ML20054F930
| ML20054F930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1982 |
| From: | Bingham W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206180217 | |
| Download: ML20054F930 (31) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528
)
5 Arizona Public Service ) STN 50-529 Company, et al. ) 6 ) STN 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear ) 7 Generating Station, ) Units 1, 2 and 3 ) ) 8 ) 9 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM G. BINGHAM 10 Q. Please state your name and business address. 11 A. My name is William G. Bingham. My business address is 12 11445 South Lakewood Blvd., Downey, California 90650. 13 Q. Are you the same William G. Bingham who testified on 14 behalf of Joint Applicants in these proceedings on 15 April 30, May 25 and May 26, 1982? 16 A. Yes, I am. 17 Q. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony? 18 A. The purpose of my rebuttal testimony is to respond to 19 the testimony of William Paul Robinson, who testified 20 on behalf of the Intervenor in these proceedings on 21 May 28, 1982. In this connection my testimony will. 22 deal with the following matters: 23 1) the circulating water tests - objectives and the,ir 24 intent, structure, key parameters, and results and 25 conclusions; 26 - - - - b 8206180217 820617 PDR ADOCK 05000528 T PDR il
s
~
1 2) the flexibility available in the design and opera-2 tion of the Circulating Water System ("CWS") for 3 the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 4 ("PVNGS"); and 5 3) the reliability of the Palo Verde Water Reclama-6 tion Plant ("WRP"). 7 Q. What were the specific objectives of Joint Applicants' 8 circulating water test studies? 9 A. As stated on page 5-1 of Part 5 of Joint Applicants' 10 Exhibit BB, they were: 11 "[1] Verify the practicality of operating the 12 plant circulating water systems at 15 cycles 13 using the specified reclaimed wastewater, 14 [2] Identify potential plant operational problems 15 associated with this level of operation, 16 [3] Determine the in-cycle treatment requirements 17 for the plant circulating water system, and 18 [4] Determine relative corrosion rates for can-19 didate condenser tube and tube sheet ma-20 terials." l l 21 Q. Please explain each of the four objectives and their l 22 intent in greater detail. 1 ! 23 A. Regarding Objective 1, I knew that several power plan,ts 24 utilized municipal wastewater for condenser cooling at l l 25 2.5 to 5 cycles of concentration. These plants are l 26 described in Table 4-1, page 1-30, Part 1, of Joint l l l I
1 Applicants' Exhibit BB. I also knew about experience 2 at thermal power plants operating with surface water 3 for condenser cooling at 8 to 15 cycles of concentra-4 tion. This experience is described in Table 4-2, page 5 1-31, Part 1, of Exhibit BB. This convinced me that 6 there was a sound basis upon which to proceed with 7 design of the CWS for PVNGS. However, since there was 8 a lack of experience with the use of municipal waste-9 water at cycles of concentration greater than five, I 10 developed a program to prove that such usage was prac-11 tical. I was particularly interested in identifying 12 key design parameters and demonstrating that there 13 would be no unexpected synergistic effects. This was 14 the intent of Objective 1. 15 Because there was a lack of experience with the 16 use of municipal wastewater at cycles of concentration 17 greater than five, I established Objective 2 to iden-18 tify potential plant operational problems, such as 19 growth of algae or slime, microbiological fouling of 20 the condenser, or foaming due to laundry detergents. 21 Objective 3 dealt with system in-cycle treatment 22 design. I wanted to verify that standard circulating 23 water system chemical treatment practices would be , 24 adequate for the treated wastewater in the Palo Verde 25 CWS. 26 - - - - 1 O ali
s 1 Regarding Objective 4, at the time of the studies, 2 corrosion due to seawater was becoming recognized as a 3 problem at coastal power plants and desalting plants. 4 I set up Objective 4 to determine whether the copper 5 alloy materials currently in use for condenser 6 tubing -- admiralty and copper-nickel -- would ade-7 quately withstand corrosion in the CWS or whether 8 titanium would be required. The test program was 9 designed to supplement data from operating plants and 10 existing literature. 11 Q. How were Joint Applicants' tests structured to achieve 12 these four intended objectives? 13 A. We actually ran two types of circulating water test 14 programs. One utilized the circulating water test 15 facility ("CWTF") located at the 91st Avenue Sewage 16 Treatment Plant and was conducted as shown in Figure 17 5-4, page 5-19, Part 5, of Exhibit BB. The other was a 18 Bench Scale test program conducted as shown in Figure 19 5-5, page 5-20, Part 5, of Exhibit BB. 20 The CWTF was set up to closely simulate the key 21 parameters necessary to meet the intended obje'ctives. 22 It contained the essential components of a typical 23 power plant circulating water system (heat source, he,at 24 exchanger, cooling tower, circulating water pump, 25 piping, and controls for operation, makeup and blow-26 ... . . 