Draft 4/3/06

Abstract 5 -124 Handling Fouling in Plant Cooling Water Systems Any object left in untreated water will experience marine fouling. Facilities with cooling water (CW) systems are vulnerable to serious operating problems with economic consequences. Macro-fouling costs industry billions of dollars a year and is difficult and expensive to control. Traditionally, stationary facilities have used chemicals to reduce fouling, but the Clean Water Act requires strict discharge permit conditions. Solutions to control macro-fouling require a comprehensive approach that addresses system design and implements site specific control measures. Any viable system requires a sound foundation providing essential support. For CW systems, Silicon foul release coatings are the best practical technology that is economically feasible, environmentally sound, while minimizing operating problems. This technology is available for unrestricted, immediate use when economically justified by the plant owner-operator.

Bruce Woodruff PCS Corr-Coat Consulting 8486 Oakstone Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1849 N. Prospect Ave. Lecanto, FL 34461

Page 1 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

Handling Fouling in Plant Cooling Water Systems

Bruce Woodruff PCS Corr-Coat Consulting

Background - Introduction Any object left in fresh, sea or brackish water will within hours experience marine fouling - the attachment of algae (seaweeds) and various small marine animals. There is an accumulative build up over time. This fouling can lead to serious operational and economic consequences. The consequences include reduced speed and increased fuel consumption for ships, accelerated corrosion and increased risk of storm damage on fixed structures, and operational difficulties in power plants caused by heat transfer reductions. Almost all facilities with cooling water systems are affected and vulnerable to macrofouling. Power plants (both nuclear and fossil fuel), steel mills, refineries, paper mills, a variety of manufacturing facilities, and municipal water treatment facilities must have a comprehensive plan to alleviate the problems associated with this fouling. Their geographic location will dictate the potential kinds of fouling organisms that could be invading and creating havoc and the growth rates in any specific system. The Zebra Mussel and the Asiatic Clam are the most prominent mollusks that infiltrate freshwater industrial cooling water systems. Some of the prevalent kinds of fouling organisms to brackish and seawater cooling systems include a variety of mollusks (mussels and oysters), barnacles, hydrozoans, bryozoans and for the more tropical locations sponges, tunicates, anemones and tube worms. As larval and juvenile stages enter the cooling system they aggressively settle and accumulate onto the surfaces of the cooling systems pipes, intake bays, screens, and waterboxes. The constant supply of air entrained water and microorganisms as a food source provide the "ideal" environment of cooling water systems to allow the macro-organisms to flourish. Many industrial and municipal facilities have incurred incredible costs due to the clogging of water intake systems due to fouling. It is estimated that Macro-fouling costs Industry billions of dollars each year. In short, power stations are frequently faced with significant bio-fouling problems and have to address these without measurable discharges effecting water quality. Effects on the plants can be acute (such as a total or partial loss of cooling water), or chronic (such as increased turbine backpressure and degraded condenser performance). The Power Plant CW System Older power plants are almost always costal and are directly cooled using seawater. The older inland power plants are typically built on lakes, rivers, or have a waterway access. Newer plants may have closed cycle cooling system where water is cooled using large hyperbolic cooling towers or forced air cooling towers. Here, only a makeup source is required for water and very little of the water is discharged back to a watershed or ocean.

Page 2 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

Power plants have a number of systems that are designed to handle macrofouling in their cooling water intake systems. The waterfront is typically guarded by bar racks, the first line of defense. These restrict large marine life, tree limbs, coconuts, plastic bottles, and other flotsam from entering the inlet bays and doing system damage. It is not uncommon to see a large logjam at the waterfront of plants. This jam must be relieved on occasion to prevent structural damage to the intake structure itself.

Log Jam at a plant inlet

Bar Racks & Mobil Trash Rake System

The second line of defense is normally a trash rake or traveling water screen (TWS), or both. This system manages smaller marine life such as weeds, large shell, and small fish; diverting them from the cooling water inlet system and bypassing them directly to the plant outlet or discharge. The TWS system is normally located in the inlet bay or circulating water pump (CWP) suction pit.

