodyne
    INCRA
    Lockheed
    Mogul Corporation
    01in Brass
    Research Cottrell
    Richardson
    Tetratech,  Inc.
    TRW
    United Conveyor

Many  electric  power  companies  were  very  cooperative in providing
access to steam electric plants for various sampling  and  engineering
studies,   Many  were  also  very cooperative in sharing data and other
information on  their facilities.  Of  particular  assistance  were   {in
alphabetical order):

    American Electric Power
    Appalachian Power Company
    Arizona Public Service Company
    Boston Edison
    Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company
    Colorado-Ute Power Company
    Commonwealth Edison
    Consumer Power Company
    Delmarva Power Company
    Georgia Power Company
                                472

-------
Gulf Power Company
Long Island Lighting
Natural Rural Electric
Nevada Power Company
Northern States Power Company
Pacific Power and Light
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company
Public Service Electric & Gas
Southern California Edison
Tampa Electric Company
Tennessee Valley Authority
Utah Power and Light
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
                             473

-------
474

-------
                              SECTION XI

                              REFERENCES

SECTION III"

 1.  "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
     and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric
     Power Generating Point Source Category," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, EPA-4401/l-74-029-a, October  1974.

 2.  Telliard, William A., "Rationale for the Development of BAT
     Priority Pollutant Parameters," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, May 24, 1977.

 3.  Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Train,
     8 E.R.C. 2120-2136 (D.C.D.C. 1976).

 4.  Appalachian Power Company, et al., v. Train, 9 E.R.C.
     1033-1056 (C.A.D.C.  1976).

 5.  "Standard Industrial Classification Manual," U.S. Office of
     Management and Budget, Washington, D.C., 1972.

 6.  "The Clean Water Act, Showing Changes Made  by the 1977
     Amendments and the 1978 Amendments to Sections 104 and
     311,"  (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.),  96th Congress, 1st Session,
     U.S. GPO, Washington, D.C.,  1979.

 7.  "Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening  of Indus-
     trial  Effluents for  Priority Pollutants," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, April  1977.

 8.  "Draft Economic Analysis  for the Proposed Revision of
     Steam  Electric Utility Industry Effluent Limitations
     Guidelines," U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
     prepared by Temple,  Barker,  and Sloane, Inc., Lexington,
     Mass., August, 1980.

 9   "Inventory of Power Plants  in the United States - April
     1979",  U.S. Department of  Energy, Energy Information Adminis-
     tration, DOE/EIA - 0095(79),  DIST CAT. UC -  97, U.S. Govern-
     ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,  20402.

 10.  "Electric Utility Statistics" Public Power,  Vol. 34,   No.
     1, pp.  32-74, 1976.

 SECTION  IV

 1.  "Development Document for Effluent.Limitations Guidelines
     and New  Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric
     Power  Generating  Point Source Category," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, EPA-4401/.l-74-029-a, October  1974.
                                 475

-------
SECTION V

 1.  "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
     and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric
     Power Generating Point Source Category," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, EPA-4401/l-74-029-a, October 1974.

 2.  "Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of Indus-
     trial Effluents for Priority Pollutants," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, April 1977.

 3.  White, George C., "Handbook of Chlorination:  for Potable
     Water, Wastewater, Cooling Water, Industrial Processes, and
     Swimming Pools", Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, NY, 1972.

 4.  Lewis, Barbara-Ann G., "Asbestos in Cooling-Tower Waters,"
     Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, December 1977.

 5.  Warner, M. E. and M. R. Lefevre, "Salt Water Natural Draft
     Cooling Tower Design Considerations," presented at the
     American Power Conference, Chicago, IL, April 1974.

 6.  Haggerty, D., and M. Lefevre, "The Growing Role of Natural
     Draft Cooling Towers in U.S. Power Plants," Power
     Engineering, Vol. 80, No. 6, pp. 60-63, 1976.

 7.  Jolley, Robert L., et al., "Chlorination of Organics in
     Cooling Waters and Process Effluents," Proceedings of the
     Conference on the Environmental Impact of Water Chlorina-
     tion, October 22-24, 1975.

 8.  Stevens, Alan A., et ai., "Chlorination of Organics in
     Drinking Water," Proceedings of the Conference on the
     Environmental Impact of Water Chlorination, October 22-24,
     1975.

 9.  Morris, J. Carrell and B. Baum, "Precursors and Mechanisms
     of Haloform Formation in the Chlorination of Water
     Supplies," Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, undated.

10.  Hubbs, S. A., et al., "Trihalomethane Reduction at the
     Louisville Water Company,"  Louisville Water Company,
     Louisville, KY, undated.

11.  Bean, Roger, M., R. G. Riley and P. W. Ryan, "Investigation
     of Halogenated Components Formed from Chlorination of
     Estuarine Water," presented at the Conference on Water
     Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects,
     Gatlinburg, TN, October 31-November 4, 1977.

12.  Carpenter, James H. and C. A. Smith, "Reactions in
     Chlorinated Seawater," Water Chlorination: Environmental
                                 476

-------
     Impact and Health Effects, Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
     Inc.,  Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978.;

13.   "Principles of Industrial Water Treatment," Second Edition,
     Drew Chemical Corporation, Boonton, NJ, 1978.

14.   Alexander, James E. ,  "Copper and Nickel Pickup in the Cir-
     culating Water Systems at Northport," New York Ocean Science
     Laboratory, Montauk,  NY, March 1973.

15.   Popplewell, James M.  and S. F. Hager, "Corrosion of Copper
     Alloys in Recirculating Cooling Tower Systems and its Effect
     on Copper in the Effluent," presented at the National
     Association of Corrosion Engineers Conference, San
     Francisco, CA, March 14-18, 1977.

16.   Young, David R. , et al., "Trace Metals in Coastal Power
     Plant Effluents," Southern California Coastal Water Research
     Project, El Segundo,  CA, undated.

17.   Weidman, Jay G., Water Treatment Committee, Cooling Tower
     Institute, letter to John Lum, U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, April 6, 1977.

18.   "Steam:   Its Generation and Use,"  39th Edition, Babcock &
     Wilcox Company, New York, NY, 1978.

19.   "Ash Handling Systems and Suspended Solids  in Ash Ponds,"
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by Hittman
     Associates, Inc., Contract No. 68-01-4894,  December 1978.

20.   Cox, Doye B., et al., "Characterization of  Coal Pile Drain-
     age," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     EPA-600/7-79-051, prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority,
     February  1979.

21.   Curtis, Robert,  "Ash Handling File,"  Radian Corporation,
     McLean, VA, November 1979.

22.   Miller, F. A.,  T. Y. J. Chu and  R. J. Ruane,  "Design of Mon-
     itoring Program for Ash Pond Effluents," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority,
     EPA-IAG-D8-E721, undated.

23.  NUS Corporation, "Treatability of  Ash Settling Pond
     Effluents," Pittsburgh,, PA, March  1979.

24.  "Field  Testing  and Laboratory Studies  for  the Development  of
     Effluent  Standards for  the Steam Electric  Power  Industry,"
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by Radian
     Corporation,  Contract No.  68-02-2608, August  1978.

25.  "Pollution Control Technology for  Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric
                                 477

-------
     Generating Stations, Section 3, Water Pollution Control,"
     U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by Radian
     Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-2008, March 1975^

26.   California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana
     Region, "Variance from Effluent Guidelines Limitations for
     Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category,"
     transmittal of August 12, 1976.

27.   Rice, James K. and Sheldon D. Strauss, "Water Pollution
     Control in Steam Plants," Power, Vol. 120, No. 4, April
     1977.

28.   Halliburton Services, "Hydrochloric Acid Cleaning Service,"
     Technical Data Sheet IC-12000(Rev), Duncan, Oklahoma.

29.   Engle, J. P., "Cleaning Boiler Tubes Chemically," Chemical
     Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 154-158, 1971.

30.   Greenburg, S., "Factors That Must Be Considered for Suc-
     cessful Chemical Cleaning as Experienced in Naval Boilers,"
     Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Vol. 28, pp.  '
     818-829, 1966.

31.   Halliburton Services, "CurtainMI Complexing Agent,"
     Technical Data Sheet IC-12022(Rev), Duncan, Oklahoma.

32.   "Handbook of Industrial Water Conditioning," Seventh
     Edition, Betz Laboratories, Trevose, PA, 1976.

33.   Ellis, H. J., Public Service Company of New Hampshire,
     letter to Edward J. Conley, U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Boston, MA, August 21, 1973.

34.   Klein, H. A., J. J. Kurpen and W. G. Schuetzenduebel,  "Cycle
     Cleanup for Supercritical Pressure Units/" Proceedings of
     the American Power Conference, Vol. 27, pp. 756-773,  1965.

35.   Halliburton Services, "The Citrosolv Process," Technical
     Data Sheet  IC-12005(Rev.), Duncan, Oklahoma.

36.   Flynn, James P., Dow Industrial Service, letter to K.  G.
     Sudden, Hittman Associates,  Inc., February 7, 1977.

37.   Haller, W.A., et al., "Duke  Power Company Ash Basin Equiva-
     lency Demonstration for  Metal Cleaning Wastes," Proceedings
     of the American Power Conference, Vol. 39, pp. 868-874,
     1977.

38.   Halliburton Services, "Hydroxyacetic/Formic Acid," Technical
     Data Sheet  IC-12009{Rev), Duncan, Oklahoma.

39.   Reich, C. F. and D. B. Carroll,  "A New Low Chloride
                                478

-------
     Inhibitor and Copper Complexing Agent for Sulfuric Acid
     Cleaning Solutions," Proceedings of the American Power
     Conference, Vol. 27, pp. 784-789, 1965.

40.   Engle, J. P., "Chemical Cleaning of Feedwater Heaters,"
     Paper No. 104, presented at the Corrosin Forum, Chicago,  IL,
     March 4-8, 1974.

41.   Woldman, N. E., and R. C. Gibbons, eds., "Engineering
     Alloys," Fifth Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
     York, 1973.

42.   Strumm,  W., and J. J. Morgan, "Aquatic Chemistry:  An Intro-
     duction Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria in Natural Waters,"
     Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1970.

43.   Ellis, H. J., Public Service Company of New Hampshire,
     letter to Edward Conley, U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency,  Boston, MA, August 21, 1973.

44.   Cox, Doye B., and R. J. Ruane, "Characterization of Coal
     Pile Drainage," Tennessee Valley Authority,
     EPA-IAG-D5-E-721, undated.

45.   Anderson, William C., and Mark P. Youngstrom, "Coal Pile
     Leachate-*-Quantity and Quality Characteristics, " ASCE,
     Journal of Environmental Engineering Division,  Vol. 102,
     No. EE6, pp.  1239-1253, 1976.

46.   Cox, Doye B., and R. J. Ruane, "Coal Pile Drainage,"
     Tennessee Valley Authority, semi-annual progress report,
     July-December 1976.

47.   Flora, H. B,, Ph.D.  (TN Valley Authority) to M. C. Osborne,
     EPA, RTP, NC.  re:  Chlorinated organics study, once-through
     cooling system, letter.  Chattanooga, TN, 4/24/79.

48.  'Hittman Associates,  Inc. Boiler Chemical Cleaning Prelimin-
     ary Draft Report,  (EPA Contract No. 68-01-3501), Columbia
     Maryland, July 1977.

49.   Gregory, N.,  et al., "EPA Utility FGD Survey: February-March  1978,"
     PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, EPA
     Contract No.  67-01-4147, EPA 600/7-78-0516, June 1978.

50.   Chu, T. J., R. J. Ruane and G. R. Steiner, "Characteristics
     of Wastewater Discharges from Coal-fired Power  Plants,"
     paper presented"at  the 31st annual Purdue Industrial Waste
     Conference, West Lafayette, IN, May 1976.

51.   Sugarek, R. L. and T. G. Sipes,  "Water Pollution Impact of
     Controlling Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Steam
     Electric Generators," draft report, Radian Corporation,
                                 479

-------
     Austin, TX, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2608, October 1977.

52.  Leo, P. P. and J. Rossoff, "The Solid Waste Impact of
     Controlling S02 Emissions from Coal-Fired Steam
     Generators," Vol. 2-Technical Discussion, Aerospace
     Corporation, El Segundo, CA, EPA Contract No. 68-01-3528,
     October 1977.

53.  Fling, R. B., et al., "Disposal of Flue Gas Cleaning Wastes:
     EPA Shawnee Field Evaluation," Aerospace Corporation, Los
     Angeles, CA, EPA-ORD Contract No. 68-02-1010, EPA
     600/2-76-070, March 1976.

SECTION VI

1.  "The Clean Water Act,  Showing Changes Made by the 1977
    Amendments and the 1978 Amendments to Sections 104 and 311,"
    (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), 96th Congress, 1st Session, U.S.
     GPO, Washington, D.C., 1979.

2.  "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
     and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric
     Power Generating Point Source Category," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, EPA-4401/l-74-029-a, October 1974.

3.  "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of
    Pollutants," Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 199, pp.
    28758-28760, October 16, 1973.

4.  Paterson, Robert, "Corrosion and Scaling Control File:  A Set
    of Notes and Phone Call Memos on Corrosion and Scaling Con-
    trol," Radian Corporation, McLean, VA, August-November 1979.

5.  Paterson, Robert, "Non-Oxidizing Biocides File:  A Set of
    Notes, Calculations and Vendor Contact Reports Concerning the
    Use of Non-Oxidizing Biocides," Radian Corporation, McLean,
    VA, August-November 1979.

SECTION VII

 1.  White, George C., "Handbook of Chlorination:  for Potable
     Water, Wastewater, Cooling Water, Industrial Processes, and
     Swimming Pools," Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, NY,  1972.

 2,  Ward, Daniel, "Chlorination, Chlorination-Alternatives File:
     A Set of Notes and Calculations Describing Cost Estimates,"
     Radian Corporation, McLean, VA, October 1979.

 3.  Schumacher, P. D., and J. W. Lingle, "Chlorine Minimization
     Studies at the Valley and Oak Creek Power Plants," presented
     at the Condenser Biofouling Control Symposium, Altanta, GA,
     March 1979.
                                480

-------
 4.   Rice,  James K.,  "Chlorine Minimization Plan for Comanche
     Peak Steam Electric Station,  Texas Utilities Generating
     Company,  NPDES Permit TX0065854," Olney,  MD, March=1979.

 5.   Rice,  James K.,  "Chlorine Minimization:  An Overview,"
     Olney,  MD, undated.

 6.   Philadelphia Electric Company,  "Condenser Chlorination Study
     - 1977/1978," Philadelphia,  PA,  October 1978.

 7.   Moss,  Robert, et al., "Chlorine Minimization/Optimization at
     one TVA Steam Plant," Tennessee Valley Authority,
     Chattanooga, TN, 1978.

 8.   Commonwealth Edison,  "Chlorine Reduction Studies," Chicago,
     IL, December 1976.

 9.   American Electric Power Service Corporation, "Indiana-
     Kentucky Electric Corporation,  Clifty Creek Station:
     Chlorine Study Report," Vols. 1 and 2, Canton, OH, June
     1978.

10.   Duquesne Light Company, "Shippingport Atomic Power Station,
     NPDES Permit No. PA 0001589:  Chlorine Reduction Study,"
     Pittsburg, PA, December 1978.

11.   Lehr,  John, "Summary Report on Chlorination Practices and
     Controls at Operating U.S. Nuclear Power Plants," Draft
     Report, United States.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
     Washington, D.C., May 1978.

12.   Bernt, D. S. and K. H. Nordstrom, "Chlorine Reduction Study:
     High Bridge Generating Plant," Northern States Power
     Company, Minneapolis, MN, June 1978.

13.   Bernt, D. S., "Chlorine Reduction Study:  Monticello
     Generating Plant," Northern States Power Company,
     Minneapolis, MN, June 1978.

14.   American Public Health Association, et al.,  "Standard
     Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,"
     Thirteenth Edition, APHA, AWWA, and WPCF, New York, 1971.

15.   Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc., "Dechlorination,"
     undated.

16.   "Chlorination of Wastewater—Manual of Practice  No. 4,"
     Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington,  D.C.,  1976.

17.   White, George C.,  "Chlorination and Dechlorination:  A
     Scientific and  Practical Approach," Journal  AWWA, Vol.  60,
     No. 5, pp.  540-555,  May 1968.
                                481

-------
18.  Scheyer, K. and G. Houser, "Evaluation of Dechlorination for
    »Total Residual Oxidants Removal," TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach,
     CA, Contract No. 68-02-2613, November 1979.

19.  Schumacher, P. D., "Test Results for Chemical Dechlorination
     Studies at the Valley Power Plant," Wisconsin Electric Power
     Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, June 1977.

20.  Pacific Gas and Electric Company, "Data and Letters
     Describing the Process of Dechlorination by Natural Chlorine
     Demand in a Recirculating Cooling Water System at California
     Power Plant," Transmitted to the California Regional Water
     Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA, June 20, 1977.

21.  Gray, Harry J., and A. W. Speirs, "Chlorine Dioxide Use in
     Cooling Systems Using Sewage Effluent as Make-Up," presented
     at the Cooling Tower Institute Annual Meeting, Houston,
     Texas, January 23-25, 1978.

22.  Yu, H. H. S., G. A. Richardson and W. H. Hedley,  "Alterna-
     tivees to Chlorination for Control of Condenser Tube
     Biofouling", Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, OH, EPA
     600/7-77-030, March 1977.

23   Ward, Daniel, "Chlorination, Chlorination-Alternatives File:
     A set of Notes and Calculations Describing ST Estimates,"
     Radian Corporation, McLean, VA, October 1979.

24.  Mills, Jack F., "Bromine Chloride, an Alternative to
     Chlorine for Trtatment of Once-through Cooling Waters,"
     presented at the Electric Power Research Institute Condenser
     Biofouling Control Symposium, Atlanta, GA, March  1979.

25   Bongers, Leonard H., et al., "Bromine Chloride—An Alterna-
     tive Biofouling Control Agent for Cooling Water Treatment",
     presented at the Conference on Water Chlorination:
     Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Gatlinburg, TN,
     October 31-Noyember 4, 1977.

26.  Burton, D.T., and S.L. Margrey, "Control of Fouling
     Organisms in Estuarine Cooling Water Systems by Chlorine and
     Bromine Chloride," Environmental Science & Technology, Vol.
     13, No. 6, pp. 684-689, June 1979.

27.  Wackenhuth, E. C., and G. Levine, "Experience in  the Use of
     Bromine Chloride for Antifouling at Steam Electric Genera-
     ting Stations," Biofoulinq Control Procedures, Pollution
     Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
     York, 1977.

28.  Union Carbide Corporation, "Ozonation Systems, Oxygen
     Production and Supply," "Ozonation Systems," and  "LG Model
     Ozone Generators," pamphlets, New York, New York.
                                 482

-------
29.  Ozone Research & Equipment Corporation, "Ozonators;
     Industrial, Municipal, Process, Laboratory," Phoenix, hi,
     undated,

30.  Woodbridge, D. D., "Alternatives to Chlorination  in Electric
     Power Plants," Hittman Associates, Inc., Columbia, MD, Con-
     tract No. 68-01-4894, undated.

31.  "Point Source Water Control Monitoring  (sampling) Data
     Collection and Identification," Hittman Associates, Inc.,
     Columbia,.MD, Contract No. 68-01-3501, Progress Report,
     October 1977.

32.  Paterson, Robert, "Corrosion and Scaling Control  Files   A
     Set of Notes, Phone Call Memos on Corrosion and Scaling  Con--
     trol," Radian Corporation, McLean, VA, August-November 1979.

33.  Paterson, Robert, "Non-Oxidizing Biocides,; File:   A Set of
     Notes, Calculations and Vendor Contract Reports Concerning
     the Use of Non-Oxidizing Biocides," Radian Corporation,
     McLean, VA, August-November 1979.

34.  Weidman, Jay G., Cooling Tower Institute,  letter  to-John
     Lum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 2, 1977.
                                           »!>*- *•<
35.  Sipp, J. R. and J. R. Townsend,  "Improving Condenser
     Cleanliness by Using a Dispersant to  Supplement Chlorination
     at a Nuclear Power Plant," Presented  at the Cooling Tower
     Institute Annual Meeting, January 23-25, ,1978.

36.  Allen-Sherman-Hoff Company, "A Primer on; Ash Handling Sys-
     tems," Malvern, PA, 1976.

37.  Morrison, Ronald E.,  "Powerplants Ash;  A New Mineral Re-
     source," presented at the Fourth  International Ash Utiliza-
     tion Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri,  March 24-25,  1976.

38.  "Utilities Cash  in on Fly Ash,"  Electrical World,  Vol. 185,
     No. 9, pp. 23-24, May 1,  1976.

39.  Curtis, Robert,  "Ash Handling File:   A^ Sjet of  Notes and
     Calculations Describing the Costs Submitted to Temple,
     Barker and Sloane," Radian Corporation, McLean, VA, October
     1979.

40.  Allen-Sherman-Hoff Company, "A Primer on Ash Handling Sys-
     tems," Malvern,  PA,  1976.                  i

41.  "Process Design  Manual for Suspended  Solids Removal," D.S.
     Environmental  Protection  Agency,  EPA  625/l-75-003a, January
     1975..  '                '               •  v';  . •
                                 483

-------
42.  "Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment Disposal," U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 625/1-74-006, October
     1974.

