TVA
EPA
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Energy Demonstrations
and Technology
Chattanooga TN 37401
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/7-79-198
Office of Research and Development Laboratory August 1979
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Chlorine Minimization/
Optimization for
Condenser Biofouling
Control
(Phases I and II)
%
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-198
August 1979
Chlorine Minimization/Optimization
for Condenser Biofouling Control
(Phases I and II)
by
R. D. Moss, H. B. Flora II, R. A. Hiltunen,
S. H. Magliente, and N. D. Moore
Tennessee Valley Authority
470 Commerce Union Bank Building
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
EPA Interagency Agreement D5-E-721
Program Element No. INE624A
EPA Project Officer: Michael C. Osborne
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority and has
been reviewed by the Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Tennessee Valley Authority or the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
This interim report summarizes the results obtained from the chlorine
minimization/optimization study conducted by TVA at the John Sevier Steam
Plant from December 1975 till September 1977. Many facts about chlorination
have become apparent through the data obtained. The following synopsis
depicts the salient points gleaned from this study.
It was found that chlorine feed rate is a function of inlet water
temperature and chlorine demand. The statistical analysis of the data
did not indicate a significant impact of water quality parameters (pH,
total suspended solids, ammonia, total organic carbon, nitrates plus
nitrites, organic nitrogen, alkalinity, and conductivity) on the feed
rate. It was determined that the inlet water temperature may be used as
an indicator for raising or lowering the chlorine feed rate.
It was determined that natural water and system chlorine consumption
vary directly with the chlorine feed rate and the inlet water temperature,
i.e., when the feed rate is increased and/or the inlet water temperature
is increased, the amount of chlorine consumed is also increased. Also,
as the frequency of chlorine application is increased and the length of
chlorine application is decreased, the chlorine consumption by the system
is decreased. The data analysis indicates that one should be able to deter-
mine the system demand and set the feed rate so that the demand is satisfied
such that only a trace amount of free residual chlorine may be found at the
outlet of the condenser.
It is proposed that the relationships between the chlorine demand and
corresponding feed rate as determined at John Sevier may be used to trans-
pose these findings to other plants by relating their chlorine demand
to a ballpark feed rate for initiating their minimization studies.
Results have indicated a direct relationship between the change in
inlet water temperature and the change in turbine back pressure and con-
denser performance. Different chlorine feed regimes have shown statistically
to have an effect on condenser performance, i.e., the condenser performance
has not decreased due to more frequent and shorter chlorination periods.
There is a statistically significant difference in free residual chlorine
across the condensers, i.e., there is a "condenser demand." It was noted
that the average free residual chlorine consumed in the condenser declines
significantly as the feed rate is lowered.
An important point emphasized by this study is that chlorination is site-
specific. Every plant must conduct its own minimization studies if warranted,
and this report has portrayed a format which will assist in conducting such
studies.
The final report, which will contain Phase III, will furnish data to
elucidate the complexities of water chlorination for biofouling control and
answers the many questions prompted by this interim report.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of contract number
EPA-IAG-D5-E-721 by the Tennessee Valley Authority under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period
from December 1975 to September 1977.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
Acknowledgments vii
1. Project Initiation 1
2. Introduction 2
3. Conclusion 4
4. The Approach 5
5. Preliminary Data 6
6. Phase I 12
7. The New Chlorinator 42
8. Phase II 44
9. Status - October 1, 1977 66
10. Statistical Analysis of Phase II 67
References 74
Appendices
A. Analysis of Phase II Chlorination Study Data 75
B. Data Used and Summary Statistics for Phase II
Chlorination Study 95
C. Water Temperature Versus Other Variables 117
D. DPD Versus Amperometric Titrator Data 121
E. Chlorine Demand Versus Feed Rate and TOC 125
-------
FIGURES
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chlorination System at John Sevier Steam Plant . . . .
Units 1-4 Condenser Performance - John Sevier
Steam Plant
1976 Water Quality Data
Unit 1 1976 Record of Apparent Cleanliness Factor . .
Unit 2 1976 Record of Apparent Cleanliness Factor . .
Unit 3 1976 Record of Apparent Cleanliness Factor . .
Unit 4 1976 Record of Apparent Cleanliness Factor . .
Unit 1 Free Versus Total Residual Measurements . . . ,
Unit 2 Free Versus Total Residual Measurements . . . .
Unit 3 Free Versus Total Residual Measurements . . . .
Unit 4 Free Versus Total Residual Measurements . . . .
Relationship Between Chlorine Consumed and
Contact Time
Schematic Diagram of Capital Control Chlorinator . . .
Water Quality Data for 1977
Unit 1 1976 Versus 1977 Apparent Cleanliness Factor .
Unit 2 1976 Versus 1977 Apparent Cleanliness Factor .
Unit 3 1976 Versus 1977 Apparent Cleanliness Factor .
Unit 4 1976 Versus 1977 Apparent Cleanliness Factor .
Unit 1 1976 Versus 1977 Inlet Water Temperature . . .
Unit 2 1976 Versus 1977 Inlet Water Temperature . . .
Unit 3 1976 Versus 1977 Inlet Water Temperature . . .
Unit 4 1976 Versus 1977 Inlet Water Temperature . . .
Relationship Between Chlorine Demand and Contact Time
9
14
17
18
19
20
26
27
28
29
34
43
46
53
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
65
TABLES
Table
1 John Sevier Maximum Measured Chlorine Residuals at
Condenser Inlet
2 Chlorine Concentrations
3 Chlorine Demand
4 Chlorine Studies Data Sheet
5 1976 Chlorine Demand Unit 3
6 1977 Chlorine Demand
7 1977 Chlorine Concentration
8 Dates of Condenser Cleaning . . .
9 Samples Taken at Outlet on August 25, 1977 . . . .
10 Samples Taken at Outlet on September 2, 1977 . . .
11 Chlorine Demand Unit 3
12 Samples Taken at Outlet on September 30, 1977 . . .
7
10
13
22
33
49
50
57
62
62
64
66
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to express our appreciation to the following TVA
organizations for their support during this study.
Division of Power Production
Plant Engineering Branch - C. Cain, Jr., E. S. Lisle,
C. B. Moultrie, V. C. Shattuck,
and J. F. Shiau
Steam-Electric Generation Branch - W. H. Thompson
Division of Environmental Planning
Laboratory Branch - C. W. Holley, D. G. Carpenter, and
J. W. Bobo
A special appreciation is extended to J. T. Thompson, John Sevier
Steam Plant Superintendent, his staff, and the Results Section for their
continued cooperation and support throughout this study.
VII
-------
SECTION 1
PROJECT INITIATION
In December of 1975, TVA obtained EPA energy pass-through funds for
the task entitled "Study of Chlorinated Water Effluent Quality from a
Once-Through Cooling System" under the project "Characterization of
Effluents from Coal-Fired Utility Boilers." Such a research effort was
needed to develop a methodology for performing chlorine minimization/
optimization programs needed to comply with EPA effluent guidelines and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
NPDES permits for TVA fossil-fueled power plants require that free
chlorine residual shall not exceed an average concentration of 0.2 mg/1
and a maximum instantaneous concentration of 0.5 mg/1 at the outlet corre-
sponding to an individual unit during a maximum of one 2-hour period per
day. They further require that no discharge of chlorine is allowed from
one unit while another unit at the same station is being chlorinated.
Other utilities around the United States have received permits containing
similarly worded discharge limitations.
EPA has contended that a lower feed concentration of chlorine coupled
with an increase in the frequency of the treatment would result in adequate
condenser performance and satisfactory levels of chlorine residuals in
the cooling water effluent. Therefore, the purposes of this study were
as follows: (1) To fully characterize the chlorinated effluent from a
once through condenser cooling system, (2) to identify the main factors
that control chlorine used, (3) to evaluate the interrelationship of these
factors with chlorine usage, (4) to evaluate the efficiency of different
chlorination practices, (5) to determine the levels of chlorine that are
necessary to maintain unit efficiency with optimization and/or minimiza-
tion of the use of chlorine, and (6) to develop a methodology so that
TVA and other power plants may also quantify and evaluate their current
chlorination practices.
Originally, this research effort was to take place at TVA's Kingston
Steam Plant. Since a significant seasonal change in the raw water source
for this plant results in a corresponding variation of raw water pH,
affecting chlorination efficiency, the study was changed to the John
Sevier Steam Plant on the Holston River. Although there is some variation
in this raw water source, the drastic seasonal change in pH does not occur.
This study change was made on January 16, 1976.
The research effort consists of three phases. Phase I in the summer
of 1976 was used to characterize the chlorinated cooling water system at
the plant. Phase II in the summer of 1977 consisted of a more detailed
study for further understanding the characteristics of the system affect-
ing chlorine use. Phase III in 1978 will test the most optimum procedure
for operating the cooling system with minimum chlorine usage.
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
The John Sevier Steam Plant was chosen for this study due to the
nature of its cooling water source, i.e., the Holston River has a high
chlorine demand, high nitrogen content, and high biochemical oxygen
demand as compared to the cooling water source at other TVA plants. The
Environmental Protection Agency conducted a water quality study on the
upper Holston River in 1972 (TS-03-71-208-07)1. They determined that the
South Fork of the Holston River downstream of Fort Patrick Henry Dam, and
the Holston River downstream of the confluence of the North and South Fork,
were grossly polluted by five major waste dischargers. Although effluent
limitations have been established for these sources and much progress in
pollution abatement has been achieved, these rivers are still significantly
polluted by a wide variety of waste dischargers. They are:
Tennessee Eastman Corporation
Holston Army Ammunition Plant
Mead Paper Company
City of Kingsport Sewage Treatment Plant
Holliston Mills
Due to this problem and the need for more definitive data on chemical
species that might affect the use of chlorine, the experimental design
included the analyses of water samples for the following parameters:
ammonia, pH, temperature, alkalinity, total organic carbon, total nitrogen,
conductivity, total suspended solids, and chlorine demand. Phase I
sampling of the intake water was conducted approximately twice per month
on the days the chlorinated cooling water system was tested for free and
total residual chlorine. During Phase II of the study, sampling and testing
were conducted weekly.
The chlorinated water samples were analyzed for free and total
chlorine residuals. Amperometric and diethyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPD)
methods of chemical analysis were used although the majority of the data
was collected with the amperometric direct titration method. Three
sampling stations were used during Phase I (see Figure 1). They were
(1) the unit intake pump discharge tunnel approximately ten feet from the
chlorine injection point, (2) the condenser inlet, and (3) the condenser
outlet. Sampling of chlorinated water at locations a, a , b, and c
(Figure 1) was initially scheduled to occur several times during Phase I
and once per week per unit at locations b and c during Phase II of the
research effort. In an effort to identify the efficiency of the present
chlorination practice and alternate practices, condenser performance
tests were initially performed once per month per condenser during Phase
I and increased to once every two weeks per condenser during Phase II.
-2-
-------
B n
UNIT I
CHLORINATOR
UNIT 2
T
UNIT 3
DISCHARGE TO HOLSTON RIVER
UNIT 4
t
f-SAMPLE POINT
Figure I. Chlorinotion system at John Sevier Steam Plant.
-------
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based upon data of Phases I and II and
should not be construed as final until Phase III has been completed and
the data analysis from all three phases combined. The following conclu-
sions summarize the results obtained from Phases I and II.
1. Chlorine feed is a function of inlet water temperature and chlorine
demand.
2. Chlorine feed has a direct effect on chlorine consumption through
the system.
3. There is a direct relationship between the chlorine feed rate and
the consumption of free chlorine across the condenser.
4. No significant relationship was noted between inlet water temperature
and general water quality at John Sevier; however, trends were observed.
5. Chlorine feed rate may be lowered at John Sevier with no loss in con-
denser performance as long as a free residual concentration between
0.1 and 0.2 mg/1 is maintained at the condenser outlet.
6. Optimum chlorine feed regime for John Sevier is three times per day
for 20 minutes or six times per day for 10 minutes for each condenser.
7. Proposed new feed rates for John Sevier based on inlet water
temperature are:
Temperature Range (°F) Feed Rate (Ib/day)
68° and up 2,500-3,500
60-68° 2,000-2,500
Less than 60° Less than 2,000
8. Relationship between chlorine demand and corresponding feed rate at
John Sevier may be applied to other TVA power plants by taking the
following data obtained at the other plants: water quality, conden-
ser performance history, present chlorination regimes, performance
of the chlorinator, and (comparing with John Sevier data) water flow.
Field studies would subsequently be initiated.
9. The decrease in chlorine usage at John Sevier would reduce the amount
of chlorine used and therefore reduce the amount of money spent on
chlorine.
-4-
-------
SECTION 4
THE APPROACH
The initial chlorine feed rate and duration of feed at the John Sevier
Steam Plant under past and present operating practices was 6000 lb/24 hrs.
per unit at 20 minutes twice per day. After obtaining preliminary test
data in March of 1976, the following feed rates and duration of feed
were incorporated into a test plan for Phase I:
Unit 1 6000 Ib/day for 2 hrs. once/day
Unit 2 7500 Ib/day for 20 rain, twice/day
Unit 3 4500 Ib/day for 20 min. twice/day
Unit 4 6000 Ib/day for 20 min. twice/day
The feed rate used on Unit 1 represented an attempt to measure the
effect of increased chlorine duration on condenser cleanliness. The
feed rate presented for Unit 2 represented an attempt to measure the
effect of increased chlorine concentration on condenser cleanliness.
The feed rate used for Unit 3 represented an attempt to measure the
effect of decreased chlorine concentration on condenser cleanliness.
Unit 4 was the control condenser with the feed rate, duration, and
frequency the same as current plant practice.
-5-
-------
SECTION 5
PRELIMINARY DATA
The results of preliminary tests are shown in Tables 1 and 2. With
the condition that the only data considered in the analysis to determine
future experiment changes would be data taken during steady state
conditions, the following conclusions were obtained from the preliminary
testing:
1. Total chlorine measurements taken at the point of chlorination
(A,A') agreed (±10%) with the calculated chlorine based upon the
feed rate and flow at the point of chlorination.
2. Total residual chlorine at the inlet to the condenser was
approximately 65 percent of the chlorine feed.
3. Total residual chlorine at the outlet of the condenser was
approximately 50 percent of the chlorine feed.
4. Chlorine was being consumed within the system and not being
measured by the analytical techniques employed.
5. Free residual chlorine measured at the inlet to the condenser
varied from test to test with a range of approximately 1 to 2
mg/1. However, the within-test range was approximately 0.3 mg/1.
6. Free residual chlorine at the outlet of the condenser was highly
variable from test to test spanning a range of 0.1 to 1.65 mg/1.
The within-test variation was small compared to the test-to-test
variation.
As part of the data necessary to evaluate the present chlorination
practice, the condenser performance data for 1974 and 1975 at John Sevier
for Units 1-4 was plotted and found to display a seasonal trend (see
Figure 2). The condenser apparent cleanliness factor begins to decline
in late March from a value of 80-85 percent [85 percent is the maximum
assumed in the HEI calculation2 for a clean condenser (see Appendix A for
explanation)] to approximately 70 percent in late August and then increases
to 80-85 percent by November. Typically, the condensers are brush
cleaned in the November to March period.
The historical performance (record) of the John Sevier condensers in
conjunction with a control condenser performance record during the chlori-
nation study would allow a comparison for the effect of different
chlorination rates on condenser performance as measured by the apparent
cleanliness factor. However, we must note that several other factors
also affect the apparent cleanliness factor in addition to biofouling,
i.e., inlet water temperature, air leakage, turbine back pressure, etc.
-6-
-------
TABLE 1. JOHN SEVIER MAXIMUM MEASURED
CHLORINE RESIDUALS AT CONDENSER INLET
Unit
Calculated
Chlorine
Feed
(mg/1)
Free
Chlorine
(mg/1)
Total
Chlorine
(mg/1)
1
2
3
1
2
3
5.26
5.26
5.26
5.26
5.26
5.26
March 2, 1976
1818-2031
March 3
0845-1017
1.5
1.74
1.68
1.52
2.21
1.86
3.71
3.92
2.46
3.80
3.68
3.92
MAXIMUM MEASURED CHLORINE RESIDUALS AT CONDENSER OUTLET
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
5.26
5.26
5.26
4.38
3.51
5.26
5.26
5.26
5.26
5.26
5.26
March 2
0915-0935
1230-1344
1818-2031
March 3
0845-1017
1.56
0.70
0.35
0.91
1.20
0.99
1.20
0.6
1.65
0.41
0.33
4.53
4.00
2.87
2.98
3.45
2.67
3.40
1.42
2.69
2.10
2.19
Continued
-7-
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
March 11, 1976
Unit
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
Calculated
Chlorine
Feed
(mg/1)
5.26
A. 38
3.50
5.26
4.38
5.26
4.38
Free
Chlorine
(mg/1)
1.82
1.58
1.02
1.34
0.92
1.4
0.94
Total
Chlorine
(mg/1)
3.76
3.32
2.72
3.51
2.70
3.61
2.91
MAXIMUM MEASURED CHLORINE RESIDUALS AT CONDENSER OUTLET
1 5.26 0.42 2.61
1 4.38 0.27 1.10
1 3.50 0.09 0.87
2 5.26 0.21 1.07
2 4.38 0.17 1.05
3 5.26 0.30 1.30
3 4.38 0.10 1.12
-8-
-------
I
>£>
a:
o
t-
CO
CO
Ul
UJ
_J
o
UJ
o:
<
O_
d.
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
1974
1975
UNIT I
1976
1974
1975
UNIT 2
1976
1974
1975
UNIT 3
1976
1974
1975
UNIT 4
1976
Figure 2. Units 1-4 condenser performance-John Sevier Steam Plant.
-------
TABLE 2. CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS
Date
6/9/76
6/15/76
6/16/76
7/7/76
7/8/76
7/16/76
8/13/76
8/19/76
Unit
2
3
A
1
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
Feed
C12
Feed Rate
lb/24 hrs.
6000
4500
6000
6000
4500
4500
4500
4500
7500
4500
6000
6000
7500
4500
6000
6000
7500
4500
6000
4500
6000
6000
7500
4500
6000
Rate lb/24 hrs.
Flow
Rate
Gal/min
113,967
99,799
124,694
128,581
128,581
133,390
121,317
122,466
138,798
139,631
129,241
139,924
138,798
139,631
129,241
124,128
137,866
119,689
130,245
103,227
115,352
139,655
128,108
132,630
130,766
V 8-} 00 — r
Total
C12
Cone .