Trash Rake System with plant bypass

TWSs and CWPs above an Inlet Bay

From the inlet bay, the water is suctioned into large circulating water pumps (CWPs) where it is pushed through underground large diameter pipe or concrete flumes to the condenser waterboxes that sit underneath the steam turbine at the plant. Often the distance from the waterfront pumps to the plant turbine and condenser waterboxes is hundreds of yards. After entering the waterbox, the water is directed through tens of thousands of small diameter condenser tubes (a tube is typically to 1 in diameter and from 30-50 feet long). This Page 3 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

collection of tubes containing cooling water condenses the turbine steam into condensate water, which is again fed to the boiler to make more steam. It is also fed to service water heat exchangers (SWHXs) that cool plant auxiliary equipment.

Lightly Fouled Tubesheet Inlet

Heavily Fouled Tubesheet Inlet

Some newer plants and refurbished or retrofit older plant units have additional rotating screen systems or micro-macro fouling collectors in or just before the inlet waterboxes. This enables removal and bypassing of smaller objects in the cooling water that may plug tubes which can greatly affect plant efficiency. These systems are very expensive, costing millions of dollars and requiring extensive maintenance. Additionally, larger and newer power plant units may have condenser tube cleaning systems. There are many types, all of which are designed to keep the thousands of condenser tubes free of silt, fouling, scale and shell fouling which would hinder heat transfer or worse yet, cause a failure in a tube. A single failure of a condenser tube, one small hole or leak, will cause the plant to be shut down due to its effect on boiler water chemistry. A drawing of a typical power plant CW system is shown below.

By design the cooling water circuit system would seem to work reasonably well, filtering out any harmful marine life and protecting the condenser tubes from blockage or fouling; except

Page 4 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

we forgot one thing. There are literally thousands of square feet of inlet bay and CW pipe from the pump suction to the condenser water box. This area is subject and susceptible to marine life attachment and growth. The conditions are perfect for abundance here; nutrient rich waters free of chemicals and biocides. It is not uncommon to see shell several feet thick in inlets bays and many inches thick in pipes, flumes and waterboxes. It is also not uncommon to have some of this growth fall off due to its own mass and the drag of the CW system flow, and plug a condenser bringing the plant off line. What went wrong here? Quite simply, marine life consisting of weed, barnacle, clamshell, mussels enters the system as microorganisms or small marine life and attaches to the pipe, flume or structure. Here it grows, thrives, and procreates. This fouling is almost impossible to control. The shear quantity of water moving through the system (hundreds of thousands of gallon each hour) make it impossible to treat with chemicals without exorbitant expense; and biocide treatments are not permitted with any chemical discharge whatsoever. This uncontrolled grown of marine life throughout the internals of the CW system has disastrous effects on condensers and any final filtration or separation systems that are installed. In failing, falling off under its own weight, sheets of mussels, clam shells, byssal fiber thread carpets, and other tube blocking debris make their way downstream to collect in and overpower filters and to collect on the inlet condenser tubesheet face, blocking tubes and restricting heat transfer.

316b Kill Reduction - Debris

Mussel Byssal Fiber Carpet

Steam turbines can trip off line on high backpressures of steam caused by the condenser blockage. At the minimum plant unit heat rates drop dramatically as does plant efficiency and power output. Operators must take action and drop loads, decrease power, and cut off some CWPs to drop shell and temporarily remove the blockage. Then the power is again increased but the condition repeats itself. Maintenance crews are called in and late at night, when the power is not in demand, the plant is reduced in load and one of several waterboxes is drained, opened and entered to get rid of collected shell and debris. It is removed by the drum full. The conditions of this work are terrible as the plant is still on line and the waterbox is hot, well over 100 to 120 0F and 100% relative humidity. Workers are at risk of heat stroke, cuts from sharp shell, and it is a backbreaking, demanding task. In one small plant on Tampa Bay in the summer months, dropping shell was required every few hours and