1 down). A line diagram of the CWTF is shown in Figure 2 5-1, page 5-14, Part 5, of Exhibit BB. 3 The circulating water in the CWTF was heated and 4 evaporated to produce a concentrated solution similar 5 to that of an operating system. The makeup water was 6 effluent produced by the reclamation demonstration 7 plant. The CWTF also included loops for sampling and 8 material coupon testing as well as chemical injection 9 lines in the cooling tower basin. 10 'The CWTF tests concentrated the treated wastewater 11 and circulated that water through the heat exchangers 12 and the tower. This permitted evaluation of per-13 formance relative to Objective 1. A series of tests 14 were run with varying chemistries (cycles, scale in-15 hibitors, corrosion inhibitors, and ammonia content) to 16 see if problems developed. This allowed an evaluation 17 with respect to Objectives 2 and 3. Two different 18 types of heat exchanger materials -- admiralty and 19 titanium -- were used in the tests. Coupon and gal-20 vanic series tests for a number of materials were 21 included to provide corrosion data relative to Ob-22 jective 4. 23 The Bench Scale testing was set up to corroborat,e 24 the CWTF and to look at accelerated corrosion. A line 25 diagram of the Bench Scale test facility is shown in 26 Figure 5-3, page 5-16, Part 5, of Exhibit BB. A column t
t 1 servad as a small, forced draft cooling tower. The 2 tower basin was a two-liter beaker containing a heating 3 coil to preheat the circulating water. The coil was 4 part of a separate water-filled loop with a pump and a 5 temperature controlled water bath. A pump circulated 6 the cooling water through a single tube heat exchanger 7 to the top of the column. The heat exchanger tube 8 could be changed to test different materials. Effluent 9 from the demonstration reclamation plant was shipped to 10 the laboratory for testing. This laboratory apparatus 11 was suitable for testing a wide range of materials 12 under a broad spectrum of chemistries and permitted 13 setting up extreme conditions that would not be ex-14 Pected in a power plant. 15 Q. Was it your intention that the circulating water test 16 facilities model the Palo Verde CWS? Please explain. 17 A. No. There was no need to construct complete scale 18 models since the design and operating criteria for cir-19 culating water systems had been well established over 20 many years based on the design, construction and opera-21 tion of hundreds of thermal power plants of all sizes 22 in the United States and elsewhere. Just as the size 23 of operating power plants had increased from the 50 MW 24 range to the 1100 MW range, there had been a commensu-25 rate increase in the size of circulating water systems. 26 Thus, practical operating experience had given us the i J
1 confidence that we did not have to consider design 2 scale in the objectives for the CWTF. The four ob-3 jectives described previously were the only reasons for i the circulating water tests. We conducted fundamental 5 testing to assure that we could reliably use treated 6 municipal wastewater in our standard circulating water 7 system design at cycles of concentration greater than 8 five. 9 Q. What key parameters did you consider and why did you 10 select them? 11 A. The key parameters are tube flow velocity, the tem-12 Perature rise of the circulating water in the condenser 13 (heat exchanger), circulating water chemistry, and 14 geometry in the context of scale formation, fouling and 15 corrosion. 16 17 Tube flow velocity is relevant to surface effects 18 associated with corrosion and deposition. It deter-19 mines whether protective oxide films would be stripped 20 away or whether the geometry of the surface-flow inter-21 face would be conducive to deposition of suspended or 22 supersaturated material. The flow velocities agreed 23 closely between the CWTF with titanium tubes (7.1 to 24 8.0 feet per second) and the Palo Verde CWS, which also 25 has titanium tubes (7.8 feet per second). We were not 26 concerned with the volumetric flow rate in gallons per l __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 minute but the relevant parameters of flow. Volumetric 2 flow rate is meaningless in this context. 3 We also considered circulating water temperature 4 rise in the condenser. This relates to the tendency of 5 scale to form at the contact between the circulating 6 water and the hot condenser tubes. The CWTF and Bench 7 Scale tests simulated summer conditions for the CWS 8 (nominal 30* F rise in the condenser) since the cir-9 culating water temperature rise is highest in the 10 summer months. Both tests had condenser (heat ex-11 ch' nger) outlet temperatures (119* F) that agree with 12 the outlet temperature projected for the CWS (119* F). 13 We considered chemistry and set up the circulating 14 water tests to ensure that the choice of design mate-15 rials and treatment methods would handle high concen-16 trations of potential problem constituents. Particular 17 attention was paid to those constituents customarily 18 encountered with municipal wastewater. We ran the 19 tests at high factors of concentrations with extremes 20 in pH and ammonia. We verified that our design had 21 adequate margin to handle fluctuations in circ'ulating 22 water chemistry. Since testing used actual demonstra-23 tion plant effluent and encompassed extremes in circu-24 lating water chemistry, the testing established that 25 the Palo Verde CWS will function properly. 26 - - - - - j !!