(mg/1)
4.38
3.75
4.00
3.88
2.91
2.77
3.09
3.06
4.50
2.68
3.86
3.57
4.49
2.68
3.86
4.02
4.52
3.13
3.83
3.63
4.33
3.58
4.87
2.82
3.82
n«/i n
Intake
Measurements
FRC
(mg/1)
3.47
2.43
3.68
2.14
2.56
2.61
2.80
2.41
3.50
2.33
2.90
1.76
-
1.75
3.00
1.92
2.60
0.91
1.23
1.53
2.56
-
-
-
"™
Flow Rate gal/min.
-10-
-------
Based on this preliminary data, it was recommended that:
1. The free and total residual chlorine measurements be taken at
the point of chlorination, the inlet to the condenser, and the
outlet of the condenser.
2. Condenser performance tests and chlorine measurements should
be taken weekly and together.
3. If the test condensers fall below 70 percent apparent cleanliness
factor on five successive measurements or 5 percent below the control
condensers' apparent cleanliness factor, then the chlorination
rate and/or duration of feed should be increased.
A. The free chlorine concentration at the outlet of the condenser must
be carefully measured by the most skilled laboratory analyst.
-11-
-------
SECTION 6
PHASE I
TESTING AT JOHN SEVIER STEAM PLANT, MAY-AUGUST 1976
TVA initiated more intensive sampling of the condenser cooling water
on May 11, 1976. The initial sampling attempted on the night of May 11
had to be terminated due to problems with the chlorinator. Because of
these problems, testing was not started until May 26. On May 26, water
samples were taken at the intake to determine the chlorine demand and
its affect on chlorine dosage rates. Samples of chlorinated water were
also taken at the inlet and outlet of the condensers for free and total
residual chlorine determinations.
It was apparent from the preliminary data that a large variable
existed since there was no reasonable correlation of measured total
residual chlorine at the injection point and the feed rate of the
chlorinator. This phenomenon occurred even when the same feed rate was
tested on a different unit. Although other possibilities exist, it was
hypothesized that this phenomenon was mainly a result of the feed rate
of the chlorinator, i.e., the instrument setting on the chlorinator may
not always correlate with what was actually fed since the chlorinators
were twenty years old and in poor physical condition. On May 26, the
prescribed feed rate of 7500 lbs/24 hrs could not be attained. The
maximum feed rate experienced was 7000 lbs/24 hrs. On June 16, only 4500
lbs/24 hrs maximum could be fed to the condensers. This problem existed
throughout Phase I testing.
Problems were also experienced with the amperometric titrators.
Electrode malfunctions and electronic drift were the main problems.
A sample of the results of field tests from June 9, 1976 through
August 19, 1976, may be found in the following pages. It was noted that
the concentration of total residual chlorine obtained at the intake was
far below the calculated feed concentration (see Table 2).
During the course of Phase I, we identified several factors that
should be taken into account when comparing the data. The factors consist
of water quality, the condition of the chlorinator, the condition of
the cooling system, the feed rate, and accuracy and precision of the
chlorine analysis. The following data is representative of that obtained
during the Phase I study:
1. Water quality data (Figure 3).
2. Chlorine demand data (Table 3).
3. Condenser performance data (Figures 4-7).
-12-
-------
TABLE 3. CHLORINE DEMAND
1976 Unit 3
Date
6/9/76
6/16/76
7/7/76
7/8/76
7/16/76
Date
8/13/76
8/19/76
Feed Rate
(mg/1 C12)
3.75
3.09
2.68
2.68
3.13
Feed Rate
(mg/1 C12)
3.63
2.82
10 Min.
(mg/1 C12)
2.0
1.10
.98
.88
1.33
1 Min. 5 Min.
(mg/1 C12) (mg/1 C12)
.43 .73
.30 .65
30 Min.
(mg/1 C12)
2.75
1.60
1.68
1.48
1.93
10 Min.
(mg/1 C12)
1.03
1.35
-13-
-------
1000
900
800
700
600
o
I 500
400
300
200
100
0
JUNE
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER
MONTHS
Figure 3. 1976 water quality data.
-------
10
8
pH
O>
£
4 -
3 ~
TOC
2 -
TOTAL NITROGEN
_L
JUNE
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER
MONTHS
Figure 3 (continued)
-------
TOTAL ALKALINITY
o>
E
50
40
30
20
TSS
10
JUNE
I
JULY AUGUST
MONTHS
SEPTEMBER
Figure 3 (continued)
-------
•-J
I
100
90
80
O 70
O
to
V)
UJ
60
-, 50
UJ
_J
O
40
uj 30
(T
o.
o.
20 -
10 -
4/28 5/6 6/3 6/10 6/16 7/9 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/12 8/19
TIME (MONTHS)
Figure 4. Unit I 1976 record of opporent cleanliness factor.
-------
oo
100
90
80
-------
vD
I
o
100
90
80
70
60
UJ
5 50
UJ
o
\-
2
(T
40
30
CL
< 20
10
0
4/26 6/9 6/16 7/9 7/22 7/29 8/6 8/12 8/19
TIME (MONTHS)
Figure 6. Unit 3 1976 record of apparent cleanliness factor.
-------
i
ro
o
100
90 ~
80
o
<
70
60
UJ
^ 50
LU
O
40
ai 30
a:
<
a.
a.
< 20
10
5/20 5/26 6/9
6/16 6/18 7/12 7/22 7/29 8/6 8/12 8/19
TIME (MONTHS)
Figure 7. Unit 4 1976 record of apparent cleanliness factor.
-------
4. Data for free and total residual chlorine concentrations at
the intake, inlet, and outlet of the condenser for Units 1-4
(Table 4 and Figures 8-11).
An analysis of Phase I data was performed in order to address the
following questions:
1. Do we sample the system often enough to get statistically meaningful
data?
2. Do we get enough data points during a 20 minute chlorination
period to allow reasonable statistical analysis of results?
3. Is there any correlation between feed rate and free and/or total
residual chlorine at the outlet of the condenser?
4. Is there any trend in the amount of chlorine consumed through
the system for different feed rates and water quality?
5. Is there any correlation between the chlorine demand of the
intake water and the free or total residual chlorine at the
outlet of the condenser for a given rate?
The data analysis indicated that there are several factors which
influence the use of chlorine in the system. Some of these factors are:
1. Chlorine demand of the river water used for condenser cooling
water.
2. Chlorine demands of the mixing tank at the chlorinator and the
tunnel.
3. Chlorine demand of the condenser.
4. Flow rate of the condenser circulating cooling water.
Chlorine demand data was collected on the river water at the intake
to the condenser cooling water system from May 27, 1976 to August 19, 1976.
Ten and thirty minute chlorine demand curves were obtained for all test
dates except for August 13 and 19. Samples taken on these respective
dates had chlorine demand curves for 1, 5, and 10 minute intervals. Chlorine
demands are shown in Table 3.
During this period the flow rates through the system varied from
approximately 100,000 gal/min to 131,000 gal/min. Based upon the length
of the tunnels (685 feet), the diameter of each tunnel (8 ft.), the number
of tunnels (1), and an average flow rate of 120,000 gal/min, it takes
approximately 2.2 minutes for water to arrive at the inlet to the condenser
after exiting the chlorine injection point.
The chlorine demand data for the river water indicates a significant
demand at 5 and 10 minutes. The difference between the respective mea-
sured value for total residual measured at the inlet to the condenser and
at the intake has indicated that a chlorine demand exists within the
-21-
-------
TABLE 4
CHLORINE STUDIES DATA SHEET
UNIT
6,000 Ibs/day
TIME
10:05
10:10
10:14
10:16
10:22
10:26
N>
I
INLET OUTLET
FREE TOTAL
.5 2.0
.53 1.7
.65 1.6
.65 1.8
.7 2.4
.1 .2
1
; TIME FREE TOTAL
10:02 - 0.7
10:05 1.3 1.7
10:09 .92 1.56
10:12 .67 1.68
10:17 1.12 1.25
10:20 ? 1.07
10:24 .65 1.00
10:27 .5 0.0
INTAKE
TIME FREE TOTAL
10:01 1.05 2.41
10:04 2.91 3.72
10:08 2.57 3.07
10:11 2.53 3.31
10:14 2.23 3.45
10:17 2.69 3.47
,
OF FEED
2x20 min
DISCHARGE
TIME FREE TOTAL
DATE
June 9, 1976
DEMAND DATA
7.5
21 C
TEMP
I MIN. CLORINE DEMAND —
5MIN. CLORINE DEMAND -
10 MIN. CLORINE DEMAND-
FLOW RATE
APPARENT CLEANLINESS
FACTOR . 113,967 gpm
NH
WATER QUALITY
.26
.78
ORG. N _
COND. _
TSS _
TOC —
TOT. ALK-
290
15
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
CHLORINE STUDIES DATA SHEET
UNIT
TIME
11:04
11:08
11:13
11:16
11:22
11:24
i
K>
U>
INLET OUTL
FREE TOTAL
1.0 2.0
.7 1.5
.6 1.85
.8 1.9
.15 .15
0.0 0.0
j TIME FREE
1 1 : 00
11:04 1.1
11:10 .85
11:15 .61
11:19 .62
11:23 -42
FEED RATE . 4.300 Ibs/day LENGTH 0F FEED 2x2° min
TOTAL
1.58
1.56
1.16
.95
1.08
0.0
TIME
11:01
11:04
11:07
11:11
11:14
11:17
INTAKE
FREE TOTAL
1.34
1.14
2.36
1.54
1.51
1.97
DISCHARGE
TIME FREE TOTAL
2.43
2.27
2.85
2.28
2.57
2.39
DATE June 9. 1976
DEMAND DATA
PH 7.[
TEMP 21°C
I MIN. CLORINE DEMAND —
5MIN. CLORINE DEMAND -
10MIN. CLORINE DEMAND-
FLOW RATE
APPARENT CLEANLINESS
FACTOR "»799
NH,
WATER QUALITY
.26
.78
ORG. N.
COND. .
TSS .
TOC •
TOT. ALK
.13
290
15
3.0
98
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
CHLORINE STUDIES DATA SHEET
UNIT.
FEED RATE . 6,000 Ibs/day LENGTH OF FEED 2x2° min DATE June 9, 1976
i
N3
INLET OUTLET
o
TIME FREE TOTAL TIME FREE TOTAL
12:05 .55 1.6
12:08 .8 1.45
12:12 .65 1.75
12:17 .65 2.0
12:22 .85 2.0
12:24 1.3 0.0
12:04 - 1.51
12:07 1.19 1.51
12:11 .73 1.23
12:15 .75 1.24
12:19 .78 1.15
12:23 .7 1.07
12:26 .8 1.12
INTAKE
TIME FREE TOTAL
12:05 1.97 4.02
12:07 2.30 3.87
12:12 2.24 3.52
12:16 2.47 3.68
DISCHARGE
TIME FREE TOTAL
DEMAND DATA
7.5
21 "c
PH
TEMP.
I MIN. CLORINE DEMAND —
5MIN. CLORINE DEMAND -
10MIN. CLORINE DEMAND.
FLOW RATE
APPARENT CLEANLINESS
FACTOR 124,694 gpm
NH,
WATER QUALITY
.26
.78
290
ORG. N il3-
COND. —
TSS —
TOC —
TOT. ALK- -
15
3.0
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
CHLORINE STUDIES DATA SHEET
UNIT.
FEED RATE 6'000 lbs/day LENGTH OF FEED lx2 hrs DATE June 15' 1976
TIME
9:09
9:14
9:18
9:21
9:25
9:30
9:35
9:40
9:44
9:49
9:54
INLET
FREE
1.07
1.24
1.54
1.46
1.72
1.32
1.32
1.1
1.21
1.4
1.73
TOTAL
1.54
1.72
1.73
1.71
1.72
2.03
2.6
1.1
2.61
2.59
2.5
, TIME
8:55
8:59
9:02
9:07
9:12
9:17
9:21
9:25
9:30
9:37
9:42
9:45
9:50
9:55
10:00
OUTLET
FREE
_
.09
0.0
.09
.1
.21
.1
.12
.15
.38
.21
.32
-30
^.5
.13
TOTAL
.94
-
1.32
1.39
1.52
1.46
.9
1.43
1.80
1.27
1.00
2.37
2.38
2.39
0.0
TIME
8:53
8:54
8:57
9:01
9:06
9:10
9:13
9:17
9:28
9:32
9:44
9:48
9:51
INTAKE
FREE
0.0
0.0
.43
.48
.79
.32
.97
.27
1.42
.43
2.23
1.43
2.32
TOTAL
0.0
.85
1.34
.76
2.34
.72
2.14
.87
3.05
1.35
5.52
2.98
4.94
DISCHARGE
TIME FREE TOTAL
DEMAND DATA
7.5
27.2°C
PH.
TEMP.
I WIN. CLORINE DEMAND —
5MIN. CLORINE DEMAND -
IOMIN. CLORINE DEMAND.
FLOW RATE
APPARENT CLEANLINESS
FACTOR 128,581 gpm
NH.
WATER QUALITY
.5
i
.97
340
N02 'N03~
ORG. N —
COND.
TSS
TQC —
TOT. ALK.
2.9
94
-------
o
2.4
2.2 ~
2.0
1.8 ~
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
.. . . . CDC C
-' r n tt
— TOTAL
A^
/ N
r—
\ I
\ I
\ t
\ I
V
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10 15 20 25 30
35 40
MINUTES
50 55 60 65 70 75
Figure 8. Unif I free vs. total residual measurements (outlet).
-------
I
ro
III
8
10
12 14 16 18
MINUTES
20
22
24
26
28
Figure 9. Unit 2 free vs. fotal residua! measurements (outlet).
-------
2.0
00
I
1.8
1.6
(
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
FREE
— TOTAL
j_
I V I
8 10 12 14 16
MINUTES
18 20 22 24 26 28
Figure 10. Unit 3 free vs. total residual measurements (outlet).
-------
I
N>
VO
I
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
_£J 1.2
o
S 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 ~
0
I I
I
I
I
I I
FREE
— TOTAL
I I
8 10
12 14 16
MINUTES
18 20 22 24 26 28
Figure LI. Unit 4 free vs. total residual measurements (outlet).
-------
system and may be caused by any one or all of the following: demand of
the water as a function of time and the chlorine demand of the tunnels
and/or the mixing tank at the chlorinator injection point.
An accurate comparison of the chlorine demand of the water for
samples HB2-7 with the difference in the feed concentration and the field
measurement at the inlet of the condenser was not possible due to the
time of reaction (2.2 minutes) from the chlorine injection to the inlet
of the condenser. The chlorine demand for the water during this narrow
period of time was not examined in the laboratory during Phase I except
during the last two test days of August 13 and 19, 1976. Although the
values could be calculated by extrapolating a plot of chlorine demand
versus time, we believe that to assume the demand to be linear from
10 minutes to zero would be an error.
Chlorine concentration measurements at the outlet of the intake
pump suction well were consistently less than the calculated chlorine
feed rate. This difference has been attributed to the mixing tank, to
the reaction of chlorine with water, and to the inability of the old
chlorinator to maintain a set feed rate. The difference due to the mixing
tank varied greatly from March of 1976, when the demand associated with
the mixing tank was approximately 10 percent of the calculated input, to
August of 1976, when the demand increased to approximately 40 percent of
the calculated input (see Table 2).
During the test period of May through August, the total residual
chlorine at the inlet of the condenser was generally 50 percent of the
total residual chlorine measured at the intake. The free residual
chlorine at the inlet to the condenser was approximately 70 percent of
the total chlorine measured at the inlet. Furthermore, the outlet free
residual chlorine was approximately 0.5 mg/1 less than the inlet free
residual chlorine and was to some extent independent of chlorination
time and feed rate. Therefore, the change of free residual chlorine
was attributed to a condenser demand.
The limiting factor for maintaining a high apparent cleanliness
factor during the summer months appears to be the short time (5 seconds)
for the reaction of free chlorine in the condenser. Therefore, on
July 8, 1976, Unit 1 was chlorinated for one hour instead of the usual
20 minutes in order to determine if the free residual chlorine at the
outlet of the condenser would change with a longer period of reaction.
The outlet free chlorine measurements showed a consistent 0.5 mg/1 dif-
ference for the total hour. This was similar to the inlet to outlet free
chlorine measurement experienced previously for 20 minute chlorination
periods. Thus, at a feed rate of 6000 Ib/day, periods of chlorination
longer than 20 minutes would probably not be advantageous.
Based on this information and an analysis of the data, recommenda-
tions for Phase II studies at John Sevier Steam Plan were established.
They are as follows:
1. Chlorine demand tests on the river water should be performed at 1,
3, and 5 minute intervals.
-30-
-------
2. Subsequent chlorination rates should be at 6000 Ib/day at two 20
minute periods for a control basis and rates of 4500 and 3000 Ibs/day
on two other units.
3. Longer chlorination periods (2 hours) at 1500 Ib/day should be tested
on the fourth unit.
4. Most skilled laboratory analysts should be used to take measurements.
An analysis was also made of the chlorine demand test data for
the river water at John Sevier Steam Plant. The formula used for this
analysis was:
where:
D = ktn (1)
D = demand of the water (feed - residual)
k = chlorine demand after 30 minutes, ppm
t = contact time in % of 30 minutes
n = slope of curve (tan 0)
D = ktn
log t
= n
The above formula was developed and extensively researched and
tested by Douglas Feben and Michael J. Taras using Detroit's water
supply as the major source of samples.
The usefulness of this basic equation derived from measuring chlo-
rine demands is the variation in the exponent n, i.e., the slope of the
demand curve. The value of the exponent n reveals the speed of the
reaction and is theoretically related to the nature of the organic
material involved in the reactions with chlorine. Inorganic ions such
as NH3, Fe , and S 2 react instantaneously, causing rapid initial
chlorine demand. This causes the exponent n to approach zero. Other
results obtained from well waters in the greater Detroit metropolitan
area, and Long Beach, California, show remarkably similar exponential
values, varying between 0.01 for the Long Beach wells to 0.03-0.07 for
the Detroit area wells. A chemical analysis of the well samples indicated
the presence of the three most rapid chlorine-consuming substances-ammonia
nitrogen, sulfide and ferrous ions. Also some simple unsubstituted amino
acids were present; all of these substances resulted in the low exponential
value.