Page 5 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

that night, seven 55 gallon barrels of shell were removed from one waterbox. Each power plant unit has from two to four waterboxes making this work constant over time. The growth and removal cycle is continuous until a plant outage, when the bays, pits, pipes, flumes and waterboxes can be entered for cleaning and marine life removal. This is also hard and dangerous work. Anyone who has been in a drained pit or pipe full of dead and decaying life knows the stench. A variety of methods are available to clean these areas including steam killing, ultra high pressure water blasting, and the old tried and true sledge hammer and straight hoe scraper methods. In choked systems with heavy build ups, the work is outright dangerous, and many hundreds of man-hours are required to remove many tons of buildup. No one should be put up against the risks involved in this confined space work, which may include disease, infectious cuts and scrapes, and breathing ammonia from decay. It is also seemingly a thankless task, because once it is done, there is similar work to do the next outage and the one after that, and the cycle repeats. So what good did we do? Is there a means to break this cycle? Of course, there are several, but it takes time and money to fix this problem and break this chain, especially the first time. Will it be worth the investment? On the health and safety aspects of the work alone the answer is yes. Of course, each operating plant will have to look at the numbers and evaluate the benefits and risks. But if plant efficiency, reliability and availability are in any way encumbered by fouling presently, the answer should be to break the cycle because of these losses. In addition, the answer is that we will have to. About 550 power plants nationwide, fall under a new federal mandate to account for the life forms they trap and kill, then reduce that by up to 95 percent. Whats Available for CW Systems Power plants are stationary structure facilities and are subject to environmental laws, rules and regulations including the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Clean Air Act (CAA). Permits are required for all discharges in these two areas as well as for any biocides, pesticides or water treatments used. Outlines of these restrictions and conditions are discussed in later sections of this paper on anti-fouling and foul release coating technologies. In short, for now, suffice it to say that the foul release technology is available for immediate and unrestricted use as required in the power plant industry. The use of foul release technology only has to be economically justifiable for the plant owner-operator. The technology is expensive on first application simply because the CW system itself was not designed and maintained with coatings initially, as perhaps it should have been. We can not really fault the designers here, as our competitive economic system demands the least initially expensive construction to compete with other power plant builders and operators. So the fault, if any, belongs to the short sightedness of the plant owners. Fouling will latch on to and adhere at the point of least resistance to its attachment. This could be an attached shell, in a concrete bughole or crevice, in a steel corrosion pit or on a rust tubercle. Now, this marine life has both an anchor and a home where it can live, thrive, grow and propagate until its lifecycle is over. We are already well aware of the future catastrophe that lies in wait here. Page 6 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

If we could start with a new plant, new construction with fresh concrete with patched bugholes, properly finished and sealed, and properly coated steel; the foul release coating technology is not expensive. Costs should not exceed $6-8/ft2. However, we are faced with an operating plant with concrete waterfront pits or bays, steel structures, and concrete, steel, or fiberglass pipe that was typically not designed with or for coatings. In the few cases where steel with coatings was used, the conditions now are probably far deteriorated to the extent that this will also have to be addressed. Fouling is present and it will need to be removed and the concrete and steel must now be cleaned and decontaminated, and repaired. Foul release technology quite simply resists or rejects this first attachment by means of its surface tension. What is required is a smooth, bughole free surface to which the silicone technology can be applied. To create this surface we must clean and decontaminate the old surface and apply a base coat (normally an epoxy or thick film polyurethane that is suitable for immersion service) that fills any abnormalities and gives a smooth surface. This is easy on new construction with concrete surfaces being the most difficult to deal with, and most difficult on existing, in-service surfaces where almost everything needs restoration. In fairness to the foul release technology available, the refurbishment and repair costs should be separated from the economics of evaluating the viability of the silicone system itself. It is in essence a one time charge and will not need to be redone in large measure again. Any economic pay back analyses evaluations must take this into account and a separate line item should be included. The refurbishment coating or base coat restoration alone will greatly reduce fouling attachment in and of itself. However, when attachment occurs to this layer, it will not be easy to dislodge. Since the cost of this cleaning and restorative base coat application is 3 to 5 times the cost of the silicone system and topcoat, and because the silicone will protect this basecoat investment and extraordinarily inhibit fouling attachment and greatly promote fouling release, the silicone layers must be applied. The silicone foul release technology is normally good for 5 to 10 years dependent on system conditions prior to the necessity for renewing its effectiveness. Like all coatings and most other man made materials, there is a wear out and degradation of properties in the silicone layer over time. The silicones surface tension and release effect dulls and diminishes, and it must be refreshed or stripped off the base coat and reapplied to renew the coatings effectiveness. This renewal or reapplication of the silicone topcoat in 5 to 10 year increments on the bays, pits, pipes and structures in the CW system fits in well with most power plant planned major turbine outages. The system should be inspected annually or during planned shutdowns, and be maintained during these inspections. The maintenance would consist of low pressure water washing or wet broom brushing and sweeping away any weed, small barnacle, or minor shell debris as necessary. If attached, the attachment will be weak and should be easily removed. This work should require less than 1/10th to 1/100th the man-hours expended during a typical outage before the foul release technology application. Over time, the attachment will become more difficult to remove and will require more man-hours. This

Page 7 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

information will tell operators and maintenance personnel when Silicone refreshment recoating is required. Without the attachment and sheeting off action, there will be little or no growth within the system itself. All marine life larvae will be small enough to pass directly through the system. Under this scenario, there will be no typical operational or availability incidents causing loss of power or generation revenues, no dropping shell incidents, no night crew to unload shell, and lessened risk to maintenance personnel. This is a much better and more profitable operations and maintenance scenario than that prior to application of the foul release technology. Fouling Technology Using Coatings The two main technologies to prevent or minimize fouling today are antifouling and fouling release coatings. They will be discussed separately. The rules for ships and structures differ, but the differences are diminishing greatly, especially recently. It must be noted that the Antifouling technology was never available or permitted for stationary structures such as power plants, as they were known to pollute the marine environment and threaten water supplies with persistent toxins. The Clean Water Act gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate water quality standards and criteria for surface and navigable waters, and limit all pollutants by permit. The acronyms that have developed in recent years from the many regulations are a ringing testimony to the extent that these rules have populated. We have bioaccumulative contaminants of concern (BCC), environmental effects analysis (EEA), federal insecticide fungicide and rodenticide act (FIFRA), toxic pound equivalent (TPE), water quality criteria (WQC), and uniform national discharge standards (UNDS) to name a few. Anti-Fouling Coatings & the Maritime Industry - Ships Historically, marine antifouling paints have used compounds toxic to marine organisms as a means of combating fouling. The principle behind antifouling coatings is that active ingredients incorporated in the paint film are made accessible via a combination of chemical and physical action from the surrounding water. Ships have employed anti-fouling paints that were designed to slowly leach biologically toxic control agents into the water. In the past these toxins included lead, copper and tin. A stay off me Im poison approach. In more recent ship coatings, the toxin release rate is controlled by Rosins or controlled depletion polymers (CDP), ablative self-polishing copolymers (SPC), or hybrids of the two technologies that gave a controlled release of tributyltin (TBT). These toxic coatings had useable service live ranges of 3 to 5 years. Most recently, TBT became a victim of its own success as it was so widely used that it accumulated in the marine life ecosystem and toxic, persistent adverse effects were detected. Years ago, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) drafted a treaty under which the application of TBT-containing antifouling coatings was banned, but to date, not enough countries (16 countries of the 25 needed) have ratified the treaty to bring it into full effect. However, the major marine coating manufacturers have Page 8 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

voluntarily not supplied tin-based anti-fouling coatings to end users for several years. So the legal situation today varies from one country to another, with some countries banning the use of TBT on only small pleasure craft, and the European Union (EU) in effect applying the IMO regulations unilaterally. Advanced TBT anti-fouling coatings have a discharge TPE of 450,000 lb-equiv/yr and have 1 identified BCC, although the biocide is considered non-persistent. Advanced Copper containing anti-fouling coatings have a discharge TPE of 220,000 lb-equiv/yr produced by persistent biocides, which results in a WQC exceedence and contain two known BCCs. For ships, to keep the hull clean you don't actually have to kill anything, just stop it attaching itself and reproducing. In this way, silicone-based coatings can provide non-toxic protection for fast-moving craft. But for most ships, copper combined with organic biocides is today's obvious replacement for TBT. Essentially, in todays technology, TBT free anti-fouling paint means Copper is present. Copper is certainly less toxic than TBT, but experts predict that alternatives to Copper use will ultimately have to be found. At costs estimates of over $4 million to undertake the testing required for anti-fouling registration who will take the risks? At present, for ships, the coatings industry has adopted a diversification of technologies: making copper effective at lower leaching rates, using toxicants derived from natural resources, providing foul release Silicone slippery hulls to which marine life cannot cling, and developing more hydrophobic (and more hydrophilic) binder systems. As larger and larger ships ply the oceans, the cost of removing them from the water to replace antifouling coatings rises, and the demand for extended coating lifetimes therefore grows. As in many other areas, the combination of environmental regulations and end-user demands means that changes are necessary. The replacement of TBT coatings was not an easy task and the replacement of copper, which will soon come, will not be easy either. The cost comparisons of application and maintenance of the silicone foul release coatings to typical copper ablative coatings are very similar. The silicone materials cost more initially and the application (labor) is slightly more expensive as well. However, the silicone foul release maintenance interval is longer and waste disposal charges are less, creating an equivalence of systems that average $9 - $12/ft2 applied. Fouling & Power Plants Foul Release Industrial cooling water systems most often provide the "ideal" environment for macroorganisms to grow and accumulate. During the 1980's the Zebra mussel achieved notoriety when it was introduced in the Great Lakes from the ballast water of ships originating from Europe. Since then Zebra mussels have been rapidly infesting and flourishing in many freshwater lakes and streams. Power plants and industrial facilities have experienced the accumulation of Zebra mussels within their cooling water systems by as much as 500,000 mussels/square yard. This degree of fouling by the Zebra mussel is analogous to other kinds of fouling organisms that continue to plague the operation and function of industrial main circulatory, service-related, and safety-related cooling water systems.

Page 9 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

Biofouling is difficult and expensive to control. Historically, for stationary structures, chemical controls such as chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite have been utilized. Traditional methods for controlling bio-fouling of water intakes depended on the use of targeted chlorination. We need to discontinue the use of chlorine kills since chlorine in combination with humic substances generates carcinogens such as trihalomethane. Other chemicals are available but the large volumes of cooling water that need to be treated require costly quantities, even at low permitted concentrations. Power plants and other industrial facilities are under continued pressure to optimize water use and wastewater treatment while improving operating efficiency, reducing costs, and ensuring environmental compliance. Increasingly stringent discharge permit requirements for trace metals, nitrogen compounds, biocides, and other contaminants, as well as water shortages and changing aquatic protection and water use regulations, are among the challenges facing facility owners. Typical discharge limits are zero, greatly increasing the risks involved in using any chemicals. Specific regulatory developments driving the todays research include ramping down of water quality criteria in receiving waters, loss of dilution credit for dischargers to running waters, new 316(b) rules for fish protection, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's) for managing total loadings to watersheds, and limits on water use, especially for new facilities. Many new or repowered facilities are being forced to consider or adopt water-conserving cooling options as a permit condition. Section 316(b) of the CWA (40 CFR 125) provides that any standard established pursuant to section 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source must require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. It is applicable for new facilities and existing power generating facilities that have the design capacity to withdraw at least fifty (50) MGD of cooling water from waters of the United States and use at least twenty-five (25) percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes. A facility may choose one of three options for meeting best technology available requirements under this proposed rule. These options include demonstrating that the facility subject to the proposed rule currently meet specified performance standards (less than 0.5 ft/sec at intakes with fish mesh filtering); selecting and implementing design and construction technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures that meet specified performance standards (reducing fish impingement kills by 80-90% and marine life entrainment kills which include shell by 60-90%); or demonstrating that the facility qualifies for a site-specific determination of best technology available because its costs of compliance are either significantly greater than those considered by the Agency during the development of this proposed rule, or the facility's costs of compliance would be significantly greater than the environmental benefits of compliance with the proposed performance standards. The proposed rule also provides that facilities may use restoration measures in addition to or in lieu of technology measures to meet performance standards or in establishing best technology available on a site-specific basis. The EPA expects that this proposed regulation would minimize adverse environmental impact, including substantially reducing the harmful effects of impingement and entrainment, Page 10 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

at existing facilities over the next 20 years. As a result, the Agency anticipates that this proposed rule would help protect ecosystems in proximity to cooling water intake structures, preserving aquatic organisms and the ecosystems that inhabit in waters used by cooling water intake structures at existing facilities. What is also relevant and made clear by these rules (phase I new facilities and phase II existing facilities) is there will be a phase III and possibly IV, and further measures will be required. These measures will probably go beyond fish kill reduction to include other marine life as well. EPRI research in this area has a goal to find, develop, test and implement control technologies to reduce the costs associated with macrofouling to eliminate reliance on chemical treatments and mechanical cleaning and avoid negative impact on the environment. Political and environmental pressures are growing concerns in our world. Bioethics concerns itself with all living organisms and non living resources in the biosphere, yet modern development demands electrical energy. This is seemingly a conflicting situation. The ethical dilemma is the human need to produce more power and at the same time protect other living organisms. In other words, rather than kill marine life we should safeguard it, and let it travel through the system without harm. Silicone Foul Release for Power Plants The Silicone foul release coatings are environmental friendly paints that utilize a physical rather than chemical approach to solve the fouling problem. Advanced, layered silicone polymers have a unique surface chemistry creating a surface to which fouling can not easily adhere. The effect is due to the water-repellent physical properties of the surface, instead of the coating exerting a chemical effect on the surroundings. Any fouling attachment is made difficult and the difficulty increases with water flow or velocity. Also, once attached, the bond is weak and the coating simply releases the fouling organisms with help from the motion of the water. There are no toxic metals, so these coatings provide an environmentally sound fouling solution. Because of this, Silicone coatings have been ruled exempt from reporting under FIFRA (Public Law 95-396). The principle behind fouling release coatings has also been known for over 30 years. However, exploitation as non-stick fouling prevention has only recently been advanced. The new silicone coatings have demonstrated more than acceptable performance when applied to a variety of platforms in freshwater and marine environments. The characteristics evaluated included easy application and adhesion to substrates, durability, ease of repair, and ability to easily remove with a water jet any fouling that did occur. They have been applied in many locations in the last 10 years and have met all local environmental and occupational health standards. Foul-release coatings have a discharge toxic pound equivalent (TPE) of zero and are unlikely to result in any water quality criteria (WQC) exceedence, and contain no unidentified bioaccumulative contaminants of concern (BCC). After much testing, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant now uses Silicone foul release coatings in conjunction with intermittent injection of proprietary chemicals and saves millions of dollars annually. Here, Silicone coating systems proved to be both environmentally Page 11 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

acceptable and serviceable for over 7 years. Arkansas Nuclear One and Duane Arnold Energy Center use silicone coatings as proactive measures to inhibit zebra mussel colonization on pumps, trash bars, traveling screen frames, and intake pits. The fully burdened cost to apply coatings at Diablo ran approximately $40/sf for 10,000 sf coverage, while costs were less at Arkansas and Iowa facilities. These improved biofouling control strategies at these and other power plants have saved thousands in labor; and millions in power replacement costs and the makeup for lost revenue. It has also deterred operational impacts caused by aquatic pests and Biofouling. The use of silicone coatings in these systems have paved the way for longer fuel and turbine overhaul cycles that are necessary for nuclear and conventional plant facilities to remain competitive in the next century. Concerns There are two major concerns with this technology. One is they are slippery and it is difficult to walk or even stand on a coated floor, so this can be a safety concern. This is normally addressed by rolling out hard rubber runners or plants dont coat a narrow center walkway. Secondly, over time the flexibility and release character of a Silicone fouling release system will slightly decrease. This flexibility can be renewed by applying a new layer of fresh topcoat on top of the old topcoat, making it possible to operate for 10 years with only 3 coating layers applied on the anticorrosive coating. It must also be mentioned that there are some concerns have been raised over the silicone oil that is slowly released to the water environment over time. Summary Electric generation at power facilities across the U.S. is frequently interrupted in order to control or remove nuisance species that proliferate in cooling water systems. Uncontrolled, this fouling can quickly block flow in piping or detach and hinder heat exchange. In the past, typical controls ranged from massive injection of chemicals, such as chlorine, laborious manual scraping, recycling of waste heat, or use of toxic coatings. Our goal as an industry should be to find, develop, test and implement control technologies to reduce the costs associated with macrofouling to eliminate reliance on chemical treatments and mechanical cleaning and avoid negative impact on the environment. The Clean Water Act is leading the way here. Macrofouling costs industry billions of dollars each year. These costs are associated with plant shutdowns, reduced operating efficiencies, maintenance expenses, replacement of equipment and other costs associated with controlling the fouling organisms. To overcome the deleterious side-effects of many of these methods, new techniques such as Silicone coatings have evolved to meet environmental, regulatory, and economic concerns. In addition to use at power plants, successful implementation of new foul release coating technology could substantially reduce operating costs for the U.S. Department of Defense as well as U.S. maritime industries. An effective, environmentally benign coating would reduce Page 12 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

naval fuel costs by 10 to 15 percent ($35 million to $50 million a year) with additional cost savings from reductions in dry docking frequency, remediation of polluted harbors, and disposal of hazardous paint waste. Solutions to control macrofouling is best achieved with a comprehensive approach that considers the design of the cooling system, recommends various control measures, monitors the effectiveness of the controls and addresses environmental requirements. There is a diverse range of methods to consider, including mechanical, physical, chemical, coatings, thermal, sonic, electrical, etc. Choosing the best practical technology that is economically reasonable, provides a return on investment, and meets environmental requirements tends to be site specific for each particular facility. As with any viable system there is a backbone, something giving needed and necessary support. For the CW system of power plants and now for ships at sea, this backbone should be Silicon Foul Release Coatings. On a typical power plant, manual cleaning will cost from $20,000 to $100,000 (average cleaning rates are 1 Man-hour/linear foot) and would average a 15,000 KW penalty. Installed coatings would range from $30,000 to $70,000 and 5-10 year refresher coatings $2,000 to $5,000 or about 1/10th to 1/20th the typical cleaning costs. First time installation costs will range from $10 to $40/ft2, dependent on the condition of the system being addressed and the amount of refurbishment and repair to build a smooth base system. For the Silicone coating system itself, typical material costs are from $2.25/ft2 to $4.00/ft2 and labor runs from $2.00/ft2 to $3.00/ft2. System costs for a 5 to 10 year maintenance recoating costs should run around $10-$12/ft2 or less. Do these Figures make sense for your CW system fouling problems?

Silicone Foul Release Coating

Test Panels after Immersion Service

Page 13 of 14

Draft 4/3/06

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. EPRI, Service Water System Corrosion and Deposition Sourcebook, TR-103403, Puckorious & Associates, 12/93. ASME Press, Steam Surface CondensersBasic Principles, Performance Monitoring, and Maintenance, Richard Putnam, 2001. The Economics of Regular Condenser MaintenanceReturn on Investment Analysis, White Paper, Richard Putnam, Conco Systems, post 2000. HEI, Standards for Steam Surface Condensers, Ninth Edition, 1995, Heat Exchanger Institute. The NALCO Guide to Cooling Water Systems Failure Analysis, Harvey Herro and Robert Port, McGraw-Hill, 1993. Corrosion Atlas, Evert During, Elsevier, 1988, Association of Industries and Organizations for Energy and Environment. Fouling during the use of Seawater as a Coolantthe Development of a User Guide, 2003 Conference on HX Fouling & Cleaning, Fundamentals & Applications, Santa Fe, NM, Pugh, Hewitt, & Muller-Steinhagen. Fouling in Cooling Systems Using Seawater, Item 03004, Engineering Sciences Data Unit, ESDU International Ltd, London, UK, 2003. Optimize Heat Exchanger Cleaning Schedules, ODonnell, Barna & Gosling, AICHE, CEP, June 2001. Progress in Offshore Coatings; Mike Mitchell, Akzo Nobel Factors that Influence Elastomeric Coating Performance; D.E. Wendt et all, Biofouling, 2006. Environmental Effects Analyses Report: Hull Coating Leachate, Naval Sea Systems Command and Office of Water-EPA, August 2003 Foul Release Coatings: Past, Present and Future, Raouf Kattan, Marine Coatings Supplement, JPCL 2/2006. Performance and Effectiveness of Non-stick Coatings in Seawater, B. Watermann et all, Biofouling 11:101-118.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Page 14 of 14