DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
FOR FINAL
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES,
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,
AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR THE
STEAM ELECTRIC
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Anne M. Gorsuch
Administrator
Jeffery Denit
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Dennis Ruddy
Project Officer
November 1982
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 FINAL REGULATIONS 5
III INTRODUCTION 29
BACKGROUND 29
PURPOSE 29
INFORMATION AVAILABILITY, SOURCES AND
COLLECTION 37
INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 41
PROCESS DESCRIPTION 46
ALTERNATE PROCESSES UNDER ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT.... 54
FUTURE GENERATING SYSTEMS 56
IV INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 59
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 60
ENGINEERING TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 63
V WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 67
INTRODUCTION 67
DATA COLLECTION 67
COOLING WATER 75
ASH HANDLING 132
LOW VOLUME WASTES 189
METAL CLEANING WASTES 208
COAL PILE RUNOFF 228
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 249
ONCE THROUGH COOLING WATER 261
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN 264
COAL PILE RUNOFF 271
VII TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 275
INTRODUCTION 275
ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER 275
RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER 326
ASH HANDLING 336
LOW-VOLUME WASTES 438
METAL CLEANING WASTES 441
COAL PILE AND CHEMICAL HANDLING RUNOFF 455
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS..... 457
COOLING WATER 457
ASH HANDLING 464
LOW VOLUME-WASTES 477
COAL PILE RUNOFF 481
IX BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS,
HEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 487
X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 503
XI REFERENCES 506
XII GLOSSARY 518
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
APPENDIX
A TVA RAW RIVER INTAKE AND ASH POND DISCHARGE
DATA „ A-l
B CHLORINE MINIMIZATION PROGRAM FOR ONCE-
THROUGH COOLING WATER B-l
C STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CHLORINE MINIMIZA-
TION AND DECHLORINATION. C-l
D INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE WITH CHLORINATION OPTION.... D-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Paqe
II-l TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED AS CAPABLE OF
ACHIEVING LIMITATIONS 6
III-l LIST OF SIXTY-FIVE CLASSES OF POLLUTANTS
CONTAINED IN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
EPA AND NRDC 30
III-2 LIST OF 126 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS 32
III-3 DISTRIBUTION OF THE STEAM SECTION RELATIVE TO
THE ENTIRE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY AS OF 1978. 43
III-4 YEAR-END 1978 DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANTS BY SIZE CATEGORY 44
III-5 PRESENT AND FUTURE CAPACITY OF THE ELECTRIC
UTILITY INDUSTRY 45
III-6 NUMBER OF EXISTING STEAM-ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS
BY FUEL TYPE AND SIZE 47
III-7 CAPACITY OF EXISTING AND NEW STEAM-ELECTRIC
POWERPLANTS BY FUEL TYPE AND SIZE 48
III-8 EXISTING AND PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM
ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS BY FUEL TYPE 49
III-9 DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM-ELECTRIC CAPACITY BY
PLANT SIZE AND IN-SERVICE YEAR.. 50
IV-1 VARIABLES FOUND TO HAVE A STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE ON NORMALIZED FLOW
DISCHARGES 61
IV-2 PERCENT OF THE VARIATION IN NORMALIZED
DISCHARGE FLOWS THAT IS EXPLAINED BY THE
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 62
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
V-l CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED IN THE
SCREEN SAMPLING PHASE OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM... 70
V-2 CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED IN THE
VERIFICATION PHASE. 72
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 76
V-4 ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER FLOW RATES 78
V-5 COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN 83
V-6 COPPER CORROSION DATA 95
V-7 ONE YEAR STEADY STATE CORROSION RATES FOR
ALLOY 706 DETERMINED EXPERIMENTALLY 97
V-8 SELECTED PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
IN SEAWATER BEFORE AND AFTER PASSAGE THROUGH
ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEM 98
V-9 SOLUBLE COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN RECIRCULATING
COOLING WATER SYSTEMS. . „ 99
V-10 COMMONLY USED CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL
CHEMICALS „ 100
V-ll SOLVENT OR CARRIER COMPONENTS THAT MAY BE USED
EN CONJUNCTON WITH SCALING AND CORROSION
CONTROL AGENTS „ 104
V-l2 POLLUTANTS REPORTED ON 308 FORMS IN COOLING
TOWER BLOWDOWN 105
V-13 ASBESTOS IN COOLING TOWER WATERS 106
V-l4 RESULTS OF SCREENING PROGRAM FOR ONCE-THROUGH
COOLING WATER SYSTEMS. 109
V-15 SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM
AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR
ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS 110
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continuec3)
Number Page
V-16 RESULTS OF THE SCREENING PHASE OF THE SAMPLING
PROGRAM FOR COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN 119
»
V-17 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR
RECIRCULATION COOLING WATER SYSTEMS 123
V-18 FLY ASH POND OVERFLOW 133
V-19 BOTTOM ASH POND OVERFLOW 134
V-20 VANADIUM, NICKEL, AND SODIUM CONTENT OF
RESIDUAL FUEL OIL 136
V-21 AVERAGE PRODUCT YIELD OF A MODERN UNITED
STATES REFINERY 137
V-22 SULFUR CONTENT IN FRACTIONS OF KUWAIT CRUDE
OIL 133
V-23 MELTING POINTS OF SOME OIL/ASH CONSTITUENTS 140
V-24 MEGATONS OF COAL ASH COLLECTED IN THE
UNITED STATES 142
V-25 VARIATIONS IN COAL ASH COMPOSITION WITH
RANK „ 143
V-26 RANGE IN AMOUNT OF TRACE ELEMENTS PRESENT IN
COAL ASHES 144
V-27 COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN BOTTOM ASH
AND FLY ASH BY TYPE OF BOILERS AND METHOD OF
FIRING 149
V-28 MAJOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF FLY ASH AND
BOTTOM ASH FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
REGIONS 150
V-29 COMPARISON OF FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH FROM
VARIOUS UTILITY PLANTS 151
V-30 CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED TRACE ELEMENTS IN
COAL AND ASH AT PLANT 4710 153
Vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Paqe
V-31 ELEMENTS SHOWING PRONOUNCED CONCENTRATION
TRENDS rflTH DECREASING PARTICLE SIZE 156
V-32 CHARACTERISTICS OF ASH POND OVERFLOW WITH
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS LESS
THAN 30 ng/1 157
V-33 SUMMARY OF ASH POND OVERFLOW DATA FROM
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS 158
V-34 SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TVA TRACE METAL DATA FOR
ASH POND INTAKE AND EFFLUENT STREAMS 159
V-35 SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATION CONDITIONS AND ASH
CHARACTERISTICS OF TVA COAL-FIRED POWER
PLANTS 165
V-36 NUMBER OF ASH PONDS IN WHICH AVERAGE EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED TRACE ELEMENTS
EXCEED THOSE OF THE INTAKE WATER 166
V-37 SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TRACE METAL DATA FOR ASH
POND INTAKE AND EFFLUENT STREAMS 167
V-38 SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS AND ASH
CHARACTERISTICS OF TVA COAL-FIRED POWERPLANTS 170
V-39 ASH POND EFFLUENT TRACE ELEMENT
CONCENTRATIONS 172
V-40 SCREENING DATA FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW 173
V-41 SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM
AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR
ASH POND OVERFLOW 176
V-42 CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ARSENIC IN ASH POND
OVERFLOW EXCEEDS 0.05 ng/1 187
V-43 ARSENIC CONCENTRATIONS IN ASH POND
EFFLUENTS. 188
V-44 RECOMMENDED LIMITS OF TOTAL SOLIDS IN BOILER
WATER FOR DRUM BOILERS 190
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Paqe
V-45 CHEMICAL ADDITIVES COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH
INTERNAL BOILER TREATMENT 191
V-46 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF BOILER SLOWDOWN
CHARACTERISTICS 192
V-47 BOILER SLOWDOWN FLOWRATES 194
V-48 SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA FOR BOILER
SLOWDOWN 19 5
V-49 COAGULATING AND FLOCCULATING AGENT
CHARACTERISTICS 198
V-50 CLARIFIER BLOWDOWN FLOWRATES 199
V-51 FILTER BACKWASH FLOWRATES 200
V-52 ION EXCHANGE MATERIAL TYPES AND REGENERANT
REQUIREMENT 202
V-53 ION EXCHANGE SPENT REGENERANT CHARACTERISTICS.... 203
V-54 ION EXCHANGE SOFTENER SPENT REGENERANT
FLOWRATES 204
V-55 LIME SOFTENER BLOWDOWN FLOWRATES 205
V-56 EVAPORATOR BLOWDOWN CHARACTERISTICS 206
V-57 EVAPORATOR BLOWDOWN FLOWRATES 207
V-58 REVERSE OSMOSIS BRINE FLOWRATES 209
V-59 EQUIPMENT DRAINAGE AND LEAKAGE 210
V-60 SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA FOR
DEMINERALIZER REGENERANT 211
V-61 ALLOYS AND CONSTITUENTS OF BOILER SYSTEMS 217
V-62 WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIATED CITRIC ACID
SOLUTIONS. 219
V-63 WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIATED EDTA
SOLUTIONS. . . „ 220
Vln
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
V-64 WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIACAL SODIUM
BROMATE SOLUTIONS 221
V-65 WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID WITHOUT
COPPER COtlPLEXER SOLUTIONS. 223
V-66 WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID WITH
COPPER COMPLEXER SOLUTIONS 225
V-67 WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF HYDROXYACETIC/FORMIC
ACID SOLUTIONS. 226
V-68 AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADING
IN RAW WASTEWATER FROM FIRESIDE WASHES AT
PLANT 3306 229
V-69 WASTE LOAD DATA FOR BOILER FIRESIDE WASH 230
V-70 FIRESIDE WASH WATER FLOWRATES 231
V-71 AIR PREHEATER WASH WATER 232
V-72 WASTE LOAD DATA FOR AIR PREHEATER WASH 233
V-73 AIR PREHEATER WASHWATER FLOWRATES 234
V-74 CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL PILE RUNOFF 237
V-75 CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN COAL PILE
RUNOFF. 238
V-76 SUMMARY OF NEW AND RETROFIT FGD SYSTEMS BY
PROCESS 240
V-77 COMPOSITION OF EFFLUENT FROM ONCE-THROUGH
HIST ELIMINATOR WASH UNIT AT WET LIMESTONE
SCRUBBER SYSTEM 242
V-78 RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS
IN FGD SLUDGES FROM LIME/LIMESTONE, AND DOUBLE-
ALKALI SYSTEMS. 245
V-79 FLUE GAS SCRUBBER BLOWDOWN 246
V-80 FLUE GAS SCRUBBER SOLIDS POND OVERFLOW 247
-------
LIST OP TABLES (Continued)
Number Paqe
VI-1 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN THE SAMPLING
PROGRAM BY WASTE STREAM SOURCES. 251
VI-2 NUMBER OF PLANTS REPORTING VARIOUS PRIORITY
POLLUTANTS AS KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO BE PRESENT
IN VARIOUS WASTE STREAMS 256
VI-3 PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING PROPRIETARY
CHEMICALS USED BY POWER PLANTS. 259
VII-1 SUMMARY OF CHLORINE MINIMIZATION STUDIES
AT POWER PLANTS USING ONCE-THROUGH
COOLING SYSTEMS 297
VII-2 SULFUR DIOXIDE DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS IN USE OR
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANTS „ 310
VI1-3 CHLORINATED CONDENSER OUTLET FIELD DATA FROM
PLANT 0611. . 311
VI1-4 UNCHLORINATED CONDENSER OUTLET FIELD DATA FROM
PLANT 0611 312
VII-5 DSCHLORINATED EFFLUENT DATA FIELD DATA FOR
PLANT 0611 313
VII-6 DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS IN USE OR
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC
PLANTS 319
VII-7 CHLORINATION/DECHLORINATION PRACTICES 321
VI1-8 EFFECT OF DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION ON PH
OF THE COOLING WATER 324
VII-9 EFFECT OF DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION ON
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN COOLING WATER 325
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Paqe
VII-10 CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL MIXTURES KNOWN
TO CONTAIN PRIORITY POLLUTANTS 330
VII-11 COMMONLY USED OXIDIZING BIOCIDES 332
VII-12 COMMONLY USED NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES 333
VII-13 ASH CONVEYING CAPACITIES OF VARIOUS SIZE PIPES... 346
VII-14 PLANTS WITH RETROFITTED DRY FLY ASH HANDLING
SYSTEMS 368
VII-15 ARSENIC REMOVAL FROM MUNICIPAL WASTEvfATERS 383
VII-16 SUMMARY OF NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS IN METAL
PROCESSING AND PLATING WASTEWATERS 385
VI1-17 SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS
AFTER PRECIPITATION TREATMENT 386
VII-18 CONCENTRATIONS OF ZINC IN PROCESS WASTEvfATERS. 387
VI1-19 SUMMARY OF PRECIPITATION TREATMENT RESULTS FOR
ZINC 388
VI1-20 COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTEWATER FROM METAL
PLATING AND PROCESSING OPERATIONS 389
VI1-21 COPPER REMOVAL BY FULL-SCALE INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS 392
VI1-22 COMPARISON OF INITIAL TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS
CITED IN STUDIES REPORTED IN THE LITERATURE AND
TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ASH POND
DISCHARGES 394
VII-23 TRACE METAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR LIME
PRECIPITATION TREATMENT OF ASH POND EFFLUENTS.... 395
VII-24 TRACE METAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR LIME PLUS
FERRIC SULFATE PRECIPITATION TREATMENT OF ASH
POND EFFLUENTS 396
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
VII-25 DATA SUMMARY OF PLANTS REPORTING ZERO DISCHARGE
OF BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER 408
VII-26 TRACE ELEMENTS/PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 3203 419
VII-27 MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATION AT PLANT 3203 420
VI1-28 TRACE ELEMENTS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 0822 425
VII-29 MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 0822 426
VII-30 TRACE ELEMENTS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 1811 431
VI1-31 MAJOR SPECIES POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATIONS
AT PLANT 1811. 432
VII-32 TRACE ELEMENTS/PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 1809 436
VII-33 MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 1809....... 437
VI1-34 TREATMENT OF ACID CLEANING WASTEWATER SUMMARY
OF JAR TESTS. 452
VII-35 EQUIVALENT TREATMENT OF INCINERATION TESTS....... 454
VI1-36 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES AND
EFFICIENCIES. 456
VIII-1 SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
FOR CHLORINE MINIMIZATION IN ONCE-THROUGH
COOLING WATER SYSTEMS 458
VII1-2 SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
FOR DECHLORINATION IN ONCE-THROUGH COOLING
WATER SYSTEMS 458
XII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number
Paqe
VII1-3 SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
FOR DECKLORINATION OF RECIRCULATING COOLING
SYSTEM DISCHARGE (SLOWDOWN) 460
VII1-4 SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
FOR SWITCHING TO NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANT
CONTAINING NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES. 461
VII1-5 SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
FOR SWITCHING TO NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANT
CONTAINING CORROSION AND SCALE CONTROL
CHEMICALS 461
VIII-6 COOLING TOWER FILL REPLACEMENT COSTS 463
VIII-7 ANNUALIZED COSTS, DRY VS. WET FLY ASH DISPOSAL... 465
VII1-8 CAPITAL COSTS FOR NEW SOURCE DRY FLY ASH
HANDLING SYSTEMS 466
VIII-9 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SOURCE DRY FLY ASH
HANDLING SYSTEMS 468
VIII-10 LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SOURCE DRY FLY ASH
HANDLING SYSTEMS 468
VIII-11 CAPITAL COSTS FOR CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION OF
ONCE-THROUGH FLY ASH SLUICING SYSTEMS 470
VII1-12 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SOURCE WET CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-THROUGH FLY ASH SLUICING
SYSTEMS. 471
VII1-13 LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SOURCE CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION OF ONCE-THROUGH FLY ASH HANDLING
SYSTEMS 471
VIII-14 CAPITAL COSTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE BOTTOM
ASH HANDLING SYSTEM 473
VII1-15 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR COMPLETE
RECYCLE: BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM 475
XI 1 1
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number
VIII-16 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE
VIII-17
VIII-18
VIII-19
VIII-20
VIII-21
VIII-22
VIII-23
VIII-24
VIII-25
VIII-26
VIII-27
VIII-20
VIII-29
VIII-30
VIII-31
VIII-32
A-l
A-2
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE BOTTOM
ASH HANDLING SYSTEM.
CAPITAL COSTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
HANDLING SYSTEM
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PARTIAL
RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE
BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM
ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS.
IMPOUNDMENT COST
COST OF VAPOR COMPRESSION EVAPORATION SYSTEM
COST OF EVAPORATION PONDING
COST OF SPRAY DRYING SYSTEM
COST OF IMPOUNDMENT FOR COAL PILE RUNOFF
COST OF LIME FEED SYSTEM
COST OF MIXING EQUIPMENT
CLARIFICATION
COST FOR LIME FEED SYSTEM
COST OF POLYMER FEED SYSTEM
COST OF ACID FEED SYSTEM
TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH
POND DISCHARGE DAT^.
TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH
POND DISCHARGE DATA.
476
476
478
478
479
479
480
480
483
483
484
484
485
485
486
436
A-l
A- 5
XIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
A-3 TVA PLANT B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH
POND DISCHARGE DATA A-9
A-4 TVA PLANT B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH
POND DISCHARGE DATA A-12
A-5 TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND (EAST) DISCHARGE DATA A-15
A-6 TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND (WEST) DISCHARGE DATA A-19
A-7 TVA PLANT D RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA. A-23
A-8 TVA PLANT E RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA. A-27
A-9 TVA PLANT F RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA. A-31
A-10 TVA PLANT G RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA. A-35
A-ll TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA. A-39
A-12 TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH
POND DISCHARGE DATA A-42
A-13 TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH
POND DISCHARGE DATA „ A-43
A-14 TVA PLANT I RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND (SOUTH) DISCHARGE A-4 4
A-15 TVA PLANT J RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND DISCHARGE A-48
A-16 TVA PLANT K RIVER WATER IMTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND DISCHARGE A-52
A-17 TVA PLANT L RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED
ASH POND DISCHARGE A-56
XV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
C-l RECOMMENDED STANDARDS: TRC (mg/1) C-l
»
C-2 THE NUMBER OF OF CHLORINATION EVENTS C-2
C-3 PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE (X) AND MAXIMUM (MAX.)
VALUES EQUALING ZERO C-3
C-5 WEIGHTED MEAN: TRC (mg/1) C-7
C-6 STANDARD DEVIATION C-ll
C-7 WEIGHTED MEANS AND MEDIAN OF ESTIMATED
STANDARD DEVIATION FOR TREATMENT TYPE
(PLANT INDEPENDENT) C-l2
C-8 COMPUTATION OF .99ni. C-13
C-9 99th PERCENTILE ESTIMATES FOR A DAILY MAXIMUM C-13
D-l SUMMARY OF CHLORINE MINIMIZATION STUDIES AT
POWER PLANTS USING ONCE-THROUGH COOLING
SYSTEMS D-2
XVI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
III-l TYPICAL COAL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 53
7-1 SOURCES OF WASTEWATER IN A FOSSIL-FUELED
STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANT 68
7-2 SHELL AND TUBE CONDENSER 77
V-3 MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS 80
V-4 NATURAL DRAFT EVAPORATIVE COUNTERFLOW COOLING
TOWER 81
V-5 EFFECT OF pH ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF HYPOCHLOROUS
ACID AND HYPOCHLORITE ION IN WATER 85
V-6 EFFECT OF IMPURITIES IN WATER ON TOTAL
AVAILABLE CHLORINE RESIDUAL 88
V-7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HALOGENATED ORGANICS
] N RAW AND FINISHED DRINKING WATER 89
V-8 EFFECT OF WATER TEMPERATURE ON THE CHLOROFORM
REACTION 91
V-9 EFFECT OF pH ON THE CHLOROFORM REACTION 92
V-10 EFFECT OF CONTACT TIME ON THE CHLOROFORM
REACTION 93
V-ll PULVERIZED-COAL FIRING METHODS 148
7-12 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR BOTTOM ASH
AND FLY ASH „ 155
VII-1 SIMPLIFIED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A CHLORINE
DIOXIDE BIOFOULING CONTROL FACILITY BASED ON
THE CHLORINE GAS METHOD. 278
VII-2 SIMPLIFIED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A CHLORINE
DIOXIDE BIOFOULING CONTROL FACILITY BASED ON
THE HYPOCHLORITE METHOD 280
VII-3 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CORONA CELL 282
XVT
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
VI1-4 EFFECT OF OZONATION OF FACILITY CAPACITY ON
PROCESS CHOICE - OXYGEN VS. AIR 284
*
VII-5 OZONATION FACILITY USING AIR TO GENERATE OZONE... 285
VII-6 OZONATION FACILITY USING OXYGEN TO GENERATE
OZONE 286
VII-7 LIQUID SUPPLY CHLORINATION SYSTEM 290
VII-8 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL CHLORINATOR 291
VII-9 PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING A SET OF SCREENING
TRIALS TO CONVERGE ON THE MINIMUM VALUE FOR
TRC LEVEL, DURATION OF CHLORINATION, AND
CHLORINATION FREQUENCY 294
VII-10 DECHLORINATION BY NATURAL CHLORINE DEMAND IN A
ONCC-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEM 301
VII-11 SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF AMERTAP TUBE CLEANING
SYSTEM 303
VII-12 SCHEMATIC OF M.A.N. SYSTEM REVERSE FLOW
PIPING o 304
VI1-13 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DECHLORINATION BY SULFUR
DIOXIDE (SO2 ) INJECTION 307
VI1-14 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DECHLORINATION BY DRY
CHEMICAL INJECTION 318
VII-15 DRY FLY ASH HANDLING - VACUUM SYSTEM 339
VII-16 DIAGRAM OF A HYDRAULIC VACUUM PRODUCER 341
VII-17 TYPE "E" DUST VALVES 342
VII-18 SEGREGATING VALVES 343
VII-19 TYPICAL PIPES AND FITTINGS FOR ASH CONVEYING 344
VII-20 DRY FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM - PRESSURE SYSTEM.... 348
VII-21 TYPICAL AIR LOCK VALVE FOR PRESSURE FLY ASH
CONVEYING SYSTEM 350
xvm
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
VII-22 FLY ASH SILO AND HOPPERS/PLANT 1811 353
VII-23 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PLANT 0822 355
VII-24 PRESSURE FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FOR PLANT 3203.. 357
VII-25 DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
MAJOR FUEL TYPES 359
VI1-26 DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
COAL TYPE 360
VI1-27 DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
MAJOR BOILER TYPES 362
VI1-28 DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
EPA REGION 363
VII-29 EPA REGIONS 364
VII-30 DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY
VARIOUS PLANT SIZES 366
VI1-31 DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS AS A
FUNCTION OF INTAKE WATER QUALITY 367
VII-32 GENERALIZED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A PARTIAL
RECIRCULATION FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM 369
VI1-33 A TYPICAL METHOD OF SLUICING FLY ASH FROM
COLLECTION POINTS 370
VII-34 TYPICAL AIR SEPARATOR IN A PARTIAL RECIRCULATING
FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM 372
VI1-35 ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM AND SAMPLING
LOCATIONS FOR PLAiJT 1809 375
VII-36 FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR METALS REMOVAL USING LIME... 377
VII-37 TYPICAL LIME FEED SYSTEM 378
VII-38 DEEP BCD FILTER 380
XIX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
VII-39 LANDFILL METHODS . 397
VI1-40 VARIOUS STAGES OF A CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING
SYSTEM. ..:... 399
VII-41 PONDING RECYCLE SYSTEM FOR BOTTOM ASH 405
VII-42 WATER FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PLANT 3203 414
VII-43 BOTTOM ASH RECYCLE SYSTEM AT PLANT 3203 416
VII-44 BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FOR PLANT 8022........ 422
VII-45 PLANT 1811 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR BOTTOM ASH HANDLING.. 428
VII-46 SIMPLIFIED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A VAPOR
COMPRESSION EVAPORATION UNIT. 440
VII-47 TYPICAL PIPING DIAGRAM AND LOCATION FOR
INCINERATION OF BOILER CHEMICAL CLEANING
WASTES 443
VII-48 COMPLEXING OF Fe(III) 446
VI1-49 THE CHELATE EFFECT ON COMPLEX FORMATION OF
Cu-aq2+ WITH MONODENTATE, BIDENTATE AND
TETRADENTATE AMINES 448
VI1-50 TREATMENT SCHEME FOR METALS REMOVAL BY
PRECIPITATION FROM WASTE BOILER CLEANING
SOLUTION 449
VII-51 THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF METAL IONS AS
A FUNCTION OF pH 451
C-l HISTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2608 C-4
C-2 HISTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2607 C-5
C-3 HISTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2603 C-6
C-4 EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS FOR PLANT 2608.. C-8
C-5 EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS FOR PLANT 2607.. C-9
C-6 EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS FOR PLANT 2603.. C-10
XX
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
In revising effluent limitations guidelines, standards of per-
formance for new sources, and pretreatment standards for the
steam electric power generating industry, separate consideration
has been given to heat and to chemical pollutants. In this
regulation, only nonthermal-related pollutants were considered.
The analysis of pollutants and the technologies applicable to
their control were 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 mis-
cellaneous sources. Virtually all steaii electric facilities have
one or more waste streams associated with these systems and
sources.
This review of effluent guidelines focused primarily on the 126
priority pollutants, although other pollutants were also con-
sidered. In general, very few of the organics in the list of 126
priority pollutants were detected in quantifiable amounts. In-
organic priority pollutants, however, are found in most waste
streams. This review also disclosed that the chlorine (a non-
conventional pollutant) limitations in the existing guidelines
are not sufficiently stringent.
Treatment and control technologies currently in use by certain
segments of the power industry could be applied to a greater num-
ber of power plants, reducing the discharge of pollutants. The
best practicable control technology currently available (BPTCA)
is not changed with exception to provisions relating to boiler
blowdown and allowing concentration-based permit limitations to
be established. The best available technology economically
achievable (BATEA), new source performance standards (NSPS) and
pretreatment standards for new (PSNS) and existing sources (PSES)
are changed to reflect updated information on control technology,
waste characterization and other factors.
In summary, the final regulations are as follows:
1. For once through cooling water, EPA is promulgating BAT and
NSPS based upon a concentration of 0.2 rig/1 total residual
chlorine (TRC), applied at the final discharge point to the
receiving body of water. Each individual generating unit is
-------
not allowed to discharge chlorine for nore than two hours per
day, unless the discharger demonstrates to the permitting
authority that a longer duration discharge is required for
macroinvertebrate control. Simultaneous chlorination of more
than one generating unit is allowed.
The above limitation does not apply to plants with a total rated
generating capacity of less than 25 megawatts. BAT and NSPS are
equal to BPT for those plants.
With the exception of a prohibition on the discharge of PCBs,
there are no national pretreatment standards applicable to
once-through cooling water.
2. For cooling tower blowdown, the Agency is retaining the
existing BPT requirements for BAT and NSPS on free available
chlorine. These limitations are 0.2 mg/1 average concentra-
tion and 0.5 mg/1 daily maximum concentration, with multi-unit
chlorination prohibited. The final BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment
standards also prohibit the discharge in detectable amounts of
124 priority pollutants contained in cooling tower maintenance
chemicals, retain the existing limits on chromium and zinc
discharges, and delete the limits on phosphorus.
3. For fly ash transport water, there are no BAT limits or PSES
with the exception of a prohibition of PCB discharges. The
existing BAT limits for conventional pollutants are withdrawn
because they will be covered by Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT) limitations. Final NSPS and PSNS for
fly ash transport require no discharge of wastewater pollutants.
This is based upon dry fly ash handling and disposal.
4. For bottom ash transport water, there are no BAT limits or
pretreatment standards, with the exception of a prohibition on
PCB discharges. NSPS is revised to equal BPT; the existing
recycle requirement is withdrawn. The existing BAT limits for
conventional pollutants are withdrawn because they will be
covered by BCT.
5. For low volume wastes, the BAT limits for conventional
pollutants are withdrawn because they will be covered by BCT.
All other existing requirements are retained. Boiler blowdown is
now regulated as a low volume waste, and no longer regulated
separately.
6. For chemical metal cleaning wastes, the existing BAT and NSPS
regulations are retained. The existing BAT limits for conven-
tional pollutants are withdrawn because they will be covered by
BCT. Final PSES and PSNS contain a maximum concentration limit
of 1.0 mg/1 for total copper.
-------
7. BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for non-chemical metal cleaning
wastes, wet air pollution control devices, chemical handling area
runoff, and ash pile/construction area runoff are reserved for
future rulemaking.
8. For coal pile runoff, the existing limits are retained,
except that BAT is withdrawn for conventional pollutants.
9. BCT is reserved for all wastestreams.
-------
-------
SECTION II
FINAL REGULATIONS
All effluent limitations guidelines, standards of performance for
new sources and pretreatraent standards for the steam electric
power generating point source category are reprinted from 40 CFR
Part 423 below. The technologies available to achieve these
guidelines are presented in table II-l.
§423.10 Applicability.
The provisions of this part are applicable to discharges
resulting from the operation of a generating unit by an estab-
lishment primarily engaged in the generation of electricity for
distribution and sale which results primarily from a process
utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in
conjunction with a thermal cycle employing the steam-water system
as the the mod yn ami c medium.
§423.11 Specialized definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR Part 401, the
following definitions apply to this part:
(a) The term "total residual chlorine" (or total residual
oxidants for intake water with bromides) raeans the value obtained
using the amperometric method for total residual chlorine
described in 40 CFR Part 136.
(b) The ter-n "low volume waste sources" means, taken
collectively as if from one source, wastewater from all sources
except those for which specific limitations are otherwise
established in this part. Low volume wastes sources include, but
are not limited to: wastewaters from wet scrubber air pollution
control systems, ion exchange water treatment system, water
treatment evaporator blowdown, laboratory and sampling streams,
boiler blowdown, floor drains, cooling tower basin cleaning
wastes, and recirculating house service water systems. Sanitary
and air conditioning wastes are not included.
(c) The term "chemical metal cleaning waste" means any
wastewater resulting from the cleaning of any metal process
equipment with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to,
boiler tube cleaning.
(d) The term "metal cleaning v/aste" means any wastewater
resulting from cleaning [with or without chemical cleaning
compounds] any metal process equipment including, but not limited
to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air
preheater cleaning.
-------
Table II-l
TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED AS CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING LIMITATIONS
Wastes breams
Once-Through
Cooling Hater
Cooling Tower
Blowdown
Bottom Ash
Transport
Water
Fly Ash
Transport
Water
Chemical
Metal Clean-
ing Wastes
Non-chemical
Cleaning
Wastes
Low Volume
Waste
(includes
boiler
blowdown)
BAT:
Existing Sources
Chlorine Miniiniza-
tion-Dechlorina-
tion
Use of alternative
chemicals
Chemical
Precipitation
Reserved for
future con-
sideration
Standards of
Performance:
New Sources
Chlorine Mini-
mization-
Dec hlor mat ion
Use of alter-
native chemi-
cals/chemical
precipitation
Sedimentation
Dry transport
and disposal
Chemical
Precipitation
Reserved for
future con-
sideration
Pretreatment
Standards:
Existing Sources
Pretreatment
Standards:
New Sources
Use of alternative
chemicals
Chemical Precipi-
tation
Reserved for
future con-
sideration
Sedimentation Sedimentation
Use of
alternative
chemicals
Dry trans-
port and
disposal
Chemical
Precipita-
tion
Reserved for
future con-
sideration
Sedimenta-
tion
-------
Table II-l (Continued)
TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED AS CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING LIMITATIONS
Wastestreams
Ash Pile/
Construction
Runoff
Coal Pile-
Runoff
Discharges
from Wet Air
Pollution
Control
Devices
BAT:
Existing Sources
Reserved for
future considera-
tion
pH adjustment,
sedimentation
Reserved for
future considera-
tion
Standards of
Performance s
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
-------
(e) The tern "fly ash" means the ash that is carried out of
the furnace by the gas stream and collected by mechanical
precipitators, electrostatic precipitators, and/or fabric
filters. Economizer ash is included when it is collected with
fly ash.
(f) The term "bottom ash" means the ash that drops out of the
furnace gas stream in the furnace and in the economizer sections.
Economizer ash is included when it is collected with bottom ash.
(g) The term "o-nce through cooling water" means water passed
through the main cooling condensers in one or two passes for the
purpose of removing waste heat.
(h) The term "recirculated cooling water" means water which is
passed through the nain condensers for the purpose of removing
waste heat/ passed through a cooling device for the purpose of
removing such heat from the water and then passed again, except
for blowdown, through the main condenser.
(i) The term "10 year, 24/hour rainfall event" means a
rainfall event with a probable recurrence interval of once in ten
years as defined by the National Weather Service in Technical
Paper No. 40. "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States,"
May 1961 or equivalent regional rainfall probability information
developed therefrom.
(3) The term "blowdown" means the minimum discharge of
recirculating water for the purpose of discharging materials
contained in the water, the further buildup of which would cause
concentration in amounts exceeding limits established by best
engineering practices.
(k) The term "average concentration" as it relates to chlorine
discharge means the average of analyses made over a single period
of chlorine release which does not exceed two hours.
(1) The term "free available chlorine" shall mean the value
obtained using the arnperometric titration method for free
available chlorine described in "Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater," page 112 (13th edition).
(m) The term "coal pile runoff" means the rainfall runoff from
or through any coal storage pile.
-------
§423.12 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology currently avail-
able (BPTCA).
(a) In establishing the Imitations set forth in this section,
EPA took into account all information it was able to collect,
develop and solicit with respect to factors (such as age and size
of plant, utilization of facilities, raw materials, manufacturing
processes, non-water quality environmental impacts, control and
treatment technology available, energy requirements and costs)
which can affect the industry subcategorization and effluent
levels estab]]shed. It is, however, possible that data which
would affect these limitations have not been available and, as a
result, these limitations should be adjusted for certain plants
in this industry. An individual discharger or other interested
person may submit evidence to the Regional Administrator (or to
the State, if the State has the authority to issue NPDES permits)
that factors relating to the equipment or facilities involved,
the process applied, or other such factors related to such
discharger are fundamentally different from the factors con-
sidered in the establishment of the guidelines. On the basis of
such evidence or other available information, the Regional
Administrator (or the State) will make a written finding that
such factors are or are not fundamentally different for that
facility compared to those specified in the Development Document.
If such fundamentally different factors are found to exist, the
Regional Administrator or the State shall establish for the
discharger effluent limitations in the NPDES Permit either more
or less stringent than the limitations established herein, to the
extent dictated by such fundamentally different factors. Such
Imitations must be approved by the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The Administrator may approve or dis-
approve such limitations, specify other limitations, or initiate
proceedings to revise these regulations. The phrase "other such
factors" appearing above may include significant cost differen-
tials. In no event may a discharger's impact on receiving water
quality be considered as a factor under this paragraph.
(b) Any existing point source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPTCA):
(1) The pH of all discharges, except once through cooling
water, shall be within the range of 6.0 - 9.0.
(2) There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
compounds such as those commonly used for transformer fluid.
(3) The quantity of pollutants discharged from low volume
waste sources shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of low volume waste sources times the
concentration listed in the following table;
-------
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
Pollutant or Maximum for values for thirty
Pollutant Property any one day consecutive days
(ng/1) shall not exceed - (ng/1)
TSS 100.0 30.0
Oil and Grease 20.0 15.0
(4) The quantity of pollutants discharged in fly ash and
bottom ash transport water shall not exceed the quantity
determined by multiplying the flow of fly ash and bottom ash
transport water times the concentration listed in the following
table:
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
Pollutant or Maximun for values for thirty
Pollutant Property any one day consecutive days
(ng/1) shall not exceed j-_ (ng/1)
TSS 100.0 30.0
Oil and Grease 20.0 15.0
(5) The quantity of pollutants discharged in metal cleaning
wastes shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of metal cleaning wastes times the concentration listed
in the following table:
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
Pollutant or Maximum for values for thirty
Pollutant Property any one day consecutive days
(mg/1) shall not exceed - (mg/1)
TSS 100.0 30.0
Oil and Grease 20.0 15.0
Copper, Total 1.0 1.0
Iron, Total 1.0 1.0
10
-------
(6) The quantity of pollutants discharged in once through
cooling water shall not exceed the quantity deternined by
multiplying the flow of once through cooling water sources times
the concentration listed in the following table:
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum Average
Pollutant Property Concentration Concentration
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Free available
chlorine 0.5 0.2
(7) The quantity of pollutants discharged in cooling tower
blowdown shall not exceed the quantity deternined by multiplying
the flow of cooling tower blowdown sources times the
concentration listed in the following table:
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum Average
Pollutant Property Concentration Concentration
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Free available
chlorine 0.5 0.2
(8) Neither free available chlorine nor total residual
chlorine nay be discharged from any unit for more than two hours
in any one day and not more than one unit in any plant may
discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one
time unless the utility can demonstrate to the Regional
Administrator or State, if the State has NPDES permit issuing
authority, that the units in a particular location cannot operate
at or below this level of chlorination.
(9) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (10) of this
section, the following effluent limitations shall apply to the
point source discharges of coal pile runoff:
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maxinun
Pollutant Property Concentration
for any time (mg/1)
TSS 50
11
-------
(10) Any untreated overflow from facilities designed, con-
structed, and operated to treat the volune of coal pile runoff
uhich is associated with a 10 year, 24 hour rainfall event shall
not be subject to the Imitations in paragraph (9) of this
section.
(11) At the permitting authority's discretion, the quantity of
pollutant allowed to be discharged may be expressed as a con-
centration limitation instead of the mass based limitations
specified in paragraphs (3) through (7) of this section. Concen-
tration limitations shall be those concentrations specified in
this section.
(12) In the event that waste streams from various sources are
combined for treatment or discharge, the quantity of each
pollutant or pollutant property controlled in paragraphs (1)
through (11) of this section attributable to each controlled
waste source shall not exceed the specified limitations for that
waste source.
§423.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economically achievable
(BATEA).
Except as provided in 40 CFR §§125130-.32, any existing point
source subject to this part nust achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BATEA).
(a) There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
compounds such as those conmonly used for transformer fluid.
(b)(l) For any plant with a total rated electric generating
capacity of 25 or more megawatts, the quantity of pollutants
discharged in once through cooling water from each discharge
point shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the
flow of once through cooling water fron each discharge point
tunes the concentration listed in the following table:
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
BPT Effluent Limitations
Maxinun
Concentration
Total residual chlorine
0.20 ng/1
12
-------
(2) Total residual chlorine nay not be discharged from any
single generating unit for more than two hours per day unless the
discharger demonstrates to the permitting authority that
discharge for more than two hours is required for
macroinvertebrate control. Simultaneous multi-unit chlorination
is permitted.
(c)(l) For any plant with a total rated generating capacity of
less than 25 megawatts, the quantity of pollutants discharged in
once through cooling water shall not exceed the quantity
determined by multiplying the flow of once through cooling water
sources times the concentration listed in the following table:
BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum Average
Pollutant Property Concentration Concentration
(mg/1) (iag/1)
Free available
chlorine 0.5 0.2
(2) Neither free available chlorine nor total residual
chlorine may be discharged from any unit for nore than two hours
in any one day and not nore than one unit in any plant may
discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one
time unless the utility can demonstrate to the Regional
Administrator or State, if the State has NPDES permit issuing
authority, that the units in a particular location cannot operate
at or below this level of chlorination.
(d)(l) The quantity of pollutants discharged in cooling tower
blowdown shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of cooling tower blowdown times the concentration listed
below:
BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum Average
Pollutant Property Concentration Concentration
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Free available
chlorine 0.5 0.2
13
-------
Average of daily
Pollutant or Maximum for values for thirty
Pollutant Property any one day consecutive days
(mg/1) shall not exceed - (mg/1)
The 126 priority pollu- No detectable amount
tants (Appendix A)
contained in chemicals
added for cooling tower
maintenance, except:
Chromium, total 0.2 0.2
Zinc, total 1.0 1.0
(2) Neither free available chlorine nor total residual
chlorine may be discharged from any unit for more than two hours
in any one day and not more than one unit in any plant may
discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one
tune unless the utility can demonstrate to the Regional
Adninistrator or State, if the State has NPDES permit issuing
authority, that the units in a particular location cannot operate
at or below this level of chlorination.
(3) At the perruting authority's discretion, instead of the
monitoring specified in 40 CFR 122.11(b) compliance with the
Imitations for the 126 priority pollutants in paragraph (d)(l)
of this section may be determined by engineering calculations
which demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not
detectable in the final discharge by the analytical methods in 40
CFR 136.
(e) The quantity of pollutants discharged in chemical metal
cleaning wastes shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of chemical metal cleaning wastes times the
concentration listed in the following table:
BAT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
Pollutant or Maximum for values for thirty
Pollutant Property any one day consecutive days
(ng/1) shall not exceed - (mg/1)
Copper, total 1.0 1.0
Iron, total 1.0 1.0
14
-------
(f) [Reserved - Nonchemcal Metal Cleaning Wastes].
(g) At the permitting authority's discretion, the quantity of
pollutant allowed to be discharged nay be expressed as a con-
centration limitation instead of the mass based limitations
specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. Con-
centration limitations shall be those concentrations specified in
this section.,
(h) In the event that waste streams from various sources are
combined for treatment or discharge, the quantity of each
pollutant or pollutant property controlled in paragraphs (a)
through (g) of this section attributable to each controlled waste
source shall not exceed the specified limitation for that waste
source.
§423.14 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of
the best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT). [Reserved.]
§423.15 Standards of performance for new sources (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
new source performance standards:
(a) The pH of all discharges, except once through cooling
water, shall be within the range of 6.0-9.0.
(b) There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
compounds such as those commonly used for transformer fluid.
(c) The quantity of pollutants discharged from low volume
waste sources shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of low volume waste sources times the
concentration listed in the following table:
NSPS Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
Pollutant or Maximum for values for thirty
Pollutant Property any one day consecutive days
(nag/I) shall not exceed - (mg/1)
TSS 100.0 30.0
Oil and Grease 20.0 15.0
15
-------
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
NSPS Effluent Limitations
Maximum
Concentration
(ng/1)
Total residual chlorine
0.20
(2) Total residual chlorine nay not be discharged from any
single generating unit for more than two hours per day unless the
discharger demonstrates to the permitting authority that dis-
charge for more than two hours is required for macroinvertebrate
control. Simultaneous multi-unit chlorination is permitted.
(i)(l) For any plant with a total rated generating capacity of
less than 25 megawatts, the quantity of pollutants discharged in
once through cooling water shall not exceed the quantity
determined by multiplying the flow of once through cooling water
sources tunes the concentration listed in the following table:
NSPS Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/1)
Average
Concentration
(mg/1)
Free available
chlorine
0.5
0.2
(2) Neither free available chlorine nor total residual
chlorine may be discharged from any unit for more than two hours
in any one day and not more than one unit in any plant may
discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one
tune unless the utility can demonstrate to the Regional
Administrator or State, if the State has NPDES permit issuing
authority, that the units in a particular location cannot operate
at or below this level of chlorination.
(:))(!) The quantity of pollutants discharged in cooling tower
blowdown shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying
the flow of cooling tower blowdown times the concentration listed
below:
16
-------
(d) The quantity of pollutants discharged in chemical metal
cleaning wastes shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of chenical metal cleaning wastes times the
concentration listed in the following table:
NSPS Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
Pollutant or Maximum for values for thirty
Pollutant Property any ,one day consecutive days
(mg/1) shall not exceed - (mg/1)
TSS
Oil and Grease
Copper, Total
Iron, Total
100.0
20.0
1.0
1.0
30.0
15.0
1.0
1.0
(e) [Reserved - Non chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes].
(f) The quantity of pollutants discharged in bottom ash
transport v/ater shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of the bottom ash transport v/ater times the
concentration listed in the following table:
NSPS Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
Pollutant or Maxinun for values for thirty
Pollutant Property any one day consecutive days
(mg/1) shall not exceed - (mg/1)
TSS 100.0 30.0
Oil and Grease 20.0 15.0
(g) There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants fron
fly ash transport water.
(h)(l) For any plant with a total rated electric generating
capacity of 25 or more megawatts, the quantity of pollutants
discharged in once through cooling water from each discharge
point shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the
flow of once through cooling v/ater from each discharge point
times the concentration listed in the following table:
17
-------
NSPS Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/1)
Average
Concentration
(mg/1)
Free available chlorine
0.5
0.2
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
any one day
(mg/1)
Average of daily
values for thirty
consecutive days
shall not exceed - (mg/1)
The 126 priority pollu-
tants (Appendix A)
contained in chemicals
added for cooling tower
maintenance, except:
Chromium, total
Zinc, total
No detectable amount
0.2
1.0
0.2
1.0
(2) Neither free available chlorine nor total residual
chlorine may be discharged from any unit for more than two hours
in any one day and not more than one unit in any plant may
discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one
time unless the utility can demonstrate to the Regional
Administrator or State, if the State has 1IPDES permit issuing
authority, that the units in a particular location cannot operate
at or below this level of chlorination.
(3) At the permitting authority's discretion, instead of
the monitoring in 40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with the
limitations for the 126 priority pollutants in paragraph (u)(l)
of this section nay be determined by engineering calculations
which demonstrate that the required pollutants are not detectable
in the final discharge by the analytical methods in 40 CFR 136.
(k) Subject to the provisions of §423.15(1), the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant parameters discharged in coal
pile runoff shall not exceed the limitations specified below:
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
NSPS Effluent Limitations
for any time
TSS
Not to exceed 50 mg/1
18
-------
(1) Any untreated overflow from facilities designed,
constructed, and operated to treat the coal pile runoff which
results from a 10 year, 24 hour rainfall event shall not be
subject to the limitations in 423.15(k).
(m) At the permitting authority's discretion, the quantity of
pollutant allowed to be discharged nay be expressed as a
concentration limitation instead of the mass based limitation
specified in paragraphs (c) through (j) of this section.
Concentration limits shall be based on the concentrations
specified in this section.
(n) In the event that waste streams from various sources are
combined for treatment or discharge, the quantity of each
pollutant or pollutant property controlled in paragraphs (a)
through (m) of this section attributable to each controlled waste
source shall not exceed the specified limitation for that waste
source.
§423.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR Parts 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR 403 and
achieve the following pretreatraent standards for existing sources
(PSES) by July 1, 1984:
(a) There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
compounds such as those used for transformer fluid.
(b) The pollutants discharged in chemical metal cleaning
wastes shall not exceed the concentration listed in the following
table:
PSES Pretreatment Standards
Pollutant or Maximum
Pollutant Property for one day
Copper, total 1.0 mg/1
(c) [Reserved - Non chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes].
(d)(l) The pollutants discharged in cooling tower blowdown
shall not exceed the concentration listed in the following table:
19
-------
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
PSES Pretreatment Standards
Maximum for
any time
The 126 priority pollu-
tants (Appendix A)
contained in chemicals
added for cooling tower
maintenance, except:*
Chromium, total
Zinc, total
No detectable amount
0.2 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
(2) At the permitting authority's discretion, instead of the
monitoring in 40 CFR 122.1Kb), compliance with the limitations
for the 126 priority pollutants in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section may be determined by engineering calculations v/hich
demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not detectable in
the final discharge by the analytical methods in 40 CFR 136.
§423.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR Part 403.7, any new source subject
to this subpart part which introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and the
following pretreatnent standards for new sources (PSNS).
(a) There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl
compounds such as those used for transformer fluid.
(b) The pollutants discharged in chemical metal cleaning
wastes shall not exceed the concentration listed in the following
table:
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
PSNS Preatment Standards
Maximum
for one day
Copper, total
1.0 mg/1
(c) [Reserved - lion chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes] .
(d)(l) The pollutants discharged in cooling tower blowdown
shall not exceed the concentration listed in the following table:
20
-------
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
PSNS Pretreatment Standards
Maximum for
any time
The 126 priority pollu-
tants (Appendix A)
contained in chemicals
added for cooling tower
maintenance, except:
Chromium, total
Zinc, total
No detectable amount
0.2 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
(2) At the permitting authority's discretion, instead of
the monitoring in 40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with the limi-
tations for the 126 priority pollutants in paragraph (d)(l) of
this section may be determined by engineering calculations which
demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not detectable in
the final discharge by the analytical methods in 40 CFR 136.
(e) There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants from
fly ash transport water.
2. 40 CFR Part 125.30(a) is revised to amend the last sentence
thereof to read as follows:
§123.30 [Amended].
(a) *** This subparb applies to all national limitations
promulgated under Sections 301 and 304 of the Act, except for the
BPT limits contained in 40 CFR Part 423.12 (steam electric
generating point source category).
21
-------
126 Priority Pollutants
001 Acenaphthene
002 Acrolein
003 Acrylonitnle
004 Benzene
005 Benzidine
006 Carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane)
007 Chlorobenzene
008 1,2,4-tnchlorobenzene
009 Hexachlorobenzene
010 1,2-dichloroethane
Oil 1,1,1-tnchlorethane
012 Hexachloroethane
013 1,1-dichloroethane
014 1,1,2-tnchloroethane
015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
016 Chloroethane
018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
(mixed)
020 2-chloronaphthalene
021 2,4,6-tnchlorophenol
022 Parachlorometa cresol
023 Chloroform (tnchloro-
22
-------
methane)
024 2-chlorophenol
025 1, 2-dichlorobenzene
026 1,3-dichlorobenzene
027 1,4-dichlorobenzene
028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
029 1,1-dichloroethylene
030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
031 2,4-dichlorophenol
032 1,2-dichloropropane
033 1,2-dichloropropylene
(1,3-dichloropropene)
034 2,4-dimethylphenol
035 2,4-dinitrotoluene
036 2,6-dinitrotoluene
037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
038 Ethylbenzene
039 Fluoranthene
040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
044 Methylene chloride
(dichloromethane)
045 Methyl chloride
(dichloromethane)
046 Methyl bromide
23
-------
(bromomethane)
047 Bromoform (tnbromo-
methane)
048 Dichlorobromomethane
051 Chlorodibromomethane
052 Hexachlorobutadiene
053 Hexachloromyclopenta-
diene
054 Isophorone
055 Naphthalene
056 Nitrobenzene
057 2-nitrophenol
058 4-nitrophenol
059 2,4-dinitrophenol
060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
061 N-nitrosodimethylamine
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamin
064 Pentachlorophenol
065 Phenol
066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
067 Butyl benzyl phthalate
068 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate
070 Diethyl Phthalate
071 Dimethyl phthalate
072 1,2-benzanthracene
24
-------
(benzo(a)anthracene)
073 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-
pyrene)
074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
(benzo(b)fluoranthene)
075 11,12-benzofluoranthene
(benzo(b)fluoranthene)
076 Chrysene
077 Acenaphthylene
078 Anthracene
079 1,12-benzoperylene
(benzo(ghi) pery 1 ene)
080 Fluorene
081 Phenanthrene
082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene"
(dibenzo(,h)anthracene)
083 Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene
(2,3-o-pheynylene pyrene)
084 Pyrene
085 Tetrachloroethylene
086 Toluene
087 Trichloroethylene
088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
089 Aldrin
090 Dieldrin
091 Chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites)
25
-------
092 4,4-DDT
093 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)
094 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
095 Alpha-endosulfan
096 Beta-endosulfan
097 Endosulfan sulfate
098 Endrin
099 Endrin aldehyde
100 Heptachlor
101 Heptachlor epoxide
(BHC-hexachlorocyclo-
hexane)
102 Alpha-BHC
103 Beta-BHC
104 Gamma-BHC (11ndane)
105 Delta-BHC (PCB-poly-
chlorinated biphenyls)
106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113 Toxaphene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
26
-------
116 Asbestos
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver
127 Thallium
126 Silver
128 Zinc
129 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
27
-------
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The primary effluent guidelines document for tne steam electric
power industry (1) was 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) published by EPA provided information
on pretreatrnent for wastewater discharged by the stean electric
industry to .publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
Subsequent 1.o the publishing of the 1974 document, three events
which have implications for the effluent limitations guidelines
for the steam electric power industry have occurred. First, the
Settlenent Agreement on June 7, 1976 between the Natural Re-
sources Defense Council (NRDC) and EPA (3) requires that EPA de-
velop 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 Iist1 of 65 classes of toxic pollutants.