-31-
-------
As the value of the exponent increases, the more complicated the
organic material. Of the organic materials, Feben and Taras found that
the simple amino acids were generally found to react most readily with
chlorine, whereas complex molecules like peptides and proteins were found
to react more slowly.4 The surface waters tested contained sizable
amounts of complex organic material and traces of ferric ions as opposed
to ferrous ions. This analysis substantiated the high exponential values
calculated with the formula D = ktn.3'4'5
In one series of tests conducted by Taras, several simple and complex
organic and inorganic substances were tested for their individual chlorine
demands; the simple and the inorganic materials resulted in low exponential
values (0.02-0.19), and the complex organic materials resulted in high
exponential values (0.19-0.30).5
The exponential reaction constant as a function of time is dependent
upon the individual structure of the amino acid. An increase in the struc-
tural complexity results in higher values of the reaction constant n,
and will, therefore, exhibit prolonged chlorine demand. A significant
rise in the value of n would indicate a rise in the organic nitrogen
present and, further, a deterioration in the raw water quality.6
The resulting application of this equation to data from the water
samples taken during Phase I testing at John Sevier is found in Table 5
and Figure 12. As evidenced by the data in Table 5, approximately
20-25 percent of the total nitrogen consisted of organic nitrogen
throughout Phase I even though the total nitrogen varied from 0.89 to
1.9 mg/1.
-32-
-------
TABLE 5
1976 CHLORINE DEMAND UNIT 3
Test
Date
OJ
i
Hypothetical
Feed Rate
(mg/1)
Chlorine Demand
(mg/1)
Slope (n) Total N % Organic N
10 Min.
HB-2
HB-3
HB-4
HB-5
HB-6
HB-7
6/9/76
6/15/76
6/16/76
7/7/76
7/8/76
7/16/76
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
6.
4.
5.
5.
6.
4.
5.
5.
6.
4.
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
,4
1
85
7
1
3
3
4
7
4
4
7
3
7
5 Min.
HB-8
HB-9
8/13/76
8/19/76
5.
4.
5.
6.
4.
5.
0
0
0
5
0
0
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
1.
8
7
1
3
9
1
30 Min.
2.7
2.7
4.2
2.65
1.6
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.6
2.1
2.1
2.2
1.8
2.3
10 Min.
1.2
1.1
1.9
2.3
1.9
1.9
0.
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
.106
,227
366
017
245
082
126
366
746
366
366
233
293
273
585
652
788
823
078
788
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
.17
.17
.90
.33
.20
.20
.20
.32
.32
.32
.32
.89
.89
.89
.98
.98
.01
.01
.01
.01
11%
11%
23%
23%
19%
19%
19%
29%
29%
29%
29%
23%
23%
23%
24%
24%
22%
22%
22%
22%
-------
1
U)
"5.
UJ
Q
LU
tr
o
_j
X
o
HB-2
4 -
FEED RATE=5 mg/l
«*=.227
FEED RATE =4 mg/l
1
I
I
I
_L
I
10 15 20 25
CONTACT TIME (MINUTES)
30 35 40 45 50
Figure 12. Relationship between chlorine consumed and contact time.
-------
HB-3
o>
= 0.366
Q
Z
i
U)
1J1
I
LJ
O
UJ
Z
Q:
o
_i
x
o
_L
_L
_L
_L
10
CONTACT
15
TIME
20 25
(MINUTES)
30 35 40 45 50
Figure 12 (continued)
-------
i
u>
HB-4
CT>
£ 3
LU
LJ
Z
o:
o
o
= -O.OI7
I
I
J_
I
I
I
10
CONTACT
15 20 25
TIME (MINUTES)
30 35 40 45 50
Figure 12 (continued)
-------
u>
~j
i
HB-5
V
2
LU
OC.
O
_J
X
o
/I ='0.082
=-0. 126
6.5 mg/l=-0.245
I
I
I I I
10 15 20 25
CONTACT TIME (MINUTES)
30 35 40 45 50
Figure 12 (continued)
-------
i
u>
oo
HB-6
UJ
Q
UJ
tr
o
o
5,4 mg/l = 0.366
5 mg/l =0.746
I
I
I
10 15 20 25
CONTACT TIME (MINUTES)
30 35 40 45 50
Figure 12 (continued)
-------
HB-7
Q
Z
UJ
Q
UJ
Z
C£
O
_l
X
O
4 mg/l =0.273
233
10
CONTACT
15
TIME
20 25
(MINUTES)
30 35 40 45 50
Figure 12 (continued)
-------
HB-8
mg/l = 0.652
I
_L
I
10 15 2O 25
CONTACT TIME (MINUTES)
30 35 40 45 50
Figure 12 (continued)
-------
HB-9
0
z
u
Q
LJ
Z
o:
o
o
6.5 mg/l =0
mg/l = 0.788
= 1.078
I
I
I
I
J I
10 15 20 25
CONTACT TIME (MINUTES)
30 35 40 45 50
Figure 12 (continued)
-------
SECTION 7
THE NEW CHLORINATOR
Based on the analysis of Phase I data, it was concluded that the
fluctuating operation of the chlorinator was one major variable in
qualifying and quantifying the chlorine feed rates at John Sevier. Thus,
a search was initiated for a chlorination system that could accurately
monitor the flow of chlorine gas. After study and several non-TVA site
visits to inspect operating systems similar to those defined as necessary
for the study, it was recommended that a Capital Control Series 800
Chlorinator and Series 910 flow meter and transmitter would be the best
system for gathering feed rate data in the chlorination study. A com-
parative analysis of chlorine gas monitoring systems indicated that the
Capital Control chlorine gas flow meter-transmitter measured flow by
means of a variable orifice, and that the mechanism for monitoring gas
flow was less susceptible to corrosion and possibly more reliable and
more accurate than other available equipment. A diagram of the system
is presented in Figure 13. This system, i.e., chlorine and gas metering
device, was installed at the plant in April 1977 for use during Phase II
studies.
-42-
-------
< ii "i •§
l\
— >
<±:
\
V- NOTCH
VARIABLE
ORIFICE
VACUUM
REGULATING
VALVE
PRESSURE
VACUUM
RELIEF VALVE
GAS INLET
co
I
FEED RATE
ADJUSTER
PRESSURE
REGULATING
VALVE
GAS FLOW
TRANSMITTER
0
\S
VACUUM TRIMMER
AND DRAIN RELIEF
VALVE
Figure 13. Schematic diagram of capital control chlorinator.
-------
SECTION 8
PHASE II
TESTING AT JOHN SEVIER APRIL-SEPTEMBER 1977
The Approach
On April 19, 1977, a meeting was held at the John Sevier Steam
Plant to discuss the past chlorination tests (Phase I) and the Phase II
chlorination tests at the plant.
The new chlorinator, purchased by the plant, was in service at this
time. However, due to high back pressure in the vacuum water line, water
leaked into the gas flow metering system. Thus, the chlorinator went out
of service the second week in May 1977. As a result, Phase II tests were
conducted mostly with the old chlorinator.
Since data from Phase I indicated that the "condenser demand" (i.e.
inlet to outlet change in free residual chlorine) was about 0.5 mg/1 free
chlorine, the approach for Phase II was to maintain a free chlorine resi-
dual of 0.5 mg/1 at the inlet to the condenser. During Phase I it was
found that a chlorine feed rate of 4500 Ib/day would maintain approximately
0.5 mg/1 free chlorine residual at the inlet to the condenser assuming
similar water quality. Thus, a feed rate of 4500 Ibs/day was fed to all
units with only the frequency and length of feed changed. The following
test conditions were established for Phase II.
Unit Feed Rate Ibs/day
Unit 1 4500
Unit 2 4500
Unit 3 4500
Unit 4 4500
Frequency/24 hours
2
2
3
6
Chlorine Feed
time in Minutes
60
30
20
10
The long chlorination period on Unit 1 was to determine if the chlo-
rine could satisfy the "condenser demand." This would result in the free
residual chlorine at the inlet and outlet being equal within experimental
error.
Test procedures consisted of performing condenser performance tests
every two weeks and measuring flow rates weekly. Tests would begin May 6
1977, and continued each week throughout the summer. If there was no
appreciable change in the condenser performance of each unit and the free
and total chlorine residuals were higher than 0.1 to 0.2 mg/1 FRC,7,8 then
the feed rate was lowered accordingly after at least an initial two
months at a feed rate of 4500 Ibs/day.
-44-
-------
The Program
Tests at John Sevier during Phase II began as scheduled on May 6,
1977. Weekly tests continued during May, June, July, August, and
September 1977. Each week, samples of the chlorinated condenser cooling
water were taken, at the inlet and outlet of each condenser. During each
weekly test period, water samples were taken at the intake and analyses
were performed by TVA's Laboratory Branch to determine the following
parameters: (1) pH, (2) temperature, (3) alkalinity, (4) chlorine
demand - 1, 5, and 10 minutes, (5) total organic carbon, (6) conduc-
tivity, (7) ammonia as N, (8) total suspended solids, (9) nitrates plus
nitrites as N, and (10) organic nitrogen as N. A plot of some of the
above parameters as a function of time may be found in Figure 14.
Chlorine demand data for 1977 is presented in Table 10.
Amperometric titration9 was the method used on all test days. On
nine of the test dates, the DPD method was used on Unit 1 in addition to
the amperometric method. Since both methods are identified in the Federal
Register by EPA as standard analytical methods for collecting residual
chlorine data, the use of both methods would allow a field comparison of
the reliability, consistency, and accuracy of the two methods. Problems
of drift and inconsistent results were experienced in the measurement of
free and total residual chlorine using the amperometric titrators. The
problems were improved by cleaning the electrodes with distilled water
between samples and with a nonchlorinated detergent every two weeks, 24
hour acclimation of the electrodes to chlorine, and titrating excess
phenylarsine oxide into solutions after each sample was analyzed.
The electrodes are susceptable to a thin film forming on the surface
of the platinum plates when left in or out of water. This film will cause
drift and unusual readings. In addition, after running one sample for
free and total residual chlorine, the iodide reagent tends to form a film
on the electrode surfaces. This contributes to the drift and unusual
measurements on subsequent readings. Frequent electrode cleaning reduces
the film formation of the water constituents on the platinum plates. It
was also recommended by the Fischer and Porter Central Laboratories in
Warminster, Pennsylvania, that by titrating excess phenylarsine oxide
into the solution, excess iodine is prohibited from forming a film on the
electrodes. The 24-hour acclimation of the electrodes is normal procedure
when using sensitive potentiotnetric equipment.
The feed rate of the chlorinator remained at 4500 lb/24 hrs through
three months. A complete chart of feed rates and initial chlorine con-
centrations may be found in Table 7. Condenser performance tests were
performed biweekly in order to monitor the changes in the apparent clean-
liness factor. The apparent cleanliness factor (ACF) data and the free
and total residual chlorine levels were used as a basis for formulating
any changes in the feed rate. When the ACF data indicated a sudden
decrease, the chlorine feed rate was increased and when the free residual
chlorine suddenly increased, the feed rate was reduced.
In these tests the condenser performances were evaluated on the basis
of the apparent cleanliness factor (ACF). It is not possible to directly
compare the apparent cleanliness factor of one year to the next without
-45-
-------
*-
<^
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.0
25
UJ ^-<
i-
< Ul
* * 21
ui
19
17
15
MAY
JUNE
JULY
MONTHS
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
Figure 14. Wafer quality data for 1977.
-------
I
.D-
MAY
JUNE
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER
MONTHS
Figure 14 (continued )
-------
CO
8
7
6
\
_ o
»-
3
2
I
S L2
E
z U
UJ
c?
o 1.0
H
z 0.9
^ 0.8
O
I-
0.7
A
v
\ /
\ /
i
MAY
JUNE JULY AUGUST
MONTHS
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER
Figure 14 (continued)
-------
TABLE 6. CHLORINE DEMAND 1977
UNIT 4
Date
5/6/77
5/12/77
5/20/77
5/27/77
6/3/77
6/10/77
6/17/77
6/24/77
6/30/77
7/6/77
7/13/77
7/20/77
7/27/77
8/18/77
9/2/77
9/9/77
9/16/77
9/23/77
"Feed Rate
in mg/1
2.48
2.75
2.96
2.92
2.86
2.88
2.89
2.93
3.03
2.97
3.07
3.01
3.20
2.95
1.63
1.67
1.65
1.68
1 Min.
0.18
0.64
0.19
0.44
0.41
0.18
0.30
0.38
0.51
0.59
0.51
0.29
0.70
0.68
0.30
0.20
0.29
0.27
5 Min.
0.78
0.50
0.58
0.97
0.91
0.58
0.59
0.97
0.82
0.79
0.85
0.69
1.25
1.07
0.41
0.37
0.47
0.38
10 Min.
_
0.79
0.79
1.40
1.31
0.78
1.14
1.07
1.21
1.67
1.22
1.00
1.46
1.39
0.54
0.60
0.56
0.61
*See Table 7
-49-
-------
TABLE 7. CHLORINE CONCENTRATION
Date
5/6/77
5/12/77
5/20/77
5/27/77
6/3/77
6/10/77
6/17/77
6/24/77
6/30/77
7/6/77
7/13/77
Unit
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
.4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
4
C12 Feed Rate
lb/24 hrs.
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
Flow Rate
Gal/Min.
154,000
141,000
151,000
135,872
114,000
136,425
140,007
122,911
131,289
126,583
137,765
128,856
132,873
128,117
137,591
125,638
134,127
130,984
137,609
110,547
133,895
129,926
138,196
138,243
133,404
129,732
136,154
137,242
127,881
140,402
137,322
133,030
123,675
139,381
140,354
125,952
135,885
135,287
132,145
122,053
Cl-2 Concentration
(mg/1)
2.43
2.66
2.48
2.76
3.28
2.75
2.67
3.05
2.85
2.96
2.72
2.91
2.82
2.92
2.72
2.98
2.79
2.86
2.72
3.39
2.80
2.88
2.71
2.71
2.81
2.89
2.75
2.73
2.93
2.68
2.73
2.82
3.03
2.69
2.67
2.97
2.76
2.77
2.83
3.07
Continued
-50-
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
Date
7/20/77
7/27/77
8/18/77
8/25/77
9/2/77
9/9/77
9/16/77
9/23/77
Unit
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
1
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
C12 Feed Rate
lb/24 hrs.
4500
4500
4500
4500
3000
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
2500
3000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
1500
2500
2500
2500
1500
2500
2500
2500
Flow Rate
Gal/Min.
137,828
133,534
131,285
122,505
136,518
136,904
117,125
135,131
132,390
126,904
132,934
130,492
130,785
134,564
125,908
127,631
125,812
135,583
122,450
124,760
124,049
134,233
121,183
126,038
124,200
131,287
117,328
123,407
C12 Concentration
(mg/D
2.72
2.80
2.85
3.01
1.83
2.74
3.20
2.77
2.83
2.95
1.56
1.91
1.59
1.55
1.65
1.63
1.65
1.53
1.70
1.67
1.01
1.55
1.72
1.65
1.01
1.58
1.77
1.68
-51-
-------
considering when each condenser was manually brush cleaned, and other
operational data. After each brush cleaning, the cleanliness factor
ranges from 80-85 percent. After cleaning, there is a sharp ACF decline
in the spring and then a further gradual decline through the summer. In
order to determine if the lower feed rates of 1977 resulted in any signi-
ficant change in ACF as compared with 1976, the time interval between each
manual cleaning of the tubes was considered in the analysis. For a com-
parison of the ACF for 1976 with the ACF for 1977, see Figures 15-18 and
Table 8.
After examination of the data collected in May, June, and most of
July, the feed rate was reduced to 3000 Ibs/day on July 22, 1977. The
justification for such reduction was that higher than necessary levels of
free and total residual chlorine were measured at the inlet and outlet of
the condensers and the condenser apparent cleanliness factor was the same
or better than it was during the Phase I tests in the summer of 1976, and
during 1974 and 1975. It was also noted that the condenser demand was
not 0.5 mg/1 as found in Phase I, but rather 0.3 mg/1. This discovery was
primarily due to an increase in samples and better measuring techniques.
However, the chlorine feed rate was not reduced until the end of July
to ensure that we had found an operable level which would keep the
condensers relatively clean during periods when the inlet water tempera-
ture reached extreme conditions (80 -82 F). At these temperatures there
is stronger propensity for biological fouling. It was noted from Phase
I tests (1976) that as the inlet water temperature increased, there was
a noted corresponding increase in total residual chlorine consumed. A
comparison of the inlet water temperatures of 1976 and 1977 may be found
in Figures 19-22.
On August 25, 1977, test results for free residual chlorine at the
outlet of the condensers and the condenser performance records of each
unit indicated further reductions in the chlorine feed rate were justi-
fied (see Table 9). On September 2, 1977, the feed rate was lowered to
2500 lbs/24 hrs. This feed rate resulted in a lower measurement of free and
total residual chlorine at the outlet of each condenser (see Table 10).
This feed rate was maintained through September. As the inlet water
temperatures decreased, the free and total residual chlorine measurements
increased with no apparent deterioration in condenser performance as
measured by the ACF.
The ACF for 1977 was higher on all condensers than the ACF of 1976
except for Unit 4 (see Figures 15-18). However, the ACFs measured at
equal lengths of time after cleaning showed a slight increase in ACF for
1977 compared to 1976. Discussions with Power Production experts in
condenser performance and operations indicated that this difference is
primarily due to a decrease in the air leakage for 1977 compared to
1976. Considering this data and a visual condenser inspection of Unit
4, we conclude that there has been no apparent decrease in condenser
performance that could be attributed to lower feed rates of chlorine.
-52-
-------
UJ
I
100
90
£80
a:
o 70
o
<
u.
C/5
V)
UJ
60
UJ
_l
o
40
ui 30
a:
<
a.
< 20
10 -
0
JUN 3
_L
_L
JL
J_
1976
1977
_L
JUN 19
JUN 30
JUL 9
JUL 29
AUG 5
AUG 24
DAYS
Figure 15. Unit I 1976 vs. 1977 apparent cleanliness factor.
-------
IOO
90
80
oo 6°
V)
Ul
-. 50
<
UJ
40
uj 30
o:
Q.
< 20 -
10 -
0
JUN I
l
1976
-— 1977
I
I
JUN 17
JUN 30
JUL 9 JUL 22
DAYS
AUG 6
AUG 19
Figure 16. Unit 2 f976 vs. 1977 apparent cleanliness factor.