1 We also considered geometry in the context of 2 scale formation, fouling and corrosion. The CWTF heat 3 exhanger was configured in a manner similar to the 4 tube /tubesheet arrangement found in typical condencers. 5 I am satisfied we adequately explored geometry in the 6 tests. 7 Q. Mr. Robinson testified that galvanic corrosion testing 8 reported in ExhiDit BB did not include titanium. (Tr. 9 at 1625, lines 1-5.) Did the galvanic corrosion test-10 ing include titanium? 11 A. Yes. As I testified earlier, galvanic testing included 12 titanium. (Tr. at 1300, lines 13-15.) 13 Q. Is there a conclusion that can be drawn from the cor-14 rosion tests? Please explain. 15 A. On the basis of the tests, we found that corrosion for 16 the concentrated treated wastewater conditions in the 17 CWTF was similar to that for seawater conditions. 18 Accordingly, we were not limited to the corrosion data 19 base established in the tests. Instead, we made use of 20 the wealth of data established by corrosion experience 21 with seawater. 22 Q. Please summarize the provisions to minimize corrosion 23 you have included in the design of the CWS. , 24 A. The condenser tubing is titanium, which has not experi-25 enced corrosion in circulating water systems; the tube-26 sheet and pump impellers are aluminum bronze. Selec-I
1 tion of this combination is supported by experience at 2 operating plants. The condenser water boxes are rubber 3 lined in accordance with standard practice. The cool-4 ing towers and the CWS canal are concrete. The piping 5 is either concrete or lined carbon steel to protect 6 against corrosion. Material specifications also in-7 clude allowances for corrosion. 8 Q. Please summarize the circulating water system test re-9 sults and conclusions. 10 A. The results and conclusions of the CWIF and Bench Scale 11 tests are reported in Part 5 of Joint Applicant's 12 Exhibit BB. 13 In summary, operation of the CWTF showed no pit-14 ting, corrosion or hard scaling of the admiralty tube 15 heat exchangers during initial CWTF testing. There 16 was, however, a persistent condition of sludging in the 17 water which included oxides and salts of copper and 18 iron with moderate to heavy organics. 19 Sludge formation was at first thought to be due to 20 ammonia leaching of copper in the system. Accordingly, 21 the decision was made to extend testing with a' reduc-22 tion in system copper-bearing components and with 23 makeup water of mnmonia content less than 1 ppm (as NJ. 24 The inspection following the fourth test at in-25 creased flow velocities revealed the continued forma-26 tion and deposition of sludge on tube and tube sheet i I
1 surfaces, though in lesser quantity than in previous 2 tests. The tubes were in good condition except for the 3 soft sludge deposition. With the low ammonia content 4 of makeup and circulating water, it became apparent 5 that occasional low pH conditions and inadequate 6 chlorination control were responsible for the sludge 7 problem. Copper was being leached from nails in the 8 tower fill and possibly from other components. Iron 9 was being leached from the unprotected tower structure 10 and from cast iron components. 11 Accordingly, the original tower fill was replaced 12 with new fill, the tower structure was coated, and 13 bronze and cast iron components were replaced. A 14 hypochlorite metering pump was added to enhance 15 chlorine control, and steps were taken to reduce or 16 eliminate acid leakage which had caused excursions to 17 LOW PH. 18 The fifth and sixth field tests with improved pro-19 cess control of the circulating water pH and the shock 20 chlorination treatment led to minimal fouling and l 21 i sludging problems, even with an increase to 20 cycles l . l 22 U of concentration. It was concluded that higher ammonia j li l 23 b content was probably permissible in the presence of - il 24 copper alloys if biological activity and pH were con-
!6 25 trolled. This was verified later by the laboratory 26 Bench Scale tests.