This list has now been modified to 126 specific priority pollut-
ants. The original list of 65 classes of pollutants appears in
table III-1. The present list of 126 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 at least every three years.
PURPOSE
This supplemental document provides a basis for the revision of
effluent limitations guidelines for the stean 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
29
-------
Table III-1
LIST OF SIXTY-FIVE CLASSES OF POLLUTANTS CONTAINED IN
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN EPA AND NRDC (3)
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Ac rylom.tr lie
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-dichloropheno1
Dichloropropane and dichloropropene
2,4-dimethyIphenol
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylhdrazine
Endosulfan and metabolites
Endrin and metabolites
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers (other than those lisced elsewhere, includes
chlorophenylphenyl ethers, bromoonenylphenyl ether, bis
(dischloroisouropyl) ether, bis-(chloroethoxy) nnechane and
polychlorinated diphenyly ethers)
30
-------
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, trichlororfluoromethane,
dichlorodifluoromethane)
Heptachlor and metabolites
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)
Hexachloroeye1opentadiene
Isophorone
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Naphthalene
Nickel and compounds
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols (Including 2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)
Nitrosamines
Pentachloroprienol
Phenol
Phthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PBCs)
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (Including benzantnracenes,
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.
31
-------
Table III-2
LIST OF 126 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
Compound Name
1. *acenaphthene (B)***
2. *acrolein (v)***
3. *acrylonitrile, (V)
4. *benzene (V)
5. *benzidene (B)
6. *carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) (V)
*Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)
7. chlorobenzene (V)
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (B)
9. hexachlorobenzene (B)
*Chlorinated ethanes(including 1,2-dichloroethane,
1,1,1-trichloroethane and hexachloroethane)
10. 1,2-dichloroethane (V)
11. 1,1,1-tnchlorethane (V)
12. hexachlorethane (B)
13. 1,1-dichloroethane (V)
14. 1,1,2-tnchloroethane (V)
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (V)
16. chloroethane (V)
*Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl, chloroethyl and
mixed ethers)
17. bis (2-chloroethyly) ether (B)
18. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed) (V)
*Chlorinated naphtalene
19. 2-chloronaphthalene (B)
*Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere;
includes trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols)
20. 2,4,0-trichlorophenol (A)***
21. parachlororneta cresol (A)
22. *chloroform (trichlororaethane) (V)
23. *2-chlorophenol (A)
32
-------
Table III-2 (Continued)
LIST OF 126.PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
*Dichlorobenzenes
24. 1,2-dichlorobenzene (B)
25. 1,3-dichlorobenzene (B)
26. 1,4-dichlorobenzene (B)
*Dichlorobenzidine
27. 3,3'-dichlorobenzicune (B)
*Dichloroethylenes (1,1-dichloroethylene and
1,2-dichloroethylene)
28. 1,1-dichloroethylene (V)
29. 1,2-trans-dischloroethylene (V)
30. *2,4-dichlorophenol (A)
*Dichloropropane and dichloropropene
31. 1,2-dLchloropropane (V)
32. 1,2-dLchloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene) (V)
33. *2,4-dimenthylphenol (A)
*Dinitrotoluene
34. 2,4-duntrotoluene (B)
35. 2,6,-dinitrotoluene (B)
36. *1,2-d iphenylhydrazine (B)
37. *ethylbenzene (V)
38. *fluoranthene (B)
*Haloethers (other than those lasted elsewhere)
39. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether (B)
40. 4-bromophnyl phenyl ether (B)
41. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether (B)
42. bis(2--chloroethoxy) methane (B)
*Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere)
43. methylene chloride (dichlororaethane) (V)
44. methyl chloride (chloromethane) (V)
45. methyl bromide (bromomethane) (V)
46. bromoform (tribromomethane) (V)
47. dichlorobromomethane (V)
J3
-------
Table III-2 (Continued)
LIST OF 126 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
48. chlorodibromomethane (V)
49. *hexachlorobutadiene (B)
50. *hexachlorocyclopentadiene (B)
51. *isophorone ^(B)
52. *naphthalene *(B)
53. *nitrobenzene (B)
*Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol and dinitrocesol)
54. 2-nitrophenol (A)
55. 4-nitrophenol (A)
56. *2,4-dinitrophenol (A)
57. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (A)
*Nitrosamines
58. N-nitrosodimethylamine (B)
59. N-nitrosodiphenylamine (B)
60. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (B)
61. *pentachlorophenol (A)
62. *phenol (A)
*j?hthalate esters
63. bis(2-3ethylhexyl) phthalate (B)
64. butyl benzyl phthalate (3)
65. di-n-butyl phtalate (B)
66. di-n-octyl phtalate (B)
67. diethyl phtalate (B)
68. dimethyl phthalate (B)
*Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
69. benzo (a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene) (B)
70. benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene) (B)
71. 3,4-benzofluoranthene (B)
72. benzo(k)fluoranthane (11,12-benzofluoranthene) (3)
73. chrysene (B)
74. acenaphthylene (B)
75. anthracene (B)
76. benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene) (B)
77. fluroene (B)
78. phenathrene (B)
34
-------
Table III-2 (Continued)
LIST OF 126 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
79. dibenzo (a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene) (B)
80. indeno (1,2,3-cd)(2,3,-o-phenylenepyrene) (B)
81. pyrene (B)
82. *tetrachloroethylene (V)
83. *toluene (V)
84. *trichloroethylene (V)
85. *vinyl chloride (chloroethylene) (V)
Pesticides and Metabolites
86. *aldrin (P)
87. *dieldrin (P)
88. *chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites) (P)
*DDT and metabolites
89. 4,4'-DDT (P)
90. 4,4'-DDE(p,p'DDX) (P)
91. 4,41-DDD(p,pITDE) 9 (P)
*endosulfan and metabolites
92. a-endosulfan-Alpha (P)
93. b-endosulfan-Beta (P)
94. endosulfan sulfate (P)
*endrin and metabolites
95. endrin (P)
96. endrin aldehyde (P)
*heptachlor and metabolites
97. heptachlor (P)
98. heptachlor epoxide (P)
*hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)
99. a-BHC-Alpha (P) (B)
100. b-BHC-Beta (P) (V)
101. r-BHC (lindane)-Gamma (P)
102. g-BKC-Delta (P)
35
-------
Table III-2 (Continued)
LIST OF 126 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (2)
*polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)
103. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242) (P)
104. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254) (P)
105. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) (P)
106. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232) (P)
107. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248) (P)
108. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260) (P)
109. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016) (P)
110. *Toxaphene (P)
111. *Antimony (Total) (P)
112. *Arsenic (Total)
113. *Asbestos (Fibrous)
114. *Beryllium (Total)
115. *Cadmium (Total)
116. *Chronuum (Total)
117. *Copper (Total)
118. *Cyanide (Total)
119. *Lead (Total)
120. *Mercury (Total)
121. *Nickel (Total)
122. *Selenium (Total)
123. *Silver (Total)
124. *Thallium (Total)
125. *Zinc (Total)
126. **2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-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 s analyzed in the base-neutral extraction fraction
V = analyzed in the volatile organic fraction
A = analyzed in the acid extraction fraction
P = pesticide
36
-------
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 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, com-
mercial 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 pro-
cesses 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 pro-
duced by the industry—chemical and thermal—involve such
divergent considerations that a basic distinction between guide-
lines for chemical wastes and thermal discharges was determined
to be most useful in achieving the objectives of the Act.
Accordingly, this report covers waste categorization, control and
treatment technology, and recommendations for effluent limita-
tions for chemical and other non-thermal aspects of waste
discharge in accordance with the NRDC settlement agreement.
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 the presence and toxicity of
specific priority pollutants in the wastewaters. As a result of
this attention, there have been various studies on the priority
pollutants both as to their environmental effects and as to their
occurrence in wastewater from the steam electric power industry.
37
-------
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 da.ta from published and unpublished literature;
demonstration project reports; the steam electric industry; manu-
facturers and suppliers of equipment and chemicals used by the
industry; telephone conversations; various EPA, Federal, state,
and local agencies; and responses to EPA's 308 letter (1976).
3. A statistical analysis of available data.
4. Engineering plant visits.
5. The sampling and analysis of selected plant waste streams
for priority pollutants.
The current effluent guidelines are divided into four subcate-
gories: generating units, small units, old units, and area
runoff. Economic considerations, rather than chemical discharge
characteristics, were the determining criteria for differenti-
ating the first three subcategories. Available information indi-
cates 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 stean electric industry. This information was obtained
via a data collection effort pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean
Water Act (6). A sample 308 data collection questionnaire is
provided in Appendix A. Section 308 letters and data collection
questionnaires were sent to approximately 900 powerplants in the
United States of which a total of 794 responsed. The data in the
responses were coded and subsequently keypunched onto data cards
and loaded into a computerized data base. The data base was
instrunental in supporting selection of plants for the sampling
38
-------
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 con-
ducting 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.
Screen Sampling Program
A screen sampling program was developed to determine the presence
of the 126 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 Protec-
tion 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 main-
tained 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 proce-
dures derived from Standard1 Methods for the Examination of Water
39
-------
and Wastewater (14th Edition). 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 and inductively-coupled argon plasna
emission spectrometry.
Although the screen'sampling program was intended only to deter-
mine 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.
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 with several
different EPA-contracted laboratories analyzing sone portion of
these samples. Analytical procedures included gas chronatography
(GO and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for the
oryanics, and spark source mass spectronetry (SSMS) and atomic
absorption (AA) for most of the inorganics. Mercury was analyzed
by cold-vapor atomic adsorption in one lab. Selenium was
analyzed by fluorometry and cyanide by a colorimetric procedure.
40
-------
Surveillance and Analysis Sampling Program
Additional data were provided through several EPA regional
Surveillance and Analysis (S&A) prograns conducted by those
regions. S&A programs involve periodic visits to powerplants by
EPA sampling teans 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 pollu-
tants. 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 for obtain-
ing S&A data were similar to those employed in both the screening
study and the verification study. Analytical methods included
gas chromatography and atomic absorption.
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 pollu-
tants in discharges from steam electric power plants. All three
sets of data were stored in computerized files such that they
could be analyzed as a single data base representing the sampling
of 34 plants.
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. i 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 divided 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:
41
-------
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 neet 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 demand 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 spring 1977, there were over 1,000 generating
systems in the United States. These systems had a combined
generating capacity of 408,611 megawatts (MW) and produced
1,968,700,000 negawatt 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 princi-
pally hydroelectric, diesel, and combustion gas turbines.
Further industry information obtained from the 308 data question-
naire survey including data on plant size, fuel type, cooling
type, and age. Four plant size ranges—0-25 megawatts, 26-100
megawatts, 101-500 megawatts, and over 500 megawatts—were used
to represent very small, small, medium, and large plants. This
conforms to the categorization used in the Federal Energy
Administration (FEA) powerplant data base (9). Table III-4 shows
the number of plants and their capacity for each of the four
plant size categories. Because the 303 questionnaire was a
sample survey, the information obtained by EPA on the number of
plants in various size, age, and cooling type categories was used
to estimate percent distributions which in turn were used to
estimate number of plants in each size range of the FEA data
base.
The addition of new plants will alter the 1977 plant and capacity
distribution. By 1983, SPA projects that there will be 350 new
steam electric plants with 180,000 megawatts of capacity. In the
period 1984-1990, an additional 412 stean electric plants are
anticipated with a capacity of 223,100 megawatts. These projec-
tions 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.
The Federal Energy Administration provided information on the
number and capacity of existing steam electric oowerplants by
size category versus four categories of fuel: coal, oil/gas,
42
-------
Table III-3
DISTRIBUTION OF THE STEAM SECTION RELATIVE TO THE
ENTIRE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY AS OF 1978* (8, 9)
Capacity Generation Number
(gigawatts) (billion kilowatt hours) of Plants
Total Industry 573.8 2,295 >2,600
Steam Sector 453.3 1,951
Percent of
Total Industry
Included in
Steam Sector 797. 857. <3270
*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 nee dependable capacity of
zero were excluded.
43
-------
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
ToLdl MW in
Category
Percent of
Total MW in
Category
Number of
Plants in
Category
Percent of
Total Plants
in Category
1,273 9,466
0.3%
98
11 .6%
2.1%
172
20.4%
16,777
4.0%
115
13.7%
24,125
5.3%
87
10.3%
33,282
7.0%
79
9.4%
368,342 453,265
81 .3%
291
34.6%
100.0%
842
100.0%
*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 ^ero 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.
45
-------
coal/oil/gas, and nuclear (1). The fuel mix of future plants was
determined from the fuel types of the announced plant additions,
adjusted to account for sone expected fuel shifts, especially
from gas to coal or oil (8). This information is presented in
tables III-6 and III-7. A summary of existing and projected
total capacity versus fuel type is presented in table III-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 pass
through the plant. The waste heat is dissipated to a receiving
body of water. Plants with recirculating cooling water systems
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 systen to control the
buildup of dissolved solids. The cooling mechanisn, 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 694 plants use once
through cooling and 35 percent or 374 plants use recirculating
cooling water systems.
The distribution of plants by age and size category, based on 308
data, appears in table III-9. Of the 1,068 steam electric plants
existing in this country, 22 percent have been built since 1971.
However, 57 percent of the steam plants built since 1971 lie in
the 500 negawatts or larger size range. Plants built since 1971
represent about 40 percent of existing steam electric capacity.
Forty-one (41) percent of the existing steam electric plants were
built before 1960 and are nearly 20 years old. These plants
represent about 18 percent of the plant capacity (8).
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The "production" of electrical energy always involves the con-
version of some other forn of energy. The three nost important
sources of energy which are converted to electric energy are the
gravitational potential energy of water, the atonic energy of
nuclear fuels, and the chemical energy of fossil fuels. The use
of water power involves the transformation of one form of mecha-
nical energy into another prior to conversion to electrical
energy and can be accomplished at greater than 90 percent of
theoretical efficiency. Therefore, hydroelectric power genera-
tion produces only a minimal amount of waste heat through con-
version inefficiencies. Current uses of fossil fuels, on the
other hand, are based on a combustion process, followed by stean
generation to convert the heat first into mechanical energy and
46 ,
-------
Table III-6
NUMBER OF EXISTING STEAM-ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS
BY FUEL TYPE AND SIZE (8, 9)
(number of plants)
*>.
Total
Plant Size Categories
Fuel Type
Existing (1979)
Co.i 1
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 of Powerplants (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
.46
.67
0
.14
Fuel Type 0-25 MW
Existing (1979)
Coal
Oil/Gas
Nuclear
Other
Total 1 .27
Additions (1978-1985)
Coal
Oil/Gas
Nuclear
Total
Additions (1986-1995)
Coal
Oil/Gas
Nuclear
Total
Total Additions (1978-1995)
100 MW
3.46
5.69
.16
.16
9.47
200 MW
5.59
10.71
.35
.13
16.78
2TTT
350 MW
10.47
13.33
0
.32
24.12
35T^
500 MW
14.77
18.52
0
0_
33.29
More Than
500 MW
192.61
121 .16
53.31
1.25
368.33
Total
227.37
170.07
53.83
2.10
453.37
79.20
19.80
85.40
184.40
187.30
.20
142.10
329.60
e
514.00
Source. DOE Inventory of Powerplants.
-------
Table III-8
EXISTING AND PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM ELECTRIC
POWERPLANTS 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, Invent, or y of Power pi ants , (1979).
^ElectricalWorld, September 15, 1979, and projections by
Temple,Baiker, and Sloane, Inc.
49
-------
U1
o
Table II1-9
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
Pofat-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
9.6JO
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
9
100
135,597
100
198,681
100
454,093
100
Percent
of Total
Capacity
26
30
44
100
Source DOh Inventory of Powerplants, 1979.
-------
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 develop-
ment 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 provid-
ing 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 pro-
jected 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 denands 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 geo-
graphic, 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 con-
denser—where it is condensed to water. The liberated heat is
51
-------
transferred to a cooling medium which is normally water.
Finally, the condensed steam is reintroduced into the boiler by a
punp 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 power plants have
the capability of uSing two or more fossil fuels, which indicates
that the majority of all steara electric plants have the capabil-
ity 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 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 dis-
posal system, and flue gas cleaning and desulfurization. A brief
description of these features and their environnental results is
presented in subsequent sections of this document. EPA antici-
pates 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 con-
verting 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 mainte-
nance and a spare installed with a mininun 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
52
-------
-^x^». (.out ! Colletllon
•
t
L _, .. 1
n
I
i
t Uoller
Fted-
Uattr Uottc Sccuu
TieiUttt-ut uem-racing
ui i
-------
electric 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, stean 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 perfor-
nance and thermal efficiencies are similar for the two types of
nuclear systems (1).
ALTERNATE PROCESSES UNDER ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT
Future Nuclear Types
At the present time almost all of the nuclear powerplants 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 nunber 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 (HTGR), 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 Cen-
tigrade (1,400 degrees Fahrenheit) and then gives up its heat to
a stean cycle which operates at a naxinum temperature of about
54
-------
550 degrees Centrigrade (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 capa-
city 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 conven-
tional stean 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 oxygen in the gasification process
and produces a fuel gas of pipeline quality with a heating value
of approximately 1,000 Btu/scf. The nain 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 com-
plexes. 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 tur-
bine 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 con-
sist of a number of gas turbines exhausted into a single steam
turbine with its own electric generating capacity.
55
-------
Another combined cycle concept is a pressurized fluidized bed
system. The concept is to burn coal in a fluidized bed environ-
ment of dolomite at 10 atmospheres of pressure. Steam is pro-
duced 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 con-
tained in the crust of the earth. While ubiquitous throughout
the earth's crust, only in a few geological formations is it suf-
ficiently concentrated and near enough to the surface to nake 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 geotherraal fluids consisting
of hot water and steam. The geothermal fluids must first be
flashed to steam or used to evaporate sone 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, drill-
ing, and facility costs are paid off. The disadvantages of geo-
thermal power generation are that the costs of facility siting
and construction are high, and geothermal fluids must be cleaned
prior to use and disposed of by reinfection to 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 pro-
jected 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 collec-
tion and conversion.
Biomass Conversion. This involves the production of photo-
synthetic 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
56
-------
into low Btu gas by the gasification of the biomass.~ The tech-
nology behind bionass 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 trans-
fer of heat without the production of steam for use as a cooling
fluid.
Magnetohydrodynamics
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) power generation consists of passing a
hot ionized gas or liquid metal through a magnetic field to gene-
rate 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. Magneto-
hydrodynamics 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).
Electrogasdynamics
Electrogasdynamics (EGD) produces power by passing an electri-
cally 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).
57
-------
Fuel Cells
Fuel cells are electrochemical devices, similar to storage
batteries, in which the chemical energy of a fuel such as hydro-
gen is converted continuously into low voltage electric current.
The prospect of fuel cells is for use in residential and commer-
cial services. However, the fuel cell is not expected to replace
a significant portion of the central powerplant generator facil-
ities within the next several years due to expense of manufactur-
ing and the significant quantity of electric power needed to
produce the cells.
58
-------
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 tne 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 wasn
59
-------
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
variaoles 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
60
-------
Table IV-1
VARIABLES FOUND TO HAVE A STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE ON NORMALIZED FLOW DISCHARGES
Independent Variable
Normalized Discharge Source Fuel Type Capacity EPA Region Age
Once Through Cooling Water x
Recirculating Cooling Water
Slowdown x
Ash Transport Discharge x
Low Volume Waste Discharge x x
61
-------
Table IV-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
62
-------
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 (R2), expressed as a percent The
relatively low 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
Age
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
63
-------
The biggest influence of plant age is on the economics of power
generation. Older plants are less efficient than new ones and che
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 nave 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 nas 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
64
-------
eventually discharged by the plant. The indirect effects are more
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
65
-------
-------
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
67
-------
CIKHICAti
[ f
tone* lute
WA1ER — Slos * *'» H 1
rirtiriTH
IfflSIIIHCS
cntmcAis
i
IOILE*
uAim ft£B UAtt*
IKAlMHf
full ^ STEAM
rnu»iu .1. tOlilt
I IIASIt- 1*
1 u.it« I . .
rtxmrtit -^f*^ ncuiuiiii ui> , 1
-J ' «'uHorr |* ""'" "STtM
rfHIOOIC CltAMINC FIT ASH
COllCCTIOH
. .. AIIO/0* SO] ,J *• .X CIICMICAIS
1 SCKUtBIW
I SVS1EH
*
I I OIICE nmouui
CCNCMTINr ! ! COOIIHCUAIE.
JL | nEcmcuLAiiun cooiiw VAIE*
COHOEHSEK/ )
Sr!
1 oiotnouii I * 1 j
COHOEKSAK VA1ER ( | \
| \ COIILIHG
- DISCHARGE 10 \
WAIEII HOOT \
. ,,. ,11 CIIEHICALS \
_< u/ll(|| KA«-UP UAIIII 1 ^
I
OUEH /
c
SAHtlAnv UAS1ES
LABOKArOKT C 5AWIIHC
UASIEi IIIIAHE SCIIEEH
BACKUASII CLOSED
COOIIMC VAIO SfSIEHS
CCHSIKUCtlOH
HI5C UAS1E-
VAIEK STIIEAHS
HCEIIO
, liquid now
— CAS 4 STCAH FLOW
«,»" .c cncmcAis
•>— .— ornoHAL rtou
* UASfi SOURCE
Figure V-l
SOURCES OF WASTEWATEB. IN A FOSSIL-FUELED
STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANT (1)
68
-------
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 wete 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, ana ash handling waters.
Although this sampling effort emphasized these major waste sources,
other waste streams were also sampled
Pollutants discharged from once-througn cooling water can be
attributed to corrosion of construction materials, and to the reaction
of elemental chlorine as hyarochlorite with organics in the intake
69
-------
Table V-1
CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED IN THE SCREEN SAMPLING PHASE
OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM
Plant
4222
0631
2414
1 79f>
1 / ZU
Q QfiS
J O\JJ
Capacity
(MW)
1641.7
169
1329
1 1 f>7
1 1 U /
f\f\C\
DOU
Fuel Type
Bituminous
Coal
Oil/Gas
Bituminous
Goal
Tl-i t~iimi nfMic
DJ_ LLulIJ-LHJLlo
Coal
T i on l t~ &
LiJ-gLl J_ L c
Coal
Fly Ash
Collection
ESP
Cyclones
Units 1,2.
ESP
Unit 3.
Scrubber
3404
2512
4836
475.6 Coal/Oil
1120
495
Oil
Gas
ESP
ESP
Fly Ash Handling
Once-Through
Sluicing
Dry Handling
Units 1, 2 Dry
Handling
Unit 3. Partial
Recirculation
Sluice System
Once-Through
Sluicing
Partical Recir-
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
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 the 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 bottom ash ponds
3 Boiler Blowdown
71
-------
Table V-2
CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED IN THE VERIFICATION PHASE
Plant
No.
2718
4251
Capacity
MW Fuel Type
Fly Ash
Handling System
136.9 Lignite Coal Dry
1716
"\L 1 L
•j H 1 H
4826
1742
1 945
1 £.*-*-/
1226
648.5
619 Q
O 1 L. . J
826.3
22
1 1 7
i i /
1,229
Bituminous
Coal/Gas
Oi 1
WJ_ J_
Gas
Bituminous
Coal/Oil
Oi 1 /Hp«i
\J A- i. 1 VJdO
Bituminous
Dry
N/A
Dry
Wet 0
Coal/Oil/Gas
835
Bottom Ash
Handling System
Dry
Cooling Water System/
(Fill*)/Type of Water
Once-Through and
Cooling Tower (Wood)/
Fr,esh
Wet Once-Through Once-Through/Fresh
Once-Through/Brackish
N/A Once-Through/Brackish
Wet Once-Through Once-Through/Fresh
Once-Through/Brackish
Cooling Tower/Fresh
Wet Once-Through Once-Through and
Cooling Tower (PVC)/
Fresh
Cooling Tower
(Asbestos)/Fresh
NA = Not Applicable
= Insufficient Information
*Type of Fill in Cooling Towert,; given where appropriate.
-------
Table V-2 (Continued)
CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED IN THE VERIFICATION PHASE
u>
Plant Capacity
No. MW Fuel Type
Fly Ash
Handling System
Bottom Ash
Handling System
Cooling Water System/
Type of Water
3404
5409
5604
4602
3920
3924
3001
475.6 Bituminous
Coal/Oil
2,900 Bituminous
Coal/Oil
750 Bituminous
Coal/Oil
22 Subbitumi-
nous Coal
544 Bituminous
Coal/Oil
87.5 Bituminous
Coal
50.0 Lignite
Coal/Gas
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
Dry/Wet Recycle
Dry
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
and Wet Recycle
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through/
Wet Recycle
Wet Once-Through
Dry/Wet Once-
Through
Wet Once-Through
Wet Once-Through
Once-Through and
Cooling Tower
(Asbestos) /Brackish
Cooling Tower ( )/
Fresh
Once-Through and
Cooling Tower ( )/
Fresh
Cooling Tower (Wood)/
Fresh
Once-Through/
Once-Through/
Once Through/
NA = Not Applicable
= Insufficient Information
*Type of Fill in Cooling Towers, given where appropriate.
-------
Table V-2 (Continued)
CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTS SAMPLED IN THE VERIFICATION PHASE
Plant
No.
1
741
5410
2
121
Capaci Ly
MW
99.0
675
1 ,002.6
Fuel Type
Bi Luminous
Coal
Bituminous
Coal
Bituminous
Coal
Fly Ash
Handling System
Wet
Wet
Wet
Once-Through
Once-Through
Once-Through
Bottom Ash
Handling System
Wet
Wet
Once-Through
Once-Through
Wet Recycle
(Bottom Ash
Cooling Water System/
Type of Water
Cooling
Ponds/
Once-Through/
Cooling
Tower
(----
)/
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.
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 Cooling 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 recirculat.ing water pumps enter a manifold that
distributes the cooling water to the condensers A manifold collects
tne heated water from all of the condensers and transfers tne water to
a conduit The cooling water, is discharged from the conauit 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
75
-------
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 BASE
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Bromoform
Dichlorobromomethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Chlorodibroraomethane
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-Fibers/Liter)
Beryllium (Total)
Cadmium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Copper (Total)
Cyanide (Total)
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Selenium (Total)
Sliver (Total)
Thallium (Total)
Zinc (Total)
76
-------
Cooling
liquid Inltt
Noncondonublt
g«i outltt
Vipor Inltt
Cooling
liquid outlot
Figure V-2
SHELL AND TUBE CONDENSER
Reprinted from Handbook of Chlormation by G C White by permission of Van Nostrand
Remhold Company Year of first publication 1972
-------
Table V-4
ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER FLOWRATES
(308 Questionnaire)
Number
of Minimum
Varijiblji Pl§n.k§ M^H-Y^LH6. S^ndji^cMDevi^tjLon ^§.!".§._ Maximum Value
Fuel^ _Q°.§.L*
Flow GPD/plant 239 298,048,949 358,035,167.6 50.0 T,662,900,000
Flow GPD/MW 239 1,140,619,218 5,030,338,485 0.347 55,430,000
Fuel_ Gab*
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
00
Fuel _OiLl*
Flow GPD/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 pooling water by three major methods*
cooling ponds or cooling canals, mechanical draft evaporative cooling
towers, and natural draft evaporative cooling towers
Cooling ponds are generally most appropriate in relatively dry
climates and \n 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 differencesi between ambient air and moist air inside
the tower and the chimney effect of the tower's tall structure
Natural draft towers are of£en 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 numoer
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 date have been of concrete construction
Cooling tower fill can oe made of polyvinyl chloride, asbestos cement,
ceramic or wood
79
-------
00
o
AIR
OUTLET
WATER
INLET
FAN
WATER
INLET
MECHANICAL DRAFT
CROSS-FLOW TOWER
AIR
OUTLET
I t
FAN
-s DRIFT
ELIMINATORS
FILL
WATER OUTLET
MECHANICAL DRAFT
COUNTER-FLOW TOWER
WATER
INLET
{ AIR
INLET
Figure V-3
MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS (4)
-------
HOT WATER
DISTRIBUTION
yy///
DRIFT
ELIMINATOR
AIR
INLET
COLD WATER
BASIN
Figure V-4
NATURAL DRAFT EVAPORATIVE COUNTERFLOW COOLING TOWER (5)
81
-------
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
biofouling 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 plane 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
32
-------
00
U)
Table V-5
COOLING TOWER BLOWDOUN
(308 Questionnaire)
Number
of
Variable Plants
Fuel
Flow
Fuel.
Flow
F:LOW__
Flow
Coal*
GPD/plant
GPD/MW
Gas*
- GPD/ plant
GPD/MW
.Oil*
GPD/plant
GPD/MW
82
82
120
119
47
47
Mean Value
2,232,131
2,973.251
315,951 .9
3,080.131
274,193.2
1 ,862.413
Minimum
Standard Deviation Value
5,452,632
7,308
505,504
4,851
584,273
3,428
.6
.87
.6
.049
.3
.478
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Maximum Value
40,300
63
i
2,882
26
3,200
16
,000
,056.
,880
,208.
,000
,712.
68
00
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:
Clz + H20 £ HOC! + 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 hypochlontes
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
84
-------
100
80
70
60
o
2
5
10
acre
£L
^c
500
60 .
70
80
90
789
pH
10 11
100
Figure V-5
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
85
-------
among the substances which can be oxidized by hypochlorus acid. In
these reactions the C1 + 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 satjsifed 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 f HOC1 -? NH2C1 f 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 -? NHClj, + 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
86
-------
dichloramine is greatly speeded and some dichloramine is converted to
trichloramine, also called nitrogen trichloride
NHC12 + HOC1 ? NCI3 + H20 (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 aci.d 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 chlorarnines, 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 oil 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
87
-------
FORMATION OF PHEErMLOBIWE AND
FORMATION OF CHUMO-ORGANIC
COUMUNDS AND CHLOMAMINES
o at az cx3 04 os os o? CUB as
CHLORIilE ADDED AS HYPOCHLOROUS ACID
Figure V-6
EFFECT OF IMPURITIES IN WATER ON TOTAL AVAILABLE
CHLORINE RESIDUAL
Reprinted from Manual of Instruction for_Water Treatment Plant
Operators by New York State Departmenc of Health by permission
of New York State Health Education Service Year of first
publication unknown.
88
-------
300
o
M
100 -
ra 50
:3
c:
i:
LU
O
c5
o
at
<
10
5
1.0
:= 0,5
E
0.1
2 5 10 30 50 70 90 99
PERCENT EQUAL TO OR LESS
THAN GIVEN CONCENTRATION
Figure V-7
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HALOGENATED ORGANICS
IN RAW AND FINISHED DRINKING WATER (8)
89
-------
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 fresn 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 t HOBr + Cl (7)
Br- + 3C1O £ BrO-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 similarly 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
90
-------
too
>
/O
?O
Figure V-8
EFFECT OF WATER' TEMPERATURE ON THE
CHLOROFORM REACTION
Reprinted from Hubbs, S.A., et al , "Trxhalomethane Reauctxon
at the Louisville Water Company," Louisville Water Company,
Louisville, KY, undated,
91
-------
goo.
/00 \
fO // I?
Figure V-9
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
92
-------
r
Z5
Time (hrs )
Figure V- 10
EFFECT OF CONTACT TIME ON THE CHLOROFORM REACTION
Reprinted £tom Hubbs, S A , et al , "Trihalomethane Reduction
at the Louisville Water Company," Louisville Water Company,
Louisville, KY, undated
93
-------
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 prooably
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 TOC 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 chlor]nation 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 ppta CHBr3 centrifuged water It is postulated
that chlorine reacts wibh 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
94
-------
Table V-6
COPPER CORROSION DATA 04)
Condenser
Material
Comment
Copper Added to Cooling wacer by
Passing Through the Condenser*
Soluble Particulate
(UR/1) (UR/1)
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-
foul ing 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 s of salt content of makeup water A study was undertaken by
a utilit.. (16) to determine concentrations of cadmium, chromium,
copper, nickel, lead, and zinc 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 tower
basin (15). 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 of Chemical 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)
96
-------
Table V-7
ONE YEAR STEADY STATE CORROSION RATES
FOR ALLOY 706 DETERMINED EXPERIMENTALLY (15)
New Haven
Tap Water
Brackish Water
0.17, NaCl
Salt Water
3.470 NaCl
0.1 mils/yr
0.1 mils/yr
0.1 mzls/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
97
-------
Table V-8
SELECTED PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
SEAWATER BEFORE AND AFTER PASSAGE THROUGH
ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEM (16)
Median Influent
Concentration
Net Concentration
Change (Effluent-Influent)
(ppo)
Metal
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
Dissolved
0.06
0.16
0.80
0.44
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.
98
-------
Table V-9
SOLUBLE COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN
RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS (15)
Location of
sample
River influent
Tower Basin
Tower basin mud
Tower drift
Plant 1
2 years
operation
p_H ppb
7.0 1.8
6.45 88
-* 560,000
6.43 76
Plant 2
1 year
operation
2M
6.95
6.6
_*
6.5
PPb
1
35
670,000
34
Plant 3
1 week
operation
PPb
_*
75
_*
_*
6.9
_*
_*
^Measurement: not taken.
99
-------
Table V-10
COMMONLY USED CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL CHEMICALS (17)
Benzotriazole and its sodium salt
*Chroraic Acid
Nitrilo-tris acetic acid and its alkali metal and ammonium salts
Organophosphorous Antiscalants including 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,
1-diphosphonic acid, Nitrilo-tri (methylenephosphonic 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 hexametaphosphate
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
100
-------
Table V-10 (Continued)
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 (mm. mol. wt. 1,000)
Sodium carboxymethylcellulose
Sodium lignosulfonates
Sodium polyacrylates and polyacrylic acids
Sodium polymethacrylates
Styrene - maleic anhydride copolymers
Polyethylenimines
Sodium citrate
Alkyphenoxy polyethoxy ethanols
Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate
101
-------
Table V-10 (Continued)
COMMONLY USED CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL CHEMICALS (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.
102
-------
Those compounds which are priority pollutants are marked with an
asterisk to the left of the compound name Chromium and zinc are 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 (17) The
pollutants which were reported as present in recirculating 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
U-[
Products of 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
, - i
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 cnlorine (TRC) was performed at nine of
the plants
103
-------
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 raonomethyl 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.
104
-------
Table V-12
POLLUTANTS REPORTED ON 3d8 FORMS IN COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
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
105
-------
Table V-13
ASBESTOS IN COOLING TOWISR WATERS (4)
Asbestos, fllura/tUer of MR/R (lied)*
Makeup Muter
Site Snttpllng
No. Date
1 26 Muy 77
2 26 Hay 77
3 26 May 77
4 25 May 77
5 13 May 76
6 Oct 76
6 25 May 77
7 6 Jul 76
7d 15 Aug 77
Repli-
cates
a
b
c
n
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
a
b
a
b
c
a
a
b
c
Lower LI nit
of Detection
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
.3x10*
3x10*
3x10*
3x10*
.3x10*
3x10*
.4x10*
/.
4x10*
4x10*
4x10* sup
7x10. scd
A
.4x10 sup
4x10* sed
4x10* sup
7x10° sed
2xI05
5
57xl03
3x10*
r
3x10*
3x10*
3x1 05
,
3x10. sup
3x10* sup
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
0.5x10°
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 Mater
Lower I twit
of Detection
8.4x10* sup
5.2x10 sed
6.3x10* sup
4.8x10° sed
6 3x10* sup
83x10 sed
6 3x10* sup
6
11x10, scd
6 3x10*! sup
9 1x10° Bed
6 3x10* sup
7x10° acd
8.4x10*. eup
5 2x10° bed
8 4x10. sup
6 4x10° scd
8 4x10 sup
6 3x10* sup
220x10° scd
8 4x10 sup
LM , Sfd
8 3x1 06 blip
140x10 scd
0 5x1 0°
5
1 57x10,
1 57xl03
8 4x10*
i
8 4x10*
8 4x10*
1.26xl06
L
6 3x10
Cone.
B.D.L.
B D L.
B D.I .
B D.I .
B D L
44x108
B.D L.
B D L.
B D.L.
B U L
B D L
B D 1
U D.L
B D.L
B D L
B D 1.
B D L
B D L
130x10"
B D 1
<0 5Z
1 9x10°
78x10'
B 1) L
B D L
B D L.
B D L.
B D L.
B D L
B 1) L.
All B D L.
Slowdown
Lower I Imlt
of Detection
t,
6.3x10. sup
6.4x10 scd
6.3x10* sup
6.4x10° acd
6 3x10, sup
7.5x10 sod
8 4x10* uup
8 4x10^ sed
8.4x10 sup
7x10? scd
i 6x10 sup
8 7x10*
3 4x10°
5
1 7x10 sup
LM Bed
0 8x10°
5
1 57x10
6 3x10* sup
4.0x10° bed
6 3x10* blip
7 0x10° scd
1 5x10
2 IxlO6
it
6 3x10,
6 3x10
6 3x10*
Other
Lower I Imlt
Cone.
B.D.L.
B D.L.
B.D.L
B.D.I .
B D 1.
B D 1
B U L
B D L
0 92x10
B D I.
110x10°
1 3x10°
160x10°
B D L
<0 5*
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 I) L
B D L
B D L.
Sample of Detection
Settling-pond 6
effluent
4
6
5
6
Sediment from 2
sump
Lagoon effluent 8
'
8
8
Potable water 0
Basin water from 1
MDC1 that coula
NUCf blowdown
2
6
6
3x10* sup
,
.9x10° scd
3x10* sup
6x10? sed
3x10* sup
.8x10* scd
1x10 sed
4x10*
4
.4x10
4x10*
12x10°
.26x10
5
9x10
3x107
3x10
Cone.
B D L
B.U 1
B.D L
B D L
B.D L
B D L,
B.D L
B D L
B.D 1
B D L
B D I
B D L
B D L
B D I
B 1) L
-------
Table V-13 (Continued)
ASBESTOS IN COOLING TOWER WATERS (4)
Asbestos, fibers/liter of ug/g (sed)*
Makeup Water
Site
No.
8
9b
10
11
U
12
12
Sampling
Date
9 Jul 76
2 Sep 76
31 Aug 76
15 Aug 77
(1 of 2
towers)
-
15 Aug 77
(2nd of 2
towers)
16 Aug 11
(Unit 3
tower)
16 Aug 77
(Halt 4
lower)
Repli-
cates
a
b
c
a
b
e
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
e
a
b
e
Lower I 1ml t
of Detection
1x10?
1x10
6
1 88x10,
1 88x10?
1 88x10
4 2x10*
6 3x10?
6 3x10
2 3x10*
2 5x10*
2 9x10*
6 3x10*
2 3x10^
1 2x10
Cone.
B 1) L
B D 1 .
B U 1
B D I
B U.L
B D L.
B D L
B D L
B D L
B D 1
B D L
B D L
B D L
B U L
Basin Water
lower Limit
of Detection
2x10?
1 1x10?
IxiO
,
88x10*
88x10*
88x10
26x10^
26x10
26x10
6 38x1 O6
6 47x10*
-
2 9x10?
2 5x10
6 36x10
2 5x10?
1 3x10
5 1x10
5
2 5x1 0^
2 3x10^
2 4x10*
Cone.
B D 1
B D L
B D.L.
B D L
B D L
B D 1
B D L.
B D 1
B D I
370xl<)6
330xl06
B D L
B D L
210x10
B 0 L
B D L,
24xl06
B U L
B D L
B U.L
Slowdown Other
lower limit Lower Limit
of Detection Cone Sample of Detection
Towels had circulating
water but no blowdown
(towers not yet on line )
6 6
88x10 37x10
88x10* B D 1.
88x10 B D 1
26x10* B D 1
26x10, B D L
26x10 B U L
Settling-basin 1 8x10
effluent c
2 5x10
6 3x10*
4
Ash-pond effluent 6 3xlU/
6 3xtO
2 8x10
Cone
B D L
B 1) L
B D L
B U L
B U 1
B 1) 1
13 17 tt-b 76
13 28 Apr 76
1 2x10
4 7x10
B D L
2 5x10
2 5x10
3x10"
2 5x10
4 7x10
B D L Cooling-tower 2 5x10
riser
2 5xl05
B U
(ainphlbole)
7 Hay 76
15 20 Jim 77
16 26 Aug 11
b
c
d
a
b
e
a
b
c
5 9x10, raw B D L
1 2x10 trtd B D I
6 3x10 B D L
6 3x10* B D I
6 3x10 B D 1
8 4xlo£ sup B.I) L
8 4x10 sup B D L
8 4x10 sup B U L
1 04x10
6 3x10
6 JxlO*
6 3x10*
B U I
B D 1
B U I
B D L
I 04x10"
I 04x10*
1 04x10
1
04x10"
4
6 3x10
6 3x10^
6 3x10
6 3x10
6
6.3x10
^ aup
, Hup
sup
B D L
B I) L
B I) I
B U I
B U L.
B D I
B U L
B I) I
B U L
B D 1
Park reservoir
6 3x10
Discharge canal 6 3x10.
3x10,
fa tip
6 3x10" sup
6 3x10 b,,|,
IM Hill
B t) I
B D I
B U I
B 1) 1
B D 1
0 Vd
-------
O
00
Table V-13 (Continued)
ASBESTOS IN COOLING TOWER WATERS (4)
Aflbc-Btus, fibers/liter of UK/K (scd)*
Makeup Hater
Site
No.
17
17
18
Sampling
Date
21 Hay 76
Aug 76
21 Hay 76
Repli-
cates
a
a
b
a
Lower Limit:
of Detection
I.2xl05
5
IxlO,
IxlO
1.2x10
Cone.
»5xl06
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
B.D.L.
Basin Water
Lower Llult
of Detection Cone.
6x1 04 B.U 1,.
I.2xl05 B.D L.
Slowdown Other
Lower Limit Lower Limit
of Detection Cone. Simple of Detection Cone.
6x10 B.D.L.
5
Ixl05 B.D L.
1x10 B.D.I.
'Concentrations are listed as fibers/liter for bulk wuter samples (no postscript). In canes where the bulk samples contained appreciable amounts
of suspended solids, the. samples were shaken, allowed to stand 4 hours, and the supernatant analyzed by electron microscopy, results are listed
In fibers/liter (sup) The sediment was analyzed either by electron microscopy or light microscopy (IH), the results of sediment analysis by
electron microscopy are listed as |ig/g (seel), and by light microscopy as a percent of the sediment m.isa by weight Concentrations ((one ) below
detection limits are Indicated by B D.L. Except us otherwise noted, all abbcstoa was Identified at, chrysotllu
+Heplicul<_b taken at a given sampling date
aSltc 7 has four natural-draft towers For basin-water analyuee, two bamples were taken from each of the four tower basins The lower limit
of detection range from 6 3x11)4 tu 3 OxlO5 for all eight samples
bThe lower limit of detection Is relatively high due to high salt content In the water
cHlowilotm samples ate from four separate -sechanlea!-draft towers, one of which contains redwood fill
dUiryootlle was found by light olcrobcopy In the sediment suspended In the bulk water sample Fibers were 2-5 |im In diameter, 60-130 |im In
length, In fainall bundles
-------
o
vo
Table V-14
RESULTS OF SCREENING PROGRAM FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
(parts per billion)
Plant #2512
Plant #3805
Plant #1720
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
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
2718
1716
3414
4826
Pollutant
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-Dichlorobenzene
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Phenolics, 4AAP
Total Residual Chlorine
1,2 or 1,3 or 1,4 Dichlorobenzene
Concentration (ppb)
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
__a 1Lm ,-t
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
2^,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
Pollutant
1245 Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Phenolics, 4AAP
Total Residual Chlorine
1002 Broinoform
Chlorodibromomethane
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)
ca 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
800/310/200/250/170/150/150
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
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/ND<20(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.
()Values 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)
OJ
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform
1,1-DichloroeLhylene
Ethylben^ene
Methylene"Chloride
Bromoform
Phenol (GC/MS)
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Antimony, Total
Art>enic, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Mercury, Total
Selenium, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Barium, Total
Calcium, Total
Mangaue&e, Total
Intake
ND
ND/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/1000
D<10/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
210/350/10/100/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
*These multiple results represeat analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues In parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
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
42,2©0
59
-------
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)
2608 Magnesium, Total
(Cent) Total Resdual Chlorine
Sodium, Total
Iron, Total
2603 Benzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol (GC/MS)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyi pnthalate
Tetrachlete ethylene
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Silver, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
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
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs,
OValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
-------
Table V-15 (Continued)
Plant
Code Pollutant
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCli-TUROUCH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Concentration (ppb)
2603 Aluminum, Total
(Cont) Barium, Total
Boron, Total
Calcium, Total
Manganese, Total
Magnesium, Total
Total Residual Chlorine
Sodium, Total
Tin, Total
Titanium, Total
Iron, Total
Free Residual Chlorine
2607 Benzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol (GC/MS)
liis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs,
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake
497
ND < 50
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
DOO/200/240/270/300
20,700
ND < 5
ND < 15
715
A/» /I Af\ / I fl
1U/ 1 **U/ iu
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)
Plant
Code Pollutant
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCE-TIIROUCH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Concentration (ppb)
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
Benzldene
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
Chloroform
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Diehlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Chloride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values 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
40
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
Dechlorinated
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)
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE AND
ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code Pollutant
5513 Toluene
(Cont) Trichloroethylene
Antimony, 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
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
ND
ND
10
4
19
8
10
ND < 20
1
3
ND < 1
35,000
545,000
10,000
13,000
283
24
83
84
D < 5
66
33,000
13
49,000
30
ND < 15
675
A 10 nr»n
Chlorinated
ND/ND/D<10
ND/ND/D<10
10
NU < 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
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
OValues in parenthebes indicate dissolved fractions.
-------
The data in Tablt «/-15 indicate that there were net increases in all
of the following compounds: total dissolved solids, total suspended
solids, total organic carbon, total residual chlorine, free available
chlorine, 2,4-dichlorophenol, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, phenolics,
chromium, 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
1,2-dichlorobenzene, 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.
Recirculating 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 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, chlorodibromoinethane, 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) phchalate, 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,
cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, and zinc
118
-------
Table V-16
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
Bromoforra
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
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
1
3/1
ND < 1
1/1
20/1
ND < 1
ND<1/ND<1
ND<1/ND<1
NDO/36
11
4
3/3
11
<5
15
16
25
5
0.34
21
55
40
<5
Discharge
1
1/1
1
2/NDO
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
119
-------
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
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Tocal
Cadmium, Tocal
Chromium, To tal
Copper, Total
Cyanide, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Tocal
Silver, Total
Zinc, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake Discharge
20.6
39/20
24.4
ND < 1
5.7
ND < 1
47.8
<5
<5
10
37
25
130
<5
0.41
8
<5
9
41
ND
15,
34/40
21
1 ,
< 1
1
115
6
13
25
75
150
360
17
0,
100
23
32
67
91
120
-------
Table V-16 (Continued)
RESULTS OF THE SCREENING PHASE OF THE
SAMPLING PROGRAM FOR COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
Plant 2414
Pollutant
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
Chloroform
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 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 .3
2
1
2
1
2/1
10
105
5
1/1
10/15
1
<5
5
28,400
<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
121
-------
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
Chlorodibromoform
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Bromodichloroethylene
Antimony, To ta1
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Cyanide, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Zinc, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
9/6
ND<1y
49/8
ND <
1/1
ND <
1/2
6/3
f\
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
122
-------
Table V-17
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
NJ
U)
Pollutant
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-Tetrachloroethane
Concentration (ppb)
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
un ^ s
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
*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
Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
to
1245 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
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
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/^0*
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
-------
Table V-17 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
1226
to
ui
Pollutant
Chloroform
Bromoform
Dichlorobroraomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Antimony, 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/N1K20*(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)
200(200)
4,500(5000)
12
33,000(36,000)
ND
D < 1
154
8.2
58.5
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.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
-------
Table V-17 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
to
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
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
Phenolicfa, 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/NIK60*
227,000
10,000
34,000
40
60
29,000
10
200
7,600
20
16
10
D <
17,000
2,000
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
OValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Discharge
20
3,000
27/ND<10
20
NU
ND < 2
10/10*
81/40*
ND < 20
42/10*
40/ND<60*
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
-------
Table V-17 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
3404
Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
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
Aluminurn, Total
Boron, Total
Calcium, Total
Cobalt, Total
Manganese, Total
Molybdenum, Total
Phenoiics, 4AAP
Total Residual Chlorine
Sodium, Total
Tin, Total
Titanium, Total
Iron, Total
Vanadium, Total
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake
18
12
12
100
78/800*
33/ND<60*
500
34/100*
40
26,000,000
110,000
26,000
29000
4,000
340,000
ND < 50
200
80
5
NU<10/ND<10/ND<10/ND<10
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
-------
Table V-17 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Plant
Code
5409
oo
Pollutant
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1 , 2-Diehlorobenzene
Dichlorobromoine thane
Clilor od ibromome thane
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
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
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
D < 1
2.4
1.4
5.3
2
4
1.4
ND < 2
27
15,000
8
ND < 0.2
1.7
2
1.6
ND < 1
15
5
20,000
13
2.4
Discharge
1.5
2.4
2.6
D < 1
4
1
37
3,800(620)
5
130(70)
1
4
NU < 2
14
8
290(61)
460,000
21,000
110,000
17
*These multiple results represent aialyt.es 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
5604
Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
VO
Benzene
Toluene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Cyanide, Total
Lead, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Silver, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Ctiloride
Vanadium, Total
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values In parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake
ND < 1
ND < 2
ND < 0.
ND < 3
5,
14,
1.2
9.1
4
700
4
6
5
2
53
500
000
11
Discharge
D < 1
23.5
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 RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
U)
o
4602 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
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, 4AAP
Total Residual Chlorine
Sodium, Total
Tin, Total
Titanium, Total
Iron, Total
Vanadium, Total
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake
ND
NO
ND < 20
73/100*
21/50*
30
98/ND<5*-
2
ND/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
-------
Additional Data Sources
Another source of useful data is a study on the chlorination of 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 5.0 ppb
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
Samples were also analyzed for dichlorobromomethane in this same study
(47) Condenser outlet dichlorobromomethane levels ranged from 0.9 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 ppb to
1.5 ppb during the period of chlorine addition. The mean
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.
Summary of the Results of Coo1ing Water Sampling and Data Collecting
Efforts
An examination of all the available data, including screening,
verification, surveillance and analysis, and literature data, leads to
several major conclusions. First, net discharges of metals other 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 chiorination 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-d:chlorophenol, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, bromoform, chioro-
dibromomethane, and chloroform all may result from cooling water
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 explain the
presence of compounds like phenol, benzene, toluene, 1,2-dichloro-
benzene, 2,4,6-t.richlorophenol and pentachlorophenol (13,17).
131
-------
A third ma^or finding was a net dscharge of asbestos in the cooling
tower blowdown of plant 2414. Since asbestos was also present in tne
make-up water, it is not clear whether fill erosion is occuring The
introduction of asbestos into cooling tower blowdown 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 bJowdown 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 discnarged into the
ash settling ponds. These characteristics are discussed in this
section.