43.  Gulp, Russell L., G. M. Wesner, and G. L. Gulp,  "Handbook of
     Advanced Wastewater Treatment," Second Edition,  Van Nostirand
     Reinhold Company, New Yor, 1978.

44.  Sorg, Thomas J., and G. S-. Logsdon, "Treatment Technology to
     Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
     Inorganics:  Part 2," Journal American Water Works Associa-
     tion, pp. 379-392, July 1978.

45.  Patterson, James W., "Wastewater Treatment Technology," Ann
     Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975.

46.  "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
     and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric
     Power Generating Point Source Category," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, EPA-4401/l-74/029~a, October  1974.

47.  Scott, M. C./•"'"•Sulfide Process Removes Metals, Produces
     Disposable Sludge," Industrial Wastes, pp. 34-39,
     July/August 1979.

48.  "Field Testing and Laboratory Studies for the Development of
     Effluent Standards for the Steam Electric Power  Industry,"
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by Radian
     Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-2608, August 1978.

49.  Colley, j.-pi^'ft al., "Assessment of Technology for  Control
     of Toxic Effluents From the Electric Utility Industry,"
     prepared by"Radian Corporation for U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-2608, December  1977.

50.  Resources Conservation Company, "Brine Concentration,"
     Renton, WA,mundated.

51.  Springer, Wayne E., Resources Conservation Company, letter
     to Thomas Emmel,Radian Corporation, August 14,  1979.
               " '• y dai* "'

52.  "Scale-Free Vapor Compression Evaporation," U.S. Department
     of the Interior, Washington, D.C., undated.

53.  Wackenhuth, E.'C., L. W. Lamb and J. P. Engle, Use and Dis-
     posal of Boiler Cleaning Solvent, Pov/er Engineering,
     November 1973y: *

54.  Jones, C. Wv, G. W. Lewis and L. D. Martin, Disposal  of
     Waste Ammoniacai Bromate and Ammonium Bifluoride Solutions
     by Evaporation, presented at the 37th Annual Meeting  Inter-
     nations Water Conference, Pittsburg, PA, October 26-28,
     1976.
                                 484

-------
55.  O'Neal, A, J., H, Cowmerd and D.  J.  Hassebroek,  Experimental
     Incineration of Boiler  Internal Cleaning  Solvent at Long
     Island Lighting Company, Combustion,  October 1976.

56.  Sisson, Si B. and 'G* V. Lee, Incineration Safely Disposes of
     Chemical Cleaning Solvents, presented at  the American Power
     Conference, 1972.

57.  Hittman Associates,  Inc., Metal Cleaning  Wastes  File - A
     Collection of letters and phone contacts .concerning Metal
     Cleaning Wastes, Their  Cleanup and  Disposal, Hittman
     Associates, Inc. 1976-1977.

58.  Dow Industrial Service, ACR Process for Effective Chemical
     Cleaning...Incineration for Safe  Effective Waste Disposal,
     Form No,  174-418-76, Dow Chemical,  Midland,  Michigan, 1976.

59.  Engle, J. P. and J.  T.  Dillman, Chemical  Cleaning of New
     Power Boilers, Power Engineering,  1967.

60.  Haller, W. A., Ash Basin Equivalency Demonstration Duke
     Power Company, presented to the 39th Annual Meeting of the
     American  Power Conference, Chicago,  Illinois, April 19,
     1977.           '      .  •:               " "  "

61.  Chas. T.  Main, Inc., Design Report  Was1;ewater Treatment
     Facilities, New England Power Service.Company, Chas. T.
     Main,  Inc., Boston,  MA, 1975.         "I,..% ""/.>

62.  Dascher,  R.E., San Juan Station Water - Management Program
     presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of .the American Power
     Conference, Chicago,  Illinois, April 19,,.1§77.

63.  Kaercher, G. C. and  R.  M. Rosain, The Design-of  Wastewater
     Treatment Facilities for the Detroit Edison Company,
     Presented to the 39th Annual Meeting of"the" American Power
     Conference, Chicago,  Illinois, April 19,""1977.
                                             !•= •*••> »„,««*•'
64.  Martin, L. D. and W.  P. Banks, Electrochemical Investigation
     of Passivating Systems, presented at the  35th Annual Meeting
     International Water  Conference, Pittsburgy PA, October 30 -
     November  1,  1974.                     -'*"," ,2, «J:
                                             .;. w 4, " •-.

65.  Peltier,  R. V. and J. E. Brennan, Design  and Implementation
     of the San Diego Gas &  Electric Company, jjlastewater Treatment
     System, presented  at the  39th Annual Meeting of the American
     Power  Conference,  Chicago,  Illinois, April 19, 1977.

66.  Kuppusamy, N., Copper  removal  from Power  .Plant Boiler Clean-
     ing Waste, Induudstrial Waste,  23(2), 43r-i5, March 1977.

67.  Feigenbaum,  H. M., Removing  Heavy Metals  in Textile Waste,
                                 485

-------
     Industrial Wastes, 11:(11) pp. 32-34, 1977.

68.  "Steam:  Its Generation and Use," 39th Edition, Babcock &
     Wilcox Company, New York, NY, 1978.

69.  Strumm, W. and J. J. Morgan, Aquatic Chemistry, Wiley-
     Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1970.

SECTION IX  •

 1.  "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
     and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric
     Power Generating Point Source Category," U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, EPA-440l/l-74-029~a, October 1974.
                                486

-------
                             SECTION XII

                               GLOSSARY
                       . t.
This  section  is  an  alphabetical  listing  of technical terms  (with
definitions) used in this document which may not be  familiar  to  the
reader.                                         •

Absolute Pressure

The  total  force  per  unit  area measured above absolute vacuum as a
reference.  Standard atmospheric pressure,is 101,326 N/m2 (14.696 psi)
above absolute vacuum  (zero pressure absolute}.;?

Absolute Temperature

The temperature measured from a zero at which all  molecular  activity
ceases.    The  volume  of an ideal gas is directly proportional to its
absolute temperature.  It is measured in +K (+R) corresponding to +C +
273 (+F + 459).              :

Acid

A substance which dissolves in water with the  formation  of  hydrogen
ion.  A substance containing hydrogen which may be displaced by metals
to form salts.

Acid-Washed Activated Carbon

Carbon which has been contacted with an acid solution with the purpose
of dissolving ash in the activated carbon.

Acidity

The  quantitative capacity of aqueous solutions to react with hydroxyl
ions (OH-).  The condition of a water solution having  a  pH  of  less
than 7.

Acre-Foot

(1)  A term used in measuring the volume of water that is equal to the
quantity of water required to cover 1 acre 1 foot deep, or 43,560 ft3.

C2)   A  term  used  in  sewage  treatment  in measuring the volume of
material in a trickling filter.  One acre-foot contains 43,560 ft3  of
water.

Activated Carbon

Carbon  which  is  treated  by  high-temperature heating with steam or
carbon dioxide producing an internal porous particle structure.

Absorption
                                 487

-------
The adhesion of an extremely  thin  layer  of  molecules (of gas,   liquid)
to the surfaces of solids  (granular  activated carbons for instance) or
liquids with which they are in  contact.

Adsorption Isotherms  (Activated Carbon)

A  measurement  of  adsorption  determined at  a constant temperature by
varying the amount of carbon  used  or  the   concentration  impurity  in
contact with the carbon.'  "

Advanced Waste Treatment

Any   treatment   method   or  process  employed  following  biological
treatment (1) to increase  the removal  of pollution load, (2) to remove
substances which  may  be  deleterious  to  receiving  waters   or  the
environment, (3) to produce a high-quality  effluent suitable for reuse
in  any  specific  manner  or for  discharge under critical conditions.
The term tertiary treatment is  commonly  used  to denote advanced  waste
treatment methods.

Aerated Pond          ,..,_,,,,
_• "I.:... -1. _l....—m-i«iumninoBmi.u.i_L._iLi-jij__j          _
-------
lunlon
The charged particle in a solution of an electrolyte which   carries   a
negative charge.                                   .•'.••>
An ion Ex change Process       '         •'         -
The  reversible exchange of negative ions between  functional groups  of
the ion exchange medium  and  the  solution   in  which   the   solid   is
immersed.   Used  as  a  wastewater  treatment  process  for  removal  of
anions, e.g., carbonate.
An ionic Surfactant     -                       '••      .            .
An ionic type of surface-active substance that has been  widely  used  in
cleaning products.  The hydrophilic group of  these surfactants  carries
a negative charge in washing solution.
Anthracite
A hard natural coal of high  luster  which  contains   little volatile
matter.
Apparent Density  (Activated Carbon)
The weight per unit volume of activated carbon.
Approach Temperature   '    •              "•"'...-.
The  difference   between  the exit temperature  of  water  from a  cooling
tower and the wet bulb"temperature of  the air,
Aquifer
A subsurface geological structure that contains water.
Ash
The solid residue following combustion as a fuel.
Ash Sluice
The transport of  solid  residue  ash by  water flow  in a conduit.
Backwashing                                                .
The process  of  cleaning a rapid sand or mechanical filter by reversing
the flow of  water.
Baffles                         '               ":'       .   ..  ,.
Deflector   vanes,   guides,   grids,   gratings,   or   similar   devices
constructed  or  placed  in   flowing   water   or sewage to (1) check or
                                 489

-------
effect a more uniform distribution of  velocities;  (2).   absorb  energy?
(3)  divert,  guide,  or  agitate  the  liquids,   and   <4)   check eddy
currents?                                    •**     '    •-

Bag Filter                  ,                     '  •           •

A fabric type filter in which dust laden  gas  is  made to  pass  through
woven fabric to remove the particulate matter.

Banks, Sludge

Accumulations on the bed of a waterway of deposits of  solids of sewage
or industrial waste origin.

Base

A compound which dissolves in water  to yield  hydorxyl  ions  COH-).

Base-Load Unit
MMMMMMmMMMMBMPMMMMM*MHMMPMMMI^MM>        f «4 ^ ,,

An  electric  generating facility operating continuously  at a constant
output with little hourly or daily fluctuation.

Bed Degsth (Activated Carbon)

The amount of carbon expressed  in length  units which   is  parallel  to
the flow of the stream and through which  the  stream must  pass.

Bioassav
                     ,£ ^ • ""• >|t       •     .    '
An assay method using a change  in biological  activity  as  a  qualitative
or quantitative means of analyzing a meateerial  response  to industrial
wastes and other wastewaters by using  viable  organisms or live fish as
test organisms.

BiochemicalOxygen Demand(BOD)

(1)  The quantity of oxygen used  in  the  biochemicaoxidation of organic
matter  in  a  specified  time,   at  a  specified  temperature, and under
specified conditions.-   "" ."'

(2)  Standard test used in accessing wastewater  strength.

Biocides
                      'ۥ 7 v *
Chemical agents with the  capacity   to  kill   biological   life  forms,
Bactericides, insecticides, pesticides,  etc.,  are examples.

Bioctegradablg

The  part  of  organic  matter  which  can be  oxidized  by  bioprocesses,
biodegradable detergents, food  wastes, animal  manure.
                                 490

-------
Biological Wastewater Treatment
Forms of wastewater treatment  in which  bacterial  or biochemical action
is intensified to stabilize, oxidize, and nitrify the unstable organic
matter present.  Intermittent  sand  filters,   contact  beds,   trickling
filters, and activated sludge  process are examples.
Bituminous
A  coal  of intermediate hardness containing between 50 and 92 percent
carbon.
Slowdown
A portion of water in a closed system which  is removed  or  discharged
in order to prevent a buildup  of dissolved solids.
Boiler                       .
A  device  in  which a liquid  is converted into its vapor state by the
action of heat.   In  the   steam  electric  generating  industry,  the
equipment which converts water into steam.
Boil.er Feedwater             '                ..  ...
The water supplied to a boiler to be converte*! into steam,
Boiler Fireside
The  surface at which thfe  boiler heat exchange elements are exposed to
the hot combustion products.                   -  .
Boiler Scale                                .  ."-". f .
A deposit of salts on the  waterside of  a boiler as  a  result  of  the
evaporation of water.                      ,  ._.;-\%^;.
Boiler Tubes     '  '                         ;; -•;•.-:.-;!
                                              •.,•>'*£* i •
Tubes  contained  in  a  boiler  through which water passes during its
conversion into steam*
                                            •;<  6,1    -  •
Bottom Ash
The solid residue left from the combustion of a fuel  which  falls  to
the bottom of  the combustion chamber.         .,? ^
Brackish Water                               '  "' * -
Water  having  a  dissolved solids  content between that of fresh water
and that of sea water, generally from  1,000  to 10,000 mg per liter.
Brine
                                 491

-------
Water saturated with a salt.
Buffer
Any of certain combinations of chemicals  used  to  stabilize  the  pH
values or alkalinities of solutions.
Cake, Sludge
The  material  resulting from air drying or dewatering sludge (usually
forkable or spadable),
Calibration  -
The determination, checking or rectifying of  the  graduation  of  any
instrument given quantitative measurements.
Capacity Factor
The  ratio  of  energy actually produced to that which would have been
produced in the same period had the unit been operated continuously at
rated capacity.
Carbonate Hardness
Hardness  of  water  caused  by  the  presence   of   carbonates   and
bicarbonates of calcium and magnesium.
Carbon Column A
A  column filled with granular activated carbon whose primary function
is the preferential adsorption  of  a  particular  type  or  types  of
molecules.
Catalyst
A  substance  which accelerates or retards a chemical reaction without
undergoing any permanent changes.
Cation
The  charged  particles  in  solution  of  an  electrolyte  which  are
positively charged.
CationExchange Process
The  reversible exchange of positive ions between functional groups of
the ion exchange medium  and  the  solution  in  which  the  solid  is
immersed.   Used  as  a  wastewater  treatment  process for removal of
cations, e.g., calcium.
Cationic Surfactant
                                 492

-------
A surfactant in which the hydrophi1ic groups are  positively  charged;
usually  a  quaternary  ammonium salt such as cetyl trimethyl ammqnium
bromide (CeTAB), C16H33N > (CH3)3  Br.   Cationic  surfactants,  as  a
class,   are   poor   cleaners  but  exhibit  remarkable  disinfectant
properties.

Chelatinq Agents

A chelating agent can attache itself to central metallic atom so as to
form a heterocyclic ring.  Used to make ion  exchange  more  selective
for specific metal ions such as nickel, copper, and cobalt.

Chemical Analysis

The  use  of a standard chemical analytical procedure to determine the
concentration of a specific pollutant in a wastewater sample.

Chemical Coagulation

The destabilization and initial aggregation of  colloidal  and  finely
divided suspended matter by the addition of a floe-forming chemical.

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

A  specific  test  to  measure ; the  amount of oxygen required  for the
complete oxidation of all organic and  inorganic  matter  in  a water
sample which is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.

Chemical Precipitation

(1)  Precipitation induced by addition of chemicals.

(2)   The  process of softening water by the addition of lime and soda
ash as the precipitants.

Chemisorptlon

Adsorption where the forces holding  the adsorbate to the adsorbent are
chemical  (valance) instead of physical  (van der Waals).

Chlorination

The application of chlorine to water or wastewater, generally for  the
purpose   of  disinfection  but  frequently  for  accomplishing other
biological or chemical results.

Chlorination Break Point

The application of chlorine to  water,  sewage,  or  industrial waste
containing  free  ammonia to  the point where free residual chlorine  is
available.

Chlorination, Free Residual
                                493

-------
The application of chlorine to water, sewage, or industrial wastes   to
produce  directly or through the destruction of ammonia, or of  certain
organic nitrogenous compounds, a free available chlorine residual.
Chlorine, Available
A term used in rating chlorinated lime and hypochlorites as   to  their
total  oxidizing  power.   Also,  a  term formerly applied to residual
chlorine; now obsolete.
Chlorine, Combined Available Residual
That portion of  the  total  residual  chlorine  remaining  in  water,
sewage,  or  industrial  wastes at the end of specified contact period
which will react chemically and biologically as chloramines or  organic
chloramines.
Chlorine Demand
The quantity of chlorine absorbed by wastewater  (or water) in a  given
length of time.
Chlorine, Total Residual
Free residual plus combined residual.
Clorite, High-Test Hypor-- T
A  combination  of  lime  and  chlorine  consisting largely of  calcium
hypochloride.
Chlorite, Sodium Hypo  •''•••'
A water  solution of sodium hydroxide  and  chlorine   in  which  sodium
hypochlorite is the essential  ingredient.
Circulating Water Pumps
Pumps which deliver cooling water to the condensers of a powerplant.
Circulating Water System
A  system  whi'ch  conveys  cooling  water  from  its source to the main
condensers and then  to  the   point  of  discharge.    Synonymous   with
cooling  water system.
Clarification
A process for the removal of  suspended matter  from a  water solution.
Clarifier
                                494

-------
A  basin  in  which water flows at a  low  velocity to allow settling of
suspended matter.

Colloids                      .                         •

A finely divided dispersion of  one   material   called  the  "dispersed
phase"  (solid);  in  another material  which  is called the "dispersion
medium" (liquid).  Normally negatively  charged.

Closed Circulating Water System

A system which passes water through the  condensers  then  through  an
artificial cooling device and keeps recycling  it.

Coal Pile Drainage

Runoff from the coal pile as a result of  rainfall.

Condensate Polisher
                                            • •  f^-. - '•• •                 '  •
An  ion  exchanger  used  to  adsorb  minute quantities  of cations and
anions present in condensate as a result  of corrosion and  erosion  of
metallic surfaces.                             ; iS                 , .   ,

Condenser                                   s^  -:• •;

A device for converting a vapor into  its  liquid-phase.

Construction                               -^   0rSj                .,-•-•..'

Any  placement,  assembly,  or installation of  facilities or equipment
(including contractual obligations  to  purchase   such  facilities .or
equipment) at the premises where the  equipment  will be used, including
preparation work at the premises.          /;  -;,;/;. >-A                 ,  ,
 Convection   The heat transfer mechanism  arising  from the motion of a
fluid.
                                                -S-i' "

Composite Wastewater Sample                 -•-.-. ; r«..-,-
••^•^••••••••••(•^(•••••^•••••^••••••^•VMKMMMMBMIMMnMBBaMMWWMMMMIHMIB                 _  .'. ,± '-v?^-,-

A combination of individual samples of  water or^wastewater  taken  at
selected  intervals,  generally  hourly for soTSt  specified period,  to
minimize the effect  of  the  variability   of^-t-he  individual  samle.
Individual   samples   may   have  equal   yplum§-.-  or  may  be  roughly
proportioned to the flow at time of sampling.

Concentrat ion, Hydrogen Ion

The weight of hydrogen ions in grams per Iiterfi9|  solution.   Commonly
expressed  as  the  pH  value  that  represents  ' the logarithms of the
reciprocoal of the hydrogen ion concentration.

Cooling Canal
                                 495

-------
A canal in which warm water enters at one end, is  cooled  by  contact
with air, and is discharged at the other end.
Cooling Tower
A  configured  heat exchange device which transfers rejected heat from
circulating water to the atmosphere.
Cooling Tower Basin
A basin located at the bottom of a cooling tower  for  collecting  the
falling water.
Cooling Water System
See Circulating Water System.
Corrosion Inhibitor
A chemical agent which slows down or prohibits a corrosion reaction.
Counterflow
A  process  in  which  two  mediae  flow  through a system in .opposite
directions.                                             •
Critical Point
The temperature and pressure conditions at which the saturated   liquid
and saturated vapor states of a fluid are identical.  For water-steam,
these conditions are 3208.2 psia and 705.47  +F.
Cycling Plant
A  generating  facility which operates between peak load and base load
conditions.
Cyclone Furnace
A water-cooled horizontal cylinder in which  fuel  is  fired,  heat   is
released  at  extremely  high rates, and combustion is completed.  The
hot gases are then ejected  into  the  main   furnace.   The  fuel  and
combustion  air  enter tangentially imparting a whirling motion  to the
burning fuel, hence the name Cyclone Furance.  Molten  slag  forms   on
the cylinder walls and flows off for removal.
Data
Records   of   observations   and   measurements  of  physical   facts,
occurrences, and conditions reduced to written, graphical, or  tabular
form.
Data Correlation
                                496

-------
The  process  of  the  conversion   of   reduced  data into a functional
relationship and the development of the significance of both the  data
and the relationship for the purpose of process evaluation.

Data Reduction

The  process  for  the  conversion  of  raw field data into a systematic
flow which assists in recognizing errors, omissions, and  the  overall
data quality.

Data Si qn i f i cance           .              - -;''':'  -

The result of the statistical  analysis of a  data group or bank wherein
the value or significance of the data  receives a thorough appraisal.

Beaeratlon                  :              - :

A  process  by  which dissolved air and oxygen are stripped from water
either by physical or chemical methods.

Deaerator

A device for the removal of oxygen, carbon dioxide,  and  other  gases
from water.                                ov;-

Dech1orination  Process

A  process by which excess  chlorine is removed...from water to a desired
level, e.g., 0,1 mg/1 maximum  limit.  Usua~jKS^^accomplished by  passage
through carbon  beds or. by aeration  at  a suffkb^B pH.
                                           <«* s- W W *•*- A.    .
Degasif1cation

The removal of  a gas from a liquid.