l l
W 9 1 Prior to the start of the seventh field test, the 2 admiralty tubed heat exbangers were removed and re-3 placed with titanium tubed heat <xhangers. The seventh 4 and subsequent field tests were all operated at 20 5 cycles of concentration and at a further increase in 6 flow velocity. The ammonia level of the makeup water 7 was increased to 5 to 10 ppm (as N) in the seventh and 8 eighth tests. The circulating water ammonia content 9 ranged from 13 to 97 ppm (as N) without any sludge 10 formation. Post-test inspection of the titanium tubes 11 showed a very light, chalk-like, soft deposit on the 12 , last two inches of the discharge end of the tubes with 13 the bulk of the surface in a clean and bright condi-14 tion. No pitting or corrosion was observed. 15 The ninth and tenth field tests were performed 16 using 25 to 35 ppm ammonia (as N) in the makeup water. 17 The circulating water ammonia content ranged from 34 to 18 158 ppm (as N) with no sludge formation. Post-test 19 inspection of tubes revealed clean and bright surfaces 20 as in the previous tests. Again, no pitting or cor-21 rosion was observed. 22 The final four tests had provided eight weeks of 23 continuous, successful operation with an array of cor-24 rosion test coupons exposed to the circulating water. 25 Analysis of all corrosion data acquired during the test 26 - - - - - I
1 program indicated a similarity of corrosion tendencies 2 between seawater and concentrated makeup water. 3 Coupon corrosion tests of candidate tube and tube 4 sheet materials resulted in the following relative 5 ranking of materials: 6 1. Titanium 7 2. Stainless steel (SS) 304 8 3. Monel alloy 400/405 9 4. Nickel aluminum bronze 10 5. 70-30 cupro-nickel 11 6. Aluminum bronze 12 7. 90-10 cupro-nickel 13 8. Admiralty 14 9. Copper, EC grade 15 10. Muntz 16 11. Steel alloy 1020. 17 In summary, field tes ts with the CWTF conclusively 18 demonstrated that the Palo Verde CWS can be operated at 19 20 cycles of concentration without scale formation or 20 excessive condenser tube fouling or corrosion. The 21 tests did not foreclose operation at cycles of concen-22 tration greater than 20. The water chemistry for this 23 type of operation using reclaimed n,unicipal wastewater 24 has been adequately defined. Standard circulating water 25 system treatment will control the water chemistry. 26 - l l ! li
1 Titanium tubes were specifically tested during the 2 Bench Scale tests under conditions simulating an acid 3 pH excursion in Tests No. 7 through No. 9. No sludging 4 or scaling resulted, and no corrosion or pitting was 5 detected, with the circulating water at 20 cycles and 6 at a pH range of 2.5 to 5.0. Makeup water ammonia was 7 at 30 ppm (as N). 8 Ammonia concentration had a moderate effect on 9 corrosion rates of admiralty and 90-10 cupro-nickel. 10 It had no effect upon titanium and 300 series stainless 11 steel. 12 The Bench Scale tests confirmed the field test 13 results in terms of water chemistry, control of sludge 14 formation, tube scaling and corrosion. The Bench Scale 15 tests also did not foreclose operation at cycles of 16 concentration greater than 20. 17 The tests demonstrated that titanium is the proper 18 tube material and that the circulating water system 19 can be operated at 20 cycles of concentration. Spe-20 cific test results are provided in appendices C-6 and 21 C-7 of Exhibit BB. 22 Q. Mr. Bingham, were you satisfied that the circulating 23 water tests achieved the four intended obj ectives? , 24 A. Yes, I was. However, I was also interested in having 25 an independent evaluation of the tests. For this 26 reason Bechtel contracted with the Nalco Chemical l
1 Company to independently review the testing methodology 2 and results. I am providing their report as Exhibit DD 3 as marked for identification and attached hereto. 4 Q. Did the Nalco report confirm your conclusions that the 5 tests achieved the four intended objectives? 6 A. Yes, the Nalco report confirmed that the Bench Scale 7 and CWTF te.st program to evaluate scaling was adequate 8 to represent the circulating water at 15 and 20 cycles 9 of concentration as compared to the specified feed, and
~
10 that the CWTF testing was adequate to evaluate corro-11 sion and the use of chlorination to control slime and 12 microbiological fouling organisms. 13 Q. Mr. Robinson has testified that the constituents in the 14 treated wastewater concentrated at varying rates in the 15 CWTF and that, as a result, the chemistry of the 16 treated wastewater should be evaluated further to de-17 termine how such varying rates of concentration will 18 affect the operation of the Palo Verde CWS. (Tr. at 19 1652, lines 10-14; Tr. at 1655, lines 3-8, lines 15-22; 20 Tr. at 1658, lines 6-16; Tr. at 1659, lines 5-14.) Mr. 21 Bingham, do you have an opinion as to whether the chem-22 istry of the treated wastewater should be evaluated 23 further? Please explain. , 24 A. I do not believe further investigations are warranted. 25 I consider the discrepancies between the test data and 26 - - - - i
1 the theoretical projections for a closed, steady-state 2 system to be not significant. 3 We were testing a simulation of an actual cir-4 culating water system and not a hypothetical, closed, 5 steady-state system. The testing was dynamic. We 6 added chemicals and varied feed concentrations. 7 Therefore, our testing just cannot be compared to the 8 type of controlled experiment that a research chemist 9 would use to test a scientific hypothesis. That was 10 not our purpose. 11 In our tests we were trying to confirm our ability 12 to deal with actual concentrations of potential problem 13 constituents by chemical control, selection of mate-14 rials, or otherwise. We were not trying to prove that 15 Precise multiples of concentration of the potential 16 Problem constituents would occur. In fact the cycles 17 of concentration do not determine a limit for the l 18 operation of the CWS. 19 Q. Do you know of any concrete evidence that supports your 20 conclusions that the Palo Verde CWS can be operated at 21 at least 20 cycles of concentration without ' scale l i 22 formation, or excessive fouling or corrosion? l 23 A. Yes. I have reviewed operating plant experience at, 24 several power plants in the Southwest. Each of the 25 Plants, with one exception, was designed by Bechtel. I 26 have had a table prepared which compares the estimated 1 I