-------
Ln
I
100
90
3 80
QC
p 70
o
<
in
u
60
50
ui
_i
o
o:
40
30
a.
O.
< 20
10 -
MAY 6
1
1976
— 1977
I
I
JUN 3
JUN 16
JUN 30 JUL 9
DAYS
JUL 22
AUG 12
Figure 17. Unit 3 1976 vs. 1977 apparent cleanliness factor.
-------
100
90
£80
o 70
60
CO
CO
UJ
-. 50
<
UJ
40
30
CL
< 20
10
MAY 20
I
l
I
1976
1977
I
JUN 3
JUN 16
JUN 30 JUL 12
DAYS
JUL 29
AUG 12
Figure 18. Unit 4 1976 vs. 1977 apparent cleanliness factor.
-------
TABLE 8. DATES OF CONDENSER CLEANING
UNIT 1
Date (1976)
Nature of
Cleaning
Date (1977)
Nature of
Cleaning
June 10
June 20
June 26
June 27
July 3
August 1
August 15
Tubes
Tubes
Tubes
Tubes
Tube Sheet
Tube Sheet
Tubes
June 23
Tube Sheet
UNIT 2
June 17
June 23
June 28
July 1
July 2
Tubes May 5-6
Tubes
Tubes
Tubes
Tubes
Tube Sheet
UNIT 3
June 15
July 3
July 4
July 17
August 13
Tubes
Tubes
Tubes
Tube Sheet
Tubes
June 8
July 24
August 15
Tube Sheet
Tube Sheet
Tube Sheet
UNIT 4
May 25
June 19
June 21
July 3
August 1
August 14
Tube Sheet
Tubes
Tubes
Tube Sheet
Tube Sheet
Tubes
May 21
June 6
December 21
Tube Sheet
Tube Sheet
Tubes
-57-
-------
I
Ul
00
100
90 -
80 -
70 - \
60
UJ
or
50
LU
Q- 40
ui
30
20
10
Av
\ /
V
/ \ / X-J
' \ / *
K.
/ v
\ /
V
— 1976
1977
j i
j i i
t i
MAY 10 20 JUN 10 20 JUL 10 20 AUG 10 20 SEP 10 20 OCT 10 20 NOV 10 20
MONTHS
Figure 19. Unit / 1976 vs. /977 inlet water temperature.
-------
i
01
100
90
80
70
? 60
LJ
o:
50
cc
S 40
i-
30
20
10 -
'
1976
— 1977
i i i i i i l i i
MAY 10 20 JUN 10 20 JUL 10 20 AUG 10 20 SEP 10 20 OCT 10 20 NOV 10 20
MONTHS
Figure 20. Unit 2 1976 vs. 1977 inlet water temperature.
-------
o
100 r
90
80
70
o_^
Ul
I-
cr
5
LU
60
50
40
30
20
10
— 1976
— 1977
j i
i j
i i
L III I I I I
MAY 10 20 JUN 10 20 JUL 10 20 AUG 10 20 SEP 10 20 OCT 10 20 NOV 10 20
MONTHS
Figure 21. Unit 3 1976 vs. 1977 inlet water temperature.
-------
UJ
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
/ \
. /V- ^ '
\S/ ^-
1976
— 1977
I i
l l I J
J l
j I
MAY 10 20 JUN 10 20 JUL 10 20 AUG 10 20 SEP 10 20 OCT 10 20 NOV 10 20
MONTHS
Figure 22. Unit 4 1976 vs. 1977 inlet water temperature.
-------
TABLE 9. SAMPLES TAKEN AT OUTLET ON AUGUST 25, 1977
Unit
1
2
3
4
Feed Rate
(lb/24 hrs)
2500
3000
3000
unit off line
FRC*
Outlet (mg/1)
.08
.25
.25
TABLE 10. SAMPLES TAKEN AT OUTLET ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1977
1 2500 .23
2 2500 .16
3 2500 .22
4 2500 .14
^Average of steady-state outlet-free residuals.
-62-
-------
The frequency and length of chlorine feed to each condenser was
different throughout Phase II in order to determine if iafrequent long
chlorination periods, or frequent short chlorination periods, are more
conducive to maintaining adequate condenser performance. The frequencies
and lengths of chlorine feed to each condenser are listed below.
Condenser Length of Chlorine Feed Frequency of Feed/24 hrs
Unit 1 60 minutes 2
Unit 2 30 minutes 2
Unit 3 20 minutes 3
Unit 4 10 minutes 6
It was noted throughout this test period that Units 2, 3, and 4 showed
generally the same outlet free and total residual chlorine measurements on
each test day. However, Unit 1 frequently exhibited higher measurements
compared to the other three units. This condenser was the only condenser
chlorinated for two hours each day. The other condensers were chlorinated
for only one hour total each day.
An analysis similar to the analysis of the Phase I demand data using
the equation D = kt was made for the chlorine demand test data of Phase II,
The calculations may be found in Table 11 and a representative graphic
relationship may be found in Figure 23.
-63-
-------
TABLE 11. CHLORINE DEMAND 1977
UNIT 3
Date Feed Rate
5/12
5/20
5/27
6/3
6/10
6/17
6/24
6/30
7/13
7/20
8/18
9/2
9/9
9/16
9/23
10/28
11/18
12/22
log
mg/1
3.28
2.85
2.82
2.79
2.80
2.81
2.73
2.82
2.83
2.85
2.83
1.65
1.70
1.72
1.77
1.11
1.24
1.49
D
K i, - -,
Chlorine Demand
1 min.
0.80
0.17
0.43
0.41
0.17
0.31
0.34
0.47
0.47
0.29
0.70
0.30
0.20
0.29
0.28
0.26
0.29
0.09
m-i it Af^m
5 min.
0.56
0.55
0.92
0.90
0.55
0.59
0.89
0.77
0.75
0.66
1.03
0.40
0.39
0.50
0.39
0.35
0.30
0.29
ariH- V —
10 min.
0.68
0.75
1.31
1.29
0.75
1.10
0.99
1.12
1.12
0.92
1.32
0.55
0.62
0.61
0.67
0.35
0.39
0.40
1 ft m-i n /
Slope
(N)
0.097
0.660
0.482
0.496
0.660
0.524
0.488
0.365
0.362
0.503
0.269
0.248
0.288
0.326
0.348
0,139
0.110
0.662
•1 Am'* r\A •
Total N
mg/1
0.92
1.0
1.15
0.98
0.77
0.87
1.09
0.83
0.87
0.70
0.65
0.90
0.98
1.06
0.93
0.85
1.06
1.02
% Organic N
16.3
18
23.5
24.5
19.5
12.6
30.3
21.7
16.1
20
23.1
17.8
15.3
17.9
21.5
15.3
30.2
21.6
log t
t = Contact time in % 10 min.; n = slope
Slope is finally determined by linear regression through
the three demand points.
Chlorine Feed Rate =
83.22 . mg/l
-64-
-------
£
o.
a.
o
z
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
LU
0 0.30
ui
5 0.25
O
x
0
0.20
0.15
0.10
-------
SECTION 9
STATUS - OCTOBER 1, 1977
In late September, the feed rate on all units was lowered to a feed
rate of 1,500 lbs/24 hrs. Measurements at the outlet of the condenser
indicated that the chlorinated water effluent was within the effluent
limitation guideline requirements (<0.2 mg/1 free residual chlorine) set
by EPA (see Table 12). Weekly tests during January will be conducted to
determine if the chlorine feed can be completely terminated with no signi-
ficant decrease in condenser performance.
TABLE 12. SAMPLES TAKEN AT OUTLET ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1977
Feed rate, Free residual
Unit lbs/24 hr. chlorine, mg/1
1 1500 .18
2 1500 .04
3 unit off line
4 1500 .05
-66-
-------
SECTION 10
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF PHASE II DATA*
A statistical analysis was performed on the data obtained from the
Phase II study at John Sevier. The analysis focused on the factors affect-
ing condenser performance, free and/or total residual chlorine consumed
in the system, the relationship between inlet water temperature and vari-
ables associated with chlorine use, and the correlation of chlorine demand
versus feed rate, inlet water temperature, and total organic carbon. In
cases where the outlet FRC and/or TRC is greater than the inlet, all values
above .05 mg/1 difference have been omitted for statistical analysis.
The following summarizes the analysis. The complete analysis may be found
in Appendices A, B, C, D, and E.
CONDENSER PERFORMANCE
1. Effects of Inlet Water Temperature
Inlet water temperature significantly affects condenser performance.
Based on the 1977 data, over the range of inlet water temperature of
53°F to 77°F, on the average an increase of 3°F in inlet water tem-
perature results in a 1 percent reduction in ACF. The remainder of
the analysis of condenser performance data took this relationship
into account.
2. 1977 Condenser Performance vs. 1976 Condenser Performance
Condenser performance as estimated by ACF averaged about .74. This
may be an increase in performance over 1976, but many factors influence
the ACF and the change of chlorine feed rate cannot be specifically
identified as being solely responsible. However, no decrease in
ACF was noted in 1977 when compared to 1976.
3. Frequency, Duration of Feed, and Feed Rate
Increasing the frequency of feed and lowering the duration of feed
resulted in no decrease in condenser performance. It appears that
adequate condenser performance may be maintained with either of two
methods: (1) feeding three times per day for 20 minutes each, or
(2) feeding six times per day for 10 minutes each. Preliminary
results, subject to verification in Phase III, indicate that to have
low concentrations of chlorine in the effluent and adequate condenser
performance the approximate feed rate for different levels of inlet
water temperatures could be:
a. 2,500 - 3,000 lb/24 hours for inlet water temperatures of 68°F
or more;
b. 2,000 - 2,500 lb/24 hours for inlet water temperatures between
60°F and 68°F, and
*A11 statistical results and conclusions pertain to the experimental region
of this study.
-67-
-------
c. less than 2,000 lb/24 hours for inlet water temperatures less
than 60°F.
FREE AND/OR TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONSUMED THROUGH THE SYSTEM
Both free and total residual chlorine consumed in the system were
estimated by subtracting the equivalents of chlorine at the outlet of
the condenser from the equivalents of the chlorine at the intake where
the chlorine is fed.
1. Fixed Feed Rate
The amount of free and/or total chlorine consumed in the system for
the same feed rate on different dates is not statistically signifi-
cantly different. There is a tendency for both free and total
residual chlorine consumption in the system to increase with
increased inlet water temperature. By reducing the duration of feed
and increasing the frequency of feed, chlorine consumption increased
for the fixed feed rate.
2. Fixed Duration of Feed
For the fixed duration of feed, there is a general trend for the
chlorine system consumption (absolute) to decline as the feed rate
is lowered. As inlet water temperature increases, an increase in
chlorine consumption tends to occur.
3. Varying Feed Rate, Frequency and Duration of Feed
Chlorine consumed in the system is most affected by the feed rate.
In general, as the feed rate is lowered, consumption is lowered.
The effects of varying frequency and duration of feed are small
when compared to varying the feed rate. Significant chlorine
consumption takes place at the lower feed rates (2,500 lb/24 hours
and 1,500 lb/24 hours) and the higher frequency and lower duration
of feed (3 times per day for 20 minutes each and 6 times per day
for 10 minutes each). Based on the free and total residual chlo-
rine consumed in the system, the amount of chlorine in the effluent
may be minimized to a degree by lowering the feed rate and increas-
ing the frequency of feed while shortening the duration of the feed.
The decrease in the feed rate must be correlated to the inlet water
quality, i.e., a decrease in feed is only valid if the chlorine
demand and nitrogen content of the water do not warrant a higher
feed rate. The feed rate must be observed as a function of the water
quality.
AVERAGE DIFFERENCES ACROSS THE CONDENSER FOR FREE AND TOTAL RESIDUAL
CHLORINE (ASSUMING STEADY STATE)
1. Free Residual Chlorine
Free residual chlorine averaged about .46 mg/1 at the inlet to the
condenser in the 1977 data; .38 mg/1 at the outlet; and .08 mg/1
across the condenser. Significantly lower levels of free residual
chlorine occurred at the condenser outlet for units 2, 3, and 4 as
compared to unit 1. Lower levels of free residual chlorine also
-68-
-------
appeared at the lower feed rates. Average free residual chlorine
consumed in the condenser was not significantly different between
units, but declined significantly as the feed rate was lowered. A
feed rate of 4,500 lbs/24 hrs. averaged 0.13 mg/1 free residual
chlorine consumed, 2,500 averaged 0.07 mg/1, and 1,500 averaged 0.03
mg/1 (see Appendix B).
2. Total Residual Chlorine
Total residual chlorine averaged about 1.08 mg/1 at the inlet,
1.04 mg/1 at the outlet, and .04 mg/1 across the condenser.
It must be stated at this point that in laboratory tests conducted
using very pure water, the percentage difference of the method means from
the overall target mean (method accuracy) at .25 mg/1 concentration showed
the amperometric method to vary 10.8 percent and the DPD method 11.9 per-
cent. In river water, many interferences are added which would increase
this variance. Therefore, the previously mentioned differences in free
and total residual chlorine across the condenser are the same within
experimental error.
COMPARISON OF THE DPD AND AMPEROMETRIC TITRATOR
Analysis of the data showed a significant difference between the
two methods. The DPD method was significantly higher in its readings
than the amperometric titrator, except at low levels of concentration
(less than 0.5 mg/1). This phenomenon was also found in the previously
mentioned laboratory studies. At residuals of 0.5 mg/1 the DPD method
measured much higher than the amperometric method and other methods
tested, however, at lower residuals (below .1 mg/1) the DPD method was
consistently lower than all the methods tested.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INLET WATER TEMPERATURE AND (1) TURBINE BACK PRESSURE,
(2) TOTAL NITROGEN, AND (3) TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
1.
Turbine Back Pressure
A positive linear relationship appears to exist between turbine
back pressure and inlet water temperature. The simple correlation
coefficient is 0.8.
coefficient is 0.8.
2. Total Nitrogen*
A positive trend appears to exist between total nitrogen and inlet
water temperature. The simple correlation coefficient is 0.4.
3. Total Organic Carbon
Total organic carbon seems to have no directly discernable relation-
ship to inlet water temperature. A plot of total organic carbon versus
time indicates some sort of cyclical behavior which may be masking any
relationship. At this time, the cyclic behavior has not been explained.
-'-Total Nitrogen is the sum of the following nitrogen concentrations: ammonia,
organic, nitrates plus nitrites.
-69-
-------
ANALYSIS OF RIVER WATER CHLORINE DEMAND
Analysis of the chlorine demand of river water from unit 4 at contact
times of one, five, and ten minutes examined possible relationships between
chlorine demand and inlet water temperature, total organic carbon, total
nitrogen, dosage, and time. A comparison of chlorine demand at the inlet
of the condenser with the chlorine demand of one, two and a half, and five
minute contact times was made.
When the difference between the inlet water temperature and the
temperature of the water at the time of its analysis exceeded one degree
Celsius, the chlorine demand at all contact times was significantly lower
than those samples whose inlet water temperature and laboratory analysis
temperature differed by less than one degree Celsius. The data indicates
consistently that lowering the temperature of the water lowered chlorine
demand while raising the temperature increased chlorine demand.
No apparent relationships were found in the data between chlorine
demand and total nitrogen.
Total organic carbon data showed a cyclical behavior over time, but
no relationship with chlorine demand or any of the other independent
variables could be identified.
A weak relationship between inlet water temperature and the chlorine
demand at contact times of five and ten minutes appeared to exist.
Comparisons of chlorine demand at contact times of one and five
minutes, plus an estimated (by interpolation) two and a half minutes
were made with chlorine demand at the inlet of the condenser. Free
residual chlorine was used as the measure of chlorine demand at the
condenser inlet. Previous work indicated a mixing time of approximately
2.2 minutes from the intake to the inlet of the condenser. Results
indicate that the one minute chlorine demand was significantly less than
that at the condenser inlet, while there was no significant difference
between the two and a half and five minute demands and the demand at the
condenser inlet.
The average chlorine demands and the associated standard errors for
the various contact times for the test period from May 12 through July 20,
1977, are summarized in the following table.
-70-
-------
AVERAGE CHLORINE DEMANDS (mg/1) AND
STANDARD ERROR FOR VARIOUS CONTACT TIMES
Contact
Time
1.0 rain.
*2.5 min.
5.0 rain.
10.0 min.
Mean (N = 11)
0.40
0.53
0.75
1.07
Std. Error
of Mean
0.046
0.039
0.051
0.065
*To arrive at the 2.5 minute chlorine demand figure, linearity
of the demand curve was assumed.
OTHER FACTORS
Other factors were present in the analysis which should be identified
as they influenced the results of the analysis:
1. The Chlorination Variability
The variability of the chlorinator was evident in the data. This
made it difficult to accurately estimate what the feed rate should
be for different levels of inlet water temperature. The new chlori-
nator to be used in Phase III should reduce the variability and allow
more accurate determination of optimal feed rates for varying conditions,
2. Seasonal Changes
Inlet water temperatures follow a seasonal pattern. The changes
in feed rate during 1977 coincided with seasonal changes in inlet
water temperature. The fixed feed rate did not allow identification
of the magnitude of the temperature change with respect to chlorine
feed rate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to maintain adequate condenser performance with low con-
centrations of chlorine in the effluent, the chlorine should be fed into
the system three times per day for twenty minutes each time with the
feed rates recommended earlier. In addition to sustained condenser
efficiency, this feed rate is desirable for the following reasons:
1. The condenser is chlorinated once per shift.
2. The length of feed allows sufficient time for periodic grab
sample analyses.
3. The timing cogs for the automatic chlorine feed system are already
available.
-71-
-------
SUMMARY
The objective of the Phase II data analysis was to broaden the under-
standing of the characteristics for the system affecting chlorine use while
identifying more precisely the operating conditions to maintain adequate
condenser performance with low concentrations of chlorine in the effluent.
This section focuses on factors affecting the interpretation of the statis-
tical results and examines the results of the condenser performance,
chlorine consumption, and chlorine in effluent analyses in terms of the
overall objective.
1. Significant Sources of Variation
During the analysis of the data, it became evident that significant
sources of variation existed which affected the data interpretation
and conclusions drawn from the data. The variability of the chlori-
nator performance, the inherent error in the measurement technique
for chlorine, and the variations induced by changes in inlet water
temperature were adjusted for, if possible, or recognized and
considered when interpreting the results.