132
-------
Table V-18
Variable
Fuel. Coal*
FLY ASH POND OVERFLOW
(308 Questionnaire)
Number
of Minimum
Plants Mean Value Standard Deviation Value
Flow. GPD/plant 167 2,610,724.6 3,397,528.7
GPD/MW 166 3,807.976 3,608.152
0.00
0.00
Maximum Value
23,000,000
16,386.91
to
to
Fuel. Gas*
Flow GPD/plant
GPD/MW
Flow. Oil*
21
21
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 3,250,000
0.00 11,535,049
0.00 9,750,000
0.00 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
BOTTOM ASH POND OVERFLOW
(308 Questionnaire)
Variable
Fuel. Coal*
Number
of
Plants
Mean Value
Minimum
Standard Deviation Value
Maximum Value
Flow. GPD/plant 219 2,600,998.7 5,072,587.5 0.00 33,600,000
GPD/MW 218 3,880.983 5,147.284 O.O'O 38,333.33
Fuel. Gas*
Flow. GPD/plant
GPD/MW
25 417,345.2 1,026,066.7
25 1,804.65 3,229.089
0.00 4,020,000
0.00 11,535.049
Flow. Oil*
Flow. GPD/plant
GPD/MW
40 322,913.6
40 622.696
907,839.3
1,698.706
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 constitpents 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 or 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 porpnyrins which are characteristic of
certain forms of animal life Table V-20 summarizes the amounts of
vanadium, nickel, and sodiumi 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 oj1 is preheated and atomized to provide enough reactive
surface to burn completely within the boiler furnace The atomized
fuel oil burns jn 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
135
-------
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
51
10
2.5
6
13
60
32
Sodium
22
1
8
350
120
84
480
72
70
49
38
136
-------
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
137
-------
Table V-22
SULFUR CONTENT IN FRACTIONS OF KUWAIT CRUDE OIL (18)
Distillation Range Total Sulfur
Fraction (°F) (7. 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
138
-------
the 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 witn carbon Release of the
ash from these residues is determined by the rate of oxidation of the
caroon (18)
During combustion, the organic vanadium compounds in the residual fuel
oil thermally decompose and oxidize in the gas stream to V203, V20d
and finally V205 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 points 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.
Na2S04l + V205 z 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 (S02) A small
amount of sulfur dioxide is further oxidized to S03 by a small amount
of atomic oxygen present in the hottest part of the flame Also,
catalytic oxidation of SO2 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 (IS) Oil ash
(especially from plants using Venezuelan and certain Middle Eastern
oil) can contain significant amounts of nickel
139
-------
Table V-23
MELTING POINTS OF SOME OIL/ASH CONSTITUENTS (18)
Compound
Aluminum oxide, A1203
Aluminimu sulfate,
Calcium oxide, CaO
Calcium sulfate, CaS04
Feme oxide, Fe203
Ferric sulfate, Fex(SOv)3
Nickel oxo.de, NiO
Nickel sulfate, NiS04
Sa.la.con do.oxo.de, Si02
Sodium sulfate, Na2S04
Sodium bisulfate, NaHS04
Sodium pyrosulfate,
Sodium ferric sulfate,
Vanadium trioxide, 7203
Vanadium tetroxide, V204
Vanadium pentoxide, V205
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.
140
-------
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
141
-------
Table V-24
MEGATONS OF COAL ASH COLLECTED III 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 Electrxc Servxces Co.
**Projection based on expected doubling in coal-fired power
generation, 1975 to 1985.
142
-------
Table V-25
VARIATIONS IN COAL ASH COMPOSITION WITH RANK (19)
Component
Rank
A1203
CaO
MgO
Na20
Anthracite Bituminous Subbituminous
48-68
25-44
2-10
1-2
0.2-4
0.2-1
S03
0.1-1
7-68
4-39
2-44
0.5-4
0.7-36
0.1-4
0.2-3
0.2-4
0.1-35
17-58
4-35
3-19
0.6-2
2.2-52
0.5-8
3-16
Lignite
6-40
4-26
1-34
0-0.8
12.4-52
2.8-14
0.2-28
0.1-1 .3
8.3-32
143
-------
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
Mn
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
Min.
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
Mm.
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.
144
-------
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
Mm.
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
Mm.
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.
145
-------
Table V-26 (Continued)
RANGE 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
Mm.
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.
146
-------
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
pulvenzed-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 Si02), alumina (10-35 weight percent as
A1203), ferric oxide (5-35 weight percent as Fe203), 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). ]n 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
147
-------
Primary at'
•ad seal
^
Primory otr
1 PTl
\r" ~
Second
Fantail
Multieu
iatinuo*
(A.) VERTICAL FIRING
Prlnur j oif•
and coal
(BJ TANCEKT1AL FIRING
(•rtmory air
and esal
S«con4nrT air
Multioi* lm«rtab«
Sasaaaary sir
Circular (c.) HORIZONTAL PI MING
-^"^ ""^^
(B.) CTCLOME EJR1NS
Primary air
and sosJ
(£.} O^CSES-INCLIWEB FIRING
Figure V-ll
PULVERIZED-COAL FIRING METHODS (19)
148
-------
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** (typicaiyo) (typica|%jj
PCFR W 35 65
PCOP W 35 65
PCTA W 35 65
PCFR D 15 85
PCOP D 15 85
PCTA D 15 B%
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
149
-------
Table V-28
MAJOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH
FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA REGIONS (19)
Fly Ash Bottom ash
Constituent (7o by weight) (% by weight)
Sulfur trioxide 0.01-4.50 0.01-1.0
Phosphorus pentoxide 0.01-0.50 0.01-0.4
Silica 20.1-46.0 19.4-48.9
Iron oxide 7.6-32.9 11.7-40.0
Aluminum oxide 17.4-40.7 18.9-36.2
Calcium oxide 0.1-6.1 0.01-4.2
Magnesium oxide 0.4-1.2 0.5-0.9
Sodium oxide 0.3-0.8 0.2-0.8
Potassium oxide 1.2-2.4 1.7-2.8
Titanium oxide 1.3-2.0 1.3-1.8
150
-------
Table V-29
COMPARISON OF FLY ASH AND BOTTOM ASH FROM VARIOUS UTILITY PLANTS (19)
Compound
or
Element
Si02, 7o
A1203, 7«
Fe203, %
CaO, %
S03, 7.
MgO, %
Na20, 7o
K20, 70
P2°5. 7.
Ti02, 7o
As , ppm
Be , ppm
Cd , ppm
Cr , ppm
Cu, ppm
Mg, ppm
Plant 1
FA
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
BA
58
25
4.0
4.3
0.3
O.S8
1.77
0.8
0.06
0.62
1
3
0.5
15
37
0.01
Plant 2
FA
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
BA
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
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
BA.
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
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
BA
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
NR
NR
20.4
3.2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
8.4
8.0
6.44
206
68
20.0
BA
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
42
17
17.3
3.5
NR
1.76
1.36
2.4
NR
1.00
110
NR
8.0
300
140
0.05
BA
49
19
16.0
6.4
NR
2.06
0.67
1.9
NR
0.68
18
NR
1.1
152
20
0.028
-------
en
NJ
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 fly ashc
As 4.45 18 110 440
Ba 6!) 500 465 750
Br 3.7 2 4
Cd 0.47 1.1 8.0 51
Ce 8.2 84 84 120
Cl 914 <100 <200
Co 2.9 20.8 39 65
Cr 18 152 300 900
Cs 1.1 7.7 13 27
Cu 8.3 20 140
Eu 0.1 1.1 1.3 1.3
Ga 4.5 5 81
Hf 0.4 4.6 4.1 5.0
Hg 0.122 0.028 0.050
La 3.8 42 40 42
Mn 33.8 295 298 430
Ni 16 85 207
Pb 4.9 6.2 80 650
Rb 15.5 102 155 55
Sb 0.5 0.64 12 36
Sc 2.2 20.8 26 88
Se 2.2 0.08 25 36
Sm I .0 8.2 10.5 9
Sr 23 170 250
Ta 0.11 0.95 1 .4 1 .8
Tn 2.1 15 20 26
U 2.18 14.9 30.1
V 28.5 260 440 1180
Zn 46 100 740 5900
aMixture of coals from southern Illinois and western Kentucky,
Ash content: 1 270.
^Collected upstream from electrostatic precipitator.
cCollected downstream from electrostatic precipitator.
153
-------
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 of 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.
154
-------
Ul
Cn
100
go
ao
TO
s oo
e
C
3
20
10
0
9OO
U ft 9ton
-------
Table V-31
ELEMENTS SHOWING PRONOUNCED CONCENTRATION TRENDS
WITH DECREASING PARTICLE SIZE (19)
(ppm unless otherwise noted)
Particle
Diameter
(mm)
A. Fly
1 .
74
44-74
2.
40
30-40
20-30
15-20
10-15
5-10
5
3.
Pb Tl Sb
Ash Retained in Plant
Sieved fractions
140 7 1.5
160 9 7
Aerodynamically sized
90 5 8
300 5 9
430 9 8
520 12 19
430 15 12
820 20 25
980 45 31
Analytical method*
a a a
Cd
10
10
Se
12
20
As
180
500
Ni
100
140
Cr
100
90
Zn
500
411
fractions s
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
a
15
15
15
30
30
50
50
a
120
160
200
300
400
800
370
a
300
130
160
200
210
230
260
a
70
140
150
170
170
160
130
b
730
570
480
720
770
1100
1400
a
B. 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
8100
9000
6600
3800
15000
13000
2. Analytical method*
d a a
* - (a) DC arc emission spectrometry.
(b) Atomic absorption spectrometry.
(c) X-ray fluorescence spectrometry.
(d) Spark source mass spectromety.
156
-------
Table V-32
CHARACTERISTICS OF ASH POND OVERFLOWS WITH TOTAL
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS LESS THAN 30 mg/1 (19)
(rag/D
Ul
Plant
Code.
3711
3708
4234
0312
1226
37IJ
3/01
2103
2102
3805
2103
* L -
O -
K -
Capaci ly
(MW)
781
466
598
1.341
1 .229
2 000
421
511
132
660
694
coal
oil
(JdS
Hiel*
c/o
c/o
c/o
c
-/e
c/o
c/o
c
c/o
c
c
No of
banipleb
18
6
1
7
22
9 -
3
5
2
1
3
Ibii
24 5
14 7
6 0
16 5
9 4
5 2
18 0
4 4
JO 9
15
20
- la
0 36
0 12
0 38
0 63
0 92
0 20
0 47
0 11
0 2
-
0 52
tu
0 1
0 1
0 01
0 01
0 03
0 1
0 05
0 006
0 009
0 II
0 15
Ul Ni
0 02 0 1
0 02 01
0 0
0 01
-
02 0 1
0 01 0 05
0 0 0004
0 0045
0 002
0 005
A
0 06
0 14
0 Oil
0 19
0 02
0 03
0 01
0 02
0 03
0 06
0 21
I'll
0 1
0 1
0 05
0 14
0 01
0 1
0 05
0 004
0 04
0 01
0 007
MB
0 002
0 003
-
0 001
0 0006
0 002
0 001
0
0 0004
0 0001
0 0001
111
0 14
0 01
0 03
0 04
0 05
0 08
0 05
0 005
0 06
0 04
0 02
be
0 007
0 005
-
o on
-
0 03
0 10
0 004
0 Oi8
-
0 01
V Li
0 05
0 05
-
0 01
0 10 0 01
0 "05
. - 0 05
0 004
0 003
0 02
0 005
Oil &
l,Cl ISC
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 REPORTS (21)
(ppb)
Trace
Metal Fly
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Zn
Min.
10
3.5
5
20
1055
10
0.1
33
2
50
Ash
Ponds 1
Max . Ave .
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
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
Ponds3
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
158
-------
Table V-34
SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TVA TRACE METAL DATA FOR ASH POND INTAKE
AND EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)
10
Aluminum
Ammonia as h
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
tFF
RU
trF
RU
EkF
RU
tFF
RU
RU
RU
LFF
KM
tFt
KM
RU
RU
LH
RU
btt
KU
ttt
RU
Ett
RU
tH
LtF
RU
Ltt
RU
Minimum
0.3
0 6
0 02
0 03
<0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
0.002
<0 001
45
15
7
7
<0 005
<0 005
<0 01
0 03
<0 01
0 33
1 0
<0 010
<0 010
1 4
6 5
0 13
0 12
<0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
Plant C
Average
1 5
4 7
0 ii
0 14
0 013
0 008
0 2
0 1
<0 01
<0 01
0.006
0 00 i
78
29
II
II
0 006
0 012
0 05
0 II
0 01
1 7
6 5
0 021
0 022
10
9 5
0 20
0 31
0 0034
0 0004
0 05
<0 05
Maximum
3 8
IS
0 34
0 33
0 05
0 026
0 4
0.2
<0 01
<0 01
0.013
0 002
100
45
16
16
, 0 008
0 041
0 10
0 22
<0 01
4 1
14
0 069
0 047
16
14
0 34
0 53
0 0074
0 0016
o o;
<0 05
Minimum
0 5
1 3
<0 02
0 03
<0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
19
15
7
7
<0 005
<0 005
<0 01
0 03
<0 01
0 72
1 4
<0 010
<0 010
6 3
6 5
0 05
0 12
<0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
Plant L
Average
3 4
5 2
0 09
0 16
0 022
0 009
0 14
0 14
<0 01
<0 01
0 002
0 001
37
33
II
11
0 009
0 013
0 06
0 12
0 01
6 0
7 2
0 017
0 024
to
6 6
0 18
0 31
0 0070
0 0003
0 06
0 05
Maximum
8
15
0^2
0 29
0 035
0 026
0 3
0 2
<0 01
<0 01
0 010
0 002
89
43
16
16
0 024
0 041
0 18
0 22
0 01
27
14
0 033
0 047
16
14
0 16
0 53
0 050
0 0016
0 17
0 05
Minimum
<0 2
0 2
<0 01
<0 01
<0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
26
23
2
2
<0 005
<0 005
<0 01
0 02
<0 01
<0 05
0 25
<0 010
<0 010
7 5
7 I
<0 01
0 03
<0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
Plant D
Average
1 4
0 5
0 06
0 04
0 034
<0 005
0 2
0 1
<0 01
<0 01
0 001
<0 001
31
28
3
3
<0 005
0 005
0 03
0 07
<0 01
0 32
0 51
0 016
0 012
8 3
8 0
0 02
0 07
0 0002
0 0002
0 06
0 08
Maximum
3 8
0 9
0 IS
0 13
0 100
<0 005
0 3
0 2
<0 01
<0 01
0 002
<0 001
37
31
5
4
0 008
<0.005
0 14
0 22
<0 01
0 67
1 00
0 046
0 018
9 8
9 1
0 05
0 13
0 0003
0 0005
0 19
0 27
Minimum
1 1
1 7
0 03
0 04
<0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
68
14
5
4
<0 005
<0 005
0 02
0 02
<0 01
0 05
0 45
<0 01
<0 01
0 1
3 0
<0 01
0 04
<0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
Plant E
Average
2 5
2 9
0 06
0 07
0 028
<0 005
0 2
0 2
<0 01
<0 01
0 001
0 001
126
17
6
5
0 017
<0 005
0 08
0 05
<0 01
0 16
1 0
0 017
0 015
0 3
3 4
0 01
0 05
0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
Maximum
3 4
4 3
0 09
0 10
0 13
<0 005
0 4
0 4
<0 01
<0 01
0 002
0 002
170
20
2
6
0 025
<0 005
0 19
0 08
<0 01
0 39
1 6
0 036
0 028
0 3
4 I
0 02
0 07
0 0001
<0 0001
<0 05
<0 05
-------
Table V-34 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TVA TRACE METAL DATA FOR ASH POND INTAKE
AND EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)
Selenium
Silica
Sliver
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
SulfaLe
Zinc
EtF
KM
tFF
RH
tFt
RU
t-tt
RU
Lit
RW
EFF
RW
LFF
RU
Minimum
<0 001
<0 001
it 7
5.5
<0 01
<0.01
260
ICO
3
11
110
0 07
0 02
0 03
Plane C
Average
0 010
0 002
7 4
6 1
0 01
0 01
3'5
205
IB
46
158
23
0 13
0 08
Maximum
0.080
0 004
11
7 9
0 03
<0 01
£60
240
37
150
^00
52
0 27
0 13
Plane t
Minimum Average Maximum
Aluminum
Ammonia as N
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Ca 1 c 1 um
Chloride
Ett
RU
LhF
RU
EH
RU
ttF
KU
tFF
KU
tFt
KU
Ltt
RU
ttF
KU
0 8
<0 1
0 03
0 02
<0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 t
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
67
19
4
3
1.7
t it
0 17
0 08
0 008
<0 005
0 2
0 1
<0 01
<0 01
0 001
0 001
107
27
5
it
3 1
3 6
42
0 26
0 040
<0 005
0 3
0 1
<0 01
<0 01
0 002
0 002
160
35
6
4
Plane C
Minimum Average
<0 001
<0 002
1 5
5 4
<0 01
<0 01
•70
160
4
17
35
34
0 03
0 03
Minimum
0 4
0.1
<0 01
0 01
<0.005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
38
13
2
3
0 003
0 002
6 7
6 2
0 01
0 01
239
197
31
51
99
49
0 14
0 08
Maximum
0 OO'i
0 004
14
7 9
0 Q2
<0 01
420
220
98
150
280
68
0 16
0 13
Plant G
Average Maximum
1 7
1 2
0 12
0 04
0 030
<0 005
0 2
0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
73
20
4
4
2 9
4 1
0 62
0 08
0 070
<0 005
0 4
0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
no
25
8
5
Plane 1)
Minimum Average
<0 002
<0 002
3 2
3 8
<0 01
<0 01
iQO
110
3
1
16
13
<0 01
0 03
Minimum
0 8
<0 2
0 03
0 06
<0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
34
22
8
7
0 070
0 002
4 0
5 2
0 01
<0 01
156
126
15
14
57
16
0 03
0 04
Maximum
0 170
0 004
6 2
9 5
0 01
<0 01
200
140
45
55
84
20
0 07
0 07
Plant il
Average Maximum
1 6
1 0
0 34
0 23
0 123
0 006
0 2
0 1
<0 01
<0 01
0 001
<0 001
50
28
14
14
2 9
1 6
2 60
0 49
0 360
0 010
0 3
0 2
<0 01
<0 01
0 002
<0 001
67
35
22
28
Pldnc K
Minimum Average Maximum
<0 002 0 007 0 014
<0 002 <0 002 <0 002
59 70 84
45 47 50
<0 01 0 01 0 02
<0 01 <0 01 <0 01
240 368 420
80 93 100
246
8 18 38
100 147 210
15 20 25
<0 03 0 05 0 07
0 04 0 08 0 18
Plant I South
Minimum Average Maximum
06 15 26
08 16 30
0 01 0 07 0 31
0 08 0 05 0 10
<0 005 0 036 0 163
<0 005 <0 005 <0 005
<0 1 02 05
01 02 03
<0 01 <0 01 <0 01
<0 01 <0 01 <0 01
<0 001 <0 001 <0 001
<0 001 <0 001 <0 001
44 94 130
17 19 21
4 6 12
468
-------
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 0
Minimum Average Maximum
Plant II
Minimum Average Maximum
Plant I South
Minimum Average Maximum
Chromium
Cupper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silica
Silver
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Sulfdle
Zinc
ti-t
RU
Lit
KU
m
RU
itt
RU
Ett
RU
~t.U
RU
Ltt
RU
bbt
RU
ktt
RU
htt
KU
Lii
KU
LPt
RU
tl t
RU
fcl-F
KU
UF
KU
bit
RU
<0 005
<0 005
<0 0!
<0 01
<0 01
<0 05
0 10
<0 010
<0 010
0 3
3 5
<0 01
0 06
<0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
0 006
<0 002
3 9
3 5
<0 01
<0 01
230
90
-------
Table V-34 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TVA TRACE METAL DATA FOR ASH POND INTAKE
bU ^ AND EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)
Aluminum
Atmiioiila as N
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
!_, Calcium
Ol
to
Chloride
Chromium
Cupper
Cyanide
Iron
lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
EFF
ItW
m
KM
htt
KM
bFF
RH
EtF
RH
EFF
RW
bFF
RM
ttF
RM
bFF
RW
ret
RW
hFF
RW
hFF
RW
EFF
RW
EFF
RW
LFt
RM
E*F
RW
t>F
RW
Minimum
0 A
0 3
0 01
0 01
0 DOS
0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
^0
It
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 i
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
Maximum
7 6
1 4
0 08
0 2J
0 HO
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
Minimum
0 5
0 6
0 02
0 04
0 005
0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
44
12
6
4
<0 005
<0 005
0 01
<0 01
<0 01
0 II
0 66
0 010
0 01
0 4
2 5
0 01
0 07
<0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
Plant K
Average
1 U
2 0
0 06
0 09
0 033
0 009
0 2
0 t
<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 01
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
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
32
13
4
4
<0 005
<0 005
<0 01
<0 01
<0 01
0 05
0 28
0 010
0 010
0 4
3 4
0 01
0 03
0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
Plant: I.
Average
2 0
1 2
0 52
0 06
0 032
0 006
0 1
0 1
<0 01
<0 01
0 001
<0 001
54
17
6
6
0 009
0 009
0 06
0.07
<0 01
0 56
1 03
0 017
0 016
2 6
3 9
0 03
0 07
0 0003
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
Maximum
2 6
2 8
0.40
0 08
0 070
0 010
0 2
0 2
<0 01
<0 01
0 004
<0 001
91
21
9
8
0 018
0 021
0 14
0 14
<0 01
1 00
2 40
0 04J
0 032
4 2
4 4
0 13
0 12
0 0009
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
-------
Table V-34 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TVA TRACE METAL DATA FOR ASH POND INTAKE
AND EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)
U)
Plant J
Minimum Average Hd'lmu1"
Selenium
Silica
Silver
Dissolved
Solids
Suspender)
Solids
Sulfate
Zinc
EFF
RM
fcFF
RM
tFF
RM
fcH"
RM
tFt
RM
tFF
RW
tF*
RW
<0 00 1
<0 001
3 5
1 0
<0 01
<0 01
140
30
J
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
0 006
8 7
5 0
<0 01
<0 01
250
210
81
35
180
80
0 25
0 09
PI a" I K
Mini iiuii Average Maximum
<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 II
0 il
Plant L
Minimum Average Maximum
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 1
<0 01
<0 01
211
88
12
14
80
13
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
HOTh Effluent data based on years 1973-1975
Raw water intake data based on years 1974 and 1975
Kfclf
EFb - effluent
RW - raw water (intakes)
-------
The average concentrations of calcium, chloride, iron, magnesium, and
manganese varied considerably from one effluent to another, wnile 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
164
-------
Table V-35
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATION CONDITIONS AND ASH CHARACTERISTICS
OF TVA COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS (22)
CT>
U1
Parameters
Method of Hrlng
Coul Source u
Ash ( onLcnt In Coal, Z
Fly Ash of Total Ash, Z
Bottom Ash of lotfll Ash, Z
Sulfur Content In (oal, Z
Coal Uuage at hull 1 0 id
(tons/day)
Number of Unite
ESP Efficiency, Z
Mechanical Ash Collector
Efficiency, Z
Overall Efficiency, Z
Sluice Hater to Ash Ratio
(gal/ton)
pll of Intake Hater
Suspended Solids Concentration
of Intake Water (rng/1)
Alkalinity of Intake Hater
(rag/1 as Ca(03)
Z 3I02 In My Ash
Z C aO In Hy Ash
Z t £^03 in My Ash
Z Al^Oj In Fly Ash
Z 1)30 In hly Ash
Z bO3 In Fly Ash
Z Moisture In Fly Ash
pll of Fly Ash
Ash Pond Effluent
Ash loud Effluent Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
Plant C
Cyclone
Kstt— ky
1!
30
70
3 0
7848
3
-
90-99
-
23065
7 4
81
83
47 6
1 72
11 3
22 7
0 93
2 2
1 04
2 9
; i
30
Plant D
Tangential
E »-! t-ck>
15 5
75
25
1 2
8«0
1
99
-
99
10770
7 5
15
95
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8 4
19
Plant E
Circular
Wall Burner
U Ker c iek> I.
S
15 3
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
2 5
2,19
10 2
25 5
1 42
1 9
0 63
J 6
8 7
19
Plant I
Circular
Wall Burner
W Kentucky
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
II 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
Wall Burner
S Illinois
U Kentucky
15 6
75
25
2 8
15304
10
60
95
98
17265
7 6
38
66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10 8
17
Plant L
Circular
Wall Burner
U Kentucky
N Alabaui
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
NO IE Intake water characteristics based on 1974 a-nd 1975 weekly sainplca
Ash pond effluent characteristics bmcd on 1970-1975 weekly samples
All plants use combined fly ash/bottom ash pondt>
-------
Table V-36
NUMBER OF ASH PONDS IN WHICH AVERAGE EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED TRACE ELEMENTS EXCEED
THOSE OF THE INTAKE WATER (22)
Element No. Exceeding
Aluminum 10
Ammonia 9
Arsenic 15
Barium 7
Beryllium 1
Cadmium 7
Calcium 15
Chloride 8
Chromium 10
Copper 5
Cyanide 3
Iron 4
Lead 8
Magnesium 6
Manganese 5
Mercury 12
Nickel 10
Selenium 14
Silica 12
Silver 2
Sulfate 15
Zinc 7
NOTE. The total number of ash ponds is 15.
166
-------
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
RU
nFF
RU
EtF
RU
htt
KU
RU
RU
RU
htt
RU
RU
UP
RU
Ett
RU
E*F
KU
RW
KU
KU
KW
Ett
RU
btt
KU
Minimum
0 5
0 5
0 04
0 02
<0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
23
21
4
4
<0 005
<0 005
0 01
0 04
<0 01
1.7
1 1
<0 010
<0 010
0 3
4 1
0 07
1 0 08
<0 00.02
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
<0 001
<0 001
Plant A
Bottom Aah
Average Maximum
3 2
2 6
0 ti
0 07
0 007
<0.005
0 1
0 2
<0 01
<0 01
0 001
0 001
38
35
7
6
0 007
0 010
0 07
0 09
<0 01
5.2
2 7
0 017
0 021
6 0
6.1
0 17
0 13
0 0005
<0 0002
0 06
<0 05
0 002
0 002
8 0
6 7
0 34
0 14
0 015
<0 005
0 1
0 4
<0 01
<0 01
0 002
0 004
67
48
IS
10
0 023
0 024
0 14
0 19
<0 01
II
6 7
0 031
0 038
9 3
8 0
0 26
0 25
0 0026
<0 0002
0 12
<0 05
0 004
0 002
Minimum
3 6
0 5
0 02
0 02
0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
0 023
0 001
88
21
4
4
0 012
0 005
0 16
0 04
<0 01
0 33
1 1
<0 010
<0 010
9 4
4 1
0 29
0 08
<0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
<0 001
<0 001
Plant A
tly Ash
Average
7 9
2 6
0 75
0 07
0 Oil
<0 005
0 2
0 2
0 01
<0 01
0 038
0 001
126
35
7
6
0 072
0 010
0 33
0 09
<0 01
2 3
2 7
0 066
0 021
14
6 1
0 49
0 13
0 0003
<0 0002
0 OB
<0 05
0 002
<0 002
Maximum
13
6 7
3 l
0 14
0 035
<0 005
0 4
0 4
0 02
<0 01
0 052
0 004
180
48
14
10
0.170
0 024
0 45
0 19
<0 01
8 6
6 7
0 200
0 038
20
a o
0 6J
0 25
0 0006
<0 0002
0 IJ
<0 05
0 004
<0 002
Minimum
0 4
0 4
<0 01
0 04
<0 005
<0 005
<0 1
<0 1
<0 01
<0 01
<0 001
<0 001
17
17
5
4
<0 005
<0 005
<0 01
<0 01
<0 01
0 26
0 32
<0 010
<0 01
4 1
3 6
0 02
0 04
<0 0002
<0 0002
<0 05
<0 05
<0 001
<0 002
Plant B
Bottom Ash
Average Maximum
2 2
0 8
0 07
0 08
0 014
<0 005
0 t
<0 1
-------
00
Table V-37 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY TRACE METAL DATA FOR ASH POND INTAKE AND
EFFLUENT STREAMS (22)
Plant A
Bottom Auh
Minimum Average Maximum
riant A
Fly Aali
Minimum Average
Maximum
Plant B
Bottom Ash
Minimum Average Maximum
Plant B
Fly Ash
Minimum Average
Maximum
Silica
Silver
Dissolved
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Sulfate
Zinc
bFF
RW
htt
RU
EFF
RU
EtF
KU
tft
RU
EtF
KU
5 6
1.7
-------
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 Uie 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 JO 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
i
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 lor 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 froir less than 1 ppb to 416
ppb
169
-------
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, %
Sulfur Content in Coal, %
Coal Usage at Full Load (tons/day)
Number of Units
ESP Efficiency, %
Mechanical Ash Collector Efficiency,
Overall Efficiency, 70
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 CaC03>
% Si02 in Fly Ash
78 CaO in Fly Ash
% Fe203 in Fly Ash
% A1203 in Fly Ash
% MgO in Fly Ash
Plant A
Cyclone
W. Kentucky
18.8
30
70
4.1
22901
3
7o 98
98
12380f
981 Ob
7.7
60
97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Plant B
Circular
Wall Burners
W. Kentucky
14.8
50
50
3314
4
7.5
41
56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
170
-------
Table \T-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 25^
(tng/1) 55b 64b
fFly Ash Pond Only
^Bottom Ash Pond Only
NOTE. Intake water characteristics based on 1974 and 1975
weekly samples. Ash pond effluent characteristics
based on 1970-1075 weekly samples.
171
-------
Table V-39
ASH POND EFFLUENT TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS* (23)
to
Station Location
Western W. Virginia
Eastern Ohio
Southern Ohio
Eastern Michigan
Southeast Michigan
Southeast Ohio
Eastern Missouri
Central Utah
Western W. Virginia
Southern Ohio
Ash Pond Type
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Fly
Fly
Bottom
Bottom
Fly
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
AO
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 Phtnalate
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
Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Arsenic, Total
Asoestos (fibers/liter)
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Cyani.de, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Sliver, 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
1 1
6
0.21
8
32
10
3/2
ND < 1
ND<1/2
ND<1/31
40
ND < 1
11/70
30/ND<1
1
1
2
50
0
14
66
80
8
0.63
144
22
52
8
41
173
-------
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
Tnchlorofluoromethane
Phenol
Bis(2-EthyIhexyl) Phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Selenium, Total
Sliver, Total
Zinc, Total
3404 Benzene
(Bottom Chloroform
Ash) 1,1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Bis(2-EthyIhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Toluene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Sliver, Total
Zinc, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake
1/6
2
1/3
20
22/10
40
2
ND < 1
1
42/14
2
3
39
6
19
0.23
11
12
5
1
3/1
1/1
20/1
NDO/36
11
4
3/3
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
ND< 1/1
1 /ND<1
4/ND<1
1/20
9
1
3/2
12
14
13
20
29
5
0.32
33
42
19
8
174
-------
Table V-40 (Continued)
SCREENING DATA FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Plant
Code
Pollutant
Concentration (ppb)
IntakeDischarge
2512 Benzene
(Fly Ash) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Toluene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Selenium, Total
Zinc, Total
ND<1/ND<1
2/3
1/2
23/12
ND <
2/7
1
7
<5
6
22
<5
0
7
35
<5
2/3
1/NDO
ND< 1 / 2
35/5
4/3
ND <
21
27
1
1
5
7
14
12
0
500
32
17
22
175
-------
Table V-41
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
en
Plant
Code 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
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)*
21/20*(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*(l/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.
()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
1741
(Bottom
Ash)
Pollutant
Cadmium, Total (Dissolved)
Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Copper, Total (Dissolved)
Lead, Total (Dissolved)
Mercury, Total
Nickel, 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 (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)*
(J)
(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<15,000)
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 POND OVERFLOW
oo
Pollutant
1741 Cadmium, Total (Dissolved)
(Fly Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Ash) 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)
Intake!
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)*
(ND/20)*
(40)
tSame intake a& 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
vj
vo
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
Silver, Total
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 -----
i,2-Dicnioroben2ene 5.3 -----
Ethylbenzene ----- D < 1
Toluene 2 3.5
Trichloroethylene D < 4 -----
Antimony, Total 3 6
Beryllium, Total ND < 0.5 2.5
Cadmium, Total 1.4 1.0
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.
() Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
-------
Table V-41 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
AND ANALYSIS REPORfS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
oo
Plant
Code Pollutant
2603 Benzene
(Combined Chloroform
Fly Ash 1,1-Diehloroethylene
and Hot- Ethylbenzene
torn Ash Methylene Chloride
Pond) Phenol (GC/MS)
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthdlate
Dietby1 Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
TeLrachloroethylene
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
D < 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
0.2
8
ND < 2
ND < 1
88
292,000
9,000
497
Discharge
D < 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.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
-------
Table V-41 (Continued)
Plant
Code
Pollutant
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM'THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
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
Cnloride
Vanadium, Total
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
()Values in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
Intake
17
ND < 50
48,700
65
15,300
ND < 5
23,600
36
18
842
1.2
9.1
4
ND < 0.5 *
ND < 0.5
ND < 2
700
4
6
ND < 0.2
ND < 0.5
ND < 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 FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
oo
u>
Pollutant
3920 Beryllium, Total (Dissolved)
(Fly Ash) 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)*
2b/ND<3*(14/ND<5)*
ND/NIK60*(ND/ND<60)*
220,000
12,000
5,000
NIK50(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*(NO/40)*
8/WD<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.
()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
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)
Magnesium, 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 Disbolved 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/NIX20*(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
oo
en
Pollutant
3001 Barium Total (Dissolved)
(Cont'd) 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-Te trachloroethane
Zinc. (Dissolved)
5410 Cadmium, Total (Dissolved)
(Combined Chromium, Total (Dissolved)
Fly Ash Copper, Total (Dissolved)
and Hot- Lead, Total (Dissolved)
torn Ash Nickel, Total (Dissolved)
Pond) 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(NI)<5)
57,000(66,000)
ND < 5(20)
200
ND/ND<10*
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)
Plant
Code
5410
(Cont'd)
00
4203
(Combined
Fly Ash
and Bot-
tom Ash
Pond)
Pollutant
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND EPA SURVEILLANCE
AND ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR ASH POND OVERFLOW
Concentration (ppb)
Calcium, Total (Dissolved)
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)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethylene
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
Intake
27,000(27,000)
ND < 5
40(ND<5)
7,700(7,300)
ND < 5
9
18,000(17,000)
10(ND<5)
ND < 20
400
ND/ND<10*
ND < 20
ND
0.68
0.17
3.8
0.4
0.57
D < 0.1
2
4
3
8
1.7
18
3
ND < 2 *
32
1,100
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
ND < 2
13
8
1.2
24
ND < 1
2
15
1,200
*These multiple results represent analyses by multiple analytical labs.
QValues in parentheses indicate dissolved fractions.
-------
Table V-42
CONDITIONS UNDER *JHICH ARSENIC IN ASH POND OVERFLOW EXCEEDS 0.05 mg/1 (19)
(mg/1)
['lain
00
Oil and No of
11 let,
Code
3/11
3/08
0512
3710
4218
3701
2103
3805
o -
(ajiacily Fuel* pll
781 c/o 6 48
466
1341
290
1163
421
694
660
coal
oil
i/o 8 48
c 8 29
c/o V 07
c/o 6 63
c/o
c 84
c
1SS
24 5
14 7
16 5
127
36 8
18 0
20
!5
At.
*
0 06
0 14
0 19
0 416
0 131
0 09
0 21
0 06
( u
0 1
0 1
0 01
0 12
0 0/5
0 05
0 15
0 II
(r (d
0 05 0 02
0 05 0 02
0 01
0 05 0 02
0 002
0 05 0 01
0 005
0 02 0 002
Ni K I'b
0 1 0 36 01
0 1 0 14 01
0 01 0 63 0 14
01 03 01
0 038 0 74 0 002
0 05 0 47 0 05
0 005 0 52 0 007
0 01
0 002
0 003
0 001
0 0023
0 0005
0 001
0 0001
0 0001
Zn So Creast
0 14 0 007 0 23
0 01 0 005
0 04 0 Oil
0 II 0 05
0 087
0 05 0 10
0 02 0 01
0 04
0 16
4 0
0 13
0 9
1 0
0 79
-
Saui|
18
6
7
»
1
3
3
1
-------
Table V-43
ARSENIC CONCENTRATIONS IN ASH POND EFFLUENTS (23, 24)
00
00
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
Type
Bottom
Bottom
Bot torn
Bottom
Fly
Fly
Bottom
Bottom
Fly
Fly
Combined
Combined
Combined
Effluent
Concentrations
(ppb)a
<5
7
<5
30
40
200
20
<5
8
10
<1
9
74
Plant Water
Intake Cone.
(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/foi 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 out 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+, Cl~, So42, etc ) and
precipitates containing calcium/magnesium cations Products of boiler
corrosion are soluble and insoluble species of iron, copper, and other
metals. A nurnoer 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) Table V-46 presents a statistical analysis of regional EPA
data on the quality of boiler blowdown It should be noted that mean
concentrations of pnosphorous 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,
189
-------
Table V-44
RECOMMENDED LIMITS OF TOTAL SOLIDS IN
BOILER WATER FOR DRUM BOILERS (25)
Drxun Pressure
(atm)
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
(psi)
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
190
-------
Table V-45
CHEMICAL ADDITIVES COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH
INTERNAL BOILER TREATMENT (25)
Control
Objective
Scale
Corrosion
pH
Solzds
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
Polymethacrylates
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
191
-------
Table V-46
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF BOILER SLOWDOWN CHARACTERISTICS
(Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)
vo
N)
Mean
Number of Concentration
Pollutants Points
(mg/D
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
.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
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 then
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 backwashed
(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 rinsed with
water to wash the remaining voids within the bed
in iii
The resulting exchange wastes are generally acidic or alkaline with
the exception of. sodium chloride solutions wnich are neutral While
these wastes do not have significant amounts of suspended solids,
193
-------
Table V-47
BOILER BLOWDOWN FLOWRATES
(308 questionnaire data)
M
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/plant
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
-
4
0.08
2.7
0.12
650,000
3,717
700,000
8,470
3,810,000
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)
Ul
Pollutant
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Arsenic, Total
Copper, Total
Mercury, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Total Organic Carbon
Phenolics, 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
Chlorodibromomethane
Phenol, GC/MS
Tnchloroelhylene
Antimony, Total
Arsenic, Total
Cadmium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Zinc, Total
Iron, Total
ND < 1
ND <
0.23
4.4
0.07
0.87
0.17
4.2
0.13
2
4
22
20
1 ,
10
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.12
6.4
6
2
5
520
40
1.7
68
60
-------
Table V-48 (Continued)
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DATA FOR BOILER BLOWDOWN
Plant
Code
2603
Unit
Concentration (ppb)
ID
Pollutant
Benzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
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
290
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
60
D < 10
910
ND/15
D < 10
ND
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
D < 10
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 BLOWDOWN
Plant
Code
2603
Unit #1
(Cont'd)
Pollutant
Molybdenum, Total
Sodium, Total
Titanium, Total
Iron, Total
Concentration (ppb)
Intake Discharge
ND < 5
18
842
61
D < 15,000
ND < 5
2603* Benzene
Unit #2 1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Bromoform
Phenol, GC/MS
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Antimony, 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
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 #1
-------
Table V-49
COAGULATING AND FLOCCULATING AGENT CHARACTERISTICS (25)
vo
00
Coagulant/Flocculant
Alum
Al2(804)3 • 14 H20
Aluminate
Ferric Chloride
FeCl2 • 6 H20
Copperas
7 H20
Weighting Agents
(bentenite, kaolin,
montmonllonite)
Absorbents
(powdered carbon,
activated alumina)
Polyelectrolytes
(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 V-50
CLARIFIER 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
88
87
26
26
14
14
29,966
64.8
57,653
210.8
19,779
107.9
74,518.4
200.9
234,909
914
29,820
196.8
7
0.04
-
10
0.11
20
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)
N>
o
o
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
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
Evaporation is a process of purifying water by vaporizing it with a
heat source and condensing the vaporized water The influent water
evaporates and 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
201
-------
Table V-52
ION EXCHANGE MATERIAL TYPES AND REGENERANT REQUIREMENT (25)
to
o
to
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.,
2RC - Na +
2RC - Na _
(Rc)2 - Ca + 2
- Mg + 2
Weak acid ion exchange removes
cations from water in quantities
equivalent to the total alkalinity
present in the water, i.e ,
2RC -
Ca(HC03)2 (Rc) - Ca + 2
Strong acid ion exchange removes
cations of all soluble salts in
water, i.e.,
Rc - II NaCl Rc - Na
1IC1
Weak base ion exchange removes anions
of all strong mineral acids (I^SO^,
I1C1. 1IN03. etc ), 1 e..
2RA - OH + 1)2804 (RA)2 - 804 + 21IOH
Strong base ion exchange removes
anions of all soluble salts in water
i.e .
Regenerant Solution
107. brine (NaGl) solution or
some other solution with a
relatively high sodium con-
tent such as sea water.
I12&04 or IIC1 solutions with
acid strengths as low as
0 5%
I12S04 or 1IC1 solutions with
acid strengths ranging from
2 0-6.0%
NaOII. NII40II, Na2C03 solutions
of variable strength
NaOII solutions at approximate
4 0% strength.
Regenerant
Requirement
Theoretical Amount
110-1207.
200-4007.
120-140%
150-3007.
RA - Oil
RA - HC03
IIOH
-------
Table V-53
ION EXCHANGE SPENT REGENERANT CHARACTERISTICS
(Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)
Mean Standard Minimum Maximum
Pollutant Value Deviation Value Value
pH (122 entries) 6.15 2.45 1.7 10.6
Suspended solids (mg/1) 44 60.14 3.0 305
(88 entries)
Dissolved solids (mg/1) 6,057 2,435 1,894 9,645
(39 entries)
K>
° Oil and Grease (mg/1) 6.0 6.7 0.13 22
(29 entries)
-------
Table V-54
ION EXCHANGE SOFTENER SPENT REGENERANT 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
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 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
37
37
40
40
15
15
I
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)
to
o
Mean
Number of Concentration
Pollutants Points
Log. Mean Standard Deviation Log. Deviation
Copper
Iron
Oil fie Grease
Suspended
Solids
9
9
9
31
.39
.54
2.1
28.4
-.9671
-.6198
.7085
2.4499
.0875
.0831
.4841
36.7079
.2080
.1543
.2404
1.5392
-------
Table V-57
EVAPORATOR SLOWDOWN FLOWRATES
(308 Questionnaire Data)
Number Mean Standard Minimum Maximum
NJ
O
Variable
Fuel.
Flow
Fuel.
Flow
Fuel
Flow
coal*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
_g.as*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
oil*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
of Plants Value Deviation Value Value
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
-------
Reve-se .-smosis
Reverse osmosis is a process in which a senupermeable 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
denuneralizers 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.
208
-------
Table V-58
REVERSE OSMOSIS BRINE FLOWRATES
(308 Questionnaire Data)
N)
O
VO
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)
to
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 Contamlnanta
Oil
Frequency
Potential
Severity
Oil
Suspended Solida 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 clearing Occasional Siignt
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
Clarlfler & Gravity or
Mechanical Separation
1 Isolate from Floor Drains
2 Route to Gravity or
Mechanical Separation
1. Isolate and route clarifier
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 EX)R DEMINERALIZER REGENERANT
Plant
Code
1003
Concentration (ppb)
4203
Pollutant
1,1,1 -Tnchloroethane
Chloroform
Bromoform
Diehlorofluoromethane
Arsenic, Total
Copper, Total
Mercury, Total
Selenium, Total
Zinc, Total
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Chlorobenzene
1 ,1 ,2-Tnchloroethane
Chloroform
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Bromoform
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Nitrobenzene
Phenol, GC/MS
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Intake
ND
68
23
3.8
3
9
1
1
1 04
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
2
4
ND<2
Discharge
2
1.8
__
_
.
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
NJ
M
fO
4203 Copper, Total
(Cont'd) Cyanide, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Sliver, Total
Zinc, Total
Iron, Total
Acetone
2603 Benzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Bromoform
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Phenol, GC/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
•t s
\ .0
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
to
M
U)
2603 Nickel, Total
(Cont'd) Selenium, Total
Thallium, Total
Zinc, 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
17,000
8,000
277
ND<5
63
169,000
9
17,400
15
159,000
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 Halliburton1s Curtain II. If a complexer is
not used, copper chlorides, formed during cleaning operation, react
with boiler tube iron to form soluble iron chlorides whiJe the copper
214
-------
is replated onto the tube surface Use of a copper complexer
interrupts this reaction by complexing the copper (30,31).
Alkaline Deqreaser Alkaline cleaning (flush/boil-out) is commonly
employed prior to boiler cleaning to remove oil-based compounds from
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, 3J).
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)
Ammonical 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 cnemical cleaning of utility boilers is common. It is used in
215
-------
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 in 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
Sulfuric Acid. Sulfuric acid has found limited use in boiler cleaning
operations. It is not feasible for removal of hardness scales due to
the 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 ma]or
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
216
-------
Table V-61
ALLOYS AND CONSTITUENTS 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-nxckel (10%)
Cupro-nicke] (20%)
Monel
Copper
71
71
71
65
65
90
80
70
89
79
23
Iron Nickel
10
20
30
1.0 10
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
217
-------
high value of zinc was due to the presence of zinc in the boiler tube
metal (1).
A number of cleaning agents use complex ing 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.
218
-------
Table V-62
WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIATED CITRIC ACID SOLUTIONS (48)
(mg/D
CONSTITUENTS C-1 C-2 C-3
Silica 40
Phosphorous 200
Copper 220 20 8
Iron 8,300 9,800 10,800
Nickel 130
Zinc 390
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.
219
-------
Table V-63
WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIATED EDTA SOLUTIONS (48)
(mg/D
to
N)
O
CONSTITUENTS
WasLe 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/D
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 V-64 (Continued)
WASTE CONSTITUENTS OF AMMONIACAL SODIUM BROMATE SOLUTIONS (48)
(mg/1)
M
CONSTITUENTS
AB-1
AB-2
AB-3
AB-4
AB-5
AB-6
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
<0.05
409
1.92
0.1
14.9
255
23.6
1.03
0.0
750 117
0.15
0.0
0.01
0.08
59
0.41
<0.005
334 100
0 1.7
<0.01
2.9
0.03
<0.0002
0 0.52
70
<0.002
<0.01
3.7
<1
0.5 0.06
<0.005
790
4.9
<0.01
0.67
0.04
<0.0002
2.5
220
<0.002
<0.02
15
<1
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)
(mg/1)
NJ
NJ
W
CONSTITyENTS
Waste Volume,
million gallons
pH, units
Suspended Solids
COD
TOG
Oil & Grease
Phenols
Silica
NH3 - N
Org. - N
N02 + N03 - N
Phosphorous
Sulfate
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
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 ACID WITHOUT COPPER COMPLEXER SOLUTIONS (48)
(mg/D
CONSTITUENTS
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
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 (1) 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)
cn
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/1)
CONSTITUENTS
Copper
Iron
Nickel
Zinc
HFA-1
9,800
HFA-2
3,600
HFA-3
6,300
HFA-4
2
2,900
5
8
to
to
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.
-------
Ammoniacal Sodium Bromate Ammomated sodium bromate solutions are
used to remove J arge 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 , contencration (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 Comolexer The use of the copper
complexer implfes 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/Formic Acid. Hydroxyacetic/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 wilJ also result in'elevated BOD levels.
Sulfuric Acid. 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.
227
-------
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 (NazC03), 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,
228
-------
Table V-68
AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AND LOADING
IN RAW WASTEWATER FROM FIRESIDE WASHES AT PLANT 3306 (43)
N)
N)
Constituent
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Zinc
Nickel
i
Copper
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Sulfate
TDS
TSS
Oil and Grease
Concentration
1 5 max . , 1.5 ave .
<1 .0 max. , 0.02 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.
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)
Virtually Absent
-------
CO
CO
o
Table V-69
WASTE LOAD DATA FOR BOILER FIRESIDE WASH
(Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)
(mg/D
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)
CO
Variable
Number Mean Standard Minimum Maximum
of Plants Value Deviation Value Value
Fuel
Flow
Fuel
Flow
Fuel
Flow
coal*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
_£dS*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
oil*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
42
42
40
40
81
81
2,658
2.9
512
3. A
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 PREHEATER WASH WATER (1)
(Plant 3410)
COD (mg/1)
SS
TDS
Oil
PH
Cl
S04
Cond.
Hard. (CaC03)
Ca
Mg
Fe (soluble)
Ni
Cr
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 #2
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
232
-------
Table V-72
WASTE LOAD DATA FOR AIR PREHKATER WASH
(Discharge Monitoring Data - EPA Regional Offices)
(mg/D
CO
U)
U)
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)
KJ
CO
Variable
Fuel.
Flow.
Fuel.
Flow
Fuel.
Flow
Coal*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
Gas*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
Oil*
gpd/plant
gpd/MW
Number Mean
of Plants Value
148
147
56
56
110
110
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 contributes the most Btu for
power generation in the year 1975.
-------
2. LabOtf 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 oE 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 + J3.0082 (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.
2FeS2 + 702 + 2H20 * 2FeSO«, + 2H2S04 (11)
The ferrous iron (Fe2*) then undergoes oxidation to the ferric state
(Fe3+) as shown in equation 12.
4FeSO«. * 2H2S04 + 02 * 2Fe2(S04)3 + 2H20 (12)
The reaction may proceed to form ferric hydroxide or basic ferric
sulfate as shown in equations 13'and 14, respectively.
Fe2(S04)3 + 6H20 -r 2Fe(OH)3 * 3H2SOA (13)
Fe,(S04)3 + 2H20 # 2Fe(OH(SO*)) + H2S04 (14)
235
-------
The ±erri.c iron can also directly oxidize pyrite to produce more
ferrous iron and sulfuric acid as shown in equation 15
FeS2 + 14Fe+3 + 8H20 •? ISFe+z + 2S04-2 + 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, chemoautotrophic bacteria become active These bacteria,
Thiobacillus ferroxiduns, Ferrobacillus ferroxidans, Metal logenium,
and similar species are active at pH 2.0 to 4 5 and use C02 as their
carbon source (45). These bacteria are responsible for the oxidation
of ferrous iron to ferric state, tne 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
7. 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 beri Ilium.
236
-------
Table V-74
CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL PILE RUNOFF (44)
U>
Plant pH
J
E
E*
Range
Mean
N
Range
Mean
N
Range
Mean
N
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 )
300-7100
3400
18
860-2100
1360
6
300-1400
710
14
Sulfate
(mg/1)
1800-9600
5160
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
(mg/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 Stonn
-------
to
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
ND*
N+
Range
J Mean
ND*
N+
Range
E Mean
ND*
N+
Cu
0.43-1.4
0.86
0
19
0.01-0.46
0.23
0
6
Cr
<0.005-.011
.007
11
17
<0.005-.011
0.007
3
6
Zn
2.3-16 <
6.68
0
19
1.1-3.7
2.18
0
6
Hg.
<.0002-.0025
.0004
12
20
0.003-.007
0.004
0
5
Cd
.001-<.001
<.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
<.001-.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
18
<. 01-0. 03
0.014
3
4
Number of samples.below detection limits.
-------
Wet Flue Gas Cleaning Processes
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, and 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: SO2 + CaO •»• 1/2H2O & CaSO3 . 1/2H2O
limestone: SO2 + CaC03 + 1/2H20 -? CaSO3 1/2H20 + C02
Oxygen absorbed from the flue gas or surrounding atmosphere causes the
oxidation of absorbed S02. 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.