1 chemical concentrations for Palo Verde to those of the 2 other plants. This table has been identified as Joint 3 Applicants' Exhibit EE and is attached hereto. The 4 experience reflected on Exhibit EE represents more than 5 one hundred plant years of operation. The water 6 source, condenser tube material and measured values of 7 concentrations of the potential problem constituents 8 for these operating plants are shown. Exhibit EE 9 indicates values for PVNGS which are identical to WRFS 10 Table 4-2. Inspection of the operational data shows 11 that Palo Verde's chemistry is well within the envelope 12 of the concentrations of the potential problem con-13 stituents for these operating plants except for 14 Phosphate. Phosphate is not expected to present any 15 Operational concerns based on operating experience at 16 Southwestern Public Service Company and Burbank as 17 shown in Tables C-8-2 and C-8-3, pages C-8-4 and C-8-7, 18 respectively, Appendix C of Exhibit BB. The projected 19 concentration of phosphate for Palo Verde is below the 20 Phosphate concentrations for these two plants. In my 21 OPi nion this comparison shows that Palo Verde could 22 Operate at cycles of concentration above 20 without 23 excessive scaling, corrosion, or fouling. , 24 Q. Intervenor's Exhibit XXVII, Table WPR-3, identifies 25 " limitations" for the product of the concentrations of 26 ; calcium and sulfate and the product of calcium and 1
1 alkalinity. Mr. Bingham, what is your opinion as to 2 the validity of the stated limits? 3 A. Page WPR-3 of Intervenor's Exhibit XXVII identifies a 4 limit of 500,000 for the product of the concentrations 5 of calcium and sulphate. This value is only a small 6 fraction of the values for the operating plants shown 7 in Exhibit EE. Page 25 of Intervenor's Exhibit XXVIII 8 and Mr. Robinson's testimony at page 1696 in the 9 transcript both characterize the value as a " rule of 10 thumb." I conclude that the value of 500,000 does not 11 constitute a limit at all and that the Palo Verde CWS 12 will Operate properly at the level of 2 x 106 shown in 13 Exhibit EE since this level is substantially below 14 values encountered in operating plants. 15 Page WPR-3 also described a limit from Inter-16 venor's Exhibit XXIX of 41,600 for the product of 17 calcium times alkalinity. Exhibit EE shows that even 18 though the Palo Verde CWS is below this value, there 19 are plants operating substantially above this value. I 20 conclude this value also does not constitute a limit. 21 Q. Mr. Bingham, is the plant designed with sufficient 22 flexibility to deal with variations in concentrations 23 of the constituents in the influent to the WRP? Plea,se 24 explain. 25 A. Yes. The WRP is designed for variable process flow 26 rates, variable chemical addition rates, and variable e I 1 recycle processing. Thus, a broad range (a factor of 2 two) of inlet constituent concentrations can be ac-3 commodated while still achieving the quality specifi-4 cations for the treated effluent being supplied as 5 makeup to the CWS. 6 Normally, the WRP will send water to the reservoir 7 at a better quality level than required by the quality 8 Specifications. In addition, the reservoir provides 9 dilution volume that will tend to mask any short-term 10 fluctuations in the WRP effluent. 11 The CWS provides additional flexibility. We have 12 incorporated the capability for the addition of such 13 items as acid, scale inhibitors, antifoam agents, and 14 chlorine. This will permit operation without scaling 15 at concentrations above the specified water quality. 16 Q. There has been considerable discussion of the relia-17 bility of the WRP as described in Exhibit BB. Is the 18 reliability of the WRP as constructed the same as 19 stated in Exhibit BB? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Why not? 22 A. We modified the design of the WRP. As shown in the 23 attached Exhibit FF as marked for identification, we no 24 longer have a three module design. We now have a 25 ! Parallel arrangement of active components sized to 26 Permit design capacity to be realized with any one of
1 the parallel paths out of service. Further, reservoir 2 capacity was not included in the WRP reliability 3 studies. Any estimate of the overall reliability of 4 the supply of treated makeup would need to consider the 5 reservoir. 6 Q. Mr. Robinson testified as follows regarding TDS: 7 "The Nestor article [Intervenor's Ex-hibit XXVI] notes that in high velocity 8 flows, the total dissolved solids can be a significant contributor to corrosion 9 and pitting and it may be just the total dissolved solids irrespective of the 10 specific may be significant according to that document." (Tr. at 1644, lines 11 21-25; Tr. at 1645, line 1.) 12 Do you agree with Mr. Robinson's interpretation of the 13 Nestor article? 14 A. No. In my opinion the testimony incorrectly character-15 izes the article for at least two reasons. The second 16 Page of Intervenor's Exhibit XXVI states: 17 "On the other hand, high velocity water streams, especially those high in dis-18 solved and suspended solids or dissolved and entrained gases, often damage pas-19 sive oxide films, causing extreme local-ized corrosion. An example or a metal 20 that is prone to impingement attack caused by high velocity is copper." 21 [ Emphasis added.] 22 First, the article does not state that TDS, alone, 23 can be a significant contributor to corrosion. , 24 Second, Mr. Robinson has incorrectly applied this 25 l article to Palo Verde since the Palo Verde condenser 26 tubes are titanium, not copper. The oxide film of I
1 titanium is tightly adhering and quickly repairs itself 2 upon damage. 3 Q. Does this conclude your rebuttal testimony? 4 A. Yes, it does. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 - 24 25 i 26 l
~.