An unpublished report by the TVA Division of Environmental Planning
indicated that a diurnal pH variation exists within the limits of
this study on the Holston River. The 24-hour tests were conducted
in July 1969. This information was not considered in the statistical
analysis.
2. Some Statistical Considerations
Wherever possible considerable cross-checking of estimates such as
means, variances, and standard errors was done. In order to have
balance in some of the analyses, some data points were not used,
but were included in the cross-checking. Some of the raw data was
obviously in error, such as extremely negative chlorine consumption
in the system, and not used at all.
For most of the analyses, the error mean square was fairly consis-
tent (after adjusting for unequal sample sizes), usually about 0.02.
Stability of the error mean square is a desirable statistical property.
3. Condenser Performance Considered in the Presence of Chlorine
Consumption and Chlorine in the Effluent
As the analysis has indicated, adequate condenser performance is
achieved at a low feed rate with a short duration of feed, applied
fairly frequently. The chlorine could be fed to each condenser
either 3 times per day for 20 minutes or 6 times per day for 10
minutes. Chlorine consumption was affected by inlet water
temperature.
In order to assure adequate condenser performance the chlorine con-
sumed through the system must take into account the chlorine demand
of the condenser. As long as the condenser demand is met, the
greater the percentage of chlorine consumed in the system, the less
chlorine present in the effluent. As the analysis of chlorine con-
sumption showed, better results were obtained on units 3 and 4.
-72-
-------
Finally, the average for free and total residual chlorine at the
outlet of the condenser is lower for the lower feed rates and units
3 and 4 in general. The general conclusion was that a feed rate
lower than 4,500 lbs/24 hours should be fed three times a day for
20 minutes each, or six times a day for 10 minutes each to minimize
chlorine in the effluent while maintaining adequate condenser per-
formance. The three times per day and twenty minutes duration of
feed is more desirable, from an operations viewpoint and therefore,
is the recommended scheme.
Proposed New Feed Rates for John Sevier Based on Inlet
Water Temperature
Condenser performance, as estimated by ACF, was examined as a func-
tion of feed rate and inlet water temperature. Various models were
hypothesized and fitted to the data. A nonlinear model of the form
ACF = Exp O*IWT), where IWT is the inlet water temperature and $
is a cofficient dependent on the feed rate, was used. The result-
ing contours of feed rate, for a given level of ACF, allowed
determination of feed rates for various temperature levels.
Estimates were cross-checked against a quadratic model for inlet
water temperature. Final recommendations were based on feed rate
contours empirically adjusted due to the variability of the data
and the need to maintain adequate condenser performance. Phase
III data will allow further examination and determination of the
above relationships and models.
-73-
-------
REFERENCES
1. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality and Waste Treatment
Requirements on the Upper Holston River. EPA-TS-03-71-2Q8-07, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia, 1972.
2. Heat Exchange Institute. Standards for Steam Surface Condensers.
Sixth edition, New York. 1970.
3. Feben, Douglas, Taras, Michael J., "Chlorine Demand Constants of
Detroit's Water Supply," Journal AVWA. [42(5): 453-461, May 1950].
4. Feben, Douglas, Taras, Michael J., "Studies on Chlorine Demand Constants "
Journal AWWA. [43(11): 922-932, November 1951]. '
5. Taras, Michael J., "Preliminary Studies on the Chlorine Demand of
Specific Chemical Compounds," Journal AWWA. [42(5): 462-474, May
1950].
6. White, George Clifford. Handbook of Chlorination, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, NY, 1972. pp. 204-207.
7. Since Free Residual Chlorine (FRC) is the active specie, we used the
FRC for controlling the chlorination regime. The rationale for
limiting FRC to a range of 0.1-0.2 mg/1 is as follows:
a. 0.2 mg/1 is the NPDES permit limit at a point approximately 2
min. downstream of the outlet of the condenser.
b. Due to the daily fluctuations of chlorine demand (many times
severe) at John Sevier, 0.1 mg/1 FRC is the lowest level we can
attain in order to preserve the operation of the condenser.
8. Additional information which will corroborate our approach may be
found on page 3 of the paper "Collaborative Test Results for Chlorine
Analysis by Amperometric Titration" by UWAG, EEI, and NRECA." This
paper was submitted to EPA in March 1979.
9. American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. Fourteenth edition, Washington,
D.C., 1971. p. 1193.
-74-
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF PHASE II CHLORINATION STUDY DATA
-75-
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF PHASE II CHLORINATION STUDY DATA
ABSTRACT
This report summarizes the results of the data analysis of Phase II
of the chlorination study at John Sevier Steam Plant. The analysis
focused on the factors affecting condenser performance, free and/or total
residual chlorine consumed in the system, the relationship between inlet
water temperature and variables associated with chlorine use, and the
correlation of chlorine demand versus feed rate, inlet water temperature
and total organic carbon.
Results indicate that adequate condenser performance can be main-
tained with low concentrations of chlorine in the effluent if the chlorine
feed is three times per day for 20 minutes each with approximately the
following feed rates for different levels of inlet water temperature and
assuming that there is no drastic change in seasonal chlorine demand as
demonstrated by 1977 data:
(1) 2,500 - 3,000 lb/24 hours for inlet water temperatures of 68°F
or more;
(2) 2,000 - 2,500 lb/24 hours for inlet water temperatures between
60°F and 68°F; and
(3) less than 2,000 lb/24 hours for inlet water temperatures less
than 60°F.
I. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the data and its analysis from the second
phase of a three phase program underway at the John Sevier Steam Plant
studying chlorine minimization/optimization needed to comply with EPA
effluent guidelines and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. Phase II, conducted during the summer of 1977, focused
on the factors affecting condenser performance, free and/or total residual
chlorine consumption in the system, and the relationship between inlet
water temperature and variables associated with chlorine use such as
turbine back pressure, total nitrogen, total organic carbon, and chlorine
demand.
The scheduled test program was for twenty test dates. For May
through July the feed rate was 4,500 lbs/24 hours, 3,000 lbs/24 hours
for August, and 2,500 lbs/24 hours for September. As the raw data in
the Appendices A-C indicate, some minor departures from the schedule
took place. The frequency and rate of chlorine feed to each condenser
were as follows:
-76-
-------
Unit 1: Twice per day for 1 hour each (control)
Unit 2: Twice per day for 30 minutes each
Unit 3: Three times per day for 20 minutes each
Unit 4: Six times per day for 10 minutes each.
In addition, on nine test dates outlet free and total residual
chlorine were measured by the DPD and amperometric methods. This data
was gathered to allow a comparison of the two methods.
This test schedule was designed so that the fixed feed rate for May
through July would allow estimation of time effects, frequency and
duration of chlorine feed rates. The frequency and duration of feeds at
the various condensers allows a comparison of the effects of frequency
and duration of feed rates. The August and September data were to allow
estimation of the differences in feed rates as compared with varying the
other factors.
II. CONDENSER PERFORMANCE
A. Discussion
Condenser performance is measured by the apparent cleanliness
factor (ACF) as calculated by the Heat Exchange Institute.1 The main
concern was the effect of different chlorination rates and frequency
and duration of feed on the apparent cleanliness factor. Compounding
the analysis problem was inlet water temperature variation which is
related to the apparent cleanliness factor. An analysis of covariance
with inlet water temperature as the covariate was calculated.
The analysis of condenser performance, adjusting for the effects
of inlet water temperature, assumed that the apparent cleanliness factor
was a linear function of feedrate and "unit factor" with an interaction.
Although there are many other factors which influence ACF, we are
limiting these factors for statistical purposes.
"Unit factor" is the effect of frequency and duration of feed. Since
the effects of frequency and duration of feed were mixed or confounded
with the units, special comparisons or contrasts of the unit means were
made to estimate the effects of varying frequency and the duration of feed.
Table A-l summarizes the analysis. Note that feed rate, "unit
factor," and their interaction were significant. Table A-2 presents the
adjusted ACF means.
1This method of calculating the ACF is widely used throughout the
utility industry. It must be carefully noted, however, that the ACF
only approximates the true condenser performance. Thirty-seven vari-
ables are used in this calculation so it must not be construed as
absolute. Such variables as inlet water temperature, turbine back
pressure, gross generation, condenser duty, and air leakage will
greatly affect the results of this calculation.
-77-
-------
TABLE A-l
ANALYSIS OF APPARENT CLEANLINESS FACTOR
(AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INLET WATER TEMPERATURE)
Source
Feed Rate
Unit
Interaction
Inlet Water
Temperature
Error
Corrected Total
DF
1
3
3
1
15
23
Sum of
Squares
0.0091
0.0076
0.0039
0.0004
0.0018
0.0228
Mean
Square
0.0091
0.0025
0.0013
0.0004
0.0001
F Value
73.88*
20.53*
10.55*
3.49*
^Significant
TABLE A-2
MEAN VALUES OF APPARENT CLEANLINESS FACTOR
AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INLET WATER TEMPERATURE
Feed Rate
(lb/24 hrs.)*
4,500
1,500
1
.7351
.6861
Unit
2
.7364
.7516
3
.7549
.7641
4
.7549
.7756
*This is only a relative feed rate. The absolute FRC concentration
is not constant from day to day at the inlet to the condenser due
to changing levels of chlorine demand and cooling water flow.
-78-
-------
Testing for interaction effects yielded a significant interaction
effect. While it was smaller than the main effects, it did indicate
that the proper model was not additive in its effects. Interpretation
of the interaction effect was difficult due to the effect of duration
of feed being completely confounded with the unit effects. Examination
of the adjusted mean apparent cleanliness factors indicates that at the
lower feed rate, as the frequency of feed increases while the duration
is lowered, the response of condenser performance increases more
rapidly than the pure addition of feed rate and "unit factor."
A comparison of the mean apparent cleanliness factors for each feed
rate was made to examine the means and the differences between them for
units 3 and 4 combined. Two considerations were made in choosing the
appropriate error mean square. First, because an analysis of covariance
was carried out, an allowance for the sampling error of the regression
coefficient was made. Secondly, the unequal sample sizes for the two feed
rates were factored in. The comparison showed the lower feed rate had a
significantly higher apparent cleanliness factor.
A comparison of the average apparent cleanliness factors for each
unit was made to determine the differences between units. Comparisons
were made to determine the direction of change necessary in frequency
and duration of feed to increase condenser performance. Estimating the
appropriate error mean square for the comparisons was simpler because
the sample size (six good data points) was equal for each unit. To
evaluate the effects of varying frequency, the average of units 1 and 2
(which had the same frequency) were contrasted with the means of unit 3
and unit 4, respectively. The comparisons showed that unit 3 and unit 4
had significantly higher condenser performance than the average of units 1
and 2. The higher condenser performance of units 3 and 4 was not solely
attributed to the change in frequency alone as there may have been unit
differences and duration of feed differences. Since units 1 and 2 had the
same frequency but different durations of feed, the response of condenser
performance was indicated by comparing units 1 and 2. The difference
between units 1 and 2 condenser performance was significant, with the
lower interval of duration having significantly higher condenser per-
formance. Units 3 and 4 were not significantly different from each
other, but were significantly higher than units 1 or 2.
Significantly better condenser performance was achieved by using a
lower feed rate, more frequently, with a shorter duration of feed than a
higher feed rate, less frequently for longer durations of feed. Units 3
and 4 were not significantly different from each other indicating that
either the combination of feeding three times a day for 20 minutes or 6
times a day for 10 minutes will result in adequate condenser performance.
B. Statistical Analysis
1. Comparing feed rates, adjusting for inlet water temperature, similar
units.
-79-
-------
Mean ACF for a feed rate of 4500 lbs/24 hours (adjusted for inlet
water temperature) based on 8 data points = .7549. Mean ACF for a feed
rate of 1500 lbs/24 hours (adjusted for inlet water temperature) based
on 4 data points = .7699.
Comparison = .7699 - .7549 = .0150
Error Mean Square of the Comparison = .0067
T = .0150/.0067 = 2.24
This comparison is significant at the 0.10 level.
2. Comparing changes in frequency and duration of feed.
Adjusted for Inlet Water Temperature
Unit 1 mean ACF = .7189
Unit 2 mean ACF = .7414
Unit 3 mean ACF = .7579
Unit 4 mean ACF = .7618
(a) Unit 3 versus the average of units 1 and 2:
Comparison = .7579 - ((.7189 + .74l4)/2) = .0278
Error Mean Square of the Comparison = .0049
T = .0278/.0049 = 5.67
This comparison is significant at the 0.10 level.
(b) Unit 4 versus the average of units 1 and 2:
Comparison = .7618 - ((.7189 + .74l4)/2) = .0317
Error Mean Square of the Comparison = .0049
T = .0317/.0049 = 6.46
This comparison is significant at the 0.10 level.
(c) Unit 2 versus unit 1:
Comparison = .7414 - .7189 = .0225
Error Mean Square = .0057
T = .0225/.0057 =3.95
This comparison is significant at the 0.10 level.
(d) Unit 4 versus unit 3:
Comparison = .7618 - .7579 = .0039
Error Mean Square = .0057
T = .0039/.0057 = 0.68
This comparison is not significant.
-80-
-------
(e) Unit 4 versus Unit 2*
Comparison = .7618 - .7414 = .0204
Error Mean Square = .0057
T = .0204/.0057 = 3.58
This comparison is significant at the 0.10 level.
III. CHLORINE CONSUMPTION
A. Discussion
This section discusses the behavior of the system consumption of
free and total residual chlorine. The system consumption was estimated
by subtracting the amount of chlorine at the outlet of the condenser
from one-half of the chlorine concentration at the intake for reasons
mentioned earlier in Section I.
1. Fixed Feed Rate
Data gathered for May, June, and July with the units operating at
a feed rate of 4500 lbs/24 hours allowed evaluation of the time and
operating conditions for a fixed feed rate. For both free and total
residual chlorine, there was no significant difference in consumption
over the time period of the data. There was a tendency for chlorine
consumption to rise as inlet water temperature rose with the trend
stronger for free residual chlorine than total residual chlorine.
While the difference between units was not significant for free
residual chlorine consumed in the system, it was for total residual
chlorine. Unit 4 shows the highest consumption in both cases, but it
is only statistically significant in the total residual chlorine con-
sumption case. As Table A-3 indicates, reducing the duration of feed
and increasing the frequency of feed tends to increase chlorine consump-
tion for the fixed feed rate.
TABLE A-3
MEANS OF FREE AND TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONSUMPTION (mg/1)
BY UNIT. (FEED RATE = 4,500 LBS/24 HOURS)
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
Average Free Residual Chlorine Consumed .84 .93 .87 .97
Average Total Residual Chlorine Consumed .12 .14 .20 .27
*No comparison of units 3 and 2 is necessary since there is no significant
difference between units 4 and 3.
-81-
-------
2. Fixed Duration of Feed
Effects within units were used to make inferences about the
response of chlorine consumption to varying the feed rate and different
inlet water temperatures. Each unit had a different duration of feed,
so the sources of variation affecting chlorine consumption for a given
unit were feed rate, time, inlet water temperature, and chlorine demand.
Chlorine demand can be assumed equal for all units. The mean free
residual chlorine consumed in the system for each feed rate, time
interval, and unit is presented in Table A-4.
TABLE A-4
MEANS OF FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONSUMED IN SYSTEM
IN mg/1 (SAMPLE SIZE)
Feed Rate
(lbs/24 hours)
4500
2500
1500
Date
May
June
July
Sept.
Oct/Nov
Unit 1
0.82(3)
0.82(4)
0.93(2)
0.45(2)
0.46(2)
Unit 2
1.22(1)
0.87(5)
0.92(2)
0.41(2)
0.47(2)
Unit 3
0.93(4)
0.90(5)
0.52(1)
0.50(2)
0.40(2)
Unit 4
1.01(4)
0.95(5)
0.95(2)
0.55(2)
0.49(2)
For free residual chlorine consumption for fixed duration of feed,
there was a consistent trend for consumption to decline as the feed rate
and inlet water temperature declined. Free residual chlorine consumption
tends to increase as inlet water temperature increases and decreases as
inlet water temperature decreases, stabilizing around 0.45 mg/1 for inlet
water temperatures of 60°F or less.
Reliable data for total residual chlorine consumed in the system
was available for May, June, and July at a feed rate of 4,500 lbs/24 hours,
Table A-5 displays the mean total residual chlorine consumed by data for
the different units.
-82-
-------
TABLE A-5
MEANS OF TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONSUMED IN SYSTEM
IN mg/1 (SAMPLE SIZE) FEED RATE = 4,500 LSB/24 HOURS
Date
May
June
July
Unit 1
0.07(2)
0.08(4)
0.27(2)
Unit 2
0.02(1)
0.15(5)
0.19(2)
Unit 3
0.42(2)
0.14(5)
0.09(1)
Unit 4
0.25(3)
0.26(5)
0.31(2)
As in the free residual chlorine case, consumption tracks the
behavior of inlet water temperature.
3. Varying Feed Rate, Frequency, and Duration of Feed
Free residual chlorine consumed in the system is, as expected, most
responsive to feed rate. As the feed rate is lowered, consumption is
lowered. Table A-6 presents the analysis of variance table (ANOVA) for
the free residual chlorine consumption over all feed rates.
Table A-6
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONSUMED IN SUSTEM
ALL FEED RATES
Factor
Feed Rate
Units
Interaction
Error
Total
df
2
3
6
41
52
Sum Sq
2.1716
0.0975
0.0195
2.7863
5.0749
MSQ F Calc.
1.0858 43.17
0.0325 1.29
0.0033 0.13
0.0680
0.0252*
Calculated
Sig. Level
Very High
0.30 approx.
Not sig.
*Adjusted for unequal sample sizes
-83-
-------
An adjustment to the error mean square was necessary to adjust for
unequal sample sizes. The effect of frequency and duration of feed as
identified by the "unit factor" was marginally significant. A test for
interaction effects yielded no significant interaction indicating that
an additive model was essentially correct for free residual chlorine
consumption.
Total residual chlorine consumption in the system had an effect due
to "unit factor." Table A-7 shows the analysis of variance table for the
analysis. Available data did not allow quantitative analysis of varying
feed rates.
Table A-7
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONSUMED IN SYSTEM
FEED RATE = 4,500 LBS/24 HOURS
ANOVA
Factor
Time
Units
Error
df
2
3
28
Sum Sq
0.0365
0.1105
0.814
MSQ
0.0183
0.0368
0.0291
0.0138*
F Calc.