239
-------
Table V-76
SUMMARY OF NEW AND RETROFIT FGD SYSTEMS BY PROCESS (49)
Operational
Under
Construction
Planned
Total Mo
of °lants
Mew or
Process Type Retrofit
Liurn
Lime/alkaline clyasti
Liae/liaestone
Limestone
Subtotal- Liae/liaes cone
Aqueous
Aqueous carbonate/ fao
fllcar
Oouble alkali
Magnesium oxide
Hoc selected
^•generable not selected
Sodiua carbonate
Wei In* n Lord
Wollraan Lord/ Allied
Chemical
TOTALS
Licte/licescone ' of
total W
H
R
1
1
^
*
M
^
M
R
•I
M
R
M
R
M
R
K,
R
R
M
R
M
1
S
R
VJ
"*
M
S
Mo
4
8
3
0
0
2
3
3
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
17
17
94
84
MW
2 450
1 650
1 170
0
0
20
4 4*3
7°0
8,963
2 460
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
0
0
0
0
125
250
0
0
375
1 1 5
8,563
2 945
Mo
10
0
1
0
0
0
23
1
34
1
0
0
0
0
2
f
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
38
4
MW
4 565
0
500
0
0
0
9 620
425
14 685
425
0
0
0
0
825
277
0
0
0
0
0
0
509
0
500
130
0
340
16,519
1,222
89
35
Mo
0
2
1
3
0
0
5
0
f>
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
18
*
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
26 1
13
25
26
^W
0
660
527
579
0
0
2 380
0
3 407
1 239
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
726
9 500
2,100
0
650
125
0
500
0
0
0
3,532
4,715
Mo
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
2
96
36
yw
8.440
2,310
3.597
579
0
20
21,726
1 ,7°0
33,763
4 699
0
100
400
0
825
277
0
346
9 300
2,100
0
650
759
250
1 ,000
130
375
455
46 922
9,557
72
49
NOTES S - new
R - retrofit
240
-------
Lime 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 sodlum/calciurn-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 tne 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
Na203 to Na2SO,j,
Cool and humidified gas from the prescrubber passes through an
absorption tower, where S02 is removed by absorption into a sodium
hydroxide or sodium sulfite scrubbing solution. The scrunber effluent
liquor is regenerated with lime or limestone in a reaction tank.
The calcium suli:te 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 S02 removal capability due to the loss
of active sodium from the system
Discharges From Non-Regenerable Scrubbing Systems All the non-
regeneraole scrubbing systems nave 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
241
-------
Table V-77
COMPOSITION OF EFFLUENT FROM ONCE-THROUGH MIST ELIMINATOR
WASH UNIT AT WET LIMESTONE SCRUBBER SYSTEM (50)
NJ
Water quality parameter
Acidity (methyl orange), as
, mg/1
Acidity (total), as CaC03 , mg/1
Ammonia nitrogen, mg/1
Calcium, mg/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
-------
Co
COMPOSITION OF
WASH UNIT
Water quality parameter
Aluminum, ing/I
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
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 0.01
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
<0.0002
<0.05
0.024
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.0031
<0.05
0.03
<0.01
5.5
0.016
0.37
<0.0002
<0.05
-
<0.01
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 S02 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 2 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
244
-------
Table V-78
RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN FGD
SLUDGES FROM LIME/LIMESTONE, AND DOUBLE-ALKALI SYSTEMS (52)
Scrubber Constituent
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, ing/kg
0.6-52
0.05-6
0.08-4
105,000-268,000
10-250
8-76
0.23-21
0.01-5
2-17
-48,000
45-430
35,000-473,000
1 ,600-302,000
245
-------
Table V-79
Variable
Fuel• Coal*
Flow. GPD/plant
GPD/MW
Number
of
Plants
34
FLUE GAS SCRUBBER BLOWDOWN
(308 Questionnaire)
Mean Value
671,364.7
811.27
Minimum
Standard Deviation Value
2,572,498.5
1,877,799
0.00
0.00
Maximum Value
15,000,000
8,823.53
to
*Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for power
generation for the year 1975.
-------
Table V-80
Variable
Fuel Coal*
FLUE GAS SCRUBBER SOLIDS POND OVERFLOW
(308 Questionnaire)
Number
of
Plants
Flow GPD/plant 28
GPD/MW 28
Mean Value Standard Deviation
210,724.6
3,973.31
580,849.9
19,814.926
Minimum
Value
0.00
0.00
Maximum Value
2,310,000
195,000
ro
*Fuel designations are determined by the fuel which contributes the most Btu for power
generation for the year 1975.
-------
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
MgSO3 «*• MgO + S02
The concentrated S02 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.
248
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Section 502 of the Clean Water Act (1) defines a pollutant as
follows:
The term "pollutant" means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinera-
tor 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 with the following pollut-
ant parameters:
free available chlorine,
- polychlorinated biphenyls, and
- pH.
The pollutant parameters addressed in the 1974 Development
Document were:
- pH,
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,
- ammo nia,
- total phosphorous,
- phenols,
sulfate,
sulfite,
249
-------
- fluoride,
- chloride,
- bromide,
- iron,
- copper,
- mercury,
- vanadium,
- chromium,
- zinc,
- magnesium, and
- aluminum.
The primary focus for selection of pollutant parameters for BAT,
NSPS, and pretreatment standards is the list of 126 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. Addition-
ally, this program included a review of the wastestreams and
pollutants regulated by the 1974 BAT, NSPS, PSNS and 1977 PSES
regulations.
The toxic pollutants detected in the sampling program are
listed in table VI-1 by waste stream source. Since the sampling
program did not include all plants in this industry, pollutants
which were not detected at the sampled facilities may be dis-
charged from other facilities. For this reason, case-by-case
determinations to regulate specific toxics may be necessary in
those instances where a toxic pollutant is measured in detectable
amounts in a particular discharge.
Pollutants at or below the level of quantification may be present
at very low concentrations. The number of plants which reported
(by questionnaire) various priority pollutants as known or
suspected to be present in their waste streams are presented in
table VI-2. 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 pollutants 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 most likely 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
application was an additional way of identifying priority pollut-
ants in powerplant wastewater discharges.
The following discussion of pollutant parameter selection and
exclusion is based upon raw and treated effluent data collected
by EPA. These data are summarized for the reader in Section V
of this document.
250
-------
Table VI-1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN THE SAMPLING PROGRAM BY
WASTE STREAM SOURCES
Priority Pollutant
Waste Stream Source
NJ
Ul
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroechane
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-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
(Mixed)
2-Chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa 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
0
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
0
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
0
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
to
U1
to
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1,1-Dichloroathylene
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
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Bromoform
Diehlorobromomethane
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
Q
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
Y
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
Ul
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Di-N-Oclyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
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
0
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
0
0
Bottom
Ash
Sluice
Water
0
0
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
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
to
(J\
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Bibenzo(A,H)Anthracene
IndenoO ,2,3,-C,D)Pyrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDD
Endosulfan-Alpha
Endosulfan-Beta
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
BHC-Alpha
BHC-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
o
6
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
Q
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
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
Volume
Waste
0
0
0
0
0
X
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
Ul
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN THE SAMPLING PROGRAM 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
V
A
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
0
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
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coal
Pile
Runoff
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
0
X
0
X
0
0
0
X
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
NUMBER Of PLANTS REPORTING VARIOUS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
AS KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO BE PRESENT IN VARIOUS WASTE STREAMS
(308 questionnaire data)
Priority Pollutant
Acenaphten
Acrolexn
Acrylonxtrxle
Aldrin-dxeldrin
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 23456
9
0
0
0
108
155
5
0
0
96
124
0
0
1
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
0
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
256
-------
Table VI-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
Heptachlor and Metabolities 000000
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 1 09001
Phenol 5 6 2 1 2 19
Phthalate Esters 000001
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons 10000 0
Selenium and Compounds 120 0 2 0 1 20
Sliver and Compounds 83 3 2 0 0 26
Tetrachloroethylene 000100
Thallium and Compounds 34 0 2 0 0 2
Toluene 0 0 0 0 0 18
Trichloroethylene 000500
Vanadium 94 0 2 0 0 6
Vinyl chloride 00001 0
Zinc and Compounds 142 7 22 9 59 49
257
-------
Table VI-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
Was t e S tr e am*
Priority Polutant 1 2 3 4 5 6_
2-chlorophenol 000000
2,4 Dichlorophenol 000000
2,4 Dimethylphenol 000107
*Waste Streams:
1 - ash transport water
2 - water treatment wastes
3 - cooling system wastes
4 - maintenance wastes
5 - construction wastes
6 - other wastes
258
-------
Table VI-3
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING PROPRIETARY CHEMICALS
USED BY POWER PLANTS
(308 questionnaire data)
Proprietary Chemical
(point of application*)
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 40P (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
259
-------
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
260
-------
ONCE THROUGH COOLING WATER
Chlorine. Chlorine may be present in cooling water as free
available chJorine (FAC) or as combined residual* chlorine (CRC).
It may be measured as FAC, CRC, or total residual chlorine
(TRC); the latter measures both CRC and FAC.
FAC is the most toxic pollutant, of the three. However, CRC is
also toxic to aquatic life.3' 'c Limits on FAC alone would
ignore the toxic contribution of CRC. Therefore, EPA concluded
that regulation of TRC would better protect aquatic life
from the toxic effects of both FAC and CRC. For this same
reason EPA based the EPA water quality criteria for chlorine on
TRC rather than FAC or TRC.a
Toxics. The discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds
(PCBs) is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, the
seven PCBs on the list of 126 toxic pollutants. PCBs have been
prohibited from discharge in this industry since 1974.
The following 95 toxic pollutants are excluded from national
regulation for direct and indirect dischargers because they were
not detected by Section 304(h) analytical methods or other
state-of-the-art methods:
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzidene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2 ,4-Tnchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa Cresol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
2,4-Dime thylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene <
f- Quality Criteria for Water, EPA, July 1976.
Chlorine Toxicity in Aquatic Ecosystems, Turner and Thayer,
1980.
° Chlorine Toxicity as a Function of Environmental Variables
and Species Tolerance, Edison Electric Institute, November,
1981.
261
-------
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(G,H,IJPerylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3,-C,D) Pyrene
Pyrene
Vinyl Chloride
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE
Endosulfan-Alpha
Endosulfan-Be ta
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
BHC-Alpha
BHC-Beta
BHC(Lindane)-Gama
BHC-Delta
Toxaphene
262
-------
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2-Chlorophenol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Nitrobenzene
4,4-ODD
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cyanide
The following seven toxic pollutants are excluded from regula-
tion for direct and indirect dischargers because their detection
in the final effluent samples is believed to be attributed to
laboratory analysis and sampling contamination. Therefore, EPA
believes these pollutants, although monitored in the effluents,
are not detectable as a result of their presence in the effluent
but rather as a result of contamination.
Methylene Chloride
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
The following 24 toxic pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because they are present in amounts too small to be
effectively reduced by technologies known to the Administrator.
The observed levels are generally less than 10 ug/1.
Benzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
2-Chloronaphthalene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroe thylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Antimony
Arsenic
263
-------
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
The following three toxjc pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because the pollutants are detectable in only a small
number of sources and are uniquely related to those sources and
because the pollutants are present in amounts too small to be
effectively reduced by technologies known to the Administrator.
Chloroform
Bromoform
Chlorodibromomethane
COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN (Recirculating Cooling Water Systems).
D]rect Dischargers
Chlorine. The Agency considered regulating chlorine by limiting
total residual chlorine (TRC) as discussed above for once through
cooling water. However, the Agency reexamined the data pertain-
ing to chlorine. The Agency found that the flow of this waste
stream was less than one percent of once-through cooling water
flow for the industry. Less than 0.5 percent of the TRC which
would be removed by regulating both cooling tower blowdown and
once-through cooling water is attributable to cooling tower
blowdown. EPA therefore concluded that the appropriate emphasis
on TRC control should be in the once-through cooling waste
stream and that BAT and NSPS for recirculating cooling systems
should equal the FAC limits in previously promulgated BAT and
NSPS.
Toxics. Of the 126 toxic pollutants, 124 are prohibited in
detectable amounts where they are contained in cooling tower
maintenance chemicals. This is based upon the Agency's finding
that commercial cooling tower maintenance chemicals may contain
one or more of the toxic pollutants, as discussed in Section V
and VII and presented in Table VI-3.
The other two toxic pollutants, chromium and zinc, are retained
for regulation from the 1974 regulation.
264
-------
Indirect Dischargers
Toxics. The 126 toxic pollutants are regulate'd as for direct
dischargers. Since equivalent pollutant removals are required
for indirect and direct dischargers, EPA determined that a zero
discharge pretreatment standard for the 124 toxic pollutants was
the means of assuring that no such priority pollutants would pass
through a POTW.,
Low Volume Wa&tewaters
Direct Dischargers
The discharge of PCBs is prohibited for BAT and NSPS. This
includes, but is not limited to, the seven PCBs on the list of
toxic pollutants. PCBs have been regulated since 1974 in this
industry. For NSPS, oil and grease continues to be regulated.
Indirect Dischargers
The discharge of PCBs is prohibited, as for direct dischargers.
Toxic Pollutants Excluded
The following 78 toxic pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because they are not detected by Section 304(h)
analytical methods or other state-of-the-art methods:
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzidene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)
2,4 ,6-Tnchlorophenol
Parachlorometa Cresol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydraz me
Fluoranthene
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
265
-------
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
N-Nitros odime thylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene
Indenod,2,3,-C,D) Pyrene
Pyrene
Vinyl Chloride
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE
Endosulfan-Alpha
Endosulfan-Beta
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
BHC-Alpha
BHC-Beta
BHC(Lindane)-Gama
BHC-Delta
Toxaphene
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin
2-Chloronaphthalene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Pentachlorophenol
Asbestos
Beryllium
266
-------
The following 34 toxic pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because they are present in amounts too small to be
effectively reduced by technologies known to the Administrator.
The observed levels are generally less than 10 ug/1.
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trich]oroethane
1,1,2-Trich]oroethane
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Bromoform
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlordibromomethane
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
4,4-ODD
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Ch romi urn
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
The following seven toxic pollutants are excluded from regulation
because their detection in the final effluent samples is believed
to be attributed to laboratory analysis and sampling contamina-
tion. Therefore, EPA believes these pollutants, although moni-
tored in the effluent are not detectable as a result of their
presence in the effluent but rather as a result of contamination.
267
-------
•"Pthylene Chloride
sis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Fly Ash Handling
Direct Dischargers
BAT. The discharge of PCBs is prohibited for BAT, as in the
1974 BAT regulation. No non-conventional pollutants were identi-
fied for national regulation.
The discharge of all wastewater pollutants is prohibited.
The discharge of PCBs is prohibited, as in the 1977 PSES
regulation.
PSNS. The discharge of all wastewater pollutants is prohibited.
Bottom Ash Handling
Direct Dischargers
The discharge of PCBs is prohibited for BAT and NSPS. This
includes, but is not limited to, the seven PCBs on the list of
toxic pollutants. PCBs have been regulated in this industry
since 1974. Also, for NSPS, regulation of total suspended solids
and oil and grease is retained from the 1974 NSPS.
Indirect Dischargers
The discharge of PCBs is prohibited for PSES and PSNS as for
direct dischargers.
Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes
Direct Dischargers
The discharge of PCBs is prohibited. This includes, but is not
limited to, the seven PCBs on the list of toxic pollutants. This
is an extension of the 1974 prohibition on the discharge of PCBs.
The toxic pollutant copper and the non-conventiona] pollutant
iron are regulated. This is an extension of the 1974 regulation.
268
-------
Indirect Dischargers
The discharge of PCBs is prohibited for direct dischargers.
Also, the toxic pollutant copper is regulated for PSES and PSNS.
These are an extension of the 1977 PSES requirements.
Direct and Indirect Dischargers
The following 105 toxic pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because they were not detected by Section 304(h)
analytical methods or other state-of-the-art methods:
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
AeryIonitrlie
Benzidene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Te trachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa Cresol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydraz me
Fluoranthene
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitros odi-N-Propylamine
Benzo(A)Anth racene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
269
-------
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(G,H,1)Perylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene
Indenod,2,3,-C,D) Pyrene
Pyrene
Vinyl Chloride
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE
Endosulfan-Alpha
Endosulfan-Beta
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
BHC-Alpha
BHC-Beta
BHC(Lindane)-Gama
BHC-Delta
Toxaphene
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Bromoform
D i chlorobromome thane
Chlorodibromomethane
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
4,4-DDD
270
-------
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Cyanide
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
The following six toxic pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because sufficient protection is already provided by
the Agency's guidelines and standards under the Act. The BAT,
PSES, PSNS, and NSPS limitations for copper and iron will effec-
tively control the discharge of these pollutants.
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
The following seven toxic pollutants are excluded from regulation
because their detection in the final effluent samples is believed
to be attributed to laboratory analysis and sampling contamina-
tion. Therefore, EPA believes these pollutants, although moni-
tored in the effluent are not detectable as a result of their
presence in the effluent but rather as a result of contamination.
Methylene Chloride
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
COAL PILE RUNOFF
Direct, Dischargers
The discharge of PCB's is prohibited. This includes, but is not
limited to, the seven PCB's on the list of toxic pollutants.
This is an extension of the 1974 prohibition on PCB's. For BAT,
no non-conventional pollutants were selected for national regula-
tion. For NSPS, total suspended solids is regulated, as in the
1974 regulations.
271
-------
Indirect Dischargers
The discharge of PCB's is prohibited as for direct dischargers.
Direct and Indirect Dischargers
The following 105 toxic pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because they were not detected by Section 304(h)
analytical methods or other state-of-the-art methods:
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Aerylonitrlie
Benzidene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa Cresol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydraz me
Pluoranthene
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Bromide
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dmitro-O-Cresol
N-Nitros odime thylamine
N-Nitros odipheny1amine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
272
-------
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3,-C,D) Pyrene
Pyrene
Vinyl Chloride
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE
Endosulfan-Alpha
Endosulfan-Beta
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
BHC-Alpha
BHC-Beta
BHC(Lindane)-Gama
BHC-Delta
Toxaphene
2,3,7,8~Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Tnchloroe thane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
2-4-Dichlorophenol
Ethylbenzene
Bromoform
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlordibromomethane
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
273
-------
4,4-DDD
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Cyanide
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
The following seven toxic pollutants are excluded from national
regulation because sufficient protection is already provided by
the Agency's guidelines and standards under the Act. The BPT
and NSPS limitation for total suspended solids will effectively
control the discharge of these pollutants.
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
The following seven toxic pollutants are excluded from regulation
because their detection in the final effluent samples is believed
to be attributed to laboratory analysis and sampling contamina-
tion. Therefore, EPA believes these pollutants, although moni-
tored in the effluent are not detectable as a result of their
presence in the effluent but rather as a result of contamination.
Methylene Chloride
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
274
-------
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.
ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER
In-Plant Discharge Control
Introduction
This section addresses in-plant treatment and control technolo-
gies that were judged to be effective in reducing or eliminating
the concentration of total residual chlorine (TRC) in once-
through cooling water. Chemical substitutions and improved
process controls are two technology areas which contain poten-
tially attractive control techniques. Housekeeping practices
were examined for methods of TRC reduction: however, no such
methods were discovered. In addition, changes in the manufac-
turing process were also examined. Although using dry cooling
towers or a complete cooling water recirculation system would be
effective in reducing TRC, these control techniques were judged
not to be feasible from a cost standpoint because of retrofit
costs. The following subsections discuss chemical substitutions
and improved process controls and their associated costs.
Chemical Substitutions
TRC in once-through cooling water results front the application of
chlorine to influent cooling water as a biofouling control agent.
The substitution of other oxidizing agents for the chlorine will
reduce or eliminate TRC in the cooling water. Oxidizing chemi-
cals which were investigated includes
275
-------
- Bromine chloride,
Chlorine dioxide,
- Ozone,
- Bromine,
- Iodine.
The chenicals selected from this list for further evaluation
were: bronine chloride, chlorine dioxide, and ozone.
Bromine Chloride
Description of Technology
A bromine chloride biofouling control facility is identical to a
chlorine biofouling control facility (described in Section 3.1.3)
except for minor changes required by differences in the physical
and chemical properties of bromine chloride and chlorine. Bro-
mine 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 pres-
sure 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 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. Bro-
mine chloride attacks both steel and polyvinyl chloride which are
the materials normally 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 (1, 2).
Previous Industrial Applications
Bromine chloride has been used on a trial basis at three plants
with once-through cooling water systems (3, 4, 5), but is not
currently being used for biofouling control at any steam electric
powerplants (2).
Effectiveness
The substitution of bronine 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. Because of the toxic bromine residuals, this
technology is not a preferred biofouling control technology.
276
-------
Chlorine Dioxide
Description of Technology
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. Two methods
of generating chlorine dioxide for biofouling control, the chlo-
rine gas method and the hypochlorite method, are commonly used.
Chlorine Gas Method. When chlorine gas is dissolved in water,
hypochlorous acid and hydrochloric acid are formed:
C12 -* H20 HOC1 + HC1 (1)
This is the reaction that occurs in the injector of a chlorina-
tion system. The chlorine dioxide biofouling control facility
takes the 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 4 HC1 + 2NaClC-2 2C1C-2 + 2NaCl + H20 (2)
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 VTI-1. The facility contains a complete
chlonnation system as described in the chlorine minimization
section. In addition, the facility includes a sodium chlorite
solution storage container, a metering pump for the sodiun
chlorite solution, and the packed column. The najor component of
the chlorine dioxide facility is the chlonnation system.
The feed rate of chlorine dioxide to the cooling water is con-
trolled by adjusting the feed rates of the chlorine gas and the
sodiun chlorite solution to the packed column. The feed rate of
chlorine gas is controlled by the chlorinator in the chlonnation
system. The feed rate of the sodium chlorite solution is con-
trolled by the metering pump. Since the flow of water through
the packed column is provided by the booster pump in the chlon-
nation system, the flow remains constant; therefore, changes in
the feed rates of chlorine gas and sodiun chlorite solution
result in changes in the concentration of chlorine dioxide gas in
the water entering the diffuser.
277
-------
CL02 SOLUTION TO
COOLING WATER
PACKED
COLUMN
CHLORINATED WATER
CHLORINATION
SYSTEM
S
SODIUM
CHLORITE
SOLUTION
Figure VII 3
Simplified, Schematic Diagram of a Chlorine Dioxide Biofouling Control Facility
Based on the Chlorine Gas Method (6)
278
-------
Hypochlorite Method. When sodium hypochlorite is dissolved in
water, hypochlorous acid and sodium hydroxide are formed:
NaOCl + H20 HOC1 + NaOH (3)
Reaction of the hypochlorous acid with a sodium chlorite solution
produces chlorine dioxide:
2HOC1 + 4NaClO2 + H2S(>4
(4)
4C102 + N32SO4 + 2NaCl + 2H20
The sodium hydroxide formed in the reaction represented by equa-
tion 3 raises the pH of the solution above the optimum for the
reaction in equation 4; therefore, sulfuric acid is added to the
reaction represented by equation 4 to lower the pH. The reac-
tions in equations 3 and 4 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 3n figure VII-2. A side stream of cooling water is
punped 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 reaction in equation 32 has
occurred and the pH is at the optimum for the reaction in equa-
tion 4 when the water reaches the column. At this point, a
sodium chlorite solution is added by a metering pump to the
water, and the reaction in equation 4 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 sodiun chlorite solution metering pumps.
Previous Industrial Applications
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 (1).
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 resi-
duals (7); chlorine dioxide residuals are also oxidizing agents.
279
-------
CLO2 SOLUTION
TO COOLING WATER
PACKED
COLUMN
COOLING
[ WATER
SIDESTREAM
to
o>
SODIUM
CHLORITE
SOLUTION
SODIUM
HYPOCHLORITE
SULFURIC
ACID
Figure VII 2
Simplified, Schematic Diagram of a Chlorine Dioxide Biofoulmg Control Facility
Based on the Hypochlonte Method (6}
280
-------
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 (7).
In the absence of data on total residual chlorine in cooling
water treated with chlorine dioxide, it was assumed that the con-
centration 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 (8). 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 pres-
ent, chlorine dioxide residuals, which are also toxic, are
present. Therefore, this is not a preferred technology for
reducing biofouling.
Ozone
Description of Technology
An ozone biofouling control facility consists of three systems:
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 VII-3. The
cell consists of two electrodes separated by a narrow gap. One
electrode is grounded and 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 discharg-
ing 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 oxy-
gen to ozone; consequently, a substantial amount of heat is
produced by the discharge. 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 W3th manufacturer (9, 10).
281
-------
High Voltage
Alternating
Current
HEAT
DISCHARGE GAP
HEAT
>- O3
(grounded)
Figure VII-3
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CORONA CELL (9)
282
-------
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 snail
capacity facilities, air is more economical. For large capacity
facilities, oxygen is nore economical. The breakpoint between
air and oxygen is shown in figure VII-4 as a function of facility
capacity expressed as flow and dosage.
Whether air or oxygen is used, the gas entering the generator
must be dry» Moisture is removed from air by lowering its tem-
perature, 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 genera-
tion 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 genera-
tion by the pressure-swing ,adsorption process is generally used
for oxygen requirements of 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, v/ater
vapor, and nitrogen to produce a gas stream containing 90 to 95
percent oxygen. On-site generation by the cryogenic air separa-
tion process is generally used for oxygen requirements in excess
of 30 tons per day, so this process is rarely used in ozonation
systens (9),
The gas-liquid contacting system consists of a closed tank,
diffusers, arid 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 VTI-5. A typical ozonation facility using oxygen to
generate ozone is shown in figure VII-6. The gas treating sys-
tem, the ozone generating system, and the gas-liquid contacting
system are delineated on the diagrams.
283
-------
80
to
00
H
•^
60
0)
10
•a
0)
H
10
Economics
Favor
Oxygen
Economics
Favor
Air
I I 1
100
Flow Treated (MGD)
Figure VII-4
EFFECT OF OZONATION FACILITY CAPACITY ON
PROCESS CHOICE - OXYGEN VS AIR (28)
-------
AIR
to
00
en
Gas Treating System
<(
~L
5
DRYER
:em
1
1
i
i
I
1 n
WATER
1 H
i
CONTACTOR
1
! i
' TRE/
| WA'
1
Ozone 1 Ga
Generating 1 C<
System |
CLEAN
DISCHA
I
1
MH
r
^TED
rER
s-Liqt
Dntact
Systen
AIR
RGE
DEC
lid
ing
i
OZONE
DECOMPOSITION
DEVICE
Figure VII 5
OZONATION FACILITY USING AIR TO GENERATE OZONE (9)
-------
to
00
PURGE ' - .
OXYGEN RECYCLE LINE | j OZONE DECOMPOSITION
DEVICE
OWrtCM 1 — __-•
UATUUN 1 MfATCD
GENERATOR ! WATER.
I 1
i • i i
1 ' i I
/-V* I |
a+fotA > i — h
x_y i i n n '
CHILLED V ! CONTACTOR
COMPRESSOR WATER T 1
t yv i
HZ0 ^^ 1 .
•___• j yp
DRYER | Vt
, 1
Gas Treating System ' Ozone Generating , Gas
j System • Cc
! ! £
;
f
l^^
k
i
1
EATED
/ATER
i -Liquid
mtacting
iystem
Figure VII-6
OZONATION FACILITY USING OXYGEN TO GENERATE OZONE (9)
-------
Previous Industrial Applications
Ozone is not. currently known to be used tor biofouling control on
a full-scale basis at any steam electric powerplant. Ozone has
been used on a trial basis for biofouling control at one plant
(1).
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 oxidarit residuals, which are also toxic, will probably be
present.
Improved Process Control
Three process control improvements that are options for TRC con-
trol have been evaluated. These are: (1) chlorine minimization,
(2) use of natural chlorine demand, and (3) mechanical cleaning.
Each improved process control option is discussed below.
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 sys-
tem 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 prac-
tical in a once-through system; therefore, chlorine minimization
can be accomplished by reducing any of the following:
o Dose of: chlorine added; where dose is defined as the total
weight of chlorine added per unit volume of cooling water,
i.e., 1 rag/1, 2 mg/1, etc.;
o 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; and
o Frequency of chlorination; where frequency is defined as
the number of chlorination periods per day.
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.
287
-------
Sone plants add chlorine continuously in order to control bio-
fouling 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—and 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.
Description of Technology
A chlorine minimization program as described here has three
components: upgrading the existing chlorination facility,
conducting a minimization study, and implementing the recommen-
dations of the study.
Upgrading Existing Chlorination Facility. An adequate chlorina-
tion facility must include an equipment module, an instrumenta-
tion nodule, and a structural nodule.
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 hypochlonte
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 for gas feed chlorination systems
can be similarly applied to hypochlorite generation systems.
In gas feed chlorination systems, chlorine is manufactured off-
site, 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 (11). 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 snail 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
288
-------
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 deter-
mined from manufacturer's injector efficiency curves. The pres-
sure 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 sun 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 pres-
sure, the proper booster pump can be selected (11).
The hypochlorous 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 perpendi-
cular to the flow of cooling water and discharging at the center
of the condu] t. For open channel flow, the diffusers are per-
forated 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 pipe-
line condition exists when the hypochlorous acid solution is
added to the cooling water before it enters the condensers (11).
The instrumentation module consists of timers, a chlorine resi-
dual analyzer/recorder, a scale, and a chlorine leak detector.
Timers are applicable to intermittent chlorination, not to con-
tinuous chlorination. The timers automatically start and stop
the booster pump which in turn activates and deactivates the
equipment module. The tiners 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 cirid to determine when containers need to be 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 (12).
The structural module consists of a building for the equipment
and instrumentation nodules. The building nust be properly
ventilated and heated. When one-ton chlorine containers are
being used, a hoist nust be provided with the building (11).
289
-------
NJ
>S
O
EXPANSION TANK
PRESSURE SWITCH
DIAPHRAGM PROTECTOR (IF SWITCH
IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH SELF-
CONTAINED PROTECTION)
VENT
BLOW-OFF
VALVE
AUTOMATIC
SHUT-OFF VALVE
(PRESSURE REDUCING
TYPE RECOMMENDED
PRESSURE
- RELIEF
VALVE
RUPTURE DISC AND
INTEGRAL SUPPORT MOUSING
PRESSURE GAUGE
DIAPHRAGM PROTECTOR
LIQUID CHEMICAL TRAP
(RECOMMENDED
LENGTH 18 INCHES)
SUPERHEAT
BAFFLE
LEGEND
M
w
PIPE LINE SHUT-OFF
VALVE (GLOBE OR BALL TYPE)
FLANGE UNION (TONGUE
A GROOVE. AMMONIA TYPE)
LIQUID
CHEMICAL
LIQUID SUPPLY TO HEADER
(MINIMUM OF TWO SERVICE CONNECTIONS!
Figure VII 7
LIQUID SUPPLY CHLORINATION SYSTEM
Reprinted from Instruction Bulletin 70-9001 by Fischer and Porter Co., April, 1977
-------
Figure VII-8
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL CHLORINATOR
Reprinted from Handbook of Chlorination by G C. White by per-
mission of Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Year of first
publication- 1972.
291
-------
in the chlorine solution line. If the vacuun falls below 25
inches of mercury, the metering system will not operate properly.
The flow of water required to avoid these problems can be deter-
mined from manufacturer's injector efficiency curves. The pres-
sure 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 sun 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 Joss through
the injector can also be determined from manufacturer's injector
efficiency curves. Given the required discharge volume and pres-
sure, the proper booster pump can be selected (11).
The hypochlorous 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 perpendi-
cular to the flow of cooling water and discharging at the center
of the conduit. For open channel flow, the diffusers are per-
forated 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 pipe-
line condition exists when the hypochlorous acid solution is
added to the cooling water before it enters the condensers (11).
The instrumentation module consists of timers, a chlorine resi-
dual analyzer/recorder, a scale, and a chlorine leak detector.
Timers are applicable to intermittent chlorination, not to con-
tinuous 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 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 (12).
The structural module consists of a building for the equipment
and instrumentation modules. The building must be properly
ventilated and heated. When one-ton chlorine containers are
being used/ a hoist must be provided with the building (11).
292
-------
Chlorine Minimization Study. A chlorine nininization study
consists of three phases. The first phase establishes the fol-
lowing 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
perfornance drops below the baseline levels. The screening
trials define the minimum chlorine dose, duration and frequency
levels which can maintain adequate condenser perfornance.
Throughout all of the screening trials, the TRC level and
frequency and duration of chlorination for one unit are main-
tained at the baseline levels for the appropriate season of the
year in order to detect any shifts in the baselines.
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 ninimum
value for the parameter under consideration. The other two para-
meters are held constant. The procedure for conducting a set of
screening trials is shown in figure VII-9. The set of screening
trials for TRC level are conducted first using the baseline
levels for duration and frequency of chlorination for the appro-
priate seasons of the year. After the minimum TRC level has been
determined, the set of screening trials for duration of chlorina-
tion 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
ninimun values of TRC level, duration of chlorination, and
frequency of chlorination are known.
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 (13,
14, 15).
293
-------
Figure VII- 9
PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING A SET OF SCREENING TRIALS
TO CONVERGE ON THE MINIMUM VALUE FOR TRC LEVEL,
DURATION OF CHLORINATION, AND CHLORINATION FREQUENCY
Set TRC Level/Duration/Frequency at 1/2 of Baseline Value for Unit 2
Plot Turbine Backpressure Readings Daily
Has Turbine Backpressure Fallen Below the Baseline Level7
No
No
Baa the Steady-State Biofouling
Condition Been Achieved
for this Trial'
Yes
Reset TRC Level/Duration/Frequency
at Baseline Level or Higher,
if necessary
Yes
Is Degree of Convergence on
Value of TRC Level/Duration/
Frequency Adequate9
No
Inspect Condensers for
Biofilm Accumulation
Plot Turbine Backpressure
Readings Daily
No
Has Turbine Backpressure Risen
to Baseline Level7
Reduce the TRC Level/Duration/
Frequency from the Level in the
Proceeding Trial by 1/2 the Level
in the Preceeding Trial
,, Yes
Inspect Condensers for Biofilm
Accumulation
Increase the TRC Level/Duration/
Frequency from the Level in the
Preceeding Trial by 1/2 the Level
in the Preceeding Trial
294
-------
Almost all of the data required to conduct the study are col-
lected 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 mainte-
nance procedure is a qualitative evaluation of the degree of
biofouling in the condensers. A visual inspection of the con-
denser 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 out-
put from the plant.
The performance data are analyzed by 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 contin-
uous 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 imple-
menting the recommendations of the study. Assuming that the
conclusions of the study are that reductions in TRC concentra-
tion, duration of chlorination are possible, 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
295
-------
steps in conducting a chlorine minimization program is provided
in Appendix B. Appendix D presents the details of the analysis
resulting in this conclusion.
Previous Industrial Applications
i
Chlorine minimization has been used at a large number of steam
electric plants. Data are available for 25 plants which have
conducted chlorination minimization studies. Table VII-1
presents the data collected on these plants. From this 25 plant
study/ the Agency estimates that 63% of all once-through cooling
systems that chlorinate (equivalent to 45 percent of all
once-through systems) can achieve the 0.20 ng/1 TRC limit by
chlorine minimization. Appendix D of this document presents the
details of the analyses. The industry estimates that 80% of
once-through capacity that chlorinates will be able to meet a .20
mg/1 TRC limit through minimization.
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 oper-
ating 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 current time limi-
tation 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 were presented in table VII-1. Twenty-five
plants, all with once-through cooling water systems, are repre-
sented. Nine out of the 25 plants shown in table VII-1 were able
to maintain adequate biofouling control at plant discharge levels
of 0.1 mg/1 or less. Six additional plants were able to achieve
TRC discharge levels of 0.2 ng/1 or lower.
A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of chlorine mini-
mization at three Michigan powerplants 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.
296
-------
Table VII-1
SUMMARY OF CHLORINE MINIMISATION STUDIES AT POWER PLANTS
USING ONCE-THROUGH COOLING SYSTEMS
to
nant
Junber
Number
of Units
Chlorine Dosage/Concentration*
(rag/1)
Condenser
Dose Outlet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*0 4 TRC
>0 2 TRC
>0 2 TRC
0 2 TRC
Point
of Water
Dilution
Condenser
Condenser
Unit
Hone
Condenser + Unit
Condenser + Unit
Condenser
None
Condenser + Unit
None
Condenser + Unit
None
Condenser
Unit
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
Quality of
Cooling Water
Seawater
Low TDS
Low TDS
Brackish
Seawater
Seawater
Seawater
Low TDS
<500 ppm TDS
<500 ppm TDS
Low TDS
Low TDS
Brackish
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Biofouling
Problems Reference
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
NO
No
No
No
NO
No
NO
No
NO
NO
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
18
19
20
20
20
13
21
22
22
23
24
24
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Leis than detection limit
Tree Available Chlorine
Total Residual Chlorine
Hot Available
Reprinted from Costs of Chlorine
Systems
At Steam
Discharge
Control Options For Once-Through
Electric Power Plants Draft by Radian
Cooling
Corporation for Effluent
Guidelines Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1981
-------
Reliability
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 con-
denser 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 biofiln formation,
principally, debris blocking the condenser tubes. The other
measures of condenser performance, heat transfer efficiency and
pressure drop across the condenser, are similarly affected and
require more data to calculate (15). 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 for the
shutdown and startup procedures. Unfortunately, no other method
of evaluating turbine back pressure readings is available (15).
Some of the inspections may be required at times when the units
are shutdown for other reasons, thus minimizing the impact of the
inspections. Third, the total residual chlorine measurements may
be in error when the cooling water is drawn from an estuary.
Errors to the high side could cause premature shutdown of the
chlonnation facility and thus increase the potential for severe
biofouling of the condensers. Errors to the low side could
create toxic conditions in the receiving stream as a result of
the chlonnation 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 minimiza-
tion program is begun so that the operators can deal with the
problems as effectively as possible.
Natural Chlorine Demand
Description of Technology
In a once-through plant, this technology essentially consists of
placing the point of chlorine injection directly into or near 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 pumps to the new location
near the condenser inlet box (where the water is at high pres-
sure). In a new plant, the chlonnation system can be designed
to feed into or near the condenser inlet box.
298
-------
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 denand 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 infection (the suction side of the cooling water puinps)
and the new point of 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 denand 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 reduc-
tion in the chlorine dose required to maintain adequate biofoul-
ing control. For this reason, some reports have referred to
noving 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 najor 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 chlori-
nated 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-10 illustrates a hypo-
thetical 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 tine; 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 concen-
tration 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 unchlo-
rinated water being used for dilution will also bring about some
299
-------
dechlorination due to the presence of natural chlorine demand
compounds in the unchlorinated water. The extent to which
dechlorination renoves the remaining free chlorine (after dilu-
tion) 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 by moving the points
of chlorine infection, offers three potential advantages:
1. Less natural dechlorination before the condenser.
2. More unchlorinated water available for dilution.
3. Some natural dechlorination after the cooling water
exits the condenser outlet box.
Previous Industrial Applications
Increased usage of natural chlorine demand has been used as an
effective TRC control technique in many steam electric plants.
No specific data on the number of plants using natural chlorine
demand are available.
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
unchlorinated streams.
300
-------
U)
o
/ \ COOLING WATER /
/ OLD QILORINE INJECTION LINE. \ ^, INTAKE SOURCE -•>__ /
I SHORELINE ONE CONT
v-' BOUNDARY EACH DIP
SIMULTAN
ROL VALVE"; \ \ ^. _,
FUSER "PERATpn*
EOUSLY \
INDIVIDUAL TIMERS AND '
CONTROL VALVES , EftCH
LINE OPERATES AT A \ .
DIFFERENT TIME
INTERVAL
CHLORINATION
BUILDING
i » I
t I "1
i _ _r.i "
NEW
•*" " CHLORINE
INJECTION
LINES
CONDENSER #l.n
T^
1 I 1 I i I
1
y
__ _ -- __s =
••- CONDENSER *lb 1
1
„
8
1
1
-s
2
i
\
- 4.
LI I i
J_
v1 " COMMON "DISCHARGE
> •< CONDUIT -« —
rnMnKNSER #?a -^ i
' """^^
t CONDENSER tftb ^'
1
1
_
?^
I
1
a
i
I
_
a
1
1
1
!
/ OLD
-,. — /• CHLORINE
/ SOLUTION
^f— INTAKE
SCREENS
4 PUMP
HOUSE
* PUMPS
10 FINAL POINT
OF DISCHARGE
FIGURE VII - 10
DECHLORINATION 2Y NATURAL CHLORINE DEMAND
IN A ONCE - THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEM
-------
Reliability
One potential operating problem is immediately apparent when
considering dechlorination by natural chlorine demand. In
once-through cooling systems, there may be a need for biofouling
control in the inlet cooling water tunnel. If the points of
chlorine injection are moved from the entrance to the cooling
water tunnel to the condenser inlet box, there may be a problem
with biofouling in the inlet cooling water tunnels.
Mechanical Cleaning
Technology Description
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 auto-
matic 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 VII-11 and V]1-12. 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.
systen uses flow drive brushes which are passed through the con-
denser tubes intermittently by reversing the flow of condenser
cooling water. The brushes abrasively remove fouling and corro-
sion products. Between cleaning cycles, the brushes are held in
baskets attached at both ends of each tube in the condenser.
Previous Industrial Applications
Mechanical cleaning has been widely used in the steam electric
industry and in other industries using condensers of similar
size. Specific data on the number and location of plants using
mechanical cleaning have not been collected-
Effectiveness
Mechanical cleaning is not always effective in the reduction of
TRC discharges. It may be necessary, periodically, to chlorinate
the cooling water in addition to the mechanical cleaning. At
these times the TRC concentration in the discharge water will
increase.
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 cases, the systems
themselves become fouled and must be cleaned.
302
-------
OUTLET WATER
60X
OJ
o
OJ
COOLING
MATER
OUTLET
STRAINER
SECTION
TURBINE EXHAUST
STEAM
CONDENSER
DOME
, INLET WATER
BOX
,1 1
rl^"
RECIRCULATION
«
x H
f °
i
I
BALL
JLLECT
ATCH FOR INSERTING
R REMOVING BALLS
U, BALL COLLECTING
BASKET
^. BASKET SHUTOFF
FLAP /~t>d
3R
pj
J
^>-
SPONGE RUBBER
BALLS (TYPICAL)
COOLIN6 WATER
INLET
FIGURE VII 11
SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF AMERTAP TUBE CLEANING SYSTEM (25)
-------
CO
o
NORMAL ROW PI PING
BACKWASH R
OPEN
CLOSED
PING
PIPING
0
SECTION OF
CONDENSER BEING
n Afi/wjA^iirn »
UAUixWAjllLU • •-••-••
1
j
/
rKUWl ImANt *
IWJm INI AM. «
TO/^IIT^AI 1 no:
UU 1 rALL "*
•mniiTfTAii _•
''O
/
I
/
'C
\
/c
(
1>
)
'H
/"
.1
/
'c
'0
™»
-i
/
1
!
'C /
^c
/
!
/
-'O >
__ c .
H/l-
r
•'O /
•'o
i"
'0
/
•'C
FIGURE VII - 12
SCHEMATIC OF M A.N SYSTEM REVERSE FLOW PIPING (25)
-------
End of Pipe Treatment
introduction
End of pipe treatment technologies, for the purpose of this
report, have been defined as techniques for the reduction or
elimination of TRC in once-through cooling water after it leaves
the condenser. Technologies which have been evaluated include:
- Dechlorination,
- Vapor compression distillation,
- Evaporation ponds, and
Complete recirculation.
All technologies other than dechlonnation were eliminated from
further consideration for various reasons, including:
- The technology was not believed to be applicable to a
large population of plants;
- The technology was judged to be too complex to be
reliably operated and maintained at a steam electric
planty or
No data was available to establish the effectiveness of
the technology in use at steam electric powerplants or
in similar biofouling control applications.
Dechlorination
Dechlorination is the process of adding a chemical-reducing agent
to the cooling water which reduces chlorine to chloride, a non-
toxic chemical. There are numerous reducing agents available for
this purpose. Only a few have shown themselves to be practical
for use in the water and wastewater treatment industry (26):
1. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
2. Salts Containing Oxidizable Sulfur
a. Sodium Sulfite (Na2SC>3)
b. Sodium Metabisulfite (^28205)
c. Sodium Thiosulfate
3. Ferrous Sulfate (FeSC>4)
4. Ammonia (NH3)
5. Activated Carbon (C)
6. Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2)
305
-------
The use of ferrous sulfate, ammonia, activated carbon, or hydro-
gen peroxide for dechlorination at powerplants has been evaluated
and found to be technically or economically infeasible (26). Any
dechlorination systems in which these chemicals are used were,
therefore, not given further consideration.
Dechlorination via Sulfur Dioxide
Description of Technology
The most common form of dechlorination as practiced in the water
and wastewater treatment industry is injection of sulfur dioxide
(S02) (11). When injected into water, sulfur dioxide reacts
instantaneously to form sulfurous acid (H2S03):
S02 + H2O H2SO3 (5)
The sulfurous acid, in turn, reacts instantaneously with hypo-
chlorous acid (HOC1):
H2S03 + HOC1 H2SO4 + HC1 (6)
Monochloramine also reacts with sulfurous acid:
H2S°3 + NH2C1 + H20 NH4HS04 + HC1 (7)
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 (27).
The equipment required for dechlorination by sulfur dioxide
injection is shown in figure VII-13. As indicated in the figure,
a complete systen includes the following pieces of equipment:
- S02 storage containers,
- expansion chamber-rupture disk,
- SC>2 evaporator,
- S02 gas regulator,
- sulfonator,
ejector,
ejector punp,
- building for systen housing, and
- required timers and control system.
The equipment required for dechlorination by sulfur dioxide
injection is identical to the equipment required for chlorina-
tion, and the description of chlorination equipment is also
applicable to the sulfur dioxide dechlorination systen. Equip-
ment 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 dif-
ferences in the properties of the two gases.
306
-------
CO
O
Strainer
Intake
Water
Source
Vent
Vent
T~Q
u
Expansion
Chamber-
Rupture
Disk
Evaporator
Sulfonator 6r?i
Electric
Heater
Strainer
SO
Containers
To additional
Discharge Conduit*
As Required
Diffuaers
Discharge Conduit
Structure
FIGURE VII - 13
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DECHLORINATION BY SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02) INJECTION
-------
Also shown in figure VII-13 is a typical diffuser assembly
installation in a discharge conduit. The number of diffuser
installations and the 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 con-
duit diameters. In some plants, this length of pipe nay 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 proper placement and use of multiple injectors
which are commercially available (28), inducement of turbulent
flow in the final discharge pipe, or extending the length of the
final discharge pipe.
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 com-
plete dechlorination. In order to provide adequate time for
mixing and reaction of the SO2 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 mollusks,
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.
l
Another 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 any likelihood of forming chlorinated organics.
Previous Industrial Applications
Sulfur dioxide has been used by municipal water and wastewater
treatment plants since 1926 (28). Sulfur dioxide dechlorination
systems have also been installed or are currently being installed
in several United States steam electric plants.
308
-------
A survey by EPA of the steam electric industry was conducted to
identify plants with SO2 dechlorination experience. This
survey and its results were corroborated by industry submittals
and a survey conducted by TVA. The identified facilities are
listed in table VII-2. As indicated in table VII-2, two of the
six identified plants, codes numbers 0611 and 0502, are operating
and have effluent data upon which to judge the performance of
SC>2 dechlorination technology.
Plant 0611 currently operates a full-scale SC>2 dechlorination
system on a once-through seawater cooling unit. This system is
operated manually and is successful in removing total residual
chlorine from the condenser cooling water discharge. This was
corroborated,by industry-submitted information and the results of
the TVA survey.
Plant 0502 has a 500 mw once-through cooling unit which has an
SC>2 declonricition system. This system is manually operated
and was installed in 1970. The system is reported to operate
very successEully with minimum problems. No data were provided
concerning compliance with the plant's 0.20 mg/1 TRC limit,
although the characterization of the treatment technique as
successful suggests that the plant is meeting a 0.20 mg/1 TRC
limitation. This plant reportedly meets the limitation on a
consistent basis.
Effectiveness
Municipal treatment plants using sulfur dioxide dechlorination
have been ab3e to consistently reduce effluent TRC concentrations
to the limit of detection (0.02 mg/1 TRC). One reason for this
is that a sewage treatment plant is generally dealing with a much
lower water flow rate than stean electric plants. This allows a
dechlorination contact basin to be used and adequate contact time
is insured.
At Plant 0611, an involved study was done to determine the
effectiveness of dechlorination by sulfur dioxide injection (29).
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 fron the SC>2 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 dechlori-
nated effluent was below the limit of detection of 0.02 mg/1.
TOR, 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.
309
-------
Table VI1-2
SULFUR DIOXIDE DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS IN USE OR
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC PLANTS (1)
Plant Code
Plant 2702
Plant 0611
Discharge
Type
Once-through
NPDES
Limits (mg/1)
0.2
Once-through
0.02
Plant 0604
Plant 0502
Once-through
Once-through
0.02
0.2
Status
New system;
dechlorination
being used on
one unit; no
data available.
Has been suc-
cessful in re-
moving TRC from
the condenser
cooling water to
meet 0.2 mg/1
New system; no
data available
System has
operated very
successfully
with minimal
problems since
1975
310
-------
Table VI1-3
CHLORINATED CONDENSER OUTLET FIELD DATA
FROM PLANT 0611 (29)
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
0.32
0.85
0.83
0.72
0.33
0.81
0.81
0.30
0.80
0.30
0.31
0.37
0.87
0.87
0.37
0.83
0.89
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.82
0.85
0.42
0.85
0.81
0.81
0.33
TOR
(ng/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.
(mq/1)
\ «t*~j / ^ /
3.9
3.7
4.9
4.7
5.4
5.0
5.3
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
^Calculated based on chlorine and cooling water flow rates
311
-------
Table VII-4
UNCHLORINATED CONDENSER OUTLET FIELD DATA
FROM PLANT 0611 (29)
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
D.O.
(ng/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
312
-------
Table VI1-5
DECHLORINATED EFFLUENT DATA FIELD DATA
FOR PLANT 0611 (29)
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
7.4
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/1)
3.7
3.9
4.7
5.3
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
313
-------
The sampling program conducted at Plant 0611 also included
analysis of samples for trihaloraethanes. Samples were collected
from the same three streams as the TOR samples: the chlorinated
condenser outlet, the unchlorinated condenser outlet, and the
dechlonnated final effluent. The data indicate that chlonna-
tion of a once-through brackish cooling water did result in
statistically significant increases in total trihalomethane (THM)
concentration. The data also indicated that the dechlonnated
effluents contained significantly smaller concentrations of THM's
than the non-dechlorinated samples. No mechanism for the de-
composition of trihalomethanes by dechlorination is known to
exist; the lower THM concentrations in the dechlorinated samples
were attributed to sampling error. Thus, 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
S02 dechlorination systems in municipal wastewater treatment
plants can bring effluent TRC concentrations down to the detec-
tion limit (approximately 0.03 mg/1). Similarly, experience in
steam electric power plants, notably at Plant 0611, shows that
existing limitations as low as 0.02 mg/1 (i.e., not detectable)
are being achieved with SOj dechlorination.
Reliability
The amount of SC>2 required to dechlorinate a given cooling
water will vary from plant to plant. A stoichiometric analysis
of the sulfur dioxide-chlorine residual reveals that 0.9 milli-
grams of sulfur dioxide are required to remove 1.0 milligrams of
residual chlorine (11). Actual operating experience at one
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 (27).
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 a
relatively 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 dechlorination.
On the other hand, when a poor quality influent cooling water is
used (e.g., high ammonia concentration), a large chlorine dose
will be required to achieve the necessary amount of free residual
chlorine. This large chlorine dose nay result in a high total
residual chlorine concentration which, in turn, would require a
large dose of sulfur dioxide to remove the chlorine residual.
While such situations may require higher dosages of dechlori-
nation chemicals, there is no evidence to suggest that it is
either technically or economically infeasible to achieve a TRC
limitation of 0.20 mg/1.
314
-------
In sunnary, high quality influent water will require snail
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.
There are several potential operating problens with sulfur
dioxide dechlorination systems. First, since the vapor pressure
of sulfur dioxide is lower than chlorine at the sane 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 snail 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 VII-3, VII-4, and VII-5) did not indicate that SO2
dechlorination was causing any statistically significant change
in pH.
Dechlorination may also present the potential problem of
increased salinity in the effluent from the addition of
dechlorination chemicals such as sulfur dioxide. One study
pointed out that the concentration of acids produced from
dechlorination of cooling water are on the order of 10~6
g-mole/1.* Moreover, no information is available to suggest that
such increases in salinity have or would cause adverse
environmental effects.
Excess sulfur dioxide may also react with dissolved oxygen (DO)
present in the effluent cooling water. This could present a
problem since dissolved oxygen nust be present in water in
concentrations of at least 4 mg/1 to support many kinds of fish.
However, 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) clo not indicate that any significant depletion of
*Whitaker and Tan, WPCF, Feb. 1980.
315
-------
dissolved oxygen is occurring due to S02 dechlorination. No
other sources of information demonstrate adverse effects due to
reduction in DO levels in cooling water discharges.
In summary, some operational problems can and do occur with
sulfur dioxide dechlorination systems. However, based upon the
information collected and made available to the Agency, with
proper equipment maintenance and good process control, sulfur
dioxide dechlorination offers an effective nethod of essentially
eliminating the discharge of residual chlorine from power plant
effluents without causing demonstrable adverse environnental
effects.
i
Dechlorination via Dry Chemical Systems
Several sodium salts of sulfur can be used in dechlorination.
These compounds are all purchased in bulk volumes as dry chenical
solids. They will, therefore, be referred to hereafter by the
generic term "dry chemicals."
Description of Technology '
One of the dry chemicals commonly used in dechlorination is
sodium sulfite (Na2SO3). Sodiura sulfite reacts with
hypochlorous acid as shown in equation 8.
Na2SO3 + HOC1 Na2SO4 + HC1 (8)
The stoichionetry of this reaction is such that 1.775 grams of
sodium sulfite are required to remove 1.0 gram of residual
chlorine. Sodiun sulfite will also react with the chloramines.
A second dry chemical useful in dechlorination is sodium
netabisulfite (Na2S205) which dissociates in water into
sodiun bisulfite as shown in equation 9.
Na2S2Os + H2O 2NaHS03 (9)
The sodium bisulfite then reacts with the hypochlorious acid as
shown in equation 10.
NaHSO3 + HOC1 NaHS04 + HC1 (10)
Stoichiometrically, 1.34 grans of sodium netabisulfite are
required to remove 1.0 grams of residual chlorine. Sodium
metabisulfite reduces chloramines through a similar sequence of
reactions.
The third connonly used dechlorination dry chemical is sodiun
thiosulfate (Na2S2O3). It reacts with hypochlorous acid as
shown in equation 11.
Na2S2O3 + 4HOC1 + H2O 2NaHS04 + 4HC1 (11)
316
-------
The stoichionetnc reaction ratio is 0.56 grams of sodium thio-
sulfate per gram of residual chlorine. Sodium thiosulfate will
also reduce chloramines. White (11) does not recommend the use
of sodiun thiosulfate for dechlonnation because it reacts
through a series of steps and requires significantly more reac-
tion time than the other dry chemicals. Sodium thiosulfate,
however has been used at full-scale steam electric plants so it
will be discussed here.
The equipment required for dechlonnation by dry chemical injec-
tion is shown in figure VII-14. As indicated in the figure, a
complete system includes the following pieces of equipment (16):
- loading hopper and dust collector unit,
- extension storage hopper,
- volumetric feeder,
- solution makeup tank and mixer,
- metering pump,
- pressure relief valve, and
- required timers and control system.
Also shown in figure VII-14 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 punp 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 dis-
charge conduit diameters. The dechlonnation 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 injec-
tion apply to the point of dry chemical injection. The sane is
true for the relationship between influent water quality and the
required dose of dechlorination chemical.
Previous Industrial Applications
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.
Industrial experience using dry chemical dechlonnation v/as
presented with the sulfur dioxide experience earlier in this
section. In its comments, the industry indicated that the dry
317
-------
Loading Hopper and
Duot Collector
Dry Chenlcal Stored
On-alte in 100 Ib. bags.
Manually loaded into
hopper.
Extension
Hopper
- Volumetric
Feeder
Control
System
U)
M
oo
-O—««•-
»—» Pressure
Metering Relief
Pump Valve
c
Solution Makeup Tank and Mixer
Control
Valve
To additional
Discharge Conduits
Aa Required
-t**-
Diacharge
Conduit
Structure
Figure VII-14
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR DECHLORINATION BY DRY CHEMICAL INJECTION
-------
Table VI1-6
DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION SYSTEMS IN USE OR
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT U.S. STEAM ELECTRIC PLANTS (1)
Plant Code
2601
2603
2607
2608
2619
5513
4107
Discharge
Type
Once- through
Once- through
Once-through
Once-through
Once- through
Once-through
Chce-through
Dechlorination
Chenical
Sodium sulf ite
Sodium sulf ite
Sodiun
thiosulfate
Sodium
thiosulfate
Sodium sulf ite
Sodium bisulfite
Sodiun bisulfite
TRC
NPDES
Limits
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 04-W*
0. 2-S*
0.2
0.1**
Status
Currently shut down
Currently shut down
Currently shut down
Currently shut down
Manual system; not
yet started up
Operating since 1977
Operating since 1976
0502
Once-through Sodium sulfite
operating problems
still exist.
0.2 Operating since 1970;
Systems have operated
very successfully with
minimal problems.
*W-winter - intake water less than 70°F.
S-sumrner - intake water greater than 70°F.
**non-detectable concentration.
319
-------
chemical system at plant 2603 did not */ork. They concluded that
mechanically the system at plant 2603 is a superior system to
those at plants 2607 and 2608 and theoretically should work.
Information is available on facilities from the east, midwest and
west utilizing dry chenucal dechlorination systems. All of these
facilities are reportedly meeting the TRC limits in their dis-
charge permits.
Effectiveness
Three of the plants listed in Table VII-6 were selected for a
detailed statistical analysis of their effluent TRC levels over a
period of two years. They were the only plants with sufficient
data available to conduct a statistical analysis of effluent
levels for developing effluent limitations. These were identi-
fied by an EPA survey and corroborated by industry submittals and
a similar survey conducted by TVA. Data on the operational
practices applied at these three plants is provided in Table
VII-7. During the two year study period, two chlorination
programs were in effect, as follows:
Chlorine Minimization - 1/77 through 10/77
Dechlorination,- 11/77 through 12/78
Plants 2603, 2607 and 2608 are discussed in detail in the
following section. No information is available on Plant 2601,
which is now shut down.
Plant 2619 has operated a dry chemical dechlorination system for
two years and indicated plans to switch to an S02 system. The
plant indicated many exceedences of a 0.20 ng/1 TRC level in
1930. However, by 1981 the plant was per forming significantly
better with very few exceedences, characterized by equipment
malfunction, abnormal operating procedures, or improper operating
procedures.
Plant 5513 installed a dry chemical dechlorination system in 1977
to comply with a 0.2 mg/1 TRC limitation reportedly consistent
with the limitation.
Plant 4107 has been operating a sodium bisulfite dechlorination
system to a TRC level of 0.1 mg/1. The system was installed in
1976. The industry reports that problems have been encountered
with the sampling system and the chlorine analyzer. While
designed to reduce TRC to non-detectable levels, no discharge
data is available.
Plant 0502 has three generating units on dry chemical
dechlorination systems- The operators indicate that these
systems have been operating very successfully since 1970 with
minimum problems in meeting the 0.2 mg/1 TRC limits in their
permits. Industry commenters identified many of the dry chemical
dechlorination systems as primitive, manual, experimental or
320
-------
Table VII-7
CHLORINATION/DECHLORINATION PRACTICES (1)
U)
Practice
Dechlorination
Chemical
Dose of dechlo-
rmation chemical
fed per chlorma-
tion period
(concentration)
Chlonnation
Chenical
Dose of chlonna-
tion chemical fed
per chlorination
period (concentra-
tion of available
chlorine)
Flow rate of
discharge
Reaction tine
condenser outlet
to headwall)
Plant 2603
Sodiun Sulfite
Sodium Thiosulfate
winter .9ppm
summer .9 ppm
Chlorine Gas
winter .22 ppm
summer 1.06 ppm
150,000 gpm
calculated-5 mm.
actual-4. 5 mm.
Plant 2608
Sodiun Sulfite
winter .07 ppm
summer .2 ppm
Plant 2607
Sodium Thiosulfate
winter .14 ppm
summer .3 ppm
Sodium Hypochlorite Sodium Hypochlorite
winter .04 ppn
summer .11 ppm
winter .22 ppm
summer .22 ppm
405,000 gpm
214,000 gpm
calculated-1-2 mm. calculated-6 mm.
-------
temporary. With more sophisticated, permanent installations, it
could be expected that many of the identified problems would be
eliminated. None of the specific operating or maintenance
problems cited are considered unique to water pollution control
systems and none of the problems were identified as either
insurmountable or as obstacles to achieving a TRC limitation of
0.20 ng/1.
A TVA survey report of industry experience submitted by the
industry to EPA in public comments on the proposed regulations,
states that "chemical dechlorination does achieve its main goal
of reducing TRC to undetectable limits in condenser cooling water
discharge. These utilities have proven that chemical dechlori-
nation is a viable technology capable of supporting the power
industries' efforts to comply with low-level effluent limita-
tions. Furthermore, chemical dechlorination can be applied to
all types of intake water (seawater, freshwater, estuarine
water)".
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 H, the dechlorination data were analyzed by EPA standard
procedures to determine the 99th percentile of the distribution
of daily effluent TRC concentrations. The analysis concluded
that a 0.14 ng/1 TRC is 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 control the discharge
of TRC to concentrations of 0.14 mg/1 or lower with 99 percent
reliability.
Because the data provided to EPA were in the form of aggregate
statistics (i.e., minimum and maximum sample values, average of
sample values, and number of samples per chlorination event) and
compliance with the limitations is assessed only when a chlori-
nation event occurs, limitations based on long term average
performance and variability factors were not deemed appropriate.
The statistical methodology described in Appendix C of the
Development Document was developed to address the above cited
characteristics of the submitted data while at the same time
determining a numerical limitation consistent with the Agency's
policy of setting daily maximum limitations based on 99th
percentile estimates of the distribution of effluent concen-
tration values.
It is important to note that the dry chemical dechlorination
systems in use at Plants 2603, 2607, and 2608 are all "make-
shift" systems. The equipment used is basically a 55 gallon drum
(used as a mix tank) w] th a pump and a hose leading to the con-
denser outlet. Thus, the apparatus constitutes a minimum of
sophistication. It follows therefore, that more sophisticated
and properly designed and instrumented dechlorination systems
322
-------
would be capable of achieving much better performance. This is
supported, for instance, by the data fron Plant 0611 (tables
VII-3, VI1-4, VI1-5) which has a properly instrunented SO2
dechlorination system. TRC levels in the final effluent from
Plant 0611 were consistently below the level of detection.
Variability
Experience from municipal treatment plants indicates the varia-
bility of this technique is small, and a minor factor in its
application for TRC control. Plants in the steam electric
category using dry chemical dechlorination are able to con-
sistently achieve TRC levels at or below 0.20 mg/1 when properly
operated.
Reliability
Potential problems with dry chemical dechlorination systems
include pH shift, and oxygen depletion. Table VII-8 presents pH
data fron 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 VII-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 nore
than 0.6 mg/1.
SUMMARY
In summary, dry or SC>2 chemical dechlorination is an effective
nethod of eliminating the detectable discharge of residual
chlorine fron cooling water discharge. Good process control and
proper equipment maintenance are necessary for the system to
perform optimally. None of the information collected by or sub-
mitted to EPA indicates that there are insurmountable problens in
process control or equipment operation and maintenance. Such
problems are common to all but the most simplistic water pol-
lution control systems. These problems occur continually in well
designed and operated systems only during startup and "shakedown"
of new systems. Temporary, less well-designed systems, as repre-
sented by several of the installed systems described in this
section would be expected to experience such problens on a
continual basis until they are either properly upgraded or
replaced by properly designed and operated systems.
As indicated in this section, such temporary, rudimentary
dechlorination systems which experience reportedly continual
operating problems have demonstrated the ability to achieve TRC
levels of 0, 20 ng/1 and less. Upgrading to or replacement by
permanent, well-designed systems could only result in signifi-
cantly more efficiency and reliability in meeting the effluent
limitation.
323
-------
Table VII-8
EFFECT OF DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION
ON PH OF THE COOLING WATER
(EPA Surveillance and Analysis Regional Data)
PH
Plant Code Intake Chlorinated Dechlonnated
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
324
-------
Table VI1-9
EFFECT OF DRY CHEMICAL DECHLORINATION ON
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN COOLING WATER
(EPA Surveillance and Analysis Regional Data)
Dissolved Oxygen (ng/1)
Plant Code
2603
2608
2607
5513
Intake
5.3
8.1
7.0
2.2
Chlorinated
NA
NA
NA
2.1
Dechlor mated
7.2
7.5
6.6
1.9
NA - Data not available.
325
-------
The successful operation of dechlorination systems in various
geographies and clinates and with widely varying intake water
quality (salt water, brackish, fresh water) indicates that these
factors have no bearing on the basic ability of dechlorination
systems to be installed and to effect chlorine discharge re-
duction to achieve a discharge TRC level of 0.20 mg/1, or less.
i
Pretreatment
Pretreatment of once-through cooling water would be necessary
only if the effluent is sent to a POTW. No stean electric plants
are known to discharge once-through cooling water to POTW's.
Even if once-through cooling water is sent to a POTW, however,
pretreatment for TRC removal will not be required since the
concentration of TRC found in once-through cooling water would
not interfere with the operation of the POTW. TRC levels in the
influent wastewters to a POTW are not significantly related to
TRC levels in POTW effluents. However, it is quite unlikely that
a POTW would accept the large volumes associated with this waste
stream because it would utilize a significant amount of POTW
hydraulic capacity which would otherwise be used to treat much
more concentrated, lower volume wastes.
RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER
The blowdown from a recirculating cooling water system nay con-
tain any of a number of pollutants which were identified in
Section V. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) and certain priority
pollutants are the polluants in recirculating cooling water blow-
down that are of primary interest. This section is broken down
into two subsections, one discussing TRC control and the other
detailing methods for priority pollutant control.
Total Residual Chlorine Control
In-Plant Discharge Control
Several techniques for in-plant TRC control in recirculating
cooling water systems are available. These include chemical
substitutions such as bromine chloride, and chloride dioxide, and
improved process control via use of natural chlorine demand.
There are no housekeeping practices or manufacturing process
changes which are applicable for control of TRC in cooling tower
blowdown.
Chemical Substitutions
Bromine Chloride
The application of bromine chloride for biofouling control in a
recirculating cooling water system is the sane as its application
in a once-through cooling water system. This is true with
respect to the technology description, previous industrial appli-
cations, effectiveness, variability, and reliability. This
material is discussed at the beginning of Section VII.
326
-------
Chlorine Dioxide
The use of chlorine dioxide as a biofouling control agent in
recirculating cooling water systems is identical to its use in a
once-through cooling water system. These two applications of
chlorine dioxide are identical with respect to the technology,
previous applications, effectiveness, variability, and reliabil-
ity, and the description given earlier in this Section is
applicable to recirculating cooling water systems.
Ozone
As is the case with all other chemical substituion options,
biofouling control with ozone is similar for both once-through
and recirculating cooling water systems. All aspects of an ozone
biofouling control system are identical for once-through and
recirculating cooling water systems. The discussion of ozone
biofouling control given earlier in this Section is applicable to
this section as well.
Improved Process Control
Natural Chlorine Demand
i
In recirculating cooling systems, the application of dechlonna-
tion 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 when
residual chlorine is still present in the recirculating cooling
water. Once chlorine addition ceases, the natural chlorine de-
mand 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 8919, it was found that
the total residual chlorine concentration in the recirculating
water of a cooling tower dropped to zero 1.5 hours after chlorine
dosage was ceased (30). 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 chlo-
rine present 3n the recirculating 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.
In all other respects, previous industrial applications, varia-
bility, effectiveness, and reliability, this control method is
identical to that presented earlier in this Section for once-
through cooling water.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
There is only one end-of-pipe treatment method which was judged
to be technically and economically feasible for reducing or
327
-------
eliminating TRC in recirculating cooling water blowdown. This is
dechlorination which can be accomplished by two different
methods: (1) SC>2 injection, and (2) dry chemical systems.
Each of these methods is discussed in the subsections which
follow.
l
SO? Injection
The use of SC>2 injection as a means to control TRC concentra-
tions in recirculating cooling water blowdown is similar to its
use for once-through cooling water. The discussion of the
technology, previous applications, effectiveness, variability,
and reliability of SC>2 injection for once through cooling
water, presented earlier in this Section, is applicable to
recirculating cooling water blowdown.
Dry Chemical Systems
The application of this control technology to recirculating cool-
ing water systems is identical to its application to once-through
cooling water systems. The discussion earlier in Section VII of
the technology, previous applications, effectiveness,
variability, and reliability is equally applicable to
recirculating cooling water blowdown.
Pretreatment of recirculating cooling water blowdown would be
necessary only if the effluent is sent to a POTW. No steam
electric plants discharge recirculating cooling water blowdown to
POTW's. Even if recirculating cooling water blowdown is sent to
a POTW, however, pretreatment for TRC removal will not be
required since TRC control at POTW's is easily achieved.
Priority Pollutant Control
Several of the 126 priority pollutants have been observed in
cooling tower blowdown. The sources of these priority pollutants
are chemical additives used for corrosion, scaling, and biofoul-
ing 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. These
two techniques for the elimination of priority pollutants are
in-plant chemical substitutions. Replacement of asbestos cement
cooling tower fill with another type of fill eliminates the
release of asbestos fibers in cooling tower blowdown. This con-
trol technique has been designated as a housekeeping practice and
is discussed in the first subsection below.
In-Plant Discharge Control
There are no manufacturing process changes or improvements in
process control that were considered to be technically and
economically feasible.
328
-------
Housekeeping Practices
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.
The cost for asbestos cement fill replacement is extremely site-
specific. Factors such as the current fill configuration, plant
location, f i] 1 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 fron
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 cenent 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 neces-
sary.
Chemical Substitutions
Alternative Corrosion and Scaling Control Chemicals
The principal control technology available to eliminate the dis-
charge 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 mix-
tures. 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. 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).
Alternative Non-Oxidizing Biocides
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 bio-
fouling but do so through mechanisms other than direct oxidation
of cell walls.
329
-------
Table VII-10
CORROSION AND SCALING CONTROL MIXTURES
KNOWN TO CONTAIN PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (31, 32)
Conpounds Known to Contain
Priority Pollutants
NALCO CHEMICALS
25L
38
375
Specific Priority Pollutants
Contained in Product
Copper
Chromiun
Chromium
CALGON CHEMICALS
CL-70
CL-68
Zinc Chloride
Sodium Dichromate, Zinc Chloride
BETZ CHEMICALS
BETZ 4 OP
Dianodic 191
Chromate and Zinc Salts
Chromate and Zinc Salts
HERCULES CHEMICALS
CR 403
Zinc Dichromate, Chromic Acid
BURRIS CHEMICALS
Sodium Dichromate
Sodiun Dichromate
330
-------
A list of most of the commonly used oxidizing biocides is pre-
sented in Table VII-11. Note that there are really two kinds of
oxidizing biocides. The first group are appropriate for use in
large-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 forn
hypochlorous acid (free available chlorine). The use of chlorine
in this form will create the sane problems as injection of
chlorine gas, the only difference being the method in which the
chlorine was introduced to the system. Plants using the "chlo-
rine 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 possibility for biofouling control is the substitution of
a "non-chlorine bearing" oxidizing biocide which may offer
similar biofou.Li.ng 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 non-
oxidizing biocide instead of an oxidizing biocide. A list of the
commonly used non-oxidizing biocides is presented in table
VTI-12. As the table shows, a 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 osidizing 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 pollut-
ants 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.
331
-------
Table VII-11
COMMONLY USED OXIDIZING BIOCIDES (33, 34)
Group A - Appropriate for Use in Large Scale Applications,
Require Expensive Feed Equipment
Bromine chloride
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
Group 3 - 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-dichlorodmethyl hydantoin
Iodine
Potassium hydrogen persulfate
Potassium permangnate
Sodium chlorite
Sodium dichloroisocyanurate
Sodium dichloro-s-triazinetnone
Sodium hypochlorite
Trichloroisocyanuric acid
NOTE: None of these compounds are priority pollutants.
332
-------
Table VII-12
COMMONLY USED NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES '(33, 34)
*Acid copper chromate
*Acrolein
n-alkylbenzyl-N-n-iJ-trimethyl ammonium chloride
n-Alkyl (60% C , 30% C , 5% C , 5% C ) dimethyl benzyl
Anmoniun chloride
n-Alkyl (50% C , 30% C , 17% C , 3% C ) dimethyl ethylbenzyl
anmonium chloride
n-Alkyl (90% C , 2% C ) dinethyl-1-naphthylmethyl ammonium
chloride
alky Iraethylbenzyl ammonium lactate
Alkyl-9-methyl-benzyl ammonium chloride
n-Alkyl (C - C ) - 1,3-Propanediamine
*Arsenous Ac id
*Benzenes
BenzyltriethyLanmonium chloride
Benzyltrimethylannonium chloride
Bis-(tributyltin) oxide
Bis-(trichloromethyl) sulfone
Brornonitrostyrene
Bromostyrene
2-bromo-4-phenylphenol
*Carbon tetrachlonde
CetyldimethyJammonium chloride
Chloro-2-pheriylphenol
2-chloro-4-penylphenol
*Chromate
*Copper Sulfate
*Croraated copper arsenate
*Cresote
*Cyanides
3, 4-dichlorobenzylammoniuTi chloride
333
-------
Table VII-12 (Continued)
COMMONLY USED NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES (33, 34)
*2,4-dichlorophenol
DilauryIdimethy1ammonium chloride
Dilauryldimethylammoniun oleate
Di>nethyltetrahydrothiadiazinethione
Disodium ethylene-bis-(dithiocarbamate)
Dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride
Dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride
Dodecyl guanidine acetate and hydrochloride
Isopropanol
*Lactoxymercuriphenyl amnonium Lactate
Lauryldimethyl-benzyldiethylanmonium chloride (75%)
Methylene bisthiocyanate
Octadecyltrimethylammoniun chloride
*Phenylmercuric triethanol-ammonium lactate
*Phenylmercuric trihydroxethyl ammoniun lactate
o-phenylphenol
Poly-(oxyethylene (dimethylimino) ethylene-(dimethylimno)
ethylene dichloride)
Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
*Sodium pentachlorophenate
*Sodium trichlorophenate
2-tertbutyl-4-chloro 5-nethyl phenol
2,3,4,6-te trachlorophenol
Trimethylammoniun chloride
*Zinc salts
In addition to the above chemicals the following nay be present
as solvents or carrier components;
Dimethyl Fornamide
Methanol
334
-------
Table VII-12 (Continued)
COMMONLY USED NON-OXIDIZING BIOCIDES (33, 34)
Ethylene glycol monoraethyl ether
Ethylene glycol nonobutyl ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Glycols to Hexylene Glycol
*Heavy aromatic naphtha
Cocoa diamirie
Sodium chlor:de
Sodium sulfate
Polyoxyethylene glycol
Talc
Sodium Aluminate
Mono chlorotoluene
Alkylene oxide - alcohol glycol ethers
NOTE: *Indicates the compound is known to contain a priority
pollutant. Sone of the other compounds may degrade
into priority pollutants but no data was available
to make a definite determination.
335
-------
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 (1). 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.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
There are no end-of-pipe treatnent technologies which were judged
to be technically and economically feasible to implement.
Pretreatment
In plants where cooling tower blowdown is discharged to a POTW,
pretreatment is required for the removal of priority pollutants.
The recommended pretreatment technology is chemical substitution
which has been discussed in the section entitled Chemical
Substitutions.
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 loads. Powerplant refuse, which can be classified as
ash, falls into four categories (36):
o Bottom ash (dry or slag)—material which drops out of the
main furnace and is too heavy to be entrained with the
flue gases;
o Fly ash—finer particles than bottom ash which are
entrained in the flue gas stream and are removed down-
stream via dust collecting devices such as electro-
static precipitators, baghouses, and cyclones;
o 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,
o 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).
336
-------
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 con-
sidered 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 utila zation 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.
Fly Ash
The treatment and control technologies applicable to fly ash
handling systems are:
o dry fly ash handling;
o partial recirculation fly ash handling; and
o physical/chemical treatment of ash pond overflows from
wet, once-through systems.
Dry Systems
Dry fly ash handling systems are pneumatic systems of the vacuum
or 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
337
-------
to provide the required air flow for ash con/eying. In general,
a vacuum system is nore 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 vacuun 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 VTI-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:
i
o vacuum producers—mechanical or hydraulic;
o valves—type "E" Dust Valves and segregating valves;
o conveying pipe;
o dry storage—silo, dust collectors, and vent filters;
o dust conditioners (or unloaders); and
o 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 punps 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
338
-------
Dust Valves
Type "E" Outlet
\
Segregating
Valve* \
Primary
Collector
Cartridge, Filter
n
(I/
Secondary -
Collector
.(Bag Filter)
Vent
"filter
Storage Silo
Aeration
Silo Unloader-
hi
Vacuum
Blower
Figure VII-15
DRY FLY ASH HANDLING - VACUUM SYSTEM
339
-------
machines nust be used to avojd 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-1S presents a diagram of a hydraulic vacuum producer.
This particular unit, marketed under the trade name "Hydrovac-
tor," 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
nercury (39).
Figure VII-17 illustrates the type "E" dust valve which is
installed under the fly ash collection hoppers. Thus 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 inter-
stices in the dust becomes the conveying medium which transports
the fly ash. Valve opening and closing is controlled by fluctua-
tions 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 wheel operators as well as air-electric oper-
ators as shown in figure VI1-18.
There are three types of pipe generally used in ash handling:
o carbon steel pipe,
o centrifugally cast iron pipe, and
o basalt-lined pipe.
In general, the carbon steel and centrifugally cast iron pipes
are most comnonly 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, tan-
gent end fittings are used. A line of fittings with replaceable
340
-------
l/»* flff riPS
(vacuum a PRCS&. GAUGE CONHSI
>INt.eT LIHtl
H«AO WITH
1231k 0* 23OI» WATER
I«U£T
CCESS PLUGS
SIDES)
Figure VII-16
DIAGRAM OF A HYDRAULIC VACUUM PRODUCER
Reprinted from A Primer for Ash Handling by Al1en-Sherman-Hof£
Company by pel-mission of Allen-Sherman-Hoff Company, A Division
of Ecolaire. Year of first publication 1976.
341
-------
•A'
CYLINDER
PACXIN* OLANO AND FOLLOWER
HANDLE
^ Aid TUIIH*
AIM CONTROL VALVE
(LOCXIN* TIH OVEM-MIOE)
SECTION "A-A"
T
S.3UOI 8ATC
OUTLET
I'ilH INL£T CHECK VAkVC
VAL.VC 80OT
5 s suioe a*Tt
a*X4* TYPE'^'MATERIALS HANDLING VALVE
(CYLINDER OPgRATEO )
Figure VII-17
TYPE "E" DUST VALVES
i
Reprinted from A Primer for Ash Handling by Allen-Sherman-Hoff
Company by permission of Allen-Sherman-Hoff Company, A Division
of Ecolaire. Year of first publication 1976.
342
-------
CCESS CQVCK
PtJTOH «00
/ /U8INS
-t-,~L---/k-=sk
-—. -p— -,.:;
LIMIT SWITCH OPERATING LEVER
LIMIT SWITCH
CONDUIT CONN
SECTION -8-9*
SECTION 'A-A"
LCVEIt
UOC SATC
( AI«-£L£GTRIC OPERATED)
•A'
Al* CONTKOL VALVE
Figure VII-18
SEGREGATING VALVES
Reprinted from A Primer for Ash Handling; by Allen-Sherman-Hoff
Company, by permission or Allen-Shennari^'floff Company, A D
of Ecolaire. Year of first puolication 1976
343
-------
STANDARD COUPLINGS, ADAPTORS 1 BLIND FLANGIS
COUPLING
BUND FLANGC
*ou.o««ii-io(T3
IJUAX.I'O* «1THNU 0*
r
MA* /OH lOf t ia'
ADAPTORS 4" Umi 9"
SINGLE COUPUNG & filler
S'STTIM
I
1'
•"MA* rax »'TH«U4'
r!o'w*x./on 10* a uf
1 1
,1
ADAPTORS 10", 12". U". &. IS"
DOUBLE COUPUNG
IMPACT PITT1NGS
I flSMCOUTE PIPE JOINTS AND SITTINGS
Figure VII-19
TYPICAL PIPES AND FITTINGS FOR ASH CONVEYING
Reprinted from A Primer for Ash Handling by Allen-Sherman-Hoff
Company by permission of Allen-Sherman-Hoff Company, a Division
of Ecolaire. Year of first publication. 1976.
344
-------
wear backs is available for vacuum systens. These wear backs are
reversible so that each provides two points of impact where abra-
sion 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 a fly
ash storage silo where it is held until disposed. Storage silos
may be of cairbon 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 pro-
vided with bag vent filters to prevent the discharge of dust
along with dj splaced air as the silo is being filled. Alter-
nately, venting can be provided by a duct from the silo roof back
to the precipitator inlet. It may be necessary to supply low-
pressure blowers on the vent duct to overcome 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 dunp area. In such cases, it is necessary to wet
the dust to prevent it from blowing off conveyances during trans-
portation. 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 dis-
charge point of the screw feeder and at various points along the
drum as the dust is tumbled and 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 condi-
tioner 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.
345
-------
Table VI1-13
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
346
-------
Both units require water at a minimum pressure of 80 psi to
achieve intinate 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 systens 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:
o 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 blov/er,
and erode the blades.
o Bag Filter - Bag filter breakage is a common maintenance
problem, creating a fugitive dust problem usually ]ust
within the confines of the silo area.
o 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.
o Vacuum Silo - Since the silo is generally outside the
plant area, maintenance nay be less frequent. For the
vacuun silo, this can be nore of a problem because it is
more complex than a pressure silo due to the need for
collectors.
Pressure Systens. 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 displace-
ment blowers. A schematic diagram of a pressure system appears
in figure VII-20. The mechanical blowers supply compressed air
at pressures of 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 incom-
ing 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 fron the
vent filter. A blower is usually required on this line to over-
come draft losses.
347
-------
Fly Ash Hoopers with
Air Lock Valves
Segregating
Valves
HX-
V V V V
Vent
Filter
Storage Silo
Aeration
Pressure Blower
Oust
Conditioner'
(Unloader)
Figure VII-20
DRY FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM - PRESSURE SYSTEM
348
-------
Equipment. The raa^or components of a pressure system are essen-
tially the same as those of a vacuun system with the following
exceptions.
Air locks are used to transfer fly ash from a hopper at one pres-
sure 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 to 1; i.e./ 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 tine. 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-naintenance
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 poten-
tially 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 ma^or 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, 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
349
-------
r i"*7?f^\i T
Figure VII-21
TYPICAL AIR LOCK VALVE FOR PRESSURE FLY ASH
CONVEYING SYSTEM
Reprinted from A Primer for Ash Handling by Allen-Sherman-Hoff
Company by permission of AIlen-Sherman-Hoff Company, a Division
of Ecolaire. Year of first publication 1976.
350
-------
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 fjy 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
offthis area and vent the air back to the precipitator.
EPA conducted a telephone survey to determine the types of regu-
lations 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 moni-
toring or inspection for dust emissions is generally not
required. Enforcement is based primarily on complaints.
Retrofitting. The motivation for retrofitting dry fly ash hand-
ling systems may stem fron a variety of circumstances:
o A shortage of water may exist for sluicing the fly ash to
ponds,
o State or local regulations for certain aqueous discharges
may result in a retrofit, and
o 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:
o Valves allowing flow from the ESP hopper into the sluice
line, if the sluice line runs into the hopper;
o Pumps for carrying fly ash to the pond; and
o The line used for conveying the ash slurry.
In some cases, fly ash is pneumatically conveyed via a hydrovac-
tor (or hydroveyor) to a nixing 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.
351
-------
Trip Reports. EPA visited several plants in order to define
various bottom ash and fly ash handling practices. This sub-
section discusses dry fly ash handling systems encountered at
some of these plants.
Plant 1311. 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 pre-
vious system was a wet sluicing operation that used a hydroveyor
and ponding. The major equipment for this dry system is pre-
sented schematically in figure VII-22. This is a dual system in
terms of the separators, i.e., cyclones and bagfliters, 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 bagfliters, 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.
i
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. The facility is a base-
load plant which uses cooling towers for condenser heat dissipa-
tion, 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
352
-------
MECHANICAL
EXEAD5TER
18
7ACTUM *
SWITCHES
BAG FILTER
CORTTNUODS
OPERATTNC
SEPARATOR #8
9
o
10
o
o
tf
Q
12 1
O C
r> r
? * y »
) O O O
[
I
MECHANICAL
EXEAUb I'M
17
VAOTDM
SWITCHES
FILTER 17
7EHT TTLTZR
OUNTiNTKJUS
OPERATING
SEPARATOR 17
1 2
5678
Q o n o
1234
Figure VII-22
FLY ASH SILO AND HOPPERS/PLANT 1811
353
-------
from cooling tower blowdown. All wastewaters are ultimately
handled by an evaporation pond. A generalized flow scheme for
the plant appears in figure VII-23. The water system, as
currently in operation, was designed by Stearns-Rodgers.
I
The dry fly ash handling system for the plant removes fly ash
fron 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 pres-
surized and uses air as the conveying media. Ash conveying
blowers supply the conveying air. Fly ash is fed into the system
fron 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 displacenent 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 precipi-
tator and economizer hoppers. Each of the two precipitators
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 pro-
grammed 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 con-
veyor, 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 con-
veyor. "Nuva" is a trade name used by United Conveyor for their
airlocks. 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.
354
-------
•OOPOIUMI
i , uontAwre
1 !»«-->>— — »«KIM<»AUT»
N' MHO
Koweov
1 uv
WATtH
m ^^
x**" V^
IM
KOWOO*
« rreiuoi
•MMU
a
otuw
TANK
133
n
CUNKIDOIIUIDU
NAIPUAU
x^*^^^^
^..J. smAaimcAT.
POftTAlu WATW1 |
1ua \a
w »om
u
f •••* iv f H_ i
" "l *'*' ]
IVA* n.r NT WAI
» AIM AtH TO!
(NT !• > W
•OHO
ta
t
im
•A*
HO
\ w imcmutnoui |
2fli __L_/ omw iN /MUM A » _ «taei re
^M, \ UKITJ J I UWTJ y r ntt POKO
," i"
UMTT1 UNITJ *¥*8>
•onjx i
1AIIKUM
CWH ,.|
nuAmcNT
UWAOI .
irm.
ucnuAtH -
4
T " "" 1
f /— — — ^ '
ti
COOUMQ
TOWtH 7 •
tunno«M
nicreurro
eoaunarown <•
ion* *"»
f. f
1 . •!•»••— |
r
WAirtWATM
'»OUTT
I
t>t
* MOOUCTTQ
HIOHaUAUTT
WATIXHOUIIM
netii ^^
•teretiro
U
4
1
'
•MTU
urr OUPAVC
turr OUPAVC
urr oartvt
CONOCTIOMS.
MX n.OWS IM AVUUM OMI
70% CA^iemr FACTOR
eoauiM TowmcaNctifTnAmM it cvcta
eoouMa Tt K DMT aam o> a»e. WATO now
•fluvem A ffONOMCT ANNUAL A
Figure VII-23
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PLANT 0822
355
-------
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 punps
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 con-
pressors. Other problems occur with pipe fit-ting leakage due to
pipe expansion. The pipe expands because of the high temperature
(700°F) fly ash which is being conveyed.
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 hoppers. Also, the old wet sluicing pipe
needed to be taken out. No pipe was reusable for the fly ash
system.
Plant 3203. This plant is a 340-MW western bituminous coal-
burning facility which fires a moderately low-sulfur coal (aver-
age 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 per-
cent 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 col-
lected 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 pre-
heater 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 uncondi-
tioned, 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 air-
lock 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
356
-------
blowers
U)
ui
Air preheater
6 hoppers per mechanical collector l'°pper stack
hopper
VVVVVV V V
Vent n
Fitted ' ' '
storage
silo
6 and 7-inch
lines
Figure VII-24
PRESSURE FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FOR PLANT 3203
-------
silo volume provides approximately a 2-day storage capacity and
therefore requires dumping several times a week.
i
The equipment which required the nost 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:
o fuel type,
o boiler type,
o location,
o size, and
o 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 VII-25. Dry fly ash handling systems are as common as
wet once-through systems for coal-burning facilities and repre-
sent 34 percent 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.
358
-------
30
•a
CO
01
>»
rH
(b
-------
30 i
t '
i
•Jin
Ss 2S
CO
CO
e
•rt
e
m
3;
JS
< J3
f
f™l
f-.
u-i 10
O
0)
00
a
^j
c a
4 U , I /
0 It I.
T
T
r
t
t
>
• • •
T • •
• n i) n
/ / /
H K A
u K
1
«
»
•
+ ••
t «• »«
* •• ' ««
• «« •« «« •• •*
n w w UUUMWUW uunMUuu
Ulilt / / / 0 P l< / / / 0 R (<
T / UWAI / U U A T /
won u o n b X2901
0 T 01 0
T I JI-
inr
Lib
sun
CTP
Type of Coal
Kejt- D: Dry ?ly Ash Handling System
WOT Wec_ Once-Through Fly Ash Handling System
WR Wet" Reeirculating Fly Ash Handling System
NOTE: Plants which could act be identified under a sub-
group appear in a suogroup on Che far left of cne
chart, designated b} a " " or by " "
Figure VII-26
DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS BY COAL TYPE
360
-------
Figure VII-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. Pulve-
rized 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 dis-
playing 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 recirculating systems. Oil-burning facilities are more
conmon in the Northeast. The low ash production rate of oil-
burning 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 sys-
tems. Wet once-through systems account for 18 percent of all ash
handling systems. The high occurrence of wet once-through sys-
tems may be clue 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 recircu-
lating 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.
361
-------
§
u
0)
r-l 3(1
OJ
•S 20
**
*•
• *
• *
fr.
<0
00
Q
0)
U
0)
cu
ln
*•
*»
«4
*•
• *
»*
*•
n u
/
u
0
T
0
/
u
R
W U
n R
T
u
R
/
W
0
T
n n
/
u
0
T
n
/
u
R
W
0
T
W W
R 11
/
W
0
T
0 U
/
W
u
T
0
/
U
R
U
0
T
U U
R R
/
U
0
T
Cyclone
Pulverized CoaJ
Spreadez Stoker
Major Boiler Type
D. Dry Fly Ash Handling Syscem
WOT Wee Once-Through Fly Ash Handling Syscem
WR Wee Recirculacing Fly Ash Handling Syscem
NOTE. Planes which could noe be identified under a sub-
grouo appear in a subgroup on Che far Left of Che
chare, designaced by a " " or by " ".
Figure VII-27
DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
BY MAJOR BOILER TYPES
362
-------
en
to
JL* *
u '
co '
wi
00 *"
iH
A
n
>, 10
H
m
o
41 5
00
fll
g '
w
ii n
I
U !'.
I
//OH
U b I
U Ii
,.. t ~t
/ / U ft
w b I
0 ll
I
o n
u b r
o n
u u
o h
I
/ / /
U t A
0 Ii
I
r n
II II A
II II
1
II II
I
///on
o ii
i
II
/
fa
o
I
/
b
o
1
/
u
II
/
A
0
1
R II
/
U
0
T
/
U
U
1
/
b
n
/
A
ll II
1
H
/
b
b
T
in
EPA Region
Key 0 Dry Fly Aah Handling System
WOT Wet Once-Through Fly Aah Handling System
WR Wet Recirculatlng 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
-------
Plant Size. Plant size is expressed in plant naneplate 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 systens becone
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
systens 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 Systens. Table VII-14 presents a list of
plants which have been identified as having retrofitted dry fly
ash systens.
Partial Recirculating Systens. 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.
Partial Recirculating Systems
P r o c e s s De s c r i p 11 o n. A generalized schematic of a typical par-
tial recirculating systen is shown in figure VII-32. Sluiced ash
is pumped to the primary and secondary pond and flows to the
clear pond from which water is recirculated by the nain recircu-
lation 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 col-
lection point. A typical method is illustrated in figure VII-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 vacuun for conveying. This slurry is dis-
charged through an air separator. Fron 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.
365
-------
E
O
oo
to
•o
•o
to
>>
0)
00
(9
4J
c
0)
o
u
0)
0.
10
19
12
9
I
6
3
«» ••
** *•
*• •«
• « *•
«» *«
• • ««
** ••
«» ** **
«* «• »«
•» •• •«
«* «• ••
«« • « ••
•• •* c*
«» •» •»
•» •* ««
*• «• **
•* »• «« »* 4*
*« »* *» «« **
** ** • » •* «•
»• «« «« •« »» »•
»» •» •» •• •• •• •» •*
•t *» •• *• *• ** •* •*
noofiuwu IIOUNIIUW r. o u N u u w
/ / ; o n n ///ORR ///OR ii
w u ; r / WUAT / u u A T /
OR H 0 K uOK U
T 01 0 T 0
r T T
<25 25-100 lOp-500
*«
**
*•
»« *•
&• •*
«* **
• • *•
»< *•
«» «»
** ••
• » •»
«« «•
»• *•
»« »*
• * «•
** ••
*• *•
* *•
• **
« *«
• *«
• «•• •* «•
•4 *• •• ••
«« »» »* »« «•
o u n N w u
/ / /'OR
U U A T
0 R
1
>500
u
H
/
U
0
I
K«y D-
WOT.
WR.
Nameplace Capacity (MW)
Dry Fly Ash Handling System
Wee Once-Through Fly Ash Handling System
Wee Racirculating Fly Ash Handling System
MOTE. Plants which could not be identified under a sub-
group appear in a subgroup on che far left of the
chart, designated by a " " or by " "
Figure VII-30
DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
BY VARIOUS PLANT SI^ES
366
-------
0)
CO
*
£ *" '
I"
JS
0
,H >
flj t-
fc t
0 '
« <
as . '
a * *
4J / 4
c /
a ' '
o * <
u u u i u \ a w i
/ / / U H 1C
HAT/
O 1 u'
T fi
1
>
1 II II U t.
/ / / t
tl 11 A 1
» II
T
*
U H I
l< H
11
a
r
*
» u u w t
/ / / c
U U A 1
U U
T
•
*
i U U I
1 It H
r /
u
u
T
>
t
9
t1 t
* * f
* * * * f f *
ibUNuuu o a a N u u w
/ / / o n n ///OAK
bUAT / WHAT /
OH U 0 II U «90I
i or o
T r
400
100-300 300-600
>600
Total Dissolved Solids (ppm)
Key 0 Dry Fly Ash Handling System
WOT Wee Onea-through Fly A,sh Handling System
WR Wat Recirculating Fly Ash Handling System
HOTS
Plants which could not b* identified under a sub-
group appear in a subgroup on che far Left of che
chart. d«aignated by a " " or by
Figure VII-31
DISTRIBUTION OF FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
AS A FUNCTION OF INTAKE WATER QUALITY
367
-------
Table - .-1-4
I
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.
Risk/Commonwealth
Edison Co.
Bailly/No. Indiana
Public Service Co.
Ashtabula/Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Co.
Avon Lake/Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Co.
Eas tlake/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, SD (VIII)
Rapid City, SD (VIII)
Cook, IL (V)
Porter, IN (V)
Ashtabula, OH (V)
Lorain, OH (V)
Lake, OH (V)
Capacity (MW)
1255.2
2932.6
31 .5
22.0
547.0
615.6
640.0
1,275.0
1,257.0
Cuyahoga, OH (V) 514.0
Montgomery, IL (V) 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
368
-------
Sluiced Fly Ash
Discharge
P
Main
Recirculation
Pump
\
Final Pond
(Clear Pond)
Main Sluice Pump
Settling Ponds
Figure VII-32
GENERALIZED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A PARTIAL RECIRCULATION FLY ASH
HANDLING SYSTEM
-------
10
•>J
o
Fly Ash Hoppers
V V V
V V V
X
Vacuum
Producer
A. Air
Option 1
rf
Mix
Tank
To Ponds
Air
Separator
Option 2
Flow by
Gravity to
Pond Area
SlurryjPump
Figure VII-33
A TYPICAL METHOD OF SLUICING FLY ASH FROM COLLECTION POINTS
-------
Equipment. The equipment associated with dry conveying, i.e.,
all equipment up to and including the vacuun producer, is dis-
cussed in the sections on dry fly ash handling. The major
equipment discussed in this section includes:
o air separator,
o pumps,
o conveying pipe, and
o ponds.
Air Separator. A typical air separator is shown in figure
VII-34. A wide variety of separators, unlined or with basalt
linings, is available for single and multiple systems.
Pumps. Slurry pumps may be centrifugal pumps or ejectors (jet
pumps). Either pump requires considerable dilution at the suc-
tion 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 con-
sidering 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 reduce abrasion. A velocity of 40 to 50 feet per
second maximum through a jet punp 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 punps 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 cen-
trifugal 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
371
-------
I\I I I I
/IMLCT VOUITt
/CAST»I9
OUUKCT •
4-S.TUO* - j1"
«W«T-^ I!
•AFFIX
Figure VII-34
TYPICAL AIR SEPARATOR IN A PARTIAL RECIRCULATING
FLY ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
Renrinted from A Primer for Ash Handling by Allen-Sherman-Hoff
Company by permission of Allen-Sherman-rioff Company, a Division
of Ecolaire. Year of first publication 1976
372
-------
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 nunber of pipe manufacturers. Basalt-
lined pipe is another fairly common pipe used in ash handling
systems. The basalt lining is forned 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 condi-
tions 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 ceranic 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 sys-
tem which involve dry conveying, maintenance of the equipment is
the same as for vacuum and pressure dry fly ash handling systems.
Abrasive and corrosive wear on the pumps and conveying lines
handling the ash sluice is a ma^or source of maintenance prob-
lems. 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
ma^or maintenance are the settling ponds. Generally, these ponds
must be dredged regularly to remove settled ash for landfill
disposal.
373
-------
Retrofitting. The motivation for retrofitting a partial recircu-
lating 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 down-
time 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 1505 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 rela-
tively large amount of bottom ash slag. The plant utilizes a wet
recirculating ponding system to handle both fly ash and botton
ash. Water is obtained from a nearby creek for use in the
sluicing operation. Figure VII-35 presents a flow diagram indi-
cating 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.
i
i
Since the coal-fired boilers are all cyclone type, a snail per-
centage 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.
The sluicing jets and recirculation pumps are the primary mainte-
nance items for this system. Minor erosion has caused some
374
-------
to
Ssnpla 2
Overflow
(2) Fly Ash Pond.
Hlsc.
Sumps
BottoB Aeli
Storage Ground
(2 prinary, 1 aecondary pond)
-^-Biocharge (?)
a. t •> • Sample 3
Final Fund r
Qlligl.
(200
<2p,
Pressure
pslg)
punpa)
Lou Pressure
(SO pslg)
(2 ptiapa)
NOTE: Approximately 1/4 nlle fron alag tanks
and ESP hopper* to tlie pond area
(200 polg)
Figure VII-35
ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR PLANT 1809
-------
maintenance problems. Scaling and corrosion have not been found
to be prevalent.
Physical/Chemical Treatment of Fly Ash Pond Overtlows from Wet,
Once-Through Systems
Wet, once-through systems with ponding are commnly 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/chenical treatment in removing arsenic, nickel, zinc,
copper, and selenium from ash pond overflows.
i
Process Description. Metals typically are removed from waste-
water 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 l^me is shown in figure VII-36. The major
equipment items include a lime feed system, mix tank polymer feed
system, flocculator/clarifler, 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 economi-
cally 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 line 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 VI1-37. 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 dis-
charge. The systen 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
376
-------
Initial pH
Adjustment
Clarification
Filtration
Final pH
Adjustment.
lime Feeder
Polymer Feeder
Acid Feeder
U)
•vj
Nj
0
Thickener and
Vacuum Filter
P
k
... ..
1
J*
i
i
a
»
J
^
1
' "X,
f
• ^1 m^il it* ^( joiV*
Vf -8- ^8 1 * S« T Sr'ii
i
MIX IttiHC i '"v. ""T^
1 ^1
1
t
\
(^ ^1
Deep
n ^ J
Bed
Filter
s ^
f
\
'
• I
^
Mix Tank
Underflow to
Figure VII-36
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR
METALS REMOVAL USING LIME
-------
OUST COLLECTOR
FILL PIPE
BULK STORAGE
BIN
BIX GATE
FLEX ISLE
COKNECT10M
SOLEHOIO
-L
SCALE
OR SAMPLE CHUTE
ROTAHETERS
SLAKING WATER
01 LUTl CM WATER
IXER
V i—LEVEL
P103ES
HOLOIKG
TANK
PRESSURE
FEED
^
HETERi NG
PUW-
PRESSURE
VALVE
Figure VII-37
TYPICAI. LIME FEED SYSTEM (41)
378
-------
wastewater flow, pH, alkalinity, and type and strength of acid.
Dosage rates are determined by laboratory or onsite testing.
For wastewaters which have a pH of less than 6, nixers 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 continu-
ally 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 side
water 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 VII-33 illustrates
a typical deep bed filter. Sand or coal are the most common fil-
ter media. Hydraulic loading rates of 2 to 20 gpm per square
foot of bed cross sectional area are common. High removal effi-
ciencies 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 sec-
tion. 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
379
-------
RAW
WATER
STABILIZING
LAYER
MEDIUM
SUPPORTING
LAYER
AIR
DISTRIBUTION
PIPES
CLEAR WATER
a
WASHWATER
CONDUITS
CLEAR
WATER
FILTERING
FILTER 8EO
FINE
SUPPCRTING
LAYER
COARSE
SUPPORTING^
LAYER
M-BLOCKS
COVES
PLATES
FILTRATE OUT —;
,— RAW WATER IN
Figure VII-38
DEEP BED FILTER
380
-------
continuous thickeners are circular and are designed with side
water depths of 10 feet (42). In thickening of line sludge fron
line tertiary treatment, incoming sludge of 1 to 2 percent solids
has been thickened to 8 to 20 percent solids at solids loadings
of 200 ppd/feet2 (43).
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 rotates, the feed liquor is drawn onto the
filter surface by a vacuum that exists on the drun 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 dewater-
ing a 2 to 4 percent solids feed to a filter cake with a concen-
tration of 19 to 36 percent solids. Typical solids loading rates
nay vary from 3 to 14 pounds per hour feet squared for lime
sludges.
Effectiveness. A review of the literature on trace metals
removal from various wastewaters using physical/chemical treat-
ment was conducted for arsenic, nickel, zinc, copper, and sele-
niun. The results of this literature review and the results of
benchscale studies of trace metal removals in ash pond over-
flows are discussed in this subsection.
Arsenic. Arsenic and arsenical compounds have been reported as
waste products of the metallurgical industry, pesticide produc-
tion, 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 com-
pounds. 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 con-
ventional 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 line 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 rag/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
381
-------
pilot plant study (45) for removal of arsenic in municipal waste-
waters 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 ads'orption.
The Water Supply Research Division (WSRD) of EPA recently com-
pleted 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 sedi-
mentation 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:
o Arsenic V is more easily removed than Arsenic III by alum
and ferric sulfate coagulation.
o 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 per-
cent). The average removal efficiency of Arsenic III was approx-
imately 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 per-
cent for Arsenic V were reported after settling and dual-nedia
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 treat-
ment of municipal wastewater, handling 150 mVday of water, 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.
382
-------
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
0.12
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
96-98
0.06
96
82
82-100
70
383
-------
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 nore soluble conplexed 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
line 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 volume of wastewater treated. Reverse
osmosis simply concentrates materials in a dilute stream.
i
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 effec-
tive 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 con-
centration 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 VII-20.
384
-------
Table VII-16
SUMMARY OF NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS IN METAL
PROCESSING AND PLATING WASTEWATERS (45)
(mg/1)
Industry
Tableware Plating
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 17
2-205
2-900
up to 200 25
5-58 24
88 (single
waste stream)
46 (combined
flow)
45-55
30-40
15-25
385
-------
Table VII-17
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS AFTER
PRECIPITATION THREATMENT (45)
u>
00
Source
Tableware Plating
Appliacne Manu-
facutring
Office Machine
Manufacutring
Non-Ferrous Metal
Plating
Record Changer
Manufacturing
Nickel Concentration (mg/1) Precent Removal Comment
Initial Final
91-99.6
21
35
39
46
0.09-1.9
0.4
0.17
0.5-0.13
0.8
0.1-0.2
98.9
99.6
FeCl3 +
Sand Filtra-
tion
6 hour Works
settling
6 hour
detention in
clarifier
-------
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 foitis 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
Silver Plating
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
387
-------
Table VII-19
SUMMARY OF PRECIPITATION TREATMENT RESULTS FOR ZINC (45, 47)
CO
00
00
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 (niR/1)
Percent Removal Comment
Initial
18.A
55-120
100-300
36-374
Final
0.2-0.5
2.0
0-6
0.0
0.0
0.08-1 .60
89
99
99
99
Sand Fi
Integra
16.1
20-120
70
20
34
0.02-0.23
0.88-1 .5
3-5
1.0
0.5-1.2
0.1-0.5
0.05
99
93-96
95
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
(rag/1)
Process Copper Concentration
Plating Rinse 20-120
Plating Rinse 0-7.9
Plating Rinse 20 (ave.)
Plating Rinse 5.2-41
Plating 6.4-88
Plating 2.0-36.0
Plating 20-30
Plating 10-15
Plating 3-8
Plating 11.4
Appliance Manufacturing
Spent Acids 0.6-11 .0
Alkaline Wastes 0-1 .0
Automobile Heater Production 24-33 (28 ave.)
Silver Plating
Silver Bearing 3-900 (12 ave.)
Acid Wastes 30-590 (135 ave.)
Alkaline Wastes 3.2-19 (6.1 ave.)
Brass Plating
Pickling Bath Wastes 4.0-23
Bright Dip Wastes 7.0-44
Plating Wastes 2.8-7.8 (4.5 ave.)
Pickling Wastes 0.4-2.2 (1.0 ave.)
Brass Dip 2-6
Brass Mill Rinse 4.4-8.5
Brass Mill Rinse
Tube Mill 74
Rod and Wire Mill 888
Brass Mill Bichromate Pickle
Tube Mill 13.1
Rod and Wire Mill 27.4
Rolling Mill 12.2
Copper Rinse 13-74
Brass Mill Rinse 4.5
389
-------
Table VII-20 (Continued)
COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTEWATER FROM METAL PLATING
AND PROCESSING OPERATIONS
(mg/1)
Process
Brass and Copper Wire Mill
Brass and Copper Pick Le
Brass and Copper Bright Dip
Copper Mill Rinse
Copper Tube Mill
Copper Wire Mill
Copper Ore 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
390
-------
As with nost heavy metal wastes, treatment processes for removal
of copper nay 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 nethods for waste-
waters containing copper at concentrations less than 200 ng/1;
precipitation is applicable for copper levels of 1.0 to 1,000
mg/1, and electrolytic recovery is advantageous for copper treat-
ment at concentrations above 10,000 mg/1 (45).
Generally, hydroxide precipitation is accomplished by lime addi-
tion to an acidic wastewater. The theoretical solubility limit
of the metal ion is approximately 0.0004 ng/1 at a pH of approx-
imately 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 insecti-
cide 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 seleniura
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.
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 adsorp-
tion 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 con-
centration 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 seleniun from, ground and surface waters by conventional
coagulation showed that seleniun removal is dependent on the
oxidation state, initial concentration of seleniun, 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
391
-------
Table VII-21
COPPER REMOVAL BY FULL-SCALE INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS (45)
10
to
Source and Treatment
Metal Processing (Lime)
Nonferrous Metal Processing
(Lime)
Metal Processing (Lime)
Electroplating (caustic.
Soda Ash + 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 C13
Initial
Copper cone,
(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
0.1-0.35
0.25-0.85
0.16-0.3 (with sand
filtration)
Removal
Efficiency
98.7-99.8
82.5
99-99.5
-------
Selenium IV. WRDS also conducted pilot plant studies on lime-
softening treatnents 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, zinc, selenium and copper must be
viewed with caution regarding application of removal efficiencies
to fly ash and bottom ash pond discharges. Table VII-22 shows a
comparison of the range of initial concentrations associated with
the removal efficiencies which have been presented and the aver-
age 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.
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 VII-23 and
VII-24 for lime and lime and ferric sulfate addition, respec-
tively. 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 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 indjcate that 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
393
-------
Table VII-22
COMPARISON OF INITIAL TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS CITED
IN STUDIES REPORTED IN THE LITERATURE AND TRACE METAL
CONCENTRATIONS IN ASH POND DISCHARGES
i
(ppm)
I
Initial Average Average
Concentrations Bottom Ash Fly Ash
Metal Treated Concentrations Concentrations
i
As 0.200 to 3.00 0.022 0.055
Ni >21 0.079 0.224
Zn 18 to 374 0.020 0.034
Cu 0.25 to 385 0.012 0.003
Se 0.01 to 0.08 0.004 0.008
394
-------
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
Outlet Removal Efficiency
(ppb) _ I _
1 DL
1 89
1 >99
23 71
10 29
12 54
0.5 <95
6.0 OGTI
2.2 12
3 DL
8 NR
52 OGTI
31 90
2 57
<2 >82
KEY- DL - Concentrations of both inlet and outlet are below
the detection limit.
OGTI - Outlet concentrations greater than inlet.
NR - No removal.
395
-------
Table VII-24
TRACE METAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR LIME PLUS
FERRIC SULFATE 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
(ppb)
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.
396
-------
SttU Hill Landfill
H««p«d
Contiguricion
CUti»mBUj:'.lL... , •—
V«llay rill
Disposal
Configuration
Figure VII-39
LANDFILL METHODS
397
-------
the site, the ash should be wetted down after application to the
landfill.
Bottom Ash
The technologies applicable to bottom ash handling systens are:
o dry bottom ash handling,
o Hydrobin/dewatering bin systems, and
o 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 snail 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 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
398
-------
DEWATERINS BINS
OVERFLOW BIN
OVERFLOW PUMP
/ STORAGE TAMK
,TO OEWATERINO
BINS
RETURN WATER PUMP
SYSTEM FILLED wm« W»TCT
RCAOT TO RECEIVE ASM
OEWATERING BINS
OVERFLOW BIN
OVERFLOW POMP
/ STOSIACC TANK
X0"
RCTVRM WATER PUMP
,TO OEWATERIN8
BINS
HOPPER FILLED WITH A»H WATER WSPUACCO
TO STOMAaC TANK THRU OVERFLOW BIN AND
IETTLIN8 TANK.
Figure VII-40
VARIOUS STAGES OF A CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING SYSTEM (36)
399
-------
BIN*
OVERFLOW BIN
OVERFLOW PUMP
/ STOAAOC TANK
0 OEWATCRINa
BINS
RETURN WAVER PUMP
I ASH HOPPER BEING EMPTIED DEWATERING
SIN BEING FILLED. OVERFLOW TO SETTLING
TANK
(d)
ASH HOPPER
w^rU
JHI fjsei
ASH PUMP
RCTURN WATER PUUP
VERfLOW BIN
RFLOW PUUP
STORAOC TANK
ASM HOPPER EMPTIED. OEWATCRINO BIN
Figure VII- 40 (Continued)
VARIOUS STAGES OF A CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING SYSTEM (36)
400
-------
(e)
ERFL0W BIN
OVERFLOW PUMP
/ STORAGE TAtnC
ems
RETURN WATER PUMP
DEWATERINC
BTIHS
ASM KOf»f»gR REFILL£0 WITH WATER
OEVMTERlNG BINS
IVERFLOW BIN
OVERFLOW FVUf
I STORAGE TANK
RETURN WATER PUMP
OEWATERIN6 BIN BEINC
Figure VII- 40 (Continued)
VARIOUS STAGES OF A CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING SYSTEM (26)
401
-------
OEWATEMNO •INS
i&i>w%'&$w
l£>~#H£s?™L flVERFUJW BIN
RETURN WATER f»UMP
OEWATCHINe
BINS
DCWATEKINC BIN ® UNLOAOINO. OEWATCMINt *IN
DCIMQ MRTUU.T FILlXO WITH WATER
Figure VII- 40 (Continued)
VARIOUS STAGES OF A CLOSED-LOOP RECIRCULATING SYSTEM (36)
402
-------
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 Bin 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-40f. The water in the ash hopper is then
available for filling Dewatering Din B as shown in figure
VII-40g. The water volume in the settling tank renains 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 botton 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 outside
nakeup.
In most cases, a closed-loop recirculating system shows a narked
change in the pH of the recirculated water. This ph shift is
tempered by the addition of nakeup 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 inininum.
Cases where pH adjustment is not sufficient for scale preven-
tion, such as very reactive bottom ash or poor intake water
quality, may require side stream lime/soda ash treatment. The
equipment for slip strean 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 strean is estimated to be
about 10 percent of the total sluice strean. 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 nakeup water. Slip strean
softening in a dewatering/hydrobin system is not a proven
technology based on data from the 308 survey.
403
-------
Bottom ash obtained from dewatenng bins is considered
cially 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 nay have two or three
"pantlegs," or discharge points. At each pantleg 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 capa-
city. 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 froia
which it is pumped by one of two types of pumping devices, a
centrifugal punp 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
404
-------
O
(Jl
(Discharge
for
Partial
Recycle)
Makeup
Water
>
Alternate Alternate
Secondary Primary
Settling Settling
Pond Pond
•"" ~\ r~ l r n
\! V ^ Hx
•c -> V */ V ^y
/^ ,< , , \ / \ /
£~^ . 1 . x, Secondary Settling Primary Settling
Clear Pond
Bottom Ash Hopper
N. /Clinker\^.S
yVVSt Grinders /^/^ __. ^
CJi) vJU v/A ?
Ash Sluice Pumps
Figure VII-41
PONDING RECYCLE SYSTEM FOR BOTTOM ASH
-------
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.
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
systen. A partial recycle system maintains a discharge either on
a continuous basis or for upset conditions.
Botton ash recovered from ponds by dredging does not create fugi-
tive dust problems because of the high moisture content of the
ash. Disposal of bottom ash may be achieved by any of the con-
ventional 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:
o A shortage of water requiring minimal consumption,
o State or local regulations governing a reduction in
wastewater pollutants, and
o 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
406
-------
recycle loop, e.g., sunp discharge and cooling tower blowdown.
Plant downtime would be required for the hook-up of the
retrofitted dewatering bin systen, resulting in a temporary
reduction in generating capacity. In addition, some downtime nay
occur during the debugging period. For some plants, debugging
nay last up to a year. The land required to retrofit a
dewatering bin system is:
o Approximately 1 acre to contain the dewatering bins,
settling tank, surge tank, and punp houses; and
o Landfill area for bottom ash disposal.
A plant that used a pond system prior to the retrofit of the
dewatering bin systen probably would have land available for
disposal of the dewatered bottom ash.
Utilization of Complete Recycle Systems. Data from the 303 sur-
vey 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 inspec-
tion but time and budget constraints precluded visitation of all
14 plants. Four of the the most likely plants were visited.
Plants 4813, 3203, 1811 and 0322, handle and dispose of bottom
ash completely separately from fly ash. The plants enploy 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 fron 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 hydrobins 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
407
-------
Table VII-25
DATA SUMMARY OF PLANTS REPORTING ZERO DISCHARGE OF
BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER
Plant
Code Location
2903 Missouri
Fuel
Bituminous
(13.8% ash)
o
00
2705 Minnesota
Subbituminous
(9% ash)
2413 Maryland
4813 Texas
Bituminous
(14.6% ash)
Lignite
(10.4% ash)
Boiler Type Ash Handling Systems
Pulvenzed-
Dry Bottom
Pulvenzed-
Dry Bottom
Pulvenzed-
Dry Bottom
Pulvenzed-
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 SUMMARY OF PLANTS REPORTING ZERO DISCHARGE OF
BOTTOM ASH TRANSPORT WATER
Plant
Code Location
Fuel
Boiler Type Ash Handling Systems
5102 Virginia Bituminous Pulvenzed-
(17.8% ash) Dry Bottom
4229 Pennsylvania Bituminous Pulvenzed-
(11.5% ash) Dry Bottom
4230 Pennsylvania Bituminous Pulverized-
(10% ash) 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)
Boiler Type Ash Handling Systems
Bituminous
(13.72% ash)
Bituminous
(17.7% ash)
Pulvenzed-
Dry Bottom
Cyclone-
Wet Bottom
Cyclone-
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
(10.66% ash)
Boiler Type Ash Handling Systems
Pulverized-
Dry Bottom
Pulverized-
Dry Bottom
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
Blowdown from
sluice system is
sent to evapora-
tion pond
-------
and gravity flows to a surge tank which supplies the suction side
of the recycle or recirculation pumps. Makeup water to compen-
sate 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 0153 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 pond at the base of the incline. The recircula-
tion punps draw 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 prinary settling ponds for fly ash and bottom ash are sepa-
rate 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 dis-
charge but was unable to close the water balance due to problems
in accurately monitoring the makeup water requirement. An addi-
tional 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 dis-
charge 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
412
-------
plant, 2750, indicated that scaling in the recirculation line
might be a problen. No such problens 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.
Trip Reports. 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 renaming 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 con-
tained in this subsection. A description of the bottom ash hand-
ling 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. Detailed
information concerning the analytical techniques is presented in
Appendix D.
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) with an average ash content of 12 percent
and fluctuation to approximately 16 percent ash. The availabil-
ity 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. Blowdown from the cooling towers
accumulates in a storage tank. Water from this storage tank then
feeds the three SO2 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
sunp; 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
413
-------
£rciui see
••11* and r±v*r
Baaervoir
>J
T v
Cooling
Towers
Hue Gas
Scsuboers
795 gpm
To Scrubber
Settling h tO
To Evmporacion Ponds
50-100 gpm
Figure VII-42
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PLANT 3203
414
-------
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 VII-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 purnps
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 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 punp repair has
been needed due to minor erosion.
415
-------
cn
To Fly Ash
Conditioner
To Evapora-
tion Pond*
From Cooling Tower
Slowdown Storage Tank
From Plant
Drain Sump
^Sample ft2
Settling Tank
Overflow
Recycle
Water VStorage
_^. , f j_m —„-„, __ -\ n* |_
Sludfee ^
_. f ronP~*\ y T
Storage X sludge SettlingK
Tank / \Pump Tunic 7 \ a«ra«
Unltfl <-J Tank sL_Jge Samp
Bottom PumP
^!i Sludge to
Ikppenf 1 Economizer gump
Ash Hopper
Dewatered
Bottom Ash
to Disposal
Bottom Ash Sluice Water
(1,260,000 gpd)
Overflown to
Plant Drain Sump
A Sample Location'
Figure VII-43
BOTTOM ASH RECYCLE SYSTEM AT PLANT 3203
-------
There is a problem wi th solids pluggage in 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 punps.
The entire bottom ash system requires two men per day for mainte-
nance and one nan 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:
o A sample was taken of a stream of water leaking through
the sljde gate at the bottom of the dewatering bins,
o A sample was taken of the recycle system makeup water from
the cooling tower blowdown tank, and
o 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
417
-------
silver, arsenic, beryllium, cadniun, 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 signifi-
cant species in this sample relative to the other two samples
were copper, lead, and calciun.
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 progran. The results
fron 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 poten-
tial 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 7231 by using discharge to evaporation pond. The technical
problems associated w] th the equipment in the closed-loop system
were of a reconciliable design nature. The only significant
equijnent 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 elenents
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 with the coal ash also increased the con-
centrations of calciun and sodium. The potential for precipi-
tation of CaCOs exists in all three sample streams based on
scaling tendency calculations. The greatest potential exists in
the sluice water in the dewatering bin. This means that
418
-------
Table VII-26
TRACE ELEMENTS/PRIORITY POLLUTANTS1
CONCENTRATIONS AT PLANT 3203
(ug/1)
pH
Temp. (°F)
Sliver
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Cooling Tower Leakage from
Slowdown Dewatering Bin
Recirculation
Pump
8.20
96
<0.1
71
10.40
--
<0.1
4
8
96
<0
26
.20
.1
<0.5
<0.5
15
21
<2
<0.5
<3
8
5
<0
24
49
<2
<0
4
<1
<2
.5
.5
<0.5
.5
160
40
19
5
<2
<3
5
<2
40
i.5
analyses were done for each sample species, 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.
419
-------
Table VII-27
MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATION1 AT PLANT 3203
(tng/1)
Cooling Tower Leakage from Recirculation
Slowdown Dewatenng Bin Pump
Calcium
Magnes lum
Sodium
Phosphate^
Sulfate
Chloride
Silicate
Carbonate
395
190
645
0.40
2546
394
181
2520
505
1
780
I
0.06
1773
601
I
27
60
i
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 .
species except Ca, Mg, Na, were analyzed only once, one
number is reported for each sample species.
NOTE: All concentrations reflect dissolved as opposed to total
concentrations .
420
-------
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 base-
load 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 ulti-
mately handled by an evaporation pond. A general description
along with a flow diagram (figure VII-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 to 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 hydro-
bin. 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 snail 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 bins.
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 nine 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
421
-------
to
to
(2) 2UO,01K)-|«llou •oil water itorag*
Tiom tank* (cotillng louer bloudoun)
Cooling 1
Tou«« -I
(2) centrifugal f:r>naf«r
pumps, 1500 gi«,
*B' dead, 2) lip drive
Clinker
Crlioler
DewttertJ
Bottom Aoli to
Plf)|>usal
To Auli SluJge
Drain Sump
(3) low pressure
water punpa|
1000 Bl»*l HO1
ieojj 50 lip drive
propulaluii punpa
Quantity of Boltota Aalll Coal 5,000 tuna/day
101 Ash - 500 ton/Juy an4
IflZ uottoa Aaii - 50 tona/May
BlouJuun to
Bvaporatlon fond
T Sanpli
Figure VII-44
BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM FOR PLANT 0822
-------
current system in 1975, the plant used a once-through sluice
operation in which both fly 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.
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 leve] in these tanks.
Two Bingham horizontal end suction, back pullout, centrifugal
punps each rated at 150 gpm, 48 feet head are driven by 25 HP,
1,200 rpm Westinghouse motors. These punps 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 bototm ash hoppers from the surge tank. These punps
are Bingham horizontal, single stage, axially split, double suc-
tion centrifugal pumps each rated at 3,000 gpm, 730 feet head and
are driven by 700 hp, 3,600 rpm Reliance motors. Start-stop con-
trol switches are located on the bottom ash panel.
Three low pressure ash water punps 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, and overflow supply.
These pumps are Binghan 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 punps located beneath the cylinder
grinders. These punps 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 punps. These
jet pumps are controlled on and off by associated two-way rotary
sluice gates located in the discharge line of each punp. 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
423
-------
bottom ash storage capacity with both Unit 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 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 veloc-
ities sufficiently low to precipitate nost 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 set-
tling 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:
o A sample was taken of the system makeup stream from the
cooling tower blowdown water,
o A sample was taken of the settling tank overflow to the
surge tank, and
o A sample was taken from the surge tank.
These samples provide an indication of the trace elements, riajor
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, sodiun, phosphate, sulfate,
chloride, silicate, and carbon dioxide. The results of these
analyses are reported in tables VI1-28 and VI1-29.
424
-------
Table VII-28
TRACE ELEMENTS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATIONS1.2
AT PLANT 0822
(ug/1)
Cooling Tower
Slowdown
Settling Tank
Overflow
Surge Tank
pH
Temp. (°F)
Sliver
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
6.7
126.0
<0.1
3.0
<0.5
<0.5
<2.0
15.0
<0.2
<0.5
<3.0
5.0
6.0
<1 .0
410
1A11 trace element analyses were done in duplicate, the two
values were averaged.
ZAU 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.
425
-------
Table VII-29
MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS1*2
AT PLANT 0822
(tng/1)
Cooling Tower
Slowdown
Settling Tank
Overflow
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Phosphate (P04)
Sulfate (804)
Chloride (C1-)
Silicate (Si02)
Carbonate (C03=)
365
120
210
3.3
1215
211
57
60
365
92
145
0.17
1203
I
112
I
36
120
Surge Tank
370
90
150
0.09
1165
125
35
360
, Mg, Na were analyzed in duplicate, values are averages.
values reflect dissolved, not total, concentrations.
426
-------
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 streans, raises
the concentrations of some species. The trace elements, which
increased due to ash contact are silver, cadnium, chromium,
selenium, and zinc. For the major species, an increase in car-
bonate concentration is reflected in the carbon dioxide values.
Decreases in concentration 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 CaCO3 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
CaCO3 in the makeup water stream„ However, neither scaling nor
corrosion hcis 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 recir-
culating 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 dia-
gram 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.
427
-------
to
CO
1)1 a charge/111 level
(Floj Hate Unknown)
Flrat
V
Forebay
(clear
oond)
Secondary
fund
Second
Secundury
Pond
~f~\
£_l AS
Kecycl
Pump
(260 p
11>ple 3 (Unit 18)
a
Sewage ,
3i) treatment
Discharge
line
(Unit 17)
V
r r
\>
s
Plant Water Lines
(Did llydroveyoi Sluice]
lines for fly Ash /
&
-
&
I
I
A
H
T
\
Reclrculatlon Lines (2-16" linen)
Button
Aah
Sluice
(1 99 ngpd)
Lake Michigan
tlakcup
A Sample location
Figure VII-45
PLANT 1811 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR BOTTOM ASH HANDLING
-------
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
nain sluice punps for the bottom ash are jet pumps which dis-
charge 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 approxi-
mately 2.0 x 106 gpd. The ash is sluiced for 1 to 2 hours each
shift (depending on the load) with 10 minutes of flushing 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 punp at a discharge pres-
sure of 260 psig. A single pipe exists downstream of the
forebay recirculation punps 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 oper-
ation was $67,300 for 1978. The hauling and disposal of the bot-
tom 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 off-
site 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.
429
-------
The operating manpower required to run the sluicing system is one
nan 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, 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 bhe bottom ash
sluicing system. These locations, which are designated in figure
VII-45, are:
I
o the bottom ash discharge point,
i
o the primary pond overflow, and
o 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, beryl-
lium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead, antimony,
selenium, thallium, and zinc. The major species assayed were
magnesium, calcium, sodium, phosphate, sulfate, chloride, sili-
cate, 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 concentra-
tions are low, except for the sulfate and zinc. There is
essentially no indication of an effect on trace metal concen-
trations 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.
430
-------
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
Primary Pond
Overflow
6.7
79
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
27
<2
<3
<2
10
270
16
<2
<3
<2
10
180
Bottom Ash
Discharge
6.3
85
<1 .0
<0.5
6.0
<2
14
2
<0.5
5.0
<2
3
6
<0
8
<2
10
.5
.0
17
<2
<3
<2
25
90
trace elements analyses were done in duplicate, and the
two values were averaged.
concentrations are for the dissolved, not total,
concentration .
value <.1 indicates that the concentration was below the
detection limit which in this case is .1 ppb for silver.
431
-------
Table VII-31
MAJOR SPECIES POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATIONS1 »2
AT PLANT 1811
Forebay Primary Pond Bottom Ash
Outfall Overflow Discharge
Calcium 69 54 74
Magnesium 14 11 19
Sodium 40 43 36
Phosphate (P04) <0.06 <0.06 <0.06
i
Sulfate (S04) 273 241 250
Chloride (Cl) 888
I
Silicate (Si02) 5 <3 4
Carbonate (0)3) 60 300 600
Ca, Mg, Na were analyzed in duplicate, the values are
averaged.
values reflect dissolved, not total, concentrations.
432
-------
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 recircu-
lating 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 stean
generators (520 MW). All systems were designed and installed by
Allen-Sherman-Hof f, retrofitted for Units 4, 5, and 6, and new
for Unit 12. The principal reasons for installing the ash sluic-
ing 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, approxi-
mately 48,600 tons of fly ash were collected and 136,000 tons of
bottom ash were collected.
A jet pump sluices the bottom ash from the slag tanks to the bot-
tom 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 x 10^ gpd. At the 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 com-
posed 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 tine. 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 over-
flows 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 cond]tion 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 1505 is not strictly a zero discharge plant.
It does provide for a discharge under fairly consistent condi-
tions when Unit 12 is operating. This discharge stream was not
433
-------
quantified by plant personnel. The discharge is not used to pre-
vent 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 m ch 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.
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 por-
tion 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 nain sluicing jet
434
-------
punps and the new recirculation 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 col-
lection 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 per-
sonnel indicate that the technology to retrofit bottom ash sys-
tems 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
because of NOX emissions. According to plant personnel, the
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 asn
sluicing system. These locations are shown in the bottom ash
sluicing system diagram in figure VII-35 and are d^ cribed as
follows:
o A sample was taken of the miscellaneous sump water,
o A sample was taken of the bottom ash pond overflow, and
o 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 VII-32 and
VII-33.
435
-------
Table VII-32 •
TRACE ELEMENTS/PRIORITY POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATIONS1^
AT PLANT 1809
(ug/L)
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
I
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.
3The value <.1 indicates that the concentration was below the
detection limit which is 0 . 1 g/1.
436
-------
Table VII-33
MAJOR SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS1^
AT PLANT 1809
Ong/1)
Sluice Water from Bottom Ash Miscellaneous
Recirculation Pond Pond Overflow Sump
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Phosphate (PO^.)
Sulfate (SO^)
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
Ca, Mg, Na samples were analyzed in duplicate, the results
were averaged .
concentrations reflect dissolved, not total,
concentration .
3The value <.06 reflects a concentration below the detection
limit which un this case is 0.06 mg/1.
437
-------
Results from the sampling of trace elenents 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,
of 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 cond]tions.
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:
o Water Treatment
- Clarifier blowdown (underflow)
- Make-up filter backwash
- Line softener blowdown
- Ion exchange softener regenerant
- Demineralizer regenerant
- Reverse osmosis brine
- Evaporator bottoms
o Boiler blowdown
o Floor and laboratory drains.
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).
438
-------
Process Description
A schematic flow diagram of a VCE systen 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 nay 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 filn 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 b1" ne
slurry. The condensate that results on the shell side is punped
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 streans 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 ng/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 treat-
ment 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 nay be a
viable disposal method. Evaporation ponds are used as a final
wastewater disposal nethod throughout the electric utility indus-
try, primarily in the southwestern states; however, land cost and
governmental regulations restrict the use of evaporation ponds at
many plant sites.
439
-------
VENT
FEED
FEED
PUMP
PRODUCT -<-
HEAT
EXCHANGER
EVAPORATOR
STEAM
COMPRESSOR
TO WASTE
DISPOSAL
WASTE
PUMP
PRODUCT
PUMP
RECIRCULATtON
PUMP
Figure VII-46
SIMPLIFIED, SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A VAPOR COMPRESSION EVAPORATION UNIT (50)
-------
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 evapora-
tion 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 evapora-
tion. 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 VCE 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 sta-
tions. Since they are infrequent, many plants prefer to have
then hauled off and treated by private contractors. Most of the
expertise for treating cleaning wastes has been developed by the
441
-------
cleaning contractors. Current treatment methods include incin-
eration, ash basin treatment, and physical-chemical treatment.
In addition, treatment by vapor compression evaporation also has
been considered.
Treatment Methodologies
Disposal by Incineration (Evaporation). Incineration (evapora-
tion) 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 hydroxy-
acetic/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 opera-
tional 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/ CC>2, and H20
while iron and copper deposits from the cleaning are transformed
to oxides (57). These boiler chemical cleaning wastes are com-
bustible to some extent, due to these organic molecules and netal
compounds. Amnoniated EDTA has been estinated to have a heat
value of 2,000 Btu/pound.
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 gal-
lons 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 chemica] 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.
442
-------
. .-• .'I!,,,11 ' ,u , , •• ,
;^_ :j=5;r ' -'''!•<;"'""'''' '"'''- ''
To
Slack"
i
,::,.;"!". "'',:;
'-'1 '•'
I ' i t | "
II i, I,,! i. ' ',"111' „!,, Hi- J" '
i['''v ' ^ ''I'll'1 ''"'' ' *''''"'*'"
,
i.' ii • in i|,, I, ii' ii» „ i, ,i ,ni'. „ ',
i,''". u',' i,"i,,",ii i . ii"kl"'!, j*-*
"ii',v'< nj! ,»u ill, • i ', '• 5—
,. i' 'I I , .1 I -m—f— ~&A
forced Draft Fan
i
SEE DETAIL
Figure VII-47
TYPICAL PIPING DIAGRAM AND LOCATION FOR INCINERATION
OF BOILER CHEMICAL CLEANING WASTES (68)
443
-------
Other substances which are of concern were also evaluated in
incineration studies. Such cases concerned the disposal of
amitioniacal 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.
Some tests conducted during incineration of boiler cleaning
wastes have shown that sulfur dioxide (,SO2) and the oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) have been reduced in stack emissions. Explana-
tion of the lower NOX 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/phys-
ical nature of the ash pond environment will treat those wastes
as well as conventional line treatment.
i
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 cer-
tain 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 treat-
ment 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 s Luice water can be expected to precipitate
heavy metals (60).
In one of the demonstration projects on ash basin treatment, dis-
solved oxygen content of the ash pond was felt to be an important
factor (60). In theory, its presence 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 anmoniacal bromate
solution, thus allowing the precipitation of copper. In order to
achieve equivalent metal removal, the increase in the concentra-
tion 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.
444
-------
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 pre-
cipitation of the metal hydroxide compounds (57, 61, 62, 63, 64,
65). However, there are a nunber 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, 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. Dilu-
tion 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 cupric 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, clar-
ifier overflow was filtered through a dual media gravity filter
to produce final effluent with iron and copper concentration
below one (1) ng/1 (57).
Ammoniated EDTA. Waste ammoniated EDTA boiler and chemical
cleaningsolutions are difficult to treat due to the metal com-
plexes 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.
445
-------
Fe'=[Fe3>]+z[Fe(OH)n]
Figure VII-48
COMPLEXING OF Fe(III) (69)
The degree of complexation is expressed in terms of pFe for
various ligands (10~2M) 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-
dentate ligands (10"2M) are not able to keep a !(!)-•%
solution at higher pH values
446
Fe(III) in
-------
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 nay be achieved (57). Addition of
a polymer to aid in flocculation has been used in order to
achieve maximum removal of metals (57).
Amnoniacal Sodium Bronate. Reduction of total copper in waste
ammoniated sodium bromate solutions first requires the dissocia-
tion 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
Cu2+ 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 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) pro-
vides the necessary hydroxides and precipitation will occur at
approximately pH = 10. Flocculation nay be enhanced with addi-
tion 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 Conplexer. Many tines HC1
(without copper conplexer) is used in conjunction with ammoniated
sodium bromate solutions, and will be incorporated with the
treatment schene for that solution. However, it nay be used for
removing heavy scales in boiler systems which do not contain cop-
per, and thus the waste solution will not contain these rela-
tively 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.
447
-------
(H2.NCH2CH2NHCH2).
12
Figure VII-49
.2+
THE CHELATE EFFECT ON COMPLEX FORMATION OF Cu-aq'
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)
448
-------
WASTE
BOILER
CLEANING
SOLUTION
SEDIMENTATION
DILUTION
GRANULAR
MEDIA FILTER
VO
WASTE
SOLIDS
WASTE
SOLIDS
Figure VII-50
TREATMENT SCHEME FOR METALS REMOVAL BY
PRECIPITATION FROM WASTE BOILER CLEANING SOLUTION
-------
Figure VII-51 shows theoretical solubilities of a number of
metals as a function of pH. Fron the diagram it may be seen that
those metals found in waste hydrochloric acid cleaning solutions
nay be removed below 1 ng/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 treatnent scheme employed for this waste stream is pH adjust-
ment, 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 con-
taining 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 sane 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.
Another system using a similar treatment method also successfully
removed metals below the 1 mg/1 level. In addition, activated
carbon has been used in order to absorb further the metal-complex
species and toxic acid inhibitory chemicals (57).
Hydroxyacetic/Fornic Acid. This chemical solution has found wide
use in cleaning supercritical boilers because of its high iron
pickup capabilities. The hydroxyacetic/formic acid solution
chelates iron, and as such, is subject to dilution in order to
dissociate the complex. Dilution with other plant wastes fol-
lowed by oxidation (to change iron from the ferrous to the ferric
state) and pH adjustment should yield an effluent */ith iron and
copper below the 1 mg/1 level.
450
-------
IOO
10
o«
£
.o
"o
vt
OOOOl
00>
0001
Figure VII-51
THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF METAL
IONS AS A FUNCTION OF pH (69)
451
-------
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 IT^T on
iyXJ.Ul-J.Uil
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
f,\i 1
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
51
i
0.74
2.9
0.35
0.52
0.12
0.5
\TrtTl A
iNune
pH adjusted to 9.5 with lime
Source Design Report Wastewater Treatment Facilities
England Power Service Company
New
452
-------
Sulfuric Acid. Sulfuric acid, though used infrequently, may be
employed on certain austenitic type alloys for the removal of
heavy deposjts. There are no complexing agents used in conjunc-
tion with this chemical, and thus treatment is believed to be
similar to that of hydrochloric acid (without copper complexer).
Treatment Levels
Incineration (Evaporation). Disposal of waste boiler cleaning
solutions by means of incineration (evaporation) has been tested
for disposal capacities during a number of tests. Although
metals were released to the environment, the organic content of
the waste streams, along with obnoxious gases, were found to be
nonexistent in the stack emissions. Problems could arise if
stack controls are absent (57). The high temperature environment
of the firebox area was shown to break down the organic content
of the waste.
One means of measuring the impact of stack emissions is by esti-
mating ground level concentrations with the Threshold Limit
Values (TLV) for various components. TLV is defined as the
time-weighed average exposure to an airborne contaminant for a
period of eight hours a day, five days a week, over an indivi-
dual's working lifetime, which will not produce adverse effects
(56). Examination of various components of stack emissions for
their TLV as fumes and dusts and mists, has been used by the
Environmental Protection Agency for regulatory purposes. Such
examination of incineration operations of waste boiler cleaning
solutions has shown TLV of the various metals found in stack
emissions to be below the allowable limits set by EPA.
These low TVL values are a result of heavy metals components of
the waste solutions being retained in the boiler stack areas with
efficiencies approaching 98 percent in some cases. However, even
at this level, considerable amounts of heavy metals leave the
stack as a result of incinerating waste boiler chemical cleaning
solutions. If these emissions were distributed in a volume of
water equal to that of the original waste volume, the effluent
concentration (Equivalent Treated Effluent Concentration) would
be orders of magnitude larger than present limits (1 mg/1).
Table VII-35 illustrates the point for a number of incineration
tests.
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
453
-------
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 Izters
Iron 4142.74 kg
Copper 69.77 kg
Percent Equivalent Treated
Retained Effluent Concentration
94 ( 480 mg/1
88 216 mg/1
90 40 mg/1
81 3456 mg/1
94 19 mg/1
454
-------
(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 netals in waste boiler cleaning chemical solutions to below
the one mg/1 level. Table VII-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. Chemi-
cal 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 supernatant 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 sys-
tems could operate in a closed-loop or zero discharge mode sup-
porting data to confirm this is not available. The Agency plans
to continue research into scrubber system discharges and their
control.
455
-------
Table VII-36
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
AND EFFICIENCIES
Waste Type and
Treatment Scheme
Hydrochloric acid with
copper complexer
Dilution + precipitation
at pH ^ 1 sedimentation +
filtration (61)
Parameter
Fe
Cu
Zn
Ni
Mn
Effluent
Cone en tr a tion
(mg/1)
0.01
0.14
0.02
0.04
0.01
Ammoniated EDTA
H2S addition + precipita-
tion at pH - 13 +
sedimentation (57)
Fe
Cu
0.5
0.61
Ammonical bromate +
hydrochloric acid
Dilution + precipitation
at pH « 8.2 sedimentation
+ filtration (66)
Fe
Cu
Zn
Ni
*
*
*
*
*Indicates that the value is below the detection limit.
456
-------
SECTION VIII
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. All costs are presented
in 1979 dollars unless otherwise noted. 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 CoolingWater Systems
The capital cost, operating and maintenance costs, energy re-
quirements, and land requirements have been evaluated for the
following technologies:
- Chlorine minimization,
- Dechlorination,
- Alternative oxidizing chemicals
- chlorine dioxide
- bromine chloride
- 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 require-
ments for a new plant.
Non-Water Quality Aspects. There are no non-water quality
environmental effects identified with the use of chlorine
minimization.
Dechlorination
Costs, Energy, and Land Requirements. Summary costs, energy and
land requirements at both new and existing plants for dechlori-
nation of once-through cooling water systems are presented in
table VIII-2. The requirements for retrofitting an existing
plant are identical to the requirements for a new plant.
457
-------
Table VIII-1
SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
CHLORINE MINIMIZATION IN ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Capital Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenance
($/year)
Energy Requirenents
(kwh/year)
Land Requirements (acres)
Plant Size (MW)
36,000
9,200
37,000
9,100
8,500
negligible negligible negligible
i
none none none
Table VIII-2
SUMMARY OF COST, ENERGY, AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
DECHLORINATION IN ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
Capital Cost (?)
Operation and Maintenance
($/year)
Energy Requirenents
(kwh/year)
11
77,000
20,000
3.2x104
Land Requirements (acres) none
Plant Size (MW)
100
91,500
36,400
none
1,000
127,000
84,900
5.6xl04 1.12xl05
none
NOTE: Updated costs of chlorine control are presented in "Costs
of Chlorine Control Options for Once-Through Cooling
Systems at Steam Electric Power Plants," October 1981,
Radian Corporation for EPA.
458
-------
Non-Water Quality Aspects. There are no non-water quality
environmental effects identified with the use of dechlorination
technology.
Recirculating Cooling Water Systems
The capital cost, operational and maintenance costs, energy
requirements, and land requirements have been evaluated for the
following technologies:
Dechlorination,
- Non-Oxidizing Biocides,
Corrosion and Scaling Control, and
- Asbestos Cooling Tower Fill Replacement.
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 VIII-3. The requirements for retrofitting an existing
plant are identical to the requirements for a new plant.
Non-Water Quality Aspects. Dechlorination of cooling tower
blowdown is not expected" to result in any non-water quality
environmental effects.
Non-Oxidizing Biocides
Costs, 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 costs, energy or
land requirements are expected to be involved in the use of
nonpriority pollutant mixtures, as shown in table VIII-4.
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 costs,
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 pre-
sented in table VIII-5.
459
-------
Table VIII-3
SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND RETIREMENTS FOR
DECHLORINATION OF RECIRCULATING COOLING SYSTEM DISCHARGE
(BLOWDOWN)
Plant Size (MW)
.25. 100 3,000
Capital Cost ($) 54,200 54,200 57,200
Operation and Maintenance
($/year) 6,100 6,100 6,300
Energy Requirements
(kwh/year) 1.6xlQ3 1.6x103 1.6x103
Land Requirenents (acres) negligible negligible negligible
460
-------
Table VIII-4
SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR SWITCHING
TO NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING NON-OXIDIZING 3IOCIDES
Capital Cost (?)
Operation and Maintenance
($/year)
Energy Requirements
(kwh/year)
Land Requirements (acres)
Plant Size (MW)
_25 100 1,000
None None None
The O&M cost (chemical purchase cost)
of non-priority pollutant non-oxidiz-
ing biocides is less than for chlori-
nated phenols.
None
None
None
None
None
None
Table VIII-5
SUMMARY COST, ENERGY AND LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR SWITCHING
TO HOW-PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONTAINING CORROSION AND
SCALE CONTROL CHEMICALS
Capital Cost (?)
Operation and Maintenance
($/year)
Energy Requirements
(kwh/year)
Land Requirements (acres)
Plant Size (MW)
25
None
100
None
1,000
None
1,800
5,200
36,000
negligible negligible negligible
negligible negligible negligible
461
-------
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
wood. 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 recir-
culating 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 for these two instances is
summarized in table VIII-6.
The values which appear in the table serve as only general guide-
lines 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 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.
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.
Non-Water Quality Aspects. The asbestos fill removed from the
cooling tower may be considered a hazardous waste and require
special disposal practices.
462
-------
Table VIII-6
COOLING TOWER FILL REPLACEMENT COSTS
Cost of Cost of Total
Size of Plant Materials Labor Cost
Cooling Tower Type (Million (Million (Million
Was Servicing of Dollars Dollars Dollars
(MW) Fuel 1979) 1979) 1979)
700 Fossil 213
900 Nuclear 426
463
-------
ASH HANDLING
In response to comments received on the proposed regulation, the
Agency has collected more data on the costs of fly ash disposal
systems for new sources and reevaluated the costs of dry and wet
ash handling and disposal. Dry ash handling and disposal costs
were developed and compared with the costs of wet ash handling,
including chemical precipitation for once-through sluicing.
The wet fly ash disposal system represents typical wet disposal
methods utilized by existing plants in the industry. Costs of
each system were developed from transport from ash hoppers
through ultimate land disposal. Annualized costs were calculated
for two generating capacities, 500 MW and 1,000 MW for both the
wet and dry systems. Table VIII-7 shows the results of this
comparison. Table V3:il-8 presents the capital costs. The
components of this evaluation and the basis for the costing are
presented in the following sections.
i
The conclusion reached in this comparison is that, on an annual-
ized cost basis, dry handling and disposal is less expensive than
wet handling and disposal for fly ash from new plants of 500 mw
or greater generating capacity.
While the Agency does not expect the cost differential between
wet and dry systems to be as great for smaller plants, the costs
appear to be comparable. However, the Agency did not develop
additional data since construction of smaller new source plants
is not anticipated.
Fly Ash
Two treatment and control options for discharges from fly ash
handling systems are cos ted in this section. They are:
1. Dry fly ash handling,
2. Once-through sluicing with chemical precipitation.
Use of dry fly ash handling includes dry vacuum and dry pressure
pneumatic conveying systems.
The once-through sluicing system involves sluicing the ash to a
pond with the sluice water passing through a chemical precipita-
tion system prior to discharge. The information presented for
the fly ash handling systems includes capital costs, operating
and maintenance costs, energy requirements, and land require-
ments .
Dry Fly Ash Handling
Both pneumatic vacuum conveying and pneumatic pressure conveying
were evaluated. Technical descriptions of these two systems are
presented in cnapter VII. The costs of each system were ad-
dressed separately and then were combined into a "composite" cost
for a typical plant by consideration of the number of plants
using each technology.
464
-------
Table VIII-7
Annualized Costs, Dry vs Wet Fly Ash Disposal
(in $1,000)
500 MW
1,000 MW
en
Dry fly ash
Capital (Amort.
O&M
Energy
Land
TOTAL
Wet fly ash
Capital (Amort.
O&M
Energy
Land
TOTAL
Ash
Collection
) 376
526
12
3
917
) 210
693
30
1
Ash Transport
and Disposal
200
2,878
*
18
3,096
309
5,717
*
24
Total
576
3,404
12
21
4,013
519
6,410
30
25
Ash
Collection
717
724
35
4
1,480
331
1,120
38
2
Ash Transport
and Disposal
282
5,716
*
24
6,022
435
11,345
*
42
Total
999
6,440
35
28
7,502
766
12,465
38
44
934
6,050
6,985
1,491
11,822
13,313
*Energy costs included in O&M costs.
-------
Table VIII-8
Capital Costs for New Source Dry Fly Ash Handling Systems
(million dollars)
Plant Size (megawatts)
500 1000
Ash Collection
Ash Transport/Disposal
Total
3.54
1.8.9
i
5.43
6.76
2.66
9.42
466
-------
Dry fly ash handling capital costs are presented for these two
technologies in terns of new plants and existing plants.
Existing plants have an additional cost factor included for each
case, that is, retrofit costs. Retrofit costs are presented as
estimates because the 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 remove certain equipment, labor to reroute existing
piping, and resulting downtime to install the new system. New
plants will not bear such additional costs . The engineering and
contingency estimate is 20 percent of the installed system with
retrofit cost.
Capital Costs for Dry Fly Ash Handling Systems. The capital
costs for dry fly ash disposal systems (table VTII-8) were cal-
culated for the dry ash to a storage silo and wet ash conveyance
to a pond, ash transport by truck one mile to the disposal site,
and the disposal site. Ash collection 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. The trucks for transport were costed at 100 percent
operating factor. The ash disposal site was costed on the basis
of a 60 percent coal ash generating rate for 30 years. 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.
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs. Operating and maintenance
costs for the dry fly ash disposal system include operating labor
and three percent of capital equipment cost for maintenance and
materials.
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 KW to 180 KW at 150 TPH of fly ash.
Other energy consuming "equipment includes: silo aerators,
unloaders , vent return line blowers, and silo heating coils.
Table VIII-9 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-10. Land is required
to contain the silo, blowers, piping, and the disposal site.
Non-Water Quality Aspects. Air Pollution—Application of dry
fly ash handling may cause a higher dust loading in localized
areas around the fly ash transport transfer points. A baghouse
or other type of dust collection system will minimize such
impacts. The costs of such dust control systems are included
467
-------
Table VIII-9
Energy Requirements for New Source Dry Fly Ash Handling Systems
(million kw-hr/year)
Plant Size (megawatts)
500 1000
0.340 0.980
Table VIII-10
Land Requirements for New Source Dry Fly Ash Handling Systems
(acres)
Plant Size (megawatts)
I
500 1000
1 "^""i ^
5.5 10.0
468
-------
in the economic analysis. Dry fly ash landfill sites are subject
to dusting problems, especially in arid regions. Until the site
can be sealed with a cap or vegetative cover, watering to control
dust may be required.
Solid Waste—No additional solid wastes are expected as a result
of these regulations, including for dry fly ash transport and
disposal. Further, fly ash, whether wet or dry, has a wide
variety of industrial uses, such as fill or cover material, soil
conditioners, roadway bases, drainage media, pozzolan, structural
products, aggregate, grout, and metal extraction. Usage of this
material eases disposal requirements.
Consumptive Water Loss—Less consumptive water loss is expected
from dry fly ash handling and disposal than wet fly ash handling
and disposal because of less overall water usage. The amounts of
water used for dust control in dry fly ash systems should be no
more than the amounts of water consumed in wet fly ash transport
and disposal.
Once-Through Discharge of Sluice Water After Chemical
Precipitation
The technology addressing this category is ponding of the fly
ash with total discharge of sluice water after chemical precipi-
tation. The system includes a clear pond and the addition of a
chemical precipitation system. The costs and other requirements
for this system are addressed in a manner similar to those for
the dry fly ash handling systems. Similar assumptions were used
for new and existing plants, pulverized and cyclone-fired boilers.
Capital Costs. The annual costs for new source wet fly ash
handling system are presented in table VIII-7. Capital costs are
presented in table VIII-11. The equipment upon which the capital
costs were based are a clear pond to hold three years generation
of fly ash at a 60 percent generating rate, piping, pumps, the
equipment associated with the chemical precipitation system, and
ash pile construction costs. Further description of this system
can be found in Section VII.
Operating and Maintenance Costs. The O&M costs for the wet fly
ash handling system are based on operation of a clear pond,
piping, pumps and the chemical precipitation system.
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for the wet fly
ash disposaJ systems are presented in table VIII-12. The
energy requirements are based on the energy used by the pumps,
dispensers, and mixers for the chemical precipitation system.
Land Requirements. The land requirements for this system are
presented in table VIII-13. The land requirement is based on a
clear pond, piping from the sluice pumps to the pond, the land
needed for the chemical precipitation system, and the land for
the ash disposal pile.
469
-------
Table VIII-11
Capital Costs for New Source Chemical Precipitation of
Once-Through Fly Ash Sluicing Systems
t
(million dollars)
Once-Through Sluicing
with Chemical Precipitation
Plant Capacity (MW)
500 1000
Ash Collection
Ash Transport Disposal
Total
1.98
2.; 91
4.39
3.12
4.11
7.23
470
-------
Table VIII-12
Energy Requirements for New Source Wet Chemical Precipitation
of Once-Through Fly Ash Sluicing Systems
(million kilowatt-hours/year)
Once-Through Sluicing
with Chemical Precipitation
Plant Capacity (MW)
500 1000
0.857 1.09
Table VIII-13
Land Requirements for New Source Chemical Precipitation
of Once-Through Fly Ash Handling Systems
(acres)
Once-Through Sluicing
with Chemical Precipitation
Plant Capacity (MW)
500 1000
4.5 8.7
471
-------
Non-Water Quality Aspects. The use of, chemical precipitation
will result in a lime'sludge which must be disposed of in a
properly operated landfill. Proper landfill operation would
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 mainten-
ance annual costs, energy requirements, and land requirements
for 25, 100, and 1,000 MW 'typical1 plants. The specific tech-
nologies associated with bottom ash handling are presented for
complete recycle and partial recycle. The concept of complete
recycle, as discussed in Section VII, involves the elimination
of any direct discharge from the sluicing system water circuit.
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
i
The technologies addressed in the complete recycle category
include hydrobin/dewatering bin systems, and ponding with
recycle. Both technologies use 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 remove certain existing equipment, labor to reroute existing
piping, and resulting downtime to install the new system. New
plants will not have to contend with this added cost.
Capital Cost. The capital costs are presented in table VIII-14
for the bottom ash handling systems which are considered for
complete recycle. The dewatering bins system/slip stream
softening capital costs are the summation of the dewatering bin
system and slip stream softening system costs. The slip stream
softening system cost is based on treatment of 10 percent of
the ash sluicing stream. For existing plants, an installation
factor of 2.5 times the equipment cost is used.
The retrofit "penalty" is considered to be equal to the cost of
installation; the engineering and contingency are estimated at
20 percent of the installed system cost.
The second ma^or system that was costed for a complete recycle
scenario was ponding with recycle. The pond was assumed to be
built one mile from the bottom ash sluice pumps. The slip stream
softening system was assumed to treat 10 percent of the recycle
stream and used the same equipment as presented above.
472
-------
Table VIII-14
Capital Costs for Complete Recycle Bottom Ash Handling System
(million dollars)
System
Complete Recycle with Softening
Existing
New
Plant Capacity (MW)
25 500 1000
1.431 1.569 2.508
0.882 0.967 1.381
473
-------
Operating and Maintenance Costs. Maintenance and materials
items are different for hydrobin systems and recycle systems.
For hydrobin systems, the annual maintenance and materials cost
is estimated at two percent of the equipment cost. For recycle,
this annual cost is assumed to be one 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 a plant would have to dispose of ash material regardless of
any water discharge regulations. Thus, the difference in
operating costs for disposal will be minimal. Costs for both
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-15.
Energy Requirements. The estimation of energy requirements is
based on annual consumption of electricity. The requirements
for the dewatering bin systems are based on the pumping require-
ments. 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-16.
Land Requirements. The land requirements for a complete recycle
systemaregiven in table VIII-17. For recirculating systems,
land requirements are 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.
i
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 operatons are used, the potential problem of
leaching into groundwater can be avoided.
Partial Recycle
The technologies addressed for bottom ash partial recycle systems
are essentially the same as those presented for complete recycle.
The major 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.
Capital Cost. The capital costs for partial recycle systems
are presented in table VIII-18. The equipment upon which these
costs are based, i.e., dewatering bins without slip stream
softening and recirculation without slip stream softening system,
may be found in the capital cost discussion for complete recycle
systems.
474
-------
Table VIII-15
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE
BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
(million dollars/year)
System
Complete Recycle with Softening
Existing
New
Plant Capacity (MW)
25 100 1000
0.440
0.440
0.445
0.445
0.561
0.535
Table VI11-16
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
HANDLING SYSTEM
(kwh/year)
System
Complete Recycle with
Softening
Existing
New
Plant Capacity (MW)
^5 100 1000
1.19x105 1.96x105 1.48x106
1.12x105 1.53x105 1.04x106
475
-------
Table VIII-17
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
HANDLING SYSTEM
(acres)
Plant Capacity (MW)
System 2J5 100 1000
Complete Recycle
Existing 3.55 3.8 5.4
New 3.55 3.8 5.4
Table VIII-18
CAPITAL COSTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
(nillion dollars)
Plant Capacity (MW)
System .25 100 1000
Partial Recycle
Existing 1.260 1.262 1.59
New 0.787 0.814 1.41
476
-------
Operating and Maintenance Costs. The O&M annual costs estimated
for the partial recycle systems are based on the same assumptions
as for the complete recycle technologies. The slip stream soft-
ening O&M costs are omitted in the partial recycle cases. Table
VIII-19 presents the O&M costs for the partial recycle systems.
Energy Requirements. The energy requirements for the partial
recycle systems are based on the same assumptions as for the
complete recycle technologies. The slip stream softening energy
requirements are omitted in the partial recycle cases. Table
VIII-20 presents the annual energy requirements for the partial
recycle systems.
Land Requirements. The land requirements estimated for the
partial recycJe systems are based on the same assumptions as for
the complete recycle technologies. The slip stream softening
land requirements are omitted in the partial recycle cases.
Table VIII-21 presents the land requirements for partial recycle
systems.
Non-Water Quality Aspects. No nonwater quality impacts were
identified 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-22.
The installed battery limits costs for the VCE system are shown
in table VIII-23. 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 O&M costs for a typical diked clay-lined pond for 20 inches
per year net evaporation are presented in table VIII-24. These
costs are based on the following items:
- dirt and excavation cost—$20,000 per acre, and
- clay costs and installation—$20 ,000 per acre.
The capital costs, O&M costs, and energy and land requirements
are presented in table VIII-25. No non-water quality impacts
were identified as a result of implementing these technologies.
477
-------
Table VIII-19
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE
BOTTOM ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
(million dollars/year)
Plant Capacity (MW)
System 25_ 100 1000
Partial Recycle
Existing 0.355 0.359 0.421
New 0.355 0.357 0.395
Table VIII-20
ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
HANDLING SYSTEM
(kwh/year)
Plant Capacity (MW)
Systen ^5_ 100 1000
i
Partial Recycle
Existing 0.99xl05 1.72xlQ5 1.42xl06
New 0.92xl05 1.30xl05 9.80xl05
478
-------
Table VIII-21
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL RECYCLE BOTTOM ASH
HANDLING SYSTEMS
(acres)
System
Partial Recycle
Existing
New
Plant Capacity (MW)
25 100 1000
3.55
3.55
3.8
3.8
5.4
5.4
Table VIII-22
IMPOUNDMENT COST
25
Plant Size (MW)
100
1000
Capital Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenace
($/year)
Land Requirements (acres)
4,200
8,400
12,000
negligible negligible negligible
0.35 0.7 1.0
479
-------
Table VIII-23
COST OF VAPOR COMPRESSION EVAPORATION SYSTEM
Plant Size (MW)
25 100 1000
Installed Capital
Cost ($)a 1,140,000 2,040,000 2,880,000
Operation and Maintenance13
($/year) 25,000 32,000 39,000
Energy Requirements
(kwh/year) 1.6x106 3.2x10$ 4.8x10$
Land Requirements (ft2) 4,000 4,000 4,000
a - The capital costs include 10 percent for engineering and
10 percent for contingencies.
b - The operation and maintenance costs assume continuous
operation at a 55 capacity factor.
Table VIII-24
i
COST OF EVAPORATION PONDING
Plant Size (MW)
2j> 100 1000
Installed Capital Cost3 ($) 129,000 259,000 388,800
Operation and Maintenance
($/year) 3,240 6,480 9,720
I
Energy Requirement (kwh/year) neglibile negligible negligible
Land Requirements (acres) 2.7 5.4 8.1
a - Cost of land not included.
480
-------
COAL PILE RUNOFF
For the treatment of coal pile runoff, two treatment and dis-
charge options are presented:
Option I—equalization, pH adjustment, settling
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-26.
The lime feed system employed for pH adjustment includes a
storage silo, slaker, feeder, and lime slurry storage tank,
instrumentation, electrical connections, piping and controls.
The capital and O&M costs for pH adjustment are shown in table
VIII-27. 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 VIII-28.
The clarifier is assumed to have a 3-hour retention time. The
costs of clarification are presented in table VIII-29.
The costs of Option 2 include impoundment for equalization, 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-26).
The costs for the lime feed system are presented in table
VIII-30. The components of this system 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-28).
The polymer feed systen includes storage hoppers, chemical
feeder, solution tan
-------
The cost of clarification is identical to that of Option 1
(refer to table VIII-29).
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 tartk, two feed pumps, an
acid pH control loop, and associated piping, electrical con-
nections and instrumentation. The specific costs, including
energy and land requirements, of the acid feed system are pre-
sented in table VIII-32.
482
-------
Table VIII-25
COST OF SPRAY DRYING SYSTEM
Plant Size (MW)
25
100
Installed Capital Cost ($) 600,000 648,000
Operation and Maintenance
($/year) 25,000 25,800
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr) 3.7xJ06 7.4xl06
Land Requirements (ft2) 800 800
' 1000
.744,000
27,400
1.0x10?
800
Table VIII-26
COST OF IMPOUNDMENT FOR COAL PILE RUNOFF
25
Plant Size (MW)
100
1000
Installed Capital Cost ($) 4,500 4,500 9,000
Operation and Maintenance ($) negligible negligible negligible
483
-------
Table VIII-27
COST OF LIME FEED SYSTEM
Installed Capital Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenance
($/year)
25
Plant Size (MW)
100 1000
91,200 168,000
3,300 7,000
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr) 3.6xl04 3.6xl04
Land Requirements (ft2) 5,000 5,000
258,000
11,500
3.6x104
5,000
Table VIII-23
COST OF MIXING EQUIPMENT
Plant Size (MW)
Installed Capital Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenance
($/year)
Energy Requirenents (kwh/yr)
Land Requirements (ft2)
215
43,200
1,500
1.3x103
2,000
100
60,000
1,600
3.3x103
2,000
1000
76,300
1,700
6.5X103
2,000
484
-------
Table VIII-29
CLARIFICATION
Installed Capital Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenance
<$/year)
25
Plant Size (MW)
100 1000
120,000 156,000
2,100 2,400
Energy Requirements (kwh/yr) 1.3xl03 3.3xl03
Land Requirements (acres) 0.07 0.11
186,000
2,700
6.5x103
0.16
Table VIII-30
COST FOR LIME FEED SYSTEM
Installed Capital Cost ($)
Operation and Maintenance
($/year)
Energy Requiranents (kwh/yr)
Land Requirements (ft2)
25
Plant Size (MW)
100 1000
91,200 163,000
253,000
3,800
3.6x104
5,000
7,000
3.6x104
5,000
11,500
3.6x104
5,000
485
-------
-------
SECTION IX
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
GUIDELENES AND LIMITATIONS, 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 ERG 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified at 12 ERG 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. Cooling Tower Blowdown - Recirculating Cooling Water
3. Fly Ash Transport Water
4. Bottom Ash Transport Water
5. Low Volume Wastes
6. Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes
7. Coal Pile Runoff
The following discussion summarizes the final regulations
and the changes from the proposal. It first discusses require-
ments pertain]ng to all wastestreams. Each regulated waste-
stream is then discussed in the following order: once-through
cooling water, cooling tower blowdown, fly ash transport water,
bottom ash transport water, low volume wastes, chemical metal
cleaning wastes, and coal pile runoff. For each wastestream, a
discussion of the existing, proposed, and final limitations is
presented along with an explanation of the changes from proposal.
The discussion covers those previously promulgated limitations
which are retained and the revisions being promulgated.
Additional background material may be found in the preamble to
the proposed rule (45 F.R. 68328, Oct. 14, 1980) and the preamble
to the final rule (47 F.R. 52290, Nov. 19, 1982).
487
-------
1. All Wastewater Streams
(a) Best Conventional Technology (BCT)
EPA proposed BCT limitations for TSS and oil and grease based
on the "cost-reasonableness" test that was rejected in part in
the American Paper Institute v. EPA case mentioned previously.
Therefore, before promulgating BCT limitations, EPA must repro-
pose them based on the revised BCT methodology proposed on
October 29, 1982. See 49 FR 49176. In the interim, EPA is
reserving BCT for the entire steam electric power industry. The
Agency is also withdrawing the BAT limitations now in the Code
of Federal Regulations for TSS and oil and grease since these
pollutants are now regulated under BCT, not BAT.
(b) Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds (PCBs)
The discharge of PCBs in any type of wastewaters from this
industry is prohibited. This limitation was promulgated in
1974 and 1977 for BAT, NSPS, and PSES. EPA did not propose
any changes in 1980 with the exception of adding PCB coverage
for PSNS.
(c) Commingling ofWaste Streams
Where two or more different types of waste streams are com-
bined for treatment or discharge, the total allowable discharge
quantity of each pollutant may not exceed the sum of the allow-
able amounts for each individual type of wastewater. This
requirement was promulgated in 1974 and EPA did not propose any
changes in 1980.
i
(d) Mass Limitations and Concentration Limitations
The existing and proposed regulations specified that permits
were to be based on mass limitations to be calculated by multi-
plying flow by concentration. The final rule allows the per-
mitting authority to establish either concentration or mass
limits for any effluent limitation or standard, based on the
concentrations specified in the regulations.
The Agency concluded that the use of mass-based limits in all
circumstances is undesirable. The potentially large variations
in flow make it difficult in some cases 'to choose a representa-
tive flow. Incorrect selection of a representative flow may
result in limits that are either too stringent or too lenient.
Accordingly, the Agency decided to give the permit writer the
authority to incorporate either concentration-based limits or
mass-based limits into the permit, see e.g., §423.12(6)(11).
Case-by-case determinations may be made, depending on the
characteristics of the particular facility. Providing the
permitting authority this flexibility will allow the choice
of the most suitable limits for each plant, thereby promoting
effluent reduction benefits.
488
-------
These changes also apply to BPT permits since BPT permits may
continue to be written for conventional pollutants until BCT
limits are promulgated.
Where the permit contains concentration-based limits at the
outfall for a combined waste treatment facility (e.g., ash
ponds), the permit writer may establish numerical limits and
monitoring on the individual, regulated waste stream prior to
their mixing,. See 40 CFR 122.63(i). The use of concentration
based limits may necessitate the internal monitoring of several
waste streams (i.e., cooling tower blowdown, metal cleaning
wastes) to ensure that the pollutants of concern are not diluted
by other waste streams where commingling occurs.
It should be noted that the "actual production" rule in 40 CFR
§122.63(b)(2) does not apply to this industry.
(e) Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
EPA is withdrawing the 1977 PSES requirement from oil and
grease for all waste streams, as proposed in 1980. There was no
PSNS for oil and grease. The 1977 PSES limited oil and grease
based upon a maximum concentration of 100 mg/1. The Agency has
determined that, for this industry, this level is no longer
appropriate because oil and grease levels in raw wastestreams
are most typically less than 100 mg/1. No lower level of
control for oil and grease is being established for PSES because
the Agency found that oil and grease at levels less than 100
mg/1 do not interfere with or pass through POTWs.
2. Once-Through Cooling Water
(a) Previous Limitations
The 1974 BPT, BAT and NSPS limited free available chlorine
(FAC) with mass limitations based upon 0.2 mg/1 daily average
concentration and 0.5 mg/1 daily maximum concentration. Neither
FAC or TRC could be discharged from any single unit for more than
two hours per day and multi-unit chlorination was prohibited.
There was an exception from the latter requirements if the
utility could demonstrate to the permitting authority that the
units in a particular location could not operate at or below this
level of chlorination.
(b) Final Limitations
BAT and NSPS
EPA is promulgating a daily maximum limitation for total residual
chlorine (TRC), also called total residual oxidants (TRO), based
upon a concentration of 0.20 mg/1, applied at the final discharge
point to the receiving body of water. Each individual generating
unit is not allowed to discharge chlorine for more than two hours
489
-------
I
per day, unless the discharger demonstrates to the permitting
authority that a longer duration discharge is required for
macroinvertebrate control. Simultaneous multi-unit chlorination
of more than one generating unit is allowed.
The above limitation does not apply to plants with a total
rated generating capacity of less than 25 megawatts. EPA is
establishing BAT and NSPS equal to BPT for those plants.
PSES AND PSNS
There are no categorical pretreatment standards for once-through
cooling water for PSES and PSNS, with the exception of the PCB
prohibition. The PSES for oil and grease is withdrawn.
(c) Changes from Proposal and Rationale
(i) BAT and NSPS
For BAT and NSPS, EPA proposed to prohibit the discharge of
total residual chlorine (TRC) unless facilities could demonstrate
a need for chlorine to control condenser biofouling. Where such
demonstrations were made, EPA proposed to limit the discharge to
the minimum amount of TRC necessary to control biofouling, as
determined by a chlorine minimization program. However, a
maximum TRC limitation based upon a concentration of 0.14 mg/1
at the point of discharge would have been established to be
achieved either through chlorine minimization or dechlorination.
In addition, EPA proposed to prohibit the discharge of TRC for
more than two hours a day unless the plant could show that
chlorination for a longer period was necessary for crustacean
control. Finally, the existing prohibition (1974) on simul-
taneous dechlorination of generating units would have been
withdrawn.
Commenters raised a variety of issues, leading EPA to change the
proposal substantially with respect to the TRC limitation, the
two-hour-a-day discharge requirement, and other requirements.
These comments and the changes are discussed below.
Chlorine Limitation
Commenters stated that EPA has no authority to prohibit the use
of chlorine or to require dischargers to conduct a chlorine
minimization program. They also stated that the 0.14 mg/1
maximum TRC limitation was not achievable by all sources. Some
comments indicated a maximum 0.2 mg/1 TRC concentration would be
achievable; other comments said that BAT should equal BPT.
490
-------
Under the proposed regulations all plants would have been
required to reduce chlorine discharges tot the maximum extent
feasible. However, in reviewing the comments, the Agency
concluded that the proposed approach deprived power plants of
any flexibility in controlling chlorine discharges. Because it
is the Agency's intent in the development of effluent limita-
tions guidelines not to require reliance on only one technology
where it can be reasonably avoided, the requirement that all
plants institute chlorine minimization programs was deleted in
the final regulation to provide more flexible alternatives to
control chlorine discharges.
In assessing alternative approaches, the Agency initially con-
sidered requiring the maximum 0.14 mg/1 TRC level but without
requiring a mandatory chlorine minimization program. Based on
the public comments, however, it appeared that the 0.14 mg/1
limit would discourage use of chlorine minimization in favor of
dechlorination. Industry commenters explained that many plants
would still have to dechlorinate to meet the proposed limit even
if they first minimized chlorine usage. If that were the case,
it was stated the plants would rely on dechlorination exclusive-
ly to achieve the limits and not devote resources to a chlorine
minimization program. However, if the final effluent limitations
were based on 0.2 mg/1, the commenters generally believed that
most plants could achieve the limit solely by chlorine minimiza-
tion.
The Agency established a 0.20 mg/1 based TRC limit because
it is better, in the circumstances presented here, to establish
a limitation that generally can be met without chemical treatment
rather than one which entails both the addition of chlorine and
its subsequent removal by the addition of other chemicals used
to dechlorinate. Consequently, the Agency concluded that a mass
limitation based on 0.20 mg/1 TRC concentration would allow
plants flexibility while encouraging reliance on the preferable
technology option--chlonne minimization.
The Agency rejected the suggestion to promulgate BAT and NSPS to
equal BPT. As described in Sections VII and VIII and in the
Economic Analysis report, the use of chlorine minimization
and/or dechlorination is technically and economically achievable.
Compliance with the final regulations will remove 13.5 million
pounds of chlorine annually, beginning in 1985. Further, the
new limitations will control total residual chlorine in this
wastestream; as discussed in Section VI, TRC is a better measure
of chlorine toxicity than free available chlorine (FAC).
491
-------
Two Hour Chlorine Discharge Limit
The final rule also differs from the proposed rule on the two
hour chlorine discharge limit. The Agency proposed to limit the
discharge of chlorine to two hours per day per plant. The
Agency also proposed to relax the prohibition in the 1974 regula-
tions on simultaneous chlorination of generating units because
of concern that some plants would not be able to adequately
control biological growth on the condensers when limited to two
hours per day of chlorine discharges for the entire facility.
The final regulations limit the duration of chlorine discharge
to two hours per day, per generating unit. For example, a plant
with four units is allowed to discharge chlorine for a maximum
of eight hours per day. This change is consistent with the BPT
requirement and was made in response to comments that the
proposed change would have disrupted the established chlorina-
tion operating procedures required by BPT and that significant
expenditure of resources would have been required to comply with
the proposed BAT requirement. Many plants installed chlorination
systems capable of chlorinating only one unit at a time to
comply with the 1974 BPT chlorine requirements. The proposed
new BAT may have required those plants with single discharge
points serving multiple units to significantly enlarge their
existing chlorination facilities. The Agency believes there are
no compelling reasons to require this change for BAT or to set
different limits for new sources.
Comments on the 1980 proposal supported the proposal to allow
simultaneous chlorination. While the Agency deleted the proposed
prohibition on the discharge of chlorine for more than two hours
a day per plant, it has also decided to retain the proposal to
allow simultaneous chlorination. The option to chlorinate
generating units simultaneously will provide more operational
flexibility to the discharger while maintaining the more strin-
gent control of chlorine discharge with TRC limitations. For
multi-unit discharges, these requirements will allow for natural
chlorine demand to reduce chlorine discharge levels.
Crustacean Control
EPA proposed to allow an exception to the two-hour-a-day chlori-
nation limit if plants demonstrated that chlorination for a
longer period of time was necessary for crustacean control.
Because commenters pointed out that other macroinvertebrates
besides crustaceans could impede the operation of cooling
systems/ EPA is broadening the exception to cover macroinverte-
brates.
(li) PSES/PSNS
There were no changes in PSES and PSNS from the proposed regula-
tion. No known facilities discharge once-through cooling water
to POTWs and none are known to be planned. These very high flow
volumes would likely be unacceptable for discharge to any POTW.
492
-------
3. Cooling Tower Slowdown
(a) Previous Limitations
The 1974 BPT limits control free available chlorine (FAC) with
mass limitations based upon 0.2 mg/1 daily average and 0.5 mg/1
daily maximum concentrations. FAC and TRC discharges are
limited to 2 hours per day per generating unit and simultaneous
multi-unit chlorination is prohibited. The 1974 BAT and NSPS
contain limitations equivalent to 1974 BPT, plus mass limitations
for zinc, chromium, and phosphorous based upon concentrations of
1.0 mg/1, 0.2 mg/1, and 5.0 mg/1, respectively, and for PCBs.
The 1974 PSNS contained no categorical pretreatment standards
for cooling tower blowdown. The 1977 PSES limits oil and grease
with a mass limitation based upon 100 mg/1 and prohibits the
discharge of PCBs.
(b) Final Limitations
BAT and NSPS
Chlorine. EPA is establishing BAT and NSPS limitations equiva-
lent to the 1974 BAT and NSPS level of control. These limitations
are based upon daily average and daily maximum concentrations for
FAC of 0.2 mg/1 and 0.5 mg/1, respectively.
Toxics. The discharge of one hundred twenty-four toxic pollut-
ants is prohibited in detectable amounts from cooling tower
discharges if the pollutants come from cooling tower maintenance
chemicals. The discharger may demonstrate compliance with such
limitations to the permitting authority by either routinely
sampling and analyzing for the pollutants in the discharge, or
providing mass balance calculations to demonstrate that use of
particular maintenance chemicals will not result in detectable
amounts of the toxic pollutants in the discharge. In addition,
EPA is establishing a daily maximum BAT limitation and NSPS for
chromium and zinc based upon concentrations of 0.2 mg/1 and 1.0
mg/1, respect ively.
The existing limitation for phosphorous is deleted.
PSES and PSNS
The final regulations prohibit or limit the 126 toxic pollutants
as discussed above for BAT and NSPS. Oil and grease PSES are
withdrawn.
(c) Changes from Proposal and Rationale
Chlorine. For BAT and NSPS, EPA proposed a limitation on TRC
discharges based upon a maximum concentration of 0.14 mg/1 times
flow. A chlorine minimization program was not required. The
Agency also proposed to prohibit all discharges of cooling tower
493
-------
maintenance chemicals containing any of the 129 priority pollut-
ants. Since then three of the 129 toxic pollutants have been
"delisted." They are dichlordifluoromethane, tnchlorof luoro-
methane, and bis-chloromethyl ether. See 46 FR 2266; 46 FR
10723.
I
I
Public comments opposed the limitations on chlorine, stating
that the proposed limit was unachievable and would not result in
any environmental benefit. The Agency does not agree that the
limit would be unachievable or result in no effluent reduction
benefits; however, the Agency did re-examine the data pertaining
to chlorine and found that the flow of this wastestream was less
than one percent of the once-through cooling water flow. Further,
less than 0.5 percent of the TRC which would be removed by regu-
lating both cooling tower blowdown and once-through cooling water
is attributable to cooling tower blowdown. The Agency concluded
that the appropriate emphasis on chlorine control should be in
the once-through cooling water waste stream and that BAT and
NSPS for this waste stream should equal the previously promul-
gated BPTf BAT, and NSPS Limits. This will result in a cost
savings of $25 million in annual costs in 1985 and similar
savings in future years.
Toxics. For BAT and NSPS, EPA proposed to prohibit any discharge
of cooling tower maintenance chemical containing the 126 priority
pollutants. The same prohibition was proposed for PSES and PSNS.
Since equivalent pollutant removals are required for indirect
and direct dischargers, EPA determined that a zero discharge
pretreatment standard was the only means of assuring that no
priority pollutant would pass through the POTW.
Commenters objected to bhe proposed zero discharge requirement
for maintenance chemicals, raising concerns about the regulation
of maintenance chemicals instead of priority pollutants and the
means of measuring compliance with a zero discharge limit. In
response, the Agency substituted "no detectable" for "zero dis-
charge" and made clear that the limit applies to priority
pollutants from maintenance chemicals, and not the chemicals
themselves. EPA presently considers the nominal detection limit
for most of the toxics to be 10 ug/1 (i.e., 10 parts per bil-
lion). See, Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of
Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants, EPA, 1977.
Another concern expressed by commenters was that EPA did not
account for those prohibited toxics that are present in new
construction materials for cooling towers. For example, wooden
supporting structures or other construction materials in new or
rebuilt cooling towers may contain preservatives which contain
trace amounts of certain of the toxic pollutants. These may
leach for a period of time from contact with the cooling water.
The Agency recognizes such situations. Thus, the prohibition in
the final rule, as in the proposed rule, is applicable only to
pollutants that are present in cooling tower blowdown as a
result of cooling tower maintenance chemicals.
494
-------
Commenters also expressed concern over potentially substantial
compliance costs in analyzing for the 126 toxic pollutants in
their discharges. The Agency agrees that the costs of routine
compliance monitoring for the toxics could be quite expensive,
and that there are alternative compliance mechanisms. Therefore,
as an alternative to routine monitoring by sampling and analysis
of effluents, the final rule provides for mass balance calcula-
tions to demonstrate compliance with the prohibition. For
example, the discharger may provide the certified analytical
contents of all biofouling and maintenance formulations used and
engineering calculations demonstrating that any of the priority
pollutants present in the maintenance chemicals would not be
detectable in the cooling tower discharge using appropriate
analytical methods. The permit issuing authority shall deter-
mine the appropriate approach for each circumstance.
Many commenteirs indicated that there are presently no acceptable
substitutes for the use of chromium and zinc based cooling tower
maintenance chemicals. The Agency agrees that adequate substi-
tutes may not be presently available for many facilities. This
is due in part to site specific conditions, including cooling
water intake quality and the presence of construction materials
susceptible to fouling and corrosion. Further, there is a
potential for substitutes to be more toxic than the substances
they are meant to replace. Therefore, the final BAT, NSPS and
pretreatment standards allow for the discharge of chromium and
zinc in cooling tower blowdown. The limitations are the same as
those adopted in 1974 for BAT and are based upon pH adjustment,
chemical precipitation, and sedimentation or filtration to
remove precipitated metals.
No comments were received on the proposal to delete the phos-
phorous limitations; therefore, the final rule is the same as
proposed in this report.
4. Fly Ash Transport
(a) Previous Limitations
*r
The 1974 BPT and BAT regulations covered PCBs and contained mass
limitations for several pollutants based on the following concen-
trations: total suspended solids at 30 mg/1 daily average and
100 mg/1 daily maximum; oil and grease at 15 mg/1 daily average
and 20 mg/1 daily maximum. The 1974 NSPS required zero discharge
based upon use of dry fly ash transport. (This standard was
remanded in 1976.) The 1974 PSNS contained no categorical
pretreatment standards for the waste stream. The 1977 PSES
contains a mass limit for oil and grease based upon a maximum
concentration of 100 mg/1 and a prohibition on the discharge of
PCBs.
495
-------
(b) Final Limitations
BAT and PSES
As discussed below, there are no BAT or PSES limitations for fly
ash transport water, with the exception of the prohibition on
discharges of PCBs. BAT limitations for conventional pollutants
are withdrawn, as discussed earlier.
NSPS and PSNS
As discussed below, the final regulation prohibits the discharge
of all pollutants from fly ash transport systems.
(c) Changes From Proposal and Rationale
EPA determined at proposal that the available data regarding the
degree of toxic pollutant reduction to be achieved beyond BPT
were too limited to support national limitations. Therefore,
EPA did not propose BAT limitations or PSES for the priority
pollutants. The Agency considered requiring a zero discharge
option for existing sources but rejected it because the high
cost of retrofitting does not justify the additional pollutant
reductions beyond BPT. EPA did not receive any comments that it
should establish BAT and revise PSES for the priority pollutants
found in this wastestream. Therefore, no changes were made in
the approach to BAT and PSES for the final rule. However, the
Agency will be evaluating the level of control that is appropri-
ate for conventional pollutants for BCT, as discussed previously.
For NSPS and PSNS, the coverage of the proposal was ambiguous.
The preamble and development document indicated that EPA was
prohibiting all discharges of fly ash water. 45 FR 68338.
However, the proposed regulatory language only prohibited the
discharge of copper, nickel, zinc, arsenic, and selenium. It
did not cover the remaining toxic pollutants or conventional
pollutants. Because the preamble correctly reflected EPA's
intent, the final rule follows the preamble and not the proposed
regulation. There is no practical difference between the two
approaches since the fly ash technology option identified by EPA
(dry fly ash transport systems) eliminates any discharge of
wastewater whatsoever. The absence of any wastewater discharge
means that all pollutants would be controlled, not just the five
metals listed in the proposed regulation,,
Comments were received concerning the proposed NSPS and PSNS but
EPA did not make any changes as a result of them. The commenters
stated that most new sources can meet the NSPS. However, they
stated that EPA's cost estimates did not support the conclusion
that the costs of dry and wet fly ash systems are not appreciably
different. They also stated that EPA should provide a less
stringent NSPS for those plants which could not meet the NSPS
because of solid waste disposal constraints or air pollution
problems.
496
-------
EPA does not believe that less stringent NSPS or PSNS are
warranted. Almost half of the existing plants already use dry
fly ash systems. The Agency is unaware of any particular
technical, air pollution, disposal or other problems they have
encountered, or any reasons why all new plants cannot install
dry fly ash systems. No specific examples or problems were
given by the commenters. Further, as discussed in Section VI of
this preamble, the costs for wet and dry fly ash systems are
believed comparable.
Many existing plants are achieving zero discharge and new plants
are at least as capable of implementing dry fly ash systems.
The Agency estimates that a typical size new plant operating a
dry fly ash handling system will reduce toxic metals discharges
by approximately 4800 pounds per year beyond the BAT level of
control. Nonwater quality environmental and energy impacts are
considered reasonable in view of the effluent reduction that is
achieved.
Finally, EPA has changed the definition of fly ash to include
economizer ash where economizer ash is collected with fly ash.
This change was not proposed; it is based on a comment which
correctly pointed out that steam electric plants may collect
economizer ash with either fly ash or bottom ash. The 1974
definition section, however, only included economizer ash in the
bottom ash definition. Therefore, we are changing both the
definition of fly ash and bottom ash to resolve this problem.
EPA is not providing the opportunity for comment since the change
was made in response to comments on the proposed regulation.
5. Bottom Ash Transport Water
(a) Previous Limitations
The 1974 BPT regulations contain mass limitations for PCB and
for several pollutants based on the following concentrations:
total suspended solids of 30 mg/1 daily average/100 mg/1 daily
maximum and oil and grease of 15 mg/1 daily average/20 mg/1
daily maximum. In addition, the pH is limited to within the
range of 6.0 to 9.0. The 1974 BAT contains the same total
suspended solids, oil and grease, pH and PCB limits as BPT, plus
a recycle requirement of 12.5 cycles of bottom ash sluice water.
The 1974 NSPS contains the same total suspended solids, oil and
grease, and pH limits as BPT, plus a recycle requirement of 20
cycles of bottom ash sluice water. The 1974 PSNS do not contain
any categorical pretreatment standards and the 1977 PSES contain
a mass limitation for oil and grease based upon a maximum
limitation of 100 mg/1, and prohibit the discharge of PCBs.
(b) Final Limitations
BAT
The final regulations contain BAT limitations for PCBs. The BAT
limitations for conventional pollutants are withdrawn for future
coverage under BCT.
497
-------
NSPS
The final regulations contain limitations for total suspended
solids, oil and grease, PCBs, and pH equal to the existing BPT.
The 1974 recycle requirement for 20 cycles of bottom ash sluice
water is withdrawn.
I
PSES and PSNS
The final regulations contain categorical pretreatment require-
ments on PCBs for this wastestream. PSES for oil and grease is
withdrawn.
(c) Changes from Proposal and Rationale
EPA did not propose BAT limitations for the priority pollutants.
Analysis of available wastewater sampling data did not indicate
that a quantifiable reduction of toxic pollutants would be
achieved by requiring technologies beyond the BPT level of
control. These technologies include bottom ash recirculation
systems and dry bottom ash transport systems. No comments were
received objecting to the proposal; therefore, the final rule is
the same as proposed. As explained before, EPA will examine
conventional pollutant technology options in light of the
revised BCT cost test.
For NSPS, PSES, and PSNS, no comments were received. Therefore,
the proposed and final regulation are identical.
Finally, EPA is changing the definition of bottom ash for the
reasons discussed in the previous section on fly ash.
6. Low Volume Wastes
(a) Previous Limits
The existing BPT, BAT, and NSPS regulation establishes mass
limitations for conventional pollutants: (1) total suspended
solids based upon 30 mg/1 daily average and 100 mg/1 daily
maximum concentrations; (2) oil and grease based upon 15 mg/1
daily average and 20 mg/1 daily maximum concentrations; and (3)
pH between 6 and 9. There are no existing categorical pretreat-
ment standards, with the exception of PCBs and oil and grease
for PSES.
(b) Final Limits
EPA did not propose new or revised limitations for this waste
stream with the exception of substituting BCT for the control of
conventional pollutants instead of BAT and withdrawing the PSES
for oil and grease. BCT limitations are now reserved. However,
EPA changed the definition of low volume waste to include boiler
blowdown and is withdrawing the separate regulations for boiler
blowdown.
498
-------
(c) Changes from Proposal and Rationale
EPA proposed to include boiler blowdown as a low volume waste.
This represents a change in coverage from the 1974 regulation.
Information collected and analyzed by the Agency since 1974 led
to the conclusion that there is no need %to regulate boiler
blowdown as a separate waste stream. Boiler blowdown is suf-
ficiently similar in characteristics to the other specific types
of low volume wastes. No commenters objected to the proposed
change; therefore, the proposed and final rules are identical.
7. Metal Cleaning Wastes
(a) Previous Limits
"Metal cleaning wastes" is the generic name for a class of waste
streams which results from the cleaning of boiler tubes, air
preheater wash water, and boiler fireside wash water. This may
be accomplished with either chemical cleaning solutions such as
acids, degreasers, and metal complexers, or with plant service
water only.
The 1974 BPT and BAT limitations and NSPS contain mass limita-
tions for several pollutants based on the following concentra-
tions: total suspended solids of 30 mg/1 daily average and 100
mg/1 daily maximum; oil and grease of 15 mg/1 daily average and
20 mg/1 daily maximum; total copper of 1.0 mg/1 daily average and
daily maximum; total iron 1.0 mg/1 daily average and daily
maximum pH LS limited within the range of 6.0 to 9.0. The
discharge of PCBs is prohibited.
The 1974 PSNS contains no categorical pretreatment standards for
this waste stream. The 1977 PSES contains: a mass limitation
for total copper based upon a maximum concentration of 1.0 mg/1;
a mass limitation for oil and grease based upon a maximum
concentration of 100 mg/1; and a prohibition on the discharge of
PCBs.
(b) Final Limitations
Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes
BAT
With one exception, BAT is equal to the 1974 regulations. The
BAT limitations for conventional pollutants are withdrawn since
BAT no longer applies to them.
NSPS
There are no changes from the 1974 NSPS.
499
-------
PSES and PSNS
The final PSES and PSNS contain a maximum concentration limita-
tion of 1.0 mg/1 for total copper, and prohibit the discharge of
PCBs. The PSES for oil and grease is withdrawn.
Non-Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes
BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS for this waste stream are reserved
for future rulemaking.
(c) Changes From Proposal and Rationale
For chemical metal cleaning wastes, the final BAT, NSPS, PSES
and PSNS are equivalent to the 1980 proposal. The 1980 proposal
contained first time coverage of copper for PSNS and, for PSES,
copper was changed from a mass-based limitation to a concentra-
tion limitation. Unlifce the existing regulations and the 1980
proposal, however, the requirements do not cover non-chemical
metal cleaning wastes.
In the preamble to the 1980 proposal, EPA explained that the
existing requirements applied to all metal cleaning wastes,
whether the wastes resulted from cleaning with chemical solu-
tions or with water only. EPA rejected an earlier guidance
statement which stated that wastes from metal cleaning with
water would be considered "low volume" wastes. However, because
many dischargers may have relied on this guidance, EPA proposed
in 1980 to adopt the guidance for purposes of BPT and to change
the BPT limitation to apply only to "chemical" metal cleaning
wastes. See 45 FR 68333 (October 14, 1980) for a full discus-
sion of the issue.
Commenters argued that EPA's clarified interpretation of the
existing regulations was not supported by the record and would
result in extremely high compliance costs. In response to the
comments, the Agency examined the available data on waste
characteristics of non-chemical metal cleaning wastes and the
costs and economic impacts of controlling them. The data
indicated that there was a definite potential for differences in
concentration levels of inorganic pollutants depending on
whether the plants were coal or oil-fired. Further, compliance
with the existing effluent limitations and standards could be
very costly and result in significant adverse economic impacts.
However, the data were too limited for EPA to make a final
decision.
EPA requested that the Utility Water Act Group provide specific,
additional information. The data were submitted too late for
the Agency to consider for this rulemaking. Consequently, EPA
is reserving BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS for nonchemical metal
cleaning wastes for future rulemaking.
500
-------
EPA is withdrawing the proposal to change the BPT definition of
metal cleaning wastes. However, until the Agency promulgates
new limitations and standards, the previous guidance policy may
continue to ,be applied in those specific cases in which it was
applied in the past.
8. Coal Pile Runoff
(a) Previous Limits
The BPT and BAT limitations and NSPS for coal pile runoff
contain a maximum concentration limitation of 50 mg/1 for total
suspended solids and pH within the range 6.0 to 9.0. Any
untreated overflow from a treatment facility sized to treat coal
pile runoff which results from a 10-year, 24-hour event is not
subject to these 1974 limitations. The 1974 PSNS and 1977 PSES
for coal pile runoff contain no limitations for specific pollut-
ants.
(b) Final Limits
There are no changes to the existing regulations with the
exception of the BAT limitations for conventional pollutants.
The latter regulations are withdrawn since BAT limits no longer
apply to conventional pollutants.
(c) Changes From Proposal and Rationale
EPA did not propose any changes to the existing coal pile runoff
regulations wxth the exception of proposing BCT limitations to
replace BAT. As stated previously, the Agency is reserving BCT
until we apply the revised BCT methodology to the technology
options for controlling conventional pollutants.
501
-------
-------
SECTION X
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals representing nunerous 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
nentioned.
The following acknowledgenents 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
1]. 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
Several institutes and organizations, primarily representing the
interests of the industry, were very helpful in providing data
and various forns of technical assistance. These were:
Cooling Tower Institutes
Edison Electric Institute
Gulf South Research Institute
Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
503
-------
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, pr manly 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
Olin 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
Consuiaer Power Company
Delmarva Power Company
Georgia Power Company
Gulf Power Company
Long Island Lighting
Natural Rural Electric
504
-------
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
505
-------
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, ]st 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.
i
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
506
-------
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-Q29-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
507
-------
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.
i
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 Radran
Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-2608, August 1978.
25. "Pollution Control Technology for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric
508
-------
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, "Curtaintll Completing 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
509
-------
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.
I
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,
510
-------
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 USC. 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,"US 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, Chlonnation-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
51]
-------
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.
i
8. Commonwealth Edison, "Chlorine Reduction Studies," Chicago,
IL, December 1976
9. American Electric Power Service Corporation, "Indiana-
Kentucky Electric Corporation, Clitfty 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 ]978
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 oE 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
512
-------
18 Scheyer, K and G Houser, "Evaluation of Dechlonnation 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, Chlonnation-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-November 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
513
-------
29. Ozone Research & Equipment Corporation, "Ozonators:
Industrial, Municipal, Process, Laboratory," Phoenix, AZ,
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 File: A
Set of Notes, Phone Call Memos on Corrosion and Scaling Con-
trol," Radian Corporation, McLean, VA, August-November 1979
I
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-HofC Company, "A Primer on Ash Handling Sys-
tems," Malvern, PA, 1976.
i
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 Set 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.
41. "Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal," U S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 625/l-75-003a, January
1975.
514
-------
42 "Process Design Manual for Sluage 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 Nostrand
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,"US 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 D., et 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, undated
51. Springer, Wayne E. , Resources Conservation Company, letter
to Thomas Emmel, Radian Corporation, August 14, 1979
52. "Scale-Free Vapor Compression Evaporation," U.S. Department
of the Cnterior Washington, D C., undated.
53. Wackenhuth, E C , L. W Lamb and J P Engle, Use and Dis-
posal of Boiler Cleaning Solvent, Power Engineering,
November 1973
54 Jones, C. W., G. W Lewis and L D Martin, Disposal of
Waste Ammoniacal Bromate and Ammonium Bifluoride Solutions
by Evaporation, presented at the 37th Annual Meeting Inter-
nations Water Conference, Pittsburg, PA, October 26-28,
1976.
515
-------
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, A. 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 Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, New England Power Service Company, Chas T.
Main, Inc., Boston, MA, 1975
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, 1977.
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, Pittsburg, PA, October 30 -
November 1, 1974
65. Peltier, R. V. and J. E Brennan, Design and Implementation
of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Wastewater 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), 43-45, March 1977
67. Feigenbaum, H. M., Removing Heavy Metals in Textile Waste,
516
-------
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,"US Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-4401/l-74-029-a, October 1974
517
-------
SECTION XIT
GLOSSARY
!
This section is an alphabetical listing of technical terms (with
definitions) used in this docunent which may not be familiar to
the reader.
Absolute Pressure
The total force per unit area neasured above absolute vacuum as a
reference. Standard atmospheric pressure is 101,326 N/n2 (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 j^K
(+R1 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 netals 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)
(2)
Activated Carbon
Carbon which is treated by high-temperature heating with steam or
carbon dioxide producing an internal porous particle structure.
518
-------
Adsorption
The adhesion of an extremely thin layer of nolecules (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 measurenent 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 nay 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
A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in which
mechanical or diffused air aeration is used to supplement the
oxygen supply.
Aeration
The bringing about of intimate contact between air and liquid by
one of the following methods; spraying the liquid in the air,
bubbling air through the liquid (diffused aeration), agitation
of the liquid to promote surface absorption of air (mechanical
aeration).
Agglomeration
The coalesence of dispersed suspended matter into larger floes or
particles which settle more rapidly.
Algicide
Chemicals used to kill or otherwise control phytoplankton (algae)
in water.
Alkaline
The condition of a water solution having a pH concentration
greater than 7.0 and having the properties of a base.
519
-------
Alkalinity
The capacity of water to neutralize acids, a property imparted by
the water's content of carbonates, bicarbona'tes, hydroxides, and
occasionally borates, silicates, and phosphates. It is expressed
in niligrams per liter or equivalent calcium carbonate.
Anion
The charged particle in a solution of an electrolyte which
carries a negative charge.
i
Anion Exchange 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.
Anionic 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.
520
-------
Dackwashing
The process of cleaning a rapid sand or mechanical filter by
reversing the flow of water.
Daffies
Deflector vanes, guides, grids, gratings, or similar devices
constructed or placed in flowing water or sewage to (1) check or
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 (OH-),
Base-Load Un]t
An electric generating facility operating continuously at a
constant output with little hourly or daily fluctuation.
Bed Depth (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.
Bioassay
An assay method using a change in biological activity as a
qualitative or quantitative means of analyzing a meaterial
response to industrial wastes and other wastewaters by using
viable organisms or live fish as test organisms.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
(1) The quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation of
organic natter in a specified time, at a specified temperature,
and under specified conditions.
(2) Standard test used in accessing wastewater strength.
521
-------
Biocides ,
Chemical agents with the capacity to kill biological life forms.
Bactericides, insecticides, pesticides, etc., are examples.
Biodegradable
The part of organic natter which can be oxidized by bioprocesses,
biodegradable detergents, food wastes, animal manure.
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.
Boiler Feedwater '
The water supplied to a boiler to be converted into steam.
Boiler Fireside
The surface at boiler heat exchange elements exposed to the hot
combustion products.
Boiler Scale
An incrustation of salts deposited on the waterside of a boiler
as a result of the evaporation of water.
522
-------
Boiler Tubes
Tubes contained in a boiler through which water passes during its
conversion into steam.
Dotton Ash
The solid residue left from the conbustion of a fuel which falls
to the botton of the conbustion chanber.
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 ng
per liter.
Brine
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 magnesiun.
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.
523
-------
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.
Cation Exchange Process
The reversible exchange of positive ions between functional
groups of the ion exchange mediun and the solution in which the
solid is inmersed. Used as a wastewater treatment process for
removal of cations, e.g., calciun.
Cationic Surfactant
A surfactant in which the hydrophilic groups are positively
charged; usually a quaternary ammonium salt such as cetyl
tnmethyi ammonium bromide (CeTAB), C16H33N -*- (CH3)3 Br.
Cationic surfactants, as a class, are poor cleaners but exhibit
remarkable disinfectant properties.
Chelating Agents
N j
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 netal 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 natter 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.
524
-------
Chemical Precipitation
(1) Precipitation induced by addition of chenicals.
(2) The process of softening water by the addition of lime and
soda ash as the precipitants.
Chemisorption
Adsorption where the forces holding the adsorbate to the
adsorbenb are chemical (valance) instead of physical (van der
Waals).
Chlorination
The app]ication 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 app]3 cation of chlorine to water, sewage, or industrial waste
containing free anmonia to the point where free residual chlorine
is available.
Chlorination, Free Residual
The application of cnlorine to water, sewage, or industrial
wastes to produce directly or through the destruction of amnonia,
or of certain organic nitrogenous conpounds, 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.
525
-------
Chlorine, Total Residual
Free residual plus combined residual.
Clorite, High-Test Hypo
A combination of lime and chlorine consisting largely of calciun
hypochloride.
Chlorite, Sodium Hypo
A water solution of sodiun hydroxide and chlorine in which sodium
hypochlonte is the essential ingredient.
Circulating Water Pumps
i
Punps which deliver cooling water to the condensers of a
powerplant.
Circulating Water System
A systen which conveys cooling water fron its source to the main
condensers and then to the point of discharge. Synonymous with
cooling water systen.
Clarification
A process for the renoval of suspended matter fron a water
solution.
Clarifler
I
A basin in which water flows at a low velocity to allow settling
of suspended natter.
i
Colloids
!
A finely divided dispersion of one material called the "dispersed
phase" (solid); in another Tiaterial which is called the
"dispersion medium" (liquid;. normally negatively charged,
Closed Circulating Water Systen
A system which passes water through the condensers then through
an artificial cooling device and keeps recycling it,
Coal Pile Drainage
i
Runoff from the coal pile as a result of rainfall.
526
-------
Condensate Polisher
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.
Condenser
A device for converting a vapor into its liquid phase.
Construction
Any placenent, 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.
Convection
The heat transfer mechanism arising from the motion of a fluid.
Composite Wastewater Sample
A combination of individual samples of water or wastewater taken
at selected intervals, generally hourly for some specified
period, to minimize the effect of the variability of the
individual samle. Individual samples may have equal volume or
may be roughly proportioned to the flow at time of sampling.
Concentration, Hydrogen Ion
The weight of hydrogen ions in grans per liter of solution.
Commonly expressed as the pH value that represents the logarithms
of the reciprocoal of the hydrogen ion concentration.
Cooling Canal
A canal in whu ch 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.
527
-------
Cooling Water System
See Circulating Water System.
i
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 notion
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
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.
528
-------
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 Significance
The result of the statistical analysis of a data group or bank
wherein the value or significance of the data receives a thorough
appraisal.
Deaeration
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.
Dechlorination Process
A process by which excess chlorine is removed from water to a
desired leve] r e.g., 0.1 rag/1 maximum limit. Usually
accomplished by passage through carbon beds or by aeration at a
suitable pH.
Degasification
The removal of a gas fron a liquid.
Deionizer
A process for treating water by removal of cations and anions.
Demineralizer
See Deionizer.
Demister
A device for trapping liquid entrainment from gas or vapor
streams.
529
-------
Detention Time
The time allowed for solids to collect in a settling tank.
Theoretically, detention tine 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 reaction vessel which allows a chemical
reaction to go to completion, such as the reduction of chromium
+6 or the destruction of cyanide.
Dewater
^ t
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
To release or vent.
Discharge Pipe
A section of pipe or conduit from the condenser discharge to the
point of discharge into receiving waters or cooling device.
Dissolved Solids
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.
530
-------
Diurnal Flow Curve
A curve which depicts flow distribution over the 24-nour day.
Drift
Entrained water carried from a cooling device by the exhaust air.
Dry Bottom Furnace
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.
531
-------
Evaporation
The process by which a liquid becomes a vapcjr.
Evaporator
A device which converts a liquid into a vapor by the addition of
heat.
Feedwater Heater
Heat exchangers in which boiler feedwater is preheated by stean
extracted from the turbine.
Filter Bed
I
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, sometines including recirculation
of effluent.
Filter, Intermittejit
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
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.
532
-------
Filter, Trickling
A filter consisting of a cylindrical drun mounted on a horizontal
axis, covered with a filter cloth revolving with a partial
submergence in liquid. A vacuun is naintained under the cloth
for the larger part of a revolution to extract moisture and the
cake is sera~ed off continuously.
Filtration
The process of passing a liquid through a filtering mediun for
the renoval of suspended or colloidal matter.
Fireside Cleaning
Cleaning of the outside surface of boiler tubes and conbustion
chamber refractories to remove deposits formed during the
combustions.
Floe
A very fine, fluffy nass forned by the aggregation of fine
suspended particles.
Flocculator
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 natter 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
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 sane plant.
Flow-Nozzle Meter
A water meter of the differential mediun 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.
533
-------
Flue Gas
The gaseous products resulting from the combustion process after
passage through the boiler.
Fly Ash
A portion of the noncombustible residue fron a fuel which is
carried out of the boiler by the flue gas.
Fossil Fuel
A natural solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel such as coal, petroleun,
or natural gas.
Frequency Distribution
An arrangenent or distribution of quantities pertaining to a
single element in order of their magnitude.
Gauging Station
A location on a strean or conduit where measurements of discharge
are customarily nade. 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.
i
Grab Sample
A single sample of wastewater taken at neither a set time nor
flow.
Generation
The conversion of chenical or mechanical energy into electrical
energy.
Hardness
A characteristic of water, imparted by salts of calcium,
magnesium, and iron, such as bicarbonatesr 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 fron the amounts of
calcium and magnesium as well as iron, aluminum, manganese,
bariun, strontium, and zinc, and is expressed as equivalent
calcium carbonate.
534
-------
Heat of Adsorption
The heat given off when molecules are adsorbed.
High Rate
The fuel heat input (in Joul.es 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 calorimetnc 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.
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 natter 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 faruJy 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.
535
-------
Makeup Water Pumps
Pumps which provide water to replace that lost by evaporation,
seepage, and blowdown.
Manometer
—^—————— i
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 strean 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 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 nesh
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.
536
-------
Mole
The molecular weight of a substance expressed in grans (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
Nane plate--design rating of a plant or specific piece of
equipment.
Natural Draft Cooling 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.
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 Fnergy
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.
537
-------
Osmosis
The process of diffusion of a solvent through a sempermeable
nenbrane fron a solution of lower to one of higher concentration.
Osnotic Pressure
The equilibrium pressure differential across a seniperneable
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.
i
Outfall
The point or location where sewage or drainage discharges from a
sewer, drain, or conduit.
i
Oxidation
The addition of oxygen to a chemical compound, generally any
reaction which involves the loss of electrons fron an atom.
Package Sewage Treatment Plant
A sewage treatment facility contained in a snail area and
generally prefabricated in a complete package.
Packing (Cooling Towers)
I
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 naximum
demand.
pH Value
A scale for expressing the acidity or alkalinity of a solution.
Mathematically, it is the,logarithm of the reciprocal of the gran
ionic hydrogen equivalents per liter. Neutral water has a pH of
7.0 and hydrogen ion concentration of 107 moles per liter.
538
-------
Placed in Service
Refers to the data when a generating unit initially generated
electrical power to service customers.
Plant 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 chmney.
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.
Powerplant
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.
Psychrometrie
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 #200 U.S.S. sieve.
Pyrites
Combinations of iron and sulfur found in coal as FeS2.