7 Joint Applicdnts' f Exhibit DD N A LC O - I e CONSULTING REPORT For - s BECHTEL POWER COMPANY Norwalk, CA. Job No. 10407 SUBI4ITTED BY: B. A. Kronmiller, P.E. Manager, West Coast - Engineering Services June 26, 1974 , eme =tt o iN u t A n ee wce ne A C H E M I C A L C D iv" p A N Y N.eu =LC ace D
=on= avr =we e c%ano e ast*e ac,ev*,_
fern 112-M . - _ .. . . .
INDUSTRLAL OfVISION e . NALCO CH EMIC AL CO M PANY 100 N. MICHIG AN AVENUE o C HIC A G Q. ILLINCIS 80801 o AREA 312-822-1200 June 26, 1974 Mr. W. G. Bingham, Project Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation A.N.P.P. - Job No. 10407 P.O. Box 60860 Terminal knnex Los Angeles, CA 90060
Dear Mr. Bingham:
Pursuant to the agreement for Consulting Services between Bechtel and Nalco Chemical Company dated May 1, 1974, I have completed my study of data and preliminary partial rough draf t presentation being prepared by Mr. D. R. Colman and his group. The preliminary rough draf t concluded that the A.N.P.P. cooling. tower could be operated on 91st Avenue Phoenix Sewage Plant treated effluent cycles of concentration without unusually strict cont __ costly pretreatment. In working closely with Mr. Harry Heinlein, I was asked to give special codsideration to the following questions:
- 1. Do we have enough data to formulate a cooling water treatment program?
- 2. What is the quality of the data collected on '
the pilot plant? In addition, I was asked to give guidance to the personnel-involved in the. preparation of their report from a water treatment technology standpoint. In the course of this review upon which my conclusions are drawn, I have taken the following steps: A. Personal inspection of the Belmont laboratory bench scale recirculating system , B. Personal inspection of the 91st Ave. pilot plant . C. Personal inspection of a complete set of corrosion coupons after Run No. 9 from the hot loop m m
N ALDO CV CMIC AL COMrANY s Mr. W. G. Bingham June 26, 1974 Page 2 D. Complete review and careful study 'of all available data obtained from the Belmont lab and the pilot plant including the following:
- 1. Scaling tendencies
- 2. Corrosion coupon rates
- 3. Corrosometer rates
- 4. Alpha meter rates
- 5. Microbiological counts
- 6. Chlorination practices
- 7. Flow rates
- 8. Inhibitor levels
? 9. Concentration ratios
- 10. Ammonia levels The above data listed in Section D were accumulated from the various runs made either in the Belmont lab or in the 91st Ave. pilot plant or both.
E. Complete review and careful study of the writings in the preliminary rough draft to date.of June 20, 1974 Based upon the above listed efforts, I am attaching my report of conclusions. These conclusions are a result of the analysis of data and writings with reference to the state of the art in treatment of recirculating cooling water systems as it exists today. I believe this report covers the initial scope of responsibility; however, should you need further comment or desire to expand the scope, please don' t hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, B. A. Kronmiller, P.E. Manager, West Coast Engineering Services w I
. Ad '
(01/ N A LC O June 26, 1974 ARIZO!!A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Palon Verdes Nuclear Generating Station BECHTEL JOB..NO. 10407 I SCOPE OF PROJECT: We were asked to make comments regarding the following two questions:
- 1. In the operation of the Belmont bench scale test facility and the 91st Ave. pilot plant in Phoenix, do we have enough data to formulate a recirculat-ing cooling water treatment program? .
- 2. What is the quality of the data collected from the pilot plant operation?