1.33
2.67
Calculated
Sig. Level
>0.25
0.07
approx.
Total
33
0.9610
^Adjusted for unequal sample sizes.
"Unit factor" did show up as being significant. Comparisons of the
unit means indicated that units 3 and 4 were significantly different from
units 1 and 2 and also significantly different from each other. Signifi-
cantly higher consumption occurred on units 3 and 4.
B. Statistical Analysis
1. ANOVA table for free residual chlorine consumed in system with a
feed rate of 4500 lbs/24 hours.
-84-
-------
Factor
Time
Units
Error
Total
df
2
3
31
36
Sum Sq
0.0324
0.0882
2.2694
2.3900
MSQ F Calc.
0.0162 0.51
0.0294 0.92
0.0732
0.0321*
Calculated
Sig. Level
>.25
>.25
*Adjusted for unequal sample sizes.
Conclude time and units are not significant at the 0.10 level.
2. Contrasts of means of total residual chlorine (TRC) consumption
among units.
Mean TRC
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
0.1256
0.1438
0.2056
0.2663
(a) Unit 4 versus Unit 3
Comparison = 0.2663 - 0.2056 = 0.0607
Error mean square of the comparison = 0.0234
T = 0.0607/0.0234 = 2.59
This comparison is significant at the 0.10 level.
(b) Unit 3 versus Unit 2:
Comparison = 0.2056 - 0.1438 = 0.0618
Error mean square of the comparison = 0.0246
T = 0.0618/0.0246 = 2.51
This comparison is significant at the 0.10 level
-85-
-------
IV. INLET WATER TEMPERATURE VERSUS OTHER VARIABLES
Inlet water temperature was examined and adjusted for as a
covariate in the condenser performance analysis. It was also examined
briefly regarding its effects on chlorine consumption. This section
examines, briefly, inlet water temperature and possible relationships
with (1) turbine back pressure, (2) total nitrogen, and (3) total organic
carbon.
1. Turbine Back Pressure
Based on an analysis of 34 data points, turbine back pressure
exhibits a general linear trend over the range of inlet water tempera-
tures of 54°F to 76°F. The simple correlation coefficient is 0.8.
The average rate of change of turbine back pressure per unit change in
inlet water temperature is 0.033. Variation in turbine back pressure
appears to be fairly constant over the range of inlet water temperatures.
2. Total Nitrogen
Based on an analysis of 59 points, total nitrogen shows a positive
linear trend with inlet water temperature. The simple correlation coeffi-
cient is 0.4. An average rate of change was not calculated as the varia-
tion in total nitrogen increases as inlet water temperature increases.
A transformation of the data would result in a stabilization of the
variance with the logarithm being the most likely transformation.
3. Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
Total organic carbon seems to have no directly discernible relation-
ship to inlet water temperature based on an analysis of 55 data points.
A plot of TOC versus time indicates a cyclical behavior which may be
masking any relationship to inlet water temperature. At this time, the
cyclic behavior remains unexplained.
V. DPD VERSUS AMPEROMETRIC TITRATOR
A. On nine test dates in 1977 outlet free and total residual
chlorine were measured by both the amperometric and DPD methods on Unit 1.
The use of both methods allowed a statistical comparison on the equality
of the two methods. Appendix D contains the raw data gathered on the nine
test dates. Table A-8 summarizes a paired samples analysis carried out on
the data. At a significance level of 0.10, there is a significant diffe-
rence between the two methods for both free and total residual chlorine.
Based on the differences calculated, DPD is consistently higher than the
amperometric method.
A further examination of the calculated differences shows that
negative differences occur at low levels of concentration, approximately
0.5 mg/1 and less. This indicates the measurements by the two methods
may depend on the level of the concentration, and possibly bias the
-86-
-------
comparison between the two methods. Section B summarizes a paired samples
analysis of free and total residual chlorine where the effect of the level
of concentration has been removed.
B. Removing the Effect of Level of Concentration from DPP and
Amperometric Data
The true concentration was estimated as the mean of the observed
DPD and amperometric readings for both free and residual chlorine. The
estimated true concentration was then fitted by regression analysis as a
linear function of the observed data for each method. This allowed
adjusting of the DPD and amperometric data to remove the effects of
concentration level.
Table A-8
SUMMARY OF PAIRED SAMPLES ANALYSIS COMPARING
DPD AND AMPEROMETRIC METHODS
Differences = DPD - Amperometric (In Mg/1)
Date
6-10
6-17
6-30
7-13
7-20
7-27
9-2
9-8
9-16
Free Residual Chlorine
0.46
0.63
0.15
0.11
0.07
-0.04
-0.03
0.11
0.05
Mean = 0.1678
Variance = 0.0515
Calculated t value =2.22
df = 8
Alpha =0.10
Total Residual Chlorine
0.17
0.13
0.00
0.03
0.30
0.10
0.03
0.07
0.08
Mean = 0.1011
Variance = 0.0084
Calculated t value =3.31
df = 8
Alpha =0.10
-87-
-------
At a significance level of 0.10, there is a significant difference
between the two methods for both free and total residual chlorine. The
DPD method is significantly higher than the amperometric method in its
readings on the chlorine level. Table A-9 summarizes the paired samples
analysis on the adjusted data.
Table A-9
SUMMARY OF PAIRED SAMPLES ANALYSIS COMPARING DPD AND AMPEROMETRIC
METHODS AFTER ADJUSTMENT FOR EFFECT OF CONCENTRATION LEVEL
Free Residual Chlorine
DPD
0.89
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.96
AMP
0.79
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.80
0.83
DIF
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.1A
0.14
0.16
0.13
Total Residual Chlorine
DPD
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
AMP
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
DIF
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Mean =0.13
Variance = 0.000424
Calculated t value = 18.94
df = 8
Alpha =0.10
Mean =0.14
Variance = 0.000125
Calculated t value = 37.50
df = 8
Alpha =0.10
-88-
-------
VI. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive statistics not presented in this report elsewhere, but
still of interest, are summarized here.
A. Chlorine Consumption
1. Mean Free Residual Chlorine at Inlet of Condenser (sample size)
(a) By unit Unit 1 = 0.52(14) Unit 3 = 0.46(13)
Unit 2 = 0.43(14) Unit 4 = 0.43(13)
(b) By feed rate 4500: 0.61(26)
2500: 0.42(14)
1500: 0.23(14)
(c) Overall mean = 0.46(54)
2. Mean Free Residual Chlorine at Outlet of Condenser (sample size)
(a) By unit Unit 1 = 0.43(14) Unit 3 = 0.38(14)
Unit 2 = 0.36(14) Unit 4 = 0.33(14)
(b) By feed rate 4500: 0.48(28)
2500: 0.34(14)
1500: 0.20(14)
(c) Overall mean = 0.38(56)
3. Mean Free Residual Chlorine Consumed in Condenser (sample size)
(a) By unit Unit 1 = 0.09(14) Unit 3 = 0.08(13)
Unit 2 = 0.08(14) Unit 4 = 0.10(13)
(b) By feed rate 4500: 0.13(26)
2500: 0.07(14)
1500: 0.03(14)
(c) Overall mean = 0.09(54)
4. Mean Total Residual Chlorine at Inlet of Condenser (sample size)
(a) By unit Unit 1 = 1.09(12) Unit 3 = 1.08(12)
Unit 2 = 1.07(11) Unit 4 = 1.06(12)
(b) By feed rate 4500: 1.22(24)
2500: 0.96(13)
1500: 0.70(10)
(c) Overall mean = 1.08(47)
-89-
-------
5. Mean Total Residual Chlorine at Outlet of Condenser (sample size)
(a) By unit Unit 1 = 1.05(12) Unit 3 = 1.05(12)
Unit 2 = 1.05(11) Unit 4 = 1.01(12)
(b) By feed rate 4500: 1.22(24)
2500: 0.91(13)
1500: 0.67(10)
(c) Overall mean = 1.04(47)
6. Mean Total Residual Chlorine Consumed in Condenser (sample size)
(a) By unit Unit 1 = 0.05(12) Unit 3 = 0.03(12)
Unit 2 = 0.01(11) Unit 4 = 0.06(12)
(b) By feed rate 4500: 0.04(24)
2500: 0.05(13)
1500: 0.03(10)
(c) Overall mean = 0.04(47)
VII. SUMMARY
The objective of the analysis of the Phase II data was to broaden
the understanding of the characteristics for the system affecting chlo-
rine use while identifying more precisely the operating conditions to
maintain adequate condenser performance with low concentrations of
chlorine in the effluent. This section focuses on factors affecting
the interpretation of the statistical results and examines the results
of the condenser performance, chlorine consumption, and chlorine in
effluent analyses in terms of the overall objective.
1. Significant Sources of Variation
During the analysis of the data, it became evident that significant
sources of variation existed which affected the interpretation and con-
clusion drawn from the data. The variability of the chlorinator, the
inherent error in the measurement technique of chlorine, and the
variation induced by inlet water temperature were adjusted for, if
possible, or recognized and considered when interpreting the results.
2. Some Statistical Considerations
Wherever possible considerable cross-checking of estimates such
as means, variances, and standard errors was done. In order to have
balance in some of the analyses, some data points were not used, but
were included in the cross-checking. Some of the raw data was
obviously in error, such as extremely negative chlorine consumption
in the system, and not used at all.
For most of the analyses, the error mean square was fairly con-
sistent (after adjusting for unequal sample sizes), usually about 0.02.
-90-
-------
3. Condenser Performance Considered in the Presence of Chlorine
Consumption and Chlorine in the Effluent
As the analysis has indicated, adequate condenser performance is
achieved at a low feed rate with a short duration of feed, applied
fairly frequently. Either the chlorine could be fed 3 times per day
for 20 minutes or 6 times per day for 10 minutes to each condenser.
Chlorine consumption was affected by inlet water temperature. In order
to assure adequate condenser performance, the chlorine consumed through
the system must take into account the chlorine demand of the condenser.
As long as the condenser demand is met, the greater the percentage of
chlorine consumed in the system, the less chlorine present in the
effluent. As the analysis of chlorine consumption showed, better
results were obtained on units 3 and 4. Finally, the average for free
and total residual chlorine at the outlet of the condenser was lower
for the lower feed rates and units 3 and 4 in general. The overall
pattern was that a feed rate lower than 4,500 lbs/24 hours could be fed
3 times a day for 20 minutes each, or 6 times a day for 10 minutes
each to maintain adequate condenser performance and minimize chlorine
in the effluent. From an operations viewpoint, the 3 times per day
and 20-minute duration of feed is more desirable and, therefore, the
recommended scheme.
-91-
-------
CONDENSER PERFORMANCE DATA
Table A-10
ALL AVAILABLE ACF AND INLET WATER TEMPERATURE (IWT) DATA
Date
05-06-77
05-20-77
06-01-77
06-03-77
06-16-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-13-77
07-27-77
08-09-77
08-10-77
08-24-77
09-08-77
09-09-77
09-21-77
09-22-77
10-05-77
10-06-77
10-18-77
10-19-77
11-02-77
11-03-77
11-17-77
11-18-77
12-01-77
12-02-77
12-14-77
Unit
ACF
.72
.72
.71
.72
.71
.72
.70
.70
.69
.72
.74
.70
.73
.81
.81
1
IWT
72
74
72
76
75
77
71
71
61
55
Unit
ACF
.74
.71
.71
.73
.74
.73
.71
.71
.72
.73
.76
.77
.80
.80
.84
2
IWT
71
73
71
74
71
75
71
68
59
54
Unit
ACF
.72
.75
.75
.74
.74
.74
.75
.73
.73
.77
.78
.79
.79
.85
.85
3
IWT
66
71
72
70
74
71
72
69
65
53
53
Unit
ACF
.74
.75
.74
.74
.74
.74
.77
.74
.73
.77
.79
.78
.82
.82
4
IWT
71
72
70
74
72
72
71
68
65
54
-92-
-------
Table A-ll
CONDENSER PERFORMANCE DATA USED TO ESTIMATE THE CHANGE
IN AFC RELATIVE TO A CHANGE IN INLET WATER TEMPERATURE (IWT)
Date
05-20-77
06-03-77
06-16-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-13-77
07-27-77
08-10-77
08-24-77
09-08-77
09-09-77
09-21-77
09-22-77
11-02-77
11-03-77
11-17-77
11-18-77
12-01-77
Unit
ACF
.72
.71
.72
.71
.70
.69
.70
.73
1
IWT
74
72
76
75
77
71
61
55
Unit
ACF
.71
.71
.73
.74
.71
.72
.77
.80
2
IWT
73
71
74
71
75
68
59
54
Unit
ACF
.75
.75
.74
.74
.74
.75
.73
.73
.79
.79
.85
3
IWT
66
71
72
70
74
71
72
69
65
53
53
Unit
ACF
.75
.74
.74
.74
.77
.74
.73
.78
.82
4
IWT
71
70
74
72
72
71
68
65
54
Table A-12
DATA USED TO ANALYZE CONDENSER PERFORMANCE WITH INLET
WATER TEMPERATURE (IWT) AS A COVARIATE
Date
06-03
06-17
06-30
07-13
11-03
11-18
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
1500
1500
Unit
ACF
.72
.72
.71
.72
.70
.73
1
IWT
72
74
72
76
61
55
Unit
ACF
.74
.71
.71
.73
.77
.80
2
IWT
71
73
71
74
59
54
Unit
ACF
.75
.74
.74
.74
.79
.79
3
IWT
71
72
70
74
65
53
Unit
ACF
.75
.74
.74
.74
.78
.82
4
IWT
71
72
70
74
65
54
-93-
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA USED AND SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR
THE PHASE II CHLORINATION STUDY
-95-
-------
Inlet Free
Date
5/06/77
5/Oo/77
S/C-i/77
i/U/77
5/12/77
5/U/77
5/20/77
3/20/77
5/2C/77
5/27/77
5/2V77
5/2V77
5/27/77
. 6/03/77
1
vO
ON 0,03/77
1 i/CO/77
6/OJ/77
i; 0/77
6/ 0/77
6.' 0/77
(.1 0/77
:, '.'77
'>.' V77
i, -i'.l
3,' •'/;
v'-./??
a,;. /77
-.. 2-/77
o :./77
o,'3j/77
S/2J/77
=.'30/77
s/30/77
L'nit
I
2
3
t.
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
3
t.
I
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
I
2
3
t,
1
2
3
4
Avg. of
All No's
.417
.797
.56
1.15
1.40
.797
1.13
.98
.7
.512
.478
.345
.367
.364
.367
.24
.24
.581
.93
.764
.975
.526
.537
.297
. 4'o
1. 49
.779
.97
1.05
.939
.767
.862
.577
Avg. of
Steady
Stale
.410
.734
.483
1.26
1.60
.936
1.135
1.2
1.15
.496
.414
.375
.467
.382
.389
.27
.33
.663
.93
.778
.975
.569
.544
.311
.50
1.49
.773
1.00
1.1
.931
.758
.875
.64
No ' s
Not
Used
.1;.8
.15;!. 88
.35;!. 0
.1;.3
.3;.66;1.68
.1
.4;!. 3
.1;.3
.1
.1;.8
.22;!. 5
.1;.5
.1;.6
.16;. 48
.06;. 50
.05;. 31
.06
.07;. 05;. 8
-
.65
-
.15;. 8
.45
.15;. 35
.45;. 525
1.4;1.61
.57;!. 03
.7
.9
.78;!. 05
.32;!. 32
.16;!. 42
.1;.8
Outlet Free
Avg. of
All No's
.356
.482
.242
.375
.868
.877
.577
.223
.234
.206
.22
.25
.358
1.57
1.73
.659
.834
.56
.58
.248
.458
.25
.365
1.5
.60
.83
.58
.961
.535
.519
.485
Avg. of
Steady
State
.351
No Data
.523
Mo Data
.233
.355
.864
1.0
.7
.234
.236
.208
.22
.241
.366
.147
.21
.676
.937
.62
.745
.268
.46
.245
.365
1.54
.608
.878
.688
.957
.539
.603
.519
No's
Not
Used
.25;. 49
.15;. 69
.12;. 44
.17;. 66
.78;. 91
.61;!. 02
.33
.08;. 32
.2;. 26
.14;. 26
-
.05;. 54
.21;. 45
.1;.2
.1
.2;. 98
.01
.15;. 73
.25
.15;. 17
.37;. 53
.17;. 34
-
1.15
.375;. 675
.4
.15
.74;!. 22
.45;. 60
-1;.3;.65
.35
Difference*
Steady State
Free
lolet-Outlet
.059
-
-.041
-
1.37
.58
.271
.20
.45
.262
.178
.167
.247
.141
.023
.123
.12
-.013
-.007
.158
.230
.301
.084
.066
.135
-.05
.165
.122
.412
-.026
.219
.272
.121
Inlet Total
Avg. of
All No's
1.33
1.53
1.46
1.43
1.42
.797
1.53
1.21
1.07
1.26
1.28
1.10
.87
.99
.975
1.15
.878
1.14
1.49
1.44
1.55
1.11
1.21
1.19
1.06
.£8
.36
.27
.21
.42
.17
1.31
1.297
Avg. of
Steady
State
1.52
1.62
1.48
1.49
1.60
.936
1.57
1.44
1.4
1.3
1.41
1.15
1.51
1.29
1.25
1.295
1.255
1.245
1.59
.45
.58
.24
.28
.22
.19
1.93
1.35
1.45
1.38
1.41
1.17
1.44
1.51
No's
Not
Used
.2;. 6
.29;2.2
1.3;1.6
.1;.4;.9;
9;. 92
.3;.66;1.8
.1
.5;!. 75
.1;1.8
.2;. 3
.3;!. 45
.4
.2;!. 55
.1;.2;.3;
1.6
.16;. 31;
1.32
.12;. 33;. 56
.41;!. 33
.22;. 78
.43;. 51;
1.45
.3;1.7
1.325
1.46
.21;. 56
.35
.95
.53
1.45
1.17;1.45
.2;.9;1.65
.5
.28;!. 69
.32;!. 98;
1.32
.31;. 32;
2.08
.28;!. 45
Avg. of
All Ifo'i
1.24
1.41
.79
.91
1.15
1.54
1.1
1.28
1.43
1.32
1.05
1.08
1.184
1.20
1.13
1.21
1.57
1.25
1.10
1.23
1.19
.99
1.21
2.05
1.27
1.33
1.065
1.35
1.13
1.15
1.0
Outlet Total
Avg. of
Steady
State
1.31
No Data
1.40
Xo Data
.77
.917
1.19
.54
.22
.38
.43
.43
.44
1.15
1.285
1.21
1.13
1.29
1.53
1.29
1.26
1.25
1.28
1.20
1.21
.264
1.28
1.375
1.28
1.38
1.17
1.20
1.11
No's
Not
Used
.55;!. 4
1.37;1.45
.29;.3;1.87
.17;!. 62
.39;!. 36
.