Deionizer                    '                           - -

A process for treating water by removal of cations and anions.

Demineralizer                             V'"?,(1S">C*;

See Deionizer.

Demister        •     '        :             *d*n »».-.
	        ;          .              .  :-;'*oli  b,. .
A device for trapping  liquid entrainment from gas or vapor streams.

Detention Time                               ,  ,
 	 "'"• '	 ""     .                          S f? C' ,i 3 K* •

The    time   allowed   for   solids   to   coffec€"r in  a  settling  tank.
Theoretically,  detention  time  is  equal  to  the  volume  of  the  tank
divided  by the flow rate.  The actual detention time is determined  by
the purpose of  the tank.  Also, the design resident time in a tank   or
                                 497

-------
reaction  vessel which allows a  chemical  reaction  to go to completion,
such as the reduction of chromium  +6  or the  destruction of cyanide.

Dewater

To remove a portion of the" water from a sludge  or  a slurry.

Dew Point                                                  .           ' •

The temperature of a gas-vapor mixture at which the  vapor  condenses
when it is cooled at constant humidity.

Diatomaceous Earth

A  filter  medium  used for filtration of effluents from secondary and
tertiary treatments, particularly  when a  very high grade of water  for
reuse  in  certain  industrial   purposes  is.required.   Also used as an
adsorbent for oils and oily: emulsions in  some wastewater  treatment
designs.

Diesel

An  internal  combustion engine  in which  the temperature at the end of
the compression is such that combustion  is initiated without  external
ignition.

Discharge             ?;V-  j?ru          •     :          .

To release or vent.   vc  yll.»,,         .                 •
                      '•RSiq 3-              '   .         •.'.'•'.'
Discharge Pipe

A section of pipe or conduit from  the condenser discharge to the point
of discharge into receiving^waters or cooling device.
                      >C-5."^» ., ...         	   .            .
Dissolved Solids      r.isogfiu                    ,„     /    .      ...''.

Theoretically, the anhydrous residues of  the dissolved constituents in
water.    Actually,  the   term   is  defined  by  the  method  used  in
determination.   In  water and  wastewater  treatment,  the  Standard
Methods tests are used.  ,?""">•

Diurnal Flow Curve

A curve which depicts M'tovrsdistribution  over the 24-hour day.

Drift

Entrained water carried from a  cooling device by the exhaust air,

Dry Bottom Furnace
                                 498

-------
Refers   to   a   furnace  in which the ash leaves the boiler bottom as a
solid (as opposed to  a molten slag).
Dry  Tower
A cooling tower in which the fluid to be cooled flows within a  closed
system   which   transfers  heat  to  the  environment  using  finned or
extented surfaces.
Dry  Well
A dry compartment of  a pump structure at or below pumping level  where
pumps are located.
Economizer
A heat exchanger which uses the heat of combustion gases to raise the
boiler  feedwater temperature before the feedwater enters the boiler,
Economizer  Ash
Carryover ash  from the boiler  which  due  to  its  size  and  weight,
-settles in  a hopper below the economizer.
Effluent
 (1)   A  liquid, which flows out of a containing space.
 (2)   Sewage,  water or other liquid, partially or, as the case may be,
 flowing out of a reservoir basin, treatment plant, or part thereof.
Electrostatic Precipitator
A device for removing particles from a stream ; of  gas  based  on  the
principle   that  these  particles  carry electrostatic charges and can
 therefore be attracted to an electrode by imposing a potential  across
 the  stream  of gas.
 Evaporat ion                            "   .»;
 The  process by which a liquid becomes a vapor.  ..-.
 Evaporator
 A device which converts a liquid into a vapor>?ob~y the addition of heat.
 Feedwater  Heater
 Heat  exchangers  in  which  boiler  feedwater. bis  preheated by steam
 extracted from the turbine.
                                 499

-------
Filter Bed

A device for removing  suspended  solids  from  water,  consisting  of
granular  material  placed  in a layer(s) and capable of being cleaned
hydraulically by reversing the direction of the flow.

Filter, High-Rate

A trickling filter operated at a high average daily dosing rate.   All
between  10  and  30  mgd/acre,  sometimes  including recirculation of
effluent.

Filter, Intermittent

A natural or artificial bed of sand or other fine-grained material  to
the  surface of which sewage is intermittently added  in flooding doses
and through which it passes, opportunity being  given  for  filtration
and the maintenance of aerobic conditions.

Filter, Low-Rate

A  trickling  filter  designed to receive a small load of BOD per unit
volume of filtering material and to have a low dosage rate per unit of
surface area (usually 1 to 4 mgd/acre).   Also  called  standard  rate
filter.

Filter, Rapid Sand        ;                                   ;
                        -s •>• -^'r- •
A  filter  for  the  purification  of water where water which has been
previously treated,  usually  by  coagulation  and  sedimentation,  is
passed  downward  through  a filtering medium consisting of a layer of
sand or prepared anthracite coal or other suitable  material,  usually
from  24  to 30 inches,, thick and resting on a supporting bed of gravel
or a porous median such as carborundum.  The filtrate is removed by an
underdrain system.  The filter is cleaned  periodically  by  reversing
the  flow  of the water upward through the filtering  medium; sometimes
supplemented by mechanical or  air  agitation  during  backwashing  to
remove mud and other impurities that are lodged in the sand.

Filter, Vacuum         '  ',   ~

A  filter  consisting  of  a  cylindrical drum mounted on a horizontal
axis, covered with a filter cloth revolving with a partial submergence
in liquid.  A vacuum is maintained under the cloth for the larger part
of a revolution to extract^ moisture  and  the  cake  is  scraped  off
continuously.

Filtration

The  process  of  passrhg  a liquid through a filtering medium for the
removal of suspended or colloidal matter.

Fireside Cleaning
                                 500

-------
Cleaning Of the OUtSide surface of boiler  tubes  and combustion chamber
refractories to remove deposits formed during  the  combustions.
Floe

A very fine, fluffy mass formed by  the  aggregation  of
particles.

Flocculator
fine  suspended
An apparatus designed for  the  formation  of  floe in water or sewage.

Flocculation

In  water and wastewater treatment,  the  agglomeration of colloidal and
finely divided suspended matter  after  coagulation by  gently  stirring
by  either  mechanical  or  hydraulic  means.   In biological wastewater
treatment  where   coagulation   is  not  used,   agglomeration  may   be
accomplished biologically.

Flow Rate                                    ,,.. , we,P-,

Usually  expressed  as  liters/minute   (gallons/minute)  or liters/day
(million gallons/day).  Design flow rate is  that  used  to  size  the
wastewater  treatment   process.    Peak  flow  rate is 1.5 to 2.5 times
design and relates to the  hydraulic flow limit and  is  specified  for
each  plant.   Flow rates  can  be mixed as batch and continuous where
these two treatment modes  are  used on  the same;,plant.
Flow-Nozzle Meter
                                               L Ft 'J
                                            •  ::, •' p --, e - .
A water meter  of  the   differential   medium  type"  in  which  the  flow
through   the   primary  element or nozzle produces'a .pressure difference
or differential head,  which  the secondary element, or float  tube  then
uses as an  indication  of  the rate of flow. ,,  ,.7*  --,-

Flue Gas

The  gaseous   products  resulting  from  the  combustion process after
passage through the boiler.
                                             ~  '*.o
Fly Ash                                       ,-jIi:

A portion of  the  noncombustible residue from a7«i|iel which  is  carried
out of the  boiler by  the flue gas.

Fossil Fuel

A  natural   solid,  liquid,  or gaseous fuel such as  coal, petroleum, or
natural gas.                                   r,;'lll-

Frequency Distribution
                                 501

-------
An arrangement or distribution of quantities pertaining  to  a  single
element in order of their magnitude.
Gauging Station
A  location on a stream or conduit where measurements of discharge are
customarily made.  The location includes a stretch of channel  through
which  the flow is uniform and a control downstream from this stretch.
The station usually, has a recording or other gauge for  measuring  the
elevation of the water surface in the channel or conduit.
Grab Sample
A Single sample of wastewater taken at neither a set time nor flow.
Generation
The  conversion  of  chemical  or  mechanical  energy   into  electrical
energy.
Hardness
A characteristic of water, imparted by salts  of  calcium,   magnesium,
and  iron,  such as bicarbonates, carbonates, sulfates, chlorides, and
nitrates, that  causes  curdling  of  soap,  deposition  of  scale   in
boilers,   damage   in  * some   industrial   process,   and  sometimes
objectionable taste.  It may be determined by  a  standard   laboratory
procedure  or  computed  from  the amounts of calcium and magnesium  as
well as iron, aluminum, manganese, barium, strontium, and zinc, and  is
expressed as equivalent calcium carbonate.
Heat of AbsorPti on
The heat given off when molecules are adsorbed.
High Rate
The fuel heat input (in Joules or Btu's) required to generate a kWh.
Heating Value
The heat available from the combustion of a  given quantity of fuel   as
determined by a standard calorimetric process.
Humidity
Pounds of water vapor carried by  1 pound of  dry air.
Ion
A  charged  atom,  molecule or radical,  the  migration of  which  affects
the transport of electricity  through an  electrolyte.
                                 502

-------
Ion Exchange
A chemical process involving reversible  interchange  of  ions  between  a
liquid and solid but no radical change in the  structure of the solid.
Incineration .                                   ,--.-.•..
The  combustion  (by  burning)  of organic matter  in wastewater sludge
solids after water evaporation from  the  solids.
Lagoon                        •              ••         ..,-...    .........
(1)  A shallow body of water as a pond or lake which  usually  has  a
shallow, restricted inlet from the,sea.
(2)   A  pond  containing raw or partially treated wastewater in which
aerobic.or anerobic stabilization occurs.
Lignite
A carbonaceous fuel ranked between peat  and coal.
Lime
Any of  a  family  of  chemicals  consisting,  essentially of  calcium
hydroxide  made  from  limestone  (calcite)  which  is  composed almost
wholly of calcium carbonate or a  mixture  of   calcium   and   magnesium
carbonates.                           .     . •;•  : •                   '-•-
Makeup Water Pumps         '                 "'••-.. :.'<:.
Pumps  which  provide  water  to  replace  that lost  by evaporation,
seepage, and blowdown.
Manometer
An instrument for measuring pressure.  It usually  consists   of  a  U--
shaped   tube   containing  a  liquid,   the  surface of  which  moves
proportionally with changes in pressure  on the liquid   in  the  other
end.  Also, a tube type of differential  pressure gauge.
Mean Velocity                  :          '    •,;
The  average velocity of a stream flowing in a channel  or conduit at a
given cross section or in a given reach.  It is equal to the discharge
divided by the cross sectional area  of the reach.  Also called average
velocity.                                       :
Mechanical Draft Tower                                           .   .  -
A cooling, tower in which the air flow through  the  tower is  maintained
by  fans.  In forced draft towers, the air is  forced through the tower
                                503

-------
by fans located at its base; whereas in induced draft towers, the  air
is pulled through the tower by fans mounted on top of the tower.
Mesh Size (Activated Carbon)
The  particle  size  of granular activated carbon as determined by the
U.S. Sieve series.  Particle size distribution within a mesh series is
given in the specification of the particular carbon.
Milligrams Per Liter (mg/1)
This is a weight per volume designation used in water  and  wastewater
analysis.
Mine-Mouth Plant
A  steam electric powerplant located within a short distance of a coal
mine and to which the coal is transported from the mine by a  conveyor
system, slurry pipeline, or truck.
Mixed-Media Filtration                              *
A filter which uses two or more filter materials- of differing specific
gravities  selected  so  -as  to produce a filter uniformly graded from
coarse to fine.
Mole
The molecular weight of a substance expressed in grams (or pounds).
Monitoring
(1)  The procedure or operation of locating and measuring  radioactive
contamination  by  means  of  survey  instruments  that can detect and
measure, as dose rate, ionizing radiations.
(2)  The measurements, sometimes continuous, of water quality.
Name Plate
Name plate—design rating of a plant or specific piece of equipment.
Natural Draft Cool ing Tower
A cooling tower through which  air  is  circulated  by  a  natural  or
Chimney  effect.   A hyperbolic tower is a natural draft tower that is
hyperbolic in shape.
Neutralization
Reaction of acid or alkaline solutions with the opposite reagent until ;
the concentrations of hydrogen and hydorxyl ions are about equal.      !
                                 504

-------
New Source
Any source, the construction of which is begun after  the  publication
of  proposed  Section  306  regulations,   (March 4, 1974 for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category).
Nominal Capacity
See Name Plate.
Nuclear Energy
The energy derived from the fission of nuclei of heavy  elements  such
as  uranium  or  thorium  or  from  the  fusion of the nuclei of light
elements such as deuterium or tritium.
Once-Through Circulating Water System
A circulating water system which draws water from  a  natural   source,
passes  it  through  the  main condensers, and returns it  to a  natural
body of water.
Osmosis
The process of diffusion of a solvent through a semipermeable membrane
from a solution of lower to one of higher  concentration.
Osmotic Pressure
The equilibrium pressure differential across a semipermeable  membrane
which separates a solution of lower from one of higher concentration.
Overflow
 (1)   Excess  water  over  the  normal operating limits disposed of by
letting it flow out through a device provided for  that  purpose.    (2)
The device itself that allows excess water to flow out.
Outfall
The  point  or  location  where  sewage  or drainage  discharges from a
sewer, drain, or conduit.
Oxidation                 •     ;
The addition  of oxygen to a chemical  compound,  generally  any   reaction
which  involves the loss of electrons  from  an atom.
Package Sewage Treatment  Plant
A  sewage  treatment  facility contained  in a small  area  and  generally
prefabricated in a complete- package.
                                 505

-------
Packing (Cooling Towers)
A media providing large surface area for the purpose of enhancing mass
and heat transfer, usually between a gas vapor and a liquid.
Peak-Load Plant
A generating facility operated only during periods at maximum demand.
pH Value
A scale for expressing  the  acidity  or  alkalinity  of  a  solution.
Mathematically,  it  is  the  logarithm  of the reciprocal of the gram
ionic hydrogen equivalents per liter.  Neutral water has a pH  of  7.0
and hydrogen ion concentration of 107 moles per liter.
PIaced in Servl.ce
Refers  to  the  data  when  a  generating  unit  initially  generated
electrical power to service customers.
P1ant Code Number
A four-digit number  assigned  to  all  powerplants  in  the  industry
inventory for the purpose of this study.
Plume (Gas)
A  conspicuous  trail  of gas or vapor emitted from a cooling tower or
chimney.
Pond, Sewage Oxidation.
A pond, either natural or artificial, into which partly treated sewage
is discharged and in which natural purification processes  take  place
under the influence of sunlight and air.
Powerpiant
Equipment that produces electrical energy generally by conversion from
heat energy produced by chemical or nuclear reaction.
Precipitation
A phenomenon that occurs when a substance held in solution in a liquid
phase passes out of solution into a solid phase.
Preheater (Air)
A  unit  used  to heat the air needed for combustion of absorbing heat
from the products of combustion.
Psychrometr i c
                                 506-

-------
Refers  to  air-water  vapor  mixtures  and   their   properties.    A
psychrometric  chart  graphically  displays  the  relationship between
these properties.
Pulverized Coal   .          "      .              .         •  .    '
Coal that has been ground to a powder, usually  of  a  size  where  80
percent passes through a 1200 U.S.S. sieve.
Pyrites  '        -           •-         .  '              -  .       -
Combinations of iron and sulfur found in coal as FeS2.
Radwaste
Radioactive waste streams from nuclear powerplants.
Range
Difference between entrance and exit temperature of water in a cooling
tower,
Rank of Coal
A  classification  of coal based upon the fixed carbon as a dry weight
basis and the heat value.
RankineCycle
The thermodynamic cycle which is  the  basis  of  the  steam  electric
generating process,
Recirculation System
Facilities which are specifically designed to divert the major portion
of the cooling water discharge back for reuse.
Reduction                 '            .      .    .  .
A chemical reaction which involves the addition of electrons to an ion
to decrease its positive valence.
Regeneration
Displacement  from  ion  exchange  resins of the ions removed from the
process solution.
Reheater
A heat exchange device for adding superheat to steam  which  has  been
partially expanded in the turbine.
Reinlection
                                507

-------
To return a flow, or portion of flow, into i process.
Re1atiye Humid i tv
Ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure
of water at air temperature.
ResidualChlorine
Chlorine  remaining  in  water  or  wastewater at the end of specified
contact period as combined or free chlorine.
ReverseOsmosis
The process of diffusion of a solute through a semipermeable  membrane
from  a  solution of lower to one of higher concentration, affected by
raising the pressure of the less concentrated solution  to  above  the
osmotic pressure.
Salinity
(I)   The relative concentration of salts, usually sodium chloride, in
a given water.  It is usually expressed in  terms  of  the  number  of
parts per million of chloride (CD.
(2)  A measure of the concentration of dissolved mineral substances in
water.
Sampler
A  device used with or without flow measurement to obtain any adequate
portion of water or waste for analytical purposes.   May  be  designed
for  taking  a  single  sample  (grab),  composite  sample, continuous
sample, or periodic sample,
Sampli ng Stations
Locations where several flow samples are tapped for analysis,
San i tary Wastewater
Wastewater discharged from  sanitary  conveniences  of  dwellings  and
industrial facilities.
Saturated A i r
Air  in  which  water vapor is in equilibrium with liquid water at air
temperature.
Saturated Steam
Steam at the temperature and pressure at which the  liquid  and  vapor
phase can exist in equilibrium.
                                508

-------
Scale
Generally  insoluble  deposits on equipment and heat transfer surfaces
which are created when the solubility of a salt is  exceeded.   Common
scaling agents are calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate.
Scrubber
A  device  for removing particles or objectionable gases from a stream
of gas.
Secondary Treatment
The treatment of sanitary wastewater by biological means after primary
treatment by sedimentation.                                 .
Sedimentation
The process of subsidence and deposition of suspended  matter  carried
by a liquid.
Sequestering Agents
Chemical  compounds  which  are  added to water systems to prevent  the
formation of scale by holding the insoluble compounds  in suspension.
Service Water Pumps
Pumps providing water for auxiliary plant heat  exchangers   and   other
uses.
Settleable Solids                ,
(1)   That  matter   in  wastewater  which  will not stay in  suspension
during a preselected settling  period,  such  as   1  hour  but  either
settles to the bottom or floats  to the top.
(2)  In the Imhoff cone test, the volume of matter that settles to  the
bottom of the cone in 1 hour.
Slag Tap Furnace
Furnace in which the temperature is high enough to maintain  ash  (slag)
in  a  molten  state until it leaves the furnace  through a  tap at  the
bottom.  The slag falls  into  the  sluicing  water  where   it  cools,
disintegrates, and is carried away.
Slimicide
An agent used to destroy or control slimes.
Sludge
                                 509

-------
Accumulated solids separated from a liquid during processing.

Softener

Any  device  used to remove hardness from water.  Hardness in water is
due mainly to calcium and  magnesium  salts.   Natural  zeolites,  ion
exchange  resins,  and  precipitation processes are used to remove the
calcium and magnesium.

Spinning Reserve

The power generating reserve connected to the bus  bar  and  ready  to
take  load.   Normally  consists  of units operating at less than full
load.  Gas turbines, even though not running, are considered  spinning
reserve due to their quick startup time.

Spray Module (Powered Spray Module)

A  water  cooling  device  consisting  of  a  pump and spray nozzle or
nozzles mounted on floats and moored  in  the  body  of  water   to  be
cooled.  Heat is transferred principally by evaporation from the water
drops as they fall through the air.

Stabilization Lagoon

A  shallow  pond  for  storage  of  wastewater before discharge.  Such
lagoons may serve only to detain and equalize  wastewater  composition
before  regul-ated  discharge  to a stream, but often they are used for
biological oxidation.

Stabilization Pond

A type of oxidation pond in  which  biological  oxidation  of   organic
matter  is  affected by natural or artifically accelerated transfer of
oxygen to the water from air.

Steam Drum

Vessel in which the saturated steam is separated  from the  steam-water
mixture and into which the feedwater is  introduced.

Supercritical

Refers  to  boilers designed to operate  at or above the critical point
of  water  22,100  kN/square  meters  and  374.0+C  (3206.2  psia  and
705.4+F).

Superheated Steam

Steam  which has been heated to a  temperature above that corresponding
to saturation at a specific pressure.

Suspended Solids
                                510

-------
(1)  Solids which either float on the surface of or are in  suspension
in  water,  wastewater,  or  other  liquids,  and  which  are  largely
removable by laboratory filtering.

(2)  The quantity of material removed from wastewater in a  laboratory
test,  as prescribed in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater" and referred to as nonfilterable residue.

Thermal Efficiency

The efficiency of the thermodynamic cycle in producing work from heat.
The ratio of usable energy to heat input expressed as a percent.

Thickening

Process of increasing the solids content of sludge.

Total Dynamic Head (TDH)

Total energy provided by  a  pump  consisting  of  the  difference  in
elevation between the suction and discharge levels, plus losses'due to
unrecovered velocity heads and friction.