In addition to the above specific questions, we were also: asked to make whatever comments we felt would be pertinent to the overall water usage in this facility using the're-claimed water from the 91st Ave. sewage treatment plant treated effluent. DISCUSSION: Based upon the activities listed in our letter of June 26, 1974, we offer the following:
- 1. Test Facility A. Bench Scale Facility '
Satisfactory for deposition study - probably not adequate for microbio study and was not used for this. B. Pilot Plant Facility Facility hardware is adequate for purpose of test, i.e. to examine methods of use of 're- . claimed sewage for tower make-up, cycles of concentration and microbial control. Also, equipment is adequate for test coupon exposure for corrosion rate comparison.
'"~"*~"" '" ~~
L*!CR
- H3'^ ' *^.LCnK*^N.Z.
..ms ..
./ *
<s.
PJ JA LC: C3 .
. June 26, 1974 A.N.P.P.
Job No. 10407 CONCLUSIONS
- 1. Scale Control I believe you have accumulated sufficient data -
from the Belmont' lab and the Phoenix pilot plant to indicate maintaining 20-40 ppm of scale inhibitor , pH in the range of 6.8-7.2 and applying chlorine on a regular basis provides a viable program to prevent scale deposition on the treated sewage as supplied during the several tests. This opinion is bas.ed on the data and reports pre-sented and visual inspection coupled with field experience obtained from plants using similar makeup and treatment programs for cooling towers. It is made in spite of the fact the Belmont lab reports some loss of silica and the pilot plant data shows lower cc1cium, silica, nitrate and sulfate than would be indicated using the chlorides as the means of measuring concentrations. I believe this-discrepancy is analytical in nature and, in no way, reflects on the actual stability of the cooling water. Based on the above, I do not feel that further test data are*needed.
- 2. . Microbiological Growth Control T'he pilot plant test work done on the chlorination practices, indicates that chlorine is an acceptable method of contro11in'g slime forming or micro-bio fouling organisms. You may find the A.N.P.P. tower f' ,
will require a modification of the optimum program established in the test facility due to larger holding capacity vs. circulating rate which may require a longer chlorination schedule to maintain control. The test data appears to be excellent and further work should not be required. - raa vto ms u s A s ee wca s.'s NAR.CO CHEMICAL COMPANY F.em 172 M
i N A LC O - June 26, 1974 A.N.P.P.
- Job No. 10407 - -
. 2. Operation of Facilities A. Bench Scale Facility
- Flow rate
- held between 6 - 8 fps.-
Inhibitor levels held v71 thin recommended range Cycles of concentration held at 15 and 20 Ammonia varied from less than 1 to 75 mg/l Temperature held at 1190F with 300 drop Tests ran 80 hours B. Pilot Plant Facility Flow rate through coupon holders at 5 gpm is equivalent to 3.7 fps while flow through heat . exchanger bundle is estimated at 0.5 - 2.5 fps for Runs No. 1, 2. Flow through heat exchanger increased to 5.0 fps for Runs No. 3,4,5,6 at which time the titanium bundle was installed with flow rate of 6 - 8 fps. Except for part of' Run No. 1, the inhibitor levels were maintained within recommended range. Cycles of consentration were held at 15 and 20
'~~
with variations both above and below the desired control levels typical of normal cooling tower operation. Run No. 7 reached a maximum Calcium Sulfate Factor (CACO 3x Na2SO4 ) of 10 million due to high cycles of concentratio: for a short period. The average Factor at 15 cycles was 3.3 million and at 20 was 6.7 million,
- for Run No. 5 and 8. -
Ammonia concentrations in the in the recirculat- t ing cool.ing water were varied from 4.5 to 127 mg/l with applied chlorine varying from 3.1 to 10.4 ppm during the 18-20 minute chlorination - period. Temperatures generally were held at 119 F 13 with a 30 drop. With the exception of one run of 13 days, the corrosion coupons were exposed for 24 to 36 days,
~u o ~ H a aem wea m N A .C O_C,H,C C A},C O A,N,Y Fcum 172 M
PJ JA LC: C3 Juna 26,1974 A . N.P.P.~ Job No. 10407 CONCLUSIONS, cont'd. '
- 3. Corrosion Control I believe you have accumulated sufficient data on corrosion rates of the several metals and alloys upon which to base a selection of the proper materials of construction for the recirculating cooling water system using the treated sewage as makeup.
~
As. is indicated in the preliminary rough draf t report, we concur that the various rates obtained should be interpreted only as comparative rates rather than as actual rates to be expected in service. The very short exposure in the Belmont facility would normally result in high corrosion rates. This .is demonstrated by the decline of corrosion rate in Run No. 6, which was extended to 150 hours. Corrator rates were much higher than those calcu-lated by the analytical data using the material balance method of calculation. This is not unusual since it normally takes several days for the Corrator probes to " season" after initial exposure. The coupons exposed in the pilot plant facility saw the typical conditions of high TDS, microbio in actual operation. Thus, these data should be useful, on a comparative basis, for material selection. only two mild steel coupons were exposed in the
, pilot plant facility in Runs No. 1, 2, 3, 4. The corrosion rates were excessively high and would be expected under the conditions of exposure. While this is limited data, it is readily accepted based on field experience. It points up that bare mild steel should be eliminated from the recirculating cooling water system. Mild steel is particularly susceptible to corrosion induced by corrosive -
bacteria, which are not completely controlled by chlo'rine, and by high dissolved solids. mo us. n m n. wa,s.co cy,geny coga,g r.m.
N ALC O - June 2G, 1974 A.H.P.P. . Job No. 10407 COMMENTS j
- 1. Based on the several microbiological analyses, continuous chlorination to a positive residual of the cooling tower make-up is indicated.
- 2. Use of the treated sewage as station service water in a mild, steel system should be avoided.
- 3. Scale and corrosion monitoring equipment should - -
be provided in the recirculating system. -
- 4. While a modification of the scale inhibitor used in these tests is available which is designed to provide corrosion protection on mild steel and copp'er bearing alloys at a prem'ium of about 50%,
we do not have operating experience at the levels dissolved solids and ammonia present in this recirculating water. Since the degree of prot available is currently unknown, we concur with,ection the concept of selecting the most corrosion re-sistant materials coupled with scale protection treatment.
- 5. On the subject of demineralizer operation with specific regard to minimizing regenerant usage and waste disposal problems, there are many routes available. These could include return of anion rinse to the plant service water system, and cation rinse to the cooling tower at the appropriate points in each cycle, precipitation of insoluble sulfates and re-causticizing spent liquor for
,- caustic recovery.
This type of system analysis is regularly done by our Staff Specialist in our main office and can readily be carried out at your request. B. A. Kronmiller, P.E. Manager, West Coast Engineering Services , mawTro w u s A a os ww ue N AR.C O C H E M A COMPANY y, m.g - . . - - . . ~
Joint Applic nt3' Exhibit EE . OPERATING PLANT COOLING WATER ANALYSES (mg/1) San Onofre Etiwanda Coronado Mohave Navajo Coolwater Coolwater PVNGS("} l 3&4 1&2 1&2 1,2,3 l&2 3&4 Water Colorado Colorado Sewage Source Ocean Wells Wells River River Wells Wells Effluent Condenser Material Ti/Cu-Ni Cu-Ni Cu-Ni Cu-Ni Cu-Ni Cu-Ni Cu-Ni Ti Ca as CACO 3 1045 1460 680 3000 650 1200. 370 800 Mg as CACO 3 5480 950 810 3005 2200 - 230 100 Alkalinity 120 100 150 100 150 200 - 40 Silica as SiO 2 0.04 70 80 150 135 150 115 80 - Sulphate 2770 2800 5800 16,000 11,000 - 9,800 2,500 Phosphate - 0.6 - - - - 1.1 5.4 i pII - 6.8-7 7.4-7.8 7.5 7.5 7.7-8.2 7.1 6.8-7.2 Ca x SO 4 (b) 2.9 x 10 6 4.1 x 10 6 3.9 x 10 6 48'x 10 6 7.2 x 10 6 - 3.6 x 10 6 2 x 10 6 Ca x Alk II 125,000 146,000 102,000 300,000 97,500 240,000 - 32,000
- a. Estimated at 15 cycles. .
- b. Intervenor Exhibit XXVIII identifies limit as 500,000,
- c. Intervenor, Exhibit XXIX identifies limit as 41,600.
Joint ApplicQnts' , Exhibit FF SPVNGS WATER RECLAMATION SYSTEM I I - t
. -B- ~
"I -
,L,E R
! h _
3 2 - h , CELL NO. I
,,- h U3 -
2
$r,u~ _
~ ~~'
-B-
_L
~ PUMP 2
~ ORP AN AL
$0 2 ~
TF ~ PUMP hv - 3
~
3 - 2 2 5 - ~ ~ 9IST AVENUE PIPE LINE PUMP
' y PUMP _
FCCILITIES 3 66' PIPE U N E M P _1 ~ 4 RESERVOIR PUMP _ p - TF 5 - PUMP - OlFFUSE R (NEUTRAll2ER) CLEAR WA R
-{g- .. . -
_. PUMP _ PUMP
~
- CHECK TF -
PtN G 4 SYSTEM
, 23 3 STATION - PU"PS TF g h -
5 5 - h ELL NO.24 CONTROL , ISOL VALVES GRAVITY TRICKLE IMEK
, FILTERS
-{3- . . -
CONT OL ! VALVES FIRST SECOND i STAGE STAGE CLAntFIE RS CLARIFIERS
" e l ..
t}}