.88
.OS;1.46
.52;!. 48
.52; 1.48
.40;. 51
.14;!. 31
.11;!. 45
1.06;1.30
.
.51
1.69;1.7
.65;!. 63
.79
1.01;1.28
.44;!. 35
.48;.37;1.28
-
1.75;2.15
1.05; 1.35
.9;1.4
.2
1.02;1.43
.5;!. 95
.6;!. 31
.55
Difference
Steady Stat
Total
Inlet-Outle
.21
.08
_
.83
.019
.38
-.10
.18
-.08
-.12
-.28
.07
;4
-.035
.055
.125
-.045
.06
.16
.32
-.01
0
.02
-.02
-.71
.07
.075
.10
.03
0
.24
.40
•'•'We have noted free and total residual chlorine concentrations at the condenser outlet higher than at the condenser inlet.
Since this phenomenon (inlet minus outlet •£ - 0.1 mg/1) has only occurred 28 times out of 354 data points (7.97.), we have
attributed the phenomenon to field experimental error until hypotheses can be tested.
-------
Iclet Free
Djte
7/Oi/77
V'>,/77
:/Oi/77
VC6/77
7/J3/77
VH/77
'/1 3/77
-,' 13/77
:/::/77
v::/77
V23/77
v::/7?
r/27/77
V27/77
V27/77
V27/77
-.. :V77
i/12/77
i/".3/77
•:/:>/77
1/25/77
i/:5/77
j/:;/77
* ' '}.: 7 7
','0- '77
>l'j'-:n
i/Oi/77
• ,'03,' 77
.•/C'i/77
•/Co/77
it ',~Z! 11
•i :•-. "7
', '. 3, 77
' . I - ,' 7 7
>/:i/77
','23/77
'•.'HIT!
Unit
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
H
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
Avg. of
All No's
.804
.407
l.CO
1.1
.991
.530
.743
.434
.589
1.06
.622
.70
.633
.46
2.01
.567
.462
.747
.64
.514
.247
.231
.2*3
.26
.!S4
.255
.205
.469
.409
.4-'. 7
.376
-5!3
.452
.3/-3
.645
.522
.444
Avg. of
Steady
State
.814
.42
1.02
1.1
.991
.678
.864
.542
1.04
1.12
.62
.55
.575
.479
2.4
.8
.481
.792
.64
.52
.249
.233
.243
.276
.185
.246
.20
.475
.41:
.4S3
.367
.509
.513
.39
.606
.531
.433
So ' s
Not
Used
.36;!. 15
.08;. 6
.62;!. 3
-
-
.05;. 75
.05;. 4;. 975
.05;.!;. 95
.36;!. 13
.19;!. 26
-2;1.C5
.«;!. 15
.35;!. 30
.1;.7
.25;3.0
.1
.03;. 66
.04;. 03;
1.01
.
.05;. 74
.1;.38
.225;. 33
.2;. 3
.1
.13;. 23
.1;.48
.17;. 25
.28;. 53
.15;. 65
.08;. 53
.2;. 53
.4;. 6
.12;. 63
.2;. -4
.4;!. 09
.26;. 7
.2;. 6
Outlet Free
Avg. of
All S'o's
.324
.378
.345
.392
.813
.485
.893
.76
1.05
.891
.963
1.04
.154
.337
2.63
.388
.724
.761
.75
.078
.252
.245
.229
.153
.217
.142
.462
.544
.475
.422
.596
.166
.375
.159
.450
.345
Avg. of
Steady
Stste
.339
.386
.411
.394
.859
.485
.89
.76
1.07
.977
1.0
1.13
.193
.306
3.45
.436
.722
No Data
.772
.75
.072
.248
.247
.223
.157
.221
.142
.488
.563
.46
.422
.596
.171
.375
.153
.473
.369
No's
Not
Used
.18;. 2;
.55
.125;. 475
.05;. 075;
.45
.3;. 475
.2;!. 06
.35;. 62
.813;. 98
-
.9
.025
.55;!. 15
.45
.01;. 05;
.42
.25;. 375
.225;. 55;
3.8
.05
.68;. 78
.68;. 79
.61;. 89
.06;. 10
.225;. 275
.225;. 3
.18;. 26
.13;. 225
.15;. 26
-
.08;. 58
.15;. 76
.425;. 65
.
.54;. 63
.1
-
.05;. 2
.05;. 64
.05;. 45
Difference
Steady State
Free
Inlet-Outlet
.475
.34
.609
.706
.132
.193
-.026
-.218
-.03
.143
-.38
-.58
.382
.173
-1.05
.364
-.241
-.132
-.23
.177
.035
.001
.048
.028
.025
.058
-.013
-.151
.003
-.055
-.087
.347
.015
.453
.058
.064
Inlet Total
Avg. of
All No's
1.09
.681
1.27
1.37
1.29
1.12
1.24
.706
1.41
1.35
.846
1.06
.956
1.27
2.75
1.0
.964
1.31
1.25
1.12
.667
.889
.835
.738
.854
.728
.77
.829
.830
.905
.914
1.05
.943
.94
.99
.916
.894
Avg. of
Steady
State
1.09
.706
1.33
1.55
1.29
1.32
1.30
.879
1.47
1.42
.83
1.3
.942
1.33
3.13
1.28
1.02
1.38
1.2
1.07
.668
.892
.£83
.768
.874
.854
.77
.931
.92
.994
.923
1.06
.957
1.03
1.07
.872
.91
No's
Not
Used
.79;!. 43
.08;). 03
.66;!. 53
1.0
-
. 1 ; 1 . 35
.55 jl. 45
.1
.45;!. 65
.28;!. 58
•5;Z.24
.48;!. 4
1.4;. 6
.55;!. 45
1.05;3.7
.45
-52;. 54;
1.18
.42;!. 54
1.4
.25;!. 6
.58;. 75
.85;. 92
.54;. 94
.44
.66;. 91
.1;.32;.88
-
.01;!. 02
.4;!. 28
.085; 1.1
-5;1.3C
.9;1.1
.8
.22; 1.1
.5;!. OS
.52;!. 15
.8;1.0
Avg. of
All No's
.973
1.05
1.0
1.02
1.19
1.15
1.31
1.26
1.45
1.28
1.32
1.45
.772
1.26
3.34
1.21
1.22
1.25
1.07
.622
.758
.821
.72
.807
.729
.742
.873
.843
.953
.955
1.06
.£14
.906
.£18
.809
.845
Outlet Total
Avg. of
Steady
State
.988
1.16
1.19
1.14
1.20
1.17
1.32
1.26
1.46
1.37
1.42
1.54
.826
1.27
4.34
1.28
1.36
No Data
1.26
1.24
.622
.821
.825
.724
.842
.729
.742
.926
.887
.931
.967
1.07
.905
.992
.933
.83
.906
No's
Not
Used
-6;1.15
1.075;. 2
.1;.4
.45
1.1;1.28
.96;!. 27
1.37;1.18
-
1.35
.325;!. 45
.60
.85;!. 625
.05;. 96
1.2;1.3
.6;1.1
.45;!. 50
1.08;1.3
I.17;1.3
.28;!. 36
.
.2;. .875
.80
.7;. 75
.35;. 875
-
-
.1;.98
.25; 1.0
.9;!. 15
.825;!. 05
1;1.1
.15;. 3
.22
.1
. 1 ; 1 . 05
.2;. 95
.41
.09
.15
-.02
-.381
.01
.05
-.59
-.24
.116
.06
-1.21
-.06
-.17
.046
.071
.053
.044
.032
.125
.02S
.005
.033
.05S
-.0-.
.C01
.052
.033
.132
.042
.004
-------
Inlet Free
9/,3,,;
9/23'77
9/30/77
S/30/77
»/39'77
*/3-.'77
• j/05/77
.'3/0./77
::/35/77
*, ''.-• 77
' '"77
. -.. — / 77
5 - - ^
IO/:>/77
0.' 15/77
1 - • --s/ 77
1 j, •'-*, 77
1 '.,'2 •'• 77
r:/:J/;7
: 1. j2/n
1 1 • •" 2 < 7 7
i:/ 32/77
1! 02/7?
>';.- :3. 77
li.' ;5.- 77
I'.,' 15/77
\\ ,' '. a ' 7
IJ/22/77
Unit
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
^
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
•4
2
3
Avg. of
All No's
.75
.4
.264
.102
.418
.20
.2:2
.159
.167
.194
.193
.131
.073
.036
.32*
.305
Avg. of
Steady
State
.75
.475
.28
.105
.42
.20
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
So Data
No Data
So Data
No Data
So Data
No Data
.211
.162
.187
.167
No Data
No Data
No Data
So Data
.185
.124
.063
.087
.356
.308
No's
Not
Used
.6;. 9
.1;.S5
.02;. 4
.03;. 16
.37;. 44
-
.09;. 34
.09; .28
.09;. 26
.07;. 40
. 1 ; . 33
.01;. 29
.01;. 16
.05;. 12
.04
.1; .4
Outlet Free
Avg. of
All No's
.628
.35
.164
.039
.241
.051
.406
.205
.367
.367
.30
.353
.429
.290
.235
.34
.289
.126
.11
.124
.407
.406
.31
.28
.172
.147
.145
.128
.163
.141
Avg. of
Steady
State
.64
.388
.181
.039
.244
.05
.414
.21
.367
.41
.42
.383
.423
.315
.250
.4
.297
.127
.113
.123
.4
.423
.3
.26
.165
.148
.150
.145
.162
.136
No's
Not
Used
.575;. 675
.05;. 425
.05;. 26
.02;. 06
.2;. 275
.03;!. 0
.2;. 55
.14;. 25
-
.1; .46
. 1 ; . 46
.26
.3;. 6
.12;. 35
.04;. 34
.1
.22;. 375
. 1; .15
.06;. 13
.1;. 15
.44
.3;. 46
.34
.14;. 44
.13;. 20
.13;. 16
.13;. 16
.06
.13;. 2
.18
Difference
Steady State
Free
Inlet-Outlet
.11
.012
.099
.101
.174
.15
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.086
.035
.074
.071
-
-
-
-
.023
-.024
-.082
.058
.194
.172
Inlet Total
Avg. of
All No's
1.1
.75
.506
.388
.664
.49
1.06
.594
.577
.582
.745
.448
.53
.51
.527
.475
Avg. of
Steady
State
1.1
.933
.54
.403
.663
.51
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
1.02
.608
.578
.60
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
.737
.451
.55
.548
.533
.493
No's
Not
Used
l.OSjl.12
.2
.04;. 67
.21;. 43
.65;. 68
.43;. 53
.69;!. 75
.49;. 73
.49;. 66
.39;. 72
.65;. 91
.19;. 68
.07;. 69
.22;. 65
.4;. 6
.3;. 54
Outlet Total
Avg. of
All No's
1.05
.721
.488
.341
.618
.373
.807
.682
.85
.907
.74
.958
1.13
1.01
.868
1.02
.726
.58
.541
.588
.713
.740
.615
.547
.642
.493
.559
.583
.443
.466
Avg. of
Steady
State
1.05
.80
.476
.367
.619
.376
.833
.7
.85
.988
.767
.96
1.14
1.05
.932
1.1
.709
.58
.58
.593
.7
.72
.6
.56
.657
.504
.617
.£13
.443
.462
No* s
Not
Used
1.025;1.07
.1 ; .95
. 1 ; . 65
.03
.6;. 63
.03;- 7
.5;. 88
.55;. 74
.8;. 9
.5
.44;. 96
.87;!. 0
1. 1 ;1.5
.88
.2; 1.04
.6;!. 2
.65;. 92
.52;. 60
.25;. 60
.53;. 63
.74
.66;. 8
.58;. 64
.34;. 74
.45;. 7
.13;- 55
.05;. 66
.45;. 625
.4;. 43
-43;. 53
Difference
Steady State
Total
Inlet-Outlet
.05
.133
.064
.036
.044
.134
.311
.028
.002
.007
.08
.053
.067
.C65
.09
.031
-------
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE
CONSUMED IN SYSTEM
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
Ul=3000
U2-4=4500
4500
Ul=2500
U2-4=3000
2500
2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
1500
1500
1500
Date
05-06-77
05-12-77
05-20-77
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-24-77
06-30-77
07-06-77
07-13-77
07-20-77
07-27-77
08-18-77
08-25-77
09-02-77
09-09-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
10-30-77
11-18-77
12-22-77
Unit 1
.86
-
.47
1.13
1.12
.68
1.09
-
.38
1.01
.86
.30
.72
.66
.71
.57
.34
-.09
.03
.43
.48
"~
Unit 2
—
-
-
1.22
1.12
.76
.89
.77
.83
.95
.90
.42
1.06
-
.71
.62
.20
.60
.42
.53
.40
.38
Unit 3
.67
1.41
.42
1.20
1.25
.78
1.16
.48
.81
-
.52
.42
-
.64
-
.60
.39
.48
.24
.31
.47
.42
Unit 4
.
1.02
.78
1.24
1.22
.69
1.08
.78
1.00
1.09
.77
.37
1.16
.72
-
.67
.41
.67
.45
.50
.47
-
-99-
-------
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
CONSUMED IN SYSTEM
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
Ul=3000
U2-4=4500
4500
Ul=2500
U2-4=3000
2500
2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
1500
1500
1500
Date
05-06-77
05-12-77
05-20-77
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-24-77
06-30-77
07-06-77
07-13-77
07-20-77
07-27-77
08-18-77
08-25-77
09-02-77
09-09-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
10-30-77
11-18-77
12-22-77
Unit 1
-.09
-
.14
-.02
.21
.07
.10
-
-.04
.36
.18
-.10
.09
.02
.16
.07
-.10
-.56
-.32
-.09
-.01
Unit 2
_
-
-
.02
.20
.16
.07
.09
.19
.17
.21
.03
.1
-
.13
-.07
-.12
-.13
-.12
-.01
0
.09
Unit 3
-.07
.87
-.11
-.02
.18
.11
.20
-.01
.21
-
.09
.01
-
.15
-
.10
-.08
-.13
-.16
-.02
0
.10
Unit 4
.46
.26
.02
.3
.18
.23
.18
.40
.34
.27
-.03
.32
.23
_
.07
-.13
-.11
.04
-.04
-.01
"
-100-
-------
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONSUMED IN SYSTEM
USED IN ANALYSIS
TOTALS (SAMPLE SIZE)
Feed Rate
4500
2500
1500
Date
May
June
July
Sept
Oct/Nov
Unit 1
2.46(3)
3.27(4)
1.86(2)
0.90(2)
0.91(2)
Unit 2
1.22(1)
4.37(5)
1.85(2)
0.82(2)
0.93(2)
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE CONSUMED IN
USED IN ANALYSIS
TOTALS (SAMPLE SIZE)
Feed Rate
4500
Date
May
June
July
Unit 1
0.14(2)
0.32(4)
0.54(2)
Unit 2
0.02(1)
0.73(5)
0.39(2)
Unit 3
3.71(4)
4.48(5)
0.52(1)
0.99(2)
0.79(2)
SYSTEM
Unit 3
0.85(2)
0.70(5)
0.09(1)
Unit 4
3.04(3)
4.77(5)
1.89(2)
1.09(2)
0.97(2)
Unit 4
0.74(3)
1.30(5)
0.62(2)
-101-
-------
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE
AT INLET
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
2500
2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
1500
1500
1500
Date
05-27-77
06-3-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-06-77
07-13-77
09-02-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
09-30-77
10-28-77
11-18-77
Unit 1
.50
.38
.66
.57
.93
.81
.99
.28
.48
.51
.53
.28
.21
.19
Unit 2
.41
.39
.93
.54
.76
.42
.68
.19
.41
.52
.42
.11
.16
.12
Unit 3
.38
.27
.78
.31
.88
1.02
.86
.25
.46
.39
.75
.42
.19
.07
Unit 4
.47
.33
.98
.50
.64
1.10
.54
.20
.37
.61
.48
.20
.17
.09
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
AT INLET
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
2500
2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
1500
1500
Date
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-13-77
09-02-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
10-28-77
11-18-77
Unit 1
1.30
1.29
1.25
1.24
1.41
1.29
.77
.93
1.06
.87
1.02
.74
Unit 2
1.41
1.25
1.59
1.28
1.17
1.32
.87
.92
.96
.91
.61
.45
Unit 3
1.15
1.30
1.45
1.22
1.44
1.30
.85
.99
1.03
1.1
.58
.55
Unit 4
1.51
1.26
1.58
1.19
1.51
.88
.77
.92
1.07
.93
.60
.55
-102-
-------
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE
AT OUTLET
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
2500
2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
1500
1500
1500
Date
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-06-77
07-13-77
09-02-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
09-30-77
10-28-77
11-18-77
Unit 1
.23
.24
.68
.27
.96
.34
.86
.23
.49
.60
.47
.18
.30
.17
Unit 2
.24
.37
.94
.46
.54
.39
.49
.16
.56
.17
.37
.04
.13
.15
Unit 3
.21
.15
.62
.25
.60
.41
.89
.22
.46
.38
.64
.24
.11
.15
Unit 4
.22
.21
.75
.37
.52
.39
.76
.14
.42
.15
.39
.05
.12
.15
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
AT OUTLET
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
2500
2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
1500
1500
Date
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-13-77
09-02-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
10-28-77
11-18-77
Unit 1
1.38
1.15
1.29
1.25
1.38
1.20
.72
.93
1.07
.83
.71
.66
Unit 2
1.43
1.29
1.53
1.29
1.17
1.17
.84
.89
.91
.91
.58
.50
Unit 3
1.43
1.21
1.29
1.20
1.20
1.32
.73
.93
.99
1.05
.58
.62
Unit 4
1.44
1.13
1.26
1.21
1.11
1.26
.74
.97
.94
.80
.59
.61
-103-
-------
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INLET AND OUTLET
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
2500
2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
1500
1500
1500
Date
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-06-77
07-13-77
09-02-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
09-30-77
10-28-77
11-18-77
Unit 1
.27
.14
-.02
.30
-.03
.47
.13
.05
-.01
-.09
.06
.10
-.09
.02
Unit 2
.17
.02
-.01
.08
.22
.03
.19
.03
-.15
.35
.06
.07
.03
-.03
Unit 3
.17
.12
.16
.06
.28
.61
-.03
.03
0
.01
.11
.18
.08
-.08
Unit 4
.25
.12
.23
.13
.12
.71
-.22
.06
-.05
.46
.09
.15
.05
-.06
-104-
-------
o
Ui
6/3 6/10 6/17 6/24 6/30 7/6 7/13 7/20 7/27 8/2 8/9 8/18 6/25 9/2
TIME (MONTHS)
9/9 9/16 9/23 9/30
Figure B-l. Unit 3 inlet vs. outlet free residual chlorine 1977.