539
-------
Radwaste '
Radioactive waste streans from nuclear powerplants.
Range
Difference between entrance and exit tenperature 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.
Rankine Cycle
The thernodyname 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 chenical 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 stean which has
been partially expanded in the turbine.
Reinfection
To return a flow, or portion of flow, into a process.
Relative Humidity
Ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor
pressure of water at air temperature.
Residual Chlorine
i
Chlorine remaining in water or wastewater at the end of specified
contact period as combined or free chlorine.
540
-------
Reverse Osnosis
The process of diffusion of a solute through a seniperneable
nernbrane fron a solution of lower to one of higher concentration,
affected by raising the pressure of the less concentrated
solution to above the osnotic pressure.
Salinity
(1) 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 (Cl).
(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.
Sampling Stations
Locations where several flow samples are tapped for analysis.
Sanitary Wastewater
Wastewater discharged from sanitary conveniences of dwellings and
industrial facilities.
Saturated Air
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.
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 fron a
stream of gas>.
541
-------
Secondary Treatment
The treatment of sanitary wastewater by biological neans after
primary treatment by sedimentation.
Sedimentation
The process of subsidence and deposition of suspended matter
carried by a liquid.
Sequestering Agents
i
Chemical compounds which are added to water systems to prevent
the formation of scale by holding the insoluble compounds in
suspension.
Service Water Punps
Punps 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.
i
(2) In the Imhoff cone test, the volume of matter that settles
to the bottom of the cone in 1 hour.
i
Slag Tap Furnace
I
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.
Slinicide
An agent used to destroy or control si lines.
Sludge
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.
542
-------
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 tine.
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 fron the
water drops as they fall through the air.
Stabilization Lagoon
A shallow pond for storage of wastewater before discharge. Such
lagoons nay serve only to detain and equalize wastewater
composition before regulated 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
(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 fron wastewater in a
laboratory test, as prescribed in "Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater" and referred to as
nonfilterable residue.
543
-------
Thermal Efficiency
The efficiency of the thermodynanic cycle in producing work from
heat. The ratio of usable energy to heat input expressed as a
percent.
Thickening
i
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.
Treatnent 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 v/a ber or wastewater caused by the presence of
suspended natter, resulting in the scattering and adsorption of
light rays.
(2) A measure of fine suspended matter in liquids.
(3) An analytical quantity usually reported in arbitrary
turbidity units determined by Measurements of light diffraction.
544
-------
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.
Unit
In steam electric generation, the basic sysen 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.
Volatile Conbustion Matter
The relatively light components in a fuel which readily vaporize
at a relatively low temperature and which when combined or
reacted w]th 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 natter from a gas
stream or adsorption of certain gases from the stream.
545
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
TVA RAW RIVER INTAKE AND
ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
Quarterly Samples
1973-1976
-------
-------
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
.p Chromium, mg/1
I Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
1-1 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
Fond
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
<0.01
680
17
410
1.4
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
8.8
0.49
0.010
0.2
<0.01
0.036
170
6
0.033
780
0.35
<0.01
490
0.97
0.100
16
0.56
0.0006
0.12
<0.03
<0.001
14
<0.01
700
6
380
1.3
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
3.7
0.02
0.015
0.2
<0.01
0.023
180
7
0.012
750
0.25
<0.01
490
0.47
<0.010
9.5
0.45
<0.0002
0.11
0.04
<0.001
12
<0.01
570
<1
300
1.2
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
7.5
0.04
0.005
0.2
<0.01
0.052
160
14
0.016
840
0.30
<0.01
460
0.42
0.034
15
0.50
<0.0002
0.13
0.03
<0.001
14
<0.01
700
3
440
1.7
NA » Not Available
-------
Table A-l (Continued)
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
Chromium, mg/1
> Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
^ Copper, rag/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
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
0.10
<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
\J e \J \J~ ~ — -™
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)
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
I Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
w 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
2/3/75
River
Intake
0.05
0.10
no sample
<0.1
<0.01
0.004
29
6
<0.005
240
0.05
<0.0i
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
<0.1
<0.01
0.051
110
4
0.016
740
0.35
-
370
8.6
0.083
12
0.50
<0.0002
0.11
0.04
0.002
12
<0.01
500
8
340
1.2
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
12
0.54
0.010
0.2
0.01
0.057
120
9
0.230
1000
0.41
-
350
4.0
0.150
13
0.57
<0.0002
0.13
0.04
<0.002
20
<0.01
700
9
390
1.8
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
176
33
21
0.10
Fond
Discharge
9.6
3.1
0.035
<0.1
<0.01
0.025
110
9
0.029
880
0.43
-
340
1.5
0.042
17
0.51
<0.0002
<0.05
0.05
<0.002
15
<0.01
640
3
270
1.0
*Bottle Broken
-------
Table A-l (Continued)
TVA PLANT A RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, rag/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, rag/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, rag/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, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/8/76
River
Intake
1.2
0.07
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
42
5
<0.005
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
4/13/76
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
<0.005
0.5
<0.01
0.025
110
5
0.011
760
0.32
320
2.0
0.020
11
0.46
NES
<0.05
0.03
<0.002
13
<0.01
510
9
190
0.85
*Bottle Empty
-------
Table A-2
TVA PLANT A 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
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
I Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, rag/1
Hardness, rag/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, rag/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
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
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
NA
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
Po"d
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
<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)
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
O.i
<0.01
<0.001
23
5
0.023
180
0.12
<0.01
76
11
0.031
4.4
O.J6
<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
<0.0002
0.05
0.03
<0.002
-
<0.01
240
5
42
0.07
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
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 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
Chromium, mg/1 •
•f 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
Silioa, 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
JL
-
*
*
*
*
*
<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
pibt-harge
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
<0.00()2
<0.05
0.05
<0.001
6.5
<0.01
160
14
2J
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)
00
Date
Aluminum, rag/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/cin
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
NA = Not Available
*Bottle Empty
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
NA
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
-------
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, rag/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, rag/1
. Chromium, mg/1
I Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
^ Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, rag/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, rag/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
NA
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
940
<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
<0.001
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
<0.0l
110
4.2
<0.010
5.9
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05
0.18
<0.001
6.0
<0.01
160
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
M 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
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
I.I
<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 10/30/74
River ' Pond
Intake Discharge
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
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 PLANT B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
Aluminum, rag/i
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
jp Chloride, mg/1
I Chromium, mg/1
M Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyaniae, 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
Fiver
Intake
*•»
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
Pord
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
5/19/75
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
1.3
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
Pona
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, 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
,1 Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
w 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, rag/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, rag/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, rag/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
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
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
0.04
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
<0.01
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
Pond
'Discharge
4.1
0.06
0.050
<0.1
<0.fi
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)
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, rag/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
I Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
£ Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, rag/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
NA = Not Available
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
rond
Discharge
3.7
0.08
0.010
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
37
8
<0.005
300
0.04
<0.01
120
8.0
<0.010
7.0
0.54
<0.0002
<0.05
0.12
0.014
6.7
<0.01
190
48
71
0.24
5/15/7A
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
A/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
8/13/74
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
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
River Pond
Intake .Discharge
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
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
-------
Table A-4 (Continued)
TVA PLANT B RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
2/4/75 1/15/75
8/5/75 7/14/75 11/4/75 10/14/75
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
JLead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, rag/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
_
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
1.2
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
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
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
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
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
<0.002
4.5
<0.01
120
16
20
0.12
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
-------
Table A-5
TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (EAST) 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
I Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
w 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, rag/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, rag/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
Fond
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)
TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (EAST) 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/cra
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, rag/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
6.8
0.34
<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
0.024
7.2
0.25
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
-
110
3.7
0.02
9.4
0.12
<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
1.4
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
<0.01
<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
1.9
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
<0.001
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
Pischarge
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
0.08
-------
Table A-5 (Continued)
TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (EAST) DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
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
i_L Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
-J 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/16
Zinc, mg/1
1/14/75
River
Intake
15
0.33
<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
Pond
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
8.5
0.03
<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
Pond
Discharge
1.0
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
<0.0l
380
25
140
0.07
-------
Table A-5 (Continued)
TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (EAST) DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
>
»->
oo
Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, rag/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, rag/1
Conductivity, 25 °C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, rag/I
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous , mg/1
Selenium, mg/I
Silica, mg/1
Silver, rag/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, rag/1
Zinc, rag/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
8.6
0.09
<0.0002
<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
<0.010
9.5
0.13
<0.0002
<0.05
0.57
<0.002
7.1
<0.01
310
20
130
0.33
4/13/76
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)
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, utnhos/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
4/73
7/3/73
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
6.9
0.07
0.008
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
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
River
Intake
NA
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
Pond
Discharge
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
*
*
*
*
*
ft
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ft
*
ft
*
*
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
0.8
0.02
0.010
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
32
10
<0.005
300
0.02
<0.01
130
0.76
<0.010
12
0.09
<0.011
<0.05
0.21
0.004
1.5
<0.01
180
11
35
0.04
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
0.02
0.035
<0. 1
<0.01
-------
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
Chromium, mg/1
I 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, rag/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
6.8
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
7.8
0.033
6.3
0.20
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
3.7
0.02
9.4
- 0.12
<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
<0.010
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
<0.001
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
0.010
14
0.53
<0.0002
<0.05
0.06
<0.002
5.4
<0.01
240
39
52
0.06
Pond
pischarge
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
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
1/14/75
4/22/75
7/15/75
River
Intake
15.0
0.33
<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
Pond
Discharge
8.0
0.22
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
0.001
26
9
<0.005
260
0.02
<0.01
95
8.5
0.030
7.2
0.16
*
<0.05
0.20
<0.002
5.7
<0.01
190
98
65
0.14
River
Intake
8.5
0.03
<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
Pond
Discharge
3.2
0.11
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
23
8
0.011
320
0.04
-
85
3.3
<0.010
6.7
0.20
<0.0002
0.06
0.08
0.003
8.6
<0.01
200
24
130
0.13
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
2.3
0.12
0.028
<0. 1
<0.01
0.010
57
11
0.024
630
0.18
-
200
24
0.015
13
0.66
<0.0002
0.17
0.01
0.003
14
<0.01
420
13
280
0.43
River Pond
Intake ' Discharge
Pond not in service,
No sample collected,
*Sample received broken.
-------
Table A-6 (Continued)
TVA PLANT C RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND (WEST) DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
to
to
Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, rag/1
Chloride, rag/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, rag/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
lead, rag/1
Magnesium, rag/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, rag/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, rag/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
8.6
0.09
<0.0002
<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
<0.010
9.5
0.13
<0.0002
<0.05
0.07
<0.002
7.1
<0.01
310
20
130
0.33
-------
Table A-7
TVA PLANT D RIVER WATER 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, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
> Chromium, mg/1
b Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
w 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
1.1
0.15
0.018
0.2
<0.01
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
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
0.11
0.025
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
33
4
<0.005
280
<0.01
<0.01
120
0.27
<0.010
8.4
0.05
0.0002
<0.05
0.04
>0.050
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
0.01
0.020
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
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
0.01
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
3}
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, mg/1
Ammonia as N, n>g/l
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, aig/i
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
0.1^
0.010
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
26
4
<0.005
920
<0.01
<0.01
96
0.14
<0.010
7.5
0.05
<0.0002
0.05
<0.0i
0.098
3.6
<0.01
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
7.7
0.03
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
4.4
<0.01
120
8
16
0.07
Pond
Discharge
2.9
<0,01
0.045
0.3
<0.01
<0.001
30
4
<0.005
240
0.04
<0.01
110
0.55
<0.010
7.6
0.02
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
4.4
<0.01
150
45
16
0.07
7/16/74
River
Intake
0.4
0,01
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
26
3
<0.005
220
0.02
-
97
0.57
<0.010
7.8
0.05
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
<0.002
-
<0.01
120
10
13
0.03
Pond
Discharge
0.6
0,06
0.025
0.2
<0.01
0.002
31
3
<0.005
270
<0.01
<0.01
_ 110
0.15
0.020
8.1
<0.01
<0.0002
<0,05
—
0.110
-
<0.01
—
6
80
0.06
10/7/74
River
Intake
0.4
0,13
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
31
3
<0.005
240
0.04
-
110
0.33
<0.010
8.8
0.13
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
<0.002
4.7
<0.01
130
6
14
0.03
Pond
Discharge
1.8
0,0^
0.050
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
34
3
0.008
300
0.04
-
120
0.28
0.016
8.8
0.02
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
0.016
4.8
-------
Table A-7 (Continued)
TVA PLANT D RIVER WATER 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, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
f Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/em 220
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, rag/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/13/75
River
Intake
&
0.06
<0.005
*
*
*
*
3
*
220
A
-
A
A
*
A
A
A
*
0,05
<0.002
4.4
A
140
55
18
A
Pond
Discharge
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
A/7/75
River
Intake
0.5
0.04
<0.005
<091
<0.01
<0.001
23
3
<0.005
220
0.06
-
87
0.47
0.018
7.2
0.05
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
<0.002
5.2
<0.01
130
6
20
0.03
Pond
Discharge
3.8
0.04
0.055
<0.1
<0.01
0.001
26
3
0.006
260
0.05
-
96
0.67
0.028
7.5
0.03
<0.0002
<0.05
0.07
0.170
5.0
<0.01
160
31
58
0.05
7/14/75
River
Intake
0.7
0.02
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
i 29
2
<0.005
200
0.05
-
100
0.56
<0.010
7.1
0.07
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
9.5
<0.01
110
1
15
0.03
Pond
Discharge
1.6
0.02
0.100
<0.1
<0.01
0.001
32
2
<0,005
250
0.14
-
110
<0e05
<0.010
8.2
0.02
<0.0002
<0.05
0.03
0.010
6.2
<0.01
150
8
60
0.03
10/14/75
River
Intake
0.5
0.07
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
30
A
<0.005
j_
0.09
-
110
0.25
OoOll
9.1
0.09
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
4.5
<0.01
A
A
A
0.04
Pond
Discharge
<0.2
0.04
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
31
3
<0.005
260
0.07
-
120
0.33
<0.010
9.8
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
0.010
4.3
<0.01
160
4
31
0.03
*Bottle received broken.
-------
Table A-7 (Continued)
TVA PLANT D RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
to
CTi
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
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
1/12/76
4/12/76
River
Intake
0.2
0.02
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
32
4
<0.005
240
<0.01
110
0.18
<0.010
8.5
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
<0.002
2.3
<0.01
130
4
19
0.02
Pond
Discharge
0.8
0.12
0.025
<0.1
<0.01
0.001
50
4
0.012
340
<0.01
160
0.29
<0.010
8.8
0.08
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
0.026
3.9
<0.01
220
10
89
<0.01
River
Intake
0.5
0.03
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
34
4
<0.005
240
0.01
120
0.36
-------
Table A-8
TVA PLANT E RIVER WATER 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, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
i Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
J^ 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
1/4/73
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
Fond
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
0.2J
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
< 0.000 2
<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 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, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
> Chromium, mg/1
to Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
00 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, rag/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
1/15/74
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
<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
River
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
<0.01
<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)
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
I 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
Sliver, mg/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
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
18
6
<0.005
160
0.02
-
57
1.6
0.028
J.O
0.06
<0.0002
<0.05
0.09
<0.002
4.7
<0.01
100
38
25
0.04
Pond
Discnarge
1.1
0.05
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
68
7
0.020
420
0.02
<0.01
170
0.07
0.022
0.3
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
<0.002
5.9
<0.01
240
3
100
0.03
4/7/75
River
Intake
3.6
0.07
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
0.002
14
4
<0.005
140
0.03
-
48
1.2
<0.010
3.1
0,04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.06
<0.002
5.0
<0.01
80
8
20
0.18
Pond
Discharge
3.0
0.09
<0.005
0.3
<0.01
0.002
170
5
0.020
690
0.02
-
430
0.05
0.015
0.4
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
0.014
6.9
<0.01
350
6
170
0.07
7/14/75
River
Intake
1.7
0.04
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
20
5
<0.005
160
0.08
-
67
0.57
<0.010
4.1
0.07
<0.0002
<0.05
0.07
<0.002
4.6
<0.01
90
11
19
0.04
Pond
Discharge
2.9
0.04
0.010
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
140
5
0.021
840
0.19
-
350
0.39
<0.010
0.1
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.0b
<0.01
0.008
8.4
<0.01
420
5
130
0.03
10/14/75
River
Intake '
1.9
0.10
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
16
6
<0.005
150
0.07
-
54
0.45
0.010
3.4
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.09
<0.001
4.5
<0.01
100
16
15
0.07
- Pond
Discharge
2.4
0.05
0.130
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
130
8
<0.005
680
0.11
-
330
0.28
<0.010
0.3
0.02
<0.0002
<0.05
0.01
0.010
7.6
<0.01
420
3
130
0.04
-------
Table A-8 (Continued)
TVA PLANT E RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
LO
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/cra
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, rag/1
1/19/76
River
Intake
2.1
0.13
<0.005
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
22
7
<0.005
150
<0.01
69
0.45
<0.010
3.5
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
<0.002
4.9
<0.01
100
14
14
<0.01
Pond
Discharge
1.5
0.09
<0.010
0.3
<0.01
<0.001
140
6
0.013
650
<0.01
350
0.18
<0.010
0.3
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
0.02
<0.002
7.3
<0.01
280
18
83
<0.01
ft/12/76
River
Intake
1.4
0.10
<0.005
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
26
6
<0.005
180
0.02
79
0.40
<0.010
3.5
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.06
<0.002
3.7
<0.01
90
10
19
<0.01
Pond
Discharge
1.0
0.84
0.010
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.010
110
6
0.007
600
0.02
280
0.17
<0.010
0.1
0.02
0.0003
<0.05
0.01
0.005
7.0
<0.01
280
2
93
0.09
-------
Table A-9
TVA PLANT F RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(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
"\ Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
U)
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, rag/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, rag/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, rag/1
Solids, Dissolved, rag/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, rag/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
-------
Table A-9 (Continued)
TVA PLANT F RIVER WATER 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, 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
NA = Not Available
*Collected 4/22/74.
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
<0.010
4.0
0.06
0.0033
<0.05
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
1.2
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
0.03
0.012
6,0
<0.01
280
<1
120
0.08
4/16/74
River
Intake
1.3
0.03
<0.005
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
23
3
0.012
150
0.07
-
75
1.4
0.032
4.3
0.08
<0.0002
<0.05
0.11
<0.002
4.9
<0.01
110
28
19
0.22
Pond
Discharge
1.4
0.26
<0.005
0.5
<0.91
<0.001
98
5
0.040
500
0.04
<0.01
250
0.13
<0.010
0.7
<0.01
<0.0002*
<0.05
0.02
0.018
6-8
<0.01
350
2
14
0.06
7/15/74
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
3.
0.
1
10
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
0.002
130
4
0.044
1,100
<0.01
<0.01
330
<0.05
0.040
0.2
<0.01
0.3
<0.05
<0.01
0.028
<0.01
540
2
200
0.03
10/22/74
River
Intake
<0.1
0.26
<0.006
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
35
4
<0.005
250
0.02
lOOq
0.36
<0.010
4.2
0.03
<0.0002
<0.05
0.15
<0.002
4.5
<0.01
150
6
19
0.13
Pond
'Discharge
3.0
0.17
<0.005
0.4
<0.01
<0.001
160
5
0.072
780
0.01
400
0.23
<0.010
0.2
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.01
0.012
7.6
<0.01
450
<1
240
0.06
-------
Table A-9 (Continued)
TVA PLANT F RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINhD ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, rag/1
Barium, rag/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
> Chromium, mg/1
LJ Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cra
00 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, rag/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, rag/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/20/75
River
Intake
1.3
0.03
<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
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.01
0.010
5.8
<0.01
450
3
260
0.07
4/7/75
River
Intake
2.3
0.05
<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
0.9
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
<0.0b
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
o.io
<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)
u>
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
Magnesium, ing/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
1/13/76
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
3.5
0.06
<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. i
<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)
Date
1/4/73*
4/2/73*
7/2/73
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
0.38
0.004
0.4
<0.01
0.005
240
8
<0.005
1,000
0.04
<0.01
660
72
<0.010
14
1.6
0.001
0.14
0.03
0.008
11
<0.01
1,100
14
980
0.59
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
2.4
0.04
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
25
4
<0.005
180
0.04
<0.01
81
4.6
<0.010
4.6
0.23
-
<0.05
0.03
-
4.9
<0.01
160
37
55
0.02
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
0.10
0.010
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
110
4
0.023
390
<0.01
0.02
280
0.42
<0.010
1.1
0.03
<0.0002
<0.05
0.12
0.015
5.1
<0.01
300
8
140
0.02
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
0.01
0.070
<0.1
<0.()1
<0.001
72
4
0.009
360
<0.01
<0.01 )
190
0.30
<0.010
1.9
0.02
-
<0.05
0.21
<0.001
5.7
<0.01
270
17
88
0.01
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, rag/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
NA = Not Available
*01d ash pond containing coal pile drainage only. Sampling of old pond discontinued after April 2, 1973 sample.
Quarterly samples beginning July 2, 1973 are of new ash pond. ,
-------
Table A-10 (Continued)
TVA PLANT G RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
Aluminum, rag/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
Jj Conductivity, 25°C, uinhos/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, rag/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, rag/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
4.0
0.23
<0.0002
<0.05
0.12
0.004
5.0
<0.01
100
67
13
0.08
Pond
Discharge
1.4
0.01
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
78
3
0.010
320
<0.01
<0.01
210
0.26
<0.010
2.7
0.01
0.014
<0.05
0.05
0.018
4.2
- <0.01
270
13
120
<0.01
4/15/74
River
Intake
0.8
0.02
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
17
5
0.010
140
0.08
-
60
0.99
0.016
4.3
0.05
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
<0.002
5.4
<0.01
90
20
18
0.11
Pond
Discharge
1.7
0.10
<0.030
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
80
8
0.023
420
0.06
<0.01
210
0.41
<0.010
2.9
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
0.05
0.008
5.1
<0.01
290
20
180
0.06
7/15/74
River
Intake
0.4
0.08
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
<0.001
18
3
<0.005
150
<0.01
-
61
0.54
0,020
4.0
0.07
0.0031
<0.05
0.03
<0.002
-
<0.01
90
5
20
0.03
Pond
Discharge
0.5
0.01
0.055
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
73
3
0.010
420
0.09
<0.01
190
0.40
0.022
2.1
0.01
0.0026
<0.05
-
0.006
-
<0.01
310
14
190
0.03
10/21/74
River
Intake
0.1
0.03
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
24
4
<0.005
190
0.02
-
78
0.55
<0,010
4.4
0.08
0.0013
<0.05
0.07
<0.002
4.6
<0.01
110
6
18
0.10
Pond
discharge
0.4
0.01
0.030
0.3
s'0.01
<0.001
110
2
0.006
460
<0.01
-
280
0.27
<0.010
2.3
0.03
<0.002
<0.05
0.09
0.010
3.9
<0.01
320
8
160
0.07
-------
Table A-10 (Continued)
TVA PLANT G RIVER WATER 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, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
> Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
u> 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
0.7
0.01
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
25
4
<0.005
190
0.02
-
81
0.91
0.036
4.6
0.09
<0.0002
<0.05
0.07
<0.002
4.8
<0.01
110
19
17
0.05
Pond
Discnarge
1.3
0.04
0.025
0.2
<0.01
<0.001
47
3
0.020
330
0.02
<0.01
130
0.61
0.036
3.1
0.04
<0.0002
0.05
0.10
<0.002
3.4
<0.01
220
18
100
0.08
4/9/75
River
Intake
2.8
0.02
<0.005
0.1
<0.01
0.001
13
3
<0.005
120
0.07
-
46
2.3
0.011
3.4
0.09
0.0320
<0.05
0.09
<0.002
3.5
<0.01
70
14
23
0.13
Pond
Discharge
1.9
0.08
0.016
0.2
<0.01
0.001
38
3
0.009
320
0.06
-
110
0.72
0.013
2.5
0.02
0.0037
<0.05
0.07
0.013
4.9
<0.01
200
45
130
0.10
7/14/75
PIver
Intake
0.8
0.06
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
19
3
<0.005
150
0.08
-
62
0.33
<0.010
3.5
0.08
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
<0.002
4.0
<0.01
480
6
22
0.11
Pond
Discharge
1.8
<0.01
0.040
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
48
4
<0.005
290
0.11
-
130
1.4
<0.010
2.3
0.04
<0.0002
<0.05
0.14
0.006
7.1
<0.01
190
24
96
0.10
10/8/75
River
Intake
<0.2
0.06
0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
24
3
<0.005
150
0.10
-
76
0.45
0.010
3.8
0.08
<0.0002
<0.05
0.16
<0.001
3.5
<0.01
100
5
<1
0.08
Pond
Discharge
1.3
0.62
0.075
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
75
4
<0.005
380
0.12
-
200
0.52
<0.010
3.1
0.02
<0.0002
<0.05
0.09
0.019
4.3
<0.01
290
27
620
0.05
-------
Table A-10 (Continued)
TVA PLANT G RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
1/7/76
4/12/76
U)
00
Aluminum, rag/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
River
Intake
0.7
0.02
<0.005
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
28
5
<0.005
160
0.02
-
88
0.78
<0.010
4C
.5
0.07
<0.0002
<0.05
0.12
<0.002
4.5
<0.01
110
9
18
<0.01
Pond
Discharge
2.0
0.12
0.070
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
100
4
0.020
370
0.01
-
260
0.08
<0.010
3.4
0.03
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
0.016
4.2
<0.01
270
41
120
0.01
River
Intake
1.1
0.02
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
24
4
<0.005
160
0.01
-
77
1.5
<0.010
4 A
.2
0.10
<0.0002
<0.05
0.07
<0.002
A. 8
<0.01
90
13
21
<0.01
Pond
Discharge
1.4
0.02
0.078
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
42
4
<0.005
270
0.02
-
120
0.56
<0.010
2f
.6
0.02
0.0006
<0.05
0.06
0.046
5.6
<0.01
160
17
82
0.04
-------
Table A-ll
TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER 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, 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, rag/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
<0.01
<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
0.21
-
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
-------
Table A-ll (Continued)
TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER 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, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
j> Chromium, mg/1
^ Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
o 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/i
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Difasolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfdte, 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
5.3
<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
<0.001
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
pischarge
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)
TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
1/14/75
4/8/75
7/9/75
10/14/75
11
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
I 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, rag/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
River
I"take
0.8
0.42
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
32
17
<0.005
280
0.02
-
110
1.5
0.020
6.4
0.17
<0.0002
<0.05
0.45
<0.002
5.8
<0.01
170
29
19
0.11
Pond
Discharge
1.2
0.23
0.060
<0.1
<0.01
0.001
49
13
<0.005
400
0.01
<0=01
150
0.65
0.036
7.0
0.10
<0.0002
<0.05
0.09
0.020
5.5
<0.01
230
15
90
0.04
River
Intake
1.6
0.12
<0.005
<0. 1
<0.01
0.001
22
6
<0.005
240
0.08
-
80
1.7
0.033
6.2
0.12
<0.0002
<0.05 '
0.08
<0.002
4.6
<0.01
140
26
18
0.07
Pond
Discharge
1.7
0.03
0.240
0.3
<0.01
0.002
40
9
0.008
420
0.04
-
130
0.44
0.021
6.6
0.06
<0.0002
<0.05
0.06
0.034
5.3
<0.01
270
6
150
0.06
River
Intake
1.3
0.49
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
34
28
<0.005
310
0.07
-
120
0.83
<0.010
8.1
0.17
0.0002
<0.05
0.18
<0.002
4.4
<0.01
180
24
21
0.04
Pond
Disc'iarge
1.6
0.18
0.100
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
67
15
<0.005
490
0.02
-
200
0.33
<0.010
6.8
0.07
<0.0002
<0.05
0.12
0.020
4.6
<0.01
320
5
130
0.04
River
Intake
0.9
0.24
0.010
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
35
24
<0.005
330
0.08
-
140
0.92
0.012
13
0.18
<0.0002
<0.05
0.14
<0.001
3.3
<0.01
180
22
22
0.33
Pond
Discharge
1.3
0.06
0.360
<0. 1
<0.01
0.002
65
22
<0.005
510
0.09
-
200
0.18
<0.010
9.7
0.03
<0.0002
<0.05
0. 16
0.023
4.6
<0.01
350
7
100
0.08
-------
Table A-12
TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND FLY ASH POND DISCHARGE DATA
(Quarterly Samples)
Date
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, ing/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, rag/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
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
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
0.15
0.220
<0. 1
<0.01
0.010
91
20
0.011
630
0.16
-
280
2.3
<0.010
12
0.19
0.0002
<0.05
0.09
-
4.9
<0.01
450
11
220
0.11
-------
Table A-13
TVA PLANT H RIVER WATER INTAKE AND BOTTOM ASH POND 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
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
A
0.27
<0.005
*
A
A
A
11
A
260
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.09
<0.002
6.5
A
150
23
20
A
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
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
A
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)
Date
Aluminum, mg/1
Ammonia as N, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/l
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
»i5i 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
1/3/73
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
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
<0.05
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
<0.01
<0.001
100
7
0.026
680
<0.01
<0.0)
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
Artenic, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
K., Chromium, mg/1
I Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
en 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
2/19/74
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
Fond
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
River
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
Pona
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
<0.0b
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, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
•f 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, rag/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
<0.0i
<0.001
44
6
0.024
310
0.02
<0.01
120
0.35
0.012
2. a
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
<0.0i
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
River
Intake
*
0.03
*
*
Jt
*
A
5
*
150
*
-
*
*
*
*
*
<0.0002
*
0.10
<0.002
4.4
A
90
20
11
A
Pond
Discharge
2.1
0.01
0.110
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
58
4
<0o005
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
-------
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, rag/1
Chromium, mg/1
Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, ing/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/l
Sulfate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
1/12/76
4/12/76
River
Intake
1.1
0.07
<0.005
<0. 1
<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
<0.1
<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
River
Intake
1.0
0.05
<0.005
<0.1
<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
<0.1
<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
jy Chromium, mg/1
^ Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
CD 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
1/3/73
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
-------
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
1/14/74
River
Intake
0.9
<0.01
<0.005
<0.1
<0.01
<0.001
5
2
<0.005
44
0.13
-
19
0.91
<0.01
1.6
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
River
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
J3
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, rag/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Cadmium, rag/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
> Chromium, mg/1
m Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
0 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, rng/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
<0.001
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
O.OA
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
<0.001
25
3
<0.005
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)
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
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, rag/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
Pona
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
3.0
0.28
<0.0002
<0.05
0.09
0.004
5.6
<0.01
70
14
85
0.04
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
Oo09
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, rag/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/cra
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, rag/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
ria
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
<0.0i
<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)
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
ui Copper, mg/1
w 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
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
Poid
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, 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
1/13/75
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
0,0^8
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
0.13
<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
-------
Table A-16 (Continued)
TVA PLANT K RIVER WATER INTAKL AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
(Quarterly Samples)
Ul
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, rag/1
Phosphorous, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Solids, Dissolved, mg/1
Solids, Suspended, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
, 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, ing/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
Pond
'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
-------
Table A-17 (Continued)
TVA PLANT L RIVER WATER INTAKE AND COMBINED ASH POND DISCHARGE
(Quarterly Samples)
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
,1, Conductivity, 25°C, umhos/cm
"-1 Copper, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Mercury, ing/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
T5 -1
River
Intake
2.8
0.04
<0.005
0 1
\J . J.
<0.01
<0.001
14
A
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
o A
JO
11
0.08
• / • '
Pond
Discharge
2.0
0.60
0.045
S(\ 1
\U. J.
<0.01
<0.001
60
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
..•"»/"• //16/74 in/oo/-,/.
Bl"er
Intake
2.3
0.05
<0.005
Ox
.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
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
fond
Discharge
2.2
0.06
0.015
0 ?
\J . L.
<0.01
0.004
47
6
0.010
310
0.14
<0 01
N*-* • \J J.
130
0.38
0.036
2.6
<0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
0.08
<0.002
<0.01
230
9
110
0.05
~ — i —
River
Intake '
0 1
\j • j
0.08
0.010
SC\ 1
\U. 1
<0.01
<0.001
17
8
0.010
180
<0.01
61
0.28
<0.010
4 4
T « T
0.03
<0.0002
<0.05
0.04
<0.002
C 1
J.I
<0.01
100
A
T
14
* T
0.05
— / * i
Po"d
Uibchcirtiti
10
• j
0.73
0.010
/ f\ i
<0. 1
<0.01
<0.001
32
8
0.012
270
<0.01
QO
S £-
0.41
<0.010
i f\
J. U
<0.01
<0.0002
<0 OS
XV • \J J
0.05
<0.002
5)
. J
0.01
150
/,
4
s s
j j
0.05
-------
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
^ Chromium, mg/1
I 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, nig/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
<0.0i
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
<0.0i
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
<0.01
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
<0.0i
90
5
9
0.03
7/16/75
Pond
Discharge
2.1
0.29
0.030
<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
<0.01
<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
pischarge
1.7
0.14
0.005
<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
-------
-------
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.
B-l
-------
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.
I
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
B-2
-------
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 of 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.
B-3
-------
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 lowest 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
B-4
-------
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 ADOPTION
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 condenser elements
following a test period. The actual condition of the system in
terms of biofouling can then be directly compared to the indirect
means of monitoring performance (condenser vacuum, pressure drop,
etc.). Actual inspection of the condenser or other part of the
cooling system (which requires plant closure or loading reduc-
tion) should not be considered to be a 'routine' 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.
B-5
-------
Required Capab3.l3.t3.es
a. A means of measuring the apparent waters3.de
condenser tube fouling. This should include
visual inspections and biofouling sampling at
some point in the test program. Inspection
should include the condenser tubes, intake tube
sheet, water boxes and, if needed, the cooling
v/ater 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.
b. A means of relating the periodic inspection
result or other measurements to condenser
performance.
c. A means of gathering grab samples from con-
denser inlet, outlet, and ftPDES discharge
point.
d. A means of measuring free available chlorine
(FAG) 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.
B-6
-------
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.
f. General chemical analytical capability for
properties or substances in water.
g. A. means of determining short-term free avail-
able chlorine demand of the inlet water either
in the laboratory or by difference between
applied chlorine concentration and the free
available chlorine residual found at the
condenser inlet.
2. SpecLfic Steps in a Minimization Program
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.
B-7
-------
b. Conduct screening tests for a length 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.
There are three basic ways to institute a
chlorine minimization program (i) reduce the
dose, (ii) reduce the duration, or (ill) change
the frequency. For many facilities it may be
desirable to conduct all three alternatives in
succession prior 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
i
i
(i) Reduction of Dose: Establish a desired
outlet concentration for TRC. This
i
value should be lower than 0.14 mg/1.
Maintain the frequency and duration
B-8
-------
found effective in past experience but
reduce the dose of chlorine 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.
(LI) Reduction of Duration Decrease the
duration of chlorine feed while
maintaining the dose and frequency found
effective in past experience. Again,
test periods of two months are probably
adequate to evaluate a particular dura-
tion strategy.
(111) Change the Frquency. Frequency changes
with the goal of minimization can be
made in two ways (1) reduce the
frequency while keeping dose and
duration at baseline values, or (2)
increase the frequency but simultane-
ously decrease the duration. For
example, increase frequency from one to
three times per day while reducing
duration from one hour to 10 minutes.
Test periods of two months are probably
adequate to evaluate a particular
change in frequency.
B-9
-------
c. From the short term screening tests, select
the approach that appears to best fulfill
the purposes of the chlorine minimization
program. Using the selected strategy,
conduct a year-long trial making appropriate
adjustments in the dose, duraiton, 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,
should not require more than 18 months.
3. Using the Results of the Minimization Program
a. The information obtained in the 18 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
B-10
-------
applied in each season. The optimum combina-
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
biofouling.
B-ll
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CHLORINE MINIMIZATION
AND DECHLORINATION
-------
-------
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 dechlonnation of
the effluent.
Three plants have provided data to EPA on chlorine concentrations
under no-control, minimization and dechlonnation (where dechlo-
rination may include some level of chlorine minimization as well)
to the EPA. The purpose of the analysis of this data is to
describe the performance of these treatment methods, and to
establish standards for the discharge of chlorine.
Conclusion
The analysis performed on this data was to determine limitations
on the maximum measured concentration. The Agency bases such
limitations on the 99th percentile of the distribution of daily
effluent concentrations. The 99th percentile estimates have been
computed for each plant, within each level of treatment. These
resulting values are the basis for selecting the chlorine
limitation. (See text for further explanation.)
Table 1
TRC (mg/1)
Treatment Type: No Controls 0.34
Chlorine Minimization 0.20
Dechlonnation 0.14
C-l
-------
Descriptive Stat3.st3.es
i
The data are from three steam electr3_c generating plants in
Michigan and cover the period from January 1977 through December
1978. The data include periods of no controls on chlorine
(January-May 1977), chlorine minimization only (June-October
1977) and dechlorination (November 1977-December 1978). Data
exist for each plant, for each day on which the plant performed
chlorination. A single chlorination event is defined as any
period in which chlorine is added to the cooling waters of a
steam electric generating plant. For each chlorination event, a
number of analyses of the effluents is performed. For each
event, the following aggregate statistics were provided to the
EPA the number of samples taken, the maximum and minimum value
of the effluent concentration and the average of th*> sample
values. The number of distinct samples for each chlorination
event ranges from 1 to over 20, with an average value of 6.24
samples/chlorination event. Concentrations of chlorine levels in
the effluent are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/1) as Total
Residual Chlorine (TRC).
Data for the most part, were used as they appeared on the moni-
toring reports of the plants. Three data points were deleted
because they were taken on days of known equipment malfunctions,
a fourth point was removed because of an apparent reporting error
(the dates of edited points were 6/1/77, 7/10/77, 9/30/77 and
10/29/77). The number of chlorination events, for each plant,
and within each level of treatment is reported in table 2.
Table 2
The Number of Chlorination Events
Treatment Plant 2608 Plant 2607 Plant 2603
No Controls 56 44 103
Chlorine Minimization 58 94 87
Dechlorination 52 183 261
Total 166 331 451
The form in which the data were reported (minimum, maximum, aver-
age, and number of samples taken), as well as the character of
the data, limits the kinds of analyses that can be performed on
this data. Often, observations of pollutant levels are log nor-
mally distributed. The chlorine levels for the maximum, minimum
and average values reflect a high degree of skewness, illumi-
nating the fact that this data does not arise from a log normal
distribution.
C-2
-------
If the underlying distribution were log normal, it would be a
truncated log normal, with a large probability mass at zero. In
table 3, th'e occurrence of the large percentage of zero values is
made explicit.
Table 3
Percentage of Average (X) and Maximum (Max.)
Values Equaling Zero
Treatment Plant 2608 Plant 2607 Plant 2603
7o of X % of Max % of X % of Max % of X % of Max
No Controls
Chlorine
Minimiza-
tion
Dechlori-
nation
Total
3.6
3.4
75.0
25.9
3
0
51
17
.6
.9
.5
15
25
54
41
.9
.5
.9
.4
15
18
49
36
.9
.1
.7
.3
0
2
52
30
.3
.1
.6
0
2
51
30
.3
.7
.4
Without imposing strict distributional requirements on this data,
it may be asserted that the data (both maximum and average
values) are highly skewed in favor of the lower tail, with the
level of skewness increasing with more stringent controls. His-
tograms and plots of the empirical distribution function provide
evidence of large skewness. The histograms for Plants 2608, 2607
and 2603 are shown in figures 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Each
figure consists of six histograms (labeled a through f) as
follows
a - Histogram of maximum TRC values with no controls.
b - Histogram of average TRC values with no controls.
c - Histogram of maximum TRC values with chlorine
minimization.
d - Histogram of average TRC values with chlorine
minimization.
e - Histogram of maximum TRC values with dechlorination.
f - Histogram of average TRC values with dechlorination.
C-3
-------
•ill
C
0
u
K
I
. a
Ho Coacrols
"
Max
— ^^
isa
L
.
!
i
i
i
dU
C
0
u
s
T
— , s '«
1
1
i
i — «
__^__^ Ho Concrola
| Averages
t
^•M
b U .io 0 l« .54
eoncencracioa eoncencracioa —
/• /n ^ fm«f /I ^
a
10.
c
0
u
T *°
s
ChJ
H
!
••^
0
\.m
S/ A>
b
4u
Loriae Hiaiaii-idoa
•—
—
0
TJ
T *0
S
h-,
' Averages
i
i
L
i
i
i
r- -s
•JS 50 ° li •*
concencraci-sn conceacracion
(mg/1) (=8/1)
C
d
I
:— j Dechloriaacioa y* ; Decalorisacioti
C
0
H
T y
s
e
u
1 — i
£3=
i=a.
c
0
u
H
T T5
S
Averages
— i
eoneeacraedoa
Figure 1
HISTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2608
C-4
-------
C
0
u
H
T
S
St.
tu
Ho CoacroJj.
C
0
u
H
C
0
IT
U
T
S
Wl
34
is
concent ration
Gng/1)
Chlorine
Masiaa
Dechlo riaation
Vsr.
W^
concencrac LOB
C
0
u
N
r w
No Controls
Averages
fel
C
0
n
IT
T
S
Q ,
(ng/1)
Chlorine l£iai
Averages
C
0
T
S
(ng/1)
Decaloriaaclon
Averages
n
(ng/l)
Figure 2
HISTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2607
C-5
-------
c s*
0
u
T
S
35-
No controls
Ma^rtttia
rr
^ _
.1 „
concentration
c
c
n
Chlorine Minimization
MaytTna
concencracion
(mg/1)
0-14
C
0
u
Jl
t •«
s
sc
bi.chlorination
MayJTtia
-u
concentration 0\&
(mg/1)
C
0
u
N
T
S
is-
No Controls
Averages
"**5 . 3t
concentration
0
N
T
S »^
Chlorine Minimization
Averages
~l
concentration
(mg/1)
i L
0
U
»,
s
Dechlorinacion
Averages
« 5t
concentration
Figure 3
HLSTOGRAMS FOR PLANT 2603
C-6
-------
The empirical distribution functions for Plants 2608, 2607 and
2603 are shown in figures 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Each figure
consists of sax distribution functions (labeled a through f) in
the same format as the histograms.
The data were investigated for long term average performance.
From the information reported by the plant, a weighted mean has
been computed. This estimate is based on the number of samples
taken for any single chlorination event, and the average for the
chlorination event. The mean has been computed for each plant,
within each level of treatment.
Treatment
Table 5
Weighted Mean TRC (mg/1)
Plant 2608 Plant 2607
No Controls
Chlorine Minimization
Dechlorination
. 1 047
.0392
.0080
.0264
.0150
.0122
Plant 2603
.1459
.0765
.0375
Since the data are reported in this aggregated form, the conven-
tional estimator of the standard deviation of the chlorine
measurement can not be applied. Assumed that
Var XLJ = a2
And that the X^-, are statistically independent. It follows
that an unbiased estimator of a^ is
E (X, - XW(l/ri - l/£ n,)
/I
where nx = the number of observations for the ith chlorination
event. Estimates of a are presented in table 6.
C-7
-------
•So
No Controls
4
concentration
1o Controls
Averages
concentration
(og/1)
.
eoncencracioa
(ag/1)
?(C)
Ciloriae
Averages
Uacior
concentration
(mg/1)
?
-------
Ho ConcroJ-S
14
cbncaaeracioa
L<
No coarroLs
Averages
concencMCioa
(ng/1)
• So
?(C>*
1.0
?(C)*
aob
Chlorine ili=±ai
Averages
(mg/l)
-------
P(C)* to-
concentration
(mg/1)
No controls
Averages
P(C)*
Chlorine Mias-nisacion
P(C)*
concentration
Decilorinition
Xa-r-t-ia
0
concentration
?(O*
Chloriae >>•*••»•' -••' —
Averages
concentration
Gng/l)
Dechlorisa.ci.oa
Averages
concentration
(ntg/1)
Figure 6
EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION FOR PLANT 2603
*P(C) = proportion less than or equalt to concentration C,
C-10
-------
Treatment
No Controls
Chlorine Minimization
Dechlorinata on
Table 6
Standard Deviation
Plant 2608 Plant 2607 Plant 2603
.7257
.1774
.0912
.3834
.2349
.2307
.4531
.2663
.4218
The medians and grand means for the results are found in table 7.
The computation for the estimate of the standard deviation is not
as straight- forward as the mean, because individual sample points
are not known. For a given plant, let X-L-, be the observed
chlorine concentration for chlorination event i and for j = 1, 2,
... nL. For each chlorination event, the available data are as
follows
1 . The mean TRC concentration of each chlorination event
(X-[_) , where the mean is calculated using the following
equation
2. The maximum TRC concentration measured during each
chlorination event CX-^ max) .
3. The minimum TRC concentration measured during each
chlorination event (X-,-, mm) .
event
4. The number of samples collected during each chlorination
C-ll
-------
Table 7
Weighted Means and Median of Estimated Standard
Devi.ati.on for Treatment Type (Plant Independent)
i
Treatment Median Mean
No Controls
Chlorine Minimization
Dechlorination
.4531
.2349
.2307
.4765
.2398
.2972
Derivation of Recommended Standards
A daily maximum permissible value is generally based on estimates
of the 99th percentile of the distribution of effluent concentra-
tions. It is hypothesized that Xij - Fo (Fo is unspeci-
fied). The 99tn percentile is defined as xo such that F0
(x0) = .99 (x0 = F0-1 [.99]).
< x0 where X(n )
is" Che maximum observation
for the ith chlorination event.
0 Otherwise
It is noted that if X(n,) < xo, then for that chlorination
< x0. Hen<
event, all
E (I
nce
.99^1
XQ is estimated for each plant by selecting that value such
that
i i
The nearest integer greater than or equal to ^.
rank of that data value (among the set of maximum values) which
will be set equal to xo. Therefore, 1^, defined relative to
XQ satisfies the condition that l^I-i. ^n expectation) =
Ei.99n:L. The estimation procedure required solving for 2
.99nl, ranking the data values within a treatment type and
within a plant and assigning to xo, that value whose rank is
[Zi.99n:LJ. The ranks and the 99th percentile estimates for
daily maxima appear in table 8 and 9 respectively.
C-12
-------
Table 8
Computation of . 99ni
Treatment
No Controls
Plant 2608 1
i
s 51.83
Iinimization 53.40
tion 49.38
Table 9
99th Percentile Estinates
Plant 2607
40.45
86.97
179.32
for a Daily
Plant 2603
99.27
83.27
246.46
Maximum
Treatment Plant 2608 Plant 2607 Plant 2603
No Controls .38 .30 .34
Chlorine Minimization .20 .20 .20
Dechlorination .09 .16 .14
(Note that all data points are reported accurately to the second
decimal place, hence, percentile points based on the observed
data will be reported as a two digit nunber. However, an
improvement could be made, albeit slight, if an interpolation
procedure were applied to the data point associated with the
observed value of .99nl and the adjusted value of that
quantity.)
The basis for formulating effluent limitations is to use the
medians, across plant, of the 99th percentile points. These
values are reported in table 1.
C-13
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE WITH CHLORINATION OPTION
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE WITH CHLORINATION OPTION
In order to estimate the percentage of chlorinating plants using
once-through cooling systems that would be able to comply with
the regulatory option, the available data on previously conducted
chlorine minimization studies were evaluated. Data are available
for a total of 25 plants using once-through cooling systems that
conducted minimization studies. The available data have been
summarized in Table D-l. The information in the table describes
the plant structure and plant operating conditions at the
conclusion of the minimization study. It can be assumed these
plant operating conditions represent the minimum levels of
chlorine use achievable at each plant. The table includes such
information as:
o 'Whether the plant is single unit or multiple units
o The dose of chlorine being applied to the cooling water
at the conclusion of the minimization study
o The chlorine concentration found at the condenser outlet
o The chlorine concentration (either as FAC or TRC) found
at the plant's discharge point
o Whether or not the plant dilutes chlorinated cooling
water with unchlonnated cooling water before samples
are collected
o The general quality of the cooling water
o Whether or not the plant has experienced biofouling
problems as a result of operating at the point of minimum
chlorine use
o The appropriate reference for the data for each plant
The percentage of plants able to comply with the regulation was
estimated through a series of steps. First, the data for all 25
plants were examined to determine the number of plants for which
adequate data was available to be able to determine if that
particular plant would be able to comply with the regulatory
option. In many cases, the necessary data are not available.
The second step was to examine in detail each plant for which
the required data were available and determine how the plant
D-l
-------
Table D-l
SUMMARY OF CHLORINE MINIMIZATION STUDIES AT POWER PLANTS
USING ONCE-THROUGH COOLING SYSTEMS
o
i
to
Plant Nuaber
Hunber of Unit*
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
1
1
Multiple
1
1
1
1
I
Multiple
1
1
1
1
Multiple
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chlorine Dosage/Concentration*
(«B/D
Done
~3
-7 (-ax)
NA
NA
0.6
2 8 (nax)
NA
0
NA
NA
3 5
0.6-1
0.5
3.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Condenser
Outlet
NA
NA
2 FAC (MX)
<0 1 TRC
NA
0.8-1 FAC
0 3-0 5 TRC
0
NA
NA
0 1-0 2 FAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0 5 TRC
1 0 TRC
1 5 TRC
1 0 TRC
0 2 TRC
NA
NA
NA
NA
Discharge
Point
<0.1 TRC
0.2-0 9 TRC
0 4 TRC
>0 2 TRC
>0 2 TRC
0 2 TRC
Point
of Water
Dilution
Condenser
Condenser
Unit
None
Condenser + Unit
Condenser + Unit
Condenser
None
Condenser + Unit
None
Condenser + Unit
None
Condenser
Unit
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Quality of
Cooling Water
Seawater
Low TDS
Low TDS
BracKisn
Seawater
Seawater
Seawater
Low TDS
<500 ppn TDS
<500 Ppu TDS
Low TDS
Low TDS
Brackish
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Blofoullng
Problens References
Yes
No
No
ho
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Bl,
Bl.
Bl.
*h •
»»•
Bl,
Bl,
Bl.
Bl.
Bl,
Bl.
Bl,
Bl,
Bl,
Bl,
B3
B4
B5
B5
B5
B6
B7
88
B8
89
BIO
B2
B2
B2
S2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
32
B2
B2
B2
B2
*
-------
could achieve compliance with the option. The percentage of
plants that could achieve compliance under the option was then
calculated by dividing the number of plants found to be able to
achieve compliance by the total number of plants for which this
information was available. The result of this calculation is
that 63% of the plants in the data base are estimated to be able
to comply with chlorine minimization.
D-3
-------
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
1. 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.
2. Hunton and Williams, "Comments of the Utility Water Act
Group, etc. on the Environmental Protection Agency's October
14, 1980 Proposed Effluent Limitations and New Source
Performance Standards for the Steam Electric Generating
Point Source Category; Section III: The Proposed Limitations
and Standards for Once-Through Cooling Tower Slowdown;
Appendix III (F) Chlorination Practices of Nuclear Plants
(UWAG, 1980)," Prepared by Hunton and Williams, 1919
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., January 19,
1981.
3. Bernt, D. S. and K. H. Nordstrom, "Chlorine Reduction Study:
High Bridge Generating Plant," Northern States Power Company,
Minneapolis, MN, June 1978.
4. Bernt, D. S., "Chlorine Reduction Study: Monticello
Generating Plant," Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis,
MN, June 1978.
5. Philadelphia Electric Company, "Condenser Chlorination Study -
1977/1978," Philadelphia, PA, October 1978.
i
6. Schumacher, P. D. and J. W. Lingle, "Chlorine Minimization
Studies at the Valley and Oak Creek Power Plants/1 presented
at the Condenser Biofouling Control Symposium, Atlanta, GA,
March 1979.
[
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,"
Pittsburgh, PA, December 1978.
D-4
-------
|