Total Solids

The  total  amount  of  solids  in  a  wastewater in both solution and
suspension.

Turbine

A device used to convert the energy of steam or  gas  into  rotational
mechanical   energy   and  used  as  prime  mover  to  drive  electric
generators.

Treatment Efficiency

Usually refers to the percentage reduction of a specific or  group  of
pollutants by a specific wastewater treatment step or treatment plant.

Turbidmeter

An   instrument  for  measurement  of  turbidity  in  which  a standard
suspension usually is used for reference.

Turbidity

(1)  A condition in water or wastewater  caused  by  the  presence  of
suspended  matter, resulting in the scattering and adsorption of light
rays.

(2)  A measure of fine suspended matter  in liquids.
                                 511

-------
(3)  An analytical quantity usually reported  in  arbitrary  turbidity
units determined by measurements of light diffraction.

Turbulent Flow

(1)  The flow of a liquid past an object such that the velocity at any
fixed point in the fluid varies irregularly.

{2)  A type of liquid flow in which there is an unsteady motion of the
particles   and  the  motion  at  a  fixed point varies in no definite
manner.  Sometimes called eddy flow, sinuous flow.
In steam electric generation, the basic  sysem  for  power  generation
consisting  of  a boiler and its associated turbine and generator with
the required auxiliary equipment.

Utility

(Public utility)—A company either investor-owned  or  publicly  owned
which  provides  service  to  the  public  in  general.   The electric
utilities generate and distribute electric power.

Volatlle Combustion Matter

The relatively light components in a fuel which readily vaporize at  a
relatively  low  temperature  and  which when combined or reacted with
oxygen, giving out light and heat.

Wet Bottom Furnace

See slag-tap furnace.

Wet Bulb Temperature

The steady-state, nonequilibrium temperature reached by a  small  mass
of water immersed under adiabatic conditions in a continuous stream of
air.

Wet^Scrubber

A device for the collection of particulate matter from a gas stream or
adsorption of certain gases from the stream.
                                512

-------
       APPENDIX A

TVA RAW RIVER INTAKE AND
 ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA

    Quarterly Samples
        1973-1976
           513

-------
                                                        Table A-l

                              TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
    Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
ui  Chromium, mg/1
tj  Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, »g/l
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
1/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
6.4
0.10
0.023
0.3
<0.01
0.037
170
6
0.049
750
0.36
<0.01
480
1.1
<0.010
13
0.50
0.0006
0.13
0.18
0.004
15

-------
                                                  Table A-l  (Continued)

                              TVA PLANT A RIVER HATER INTAKE AND  FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly  Samples)
Ul
     Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1  •
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, aig/1
1/15/74
River
Intake
5.7
0.14
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
24
4
0.021
140
0.19
-
69
5.4
0.02
4.1
0.17
<0.0002
<0.05
0.12
<0.002
5.2
<0.01
120
100
6
0,09
Pond
Discharge
13
« 1.4
0.005
0.2
<0.01
0.041
110
5
0.17
710
0.45
<0.01
340
6.6
0.20
17
0.63
<0.0002
0.10
0.02
0.002
11
<0.01
620
6
280
2.7
4/8/74
River
Intake
6.7
0.04
<0.005
0.4
<0.01
<0.001
27
4
0.024
210
0.14
-
91
6.7
<0.010
5.7
0.25
<0.0002
0.05
0.13
<0.002
6.9
<0.01
120
190
28
0.12
Pond
Discharge
6.6
1.0
<0.005
0.4
0.02
0.030
94
5
0.056
740
0.30
<0.01
320
1.0
0.021
20
0.59
<0.0002
0.08
0.02
<0.002
12
<0.01
560
5
430
1.1
7/15/74
River
Intake
1.0
0.04
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
41
9
<0.005
320
0.08
-
140
1.3
0.026
8.0
o.io
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
1.7
<0.01
200
14
24
0.08
Pond
Discharge
3.6
0.26
0.005
0.3
<0.01
0.038
94
8
0.12
640
0.16
<0.01
280
0.33
<0.024
12
0.29
<0.0002
0.06
0.02
<0.002
—
0.01
470
2
240
1.3
10/8/74
River
Intake
1.1
0.02
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
41
9
0.008
310
0.04
-
90
1.1
0.038
6.8
0.08
<0.0002
<0.05
0.03
<0.002
6.3
<0.01
170
45
15
0.06
Pond
Discharge
7.9
0.15
0.010
0.2
<0.01
0.037
110
6
0.082
680
0.30
_
310
0.60
0.064
9.4
0.31
<0.0002
0.11
0.02
<0.002
10
<0.01
500
6
380
1.4

-------
                                                  Table A-l  (Continued)

                              TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY. ASH POND  DISCHARGE  DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
Ul
CTx
     Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, iag/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, nig/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
2/3/75
River
Intake
0.05
0.10
no sample
<0.1
<0.01
0.004
29
6
<0.005
240
0.05
<0.01
91
1.4
0.021
4.5
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.01
no sample
8.0
<0.01
140
57
30
0.14
Pond ,
Discharge
6.2
1.2
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.025
88
5
0.052
590
0.24
<0.01
270
2.2
0.052
13
0.44
<0.0002
0.07
<0.01
<0.002
9.3
<0.01
470
4
290
0.82
4/7/75
River
Intake
*
0.02
<0.005
*
*
*
*
4
*
190
*
-
*
*
*
*
*
<0.0002
*
0.05
<0.002
5.6
*
150
21
28
*
Pond
Discharge
10
0.75
<0.005

-------
                                                   Table A-l  (Continued)

                              TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER  INTAKE AND  FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
                          Date
1/8/76
4/13/76
Ul


Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25 °C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous , mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, »g/l
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sul fate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
River
Intake
1.2
0.07
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
42
5
XO.OQ5
240
0.02
-
130
1.2
<0.010
5.4
0.10
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
7.0
<0.01
150
31
16
0.02
Pond
Discharge
9.5
0.89
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.049
"92
6
0.080
660
0.32
_
280
5.6
0.050
13
0.46
<0.0002
0.05
0.06
-
14
<0.01
480
25
320
0.74
River
Intake
1.0
0.03
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
32
6
<0.005
220
0.03
-
100
1.3
<0.010
5.5
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
*
<0.01
130
36
16
0.06
Pond
Discharge
7.4
0.55

-------
                                                        Table A-2

                            TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
Ul
M
00
     Date
Aluminum, rag/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, uohos/<
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, rag/1
Sulfate, »g/l
Zinc, mg/1
1/2/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
. NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.6
0.06
0.002
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
33
6
<0.005
250
0.04
<0.01
110
3.8
<0.010
5.7
0.12
0.0008
<0.05
0.17
0.002
7.3
<0.01
170
27
41
0.08
ft/2/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
0.9
0.06
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
33
8
<0.005
250
<0.01
<0.01
110
2.0
0.010
6.7
0.14
0.0004
<0.05
<0.03
<0.004
8.1
<0.01
180
13
45
0.03
7/2/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
8.0
0.06
0.015
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
44
8
<0.005
290
0.08
<0.01
140
7.5
<0.010
6.7
0.25
<0.0026
<0.05
0.36
<0.001
6.1
<0.01
180
74
50
0.07
10/1/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
0.7
0.22
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
67
15
<0.005
400
0.03
<0.01
170
2.1
<0.010
0.3
0.15
<0.0002
0.12
0.09
<0.001
8.6
3<0.01
260
6
80
0.02
     NA = Not  Available

-------
                                                    Table A-2 (Continued)

                              TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                     (Quarterly Samples)
Ul
i_i
us
      Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1    :
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/15/74
River
Intake
5.7
0.14
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
21
4
0.021
140
0.19
.-
69
5.4
0»02
4.1
0.17
<0.0002
<0,05
0.12
<0.002
5.2
<0.01
120
100
6
0.09
Pond
Discharge
6.0
0.05
0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
23
5
0.023
180
0.12
<0.01
76
11
0.031
4.4
0.16
<0.0002
<0.05
0.14
0.004
6.3
<0.01
150
120
41
0.14
4/8/74
River
Intake
6.7
0.04
<0.005
0.4
<0.01
<0.001
27
4
0.024
210
0.14
_
91
6.7
<0.010
5.7
0.25
<0.0002
<0.05
0.13
<0.002
6.9
<0.01
120
190
28
0.12
Pond
Discharge
7.9
0.34
0.005
0.3
<0.01
<0.001
30
6
0.011
250
0.14
<0,01
100
10
0.019
6.0
0.26
0.0006
<0.05
0.23
<0.002
7.4
<0.01
170
200
48
0.16
7/15/74
River
Intake,
1.0
0.04
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
41
9
<0.005
320
0.08
-
140
1*3
0.026
8.0
0.10
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
1.7
<0.01
200
14
24
0,08
Pond
Discharge
0.5
0.12
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
0.002
44
10
<0.005
360
0.01
<0.01
150
1.7
0.020
9.3
0.07
X0.0002
0.05
0.03
<0.002
- ' •
<0.01
240
5
42
0.07
10/8/14
River
Intake
1.1
0.02
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
41
9
0.008
310
0.04
_
90
1.1
0.038
6.8
0.08
«0.0002
<0.05
0.03
<0.002
6.3
<0;01
170
45
15 '.
0.06
' fond
Discharge
1.3
0.04
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
47
9
0.010
320
0.09
_
150
4.2
0.020
7.7
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05
0.03
<0.002
8. 0
<0.01
200
26
43
0.15

-------
                                                   Table A-2 (Continued)

                             TVA PLANT A RIVER HATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Saaples)
m
to
o
     Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, tag/1
Barium, mg/1
Berylliun, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, uinhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, ng/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/14/75
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
4.9
0.06
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
34
5
<0.005
260
0.02
<0.01
110
8.3
0.018
5.8
0.24
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
<0.002
9.3
<0.01
170
110
29
0.06
4/7/75
River
Intake
*
0.02
<0.005
*
*
*
*
4
*
190
*
_
*
*
*
*
*
<0.0002
*
0.05
<0.002
5.6
*
150
21
28
*
Pond
Discharge
3.1
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
23
4
0.005
200
0.09
-
76
5.6
0.028
4.6
0.13
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
6.0
<0.01
140
21
40
0.10
7/14/75
River
Intake
1.2
0.04

<0.1
<0.01
0.001
48
5
<0.005
280
0.04
-
150
1.4
<0.010
6.6
0.10
<0.0002
0.05
0.14
<0.002
6.0
<0.01
170
18
18
0.06
Pond
Discharge
0.7
0.09
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.001
51
6
<0.005
320
0.11
-
160
2.3
<0.010
7.1
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
7.6
<0.01
200
6
63
0.09
10/14/75
River
Intake
2.1
0.14
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
35
10
<0.005
260
0.09
-
120
1.9
0.022
7.1
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05
0.06
<0.001
5.4
<0.01
160
33
21
0.10
Pond
Discharge
2.1
0.14
0.015
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
26
7
<0.005
160
0.09
-
94
4.1
0.018
7.1
0.25
<0.0002
<0.05
0.05
<0.001
6.5
K0.01
160
14
23
0,02
     NA = Not Available
     *Bottle Broken

-------
                                                   Table A-2 (Continued)

                             TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
ui
Date


Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1.
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dis solved ,. mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/8/76
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
3.3
0.06
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
43
6
0.008
280
0.08
-
130
4.7
<0.010
6.0
0.14
<0.0002
<0.05
0.07
<0.002
7.6
<0.01
190
42
45
0.12
4/13/76
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ,
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.0
0.07
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
38
6
<0.005
260
0.09
—
120
4.4
<0.010
6.3
0.15
<0.0002
<0.05
0*06
<0.002
6.3
<0.01
160
33
41
0.09
                          NA » Not Available
                          *Bottle Empty

-------
                                                         Table A-3

                              TVA PLANT B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
     Date
     Aluminum, mg/1
     Ammonia as N, mg/1
     Arsenic, mg/1
     Barium, mg/1
     Beryllium, mg/1
     Cadmium, mg/1
     Calcium, mg/1
     Chloride, mg/1
y,   Chromium, mg/1
£»   Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/em
     Copper, mg/1
     Cyanide, mg/1
     Hardness, mg/1
     Iron, mg/1
     Lead, mg/1
     Magnesium, mg/1
     Manganese, mg/1
     Mercury, mg/1
     Nickel, mg/1
     Phosphorous, mg/1
     Selenium, mg/1
     Silica, mg/1
     Silver, mg/1
     Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
     Solids, Suspended, mg/1
     Sulfate, mg/1
     Zinc, mg/1
1/21/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
1.8
0.11
0.065
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
250
7
0.036
mo
<0.01
<0.01
650
0.69
<0.010
6.8
0.04
0.0056
<0.05
0.55
0.064
8.0
<0.01
760
13
450
0.08
4/5/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
0.7
0.20
0.050
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
130
4
<0.005
580
0.02
<0.01
340
7.1
<0.010
4.4
0.63
0.0002
<0.05
0.24
0.007
22
<0.01
440
14
230
0.04
7/23/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
4.8
0.08
0.010
0.1
<0.01
<0.00i
430
6
0.011
2,200
0.02
<0.01
1,100
1.2
<0.010
0.2
0.04
0.0010
<0.05
0.03
0.030
3.7
<0.01
1,100
28
480
0,09
10/1/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.6
0.04
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
33
8
<0.005
240
<0.01
<0.01
110
4.2
<0.010
5.9
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05
0.18
<0.001
6.0
_<0.01
Jfto
39
44
0.03
     NA » Not Available

-------
                                              table A-3 (Continued)
                         TVA PLANT B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                               (Quarterly Samples)
Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Sus pe nded, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
2/12/74
River
Intake
1.6
0.04
<0.005
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
19
4
<0.005
150
<0,01
-
67
0.9
0.010
4.7
0.06
<0.0002
<0.05
-
<0.001
7.2
<0.01
90
14
12
0.02
Pond
Discharge
0.8
0.09
0.010
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
120
6
0.017
550
<0.01
<0.01
320
1.1
<0.010
4.4
0.05
<0.0002
0.08
0.10
0.004
7.8
<0.01
40
15
190
0.02
5/15/74
River
Intake
1.0
0.05
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
22
4
<0.005
150
0.04
- •
76
0.47
<0.010
5.0
0.04
0.0009
<0.05
0.03
<0.002
5.1
<0.01
90
4
11
<0.01
4/8/74
Pond
Discharge
1.8
<0.01
0.065
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
27
4
0.010
200
<0.05
<0.01
79
0.66
0.027
2.8
0.06
<0.0002
<0.005
0.13
0.007
3.8
<0.01
130
15
35
<0.01
8/13/74
River
Intake
0.6
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
22
6
<0.005
170
<0.01
-
77
0.44
<0.010
5.0
0.1
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
4.8
<0.01
100
7
14
0.01
7/16/74
Pond
Discharge
1.0
<0.01
0.055
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
50
6
<0.005
67
<0.01
<0.01
140
0.26
0.024
4.1
0.02
<0.0002
<0.05
0.10
<0.002
• _
<0.01
250
3
110
0.13
11/12/74
River
Intake
0.2
0.04
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
19
7
<0.005
-
<0.01
-
69
0.36
<0.010
5.2
0.05
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
4.6
<0.01
-
-
14
<0.01
HO/30/74
Pond
Discharge
0.9
0.02
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
0.001
95
8
0.034
620
0.04
_
250
0.19
<0.010
2.3
0.05
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.01
<0.002
4.5
<0.01
460
2
230
0.06

-------
                                              Table  A-3  (Continued)
                         TVA PLANf B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH  POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                               (Quarterly Samples)
Date
Aluminum, »g/l
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, rag/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
2/4775
River
Intake
maj
0.08
<0.005
-
-
<0.001
17
6
<0.005
160
0.02
_. -'
- 57
0.32
-
3.6
0.06
<0.0002
-
0.02
<0.002
5.6
-
100
12
18
0.04
1/15/75-
Pond
Discharge
0.6
0.09
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
110
7
<0.005
650
<0.01
<0.01
290
0.48
0.014
3.6
0.31
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
<0.002
5.9
<0.01
440
6
160
0.04
5/19/T5
River
Intake
0.4
0.08
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.003
20
4
<0.005
150
<0.01
-
67
0.68
<0.010
4.5
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
3.2
<0.01
90
8
9
<0.01
4/21/75
Pond
Discharge
1.3
0.11
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
220
7
0.020
880
0.03
_
550
0.21
0.030
0.6
0.03
0.0004
0.06
<0.01
0.022
7.2
<0.01
520
6
300
0.02
8/5/75
River
Intake
0.5
0.05
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.01
-
7
<0.005
-
0.02
_
0.38
<0.010
-
0.08
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
5.6
<0.05
90
9
10
0.02
4/14/75
Pond
Discharge
1.6
0.02
0.070
0.2
<0,01
0.001
190
6
0.006
790
0.08
480
0.27
<0.010
2.1
0.02
0.0120
<0.05
0.04
0.018
6.5
<0.01
600
10
17
0.06
11/4/75
River
Intake
0.7
0.04
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
16
7
<0.005
140
<0.01
56
0.37
<0.010
3.8
0.06
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
<0.002
4.8
<0.01
95
5
10
<0.01
10/14/75
Pond
Discharge
1.5
0.06
0.008
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
170
7
<0.005
730
0.10
450
0.14
<0.010
6.1
0.03
0.0002
<0.05
* 0.04
0.025
3.1
<0.01
600
2
320
0.03

-------
                                                         Table A-4

                             TVA PLANT B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
     Date
     Aluminum, mg/1
     Ammonia  as  N, mg/1
     Arsenic, mg/1
     Barium, mg/1
     Beryllium,  mg/1
     Cadmium, mg/1
     Calcium, mg/1
     Chloride, mg/1
01   Chromium, mg/1
£J   Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
     Copper, mg/1
     Cyanide, mg/1
     Hardness, mg/1
     Iron, mg/1
     Lead, mg/1
     Magnesium,  mg/1
     Manganese,  mg/1
     Mercury, mg/1
     Nickel, mg/1
     Phosphorous, mg/1
     Selenium, mg/1
     Silica, mg/1
     Silver, mg/1  .
     Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
     Solids, Suspended, mg/1
     Sulfate, mg/1
     Zinc, mg/1
1/21/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
1.5
0.09
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
24
7
<0.005
210
<0.01
<0.01
80
3.2
<0.010
4.9
0.16
0.0026
<0.05
0.11
<0.001
5.7
<0.01
110
20
30
0.03
4/5/73
River
.Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA
1A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.2
0.04
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
23
5
<0.005
180
0.03
<0.01
78
2.4
<0.010
5.1
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05
0.18
0.001
5.6
<0.0l
120
15
25
0.02
7/23/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
0.9
0.01
0.010
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
30 	
6
<0.005
210
0.01
<0.01
93
1.8
<0.010
4.4
0.05
0.0021
<0.05
0.10
- :
5.3
<0.01
130
10
36
0.02
10/1/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
f* Pond
Discharge
4.1
0.06
0.050
<0.1
<0.01
0.01
200
8
0.026
750
<0.01
<0.01
520
1.1
0.012
4 = 8
0.07
<0.0002
<0.05
0.36
0.056
3.7
<0.01
630
46
350
0.09
    NA = Not Available

-------
                                                   Table A-4 (Continued)

                             fVA.PLANT B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
U1
N>
o\
Date                              2/12/74	
                              River      Pond
                              IgjgKg   Discharge

Aluminum, mg/1                  1.6       3.7
Ammonia as N, mg/1              0.04      0.08
Arsenic, ag/1                  <0.005     0.010
Barium, mg/1 "                  <0.1      <0.1
Beryllium, mg/1                <0.01     <0.01
Cadmium, mg/1                  <0.001    <0.001
Calcium, mg/1                  19        37
Chloride, mg/1                  4         8
Chromium, mg/1                 <0.005    <0.005
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm  150       300
Copper, mg/1                   X0.01      0.04
Cyanide, mg/1                   -        <0.01
"Hardness, mg/1                 67       120
Iron, mg/1                      0.9       8.0
Lead, mg/1                      0.010    <0.010
Magnesium, mg/1                 4.7       7.0
Manganese, mg/1                 0.06      0.54
Mercury, mg/1                  <0.0002   <0.0002
Nickel, mg/1                   <0.05     <0.05
Phosphorous, mg/1               -         0.12
Selenium, mg/1                  0.001     0.014
Silica, mg/1                    7.2       6.7
Silver, mg/1                   <0.01     <0.01
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1        90       190
Solids, Suspended, mg/1        14        48
Sulfate, mg/1                  12        71
Zinc, mg/1                      0.02      0.24
5/15/74
River
Intake
1.0
0.05
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
22
4
<0.005
150
0.04
«
76
0.47
<0.010
5.0
0.04
0.0009
<0.05
0.03
X0.002
5.1
<0.01
90
4
11
<0.01
4/8/74
Pond
Discharge
8.6
0.31
<0.005
0.3
<0.01
0.004
120
11
<0.005
960
0.18
<0.01
390
30
0.048
21
3.6
<0.0002
0.14
0.08
<0.002
22
<0.01
710
78
470
0.55
8/13/14
River
Intake
0.6
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
22
6
<0.005
170
<0.01
-
77
0.44
<0.010
5.0
0,1
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
4.8
<0.01
100
7
14
0.01

Pond
Discharge
,NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/12/74
River
Intake
0.2
0,04
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
19
7
<0.005
-
<0.01
-
69
0.36
<0.010
5.2
0.05
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
4.6
<0.01
_
_
14
<0.01
10730/74
Pond
Discharge
0.4
0.12
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.001
16
8
0.020
220
0.04
-
57
1.1
<0.010
4.2
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
, 4.8
<0.01
120
4
22
0.06
     NA = Not Available

-------
                                                   Table A-4 (Continued)

                              TVA PLANT  B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH  POND DISCHARGE  DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
'Ln
NJ
      Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
2/4/75
River
Intake
A.
0.08
<0.0005
-
-
<0.001
17
6
<0.005
160
0.02
-
57
0.32
-
3.6
0.06
<0.0002
-
0.02
<0.002
5.6
-
100
12
18
0.04
1/15/75
Pond
Discharge
1.2
0.04
<0.0005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
30
8
0.008
250
0.20
<0.01
93
2.1
0.042
4.5
0.13
<0.0002
<0.05
0.03
<0.002
6.9
<0.01
140
23
35
0.12
5/19/75
River
Intake
0.4
0.08
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.003
20
4
<0.005
150
<0.01
-
67
0.68
<0.010
4.5
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
3.2
<0.01
90
8
9
<0.01
4/21/75
Pond
Discharge
1.4
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
17
5
0.012
190
0.03
-
60
2.5
0.024
4.3
0.09
0.042
<0.05
0.03
<0.002
6.1
<0.01
120
13
26
0.11
8/5/75
River
Intake
0.5
0.05
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.01
-
7
<0.005
-
0.02
-
-
0.38
<0.010
-
0.08
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
5.6
<0.05
90
9
10
0.02
7/14/75
Pond
Discharge
0.6
0.05
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
0.001
26
6
<0.005
160
0.08
-
85
2.2
<0.010
4.9
0.08
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
X0.002
4.5
<0.01
120
16
20
0.12
                                                                                             11/4/75   10/14/75
                                                                                             River      Pond
                                                                                             Intake   Discharge
  0.7
  0.04
  0.005
 <0.1
 <0.01
  0.002
 16
  7
 <0.005
140
 <0.01

 56
  0.37
 <0.010
  3.8
  0.06
 <0.0002
 <0.05
  0.01
 <0.002
  4.8.
 <0.01
 95
  5
 10
 <0.01
  0.5
 <0.01
  0.008
 <0.1
 <0.01
 <0.001
 23
  7
 <0.005
190
  0.06

 79
  1.7
 <0.010
  5.2
  0.09
  0.0002
 <0.05
  0.03
 <0.002
  5.0
 <0.01
110
  2
 25
  0.03

-------
                                                        fable A-5

                       TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (EAST) DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
m
N>
00
     Date
Aluminum, rag/1
Ammonia as N, rag/1
Arsenic, «g/l
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
, NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
1.8
0.23
0.008
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
45
8
<0.005
380
0.01
<0=01
140
2.0
<0.010
7.1
0,13
0.0025
<0.05
0.21
0.080
6.4
<0.01
260
17
120
0.09
4/3/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
3.8
0.12
0.010
0.2
<0.01
0.004
86
11
0.008
470
<0.01
<0,01
250
4.1
0.069
9.4
0.27
0.0006
<0.05
0.24
-
7.5
<0.01
310
37
130
0.08
7/3/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.7
0.09
0.015
0.1
<0.01
0.002
94
12
<0.005
430
0.02
<0.01
290
2.5
<0.010
14
0.16
<0.0002
<0.05
0.15
0.004
4.7
<0.01
300
25
110
0.10
9/30/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
0.3
0.04
0.050
<0.1
<0.01
0.003
100
16
<0.005
620
<0.01
<0.01
320
0.34
0.012
16
0.25
<0.0002
<0.05
0.21
<0.001
8.0
*'<0.01
460
4
170
0.02
     NA » Not Available

-------
                                                   Table A~5 (Continued)
                                                                                 4

                        TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (EAST) DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
m
10
     Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, rag/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/etn
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/15/74
River
Intake
1.4
0.28
0.010
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
15
9
0.041
170
0.22
_
65
14
0*032-
6i88
02344
<0.0002
0.05
0.49
0.004
7.1
<0.01
170
38
48
0.13
Pond
Discharge
2.4
0.23
0.005
0.2
<0.01
0.010
80
9
0.008
510
<0.01
<0.01
230
3.3
Oi024';
7*2?
Oi25
0.11
0.07
0.02
0.010
7.2
<0.01
330
32
190
0.25
4/9/74
River
Intake
3.7
0.03
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
29
12
<0.005
310
0.12
„
no
3.7
0102*
9i4
Oil 2
<0.0002
<0.05
0.28
<0.002
7.9
<0.01
160
32
44
0.08
Pond
Discharge
1.1
0.02
0.010
0.4
<0.01
0.010
70
12
<0.005
560
0.10
<0.01
180
1.6
<0.010
U4
0.34
0.0074
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
8.7
<0.01
350
22
190
0.22
7/16/74
River
Intake
4.9
0.12
<0.005
0.2
<0.0.1
<0.001
28
10
<0.005
300
0.15
-
110
6.1
0.022
9.8
0.38
0.0016
<0.05
0.29
<0.002
- —
<0.01
200
31
40
0.03
Pond
Discharge
1.9
0.08
0.005
0.3
<0.01
0.006
83
10
<0.005
580
0.07
<0.01
250
2.7
0.020
11
0.18
<0.0002
<0.05
' -
<0.002
-
<0.01
-
24
160
0.11
10/18/74
River
Intake
1.9
0.29
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
X0.001
38
16
0.016
410
0.06
_
150
2.4
0.010
14
0.53
<0.0002
<0.05
0.06
<0.002
5.4
<0.01
240
39
52
0.06
Pond
Discharge
0.3
0.07
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
0.004
100
15
<0.010
600
0.04
• -
310
0.33
0.020
14
0.19
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.01
<0.002
6.5
0.03
400
3
170
0.00

-------
                                                  Table A~5 (Continued)

                       TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (EAST) DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
Ul
    Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, rag/1
Arsenic, mg/1        '-•.•«$' -rf;!
Barium, mg/1             *
Beryllium, iag/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/oa
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, ng/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended,
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/14/75
River
Intake
Mti • 'f
f' 15;-; f
•• ^0;;-^3
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
20
9
<0.005
20
0.03
-
80
13
0.028
7.4
0.26
<0.0002
<0.05
0.27
<0.002
5.6
<0.01
200
150
54
0.10
fond
Discharge

0.4
0.34
<0.005
0.3
<0.01
0.007
59
9
<0.005
480
0.04
<0.01
180
0.49
0.030
7.8
0.13
0.0220
0.05
0.02
<0.002
6.7
<0.01
320
5
180
0.14
4/8/75
River
Intake
<,'',:*£• Hi ~
I&-.5.
.OJ03
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
17
7
0.013
200
0.13
_
69
10
0.047
6.5
0.29
<0.0002
<0.05
0.23
<0.002
5.8
<0.01
190
48
68
0.10
fond
Discharge
- .. ,
"••ko"
0.04
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.013
88
7
<0.005
480
0.09
-
250
1.4
0.021
7.0
0.17
No Bottle
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
7.8
<0.01
340
12
200
0.27
7/15/75
River
Intake

1.3
0.03
0.026
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
43
11
0.009
360
0.10
-
160
1.4
<0.010
12
0.26
<0.0002
<0.05
0.10
<0.002
5.6
<0.01
220
17
34 *
0.08
Pond
Discharge

0.6
0.06
0.032
<0.1
<0.01
0.003
68
12
<0.005
5200
0.05
_
220
1.1
<0.010
13
0.14
<0.0002
<0,05
0.05
<0.002
11
<0.01
340
4
130
0.04
10/14/75
River
Intake

0.6
0.03
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
45
15
<0.005
400
0.09
-.
150
1.0
<0.010
10
0.29
<0.0002
<0.05
0.07
<0.001
5.5
<0.01
260
11
68
0.07
Pond
Discharge

1.4
0.05
0.010
<0.1
<0.01
0.002
66
16
<0.005
530
0.07
—
230
2.3
<0.010
15
0.14
<0.0002
<0.05
0.07
0.002
6.6
<0.01
380
25
140
0.07

-------
                                                  Table A-5 (Continued)

                       fVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (EAST) DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
Ul
                         Date
Aluminum, rag/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium| mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25 °C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1  •f-^-,^     .,:;•  ,-,.;
Magnesium, mg/1)       o  s
Manganese, mg/1       : s}
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, rag/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
                                  1/8/76
4/13/76
River
Intake
1.2
0.15
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
35
13
<0.005
300
. 0.09
120
3*7
<0.01Q
8v6v-.
0,09
<6*6oo2
<0.05
0.20
<0.002
7.3
<0.01
130
32
25
0.03
Pond
Discharge
1.2
0.20
0.010
0.2
<0.01
0.013
61
12
0.018
440
0.05
190
1.9
C0.010
9>5 * '
0.13
<0.0002
<0.05
0.57
<0.002
7.1
<0.01
310
20
130
0.33
River
Intake
1.1
0.03
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
24
8
<0.005
210
0.05
87
1.8
<0.010
6.6
0.10
<0.0002
<0.05
0.33
<0.002
10.0
<0.01
170
58
50
0.02
Pond
Discharge
2.3
0.06
<0.010
0.3
<0.01
0.010
43
9
<0.005
450
0.19
160
3.4
0.014
13
0.16
<0.0002
<0.05
0.05
<0.002
9.5
<0.01
300
18
140
0.23

-------
                                                         Table A-6

                        TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (WEST) DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
u>
     Date
Aluminum, rag/1
Ammonia  as N, rag/1
Arsenic,
Barium^
'Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, rag/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhoa/cm
Copper,  mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel,  mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica,  mg/1
Silver,  mg/1
Solids,  Dissolved, mg/1
Solids,  Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
'iMf*
'm
*NA°S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.
NA
NA.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
6.9
0.07
3 0.008
<6.!i
$.01
<6.ooi
26
8
<0.005
250
<0.01
<0.01
92
5.7
<0.010
6.6
0.15
0.0002
<0.05
0.57
<0.004
6.9
<0.01
170
57
70
0.16
4/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
;NA
ffi

-------
                                                   Table A-6  (Continued)

                        TVA PLANT C RIVER       INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (WEST) DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
u>
     Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
iron,,' mg/1.  }  r
     Magne'sfiuni 1' mg/1
     y ./ <*"*. ,.•*•„*• • " •'' it**?s S~*£          *
     Manganese, *mg-/1
     Mercury, mg/1
     Nickel, mg/1
     Phosphorous,  mg/1
     Selenium, mg/1
     Silica, mg/1
     Silver, mg/1
     Solids, Dissolved,  mg/1
     Solids, Suspended,  mg/1
     Sulfate, mg/1
     Zinc,  mg/1
1/15/74
River
Intake
1.4
0.28
0.010
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
15
9
0.041
170
0.22
-
65
14^-
C?'1)32
f&
0^34
<0.0002
0.05
0.49
0.004
7.1
<0.01
170
38
48
0.13
Pond
Discharge
6.6
0.18
0.010
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
19
10
0.014
230
<0.01
0.01
73
"748"'
tiidss
%6Y3<
olW^'
0.0003
<0.05
0.30
0.002
6.7
<0.01
180
27
80
0.15
4/9/74
River
Intake
3.7
0.03
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
70
12
<0.005
310
0.12
„
110
WJ
oT62
Q-* "fi
f$/\ i'l O
<0.0002
<0.05
0.28
<0.002
7.9
<0.01
160
32
44
0.08
Pond
Discharge
2.4
<0.02
<0.005
0.3
<0.01
<0.001
26
11
0.010
320
0.12
<0.01
100
2'. 8
<0t010
8'. 9
0.07
0.0041
<0.05
0.13
<0.002
8.2
<0.01
170
29
50
0.14
7/16/74
River
Intake
4.9
0.12
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
28
10
<0.005
300
0.15
-
110
6.1
0.022
9.8
0.38
0.0016
<0.05
0.29
<0.002
-.
<0.01
200
31
40
0.03
Pond
Discharge
1.6
0.11
0.11
0.2
<0.00l
0.002
27
10
<0.005
270
0.10
<0.01
100
2.0 "
0.024
9.0
0.11*
0.050
<0.05
_
<0.002
-
<0.01
_
19
42
0.11
10/8/74
River
Intake
1.9
0.29
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
38
16
0.016
410
0.06
-
150
2.4
6.010
14
6.53
<0.0002
<0.05
0.06
<0,002
5.4
<0.01
240
39
52
0.06
Pond
Discharge
0.5
0.10
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
0.004
89
14
0.008
600
0.06
-
280
0.72
0.016
14
0.34
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
5.9
0.02
390
4
180
0.11

-------
                                              Table A-6 (Continued)

                   TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (WEST) DISCHARGE DATA
                                               (Quarterly Samples)
Date
     Aluminum,  mg/1
     Ammonia as N,  mg/1
     Arsenic, mg/1
     Barium, mg/1
     Beryllium, mg/1
     Cadmium, mg/1
     Calcium, mg/1
     Chloride,  mg/1
m   Chromium,  mg/1
JpJ   Conductivity,  25°C,  umhos/cm
     Copper, mg/1
     Cyanide, mg/1
     Hardness,  mg/1
     Iron,  mg/1
     Lead,  mg/1
     Magnesium, mg/1
     Manganese, mg/1
     Mercury, mg/i
     Nickel, mg/1
     Phosphorous, mg/1
     Selenium,  mg/1
     Silica, mg/1
     Silver, mg/1
     Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
     Solids, Suspended, mg/1
     Sulfate, mg/1
     Zinc,  mg/1
1/14/75
River
Intake
15.0
0.33
W»
\- :Q\1f.tui,:
•<0;'OPV

-------
                                                 Table A-6  (Continued)


                      TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER  INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (WEST)  DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
Cn
t*>
Ul
Date


Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, rag/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Eea'd^Jing/l >. •/ 0 s ?
Magnesium, 'mg/1 <{)'01
Manganese, mg/l <0* I
Merely, mg7COO? <0°CH>~:
Nldcel, mg/1' 4" '>"•-.-
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/8/76
River
Intake
1.2
0.15
<0.005
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
35
13
<0.005
300
0.09
— '
120
3.7
<0.010
8.DJ
o;'09

-------
                                                         Table A-7

                            TVA PLANT D RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
     Date
u>
    "AwmoiJjLa,,as |}g, mg/1
vj* • •.*?tfr-V>,».U!mBiD!T
Barium^, -mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1,
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/2/73
River
Intake
NA j"1
liA0*^
if A10
NA?
NAlK
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
ltt- .
^p,Y§^'*
Btbi8
0.2,
<&dr.
0.001
37
5
<0.005
310
<0.01
<0.01
130
0.17
<0.010
9.0
0.04
0.001
<0.05
0.07
0.140
3.2
<0.01
200
8
84
0.01
4/2/73
River
Intake
•NA :
^A^1'^'
9P3
.^ .
"'NA;)' ''
NA
NA
NA
NA ,
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
.1.3" T
' HOi1''*"
bls025
6.2
O.Q50
3.8
<0.01
100
14
60
0.01
7/2/73
River
Intake
"NA
NA
NA" ':
NA;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
0. 4
o.oi"
O."020
0.2
<0.01 !
<0.001
28
3
<0.005
210
0.01
<0.01
100
0.08
<0.010
7.8
0.01
0.0003
<0.05
0.06
0.050
1.0
<0.01
120
3
35
<0.01
10/1/73
River
Intake
NA
'$&.' "'
NA1'
NA*';
NA!
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.6
0.01
0.050
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
34
3
0.005
250
<0.01
<0.01
110
0.39
<0.010
8.9
0.02
<0.0002
0.19
0.15
0.056
5.0
<0.01
170
33
52
0.01
    NA = Not Available

-------
                                                   Table A-7  (Continued)

                            TVA PLANT D RIVER WATER INTAKE AND  COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly  Samples)
     Date -
     Aluminum, rag/1
     Ammonia as N,  mg/1
     Arsenic, mg/1
     Barium, mg/1
     Beryllium, mg/i
     Cadmium, mg/1
     Calcium, mg/1
     Chloride, mg/1
m   Chromium, mg/1
itj   Conductivity,  25°C,  umhos/cm
     Copper, mg/1
     Cyanide, mg/1
     Hardness, mg/1
     Iron,  mg/1
     Lead,  mg/1
     Magnesium, mg/1
     Manganese, mg/1
     Mercury, mg/1
     Nickel, mg/1
     Phosphorous, mg/1
     Selenium, mg/1
     Silica, mg/1
     Silver, mg/1
     Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
     Solids, Suspended, mg/1
     Sulfate, mg/1
     Zinc,  mg/1
1/15/74
River
Intake
0.9
0.01
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
27
4
<0.005
150
0.22
-
100
1.00
0.016
8.4
0.10
0.0005
0.27
<0.01
0.004
3.8
<0.01
130
13
14
0.07
Pond
Discharge
0.3
0.14
0.010
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
26
4
<0.005
920
<0.01
<0.01
96
0.14
X0.010
,7.5 •
0.05
<0.0002
0.05
<0.01
0.098
3.6
X0.01
160
7
70
<0.01
4/22/74
River
Intake
0.2
<0.01
<0.005
0,2
<0.01
<0.001
28
3
<0.005
200
0.03
-
100
0.41
<0.010
717
QJ03
<0'
-------
                                                   Table A-7 (Continued)

                            TVA PLAHT D RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
Ul
u>
00
     Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1   u ? »•• «
Arsenic, mg/1        $5 fugsi?,,;
Barium, mg/1 "       }j'"°JT«3-i«»
Beryllium, mg/1        -'iqs r"
Cadmium, mg/1            ;! :•'
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
.Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, rag/1
Solids, Suspended, rag/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
                                   1/13/75
  *
  *
  *
  3
  *
220
  *

  *
  *
                                     *
                                     *
                                     0
                                    <0
                                     4
                                     *
                                   140
                                    55
                                    18
                                     *
   .05
   .002
   .4
  0.6
  0.04
 <0.005
  0.1
 <0.01
  0.001 •
 33
  3
 <0.005
280
  0.01
 <0.01
120
 0.09
  0.046
  8.3
  0.03
 <0.0002
 <0.05
  0.02
  0.130
  3.3
 <0.01
170
  6
 65
  0.04
4/7/75
River
Intake
0.5
<;0it044<>.
 8.2
v 04)2

-------
                                                   Table A-7 (Continued)

                            TVA PLANT D RIVER WATER INTAKE  AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
Ol
Date


Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1 :; -',/ i
Magnesium, mg/1 n
Manganese, mg/;l!, 
-------
                                                         Table  A-8

                            TVA PLANT E RIVER WATER INTAKE AND  COMBINED ASH  POND DISCHARGE  DATA
                                                    (Quarterly  Samples)
Ln
-^
O
     Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, rag/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/I
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, rag/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, rag/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, rag/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/4/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
1.5
0.07
0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
230
8
0.015
1,200
<0.01
<0.01
580
0.17
<0.010
0.6
<0.01
0.0002
<0.05
0.06
0.008
5.0
<0.01
540
6
180
0.07
4/2/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
11
0.08
0.010
0.4
<0.01
0.002
340
6
0.026
1,400
<0.01
<0.01
850
3.6
<0.010
0.9
0.06
0.0002
<0.05
0.03
0.024
5.0
<0.01
680
150
230
0.11
7/3/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.9
0.07
0.010
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
210
5
0.027
950
0.01
<0.01
530
0.29
<0.010
0.5
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
0.010
6.2
<0.01
420
6
22
0.02
10/1/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA -
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
3.4
0.23
0.005
0.4
<0.01
<0.001
300
8
0.020
1,600
0.20
<0.01
800
0.20
<0.010
11
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.03
0.016
5.7
<0.01
680
8
220
0.01
     NA = Not Available

-------
                                              Table  A-8 (Continued)

                       TVA PLANT E RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH FOND DISCHARGE DATA
                                               (Quarterly Samples)
Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1  ,
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, rag/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/15/74
River
Intake
2.7
0.06
0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
17
5
0.02
130
0.13
-
57
2.40
0.016
3.6
0.1
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
<0.001
5.2
<0.01
80
9
15
0.08
Pond
Discharge
2.0
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
1 <0.001
160
5
0.011
270
<0.01
<0.01
400
0.16
0.008
0.2
<0.1
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.01
0.020
5.6
<0.01
310
10
150
<0.01
4/9/74
River
Intake
3.2
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
19
5
<0.005
160
0.11
- '
61
0.94
<0.01
3.4
0.24
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
<0.002
4.4
<0.01
90
27
20
0.08
Pond
Discharge
4.5
0.06
<0.005
0.4
<0.01
<0.001
200
6
0.039
1,500
0.10
<0.01
500
0.95
<0.010
0.3
0.02
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
0.011
5.0
<0.01
580
37
170
0.08
7/16/74
liver
Intake
0.6
0.07
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
17
6
-
160
0,06
_
58
-
0.024
3.9
0.05
0.0006
<0.05
0.05
-
_
<0.01
-
4
_
0.07
Pond
Discharge
1.3
0.05
<0.005
0.3
<0.01
0.003
64
4
- '
660
0.07
<0.01
160
-
0.068
1.1
<0.01
0.0003
<0.05
_
_
_
<0.01
_
23
-
0.07
10/16/74
River
Intake
0.5
-
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
0.001
20
9
<0.005
180
0.12
-
68
0.18
0.010
4.5
0.07
<0.0002
<0.05
0.09
<0.002
5.8
<0.01
110
2
12
0.05
Pond
Discharge
2.1
0.03
<0.005
0.3
X0.01
<0.001
' 98
9
0.017
670
0.10
-
250
0.20
0.012
0.3
0.02
-
<0.05
0.01
<0.002
6.9
<0.01
260
5
70
0.06

-------
                                                    Table A-8 (Continued)

                             TVA PLANT E RIVER WATER  INTAKE  AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                      (Quarterly Samples)
en
•P*
ro
      Date
Aluminum, mg/1      ,   «,« >,  i
Ammonia as N, ng/1  *,,„ , ,'Mjsf,,:f
Arsenic, mg/1       '[•.,--;,,e^--,i.:
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, ing/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/14/75
River
Intake

*( 4.3
\ 0. 07
'<0.'005

-------
                                                   Table A-8 (Continued)

                           TVA PLANT E  RIVER WATER INTAKE  AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
l_rt
-P-
U)
                         Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/em
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1   r, ^
Magnesium, nig|j:,(^
Manganese, mg7jl^("
Mercury, mg/11,-."
Nickel, mg/1 "
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1     j:'
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1       -  ;
                                   1/19/76
ft/12/76
River
Intake
2.1
0.13
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
22
7
<0,005
hos/cm 150
<0i01
69
0.45
<0.010
'"* ' 3 5 ''
'.i, '95';-; rAC/*'1'*'
'*;'.?* 
-------
                                                        fable A-9

                           TVA PLANT F RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
01
    DaCe
Aluminum, mg/1
.Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, rag/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, nsg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/1/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
1.0
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
100
5
0.030
410
<0.01
<0.01
260
0.19
<0.010
3.1
<0.01
0.0009
<0.05
0.14
0.024
4.8
<0.01
320
1
140
0.03
3/28/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.2
0;03
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
74
5
0.012
350
<0.01
<0.01
200
1.1
<0.010
2.7
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.24
0.009
4.2
<0.01
230
20
120
0.01
7/13/73
River
Intake
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA .
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
1.8
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
140
4
0.059
650
<0.01
<0.01
350
<0.05
<0.010
0.3
<0.01
0.0003
<0.05
0.03
0.016
5.9
<0.01
390
2
180
<0.01
10/16/73
River
Intake
NA'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pond
Discharge
2.5
0.12
<0.005
0.3
<0.01
<0.001
140
6
0.040
700
0.02
<0.01
380
<0.05
<0.010
7.2
<0.01
0.0003
<0.05
0.03
0.010
7.6
<0.0l
380
2
230
<0.01
     NA = Not Available

-------
                                                  Table A-9 (Continued)

                           TVA PLANT P RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
Ui
Date


Aluminum, rag/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1 ,
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide , mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead , mg/1 -, ;
Hagne'Sliimf fmjg/ 1
Mawg afte'sie , " ttg/ 1
Metetir.ys, Wg/8." H'§\J
Nictael' i - mg/ It \ r
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, ng/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, ttg/1
Zinc, mg/1
2/27/74
River
Intake
3.6
0.03
<0.005
<0.10
<0.01
<0.001
26
4
<0.005
170
<0.01
-
81
1.1
<0i,010
4J«D
'Of«f)6
QW0033
<0i<05
0.10
<0.002
5.4
<0.01
90
26
20
0.18
1/28/74
Pond
Discharge
0.8
0.38
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
80
4
0.050
480
0.04
<0.01
200
0.11
<0.010
  • '2 <0>OJ:Vs»
    -------
                                                      Table A-9 (Continued)
    
                               TVA PLANT F RIVER HATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                       (Quarterly Samples)
        Date
        Aluminum, rag/1        p'wVsoft
        Ammonia as N, mg/1    wff'ji^w {
        Arsenic, mg/1            "«
        Barium, mg/1
        Beryllium, mg/1
        Cadmium, mg/1
        Calcium, mg/1
        Chloride, mg/1
    tn  Chromium, mg/1
    ^  Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
        Copper, mg/1
        Cyanide, mg/1
        Hardness, mg/1
        Iron, ing/1
        Lead, mg/1
        Magnesium, mg/1
        Manganese, mg/1
        Mercury, mg/1
        Nickel, mg/1
        Phosphorous, mg/1
        Selenium, mg/1
        Silica, mg/1
        Silver, mg/1
        Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
        Solids, Suspended, mg/1
        Sulfate, mg/1
        Zinc, mg/1
    1/20/75
    River
    Intake
    n-,^'\-i
    •(-•* l-'i3\|-
    ;,r Oi'Q3j
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.002
    28
    4
    <0.005
    220
    0.05
    -
    86
    1.1
    0.052
    3.8
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.11
    <0.002
    4.1
    <0.01
    140
    35
    18
    0.06
    Pond
    Discharge
    
    1.5
    0.30
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    85
    5
    <0.005
    780
    0.08
    <0.01
    210
    0.10
    <0.010
    0.3
    <0.0i
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    <0.01
    0.010
    5.8
    <0.01
    450
    3
    260
    0.07
    4/7/75
    River
    Intake
    ••0*'W> '
    2;lCr "
    0^0,5
    <0*005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    19
    3
    0.005
    150
    0.04
    -
    62
    2.1
    0.010
    3.5
    0.11
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.10
    <0.002
    4.8
    <0.01
    130
    42
    22
    0.06
    Pond
    Discharge
    fk ' ''• !
    0^9 ,r
    0.42
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    100
    5
    0.020
    400
    0.06
    -
    260
    0.37
    0.015
    1.6
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    0.008
    3.9
    <0.01
    300
    11
    140
    0.04
    7/15/75
    River
    Intake
    
    1.0
    0.07
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    31
    4
    <0.005
    190
    0.08
    -
    96
    0.97
    <0.010
    4.4
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.17
    <0.002
    4.4
    <0.01
    110
    27
    23
    0.13
    Pond
    Discharge
    
    1.0
    0.03
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    67
    4
    0.020
    460
    0.07
    _
    170
    0.12
    <0.010
    0.7
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    0.010
    6.6
    <0.01
    270
    4
    120
    0.14
    10/14/75
    River
    Intake
    
    <0.2
    0.10
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    30
    4
    <0.005
    210
    0.05
    -
    95
    0.29
    <0.010
    4.9
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.16
    <0.001
    3.5
    <0.01
    170
    15
    12
    0.03
    Pond
    Discharge
    
    1.4
    0.06
    0.040
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    110
    6
    <0.005
    660
    0.04
    _
    280
    0.10
    0.010
    0.6
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    0.006
    6.5
    <0.01
    430
    4
    160
    0.02
    

    -------
                                                       Table A~9 (Continued)
    
                                TVA PLANT F RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                        (Quarterly Samples)
    Ul
    Date
    
    
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cni
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1 .»,..
    Magnesium, mg/3-
    Manganese, pg/1
    Mercury , mg/1
    Nickel, fflg/1""'"
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/13/76
    River
    Intake
    0.6
    0.07
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    35
    4
    <0.005
    220
    <0.01
    -
    100
    0.73
    <0.010
    r&$
    ^.06
    <0."0002
    <0.05
    0.09
    <0.004
    4.6
    <0.01
    120
    21
    17
    0.02
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.9
    0.27
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    0.001
    130
    6
    0.058
    580
    0.02
    -
    330
    0.31
    <0.010
    0.?6
    <0.:01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    <0.004
    4.9
    <0.01
    390
    53
    220
    0.06
    4/13/76
    River
    Intake
    1.3
    0.03
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    29
    4
    <0.005
    180
    0.01
    -
    91
    1.6
    <0.010
    4.4
    0.08
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.10
    <0.002
    4.9
    <0.01
    110
    18
    13
    0.16
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.0
    0.11
    <0.005
    <0. 1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    110
    4
    0.022
    550
    0.02
    -
    280
    0.24
    <0.010
    1.0
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    <0.01
    0.005
    5.6
    <0.01
    380
    1
    170
    <0.01
    

    -------
                                                            Table A-10
                               TVA PLANT G RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                        (Quarterly Samples)
    ui
    -P-
         Date
                                        1/4/73*
    4/2/73*
    7/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    vUAjtfii
    NA'O
    NA?5
    NA1"'^
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.1
    0.38
    0.004
    /Ti Q* 4 ;
    
    -------
                                                     fable A-10 (Continued)
    
                               TVA PLANT G 1IVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                       (Quarterly Samples)
    vo
         Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, rag/1
    Lead, m^/1   -
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/d
    MeVcury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/14/74
    River
    Intake
    4.1
    0.03
    <0.005
    0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    21
    3
    -
    140
    0,16
    
    69
    4.6
    0*04
    mo
    0^23
    
    -------
                                                     fable A-10 (Continued)
    
                               TVA PLANT G RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                       (Quarterly Samples)
    m
    tn
    o
        Date
    Aluminum, mg/1       -,..?,  -,=.
    Awionia as N, mg/1      ;-
    Arsenic, ag/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide,, mg/1,
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, Bg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/13/75
    River
    Intake
    !«: 1 j
    0.7
    0.01
    <0.005
    <0.1
    
    -------
                                                    Table A-10 (Continued)
    
                              TVA PLANT G RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND  DISCHARGE DATA
                                                      (Quarterly Samples)
    u>
    Ui
                            Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, rag/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1 t  •« ^^
    Magnesium, mg/1:
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg"/l "
    Phosphorous,  rag/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/7/76
    River
    Intake
    0.7
    0.02
    <0.005
    <0.01
    <0.001
    28
    5
    <0.005
    160
    0.02
    88
    0.78
    
    -------
                                                           Table A-ll
    
                               TVA PLANT H RIVER HATER INTAKE AND  COMBINED ASH FOND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                       (Quarterly  Samples)
        Date
        Aluminum, mg/1
        Ammonia as N, mg/1
        Arsenic, ng/1
        Barium, mg/1
        Beryllium, »g/l
        Cadmium, mg/1
        Calcium, mg/1
        Chloride, mg/1
    ui  Chromium, mg/1
    ^2  Conductivity, 25 °C, umhos/cm
        Copper, mg/1
        Cyanide, mg/1
        Hardness» mg/1
        Iron, mg/1
        Lead, mg/1
        Magnesium, mg/1
        Manganese, mg/1
        Mercury, mg/1
        Nickel, mg/1
        Phosphorous, mg/1
        Selenium, mg/1
        Silica, mg/1
        Silver, mg/1
        Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
        Solids, Suspended, mg/1
        Sulfate, mg/1
        Zinc, mg/1
    1/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.2
    0.48
    0.076
    0.1
    <0.0l
    <0.001
    39
    12
    <0.005
    330
    <0.01
    <0.01
    130
    0.48
    <0.010
    8.1
    0.07
    0.0007
    <0.05
    0.40
    <0.004
    5.6
    <0.01
    200
    5
    85
    0.01
    4/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.9
    0.16
    0.070
    0-2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    46
    15
    <0.005
    350
    0.05
    <0.01
    150
    1.4
    <0.010
    7.8
    0.07
    0.0016
    <0.05
    0.2L1
    -
    5.2
    <0.01
    240
    19
    45
    <0.01
    7/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.9
    0.03
    0.180
    0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    49
    20
    <0.005
    380
    <0.01
    <0.01
    150
    0.24
    <0.010
    7.6
    0.02
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.62
    0.014
    2.7
    <0.01
    240
    8
    65
    0.01
    10/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.5
    0.06
    0.140
    0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    67
    22
    0.008
    460
    <0.01
    <0.01
    200
    0.51
    <0.010
    8.8
    0.03
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.63 ,
    0.024
    3.6
    <0.01
    300
    7
    120
    0.02
        NA » Not Available
    

    -------
                                                     fable A-ll (Continued)
    
                               TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                       (Quarterly Samples)
    Ul
        Date
        Aluminum, mg/1
        Ammonia as N, mg/1
        Arsenic, mg/1
        Barium, mg/1
        Beryllium, mg/1
        Cadmium, mg/1
        Calcium, mg/1
        Chloride, mg/1
        Chromium, mg/1
    ui   Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
        Copper, mg/1
        Cyanide, mg/1
        Hardness, mg/1
        Iron, mg/1
        Lead, mg/1
        Magnesium, mg/1
        Manganese, mg/1
        Mercury, mg/1
        Nickel, mg/1
        Phosphorous, mg/1
        Selenium, mg/1
        Silica, mg/1
        Silver, mg/1
        Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
        Solids, Suspended, mg/1
        Sulfate, mg/1
        Zinc, mg/1
    1/14/74
    River
    Intake
    1.2
    0.11
    0.01
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    29
    7
    <0.005
    220
    0.15
    -
    100
    1.4
    0.040
    7.3
    0.14
    0.0008
    <0.05
    0.06
    0.006
    6.0
    <0.01
    120
    27
    18
    0.08
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.4
    0.16
    0.055
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    42
    8
    <0.005
    350
    <0.01
    <0.01
    130
    0.88
    0.030
    6.2
    0.07
    0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06
    0.014
    5l3
    <0.01
    200
    19
    100
    0.01
    4/9/74
    River
    Intake
    1.1
    0.24
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    26
    9
    <0.005
    230
    0.05
    -
    88
    0.99
    <0.010
    5.7
    0.10
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06
    <0.002
    6.6
    <0.01
    130
    29
    17
    0.06
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.1
    0.03
    0.035
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    42
    10
    <0.005
    350
    0.10
    <0.01
    130
    0.70
    <0.010
    5.8
    0.04
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.04
    0.004
    5.5
    <0.01
    210
    18
    80
    0.07
    7/15/74
    River
    Intake
    0.6
    0.06
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    23
    9
    <0.005
    220
    0.03
    -
    82
    0.59
    0.016
    5.9
    0.11
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06
    <0.002
    2.7
    <0.01
    110
    22
    16
    0.05
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.2
    0.04
    0.140
    0.3
    <0.01
    XO.OOl
    60
    10
    <0.005
    440
    0.04
    <0.01
    180
    0.22
    0.010
    6.8
    0.02
    0.0012
    <0.05
    0.13
    <0.002
    -
    <0.01
    290
    5
    140
    0.05
    12/4/74
    River
    Intake
    <0.2
    0,15
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    22
    10
    0.007
    240
    0.11
    -
    82
    0.45
    <0.010
    6.5
    0.10
    0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06
    <0.002
    5.9
    <0.01
    130
    10
    20
    0.10
    Pond
    Discharge
    0.8
    2.6
    0.065
    0.3
    <0.01
    0.001
    34
    16
    0.010
    400
    0.14
    -
    120
    0.64
    <0.010
    7.8
    0.08
    <0.0002
    0.07
    0.14
    0.028
    5.5
    <0.01
    220 . ,
    4
    70
    0.15
    

    -------
                                                 Table A-ll (Continued)
    
                           T7A PLANT H RIVER HATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
    Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, rag/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, fflg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, iag/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/14/75
    River
    Intake
    0.8
    0.42
    <0.005
    
    -------
                                                           Table A-12
    
                                 TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DA.
                                                       (Quarterly Samples)
    Ui
    m
                             Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia  as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    'Barium,  mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Coppers  mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel,  mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica,  mg/1
    Silver,  mg/1
    Solids,  Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids,  Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
                                      1/14/76
    4/12/76
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    'NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA.
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.2
    0.19
    0.085
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.007
    69 ._
    11
    0.011
    440
    0,02
    - ,
    200
    0.80
    <0.010
    7.4
    0.08
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.09
    0.019
    5.9
    <0.01
    290
    35
    140
    0.10
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    .. NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Dischai
    2.2
    0.1:
    0.2,
    <0.1
    <0.0
    0.0.
    91
    20
    0.01
    630
    0.16
    -
    280
    2.3
    <0.01C
    12
    0.19
    0.00'
    <0.05
    0.0$
    —
    4.9
    <0.0
    450
    11
    220
    0.
    

    -------
                                                        Table A-13
    
                              TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER  INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
    Ul
                           Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, rag/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm  260
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/14/76
    River
    Intake
    *
    0.27
    <0.005
    *
    *
    *
    *
    11
    *
    260
    *
    *
    A
    *
    *
    *
    *
    *
    0.09
    <0.002
    6.5
    *
    150
    23
    20
    *
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.7
    0.15
    0.060
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    49
    11
    <0.005
    340
    <0.01
    150
    1.2
    <0.010
    6.1
    0.04
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.12
    0.010
    5.5
    <0.01
    210
    35
    59
    <0.01
    4/12/76
    River
    Intake
    0.5
    0.55
    <0.010
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    43
    27
    <0.005
    390
    0.03
    150
    0.53
    0.013
    9.3
    0.14
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.24
    <0.002
    2.3
    <0.01
    200
    4
    42
    0.02
    Pond
    Discharge
    0.9
    0.18
    NES
    0.4
    <0.01
    <0«001
    55
    21
    <0.005
    420
    <0.01
    180
    0.72
    <0.010
    11
    0.06
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.10
    *
    3.8
    <0.01
    260
    2
    100
    <0.01
                           *Bottle Received  Broken.
    

    -------
                                                            Table A-14
    
    
                              TVA PLANT I RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (SOUTH) DISCHARGE
                                                        (Quarterly Samples)
    Ul
    Ul
    Date
    
    
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, rag /I
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, rag/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/3/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    HA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA ,
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    0.6
    0.31
    <0.005
    0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    110
    11
    0.016
    610
    <0.01
    <0.01
    280
    0.05
    <0.010
    0.4
    <0.01
    0.0012
    <0.05
    0.05
    <0.004
    7.1
    <0.01
    280
    3
    60
    <0.01
    5/16/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge.
    1.2
    0.05
    - •
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    99
    6
    0.006
    540
    0.02
    <0.01
    250
    0.09
    <0.010
    0.2
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    0.004
    7.4
    <0.01
    230
    2
    50
    0.24
    7/9/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.6
    0.05
    0.005
    0.1
    <0.01
    - - _
    140
    6
    0.021
    750
    0.02
    <0.01
    350
    0.09
    -
    0.4
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    X0.05
    0.06
    0.004
    7.0
    <0.01
    300
    6
    75
    0.01
    10/1/73 _
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.1
    0.03
    0.005
    0.2
    <0.0i
    <0.001
    100
    7
    0.026
    680
    <0.01
    <0.01
    250
    <0.05
    0.010
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    0.05
    <0.03
    0.006
    7.6
    <0.01
    300
    3
    64
    0.03
         NA - Not Available
    

    -------
                                                     Table A-14 (Continued)
    
                             TVA PLANT I RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (SOUTH) DISCHARGE
                                                       (Quarterly  Samples)
        Date
        Aluminum, mg/1
        Ammonia as N, mg/1
        Arsenic, mg/1
        Barium, mg/1
        Beryllium, mg/1
        Cadmium, mg/1
        Calcium, mg/1
        Chloride, mg/1
        Chromium, mg/1
    yj   Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    00   Copper, mg/1
        Cyanide, mg/1
        Hardness, mg/1
        Ironj mg/1
        Lead, mg/1
        Magnesium, mg/1
        Manganese, mg/1
        Mercury, mg/1
        Nickel, mg/1
        Phosphorous, mg/1
        Selenium, mg/1
        Silica, mg/1
        Silver, og/1
        Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
        Solids, Suspended, mg/1
        Sulfate, mg/1
        Zinc, mg/1
    2/19/74
    River
    Intake
    1.4
    0.05
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    21
    4
    <0.005
    170
    0.11
    -
    66
    1.7
    0.021
    3.3
    0.11
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.15
    0.002
    5.6
    <0.01
    100
    18
    12
    0.08
    Pond
    Discharge
    0.8
    0.03
    <0.005
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    74
    4
    0.030
    540
    0.13
    <0.01
    190
    0.15
    <0.010
    0.4
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.005
    0,01
    0.08
    7.9
    <0.01
    220
    4
    61
    0.07
    4/8/74
    Elver
    Intake
    2.0
    0.08
    <0.005
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    20
    4
    <0.005
    150
    0.10
    _
    64
    1,8
    0.014
    3.3
    0.12
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.21
    <0.002
    5.9
    <0.01
    90
    28
    14
    0.12
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.1
    0.06
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    46
    4
    4
    440
    0.05
    <0.01
    120
    0.28
    <0.010
    0.5
    0.5
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.04
    0.007
    7.8
    <0.01
    190
    2
    58
    0.08
    7/15/74
    River
    Intake
    0.8
    0.02
    <0.005
    0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    18
    6
    <0.005
    150
    0.07
    -
    59
    0.80
    0.017
    3.5
    0.06
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.04
    <0.002
    3.2
    <0.01
    90
    16
    10
    0.09
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.0
    0.03
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    0.002
    92
    5
    0.020
    750
    0.15
    <0.01
    230
    0.25
    0.038
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    <0.01
    <0.002
    -
    <0.01
    230
    <1
    90
    0.09
    10/15/74
    River
    Intake
    1.2
    0.04
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    21
    8
    <0.005
    180
    0.12
    _
    70
    0.61
    0.016
    4.3
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.10
    <0.002
    _
    <0.01
    100
    3
    12
    0.05
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.6
    0.03
    <0.005
    0.5
    <0.01
    <0.001
    140
    10
    0.026
    940
    0.10
    _
    350
    0.17
    0.010
    0.2
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    <0.01
    0.012
    9.1
    <0.01
    370
    2
    100
    0.08
    

    -------
                                                     Table A-14 (Continued)
    
                             TVA PLANT I RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (SOUTH) DISCHARGE
                                                       (Quarterly  Samples)
        Date
        Aluminum, mg/1
        Ammonia as N, mg/1
        Arsenic, rag/1
        Barium, mg/1
        Beryllium, mg/1
        Cadmium, mg/1
        Calcium, mg/1
        Chloride, mg/1
        Chromium, mg/1
    en   Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    *°   Copper, mg/1
        Cyanide, mg/1
        Hardness, mg/1
        Iron, mg/1
        Lead, mg/1
        Magnesium, mg/1
        Manganese, mg/1
        Mercury, mg/1
        Nickel, mg/1
        Phosphorous, mg/1
        Selenium, mg/1
        Silica, mg/1
        Silver, mg/1
        Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
        Solids, Suspended, mg/1
        Sulfate, mg/1
        Zinc, mg/1
    1/13/75
    River
    Intake
    3.0
    0.10
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    18
    5
    <0.005
    130
    0.01
    -
    56
    3.9
    0.014
    2.7
    0.20
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.36
    <0.002
    6.4
    <0.01
    100
    57
    10
    0.05
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.4
    0.06
    0.010
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    44
    6
    0.024
    310
    0.02
    <0.01
    120
    0.35
    0.012
    2.0
    0.02
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.05
    <0.002
    6.3
    <0.01
    190
    15
    50
    0.04
    4/7/75
    River
    Intake
    2.0
    0.04
    <0.005
    0.3
    <0.01
    0.001
    17
    6
    0.005
    140
    0.06
    -
    53
    1.8
    0.012
    2.6
    0.12
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.15
    <0.002
    6.5
    <0.01
    100
    16
    20
    0.11
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.9
    0.10
    0.100
    <0.1
    <0,01
    0.001
    45
    4
    0.007
    310
    0.02
    -
    120
    0.58
    0.019
    2.2
    0.01
    0.0005
    <0.05
    0.09
    0.007
    6.0
    <0.01
    210
    , 7
    70
    0.06
    7/14/75
    liver
    Intake
    *
    0.03
    *
    *
    *
    *
    	 *
    5
    *
    150
    *
    -
    *
    *
    *
    *
    *
    <0.0002
    *
    0.10
    <0.002
    4.4
    *
    90
    20
    11
    * '
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.1
    0.01
    0.110
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    58
    4
    <0.005
    330
    0.09
    -
    160
    0.47
    <0.010
    3.7
    0.02
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.25
    0.008
    6.0
    <0.01
    220
    4
    200
    0.11
    10/20/75
    River
    Intake
    1.0
    0.07
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    19
    6
    <0.005
    150
    0.04
    -
    61
    1.5
    <0.010
    3.4
    0.11
    0.0003
    <0.05
    0.26
    <0.001
    5.9
    <0.01
    90
    31
    12
    0.03
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.2.
    0.07
    0.160
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    61
    7
    <0.005
    350
    0.04
    -
    180
    0.57
    <0.010
    3.5
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.24
    0.005
    6.2
    <0.01
    230
    15,,.
    88
    0.10
        *Bottle Broken
    

    -------
                                                   fable A-14 (Continued)
    
                           1VA PLANf I RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (SOUTH) DISCHARGE
                                                     (Quarterly Samples)
    Ul
    m
    o
                           Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, Mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/12/76
    River
    Intake
    1.1
    0.07
    <0.005
    <0.01
    <0.001
    27
    7
    <0.005
    150
    <0.01
    81
    1.0
    <0.010
    3.2
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.11
    <0.002
    6.3
    <0.01
    110
    9
    12
    0.02
    Pond
    Discharge
    3.4
    0.20
    0.035
    <0.01
    <0.001
    59
    6
    0.012
    310
    <0.01
    160
    1.0
    <0.010
    3.6
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.24
    0.015
    6.1
    <0,01
    200
    48
    59
    <0.01
    4/12/76
    River
    Intake
    1.0
    0.05
    <0.005
    <0.01
    <0.001
    26
    5
    <0.005
    170
    0.03
    79
    1.2
    <0.010
    3.4
    0.09
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.11
    <0.002
    5.0
    <0.01
    90
    10
    12
    0.02
    Pond
    Discharge
    0.4
    0.07
    0.010
    <0.01
    <0.010
    140
    6
    0.006
    880
    <0.01
    350
    0.07
    <0.010
    0.5
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    0.020
    8.1
    <0.01
    360
    15
    120
    0.06
    

    -------
                                                       Table A-15
    
                             TVA PLANT J RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
    Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, rag/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/3/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    3.6
    0.08
    0.018
    0.1
    <0.01
    0.002
    30
    3
    0.006
    360
    0.05
    <0.01
    96
    2.7
    <0.010
    5.0
    0.66
    0.0008
    <0.05
    0.15
    <0.004
    7.5
    <0.01
    210
    2
    140
    0.04
    4/3/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    5.0
    0.04
    0.014
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    31
    3
    <0.005
    340
    0.03
    <0.01
    100
    3.4
    <0.010
    6.0
    0.62
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    0.003
    7.9
    <0.01
    220
    35
    120
    0.06
    7/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    0.4
    0.06
    0.015
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    39
    4
    <0.005
    320
    0.02
    <0.01
    130
    0.66
    <0.010
    8.2
    0.44
    <0.0002
    <0.5
    0.04
    0.002
    5.7
    <0.01
    200
    2
    120
    0.04
    10/1/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.3
    0.04
    0.080
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    57
    4
    0.005
    380
    0.02
    <0.01
    180
    0.58
    <0.010
    9.3
    0.16
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.39
    <0.001
    5.6
    <0.01
    250
    5
    120
    0.02
    NA = Not Available
    

    -------
                                                     Table A-1S  (Continued)
    
                                 TVA PLANT J RIVER WATER INTAKE  AND  COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                       (Quarterly  Samples)
    Ul
        Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/14/74
    River
    Intake
    0.9
    <0,01
    •C0.005
    <0.1
    <0,01
    <0.001
    5
    2
    <0.005
    44
    oas
    -
    19
    0.91
    <0.01
    U6
    0.08
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    <0.01
    <0.002
    4.1
    <0.01
    40
    10
    13
    0.08
    Pond
    Discharge
    7.6
    0.05
    0.025
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    32
    2
    0.007
    370
    0.08
    <0.01
    100
    9.4
    0.028
    5.7
    0.68
    <0.0002
    <0.07
    0.03
    0.006
    6.8
    <0.01
    250
    81
    170
    0.09
    4/4/74
    liver
    Intake
    1.4
    0.02
    <0.005
    0.4
    <0.01
    <0.001
    4
    2
    <0.005
    51
    0.12
    -
    16
    1.5
    0.020
    1.5
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    <0.002
    4.5
    <0.01
    40
    35
    13
    0.09
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.1
    <0.08
    <0.005
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    23
    3
    <0.005
    250
    0.18
    <0.01
    73
    1.2
    <0.010
    3.9
    0.40
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.04
    <0.002
    6.5
    <0.01
    140
    12
    120
    0.12
    7/15/74
    River
    Intake
    0.4
    0.01
    0.110
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    26
    3
    <0.005
    320
    0.04
    -
    95
    0.44
    <0.010
    7.3
    0.03
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    0.008
    1.0
    <0.01
    210
    7
    80
    0.08
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.0
    <0.01
    0.110
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.002
    38
    2
    <0.005
    320
    0.05
    <0.01
    130
    0.39
    0.038
    8.2
    0.05
    0.0005
    <0.05
    0.11
    0.004
    -
    <0.01
    200
    9
    90
    0.03
    10/8/74
    River
    Intake
    0.3
    0.01
    <0.005
    0.2
    , <0.01
    <0.001
    30
    4
    0.006
    240
    0.04
    -
    110
    0.26
    <0,010
    8.3
    0.03
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    <0.002
    4.0
    <0.01
    130
    5
    14
    0.05
    Pond
    Discharge
    0.4
    0.01
    0.040
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    47
    3
    0.006
    350
    0.04
    -
    150
    0.10
    <0.010
    8.6
    0.08
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    <0.002
    3.5
    <0.01
    220
    1
    94
    0.03
    

    -------
                        Table A-15 (Continued)
    
    TVA PLANT J RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                          (Quarterly Samples)
    Date
    
    
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25 °C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/15/75
    River
    Intake
    0.6
    0.02
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    4.0
    2
    <0.005
    44
    <0.01
    -
    15
    0.50
    0.18
    1.2
    0.06
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.01
    <0.002
    3.9
    <0.01
    30
    5
    9
    0.04
    Pond
    Discharge
    4.4
    0.04
    0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    XO.OOl
    29
    2
    <0.005
    390
    0.04
    <0.01
    94
    5.2
    0.014
    5.3
    0.79
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    <0.01
    <0.002
    6.6
    <0.01
    210
    9
    180
    0.11
    4/8/75
    River
    Intake
    1.0
    0.23
    <0.005
    <0. 1
    <0.01
    <0.002
    8.0
    4
    <0.005
    90
    0.06
    -
    30
    0.61
    0.011
    2.4
    0.18
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.01
    <0.002
    4.8
    <0.01
    50
    25
    14
    0.04
    Pond
    Discharge
    3.0
    3.7
    <0.005
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.002
    20
    21
    0.006
    420
    0.73
    -
    67
    3.8
    0.018
    4.1
    0.40
    0.0004
    0.08
    0.08
    <0.002
    8.7
    <0.01
    170
    9
    140
    0.25
    7/14/75
    River
    Intake
    1.0
    0.02
    0.007
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    24
    3
    <0.005
    200
    0.11
    -
    89
    1.1
    <0.010
    . 7.1
    0.05
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    <0.002
    5.0
    <0.01
    110
    7
    16
    0.03
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.5
    0.07
    0.130
    <0. 1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    40
    6
    <0.005
    310
    0.05
    -
    140
    0.86
    <0.010
    9.9
    0.14
    <0.0002
    0.05
    0.11
    0.008
    7.1
    <0.01
    200
    4
    72
    0.02
    10/15/75
    River
    Intake
    0.3
    0.03
    <0.005
    <0. 1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    20
    3
    <0.005
    160
    0.09
    -
    76
    0.28
    0.010
    6.4
    0.06
    0.0009
    <0.05
    0.03
    <0.001
    3.8
    <0.01
    100
    7
    13
    0.04
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.4
    0.03
    0.040
    <0.1
    <0.01
    X0.001
    25
    3
    <6.005
    230
    0.05
    -"
    85
    0.52
    <0.010
    5.6
    0.13
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.07
    0.007
    4.7
    <0.01
    150
    6
    56
    0.08
    

    -------
                                                  Table A-15 (Continued)
    
                              TVA PLANT J RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                    (Quarterly Samples)
    Ul
                          Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Berylliums mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/7/76
    River
    Intake
    0.4
    0.01
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    6.0
    3
    0.014
    48
    0.01
    20
    0.45
    <0.010
    1.3
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.01
    <0.002
    4.1
    <0.01
    40
    4
    10
    <0.01
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.5
    0.04
    0.090
    0.1
    <0.01
    0.002
    23
    3
    <0.005
    230
    0.03
    70
    3.2
    <0.010
    3eO
    0.28
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.09
    0.004
    5.6
    <0.01
    70
    14
    85
    0.0.4
    4/13/76
    River
    Intake
    0.6
    0.01
    <0.010
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    9.0
    3
    <0.005
    74
    0.05
    32
    0.84
    <0.010
    2.2
    0.11
    <0.0002
    <0«05
    0.02
    <0.002
    4.6
    <0.01
    50
    6
    18
    <0.01
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.3
    0.07
    0.100
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.0001
    22
    3
    <0.005
    NES
    0.09
    68
    1.5
    <0.010
    3.2
    0.32
    0.0006
    <0.05
    0.03
    0.004
    6.2
    <0.01
    140
    4
    92
    0.06
    

    -------
                                                      Table A-16
    
                             TVA PLANT K RIVER WATER INTAKE AND  COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                   (Quarterly  Samples)
    Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.3
    0.05
    0.008
    <0. 1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    87
    13
    0.022
    380
    <0.01
    <0.01
    220
    0.11
    <0.010
    1.0
    <0.01
    0.0008
    <0.05
    0.03
    0.016
    7.0
    <0.01
    220
    7
    72
    0.11
    4/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.9
    0.03
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    110
    9
    0.015
    520
    <0.01
    <0*01
    280
    0.34
    <0.010
    0.4
    0.02
    0.0003
    <0.05
    <0.03
    0.008
    7.4
    <0.01
    240
    5
    55
    <0.01
    7/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.3
    0.16
    -
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    130
    13
    0.023
    580
    <0.01
    <0.01
    330
    0.17
    <0.010
    0.7
    <0.01
    0.0008
    <0.05
    0.06
    0.008
    8.8
    <0.01
    290
    3
    90
    0.02
    10/1/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    - Pond
    Discharge
    0.5
    0.02
    0.025
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    75
    19
    0.023
    480
    0.03
    <0.01
    190
    0.13
    <0.010
    1.1
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    0.22
    0.10
    0.012
    7.1
    <0.01
    310
    6
    88
    0.02
    NA = Not Available
    

    -------
                                                     Table A-16  (Continued)
    
                                 TVA PLANT K RIVER WATER INTAKE  AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                       (Quarterly Samples)
    Ul
    o\
        Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, rag/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury,-mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/14/74
    River
    Intake
    2.8
    0.08
    0.015
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0,001
    15
    6
    0.027
    140
    0.12
    _
    52
    2.6
    0.022
    3.6
    0.09
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.13
    <0.002
    5.3
    <0.01
    90
    31
    22
    0.09
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.8
    0.06
    0.010
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    77
    11
    0.014
    500
    0.07
    <0,01
    190
    0.32
    0.017
    0.6
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.01
    0.014
    6.5
    <0.01
    240
    10
    89
    0.08
    4/8/74
    River
    Intake
    2.3
    0.04
    <0.005
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    16
    6
    0.012
    160
    0.12
    - .
    56
    2.2
    <0.010
    3.8
    0.11
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.10
    <0.002
    4.8
    <0.01
    100
    26
    18
    0.08
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.8
    0.03
    0.005
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    52
    9
    0.019
    460
    0.08
    <0.01
    130
    0.33
    <0.010
    0.6
    <0.01
    0.0003
    <0.05
    0.01
    0.012
    8.0
    <0,01
    220
    8
    100
    0.06
    7/15/74
    River
    Intake
    3.4
    0.06
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    0.001
    18
    6
    <0.005
    150
    <0.01
    -
    61
    3.3
    0.030
    3.8
    0.18
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06
    <0.002
    2.5
    <0.01
    80
    60
    13
    0.04
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.4
    0.04
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    0.002
    76
    7
    0.026
    640
    0.10
    <0.01
    190
    0.33
    0.040
    0.5
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    <0.01
    <0.002
    -
    <0.01
    250
    3
    90
    0.04
    10/8/74
    River
    Intake
    1.4
    0.24
    <0.005
    0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    28
    10
    0.006
    260
    0.04
    -
    98
    1.3
    <0.010
    6.9
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.08
    <0.002
    5.9
    <0.01
    150
    30
    31
    0.06
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.3
    0.07
    0.025
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    92
    12
    0.026
    400
    0.05
    -
    240
    0.18
    0.014
    3.0
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06
    > 0.012
    6.7
    <0.01
    240
    5
    110
    0.05
    

    -------
                                                    Table A-16  (Continued)
                                 TVA PLANT K RIVER WATER INTAKE AND  COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                       (Quarterly  Samples)
    
        Date
        Aluminum, mg/1 "
        Ammonia as N, mg/1
        Arsenic , rag/1
        Barium, mg/1
        Beryllium, mg/1
        Cadmium, mg/1
        Calcium, mg/1
        Chloride, mg/1
        Chromium, mg/1
    0   Conductivity, 25 °C,  umhos/cm
        Copper, mg/1
        Cyanide, mg/1
        Hardness, mg/1
        Iron, mg/1
        Lead, mg/1
        Magnesium, mg/1
        Manganese , mg/1
        Mercury, mg/1
        Nickel, mg/1
        Phosphorous, mg/1
        Selenium, mg/1
        Silica, mg/1
        Silver, mg/1
        Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
        Solids, Suspended, mg/1
        Sulfate, mg/1
        Zinc, mg/1
    
    
    1/13/75
    River
    Intake
    1.8
    0.05
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    21
    6
    <0.005
    160
    0.02
    -
    66
    1.8
    0.020
    3.4
    0.10
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.11
    <0.002
    5.6
    <0.01
    100
    20
    12
    0.04
    Pond
    Discharge
    3.1
    0.08
    0.045
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    60
    8
    0.036
    350
    0.02
    <0.01
    160
    1.0
    0.048
    2.4
    0.03
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06
    <0.002
    6.6
    <0.01
    210
    26
    60
    0.04
    
    
    4/7/75
    River
    Intake
    2.6
    0.43
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    12
    4
    0.009
    120
    0.08
    _
    40
    2.2
    0.010
    2.5
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.11
    <0.002
    5.0
    <0.01
    110
    21
    19
    0.06
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.7
    0.10
    0.050
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    47
    7
    0.009
    320
    0.03
    -
    130
    0.37
    0.012
    2.4
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.08
    0.011
    4.0
    <0.01
    240
    7
    88
    0.02
    
    
    7/14/75
    River
    Intake
    1.1
    0.06
    0.024
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    25
    8
    <0.005
    200
    0.11
    -
    87
    1.4
    <0.010
    6.0
    0.10
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.09
    <0.002
    2.5
    <0.01
    120
    23
    23
    0.11
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.2
    0.04
    0.100
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    64
    6
    0,015
    340
    0.01
    -
    180
    1.2
    <0.010
    3.6
    0.04
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.17
    0.009
    5.3
    <0.01
    240
    6
    100
    0.07
    
    i
    10/14/75
    River
    Intake
    0.6
    0.05
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    22
    8
    <0.005
    150
    0.09
    -
    73
    0.66
    <0.010
    4.4
    0.08
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.09
    <0.001
    5.4
    <0.01
    100
    17
    21
    0.06
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.4
    0.02
    0.085
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    44
    9
    <0.005
    300
    0.09
    -
    120
    0.18
    0.010
    3.0
    0.01
    i <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.12
    0.008
    5.8
    <0.01
    180
    11
    54
    0.04
    

    -------
                                                    Table A-16 (Continued)
    
                                TVA PLANT K RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                      (Quarterly Samples)
    en
    o\
    oo
                            Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C,  umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/12/76
    River
    Intake
    1.2
    0.05
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    23
    7
    <0.005
    150
    <0.01
    71
    1.2
    <0.010
    3.4
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.10
    0.009
    5.9
    <0.01
    100
    22
    16
    <0.01
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.4
    0.11
    0.060
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    59
    8
    <0.005
    320
    <0.01
    160
    0.26
    <0.010
    3.0
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06-
    0.012
    5.9
    <0.01
    200
    4
    59
    <0.01
    4/12/76
    River
    Intake
    1.0
    0.04
    <0.010
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    30
    8
    <0.005
    210
    0.03
    96
    1.7
    <0.010
    5.0
    0.14
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.13
    <0.002
    4.8
    <0.01
    110
    24
    24
    0.04
    Pond
    Discharge
    0.7
    1.3
    0.092
    0.3
    <0.01
    <0.001
    69
    19
    <0.005
    370
    0.04
    180
    0.20
    <0.010
    3.0
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    0.003
    5.6
    <0.01
    200
    4
    91
    0.03
    

    -------
                                                       Table A-17
    
                             TVA PLANT L RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                   (Quarterly Samples)
    Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/8/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.1
    0.37
    0.036
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    44
    6
    0.009
    120
    <0.01
    <0.01
    130
    0.90
    <0.010
    3.9
    <0.01
    0.0009
    <0.05
    0.19
    <0.004
    5.6
    <0.01
    230
    11
    100
    0.04
    4/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.2
    1.3
    0.030
    0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    38
    4
    0.007
    270
    <0.01
    <0.01
    110
    1.0
    0.043
    4.0
    0.06
    0.0005
    <0.05
    0.03
    0.013
    5.0
    <0.01
    190
    8
    60
    0.02
    7/2/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.6
    0.20
    0.070
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    91
    6
    <0.005
    330
    0.01
    <0.01
    240
    0.54
    <0.010
    4.2
    <0.01
    -
    <0.05
    0.45
    0.013
    5.9
    <0.01
    240
    3
    75
    0.03
    10/1/73
    River
    Intake
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    .NA
    NA
    NA
    JPond
    Discharge
    1.8
    1.4
    0.070
    <0. 1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    53
    9
    0.009
    360
    <0.01
    <0.01
    150
    0.58
    <0.010
    3.5
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.42
    0.014
    5.4
    <0.01
    230
    5
    110
    0.02
    NA - Not Available
    

    -------
                                                     Table A-17 (Continued)
    
                                 TVA PLANT L RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                       (Quarterly Samples)
        Date
        Aluminum, mg/1
        Ammonia as N, mg/1
        Arsenic, mg/1
        Barium, mg/1
        Beryllium, mg/1
        Cadmium, mg/1
        Calcium, mg/1
        Chloride, mg/1
    <_n  Chromium, mg/1
    Q  Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
        Copper, mg/1
        Cyanide, mg/1
        Hardness, mg/1
        Iron, mg/1
        Lead, mg/1
        Magnesium, mg/1
        Manganese, mg/1
        Mercury, mg/1
        Nickel, mg/1
        Phosphorous, mg/1
        Selenium, mg/1
        Silica, mg/1
        Silver, mg/1
        Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
        Solids, Suspended, mg/1
        Sulfate, mg/1
        Zinc, mg/1
    1/15/74
    River
    Intake
    2.8
    0.04
    <0.005
    0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    14
    4
    0.021
    110
    0.14
    -
    50
    2.40
    0.02
    3.7
    0.12
    0.0002
    <0.05
    0.01
    <0.002
    5.2
    <0.01
    80
    30
    11
    0.08
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.0
    0.60
    0.045
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    60
    4
    0.005
    300
    0.07
    <0.01
    160
    0.87
    <0.010
    2.0
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.01
    0.014
    5.2
    <0.01
    220
    27
    80
    0.02
    4/9/74
    River
    Intake
    2.3
    0.05
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    17
    4
    <0.005
    130
    0.10
    -
    56
    1.9
    0.012
    3.4
    0.08
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.06
    <0.002
    5.4
    <0.01
    80
    43
    15
    0.07
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.5
    0.46
    0.010
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    72
    4
    0.010
    560
    0.08
    <0.01
    190
    0.85
    <0.010
    1.3
    0.01
    0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    0.008
    6.7
    <0.01
    230
    50
    90
    0.06
    7/16/74
    River
    Intake
    0.7
    0.07
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    17
    6
    <0.005
    170
    0.04
    -
    60
    0.61
    0.014
    4.3
    0.05
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    <0.002
    3.6
    <0.01
    90
    8
    14
    0.04
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.2
    0.06
    0.015
    0.2
    <0.01
    0.004
    47
    6
    0,010
    310
    0.14
    <0.01
    130
    0.38
    0.036
    2.6
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.08
    <0.002
    -
    <0.01
    230
    9
    110
    0.05
    10/22/74
    River
    Intake
    0.3
    0.08
    0.010
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    17
    8
    0.010
    180
    <0.01
    -
    61
    0.28
    <0.010
    4.4
    0.03
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.04
    <0.002
    5.1
    <0.01
    100
    4
    14
    0.05
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.3
    0.73
    0.010
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    32
    8
    0.012
    270
    <0.01
    _ .
    92
    0.41
    <0.010
    3.0
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.05
    £0.002
    -5.3
    0.01
    150
    4
    55
    0.05
    

    -------
                                                     Table A-17  (Continued)
    
                                 TVA PLANT L RIVER       INTAKE  AND  COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
                                                       (Quarterly  Samples)
    Ul
    •xj
        Date
    Aluminum, mg/1
    Ammonia as N, mg/1
    Arsenic, mg/1
    Barium, mg/1
    Beryllium, mg/1
    Cadmium, mg/1
    Calcium, mg/1
    Chloride, mg/1
    Chromium, mg/1
    Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
    Copper, mg/1
    Cyanide, mg/1
    Hardness, mg/1
    Iron, mg/1
    Lead, mg/1
    Magnesium, mg/1
    Manganese, mg/1
    Mercury, mg/1
    Nickel, mg/1
    Phosphorous, mg/1
    Selenium, mg/1
    Silica, mg/1
    Silver, mg/1
    Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
    Solids, Suspended, mg/1
    Sulfate, mg/1
    Zinc, mg/1
    1/21/75
    River
    Intake
    1.0
    0.05
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    13
    6
    0.012
    150
    0.02
    -
    46
    0.84
    0.018
    3.4
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    <0.002
    5.1
    <0.01
    90
    12
    16
    0.06
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.5
    0.45
    0.033
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    42
    8
    0.018
    410
    <0.01
    <0.01
    120
    0.48
    <0.010
    2.7
    0.13
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    0.020
    4.5
    <0.01
    260
    11
    6
    0.04
    4/15/74
    River
    Intake
    1.4
    0.06
    <0.005
    0.2
    <0.01
    <0.001
    15
    4
    0.005
    140
    0.06
    -
    53
    1.1
    0.032
    3.7
    0.07
    <0,0002
    <0.05
    0.03
    <0.002
    5.8
    <0.01
    70
    9
    12
    0.09
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.3
    0.29
    0.035
    0.2
    <0.01
    0.002
    42
    4
    0.016
    320
    0.12
    -
    110
    0.30
    0.031
    1.8
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    -
    0.013
    7.1
    <0.01
    180
    7
    100
    0.06
    7/9/75
    River
    Intake
    0.7
    0.07
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    0.001
    21
    7
    <0.005
    150
    0.08
    _
    70
    0.66
    <0.010
    4.2
    0.07
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0..04
    <0.002
    5.0
    <0.01
    90
    5
    9
    0.03
    7/16/75
    Pond
    Discharge
    2.1
    0.29
    0.030
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    63
    5
    <0.005
    360
    0.10
    -
    160
    0.36
    <0.010
    1.4
    0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0,04
    0,010
    9.1
    <0.01
    230
    3
    110
    0.03
    10/14/75
    River
    Intake
    0.7
    0.04
    <0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    < 0.001
    19
    7
    <0.005
    150
    0.08
    _
    64
    0.45
    <0.010
    4.0
    0.04
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.04
    <0.001
    5.3
    <0.01
    100
    4
    9
    0.07
    Pond
    Discharge
    1.7
    0.14
    0.005
    <0.1
    <0.01
    <0.001
    62
    4
    <0.005
    420
    0.09
    —
    160
    <0.05
    0.010
    0.4
    <0.01
    <0.0002
    <0.05
    0.02
    0.010
    8.5
    <0.01
    140
    3
    67
    0.02
    

    -------
           ,   APPENDIX B
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    CHLORINE MINIMIZATION PROGRAM
    
    
    
    
    
    FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER
                 572
    

    -------
                                APPENDIX  B
    
                      CHLORINE MINIMIZATION  PROGRAM
                      FOR ONCE-THROUGH  COOLING  WATER
    PURPOSE
    
              The purpose of chlorine minimization  is  to  reduce the
    discharge of chlorine or its related  compounds  to  receiving
    waters.  This description  is intended to  explain what a chlorine
    minimization program is and how  to  develop  and  implement one.
    Anticipated situational factors  and how to  approach them are also
    presented.
    
    BACKGROUND
    
              Chlorine is commonly added  to condenser  cooling water
    of steam electric facilities in  order to  control the  growth of
    various organisms (algae,  bacteria, barnacles,  clams) that would
    otherwise attach to surfaces in  the condenser,  cooling towers, or
    to other components of the cooling  system and prevent the system
    from functioning properly.
    
              The attachment of these various organisms to the cool-
    ing water system is called biofouling.   Since  the  control method
    using chlorine involves creating a  residual dose of reactive
    chlorine, some of the chlorine used to  control  biofouling is
    Still present when the cooling water  is discharged from the
    plant.  It is desirable to minimize the discharge  of  free and
    combined residual chlorine from  steam electric  powerplants due to
    the toxicity these compounds have on  aquatic life.
                                    573
    

    -------
              Various powerplants  have  undertaken some type of pro-
    gram to reduce the use of  chlorine.   The  results  of these pro-
    grams indicate that  significant  chlorine  reduction can be
    achieved in many cases.  Some  of the  plants  found that chlorina-
    tion is not required at  all while others  have found that the
    amount of chlorine added can be  significantly reduced, especially
    during the winter months.
    
    GENERAL APPROACH
    
              In order to determine  the minimum  amount of chlorine a
    specific powerplant requires,  a  chlorine  minimization study must
    be undertaken.  A chlorine minimization study may require up to
    eighteen months.  The first step is the selection of the most
    appropriate minimization strategy, which  may take up to six
    months.  During this period, each of  the  following three vari-
    ables is controlled at various levels until  the minimum value
    that permits- proper plant  performance is  determined:
    
              1.  Dose of chlorine added  - where dose is defined as
                  the total  amount of chlorine added  per unit volume
                  of cooling water.
    
              2»  Duration of  chlorine  addition  - where duration is
                  defined as the length of time  between the start
                  and end of a single period  of  chlorine addition.
    
              3«  Frequency  of chlorination - where frequency is
                  defined as the number of periods of chlorine addi-
                  tion per day or  week.
    
              During the trials of various combinations of dose,
    duration, and frequency, data  on plant performance must be
                                    574
    

    -------
    collected.*- These data may include condenser vacuum, generator
    output, and the cooling water temperature rise as well as pres-
    sure drop across the condenser.  The performance data can be
    analyzed to determine if proper plant performance is being
    maintained.  Different plants will necessarily employ different
    measures of performance to ensure that conditions specific to
    that plant are taken into account.  Starting from operational
    practices known to maintain satisfactory performance of the cool-
    ing system, the systematic approach described in the following
    sections would be used to select the optimum chlorine minimiza-
    tion strategy.  This optimum strategy determines the manner in
    which dose, duration, and frequency are best varied to maintain
    system performance.
    
              After the optimal minimization strategy has been deter-
    mined, a full year of application of the optimal strategy is
    required to define the minimum dose and duration as well as
    optimum frquency to be used during any portion of the year.  The
    optimal chlorination procedure will vary with the seasons o£ the
    year due to changes in the chemical, physical, and biological
    characteristics of the cooling water source.  Water temperature
    is an especially important variable, as the growth rate of many
    microorganisms drops rapidly with decreasing water temperature.
    Therefore, many plants have found they do not need to chlorinate
    at all during the winter months.
    
              At the end of a full year of study, the proper chlori-
    nation procedure for each season of the year will have been
    defined and the chlorine minimization program will officially
    cease.  At this point, the proper chlorination procedure is based
    upon the data collected during the previous years program.  Sys-
    tem performance data must still be collected periodically to
    check the adequacy of the procedure and to enable any needed
    changes to be made.
                                    575
    

    -------
              It Is important  to mention  that plants  have^ some  addi-
    tional ways of reducing chlorine use  besides  conducting  a formal
    minimization program.  For example, chlorine  need not always  be
    applied to the entire cooling  system.  Although biological  growth
    occurs in all segments of  the  cooling system,  the most sensitive
    portion is usually the condenser.  Biological  growth  in  the other
    segments does not generally impair the operation  and  efficiency
    of the plant with the exception of plants with encrustations  of
    macroinvertabrates (barnacles, clams)  in the  intake system.   The
    relocation of the point of chlorine addition  to the condenser
    inlet box, providing sufficient mixing of chlorine occurs,  can
    result in significant reduction in the quantity of chlorine
    required to achieve the necessary level of  free available chlo-
    rine at the condenser outlet.  Chlorine addition,  however,  is
    required in the cooling water  intake  structure and other sections
    of the cooling system for  plants with macroinvertabrate  fouling
    problems.  Most experience has demonstrated that  the  continuous
    application of chlorine is necessary  to gain  control  of  both
    larval and adult forms of  the  macroinvertabrates  where they occur
    on the intake structure, intake tunnels, and  intake water boxes.
    Chlorine minimization in such  instances involves  applying chlo-
    rine only during the growing season and at the Ipwest concentra-
    tions necessary to achieve control.   Visual inspection is the
    most usual and reliable method of measuring the chlorine effec-
    tiveness.  For new facilities, the option of utilizing heat
    treatment to resolve this  problem should be explored.
    
              Another method of reducing  chlorine  use  that falls  out-
    side the scope of a. formal minimization program is the use  of a
    mechanical condenser antifouling device (mechanical cleaning).
    Some plants using on-line  mechanical  cleaning  do  not  chlorinate
    at all; others still require chlorine addition to  the critical
                                   576
    

    -------
    components of the cooling system.  For  existing  plants,  the
    retrofitting of a mechanical cleaning system may be expensive.
    For new plants, costs of a mechanical cleaning system are lower
    since no retrofit is needed.  New plants  should  seriously con-
    sider the use of a condenser mechanical cleaning system.
    
    SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR DETERMINING MINIMUM AMOUNT OF
    CHLORINE ADDITION
    
              As explained in the preceeding  discussion,  the  control
    variables are dose, duration, and frequency.  During the  optimal
    strategy development stage, these factors must be varied  in a
    systematic fashion.  Throughout  this period the  operating inte-
    grity of the plant must be protected.   To accomplish this,  plant
    operators will need to establish some absolute means of monitor-
    ing condenser performance. : If at all possible; |  provisions  should
    be made to enable visual inspection of  the  gon^enser elements
    following a test period.  The actual condition e-f the system in
                                              - ' ",-•' I- -V?* £. W
    terms of biofouling can then be  directly  conrpared to the  indirect
    means of monitoring performance  (condenser  v§SUum»  pressure drop,
    etc.)-  Actual inspection of the condenser  or pj'her part  of the
    cooling system (which requires plant closure 0,5  loading  reduc-
    tion) should not be considered to be a  'roofing' method  of eval-
    uating the effectiveness of the  chlorine  addition program as unit
    downtime to make such inspections is costly and  highly undesira-
    ble from the operator's standpoint.
    
              The following sections provide  additional details con-
    cerning;  (1) the specific things each  plant must be capable of
    in order to conduct a minimization program, (2)  the specific
    steps that make up a minimization, program,  and  (3)  how a plant
    should use the results of a minimization  program to control
    future chlorine use.
                                    577
    

    -------
    1 •   Required Capabilities      .  •   j          ^
    
        a.  A means of measuring the apparent waterside
            condenser tube fouling.  This  should  include
            visual inspections and biofouling sampling at
            some point, in the test program.  Inspection
            should include the condenser txibes, intake tube
            sheet, water boxes and, if needed,  the  cooling
            water intake structure.  Other measurements may
            be substituted with caution such as deviation
            from expected condenser vacuum, pressure  drop,
            etc.  The substitute measurements all have
            serious problems of ambiguity  since many
            factors - other than biofouling  film  growth in
            the condenser tubes can affect these
            measurements .
                v  bus. ...
        b.  A meanslx'of. relating the periodic inspection
            result or other measurements to condenser
            performance.
                j:3?fs_.-i _:'
        c.  A means of gathering grab samples from  con-
            denser inlet, outlet, and NPDES discharge
            pointi TT-i
        d.  A means of measuring free available  chlorine
            (FAC)'and total residual- chlorine  (TRC)  on
            samples without delay once collected.  The  test
            method to be employed is ASTM  D  1253 Chlorine
            in Water, Method A, Direct Amperometric
            Titration .
                         578
    

    -------
        e.  A means of controlling and measuring with
            appropriate accuracy the addition of chlorine
            to the cooling water to the unit or condenser
            under study.  The arrangement  for adding
            chlorine varies considerably from plant to
            plant.  The physical differences may influence
            the minimization strategy and  may require
            physical modification of the existing system in
            order to properly implement the program.
                                           * E' "7 - ;
        f.  General chemical analytical capability for
            properties or substances in water.-.
    
        g.  A means of determining short-termvfree avail-
            able chlorine demand of the inletrnwater either
            in the laboratory or by difference, between
            applied chlorine concentration and the free
            available chlorine residual fojind^iat the
            condenser inlet.               70 si.
    2.  Specific Steps in a Minimization Program
                                          '"'' O 8.S.E :
        a.  Establish a baseline of condenser performance
            associated with the condenser for each  seasonal
            period of plant operation  (winter,  summer,
            etc.).  This may involve an initial-offline
            chemical or mechanical cleaning;; : It  is
            necessary that these baseline conditions be
            used to evaluate the results of :the various
            chlorination strategies.   Data needed to estab-
            lish baseline conditions will be available at
            most facilities, and thus, will not require  a
            delay in systematic testing of minimization
            strategies.
                         579
    

    -------
    Conduct screening tests  for  a  letigth of time to
    be determined by plant operators.  A period of
    two months for each of the strategies tested is
    probably appropriate.  Different plant cooling
    water and chlorine feed  configurations may
    require alterations in the selection of the
    minimization strategies.  Plants with several
    units with similar tube  metal,  intake water,
    transit times, temperature gradient  across the
    condensers and cooling water velocity may allow
    parallel trials of the minimization  strategies
    on several units while maintaining other units
    on the dose, frequency and duration  found
    effective in. past experience.   The duration of
    plant chlorination should be restricted to a
    maximum of two hours per day.
            .''SJLx/c-j:.
    There are three basic ways to  institute a
    chlorine minimization program:   (i)  reduce the
    dose, (ii)";areduce the duration, or  (iii)  change
    the frequency;. •  For many facilities  it may be
    desirablconduct all three  alternatives in
    successioiTrprior to selecting  the most suit-
    able.  In some cases the operator can choose
    one alternative based on previous experience.
    The three: alternative approaches are explained
    in detail as follows:
    
      (i)  Reduction of Dose:  Establish a desired
           outlet concentration  for TRC.   This
           value should be lower than 0.14 mg/1.
           Maintain the frequency  and duration
                 580
    

    -------
        ,m  found effective in past experience but
           reduce the dole of cht'Orine until the
           desired effluent concentration is not
           exceeded.  Closely monitor condenser
           performance parameters during this
           period.  If the system shows signs of
           biofouling, increase the"dose.  Test
           periods of about two months should be
           used for evaluating effectiveness of
           each new dose used.
    
     (ii)-  Seduction of Duration:  Decrease the
          •duration of chlorine feed while
         -•  maintaining the dose and frequency found
           effect i ve in •. pa s t exp er i enc e:.'.: • • 
    -------
        applied in each season.  Therfoptimum cpmbina-
        tions for each season being those defined by
        the chlorine minimization study during that
        season. .Long term year to year variations in
        water quality may require changes in dose,
        duration,  and frequency not encountered during
        the minimization test program.
    
    c.  Monitoring of condenser performance indicators
        (condenser vacuum, etc.) should continue during
        the implementation plan.  This is necessary to
        prevent serious biofouling (and potential plant
        shutdown)  in the event that the influent
        cooling water quality or plant operating
        characteristics undergo a sudden change that
        increases  the plant's susceptibility to
              f r"*: t
                     582
    

    -------
           Llfrom the £hort  term  screening tests,  select
                                           -r-r-3-  --- -
            the approach that  appears  to  best  fulfill
            the purposes of the  chlorine  minimization
            program.  Using the  selected  strategy,
                                           .-• : .';~s  "•'••'"
            conduct a year-long  trial  making- appropriate
            adjustments in  the dose, duraitbn, ""and
            frequency to meet  the  changing'" intake water
            chlorine demand and  biofouling propensity so
            as to maintain  acceptable  plant™ performance.
            The entire test  program,  from start to finish,
                                          ••i'v "ij : ••'•'..
            should not require more  than 1 8 months .
                                         .. i, rrs >'-'.:•>•:•;
    
    3.  Using the Results of the Minimization^ 'Program
        a.  The information obtained  in  the"fa month
            chlorine minimization  program®should serve as
            the guidelines for  a permanent chlorination
            procedure.  The most successful approach (the
            method that provides for  adequate plant
            performance while minimizing chlorine
            discharge) should be implemented.
    
        b.  The implementation  program should take into
            account both year-to-year and seasonal varia-
            tions in water quality.   For example, as was
            done in the minimization  program, each season
            of the year should  be  approached  as a new set
            of operating conditions.   Different combina-
            tions of dose, duration and  frequency may be
                          583
    

    -------
                       APPENDIX C
    
    
    
    
    
    STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CHLORINE MINIMIZATION
    
    
    
                   AND DECHLORINATION
                          584
    

    -------
                                APPENDIX  C
    
             STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CHLORINE MINIMIZATION
                            AND DECHLORINATION
    
    INTRODUCTION
    
    Chlorine is one of the pollutants identified  in  the  effluent  of
    steam .electric generating plants.  It is used intermittently  in
    the cooling waters of generating stations to  kill  organisms which
    interfere with the operation of a plant.  Chlorine is  added to
    the cooling water in batches at such  times as biofouling  becomes
    an operational problem.  Because chlorination is a batch  process,
    chlorine in a plant's effluent is of  concern  only  during  and
    immediately after the period of chlorination.
    
    The effluent guidelines for steam electric plants  are  to  include
    standards for chlorine concentrations.  Control  options which may
    be applied to reduce effluent chlorine  concentrations  include
    chlorine minimization (use of the least amount of  chlorine needed
    without impairing operation of the plant) and dechlorination  of
    the effluent.
    
    Three plants have provided data to EPA  on chlorine concentrations
    under no-control, minimization and dechlorination  (where  dechlo-
    rination may include some level of chlorine minimization  as well)
    to the EPA.  The purpose