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
2 0.6
cc
O
_i
5 0.5
0.4
O CO
LU
1 DC.
UJ
UJ
oc.
u.
0.3
0.2
O.I
INLET
OUTLET
l
11=04
\\--06
Ih08
HMO
\\\2 11:14
TIME (MINUTES)
11:18
11:20
11 = 22
Figure B-2. Unit 3 inlet vs. outlet free residuol chlorine 9-9-77.
-------
I
M
O
T1
UJ
z
E
o
UJ
Uj
o:
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
O.I
I
I
INLET
OUTLET---
I
II.-03 11=05 11=07 11=09 11 = 11 11 = 13 11 = 15
TIME (MINUTES)
11=17
11 = 19
11 = 21
11 = 23
Figure B~3. Unit 3 inlet vs. outlet free residual chlorine 9-16-77.
-------
1.0
0.9
o
oo
I
0.8
IM05
Ih07
11:09
INLET
OUTLET
I
INI
11:13
TIME
INS
(MINUTES)
IN7
IM9
1 = 23
Figure B-4. Unit 3 inlet vs. outlet free residual chlorine 6-3-77.
-------
LJ
Z
IT
O
_J
I
O
O
en
u
or
UJ
LU
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
INLET
OUTLET
I
I ^
11=04
11 = 06
11 = 08
11 = 10
11=12 11 = 14
TIME (MINUTES)
11 = 16
11 = 18
11 = 20
11=22
Figure B-5. Unit 3 inlet vs. outlet free residual chlorine 6-10-77.
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
UJ
I 0.6
o
_l
<-> 0.5
o 0.4
UJ
QC
U
Ul
tr
0.3
0.2
O.I
INLET
OUTLET
I
I
Ih04
11:08
IhIO \\-\2
TIME (MINUTES)
11:14
11:18
Figure B-6. Unit 3 inlet vs. outlet free residual chlorine 9-30-77.
-------
INLET —
OUTLET —
II 12
TIME
IN4 II 16
(MINUTES)
Ihl8
11 = 20
11 = 22
11 = 24
Figure B-7. Unit 3 inlet vs. outlet free residual chlorine 6-30-77.
-------
1.4
1.3
1.2
I.I
1.0
0.9 -
ui
| 0-8
-------
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE
CONSUMED IN SYSTEM
AND INLET WATER TEMPERATURE
Date
05-06-77
05-12-77
05-20-77
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-24-77
06-30-77
07-06-77
07-13-77
07-20-77
07-27-77
08-18-77
08-25-77
09-02-77
09-09-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
10-30-77
11-18-77
12-22-77
Unit
Chlor.
.86
-
.47
1.13
1.12
.68
1.09
-
.38
1.01
.86
.29
.72
.66
.71
.57
.34
-.09
.03
.43
.48
-
1
Temp.
71
62
68
74
72
66
74
71
72
82
76
77.5
75
73
77
76
71
73
71
61
55
—
Unit
Chlor.
—
-
-
1.22
1.12
.76
.89
.77
.83
.95
.9
.42
1.06
-
.71
.62
.20
.60
.42
.53
.40
.38
2
Temp.
—
-
-
71
71
62
73
71
71
79.5
74
74
71
-
75
75
71
72
68
59
54
44
Unit
Chlor.
.67
1.41
1.20
1.20
1.25
.78
1.16
.49
.81
-
.52
.42
-
.64
-
.60
.39
.48
.24
.31
.47
.42
3
Temp.
69
60
66
71
71
64
72
69
70
80
74
76
72
71
75
75
72
72
69
65
53
43
Unit
Chlor.
_
1.02
.78
1.24
1.22
.69
1.08
.78
1.00
1.09
.77
.37
1.16
.72
-
.67
.41
.67
.45
.5
.47
-
4
Temp.
69
64
69
72
71
64
72
71
70
79
74
74
72
70
-
74
71
72
68
-
54
-
-113-
-------
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
CONSUMED IN SYSTEM
AND INLET WATER TEMPERATURE
Date
05-06-77
05-12-77
05-20-77
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-24-77
06-30-77
07-06-77
07-13-77
07-20-77
07-27-77
08-18-77
08-25-77
09-02-77
09-09-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
10-30-77
11-18-77
12-22-77
Unit
Chlor.
-.09
-
.14
-.02
.21
.07
.10
-
-.04
.36
.18
-.1
.09
.02
.16
.07
-.10
-.56
-.32
-.09
-.01
-
1
Temp.
71
62
68
74
72
66
74
71
72
82
76
77
75
73
77
76
71
73
71
61
55
-
Unit
Chlor.
_
-
-
.02
.05
.16
.07
.09
.19
.17
.21
.03
.1
-
.13
-.07
-.12
-.13
-.12
-.01
.0
.09
2
Temp.
_
-
-
71
71
62
73
71
71
79
74
74
71
-
75
75
71
72
68
59
54
44
Unit
Chlor.
-.07
.87
-.11
-.02
.18
.11
.20
-.01
.21
-
.09
.01
-
.15
-
.10
-.08
-.13
-.16
-.02
.00
.10
3
Temp.
69
60
66
71
71
64
72
69
70
80
74
76
72
71
75
75
72
72
69
65
53
43
Unit
Chlor.
.
.46
.26
.02
.3
.18
.23
.18
.40
.34
.27
-.03
.32
.23
-
.07
-.13
-.11
.04
-.04
-.01
-
4
Temp.
69
64
69
72
71
64
72
71
70
79
74
74
72
70
_.
74
71
72
68
_
54
_
-114-
-------
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INLET AND OUTLET
Feed Rate
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
2500
2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
Ul=1500
U2-4=2500
1500
1500
Date
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-13-77
09-02-77
09-09-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
10-30-77
11-18-77
Unit 1
-.08
.14
-.04
-.01
.03
.09
.05
0
-.01
.04
.31
.08
Unit 2
-.02
-.04
.06
0
0
.15
.03
.03
.05
0
.03
-.05
Unit 3
-.28
.09
.16
.02
.24
-.02
.12
.06
.04
.05
0
-.07
Unit 4
.07
.13
.32
-.02
.40
-.38
.03
-.05
.13
.13
.01
-.06
-115-
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER TEMPERATURE VERSUS OTHER VARIABLES
-117-
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER TEMPERATURE VS. OTHER VARIABLES
Date
05-06-77
05-06-77
05-06-77
05-06-77
05-12-77
05-12-77
05-12-77
05-12-77
05-20-77
05-20-77
05-20-77
05-20-77
05-27-77
05-27-77
05-27-77
05-27-77
06-03-77
06-03-77
06-03-77
06-03-77
06-10-77
06-10-77
06-10-77
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-17-77
06-17-77
06-17-77
06-24-77
06-24-77
06-24-77
06-24-77
06-30-77
06-30-77
06-30-77
06-30-77
07-06-77
07-06-77
07-06-77
07-06-77
07-13-77
07-13-77
07-13-77
07-13-77
Inlet
Water
Temperature
71.0
.
69.0
69.0
62.0
.
60.0
64.0
68.0
.
66.0
69.0
74.0
71.0
71.0
72.0
72.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
66.0
62.0
64.0
64.0
74.0
73.0
72.0
72.0
71.0
71.0
69.0
71.0
72.0
71.0
70.0
70.0
82.0
79.5
80.0
79.0
76.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
Turbine
Back
Pressure
1.53
1.67
1.66
1.53
.
.
.
.
1.97
.
1.63
1.73
.
.
.
.
2.03
2.17
1.91
1.92
.
.
.
.
1.91
1.95
1.74
1.75
.
.
.
.
1.77
1.83
1.83
1.92
1.79
1.83
1.84
1.92
.
.
2.03
2.12
Total
Nitrogen
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.62
0.92
.
0.92
0.92
1.00
.
1.00
1.00
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.87
0.87
0.87
•
Total
Organic
Carbon
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.2
,
2.2
2.2
2.8
.
2.8
2.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
4.1
4.1
4.1
•
Unit
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
(continued)
-118-
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER TEMPERATURE VS. OTHER VARIABLES
(continued)
Date
07-27-77
07-27-77
07-27-77
07-27-77
07-27-77
07-27-77
07-27-77
07-27-77
09-02-77
09-02-77
09-02-77
09-02-77
09-09-77
09-09-77
09-09-77
09-09-77
09-16-77
09-16-77
09-16-77
09-16-77
09-23-77
09-23-77
09-23-77
09-23-77
09-30-77
09-30-77
09-30-77
09-30-77
10-28-77
10-28-77
10-28-77
10-28-77
11-19-77
11-19-77
11-19-77
11-19-77
Inlet
Water
Temperature
75.0
71.0
72.0
72.0
75.0
71.0
72.0
72.0
76.0
75.0
75.0
74.0
71.0
71.0
72.0
71.0
73.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
71.0
68.0
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
65.0
61.0
59.0
.
.
54.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
Turbine
Back
Pressure
2.26
2.21
.
2.38
2.26
2.21
.
2.38
,
.
.
.
1.84
1.77
1.82
1.95
.
.
.
.
1.85
1.76
2.01
1.89
.
.
.
.
1.73
1.52
1.48
1.56
1.52
1.22
1.41
1.35
Total
Nitrogen
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
t
f
.
•
Total
Organic
Carbon
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
f
f
t
f
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
.
.
.
•
Unit
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
-119-
-------
APPENDIX D
DPD VERSUS AMPEROMETRIC TITRATOR DATA
-121-
-------
APPENDIX D
DPD VERSUS AMPEROMETRIC TITRATOR DATA
Table D-l
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE
Date
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-13-77
07-20-77
07-27-77
09-02-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
Date
06-10-77
06-17-77
06-30-77
07-13-77
07-20-77
07-27-77
09-02-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
DPD
1.12
0.86
1.11
0.92
1.12
0.11
0.23
0.57
0.65
TOTAL
DPD
1.38
1.36
1.35
1.22
1.42
0.87
0.72
0.93
1.14
Amperometric
0.66
0.23
0.96
0.81
1.05
0.15
0.26
0.46
0.60
Table D-2
RESIDUAL CHLORINE
Amperometric
1.21
1.23
1.35
1.19
1.12
0.77
0.69
0.86
1.06
Difference
0.46
0.63
0.15
0.11
0.07
-0.04
-0.03
0.11
0.05
Difference
0.17
0.13
0.00
0.03
0.30
0.10
0.03
0.07
0.08
-122-
-------
Table D-3
FREE RESIDUAL CHLORINE - ADJUSTED FOR CONCENTRATION LEVEL
Date
07-27-77
09-02-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
06-17-77
07-13-77
06-30-77
06-10-77
07-20-77
TOTAL RESIDUAL
Date
09-22-77
07-27-77
09-08-77
09-16-77
07-13-77
06-30-77
06-17-77
06-10-77
07-20-77
Adjusted DPD
0.89
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.96
Table D-4
CHLORINE - ADJUSTED
Adjusted DPD
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Adjusted Amperometric
0.79
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.80
0.83
FOR CONCENTRATION LEVELS
Adjusted Amperometric
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
-123-
-------
APPENDIX E
CHLORINE DEMAND VERSUS FEED RATE AND
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
-125-
-------
APPENDIX E
CHLORINE DEMAND VERSUS FEED RATE AND
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
CHLORINE DEMAND
Analysis of the chlorine demand of river water from unit A with con-
tact times of 1, 5, and 10 minutes was examined for possible relationships
with inlet water temperature, total organic carbon, total nitrogen, dosage,
and time. A comparison of the chlorine demand at the inlet of the condenser,
as estimated by the difference in total residual chlorine measured at the
condenser inlet and the amount calculated at the chlorine injection point,
with the interpolated 2-1/2 minute chlorine demand from the laboratory
results was made. This was done since previous work indicated a mixing
time of approximately 2.2 minutes from the intake to the inlet of the
condenser.
1. Temperature Effects on Chlorine Demand
Inlet water temperature was examined for possible effects on chlorine
demand. The one-minute chlorine demand consistently did not have any dis-
cernible relationship with inlet water temperature. The five- and ten-
minute chlorine demands did have a stronger correlation with inlet water
temperature. Examination of the data indicated the formation of three
groups depending on the inlet water temperature as indicated by Figure 1.
Group 2 had a significantly higher chlorine demand than either group 1
or group 3. The factor that groups 1 and 3 had in common which was
different from group 2 was the difference between inlet water tempera-
ture and the temperature of the sample at the time of analysis. Groups
1 and 3 are samples where the difference exceeded one degree Celsius
while group 2 had a difference or one degree of less. This indicates
there is an effect from temperature, but the differential between the
inlet water temperature and the analysis temperature for groups 1 and
3 does not allow estimation of the effect.
2. Total Organic Carbon and Chlorine Demand
Total organic carbon exhibited no apparent relationship with chlo-
rine demand at the five- and ten-minute contact times. At the one-
minute contact time, a weak negative inverse relationship is "suggested"
by the data; but, since the relationship is not strong at the one-minute
level and is not discernible at the five- and ten-minute intervals, it
was concluded that no apparent relationship is evident. A cyclical
behavior over time was exhibited, but there is no explanation for it at
this time.
3. Total Nitrogen and Chlorine Demand
Total nitrogen was examined for its possible effects on chlorine
demand and interaction with inlet water temperature, total organic car-
bon, dosage, and time. No relationships were found.
-126-
-------
4. Dosage and Chlorine Demand
Dosage was examined for a relationship with chlorine demand. The
existence of a relationship would indicate the chlorine was reacting
with something in the water that altered chlorine demand. No such
relationship was found.
5. Time and Chlorine Demand
Time in this analysis refers to the length of the test period.
The one-, five-, and ten-minute demands were examined for possible
patterns of behavior over time in conjunction with the other vari-
ables' behavior over time. The ten-minute chlorine demand followed
the same movement over time for the first eight test dates as inlet
water temperature, but after that the behavior of the two diverged.
The other contact times did not display any significant "tracking" of
inlet water temperature.
6. Comparison of Chlorine Demand at the Condenser Inlet and
"Interpolated" 2.5-Minute Demand
Total residual chlorine from previous work at the inlet of the con-
denser has a mixing time from the intake of approximately 2.2 minutes.
As a check on chlorinator variability, temperature variability, and other
sources of variation, the estimated chlorine demand at 2.5 minutes was
compared with the apparent chlorine demand as measured at the condenser
inlet. The chlorine demand at the condenser inlet was significantly
higher than the estimated value. The demand was more comparable to
the ten-minute demand. This difference is probably due to the cumulative
chlorine demand of the mixing tank and tunnels more than any other
factor. Table 1 summarizes the average chlorine demands and the asso-
ciated standard errors for the different contact times for the test
period of May 12 through July 20, 1977.
Table E-l
AVERAGE CHLORINE DEMANDS (mg/1) AND
STANDARD ERROR FOR VARIOUS CONTACT TIMES
Contact
Time
1.0 min.
2.5 min.1
5.0 min.
10.0 min.
Mean (N = 11)
0.40
0.53
0.75
1.07
Std. Error
of Mean
0.046
0.039
0.051
0.065
Estimated by linear interpolation
-127-
-------
1.4
1.3
1.2
I.I
1.0
w 0.9
E
1 °'8
2
UJ
Q 0.7
UJ
z
g 0.6
.j
X
o
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
i
t
t
1
15
GROUP
A
A
t
A
A
t t
•
1
GROUP 2
A
GROUP 3
t
• -5 MINUTE CHLORINE DEMAND
A -10 MINUTE CHLORINE DEMAND
1 i i
20 25 30
INLET WATER TEMPERATURE (°C)
Figure E-l. Temperature effects on chlorine demand.
-128-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-198
. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOt*NO.
.TITLE AND SUBTITLE Chlorine Minimization/Optimization
'or Condenser Biofouling Control (Phases I and II)
REPORT DATE
August 1979
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
R.D.Moss, S.H.Magliente, H.B.Flora II, N.D.Moore,
and R.A. Hiltunen
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Tennessee Valley Authority
470 Commerce Union Bank Building
hattanooga, Tennessee 37401
0. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
INK 62 4 A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA Interagency Agreement
D5-E-721
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANQPERIOD COVERED
Phase; 5/75 - 9/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
Ts. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer is Michae
919/541-2915.
C. Osborne, Mail Drop 61,
. ABSTRACT
report summarizes results of a chlorine minimization/optimization
study for the control of biofouling on the surface of condenser tubes at TVA's John
evier Plant from December 1975 to September 1977. The required chlorine feed rate
as found to be a function of inlet water temperature and chlorine demand. Statistical
analysis of the data did not indicate a significant impact of water quality parameters
(pH, total suspended solids, ammonia, total organic carbon, nitrates plus nitrites,
organic nitrogen, alkalinity, and conductivity) on the required feed rate. It was deter-
mined that inlet water temperature may be used as an indicator for raising or lower-
ing the chlorine feed rate. Natural water and system chlorine consumption was found
to vary directly with the chlorine feed rate and the inlet water temperature; e.g. ,
increasing feed rate and/or inlet water temperature also increases chlorine consump-
tion. Also, as the frequency of chlorine application is increased and the length of
chlorine application is decreased, the less chlorine is consumed by the system. Data
analysis indicates that system demand can be determined and feed rate can be set to
satisfy demand with only a trace of free residual chlorine at the condenser outlet. The
final report , containing the final phase of the study , will provide data from tests of
the optimum procedure for cooling system operation with minimum chlorine usage.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
pollution
Steam Electric Power Generation
Chlorine
Feedwater
piodeter ior ation
Condenser Tubes
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Biofouling
13B
10A
07B
ISA
06A
07A
. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Re port >
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
129
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
epA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |